Loading...
05.a Pettee 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, Bluffline, and OHWL Setbacks at 19803 Quinnell Avenue North Applicants: Martha & Michael Pettee Zoning: AG-C, SM-O, SCRD Owners: Martha & Michael Pettee Future Land Use: St. Croix River Corridor Area Location: 19803 Quinnell Ave N PID 3003219120003 Review Deadline: January 2, 2027 Request: Martha and Michael Pettee request 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 applicants propose to expand the existing 1,625 sq. ft. structure into approximately 2,200 sq. ft., year-round dwelling. The applicants also propose expanding an existing garage by adding a second stall. Staff are also recommending conditions that would require revisions to the submitted site plans. 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, the ordinary high water level/mark of the river, significant tree locations, overlapping setbacks, and the locations of existing structures and infrastructure. 2 | P a g e Review: Staff find that the site constraints satisfy the undue-hardship criteria and that preventing 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 19803 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). 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. The existing structure is located within the bluff and OHWL setbacks, 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 3 | P a g e single-family dwelling is a substandard structure due to the encroachment into the bluffline and ordinary high water mark 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 and 50 ft. from the OHWL 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 from the bluff setback. The proposed conditions are explained later in the report, but it is important to note the existing structure and proposed additions on the west side of the structure can meet the 50 ft. undisturbed area from the OHWL of the river. The applicant recently submitted updated plans that show a small expansion on the river side of the structure, which would not meet the first criteria listed above. Regardless, a variance is necessary for any alterations or additions to the existing cabin. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Existing Conditions The subject property is located at 19803 Quinnell Avenue North, with approximately 300 ft. of street frontage. The parcel contains approximately 9.52 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 approximately 300 ft. of shoreline on the river, and the existing principal structure is located within the 200 ft. setback from the OHWL. Structures meet or exceed property line setbacks. The survey identifies the bluffs and associated setback areas 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 substandard as it encroaches into the 100-ft. setback from a bluffline and the 200 ft. setback from the OHWL 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 1,625 sq. ft. and was originally constructed in 1916. There is a secondary cabin and approximately 667 sq. ft. detached garage located on the property, which are also constrained by bluff features and existing utility infrastructure. The property is served by a private septic system and well. The existing tanks are located north of the principal cabin and accessory cabin, with the septic mound being located northeast of the detached garage. The well is located southwest of the existing garage. 5 | P a g e Proposed Conditions Principal Structure The applicant proposes to winterize, improve, and expand the existing 1,625 sq. ft. structure into an approximately 2,200 sq. ft. structure. The proposed additions would complete the interior living spaces by filling in gaps between the walls of the structures where trees have grown between walls. The majority of the proposed expansion is located off the northwest side of the home, furthest from the edge of the bluff and would not increase the visual profile of the home from the river which is a requirement of the LSCR. The survey dated September 2, 2026, and plans dated September 29, 2026, show a proposed 15 sq. ft. structure addition to the northeast corner of the existing cabin, which would increase the substandard setback from the 200-ft. OHWL setback, reducing the OHWL setback from 181.4 ft. to 180.6 ft. While this maintains the minimum undisturbed area of 50 ft., it is not located on the side facing away from the river. Staff recommend a condition would require a revision to the proposed plans that would eliminate this portion of the addition. The Shoreland Ordinance requires the submission of a tree survey for variance requests from a water resource setback. A formal tree survey was not submitted, but the survey identifies significant trees. The LSCR allows for vegetation removal for validly permitted structures, and the Shoreland Ordinance allows for limited clearing of vegetation. The trees are not located within the shore impact zone and therefore do not require replacements. Additionally, the applicant has submitted a forest management plan that was created with the assistance of a DNR Forester, who recommended that all hazardous trees be removed. The applicants propose to renovate and reduce the total area of the attached deck located closest to the bluff, on the south side of the cabin. The survey dated September 2, 2026, and plans dated September 29, 2026, show a 1.5 ft. encroachment toward the top of the bluff. Staff recommend a condition that the plans be revised so the proposed deck does not increase the existing encroachment, and to further increase setback distances where possible. LSCR does not require setbacks for decks, but the Shoreland Ordinance does require a minimum setback of 30 ft. from decks to the top of bluff. 6 | P a g e Lot standards are detailed below with existing and proposed conditions for the principal structure. 