Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Deadline for Al!encv Actions <br />The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on November 8, 2000, <br />Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by January 7,2001 (60 days), <br />unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period, <br />A letter of extension was sent to the applicant on December 18, 2000, extending the review date for <br />this application to:February 16, 200 I, due to the cancellation ofthe second City Council meeting in <br />December. <br /> <br />Lastly, if the City denies the petitioners request, "".it must state in writing the reasons for the denial <br />at the time that it denies the request", <br /> <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 /> <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Staff recommended to the Planning Commission that Planning Case #00-37, front yard setback <br />variance (35.5 feet proposed, when 40 feet is required) for the property located at 1867 Glen Paul <br />A venue, be denied for the following reasons: <br />1. The circumstances of the request are not unique to this property in the Glen Paul Avenue area <br />or the R-2 zoning district; <br />2, By not meeting the provisions ofthe ordinance, the application does not meet the spirit and intent <br />of the City's Zoning Code; <br />3. The property can be put to a reasonable use without this variance and the proposal could be <br />reconfigured outside of the setback area; and <br />4, The hardship is being created by the property owner by proposing an addition within the setback <br />area. <br /> <br />Plannine Commission Recommendation <br />The Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #00-37, front yard setback <br />variance (35.5 feet proposed where 40 feet is required) for a kitchen addition, for the following <br />reasons: <br />1, The hardship was not created by the property owner since the home existed before the Ordinance <br />was adopted; and <br />2, The granting of the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood; and <br />3. The property can not be put to a reasonable use without allowing for the addition of the kitchen <br />in its proposed location due to the location of the kitchen within the structure; and <br />4, The variance proposal meets the intent ofthe Zoning Ordinance. <br /> <br />Updates <br />None at this time. <br /> <br />3 <br />