PL PACKET 10222018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 27, 2018 Page 4 Commissioner Neumann asked Mr. Spriggs asked if the second part of the house would be used 1 for a business and Mr. Spriggs stated no. He spoke with the neighbors and the neighbors had no 2 problem with the rezoning. 3 4 Commissioner Larson asked if the property was originally an R2 zoning duplex as it was built as 5 a duplex. Mr. Spriggs stated when he purchased the property it was a duplex and Section 8 6 housing. Ms. Perdu stated she does not know what the previous zoning was. Mr. Spriggs stated it 7 was built in 1968. This request is for permanent rezoning and it would stay that way. 8 9 Commissioner Socha stated there are two issues and she suggested a CUP could be done. Ms. 10 Perdu stated her understanding is a duplex is not allowed in R-1 so a Conditional Use Permit 11 could not be done. Commissioner Socha clarified the rezoning needs to be done for the 12 refinancing. 13 14 Chair Papatola closed the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. 15 16 Motion by Commissioner Neumann, seconded by Commissioner Kalar to recommend the City 17 Council approve the resolution approving a Rezoning from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 18 Two-Family Residential at the Property located at 3331 and 3329 Stinson Boulevard. 19 20 Motion carried 5-0. 21 22 C. Consider an Administrative Appeal of Zoning Determination regarding decks from 23 Mary Friend 3331 Edward Street. 24 25 Chair Papatola opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. 26 27 Ms. Perdu reviewed the applicant Mary Friend, has requested to build a deck on the rear of their 28 property, but could not meet the setback. They sought a variance for the deck installation, and 29 the City Council denied the request. After several iterations of trying to come to a conclusion 30 that allowed them to build a larger deck and still meet the code, the Friends have submitted an 31 administrative appeal to the zoning determination that: 32 33 1. A deck is considered a primary structure if connected to the house, and such structure should 34 be subjected to the principal structure setback; and 35 2. That a deck is considered an accessory structure if at least 5 feet away from the home, and 36 therefore subject to accessory structure. 37 38 Ms. Perdu reviewed the applicable codes and statutes. She provided ordinance examples for St. 39 Paul, Burnsville, West St. Paul, North St. Paul and Mahtomedi. 40 41 If the Planning Commission is inclined to make an adjustment or change to the staff’s 42 interpretation related to decks (and NOT subject them to the typical principal structure/accessory 43 structure definitions and setbacks, the following options were offered: 44 45 1. Add a section of code relating to decks and evaluate appropriate setbacks for decks; 46