My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-09-2020 PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2020
>
12-09-2020 PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2021 11:25:51 AM
Creation date
2/26/2021 11:25:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 7, 2020 4 <br />spoken to his neighbors regarding his plans and noted he was hoping to bring the hill side back <br />into its natural state. <br />Terry Pernsteiner, contractor for the applicant, commented this was not a cost issue. He <br />reported the applicant was taking a green approach for the new structure. He stated the applicant <br />spent a considerable amount of money to put the retaining wall in place. He indicated if the <br />hill was cut into the significant oak trees would be impacted. He believed the applicant was <br />being sensitive to the property by asking to put the structure back in its original <br />location. He commented further on the slope of the back yard. <br />Commissioner Lambeth indicated the requested encroachment was less than two feet. He asked <br />why it was impractical for the applicant to shift the location of the proposed structure 20 inches to <br />the east . He inquired if cost was the issue. <br />Mr. Pernsteiner explained the momentum on this project was an innovative structures <br />ordinance that would allow for a creative building with no more hard cover and the <br />building would have a green roof. He indicated it would be possible to shift the structure 20 <br />inches but noted this would require a portion of the existing deck to be demolished. <br />Commissioner Subramanian questioned if the allowed or permitted square footage to build an <br />additional structure on lake lots was 64 square feet. <br />Associate Planner Hartmann reported this was the case. <br />Commissioner Subramanian asked why the City did not allow more than 64 square feet. <br />Associate Planner Hartmann explained this language was recommended by the DNR. <br />Commissioner Subramanian questioned how much it would cost the applicant to redesign the <br />project in order to shift the building 20 inches away from the OHWL. <br />Mr. Pernsteiner explained the building has been oriented for security and storage <br />purposes. He reported the proposed structure would be 90 square feet in size. <br />Commissioner Vijums inquired if a 64 square foot structure could be built on this property at the <br />proposed location with the same height. <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla indicated the applicant could rebuild <br />the structure within the one year timeline, but it cannot have any changes to the building height, <br />size or width. <br />Commissioner Vijums asked if more than one year had passed. <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated this was correct. <br />Commissioner Vijums inquired if the City had approved any other accessory buildings with <br />variances on Lake Johanna that were similar to this request. DRAFT
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.