2B, Variance Update and Possible Zoning Code Amendment Discussion

Home Browse Search

......... .... .. ........ requests that are more common than others are. It is possible for the City to adopt changes to the Zoning Code, similar to the Front Porch Ordinance, which would create circumstances where - certain types of development could occur without the need for a variance. In the past, some communities would use the variance process as a way for cities to take a more hands on approach in the review and approval of projects. Based on the purpose of a variance, as defined in state law and interpreted by the courts, using the process as a tool to review projects on a case-by-case basis as to whether the project is reasonable is no longer an appropriate use of that tool. Variances are designed to be used sparingly and only in those situations where a property cannot be put to a reasonable use if it were forced to be developed in accordance with the existing ordinances of the city. No amount of zoning text amendments will eliminate the need for variances altogether, or change the fact that some people will want to make improvements to their home that are not in keeping with the character of the community and therefore, should not be allowed. On the other hand, allowing people to reasonably improve their homes and maintain value is an important aspect of maintaining a community's housing stock. Staff is seeking direction on whether to proceed with researching and drafting possible zoning code amendments that would allow certain kinds of property reinvestment that are not currently allowed without a variance. In Arden Hills, one of the most common issues that arise when residents call to inquire about home improvements is that their houses are already considered legally nonconforming; they were constructed during a time when setbacks were not as great as they are now, and any expansion of the house is not allowed without a variance. For example, many homes constructed prior to 1970 or so, which include nearly all of the homes in the southwest corner of the City, were constructed with 30-foot front yard setbacks; however, the City Code now requires a 40-foot front yard setback. Similarly, homes constructed with five- foot side yard setbacks in the R-1 District now have a ten-foot minimum setback. Because the City does not allow expansions within existing setbacks of nonconforming houses, these homes cannot be expanded without a variance. Because these are not unique situations in the City, and the lots technically already are being reasonably used, these situations are not candidates for variances. Some cities already have provisions that allow this type of flexibility through an administrative review. For example, Roseville, New Brighton, Minnetonka, and Burnsville all allow additions to nonconforming structures up to their existing setbacks under certain circumstances. Other possible opportunities for Zoning Code changes may involve allowing detached garages in the front yards of lakeshore lots, reduced side yard setback on corner lots, or reduced setbacks for accessory structures in R-2 and R-3 districts. Discussion City of Arden Hills City Council and Planning Commission Joint Work Session for February 22, 2011 IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillsWdminlCouncilUgendas&Packet lnformationl201112-22-11 WorksessionlPacket lnformation102-22-11 PCand CC Joint Work Session-Variance Discussion.doe Page 5 of 6