HomeMy WebLinkAbout#15 - 9447 Stillwater Blvd. Variance Request1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 9/17/19
REGULAR
MOTION
TO: City Council
FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Variance Requests for 9447 Stillwater Blvd.
REVIEWED BY: Ken Roberts, Planning Director
Lake Elmo Planning Commission
BACKGROUND:
The City has received variance requests from applicant Todd Alguire, for the property located at 9447
Stillwater Blvd. The request is for a variance from the City Code requirement of not allowing an accessory
building closer to the front lot line than the principle building as well as the structure height. Staff met with
the resident and discussed with them the constraints of the site. The initial location would have required an
additional setback variance, one for the front lot line and the second for the setback to the OHWL of
Freidrich pond. The applicant then decided it would be best to reposition the building so only the variance
form the front lot line would be required. Beyond this the applicant is also seeking a variance for the height
of the structure.
ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL:
The City Council is being asked to review and provide final approval or denial for the requested variances.
REVIEW/ANALYSIS:
PID 15.029.21.34.0007
Existing Land Use/Zoning: Single-family zone as Rural Single Family.
Surrounding Land Use/
Zoning:
Single family homes zoned as Rural Single Family.
History: There are not substantial records for the property in the City Files.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 7/27/2019
60 Day Deadline – 9/25/2019
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
PROPOSED VARIANCES
2
Variance Requests. The applicant is requesting to build an accessory building closer to the front lot
line than the principle structure. The City Code addressing both variance requests are simply outlined
in the table below. Accessory structures are limited to 22 ft. or the principle structure, whichever is
more restrictive. Similarly accessory structures are required to be setback 30 ft. or the principle
structure, whichever is more restrictive.
Standard Required Proposed
Setback from the Front Property Line.
30 ft.
Or
The Principle Structure
342.1 ft.
Closer to the Front lot
line than the home.
Structure Height 22 ft. 25 ft.
Standards Met. The following table outlines the standards that are met on the property.
Standard Required Proposed
Allowed Structure Size (6.6 Acres) 2,000 sqft.
Or
Footprint of the Principle
Structure
1,600 sqft.
Structure setback from OHWL of Recreational
Development (RD) Lake
150 feet (66.5 average) 150.5 feet
Drainfield setback from occupied structure 20 feet 25 feet
Side yard setback 10 feet 42 feet
Front yard setback 30 feet 342.1 feet
Rear Yard setback 40 feet 61 feet
Reason for Variance Requests
The applicant is requesting the variance for the structure to be located closer to the front lot line because of
geographic features and the location of the home leaves very limited space to the rear lot line.
Furthermore, the applicant is also requesting a variance from the structure height requirement. The
applicant would like to build a two story shed. At this point it will not be taller than the principle structure
but the code places a second limiting factor, stating that accessory buildings also cannot be taller than 22 ft.
which it does not meet. The applicable sections of code will be outlined below.
APPLICABLE CODE
154.40 Accessory Structures, Rural Districts:
When reviewing the criteria for an accessory structure Staff will go to a few different sections of the
City C ode. However, the applicant is only needing a variance for two items, both listed in 154.406.
Height:
The important point here is that the applicant has designed the shed so that it would not exceed the height
of the principle structure. With the home being 29½ ft. in height the accessory structure was designed at 29
ft. in height (The graphic and plans will provide a better visual of the height). However, the code also reads that
accessory buildings cannot exceed 22 ft. in height.
154.406 Accessory Structures, Rural Districts.) C.
3
Structure Height, Rural Districts. No accessory building shall exceed twenty-two (22) feet in height or the
height of the principal structure, with the exception of agricultural buildings, as defined in §154.213.
Building projections or features on accessory structures that are not agricultural buildings, as defined in
§154.213, such as chimneys, cupolas, and similar decorations that do not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in
height are permitted in rural districts.
154.213 Accessory Buildings and Structures, Generally.) B. Definitions.
Agricultural Building. An accessory building means a structure that is on agricultural land as determined
by the governing assessor of the City under section 273.13, subdivision 23 and meets all other
requirements of State Statute 362B.103. A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permit may be required.
BUILDING HEIGHT. The vertical distance from the average of the highest and lowest point of grade for
that portion of the lot covered by building to the highest point of the roof for flat roofs; to the roof deck line
of mansard roofs; and to the mean height between eaves and highest ridge for gable, hip, and gambrel
roofs.
When reviewing accessory building
requests Staff uses the “Building
Height” definition as the standard for
determining the height of structures.
The diagram to the right lists out the
different measure points that are
listed out in the definition. If the
height variance is denied for the
applicant, there would be the option
to seek out Washington County and
consult with them on having the
property reclassified as outlined in
section 154.213. If that were to
happen Staff does not see why the
applicant would be restricted to a 22
ft. height requirement.
At this point Staff does not believe
there is an appropriate justification
for variance approval to have a
structure taller than what is allowed.
However, the last sentence in section
154.406 does allow structures to
exceed the 22 ft. height requirement
with specifically listed items. Staff
does believe there would be grounds
to leave the upper most window out
of the initial height calculation. This
is justified by the fact that the
window was added to match the
design of the home, constituting a “similar decoration.” The Planning Commission also believes the
upper roof/window qualifies as a decorative attachment and should not count when determining the height
of the building. Doing so lowers the height of the building and puts the applicant in a more favorable
position if the variance for the building height is not approved.
Setback:
4
As previously noted accessory buildings cannot be located closer to the front property line than the
principle structure. Geographic constraints coupled with the location of the home would make construction
in the side or rear yard difficult. There is also a shared driveway for the property addressed as 9495
Stillwater Blvd. This driveway is on the east side of the home, placing a structure on the east side of the lot
would drastically impede the function of the driveway and would more than likely conflict with side and
rear setback requirements.
154.406 Accessory Structures, Rural Districts.) D. Structure Location, Rural Districts. No detached
garages or other accessory buildings shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on
that lot.
AGENCY REVIEW
There have not been any comments submitted from other agencies or departments.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake Elmo
City Code Section 154.017 before an exception or modification to city code requirements can be granted.
These criteria are listed below, along with comments from Staff regarding applicability of these criteria to
the applicant’s request.
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.
5
FINDINGS:
• Variance for Height of Structure: The applicant has
attempted to design the structure in a way that would
mimic the design of the home. Although the building
exceeds the 22 foot height requirement the structure was
designed to be visually pleasing by matching the principle
structure. Because the resemblance is similar to the
principle building the request does appear to be
reasonable.
• Variance for Accessory Building Setback: The request
does appear to be reasonable because any other location
meeting the code requirements would not be possible. The
150 setback requirement from the lake would make
placement behind the home on the west side impossible
and placing the structure on the east side of the home
would interfere with the shared driveway to the home south
of the property (9495 Stillwater Blvd.). The applicant
would be hard pressed to locate a building site that would not require a single variance. Because
of this Staff believes this criteria is met.
2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property
not created by the landowner.
FINDINGS:
• Variance for Height of Structure: Staff has had difficulty determining the unique circumstance
that would warrant approval of the structures height. The property is not currently used for
agricultural purposes, beyond personal enjoyment. Geographically the build site is relatively flat
so there is not a conflict when measuring the height of the building. Staff does not believe this
criteria is met.
• Variance for Accessory Building Setback: The current structure was built prior to the current
owner so there is no way the applicant would have been able to suggest a different building
location for the principle structure to avoid the need for this variance. Beyond limited space in the
rear of the home Friedrich Pond requires a 150 ft. buffer which is impossible to meet if the
structure were to be placed in the rear yard. Furthermore, the structure would severely impede the
function of the driveway if the shed were located on the east side of the home. Staff believes this
criteria 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.
FINDINGS:
• Variance for Height of Structure: Although the structure may be measurably taller than some of
the neighboring homes, according to the survey the foundation would be about 4 feet lower than the
neighboring homes foundation. Though it may be taller it is not perceived that the height will
negatively stand out in the local area. Staff believes this criteria is met.
• Variance for Accessory Building Setback: Although the structure would be located in front of the
home, the uniqueness of the area aids to the proposed building location and it would not change the
character of the local area.
6
4) Adjacent Properties and Traffic. 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.
FINDINGS.
• Variance for Height of Structure: The structure would not be of such a height that it would begin
to shade neighboring properties or structures, nor would it impair air flow. Furthermore, the
height would not cause an increase of traffic or congestion of traffic.
• Variance for Accessory Building Setback: The location of the structure would not shade the
neighboring properties or structures, nor would it impair air flow. Furthermore, the location
would not cause an increase of traffic or congestion of traffic.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1. That the Applicant obtain all applicable permits including but not limited to a City building permit
including a grading, erosion control, and storm water management plan approved by the City
Engineer.
2. That the Applicant must reduce the height of the building to 22 ft. unless the property is reclassified
to Agricultural. If reclassified, the applicant can increase the structures height to 25 ft.
3. If approved this variance approval is valid for 1 year and would expire on September 17th 2020 (leap
year).
4. One of the other smaller accessory buildings noted on the survey must be removed prior to the
issuance of a building permit of the new accessory structure.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed variance is not expected to have fiscal impact to the City.
OPTIONS:
The City Council may:
• Approve of the proposed variances, subject to recommended findings and conditions of approval.
• Amend the recommended findings and conditions and approve the variances, subject to the newly
outlined findings and conditions of approval.
7
• Move to deny of all variances, citing findings for denial.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission talked at length about the height of the structure. The discussion focused on
citing findings that would be able to support approval for the height of the structure. Although the
Commission appeared to be in favor of the height, it was difficult to create a finding that would align with
the variance criteria. Inevitably the Commission voted to deny the variance for the height of the accessory
structure. The Commission opted to recommend approval of the location by a 6-0 vote and recommended
denial for the building height by a 5-1 vote.
“Motion to approve the request from Todd Alguire for a variance from the following standard(s):
placement of an accessory structure in front yard, closer to the front property line than the principle
structure, subject to recommended conditions of approval.”
Motion to deny the request from Todd Alguire for a variance from the following standard(s): height of
the requested accessory building being more than 22 ft. in height.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Narrative
2) Survey and Building Plans
3) Additional Pictures
4) Resolutions – Approval and Denial
1
Ben Prchal
From:WAYNE Goiffon <GOIFFONW@msn.com>
Sent:Monday, August 19, 2019 4:07 PM
To:Ben Prchal
Subject:Response to Ben Prchal
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Hello Ben,
I received a notice of a public hearing for Monday, August 26, 2019 concerning a variance request on
behalf of Todd Alguire at 9447 Stillwater Blvd. N. I will not be able to attend the public hearing but I want
to let you know that I do not have issue with Todd's request.
Kind regards,
Wayne Goiffon
9495 Stillwater Blvd. N.
ST
I
L
L
W
A
T
E
R
B
L
V
D
.
N
.
(
C
.
S
.
A
.
H
.
N
O
.
1
4
)
31ST
S
T
.
N
.
U
N
I
O
N
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
POSSIBLE PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY. NO DOCUMENTS
PROVIDED. PERMISSION OF
USE UNDETERMINED.
PARCEL
OWNED BY
OTHERS
FRIEDRICH POND
919.6
919.4
X
VERIFY
919.6
APPROXIMATE 913.1
FLOOD ELEVATION
PROPOSED
50X32
SHED
42
.
0
'
342.1'
SHARED DRIVEWAY. NO
DOCUMENTS PROVIDED.
APPROXIMATE
MOUND SEPTIC
SYSTEM
EXISTING
DRAINFIELD AREA
150
.
5
'
1
5
4
.
3
'
91
6
91
8
FLOOR=920.0
BENCHMARKS
ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED ON GPS DERIVED VALUES FOR NAVD 88
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!
TWIN CITY AREA:TOLL FREE:1-800-252-1166651-454-0002
Gopher State One Call
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
1. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON COORDINATES SUPPLIED BY THE RAMSEY COUNTY
SURVEYORS OFFICE.
2. THERE MAY SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC. NOT
SHOWN OR LOCATED.
3. CONTOURS SHOWN PER DNR LIDAR DATA OBTAINED FROM THE MNTOPO
WEBSITE. NOT FIELD VERIFIED.
4. PROPOSED SEPTIC FROM SKETCH PROVIDED BY THE OWNER.
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN GROUP DATED MAY 2018.
SURVEY NOTES:
(AS SHOWN ON CONTRACT FOR DEED DOC. NO. 4042354)
The East Four Hundred Thirty and Two Tenths (430.2) feet of the Southeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SE 1/4 of SW 1/4) of section Fifteen (15), in
Township Twenty-Nine (29) North, of Range Twenty-one west, Village of Lake
Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota, lying south of the Southerly right-of-way
of the Chicago, St. Paul & Omaha Railway. excepting therefrom the South Four
Hundred Fifty-five and Four-Tenths (455.4) feet thereof. Containing 6.6 acres,
more or less.
TITLE NOTES:
NO TITLE WORK WAS PROVIDED TO US FOR THE PREPARATION OF THIS SURVEY.
EASEMENTS AND OR ENCUMBRANCES MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN.
LEGEND
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
UNDERGROUND CABLE TV
UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
OVERHEAD UTILITY
UNDERGROUND GAS
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
WATERMAIN
FENCE
CURB [TYPICAL]
CONTOURS (DNR LIDAR)
FOUND MONUMENT 1/2" IP
MARKED RLS 15480
SET 1/2" IRON PIPE
MARKED RLS NO. 25718
CABLE TV PEDESTAL
AIR CONDITIONER
ELECTRIC MANHOLE
ELECTRIC METER
ELECTRIC PEDESTAL
ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
LIGHT POLE
GUY WIRE
POWER POLE
GAS MANHOLE
GAS METER
TELEPHONE MANHOLE
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
SANITARY CLEANOUT
SANITARY MANHOLE
CATCH BASIN
STORM DRAIN
FLARED END SECTION
STORM MANHOLE
FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION
HYDRANT
CURB STOP
WATER WELL
WATER MANHOLE
WATER METER
POST INDICATOR VALVE
WATER VALVE
BOLLARD
FLAG POLE
MAIL BOX
TRAFFIC SIGN
UNKNOWN MANHOLE
SOIL BORING
SPOT ELEVATION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CONIFEROUS TREE
DECIDUOUS TREE
AREA:
TOTAL AREA AS SHOWN = 278,103 SQ. FT. / 6.38 ACRES MORE OF LESS
PID#1502921340007
CONTACT:
TODD ALGUIRE
9447 STILLWATER BLVD. N.
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042110
612-412-6498
ZZ18485
SURVZZ485
CERTIFICATE OF
SURVEY
COUNTY/CITY:
REVISIONS:
PROJECT LOCATION:
LAND SURVEYING, INC.
CORNERSTONE
Suite #1
6750 Stillwater Blvd. N.
Stillwater, MN 55082
Phone 651.275.8969
Fax 651.275.8976
dan@
cssurvey
.net
DATE REVISION
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
9447
STILLWATER BLVD. N.
CITY OF
LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON
COUNTY
4-10-18 INITIAL ISSUE
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am
a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the state of Minnesota.
