10-29-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Jeanne Mabusth October 17, 19E4 Page 7 action is that any substantial deviation from development at one unit per acre would not be in the best interests of the neighborhood or the City as a whole. Therefore, the City Council itself has given dr. answer_ to the question regarding the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and the community. If the Council chooses now or in the future to change that develorm.Ent standard, the appropriate mechanism for doing so is an amendment tc the zoning ordinance. F. Status of Lots As A Non -Conformity In reaching its decision on this matter, the Planning Commission listed as one of its findings that the pro- perty had previously been used for residential purposes. It is true that there was at one time a small house on the property, the foundation of which still exists. Pad that house survived, its right to continued use would have been recognized and protected by the ordinance. However, the house was abandoned and later razed. with its destruction went whatever non -conformity characteristics may have bean present. Thereafter the lot was and should be considered vacant. The fact that there was a house,= on the lot many years ago should to ignored for the purpo,,e of this application, This also .serves to distinguish t::c case from several others wherein the owners of small houses on substandard lots have sought to rebuild them. G. Consequenc-es of Denying the Request TI)c applicant has sucge:.ted that the Council has no choice but to grant his request because to fail to do so renders his property unusable for any purpose allowed by the zoning ordinance. I,i addition to the fact that this is a result of a self created situation, such an analysis incorrectly implies that things are black or white. There is an alternative use to this property, which is smelling it to an adjacent property owner. This is sometimes more of a theoretical alternative than a real ,one iS no buyer can be found. However, that is not the case in the present situation. Mr. Don Meyer, owner of as adjacent property, has repe-itedly incicated to tor. Fisk his willingness to purchase the lots. Mr. Fisk has rejected Mr. Meyer's offer and insisted upon a higher price. While no one wishes to compel Mr. Fisk t<-: sell his lots, it must be understood that the hardship about