My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-5-14-PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2010-2019
>
PC Packets 2014
>
11-5-14-PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/9/2015 3:33:34 PM
Creation date
11/18/2014 11:02:28 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
91
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
municipal variance standard from “undue hardship” to “practical difficulties,” but otherwise <br />retains the familiar three-factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential <br />character. Also included is a sentence new to city variance authority that was already in the <br />county statutes: “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general <br />purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the <br />comprehensive plan.” <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <br /> <br />Findings of Fact <br /> <br />Staff offers the following findings of fact for review: <br /> <br />General Findings <br /> <br />1. The property at 3755 Dunlap Street North is located in the B-4 Retail Center District. <br />2. The property has a total lot area of 40,554 square feet. <br />3. The proposed use of the property for warehousing is a permitted accessory use in the B-4 <br />District. <br />4. Section 1320.10, Subd.2 states that the list of I-2 permitted uses as of April 1991, that are <br />currently not permitted in the B-4 District, will be allowed in buildings existing in April <br />1991 as permitted uses until redevelopment or replacement of the building or buildings <br />housing such uses occurs. <br />5. The building located at 3755 Dunlap Street North was in existence in April 1991. <br />6. Warehousing was a permitted use in the I-2 District as of April 1991. <br />7. The proposed addition to the existing building does not constitute the redevelopment or <br />replacement of the existing building on the property. <br />8. The property is nonconforming because the existing structure coverage of 11,708 square <br />feet, or 28.87 percent, exceeds the maximum structure coverage of 25 percent permitted <br />in the B-4 District. <br /> <br />City of Arden Hills <br />Planning Commission Meeting for November 5, 2014 <br /> <br />P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-033 - Variance - 3755 Dunlap Street\Memos_14-033 <br /> <br />Page 6 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.