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

Home Browse Search

August 21, 2025 Page 4 The City Code permits accessory buildings in the lakeyard, so the Owner's proposed use — a pool cabana in the lakeyard — is consistent with reasonable use of the property. It is also reasonable for the Owner to propose that the pool cabana be located in the same yard as the pool. It is important to note what the reasonableness standard does not require. "The owner is not required to `show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. "'8 Yet, this is what the City required. At the Council meeting and in the Staff Report, the City focused on the assertion that reasonable use of the Owner's property is already "established by the principal building on the property." Said another way, the City determined that the Owner could never satisfy the reasonableness standard because the existence of the principal building means the property can be put to a reasonable use without the variance. That is not what the reasonableness standard requires. Under the reasonableness standard, the focus is on the reasonableness of the use proposed, not the existing uses on the property. The City misapplied this standard. (2) Uniqueness. The record also shows the Owner's need for the variance is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Property Owner. "Whether an application satisfies this requirement depends on `all the circumstances surrounding the property,' and thus is `not limited to the purely physical condition of the land. `9 The unique circumstances surrounding the property include: 1. The property being located next to a right-of-way. 2. The lot to the west of the right-of-way is not a vacant lot and the primary residence on that lot is only 30-40 feet from the Lakeshore. 3. The unique shape and form of the lakeshore on the Owner's property materially increases the impact of the Setback, which due to the right-of-way, is based only on the residence to the east. 4. Persons at the residences on either side of the Owner's property will not see the pool cabana unless they turn away from the lakeshore. This is not a circumstance where the variance, if granted, would in any way impact a lake view. 8 Id. 9 Herbst, 2025 WL 1023871, at *5 (quoting Merriam Park Community Council, Inc. v. McDonough, 210 N.W.2d 416, 421 (Minn. 1973), overruled on other grounds, Nw. Coll. v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865, 865 (Minn. 1979); State ex. rel. Neighbors for East Bank Livability v. City of Minneapolis, 915 N.W.2d 505, 509 (Minn. App. 2018). 231030270.2 137