My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-12-21-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2020-2029
>
2021
>
07-12-21-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2021 10:47:13 AM
Creation date
8/10/2021 10:47:08 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.
/
8
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 CITY COUNCIL—JULY 12, 2021 7 <br /> Mayor Grant commented this structure was 17 inches too high. He indicated the Council <br /> reviewed the Shoreland Ordinance for almost two months. He questioned if the applicant was <br /> fully aware of the variance request given the new requirements within the Shoreland Ordinance. <br /> Planning Consultant Kansier stated she did not have conversations specifically regarding this, <br /> but noted the applicant spoke about building height and was aware of the City's requirements. <br /> MOTION: Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a <br /> motion to deny Planning Case 20-017 for a Variance at 3493 Siems Court, <br /> based on the following Findings of Fact: <br /> 1.) The City Council spent considerable time reviewing and redrafting the <br /> Ordinance for accessory structures in the shore impact zone. <br /> 2.) The City Council increased the allowable size for accessory structures in <br /> the shore impact zone. <br /> 3.) The City Council decided not to increase the structure height due to <br /> weighing the needs of residents versus those enjoying the lake. <br /> 4.) There are no practical difficulties for this variance request. <br /> Councilmember Scott stated the reason the Council considers variances individually, was <br /> because it allows the Council to consider each request based on the unique attributes of the <br /> property. He noted this property was very steeply sloped and the proposed building would not <br /> obstruct a view from the home or the lake based on the additional 17 inches in building height. <br /> He indicated he would not be supporting the motion on the floor. <br /> Councilmember Holden commented this was not a unique property on the lake. She stated after <br /> working with the DNR for over six weeks on the Shoreland Ordinance, she indicated she would <br /> like to see the City Council stick to the Ordinance and not support the variance. She feared that if <br /> this variance were approved, numerous requests would be made in the future from lakeshore <br /> property owners. <br /> Mayor Grant indicated he would be supporting the motion on the floor. While he appreciated <br /> the fact the applicant had come back with adjusted plans, he believed there were ways for the <br /> applicant to meet the Ordinance requirements. <br /> Councilmember Holden clarified the applicant had not modified his plans since last fall. <br /> Planning Consultant Kansier reported the plans were adjusted in October, but no adjustments <br /> have been made since that time. <br /> Mayor Grant questioned what options the applicant would have regarding an accessory structure <br /> if this variance were denied. <br /> Planning Consultant Kansier explained the applicant would not be able to bring a variance <br /> request before the Council for another six months, unless it was a substantially different request. <br /> She commented another option would be for the applicant to bring an accessory structure request <br /> that meets the City's requirements. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.