1987-05-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I 1 Council Meeting Minutes May 26, 1987 Brandt questioned whether or not it would be proper to grant the request for those reasons as there is no topographical or geographical hardship; felt the only way would be to take property from the over-sized lot and add it to the smaller lot. LeFevere stated having a substandard size lot on it which a resi- dence can't be built is a hardship; generally where the substan- dard size lot is a result of previous platting and where at some point since the adoption of the current zoning provisions lots have come into common ownership, generally Courts feel the hard- ship has become self-created. The result of declining to approve the variance would be that it would be continued to be owned in common with the other lots. Council is better position to insist upon compliance with the zoning code where the owner, or the pre- vious owner, who combined the property at a later date that the current zoning code provisions came into being. Blomquist stated the city has a lots that are substandard width revision of the zoning code and compromise the city's position case. record of approving variances on if they were platted prior to the asked if that would in any way of denying of a variance in this LeFevere stated it would probably compromise the denial of the variance if there- had been other circumstances where there was a common ownership as there is here. The landowner has it within his power to maintain a group of lots in the current condition. There may have been other situations where the council has approved a variance under those circumstances which could create a precedent; however, if it is simply a previously platted lot where there has been no opportunity for recombination by common owner- ship since the current zoning provisions came into place, that precedent would not limit the council. Benke asked if variances based on pre-existing platting dealt with property of different ownership as opposed to common ownership. Mattila believes that is true; and noted in the State of Washing- ton the Supreme Court found a city not in the right when they in- structed a land owner who had more than one lot in common ownership to add on to that one lot; you can't discriminate against someone because of property in common ownership. LeFevere stated the decision makes sense, but it is not consistent with Minnesota Law and the contrary has prevailed. Motion by Gunderman, seconded by Blomquist, to POSTPONE COUNCIL ACTION SUBJECT TO THE PETITIONER EXPLORING OTHER ALTERNATIVES REL- ATIVE TO FUNDING AS SUGGESTED ON PAGE FIVE OF THE STAFF REPORT. Benke stated the city can either find there is a hardship because of prior zoning precedence or deny based on the fact it is an economic hardship and, therefore, not approvable. Page 7