07-21-1980 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

•i:' i- , e tvMO easements bar ce. not permitted by * concluded* or their luse does not violate then the Beckers* jt, the council- could le co-existence of ? otherwise the Rhode cker-created easements r»G the variance. to the Granting of es vie re properly eprived of any use oung. (1969) 285 Minn. f the setback variance ihich justifies this lack variance may be >erty buildable as L brief. :DonouGh* (1973) 297 3 that there is no unless variances r requirements. The . *J f')f Minn. T't. undiir^ hnrd- unlqni' to , suiTound- ity, or likr is followed. the granting of any variance, no matter bow mini mal, would be practically impossible except where the topographic conditions of a specific parcel of land xiiould render the tract of land in question otherwise valueless. .it does not prohibit grant ing nen-use variances such as tliose of area, height, setback, density, and parking requirements, if the granting thereof is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and the refusal to grant them would cause undue hardship-" In Merriaro Park the St. Paul City Council had granted variances to the front and side setbacks, buffer area, density, and building coverage, requirements of its zoning code. The setback requirement was an average setback limitation. The trial court found the following undue hardships or other justi fications for the variances: (1) '•that the required 35-foot setback, under the conditions presented, was an undue haidshlp to the development of the tract for multiple- residence purposes; that the tract could not be reasonably and economically developed with out the reduction of the setback requirement to 16 feet." (2) "that the delay in processing defendant's re quests for'variances constituted a hardship peculifir to the tract due to the fact the orci- inance requiring* the additional offstreet park ing space was passed during that delay." <3) 'tJhat the anticipated demand for offstreet park ing v/as not greater than that provided after granting the variance requested." (4) 'that the variances for density, ground coverage, and side-yard clearance? were minimal in nature • and would have little, if any, effect upon the valuation of adjacent properties." (5) 'that the construction of a 10-or H-unit apart-. ment on the tract would be economically unfeas- ible and totally impractical because of the high land cost involved." (6) (7) "that the granting of the parking variance requested was ccdsistcittL with the public health and general welfare." "that a reduction in the number of units in the proposed npartmont building from 3?. to 30 would not iiialcrially change the design and function of the building and would only cause economic har«l- sliip to the applicant without any benefit to the community."