Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 13,2000 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />COlillcilmember Aplikowski statcd the proposal presents the cleanest line and will not deter from <br />the neighbor's view. She noted the proposal does not hamper other neighbors, and the applicant <br />has the right to enjoy his property in this way. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated the applicant has the ability to utilize his property in this way under <br />the zoning laws, and the proposal is the less intrusive option. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated he could not support the variance request, as he is unable to identify a <br />hardship in this case. <br /> <br />Council member Grant asked whether the hardship could apply to the neighbors as well as the <br />applicant. Ms. Randall stated the hardship applies to the property and not to the property owner <br />or any other person. <br /> <br />COlillcilmember Larson statcd he opposes granting this variance due to lack of hardship and the <br />fact that other options exist. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem stated she could not support the variance as no hardship exists, and the <br />alternative proposal should be reviewed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski stated the irregular shape of the lot could be considered a hardship <br />for the applicant, and reiterated her support of granting the variance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski moved, seconded by Councilmember Grant to approve <br />Planning Case #00-12, Rear Yard Variance (20 feet proposed when 30 feet is required) <br />for a garage addition based on the "Findings - Rear Yard Setback Variance" as contained <br />in the Staff report dated March I, 2000. <br /> <br />The motion failed (2 ayes, Aplikowski, Grant - 3 nays, Probst, Larson, Rem). <br /> <br />Mayor Probst noted the variance was not denied, adding the applicant could present alternatives <br />or new information if they wished. He added the Council could move to deny the variance, after <br />which the applicant could not reapply for 6 months. Mr. Erickson thanked the Council for their <br />consideration. <br /> <br />2. Case #00-13, Julie Schumacher, Spccial Use Permit (Class II Home <br />Occupation) <br /> <br />Ms. Randall explained that the applicant was requesting approval of a Special Use Permit (Class <br />II Home Occupation) for a personal training studio in a single family lot zoned R-2. The home is <br />located at 1932 West County Road E and was remodeled in 1994 to include a workshop area <br />behind the existing two-car garage. The applicant has a purchase agreement on the home and <br />would like to use the workshop area for a training studio. The City has several husiness <br />permitted as a Class I Home Occupation and only one (Arden Hills Nursery) with a Special Use <br />Permit. <br />