12-09-2020 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for December 9th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets\12-9-2020 Page 9 of 10 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources The DNR has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments on this time as the City of Arden Hills is the permitting agency. Options and Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission should consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 20-017 for a Variance at 3493 Siems Court, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions below: 1. A Zoning Permit for an accessory structure shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. The exterior materials of the proposed addition shall be consistent or complementary in color, texture and quality with those visible on the existing structure. 3. The Applicant shall add landscaped screening to assist in screening the structure from adjacent properties. Planning staff shall review and approve the screening plan prior to the issuance of Zoning Permit.. 4. The proposed accessory structure shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 20- 017 for a Variance at 3493 Siems Court, based on the findings of fact and the submitted materials. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 20-017 for a Variance at 3493 Siems Court, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 20-017 for a Variance at 3493 Siems Court: a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within 500 feet of the Subject Property. Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied, however, after consulting with the City Attorney, staff agree that the best practice is to allow a public forum on all variance requests. A public forum allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help determine if the application meets the practical difficulties factors. Public Comments