CCP 02-14-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 2, 2000 DRAFT 17 e Ms. Randall asked the Planning Commission what information they would want her to prepare for the next meeting. She suggested that the Planning Commission be provided with a list of the number and type of variance requests reviewed by the Planning Commission over the last five years. She noted that this process would be primarily for residential variance requests and suggested that the commercial variance process remain as is. Chair Erickson agreed that it would be helpful to know the history of the City's variance requests in order to compare them to other city's criteria. He felt that most variance requests would fall within the criteria set by the City of Hopkins versus the City ofRoseville, since the list of criteria set by the City of Roseville was vague. Ms. Randall stated that the intent with Roseville's ordinance was that many of the front entryways on the bungalows are not functional and they were seeing a large number of variance requests to enhance those front entryways. The City of Roseville was attempting to encourage these improvements and Hopkins ordinance would not function as well for this. Ms. Randall stated that many of the variance requests received by Arden Hills relate to comer setbacks that had been established years ago and have since increased. She felt that the Hopkins ordinance would deal effectively with these variance requests. . Commissioner Duchenes stated that improving the variance procedure would be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to encourage homeowners to invest in their homes. Ms. Randall stated that the City of Arden Hills could add language to the ordinance similar to the City of Hopkins and review what variances have and have not been granted over one year's time. At that time further modifications can be made if necessary. Chair Erickson noted that the City ofRoseville allows the administrative approval of setback variances that reduce the current setbacks no more than 75 percent. He felt that this was allowing too much latitude. Ms. Randall stated that the City of Roseville Council does perform the fmal review and can deny the requests. Chair Erickson asked if the variance requests for the City of Hopkins are reviewed by the City Council. Ms. Randall stated that they are not. Chair Erickson assumed that the City of Arden Hills would perform its variance reviews similar to the City of Hopkins rather than the City of Roseville. He asked how the City ofRoseville's process has been sped up. Ms. Randall stated that the process was made quicker by eliminating Planning Commission review. Commissioner Baker suggested a compromise of using the City of Hopkins' ordinance language with City Council review of the variance requests. This would allow the City Council to deny requests that do not fit with the City goals. Ms. Randall stated that the City of Arden Hills currently has an encroachment portion within the ordinance which states all structures must be 40 feet from the property line, however, the structure can encroach up to three feet if certain criteria are met. These issues are dealt with internally through the building permit process. This was similar with how the City of Hopkins was currently operating where if a request meets certain criteria it receives staff approvaL . Ms. Randall suggested drafting language to determine how it would fit with the City ordinance. Chair Erickson suggested information be drafted that summarizes the variance activity over the last five years.