Minutes - Council Work Session - 09/07/2010

Home

Mayor Ramsey asked if the policy could be changed to allow us to use taxes. We buy property on Highway 10 and we lose tax base. Now with RALF funds, if we rent out property, the money goes back to the State — that money should stay here because of our loss in taxes. Councilmember Dehen stated it's almost as if we are better off if someone could utilize that property. Mr. Tinklenberg stated you need to understand that course you have been pursuing has positioned Highway #10 to be in the game. If you had not done this, it would not be. However, he understood Council's concerns. He added that Highway #10 is better positioned than other corridors. Everyone is working to see these investments made in the community. Councilmember Elvig stated he thinks we have an opportunity to take an historical perspective on this — put the history back in their face. Mr. Tinklenberg agreed that MnDOT needed to be reminded. 3) MN Supreme Court Ruling in Regards to Board of Adjustment and Issuance of Variances Associate Planner Gladhill stated that the Minnesota Supreme Court recently issued a decision regarding the process cities must take in reviewing variance requests. As per City Code, all requests for variances are decided by the Board of Adjustment, subject to appeal to the City Council. He explained the variance process and what constituted an undue hardship. Now we have this four . factor test: 1) can the Subject Property be put to a particular reasonable use without a variance; 2) Is the plight due to circumstances unique to the Subject Property not created by the property owner; 3) Will the variance, if granted, alter the locality's essential character; and 4) Economic circumstances alone cannot create undue hardship. The recent Supreme Court decision examined the statutory definition of undue hardship and concluded that the city authority to issue a variance is limited to those very rare cases where the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. He presented a copy of a response from the League of Minnesota Cities. Previously, prior case law upheld that cities had to prove that the request was simply reasonable. The standard that the parcel cannot be put to use without the variance is now the new standard. The decision restricts the ability to grant variances except in the most extreme circumstances. Now, a couple months ago, the City of Minnetonka was challenged. The request was reasonable but it was challenged by an adjoining property owner. They had a garage — the adjoining property owner did have a reasonable use. Minnetonka did not cite a reasonable use without issuance of a variance. It was overruled by the Supreme Court and that puts all cities in Minnesota in a tough position. We have been able to use that standard. At this point, variances are reserved for things like not being able to build, etc. State legislature may take up this issue — rely on legislation to amend the State Statute. We can amend our zoning ordinance to give us some flexibility. The timing is alright with this process. We have to do a major amendment for our zoning code because of our Comp Plan. We will be researching some opportunities in the coming weeks. He gave an example of a variance reviewed by the Board. Mr. Gladhill stated it has already impacted the City - we want to get in front of this and find that flexibility. The City of Elk River has kind of stated cities are out of variance giving. City Council Work Session / September 7, 2010 Page 4 of 9