Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2017-077 C ITY OF P LYMOUTH R ESOLUTION N O. 2017-077 R ESOLUTION A PPROVING V ARIANCE FOR I MPERVIOUS S URFACE C OVERAGE TO ALLOW C ONSTRUCTION OF A R OOM A DDITION BY S KYLINE D ESIGN, I NC. FOR P ROPERTY L OCATED AT 941 Z ANZIBAR L ANE (2017 005) WHEREAS, Skyline Design, Inc. has requested approval of an impervious surface coverage variance to allow construction of a room addition onto the existing home located at 941 Zanzibar Lane; and nd WHEREAS, the property is legally described as Lot 3, Block 2, Cimarron Ponds 2 Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said 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 by Skyline Design, Inc. for an impervious surface coverage variance to allow construction of a room addition for property located at 941 Zanzibar Lane, subject to the following: 1. A variance is approved to allow the impervious surface coverage on the unit lot to increase from 46 percent to 48 percent, in accordance with the application and plans received by the City on January 12, 2017, except as may be amended by this resolution. 2. The requested variance is approved based upon the following findings: a. The variance, and its resulting construction, would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and would be consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan. b. The applicant has demonstrated that there are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance regulations, because: 1. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. 2. The request is due to unique circumstances not created by the landowner. The platting of this development predates the shoreland regulations. If the area of the abutting natural/open space outlots were included, the proposal would comply with the impervious surface coverage regulation. 3. The variance would not alter the essential character of the lot or neighborhood. c. The variance request is not based exclusively upon economic considerations, but rather, the applicant is requesting the variance in order to improve the livability of the home. d. The variance, and its resulting construction, would not be detrimental to the public welfare, nor would it be injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. The applicant would remove a concrete patio and construct the room addition in the same general area. The addition would be designed to blend in with the design of the home, using similar materials and colors. Roughly 50 homes in the neighborhood have completed similar room addition improvements. e. The variance, and its resulting construction, would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, nor would it increase traffic congestion or the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood. The addition would comply with all other zoning ordinance requirements, and with all building code requirements. f. The requested variance is the minimum action required to address or alleviate the practical difficulties. 3. Prior to construction of the room addition, the applicant must: 1) obtain the required building permit; and 2) remove the existing concrete patio. 4. The roughly 12-foot by 20-foot room addition shall be constructed with a design, materials, and colors that are similar to the existing home. 5. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per ordinance provisions. 6. The variance shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner or applicant has commenced the authorized improvement or use, or unless the applicant, with the consent of the property owner, 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 this 28th day of February, 2017. 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 February 28, 2017, 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