Daniel L. Thurmes Registration Number: 25718
Date:__________________
0
NORTH
40 80
BUILDING LINE
BITUMINOUS SURFACE
CONCRETE SURFACE
4-10-18
925.0
ALGUIRERESIDENCE
930
SET OFFSET HUB
PROPOSED ELEVATION
PROPOSED CONTOUR
PROPOSED DRAINAGE
DENOTES EXISTING ELEV.
DENOTES SILT FENCE
EXISTING CONTOURS
HOUSE = 2,869
SHED BY GARAGE = 245
FRONT DECK = 220
REAR DECK = 394
NORTH SHED = 251
LEAN-TO = 146
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY = 3,983
BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY = 7,073
CONCRETE = 1,333
WALLS = 514
LAKE WALLS & CONC. = 531
TOTAL EXISTING = 17,559
EXISTING IMPROVEMENT AREAS:
(IN SQUARE FEET)
7-24-19 PROPOSED SHED
7-30-19 REVISED
8-1-19 SEPTIC
flash side to roof-------~'ct-+--------.
provide 2x4 blocking between
rafters to nail sheathing
attach 2x4 rafters to sides offloor·----1-.
trusses with (2)8d nails at top plate
and at all vert. and cross members
hang 2x4 ceiling joists from 2x8
ledger -ledger attached to wall w/
._,,_...,_ ____ ,_
(l)¼"x6" lag screw@ 16" O.C. (to,--+----+-~
studs) and nail rafters and joists to
2x6 sub fascia
pre finished metal fascia and non
vented soffit
~'---="""--;1(-----------"--5'---'-4'---"---------;I( T ical Roof Construction:
T ical stair construction:
wall on roof to be
approximately ½ of the
way back from front wall -------------..
• 1½" particle board treads -1" nosing
• 1 x _ pine risers ( owner option to use
hardwood risers and treads)
-asphalt shingles
-15lb felt underlayment
-"ice shield" at all roof edges
-½" roof sheathing
-roof trusses@ 24" O.C.
-1" air chute each truss space
j
------use spray foam insulation at truss heels
-----truss clips each truss, each side -typical
-by truss supplier
run exterior sheathing up to air chute
for insulation block
etal drip edge
7" pre finished metal fascia over 2x6
sub fascia
~---"re fmished vented metal soffit
• (4) 2x12 stringers ~
see wall types for wall construction--~'3.i+-__,~ T ical Second Floor Construction: .-------,tt--~1----~.J.J:..:=:.=..:===-=-=--'-=--=--=-=--'----
owner to provide 36" high continuous
handrail at one side of stairs
12'-10" open
11 /2x6 blocking for O.H. door
:1 / -3 sides
see plan for all header and //
beam sizes /,;:;/
4' landing
/ /
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
// "/
17 T@ 10"=15'-10"
4" cone. floor slab (w/ optional
W.W.M.) w/ 6 mil. poly vapor retarder
over 6" gravel base -garage side floor
slopes 4" to front wall (dashed)
stair framing and floor
trusses at stair hung from
flush beam -verify beam
height needed
-¾" T&G plywood sub floor
-24" floor trusses@ 16" O.C. -verify
-(1) layer½" type "x" fire rated G.B. at
garage ceiling
'------R-21 spray foam insulation and vapor
barrier continuous through floor space
-typical
llll-----spray foam around all windows, doors
and penetrations
..,__----lower level walls are 10' studs with (1)
bottom and (2) top plates
2x6 treated sill plate w/ ½" round x 16"
anchor bolts @ 36" O.C. on curb block
hold grade min. 6" below top of
foundation wall
B!E------2" (R-10) rigid insulation from footing
to top of foundation wall on outside
-flash top of insul. to wall under siding
,k l'-8" J
@ GARAGE SECTION
¼"=1 '-0"
d) z N
-.:::I'" bO ,cl 0
~ (I) lr)
1-4 ..c lr) a -~ ~ ...... 1-4 i::: < (I) d ~ ::E '"O z " '"O 0
~ 0 ...... s ~ ..... ......
r:/)_ ......
1-4 ~
d) ~ t-(I) z -.:::I'" ~ -.:::I'"
0\ ...:l
°" sheet ......-1
I
t-
A4 N
I
t-
(I)
~
Q
543597v2 SJS LA515-1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO 2019-066
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY BUILDING TO BE
LOCATED CLOSER TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE THAN THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9447 STILLWATER BLVD.
WHEREAS, Todd Alguire (the “Applicant”) of 9447 Stillwater Blvd, Lake Elmo MN
55042 (the “Property”) has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the “City“) for a
variance(s) to allow an accessory building closer to the front lot line than the principle structure and for the
accessory building to exceed 22 ft. in height; and
WHEREAS, notice has been published , mailed, and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo
Zoning Code, Section 154.109; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said variances
on August 26th, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and
recommendations with respect to the requested variances to the City Council as part of the City Staff
Memorandum dated September 17th, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the variances at its September 17th, 2019 meeting; and
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City
Council makes the following:
FINDINGS
1) That the procedures for obtaining a variance are found in the Section 154.109 of the
Lake Elmo Zoning Code.
2) That all submission requirement s of Section 154.109 of the Lake Elmo Zoning Code
have been met by the Applicants.
3) That the proposed variances include the following components:
a) That the proposed accessory building be located closer to the front property line than the
principle structure.
b) The height of the accessory building to exceed the maximum allowed accessory
building height of 22 ft. (or the height of the principle building) by 3 ft.
4) 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;
• With respect to the proposed variance for height of the structure strict enforcement
of the City’s zoning regulations will cause practical difficulties and the applicant
is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. Furthermore, the
applicant has attempted to design the structure in a way that would mimic the
design of the home. Although the building exceeds the 22 foot height limitation
543597v2 SJS LA515-1
the structure was designed to be visually pleasing by matching the principle
structure. Because the resemblance is similar to the principle building the request
does appear to be reasonable.
• With respect to the proposed variance for the location of structure strict
enforcement of the City’s zoning regulations will cause practical difficulties and
the applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. The
request does appear to be reasonable because any other location meeting the code
requirements would not be possible. The 150 ft. setback requirement from the lake
would make placement behind the home on the west side impossible and placing
the structure on the east side of the home would interfere with the shared driveway
to the home south of the property (9495 Stillwater Blvd.). The applicant would be
hard pressed to locate a building site on the property that would not require a
single variance.
5) Unique Circumstances the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner;
• With respect to the proposed variance relating to the height of the structure, the plight
of the Applicant is not unique and has been caused by the applicant. The City cannot
determine the unique circumstance that would warrant approval of the structures
height. The property is not currently used for agricultural purposes, beyond personal
enjoyment. Geographically the build site is relatively flat so there is not a conflict
when measuring the height of the building. The City does not believe this criteria is
met and this request is denied through Resolution 2019-067.
• With respect to the proposed variance for the location of the structure, the plight of
the Applicant is unique and has not been caused by the applicant. The current
structure was built prior to the current owner so there is no way the applicant would
have been able to suggest a different building location for the principle structure to
avoid the need for this variance. Beyond limited space in the rear of the home
Friedrich Pond requires a 150 ft. buffer which is impossible to meet if the structure
were to be placed in the rear yard. Furthermore, the structure would severely impede
the function of the driveway if the building was located on the east side of the home.
6) Character of Locality the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality
in which the property in question is located;
• With respect to the proposed variance for the height of the structure, the proposed
variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Although the structure
may be measurably taller than some of the neighboring homes, according to the survey
the foundation would be about 4 feet lower than the neighboring homes foundation.
Though it may be taller, it is not perceived that the height will negatively affect the
local area.
• With respect to the proposed variance for the location of the structure, the proposed
variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Although the structure
would be located in front of the home, the uniqueness of the area aids to the proposed
building location and it would not change the character of the local area.
