PCP 05-03-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - ARIL 5, 2006 5 . Commissioner Bezdicek moved, seconded by Commissioner Thompson to approve Planning Case No, 06-010, Master Plan Amendment and Site Plan Review, Guidant Corporation, 4100 Nortb Hamline Avenue, subject to the ten conditions as noted in staffs March 21, 2006, report and adding condition lIto state: Approval of the proposal to remove access from Lexington Avenue to the Arden Woods office building shall be contingent upon review and approval of Ramsey County, The motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner McClung), C. PLANNING CASE #06-011: WITHDRAWN Mr. Lehnhoff stated the applicant has withdrawn this request and no action is required. D. PLANNING CASE#: 06-012: FRONT PORCH ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Mr. Lehnhoff stated in May 2005, the City adopted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that allowed front porches to encroach into the front yard setback under certain conditions without a variance. One of the conditions was that the front porch could not be any closer than 30 feet to the front lot line, However, in eetiain paJiS of the City (e.g., Chatham neighborhood), many of the homes were built 30 feet or less from the . front lot line, which precludes them from constructing a front porch per the current fi.ont porch ordinance amendment. Although the amendment did increase f1cxibility for many of the dwellings in the City, entire neighborhoods were still unable to construct a front porch. In September 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed an ordinance amendment proposal to allow the construction of a front porch for homes that arc closer than 40 feet to the front lot line in the Chatham Subdivision. Based on a review of thc minutes from that meeting, the Planning Commission was concemed with the proposal because it singled out a specific neighborhood and may not have resolved the issue for most of the dwellings in Arden Hills, Staff was requested to revise the proposed ordinance amendment with the intent of resolving the issue for most of the dwellings in the City instead of an ordinance for a specific neighborhood. He indicated staff has prepared an ordinance amendment that addresses the front porch encroachment issue for virtually all dwellings in the City in a consistent manner. He reviewed the proposed ordinance. He indicated there are three remaining issues that need to be resolved regarding the proposal: L Should lots redeveloped after the adoption of this Ordinance be required to meet the full 40 foot setback, including the front porch? 2, Should lots that wcre vacant before thc adoption of this Ordinance be . required to meet the full 40 foot setback, including the front porch?