Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />MINUTES <br />CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />WEDI\ESDAY, "'OVEMBER 1, 2000 <br />7:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />CALL TO ORDER <br /> <br />Chair Steve Erickson called the meeting to ordcr at 7:30 p.m. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL <br /> <br />Present were Chair Steve Erickson, Commissioners Stephen Bakcr, Terri Duchenes, <br />Thcrese Galatowitsch, Brent Nelson, and Dave Sand, <br /> <br />No one was absent. <br /> <br />Also present were Councilmember Gregg Larson, Planner Jelmifer Chaput, and <br />Recording Secretary Mary Mullen. <br /> <br />APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON <br />OCTOBER 4. 2000 <br /> <br />Conunissioner Nclson moved, seconded hy Commissioner Sand, to approve the October <br />4, 2000 minutes. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). <br /> <br />PLANNING CASE #OO-l1B - CITY OF ARDEN HILLS - AMENDING ZONING <br />ORDINANCE #291 - SECTIONS II (D). DEFINITIONS. AND VI (1<). CONSTRUCTION <br />STANDARDS - PUBLIC HEARING <br /> <br />Chair Erickson opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. <br /> <br />Ms. Chaput stated that at a joint worksession between the Planning Commission and the City <br />Council on Monday, September 18, 2000, thc proposed zoning amendments that failed from <br />Planning Case #00-11 were discussed at length. Since action has already been takcn on these <br />items at a previous City Council meeting, another public hearing must be held with a Planning <br />Commission recommendation and City Council action to readdress these amendments. <br /> <br />Ms. Chaput stated that the cunent languagc from the Zoning Ordinance was provided in the staff <br />memo with the removal oflangLlage shown as stricken and additional language in capital letters, <br /> <br />Ms. Chaput statcd, with regard to Section II (D), Definitions of Dwelling, Dwelling Unit, <br />Family, and Household, that the City continues to receive numerous complaints and concerns <br />about single family homes that havc been converted into homes for a number of Collcgc <br />students. The current code does not have any language in it to deter this type of activity, <br />essentially allowing for multi family dwellings in single-family zoning districts, To addrcss this <br />situation, changes to the CUlTent definitions wcre proposed. <br /> <br />Ms, Chaput stated, with regard to Section VI (F), Construction Standards and Driveways, that by <br />the current Zoning Ordinance, there are no requirements to pave driveway surfaces, setback <br />