pf10-025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-� _ Bryan Lloyd From: Thomas Paschke Posted At: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 1:43 PM Conversation: Structure setback variances at 1015 Judith Ave. - Initial Review Posted To: DRC - Initial Review Subject: Structure setback variances at 1015 Judith Ave. - Initial Review Given the recent MN Supreme Court ruling regarding reasonable use, I think it is in our best interest not to support variances. Instead, we should be crafting specific language in our zoning ordinance update that provides single family property owners with greater opportunities to improve/update their homes. I would be challenged to support after reading the MN Supreme Court ruling. .____ ____ _ _ _ ._ ___. _ _ _ _ _._ _._ _ _ - From: Bryan Lloyd Posted: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 1:19 PM Subject: Structure setback variances at 1015 Judith Ave. - Initial Review If you haven't heard, "variances" is a sticky subject these days. Based on recent case law, courtesy of the MN Supreme Court, cities' loosening interpretation of the statutory language authorizing variances has been reeled- in and the statute must again be understood strictly as written. Essentially, the statute says that variances exist as a tool to provide relief to property owners when some unique circumstances on a specific property conspire with the zoning code to effectively prohibit the use of the property. For example, if you had a parcel that was intended and zoned for a single-family dwelling but the zoning requirements somehow (acidentally) prohibited the construction of a single-family residence, cities could approve variances from some code requirements to facilitate a dwelling on that property. The flip side, however, is that if you can use the property for a single- family residence within the requirements of the zoning code then you don't really need a variance. Of course, a house that fits within the zoning parameters might be a far cry from the house you actually want, but them's the breaks. SO...here's a situation in which the property owner rightly wants to fix some pretty egregious site/structure conditions at his home. The trouble is that the most desireable way to fix the problems is by expanding the attached garage into the required front and side yard setbacks. Cold and unfortunate as it is, my assessment is that the zoning code doesn't prohibit him from correcting the problems by relocating the laundry facilities and improving the footings/foundation in a way that meets the setback requirements of the zoning code, so I've told him that I'll likely have to recommend a denial of his variance application in light of the Supreme Court's mandate that we adhere strictly to the statutory language. I've made a sketch of the proposed addition, and the applicant has provided some ima�es and words that help illustrate/explain the situiation.