Laserfiche WebLink
b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not <br />created by the property owner; <br />The property constraints are caused by the desire of the property owner to have a pool <br />and large deck, and to locate the pool equipment in a more advantageous location for <br />the deck layout. The need for the variances is caused by the property owner. Criterion <br />not met. <br />c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and <br />Granting of this variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The <br />proposed pool would be located behind a fence. Furthermore, since all of the <br />improvements are proposed in the backyard, a pool would not be out of the ordinary in <br />a residential neighborhood Criterion met. <br />d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. <br />The basis for the practical difficulties is the existing presence of lot coverage and the <br />property owner’s desire to enhance the livability of the backyard. While economic <br />considerations are a factor, as the value of the home will probably increase as a result of <br />the proposed project, it is not perceived that they are the sole basis of the practical <br />difficulty. Criterion met. <br />3. The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City’s comprehensive land use plan. <br />If the variance is granted the use of the property would remain the same land use as it is today, <br />single-family residential. The comprehensive plan guides this area for single-family use and the <br />proposed pool project will not alter that land use. However, Section 5-7 of the Comprehensive <br />Plan incorporates the Surface Water Management Plan, which sets forth policies related to the <br />management and limitation of water run-off on residential properties. Therefore, granting of <br />the variance related to lot coverage would not be consistent with the goals and policies of the <br />Comprehensive Plan. Criterion not met. <br />4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning <br />code. <br />The intent of the zoning code is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the city and <br />its people through the establishment of minimum regulations governing land development and <br />use. The zoning code is established to: protect the use districts; promote orderly development <br />and redevelopment; provide adequate light, air, and access to property; prevent congestion in <br />the public streets; prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by <br />regulating land, buildings, yards, and densities; and provide for compatibility of different land <br />uses. <br />Given all the factors, this application is not in keeping with the intent of the ordinance to protect <br />the use districts or promote orderly development because stormwater management is a critical <br />issue in St. Anthony and the city has flooding issues. Allowing increases in impervious surface on <br />this lot will contribute to the amount of water in the stormwater system and while one property <br />probably will not significant increase flooding, staff believes granting such a variance is not in <br />keeping with the intent of the ordinance related to impervious surface coverage limitations. <br />With regard to the setback variance request, requiring pool equipment to be located 10 feet <br />from side property lines is intended to protect the neighbor from excess noise from such <br />systems, and staff does not believe it is keeping with such intent to grant this variance. Criterion <br />not met. <br /> <br />9