4A - Ordinance Amendment Regarding Variance Criteria

Home Browse Search

CozvrMUN]ITY GIMONVI H INSTITUTE STAFF REPORT Application: Ordinance Amendment Applicant: City of Pequot Lakes Background Information: The enclosed proposed ordinance amendments are in response to amendments that the MN Legislature recently made to state law regarding the criteria by which variances are to be reviewed. As some of you may know, the MN Supreme Court had come down with two rulings in recent years regarding variances. For counties, the case was Stadsvold v. Otter Tail County and for cities the case was Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka.These two cases significantly altered how variances were to be reviewed and for cities, the Krummenacher case was widely seen as making it nearly impossible for a city to grant a variance so long as a property owner could make any reasonable use of their property. The MN Legislature responded just this past month by amending state law and creating one common set of standards by which variances were to be reviewed in cities,townships and counties. The most significant aspect of the changes they made was to eliminate the phrase "hardship" from the review standards and replace it with the term "practical difficulties". We are presenting proposed revisions to your ordinance that will assure that the city complies with the new state law. Planning Commission Direction: The Planning Commission may either recommend that the application be approved or denied, with or without changes to the text provided here. The application can also be tabled. Guidance can be given to staff for modifications to be presented at the next meeting. There is no requirement that the Planning Commission must act at this time. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Ordinance amendment be approved. Pequot Lakes Staff Report 1 June 16,2011