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 7 <br />see 50% or 75% of the roof be green and vegetative. He questioned how the Commission wanted <br />to proceed with this request. <br />Chair Gehrig discussed the options available and noted the Commission could opt to table action <br />in order to allow the applicant to shift the building out of the shore impact zone. <br />Commissioner Weber stated he had concerns with the size of the requested structure and a fact <br />that a precedent could be set. He explained he appreciated the green construction materials. <br />Commissioner Vijums commented this was a slippery slope. He feared that if this was approved <br />the City would receive numerous variance requests from la keshore owners. He understood the <br />reasonableness from the applicant, but he encouraged the applicant to find a plan that fits within <br />the City’s guidelines. He stated at this point , he would support the matter being tabled or denied. <br />Commissioner Jones agreed with Commissioner Vijums. He noted the applicant was requesting <br />a shed that was two times the size that was allowed. He stated the building size was more of a <br />concern to him than the shoreline setback or building height. He suggested the variance request be <br />tabled and that the applicant be allowed to resubmit his application. He recommended the <br />Commission consider how “green” was going to be defined within this request. <br />Commissioner Wicklund asked how difficult it would be for the City to update a State-wide <br />code in order to adopt its own code. <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the DNR had updated this <br />standard in 2017. He described the process that would have to be followed by the City in order to <br />update this language within City Code. He stated neighborhood meetings and public hearings <br />would have to be held prior to the City Code being amended. <br />Commissioner Wicklund questioned what issues should be addressed by the applicant if the item <br />were tabled. <br />Chair Gehrig stated he would like to see the applicant address the square footage of the shed. <br />He noted the applicant would have the option of building a shed that meets City requirements and <br />would not need to come back for Planning Commission consideration. He stated the applicant <br />could also amend the plans and come back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. <br />He requested staff speak to what a denial of the request would mean. <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla commented he would recommend <br />the Planning Commission table action on the item. He reported if the item were denied by the <br />City Council, the applicant could not reapply for a variance fo r six months. <br />Commissioner Jones indicated he supported the request being tabled versus denied. <br />Commissioner Wicklund agreed. He stated he wanted to see the City finding a balance between <br />being practical and allowing for green initiatives. <br />Mr. Samuelson asked if he would be presented with the option to table his request. DRAFT
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.