Agenda - Council - 10/13/2026 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Subdivision regulations may provide for a procedure for varying the regulations as they apply to specific properties where an unusual hardship on the land exists, but variances may be granted only upon the specific grounds set forth in the regulations. Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 6. Based on the bold language in subdivision 6, a city may grant a variance from a requirement of its subdivision ordinance but only on the specific grounds stated in the subdivision ordinance. Review of the City's Subdivision Ordinance shows that it allows for variances to be granted in three different circumstances, none of which applies here. 1. Section 117-048 provides for the possibility of a variance from strict conformity with "this subdivision." The subdivision in which Sec. 117-048 is found is the Stormwater Pollution Control subdivision, set forth in Secs. 117-383 through Sec. 117-410. The maximum cul- de-sac length restriction is not found in the Stormwater Pollution Control subdivision. 2. Section 117-426(d) provides that "[v]ariances from the strict enforcement of this chapter may be granted in accordance with the procedures and requirements of section 117-51." Section 117-51 does not appear to exist. It was either previously repealed or never enacted in the first place. 3. Finally, Section 117-561 provides for procedural variances. Specifically, that section provides that "[t]he board of adjustment may adopt a resolution to grant a variance from procedural requirements of this chapter[.]" A variance from the maximum cul-de-sac length would be a variance from a substantive requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance, not a procedural requirement. Because the legislature has not authorized the City to grant variances from its Subdivision Ordinance beyond those specifically identified in the Subdivision Ordinance, and because the City's Subdivision Ordinance does not authorize variances from substantive requirements such as the maximum length of a cul-de-sac, the City does not have the legal authority to grant the requested variance. See Costley v. Caromin House, Inc., 313 N.W.2d 21, 27 (Minn. 1981) ("In Minnesota, ... a municipality has no inherent power to enact zoning regulations [and...] cannot exceed the limitations imposed by the enabling legislation.") The cul-de-sac variance must be denied for lack of statutory authority, but it should be noted that even if statutory authority existed it would still have to be denied for the lack of a showing of any "unusual hardship." The length of the cul-de-sac is the result of design choices made by the Applicant to maximize the number of homes and therefore the revenue that can be generated from this project. It is therefore the product of choice, not any unusual hardship. This would require denial of the variance even if it had a proper statutory basis. Moreover, the justification for the variance provided in the staff report —that the non -compliant cul-de-sac will just be temporary —is lacking any support in record. The contemplated future connection to the west would require an extension across property owned by the Olsons, which is not part of this application and is not controlled by the Applicant. The Applicant has identified no existing easement, right-of-way, development agreement, construction deadline, or other legally enforceable mechanism requiring that connection. Finally, the Olsons have no intention of selling their land, at any price. The City must therefore evaluate the road as what the present application actually creates: an indefinite 1,100-foot dead-end street, nearly twice the maximum length allowed by ordinance.