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 9.52 9.52 Buildable Area (ac.) 1.00 N/A N/A Unknown* Unknown* 7 | P a g e AG-C SM-O SCRD (Rural) Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Minimum Lot Width (ft.) 150 160 200 200 200 Minimum Lot Width at Water Line N/A 160 200 300 300 Lot Frontage (ft.) 300 N/A N/A 325 325 Minimum Structure Setbacks (ft.) Front (street) 40 N/A N/A 1,000+ 1,000+ Side 20 N/A N/A 95 104 149 149 Rear (OHWL) 50 200 200 181.4 180.6 Top of Bluff/ Bluffline Setback (ft.) N/A 30 100 0.0 0.0 Maximum Structure Height (ft.) 35 35 35 Unknown Unknown Maximum Lot Coverage 25% 25% 20% Unknown Unknown *Total buildable area is unknown under the NPS Scenic Easement restrictions, bluff setbacks, and existing septic mound locations. The scenic easement places additional restrictions on tree and vegetation removal, which are reviewed by NPS. NPS Lands Staff visited the property on August 17, 2026, and stated that the proposed expansion of the principal structure and three associated tree removals would be permissible under the terms of the scenic easement. NPS requested revised plans for the construction of the garage and stated that the proposed additions cannot include a new story above the garage. Staff have not received a written letter of approval from NPS, which is added as a recommended condition of approval on the variance. The LSCR requires a minimum undisturbed setback of 30 ft., which is part of the requested variance. The DNR letter states that the proposed removal of three mature white pines in the project location are deemed by the applicant to be “hazardous” to the current and proposed structure. The letter further states that a vegetative cutting permit is required, unless associated with a validly issued building permit. Staff reviewed the DNR’s comments and find that the exception for a permitted structure would apply in this scenario, as “permitted” does not mean a structure conforming to all applicable setback requirements. Variance and building permit approval would allow for the removal of vegetation within the bluff setback to construct the permitted structure. 8 | P a g e In January 2026, a DNR Forester visited the property to discuss an update to a 51-year-old DNR forest management plan. The applicant stated that they have planted more than 200 DNR- supplied seedlings in accordance with the forestry management plan for the property. Further, the DNR Forester provided recommended removals in an email to the owners dated January 20, 2026, stating the following: “Recommended removals: 1. Remove all non-native invasives (primarily buckthorn) 2. Remove all dead and dying ash trees 3. Remove unhealthy or dead scots pine and replace with native, climate-adaptive species 4. Remove all hazardous trees that have potential to damage property or injure people.” In regard to the DNR letter on the variance application, staff find that feedback received from the DNR is inconsistent for applicants and property owners. Staff find that the removal of the hazardous trees is necessary for the existing use of the cabin and proposed expansion and would satisfy the requirements in LSCR Section 5. Accessory Structure (Garage) The applicants propose to expand the existing 667 sf. detached garage to provide space for storage of a second vehicle and snow removal equipment. The proposed addition is approximately 533 sf. and designed to avoid the existing well and overhead utility wires to the south and the septic mound to the northeast. The proposed garage area would total 1,200 sf., which is permitted by the UDC if it meets applicable standards. The applicant’s narrative states that the garage space is more than 200 ft. from the river, and at least 100 ft. from bluffs. NPS requested the revised garage plans which are attached to this report. 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’s narrative requests to continue the use of the cabin, by not increasing the violation of setback standards, and not altering or increasing the visual height or width of the building as viewed from the river. 9 | P a g e Reasonable Use Cannot be Established The requested variance would allow for the existing cabin to be improved, expanded, and winterized, which the applicants have stated is the only reasonable use of the property. The narrative states that the property itself presents multiple hardships and practical difficulties, and that there is no other location on the property that is buildable without a variance. Any other potential building site would involve greater, substantial removal of vegetation, grading and bluff restrictions, and site preservation considerations. Existing Standards are Unreasonable, Impractical, or not Feasible The applicant states that the LSCR and UDC setback and vegetation removal standards would make replacement or substantial improvement of the existing cabin unreasonable, impractical, and not feasible. Alternative building sites have been evaluated and are found to be prohibitive to any type of conforming residential structure. 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 provided no comment. Department of Natural Resources (DNR) The DNR Forester visited the property in January 2026 and provided a written recommendation to remove hazardous trees, invasive vegetation species, and dead or dying ash and scots pine trees. 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 no comment. 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 Systems (SSTS) are located on the property and were inspected by licensed Inspection business, Zierke Soil Testing, LLC, on October 24, 2026. The variance application proposes expanding the eastern cabin; the SSTS serving this cabin is sized for two-bedrooms and was determined noncompliant. 10 | P a g e On January 1, 2026, a notice of noncompliance was issued by the Public Health and Environment Department to repair, replace or discontinue use of the system. The existing noncompliant septic system will need to be brought into compliance. Design flow capacity for residential septic systems is determined by the number of bedrooms. There is currently an approved SSTS Installation Permit to replace this system and is designed for two-bedrooms, not three-bedrooms. A three-bedroom home served by a SSTS requires more capacity and upgrades to the system would need to 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 rules and the ordinance. 