HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12-2011 Planning Commission Meeting Packet Addendums Oy ,.6 A m 6 8 6305 ' 3 2 31'71323 93 1221..1
A ,I 'Si �6 G425 A 9 p07, dg
`PEABODV AVEN �:
InO
G$ BA 6 y 63857 13 213
w
-
N
I : _
A
� T m M 21
I � 6
N b
1NIV
I
l a1 ni 1 t m m t i m l 1 ^' m: _ M N If♦ i
l I i
O
PELL•ER 6 .
O 9$463 A _ y V
tl
A A A>T O A A
N 95418 ;15451'
O
Of
:
�
PENROSE N �_ i 17:_
„.. , T
o 16101
1 5653 1146, u` 1 '2 ro m t
H 1 � ,_. �'"~���� k: , lei•
N
Z ai
of --__ � ' 1 m >_ _ i ; , V o ;oo
ful
� � A
X—
OV��� � I �w m c _ 1 b� �•�
�
y m
i
y
4i
5674 115584
5636 1 1
C °w PERKKINS AVEN
,
c y yd
5
A ll �d
nd
O IV
^� /
n N s
t
z
, r o
1
� w
m 1
,
a :
( i
}
o ,r
y
r
F m
c
e
i"
e
ro
o ✓ K c r1 0' fD
(D t l
,1 10 o o oo o p
B oa � � N o 0
0
Variance Bill Ara:rc tided, Se;rtt to House, floor Page, 1 of
"11 LIV
,
j s:r1GUG:. >t
h-t NM V YlA
(';1111 ti
Variance M Awl� ni ded, Sent to
House Floor
An amrL'rQtduw -nt 5 1pp�F. ed by title ."Leag11 e gyefiZ1f;e'ra elit;y and county \`✓i$Heine
(Published Feb 24, 201.1)
111F 52 (1.9nk lo: l;rFps: /isns;<s, revrsnr.r:rr,;;uiirevistrj /prr esLsearch arirrr:. cislrNrrs defall.php ?b::.11ouser.4f 1/I :S' &•tisn:::O y lIt/I) the }ill
ciraRed by th e t,c;at uc and a large goup of allIs to correct statutes to address the loss Of city variance
aut:hE} ly and clarify county acid rilunic;ipal variance silatut.c;s to lessen the likelihood of ft-rtur•e° Iit gation,
was heard. in the Hoursti OperafiCSi+u, and Mt".(:UMMIS C31i1!WMRIGtt 4k (Onk
ltf/p: / /irsssv.lro�rse. left. aJafe. mrr. rr. r/ corerm /r..ar7milfee.nsl) ?corrrrtt� 8711(19) Oil Feb 17,
Over the of je tions o lo cal gove:r•rrnnent, an arricrAn ient, , ,,,s ct <..ici.ed that leaves the statutory language for
Iota acrd when condit:i(ms inay be irrrp'los,er;i as part- of a variance in a difte;re'ut f €orin tbi c;€ anti €xs €:IZan fior
cities, "I he League aurd "[ Minrioso Anol:rFl km of Township testified that th.e l (gisliatire sl o"Ild
cor'loct this Ili "(. )1ern t:c; avoid fature c"onf6IA(Mk arm! l-it €,g t'.ion. f pip r).Cfzt.•' Mler•f', not able to rxi- . 3hiin I "toJ'v
tl - to titi3golaj,� E1= it }j_, E € }t1. €,ts3l7.t_ bCi`>'eG.1,1 the. LvJC3 sG:'6arf;rr'j is 'Ist(ri<)It:Fr'r %t't -r €; and wt7 %at: €,,E3F1(ttt3'Crt.t,i (:(?Ltf2't1eS
Would be able to apply t.Ia k.t cities should nof.
Ile Uague oppo the l ouw(; bill in its €' a '(.11L state. l'he "3eraate bill, SF 13 (Link lo:
htlps'i /ivsysrre" raw. �zrrt, l ;o�/r "� >i "ror /pal;<>s:!rt�aich slnfus /•suaius_defoil.✓jp?b�- Jrrrratt U,)`= .51l11))3r�ssrr (ld %t���2!)!1) has notyetbemi Yet br a
l ea`ing. t 1.,63ap;ue will he 'b orl,ing acdvdy cldr.t:I:t the Senate and bill author, Sen. Gen O1`; ofl ('Lint lo:
Irltp:// svayssse: rca<:. ltg.. rkrtc. i7n7. rr�irrtcurtlmr ,r /merr7ter_hio.ply) ?memid: 1043(UY ) 1 .i>fi1:B,i E)tr "ISda`. to pass the I1r.11 in a Inn
ttl.ccptallc: to local p,}v €;r°nriac: its.
