05.b PC Staff Report Bruggeman Variance
TKDA ® | 444 Cedar Street Suite 1500 | Saint Paul, MN 55101 651.292.4400 • tkda.com
An employee -owned company promoting affirmative action and equal opportunity.
Memorandum
To: Scandia Planning Commission Reference: Bruggeman Variance Application
Copies To: Brenda Eklund, Clerk
Ken Cammilleri, City
Administrator
Paul and Denise Bruggeman,
Applicant
Project No.: 18108.000 Bruggeman Variance
From: Evan Monson, Planner Routing:
Date: November 29, 2021
SUBJECT: Variances from lot size and road frontage requirements for construction of a
single-family dwelling on a non-conforming lot, and variances for an
Accessory Dwelling Unit located within required setbacks from lot lines,
wetlands, and Big Marine Lake
MEETING DATE: December 7, 2021
LOCATION: 19489 Manning Trail North, PID 29.032.20.32.0010 & 29.032.20.32.0011
APPLICANT: Paul and Denise Bruggeman
OWNERS: Pat and Brenda Melchior
ZONING: General Rural (GR), Shoreland Overlay
REVIEW PERIOD: 60-day January 13, 2022
ITEMS REVIEWED: Application and plans received July 13, delineation and report received
October 14, 2021
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The property owners are looking to sell the subject property to the applicants, who would like to build a
new single-family house on the site. The applicant is proposing to remove most of the existing structures
on the site, but are proposing to keep an existing cabin on the site for use as an Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU).
The house would be located near the center of the lot. The proposed house would be 100 feet from the
ordinary high water level (OHWL) of Big Marine Lake at its nearest point. There are wetlands along the
shore of the lake, as well as to the west of the house and subject property. The existing cabin, which is
proposed to be used as an ADU, would be within 75 feet of the wetlands to the west, 77.7 feet from the
OHWL of the lake, as well as 14.8 feet from the side property line. Due to the ADU not meeting required
setbacks, setback variances would be needed.
Bruggeman Variance Staff Report December 7, 2021
Scandia Planning Commission Page 2
The parcel is 1.92 acres in size; the minimum size of a parcel within the shoreland overlay is 2.5 acres.
The property does not have frontage onto a public street; it gets access to Manning Trail approximately
0.75 miles to the west via a private driveway. Given the parcel is nonconforming to the minimum lot size,
and not able to meet frontage requirements, variances for the property would also be required.
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Parcel description: 19489 Manning Trail North consists of two parcels located along Big Marine Lake
totaling 1.92 acres of land above the OHWL of Big Marine Lake. The property is irregular in shape. The
parcels do not front a public road; there is a narrow access easement from Manning Trail to the subject
property that is used for a driveway; Manning Trail is nearly a mile to the west. There are wetlands to the
west on a neighboring property, as well as along the lakeshore. The boundaries of the wetlands were
recently delineated this fall. The two subject parcels have some slopes and vegetation throughout; the
slopes on the southern portion of the lot form a bluff. A handful of structures are currently present on the
property, including a seasonal cabin.
Zoning: GR, Shoreland Overlay
Land use: Single-Family Residential (seasonal cabin)
EVALUATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST
Applicant’s Explanation of the Plan and Variance Request
See attached narrative from applicant.
Staff Comments on the Variance Request
Engineer
The City Engineer provided the following comments regarding the request:
• If variance is approved, a grading permit would be required from the City
• Work shall be within compliance of any requirements of the Watershed District & DNR
• Any requirements from the Fire Chief for access will need to be followed
• Easements for access will need to be turned in to City (included in submitted plans)
Fire Department
The Fire Chief provided comments on the access to the project site:
• The entire length of the driveway would need to be cleared of brush and trees to a width of 12
feet.
• Any curves will need to accommodate a 40 foot fire truck
• Driving surfaces will need to be 9 feet wide at minimum
• A turnaround will need to be located within close proximity to the new home
• Portions of the driveway will need to be raised with rock and gravel to improve year-round use
Watershed
The Carnelian Marine St Croix Watershed District noted that the following rules would apply to this
project:
• Rule 2 Stormwater Management – The proposed project would result in 12,353-SF of impervious
surface within 1,000 feet of a public water. Stormwater management BMPs sized in compliance
with the District’s Small Residential Stormwater Worksheet will be required. Proposed BMPs will
need to provide a minimum of 1,853-CF of storage. Onsite soils are mapped as HSG A, so
Bruggeman Variance Staff Report December 7, 2021
Scandia Planning Commission Page 3
infiltration should be feasible. With the extent of grading proposed to create a walkout one
suggestion would be a shallow (0.5-ft deep) depression south of the proposed home. A
declaration for maintenance of stormwater management facilities will also be required for the
BMP(s).
• Rule 3 Erosion Control – An erosion/sediment control plan will be required to prevent erosion and
sedimentation into Big Marine Lake. Silt fence is proposed on the certificate of survey, down
gradient of all disturbed areas. Redundant silt fence or the addition of silt logs is likely warranted
where flow would concentrate (i.e. south of the existing building to be removed). Disturbed area
vegetation establishment plans will also be required and may consist of seed and mulch, sod,
landscaping.
• Rule 4 Buffers – CMSCWD Rule 4 is not applicable given compliance with 100-ft setback and
percent impervious surface requirements.
• Rule 7 Floodplain and Drainage Alterations – The proposed low floor of 968.5 satisfies District
requirements and there is no grading proposed below the 100-year elevation.
• Rule 8 Wetland Management – CMSCWD Rule 8 would be applicable if any permanent or
temporary wetland impact is proposed. Temporarily disturbed wetland areas would need to be
restored with native vegetation.
DNR
The East Metro Area Hydrologist did not provide comments at the time of this staff report.
Development Code Requirements
A lot within the city is required to meet certain requirements in order to be used for development. The
zoning and overlay districts require certain size and dimensional requirements. In the GR zone, the
minimum lot size is 2 acres, while the Shoreland Overlay has a 2.5 acre minimum size requirement. The
subject property currently is not meeting either of these minimum sizes. A minimum frontage onto public
roads of 160 feet is required for property zoned GR; the subject property is no t meeting this requirement
currently.
Currently the Development Code does not allow for new lots to be created that are not fronting an
improved public street (Chapter 3, Section 13.2(4)), and private streets are not allowed for new
subdivisions (Chapter 3, Section 13.5(2)). A handful of lots created prior to the current Development
Code, such as the subject property, have resulted in some lots in the city having frontage from private
roads or easements. New subdivisions are to front improved public street s; Chapter 3, Section 13.8 notes
the minimum design requirements for streets. A local ‘rural design’ street is to be 24 feet in width, with
four foot wide shoulders on each side. The private access currently available for the subject property is 20
feet in width, with the driveway itself being ten feet in width. The lack of a street also raises the issue of
premature subdivisions. Section 5.0 of Chapter 3 discusses subdivisions that are ‘premature’, in that they
are found meeting the following criteria, which are:
• Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
o A proposed subdivision may be deemed premature if it is inconsistent with the goals,
policies, or implementation strategies of the City’s Comprehe nsive Plan, as may be
amended.
• Inconsistent with the Capital Improvements Program.
o A proposed subdivision may be deemed premature if it is inconsistent with the capital
improvements program because public improvements, facilities, or services necessary to
accommodate the proposed subdivision would not be completed within two years of the
date of application.
Bruggeman Variance Staff Report December 7, 2021
Scandia Planning Commission Page 4
• Lack of Adequate Sewage Treatment Systems.
• Lack of Adequate Streets to Serve the Subdivision.
o A proposed subdivision may be deemed premature if streets which serve the proposed
subdivision are of such a width, grade, stability, vertical and horizontal alignment, site
distance or surface condition that the traffic volume generated by the proposed
subdivision would create a hazard to public safety and general welfare, or would
seriously aggravate an existing hazardous condition; or the traffic volume generated by
the proposed subdivision would create congestion or unsafe conditions on existing or
proposed streets.
• Lack of Adequate Drainage, and
• Inconsistent with Environmental Requirements.
The subject property, while already a lot, lacks adequate streets to serve itself, and neighboring
properties. The private access currently serving the lot could be requested to serve additional new year -
round residences in the future, which would result in the development of an a rea that is not complying
with the standards required of subdivisions. Approval of such variances to frontage would then run
counter to the purpose and intent of the ordinances, such as “preventing problems associated with
inappropriately subdivided lands, including premature subdivision, excess subdivision, partial or
incomplete subdivision, or scattered subdivision” found in Chapter 3, Section 1.2(9) of the Development
Code.
Given the property is not meeting the minimum size and frontage requirements, it is nonconforming. The
nonconformity section of the Development Code (Chapter 1, Section 13) notes in Section 13.5 that vacant
nonconforming lots can be utilized for single-family homes without variances if a number of criteria are
met, including consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, fronting a public street or approved private
road, having at least 66% of the minimum size required for a lot with the underlying zoning district,
meeting setback requirements, and meeting requirements for impervious surface coverage. The property
does meet the 66% threshold for minimum lot size, and the proposed house would meet setback
requirements and not exceed the impervious surface coverage requirements. The proposed ADU would
be within required setbacks. The lot does not front a public road, but does have access via a private
driveway. Section 13.5(1)(D) notes “to be considered an approved private road, the City Council must, by
resolution, find that the road is capable of supporting emergency vehicles and that provisions exist for on-
going maintenance of the road”. The City Council has not found via resolution the private access to be
considered an approved private road. While the proposed use is residential, it could lead to additional
demand for infrastructure and development in this area, which would not be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code. Part of the request is to grant variances to the
minimum lot size and frontage requirements to allow the lot to have a single family house on it while not
having frontage onto an improved public street.
The GR zoning district requires a minimum side setback of 20 feet for structures used as Accessory
Dwelling Units. The Shoreland Overlay notes a minimum setback of 75 feet from manage I wetlands, and
a 100 foot setback required from the OHWL of recreational lakes such as Big Marine Lake. The proposed
ADU is an existing structure that was previously used as a cabin on the site, and was built prior to the
current code requirements. In order to be allowed to be used as an ADU, the structure shall meet all
required setbacks. The cabin would require a 29.4 foot variance from the 75 foot wetland setback, a 22.3
foot variance from the 100 foot setback from the lake, and a 5.2 foot variance from the 20 foot side yard
setback in order to be permitted as an ADU.
Bruggeman Variance Staff Report December 7, 2021
Scandia Planning Commission Page 5
Variance Criteria and Findings
Chapter One, Section 6.0 of the Development Code includes the criteria and required process for
considering variance requests. Each item to be considered for a variance is identified below in italics,
followed by the Planner’s findings regarding the requested variances.
• Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan and
general purposes and intent of the official control.
The Comprehensive Plan has specific goals relating to land use. Goal Two in the Land Use
section is to “manage land use to prevent the premature demand for extension of urban services
and in ways that allow existing service levels to meet service needs”. The proposed house would
be a year-round residence, which would be a change from the current use of the property .
Allowing a year-round residence to be built on the property could lead to a premature demand for
municipal infrastructure to serve this area of the city, which would be in conflict with Chapter 3,
Section 5 of the Development Code. By changing the use from a seasonal residence to a year-
round residence for this site, the request may not be in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan
and Development Code.
• The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner under the conditions
allowed by official control(s).
The current use of the property is for a seasonal residence, which would be changed to a year-
round single-family residence and an Accessory Dwelling Unit if the proposed variances are
approved. Chapter One, Section 13.5(1)(D) of the Development Code notes a nonconforming lot
has to have access onto a public street or approved private road. Proposing to use the property
for a residential use is a reasonable use. Allowing a nonconforming lot to be used when not
having access onto a public street is not a reasonable use; conditions should be added to ensure
compliance with the official controls.
• The practical difficulties are not caused by the landowner and are unique to the property.
The practical difficulties are due to the parcel not meeting the minimum size, not fronting a public
street, and the existing structures on-site being built prior to the current ordinances. While lots not
conforming to lot size aren’t uncommon near Big Marine Lake, the subject property is unique in
having been developed without frontage onto a public road. The Development Code currently
prohibits private streets; under the current requirements for a subdivision a lot would not be able
to be platted without frontage onto a public street. The practical difficulties were not caused by the
current landowner and are unique to the property.
• The variances would not alter the essential character of the area.
The use and function of the property would be changing from its current use. The site has
historically been used for seasonal use only. Allowing a year-round residence to be permitted in
this location could lead to further development of year -round residences in or near this location as
well. Granting the variances would alter the essential character of the area.
• Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties.
The practical difficulties are related to the parcel not meeting the minimum lot size, not fronting a
public street, and the existing structures on-site being built prior to the current ordinances. The
applicant could alleviate the frontage issue by upgrading the access drive to the same standards
and design of a public street, though the cost of such work would be high. The practical difficulties
with the lot not meeting minimum size and existing structures being built prior to the current
Bruggeman Variance Staff Report December 7, 2021
Scandia Planning Commission Page 6
ordinances are not only economic in nature. The high price to upgrade the private drive to the
standards of a public street are economic in nature, and should not constitute a practical difficulty.
• 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.
Granting the requested variance would not result in limiting light or air to neighboring properties.
The land use would be changing to a year-round residence, which given the access is through a
private driveway with only one travel lane, could result in congestion issues entering and existing
the site. Having only a one-lane private driveway for access could create issues with emergency
accessibility in winter months. The property values of neighboring values should not be negatively
impacted, if the request is granted. The requested variance will not impair the supply of light or air
to adjacent properties, or substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.
Not having frontage to an improved public street could result in issues with safety and
accessibility to the site.
• The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty.
The existing cabin to be used as an ADU is within setbacks of the lake, wetlands, and the side
property line, hence the need for a variance. The structure could be moved further away from the
lot line, wetland, and lake and not need as great of variances, thought the slopes on the lot and
proposed location of the single-family house greatly limit areas that would not require any setback
variance. The lot, while nonconforming to lot size, does exceed 66% of the dimensional standard
for lot size, and provides a suitable location for septic on the site. Apart from frontage onto a
public road and compliance with the comprehensive plan, the lot would meet the requirements of
Section 13.5 of Chapter One of the Development Code. 13.5(D) notes “The lot has frontage and
access on an improved public street or an approved private road. To be considered an approved
private road, the City Council must, by resolution, find that the road is capable of supporting
emergency vehicles and that provisions exist for on-going maintenance of the road”. If the
Council is unable to find that the private drive is capable of supporting emergency vehicles and
existing provisions for ongoing maintenance, then the requested use of the private drive would
not be the minimum action.
The requested variance to the setbacks for the ADU and the minimum lot size appear to be the
minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulties of the site. The lack of fronting a
public road could be alleviated by upgrading the private drive to the standards of a public street.
• 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.
Not all the variance criteria are met for the variances being requested.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Commission can recommend to the Scandia City Council that it do one of the following:
1. Approve
2. Approve with conditions
Bruggeman Variance Staff Report December 7, 2021
Scandia Planning Commission Page 7
3. Deny with findings
4. Table the request
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planner recommends that the Planning Commission deny the requested variances.