HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2001-010CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2001-010
APPROVING VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA COVERAGE IN THE
SHORELAND MANAGEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR A SWIMMING POOL FOR
FRANCIS AND MARY EINARSON ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13915 60TH AVENUE
NORTH (20169)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Francis and Mary Einarson which requests approval
of a variance for approximately 41 percent impervious surface area coverage where the Zoning
Ordinance permits 25 percent coverage. The variance would allow constriction of swimming
pool on property legally described as follows:
Lot 33, Block 4, Lake Camelot Estates, 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 of Francis
and Mary Einarson for a variance to allow approximately 41 percent impervious surface area
coverage in the Shoreland Management Overlay District for property located at 13915 60t'
Avenue North, subject to the following findings and conditions:
1. This variance request to allow approximately 41 percent impervious surface area coverage in
the Shoreland Management Overlay District is hereby approved in accordance with the plans
and application received by the City on November 22, 2000, except as amended by this
resolution.
2. This resolution is approved with the finding that the applicable variance standards have been
met. Specifically:
Resolution 2001-010
(20169)
Page 2
a. Regardless of the fact that the lot is not adjacent to the lake, this property must meet the
same requirements as lots that are directly adjacent to the lake. The runoff from this
property would generally be directed north through a series of treatment ponds and
wetlands. The runoff would be directed away from Mud Lake and, therefore, it would not
adversely affect water quality in Mud Lake. Staff finds that this proposed swimming pool
would be a reasonable accessory use on this property.
b. The conditions relating to the hardship are not applicable to many other properties in the
RSF-2 zoning district. A swimming pool would be a reasonable accessory use on this
property and the shoreland regulations unduly restrict the use of this non -riparian lot.
c. The request is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase value or income potential of
the property. The proposal would allow the addition of a swimming pool and patio for the
convenience of the property owner and would not detract from the appearance of the
home or surrounding properties.
d. The hardship is caused by the Zoning Ordinance, which 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. 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. However, the runoff from this
property would be directed north, away from Mud Lake, through a series of treatment
ponds and wetlands. Therefore, the increased impervious surface area would not
adversely affect the water quality of Mud Lake.
e. Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood. There is an existing fence that would screen
the pool from adjoining properties.
f. The variances 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 is the minimum action necessary to allow constriction of the
proposed swimming pool.
3. The existing fence shall be maintained in a good state of repair at all times.
4. This approval shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the applicant has
substantially started constriction of the project, or unless the applicant has received prior
Resolution 2001-010
(20169)
Page 3
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 January 9, 2001.
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 January 9, 2001, 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