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

Home

RELEVANT LINKS: 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, CO -96-1468 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb 11, 1997) (unpublished opinion). 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.2d461 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). Stotts v. Wright County, 478 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). 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. 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. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/20/2015 Zoning Guide for Cities Page 32