Loading...
04.b Draft minutes 06-02-2026 Planning Commission meetng June 2, 2026 The Scandia Planning Commission held their regular monthly meeting on the above date. The meeting was conducted in-person and virtually over an electronic platform. All participants who joined the meeting remotely could hear each other and contribute to discussions. Chair Travis Loeffler called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. The following were in attendance: Commissioners Mary Cullen, Laszlo Fodor, Jan Hogle, Michael Marosok, and Chair Travis Loeffler. Staff present: Bolton & Menk Planner Greenlee Dahle and City Administrator Kyle Morell. City Council member liaison Mike Lubke was present over Zoom. PUBLIC FORUM There were no public comments. APPROVAL OF AGENDA, MINUTES Hogle, seconded by Fodor, moved to approve the agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Cullen asked for additional time to review the draft May 5, 2026 minutes. Hogle. seconded by Fodor, moved to table discussion of the May 5, 2026 minutes until later in the meeting. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE AT 19235 LARKSPUR AVENUE NORTH TO EXPAND THE EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND ENCROACH INTO THE BLUFF LINE, SIDE LOT LINE, AND FRONT LOT LINE SETBACKS. APPLICANT TIM MCLAFFERTY Tim and Wendy McLafferty have made a variance request for expanding a nonconforming single-family dwelling at 19235 Larkspur Avenue North. The owners propose to add a two-story attached single-car garage with living space. The property is constrained by overlapping setback requirements due to its location near a bluff and within the Shoreland Management Overlay (SM-O) District. Planner Dahle explained that the lot is nonconforming in size (12,986 sq. ft. vs. required 40,000 sq. ft.) and width (91.75 ft. vs. required 150/160 ft.). The existing house encroaches into the top of bluff, front, and side setbacks, but is considered a legal nonconformity. There is no buildable area on the site that meets all setback requirements. Two nonconforming accessory sheds are to be removed as part of the project. The applicants state in their application that the garage is needed for practical reasons so that the steep driveway can be plowed in the winter with the car stored inside. Planner Dahle recommended the bump out sun room as shown on the plans, which would increase the encroachment into the bluff, be eliminated. With this revision, Dahle explained that staff finds the 8.6-foot variance from the 40-foot front setback (resulting in a 31.4-foot setback), a 30-foot variance from the 30-foot top of bluff setback (resulting in a 0-foot setback), and a Scandia Planning Commission June 2, 2026 Page 2 of 7 variance for placement within the bluff impact zone is a reasonable use and permitted in the zoning district. The total impervious surface would remain under the 25% maximum allowed. Findings and conditions of approval were in the staff report. The hardship is due to unique property circumstances, not owner actions. The variance would not alter the character of the locality. Economic conditions are not the sole reason for the request. With the recommended elimination of the bump out living space to avoid further bluff encroachment, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. The City Engineer requires a grading permit if the project proceeds. Hogle, seconded by Fodor, moved to open the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Applicant Tim McLfferty, 19235 Larkspur Avenue, explained that the bump out is needed for stairs to the upper living quarters above the garage. There were no further public comments. Hogle, seconded by Fodor, moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. The Commissioners discussed the 6-foot width of the bump out. Chair Loeffler said he does not believe the request if out of character with the neighborhood and other requests have asked for more. Loeffler said the bluff line is extended into no matter what direction the work is proposed unless the applicant moves the addition into the road which they are not able to do. Loeffler noted that existing impervious surface extends as far as the proposed addition. Loeffler said a more suitable solution would be to gutter the existing roofline on the bluff side to better protect the bluff rather than removal of the bump out. Commissioner Hogle said she sees no problem with the garage addition and the use of space above. With the bump out, it seems fine to her as long as drainage is directed away from the bluff. Commissioner Fodor said runoff in not crossing to the lake and suggested improved stormwater management to deal with the addition. Planner Dahle said a watershed permit will be required for this project. Commissioner Marosok said the bump out is encroaching on the steepest part of the bluff and that construction of this addition may disrupt bluff soil. Marosok said he would like to know that construction will not impact the bluff line. Marosok said he agrees with Chair Loeffler that encroachment into the bluff is not a concern, but that a condition should be added that excavation for the basement will not destabilize the bluff. Marosok questioned the soil management plan in place to ensure no damage to the bluff occurs. Commissioner Cullen stated her agreement. Planner Dahle said that adding guttering requirements and a soil management plan are appropriate and relevant to the variance request. Commissioner Cullen said the gutter plan should be in conjunction with Watershed review and approval, with the most important concern to direct water away from the bluff line. Scandia Planning Commission June 2, 2026 Page 3 of 7 Hogle, seconded by Fodor, moved to recommend approval of variances to allow encroachment into the structure setback to the top of bluff and front setbacks with the bump out as shown on the plans (eliminate Condition #2 to revise the plans) and add conditions for guttering and soil management plans. Motion carried 5-0. The recommendation to approve the variance request will be presented to the City Council on June 16, 2026. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP, TO REZONE SEVEN PARCELS FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL GENERAL (RR-G) TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD (RR-N) Planner Dahle prepared a zoning map amendment to rezone seven parcels from Rural Residential General (RR-G) to Rural Residential Neighborhood (RR-N) within the Shoreland Management Overlay (SM-O) of Big Marine Lake. The parcels are located north of the Bliss Addition on Big Marine Lake. These changes are part of an effort to better align the existing conditions, neighborhood character, and historic development patterns with current zoning classifications and development standards. The request originated from a variance application for a dwelling at 19453 Manning Trail North. Staff determined that a variance was not the most appropriate tool to address the site constraints and confirmed with the applicant that they would be open to the city considering a rezoning. Staff evaluated the surrounding properties and identified seven similarly situated parcels that share development characteristics. Dahle stated that rezoning would be a proactive solution to avoid further variance requests due to larger side yard setback requirements in RR-G. The City Council reviewed the concept on May 6, 2026, and directed that the request proceed to the Planning Commission for public hearing and formal consideration. A map of the proposed rezoning was viewed. Planner Dahle confirmed that the narrow strip of land that connects the larger property west of the riparian lots to the lake is not included in the rezoning. Hogle, seconded by Fodor, moved to open the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. There were no public comments. Hogle, seconded by Marosok, moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Marosok asked if the properties are in use. An aerial map was viewed which showed structures and driveway access through private property. Commissioner Fodor asked why the City is rezoning the properties. Staff explained the definitions of RR-N versus RR-G. The RR-N zoning district is closely tied to the standards established in the Shoreland Ordinance. Scandia Planning Commission June 2, 2026 Page 4 of 7 Commissioner Cullen said she is concerned that this may cause other problems if the only reason for rezoning is to avoid variance requests in the future, despite it being consistent with zoning. Cullen said she would prefer to leave it alone at this point. Commissioner Marosok asked if rezoning would require the city to make improvements to the access of the property. Staff stated not that they could see. The rezoning would reduce the allowed uses on the property. Staff reported that two comments were received via phone calls, who both supported the rezoning. Hogle, seconded by Loeffler, moved to recommend approval of an ordinance to amend the Zoning Map regarding the RR-N District with findings and conditions described within the staff report. Motion carried 5-0. The recommendation to approve the ordinance amendment will be presented to the City Council on June 16, 2026. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 153.500.110 SUBD. 3, TO AMEND THE STANDARDS RELATED TO THE REPLACEMENT, ALTERATION, AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES The public hearing for amendments to the UDC to amend standards related to nonconforming buildings and structures was continued from the Planning Commission’s February 10, 2026 meeting where it was tabled for further discussion with the Watershed. Concerns were raised regarding nonconforming standards applicability and the use of variances as tools for vegetation and shoreline restoration. Planner Dahle noted one change made since the last presentation. The term “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. Planner Dahle explained that 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. Dahle outlined the additions and changes to the code, specifically highlighting changes that were recommended by the City Attorney. Commissioner Cullen stated that given the complication of language, more education is needed before the Planning Commission should act. Hogle, seconded by Fodor, moved to open the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Mike Isensee, Administrator of the Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District (CMSCWD) read a statement incorporated into the minutes herein: Scandia Planning Commission June 2, 2026 Page 5 of 7 Chair and members of the Planning Commission, My name is Mike Isensee, Administrator for the Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed UDC amendment The District appreciates the City’s work to clarify its ordinance language for nonconforming buildings and structures. We also appreciate that staff has acknowledged the importance of bringing local ordinance language into better alignment with Minnesota Statute 462.357, Subdivision 1e. Our request tonight is narrow and practical: the District respectfully asks the Planning Commission to recommend that the City include, or directly cross-reference, the full statutory language in Subdivision 1e(i), which states that when evaluating variances, zoning and building permit applications, or conditional use requests, the zoning authority shall require the property owner to address, when appropriate, stormwater runoff management, reducing impervious surfaces, increasing setback, restoration of wetlands, vegetative buffers, sewage treatment and water supply capabilities, and other conservation-designed actions. The Watershed District does not have this shoreland land-use authority. We do not decide zoning approvals, conditional uses, structure placement, setbacks standards, site grading or vegetation removals, or the broader development standards that shape how shoreland properties change over time. That authority rests with the counties or cities. In a community like Scandia, with regionally significant lakes, river resources, wetlands, and shoreland areas under continued development pressure, that authority carries a special responsibility to balance growth with resource protection. This clarification would also help resolve a recurring point of confusion. In several shoreland