My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 02-13-2006
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
CCP 02-13-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:21:17 PM
Creation date
11/14/2006 4:42:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
117
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Planning Commission Recommendation <br /> <br />Recommendation of Denial <br />At their February I, 2006, meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case #06-001 <br />and voted 6-1 to rccommend denial of the minor subdivision based on the following findings of <br />fact: <br />1. The non-conformity ofthe existing structure on the property would increase if the <br />subdivision were approved. The current structure does not meet the required 40 foot <br />front setback. The subdivision would increase the non-conformity of the structure hy <br />allowing the structure to encroach on thc proposed new lot line. <br />2. The subdivision would result in two properties that would be detrimental to the public <br />welfare and would not be consistent with the character of the neighhorhood. <br /> <br />Since the variancc could not be approved without approval of the minor subdivision, the <br />Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the variance based on the <br />following findings of fact: <br />I. The hardship may be considered an inconvenience, Since it is possible for the dwelling <br />to be moved and thereby meet all setbacks, a hardship does not exist. The applicant has <br />indicated that it is possible to move the structure without adding significant cost. If the <br />structure is moved, the need for a variance would be eliminated. <br />2. The conditions are not cntirely unique to this property, It is not unique topographical, lot <br />size, or lot dimensions that are making the variance necessary, Although the property <br />does have a number of mature trees that add to the value and character of thc <br />neighborhood, there is sufficient space on the proposed western property to place a <br />conforming structure. While the mat Lire trees may pre-date thc current landowner, <br />meaning he or she did not create the perceived hardship, the Ordinance does not clearly <br />state that protecting trees meets the hardship requirements of a variance. <br />3. Granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare and would detract <br />from the character of the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Deadline for Agencv Actions <br /> <br />The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on December 30, <br />2005. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by February 28, <br />2006 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 <br />day review pcriod. The City may, with the petitioners', consent cxtend the review period beyond <br />thc 120 days. <br /> <br />1'tMelro-inc{,/Is\ardenhillsIPlnnningIPhmning Cases12006W6-002 Findell minor subdjvi.~ion find vnrirmcel020606 - CC Report - FindeU Minor <br />Subdivision & V(frinllcc.doc <br /> <br />Page 2 of3 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.