Goodhue council closes variance hearing and directs staff to draft conditional resolution for long-standing downtown apartments

The Goodhue City Council on Feb. 26 closed a public hearing on a variance request that would recognize existing first-floor apartments in two downtown buildings and directed staff to draft a conditional resolution for consideration at the next work session.

Applicant Jason Gravan (presented in hearing) said the units have been used as apartments since 1993 and that his request is to legalize the existing units without adding new apartments. “They've been apartments since 1993,” the applicant said, explaining his intent to preserve affordable housing and maintain the office space in the front of one building.

Why this matters: the request touches on the council’s stated long-term policy to keep the primary retail/business frontage on the downtown first floor. Several local business owners and residents urged caution, saying first-floor residential use could undermine efforts to attract commercial tenants and set a precedent. One resident described the change as “like you express shooting yourself in the foot,” urging the council to consider downtown vitality when setting conditions.

City attorney Bob outlined the legal standard and a range of conditions the council could impose. He described the most restrictive option — tying the variance to current tenants so that the variance would lapse when vacancies occur — and less restrictive conditions such as prohibiting additional apartments or limiting building permits for new residential conversions. “The most restrictive condition I think you could impose would be…granting a variance for the current tenants and as soon as the current tenants die or leave or assign the lease to somebody else the variance goes away,” Bob said.

Council members expressed reluctance to force long-term tenants from their homes and generally favored a conditional approach. Several members said they would permit the existing units to remain but would prohibit additional first-floor apartments and would require building permits for any interior work that changes use. The council voted to close the hearing and directed staff to prepare a resolution granting the variance with conditions to be reviewed and finalized at an upcoming work session; no final variance decision was adopted that night.

The hearing included repeated references to the downtown history of permitting and several speakers asked the city to improve consistency in zoning enforcement. Council members and staff said the next step is a written resolution describing the agreed conditions and that the council will vote on that resolution at the work session.

Outcome: hearing closed and staff directed to prepare and present a conditional variance resolution for council action at the next work session.