PCP 05-03-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLAl\TNING COMMISSION - ARIL 5, 2006 6 3, Currently, up to 35 percent of the fayade of the covered porch may be . occupied by columns, spindles, or railings, Solid walls (even partial) are prohibited. Should glass be allowed to be a part of the 35 percent of the fayade that may be covered? If the covered porch is required to be set back farther from the front Jot line with a redeveloped structure, it may be viewed as a penalty to rebuild a dwelling if the porch has to be farther back from the front Jot line than what would have been allowed had the old structure remained. However, it is always a goal to reduce the number of non- confonning structures where feasible, The existing covered porch ordinance does not distinguish between developed, redeveloped, or vacant lots. Currently, any residential lot may have a front porch as close as 30 feet to the front Jot line. The question regarding glass was brought up by the Building Official for clarification. He recommended the Commission approve the zoning ordinance amendment subject to resolving the three discussion points, Commissioner McClung stated he believed this was a much better proposal than what they had looked at in the past and he liked the way it has been crafted. In terms of the three discussion points, he would he in favor of the first two al1d in tenl1S of glass being a . solid surface, he did not want to see glass included in the 35 percent because he did not want three-season porches added to the front of homes, Commissioner Thompson stated she agreed with Commissioner McC]ung and agreed glass would be a difficult thing to manage, In addition, she believed the concept of a porch was supposed to be open air. She stated for tear downs, they were allowed to be rebuilt on the same footprint, but would that included the porch also, Mr. Lehnhoff stated he did not see anything in the Zoning Ordinance where a tear down could be built on the same footprint, however state law did allow rebuilds on the exact same footprint and in his opinion this would include a porch, Commissioner Modesette stated she agreed with the previous comments, She indicated however, if someone wanted to add glass to the bottom portion and it did not exceed 35 percent, she did not have a problem with that. Commissioner Bezdicek stated uniformity was impOltant and he believed the Ordinance should apply to existing structures, as well as future developments, With respcct to the glass, he did not ,vant to see glass on the porches. Acting Chair Larson stated he agreed with item 3 and with respect to items I and 2, he believed a front porch should bc avai]able to everyone and if the main structure is set back 40 feet, they should still be allowed to havc a front porch closer than 40 feet. .