Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />~CTOBER 9, 1996 <br />encroachment by CUP would weaken the City's Zoning <br />Code. Pedersen was concerned that there would be <br />property owners constructing homes in a two-step <br />approach in order to get a large home on a small lot. <br />Scalze was concerned that under a CUP there would be <br />many property owners wanting to add onto their house <br />with encroachments into the required setback. There <br />would be no way for the City to deny these requests. <br />Fahey stated that he would be interested to know what <br />Variance standards are used by other cities. <br />Pedersen replied that Variance standards are State- <br />mandated. Those standards indicated that a hardship <br />must be present in order to justify granting a <br />Variance. <br />Morelan felt State Law should be looked at to determine <br />just what those standards are. <br />Fahey indicated that he was willing to revisit the <br />issue and look at those standards. Fahey felt Little <br />Canada was in line with other cities, if not on the <br />liberal side. Fahey asked if the cities had any <br />discretion in applying the State standards. <br />The City Attorney reported that the Statute says that a <br />hardship must be present in order to justify granting a <br />variance. <br />Fahey felt that other cities may have found a better <br />way to address this, and suggested that staff obtain <br />the variance standards used by the surrounding cities. <br />Fahey felt Jebens' argument was a good one since <br />everyone else in the neighborhood was able to add a <br />porch to their home, but he was not given the shape of <br />his lot. Fahey pointed out that the porch would have a <br />minimal impact on adjacent properties. <br />Scalze and Morelan agreed, and suggested that staff <br />provide a definitive answer on the standards set by <br />State Statute. <br />Jebens pointed out that there is still the overall <br />issue that he could construct a free-standing porch <br />within the rear yard setback without a variance. <br />Fahey pointed out that a free-standing porch would be <br />considered an accessory building, and would have to <br />meet the Code limitations on accessory space. Total <br />21 <br />