08-08-12-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Variance Evaluation Criteria On May 5, 2011, the Governor signed into law new variance legislation that changed the review criteria City's must use when evaluating variance requests. The new law renames the municipal variance standard from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties," but otherwise retains the familiar three-factor test of(1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence new to city variance authority that 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 the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan." Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions: • Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? • Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? • Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? • Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? • Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? As was the case before the new legislation took effect, economic considerations alone cannot constitute a practical difficulty. Furthermore, the new law clarifies that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Findings of Fact Staff offers the following sixteen findings of fact for review: General Findings 1. Although the 8,250 square foot lot was approved as part of the Hunters Park PUD, it does not meet the minimum requirements of the R-3 Zone. 2. The existing dwelling meets all property line setbacks. The existing detached garage encroaches on the front yard and southern side yard setbacks. 3. The proposed addition would reduce the combined side yard setbacks from 17.5 feet to 11.5 feet. The southern side yard setback would be reduced from 11.5 feet to five feet. The northern side yard setback would remain at six feet. A variance is required if the two side setbacks do not equal fifteen feet or more. 4. The proposed addition does not encroach on the rear or front setbacks. 5. The structure coverage is proposed to increase from 18.9 percent to 27.0 percent of the lot. A variance is required to exceed 25 percent structure coverage on the lot. 6. The landscape area would be reduced from 65.1 percent to 60.7 percent of the lot. A variance is required to reduce landscape area below 65 percent. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for August 8, 2012 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2012\12-013-1185 Benton Page 5 of 8