HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2005-212CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2005-212
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW 51 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
AREA COVERAGE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME ADDITION BY
SKYLINE DESIGN, INC. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1840 JUNEAU LANE
NORTH (2005038)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Skyline Design, Inc. which requests
approval of a shoreland variance to permit constriction of a home addition for property
legally described as follows:
Lot 69, Block 2, Cimarron East, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called public
meeting and recommends approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the
request by Skyline Design, Inc. for a shoreland variance to permit constriction of a home
addition for property located at 1840 Juneau Lane North, subject to the following
conditions:
1. This resolution approves variance to allow 51 percent impervious surface area
coverage where 25 percent coverage is permitted, in accordance with the plans and
application received by the City on April 14, 2005, and additional information on
May 9, 2005 except as amended by this resolution.
2. The addition shall be finished to match the existing home.
3. The shoreland variance is approved with the finding that the applicable variance
standards are met. Specifically:
a. The creation of this lot predates the City's shoreland regulations. At the time the
property was platted, the development was not required to comply with the
Resolution 2005-212
(2005038)
Page 2
impervious surface requirements. Consequently, the developers of the project
established lot lines without regard to impervious surface coverage on the unit lots.
b. The conditions relating to the hardship are not generally applicable to other properties
in the RSF-4 zoning district. The platting of this lot predates the shoreland district
requirements. Additionally, the homeowners association in this subdivision owns
common open space between the residences and the lake, which serves as a buffer
between the homes and the lake.
c. The request is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase value or income
potential of the property; but rather, the variance is necessary to make improvements
to the home to make it more livable for the current occupants.
d. The hardship is caused by the Zoning Ordinance and the physical surroundings of the
property and was not self-created. The creation of the lot predates the shoreland
district requirements. Additionally, the shoreland ordinance does not recognize the
common open space areas of this development, which reduces the overall impervious
surface coverage for the development.
e. Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to finish
the room addition with the same materials on the exterior of the home. Furthermore,
the addition would comply with all Zoning Ordinance requirements.
f. The variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the
danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair
property values within the neighborhood.
g. The requested variance appears to be the minimum action required to eliminate the
hardship. While the applicant could possibly constrict a smaller addition, the
proposed addition and patio do not appear to be excessive as compared to
improvements made to other homes in this development. The applicant would
remove the existing cement patio and replace a minimum amount of cement to meet
State Building Code requirements to minimize the added impervious surface area.
4. A building permit for the addition shall be obtained prior to constriction.
5. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals
per Ordinance provisions.
6. This approval shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property
owner or applicant has substantially started constriction of the project, or unless the
landowner or applicant has received prior approval from the City to extend the
Resolution 2005-212
(2005038)
Page 3
expiration date for up to one additional year, as regulated under Section 21030.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Adopted by the City Council on June 14, 2005.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS.
The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of
Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a
meeting of the Plymouth City Council on June 14, 2005, with the original thereof on file
in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof.
WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this
day of
City Clerk