2B, Variance Update and Possible Zoning Code Amendment Discussion

Home Browse Search

As shown in the above paragraph, State Statutes partially define "undue hardship" as meaning that "the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls." Until recently, lower courts in Minnesota had ruled that this _ undue hardship requirement was virtually insurmountable and had reinterpreted the intent of the Statute to mean that the variance request itself must be a reasonable one. This interpretation of the law was distinctly different from the plain language of the Statute, which requires that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. That interpretation significantly changed when the Minnesota Supreme Court recently reviewed Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, which dealt specifically with a municipality's interpretation of this particular Statute. The Court found that cities must use the letter of the law when reviewing a variance request for finding an undue hardship. The letter of the law dictates that a city must be able to find that a property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the granting of the variance in order to legally grant a variance request. This decision substantively affects the way cities throughout the State of Minnesota will review variance requests moving forward, and makes the granting of a variance much more difficult. In the wake of the Court's decision, it has become evident that variances are not an effective tool for evaluating many of the requests that cities get for exceptions to their zoning codes. The function of a variance is really to address only those most extreme circumstances where a property owner does not have reasonable use of their property without it. The result of the Court's decision has spurred many communities to reevaluate their zoning regulations to ensure that the type of development that they want to encourage is allowed, rather than requiring residents to get a variance when their request is seemingly reasonable. Prior to this court case, the City of Arden Hills received between 6 and 10 variance requests a year, the vast majority of these were granted. In addition to actual variance requests, Staff receives dozens of calls each year from residents and builders inquiring about improvements they would like to make to their homes; garage expansions, front entryway additions, rear additions, second stories. While some of these calls result in residents coming in for building permits and completing their projects, the majority end with Staff informing the resident that their expansion is not allowed under City Code. In most circumstances, residents are not encouraged to apply for a variance because Staff does not believe that their situation would meet the variance review criteria laid out in State Statute, which would result in a denial of their request. Possible Zoning Code Amendments In light of the recent Minnesota Supreme Court ruling regarding variances, it may be a good time to review the Arden Hills Zoning Code for opportunities to make amendments that will circumvent the need for some variance requests altogether. There are certain types of variance City of Arden Hills City Council and Planning Commission Joint Work Session for February 22, 2011 I iMetro-inet.uslardenhillsiAdminlCouncilWgendas&Packet lnformation12011 Q-22-I1 WorksessionlPacket Information102-22-11 PC and CC Joint Work Session-Variance Discussion.doc Page 4 of 6