09-07-1988 Planning Commission Agenda-Minutes

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, September 7, 1988 Page 5 There was Commission discussion relative to the following: -Expressed concern that adequate assurance could not be supplied that the • applicant would purchase the right-of-way when it becomes available; as recommended by the Village Attorney. -Applicant is requesting the creation of a "new" lot, not a lot of record, that is substandard. -Expressed concern that the County may determine the right-of-way is useful at a future date. -Expressed concern that a precedent would be set in this area. Member Meury quoted the Village Attorney's letter dated 8-31-88: "The City never takes into account for purposes of computing lot area requirements the square footage of adjacent land encumbered by an easement for roadway or alley purposes." Meury stated the Commission is being asked to create an "unbuildable" lot. After discussion, Commission concurred there were numerous encumbrances with the requested lot split and they preferred not to create a substandard lot. Meury moved, seconded by Martin, that Commission recommend to Council denial of Case #88-04, application for a Lot Split at 1960 West County Road E-2, Eldon Elseth and John Robinson, based on the opinion from the Village Attorneythat the city does not take into account adjacent land encumbered by an easement for roadways for purposes of computing lot area requirements and generally past policy of the City has been to not create lots through lot splits which require variances to build upon. Motion carried unanimously. (9-0) RECOMMEND; VARIANCE Planner Bergly reviewed his report of 8-4-88, relative • PROCEDURAL AMENDMENT to recommendations for procedural amendments. Bergly reported the Chair of the Board of Appeals, Zoning Administrator and Planner had reviewed procedures and recommended that variances be divided into two categories with the Board of Appeals reviewing only those requests that are not part of a related action and the Planning Commission reviewing only variance requests that are part of a related action. Member Meury commented that a representative of the Planning Commission should have been present during the discussions for input purposes. Member Malone commented the Board of Appeals would have to be staffed appropriately to review variances and conduct the public hearing process. Bergly noted it would "lighten" the Commission agenda and eliminate the three-step process for applicants. Chairman Curtis stated it does not appear to be a burden to the Commission to review the variances. Member Carlson advised he had gone through the process of applying for a variance and it is tedious for residents. There was discussion relative to the Planning Commission assuming the duties of the Board of Appeals and reviewing all variances to "streamline" the process. . Member Martin noted that the Planning Commission review of variance applications would keep the continuity as the case relates to other actions, i.e. ; site plans, plats, etc. There was discussion relative to notification of neighbors relative to variance requests; the Planner advised the Zoning Code provides for public hearing if deemed necessary. Bergly stated most communities notify adjacent neighbors.