6.a Public Comment 9-3-2021 Letter #1 to City of Scandiaarkve and Zweifel, PLLC
Attorneys at La�
11302 86"' Ave North
Maple Grove, MN 55369
Phone: (763) 450-1639
Fax: (763) 447-6458
September 3, 2021
Brenda Eklund
City Clerk
City of Scandia
14727 2091" Street North
Scandia MN 55073
Re: Written Comments Opposing Variance Request for PID: 21.032.20.42.0003
Clients: Richard and Elizabeth Sandstrom
12937 Mayberry Trail N
Scandia MN 55073
Dear Ms. Eklund:
This office has been retained by Richard and Elizabeth Sandstrom in regard to the variance request for
PID: 21.032.20.42.0003. My clients oppose the granting of a variance.
The application for variance does not meet the requirements under Section 6 of the Development Code.
The application does not demonstrate that strict enforcement of the 20 foot side yard setback
requirement for buildings as is outlined in the Developmental Code would cause practical difficulties
justifying deviation from the Code and grant of the variance. The application does not identify any
unique circumstances to the individual property under consideration that would cause practical
difficulties. The application does not demonstrate that granting the variance is in keeping with the spirit
and intent of Code.
The application does not establish that strict enforcement of the setback will create "Practical
Difficulties" pursuant to the criteria of Section 6.4.:
6.4(l); The application does not propose a reasonable use of the property. The proposed addition could
be placed in several alternate locations that do not require a variance, so the proposed use of the
property is not reasonable.
6.4 2 • The application does not demonstrate that unique circumstances related to the property
eliminate other locations for the proposed addition. The application does not indicate that the
landowner is in plight due to unique property circumstances.
6.4(3); The variance if granted would alter the essential character of the locality. The neighborhood is
characterized by homes that have substantial spacing between them. The 20 foot setback is in keeping
with the open feel of the neighborhood. Granting this application for variance will alter that character
and create uncharacteristic crowding of structures.
6.4 4 • The application does not demonstrate that a significant economic impact will result from locating
the proposed addition in an alternate location where a variance is not required.
6.4 5 • My clients believe that the proposed variance and the resulting crowding of structures by
placement of the addition where requested will substantially diminish or impair property values within
the neighborhood. The essential character of the locality would be affected and specifically it will affect
my clients' property value.
6.4 6 • The application does not demonstrate that a practical difficulty even exists as other locations
exist for the proposed addition. We do not reach the question as to whether minimum action has been
taken to eliminate the practical difficulty.
6.4(7); The application does not indicate that alternative locations for the proposed addition are
impaired or inferior in terms of sunlight access for solar energy systems.
Accordingly, the application for a variance should be denied.
Very truly yo s,
G
45011613
ifel4mzlaw.us