Loading...
06.i Variance to Expand Legal Nonconforming Structure within the OHWL of Big Marine Lake at 18510 Norell Ave N. - Boyles 1 | P a g e Date of Meeting: July 21, 2026 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: T.J. Hofer, Consultant City Planner Greenlee Dahle, Consultant City Planner Re: Variance for Replacement and Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure within the Ordinary High-Water Level Setback at 18510 Norell Avenue North Applicant: Eric Boyles Zoning: RR-N, SM-O, FP-O Owner: Mickie S Dent Future Land Use: General Rural Location: 18510 Norell Ave N PID 3403220240022 Review Deadline August 3, 2026 The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to expand a legally nonconforming structure on a legally nonconforming lot within the ordinary high-water level (OHWL) setback of Big Marine Lake, that would not increase an existing legal nonconforming encroachment into the OHWL. The staff report to the Planning Commission from the July 7, 2026, meeting is attached and includes the full background of the request, as well as an evaluation of the request, and an analysis based on the standards in the Unified Development Code. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Proposed Conditions The proposed expansion would expand the existing structure laterally along the existing encroachment and create additional living area and allow for remodeling in the structure. The expansion would occur above an existing concrete surface, which currently encroaches 44.51 ft into the OHWL setback. The proposed expansion would not create additional impervious surfaces on the lot. 2 | P a g e Variance Section 153.500.060 Subd. 1 (B) establishes the standards for when the City shall approve a variance and mirrors Minn. Stat. 462.357, subd. 6(2). The variance must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and must be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter. A variance may be granted when enforcement of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties. The practical difficulties test criteria as established by Minnesota Statute and codified in the UDC and are detailed in the attached Planning Commission staff report and followed by staff’s analysis. ANALYSIS The submittal was sent to city staff and other regulatory agencies for review and comment, and comments have been incorporated into the resolution or staff has responded to comments in the attached Planning Commission report. The comments are detailed in the Planning Commission report that is attached. Staff reached out to the Comfort Lake Forest Lake Watershed District (CLFLWD) following the Planning Commission meeting on July 7, 2026. CLFLWD has indicated that a permit from the watershed district will be required. Planning Commission The request was heard at the July 7, 2026, meeting of the Planning Commission. A public hearing was held and no comments were received. 3 | P a g e The Planning Commission discussed the application and reviewed the conditions. The Commission noted that they believed the expansion was reasonable and commended the applicant on their work on the lot regarding shoreline restoration and rehabilitation. The Planning Commission moved to recommend approval of the request. The motion was approved with a vote of 5-0. Staff Analysis Staff find that the proposed plan is consistent with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan. COUNCIL ACTION The City Council can do one of the following: 1. Approve, with or without conditions, of the attached resolution. 2. Deny, with findings, of the attached resolution. 3. Table the request for further review/study. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed variance. Motion to recommend approval of the attached resolution to approve a variance to allow for the expansion of an existing nonconforming structure encroachment into the minimum structure setback to the ordinary high water level, with conditions as described by staff within the staff report. The findings included in the attached resolution and following conditions of approval are recommended: 1. The location and layout of structures and impervious surfaces on the lot shall be substantially consistent with the plans and setbacks submitted to the City and reviewed with this request, except where revisions are required with this approval. 2. The applicant shall secure all applicable permits from the watershed district, and other local, state, and federal entities. 3. The applicant shall pay all other fees and escrows associated with this application. 4. The applicant must commence the authorized use or improvement within one year of the date on which the variance is issued. 5. The applicant shall record the variance with Washington County within one year of the date when the variance is approved by the City. 4 | P a g e Attachments A. Resolution No. 07-21-26-03 Approving a Variance for Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure within the Ordinary High Water Level Setback for Parcel 34.032.20.24.0022 Located at 18510 Norell Avenue North B. Planning Commission Packet, “Variance for Replacement and Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure within the Ordinary High-Water Level Setback at 18510 Norell Avenue North”, dated July 7, 2026 CITY OF SCANDIA, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 07-21-26-03 APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL SETBACK FOR PARCEL 34.032.20.24.0022 LOCATED AT 18510 NORELL AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, Eric Boyles, (the “applicant”), on behalf of Mickey S Dent (the “owner”), has requested and made an application for a 50-foot variance from the 100-foot ordinary high water