Loading...
07.a Jarmalouk Variance for Impervious Surface Encroachment on Wetland and OHWL Setbacks 1 | P a g e Date of Meeting: April 21, 2026 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Jeff Matzke, Consultant City Planner TJ Hofer, Consultant City Planner Re: Variance for Impervious Surface to Encroach on a Wetland Setback and Variance from the Minimum Structure Setback to the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) on a Nonconforming Lot for PID 29.032.20.11.0005 and 29.032.20.11.0017 Applicant: Jeremy Imhoff Imprint Architecture and Design, LLC Zoning: RR-N, SM-O, FP-O Owner: Jeff and Sharon Jarmoluk Future Land Use: General Rural Location: 19750 Maxwill Ave N PID 29.032.20.11.0005 and 29.032.20.11.0017 Review Deadline March 17, 2026 The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to construct a portion of a walkway and driveway on a residential nonconforming lot. The driveway expansion is required due to the replacement and expansion of a nonconforming structure which is the single-family dwelling on the site. Also, a variance from the minimum structure setback to the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Big Marine Lake is requested. The application was heard before the Planning Commission on March 3, 2026, and a public hearing was held. The Area Hydrologist with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources notified city staff that they believed they had not been properly noticed of the public hearing on March 3, 2026. Therefore, the City Council should open the public hearing that was called for April 21, 2026, and receive any and all comments. The DNR have submitted a number of statements regarding the application, which are detailed later in this report. BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to redevelop two existing lots, both zoned Rural Residential Neighborhood (RR-N) and within the Shoreland Management Overlay (SM-O) District. The redevelopment of the properties triggers a number of requirements. The properties must be combined as both lots are nonconforming per the SM-O. PID 29.032.20.11.0005 contains the existing single-family dwelling on the site. The structure is nonconforming from both the 2 | P a g e ordinary high-water level setback and the side yard setback. The applicant is seeking to replace this nonconforming structure (allowed by statute) and expand the replacement structure (allowed by the Unified Development Code for the side yard setback). The expansion of the structure does require a variance consideration since the request involves an exception from a minimum setback within the Scandia Shoreland Management Ordinance (as identified by Section 3.72). The expansion and improvement of the structure requires that City of Scandia’s Driveway and Fire Apparatus Access Road Requirements be met. These standards were adopted by the City in May of 2025 and require improvements to the site based on the length of the driveway on the site. PID 29.032.20.11.0017 contains the septic system for the single-family dwelling as well as an accessory structure. Staff have not been able to find any approval for the accessory structure to be constructed, but have observed the structure appearing on historic aerials in 2016. As there was no approval granted, the structure appears to be an illegal nonconformity. There is also a roadway easement across the site as it acts as the driveway for 19760, 19770, 19780, and 19790 Maxwill Ave N. 3 | P a g e The applicant is also proposing 100 sq. ft. of wetland fill to the southeast of the proposed structure and has been in communication with Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District about the fill and the permitting de minimis. Additional information regarding the wetland fill is provided below. The subject area surrounds PID 29.032.20.11.0016 which is owned by the city and serves as a septic field for the properties located at 19760, 19770, and 19780 Maxwill Ave N. Additionally, the city is aware of a historical shoreline violation that the Carnelian- Marine-St. Croix Watershed District (CMSCWD) identified in 2018. The adjacent image is from a presentation from CMSCWD staff to the board in May of 2025. The shoreline appears to have been altered without permits from any entities. This issue is not directly related to the variance, but will need to be addressed before the administrative permit for the expansion of the nonconforming structure can be issued. Staff have reached out to the City Attorney to determine how the issue should be addressed and will coordinate a response with CMSCWD after the application is processed. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Governing Standards There are several overlapping standards and reviews that are relevant to the site. Staff have highlighted several specifically relevant criteria below. Development of nonconforming lots is allowed through an administrative permit given certain standards are met. Additionally, contiguous, commonly owned parcels that do not meet standards specified in both the UDC and Shoreland Ordinance, must be combined to achieve a parcel that is as conforming as possible. As detailed below, the site will meet these standards once the properties are combined. Variances have seven specific criteria that need to be met to achieve a practical difficulty, as established in the UDC. The request for the variance is specifically for the driveway and a portion of walkway to allow for impervious surfaces to encroach into the setback of a wetland and for the structure from the minimum required 100-foot structure setback to the OHWL of Big Marine Lake. Conditions are recommended at the end of the staff report, but staff notes that conditions on the variance request must be directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. 4 | P a g e Existing Conditions The existing lots are a nonconforming lots in the RR-N base zoning district, the SM-O, and the FP-O. Lot standards are detailed below with the proposed conditions of the lot. Nonconforming standards are shown in bold text. RR-N SM-O PID 29.032.20.11.0005 PID 29.032.20.11.0017 Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.) (Existing Lot of Record) 40,075.2 40,000 7,142 67,525 Buildable Area (ac.) 1.00 N/A 210 sq. ft. 1,100 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width (ft.) 150 160 38 99 Lot Frontage (ft.) 100 N/A 0 138.24 Setbacks (ft.) Front/Street 40 N/A 103.2 472.2* Side 10 N/A 7.8 20.6* OHWL 100 100 51.9 80.5* Maximum Lot Coverage 25% 25% 16.2% 11.1% Manage 1 Wetland Setback N/A 75 56.5 43.8* *Based on existing illegal nonconforming structure Both existing parcels are nonconforming for multiple reasons. Neither parcel by itself can be developed without a variance based on 66% minimum for lot size (26,400 sq. ft.) and lot width (105.6 ft.) within the UDC and Shoreland Ordinance. However, the applicant is required to combine the parcels by both state statute, the UDC, and the Shoreland Ordinance. When combined, the parcels meet the minimum dimensional standards for development for a nonconforming lot with an administrative permit. 5 | P a g e The existing parcels are unique because they have very little buildable area on the site as setbacks from property lines, the OHWL, and the wetlands as well as the roadway easement overlap in multiple locations. The legal, nonconforming single-family dwelling on PID 29.032.20.11.0005 has nonconforming setbacks from both the OHWL and side yard setbacks. Additionally, a concrete pad exists on the eastern side of the site that encroaches into the setback for the Manage 1 wetland on the south side of the site. Further, the driveway that serves the site and properties to the north encroaches into the wetland setback to varying levels throughout the site. Structure setbacks for the accessory structure on PID 29.032.20.11.0017 are met aside from the OHWL and wetland setback, however, as noted previously, staff believe the structure to be an illegal nonconformity due to its placement within the OHWL and wetland setback. Proposed Conditions The proposed combined lot will remain a nonconforming lot. Lot standards are detailed below with the proposed conditions of the lot. Nonconforming standards are shown in bold text. RR-N SM-O Proposed Conditions Minimum Lot Size (ac.) (Existing Lot of Record) 40,075.2 40,000 73,891 Buildable Area (ac.) 1.00 N/A 210 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width (ft.) 150 160 137.1 Lot Frontage (ft.) 100 N/A 138.24 Front 40 N/A 450.3 6 | P a g e RR-N SM-O Proposed Conditions Structure Setbacks (ft.) Side 20 N/A 8.0 OHWL 100 100 51.9 Impervious Surface OHWL Setback N/A 100 51.9 Maximum Lot Coverage 25% 25% 25.00% State statute requires that contiguous nonconforming lots under the same ownership within shoreland must be combined to achieve as much conformity as possible. Once combined, the lot is legally nonconforming due to buildable area and minimum lot width. Staff has included a condition that the lots be combined. The proposed principal structure is a single-family dwelling. The dwelling encroaches into the OHWL setback by 48.1 ft. (51.9 ft. setback). The illegal nonconforming accessory structure is indicated on the southwest side of the lot. The structure should be removed as it is an illegal structure. The applicant is proposing to fill a small portion of the wetland, 100 sq. ft., which includes a pipe that outlets near the shoreline. The pipe shall be modified to still serve the wetland. The fill has been coordinated with Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District (CMSCWD). Staff understands based on communication from CMSCWD that the proposed fill does not exceed the allowed de minimis for the wetland and therefore does not require a permit. The proposed driveway includes a turnaround and pullout that are required by the city’s Driveway and Fire Apparatus Access Road Requirements (Driveway Requirements). The proposed driveway turnaround, and a portion of a walkway leading to the structure, encroaches into the required 75 ft. setback for a Manage 1 Wetland that is located on the south of the site. The Driveway Requirements require the driveway to be improved for any new structure. The standards require additional improvements to lots that have driveways that exceed 250 ft.: h. If your driveway is over 250 feet long (see Exhibit: A) i. Must provide an approved turnaround that is located a minimum of 50’ from structure and maximum of 150 feet from the structure (see Exhibit: C, approved turnaround design sheet or Exhibit D for alternate for residential Driveway) 7 | P a g e ii. Must provide a pullout at a minimum of every 400 feet (see Exhibit: B) The proposed turnaround appears to exceed the standards established in the Driveway Requirements and will be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to approval of a grading or building permit. The applicant submitted a revised plan after the Planning Commission meeting moving the southern edge of the turnaround north by four feet. The proposed driveway would encroach 33.2 ft. into the required 75 ft. setback (41.8 ft. setback). The City Engineer has provided a preliminary comment noting that the turnaround is wider than required to meet the standards. Staff are recommending a condition that the encroaching turnaround be narrowed to meet the minimum required width of 20 ft, where it is currently proposed at 29.9 ft. Staff believe that the reduction in the width will decrease the encroachment into the wetland setback to 30.4 ft. (blue) where 33.2 ft. (orange) is currently requested. The Planning Commission recommended that the turnaround portion have the southern boundary moved north instead of decreasing the width (east- west measurement) as the applicant stated that the use of the turnaround would be decreased if the width were narrowed. Staff do not believe this is a 8 | P a g e reasonable basis to allow for the wider driveway. The purpose of the turnaround is not to serve parking or storage purposes but to allow for emergency vehicle access and this purpose is what makes the encroachment reasonable. If the city did not have Driveway Standards that require the turnaround, staff would find the encroachment an unnecessary and unreasonable use and recommend denial. Staff recommend the driveway be narrowed to 20 ft., the minimum width requirement for the turnaround. Variance Section 153.500.060 Subd. 1 (B) establishes the standards for when the City shall approve a variance and mirrors Minn. Stat. 462.357, subd. 6(2). The variance must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and must be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter. A variance may be granted when enforcement of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties. The Practical Difficulties test criteria as established by Minnesota Statute and codified in the UDC and are listed below in italics followed by Staff’s analysis: a. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. The proposed use is a reasonable use of the property. A single-family dwelling is a permitted use in the RR-N and SM-O districts, and the city has approved standards for residential driveways that must be met. Allowing for the impervious surface encroachment into the wetland setback allows for the proper access for fire and medical services. Allowing a structure within structure setbacks is reasonable given that an extremely limited buildable area of less than 210 square feet exists on the western portion of the property without the need for setback variances. The size of the structure is reasonable as the city has no basis to establish a maximum building size and the proposed development meets impervious surface coverage. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The size and location of the lots are not directly due to circumstances created by the property owner. The property is very limited by overlapping setbacks resulting in an almost unbuildable lot without a variance. Based on the size requirements for the required turnaround, the improvement could not be located on the parcel without encroaching on a setback from a water resource. In addition, a residential dwelling could not be located on the only 210 square feet of buildable area on the western portion of the property without encroaching on the wetland or OHWL setback. The proposed house will not encroach further into the structure setback to the lake than the existing principal structure. 9 | P a g e c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. If the variance were granted, it would not alter the essential character of the locality. Nearby properties have similar existing setbacks to Big Mariane Lake and impervious surfaces consistent with the development of residential dwellings and driveways to support access to the dwellings. The proposed dwelling is not significantly larger than adjacent properties. Additionally, the applicant is not proposing any additional vegetative clearing between the proposed structure and the lake. d. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. Economic conditions are not the sole factor in the variance, the property is unbuildable without a variance. e. May include, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The variance is not related to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. f. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed variance will not impair adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. g. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The proposed use is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The applicant has proposed a turnaround that is wider than required by the city’s standards. The turnaround should be reduced to the minimum size to decrease the encroachment into the wetland setback. The house is proposed to accommodate a reasonable distance from both the wetland (meets the 75-foot required setback) and maintains the existing nonconforming setback from the lake OHWL (51.9 feet) as proposed. 10 | P a g e ANALYSIS Planning Commission The request was initially heard at the March 3, 2026, meeting of the Planning Commission. A public hearing was held and two comments were received. The applicant provided an overview and background of the project. A neighbor to the south of the property was in attendance to hear the item. The Planning Commission discussed the application and reviewed the conditions. • The Planning Commission discussed the proposed turnaround and the condition to reduce the size. Commissioner Hogle noted they believed the request was reasonable and noted the difficulty of the proposed narrower turnaround. Commissioner Fodor noted that they believed a 20 ft. turnaround was reasonable. Commissioner Marosok stated they believed the turnaround was reasonable with the rain gardens and that the impervious surface was better than someone driving on the yard. Fodor stated that they viewed the proposed width of the turnaround to be a convenience, not a difficulty. • Loeffler asked for clarification regarding the raised decking area within the OHWL setback. Administrator Morell detailed the standards that allow for the decking to not be considered a structure or impervious surface. • Marosok asked what prevented the illegal accessory structure from being replaced if removed. Hogle noted that the applicant had stated a desire to keep the illegal accessory structure and asked about the process for a future variance. • Fodor asked for additional information regarding the comments from Carnelian-Marine St. Croix Watershed District. Morell provided context for how the comments from CMSCWD relate to the city’s adopted ordinances. The Planning Commission moved to recommend approval of the request, with amendments. The motion was approved with a vote of 4-0 (Cullen absent). Condition 5 was amended to allow for the illegal accessory structure to remain if it was moved to meet setbacks. Review Comments The submittal was sent to city staff and other regulatory agencies for review and comment. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District The Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District provided comments (see attached letter) recommending denial of variance at this time. The CMSCWD asks for additional water resource protections and considerations to be made including placement of native buffer vegetation near the lake and wetland areas, tree plantings that align with view corridor and screening standards, shoreline restoration, and erosion control documentation as proportional mitigation conditions of the variance approval. 11 | P a g e Engineering Department The City Engineer noted that the turnaround may be reduced to 20 feet in width and noted a concern related to proposed contours and drainage on the north side of the property. Fire Department The Fire Chief stated that the turnaround appeared sufficient and that the driveway may be allowed at 10 feet in width provided that a 12-foot clear zone is maintained. Public Works Department The Public Works Director had no comment. Washington Conservation District Washington Conservation District provided no comment. Department of Natural Resources The DNR Area Hydrologist initially provided comments related to the setback distances from the wetland and lake. These comments request that the OHWL and wetland setbacks be balanced when deciding on the placement of the primary structure. The Area Hydrologist provided an additional comment letter recommending denial of the application. The Area Hydrologist states that they believe that the proposed structure lacks nonconforming protections and that the request does not meet the requirements of being a reasonable use and being the most minimal action, noting three of the purpose statements of the City’s Shoreland Ordinance. The Area Hydrologist states: The applicant has not demonstrated why it is necessary to build this structure so close to Big Marine Lake when they have alternatives that would be reasonable and would better serve the purpose of the ordinance. First, the applicant has room to shift the proposed hammerhead driveway further back from the lake. Further, the applicant could relocate Raingarden #1 to the lake side of the proposed structure and move the structure itself landward in order to provide the minimum relief from the OHWL setback standard. Third, the applicant has room to reduce the footprint of the structure while still maintaining a reasonably-sized single-family residence Staff Analysis Staff finds that the proposed plan is consistent with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan, and in accordance with how the City of Scandia applies nonconforming rights. The Comprehensive Plan prioritizes environmental stewardship on lakeside lots, however, for lots to be developed, a safe access must be created, and a reasonable buildable area must be allowed. Given the minimum required side yard setback (20 feet), wetland setback (75 feet), and OHWL/lake setback (100 ft) the property has a buildable area of less than 210 sq ft and 12 feet wide. This area is not large enough to construct a primary structure. In addition, stormwater controls are proposed to capture stormwater created by the new impervious surfaces of the proposed house and driveway by directing them towards new raingardens on the site. 12 | P a g e The applicant’s requested setback from the proposed house to the OHWL of Big Marine Lake is consistent with setbacks on adjacent lake properties (The identified average OHWL setback of the 19 closest neighborhood homes is approximately 52-53 feet), thereby being consistent with the essential character of the locality. The applicant proposes a 51.9-foot setback consistent with the setback of the existing primary structure on the property. Illegal Accessory Structure The city has no record of approving the existing accessory structure. Without a variance, the structure must be removed. Staff initially included that the variance approval be conditional upon the site being in substantial compliance with the site plan submitted to the City, with the revision that the existing accessory structure be removed. An additional variance would be required to allow the accessory structure to remain. The Planning Commission amended the condition to allow for the illegal accessory structure to be moved within setbacks, however, the City Attorney has recommended the condition be removed as the illegal accessory structure does not directly relate to the request at this time. Further enforcement action may be necessary to remove the illegal accessory structure. Staff Analysis of CMSCWD and MNDNR Comments CMSCWD and MNDNR have recommended denial of the variance. CMSCWD has noted that they would support appropriate redevelopment. Several comments from the CMSCWD relate to items that are either not proportionate to the request or are not directly related to the request. If approved, the applicant will be required to obtain a permit from CMSCWD prior to a building permit being issued. MNDNR has recommended denial. The DNR appears to be interpreting the rights of legal nonconformities differently than the City. Staff asked for clarification regarding this, as the DNR acknowledges the existing nonconforming rights for the structure to be replaced, but posits that the structure, if expanded, must be expanded in a way that meets all the dimension standards in the Shoreland Ordinance. This does not match how City Staff interprets City Code. Instead, the City requires expansions of legal nonconformities to meet all standards BUT the standard that is being granted the variance and the nonconformity cannot be increased. The nonconformity of the structure is the encroachment into the OHWL setback as well as an encroachment into a side yard setback. Historically, the city has treated a legal nonconforming encroachment into a setback as a “plane” that established a new buildable area. Meaning that if a future variance comes forward, the permitted setback for the new structure or addition would be the setback of the existing structure. This largely comes up when considering front yard or back yard setbacks. Staff discussed this recently at the November 4, 2025, Planning Commission meeting and the November 18, 2025, City Council meeting where staff understood this interpretation to be consistent with the understanding of the City Council. 13 | P a g e The DNR cites 153.500.110 Subd. 3 (D) Expansion of Nonconforming Buildings and Structures noting that it includes a standard that states, “a. The existing structure remains in place, and is expanded.” Importantly, the code section cited by the DNR is about obtaining an Administrative Permit. However, in this situation, the applicant is asking for a variance. Nothing in the code prevents a variance from being granted to replace and expand a legal, nonconforming structure if the applicant can demonstrate a practical difficulty. The DNR objects to the driveway/turnaround location, the raingarden, and the size of the structure. Staff believes the DNR does not approve of the size of the proposed structure. Variance denial on the subjective basis of what is considered a “reasonably-sized single family residence” is likely not reasonable. . Without a factual basis that relates to the size of a single- family residence, staff believe that any discussion is arbitrary and a decision based on the proposed size would be capricious as structure size has not been used in any recent findings for similar variances. COUNCIL ACTION The City Council can do one of the following: 1. Recommend approval, with or without conditions, of the attached resolution. 2. Recommend denial, with findings. 3. Table the request for further review/study. The Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed variances. Staff have drafted the resolution for a 48.1-foot variance from the minimum required 100-foot structure setback to the ordinary high-water level (OHWL) of Big Marine Lake. Also, staff have drafted the resolution noting a 30.4 ft. variance encroachment for the driveway into the 75-foot minimum required wetland setback which would require an adjustment of the turnaround as proposed by 14 | P a g e the applicant and with a 20-foot width as recommended, Staff have prepared conditions of approval for consideration: 1. The location and layout of structures and impervious surfaces on the lot shall be substantially consistent with the plans and setbacks submitted to the City and reviewed with this request with the exception of where revisions are required with this approval. 2. The encroaching impervious surface shall be reduced to meet the minimum standards required by the Driveway and Fire Apparatus Access Road Requirements, thereby reducing the turnaround width (east-west measure) to 20 feet. 3. Prior to a building permit being issued: a. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City for review, showing any areas of soil disruption, construction entrances, building floor elevations, including the garage, and drainage patterns. b. A driveway permit shall be submitted to the City for approval. 4. If any tree removal is expected to occur, the applicant or owner shall notify the city and include such trees (over 6 inches in diameter) on the survey before trees are removed. Any tree removed without prior review, approval, and replacement determined shall be treated as a “Primary Deciduous, greater than 20 inches in diameter” or a “Coniferous, greater than 24 feet in height,” for replacement purposes depending on the original species. 5. The applicant shall secure all applicable permits required from the watershed as well as all local, state, and federal entities. 6. The applicant shall pay all other fees and escrows associated with this application. 7. The applicant must commence the authorized use or improvement within one year of the date on which the variance is issued. After one year, the approvals issued under the provisions of the Section shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or Board. 8. The applicant shall record the variance with Washington County within one year of the date when the variance is approved by the City. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend: Motion to recommend approval of the attached resolution to approve a Variance to allow for construction of impervious surface within the setback of a Manage 1 Wetland and a Variance from the minimum structure setback to the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL), with conditions as described by staff within the staff report. 