Krummenacher v. City Of Minnetonka
| Decision Date | 24 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. A08-1988.,A08-1988. |
| Citation | 783 N.W.2d 721 |
| Parties | Beat L. KRUMMENACHER, Appellant,v.CITY OF MINNETONKA, Respondent,JoAnne K. Liebeler, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Syllabus by the Court
1. Although Minn.Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1e(a) (2008), restricts the ability of property owners to expand their nonconforming uses, subdivision 1e(b) authorizes a municipality to allow an expansion pursuant to ordinance. Because the legislature gave the municipality discretion to authorize the expansion of a nonconforming use, the decision to allow respondent to seek a variance under the ordinance to expand a nonconformity was consistent with Minn.Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1e.
2. Under Minn.Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, to establish the “undue hardship” required for a variance, a variance applicant must establish that “the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use” without the variance.
3. Because the municipality applied the wrong standard, a remand for reconsideration of respondent's variance application under the correct standard is appropriate.
Paul W. Chamberlain, Ryan R. Kuhlmann, Chamberlain Law Firm, Wayzata, MN, for appellant.
George C. Hoff, Shelley M. Ryan, Hoff, Barry & Kozar, P.A., Eden Prairie, MN, for respondent City of Minnetonka.
James M. Susag, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren Ltd., Bloomington, MN, for respondent JoAnne Liebeler.
Susan L. Naughton, St. Paul, MN, for amicus curiae League of Minnesota Cities.
This case involves the decision of respondent City of Minnetonka to grant a variance to respondent JoAnne Liebeler so that she could expand her nonconforming garage. Appellant Beat Krummenacher is Liebeler's neighbor and he challenges the City's decision. The district court upheld the City's variance, and the court of appeals affirmed. See Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 768 N.W.2d 377, 384 (Minn.App.2009). Because we conclude that the City applied the wrong standard to Liebeler's variance request, we reverse and remand to the City for reconsideration under the correct standard.
Liebeler owns property located in Minnetonka. Krummenacher is Liebeler's neighbor to the west. Liebeler's property consists of a 2.4-acre lot, which contains a 2,975-square-foot home and an attached two-car garage. The property also contains a detached flat-roofed garage that a previous owner constructed sometime in the 1940s. The City has an ordinance requiring that the detached garage be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the property's boundary line. Minnetonka City Code § 300.10. Liebeler's garage was constructed before this ordinance went into effect, and it does not satisfy the setback requirement. Specifically, the garage is nonconforming because it is set back only 17 feet from the front yard lot line. Because the garage was constructed before the ordinance became effective, however, the garage is a permissible nonconformity.
On March 31, 2008, Liebeler applied for a variance to expand the detached garage by adding a pitched roof and a second-story room above the garage that could be used as a yoga studio and craft room. Liebeler's proposal was to renovate the garage itself, both to fix its leakage problems and improve its appearance, and also to expand the garage by adding a living space above it. Because adding a second story to the garage would result in a vertical expansion of a nonconforming structure, Liebeler was required, under the Minnetonka City Code, to apply for a variance from the City.1 See Minnetonka City Code § 300.29.3(g). Liebeler's proposed addition would not alter the footprint of the garage and would comply with the City zoning requirements for a detached garage with respect to maximum height and size.
The City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 15, 2008, to consider Liebeler's request. Both Liebeler and Krummenacher had an opportunity to present their arguments at that hearing. Liebeler explained that she believed that the flat roof was causing leakage problems and that the structure itself needed to be updated. Krummenacher objected to Liebeler's proposed project, explaining that the added height of the garage would obstruct his view to the east.
The Planning Commission approved Liebeler's request for the variance. The Planning Commission based its decision on the following findings: (1) the denial of a variance would cause “undue hardship” because of the “topography of the site, width of the lot, location of the driveway, and existing vegetation”; (2) the preexisting nonconforming setback was a “unique circumstance”; (3) Liebeler's proposal would comply with the “intent of the ordinance” because it satisfied the “zoning ordinance requirements for a detached garage for maximum height and size” and did not alter the footprint of the garage; and (4) the proposal would not alter the “neighborhood character” because it would “visually enhance the exterior of the garage” and because there was another detached garage on a nearby property that was also set back only 17 feet from the road.
