HomeMy WebLinkAbout#17 - Variance Amendment Request - 8950 Lake Jane TrailSTAFF REPORT
DATE: 9/15/2020
REGULAR
TO: City Council
FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Variance Condition Amendment(s) – 8950 Lake Jane Trail
REVIEWED BY: Ken Roberts, Planning Director
Planning Commission
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. The Planning Commission reviewed the request August 24th and has
provided its comments.
ISSUE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL:
The City Council is being asked to review and make a determination 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 – 9/4/2020
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 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.”
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.
2. A covenant shall be recorded on the deed of the site prior to the issuance of the 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. Minimized 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 the
property by Bob Mogren.
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.
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 clearing as the 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.
e) Grading in Shoreland Areas. All grading and filling activities must be in conformance with the
Wetland Conservation Act. Any grading or filling on steep slopes or within shore or bluff impact
zones involving the movement of ten (10) or more cubic yards of material or involving more than fifty
(50) cubic yards of material elsewhere in a shoreland area shall require the submission of a Grading
Permit. Approval shall be granted only if the following conditions are met: (See code for mentioned
conditions)
AGENCY REVIEW
All entities and departments who were provided information about the request either had no comment or have not
provided a response.
Original survey with boundary
of construction area.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Planning Commission Recommendation:
On August 24th, 2020, the Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the applicants’ request. After
reviewing the report, taking testimony from the applicants and residents during the public hearing, the
Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the request. Though one Commissioner does not speak for
all, Staff believes the Commissioners generally felt the existing conditions did indeed prohibit the property
owners from using the land and believe the conditions that were imposed by the original variances were
arbitrary. The findings used to support the Commission’s recommendation more or less echo this sentiment.
Technically speaking, the recommendation made by the Planning Commission in the motion that was
approved was to remove the covenants only. However, the way the conversation was conducted by the
Commission leads Staff to believe that the Commission also meant to amend the resolution as well. Some of
the conditions in the resolution to an extent mirror the covenants. Because of this, the 2002 resolution will
also need to be amended to have the intended impact. Should the Council agree with the Planning
Commission’s recommendation, Staff highly recommends amending the resolution by changing the conditions
or the removal of the covenants would only be a marginal accomplishment due to the fact that the resolution
and the conditions would still remain in effect. If the City Council is interested in amending the resolution, it
would need to remove conditions 1-4 and 7-9, as listed in Resolution 2002-106.
Planning Commission Motion:
Move to recommend removal of all covenants in place at 8950 Lake Jane Trail.
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS:
1. Find the comments of the applicants and neighbors truthful in detail.
2. Covenants are arbitrary.
3. The covenants deny the property owners enjoyment of their land.
4. Existing codes and enforcement of the codes are sufficient.
5. The DNR has provided no comment regarding the request of the applicants.
Staff Recommendation:
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. 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 of the property show a progression over time with
the May 2020 image being the most recent.
City staff believes the applicants’ is posing 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.
STAFF 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 to build a house on the property were not going to be
approved by the City unless the applicant agreed to preserve the natural conditions on 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 wanted to obtain approval to install 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. These are outlined below and will need to be corrected by the applicants. If the
covenants are removed some of the violations will cease to exist, such violations are listed in red:
1. The beach area on the property is substantially larger than what is allowed by the variance and the
restrictive covenant(s). The property owners will need to reduce the size of the beach to a width of 50 feet
and all vegetation that has been removed must be replanted. The code does not define the size a beach can
be, but it does limit the amount of grading and fill that can be brought into the impact zone, which is 10
cubic yards. A grading permit will be required (154.800 C. 7. e.).
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 as it is as being a public safety hazard, which is
determined by the discretion of the City.
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 size and location of the trees will be determined by the City Landscape
Architect.
4. The temporary driveway must be removed and remediated with vegetation or lawn grass.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
OPTIONS:
• Deny the variance amendment request.
• Deny the variance amendment request with amended findings of denial.
• Direct staff to draft a resolution approving the variance amendment request to bring back to the next City Council
meeting and provide findings of fact for approval to be incorporated into the resolution.
MOTIONS:
“Move to adopt Resolution No. 2020-082 denying the variance amendment request for the property located at 8950
Lake Jane Trail.”
OR
“Move to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the variance amendment request to bring back to the next City
Council meeting for approval, said resolution shall include the following findings of fact….”
ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution 2002-106 • Narrative • Denial Resolution
• Declaration of Covenants • Code Enforcement Letter •
• Property Survey • Aerial Images •
S00°49'42"E178±S00°53'21"E60.33S82°56'09"W
418.46N00°53'21"W105.56N00°49'42"W159±96°10'30"96°10'30"1989.64S00°53'21"ES00°49'42"E3256.25137.6321±73.0675.1230±33.1927.1446.74125.73
S82°56'09"W
CENTER LINE O
F
L
A
K
E
J
A
N
E
T
R
A
I
L
N
O
R
T
H
(
A
K
A
L
A
K
E
J
A
N
E
R
O
A
D
)
A
S
D
E
S
C
R
I
B
E
D
I
N
B
O
O
K
2
3
9
O
F
DEEDS, PAGE
1
7
A
N
D
A
S
S
H
O
W
N
O
N
T
H
E
P
L
A
T
S
O
F
L
A
K
E
J
A
N
E
M
A
N
O
R
N
O
.
1
A
N
D
L
A
K
E
J
A
N
E
H
I
L
L
S
33.1972.37S82°56'09"W
418.46
S82°56'09"W
418.46
S82°56'09"W
418.46
125.00
541.03
541.03
125.00
SHORE LINE OF LAKE JANE ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2015
GARA
GE
11.1
GRAVEL PARKING AREA
6±
7±
UTILITY POLE
UTILITY POLE
(UTILITIES APPEAR TO GO
UNDERGROUND AT POLE)SEPTIC TANK ACCESS COVERS
STONE WALL
1 - STORY FRA
M
E
H
O
U
S
E
(
W
A
L
K
O
U
T
)
GARAGE
CONCRETE
DRIVEWAYCONCRETE SID
E
W
A
L
K
CONCRETE
PATIO
CONC.
PATIO
FIRST FLOOR DECK
SPIRAL STAIRCASE
BOULDER RETAINING WALLS
BOULDER RETAINING WALL
STONE WALL
STONE WA
L
L
CONCRETE STEPS
COVERED POR
C
HBOULDER RETAINING WALLS
BOULDER RETAINING WALLS
FOUNTAIN
LANDSCAPING
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
STORMWATER INLET GRATE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
O
F
L
A
K
E
J
A
N
E
T
R
A
I
L
N
O
R
T
H
(
A
K
A
L
A
K
E
J
A
N
E
R
O
A
D
)
AS DESCRIBED
I
N
B
O
O
K
2
3
9
O
F
D
E
E
D
S
,
P
A
G
E
1
7
9
0
°
9
0
°
9
0
°90°930
940
92
2
92
4
926
928
932
934
936
938
942
944
930
940
922
924
926
928
932
934
936938
942
944WEST LINE OF THE EAST 541.03 FEET OF GOV'T LOT 7WEST LINE OF THE EAST 125.00 FEET OF GOV'T LOT 7EAST LINE OF GOV'T LOT 7EAST LINE OF LAKE JANE MANOR NO. 1EXCEPTION
EDGE OF BIT
U
M
I
N
O
U
S
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
INPLACE 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE MONUMENT MARKED WITH
A PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED "RLS 3960 (C. GEORGI)
INPLACE 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE MONUMENT MARKED WITH A
PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED "FREEMAN/ RLS 16989 (T. FREEMAN)
INPLACE 1-1/2 INCH IRON PIPE MONUMENT
0.28 WEST AND 0.08 SOUTH OF CORNER
(DID NOT SET ADDITIONAL MONUMENT)25.027.512.72.0
15.612.2
1.5
16.2
1.6 44.7
1.5
11.7
1.5
7.3 4.0
2.0
2.0
9.2
2.0
1.5
2.0
9.2
2.0
1.5
2.0
9.0
2.0
2.026.229.312.113.0
6.125.64.122.4
4.134.1
5.621.0
CONC. STEPS
416.03
9
0
°
132.1
E-OE-OE-OE-O333333333340
OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES
(NO APPARENT EASEMENT OF RECORD)
ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE - ELEVATION 924 FEET
25
25
31.3
31.3
BOUNDARY OF
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
E
R
D
O
C
.
N
O
.
3
3
1
6
4
6
0
50 FOOT CORR
I
D
O
R
I
N
DOC. NO. 3316
4
6
0
138.00S07°03'51"E187.00
S82°56'09"W
138.00S07°03'51"E112.00
187.00
9
0
°
L
E
F
T
9
0
°
RI
G
H
T 90°RIGHT0
SCALE IN FEET
10 20 40
N
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN, OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND
THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
DAVID L. DUPAY
DATE: 09/21/2015 LICENSE # 17252
Plot Date: 07/12/2020Drawing name: X:\0155_Meisterling\08_CAD_Meisterling\MeisterlingCertificate_Rev-Covenant.dwgXrefs:NO DATE BY REVISION
BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVEY
@
8950 LAKE JANE TRAIL NORTH
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
DESIGN BY DRAWN BY
DLD DLD
SHEET 01 OF 01 SHEETS
STEVEN W. & HAILEE N.
MEISTERLING
8950 LAKE JANE TRAIL NORTH
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
BDI PROJECT NO.
0155-001
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
2315 PERIWINKLE AVENUE NORTH
STILLWATER, MN 55082-1634
(651) 436-1787 davedupay@comcast.net
INDICATES 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE SET AND MARKED WITH A PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED
"DUPAY - RLS 17252".
INDICATES AN INPLACE IRON PIPE MONUMENT SIZE AND MARKED AS SHOWN HEREON.
INDICATES WASHINGTON COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT
UNDERGROUND OR OVERHEAD PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITIES ON OR ADJACENT THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED PARCEL WERE NOT LOCATED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS SURVEY, UNLESS SHOWN
OR NOTED OTHERWISE.
OFFSETS SHOW TO EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE MEASURED TO THE OUTSIDE BUILDING WALL
LINE, UNLESS SHOWN OR NOTED OTHERWISE. ANY PROJECTIONS FROM SAID WALL LINE SUCH
AS EAVES, SILLS, DECKS, ETC., WILL IMPACT THESE OFFSETS ACCORDINGLY.
CONTOURS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON LIDAR INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE DNR
LIDAR PORTAL AND ADJUSTED TO FIT FIELD SURVEY CHECK ELEVATIONS. ELEVATION ARE BASED
ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM, 1988 ADJUSTMENT.
LEGEND
WASHINGTON COUNTY CIM AT THE
NE CORNER OF SECTION 9, T29N-R21W
WASHINGTON COUNTY CIM AT THE
MEANDER CORNER 17 OF T29N-R21W
WASHINGTON COUNTY CIM AT THE
SE CORNER OF SECTION 9, T29N-R21W
425±
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RECORD
(Document No. 4008504)
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
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.
NOTES:
There is a gravel parking area which encroaches onto this property near the southwest corner thereof.
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
County Recorder.
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
Deeds, page 17, as recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota. The deed states that its is for road purposes,
which in my opinion is a conveyance of an easement and not fee title.
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
along this line. I have surveyed the west line of this property to conform to the present Washington County section subdivision which would have
an angle at Meander Corner 17 along the east line of Section 9. I believe there is no conflict along this line, because the call on the plat is also to a
line that is 541.03 west of the east line of the Section.
LAKE JANE TR
A
I
L
N
O
R
T
H
(
A
K
A
L
A
K
E
J
A
N
E
R
O
A
D
)JAMACAAVENUENORTHL A K E J A N E
DNR DESGNATION:82-104P
100 - YEAR FLOOD 926 FEET
NORMAL LEVEL 922.35 FEET
ORDINARY HIGH WATER 924 FEET
(PER INFORMATION FROM VALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN)
1 07/12/2020 DLD ADD DECLARATION OF COVENANTS IN DOC. NO. 3316460
3880 Laverne Avenue North • Lake Elmo • Minnesota 55042
Phone: (651) 747-3900 • www.lakeelmo.org
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.
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 10th, 2020. Staff will conduct a
follow up inspection of the property after July 9th 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.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO 2020 - 082
A RESOLUTION APPROVING DENIAL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS REQUEST AT 8950 LAKE
JANE TRL. TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS AND COVENANTS APPLIED THROUGH RESOLUTION
2002-106.
WHEREAS, Steven and Hailee Meisterling (the “Applicant”) of 8950 Lake Jane Trail N., Lake
Elmo MN 55042 (the “Property”) has submitted a request to the City of Lake Elmo (the “City“) to amend
conditions and covenants that were applied to their property through a 2002 variance approval (Res. 2002-106)
which allowed the construction of the existing home on the lot; 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 amendment
request on August 24th, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendations
with respect to the requested amendment(s) to the City Council as part of the City Staff Memorandum dated
September 15th, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the amendment request at its September 15th, 2020
meeting; and
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City
Council makes the following findings:
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 to build a house on the property were not going to be
approved by the City unless the applicant agreed to preserve the natural conditions on 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 wanted to obtain approval to install
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.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Based on the above findings, the City Council hereby denies the request to amend the conditions
of Resolution 2002-106 for the property located at 8950 Lake Jane Trl. N. Further action is
hereby required for the property owners of 8950 Lake Jane Trl. as outlined below:
1. The beach area on the property is substantially larger than what is allowed by the variance and the
restrictive covenant(s). The property owners will need to reduce the size of the beach to a width of
50 feet and all vegetation that has been removed must be replanted. The code does not define the
size a beach can be, but it does limit the amount of grading and fill that can be brought into the
impact zone, which is 10 cubic yards. A grading permit will be required (154.800 C. 7. e.).
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 as it is as being a public
safety hazard, which is determined by the discretion of the City.
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 size and location of the trees will be determined by
the City Landscape Architect.
4. The temporary driveway must be removed and remediated with vegetation or lawn grass.
Passed and duly adopted this 1 5 th day of September, 2020 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
___________________________________
Mayor Mike Pearson
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk