August 16, 2006 CCP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C & C North America, Inc. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §462.357, subd.5(2), an "undue hardship" is defined in connection to granting a variance as "the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." A. Reasonable Use: Although it may be possible that the property in question could be put to reasonable use without the granting of a variance, the use being requested is also reasonable and cannot otherwise be done without the variance. Note in Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie 610 N.W. 2d 697 the City Council determined that it "is not that there cannot be any other reasonable use of the property, but a determination of whether this is a reasonable use of the property under the circumstances, and one that would not otherwise be allowed because of the requirement of the code." B. Unique Circumstances: The DNR representative's analysis did not appear to take into consideration the uniqueness of this property. Not only is the property a small, triangular shape it also has a stream that runs along the outer boundaries of the property that jogs back and forth, creating an uneven setback along the entire West end of the property. Given this back and forth setback, and without the granting of a variance, a developer is literally left to either design an inverted building, or shift the entire development East 38 feet so that the entire West portion of the property is not developed. Such shifting would again require a variance so as to abide by the parking requirements. C. Essential Character of the Locality: Let's also keep in mind that this property is zoned "business park" and the City intends to have some sort of business development on this site. In Rowell v. Board ofAdiustment ofthe City of Moorhead 446 N W 2d. 917 in which the City granted a variance that allowed the church to build an addition that went against procedural requirements of the zoning ordinance, but this alone was not enough to deny the variance. Even though the proposed church addition did not comply with the zoning ordinance, the addition would not alter the character of the locality. Not only does the proposed use keep with the Iocality of the City's intended use, I find it highly difficult for any business development to be designed on such a small, unique -shaped site without a variance. The surrounding properties are retail and Class A and B offices or are zoned "business park" which all keep with the proposed use of the property in question. I. PARKING/STORM WATER SETBACKS Lake Elmo Municipal Codes require a 100ft setback from the centerline of the tributary stream. Pursuant to conversations with Chuck, the senior planner at the City, there are no existing codes regarding the parking and storm water setbacks from the tributary stream; the 100ft setback applies to structures only.