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 would allow for expansion to an existing structure which the applicant has stated is necessary to provide full-time, year-round occupancy. Variance approval would allow for structure expansion and encroachment within the bluff setbacks and the bluff impact zone. The proposed structure would not encroach any closer to the bluff, and the applicant has stated that it would minimize tree removals. Conditions of approval may be recommended that are directly related and proportional to the request. Staff Findings Based on the information submitted, staff find that the parcel’s physical constraints and existing improvements significantly limit alternative building locations. Staff find that compliance with all setback requirements limits the ability to replace or substantially improve the existing principal cabin, and to develop alternative locations on the parcel, due to environmental constraints and existing site improvements. 11 | P a g e Staff find that the property contains physical features not created by the current owners, including bluffs, river, and existing buildings and utility infrastructure. The hardship appears to result from the property’s natural characteristics and the established structures and utility infrastructure, which existed before LSCR and Shoreland Ordinance adoption. National Park Service Comments NPS Lands Staff visited the property and provided verbal, preliminary approval of the proposed tree removals, site plan, and building plans, and requested that the garage be redesigned. 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 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." 12 | P a g e 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 commented on the proposed deck, stating that a patio is considered impervious while a deck is not under CMSCWD rules. Under the adopted city ordinances, decks are considered impervious surfaces. 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: 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 submit revised plans showing no further encroachment toward the top of bluff, the bluffline, the bluff impact zone, and the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of the St. Croix River. 3. The applicant shall obtain an approval letter from the National Park Service on the proposed plans for both the cabin expansion, the garage expansion, septic systems, and any tree removals. 4. The applicant shall secure all applicable permits required from the watershed district, the county, as well as any other local, state, and federal entities. 13 | P a g e 5. The applicant shall maintain all applicable terms and conditions of this variance, and the scenic easement held by the National Park Service. 6. The applicant shall pay all other fees and escrows associated with this application. 7. 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 Plans 5. Existing Conditions Photos 6. Applicant Narrative, dated September 4, 2026 7. DNR Area Hydrologist Comment Letter, dated September 24, 2026 8. DNR Forester Comments, dated January 20, 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, BLUFFLINE, AND ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL SETBACKS FOR PARCEL 3003219120003 LOCATED AT 19803 QUINNELL AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, Martha Pettee, (the “applicant”), on behalf of Martha and Michael Pettee (the “owners”), have requested and made an application for a 100-foot variance from the top of bluff setback (0-foot setback), and a 30-foot variance from the bluffline setback (0-foot setback) to allow for expansion of a nonconforming, substandard structure, on property located at 19803 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 100-foot variance from the 100-foot top of bluff setback (0-foot setback) and a 30-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 river. 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 submit revised plans showing no further encroachment toward the top of bluff, the bluffline, the bluff impact zone, and the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of the St. Croix River. 3. The applicant shall obtain an approval letter from the National Park Service on the proposed plans for both the cabin expansion, the garage expansion, septic systems, and any tree removals. 4. The applicant shall secure all applicable permits required from the watershed district, the county, as well as any other local, state, and federal entities. 5. The applicant shall maintain all applicable terms and conditions of this variance, and the scenic easement held by the National Park Service. 6. The applicant shall pay all other fees and escrows associated with this application. 7. 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 All that part of Block 9, Revision of Vasa (and) that part of the unplatted portion of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 and that part of Government Lot 4, all Section 30, Township 32 North, Range 19 West, described as follows, to-wit: Beginning at an iron monument set at the Northwest corner of Lot 4, Block 9, Revision of Vasa, and running thence easterly along the North line of said Lot 4, 135 feet to on iron monument set at the Southeast corner of Lot 6; thence by deflection angle of 34 (degrees) 30 (minutes) to the left 313.4 feet to on iron monument; thence by a deflection angle of 13 (degrees) 57 (minutes) to the right 198.6 feet to an iron monument; thence by a deflection angle of 26 (degrees) 56 (minutes) to the right 139.2 feet to an iron monument located above and north of the spring at the mouth of the ravine: thence by a deflection angle of 6 (degrees) 57 (minutes) to the right 559 feet to on iron monument set on a line, said line being parallel =to and 350 feet north of the South line of said Government Lot 4; thence east on said parallel line 286 feet, more or less, to the westerly shoreline of the St. Croix River; thence northerly along said westerly shoreline of sold river 300 feet, more or less, to Its Intersection with a line drown parallel to and 650 feet north of the South Line of said Government Lot 4; thence west along said parallel line just described, 1520.7 feet, more or less, to the easterly line of State Aid Rood Number 3, (formerly Taylors Falls Road); thence southerly along said easterly line of said road 510 feet. more or less, to the Point of Beginning. 