07-09-14 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 6 City Planner Streff explained that an alternative for the Commission to consider would be to place a condition on the motion that would ensure the applicant does not increase lot coverage along with requiring pervious pavers. This would eliminate the need for the third variance. Commissioner Jones supported this recommendation and found it to be a reasonable exchange. Commissioner Bartel agreed as well, but struggled with the expansion of the garage. Chair Larson commented that expansions of nonconforming structures have been a problem for the City. Commissioner Holewa indicated this lot was difficult and did not see another solution. He would support tabling action on this request or denial. Commissioner Holewa moved to recommend denial of Planning Case 14-020 for a Variance at 3200 Lake Lane based on the findings of fact that the three variances were excessive and the request would expand a nonconforming use. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Bartel suggested the Planning Case be tabled to allow the applicant to modify his request. Chair Larson stated the recommendation from staff would eliminate the need for the third variance. Commissioner Zimmerman indicated the property was currently nonconforming for impervious coverage requirements and setbacks. He believed that tabling the request made the most sense at this time to allow the applicant to find a better solution. Commissioner Bartel moved and Commissioner Jones seconded a motion to table action on Planning Case 14-020 to the August Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to work with the applicant on an alternative request that would reduce the number of variances and improve the setback situation. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Case 14-017; Variance – 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard – Not a Public Hearing City Planner Streff stated that at the June 4, 2014, Planning Commission meeting the applicants proposed to reconstruct and expand a nonconforming accessory structure from twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet, an increase of 140 square feet. After a close review of the application by the Commission, the variance request was tabled in order to give the applicant’s additional time to reevaluate their proposal and provide an alternate plan that would more closely conform to the existing nonconforming structure in terms of the building footprint and setbacks. The applicants have since reviewed and updated their plans for the nonconforming accessory structure. Their proposal for the new accessory structure now includes a footprint that is identical to the existing structure with slight variations to the placement and roof design.