Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />~CTOBER 9, 1996 <br />speaking, there must be an extreme hardship in order to <br />justify granting a Variance. With a CUP, the Council <br />could address applications from a common sense point of <br />view. Morelan pointed out that a 2 foot encroachment <br />was a lot different than a 25 foot encroachment. <br />Morelan felt that the Council should be able to take a <br />broader look at the issues than the Variance process <br />allows. <br />Scalze pointed out that in most cases a CUP cannot be <br />denied if it meets the requirements of the ordinance. <br />Fahey pointed out that the City could allow decks <br />encroaching into the required setback to be enclosed <br />provided the enclosure does not extend beyond the <br />limits of the existing deck and provided there is no <br />negative impact on adjacent property. Fahey asked if <br />it was State Statute which requires that a hardship be <br />present for a Variance to be approved. The City <br />Attorney replied that was correct. Fahey noted that <br />while the Statute makes this requirement, the City <br />still has the ability to handle these items under the <br />Conditional Use Permit process rather than the Variance <br />process. <br />Fahey stated that he was sympathic to Mr. Jebens' <br />arguments because the deck was allowed to encroach into <br />the setback, and enclosing the deck would not be <br />detrimental to adjacent properties. Fahey also pointed <br />out that other properties in the neighborhood would be <br />allowed to construct three-season porches on their <br />homes. <br />Scalze indicated that she would be interested to know <br />what requirements Maplewood places on CUP's approved <br />for this purpose. <br />Fahey expressed concern that if the City allowed <br />porches which encroach into the required setback by <br />CUP, that property owners would construct a house as <br />large as possible planning later to approach the City <br />for a CUP for a porch. This would be one way to get <br />something which would not be allowed when the home was <br />first constructed. <br />Scalze pointed out the Arcilla home on Keller Parkway, <br />and the fact that the Council denied a setback Variance <br />for this home when it was first constructed informing <br />the Arcilla's that the home they planned to build was <br />too large for their lot. <br />Pedersen was concerned that allowing setback <br />20 <br />