Loading...
08.b3a Melcher Accessory Building Additional CommentsMelcher Accessory Building Variance – Additional Notes and Changes • Harmony with 2040 Comprehensive Plan o A reoccurring theme of the 2040 comprehensive plan is to preserve the rural agricultural character of the community. Specifically while promoting a variety of land uses and residential densities. We believe the design of our proposed structure fully embodies and promotes these objectives. The design of the building actually reinforces the rural agricultural character of the area rather than detracting from it. o The 2040 comprehensive plan also lists an objective to encourage buildings to be designed for accessibility in order to meet the needs of current and future owners. The purpose of the proposed porch area is exactly what this objective is targeting. In the summer, the porch provides protection from the sun for old and young alike, while allowing them to enjoy the beauty of the area. It also promotes social interaction in the community by having a convenient outdoor place to sit with friends or neighbors. In the winter, the porch provides snow and ice free access to the building which will also house the snow removal equipment required to keep the residence accessible. We have slightly reduced the size of the porch to reduce square footage, but are limited to particular sizes based on the post spacing so we found this to be the smallest practical size. o The proposed location is also rooted in accessibility to avoid an icy driveway sloped towards the building or a double slope that would bottom out a trailer tongue. o Another purpose for the chosen location is minimal disturbance of trees and natural slopes. A goal of the 2040 comprehensive plan is to “work with property owners to protect and preserve native, endangered, threatened, and unique plants and animal on privately owned land.” We are completely aligned with this and it has guided our design process from the start. We have invested a significant amount of time and resources in planning and surveying in order to cause as little natural disturbance as possible. • Additional Comments and Explanation o It is also worth noting that the adjacent land to the West is designated as future park, meaning it will not be developed, and that the road will more than likely remain a dead end with extremely low traffic for the foreseeable future. It is reasonable to suspect that any access to trails created in this area would access from the opposite side of the parcel which is in the same area as other existing park amenities. o It should also be noted that even with the proposed improvements, the impervious surface coverage of the lot would be below 4%. Well within the 25% maximum. o There is also a precedent for this size building in the area. As you can see from the aerial view included, or from a drive through the neighborhood, there are many other buildings in this size range in the area and this would not be out of character in any way. o The main purpose of the building is to store equipment related to maintenance of the property or recreation in the area, enjoying all that Scandia has to offer. I propose the point that the equipment required to properly maintain a heavily wooded 2.4 acre lot is not much, if at all, difference than that required for a 3 acre lot, on which this proposal would be allowed without a variance at all. Understanding that the line needs to be drawn somewhere, I urge the planning commission and city council to consider this point. o In regards to the proposal being the minimum necessary action I would like to bring up that due to the situation of the house being non-conforming to the side and rear setbacks, an addition to the house would also require a variance and would be a major undertaking, requiring far more grading and disturbance than this proposal. That alternative in addition to a 1000 sq ft accessory structure would present the only alternative action. o While we are unable to provide any additional concession in size and still meet our needs, we worked with all of our contractors to devise a new site plan and address the concerns raised in the previous meeting. By rotating the building so the shorter side is facing the right of way, reconfiguring the floor plan, and shifting the location, we are able to present an option pushes it back from the right of way and eliminates the need for a front setback variance. If needed, we would also be willing to add some additional screening to the East of the access from the road, but there is great natural screening already present by pushing it back 40 ft from the right of way. o Lastly, upon reviewing section 2.3 of the zoning ordinances, I believe the property meets the conditions for allowing the building closer to the road than the principal structure as it is necessary to meet the external storage requirements of section 3.4. This would redu ce the ask to 1 variance based on the proposed size.