07-27-11 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 5(5422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 7(33.231.2501 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Little Canada Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: July 8, 2011 RE: Little Canada — Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Variance Review Standards FILE: 758.10 — 11.03 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS In July of 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its decision in Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, restating the statutory requirements for consideration of variances by cities. In that decision, the Court re- emphasized that the existing statutes made variances intentionally difficult to approve, requiring that a city must find that there is a unique hardship that interferes with a property owner being able to make any reasonable use of the property before a variance could be granted. In response to Krummenacher, the legislature enacted a revised statute changing the standards for variance review in Minn. Stat. Section 462.357. The new law adopts the County planning language related to "practical difficulties" rather than "hardship ", and alters the level of necessity by allowing cities to decide that the applicant's proposal constitutes using the property in "a reasonable manner ", rather than finding that the variance is necessary to allow "any reasonable use ". While this latter point may seem like a fine distinction, it is a major change in the City's authority. Under previous law, the City was required to find that a property owner had almost no alternative to seeking a variance, even to make minimal use of the property in question. Now, the City may decide that even though a property owner has options that would meet all zoning regulations, a proposal that requires a variance is still a reasonable way of using that property, and may approve if the City chooses to do so. Finally, the statute reconciles the City and County planning statutes found in Sections 462 and 394, respectively so both levels of government are applying zoning