Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05.b Clapp Variance PC Packet
1 | P a g e Date of Meeting: October 6, 2026 To: Chair Hogle and Planning Commission Members From: Greenlee Dahle, Consultant City Planner TJ Hofer, Consultant City Planner Re: Variance for Expansion of a Nonconforming, Substandard Structure with Encroachment into Top of Bluff and Bluffline Setbacks at 20077 Quinnell Avenue North Applicant: Doug Clapp Zoning: AG-C, SM-O, SCRD Owners: Christine & Doug Clapp Future Land Use: St. Croix River Corridor Area Location: 20077 Quinnell Ave N PID 1903219430003 Review Deadline: December 30, 2026 Request: Doug Clapp requests variances to expand the existing cabin at 20077 Quinnell Avenue North into a year-round single-family dwelling within the applicable bluff setbacks. Relevant Standards: The LSCR treats the existing cabin as a substandard structure. An expansion may occur without a variance if it extends away from the river and maintains a 30-foot undisturbed bluffline setback. Because the site cannot meet that setback, the proposal requires a variance. The LSCR and Minnesota Rules allow a variance where exceptional circumstances make strict compliance an unnecessary hardship or make conformity unreasonable, impractical, or infeasible. Proposed Conditions: The applicant proposes to expand and convert the seasonal cabin into an approximately 2,400-square-foot, year-round dwelling with an attached garage. The addition would extend away from the bluff, increasing the bluffline setback from zero to approximately 4.9 feet. Key Issues: The variance review focuses on the three-part undue-hardship test: whether exceptional site circumstances create an unnecessary hardship; whether a reasonable use of the property can be established without the variance; and whether strict conformity is unreasonable, impractical, or infeasible. Relevant considerations include the bluffs and steep slopes, overlapping setbacks, and the locations of existing structures and septic systems. Review: Staff find that the site constraints satisfy the undue-hardship criteria and that preventing 2 | P a g e improvements necessary for year-round use of the property would be unreasonable. Staff recommend approval with conditions. BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to expand a nonconforming, substandard structure located at 20077 Quinnell Avenue North. The property is zoned Agricultural Core (AG-C) and is within the Shoreland Management Overlay (SM-O) as well as the Lower St. Croix River Corridor Overlay District (SCRD). The City of Scandia adopted Washington County Ordinance No. 207, Chapter 5, by reference. Lower St. Croix Bluffland and Shoreland Management Regulations (LSCR) apply to properties along the St. Croix River, which is considered the Lower St. Croix River Corridor Overlay District (SCRD) within the UDC. This area is shown on the city’s Zoning Map as the Saint Croix River District. Due to the overlays, this property is subject to both the Shoreland Ordinance and the LSCR. Notably the Shoreland Ordinance requires a setback from the “top of bluff” where the LSCR requires setbacks from the “bluffline.” These terms do have technical differences between them that relate to the average slope of the land. Regardless of the difference, when more than one standard applies, the more restrictive standard prevails. 3 | P a g e The existing structure is located within the bluff and bluffline, so the proposed expansion requires a variance. The existing single-family dwelling is legally nonconforming due to an encroachment into the top of bluff setback required by the Shoreland Ordinance. The existing single-family dwelling is a substandard structure due to the encroachment into the bluffline setback required by the LSCR. Substandard structures are defined and explained below. Explanation of the Lower St. Croix Bluffland and Shoreland Management Regulations The LSCR is based on Minnesota Rules Chapter 6105 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers (the “Rules”). The Rules allow variances where there are particular hardships and define hardships in the Rules. This is similar to the “undue hardship” test that was used for variance prior to the change in statute to the “practical difficulties” test. The LSCR uses the practical difficulties test when evaluating variances. The Rules further establish that where there is a conflict between the provision of the Minnesota Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Rules, and some other law or local ordinance, the more protective provision shall apply. The City Attorney indicated that the “undue hardship” test is established as the more difficult test to meet in case law. More details are provided later in the staff report regarding the applicant’s narrative and how it addresses the undue hardship test. Under Minnesota Rules and the LSCR ordinance, the structure is a “substandard structure.” A substandard structure is defined in the LSCR as: Substandard Structure: Any structure established before the effective date of this Ordinance which is permitted within a particular zoning district but does not meet the setbacks or other dimensional standards of this Ordinance. And Any structure which does not meet the setbacks or other dimensional standards of this Ordinance and which has been built, altered or modified subject to a variance for the structure or the land on which it is situated. Exceptions are established in the LSCR that allow for extension and enlargement of substandard structures without a variance provided conditions are met. The expansion must be: On the side facing away from the river and/or bluffline A minimum undisturbed setback of 30 ft. from all blufflines must be maintained. The maximum width of the improvement shall not exceed 50% of the lateral width of the river facing profile of the existing structure. The improvement to the structure must be visually inconspicuous when viewed from the river during summer months. An inspection by the Zoning Administrator and Washington Conservation District must include a finding that tree survival/growth and integrity and inherent stability of the existing landscape will be maintained if the improvement is built. The improvement meets all other standards contained in the LSCR ordinance, including those contained in Sections 4.2 and 6.2. 4 | P a g e The height of the improvement does not exceed the height of the roof line of the existing structure. The existing structure and available building area are unable to meet the 30 ft. undisturbed area due to the existing improvements on the lot. Therefore, a variance is required regardless of whether the structure is expanded or replaced. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Existing Conditions The subject property is located at 20077 Quinnell Avenue North, with approximately 653 ft of street frontage. The parcel contains approximately 10.3 acres, is zoned AG-C, and is within the SM-O district and the Saint Croix River District established in the Unified Development Code. The property is within the boundary of the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway (riverway) and contains significant bluff and steep slope features. The National Park Service (NPS) holds a “Scenic Easement – Limited Development” on the property, which is a legal document that outlines land use restrictions and requires NPS approval on specific activities to protect and preserve the riverway scenic resources. The property has more than 350 ft. of shoreline on the river. The structures on the site are located over 600 ft. from the OHWL. The property is served by a private septic system and well, which are located to the north of the principal structure. The impervious surfaces cover less than 5% of the lot, and the structures meet setbacks from property lines. A boundary and topographic survey identifies the bluff and associated setback areas and is attached to this report. The locations of the bluffs are based on definitions from both the city’s Shoreland Ordinance and Washington County’s LSCR. The existing principal structure is nonconforming from the 100-ft. setback from a bluffline required by the LSCR, as it encroaches entirely into the setback (0 ft. setback) and is located within the area that would be considered the bluff. Staff understand this structure to be a legal nonconformity, but is also considered a substandard structure, which has higher standards for variances related to alterations and expansions. The existing principal structure is approximately 1,570 sq. ft. and was originally constructed in 1932, with three subsequent additions in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. The current roof design directs all stormwater toward the bluff. There is no garage currently on the property. The applicant’s narrative states that the property has consistently been used as a summer residence and is requesting to convert the seasonal cabin into a modern, year-round residence. The property also includes a secondary dwelling that was approved by the city in 1995 with a variance. 5 | P a g e Proposed Conditions The applicant proposes to winterize, improve, and expand the existing 1,570 sq. ft. cabin into an approximately 2,400 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. The proposed expansion is located off the northwest side of the home, furthest from the edge of the bluff. NPS has provided comments on the expansion and indicated that it was allowed by the scenic easement as it would not increase the visual profile of the home from the river, which is a requirement of the LSCR. The narrative describes proposed additions, including a second bathroom and an attached garage to provide “safe and reliable vehicle access and storage for snow removal equipment to allow for year-round occupancy.” The proposed plan would change the orientation of the roof from the current shed-style roof into a gable roof and would raise the current roof peak from approximately 17 ft. to no more than 26 ft., which was reviewed by NPS and found to be permissible under the terms of the scenic easement. Lot standards are detailed below with existing and proposed conditions. Nonconforming standards are shown in bold text. AG-C SM-O SCRD (Rural) Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Minimum Lot Size (acres) 20.0 20.0 2.5 10.3 10.3 Buildable Area (ac.) 1.00 N/A N/A Unknown* Unknown* Minimum Lot Width (ft.) 150 160 200 674 674 Minimum Lot Width at Water Line N/A 160 200 273 273 Lot Frontage (ft.) 300 N/A N/A 653 653 Minimum Structure Setbacks (ft.) Front (street) 40 N/A N/A 156 178 6 | P a g e AG-C SM-O SCRD (Rural) Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Side 20 N/A N/A 46 51 482 438 Rear (OHWL) 50 200 200 863 860 Top of Bluff/ Bluffline Setback (ft.) N/A 30 100 0.0 4.9 Maximum Structure Height (ft.) 35 35 35 Unknown Unknown Maximum Lot Coverage 25% 25% 20% 1.8% 3.7% *Total buildable area is unknown under the NPS Scenic Easement restrictions, bluff setbacks, and existing septic mound locations. The LSCR allows for lateral improvements to existing substandard structures provided certain conditions are met. One of these conditions is that a minimum undisturbed setback of 30 ft. from the bluff be maintained. The current structure makes this impossible, so a variance is required. The scenic easement and LSCR place additional restrictions on tree and vegetation removal, which are reviewed by NPS. NPS provided an approval letter to the applicant, City, and DNR for the proposed plans, which is attached to this report. The LSCR allows clearing of vegetation for validly permitted structures. Vegetation would be impacted by construction and the removal of eight trees. Variance Minnesota Rules 6105.040 defines a variance as “a modification or variation of the provisions of the local ordinance where it is determined that, by reason of exceptional circumstances, the strict enforcement of any provision of the local ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship, or that strict conformity with the provisions of the local ordinance would be unreasonable, impractical, or not feasible under the circumstances.” Unnecessary Hardship with Official Controls The applicant stated that the property’s unique characteristics create an unnecessary hardship. The site is constrained by multiple overlapping setback requirements and steep slopes. According to the applicant, these setbacks significantly reduce the available buildable area on the parcel and limit opportunities for placement of a principal dwelling outside of the currently developed area. 7 | P a g e Reasonable Use Cannot be Established The applicant states that no other practical location exists on the parcel for construction of a replacement principal dwelling that would comply with applicable setback requirements. The area outside required setbacks is currently occupied by existing improvements on the lot. The applicant further states that the smaller cabin is seasonal in nature and lacks the facilities necessary to function as a year-round principal residence. Existing Standards are Unreasonable, Impractical, or not Feasible The variance request would allow for residential use and improvement of the existing principal cabin site while moving further from the bluff, rather than constructing a new house in a different location. The applicant states that strict application of LSCR bluff setback and vegetation removal standards would make replacement or substantial improvement of the existing cabin unreasonable, impractical, and not feasible. ANALYSIS Review Comments The submittal was sent to city staff and other regulatory agencies for review and comment. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District (CMSCWD) Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Staff provided comments in an email which is attached to this report. The project-specific comment states: “Given the extent of the proposed remodel and expansion with foundation and roofline adjustments, and the application’s statements that only ‘portions of the original foundation’ are anticipated to remain, I had a similar question regarding the anticipated extent of the structural/foundation replacement. Has that been considered in determining that the project remains an alteration/expansion rather than a replacement, and how would it be addressed if construction reveals that additional portions of the existing foundation need to be replaced?” Department of Natural Resources (DNR) The DNR Area Hydrologist provided a comment letter on the variance request which is attached to this report. The DNR recommended denial of the variance request. The applicant has revised the request since the comments were received, and further comments have not been received from the DNR. National Park Service (NPS) NPS Lands Staff provided an approval letter on the proposed plans which is attached to this report. 