12-09-2020 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 7, 2020 7 see 50% or 75% of the roof be green and vegetative. He questioned how the Commission wanted to proceed with this request. Chair Gehrig discussed the options available and noted the Commission could opt to table action in order to allow the applicant to shift the building out of the shore impact zone. Commissioner Weber stated he had concerns with the size of the requested structure and a fact that a precedent could be set. He explained he appreciated the green construction materials. Commissioner Vijums commented this was a slippery slope. He feared that if this was approved the City would receive numerous variance requests from la keshore owners. He understood the reasonableness from the applicant, but he encouraged the applicant to find a plan that fits within the City’s guidelines. He stated at this point , he would support the matter being tabled or denied. Commissioner Jones agreed with Commissioner Vijums. He noted the applicant was requesting a shed that was two times the size that was allowed. He stated the building size was more of a concern to him than the shoreline setback or building height. He suggested the variance request be tabled and that the applicant be allowed to resubmit his application. He recommended the Commission consider how “green” was going to be defined within this request. Commissioner Wicklund asked how difficult it would be for the City to update a State-wide code in order to adopt its own code. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the DNR had updated this standard in 2017. He described the process that would have to be followed by the City in order to update this language within City Code. He stated neighborhood meetings and public hearings would have to be held prior to the City Code being amended. Commissioner Wicklund questioned what issues should be addressed by the applicant if the item were tabled. Chair Gehrig stated he would like to see the applicant address the square footage of the shed. He noted the applicant would have the option of building a shed that meets City requirements and would not need to come back for Planning Commission consideration. He stated the applicant could also amend the plans and come back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. He requested staff speak to what a denial of the request would mean. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla commented he would recommend the Planning Commission table action on the item. He reported if the item were denied by the City Council, the applicant could not reapply for a variance fo r six months. Commissioner Jones indicated he supported the request being tabled versus denied. Commissioner Wicklund agreed. He stated he wanted to see the City finding a balance between being practical and allowing for green initiatives. Mr. Samuelson asked if he would be presented with the option to table his request. DRAFT