Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br />May 14, 2019 <br />Page 3 <br />1 Councilmember Jenson asked about the setback of the current cement area. Vice Chair <br />2 Westrick stated it is ten feet. Councilmember Jenson asked if the recommendation is to make the <br />3 current cement area smaller in size. Vice Chair Westrick answered in the affirmative. <br />4 <br />5 Mr. Tom and Mrs. Lindsay Wernimont, 2609 Pahl Avenue, applicants, appeared before the <br />6 Council. Mrs. Wernimont explained this is a messy situation so they want to explain what was <br />7 covered with the Planning Commission. She stated they have worked extensively with staff to <br />8 amend errors from the contractor and the pictures referenced shows what is currently there. She <br />9 explained the contractors poured the concrete without a site plan so that will be torn up at the <br />10 contractor's expense. Mrs. Wernimont stated the proposed site plan on display was shared with <br />11 the Planning Commission to remove a section of the landing area, and for the sidewalk to be a <br />12 maximum of 5 feet in width so it is considered a sidewalk and not a patio, as recommended by <br />13 staff and the Planning Commission. Mrs. Wernimont thanked the City for reviewal of this <br />14 complicated project, as it is a bit of a moving target. She highlighted this request is asking for <br />15 two variances, the front yard setback and lot coverage. The side yard setback is no longer being <br />16 requested as it will meet the 5 foot distance. <br />17 <br />18 Mrs. Wernimont stated they are requesting a front yard setback variance of 2 feet and a 1.6% lot <br />19 coverage variance to allow for a walkway from their front yard to the back yard, replacing what <br />20 they had before the remodel. She referenced a timeline of other variances given in St. Anthony <br />21 for lot coverage and size of their lot in comparison. She noted their lot barely exceeds that at <br />22 3%. She felt their lot could be compared with other lots on their block with 60 feet in width and <br />23 house widths maxed at 45 feet. <br />24 <br />25 Mrs. Wernimont suggested their lot is unique as it is slightly longer with non -parallel lot lines <br />26 that pushes their lot over the 9,000 square foot threshold. Their lot is even more unique in that it <br />27 is longer and takes more sidewalk (impervious surface) to get from the gate to the back yard. <br />28 She commented on the effect of ordinances on their property value and in granting relief. Mrs. <br />29 Wernimont explained they can put a value on use of lot coverage based on the updated value of <br />30 their property taxes. They believed the 15-foot home addition is in keeping with the facade and <br />31 character of the neighborhood, noting a 15% increase to their lot coverage resulted in a $129,000 <br />32 improvement value on their property taxes. She suggested that allowing 10% more in lot <br />33 coverage equates to about $86,000 in property value that they are not allowed to have. <br />34 <br />35 Mrs. Wernimont stated the Planning Commission denied the request for additional lot coverage, <br />36 even though it was initially supported by City staff, because the Planning Commission did not <br />37 want to establish an adverse precedence. But she feels that by never allowing an adverse <br />38 precedence, the reverse intent is encouraged as it discourages neighborhood investment that <br />39 conflicts with the City's Comprehensive Plan. <br />40 <br />41 Mrs. Wernimont stated it will be difficult if they lose the sidewalk because they have two <br />42 children with strollers to get to the back yard. She suggested if a precedence is set, it could be <br />43 good because it addresses the irrationality of the Code and in the future, new exceptions could <br />44 apply to only lots over 9,000 square feet with similar circumstances. She stated they understand <br />45 there are strong feelings from their neighbor to the east but none of their concerns are in direct <br />