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