09-10-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1984. PAGE 4 1820 LONIE FISK the value of Fisk's development is c:on_.istent or in excess of the general value of the neighborhood. Hoffman stated that Emond has estimated the current value of the land as nominal. Hoffman stated that if the variance was granted, the property would have an undeveloped value of approximately $12.000. Hoffman :Mated if a house was constructed on the property, the value of the land would be $17,000. Hoffman stated that the land is currently taxed at $500 a year. Hoffman stated that other parcels that are taxed $500 a yearusually are valued at $76,000 after construction of a home. Lawrence Emond stated that he has taker. 10 sales in the Orono area. Emond stated that the sales ranged from $75-95,000. Emond stated that the real estate tax (homesteaded taxes on existing property] on $75,000 sale is $614. Emond stated that on other sales ranging from $85-88,500the average tax was $1,047.75. City Attorney Malkerson stated that the Supreme Court of Minnesota has ruler] Lhat the Council cannot vote for or against any variance application based upon what neighbors want or don't want. Malkerson stated that is not relevant. Malkerson stated what is relevant, however, are the concerns of the neighbors as they relate to the health, safety and welfare. Malkerson stated that the health, safety and welfare concerns are proveable concerns 4ithin the courts, not just mere statements that the neighbors think a variance will result in the dimunition of land value, or that a variance will result in over crowding of the neighborhood, or a variance may cause traffic problems. Malkerson stated that it is important to remember that the court has reviewed a lot of variance cases and have said, it is not whether people want the variance or not, it is, what is the basis for any testimony; is there any basis in fact, which facts support legal reasons for denial or approval. Don Meyer of 485 Park Avenue stated it is not a matter of what the neighbors want, but that the neighbors want the ordinances upheld. Meyer stated that he rnc.ved into the area assuming that this is a one acre zone. Meyer reminded the Council that this land was ta.c forfeit and that he didn't think that anyone would let a perfectly buildable lot go tax forfeit without selling it for a profit. Meyer stated that he would just like to keep his neighborhood the spacious way it was when he moved in there. Phil Bradley of 4075 Oak Street stated that at the beginning of this application, the applicant for the variance is not. the registered owner of the property.