7.c PC Resolution No. 2021-17_Conley Variance
CITY OF SCANDIA, MINNESOTA
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2021-17
APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR PARCELS 30.032.19.13.0034 & 30.032.19.13.0009
LOCATED AT 16963 197TH STREET NORTH
WHEREAS, Tom and Angie Conley has made an application for a variance to construct
a cabin within required setbacks of wetlands and the St. Croix River, on property identified as
PID 30.032.19.13.0034 & 30.032.19.13.0009; and
WHEREAS, the property is legally described as follows:
Parcel 1:
PART STEAMBOAT LANDING COMMENCING AT THE SE CORNER OF LOT 6
BLOCK 19 REVISION OF VASA PLAT & RUNNING THENCE NORTH ON THE
WEST LINE OF SAID STEAMBOAT LANDING A DISTANCE OF 100 FT TO THE
NE CORNER OF LOT 5 BLOCK 19 OF SAID REVISION OF VASA PLAT RUNNING
THENCE IN A STRAIGHT LINE BEING A CONTINUATION OR EXTENSION OF
THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 5 BLOCK 19 AFORESAID TO THE LOW WATER MARK
OF THE ST CROIX RIVER THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SHORE OF THE ST
CROIX RIVER A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET THENCE IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING SUBJECT TO SCENIC EASEMENT
Parcel 2:
LOTS 4-6, BLOCK 19, REVISION OF VASA, TOGETHER WITH THAT PART
VACATED 2ND STREET LYING NORTH OF COLUMBUS STREET AND
IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO LOTS 4, 5 & 6 BLOCK 19 IN THE REVISION OF
VASA PLAT; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request for variances at a duly
noticed Public Hearing on September 7, 2021, and recommended that the City Council approve
the variances with conditions;
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 approve a 57.25
feet variance from the setback from a Manage 1 wetland, an 85.5 feet variance from the setback
of a Preserve wetland, and a 112.5 feet variance from the setback from the OHWL of the St.
Croix River in order to construct a cabin at 16963 197th Street North, based on the following
findings:
1. The Comprehensive Plan has an objective in the land use section to “conduct
development in a manner that is sensitive to the impact upon natural features and to
PC Resolution No.: 2021-17
Page 2 of 3
environmental constraints, including but not limited to scenic views, surface water,
wetlands, slopes, woodlands, vegetation, drainage ways, shorelands, and flood plain
areas”. The proposal by the applicant is to not encroach any closer to the river, or the
wetlands, than the current cabin. By not encroaching than the setback of the existing
cabin, the request appears to be in general harmony with the Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code.
2. The current use of the property is a seasonal cabin, which would not change if this
variance request is approved. Proposing to continue to use the property for seasonal
residential use is a reasonable use.
3. The practical difficulties are due to most of the property being located within the
required setback from the river and two wetlands, and the property not conforming to
minimum size requirements. The existing cabin is located within three different
required setback areas, it was built prior to the current ordinances being adopted.
While a property of this size being in the setback of the river is not uncommon in this
area of the city, the subject property is uniquely limited in the amount of buildable
space it has due to the two wetlands. The practical difficulties were not caused by the
current landowner and are unique to the property.
4. The use and function of the property would remain as it is currently; other parcels
nearby are also occupied by seasonal cabins located at similar setbacks from the river.
Apart from the addition on the west end, the proposed cabin would maintain the same
size as the existing cabin. The setbacks of the new cabin would be the same as the
existing cabin. The current cabin’s location appears to not have negatively impacted
neighboring properties. Granting the variances would not alter the essential character
of the area.
5. The practical difficulties are related to the limited amount of land located outside of
required setbacks. The practical difficulties are not only economic in nature.
6. Granting the requested variance would not result in limiting light or air to
neighboring properties. The land use will not change, so increases to congestion, fire
danger, or public safety are not expected. The property values of neighboring values
should not be negatively impacted, either, if the request is granted. The requested
variance will not impair the supply of light or air to adjacent properties, increase
congestion, endanger the public, or substantially diminish or impair property values
in the neighborhood.
7. Most of the property is located within the required setback from the river and two
wetlands, hence the need for a variance. While larger in size, the proposed cabin
would have the same width, which results in the same setback from the wetlands as
the existing cabin. The wetlands in close vicinity to the cabin are high in quality, so
conditions can be added to ensure the wetlands are not negatively impacted. The
small size of the property limits potential locations of the cabin that either don’t
require a variance, or would require smaller setback variance requests. The requested
PC Resolution No.: 2021-17
Page 3 of 3
variance appears to be the minimum action required to eliminate the practical
difficulty of the lot lacking space outside of required setbacks. Conditions can be
added to ensure it is the minimum action required.
8. The variance is not related to a need for direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall be met:
1. The proposed location of the new cabin, including decks, shall not encroach closer to
the OHWL of the St Croix River than the existing cabin, as indicated on the submitted
plans.
2. The proposed location of the new cabin, including decks, shall not encroach closer to
the wetlands to the north and south of the existing cabin, as indicated on the submitted
plans.
3. The applicant shall secure any applicable permits from the Watershed District, and
comply with their requirements.
4. A grading plan and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City for review prior
to issuance of a building permit, showing any areas of soil disruption and locations of
any trees to be removed and added, in order to ensure that drainage is not directed to
adjacent properties and proper erosion control measures are taken.
5. The applicant shall secure any other applicable Federal, State, County, and local
permits required for the project.
6. The applicant shall pay all fees and escrows associated with this application.
Adopted by the Scandia Planning Commission this 7th day of September, 2021.
_________________________________
Travis Loeffler, Chair
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Ken Cammilleri, City Administrator