9.b2c Res No. 2020-39 Johnson Variance
CITY OF SCANDIA, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2020-39
DENYING VARIANCE FOR PARCELS 31.032.20.11.0001 AND 31.032.20.11.0002
WHEREAS, Cynthia and Harold Johnson have made an application for a Variance to
construct an accessory structure on a lot with no primary residence on property identified as PID
31.032.20.11.0001 and 31.032.20.11.0002; and
WHEREAS, the property is legally described as follows:
BLISS PLAT 2nd DIVISION LOTS 5 & 6 BLOCK 2 SUBDIVISIONCD 91101
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request for a Variance at a duly
noticed Public Hearing on October 6, 2020, and recommended that the City Council deny the
request;
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 a variance to construct an accessory structure on a lot with no primary
residence on property identified as PID 31.032.20.11.0001 and 31.032.20.11.0002, based on the
following findings:
1. The Comprehensive Plan prioritizes environmental stewardship on lakeside lots.
Building a new accessory structure on the same parcel as their residence would have
brought the 18941 property above the permitted impervious surface amount, so this
request does improve upon impacts to the lake that alternative plans could’ve
potentially created. Reducing outdoor storage on a property is ideal, though using
vacant parcels simply for a garage in order to accomplish this would not be in
harmony with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan or official controls.
While the proposed garage would house personal items of a single family residence,
the intent of the zoning regulations for accessory structures is to have accessory
buildings on the same parcel as the principal structure so as to maximize the use of
buildable land. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan also identified that there is a need for
new housing in the future; taking vacant land that could be used for housing to be
instead used for just an accessory structure would not meet any goal identified by the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plans are not in general harmony with the
Comprehensive Plan and general purposes and intent of the official control.
2. These parcels are in the General Rural zoning district, which is guided for single-
family residential use. The proposal would see the parcels be used for only an
accessory structure, which is not permitted in the Development Code. If approved, a
residence could be added to the property in the future, though that is not guaranteed.
CC Resolution No.: 2020-39
Page 2 of 3
Proposing to use these parcels as just for an accessory structure is not a reasonable
use in the General Rural District.
3. The practical difficulties identified by the applicant are: The lot with their residence
on it cannot accommodate the construction of a garage, and the two vacant parcels
across the street from their residence are unable to be developed into a single-family
house due to capacity limitations of the neighborhood sewer system. 18941 Layton
does not meet the minimum lot size (2 acres), buildable area (1 acre), or minimum
frontage (160 feet) of the GR zoning district. The property did previously have a
garage on the site, though this was converted by the property owners into living
space. By converting the old garage into living space, the owners created the first
difficulty. The two vacant parcels, whether kept separate or combined into one, also
are not meeting minimum requirements of the GR zoning district. They are within the
area served by the Bliss Sewage system. The owners note in their narrative that the
system may not be conducive to permitting new residences, which would require
development of these sites to have on-site sewage treatment systems. Lots being
substandard in size can limit where such systems may be located. During review of
the variance request, the City Engineer noted that a structure could connect to the
system, provided city ordinances are followed and county permitting requirements are
met. Without evidence provided by the applicant to support their second difficulty, it
is hard to acknowledge it as a legitimate practical difficulty. Some of the practical
difficulties identified by the landowner are caused by the current landowner.
4. Having a garage as the only structure occupying a lot is not a common occurrence for
lots around the area, due to the fact that an accessory structure is not permitted
without a principal structure also being on the lot. Granting the requested variance
could alter the essential character of the area.
5. The practical difficulties identified by the applicants are that these two vacant parcels
are unable to be developed due to issues with the sewer system, and that their
property with their residence is not able to accommodate the construction of a garage.
The practical difficulties are not only economic in nature.
6. Granting the requested variance would not result in limiting light or air to
neighboring properties. The land use will be for a garage used for personal storage, so
increases to congestion, or increased chance of fire danger are not expected. It is hard
to calculate what, if any impact, this variance could have on neighboring property
values. Flooding has taken place in this area before, so conditions for approval would
be necessary to avoid increasing the chances of flooding and endangering the public
safety. Granting the requested variance will not impair the supply of light or air to
adjacent properties, or increase congestion. It is unclear if granting this variance
would impact property values within the neighborhood. Conditions for approval will
be needed to avoid potentially endangering the public safety.
7. The practical difficulties identified by the applicant are: The lot with their residence
on it cannot accommodate the construction of a garage, and the two vacant parcels
CC Resolution No.: 2020-39
Page 3 of 3
across the street from their residence are unable to be developed into a single-family
house due to capacity limitations of the neighborhood sewer system. The minimum
action required to eliminate the first difficulty could likely be better addressed
through a variance permitting a garage on the same lot as the residence. Since the first
difficulty was created by the landowner, it is unclear whether such a variance could
be granted, though. The second difficulty is that limitations with the neighborhood
sewer system prevent these two vacant lots from being used for its highest and best
use (a house), and so therefore only a garage is ideal. If the city system is unable to
allow for a new residence to connect, it would have to have an on-site system. It may
be that if the two vacant parcels are combined that a setback variance could be
necessary in order to site both a house and an on-site sewer system the proper
distance from each other. Without evidence showing the lots are unable to
accommodate an on-site system, the requested variance is likely not the minimum
action required to eliminate this difficulty. The requested variance is not the
minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulties.
8. The variance is not related to a need for direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Adopted by the Scandia City Council this 20th day of October, 2020.
_________________________________
Christine Maefsky, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Brenda Eklund, City Clerk