HomeMy WebLinkAboutFull Report 8-24-20 THE CITY OF
LAKE ELMO 3800 Laverne Avenue North (651) 747-3900
Lake Elmo, MN 55042 www.lakeelmo.org
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday August 24,2020
at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
Note: Social Distancing protocols will be in place in the City Council Chambers
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. August 13,2020
4. Public Hearing
a. Variance Approval Amendment Request 8950 Lake Jane Trail North
5. New Business
a. None
6. Communications/Updates
a. City Council Update:
08-18-20 Meeting Comprehensive Plan Amendments(Lake Elmo Avenue and 43'Street)
Code Amendments—PUD, OP-PUD and Subdivision Codes
b. Staff Updates
c. Upcoming PC Meetings:
1. September 14,2020
2. September 28,2020
7. Adjourn
***Note:Every effort will be made to accommodate person or persons that need special considerations to attend this meeting due to a
health condition or disability.Please contact the Lake Elmo City Clerk if you are in need of special accommodations.
"1-1IF CITY OF
LAKE ELMO
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Special Meeting
Minutes of Thursday August 13, 2020
Commissioner Cadenhead called to order the special meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning
Commission at 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Cadenhead, Weeks, Graen, Holtz, Mueller, Riser and Steil
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Roberts
Approve Agenda:
M/S/P: Graen/Risner moved to approve the agenda, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Minutes:
M/S/P: Cadenhead/Steil moved to approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 27, 2020.
Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearings
None
New Business
a. Carmelite Hermitage of the Blessed Virgin Mary—Request to extend the time to
start or implement the Conditions of Approval for a Conditional Use Permit (8249
Demontreville Trail)
Director Roberts explained that when the City Council approved the conditional use permit for
the chapel on the property located 8249 Demontreville Trail in August 2019 the Resolution of
approval included the following conditions of approval:
6) The applicant or owner received a building permit from the City for chapel
within 12 months of City Council approval of the conditional use permit.
7) If the applicant or owner has not taken action toward starting the chapel or if
substantial construction of the chapel has not taken place within 12 months of
the City's approval of conditional use permit, the CUP approval shall become
void. The applicant or owner may request City council approval of a time
extension to start or implement the conditional use permit.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-13-20
He explained that because of pending litigation over this matter, the Carmelites have not yet
started construction on the chapel. Roberts noted that by letter dated July 30, 2020, Rev. John
M. Burns, on behalf of the Carmelites, and in accordance with Condition 7 of the CUP, wrote the
City requesting an extension of time to start or implement the conditional use permit.
Director Roberts noted that the Planning Commission has three options with this request
including:
• Denial of the requested extension.
• Approval of a one-year extension as requested by the Carmelites.
• Approval an extension for one year after resolution of both lawsuits.
Roberts concluded his report by explaining that staff was recommending approval of a time
extension of the CUP to give the applicant one after the date of the lawsuit to resolve last to start
the chapel or, if substantial construction of the chapel has not taken place, the substantially
construct the chapel.
The Commission then discussed the time-extension request. Rev. John Burns, representing the
Carmelites, was present and provided comments about the status of the pending lawsuits.
M/S/P: Steil/Holtz moved the staff recommendation as written in the staff report:
"Moved to recommend approval of the extension of the CUP, Resolution 2019-059, to provide
an extension of Condition No. 7 and allow the Permit Holder to have one year after the date of
the lawsuit to resolve last(either Jesuit Retreat House v. City of Lake Elmo, A20-0847 or Jesuit
Retreat House v. Discalced Carmelite Nuns of St. Paul and Carmel of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
82-CV-19-4008) to start the chapel or, if substantial construction of the chapel has not taken
place, to substantially construct the chapel. "
Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Staff and Commission Updates
Roberts reported that at the August 4, 2020 City Council Meeting the Council reviewed and
approved the update to the City fence code as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Director Roberts reminded the Commission of the upcoming PC Meetings on August 24, 2020
and on September 14, 2020.
Meeting adjourned at 7:11 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Roberts— Lake Elmo Planning Director
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-13-20
THE CITY OF STAFF REPORT
I A K E ELMO DATE: 8/24/2020
REGULAR
ITEM#: PUBLIC HEARING
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Variance Condition Amendment(s)—8950 Lake Jane Trail
REVIEWED BY: Ken Roberts,Planning Director
BACKGROUND:
The City has received a request from Steve and Haley Meisterling, owners of the property located at 8950 Lake Jane
Trail to amend the variances that were received by the City for their property by removing certain conditions of
approval of those variances and also removal of a restrictive covenant that applies to their property. In 2002,the
previous owners of the property received City approval of variances to build a home on the property. This approval
consisted of a setback variance from the ordinary high-water level of Lake Jane and from the street right-of way.
During the time of review(2002), City staff initially recommend denial of the variance requests. The Planning
Commission opted to table the requests so the applicants could re-design/reconfigure their requests. After doing so,
the applicants proposed a new site plan as well as a plan to preserve the remainder of the property,which resulted in a
recommendation of approval of the variances by City Staff as well as the Planning Commission. The City Council
then approved the variances with a condition of approval being the preservation of the remainder of the property that
required the recording of a restrictive covenant on the property in order to ensure preservation(see attached City Council
Resolution No. 2002-106 and Restrictive Covenant). The applicants are now requesting to amend the 2002 variances by
removing the conditions of approval pertaining to preservation. This would include the removal of the restrictive
covenant that is recorded against the property.
ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION:
The Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing,review, and make recommendation on the request to amend
the 2002 variances by removing certain conditions of approval.
REVIEW/ANALYSIS:
PID 09.029.21.41.0002
Existing Land Use/Zoning: Single-family residential home -Rural Single Family(RS).
Surrounding Land Use/Zoning: Surrounded by single family homes guided for Rural Single Family/Rural Single
Family
History: Variances approved in 2002 to build the house on the property.
Deadline for Action:
Application Complete— 7/17/2020
60 Day Deadline— 9/15/2020
Extension Letter Mailed— N/A
120 Day Deadline— N/A
Applicable Regulations: Article V-Zoning Administration and Enforcement
Article XVIII—Shoreland Management Overlay District
Article XI—Rural Districts
REQUEST AND DETAILS
The applicants were asked to provide justification as to why certain conditions of approval of the 2002 variances
should be amended and considered for removal. The following statement was provided by the applicants:
"We are respectfully requesting the removal of the restrictive covenant specific to 8950 Lake Jane Trail North, Lake
Elmo, MN 55042. The current covenant requires us to operate outside of every other homeowner residing on Lake
Jane. There is nothing inherently unique about our parcel which would justify special covenants specific to this
property. We should therefore be allowed to maintain, improve, and beauty our lot restricted only by those rules
applicable to all other lake residences. Moreover, there is an urgency in having these covenants removed as we have
received documented threats from community members that are aware of said covenants. We understand there are
ordinances which apply to all homeowners on Lake Jane and we will continue to abide by these guidelines. We thank
you in advance for your time and attention to this matter."
Although the applicants' request states they would like the covenant restrictions removed, after talking with the
applicants, City staff believes aspects of the 2002 resolution of approval of the variance would also need to be
amended to meet their request because the resolution contains conditions of approval pertaining to the recording of a
restrictive covenant against the property and if the restrictive covenant is going to be released,the conditions of the
variance need to be changed. The following outlines City staff s analysis of what will either need to be changed or
removed from the original 2002 resolution granting the variances and the restrictive covenant document(s).
2002 Variance Conditions to be Amended as Follows:
1. Compliance with the tree preservation proposal of the applicant, staff dated September 19,2002.
a4tefney and appr-eve&eeer-ded by the City At4efney.
3. The eevena*t shall also speeify t44 the existi4l— to!be r-edueed in size of subdivided in
2. A eevefiapA shall be r-eeer-ded on the deed of the site prior-to the issuanee of the building pem4t that
4. The pr-esefved afea of the site shall remain tmdistufbed from its nat"al sta4e, inehiding gr-otmd veget
and tfe
5. All lake ffentage exeept the fifty feet wide beaeh shall r-emain undistu-bed in its na�ur-a4 state.
6. Nlinimized distar-banee of any vegeta4iea within the fifty feet wide eeffider-, ineltiding a4 the sher-
7. All tfees of t-welve ifieh diameter-and greater-at breast hei&within the fifty feet eeRider-to the!a-ke shall
be retained.
8. No grading or filling shall be permitted below the Ordinary High Water level.
pr-ep&45,by Bob N4egr-efi.
Restrictive Covenant
The applicants are requesting that the restrictive covenant that was recorded against their property as a condition of
the 2002 variance be removed in its entirety. The restrictive covenant has the following restrictions(which would
all no longer apply if it is removed):
1. No trees or ground vegetation may be out outside of the Construction Area [as defined in the restrictive
covenant], except for a 50 foot wide corridor,the centerline of which begins at a point on the north line of
the Construction Area, 100 feet East of the Northwest corner of thereof,thence extending northerly at a 90
degree angle from said north line to the intersection with the natural high water mark of Lake Jane and
there terminating. Inside the 50 foot corridor all trees over 12 inches in diameter at breast height must not
be cut.
2. Trees and vegetation may be cut as needed to install and maintain a septic system.
3. No trees may be cut in the road right of way except for a 65 foot driveway opening.
4. The preserved area of the site shall remain undisturbed from the natural state, including ground vegetation
and tree cover.
