Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />October 13, 2021 <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Mr. Reinert asked Ms. Larsen when impervious surface was at 65% previously if it <br />was ever an issue. <br /> <br />Ms. Larsen said she was not on staff at the time, but she would ask other staff if it had <br />been an issue previously. <br /> <br />Mr. Wipperfurth asked Ms. Larsen if she believed residents are knowledgeable of the <br />40% impervious surface requirement thus they do not submit plans with more <br />impervious surface than what is allowed. <br /> <br />Ms. Larsen surmised most residents do not know the City has an impervious surface <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Reinert recommended increasing the impervious surface to 65% for lots less than <br />three-quarters of an acre and 50% for lots three-quarters of an acre of more. <br /> <br />Ms. Lindahl said she and staff will review the proposal and return with a <br />recommendation for the Board to consider. <br /> <br />Mr. Evenson asked if several 6 ft. wide porches were granted by the City or if it was <br />only one. <br /> <br />Ms. Larsen stated 6 ft. wide porches were granted for the Watermark development <br />and Century Farm development. She commented she would need to check to see if <br />the NorthPointe development requested them as well. <br /> <br />Mr. Wipperfurth said he lives in the NorthPointe development and he was certain his <br />porch is only 6 ft. wide. He commented the porch is plenty big as he can fit two <br />chairs and a table in the space. <br /> <br />Mr. Evenson said a 6 ft. porch is too small. He preferred the two foot recess on the <br />third stall of the garage rather than the four foot recess. He commented his third stall <br />garage is recessed two feet and he did not think it looked bad. <br /> <br />Mr. Reinert agreed with Mr. Evenson. He supported the two foot recess on the <br />garage and he favored the 8 ft. wide porch. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden said he was fine with the two foot setback on the garage. He stated since it <br />is typical in most single family homes, the setback should be the same for <br />townhomes. He noted a 6 ft. wide porch is restrictive and feels small when a railing <br />is added to the front. He said since townhomes are slab on grade, porches on these <br />homes do not require a railing and thus a 6 ft. wide porch would be comfortable. <br /> <br />Mr. Reinert suggested changing the ordinance to state if no railing is needed, a 6 ft. <br />wide porch is acceptable, but if a railing is necessary, an 8 ft. wide porch is the <br />minimum requirement.