HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2001-265CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2001-265
APPROVING VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA COVERAGE IN THE
SHORELAND MANAGEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR A SWIMMING POOL FOR
CUSTOM POOLS INC. ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2030 WALNUT GROVE LANE
NORTH (2001039)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Custom Pools Inc. which requests approval of a
variance for approximately 30.2 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 22, Block 4, Imperial Hills, 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 approve the request of Custom
Pools Inc. for a variance to allow approximately 30.2 percent impervious surface area coverage in
the Shoreland Management Overlay District for property located at 2030 Walnut Grove Lane
North, based upon the following findings:
1. This variance request to allow approximately 30.2 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 April 4, 2001 and revisions received June 11,
2001 except as amended by this resolution.
2. This resolution is approved with the finding that the applicable variance standards have been
met. Specifically:
a. The lot is roughly 700 feet from Mooney Lake and meets all setback requirements.
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 applicant would
direct water to a drainage system that would disperse water and allow it to be absorbed
Resolution 2001-265
(2001039)
Page 2 of 3
into the ground. Futhermore, constricting a swimming pool within the required setback
would not eliminate the ability to use the rear yard for outdoor activities. 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-1 zoning district. A majority of RSF-1 lots are not located in shoreland districts. All
that are non -riparian do face the issue of needing to meet the same requirements as
riparian lots.
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. 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 applicant
would direct water to a drainage system, which would disperse the water and allow it to
be absorbed into the ground.
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 build a chain
link fence and landscape around the pool.
e. 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.
f. The requested variance is the minimum action necessary to allow constriction of the
proposed swimming pool.
3. The applicant shall provide screening around the filtering system of the pool.
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
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 this 26"' day of June, 2001.
Resolution 2001-265
(2001039)
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 June 26, 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