| 3/1/2010 4:51:00 PM | Email this article • Print this article | SSP considers relaxing front-yard feature restrictions
Aesthetic efforts hampered by current setback limits
Danielle Cabot
Review Staff
South St. Paul is considering ordinance changes that would make improvements to the front of homes and commercial properties easier.
Many homes in the city were built right up to the required street setback distance, according to city planner Peter Hellegers, leaving no room for future enhancements like front porches or covered stoops.
To secure a variance through the city, property owners must first prove that enforcement of the code poses an "undue hardship," often a tricky and futile proposition, or, the council must decide to look the other way.
According to city ordinances, a hardship must be unique to the property, not the owner, and prevent "reasonable use" of the property. Economic hardship alone is not argument enough under the code, and neither is aesthetic value.
Resident Tim Turgeon set out for a total remodel of his property on the 200 block of 15th Avenue North in 2007 to drastically improve its presentation. The home, built in the 1950s, was built right up against the required setback from the street, just like all the other homes on his block.
In addition to brickwork, landscaping and a paver path, Turgeon wanted to replace an old aluminum awning, concrete steps and iron hand rails with a new portico. The portico connects a small roof to the steps via columns. Steps and awnings have always been allowed to encroach into setbacks, but by connecting them, the definition changes "making it a permanent addition," Turgeon explained.
That expansion sent Turgeon's plan straight to the city's planning commission, where Turgeon scraped up a hardship argument that the connected roof structure would be safer than a simple awning.
The planning commission rejected the proposal based on the criteria laid out by the ordinances. "At the same time they said 'these are the kinds of improvements we like our citizens to do,'" Turgeon said. He called the process "incredibly" frustrating.
The decision then went in front of the South St. Paul City Council for its final fate. Turgeon said council member Tom Seaberg opened the hearing by making his case for him, and then the council voted, unanimously, to approve the project without further discussion.
Turgeon said he was aware of other similar proposals that had been approved "outside of the ordinances."
Recently, the council directed city staff to find a way to fix the language once and for all, allowing homeowners to pursue certain upgrades to the outward appearance of their homes despite being built along the setback boundary.
Staff inspected similar permanent encroachment language from Inver Grove Heights, Bloomington and Arden Hills. Hellegers is recommending the Bloomington model that he says is both more specific while also being more permissive than current standards.
Right now, in single-family residential zones, homes must be setback a minimum of 25 feet from the street, except where they are already positioned closer, and no alterations or additions can advance closer to the street than the average setback on that specific block. Encroachments that can be approved by the city planner include ramps, steps, awnings and eaves.
Under the proposed changes:
--Covered, but open porches may encroach 8 feet into a setback, provided a setback of 15 feet is maintained.
--Uncovered patios and decks may encroach up to 5 feet into a front-yard setback, provided that at least a 20-foot setback is maintained.
--Steps, stoops and landings are fine as long as there is a minimum 5-foot setback.
--Retaining walls require no setback.
--Americans with Disabilities Act compliant ramps may encroach up to the 10-foot setback in front and 2-foot setback in side and back yards.
--Also adjusts setbacks and encroachment distances of central air conditioners, vestibules, bay windows, eaves, private sidewalks and basketball hoops.
--Addresses awnings and canopies in commercial districts as well as underground storage tanks and accessories.
Different blocks have different setbacks, but the goal of the city has been to align homes on the same block with similar setbacks. Council asked at the first reading of the ordinance changes Feb. 16 for guidance to ensure that individual homes with different setbacks on the same block can be regulated to still meet those general alignment guidelines. The proposed changes are posted on the city Web site for review and comment by residents.
As for Turgeon, he's happy with his remodeling project and would support the amendments to the setback ordinances. He added it was unfortunate that he was the only one on his block to make it through the existing rules.
Danielle Cabot can be reached at southwest@lillienews.com or 651-748-7815.
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
