CCAgenda_93Jan27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,JmIA r: d 1-k011 ONE SEVEN ONE ZERO SALITERMAN i 5IEFFERMAk 61234'5 r.ez peter E. Bachman, Esq. rage 2 January 19, 1993 (f) That the variance will rat increase the danger df fire or endanger the public safety because it is located in substantially the same location as the previous two --car garage; (g) That a. particular hardship would result to the owner if a variance were not granted and the strict letter of the ordinance carried out, since the owner acted in reliance on the ability to construct the structure in demolishing the previous garage and constructing the substantially completed four -car garage after the City of Falcon Heights had granted building permits allowing construction; (h) The variance is not sought principally for the financial gain of the owner, but to prevent a substantial hardship incurred by the owner in reliance on the City's actions; and (1) The problem for which a variance is sought cannot be solved through a conditional use permit or amendment of the zoning code. The owner did not purchase the property in reliance on a promise that a variance would b$ granted, but would suffer a substantial financial hardship for expenditures which are unique to the project and not otherwise useable. In addition'to the Snyder case, 2 also believe the 'requitable estoppel" line of cases. See §tatp City of £Qen Prairi L#.enke, 403 N.W.26 252 (Minn. £pp. 1987) have some applicability to this situation. I note that in your December 9, 2992 letter, you indicate that it is our position that if option 3 or 4 as outlined in the letter are chasers, We believe the City would be liable for damages for which the City is liable if option 2 were chosen. The value of the Property almost certainly decline if the garage were classified as non-conforming. Please contact me with your thoughts on the proposed findings. Very truly s 4 Paul W. F ning Attorney at Law PWF /sab cc: Tom Brace (via facsimile transmission) JAN 19 '93 13.21 6123492909 PAGE.P