Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 1999-356CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION 99-356 APPROVING REAR YARD SETBACK AND SHORELAND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME ADDITION FOR RON SPLETT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1040 ZANZIBAR LANE NORTH (99078) WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Ron Splett which requests approval of a rear yard setback and shoreland impervious surface variances to permit construction of a home addition for property legally described as follows: Lot 22, Block 2, Cimarron Ponds, Second Addition 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 Ron Splett for rear yard setback and shoreland impervious surface variances to permit construction of a home addition for property located at 1040 Zanzibar Lane North, subject to the following conditions: 1. This resolution approves a variance to permit a 19 -foot rear yard setback where 25 feet is required, and a variance to allow 44 percent impervious surface area coverage where 25 percent coverage is permitted, in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on July 28, 1999, 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 Resolution 99-356 (99078) Page 2 requirements. Consequently, the developers of the project established lot lines without regard to impervious surface coverage on the unit lots. 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. Further, with the exception of the rear yard setback discussed below, the addition would comply with all other Zoning Ordinance requirement. 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 construct the addition over a portion of the existing patio and reduce some of the existing impervious surfaces by removing a portion of the sidewalk and reducing the size of the patio. While the applicant could possibly construct a smaller addition or further reduce the size of the patio, the proposed addition and patio do not appear to be excessive as compared to improvements made to other homes in this development. 3. The variance for the rear yard setback is approved with the finding that the applicable variance standards are met. Specifically: a. The physical surroundings of the property create a unique hardship, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. The size and shape of this lot does not allow for the construction of a Resolution 99-356 (99078) Page 3 reasonable addition without requesting a variance. Furthermore, the subject property is a unit lot that is part of a larger development that contains common open space. b. The conditions relating to the hardship are not generally applicable to other properties in the RSF-4 zoning district. The subject lot was platted prior to the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance standards. While the proposed addition would be 19 feet from the property line of the unit, the addition would be over 150 feet from the common lot line of the HOA property and the adjacent state owned parcel. c. The request is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase value or income potential of the property. The proposal would allow the convenient placement of the addition in a manner that does not require substantial interior renovations to the home. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to construct the addition with materials compatible with the exterior of the home. d. The hardship is caused by the platting of the property, which was done prior to the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance regulations. Under the former PUD, the applicant could have requested an amendment to the PUD without having to request a variance and demonstrate a hardship. Further, the Zoning Ordinance does not take into consideration the common space of the development when measuring setbacks. e. Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood, because the proposed addition would be designed consistent with the existing home. Additionally, the building addition would encroach into the rear yard that adjoins the open space of the development. f. The addition would encroach into the rear year that adjoins the common open space lot. Therefore, the addition 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. While the applicant could possibly construct a smaller addition, the proposal does not appear to be excessive as compared to improvements made to other homes in this development. 4. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per Ordinance provisions. 5. This approval shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner or applicant has substantially started construction of the project, or unless the landowner or Resolution 99-356 (99078) Page 4 applicant has received prior approval from the City to extend the expiration date for up to one additional year, as regulated under Section 21030.06 of the Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the City Council on September 7, 1999. 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 7, 1999 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