Laserfiche WebLink
On May 5, 2011, the Governor signed into law new variance legislation that changed the <br /> review criteria City's must use when evaluating variance requests. The new law renames <br /> the municipal variance standard from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties," but <br /> otherwise retains the familiar three-factor test of(1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) <br /> essential character. Also included is a sentence new to city variance authority that was <br /> already in the county statutes: "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony <br /> with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are <br /> consistent with the comprehensive plan." <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 /> • Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? <br /> • Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? <br /> • Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? <br /> As was the case before the new legislation took effect, economic considerations alone <br /> cannot constitute a practical difficulty. Furthermore,the new law clarifies that conditions <br /> may be imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear <br /> a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. <br /> 4. Additional Review <br /> The City Public Works Director and Building Inspector have reviewed the project and have <br /> not expressed any objections to the proposal. Building permits will be required and all <br /> building and fire code requirements will be met. <br /> Findings of Fact <br /> The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed all meets the <br /> requirements of the Zoning Code and if they would adversely affect the surrounding <br /> neighborhood or the community as a whole. Staff offers the following findings for <br /> consideration: <br /> General Findings: <br /> 1. Bethel University is located in the B-1 District <br /> 2. The proposed use is a permitted accessory use in the B-1 District <br /> 3. Temporary classrooms are permitted accessory uses in the B-1 District <br /> 4. The proposed wellness center would be an average of 39 feet, six inches in height. <br /> 5. With the exception of height,the proposal for the wellness center meets all requirements <br /> of the Zoning Code <br /> 6. A variance has been requested to address the height of the wellness center. <br /> City of Arden Hills <br /> Planning Commission Meeting for May 9, 2012 <br /> P:IPlanningWlanning Cases12012112-006-Bethel University-CUP Amendment(Pending)105-09-15-PC Report-Bethel CUP Amendment.doc <br /> Page 6 of 9 <br />