8 | P a g e Washington County Public Health & Environment Washington County SSTS Staff provided the following comments in an email which is attached to this report: “Two Subsurface Sewage Treatment System (SSTS) are located on the property and found complaint by licensed Inspection business, Zierke Soil Testing, LLC, on November 7, 2025. The variance application proposes expanding the south cabin; the SSTS serving this cabin is sized for two-bedrooms. A SSTS permit would be required to replace, modify, or change SSTS components. Currently there is not a SSTS Installation Permit submitted. Design flow capacity for residential septic systems is determined by the number of bedrooms. If the number of bedrooms is increased, the SSTS would require more capacity and upgrades to the system must be submitted for review.” Engineering Department The City Engineer provided no comment. Fire Department The Fire Chief provided no comment. Public Works Department The Public Works Director provided no comment. City Attorney The City Attorney stated that the more restrictive hardship test applies to variances in the Lower St. Croix Riverway, as opposed to the practical difficulties criteria based on Minnesota Rules and the conflict between the rules and the ordinance. The City Attorney has also reviewed the revised narrative from the applicant and felt comfortable with city staff making a recommendation of approval. Staff Analysis Staff find that the proposed plan is generally consistent with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan. The property is zoned for residential use, and variance approval allows a modification or variation of the provisions of the local ordinance for expansion to an existing structure which the applicant has stated is necessary to provide year-round occupancy. Variance approval would allow for structure expansion, the existing encroachment within the bluff setbacks, and the existing bluff impact zone encroachment. The proposed structure would not encroach any closer to the bluff, and the applicant has stated that it would minimize tree removals. 9 | P a g e Staff Findings The hardship appears to result from the property’s natural characteristics and the established location of existing structures and septic systems which were not constructed or installed by the applicant. Staff find that physical features and existing improvements not created by the current owners, including bluffs, streams, buildings, and infrastructure, significantly limit alternative building locations on the parcel. Strict application of the LSCR provisions would prevent substantial improvement of the principal structure for year-round occupancy. Staff find that a year-round single-family dwelling is a reasonable use of the property. Although the secondary dwelling location may provide a development site, staff find it unreasonable to require removal of that previously approved dwelling, which was installed by a prior landowner. National Park Service Comments NPS Lands Staff visited the property and provided preliminary approval of the proposed tree removals, site plan, and building plans, stating that these would be permissible under the terms of the scenic easement upon approval by the Scandia City Council. Department of Natural Resources Comments The DNR reviewed the application materials and recommended denial of the variance request in a letter to the City of Scandia. The DNR letter focuses on two issues: the allowances for substandard structures and vegetative cutting. Planning Staff met with the City Attorney and City Administrator to review the DNR and NPS comments. Staff reviewed Minnesota Rules and case law examples and found that the more restrictive, protective standard of the undue hardship test applies to variances in the Lower St. Croix Riverway. The applicant must establish, and the City must determine, that there is no reasonable, feasible, or practical use of the property without the requested variance. The DNR states, “the correct application of the LSCR regulations requires the structure to be moved to a location that is compliant with all setback standards of the LSCR ordinance.” This assumption is for construction or expansion of a structure without a variance. The LSCR ordinance establishes standards that allow for a variance to be issued for a specific bluff setback and allow expansion of a substandard structure if a 30 ft. undisturbed area between the bluff remains. These standards do not preclude a variance being issued for greater modification or variation. Staff have not identified anything in the Minnesota Rules or the adopted ordinance that prevents a variance providing greater modification or variation, provided the appropriate standards are met to grant a variance. The letter also states, “Any deviation requested should be framed as deviation from the 100-foot bluffline setback requirement, rather than framed as improvements to the conditions of existing cabin’s location.” The applicant’s phrasing and terminology in their application should be taken for its intent rather than its exact application to the specific regulations. The property in question is subject to three separate local ordinances, plus additional state and watershed regulations. A resident cannot be expected to have the land use expertise to perfectly detail their request. Staff 10 | P a g e work with applicants to identify issues with application materials, but the application must still be in the words of the applicant. The applicant has revised their narrative in response to the letter from the DNR. The second issue identified within the letter regarding vegetation cutting appears to be based on an incorrect interpretation of the ordinance. A "validly permitted structure" is a structure that is validly permitted, regardless of whether it is substandard. That is to say, a substandard structure issued a variance and granted a building permit is a "validly permitted structure." Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Comments The comments offered by CMSCWD generally have to do with alternatives to the proposal by the applicant. City staff encourage applicants to contact the appropriate watershed district as early as possible in the process of designing a project. If the watershed wants to identify alternative development locations or configurations, that should be done in review with the watershed. City staff’s role is not to design projects, select alternatives, or assemble application materials for applicants, but to guide applicants through the process and city-adopted ordinances that may impact their project. CMSCWD also inquired whether the proposed project was an alteration, expansion, or replacement and whether the level of work impacts the request from the applicant. Staff understand those terms are relevant when applying the standards and rights associated with nonconforming and substandard structures, specifically when determining what may occur with administrative approval. The distinction between replacement, alteration, or expansion is therefore not determinative of whether the applicant needs a variance in this circumstance. Once a variance is requested, the proposed level of work is not directly relevant to the review of the variance request or whether it meets the legal standards established in Minnesota Statute and Rules. COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission can do one of the following: 1. Recommend approval, with or without conditions, of the attached resolution. 2. Recommend denial, with findings, of the attached resolution. 3. Table the request for further review/study. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend the Planning Commission open a public hearing and receive any and all comments related to the variance request. Staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed variance: 11 | P a g e Motion to recommend approval of the attached resolution to approve a variance to allow an encroachment into the bluff setbacks and bluff impact zone, with conditions as described by staff within the staff report. Staff have prepared conditions of approval for consideration: 1. The location and layout of structures and impervious surfaces on the lot shall be substantially consistent with the plans and setbacks submitted to the City and reviewed with this request, except where revisions are required by this approval. 2. The applicant shall secure all applicable permits required from the watershed district, the county, as well as any other local, state, and federal entities. 3. The applicant shall maintain all applicable terms and conditions of this variance, and the scenic easement held by the National Park Service. 4. Any additional proposed tree removal, outside of the eight reviewed by NPS, must be submitted to the City and NPS for review and approval. 5. The applicant shall pay all other fees and escrows associated with this application. 6. 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. Draft Resolution No. 10-20-26-XX 2. Location and Zoning Map 3. Application 4. Survey/Site Plan 5. Existing Conditions Photos 6. Applicant Narrative, dated August 28, 2026 7. NPS Approval Letter, dated September 23, 2026 8. DNR Comment Letter, dated September 24, 2026 9. Update to Applicant Narrative, dated September 29, 2026 10. CMSCWD Comments, dated September 30, 2026 11. Washington County SSTS Comments, dated October 1, 2026 CITY OF SCANDIA, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 10-20-26-XX APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING, SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURE WITHIN THE TOP OF BLUFF AND BLUFFLINE SETBACK FOR PARCEL 1903219430003 LOCATED AT 20077 QUINNELL AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, Douglas Clapp, (the “applicant”), on behalf of Christine and Douglas Clapp (the “owners”), have requested and made an application for a 95.1-foot variance from the top of bluff setback (4.9-foot setback), and a 25.1-foot variance from the bluffline setback (4.9-foot setback) to allow for expansion of a nonconforming structure, on property located at 20077 Quinnell Avenue North, and the property is legally described as: See Attachment A; and, WHEREAS, the City of Scandia has adopted Ordinance 198 Shoreland Management Regulations which requires a 100-foot minimum setback for structures from the top of bluff; and, WHEREAS, the City of Scandia has adopted Washington County Development Code Chapter Five Lower St. Croix River Bluffland and Shoreland Management Regulations (“Washington County LSCR Regulations”) which require a 30-foot minimum setback for structures from the bluffline; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance request at a duly noticed Public Hearing on October 6, 2026, and recommended that the City Council approve the request with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCANDIA, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve, a 95.1-foot variance from the 100-foot top of bluff setback (4.9-foot setback) and a 25.1- foot variance from the 30-foot bluffline setback to allow for expansion of a nonconforming and substandard structure, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed use is a reasonable use of the property. A single-family dwelling with an accessory structure is permitted in the AG-C, SM-O, and SCRD districts. 2. The size and location of the lot is not directly due to circumstances created by the property owner. Based on the overlapping setback standards, the improvement could not be located on the parcel without encroaching on a setback from a bluff or requiring the removal of an existing structure. 3. If the variance were granted, it would not alter the essential character of the locality. Structures in the locality generally encroach into property line setbacks. 4. Economic conditions are not the sole factor in the variance. 5. The proposed 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 variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. 8. The hardship is a result of the property’s natural characteristics and location of existing structures and infrastructure where were not created by the property owner. 9. Strict application of the setback standards would prohibit alternative building locations for the replacement of a substandard structure. Strict compliance with all applicable setback requirements would prevent substantial improvement of the principal structure for year- round occupancy. 10. Conformance with all applicable standards is an unnecessary hardship that would be unreasonable, impractical, and infeasible. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall be met: 1. The location and layout of structures and impervious surfaces on the lot shall be substantially consistent with the plans and setbacks submitted to the City and reviewed with this request, except where revisions are required by this approval. 2. The applicant shall secure all applicable permits required from the watershed district, the county, as well as any other local, state, and federal entities. 3. The applicant shall maintain all applicable terms and conditions of this variance, and the scenic easement held by the National Park Service. 4. Any additional proposed tree removal, outside of the eight reviewed by NPS, must be submitted to the City and NPS for review and approval. 5. The applicant shall pay all other fees and escrows associated with this application. 6. 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 20th day of October 2026. Steve Kronmiller, Mayor ATTEST: Kyle Morell, City Administrator ATTACHMENT A PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION A tract of land situate in Government Lot 8 and the Southeast Quarter Southwest Quarter, Section 19, Township 32 North, Range 19 West, 4th Principal Meridian, Washington County, Minnesota described as follows: All that part of Government Lot 8 and the Southeast Quarter Southwest Quarter lying Easterly of County Road 53, South of “Line No. 1” and North of “Line No. 2” and its westerly extension described as follows: “Line No. 1”: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Government Lot 8; thence North 88 degrees 00’ West along the north line Southeast Quarter Southwest Quarter, 170.23 feet; thence, South 02 degrees 00’ West, 379.0 feet to a point in the centerline of County Road Number 53 and the point of beginning; thence, South 83 degrees 06’ East, 322.6 feet; thence, South 61 degrees 03’ East, 180.3 feet; thence, South 12 degrees 12’ East, 106.2 feet; thence, South 66 degrees 59’ East, 210.6 feet; thence, South 71 degrees 57’ East, 176.4 feet; thence, South 90 degrees 00’ East 265 feet, more or less, to the shoreline of the St. Croix River and there ending. “Line No. 2”: commencing at the quarter section corner on the south line of said Section 19; thence, West, along said south line, 162.70 feet to the east right-of-way line of County Road Number 53; thence, North 12 degrees 00’ East along said right-of-way line, 272.40 feet to the point of beginning; thence, South 70 degrees 20’ East, 112.90 feet; thence, North 46 degrees 55’ East, 80.33 feet; thence, North 25 degrees 30’ East 72.10 feet; thence, North 62 degrees 44’ East, 64.50 feet; thence, North 43 degrees 39’ East, 87.60 feet; thence, North 83 degrees 18’ East 186.10 feet; thence, South 66 degrees 44’ East, 294.53 feet; thence, South 87 degrees 47’ East, 176.10 feet; thence, North 84 degrees 33’ East to the shoreline of the St. Croix River and there ending. 75 2.3 20077 Quinnell Ave N 5270 Feet Disclaimer: 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. © Bolton & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 10/2/2026 File No._____________ 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 https://www.cityofscandia.com/ 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.cityofscandia.com) 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: 20077 Quinnell Ave N, Scandia, MN 55073 2. Washington County Parcel ID: 19-032-19-43-0003 3. Complete Legal Description: (attach if necessary) A tract of land situate in Government Lot 8 and the Southeast Quarter Southwest Quarter, Section 19, Township 32 North, Range 19 West, 4th Principal Meridian, Washington County, Minnesota described as follows: All that part of Government Lot 8 and the Southeast Quarter Southwest Quarter lying Easterly of County Road 53, South of “Line No. 1” and North of “Line No. 2” and its westerly extension described as follows: “Line No. 1”: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Government Lot 8; thence North 88 degrees 00’ West along the north line Southeast Quarter Southwest Quarter, 170.23 feet; thence, South 02 degrees 00’ West, 379.0 feet to a point in the centerline of County Road Number 53 and the point of beginning; thence, South 83 degrees 06’ East, 322.6 feet; thence, South 61 degrees 03’ East, 180.3 feet; thence, South 12 degrees 12’ East, 106.2 feet; thence, South 66 degrees 59’ East, 210.6 feet; thence, South 71 degrees 57’ East, 176.4 feet; thence, South 90 degrees 00’ East 265 feet, more or less, to the shoreline of the St. Croix River and there ending. “Line No. 2”: commencing at the quarter section corner on the south line of said Section 19; thence, West, along said south line, 162.70 feet to the east right-of-way line of County Road Number 53; thence, North 12 degrees 00’ East along said right-of-way line, 272.40 feet to the point of beginning; thence, South 70 degrees 20’ East, 112.90 feet; thence, North 46 degrees 55’ East, 80.33 feet; thence, North 25 degrees 30’ East 72.10 feet; thence, North 62 degrees 44’ East, 64.50 feet; thence, North 43 degrees 39’ East, 87.60 feet; thence, North 83 degrees 18’ East 186.10 feet; thence, South 66 degrees 44’ East, 294.53 feet; thence, South 87 degrees 47’ East, 176.10 feet; thence, North 84 degrees 33’ East to the shoreline of the St. Croix River and there ending. 4. Owner(s): Douglas Clapp Phone: (h) (b) 5. Applicant/Contact Person: Douglas Clapp Phone: (b) Street Address (Mailing): E-Mail: City/ State: Zip: 6. Requested Action(s): (check all that apply) __x__ Variance ____ Variance Extension ____ Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ____ CUP Extension ____ CUP/ Open Space Subdivision. ____ CUP/ Planned Unit Development ____ Interim Use Permit (IUP) ____ Annual Operators Permit ____ Administrative Permit (type)____________________ ____ Site Plan Review (type)____________________ ____ Site Plan Modification ____ Site Plan Extension ____ Sign (Permanent) ____ Amendment (Development Code ) ____ Amendment (Comp. Plan ) ____ Subdivision, Minor ____ Subdivision, Preliminary Plat/Major ____ Subdivision, Final Plat ____ Environmental Review ____ Wetland Review 7. Brief Description of Request: (attach separate sheet if necessary; include Variance Rationale if necessary) Variance permit for remodel and expansion of cabin located within the 100-foot bluff set back area. Existing cabin was constructed in 1932 with additions made in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s when no set-back are existed. Remodel and expansion will improve the existing home for year-round, modern living. The current size and configuration were not designed to accommodate today’s appliances and utilities. The renovation is intended to bring the home up to a standard suitable for year-round living while remaining in its historic location and moving closest elements of the structure away from the bluff edge. 8. Project Name: Clapp cabin remodel and expansion at 20077 Quinnell Ave N. 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 Fee Owner Signature(s)Date: August 31, 2026 Ir e ! i is 0 I I ' a " a W 82 ! W f 1' s s a a a Q µ+ ' Fy o a z V7 w Z• ( , 1 a $ 2i d t 11 1 E ` Q x 1 pa - * * aa t, e` ° " u . . & mo o G: 7 i R s ia ` or n 5 li l l ] Il i i F ( 4 aQ s s e U mo • ® ® ® r 4 § g s i ss s a s s 2 41 Q n3 0 x : 1 1 8 ? 1 3 ic e S^ " tAO$ 01 , , „ - Q 0. W pp g g g g v w N 33 } ad g1 s Q. Y i 1"\ 8' t Om $ 3 hh h 6 Dr i ' l i , r- E Mi l l 5 1: a' a- ii q ' ' I 5 ' 11 1 1 : 1g : e& 0 as 9 1 y „ g W K g ' 3. Ti r o 5e y g 1, F 8 j ' sr s N t g9 g S Po g g S > E1 i ' . F : E . 1 d QN W$ S , pl d v1 g 1 zR ' a O x a1 ' a W y oa as a p e = a I E„ g e Al O 3 0 s ya = _ i g` aa g as g5 1 z 06 W o gz Y1 t : er ' _ g{ 4'4 12 5 ia a a K I w 5 1e g 3 $ ' a 9 i gi 1, 1 y. op ' s iI 1' n, 1m Fo r y z 12 j$ „ sa x u§ § = 33 s s U 1 zF — z d wR ' N= i QZ N W 3 Q O 6 L 0O F 3 I t} I I I Ka Z Q ti at e ' I- / ao t u = 1 l : il i a N W, _ l: A If I l WN O " I t 14 , 41 5 A' zF 5 16 2 a I, l/ 8 _ W g j; i I, 2) I I 11Il i ! II , I, ii t i l , , , c it i „ , . , _ - _ , _ " , - ! , ; - , , , , - „ Fr / 1. , , \ \ ‘ ‘ , , I. , , „ ‘ . k, ‘ ; ' , , , , : - t- - 5.9' ; , , ! , ll j l W< r' O s I° ( II II I I I I I a^ N or 2 „ i' ig 1 : / / gi L . , 4' , / c, , , i. . . " — st , 4, ' . 5- , , , ' ' , E) , 1 \ - ' ' ' ' - ' , ' L_ - „ : 41 ; , ‘ ! . 0% . „ , , , , , , , 7- , . . - . . . ! . „ lx v ; - , , , , , 4` , : , . : I i ` ti . ) . 1,1 1! 1 ji i l ' il - - V. . x. A. s- . . is - - r r o, " : ox xx a , o o ix a e m s ts ' rs z i z I z, , ' ' i ea P v/ al 4 0 z? t of t Variance Application for Remodel of 20077 Quinnell Av N Existing Cabin August 28, 2026 Project Description The project is a remodel and expansion of an existing cabin located within the bluff set-back area. The existing cabin was originally built in 1932, with three subsequent additions in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. The great room addition was constructed on the southeast side of the home in 1988. This is the portion closest to the bluff edge. The property has remained in the family since 1915 and has consistently been used as a summer residence. This application is driven by the desire to convert a seasonal cabin into a modern full-time, year-round residence. The existing cabin is approximately 1570 square feet. The remodeled and expanded cabin will be approximately 2400 square feet which includes a one car garage. The increase in size is driven by the addition of the garage which we view as necessary to provide safe and reliable vehicle access and storage for snow removal equipment during year-round residency, a need the property does not currently have as a seasonal summer home. The proposed expansion is all moving away from the bluff edge. The other main driver of square footage increase is a second bathroom. The remodel will winterize the home and update it for year-round use, including new insulation, updated and more efficient plumbing and electrical systems, low-flow fixtures, and the addition of an energy and water efficient dishwasher and washing machine to support daily full-time living. The project will also revise the shed-style roofline over the 1988 great room addition, which currently directs water runoff from its entire roof area toward the bluff; the new gabled roof design will redirect half the stormwater away from the bluff face, improving erosion control and stormwater management compared to the existing condition. The remodeled structure will be guttered and all roof related stormwater will be directed and managed away from the bluff line. The current peak roof height is approximately 17 feet. The new gable roof will have a peak of no more than 26 feet. The southeast corner of the home sits nearly directly at the bluff edge. The renovation is designed to retain portions of the original foundation and remain generally within the cabin's historic location on the property, while shifting the elements of the structure closest to the bluff edge further back from it, an improvement over the existing condition and consistent with the City's and the watershed district's shared priority of encouraging structures to move back from bluff edges where feasible. Other Considerations Watershed District We anticipate that watershed permits required will be for stormwater management and erosion and sediment control. We look forward to opportunities to design and better manage stormwater runoff as part of the home renovation and will work with the watershed district on the design. Variance Application for Remodel of 20077 Quinnell Av N Existing Cabin August 28, 2026 National Park Service We have had initial conversations with Laura Hojem from the National Park Service and will send her this variance application. The viewshed from the river for our property does not reach as far inland as the blufftop area of the existing and proposed structures. Therefore, we anticipate the scenic view impacts are not a consideration from the National Park Service perspective. However, we will verify this with the Park Service and will review of our plans for removal of large trees immediately to the north and east of the renovated areas. Tree Removal It is certain that large trees will need to be removed that are within or close to the areas of the renovation. We will prepare and discuss plans for tree removal with the National Park Service and the City of Scandia. Septic and Utilities The design moves the family great room away from the bluff edge and as a result the project will require the relocation of the existing two septic tanks associated with the cabin. This will be a significant increase in cost to the project that would be avoided if the remodel of the great room remained exactly in its present location. Ben Zierke of Zierke Soil Testing inspected the existing septic and mound system for the property and found them compliant and in good working order. He submitted that inspection to Washington County. The county accepted that inspection on November 6, 2025. The existing septic tanks for the structure being renovated will need to move north to maintain a 10-foot distance from the new structure. We will prepare and discuss a septic location permit the variance is approved for modification of the structure footprint. Winterizing the structure requires the installation of a new plumbing line to the house, as the current one is not below the frost line. The plumbing line will run from the wellhead located approximately 50 feet west of the structure. Variance Criteria 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The home to be improved is in a residentially zoned district on a 10.38 acre lot. 2. Harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter The property will continue to be used for residential purposes, converting a cabin that has been in this location since the 1930s into a full-time, owner-occupied, year-round home. Variance Application for Remodel of 20077 Quinnell Av N Existing Cabin August 28, 2026 3. Practical Considerations: a. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. A variance is required to remodel and expand the home, because the existing structure sits entirely within the 100-foot bluff setback zone. The primary expansion is being added to the portion of the house that is the furthest from the bluff edge. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The first portion of the existing home was built on the edge of the bluff, as a seasonal summer residence in 1932, 94 years ago. It was subsequently added onto three times over the years (60s, 70s, 80s) with the last addition of the living room/dining room being done in 1988. At the time, there was no bluff setback requirement. We wish to improve the existing home for year-round, modern living. The current size and configuration of certain rooms do not provide storage and elbow room for full-time occupancy, and it was not designed to accommodate today’s appliances and utilities. The renovation is intended to bring the home up to a standard suitable for year-round living while remaining in its historic location and moving closest elements of the structure away from the bluff edge. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The locality is a residential neighborhood and the property would remain a residential use. The structure is not visible from the St. Croix River. It is slightly visible from the two adjacent properties to the west and south and its visibility will remain largely the same. d.Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. The proposed additions are not related to economic considerations. In fact, relocating the great room away from the bluff edge requires relocating the existing septic tanks, a significant added cost that would not be necessary if the addition remained in its present location at the bluff edge. We are choosing to incur this additional expense in order to align with the City’s and the watershed district’s shared priority of moving structures back from the bluff edges, rather than pursing the lower-cost option of rebuilding in the exact existing location. e.May include, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The remodel and expansion will not alter solar access to the home or the area around it. The lot is heavily wooded. 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. Variance Application for Remodel of 20077 Quinnell Av N Existing Cabin August 28, 2026 The project does not change the existing use of the property. It will improve the quality of the home. The revised roof design will improve stormwater management, and the renovated systems will improve the overall safety and efficiency of the structure. g. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The remodel and expansion are sized and located in a manner that minimizes their encroachment in the bluff setback zone, while allowing winterization and an enlargement to make it a comfortable and practical year-round home. The garage is limited to a single bay, sized to meet year-round access needs without exceeding what is necessary. Property Information Parcel Number: 19-032-19-43-0003 Property Address: 20077 Quinnell Ave N, Scandia, MN 55073 Legal Description: A tract of land situate in Government Lot 8 and the Southeast Quarter Southwest Quarter, Section 19, Township 32 North, Range 19 West, 4th Principal Meridian, Washington County, Minnesota described as follows: All that part of Government Lot 8 and the Southeast Quarter Southwest Quarter lying Easterly of County Road 53, South of “Line No. 1” and North of “Line No. 2” and its westerly extension described as follows: “Line No. 1”: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Government Lot 8; thence North 88 degrees 00’ West along the north line Southeast Quarter Southwest Quarter, 170.23 feet; thence, South 02 degrees 00’ West, 379.0 feet to a point in the centerline of County Road Number 53 and the point of beginning; thence, South 83 degrees 06’ East, 322.6 feet; thence, South 61 degrees 03’ East, 180.3 feet; thence, South 12 degrees 12’ East, 106.2 feet; thence, South 66 degrees 59’ East, 210.6 feet; thence, South 71 degrees 57’ East, 176.4 feet; thence, South 90 degrees 00’ East 265 feet, more or less, to the shoreline of the St. Croix River and there ending. “Line No. 2”: commencing at the quarter section corner on the south line of said Section 19; thence, West, along said south line, 162.70 feet to the east right-of-way line of County Road Number 53; thence, North 12 degrees 00’ East along said right-of-way