2000_0327_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Page 2 1165.06, subdivision 2, when in harmony with the ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. 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." (MSA § 462.357, Procedure for plan effectuation; zoning). Because the variance standards are part of the basic enabling law, the majority view is that statutory cities are without authority to adopt variance standards which are either more restrictive or more lenient than state law. Sa�stetter v. Citv of St. Paul, 529 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. App. 1995). This ruling is not particularly significant in Roseville because the City Code provision closely parallels the state enabling law. City Code � 1013.02 A. states: "Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this Code, the City Council shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, to vary any such provision in harmony with the general purpose and intent thereof and may impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the public health, safety and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done." Under the City Code, the Planning Commission is charged with conducting the public hearing regarding the variance application and making a recommendation to the City Council. As quoted earlier, under the statutes, an undue hardship means the property 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. The reasonable use, unique circumstances, and essential character elements of the definition of undue hardship have all been the subject of litigation. In Rowel l v. City of Moorhead ,446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. App. 1989), the court stated that aesthetics and functionality are part of the undue hardship analysis. Current case law indicates: The "reasonable use" standard does not require all reasonable uses to be prohibited by the ordinances. The courts' reason that if all reasonable uses would be prohibited, an unconstitutional taking without compensation would occur. The Minnesota courts now seem to apply this test to the activity proposed, rather than the uses remaining if the proposed use is denied, which obviously has a significant impact on the ultimate decision whether to grant or deny the variance. 57308