My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-27-14-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
05-27-14-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/23/2014 4:05:58 PM
Creation date
5/23/2014 4:05:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
145
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
4.Additional Review <br />a. <br />The Rice Creek Watershed District reviewedthe plans for this request and determined <br />that a RCWD Permit would not be required for the proposed project at 1850 Venus <br />Avenue. <br />b. <br />The Building Official reviewed the plans for the project and hadno additional <br />comments. <br />c. <br />The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and stated that a Grading and Erosion <br />Control Permitis needed for this project. <br />d. <br />Ramsey County has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to the project; <br />however, the County has stated that no grading, retaining walls or other structures <br />will be allowed on their property. <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 withthe purposes and intent of the ordinance? <br />Is the variance consistent withthe comprehensive plan? <br />Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? <br />Are there unique circumstancesto the property not created by the landowner? <br />Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential characterof 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 findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. A single <br />family home is a permitted use in the R-1 Zoning District, and the addition is not an <br />City of Arden Hills <br />Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 <br />P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 -Variance -1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 <br />610 <br />Page of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.