line, 272.40 feet to the point of beginning; thence, South 70 degrees 20’ East, 112.90 feet; thence, North 46 degrees 55’ East, 80.33 feet; thence, North 25 degrees 30’ East 72.10 feet; thence, North 62 degrees 44’ East, 64.50 feet; thence, North 43 degrees 39’ East, 87.60 feet; thence, North 83 degrees 18’ East 186.10 feet; thence, South 66 degrees 44’ East, 294.53 feet; thence, South 87 degrees 47’ East, 176.10 feet; thence, North 84 degrees 33’ East to the shoreline of the St. Croix River and there ending. View of principal cabin facing south: View of proposed building area, expansion off the north side of the cabin: View of bluff to the south of the cabin, facing east: View of cabin and existing roofline, proposed area for future attached garage, facing east: United States Department of the Interior National Park Service St. Croix National Scenic Riverway 401 N. Hamilton Street St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin 54024 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1.A.1 September 23, 2026 Douglas Clapp 326 11th Street NE Washington DC 20002 RE: Tract LOSA 07-173 House Addition & Vegetation Removal Dear Mr. Clapp: Thank you for providing National Park Service (NPS) Lands Staff plans for your proposed cabin remodel and vegetation removal at 20077 Quinnell Avenue, City of Scandia, Washington County (PIN 1903219430003), Minnesota. This property is within the boundary of the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway (Riverway) and identified as tract LOSA 07-173. NPS owns a “Scenic Easement – Limited Development” interest, as described in the recorded Warranty Deed, Document 355575. This legal document outlines land use restrictions and requires NPS approval on specific activities so that the Riverway scenic resources located on your property are preserved and protected. According to the plans, the existing 1570 sq ft cabin will be modified to a T-shaped 2400 sq ft house. This will be accomplished by removing some portions of the existing structure and adding other new areas. The 17-foot peak will be modified and raised to no more than 26 feet. The plan includes an at grade patio. The project will require the removal of 8 trees. Based on the submitted plans, this proposal for house remodel/addition and tree removal are permissible under the terms of the scenic easement. It is understood by both parties that you assume all risks and liabilities associated with tree removal. The use of exterior earthtone colors and maintenance of other existing vegetation will minimize visual impacts this project may have on the scenic qualities of the Riverway. Please note our approval does not evaluate the merits of the project in relation to local, county, or state regulations, and thus does not preclude or supersede any actions by those units of government. Therefore, you must comply with any land use controls or requirements of the City of Scandia and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, both of whom are copied on this correspondence. Thank you for the very important role you play in helping to protect the St. Croix River for present and future generations. The choices you make on your property are important ones that can enhance water quality and wildlife habitat and protect scenic views. Working with NPS staff on all alterations, prior to implementation, will ensure the projects will maintain the wild and scenic quality of the Riverway. Your cooperation in compliance with the terms of the scenic easement is also appreciated. If you have any questions or update the plan, please contact me at 715-483-2261 or via email at laura_hojem@nps.gov. Sincerely, Laura L. Hojem Lands Program Manager cc: Kyle Morrell City of Scandia, Administrator k.morell@ci.scandia.mn.us Dan Scollan Washington County Hydrologist Minnesota Department of Natural Resources dan.scollan@state.mn.us 1 Central Region Headquarters 1200 Warner Road Saint Paul, MN 55106 September 24, 2026 Steve Kronmiller City of Scandia 14727 209th Street N Scandia, MN 55073 Re: Clapp Variance Application – 20077 Quinnell Avenue North Dear Mayor Kronmiller and Members of the Board of Adjustment, Thank you for notifying the DNR of the upcoming October 6th public hearing. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the variance application regarding the remodel and expansion of an existing cabin. The DNR’s comments are based on an evaluation of the facts presented in the application against the applicable criteria within Minnesota Statute and the City zoning ordinance. Based on this evaluation, the DNR recommends denial of the request. “Substandard Structure” Law The application materials received by the DNR on September 4th seem to incorrectly assume that the proposed building location is protected under state and local nonconformity law. This structure, similar to many of the cabins constructed prior to establishment of the Lower St. Croix Riverway (LSCR) laws, are subject to the riverway’s “Substandard Structure” regulations. Section 6.1(2) of the City’s LSCR ordinance, requires that “any extension, enlargement, or alteration of an existing substandard structure or sanitary facility shall meet the setback standards of this Ordinance”. Therefore, the proposal requires conformance with the bluffline setback requirements of the LSCR ordinance. It’s understandable that the applicant seeks to reconstruct within the existing cabin’s location given the advantages of the layout of the existing driveway, well and septic system. However, the law does not grant protections for this building site location and therefore the context provided in the applicant’s narrative for how the LSCR ordinance applies to the variance request is incorrect. The applicant seems to justify the variance request by indicating that the proposal improves the nonconformity of the existing cabin by expanding away from the bluff edge and “moving closest elements of the structure way from the bluff edge.” While the DNR appreciates the consideration of mitigating the proximity to the bluff, the correct application of the LSCR regulations requires the structure to be moved to a location that is compliant with all setback standards of the LSCR ordinance. Any deviation requested should be framed as deviation from the 100-foot bluffline setback requirement, rather than framed as improvements to the conditions of existing cabin’s location. With that framing in mind, the current proposal does not make any reasonable attempt to come into full or further compliance with the bluffline setback requirements and no reasonable justifications for reducing the required 100- foot bluffline setback are offered within the applicant’s narrative. In review of the applicant’s site plans, it appears 2 some site constraints (front yard setback, well and septic location, other existing structures) may necessitate some degree of a variance to the bluffline setback. However, no analysis of the proposed location in relation to the required setbacks and the requested relief is provided within the application. Therefore, it’s unclear what site conditions exist that require any or some of the requested variance. An assessment of the requested variance is relation to the site conditions necessitating the variance is fundamental to deciding why and to what degree the variance is necessary in the first place. How can the Board of Adjustment make a determination on the validity of the request if no assessment of the request is given? As stated in other DNR comment letters to the city, it is the DNR’s position that variances to the land use standards within the Lower St. Croix Riverway, Minnesota’s only federally designated Wild and