PCP 11-01-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 dcmonstrate 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 the following three questions: 1. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstance unique to the property not created by the landowner; 2. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and, 3. The variance cannot be based on economic considerations alone. All four variance criteria must be met to approve a variance. D. Variances as Precedent: From a legal standpoint, granting a variance generally does not create a precedent for approving similar future variances. In most circumstances, each variance request and the subsequent approval or denial is considered a separate and unique . situation. Findinc;s of Fact StaiT offers the following seven findings of fact: 1. The proposed garage addition would encroach five feet into the northern side yard setback, where at least ten feet would nomlally be required. The proposed garage addition would not cause the property to exceed any impervious coverage limits or encroach on any other setbacks in the R-I Zone. 2. The intent of the side setback requirements is to provide sufficient open space bet\veen dwellings. Cunently, there is approximately thirty-five feet between the dwelling to the north and the subject dwelling. If the variance is approved, the distance between the two structures will decrease to twenty-one feet. Dwellings in the R-l Zone are generally required to be bet\veen twenty and twenty-five fect apm1. 3. While there is likely reasonable use of the property without the variance, the proposed garage expansion is a reasonable use 011 a residential property. 4. The circumstances related to the property arc somewhat unique and outside of the control of the property owner. The change in topography in the rear yard may Otl' o.fArden I fills . Planning Commission Meeting/cll' November I. 2006 \\Afelro-inel.lIsillrdcllhillsiPtllnning\Ptmllling Casesll(J(J6i06-032 POl/cher Variancc (PFN01NG) 1/0/806 - PC Rcport - POl/c'her Varillllce.dac I'age 5 of 7