fil C3C'1k;3.£ E<..2Y g Won %r vadmwe 1'k' )y b £ Ei:tZ52 !f ; f ;a, f iii "F'( z "Sf 5t:cif.t}i:E,i f(} G= :3t3sktr' >st tl " 4r }t. conditions El4a}•'
he ii(t•t used t(1 insmv cotf3.i and to pro wel c1C' j'j ! €': iYi: €'t:3:C'ss and (lit P ublic public
int<;1 est " ' phr a rc. is not li sted in ('.w -r col ( l.ty stti @:C'ok - ' , The Hor.1ss(.: rtlfn.ridi - a.f ni. i( c } the Sanf. g(,
i.I "f7('I'3 itl�s.f'El.'. illy; aq,. l?r.e; %r.t r4 LlY<kl city i1 k.lt{I(3:i` ty l' iti t.1:)t. heel £k1l'(',S l( ci by ttr.clt lak(1 ?ul'c ;C ftrkl .kZf - {.'• t)v(;.l' tI "3(
past 20 years, so it d ( }f; nett need to be changed-
The Uague has pc }irAed c }tat thaat ,a year agcy there was no p:rwblerrr mpith c;Wes I':car7ti.ng variances, .tither,
but that the cotut fo und that die ciifthrenc es iii language b otween Fflc c.ou.ilty arld city stater €c;,,, 4a.r€aotig
othesr• reasons, forced there to limit city authority tuacl.er cWting law.
While it is clear that cities amy enact n inn ordhotrwe;s to proinote the "puhlie health, safety, rnorals,
and general miclfarc," they irac onsistency between the laws for cities and € aunties creates a level of
arnlai.guity and legad uncertainly that is unacceptable,
Ironically, despite the apparent opposition to language that allows e.ond.iti.oias to prorr)ote the "publi.c
interest"' or to protect the public health, safety ,,, or welfare, including that lari ual e would inal%e; it naorc
likely that variances are, in fact, granted. in cases that sonic local goverinuents are currently hesitant to
consider.
hFtps: / /Etrr€ ;.oxp; /Z>a e /l /v<3.riaracel�i.11.jsp� 2056011
46 of 52
Huuo E
Bill Summary
FILE NUMBM H.F. 52 DATE: January 11, 2()11
Version: As introduccd
Authors: Peppin and others
Subject: Local government, zoning variances
Analyst: Debonih A. Dyson, 651 - 296 - 8291
'J publicitlon can be n7adc m"111able'. 111 7.11ter 'lithe t'orimits upon rqucst. Please Gall 05 1 -296- 6753
(voice); or the lvlhmesota State 1 -800- 627 -3529 ( Poi- aseist Ince. Sunnmaries are
also avaiJabl(:. on our VTbsil -e <It: ���a�w .hol�sc.nln /hrd /hrd.hinl.
Modili.cs the st:arldards for t rallt:ilag Ia varianec iie�r1� a county city or to5��n roving control. Provide", for
the same st":trrd"Ird in the county, city and imvil planning) and ronim statutcs. The tern) "hardship" is
climinated,
Permits a zoning authority to grant a variance to a Zoning; control if there area "pi a.ctical diL icultics in
coInplying with the zoning control. "PractIcal diffic- ulties" rncans:
"thc property owner proposes to use the property in a r'erasonable Iminner not perrrri.tte'd by iIll
official %onirol;
the phgl oft_he landowner is duc to circuinst- „inces uIli(juc to tire; property not ci attcd by the
]<rn down er. and
the varlance, il g ralate(.1, will not alter the essential Cl1ar'i1C1e;1' of the loellity,”
A varlance rnGiy be granted only if It is "In harmony with the general purposes and intent" of t:he
ordinance and consistent with the eomprehensivr; plan.
l;ffective the day after enactment.
"]'his bill is in response to the June 2010, Minnesota Supreme Court decision in K°zrrmnenachei- v, City of
Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d (Minn. 2010) (nterpret:in� "undue hardship" in the municipal variance
statute), and an earlier decision relating to counties, In. re ,Sta(lsvolcl, 754 N.W.2d 323 (Minn. 2008)
(interprcting the application of "practical difficulties" and "particular hardship" in the county variance
sta- tute). In Krzarn aenacher, the court held that the city did not have authority to grant the variance ifs the
property owner could put the property to a reasonable use without a variance (part of the "undue
hardship" requi.rcmeni). The court stated that the legislature would have to take action to provide i more
flexible variance standard.
ResearC4 l q�� ailment Minnesota House of Representatives 600 State Office Building
R',201 1 y0052 Peppin.dd.docx 1_.asi printed 2, 9:04:00 AiM
H.F. No. S2, as introduced - 87th Legislative session (2011 -2012) Posted on Jan 10, 201 1
1.1 A bill for ail act
1.2relating to local government; providing for variances from city, county, and tovgym
l._3 oning controls and ordinanccsarnendifig Minnesota Statutes 2010, sections
1.4394.27, subdivision 7; 462,357, subdivision 6.
