My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 07-28-2003
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
CCP 07-28-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:18:32 PM
Creation date
11/14/2006 2:36:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
143
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 />- - . <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 9, 2003 3 <br /> <br />Mr. Hellegers stated he spoke to the park operations director and he acknowledged there . <br />were no plans. <br /> <br />Mr. Parrish stated in the original building permit there was no indication of a deck permit. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman asked if that meant there was no pennit issued. Mr. Parrish <br />replied that they were not sure and that the City may not have required permits then or it <br />is not uncommon to have people put up decks without permits. In addition, the City <br />contracted for building inspection services at that time and retained limited records. <br /> <br />Chair Sand invited anyone for or against the variance request to come forward and make <br />comment. <br /> <br />David Dobratz, 1440 Indian Oaks Trail, addressed the issue ofthe date of the deck <br />construction by stating he was pretty certain the deck was built at the same time as the <br />house due to the nature of the cantilevered joists, but could follow up with the original <br />owner, Phillip Anderson. He also stated the original property was his lot and the lot to the <br />east. When his home was built, the home to the east was not there and at some time Mr. <br />Anderson split the lots and built the second home to the east. He also wanted to make it <br />known that something must be done with the current deck because of its age and <br />condition. He would like to utilize the woods but the bugs limit that, therefore, the need <br />for the screened-in pergola. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Chair Sand questioned Mr. Dobratz ifhe considered the option of moving the deck to the <br />west. Mr. Dobratz replied they did not consider the west side because of neighborhood <br />site lines. <br /> <br />Chair Sand stated there is a lot of room on the western part of the property and has a <br />difficult time considering making a non-conforming use worse when there is an option to <br />the west. <br /> <br />Mr. Dobratz stated if they went to the west it would disturb the visual lines for the <br />neighbors to the west and across the street. <br /> <br />Commissioner Larson questioned if the property owner came to the building department <br />to rebuild the deck, what would be the action in relation to the encroachment if building <br />in the exact location. <br /> <br />Mr. Hellegers stated the application would be reviewed by the building inspector and <br />because the deck is appurtenance to the principle structure it would be dealt with as a <br />non-conforming use. Ifless than 50 percent is removed or damaged, the applicant would <br />be granted a building permit to replace the deck using the existing footprint. <br /> <br />Chair Sand commented the applicant already has a deck encroaching and wants to <br />encroach further. He stated he believes the applicant has not made enough effort to <br />accommodate the option to the west. <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.