Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3. Variance Evaluation Criteria <br /> The criteria listed below must be used to evaluate the variance request. Staff has provided . <br /> suggested findings of fact in the following section. <br /> A. State Criteria: <br /> Minnesota State Statue in Chapter 462.357, Subdivision 6, (2), defines "undue <br /> hardship" as: <br /> "...means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use !lused <br /> under conditions allmved by the official controls, tile plight oj tile lmzdo.i'ner is <br /> due to circumstance unique to tile proper(v not created b:v the landowner. and the <br /> variance, if granted, will not alter the essential cllaracter oj the locality. <br /> Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if <br /> reasonahle use of the property exists under the terms (~lthe ordinance... .'.' <br /> B. Local Criteria: <br /> Section 8.DA.c o[the Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance states: <br /> Adherence to this provisions (~l this /zoningl ordinance is required except for <br /> !!;pecial cases, which arise because the configuration oj a particular parcel. The <br /> condition shall not lIave been created by the lant/mi'ner. A variance or variances . <br /> nUl}' be granted from specific provisions oj tllis ordinance because such land <br /> factors as lengtll of a side of a lot, the sllape of tile lot or the unusual terrain <br /> prohibit reasonable development equivalent to that which Ivould be permitted <br /> It'ithout variance on a similar size lot located in the same district, but }t,'hich lot <br /> lias no unusual configuration. Economic conditions alone shall not be grounds <br /> Jor a variance. <br /> C. Additional Review Criteria: <br /> Although State Statutes include guidelines for evaluating vanances, the <br /> interpretation and meaning of those Statutes have been impacted by various court <br /> decisions. A somewhat common, though apparently incorrect, interpretation of <br /> the written Statutes is that a property owner must show that they do not have <br /> reasonable use of their proper(v without an approved variance. The difficulty <br /> with this standard is what counts as "reasonable use" of the property? Since most <br /> properties eould be construed to have "reasonable use" without a variance, this <br /> standard was declared virtually insurmountable by the Court of Appeals. <br />City (dArden Hills <br />Planning Commissio/l Meeting.f(,r November I, :!OO6 . <br />ii:\!etro-illct.us!ordcllhill.I"f'lollnillgIPlnnning Cnse.n2006i06-032I'oueher J'oriollce (f'ENO/NG)i/O/806 - PC [(epurI - Poucher J'ariallce.duc <br /> I)age 4 of 7 <br />