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

Home

Myron v. City of Plymouth, 562 N.W.2d 21 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 1997), aff d, 581 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 1998) overruled on other grounds by Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan, 734 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2007). City of Maplewood v. Valiukas, (Minn. Ct. App. Feb 11, 1997). Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park, 643 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie, 610 N.W.2d 697 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). Graham v. Itasca County Planning Comm 'n, 601 N.W.2d 461 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). Stotts v. Wright County, 478 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park, 643 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. Kismet Investors v. County of Benton, 617 N.W.2d 85 (Minn. 2000). • The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. This factor generally contemplates whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. Variances are to be granted only if strict enforcement of a zoning ordinance causes undue hardship. A landowner who purchased land knowing a variance would be necessary in order to make the property buildable is not barred from requesting a variance on the grounds the hardship was self-imposed. In granting a variance, the city may attach conditions, but the conditions must be reasonable and bear some relationship to the purpose of the variance. For example, if the variance reduces side yard setbacks, it may be reasonable to impose a condition of additional screening or landscaping to camouflage the structure built within the normal setback. Broad discretion is permitted when denying a request for a variance, but there must be legally sufficient reasons for the denial. The board must make findings concerning the reasons for the denial or approval and the facts upon which the decision was based. The findings must adequately address the statutory requirements. Best practice suggests seeking specific legal advice from the city attorney before making decisions on requests for variances. An applicant for a variance is not entitled to a variance merely because similar variances were granted in the past, although in granting variances, the city ought to be cautious about establishing precedent. Error by city staff in approving plans does not constitute undue hardship entitling a person to a variance. While the result might be harsh, a municipality cannot be estopped from correctly enforcing a zoning ordinance even if the property owner relies to his or her detriment on prior city action. As discussed above, the most common requests for variances relate to physical conditions on the property. For example, setbacks and height restrictions. On occasion a city may receive requests for variances related to uses. For example, a request to use the property for a landscaping business out of a home in a residential district. This is commonly known as a use variance. ZONING GUIDE FOR CITIES 39