HomeMy WebLinkAbout#10 - Chavez Variance
LA515\1\1007188.v1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 2/4/2025
REGULAR
MOTION
TO: City Council
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 1st Addition 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. Access to public streets, public water, and public
sanitary sewer will not be available to the property until Northstar 2nd addition is platted,
conditions have been met, the plat has been recorded, and site construction built out and
approved by the City.
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 variances.
The Applicants are looking to receive land use approvals so they can list the property for sale 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 may expire due to the timing of infrastructure and sale of the property.
Also, since the Applicants are not the proposed builder, the site design may be subject to change
which may necessitate additional variances or changes to the variances that have been granted.
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
2
LA515\1\1007188.v1
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 THE CITY COUNCIL:
The City Council is being asked to review and make a determination 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:
(PID 14.029.21.24.0004)
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
Applicant and City Agreed to a deadline extension to 2/28/2025
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 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.
FINDINGS: 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 and reasonable 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.
3
LA515\1\1007188.v1
2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner must be due to circumstances unique
to the property not created by the landowner.
FINDINGS: 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.
FINDINGS: 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.
FINDINGS: 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
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
4
LA515\1\1007188.v1
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 variances.
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 surrounding 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.
2. Bill Friederichs (3691 Kelvin) spoke at the public hearing noting they did not receive a
mailed notice. They are in support of the request citing that they received a similar
variance back in 1993.
PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission voted to table this request at their 1/13/2025 meeting (Vote 6-0).
The Commission reviewed the variance requests at their 1/27/2025 meeting and voted to follow
staffs recommendation and deny the requests with the findings listed in the staff report. The
Commission cited concerns with the site design, house size, variance criteria, and DNR review
letter (Vote 4-0).
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.
5
LA515\1\1007188.v1
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 the expiration
date of the variances.
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.
6. If approved, all variances shall expire if work does not commence within 12 months of
the date of granting the variances.
OPTIONS:
The City Council may:
• Approve the variances with conditions citing recommended conditions and findings of
fact for approval.
• Deny the variances, citing recommended findings of fact for denial.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the City Council deny 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 approve Resolution 2025-13 denying 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 City Council would like to approve the requests, staff recommends the Council provide
findings of fact for approval and has proposed the following motion:
“Move to direct staff to bring forward a resolution for 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
8) Applicant Letter to Planning Commission 1/27/2025
9) Resolution 2025-13
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
L
I
N
E
PA
R
C
E
L
L
I
N
E
SLO
P
E
S
G
R
E
A
T
E
R
T
H
A
N
2
5
%
44
12
24
45
34
(9' POURED FOUNDATION)
DECK
PROPOSED LOT
XX
X
X"RCP BY
OTHERS
DRAINAGE AND
EASEMENT TOBE PROVIDED
X
29
DRAINAGE 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=946.0
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
HOUSELOCATIONAND 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
95
0
94
8
950
3
.
2
%
952
5
.
2
%
954
2.
0
%
952
95
0
94
8
.
5
9
5
2
9
5
0
944.0
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 SHOWN
ON DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FROM SATHRE-BERGQUIST
DATED 11-6-23
SU
N
F
I
S
H
L
A
K
E
SLOP
E
S
G
R
E
A
T
E
R
T
H
A
N
2
5
%
Δ
PROPOSED LOTS AS SHOWN
ON DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FROM SATHRE-BERGQUIST
DATED 11-6-23
PROPOSED STREET
SET OFFSET HUB
PROPOSED ELEVATION
PROPOSED CONTOUR
PROPOSED DRAINAGE
DENOTES EXISTING ELEV.
DENOTES SILT FENCE
EXISTING CONTOURS
1
5
0
'
PROPOSED HOUSE
2,437 SQ.FT. FOOTPRINT
100'
O
H
W
B
U
F
F
E
R
L
I
N
E
PA
R
C
E
L
L
I
N
E
44
12
24
45
34
(9' POURED FOUNDATION)
DECK
PROPOSED LOT
PROPOSED LOT
PROPOSED STREET
X
X
X
X"RCP BY
OTHERS
X
DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY
EASEMENT TO
BE PROVIDED
X
29
DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY
EASEMENT TO
BE PROVIDED
X
X
13
10'
20
'
TW=954.0
BW=950.0
TW=950.0
BW=948.0
TW=952.9
BW=949.3
XGARAGE
FLOOR
=954.3
WALKOUT
=946.0
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
HOUSE
LOCATION
AND SIZE
SUBJECT TO
CHANGE
WALKOUT
=946.0
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
X
X
XXX
X
X X
X
X
XX X
X
X
X
X
X
XX 2
2
21
XX
X
XX
X
X
12'
12'
6'
5'
6'
3
0
'
ROCK
CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE SEE
DETAIL #2
SILT FENCE SEE
DETAIL #1
SOD OR SEED WITH
APPROVED MIXTURE OR
SOD ALL DISTURBED
AREAS AFTER GRADING IS
COMPLETED.
RAIN GARDEN #1
TOP-950.0 AREA =203 SQ.FT.
BOT-948.5 AREA =70 SQ.FT.
VOL.= 204 CU.FT.
(Or an equivalent best
management practice that will
provide treatment needed to
conform to the VBWD Rules and
Regulations)
SILT FENCE SEE
DETAIL #1
SILT FENCE SEE
DETAIL #1
SILT FENCE SEE
DETAIL #1
SOD OR SEED WITH
APPROVED MIXTURE OR
SOD ALL DISTURBED
AREAS AFTER GRADING IS
COMPLETED.
PROPOSED
SANITARY SEWER
AND WATER
SERVICES BY
OTHERS
RAIN GARDEN #2
TOP-944.0 AREA =201 SQ.FT.
BOT-942.5 AREA =36 SQ.FT.
VOL.= 178 CU.FT.
(Or an equivalent best
management practice that will
provide treatment needed to
conform to the VBWD Rules and
Regulations)
150' OHWL SEBACK LINE
FOR NATURAL
ENVIRONMENTAL LAKES
WATERSHED
100' BUFFER
SETBACK LINE
150' OHWL SEBACK LINE
FOR NATURAL
ENVIRONMENTAL LAKES
DNR 30'
BLUFF
SETBACK LINE
948
95
0
94
8
950
3
.
2
%
954
952
5
.
2
%
954
2.
0
%
952
95
0
94
8
.
5
9
5
2
9
5
0
944.0
942.5
954.0
945.5
954.2
950.7
947
.
8
947.0
954
.
1
953.5
954.0
952.9
952.3
945.5
9
5
4
DNR
T
O
P
O
F
BLUF
F
L
I
N
E
3
0
'
DNR
T
O
P
O
F
BLUF
F
L
I
N
E
DNR 30'
BLUFF
SETBACK LINE
PID#1402921240004
CONTACT:
JOE CHAVEZ
3505 KELVIN AVE. N.
LAKE ELMO, MN 55072
Phone: 612-801-6360
JZCHAVEZ@HOTMAIL.COM
ZZ17472
SURVZZ472
SITE
PLAN
COUNTY/CITY:
REVISIONS:
PROJECT LOCATION:
LAND SURVEYING, INC.
CORNERSTONE
Suite #1
6750 Stillwater Blvd. N.
Stillwater, MN 55082
Phone 651.275.8969
Fax 651.275.8976
dan@
cssurvey
.net
DATE REVISION
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
CITY OF
LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON
COUNTY
9-25-17 INITIAL ISSUE
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am
a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the state of Minnesota.
Daniel L. Thurmes Registration Number: 25718
Date:__________________
CHAVEZ
PARCEL
0
NORTH
80 160
9-25-17
0
NO
R
T
H
20 40
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
AREAS:
CHAVEZ PARCEL AREA = 489,500 SQ.FT. / 11.24 ACRES
NORTHSAR OUTLOT B FROM DEVELOPER = 7,448 SQ.FT. / 0.17 ACRES
TOTAL AREA = 496,948 SQ.FT. / 11.41 ACRES
AREA ABOVE OHW = 59,467 SQ.FT./1.37 ACRES
10-9-17 AREAS
SEEDETAIL
10-25-23 REVISED
DETAIL
SURVEY NOTES:
1.BEARINGS ARE BASED ON WASHINGTON COUNTY
COORDINATES (NAD83).
