06-28-1993 Council Minutes2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'• u ;i,‘<~3^:-’93_£5i_17:32 ID: lUERSCN ScP-^JDTiiZPPPI ~EL N0:5l2 571-7734 S13S ?23 Mr. Kmvih Btavmton MB. Karan Cola Juno 4, 1993 Page 5 property. The Minnesota Ceurto have also recognized that certain actions by City Cexineile may contribute to afit^U^lishing the undue hardship, in Merrlaa Cnaanmitv Con^oil v. MoDoneucrh^ 210 N.K.2d 416 (Minn. 1973), McDonough acquired a lot in St. Paul to demolish four existing buildings and to construct a 32 unit apartment building. However, the lot was not lairge enough to construct the 32 unit apartment building and comply the existing setbacx and building coverage requirements. McDc...ough applied for a variance so as to allow construction of a 32 unit apartment building. Approximately one year after McDonough had applied for the variance, St. Paul adopted an amendment increasing the off- street parking requirement for multiple reeidential dwellings. McDonough then amended his Application for a Variance to Include a variance from the new increased off-street parking requirement* The Zoning Board delayed action upon his new Application for another year. Finally, the City granted all of the variances. Thereafter, a neighborhood organisation brought a Deolaratory Judgment seeking to set aside the city*s granting of the variances. The Supreme court held the "delay In processing defendant's requests for variances constituted a hardship peculiar to the tract due to the fact that the ordinance requiring the additional off-street parking space was passed during that delay." The Supreme Court citing eugry reef firmed that a variance provides the opportionity to avoid unnecessary hardshipa resulting from the rigid enforcement of zoning ordinances even though the granting of the variance might work a hardship on adjoining property ovnsrs* in considering the Rsmien Lot, there is no guestion of Council delay. Rather, prior councils have affirmatively granted prior variances, the last of which was ccnteaporaneous with Mr. Remien's negotiating the purchase of the Remien Lot. The Reaien Lot had three identical variances for four years prior to Mr. Rsmisn's acqulsitien. on at least one occasion, the City Council had granted a new variance for the Retoicn Lot even after a year lapse between variances. In light of the existing law, it appears that if someone oth^ than Jack Remien had acquired the Remien Lot in 1988 the variance would most likely have to be granted since the purchaser could noi- put the Reaien Lot to any reasonable use. Doee the fact that Jack Rsmien, who owned an adjacent lot, and then later acquired tihn Rmi.An Lo^ lOBan ho Is next entidtzlod to tho voxrlanco a imply because he owned an adjacent parcel of property. Again,