11-13-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES or vm REGULAR OkONO CQUNCII. mrh.TING HELD OC':'OBER 29, 1984. PAGE: 16 0820 Fisn (cone) 1:ounr_ i l,nembe r Grabek stated that if the C i ty is going to look at the precedent issue that way and look into the future, then the City has to pay attention to the precedents that have already bear. set. Grabek stated that the Council should looK at all the important factors of the individual lot and not worry about set t i nth a precedence. Counci l-n:�-,nber Hammerel stated that in the findings fc,r denial, the City sh,.)uld not inclurie that t_he neighbors wanted to purchase kne property and have made an of Cer. Mayor ?iutler moved, Council,nenber Adams seconded, t.o request star[ to draft a resolction of denial for the Lonie Fisk variance application oased on the following findings: 1. The property can be put to i reasonable allowed use, it can be combined with the adjacent property, and there is an outstanding offer to purchase by the adjacent prop::!rty owner. 2. Tr%e intent if the application is contrary to the l,,?t-tor and intent of thc)rono^o.vprehensive Plan. Jhe devploprent and/or grantinj of the varian-a 4-),1111 Set an itiverse precejecit in thn City. 4. "he applicant/purchaser shoui.d have had kno.+ledge of the zoning code requiru.nenca brio% to pur.ch.j. Any h_�rdship seems to be self imposed. 5. This is tax Corfeit property. 6. one-half serer. unit was char jed indicatin:. question on the part of someone that the lot is substandard. 7. No lateral sewer assessment was leviod against this properly thereby again raising the question of the substandard status of the or r.ty. 8. The property falls short of. the zoning standard to an extent torn 3r?at to enable justification of tlranti,iq of t_;e variances requested. 9. The property does not conform to the .jrrent ievelopmOlIt pattoirn of the neighborhood. ,t ion, Ayes (4) , gays (1) . ^ounci lmeabfer Grabek .1 nay for reasons c,.oted above.