level (OHWL) setback (50-foot setback) of Big Marine Lake to allow for expansion of a nonconforming structure, on property located at 18510 Norell Avenue North, and the property is legally described as: Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 2, Anderson’s Big Lake Addition, Washington County, Minnesota.; and, WHEREAS, the City of Scandia has adopted Ordinance 198 Shoreland Management Regulations which requires a 100-foot minimum setback for structures from the ordinary high water level of Recreational Development Lakes; and, WHEREAS, said Ordinance 198 requires that 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 the ordinance. Any deviation from these requirements must be authorized by a variance; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance request at a duly noticed Public Hearing on July 7, 2026, and recommended that the City Council approve the request with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCANDIA, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve, a 50-foot variance from the 100-foot ordinary high water level (OHWL) setback (50-foot setback) to allow for expansion of a legally nonconforming structure within shoreland, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed use is a reasonable use of the property. A single-family dwelling is a permitted use in the RR-N and SM-O districts. 2. The size and location of the lot is not directly due to circumstances created by the property owner. Based on the overlapping setback standards, the improvement could not be located on the parcel without encroaching on a setback from a water resource. The applicant is proposing to maintain the encroachment into the OHWL setback. 3. If the variance were granted, it would not alter the essential character of the locality. Structures in the locality generally encroach into property line setbacks. 4. Economic conditions are not the sole factor in the variance. 5. The proposed variance is not related to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 6. The proposed variance will not impair adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 7. The proposed variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The applicants are proposing to maintain the encroachment into the front (streetside) setback. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall be met: 1. The location and layout of structures and impervious surfaces on the lot shall be substantially consistent with the plans and setbacks submitted to the City and reviewed with this request, except where revisions are required with this approval. 2. The applicant shall secure all applicable permits required from the watershed district as well as all local, state, and federal entities. 3. The applicant shall pay all other fees and escrows associated with this application. 4. The applicant must commence the authorized use or improvement within one year of the date on which the variance is issued. 5. The applicant shall record the variance with Washington County within one year of the date when the variance is approved by the City. Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 21st day of July 2026. Steve Kronmiller, Mayor ATTEST: Kyle Morell, City Administrator 1 | P a g e Date of Meeting: July 7, 2026 To: Chair Loeffler and Planning Commission Members From: Greenlee Dahle, Consultant City Planner TJ Hofer, Consultant City Planner Re: Variance for Replacement and Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure within the Ordinary High-Water Level Setback at 18510 Norell Avenue North Applicant: Eric Boyles Zoning: RR-N, SM-O, FP-O Owner: Mickie S Dent Future Land Use: General Rural Location: 18510 Norell Ave N PID 3403220240022 Review Deadline August 3, 2026 SUMMARY The Planning Commission is asked to consider an application for a variance. The Commission must hold a public hearing on the variance request. The Commission must determine if a practical difficulty exists, and if the variance being issued is the minimum action necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. The Commission is asked to make a recommendation to the City Council. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to expand a legally nonconforming structure within the ordinary high-water level (OHWL) setback of Big Marine Lake:  City of Scandia Ordinance No. 198 Shoreland Management Regulations, Sec. 6.4 – Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) Setback Staff recommend approval of the requested variance with conditions. 2 | P a g e BACKGROUND The property is zoned Rural Residential Neighborhood (RR-N) and within the Shoreland Management Overlay (SM-O) District of Big Marine Lake. Additionally, portions of the property are within the Floodplain Overlay District. The current request and proposed improvements to the lot does not include any portion of the lot within the floodplain. The existing single-family dwelling is nonconforming from the OHWL setback. The applicant is seeking to expand the structure, which is allowed by the Unified Development Code, but requires a variance based on Section 3.72 of the Shoreland Management Regulations (Shoreland Ordinance). The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to expand a nonconforming structure on a residential lot, that is nonconforming due to an encroachment into the 100-ft OHWL setback. The proposed improvement is the lateral expansion of a four-season porch which would extend over an existing impervious surface, with no further encroachment to the lake. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Existing Conditions The existing parcel is a nonconforming lot in the RR-N base zoning district and the SM-O district. Lot standards are detailed below with the existing and proposed conditions. Nonconforming standards are shown in bold text. The existing lot is legally nonconforming due to lot size, buildable area and lot width. The OHWL setback and front setback overlap for the majority of the lot, aside from a small area in the southeast portion of the lot. This area is approximately 70 sq. ft. and is the only location where a structure could be located to not be within a structure or OHWL setback. 3 | P a g e An accessory structure exists on the western side of the site that encroaches into the OHWL setback. This shed is currently located below the OHWL and below the 100-year flood elevation on FEMA maps and is proposed to be relocated closer to the principal structure, away from the lake. While shown as a “proposed structure” on the survey, the city approved the legal nonconforming accessory structure south of the dwelling in 2023 and the structure currently exists. The existing property was connected to the Big Marine Sewer Utility as part of the Anderson Erickson System in 2024. Proposed Conditions According to the submitted narrative, the applicant proposes to expand an existing four-season porch that maintains the 50.0 encroachment within the 100 ft OHWL setback of Big Marine Lake. The principal structure is a single-family dwelling which is a legally nonconforming and permitted use in the RR-N zoning district. Lot standards are detailed below with the proposed conditions of the lot. Nonconforming standards are shown in bold text. RR-N SM-O Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.) (Existing Lot of Record) 40,000 40,000 35,719.2 35,719.2 4 | P a g e RR-N SM-O Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Buildable Area (ac.) 1.00 N/A ~70.0 sq. ft. ~70.00 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width (ft.) 150 160 149.9 149.9 Lot Frontage (ft.) 100 N/A 149.9 149.9 Minimum Structure Setbacks (ft.) Front 40 N/A 38.8 38.8 Side 10 N/A 43.2 43.2 44.1 44.1 OHWL 100 100 50.0 50.0 Impervious Surface OHWL Setback (ft.) N/A 100 44.51 44.51 Maximum Lot Coverage 25% 25% 24.59% 24.59% The existing and proposed setback from the OHWL is 50.0 ft. Washington County issued a variance for an OHWL setback of 42 ft. for the construction of a single-family dwelling in 1993. The proposed deck expansion would extend above an existing concrete surface, which currently encroaches 44.51 ft into the OHWL setback. The proposed expansion would not create additional impervious surfaces on the lot. The accessory structure below the OHWL and 100-year flood elevation has been approved by the city to be located closer to the principal structure and away from the lake. Variance Section 153.500.060 Subd. 1 (B) establishes the standards for when the City shall approve a variance and mirrors Minn. Stat. 462.357, subd. 6(2). The variance must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and must be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter. A variance may be granted when enforcement of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties. To constitute practical difficulties, all three factors of the test must be satisfied. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. The practical difficulties test criteria established by Minnesota Statute and codified in the UDC are listed below in italics followed by staff’s analysis: a. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. 5 | P a g e The proposed use is a reasonable use of the property. A single-family dwelling with an accessory structure is a permitted use in the RR-N and SM-O districts. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The proposed use of a single-family dwelling with an accessory structure is legally nonconforming and permitted use in the RR-N and SM-O districts. The proposed addition would convert and expand a screen porch to a year-round living space within the principal structure. The proposed expansion includes internal alterations as well for a functional kitchen and living space, which is a reasonable use of the residential lot. The landowner did not create the practical difficulties associated with the OHWL and property line setbacks, which restrict the buildable area on the property and limit the possibilities for expansion. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. If the variance were granted, it would not alter the essential character of the locality. Structures in the locality generally encroach into the OHWL setback due to historic lots that are nonconforming. d. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. Economic conditions are not the sole factor in the variance. e. May include, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The proposed variance is not related to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. f. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed variance will not impair adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. g. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. 6 | P a g e The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. ANALYSIS Review Comments The submittal was sent to city staff and other regulatory agencies for review and comment. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District CMSCWD staff provided no comment. Department of Natural Resources The DNR Area Hydrologist provided the following comment: Please ensure stormwater is treated properly. Please ensure any vegetation impacted by construction either temporarily or permanently is identified and mitigated appropriately. Engineering Department The City Engineer provided no comment. Fire Department The Fire Chief provided no comment. Public Works Department The Public Works Director provided no comment. Washington County Washington County staff provided no comment. Staff Analysis Staff find that the proposed plan is consistent with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan. Staff contacted the applicant who submitted a revised narrative addressing the three-factor test for practical difficulties. According to the applicant, an addition to the principal structure is necessary for the current and proposed use of a single-family dwelling, as it would include a functional kitchen and the necessary utility improvements. The narrative also states that the current screen porch does not provide adequate year-round living space for the home. Both the lot and principal structure are legally nonconforming, and a single-family dwelling with an accessory structure is permitted in residential and shoreland zoning districts. Staff find that the proposed expansion of the porch above an existing impervious surface is reasonable. 7 | P a g e The unique circumstances of the property restrict any residential expansion or improvements to the principal structure without variance approval. Staff find that the practical difficulties test is met based on the revised narrative. 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. Staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed variance. Staff have prepared conditions of approval for consideration: 1. The location and layout of structures and impervious surfaces on the lot shall be substantially consistent with the plans and setbacks submitted to the City and reviewed with this request, except where revisions are required with this approval. 2. The applicant shall pay all other fees and escrows associated with this application. 3. The applicant must commence the authorized use or improvement within one year of the date on which the variance is issued. 4. The applicant shall record the variance with Washington County within one year of the date when the variance is approved by the City. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend the Planning Commission: Motion to recommend approval of the attached resolution to approve a variance to allow for the expansion of an existing nonconforming structure encroachment into the minimum structure setback to the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL), with conditions as described by staff within the staff report. Attachments 1. Draft Resolution No. 07-21-26-XX 2. Application 3. Narrative 4. Survey/Site Plan CITY OF SCANDIA, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 07-21-26-XX APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL SETBACK FOR PARCEL 34.032.20.24.0022 LOCATED AT 18510 NORELL AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, Eric Boyles, (the “applicant”), on behalf of Mickey S Dent (the “owner”), has requested and made an application for a 50-foot variance from the 100-foot ordinary high water level (OHWL) setback (50-foot setback) of Big Marine Lake to allow for expansion of a nonconforming structure, on property located at 18510 Norell Avenue North, and the property is legally described as: Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 2, Anderson’s Big Lake Addition, Washington County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the City of Scandia has adopted Ordinance 198 Shoreland Management Regulations which requires a 100-foot minimum setback for structures from the ordinary high water level of Recreational Development Lakes; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance request at a duly noticed Public Hearing on July 7, 2026, and recommended that the City Council approve the request with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCANDIA, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve, a 50-foot variance from the 100-foot ordinary high water level (OHWL) setback (50-foot setback) to allow for expansion of a nonconforming structure, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed use is a reasonable use of the property. A single-family dwelling is a permitted use in the RR-N and SM-O districts. 2. The size and location of the lot is not directly due to circumstances created by the property owner. Based on the overlapping setback standards, the improvement could not be located on the parcel without encroaching on a setback from a water resource. The applicant is proposing to maintain the encroachment into the OHWL setback. 3. If the variance were granted, it would not alter the essential character of the locality. Structures in the locality generally encroach into property line setbacks. 4. Economic conditions are not the sole factor in the variance. 5. The proposed variance is not related to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 6. The proposed variance will not impair adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 7. The proposed variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The applicants are proposing to maintain the encroachment into the front (streetside) setback. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall be met: 1. The location and layout of structures and impervious surfaces on the lot shall be substantially consistent with the plans and setbacks submitted to the City and reviewed with this request, except where revisions are required with this approval. 2. The applicant shall secure all applicable permits required from the watershed district as well as all local, state, and federal entities. 3. The applicant shall pay all other fees and escrows associated with this application. 4. The applicant must commence the authorized use or improvement within one year of the date on which the variance is issued. 5. The applicant shall record the variance with Washington County within one year of the date when the variance is approved by the City. Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 21st day of July 2026. Steve Kronmiller, Mayor ATTEST: Kyle Morell, City Administrator 36 7.3 © Bolton & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 0 Legend This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and other sources affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Scandia is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. Disclaimer: 7/2/2026 8:21 AM 257 Feet City Limits Parcels 04/29/2026 Lot Lines Shoreland Overlay PUD Overlay Lakes Mining Overlay Saint Croix River District Zoning Agricultural Core Agricultural Preserves Rural Residential General Village Neighborhood Rural Commercial Rural Residential Neighborhood Village Historic Core Village Center Open Space - Planned Unit Development Industrial Park File No._____________ APPLICATION FOR PLANNING AND ZONING REQUEST City of Scandia, Minnesota 14727 209th Street North, Scandia, MN 55073 Phone 651/433-2274 Fax 651/433-5112 Web https://www.cityofscandia.com/ Please read before completing: The City will not begin processing an application that is incomplete. Detailed submission requirements may be found in the Scandia Development Code, available at the City office and website www.cityofscandia.com) and in the checklist forms for the particular type of application. Application fees are due at the time of application and are n ot refundable. 1. Property Location: (street address, if applicable) 2. Washington County Parcel ID: 3. Complete Legal Description: (attach if necessary) 4. Owner(s): Phone: (h) (b) Street Address: E-Mail: City/ State: Zip: 5. Applicant/Contact Person: Phone: (h) (b) Street Address (Mailing): E-Mail: City/ State: Zip: 6. Requested Action(s): (check all that apply) ____ Variance ____ Variance Extension ____ Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ____ CUP Extension ____ CUP/ Open Space Subdivision. ____ CUP/ Planned Unit Development ____ Interim Use Permit (IUP) ____ Annual Operators Permit ____ Administrative Permit (type)____________________ ____ Site Plan Review (type)____________________ ____ Site Plan Modification ____ Site Plan Extension ____ Sign (Permanent) ____ Amendment (Development Code ) ____ Amendment (Comp. Plan ) ____ Subdivision, Minor ____ Subdivision, Preliminary Plat/Major ____ Subdivision, Final Plat ____ Environmental Review ____ Wetland Review X 55047 Eric Boyles 18510 Norell Ave N. Marine on St. Croix, MN 55047 18510 Norell Ave N. Marine on St. Croix, MN 2013 REV TRS MICKIE S DENT ANDERSON'S BIG LAKE ADD Lot 7 Block 2 SubdivisionCd 91060 34.032.20.24.0022 18510 NORELL AVE N SCANDIA MN 7. Brief Description of Request: (attach separate sheet if necessary; include Variance Rationale if necessary) _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 8. Project Name: I hereby apply for consideration of the above described request and declare that the information and materials submitted with this application are complete and accurate. I understand that no application shall be considered complete unless accompanied by fees as required by city ordinance. Applications for projects requiring more than one type of review shall include the cumulative total of all application fees specified for each type of review. I understand that applicants are required to reimburse the city for all out-of-pocket costs incurred for processing, reviewing and hearing the application. These costs shall include, but are not limited to: parcel searches; publication and mailing of notices; review by the city’s engineering, planning and other consultants; legal costs, and recording fees. An escrow deposit to cover these costs will be collected by the city at the time of application. The minimum escrow deposit shall be cumulative total of all minimum escrow deposits for each type of review required for the project, unless reduced as provided for by ordinance. The city may increase the amount of the required escrow deposit at any time if the city’s costs are reasonably expected to exceed the minimum amount. Any balance remaining after review is complete will be refunded to the applicant. No interest is paid on escrow deposits. PLEASE NOTE: If the fee owner is not the applicant, the applicant must provide written authorization by the fee owner in order for this application to be considered complete. Property Fee Owner Signature(s) Date: Applicant Signature(s) Date: For City Use Only Application Fees: _______________________ Escrow Deposit: _______________________ See attached statement of practical difficulty Porch Replacement and Upgrade Mickie S Dent 6/2/2026 Eric S. Boyles 6/2/2026 City of Scandia, Minnesota Planning and Zoning Applications Fee Schedule Excerpt of Ordinance No. 2023-14, Adopted December19, 2023 Application Type Application Fee Escrow Minimum Variance $200.00 $1,800.00 • Variance Extension - Administrative $50.00 • Variance Extension – City Council $100.00 $450.00 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) • Pre-application Review – Planning Commission $50.00 $750.00 • Conditional Use Permit $200.00 $2,500.00 • CUP Amendment $200.00 $2,500.00 • CUP Extension – Administrative $50.00 • CUP Extension – City Council $100.00 $450.00 Interim Use Permit (IUP) $200.00 $1,500.00 Annual Operating Permit • Annual Operating Permit Renewal – Administrative $100.00 $450.00 • Annual Operating Permit Renewal – City Council $200.00 $1,500.00 Administrative Permits • Grading/Land Alteration $50.00 $600.00 • Grading/Land Alteration more than 100 cubic yards material $50.00 $1,000.00 • Land Clearing $75.00 $500.00 • Lot Line Adjustment/Lot Consolidation $50.00 $375.00 • Cell Tower Administrative Permit $50.00 $375.00 • Sign (permanent) $50.00 • All other Administrative Permits $50.00 Planned Unit Development (PUD) • Planned Unit Development Concept Plan $200.00 $750.00 • PUD Preliminary Plan $200.00 $1,500.00 • PUD Final Plan $200.00 $3,000.00 • PUD Amendment $500.00 $1,500.00 Site Plan Review • Pre-application Site Plan Review $50.00 $750.00 • Site Plan Review, Minor Projects $100.00 $1,500.00 • Site Plan Review, Major Projects $250.00 $3,000.00 • Plan Modification $50.00 $500.00 • Site Plan Extension – Administrative $50.00 • Site Plan Extension – Council $100.00 $450.00 Amendment • Rezoning (Map Amendment) $500.00 $1,500.00 • Amendment—Development Code Text $500.00 $1,500.00 • Amendment—Comprehensive Plan Map $500.00 $1,500.00 • Amendment—Comprehensive Plan Text $500.00 $1,500.00 Application Type Application Fee Escrow Minimum Environmental Review • $750.00 $3,000.00 • EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) $750.00 $15,000.00 Subdivision • Concept Plan No Fee • Minor Subdivision $100.00 $1,500.00 • Preliminary Plat/ Major Subdivision $250.00 $2,500.00 • Final Plat $200.00 $1,500.00 • Park Dedication Fee for each new parcel $3,000.00 Vacation • Right-of-Way $350.00 $1,500.00 • Utility Easement $350.00 $1,500.00 Wetland Review • Wetland Review including No loss exemption / determination, Delineation approval, Replacement plan application, Wetland banking application, and other $100.00 $800.00 Mines • Conditional Use Permit $500.00 $10,000.00 • Annual Operating Permit $500.00 $5,000.00 City Staff and Consultant Billing • For applications that include excessive staff time, services performed by City personnel will be billed at one and one-half (1.5) times the actual payroll hourly rate. Services provided by City consultants will be billed at the current consultant rate. All recording fees to be billed at current rates. Investigation Fee • Whenever any work for which a city permit is required has commenced without first obtaining a permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit will be issued. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected whether or not a permit is subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the permit fee required by this schedule. The payment of the investigation fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all other provisions of this code nor from any prescribed by law. Payment of Fee and Escrow Deposit • No application shall be considered complete until the fees have been paid. Application fees are not refundable. In addition to the application fee, applicants shall be required to reimburse the city for all out-of-pocket costs that are incurred for processing, reviewing and hearing the application. These costs shall include but are not limited to: parcel searches; publication and mailing of notices; review by the city’s engineering, planning and other consultants; legal costs, and recording fees. A minimum escrow deposit to cover these costs shall be collected by the city at the time of application. The Zoning Administrator shall have discretion to increase the amount of the escrow for any application at any time if the city’s costs are reasonably expected to exceed the minimum amount. The Zoning Administrator shall also have discretion to require an escrow deposit even where no minimum amount is specified by this ordinance, if authorized by the Development Code. Applications for projects requiring more than one type of review (for example, a Conditional Use Permit and a Preliminary Plat) shall include the cumulative total of all application fees specified for each type of review. The minimum escrow deposit shall be the cumulative total for each type of application required for the project, unless the Zoning Administrator determines that this amount would significantly exceed the city’s reasonable expenses to review the applications, in which case the amount of the escrow deposit may be reduced. After review of the application has been completed and all costs have been paid, any costs exceeding the escrow balance shall be invoiced to the applicant. Any escrow balance remaining shall be refunded to the applicant. No interest shall be paid on escrow deposits. Amendments to previously approved applications shall require the payment of the same fees as for the initial permit application, except for Plan Modifications not requiring review by the Planning Commission and City Council or as otherwise provided by the Development Code. EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) 18510 Norell Avenue North — Variance Application Statement of Practical Difficulty Page 1 STATEMENT OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY Variance from Section 6.4 Ordinary High-Water Level Structure Setback 18510 Norell Avenue North, Scandia, Minnesota • PID 34.032.20.24.0022 Applicants: Eric Boyles and Mickie Dent Request The applicants request a variance from the 100-foot ordinary high-water level (OHWL) structure setback of Section 6.4 to allow replacement and lateral northward extension of the existing porch on the legally nonconforming principal residence. The existing dwelling was authorized by a Washington County variance recorded in 1993 at a 42-foot OHWL setback. The proposed work maintains that setback exactly: no point of the structure moves closer to the OHWL than the existing condition. The porch extends only to the north, into the conforming side yard, and is constructed over existing impervious surface. The applicants acknowledge, consistent with the City’s determination under Shoreland Ordinance Section 3.72 and the Minnesota DNR, that this work requires a variance because the expanded outside dimensions of