10-07-20 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 7, 2020 4 spoken to his neighbors regarding his plans and noted he was hoping to bring the hill side back into its natural state. Terry ____________, contractor for the applicant, commented this was not a cost issue. He reported the applicant was taking a green approach for the new structure. He stated the applicant spent a considerable amount of money to put the retaining wall in place. He indicated if the hill was cut into the significant oak trees would be impacted. He believed the applicant was being sensitive to the property by asking to put the structure back in its original location. He commented further on the slope of the back yard. Commissioner Lambeth indicated the requested encroachment was less than two feet. He asked why it was impractical for the applicant to shift the location of the proposed structure 20 inches to the east. He inquired if cost was the issue. Mr. _______________ explained the momentum on this project was an innovative structures ordinance that would allow for a creative building with no more hard cover and the building would have a green roof. He indicated it would be possible to shift the structure 20 inches but noted this would require a portion of the existing deck to be demolished. Commissioner Subramanian questioned if the allowed or permitted square footage to build an additional structure on lake lots was 64 square feet. Associate Planner Hartmann reported this was the case. Commissioner Subramanian asked why the City did not allow more than 64 square feet. Associate Planner Hartmann explained this language was recommended by the DNR. Commissioner Subramanian questioned how much it would cost the applicant to redesign the project in order to shift the building 20 inches away from the OHWL. Mr. ________________ explained the building has been oriented for security and storage purposes. He reported the proposed structure would be 90 square feet in size. Commissioner Vijums inquired if a 64 square foot structure could be built on this property at the proposed location with the same height. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla indicated the applicant could rebuild the structure within the one year timeline, but it cannot have any changes to the building height, size or width. Commissioner Vijums asked if more than one year had passed. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated this was correct. Commissioner Vijums inquired if the City had approved any other accessory buildings with variances on Lake Johanna that were similar to this request.