1977-03-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

418 Minn. 210 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES fiances only a 10 -unit apartment could be built on defendant's tract; that the exist- ing homes on the tract were 50 to 70 years old and in poor condition, and that the city had issued orders for rehabilitation at a cost in excess of $20,000; that it was not economical to tear down these houses and rebuild new single-family dwellings; that the comprehensive development plan for the city, as adopted by the planning board, had recommended development of the tract for multiple -residential purposes; that the prospective tenants of the proposed apart- ment units primarily would be older cou- ples, many of whom would not own auto- mobiles, and the anticipated demand for offstreet parking was not greater than would be accommodated by one space pro- vided for each unit; and that the 32 -unit apartment building was of a standard de- sign, and a reduction to 30 living units would result in no material change in the design and foundation of the building. The learned court below made findings of fact based upon the foregoing evidence and determined that the rehabilitation of the existing homes was impractical due to their age and physical condition; that the required 35 -foot setback, under the condi- tions presented, was an undue hardship to the development of the tract for multiple - residence purposes; that the tract could not be reasonably and economically devel- oped without the reduction of the setback requirement to 16 feet; that the delay in processing defendant's requests for vari- ances constituted a hardship peculiar to the tract due to the fact the ordinance requir- ing the additional offstreet parking space was passed during that delay; that the an- ticipated demand for offstreet parking was not greater than that provided after grant- ing the variance requested; that the vari- ances for density, ground coverage, and side -yard clearances were minimal in na- ture and would have little, if any, effect upon the valuation of adjacent properties; that the construction of a 10- or 11 -unit apartment on the tract would be economi- cally unfeasible and totally impractical be- cause of the high land cost involved; that the granting of the parking variance re- quested was consistent with the public health and general welfare; and that a re- duction in the number of units in the pro- posed apartment building from 32 to 30 would not materially change the design and function of the building and would only cause economic hardship to the applicant without any benefit to the community. The trial court held that the action of the city council in. granting the variance applications was not arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful and that it constituted a lawful exercise of its discretionary function. The ultimate issue presented here is: Where defendant landowner applied for several variances from the St. Paul Zoning Code, would the strict enforcement of the code cause undue hardship because of cir- cumstances unique to the individual proper- ty under consideration? Minn.St. 462.357 grants municipalities the power to enact ordinances dividing the municipality into zones and regulating the height and size of buildings and density of population. Minn.St. 462.357, subd. 6, pro- vides: "Appeals to the board of appeals and adjustments [authorized by § 462.3541 may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordi- nance. The board of appeals and adjust- ments has the following powers with re-. spect to the zoning ordinance: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. (2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordi- nances in instances where their strict en- forcement would cause undite hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration,