Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br />September 27, 2011 <br />Page 5 <br />Code. He noted that the City Council is not being asked to approve a lot coverage variance, <br />however, there are issues regarding the City's interpretation of what constitutes impervious <br />surface. <br />Mayor Faust indicated that the 60 -day rule expires October 24, 2011 and the City Council can <br />extend the 60 days once, or it can choose to approve, deny, or table this matter. <br />8 Mr. Bergum presented a zoning map showing his property is zoned RI Single Family <br />9 Residential. He referenced the City Code's land usage section and recited the Code relating to <br />10 lot coverage. He indicated there appear to be some issues related to pervious pavers which are <br />11 not addressed in the Code. He also recited the City Code regarding accessory buildings and the <br />12 reference to rear yard which defines the rear yard as being 25' from the residence and that <br />13 accessory buildings must be placed within the rear yard. He stated that he felt the Code appears <br />14 to say that a garage can be 1,000 SF and if it is within the setback, it can be no larger than 528 <br />15 SF. He presented photographs of his neighborhood and indicated his neighbor's 660 SF garage <br />16 was built within the last three years and noted that other garages and accessory buildings in the <br />17 area are well within 3' of the property lines. He stated that there is not a lot of uniformity in <br />18 location and size and their proposed garage would not be the only large garage and did not feel it <br />19 would detract from the character of the neighborhood. He requested clarity on which criteria <br />20 they are violating in the City Code. <br />21 <br />22 Councilmember Stille stated that many of the garages were built pre -Code and there will be <br />23 discrepancies. He expressed concern about the size of this lot and the neighboring lots compared <br />24 to the size of the garage. He indicated it was his understanding that in order to build in the <br />25 setback, the property owner needs to obtain a special permit and the City Council needs to <br />26 consider the impact to neighboring properties. <br />27 <br />28 Motion by Councilmember Gray to table action on Resolution 11 -060; Approval of the Request <br />29 for a Garage Setback Permit and Variance to the 528 SF Maximum Allowed for a Garage <br />30 Setback Permit for 2610 -301" Avenue NE. <br />31 <br />32 Mr. Bergum noted that the existing garage is 60 years old and is located 2.5' from the back fence <br />33 and the area is overgrown with buckthorn. He stated that by moving the garage 5' out they will <br />34 be able to landscape and maintain this area. He did not feel that the new structure would be <br />35 imposing and stated that the garage will have a window, will match the architecture of the house, <br />36 and will be a drastic improvement. <br />37 <br />38 Ms. Traci Bergum, 2610 30'" Avenue NE, appeared before the City Council and stated that they <br />39 have been in their house since 1993 and have done extensive remodeling of the house. She <br />40 indicated that the garage is falling apart and they want to begin construction before the weather <br />41 turns cold, particularly since the concrete cannot be poured when it is cold. She added that they <br />42 are committed to St. Anthony and are trying to do everything right to the best of their ability. <br />43 <br />44 Mr. Bergum stated it appears the Code is being interpreted in different ways and there is a lot of <br />45 confusion around the setback requirements. He added that he thought it was a fairly clear -cut <br />