09-10-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1984. PAGE 7 f820 LONIE FISK Councilmember Grabek asked Zoning Administrator Mabusth if she felt that the variances that were compared with the Fisk application were similar. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the one that is quite similar is the Munsell variance application. Mabusth !;tated that because the Munsell lot was sewered, the variance was granted. Mabusth stated that the Burnevik application is similar too. Mabusth stated that the nine variances that were compared with the Fisk application all had similar findings in approving the lot area and lot width variances. David Ilse of 4105 Oak Street stated that if the Council grants the variance, that the City is opening themselves up to granting other variances for smaller lots. Don Meyer of 485 Park 7,venue stated that the houses that are there now were grandUthered in. City Attorney Malkerson state-] *,hat the fact that this individual bought this property through the county as tax forfeit land is not relevant to whether or not a variance should be granted. Malkerson stated that many times properties go tax forfeit because the sewer assessments were toe, great or *axes accumulated. Malkerson stated what is relevant, is that the City does have expert testimony in the record, unrebutted, that the property is almost worthless if the variances are not. granted. Malkerson stated, according to Appraiser Emond, that the property is worth $12,000 if the variances are granted. Malkerson stated that when the court analyzes a denial or approval of a variance, it looks to two tests. Malkerson stated that the courts ask what is the dimunition in value. Malkerson stated that in this case we have testimony that it is $12,000 if the variance is granted, and almost zero if the variance is not granted. Malkerson stated almost 90-100 percent dimunition in value if the City does not grant the variance. Malkerson stated that says to the courts that the variance probably shouid be Granted unless it can be shown that the granting of a vac iance is so adverse to the public health, safety, and welfare, or is so adverse to the promotion of the public good. Malkerson stated that the City f,as tr weigh dimunition in value against the adverse effect, if any, on the health, safety and welfare or adverse effect on the promotion of public good. Mall?rson stated that he has not seen any testimony in the record that would indicate that the building of a home and granting the variance, as requested, would result in dimunition of value to surrounding properties, or adverse effects on traffic, sewer or water. Malkerson stated that if there is such testimony, it should be brought forward.