Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves variance so city can subdivide student-built twin home despite safety concerns
Summary
The North St. Paul City Council approved variances allowing the city to subdivide a nearly-complete student-built twin home at 2357 7th Avenue East into two lots despite council concern about whether the city met the legal 'hardship' standard and neighbor traffic and safety worries. Exact vote tally was not specified.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A majority of the North St. Paul City Council voted May 5 to approve two variances to allow the subdivision of a nearly finished student-built twin home at 2357 7th Avenue East, moving forward a plan to sell each unit separately.
Community Development Director Ken Roberts told the council the city is the applicant and that a post-framing survey found the proposed eastern lot measures 40.93 feet wide, short of the zoning code’s 50-foot minimum. Staff recommended two variances: a lot-width variance of 9.07 feet for the eastern lot and a 1.5-foot driveway setback variance for both lots, reflecting attached garages with only 3 feet between the driveways. Roberts said the subdivision cannot be processed without the variance, and that the structure is nearly complete and expected to be finished by mid-June.
The issue drew questions from council members and neighbors about safety and whether the application met the legal hardship standard required for a variance. Roberts said notices were sent to neighbors within 350 feet and that residents’ main concerns related to traffic and safety at the nearby five-corners intersection, but he told the council those concerns were not directly tied to the variance request.
Council member Nordby said the planning commission’s deliberations left concerns about whether a hardship had been proved. “I don’t feel, in my opinion, that they have proven hardship beyond financial means,” Nordby said, adding that financial hardship alone is not sufficient to justify a variance. Another council member described the situation as poor planning and announced they would vote no. Planning commission members had recommended approval by a 4–2 vote, according to staff.
After debate the council moved to approve the variance requests. The motion passed by voice vote; at least one council member announced a nay during the roll call. The transcript does not include a roll-call tally showing each member’s final recorded vote.
With the variance approved, staff said a minor subdivision will be processed to create two separate legal lots and a second address will be added for the additional unit. Ken Roberts said the project’s intent is to allow separate sale of each unit rather than retain both as a single city-owned building.
The decision clears the way for the subdivision step; staff and the planning commission materials will supply the formal findings of fact and reasons for the variances to be included in the resolution the council adopted.
The council moved on to other business after the vote.

