PC 07-09-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 9, 2003 3 Mr. Hellegers stated he spoke to the park operations director and he acknowledged there . were no plans. Mr. Pamsh stated in the original building permit there was no indication of a deck permit. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if that meant there was no permit issued. Mr. Parrish replied that they were not sure and that the City may not have required permits then or it is not uncommon to have people put up decks without permits. In addition, the City contracted for building inspection services at that time and retained limited records. Chair Sand invited anyone for or against the variance request to come forward and make comment. David Dobratz, 1440 Indian Oaks Trail, addressed the issue of the date ofthe deck construction by stating he was pretty certain the deck was built at the same time as the house due to the nature of the cantilevered joists, but could follow up with the original owner, Phillip Anderson. He also stated the original property was his lot and the lot to the east. When his home was built, the home to the east was not there and at some time Mr. Anderson split the lots and built the second home to the east. He also wanted to make it known that something must be done with the current deck because of its age and condition. He would like to utilize the woods but the bugs limit that, therefore, the need for the screened-in pergola. . Chair Sand questioned Mr. Dobratz ifhe considered the option of moving the deck to the west. Mr. Dobratz replied they did not consider the west side because of neighborhood site lines. Chair Sand stated there is a lot of room on the western part ofthe property and has a difficult time considering making a non-conforming use worse when there is an option to the west. Mr. Dobratz stated if they went to the west it would disturb the visual lines for the neighbors to the west and across the street. Commissioner Larson questioned if the property owner came to the building department to rebuild the deck, what would be the action in relation to the encroachment if building in the exact location. Mr. Hellegers stated the application would be reviewed by the building inspector and because the deck is appurtenance to the principle structure it would be dealt with as a non-conforming use. If less than 50 percent is removed or da111aged, the applicant would be granted a building permit to replace the deck using the existing footprint. Chair Sand commented the applicant already has a deck encroaching and wants to . encroach further. He stated he believes the applicant has not made enough effort to accommodate the option to the west.