Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil LetterCOLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: October 10, 2011 AGENDA SECTION: Other Ordinances and ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S Resolutions Community Development APPROVAL NO: ITEM: 1 st Reading of Ordinance 1604, being a BY: Jeff Sargent, City Planner BY: Zoning Amendment as it relates to Variances DATE: October 5, 2011 BACKGROUND: 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 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." RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing for the request on October 4, 2011. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Zoning Amendment with a 5 -0 vote at the meeting. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1604, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to set the second reading of Ordinance No. 1604, for Monday, October 10; 2011, at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. 2+f Attachments: Drat Ordinance 1604 (]'Reading Format), P +Z Report COUNCIL ACTION: