PL PACKET 11152005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 20, 2005 Page 7 1 window wells the same as St. Paul and that both Cities have side yard setbacks on some 2 properties that are three to four feet from the property lines. She noted that they also view egress 3 window wells as always allowable because of the safety issues that they address. She stated that 4 Ms. Howard, as did the planner from St. Paul, stated that they have never required property 5 owners to attend public hearings on their requests to prove hardship or to consider economic gain 6 as an impediment to the allowance and construction of these structures. She stated that it is 7 considered simply a matter of safety and they can be installed without planning and zoning 8 review. She stated that it appears to be the same procedure for other Cities that Staff contacted. 9 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Staff also requested memos from the Building Official and the t. 10 11 Anthony fire Department regarding egress window wells noting that the memos were received 12 and included their feedback. She stated that since Staff did not find any ordinance language 13 dealing with egress window wells from other metro communities simply adding egress window 14 wells to the already existing ordinance text would be the easiest text amendment and reviewed 15 the proposed text changes with the Commission. 16 909 30t' Avenue, stated that she would be in favor of the propose text 17 Ramona Steadman, 2 18 amendment as long as the side yard and rear yard areas are preserved. She shared her experience 19 in trying to get an egress window well installed in their home with the Commission. She 20 explained that Staff had informed her that they would need a variance due to side yard setback 21 requirements. She indicated that they began this process in June and they still do not have an 22 egress window well installed. She expressed concerns stating that all they want is a safe area for 23 their daughter. She noted that surrounding Cities do not require this kind of process adding that 24 it is her hope that the Commission recommends approval as it saves lives. 25 26 Chair Stromgren closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. 27 28 Chair Stromgren clarified that the only question here is whether they make it a staff leve 29 approval process or do they make it a conditional use permit process to allow for closer review 30 for unique conditions. He stated that there is argument for both ways noting that he does agree 31 with the Building Official in that they do not want to make the process overly cumbersome and 32 discourage people from following through with getting the proper permits. He stated that there 33 are instances where safety could be an issue and should be considered. 34 35 Commissioner Jensen agreed noting that building permits can include specific stipulations that 36 are available and easily resolved, accepted or disputed by the applicant without having to get 37 involved in a governmental permit process, as required by a conditional use permit. He stated 38 that he would trust a text amendment that include not making t a permit ppocessroval that�would 39 Building Official. He stated that he would advocate 40 require a Planning Commission timetables. 41 42 Commissioner Young clarified that the permit could trigger inspections by the Building Inspector 43 and Fire Marshal adding that the packet clearly stated that it would trigger inspections. She 44 stated that this is a big difference and asked that this be clearly explained. 45