My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-06-08-PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2004-2009
>
PC Packets 2008
>
02-06-08-PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/9/2015 1:25:56 PM
Creation date
1/31/2008 2:37:25 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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
1. The proposed addition is/is not a reasonable use in the R-1 Zone because ... <br />2. The proposed addition will/will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or <br />the City because... <br />3. The circumstances in this planning case are/are not unique to the property because... <br />4. The variance is/is not based on economic considerations alone because ... <br />Criteria 1, 2, and 4 are already addressed in the findings. Criteria three must be addressed for the <br />record prior to making a motion. <br />1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend ap rp oval of Planning Case <br />07-029 for a variance at 1455 Skiles Lane based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, <br />and the six conditions in the December 5, 2007, planning case report. <br />2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend ap rp oval of Planning Case 07- <br />029 for a variance at 1455 Skiles Lane based on the findings of facts and the submitted plans <br />in the December 5, 2007, planning case report. <br />3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 07-029 for a variance at <br />1455 Skiles Lane based on the following findings of fact... <br />4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 07-029 for a variance at 1455 Skiles Lane: a specific <br />reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. <br />Notice <br />Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by <br />the City and mailed to properties within three -hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property. <br />Resident Comment <br />The City has received letters from three of Mr. and Mrs. Wessberg's neighbors indicating their <br />support for the project (Attachment 3A-2). <br />Deadline for Agency Actions <br />The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on November 5, <br />2007. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by January 4, 2007 <br />(60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day <br />review period. The City may with the petitioners' consent extend the review period beyond the <br />120 days. <br />City of Arden Hills <br />Planning Commission Meeting for December 5, 2007 <br />I L4hdocsll ahWHdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases12007107-029 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED)1120507 -PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc <br />Page 8 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.