11-13-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE kE'GUI AR ORONO COUNCIL ME1-:1'I NG HELD OC TOBER 29, 1984. PAGI: 5 1820 LONIh FISK Garth Coller stated tha there is no adjacent land available. Coller stated that the Planning Commis- sion recommended approval of this variance that that they are the experts in this matter. Coller stated chat there is an existing foundation, was not a lake -shore cabin, but an actual residence. Coller stated that there is a sewer stub ptoyided to the property. Collor stated that it has been assessed for one-half sewer unit. Caller stated chat grant iny this variance would incr-ease the health, E. ety and welfare of the City by discouraging the continuation (or the future use) of the �3roperty as a dump. Coller stated that the property has a `iistory of being :see] as a dump. Coller st; -ed that the property right now is no longer in that c--dition, but it is a possibility in the future. Ller stated that the adjacent property (Meyer lot) would probably need more variances than Fisk. Coller noted that City Attorney Malkerson noted +� the last meeting that neighborhood opposition is not :+ determining factor, and that the City must on? y weigh this variance from ths, health, safety and welfare factors. Coller stat-e6 that tht prnr._,sed site plan satisfies all setback requirements. Garth Coller cited one recent case 'Arnold Palmer. vs City of Plymouth". Col lerread the f ol lowi ng f rom that case: "Under circumstances similar to those which the pi.antiff'sappli- ,tion vas denied, the City Council has heretofore o:ar►c&� variances. Most recently involv- ing the tti. e project where the com.paring circumstances were considerably less. The denial of... the petition was the defendant, City Council, was arbitrary, capri(:ious, unreasonable, and invalid and in violation of his constitutional rights for the following reasons: 1. The land is zoned for the intended use. 2. The lane is entirely suitable for the intended use. 3. The intended use would not be harmful to the health, mora safety and the public welfare of the City. 4. The denial deprives the plantiff of his constitutional rights, contrary to Section 30, Article1,The State of Minnesota Constitut ion, and contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment of tht Constitution of the United — Les. 5. Said City in actual tively and not, authority granted ict tiny aOrAnistra- _ i ve ,; has under ie er toning otdinancp 'er a period of years, . i variance to the City of Plymouth with circu..,_ancas substantially the same as those, whos plantiff's application w--s d nIt-d."