Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – FEBRUARY 24, 2020 5 <br /> <br />7. Decks, uncovered porches, ramps, and steps generally may extend six (6) feet into required <br />setbacks but in no case shall these encroachments be less than six (6) feet from any lot <br />line. <br />8. The proposed deck on the Subject Property would otherwise conform to all other <br />requirements and standards of the R-2 district and Shoreland Management Regulations. <br />9. The proposed development would not encroach on any flood plains, wetlands, or <br />easements. <br />10. A variance shall be granted if the Applicant meets all three factors of the statutory test for <br />practical difficulties. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Hartmann explained the Planning Commission recommended approval by a <br />5-0 vote of Planning Case 19-020 for a Variance at 3159 Shoreline Lane, based on the findings of <br />fact and the submitted plans in the February 5, 2020 Report to the Planning Commission, as <br />amended by the following conditions: <br /> <br />1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. <br />2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City <br />Code. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden requested further information from staff regarding the written <br />comments received from the public. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Hartmann stated staff received four different comments from the public. He <br />indicated the comments came from residents living within the notification radius. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the four comments <br />received by staff were not in support of the Variance request. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant stated he viewed the property from one of the neighbor’s yard. He indicated he <br />was struck by the Planning Commission’s recommendation given the fact other deck expansion <br />variances were denied by the City. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung commented while the City may have received four letters not in <br />support of the request, he reported he received five emails from individuals that did not support <br />the request. He noted for the record this property had other infractions or code violations. <br /> <br />Councilmember Scott questioned if a permit was required for demolition work on the existing <br />deck. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated a demo permit would be <br />required. <br /> <br />Councilmember Scott stated it was his understanding the proposed deck would encroach 5 ½ feet <br />into the high water level. He noted the last variance from the high water level ordinance the City <br />considered was back in 1995. He reported his big concern as the fact that the City had not heard <br />from the watershed district. He commented he feared how climate change would continue to