Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />." <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />Would granting the variance alter the essential character of the <br />neighborhood? <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />No. The effect of the garage should not alter the character of this neighborhood. <br />The applicant has stated that having the garage attached would preserve the open <br />feel and vista of the rear yards for the properties along Glen Arden Road. <br />Currently, several properties have small sheds but the only garage in the rear yard <br />area is several houses to the south of the applicant's property. As many of the <br />properties in this area already have houses or garages which appear to be closer to <br />the property line than the minimum of I 0 feet, the visual effect ofthe proposed <br />attached garage should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. <br />However, it is possible that the variance would set a precedent which could lead <br />to more variance requests and potentially more construction with setbacks less <br />than the minimum 10- foot side yard setback <br /> <br />The applicant has stated that while it may be reasonable to construct a detached <br />garage in the rear yard area, he feels that the attached garaged would preserve the <br />open back yard area which he sees as part of the essential character of the ' <br />neighborhood. In addition the applicant has stated that by constructing the <br />attached garage there would be less pavement and therefore less run-off. While it <br />may be more "reasonable" to construct the detached garage, the applicant believes <br />that by instead constructing an attached garage, he will be preserving the open <br />back yard area and thereby preserving the essential character of the neighborhood. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Deadline for Al!encv Actions <br /> <br />The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on March 24, <br />2003. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the city must act on this request by May 24, <br />2003 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an <br />additional 60 day review period, The city may with the petitioner's consent extend the <br />review period beyond the 120 days. <br /> <br />OPtions <br /> <br />I, Recommend approval as submitted, <br />2, Recommend approval with conditions. <br />3, Recommend denial. Ifthe City denies the petitioner's request, "". it must <br />state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request". <br />4. Table for additional information. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />PC #03-09 - PC Report 03/27/03 - Page 5 0[6 <br />