Scenic River, should be rare and for reasons of exceptional circumstances, given the importance of the Riverway’s natural quality and importance to the region’s economic, recreational and cultural identity. It is understood that occasionally a situation will arise where the regular application of ordinance requirements is impractical or unreasonable. In these situations, a variance may provide an equitable solution. However, the proposal seems to stem from preference of the property owner rather than some exceptional circumstances that would prohibit or preclude reasonable conformance with the setback standards of the LSCR ordinance. Vegetation Cutting The preservation of existing vegetation and natural topography within the bluffline is critical to maintaining water quality and scenic character of the riverway. The application provides little to no information regarding the extent of grading proposed for reconstruction. The applicant also intends to remove “large trees” in the project location. Section 5.3 of the LSCR ordinance requires a permit for vegetative cutting within the bluffline areas and limits what type of removal can occur under subsection 1. A vegetative cutting permit is not required when associated with a validly issued building permit. However, this exception does not consider cutting in association with a structure subject to a setback variance, but rather assumes vegetation removal related to a “permitted” structure is conforming to all the applicable setback requirements, which would result in limited to no vegetation cutting in close proximity to these sensitive setback areas. When considering variances to the bluffline, the LSCR rules only accommodate for a varied setback between 40’-100’ assuming strict compliance with the applicable conditions of that particular section, which is reflected in Section 4.2(4.A.)(1-5). Given these facts, it’s unclear to the DNR how the city is processing a variance to the bluffline setback, which appears to be inconsistent with Section 4.2(4). Careful consideration should be given to determining alternatives that seek to minimize the variance necessary for establishing the new home site and minimizing the amount of vegetation cutting, particularly in areas closest to the bluffline. Why does the application provide no justification or analysis of the applicable “Site Preservation” standards in Section 5.3? DNR’s Recommendation The Board of Adjustment should deny the variance request because of the facts raised within this letter. As stated previously, the applicant’s findings rely on the assumption that reconstruction of the cabin within the same location is protected under state and local law. This is incorrect and therefore the applicant’s narrative should provide justification of the criteria in the context of the structure otherwise complying with the 100-foot bluffline setback. Furthermore, the applicant’s narrative lacks any reasonable justification for how the proposal meets the “practical difficulties” test or why the proposal is the minimum necessary to offer relief under the regulation imposed. It’s unclear to the DNR why compliance with the LSCR Ordinance requirement is impractical, given the property appears to have ample locations that would accommodate, at the very least, a significantly reduced variance to the bluffline setback. What unique circumstance exists on the subject property that limits or prohibits the applicant from further complying with the LSCR ordinance requirements? Thank you for consideration of the DNR’s comments. Please send the decision to me within ten days of making the 3 decision, including “findings of fact.” If you have any questions, please call, or email me. Sincerely, Dan Scollan East Metro Area Hydrologist cc: John (Jack) Gleason, South District Hydrologist Supervisor, Minnesota DNR Megan Moore, South District Manager – Ecological and Water Resources, Minnesota DNR September 29, 2026 City of Scandia Attn: Greenlee Dahle, Community Planner 14727 209th Street N Scandia, MN 55073 Re: Revised Variance Narrative – 20077 Quinnell Avenue North Dear Ms. Dahle and Members of the Planning Commission: This revised narrative is submitted in support of the requested variance for 20077 Quinnell Avenue North. The variance request is being sought because application of various setback requirements creates an unnecessary hardship in that the property cannot reasonably accommodate a brand-new structure elsewhere. To attempt to do so would be unreasonable, impractical, and not feasible. The request is based on the property’s exceptional physical constraints and seeks to allow the owners to remodel and expand the existing principal cabin in a manner that moves development away from the bluff, while maintaining the required undisturbed areas to the greatest extent feasible. The property contains two longstanding cabins and their associated septic facilities. The principal cabin was constructed and expanded over several decades, beginning in the 1930s. Both cabins and the existing sanitary facilities were established before the current setback requirements. The existing principal cabin is located on the only substantially developed and forested portion of the lot. The property’s unique topography and existing improvements severely limit any alternative location for a principal dwelling. On the west side of the property there is a 40 foot setback from the road requirement. On the west and north side of the property Clapp’s stream necessitates a 100 foot setback. The north, east, and south river bluff line necessitates a 100 foot setback. And on the south side a stream/bluff area requires a 100 foot setback. The application of these setback requirements leaves a small area which already contains the small cabin, the septic mounds for both cabins, and the septic tanks for the small cabin. As a result, there is no other practicable location on the lot for a new principal dwelling that would comply with all applicable setbacks. Constructing a new approximately 2,400-square-foot principal cabin elsewhere would not be reasonable or feasible. The need for a variance is therefore created by the property’s geography, the location of its ravines and blufflines, and preexisting development—not by an action of the current owners. The smaller cabin does not provide a reasonable substitute for the principal cabin. It is a small, seasonal structure with two bedrooms, one bathroom, a living area, and a limited kitchenette. It is not winterized, does not have air conditioning, and does not contain a full kitchen suitable for year-round residential use. While it remains a useful structure, it cannot reasonably serve as the property’s sole principal residence without eliminating the practical use of the property as a year- round family cabin. The proposed project does not seek to create a new building site or expand development into an otherwise undeveloped portion of the property. Instead, it would improve and expand the existing principal cabin within the already developed area of the lot and direct the expansion away from the bluff to the extent feasible. Strict application of the setbacks would make replacement or meaningful improvement of the existing principal cabin unreasonable, impractical, and not feasible because the lot contains no other viable building area. Granting the requested variance would allow reasonable continued residential use of this uniquely constrained property while minimizing encroachment into bluff and riverway setback areas and preserving the character and environmental objectives of the Lower St. Croix Riverway. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Doug Clapp