Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor and City Council March 20, 1998 Page 5 See Holasek v. Village of Medina, 303 Minn. 240,244,226 N.W. 2d 900, 903 (1975). The statute is clearly intended to allow cities the flexibility to grant variances in cases where the constitution does not compel it. Thus, we read the first part of the definition of "undue hardship" as requiring a showing that the property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance." The Court in Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, 529 N.W. 2d 488 (Minn. App. 1995), approved of the decision in Rowell and provided additional guidance which would support the City of Orono's granting a variance to my clients as follows: A reviewing court will set aside a city's decision in a zoning variance matter if the decision is unreasonable. . . . Reasonableness is measured by the standards set out in the city's ordinances. Id. Reasonableness can be stated in terms of what is not arbitrary and capricious. . . . Appellants construe the statute and ordinance sections, which state that the property "cannot be put to a reasonable use" under the strict provisions of the code, to mean that if the property can be put to any reasonable use, then granting a variance is unreasonable. This court has previously construed this language to mean that the landowner would like to put the land to a reasonable use, but that the proposed reasonable use is prohibited under the strict provisions of the code. . . . Here, the city wants to put the land to a reasonable use: placing a dome over the field to enable year-round use. The design of the entire park results from the city's desire to ameliorate local problems by adding parking spaces, concession facilities, and public restrooms. These are reasonable responses to valid concerns. Evidence was presented that soil conditions and a sewer main prohibited excavation that would allow the field to comply with the 30 foot height limitation in the ordinance. The plan alleviated parking problems, and if a different design were used, the plan would not provide as many parking spaces. The evidence supports the city council's determination that unique conditions justify a variance in this situation. We ask that the City be similarly flexible in applying the standards. My clients had originally proposed a plan which resulted in 32 percent hardcover in the 75 foot to 250 foot area. Through numerous changes, they cut back the plan to 29 .4 percent. The Planning Commission reviewed all of the above reasons to grant the variance and noted that although they had understood from prior Council statements that variances should not be granted in the case of "new construction", they felt the reasons for a variance were compelling and they recommended a variance of 25.9 percent. We believe that the "new construction" 15264BDM