2.2' CONTOURS SHOWN PER DNR LIDAR DATA OBTAINED
FROM THE MNTOPO WEBSITE. NOT FIELD VERIFIED. FIELD
TOPOGRAPHY DATED 8-19-24 IN AREAS OF TREE
LOCATION AND SPOT ELEVATIONS.
3.EASEMENTS LIMITED TO THOSE SHOWN ON COUNTY
PARCEL MAPPING AND THE PLAT OF NORTSTAR ARE
SHOWN. NO TITLE OPINION OR TITLE COMMITMENT WAS
PROVIDED THAT WOULD SHOW EASEMENTS OR
ENCUMBRANCES OF RECORD.
4.UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOT SHOWN.
12-26-23 PROPOSED GRADES
FROM DEVELOPER
OVERALL
PARCEL EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
CHAVEZ PARCEL - PID#1402921240004
(AS SHOWN ON WARRANTY DEED DOC. NO. 758413
All that part of the East One-Half of the Northwest Quarter (E 1/2 of NW 1/4) of
Section Fourteen (14), in Township Twenty-Nine (29) North, of Range
Twenty-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 of
the said East One-Half of the Northwest Quarter (E 1/2 of NW 1/4) of Section
Fourteen (14), Township Twenty-Nine (29) North, Range Twenty-One (21)
West, Washington County, Minnesota; thence west along the south line of
said 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 the
northwest 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 East
One-Half of the Northwest Quarter (E 1/2 of NW 1/4), said point being Seven
Hundred Fifty (750.00) feet south of the point of beginning; thence north
along said east line of the East One-Half of the Northwest Quarter (E 1/2 of
NW 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 States
Government Survey thereof.
NORTH STAR PARCEL
(AS SHOWN ON AVAILABLE TAX RECORDS)
PID#1402921130023
Outlot B, NORTHSTAR, Washington County, Minnesota.
9-16-24 SURVEY, REVISE SITE
PLAN/GRADING
PLAN
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT AREAS:
1.HOUSE = 2438
2.DECK = 312
3.ENTRANCE = 53
4.DRIVEWAY = 3352
5.WALLS = 200
TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS = 6155 SQ.FT.
10.4 % (% OF OHW AREA)
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!
TWIN CITY AREA:TOLL FREE:1-800-252-1166651-454-0002
Gopher State One Call
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS:
TOP OF BLOCK = 954.7 (9' POURED)
GARAGE FLOOR= 954.3
BASEMENT FLOOR =946.0
THE ABOVE ELEVATIONS MAY BE MODIFIED.
925.0
1 ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
NO SCALE 2 NO SCALE
SILT FENCE
930
SET OFFSET HUB
PROPOSED ELEVATION
PROPOSED CONTOUR
PROPOSED DRAINAGE
DENOTES EXISTING ELEV.
DENOTES SILT FENCE
EXISTING CONTOURS
LEGEND:
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
UNDERGROUND CABLE TV
UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
OVERHEAD UTILITY
UNDERGROUND GAS
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
WATERMAIN
FENCE
CURB [TYPICAL]
CONCRETE SURFACE
BITUMINOUS SURFACE
FOUND MONUMENT
SET 1/2" IRON PIPE
MARKED RLS NO. 25718
CABLE TV PEDESTAL
AIR CONDITIONER
ELECTRIC MANHOLE
ELECTRIC METER
ELECTRIC PEDESTAL
ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
LIGHT POLE
GUY WIRE
POWER POLE
GAS MANHOLE
GAS METER
TELEPHONE MANHOLE
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
SANITARY CLEANOUT
SANITARY MANHOLE
CATCH BASIN
STORM DRAIN
FLARED END SECTION
STORM MANHOLE
FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION
HYDRANT
CURB STOP
WATER WELL
WATER MANHOLE
WATER METER
POST INDICATOR VALVE
WATER VALVE
BOLLARD
FLAG POLE
MAIL BOX
TRAFFIC SIGN
UNKNOWN MANHOLE
SOIL BORING
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CONIFEROUS TREE
DECIDUOUS TREE
X 1025.0 X
SUBJECT TO CHANGE THIS SITE /GRADING
PLAN IS FOR
ILLUSTRATIVE
PURPOSES TO SHOW
THAT A POTENTIAL
HOUSE CAN BE BUILT
ON THIS PARCEL.
