09-21-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OP Motion by Baker, seconded Schiferl, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE CTOBER LANNING C. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. OMMISSION MEETING Minor Subdivision Beverly Foster Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a request to divide an existing parcel located at 2679 15th Street NW into two parcels. Schiferl asked whether one or two new homes would be constructed. Teague responded one new home would be constructed. Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue. PH. Motion by Livingston, seconded by O’Brien, 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion TO CLOSE THE UBLIC EARING Carried. PL-255, Motion by Livingston, seconded by O’Brien, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SUBJECT TO . 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. CONDITIONS Front Yard Setback Variance Keith and Kristine Tussing Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a request for a front yard setback variance to construct a front entry way at 2046 Mississippi Circle. Baker asked if the applicant wished to talk about his request. Keith Tussing directed attention to the picture of the present home and a sketch of the proposed addition. Tussing described the current floor plan and the proposed floor plan. Tussing also explained the new entry would solve heating and heat loss problems. Tussing submitted a petition signed by the neighbors supporting the Tussings’ proposal. Tussing stated that precedents have been set that would allow for this addition. Tussing stated such variance requests will increase as the City’s housing stock ages. Tussing thanked Teague and the Commission for their consideration. Baker stated that, at first glance, a 1.13 foot variance seems insignificant. Regarding setting a precedent, hundreds of homes in New Brighton have the same type of setback. Any homeowner who wants to add to their entry would require a variance. Baker stated he sympathized with the homeowner’s point of view, but he leaned more toward staff’s recommendation for denial. Schiferl stated that he completely agreed with staff’s opinion. Mr. Tussing’s presentation brought up several issues. Clearly, the City should reconsider the 30-foot setback. Would a 25-foot setback be as acceptable as the 30-foot setback? Updating the housing stock in New Brighton is very important. Schiferl stated he would deny the Tussings’ variance request, but would ask the City Council to direct the Planning Commission to reconsider setbacks. Zisla said he could not see any reason from the public’s point of view why a 30-foot setback is the correct number. The precedent goes both ways. Zisla said he would not be concerned with setting a precedent if it reflects a good policy decision. Many homes like the Tussings were built in New Brighton, which suggests that something is wrong with the setback requirement. The Planning Commission has always supported residents’ efforts to upgrade their property. Baker said that his home was near in the Tussings and was built further back than the front yard setback. Public testimony at many public hearings would support adhering to the setback requirement. Schiferl stated that becomes a philosophical argument. There is a fine line between some degree of consistency and the broader issue of allowing residents to update their homes. Zisla said he agreed with Schiferl that the setback I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\09-21-99.WPD 3