09-22-2025 - Agenda Packet City Council - Regular Meeting

Home Browse Search

September 2, 2025 Page 2 The Owner believes the location shown on Exhibit B is a reasonable location. This location does not interfere with the lake views from homes on the adjacent lakeshore lots and meets all other setback requirements, except for the average lakeshore setback. Exhibit B-1 is a 3D rendering of the pool cabana. Because the fireplace does not face the lake, the Owner believes the current orientation of the cabana is appropriate. In addition to location, there were discussions at the last meeting on what the variance standard imposed by Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6 requires and how the City applied that standard. "Cities should ensure their ordinance provisions for granting variances agree with the standard provided in the Municipal Planning Act."' Under that Act: "Practical difficulties is the legal standard set by state law (Minn. Stat. 462.357, subd. 6)." "Minnesota cities must apply the practical difficulties standard when considering applications of variances. To constitute practical difficulties, a variance application must meet all three of the following conditions: • The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. • The landowner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. • The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality (Minn. Stat. 462.357, subd. 6(2). Economic considerations alone cannot constitute practical difficulties. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan.112 In various reports and at meetings discussing this application, there have been statements made that the Owner cannot meet the practical difficulties standard because the existing primary residence establishes the Owner already has reasonable use of the property. That position misapplies the reasonableness factor and is inconsistent with Minnesota law. Under the reasonableness factor, "[t]he [O]wner is not required to `show that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. 1113 The Owner needs only to establish "that the proposed use is consistent with reasonable use of the property" in a manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance.4 Thus, the reasonableness factor focuses on the reasonableness of the proposed use, not on an existing use of the property or on whether the proposed use is a needed use that the owner must have in order to reasonably use his or her property. For the reasons stated in my August 21, 2025 letter, the Owner believes the reasonableness factor and the practical difficulties standard have been satisfied. 1 hgps://www.Imc.or2/resources/land-use-ordinance-updates/ (last visited September 2, 2025) 2 Id. 3 Herbst v. City of Deephaven, 2025 WL 1023871, at *5 (Minn. App. 2025) (quoting Rowell v. Bd. Adjustment of the City of Moorhead), 446 N.W.2d 917, 921 (Minn. App. 1998) (emphasis added). 4 Id. 231369129.1 124