12-09-20 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – December 9, 2020 3 There being no comment Chair Gehrig closed the public hearing at 6:43 p.m. Chair Gehrig moved and Commissioner Lambeth seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 20-021 to release the Conditional Use Permit from Lot 2, Block 1 of 2 Pine Tree Drive North. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). B. Planning Case 20-017; 3493 Siems Court Variance Request – Public Hearing Required Associate Planner Hartmann stated Kye Samuelson (“Applicant”) has submitted a land use application for a variance to construct an accessory structure at 3493 Siems Court (“Subject Property”). The Applicant is requesting a variance for flexibility with a proposed accessory structure’s height and size within the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) setback. The Subject Property is zoned R-1, Single Residential District, is located in the Shoreland Management District, and is guided as Low Density Residential on the Land Use Plan. Associate Planner Hartmann commented at the October 7th Planning Commission meeting the Applicant requested a variance to build a 120 square foot accessory storage structure that encroached 18 inches into the Shore Impact Zone of Lake Johanna. The proposed accessory structure exceeded the eight (8) foot height limitation at ten (10) feet, six (6) inches. The Planning Commission voted to table that request to allow the Applicant to submit revised plans that would better conform to the provisions of the Shoreland Ordinance. Associate Planner Hartmann reported the Applicant took the Planning Commissions comments under consideration and submitted revised plans for a smaller structure that would not encroach into the Shore Impact Zone. However, the proposed structure still requires a variance due to the proposed height and area that exceeds current ordinance standards. The Applicant proposes adding new conditions of approval to the request that would set performance standards for the structure and recognizes that this would set a precedent for future structures located near the shore to follow. Associate Planner Hartmann stated for example, the Applicant proposing the use of language such as calling the overall structure a ‘floating shed’ that would require future residents to meet certain conditions unique to this specific scenario. On the Subject Property, the Applicant notes that the site features 100% drainage and runoff beneath the existing structure, with runoff uninhibited by any foundation or any non-natural elements, which could be a condition of approval for future applications. They also request an optional requirement for the addition and maintenance of vegetation around the future structure for environmental and aesthetic purposes. Associate Planner Hartmann explained the Planning Commission is being asked to determine if a variance request for flexibility with the Shoreland Management District setback requirements should be approved for the new proposed accessory structure. This structure requires flexibility from the restrictions for City Code within Shoreland Management Districts. The evaluation of the proposal should be based on the provisions within the Zoning Code and the Requirements for a Variance in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 and the Continuation of Nonconforming Uses in Section