11-09-11-WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

d 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. Discussion Staff has included aerial views of some properties in the City that are currently nonconforming in order to illustrate the types of issues that arise for certain home owners. In all the attached examples the structure on the property encroaches on a setback, which would prohibit the expansion of that home without a variance. The purpose of the aerials is to facilitate discussion on this topic. Staff has also prepared draft language that would address the expansion of some nonconforming structures under certain circumstances (Attached). This language can certainly be modified, and Staff would be interested in knowing if the Planning Commission feels that there are certain circumstances where these types of expansions should not be done administratively, but through a more formal City process. Furthermore, Staff is seeking direction on other provisions the Planning Commission would like to see within this amendment, if any. 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 overcome in most instances. While this may make the variance process more accessible to some residents, the process remains time and resource consuming for both the City, and those seeking City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Work Session for November 9, 2011 P:IPlanninglPlanning Casesl2011111-022-Zoning Code Amendment-Expansion Ordinance(Pending)111-09-11 PC Work Session-Exppnsion Ordinance.doc Page 2 of 3