PL MINUTES 12151992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Planning Commission Meeting • 2 December 15, 1992 3 Page Six 4 5 6 7 VI. C. Discussion with City Attomey 8 9 1. Legal Definition of Hardship i0 11 Mr. Soth arrived at 8:30 p.m. and indicated he had come to shed some light on issues which 12 Conumnissioners had indicated a need for further guidance. Copies of information from the 13 Attorney as provided the Commission in October and November had been included in the 14 agenda packets that evening. - - 15 16 The City Attorney indicated what the City was trying to do with the new code was to clean up - 17 the ordinance on variances to make it clearly track the state statutes governing the issuance of 18 variances. After reading aloud those provisions which established requirements for allowing 19 variances,Mr. Soth commented that it would certainly be more advantageous for city councils 20 not to have to follow those requirements so closely. He said it would give cities more 21 flexibility and opportunity for using their own discretion if those requirements weren't so 22 restrictive. However, he said there have been bills introduced in the Legislature which could 23 loosen up the procedures and make them more flexible. Unfortunately, as the law now stands 24 the City Attorney indicated St. Anthony doesn't have much discretion when it comes to 25 variances. Instead, variances can only be granted if die City makes the required findings for 26 granting them. 27 1028 2. Accessory Structure Permit Options 29 30 Chair Faust told the City Attorney he anticipated the garage issue to become a very difficult 31 one for St. Anthony which has so many single garages where new housing standards call for 32 double structures. Mr. Soth reviewed the three options he had discussed in the information 33 the Commission had been provided in November, reiterating that the third, the issuance of 34 setback permits for garages was one he had come up with for another community with the 35 same problem. He pointed out that the City could retain all the control it wanted with this 36 option since the applicant would have to meet certain criteria for a particular setback for a 37 garage without a variance. Those criteria were set forth in the materials provided in the he 38 agenda packet. The City Attorney reiterated that this was the procedure which could be 39 followed if the City wanted to review the permits before granting them. 40 41 The advantages of granting setback permits versus just establishing setbacks in the ordinance 42 were explored as well as the problems with allowing front yard garages. There was also 43 discussion of whether the permit option would work instead of a specific parking ordinance. 44 Mr. Soth indicated he perceived it would be necessary to set up the same sort of criteria which 45 the applicant would have to meet before such a permit was issued. 46 47 Mr. Urbia commented that the ordinance to allow setback permits for garages would probably 48 remain stationary until people began wanting to add three car garages but lie perceived the 49 parking permit ordinance might generate too much business for staff to htuulle as people sold 50 and bought different types of recreational vehicles. It was agreed that Commissioners would 51 have to plan to devote a meeting without much business to determine just what criteria would 52 have to be established to address changing trends in garages aid recreational vehicles. •