15 | P a g e Attachments A. Resolution 04-21-26-01 Approving Variances for Encroachments into the Setbacks of a Wetland and Ordinary High Water Level B. Revised Submittal Materials, dated March 5, 2026 C. “Jarmoluk Variance Application – 19750 Maxwill Avenue North” Letter, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, dated April 14, 2026 D. Email from Daniel Scollan, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, dated April 15, 2026 E. Planning Commission “Variance for Impervious Surface to Encroach on a Wetland Setback and Variance from the Minimum Structure Setback to the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) on a Nonconforming Lot for PID 29.032.20.11.0005 and 29.032.20.11.0017” Packet, dated March 3, 2026 CITY OF SCANDIA, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 04-21-26-01 APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO ENCROACH INTO A WETLAND SETBACK AND A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL (OHWL) FOR PARCELS 29.032.20.11.0005 AND 29.032.20.11.0017 LOCATED AT 19750 MAXWILL AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, Jermey Imhoff, (the “applicant”), on behalf of Jeff and Sharon Jarmoluk (the “owners”), has requested and made an application for a 37-foot variance from the 75-foot Manage 1 wetland setback to allow for an impervious surface and a 48.1-foot setback from the minimum 100-foot structure setback to the ordinary high water level (OHWL), on property located at 19750 Maxwill Avenue North and the property is legally described as See Attachment A; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance request at a duly noticed Public Hearing on March 3, 2026, and recommended that the City Council approve the request with conditions; WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the variance request at a duly noticed Public Hearing on April 21, 2026, and approved the request with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCANDIA, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve, a 30.4-foot variance from the 75-foot Manage 1 wetland setback to allow for an impervious surface and a 48.1-foot setback from the minimum 100-foot structure setback to the ordinary high water level (OHWL), based on the following findings: 1. The proposed use is a reasonable use of the property. A single-family dwelling is a permitted use in the RR-N and SM-O districts, and the city has approved standards for residential driveways that must be met. Allowing for the impervious surface encroachment into the wetland setback allows for the proper access for fire and medical services. Allowing a structure within structure setbacks is reasonable given that an extremely limited buildable area of less than 210 square feet exists on the western portion of the property without the need for setback variances. The size of the structure is reasonable as the city has no basis to establish a maximum building size and the proposed development meets impervious surface coverage. 2. The size and location of the lots are not directly due to circumstances created by the property owner. The property is very limited by overlapping setbacks resulting in an almost unbuildable lot without a variance. Based on the size requirements for the required turnaround, the improvement could not be located on the parcel without encroaching on a setback from a water resource. In addition, a residential dwelling could not be located on the only 210 square feet of buildable area on the western portion of the property without encroaching on the wetland or OHWL setback. The proposed house will not encroach further into the structure setback to the lake than the existing principal structure. 3. If the variance were granted, it would not alter the essential character of the locality. Nearby properties have similar existing setbacks to Big Mariane Lake and impervious surfaces consistent with the development of residential dwellings and driveways to support access to the dwellings. The proposed dwelling is not significantly larger than adjacent properties. Additionally, the applicant is not proposing any additional vegetative clearing between the proposed structure and the lake. 4. Economic conditions are not the sole factor in the variance the property is unbuildable without a variance. 5. The variance is not related to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 6. The proposed variance will not impair adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 7. The proposed use is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The applicant has proposed a turnaround that is wider than required by the city’s standards. The turnaround should be reduced to the minimum size to decrease the encroachment into the wetland setback. The house is proposed to accommodate a reasonable distance from both the wetland (meets the 75-foot required setback) and maintains the existing nonconforming setback from the lake OHWL (51.9 feet) as proposed. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall be met: 1. The location and layout of structures and impervious surfaces on the lot shall be substantially consistent with the plans and setbacks submitted to the City and reviewed with this request with the exception of where revisions are required with this approval. 2. The encroaching impervious surface shall be reduced to meet the minimum standards required by the Driveway and Fire Apparatus Access Road Requirements, thereby reducing the turnaround width (east-west measure) to 20 feet. 3. Prior to a building permit being issued: a. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City for review, showing any areas of soil disruption, construction entrances, building floor elevations, including the garage, and drainage patterns. b. A driveway permit shall be submitted to the City for approval. 4. If any tree removal is expected to occur, the applicant or owner shall notify the city and include such trees (over 6 inches in diameter) on the survey before trees are removed. Any tree removed without prior review, approval, and replacement determined shall be treated as a “Primary Deciduous, greater than 20 inches in diameter” or a “Coniferous, greater than 24 feet in height,” for replacement purposes depending on the original species. 5. The applicant shall secure all applicable permits required from the watershed as well as all local, state, and federal entities. 6. The applicant shall pay all other fees and escrows associated with this application. 7. The applicant must commence the authorized use or improvement within one year of the date on which the variance is issued. After one year, the approvals issued under the provisions of the Section shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or Board. 8. The applicant shall record the variance with Washington County within one year of the date when the variance is approved by the City. Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 21st day of April 2026. Steve Kronmiller, Mayor ATTEST: Kyle Morell, City Administrator Attachment A All that part of the South Half (S1/2) of Government Lot Four (4), Section Twenty-nine (29), Township Thirty-two (32), Range Twenty (20), described as follows, to wit: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot Four (4), thence South along the East line of Said Lot 1106.5 feet; thence West parallel with the North line of said Lot 397 feet to an iron stake, this being the point of beginning of the tract being conveyed; from said point of beginning running thence South parallel with said East line 40 feet, thence West parallel with said North line 220 feet, more or less, to the shore of Big Marine Lake, thence North along said shore 40 feet; thence East parallel with said North line to the point of beginning, EXCEPT that part of the South Half of Government Lot 4, Section 29, Township 32 North, Range 20 West, Washington Count, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of Government Lot 4; thence on an azimuth of 180 degrees 14 minutes 50 seconds, oriented to the Washington County Coordinate System, North Zone, along the east line of said Government Lot 4, a distance of 1106.5 feet; thence on an azimuth of 270 degrees 13 minutes 57 seconds, parallel with the north line of said Government Lot 4, a distance of 395.82 feet to the point of beginning; (said point is on the east line of parcels described in Document Nos. 206409, 347569 and thence on an azimuth of 180 degrees 01 minutes 50 seconds a distance of 9.29 feet; thence on an azimuth of 268 degrees 54 minutes 43 seconds a distance of approximately 210 feet to the present shoreline of Big Marine Lake; thence northerly along said shoreline a distance of approximately 14.71 feet to a line which is on an azimuth of 270 degrees 13 minutes 57 seconds (parallel with the north line of said Government Lot 4) from the point of beginning; thence on an azimuth of 90 degrees 13 minutes 57 seconds approximately 214 feet to the point of beginning. and also a right-of-way in common with others over a strip of land 20 feet in width, as presently established, running from the East line of the above-described tract Easterly over the said S1/2 of Government Lot 4 to the existing town road, to provide ingress and egress to said tract. AND That part of the property described on Document No. 347569 (being Probate Deed to Noyes for part of Government Lot 4, Section 29, Township 32 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota) lying southerly of a line drawn parallel with the north line of said Government Lot 4, Section 29, from a point on the east line of said Section 29 distant 1115.94 feet southerly of the northeast corner of said Section 29, Washington County, Minnesota. AND That part of Government Lot 4, Section 29, Township 32 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Section 29; thence south along the east line of said Section 29 a distance of 1115.94 feet; thence west parallel with the north line of said Government Lot 4; on a line hereinafter referred to as “Line A”, a distance of 397 feet to an iron stake as called for in Document Number 347569 as filed in Washington County records, said point also being the point of beginning; thence southerly parallel with said east line of Section 29, a distance of 90 feet; thence easterly parallel with said “Line A: a distance of 175 feet; thence northerly parallel with said east line of Section 29, a distance of 90 feet to said “Line A”; thence westerly along said “Line A” 175 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. BUT EXCEPT That certain parcel of land described in a Quit Claim Deed from Marlene Anderson to the Town of New Scandia dated July 7, 1998 and recorded December 28, 1998 as Document No. 3020403 in the office of the Washington County Recorder. Abstract Property. File No._____________ APPLICATION FOR PLANNING AND ZONING REQUEST City of Scandia, Minnesota 14727 209th Street North, Scandia, MN 55073 Phone 651/433-2274 Fax 651/433-5112 Web https://www.cityofscandia.com/ Please read before completing: The City will not begin processing an application that is incomplete. Detailed submission requirements may be found in the Scandia Development Code, available at the City office and website www.cityofscandia.com) and in the checklist forms for the particular type of application. Application fees are due at the time of application and are not refundable. 1. Property Location: (street address, if applicable) 2. Washington County Parcel ID: 3. Complete Legal Description: (attach if necessary) 4. Owner(s): Phone: (h) (b) Street Address: E-Mail: City/ State: Zip: 5. Applicant/Contact Person: Phone: (h) (b) Street Address (Mailing): E-Mail: City/ State: Zip: 6. Requested Action(s): (check all that apply) ____ Variance ____ Variance Extension ____ Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ____ CUP Extension ____ CUP/ Open Space Subdivision. ____ CUP/ Planned Unit Development ____ Interim Use Permit (IUP) ____ Annual Operators Permit ____ Administrative Permit (type)____________________ ____ Site Plan Review (type)____________________ ____ Site Plan Modification ____ Site Plan Extension ____ Sign (Permanent) ____ Amendment (Development Code ) ____ Amendment (Comp. Plan ) ____ Subdivision, Minor ____ Subdivision, Preliminary Plat/Major ____ Subdivision, Final Plat ____ Environmental Review ____ Wetland Review 19750 Maxwill Avenue North Marine on St Croix, MN 55047 PID: 29.032.20.11.0005 PID: 29.032.20.11.0017 See Attached JARMOLUK LIVING TRS, JARMOLUK JEFFREY M, JARMOLUK SHARON B 134 Morton Ave Elk River, MN Jeff: drjmjarmoluk@outlook.com Sharon: jsjarmoluk@charter.net 55330 Jeff cell: 612-747-3198 Imprint Architecture and Design, LLC Jeremy Imhoff, Owner/Principal 514 St Croix Ave West Jeremy cell: 651-295-5623 Stillwater, MN 55082 jeremy@imprintarchitecture.com X SSee attached description request following application form. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PID 29.032.20.11.0005 PT S1/2 GOV LOT 4 CON AT NE COR SD LOT 4 THN S ALG E LN SD LOT 1106.5FT THN W PARL WITH N LINE SD LOT 397FT TO AN IRON STAKE THIS BEING PT OF BEG TRACT CONVEYED FROM SD PT OF BEG RUN THN S PARL WITH SD E LINE 40FT THEN W PAR WITH SD N LINE 220FT M/L TO SHORE BIG MARINE LAKE THN N ANG SD SHORE 40FT THEN E PARL WITH SD N LINE TO PT OF BEG. ALSO AN EASEMENT EXCEPT: PT OF S1/2 OF GOVT LOT 4 SD SEC 29 DESC AS FOLL: COM AT THE NE COR OF SAID GOVT LOT 4 THN ON A AZM OF 180DEG14'50" ORIENTED TO WACO CORD SYS B ZONE ALG E LN OF SD GOVT LOT 4 DIST OF OF 1066.50FT THN ON AN AZM OF 270DEG13'57 PARL WITH N LN OF SD GOVT LOT 4 DIST OF 397FT* TO A PT ON THE E LN OF PRCLS DESC IN DOC#S 206409 347569 AND 485561-AS EVIDENCED BY IPM CALLED IN SD DESC *(395.82FT MEAS) THN ON AZM OF 180DEG01'50" ALG SD E LN A DIST OF 9.13FT TO THE IPM IN SAID DOC #485561 FOR PT OF BEG THN CONT AN AZM 180DEG01' 50" ALG SD E LN DIST OF 40FT THN ON AN AZM OF 268DEG54'43" DIST OF APPROX 226FT (APPROX 210FT MEAS) TO PRESENT SHRLN OF BIG MARINE LAKE THN NLY ALG SD SHRLN DIST OF APPROX 40FT TO A LN WHICH IS ON AN AZM OF 268DEG54'43" FROM PT OF BEG THN ON AN AZM OF 88DEG54'43" DIST OF APPROX 220FT TO THE PT OF BEG Section 29 Township 032 Range 020 PID 29.032.20.11.0017 PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 4, BEING THAT PART OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON DOCUMENT #347569 (BEING A PROBATE DEED TO NOYES FOR PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 4, SECTION 29, LYING SOUTHERLY OF LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 4 FROM A POINT ON EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 29, DISTANT 1115.94 FEET SOUTHERLY OF NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29, EXCEPT THAT PART OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON DOC #347569 (BEING A PROBATE DEED TO NOYES FOR PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 4, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 32, RANGE 20 WEST, LYING SOUTHERLY OF LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 4, SECTION 29, FROM A POINT ON EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 29 DISTANT 1115.94 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29, THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 14' 50" WEST, BEARINGS ARE BASED ON WASHINGTON COUNTY PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM NAD27, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 29 A DISTANCE OF 1155.08 FEET, THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 46' 03" WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29, DISTANT 224.29 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 21' 12" EAST 31.49 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 09 DEGREES 01' 34" EAST 19.47 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 38 DEGREES 22' 52" WEST 16.29 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 85 DEGREES 37' 50" WEST 22.93 FEET, THENCE NORTH 79 DEGREES 10' 07" WEST 26.09 FEET THENCE NORTH 74 DEGREES 24' 26" WEST 32. 