Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the granting of: any variance, no nar.tvr how mini- mal, would be practically impossible except where the topographic conditionr, of a specific parcel of land wotild render the tri,et of land in question otherwise valueless.....i.t does nog. prohi-bit prant- irtp, non-u .e variances such as thor,e of area, height, setback, density, and parking requirements, if the granting thereof is in keeping With Ole spirit and intent: of the ordinance and the refusal to grant them would cause undue hardshi.p." In Merriam Park the St. Paul. City Council had granted variances to the front and side setbacks, buffer area, density, and building coverage requirements of it.s zoning code. :he setback requirement was an average setback limitation. The trial court found the following undue hardships or other justi- ficationsfor the variances: (1) "that the required 35-foot seLhack, under they conditions presented, was an undue hardship to the development of tElm tract for multiple - residence purposes; that the tract could not he reasonably and economically developed wi;:h- out the reduction of the setback requirement to 16 feet." (2) "that the delay in processing lefendant's re- quests for variances constituted a hardship peculiar to the tract Ale to the fact the ord- inance r.equirin; they additional offstreet park- ing space was passed during that: delay." (3) 'that the anticipated demand for offstreet park- ing was not greater than that provided after granting the variance regtiested." (4) "that the variances for density, f-round coverage, and side -yard clearances were minimal in nature and would have little, if any, effect upon the valuation of adjacent properties;." (5) 'that the construction of a in) -or 11-unit apart- ment on the tract would be economically unfeas- ible and totally impractical because of the high land cost involved." (6) "LLat the grantin-,, of the parking variance requested was ccti.Asient with the public health and general welfare." (7) that a redaction in tl-e number of units in the proposed aparLmenL building from 1? to 10 would vot rt.iterially chango the de•s:i'vtl and function (if the• bi i i d i ng anel wool d only cau :c e C011omi c hard- ship to the appl.icattt without :any benefit Lo the connnun i t 7. " -11-