7) Adjacent Properties and Traffic 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;
• With respect to the proposed variance for the height of the structure, the proposed
543597v2 SJS LA515-1
variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish
property values. The structure would not be of such a height that it would begin to
shade neighboring properties or structures, nor would it impair air flow. Furthermore,
the height of a structure would not cause an increase of traffic or congestion of traffic.
• With respect to the proposed variance for the location of the structure, the proposed
variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish
property values. The location of the structure would not shade the neighboring
properties or structures, nor would it impair air flow. Furthermore, the location would
not cause an increase of traffic or congestion of traffic.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
1) Based on the above findings, which show that all of the variance criteria for the location
of the proposed accessory building have been met but have not been met for the requested
height variance. The City Council hereby approves the requested variance for the location
of an accessory building for the property located at 9447 Stillwater Blvd. and also denies
the requested height variance for the same accessory building. The conditions for approval
for variance approval are outlined below:
1. That the Applicant obtain all applicable permits including but not limited to a City building
permit including a grading, erosion control, and storm water management plan approved
by the City Engineer.
2. That the Applicant must reduce the height of the building to 22 ft. unless the property is
reclassified to Agricultural. If reclassified, the applicant can increase the structures height
to 25 ft.
3. If approved this variance approval is valid for 1 year and would expire on September 17th
2020 (leap year).
4. One of the other smaller accessory buildings noted on the survey must be removed prior to
the issuance of a building permit of the new accessory structure.
Passed and duly adopted this 1 7 th day of September, 2019 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
________________________________
Mayor Mike Pearson
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
543597v2 SJS LA515-1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE
OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO 2019-067
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY BUILDING TO BE TALLER THAN
22 FEET IN HEIGHT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9447 STILLWATER BLVD.
WHEREAS, Todd Alguire (the “Applicant”) of 9447 Stillwater Blvd, Lake Elmo MN 55042 (the
“Property”) has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the “City“) for a variance(s) to allow an
accessory building closer to the front lot line than the principle structure and for the accessory building to exceed 22 ft. in
height (or the height of the principle structure); and
WHEREAS, notice has been published , mailed, and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Code,
Section 154.109; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said variances on August
26th, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendations
with respect to the requested variances to the City Council as part of the City Staff Memorandum dated
September 17th, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the variances at its September 17th, 2019 meeting; and
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council
makes the following:
FINDINGS
1) That the procedures for obtaining a variance are found in the Section 154.109 of the Lake Elmo
Zoning Code.
2) That all submission requirement s of Section 154.109 of the Lake Elmo Zoning Code have been
met by the Applicants.
3) That the proposed variances include the following components:
a) That the proposed accessory building be located closer to the front property line than the
principle structure.
b) The height of the accessory building to exceed the maximum allowed accessory building height
of 22 ft. (or the height of the principle building) by 3 ft.
4) The City Council has approved a variance for the location of the proposed accessory building with
Resolution 2019-066.
5) The request for increased height fails to meet the variance criteria for a unique circumstance. The
City defines a unique circumstance as the following;
Unique Circumstances the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner;
• With respect to the proposed variance relating to the height of the structure the plight of the
Applicant is not unique and has been caused by the applicant. Staff has had difficulty
determining the unique circumstance that would warrant approval of the structures height.
The property is not currently used for agricultural purposes, beyond personal enjoyment.
543597v2 SJS LA515-1
Geographically the build site is relatively flat so there is not a conflict when measuring the
height of the building.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Based on the above findings, which show that all of the variance criteria for the height of the
proposed accessory building have not been met. The City Council hereby denies the requested
height variance for an accessory building for the property located at 9447 Stillwater Blvd.
Passed and duly adopted this 1 7 th day of September, 2019 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo,
Minnesota.
________________________________
Mayor Mike Pearson
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk