Laserfiche WebLink
August 21, 2025 <br />Page 3 <br />"In considering a variance application, a city exercises 'quasi-judicial' authority. This <br />means the city acts like a judge in evaluating the facts against the legal standard. The city's <br />role is limited to applying the legal standard of practical difficulties to the facts presented <br />by the application. If the applicant meets the standard, then the city may grant the <br />variance.115 Thus, when considering a variance application, the City has much less <br />discretion as compared to when it exercises legislative authority.6 <br />When the facts are applied to the legal standard established in Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. <br />6(2), it is clear there is no legal or factual basis to deny the Owner's variance request. <br />(a) A variance that does not interfere with lake views is in harmony with the general <br />purposes and intent of a Setback Ordinance that the City says is intended to <br />protect lake views. <br />The Staff Report states that the Setback ordinance "is intended to protect lake views from <br />homes on adjacent lakeshore property." Thus, the only way for the variance to not be in <br />harmony with the Setback ordinance is if the pool cabana interfered with lake views from <br />homes on adjacent lakeshore property. It does not. <br />The record establishes that the pool cabana would not interfere with lake views from the <br />adjacent home to the west or the adjacent home to the east. This means that the variance is <br />in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Setback ordinance. Any finding to <br />the contrary lacks a rational basis. <br />(b) Comprehensive Plan. <br />The Staff Report states that the "proposed variance to construct a building, accessory to an <br />existing primary residential use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion <br />is met." <br />The Owner agrees. <br />(1) Reasonableness. <br />Under the statute's reasonableness standard, the Owner needs only to establish "that the <br />proposed use is consistent with reasonable use of the property" in a manner not permitted <br />by the zoning ordinance.? The Owner satisfied this standard. <br />5 hops://www.Imc.org/resources/land-use-variances/ <br />6 Id. <br />7 Herbst v. City ofDeephaven, 2025 WL 1023871, at *5 (Minn. App. 2025) (quoting Rowell v. Bd. Adjustment of the <br />City of Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917, 921 (Minn. App. 1989). <br />231030270.2 <br />136 <br />