Laserfiche WebLink
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 />