Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A, Planning Case 12-001 - Zoning Code Amendment - Expansion of Single and 2-Family Nonconforming Dwellings.� �4R�EN_�HILLS Request for Council Action Prepared By: 1Vleagan Beekman. City Planner Council Meeting Date: February 13, 2012 Planning Case 12-001 - Zoning Code Amendment — Expansion of Single and Two-Family Nonconforming Dwellings Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: NA NA NA Recommendation: Motion to approve Ordinance 2012-001 in Planning Case 12-001 to amend Section 1325.03, Subd 2.D, of the Zoning Code, as presented in the February 13, 2012, report to the City Council. Motion to approve publishing a summary of Ordinance 2012-001. Supporting Documents: l. Memorandum from Meagan Beekman, dated February 13, 2012 2. Draft of February 8, 2012, Planning Commission Minutes 3. Ordinance 2012-001 and Publication Summary � �fi.I D�EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 13, 2012 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner �� SUBJECT: Planning Case #12-001 Applicant: City of Arden Hills Subject: Zoning Code Amendment — Expansion of Single and Two-family Nonconforming Dwellings Requested Action Consider approval of Ordinance 2012-001 in Planning Case 12-001 to amend Section 1325.03 Subd 2.D of the Zoning Code, as presented in the February 13, 2012, report to the City Council. Consider publishing a summary of Ordinance 2012-001. Back�round At the February 22, 2011, joint work session the City Council and the Planning Commission discussed several possible zoning code amendments. One such discussion item was the allowance of certain types of expansions of nonconforming structures. At present, the City Code allows for the repair, replacement, improvement, and maintenance, but not the expansion, of nonconforming uses and structures. While this regulation functions well for the vast majority of commercial uses in the City, it can make small improvements to nonconforming single and two- family homes difficult, because any expansion requires a variance. Applications such as these make up the majority of the variance applications that the City processes. At the February 22, 2011, joint work session, Staff was directed to proceed with revisions to the Zoning Code, similar to the Front Porch Ordinance, which would create circumstances where certain types of development could occur without the need for a variance. City ofArden Hills City Council Meeting for February 13, 2012 P: IAdminlCouncillAgendas & Packet Information12012102-13-12 Reg MtglPacket Information102-13-12 - CC - Expansion Ordinance - Memo.docx Page 1 of 3 Staff prepared draft language which was presented to the Planning Commission at their November 9, 2011, work session. The Planning Commission suggested a few modifications at that meeting, and Staff presented a revised draft to the City Council at their November 28, 2011, work session. At that time, the City Council directed Staff to move forward with formally presenting the revisions to fhe Planning Commission and holding a public hearing. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at their February 8, 2012, regular meeting and held a public hearing. Discussion One of the most common issues that arise when residents call to inquire about home improvements is that their houses are already considered legally nonconforming; they were constructed during a time when setbacks were not as great as they are now, and any expansion of the house is not allowed without a variance. For example, many homes constructed prior to 1970 or so, which include nearly all of the homes in the southwest corner of the City, were constructed with 30-foot front yard setbacks; however, the City Code now requires a 40-foot front yard setback. Similarly, homes constructed with five-foot side yard setbacks in the R-1 District now have a ten-foot minimum setback. The City does not allow expansions within existing setbacks of nonconforming houses; therefore, these homes cannot be expanded without a variance. Because these are not unique situations in the City, many of these situations are not clear candidates for variances. Residents can choose to submit a variance application, which takes between 60 and 90 days to process, or may choose to forego the improvement to avoid the variance process all together. Some cities already have provisions that allow some flexibility through an administrative review. For example, Roseville, New Brighton, Minnetonka, and Burnsville all allow additions to nonconforming structures up to their existing setbacks under certain circumstances. No amount of zoning text amendments will eliminate the need for variances altogether, or change the fact that some people will want to make improvements to their home that are not in keeping with the character of the community and therefore, should not be allowed. On the other hand, allowing people to reasonably improve their homes and maintain value is an important aspect of maintaining a community's housing stock. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for February 13, 2012 P: IAdminlCouncillAgendas & Paeket Information12012102-13-12 Reg MtglPackei Information102-13-12 - CC - Expansion Ordinance - Memo.docx Page 2 of 3 Proposed Section 1325.03, Subd 2.D Staff is proposing an amendment to Section 1325.03 of the Zoning Code. The amendment adds Subd 2.D; which addresses the circumstances under which a single or two-family nonconforming dwelling could expand without the need for a variance (Attachment B). With the recent revisions to State Statute regarding variances, and the subsequent amendments to the City's variance procedures, the variance review criteria has become seemingly easier to overcome in most instances. While this may make the variance process more accessible to some residents, the process remains time and resource consuming for both the City, and those seeking exceptions from the Code. Minimizing the need for variances will remove road blocks to some home improvement projects, by making the City process more efficient and less daunting. Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed this application and held a public hearing at their February 9, 2012, meeting (Attachment A). The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval (5-0) of the proposed changes. Requested Action Motion to approve of Ordinance 2012-001 in Planning Case 12-001 to amend Section 1325.03 Subd 2.D of the Zoning Code, as presented in the February 13, 2012, report to the City Council. Motion to approve publishing a suininary of Ordinance 2012-001. Attachments A. Draft February 8, 2012, Planning Commission Minutes B. Ordinance 2012-001 and Publication Summary City ofArden Hills City Council Meeting for February 13, 2012 P: IAdminlCauncillAgendas & Packet Information12012102-13-12 Reg MtglPacket Information102-13-12 - CC - Expansion Ordinance - Memo.docx Page 3 of 3 Attachment Draft February 8, 2012, Planning Commission Minutes � EN HILLS February 13, 2012, City Council Meeting Draft February 8, 2012, Planning Commission Minutes A. Planning Case 12-001 — Zoning Code Amendment; City of Arden Hills; Expansion of Nonconforming Single-family Properties — Public Hearing City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed that at the February 22, 2011, joint work session with the City Council and the Planning Commission, a discussion was held regarding several possible zoning code amendments. One such discussion item was the allowance of certain types of expansions of nonconforming structures. At present, the City Code allows for the repair, replacement, improvement and maintenance, but not the expansion, of nonconforming uses and structures. While this regulation functions well for the vast majority of commercial uses in the City, it can make small improvements to nonconforming single and two-family homes difficult because any expansion requires a variance. Applications such as these make up the majority of the variance applications that the City processes. She provided an aerial view of a typical property as an example. She demonstrated where additions could be made to the two sample properties. City Planner Meagan Beekman showed an example where a house encroached on all setbacks. Chair Larson asked if whether that house wasn't too close to the lake and questioned if the DNR would need to approve. Ms. Beekman stated the DNR code does not supersede the Cities. City Planner Meagan Beekman continued at the same work session, Staff was directed to proceed with revisions to the Zoning Code, similar to the Front Porch Ordinance, which would create circumstances where certain types of development could occur without the need for a variance. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated Staff prepared draft language which was presented to the Planning Commission at their November 9, 2011, work session. The Planning Commission suggested a few modifications at that meeting, and Staff presented a revised draft to the City Council at their November 28, 2011, work session. At that time, the City Council directed Staff to move forward with formally presenting the revisions to the Planning Commission and holding a public hearing. City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed the discussion stating one of the most common issues that arise when residents call to inquire about home improvements is that their houses are already considered legally nonconforming; they were constructed during a time when setbacks were not as great as they are now, and any expansion of the house is not allowed without a variance. For example, many homes constructed prior to 1970 or so, which include nearly all of the homes in the southwest corner of the City, were constructed with 30=foot fronf yard setbacks; however, the City Code now requires a 40- foot front yard sefback. Similarly, homes constructed with five-foot side yard setbacks in the R-1 District now have a ten-foot minimum setback. The City does not allow expansions within existing setbacks of nonconforming houses; therefore, these homes cannot be expanded without a variance. Because these are not unique situations in the City, many of these situations are not clear candidates for variances. Residents can choose to submit a variance application, which takes between 60 and 90 days to process, or may choose to forego the improvement to avoid the variance process all together. City Planner Meagan Beekman noted some cities already have provisions that allow some flexibility through an administrative review. For example, Roseville, New Brighton, Minnetonka, and Burnsville all allow additions to nonconforming structures up to their existing setbacks under certain circumstances. City Planner Meagan Beekman summarized no amount of zoning text amendments will eliminate the need for variances altogether, or change the fact that some people will want to make improvements to their homes that are not in keeping with the character of the community and therefore, should not be allowed. On the other hand, allowing people to reasonably improve their homes and maintain value is an important aspect of maintaining a community's housing stock. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Stodola asked if item 4 would allow for a second story. City Planner Beekman stated it would have to match the current house. Any addition would need to be in the same style oF the house. Commissioner Stodola stated one of the concerns she has is that a small home would be replaced with a multi-story house. City Planner Beekman stated they could construct upward as long as it followed the Code and square footage of home based on lot size. Commissioner Stodola stated she is in favor of the revisions to the Code. Chair Larson asked -how much of the original structure would need to remain when making an addition. He asked if it could be town down to the foundation and then rebuilt upward. City Planner Beekman stated that could happen. She noted this could be currently done under the Code. City Planner Beekman reviewed an example from the past where a house destroyed by fire was being replaced and turned out to be very complicated. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated Staff is proposing an amendment to Section 1325.03 of the Zoning Code. The amendment adds Subd 2.D, which addresses the circumstances under which a single or two-family nonconforming dwelling could expand without the need for a variance (Attachment A). City Planner Meagan Beekman stated with the recent revisions to State Sta.tute regarding variances, and the subsequent amendments to the City's variance procedures, the variance review criteria has become seemingly easier to overcome in most instances. __ _ _ While this may make the variance process more accessible to some residents, the process remains time and resource consuming for both the City, and those seeking exceptions from the Code. Minimizing the need for variances will remove road blocks to some home improvement projects, by making the City process more efficient and les daunting. Chair Larson opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. Chair Larson closed the public hearing at 6:48 p.m. Commissioner Thompson asked if there would be any concerns with neighbors encroaching in the setbacks and asked how that would be managed. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated she has not received any resident comments about this revision. She noted the Building Code does contain wording about distance between buildings and drainage easements. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated Staff recommends approval of Planning Case 12- 001 to Amend Section 1325.03 Subd. 2D of the Zoning Code to allow for the expansion of single and two-family nonconforming dwellings under certain circumstances, as presented in the February 8, 2012, report to the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this item it will go to the City Council at their February 13, 2012, meeting. If approved, the ordinance would go into effect the day following official publication on February 23, 2012. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Hames seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 12-001 to Amend Section 1325.03 Subd 2.D of the Zonin� Code to allow for the expansion of single and two-family nonconformin� dwellin�s under certain circumstances, as uresented in the February 8, 2012 report to the Plannin� Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Attachment Ordinance 2012-001 and Publication Summary � EN HILLS F'ebruary 13, 2012, City Council Meeting Ordinance 2012-001 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ORDINANCE 2012-001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1325.03 SUBD 2.D OF THE ZONING CODE The Arden Hills City Council hereby ordains that Chapter 13, Section 1325.03 Subd. 2.D of the City Code shall hereby be amended, and all subsequent Sections of the Code renumbered as follows: D. Single and Two-Family Nonconforming Dwellings. For already developed lots on which a principal structure exists, but is nonconforming for reasons of setbacks or lot dimension, the principal structure may be expanded provided that all of the following provisions are met: 1. The proposed addition extends no closer to a property line than the pre-existing nonconforming structure; 2. If the addition expands the footprint of the structure, then the proposed addition extends no closer than thirty (30) feet from the front property line or five feet from a side property line; 3. The exterior materials of the proposed addition are consistent or complementary in color, texture and quality with those visible on the existing structure; 4. The roof of the proposed addition is integrated into, and consistent with, the existing roof of the structure; 5. The addition does not adversely affect drainage on the lot or neighboring properties; 6. The addition does not extend within a drainage and utility easement, and meets all requirements of the Building and Fire Code; . _ ---_ _ _ _ _ _ 7. The addition does not expand the noncoriforming height of a structure; 8. The addition does not further increase nonconforming 1ot coverage; 9. The addition does not create any new nonconforming conditions. Page 1 of 2 _ Ordinance 2012-001 Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective the day following its publication. Adoption Date. Passed by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills the 13th Day of February, 2012 DAVID GRANT, MAYOR ATTEST: PATRICK KLAERS CITY ADMINISTRATOR Publication Date: February 22, 2012 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 2012-001 On the 13th day of February, 2012, fhe Arden Hills City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2012-001, and by at least four/fifths affirmative votes pursuant to Minn. Stat. §412.191, Subd. 4, directed that a sunlinary of Ordinance 2012-001 be published. Amendments to Chapter 13, Sections 1325.03 Subd. 2.D of the City Code are collectively known as Ordinance 2012-001 entitled `Bxpansion on Nonconforming Single and Two-Family Dwellings Ordinance" The purpose of the amendments is to allow the expansion of nonconforming single and two-family dwellings within the existing setbacks of the structures under certain circumstances. The amended regulations will go into efFect on February 24, 2012. A full copy of Ordinance 2012-001 is available for inspection by any person during regular business fiours at the office of the City Administrator, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112.