Laserfiche WebLink
Variance and Nonconforming Use Request – Gordhamer Residence (1820 Skyhigh Dr) <br />Planning Commission Report; 10-15-19 <br /> <br /> <br />Page 6 <br />(cont.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />2) Is the Variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? <br />Staff Analysis: The requested variance is not in conflict with the comprehensive <br />plan. The plan intends to provide an avenue for the betterment of all property <br />within the community, and seeks to ensure land uses are compatible throughout <br />the City. The proposed improvements will maintain the character of the existing <br />home and neighborhood, will be the first major improvement to this home in <br />decades, and will have no noticeable impact on surrounding areas. Criteria met. <br />3) Has the applicant established that practical difficulties exist on the site? <br />a. Does the applicant propose to use the property in a reasonable manner <br />not permitted by the zoning ordinance? <br />Staff Analysis: Expanding the home to the north is reasonable and would be <br />allowed via a simple building permit but for the home being built too close to <br />the roadway when originally constructed back in 1952. The existing garage <br />has not caused any known issues over the past 60+ years, and the homes <br />location is not anticipated to create any issues for the planned reconstru ction <br />of Skyhigh Drive in 2024. As legal nonconformities are protected by state <br />statute and as the proposed addition will not be intentionally expanding the <br />nonconformity towards Skyhigh Drive, we find the request is reasonable. <br />Criteria met. <br />b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to this <br />property that were not created by the landowner? <br />Staff Analysis: The applicant did not construct the original home in 1952, is <br />not responsible for the garage location within the setback, and had no control <br />over the angle of the home not being exactly parallel with the roadway. <br />Criteria met. <br />c. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? <br />Staff Analysis: The addition will maintain the character of the existing home <br />and therefore the project should not have an impact on the essential character <br />of the locality. Additionally, improvement to existing homes is important to <br />ensure the local housing stock maintains its value and functionality both now <br />and into the future which play a major role in maintinaing neighborhood <br />character. Criteria met. <br /> <br />