My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-25-16-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
07-25-16-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2016 9:28:10 AM
Creation date
7/25/2016 8:58:24 AM
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.
/
301
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 July 25, 2016 <br />P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-015 - 1494 Keithson Drive - Variance\Memos_Reports_16-015 <br /> <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />would be accessed through the new porch. In this case, a variance is only needed for the porch <br />addition as the deck encroachment in the rear yard setback is allowed under the permitted <br />encroachment provisions in Section 1325.03, Subd. 2 of the Zoning Code. <br /> <br />The applicants have submitted a letter addressing the variance criteria along with photographs of <br />the site (Attachment A). A site plan of the property and construction plans for the proposed <br />addition have also been provided (Attachments D and E). <br /> <br /> <br />Plan Evaluation <br /> <br />A full evaluation of the proposal was presented to the Planning Commission at their meeting on <br />June 8, 2016. The staff report to the Planning Commission is included in Attachment G. <br /> <br /> <br />Additional Review <br /> <br />Building Official and City Engineer <br />The Building Official and City Engineer have reviewed the plans and have no additional <br />comments at this time. A building permit will be required prior to any construction taking place. <br /> <br />Rice Creek Watershed District <br />The Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed the plans and determined that a permit is not <br />required for the project. <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 />• 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?
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.