05-02-07-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

As noted earlier, the applicant has estimated the grade of the drive to be approximately 16.2 percent. The Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed the proposal and granted a waiver to the applicant since there is no significant increase in impervious surface and no impact on wetlands. The applicant will be required to control erosion during construction if the variance is approved. 4. Variance Evalnation Criteria The criteria listed below must be used to evaluate the variance request. Staff has provided suggested findings offact in the following section. A. Variance Review Criteria- Section 1355.04 Subd. 4.C: Variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code may be granted in instances where the strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Variances shall only be granted when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Code. "Undue hardship," as used in connection with the granting of a vanance, means: . The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under conditions permitted by the Zoning Code; . The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; . The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character ofthe locality; and, . Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms ofthe Code. B. Additional Review Information: Although State Statutes include guidelines for evaluating variances, the interpretation and meaning of those Statutes have been impacted by various court decisions. A somewhat common, though apparently incorrect, interpretation of the written Statutes is that a property owner must show that they do not have reasonable use of their property without an approved variance. The difficulty with this standard is what counts as "reasonable use" of the property? Since most properties could be construed to have "reasonable use" without a variance, this standard was declared virtually insurmountable by the Court of Appeals. A revised interpretation of the "reasonable use" evaluation criteria has emerged from the Minnesota Court of Appeals. According to the City Attorney, a property City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor May 2, 2007 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\PlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-0J2 Muller Variance (PENDING) \050207 -PC Report -Muller Variance.doc Page 5 of8