PL PACKET 07272015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

increase in impervious surface is not reasonable and the increase can create additional 1 drainage and flooding problems. She stated the applicant has not met the criteria that the 2 plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property. She stated the 3 variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. She stated that 4 economic considerations are not the sole basis of the practical difficulties. She stated that 5 staff does not believe the applicant has met the criteria indicating that the variance, if granted, 6 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because one of the main tenets of the 7 Comprehensive Plan is that storm water management is a focus of all development 8 applications and that flooding is an issue in St. Anthony. She stated the applicant has not met 9 the criteria that the granting of the variance is in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance and 10 staff recommends the variance request to exceed the permitted lot coverage be denied. 11 12 Commissioner Foster asked how much of a reduction was required to comply with City Code. 13 14 City Planner Rothstein advised that the property is a legal non-conforming use and exceeds 15 the City’s impervious surface limitations at 45% lot coverage, so 488 square feet would have 16 to be removed from the plan so that no variance was needed. 17 18 Chairperson Crone opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. 19 20 Mr. Jeff Carlson, 2926 Armour Terrace, stated they changed their plans and reduced the 21 proposed lot coverage from 63% to 50%, which is a 5% increase in lot coverage so that they 22 can extend the concrete along the house so that water is not running into the foundation. 23 24 Mr. Don Jensen approached the Planning Commission and stated he is a neighbor and has 25 submitted a letter in support of the Carlson’s application. He was concerned about the finding 26 that a 5% increase would be out of harmony and would increase the probability of flooding. 27 He stated this was one of the first neighborhoods to receive substantial improvements to the 28 storm water system and did not agree there might be flooding caused by the additional 488 29 square feet. He felt it was important to consider whether to deny both variances and felt it 30 was appropriate to have a variance for the pool equipment. He stated the applicant has 31 provided a rain garden and is offering 260 square feet for this rain garden but staff has not 32 indicated this amount of coverage can be subtracted from the total and he felt the City s hould 33 find ways to offset lot coverage. He stated there are a lot of properties in the City that are not 34 in conformance with the 35% limitation through no fault of their own and it was important to 35 find ways to allow residents to provide offsets to be able to have appropriate amounts of hard 36 surface created in a usable fashion and an offset for the rain garden was a fair way to allow an 37 increase in hard surface. 38 39 Ms. Maureen Watson, 2921 Silver Lake Road, stated there are flooding issues in their 40 neighborhood because they live at the bottom of the hill and they are concerned about the 41 request for more lot coverage because when it rains, their property is soggy for a long time 42 and they had to install drain tiles. She stated they do not want to be bad neighbors and want to 43 allow them to have their pool but they are uneasy about the request. 44 45 Chairperson Crone closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. 46 2