Laserfiche WebLink
, i <br /> i <br /> "when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of <br /> the ordinance." Id. Krummenacher argues that Liebeler's application does not meet any <br /> of the requirements for"undue hardship." <br /> The first factor a variance applicant must establish to satisfy the statute's definition <br /> of"undue hardship" is that "the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if <br /> used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6; <br /> i <br /> see also Minnetonka City Code § 300.07.1(a). Krurnmenacher argues that based on the <br /> plain and unambiguous language of the statute, a municipality may grant a variance only <br /> when the property cannot be put to any reasonable use without it. According to <br /> Krummenacher, Liebeler had a reasonable use for her garage without the addition of a <br /> yoga studio and craft room—its current use as a storage space for vehicles. <br /> Krummenacher argues therefore that the City did not have the statutory authority to grant <br /> the variance. <br /> The court of appeals rejected this argument, relying on its decision in Rowell v. <br /> Board of Adjustment of Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. App. 1989), �•ev. denied <br /> (Minn. Dec. 15, 1989). The court in that case interpreted the "undue hardship" section of <br /> Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, as requiring a variance applicant to show that the <br /> "property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited <br /> by the ordinance." Id. at 922. <br /> The City urges that we should embrace the interpretation of"undue hardship" from <br /> Rowell, and it appears from the record that the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard is <br /> the standard the City used in evaluating Liebeler's request for a variance. The City <br /> 12 <br />