HomeMy WebLinkAboutFull Packet
3880 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 747-3900
www.lakeelmo.gov
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday January 27th, 2025
at 6:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes of January 13th, 2025
4. Public Hearing
a) Chavez Property Variances. Joe and Joan Chavez have submitted a variance application
for seven (7) deviations from the City’s Shoreland Overlay District (LEC 105.12.1260) for
the property located at PID 14.029.21.24.0004 and Outlot B of NorthStar. The variances
are for the construction of a new single family home on a bluff near Sunfish Lake.
b) Zoning Text Amendment. The City of Lake Elmo has initiated a housekeeping zoning text
amendment. These are typically done annually to clean up and clarify code. This
amendment includes section: 105.12.110, 1.08.010, 105.12.410, 105.12.440, 105.12.200,
103.00.060, and 105.12.190.
5. New/Unfinished Business
a) N/A
6. Communications/Updates
a) City Council Updates
i. N/A
b) Upcoming Meetings
i. February 10th, 2025
ii. March 24th, 2025
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.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: 1-13-25
City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting
City Council Chambers – 3880 Laverne Avenue North
Minutes of Regular Meeting of
January 13, 2025
CALL TO ORDER: Commission Chair Rehkamp called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 6:30 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Amed, Bohlig, Char, Dunn, Rehkamp, Vrieze
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director, Jason Stopa, Senior City Planner Sophia Jensen
Pledge of Allegiance at 6:30 PM
Planning Commission Appointments:
M/S/P: Vrieze / Char nominated Commissioner Rehkamp as Chair for 2025. Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously
M/S/P: Vrieze / Bohlig nominated Commissioner Char as Vice Chair for 2025. Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously
Approve Agenda:
M/S/P: Dunn / Vrieze made a motion to approve the agenda with an amendment tabling the Chavez Property Variance
public hearing to 1-27-25. Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously
Approve Minutes:
M/S/P: Vrieze/Bohlig made a motion to approve the 11-25-24 meeting minutes. Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing: (Mr. Chavez requested moving the hearing to 1-27-25 so that he is able to attend)
a) Chavez Property Variances. Joe and Joan Chavez have submitted a variance application for seven (7) deviations from
the City’s Shoreland Overlay District (LEC 105.12.1260) for the property located at PID 14.029.21.24.0004. The
variances are for the construction of a new single family home on a bluff near Sunfish Lake. (Formal Public Hearing to
be held at City Council Meeting 1/21/2025)
New/Unfinished Business
n/a
Communications/Updates
a) Goal Setting Commissioner Representative – Commissioner Rehkamp
b) City Council Updates – 1/2/24
i. Royal Golf CUPs and Variance – 12-3-2024 – passed
ii. Cannabis Ordinance – 12-3-2024 – passed
iii. Landscape Ordinance Amendments – 12-3-20204 – Tabled to February
b)
Upcoming Meetings
• January 27th, 2025
• February 10th, 2025
• February 11th, 2025: Joint Planning Commission and City Council Workshop
Meeting adjourned at 6:34 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Wendt
Permit Technician
LA515\1\997078.v1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 1/27/2025
REGULAR
ITEM#: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sophia Jensen, Senior City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Variance Requests – Chavez Property
REVIEWED BY Jason Stopa, Community Development Director
Sarah Sonsalla, City Attorney
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:
Joe and Joan Chavez ( the “Applicants”) submitted a variance application for seven (7)
deviations from the City’s Shoreland Management Overlay District Code (Section 105.12.1260)
for the property located at 14.029.21.24.0004 (“Chavez Parcel”) and
14.029.21.13.0023 (“Northstar Outlot B”). The property is 11.2 acres in size with ~1.37 acres
above the Ordinary High-Water Level (“OHWL”). The site is currently undeveloped with
heavily vegetated steep slopes down to Sunfish Lake. The Applicants have owned the Chavez
Parcel since 1993. The Northstar Outlot B parcel was platted as part of Northstar 1st Addition in
2024. The Chavez Parcel and Northstar Outlot B parcel will receive access and utility stubs
through the Northstar 2nd Addition, however, currently there is no public street access and there
is no public water and sanitary sewer access. Access to public streets, public water, and public
sanitary sewer will not be available to these parcels until future phases of the Northstar
subdivision are platted and recorded. Northstar 2nd Addition applications were submitted but
have not been reviewed or approved by City Council at this time.
The City Council approved a comprehensive plan amendment and zoning map amendment in
2024 (Ordinance 2024-10 and Resolution 2024-059) to allow the Chavez Parcel and the
Northstar Outlot B parcel to be combined without split zoning (RR and V-LDR). In that report,
City Staff advised the Applicants work with the Northstar developer to create an outlot shape
that would reduce or eliminate the need for variances. The Applicants are requesting to proceed
with the existing outlot shape which is requiring seven deviations.
The Applicants are looking to receive land use approvals so that they can sell the property as a
buildable single family residential lot. Per Section 105.12.320 of the City Code, variances expire
if work does not commence within 12 months of the date of granting the variance. If approved,
the variances would likely expire because the parcels do not have access to a public street or
public water or sanitary sewer so they will not be able to be built upon during this timeframe.
Also, since the Applicants are not the proposed builder, the site design may also be subject to
change which may necessitate additional variances or changes to the variances that have been
granted.
2
LA515\1\997078.v1
Below is a table outlining the required criteria, the existing conditions, and what the Applicants
are proposing:
Request Required Proposed
105.12.1260 Table 17-3 - OHWL Structure Setback 150’ 120’
105.12.1260 Table 17-3 - Structure Setbacks from Bluff 30’ In Bluff
105.12.1260 (7)(a) - Principal Structure In Bluff Area Not Permitted In Bluff
105.12.1260 (7)(c) - Vegetative Clearing In Bluff Impact
Zone/Steep Slopes
Not Permitted Proposed
105.12.1260 (5)(a) – Subdivision Standards, Suitable Lot Not Permitted Proposed
105.12.1260 (5)(b) Subdivision Standards, Variances Required Not Permitted Proposed
105.12.1260 (7)(e) - Grading In Shoreland Areas Not Permitted Proposed
ISSUE BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing, review, and make a
recommendation on the variance requests.