91 FEET, THENCE NORTH 11 DEGREES 25' 53" EAST 62.61 FEET, THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 07' 06" EAST 16.93 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 80 DEGREES 02' 09" EAST 58.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT THAT PART OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON DOCUMENT #888570, BEING THE SOUTH 3 RODS OF GOVERNMENT LOT 4. AND ALSO EXCEPT: ALL THAT PART OF THE SOUTH HALF S1/2 OF GOVERNMENT LOT FOUR (4), SECTION TWENTY-NINE (29), TOWNSHIP THIRTY-TWO (32), RANGE TWENTY (20), DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST COME OF SAID LOT FOUR (4), THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1106.5 FEET; THENCE WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 397 FEET TO AN IRON STAKE, THIS BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT BEING CONVEYED; FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING RUNNING THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST LINE 40 FEET, THENCE WEST PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH LINE 220 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SHORE OF BIG MARINE LAKE, THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID SHORE 40 FEET; THENCE EAST PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Section 29 Township 032 Range 020 7. Brief Description of Request (From Application Form) This request seeks two variances. The first request seeks a variance from the required 75-foot wetland setback to allow construction of a limited portion of sidewalk and a driveway hammerhead necessary to provide safe vehicular access and on-site turning. The proposed driveway improvements, totaling approximately 1,260 square feet, will connect to an existing shared driveway that serves multiple properties and already encroaches within the wetland setback. Without the proposed hammerhead, vehicles would be required to back into the shared driveway to turn around, creating a safety concern for residents, visitors, and emergency vehicles. The hammerhead allows vehicles to turn around on-site, improving site circulation, reducing conflicts within the shared access drive, and enhancing overall safety. The need for this variance is the result of existing site constraints and conditions that were not created by the current owner. The proposed encroachment represents the minimum relief necessary to address these constraints while maintaining safe and functional access to the property and remaining consistent with the intent of the wetland setback regulations. The property owner is committed to protecting the adjacent wetland. All runoff generated by the proposed sidewalk and driveway hammerhead will be directed to newly designed rain garden(s) to manage stormwater and mitigate potential impacts to the wetland. The second request seeks a variance from the required 100-foot Ordinary High Water level to allow for the construction of a new home to use the existing building footprint setback at 51.9 feet. Allowing a structure within the structure setback to the OHWL is reasonable given that an extremely limited buildable area of less than 210 square feet exists on the center of the property without the need for setback variances. In addition, a reasonably- sized residential dwelling could not be located on the property without encroaching OHWL setback. If the proposed house were to be moved further from the OHWL, this would result in further encroachment into the wetland area on the east side of the property. Also, the proposed house will not encroach further into the structure setback to the lake than the existing structure. If the variance were granted, it would not alter the essential character of the locality. Nearby properties have similar existing setbacks to Big Mariane Lake and impervious surfaces consistent with the development of residential dwellings and driveways to support access to the dwellings. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. IPE OR COMPOSITE DECKING AND APRON TUFFBLOCK OR SIMILAR GROUND-BASED, COMPOSITE DECK SUPPORT TYP. (NO IMPERVIOUS MATERIAL TO BE ADDED UNDER FLOATING PLATFORM) TREATED OR COMPOSITE FRAMING MEMBERS TYP. LEVEL AREAS WHERE DECK SUPPORT(S) SIT GRADE IPE OR COMPOSITE DECKING AND APRON TREATED OR COMPOSITE FRAMING MEMBERS TYP. TUFFBLOCK OR SIMILAR GROUND-BASED, COMPOSITE DECK SUPPORT TYP. PLAN SECTION 3/4" = 1'-0" 3/4" = 1'-0"6 1/2" +/-FLOATING PLATFORM TO BE LESS THAN 3' ABOVE GRADE www.imprintarchitecture.com Imprint Architecture and Design, LLC date title drawing ref sheet no project 01/12/2026 NEW HOME ASK-01 DETAIL 19750 Maxwill Ave NorthMarine on St Croix, MN 55047 PID: 29.032.20.11.0005 PID: 29.032.20.11.0017 SCHEMATIC DETAIL - PERVIOUS FLOATING PLATFORM AS0.01 2 AS0.01 1 12'-0"4'-0"SHORTEN / MOVE PROPOSED HAMMERHEAD EDGE 4' TO THE NORTHROTATE EXISTING SHED AND MOVE WEST, BETWEEN OHW AND WETLAND SETBACK4 1 '-1 0 " 1 Central Region Headquarters 1200 Warner Road Saint Paul, MN 55106 April 14, 2026 Jeffrey Matzke City of Scandia 14727 209th Street N. Scandia, MN 55073 Re: Jarmoluk Variance Application – 19750 Maxwill Avenue North Dear Jeffrey Matzke and Members of the Board of Adjustment, Thank you for notifying the DNR of the upcoming April 21st public hearing. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Jarmoluk application requesting two variances related to the proposed construction of a principal residence at 19750 Maxwill Avenue North in Scandia. My comments are based on an evaluation of the facts presented in the application against the criteria in Minn. Stat. § 462.357. Based on this evaluation, the DNR recommends denial of the request. Summary of Variance Request The applicant requests two variances to provisions in the City’s Unified Development Code Chapter 5 Shoreland & Wetland Management Regulations: •A variance to construct a principal residential structure 51.9 feet from the ordinary high water level (OHWL), a significant deviation from the required 100-foot ordinary high water level (OHWL) setback in Sec. 6.41(A). •A variance to construct an impervious surface (a driveway) 38.0 feet from a Manage 1 Wetland, a significant deviation from the required 75-foot Manage 1 Wetland setback in Sec. 6.41(B). Proposed Structure Lacks Nonconforming Protections The existing principal residence, a 616-square-foot one-story structure constructed in 1961, is a legal nonconforming structure with respect to the OHWL setback. Under Minn. Stat. § 462.357, Subd. 1e, nonconformities may be continued through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement. The application, however, proposes a completely new structure with a significantly larger footprint of 4,232 square feet. The proposed structure is therefore not a “replacement” of the existing legal nonconforming structure, and it has no legal nonconforming protections under state statute. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, Subd. 1e allows municipalities to permit expansion of nonconformities by ordinance. The City’s Unified Development Code, Section 153.500.110, Subd. 3(D) allows expansions of lawful nonconforming agricultural or single-family residential buildings and structures under specific conditions. Notably, one of these 2 conditions is that the existing structure remains in place, and is expanded. This is not the case with the applicant’s proposal, which proposes an entirely new structure. Accordingly, the proposed structure must be evaluated against the ordinance’s dimensional standards, unless variances are granted in accordance with the statutory criteria in Minn. Stat. § 462.357. DNR Review of Application Narrative The DNR has significant concerns regarding the rationale for the variances provided in the applicant’s narrative. The applicant states that “the proposed house will not encroach further into the structure setback to the lake than the existing structure.” This statement within the applicant’s narrative lacks merit, as it does not directly relate to the applicable criteria for issuance of a variance within the City’s municipal code and incorrectly assumes that constructing a new structure at the same setback as the existing structure is the default or primary method to improve the property. The proposed structure has no legal nonconforming protections under the state statute and the city’s municipal code, and therefore, the applicant’s rationale must be based on how their proposal contrasts with what is required to conform to the city’s current zoning laws. Variance Evaluation Criteria The role of the Board of Adjustment is to objectively evaluate whether the facts meet the statutory criteria for approving a variance. Under Minn. Stat. § 462.357, variances can only be approved when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code and when they are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Specifically, variances can only be granted when the applicant proves there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning code. State law only allows variances if all three practical difficulty criteria are met: • There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner. • The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance. • Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. If any of these criteria are not met, then the variance must be denied. State law also does not allow approving variances solely for financial reasons. The decision to approve or deny a variance requires a rational explanation, based on facts, not on proposed conditions of approval. Conditions may be considered, but only after a decision is made to approve. Additionally, opinions of support or opposition, without supporting evidence, from neighbors or the public are not facts and should not be considered. For context, this property is in the shoreland of a public water, an area that the state has identified as a sensitive area where special laws are needed to protect scenic character; aquatic and riparian vegetation; habitat; and to reduce the flow of nutrients into surface waters preventing excessive algae and plant growth to maintain safe recreational opportunities. To preserve its values, a regulatory framework has been established and is administered through local zoning ordinances such as Scandia’s Chapter 5. Notably, Sec. 1.2 states that it is the intent and purpose of these regulations to, for example: “(6) Conserve natural resources and maintain a high standard of environmental quality. (7) Preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters. (8) Preserve the economic, natural, and environmental values of shorelands.” 3 This context is critical for properly evaluating the facts against the practical difficulties criteria whether the Board of Adjustment is deciding, or a district court is reviewing such a decision on appeal. Analysis of Facts and Recommendation The Board of Adjustment should deny the variance requests because: The property owner DOES NOT propose to use the property in a reasonable manner given the purpose of the OHWL and wetland setback requirements. This criterion is about what is reasonable given the purpose of the ordinance, NOT what is reasonable to the property owner. Variance requests should only be the minimum necessary to achieve the purposes of the ordinance. The purpose of the ordinary high water level and wetland setback standards is to keep structures, land alterations and vegetation removal at a safe distance from the water to protect water quality, habitat, and visual character. Building structures close to the water removes near-shore vegetation, increases erosion, and the amount of sediment-laden nutrients flowing into surface waters, increasing algae growth. The applicant has not demonstrated why it is necessary to build this structure so close to Big Marine Lake when they have alternatives that would be reasonable and would better serve the purpose of the ordinance. First, the applicant has room to shift the proposed hammerhead driveway further back from the lake. Further, the applicant could relocate Raingarden #1 to the lake side of the proposed structure and move the structure itself landward in order to provide the minimum relief from the OHWL setback standard. Third, the applicant has room to reduce the footprint of the structure while still maintaining a reasonably-sized single-family residence. Conclusion The facts do not support a decision to approve and show that the individual design preferences are driving the variance request. A decision to approve the variance would therefore be arbitrary and capricious. The DNR recommends denial. Please send the decision to me within ten days of making the decision, including “findings of fact.” If you have any questions, please call, or email me. Sincerely, Dan Scollan East Metro Area Hydrologist cc: John (Jack) Gleason, South District Hydrologist Supervisor, Minnesota DNR Megan Moore, South District Manager – Ecological and Water Resources, Minnesota DNR 1 TJ Hofer From:Scollan, Daniel (DNR) <daniel.scollan@state.mn.us> Sent:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 10:29 AM To:TJ Hofer Cc:Greenlee Dahle; Jeffrey Matzke; Kyle Morell; Moore, Megan (DNR); Gleason, John (DNR); Hoffman, Ricky (DNR) Subject:RE: 19750 Maxwill Ave. - Jarmoluk Variance Requests *** WARNING: This email is from outside the company. Proceed with Caution*** Hello TJ, Please see my responses to your questions: 1. If the applicant were to replace the structure with the exact same footprint, then after that replacement is completed, expand the structure through the process established in our UDC, would you still consider that to be inconsistent with the standards? First, I would note that the situation you raise is not what is being requested by the applicant. Nevertheless, in such a situation within a shoreland district, when the proposal for expansion comes up, Ordinance No. 198, Section 3.72 would apply. This section states the following: “All additions or expansions to the outside dimensions of an existing nonconforming structure must meet the setback, height, and other requirements of Sections 5.0 to 8.0 of this ordinance. Any deviation from these requirements must be authorized by a variance.” Therefore, a variance would be required if the addition/expansion did not meet the setbacks and other requirements in Ordinance No. 198. 2. By shifting the house back from the OHWL towards the wetland, is it reasonable to conclude that an encroachment on the wetland instead of the lake is favorable from the DNR perspective (with no encroachment being the best option)? No. The proposed structure meets the wetland setback, but encroaches significantly (about 50%) into the OHWL setback for the lake. This appears to be the result of the design preference of the applicant (for a home close to the lake), rather than a proposal that’s in harmony with the purpose of the ordinance. We think a reasonable proposal would balance the two competing requirements in the ordinance. In addition, it appears that the layout of the proposed structure, proposed driveway, and the raingardens could be reconfigured to provide further compliance with the OHWL setback. 3. Regarding the size of the structure, do you have a basis for "reasonably-sized single-family residence"? 2 The burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate that they propose to use the property in a reasonable manner given the purpose of the ordinance’s standards. Further, they must show that the design is the minimum action to eliminate the practical difficulty (Sec. 153.500.060 Subd. 1(B)(II)(g)). The applicant’s proposal for this particular design at this particular size must be contrasted against the value and importance of the OHWL and wetland setback standards. It does not appear that any of the application materials provide justification that the proposed design, including its size, is reasonable given the value of the OHWL and wetland setbacks in protecting water quality, near-shore habitat, and the scenic character of the lake. Best Regards, Dan Scollan East Metro Area Hydrologist – Ramsey and Washington Counties Division of Ecological and Water Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 Phone: 651-259-5732 Fax: 651-772-7977 Email: daniel.scollan@state.mn.us mndnr.gov From: TJ Hofer <tj.hofer@bolton-menk.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 3:11 PM To: Scollan, Daniel (DNR) <daniel.scollan@state.mn.us> Cc: Greenlee Dahle <Greenlee.Dahle@bolton-menk.com>; Jeffrey Matzke <jeff.matzke@bolton-menk.com>; Kyle Morell <k.morell@ci.scandia.mn.us>; Moore, Megan (DNR) <megan.moore@state.mn.us>; Gleason, John (DNR) <john.gleason@state.mn.us> Subject: Re: 19750 Maxwill Ave. - Jarmoluk Variance Requests Dan, Thank you for your comments. I wanted to clarify one thing in the letter. You reference, "local zoning ordinances such as Scandia’s Chapter 5. Notably, Sec. 1.2" near the bottom of page 2. I believe this is a reference to the Shoreland Ordinance which is typically referred to as either Ordinance 198 or Chapter 155. I think the PDF on Laserfiche still says Chapter 5 (which was the old reference under the previous zoning ordinance), so I'm guessing that's where the reference came from. There are some things that we are still working to clean up after the UDC was adopted and changed a number of names. I went on leave right as we received your initial objections so I missed a large amount of discussion around this. Your letter states that the structure has no nonconforming rights because it is being expanded. If the applicant were to replace the structure with the exact same footprint, then after that replacement is completed expand the structure through the process established in our UDC, would you still consider that to be inconsistent with the standards? If so, then I would assume that your position would be that the standards we have adopted for expansion of a nonconforming 3 structure are incongruous with the Shoreland Ordinance as a whole. This has been an ongoing conversation in the city essentially since I began working with them and we've had hours of conversations with the City Attorneys to attempt to apply our ordinances correctly, so if there is a large change like that, our code will need to be amended. Lastly, in your final paragraph of Analysis of Facts and Recommendation, you mention shifting the house further from the lake and the size of the structure.  By shifting the house back from the OHWL towards the wetland, is it reasonable to conclude that an encroachment on the wetland instead of the lake is favorable from the DNR perspective (with no encroachment being the best option)?  Regarding the size of the structure, do you have a basis for "reasonably-sized single-family residence"? (I'm particularly curious about this as it gets brought up by Planning Commission frequently and I know there was another project in Lake Elmo that the DNR recommended denial with a similar rationale). Thank you, TJ Hofer (he/him/his) Planner II Bolton & Menk, Inc. (612) 271-6984 From: Greenlee Dahle <Greenlee.Dahle@bolton-menk.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 12:41 PM To: TJ Hofer <tj.hofer@bolton-menk.com> Subject: Fw: 19750 Maxwill Ave. - Jarmoluk Variance Requests From: Scollan, Daniel (DNR) <daniel.scollan@state.mn.us> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 12:19 PM To: Jeffrey Matzke <jeff.matzke@bolton-menk.com> Cc: Kyle Morell <k.morell@ci.scandia.mn.us>; Greenlee Dahle <Greenlee.Dahle@bolton-menk.com>; Moore, Megan (DNR) <megan.moore@state.mn.us>; Gleason, John (DNR) <john.gleason@state.mn.us> Subject: RE: 19750 Maxwill Ave. - Jarmoluk Variance Requests *** WARNING: This email is from outside the company. Proceed with Caution*** Hello Jeffrey, 4 Please find attached DNR’s comment letter on the requested variances at the Jarmoluk property at 19750 Maxwill Avenue N. Best Regards, Dan Scollan East Metro Area Hydrologist – Ramsey and Washington Counties Division of Ecological and Water Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 Phone: 651-259-5732 Fax: 651-772-7977 Email: daniel.scollan@state.mn.us mndnr.gov From: Jeffrey Matzke <jeff.matzke@bolton-menk.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 11:46 AM To: Scollan, Daniel (DNR) <daniel.scollan@state.mn.us> Cc: Kyle Morell <k.morell@ci.scandia.mn.us>; Greenlee Dahle <Greenlee.Dahle@bolton-menk.com> Subject: 19750 Maxwill Ave. - Jarmoluk Variance Requests 5 All, Please find attached the revised submittal materials and application for a variance from the impervious surface Manage 1 Wetland setback and from the minimum 100 ft. Structure setback from the OHWL for PID 29.032.20.11.0005 and 29.032.20.11.0017 in Scandia, MN. The property is located within the shoreland district. The applicant has included a description of the variance requests on Page 4 of the materials. The complete application is scheduled for a public hearing at the April 21, 2026 City Council meeting. Please provide any comments to be included in the staff report for the public hearing. If you have any issues accessing the attachments, please let me know. Jeffrey Matzke Community Planning Project Manager Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2638 Shadow Lane Suite 200, Chaska, Minnesota, 55318-1172 (952) 295-2024 jeff.matzke@bolton-menk.com www.Bolton-Menk.com This message may be from an external email source. Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security Operations Center. Tori Dupre, President ● Fred Rozumalski, Treasurer ● Paul Richert, Secretary Managers: Mike White, Pat Gleason, Ann Warner, & Nick Bancks 5 adjacent to a lake, stream or wetland that is maintained at or restored to an acceptable diversity and density of native vegetation per CMSCWD). Recommendations: Document existing vegetation conditions, identify disturbance limits, and require restoration and maintenance where necessary. Buffer restoration may also serve as proportional mitigation. 11. Stormwater BMP location relative to abandoned septic The plan indicates stormwater management proposed over an abandoned septic area. Recommendation: Confirm abandonment requirements with Washington County and document how any potential contaminated soils or materials will be addressed to avoid human health or water quality concerns. 12. Stormwater routing The plan indicates roof runoff will be guttered and directed to rain gardens. Recommendation: Confirm this commitment in architectural plans and ensure final grading and BMP details are consistent. 1 | Page Date of Meeting: March 3, 2026 To: Chair Loeffler and Planning Commission Members From: Jeff Matzke, Consultant City Planner TJ Hofer, Consultant City Planner Re: Variance for Impervious Surface to Encroach on a Wetland Setback and Variance from the Minimum Structure Setback to the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) on a Nonconforming Lot for PID 29.032.20.11.0005 and 29.032.20.11.0017 Applicant: Jeremy Imhoff Imprint Architecture and Design, LLC Zoning: RR-N, SM-O, FP-O Owner: Jeff and Sharon Jarmoluk Future Land Use: General Rural Location: 19750 Maxwill Ave N PID 29.032.20.11.0005 and 29.032.20.11.0017 Review Deadline March 17, 2026 The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to construct a portion of a walkway and driveway on a residential nonconforming lot. The driveway expansion is required due to the replacement and expansion of a nonconforming structure which is the single-family dwelling on the site. Also, a variance from the minimum structure setback to the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Big Marine Lake is requested. BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to redevelop two existing lots, both zoned Rural Residential Neighborhood (RR-N) and within the Shoreland Management Overlay (SM-O) District. The redevelopment of the properties triggers a number of requirements. The properties must be combined as both lots are nonconforming per the SM-O. PID 29.032.20.11.0005 contains the existing single-family dwelling on the site. The structure is nonconforming from both the ordinary high-water level setback and the side yard setback. The applicant is seeking to replace this nonconforming structure (allowed by statute) and expand the replacement structure (allowed by the Unified Development Code for the side yard setback). The expansion of the structure does require a variance consideration since the request involves an exception from a minimum setback within the Scandia Shoreland Management Ordinance (as identified by Section 3.72). 2 | Page The expansion and improvement of the structure requires that City of Scandia’s Driveway and Fire Apparatus Access Road Requirements. These standards were adopted by the City in May of 2025 and require improvements to the site based on the length of the driveway on the site. PID 29.032.20.11.0017 contains the septic system for the single-family dwelling as well as an accessory structure. Staff have not been able to find any approval for the accessory structure to be constructed, but have observed the structure appearing on historic aerials in 2016. As there was no approval granted, the structure appears to be an illegal nonconformity. There is also a roadway easement across the site as it acts as the driveway for 19760, 19770, 19780, and 19790 Maxwill Ave N. The applicant is also proposing 100 sq. ft. of wetland fill to the southeast of the proposed structure and has been in communication with Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District about the fill and the permitting de minimis. Additional information regarding the wetland fill is provided below. The subject area encompasses PID 29.032.20.11.0016 which is owned by the city and serves as a septic field for the properties located at 19760, 19770, and 19780 Maxwill Ave N. 3 | Page Additionally, the city is aware of a historical shoreline violation that the Carnelian- Marine-St. Croix Watershed District (CMSCWD) identified in 2018. The adjacent image is from a presentation from CMSCWD staff to the board in May of 2025. The shoreline appears to have been altered without permits from any entities. This issue is not directly related to the variance, but will need to be addressed before the administrative permit for the expansion of the nonconforming structure can be issued. Staff have reached out to the City Attorney to determine how the issue should be addressed. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Governing Standards There are a number of overlapping standards and reviews that are relevant to the site. Staff have highlighted a number of specifically relevant criteria below. Development of nonconforming lots is allowed through an administrative permit given certain standards are met. Additionally, contiguous, commonly owned parcels that do not meet standards specified in both the UDC and Shoreland Ordinance, must be combined to achieve a parcel that is as conforming as possible. As detailed below, the site will meet these standards once the properties are combined. Variances have seven specific criteria that need to be met to achieve a practical difficulty, as established in the UDC. The request for the variance is specifically for the driveway and a portion of walkway to allow for impervious surfaces to encroach into the setback of a wetland and for the structure from the minimum required 100-foot structure setback to the OHWL of Big Marine Lake. Conditions are recommended at the end of the staff report, but staff notes that conditions on the variance request must be directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Existing Conditions The existing lots are a nonconforming lots in the RR-N base zoning district, the SM-O, and the FP-O. Lot standards are detailed below with the proposed conditions of the lot. Nonconforming standards are shown in bold text. 4 | Page RR-N SM-O PID 29.032.20.11.0005 PID 29.032.20.11.0017 Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.) (Existing Lot of Record) 40,075.2 40,000 7,142 67,525 Buildable Area (ac.) 1.00 N/A 210 sq. ft. 1,100 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width (ft.) 150 160 38 99 Lot Frontage (ft.) 100 N/A 0 138.24 Setbacks (ft.) Front/Street 40 N/A 103.2 472.2* Side 10 N/A 7.8 20.6* OHWL 100 100 51.9 80.5* Maximum Lot Coverage 25% 25% 16.2% 11.1% Manage 1 Wetland Setback N/A 75 56.5 43.8* *Based on existing illegal nonconforming structure Both existing parcels are nonconforming for multiple reasons. Neither parcel by itself can be developed without a variance based on 66% minimum for lot size (26,400 sq. ft.) and lot width (105.6 ft.) within the UDC and Shoreland Ordinance. However, the applicant is required to combine the parcels by both state statute, the UDC, and the Shoreland Ordinance. When combined, the parcels meet the minimum dimensional standards for development for a nonconforming lot with an administrative permit. The existing parcels have very little buildable area on the site as setbacks from property lines, the OHWL, and the wetlands as well as the roadway easement overlap in multiple locations. The single-family dwelling on PID 29.032.20.11.0005 has nonconforming setbacks from both the OHWL and side yard setbacks. Additionally, a concrete pad exists on the eastern side of the site that encroaches into the setback for the Manage 1 wetland on the south side of the site. Further, the driveway that serves the site and properties to the north encroaches into the wetland setback to varying levels throughout the site. Structure setbacks for the accessory structure on PID 29.032.20.11.0017 are met aside from the OHWL and wetland setback, however, as noted previously, staff believe the structure to be an illegal nonconformity due to its placement within the OHWL setback. 