Laserfiche WebLink
"when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of <br />the ordinance." Id. Krummenacher argues that Liebeler's application does not meet any <br />of the requirements for "undue hardship." <br />The first factor a variance applicant must establish to satisfy the statute's definition <br />of "undue hardship" is that "the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if <br />used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6; <br />see also Minnetonka City Code § 300.07.1(a). Krummenacher argues that based on the <br />plain and unambiguous language of the statute, a municipality may grant a variance only <br />when the property cannot be put to any reasonable use without it. According to <br />Krummenacher, Liebeler had a reasonable use for her garage without the addition of a <br />yoga studio and craft room-its current use as a storage space for vehicles. <br />Krummenacher argues therefore that the City did not have the statutory authority to grant <br />the variance. <br />The court of appeals rejected this argument, relying on its decision in Rowell v. <br />Board of Adjustment of Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. App. 1989), rev. denied <br />(Minn. Dec. 15, 1989). The court in that case interpreted the "undue hardship" section of <br />Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, as requiring a variance applicant to show that the <br />"property owner would like to use the properly in a reasonable manner that is prohibited <br />by the ordinance." Id. at 922. <br />The City urges that we should embrace the interpretation of "undue hardship" from <br />Rowell, and it appears from the record that the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard is <br />the standard the City used in evaluating Liebeler's request for a variance. The City <br />12 <br />