Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />MAY 9, 2005 <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />7. <br /> <br />UNFINISHED BUSINESS <br /> <br />A. Planninl! Case #05-07: Covered Front Porch Ordinance <br /> <br />Mr. Hellegers requested that the Council consider Ordinance #357 which amended section <br />6.C.2.a of the Zoning Ordinance and insert new section 6.C.2.d into the Zoning Ordinance, <br />allowing for front porches for up to ten feet and with a minimum setback of 30 feet from the <br />front or side-yard comer property lines, which meet design standards to be allowed subject to <br />staff review and approval. He also requested Council consider Resolution #05-29 which added <br />the front porch language and Front Porch Design Guidelines to Appendix A of Zoning Ordinance <br />#291. He noted the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Zoning <br />Ordinance Amendments as was proposed at that time. <br /> <br />Mr. Hellegers indicated at the April 25, 2005 City Council Work Session, the Council directed <br />staffto review language to the base of the porch as a solid masonry perimeter and instead to <br />return to the Council with language which allowed for more flexibility for the porch base. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden noted there were a lot of covered porches with lattice work and they <br />looked nice and she believed this was a good compromise. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated the solution to the foundation was a good one, but after giving <br />this more thought, he would be voting against this because he believed an open porch was <br />preferable in the front yards. He indicated he believed open porches were less obtrusive and they <br />did not have the structure or mass of a porch that was completely screened in. He stated it was <br />important for the City to maintain consistency in the neighborhoods and the front yard setbacks. <br />He indicated he could support an open porch, but not screened in porches. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem stated she did not understand why anyone would build a structure in <br />Minnesota that was not screened. She did not want to see the screened portion removed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant noted it was up to the person building the porch if they wanted it <br />screened in or not. He stated he did not want to take the option of a screened-in porch out of this <br />and believed people should have the option of having a screened-in porch ifit made it livable and <br />useful. He indicated he was in favor of leaving the screened porches in. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson noted he was not saying people could not have screened in porches, but <br />if they wanted a variance for their front yard, he did not believe they should have a screened-in <br />porch, but screened-in porches could be allowed anywhere else on the property. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MOTION: Mayor Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a <br />motion to adopt Ordinance #357 which amends section 6.C.2.a of <br />the Zoning Ordinance and insert new section 6.C.2.d into the <br />Zoning Ordinance, allowing for front porches of up to ten feet and <br />with a minimum setback of 30 feet from the front or side-yard <br />comer property lines, which meet design standards to be allowed <br />