My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-12-16-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
09-12-16-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/7/2017 9:44:54 AM
Creation date
9/12/2016 1:33:05 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
138
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 />Planning Commission Meeting for August 3, 2016 <br />P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-017 - 1536 Edgewater Avenue - Variance\Memos_Reports_16-017 <br /> <br />Page 4 of 7 <br /> <br />The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. <br /> <br />3. Additional Review <br /> <br />Building Official <br />The Building Official has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. A <br />building permit will be required prior to any construction taking place. <br /> <br />City Engineer <br />The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has noted that a Grading and Erosion Control <br />permit will be required for the addition. <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? <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 />Discussion <br /> <br />Staff is supportive of the variance request for several reasons. Due to the narrow width of the lot, <br />the property owners are uniquely constrained by the minimum and combined side yard setback <br />requirements. If the lot was in conformance with the minimum width requirement of 95 feet, a
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.