Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2000-213CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION 2000-213 APPROVING VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME ADDITION FOR DEBORAH STURM FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1401 WEST MEDICINE LAKE DRIVE (20021) WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Deborah Sturm which requests approval of front yard setback and shoreland impervious surface coverage variances to permit construction of a home addition for property legally described as follows: Lot 11, Block 1, Elmhurst Gateway, 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 by Deborah Sturm for front yard setback and shoreland impervious surface variances to permit construction of a home addition for property located at 1401 West Medicine Lake Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. This resolution approves a variance to permit a 12.9 -foot front yard setback where 25 feet is required and a variance to allow 36.5 percent impervious surface area coverage where 25 percent coverage is permitted, in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on February 18, 2000 and revisions received on March 7, 2000, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The variance for the front 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 do not allow for the construction of a reasonable addition without a variance. Resolution 2000-213 (20021) Page 2 b. The conditions relating to the hardship are not generally applicable to other properties in the RSF-2 zoning district. The subject lot was platted prior to the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance standards. The requested variance is needed to allow reasonable use of this 6,141—square foot lot, by adding a dining room, entry and porch to the existing four room home. The addition would provide additional living space that is comparable to the living area provided in most other homes. 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. 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. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow an addition to the home. 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. Granting the variance would allow the applicant to make improvements to the home. f. The addition would be no closer to the property line than the existing deck. 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 area of the City. 3. The variance for 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 any coverage requirements. Consequently, the developers of the project established lot lines without regard to impervious surface coverage. The variance is requested in order to make improvements to this small single family home. Resolution 2000-213 (20021) Page 3 b. The conditions relating to the hardship are not generally applicable to other properties in the RSF-2 zoning district. The platting of this lot predates the shoreland district requirements. 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. 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 to match the existing exterior of the home. Further, granting the variance would allow the homeowner to make improvements to this property. 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 and allow the property owner to make reasonable improvements to this four - room home. While the applicant could possibly construct 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. Furthermore, the applicant has revised the original plans to reduce the size of the porch and dining room/entry additions to reduce the size of the requested variances. 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 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 April 25, 2000. Resolution 2000-213 (20021) Page 4 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 April 25, 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