Laserfiche WebLink
DORSE.Y & WHITNEY LLP <br /> JEROME P.GMLIGAN <br /> (612)340-2962 <br /> FAX(612)340-2643 <br /> giliigan.Jerome®doraey.com <br /> May 31,2011 <br /> Mr. Michael Mornson <br /> City Manager <br /> City of St.Anthony <br /> 3301 Silver Lake Road <br /> St. Anthony,MN 55418 <br /> Re: Amendment to Zoning Code for Nonconformities and Variances <br /> Dear Mr. Mornson: <br /> The City Council is considering amendment to the provisions of the City's Zoning Code <br /> relating to nonconformities and variances. These changes are necessary to update the Zoning <br /> Code to reflect the current provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357 dealing with <br /> nonconformities(Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.337, subd. le)and variances(Minnesota <br /> Statutes, Section 462.357, subd. 6). <br /> Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357,is the statute that gives the City the authority to <br /> adopt its Zoning Code and sets forth various zoning requirements. The Minnesota Legislature <br /> has previously adopted revisions to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357,subd. le that provide <br /> that any nonconformities may be continued,including though repair,replacement,restoration, <br /> maintenance or improvement,but not including expansion,unless(i)the nonconformity or <br /> occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year; or(ii)any conforming use is <br /> destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent greater than 50%of its estimated market value and <br /> no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of which the property is damaged. <br /> Currently Section 152.226 of the City Code does not comply with the provisions of <br /> Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, subd. le,because it provides that no nonconformity may be <br /> reconstructed or replaced. The City's Zoning Code provisions for nonconformities cannot be <br /> more restrictive than Minnesota law,and Section 152.226 of the City Code should be amended <br /> by the City Council to comply with the current requirements of Minnesota law for <br /> nonconformities. <br /> In 2010 the Minnesota Supreme Court in Krummenacher v. Minnetonka interpreted the <br /> "undue hardship"standard for the granting of variances then contained in Minnesota Statutes, <br /> Section 462.357, subd. 6,to require a variance applicant to prove that the property in question <br /> cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. This interpretation by the Supreme Court <br /> of the standard for granting variances resulted in cities being unable to grant variances in <br /> DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP • WWW.DORSEY.COM • T 612.340.2600 • F 612.340.2868 <br /> SUITE 1500 • 50 SOUTH SIXTH STREET - MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1498 <br /> USA CANADA EUROPE ASIA-PACIFIC <br />