VARIANCE REQUEST DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Applicant:
Owner:
Joe and Joan Chavez
Joe and Joan Chavez (PID 14.029.21.24.0004) and GWSA Craig Allen (Outlot B)
Address/PID:
Requests:
14.029.21.24.0004 and Outlot B
The Applicants are seeking seven deviations from the City’s shoreland standards (LEC
105.12.1260)
Existing Zoning: Village Low Density Residential (VLDR), Shoreland Overlay District, VBWD
Surrounding
Zoning:
North: Open Space Planned Unit Development (OP PUD) Hamlet on Sunfish
South: Sunfish Lake
East: Village Low Density Residential (V LDR) Northstar
West: Sunfish Lake
Deadline for
Action:
Application Complete – 11/26/2024
60 Day Deadline – 1/25/2025
City Council Date – 1/21/2025
Applicable
Regulations:
Article V - Zoning Administration and Enforcement
Article XII – Urban Districts
Article XIX – Shoreland Overlay District
DRAFT FINDINGS:
An applicant for a variance must establish and demonstrate compliance with all four of the
variance criteria set forth in Lake Elmo City Code Section 105.12.320 before the City may grant
an exception or modification to City Code requirements. These criteria are listed below, along
with comments from City Staff about the applicability of these criteria to the Applicants’ 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.
3
LA515\1\997078.v1
The practical difficulties criteria is about what is reasonable given the purpose of the
ordinance, not what is reasonable to the applicant. The request should be the minimum
necessary to achieve the purpose of the ordinance. Enjoyment of the parcel in its natural
state, building a smaller house, moving the house further from the lake, or even using the
property as an access to Sunfish Lake, are sufficient uses of the property. Staff finds that
constructing a large single family home is not a necessity in this sensitive natural area.
Practical Difficulties Criteria is not met.
2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner must be due to circumstances unique
to the property not created by the landowner.
Staff understands that the Applicants have owned this property for many years and did not
create their parcel. While the bluff setback requirements and shoreland overlay restrictions
may have not been in place when the property was purchased, any future development is
required to adhere to them. In addition, the Applicants have the ability to acquire additional
property by revising the outlot shape within NorthStar to create a site design that requires
minimal or no variances. The Applicants may also change the location of the house or
decrease its size. The Applicants have not demonstrated any attempts to avoid variances
based on the size or placement of the home or attempts to acquire more property. Unique
Circumstances Criteria is not met.
3) Character of Locality. The proposed variance must not alter the essential character of the
locality in which the property in question is located.
The Applicants are proposing to develop their property that is situated within a natural bluff
and shoreland area citing that there are existing adjacent residential homes. Staff finds that
the existing homes along the South and West were built many years ago, likely under
different less restrictive requirements. Development on the North and East side of the lake,
adjacent to this parcel, such as Hamlet on Sunfish Lake and Northstar were developed to
avoid these sensitive areas. This request directly conflicts with the bluff and shoreland
regulations that were implemented to protect these sensitive areas. Character of Locality
Criteria is not met.
4) Adjacent Properties and Traffic. The proposed variance must 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.
Although no streets or infrastructure are currently in place to accommodate this request, the
request would only add one single family home. Given that the request only consists of the
construction of one home, there should not be an increase in congestion on a public street or
will the proposed home substantially diminish adjacent property values. Adjacent Properties
and Traffic Criteria is met.
CITY AGENCY REVIEW:
This request was distributed to several departments and agencies for review on December 2nd
2024. The following departments and agencies provided comments on the variance requests.
• Landscape Architect Memo 12/13/24 – The LSA provided a memo recommending denial
of the variance requests outlining concerns with the vegetative clearing and grading in the
shoreland impact zones and erosion of the area. The proposed development of the parcel
4
LA515\1\997078.v1
is inconsistent with the intent of the shoreland overlay and bluff setback zones. Any
development would require major grading, tree removals, and topographic changes to
very sensitive slopes.
• City Engineer Memo 12/16/24- Provided a memo recommending denial of the variances.
The City Engineer outlined concerns with the requests being premature because none of
the public infrastructure that would serve the property (water, sewer, street) has been
approved by the City or constructed at this time and they are subject to change. The
memo also provided 10 findings related to the infrastructure installation, stormwater
management, and numerous off-site easement requirements (these easements have not
been secured by the Applicants).
• MN DNR Memo 12/16/24- Provided a memo recommending denial of the variance. The
memo cites concerns with the requests not meeting the statutory practical difficulties or
essential character criteria. The memo outlines the DNR’s concerns with the variances’
impacts to the natural area including the lake and the water quality of the lake.
• Valley Branch Watershed District Email 12/16/24- Provided a comment that a VBWD
permit would be required.
• Fire Department- Did not provide comments on the request.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
A hearing notice was sent to surrounding properties on January 6th, 2025. A hearing notice was
published in the local newspaper on January 10th, 2025.
The item was tabled by the Planning Commission on January 13th, 2025. A new public hearing
notice was sent to souring property owners on January 14th, 2025, and published in the local
paper on January 17th, 2025. Below is a summary of the comments received:
1. Craig Allen (Gonyea Companies) provided written public comment that, while he signed
off on the variance application as the owner of Northstar Outlot B and has provided
access to the lot with the development of the Northstar subdivision to help Mr. Chavez,
he would like to put on the record he is not supporting the current design and
encroachment onto his property. It is his position that any drainage structures should be
fully contained within Northstar Outlot B. He is indifferent to the outlot design.
FISCAL IMPACT:
• None
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS – IF RECCOMENDING APPROVAL
1. The Applicants must obtain all other necessary City, State, VBWD, and other governing
body permits and approvals prior to construction.
2. The property must be connected to sanitary sewer and water with Northstar 2nd Addition
once it is made available and pay applicable connection fees.
3. There must be access to an improved public street prior to construction.
4. The Applicants must record the approval resolution with the Washington County
Property Records Department to inform future buyers of the approval and expiration.
5. The property must dedicate the necessary drainage and utility easements and the
Applicants must acquire any required off-site easements to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and Public Works Director.
5
LA515\1\997078.v1
6. If approved, all variances shall expire if work does not commence within 12 months of
the date of granting the variances.
OPTIONS:
The Planning Commission may:
• Recommend approval of the variances with conditions citing recommended conditions
and findings of fact for approval.
• Recommend denial of the variances, citing recommended findings of fact for denial.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance requests since
they do not meet all four of the required criteria outlined above and based upon agency review
comments. Suggested motions:
“Move to recommend denial of all of the seven shoreland variance requests from Joe and Joan
Chavez for the property located at 14.029.21.24.0004 and Outlot B of Northstar 1st Addition based
on the findings listed in the Staff Report.”
If the Planning Commission would like to recommend approval of the request staff has proposed the
following motion:
“Move to recommend approval of all of the seven shoreland variance requests from Joe and Joan
Chavez for the property located at 14.029.21.24.0004 and Outlot B of Northstar 1st Addition with
the conditions listed in the Staff Report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Location Map
2) Land Use Application and Plans
3) LSA Memo (12/13/24)
4) DNR Memo (12/16/24)
5) City Engineer Memo (12/16/24)
6) VBWD Email (12/16/24)
7) Public Comment
SunfishLake
38THSTN
10550
36403607
3509
3567
3551
3597
3533
3505
3681
3503
3704
10720
10722
10608
10620
10632
10701
10711
10719
10729
107471076710783
10609
10790
3720
3736
ArcGIS Web AppBuilder
Parcels
Municipals
DNR Protected Waters ID
12/18/2024, 10:14:58 AM
0 0.05 0.10.03 mi
0 0.09 0.170.04 km
1:4,514
Washington County, MN |
Variance Application
Item:
1. Land use application form
2.
a. Jose & Joan Chavez are owners of PID 14.029.21.24.0004 and Outlot B
which is the access is owned by the developer Gonyea Company
represented by Craig Allen
b. Section 14 Township 029 Range 021 PT OF E1/2-NE1/4 DESC AS
FOLL BEG:AT SE COR OF N 83 RODS OF SD E1/2 NW1/4 THN W
ALONG S LINE OF SD N 83 RODS FOR 890FT THN S & PAR WITH E
LINE OF SD E1/2-NW1/4 FOR 350FT THN SELY IN DIRECT LINE TO
PT ON SD E LINE OF 31/2-NW1/4 SD PT BEING 750FT S
Additionally Outlot B is owned by the developer Gonyea Company
represented by Craig Allen
105.12.1260 Table 17-3 OHWL Setback
The plan shows the home well above the 100-year flood level of
the lake. The survey also illustrates the DNR 150’ Natural
Environmental Lake OHWL setback line. Most of the homes on
the west side of Sunfish did not meet this standard and this
requirement which more than likely was created after the
creation of this parcel. I have attached a map of the homes on
the west side of the lake (See Exhibit B ) that were all clearly
built on bluffs and slopes. There was only one home site that I
am aware of that required a variance (3681 Kelvin Ave N).
105.12.1260 Table 17-3 30’ Bluff Setback
According to an assessment by the VBWD, the plan shows the
home well above the 100 year-year flood level of the lake. VBWD
requires an AVERAGE vegetative buffer of 100 feet and a
MINIMUM vegetative buffer of 25 feet upland from the DNR’s
OHW (896.4), which appears achievable (see Exhibit C). To
construct this proposed home, driveway, walls and the storm
water management features we will be grading within the 30’
bluff setback and the 150’ natural environmental lake setback
105.121260.(7)(a) Principal Structure in Bluff Zone
Although the proposed principal structure is in the bluff zone the
survey illustrates several proposed improvement areas (i.e.,
house, deck, entrance, driveway and walls). The survey also
includes a site/grading plan to demonstrate a house can be built
on this parcel.
12.1260(7)(c) Vegetative clearing in bluff impact zone/steep
slopes
The survey clearly illustrates a silt fence above the OHW and also
above the Bluff line 18% slope along with a rain garden to
prevent any erosion into the lake, preserve shoreland aesthetics,
preserve historic values to maintain it’s pristine condition.
105.12.1260(5)(a) Subdivision standards suitable lot
The Variance request will require to combine Outlot B and the
Chavez parcel into 1 lot.
105.12.1260(5)(b) Subdivision of lots that require 1 or more
variances
Nothing I, or my predecessors did created the need for a
variance—the later imposition of bluff land setbacks that
interfere with placement of a house on a lot that was lawfully
created. We did not change the surface of the land or the
position of any bluff or steep slopes, did not erect any structures
and the lot it exists in its natural state, not to mention its
approved subdivided state. This is precisely the situation
where variances are strongly compelled.
105.12.1260(7)(e) Grading in shoreland areas
The survey clearly depicts Sod or Seed with approved mixture or
sod all disturbed areas after grading is completed. Additionally,
Rain Garden #2 has been strategically located that will provide
management practice that will provide treatment needed to
conform to the VBWD Rules and Regulations.
c. A Specific written description of the proposal and how it varies
from the applicable provisions of Lake Elmo Code.
Please refer to the above 2c response that specifically address the
Lake Elmo Code.
d. Narrative of discussion with staff
I have met with the City Planner and the Community Development
Director initially on October 12, 2024 and November 20, 2024 to
discuss the Variance Requirements before submitting the request.
In both meeting I shared the various documents I intended to
submit which included the parcel survey and other related
documents. The City Planner responded with the specific
Variances that would be required in the Variance submission.
e. Explain why the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause
practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the
individual property under consideration.
There are no viable solutions other than to request a variance.
This is a lot of record prior to the 1980’s before the current
regulations were in affect.
Nothing I, or my predecessors did create the need for a variance—
the later imposition of bluff land setbacks that interfere with
placement of a house on a lot that was lawfully created. We did
not change the surface of the land or the position of any bluff or
steep slopes, did not erect any structures and the lot it exists in its
natural state, not to mention its approved subdivided state
f. Explain why the plight of the landowner is due circumstances
unique to the property and not created by the landowner.
The landowner’s problem is due to circumstances unique to the
property and not created by the landowner. The variance will not
alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
g. Justify that granting of the variance would not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood.
By granting the variance the survey includes considerations that
would not alter the essential character of the planned North Star
Phase I development project, which is currently underway. We
have worked closely with the developer to integrate Outlot B to
provide access to the parcel that does not alter the character of
the neighborhood. The actual placement of the proposed home
site is setback so that it provides a high level of privacy that does
not distract from the neighborhood or the shoreline.
The proposed home site plan will obviously not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood. Currently, the neighborhood is
slated to be developed with substantial housing, roads and other
infrastructure.
As it relates to the lake—there are numerous houses that exist or
were built or were expanded on lots like that and within bluff
land and other setbacks. Simply put, historical creation and
development of homes and outbuildings has been allowed
extensively in this area. It will not change the essential
character of the neighborhood in any way to use this lot for its
intended purpose-development of a single- family lakeshore
home.
Examples of pre-existing lots were homes were built are
illustrated in the map provided in this packet. All of those homes
were built in the 70’s, 80’s and even early 90’s. Depictions of
these homes are shown in Exhibit B.
3. Verification of ownership
a. See attached Warranty Deed & Quick Claim Deed (Exhibit D)
4. Address Labels
a. See attached labels
5. Three (3) plan size copies
a. See attached Survey, Slope Exhibit and electronic copies
6. Other Information for the City
Exhibit A
Detailed Reason For Request
The primary reason for requesting a Variance(s) is to demonstrate a home can be
built on this parcel. My intent is not to build a home on this parcel but to confirm
the parcel is a buildable lot for resale purposes.
The parcel for which seek variance approvals to build was created in 1980. The
property was confirmed by deed on January 16, 1980 and the conveyance
specifically confirmed as ”entitled to recording and subdividing” by the City of Lake
Elmo (See Exhibit A1 – Stamp bearing approval on deed). Because parcel property
is a pre-existing of record and it would not be reasonable or lawful for it to be
denied all variances necessary to allow it to be reasonably built upon in the future
We are requested multiple variances for this parcel. We have owned the parcel
since 1993 (See verification of ownership on Exhibit D). This parcel has been land
locked until the recent NorthStar Phase I and Phase II developments were approved.
The developer has designated Outlot B to access the parcel and has co-signed the
Variance Request. The parcel has been rezoned to Low Density Residential (V-LDR)
and a Metropolitan Council plan amendment has been approved.
The parcel is 11.2 acres, although only 1.21 acres are above the Ordinary High-
Water Level (OHWL) it is a suitable home site which can be developed regardless of
the bluff and slope requirements of the City.
The General Variance Standards are met here and it is a typical scenario
where variances should be granted.
As you are aware there are three underlying inquiries:
• The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner (here
a single family home);
• The landowner’s problem is due to circumstances unique to the property and
not created by the landowner;
• The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
All of these criteria are readily met here:
A single family home is reasonable, necessary and common in this area.
Nothing I, or my predecessors did create the need for a variance—the later
imposition of bluff land setbacks that interfere with placement of a house on a lot
that was lawfully created. We did not change the surface of the land or the position
of any bluff or steep slopes, did not erect any structures and the lot it exists in its
natural state, not to mention its approved subdivided state. This is precisely the
situation where variances are strongly compelled.
Building of this house will obviously not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. Here, the neighborhood is slated to be developed with substantial
housing, roads and other infrastructure. As relates to the lake—there are
numerous houses that exist or were built or were expanded on lots like that and
within bluff land and other setbacks. Simply put, historical creation and
development of homes and outbuildings has been allowed extensively in this area.
It will not change the essential character of the neighborhood in any way to use this
lot for its intended purpose-development of a single-family lakeshore home.
Examples of pre-existing lots were homes were built are illustrated in Exhibit B
provided in the Variance packet. All of those homes were built in the 70’s, 80’s and
even early 90’s.
PROPOSED HOUSE2,437 SQ.FT. FOOTPRINT
100'
O
H
W
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
LI
N
E
PARCEL LINESLOPES
G
RE
A
TE
R
T
H
A
N
2
5
%
44
122445 34
(9' POURED FOUNDATION)
DECK
PROPOSED LOT
XX
X
X"RCP BY
OTHERS
DRAINAGE AND
EASEMENT TOBE PROVIDED
X
29DRAINAGE ANDUTILITYEASEMENT TOBE PROVIDED
X
X
13
10'20'TW=954.0BW=950.0
TW=950.0BW=948.0
TW=952.9BW=949.3
XGARAGEFLOOR=954.3
WALKOUT=946.0PROPOSEDSERVICESHOUSELOCATIONAND SIZE
SUBJECT TOCHANGE
WALKOUT=946.0
954.0
945.5
954.2
950.7947.
8
947.0
953.5
954.0
952.9
952.3
945.5
948 950948950 3.2%952
5.2%954
2.0%952 95094
8
.
5
952950944.0
942.5
X
X
XXXX
X X
X
X
XX X
X
X
XX X
XX 2221
Slopes Table
LAND SURVEYING, INC.
CORNERSTONE
Suite #1
6750 Stillwater Blvd. N.
Stillwater, MN 55082
Phone 651.275.8969
Fax 651.275.8976
dan@
cssurvey
.net
0
NORTH
20 40
SLOPE EXHIBIT
PROPOSED LOTS AS SHOWNON DEVELOPMENT PLANFROM SATHRE-BERGQUISTDATED 11-6-23SUNFISH LAKESLOPES GREATER THAN 25%ΔPROPOSED LOTS AS SHOWNON DEVELOPMENT PLANFROM SATHRE-BERGQUISTDATED 11-6-23PROPOSED STREETSET OFFSET HUBPROPOSED ELEVATIONPROPOSED CONTOURPROPOSED DRAINAGEDENOTES EXISTING ELEV.DENOTES SILT FENCEEXISTING CONTOURS150'PROPOSED HOUSE2,437 SQ.FT. FOOTPRINT100'
OHW
BUFFER
L
INE
PARCEL LINE
441224 45
34(9' POURED FOUNDATION)DECKPROPOSED LOTPROPOSED LOTPROPOSED STREETXXXX"RCP BYOTHERSXDRAINAGE ANDUTILITYEASEMENT TOBE PROVIDEDX29
DRAINAGE ANDUTILITYEASEMENT TOBE PROVIDEDXX1310'20'TW=954.0BW=950.0TW=950.0BW=948.0TW=952.9BW=949.3XGARAGEFLOOR=954.3WALKOUT=946.0PROPOSEDUTILITYSERVICESHOUSELOCATIONAND SIZESUBJECT TOCHANGEWALKOUT=946.0PROPOSEDDRIVEWAYXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX2
2
21XXXXXXX12'12'6'5'6'30'ROCKCONSTRUCTIONENTRANCE SEEDETAIL #2SILT FENCE SEEDETAIL #1SOD OR SEED WITHAPPROVED MIXTURE ORSOD ALL DISTURBEDAREAS AFTER GRADING ISCOMPLETED.RAIN GARDEN #1TOP-950.0 AREA =203 SQ.FT.BOT-948.5 AREA =70 SQ.FT.VOL.= 204 CU.FT.(Or an equivalent bestmanagement practice that willprovide treatment needed toconform to the VBWD Rules andRegulations)SILT FENCE SEEDETAIL #1SILT FENCE SEEDETAIL #1SILT FENCE SEEDETAIL #1SOD OR SEED WITHAPPROVED MIXTURE ORSOD ALL DISTURBEDAREAS AFTER GRADING ISCOMPLETED.PROPOSEDSANITARY SEWERAND WATERSERVICES BYOTHERSRAIN GARDEN #2TOP-944.0 AREA =201 SQ.FT.BOT-942.5 AREA =36 SQ.FT.VOL.= 178 CU.FT.(Or an equivalent bestmanagement practice that willprovide treatment needed toconform to the VBWD Rules andRegulations)150' OHWL SEBACK LINEFOR NATURALENVIRONMENTAL LAKESWATERSHED100' BUFFERSETBACK LINE150' OHWL SEBACK LINEFOR NATURALENVIRONMENTAL LAKESDNR 30'BLUFFSETBACK LINE948950
94
8950 3.2%9549525.2%9542.0%95295
0
948.5952950944.0942.5954.0945.5954.2950.7947.8947.0954.1953.5954.0952.9952.3945.5954DNR TOP
OFBLUFF L
INE
30'DNR TOP
OFBLUFF L
INEDNR 30'BLUFFSETBACK LINEPID#1402921240004CONTACT:JOE CHAVEZ3505 KELVIN AVE. N.LAKE ELMO, MN 55072Phone: 612-801-6360JZCHAVEZ@HOTMAIL.COMZZ17472SURVZZ472SITEPLANCOUNTY/CITY:REVISIONS:PROJECT LOCATION:LAND SURVEYING, INC.CORNERSTONESuite #16750 Stillwater Blvd. N.Stillwater, MN 55082Phone 651.275.8969Fax 651.275.8976dan@cssurvey.netDATEREVISIONPROJECT NO.FILE NAMECITY OF LAKE ELMOWASHINGTONCOUNTY9-25-17INITIAL ISSUECERTIFICATION:I hereby certify that this plan was prepared byme, or under my direct supervision, and that I ama duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws ofthe state of Minnesota.Daniel L. Thurmes Registration Number: 25718Date:__________________CHAVEZPARCEL0NORTH801609-25-170NORTH
2040PRELIM
INARY AREAS:CHAVEZ PARCEL AREA = 489,500 SQ.FT. / 11.24 ACRESNORTHSAR OUTLOT B FROM DEVELOPER = 7,448 SQ.FT. / 0.17 ACRESTOTAL AREA = 496,948 SQ.FT. / 11.41 ACRESAREA ABOVE OHW = 59,467 SQ.FT./1.37 ACRES10-9-17AREASSEEDETAIL10-25-23REVISEDDETAILSURVEY NOTES:1.BEARINGS ARE BASED ON WASHINGTON COUNTYCOORDINATES (NAD83).2.2' CONTOURS SHOWN PER DNR LIDAR DATA OBTAINEDFROM THE MNTOPO WEBSITE. NOT FIELD VERIFIED. FIELDTOPOGRAPHY DATED 8-19-24 IN AREAS OF TREELOCATION AND SPOT ELEVATIONS.3.EASEMENTS LIMITED TO THOSE SHOWN ON COUNTYPARCEL MAPPING AND THE PLAT OF NORTSTAR ARESHOWN. NO TITLE OPINION OR TITLE COMMITMENT WASPROVIDED THAT WOULD SHOW EASEMENTS ORENCUMBRANCES OF RECORD.4.UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOT SHOWN.12-26-23PROPOSED GRADESFROM DEVELOPEROVERALLPARCELEXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONCHAVEZ PARCEL - PID#1402921240004(AS SHOWN ON WARRANTY DEED DOC. NO. 758413All that part of the East One-Half of the Northwest Quarter (E 1/2 of NW 1/4) ofSection Fourteen (14), in Township Twenty-Nine (29) North, of RangeTwenty-One (21) West, City of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota,described as follows:Beginning at the southeast corner of the North Eighty-Three (83.00) rods ofthe said East One-Half of the Northwest Quarter (E 1/2 of NW 1/4) of SectionFourteen (14), Township Twenty-Nine (29) North, Range Twenty-One (21)West, Washington County, Minnesota; thence west along the south line ofsaid North Eighty-Three (83.00) rods for Eight Hundred Ninety (890.00) feet;thence south and parallel with the east line of said East One-Half of thenorthwest Quarter (E1/2 of NW 1/4) for Three Hundred Fifty (350.00) feet;thence southeasterly in a direct line to a point on said east line of the EastOne-Half of the Northwest Quarter (E 1/2 of NW 1/4), said point being SevenHundred Fifty (750.00) feet south of the point of beginning; thence northalong said east line of the East One-Half of the Northwest Quarter (E 1/2 ofNW 1/4) for Seven Hundred Fifty (750.00) feet to the point of beginning.Containing 11.237 acres, more or less. According to the United StatesGovernment Survey thereof.NORTH STAR PARCEL(AS SHOWN ON AVAILABLE TAX RECORDS)PID#1402921130023Outlot B, NORTHSTAR, Washington County, Minnesota.9-16-24SURVEY, REVISE SITEPLAN/GRADING PLANPROPOSED IMPROVEMENT AREAS:1.HOUSE = 24382.DECK = 3123.ENTRANCE = 534.DRIVEWAY = 33525.WALLS = 200TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS = 6155 SQ.FT.10.4 % (% OF OHW AREA)CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!TWIN CITY AREA:TOLL FREE:1-800-252-1166651-454-0002Gopher State One CallPROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS:TOP OF BLOCK = 954.7 (9' POURED)GARAGE FLOOR= 954.3BASEMENT FLOOR =946.0THE ABOVE ELEVATIONS MAY BE MODIFIED.925.01ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCENO SCALE2NO SCALESILT FENCE930SET OFFSET HUBPROPOSED ELEVATIONPROPOSED CONTOURPROPOSED DRAINAGEDENOTES EXISTING ELEV.DENOTES SILT FENCEEXISTING CONTOURSLEGEND:UNDERGROUND ELECTRICUNDERGROUND CABLE TVUNDERGROUND FIBER OPTICUNDERGROUND TELEPHONEOVERHEAD UTILITYUNDERGROUND GASSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERWATERMAINFENCECURB [TYPICAL]CONCRETE SURFACEBITUMINOUS SURFACEFOUND MONUMENTSET 1/2" IRON PIPEMARKED RLS NO. 25718CABLE TV PEDESTALAIR CONDITIONERELECTRIC MANHOLEELECTRIC METERELECTRIC PEDESTALELECTRIC TRANSFORMERLIGHT POLEGUY WIREPOWER POLEGAS MANHOLEGAS METERTELEPHONE MANHOLETELEPHONE PEDESTALSANITARY CLEANOUTSANITARY MANHOLECATCH BASINSTORM DRAINFLARED END SECTIONSTORM MANHOLEFIRE DEPT. CONNECTIONHYDRANTCURB STOPWATER WELLWATER MANHOLEWATER METERPOST INDICATOR VALVEWATER VALVEBOLLARDFLAG POLEMAIL BOXTRAFFIC SIGNUNKNOWN MANHOLESOIL BORINGTRAFFIC SIGNALCONIFEROUS TREEDECIDUOUS TREEX1025.0XSUBJECT TO CHANGETHIS SITE /GRADINGPLAN IS FORILLUSTRATIVEPURPOSES TO SHOWTHAT A POTENTIALHOUSE CAN BE BUILTON THIS PARCEL.10-24-24CITY COMMENTS11-17-24ADD SETBACK11-20-24MODIFY BLUFF SETBACK
Memorandum
800 Washington Avenue North, Suite 207
Minneapolis, MN 55401
12/13/24
TO: SOPHIA JENSEN
FROM: SARAH EVENSON, PLA
RE: CHAVEZ VARIANCES: CITY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REVIEW
SUBMITTALS
1. Site Plan Submittal, dated 9-25-17, received 12-2-2024
REVIEW HISTORY
1. Chavez Variances: City Landscape Architect Review, dated 12-13-24
LOCATION: 14.029.21.24.0004 (Chavez Parcel) and 14.029.21.13.0023 (Northstar Outlot B)
CURRENT LAND USE CATEGORY: Village Low density Residential (VLDR)
ADJACENT AND SURROUNDING LAND USE: VLDR
SPECIAL LANDSCAPE PROVISIONS: DNR Bluff Setback Zone, Shoreland Overlay
GENERAL NOTES:
• Bluff setbacks and shoreland overlays were instituted for good reason. The slope diagram
shows that the property exceeds maximum recommended slopes for development for most of
its land. Any development would require major grading, tree removals, and topographic change.
These slopes are typically sensitive and highly susceptible to erosion if cleared. While these
restrictions may not have been in place when the property was purchased, any future
development will be required to adhere to them.
o Vegetative clearing within shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not
permitted 105.12.1260 (c)(2)
o 105.12.1260 (7) a) Bluff or shore impact zones. No principal or accessory structure or
use shall be placed within bluff or shore impact zones other than agricultural activities as
permitted by subsection (c)(6)b of this section.
RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed development of this parcel is inconsistent with the intent of the shoreland overlay and
bluff setback zones, and I do not believe the variances should be granted.
Sarah Evenson, PLA (MN)
P: (262) 391-7653 E: sarah@hkgi.com
December 16, 2024
Sophia Jensen
Senior City Planner
3880 Laverne Ave N
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Re: Chavez Bluff and OHWL Setback Variance – PID 14.029.21.24.0004, Sunfish Lake
Members of the Board of Adjustment,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application requesting bluff and ordinary high water level (OHWL)
setback variances. My comments and recommendation are based on an evaluation of the facts presented in the
application against the criteria in Minn. Statute §462.357. Based on this evaluation, the DNR recommends denial of the
variance.
Summary of variance request
The applicant has requested a variance to construct a new, large home (2,437 sq. ft. footprint) on the face of the bluff on
Sunfish Lake. The home would be located below the top of the bluff as delineated on the site plan. This is an extreme
deviation from the required setback of 30 feet from the top of the bluff.
In addition, the applicant has requested a variance to place the new home at approximately 125 feet from the ordinary
high water level (OHWL) of Sunfish Lake. This is a significant deviation of approximately 25 feet from the required
setback of 150 feet.
We note that the application states that the house location and size are subject to change, and that the applicant has no
intention of constructing a home on this lot. In this letter, we have evaluated the request given the limited facts
available. However, we believe the city should not entertain granting a variance until an actual building plan that can
properly be evaluated is submitted.
Evaluation Criteria and Approach
The role of the Board of Adjustment (BOA) is to objectively evaluate whether the facts meet the statutory criteria for
approving a variance. Under Minn. Statute §462.357, variances can only be approved when they are in harmony with the
general purposes and intent of the zoning code and when they are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Specifically,
variances can only be granted when the applicant proves there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning
code. State law only allows variances if all three practical difficulties criteria are met:
• There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner.
• The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance.
• Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
If any of these criteria are not met, then the variance must be denied. State law also does not allow approving variances
solely for financial reasons. The decision to approve or deny a variance requires a rational explanation, based on facts,
not on proposed conditions of approval. Conditions may be considered, but only after a decision is made to approve.
Additionally, opinions of support or opposition, without supporting evidence, from neighbors or the public are not facts
and should not be considered.
This property is in the shoreland of a public water, an area that the state has identified as a sensitive area where special
laws are needed to protect scenic character; aquatic and riparian vegetation; habitat; and to reduce the flow of nutrients
into surface waters preventing excessive algae and plant growth to maintain safe recreational opportunities. This context
is critical for properly evaluating the facts against the practical difficulties criteria whether the Board of Adjustment is
deciding, or a district court is reviewing such a decision on appeal.
Analysis of Facts and Recommendation
The Board of Adjustment should deny this variance because:
The property owner DOES NOT propose to use the property in a reasonable manner given the purpose of the bluff and
OHWL setback requirements.
This criterion is about what is reasonable given the purpose of the ordinance, NOT what is reasonable to the property
owner. Variance requests should only be the minimum necessary to achieve the purposes of the ordinance.
The purpose of the bluff setback standard is to keep land alterations, impervious surface, and vegetation removal out of
the sensitive bluff impact zone (BIZ). Home construction typically requires grading and vegetation removal within 10 feet
of the foundation and a 30-foot top of bluff setback helps to ensure that grading and tree removal do not occur in the
bluff impact zone. Vegetation removal is prohibited in the BIZ. Given the steepness of the slope, the BIZ is particularly
vulnerable to erosion and potential slumping, especially when vegetation is removed. Increasing precipitation and more
frequent intense rain events increase the risk of slope failure, and slopes without protective vegetation are at even
greater risk. Soil erosion carries phosphorus nutrients into lakes which causes algae to grow and with Minnesota’s
warming lake waters, any additional phosphorus further accelerates algae growth. Setbacks from the top of the bluff also
protect scenic views from the lake.
The purpose of the ordinary high water setback standard is to keep land alterations and vegetation removal at a safe
distance from the water to protect water quality, near-shore habitat, and visual character of the shoreland.
The potential for soil erosion is more significant given the fact that Sunfish Lake is listed as an impaired waterbody by the
MPCA due to excessive nutrients. Fortunately, water quality monitoring by Valley Branch Watershed District in the most
recent 10-year period shows statistically significant trends of improving water quality, including chlorophyll and
transparency. The proposed variance request runs counter to the city’s ongoing efforts to improve the water quality of
Sunfish Lake.
The applicant has not demonstrated why it is necessary to build so excessively large a home (2,437 sq. ft. footprint) on
the face of the bluff and within the OHWL setback, a significant deviation from the regulations, when they have
alternatives that would minimize impacts, such as a home with a smaller footprint and a home located closer to the
northeast lot corner, furthest from the lake. The variance appears to be driven by the design preferences of the property
owner, and not by what is reasonable given the purpose of the ordinance to protect this highly sensitive area.
The variance WILL ALTER the essential character of the area.
Essential character is about how the resulting structure, improvement, and disturbance will alter the hydrology, nutrient
flow into waters, soil stability, vegetation, habitat, shoreland character, or be out of scale with the capacity of the land
and water resource to tolerate the impacts.
