CCP 04-24-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - ARIL 5, 2006 5 ..r 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 certain parts of the City (e.g., Chatham neighborhood), many of the homes were built 30 feet or less from the front lot line, which precludes thcm from constructing a front porch per the current front porch ordinance amendment. Although the amendment did increase flexibility 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 are closer than 40 feet to the front lot line in the Chatham Subdivision. Based on a review of the minutes from that meeting, the Planning Commission was concerned with the proposal bccause it singled out a specific neighborhood and may not havc resolved the issue for most of the dwellings in Arden Hills. Staff was requestcd to revise the proposed ordinance amendment with the intent of resolving thc 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 nccd to be resolved regarding the proposal: I. 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 were vacant before the adoption of this Ordinance be required to meet the full 40 foot setback, including the front porch? 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) arc prohibited. Should glass be allowed to be a part of the 35 percent of the fayade that may be covered? If the covercd porch is required to be set back farther from the front lot line with a redeveloped structure, it may be viewed as a penalty to rebuild a dwelling ifthe porch has to be farther back from the front lot line than what would have been allowed had the old structure remained. However, it is always a goal to reduce the number of non- conforming structures where feasible.