Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/2020

Home

RELEVANT LINKS: 2011 Minn. Laws, ch. 19, amending Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. June 24, 2010). Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7. See Section I, What is a variance. See Section IV -A, Harmony with other land use controls. 3. Essential character The third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Under this factor, consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. For example, when thinking about the variance for an encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will look closer to a lot line and if that fits in with the character of the area. B. Undue hardship "Undue hardship" was the name of the three -factor test prior to a May 2011 change of law. After a long and contentious session working to restore city variance authority, the final version of HF 52 supported by the League and allies was passed unanimously by the Legislature. On May 5, Gov. Dayton signed the new law. It was effective on May 6, the day following the governor's approval. Presumably it applies to pending applications, as the general rule is that cities are to apply the law at the time of the decision, rather than at the time of application. The 2011 law restores municipal variance authority in response to a Minnesota Supreme Court case, Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka. It also provides consistent statutory language between city land use planning statutes and county variance authority, and clarifies that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to, and bear a rough proportionality to, the impact created by the variance. In Krummenacher, the Minnesota Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the statutory definition of "undue hardship" and held that the "reasonable use" prong of the "undue hardship" test is not whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is a reasonable use in the absence of the variance. The new law changes that 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. Also included is a sentence new to city variance authority that was already in the county statutes. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/11/2019 Land Use Variances Page 3