75 2.3 19803 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. 202 -I APPLICATION FOR PLANNING AND ZONING REQUEST City of Scandia, Minnesota 14727 209th Street North, Scandia, MN 55073 Phone 651/43 3-2274 Fax 651/433-51 12 Web https://w-ww.citvotscandia.corn/ Please read before completing: The City will not beLtin 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.cityofsrmdia_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: (save! etc/clress, if applicable) 19803 Quinnell Avenue North, Scandia, MN 55073 2. Washington County Parcel ID: 30.032.19.12.0003 3. Complete Legal Description: (attach if necessary) All that port of Block 9. Revision of Vasa (and) that part of the unplatted portion of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 and that part of Government Lot 4, all Section 30, Township 32 North, Range 19 West, described as follows, to-wit: See attached complete legal description.... 4. Owner(s): Michael and Martha Pettee Street Address: 19803 Quinnell Avenue North City/ State: Scandia, MN 55073 Zip: 5. Applicant/Contact Person: Martha Pettee Phone: h) b) 19803 Quinnell Ave Street Address (Mailing): E-Mail: Scandia, MN 550736 City/ State: Zip: 6. Requested Action(s): (check all that apply) X Variance Administrative Permit Amendment (Development Code 1 Variance Extension type) i Amendment (Comp. Plan ) Conditional Use Permit(CUP) Site Plan Review type) Subdivision, Minor CUP Extension CUP/Open Space Subdivision. Site Plan Moditication Subdivision, Preliminary Plat Alajor CUP'Planned Unit Development Site Plan Extension Subdivision, Final Plat Interim Use Permit(IUP) Sign (Permanent) Environmental Review Annual Operators Permit Wetland Review 7. Brief Description of Request: (attach separate sheet if necessary; include l'ariance Rationale if rrece ssary See attached narrative "Pettee Year-Round Home" September, 2, 2026_ Also attached: Property legal description Sketches plan view of current and proposed cabin and garage, rev3 2 sept 2026 Certificate of survey/ site and grading plan S. Project Name: Pettee Year-Round Home 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, hut 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 he 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 citv'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: A62 7(1,(%a Pe(-r<<; 2 September 2026 Applicant Signature(s) Date: P,-rce,2 September 2026 For City Use Only Application Fees: p( 00 Escrow Deposit: 00— i,Y t t S(.AN©IA 1 Martha and Michael Pettee 19803 Quinnell Avenue North, Scandia, MN 55073 Project Name Pettee Year-round Home Narrative addressing Variance Review Criteria We, Martha and Michael Pettee, are seeking to live full-time on our property in Scandia on the St. Croix River. This land carries a great deal of emotional weight for us. It belonged to Michael’s grandparents, Mary and Everett Pettee, from 1946 to 1983. There were countless family memories made here, and the opportunity to regain ownership was magically serendipitous for us and our family. We are looking to make Scandia our year-round home. We are asking for a variance from the Unifled Development Code to rebuild and minimally expand the main cabin (the uninsulated original 1916 cabin closest to the river) to make it livable year- round—to increase from 2 bedrooms to 3 bedrooms and add appropriate space for mechanicals. We would also like to include the expansion of the garage in this variance. We understand that we would not need a variance to rebuild on the exact footprint but believe we can signiflcantly improve on the structure’s harmony with the surrounding natural environment. We plan to pull the deck back from the ravine and reclaim the square footage in jogs and niches that was created by more than 100 years of remodels and add-ons. As is often the case with cabins, they are expanded without a great deal of thought other than the need for another bedroom, a bigger kitchen, a larger deck, or a more convenient entryway. Such is the case with our cabin. The original 1916 structure was added to by the Pettees and the Lynch’s, leaving cutouts for white pines that are now towering 140-feet above the cabin, heaving the fioor, and posing a signiflcant danger to the structure (and its inhabitants!). We have had the National Park Service out to the property, and they have given us the go-ahead to remove the three hazardous trees. They also said our proposed footprint meets their requirements for the Wild and Scenic Riverway restrictions. We are not planning any expansion closer to the river, no expansion of width, lateral to the river. Additionally, the NPS looked at the garage and supported an L-shaped structure that would allow us to park two cars and create a bay for the equipment needed to maintain the property. The position of the well prevents us from simply expanding to the entire garage to the west. The following addresses the 7 criteria (a-g) used by the Scandia Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals in granting variances from the Unifled Development Code Section 153.500.060. a) We plan to use the property in a “reasonable manner not permitted” by the relevant Chapter of the Unifled Development Code. To create a functional, year-round home, we propose to increase its size from approximately 1700 sf to 2200 sf to accommodate a third bedroom and space for mechanicals. Additionally, we propose to reduce the cabin’s visibility from the river by pulling back from the south-facing ravine bluff. 2 We would like to flll in the “niches” along the north (non-river facing) wall created by additions that were built around two trees. This will not change the cabin’s visibility from the river and complies with the NPS restrictions for increasing the width of the current building. We are also planning a slight expansion to the west of the structure. These changes to the footprint support the requirements of a safe, year-round home and refiect our intention to “use the property in a reasonable manner.” Creating a two -car garage is also consistent with using the property in a reasonable manner. The current garage, with a single garage door is not much more than a glorifled shed. Additional space will allow us to park our cars inside and consolidate lawn, garden, and snow removal equipment. Our plans will allow us to live on the property year-round, and, we believe, will signiflcantly improve the esthetics of the property—we intend to make the buildings flt more harmoniously on the river and the ravine. b) Our application for a variance is “due to circumstances not created” by us. The white pines growing within the footprint of the cabin pose a distinct hazard and in fact, cannot be removed without taking down current cabin walls. This fact has been a primary driver in our decision to rebuild, rather than remodel. We want to build a safe and usable dwelling for us—one that will last for another 100 years for our children and grandchildren. c) The variance, if granted “will not alter the essential character of the locality.” Our plans seek to improve the character of the building site and decrease its visibility from the river. We will plant new white pines to the north of the rebuilt cabin and replace trees that were removed years ago to build the current deck. d) We understand that “economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties” in seeking a variance. In fact, we believe it’s more costly to rebuild and expand this historic cabin to meet our ecological and esthetic goals than it would build another structure on the property or simply remodel within the current footprint. e) Like most properties on this section of the St. Croix River, there is signiflcant tree canopy and very little access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. This rebuild does open the possibility of a small solar system as the site is one of the few spots on the approximately 12 acres that does have some direct sunlight. f) If granted, this proposed variance will not “impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, increase danger of flre, endanger public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.” On the contrary, rebuilding and minimally expanding the primary dwelling and expanding the garage on this property, along with our presence and daily maintenance here year-round, will improve this property’s value, and the value of our neighbor’s property. g) The “requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty” we face in creating a modest, three-bedroom, year-round home here in Scandia on the St. Croix. Additionally, by granting this variance we will: 3 • Maintain all river facing facades: the eastern (river facing) and southern (ravine facing) footprint of the existing cabin • Remove three hazardous white pines that threaten the current structure • Decrease the size of the south-facing deck, thereby decreasing the visibility of the cabin from the river • Improve the drainage and impact of water runoff on the ravine and river bluffs by capturing storm water and runoff from the roof and adjacent hard surfaces • Mitigate the flre risk of a 110-year-old wood cabin • Improve the market value of the property • Improve the natural esthetics of the cabin and its surroundings Proposed Schedule of Development Design and Engineering – 9/3-12/3/2026 Completed Drawings for Permitting – 2/15/2026 Permitting and Compliance with Regulations – 2/15/2026-3/15/2027 Demotion, Tree Removal, Site Preparation – 03/20/2027 Construction – 04/01/2027-10/01/2027 View of hazardous trees above principal cabin: CLIENT ARCHITECT DATEISSUE CITYDESKSTUDIO, INC. 550 VANDALIA ST, SUITE 101 SAINT PAUL, MN 55114 651.644.1106 T. MARTHA & MICHAEL PETTEE 19803 QUINNEL AVE. N. SCANDIA, MN 55073 DRAWING 09/03/26 SK3.1CABIN & GRARAGE FOOTPRINT DIAGRAMS EXISTING GARAGE PROPOSED GARAGE EXPANSIONSCALE = 1 16" = 1'-0"SCALE = 1 16" = 1'-0" GARAGE GARAGE E X I S T I N G CLIENT ARCHITECT DATEISSUE CITYDESKSTUDIO, INC. 550 VANDALIA ST, SUITE 101 SAINT PAUL, MN 55114 651.644.1106 T. MARTHA & MICHAEL PETTEE 19803 QUINNEL AVE. N. SCANDIA, MN 55073 DRAWING 09/03/26 SK3.2CABIN FOOTPRINT DIAGRAMS EXISTING CABIN SCALE = 1:500 "'111\11 ---,,,, Q --'--''" ,,, l '"" ,,,._ --r-8'-2 1/2" -r-___ 23'-6 3/4" ---�·�-1�" CLIENT MARTHA & MICHAEL PETTEE 19803 QUINNEL AVE N, SCANDIA, MN 55073 �I I o, �I I �i EXISTING CABIN SCALE = 11" = 1 '-0" ARCHITECT I ISSUE lJ f01!!R1����J�PIO, INC. I CABIN FOOTPRINT DIAGRAMS SAINT PAUL, MN 55114 651-644, 1106 T /1//11\\\\' ________ 42'-11" ___ t=iATLO/DECK REMODELED AND EXPANDED CABIN PROPOSAL SCALE = 11" = 1 '-0" DATE DRAWING 09/29/26 SK3.0 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: Pettee Variance Application – 19803 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 replacement of the existing cabin for a new year-round residence. 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. Summary of Key Issues 1) The application materials lack details of the specific request and justification for the variance request. 2) The applicant’s narrative appears to incorrectly interpret the “substandard structures” regulations pursuant to the City’s Lower St. Croix Riverway (LSCR) Ordinance. 3) The application does not appear to consider other applicable regulations of the LSCR Ordinance. 1) Lack of details and merit for requested variance The application materials received by the DNR on September 4th do not clearly demonstrate what variance(s) are included in the request. In order to adequately evaluate and respond to such request(s), it’s crucial for the application to demonstrate, specifically, what is being requested. The applicant’s plans and narrative describe a variance request, but do not offer any specific details regarding what provisions of the city’s ordinance and to what degree the variance(s) is being sought. From the DNR’s review of the application materials, it appears that the proposal contains at least two requests for relief. One from the OHWL structure setback and another from the bluffline structure setback. Are there other sections of the City’s ordinances that are subject to the requested variance and how much relief is being requested under the current proposal? These are important facts that need to be established for the proper evaluation of the applicable criteria and the city’s record of decision. When considering a variance, the City’s Board of Adjustment (BOA) members should be evaluating the request against the applicable criteria as they relate to the purpose and intent of the ordinance(s) subject to the variance request. Accordingly, the specific details and scope of the requested variance provide the basis for how the BOA 2 evaluates variance requests against the purpose of the regulation(s) subject to the variance request. Applications lacking these details also make it difficult for other parties to review and respond to the requested variance. Without this information, it’s unclear to the DNR how the City’s BOA can render a clear and objective decision on the requested variance(s). Furthermore, 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. 2) Incorrect interpretation of the “Substandard Structure” law The applicant’s narrative, in part, suggests that rebuilding the structure in the “exact footprint” would not require a variance. This statement seems to assume the “nonconformities” law within Minn. Statute 462.357, Subd. 1e. applies directly to the reconstruction of the legal nonconforming structure. However, because this structure is within the LSCR district, the structure is subject to the “substandard structures” law referenced in the same statute within 462.357, Subd. 1f, which is taken from the LSCR Rule within Minn. Rule 6105.0370, Subp. 11. The most important distinction between the laws regulating “nonconformities” and “substandard structures” is that replacement or reconstruction of a “substandard structure” is prohibited. Replacement/reconstruction of a legal substandard structure requires conformance with all the applicable LSCR district regulations. Additionally, Section 6.1(2) of the City’s LSCR ordinance, also requires that “any extension, enlargement, or alteration of an existing substandard structure or sanitary facility shall meet the setback standards of this Ordinance”. Given this information, the basis of the applicant’s narrative, which again assumes that reconstruction is protected under state and local law, is incorrect and therefore the applicant’s findings related to the variance approval criteria are not valid given that the variance requested is significantly greater than how it has been interpreted. 3) Other applicable LSCR ordinance regulations In review of the application materials, the DNR is concerned about two other significant factors from the LSCR ordinance that should be considered as part of the City’s review of the variance(s): a. Slopes greater than twelve (12%) percent. Section 4.2(2) of the LSCR Ordinance states: “Structures shall not be placed and grading shall not be performed on slopes greater than twelve (12) percent.” This prohibition is taken directly from Minn. Rule 6105 and aims to avoid disturbances from development that could contribute to increased erosion, degradation of water quality from soil erosion and loss of vegetation contributing to habitat and viewshed degradation. • It appears the current proposal would violate this standard. How does the applicant intend to address this requirement? b. Preservation of areas within the Bluffline and OHWL setback. The preservation of existing vegetation and natural topography within the bluffline and OHWL setback is considered one of, if not, the most important and effective regulatory components for 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 three mature white pines in the project location, which are deemed by the applicant to be “hazardous” to the current and proposed structure. Section 5.3 3 of the LSCR ordinance requires a permit for vegetative cutting within the bluffline and OHWL setback 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 a 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. Rather, 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). Why do the applicant’s materials 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(s) because of the facts raised within Sections 1-3 of 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 200-foot OHWL setback and the 100-foot bluffline setback and any other application standards of the LSCR ordinance. Furthermore, many of the reasons provided in the applicant’s narrative support relocation of the proposed home site. The applicant indicates, in part, that they intend to improve the drainage and water runoff, remove “hazardous” trees, decrease visibility from the river, gain access to direct sunlight for a small solar system, and reduce or mitigate fire risk, all of which would be accomplished to a greater extent if the proposal complied with the applicable LSCR ordinance standards. Finally, 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 the proposal while maintaining compliance with the ordinance and achieve all the objectives stated in the applicant’s narrative. What unique circumstance exists on the subject property that limits or prohibits the applicant from 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 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 1 Martha and Michael Pettee 19803 Quinnell Avenue North, Scandia, MN 55073 Project Name Pettee Year-round Home Narrative addressing Variance Review Criteria We, Martha and Michael Pettee, are seeking to live full-time on our property in Scandia on the St. Croix River. This land carries a great deal of emotional weight for us. It belonged to Michael’s grandparents, Mary and Everett Pettee, from 1946 to 1983. There were countless family memories made here, and the opportunity to regain ownership last year was magically serendipitous for us and our family. We are looking to make Scandia our year-round home. We are asking for a variance from the Unified Development Code restrictions related to bluffline setback and OHWL setback requirements specified by the LSCR Ordinance. We are seeking to improve, expand, and winterize our existing “substandard” cabin and create a year-round home at 19803 Quinnell Ave North, Scandia. We are committed to significantly improving on the structure’s harmony with the surrounding natural environment. As is often the case with cabins, they are expanded without a great deal of thought other than the need for another bedroom, a bigger kitchen, a larger deck, or a more convenient entryway. Such is the case with our cabin. The original 1916 structure was added to by the Pettees and the Lynchs, leaving cutouts for white pines that are now towering 140-feet above the cabin, heaving the floor, and posing a significant danger to the structure (and its inhabitants!). The National Park Service has been to the property to discuss the proposed changes to the existing cabin. At that meeting the rangers confirmed the proposed footprint meets NPS requirements for the Wild and Scenic Riverway restrictions. We are not planning any expansion closer to the river, nor expansion of width (lateral to the river). They supplied a letter indicating some of these findings. NPS applied the classification “hazardous” to the three trees we are proposing to remove which threaten the current cabin. Additionally, the NPS looked at the garage and supported an L-shaped structure that would allow us to park two cars and create a bay for the equipment needed to maintain the property. The position of the well prevents us from simply expanding the entire garage to the west. In January, we had a forester from the DNR walk the property with us to discuss forest management. Hannah Milos, forester in the DNR division of forestry followed up with a 7-point plan for good stewardship of the vegetation on our property. Specifically, she gave us these instructions for recommended tree removal: a. Remove all non-native invasives (primarily buckthorn) b. Remove dead and dying ash trees c. Remove unhealthy or dead scots pines and replace with native, climate adaptive species d. Remove all hazardous trees that have the potential to damage property or injure people She specifically referred to the imminent threat of a twin white pine that was splitting and she too recognized the white pines within the confines of the cabin footprint as potentially dangerous. 2 The proposed expansion to our cabin addresses the Regulations for Substandard Structures under Minnesota Rules Part 6105.0370 and local ordinances (such as Washington County Ordinance 207): •Continuation: Existing substandard structures (those built before the ordinance that do not meet current setbacks) are allowed to continue. •No Increase in Violation: The extent to which a structure violates a setback standard can never be increased. •Alterations/Expansions: Any expansion or alteration that increases the horizontal or vertical riverward building face is prohibited unless it remains visually inconspicuous during summer months as viewed from the river. •Replacement: If a substandard structure must be replaced due to destruction, deterioration, or obsolescence, the replacement must fully comply with current dimensional and setback standards. We are asking to continue the use of our cabin; we are not increasing the violation of the setback standard for the bluffline or the OHWL. We are not altering or increasing the visually conspicuous height or width of the building width as viewed from the river. We are not replacing but are asking to improve, expand and winterize the existing cabin. Hardship and Practical Difficulties We have surveyed, considered, and reviewed other possible building sites on our nearly 12- acre property with the City Planner and Administrator as well as with the National Park Service over the past six months. It has been determined the property itself presents multiple hardships and practical difficulties. There is not another location on the property that is buildable without a variance—any other site involves substantial and greater removal of vegetation, bluff restrictions, grade restrictions, and site preservation considerations. With cascading bluffs, two existing seasonal cabins, an existing garage, two septic tanks, two septic mounds, two wells, and power transmission lines - options are severely limited if not prohibitive. Our plan for improving and minimally expanding the existing “main” cabin with a variance for bluff setback and OWHL setback provides for the best site preservation on our property. The expansion is away from the bluff and meets the 50-foot setback required by OWHL code. Winterizing and minimally increasing the square footage of the cabin, while maintaining the other LSCW requirements and essential character and scenic views from the riverway, is the best and the least restrictive option for creating a year-round home on our property. As such, strict enforcement of the existing setback regulations deprives us of reasonable use of our property. We understand that the LSCR exists to preserve and protect this beautiful scenic riverway. Improvement and minimal expansion of the current structure on a slightly expanded footprint away from the bluff and river ensures the structural safety and modern building compliance of the current “substandard” structure and is a reasonable exercise of our property rights within the city ordinances and scenic easement. Compliance with Additional Scandia Zoning Criteria The following addresses the 7 criteria (a-g) used by the Scandia Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals in granting variances from the Unified Development Code Section 153.500.060. 