07-12-21-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JULY 12, 2021 6 2. The structure shall be rotated on the site so the maximum width of the accessory structure, as viewed from the water, does not exceed ten(10) feet. 3. The exterior materials of the proposed addition shall be consistent or complementary in color, texture and quality with those visible on the existing structure. 4. The Applicant shall provide a landscaping plan indicating structure shall be screened a minimum of 50 percent by opaque vegetation or topography on the three walls seen from the lake with ecologically suited landscaping landward of the ordinary high water level from the lake. Planning staff shall review and approve the screening plan prior to the issuance of Zoning Permit. 5. The proposed accessory structure shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. Councilmember Scott asked if the applicant agreed to rotate the building 90 degrees and questioned why staff was making this a requirement. Planning Consultant Kansier commented the applicant was aware of the provision and noted the provision would lessen the visual impact of the structure from the water. Councilmember Holden indicated she would not be able to support this variance request. Councilmember Holmes stated if the variance were not approved the structure would have to be eight feet tall. She inquired if some sort of land use plan would be required to review a structure that was eight feet tall. Planning Consultant Kansier explained a zoning permit would be required for this type of structure. Councilmember Scott reported if the roof were changed from a pitched roof to a flat roof, the applicant would meet the City's requirements, however, this would be less visually appealing. He indicated he has been to the property and met with the applicant. He thanked the applicant for spending time and the expense of altering the plans to make this building visually appealing. He stated he would be offering his support of the 17 inch variance. Councilmember Holmes explained the reason the City kept the structure height at eight feet within the Ordinance was because the City wanted to minimize the impact from the lake. She commented "visually appealing" was in the eye of the beholder, because those passing by this structure may not find it visually appealing. She stated she would like to see the building height at eight feet and not nine and a half feet. Councilmember Holden asked if a pitched roof could be put on the shed to have the total structure height being eight feet. Planning Consultant Kansier reported this would mean the side walls would have to be shorter, in order have the peak of the structure at eight feet. Councilmember McClung stated he would not be supporting this variance noting he would like to see the City Council stick to the Shoreland Ordinance.