My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-24-14-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
11-24-14-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2016 3:51:05 PM
Creation date
11/21/2014 4:05:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
245
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
<br />City of Arden Hills <br />City Council Meeting for November 24, 2014 <br /> <br />P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-027 - Variance - Transwestern 1160 Grey Fox Road\Memos_Reports_14-027 <br /> <br />Page 4 of 7 <br /> <br />Variance Evaluation Criteria <br /> <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 /> <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 />Findings of Fact <br /> <br />The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 14-027 at their regular meeting on November <br />5, 2014. Draft minutes from the meeting are included in Attachment A. The Planning <br />Commission did not approve, deny or table the request. Both the motion to approve and the <br />motion to table resulted in a split vote (3-3). <br /> <br />Therefore, the following Findings of Fact were not amended to reflect a motion for approval or <br />denial. As indicated in the Planning Commission Report staff offered the following eighteen <br />(18) Findings of Fact: <br /> <br />General Findings <br /> <br />1. That the property is located in the B-3 Service Business Zoning District. <br />2. That the lot is 333,523 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 430 feet in <br />width, and 745 feet in depth. <br />3. That the property consists of a principal building of 132,247 square feet in size. <br />4. That the property is accessed off of Grey Fox Road. <br />5. That the Zoning Code requires that there are 133 parking spaces for this use. <br />6. That the parking lot currently contains 148 parking spaces. <br />7. That the new parking area will consist of 33 new parking spaces.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.