PL PACKET 11152005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 20, 2005 Page 8 1 Ms. Moore-Sykes acknowledged the differences and agreed that there is a big difference. She 2 assured the Commission that the Building Official and the Fire Marshall work closely on these 3 requests and do review the issues closes for stormwater and safety issues. 4 5 Commissioner Galyon stated that he understands the arguments for adding the text amendment 6 noting that as a person who lives in the City of St. Anthony and understanding the impracticality 7 of the situation for the applicant, the conditional use permit is not a rigorous process noting that 8 it allows neighbors to come in and voice their opinion in regards to the window well location. 9 He noted that the third paragraph of the Fire Chief's memo notes that to place an egress window 10 close proximity to a stairway would be impractical in the event of a fire. He stated that all of 11 these concerns should be reviewed adding that he would be in favor of putting a review process 12 in place that would allow the opportunity to talk through the issues. He referenced the text 13 amendment noting that it states `as long as access to the rear yard is preserved' and asked what 14 this would mean in terms of access. He stated that the references to access should be further 15 clarified stating that it would make sense to have some form of process in place to review all 16 issues. He stated that the process could be changed in the future and further clarified as the move 17 forward. 18 19 Ms. Moore-Sykes explained that preserving rear yard access could mean access for utility repair, 20 maintenance for easement utilities or emergency vehicle access. She stated that a conditional use 21 permit process would be considerably more rigorous because it would require a four-fifths vote 22 and it would require a super majority to pass a conditional use permit. She stated that if the 23 Commission is looking for more planning oversight they could consider a permitting process 24 similar to what is used for garages in setbacks. She explained that it would involve a public 25 hearing but it only requires a simple majority. She stated that it would be a variance process for 26 the applicant. She asked the Commissioners to recognize that these processes do take time and 27 that this is a life safety issue that does not have that kind of time for consideration. 28 29 Commissioner Galyon acknowledged the safety concerns stating that there are several options 30 that could be considered adding that he would like to see some form of process included in the 31 ordinance that would help to regulate the installation and allow•residents a forum to provide 32 feedback. He noted that the proposed text amendment is limited to R-1 and R-2 zoning and 33 asked how R-3 Zoning Districts would be handled. 34 35 Chair Stromgren explained that R-3 Zoning districts are considered separately due to their size 36 and because they would have alternate escape routes. 37 38 Commissioner Jenson stated that in the paragraph following the test amendment it states that the 39 permit would trigger inspections by the Building Inspectors and Fire Marshall, which would 40 provide oversight of the construction of the egress window well and setback. He referenced the 41 example given of the driveway next to the window well and the request to install a small safety 42 fence and asked if the building inspection process would have the ability to highlight a need for 43 something like this. 44