Laserfiche WebLink
is requesting. The existing garage was just as close to the property line as the <br />proposed garage. <br />4. Alternate locations: The pie shape of the parcel, trees, and setback requirements <br />would restrict a garage on the west side of the existing home. The garage could <br />be moved back. <br />5. Minimization of request: The applicant could reduce the garage depth to a <br />standard 22 feet and then only need a 5 foot setback where 10 feet is required. <br />There is sufficient depth to the lot allowing the garage to be extended out the back <br />for more storage space. <br />Deadline for Al!encv Actions <br />The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on December <br />1, 1999. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute the City must act on this request by Friday, <br />January 28, 2000 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons <br />for an additional 60 day review period. The additional review period would extend to <br />Tuesday, March 28, 2000. The City may with the petitioners consent extend the review <br />period beyond the Tuesday, March 28, 2000 date. <br />City Staff informed the applicant that an additional 60 days would be needed. <br />Lastly, ifthe City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in writing the reasons for <br />the denial at the time that it denies the request." <br />Options <br />1. Recommend approval as submitted. <br />2. Recommend approval with conditions. <br />3. Recommend denial with reasons for denial. <br />4. Table for additional information. <br />Recommendation <br />The Staff, in Planning Case 00-04, recommends approval of the side yard setback <br />variance for the detached garage modifying the request by reducing the width so a 5 foot <br />side yard setback, when a 10 foot is required based on the "Findings - Side Yard Setback <br />Variance ( detached garage)" section of this Staff report dated January 5, 2000. <br />Note: If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this Planning Case, then <br />it would be heard at the Monday, January 31, 2000, regular meeting of the City Council.