Laserfiche WebLink
STI\SO\ <br />August 21, 2025 <br />Bob Tunheim <br />Mayor <br />btunheim(koronomn. gov <br />Steve Persian <br />Council Member <br />spersiangoronomn. gov <br />Alisa Benson <br />Council Member <br />abensongoronomn.gov <br />Jacqueline Ricks <br />Council Member <br />jrickskoronomn. _ og_v <br />Timothy Kelley <br />DIRECT: 612.335.1458 <br />OFFICE: 612.335.1500 <br />timothy.kelley@stinson.com <br />Jon Schwingler <br />Council Member <br />j schwinglergoronomn. gov <br />Re: #LA25-00025, Southview Design, 1530 Orchard Beach Place Variance <br />Request <br />Dear Mayor and Council Members: <br />I represent the Owner of 1530 Orchard Beach Place. The Owner requests that the Council <br />reconsider its denial of the request for a variance from the average lakeshore setback. The <br />Council has "a well -established right to reopen, rehear, and redetermine [a] matter even <br />after a determination has been made."I The Council should exercise this well -established <br />right, reconsider the variance request and grant it. The City should take these actions <br />because its prior denial misapplied the statutory standards applicable to variances and <br />lacked factual support. <br />The Owner requests that the Council place this matter on the agenda at its August 25, 2025 <br />meeting and take the action requested. <br />Variances <br />"A variance is a way that cities may allow an exception to part of a zoning ordinance. It is <br />a permitted departure from strict enforcement of the ordinance as applied to a particular <br />piece of property. A variance is generally for a dimensional standard (such as setbacks or <br />height limits). A variance allows the landowner to break a dimensional zoning rule that <br />1 Klockman v. Le Sueur County Bd. of Com'rs, 2015 WL 3879640, at *5 (Minn. App. 2015) ("[C]ounty board was not <br />precluded from reconsidering its initial denial of respondents' application for a CUP within a one-year period."); In re <br />N. Metro Harness, 711 N.W.2d 129, 135-36 (Minn. App. 2006) (concluding that racing commission had inherent <br />authority to reconsider the application when it acted with diligence). <br />50 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600, Minneapolis, MN 55402 <br />STINSON LLP \ STINSON.COM <br />231030270.2 <br />134 <br />