Loading...
4.a) 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