09-25-96 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MIN~i'ES CITY COUNCIL SEPTII4BER 25, 1996 requests on a case-by-case basis was the best way to handle variances. Morelan pointed out that all situations are not black or white, and felt the Code addressed situations where the road was straight and the lot was square. Fahey pointed out that most lots in Little Canada are deep; therefore, the Council will not get many requests similar to Jebens. Pedersen asked if Jebens could add a porch without a variance. Jebens reported that he had a 37 foot rear yard. It would be possible to construct a porch with a 7 foot hallway on the back wrapping around to the actual porch on the sideyard. Pedersen felt this would have more impact on the neighborhood than granting the variance. Pedersen felt the porch on the back of the house would have no impact on anyone. Fahey asked what the difference would be between an enclosed porch and a full-scale addition. Pedersen pointed out that the porch would be on posts. Morelan asked if there wasn't a severe slope in the back yard, if Jebens could construct a free-standing porch within 10 feet of the rear property line. The Planner replied that that was correct. It is because the porch is connected to the house that the variance is required. Scalze pointed out that Jebens has the ability to put the porch on the side of his house without need for a variance. Fahey stated that what bothers him is the Planner's recommendation that the Jebens variance request should be denied, while the Belland variance request should be approved. The Planner indicated the variance criteria talks about the shallowness of an existing lot of record. The Belland property was platted prior to Code requirements, while the Jebens property was not. When the Belland property was platted, it complied to the Code requirements of the time. 7