Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Blake asked why they were not offered the same courtesy. <br /> Mayor Swedberg explained that any kind af Variance goes before the Planning and <br /> Zoning Commission noting that neighbors can protest, but the City does not rule on the <br /> Variance request based on neighborhood opinion. The opinion is heard and considered, <br /> and if there is valid reasan t� grant a variance it is approved. He th�n stated if the Blakes <br /> ha.d taken their request one step further they would have gotten different answers. <br /> ' Mr. Blake stated he spoke to the City Inspector and got the same answer, tha.t a Variance <br /> would be required. <br /> Mrs. Blake noted she ha.d read through Ordinance #4 and stated it seemed to her that <br /> ' building offthe building pad was an amendment to the plan, which is something that <br /> required Councils approval. <br /> City Attorney Hoeft explained that going offthe building pad is not an amendment or a <br /> change, and that Council approval is not required. <br /> Mrs. Blake then read the responsbilities of the Building Inspector noting she felt Council <br /> could prohibit Mr. B�aecht�r from building th� house as he is. <br /> City Attorney Hoeft explained there is no violation e�usting that would warrant the <br /> Building Inspector or Council taking action. City Attorney Hoeft further explained the <br /> building pads are not significant with regard to the approved drainage glan. They are <br /> th�r� t� improve marketability ar�d, as such, th�y are shown on the plan but ar� not part of <br /> the approved grading plan. <br /> Nirs. Blake asked why she was told she wouid need a Variance. <br /> City Attorney Hoeft stated that in any real estate transaction there are obligations on <br /> behalf of the seller and the buyer tha.t require due diligence to investigate the situation if <br /> there is a question as to what City Code allows them to do with the property. In this case <br /> ths Blakes r�lied on information from the building inspector as to what they cautd ox <br /> could not do. Assuming, for the sake of argument, the information from the building <br /> inspector was incorrect that would not create any liability on the part of the City. Mr. <br /> Haeft went on ta explain that the Legislature has determined that City employees do not <br /> ' controi the legal aocument that contains the City's C�d�s a�d, if th�re is a discrepancy <br /> ' between what a resident is told and what e�sts in the City Code, the Code govern.s. It is <br /> part of the due diligence process to deternvne if the advice given is in accordance with <br /> '� �ity �:;ode. <br /> Mr. Hoeft further stated if the Blakes received wrong information from the Building <br /> Inspector tha.t tha.t information does nat bind the City legally. He explained the reason <br /> the Legislature has upheld that immunity is because if it did not exist and employees <br /> could be held responsi'ble th�n it would 1� costly to cities, That �4st is something the <br /> Page 4 of 15 <br />