10-24-24 CITY COMMENTS
11-17-24 ADD SETBACK
11-20-24 MODIFY 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
January 27, 2025
Lake Elmo Planning Commission
3880 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Re: Planner Report Re Chavez Property
Dear Planning Commission:
I am writing in response to the statements in the Staff Report dated 1/13/2025.
We have previously corresponded with a staff to illustrate why the request for a single-
family house on the Chavez parcel is a necessary and reasonable and a necessary
companion to the Northstar 2nd Addition which is planned for development imminently.
By pointing that out, we were able to illustrate why it makes common sense to proceed
with the application for the building of a single-family home on this lot at this time.
I. A Couple Of Background Facts Not Referenced In The Staff Report:
No understanding of the facts would be complete without noting that:
*This parcel is a lawfully preexisting lot of record.
*Which was expressly approved for subdivision by the City of Lake Elmo as long ago
as January 16, 1980 (see attachment).
*Like many lakeshore lots, this was before the adoption of many, if not all, of the
regulations present here.
*The lot was subdivided without road frontage by others but with City approval.
*It now has the opportunity to receive road frontage and municipal utilities-which
can be done through simple and routine requirements for coordination by and with
an adjacent intensive residential development as would be the case for any
adjacent parcel development.
*The house footprint is consistent with and smaller than houses in the locality
planned or existing.
So strong is the presumption that preexisting shoreland lots like this can be used for
a house that Minnesota Statute S. 462.357 indicates that a variance for such a
substandard lot, regardless of size is not even needed if it can have a sewer or septic
and can meet setback requirements. This is because it was common to create
smaller lakeshore lots—which should not be rendered practically useless by later
2
regulations. Here, this lot needs a minor setback variance of about 25 feet but it
would otherwise be presumptively buildable without a variance under Minnesota
Statutes.
II. The Lack Of Road Frontage-A Mutual Interest in Cure:
Though cities, these days, avoid subdivisions of lots without road frontage, when they
do exist from past approvals, cities generally act (for reasons which can be explained) to
ensure that they can receive road frontage and then be built upon rather than identify
obstacles or block corrective road frontage and reasonable construction for single family
use.
That is doubly true (and helpfully so) where the adjacent property is being platted and
has the opportunity to furnish needed road frontage. In such cases-developers are
typically required to furnish frontage to eliminate the problem—so that the City does
not have to-and so that an efficient cure is applied.
To be sure, in cases where lawful preexisting lots were subdivided or platted without
road frontage, both the city and the owner share an interest in securing road frontage
and a reasonable residential development of the lot. These are not cases (and this is
not a case) where the owner has created some problematic lot without city approval
and now cannot ask for the joint cooperation of the City in resolving matters of mutual
interest.
III. The Basic Variance Inquiries:
I wish to address the statements offered about basic variance findings. The Minnesota
Practical Difficulties standard simply asks whether:
*The landowner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner:
*The plight is due to circumstances unique to the (physical characteristics of
the property)-not caused by the landowner;
*The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality:1
Even leaving aside the fact that this is a lawfully preexisting lot of record, those
standards are easily met here and this is precisely the type of situation where variances
are granted.
A deeper review of some statements may be helpful:
A. At Paragraph 1, claims: “Constructing a large single family home is not a
necessity in this sensitive natural area.”
1 League of Minnesota Cities Zoning Decisions, June 24, 2021.
3
Here, the home is branded with the term “large.” There is no stated criteria for what
“large” is. Objectively speaking, the home will measure only 2,437 square feet while
the houses near it in the Northstar development are approximately 2,400-2,900 square
feet and other homes around the lake are approximately 3,100-4,000 square feet. In
other words, it appears that this would be the smallest of homes in the vicinity by
roughly 500-1,500 square feet. It is a modest, even small, single family home.
Impervious surface is merely 6,155sf or 10.4% of OHW area. It’s significantly smaller
than the existing houses in the Hamlet on Sunfish lake development to the north.
B. Staff report; “a house is “not a necessity”.
The staff report actually says “a house is not a necessity”. This is not the standard at all.
C. The claim that the house could be “moved…further from the lake…or even
using the property as an access to Sunfish Lake.”
Not so. The house cannot be moved further from the lake and the surveying
professionals have confirmed this. It is not reasonable to suggest that the lot would
simply serve as an access to Sunfish Lake. If that was the case, then any small, lawfully
preexisting lakeshore lot would be left to “serve as an access” to the lake.
The Planner’s report speaks about later regulations and claims: “any future
development is required adhere to them,”. Typically, that is not possible. Actually, this
is the very reason for variances. If that claim were accurate, then most residential
development on preexisting smaller lots would be foreclosed, precluded and impossible
and it is the very reason for the variance and nonconforming/grandfathering status of a
lot.
IV. The Suggestion That The Owner Buy His Neighbors Property:
The report states that “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.”
None of that is accurate. First, it is not part of variance consideration to say that the
applicant must go to a third-party and buy their property. If it was, then every variance
that related to lot size or setbacks from adjoining structures would be subject to
scrutiny about who was willing to sell or buy what and for what amount. But even if that
inaccurate standard were applied, we can assure you that we have explored acquisition
of additional property but it is not feasible under the circumstances.
4
Though the report seems to suggest denial is somehow warranted because of the
location of the house, the house location is in its only reasonable spot-as far away from
the lake as can be done. Similarly, because the lot was created without road frontage
and in a smaller size-variances are unavoidable here.
The unique circumstances include that the City permitted creation of a lot and its
subdivision at a time when it was lawful to do so and did not require, at that time, the
provision of road frontage. Though today standards may be different, this is precisely
the reason variances exist.
V. Essential Character Of Locality Is Not Changed:
The report claims that “this request directly conflicts with the bluff and shoreland
regulations that were implemented to protect these sensitive areas.”
If there were not some disparity-then we wouldn’t need a variance. The potential for
conflicts with bluff and shoreland regulations which are adopted later are the very
reason for the grant and issuance of a variance with reasonable conditions attached.
They are not a reason for denial of it in the first place. If they were, then every variance
would be denied since, by their terms, the request is not in compliance with bluff and
shoreland regulations.
The inquiry here is whether this modest house on an approved, subdivided lot would
change the essential character of the locality. Development of the modest house on this
lot will not change the essential character of the neighborhood. Land adjacent to it is
being intensively developed for single family homes-in most or all cases-much larger,
more conspicuous and on small lots. Other homes, docks and other structures have
been built on the lake in these areas including with variances. Most other homes are
much larger and more intensive than this discrete home. This lot is consistent with
previous and future development on Sunfish Lake that maintains the essential character
of the locality. The locality includes the land around the lake and the subdivisions north
and east of it.
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 have 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.
Finally, the need for cooperation and coordination with the adjacent development is not
a reason to deny the variance—in fact it is typical that a city will compel the large,
5
intensive development to accommodate road frontage and utility placement needs for
adjacent parcels which may develop simultaneously or later.
I must express concern too about an attempted suggestion that the variance will not
involve development on the lot within 12 months and, for that reason, should be
denied. It is natural, necessary and reasonable to expect that the construction of the
house will follow the eventual placement of a roadway and utilities in the intensive
adjacent development. This lot and the small house which will go upon it will serve as a
good buffer to that area. Since the Northstar 2nd Addition construction may very well
occur within 12 months. However, even if it didn’t, this proposal has the effect of
extending City water and sewer to a subdivided parcel which was created at the
approval of the City without road frontage. Whether it actually gets built upon within six
months or thirteen months, for example, it is of no practical effect. It nevertheless leads
to the resolution of proper development at this preexisting, lawful lot.
