09-10-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1984. PAGF. 2 #820 LONIE FISK Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that this isa lot area and lot width variance. Mabusth stated that the lot contains 10,761.92 sf and applicant seeks a variance of 32,798 sf or a 75 percent variance. Robert. Hoffman, Fisk's attorney, reviewed with the Council the basis on which they have asked for the variance as follows: 1. The variance meets the standards of the ordinances. 2. The variance meets the application of the standards that tI.e City has established by granting other variances within the City. 3. The facts that have be -en presented so far do not indicate any adverse effects on the general health, safety, and welfare of the village. 4. Findings for approval made by staff and Planning Commission that mc-ets the ordinances, meets past standards set by the City, and no evidence of adverse effects on general health, safety, and welfare. 5. A denial would leave them with no reasonable use of the property at all and that there is some protection under the City's ordinances for the applicant. Hoffman reviewed wit', the Council the findings on which the above was based as fellows: 1. These are lots of record and have been since January 1, 1975, and therefore fit within a certain category of the City's ordinances as to how variances should be treated when applied for for that type of property. 2. The City's ordinance provides that the City can grant variances in particular situations where there are practical difficulties or particular halaships and where the variances do not affect the p,irj.)se and intent of the zoning nor ti.e general 1.ea'th, safety, and welfare. 3. Plannirg Co,_—ission has found that this particular application meets the City standards and hes found that approving this variance would not e! fect the general health, safety, and welfare or property value in the neighborhood. 4. It would place undue hardship on the owner if t.hf_ variance was not granted in that the owner would hive no reasonable use of the property thereafter.