4B, Planning Case #11-014 for a Variance at 1145 Amble Drive

Home Browse Search

struciure. Whil� the addition would remain in line with the existir�g setbacks of the home, a variance is required because the property currently encroaches ten feet inio the 40-foot side yard setback, as would the addition. The praposed addi�z�n wouId meei a11 other setback requirements. The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the variance criieria, an aer�al of the property with the addition drawn in, and elevaiions of the proposed addition (Attachment B). Variance Evaluation Criteria On May S, 2011, the Governor signed into law new variance legislation that changed the review criieria City's must use when evaluating variance requests. The new law renames the municipal variance standard from "undue hardsl�p" to "practical di�ficulties," but otherwise retains the �atniliar three-factor iest of (1} reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence new to ciry variance authoriry tihat was already in the county statutes: "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when ihe terms of the variance are consistent with ihe comprehensive pian." Therefoxe, in evaluating variance requests uander the new law, in ord�r ta find a practical difficulty, cities should adapt findings addxessing the following quesiions: • Is the variance in harmony with the purposes axid intent of the ordinance`? • Is the variance consistent tivith the comprehensive plan? • Does the proposal put propez�ty ta use in a reasonable manner? • Are ihere unique circumstances to the property not created by �he landowner? • Will the variance, i� granted, alter the essential cha�acter of the localiiy? As vcras the case before the new legislation took effect, constituie a practical difficulty. Furthex�nore, the new imposed on granting of variances i� those conditions ar proportionaliiy to the i�npact created by the variance. Findin s of Fact econo�ic consideratians alone cannot law clarifi�s that conditions may be e directly related to and bear a rough The Planning Cammission offers the following thirteen findings of fact for revier�v: General Findings 1. The lot size meeis the requirements of the R-1 Zoning District. 2. The loi meets the width and depth requirements for the R-1 Zonrng District. 3. The property is a corner Iot. City ofArden Halls Crty Council Meeting for July .25, 2011 P:1PlannirrglPlanning Cases120114I1-014 -1145.4m61e Drive - Y¢riance -(PC ApprovedJ 107-25-11 - CC Reporf.doc Page 2 af 4