7.b)2) Clary-Etzwiler applicationFile No -ILL -1
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING AND ZONING REQUEST
City of Scandia, Minnesota
14727 209th Street North, Scandia, MN 55073
Phone 651/433-2274 Fax 651/433-5112 Web http://www.ci.scandia.mn.us
Please read before completing: The City will not begin processing an application that is incomplete. Detailed submission
requirements may be found in the Scandia Development Code, available at the City office and website (www.ci.scandiamn.us) and in
the checklist forms for the particular type of application. Application fees are due at the time of application and are not refundable.
1. Property Location: (street address, ifapplicable)
2. Washington County Parcel ID: �s 21.19
1
d tp
e 12, OOQes
3. Complete Legal Description: (attach if necessary)
cm3�svI-LL� �K RC�g 2o� pAT Btsc— 'a � Z �WC� L�mA�iJs1�C�7
hk_ SLO cFarJ-R C6- Cs5i-3cC s -K 8 -LEC--mcf, £F'dJLSI ACOW u32Sl L(&�G- cl- 5th
z tO R o C t -k (L- is A, &3 _-jr_Pt0f1J ;LloN)U WLErJi TtrEitx c �atsi SLY ozJ rte
q'�c�hLl_E L 7c) sXX-)'-tt L;Vr: 1-� Ol`
4. Owner(s):
Phone:
gNkzDN_L_
��,.• mss(-�'�3-�83 ►
C� 3t�-i-7L{4-3�g
Street Address:
E -Mail:
City/State:CtAKes�
Zip: 6-f>C_->U-S
5. Applicant/Contact Person:
Phone:
Street Address (Mailing):
E -Mail:
City/ State:
Zip:
6. Requested Action(s): (check all that apply)
Variance _ Administrative Permit
_ Amendment (Development Code)
Variance Extension (type)_Amendment
(Comp. Plan)
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) _ Site Plan Review
(fie)
_ Subdivision, Minor
_ CUP Extension
_ CUP/ Open Space Subdivision. — Site Plan Modification
Subdivision, Preliminary Plat/Major
_ CUP/ Planned Unit Development — Site Plan Extension
Subdivision, Final Plat
Interim Use Permit UUP) _ Sign (Permanent)
Environmental Review
Wetland Review
7. Brief Description of Request: (attach separate sheet if necessary)
-e IF- ,kSE A-'tC ctkA cA31R— Cf_� K�i
U3 ft CC CDA -k f LAK) - t
8. Project Name: (Zt✓gUL SSE l VJa�'�s� 4�
I hereby apply for consideration of the above described request and declare that the information and materials submitted
with this application are complete and accurate. I understand that no application shall be considered complete unless
accompanied by fees as required by city ordinance. Applications for projects requiring more than one type of review
shall include the cumulative total of all application fees specified for each type of review. I understand that applicants
are required to reimburse the city for all out-of-pocket costs incurred for processing, reviewing and hearing the
application. These costs shall include, but are not limited to: parcel searches; publication and mailing of notices; review
by the city's engineering, planning and other consultants; legal costs, and recording fees. An escrow deposit to cover
these costs will be collected by the city at the time of application. The minimum escrow deposit shall be cumulative total
of all minimum escrow deposits for each type of review required for the project, unless reduced as provided for by
ordinance. The city may increase the amount of the required escrow deposit at any time if the city's costs are reasonably
expected to exceed the minimum amount. Any balance remaining after review is complete will be refunded to the
applicant. No interest is paid on escrow deposits.
PLEASE NOTE: If the fee owner is not the applicant, the applicant must provide written authorization by the fee
owner in order for this application to be considered complete.
Property Feeer Si ature(s)
Date:
(ciq
Applic t Signature s) �_
Date:
-7(a�4(ac���F
For City Use Only
n JUL JUL
Application Fees: 1150.00
� T 15 0 . 0V '2 8 2014
�((y[ $(025. 00
Escrow Deposit: �1 / D 0 CITY OF S°, ANCA
SCANDIA VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR
REPLACEMENT OF CLARY-ETZWILER
STORAGE/WORKSHED
We are applying to replace a pre-existing wooden boathouse/workshop on our
property. In addition to the application, we would like to clarify a few points and
provide some historical information.
1. We would like to replace a building that was on our property, this is not
construction of a new building.
2. There will not be a poured foundation. The building will be semi -temporary
in nature, built upon secured wooded posts, as was the original work/storage
shed.
3. All trees will be preserved.
4. We wish to rebuild on the pre-existing site, which is already graded. This
graded area extends back away from the river toward the bluff and has
existed as such for decades prior to this request. (Photos A, B) We are
asking for a variance to extend the back dimension of the original structure
backward by 6 feet. Because of surrounding forested areas and the existing
main dwelling, this is extension is not visible from the river. (Photo C, D)
S. Like the workshed itis replacing, the purpose of the building is mainly for
storage and as a workshop. Issues of hardship and clutter are discussed
below.
BRIEF OVERVIEW
Our proposal is for a variance that would replace two structures (Photos B,D,E)
and combine them into a single building. The new structure would not increase
the north -south visual dimension as viewed from the river. In fact, removal of
the smaller building and incorporating it into the larger one means the closest
outbuilding to the river would be an additional 12.5 back from the river. It also
reduces the visual linear footage of structures seen from the river by nearly 6
feet In order to understand how we arrived at our request for this new
storage/work shed, we would like to provide a history of this project, how we
arrived at the requested dimensions, and how we believe that by agreeing to
demolish a second building on the property as well, that this new project can be
a benefit to all parties involved.
HISTORY and MEASUREMENTS
Workshop/Storage: As show in pictures, we had a workshop/boathouse
whose eastern -most wall paralleled the river and measured 22 feet in length.
(Photo F) This is the dimension viewed from the river. This single continuous
22 foot wall served as the eastern wall for a combined fully enclosed work area
and its attached partially enclosed 3 -sided storage area. (Photo GH) From the
river this structure appears as a single building. The entire structure
encompassing both these spaces was covered by a single roof, as can be seen by
the photographs E,F,G,H. As we understand, it is the appearance of the
structure from the river that is most important when considering rebuilding. To
preserve/maintain the view of the building from the river, the full 22 feet
measurement was incorporated into our original building design. This
appearance is supported by the photos.
Although the shed has been removed, an objective confirmation of these the
measurements can be supported by measuring the distance between the existing
trees that also appear in the photos. (Photos B,E,F,I) Although we have since
learned that only the footage of the fully enclosed area of the building was
included in historical measurements, it is clear that previously reported
measurements do not refer to the length of the eastern wall. Rather, reported
dimensions appear to refer only to the fully enclosed portion of the structure as
observed from the rear (western) side. (Photos GH) Additionally, it is also not
clear if the measurements were estimated or objectively measured. Even among
various records, different measurements have been recorded showing just the
fully ENCLOSED area to be 12 x 16,14x 16, or 16 x16. Regardless of the records,
there seems to be consistency that the north -south dimension of the fully
enclosed shed is 16 feet.
Outhouse: (Photos B,D,I) This building remains intact and measures 4"T' by
5'8" feet It lies 12.5 feet closer to the river, is visually unattractive, and is
environmentally undesirable. It would appear to be beneficial to all parties
involved to remove it, and we would like to do so by incorporating a working
toilet into the new building. Our existing sewer line runs immediately adjacent
to the construction site, and the septic system has been inspected and approved
as capable of accommodating an additional line. (Documentation provided.)
NEW PROJECT PROPOSAL
Although there is dispute as to the original length of the eastern wall, we would
like to propose a compromise, that we believe could benefit all interested parties.
This would consist of:
1. Demolishing our existing outhouse. By doing this, we remove a building that
is unsightly, lies closer to the river, is visible from the river from at least 2
sides, and is a biohazard.
2. In exchange, we are allowed to incorporate this linear 6 feet as seen from the
river, into the new structure. Thus, we would no longer contest our claim of
22 feet of the original eastern wall, but will agree to accept the 16 foot
2
dimension, but then ask to incorporate the additional linear 6 feet, given up
from destruction of the outhouse, into the new structure. This would result
in a structure 22 feet in length.
So, in summary, we are proposing that we demolish an additional building on
our property in order to come to a compromise over the disputed length of
the original eastern wall. In addition, when will remove this outhouse toilet,
we would like to replace it by incorporating a toilet with plumbing into the
new construction. We believe a plumbed toilet is preferable to an outhouse
by all parties. In order to incorporate the toilet and provide room for boat
storage, we would like to extend the building back an additional 6 feet away
from the river onto land that has been graded and excavated for decades as
can be seen in (Photographs A and B). This space is completely invisible
from the river. A silt fence is also currently in place below the construction
site. The roof will remain as a sloped shed roof like the original structure.
USAGE/HARDSHIP
There is no driveway access to our yard or cabin. Although we have a hill
elevator, this is mainly to transport small items like luggage or groceries. It is
not large enough to hold canoes or kayaks and very awkward to transport lawn
equipment or furniture. Even when transporting smaller tools, it is not practical
to go up and down the hill every time one needs to get a rake, a fishing net, or a
hammer. We have some storage above, but this has not turned out to be a
practical solution, due to the distance up the hill and then having to unload and
transport heavy or large items another 100 feet back to the garage beyond the
bluff line. Thus, for now, we have needed to leave our equipment below the bluff
either outside the cabin. Additionally, in an attempt to be good stewards and
better reduce our outdoor clutter, we are temporarily storing some items in
living spaces.
CLUTTER
As noted, now that we are without a shed, we have had to leave canoes, kayaks,
life jackets, lawn chairs, lawn mowers, rakes, gas tanks, firewood, beach toys,
and other items outside our cabin, which is neither visually desirable nor good
for long term care of these items. (Photo J) We are currently storing some items
in our screened porch and other living areas on a temporary basis in an effort to
further reduce current lawn clutter.
MUTUALLY DESIRABLE ADVANTAGES OF THIS PROJECT
1. Visual: Replacement of two buildings by one structure results in no increase
in TOTAL north -south footage, even when using the most conservative of the
various measurements provided. As viewed from The St. Croix River, it
actually reduces the visible linear footage by 6 feet according to some
measurements.
2. Environmental: The removal of an additional outbuilding that lies 12.5 closer
to the river improves visual appeal and allows for reclamation of natural
vegetation at the demolition site
3. Biohazard containment: A toolshed toilet and sink would allow for disposal
of human waste and potential workshop liquids directly into a contained
sewer system.
4. Clutter reduction: A storage area allows for a place to keep recreational and
home improvement items off the lawn, thereby creating a more natural
setting and visually pleasing appearance from all those who use the river.
S. Mutual Goodwill: we wish to respect the scenic and environmental concerns
of the area, which is why we chose to have property on the St. Croix River.
We only wish to rebuild an 80+ year old shed that we were previously using
on an existing building site. As this site already exists, we do not believe we
are damaging or creating an environmental hazard on our property. We are
simply property owners and tax -payers, who wish to replace a building on
our property. As this project reduces the number of buildings on our
property, decreases clutter, eliminates a potential biohazard, and improves
the visual appeal of the natural setting, we truly believe that this project can
be beneficial not just to us, but to the environment, and to all those who
travel by our property.
Lf