2010 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

Attachment 2 Wednesday, February 3, 2010, 9:00 a.m. Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Beat L. Krummenacher, Appellant vs. City of Minnetonka, Respondent, JoAnne K. Liebeler, Respondent — Case No. A08-1988: Respondent JoAnne Liebeler applied to respondent City of Minnetonka for a variance to allow her to build a finished structure, to be used as a family room and yoga and craft studio, on top of the flat roof of a detached nonconforming garage on her property. Appellant Beat Krummenacher, one of Liebeler's neighbors, opposed the variance. The city granted the requested variance; Krummenacher appealed to the district court. In connection with his appeal, Krummenacher served Liebeler with written discovery requests, which Liebeler declined to answer. The district court ruled that it would allow Krummenacher to conduct discovery only if the court determined that the city's decision to grant the requested variance was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. In a second order, the district court concluded that the city's decision to grant the variance was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. The court of appeals affirmed. Three issues are before the supreme court: (1) whether the city's decision to grant the variance was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious; (2) whether the city was prohibited from granting the variance by Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1e(a) (2008), which authorizes municipalities to grant variances from zoning standards when strict enforcement of such zoning standards would cause undue hardship; and (3) whether Krummenacher should have been allowed to conduct discovery during his appeal to the district court from the city's decision. (Hennepin County)