Laserfiche WebLink
August 21, 2025 <br />Page 7 <br />• The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant <br />but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. This additional standard <br />conflicts with the practical difficulties standard and inapplicable for that reason. <br />Even if the standard applied, the Owner satisfied it. The Staff Report states the <br />variance "serve[s] as a convenience" and there has not "been a hardship established <br />by the applicant as to why a conforming location on the property for this building <br />cannot be used."14 <br />The Staff s reference to a hardship shows that the City incorrectly applied an undue <br />hardship standard to this variance request — a standard the Minnesota legislature got <br />rid of approximately 15-years ago and that is "more rigorous" than the practical <br />difficulties standard.15 The difference between the old "undue hardship" standard as <br />applied by the courts, and the "practical difficulties" standard, is that property owners <br />no longer have to show that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without <br />the variance. <br />Here, the Owner requests a variance to locate a pool cabana close to a pool. This is <br />not a matter of convenience, but one of common sense. It would makes no sense to <br />locate the cabana in the front yard, as the Staff suggested. <br />In short, the Owner seeks a variance from the Setback Ordinance — an ordinance's intent <br />and purpose is to protect the lake views. The variance, if granted, would not interfere with <br />lake views. As shown above, the City's denial of the variance lacked a legal and factual <br />basis. The City Council should move to reconsider the Owner's application and grant it. <br />Finally, to the extent the City Code affords the right to an administrative appeal of the City <br />Council's denial of the variance request, this letter serves as the Owner's written notice of <br />appeal. <br />Sincerely, <br />Stinson LLP <br />Timothy Kelley <br />cc: Laura Oakden (via e-mail only) <br />14 Emphasis added. <br />15 See In re Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d 323, 332 (Minn. 2008) (practical difficulties standard is "less rigorous") <br />231030270.2 <br />140 <br />