Laserfiche WebLink
AGENDA ITEM — 3B <br />,-ARZEN HILLS <br />MEMORANDUM <br />DATE: April 17, 2023 <br />TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers <br />Dave Perrault, City Administrator <br />FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Community Development Director <br />SUBJECT: Ordinance Review for Home Improvement Discussion <br />Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: <br />N/A N/A N/A <br />Council Should Consider <br />Council should discuss and provide direction on the review of existing ordinances. <br />Background <br />At the February 2 1 " Work Session meeting, the City Council held a preliminary discussion on if, <br />or how, City ordinances may be restrictive to residents wanting to remodel or add -on to their <br />home. It was noted that in most remodel/additions, the main hinderance would be setback <br />requirements when adding -on as interior projects do not generally conflict with City Code. In <br />some cases, residents may also be running into issues as they relate to the State Building Code, <br />and be confusing these with City Ordinances. As corner lots were also mentioned, the most <br />common question for staff pertains to front yard setbacks. The zoning code previously allowed <br />one of the road frontages on a corner lot to be a side yard thereby reducing the setback to 20 feet. <br />Today, the city code requires that corner lots be subject to the minimum front yard setback of 40 <br />feet on both road frontages. At that meeting, city staff was directed to survey neighboring cities <br />to compare Arden Hills' residential setback requirements. The results of that survey are included <br />with this memo as Attachment A. Council may note that Arden Hills does generally have more <br />restrictive setbacks when compared to immediately adjacent cities. <br />Additionally, city staff was asked to assemble a list of previously identified code amendments to <br />allow for further Council discussion to occur on the prioritization of amendment reviews. <br />Within this list, some of the amendments were tasked to proceed directly to the Planning <br />Commission for the first review. While others will need to be brought back to the City Council <br />Page 1 of 2 <br />