HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 - Variance Amendment for 9359 Jane Rd N - Public Hearing STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 1, 2017
REGULAR
MOTION
TO: City Council
FROM: Emily Becker, City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Reconsideration of Shoreland Variance - 9359 Jane Road North
REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
BACKGROUND:
The Council adopted Resolution 2017-062 at its June 20, 2017 meeting, which approved a variance
request from Scott and Julie Drommerhausen of 9359 Jane Road North for variances to allow expansion
of a non-conforming structure which does not meet the required minimum structure setback from the
Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) and maximum impervious surface standards of the City’s shoreland
district. The approval was subject to the following conditions:
1) The Applicant shall secure any required permits and plan approvals from the City and other
applicable jurisdictions.
2) The Applicant shall direct appropriate rain gutter discharges into a rain garden (infiltration
basin designed to capture and infiltrate runoff) designed by a professional engineer or
landscape architect and installed under their direction. The rain garden should mitigate the
increased impervious surface of the entire addition to the home (685 square feet).
The Council has now expressed the desire to reconsider the variance, specifically condition #2 outlined
above.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL:
The Council is being asked to hold a public hearing and consider if the variance approval granted by
adopted Resolution 2017-062 should be rescinded and if it should adopt a new resolution that approves
the variance request with amended conditions of approval.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
MNDNR Comments. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) was noticed of the
variance request as required by the City’s Shoreland Ordinance, Section 154.800 of the Zoning Code. The
MNDNR recommended denial of the variance request, as the proposed addition would increase the
impervious surface on the property to 29.7% (which is almost twice the maximum impervious surface
allowed for unsewered properties within a recreational development shoreland (15%)) and is in a shore
impact zone. The MNDNR also recommended was made that if a variance was granted for this project,
mitigation conditions should be included with the variance approval. These mitigation conditions could
include modify construction design to minimize impact; direct rain gutter discharges into a rain garden; or
restore shoreline vegetation to natural state.
Page 2
Planning Commission Recommendation. Because of the MNDNR’s aforementioned recommendation,
Staff and the Planning Commission recommended that a condition of approval of the requested variance
be that the applicant direct appropriate rain gutter discharges into a rain garden (infiltration basin
designed to capture and infiltrate runoff). Staff believed that this would be the least expensive and most
reasonable option. Staff also added that the design of the rain garden be done by a professional engineer
or landscape architect and installed under their direction in order to ensure the rain garden’s effectiveness.
The Planning Commission recommended adding the Staff-recommended condition by adding that the rain
garden should mitigate the increased impervious surface of the entire condition (685 square feet).
Impervious Surface Added. As mentioned in the report and presentation to Council as it considered the
variance request, the proposed addition will be in place of an existing deck. The City does not consider
decks to be impervious surface, while many other cities and the MNDNR do. The proposed addition will
only add a total of 105 square feet to the existing footprint of the deck, but because the deck is considered
pervious, a total of 685 square feet of impervious surface will be added.
Rain Garden Cost. Staff has asked the City’s Consulting Landscape Architect for a quote for the
installation of a rain garden that would mitigate 685 square feet of impervious surface. This quote is
attached. The projected costs of such a rain garden would be $12,000.00. The City has required an escrow
with release of the building permit for this addition to ensure the rain garden is installed. Should the
Council wish to remove the condition of approval that the rain garden be installed, this escrow will be
released back to the applicant.
Public Hearing. The City Attorney has verified that a public hearing is required for a variance
amendment. The public hearing notice was advertised in the City’s official newspaper, and notices were
sent to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Additionally, the MNDNR was notified
per State Statute.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
OPTIONS:
The Council may:
• Adopt Resolution 2017-075, declaring Resolution 2017-067 rescinded and no longer in effect and
approving the variance requests, subject to the amended conditions of approval.
• Amend Resolution 2017-075 and adopt as amended.
• Not adopt Resolution 2017-075.
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Council wishes to adopt Resolution 2017-075, it may do so with the following motion:
“Move to adopt Resolution 2017-075, rescinding Resolution 2017-067 and approving requests for
shoreland variances from the minimum structure setback from the Ordinary High Water Level and
maximum impervious surface standards, subject to one condition of approval.”
ATTACHMENTS:
• Previously adopted Resolution 2017-062
• MNDNR review letter
• Resolution 2017-075
Page 3
• Quote for rain garden
1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-062
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM STRUCTURE SETBACK
FROM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL AND MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
STANDARDS OF THE CITY’S SHORELAND DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Scott and Julie Drommerhausen, 9359 Jane Road North, Lake Elmo, MN
55042 (“Applicant”), has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the “City”) for
variances to allow construction of an approximately 685 square-foot addition, which will replace
an existing deck, to the east of an existing home currently setback 45.4 feet from the Ordinary
High Water Level (OHWL) and maximum impervious surface standards to increase the current
impervious surface percentage from 26.9% to 29.7%.
WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo
Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.109; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter
on June 12, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and
recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated June 12, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its June 20, 2017 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the
City Council makes the following:
FINDINGS
1) That the procedures for obtaining said Variance are found in the Lake Elmo Zoning
Ordinance, Section 154.109.
2) That all the submission requirements of said Section 154.109 have been met by the
Applicant.
3) That the proposed variance includes the following components:
2
a) A variance to allow for an addition to an existing single-family detached home
that does not meet the minimum setback from the OHWL or maximum
impervious surface requirements.
4) That the Variance will be located on property legally described as follows: Lots 9 & 10,
Berschen’s Shores, Washington County, Minnesota. PID# 10.029.21.24.0006.
5) That the strict enforcement of Zoning Ordinance would cause practical difficulties and
that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by an official control. Specific findings: The subject property was platted prior to
adjustment of the Ordinary High Water of Lake Jane and the adoption of Shoreland
standards by the City, and therefore the lot is much wider than it is long. Because of the
shape of the lot, the Applicant is proposing to expand the home laterally rather than
further encroaching on the current setback of the Ordinary High Water Level.
Additionally, the addition will not expand much more of the footprint of the principal
structure, as a slightly smaller deck that will be torn down exists where the addition is
being proposed. Additionally, although the City’s ordinance does not treat decks as
impervious, many do. If decks were considered impervious, the addition would only add
109 square feet of impervious surface, or an increase of about 0.46%.
6) That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner. Specific findings: The property is unique in that it is much
wider than it is long, and the Applicant was not involved in the platting process of this
property nor the adoption of the City’s shoreland standards. The Applicant also was not
involved in any previous variance requests for the subject property.
7) That the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which
the property in question is located. Specific findings: The proposed addition is in place of
an existing deck and only slightly increases the footprint of the existing principal structure,
including the existing deck, by 109 square feet. Additionally, the proposed addition does
not further encroach on the existing setback of the principal structure from the OHWL of
the property and has a setback from the OHWL similar to those of adjacent principal
structures.
8) That the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
properties 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. Specific findings: The proposed addition will not further encroach on the
setback of the existing structure from the OHWL and therefore will not further impair lake
views of neighboring properties and will not impair an adequate supply of light and air. It
also will not increase congestion of public streets or substantially diminish or impair
property values within the neighborhood. Adjacent properties, including the subject
property, have been granted similar variances and are setback a similar distance from the
OHWL.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
3
Based on the foregoing, the Applicant’s application for a Variance is granted, subject to the
following conditions.
1) The Applicant shall secure any required permits and plan approvals from the City and other
applicable jurisdictions.
2) The Applicant shall direct appropriate rain gutter discharges into a rain garden (infiltration
basin designed to capture and infiltrate runoff) designed by a professional engineer or
landscape architect and installed under their direction. The rain garden should mitigate the
increased impervious surface of the entire addition to the home (685 square feet).
Passed and duly adopted this 20th day of June 2017 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
__________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
CENTRAL REGION
1200 WARNER ROAD
SAINT PAUL, MN 55106
651-259-5800
6/9/2017
Emily Becker
Lake Elmo City Planner
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: Shoreland Variance Request at 9359 Jane Road North, Lake Elmo (Lake Jane - 82010400)
Emily –
The primary goal of limiting impervious surfaces within shoreland districts is to reduce the amount of runoff directed
into Minnesota waters. Runoff from impervious surfaces travels over the land and carries pollutants such as nutrients,
sediment, bacteria, pesticides, heavy metals, and organic wastes. Studies have consistently shown a strong, direct
connection between the percentage of impervious surface in a watershed and water quality degradation. As impervious
surface area expands, so does the volume of runoff, phosphorus, and sediment entering waters, causing nuisance algae
blooms, reducing public enjoyment, and harming aquatic plants and animals.