5 | Page Proposed Conditions The proposed lot will remain a nonconforming lot. Lot standards are detailed below with the proposed conditions of the lot. Nonconforming standards are shown in bold text. RR-N SM-O Proposed Conditions Minimum Lot Size (ac.) (Existing Lot of Record) 40,075.2 40,000 73,891 Buildable Area (ac.) 1.00 N/A 210 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width (ft.) 150 160 137.1 Lot Frontage (ft.) 100 N/A 138.24 Structure Setbacks (ft.) Front 40 N/A 450.3 Side 20 N/A 8.0 OHWL 100 100 51.9 Impervious Surface OHWL Setback N/A 100 51.9 Maximum Lot Coverage 25% 25% 25.00% State statute requires that contiguous nonconforming lots under the same ownership within shoreland must be combined to achieve as much conformity as possible. Once combined, the lot is legally nonconforming due to buildable area and minimum lot width. Staff has included a condition that the lots be combined. The proposed principal structure is a single-family dwelling. The dwelling encroaches into the OHWL setback by 48.1 ft. (51.9 ft. setback). The illegal nonconforming accessory structure is indicated on the southwest side of the lot. The structure should be removed as it is an illegal structure. The applicant is proposing to fill a small portion of the wetland, 100 sq. ft., that includes a pipe that outlets near the shoreline. The pipe shall be modified to still serve the wetland. The fill has been coordinated with Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District (CMSCWD). Staff understands based on communication from CMSCWD that the proposed fill does not exceed the allowed de minimis for the wetland and therefore does not require a permit. 6 | Page The proposed driveway includes a turnaround and pullout that are required by the city’s Driveway and Fire Apparatus Access Road Requirements (Driveway Requirements). The Driveway Requirements require the driveway to be improved for any new structure. The proposed driveway turnaround, and a portion of a walkway leading to the structure, encroaches into the required 75 ft. setback for a Manage 1 Wetland that is located to on the south of the site. The standards require additional improvements to lots that have driveways that exceed 250 ft.: h. If your driveway is over 250 feet long (see Exhibit: A) i. Must provide an approved turnaround that is located a minimum of 50’ from structure and maximum of 150 feet from the structure (see Exhibit: C, approved turnaround design sheet or Exhibit D for alternate for residential Driveway) ii. Must provide a pullout at a minimum of every 400 feet (see Exhibit: B) The proposed turnaround appears to meet the standards established in the Driveway Requirements and will be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to approval of a grading or 7 | Page building permit. The proposed driveway would encroach 37 ft. into the required 75 ft. setback (38 ft. setback). The City Engineer has provided a preliminary comment noting that the turnaround is wider than required to meet the standards. Staff are recommending a condition that the encroaching turnaround be narrowed to meet the minimum required width of 20 ft, where it is currently proposed at 29.9 ft. Staff believe that the reduction in the width will decrease the encroachment into the wetland setback to 40.5 ft. where 38 ft. is currently requested. Variance Section 153.500.060 Subd. 1 (B) establishes the standards for when the City shall approve a variance. The variance must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, must be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter, and when the strict enforcement of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties with carrying out the strict letter of the Code. Practical difficulties are established within the UDC and are listed below in italics. Staff’s analysis of these is below each practical difficulty: a. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. The proposed use is a reasonable use of the property. A single-family dwelling is a permitted use in the RR-N and SM-O districts and the city has approved standards for residential driveways that must be met. Allowing for the impervious surface encroachment into the wetland setback allows for the proper access for fire and medical services. Allowing a structure within the structure setback to the OHWL is reasonable given that an extremely limited buildable area of less than 210 square feet exists on the center of the property without the need for setback variances. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The size and location of the lots are not directly due to circumstances created by the property owner. Based on the size requirements for the required turnaround the improvement could not be located on the parcel without encroaching on a setback from a water resource. In addition, a reasonably-sized residential dwelling could not be located on the property without encroaching on the wetland or OHWL setback. The proposed house will not encroach further into the structure setback to the lake than the existing primary structure. 8 | Page c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. If the variance were granted, it would not alter the essential character of the locality. Nearby properties have similar existing setbacks to Big Mariane Lake and impervious surfaces consistent with the development of residential dwellings and driveways to support access to the dwellings. d. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. Economic conditions are not the sole factor in the variance. e. May include, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The variance is not related to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. f. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed variance will not impair adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. g. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The proposed use is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The applicant has proposed a turnaround that is wider than required by the city’s standards. The turnaround should be reduced to the minimum size as doing so will decrease the encroachment into the wetland setback. The house is proposed to accommodate a reasonable distance from both the wetland (meets the 75 foot required setback) and the lake OHWL (51.9 feet) as proposed. ANALYSIS Review Comments The submittal was sent to city staff and other regulatory agencies for review and comment. 9 | Page Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District The Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District provided comments (see attached letter) recommending denial of variance at this time. The CMSCWD asks for additional water resource protections and considerations to be made including placement of native buffer vegetation near the lake and wetland areas, tree plantings that align with view corridor and screening standards, shoreline restoration, and erosion control documentation as proportional mitigation conditions of the variance approval. Engineering Department The City Engineer noted that the turnaround may be reduced to 20 feet in width and noted a concern related to proposed contours and drainage on the north side of the property. Fire Department The Fire Chief stated that the turnaround appeared sufficient and that the driveway may be allowed at 10 feet in width provided that a 12 foot clear zone is maintained. Public Works Department The Public Works Director had no comment. Washington Conservation District Washington Conservation District provided no comment. Department of Natural Resources The DNR Area Hydrologist provided comments related to the setback distances from the wetland and lake. These comments request that the OHWL and wetland setbacks be balanced when deciding on the placement of the primary structure. Staff Analysis Staff finds that the proposed plan is consistent with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan prioritizes environmental stewardship on lakeside lots, however, for lots to be developed a safe access must be created, and a reasonable buildable area must be allowed. Given the minimum required side yard setback (20 feet), wetland setback (75 feet), and OHWL/lake setback (100 ft) an area of less than 210 sq ft and 12 feet wide. of buildable area exists on the property. This area is not reasonable to construct a primary structure. In addition, stormwater controls are proposed that should capture stormwater created by the new impervious surfaces of the proposed house and driveway by directing them towards new raingardens on the site. The requested setback from the proposed house to the OHWL of Big Marine Lake is consistent with setbacks on adjacent lake properties (The identified average OHWL setback of the 19 closest neighborhood homes is approximately 52-53 feet). The applicant proposes a 51.9 foot setback consistent with the setback of the existing primary structure on the property. 10 | Page The City has no record of approving the existing accessory structure. Without a variance, the structure must be removed. Staff have included that the variance approval be conditional upon the site being in substantial compliance with the site plan submitted to the City, with the revision that the existing accessory structure be removed. An additional variance would be required to allow the accessory structure to remain. COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission can do one of the following: 1. Recommend approval, with or without conditions, of the attached resolution. 2. Recommend denial, with findings. 3. Table the request for further review/study. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed variances. Staff have drafted the resolution for a 48.1-foot variance from the minimum required 100-foot structure setback to the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of Big Marine Lake. Also, staff have drafted the resolution with noting a 40.5 ft. variance encroachment for the driveway into the 75-foot minimum required wetland setback. (This would require an adjustment of the turnaround to a 20 foot width as recommended.) Staff have prepared conditions of approval for consideration: 1. The location and layout of structures and impervious surfaces on the lot shall be substantially consistent with the plans and setbacks submitted to the City and reviewed with this request with the exception of where revisions are required with this approval. a. The encroaching impervious surface shall be reduced to meet the minimum standards required by the Driveway and Fire Apparatus Access Road Requirements, thereby reducing the turnaround width to 20 feet. 2. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City for review, showing any areas of soil disruption, construction entrances, building floor elevations, including the garage, and drainage patterns. 3. A driveway permit shall be submitted to the City for approval. 4. If any tree removal is expected to occur, the applicant or owner shall notify the city and include such trees (over 6 inches in diameter) on the survey before trees are removed. Any tree removed without prior review, approval, and replacement determined shall be treated as a “Primary Deciduous, greater than 20 inches in diameter” or a “Coniferous, greater than 24 feet in height,” for replacement purposes depending on the original species. 5. The accessory structure (existing 10’ x 20’ shed) shall be removed as it is an illegal nonconforming structure. 11 | Page 6. The applicant shall secure all applicable permits required from the watershed as well as all local, state, and federal entities. 7. The applicant shall pay all other fees and escrows associated with this application. 8. The applicant must commence the authorized use or improvement within one year of the date on which the variance is issued. After one year, the approvals issued under the provisions of the Section shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or Board. 9. The applicant shall record the variance with Washington County within one year of the date when the variance is approved by the City. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission: Motion to recommend approval of the attached resolution to approve a Variance to allow for construction of impervious surface within the setback of a Manage 1 Wetland and a Variance from the minimum structure setback to the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL), with conditions as described by staff within the staff report. Attachments 1. Draft Resolution 2. Zoning Map 3. Certificate of Survey – Existing Conditions 4. Site Plan Survey 5. Lake Setback Exhibit of Neighboring Properties 6. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Comments, dated February 25, 2026 CITY OF SCANDIA, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. XX-XX-26-XX APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO ENCROACH INTO A WETLAND SETBACK AND A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL (OHWL) FOR PARCELS 29.032.20.11.0005 AND 29.032.20.11.0017 LOCATED AT 19750 MAXWILL AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, Jermey Imhoff, (the “applicant”), on behalf of Jeff and Sharon Jarmoluk (the “owners”), has requested and made an application for a 37-foot variance from the 75-foot Manage 1 wetland setback to allow for an impervious surface and a 48.1-foot setback from the minimum 100-foot structure setback to the ordinary high water level (OHWL), on property located at 19750 Maxwill Avenue North and the property is legally described as See Attachment A; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance request at a duly noticed Public Hearing on March 3, 2026, and recommended that the City Council approve the request with conditions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCANDIA, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve, a 34.5-foot variance from the 75-foot Manage 1 wetland setback to allow for an impervious surface and a 48.1-foot setback from the minimum 100-foot structure setback to the ordinary high water level (OHWL), based on the following findings: 1. The proposed use is a reasonable use of the property. A single-family dwelling is a permitted use in the RR-N and SM-O districts and the city has approved standards for residential driveways that must be met. Allowing for the impervious surface encroachment into the wetland setback allows for the proper access for fire and medical services. The applicant has proposed a turnaround that is wider than required by the city’s standards. The turnaround should be reduced to the minimum size as doing so will decrease the encroachment into the wetland setback. The location of the proposed house is consistent with the OHWL setback to structure setbacks of nearby neighboring properties, and therefore it will not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The size and location of the lots are not directly due to circumstances created by the property owner. Based on the size requirements for the required turnaround the improvement could not be located on the parcel without encroaching on a setback from a water resource. In addition, the size and location of the house is placed at a reasonable distance from both the wetland and lake areas. The proposed house will not encroach further into the structure setback to the lake than the existing primary structure. 3. Economic conditions are not the sole factor in the variance. 4. The variance is not related to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 5. The proposed variance will not impair adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 6. The proposed use is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The applicant has proposed a turnaround that is wider than required by the city’s standards. The turnaround should be reduced to the minimum size as doing so will decrease the encroachment into the wetland setback. The house is proposed to accommodate a reasonable distance from both the wetland (meets the 75 foot required setback) and the lake OHWL (51.9 feet) as proposed. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall be met: 1. The location and layout of structures and impervious surfaces on the lot shall be substantially consistent with the plans and setbacks submitted to the City and reviewed with this request with the exception of where revisions are required with this approval. a. The encroaching impervious surface shall be reduced to meet the minimum standards required by the Driveway and Fire Apparatus Access Road Requirements, thereby reducing the turnaround width to 20 feet. 2. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City for review, showing any areas of soil disruption, construction entrances, building floor elevations, including the garage, and drainage patterns. 3. A driveway permit shall be submitted to the City for approval. 4. If any tree removal is expected to occur, the applicant or owner shall notify the city and include such trees (over 6 inches in diameter) on the survey before trees are removed. Any tree removed without prior review, approval, and replacement determined shall be treated as a “Primary Deciduous, greater than 20 inches in diameter” or a “Coniferous, greater than 24 feet in height,” for replacement purposes depending on the original species. 5. The accessory structure (existing 10’ x 20’ shed) shall be removed as it is an illegal nonconforming structure. 6. The applicant shall secure all applicable permits required from the watershed as well as all local, state, and federal entities. 7. The applicant shall pay all other fees and escrows associated with this application. 8. The applicant must commence the authorized use or improvement within one year of the date on which the variance is issued. After one year, the approvals issued under the provisions of the Section shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or Board 9. The applicant shall record the variance with Washington County within one year of the date when the variance is approved by the City. Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this ____ day of _________ 2026. Steve Kronmiller, Mayor ATTEST: Kyle Morell, City Administrator Attachment A All that part of the South Half (S1/2) of Government Lot Four (4), Section Twenty-nine (29), Township Thirty-two (32), Range Twenty (20), described as follows, to wit: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot Four (4), thence South along the East line of Said Lot 1106.5 feet; thence West parallel with the North line of said Lot 397 feet to an iron stake, this being the point of beginning of the tract being conveyed; from said point of beginning running thence South parallel with said East line 40 feet, thence West parallel with said North line 220 feet, more or less, to the shore of Big Marine Lake, thence North along said shore 40 feet; thence East parallel with said North line to the point of beginning, EXCEPT that part of the South Half of Government Lot 4, Section 29, Township 32 North, Range 20 West, Washington Count, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of Government Lot 4; thence on an azimuth of 180 degrees 14 minutes 50 seconds, oriented to the Washington County Coordinate System, North Zone, along the east line of said Government Lot 4, a distance of 1106.5 feet; thence on an azimuth of 270 degrees 13 minutes 57 seconds, parallel with the north line of said Government Lot 4, a distance of 395.82 feet to the point of beginning; (said point is on the east line of parcels described in Document Nos. 206409, 347569 and thence on an azimuth of 180 degrees 01 minutes 50 seconds a distance of 9.29 feet; thence on an azimuth of 268 degrees 54 minutes 43 seconds a distance of approximately 210 feet to the present shoreline of Big Marine Lake; thence northerly along said shoreline a distance of approximately 14.71 feet to a line which is on an azimuth of 270 degrees 13 minutes 57 seconds (parallel with the north line of said Government Lot 4) from the point of beginning; thence on an azimuth of 90 degrees 13 minutes 57 seconds approximately 214 feet to the point of beginning. and also a right-of-way in common with others over a strip of land 20 feet in width, as presently established, running from the East line of the above-described tract Easterly over the said S1/2 of Government Lot 4 to the existing town road, to provide ingress and egress to said tract. AND That part of the property described on Document No. 347569 (being Probate Deed to Noyes for part of Government Lot 4, Section 29, Township 32 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota) lying southerly of a line drawn parallel with the north line of said Government Lot 4, Section 29, from a point on the east line of said Section 29 distant 1115.94 feet southerly of the northeast corner of said Section 29, Washington County, Minnesota. AND That part of Government Lot 4, Section 29, Township 32 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Section 29; thence south along the east line of said Section 29 a distance of 1115.94 feet; thence west parallel with the north line of said Government Lot 4; on a line hereinafter referred to as “Line A”, a distance of 397 feet to an iron stake as called for in Document Number 347569 as filed in Washington County records, said point also being the point of beginning; thence southerly parallel with said east line of Section 29, a distance of 90 feet; thence easterly parallel with said “Line A: a distance of 175 feet; thence northerly parallel with said east line of Section 29, a distance of 90 feet to said “Line A”; thence westerly along said “Line A” 175 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. BUT EXCEPT That certain parcel of land described in a Quit Claim Deed from Marlene Anderson to the Town of New Scandia dated July 7, 1998 and recorded December 28, 1998 as Document No. 3020403 in the office of the Washington County Recorder. Abstract Property. Subject Site 18 8.1 © Bolton & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 0 Legend Big Marine Lake, City of Scandia This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and other sources affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Scandia is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. Disclaimer: 2/18/2026 9:29 AM 132 Feet City Limits Parcels 01/19/2026 Lot Lines PWI Basin Public Water Basin Public Water Wetland PWI - Watercourse Aerials2025 Red: Band_1 Green: Band_2 Blue: Band_3 132'-0" 17 ' - 7 " 19'- 3 " 88'-2" 46'-2" 50'-5" 38'-1" 76'-1" 6 7 ' - 7 " 38'-9 " 45'-5" 18 8.1 © Bolton & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 0 Legend Big Marine Lake, City of Scandia This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and other sources affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Scandia is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. Disclaimer: 2/18/2026 9:58 AM 132 Feet City Limits Parcels 01/19/2026 Lot Lines PWI Basin Public Water Basin Public Water Wetland PWI - Watercourse Aerials2025 Red: Band_1 Green: Band_2 Blue: Band_3 132'-0" 50' - 1 0 " 7 0 ' - 8 "52'-11 "73'-4 " 6 2 ' - 3 "54'-3 " 6 7 ' - 0 "35 ' -6 "60'- 0 " 4 1 ' - 3 " 6 3 ' - 9 " 1 9 ' - 3 " Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District 11660 Myeron Rd North • Stillwater, MN 55082 • Tel 651-275-7451 To: Scandia Planning Commission & Counsel From: CMSCWD Board of Managers Date: 2/25/2026 Subject: RE: Jarmalouk Water-Resource Setback Variances - 19750 Maxwill Ave N The Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District (CMSCWD) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the variance request for the proposed expansion at 19750 Maxwell Avenue North riparian to Big Marine Lake. Big Marine Lake has been identified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Department of Natural Resources as experiencing impacted biological health being driven by lakeshore development stressors. The requested variance would increase the existing degree of structural nonconformity and represents an intensification of shoreland development at this site. CMSCWD’s review of the application materials indicates that the current submittal and administrative record do net yet include sufficient information to evaluate conformance with all applicable shoreland ordinance standards. Based on the information currently available, several ordinance standards and evaluation criteria do not appear to be fully addressed or supported in the record. The following comments identify areas where additional information, analysis, or clarification would be necessary to support a complete and consistent evaluation of the request. CMSCWD Variance Recommendation Based on the technical review of materials currently available and the administrative record, CMSCWD recommends denial without prejudice of the variance request(s) at this time. CMSCWD supports appropriate redevelopment and would welcome the opportunity to review a revised submittal for reconsideration of this recommendation. Based on the materials currently available, the application and record do not yet appear to: • demonstrate conformance with applicable shoreland ordinance requirements; • clearly address the water-protection considerations identified in Minn. Stat. §462.357, subd. 1e(i); • resolve or meaningfully address known/observed historic shoreland impacts on the property; • include sufficient information to confirm compliance with shoreland vegetation, screening, view corridor, and Shore Impact Zone (SIZ) standards; and Tori Dupre, President ● Fred Rozumalski, Treasurer ● Paul Richert, Secretary Managers: Mike White, Pat Gleason, Ann Warner, & Nick Bancks 2 • incorporate the additional evaluation recommended by DNR related to balancing water resource encroachments. Specific technical comments and recommendations are provided in the sections that follow. Items related to OHWL setback variance: 1. OHWL variance evaluation and proportionality framework: The DNR Area Hydrologist has provided comments expressing concern with the current proposal and recommending additional evaluation, noting the need a more balanced analysis that recognizes disproportionate encroachment into the Big Marine Lake setback (OHWL variance request) as compared to the on-site wetland. City staff have indicated the following as primary evaluation metrics: no further OHWL encroachment, limiting new wetland encroachment, remaining under 25% impervious surface coverage, modernization of site safety/access, and comparing setbacks to nearby parcels. Based on these factors, City staff have indicated they anticipate recommending approval to the Planning Commission and Council. CMSCWD communications with City staff suggest the City does not currently utilize a formal framework for evaluating and assigning proportional mitigation as it relates to water resource impacts. Recommendations: CMSCWD concurs with DNR that the OHWL variance warrants additional evaluation with a focus on water resource protections. CMSCWD recommends the City apply (or develop) a consistent proportionality framework aligned with Minn. Stat. §462.357, subd. 1e(i) and Scandia Shoreland Ordinance §8.0, so the record clearly addresses water resource-oriented considerations, and any conditions of approval are practical, proportional, and enforceable if the variance is approved. 2. Retaining walls in SIZ: Scandia Shoreland Ordinance §8.31(C) allows retaining/boulder walls within the SIZ/BIZ only when documented erosion that requires correction the wall is the minimum necessary size, required approvals for work at or below the OHWL are obtained, and vegetative screening is provided. The current submittal does not clearly document erosion justification, minimum- necessary design rationale, required approvals (if applicable), or a screening plan. Recommendation: Require submittal of erosion documentation, design justification demonstrating the minimum necessary size, , required approvals (if applicable), and a screening/vegetation plan sufficient to confirm compliance. If these elements cannot be demonstrated, revise the site plan to bring the improvement into conformance. Tori Dupre, President ● Fred Rozumalski, Treasurer ● Paul Richert, Secretary Managers: Mike White, Pat Gleason, Ann Warner, & Nick Bancks 3 3. Ground-level boardwalk/platform (“pervious/floating coverage”): The characterization of this proposed feature in the record is incomplete. The City’s shoreland ordinance definition of “structure” (“anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground…”) indicates the platform may meet the definition of a structure for setback purposes. As shown, a portion appears to extend closer to the water than existing conditions and would increase the setback nonconformity. Recommendations: • Identify the specific ordinance exemption(s) being relied upon if the City intends to treat this as not a structure. • Absent a clear exemption, treat it as a structure that must meet OHWL setback standards. • If allowed, limit the feature to no closer than the existing structure setback and within a clearly defined compliant view corridor. • If the City intends to allow such features closer than setback standards as a policy direction, consider updating shoreland ordinance language to address “water-oriented accessory structures/facilities” with clear limits and resource protections. 4. Screening from the water: Shoreland Ordinance §8.23(A) requires vegetation be maintained or restored so that structures are at least 50% screened as viewed from the waterbody (leaf-on conditions). Existing conditions of the site do not conform with this ordinance, and the proposed plans do not clearly address this standard. Recommendation: Require a landscape plan with vegetation restoration and maintenance requirements demonstrating how screening compliance will be achieved and sustained. 5. View corridor limitations: Shoreland Ordinance §8.23(B) limits view corridors to 50 feet or one-third of parcel width, whichever is less. Existing conditions appear to exceed this limitation, and proposed plans do not clearly demonstrate conformance. Recommendation: Require a landscape plan with vegetation restoration requirements that explicitly identifies the proposed view corridor width and demonstrates compliance with §8.23(B). 6. Tree removal / vegetation compliance verification: CMSCWD notes that the current record does not include sufficient documentation to verify compliance with Shoreland Ordinance §3.42. Reliance on general statements regarding vegetation conditions limits the ability to verify and enforce compliance as outlined in §8.26. Recommendation: Require baseline documentation of existing trees and vegetation within regulated areas (including setbacks and SIZ) and within proposed construction Tori Dupre, President ● Fred Rozumalski, Treasurer ● Paul Richert, Secretary Managers: Mike White, Pat Gleason, Ann Warner, & Nick Bancks 4 limits (including areas subject to erosion and sediment controls) areas tied to inspection and verification. 7. Lakeshore buffer/restoration: The site plan indicates a buffer (an upland area adjacent to a lake, stream or wetland that is maintained at or restored to an acceptable diversity and density of native vegetation) along Big Marine Lake. However, existing conditions within the SIZ and shoreline are primarily riprap, beach, and maintained turf grass, which do not reflect the natural buffer conditions. Recommendation: Require a landscaping plan that restores native buffer vegetation aligned with compliant view corridor and screening requirements, and includes long-term maintenance commitments. 8. Shoreline alteration: Aerial imagery suggests shoreline alterations occurred (approximately 2017–2018 based on aerial photos) that appear to have required agency review/approval (DNR, CMSCWD, and City). The current record does not include documentation of approvals or confirmation that the alterations conform to applicable SIZ grading and riprap standards. Recommendation: City review and written clarification regarding whether prior shoreline alterations comply with applicable ordinance requirements and whether restoration will be required. CMSCWD can provide shoreline restoration design assistance and grant/financial assistance (often 50% of eligible costs) if restoration is pursued. Items related to wetland setback variance: 9. Wetland setback variance – avoid / minimize / mitigate City staff have indicated the driveway/turnaround improvements are necessary to meet current access and safety expectations associated with redevelopment. While some wetland setback encroachment may be unavoidable, the record does not clearly demonstrate that the proposed layout represents the minimum necessary design Recommendations: Minimization: Evaluate opportunities to both reduce turnaround footprint and layout alternatives (narrower drive; detached garage placement closer to shared driveway where feasible) to reduce wetland setback encroachment while meeting standards. Mitigation: Where encroachment remains, require proportional mitigation, such as buffer or native vegetation restoration adjacent to the wetland setback area, to offset incremental loss of buffer or habitat function. 10. Existing buffer condition The site plan indicates a buffer exists adjacent to a Manage 1 wetland; however, existing vegetation conditions are not documented in the record. (Buffer is an upland area CITY OF SCANDIA, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 04-21-26-01 APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO ENCROACH INTO A WETLAND SETBACK AND A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL (OHWL) FOR PARCELS 29.032.20.11.0005 AND 29.032.20.11.0017 LOCATED AT 19750 MAXWILL AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, Jermey Imhoff, (the “applicant”), on behalf of Jeff and Sharon Jarmoluk (the “owners”), has requested and made an application for a 37-foot variance from the 75-foot Manage 1 wetland setback to allow for an impervious surface and a 48.1-foot setback from the minimum 100-foot structure setback to the ordinary high water level (OHWL), on property located at 19750 Maxwill Avenue North and the property is legally described as See Attachment A; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance request at a duly noticed Public Hearing on March 3, 2026, and recommended that the City Council approve the request with conditions; WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the variance request at a duly noticed Public Hearing on April 21, 2026, and approved the request with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCANDIA, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve, a 30.4-foot variance from the 75-foot Manage 1 wetland setback to allow for an impervious surface and a 48.1-foot setback from the minimum 100-foot structure setback to the ordinary high water level (OHWL), based on the following findings: 1. The proposed use is a reasonable use of the property. A single-family dwelling is a permitted use in the RR-N and SM-O districts, and the city has approved standards for residential driveways that must be met. Allowing for the impervious surface encroachment into the wetland setback allows for the proper access for fire and medical services. Allowing a structure within structure setbacks is reasonable given that an extremely limited buildable area of less than 210 square feet exists on the western portion of the property without the need for setback variances. The size of the structure is reasonable as the city has no basis to establish a maximum building size and the proposed development meets impervious surface coverage. 2. The size and location of the lots are not directly due to circumstances created by the property owner. The property is very limited by overlapping setbacks resulting in an almost unbuildable lot without a variance. Based on the size requirements for the required turnaround, the improvement could not be located on the parcel without encroaching on a setback from a water resource. In addition, a residential dwelling could not be located on the only 210 square feet of buildable area on the western portion of the property without encroaching on the wetland or OHWL setback. The proposed house will not encroach further into the structure setback to the lake than the existing principal structure. 3. If the variance were granted, it would not alter the essential character of the locality. Nearby properties have similar existing setbacks to Big Mariane Lake and impervious surfaces consistent with the development of residential dwellings and driveways to support access to the dwellings. The proposed dwelling is not significantly larger than adjacent properties. Additionally, the applicant is not proposing any additional vegetative clearing between the proposed structure and the lake. 4. Economic conditions are not the sole factor in the variance the property is unbuildable without a variance. 5. The variance is not related to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 6. The proposed variance will not impair adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 7. The proposed use is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The applicant has proposed a turnaround that is wider than required by the city’s standards. The turnaround should be reduced to the minimum size to decrease the encroachment into the wetland setback. The house is proposed to accommodate a reasonable distance from both the wetland (meets the 75-foot required setback) and maintains the existing nonconforming setback from the lake OHWL (51.9 feet) as proposed. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall be met: 1. The location and layout of structures and impervious surfaces on the lot shall be substantially consistent with the plans and setbacks submitted to the City and reviewed with this request with the exception of where revisions are required with this approval. 2. The encroaching impervious surface shall be reduced to meet the minimum standards required by the Driveway and Fire Apparatus Access Road Requirements, thereby reducing the turnaround width (east-west measure) to 20 feet. 3. Prior to a building permit being issued: a. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City for review, showing any areas of soil disruption, construction entrances, building floor elevations, including the garage, and drainage patterns. b. A driveway permit shall be submitted to the City for approval. 4. If any tree removal is expected to occur, the applicant or owner shall notify the city and include such trees (over 6 inches in diameter) on the survey before trees are removed. Any tree removed without prior review, approval, and replacement determined shall be treated as a “Primary Deciduous, greater than 20 inches in diameter” or a “Coniferous, greater than 24 feet in height,” for replacement purposes depending on the original species. 5. The applicant shall secure all applicable permits required from the watershed as well as all local, state, and federal entities. 6. The applicant shall pay all other fees and escrows associated with this application. 7. The applicant must commence the authorized use or improvement within one year of the date on which the variance is issued. After one year, the approvals issued under the provisions of the Section shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or Board. 8. The applicant shall record the variance with Washington County within one year of the date when the variance is approved by the City. Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 21st day of April 2026. Steve Kronmiller, Mayor ATTEST: Kyle Morell, City Administrator Attachment A All that part of the South Half (S1/2) of Government Lot Four (4), Section Twenty-nine (29), Township Thirty-two (32), Range Twenty (20), described as follows, to wit: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot Four (4), thence South along the East line of Said Lot 1106.5 feet; thence West parallel with the North line of said Lot 397 feet to an iron stake, this being the point of beginning of the tract being conveyed; from said point of beginning running thence South parallel with said East line 40 feet, thence West parallel with said North line 220 feet, more or less, to the shore of Big Marine Lake, thence North along said shore 40 feet; thence East parallel with said North line to the point of beginning, EXCEPT that part of the South Half of Government Lot 4, Section 29, Township 32 North, Range 20 West, Washington Count, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of Government Lot 4; thence on an azimuth of 180 degrees 14 minutes 50 seconds, oriented to the Washington County Coordinate System, North Zone, along the east line of said Government Lot 4, a distance of 1106.5 feet; thence on an azimuth of 270 degrees 13 minutes 57 seconds, parallel with the north line of said Government Lot 4, a distance of 395.82 feet to the point of beginning; (said point is on the east line of parcels described in Document Nos. 206409, 347569 and thence on an azimuth of 180 degrees 01 minutes 50 seconds a distance of 9.29 feet; thence on an azimuth of 268 degrees 54 minutes 43 seconds a distance of approximately 210 feet to the present shoreline of Big Marine Lake; thence northerly along said shoreline a distance of approximately 14.71 feet to a line which is on an azimuth of 270 degrees 13 minutes 57 seconds (parallel with the north line of said Government Lot 4) from the point of beginning; thence on an azimuth of 90 degrees 13 minutes 57 seconds approximately 214 feet to the point of beginning. and also a right-of-way in common with others over a strip of land 20 feet in width, as presently established, running from the East line of the above-described tract Easterly over the said S1/2 of Government Lot 4 to the existing town road, to provide ingress and egress to said tract. AND That part of the property described on Document No. 347569 (being Probate Deed to Noyes for part of Government Lot 4, Section 29, Township 32 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota) lying southerly of a line drawn parallel with the north line of said Government Lot 4, Section 29, from a point on the east line of said Section 29 distant 1115.94 feet southerly of the northeast corner of said Section 29, Washington County, Minnesota. AND That part of Government Lot 4, Section 29, Township 32 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Section 29; thence south along the east line of said Section 29 a distance of 1115.94 feet; thence west parallel with the north line of said Government Lot 4; on a line hereinafter referred to as “Line A”, a distance of 397 feet to an iron stake as called for in Document Number 347569 as filed in Washington County records, said point also being the point of beginning; thence southerly parallel with said east line of Section 29, a distance of 90 feet; thence easterly parallel with said “Line A: a distance of 175 feet; thence northerly parallel with said east line of Section 29, a distance of 90 feet to said “Line A”; thence westerly along said “Line A” 175 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. BUT EXCEPT That certain parcel of land described in a Quit Claim Deed from Marlene Anderson to the Town of New Scandia dated July 7, 1998 and recorded December 28, 1998 as Document No. 3020403 in the office of the Washington County Recorder. Abstract Property.