Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Regular City Council Meeting - 02/23/04 <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />as the legal front yard for code reference. <br /> <br />Discussion included a similar variance request acted upon in <br />Consent Agenda No. 3.3 (370 Millwood); and City Attorney <br />Anderson's legal opinion regarding the legal standard as it would <br />apply related to the concerns of the Planning Commission and <br />setting a precedent. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson opined that he didn't view that by <br />granting the variance, there would be a precedent set; noting the <br />uniqueness of each property and differing circumstances facing <br />individual property owners; and concurred with the analysis <br />provided by staff of the standards (i.e., hardships). Mr. <br />Anderson various enabling legislation whose purpose anticipates <br />needs that arise and allows people to vary from strict <br />performance standards of state statute, noting that case law <br />would support that preferred use was reasonable. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson addressed several other standards in <br />determining viability of variances besides hardship, including <br />whether it would alter the essential character of the area, and <br />economic considerations in the overall picture, neither of which <br />would stand on their own in denial of a variance. <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued regarding the ambiguous wording of <br />the statute related to reasonable and accuracy of hardship testing; <br />after which Mayor Klausing opened the meeting for public <br />comment. <br /> <br />Thomas Berkner, father and representative of adjacent <br />property owner, John Berkner, 2476 Aglen Street <br />Mr. Berkner provided a bench handout related to this agenda <br />item. Mr. Berkner spoke in opposition of the variance, opining <br />that the porch and deck addition would invade the privacy of his <br />son's property. Mr. Berkner, as his son's representative, based <br />his opposition to this variance on the non-unanimous variance <br />request decision of the Planning Commission; opined that this <br />variance was not legally allowed as it would impact and reduce <br />the market value of his son's property; nor was a variance legally <br />allowed as an equitable remedy; and further opined the <br />inaccuracy of the Community Development staff report, tainting <br />