variance and ordinance amendment discussions over the past few years, there has been uncertainty about whether the City has authority to require mitigation as part of variance or redevelopment approvals. It would also help reduce the incorrect assumption that the Watershed District’s permitting authority will include them. Including this statutory language in the City’s ordinance framework would make clear that shoreland mitigation is part of the City’s land-use authority, while still allowing the Watershed District to support that work through technical review, permitting coordination, and restoration assistance. This language matters because it identifies the exact resource-protection issues that are most often at the center of shoreland development concerns in Scandia. The staff report suggests that this language may be better addressed in the Shoreland Management Regulations rather than in this UDC amendment. The District is open to the City placing the language in the most appropriate section of the code. But we do not believe the question of placement should become a reason to omit the language entirely. If the City believes the Shoreland Ordinance is the better location, then the Planning Commission should recommend that the language be incorporated there, or clearly cross- referenced from the UDC, as part of this process or through a defined follow-up amendment. Scandia Planning Commission June 2, 2026 Page 6 of 7 The important point is that this statutory language needs to be visible in the City’s local decision-making framework. This language does not require every applicant to complete every conservation measure in every situation. The phrase “when appropriate” is important. It allows proportionality and judgment. But it also ensures that the right questions are asked when shoreland properties are improved, expanded, redeveloped, or brought forward for discretionary approvals. Over the past two to three years, this Planning Commission has heard many concerns about shoreland development: vegetation removal, stormwater impacts, redevelopment pressure, nonconforming structures, screening, views from the water, and the cumulative effect of incremental changes around lakes and rivers. The language in Subdivision 1e(i) directly speaks to those issues. Including the language does not create a new or excessive standard. It gives applicants notice. It gives staff direction. It gives the Planning Commission and City Council a clear basis for asking consistent questions. And it helps ensure that the City’s ordinance does not only describe the rights of nonconforming structures, but also reflects the conservation responsibilities that state law places on shoreland decision-making. Both the DNR and the Watershed District are urging the City not to omit this provision. We respectfully ask the Planning Commission to recommend that Minnesota Statute 462.357, Subdivision 1e(i), be incorporated into the City’s local ordinance framework, either in this UDC amendment, through a clear cross-reference, or through a concurrent amendment to the Shoreland Management Regulations. Thank you for your time and careful deliberation on this matter. There were no further public comments. Hogle, seconded by Fodor, moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. In response to District Administrator Isensee’s comments, staff stated they do not believe inclusion of Subd 1e(i) is appropriate within the UDC and better suited for the Shoreland Ordinance. Commissioner Marosok stated his agreement. Chair Loeffler requested the Commissioners direct their questions related to the language presented tonight. Hogle, seconded by Fodor, moved to table the ordinance amendments for further discussion. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioners Marosok and Cullen will sit on the Shoreland Committee which was requested by the Commission at their May 5th meeting. Mayor Kronmiller and Council member Libby will represent the City Council. Scandia Planning Commission June 2, 2026 Page 7 of 7 GENERAL BUSINESS: DISCUSSION OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HEIGHT LIMITATION IN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Dahle presented draft ordinance language to address the limitations currently placed on the height of accessory structures in the city. Currently, accessory structures are limited to a maximum height of 35 feet and cannot be taller than the principal structure, with few exceptions. The draft ordinance has amended language to allow accessory structures to exceed the height of the principal structure in the Rural Residential-General (for lots over 5.0 acres) and Agricultural zoning districts subject to conditions and standards. Planner Dahle explained that flexibility from the standards may be permitted with a CUP. The Commission discussed whether a limit of “No more than 1.5 times the height of the principal structure,” or “35 feet maximum in height, regardless of principal structure height,” should be allowed. Commissioner Marosok said the 1.5 times the principal structure makes sense. Anything more than that should allow for the neighbors to comment. Commissioner Cullen suggested using a maximum number which would be easier to apply and relay to the public. Chair Loeffler said he believes using a proportion of the principal structure on smaller lots to define height of an accessory structure makes sense. Staff will prepare the ordinance amendment for a public hearing on July 7, 2026. CITY COUNCIL UPDATES Administrator Morell reported that the City Council approved the variance for 18521 Langly Avenue for replacement and expansion of a nonconforming structure within the ordinary high- water level setback and front setback at their meeting on May 19, 2026. ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA Staff announced there will be public hearings on July 7th for septic setbacks, expansion of a structure, and the ordinance amendment for height of accessory structures, with continued discussion of non-conforming structure ordinance language. ADJOURNMENT Hogle, seconded by Fodor, moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kyle Morell, City Administrator