a nonconforming structure do not meet the Section 6.4 setback. This statement establishes the practical difficulty supporting that variance under the Board’s review criteria. Threshold Conditions Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The property is designated for single-family residential use. The proposed porch is an accessory improvement to an existing single-family dwelling and is fully consistent with that designation. Harmony with the purpose and intent of the Chapter. The Shoreland Chapter exists to protect water quality, shoreline vegetation, and the public water. The proposal advances that intent: no point of the structure moves closer to the OHWL; the porch is built over existing impervious surface with no net increase in coverage (the parcel remains at 23.0%, below the 25% maximum); and stormwater is managed under a plan approved in writing by the Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District. The condition the Chapter regulates — the structure’s distance from the OHWL — is preserved unchanged. Practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement. Strict enforcement would deny the owners any reasonable improvement to an already-developed, legally established residence, because the lot has no conforming building envelope in which to make the improvement. Practical Difficulty Criteria 1. Reasonable use not otherwise permitted. A porch replacement and side-yard extension on a single- family lakeshore home is a reasonable use. The City has already characterized it as such. In Resolution 07-18-23-05 (July 18, 2023), Finding 1, the Council identified “expansions that … maintain the OHWL setback nonconformity without increasing the nonconformity” as a reasonable alternative for improving this structure. The current proposal does precisely that. 2. Unique plight not created by the landowner. The parcel is a 0.37-acre legally nonconforming lot of record, where the RR-N district now requires 2.5 acres — a condition created by the original platting of Anderson’s Big Lake Addition, decades before shoreland standards existed. The dwelling’s 18510 Norell Avenue North — Variance Application Statement of Practical Difficulty Page 2 nonconforming setback was established by the 1993 variance precisely because the lot has no location meeting the 100-foot setback. The plight — no conforming envelope in which to improve the home — arises from the lot’s pre-existing dimensions and the combined OHWL, front, and side-yard encumbrances, not from any act of the current owners, who purchased the structure in its nonconforming condition. 3. Essential character of the locality preserved. The proposal does not alter the character of the locality. It maintains the existing lakeward setback, extends only laterally (more than 40 feet from the north side lot line, where 10 feet is required), and sits on existing hardscape, leaving shoreline vegetation and the established view undisturbed. This aligns with the Commission’s stated, longstanding priority of preventing further lakeward encroachment while accommodating side-yard improvement. 4. Not based on economic considerations alone. The request is not based on economics. It addresses the functional limitations of the existing porch on a physically constrained lot; the side-yard location is the only reasonable place to make the improvement given the encumbered envelope. 5. Light, air, public safety, and property values. Set well beyond the side-yard setback, the porch preserves light and air to adjacent property, has no effect on public streets, fire access, or public safety, and is consistent with and supportive of neighborhood property values. 6. Minimum action required. This is the minimum action required to address the practical difficulty. The proposal maintains the OHWL setback nonconformity without increasing it — the least possible effect on the regulated condition — expands only into the conforming side yard, and uses existing impervious surface. The Council itself, in Finding 1 of the 2023 Resolution, identified this approach as more minimal than the lakeward expansion it denied. No less-impactful alternative achieves reasonable use. Response to Agency Concerns Stormwater. Stormwater is addressed by the previously approved improvements and raingarden under Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Permit 23-029. The District has confirmed approval of this project in writing (see attached). Because the porch is built over existing impervious surface, there is no net increase in runoff. Shoreline visibility. The structure’s visibility from the lake is unchanged, because its lakeward face does not move. The applicants are prepared to accept a condition maintaining the existing shoreline vegetative screening if the Board finds it warranted since the owners have a track record of shoreline restoration improvements. Conclusion The proposal is the precise improvement the Council identified as reasonable and minimal for this property, made on a uniquely constrained nonconforming lot, with the regulated OHWL setback preserved exactly and no net environmental impact. The applicants respectfully request that the Board find a practical difficulty established and grant the variance. Attachments: A. Certificate of Survey / Site Plan showing existing and proposed porch footprints, OHWL dimensions, and side- yard setbacks B. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District written approval (Permit 23-029 and confirmation email) C. 1993 Washington County Findings of Fact and Order Granting Variance 18510 Norell Avenue North — Variance Application Statement of Practical Difficulty Page 3 D. Resolution 07-18-23-05 (for reference to Finding 1) 4/22/24