Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of <br />Kathy Glanzer <br />From: Stephen Grittman [sgrittman @nacplanning.com] <br />Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:42 AM <br />To: Jo& Hanson <br />Subject: Variances and the reasonableness standard <br />Attachments: Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie.doc; Variances - Sellergren.doc <br />Joel — <br />These attachments are a case (Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie) and a Fredrickson & Byron newsletter article written by <br />David Seilergren about the granting of variances that discusses the case. The Richie neighbors cite a couple of old <br />cases about minimum use and "any beneficial use ". These old cases no longer define a City's consideration of <br />variances. Instead, the Nolan case affirmed Eden Prairie's approval of a variance (for a variance to allow a plat on a cul- <br />de -sac that was challenged by a neighbor!) stating that the standard was whether the purpose of the variance was for a <br />reasonable use that would not otherwise be allowed by the ordinance. Essentially, the court said that the City could <br />define what reasonable use of property is, and grant a variance if it was necessary to accommodate that definition. This <br />has changed the analysis from "can the property be put to ANY use without a variance ?" to "is a variance necessary to <br />put the property to a reasonable use ?" <br />I don't seem to have Tom's e-mail address, but he may like to see this as well. Thanks. <br />-sg <br />Stephen W. Grittman <br />Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. <br />4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202 <br />Golden Valley, MN 55422 <br />763.231 .2555 <br />sgrittman @nacplanning.com <br />- 2 5 - <br />10/24/2007 <br />