Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> , <br /> e <br /> ~ <br /> ~HILLS <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> DATE: January 5,2005 PC Agenda Item S.D <br /> TO: Planning Commission <br /> FROM: Peter Hellegers, City Planner @) <br /> SUBJECT: Discussion on Front Porches ~ Design Standards and Setback Exceptions <br /> Background <br /> e Staff has received several telephone calls from residents inquiring about adding porches <br /> onto their homes. Currently, porches would be permitted if they either met the front <br /> setback or did not extend beyond 3 feet into the front, side or rear setback (in no case can <br /> the setback be less than 6 feet to these encroachments). This setback exception currently <br /> applies to structural items like: eaves, cantilevered areas, cornices, canopies, awnings, <br /> decks, balconies, steps, ramps, fire escapes and chimneys. Not only does this exception <br /> not allow much space for porches, on homes that currently meet the front setback, it <br /> barely provides enough space for people approaching a front door (without having to <br /> back down the steps). <br /> Recognizing that front porches can offer a welcoming presence for homes and better curb <br /> appeal, the City of Richfield created a mechanism within their codes to allow porches to <br /> be counted as setback exceptions (similar to the ones discussed above), but required staff <br /> review and established specific design criteria. <br /> Attached is a copy of some material from Richfield regarding front porches. Staff has <br /> also included what the language may look like if the Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance were <br /> amended to include such language. <br /> Discussion Ouestions <br /> . Should the City pursue amending the Zoning Ordinance to include setback <br /> exceptions for front porches? <br /> . Should the existing language be maintained and porches allowed only if the meet <br /> e the current regulations? I <br /> I <br />