08-04-10-WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

applications, such as a variance, conditional use permit, site plan review, or subdivision request, the city is said to be exercising a quasi-judicial function. Rather than legislating for the broad population as a whole, the city is applying the law that was written when the city was in the legislative role. Applying the law is a quasi-judicial or judge-like determination about an individual land use application to determine whether the application meets the standards of the city ordinance. In quasi-judicial circumstances, the city must follow the standards and requirements of the ordinance it has adopted. If an application meets the requirements of the ordinance, generally it must be granted. If an application is denied, the stated reasons for the denial must all relate to the applicant's failure to meet standards established in the ordinance. In sum, the city has a great deal of liberty to establish the rules, but once established,the city is as equally bound by the rules as the public. An application may generally only be denied for failure to meet the standards in State Statutes or city ordinances. The League of Minnesota Cities has provided a handout entitled, "Zoning Decisions" (Attachment A). The last page of that handout illustrates the hierarchy between legislative and quasi-judicial decisions in the form of the Planning and Zoning Discretion Pyramid. Please read this document prior to the meeting. Additionally, Commissioners are encouraged to review the handouts provided in their training books prior to the meeting. Much of the information that will be discussed at the work session is discussed in the training book in much greater detail. Variances As a quasi-judicial action, the role of the planning commission in the granting or denying of variance requests is laid out in Minn. Stat. § 462.3 57, sub. 6: "To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems...The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. " As shown in the above paragraph, State Statutes partially define "undue hardship" as meaning g that "the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions 3