08-09-21-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – JULY 12, 2021 7 Mayor Grant commented this structure was 17 inches too high. He indicated the Council reviewed the Shoreland Ordinance for almost two months. He questioned if the applicant was fully aware of the variance request given the new requirements within the Shoreland Ordinance. Planning Consultant Kansier stated she did not have conversations specifically regarding this, but noted the applicant spoke about building height and was aware of the City’s requirements. MOTION: Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to deny Planning Case 20-017 for a Variance at 3493 Siems Court, based on the following Findings of Fact: 1.) The City Council spent considerable time reviewing and redrafting the Ordinance for accessory structures in the shore impact zone. 2.) The City Council increased the allowable size for accessory structures in the shore impact zone. 3.) The City Council decided not to increase the structure height due to weighing the needs of residents versus those enjoying the lake. 4.) There are no practical difficulties for this variance request. Councilmember Scott stated the reason the Council considers variances individually, was because it allows the Council to consider each request based on the unique attributes of the property. He noted this property was very steeply sloped and the proposed building would not obstruct a view from the home or the lake based on the additional 17 inches in building height. He indicated he would not be supporting the motion on the floor. Councilmember Holden commented this was not a unique property on the lake. She stated after working with the DNR for over six weeks on the Shoreland Ordinance, she indicated she would like to see the City Council stick to the Ordinance and not support the variance. She feared that if this variance were approved, numerous requests would be made in the future from lakeshore property owners. Mayor Grant indicated he would be supporting the motion on the floor. While he appreciated the fact the applicant had come back with adjusted plans, he believed there were ways for the applicant to meet the Ordinance requirements. Councilmember Holden clarified the applicant had not modified his plans since last fall. Planning Consultant Kansier reported the plans were adjusted in October, but no adjustments have been made since that time. Mayor Grant questioned what options the applicant would have regarding an accessory structure if this variance were denied. Planning Consultant Kansier explained the applicant would not be able to bring a variance request before the Council for another six months, unless it was a substantially different request. She commented another option would be for the applicant to bring an accessory structure request that meets the City’s requirements.