My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010 Planning Commission Packets
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
2010 Planning Commission Packets
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/22/2018 3:35:19 PM
Creation date
5/22/2018 3:25:59 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
265
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Metro zoning variance? Forget about it I StarTribune.com <br />His decision to go before the planning <br />commission in August and asked for a <br />variance proved to be bad timing. At the <br />meeting, minutes before his hearing, the <br />commission was briefed about the June <br />court decision that severely limited cities' <br />power to grant variances. <br />That case was Krummenacher vs. City of <br />Minnetonka, in which the city was challenged <br />by the neighbor of an applicant who was <br />awarded a variance to expand a garage. <br />Against the neighbor's objections, the city <br />had found that the proposal was reasonable <br />and that the applicant was facing an "undue <br />hardship," citing the interpretation of a 1989 <br />court case that cities had used for years to <br />decide such requests. <br />llie Supreme Court disagreed and <br />interpreted the law to mean that a variance <br />can only be granted if the property cannot be <br />put to a "reasonable ruse" without it. <br />"It was surprising that after all these years <br />they decided to examine that issue when it <br />had been decided 21 years ago and they did <br />not accept review of that back in 1989," said <br />I:)esyl Peterson, the city attorney for <br />Minnetonka. <br />Save your money <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />'Ftoinkyaur'P <br />L�. v inobilebrowser to <br />lEEpjjstartrl un ecopr <br />As word spreads about the ruling, city <br />administrators have been suggesting that <br />people save themselves the aggravation and <br />hold off on variance requests altogether. <br />"If an applicant realizes before they apply <br />that it would be very, very difficult to receive <br />the approval ... they will save the money and <br />time," said Glen Markegard, acting planning <br />manager for Bloomington. <br />Bloomington's application fee for a variance <br />request. is $270 for single-family homes and <br />duplexes and $.520 for other types of <br />housing. Besides the cost, it takes time to <br />work with the city and attend meetings. <br />In many cases, the need for a variance arises <br />from unique lot characteristics, Markegard <br />said. <br />"You can never anticipate every situation or <br />special circumstance that might impact a <br />property owner," said Tom Grundhoefer, <br />general counsel for the League of Minnesota <br />Cities. <br />City officials and property owners aren't the <br />only people bristling. <br />JUST DAUB IT! <br />PRIDAYS AND SATUPDAYS 11 p.m.; <br />MIDNIGHT AND LASTGALL, <br />9 ;cac•il n;anMt .efiu�gtc "d sake soat:crnami:a <br />Y5+;c LAKE- <br />GAsIno. r+etFZr <br />mysticlake.com „ <br />Print powered By <br />http://www.staltribune.com/local/103209639.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU 9/27/2010 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.