CC PACKET 05282019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilmember Jenson asked about the setback of the current cement area. Vice Chair 1 Westrick stated it is ten feet. Councilmember Jenson asked if the recommendation is to make the 2 current cement area smaller in size. Vice Chair Westrick answered in the affirmative. 3 4 Mr. Tom and Mrs. Lindsay Wernimont, 2609 Pahl Avenue, applicants, appeared before the 5 Council. Mrs. Wernimont explained this is a messy situation so they want to explain what was 6 covered with the Planning Commission. She stated they have worked extensively with staff to 7 amend errors from the contractor and the pictures referenced shows what is currently there. She 8 explained the contractors poured the concrete without a site plan so that will be torn up at the 9 contractor’s expense. Mrs. Wernimont stated the proposed site plan on display was shared with 10 the Planning Commission to remove a section of the landing area, and for the sidewalk to be a 11 maximum of 5 feet in width so it is considered a sidewalk and not a patio, as recommended by 12 staff and the Planning Commission. Mrs. Wernimont thanked the City for reviewal of this 13 complicated project, as it is a bit of a moving target. She highlighted this request is asking for 14 two variances, the front yard setback and lot coverage. The side yard setback is no longer being 15 requested as it will meet the 5 foot distance. 16 17 Mrs. Wernimont stated they are requesting a front yard setback variance of 2 feet and a 1.6% lot 18 coverage variance to allow for a walkway from their front yard to the back yard, replacing what 19 they had before the remodel. She referenced a timeline of other variances given in St. Anthony 20 for lot coverage and size of their lot in comparison. She noted their lot barely exceeds that at 21 3%. She felt their lot could be compared with other lots on their block with 60 feet in width and 22 house widths maxed at 45 feet. 23 24 Mrs. Wernimont suggested their lot is unique as it is slightly longer with non-parallel lot lines 25 that pushes their lot over the 9,000 square foot threshold. Their lot is even more unique in that it 26 is longer and takes more sidewalk (impervious surface) to get from the gate to the back yard. 27 She commented on the effect of ordinances on their property value and in granting relief. Mrs. 28 Wernimont explained they can put a value on use of lot coverage based on the updated value of 29 their property taxes. They believed the 15-foot home addition is in keeping with the façade and 30 character of the neighborhood, noting a 15% increase to their lot coverage resulted in a $129,000 31 improvement value on their property taxes. She suggested that allowing 10% more in lot 32 coverage equates to about $86,000 in property value that they are not allowed to have. 33 34 Mrs. Wernimont stated the Planning Commission denied the request for additional lot coverage, 35 even though it was initially supported by City staff, because the Planning Commission did not 36 want to establish an adverse precedence. But she feels that by never allowing an adverse 37 precedence, the reverse intent is encouraged as it discourages neighborhood investment that 38 conflicts with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 39 40 Mrs. Wernimont stated it will be difficult if they lose the sidewalk because they have two 41 children with strollers to get to the back yard. She suggested if a precedence is set, it could be 42 good because it addresses the irrationality of the Code and in the future, new exceptions could 43 apply to only lots over 9,000 square feet with similar circumstances. She stated they understand 44 there are strong feelings from their neighbor to the east but none of their concerns are in direct 45 7