06-18-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. A conditional use permit may be denied on the basis that it is in conflict with the comprehensive plan. Hubbard Broadcasting. Inc, v. City of Afton. 323 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. J982); BBY Investors v. Citv of Maplewood. 467 N.W.2d 631 (Minn. App. 1991). 5. Where no standards are provided in the ordinance, the decision on the application should be accompanied by fmdings of fact specifying reasoning on which decision was based. If no findings are made, a prima facie case of arbitrariness is established. Zvika v. Citv of Crystal . 167 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. 1969). 6. The reviewing coun will assess the legal sufficiency of the reasons given by the cit>' and determine whether, if legally sufficient, they had a facnial basis in the record. Trisko v. Citv of Waite Park. 566 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. App. 1997). review denied; C.R. Investments. Inc, v. Village of Shoreview. 304 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 1981). 7. The appellate courts will review the decision of the cit>* council independent of the fmdings and conclusions of the district court. Northwestern College v. Citv of Arden Hills. 218 N.W.2d 865 (Miim. 1979). G. Variances. A variance permits a particular propeny to be used in a manner oiherw ise forbidden by the ordinance by varying one or more of the performance standards of the ordinance, such as lot area, setbacks, lot width or depth. Zvika V. Citv ofCr\stal. 283 Minn. 192. 167 N.W.2d 45 (1969). There is a statutorv- test of "undue hardship" which must be met. Miim. Stal. § 462.357. subd. 6(2) states: Undue hardship . . . means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the ofrlcial controls, the plight of the landow ner is due to circumsunces unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. This test was liberally construed on behalf of the applicant in Rowell v. Board of Ad|U5tment. 446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. App. 1989) and in Saystetter v. Citv of St. Paul. 529 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. App. 1995). Most public planning staff, planning commissions and governing l^ies still believe that the government may only legally grant variances if a very narrow and difficult test is met by the 490MBOM