My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-06-20 PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Minutes
>
PC Minutes 2020
>
05-06-20 PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/1/2020 1:35:00 PM
Creation date
7/1/2020 1:34:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2020 10 <br /> <br />topography of property and noted some of the new deck space would be used as a walkway into <br />the home, which would be unusable space. She explained the deck would be used to visit with <br />neighbors while kids were playing, which was consistent with the feel of the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Chair Gehrig asked if the topography of this property was more traditional with a deck in the <br />front, how far the deck could extend into the front yard setback. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated per City Ordinance, decks and <br />covered porches may extend six feet into the front and rear setback. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lambeth requested further information on how the deck was supported and <br />questioned what portions of the deck were failing. <br /> <br />Mr. Tourdot reported the main portion of the deck that was failing was the bridge. He stated the <br />bridge was canted to one side and the 2’x4’s on the walkway were becoming soft. He explained <br />the existing deck structure could not be rebuilt as it was because it was cantilevered out from the <br />house. He commented further about how the deck was supported by joists that were cantilevered <br />out from the house, four feet on center. He discussed how construction of decks had changed in <br />the past 50 years. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lambeth reported 2’x4’s was not the typical material used for decks. He asked <br />what the applicants would be using for deck material. <br /> <br />Mr. Tourdot indicated he would be using recycled decking material. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lambeth questioned what would happen to the cantilevered supports. <br /> <br />Mr. Tourdot explained this would be addressed during the building permit phase but he <br />anticipated a ledger would have to be installed in order to support the deck, along with posts and <br />footings to support the joists. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lambeth inquired what the scope of work would be for this project. <br /> <br />Mr. Tourdot stated he was proposing to remove the existing deck and to build a new deck in the <br />the front of his home. <br /> <br />Chair Gehrig commented the variance request before the Commission was for the size of the <br />structure. He reported the scope of the building materials was not under consideration and would <br />be reviewed by staff through the building permit process. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lambeth indicated what he was trying to get at was that the applicant was <br />proposing to build a maintenance free deck that would last for some time into the future. <br /> <br />Commissioner Vijums explained he was constructing a deck at his cabin. He commented further <br />on the building requirements and anticipated the proposed deck would last 50+ years. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jones discussed the cantilevered decks he had built and stated he supported the <br />project as proposed.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.