Laserfiche WebLink
EN HILLS <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> DATE: February 22, 2011 <br /> TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers <br /> Planning Commission <br /> FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner <br /> SUBJECT: Variance Update and Possible Zoning Code Amendment Discussion <br /> Requested Action <br /> 1. Discuss variance review criteria and an update on variance law activity at the State <br /> Legislature. <br /> 2. Discuss housing goals stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan and how best to achieve <br /> those goals. <br /> 3. Provide direction to Staff on a number of possible Zoning Code amendments pertaining <br /> to housing maintenance. <br /> Background <br /> In June of 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case Krumenacher <br /> v. City of Minnetonka. The case was regarding a variance request that the City of Minnetonka <br /> granted having to do with enlarging a nonconforming detached-garage in the front yard of a <br /> lakeshore lot. The neighbor of the recipient of the variance was not happy with the City's - <br /> decision and filed suit. The Court found in favor of the neighbor. The result of the Supreme <br /> Court's decision has had an impact on the way cities all over the State of Minnesota review <br /> variance requests. Exactly what this impact has been is described in more detail later in the <br /> memo. <br /> City ofArden Hills <br /> City Council and Planning Commission Joint Work session for February 22, 2011 <br /> ItMetro-inet.uslardenhillsWdminlCouncilWgendas&PacketInformationl2o11L%22-11 WorksessionlPackeiInformationlo2-22-11 PCandCC <br /> Joint Work Session-Variance Discussion.doc <br /> Page 1 of 6 <br />