Planning commission reviews broad zoning text amendments on encroachments and nonconforming additions

Planning staff presented a comprehensive package of proposed zoning text amendments at the North St. Paul Planning Commission meeting on Aug. 7 that would clarify how the city treats small structures and equipment in required setbacks and would permit limited additions to nonconforming buildings.

Ken Roberts, the staff presenter, described the package as an effort to remove ambiguity from the code. "I worked on them in part based on the work plan earlier this year to clarify some things, especially what type of encroachments or additions should be considered or not considered encroachments into a required setback," Roberts said. He recommended clearer definitions for pergolas and arbors, and new rules on ramps, egress window wells, patios, awnings and permanently installed equipment.

Key technical proposals in the draft include: egress window wells may encroach up to 3 feet into a required setback subject to building-official review; uncovered ramps that provide ADA access would not be treated as encroachments; concrete and paver patios built flush to grade would generally require a 3-foot side/rear setback and may encroach up to 6 feet into a front yard; fixed awnings may project up to 3 feet into setbacks (and up to 6 feet over stoops or landings) while maintaining minimum front/rear setback distances; arbors and trellises under 20 square feet would be allowed in required setbacks, while larger or taller features must meet setback rules; exterior condensers (air-conditioning units) could encroach up to 5 feet into side or rear yards and, with screening, up to 5 feet into a front yard while leaving a minimum 15-foot front setback; and permanent standby generators would be subject to minimum clearances (including a 10-foot clearance from openings) and applicable NFPA and mechanical standards.

Commissioners probed practical scenarios. One commissioner said many pergolas now include movable or retractable roofing and asked whether a retractable roof would render a pergola nonconforming; "If we add the word 'permanent' before 'open,' would that solve that?" the commissioner asked. Commissioners were divided: some favored a clear permanent/temporary distinction to avoid treating retractable features as porches; others preferred looser language to maintain flexibility.

On recreational equipment, staff proposed prohibiting permanent play structures over 4 feet in front yards. Several commissioners said that rule felt heavy-handed for deep or unusual lots and signaled consensus to strike or soften that provision.

Roberts also proposed a new nonconforming-structure provision allowing additions that maintain an existing, nonconforming setback so long as the addition does not encroach farther and leaves at least a 3-foot setback; administrative approval by staff would be allowed where an addition’s footprint does not exceed 50% of the principal structure, with larger additions requiring a conditional-use permit.

Commissioners suggested edits and clarifications throughout the draft—asking staff to cite NFPA 110/1 for generator standards rather than restating technical distances in the zoning chapter, to remove overly prescriptive building-code details (such as footing specifications) that the building code already covers, and to clarify language about drainage, easements and screening. Roberts said he would make the changes and schedule the revised ordinance for a public hearing at the next planning commission meeting.

The discussion produced direction but no ordinance vote. The commission’s next formal step will be the public hearing once staff incorporates the engineer’s and city attorney’s final edits.