CC_Minutes_2004_0223 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting - 02/23/04 Page 9 the City Council decision-making process relative to this case. Mr. Berkner concluded his comments by opining that if the variance was allowed, it would seem to be a taking. Several options were discussed among Councilmembers and Mr. Berkner, with no viable option being established. Councilmember Kough sought to clarify if other options had been considered. Councilmember Ihlan asked Mr. Berkner if he and the applicant had communicated or discussed, formally or informally, possible alternatives. Mr. Berkner advised that he had introduced himself to Charlie Rose, spouse of the applicant, and the renovation had been discussed, but he was under the impression that the project would not be happening this quickly. Councilmember Ihlan requested comment from the applicant as to her question of alternative and options being discussed between the neighbors. Charlie Rose, 998 Brooks Avenue (spouse of applicant) Mr. Rose advised Councilmembers that he had held numerous discussions with the Ramsey County Assessor and seven (7) contractors as to the ramifications or adverse affects to adjacent properties; and other suggested locations for the addition, respectively. Mr. Rose further advised that it was the opinion of the Ramsey County Assessor that there would be no adverse market value affects on the neighboring property; and further noted that all seven (7) contractors had concurred that the best, most economical location for the addition was that as presented in the request. Mr. Rose provided several pictures regarding the actual summer time view that would be available to the neighbor's property, which varied distinctly from Mr. Berkner's position, and in his opinion, created less of an impact than presented by Mr. Berkner's representative. Community Development Director Welsch noted that the deck is not considered a principal structure, and the setback for a deck