CC PACKET 07142015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The property owners propose to use the property in a way that is not reasonable. The current property already exceeds the lot coverage maximum, and the proposed project will significantly add to the imperviousness of the lot, resulting in a coverage of 50 percent. The construction of the pool could be accommodated with no substantial increase in impervious surface, if some hard cover is removed from the patio or driveway area to accommodate the increase in hard cover resulting from a pool deck. Criterion not met. b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner; The property constraints are caused by the desire of the property owner to have a pool and large deck, and to locate the pool equipment in a more advantageous location for the deck layout. The need for the variances is caused by the property owner. Criterion not met. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and Granting of this variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed pool would be located behind a fence. Furthermore, since all of the improvements are proposed in the backyard, a pool would not be out of the ordinary in a residential neighborhood Criterion met. d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. The basis for the practical difficulties is the existing presence of lot coverage and the property owner’s desire to enhance the livability of the backyard. While economic considerations are a factor, as the value of the home will probably increase as a result of the proposed project, it is not perceived that they are the sole basis of the practical difficulty. Criterion met. 3. The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City’s comprehensive land use plan. If the variance is granted the use of the property would remain the same land use as it is today, single-family residential. The comprehensive plan guides this area for single-family use and the proposed pool project will not alter that land use. However, Section 5-7 of the Comprehensive Plan incorporates the Surface Water Management Plan, which sets forth policies related to the management and limitation of water run-off on residential properties. Therefore, granting of the variance related to lot coverage would not be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Criterion not met. 4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code. The intent of the zoning code is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the city and its people through the establishment of minimum regulations governing land development and use. The zoning code is established to: protect the use districts; promote orderly development and redevelopment; provide adequate light, air, and access to property; prevent congestion in the public streets; prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by regulating land, buildings, yards, and densities; and provide for compatibility of different land uses. Given all the factors, this application is not in keeping with the intent of the ordinance to protect the use districts or promote orderly development because stormwater management is a critical issue in St. Anthony and the city has flooding issues. Allowing increases in impervious surface on this lot will contribute to the amount of water in the stormwater system and while one property 19