CCP 02-14-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 2, 2000 DRAFT 16 Chair Erickson asked Ms. Randall to highlight the City ofRoseville's setback procedure. Ms. . Randall stated that the City of Roseville has been operating under this new Ordinance for approximately one year and are now reviewing the Ordinance. She indicated that Roseville established this ordinance to address the older bungalows that the homeowners were wanting to add onto and invest money in. The City of Rose vi lie felt that the homes should be added onto to in order to add to the value of the neighborhoods. However, because of their restrictions, the homeowners were having to go through a difficult variance process. Many homeowners were selling their homes rather than requesting variances. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked how much it cost to obtain a variance in the City ofRoseville. Ms. Randall stated that most variance applications cost $100 to $150 dollars and the City of Roseville setback permit is approximately $25. Additionally, the applicants in Roseville do not have to attend the evening City meetings. The City ofRoseville notifies the adjacent neighbors and allows them time to respond to the City staff and Council prior to City Council concent approval. Ms. Randall stated that another reason that the City of Roseville's ordinance was attractive was that the entire process took a shorter period of time. At this time she informs applicants that their variance requests will take approximately 60 days from the time the application is received by the City until City Council approval. Because ofthis, some applicants are discouraged from requesting a variance. The City ofRoseville has shortened this time period by using an internal review by staff followed by City Council review which often can be accomplished in less than 30 days. e Ms. Randall stated that the City ofRoseville has a list of criteria that must be met by an applicant. One criteria was that the applicant have a one car garage or less on the property. The City of Arden Hills has seen many requests to increase a garage from one car to two and usually accepts this as a reasonable improvement to the home. Other criteria set by the City ofRoseville were that the proposal improve the design or livability of the structure; the proposal improve the terrain or drainage issues; the original need for the setback permit was not created by the current landowner; the existing structures and proposed improvements retain a minimum of75 percent of the impervious surface and green space of the lot; and the proposed project not create other setback or variance condition. Ms. Randall stated that there were other criteria within the City of Roseville ordinance and she was not certain if the City of Arden Hills would want to utilize these same criteria or create its own. Chair Erickson noted that the Roseville ordinance required that eight of the 12 criteria be met, while the City of Hopkins ordinance only included a one line statement that any addition into a side yard cannot increase the setback situation and no side yard shall be less than five feet. He asked what this criteria would not take into consideration. Ms. Randall stated that this would not take into consideration single car garages since the City of Hopkins ordinance only considered the actual dwellings not accessory structures. Chair Erickson confirmed that the procedure followed by the City of Hopkins would eliminate many of the variance requests reviewed by the Planning Commission, including the request made this evening. Ms. Randall stated that this was correct. Chair Erickson stated that this procedure could be considered since the Planning Commission has denied few cases in which the addition would not increase the existing nonconformity. e