5. No grading or filling shall be permitted North of the ordinary high water level.
6. The existing parcel shall not be reduced in size or subdivided at any time.
Yk
_
-
-- --_" --, 'tt ~\mil—�_` .-_��'•
Original survey with boundary
g, t
of construction area. �i ' . "" ��IW�iLn�l-E
N
AAkp-
�/ ,.sfo�vw+E wusE�v+wca.Rl oAPAo R ----� '�` \
« ``
zo
tBR 3 .gg 3�M16IIT WYE\ r
Applicable City Code:
There are some sections of the current City Code that do attempt to preserve wooded properties, specifically for
properties considered to be within the Shoreland District(which includes the applicants' property). Section 154.800
7. c. and d.)are the primary regulating language that address tree removal and vegetative protection on the applicants'
property. They state as follows:
c) Intensive Vegetative Clearing. Intensive vegetation clearing within shore and bluff impact zones and/or steep
slopes is not permitted. Intensive clearing within shoreland areas outside of bluff or shore impact zones and
steep slope areas is subject to standards set forth in Subp. (C) (8) of this Section.
The City defines intensive vegetative clearinga following
Intensive vegetation clearing. The complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip,
row, or block.
d) Limited Tree Clearing. Limited clearing of trees and shrubs and the cutting,pruning and trimming of trees
within bluff and shore impact zones or steep slopes to accommodate picnic areas, trails and water access and
to provide a view to the water from a principal dwelling site shall be permitted provided the screening of
structures, as viewed from the water, is not substantially reduced and that the shading of water surface is long
rivers is preserved. These provisions do not apply to the removal of tree limbs or branches that are dead or
pose a safety hazard.
AGENCY REVIEW
All entities and departments who were provided information about the request either had no comment or have not
provided a response.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
It seems that the applicants' request may be also motivated to have the 2002 variance conditions amended because by
amending them,this would potentially eliminate some of the violations of the variance conditions and restrictive
covenant provisions that have occurred on the property. As you can see on the survey included with this report,there
is a defined area on the property where clearing may occur. City staff has been made aware of violations occurring on
the property from a complaint that was received by the City. After reviewing the property file and looking at aerial
photos, it became evident that there are violations occurring on the property. City staff prepared a violation letter
which was sent to the applicants in June of 2020. The focus of the letter was centered around the cottonwood trees that
were removed on the street side of the property. City staff did not form the opinion that the removal of the trees was a
violation that could not be corrected considering the removal was based on a safety concern. City staff was then
informed that trees were going to be replanted. What City staff did not know was that the locations of the new trees
were going to be within the ROW and that they were intended for landscaping and not to transition the property back
into a"natural"state. The violation letter was issued to the applicants before the variance amendment request was
submitted by the applicants to the City.
The image dated from 2006 is the image closest to 2002 that Staff could find and is confident that it represents the state
that the conditions were intended to create. The following images show a progression over time with the May 2020
image being the most recent.
SAM
i
_ _ y
e)- Dec 2006-Dec 2006- < image 1 of 4 > 12/18/2006
t
r -
jig
Apr 2014-May 2014- < image 1 of 3 > 04/26/2014
IV
A ) .Ir � •, �l 1
7-May 2017- < Image 5 of 5 > 04l06t2017
- 4
Iry
^L
Y
<image 1 of 3> 05i3012020
City staff believes the applicants' is a unique request because the City is being asked to remove conditions that were
applied to further protect the aesthetics of the shoreland/neighboring properties. At this point, City staff are not
convinced that the conditions from the 2002 variance and the restrictive covenant are burdensome to the point where the
property is restricted from reasonable use. Furthermore,the circumstances with respect to the property do not appear to
have changed to the point where removal of conditions of the variances and the restrictive covenant are warranted.
Furthermore,it could be argued that without the approval of the variances with the existing conditions,the house would
not be in existence,because the City would have denied the variances. If enforced and monitored,the variance conditions
and the restrictive covenant do protect the property and require the native vegetation to remain as opposed to there being
manicured lawn or other landscaping. Therefore, City staff is not recommending approval of the request to amend the
2002 variances or the removal of the restrictive covenant from the property.
FINDINGS.
1. With respect to the amendment of the variances and removal of condition numbers two (2) and four(4) of City
Council Resolution No. 2002-106, removing these conditions would not be appropriate due to the intent of the
conditions to protect the natural aesthetics of the property. Furthermore, circumstances and conditions have
not changed on the property to the extent that warrants removal of these conditions.
2. With respect to removing condition number five(5), This condition outlines the allowance of clearing a strip of
land 50 ft. wide towards the lake, which is already more than what the code would currently allow considering
vegetative clearing is supposed to be limited or nonexistent. Amending or adjusting the condition would not be
appropriate for this reason.
3. The variances that were requested in 2002 were not going to be approved by the City unless the applicant agreed
to preserve the remainder of the property. By removing them now, this would invalidate the basis for the City
granting the variances in 2002 (i.e. to allow certain construction on the property in exchange for preservation
of the remainder of the property).
4. Considering all factors that are in place, the conditions of the 2002 variance and the restrictive covenant do not
further burden the property more than others along the lake as the property exists now. The burden would only
arise if the applicants were to attempt to obtain approval of additional improvements on the property(accessory
buildings,pool, sport court, etc).
5. With the existing conditions of approval in Resolution 2002-106 that allowed the home to be built, the City does
not believe the conditions of the variances burden the property from reasonable use to an extent that is different
than other lake properties in the City.
FURTHER ACTION:
It should be known that if the amendments to the variances are not approved, City staff is unable to ignore the
violations that are on the property,which are outlined below and will need to be corrected by the applicants:
1. The beach area on the property is substantially larger than what is allowed by the variance and the
restrictive covenant and will need to be reduced in size to a width of 50 feet and all vegetation that has
been removed must be replanted.
2. The recently installed landscaping along the road right-of-way(ROW) is not identified as an issue at this
time but will over time become an issue as the trees and vegetation grow. With the plantings being located
within the ROW,the applicants are hereby put on notice that the City reserves the right to remove any of
the vegetation that is within the ROW at any time that any of it is identified in the sole discretion of the
City as being a public safety hazard.
3. Trees must be replanted(at least 4-5 trees)in the general location on the property where the cottonwood
trees were removed. The species and location of the trees will be determined by the City Landscape
Architect.
4. The temporary driveway must be removed and remediated.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
OPTIONS:
• Recommend denial of variance amendment request.
• Recommend denial of variance amendment request with amended findings of denial.
• Recommend approval of the variance amendment request,citing findings for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
"Move to recommend denial of the variance amendment request for the property located at 8950 Lake Jane Trail with
recommended findings of denial"
ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution 2002-106
• Declaration of Covenants
• Property Survey
• Narrative
• Code Enforcement Letter
• Arial Images
City of Lake Elmo
Washington County,Minnesota
Resolution No. 2002-106
A RESOLUTION REGARDING TWO VARIANCES
TO THE SHORELAND STANDARDS
In R-1 Zoning District
To
Bob and Dianne McAdam and Bob Mogren
WHEREAS,at its September 9 and September 23,2002 meetings,the Lake Elmo Planning
Commission reviewed and heard testimony regarding the application of and Bob and Dianne McAdam
and Bob Mogren,to vary from the standards of Section 325.06—Shoreland Standards Subd. 4.A
Placement,Design,and.Height of Structures; Setback from the Ordinary High Water(table),and Setback
from the Right-of-way Line(table), of the Lake Elmo City Code with respect to the property generally
described as follows:
Part of Government Lot 7,Section 9,Township 29 North,Range 21 West,Washington
County,Minnesota, lying easterly of Lake Jane Manor No. 1,and northerly of the
centerline of Lake Jane Trail North.
WHEREAS,said variances are to construct a Principal Structure 56 feet from the Ordinary High
Water level of Lake Jane where 100 feet are required,and 25 feet from the right-of-way line of Lake Jane
Trail North where 30 feet are required.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the Lake Elmo Planning Commission does
hereby make the following findings concerning said variance:
1. It is questionable whether this site can be put to reasonable use without some degree of
variance. The applicant has agreed to measures regarding preservation of natural site
features to preserve the purpose and intent of the Ordinary High Water setback standard
of the'Zoning Ordinance.
2. The physical circumstances of the site are somewhat unique. Very few, if any, parcels
exist in the City of two acres that are as constrained by setbacks as this site. The physical
circumstances of the site pre-date the Ordinary High Water setback requirements,and
therefore,they were not created by the present landowner.
3. Construction of a house on the site will not change the essential character of the
neighborhood.
4. Economic considerations are not the only basis for the variance request.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Lake Elmo Planning commission does hereby
recommend the City Council grant this variance.Subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with.the tree preservation proposal of the applicant, staff dated September 19,2002.
2. A covenant shall be recorded on the deed of the site prior to issuance of a building permit that insures
maintenance of the tree preservation plan. The covenant shall be prepared by the applicants' attorney
and approved/recorded by the City Attorney.
3. The covenant shall also specify that the existing parcel shall not be reduced in size or subdivided in
the future.
4. The preserved area of the site shall remain undisturbed from its natural state,including ground
vegetation and tree cover.
5. All lake frontage except the fifty foot wide beach shall remain undisturbed in its natural state.
6. Minimize disturbance of any vegetation within the fifty foot wide corridor, including at the shoreline.
7. All trees of twelve-inch diameter and greater at breast height within the fifty foot corridor to the lake
shall be retained.
8. No grading or filling shall be permitted below the Ordinary High Water level.
9. The covenant must be recorded before issuance of any building or development permit, or sale of
property by Bob Mogren.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that this variance is granted.
ADOPTED,by the Lake Elmo City Council this I" ay of ctober,2002.
CfYNt4.Y 8 F
Lee Hunt, Mayor Hunt
ATTEST.
Mary ue r, City inistrator
3316460
DECLARATION Il����1�1�11111�11�111111�1111�1{lllllll�l��11
OF COVENANTS
THIS DECLARATION (the"Declaration")is made on this day of_fef , ,
2003, by Landmark, Inc., a Minnesota c o _ tion (hereirfter rEc!
rd to s e�
ecorqua
"Declarant"). When e Return
y US Recora s, ln0.
WITNESSETH: 2925 Country Drive Ste 201
St. Paul, MN 55117
WHEREAS, the Declarant is the owner of that certain real,property located in the City of
Lake Elmo, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, legally described as:
Ali that part of the Fast 541.03 feet of said Government Lot 7,measured at right angles to the East
Line of Laid Government Lot 7,which lies Northerly of the center line of Lake Jane Road;except
the East 125 feel thereof, in Section 9,Township 29,Range 21,Washington County,Minnesota.
(the"Real Property")
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the Declarant, hereby declares
that the construction and clearing of the Real Property shall be subject to the covenants
hereinafter set forth which covenants shall run with the land and be binding on the
Declarant, its successors and assigns.
The legal description within the above Real Pruperty for the Declarant's allowable
construction and clearing area is as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of said center line of Lake Jane Road and the
west line of the East 541.03 feet of said Govemrnent Lot 7; thence easterly along
said center line of Lake Jane Road a distance of 112 feet to the point of beginning;
thence northerly deflecting 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds to the left a distance
of 138 feet; thence easterly deflecting 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds to the
right a distance of 187,00 feet; thence southerly deflecting 90 degrees 00 minutes
00 seconds a distance of 138 feet to the center line of Lake Jane Road;thence
westerly along said center line 187.00 feet to the point of beginning.
(the"Construction Area")
The Declarant is subject to the following covenants within the Construction Area:
1) No trees or ground vegetation may be cut outside of the above described
Construction Area, except for a 50 foot wide corridor, the centerline of which
begins at a point on the north line of the Construction Area, 100 feet East of
the Northwest corner of thereof; thence extending northerly at a 90 degree
angle from said north line to the intersection with the natural high water mark
of Lake Jane and there terminating. Inside the 50 foot corridor all trees over
12 inches in diameter at breast height must not be cut.
2) Trees and vegetation maybe cut as needed to install and maintain a septic
system.
3) No trees may be cut in the road right of way except for a 65 foot driveway
opening.
4) The preserved area of the site shall remain undisturbed from the natural state,
including ground vegetation and tree cover,
5) No grading or filling shall be permitted North of the ordinary high water level.
6) The existing parcel shall not be reduced in size or subdivided at any time.
Landmark, Inc.,
By:
Its: President
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss'
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
Onthejq day of-1 .,,f ,2003,personally appeared Robert glleq 4�e-¢ T,
McAdam the President of La dmark, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation and executed this A/C Vow
document as the free act and deed of this company.
notary
This instrument was drafted by
Landmark Inc, o
DENNIS J.UNGER
4732 Larkspur Lane '" NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
��=Y s MYCONIAUSSION EXPIRES 1a1.2005
■y,nrwnnn, r
-� IIIIIIIIIII illlllill1111111if II�IIIIIIII�lllllll 111111>Illllillillillllllllllalillll
WASHINGI`ON COUNTY,MINNESOTA U11928584-39C I08
V V 3 DECLARATION
RFF# T-018034
MOLL �;�'R�tOURKE,AUDI R-/TUASU US Recardinge
Y -[. / {
DEPUTY
y�
DNR DESIGNATION: 82-104P LAKE JANEv �L NE WASHINGTON COUNTY CIMATTHE CORNER OF SECTION 9,T29N.R21W
J
100-YEAR FLOOD 926 FEET 5+ •'-"'-' •••� '•- - - /
NORMAL LEVEL 922.35 FEET 42 '
�...�• ^ �. - -- - w
ORDINARY HIGH WATER 924 FEET _...�...�• - \ -9
� .\ (PER INFORMATION FROM VALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN)
S
1 ' \\• - _ �•„�• ••_, �••- �-SHORE LINE OF LAKE JANE ON SEPTEMBER 13,2015
------------------------------125.00--------------_-------------�---�
,
/ \ I
-------------
J - J 416.03 = \ J
-»CIA/
I uv I �
\ \ �I�v / \ / EXCEPTION- - -
C _ 1 T NPLACE 1/2 PLASTIC
H IRON PIPE MONUMENT MARKED WITH \
\ -71 7{{ J ` \ / \ / 5 FOO7 C RRIDOR IN_ -�I A PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED'RLS 3960(C.GEORGI)
\-0611 NO.33164fi0 I �`-✓r \� �/ / \\ �� /
- �' ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE-ELEVATION 924 FEET
/ w 926 BOULDER RETAINING WALL ^ n / �•
IL
BOULDER RETAINING WALLJS-- ��/ �� J`- \ I �O't� /_ / ✓ o p /
L/ \\- NSTRUCTION PER DOC.NO.33164 \\ ---` ,/ O____t_```
i
/
r-BOUNDARY OF CO o i_ ON�WPLL
' g\ ` g28 ✓ \ '� I GONG. _ .:--'
1- /
1 ,• / -w
L J � O w ".` �, ,, � �I � hAT1O" CONCRETE LANDSCAPING_ r JCONCRETE STSP$ FpT10 e - - l v 928
_ I STONEWALL
r13.0
_
q
_ _ / c -------
FIRST FL J 224 OOR DECK 25. 29.3 I `\ _ / /:________--
SPIRAL STAIRCASES �----- �� /-WASHINGTON COUNTY OIM AT E _
34.1 __ `,,9$0 / / / MEANDER CO 170 -R21 11
t)T101TY POLE- '�^� I / J`
(UTI ITIES APPEAR O GO N -- ALLS INPLACE 1.INCH IRON PIPE MONUMENT MARKED WITH A
r -ram BOU`ER hE\N�G W F T�9N y
i UNDERGROUND ATE)-� �.9 ME HOUSE(WALK OUT) GARAGE ------- \ ` PLASTIC CP�INS\93D/'FREEMAN/RL51698�.FREEMAN) __ --- __
`v,ASEPTIC TANK ACCESS COVERS-z--- ----� ,.STORY FRA 11.5 5 2.0
/ - _\ �r
t R ER
2.0
,% 20 1.5 7.3 9.2 9.2 - 31.3-� ` i / 16 -�
✓ \ 36 ( 44.7 117 20 2.0 2.0 \ 34- f �` ---' I v
BOULDER-RETAINRG WALL '626 Epp PORCH ,5 2 \\ ` II \ __�• i ^'/
12.2 t,6 V 200 -STORMWATER INIET GRATE \ I_ / _�� tvjN _ _ - --� /
\' -�2\ \� - -`� o_ - (�NjO CONGSTEPS N GONCR�Tp SIDEwALX DRIVEWOMCFEAY --' -----940-- _ -__ \ /� 1 11
/ \ ." - _
J NG FOUNTAIN�.-�. �- - \ �� / s42�
.--i GRA - 125.00� r- ---- -�VEL PARKING AREA __ ------- ---------------
\
125.73 �I
saz°56'o9 w �L� \ �.4
STONE WALf' \ / ,
/ I \ (
IN B 00
NE ROAD)AS DESCRIBEDD IpKE JAF,E HILLS \
LAKE JA OR NO.,AN
I I ETRAIL NORTH AKA LAKE JANE MAN _
/ , JAN PLATS OF �\ A- / -
INPLACE I-1/2 INCH IRON PIPE MONUMENT, / US ROAOWAY / CENTERLINE OF IAKA JA" N ONTHE I -T- \ /
0.28 WEST AND 0.08 SOUTH OF CORNER J '�°� EpGE OF B17UMIN0 i DEEDS,PAGE 17 AND /t--=�- --------------------------- --
i
I\ i
UTILITYPOLE-- (DID NOT SET ADDITIONAL MONUMENT) / P `- ,g7.00 /r
541.03 _____________________�____________________-__________________ __ _____
_ ___-__
/ __-___-_-NORTH -
9p,A�___-__ci______________ ______-_�___________ _________-_______ /
418.46 \ p pKE JANEROAO)
S82�S6�0911w T 390E DEEDS,PAGE w
O A+� RIGHT-OF-WAY OF IAKEOERIE B pl-eft K 2
R pB/ I W o I
ANE _ 7 04 1
112.00 A y -Y -� Ir III I 1'-'-I I \
M- � � �� -� �� I r �1_1 I L_L P I �40� O 1 33\ I
N i \ \ v _ \ _IL=A\ICt\ ,T
_ E lIt[� - - - - �'
OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES ��� LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RECORD
O (NO APPARENT EASEMENT OF RECORD) / _ LEGEND (Document No.4008504)
Jd _ All that part of the East 541.03 feet of Government Lot 7,measured at right angles to the East line of said Government Lot 7,which lies Northerly
O INDICATES 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE SET AND MARKED WITH A PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED of the center line of Lake Jane Road;except the East 125.00 feet thereof,in Section 9,Township 29,Range 21,Washington County,Minnesota. /
/ /f "DUPAY-RLS 17252".
/� / • INDICATES AN INPLACE IRON PIPE MONUMENT SIZE AND MARKED AS SHOWN HEREON. NOTES: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIM ATTHE
BE CORNER OF SECTION 9,T29N-R21 W
/ I / There is a gravel parking area which encroaches onto this property near the southwest comer thereof.
'- -"- ® INDICATES WASHINGTON COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT
= - Utility poles along the west line of the property do not appear to be covered by an easement. There is no easement of record in the Office of the
_ 7, / vT UNDERGROUND OR OVERHEAD PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITIES ON OR ADJACENT THE ABOVE
�- DESCRIBED PARCEL WERE NOT LOCATED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS SURVEY,UNLESS SHOWN County Recorder.
4 IV
OR NOTED OTHERWISE.
I I . The South 33.00 feet of the above described property is encumbered by a road easement for Lake Jane Trail North as described in Book 239 of
I r L-L-" _ /til OFFSETS SHOW TO EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE MEASURED TO THE OUTSIDE BUILDING WALL Deeds,page 17,as recorded in the Office of the County Recorder,Washington County,Minnesota. The deed states that its is for road purposes,
LINE,UNLESS SHOWN OR NOTED OTHERWISE.ANY PROJECTIONS FROM SAID WALL LINE SUCH
�)r\I L- °I; / which in my opinion is a conveyance of an easement and not fee title.
- I VJ\ L,/ I n�`I� �I I`� AS EAVES,SILLS,DECKS,ETC.,WILL IMPACT THESE OFFSETS ACCORDINGLY. SCALE IN FEET
CONTOURS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON LIDAR INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE DNR �� The west line of this property and the plat of LAKE JANE MANOR NO.1 is described to a common line. The plat does not show an angle point
ul /- I II LIDAR PORTAL AND ADJUSTED TO FIT FIELD SURVEY CHECK ELEVATIONS. ELEVATION ARE BASED ° 10 zo 40 along this line. I have surveyed the west line of this property to conform to the present Washington County section subdivision which would have ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM,1988 ADJUSTMENT. an angle at Meander Corner 17 along the east line of Section 9. 1 believe there is no conflict along this line,because the Call on the plat is also to a
1 line that is 541.03 west of the east line of the Section.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY,PLAN,OR REPORT WAS BEARTOOTH STEVEN W. & HAILEE N. BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC
�I PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND DESIGN BY DRAWN BY DESIGN,INC
$= THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR DLD DLDMEISTERLING SURVEY
7THjWCERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
F THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. I t
E.
1 8950 LAKE JANE TRAIL NORTH @
^J` 1 07/12/2020 OLD ADD DECLARATION OF COVENANTS IN DOC.NO.3316460 BD PROJECT NO. 2315 PERIWINKLE AVENUE NORTH 8950 LAKE JANE TRAIL NORTH
o.3�; DAVID L.DUPAY 0155-001 STILLWATER,MN 55082-1634 LAKE ELMO,MN 55042
6 e B NO DATE BY REVISION DATE: 09/21/2015 LICENSE# 17252 (651)436-1787 da d.pay@-....t. t LAKE ELMO,MN 55042 SHEET 01 OF 01 SHEETS
do
Ik
IL
s Pro— .1
Ilk
•
4.4
y7� 'v
♦ x ki
t `1• wit
! titIL
,�� • . ` ' _ ` , + _ •. � -1• •• ` V r �� T�•
• '"� a ` r ` •r •ti f
r
Apr 2011 - Jun 2011 - < image 1 of 2 > 05,,03r'2011
pk , ' `• ..,
mil
i fit. •r ! �, ,,. .. �., ;�� :. � •ti
gr
y NJ
41k
A14
, , • _i t
0-0
',•r� .die � r ✓ Y -� ,� ��_ ` y-. v
♦ - � .�T 1 :. y � • � 'ram 1� ' �, - � Y
iv
IL
�.
8896 LAKE N. • * »t • •'Y i _}. \ �w Y _ t . '1►, • �41
]ANE TRL f �' r �' ! •
ja
� a• � - .�; e' ^ � ��. 8950 LAKE iS � � . P�• • ►'� �
• ]ANE TRL t F «
• ' ' N
r. � �,. .'� ►_ .• .;, '�• ' ti fir. � � . � �S � � 1
jo
to
r +♦
.orporation 0 2020 Maxar CCNES (2020) Distribution Airbus DS �►, • , �,
THE CITY OF
LAKE ELMO
To: Steven and Haileen Meisterling
8950 Lake Jane Trl.
Lake Elmo,MN 55402
Date: June 29,2020
Subject: Tree Removal and Driveway Installation
This letter is to inform you that a complaint was received regarding the removal of trees and installation of a
driveway at the property addressed as 8950 Lake Jane Trl. City Staff conducted a site inspection on June 25,2020
and determined that the property had visible signs of removed trees and the development of a driveway along Lake
Jane Trl. There are aspects of what was observed that may violate the City Code,which will be discussed below.
With the property being located within the shoreland district it has additional regulations that need to be adhered to
which is intended to protect the lake shore. Properties along the lakes are only allowed to clear limited amounts of
vegetation within the designated impact zone. The applicable sections of code are copied below(Full shore land
code is attached). In the code you will see a reference of"shoreland impact zone." The impact zone is defined as
"Land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50% of
the structure setback." With that said,the limitations to your property will apply 50 ft. from the ordinary high water
level into the lot.
