05-03-2017 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2017 3 11. The proposed dwelling would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because it would result in a structure that is consistent and compatible with other construction in the area. 12. The requested variance does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. Ms. Rybak stated based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 17-007 for a Variance at 3517 Siems Court. If the Planning Commission votes to recommend approval of Planning Case 17-007, staff is recommending the following four (4) conditions of approval: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. A Grading and Erosion Control permit shall be required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 3. A Building Permit shall be required prior to commencement of construction. 4. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. Ms. Rybak reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Jones asked if staff had an overhead view of the neighborhood. Ms. Rybak reviewed an overhead view of the homes on their lots for this street and noted the proposed setback would be keeping in line with the neighborhood. Commissioner Lambeth stated he lived near this property and he understood the grade of the rear lot was extremely steep. He stated it would be impractical to require this property to meet the City’s setback requirements. For this reason, he stated he would be supporting the requested variance. Chair Thompson asked if the retaining walls had been reviewed by the City Engineer. Senior Planner Bachler noted the retaining walls had been reviewed by the City Engineer. He noted the location of the retaining walls was within an easement and would have to be moved. He explained staff received an updated site plan from the applicant pushing the retaining walls outside of the easement. He noted that the City Engineer would need to verify the location of the retaining wall before issuing a Grading and Erosion Control Permit. Chair Thompson questioned if the City had received any comments from the neighbors.