HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 9 - Dworak Packet 10-1-13 THE CITY OF
LAKE ELMO
Planning Commission
Date: 09/23/13
Item: 4a
Public Hearing(cont.)
ITEM: Variance Request—09.029.21.22.0025 (Hill Trail North)—Cont.
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
Pete Ganzel, Washington County
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City of Lake Elmo has received an application from Dean and Gayle Dworak, 12325
Upper Heather Ave. N., Hugo, Minnesota, for a variance to allow for the construction of
a single family home on a lot that is not considered a lot of record under the Zoning
Ordinance due to its size and that is does not meet the required 20,000 square feet of area
for a septic system. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing and reviewed the
request at meetings on 8/26/13 and 9/9/13, at which times the item was tabled for further
consideration at a future meeting. It should also be noted that the Public Hearing has
been continued to allow for additional testimony.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At the meetings on 8/26/13 and 9/9/13, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing
and reviewed the variance application submitted by Dean and Gayle Dworak. In
reviewing the application, Staff made the determination that while the application has
merit based upon the 4 required finding for granting a variance, the applicant did not
provide sufficient evidence that a subsurface sewage treatment system that met the
guidelines of Washington County could be properly located on the site. For that reason,
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission table the variance request to allow the
applicant more time to work with a septic designer and Washington County. The
Planning Commission tabled the request to provide the applicant with more time.
The applicants have submitted a new certificate of survey showing the proposed location
for a primary and secondary drainfield site. In addition, the amount of proposed
impervious surface has been reduced to 5,600 square feet. This amount of impervious
meets the City's shoreland district requirement of a maximum of 6,000 square feet. In
addition, the location of the proposed drainfield, well and home meet all of the required
setbacks as specified by the Washington County Development Code, the Shoreland
Ordinance, and the Zoning Code. Also, the applicants have submitted an updated septic
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b—ACTION ITEM
2
design to Washington County. Pete Ganzel, Washington County Environmental
Specialist, reviewed the proposed septic design and found the system to be compliant
with Washington County rules and regulations. Greater detail about Mr. Ganzel's
analysis of the proposed septic system can be found in the attached letter(Attachment
#2). Based upon these findings, the proposed septic system will be permitted by
Washington County.
Over the course of the two Public hearing sessions, multiple parties have provided
testimony on the proposed variance. At the meeting on 8/26/13, testimony was received
from Amy and Brad Gustufson, Vickie Iverson and Bonnie Weisbrod, all of whom are
nearby property owners. The comments by the aforementioned adjacent property owners
provided at the 8/26/13 meeting included concern about the following topics:
• The proposed location of the septic drainfield was too close to the neighboring
property;
• The ability of the applicant to site an adequate subsurface sewage treatment
system on the property;
• Problems related to drainage and erosion control, particularly being that the lot is
in between Olson Lake and Lake DeMontreville; and
• Alteration of the neighborhood character with a new single family home.
At the meeting on 9/9/13, the applicant, Dean Dworak, and property owner, Paul Hansen,
spoke at the Public Hearing. Mr. Dworak noted that he and his designer are almost
finished with an updated design of the home and septic system. They intended to submit
the updated information to Washington County for consideration of a septic permit. In
addition, Mr. Hansen spoke about the history of the lot, sharing that he and his wife
purchased the lot as either an investment property or as a location to build a home for
future retirement, down-sizing from their existing home. The Planning Commission also
asked Mr. Hanson when he bought the property, as well as what zoning rules were in
place at the time of purchase. Mr. Hanson did not know the exact date when he
purchased the property. However, he did note that no promises were made in terms of
the lot being buildable from the City. Finally, Steve Iverson, 8108 Hill Trail North, also
spoke at the 9/9/13 meeting. He noted that he submitted a letter to the Planning
Commission, detailing his concerns about the proposed Variance. He noted that the
proposed variance is in direct conflict with the intent of the lot size ordinance, and that if
the variance is approved, other requests for additional lot size variances will follow.
At the request of the Planning Commission, Staff conducted research on two primary
issues:
1. The Planning Commission asked Staff to conduct an analysis of all the lots in the
Hill Trail area, including information about occupancy and lot size.
2. The Planning Commission requested that Staff research what zoning standards
were in place at the time when the Hansen's purchased the subject parcel.
Regarding the analysis of the lots in the Hill Trail area, Staff has provided two maps that
show the parcels in the northern and southern portions of Hill Trail (Attachment#3). The
maps indicate the parcel size and occupancy(occupied vs. vacant) of each parcel.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a—ACTION ITEM
3
Regarding parcel size, it should be noted that there are several instances of two adjoining
properties being owned by the same owner. In these cases, the parcel size is listed along
the parcel boundary with the adjoining properties. In addition, when two contiguous
parcels are owned by the same owner, the parcel is considered one property for the
purposes of the Zoning Code. When reviewing the parcels that are included in the Hill
Trail analysis, two figures are important. 1) The mean(or average)parcel size in the Hill
Trail area is 0.82 acres, whereas the median parcel size is 0.71 acres; and 2) In the area
analyzed, there are 28 parcels that are equal to or smaller in size than the subject parcel.
The figures related to the parcel analysis can be found in Attachment#4.
Regarding the zoning standards that were in place at the time the Hansen family
purchased the subject property, the City Clerk, Adam Bell, conducted research into the
matter. The oldest version of the Lake Elmo City Code that the City currently has in its
possession in the 1979 Code. When the 1979 Code was establishes, the 1.5 acre
minimum lot size was then established. However, it is difficult to determine what
standards were in place prior to the 1979 Code. This investigation have led to results that
are inconclusive. It is more than likely that the regulations that were in place prior to the
1979 Code were carried over from the township regulations prior to the City's
incorporation. As it has been established that the Hanson family purchased the property
in 1978, it is clear that they did own the property prior to the 1979 Code. However, while
understanding the motivations of the property owner at the time may provide helpful
context, it still does not change the fact that the subject property is governed by the
existing zoning regulations. As the Hansen family did not build on the lot prior to the
1979 regulations, the lot is still subject to the current provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
that determine whether or not the lot is considered a buildable lot of record.
Regarding the required findings for a variance, it is important to highlight these once gain
for the purposes of making a recommendation. The required and proposed findings as
presented by Staff include the following:
1. Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted
by the Board of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected
property where the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical
difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in
keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical
difficulties - "Practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a
variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The applicants have noted
that the desire to build a single family home on a lot that is consistent in terms of
lot area to the other properties in the neighborhood is a reasonable use not
permitted by an official control. Staff determines that this criterion is met.
2. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner. The parcel was plated and
purchased by the property owner before the current lot size requirements were
established. In addition, the property is unique in that is does not meet the
minimum acreage of 0.9 acres to be considered buildable, but can support a
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a—ACTION ITEM
4
permitted subsurface sewage treatment system as determined by Washington
County. Staff determines that this criterion is met.
3. Character of locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character
of the locality in which the property in question is located. The applicant has
correctly noted that the lot is similar or consistent in lot area with most of the
existing lots in the neighborhood. The construction of a single family home will
not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Staff determines that this
criterion is met.
4. Adjacent properties and traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the property in question or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish
or impair property values within the neighborhood.It is determined that the
proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property
adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of the
public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood. Staff determines that this criterion is met.
Staff has determined that the Variance application does have merit.
Finally, Staff did not attach the previous application materials. Planning Commission
members are encouraged to bring the application materials from the previous meeting if
possible.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Variance
request through the following motion:
"Move to recommend approval of the Variance request at 09.029.21.22.0025(Hill Trail
North) based upon the findings outlined in the Staff Memorandum."
