My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 05-29-2001
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCP 05-29-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/13/2015 4:20:51 PM
Creation date
8/13/2015 3:18:50 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.
/
189
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
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— APRIL 30, 2001 5 <br /> in order to expand the non-conforming use there needs to be a variance. He reviewed the three <br /> traditional factors for a variance. He stated that if the council determines there is a hardship then <br /> they could grant the variance. <br /> Councilmember Aplikowski stated she is in favor of granting the variance, because it meets the <br /> first factors for a hardship. She noted the third factor might be a stretch, but it is a reasonable use <br /> of the area. She added she thinks anybody who has a home on the lake should have full use of <br /> that amenity. She stated she does not think it is changing the character of neighborhood or <br /> impacting the neighbors. She noted she is willing to go the extra mile and grant this variance. <br /> Councilmember Grant stated based on the fact they are not increasing the non-conformity he is <br /> inclined to grant the variance. <br /> Ms. Chaput stated they have allowed overhangs if the structure is not already placed. <br /> Councilmember Larson stated he is opposed to granting the variance. He noted he does feel <br /> there is a demonstrated hardship. He added he does feel there is a difference when people have a <br /> drainage problem or an unusual lot configuration. He stated he does empathize with Mr. Lundin, <br /> but do not think the plan that was submitted is the only way to accomplish the same thing. <br /> Councilmember Rem stated it seems like a trap what was applied for is what is left before the <br /> city council. She noted she believes there are some options. She added she understands the <br /> difficulty with the construction season. <br /> Councilmember Aplikowski stated she thinks it is reasonable request and still finds it favorable. <br /> Mayor Probst stated he has to oppose the request. He noted they are bound to take actions based <br /> on the facts of the case and he does not see a hardship. He added he would not rehash the <br /> arguments already expressed. <br /> Councilmember Larson asked if this is turned down would Mr. Lundin come back with a <br /> different plan. Mr. Philips responded it depends on the new plan. He stated if the city adopts the <br /> 50 foot setback and Mr. Lundin meets that, then he would only need a building permit. <br /> Mayor Probst asked if Mr. Lundin could come back next week. Mr. Filla responded if he <br /> changes the application, it would go back to the Planning Commission. He stated if there is no <br /> change, Mr. Lundin could not come back for six months. <br /> Mayor Probst stated they could table the matter and then he could change the change application. <br /> Mr. Filla stated the structure does include the deck. He noted modifications would be all right as <br /> long as they do not expand it. <br /> Mayor Probst stated he offers a recommendation to consider tabling it. He noted Mr. Lundin <br /> could come in tomorrow and verify he can build it as is with the building official. He added by <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.