My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-22-2011 CC
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
08-22-2011 CC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:49:37 PM
Creation date
6/27/2018 1:33:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
8/22/2011
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
8/22/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
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
Item No: 7A <br />Meeting Date: August 22, 2011 <br />Type of Business: Public Hearing <br />Administrator Review: ________ <br />City of Mounds View Staff Report <br /> <br />To: Mounds View Planning Commission <br />From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate <br />Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing - Introduction and First Reading of <br />Ordinance 861, Code Amendments to Update Variance <br />Language <br /> <br />Introduction: <br />In May 2011, Governor Dayton signed the state code changes made by the Minnesota <br />Legislature about the wording used for variances. The Mounds View City Attorney has <br />recommended that the City amend the City Code and Zoning Code to be consistent with the <br />updated state language. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br />During the 2011 Legislative Session, a proposal to change state code language regarding <br />variances was proposed by the League of Minnesota Cities and supported by many cities in <br />Minnesota. These changes were proposed after a ruling about a variance case was made by <br />the Minnesota Supreme Court. A few years ago, the City of Minnetonka approved a variance <br />and an opposing neighbor sued the city. The lower courts all ruled in favor of the City, but <br />the neighbor was adamantly against the variance and appealed the case all the way to the <br />Minnesota State Supreme Court. The Supreme Court made a surprising ruling stating that <br />the City was in error and should not have approved the variance based on the literal <br />interpretation of the variance language. The Supreme Court specifically referred to the <br />meaning of the word “hardship.” The primary change to the variance language is removing <br />the word “hardship,” and replacing it with “practical difficulty.” <br /> <br />Staff requests that the City Council see attached Ordinance 861 to review the proposed <br />language change. The changes are indicated by deleting the stricken language and adding <br />the underlined text. <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br />The City Council should review Ordinance 861 with the proposed City Code and Zoning <br />Code amendments, take testimony from staff and hold the public hearing. <br /> <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> Heidi Heller <br />Planning Associate <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.