Please use the attached MNDNR guidance on variances to maximum impervious surface in shoreland districts when
evaluating this variance request against statutory criteria and developing a findings of fact. If findings support granting
the variance, impacts to Lake Jane should be considered in developing appropriate conditions to mitigate those impacts.
This project would increase impervious surface from 26.9% to 29.7%, where the maximum impervious surface allowed is
15% for unsewered properties within the shoreland district of a recreational development lake. MNDNR recommends
denial of this variance request because this additional increase in impervious surface would result in a percent
impervious that would be nearly double the City’s standard and because the proposed addition is within the shore
impact zone (SIZ). If a variance is granted for this project, MNDNR recommends that the City of Lake Elmo include
conditions on the variance that mitigate for this increase in percent impervious surface. Examples of appropriate
mitigation conditions include:
• Modify construction design (to minimize impact).
• Direct rain gutter discharges into a rain garden (infiltration basin designed to capture and infiltrate runoff).
• Restore shoreline vegetation to natural state (to intercept and filter runoff coming from the structure).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this variance request.
Sincerely,
Jenifer Sorensen
MNDNR, East Metro Area Hydrologist
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
651-259-5754 | jenifer.sorensen@state.mn.us
Page 1
Page 1 of 2 Variance Guidance Series – ISC, Updated 10/10/2012
Shoreland & Floodplain
Variance Guidance Series
This is one of a series of examples developed as guidance for considering variance requests along
lakes and rivers. Consult your local shoreland and floodplain ordinances.
Why are impervious surface coverage limits important?
In the protection of water quality, the 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 aquatic life is
reduced. Local governments have limited discretion to deviate
from - or grant a variance to - impervious surface limits. They may
do so only if all of the variance criteria established in state statutes
and their local ordinances are met. In evaluating such requests,
local governments must examine the facts, determine whether all
statutory and local criteria are satisfied, and develop findings to
support the decision. If granted, local governments may impose
conditions to protect resources. An example impervious surface
variance request, with considerations, is provided below.
Example Impervious Surface Variance Request
A property owner wishes to build a large lakehome on a conforming lot.
The lake lot includes a private driveway with a spur to the neighbor’s lot,
which was placed to avoid an adjacent wetland. The building plans for
the new construction plus the existing private road spur to the
neighbor’s property would exceed the impervious surface limit provision
in the local ordinance.
Considerations for Findings
A good record and findings help keep communities out of lawsuits and help them prevail if they find
themselves in one. In evaluating the facts and developing findings for this variance request, all of the
following statutory criteria must be satisfied, in addition to any local criteria:
Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance?
Considering a variance request is a balancing test that requires weighing the need of an individual
property owner against the purposes of the shoreland regulations for protecting the public interest.
These purposes are derived from Minnesota Shoreland Rules, which established impervious surface
caps to prevent excessive runoff from constructed surfaces. Such excessive runoff causes erosion,
transport of pollutants to public waters thereby degrading water quality. Considerations: Will
deviating from the required limit on this property undermine the purposes and intent of the
ordinance? Why or why not? Is it possible to mitigate the consequences of additional impervious
surface on-site such that additional runoff will not be produced? Would this mitigation be in harmony
with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? Why or why not?
Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
The local comprehensive plan establishes a framework for achieving a community’s vision for the
future. Most plans contain goals and policies for protecting natural resources and shorelands, as well
as maps that identify areas of high risk or with high ecological value where development should be
avoided. The variance request must be considered with these goals and policies in mind. Maps should
be consulted to determine if the property is within any areas identified for protection. Considerations:
Which goals and policies apply? Is allowing additional impervious surface and runoff consistent with
these goals and policies? Why or why not?
Impervious Surfaces
Page 2 of 2 Variance Guidance Series – ISC, Updated 10/10/2012
Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner?