IT ENACTED BY 'l 111, LEGISLATURE' O1' T1I1:,' STATE' ' 01 MINNP.SOTA:
1.0 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 394,27, subdivision 7, is amended to read:
1.7 Subd. 7. VaHances; Inird -shil) pi- actical diI'Iicit The board of ad
I.8shall have the exclusive power to order the issuance of variances front the terins of any
1.9official cont rol including restrictions placed on nonconformities, Variances shall only be
1.1Opermit:t:ed when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent 0f the official
1.1)Control iii- cu�es�vl ?tzt3- Jlit�rc zri -e�}31 etittfil- dii= li��iltie E3i j�ai�i<1.ilz��- h ;irti hipili- t�E�- \\'liy -of
1.I �( ilt'i�'il? - 8t11`t17f ti1.i'iC1 lttiGi' -C)1 i3il�''" {31-'la{ icl t13i1t3<)l; mid lvhen the terms of the variance
1. I Jare consistent with the Comprehensive plall. " 11c11= t1tiI1}j3i! Cis> i.ititC} 11 ?°� ()1313(�C tl(313 \�;tth k13(3
I, i 4gr lnt}ng {)f i � ^a1'ii?T1C -( - }l ?Cd334 thU- }33'h313Ei'ty 1i3 (tlt f3ti43n G(iilIiE)t-l)L jai t(3 3 i=('h5(T}251) hl (a
1. 1j1f itSCd ti ?l dt t' $ll(,'t<p }3C It tllE' the- )i3ildo vvi-IC
/. citie tE3:G13k?tli13?3I.".Iil (?; -tiiiigt-ie tE3 °{13t`,-13i( not'tnte meE1 - by �IiP.- liii3 {j <3\hili)i =; iI3 ?tl -ilit
1.1 ' \' ai' i i ?LE` rt t >I= 1, i7(3{ ct1tG1: i1lL'-GS'.iGiTtli l C1 ?i3i'ilUtC3 -01 tlaf 14)F i�ht \'; Variances n1il�' bc..
i. I8s.>,r \,vh ri the al?plic_iut 1 tile variance establishes tl };ti there are m- ac,tical diii
1.1011) et�mpl�,it?� �ih the official Control. "Practical difTic.ultic5 ' as used ilt yv_1th
1.2Ut1lG - ,.� Y�tnt>z�; gf, <a,_vari var ianc e, meansth�at. the jjjhjj ty owricr_p;L)I (mes to use the_l_)z,oticrt . v in
1 _ by _ _..._ ._ o the t�IiOit of the landown t_
_ -. ..._ _.__.. W is due
I.. lteas0nablc nl�tnncl not )Limitted b yin official u>nti�l_ .-
1.22to Ciret.lins unique t t:he .... 111olL ty not,ciie;tted ley tl>e landowncry acrd file variance.
1. 23Yf L4rantc,d,._will, not alter the essential character o flic locality . l ._. 'conomic considerations
1.24aIonc sh ill do not constitute undel>
2. /tile terms A- they- t)i- di�rlal�c� brae -tic�l dia'f_iGtililcs Practical dlffictrlties include but sue not
._.._ ... - -._. _..__ .__ >._.._...._- .._.._......_..
?. 1jill�itcd to„ inacl�.cttt access to direct sunliOlt J61 so lar c,laera'� systems, Variances shall be
nied for earth Sheltered construction as defined in section 116( 1 0 6, subdivision i4,
,4 when in harmony with the official controls, No vtiriance allay be s rarltcd that would allow
usC ihiat is ff0hiNted_pot ill the zoi lint, district in ywhich the sub
Je
..t properly is
2.6located. The board ofadjuatnierlt lira}' illlj COnditi0ns itlt {1 3 31t�1, t�etlu�l'��p��i�tt>
?. 'in the grialting of vrariance.s to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties and
?.ctithL public 1I "]t.Ll'GSt c<3- 3f 3 C'<?t_ h 133 -.t -ire
board
2. ( (3 f. Hf 111'A3 r3C i1t r1l H - \ E?:(3i 1:4if C 1' t w-i Ili3 ?11 t t-V- tf3-
2.111the gi :ant4rig t:if= \ tai ilancc�5,
2.I IEFF C_ "i . i
'IVE DATEThi section s of
�, � s � fcctiv c, the day_ followin _fina c- rlact ment.
2.12 Sec. 2. N/linnesota Statutes 2010, section zl62.357. subdivision 6. is amended to read:
2.13 Subd. 6.Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and
2.I4adjustments may be taken by ally affected person upon colriplianec with ally reasonable
2. I5conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has
2. /lithe following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance:
2.17(1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is art error In any
50 of 52