Section 154.800
c.Intensive Vegetative Clearing. Intensive vegetation clearing within shore and bluff impact zones and/or
steep slopes is not permitted. Intensive clearing within shoreland areas outside of bluff or shore impact zones and
steep slope areas is subject to standards set forth in Subp. (C) (8)of this Section.
d.Limited Tree Clearing. Limited clearing of trees and shrubs and the cutting,pruning and trimming of
trees within bluff and shore impact zones or steep slopes to accommodate picnic areas,trails and water access and
to provide a view to the water from a principal dwelling site shall be permitted provided the screening of structures,
as viewed from the water, is not substantially reduced and that the shading of water surface is along rivers is
preserved. These provisions do not apply to the removal of tree limbs or branches that are dead or pose a safety
hazard.
Notes under table 17-2) b. Vegetative clearing within shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not
permitted.
As you may notice, section d. referenced above allows some vegetative clearing to occur. At this point I am not
convinced that the removal of 3 to 4 trees constitutes corrections from the City Code but the approving resolution
requires more stringent vegetative compliance (Discussed below). However, I do think this is a good opportunity to
provide insight to the City Code and how it applies to your property. Using the surveys (Attached) of the property,
removal of vegetation starting from the back of your home to the lake(rear yard)would begin to violate the
shoreland sections of the code. Now that there is current documentation of the property if it is not required,I would
be cautious when making additional alterations on the lot. Furthermore, grading within the shoreland area is also
closely regulated.
Regarding the driveway, I speculate that one of two things have happened. Either the driveway was installed to
assist with the removal of the trees and it is a temporary installation or it is intended to be permanent. If it is a
temporary installation it becomes a non-issues, assuming the area next to the roadway is remediated. Otherwise,
Driveways do require a permit and review by City Staff to ensure they will abide by all applicable driveway
standards. If it is permanent,please fill out and submit a driveway permit.
3880 Laverne Avenue North • Lake Elmo • Minnesota 55042
Phone: (651) 747-3900 • www.lakeelmo.org
Furthermore,there were special approvals applied to the property when the home was approved for construction. I
have attached the approving resolution and the covenants that are applicable to the property. You will notice that
both the resolution and covenants address vegetative covering. Regardless of what the City Code says,the
conditions outlined in the resolution and covenants do need to be adhered to. The attached survey shows where the
water level starts and where the Ordinary High Water level is located on the parcel,which is helpful when reading
the resolution.
If additional improvements are intended to be constructed on the property a permit will be required. Please follow
up with City Staff to discuss the applicable City Code and applicable permits.
Staff understands that there are times when Residents may not be aware of the requirements within the City Code
and is under the impression that this may be one of those times. However, correction will still need to take place.
Staff is asking the property to follow the applicable shoreland code and restrictions through the resolution and
applicable covenants. If the driveway is intended to be permanent please reach out to City Staff to discuss
permitting by July 6nd,2020 and if it is not permanent remediation to occur by July 1 Oth,2020. Staff will conduct a
follow up inspection of the property after July 9t1i to check on the status of the driveway.
If you have any further questions or concerns,please do not hesitate to contact me at the information below. Thank
you in advance for your cooperation in complying with City Code and helping to maintain the quality of Life in
Lake Elmo.
Sincerely,
Ben Prchal, City Planner
651-747-3911-bprchal@lakeelmo.org
Enclosure:Photos of the site,Applicable Code,and Covenants.
Ben Prchal
From: Hailee Meisterling <haileemeisterling@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday,July 17, 2020 11:55 AM
To: Ben Prchal; Ken Roberts; Steve Meisterling
Subject: MeisterlingCertificate_Rev-WithCovenan.pdf
Attachments: MeisterlingCertificate_Rev-WithCovenan.pdf,ATT00001.htm
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Dear Ben,
Per your request, I have attached a copy of our survey outlining the area noted within the covenants.
Additionally,please consider the paragraph below our"narrative" for removing the covenants. Please let us
know if you need any more information.
We are respectfully requesting the removal of the restrictive covenant specific to 8950 Lake Jane Trail North,
Lake Elmo, MN 55042. The current covenant requires us to operate outside of every other homeowner residing
on Lake Jane. There is nothing inherently unique about our parcel which would justify special covenants
specific to this property. We should therefore be allowed to maintain, improve, and beautify our lot restricted
only by those rules applicable to all other lake residences. Moreover, there is an urgency in having these
covenants removed as we have received documented threats from community members that are aware of said
covenants. We understand there are ordinances which apply to all homeowners on Lake Jane and we will
continue to abide by these guidelines. We thank you in advance for your time and attention to this matter.
Steve &Hailee Meisterling Homeowners of 8950 Lake Jane Trail North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042
1