02-08-12 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 8, 2012 3 City Planner Meagan Beekman noted 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 Meagan Beekman summarized 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 homes 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. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Stodola asked if item 4 would allow for a second story. City Planner Beekman stated it would have to match the current house. Any addition would need to be in the same style of the house. Commissioner Stodola stated one of the concerns she has is that a small home would be replaced with a multi-story house. City Planner Beekman stated they could construct upward as long as it followed the Code and square footage of home based on lot size. Commissioner Stodola stated she is in favor of the revisions to the Code. Chair Larson asked how much of the original structure would need to remain when making an addition. He asked if it could be town down to the foundation and then rebuilt upward. City Planner Beekman stated that could happen. She noted this could be currently done under the Code. City Planner Beekman reviewed an example from the past where a house destroyed by fire was being replaced and turned out to be very complicated. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated Staff is proposing an amendment to Section 1325.03 of the Zoning Code. The amendment adds Subd 2.D, which addresses the circumstances under which a single or two-family nonconforming dwelling could expand without the need for a variance (Attachment A). City Planner Meagan Beekman stated 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 exceptions from the Code. Minimizing the need for variances will remove road blocks to some home improvement projects, by making the City process more efficient and les daunting. Chair Larson opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. Chair Larson closed the public hearing at 6:48 p.m.