Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBF., , 1984. PAGE 2 <br />f820 LONIE FISK Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that this is a lot <br />area and lot width variance. Mabusth stated that the <br />lot contains 10,761.92 sf and applicant seeks a <br />variance of 32,798 sf or a 75 percent variance. <br />Robert Hoffman, Fisk's attorney, reviewed with the <br />Council the basis on which they have asked for the <br />variance as follows: <br />1. The variance meets the standards of the <br />ordinances. <br />2. The variance meets the application of the <br />standards that the City has established by <br />granting other variances within the City. <br />3. The facts that have been presented so far do not <br />indicate anv adverse effects on the general <br />health, safety, and welfare of the village. <br />4. Findings for approval made by staff and Planning <br />Commission that meets the ordinances, meets past <br />standards set by the City, and no evidence of <br />adverse effects on general health, safety, and <br />welfare. <br />5. A denial would leave them with no reasonable t,se of <br />the property at all and that there is some <br />protection under the City's ordinances for the <br />applicant. <br />Hoffman reviewed with the Council the findings on <br />which the above was based as follows: <br />1. These are lots of record and have been since <br />January 1, 1975, and therefore fit within a <br />certain category of the City's ordinances as to <br />how variances should be treated when applied for <br />for that type of property. <br />2. The City's ordinance provides that the City can <br />grant variances in particular situations where <br />there are practical difficulties or particular <br />hardships and where the variances de not ffect <br />the purpose and intent of the zoning nor the <br />ge•ieral health, safety, and welfare. <br />3. Planning Commission has found that this <br />particular application meets the City standards <br />and has found that approving this variance would <br />not effect the general health, safety, and welfare <br />ar property value in the neighborhood. <br />4. It would place undue hardship on the owner if the <br />variance was not granted in that the owner would <br />have ncreasonableuse of the property thereafter. <br />