My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-15-2020 PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2020
>
04-15-2020 PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2020 10:41:19 AM
Creation date
5/8/2020 10:39:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
92
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 7 <br /> <br />Mr. Brown stated he had spoken to Catherine and Trace Robinson, the homeowners to the north, <br />along with the neighbors to the south. He explained he has had a relationship with these <br />neighbors since 2013. He noted the Robinson’s use their lake home as a vacation property noting <br />they live in Houston, Texas. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund requested further information regarding the footings that were already <br />in the ground. <br /> <br />Mr. Curtin reported these footings were for the existing deck. He noted these would be <br />removed and only two would be put in place. <br /> <br />Chair Gehrig stated the applicant was requesting a 13’ 5” deck. He questioned how this deck <br />would be used by the applicant. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown explained the deck would be used for outdoor dining space. <br /> <br />John Lillie, attorney representing Catherine Robinson and Therace Risch, stated his client’s <br />home was at 3167 Shoreline Lane. He noted he provided the City with a written submission. He <br />respectfully disagreed with Commission Lambeth noting the proposed deck would impact the <br />neighbors. He commented on the legal requirements for a practical difficulty and stated this <br />request had not met the standards. He feared if the City were to approve this variance request a <br />precedent would be set for future deck expansion requests. He anticipated there were many <br />homes on the lake that wanted to extend their decks closer to the lake. He explained there was <br />than enough usable space to install a deck. While he understood this lake lot was uniquely sized, <br />he stated this was not enough of a reason to approve the variance. He commented further on how <br />the proposed deck would adversely impact the view his clients have of the lake. He reiterated that <br />financial difficulty did not meet the standard within Statute to approve a variance. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund stated after hearing comments from the neighbors representative he <br />had several questions. He asked if staff recommended it was not advisable to make decisions <br />based on views. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated this was correct. He noted <br />the City had reached out to the watershed district and the DNR and received no comments. He <br />reported staff had also discussed the matter with the City Attorney and he was advised a <br />determination on the variance should be made by the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund questioned who governed docks and dock sizes. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the City had some <br />regulations in place for dock widths at the shoreline. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund stated it may be helpful, from an educational standpoint, to let the <br />residents that have raised concerns know about the City’s dock standards. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported staff would follow up with <br />these residents. He commented further on the impervious surface questions that were raised by <br />the neighbors.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.