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Additional Application Materials
2. Letter from Pete Ganzel, Environmental Specialist, Washington County
3. Hill Trail Maps (North and South)
4. Hill Trail Parcel Analysis
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Introduction...................................................................................Planning Staff
- Report by Staff..............................................................................Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission.......................Chair& Commission Members
- Continue the Public Hearing.......................................................................Chair
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a—ACTION ITEM
5
Discussion by the Commission.........................Chair& Commission Members
Action by the Commission................................Chair& Commission Members
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a—ACTION ITEM
THE CITY OF
LAKE ELM4
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
Variance Request
To: Planning Commission
From: Nick M. Johnson, City Planner
Meeting Date: 08/26/2013
Applicant: Dean and Gayle Dworak
Owner: Paul and Nancy Hansen
Location: 09.029.21.22.0025 (Hill Trail North)
Zoning: RS—Rural Single Family
Introducto Information
Application The City of Lake Elmo has received an application from Dean and Gayle Dworak, 12325
Summary: Upper Heather Ave. N., Hugo, Minnesota, for a variance to allow for the construction of a
single family home on a lot that is not considered a lot of record under the Zoning Ordinance
due to its size and that is does not meet the required 20,000 square feet of area for a septic
system. Per the requirements of the Rural Single Family (RS)zoning district,the minimum
lot size is 1.5 acres, and there must be at least 20,000 square feet suitable for the installation
of a subsurface sewage treatment system. The Zoning Ordinance allows existing lots of
record to be considered buildable if the lot meets a minimum of 60% of the minimum lot size
in the underlying zoning district. 60% of 1.5 acres is 0.9 acres. The subject lot is 0.63 acres
according to the Washington County parcel data, making the parcel 0.27 acres less than the
minimum size to be considered a lot of record.
The owners of the property, Paul and Nancy Hansen, have co-signed for the Variance
request. The parties have agreed to a purchase agreement for the property contingent on the
approval of a variance to construct a single family home. The applicant has provided a
written statement to the City indicating the reason for the Variance request. In addition, the
applicants' narrative addresses how the proposed application meets the 4 required findings to
grant a Variance.
Property The property (09.029.21.22.0025) is located on the east side of Hill Trail North on the
Information: peninsula between Lake DeMontreville and Olson Lake. The attached location map
(Attachment#3) details the location of the property. The property has been owned by Paul
and Nancy Hansen since 1979.
Applicable Section 154.402 Lot Dimensions and Building Bulk Requirements
Codes:
Lot area and setback requirements shall be as specified in Table 9-2, Lot Dimension and
Setback Requirements.
Variance Request; 09.029.21.22.0025(Hill Trail North)
Planning Commission Report; 8126113
Table 9-2: Lot Dimension and Setback Requirements,Residential Districts
Minimum Lot Area (acres)
Single Family Detached Dwelling 20 40a°b 10` 1.5 2 55
Minimum Lot Width (feet)
Single Family Detached Dwelling 300 300 300 125 NAB
Maximum Principal Structure Height 35 35 35 35 35
(feet)
Maximum Impervious Coverage - - - 25% 1596
Minimum Principal Building Setbacks
(feet)
Front Yard 30 200 30 30 100
Interior Side Yard 10 200 10 10 50
Corner Side Yard 4 25 200 25 25 80
Rear Yard 40 200 40 40 100
Minimum Accessory Building
Setbacks (feet)
Front Yard 30 200 30 30 100
Interior Side Yard 10 200 10 10 15
Corner Side Yard 25 200 25 25 30
Rear Yard 40 200 40 10 15
Minimum Agricultural Related
Setbacks
(Animal buildings, feedlots or manure
storage sites)
Any Property Line 200 200 200 - ........................
Any Existing Well or Residential 50 50 50 - -
Structure
Any Body of Seasonal or Year-round 200 200 200 - -
Surface Water
Section 154.080 Additions and Exceptions to Minimum Area, Height, and Other
Requirements.
Page 2
Variance Request; 09.029.21.22.0025(Hill Trail North)
Planning Commission Report; 8126113
tA) Existing Lot: An existing lot is a lot or parcel of land in a residential district which
was of record as a separate lot or parcel in the office of the County Recorder or registrar
of titles, on or before the effective date of this section. Any such lot or parcel of land
which is in a residential district may be used for single family detached dwelling
purposes provided the area and width of the lot are within sixty percent(60%) of the
minimum requirements of this section, provided all setback requirements of this section
must be maintained; and provided it can be demonstrated safe and adequate sewage
treatments systems can be installed to serve the permanent dwelling.
Section 154.404 Site Design and Development Standards
Development of land within the rural districts shall follow established standards for
traffic circulation, landscape design,parking, signs and other considerations as specified
in Articles 5, 6 and 7. The following standards apply to specific uses, and are organized
by district.
(A) Single-Family Detached Dwelling, All Rural Districts. All single-family dwellings
shall be at least twenty-four(24) feet in width, at least nine hundred sixty(960) square
feet in area, and be placed on a permanent foundation.
(B) Septic Drainfield Regulation, A, RR, and RS Districts. All lots must have at least
20,000 square feet of land suitable for septic drainfields and area sufficient for 2 separate
and distinct drainfield sites. Placement of the second required drainfield between the
trenches of the first drainfield is prohibited.
Section 154.109 Variances.
(A-J) Variances. Identifies procedures and requirements for the processing and review
of a variance application. Please note that this section was recently updated by the City
to comply with revisions to Minnesota State Statutes.
Findings & General Site Overview
Site Data: Lot Size: 0.63 acres
Existing Use: Single Family Detached Dwelling
Existing Zoning: RS—Rural Single Family
Property Identification Number(PID): 09.029.21.22.0025
Application Review:
Variance As outlined in the narrative, the applicant is seeking to build a new single family home
Review: at 09.029.21.22.0025 (Hill Trail North). In the application, the applicant has also
provided an existing survey, a proposed site plan of the proposed single family home,
as well as building plans. However, it should be noted that the site plan does not
provide adequate detail of the proposed septic system that will serve the property.
Page 3
Variance Request; 09.029.21.22.0025(Hill Trail North)
Planning Commission Report; 8126113
Regarding the lot size Variance, the lot does not currently meet the minimum size
requirements to be considered a buildable lot of record per the requirements of the
Rural Single Family (RS) zoning district. The applicants have noted that the owners of
the property have owned since 1979,before the minimum lot size zoning requirements
were in place. It is quite common that many of the older platted lots in the community
that are zoned RS do not meet the 1.5 acre minimum size requirement. In the
application, the applicants have provided some of the sizes of the adjacent lots to the
subject property. Given the sizes of the adjacent lots, the subject lot is consistent in
size to many of these properties. As long as the new single family home was able to
meet the requirements for impervious surface, setbacks, shoreland requirements, and
site a subsurface sewage treatment system on the site, the application seems to present
a reasonable request to allow variance from the minimum lot size requirements.
Regarding the Variance requested from the minimum requirement of 20,000 square
feet of area suitable for septic (§154.404), it is common that lots that are unable to
meet minimum size requirements also are non-compliant with the area requirements
for septic systems. In order to build a single family home on such a lot, a Variance is
required from the minimum area requirements for septic systems. In the Variance
application, the applicants have noted that a septic permit from Washington County is
being pursued. It should be noted that the Variance request has been reviewed by Pete
Ganzel, Washington County Senior Environmental Specialist. Mr. Ganzel has
submitted review comments, found in Attachment#4, noting that the current area
being proposed for septic is most likely would not meet the County requirements
necessary for a septic system. Until the City receives indication that septic design will
be accepted by Washington County and the septic permit will be issued, Staff does not
recommend allowing for a variance from the septic area requirements to be granted.
As it is critical to ensure that a septic system can be adequately sited on the property
for a new single family home, it is not prudent to grant a variance in advance of
having greater assurance that a septic design will be approved by Washington County.
Allowing for more time to bring resolution to the septic design would allow the
applicant to finalize the septic design with Washington County.
It should also be noted that a letter of support for the Variance was submitted by a
neighboring property owner, Mike and Ruth Schrantz, 5831 Hytrail Ave. N., Lake
Elmo, MN. The letter of support is found in Attachment#5.
Vcarcie An applicant must also establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance
Rerradrenrerrt� criteria set forth in Lake Elmo City Code Section 154.109 before an exception or
modification to City Code requirements can be granted. These criteria are listed
below:
1. Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted
by the Board of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected
property where the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical
difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in
Page 4
Variance Request; 09.029.21.22.0025(Hill Trail North)
Planning Commission Report; 8126113
keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical
difficulties - "Practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a
variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by an official control.
2. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner.
3. Character of locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character
of the locality in which the property in question is located.
4. Adjacent properties and traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the property in question or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish
or impair property values within the neighborhood.
Given the information that has been submitted by the applicant and pending further
review by the Planning Commission, Staff would offer the following suggested
findings specific to the variance that have been requested by the applicant:
1. The applicants have noted that the desire to build a single family home on a lot
that is consistent in terms of lot area to the other properties in the
neighborhood is a reasonable use not permitted by an official control. Staff
determines that this criterion is met.
2. The applicants have noted that the property was owned by the Hansen family
before the zoning district requirements were established. The lot is consistent
in lot area with other adjacent properties that have single family homes. The
establishment of zoning is a circumstance not created by the landowner. Staff
determines that this criterion is met.
3. The applicant has correctly noted that the lot is similar or consistent in lot
area with most of the existing lots in the neighborhood The construction of a
single family home will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Staff determines that this criterion is met.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
property adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the
congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood. Staff determines that this criterion is met.
Conclusions: Staff finds the applicants have met the 4 necessary criteria for a Variance and
demonstrated that the desire to construct a single family home represents a reasonable
Page 5
Variance Request; 09.029.21.22.0025(Hill Trail North)
Planning Commission Report; 8126113
use not permitted by an official control. However, until the City receives better
indication that the site will be able to be served by a septic system that is permitted by
Washington County, it is not advisable to grant a Variance at this time for the request.
It is recommended that more time be allowed to finalize the septic design and receive
indication from Washington County that the septic design will be accepted and
permitted.
Conclusion:
Dean and Gayle Dworak, 12325 Upper Heather Ave. N., Hugo, MN, have submitted a
request for a variance at 09.029.21.22.0025 (Hill Trail North) to allow the construction
of a single family home on a lot that does not meet the minimum lot area requirements
to be considered a buildable lot of record. In addition, the request includes a variance
from the requirement that each lot in the RS district have 20,000 square feet of area
suitable for septic systems.
Staff Rec: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission table the Variance request by
Dean and Gayle Dworak until the September 9th meeting to allow for more time to
bring resolution to the design of the septic system. In addition, given that new
information is likely to be provided, it is recommended that the Planning Commission
not close the Public Hearing, but continue the hearing until the September 9th meeting.
Approval Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission table the Variance request
Motion through the following motion:
Template:
"Move to table the Variance request at 09.029.21.22.0025 (Hill Trail North) for
further consideration at the next available Planning Commission meeting to allow
the applicant more time to submit a septic design that will meet Washington County
approval."
cc: Dean and Gayle Dworak
Paul and Nancy Hansen
Page 6
City of Lake Elmo
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
Signature Page
Signature of Applicants:
--------------
Dean Dworak Gayl Dworak
12325 Upper Heather Ave N 12325 Upper Heather Ave N
Hugo, MN 55038 Hugo, MN 55038
Signature of Owners:
-- - - ------ -------------- - !---- ----
Paul Hansen Nancy ansen
8024 Hill Trail N 8024 Hill Trail N
Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Lake Elmo, MN 55042
By signing this document, we the above signees, formally submit for approval the
attached Variance Application to the City of Lake Elmo.
Fee $
City of Lake Elmo
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment IN Variance * (See below) ❑ Residential Subdivision
Preliminary/Final Plat
❑Zoning District Amendment ❑Minor Subdivision O 01 - 10 Lots
❑Text Amendment ❑ Lot Line Adjustment O 11 -20 Lots
O 21 Lots or More
❑ Flood Plain C.U.P. ❑ Residential Subdivision ❑ Excavating&Grading Permit
Conditional Use Permit Sketch/Concept Plan
❑Appeal ❑PUD
❑Conditional Use Permit(C.U.P.) ❑Site& Building Plan Review //))
APPLICANT: i�ec�71 G C L'til.0 I"two(t` I.�� y /} r -(` r AL't � '.' iArf,•
(Name) ! (Mailing Address) / (Zip)
TELEPHONES: (05 qL / 4?c I
(Home) (Work) (Mobile) (Fax)
FEE OWNER: ">LI '+ I �ttC+ t 1 S�1{. �� 1�1 '11 �! 1 � ' r"`;, Lc�Ke'
(Name) Mailing Address) (Zip)
TELEPHONES: 1 `" 77T I/ rx+I
(Home) (Work) (Mobile) (Fax)
(PROPERTY LOCATION (Address andComplete (Long) Legal Description): YUY ;'. i
�t:%-Tr,, za f�J - � �l_' `'� t�lf+i lL%?1y' {_.S�"�I t _ f!`' F 1, �; ��•,f'+ i � (!'t;1� .�1 (�
�c' i lo' �_�ti " . ry- ..�.1 t� •:� J!..tr(' t r /" .�", / i.l 1 ! '� i- ti �i �('' L. �.- �f +�
t-�11{ � ( D��! S l j:' ` '•+' '• ' ,i l ' e + -� •, ` L' � t t� 1 �� 1
DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST: /-
1
c i �l.tr (,.�' - is �;1. •t 1 t <<'lJ .�.
' - �•I! .� i.r; ryG` O `-''C7 7 J� rCC ���' 1., !S�! qa
-, ,.: C•C •_� d'-r 1 I-a�-f � )i 1 S C c. � J r L t
WARJACI=REQUESTS: As outlined in Section 301.060 C.of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code,the Applicant must
demonstrate a hardship before a variance can be granted. The hardship related to this application is as follows:
+
In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as
outlined in the application procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the Citv vertainine to
additional application,expense.
Vic-c C S('E c t' :c.
Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Applicant Date
1/22/2004 City of Lake Elmo•3800 Laverne Avenue North•Lake Elmo-55042•651-777.5510•Fax 651-777-9615
INFORMATION FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
a). Applicants: Dean and Gayle Dworak
Owners: Paul and Nancy Hansen
b). Legal description : Lots 505 — 510 and 629 — 634 Lane's Demontreville Country Club.
Also portion of Demontreville Beach accruing to Lots 629—634 of Lane's
Demontreville Country Club, Washington County, MN
Warrantee Deed Document No. 393352
Parcel Number : 09.029.21.22.0025
Size: 31,440 sq feet 0.7acres
Currently an unimproved wooded lot
Zoned residential
c). Variance sought for: i) Resolution 87-32 of City of Lake Elmo to transfer/sell land
ii) Build home on 0.7 acres rather than 1.5 acres
iii) City of Lake Elmo Ordinance 08-073,Article 9 requiring minimum of 20,000
square feet of land suitable for septic drainfield.
d). i)Request approval to purchase lot to build new home.
ii&iii ). Paul and Nancy Hansen have owned this lot since 1979 before these
requirements were in place. A permit for an approved septic system is being pursed
with Washington County.Approval of this variance request could be made
contingent on obtaining the septic permit.
e). Met with Lake Elmo city planner, Nick Johnson, for guidance. Followed variance
procedure.
f). Need to purchase land from current owners. Purchase is contingent on getting a
variance. All adjacent lots already have homes so no adjacent vacant land.
g). The lot will not be marketable if a house cannot be built on it.
h). Granting the variance would not alter the essential character of neighborhood as
one adjacent house ( 8108 Hill Trail N ) is on 0.53 acres while the other adjacent
house ( 8120 Hill Trail N ) is on 0.76 acres. The house across the street ( 8123 Hill
Trail N ) is on 0.69 acres. The subject lot of 0.7 acres is comparable in size to all
other homes in the immediate area. A new septic system of more current design
would probably exceed the performance of the older neighboring systems.
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
"nS 505 THRU 510 AND U)T'S C-29 THRU"4, PART OF VACATED SEAL-1, HOUSE LAYOUT'
I_ANE'S DEMONTREVILIE COUNTRY CLUB,
SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 29 NORTH, RANGE 21 HEST, / / PREPARED FOR=
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, WAWINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA DEAN DwoxAK
Note: Afobw / ' 12325 Upper Heather Aa,ue North
Hugo,1!N 55038
LEGEND Proposed septic areas and well location are within the building
setbacks for this lot. The wells and septic systems on adjoining y'
w: 'm lots were not located by Landmark Surveying Inc,and we can not
certify their proximity to proposed features.
