Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />March 16, 1998 <br />Page 4 <br />6. Granting of a variance would not set an adverse precedent, since this fact situation, <br />as noted above, is readily distinguishable from other situations. <br />7. The legislative history is, as I recall, that variances within reason should be granted <br />liberally because of how stringent the 25-percent limitation between 75 and 250 feet of the <br />lakeshore was. <br />8. The State standard is 25 percent applied to the entire lot, which would allow <br />hardcover of substantially in excess of what my clients are proposing. <br />In Rowell v Board of Adjustment, 446 N.W. 2d 917 (Minnesota Court of Appeals 1989) <br />the Court interpreted the State mandated variance test which applies to cities in a very flexible <br />manner. The Court clearly allows and promotes such flexibility. For example, the Court stated: <br />"The first requirement is that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without <br />the variance. This provision does not mean that a property owner must show that <br />the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. In such a case <br />the constitution would compel a variance regardless of the statute. See Ho]asek v <br />Vj]]age of Medina, 303 Minn. 240, 244, 226 N.W. 2d 900, 903 (1975). The statute <br />is clearly intended to allow cities the flexibility to grant variances in cases where <br />the constitution does not compel it. Thus, we read the first part of the definition of <br />"undue hardship" as requiring a showing that the property owner would like to use <br />the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance." <br />We ask that the City be similarly flexible in applying the standards. Thank you very much <br />for your consideration of this application. <br />Very truly yours, <br />Bruce D. Malkerson <br />15264BDM