05-13-81 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Counci1 May 13, 1981 The City Attorney pointed out to the Council that the City has as a part of its ordinance a section dealing with var7ances that is just as much a part ofi ~he City Code as everything else. P~r. Parks sta~ed that when someone has a problem and it meets the criteria for a variance, this section of the City Code should be utilized. Mr. Forsberg stated that he does not see any hardship in this case. Mr. Parks stated that there have been recent Supreme Court dec~sions dealing with limitations on the size of land for building purposes. If land is pecu7iarly shaped, this would fall under hardship. Parks felt this would appty where a property had too 1ittle square footage to meet Code. Mr. Parks a7so stated that the City is denying Mr. Demont the right to build on h~s property and asking him to pay taxes on the pro~erty. Parks felt that the two are not compa~ible. Mr. Hanson pointed out that it would take a motion being init~ated by a Councilperson voting in the negative on the previous motion to brin~ up the matter of the Demont 1ot variance. Mr. Nielson stated that the Demont property is unique. The property ~s on1y unbuildable due to a change in the City's ordinance. Qefore the City amended its ordinance, there was no difference in lot size requirements for a corner lot or other 1ot. There is also Lake Street proposed for this area that the City does not know if it will go through or not. Mr. Nielson also state~ that there are very few 25 foot or 50 ~oot 1ots in this area that are ind9vidually owned. There are probably only one or twa lots in the same si~uation as Mr. Demont's ~roperty. Mr. Nielson also stated that typically a new ordinance will take into consideration existing lots of record. Nielson also informed the Council that there are a lot of existing corner lots in the C~ty that are only 10,000 square feet in size. Mrs. Nardini stated that she would reconsider the Demont request if she could be assured that there were a limited number of lots with the same si~uation. The City Clerk replied that there are only 4 people in the whole area that own less than 75 feet of property. Mrs. Scalze stated that she fe1t the City's ord~nance was a little tough on corner lots. Sca1ze pointed out that setbacks would be met and the reason for the setback requirement was to provide visability. Mrs. Nardini introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 81-5-219 - RECO~ISIDERTNG THE RICHFlRD DEMONT VARIANCE REQUEST The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Forsberg. ~yes (5) Nardini, forsberg, Hanson, Scalze, Fahey. Nayes (0). Resolution declared adopted. This reso1ution appears in Reso1ution Book No. 7, Page 146. Page -10-