Krummenacher v. Minnetonka

Minnesota Court of Appeals · 2009 · Property

768 N.W.2d 377 (2009)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyZoningVariancesNonconforming usesnonconforming usevarianceundue hardshipmunicipal authority

Facts

JoAnne Liebeler sought a variance to replace the flat roof on her detached nonconforming garage with a pitched roof, creating usable space above the garage for a personal yoga and craft studio. The garage was nonconforming because it sat 17 feet from the front property line where the ordinance required a 50-foot front-yard setback, but the proposal would not alter the garage's footprint and would remain below the city's 12-foot height limit. The planning commission approved the variance based on undue hardship arising from the site's topography, lot width, driveway location, and vegetation, and the city council upheld that decision. Her neighbor, appellant Beat Krummenacher, opposed the variance, arguing that expansion of a nonconforming property was prohibited and that the variance findings were unsupported.

Issue

Whether Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1e(a), barred the city from granting a variance to allow expansion of a nonconforming garage, whether the city's approval of the variance was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and whether the district court erred by refusing additional discovery when reviewing the municipal decision.

Rule

Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1e(a), does not eliminate a municipality's authority under Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, and applicable ordinances to grant a variance permitting expansion of a nonconforming use or development. A variance may be granted only if the applicant shows undue hardship by establishing (1) the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance in the sense that the owner seeks a reasonable use prohibited by the ordinance, (2) the plight of the landowner is due to unique circumstances of the property not created by the landowner, and (3) the variance will maintain the essential character of the locality, and the approval must also be consistent with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Judicial review is based on whether the city's articulated reasons are legally sufficient and have a factual basis; when the municipal record adequately sets out the reasons for decision, additional discovery or evidentiary augmentation is unnecessary.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Duluth, Mara Jensen owns a detached workshop that lawfully predates a zoning ordinance requiring a 40-foot side-yard setback. The structure sits 14 feet from the lot line, and Mara seeks a variance to raise the roof and add overhead storage space without changing the building's footprint. A neighbor argues the city lacks power to approve any expansion of a nonconforming structure.

How should a court most likely rule on the city's authority to grant the variance?

Explanation. The majority held that a provision barring expansion of nonconformities does not strip a municipality of its separate authority to grant variances. Expansion is not allowed as of right, but it may still be authorized by variance if the statutory and ordinance standards are met. A contrary reading would render the variance provisions meaningless.