Laserfiche WebLink
August 21, 2025 <br />Page 6 <br />(4) Economic Considerations. <br />The Owner does not base the variance request on economic considerations, so the economic <br />considerations standard is inapplicable. City Staff agrees. The Staff Report states "Staff <br />does not find any economic considerations pertinent to the applicant's request." <br />Despite that affirmative statement, the Staff Report indicates "[t]his criterion is not met." <br />The Owner trusts that is a typo. If it is not a typo, then there is no factual basis for that <br />statement because there are no economic considerations are pertinent to the variance <br />request. <br />(5) Additional Standards the City Code Imposes. <br />The Staff Report evaluates standards the City Code imposes in addition to the statutory <br />standards. The City's additional standards should not apply because Minnesota statutes, <br />not city ordinances, "establish the requirements for a [city] to issue a variance that deviates <br />from the requirements of an official control."13 <br />Even if the additional standards apply, the Owner satisfied them: <br />• Special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such <br />property or immediately adjoining �property: The unique circumstances established <br />above satisfy this standard. <br />• The conditions do not apply generally to the other land or structures in the district in <br />which the land is located. Again, the unique circumstances established above satisfy <br />this standard. <br />• The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br />substantial property right of the application. This additional standard conflicts with <br />the statutory reasonableness standard and inapplicable for that reason. The City <br />Code permits accessory buildings in the lakeyard, so the Owner's proposed use — a <br />pool cabana in the lakeyard — is consistent with reasonable use of the property. It is <br />reasonable for the Owner to propose that the pool cabana be located in the same yard <br />as the pool. <br />• The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, <br />comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. <br />This standard is akin to the statutory harmony and essential character standards. For <br />the reasons stated above, the Owner satisfied these standards. <br />13 Davis v. Le Sueur County Planning and Zoning Board ofAdjustment, 2018 WL 2407262, at *6 (Minn. App. 2018). <br />231030270.2 <br />139 <br />