CCP 07-12-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . 4. Was the hardship created by the owner? (NO) The hardship in this case is that the lot, which was platted in 1956, was created with only 63.97 feet along the northern property line and approximately 110 feet along the south property line. Currently our R-1 District requirements list a minimum lot width of95 feet. Typically, corner lots are platted with additional width to allow a building envelope comparable to an interior lot while meeting the City's Side Yard Corner setback requirements. Due to the location of the lot and the tapered polygon shape of the lot, this property has one of the smallest building envelopes in the area. This in turn makes it difficult to accomplish improvements without the needfor variances, Since the applicant was not involved with the platting of the property the hardship was not created by the applicant. 5. Would granting the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? (NO) The subject property is surrounded by single family homes to the east, south, and west, and open space from the MSI/Country Insurance property to the north. The frontage of the single family homes in the area is directed toward Cannon Avenue and Dunlap Street. The applicant has proposed a new addition and garage to the east of the existing single family home. This proposal would maintain the focus of the property on Cannon Avenue and create a more functional connection between the house and the back yard. In the applicants proposal there are other alternatives that the applicant contemplated prior to requesting the variance. One of the alternatives (Option B) illustrates the applicant's dilemma with attempting to stay within the building envelope; doing so has the potential to alter the character of the neighborhood by creating more of a liner/wall-like structure. The applicant's proposal follows the standard orientation of the houses in the area; their width and orientation toward the street. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that the applicant's proposal would maintain the essential character of the neighborhood. Deadline for Ae-encv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on (date received). Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the city must act on this request by (need action hv this date) (GO days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional GO day review period. The city may with the petitioner's consent extend the review period bcyond the 120 days. \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\2004\04~12 Arend Variance (PENDING)\06-02-04 PC Report Arend Variance.doc Page 5 of6