7.b i Resolution 10-16-18-08 Denying a variance from the wetland setback - 18884 Layton Ave. N
CITY OF SCANDIA, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 10-16-18-08
DENYING A VARIANCE FOR 18884 LAYTON AVENUE NORTH
WHEREAS, Joseph and Katherine Reinhardt have made an application for an after-the-
fact variance from the required wetland setbacks for a driveway that was constructed at 18884
Layton Avenue North; and
WHEREAS, the property is legally described as follows:
Lot 8 Block 3 Bliss Plat 2nd Subdivision, Washington County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the applicants constructed a driveway from Langly Avenue North to their
property at 18884 Layton Avenue North in 2017 through a protected wetland, and did not seek or
receive a driveway, land alternation, or wetland permit to construct the driveway; and
WHEREAS, the City of Scandia, in its capacity as the Local Governmental Unit (LGU)
for the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) found the driveway construction to be a
violation of the WCA, and the Minnesota DNR issued a wetland restoration order for the
violation; and
WHEREAS, the applicants submitted a wetland replacement application to the City for
review under the WCA rules; and
WHEREAS, the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) reviewed the wetland replacement
plan application at the request of the City, and denied the application on the following grounds:
1) the new driveway was not needed to provide access to the property’s septic system or to
provide access for storage of items on the property; 2) the applicants did not submit two
alternatives as required by the sequencing rules; and 3) the City stated that the driveway did not
meet the Development Code requirements; and
WHEREAS, the applicants appealed the TEP decision to deny the wetland replacement
plan application to the City, and the appeal was heard by the City’s Board of Adjustments and
Appeals in January 2018; and the Board of Adjustments and Appeals upheld the denial of the
wetland replacement application and affirmed the TEP’s conclusions; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals decision noted that the applicants
had a final alternative to seek approval to keep the driveway by submitting a variance
application, including a detailed survey, to the City for approval; and that if the City granted the
variance for the alternative access, then the after-the-fact replacement application would be
moot; and
Resolution No.: 10-16-18-08
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, the applicants submitted the after-the-fact variance application to the City
for the driveway access from Langly Avenue North on September 4, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request for the Variance at a duly
noticed Public Hearing on October 2, 2018 and recommended that the City Council deny the
variance request; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SCANDIA, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, that it should
and hereby does deny the Variance request to permit the driveway that was constructed within
the boundary of a protected wetland on the parcel at 18884 Layton Avenue North, based on the
following findings:
1. The driveway constructed from Langly Avenue to the property is not consistent
with goals and policies for the Shoreland District in the Comprehensive Plan and
the purposes and intent of the Development Code, which includes the Shoreland
Management Ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan and Shoreland Ordinance
include policies to preserve wetlands and require wetland setbacks. The proposed
variance would negatively impact a wetland, and an alternative access to the
parcels with frontage on Langly Avenue is available that would not impact
wetlands or wetland setbacks and would be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and purposes and intent of the Development Code.
2. Single-family residences are permitted in the General Rural District and
Shoreland District, and the current single-family residential use is a reasonable
use on the parcel. The existing residential use does not require a second driveway
access, and the City’s Engineering Standards do not permit a second driveway on
the property to serve the existing residential use.
3. The practical difficulties are not unique to the parcel. Many property owners may
wish to have a second driveway access to their parcels, but this is not permitted by
the City’s Engineering Standards, and in this case a viable access exists to serve
the parcels with frontage on Langley Avenue North that is not limited by the
physical characteristics of the property.
5. The aerial view of Langly Avenue shows that the wetland on the Langly parcels
of the applicants’ property is part of a large wetland complex that is located on
many properties in the area. The other parcels that have boundaries on Langly
Avenue North have their driveway access from other streets and did not impact
the wetland adjacent to Langly to provide access to their properties.
