6a. Variance description_20033 Quinnell AvePage 1 of 6
20033 Quinnell Avenue N – PROPOSED addition to accessory dwelling
Project Description
We wish to upgrade, winterize and add onto an old ‘sleeping cabin’ on our property. This
accessory dwelling has been used on and off through the years for extended family to live in
and as overflow for the primary residence. Neither the primary residence nor the accessory
dwelling are winterized, making them uninhabitable for 6-7 months of the year. Both were built
around the 1930s. Our hope is to make this property our eventual year-round residence, but we
cannot afford to winterize the primary residence at this time. To do so will be very expensive .
Upgrading the accessory dwelling would enable us to spend more of the year at the property,
for a price that we can afford.
The property is 9.29 acres in size and is located between Quinnell Ave and the St. Croix River.
The red mark on image below indicates the location of the accessory dwelling.
Legal Description
PT GOV LOT 8 & 193219 PT OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4 ALL THAT PART OF GOV LOT 8 & THE SE1/4 OF SW1/4 SEC19
T32R19 COM AT THE 1/4 SEC COR ON THE S LINE OF SD SEC 19 THENCE W ON SD S LINE 162.70 FT TO THE ELY
LINE OF THE PT DOUGLAS & TAYLORS FALLS RD THENCE N12DEG.E ON SD ELY LINE 272.40 FT THENCE
S70DEG.20'E 112.90 FT THENCE N46DEG.55'E 80.33 FT THENCE N25DEG.30'E 72.10 FT THENCE N62DEG.44'E
64.50 FT THENCE N43DEG.39'E 87.60 FT THENCE N83DEG. 18'E 186.10FT THENCE S66DEG.44' E 294.53 FT
THENCE S 87DEG.47'E 176.10 FT THENCE N84DEG.33'E TO THE WLY BANK OF THE ST CROIX RIVER THENCE SLY
ON SD WLY BANK TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE S LINE OF SD SEC 19 MONUMENTED THENCE WLY ON SD S
LINE TO A PT WHICH IS 607.98 FT ELY OF THE SD 1/4 SEC COR OF SD SEC 19 MEASURED ON SD MONUMENTED
LINE THENCE S72DEG.01'W 170.77 FT THENCE S89DEG.06'W 443.76 FT TO THE PLACE OF BEG SECTION 19
TOWNSHIP 032 RANGE 019
Page 2 of 6
View of sleeping cabin from
the river valley in leaf off
condition. (It is not visible.)
South side of sleeping cabin
with the bluff on the east,
the porch on elevated
blocks.
South side of sleeping cabin
full width, which is 14 feet
3.5 inches for the enclosed
bedroom and bath (does
not include porch). Slope
levels off on its west side.
Note that some rooflines
drain toward the bluff
edge.
Page 3 of 6
North side of sleeping cabin,
which is 14 feet 3.5 inches
deep for the living room and
kitchenette. Slope levels off
on its west side.
West side of sleeping cabin.
The left section has the living
room and kitchenette. The
right side has the bedroom
and full bath (tiny, but has
shower, toilet and sink).
Porch is center rear.
West side of cabin, view of
full width, which is 30 feet
(12’ + 6’ gap + 12’)
Page 4 of 6
PROPOSED ADDITION – 8 feet to the west
The proposed addition would extend the
structure footprint (shown at left as
existing) another eight (8) feet to the west,
on top of ground that is level.
Based on the Scandia code bluff line
definition, the sleeping cabin and any
addition up to 11.3 feet, would sit within
the bluff line setback area.
Current structure depth = 14 ft 3.5 inches
Proposed addition = 8 ft
Proposed total depth = 22 ft 3.5 inches
Existing distance inside bluff line = 11.3 ft
Proposed distance inside bluff line = 3.3 ft
The proposed addition to the west side of
the structure requires a variance because it
is within the bluff line setback area.
Image at left shows
concept rendering of
structure with 8 foot
addition on the west
side. The north and
south walls of the
structure would not be
extended, although the
National Park Service
says it would be
permissible under the
easement for the
property.
NORTH
WEST + EAST
SOUTH
Page 5 of 6
PROPOSED ADDITION – 8 feet up to add a loft
Height - The proposed addition of a loft increases the structure height. Any additional height to
a structure within a bluff setback area requires a variance.
Current height = 13 ft 6 inches
Proposed Addition = 7 ft 10.5 inches
Proposed total height = 21 feet 4.5 inches
WEST EAST
Runoff - The proposed shed roof design directs water run-off to the west side of the structure
where the ground is level, instead of to the eastern bluff side, where a portion of the runoff
now goes.
Visibility – The raised height of the east side of the structure will not make it visible from the
river valley nor from the top of the Wisconsin bluff across the river. The structure is well hidden
by tree cover.
National Park Service – The structure is not within the “view line” of the river as determined by
the National Park Service. Concept plans discussed with NPS in summer 2020 seemed okay to
them. NPS asked for review of refined concept plans (see attached letter). This packet is being
sent to the National Park Service for review concurrent with this Scandia variance application.
Septic – The current cottage is served by a septic holding tank which the septic inspector said is
in fine working order. Nevertheless, we would replace the current tank with a new tank if we
upgrade the structure.
Page 6 of 6
FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE – review by applicant
(1) The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the
Development Code.
This finding is met. The proposed structure upgrade and addition would allow the use of an
existing residential structure for occupancy during all seasons.
(2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
This finding is met. The current foundation for the structure is located next to the bluff
edge and has been that way since it’s construction in the 1930s.
(3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
This finding is met. The structure is a secondary dwelling to the primary residence on this
lot, which is over 9 acres in size. Eleven of the thirteen properties along Quinnell between
Crabtrees Country store and the Copas public landing have a primary residence and one or
more secondary dwellings.
(4) Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties.
This finding is met. The proposed upgrade with addition is more expensive than improving
the structure with the existing footprint and height.
(5) That 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.
This finding is met. The proposed upgrade of an existing structure in its current location
does not impact traffic or public safety. It is not visible from the public right-of-way. The
upgrade would include replacing the existing asphalt shingle roof with a metal roof, in order
to reduce fire risk.
(6) That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical
difficulty.
This finding is met. The proposed upgrade brings a substandard, partly rotting structure into
good condition, with insulation, code compliant kitchen and bath, and new septic. The loft
feature adds a bit more livable area for sleep and office, without the larger profile of a
traditional second story.
(7) Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems.
This finding is met. The shed roof design, with the sloped roof facing west, may allow
limited use of solar panel energy in the future, where there in no suitable roof surface for
that today.