HomeMy WebLinkAbout2B, Variance Update and Possible Zoning Code Amendment Discussion ............................ .....................................
�ENHILLS
Request for Council Review
2B
Prepared By: Meagan Beekman,City Planner Work Session Date: February 22,2Q11
Variance Update and Possible Zoning Code Amendment Discussion
Discussion Tol2ic:
1. Discuss variance review criteria and an update on variance law activity at the State Legislature.
2. Discuss housing goals stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan and how best to achieve those
goals.
3. Provide direction to Staff on a number of possible Zoning Code amendments pertaining to
housing maintenance.
Suunortint!Documents:
1. Memorandum dated February 22,2011, from Meagan Beekman, City Planner.
2. Aerial images of residential properties in the City that are currently nonconforming.
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 22, 2011
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Planning Commission
FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner
SUBJECT: Variance Update and Possible Zoning Code Amendment Discussion
Requested Action
1. Discuss variance review criteria and an update on variance law activity at the State
Legislature.
2. Discuss housing goals stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan and how best to achieve
those goals.
3. Provide direction to Staff on a number of possible Zoning Code amendments pertaining
to housing maintenance.
Background
In June of 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case Krumenacher
v. City of Minnetonka. The case was regarding a variance request that the City of Minnetonka
granted having to do with enlarging a nonconforming detached-garage in the front yard of a
lakeshore lot. The neighbor of the recipient of the variance was not happy with the City's -
decision and filed suit. The Court found in favor of the neighbor. The result of the Supreme
Court's decision has had an impact on the way cities all over the State of Minnesota review
variance requests. Exactly what this impact has been is described in more detail later in the
memo.
City ofArden Hills
City Council and Planning Commission Joint Work session for February 22, 2011
ItMetro-inet.uslardenhillsWdminlCouncilWgendas&PacketInformationl2o11L%22-11 WorksessionlPackeiInformationlo2-22-11 PCandCC
Joint Work Session-Variance Discussion.doc
Page 1 of 6
The purpose of this discussion is two-fold. The first goal is to discuss the state of variance law in
Minnesota today and to understand where it is likely headed in this legislative session. The
second goal is a much broader one. The housing stock in Arden Hills, as in all developed
communities, continues to age. Chapter 7 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan states that the goal
for the City's housing stock is to, "Develop and maintain a land use pattern that strengthens the
vitality, quality, and character of our residential neighhorhoods, commercial districts, and
industrial areas while protecting the community's natural resources and developing a
sustainable pattern for future development. " The City has several tools available to achieve its
housing goals; one of these tools is through the City's Zoning Code, and how we regulate
property in order to encourage or discourage reinvestment in the City's housing stock. Staff is
seeking discussion and direction on whether certain amendments to the Zoning Code would help
forward the City's housing goals.
Legislative versus Quasi-Judicial Decisions
Making Law
State Statute gives cities the authority to regulate how land may be used. Cities have a wide
range of discretion in developing a zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan because it is in this
capacity that a city is exercising the powers that the State has granted. The adoption or
amendment of a zoning ordinance is considered a legislative decision of the city council, which
includes the function of making the law for the city. Courts generally give legislative decisions
made by a city great deference and weight; however, the court will on occasion set aside or
intervene in city zoning decisions if two important constitutional restraints in the federal and
state constitution are violated.
First, the courts may overrule a city zoning decision when it determines that a zoning ordinance
is unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting public health, ,safety, morals, or general
welfare. This is known as the "rational basis standard" and it is generally a very friendly
standard for cities to meet. In instances where the court overrules a city's decision, the court
usually will find that the city's actions were arbitrary and/or capricious. Second, when a zoning
ordinance denies the landowner practically all reasonable use of the land, resulting in a "taking"
of the land without just compensation; the court may order the city to pay compensation to the
affected landowner.
Applying Law
In contrast, when administering an existing zoning ordinance by way of reviewing a land use or
building permit application, the city's discretion is much more limited. Generally, when
reviewing a land use application, with the exception of zoning or comprehensive plan
amendments, the city is no longer acting in its legislative capacity. When reviewing land use
City of Arden Hills
City Council and Planning Commission Joint Work Session for February 22, 2011
lWetro-inetlardenhi11sL4dmin7Counci144gendas&Packet Information 12011 12-22-1 1 WorksessionTacket Information W2-22-I1 PC and CC Joint
Work Session-Variance Discussion.doc
Page 2 of 6
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.
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 [emphasis added]. 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. "
City of Arden Hills
City Council and Planning Commission Joint Work Session for February 22, 2011
1Wetro-ine4ardenhillsl4dminlCouncil44gendas&Packet lnformationl201112-22-11 WorksessionWacketlnformationl02-22-11 PCandCCJoint
Work Session-Variance Discussion.doc
Page 3 of 6
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
......... .... .. ........
requests that are more common than others are. It is possible for the City to adopt changes to the
Zoning Code, similar to the Front Porch Ordinance, which would create circumstances where -
certain types of development could occur without the need for a variance.
In the past, some communities would use the variance process as a way for cities to take a more
hands on approach in the review and approval of projects. Based on the purpose of a variance, as
defined in state law and interpreted by the courts, using the process as a tool to review projects
on a case-by-case basis as to whether the project is reasonable is no longer an appropriate use of
that tool. Variances are designed to be used sparingly and only in those situations where a
property cannot be put to a reasonable use if it were forced to be developed in accordance with
the existing ordinances of the city.