Krummenacher appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the Minnetonka City Council. The City Council held a public hearing on the variance request on June 30, 2008, at which both sides presented their arguments. After an examination of the record, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision and findings. The City Council found that Liebeler's “proposal is reasonable and would meet the required standards for a variance.” The council listed four requirements and found that the variance satisfied those requirements as follows:
Krummenacher then brought suit in district court challenging, among other things, the City's finding of undue hardship. Krummenacher served discovery requests asking for additional documents from the City, but the City objected to providing more than the City's record on the grounds that the case was properly subject to record review. The court declined to order the City to produce the additional documents, and affirmed the City's decision to grant the variance to Liebeler, concluding that the City's decision was not “arbitrary and capricious.”
Krummenacher appealed to the court of appeals. On appeal, he raised three issues. First, he argued that Minn.Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1e(a) (2008), prohibits the City from granting a variance to allow the expansion of a nonconforming use. Krummenacher, 768 N.W.2d at 380-81. Second, he argued that the City's approval of the variance request was “arbitrary and capricious” because Liebeler had failed to meet the “undue hardship” standard of Minn.Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. See Krummenacher, 768 N.W.2d at 382-84. Last, he argued that the district court erred in refusing to compel additional discovery by the City. See id. at 384. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision in all respects.
We granted Krummenacher's petition for review. On appeal to our court, Krummenacher advances the same three arguments he made to the court of appeals. 2
We turn first to Krummenacher's argument that Minn.Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1e, prohibits a municipality from granting a variance that allows for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Section 462.357, subdivision 1e, provides in relevant part:
(Emphasis added.) 3 Krummenacher argues that because the plain language of paragraph (a) of subdivision 1e prohibits the expansion of any nonconformity, the City's decision allowing Liebeler to expand her nonconforming garage must be reversed. The City argues that subdivision 1e(a) restricts the ability of property owners to expand nonconforming uses, but that under subdivision 1e(b), a municipality is permitted to allow an expansion pursuant to ordinance.
The construction of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo. Clark v. Lindquist, 683 N.W.2d 784, 785 (Minn.2004).4 To interpret a statute, we first assess “whether the statute's language, on its face, is clear or ambiguous.” Am. Family Ins. Group v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn.2000). If the law is “clear and free from all ambiguity,” the plain meaning controls and is not “disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.” Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2008); Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 537 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn.1995) (). The legislature has also stated that it intends the entire statute to be effective. Minn.Stat. § 645.16 ().
This case is about a structure that does not conform with local land use restrictions. We have recognized that a local...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Crawley
...reason for proscribing the statute's application to unprotected conduct.”). We construe statutes de novo. Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721, 726 (Minn.2010). Our primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intent. Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2010). We fo......
-
Kneebone v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of the Twp. of Plainfield
...is reasonable and they cannot build according to their preferences without violating the zoning law. Cf. Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka , 783 N.W.2d 721, 731 n.13 (Minn. 2010) (explaining that many jurisdictions with a statutory unnecessary-hardship predicate "require that the variance ......
-
Kneebone v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of the Township of Plainfield
...is reasonable and they cannot build according to their preferences without violating the zoning law. Cf. Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721, 731 n.13 (Minn. 2010) (explaining that many jurisdictions with a statutory unnecessary-hardship predicate "require that the variance a......
-
AIM Dev. (USA), LLC v. City of Sartell, A18-0443
...of nonconforming uses, existing uses must be allowed to remain or be eliminated through eminent domain. Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka , 783 N.W.2d 721, 726 (Minn. 2010).With this context in mind, we turn to the issues presented in this appeal.I.The court of appeals defined the scope of......