CCP 02-13-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Recommendation Recommendation of Denial At their February I, 2006, meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case #06-001 and voted 6-1 to rccommend denial of the minor subdivision based on the following findings of fact: 1. The non-conformity ofthe existing structure on the property would increase if the subdivision were approved. The current structure does not meet the required 40 foot front setback. The subdivision would increase the non-conformity of the structure hy allowing the structure to encroach on thc proposed new lot line. 2. The subdivision would result in two properties that would be detrimental to the public welfare and would not be consistent with the character of the neighhorhood. Since the variancc could not be approved without approval of the minor subdivision, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the variance based on the following findings of fact: I. The hardship may be considered an inconvenience, Since it is possible for the dwelling to be moved and thereby meet all setbacks, a hardship does not exist. The applicant has indicated that it is possible to move the structure without adding significant cost. If the structure is moved, the need for a variance would be eliminated. 2. The conditions are not cntirely unique to this property, It is not unique topographical, lot size, or lot dimensions that are making the variance necessary, Although the property does have a number of mature trees that add to the value and character of thc neighborhood, there is sufficient space on the proposed western property to place a conforming structure. While the mat Lire trees may pre-date thc current landowner, meaning he or she did not create the perceived hardship, the Ordinance does not clearly state that protecting trees meets the hardship requirements of a variance. 3. Granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare and would detract from the character of the neighborhood. Deadline for Agencv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on December 30, 2005. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by February 28, 2006 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review pcriod. The City may, with the petitioners', consent cxtend the review period beyond thc 120 days. 1'tMelro-inc{,/Is\ardenhillsIPlnnningIPhmning Cases12006W6-002 Findell minor subdjvi.~ion find vnrirmcel020606 - CC Report - FindeU Minor Subdivision & V(frinllcc.doc Page 2 of3 . . .