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: