Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor Wm. Brad Van Nest July 8, 1980 Page 10 12) One June 30, before the Council, Mr. Swenson quoted Judge Nicholson as saying tat ec er created the easements." This is a misstatement of fact. Judge Nicholson, in his final ruling dated 10-5-78, said "These easements were created over the Rhode property by Fred Rogers." I would hope that the City Council, exercising an even hand in fairness to all, would agree with these conclusions: I. In view of the substantial revisions to Resolution 851 being proposeJ_6y Mr. Rhode, and in view of the Code which clearly indicates that a revised resolution would be a new variance, and recog- nizing the Council's own language (Resolution 851, Section II, Paragraph 4) which terms the variance invalid through nonperformance, a new variance should be offered and should be reviewed in full by the City Planning Commission and the City Council. This is, as Mr. Olson states, the "City's standard procedure." Failure on the part of the Cit, to approach this matter in an ethical, even- an a way will, unquestionably, result in having to escalate the point of Vision to the courts again. I think the Council members should e held responsible for any discriminatory action which results in a loss of value on my property. In this regard, I expect the Council to be guided by its practice as well as by its Code which has always been to put variances before the Commission without restrictions. II. 1 believe that now that Mr. Rhode cannot live within the provisions of the resolution, it is only fair that a variance be denied. Why should the City "automatically" revise the variance regardless of circumstances so that Rhode can build? Three years ago the Council said that the easements were a barrier to granting a variance because they constituted an illegal subdivision. Now that the lower court states they are legal,