Laserfiche WebLink
<br />D. Structure Height - Meets Requirements <br /> <br />The existing dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height <br />limit. <br /> <br />2. Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements <br /> <br />The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. <br /> <br />3. Additional Review <br /> <br />This application may require Rice Creek Watershed District approval prior to the issuance of <br />any building permits. If the variance is approved, a condition has been added requiring <br />RCWD review prior to the issuance of building permits. <br /> <br />Variance Evaluation Criteria <br /> <br />The criteria listed below must be used to evaluate each of the variance requests. <br /> <br />A. Variance Review Criteria - Section 1355.04 Subd. 4.C: <br /> <br />Variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code may be granted in instances <br />where the strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances <br />unique to the individual property under consideration. Variances shall only be granted <br />when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of <br />the Code. "Undue hardship," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, <br />means: <br /> <br />. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under conditions <br />permitted by the Zoning Code; <br />. The plight ofthe landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property <br />not created by the landowner; <br />. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character ofthe locality; <br />and, <br />. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if <br />reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Code. <br /> <br />B. Additional Review Information: <br /> <br />Although State Statutes include guidelines for evaluating variances, the interpretation and <br />meaning of those Statutes have been impacted by various court decisions. A somewhat <br />common, though apparently incorrect, interpretation of the written Statutes is that a <br /> <br />City of Arden Hills <br />Planning Commission Meeting for December 5, 2007 <br /> <br />\ \AhdocsllAHlAHdatalPlanning\Planning Cases\2007\07-029 Wessberg Variance (PENDING)\120507 - PC Report - Wessberg Variance. doc <br /> <br />Page 4 of9 <br />