HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2002-312CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2002-312
APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA COVERAGE IN
THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF SUNROOM ADDITION FOR JIM MCNALLY FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1845 ITHACA LANE NORTH (2002060)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Jim McNally which requests approval of a variance
for approximately 42.1 percent impervious surface area coverage where the Zoning Ordinance
permits 25 percent coverage. This variance would allow constriction of a 10 -foot by 17 -foot
sunroom addition for property legally described as follows:
Lot 80, Block 2, Cimarron East Addition, 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 Jim
McNally for a variance to allow approximately 42.1 percent impervious surface area coverage in
the Shoreland Management Overlay District to permit constriction of a sunroom addition for
property located at 1845 Ithaca Lane North, subject to the following conditions:
1. This resolution approves variance to allow 42.1 percent impervious surface area coverage
where 25 percent coverage is permitted, in accordance with the plans and application received
by the City on May 14, 2002, except as amended by this resolution.
2. The variance for the shoreland impervious surface coverage 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 impervious surface
Resolution 2002-312
(2002060)
Page 2
requirements. Consequently, the developers of the project established lot lines without
regard to impervious surface coverage on the unit lots. In addition, there is virtually no
net increase of impervious surface coverage proposed with the project.
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 match the room
addition with the existing exterior of the home. Furthermore, the addition would comply
with all other 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.
3. The addition shall be finished to match the exterior of the existing home.
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
Resolution 2002-312
(2002060)
Page 3
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.
ADOPTED by the City Council on July 9, 2002
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 9, 2002 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