02-08-12 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 8, 2012 2 Commissioner Thompson moved, seconded by Commissioner Stodola, to approve the November 9, 2011, Planning Commission Work Session as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 12-001 – Zoning Code Amendment; City of Arden Hills; Expansion of Nonconforming Single-family Properties – Public Hearing City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed that at the February 22, 2011, joint work session with the City Council and the Planning Commission, a discussion was held regarding several possible zoning code amendments. One such discussion item was the allowance of certain types of expansions of nonconforming structures. At present, the City Code allows for the repair, replacement, improvement and maintenance, but not the expansion, of nonconforming uses and structures. While this regulation functions well for the vast majority of commercial uses in the City, it can make small improvements to nonconforming single and two-family homes difficult because any expansion requires a variance. Applications such as these make up the majority of the variance applications that the City processes. She provided an aerial view of a typical property as an example. She demonstrated where additions could be made to the two sample properties. City Planner Meagan Beekman showed an example where a house encroached on all setbacks. Chair Larson asked if whether that house wasn’t too close to the lake and questioned if the DNR would need to approve. Ms. Beekman stated the DNR code does not supersede the Cities. City Planner Meagan Beekman continued at the same work session, Staff was directed to proceed with revisions 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. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated 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. City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed the discussion stating 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.