Unique circumstances relate to physical characteristics of the land - such as lot dimensions, steep
slopes, poor soils, wetlands, and trees. These do not include physical limitations or personal
circumstances created by the property owner that prevent compliance with the impervious surface
provision, such as size of home or design preferences. Consider what distinguishes this property from
other shoreland properties to justify why the applicant should be able to deviate from the provision
when others must comply. Considerations: What physical characteristics are unique to this property
that prevent compliance with the requirement? Were any difficulties in meeting the impervious
surface limit created by some action of the applicant? Has the applicant demonstrated no other
feasible alternatives exist that would not require a variance, such as increasing the setback to reduce
driveway length or reducing the lakehome’s footprint?
Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
Consider the size of the proposed structure, the extent of encroachment, and how it relates to the
shoreline and hydrology of the riparian area. A large addition located close to the shoreline can
detract from the natural appearance and character of the lake and its riparian areas and degrade water
quality by altering topography, drainage, and vegetation in the riparian area, negatively affecting
recreational, natural, and economic values. Considerations: Does the variance provide minimal relief
or a substantial deviation from the required setback? Does it affect the natural appearance of the
shore from the lake? Does it affect the hydrology of the riparian area?
Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?
Examine the reasons that the variance is requested and evaluate them in light of the purposes of the
local shoreland ordinance and the public water resource at stake. Since the impervious surface cap is
generally intended to reduce runoff to public waters, it may not be appropriate to allow large areas of
constructed surfaces so close to the water. Considerations: Has the applicant demonstrated that the
proposed construction is reasonable in this location given the sensitive nature of the area and the
purposes of the regulations? Why or why not?
Note: The last three criteria address practical difficulties. Economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties
Range of Outcomes
Based on the findings, several outcomes can occur:
If the applicant fails to prove that all criteria above are met, then the variance must be denied. For example,
the local government could find that the building plans itself created the circumstances necessary for a
variance rather than the any unique physical characteristics of the property.
If the applicant demonstrates that all criteria are met, then the variance may be granted. For example, the
local government could find that the construction footprint is reasonable, the circumstances are unique given
the adjacent wetland, and the minor deviation in the impervious surface coverage does not alter the
hydrology of the area (as determined through runoff calculations).
If the variance is granted and the impervious surface in any way alters the hydrology of the area, then
conditions may be imposed, such as to increase the structure setback from the lake by 15 feet to reduce the
extent of the driveway and minimize the amount of impervious surface coverage over the limit.
Conditions on Variances
If findings support granting the variance, consideration must be given to the impacts on the public water
and the riparian area and appropriate conditions to mitigate them. Conditions must be directly related and
roughly proportional to the impacts created by the variance. Several examples are provided below:
Modify construction designs (to minimize impact);
Use permeable pavement systems for walkways, driveways, or parking areas (to reduce effective
impervious surface area and infiltrate runoff);
Direct rain gutter discharges away from the public waters and into infiltration basins (to reduce
connected impervious coverage to allow additional areas for infiltration);
Preserve and restore shoreline vegetation in a natural state (to intercept and filter runoff coming
from structures and driveways); and/or
Increase setbacks from the ordinary high water level (to provide infiltration near public waters).
More information at: www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/variances.html
1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-075
A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION 2017-067 AND APPROVING A VARIANCE
FROM MINIMUM STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL AND
MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE STANDARDS OF THE CITY’S SHORELAND DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Scott and Julie Drommerhausen, 9359 Jane Road North, Lake Elmo, MN
55042 (“Applicant”), has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the “City”) for
variances to allow construction of an approximately 685 square-foot addition, which will replace
an existing deck, to the east of an existing home currently setback 45.4 feet from the Ordinary
High Water Level (OHWL) and maximum impervious surface standards to increase the current
impervious surface percentage from 26.9% to 29.7%.
WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo
Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.109; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter
on June 12, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and
recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated June 12, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its June 20, 2017 meeting and
adopted Resolution 2017-067, approving the variance request, subject to the following
conditions of approval:
1) The Applicant shall secure any required permits and plan approvals from the City and other
applicable jurisdictions.
