My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PC 07-09-2003
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Minutes
>
PC Minutes 2003
>
PC 07-09-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:13:14 PM
Creation date
11/10/2006 3:42:54 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
<br />I <br /> ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 9, 2003 2 <br />. Chair Sand questioned the zoning ordinance requirement regarding permanent <br /> encroachments into setbacks. The zoning ordinance states encroachments may extend <br /> three feet into the required setback for decks and in no case the setback is to be no less <br /> than six feet. Re questioned the fact the existing deck is already encroaching more than <br /> three feet and now the applicant wants to make the encroachment worse. <br /> Mr. Hellegers stated that was correct and that the house is 30-feet from the property line. <br /> The existing deck is l2-feet from the property line and the applicant is requesting an <br /> additional six-feet of encroachment. The situation was created by the builder of the home <br /> by building the home so close to the east property line and the wooded area. The rear of <br /> the property is abutted by 29-feet oftree cover and no cover is planned to be removed. <br /> Staff considered moving deck to the west but there is a tuck under garage, which would <br /> pose problems. The applicant wants to add a pergola to maintain the amenity of a deck so <br /> close to the woods, but because of the mosquitoes, it needs to be enclosed. Tn effect, the <br /> request increases the non-conforming area but grants the property owner more buildable <br /> area. <br /> Commissioner Ricke questioned ifthere would be any trees removed in this process. Mr. <br /> Rellegers stated that would not be the case. <br /> Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the 30-foot setback was established when the house <br />. was built and if the deck was constructed at that time or later. Mr. Hellegers stated he <br /> was unaware of any variance for the current deck and was not sure when it was <br /> constructed. This could be verified by checking the building permit and he was not <br /> certain of which zoning ordinance applied. <br /> Commissioner Zimmerman commented that the Planning Commission is continually <br /> running into items like this. If the original ordinance requirements are not known, it is <br /> difficult to make decisions. <br /> Mr. Rellegers replied that information is cross-referenced, but many files prior to I980 <br /> have been damaged or destroyed. There is no variance indicated for this property and staff <br /> can review the building file for a deck permit. <br /> Commissioner Ricke questioned if any other neighbors commented besides those in the <br /> packet. Mr. Hellegers answered there were no further comments. <br /> Commissioner Larson noted the front deck must have built at the same time as the house <br /> due to the nature of cantilever. When the deck was built it was in violation and the <br /> hardship was created by the original owner. Re also noted that number five of the report <br /> stated other properties have similar issues with but number one stated the circumstances <br /> are unique to the property. <br />. Commissioner Zimmerman questioned if there was anything in the park and trail <br /> comprehensive plan that would eause park to move closer to this property. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.