09-10-1984 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1984 . PAGE 6 �820 LONIE FISR Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that one of the variances Meyer ' s referred to was a variance for a house on a substandard lot on East Lake Street. Mabnsthstated that the structure had existed without inside plumbing and was served by an outside toilet. Mabusth stated to make it a year round liveable structure, they were allowed to have a minimal amount of plumbing inside and to be serviced by a holding tank. Mabusth stated that it was looked upon as a lot area and lot width variance. Councilmember Grabek asked Fisk if he was aware of the zoning when he purchased the lot. Curtis Fisk stated that he never signed anything down at Hennepin County and that he called the City and the City said there would be no problem. Fisk stated that he doesn' t remember who he talked to at City Hall . City Attorney Malkerson stated that the last time this was in front of the Council and that question was asked and the answer was given, the City asked for Fisk' s to search the record and submit an affidavit to the City. Malkerson stated that the affidavit would state that before they bought the property they did call the City and that they don ' t remember who they talked to. Malkerson noted that not that Fisk' s statement is not relevant, but it was just noted for the record. Malkerson stated that the ordinances do not require an affidavit. Councilmember Grabek asked Malkerson if the City was legally bound to grant variances to Fisk because the City granted other variances that were similar. City Attorney Malkerson stated if the City Council has granted one or more variances to properties that are similar to the Fisk property (and there has been no change in the ordinance or change in the comprehensive plan or policies of the City or other change in fact that would distinguish those actions from what the Council has in front of them today if none of those things are true ) , then the precedent of having granted a variance on the same fact situation is very relevant to the courts in the review in the denial or approval of a variance at this point. Malkerson stated that in the constitution of both the state and federal government there is an equal protection clause which basically states all people shall be treated equally. Malkerson stated that if the facts are similar and one person applies for a variance and it is approved, and another person applies for a variance that is similar and it is denied, that the City would have denied equal protection of the law.