Laserfiche WebLink
August 21, 2025 <br />Page 5 <br />If the right-of-way did not exist, the Owner would not need a variance. As the planning <br />commission found, this fact alone satisfied the unique circumstances standard. <br />At the Council meeting, it is apparent the City believed that because other properties in the <br />City abut a right-of-way a unique circumstance could never exist. That is wrong for at least <br />two reasons. First, the City ignored the other unique circumstances referenced above. <br />Second, the uniqueness standard does not mean "for a property to be unique for purposes <br />of a variance, it must be one -of -a -kind and there must be no other property in the relevant <br />vicinity with the same characteristics that justify the variance request. The supreme court <br />has never interpreted `unique' so narrowly."10 Rather, the "unique -circumstances <br />requirement" is met when the property owner demonstrates unique circumstances "not <br />reflective of conditions general in the neighborhood."11 <br />The unique circumstances associated with the Owner's property, including the location of <br />the right-of-way, are not reflective of conditions general in the neighborhood. There is no <br />rational basis to find otherwise. <br />(3) Essential character of the locality. <br />The record also establishes that granting the variance will not alter the essential character <br />of the locality. As discussed above, the purpose and intent of the Setback Ordinance is to <br />protect lake views. The variance for the pool cabana, if granted, will not affect anyone's <br />lake view. <br />The Staff Report's proposed finding on this standard is illogical. It states: <br />The character of the locality may be altered by approval of this variance. The <br />character of the locality is based on Lake Minnetonka. However, part of this <br />character involves utilization of outdoor patios and similar spaces that do not impact <br />lake views of adjacent properties. An accessory building within the average <br />lakeshore setback could impact this character in a negative way.12 <br />There is no factual support for this proposed finding because there is no evidence that a pool <br />cabana would impact lake views of adjacent properties. The only evidence in the record is <br />that the pool cabana does not impact lake views of adjacent properties. <br />10 Id. at *6. <br />11 Id. <br />12 Emphasis added. <br />231030270.2 <br />138 <br />