CCP 12-14-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 2, 1998 DRAFT 5 . . Ms. McMonigal explained that the railing is required by Code. Commissioner Sand pointed out the railing would not have to extend out as far as proposed it could run parallel with the posts. Ms, McMonigal reiterated the purposes for the cantilevering and noted the porch is a small element to the house given the length of the home, She asked the Commission, if the porch were brought back by six inches, would this be an option that would be considered. Chair Erickson stated, if this would bring the variance closer to meeting the intent of the ordinance, he may be willing to consider it as an option. Chair Erickson asked if, according to the south elevation, the grade under the porch is dropping. Ms, McMonigal explained that the grade at the house is not changing. The top of the stoop is being dropped by six-inches and one step on either side is being eliminated to maintain the grade of the home. Chair Erickson asked if three risers are being added. Ms, McMonigal stated that this is correct. She noted the current steps are larger than allowed and will be changed to a seven to seven and one-half inch rise, The current risers vary from eight to ten inches, Chair Erickson asked if there would be a step up at the door. Ms. McMonigal stated that there would be one. Commissioner Sand asked if the Commission could suggest changes to the variance request or . would the case have to be brought back with new plans. Mr. Ringwald stated that in this case, if the applicant is willing to cut six-inches off the width ofthe porch, this would be a minor change and could be added as a condition. Modifications would then be made to the proposal and presented to the City Council for their consideration, Ms. McMonigal suggested that currently there is approximately two-feet from the piling to the outside edge, and this could be cut back to I8-inches. Commissioner Sand asked the applicants if this was something they would be willing to consider as a condition if the variance were granted. Mr. and Mrs. Thompson stated that they would. Commissioner Nelson asked if the cantilevering would be removed. Ms. McMonigal indicated, if possible, she would prefer to keep the cantilever and cut it back six inches. Commissioner Baker requested confirmation that the proposed porch would then be nine and one-halffeet by 12 feet. Ms. McMonigal stated that this is correct. Commissioner Sand referred to the recommendation portion of the Staff memo and noted it refers to a variance for an attached garage and asked if this was a typing error. Ms. Randall indicated it was a typing error, Commissioner Sand moved, seconded by Commissioner Ga1atowitsch to recommend approval of Planning Case #98-29, Mark and Roberta Thompson, 3413 Snelling Avenue . North, Side Yard Setback Variance (5 feet in lieu of the proposed 4 feet 6 inches, when 10 feet is required) for a porch which is to be left open and never enclosed.