11-28-11-WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—NOVEMBER 28, 2011 2 Front Porch Ordinance, which would create circumstances where certain types of development could occur without the need for a variance. City Planner Beekman stated that 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. The City does not allow expansions within existing setbacks of nonconforming houses; therefore, these homes cannot be expanded without a variance. Because these are not unique situations in the City, many of these situations are not clear candidates for variances. Residents can choose to submit a variance application, which takes between 60 and 90 days to process, or may choose to forego the improvement to avoid the variance process all together. City Planner Beekman explained that some cities already have provisions that allow some 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. City Planner Beekman further stated that the Planning Commission discussed this item at their November 9, 2011, work session. Comments made at that meeting have been incorporated into the black-lined version of the ordinance. The Planning Commission recommended that staff bring this item to the Council for discussion, and spoke favorably of the proposed revisions. City Planner Beekman then reviewed aerial photos of some properties in the City that are currently nonconforming to illustrate the types of issues that arise for certain home owners. She also pointed out that this proposed amendment addresses legal nonconforming setback restrictions only. City Planner Beekman stated that staff is seeking direction on how to proceed, whether this revision is necessary, and comment on how the language might be improved. Councilmember Holden questioned if a resident applies for a building permit but a variance is required, is the cost greater than it would be for just the permit. City Planner Beekman responded that the cost would be greater and explained that the fee for a variance is $300.00. Councilmember Holmes stated that the section of the code stating "the roof of the proposed addition is properly proportioned and integrated with the roof of the dwelling" is a little vague and she questioned who would decide if the proposed roof is properly proportioned. City Planner Beekman suggested that the wording be changed to "the roof of the proposed addition is architecturally consistent with the roof of the dwelling."