HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2002-500CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2002-500
APPROVING VARIANCES FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF AN UNDERSIZED LOT AND
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AT 2360 IVES LANE NORTH (2002126)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Marjorie Peabody which requests approval of
variances to allow redevelopment of an undersized lot and impervious surface coverage to permit
constriction of a new home for property legally described as follows:
That part of Lot 5, Block 2, "Elmhurst", Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying westerly of the
following described line and its northerly and southerly extensions: Beginning at a point on the
southeasterly line of said Lot 5 distant 131.55 feet southwesterly along said southeasterly line
from the most easterly corner of said Lot 5; thence northwesterly to a point on the northwesterly
line of said Lot 5 distant 139.08 feet southwesterly along said northwesterly line from the most
northerly corner of said Lot 5 and there terminating, according to the recorded plat thereof,
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 Marjorie
Peabody for variances to allow redevelopment of an undersized lot and impervious surface
coverage to allow constriction of a new single-family home at 2360 Ives Lane north, subject to
the following conditions:
1. This resolution approves variances to allow development of an undersized lot and 30 percent
impervious surface area coverage where 25 percent coverage is permitted, in accordance with
the plans and application received by the City on September 13, 2002 and additional
information submitted on September 23, 2002, except as amended by this resolution.
Resolution 2002-500
(2002126)
Page 2 of 3
2. The variances for the shoreland impervious surface coverage is approved with the finding that
the applicable variance standards are met. Specifically:
a. The subject lot is an existing lot of record created prior to modern zoning and
subdivision regulations. The applicant is proposing to make the best use of the
property by removing a house in need of major repair and constricting a new
house. Without granting of the variances, the lot could not be redeveloped in a
reasonable manner.
b. The circumstances related to this request are not generally applicable to other
properties in the RSF-3 district. The Elmhurst neighborhood is unique due to its
several non -conforming lots that were originally platted in the 1920's, prior to
modern zoning and subdivision regulations. Although the City recently rezoned
this neighborhood from RSF-2 to RSF-3 as a means to help preserve the
neighborhood, the rezoning was implemented with the recognition that some of the
lots in the neighborhood would continue to be nonconforming. The original
platting established a lot configuration that does not serve the needs of present day
land use, unless variances are granted.
C. The request is not based upon a desire to increase value or income potential. The
proposal would allow the applicant to build a new home to replace the existing
house in poor condition.
d. The conditions relating to the hardship were not created by the applicant, but
rather were created by the original platting of the lot in the 1920's.
e. The proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
neighborhood. Many lots in this neighborhood are similarly -sized and exceed 25
percent impervious surface coverage. In addition, the size and style of the
proposed home would be compatible with the neighborhood.
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. This proposal would be an improvement
to the lot and neighborhood because a new single-family home could be
constricted on the lot.
g. The request is reasonable and strikes a balance between allowing redevelopment to
occur while minimizing the extent of the variations needed to alleviate the
hardship.
3. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per
Ordinance provisions.
Resolution 2002-500
(2002126)
Page 3 of 3
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 November 12, 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 November 12, 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