Laserfiche WebLink
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS/DRAFT FINDINGS: <br />An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake Elmo City Code <br />Section 105.12.320 set forth by the MN Stat. 462.357 subd.6 before the City may grant an exception or modification to <br />city code requirements. These criteria are listed below, along with comments from Staff about the applicability of these <br />criteria to the applicant’s request. <br />1) Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of Adjustment <br />upon the applicatfon by the owner of the affected property where the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause <br />practfcal difficultfes because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideratfon and then only <br />when it is demonstrated that such actfons will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definitfon of <br />practfcal difficultfes - “Practfcal difficultfes” as used in connectfon with the grantfng of a variance, means that the <br />property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. <br /> <br />FINDINGS: Strict enforcement of the code would not allow for a reasonably sized detached structure in an accessible <br />location on the property. Building in a location which complies with the City’s setback requirements and VBWD pond <br />regulations would require substantial grading activity which would disturb the wetland areas, cause significant tree <br />removal, and disturb/compact area around the septic area, while also restricting access to the septic manhole. <br />2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by <br />the landowner. <br />FINDINGS: The unique site conditions of nearby Klawitter Pond and its associated elevation restrictions, as well as <br />the location of the septic manhole are existing and not created by the landowner and restrict the buildable area on <br />the property. <br />3) Character of Locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the <br />property in question is located. <br />FINDINGS: The proposed request should not alter the character of the neighborhood. The scale and use of the <br />proposed detached structure is consistent with the surrounding properties. With this request, the site’s impervious <br />surface will be reduced and brought into conformance (15%). <br />4) Adjacent Properties and Traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to <br />propertfes adjacent to the property in questfon or substantfally increase the congestfon of the public streets or <br />substantfally diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. <br />FINDINGS: The proposed request should have no negative effect on light and air to adjacent properties. The <br />accessory structure would not encroach easements and would remain a fair distance from neighboring dwelling units <br />while also being screened by existing vegetation. Property values should not be diminished from the request. The <br />request should not increase congestion in the public street. <br /> <br />PUBLIC COMMENT: <br />A hearing notice was sent to surrounding properties within 500’ of the property on April 27th, 2026. A hearing notice was <br />published in the local newspaper on May 1st, 2026. Below is a summary of the public comment received: <br />1. Joan Ziertman (5761 Keats Ave N) provided comments in support of the variance and commented that <br />the locatfon will not be impactiul on neighbors, and the trees will provide screening.