07-22-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P. A. Attomep §nd AJviun Barbara Peterson, Mayor City Council Members July 3.2002 Page 3 CUP and variance, the relevant facts support their approval. Revis encourages the City Council to act affmnatively on his requests, or at a minimum, to direct staff to conduct a site visit to observe and analyze the revised wetland delineation, and the improved drainage. The approval of the requests is within the clear authority of the City Council, even with respect to the variance (if ultimately deemed necessary). The Minnesota Court of Appeals has reviewed Minnesota’s variance standard as stated in Miimesota Statutes § 462.357 on numerous occasions. In interpreting the statutory variance standard, the Minnesota Court of Appeals stated: “The first (hardship) requirement is that property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. This provision does not mean that a property owner must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. In such a case the constitution would compel a variance regardless of the statute. (Citations omitted). The statute is clearly intended to allow cities the flexibility to grant variances in cases w’here the constitution does not compel it. Thus, we read the first part of the definition of “undue hardship" as requiring a showing that the property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance.” (Roswell v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). That reading of the language substantially clarifies a common misinterpretation of the variance standard in Minnesota. In 1995, the Minnesota Court of Appeals again restated the standard. The City of St. Paul had granted itself a variance to construct a dome over baseball fields that exceeded by five feet the maximum structure height allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. This was challenged by the ovmer of apartment buildings located adjacent to the proposed dome site. In determining whether the property “cannot be put to a reasonable use” the Court stated: “This court has previously construed this language to mean the landowner would like to put the land to a reasonable use, but that the proposed reasonable use is prohibited under the strict provisions of the code.” (Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, 529 N.W. 2d 488 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). Finally, in May, 2000, the Minnesota Court of Appeals heard Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie, 610 N.W.2d 697 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). The property owner sought numerous variances to accomplish a subdivision of its property into three residential lots. The granting of the variances