Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/2013

Home

RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. See also LMC Information Memo, 2011 Variance Legislation for sample ordinance language. Krummenacher, v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. 2010). See LMC Information Memo, 2011 Variance Legislation. 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). 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). Note! "Undue hardship" was the name of the three - factor test prior to a May 2011 change of law. Effective May 6, 2011 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 19, amended Minn Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6 to restore municipal variance authority in response to the Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, case. In Krummenacher, the Minnesota Supreme Court interpreted the statutory definition of "undue hardship" and held that the "reasonable use" prong of the "undue hardship" test was not whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is a reasonable use in the absence of the variance. The 2011 law changed the first factor back to the "reasonable manner" understanding that had been used by some lower courts prior to the Krummenacher ruling. The 2011 law renamed the municipal variance standard from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties," but otherwise retained the familiar three - factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. The 2011 law also provides that: "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The practical difficulties factors are: • The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. • 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 practical difficulties. • 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 practical difficulties. 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 directly related and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by 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. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 9/10/2012 Zoning Guide for Cities Page 33