Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City of Arden Hills <br />Planning Commission Meeting for June 8, 2016 <br />P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-015 - 1494 Keithson Drive - Variance\Memos_Reports_16-015 <br /> <br />Page 5 of 8 <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? <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 />Findings of Fact <br /> <br />Staff offers the following findings of fact for review: <br /> <br />General Findings: <br />1. The property at 1494 Keithson Drive is located in the R-1 Single Family Residential <br />Zoning District. <br />2. The lot is in conformance with the minimum lot size and dimensions for the R-1 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-1 District.