PL PACKET 05182015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

May 11, 2015 Page 3 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 probably will not significant increase flooding, staff believes granting such a variance is not in keeping with the intent of the ordinance related to impervious surface coverage limitations. With regard to the setback variance request, requiring pool equipment to be located 10 feet from side property lines is intended to protect the neighbor from excess noise from such systems, and staff does not believe it is keeping with such intent to grant this variance. Criterion not met. POSSIBLE ACTIONS 1. Recommend Denial of the Variances. Staff recommends denial of both variances, based on the findings and draft resolution in Exhibit D. 2. Recommend Approval (with or without conditions) of the Variances. In the event of a recommendation for approval (with or without conditions), the Planning Commission may state its findings and any conditions related to approval. Request Additional Information and Continue the Public Hearing. The Applicant appears to have provided enough information for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to approve or deny the request. Should the Planning Commission request additional information