HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2005-443CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2005-443
DENYING A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO LOT WIDTH, LOT AREA AND
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA COVERAGE, AND A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO
CREATE TWO LOTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16820 — 12TH AVENUE NORTH
(2005029)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Clinton Asche which requests approval of variances
to lot width, lot area and impervious surface area coverage, and a minor subdivision to create two
lots for property legally described as follows:
Lot 5, Block 5, City View Acres, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called public meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the request by Clinton
Asche for variances to lot width, lot area and impervious surface area coverage, and a minor
subdivision to create two lots for property located at 16820 — 12"' Avenue North, based upon the
following findings:
1. There are no particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions that
create a hardship for this application. A hardship exists if the property cannot be
reasonably utilized under the terms of the Ordinance. The existing property contains a
total of 28,615 square feet, which is 10,115 square feet larger than the minimum lot
area requirement. No conditions exist to prevent reasonable use of this property as it
is currently developed, which is consistent with the use and fiinction of the RSF-1
zoning district.
2. There are no unique conditions related to the parcel that are not shared by other
parcels in the same zoning classification. Many lots in Plymouth zoned RSF-1 have lot
area over the minimum requirements, as is the case with the existing property.
Therefore, the situation is not unique to the applicant's lot. In addition, the intent of
applying the RSF-1 district to these properties is as stated in the purpose of the
Resolution 2005-443
(2005029)
Page 2
district, to protect and maintain the existing larger lot neighborhoods. Allowing
subdivisions of land smaller than the district minimum does not achieve that purpose.
Furthermore, there are a large number of lots located within Shoreland Management
Overlay Districts in the City of Plymouth and those lots would be subject to the same
impervious surface area requirements as the applicant.
3. The purpose of the variation is based on the desire to increase the value and income
potential of the land. The current house is a rental property in partnership with
Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners (IOCP). The rent earned from the
property is not likely to change based on the subdivision. The applicant also proposes
to constrict a modest house on Parcel A. However, the applicant has not stated that
the new home would be affordable housing. Subdivision, by its nature causes an
immediate increase in the value and income potential of the parcel of land.
4. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not caused by the ordinance, but rather is self-
imposed by the applicant. The minimum lot size and lot area requirements were in
place when the applicant purchased this lot in 2004. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance
states that all property within 1,000 feet of a lake is located within the Shoreland
Management Overlay District. Such properties are limited to 25 percent impervious
surface coverage, regardless of whether or not they actually abut the protected
lakeshore.
Although the applicant may be inconvenienced by having to comply with the
impervious surface area requirements, there is no hardship. All properties within the
Shoreland Management Overlay Districts must comply with the same impervious
surface area restrictions. The impervious surface area limitations are required to
preserve the water quality in the City's lakes. Limiting impervious surface area in the
Shoreland Management Overlay District is one of the primary means to effectively
limit the water runoff and pollution that enters the lake from this development.
5. Approval of the request would allow the creation of lots that are not consistent with
the established development pattern of this neighborhood. Parcel B would be just over
three quarters of the average lot areas within 200 feet of the subject property. Parcel
A would be just over half of the average lot areas within 200 feet of the property.
6. There is no hardship (as defined by the ordinance) because reasonable use for this
property exists without a variance.
Resolution 2005-443
(2005029)
Page 3
ADOPTED by the City Council on November 29, 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 November 29, 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