Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. ~ <br />. Arden Hills Council 3 May 11, 1992 <br /> resulting from damage to the porch should <br /> maintenance work need to be done on the watermain, <br /> or <br /> 2 ) The porch be removed. <br /> - Planning Commission has recommended denial of a <br /> variance. <br /> Councilmember Hicks asked if the porch must be removed if <br /> the applicant does not agree to indemnify or the City grant <br /> a variance. Bergly said that is his and the City Attorney's <br /> opinion. <br /> Clayton Larson stated that he applied for the variance to <br /> obtain clear title because the porch is a nice feature of <br /> the house which he would like to keep. He explained that if <br /> he agreed to indemnify, he would simply be faced with the <br /> possibility of having to remove or repair the porch at some <br /> later time without advanced notice. He added that an <br /> indemnification agreement would not allow him to obtain <br /> clear title, therefore, he is unwilling to agree to <br /> indemnify. <br />. Larson explained that he felt this situation is unique, it <br /> was not caused intentionally, it is in no way an aggressive <br /> encroachment upon the easement, and there is no other <br /> location on the property to construct a porch. He stated <br /> that it was probably the original builder's fault that the <br /> deck was built encroaching upon the easement, and now as the <br /> new owner, he is suffering the consequences. <br /> Councilmember Hicks asked Larson if clear title can only be <br /> obtained by the removal of the porch or the granting of a <br /> variance. Larson answered yes and clarified that an <br /> indemnification agreement would not suffice to obtain clear <br /> title but would subject him to future costs to remove the <br /> porch. Larson stated that as a building inspector himself, <br /> he understands this type of issue very well, but is of the <br /> opinion that a variance would be appropriate in this case <br /> given the unique situation. <br /> Councilmember Malone stated that while he sympathizes with <br /> Larson and understands the situation was not created <br /> maliciously, he agrees with the Planning Commission's <br /> recommendation because the City must have ability to access <br /> the watermain immediately should a maintenance problem <br /> arise. <br />. <br />