09-10-1984 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1984 . PAGE 8 #820 LONIE FISK Malkerson noted that the statements made by the neighhors that they would like to have this lot kept as open space is certainly relevant to them and relevant in planning and relevant to the Council, but not necessarily relevant to the context to the granting or denial of a variance . Malkerson stated that here the City is dealing with the property rights of the person owning the property. Malkerson stated that in this case the person bought the property, whether or not they talked to the City is questionable or looked at the ordinance is a questionable, but what is important is what is in that ordinance. Malkerson noted the ordinance states undue hardship tests must be met as follows : l . Was this a plight that the land owner created? Malkerson stated not really because the zoning code was changed on this property years ago taking it from being a standard lot to a substandard lot. 2. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Malkerson stated that is up to the Council based on the surrounding lots . 3 . E�onomic considerations alone shall not constitute a undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Malkerson stated that the City has heard testimony that if a variance is not granted, the property is worthless and is useless except for the open space benefit of the neighbors. 4 . Inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy. Malkerson stated that this test question does not apply to this application. 5. Property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls . Malkerson stated that Attorney Hoffman and Appraiser Emond have stated that there is no reasonable use for the property if this variance is not granted. City Attorney Malkerson stated that the City should be focusing on constitutional rights of the applicant. Malkerson stated that the courts will look to see how the Council has interpreted the same ordinances . Malkerson stated that the courts will look to the evidence in the record before the Planning Commission and Council as to what is the value of the property. Malkerson stated that the courts will weigh the dimunition in value and the health, safety and welfare.