05-06-20 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2020 7 Chair Gehrig thanked Commissioner Lambeth for clarifying the disconnect. He asked how the Commission would like to proceed. Commissioner Jones stated he supported moving the item forward. Commissioner Wicklund was in agreement. Commissioner Wicklund moved and Commissioner Jones seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 20-008 for a Variance at 3244 Sandeen Road based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the two (2) conditions in the May 6, 2020, report to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lambeth stated he supported this project moving forward. However, he requested in the future that all variance requests include all information submitted by the applicant so the item can be properly considered by the Planning Commission. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). B. Planning Case 20-004; 1741 Venus Avenue – Variance Requested – No Public Hearing Required Associate Planner Hartmann stated the Applicants are requesting a variance to replace a deck in the front yard of their single-family detached dwelling on the Subject Property that also serves as the front door entrance to the house given the unique topography of the parcel. The front yard property line is 40 feet from the house and thus the proposed deck is 28 feet from the property line. The Subject Property is zoned R-1, Single Residential District and is guided as Low Density Residential on the land use plan. Associate Planner Hartmann reported the Applicants are proposing to replace the design instead of repairing the current structure. According to the Applicants’ narrative submitted as a part of their application, the proposed plan is to replace the deck and walkway which is original to the house. The decking is failing due to rotting wood after over 50 years in service and some of the current two -by-four support structure is not up to current state building code standards for decks. Associate Planner Hartmann explained the Applicants argue that the deck is an essential feature of the house, as it provides the only access to the front door and the plan they propose does not extend any farther toward the front lot line than the current deck and adjoining stone stairs, nor is the proposed deck any higher than the current deck, which would preserve neighborhood character. The proposal also removes a section of the deck to the west of the front door which partially blocks of the egress window on the ground level. The Applicants’ plan increases the area in front of the front door to make the front door more accessible and to create a space in the front of the house they argue will support neighborly engagement. Associate Planner Hartmann commented the Planning Commission is being asked to determine if a variance request for flexibility with the front setback requirement should be approved for the deck and “bridge” walkway. The sketches that have been submitted show that the replacement walkway would be the same size and length as the current walkway, but the replacement deck would exceed the area of the deck currently in place. The Applicant could replace the deck with a