2021-02-03 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 that these "circumstances unique to the property" must be features or characteristics of the property or its surroundings, not the operation of the zoning code on the property. The Court of Appeals determined that the City's findings did not comply with these requirements because it incorrectly cited the zoning code and city policy as a practical difficulty. On the CUP issue, the decision is about a city not adequately considering evidence contrary to its findings. Minneapolis City Code requires that the City make a finding on CUP applications about the use and enjoyment of surrounding property. Mounds View requires similar findings in their Zoning Code at Section 1125.01, Subd. 3(b). The Court of Appeals found that the City was aware of, but did not consider, neighbors' complaints about the building height and shadow. Because the City concluded that the CUP would not injure the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties without considering and rejecting contrary evidence, the Court determined that the CUP approval was unreasonable. III. TAKE-AWAYS Below are the take-aways from Tulien, as well as a well-established line of statutory and case law on land use applications: Take-away #1: Make good findings on the specific circumstances that are unique to the property so that a variance from the normal zoning regulation is warranted. In the Tulien decision, the Court examined and rejected the City's findings on the variances because they were not "circumstances unique to the property." Take-away #2: Make good findings and expand on reasoning to demonstrate that the City considered evidence contrary to the City's finding. In the Tulien decision, the Court found that the CUP approval was unreasonable because the City concluded that the CUP would not injure the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties despite evidence that it would. Take-away #3: Do not cite the zoning code or city policies as a practical difficulty. State law and case law specifically require that the City not consider the zoning code as a practical difficulty. Instead, practical difficulties must be "due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner" and must be features or characteristics of the property or its surroundings. A decision on a variance that cites the zoning code or city policy as a practical difficulty is suspect and may be challenged.