HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2005-261CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2005-261
APPROVING VARIANCES FOR DAMIEN AND KRISTEN WOLF FOR
REDEVELOPMENT OF A NON -CONFORMING LOT, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE, DETACHED GARAGE IN THE FRONT YARD, AND SIDE YARD SETBACK
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10610 SOUTH SHORE DRIVE (2005046)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Damien and Kristen Wolf which requests approval
of variances for redevelopment of a non -conforming lot, impervious surface coverage, detached
garage in the front yard, and side yard setback to allow constriction of a new single-family home
for property legally described as follows:
Lot 5, Block 2, Medicine Lake Park First Division, 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 Damien
and Kristen Wolf for variances for redevelopment of a non -conforming lot, impervious surface
coverage, detached garage in the front yard, and side yard setback to allow constriction of a new
single-family home at 10610 South Shore Drive, subject to the following conditions:
This resolution approves variances to allow 1) redevelopment of an existing lot of record that
is non -conforming due to lot width, 2) impervious surface coverage of 28.9 percent, 3)
detached garage in the front yard, and 4) side yard setback of eight feet for a portion of the
front parch and exterior stairs, in accordance with the plans received by the City on June 13,
2005 and June 14, 2005, except as may be amended by this resolution.
2. The variances are approved with the findings that the applicable variance standards are met, as
follows:
Resolution 2005-261
(2005046)
Page 2 of 4
a) The subject lot is an existing non -conforming lot of record that was created prior to
modern zoning and subdivision regulations. The applicants are proposing to improve the
property by removing two small non -conforming cabins and subsequently constricting a
new single-family home with attached garage in the north portion of the lot, and detached
garage in the south (front yard) portion of the lot. The long and narrow shape of the lot,
together with the desire to maintain the neighborhood character by placing the home
adjacent to the neighboring homes, results in a need to exceed the allowable impervious
surface coverage. Without the variances, the lot could not be redeveloped in a reasonable
manner in keeping with the established neighborhood character.
b) The circumstances related to this request are not generally applicable to other properties in
the RSF-2 district. The Medicine Lake Park lit Addition where this lot is located is
unique due to its several non -conforming lots that were originally platted in the early
1900's, prior to modern zoning and subdivision regulations. That original platting
established a lot configuration that does not readily serve the needs of present-day land
use, unless variances are granted. The subject lot is also different from most lots in the
district because it is sloped in a manner that fiirther compounds the challenges for
redevelopment of this lot.
c) The request is not based upon a desire to increase value or income potential. The
proposal would allow the applicants to build a new single-family home on this residentially
zoned lot, replacing two old non -conforming cabins. The detached garage would provide
the applicants with adequate garage space to store all of their personal property (e.g.,
vehicles, boat, lawn care equipment, bikes, etc.) indoors. The side yard setback variance
would allow the portion of the front porch and exterior stairs located less than ten feet
from the side lot line to be covered with a roof feature.
d) The hardship relating to the lot width was not created by the applicants, but rather was
created by the original platting of the lot in the early 1900's. Additionally, the difficulty
relating to the slope of the lot, as well as the pre-existing development pattern of the
neighborhood was not created by the applicants. The difficulties relating to the requested
variances for impervious surface coverage, detached garage in the front yard, and side
yard setback are a result of factors beyond the applicants' control.
e) The proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
neighborhood. The applicants propose to improve existing drainage issues in the area
through their grading and drainage plan (as would be revised), including installation of
storm sewer pipe and a rain garden. Many lots in this neighborhood have a similar lot
width and exceed 25 percent impervious surface coverage. Five other properties in the
immediate area also have a detached garage in their front yards. Lastly, the size and
location of the proposed home would be compatible with the neighborhood.
Resolution 2005-261
(2005046)
Page 3 of 4
f) The proposal would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or diminish property values within
the neighborhood.
g) The request is reasonable and strikes a balance between allowing redevelopment to occur
while preserving neighborhood character and minimizing the extent of the variations
needed to alleviate the hardship.
3. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicants shall revise the plans to show the
following:
a) Sanitary sewer service and invert elevation.
b) Surface water from the low area to the west must drain at approximately the 890
elevation. This water must drain east of the proposed driveway, and then north to the
lake.
c) An emergency overflow designed to carry the 100 -year rain event must be created along
the easterly property line to drain to the lake. Eighteen inches of freeboard is required
between the lowest opening of adjacent buildings and the ground overflow elevation.
d) A permit is required from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for any work
below the Ordinary High Water Elevation of 889.1 feet.
4. Any changes or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per Ordinance
provisions.
1. 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 expiration date for up to one
additional year, as regulated under Section 2 103 0. 06 of the Zoning Ordinance. Applicant's
Narratives
5.
ADOPTED by the City Council on July 12, 2005.
Resolution 2005-261
(2005046)
Page 4 of 4
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 July 12, 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