CCP 03-13-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e ~ ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1,2000 15 Commissioner Rye stated he supports allowing City staff the ability for some discretionary interpretation. With regard to the side yard minimum, Chair Erickson stated he may support the minimum R-2 setback of five feet but he questioned if that would provide protection. With the comer and front yard, he suggested an average of others along the street, however, he noted that could be considered arbitrary if a definite number is not established. Ms. Randall explained how the average setback is determined, commenting that sometimes it is difficult to administer. Chair Erickson noted that Hopkins is an older and smaller community with similar lot sizes, as is Roseville. However, in Arden Hills the lot sizes are very different from each other. Commissioner Nelson noted that the R-2 setback is five feet and asked why Zoning Ordinance Section VI, C, 2, a, (1) indicates six feet rather than five feet. Ms. Randall explained the ordinance originally was five feet but changed to six feet by the Planning Commission several years ago. Commissioner Rye asked if a three-foot cantilever is still allowed if the structure is three feet from the lot line. Ms. Randall stated the three foot cantilever is not always allowed in that case. Ms. Randall stated there is not a timeline on this consideration and noted that several Commissioners are absent tonight. Commissioner Nelson asked staff to present a recommendation at the next meeting. Chair Erickson suggested research of additional cities beyond Roseville and Hopkins. Commissioner Rye stated he believes the process is as important as the standards and asked that those issues also be clarified. Chair Erickson stated another consideration is what the setback requirement was when the house was constructed. He stated that may be another consideration and asked staffto include that in their recommendation. Ms. Randall stated Commissioner Baker's suggestion was to consider non-conformity so if 50% of the existing structure was in the buildable area, it would be acceptable to construct an addition within the buildable area. If more than 50% is not within the buildable area, then an addition would not be allowed and it would be a Planning Commission consideration. The proposed percentage is just a number for discussion purposes. Commissioner Rye stated if the new language only impacts several applications each year, he does not believe it would be worth the implementation of a new process. Commissioner Nelson asked about restricting the size by a percentage. Ms. Randall stated the ordinance only contains a percentage on home occupations to assure the property's primary purpose remains a house and not the business.