CCP 03-08-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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