Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />regulations. Here, this lot needs a minor setback variance of about 25 feet but it <br />would otherwise be presumptively buildable without a variance under Minnesota <br />Statutes. <br /> <br />II. The Lack Of Road Frontage-A Mutual Interest in Cure: <br /> <br />Though cities, these days, avoid subdivisions of lots without road frontage, when they <br />do exist from past approvals, cities generally act (for reasons which can be explained) to <br />ensure that they can receive road frontage and then be built upon rather than identify <br />obstacles or block corrective road frontage and reasonable construction for single family <br />use. <br /> <br />That is doubly true (and helpfully so) where the adjacent property is being platted and <br />has the opportunity to furnish needed road frontage. In such cases-developers are <br />typically required to furnish frontage to eliminate the problem—so that the City does <br />not have to-and so that an efficient cure is applied. <br /> <br />To be sure, in cases where lawful preexisting lots were subdivided or platted without <br />road frontage, both the city and the owner share an interest in securing road frontage <br />and a reasonable residential development of the lot. These are not cases (and this is <br />not a case) where the owner has created some problematic lot without city approval <br />and now cannot ask for the joint cooperation of the City in resolving matters of mutual <br />interest. <br /> <br />III. The Basic Variance Inquiries: <br /> <br />I wish to address the statements offered about basic variance findings. The Minnesota <br />Practical Difficulties standard simply asks whether: <br /> <br /> *The landowner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner: <br />*The plight is due to circumstances unique to the (physical characteristics of <br />the property)-not caused by the landowner; <br /> *The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality:1 <br /> <br />Even leaving aside the fact that this is a lawfully preexisting lot of record, those <br />standards are easily met here and this is precisely the type of situation where variances <br />are granted. <br /> <br />A deeper review of some statements may be helpful: <br /> <br />A. At Paragraph 1, claims: “Constructing a large single family home is not a <br />necessity in this sensitive natural area.” <br /> <br />1 League of Minnesota Cities Zoning Decisions, June 24, 2021.