Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2011 - Special Jt Mtg w CC

Home

Northpoint Plaza v. City of Rochester, 465 N.W.2d 686 (Minn. 1991); Snaza v. City of St Paul, 548 F 3d 1178 (8th Cit. 2008) Minn. Stat. § 462.3597. A.G. Op. 59-A-32 (February 27, 1990). Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club v. City of Shorewood, 770 NW 2d 184 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009) See LMCIT risk management memo, FAQs on Variances Minn. Stat. § 462.354, subd. 6. See Section VB5 Boards of Adjustment and Appeals Krummenacher, v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. 2010); Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn.App.,1989) CUPs are considered property interests that run with the land —that is, they pass from seller to buyer when the land is sold or transferred. For this reason, time restrictions on a CUP are potentially invalid. In one instance, however, the courts have supported the city's decision to issue a time -limited CUP. If the city wishes to issue a time -limited CUP, the city attorney should be consulted. Once issued, a CUP's conditions cannot be unilaterally altered by the city, absent a violation of the CUP itself. d. Requests for variances from the zoning ordinance Variances are an exception to rules laid out in a zoning ordinance. They are permitted departures from strict enforcement of the ordinance as applied to a particular piece of property if strict enforcement would cause the owner "undue hardship." Variances are generally related to physical standards (such as setbacks or height limits) and may not be used to allow a use that is prohibited in the particular zoning district. Essentially, variances allow the landowner to deviate from the rules that would otherwise apply The law provides that requests for variances are heard by the board of adjustment and appeals. In many communities, the planning commission serves this function. Generally, the board's decision is subject to appeal to the city council. Under the statutory undue hardship standard, a landowner is entitled to a variance if, and only if, the facts satisfy the three -factor test for undue hardship, which are: • The property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. Caution! In June 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a decision that changed the longstanding interpretation of the first factor. The Court held that the reasonable use factor is not whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is reasonable use in the absence of the variance. This is a much stricter test, which considerably limits variance opportunities. A city will need to work closely with the city attorney to determine if a variance application can satisfy the first factor. • The landowner's situation is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner. The uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property and economic considerations alone cannot create an undue hardship. 38 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES