09-25-1996 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 196 hardship. The City Planner replied that the ordinance requires it not be possible to make reasonable use of the property in order to justify the variance. Reasonable use of the property is the single - family home, and that use is being made in full conformance of the ordinance. The Planner stated that on this particular lot he cannot image what circumstances could exist which would constitute a hardship. Rossbach felt it was reasonable to want to extend and expand the use. Jebens pointed out that his neighbors can have a porch, and indicated he would like to make this same use of his property. The Planner felt that was the benefit of having a larger lot. The fact that the lot is small is not a hardship for ordinance purposes. Schletty pointed out that while he can sympathize with Mr. Jebens, the Planning Commission does not make the rules. Schletty indicated that as defined by Code, there is no hardship present. Schletty stated that emotions cannot enter into the Commission's decision. Rossbach asked if the City has ever granted a setback variance. Keis replied that he is sure the City has granted such variances. However, these actions were based on hardships such as severe topography changes, etc. Barraclough agreed emotions had to stay out of the decision, and pointed out there are no topographical problems which would warrant the variance. Jebens stated that he wants to be able to conform with the neighborhood. Jebens felt more and more of his neighbors would be adding porches while he will not be able to. Mr. Keis recommended denial of the variance for rear yard setback as requested by Mr. David Jebens, 812 Aspen Circle, since there is no hardship present to justify granting of a variance as defined by City Code. 4 Page 25