08.b2a Gunst Rationale for Variance
‐1‐
July 12, 2021
Scandia Planning Commission
City of Scandia
12727 209th Street
Scandia, MN 55073
Re: Rationale for Variance on Gunst Property
Dear City of Scandia Planning Commission,
We are requesting a variance per the City of Scandia Development Code, Chapter One, Section 6.
Specifically, we are proposing an addition to our home that would extend beyond the standard 30 foot
setback at the rear of our property. See Attachment A for a plot survey with the proposed addition.
The proposed addition consists of an indoor sport court in the rear of our home plus a 4th garage stall
with additional storage on the side of the home. We are a blended family with a total of 8 children, and
having a space to send the kids in the winter to burn off some energy is desirable!
Built‐In Buffer
Our primary argument for this variance is that our development, Tii Gavo, has already designed a buffer
between our lot and any potential future lots behind us. This buffer is “Outlot E” in Attachment A and is
80 feet wide. Because of this outlot, our addition would be at a minimum 86 feet from the nearest
property line. Because of this buffer, the spirit and intent of the 30 foot setback is still maintained.
Practical Difficulties with the Setback
There are unique practical difficulties and circumstances that prevent us from building this addition in a
location that maintains the standard 30 foot setback. When we first planned our house, our plan was to
locate the house in the middle of the lot, as seen in the April 10, 2017 plot survey shown in Attachment
B. Had we been able to build in that location, we could have easily fit this addition within all setbacks.
However, our builder discovered later that same month that the house would be too low in that location
and wouldn’t meet the required minimum flood elevation. The house was then pushed to the back of
the lot where the elevation was higher, as can be seen in the final plot survey shown in Attachment C.
Given where the house had to be placed on the lot, the only other location for an addition that would
maintain the 30 foot setback is to place it on the far side of the garage instead of behind the house. I’ll
refer to this location as Plan B (if the variance is rejected) and the proposed location shown in
Attachment A as Plan A (if the variance is approved).
Plan B is undesirable for several reasons:
Plan B would look unsightly from the street, whereas Plan A is discretely tucked behind the
current garage.
Plan B would put our garage between our sport court and the rest of our house, whereas Plan A
allows the two to be connected without going through a garage space.
‐2‐
Plan B would require a significant number of trees to be removed, whereas Plan A disrupts only
2‐3 trees.
Due to our large family, we have a 12‐passanger Nissan van that is too tall to fit through our
current garage doors. Currently the van is tucked neatly to the side of the house. Plan B
removes that location and would push the van to the front of the house, which further erodes
curb appeal. Plan A allows us to put the van in the 4th garage stall (with an 8 foot high garage
door).
To summarize, we believe the above factors demonstrate that we meet all 7 of the review criteria of
“practical difficulties” as described in the City of Scandia Development Code, Chapter One, Section 6.4:
1) We are proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not currently permitted by the
Development Code.
2) Our plight is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by us.
3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. In fact, as shown
above, the essential character of the locality is best maintained with this “Plan A” design.
4) Economic conditions are not a factor in requesting this variance.
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. In fact, granting this variance should help to increase property values within the
neighborhood.
6) The requested 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. This last criteria is not applicable to our situation.
Tii Gavo DQC Approval
Our neighborhood has a Design Quality Committee (DQC) that is required to approve all plans for new
homes as well as additions. We have reviewed this proposed addition with the committee and have
received approval to move forward. See Attachment D.
Respectfully,
Brian Gunst
1
Brian Gunst
From:Jason Pass <jasonp@mettafinancialllc.com>
Sent:Monday, April 19, 2021 12:42 PM
To:Susan Bowden
Cc:bgunst@gmail.com
Subject:Re: Gunst Addition- 2021
Susan and Brian,
The DQC has reviewed your home addition and has approved based on the information
provided. You will need to obtain final approval from the City of Scandia and obtain a building
permit.
Thank you
Jason Pass
Chief Operating Officer
Metta Financial, LLC
944 Grand Ave
St. Paul, MN 55105
612-812-1291
jasonp@mettafinancialllc.com