CC PACKET 08231988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 such a regulation would be difficult to enforce because of the 2 difference in space available for parking on driveways. However, Marks 3 said, he perceived there was a third aspect of this request which 4 involved the question of whether the variance legally met the statutes 5 of the State from whom the City derives its authority to issue 6 variances. Having taught about this issue in the Government Training 7 Service sessions and discussed it with many planners and planning 8 commissions over the last eight years, Councilmember Marks said he had 9 concluded what it came down to finally was that a particular parcel of 10 land had to be so very unusual that the normal application of the 11 variance would be unreasonable. As an example, he gave several examples 12 of cases where the unusual topography of the land itself might prevent 13 the owner from properly siting a structure or making a "reasonable" use 14 of his land. 15 In looking over the Tomas site, the Councilmember indicated he "couldn't 16 see any reasonable way for the City to grant a variance because there 17 was nothing unusual with respect to the parcel of land which prevented 18 it from being used in a reasonable fashion without granting a 19 variance. " - 20 Marks said he believed from the standpoint of the State statutes there 21 might be some serious questions raised about the City granting the 22 variance requested in this case. The Councilmember added he knew 23 Councils at times granted variances without justification for doing so 24 because they wanted to be "good guys. " , 25 Enrooth challenged the last statement, telling Councilmember Marks he 26 perceived instead, Councils, based their decisions on general 27 architectural design or how a proposed structure would fit into how the 28 property is viewed, maybe not from a legal standpoint, but rather for 29 its looks or appearance. He pointed out that the non-conforming 30 existing structure is already there and the City is not going to attempt 31 to remove it. The decision should therefore be whether "to enhance or 32 detract from its appearance. " 33 Makowske indicated she disagreed with Councilmember Marks' assessment 34 of the City's ability to grant this variance. She said she believed 35 the physical surroundings which includes a deck which is already 36 present and the use of the land as a yard had also to be taken into 37 consideration. It was her opinion that adding the new garage where the 38 applicant proposed would be much better because it would be in alignment 39 with the existing structure which the City had allowed previously by a 40 variance and a "particular hardship" might result because of that 41 variance if the -applicable ordinance were strictly enforced." 42 When Marks commented that he perceived the addition could be sited 43 elsewhere on the property, Sundland pointed out that the same had also 44 been the case in 1966 when the City approved a variance for the same 45 alignment as is being requested now. 12