Laserfiche WebLink
10. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a 4-3 vote, even though conditions <br /> of approval to reduce the visual impact of the structure were included as conditions. <br /> 11. The City Council discussion of the height variance highlighted the Council's recent <br /> review, modification(size limit increased) and/or reaffirmation of the dimensional limits <br /> (height limits not increased) for shoreland district accessory structures. <br /> 12. Council concerns regarding the visual effect on shoreland areas from the lake and from <br /> abutting or neighboring properties for the requested height variance were not adequately <br /> addressed by building reorientation or landscaping/buffering conditions. <br /> 13. In light of the recent revisions to increase the size limit but to maintain the height limit, <br /> the Councilmembers concluded that a reasonable use of the property exists under the <br /> revised dimensional standards, that allowing a height variance would not be consistent <br /> with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, or that practical difficulties have been <br /> demonstrated warranting a departure or variance from the recently revised standards. <br /> DECISION <br /> Based upon these Findings of Fact and the Council's knowledge of the Subject Property, <br /> the neighborhood and the community, the application for the proposed Variance, the City <br /> Council hereby denies Applicant's Variance request. <br /> ADOPTED by the Arden Hills City Council this o?� day of �U..� , 2021. <br /> CITY OF ARDEN HILLS <br /> By: <br /> avid Grant, Its Mayor <br /> ATTEST: <br /> (2�.& a"'ay� <br /> Julie H son, Its City Clerk <br /> 216606v1 <br />