My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-6-13-PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2010-2019
>
PC Packets 2013
>
03-6-13-PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/9/2015 3:17:11 PM
Creation date
7/10/2013 9:07:29 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2.Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements <br />The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. <br />3.Additional Review <br />This application may require Rice Creek Watershed District approval prior to the issuance of <br />any building permits. If the variance is approved, a condition has been added requiring <br />RCWD review prior to the issuance of building permits. <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 />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 cannot <br />constitute a practical difficulty. Furthermore, the new law clarifies that conditions may be <br />imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough <br />proportionality to the impact created by the variance. <br />Discussion <br />The applicant has submitted a revised plan that attempts to solve the issues of the site while <br />bringing the structure into greater conformance with the building code. By using the grade <br />changes that are already on site, the applicant has been able to build most of the addition below <br />grade, thus reducing its visibility from the street. The architecture and materials for the addition <br />appear to be in line with the character and style of the existing home, and the at-grade portion of <br />City of Arden Hills <br />Planning Commission Meeting for March 6, 2013 <br />P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-001 Wessberg Variance (Pending)\UPDATE - PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc <br />Page 4 of 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.