HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2001-292CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2001-292
APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE IN THE
SHORELAND MANAGEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT AND A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE
YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AND LIVING
SPACE ADDITION FOR NANCY MACK, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10140 26TH
AVENUE NORTH (2001045)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Nancy Mack requesting approval of a variance for
approximately 31 -percent impervious surface area coverage where the Zoning Ordinance permits
25 -percent coverage and a seven foot side yard setback where the Zoning Ordinance requires 15
feet, and
WHEREAS, the variance would allow constriction of a 616 -square foot addition on the property,
and
WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as Lot 11, Block 5, Medicine Lake Park 3'a
Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and
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 Nancy
Mack requesting approval of a variance for approximately 31 -percent impervious surface area
coverage where the Zoning Ordinance permits 25 -percent coverage and a side yard setback of 7
feet where the Zoning Ordinance requires 15 feet, for property located at 10140 26"' Avenue
North, subject to the following findings and conditions:
1. This variance is granted in accordance with the plans received by the City on May 3, 2001,
except as may be amended by this resolution.
2. The variance is granted based upon findings that the applicable variance standards have been
met, as follows:
Resolution 2001-292
(2001045)
Page 2
a) The creation of this lot predates the City's setback and shoreland regulations. At the time
the property was platted, development was not required to comply with any setback or
impervious surface coverage requirements. Consequently, the developers established lot
lines without regard to any such requirements. The variance is requested in order to allow
the property owner to make improvements to this modestly -sized (approximately 1,150
square feet) single-family home, creating additional living space and a garage.
b) The conditions relating to the hardship are not generally applicable to other properties in
the RSF-1 zoning district. The platting of this lot predates the RSF-1 zoning district
requirements and the shoreland district requirements. The minimum lot size and width in
the RSF-1 zoning district is 18,500 square feet and 110 feet, respectively. A home on a
standard 18,500 square foot lot would be 55 feet wider than the subject lot and be
permitted 4,625 square feet of impervious surface coverage. Both would offer the
applicant more flexibility. This proposal would result in about 3,400 square feet of
impervious surface area. Furthermore, a hardship is created by the location of the home
on the back of the lot, which necessitates a long driveway. The driveway creates about
two-thirds of the existing impervious surface area coverage. Typically a driveway
accounts for less than ten percent impervious surface coverage on a lot.
c) The the request is not based upon a desire to increase value or income potential of the
property. The proposal would allow the addition of a two -stall garage with a master
bedroom above. The applicant is proposing to constrict the garage addition with
materials and design compatible with the exterior of the home.
d) The hardship is caused by the Zoning Ordinance and was not self-created. The creation of
the lot predates the current setback and shoreland district requirements. The applicant's
proposal to remove part of the existing paved area when the garage is added would result
in no increase in the impervious surface on the lot.
e) Granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood. Granting the variance would allow the
applicant to 1) design a garage addition consistent with the existing home, 2) make
improvements to the property which would maintain the surrounding property values, and
3) would be consistent with the character of the area. According to surveys on file, aerial
photographs, and site visits to the neighborhood, many homes in the area have similar
setbacks and consequently, the requested side yard variance would not be out of character
with the area.
J) Granting the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, nor would it substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or
Resolution 2001-292
(2001045)
Page 3
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 and allow the property owner to make reasonable improvements to this home.
While the applicant could possibly constrict a smaller addition, the proposed addition
does not appear to be excessive as compared to improvements made to other homes in
this area of the City. Staff finds that the requested variance strikes a balance between the
intent of the shoreland district regulations and the property owner's desire to improve this
property.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a survey shall be submitted to the City showing no
more than 31 -percent impervious surface coverage on the property, including the proposed
addition.
4. Prior to the issuance of building permit, the property irons adjacent to the proposed
constriction shall be located and exposed.
5. Building permits shall be obtained prior to constriction of the addition.
6. 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 on July 10, 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 July 10, 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