The proposed variance would allow construction of a home, land alteration, and vegetation removal in a sensitive bluff
impact zone (BIZ). Removing the vegetation in the BIZ and adding impervious surfaces within the BIZ reduces the ability
of vegetation to slow and filter runoff, thus accelerating potential for slope erosion, sedimentation, and flow of
phosphorus into the lake. This increases the risk of algae growth affecting the quality and character of the lake.
The vast majority of the near-shore area of Sunfish Lake, including the entirety of the north and east sides of the lake, is
characterized by densely wooded, steep bluffs. Without this vegetation, the water quality of Sunfish Lake is put at risk of
degradation. Recent development on the north and east sides of the lake, including Northstar, Hamlet on Sunfish Lake,
and Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove have been designed with residential lot lines drawn outside of the bluff impact zone,
and with the sensitive bluff area set aside for permanent protection. Such designs protect the hydrology, scenic values,
and natural character of the shoreland of Sunfish Lake. Construction of an excessively large home (2,437 sq. ft. footprint)
on the face of the bluff, as requested here, will alter the essential character of the area.
Conclusion
The limited facts available do not support a decision to approve and show that the design preferences are driving the
variance request. A decision to approve the variance would therefore be arbitrary and capricious. The DNR recommends
denial.
State rule and your ordinance requires that final variance decisions, including findings, be sent to the DNR within 10 days
of the decision. The DNR monitors local government variance decisions and may appeal decisions we believe do not
meet the statutory criteria and result in negative impacts to shorelands and public waters.
Please send the decision to me within ten days of making the decision, including “findings of fact.” If you have any
questions, please call, or email me.
Sincerely,
Dan Scollan
East Metro Area Hydrologist
daniel.scollan@state.mn.us
(651) 259-5732
c: John (Jack) Gleason, Hydrologist Supervisor
Dan Petrik, Shoreland Program Manager
PAGE 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 16, 2024
To: Sophia Jensen, City Planner Re: Chavez Variance Application
Cc: Chad Isakson, P.E., Assistant City Engineer PID 14‐029‐21‐42‐0002 (Northstar Outlot B)
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer Engineering Review Comments
An engineering review has been completed for the Chavez Variance Applications for PID 14‐029‐21‐42‐0002.
STATUS/FINDINGS: It is recommended that the application for variances be denied on the basis that the application
is premature. All site plan improvements are shown based on future conditions for street access, access to city
water and sewer, adjacent residential lots and lot lines, and proposed subdivision grading, all of which does not
exist today. The Northstar 2nd Addition Final Plat and Plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City,
the Plat must be recorded at Washington County. The subdivision improvements must also be constructed and
accepted by the City. Until these conditions are met, the existing conditions represented in the Chavez variance
applications are subject to change and may alter the Chazev application submittal requirements.
1. At this time there is no public street access, and there is no public water and sanitary sewer access to this
property. Access to public streets, public water and public sanitary sewer will not be available to this parcel
until future phases of the Northstar subdivision are platted and recorded. Until such time the existing
conditions are subject to change.
2. The application materials remain incomplete.
a. A Stormwater Management Plan must be submitted meeting VBWD permit requirements.,
b. All drainage and utility easements must be fully shown and identified on the site plans, including
drainage and utility easements along adjacent lots and over the proposed lot.
3. The area of impervious surface for the home and driveway must be provided and if greater than 6,000 SF, a
stormwater management plan meeting VBWD permit requirements must be submitted to verify proposed
on‐site BMPs. The Site plan proposes two rain gardens to meet VBWD permit requirements. The designs are
only conceptual as submitted and subject to change. There is limited room for the installation of these BMPs
and no soil borings have been submitted to demonstrate conducive soil characteristics being present. The
plan may be feasible as proposed but also may not be feasible, all dependent on final design parameters.
4. Off‐site grading/construction easements. The proposed grading and culvert installation requires work to be
completed on the adjacent property to the north. The home construction as proposed will require
permanent and/or temporary off‐site drainage and utility easements.
5. Additional drainage and utility easements are required to ensure all 100‐year storm event high‐water‐level
(HWL) contours are fully contained within an existing or expanded drainage and utility easement over the
adjacent lot to the north.
6. The proposed lot grading shows a driveway culvert to facilitate positive drainage for the rear yards of the
two adjacent lots (draining north to south under the driveway). The driveway culvert pipe size and material
must be specified. The upstream 100‐year HWL must be determined and shown on the grading plans and
the 100‐year HWL contour must be fully contained within a drainage and utility easement.
7. A driveway emergency overflow elevation must be established and protected by easement.
8. The existing drainage and utility easement over all of Outlot B must be maintained and not vacated.
PAGE 2 of 2
9. Water and Sewer services. Additional permanent utility easements may be required over the proposed water
and sewer service lines.
10. The sewer service line is shown 5‐ft. from the property line. Depending upon the depth of the sewer, future
maintenance and replacement access to the sewer service should be preserved. As shown, future sewer
service repair/replacement would require encroachment and impacts onto the adjacent property to the
north, potentially for the full length of the lot. This service layout is not recommended.
From:John P. Hanson
To:Sophia Jensen
Cc:Ashley Monterusso
Subject:Chavez Parcel
Date:Monday, December 16, 2024 10:33:34 AM
Attachments:image002.png
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Hi Sophia,
A Valley Branch Watershed District permit is needed for the construction of the Chavez parcel at the
northeastern side of Sunfish Lake. A permit application has not been submitted.
John
John P. Hanson, PE
Valley Branch Watershed District Engineer
Barr Engineering Co. | 4300 MarketPointe Drive | Bloomington, MN 55435
office: 952.832.2622 | cell: 612.590.1785
JHanson@barr.com | www.barr.com | www.vbwd.org
From:Craig@gonyeacompany.com
To:Sophia Jensen
Cc:Jason Stopa
Subject:Chavez
Date:Friday, November 22, 2024 3:29:24 PM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Hi Sophia and Jason,
Please insert this email as public comment for the Chavez variance application.
As part of our North Star preliminary plat, we agreed to provide Mr. Chavez access to his
landlocked parcel if he obtains the necessary variance requests needed for a buildable lot. I
have been in contact with Mr. Chavez for years and have agreed to work with him by providing
an outlot with certain deed restrictions and obligations to protect the land values of the
adjacent lots/homes in the North Star development. I have also agreed to sign his variance
application, which I understand is only to request variances to build a home on his parcel. By
signing, I am not agreeing to the outlot design as shown on the survey attached to his request.
