My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 04-24-2006
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
CCP 04-24-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:21:29 PM
Creation date
11/15/2006 10:09:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
173
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - ARIL 5, 2006 <br /> <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />..r <br /> <br />D. <br /> <br />PLANNING CASE: 06-012 - FRONT PORCH ZONING ORDINANCE <br />AMENDMENT. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS <br /> <br />Mr. Lehnhoff stated in May 2005, the City adopted an amendment to the Zoning <br />Ordinance that allowed front porches to encroach into the front yard setback under <br />certain conditions without a variance. One of the conditions was that the front porch <br />could not be any closer than 30 feet to the front lot line. However, in certain parts of the <br />City (e.g., Chatham neighborhood), many of the homes were built 30 feet or less from the <br />front lot line, which precludes thcm from constructing a front porch per the current front <br />porch ordinance amendment. Although the amendment did increase flexibility for many <br />of the dwellings in the City, entire neighborhoods were still unable to construct a front <br />porch. <br /> <br />In September 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed an ordinance amendment <br />proposal to allow the construction of a front porch for homes that are closer than 40 feet <br />to the front lot line in the Chatham Subdivision. Based on a review of the minutes from <br />that meeting, the Planning Commission was concerned with the proposal bccause it <br />singled out a specific neighborhood and may not havc resolved the issue for most of the <br />dwellings in Arden Hills. Staff was requestcd to revise the proposed ordinance <br />amendment with the intent of resolving thc issue for most of the dwellings in the City <br />instead of an ordinance for a specific neighborhood. <br /> <br />He indicated staff has prepared an ordinance amendment that addresses the front porch <br />encroachment issue for virtually all dwellings in the City in a consistent manner. He <br />reviewed the proposed ordinance. <br /> <br />He indicated there are three remaining issues that nccd to be resolved regarding the <br />proposal: <br />I. Should lots redeveloped after the adoption of this Ordinance be required to <br />meet the full 40 foot setback, including the front porch? <br />2. Should lots that were vacant before the adoption of this Ordinance be <br />required to meet the full 40 foot setback, including the front porch? <br />3. Currently, up to 35 percent of the fayade of the covered porch may be <br />occupied by columns, spindles, or railings. Solid walls (even partial) arc <br />prohibited. Should glass be allowed to be a part of the 35 percent of the <br />fayade that may be covered? <br /> <br />If the covercd porch is required to be set back farther from the front lot line with a <br />redeveloped structure, it may be viewed as a penalty to rebuild a dwelling ifthe porch has <br />to be farther back from the front lot line than what would have been allowed had the old <br />structure remained. However, it is always a goal to reduce the number of non- <br />conforming structures where feasible. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.