Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/20/2015 - Joint with EPB

Home

RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 462.3595, subd. 4. Northpointe 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 LMC information memo, Land Use Variances. Minn. Stat. § 462.354, subd. 6. See Section V -B-5 Boards of Adjustment and Appeals. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. See also LMC information memo, Land Use Variances for sample ordinance language. Krummenacher, v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. 2010). See LMC information memo, Land Use Variances. Once a CUP is granted, a certified copy of the CUP (including a detailed list of all applicable conditions) must be recorded with the county recorder or the registrar of titles, and must include a legal description of the land. 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 "practical difficulties." 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 practical difficulties standard, a landowner is entitled to a variance if the facts satisfy the three -factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. 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. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/20/2015 Zoning Guide for Cities Page 31