HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMinutes_11-0823workshop.pdfFalcon Heights Planning Commission Workshop on Front Porches – August, 23, 2011 Highlights of the informal discussion Brief staff presentation Majority of homes in Falcon Heights were constructed in an era when front porches were not a popular architectural feature on houses Staff photos of neighborhood streetscapes in Falcon Heights, with and without sidewalks, and examples of front porches/e ntries/covered stoops that do exist, plus houses without these features Many homes in the city do have porches of various sizes, from entry portico/covered stoop type structures to full width open porch es – influenced by styles of when they were built. Many homes do not have any kind of shelter at front door. Every year one or more homeowners inquire about a dding this kind of feature. City code does not now specifically allow a covered stoop or porch like structure as an encroachment into the required front yard. o Some houses are back far e nough to fit it in an entry o Most houses would require a variance because they are already up to the setback line. Concern in past that porch es would be screened and then enclosed, narrowing streetscape, possibly becoming stor age for “junk”, unsightly, etc. Revisiting this issue is in Council goals for 2011-2012, requesting Planning Commission to consider whether some am endment to code would be appropriate Discussion highlights Purpose and uses of front porch and porch-like structures o Shelter from weather at home entr y – reasonable need in our climate o Outdoor seating area for residents of home – reasonable and “nice idea” but would people really use it? o More social connection in neighborhood – also a positive idea – more porches might encourage this. People who do have front porches in FH are not using them this way now. Present generation has traditio n of more “private” outdoor space in back yard. Comfortable tradition in other parts of the country but not Twin Cities (at least since 1950s?), never in Falcon Heights (architecture) o Enclosed as extension of home’s ind oor space – even storage (like older St. Paul neighborhoods)
Chair articulated three “levels” of encroachment, shaping additional discussion o Front entry shelter, covere d stoop, portico (“level 1”) o Front entry extended to some potential outdoor living space, seating (“level 2”) Wider but not necessarily deeper than simple covered stoop o Full “traditional” front porch, possibly enclosed (“level 3”) o Mentioned in passing: closed vestibule “a ir lock” entry, as seen on some older homes – did not come into discussion Informal consensus of Commissioners present o Commissioners all comfortable with “level 1” but not “level 3” o Willing to consider something “in between” (level 1 to 2) if kept open (no screening or walls) What about mosquitoes? o Would need specific limits in code o Continue discussion toward specifics of possible change – one more workshop o Staff to find examples from other cities. o Staff and/or liaison report back to Council