Second, there is some statement in the Staff Report that the City Engineer’s memo
“recommends” denial of the variances. Stated differently, because the creation of the
lot without adequate road frontage is now poised to be cured, conditions associated
with temporary offsite drainage easements and the provision of a road are addressed
simply by requiring them as part of this development and the adjacent Northstar
subdivision. In other words, it is not at all uncommon that adjacent subdivisions need to
coordinate with an adjacent property, it is only notable here because the Chavez
property is comparatively much smaller than the intense development going on next
door.
We will submit a stormwater management plan, we will show all drainage and utility
easements on the plans, we will provide areas of impervious surface, and offsite
grading/construction easements for temporary uses can be imposed and coordinated
with the development of the intensive development adjacent to it-Northstar 2.
Examples of pre-existing lots where 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.
The parcel for which we 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
6
VI. 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.
This inquiry is easily met here. This lot was approved for subdivision by the city, it is
large but has some submerged lands, it is practically difficult to place a house upon the
land without setback issues and the lot shape and topography create similar difficulties.
Both the City and the applicant have an interest in curing the existence of a substandard
lot developed without road frontage years ago and the lot meets the basic and general
inquiries of the Practical Difficulties standards.
VII. Unique Circumstances:
The plight of the landowner must be due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner.
As noted above, this criteria is easily met. This is a unique, approved for subdivision
shoreland lot which has some of its usable space affected by steep slopes, inundation, a
narrow configuration at its highest points and the need for road frontage.
Sincerely,
Joe Chavez
3505 Kelvin Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
CC: Mr. Dan Thurmes, Cornerstone Land Surveying, Inc.
David K. Snyder, Esq.
Sunfish Lake Map
Chavez
Parcel
1
LA515\1\1007190.v1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-13
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE SEVEN SHORELAND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT:
PID 14.029.21.24.0004 AND OUTLOT B OF NORTHSTAR 1ST ADDITION
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Joe and Joan Chavez (the “Applicants”), owners of the property located at
PID # 14.029.21.24.0004, Lake Elmo, MN 55042 and Craig Allen (Gonyea Companies), owner
of Outlot B of Northstar 1st Addition PID # 14.029.21.13.0023 Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(collectively, the “Property”) have submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the
“City”) to request seven variances for the construction of a single family home in a shoreland
and bluff zone; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing has been published, mailed, and posted pursuant
to the Lake Elmo Zoning Code, Section 103.00.120; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter
on January 27th 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and
recommendation of denial of the variance to the City Council as part of a Staff memorandum
dated February 4th 2025; and
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the
City Council makes the following findings of fact:
FINDINGS
1. The Applicants propose to construct a new house and driveway on the Property which
would require seven variances, listed below:
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
2
LA515\1\1007190.v1
2. That the procedures for obtaining a variance are set forth in Section 105.12.320 of the Lake
Elmo Zoning Code. Any action taken by the City Council to approve a variance request
must meet all the following findings:
a. Practical Difficulties as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that
the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by an official control. FINDINGS: 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
reasonable and 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.
b. Unique Circumstances - the problem for the landowner/applicant which the intended
variance is intended to correct is unique to the property in question that were not created
by the land owner/applicant. FINDINGS: 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.
c. Character of Locality - the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of
the locality in which the property in question is located: FINDINGS: 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.
d. Adjacent Properties and Traffic - the proposed variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to properties adjacent to the property in question or substantially
increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood: FINDINGS: Although no streets or infrastructure are
3
LA515\1\1007190.v1
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.
DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, and based upon the
information received and the above Findings, that the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo
hereby denies the Applicant’s seven variance requests to construct a new home on the Property.
Passed and duly adopted this 4th day of February 2025 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
____________________________________
Mayor Charles Cadenhead
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk