05.c Nonconforming Buildings UDCA
1 | P a g e
Date of Meeting: June 2, 2026
To: Chair Loeffler and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Greenlee Dahle, Consultant City Planner
T.J. Hofer, Consultant City Planner
Re: UDC Amendment Regarding Nonconforming Buildings and Structures
City staff have prepared an ordinance amendment to amend standards related to nonconforming
buildings and structures.
BACKGROUND
At the February 10, 2026, Planning Commission meeting a public hearing was held and
comments were received from a member of the Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District
(CMSCWD) and comments were submitted by the District Administrator, Mike Isensee.
Concerns were raised regarding nonconforming standards applicability and the use of variances
as tools for vegetation and shoreline restoration. The Planning Commission tabled the ordinance
amendment at the February meeting and left the public hearing open. CMSCWD submitted a
letter on March 4, 2026, further detailing their concerns. This letter is attached for review. Staff
have incorporated a change in the ordinance amendment to address the concerns about regarding
the “yard setback” term in the Unified Development Code (UDC).
The city intends to continue the conversation regarding Section 8 in the Shoreland Management
Regulations and the use of Minnesota State Statute 462.357, subd. 1e(i) in reviewing relevant
applications. These are existing ordinances and statues and are not impacted by the proposed
ordinance amendment. The opinions and thoughts expressed in the letter regarding restoration of
shoreline, in staff’s opinion, are not germane to the ordinance language proposed in this staff
report. If additional changes are desired to address these comments, then a separate amendment
should be discussed rather than further delaying an ordinance primarily intended to bring the
UDC into compliance with state statute and clarify the requirements for expansion of
nonconforming structures. This is reinforced by the recent changes to how expansion of
nonconforming structures is allowed in shoreland.
Additionally, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) contacted the City about a potential
replacement and expansion of a nonconforming structure in January of 2026. This led to a
number of correspondences with the DNR and the city changing the process and interpretation
applied to expansion of nonconforming structures in shoreland under Section 3.72. This
continues to be an ongoing conversation with city staff and the DNR and may result in further
ordinance amendments. Ultimately, a determination was made that the expansion of
nonconformities allowed by the UDC essentially cannot be used for a structure that is
nonconforming due to setbacks established in the Shoreland Management Regulations ordinance,
with some minor exceptions.
2 | P a g e
OVERVIEW OF DRAFT ORDINANCE
Changes since February 10, 2026
Staff have changed the proposed amendment in Subd. 3 (C) II. a. to state “property line setback.”
The language currently states “yard setback” and the previous amendment proposed “setback”.
Staff have drafted an amendment to update the existing standards regarding nonconforming
buildings and structures. The ordinance uses red strikethrough for deletions, red underline for
additions, and green strikethrough/underline for relocated text.
Subd. 3 Nonconforming Buildings and Structures.
(A) In accordance with Minnesota State Statute 462.357 Subd. 1e., nonconforming
buildings and structures may be continued, including through repair, replacement,
restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, unless:
Replacement. A lawful nonconforming structure which is removed, destroyed or
altered by any means to the extent that the cost of repair or replacement would
exceed fifty percent (50%) of the Assessed Value of the original structure shall not
be replaced, except in conformity with this Chapter. If a replacement structure
cannot be placed on the lot meeting all current standards, the variance procedure
must be followed. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term “Assessed Value”
shall mean the market value of the property as determined by the current records of
the City Assessor for the year in which the damage was done.
I. The occupancy or use of the building and structure has discontinued for a
period of more than one year.
(B) II. Restoration of buildings destroyed by fire or peril damaged to the extent of
less than 50% of its market value, as indicated in the records of the county
assessor at the time of damage, shall be allowed, provided a building permit
has been applied for within 180 days of when a property is damaged. Unless
a building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when a property is
damaged, nNo lawful nonconforming building or structure which has been
destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50% of its market
value, as indicated in the records of the county assessor at the time of
damage, shall be restored, except in conformity with the regulations of this
Chapter. If a building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when
the property is damaged, the City may impose reasonable conditions when
issuing the permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent
property or water body.
The proposed amendment removes the standard related to replacement that limits the amount of
replacement allowed and replaces the language with the language established in statute. While
the repetition of the statute is not necessary for enforcement, including it here removes the
barrier for users to find the language in statute and allows for easy reference within the code.
Staff have also separated the two exceptions for readability.
(B) Alterations. Alterations to (e.g., repair, normal maintenance, remodeling) of a lawful
nonconforming building or structure that are valued at 50% or less of the appraised value
of the original nonconforming building or structure may be undertaken provided:
3 | P a g e
I. The alterations do not expand the building size.
II. The alterations do not change the building occupancy capacity, or parking
demand, or sewage treatment requirements.
III. The alterations do not increase the nonconformity of the building or the use.
The rights provided in statute for nonconforming buildings and structures allows for repair,
restoration, maintenance, or improvement which would all be considered types of alterations.
Statute sets no limit on the amount of alteration allowed. Per the advice of the City Attorney, the
50% limit has been removed. Staff believe that the additional standards I., II., and III. are
enforceable as all of these would be considered expansions in either the structure itself or the
intensity of the use related to the structure.
(C) Expansion of Nonconforming Buildings or Structures.
I. Application.
a. Agricultural or Single Family Residential Buildings and Structures.
The expansion of lawful nonconforming agricultural or single family
residential buildings and structures may be approved through the with
an Administrative Permit process subject to the provisions of Section
[153.500.050 and 153.500.060] of this Chapter, provided that the
standards in this section are met.:
b. Commercial, Industrial, Public, Semi-Public, and Multiple Family
Structures. The expansion of lawful nonconforming commercial,
industrial, public, semi-public, and multiple family structures may be
approved with a conditional use permit, provided that the standards in
this section are met.
Staff have reorganized the section for nonconforming buildings or structures. The qualifying
requirements that exist for all uses are essentially the same, however, “Agricultural or Single
Family Residential Buildings and Structures” require an administrative permit, and
“Commercial, Industrial, Public, Semi-Public, and Multiple Family Structures” require a
conditional use permit. As the requirements are the same, reorganizing the section removes
unnecessary duplication of text.
II. Requirements.
a. The nonconformity is due to height, property line setback, or lot area.
The first three standards are essentially rewritten and clarified versions of the standard that exists
in the ordinance now.
Shown later in the document, the current standards state, “yard setback.” A “yard setback” is not
defined by the UDC and any setback can be considered to create a “yard” as setbacks generally
create areas that cannot be improved. Changing the term to “property line setback” removes any
area for interpretation.
b. The existing structure remains in place, and is expanded. The
expansion does not increase the nonconformity of the building or the
use.
4 | P a g e
The existing standards states that the structure “remains in place,” however, replacement is a
right allowed by statute. If an applicant wishes to replace a structure and expand it, this could be
done across two applications, so rewriting this standard to allow for the combination is sensible.
c. The expansion complies with all other performance standards for the
lot, use, and building or structure.
d. If the expansion results in the removal or loss of significant trees as
defined by this ordinance, the removed or lost significant trees shall be
replaced in accordance with the replacement requirement established
in Section [153.400.070], subject to the additional following standards:
i. A tree survey shall be required with the application for the
Administrative Permit and shall be prepared with the
specifications detailed in Section [153.400.070].
ii. Replacement of the trees shall be based on the schedule
established in Table 153.400.070-1.
iii. Replacement required due to the expansion of a nonconforming
building or structure shall be done on site and not eligible for
contribution to the Tree Fund as described in Section
[153.400.070 Subd. 2. V.].
iv. The performance guarantee required by Section [153.400.070
Subd. 2 XIII.,] shall not be required.
Staff received significant public concern following a recent replacement of a nonconforming
structure on 182nd St. One of the concerns was the loss of large trees and canopy on the lot. Staff
propose these replacement standards to mitigate canopy loss. Although reestablishment takes
time, replacement will provide long‑term benefits to surrounding properties.
e. Long term sewage disposal needs can be met.
f. Expansion of principal or accessory buildings found to be
nonconforming only by reason of height, yard setback, or lot area may
be permitted provided the structural nonconformity is not increased
and the expansion complies with all other performance standards of
this Chapter. An Administrative Permit shall not be issued under this
Section for a deviation from other requirements of this Chapter unless
variances are also approved.
g. The Zoning Administrator finds that any such expansion will not have
external negative impacts upon adjacent properties or public rights-of-
way.
g. Long term sewage disposal needs can be met.
e. II. Commercial, Industrial, Public, Semi-Public, and Multiple Family
Structures. Lawful nonconforming commercial, industrial, public, semi-
public, and multiple family structures may be expanded on the same lot
upon approval of a conditional use permit, provided that:
5 | P a g e
a. Expansion of principal or accessory buildings found to be
nonconforming only by reason of height, yard setback, or lot area
may be permitted provided the structural nonconformity is not
increased and the expansion complies with all other performance
standards of this Chapter. A Conditional Use Permit shall not be
issued under this Section for a deviation from other requirements of
this Chapter unless variances are also approved.
b. The request for Conditional Use Permit shall be evaluated based on
standards set forth in Section [153.500.050] of this Chapter.
c. Long term sewage disposal needs can be met.
d. (D) Buildings or Structures in the Floodplain Overlay District. Notwithstanding
paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) and (D) above, any restoration, alteration, replacement,
repair, or expansion of a building or structure located within the floodplain overlay
district shall be regulated to the extent necessary to maintain eligibility in the
National Flood Insurance Program, and in no case shall increase potential flood
damage or increase the degree of obstruction to flood flows in the floodway.
Changes in the hierarchy of the standards are necessary as standards for structures in the
floodplain should not be written so as to appear that they are only applicable in some instances.
ANALYSIS
Staff Analysis
Staff believe the additional standards proposed in the ordinance amendment will ensure
consistency with state statute, provide greater clarity regarding the rights of nonconforming
buildings and structures, and address concerns that have resulted from the expansion of
nonconforming structures in the past.
With the recent directives from the DNR, staff believe it is clear that the standards related to the
expansion of nonconforming structures are essentially irrelevant to shoreland properties as the
expansion of a nonconforming structure in shoreland, that is nonconforming because of
noncompliance with standards in the Shoreland Management Regulations ordinance, will always
require a variance under Section 3.72. If additional standards are desired to apply to shoreland
properties and structures, including shoreline restoration, vegetation management, or any other
elements detailed in Minnesota State Stature § 462.357, subd. 1e(i) an amendment should be
made to the Shoreland Management Regulations ordinance. Addressing shoreland regulations
within the UDC is inappropriate unless referencing the Shoreland Management Regulations
ordinance.
COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission can do one of the following:
1. Recommend approval, with or without conditions, of the attached resolution.
6 | P a g e
2. Recommend denial, with findings, of the attached resolution.
3. Table the request for further review/study.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open a public hearing and receive any and all
comments from the public.
Staff recommend the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ordinance amendment
regarding nonconforming buildings and structures, with any amendments deemed necessary:
Motion to recommend the City Council approval of the attached ordinance to amend
153.500.110 of the Unified Development Code regarding nonconforming buildings and
structures, with the findings and conditions described within the staff report.
Attachments
A. Draft Ordinance 2026-XX Amendment Regarding Nonconforming Buildings and
Structures
B. Planning Commission “UDC Amendment Regarding Nonconforming Buildings and
Structures” Packet, dated February 10, 2026
C. Nonconforming Structures Comments, Carnelian Marin St. Croix Watershed District,
dated March 4, 2026
Added Text: Red Underline
Removed Text: Red Strikethrough
Moved Text: Green Striketrhough and Underline
Page 1 of 7
CITY OF SCANDIA
ORDINANCE NO.: 2026-XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SCANDIA UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
153.500.110 REGARDING NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
The City Council of the City of Scandia, Washington County, Minnesota hereby ordains:
Section 1 Amendment. The City of Scandia Unified Development Code (“UDC,”
“Development Code,” or “Code”), Chapter 153.500.110 Nonconformities Subd. 3
Nonconforming Buildings and Structures, shall be amended by adding the underlined text
and deleting the stricken text as follows:
Subd. 3 Nonconforming Buildings and Structures.
(A) In accordance with Minnesota State Statute 462.357 Subd. 1e., nonconforming
buildings and structures may be continued, including through repair, replacement,
restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, unless:
Replacement. A lawful nonconforming structure which is removed, destroyed or
altered by any means to the extent that the cost of repair or replacement would
exceed fifty percent (50%) of the Assessed Value of the original structure shall not
be replaced, except in conformity with this Chapter. If a replacement structure
cannot be placed on the lot meeting all current standards, the variance procedure
must be followed. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term “Assessed Value”
shall mean the market value of the property as determined by the current records of
the City Assessor for the year in which the damage was done.
I. The occupancy or use of the building and structure has discontinued for a
period of more than one year.
(B) II. Restoration of buildings destroyed by fire or peril damaged to the extent of
less than 50% of its market value, as indicated in the records of the county
assessor at the time of damage, shall be allowed, provided a building permit
has been applied for within 180 days of when a property is damaged. Unless
a building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when a property is
damaged, nNo lawful nonconforming building or structure which has been
destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50% of its market
value, as indicated in the records of the county assessor at the time of
damage, shall be restored, except in conformity with the regulations of this
Chapter. If a building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when
the property is damaged, the City may impose reasonable conditions when
issuing the permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent
property or water body.
(B) Alterations. Alterations to (e.g., repair, normal maintenance, remodeling) of a
lawful nonconforming building or structure that are valued at 50% or less of the
Added Text: Red Underline
Removed Text: Red Strikethrough
Moved Text: Green Striketrhough and Underline
Page 2 of 7
appraised value of the original nonconforming building or structure may be
undertaken provided:
I. The alterations do not expand the building size.
II. The alterations do not change the building occupancy capacity, or parking
demand, or sewage treatment requirements.
III. The alterations do not increase the nonconformity of the building or the use.
(C) Expansion of Nonconforming Buildings or Structures.
I. Application.
a. Agricultural or Single Family Residential Buildings and Structures.
The expansion of lawful nonconforming agricultural or single family
residential buildings and structures may be approved through the with
an Administrative Permit process subject to the provisions of Section
[153.500.050 and 153.500.060] of this Chapter, provided that the
standards in this section are met.:
b. Commercial, Industrial, Public, Semi-Public, and Multiple Family
Structures. The expansion of lawful nonconforming commercial,
industrial, public, semi-public, and multiple family structures may be
approved with a conditional use permit, provided that the standards in
this section are met.
II. Requirements.
a. The nonconformity is due to height, property line setback, or lot area.
b. The existing structure remains in place, and is expanded. The
expansion does not increase the nonconformity of the building or the
use.
c. The expansion complies with all other performance standards for the
lot, use, and building or structure.
d. If the expansion of the structure or improvements to the site required
for the expansion results in the removal or loss of significant trees as
defined by this ordinance, the removed or lost significant trees shall be
replaced in accordance with the replacement requirement established
in Section [153.400.070], subject to the additional following standards:
i. A tree survey shall be required with the application for the
Administrative Permit and shall be prepared with the
specifications detailed in Section [153.400.070].
ii. Replacement of the trees shall be based on the schedule
established in Table 153.400.070-1.
iii. Replacement required due to the expansion of a nonconforming
building or structure shall be done on site and not eligible for
Added Text: Red Underline
Removed Text: Red Strikethrough
Moved Text: Green Striketrhough and Underline
Page 3 of 7
contribution to the Tree Fund as described in Section
[153.400.070 Subd. 2. V.].
iv. The performance guarantee required by Section [153.400.070
Subd. 2 XIII.,] shall not be required. An escrow equal to $100
per caliper inch of tree removed shall be held by the city for a
period of two years. The escrow shall be held by the city and
shall be used to replace any damaged, diseased, dying, or
removed tree required by this section if a property owner does
not replace the damaged, diseased, dying, or removed tree.
e. Long term sewage disposal needs can be met.
f. Expansion of principal or accessory buildings found to be
nonconforming only by reason of height, yard setback, or lot area may
be permitted provided the structural nonconformity is not increased
and the expansion complies with all other performance standards of
this Chapter. An Administrative Permit shall not be issued under this
Section for a deviation from other requirements of this Chapter unless
variances are also approved.
g. The Zoning Administrator finds that any such expansion will not have
external negative impacts upon adjacent properties or public rights-of-
way.
g. Long term sewage disposal needs can be met.
e. II. Commercial, Industrial, Public, Semi-Public, and Multiple Family
Structures. Lawful nonconforming commercial, industrial, public, semi-
public, and multiple family structures may be expanded on the same lot
upon approval of a conditional use permit, provided that:
a. Expansion of principal or accessory buildings found to be
nonconforming only by reason of height, yard setback, or lot area
may be permitted provided the structural nonconformity is not
increased and the expansion complies with all other performance
standards of this Chapter. A Conditional Use Permit shall not be
issued under this Section for a deviation from other requirements of
this Chapter unless variances are also approved.
b. The request for Conditional Use Permit shall be evaluated based on
standards set forth in Section [153.500.050] of this Chapter.
c. Long term sewage disposal needs can be met.
d. (D) Buildings or Structures in the Floodplain Overlay District. Notwithstanding
paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) and (D) above, any restoration, alteration, replacement,
repair, or expansion of a building or structure located within the floodplain overlay
district shall be regulated to the extent necessary to maintain eligibility in the
National Flood Insurance Program, and in no case shall increase potential flood
damage or increase the degree of obstruction to flood flows in the floodway.
Added Text: Red Underline
Removed Text: Red Strikethrough
Moved Text: Green Striketrhough and Underline
Page 4 of 7
Section 2 Planning Commission. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed ordinance
at their February 10, 2026, meeting and held a public hearing on the amendment. No
comments were made at the public hearing. The Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the ordinance, with amendments.
Added Text: Red Underline
Removed Text: Red Strikethrough
Moved Text: Green Striketrhough and Underline
Page 5 of 7
Section 3 Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its adoption. Passed
and adopted by the City Council of the City of Scandia this ___th day of __________ 2026.
Steve Kronmiller, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kyle Morell, City Administrator
Added Text: Red Underline
Removed Text: Red Strikethrough
Moved Text: Green Striketrhough and Underline
Page 6 of 7
CLEAN VERSION – DO NOT COMMENT OR EDIT HERE
(D) In accordance with Minnesota State Statute 462.357 Subd. 1e., nonconforming
buildings and structures may be continued, including through repair, replacement,
restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, unless:
I. The occupancy or use of the building and structure has discontinued for a
period of more than one year.
II. Restoration of buildings destroyed by fire or peril damaged to the extent of
less than 50% of its market value, as indicated in the records of the county
assessor at the time of damage, shall be allowed, provided a building permit
has been applied for within 180 days of when a property is damaged. No
lawful nonconforming building or structure which has been destroyed by fire
or other peril to the extent of greater than 50% of its market value, as
indicated in the records of the county assessor at the time of damage, shall be
restored, except in conformity with the regulations of this Chapter. If a
building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is
damaged, the City may impose reasonable conditions when issuing the
permit in order to mitigate any created impact on adjacent property or water
body.
(E) Alterations. Alterations to (e.g., repair, normal maintenance, remodeling) of a
lawful nonconforming building or structure may be undertaken provided:
I. The alterations do not expand the building size.
II. The alterations do not change the building occupancy capacity, parking
demand, or sewage treatment requirements.
III. The alterations do not increase the nonconformity of the building or the use.
(F) Expansion of Nonconforming Buildings or Structures.
I. Agricultural or Single Family Residential Buildings and Structures. The
expansion of lawful nonconforming agricultural or single family residential
buildings and structures may be approved through the Administrative Permit
process subject to the provisions of Section [153.500.050 and 153.500.060]
of this Chapter, provided that:
a. The nonconformity is due to height, setback, or lot area.
b. The expansion does not increase the nonconformity of the building or
the use.
c. The expansion complies with all other performance standards for the
lot, use, and building or structure.
d. If the expansion results in the removal or loss of significant trees as
defined by this ordinance, the removed or lost significant trees shall be
Added Text: Red Underline
Removed Text: Red Strikethrough
Moved Text: Green Striketrhough and Underline
Page 7 of 7
replaced in accordance with the replacement requirement established
in Section [153.400.070].
i. A tree survey shall be required with the application for the
Administrative Permit and shall be prepared with the
specifications detailed in Section [153.400.070].
ii. Replacement of the trees shall be based on the schedule
established in Table 153.400.070-1.
iii. Replacement required due to the expansion of a nonconforming
building or structure shall be done on site and not eligible for
contribution to the Tree Fund as described in Section
[153.400.070 Subd. 2. V.].
e. Long term sewage disposal needs can be met.
f. The Zoning Administrator finds that any such expansion will not have
external negative impacts upon adjacent properties or public rights-of-
way.
e. II. Commercial, Industrial, Public, Semi-Public, and Multiple Family
Structures. Lawful nonconforming commercial, industrial, public, semi-
public, and multiple family structures may be expanded on the same lot
upon approval of a conditional use permit, provided that:
g. Expansion of principal or accessory buildings found to be
nonconforming only by reason of height, setback, or lot area may be
permitted provided the structural nonconformity is not increased and
the expansion complies with all other performance standards of this
Chapter. A Conditional Use Permit shall not be issued under this
Section for a deviation from other requirements of this Chapter
unless variances are also approved.
h. The request for Conditional Use Permit shall be evaluated based on
standards set forth in Section [153.500.050] of this Chapter.
i. Long term sewage disposal needs can be met.
d. (D) Buildings or Structures in the Floodplain Overlay District. Notwithstanding
paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) above, any restoration, alteration, replacement, repair,
or expansion of a building or structure located within the floodplain overlay district
shall be regulated to the extent necessary to maintain eligibility in the National
Flood Insurance Program, and in no case shall increase potential flood damage or
increase the degree of obstruction to flood flows in the floodway.
Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District
11660 Myeron Rd North • Stillwater, MN 55082 • Tel 651-275-7451
Tori Dupre, President ● Fred Rozumalski, Treasurer ● Paul Richert, Secretary
Managers: Mike White, Pat Gleason, Ann Warner, & Nick Bancks
To: Scandia Planning Commission
From: Carnelian Marine St. Croix Watershed District
Date: 3/4/2026
Subject: Nonconforming Structures Comments
Thank you for sharing the City’s memorandum on nonconforming structures. CMSCWD
appreciates Scandia’s effort to clarify interpretation and improve consistency for shoreland
redevelopment. We offer the comments below to support two shared goals: (1) a clear, defensible
pathway for applicants and staff, and (2) consistent lakeshore protection and restoration
outcomes over time.
City and District Roles
CMSCWD recognizes that Scandia serves as the primary authority for protecting lake health through
implementing shoreland protections through its shoreland ordinance and land use decisions, including
setbacks, vegetation retention and screening, grading and disturbance limits, and drainage and impervious
management. These tools are often the most practical mechanism for addressing legacy impacts and
incorporating restoration opportunities when redevelopment occurs.
CMSCWD’s role is to administer District rules and permits, provide technical review and compliance
coordination, and support implementation of water-resource protections on the ground. That work is most
effective when City standards and conditions are applied consistently and documented in a clear,
inspectable manner.
Areas of General Agreement
CMSCWD generally agrees with the memo’s central legal distinction under Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd.
1e: recognizing lawful nonconformities may continue through repair, replacement, restoration,
maintenance, or improvement, while expansions are not automatically allowed.
We also agree that “50% value” concepts should be interpreted carefully so routine improvements are not
unintentionally restricted, particularly when such projects present opportunities to incorporate practical
shoreland protections and restoration.
Clarification Regarding Shoreland and Nonconforming Provisions
As Scandia considers amendments related to nonconforming structures, CMSCWD respectfully requests
clarification on how the City intends the shoreland ordinance requirements and the proposed
nonconforming ordinance amendments to interact, particularly regarding setbacks.
In recent determinations, there appears to have been an interpretation that “yard setbacks” include
OHWL-related shoreland setbacks. The DNR has commented that these are not to be treated as
equivalent, with implications to compliance pathways for the City. Clarifying the City’s intended
approach with ordinance language and staff reports would help reduce misunderstanding, improve
2
defensibility, and support consistent application across projects. It will also assist CMSCWD in
understanding how District rules apply in coordination with City decisions.
Targeted Refinements to Support Shoreland Outcomes
From a lakeshore protection standpoint, CMSCWD believes the most beneficial refinements would focus
on strengthening the clarity and objectivity of the shoreland decision record, without creating unnecessary
procedural burden.
A. Clear Application of Shoreland Ordinance § 3.72 (Expansions to Nonconforming
Structures)
For expansions or additions to nonconforming structures, staff reports would benefit from
explicitly documenting:
• whether the proposal increases, decreases, or maintains nonconformity
(setback/height/impervious/disturbance), and
• whether the project complies with Sections 5–8 of the Shoreland Ordinance or requires a
variance under § 3.72.
B. Clarification of “External Negative Impacts” in Shoreland Context
The memorandum references “external negative impacts” a concept that can be interpreted in
various ways; making it difficult to apply consistently. In shoreland settings, the “external
negative impacts” of greatest public interest are often the incremental effects of runoff, vegetation
loss, grading, erosion , and nearshore habitat loss.
CMSCWD recommends clarifying that, in shoreland areas, “external negative impacts” may
include measurable water-resource impacts. Identifying objective checks, such as stormwater
routing, impervious surface changes, buffer condition, and disturbance limits, would improve
consistency and defensibility.
Shoreland Ordinance Section 8 (Screening and View Corridor)
Many riparian parcels with nonconforming structures face constraints in meeting screening and view
corridor expectations. To support consistent application, CMSCWD recommends consideration of a
proportionality framework aligned with Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1e(i).
The goal would not be to introduce new requirements, but to ensure the record clearly identifies:
• which Section 8 standard apply,
• whether they are achievable on a constrained lot, and
• where conditions are appropriate, what practical and verifiable measures (e.g., buffer restoration
or targeted screening) will be required as part of redevelopment.
Use Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1e(i) as the Practical “Restoration at Redevelopment” Tool
Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1e(i) provides clear direction for shoreland decision-making. When
reviewing shoreland variances, zoning/building permits, or conditional use requests, the City should
require property owners, when appropriate, to address conservation-based actions such as:
• managing stormwater runoff,
• reducing impervious surfaces,
• increasing setback,
• restoring wetlands,
• restoring/maintaining vegetative buffers, and
• addressing sewage treatment and water supply capability.
For shoreland projects, briefly documenting in staff reports which of these considerations are relevant
3
would help create a clear and consistent recording while maintaining proportional application.
Example Referenced in the City Memo
The “Example Within Scandia” included in the memorandum illustrates the importance of shoreland-
specific documentation. While the example emphasizes adjacent property considerations it does not
clearly document water-resource function items most relevant in the Shore Impact Zone, such as
stormwater management, impervious surface changes, vegetation and buffer function, grading and
disturbance, topographic constraints and erosion risk.
Including these elements —along with a clear statement regarding whether Shoreland Ordinance § 3.72 is
triggered—would better support consistent outcomes and reduce potential misunderstandings regarding
the applicable approval pathway.
Advance Notice of Ordinance Amendments
CMSCWD became aware of the proposed ordinance amendments approximately six days before
the scheduled public hearing through the County Messenger. While this may satisfy minimum
public notification requirements, CMSCWD respectfully requests direct advance notice and early
access to draft ordinance materials in the future. Early coordination would allow the District to
provide timely technical input and water resource perspective as a partner agency.
Closing
CMSCWD appreciates Scandia’s efforts to clarify its nonconforming structure framework We believe
that centering Shoreland Ordinance § 3.72 in staff documentation, clarifying shoreland-related “external
impacts”, and proportionally applying Minn. Stat. § 462.357 subd. 1e(i) would strengthen consistency and
defensibility while advancing practical lakeshore restoration over time.
CMSCWD remains available to meet and collaborate on shared checklists and templates that support
applicants, staff, and long-term lake health.
1 | Page
Date of Meeting: February 10, 2026
To: Chair Loeffler and Members of the Planning Commission
From: T.J. Hofer, Consultant City Planner
Re: UDC Amendment Regarding Nonconforming Buildings and Structures
City staff have prepared an ordinance amendment to amend standards related to nonconforming
buildings and structures.
BACKGROUND
At the October 7, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, staff presented a memo summarizing the statutory rights of nonconforming uses and the additional standards in the Unified Development
Code (UDC) governing expansions of nonconforming buildings and structures. Within that memo, staff detailed concerns that the City Attorney had expressed regarding a standard related to replacement and alterations of nonconforming buildings and structures. Repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement of nonconformities are allowed to be continued by statute, provided the exceptions detailed in statute are not triggered.
In addition to the issues identified by the City Attorney, members of the Planning Commission
identified concerns related to expansion of nonconforming buildings and structures. Expansion of nonconforming buildings and structures is not a right allowed by statute, but the city allows expansion through an administrative permit or conditional use permit based on the type of use. Concerns were expressed that the intent of the expansion allowance was not being met and that
some expansions allowed by administrative permit should have required a variance. Staff
brought this item to the City Council at the October 20, 2025, where the Council confirmed that the administrative permit was being administered as intended. At the meeting, staff noted that they intended to amend the standards to address the concerns of the City Attorney, believed changes to the existing standards could address concerns expressed by the Planning Commission
and Council, and improve the process.
OVERVIEW OF DRAFT ORDINANCE
Staff have drafted an amendment to update the existing standards regarding nonconforming buildings and structures. The ordinance uses red strikethrough for deletions, red underline for additions, and green strikethrough/underline for relocated text.
Subd. 3 Nonconforming Buildings and Structures.
(A) In accordance with Minnesota State Statute 462.357 Subd. 1e., nonconforming buildings and structures may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: Replacement. A lawful nonconforming structure which is removed, destroyed or
2 | Page
altered by any means to the extent that the cost of repair or replacement would exceed fifty percent (50%) of the Assessed Value of the original structure shall not
be replaced, except in conformity with this Chapter. If a replacement structure
cannot be placed on the lot meeting all current standards, the variance procedure must be followed. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term “Assessed Value” shall mean the market value of the property as determined by the current records of the City Assessor for the year in which the damage was done.
I. The occupancy or use of the building and structure has discontinued for a
period of more than one year.
(B) II. Restoration of buildings destroyed by fire or peril damaged to the extent of less than 50% of its market value, as indicated in the records of the county assessor at the time of damage, shall be allowed, provided a building permit
has been applied for within 180 days of when a property is damaged. Unless
a building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when a property is damaged, nNo lawful nonconforming building or structure which has been destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50% of its market value, as indicated in the records of the county assessor at the time of
damage, shall be restored, except in conformity with the regulations of this
Chapter. If a building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged, the City may impose reasonable conditions when issuing the permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property or water body.
The proposed amendment removes the standard related to replacement that limits the amount of
replacement allowed and replaces the language with the language established in statute. While the repetition of the statute is not necessary for enforcement, including it here removes the barrier for users to find the language in statute and allows for easy reference within the code. Staff have also separated the two exceptions for readability.
(B) Alterations. Alterations to (e.g., repair, normal maintenance, remodeling) of a lawful
nonconforming building or structure that are valued at 50% or less of the appraised value of the original nonconforming building or structure may be undertaken provided:
I. The alterations do not expand the building size.
II. The alterations do not change the building occupancy capacity, or parking
demand, or sewage treatment requirements.
III. The alterations do not increase the nonconformity of the building or the use.
The rights provided in statute for nonconforming buildings and structures allows for repair, restoration, maintenance, or improvement which would all be considered types of alterations. Statute sets no limit on the amount of alteration allowed. Per the advice of the City Attorney, the
50% limit has been removed. Staff believe that the additional standards I., II., and III. are
enforceable as all of these would be considered expansions in either the structure itself or the intensity of the use related to the structure.
3 | Page
(C) Expansion of Nonconforming Buildings or Structures.
I. Application.
a. Agricultural or Single Family Residential Buildings and Structures.
The expansion of lawful nonconforming agricultural or single family residential buildings and structures may be approved through the with an Administrative Permit process subject to the provisions of Section [153.500.050 and 153.500.060] of this Chapter, provided that the
standards in this section are met.:
b. Commercial, Industrial, Public, Semi-Public, and Multiple Family
Structures. The expansion of lawful nonconforming commercial, industrial, public, semi-public, and multiple family structures may be approved with a conditional use permit, provided that the standards in
this section are met.
Staff have reorganized the section for nonconforming buildings or structures. The qualifying requirements that exist for all uses are essentially the same, however, “Agricultural or Single Family Residential Buildings and Structures” require an administrative permit, and, “Commercial, Industrial, Public, Semi-Public, and Multiple Family Structures” require a
conditional use permit. As the requirements are the same, reorganizing the section removes
unnecessary duplication of text.
II. Requirements.
a. The nonconformity is due to height, setback, or lot area.
The first three standards are essentially rewritten and clarified versions of the standard that exists
in the ordinance now.
Shown later in the document, the current standards state, “yard setback.” A “yard setback” is not defined by the UDC and any setback can be considered to create a “yard” as setbacks generally create areas that cannot be improved. Removing the term yard provides greater clarity.
b. The existing structure remains in place, and is expanded. The
expansion does not increase the nonconformity of the building or the
use.
The existing standards states that the structure “remains in place,” however, replacement is a right allowed by statute. If an applicant wishes to replace a structure and expand it, this could be done across two applications, so rewriting this standard to allow for the combination is sensible.
c. The expansion complies with all other performance standards for the lot, use, and building or structure.
d. If the expansion results in the removal or loss of significant trees as defined by this ordinance, the removed or lost significant trees shall be replaced in accordance with the replacement requirement established
in Section [153.400.070], subject to the additional following standards:
i. A tree survey shall be required with the application for the Administrative Permit and shall be prepared with the specifications detailed in Section [153.400.070].
4 | Page
ii. Replacement of the trees shall be based on the schedule established in Table 153.400.070-1.
iii. Replacement required due to the expansion of a nonconforming
building or structure shall be done on site and not eligible for contribution to the Tree Fund as described in Section [153.400.070 Subd. 2. V.].
iv. The performance guarantee required by Section [153.400.070
Subd. 2 XIII.,] shall not be required.
Staff received significant public concern following a recent replacement of a nonconforming structure on 182nd St. One of the concerns was the loss of large trees and canopy on the lot. Staff propose these replacement standards to mitigate canopy loss. Although reestablishment takes time, replacement will provide long‑term benefits to surrounding properties.
e. Long term sewage disposal needs can be met.
f. Expansion of principal or accessory buildings found to be nonconforming only by reason of height, yard setback, or lot area may be permitted provided the structural nonconformity is not increased and the expansion complies with all other performance standards of
this Chapter. An Administrative Permit shall not be issued under this
Section for a deviation from other requirements of this Chapter unless variances are also approved.
g. The Zoning Administrator finds that any such expansion will not have external negative impacts upon adjacent properties or public rights-of-
way.
g. Long term sewage disposal needs can be met.
e. II. Commercial, Industrial, Public, Semi-Public, and Multiple Family Structures. Lawful nonconforming commercial, industrial, public, semi-public, and multiple family structures may be expanded on the same lot
upon approval of a conditional use permit, provided that:
a. Expansion of principal or accessory buildings found to be nonconforming only by reason of height, yard setback, or lot area may be permitted provided the structural nonconformity is not increased and the expansion complies with all other performance
standards of this Chapter. A Conditional Use Permit shall not be
issued under this Section for a deviation from other requirements of this Chapter unless variances are also approved.
b. The request for Conditional Use Permit shall be evaluated based on standards set forth in Section [153.500.050] of this Chapter.
c. Long term sewage disposal needs can be met.
d. (D) Buildings or Structures in the Floodplain Overlay District. Notwithstanding paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) and (D) above, any restoration, alteration, replacement, repair, or expansion of a building or structure located within the floodplain overlay
5 | Page
district shall be regulated to the extent necessary to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program, and in no case shall increase potential flood
damage or increase the degree of obstruction to flood flows in the floodway.
Changes in the hierarchy of the standards are necessary as standards for structures in the floodplain should not be written so as to appear that they are only applicable in some instances.
ANALYSIS
Staff Analysis
Staff believe the additional standards proposed in the ordinance amendment will provide greater
clarity regarding the rights of nonconforming buildings and structures as well as address some concerns that have resulted from the expansion of nonconforming structures in the past.
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, of the attached resolution.
3. Table the request for further review/study.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open a public hearing and receive any and all
comments from the public.
Staff recommend the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ordinance amendment regarding nonconforming buildings and structures, with any amendments deemed necessary:
Motion to recommend the City Council approval of the attached ordinance to amend 153.500.110 of the Unified Development Code regarding nonconforming buildings and
structures, with the findings and conditions described within the staff report.
Attachments
A. Draft Ordinance 2026-XX Amendment Regarding Nonconforming Buildings and
Structures
B. Unified Development Code 153.500.110 Nonconformities C. Memorandum on Nonconforming Structures, dated October 7, 2025
Added Text: Red Underline Removed Text: Red Strikethrough Moved Text: Green Striketrhough and Underline
Page 1 of 4
CITY OF SCANDIA
ORDINANCE NO.: 2026-XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SCANDIA UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
153.500.110 REGARDING NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
The City Council of the City of Scandia, Washington County, Minnesota hereby ordains: Section 1 Amendment. The City of Scandia Unified Development Code (“UDC,”
“Development Code,” or “Code”), Chapter 153.500.110 Nonconformities Subd. 3
Nonconforming Buildings and Structures, shall be amended by adding the underlined text
and deleting the stricken text as follows:
Subd. 3 Nonconforming Buildings and Structures.
(A) In accordance with Minnesota State Statute 462.357 Subd. 1e., nonconforming buildings and structures may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, unless:
Replacement. A lawful nonconforming structure which is removed, destroyed or
altered by any means to the extent that the cost of repair or replacement would exceed fifty percent (50%) of the Assessed Value of the original structure shall not be replaced, except in conformity with this Chapter. If a replacement structure cannot be placed on the lot meeting all current standards, the variance procedure
must be followed. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term “Assessed Value”
shall mean the market value of the property as determined by the current records of the City Assessor for the year in which the damage was done.
I. The occupancy or use of the building and structure has discontinued for a period of more than one year.
(B) II. Restoration of buildings destroyed by fire or peril damaged to the extent of
less than 50% of its market value, as indicated in the records of the county assessor at the time of damage, shall be allowed, provided a building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when a property is damaged. Unless a building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when a property is
damaged, nNo lawful nonconforming building or structure which has been
destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50% of its market value, as indicated in the records of the county assessor at the time of damage, shall be restored, except in conformity with the regulations of this Chapter. If a building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when
the property is damaged, the City may impose reasonable conditions when
issuing the permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property or water body.
(B) Alterations. Alterations to (e.g., repair, normal maintenance, remodeling) of a lawful nonconforming building or structure that are valued at 50% or less of the
Added Text: Red Underline Removed Text: Red Strikethrough Moved Text: Green Striketrhough and Underline
Page 2 of 4
appraised value of the original nonconforming building or structure may be undertaken provided:
I. The alterations do not expand the building size.
II. The alterations do not change the building occupancy capacity, or parking
demand, or sewage treatment requirements.
III. The alterations do not increase the nonconformity of the building or the use.
(C) Expansion of Nonconforming Buildings or Structures.
I. Application.
a. Agricultural or Single Family Residential Buildings and Structures.
The expansion of lawful nonconforming agricultural or single family residential buildings and structures may be approved through the with an Administrative Permit process subject to the provisions of Section [153.500.050 and 153.500.060] of this Chapter, provided that the
standards in this section are met.:
b. Commercial, Industrial, Public, Semi-Public, and Multiple Family
Structures. The expansion of lawful nonconforming commercial, industrial, public, semi-public, and multiple family structures may be approved with a conditional use permit, provided that the standards in
this section are met.
II. Requirements.
a. The nonconformity is due to height, setback, or lot area.
b. The existing structure remains in place, and is expanded. The expansion does not increase the nonconformity of the building or the
use.
c. The expansion complies with all other performance standards for the lot, use, and building or structure.
d. If the expansion of the structure or improvements to the site required for the expansion results in the removal or loss of significant trees as
defined by this ordinance, the removed or lost significant trees shall be
replaced in accordance with the replacement requirement established in Section [153.400.070], subject to the additional following standards:
i. A tree survey shall be required with the application for the Administrative Permit and shall be prepared with the
specifications detailed in Section [153.400.070].
ii. Replacement of the trees shall be based on the schedule established in Table 153.400.070-1.
iii. Replacement required due to the expansion of a nonconforming building or structure shall be done on site and not eligible for
Added Text: Red Underline Removed Text: Red Strikethrough Moved Text: Green Striketrhough and Underline
Page 3 of 4
contribution to the Tree Fund as described in Section [153.400.070 Subd. 2. V.].
iv. The performance guarantee required by Section [153.400.070
Subd. 2 XIII.,] shall not be required. An escrow equal to $100
per caliper inch of tree removed shall be held by the city for a period of two years. The escrow shall be held by the city and shall be used to replace any damaged, diseased, dying, or removed tree required by this section if a property owner does
not replace the damaged, diseased, dying, or removed tree.
e. Long term sewage disposal needs can be met.
f. Expansion of principal or accessory buildings found to be nonconforming only by reason of height, yard setback, or lot area may be permitted provided the structural nonconformity is not increased
and the expansion complies with all other performance standards of
this Chapter. An Administrative Permit shall not be issued under this Section for a deviation from other requirements of this Chapter unless variances are also approved.
g. The Zoning Administrator finds that any such expansion will not have
external negative impacts upon adjacent properties or public rights-of-
way.
g. Long term sewage disposal needs can be met.
e. II. Commercial, Industrial, Public, Semi-Public, and Multiple Family Structures. Lawful nonconforming commercial, industrial, public, semi-
public, and multiple family structures may be expanded on the same lot
upon approval of a conditional use permit, provided that:
a. Expansion of principal or accessory buildings found to be nonconforming only by reason of height, yard setback, or lot area may be permitted provided the structural nonconformity is not
increased and the expansion complies with all other performance
standards of this Chapter. A Conditional Use Permit shall not be issued under this Section for a deviation from other requirements of this Chapter unless variances are also approved.
b. The request for Conditional Use Permit shall be evaluated based on
standards set forth in Section [153.500.050] of this Chapter.
c. Long term sewage disposal needs can be met.
d. (D) Buildings or Structures in the Floodplain Overlay District. Notwithstanding paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) and (D) above, any restoration, alteration, replacement, repair, or expansion of a building or structure located within the floodplain overlay
district shall be regulated to the extent necessary to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program, and in no case shall increase potential flood damage or increase the degree of obstruction to flood flows in the floodway.
Added Text: Red Underline Removed Text: Red Strikethrough Moved Text: Green Striketrhough and Underline
Page 4 of 4
Section 2 Planning Commission. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed ordinance
at their February 10, 2026, meeting and held a public hearing on the amendment.
Section 3 Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its adoption. Passed and
adopted by the City Council of the City of Scandia this ___th day of __________ 2026.
Steve Kronmiller, Mayor ATTEST:
Kyle Morell, City Administrator
City of Scandia, MN
CHAPTER 153: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC)
SECTION 153.500 ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES 153.500
Adopted 09.20.2022, Last Amended 11.18.2025 (Ordinance No. 2025-15) page-37
ii. Discretionary EISs. An EIS shall be prepared when the City Council determines that,
based on the EAW and any comments or additional information received during the
EAW comment period, the proposed project has the potential for significant
environmental effects, or when the City Council and the proposer of the project agree
that an EIS should be prepared.
iii. Procedures.
1. All projects requiring an EIS must have an EAW on file with the City, which
will be used to determine the scope of the EIS. All EISs shall be prepared
according to the procedures and requirements of the State Environmental
Review Program, Rules 4410.2100-4410.3000, as may be amended. The costs of
preparation of an EIS shall be assessed to the project proposer in accordance
with Minnesota Rules Parts 4410.6000 to 4100.6500, as may be amended.
2. Any proposal, project or use on which an EIS is required shall be considered a
conditional use as defined in this Chapter and shall comply with the procedure
for approval of a conditional use permit. Mitigating measures identified in the
EIS shall be incorporated as conditions of issuance of the conditional use
permit.
153.500.110 NONCONFORMITIES
Subd. 1. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to provide for the regulation of nonconforming buildings,
structures, uses, and lots, and to specify those requirements, circumstances, and conditions under which
nonconforming buildings, structures, uses, and lots will be operated, maintained, and regulated. It is necessary and
consistent with the establishment of this Chapter that nonconforming buildings, structures, uses, and lots not be
allowed to continue without restriction. Furthermore, it is the intent of this section that all nonconformities shall
be eventually brought into conformity.
Subd. 2. General Provisions.
A) Conditional Uses. Any established use, building or lot legally existing prior to the effective date of this
Chapter and which is herein classified by this Chapter as requiring a conditional use permit may be
continued in like fashion and activity and shall automatically be considered as having received conditional
use permit approval. Any change to such a use or building shall however require that a new conditional use
permit be processed according to this Chapter.
B) Interim Uses. Any established use, building or lot legally existing prior to the effective date of this Chapter,
and which is herein classified by this Chapter as requiring an interim use permit may be continued in like
fashion and activity and shall automatically be considered as having received interim use permit approval.
Any change to such a use or building shall, however, require that a new interim use permit be processed
according to this Chapter.
C) Threats to General Welfare. Nonconforming buildings, structures, and/or uses, which based upon
documented study and evidence, pose a danger and/or threat to the health, safety, and general welfare of
the community, shall:
D) Be legally declared a nuisance by the City Council. Upon being identified by the City Council and upon the
owner being notified in writing by the Zoning Administrator, the owner shall provide to the City Council a
documented time schedule and program with rationale to support the proposed amortization of the
building, structure, or use which will result in the termination or correction of the nonconformity.
I. The termination/correction time schedule shall be based upon, but not be limited to factors such as
the initial investment and the degree of threat or danger being posed.
II. The acceptability of the time schedule shall be determined by the City Council with right of appeal.
City of Scandia, MN
CHAPTER 153: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC)
SECTION 153.500 ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES 153.500
Adopted 09.20.2022, Last Amended 11.18.2025 (Ordinance No. 2025-15) page-38
Subd. 3. Nonconforming Buildings and Structures.
A) Replacement. A lawful nonconforming structure which is removed, destroyed or altered by any means to
the extent that the cost of repair or replacement would exceed fifty percent (50%) of the Assessed Value of
the original structure shall not be replaced, except in conformity with this Chapter. If a replacement
structure cannot be placed on the lot meeting all current standards, the variance procedure must be
followed. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term “Assessed Value” shall mean the market value of the
property as determined by the current records of the City Assessor for the year in which the damage was
done.
B) Restoration of buildings destroyed by fire or peril. Unless a building permit has been applied for within 180
days of when a property is damaged, no lawful nonconforming building or structure which has been
destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50% of its market value, as indicated in the
records of the county assessor at the time of damage, shall be restored, except in conformity with the
regulations of this Chapter. If a building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property
is damaged, the City may impose reasonable conditions when issuing the permit in order to mitigate any
newly created impact on adjacent property or water body.
C) Alterations. Alterations to (e.g., repair, normal maintenance, remodeling) of a lawful nonconforming
building or structure that are valued at 50% or less of the appraised value of the original nonconforming
building or structure may be undertaken provided:
I. The alterations do not expand the building size.
II. The alterations do not change the building occupancy capacity, or parking demand or sewage
treatment requirements.
III. The alterations do not increase the nonconformity of the building or the use.
D) Expansion of Nonconforming Buildings or Structures.
I. Agricultural or Single Family Residential Buildings and Structures. The expansion of lawful
nonconforming agricultural or single family residential buildings and structures may be approved
through the Administrative Permit process subject to the provisions of Section [153.500.050 and
153.500.060] of this Chapter, provided that:
a. The existing structure remains in place, and is expanded.
b. Expansion of principal or accessory buildings found to be nonconforming only by reason of
height, yard setback, or lot area may be permitted provided the structural nonconformity is
not increased and the expansion complies with all other performance standards of this
Chapter. An Administrative Permit shall not be issued under this Section for a deviation
from other requirements of this Chapter unless variances are also approved.
c. The Zoning Administrator finds that any such expansion will not have external negative
impacts upon adjacent properties or public rights-of-way.
d. Long term sewage disposal needs can be met.
e. Commercial, Industrial, Public, Semi-Public, and Multiple Family Structures. Lawful nonconforming
commercial, industrial, public, semi-public, and multiple family structures may be expanded
on the same lot upon approval of a conditional use permit, provided that:
i. Expansion of principal or accessory buildings found to be nonconforming only by
reason of height, yard setback, or lot area may be permitted provided the structural
nonconformity is not increased and the expansion complies with all other
performance standards of this Chapter. A Conditional Use Permit shall not be issued
under this Section for a deviation from other requirements of this Chapter unless
variances are also approved.
City of Scandia, MN
CHAPTER 153: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC)
SECTION 153.500 ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES 153.500
Adopted 09.20.2022, Last Amended 11.18.2025 (Ordinance No. 2025-15) page-39
ii. The request for Conditional Use Permit shall be evaluated based on standards set
forth in Section [153.500.050] of this Chapter.
iii. Long term sewage disposal needs can be met.
f. Buildings or Structures in the Floodplain Overlay District. Notwithstanding paragraphs (A), (B), (C)
and (D) above, any restoration, alteration, replacement, repair, or expansion of a building or
structure located within the floodplain overlay district shall be regulated to the extent
necessary to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program, and in no case shall
increase potential flood damage or increase the degree of obstruction to flood flows in the
floodway.
Subd. 4. Nonconforming Uses.
A) Effective Date. The lawful use of buildings or land existing at the effective date of this Section which does
not conform to the provisions of this Chapter may be continued, unless:
I. The nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than 1 year.
II. If a structure used for any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of
greater than 50% of its market value, as indicated in the records of the county assessor at the time of
damage, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is
damaged. If a building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged,
the City may impose reasonable conditions when issuing the permit in order to mitigate any newly
created impact on adjacent property or water body.
III. Notwithstanding [f] above, any structure used for a nonconforming use located in the floodplain
overlay district that is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50% of its market
value, as indicated in the records of the county assessor at the time of damage, shall be regulated to
the extent necessary to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program, and in no case
shall be continued or reestablished in a manner that results in potential flood damage or obstructs
flood flows in the floodway.
IV. Continued Use. A lawful, nonconforming use may be continued, including through repair,
replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement; provided, however, that no such
nonconforming use of land shall be enlarged or increased, including volume, intensity or frequency
of use, nor shall any such nonconforming use be expanded to occupy a greater area of land than that
occupied by such use at the time of the adoption of this Chapter, nor shall any such nonconforming
use be moved to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the use was conducted at the time
of the adoption of this Chapter.
V. Changes to Nonconforming Uses.
a. When a lawful nonconforming use of any structure or land in any district has been changed
to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be changed to any nonconforming use.
b. A lawful nonconforming use of a structure or parcel of land may be changed to lessen the
nonconformity of use. Once a nonconforming structure or parcel of land has been changed,
it shall not thereafter be so altered to increase the nonconformity.
Subd. 5. Nonconforming Lots. A legal nonconforming, substandard lot of record that is vacant may be
developed for one single family detached dwelling without variances and upon approval of an Administrative
Permit, provided that:
A) The lot was legally established in accordance with all applicable zoning and subdivision requirements
existing at the time of its creation and is a separate, distinct tax parcel.
B) Development of the lot is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the lot is properly zoned for single
family use.
City of Scandia, MN
CHAPTER 153: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC)
SECTION 153.500 ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES 153.500
Adopted 09.20.2022, Last Amended 11.18.2025 (Ordinance No. 2025-15) page-40
C) The lot shall be at least 66% of the dimensional standards for lot size and lot width as required by the Base
Zoning District and any applicable Overlay District.
D) The lot has frontage and access on an improved public street or an approved private road. To be
considered an approved private road, the City Council must, by resolution, find that the road is capable of
supporting emergency vehicles and that provisions exist for on-going maintenance of the road.
E) The lot must be suitable for the installation of sewage treatment system that is permitted by the Washington
County Subsurface Sewage Systems (SSTS) rules and regulations.
F) All structure and septic system setbacks shall be met.
G) Impervious surface coverage must not exceed 25 %.
H) If in the case of two or more contiguous lots or parcels of land under a single ownership, any individual lot
or parcel does not meet the minimum requirements of this Chapter, each individual lot or parcel cannot be
considered as a separate parcel of land for purposes of sale or development. Such lots must be combined
with adjacent lots under the same ownership so that the combination of lots will equal one or more
conforming lots as much as possible, unless each individual lot is at least 66% of the dimensional standards
for lot size and lot width and meets the requirements of paragraphs (D) through (G), above.
I) An existing conforming use or building on a lot of substandard lot area or lot width may be restored,
altered, replaced, repaired, or expanded provided such restoration, alteration, replacement, repair, or
expansion complies with all other provisions of this Chapter. A nonconforming lot shall not be reduced in
size.
J) A conforming lot shall not be reduced in size so that it would become nonconforming in any aspect of this
Chapter.
K) Overlay Districts. Nonconforming buildings and uses as described in the Shoreland Management Overlay
District and the Floodplain Management Overlay District contained in Chapters 155 and 156 shall be
subject to the applicable regulations and standards relating to such buildings and uses in this Chapter.
Where any regulations are found to be inconsistent, the more restrictive of the regulations shall apply.
153.500.120 VIOLATIONS, ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES
Subd. 1. Enforcement. In case any subdivision, building or structure is erected, constructed, reconstructed,
altered, repaired, converted, or maintained, or any building, structure or land is used in violation of this Section, the
Zoning Administrator, in addition to other remedies, may institute any proper criminal action or proceedings in
the name of the City of Scandia, and hereby shall have the powers of a police officer to prevent such unlawful
subdivision, erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, conversion, maintenance, or use, to restrain
or correct such violations, to prevent the occupancy of said building, structure or land, or to prevent any illegal act,
conduct, business or use in or about said premises.
Subd. 2. Penalties. Any person who violates a provision of this Chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be fined or penalized not more than the maximum levels established by the State of
Minnesota for misdemeanor offenses. Each act of violation and every day on which a violation occurs or continues
is a separate violation.
1 | P a g e
Date of Meeting: October 7, 2025
To: Chair Loeffler and Members of the Planning Commission
From: T.J. Hofer, Consultant City Planner
Re: Memorandum on Nonconforming Structures
The Planning Commission has expressed concern in the past regarding the expansion and
replacement of nonconforming structures. Nonconformities are complicated topics that are
regulated by both state statute and local ordinances. Within Scandia, the relevant local ordinance
is the Unified Development Code (UDC), as well as the ordinances and codes adopted by
reference such as the Shoreland Management Regulations and the Floodplain Management
Regulations.
A nonconformity is defined by the League of Minnesota Cities as, “…any land uses, structures,
or lots that do not comply with the city’s current zoning ordinance.” This same term is typically
used with shoreland ordinances, floodplain ordinances, and other zoning related ordinances and
rules. Legal nonconformities are created when a municipality changes a standards within adopted
documents that then causes an existing condition to become inconsistent with the new standards.
Illegal nonconformities are nonconformities that were never allowed or correctly permitted that
have been continued. The webpage, “Land Use Nonconformities” from the League of Minnesota
Cities is attached for reference and review.
The following analysis and summaries are provided to establish what is allowed by statute and
local ordinance. Staff understands the principal concern is related to structures and has included
additional information related to nonconforming structures.
Minnesota State Statute
Minnesota State Statutes regulate zoning and subdivision nonconformities in Chapter 462 of the
2024 Minnesota Statutes. Specifically, 462.357 which grants municipalities the authority for
zoning establishes standards for nonconformities in Subd. 1e. This subdivision is attached for
review, but the following summary is offered:
• A legal nonconformity can be continued through repair, replacement, restoration,
maintenance, or improvement, unless one of the triggers within the statute disallows it.
Thes triggers include:
o A use is discontinued for more than one year.
2 | P a g e
o A structure is destroyed and a building permit is not submitted within 180 days.
Reasonable conditions can be applied
• A legal nonconforming cannot be expanded, unless a process established by ordinance. If
a process is established, reasonable regulation to prevent and abate nuisances and protect
public health, welfare, and safety can be applied.
• Additional review criteria are established in statute for properties in shoreland
ordinances.
Unified Development Code – Nonconforming Structure Replacement and Alterations
The UDC establishes standards for nonconformities in [153.500.110]. The purpose statement in
the UDC states that it is the intent of the section that all nonconformities shall be eventually
brought into conformity. Staff have reviewed this section extensively with the City Attorney and
are aware of some sections that potentially conflict with state statute. The standards effectively
begin in Subd. 3 and go through Subd. 5.
Subdivision 3 addresses nonconforming building and structures. The standards in the (A) and (C)
allow replacement and alteration, respectively, provided that the value of the work is valued at
less than 50% of the appraised value of the structure and changes above this value require a
variance. This section has been identified as inconsistent with state statute by the City Attorney.
Standards adopted by municipalities for nonconformities cannot be more strict as it pertains to
repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement of a nonconforming structure. The
only instance where the 50% value is used in statute is when addressing destroyed structures. In
considering this standard the City Attorney stated the following regarding (A) Replacement:
For primary residences, regardless of its location or zoning, do not impose a variance
requirement as long as (1) the repair is not an expansion and (2) is not required due to
some destructive event such as a windstorm, flood, etc. For accessary structures, the City
may want to have the option to be a bit more strict, most especially for those that are
situated within the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). But even for accessary
structures (OHWL situated not included), absent an expansion, keeping to the building
permit process seems appropriate.
The City Attorney stated the following regarding (C) Alterations:
In my view, section 153.500.110(3)(C) could conflict with state law, in part, because the
use of the term “altered” is referenced for normal maintenance and remodeling, not
arising from a destruction event, and yet nonconforming, substandard structures as a
matter of law may be continued and improved. Therefore, I believe Scandia Code section
153.500.110, Subd. 3(C) must be narrowly interpreted to permit alterations, unless the
alternations exceed 50% of the structures value and are due to a destruction event as
defined by section 462.357(1e).
Therefore, I believe Scandia Code section 153.500.110, Subd. 3(C) must be narrowly
interpreted to permit alterations, unless the alternations exceed 50% of the structures
value and are due to a destruction event as defined by section 462.357(1e).
3 | P a g e
Unified Development Code – Nonconforming Structure Expansion
While state statue does not allow expansion of legal nonconforming structures by right, the UDC
allows for expansion of a nonconforming agricultural or single family residential buildings and
structure through an administrative permit provided:
a. The existing structure remains in place, and is expanded.
b. Expansion of principal or accessory buildings found to be nonconforming only by
reason of height, yard setback, or lot area may be permitted provided the
structural nonconformity is not increased and the expansion complies with all
other performance standards of this Chapter. An Administrative Permit shall not
be issued under this Section for a deviation from other requirements of this
Chapter unless variances are also approved.
c. The Zoning Administrator finds that any such expansion will not have external
negative impacts upon adjacent properties or public rights-of-way.
d. Long term sewage disposal needs can be met.
The above standards a, b, and d, are objective standards that are easy to determined. Standard c is
more difficult as “negative impacts upon adjacent properties” is both subjective and broad.
Generally, with this type of standard, city staff relies on standards such as City Code Chapter 91
Nuisances and general provisions related to the use in the UDC.
As noted above, statute does not allow expansion by right. If the City Council wished to amend
the standards to either eliminate the allowance through an administrative permit or further define
or refine the standards to be evaluated for the expansion of a legal nonconforming structure, that
would be within the rights of the city.
Shoreland Management Regulations Nonconformities
The bulk of the language within the Shoreland Management Regulations (Shoreland Ordinance)
Section 3.7 addresses nonconforming lots within the shoreland overlay. This language echoes the
standards established in statute. Section 3.72 addresses structures and states:
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.
Essentially, the addition or expansion of the nonconforming structure has to meet dimensional
standards that are established in the Shoreland Ordinance. The standards do not address repair,
replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but the standards cannot restrict the
allowances in statute.
Example Within Scandia
One recent expansion that was approved by the city is the ongoing project on the south side of
Big Marine Lake located north of the intersection of 182nd Street North and Norell Avenue
North.
4 | P a g e
Previous Conditions Proposed Conditions
5 | P a g e
The property shown above had an existing setback of 68.9 ft. from the ordinary high water level
(OHWL), where 100 ft. is required. The owners proposed to replace and expand the structure.
The proposed structure increased the setback from the OHWL to 70.4 ft. to the proposed deck
with the dwelling being 82.31 ft. from the OHWL, and met all other applicable dimensional
standards. While the new structure is significantly larger, the new structure is compliant with
building height standards, the site is compliant with impervious surface coverage, and the city
has no standards that regulates structure size such as a floor-area ratio.
In reviewing the application, city staff were not able to identify any, “external negative impacts
upon adjacent properties” that were outside of an expected use of the lot as the proposal met all
standards aside from continued, legal nonconformities that were lessened as a result of the
project. Many owners on riparian lots value the view from their property, but landowners do not
have rights over the view or air on property they do not own. While the Shoreland Ordinance
does prioritize the health of the lake and has been bolstered in recent years to protecting views
from lakes with standards such as the view corridors, alterations within the view corridor and the
shore impact zone were not performed as part of the project.
Conclusion
The city currently offers property owners a more efficient and timely process for expanding
nonconformities through an administrative permit. Concerns have been raised about
nonconformities being expanded without review by the Planning Commission and City Council.
While the City Council could amend the UDC to eliminate the administrative permit allowance,
staff would recommend against this as the loss of efficiency is unlikely to be worth the increase
of review time and cost to applicants. The City Council could ask staff to review the standards
and further define or refine the standards when a legal nonconforming structure is allowed to
expand through an administrative permit.
Attachments
A. “Land Use Nonconformities”, League of Minnesota Cities, May 21, 2021
B. 2024 Minnesota Statutes 462.357 OFFICIAL CONTROLS: ZONING ORDINANCE
C. Section 153.500.110 Nonconformities
D. Shoreland Management Ordinance Section 3.7 Nonconformities