Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> See Denney v. City of Dulutlz, 295 Minn. 22, 26, 202 N.W.2d 892, 894 (1972) ("It is <br /> �ndamental that a municipality's power to regulate land use by zoning exists by virtue of <br /> i <br /> au.thority delegated to it by the state."). But Mimz. Stat. � 462.357, �,ubd. le(b), grants the � <br /> I <br /> City the discretion to permit the expansion of a nonconformity by ordinance. 1 he �ity <br /> provided a mechanism for expansion in section 300.29(g)(1), through a variance <br /> application, and Krulnmenacher makes no az-gument that Liebeler's z-equest for a variance <br /> did not satisfy that section of the City Code_ ' <br /> Secause the legislature gave the City discretion to author?ze the expansion of <br /> Liebeler's nonconfoizning garage, we hold that the City�'s decision to allow Liebeler to <br /> seek a variance under the ordinance to expand a nonconforznity was consistent with <br /> IVIiru1. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le. <br /> II. <br /> We turn next to Krummenacher's argument that the City's decision must be set <br /> aside because it was arbitraiy and capricious. Municipal.ities have "broad discretionary <br /> power" in considering whether to grant or deny a variance. VanT andsclzoot v. City of <br /> -- - - -_ . <br /> __� _---------- <br /> MetZdota Heigl�ts, 336 N.W_2d 503, 508 (Miru7. 1983). We review such decisioi�s "to <br /> determine whether the municipality "was within its jurisdiction, «as not mistaken as to <br /> ithe applicable law, and did not act arbitrarily, oppressively, or unreasonably; and to <br /> i <br /> � detennine whetl�er the evidence could reasonably support or justify the deteimination." <br /> In re Stadsvold. 754 N.W.2d 323, 332 (Mi_nn. 2008) (internal quotation omitted). <br /> 10 <br /> � �.� --- .:.� <br /> , <br /> ' ��� <br /> �.._, <br />