PL PACKET 04212020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 3 Commissioner Rude asked what the reasoning for the fifteen feet total between the two 1 different sides. City Planner Grittman explained it was a code adopted by St. Anthony years 2 ago and is one that is not uncommon in suburban communities. Sometimes it is expressed as 3 being five feet on the garage side and ten feet on the living side but is not consistent 4 throughout, so this allowance is commonly seen. The primary reason for side yard setback is 5 to create spacing between housing on an individual block. 6 7 Commissioner Rude noted on this property the five-foot setback appears to be on the living 8 side of the home while the ten-foot setback is on the garage side. He asked if this was an 9 uncommon thing. City Planner Grittman indicated St. Anthony does not have a requirement 10 for where the five-foot and ten-foot setback is located on a property. 11 12 Commissioner Rude asked what the overhang of the building will be and is this included in 13 the five feet or in addition to it. City Planner Grittman explained the Code allows a foot and a 14 half to two feet, but would have to check exactly, of eve encroachment into the five-foot 15 setback so the actual edge of the roofline can be a little closer than five feet. 16 17 Commissioner Rude asked if granted the proposal would be only for a one stall garage and 18 only one story. City Planner Grittman stated that was correct. 19 20 Commissioner Socha asked if this does not get approved, would the owner plan on building a 21 rear garage or would it not be his intention. 22 23 Mr. Brama stated he has not spoken to the owner about that. One thing that is allowed in the 24 City is that if it is a detached structure it can be built within five feet of a side property, 25 regardless of where the main property sits with no variance needed. In that case, the option 26 would be to tear off the existing one car garage and access a large garage in the back of the 27 property but could also sit within five feet of the property line with no variance requested. 28 The owner felt this was the best way to accomplish this. This garage addition would be a 29 single story and the owner’s signature was turned into the City to Nicole after it was sent out 30 and sent back. 31 32 Commissioner Socha indicated this property is well under the impervious area allowed but she 33 would like to keep the trees and minimize the impervious area. She asked if the applicant 34 knew how much extra would be increased if the garage was turned into a double and also with 35 the accessory building thought about as an alternative, how much impervious area that would 36 take up. Mr. Brama explained the added impervious would be nine by twenty-two and if there 37 would be a garage added in the rear, could be well in excess of five hundred square feet and 38 would take out a couple of trees as well. 39 40 Commissioner Socha asked if an accessory structure were built instead of this addition would 41 the structure be limited to 250 square feet in total size. City Planner Grittman stated it would 42 not, the applicant would be allowed to have a two-car garage size structure, which would be in 43 the neighborhood of five hundred square feet, if the existing attached garage were to be 44 removed. 45 46