Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – MAY 26, 2020 9 <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden indicated the plans for the deck were beautiful but she could not support <br />a large deck in the front yard. She understood the home currently had a deck, but she didn’t <br />support the expansion of the deck. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes explained there were no decks in front yards in Arden Hills. She did <br />not understand why this home did not have a porch. She explained she could support a front <br />porch and bridge/walkway but did not support the oversized deck on the front of the home. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung stated he feels similarly. He reported the Council crafted a front <br />porch ordinance and this was brought to the applicants’ attention. He indicated the expansion of <br />the deck was not something he could support. He encouraged the residents to consider a front <br />porch. He explained he could not support the requested variance. He believed approving this <br />variance would set a dangerous precedent. <br /> <br />Councilmember Scott asked if the neighbors had provided any feedback on the request. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Hartmann stated in general the neighbors supported the variance request for <br />the expanded deck. <br /> <br />Councilmember Scott discussed how the new deck railing system would have a more sleek <br />design and would be less visible. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant asked if this were a porch how far out could it go from the house. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Hartmann reported per City Code a porch could extend out 10 feet from the <br />house. He noted a deck could extend out from the front of a house 6 feet and the applicants were <br />requesting 12 feet. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant stated given the Ordinance the City had in place he would not be able to support <br />the requested deck expansion. <br /> <br />MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a <br />motion to adopt Resolution 2020-023 denying Planning Case 20-004 for a <br />variance at 1741 Venus Avenue based on the findings of fact and that the <br />property already has reasonable use, there was not a covered porch, the City <br />does not allow decks in the front yard, and the proposed deck would encroach <br />even further into the front yard setback. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes stated the deck was a problematic issue. She commented the walkway <br />was not so much of a concern for her. She encouraged the applicant to come back to the City with <br />a new plan. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant questioned what the next step would be for the applicants if he plans were denied. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported the applicants could come <br />back with similar plans in six months or a new plan sooner than six months. He explained if the <br />item were tabled the applicants could revise the plans.