01-11-21-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 11, 2021 7 variance and possibly setting a precedent versus taking public feedback and reevaluating the Shoreline Ordinance. He supported the Council taking another look at the Shoreline Ordinance. Mayor Grant stated the Council could move to table action on this item in order to further evaluate the Shoreline Ordinance. He questioned if the applicant could place a shed outside the OHWM. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla did not believe this would be possible given the topography of the lot. Councilmember Scott explained he visited this lot last summer. He noted the entire backyard was sloped and full of boulders. He did not anticipate a shed could be constructed on the slope/boulders. He asked what the dimensions were for a typical paddle board. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported paddle boards were generally 10 to 11 feet in length and were between 32 to 34 inches wide. Councilmember Scott stated this request was first presented to the Planning Commission in October and the request was for a 120 square foot foundation with a 10.5 foot high shed which had a volume of 1260 cubic feet. He indicated City ordinance allows for 512 cubic feet. He explained the revised request was for 982 cubic feet. He questioned if the exterior dimensions could be altered to fit within the 64 square foot foundation while still accommodating a full length paddle board. Mayor Grant reported kayaks were typically longer than paddle boards. He anticipated 11 feet would be what the City would want to shoot for. Councilmember Holden commented if a precedent was being set here, she did not want it done for just this property or just for a paddle board. She explained the Council should be taking into consideration all lakeshore properties. Mayor Grant apologized and stated that was not what he was getting at. He indicated the point he was getting to was that the property owner could build a second shed on the property for long boards or kayaks. Councilmember Holden questioned if a second shed could be built on the subject property. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated according to the applicant and due to the slope of the rear yard, this was the only suitable site in the rear yard for an accessory structure. Councilmember McClung indicated there was a retaining wall between the applicant and the neighbor to the south. He commented further on the slope to the north. He explained he did not see another location on the property that would accommodate an accessory structure. Councilmember Holden stated if this request were approved, a precedent could be set and another request could be made. She believed this request needed further consideration.