Laserfiche WebLink
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 /> Variance Evaluation Criteria <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 /> 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 /> 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 /> Findings of Fact <br /> Staff offers the following findings of fact for review: <br /> General Findings: <br /> 1. The property at 1494 Keithson Drive is located in the R-I Single Family Residential <br /> Zoning District. <br /> 2. The lot is in conformance with the minimum lot size and dimensions for the R-I District. <br /> 3. The existing conditions on the property are in conformance with the setback and structure <br /> and lot coverage requirements for properties in the R-1 District. <br /> 4. The proposed porch addition would encroach 3 feet— 6 inches into the rear yard setback <br /> creating a setback of 26 feet — 6inches from the rear property line. The minimum rear <br /> yard setback in the R-1 District is 30 feet. The proposed porch addition would meet all <br /> other setback requirements for the R-I District. <br /> City of Arden Hills <br /> Planning Commission Meeting for June 8, 2016 <br /> PAPlanningTIanning Cases\2016\PC 16-015-1494 Keithson Drive-Variance\lemOS Reports_16-015 <br /> Page 5 of 8 <br />