2025-06-03 P & Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In contrast, when the city writes the rules in the zoning ordinance, the city is exercising ȆD=?AKD9LAN=ȇ9ML@GJALQ9F<@9KEM;@:JG9<=J<AK;J=LAGFǷ Practical difPractical difcultiesculties Ȇ.J9;LA;9D<AȆPractical di;MDLA=KȇAK9D=?9DKL9F<9Jcultiesȇ is a legal standard that cities must d that cities must apply apply when considering applicationswhen considering applications for variances. It is a three-factor test and applies to all requests for variances. To constitutefor variances. It is a three-factor test and applies to all requests for variances. To constitute practical dipractical diculties, all three factors of the test must be satisculties, all three factors of the test must be satis ƼƼ ed.ed. ReasonablenessReasonableness The The ƼƼ rst factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.rst factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonableThis factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance.way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without theIt does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance application is for a building too close to a lot line or doesvariance. For example, if the variance application is for a building too close to a lot line or does not meet the required setback, the focus of the not meet the required setback, the focus of the ƼƼ rst factor is whether the request to place arst factor is whether the request to place a building there is reasonable.building there is reasonable. UniquenessUniqueness The second factor is that the landownerThe second factor is that the landowners problem is due to circumstances unique to thes problem is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner.property not caused by the landowner. The uniqueness generallThe uniqueness generally rely relates to the physical characteristics ates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece ofof the particular piece of property, that is, to the land and not personal characteristics or preferences of the landowner.property, that is, to the land and not personal characteristics or preferences of the landowner. When considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a setback, the focusWhen considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a setback, the focus of this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular piece ofof this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular piece of property, such as sloping topography or other natural features like wetlands or trees.property, such as sloping topography or other natural features like wetlands or trees. Essential characterEssential character The third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of theThe third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.locality. Under this factor, consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, orUnder this factor, consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area.otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. For example, when thinking about the variance for an encroachment into a setback, the focusFor example, when thinking about the variance for an encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will look closer to a lot line and if that is how the particular building will look closer to a lot line and if that ƼƼ ts in with the character ofts in with the character of the area. the area. Undue hardship Ȇ3F<M=@9J<K@AHȇO9KL@=F9E=G>L@=L@J==Ȏ>9;LGJL=KLHJAGJLG9+9QǅǃǄǄ;@9F?=G>D9OȖ2011 Minn. Laws, ch. 19, amending Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6). The 2011 law restored municipal variance authority in response to a Minnesota Supreme Court case (Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. June 24, 2010)). The law now does both of the following: Provides consistent statutory language between city land use planning statutes (Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6) and county variance authority (Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7). 53