Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />August 8, 1996 <br />the situation is a physical hardship, then everyone who had <br />a corner lot could come to the City with the same request. <br />Keis asked if the hardship was the City's instead of the <br />Thorp's, would that constitute approval. Grittman indicated <br />that would again be financial hardship. <br />Grittman stated that if the Planning Commission approves the <br />request, the City's financial hardship could be a criteria <br />added to the list of reasons for approval. However, the <br />Planning Commission should also say that the City issued the <br />building permit in error. He indicated that the City would <br />not want to get in a situation where just because the City <br />issued a permit in error, some kind of precedent would be <br />set. Grittman stated that the Planning Commission should <br />list as many reasons as possible to make the approval a <br />unique situation to prevent setting a precedent. <br />Thorp indicated that there would also be the expense of <br />tearing out the old slab. He stated that it is 8" of <br />concrete with mesh. He felt that if the shed was moved to <br />the backyard, it would lower the property value of his home. <br />Keis felt that was not a good argument in terms of criteria <br />that the Planning Commission needs. <br />Keis felt that there were three options to consider: <br />1) Let the shed stay in its current location; <br />2) Move the shed to the backyard; or <br />3) Buy Thorps out and remove the shed from the property. <br />Thorp stated that City staff told him that the driveway and <br />the shed's location were okay. He indicated that staff was <br />told it was a corner lot. <br />Knudsen asked for some examples of non - financial hardship. <br />Grittman stated that the shape or condition of the land <br />would be non - financial. <br />Barraclough asked if the home was purchased new. Thorp <br />stated that it was purchased new and that it was the <br />developer's model home. <br />Keis stated that the shed does not look bad and the <br />visibility is okay, but he was unsure what to do about the <br />situation. He was concerned about setting a precedent since <br />errors could happen again. <br />Knudsen felt that the City's error was not a good reason to <br />approve the variance. Montour asked what the frequency <br />would be of the City making an error again. Grittman stated <br />that he was not aware of another City error involving a <br />zoning issue ever occurring. <br />-5- <br />Page 45 <br />