HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2002-404CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2002-404
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW 53 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA
COVERAGE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME ADDITION BY SKYLINE
DESIGN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1241 ARCHER LANE NORTH (2002094)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Skyline Design which requests approval of a
shoreland impervious surface coverage variance to permit constriction of a home addition for
property legally described as follows:
Lot 39, Block 1, Cimarron Ponds 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 Skyline
Design for a shoreland impervious surface coverage variance to permit constriction of a home
addition for property located at 1241 Archer Lane North, subject to the following conditions:
1. This resolution approves variance to allow 53 percent impervious surface area coverage
where 25 percent coverage is permitted, in accordance with the plans and application received
by the City on July 18, 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
requirements. Consequently, the developers of the project established lot lines without
regard to impervious surface coverage on the unit lots.
Resolution 2002-404
(2002094)
Page 2 of 3
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, this subdivision is unique because its homeowners association
owns common open space between the residences and the lake, which was intended to
serve 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 brick as exists on the exterior of the home.
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. The applicant would constrict the addition over the existing patio. The
applicant is actually decreasing the amount of impervious surface coverage with the
addition by removing the existing concrete patio. The proposed addition does not appear
to be excessive in size as compared to improvements made to other homes in this
development.
3. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per
Ordinance provisions.
4. 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.
Adopted by the City Council on September 9, 2002.
Resolution 2002-404
(2002094)
Page 3 of 3
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 September 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