>C—I ell
O www ,/,w......� IMPERVIOUS AREA AS SHOWN:5AW S9 FT
:'r'�e .. °'es,
e �••—w• HOUSE FOOTPRINT PROVIDED BY:
Home Tec Dedgners and BUAd9r5 \ , / �y,+oj1�/ j• r.:r iq '�
' s tvts mnmm.Jz aot]nnrr ara I (�
�x a..l.,°.s>a.wr•wenwas. / � ,o�,>,. / ��--tae,daa�arptrow 1: 2
/ - - eZ
/ evnnoNOF�'�'Nil,lfmanS'- i
/ A TOP 1S�9/687/�'
F..nd.Y k.h �, / I / / -Y]]•..F O Z 4 Y 4 A
.,.n-P 1 a pP. POSED HOUSE ;✓: ,m ,
f032
/ �ruJltYY ��rf_, /•y q J]'va�' ,a �
-� �'^'j �` ano ,505" / � ; ••- r i,"/ _ '' 'I•I �'' rFI� ►'`fyYl 8
fitrr • (L,1"in,m�rr '• / ; m-.,." V �r a
l'na§k for
PRo °°txK; ;� �oVE-o.H.W.
b - Jr.'.•'- _� �`"� ., 'Test Alli f ''l ;`"•,,, `` ^i41e,r 4
I ,i ^t 5•
%s16'6
R' e�Co� / '"' `I lwiyr g�/Yr A,e�-f ��/r/'I s• q r aa'�. _`, ', y -
�_�u o�. •,_O \ , /. �'T.� `� 1'/ ProDrhlhrQ Q—!Na 374SS7 •_—i.s��i��:
'-o Al eA-dauaf
-awn i i, a e¢ d� Al va sesaaena rNr ayC.A
/vV \ yq �✓ '��O' vG\�' 19',t / Wirdvgma t:imfY.smgmfheimadedP4f Namim
/ '•7". _, \/ fiMmiofmm/mdb obSzande mrmy—Ar. -.
,th fl % / \ W++a>rsrylkn,4 Dbrn tM1a 3745M f1'arrasr3 DLe4 NA Daam9rl 3Vm3 7
„e
u7 ' i1\� �,. / \ M,m,briddkur-lVlm(4/SJ afLotr JOJ,-Ndf 6Jl,mdkTJ Lab3a7,SpS JIN,SIR E29,m1QN{d?/mi63Z Lme}
J ofvee}a>�n•r,�q•cnq.�d�mJ& �� D--°n'u`C--6rC7°b
f«w ;' `y/, /\�,aaaddryf t16vasf .io'
Abar
Cqud.Aa � �-' a r,' / ✓ / / 71Wpvumaf.avtd'L�rn7klha5'amagc mfab
Ati / _ - 679A.6Nufl-lIka+u•,r-7kC.•avr>tvCWA
` y .. / h7e.ad r,R,.damra�erea<r>�•,�a.
g0 / Official copies of this map are crimp sealed.
I hereby certify that this survey plan ar report was prepared by me or
/ under my dtrect super duly
W-and that 1—a y Licensed Lord Surveyor.
/ under the lass of the State of Minnesota.
�hc. / / DO&IN Firr Revised:September 19,2013 Landmork Su veying Inc.
],a9d ai, ke wn-PA a.r 65 NOMSE
s-a.W.—aso7s � Proposed septic,well,house and driveway were added. � November 13, 2012
Mmnesot.license . 13775 Date
c+r.rr rn.s..r.wr 1M,°Da M.
Jab Number 2013-44
(Individual Acknowledl ment)
i
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) !
j ss. f
GOTJNTI'OF
Th-foregoing instrument was,
acknowledged before me this 6)LI day of NIA
19.� ,by - Maine J. Altstatt
R,Sonal representative of the estate of—Harold. F. Altsi ate_ I
,deceased.
An
NMA Notary Public —Count , t
-i':'Yt I �•! tlN1r4.,VAN D.ERWiST; -
KCJr1RK PUBLIC-MINNESOTb My commission expires 19
^Y.l• -•N1)rGoqin.Fkpire:ion:18,1985 S
�1 f�•',••• 'NVWMNWV'NWNWVVJ I> ___ .
..1::,.l YYlI�,ACY YY•
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY
TEUET &-LYNCH
(Name)
$33 $out hv_ie_w -Eloulevard
(Address(
,qojith St** "Pahl MN 5U3_5
Tax statements for the real property described in this instrument should be sent to:
1P
)Name( (Address)
(,L,... 5a c
STATE-DEED TAX .
TRANSFER STAMPS DUE
Ln
I
r
1
I
i
En
T yr �
Ww d I oo � o N� • tea _ H
O
o,.:d > (31T,. V]I 11 o.y tl r-1 4 ;1
•', O rny:o��
bA
c U cl w
a ,N ap m
C? 3 cr, co z q y ti tY v n l
.e,•w•.:.r.\em,v^�:P :.._... ^,r{^t-sv,:.t,;::" .. .PNVYMIev
OffMll fiA-DAVIS CO�MPIS.Rev•1,75
Form
19
;THIS INDENTITRE,tMade this day ofCLt�—
t �-- —,.deceased,
betwyen, of the Estate of � — =
es Personal'Representat• e :< - �;. ;• : .:
Paul' E Hansen�n� a3Y�� .
part. of the'first,part I and of the County:of.
:wif.e :gas• point tenants,. of Minne � ---, a --=— partiesofthe
_Wasshinato�
and .Mate
•second'par,,;
c;.•, .: +a++ .:x a' (married)person:of.•. l
WITr7FSSETII,that whereas Harms F- Alts __died•:on i
and State �Tl"pG��a'' ' °`
Ram.4AV :• r Of DamCPV: County, !
of, '' n,-� Courtof _ I
th N n o amY Siidlhe._
ratP
a
Minnesota did appoint'- E afire J _ Personal'Representative
of the estate,and whereas by the laws-of the State of Minnesota,sai
m d Personal Representative
(is)-(NM empowered to make and execute a conveyance of real estate.
the said art' of the firse$art,in consideration:of.-the sum
NOW,.TIdREFORE, - P 1�-=--= DOLLARS;
of ^,1, iri`hand paid'•by;the said%parties;of�tiie second-Tart; tbe`receipt
hereby Grant,Bargain;'Sell,and Convey unto the said
whereof is hereby+acknow.Iedged,do es = _ or parcel
parties of the second part as joint tenants and not as teiiant�in common;their assigns,the survivor of
said parties and the heii sand as'igns'6f the survivor, Fo;av�r, all`the tract
of land lying and being in;the County ofand State of Minnesota,•described as'follows,to-wit: j
" 'inter in Lots ,505, 506.Ir':u33',
Ari,undivided-onc-fitthu,(1/5) Washington County,
'and 634 of Lanels :DemontreviIle:'CountrY•Club,
ac:.ording. to the recorded plat thereof on filz' and of record
in,tlie office of the county recorder.
1
ditamerits and
I
t
I
I
1 -
f
urtenances
ere-
TO IIAVE'ANDTO HOLDAND eta zng to the,said part a hesof the second part,±b ej r — }
,thareurifo beloinging or in anywise app j
heirs and assigns,Forever. -
._: P hereuntA
IN TEST TVLQNY WHEREOF,The said-p arc' —of the first a t bas=— I
the day and year first above written.
`1I1 hand..--=•
i E ai Jai,��� I
as personal representative
of the Estate of
'y*7a rn lei
I Deceased.
1 spouse of the above named
Elaine J. Altstatt
decedent, do hereby consent to(he within conveyance. `
i Elaine J. Al� ta.tt'
■
OlsonLake DeMontreville
Source: Em, i-cubed, USDA,UO pp.im, ,Aerogrid,PH,
owl and the m User Community
Location Map: 09. 029.21 .22. 0025
THE CITY OF
LA KE ELMO o 100 200 40o Feet
09.029.21.22.0025 I i i i I i i i I
Data Scource: Washington County, MN 1"=200'
8-22-2013
1.08
.
LAKE
DEMONTREVILLE 0 :
0.4
1.03
' I 0. 4
0.51
0.63 0 0.74
31
� 0
.32
1.73
-- —
0.76
i
54
0.5
�I
0.48
2.J0 0.4.
i
0.25 0 .
OLSON
i
.
67
0.6 0 .
0.76
ource. ri, Di.•i4alGlobe,�eoEye,i�cube-d, U DA!USG ,AE ,Get,mapp,in.g,
Aerognd, IGN, IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Communit,
Lakeshore Property Analysis: Hill Trail Area (North)
THE CITY OF Homesteaded Property Parcel Size (Acres)
LAKE ELMO Vacant Property Adjacent Properties
included in Parcel Size
Data Scource: Washington County, MN Vacant Property Calculation
9-17-2013 (Owners Homesteaded Property in Close Proximity)
67.
0 '
.0.76 LAKE
0.6 DEMONTREVILLE
.
10.38
0.79
0.85
93
47
1.35
OLSON
1.27
0.38
0.33
0.85 0.4
ource. Esri, DigitalGbbe,
Aerognd, IGN Ge,oEe
, wopo ad e =DAn Getmappin.g,
Lakeshore Property Analysis: Hill Trail Area (South)
THE CITY OF Homesteaded Property Parcel Size (Acres)
LAKE ELMO Vacant Property
Data Scource: Washington County, MN Vacant Property
9-17-2013 (Owners Homesteaded Property in Close Proximity)
Hill Trail Parcel Analysis
Parcel Sizes (Acres) Analysis
0.2 0.72 #of Parcels 64
0.24 0.74 Mean Size 0.82
0.25 0.75 Median Size 0.71
0.28 0.76
0.32 0.76
0.33 0.79
0.34 0.79
0.38 0.79
0.38 0.8
0.4 0.83
0.4 0.85
0.41 0.85
0.41 0.89
0.45 0.93
0.46 0.93
0.47 0.96
0.48 1.03
0.48 1.07
0.5 1.08
0.51 1.1
0.53 1.1
0.54 1.13
0.57 1.24
0.61 1.27
0.62 1.27
0.63 1.31
0.63 1.32
0.63 1.35
0.64 1.73
0.67 1.79
0.68 2
0.69 4.4
Department of Public
Wa4iington Health and Environment
�County Lowell Johnson
Director
Sue Hedlund
Deputy Director
9/19/2013
Nick Johnson
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Ave
Lake Elmo,NIN 55042
RE: Soil Testing, Sewage System Design, Lots 507-510 & 629-632 Lanes Demontreville Country
Club.
A review of the proposed site plan, design and soil borings indicate that there is adequate area for a
primary and secondary sewage treatment system on this parcel. The areas are limited and must be
protected during construction from fill, excavation and construction traffic. It appears from the
preliminary grading plan that the proposed garage slab will be close to the 930' contour and that
extensive fill or cut will not be required for the driveway. Excavated material from the dwelling
walkout foundation must be carried out along the proposed driveway and not pushed either toward
the lake or across the drainfield areas.
If you have any questions,call me at(651)430-6676.
Pete Ganzel
Senior Environmental Specialist
Government Center • 14949 62nd Street North—P.O. Box 6, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-0006
Phone: 651-430-6655 • Fax: 651-430-6730 • TTY: 651-430-6246
www.co.washington.mn.us
Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action
RE: Variance request for new construction/septic on the 8100 block of Hill Trail
Why does Lake Elmo have lot size ordinances?
To keep from over-developing.
So if this variance is even being considered, you need to take a hard look at removing the
ordinance completely. This variance is in direct conflict with the ordinance—and violates the
very intent of the ordinance. So if the variance is granted in this situation, it shows that the
ordinance is meaningless and should simply be removed to be fair to all. If it is a valid
ordinance, then the variance should be denied.
And why is there a minimum lot size for new septic systems?
To protect the soil, the aquifers, and the ground (lake) water.
If this ordinance is approved, it is completely irresponsible on the part of the city. So much effort
is made to control and regulate the existing Septic systems, that to allow another one (or more)
to be squeezed onto small parcels is just backwards and irresponsible.
Remember the repercussions:
• There are other"lot" owners just waiting for a variance to get passed —so they can
follow suit. And the city won't have a legal leg to stand on after they approve the first
one. This decision is the beginning of a domino effect; it is not"just one parcel".
• Approving this is IRREVERSIBLE. Choosing "no-wake zones", or"fence height", can be
changed from year-to-year. But allowing new homes to be squeezed on to tiny lots is
permanent. If you allow a house to go in —you can visualize that house still there 100
years from now. If we don't have the foresight to protect the natural resources, then ALL
future residents are stuck with our failures.
• This particular parcel is on a peninsula —the additional water run-off that a house and
driveway will cause has nowhere to go but directly into one of the 2 lakes that are on
either side.
This variance is not asking to stray from the ordinance; it is asking to completely ignore it.
There are many existing homes for sale on the Lake Elmo lakes— some are ready to "move in",
some just need a good remodel, and some could be torn down and the buyer could build their
new house. There is NOT a lake home shortage, so that should be another reason to deny this
variance.
There is a plan to develop the I-94 corridor (forced by the Met Council); please stick to that plan
and protect every inch of"rural" Lake Elmo that we have left.
PLEASE DO YOUR PART TO PROTECT THE LAKES AND PROTECT THE FUTURE OF THE
CITY OF LAKE ELMO BY VOTING "NO" TO THIS VARIANCE.
Signed,g
8108 Hill Trail N
Lake Elmo MN 55042
......................... ...............
WAGNER,FALCONER&JUDD,LTD.
. ........................
Attorneys&Consultants Since 1932
September 20,2013
City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo,Minnesota 55042
Re: Request to Deny Variance
Applicant:Dean and Gayle Dworak
Owner: Paul and Nancy Hansen
Location:09.029.21.22.0025(Hill Trail North)
Zoning:RS—Rural Singe Family
Intake No.: 240947 MN
Dear Sirs and Madams:
The undersigned law firm has consulted with Ms. Amy Gustafson, property owner at 8120 Hill Trail
North,Lake Elmo,directly adjacent to the property upon which this variance is sought,
Ms. Gustafson has informed the undersigned that there has been misrepresentation of facts presented in
the Variance Request submitted by the City Planner, Mr. Nick Johnson. Furthermore, Ms. Gustafson is
concerned that the laws that govern the granting of variances in Minnesota Statute 462.357, subd. 6 are
not being considered in this matter.
This purpose of this letter is to further shed light on the facts that pertain to this variance request—and to
enable the Planning Commission to make an educated decision pursuant to Minnesota Law.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has approval authority over city ordinances regarding
shoreland and other natural areas. Therefore, the current Lake Elmo ordinance regarding minimum lot
size is deemed the minimum size which protects the water quality of this natural resource by the DNR. It
is imprudent for the city to effectively nullify this ordinance by granting variances such as this one.
The DNR publishes a document entitled"A Guide for Buying and Managing Shoreland." In "Section 3:
Evaluating Shoreland Property for Purchase", it is made clear that it is incumbent upon the petitioners to
weigh many factors in purchasing property, and to "confirm that your intended use...is compatible with
the zoning ordinance." This includes "minimum lot size, building setbacks, and sewage treatment
requirements." Under"Lot Size"the document states, "The lot should be large enough to accommodate
your intended use and comply with the local zoning requirements. Those lots that have been created
since the statewide shoreland management standards took effect are large enough for most residential uses
and comply with local zoning requirements. However, there are many lots that were created prior to the
shoreland rules that may be substantially smaller than the new lot size requirements. These substandard
lots may still be bought and sold, but they may be too small to accommodate a structure or a sewage
treatment system. If you are considering buying such a lot, you should carefully review your intended
use and the limitations of the property"(boldface added)(source:
http://Nv%vw.dnj-.state.mn.us/shorelandmgnLt/Mid/evaluating.htmi).
.................................................................................................................. .......................................................... ....................................................................................
1700IDSCenter 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402-2110 1 Phone:800.697.8955MN I Phone:800,506.7267ND
325 North Corporate Drive SuiteIGO Brookfield,wisconsin53045-5828 I Phone:800.697.8960 Wl
............................................................I.......................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................
%v%4Av.wf)1awfirrn.coni
Under "Section 5: Lake and River Classifications" of the same document, a Recreational Development
Lake, such as Lakes Olson and Demontreville are described as follows: "Recreational Development
Lakes usually have between 60 and 225 acres of water per mile of shoreline, between 3 and 25 dwellings
per mile of shoreline, and are more than 15 feet deep." Crowding in more homes will test the limits of
this definition, as 25 dwellings per mile average 211 feet of lakeshore, far from the frontage (120 feet)
this parcel has.
Statement on the"Information for Variance Request" item"g","The lot will not be marketable if a house
cannot be built on it," is false. The substandard lot that is owned by Mike and Ruth Schrantz(Parcel No.
09.029.21.22.0008)was successfully sold and purchased by them in 2004,and it has been sold one other
time since we have lived here as well(1995).
Statement on the "Information for Variance Request" item "h" is also false. It states, "Granting the
variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as one adjacent house, (8108 Hill
Trail N)is on 0.53 acres while the other adjacent house(8120 Hill Trail N) is on 0.76 acres. The house
across the street(8123 Hill Trail N)is on 0.69 acres. The subject lot of 0.7 acres is comparable in size to
all other homes in the immediate area. A new septic system of more current design would probably
exceed the performance of the older neighboring systems." This is a misrepresentation of several facts.
First, the lot in question is 0.63 acres, as stated in the "Variance Request", "Application Summary"
presented at the August 26, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. Second, 8108 Hill Trail N sits on two
lots totaling 0.83 acres, not 0.53 acres. Third, a minor misrepresentation, 8120 is 0.77 acres, not 0.76.
Fourth,the average sized residential lot on Lake Demontreville, total acreage is 1.11 (including 5 houses
across the street with lakeshore frontage lots)or 0.93 including only those homes which are on shoreland.
But,actually,the fact that there are homes already on lots smaller than the minimum recommended by the
DNR for preserving water quality (60% of 1.5 acres, or 0.9 acres) is really an argument to not further `
crowd the lake. Additionally, the "essential character of the neighborhood" involves more than lot size,
but also how the lots are used, the type of dwelling on the lot, and the aesthetic qualities of the
neighborhood. The size and design of this house does not fit in with current homes which are much more I
modest in size and plain in design. It does not fit in with the natural environment,as it does not allow for
a natural screen of the house from the lake and neighbors by maintaining significant surrounding
vegetation including large trees and wooded landscapes. These are part of the aesthetic and ecological
value which help to maintain the rural feel of the neighborhood. With this structure extending to the very s
limits of the required setbacks (10 feet) on both neighbors' sides, there is little hope for adequate
screening by vegetation which is currently the norm in the neighborhood(please see map).
There is the very real potential that allowing this variance will open the door for a domino effect of homes
being built on substandard lots around the lake. Case in point, the letter from Mike and Ruth Schrantz
who own a recreational lot in the neighborhood and have stated in a letter presented at the August 26th,
2013 that they "intend to file a request for variance in the near future as well' (see attachment). This is
likely a precedent-setting decision which may have permanent detrimental effects on the lake. Consider
that other property owners who own multiple lots may sell lots for building, or that the Jesuit Retreat .
Center is sold and a developer uses this decision to justify a density which will ultimately erode soil and
water quality for all who use the lake.
Regarding the"Variance Request"prepared for the August 26,2013 Planning Commission meeting:
• The M findings required to grant a variance request" in the Planning Commission document
submitted regarding this property on 08/26/2013 are not the current statutory criteria which must
be met. In fact, the criteria were updated in June of 2013, and the city is required to weigh
variance requests against five criteria which are not entirely consistent with the four used in
consideration of this variance petition. The four listed in the "Variance Request" were 1)
2
Practical difficulties,2)Unique circumstances,3)Character of locality and 4)Adjacent properties
and traffic. The five dictated by the new Minnesota Statute, of which, "all of the following
statutory criteria must be satisfied,in addition to any local criteria"(MN DNR Variance Guidance
Series-ISC,Updated 10/10/2012)are
1. The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan
3. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner
("practical difficulties")
4. The variance does not alter the essential character of the locality
5. The variance proposal puts property to use in a reasonable manner.
Again,all 5 of these criteria must be met according to current Minnesota Statutes.
• In a document published by the League of Minnesota Cities entitled "Information Memo: Land
Use Variances", in addition to a "three-factor practical difficulties test", "Variances shall only be
permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and
when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan." Under section "III.
C. City ordinances" of this document, it states, "Some cities may have ordinance provisions that
codified the old statutory language, or that have their own set of standards. For those cities, the
question may be whether you have to first amend your zoning code before processing variances
under the new standard. A credible argument can be made that the statutory language pre-
empts inconsistent local ordinance provisions. Under a pre-emption theory, cities could
apply the new law immediately without necessarily amending their ordinance first. In any
regard, it would be best practice for cities to revisit their ordinance provisions and consider
adopting language that mirrors the new statute"(boldface added).
• The three factors which are entailed by "practical difficulties" are 1) reasonableness ("the
property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner"), 2) uniqueness
("uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property,
that is, to the land and not personal characteristics or preferences of the landowner. When
considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a setback, the focus of this
factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular piece of property,
such as sloping topography or other natural features like wetlands or trees") (boldface
added), and 3)essential character" ("the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character
of the locality. Under this factor,consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale,out
of place,or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area")(boldface added).
• "Section IV. Other considerations" of this document outlines two criteria of the criteria which
must be met, in addition to the other three. First, "Harmony with other land use controls" is
outlined by Minnesota Statute 462.357, subd. 6. It states, "Variances shall only be permitted
when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the
terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The intent of this
ordinance, according to Dan Petrik of the DNR(per my personal conversation with Dan Petrik), j
is to protect water quality. The size of project planned, the amount of impervious surface
exceeds the 25% maximum in Table 9-2 of the Lake Elmo "Lot Dimension and Setback
Requirements" for Residential Districts, as presented at the 8/26/13 Planning Commission
meeting. Why care about impervious surfaces? In the DNR document"Shoreland&Floodplain:
Variance Guidance Series: Impervious Surfaces," it states, "management of rainwater on
individual lots is one of our most important tasks. Rainwater that does not infiltrate into the
ground or evaporate runs downhill to lakes, wetlands, or rivers. As impervious surface coverage
increases, the rate and amount of runoff and pollutants entering public waters increases. When
runoff from impervious surface coverage is not addressed,pollution increases and the diversity of
3
aquatic life is reduced." The plans presented at the 8/26 Planning Commission meeting directly
show a significant amount of drainage headed directly for Lake Demontreville. As Dan Petrick
stated in Minnesota Cities Magazine's article "Let's Talk: city Dilemma - Granting Shoreland
Variances", "Within a watershed, there are a lot of opportunities for pollution to get into our
water bodies. But the reason we protect the shoreland area is that, in many ways, it's the last
opportunity to protect the quality of the water body before stormwater runoff goes into it" and
"but character is more about Shoreland characteristics. One example is hydrology. Hydrology
within the landscape of a lake or river is very different than a non-riparian area. And when you
build structures or remove vegetation, you're affecting the hydrology on and below the soil in
terms of how and where the water flows. If you have steep slopes or bluffs, you can have
additional problems with slumping or eroding soils. So it's important to think about these real
physical issues. If the project is affecting the hydrology, that may be a more important local
character issue than how the structure aesthetics fit into the landscape."
(http://Imc.org/page/l/LetsTalkMayJune20l3.isp) This is not just an argument to uphold the 25%
maximum impervious surface restriction, but is an argument to prevent a greater density of any
impervious surface along the lakeshore.
In addition,for a septic,the lot size must allow 4,000-6,000 square foot minimum requirement for
septic stated by the Washington County Senior Environmental Specialist, Pete Ganzel, in his
letter presented at the same meeting. With"only about 2,400 square feet available for the sewage
treatment area",this requirement is not met,and can adversely affect water quality as well.
i
For these reasons, this criteria, to be in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance, is
not met.
• With regard to this variance being consistent with the comprehensive plan, Lake Elmo is
currently planning to add residences to other areas of the city, but according to the map in the I
Land Use Plan section of the Comprehensive Plan, none of the new housing is recommended for
this area. An aim often touted in local newspapers is that the city aims to preserve its open spaces
and its rural character, as was stated in the September 1, 2013 Pioneer Press article on
development plans in Lake Elmo. The pretentious home which is proposed,crowded into an area
of much more humble horns will not only change the character of the neighborhood, but is
neither in keeping with Lake Elmo's aim of preserving open spaces and maintaining a rural
character nor with the current Comprehensive Plan, as published at
htt ://Nvww.lakeelmo.or lannin - rowin com rehensive- lan. i
• The introduction of the Lake Elmo Land Use Plan states,"The City of Lake Elmo is a unique gem
within the metropolitan region given its overall rural character, significant natural resources
and abundance of agricultural lands. The land use plan herein represents a series of significant j
steps the City is taking to preserve and protect these treasured characteristics while
simultaneously responding to its fiscal and regional responsibilities." Further, the "Land Use
Plan" indicates, "Lake Elmo's land use plan is guided by its core vision of creating and
maintaining a rural community within the Metropolitan region. The plan itself provides
guidance for a desired land use pattern,mix of uses, range of densities, and site/building designs.
To ultimately ensure future development adds to the overall quality and uniqueness of the j
community and builds upon the existing foundation that defines Lake Elmo,the plan is centered
on the following core set of principles:
o The preservation of rural lands;
o Promotion of open space and green corridors;
o A rebirth of the historic village center;
o Enhancement of the community's rural sense of place(through design standards); and
4
o Establishment of a sustainable planned growth pattern which strikes a balance
between providing municipal services and local/regional fiscal responsibility" (boldface
added).
This home would not preserve rural, wooded natural lands, promote open space or green
corridors, or enhance this neighborhood's rural sense of place. The home owners of this lake are
not in pursuit of the atmosphere of Lake Minnetonka,where lake cruisers go by gushing over the
homes on the lake. Rather, the homeowners continue to desire a lake which cherishes the
ecosystem we all are able to enjoy because we work to preserve it. This house would
fundamentally change this character of this neighborhood.
• "Existing Land Use. An examination of Lake Elmo in 2012 clearly shows a community with a
rich history of agricultural use, open space development, and preservation of significant park
lands. Lake Elmo Regional Park and Sunfish Lake Park, covering 2,165 and 284 acres
respectively (correction made in boldface - from "respectfully"), are at the heart of the
community and provide significant natural and recreational opportunities not generally
available in the metropolitan area. Single family homes on lots measured in acreages rather
than square feet dominate the residential housing stock throughout the community, and the
City's 30+ open space cluster/rural neighborhoods established Lake Elmo as a local,
regional and national leader in this type of development" (boldface added). Lakes
Demontreville, Olson and Jane are also part of that legacy of providing natural and recreational
opportunities, and part of maintaining that natural environment is not increasing the density of
homes on the lakes,particularly when doing so will have a detrimental effect on water quality and
the natural environment through runoff, additional septic, reduced vegetation and increased
impervious surfaces.
The map in the city's Comprehensive Plan designates the Tri-Lakes Area as "rural single family".
In the Land Use Plan,under"Preservation of Rural Character",the document states, "One of the
main benefits of the official land use plan is that the long range planning objective to retain a
permanent rural identity is achieved. Under the memorandum of understanding with the
Metropolitan Council, a vast majority of the City will be allowed to maintain its rural I
character and existing land uses. Furthermore,concentrating urbanization adjacent to I-94
and within the Old Village will result in clear boundaries between the urban and rural
portions of the community. Beyond that,the City's desire to protect its sensitive park lands
is also achieved. Both Lake Elmo Regional Park and Sunfish Lake Park will continue to be
surrounded by agricultural lands and will not be impacted by encroaching urbanization."
In the Introduction to the Housing Plan of the Comprehensive Plan, the plan states, "In order to
build off of Lake Elmo's treasured asset of open space, it is critical to incorporate strategies
for providing housing that maintain and protect the city's natural resources. These natural
resources greatly contribute to the character and vibrancy of Lake Elmo and must be
accordingly preserved. For this reason, Lake Elmo's future housing needs will be provided i
for in the I-94 Corridor and Old Village planning districts. This plan will maintain existing i
open space in the rural planning district of Lake Elmo,as well as incorporate open space into the
new housing development in the Old Village and 1-94 Corridor." All of this is in conflict with the
petition application.
Further in the document published by the League of Minnesota Cities entitled "Information '•.
Memo: Land Use Variances",under"B. Economic Factors," "Sometimes landowners insist that
they deserve a variance because they have already incurred substantial costs or argue that they
will not receive expected revenue without the variance. State statute specifically notes that
economic considerations alone cannot create 1practical difficulties." This nullifies Mr.
5
Hansen`s argument, "the plight of the landowner", that the lot would not be saleable unless a
home could be built on,which has already been states is false in the first place,given that another
similar small recreational lot has successfully been sold twice within the last 15 years.
The staff determined that the outdated 4 criterion were met,but this finding is unfounded.
1. The home would crowd the area and does not conform to the average approximate 1.0 acre lot size
around Lake Demontreville. It would affect the take hydrology with excessive impervious surface,runoff
and pollutants headed directly into Lake Demontreville. It would also not fit in with the modest, plain
homes which are situated within wooded lots. Instead, this home would remove at least 50% of the
existing vegetation including mature trees and screen-providing foliage.
2. Thought the lot size restrictions may have changed,this cannot alone satisfy this requirement,as stated
previously, in the document published by the League of Minnesota Cities entitled "Information Memo:
Land Use Variances", under 'B. Economic Factors," "Sometimes landowners insist that they deserve a
variance because they have already incurred substantial costs or argue that they will not receive
expected revenue without the variance. State statute specifically notes that economic considerations
alone cannot create practical difficulties."
3. The applicant has misrepresented information. Where his lot size is 0.63, not 0.7, and the lots on
either side are both larger than the applicant stated. In fact, they are 0.83 to the south and 0.77 to the
north. Further, the average sized lot on Lake Demontreville is around 1 acre. Despite averages, the
ordinance is put in place for a reason-to protect water quality-and needs to be honored. Otherwise it
will become a slippery slope making it harder to deny other variance requests, as they will use this as
precedent-setting action and the lake will quickly become more overcrowded, the ecology of the
lakeshore environment will suffer,and the hydrology of the lake will become unhealthy.
Another further misrepresentation by the petitioner is that the setback from the ordinary high water mark
for 8120 Hill Trail North is 83 feet, when documentation proves that it is 90 feet, not 83 feet. This
misrepresentation makes the petitioner's house closer to the shoreland than is required, and does not
respect the original 100 foot setback requirement advocated by the DNR.
4. The proposed 36-foot high structure certainly will impair the supply of light and air the properties
adjacent currently enjoy, and in the case of the house to its south,will nearly completely shade the home
for a significant pail of the day. In addition, Ms. Gustafson requests a study to be completed to discover
how the value of other homes will be affected with another home crowded in between.
Other Lot Sizes on Lake Demontreville:
Address Min.Total Acreage
8554 Hidden Bay Trail 0.67
8548 Hidden Bay Trail _ 1.01 I
8510 Hidden Bay Trail 1.04
8498 Hidden Bay Trail 0.97
8450 Hidden Bay Trail 0.71
8416 Hidden Bay Trail 0.94
8382 Hidden Bay Trail 0.85
8344 Hidden Bay Trail 0.84
8320 Hidden Bay Trail 0.77
8294 Hidden Bay Trail 0.88
8292 Hidden Bay Trail 1.34
8290 Hidden Bay Ct. 0.75
6
8286 Hidden Bay Ct. 0.88 ........
8200 Hill Trail N. 0.85
8190 Hill Trail N. 0.4
8186 Hill Trail N. 0.48
8180 Hill Trail N. 1.27
8179 Hill Trail N. 1.35
8164 Hill Trail N. 0.93
8160 Hill Trail N. 0.85
8148 Hill Trail N. 0.8
8130 Hill Trail N. 0.38
8120 Hill Trail N. 0.77
8108 Hill Trail N. 0.83
8098 Hill Trail N. 0.75
8084 Hill Trail N. 0.48
8076 Hill Trail N. 0.5
8066 Hill Trail N. 0.76
8056 Hill Trail N. 0.32
8048 Hill Trail N. 0.51
8038 Hill Trail N. 0.64
8032 Hill Trail N. 0.8
8028 Hill Trail N. 1.07
8024 Hill Trail N. 0.77
8018 Hill Trail N. 0.89
8012 Hill Trail N. 0.93
8000 Hill Trail N. 1.1
7982 Hill Trail N. 1.08
7978 Hill Trail N. 0.79
7972 Hill Trail N. 0.45
7962 Hill Trail N. 1.03
7934 Hill Trail N. 0.57
7920 Hill Trail N. 1.32
7821 Demontreville Trail N. 1.73
7980 Demontreville Trail N. 1.64
8010 Demontreville Trai FNT"- 1.82
8080 Demontreville Trail N. 3.95
8100 Demontreville Trail N.* 1.92
8110 Demontreville Trail N. 2.88
8120 Demontreville Trail N.* 3.05
*home lot is across st. from lake frontage
AVERAGE MIN.ACREAGE UP 0.93
Of 50 lakeshore residences, only 8 have 0.63 acres or less.
