Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />-. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Memo to Planning Commission <br />Planning Case #02-02 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br />Given that most of the homes in the area were constructed utilizing different <br />development guidelines, many homes in the neighborhood are effectivelY precluded <br />from making even minor expansions / replacements to the front of their homes <br />without a variance since a majority have a front setback of less than 40 feet. <br /> <br />2. Whether granting the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />City's Zoning Code. <br /> <br />The variance would be keeping with the spirit and intent ofthe zoning code. More <br />specifically, granting the requested variance would "promote the character of and <br />preserve and enhance the properties and areas within the city. . . ." <br /> <br />3. Whether the property in question can be put to a reasonable use without granting of <br />a variance. <br /> <br />With our without a deck, the property can be put to use as a single family home. <br />However, as stated previously, given that most of the homes in the area were <br />constructed utilizing different development guidelines, many homes in the <br />neighborhood are effectively precluded from making even minor expansions / <br />replacements to the front of their homes without a variance since a majority have a <br />front setback of less than 40 feet. <br /> <br />4. Whether the hardship was created by the property owner. <br /> <br />The hardship was not created by the property owner. The deck has been in place <br />since the house was constructed. <br /> <br />5. Whether granting the variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. <br /> <br />This will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. As the applicant <br />indicates, other homes in the area have decks in the front of their homes. <br /> <br />Deadline for AQencv Actions <br /> <br />The City of Arden Hills received the completed application forthis request on February 26, <br />2002. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by April 23, <br />2002 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an <br />additional 60-day review period. The City may with the petitioners consent, extend the <br />review period beyond 120 days. <br /> <br />Options <br />