07-06-22 PC Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 8, 2022 2 City Planner Jagoe reviewed the surrounding area, Site Data, and the Plan Evaluation. It was noted the Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. The Planning Commission members should state their rationale prior to the vote on the requested variance. A recommended motion by the Planning Commission should include the direction that Staff and the City Attorney prepare proposed findings of fact for City Council consideration. City Planner Jagoe reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Vijums opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Mitchell explained she was struggling with this request. She noted she was uncomfortable with how small the setback would become. However, after visiting the site, she understood this was a narrow corner lot and she would be offering her support for the variance request. Commissioner Weber indicated this was the second time this applicant has requested a variance from the Commission. He stated he supported the first request and he supports this request as well. He noted the City had a great deal of right-of-way on this lot and no intention of using it. He believed the plans before the Commission were the best use of the property. Commissioner Collins questioned how this request differed from the first time the variance request came before the Planning Commission. City Planner Jagoe explained this was the same as the variance request that was reviewed in 2021. Chair Vijums indicated he reviewed this request a year ago, and he supported the variance at that time. He discussed what the setbacks were when the home was built and noted the variance would be less than three feet. He asked if the addition siding would match the existing home. City Planner Jagoe reported it was her understanding the addition would have consistent building materials with what was already on the home. Robert Kunze, 4073 Valentine Court, explained the home was resided in the last five years. He indicated the siding and roofing materials were still readily available. Chair Vijums moved and Commissioner Weber seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-008 for a Variance at 4073 Valentine Court directing staff and the City Attorney to prepare proposed findings of fact based on the following: