8A, Planning Case #12-013 - Variance at 1185 Benton Way

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—August 8, 2012 4 private green space. It is unlikely that the neighborhood as a whole exceeds the lot coverage limitations; however, that cannot be verified without a neighborhood-wide review. e. Structure Height—Meets Requirements The proposed addition would not exceed the 35-foot height maximum for principal structures. 2. Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains,wetlands or easements. 3. Tree Preservation The proposed addition would not require the removal of any significant trees on the property. 4. Additional Review This application may require Rice Creek Watershed District approval prior to the issuance of any building permits. If the variance is approved, a condition has been added requiring RCWD review prior to the issuance of building permits. The Hunters Park Architectural and Environmental Committee, along with the two adjacent neighbors, have approved the proposed addition. 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 this 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 Community Development Intern Matt Horton offered the following sixteen findings of fact for review: