05.c PC Resolution 2021-21 Bruggeman Variance
CITY OF SCANDIA, MINNESOTA
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2021-21
DENY A VARIANCE FOR PARCELS 29.032.20.32.0011 AND 29.032.20.32.0010
LOCATED AT 19489 MANNING TRAIL NORTH
WHEREAS, Paul Bruggeman, on behalf of the owners Pat and Brenda Melchior, has
made an application for variances from lot size and road frontage requirements for construction
of a single-family dwelling on a non-conforming lot, a 29.4 foot variance from the 75 foot
wetland setback, a 22.3 foot variance from the 100 foot setback from Big Marine Lake, and a 5.2
foot variance from the 20 foot side yard setback in order to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit on
property identified as 19489 Manning Trail North; and
WHEREAS, the property is legally described as follows:
See Attachment A; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request for variances at a duly
noticed Public Hearing on December 7, 2021, and recommended that the City Council deny the
variances;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SCANDIA, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does recommend that the City Council deny the
requested variances, based on the following findings:
1. 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.
2. 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
PC Resolution No.: 2021-21
Page 2 of 4
onto a public street is not a reasonable use; conditions should be added to ensure
compliance with the official controls.
3. 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.
4. 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 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
PC Resolution No.: 2021-21
Page 3 of 4
site. The lack of fronting a public road could be alleviated by upgrading the private
drive to the standards of a public street.
Adopted by the Scandia Planning Commission this 7th day of December, 2021.
_________________________________
Travis Loeffler, Chair
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Ken Cammilleri, City Administrator
PC Resolution No.: 2021-21
Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT A
ALL THAT PART OF LOT 7 OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 32 NORTH, RANGE 20 WEST, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS, TO WIT: COMMENCING AT A POINT IN THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 7, 1364.00 FEET
EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 150.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 27
DEGREES 30 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, 190.00 FEET TO THE INITIAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF
THE LAND TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE TO THE RIGHT ALONG THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF A CURVE
WITH A RADIUS OF 45.50 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 104.43 FEET; THENCE NORTH 21 DEGREES WEST
167.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 68 DEGREES WEST 54.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 4 DEGREES 20 MINUTES
EAST 179.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 4 DEGREES 30 MINUTES WEST 177.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTRH 10
DEGREES 40 MINUTES EAST 84 FEET TO THE SHORE OF BIG LAKE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY
ALONG THE SHORE 356.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 44 DEGREES 15
MINUTES EAST FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
ALL THAT PART OF LOT 7, IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 32 NORTH, RANGE 20 WEST, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS: TO-WIT: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 7, 1364.00 FEET
EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 150.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE
SOUTH 27 DEGREES 30 MINUTES WEST 190.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL
OF LAND HEREBY CONVEYED; THENCE SOUTH 44 DEGREES 15 MINUTES EAST 176.00 FEET TO THE
SHORE OF BIG LAKE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SHORE 64.10 FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE NORTH 49 DEGREES WEST 198.60 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 27 DEGREES 30
MINUTES WEST 50.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.