Laserfiche WebLink
11 v; ‘ 'Tt s:^2£^53.^i_l7:35 ICtl'JERSCN EERMDTJiZP.PFI TEL N0:5l2 571-77Z4 R125 -25 <br />Mr. K*vlh Staunton <br />KB. Karon Colo <br />Juno 4, 1993 <br />Page 6 <br />proporty. <br />Tho Minnosota Courta have alae reeognixed that certain action® by <br />eitv couneila may contribute to eotabliohing the undue hardahip. <br />tirll CftWniTlif^ o- MoDoneugh. 210 H.W.2d 416 <br />(Mlnny^l973)" McDonough acquired a lot in 8t. Paul to dywliah <br />four exiating buildinga and to construct a 32 unit apartment <br />building. However, the lot was not large enough to construct the <br />32 unit apartment building and comply with the existing aetbacx <br />and building coverage requiramentsi. McDonough applied for a <br />variance eo ae tr allow conatructlon of a 32 unit apartment <br />building. Approxinetely on« y**i" attjir McDonough bed applied for <br />the verienca, St. Paul adopted er. emendaent increasing tho ofr- <br />otreet perJcing requireBent for multiple reaidentiel dwell^ge. <br />McDonouoii amended hie Application for a Variance to Include <br />t variance from the new increased off-atreet parking requirement. <br />The Zoning Board delayed action upon hie new Application for <br />another year. Pinally, the city granted all of the variances. <br />Thereafter, e neighborhood organisation brought a Declaratory <br />Judgment seeking to set aside tho citye granting of the <br />variancee. The Supreme court held the "delay In processing <br />defendant's reguests for variances constituted a h^dshlp <br />peculiar to tha tract due to the fact that the ordinance <br />rwiulrlno th. .dditlon«l ort-.trMt PjrXln.; <br />during that delay." The supreme court citing CBgfT reefflrmec <br />thet B verienoe provldae the opportunity to evold uxuimseery <br />turdahlpa wulting trom ta>« rigid •nforc.a.nt at . <br />erdinanca. av«i though th. gr.nting a£ th. variuic. night woric . <br />hardehip on adjoining property owners. <br />in considering the Remian Lot, there is no qusstlon of C^cil <br />daisy. Rather, prior councils have affirmatively P*’i°*’ <br />variancee, the laat of which was conteaporansous^th Mr. <br />Remien's negotiating the purchase of the *^*®^*JV J”*** <br />Lot had three Identical variancee for four years <br />Rsmisn's acquisition, on at least <br />had granted a nsw variance for the Remian Lot even after a year <br />lapee between variancee. <br />In light of the existing law, it appeere SSlIncethan Jack Remian had aequirad the Remian Lot in 1900 the veriwwe <br />would most likely have to be granted <br />not put the Remian Lot to «ny reeeonetole 2\£J5tr3Jack Remian, who owned an Bdjacent lot, and <br />the Remian Lot mean that ho le not entitl^ to <br />oiaply becauae he owned an adjacent parcel of property. Again,