CC 01-02-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular council Meeting, 1-2-91 Page 3 Council was referred to a letter fram Attorney Filla elated 10-22-90, relative to reconfiguration of the Plarming Commission and elimination of the Board of Appeals. Filla stated the Council had requested staff to review the structure of the Plarming Commission, review the size and consider changes in the Commission duties. He advised the proposed Ordinance amendment reduces the size of the Commission to seven members, the appointments to the Commission remain on an annual basis, and specific duties are des=ibed. He noted the review of variances and appeals fram administrative decisions was formally a function of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, and functions listed under Section 20-24 were included to indicate specification auth=izations harrlled by the Commission by state statute and upon direction fram council. AOOPr ORD. 276; PLANNING cn1M. DUTIES eouncil1nember Mahowald questioned the necessity for the amendment to Section 20-22, regardin:J a quorum. Attorney Filla advised the amendment is not necessary, based on the reduced number of Plarming Commission members; suggested the section be repealed rather than amended. eouncil1nember Malone questioned if the duties listed in Section 20-24 are new requirements; commented that the Commission has not previously reviewed such :matters . Filla advised the requirements are :maroatory obligations inposed upon planning agencies under the land Planning Act. He explained Council :may determine that Plarming Commission review is not necessary on some ilrprovement projects due to the fact the project does not affect the Comprehensive Plan. Filla stated other :matters, such as land acquisition f= parks, should be referred to the Commission for review. eouncil1nember Grawe questioned if the appeal process relating to variance recommendations = appeals of administrative decisions is eliminated. Filla explained the amendment eliminates a separate Board of Appeals and transfers all the responsibilities to the Planning Commission. He stated the amendment effectively eliminates two reviews of the planning applications; initially the Board of Adjusbnents and Appeals was named due to its primary purpose to serve as a body to review administrative decisions on planning :matters which required code interpretation. council1nember Malone questioned if the merge of the appeals process duties to the Planning Cornmission is sufficiently outlined in the ordinance language. He also questioned if the Board of Appeals is required by state statute. 'lhe Attorney explained the language revisions and elimination of certain sections of the existing ordinance effectively outline the transfer of duties. He noted that state statutes require the dele:J"ation of a body to perfonn the Board of Aj:peals functions, however, it does not specify it must be a separate group fram Planning Commission. Malone moved, seconded by Grawe, to adopt Ordinance No. 276, Relating to the Fstablislnnent and Duties of the Arden Hills Plarming Cornmission, with an amendment to list Section 20-22 as repealed, and to be effective upon publication. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0)