My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-25-16-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
04-25-16-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2016 9:29:28 AM
Creation date
4/22/2016 4:34:56 PM
Metadata
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.
/
312
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
CONSENT ITEM – 5G <br /> <br />City of Arden Hills <br />City Council Meeting for April 25, 2016 <br /> <br />P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-008 - 1865 County Road D - Variance\Memos_Reports_16-008 <br /> <br />Page 3 of 7 <br /> <br />coverage is 25%, maximum impervious coverage is 35%, and the minimum landscape <br />coverage is 65%. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />D. Structure Height – Meets Requirements <br /> <br />The proposed accessory structure would not exceed the 15-foot height maximum for <br />accessory structures. <br /> <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 cities 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 /> <br />Existing Proposed Permitted <br />Square Feet % Square Feet % <br />House 777 6.39% 777 6.39% <br />Detached Garage 404 3.32% 728 5.99% <br />Decks/Patios 473 3.89% 473 3.89% <br />Shed 126 1.04% 126 1.04% <br />Structure Coverage 1,780 14.64% 2,104 17.31% 25% (Max) <br /> <br />Driveway 1,024 8.42% 1,277 10.51% <br />Sidewalk/Stoop 181 1.49% 239 1.97% <br />Other 13 .11 % 13 .11 % <br />Total Impervious Coverage 2,998 24.66% 3,633 29.89% 35% (Max) <br /> <br />Landscaping Coverage 75.34% 70.11% 65% (Min) <br />Lot Size 12,155
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.