01-25-21-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – JANUARY 11, 2021 9 Councilmember Holden did not believe this would be enough time. Councilmember Scott stated he was leaning towards denying the variance request at this time. He supported the item being tabled to allow for more time to review the request. Councilmember McClung anticipated if this item were to go to a vote this evening the variance request would be denied. He feared that 60 days would not be enough time to revise the Shoreline Ordinance. He asked if the applicant would be willing to withdraw his application with the understanding the Council would be reviewing the Shoreline Ordinance. Councilmember Holmes agreed with Councilmember McClung. She commented if the request were denied the applicant could not come back for six months. She noted the applicant could build a structure that did not require a variance. She indicated the applicant would be allowed the most amount of flexibility or opportunity if the request were withdrawn and resubmitted after the Council could review the Shoreline Ordinance. Mayor Grant questioned if the applicant could request an additional 60 day extension after the first extension expired. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported this was allowed. He stated it would be up to the applicant how long they wanted to allow the extensions to occur. He appreciated the Council’s conversation and believed the applicant would be supportive of an extension to allow the Council to further discuss this matter. Kye Samuelson, 3493 Siems Court, thanked the Council for their consideration. He understood this request had a lot of nuances. He stated he had a hard time understanding all of the mechanics behind tabling versus withdrawing. He explained he would rely on staff for a recommendation on how best to move forward. He agreed the variables around square footage should be addressed by the City. He discussed how he treats his property with a community focus. He understood the Council would want to reduce the risk of getting buried with future requests while using this as a learning case. He stated he could support taking a long term approach to his request. He thanked the Council for taking his best interests to heart and noted he could support an extension or withdrawal of his request. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla recommended the item be tabled to allow the Council to discuss the size and scale of accessory structures within the OHWM setback area. He anticipated this would be a three to four month process. Councilmember Holden supported the item being tabled. Councilmember Holmes concurred. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to table action on Planning Case 20-017 to a future City Council meeting. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried (5-0).