1977-03-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MERRIAM PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL, INC. v. McDONOUGH Minn. 419 taheCite as 210 ti.W.2d 416 d to grant such variances only when it that the Council shall expressly find that demonstrated that such actions will be the anticipated demand for off-street keeping with the spirit and intent of parking space in any particular case is ordinance. The board of appeals not greater than the amount of parking and adjustments or the governing body space provided as a result of the relaxa- as the case may be, may not permit as a tion of said Schedule variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose condi- tions in the granting of variances to in- sure compliance and to protect adjacent properties." (Italics supplied.) St. Paul Legislative Code, § 64.03, provides in relevant part: 11* * * The Council * * * may in a specific case, by resolution passed by a majority vote, after considering the recommendation of the [Zoning] Board and after such hearing, determine and vary the application of the provisions of he Zoning Code in harmony with the eneral intent and purpose of the same s follows: i. Vary any provision of the Zoning Code in harmony with its general pur- pose and intent, where there are practi- cal difficulties or peculiar hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this section, so that . the public health, safety, and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done * * *- t. Relax or vary the provisions * * * pertaining to Schedule of Off- street Parking Requirements, upon sub- mission of proof that the strict applica- tion of said Schedule * * * would work an unreasonable hardship in any particular case; provided further that the Council shall expressly find in each such case that such relief shall be con- sistent with the public health and general welfare and in accordance with the pur- poses of said schedule of off-street park- ing requirements and provided further [1] With respect to decisions of munic- ipal and other governmental bodies having the duty of making decisions involving judgment and discretion, this court has re- peatedly said that it is not the province of the trial court to substitute its judgment for that of the body making the decision, but merely to determine whether that body was within its jurisdiction, was not mistak- en as to the applicable law, and did not act arbitrarily, oppressively, or unreasonably, and to determine whether the evidence could reasonably support or justify the de- termination. Village of Edina v. Joseph, 264 Minn. 84, 119 N.W.2d 809 (1962). On appeal, findings of fact by a trial court sitting without a jury will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Rule 52.01, Rules of Civil Procedure. After making findings as hereinbefore summarized, the court below upheld the city council's action in granting the vari- ances requested by defendant. The court concluded that the council did not act arbi- trarily, oppressively, or unreasonably and that the evidence reasonably supported and justified its determination. [2] Plaintiffs contend that the words of Minn.St. 462.357, subd. 6, require that the undue hardship must arise from cir- cumstances unique to the property itself— not the owner, surrounding neighborhood, economic feasibility, or like elements. They argue that the "unique circum- stances" must be characteristic of the building site or the buildings thereon and that the property must be different from all others, i.e., having no like or equal. If this line of reasoning is followed, the granting of any variance, no matter how minimal, would be practically impossible except where the topographic conditions of a specific parcel of land would render the s sx,