No amount of zoning text amendments will eliminate the need for variances altogether, or
change the fact that some people will want to make improvements to their home that are not in
keeping with the character of the community and therefore, should not be allowed. On the other
hand, allowing people to reasonably improve their homes and maintain value is an important
aspect of maintaining a community's housing stock.
Staff is seeking direction on whether to proceed with researching and drafting possible zoning
code amendments that would allow certain kinds of property reinvestment that are not currently
allowed without a variance. In Arden Hills, one of the most common issues that arise when
residents call to inquire about home improvements is that their houses are already considered
legally nonconforming; they were constructed during a time when setbacks were not as great as
they are now, and any expansion of the house is not allowed without a variance. For example,
many homes constructed prior to 1970 or so, which include nearly all of the homes in the
southwest corner of the City, were constructed with 30-foot front yard setbacks; however, the
City Code now requires a 40-foot front yard setback. Similarly, homes constructed with five-
foot side yard setbacks in the R-1 District now have a ten-foot minimum setback. Because the
City does not allow expansions within existing setbacks of nonconforming houses, these homes
cannot be expanded without a variance. Because these are not unique situations in the City, and
the lots technically already are being reasonably used, these situations are not candidates for
variances. Some cities already have provisions that allow this type of flexibility through an
administrative review. For example, Roseville, New Brighton, Minnetonka, and Burnsville all
allow additions to nonconforming structures up to their existing setbacks under certain
circumstances.
Other possible opportunities for Zoning Code changes may involve allowing detached garages in
the front yards of lakeshore lots, reduced side yard setback on corner lots, or reduced setbacks
for accessory structures in R-2 and R-3 districts.
Discussion
City of Arden Hills
City Council and Planning Commission Joint Work Session for February 22, 2011
IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillsWdminlCouncilUgendas&Packet lnformationl201112-22-11 WorksessionlPacket lnformation102-22-11 PCand CC
Joint Work Session-Variance Discussion.doe
Page 5 of 6
The following are specific questions designed to further the discussion:
1. What are the City's goals for its housing stock?
2. Does enforcement of the City's existing regulations achieve the City's goals for its
housing stock?
3. What can the City do to maintain value in its housing stock? Home loan/fix-up
programs, amending regulations, education, etc.
4. What is the balance between allowing people to reasonably improve their property and
allowing redevelopment that is not in keeping with the character of existing
neighborhoods?
Attachments
A. Aerial images of residential properties in the City that are currently nonconforming
City of Arden Hills
City Council and Planning Commission Joint Work Session for February 22, 2011
IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillsWdminlCouncilUgendas&Packetlnformatiorrl201112-22-11 WorksessionTacket Informationl02-22-11 PC and CC
Joint Work Session-Variance Discussion,doc
Page 6 of 6
1* �
r m
m �
Ot
-C O
C
R
C
p
a�
O,y
m o a??
C
o ��
o ��
0
A
7
C O �
-
�
V i �
'L3
� o
a Liz $ L
L. U TJ
-
r
� O
�yO
ro N
rover.
a L s
L o C7
lot
................................... RE
� pw
�... Ell
� U O
w°
y M
J�
U o
O
C
7
O
� U
G]
Rf
w
V
ro
v k:
O
� O
U
442
CK
G
Q O
C N
ro '�
C
O d
W O
;;4 :°.
C G
i
a,
LC U
� U U
O
,D C
y C N
� ro
F C ro
7
C O t�C
3 U'ti
O 00 N
O
0
Lv1 o�w°
c
CL
it
�v c
00 L ro
N U �
� � 3
c ro -
t:
s n
per/ U N
ctl M
'b ro
U c%
_� ro
Q
G
7
4
Y
U
v
m
v�
W
U
a
O
E
0
m o ---
U
i.
W
O
C N
C
a
T
�u
o�
c g,v
U y
O �G
G W �
O ��
W CNC
� G
O to
U C O
� N U
H O
9 O
E-C o
H C N
� C �
C O sCC -
Dom—
m
� O
W O Wu
� Eo
it U E b
0
C C
N y0o
cry `" _ .�•- 110�
42
«a Cr b N
-C W
b C O
0 4
� U
W �
U U
C
E F,
w O
[tl m
U� G
L
Q
a
O
U
k � �
A �
W
U
W
O
Cd
A
O
U
W
Q,
P
O O
C N
A 'C
G
O Q
� T
C�
O p
r yo �a
0 4.b
O � G
C w �
O ��
'�W N
O ti
U C O
A V V
'i774: 9777 ��p yg
N
�t
V C
Ommm O L�
� y w
�Y r A eo U
v
AM O
ll �
L A O R
A U
O w
Lx
T C
N a O
L U
V V
N V t0.
� 3
RCS
cl
tz
is O
y/ U N
W o�
>
�b
U �
f/] A
G
O
U
O
Id
A
W
U
O
i
........ .............. __
ro
a
o
U
4Ow
7 C N
C
O
w _
m o p,t7
� yv
o � G
O ��
cC 4 U
�1
s @
G^bflF[E YO
wo
b'd
r� 'C 60 NN
lE
� U
"o
� U
n.
W O to J
Rig
1 U
U
� N
G �
N Y
5 6"Sd5« xa' tC�
W o�
M
J
U �
C
� O
O
U
E O
M:w
W
7
O
m