Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22, 1999 <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Ms. Probst stated the history of the property is that the area had been a lodge with cabins. She <br />indicated that when the property had been developed with new homes, some of the cabins had <br />been removed to make way for the new homes. The home in question was one which had <br />remained. She noted the neighbor to south of the applicant has a similar situation and has not <br />requested variances for new construction. If this variance is granted, the neighboring homeowner <br />may wish to add on to her home as well which will only extend the life of the small cabins. <br /> <br />Ms. Probst stated the applicant purchased the home as is and wondered if a home should be <br />purchased expecting a variance, or should the purchase be contingent on the approval of a <br />variance. <br /> <br />Mr. Delich stated that he had spoken with his neighbor to the south and she had indicated that <br />she had applied for a variance for a garage. However, since her home is situated over the <br />property line the variance was not granted and she did build a carport. <br /> <br />Mr. Delich explained that, when he had used the term starter home, he did not mean that he had <br />plans to sell the home. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Acting Mayor Aplikowski asked if the home is large enough to live in comfortably at this time. <br />Mr. Delich stated it was not. He pointed out that the home had been a rental unit over the years <br />and had not been well maintained. He indicated that when he purchased the home his intent was <br />to take care of the property and improve it. He stated that he has already done some work on the <br />inside and had hoped to be a good neighbor. If the he is forced to sell or rent out the home, it <br />may not be well taken care of. <br /> <br />Mr. Delich stated that he lives in a rough part of Saint Paul and he and his wife were hoping to <br />improve their living situation. <br /> <br />Acting Mayor Aplikowski expresscd her understanding of the applicant's wish to improve the <br />existing home. She stated that she wished she could approve the variance request, however, it <br />would not be safe for the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone stated that the intent of the City Council is not to give the applicant a <br />difficult time. He indicated that for the City to allow these nonconforming structures to get <br />bigger would not be acceptable and the rules ofthe variance would not allow it. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone stated that he wished the applicant had requested the variance prior to <br />purchasing the home in order to have been informed of the situation before making a financial <br />investment. He reiterated that the City Council is not trying to be difficult and he does <br />sympathize with the applicant's situation. However, the applicant had not met the grounds for <br />granting a variance. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to <br />deny Planning Case #98-37, Side Yard Setback Variance (five feet one inch <br />proposed, when 10 teet is required) and Front Yard Setback Variance (30 feet <br />