Loading...
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.