12-09-2020 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 7, 2020 3 10. The previous structure was built prior to the adoption of the current code that prohibits structures with the Shore Impact Zone. 11. The Shore Impact Zone is the land located bet ween the OHWL and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback. 12. The proposed storage structure would be located within the Shore Impact Zone of Lake Johanna. 13. Current City Code does not permit structures within the Shore Impact Zone, except under certain conditions. 14. One (1) storage shed is permitted with the OHWL setback requirement of Lake Johanna as long as it does not exceed 64 square feet in size and eight (8) feet in height and is not within the Shore Impact Zone. 15. The proposed structure exceeds the height and dimension limits for an accessory structure within the OHWL. 16. The proposed structure would otherwise conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-1 district. 17. A variance may be granted if enforcement of a provision in the zoning ordinance would cause the landowner practical difficulties. Associate Planner Hartmann stated staff would 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 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 o n the existing structure. 3. The proposed accessory structure shall conform to all other st andards and regulations in the City Code. Associate Planner Hartmann reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matt er: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Gehrig opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Jones commented he was not against the request. Commissioner Lambeth indicated he support ed the encroachment in the OHWL. He explained the applicant was proposing to build a structure on the same location as the previous structure and adoption of the current code. He questioned if the applicant could relocate the structure to where it would not be encroaching on the OHWL zone. He asked if this was a matter of excavation cost s. K ai Samuelson, 3493 Siems Court, explained he was trying to minimally impact the land. He indicated he did not want to excavate the site more than was necessary. He reported he has DRAFT