02-08-12-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Staff prepared draft language which was presented to the Planning Commission at their November 9, 2011, work session. The Planning Commission suggested a few modifications at that meeting, and Staff presented a revised draft to the City Council at their November 28, 2011, work session. At that time, the City Council directed Staff to move forward with formally presenting the revisions to the Planning Commission and holding a public hearing. Discussion 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. 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. 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. Proposed Section 1325.03, Subd 2.D Staff is proposing an amendment to Section 1325.03 of the Zoning Code. The amendment adds Subd 2.13, which addresses the circumstances under which a single or two-family nonconforming dwelling could expand without the need for a variance (Attachment A). With the recent revisions to State Statute regarding variances, and the subsequent amendments to the City's variance procedures, the variance review criteria has become seemingly easier to City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Work Session for February 8, 2012 P:0anning0anning Cases120M2-001-Zoning Code Amendment-Expansion Ordinance(Pending)W-08-12- PC Memo-Expansion Ordinance.doc Page 2 of 3