Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTE:s OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBE:R 29, 1984. PAGE 10 <br />t820 LONIE: FISK <br />Garth Coller addressed the self-created hardship <br />issue. Colter stated that this was addressed at the <br />last meeting with City Attorney Malkerson's input. <br />Coller stated that the creation of the hardship is <br />created with lots that were originally platted and here <br />the zoning code has been changed. Colter stated at <br />that time the hardship is created. <br />Garth Colter addressed Desyl Peterson's comments. <br />Coller explained the difference between a land owner to <br />sale and land owner to tax forfeit. Coller stated that <br />this is irrelevant. Colter stated that in Minnesota <br />this is just not something that the courts look to. <br />Colter stated that here the City has a passing of a basic <br />fundamental constitutional right of a person to develop <br />the property. Colter stated that this right doesn't <br />disa_ -ar through the lax forfeiture process. Colter <br />stated that the courts do not look at it like that in <br />Minnesot•i. <br />:,arth Coller stated that it was mentioned that the lots <br />should be combined. Colter stated that here Fisk has <br />.lone this. Colter stated that the lots were in common <br />ownership when the ordinance was passed. Coller <br />stated that this is the key. Colter stated that those <br />two lots have been combined. <br />Garth Colter stated that the remarks ,Wade about <br />Benschoof's analysis that Benschoof did not look at the <br />larger picture. Coller stated that this is factually <br />incorrect. Coller stated that the traffic study for the <br />neighborhood included the likelynood of other <br />buildable lots in that area. Coller stated three maybe <br />four lots could be developed in that area and the <br />traffic analysis addressed this too. <br />Garth Coller ad3resseJ the discussion in regard to the <br />claim of a self-imposed hardship. Colter stated that <br />Fisk indeed engaged in negotiations to sell tnis lot. <br />Coller stated that he had an offer of $14,000 for the lot <br />which he accepted subject to the conditions that the <br />neighbors could obtain financing. Coller stated that <br />appl icant waited a long time under the assumption that <br />this deal was going to go through. Coller stated that <br />they delayed their presentation under that scenario. <br />Coller stated that he conducted research on whether or <br />not payments could be taken over based on the payments <br />that go for the tax forfeit property. Coller stated <br />that answer was yes, and that was proposed to the <br />neighbors. Coller stated then at a very late sta�]e in <br />the contract negotiations, Don Meyer cane forth with <br />his offer. Coller stated that this is :n offer that <br />supposedly stands today. Coiler presented the <br />original document that was presented to Fisk to the <br />Council. Cel ler statNc3 th•it the offer lids words of <br />negotiation, which in ., re•it estate c:oneract, make it <br />nothin•3 nnre t;�.�n an enticenent t:�:3ea1. Coller stated <br />thia is not a leyai offer for any pucposes. <br />