HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2000-151CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2000-151
APPROVING SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND VARIANCES FOR SATELLITE
INDUSTRIES FOR A PARKING LOT EXPANSION LOCATED AT 2530 XENIUM LANE
(20013)
WHEREAS, SATELLITE INDUSTRIES has requested approval of a site plan amendment and
variances to allow a parking lot expansion on property legally described as follows:
Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 991, files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin,
and the north 300.5 feet of that part of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27,
Township 118 North, Range 22 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying westerly of the
southwesterly right of way line of new State Trunk Highway 55.
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 Satellite
Industries for a site plan amendment and variance for property located at 2530 Xenium Lane,
subject to the following conditions:
1. A site plan amendment and variances for a parking lot expansion is hereby approved, in
accordance with the application and plans received by the City on January 31, 2000, except as
amended by this resolution.
2. A grading permit is required for the proposed parking lot expansion.
3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan for the
berm adjacent to the parking lot.
4. The setback variance is approved with the finding that the applicable variance standards are
met. Specifically:
Resolution 2000-151
(20013)
Page 2
(a) The irregular shape and location of the parcel creates a unique hardship. Additionally,
the property is a corner lot, and therefore has two front yards. If the applicant
redesigned the parking lot to comply with the side yard setback along the east property
line, the applicant would lose three of the proposed 21 stalls. Based on the existing
shortage of parking on the site, the applicant needs the 21 additional stalls. Further, the
applicant acquired this remnant parcel in order to expand the existing parking lot. The
remnant parcel on its own could not be put to a reasonable use without variances.
(b) The conditions upon which the variance is requested are unique to this property and are
not applicable to other property within the same zoning district. The irregular shape of
this corner lot makes it difficult to layout a parking lot in an efficient manner.
(c) The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value
or income potential of the parcel of land; but rather, to expand the existing parking lot
in order to help eliminate a current parking shortage.
(d) The hardship is caused by this Chapter and has not been created by persons having an
interest in the parcel of land. The applicant is attempting to make a reasonable use of
this property by constructing a parking lot to serve the existing building.
(e) The reduced setbacks would be adjacent to an undevelopable lot that contains an off-
site advertising sign for the Radisson Hotel. Because this parcel is only 0.2 acres in
size, the parcel could not be developed with any type of office/industrial use.
Therefore, the reduced setbacks would not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the land in the neighborhood.
(f) The proposed variation will 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 required to eliminate the hardship while
enjoying a reasonable use of the property. Based on the size and shape of the lot, the
variances are necessary to create a reasonable size parking lot addition.
5. The applicant shall comply with the conditions outlined in the City Engineer's memorandum.
6. 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
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.
Resolution 2000-151
(20013)
Page 3
ADOPTED by the City Council this 21 st day of March, 2000.
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 March 21, 2000 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