Thank you for your attention to this letter, and the crucial details it puts forth. This is a significant
decision,in which the reasons to deny the variance clearly outweigh the reasons to grant it,when applied
to Minnesota Law.
7
Sincerely,
WAGNER,FALCONER&JUDD,LTD.
Lauren T.Skildurn
Attorney at Law
cc: Ms.Amy Gustafson
i
I
i
8
Nick Johnson
From: Gordy Grundeen <gordyg@teksolr.com>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 11:14 AM
To: Nick Johnson
Subject: 09-23-13-planning commission
Dear Planning Commission:
We oppose any variance that changes lot sizes in our neighborhood.The reason is our water supply, namely,
groundwater.The recently released Washington County Groundwater Plan for 2014-2024 shows that our water supply
shrinking and becoming polluted.Creating higher density neighborhoods only exacerbates and strains our groundwater
supplies.
As pointed out in this Groundwater plan, it takes money$$$$to manage these plans.That means raising taxes-my
taxes. No way.
Gordy Grundeen
8270 Hidden Bay Trail
Lake Elmo MN, 55042
651-770-1056
gordyg@teksolr.com
T1 IE CITY OF
LAKE ELMO
Draft Planning Commission Minutes,9-23-13
Excerpt from Public Hearing Item 4a
Public Hearing: Variance—09.029.21.22.0025(Hill Trail North)
Johnson presented the updated information submitted by the applicant, including an updated site plan
and a proposed septic system design. The septic system does comply with Washington County
regulations concerning subsurface sewage treatment systems. Johnson reviewed the updated site plan
and noted that impervious surface coverage had been reduced from the previous plan. Moving on,
Johnson noted that staff had performed an analysis at the request of the Planning Commission of the size
and location of lots within the Hill Trail North area. He briefly discussed the City zoning regulations
concerning substandard lots and situations in which a property owner owns several lots next to each
other. Johnson reviewed comments and letters received and noted that staff is recommending approval
of the variance with two conditions of approval.
Dorschner asked when the homes south of the applicant's site were constructed. Johnson replied that
staff does not have this information on hand, but he did note that they had to have been built prior to the
1979 Code adoption, or received a variance.
Nancy Hanson, 8024 Hill Trail N., noted that her family has been maintaining and improving the lot for
many years.They decided not to build a home of their own on the lot due to their age.
Paul Hanson, 8024 Hill Trail N., noted that he and his wife currently own the property. He noted that they
have been taking care of the lot and that it would be a very nice lot for a new home.
Gale Dworak, 12325 Upper Heather Ave., noted that she and her husband are the applicants and are
asking the Planning Commission to take action based on meeting the Code requirements.
Dean Dworak, 12325 Upper Heather Ave., stated that 11 of the 14 people notified for this variance
offered no objection. He believes that the people objecting to the variance are doing so in part because
they have enjoyed a vacant lot next to their home for many years. The staff states that all of the
requirements are met.
Brad Gustafson, 8120 Hill Trail N., reviewed the variance requirements and feels that the variance is in
direct conflict with the intent of the Ordinance and does not meet the required findings for a variance.
Kevin Clemmons, 7920 Hill Trail N., stated that he lives on Lake DeMontreville. He shared his concern
that people should make sure that the aquifer can support a new home, and possibly more in the future.
Bonnie Weisbrod, 8111 Hill Trail N., lives across from this property. The City has dealt with variances in
the past for other lots in the area and previous requests were denied. She stated that this is not a
buildable lot and expressed concern regarding runoff from the street to her lot.
Dick Nelson, 8123 Hill Trail N., lives across the street and built his home in 1973. The City has criteria
concerning what is considered a buildable lot; the City should follow those rules.
Vickie Iverson, 8108 Hill Trail N., stated that her main concern is that the lake will turn into a White Bear
Lake and that the aquifer is going to be drained. We need to take care of the lake and she doesn't want
all of the small lots to be built on.
Williams noted receipt of two written comments; one letter from an attorney representing the Gustufson
family, and another from Mr. Gordy Grundeen. Both letters indicated opposition to the variance request.
Williams closed the Public Hearing at 7:39 p.m.
Dodson asked questions about the aquifer and capacity in case another well is drilled. Zuleger replied
that Lake Elmo area aquifers have been studied as part of the City's water plan. He noted that the City
has been assured that the aquifer intended to be used for the municipal water system has substantial
capacity. Dodson also asked if the DNR commented on the population density for this area. Johnson
stated that the DNR looks at adherence to the shoreland ordinance. They look at the amount of
impervious surface, grading, erosion control and drainage. Based on what has been proposed, the DNR
has not offered any objection to the Variance request.
Haggard how does new development affect the County ground water plan. Zuleger stated that the plan
primarily deals with quantity.
Dorschner was wondering if the City has considered the domino effect. How many more variances can be
sustained? Klatt stated that in the mid 1980's, the City passed a restriction that before any of the lots in
this area can be sold, the sale must be reviewed & stamped by the City. This was done to ensure that
these smaller lots can't be split off by an owner and considered buildable. It should also be noted that
the variance standards are more lenient now with the practical difficulties test as opposed to the undue
hardship test.
Kreimer asked if the concern regarding runoff is enough to require a rain garden. Johnson stated that the
proposed home is under the amount of impervious surface allowed, therefore, a rain garden is not
required.
Williams is concerned about the loss of the City's rural character and thinks we should maybe consider
raising lot size requirements rather than lowering it. He suggested looking at average lot size to
determine whether or not to build on a piece of property.
Dodson is concerned with private property aspect of the rules and regulations. He does not think that the
proposed home will change the density of the area. In addition, he felt that Tri-Lakes area should not be
considered a rural area.
Haggard has concerns about aquifer, runoff to lake, etc. You can't just look at one home, but need to
look at the whole area and the future potential for more homes. She noted that the Ordinance is in
place to protect aquifer and is concerned about damaging the lakes.
The Planning Commission had a general discussion about the aquifers.
Zuleger noted that this summer there were discussions regarding bringing sewer to this area when it
would be feasible. There have been petitions in the past to try and serve the peninsula with sewer.
Dorschner stated that sewer would be a game changer, but there is no guarantee that it will happen.
2
Morreale is concerned about the aquifer. One house may not seem like a big deal, but if it opens the
door to additional homes, it may add greater pressure. He feels that it is an important consideration.
Haggard stated that she recommends denial based on water quality concerns—that the request may
negatively impact the essential character of the neighborhood.
Dorschner feels that lot was purchased with knowledge that it was unbuildable and they are now asking
for a variance. In his opinion, the variance request does not meet the test for a unique circumstance.
Haggard feels that property at present is not buildable. Williams feels that the difficulty is of the future
property owner's making.
Dodson stated that he doesn't see any data to deny the variance based on water quality. Kreimer agrees
and also notes that all the lots in the area are of similar size.
Williams would like to add a finding that the proposed variance is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not call for small lots in the area and calls for this area to have on-
site systems with private services. The Comp plan also calls for the area to be rural which does not mean
small lots. Haggard accepted the amendment.
Recommend denial based on 3 findings—There is not unique circumstances, the degradation of the
aquifer and water quality would alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and the variance is
contra to the comprehensive plan.
M/S/P: Haggard/Morreale, move to deny Variance request at 09.029.21.22.0025 (Hill Trail N) based on
three findings: Vote:5-2, Motion Carried, with Dodson and Kreimer voting no.
3