CCP 03-29-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Arden Hills Planninp Commission - March 3. 1999 ~ ~ ~J~ 1 12 the plan to construct the southern cul-de-sac now and have in place for the future the option of a e cul-de-sac to the north. She noted, however, that when the Bachman property does develop it would be likely that the Planning Commission will meet again to discuss this issue. She suggested that by this point other options might be lost by the development of the Hanson property. Commissioner Duchenes stated that, aesthetically, she preferred Option B, however this would be a costlier option for the City, as it would infringe on two other properties. Acting Chair Nelson asked what the City would have to do in order to acquire the land as proposed in Option B. Ms. Randall explained that the City Council would first have to determine if it wants to acquire the property. The Council could ask the applicant at the time to acquire the property by working with the landowner. If the applicant were unable to come to an agreement with the landowner, the City would have police power, if they chose to use it, to acquire the property. The City would then determine the value of the property. She noted, however, that this.option could result in a home becoming nonconforming. Commissioner Baker agreed that, conceptually, Option B aesthetically has more appeal. He stated that the reason he did not support this option was because the owners of the Hanson property were not notified of Options A or B. He expressed his discomfort for approving a rnodification that significantly impacts the buildable pad on one of the lots without the landowner being given notice that this was being considered. He suggested that if Option B were _ something the Planning Commission would want to pursue, the Planning Case would have to be ., continued in order to notifY the property owner. Commissioner G~atowitsch agreed that she would want a staternent from both the Hanson and Bachman property owners expressing their opinions on the situation. She asked if it would be possible to make a recommendation on the southern portion of the property now and consider the northern half later. Acting Chair Nelson stated that, prior too moving on to other considerations, the Planning Commission must vote on the motion currently on the table. He agreed that if the Planning Commission were to prefer Option B, the case would have to be held over. Commissioner Baker noted that, regardless of what the Planning Commission recommends, if the City Council approves of changing the Official Map, and additional information had become available from the landowners, the Council could decide to approve Option B. Acting Chair Nelson explained to the audience that the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council and the action of the City Council is the final decision in a P1auning Case. Ms. Randall suggested that, if the P1auning Commission was leaning towards Option B and was only hesitating beCause of the lack of response from the affected property owners, the property owners could be contacted prior to the City Council's review of the proposal in order to attend the meeting. She noted that the property owners were notified of a possible change in the Official Map with the applicant's proposal. e Commissioner Duchenes asked if, while Staff discusses with the Hanson property owners the