HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Report
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING REPORT
CASE NUMBER: 2011-0902
DATE: September 7, 2011
TO: Columbia Heights Planning Commission
APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights
LOCATION: City Wide
REQUEST: Zoning Amendment for Variances
PREPARED BY: Jeff Sargent, City Planner
INTRODUCTION
In 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a decision that changed the longstanding
interpretation of the statutory standard for granting variances. In the case of
Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, the Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the
definition of “undue hardship” and held that the “reasonable use” prong of the “undue
hardship” test was not whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there
was reasonable use in the absence of the variance. This was a much stricter standard,
which considerably limited variance opportunities.
On May 5, 2011, Governor Dayton signed 2011 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 19, amending
Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subdivision 6 to restore municipal variance authority
in response to Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka. The new law now allows for
variances to be granted based on whether the proposed use is a reasonable one, but
happens to not conform to underlying zoning regulations.
The new law renames the municipal variance standard from “undue hardship” to “practical
difficulties,” but otherwise retains the familiar three-factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2)
uniqueness, and (3) essential character. This means that the proposed use has to be a
reasonable one for the property, conditions of the property have to be unique enough to
warrant the variance, and the granting of the variance would not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood in which the variance is granted.
Code Section 9.104 (G) relates to the variance procedure for the City of Columbia Heights.
The language currently used to describe the instances in which the City Council may grant
a variance uses the term “undue hardship.” Even so, the current language would still
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission September 7, 2011
City of Columbia Heights, Variances Case # 2011-0902
suffice and would be applicable for the City Council to grant a variance. However, to be
more consistent with the recent legislation regarding variances, City Staff recommends a
text amendment to the ordinance that substitutes the term “undue hardship” with the term
“practical difficulties.”
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The purpose of a variance is to provide a means of departure from the literal provisions of
the Zoning Code, given that a set of criteria is adhered to. Since this is a procedure
allowed for any zoning district throughout the city, it is consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 9.104 (F) of the Columbia Heights zoning code requires that the City Council make
each of the following four findings before approving a zoning amendment:
1. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of a variance is to provide a means of departure from the literal
provisions of the Zoning Code, given that a set of criteria is adhered to. Since this is
a procedure allowed for any zoning district throughout the city, it is consistent with
the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a
single property owner.
The proposed amendment deals with the regulations for obtaining a variance from
the Zoning Code. The proposed amendment was triggered by a state legislative
change and not by a single property owner. For this reason, the proposed
amendment will benefit all residents and business owners in the city.
3. Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular
property, the existing use of the property and the zoning classification of
property within the general area of the property in question are compatible with
the proposed zoning classification.
The amendment would not change the zoning classification of a particular property.
4. Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular
property, there has been a change in the character or trend of development in
the general area of the property in question, which has taken place since such
property was placed in the current zoning classification.
The amendment would not change the zoning classification of a particular property.
Page
2
City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission September 7, 2011
City of Columbia Heights, Variances Case # 2011-0902
RECOMMENDATION
Motion:
That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
proposed zoning amendment.
Attachments
Draft zoning ordinance
Page
3