CCP 02-14-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 2, 2000 DRAFT 15 Commissioner Duchenes moved, seconded by Commissioner Galatowitsch to recommend approval of Planning Case #00-10, Site Plan Review, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submittal for site plan approval prior to the commencement of construction of any additional phases of this project. 2. Compliance with the City's Shoreland Ordinance. 3. Approval of the grading, drainage, and erosion control plans by the Rice Creek Watershed District. 4. The smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for as short as time as feasible. 5. Approval of the necessary wetland impact permits from Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 6. Notification, review, and approval of all utility plans by City Staff. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, February 14,2000, City Council meeting. Chair Erickson recessed the meeting at 9:39 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:43 p.m. PLANNING CASE #00-11 - CITY OF ARDEN HILLS - VARIANCE PROCEDURE - DISCUSSION ONLY Ms. Randall explained that many questions have arisen regarding the City's current variance request and approval procedure. She provided the Planning Commission with examples of procedures being followed by other cities including the City of Roseville and the City of Hopkins. She suggested that if the Planning Commission was interested in considering new procedures for the review of variance requests, then a timeline should be established. Chair Erickson noted that the majority of the Planning Cases reviewed by the Planning Commission were requests for variances. He stated that he was familiar with how other cities were handling their variance requests and that the City of Saint Paul allows variances to be handled administratively if there is an existing nonconformity and the addition will not extend beyond the existing setback. The only time variance requests become an issue is when there are other extenuating circumstances. He indicated that the Planning Commission has reviewed many variance requests where the proposed additions would not encroach further into the setback area and felt that it would make sense for the City of Arden Hills to consider a different procedure. However, he was concerned that this may perpetuate undesirable situations. He felt that it was difficult at times to accept the hardship rationale that the proposed location was the only suitable location for an addition. Commissioner Baker stated that it would make sense for the City of Arden Hills to consider the procedures being used by other cities. He noted that the Planning Commission had denied a variance request where the existing structure and proposed addition was entirely within the setback area. He was not certain how a setback pennit process would address these unique situations.