Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22, 1999 <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />demonstrate a unique situation with the property, the fact that there are no other options, and a <br />hardship for the variance to be granted. The Council must consider the fact that there are other <br />options available for the location of additional storage. He stated that the applicant has not <br />demonstrated a hardship and he cannot support the variance request. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst concurred with Councilmember Malone. He agreed that there are other places <br />available where the structure could be located without creating a hardship. He expressed his <br />concern that if the variance were granted, this may be setting a precedence and it would be <br />difficult to maintain consistency. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst noted that the Planning Commission had looked for a logical basis to approve the <br />request, however, they were unable to come up with one. Because the applicant has not been <br />able to prove a hardship, he would be inclined to endorse the recommendation of the Planning <br />Commission. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson concurred with the Mayor's comments. He agreed that the proposed <br />addition may be an aesthetically preferred solution, however, since there are other areas available <br />for the structure, the City cannot grant variances for aesthetic reasons alone. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem noted that the applicant was hoping to replace the lost storage shed as well <br />as the carport. She asked if just the carport could be replaced. Mr. Ringwald explained that, <br />since the carport was a legal nonconforming use, if the structure is destroyed, it must meet the <br />new setback requirements. Under the Code this would be the same situation for the home if it <br />were at least 50% destroyed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski confirmed that ifthe addition were built behind the setback line, <br />within the buildable area, the applicant would not need a variance. Ms. Randall stated this was <br />correct. Councilmember Aplikowski asked if this option would be possible. <br /> <br />Mr. Wahlberg explained that this option would not look right with the home. He noted that, ifhe <br />had not removed the carport and had simply replaced some boards, he could have continued to <br />use if for the next 15 years. He stated that the requirements of the Code do not support upgrades, <br />rather it encourages the maintenance of shabby structures. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated that it is not the position of the City Council to support the deterioration of <br />the community. He stated there are Ordinance requirements which have to be met and he is not <br />compelled to find a hardship in this case. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone noted that it is unknown whether the carport had been built with a <br />building permit. Mr. Wahlberg stated the carport had been built approximately 20 years ago. <br />Councilmember Malone asked if Mr. Wahlberg was the homeowner at that time. Mr. Wahlberg <br />stated he was not. He has owned the home for approximately eight years. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone reiterated that the carport may have been built without a building <br />permit, or it may have been when the 20-foot setback requirement had been in place. He stated <br />