Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the <br />property exists under the terms of the ordinance. The hardship is due to original design <br />circumstances not economics. <br />4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would <br />be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Other <br />applicants with similar circumstances could request variance consideration. <br />5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The spirit <br />and intent of the ordinance provides for single family use of the property. <br />The applicant has discussed the proposed construction with his neighbors who have <br />indicated no objection to the proposed variance. It does not appear that the proposed <br />construction would cause a visibility problem at the intersection of Aspen Lane and Black <br />Duck Drive. <br />Staff would suggest that the P & Z determine if this variance request is reasonable and if <br />so recommend approval. In the alternative, the P & Z could determine that the request is <br />based on economic consideration and design elements created by the property owner (or <br />previous owner) and therefore recommend denial. <br />After considerable discussion Don Dunn made a motion, supported by Sharon Lane to <br />approve the variance. The motion failed 2 -4 with Members Johnson, Schilling, Corson <br />and Carlson voted nay. <br />OPTIONS: <br />1. Approve variance request <br />2. Deny variance request <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />Council discretion <br />