PL PACKET 06222015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the scope of the City Code, however, the applicant has not met the criteria indicating the 1 property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner because of the extent of 2 impervious surface proposed. She stated the applicant has not met the criteria that the plight 3 of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property because there are no 4 unique characteristics to the property; the applicant has not met the criteria that the variance if 5 granted would not alter the essential character of the locality because the proposal is not in 6 keeping with the intent of the Ordinance; the applicant has not met the criteria that the 7 variance if granted would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and stated the 8 City has policies regarding proper storm water and surface water management and the 9 applicant’s proposal and variance request significantly deviates from those policies. She 10 stated the applicant has not met the criteria that granting of the variance is in harmony with 11 the general purpose and intent of the ordinance because the intent is to protect the 12 neighborhood from flooding and prevent overburdening the storm water management system. 13 14 Chairperson Crone opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. 15 16 Mr. Jeff Carlson, 2926 Armour Terrace, stated they are not proposing a new studio and deck 17 because the studio and deck was put in about two years ago and they are just proposing to add 18 concrete in the pool and pervious pavers. 19 20 Mrs. Jeff Carlson stated the studio is elevated on footings and asked if that counts as 21 impervious surface coverage. She stated that outside of the requirement for the 3’-5’ bib of 22 concrete around the pool, they are flexible with creating more green space and not adding any 23 more impervious surface in the back yard. 24 25 City Planner Rothstein stated if there is grass underneath the studio and water can freely flow 26 underneath, then it does not count toward lot coverage. She stated she would use the same 27 interpretation for an elevated structure and that was considered when the original building 28 permit was issued. She stated the City Council recently considered whether to begin an 29 ordinance development process related to pervious pavers and the City Council felt strongly it 30 wanted the ordinance to stay the same given the allowances already contained in the Code for 31 increasing pervious surfaces and the City Council did not want to allow any further 32 consideration for other types of pavers. 33 34 Commissioner Gondorchin requested information about whether the studio is considered 35 impervious or pervious. He asked how much the applicant would gain if the bib went from 5’ 36 down to 3’ and also asked how effective the pervious pavers are at passing water. 37 38 City Planner Rothstein stated that one option is to remove as much hard cover as possible then 39 there would be no need to determine whether the criteria has been met because the legal non-40 conformity can continue as long as the lot coverage is not increased, however, the severity of 41 the variance is not a factor when analyzing the criteria and suggested relying on the criteria of 42 the Code and whether or not any request would meet those criteria. She stated the existing 43 impervious surface is 47% or 4,426 square feet and that would be the number where no 44 variance is needed. She further explained that the nature of the soils in St. Anthony does not 45 allow for infiltration and the City has problems with flooding so the City Council feels 46 2