02-15-00 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning an Ordinance Amendment regarding the City’s 30 percent floor area ratio requirement within the R-1 and R-1A, Residential Zoning Districts. Schiferl asked if the impervious surface issue would affect homes, like those along Silver Lake Road, with driveway turnarounds. Teague answered he did not look at those lots specifically, and did not know if that would be an issue for them or not. Schiferl said he would be more comfortable if Teague were to check on these turnarounds. O’Brien stated that lots on busy roads like Silver Lake Road should probably be an exception to the amendment to facilitate turnarounds. Schiferl said that the lots might be big enough and it will not matter. Baker said the first example in the report would exceed the recommendation. Baker stated that there may be several one-story homes that exceed 25 percent. Zisla said he understood the building coverage is 25 percent of the lot. However, does this amendment consider one-story homes? Baker wondered how three-season porch additions would affect the proposed amendment. Zisla stated that problem would never be encountered by using 30 percent. Why is the Planning Commission talking about 25 percent? Baker stated not creating nonconforming uses was the reason for the amendment. Zisla asked what is the significance of the examples of the ordinances of other cities. Baker said he thought 30 percent may be too much when looking at St. Anthony has up to 35 percent. When driving through St. Anthony, the 35 percent does not seem to be a problem. Teague stated the Commission could recommend that the lot coverage could be changed to 30 percent in the proposed amendment. Baker said he was not in favor of 25 percent because that would mean many existing homes would be nonconforming. Zisla said the 30 percent rationale was developed on the basis that basements did not count. Baker stated that, if the ordinance goes to 30 percent, the impervious percentage will have to be higher. Five percent is not enough for a driveway. Zisla asked what material supports 35 percent for the impervious surface. Teague responded that impervious surface is not a big issue in New Brighton. New Brighton has a driveway width maximum, so a front yard could not be paved. In a sense, the driveway width takes care of the impervious surface requirement. Schiferl asked if there is a requirement that applies to turnarounds. Teague responded that a drive would have a maximum width of 36 feet. Baker asked why the City is considering impervious surface requirements. Teague stated because it is part of the lot coverage requirements. Zisla asked if New Brighton currently has a limit. Could a resident pave over the entire lot? Is there anything in the code relating to impervious surfaces? Teague responded negatively. Schiferl asked if four-car garages be allowed. Teague said the driveway with maximum may discourage that. Baker said two-level garages would be discouraged by an impervious surface limit. Schmitz asked if the City Engineer has had an opportunity to review the item regarding drainage concerns. Teague responded negatively, but that would be a good idea. Schiferl said that input from the City Engineer would be appropriate from a stormwater drainage standpoint. Zisla stated he was not comfortable picking a percentage for impervious surfaces without facts on which to base it. Why impose a regulation if a problem does not exist? Baker stated he would be concerned about not arriving at an impervious surface percentage. However, it would not be a good thing to set so strict a requirement that most of the homes in the City would be nonconforming. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\2000\02-15-00.WPD