2019.10.15 Planning Commission - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Variance and Nonconforming Use Request – Gordhamer Residence (1820 Skyhigh Dr) Planning Commission Report; 10-15-19 Page 7 (cont.) 4) Is the variance being sought solely to improve the value of the property? Staff Analysis: The applicant has enjoyed living in the home for the previous year and is undertaking the addition to improve the livability of the home. The work is not being done solely to increase the value of the home for resale purposes. Criteria met. Additional Information:  Historically Cities have been reluctant to approve variances because for most of MN local planning history, the threshold for approval was proof of a “hardship” (i.e. what makes the property unique from every other parcel with the s ame zoning such that special rules should apply givn the circumstances). That was unquestionably a difficult threshold to achieve, and variances were rarely granted as a result.  In 2010, a MN Supreme Court decision resulted in every city having to transition from “hardship” as the standard to judge variances by to “practical difficulty;” a far easier threshold to achieve which only looks at the critiera outlined in this report. Rather than having to be completely unique, the threshold is a softer “is this practical” and “was the owner responsible for the issue creating the problem.”  In the case of a setback variance, staff will VERY rarely recommend approval of an addition that increases the nonconformity on the lot, but we will be inclined to recommend approval of requests that do not increase the nonconformity and result in an addition that causes no issues and seemingly benefits everyone (property owner improves a home that hasn’t been improved for years, neighborhood sees an old home improved thereby improving area property values, and the City sees its housing stock maintained and property values rise). Had the original builders in 1952 done their job correctly, the home would have been completely parallel to the road and this proposed addition would not have increased the nonconformity. As so happens though, the home was ever so slightly skewed such that the addition will technically be approximately 3.5” closer to the road than the existing home. Had the skew gone the other way, the addition would be further from the road than the existing home. In summary, the resulting increase in nonconformity is negligible, and we do not believe the current landowner should be held accountable for poor surveying roughly 70 years ago. Engineering Review:  Engineering reviewed the proposed plans for the addition and had no comments or concerns. Public Safety Review:  No comments or concerns