6. The practical difficulties are related to economic conditions alone—the
applicant’s desire to have additional access to the parcels with frontage on Langly
Avenue North for storage and other uses. However, a significant amount of
storage area is available on the property on the parcels that front Layton Avenue
Resolution No.: 10-16-18-08
Page 3 of 3
North that can be accessed from the existing driveway, and an option for access to
the Langly parcels is available from the existing driveway to the parcels that front
on Langly Avenue North that is not limited by physical conditions that would
constitute practical difficulties.
7. The driveway does not impair the supply of light or air to adjacent properties or
increase congestion, endanger the public, or substantially diminish or impair
property values in the neighborhood.
8. The requested variance is not the minimum action required to provide access to
the septic system and parcels with frontage on Langley Avenue North or to
provide for storage areas on the property. There is are access and storage options
that would not require a variance or impact wetlands on the property.
9. The variance is not related to a need for direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the denial includes the following comments:
1. The DNR requested that the City remind the applicants that they need to comply
with the DNR’s Restoration Order.
2. The applicant shall combine the five parcels at 18884 Layton Avenue for tax
purposes as required by previous variances that permitted the construction of the
buildings on the property.
3. The applicant shall pay all fees and escrows associated with the variance
application.
Adopted by the Scandia City Council this 16th day of October, 2018.
______________________________
Christine Maefsky, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Neil Soltis, Administrator/Clerk
Memorandum
To: Scandia City Council
Reference: Reinhardt Variance Request
Copies To: Neil Soltis, City
Administrator
Brenda Eklund, City Clerk
Joseph and Katherine
Reinhardt
Project No.: 16622.009
From: Sherri Buss, RLA AICP,
Planner
Routing:
Date: October 10, 2018
SUBJECT: Request for an After-the-Fact Variance from Required Wetland
Setbacks for an Existing Driveway
MEETING DATE: October 16, 2018
LOCATION: 18884 Layton Avenue North
APPLICANTS: Joseph and Katherine Reinhardt
ZONING: General Rural (GR) District and Shoreland Overlay District
60-DAY PERIOD: November 5, 2018
ITEMS REVIEWED: Application, survey, attorney letter, City and agency records regarding
wetland decision
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST:
The applicants are requesting an after-the-fact variance from the required wetland setbacks for
a driveway that they constructed on their property to give access to the rear portion of the
property from Langly Avenue. The driveway was constructed through a protected wetland, and
the applicants did not seek or receive a driveway, land alteration, or wetland permit prior to the
driveway construction.
The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) for the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and
City Council reviewed the applicants’ request to permit the wetland impacts by approving an
after-the-face wetland replacement plan under the WCA rules in early 2018. The TEP and City
Reinhardt Variance Request
Scandia City Council Page 2 October 16, 2018
Council found that the applicant’s request could not be justified under the WCA rules.
However, the City Council’s decision noted that the WCA rules permit the applicants to seek a
variance from the City’s zoning standards in order to permit the driveway. The applicants are
seeking the after-the-fact variance approval to permit the driveway where it was constructed.
The property consists of 5 parcels with a total area of 1.38 acres, and is located in the
Shoreland Overlay District of Big Marine Lake, a Recreational Development Lake.
BACKGROUND
1. Driveway Creation and Wetland Impacts
The applicants own five contiguous parcels. Three of the parcels have frontage on Layton
Avenue, (“Layton parcels”) and 2 of the parcels have frontage on Langly Avenue (“Langly
parcels). The lots are shown on the applicants’ survey.
The applicants’ main driveway accesses the property from Layton Avenue and is 75 feet wide.
The driveway provides access to the garage and storage building. In the past, the applicants
used a second driveway from Layton Avenue to access the septic system and to access exterior
storage behind the building. This driveway was not located on their property. They also
occasionally used a third driveway from Langly Avenue that crossed another neighboring
property to access the Langly parcels for storage. The Reinhardts did not have easement
agreements to use the driveways that were located on the other properties. The owners of the
non-Reinhardt properties where the second and third driveways were located stopped
permitting access through their properties in 2017.
The Reinhardts then constructed a new driveway from Langly Avenue to access the Langly
parcels in 2017. They constructed the driveway through a protected wetland, but did not obtain
the required wetland permit or other permits for the driveway construction. The driveway
construction impacted 4,608 square feet of the wetland, well beyond the diminimus standard in
the Shoreland Ordinance and WCA regulations. The driveway from Langly is shown on the
survey. The entire southern half of the parcel where the driveway is located is occupied by a
wetland. A driveway could not be constructed from Langly Avenue to avoid the wetland.
2. Wetland Conservation Act Process and TEP Findings
The Reinhardts’ violation of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) was reported to
and reviewed by the DNR and City, which serves as the responsible Local Governmental Unit
(LGU) for the WCA. The DNR issued a restoration order for the violation. The City found the
driveway construction to be a violation of the WCA. The Reinhardts submitted a wetland
replacement plan to the City, requesting that the City permit the wetland impacts if they
mitigated the impacts through wetland creation in another location. The LGU must review
Wetland Replacement Plans to determine if they meets the requirements of WCA. A Technical
Evaluation Panel (TEP) assists the City with the review of replacement plans.
The Reinhardts stated that the driveway was needed, and therefore the City should approve the
replacement plan. They stated that the new driveway was needed to access their septic
system, storage buildings and areas on their property, and to access the Langly lots so that they
could use this portion of their property.
Reinhardt Variance Request
Scandia City Council Page 3 October 16, 2018
In the fall of 2017, representatives from the Washington Conservation District (WCD), the
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), and Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix
Watershed District (CMSCWD) and the City Administrator met as the TEP to review the after-
the-fact wetland replacement application from the Reinhardts, based on the WCA rules:
When a wetland violation occurs, the WCA may permit the fill and approve a wetland
replacement plan if the fill can be justified under the WCA rules through a process call
“sequencing.”
If the fill cannot be justified based on the rules, then the wetland fill is denied, and the
wetland must be restored. (In this case, the driveway would need to be removed and
the area that was disturbed would need to be restored, consistent with a Wetland
Replacement Order that has been approved by the DNR.)
The TEP denied the application for the replacement plan, on the following grounds: (i) the
applicant did not demonstrate that the new driveway was needed to provide access to the
property’s septic system or to provide access to the storage of items on the property; (ii) the
applicants did not submit two alternatives as required by the sequencing rules (no action is not
an option); and (iii) the TEP deferred to a memo from the City Planner regarding whether the
driveway met the Development Code requirements. The Planner’s memo stated that the 2
Langly parcels could not be sold or developed separate from the Layton parcels, that the City’s
Engineering standards permit only one driveway per property, and therefore the driveway did
not meet the City’s Code requirements.
The City Administrator then signed the TEP findings as the LGU denying the after-the-fact
wetland replacement application, which was appealed by the Reinhardts on December 19,
2017.
3. City Council – Board of Adjustments and Appeals
The applicants appealed the TEP decision to deny the Wetland Replacement Plan Application
to the City. Under WCA rules, the City is the Local Governmental Unit for the WCA, and
appeals of TEP decisions are heard by the City’s Board of Adjustments and Appeals, which is
the City Council. The City Council heard the appeal in January 2018, and upheld the denial of
the after-the-fact wetland replacement application, based on the following:
The Landowners have not demonstrated entitlement to an after-the-fact wetland
replacement application based on the evidence.
The Council upheld the TEP’s conclusions that
o The new driveway was not needed to provide access to the property’s septic
system;
o The new driveway was not needed to provide access to the storage of items on
the property; and
o An alternative access to the rear of the property is available.
The Council’s findings also noted the following:
Under WCA, the landowners’ had a final alternative to try to keep the driveway where it
was constructed. They could submit a variance application, including a detailed survey,
to allow the City and the Planning Commission to determine whether the driveway
access from Langly meets the criterial for a variance.
Reinhardt Variance Request
Scandia City Council Page 4 October 16, 2018
If the City grants the variance for an alternative access on the property, then the after-
the-fact replacement application is moot.
The Reinharts had an opportunity to appeal the decision of the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. The Reinhardts did not file an
appeal to BWSR.
The Reinhardts have applied for a variance from the Development Code requirements to permit
an alternative driveway to access the Langly lots. This driveway would need a variance from
the wetland setback requirements.
In essence, the Planning Commission and Council should consider the request to create
the driveway from Langly Avenue as if this request were being made prior to the
construction of the driveway. The central issue for the City is whether the proposed
driveway would have met the criteria for approval of a variance to impact the wetland if it
had been applied for prior to construction.
EVALUATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST
The following factors are evaluated for every variance request, to determine if it meets the
criteria to approve a variance:
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan describes the General Rural District as a residential area of mixed lot
sizes. The Plan supports single-family residential uses in the GR District, and states that overall
density in the District should meet the Metropolitan Council requirement of no more than 1
housing unit per 10 acres, but acknowledges that there are a significant number of existing
smaller parcels in the District, that areas around the lakes in Scandia that do not meet the lot
size and density standard, and that this will continue.
The Comprehensive Plan includes goals to protect the water resources in the City through
enforcement of the requirements of the WCA and local ordinances. The Shoreland Ordinance
includes requirements for setbacks from wetlands that were adopted to protect those resources.
The driveway is located within the wetland boundary, with no setback. The entire southern half
of the parcel where the driveway is located is occupied by a wetland. A driveway could not be
constructed on this parcel to avoid the wetland. The applicants have applied for the variance
with a rationale that the driveway is needed for access to the Langly parcels, and no other
access is available to the Langly parcels.
The staff found that there is an alternative, viable access to the Langly parcels on the property
at 18884 Layton that would not impact wetlands or wetland buffers; that the finding is consistent
with the prior finding of the TEP Panel and Board of Adjustments and Appeals; that this access
is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to protect wetlands; and
that the Reinhardt’s proposed driveway is not consistent due to the wetland impacts that would
be needed for its construction.
Reinhardt Variance Request
Scandia City Council Page 5 October 16, 2018
Development Code Requirements: Lot Size, Nonconforming Lots, and Setbacks
The applicants’ property includes five parcels with a total area of 1.38 acres. The minimum lot
size required for single-family residential uses in the Shoreland District of Recreational
Development Lakes is 2.5 acres.
Each of the five parcels in the Reinhardt’s property is smaller than the current minimum lot size
requirement. Each is a legal nonconforming lot. The Shoreland Ordinance and State Statute
require the following for these lots:
In a group of 2 or more contiguous lots of record under a common ownership, an
individual lot must be considered as a separate parcel of land for the purpose of sale or
development if it is at least 66 percent of the dimensional standard for lot width and lot
sizes for the Shoreland classification; if it is connected to a public sewer or suitable for
an on-site sewer system; if impervious coverage does not exceed 25%; and if
development of the lot would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
A lot that does not meet the requirements listed in the previous bullet must be combined
with one or more contiguous lots so that they equal one or more conforming lots as
much as possible.
None of the parcels within the Reinhardt’s property meet the criteria to be considered a
separate parcel for purpose of sale or development. Each of the lots does not meet the
minimum size requirement, and the impervious cover on some parcels exceeds 25%.
Therefore, the five parcels are considered to be one property. The City Attorney’s
opined that the 5 parcels should be combined as a single parcel based on the Shoreland
Ordinance and Minnesota Statutes in his analysis for the January 16 Council meeting.
In 2003 and 2006, the Township and County granted the previous owner variances to construct
the buildings on the parcels, which cross parcel boundaries and do not meet the required
setbacks for each parcel. The variance approvals required that the parcels be combined so that
the buildings would meet the setback requirements. The City Attorney stated in a separate
letter in 2006 that all five parcels should be considered one parcel due to the small size of each
parcel and the Code standards for nonconforming parcels. The property owner did not combine
the parcels into a single tax parcel as required by the Township and County in 2006, but based
on the Code requirements for non-conforming parcels, the five Reinhardt parcels must be
considered to be one parcel for purposes of sale or development. This means that:
The existing buildings on the property meet the setback requirements only if the parcels
are considered to be one parcel.
The Langly parcels cannot be sold separately from the Layton parcels because the
resulting parcels would not meet the minimum lot size requirements of the Development
Code.
If the City approves the variance request, the approval should include a condition that
the five parcels be combined into a single parcel for tax purposes.
Accessory Structures
The variance request does not include additional accessory structures.
Reinhardt Variance Request
Scandia City Council Page 6 October 16, 2018
Lot Coverage
The Shoreland Overlay District permits up to 25% lot coverage. The survey did not include a
calculation of impervious coverage. The Planner estimated the current lot coverage to be
approximately 18%. The existing coverage meets the ordinance requirement.
The sketches the applicants submitted state that the driveway is approximately 13 feet wide and
approximately 150 feet in length. The additional impervious coverage is approximately 1,900
square feet. With the driveway, the impervious coverage would be 20%, within the ordinance
standard.
Building Height
No new buildings are requested in this application.
Driveway Access
The applicants stated that the driveway access is needed to provide access to service their
septic tanks, to provide access for storage on the Langly parcels, and to provide general access
to use the Langly parcels.
The City staff analysis of the access needs for the parcels is the following:
The new driveway is not needed to provide access to the septic tanks. City staff
reported that the building locations permit access to the tanks from the south side of the
newer portion of the house. A local septic pumping service indicated that pumping
hoses could be extended up to 500 feet, so the tanks can be pumped from the front of
the house.
The new driveway is not needed to provide storage access. Staff reviewed the survey
information and found that:
o There is significant storage area on the existing 75’-wide driveway and elsewhere
on the parcels with frontage on Layton Avenue.
o There is a 22-foot opening between the existing Reinhardt home and the
southern parcel. The survey indicates that there is relatively flat grade within the
opening area.
o The owners could use this existing opening for storage access to the Langly
parcels if needed. The City Engineer commented that the applicants could use
the grass surface for occasional access, or could construct a 10-12’ driveway
within the opening for permanent access. The setback requirement for a
driveway is 5’ from a property line.
o Using this access may require removal of two trees, but the trees do not have a
legal status that grants them protection similar to wetlands.
o The Development Code provides an option for exterior storage to address the
need cited by the applicants. The Code includes a provision that if physical
conditions on the parcel (including but not limited to steep slopes, locations of
wetlands, location of the principal structure) prevent the location of the large
Reinhardt Variance Request
Scandia City Council Page 7 October 16, 2018
recreational vehicles within the side or rear yard, the property owner may obtain
an administrative permit authorizing the location of the vehicle in the front yard.
Rear property access and use of the property. The Reinhardt property at 18884 Layton
Avenue may be use for a single-family residence, storage, and other uses permitted by
the zoning ordinance.
o The Langly lots may not be sold or developed separately from the other parcels
based on the City’s Shoreland regulations.
o The City’s Engineering Standards permit only one driveway per property.
Wastewater Treatment and Well
The variance request does not require changes to the existing septic system or well.
Stormwater Management and Watershed District Comments
The Planner sent the application to the Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District
(CMSCWD) for comments. Jim Shaver, District Administrator, provided the following comment:
“In working with the applicants last year, the Watershed District deferred any formal action
subject to the WCA determination but told them that if their application was approved it would
trigger a CMSCWD permit requirement for additional mitigation to be paid into the District’s
wetland replacement fund. Please make this a condition if the City approves the variances
allowing them to complete their project.” If the City Council approves the variance, it should
include a condition that the applicants shall obtain all required Watershed District permits,
including the District’s requirement for additional mitigation to be paid into the District’s wetland
replacement fund.
DNR Comments
The Planner sent the application to the DNR for review and comments. The DNR’s comments
were included in a letter dated September 20, 2018 and included the following:
DNR recommends denial of the variance request.
DNR encourages the City of Scandia to continue to protect the state’s water resources,
including waters regulated under the state’s public waters rules and shoreland rules, and
wetlands regulated under the state’s Wetland Conservation Act.
This property has a viable access from Layton Avenue, the City’s standards do not allow
more than one driveway on a property, and the individual lots associated with this
address are not buildable lots under the criteria outlined in MN Statute 462.357
Subdivision 1e.
This property has a WCA restoration order from 2017 that still needs to be resolved.
DNR requests that if the City of Scandia denies this variance, that the City remind the
landowners that they have to comply with the WCA restoration order.
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES AND FINDINGS
Chapter 1, Section 6.0 of the Development Code includes the criteria and required process for
considering variance requests.
Reinhardt Variance Request
Scandia City Council Page 8 October 16, 2018
Variances may only be granted when the terms of the variance are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the development
code. The other variance criteria in the Development Code include:
1. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the
Development Code.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created
by the landowner.
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
4. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties.
5. 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.
6. The required variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty.
7. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems.
Applicant’s Rationale for the Variance
The applicants’ rationale for the variance to construct the driveway within the required wetland
setback area includes the following
The driveway is needed to access the septic system.
The driveway is needed to access the parcels on Langly Avenue for storage.
Without the driveway, the parcels have limited use.
Variance Request and Findings
The following bullets include the Planner’s findings related to the Reinhardt request for a
variance. Each of the criteria is shown in italics:
Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the Comprehensive
Plan and general purposes and intent of the official control.
The driveway constructed from Langly Avenue is not consistent with goals and policies
for the Shoreland District in the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes and intent of the
Development Code, which includes the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The
Comprehensive Plan and Shoreland Management Ordinance include policies to
preserve wetlands and require wetland setbacks. The proposed variance would
negatively impact a wetland, and alternative access to the parcels with frontage on
Langly is available within the property that would not impact wetlands or wetland
setbacks.
The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner under the
conditions allowed by official control(s).
Single-family residences are permitted in the General Rural District and Shoreland
District, and the current single-family residential use is a reasonable use on the parcel.
The existing residential use does not require a second driveway access, and the City’s
Reinhardt Variance Request
Scandia City Council Page 9 October 16, 2018
Engineering Standards do not permit a second driveway on the property to serve the
existing residential use.
The practical difficulties are not caused by the landowner, and are unique to the
property.
The practical difficulties are not unique to the parcel. Many property owners may wish to
have a second driveway access to their parcels, but this is not permitted by the City’s
Engineering Standards, and in this case, a viable access exists to serve the parcels with
frontage on Langley Avenue North that is not limited by the physical characteristics of
the property.
The variance would not alter the essential character of the area.
The aerial view of Langly Avenue shows that the wetland on the Langly parcels is part of
a large wetland complex that is located on many properties in the area. The other
parcels that have boundaries on Langly have their driveway access from other streets
and did not impact the wetland adjacent to Langly to provide access to their properties.
Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties.
The practical difficulties are related to economic conditions alone—the applicant’s desire
to have additional access to the Langly parcels for storage and other uses. However, a
significant amount of storage area is available on the existing 75’-wide driveway, on the
parcels with frontage on Layton Avenue North, and an option for access to the Langly
parcels is available from the Layton parcels. The potential for storage on the property is
not limited by physical conditions that would constitute practical difficulties.
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 driveway does not impair the supply of light or air to adjacent properties or increase
congestion, endanger the public, or substantially diminish or impair property values in
the neighborhood.
The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical
difficulty.
The requested variance is not the minimum action required to provide access to the
septic system and Langly parcels or to provide storage areas on the property. There is
an access option that would not require a variance or impact wetlands on the property,
and there are other existing options to provide storage areas on the property.
Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems.
The variance is not related to a need for direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Reinhardt Variance Request
Scandia City Council Page 10 October 16, 2018
The staff analysis concluded that the request does not meet all of the criteria to approve a
variance, and therefore the findings support denying the variance.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Reinhardt variance request at their
meeting on October 2. The Commission received comments from the public, including the
following:
The new driveway has created water issues on nearby parcels
The area that was filled is perennially wet, and will require ongoing pumping
The applicants responded to the comments, and stated that:
The water issues on adjacent properties existed prior to the driveway construction.
They are willing to implement the wetland replacement plan that would permit the
driveway to remain in the area where it was constructed.
They believe that access to the Langly parcels from the driveway on Layton is difficult
due to the septic system and grades.
They believe that they should have full access to all five of the parcels that they own.
They noted that some other parcels in the area have more than one driveway access.
The Planning Commission considered the comments, asked a number of questions of City staff
related to zoning and legal issues, and stated that:
The DNR has recommended denial of the request.
Based on the site visit, the applicants do have access to all five parcels on their property
and options for storage to support the single-family residential use with access and
storage options that would not impact protected wetlands.
They recommended that the City Council deny of the variance because it does not meet
the ordinance criteria to grant the variance.
They recommended that the comments that staff included in the recommendation to the
Council.
ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council can take the following actions for the request:
1. Approval
2. Approval with conditions
3. Denial with findings
4. Table the request
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the after-the-fact variance
request to permit the driveway that was constructed from Langly Avenue to the property at
18884 Layton Avenue North.
The denial includes the following comments:
Reinhardt Variance Request
Scandia City Council Page 11 October 16, 2018
1. The DNR requested that the City remind the applicants that they need to comply with the
DNR’s Restoration Order.
2. The applicant shall combine the five parcels at 18884 Layton Avenue for tax purposes
as required by previous variances that permitted the construction of the buildings on the
property.
3. The applicant shall pay all fees and escrows associated with the variance application.
LOUCKS
W:\2018\18144\CADD DATA\SURVEY\S18144-MasterPlotted: 05 /18 / 2018 11:36 AM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
CADD QUALIFICATION
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
REINHARDT
PROPERTY
18884 LAYTON AVE. N
MARINE ON ST. CROIX, MN 55047
JOE & KATIE
REINHARDT
18884 LAYTON AVE. N
MARINE ON ST. CROIX, MN 55047
04/17/18 SURVEY ISSUED
05/18/18 REVISED IRON NOTE
N
SCALE IN FEET
0 20 40
04/17/18
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Max L. Stanislowski - PLS
48988
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
Minnesota.
18144
MLS
SFH
MLS
DJP, MJA
BOUNDARY
AND
TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVEY
1 OF 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED
(Per Washington County Tax Statement)
Lots 6, 7, 8, the North 200 feet of Lot 18, and Lot 19, Block 3, BLISS PLAT SECOND DIVISION.
SURVEY REPORT
1.The Surveyor was not provided utility easement documents for the subject property except
for those shown on the Survey.
2.Snow and ice conditions during winter months may obscure otherwise visible evidence of on
site improvements and/or utilities.
3.The bearings for this survey are based on the Washington County Coordinate System NAD 83
(1986 Adjust).
4.We have shown underground utilities on and/or serving the surveyed property per Gopher
State One-Call Ticket No. 180950217. The following utilities and municipalities were notified:
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS (800)778-9140
CITY OF SCANDIA (651)325-5218
MIDCONTINENT COMMUNICATIONS (605)271-0202
XCEL ENERGY (651)229-2552
i.Utility operators do not consistently respond to locate requests through the Gopher State
One Call service for surveying purposes such as this. Those utility operators that do
respond, often will not locate utilities from their main line to the customer's structure or
facility. They consider those utilities “private” installations that are outside their
jurisdiction. These “private” utilities on the surveyed property or adjoining properties, may
not be located since most operators will not mark such "private" utilities. A private utility
locator may be contacted to investigate these utilities further, if requested by the client.
ii.The locations of underground utility lines shown hereon is an approximation based on
available maps, unless otherwise noted on the survey.
iii.Maps provided by those notified above, either along with a field location or in lieu of such
a location, are very often inaccurate or inconclusive. EXTREME CAUTION MUST BE
EXERCISED BEFORE AN EXCAVATION TAKES PLACE ON OR NEAR THIS SITE. BEFORE
DIGGING, YOU ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE AT 811 or (651) 454-0002.
5.Benchmark: MNDOT monument “LUCY” located at the southeast corner of Trunk Highway 97
and Meadowbrook Avenue North.
Elevation = 992.473 (NGVD29)
Site Benchmark: Sanitary manhole rim located on the east side of Lot 9, Block 3, BLISS PLAT
SECOND DIVISION.
Elevation = 944.37 (NGVD29)
SURVEY LEGEND
SPOT ELEVATION
SANITARY MANHOLE
POWER POLE
CONTOUR
SANITARY SEWER
CHAIN LINK FENCE
CONCRETE
A/C UNIT
ELECTRIC METER
GAS METER
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONEYARD LIGHT
CULVERT
MAILBOX
FLAG POLE
BIRCH
OAK
PINE
SPRUCE
TREE (GEN)
BI
OA
PI
SP
TR
CONIFEROUS TREE
DECIDUOUS TREE
OVERHEAD UTILITY
WOOD FENCE
PAVERS
ROOF DRAINRD
ELECTRIC OUTLETEO
SPLIT RAIL FENCE
PER RECORD
DOCUMENT
[ ]
MNDNR Central Region
Division of Ecological and Water Resources
1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106
Date: 9/20/2018
Sherri Buss
Planning Consultant, City of Scandia
14727 209th Street North
Scandia, MN 55073
RE: Variance Request for 18884 Layton Avenue North, Scandia
Sherri,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the request by Joseph and Katherine Reinhardt at 18884 Layton Avenue
North for a variance to the City of Scandia’s wetland setback. The purpose for the variance is to create a second
driveway to this property address. DNR recommends denial of this variance request.
DNR encourages the City of Scandia to continue to protect the state’s water resources, including public waters that are
regulated under the state’s public waters rules and shoreland rules, and wetlands regulated under the state’s Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA). This property already has viable access from Layton Avenue, and City ordinance does not allow
for more than one driveway on a property. The individual lots associated with this address are not buildable lots under
the criteria for nonconforming lots outlined in MN Statute 462.357 Subdivision 1e, so the City’s restriction of one
driveway per buildable property applies.
This property has a WCA restoration order from 2017 that still needs to be resolved. DNR requests, if the City of Scandia
denies this variance, that the City please remind the landowners that they have to comply with the WCA restoration
order.
Thank you again for your consideration of DNR’s recommendation to deny this request for a variance to the City of
Scandia’s wetland setback.
Sincerely,
Jenifer Sorensen. East Metro Area Hydrologist
DNR Central Region
1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106
651-259-5754
jenifer.sorensen@state.mn.us
Page 1 of 2
Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District
Scandia Plaza II • 21150 Ozark Avenue • P.O. Box 188 • Scandia, MN 55073 • Tel 651.433.2150
September 11, 2018
Ms. Sherri Buss
Planner
City of Scandia
re: C18-016 Reinhardt Variance Request
Dear Ms. Buss:
The applicants are re-applying for a variance in conjunction with an after-the-fact
wetlands violation from last year where the property owners filled wetlands to facilitate
the construction of a second drive on their lot. The WCA technical evaluation panel
turned down their request based in part on a necessary land use decision needed from the
City to allow the secondary access. The City denied their request for a variance to allow
a secondary access into the rear portion of their lot
In working with the applicants last year, the Watershed District deferred any formal
action subject to the WCA determination but told them that if their application was
approved it would trigger a CMSCWD permit requirement for additional mitigation to be
paid into the District’s wetland replacement fund. Please make this a condition if the
City approves the variances allowing them to complete their project.
If the variance(s) are denied, I would recommend that the City as RGU and the
Watershed District work together to see that the filled wetland is restored.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application and do not hesitate to
contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Jim Shaver, Administrator
Page 2 of 2
cc (via email): Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Reinhardt Applicant
Neil Soltis City of Scandia
Jay Riggs Washington Conservation District
Susannah Torseth Galowitz Law