As one example, we have asked that any drainage structures (pipe inlets, outlets, etc.) be fully
contained on the outlot provided so it doesn’t further diminish the lot values of the North Star
lots. The driveway and home placement, as shown, will be a hurdle for our builders so we have
asked that everything be contained on the outlot and off the adjacent lots, if in fact, it is
determined he has a buildable lot.
To help Mr. Chavez start the process to see if he has a buildable lot, I have signed the
application, but I am not in agreement with the access and outlot design as shown.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Craig Allen
**Please note our NEW address effective September 13, 2022.**
________________________________________________________
Craig Allen
Gonyea Company
10850 Old County Road 15, Ste 200
Plymouth, MN 55441
1
LA515\1\1001336.v1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 1/27/2025
Item#: 4b – Public Hearing
Motion
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sophia Jensen, Senior City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Housekeeping Items
REVIEWED BY: Jason Stopa, Community Development Director
Ashley Monterusso, City Planner
BACKGROUND:
Over the last year City Staff have identified a handful of minor ordinance corrections that are
required to create consistency and clarity with the City Code and other guiding documents.
Processing these amendments is on the 2025 Planning Commission Work Plan.
ISSUE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to
the City Council on the proposed amendments.
PROPOSAL DETAILS:
Sections under review:
• 105.12.110(b)(13)
• 1.08.010
• 105.12.410(h)
• 105.12.440(e)
• 105.12.200
• 103.00.060(b)(1)
• 105.12.190 (g)
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSALS: Proposed language is underlined. Deleted language is shown
with a strikethrough.
Code Section: 105.12.110(b)(13) Definitions The intent of this amendment is to account for bed
and breakfast facilities where the owner may not reside on premises with the renters.
Proposed Language: Bed and breakfast (short term rental) means a private, owner-occupied
residence that contains no more than five guestrooms where lodging, with or without meals, is
provided for compensation. Guest stays shall be limited to 30 days. The owner may or may not
reside on site.
Code Section: 1.08.010 Terms Defined The intent of this amendment is to clarify types of
undeveloped land that qualify as open space.
2
LA515\1\1001336.v1
Proposed Language: Open space area means the measurement of all undeveloped land including
wetlands, stormwater ponds, steep slopes, parks and conservation areas and natural features within
a subdivision or planned unit development. Trails or sidewalks outside of the road right-of-way
and agricultural buildings are included in the open space area. Road right-of-way and buildable
lots and outlots are not considered open space areas.
Code Section: 105.12.410(h) Off Street Parking Regulations The intent of this amendment is to
correct the language and clarify that the code applied to commercial trucks and trailers.
Proposed Language: Truck parking in residential areas. No commercially licensed trailer or truck
which has a vehicle weight of 14,000lbs (Class 4) or more shall be parked or stored in a residential
district except when loading, unloading, or rendering a service. Recreation vehicles and pickups
are not restricted by the terms of this provision.
Code Section: 105.12.440(e) Accessory Buildings and Structures, Generally The intent of this
amendment is to prohibit accessory buildings within the front yards of homes.
Proposed Language: Proximity to principal structure. Accessory buildings or structures shall
maintain a six-foot setback from the principal structure. An accessory building or structure will be
considered as an integral part of the principal building if it is located six feet or less from the
principal structure and located to the side or rear of the principal structure. Accessory buildings or
structures shall not be located in the front yard of the principal structure unless they are listed as a
permitted encroachment defined in LEC 105.12.200(a)(1).
Code Section: 105.12.200(a)(1) &(b) Permitted Encroachments The intent of this amendment is
to clarify that retaining walls and pool equipment pads may encroach into setbacks. This is
consistent with current City practice. This code does not apply to easements.
Proposed Language:
a) In any yards.
1) Posts, off-street open parking, flutes, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, cornices, eaves (up to
three feet), gutters, awnings, open terraces, steps, chimneys, flag poles, open fire escapes,
egress window/wells, sidewalks, fences, retaining walls less than four feet in height,
essential services exposed ramps (wheelchair), patios, stoops, decks not requiring railings
in accordance with state building codes, or similar features, provided they do not extend
above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distance less
than five feet from any lot line nor less than one foot from any existing or proposed
driveway; yard lights and nameplate signs; trees, shrubs, plants, floodlights or other
sources of light illuminating authorized illuminated signs, or light standards for
illuminating parking areas, loading areas, or yards for safety and security reasons; provided
the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential
property.
3
LA515\1\1001336.v1
2) Porches as defined in LEC 1.08 may encroach up to six feet into a required front yard
setback or side corner yard, but in no case shall be set back less than ten feet from the front
property line. A porch is not allowed in a side or rear yard setback.
b) Side and rear yards. Fences; walls and hedges six feet in height or less; pool equipment pads;
bays not to exceed a depth of three feet or containing an area of more than 30 square feet;
egress/window wells not to exceed the minimum area needed to meet building/ fire code or
fire escapes not to exceed a width of three feet.
Code Section: 103.00.060(b)(1) Lot Consolidation/Lot Line Adjustment The intent of this
amendment is to clarify nonconformity language. The language is consistent with current City
practice.
Proposed Language:
b) Criteria for lot line adjustment/lot consolidation. Lot line adjustments exempted from platting
by M.S.A. § 462.352, subd. 12 shall not require a plat or replat and may be administratively
approved, provided all of the following criteria are met:
1. Each resultant parcel equals or exceeds the minimum lot dimension requirements and
public road frontage requirements for the zoning district in which the property is located or
is made more conforming through the lot line adjustment. When more than one lot is non-
conforming, the least conforming lot may be made more conforming while the other non-
conforming lot(s) are made less conforming. A conforming lot shall not become non-
conforming by the lot line adjustment/concsolidation.
Code Section: 105.12.190 Additions And Exceptions To Minimum Area, Height, And Other
Requirements The intent of this amendment is to clarify nonconformity language. The language
is consistent with current City practice and the amendments to 103.00.060 listed above.
Proposed Language:
(g) Reduction of required yard or lot size prohibited. No yard or lot shall be reduced in area or
dimension so as to make it less than the minimum required by this chapter, and if the existing yard
or lot is less than the minimum required, it shall not be further reduced. If the existing lot is less
than the minimum required, it may be further reduced if it meets the lot line adjustment standards
in LEC 103.00.060. No required yard or lot currently used for a building or dwelling group shall
be used to satisfy minimum lot area requirements for any other building.
PUBLIC HEARING:
A public hearing was published in the City’s official newspaper on January 17th, 2025. No public
comment has been received.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
4
LA515\1\1001336.v1
OPTIONS:
• Recommend approval of the proposed amendments.
• Recommend changes to the proposed amendments.
• Recommend denial of the proposed amendments.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed text
amendment as presented by Staff”
“Motion to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments as presented by Staff”
ATTACHMENTS:
• None