Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Shoreland topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies seven shoreland variance requests for Sunfish Lake parcel owned by Chavez
Summary
After staff and agency review found the requests inconsistent with shoreland and bluff protections, the council voted to deny seven variance requests for an Outlot B parcel on Sunfish Lake; developer and DNR concerns and options to reconfigure the outlot or reduce house size were discussed.
The Lake Elmo City Council voted to deny seven shoreland variance requests filed by Joe and Joan Chavez for an Outlot B parcel near Sunfish Lake, adopting the staff recommendation that the application did not meet the state statute variance criteria and conflicted with shoreland and bluff protections.
City planning staff (Sofia Johnson) summarized seven requested variances including setbacks from the ordinary high water level and bluff area, principal structure in a bluff area, vegetative clearing in the bluff impact zone, lot suitability and grading in shoreland areas. Staff concluded only one of the four variance criteria was met and recommended denial; agency reviewers including the DNR, city engineer and landscape architect recommended denial as well.
Applicant Joe Chavez spoke in favor of the request and said the intent was to establish the lot as buildable for future sale. Chavez said he had attempted to secure access and additional land and argued the house footprint was "in the most inconspicuous location on that parcel" and that he would be willing to make a smaller house to fit. Chavez said, "What I'm asking for is for the setback requirements, period." He also said he believed the proposed footprint would be largely invisible from the lake because it sits behind tree cover.
Council members and staff noted the DNR had raised concerns about impacts to the bluff and water quality, and staff referenced Minnesota Statute 462.357, which directs that variances must be "in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance" and discourages development in sensitive shoreland areas. Several speakers noted the lot could potentially be reconfigured with the Northstar developer or the house reduced in size to reduce variance needs.
A motion to adopt a resolution denying all seven variance requests carried; staff listed standard conditions for approval only if council had chosen to grant variances. The council encouraged the applicant to work with the developer and staff to explore options that would reduce or eliminate the need for variances.
The denial leaves the underlying plat and lot shape unchanged; the applicant may pursue lot-line adjustments, a reduced-footprint plan or subsequent applications, but staff said that any future development must meet shoreland regulations and obtain required permits.
