06-06-07-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and intent of the Code. "Undue hardship," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, 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 of the locality; and, . Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the 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 owner does not need to show that reasonable use for a property only exists with an approved variance. Instead, the landowner must only demonstrate that the proposed variation is reasonable for a particular property in a given zone. For example, the property owner must only demonstrate that an addition that encroaches into a particular setback is reasonable as opposed to showing that the property would only have reasonable use with the addition. While this is a much softer interpretation of reasonable use, the applicant must still address all four variance criteria listed above. 5. Additional Review The City Engineer and Building Official have reviewed the revised proposal and their comments are included in Attachment 3D-2. Their comments do not impact the overall design of the proposal. The Rice Creek Watershed District has granted a CAPROC (conditional approval upon receipt of changes). While this is not a full approval, the conditions placed on the permit by City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor June 6, 2007 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-010 Celestica CUP Amendment (PENDING)\060601 - PC Report - Celestica CUP & Variance. doc Page 9 of 13