11-09-11 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – NOVEMBER 9, 2011 6 staff is seeking direction on how to proceed, including feedback on whether the revision is necessary and, if so, comments on how the language might be improved. This revision would pertain to single family homes only. She presented aerial views of some properties in the City that are currently non-conforming in order to illustrate the types of issues that arise for certain homeowners. In all the examples, the structure on the property encroaches on a setback which prohibits expansion of that home without a variance. Most of these incidents occur when the setback requirements have been changed by the City after the home was built which impedes their ability to expand the front of their home but it also impedes their ability to expand the sides of the home because such expansions would encroach on the front yard setback. In addition, they can’t expand up because that would also encroach on the front yard setback. City Planner Beekman stated that staff has prepared draft language that would address the expansion of some nonconforming structures under certain circumstances. This language can be modified and staff would like to know if the Planning Commission feels there are circumstances where these types of expansions should not be done administratively, but through a more formal process. City Planner Beekman explained that with the recent revisions to State Statutes regarding variances and the subsequent amendments to the City’s variance procedures, the variance review criteria has become easier to overcome in most cases. However, the process is time and resource consuming for the City and those requesting exceptions from the Code. Minimizing the need for variances will remove road blocks by making the City process more efficient and less daunting. Commissioners then reviewed and discussed the proposed ordinance - 1325.03 Exceptions to the Minimum Requirements for All Districts. Chair Larson commented that one advantage to adopting this ordinance would be to eliminate the need for variances for such situations. Commissioner Hames stated she believes this ordinance makes perfect sense. City Planner Beekman explained that if the Commissioners have concerns, they could add limits to section D of the ordinance to give them more control. Chair Larson commented that there would still be building code and fire code restrictions to consider and he suggested we may want to include some minimum codes in the ordinance. Commissioner Zimmerman commented that homeowners should be able to rebuild if necessary and maintain the original 30 foot setback. However, there were some homes built with indiscriminate setbacks and those situations would have to be addressed differently. Chair Larson stated the virtue of an ordinance like this is that it gives the City “a line in the sand.” City Planner Beekman stated that the ordinance could set a minimum and those who don’t meet that minimum would have to apply for a variance. Commissioner Hames commented that this ordinance would make it possible for the large percentage of non-conforming structures to be improved without requiring a variance.