01-12-26-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — NOVEMBER 24, 2025 12. A Shoreland Mitigation Plan shall be required and shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a Building or Demolition Permit. An escrow fee that shall be held for a minimum of two years shall also be submitted. Mitigation plan actions shall be completed in accordance with City Code Section 1330.03 Subd. 7. E. within one year of the plan's approval unless otherwise approved by the City. 13. As part of the proposed new home development, the Applicant shall not increase the existing nonconforming square footage equivalent that encroaches the shore impact zone of the Subject Property. 14. For Impervious Surface Coverage, Structure Coverage, and Floor Area Ratio, the Applicant shall not exceed a standard that is calculated by taking the existing nonconforming equivalent for the currently developed 1622 lot and adding to that the equivalent of the square footage that would meet the Zoning Code standards for the neighboring undeveloped lot. Plans submitted to the building department must not exceed that maximum allowable square footage based on the calculation. 15. The Applicant shall submit a shoreline vegetation and screening plan that provides natural habitat with native plantings and screens the new structure by at least 50% as viewed from the water, assuming summer leaf -on conditions to the DNR and the City. The plan shall be approved by DNR staff. 16. The Applicant shall submit a plan to direct rain gutter discharges away from the lake and into an infiltration basin to the DNR and the City. The plan shall be approved by DNR staff. 17. As part of the building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a plan showing the proposed square footage for the permeable pavers with sign -off from a civil engineer. Proposed square footage for the permeable pavers shall not exceed 15 percent of the consolidated lot's required landscaped area. Councilmember Weber asked if this was a reconstruction or new construction project on these lots. City Attorney Bjerkness explained this was a new construction project on two different lots. Councilmember Weber stated he did not interpret the Planning Commission's directive to place all of the variance requests on one lot (Lot 3) and not the other (Lot 4). It was his understanding it was better to spread the variance requests across the two lots, instead of having this considered on just one lot. Councilmember Holden commented that she thought the two lots would be consolidated and the new house would be built on the new lot. City Attorney Bjerkness reported this was her understanding as well. She indicated if the lot consolidation were approved, the variances would then have to be considered from the new larger parcel. Councilmember Monson requested staff speak to the intention of the City's building area elevation rule. Senior Planner Fransen explained this rule would ensure the construction would not be too close to the water level or negative impacts for the utilities. Councilmember Monson inquired why the City had setbacks from the ordinary high water line.