Loading...
08.b 2 2021.12.21 - Bruggeman Variance CC Resolution - Deny (old) CITY OF SCANDIA, MINNESOTA CC RESOLUTION NO. 2021-54 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 approve the variances; 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 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 CC Resolution No.: ______ 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 CC Resolution No.: ______ 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 City Council this 21st day of December, 2021. _________________________________ Christine Maefsky, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Ken Cammilleri, City Administrator CC Resolution No.: ______ 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 W EST 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 PARC EL 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.