09-25-1996 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 196 lot. Also the back yard is sloped to a certain degree leaving the back yard unusable. Jebens reported that he has a notarized statement from the neighbor directly behind him stating that he has no objection to the porch. DeLonais pointed out that adding the porch to the house requires compliance with setback requirements. Jebens felt there were enough grounds for a hardship, and that his request was not unreasonable. Keis felt a hardship was not present. Keis pointed out that the lay of the land is not extreme. If a variance is granted, the City must have good reasons for granting it. Otherwise, the Code should be changed with regard to setbacks. DeLonais pointed out that 7 feet could be added without encroaching into the setback. Rossbach stated that he has never seen such a clear cut case as this. Rossbach felt the proposal met all the criteria in order to justify a hardship. Keis pointed out the issue is that there is not enough room on the lot for the porch. Jebens felt there was a weakness in the Code as there is no pure definition of a deck. There is a definition for a porch, however, that definition sounds like a deck. Jebens reported that he only wants to upgrade his property, and feels his request is reasonable and fair. Rossbach pointed out there will be no foundation other than what already exists. The setback to the foundation is not being changed. Only vertical walls would be constructed enclosing the deck. Rossbach felt the proposal met every one of the conditions necessary to show hardship. Keis stated that he did not see evidence of a hardship, and felt the proposal should be denied. Keis pointed out that the Planning Commission only recommends to the City Council, who will have the final decision. Jebens asked what would have to be present to show 3 Page 24