CCP 10-25-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Findinl!:s - Corner Side Yard Setback Variance The Staff concludes that the following factors relate to the requested comer side yard setback variance: 1. Circumstances Unique to the Properly: The property is bordered by public right-of- way on three sides creating a relatively small buildable area for this site. 2. Alternate Location: The applicant lists several other locations that they have considered. Other locations are limited due to the unique location of this lot. The only location available, that would not need a variance, is next to the building along the sidewalk. This site, however, would eliminate landscaping, a portion of sidewalk, and windows. This site is adjacent to the junction box which is where the generator is connected to the building. The next best option would be on the north side of the parking area; however, the only benefit is that the generator may be easer to screen. The applicant, however, has noted it would be difficult to connect the generator to the junction box from that location. 3. Variance not greater than necessary to accomplish the landowners objectives: The applicant took great steps to find an alternative location. The generator is as far from the property line as it can be without taking out parking spaces. The applicant is willing to screen the generator with a 10 foot high cedar wood fence or an alternative 10 foot high block wall with a cedar wood gate. The applicant prefers the cedar wood fence. Deadline for Agency Actions. The City of Arden Hills received the complete application for this request on Tuesday, July 13, 1999. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by Friday, September 10, 1999 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The applicant requested additional time to modify the plan, thus extending the review period 60-days. The additional review period would extend to Tuesday, November 9, 1999. The City may, with the petitioners' consent, extend the review period beyond the Tuesday, November 9, 1999 date. The petitioner withdrew the original proposal and submitted a revised plan, thus restarting the 60-day requirement as follows. The new proposal was received September 13, 1999, the City must act on this request by Tuesday, November 9,1999, or ask for an extension. Lastly, if the City denies the petitioners request, "... it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request." Options 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Recommend denial with reasons for denial. 4. Table for additional information. -- -- --