Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 7, 2020 7 <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund stated having a green roof on this structure would be a great building <br />design function for this lake. He explained if this item were to move forward, he would like to <br />see 50% or 75% of the roof be green and vegetative. He questioned how the Commission wanted <br />to proceed with this request. <br /> <br />Chair Gehrig discussed the options available and noted the Commission could opt to table <br />action in order to allow the applicant to shift the building out of the shore impact zone. <br /> <br />Commissioner Weber stated he had concerns with the size of the requested structure and a fact <br />that a precedent could be set. He explained he appreciated the green construction materials. <br /> <br />Commissioner Vijums commented this was a slippery slope. He feared that if this was <br />approved the City would receive numerous variance requests from lakeshore owners. He <br />understood the reasonableness from the applicant, but he encouraged the applicant to find a plan <br />that fits within the City’s guidelines. He stated at this point, he would support the matter being <br />tabled or denied. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jones agreed with Commissioner Vijums. He noted the applicant was requesting <br />a shed that was two times the size that was allowed. He stated the building size was more of a <br />concern to him than the shoreline setback or building height. He suggested the variance request <br />be tabled and that the applicant be allowed to resubmit his application. He recommended the <br />Commission consider how “green” was going to be defined within this request. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund asked how difficult it would be for the City to update a State-wide <br />code in order to adopt its own code. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the DNR had updated this <br />standard in 2017. He described the process that would have to be followed by the City in order to <br />update this language within City Code. He stated neighborhood meetings and public hearings <br />would have to be held prior to the City Code being amended. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund questioned what issues should be addressed by the applicant if the <br />item were tabled. <br /> <br />Chair Gehrig stated he would like to see the applicant address the square footage of the shed. <br />He noted the applicant would have the option of building a shed that meets City requirements <br />and would not need to come back for Planning Commission consideration. He stated the <br />applicant could also amend the plans and come back to the Planning Commission for further <br />consideration. He requested staff speak to what a denial of the request would mean. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla commented he would recommend <br />the Planning Commission table action on the item. He reported if the item were denied by the <br />City Council, the applicant could not reapply for a variance for six months. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jones indicated he supported the request being tabled versus denied. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund agreed. He stated he wanted to see the City finding a balance between <br />being practical and allowing for green initiatives.