12-09-2020 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 7, 2020 5 Associate Planner Hartmann explained staff has not been able to find any similar variances. He indicated the variances he was able to find were to the front yard setback and not the rear yard setback. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated staff had not been able to find any variances that were approved for rear yard setbacks on this lake since 2010 when the City Code was approved. Commissioner Vijums reported the City had ordinances in place for a reason. He explained the applicant was asking for a structure that would encroach into the OHWL that was twice the proper size and was also too high. He understood the applicants needs to have a building however, the applicant should work harder to meet the City’s guidelines. He suggested the applicant rethink his proposal for this structure in order to meet the City’s requirements. Commissioner Weber questioned what kind of fo otings were already in place. Mr. Pernsteiner explained the old structure was within the setback. He indicated the applicant was proposing to move the building further away from the shoreline. He clarified the old footings had been removed and new footings had been put in place. Commissioner Wicklund asked what the encroachment would be on the OHWL. Associate Planner Hartmann stated the encroachment would be approximately 17 inches. Commissioner Wicklund commented this lot was extremely unique given the slope of the backyard. He appreciated the fact that the applicant was considering the environmental impact of having a structure this close to the lake and was proposing to have a green roof. He stated he also appreciated that the applicant did not want to disrupt the roots of the significant trees on his lot. Chair Gehrig noted his questions had been asked and answered. He indicated the size of the structure was a concern to him and for this reason he would not be able to support the request. Having no further comments, he opened the meeting to the public. Commissioner Jones stated he appreciated all of the questions and comments that were raised by the Commission. He explained the building height, size and shoreland impact were all concerns to him. He questioned if the building could be rotated 90 degrees. He discussed a letter from a neighbor two doors down and requested staff address the map of neighborhood endorsement. Mr. Samuelson reviewed the comments he received from his neighbors and described the information provided on the neighborhood endorsement map with the Commission. He noted there were several neighbors he was not able to reach, but all other neighbors provided him with comment. Commissioner Jones asked if the applicant would consider rotating the shed 90 degrees in order to move the shed out of the OHWL. Mr. Pernsteiner commented the building had been oriented parallel with the shoreline but noted he could look into a foot plan that would stay out of the impact zone. DRAFT