Loading...
8.b3 Boyles Variance - CC Packet Date of Meeting: July 18, 2023 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: TJ Hofer, Consultant City Planner Re: Variance for PID 34.032.20.24.0022 Applicant: Eric S Boyles & Mickie S Dent Zoning: RR-N, SM-O, FP-O Owner: Eric S Boyles & Mickie S Dent Future Land Use: Agricultural Core Location: PID 34.032.20.24.0022 Review Deadline August 7, 2023 The applicant is requesting approval of a Variance to construct an addition that encroaches into the setback for the ordinary high-water level and to construct an accessory structure within the ordinary high-water level setback in the rear yard. BACKGROUND The existing structure is a legally nonconforming structure that was approved through a variance by a document recorded with the County registrar with the recording number 1024003 (Recorded Document 1023004), recorded on March 18, 1993, that allowed for the construction of the dwelling with a 42 ft. setback from the ordinary high-water level (OHWL) of Big Marine Lake. The dwelling sits 50 ft. away from the OHWL. The previous approval does not allow for expansion based on the change of OHWL. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Existing Conditions The existing lot is a legally nonconforming lot in the Rural Residential Neighborhood (RR-N) base zoning district, the Shoreland Management Overlay District (SM-O), and the General Floodplain Overlay District (FP-O). Lot standards are detailed below. Changes from the existing conditions to the proposed are underlined. Table 1: Zoning District Standards RR-N SM-O Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Minimum Lot Size (ac.) (Existing Lot of Record) 0.92 2.5 0.82 0.82 Buildable Area (ac.) 1.00 N/A ~70.0 sq. ft. ~70.00 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width (ft.) 150 160 150 150 Lot Frontage (ft.) 100 N/A 150 150 Setbacks (ft.) Front 40 N/A 38.8 38.8 Side 10 N/A 42 42 OHWL 100 100 50 39.6 Maximum Lot Coverage 25% 25% 24.59% 24.75% Accessory Structure Location Outside all setbacks, if in front of principal structure see Character Standards N/A 6.4 ft. within the OHWL. Behind principal structure 25 ft. from OHWL, meets all other setbacks. Behind principal structure. Accessory Structure Height (ft.) 35, but not taller than Principal Structure 35 Not provided. Not provided. Total Accessory Structure Area (sq. ft) 1,000 N/A 192 192 Accessory Structure Dimensional Standards for Domestic Farm Animals: Any seasonal or year-round wetland, lake or stream (ft.) 200 N/A 43.90 N/A The existing lot is legally nonconforming due to lot size and buildable area. The OHWL setback and front setback overlap for the majority of the lot, aside from a small area in the southeast portion of the lot. This area is approximately 70 sq. ft. and is the only location where a structure could be located to not be within a structure or OHWL setback. This area is also the location of septic tank lids, as noted by the existing conditions survey, which also requires setbacks. The parcel is approximately 35,719 sq. ft.. However, a large section of the lot is under the OHWL. The area outside of the OHWL is 20,371 sq. ft. A large area of the western part of the lot is within the 100-year flood elevation of both FEMA and the Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District. FEMA has identified these areas as Zone AE and Zone X. The lot meets minimum lot width and frontage. The existing principal structure is a single-family dwelling and is a legal nonconforming structure. The dwelling encroaches into the OHWL setback by 50 ft. (50 ft. setback) and encroaches into the front setback by 1.2 ft. (38.8 ft. setback). The existing detached accessory structure is located 6.4 ft into the OHWL and is within the 100-year flood elevation of both FEMA and the Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District. The City does not have records approving this structure. Staff believe that the existing accessory structure is an illegal nonconformity. Additionally, a chicken coop is currently located on the property within the OHWL setback. The keeping of domestic fowl falls under the Livestock and Livestock Operations use which is prohibited in the RR-N zoning district, however staff believes that this is a legal nonconforming use as it was allowed under the previous zoning ordinance. Governing Standards Section 153.500.110 Subd. 3 (E) Expansion of Nonconforming Buildings or Structures establishes the standards of when a nonconforming building can be expanded. If a nonconformity is nonconforming based on height, yard setback, or lot area expansion can be allowed through an administrative permit, otherwise, a variance is required. Chapter 5, Shoreland Management Regulations 3.72, states that all additions or expansions to the outside dimensions of an existing nonconforming structure must meet the setback, height, and other requirements of Sections 5.0 to 8.0 of the ordinance. Any deviation from these requirements must be authorized by a variance. Proposed Conditions The proposed expansion to the principal structure will increase the encroachment into the OHWL by 10.4 ft., for a setback of 39.6 ft. The previous variance approved for the principal structure to be constructed with a setback of 42 ft. from the OHWL. The existing structure is now 50 ft. from the OHWL. Staff does not have a reason on record why this distance would have changed. The previous approvals allowed for construction of a legally nonconforming building, but does not create a preexisting approval or “grandfathering in” that would allow for expansion. The proposed accessory building is located 25 ft. from the OHWL. An existing impervious patio is located on the west side of the existing dwelling. If the variance is approved, this would be removed, and a new impervious walkway would be constructed to access the proposed expansion. The submitted plans show a wetland buffer and rain garden as well. These have been added to address comments from the Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District. The applicant stated in their narrative an alternative that includes filling underneath the OHWL to effectively move the OHWL. Fill of this nature would be regulated by the Department of Natural Resources. Variance for Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure Section 153.500.060 Subd. 1 (B) establishes the standards for when the City shall approve a variance. The variance must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, must be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter, and when the strict enforcement of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties with carrying out the strict letter of the Code. Practical difficulties are established within the UDC and are listed below in italics. Staff’s analysis of these is below each practical difficulty: a. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. The proposed use is not a reasonable use of the property. It is reasonable that the lot was approved for development of a single-family dwelling with an attached accessory garage. It is not reasonable to expand the house further in a way that increases the nonconformity. The proposed expansion is reasonable in it’s use but is does not meet the standards of a practical difficult established in the UDC and is not consistent with the Shoreland Management Overlay. Other alternatives exist for improving the existing structure such as alternations to the existing structure and expansions that either maintains the OHWL setback nonconformity without increasing the nonconformity or expanding into the front setback with a variance. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The applicant has stated three reasons regarding the need for the variance: (1) A prior variance from 1993 allowed for construction 42 feet from OHWL – so parts of this request help comply with that precedent. (2) Absent the 1993 variance, the standard setback extends to the front yard setback making any necessary structural improvements to the property untenable. This circumstance is unique to the property and is driven by the need for additional four-season space to accommodate Post-COVID remote work and the potential for additional space to care for elderly family members not driven by the homeowner. (3) To the extent that the council applies averaging of set back from the lake these projects would conform to the essential character, history of the neighborhood, and prior variance decisions that must have been made on adjoining properties. In both projects below these structures will be above the OHWL of 942.2 feet. The applicant’s first point is not applicable to the current proposal. Recorded Document 1023004 approved the construction of a legally nonconforming structure. The dwelling was constructed and still exists today. The allowances granted with Recorded Document 1023004 in 1993 have been used with the construction of the principal structure. The applicant’s second point is accurate. The existing lot is nonconforming, and a structure could not be constructed without a variance. A dwelling with an attached accessory garage exists on the property. There is no practical difficulty established that prohibits the proposed uses in the applicant’s narrative with the existing dwelling. The applicant’s third point references standards and practices not used by the City of Scandia. The City of Scandia does not use setback averaging in to either structure setbacks or OHWL setbacks. Each variance should be evaluated as a unique case, and prior decisions by the City do not set precedents when considering a variance. The plight of the landowner is directly due to circumstances created by the property owner. The applicant is requesting approval to increase a nonconformity on an existing legally nonconforming use where no practical difficulty exists. A variance was approved previously to allow for construction of the home that encroached into the setback for the ordinary high-water level. This request exceeds the previous variance without changes to lot circumstances other than the desires of the homeowner. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. d. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. The practical difficulties are not solely based on economic conditions. e. May include, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The variance is not related to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. f. 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. The proposed variance will not impair 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 g. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. Staff does not believe that a practical difficulty exists, and therefore no action is required to eliminate a practical difficulty for the expansion to the principal structure. If a variance were to be approved, staff believes that what the applicant has proposed is not the minimal action. Alterations or expansion to the dwelling could be done in other locations that may still require a variance, but will be a more minimal action than further encroaching towards the lake. Variance for Construction of a Detached Accessory Structure within the OWHL Setback a. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. The proposed detached accessory structure is a reasonable use. The applicant has identified this as a relocation, but within the standards of Section 153.500.110 Subd. 3 Nonconforming Buildings and Structures, the proposed structure is considered a new structure. Accessory structures are required to meet structure and OHWL setbacks and the proposed location is within the OHWL setback. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Practical difficulties for constructing an accessory structure on the site are unique and not created by the landowner. The existing detached accessory structure is illegal and must be removed. Buildable area on the lot is extremely limited and located in an area that is not a reasonable location to locate the accessory structure. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. d. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. The practical difficulties are not solely based on economic conditions. e. May include, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The variance is not related to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. f. 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. The proposed variance will not impair 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 g. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The proposed location of the accessory structure is preferable to the existing illegal nonconforming detached accessory structure. Regardless of where an accessory structure is located, a variance will be required. ANALYSIS Review Comments The submittal was sent to city staff and other regulatory agencies for review and comment. Engineering Department The City Engineer has provided comments, and the comments are attached. A grading permit will be required as the site is within 1,000 feet of a lake. An erosion and sediment control plan will also be required. Access to the site is limited, so the plans must be revised to show a construction entrance. The project must secure a permit from the CMSCWD and comply with the Watersheds rules and standards. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District The Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District has provided comments, and the comments are attached. The Watershed noted that the application must meet stormwater management and wetland buffers. Fire Department The Fire Chief had no comment. Public Works Department The Public Works Director had no comment. Washington Conservation District Washington Conservation District provided no comment. Washington County Washington County had no comment. Department of Natural Resources The DNR Area Hydrologist provided no comment. Planning Commission The application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their July 11, 2023 meeting. The Planning Commission held a public hearing where the applicant spoke. The applicant stated that the removal of the existing detached accessory structure and construction of new nonconforming accessory structure was an improvement on the site. The applicant stated that they did not see increasing the encroachment into the lake as material. No other public comments were received. The Planning Commission then closed the public hearing. During the meeting, Councilmember Kronmiller noted that the previous owner of the property confirmed that domestic fowl had been kept on the lot before the adoption of the UDC and that the existing detached accessory structure was not permitted, and is therefore an illegal nonconforming structure. Staff noted that this information was consistent with City records. The Planning Commission discussed the two variances. The Commission asked about what was required since the existing illegal accessory structure had been identified. Staff noted that regardless of the application, the shed must be removed. The Commission discussed a priority towards reducing nonconformities regarding setbacks from lakes. The Commission also asked about alternatives to expanding the structure or altering the structure. Staff confirmed that the structure could be expanded or altered with an administrative permit, so long as it did not increase the nonconformity and alterations met the standards established in the UDC, respectively. The Commission also discussed the need to revisit the language within the UDC regarding the keeping of domestic fowl. The Planning Commission moved to recommend denial of the variance to allow for the expansion of the legal nonconforming structure and to recommend approval of the variance to allow for the construction of a nonconforming accessory structure, with conditions detailed below. The motion was approved with a vote of 5-0. Staff Analysis Staff finds that the proposed plan is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code (UDC). The Comprehensive Plan prioritizes environmental stewardship on lakeside lots. Increasing the encroachment into the OHWL setback does not align with the goal of environmental stewardship. The applicant has not established a practical difficulty that warrants a variance being issued to expand the existing nonconforming structure. The parcel has already been developed and contains a habitable dwelling and useable accessory garage. Further expansion of the dwelling is not required to alleviate a practical difficulty. The existing nonconforming detached accessory structure is illegal and must be removed. Staff finds that a practical difficulty does exist in placing and constructing a detached accessory structure on the lot. Staff believes that there may still be an alternative location that would constitute a more minimal action. COUNCIL ACTION The City Council can do the following: 1. Approve, with or without conditions, the attached resolution. 2. Deny, with findings, the attached resolution. 3. Table the request for further review/study. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the variance for the expansion of a legal nonconforming structure that would increase the nonconformity, subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed use is not a reasonable use of the property. It is reasonable that the lot was approved for development of a single-family dwelling with an attached accessory garage. It is not reasonable to expand the house further in a way that increases the nonconformity. The proposed expansion is reasonable in it’s use but is does not meet the standards of a practical difficult established in the UDC and is not consistent with the Shoreland Management Overlay. Other alternatives exist for improving the existing structure such as alternations to the existing structure and expansions that either maintains the OHWL setback nonconformity without increasing the nonconformity or expanding into the front setback with a variance. 2. The plight of the landowner is directly due to circumstances created by the property owner. The applicant is requesting approval to increase a nonconformity on an existing legally nonconforming use where no practical difficulty exists. A variance was approved previously to allow for construction of the home that encroached into the setback for the ordinary high-water level. This request exceeds the previous variance without changes to lot circumstances other than the desires of the homeowner. 3. If the variance were granted, it would not alter the essential character of the locality based on a structural or architectural means but would alter the presence of structures along the shore of Big Marine Lake within the required setback area. 4. The practical difficulties are not solely based on economic conditions. 5. The variance is not related to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 6. The proposed variance will not impair 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. 7. The City has not found that a practical difficulty exists, and therefore no action is required to eliminate a practical difficulty for the expansion to the principal structure. Alterations or expansion to the dwelling could be done in other locations that may still require a variance, but will be a more minimal action than further encroaching towards the lake. The Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to allow for the construction of a detached accessory structure that encroaches into the OHWL setback, subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed detached accessory structure is a reasonable use. The applicant has identified this as a relocation, but within the standards of Section 153.500.110 Subd. 3 Nonconforming Buildings and Structures, the proposed structure is considered a new structure. Accessory structures are required to meet structure and OHWL setbacks and the proposed location is within the OHWL setback. 2. Practical difficulties for constructing an accessory structure on the site are unique and not created by the landowner. The existing detached accessory structure is illegal and must be removed. Buildable area on the lot is extremely limited and located in an area that is not a reasonable location to locate the accessory structure. 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. The practical difficulties are not solely based on economic conditions. 5. The variance is not related to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 6. The proposed variance will not impair 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. 7. The proposed location of the accessory structure is preferable to the existing illegal nonconforming detached accessory structure. Practical difficulties exist on the site that prevent the accessory structure from being located elsewhere while maintaining reasonable use. The Planning Commission recommend the following conditions of approval for the accessory structure variance: 1. The location and layout of the detached accessory structures on the lot shall be consistent with the plans and setbacks submitted to the City and reviewed with this request. No other structures shall be allowed. 2. The proposed accessory structure shall be setback from the ordinary high water level 25 ft. 3. The existing detached accessory structure within the ordinary high-water level shall be removed. 4. Before a building permit can be issued on the site, the following must occur: a. The applicant shall submit a site plan solely for the accessory structure that is consistent with the site plan reviewed submitted to the City on June 26, 2023. b. The applicant shall be in compliance with the standards of the Carnelian-Marine- St. Croix Watershed District including, but not limited to, required buffers and rain gardens. c. A grading plan and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City for review, showing any areas of soil disruption, construction entrances, any trees that will be removed, building floor elevations, and drainage patterns. 5. The applicant shall secure all applicable permits required from local, state, and federal entities. 6. The applicant shall pay all other fees and escrows associated with this application. 7. The applicant must commence the authorized use or improvement within one year of the date on which the variance is issued. After one year, the approvals issued under the provisions of the Section shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or Board. 8. The applicant shall record the Variance with Washington County within one year of the date when the Variance is approved by the City. Attachments 1. Resolution 07-18-23-05 2. Zoning Map 3. Future Land Use Map 4. Variance from 1993 (Document 1024003 from the Office of the County Recorder Washington County, MN) 5. Application 6. Variance Narrative 7. Existing Conditions 8. Proposed Conditions 9. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Comments, dated June 20, 2023 10. Washington County Comments, dated June 12, 2023 CITY OF SCANDIA, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 07-18-23-05 DENYING A VARIANCE FOR AN EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING PRINCIPAL STRUCUTRE AND APPROVING A VAIRANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT PARCEL ID 34.032.20.24.0022 WHEREAS, Eric S Boyles & Mickie S Dent (the “applicants”) have requested and made an application for variances from ordinary high water level setback to expand a legally nonconforming structure on a nonconforming lot that includes (1) a 61.2 foot variance from the 100 foot ordinary high water level setback of Big Marine Lake for expansion of a legally nonconforming structure and (2) a 75 foot variance from the 100 foot setback of Big Marine Lake to constructure an accessory structure on property identified as 18510 Norell Avenue North, legally described as follows: Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block 2, ANDERSON’S BIG LAKE ADDITION; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Variance request at a duly noticed Public Hearing on July 11th, 2023, and recommended that the City Council deny the request for the expand a legally nonconforming structure; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Variance request at a duly noticed Public Hearing on July 11th, 2023, and recommended that the City Council approve the request to constructure an accessory structure; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCANDIA, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the requested variance to encroach the ordinary high water level setback to expand a legally nonconforming structure on a nonconforming lot that includes a 61.2 foot variance from the 100 foot ordinary high water level setback of Big Marine Lake for expansion of a legally nonconforming structure, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed use is not a reasonable use of the property. It is reasonable that the lot was approved for development of a single-family dwelling with an attached accessory garage. It is not reasonable to expand the house further in a way that increases the nonconformity. The proposed expansion is reasonable in it’s use but does not meet the standards of a practical difficult established in the UDC and is not consistent with the Shoreland Management Overlay. Other alternatives exist for improving the existing structure such as alternations to the existing structure and expansions that either maintains the OHWL setback nonconformity without increasing the nonconformity or expanding into the front setback with a variance. 2. The plight of the landowner is directly due to circumstances created by the property owner. The applicant is requesting approval to increase a nonconformity on an existing legally nonconforming use where no practical difficulty exists. A variance was approved previously to allow for construction of the home that encroached into the setback for the ordinary high-water level. This request exceeds the previous variance without changes to lot circumstances other than the desires of the homeowner. 3. If the variance were granted, it would not alter the essential character of the locality based on a structural or architectural means but would alter the presence of structures along the shore of Big Marine Lake within the required setback area. 4. The practical difficulties are not solely based on economic conditions. 5. The variance is not related to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 6. The proposed variance will not impair 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. 7. The City has not found that a practical difficulty exists, and therefore no action is required to eliminate a practical difficulty for the expansion to the principal structure. Alterations or expansion to the dwelling could be done in other locations that may still require a variance, but will be a more minimal action than further encroaching towards the lake. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCANDIA, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the requested variance to allow a 75 foot variance from the 100 foot setback of Big Marine Lake to constructure an accessory structure, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed detached accessory structure is a reasonable use. The applicant has identified this as a relocation, but within the standards of Section 153.500.110 Subd. 3 Nonconforming Buildings and Structures, the proposed structure is considered a new structure. Accessory structures are required to meet structure and OHWL setbacks and the proposed location is within the OHWL setback. 2. Practical difficulties for constructing an accessory structure on the site are unique and not created by the landowner. The existing detached accessory structure is illegal and must be removed. Buildable area on the lot is extremely limited and located in an area that is not a reasonable location to locate the accessory structure. 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. The practical difficulties are not solely based on economic conditions. 5. The variance is not related to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 6. The proposed variance will not impair 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. 7. The proposed location of the accessory structure is preferable to the existing illegal nonconforming detached accessory structure. Practical difficulties exist on the site that prevent the accessory structure from being located elsewhere while maintaining reasonable use. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall be met: 1. The location and layout of the detached accessory structures on the lot shall be consistent with the plans and setbacks submitted to the City and reviewed with this request. No other structures shall be allowed. 2. The proposed accessory structure shall be setback from the ordinary high water level 25 ft. 3. The existing detached accessory structure within the ordinary high-water level shall be removed. 4. Before a building permit can be issued on the site, the following must occur: a. The applicant shall submit a site plan solely for the accessory structure that is consistent with the site plan reviewed submitted to the City on June 26, 2023. b. The applicant shall be in compliance with the standards of the Carnelian- Marine-St. Croix Watershed District including, but not limited to, required buffers and rain gardens. c. A grading plan and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City for review, showing any areas of soil disruption, construction entrances, any trees that will be removed, building floor elevations, and drainage patterns. 5. The applicant shall secure all applicable permits required from local, state, and federal entities. 6. The applicant shall pay all other fees and escrows associated with this application. 7. The applicant must commence the authorized use or improvement within one year of the date on which the variance is issued. After one year, the approvals issued under the provisions of the Section shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or Board. 8. The applicant shall record the Variance with Washington County within one year of the date when the Variance is approved by the City. Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 18 day of July, 2023. Christine Maefsky, Mayor ATTEST: Kyle Morell, City Administrator 18 8.1 Legend 0 132 Feet This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and other sources affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Scandia is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. Disclaimer: © Bolton & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 7/6/2023 3:22 PM City Limits Parcels (4/1/2023) Lot Lines PWI Basin Public Water Basin Public Water Wetland PWI - Watercourse Parks Shoreland Overlay PUD Overlay Lakes Mining Overlay Saint Croix River District Zoning Agricultural Core Agricultural Preserves Rural Residential General Village Neighborhood Rural Commercial Rural Residential Neighborhood Village Historic Core Village Center Industrial Park Scandia_2022.sid Red: Band_1 Green: Band_2 Blue: Band_3 Zoning Map Boyles Variance m i n n e s o t a RL Ate' m 1IqmIp E: y n _ 95 4 kz/1 Mfg i i / Z"] / iii - 1 _ 45'-6 3/4" 43.90 f t From: Tom Langer <tom.langer@cmscwd.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 8:51 AM To: Eric Boyles; Milo Horak; Mickie Dent Cc: Mike Isensee; TJ Hofer Subject: RE: Boyle Variance - OHWL Setback Encroachment and Accessory Structure Placement (PID 3403220240022) Attachments: 0) Application and SW Worksheet - Boyle-Dent.pdf; Combined Buffer & Stormwater Declaration Template.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hi Eric, I’ve reviewed, edited, and am attaching an updated SW worksheet and Application based on the submitted project understanding. I do agree that it does appear that there are two project here and think it best to keep them separated. The shoreline project will require a watershed permit ($10 fee & $500 surety) as currently understood, however, it also appears eligible for the District’s Cost-Share grant. I’ve copied Mike, whom has been on site to discuss the shoreline project. When you are ready to move forward with that project, please complete another permit form. The redevelopment project of the porch, patio, and shed will need to be approved by the City. Assuming your project is permittable under a variance your project triggers the District’s stormwater and buffer rules. Rule 2: Stormwater management: Stormwater management is required for all new or reconstructed impervious surfaces in accordance with the District’s Residential Stormwater Worksheet and the stormwater practice declared against the property. The Site Survey will need to be updated to include a stormwater practice above the OHWL (we cannot permit a stormwater practice below the OHWL). Rule 4: Buffers: A permanent buffer at 50% distance from primary structure to OHW (25 ft in this case) needs to be established and shown in the site plans, field monumented, and declared against the property with any LGU variance approval for shoreland or wetland setback. The proposed patio and addition are compliant with this requirement. The current location of the proposed shed would be within 25ft of the OHWL and not be permittable by District Rule. If the shed is moved beyond the 25 ft setback it can be permitted by the watershed. Next steps: submit updated site plans with buffer and stormwater items as outlined, full fee and surety payment, and updated application. Once received, the Watershed will further assist with drafting the buffer and stormwater declaration (template only is attached, please don’t complete at this time) and schedule your project for review at the next available board meeting. Thank you, Tom Langer Riparian Permit Specialist | Carnelian Marine St. Croix Watershed District 11660 Myeron Rd North | Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone:  (651) 275-7452 | Cell: 507-276-8056  www.cmscwd.org From: Daniel Elder <Daniel.Elder@co.washington.mn.us> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 12:21 PM To: TJ Hofer Subject: RE: Boyle Variance - OHWL Setback Encroachment and Accessory Structure Placement (PID 3403220240022) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed The County has no comments on this variance. Daniel Elder | Planner II Washington County Public Works Department 11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, MN 55082 Office: 651-430-4307 A great place to live, work, and play…today and tomorrow