2) The Applicant shall direct appropriate rain gutter discharges into a rain garden (infiltration
basin designed to capture and infiltrate runoff) designed by a professional engineer or
landscape architect and installed under their direction. The rain garden should mitigate the
increased impervious surface of the entire addition to the home (685 square feet); and
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to remove the aforementioned condition of variance
approval that the Applicant shall direct appropriate rain gutter discharges into a rain garden
(infiltration basin designed to capture and infiltrate runoff) designed by a professional engineer or
landscape architect and installed under their direction. The rain garden should mitigate the increased
impervious surface of the entire addition to the home (685 square feet);
2
WHEREAS, the Council now rescinds Resolution 2017-067, and this Resolution is no
longer in effect; and
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the
City Council makes the following:
FINDINGS
1) That the procedures for obtaining said Variance are found in the Lake Elmo Zoning
Ordinance, Section 154.109.
2) That all the submission requirements of said Section 154.109 have been met by the
Applicant.
3) That the proposed variance includes the following components:
a) A variance to allow for an addition to an existing single-family detached home
that does not meet the minimum setback from the OHWL or maximum
impervious surface requirements.
4) That the Variance will be located on property legally described as follows: Lots 9 & 10,
Berschen’s Shores, Washington County, Minnesota. PID# 10.029.21.24.0006.
5) That the strict enforcement of Zoning Ordinance would cause practical difficulties and
that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by an official control. Specific findings: The subject property was platted prior to
adjustment of the Ordinary High Water of Lake Jane and the adoption of Shoreland
standards by the City, and therefore the lot is much wider than it is long. Because of the
shape of the lot, the Applicant is proposing to expand the home laterally rather than
further encroaching on the current setback of the Ordinary High Water Level.
Additionally, the addition will not expand much more of the footprint of the principal
structure, as a slightly smaller deck that will be torn down exists where the addition is
being proposed. Additionally, although the City’s ordinance does not treat decks as
impervious, many do. If decks were considered impervious, the addition would only add
109 square feet of impervious surface, or an increase of about 0.46%.
6) That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner. Specific findings: The property is unique in that it is much
wider than it is long, and the Applicant was not involved in the platting process of this
property nor the adoption of the City’s shoreland standards. The Applicant also was not
involved in any previous variance requests for the subject property.
7) That the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which
the property in question is located. Specific findings: The proposed addition is in place of
an existing deck and only slightly increases the footprint of the existing principal structure,
including the existing deck, by 109 square feet. Additionally, the proposed addition does
not further encroach on the existing setback of the principal structure from the OHWL of
3
the property and has a setback from the OHWL similar to those of adjacent principal
structures.
8) That the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
properties 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. Specific findings: The proposed addition will not further encroach on the
setback of the existing structure from the OHWL and therefore will not further impair lake
views of neighboring properties and will not impair an adequate supply of light and air. It
also will not increase congestion of public streets or substantially diminish or impair
property values within the neighborhood. Adjacent properties, including the subject
property, have been granted similar variances and are setback a similar distance from the
OHWL.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Based on the foregoing, Resolution 2017-067 is rescinded and no longer in effect, and the
Applicant’s application for a Variance is granted, subject to the following conditions.
1) The Applicant shall secure any required permits and plan approvals from the City and other
applicable jurisdictions.
Passed and duly adopted this 1st day of August 2017 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
__________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
Drummerhausen Variance June 22, 2017
Lake Elmo, MN
RAINGARDEN INSTALLATION ESTIMATE FOR ESTABLISHING ESCROW REQUIREMENTS
NO.ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
1 Design Process & Design Documents with Stormwater Calculations Hours 10.0 100.00 $1,000.00
2 Establish Elevations, Demo Existing Soils / Haulaway / Disposal with Final Grading Cubic YD 50.0 40.00 $2,000.00
3 Raingarden Soils at 18 inch Depth (80% Coarse Sand with 20% Compost)Cubic YD 40.0 50.00 $2,000.00
4 Raingarden Plantings @ #1 Container Perennials Each 300.0 20.00 $6,000.00
5 Shredded Western Red Cedar Mulch Cubic YD 10.0 100.00 $1,000.00
TOTAL RAINGARDEN PROJECT COSTS $12,000.00
Assumptions: Designed to mitigate approximately 685 square feet of impervious surface
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, INC. 2350 BAYLESS PLACE ST. PAUL, MN 55114 PHONE 651.646.1020