3 a) We plan to use the property in a “reasonable manner not permitted” by the relevant Chapter of the Unified Development Code. To create a functional, winterized year-round home, we propose to minimally expand to accommodate insulation and mechanicals necessary for winterization, and modern appliances. We would like to fill in the “niches” along the north (non-river facing) wall created by additions that were built around two trees. This will not change the cabin’s visibility from the river and complies with the NPS restrictions for not increasing the width of the current building. We are also planning a slight expansion to the west of the structure, and again on the landward side of the existing cabin, away from the river. These changes to the footprint support the requirements of a safe, year-round home and reflect our intention to “use the property in a reasonable manner” for a modern single-family home. Creating a detached two-car garage is also consistent with using the property in a reasonable manner. The current garage, with a single garage door is not much more than a glorified shed. Additional space will allow us to park our cars inside and consolidate lawn, garden, tractor, and snow removal equipment. This space is more than 200’ back from the river, more than 100; back from the bluff and is safely adjacent (and within compliance) of/to the septic mounds. Additionally, we propose to reduce the visibility of the current structure from the river by reducing the size of the existing deck, away from the south-facing ravine bluff. Our plans will allow us to live on the property year-round, and, we believe, will significantly improve the esthetics of the property—we intend to make the buildings fit more harmoniously on the river and the ravine than the current structures. b) Our application for a variance is “due to circumstances not created” by us. One would assume that 12 acres would provide sufficient space for a new structure. However, the rigorous LSCR Ordinance on top of city planning ordinances makes other building sites prohibitive. Additionally, the white pines growing within the footprint of the cabin pose a distinct hazard to our safety (as confirmed by the NPS and DNR) and, in fact, cannot be removed without taking down current cabin walls. A branch fell during the night from a similar tree above the garage last spring and went directly through the roof. We want to build a safe and usable dwelling. c) The variance, if granted “will not alter the essential character of the locality.” Our plans seek to improve the character of the building site and decrease its visibility from the river, one of the most important goals of the LSCR Ordinance. We have and will continue to plant new white pines to the north of the cabin and will replace trees that were stripped from the bluff years ago to build the current deck. Any grading on the finished site will replicate current grading with no degradation. We plan to improve the drainage and impact of water runoff on the ravine and river bluffs by capturing storm water and runoff from the roof and adjacent hard surfaces. 4 Additionally, once the deck size is reduced, we will work to restore the appearance and structure of the bluff to the immediate south of the cabin. We seek to preserve and improve the structure and enhance erosion control of the bluffline to the south of the cabin. d) We understand that “economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties” in seeking a variance. e) Like most properties on this section of the St. Croix River, there is significant tree canopy and very little access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. This rebuild does open the possibility of a small solar system as the site is one of the few spots on the approximately 12 acres that does have some direct sunlight. f) If granted, this proposed variance will not “impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, increase danger of fire, endanger public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.” On the contrary, rebuilding and minimally expanding the primary dwelling and expanding the garage on this property, along with our presence and daily maintenance here year-round, will improve this property’s value, and the value of our neighbor’s property. g) The “requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty” we face in creating a modest, year-round home here in Scandia on the St. Croix. Additionally, by granting this variance for a single-story building we will: •Maintain existing lateral exposure to the river: the eastern (river facing) and southern (ravine facing) footprint of the existing cabin are not changed in the proposed single- story building •Decrease the size of the south-facing deck, thereby decreasing the visibility of the structure from the river •Improve the drainage and impact of water runoff on the ravine and river bluffs by capturing storm water and runoff from the roof and adjacent hard surfaces •Mitigate the fire risk of a 110-year-old wood cabin •Remove three hazardous white pines that threaten the current structure •Improve the market value of the property •Improve the natural esthetics of the cabin and its surroundings Proposed Schedule of Development Design and Engineering – 9/3-12/3/2026 Completed Drawings for Permitting – 2/15/2026 Permitting and Compliance with Regulations – 2/15/2026-3/15/2027 Demotion, Tree Removal, Site Preparation – 03/20/2027 Construction – 04/01/2027-10/01/2027