Laserfiche WebLink
the size of the structure within the current setbacks. The addition would be setback 45 <br />feet from the rear property line. <br />C. Lot Coverage — Meets Requirements <br />The existing impervious coverage on the property is approximately 26 percent. The <br />proposed addition would increase the impervious coverage to 29 percent. City Code <br />limits impervious coverage to 35 percent. <br />D. Structure Height — Meets Requirements <br />The proposed addition would be a single story off the back of the existing garage and <br />would not exceed the 35-foot height maximum for principal structures. <br />2. Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements <br />The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. <br />3. Tree Preservation <br />The proposed addition would not require the removal of any significant trees on the property. <br />4. Additional Review <br />The Building Official has done a preliminary review of the submitted materials and has no <br />objections to the application. A building permit will be required prior to any construction <br />taking place. <br />Variance Evaluation Criteria <br />On May 5, 2011, the Governor signed into law new variance legislation that changed the review <br />criteria City's must use when evaluating variance requests. The new law renames the municipal <br />variance standard from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties," but otherwise retains the <br />familiar three- factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also <br />included is a sentence new to city variance authority that was already in the county statutes: <br />"Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and <br />intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive <br />plan." <br />p <br />Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical <br />difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions: <br />• Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? <br />• Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? <br />City of Arden Hills <br />Planning Commission Meeting for July 6, 2011 <br />1 I Metro -inet. us l ardenhills IPlanningl Planning Cases 12011 I11 -014 -1145 Amble Drive - Variance - (Pending)I07-06-11 - PC Report.doc <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />