Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 9, 2022 10 <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund anticipated the lot depth variance would be reviewed and approved by <br />the City Council. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Jagoe requested the Commission still make a <br />recommendation to the City Council on the lot depth variance. <br /> <br />Commissioner Weber moved and Commissioner Mitchell seconded a motion to recommend <br />approval of Planning Case 22-019 for the Non-Conforming Lot Depth Variance at 3588 <br />Ridgewood Road on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the <br />thirteen (13) conditions in the November 9, 2022, report to the Planning Commission. The <br />motion carried unanimously (7-0). <br /> <br />Community Development Director Jagoe requested the Commission make a motion denying <br />the setback and driveway access variances with findings for the recommendation of denial. <br /> <br />Chair Vijums moved and Commissioner Wicklund seconded a motion to recommend <br />denial of Planning Case 22-019 for the Lot Setbacks and Driveway Access Variances at <br />3588 Ridgewood Road based on the degree of the setback variance requests being too <br />significant, the site was to be accessed from Ridgewood Road, and for safety purposes when <br />it comes to the driveway access. The motion carried 4-3 (Commissioners Blilie, Collins and <br />Mitchell opposed). <br /> <br />B. Planning Case 22-021; City of Arden Hills – Zoning Code Amendments – Chapter <br />13, Design Standards and Tree Preservation – Public Hearing Required <br /> <br />Community Development Director Jagoe stated at their September 19th work session, the City <br />Council discussed draft language for a proposed tree preservation ordinance. The City Council <br />had previously requested Staff to investigate changing the City’s ordinance as it relates to tree <br />preservation. Staff was directed to research whether or not the scope can be broadened to include <br />items, such as landscaping or other green spaces. The City Attorney in his preliminary review of <br />the draft changes believed the amendment would accomplish the flexibility being sought. The <br />general consensus of the City Council was to move forward with the proposed amendments as <br />presented in the work session and with the references to “green space” being modified to <br />“landscaping”. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Jagoe commented staff was directed to finalize the <br />language with the City Attorney and bring forward the proposed ordinance to the Planning <br />Commission for the first review and to hold a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the <br />draft ordinance language with recommendation of the Planning Commission would be brought to <br />the City Council for subsequent discussion and adoption. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Jagoe explained staff has prepared a draft ordinance <br />showing stricken language to be deleted and new language added in red font for your review. The <br />general consensus of the City Council was that the current ordinance language is narrowly <br />focused on tree preservation. The city code defines landscaping as “plantings such as trees, grass, <br />shrubs.” Under the tree preservation ordinance as written, the City Attorney confirmed that the <br />tree fund or a fee in lieu of planting may only be used for tree related expenses. The Council <br />noted that there are projects (i.e. parks, right-of-way) in the City that could be considered or in