CCP 03-13-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH I, 2000 DRAFT 13 Ms. Randall advised that none of the applications considered tonight would have qualified for the administrative process. All would have been heard by the Planning Commission. She read the language being proposed indicating that "the setback for additions to any existing residential dwelling shall be the same or greater than the existing structure. . ." Ms. Randall noted that the Planning Commission would need to determine minimum setback distances to complete that section ofthe ordinance. Ms. Randall reviewed past considerations on several variances that would have been impacted by the proposed language change. She noted that people with large lots could conform with this modification. Commissioner Rye stated he would support language that captures more variance requests and would maximize time and efficiency of staff, the Planning Commission, and Council. He asked if the permitted encroachments have a "primary gatekeeper" and "secondary gatekeeper" to be determined by staff and an opportunity for appeal through the normal process. Ms. Randall stated it will be difficult for staff to determine which applications should go through the process and which should not unless it is more closely defined which would result in ordinance discretion rather than staff discretion. Commissioner Rye stated that criteria could be established and ifmet, the variance could be granted by staff. However, if the criteria is not met, then the normal process would have to be followed. Ms. Randall advised that Commissioner Baker asked ifthere was availability for staff discretion whether it would be brought forward or not, and if a section were to be added where a percent of the exiting structure would have to be within the buildable setback area (slightly non-conforming versus a whole house that is non-conforming). She noted in that case, most of the variances contained in the staff report would still have been approved. Commissioner Sand raised several definitional questions. Ms. Randall stated all of the language proposed is within the City's ordinance with the exception ofthe underlined words. Commissioner Sand read Section C, 2, a, (I) and asked how the line being described is determined. Ms. Randall drew a diagram showing a house with a five foot (R-2) setback and allowance of an encroachment to be three feet, which would be less than six feet so in that situation, it would not be allowed. Ifthe house is at ten feet (R -I) then going to a three foot encroachment would not encroach into the minimum six foot setback and would be allowed. In response to Commissioner Sand, Ms. Randall noted the consideration of Building Codes which requires six feet between buildings and no more than a three-foot overhang. Commissioner Sand asked the intent of the language addressing traffic visibility and how it is measured. Ms. Randall explained that with a comer lot, it is measured from the property line. She created a diagram of how the triangle is measured and the height restriction within the triangular space to assure adequate traffic visibility. Commissioner Rye asked if the reason for this consideration is to assure that it is acceptable with the neighbors, the neighbors are notified, all the issues are identified, the request has a minimized impact, and City interests are protected.