Loading...
05.a Radatz Variance - PC Staff Report.docx 1 | P a g e Date of Meeting: May 5, 2026 To: Chair Loeffler and Planning Commission Members From: Greenlee Dahle, Consultant City Planner TJ Hofer, Consultant City Planner Re: Variance for Replacement and Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure within the Ordinary High-Water Level Setback and Front Setback for PID 31.032.20.14.0043. Applicants: Joe and Cindy Radatz Zoning: RR-N , SM-O Owners: Joe and Cindy Radatz Future Land Use: General Rural Location: 18521 Langly Ave N PID 31.032.20.14.0043 Review Deadline July 17, 2026 The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to replace and expand a nonconforming structure on a residential nonconforming lot , that is nonconforming due to an encroachment into the ordinary high-water level setback. The variance would approve a reduced setback from the ordinary high-water level (OHWL) and encroachment into the front setback from the public right -of -way (ROW). BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to redevelop an existing nonconforming lot , zoned Rural Residential Neighborhood (RR -N) and within the Shoreland Management Overlay (SM-O) District of Big Marine Lake. The existing single-family dwelling is nonconforming from the OHWL setback. The applicant is seeking to replace this nonconforming structure allowed by right by state statute and expand the replacement structure, which is allowed by the Unified Development Code. 2 | P a g e The Department of Natural Resources Area Hydrologist stated that the replacement and expansion of a legal nonconforming structure is, “not a ‘replacement’ of the existing legal nonconforming structure, and it has no legal nonconforming protections under st ate statute.,” in a letter to the city dated April 14, 2026. Therefore, the expansion of the nonconforming structure requires a variance due to the Shoreland Ordinance, Sec. 3.72, because it cannot meet the current 100-ft OHWL setback. A variance is also required to allow the new proposed encroachment into the 40-ft. front ROW setback from Langly Avenue North. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Existing Conditions The existing parcel is a nonconforming lot in the RR -N base zoning district and the SM-O district . Lot standards are detailed below with the existing and proposed conditions. Nonconforming standards are shown in bold text. The existing parcel does not have buildable area on the site as setbacks from property lines and OHWL overlap. The existing principal structure is nonconforming from the 100-ft. OWHL setback of Big Marine Lake, as it encroaches 52.4 ft. into the setback (46.3 ft. setback). Staff understand this structure to be a legal nonconformity, and thus the existing nonconforming structure can be continued through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement per state statute. Additionally, an accessory structure exists on the northern side of the site that encroaches into the 10-ft. setback from the side property line. This shed , and the existing deck facing the lake, are proposed to be removed as part of the redevelopment . The existing property is connected to the Big Marine Sewer Utility as part of the Bliss Facility. The subject property is currently served by an existing septic tank under the driveway, which feeds into a shared step/lift tank located on the southern property line. 3 | P a g e Proposed Conditions According to the submitted narrative, the owners propose to build a new year -round home in place of the current seasonal cabin. The proposed principal structure is a single -family dwelling which is permitted by-right. The proposed lot will remain a nonconforming lot . Lot standards are detailed below with the proposed conditions of the lot . Nonconforming standards are shown in bold text. RR-N SM-O Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.) (Existing Lot of Record) 40,000 40,000 6,100 6,100 Buildable Area (ac.) 1.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 Minimum Lot Width (ft.) 150 160 50 50 Lot Frontage (ft.) 100 N/A 50 50 Principal Structure Setbacks (ft.) Front 40 N/A 46 15 Side 10 N/A 12.5 13 17.1 14.5 OHWL 100 100 46.3 47.6 Impervious Surface OHWL Setback (ft.) N/A 100 34.7 47.6 Maximum Lot Coverage 25% 25% 15.40% 24.90% 4 | P a g e The proposed setback from the OHWL is 47.6 ft. The proposed structure is a reduction of the existing 34.7 ft. setback for the deck, and the existing 46.3 ft. setback for the house. The accessory structure near the northwest property lines is proposed to be removed. The proposed lot coverage is 24.9% impervious surfaces. The structure is proposed to be expanded away from the lake, but is subject to a front (street) setback of 40 ft. As a result of the overlapping front and OHWL setbacks, t here is no buildable area on the site. Generally, an encroachment into the ROW that decreases an encroachment into a water resource is preferable. Allowing a greater encroachment into the ROW setback is consistent with these goals. The nonconforming encroachment into the OHWL setback is decrease slightly with the proposed structure. Additionally, as detailed in the findings below, the Bliss neighborhood has numerous parcels with dwellings or garages that effectively have a zero -foot front setback, so an encroachment into the front setback is consistent with the character of the locality. The septic tank is required to be replaced based on City Code Section 51.08 (J) which prohibits sharing of septic tanks and requires replacement of shared systems when material improvements that increase the flow. The Public Works Director has reviewed the pro posed septic tank location and will confirm the location prior to a building permit being issued. Tree removal is proposed for three dead or diseased ash trees. The applicant is also proposing to remove a tree on the property to the north that is noted on the site plan as a “10” Maple.” This tree is located within the shore impact zone and cannot be removed. Only limited trimming and clearing of trees is allowed t o provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling and to accommodate the placement of certain amenities. The removal of the 10” Maple does not accomplish any of these goals and currently provides limited screening of the lots from the lake. The application proposes three new tree plantings which would result in three trees being located on the lot. Single-family residential dwellings are required to have a minimum of five trees. The number of trees are not directly related to the variance, and as such are not included as a condition of approval, but additional plantings will be required on the site plan before a building permit can be issued. The applicant should work with the Carnelian -Marine-St. Croix Watershed District to determine preferable planting locations within the shore impact zone. Variance Section 153.500.060 Subd. 1 (B) establishes the standards for when the City shall approve a variance and mirrors Minn. Stat. 462.357, subd. 6(2). The variance must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and must be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter. A variance may be granted when enforcement of this Chapter would result in practical 5 | P a g e difficulties. The Practical Difficulties test criteria as established by Minnesota Statute and codified in the UDC and are listed below in italics followed by Staff’s analysis: a. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. The proposed use is a reasonable use of the property. A single-family dwelling with a garage is a permitted use in the RR -N and SM-O districts, the city has approved standards for residential structures that must be met , and the applicant is not proposing to increase the existing nonconforming ordinary high-water (OHWL) level setback. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The size and location of the lot is not directly due to circumstances created by the property owner. Based on the overlapping setback standards, the improvement could not be located on the parcel without encroaching on a setback from property lines or a water resource. The applicant is proposing to create an encroachment into the front (street side) setback, but expansion on the lot is impossible withou t encroaching into a setback and an encroachment into the front setback is a more minimal request than a further encroachment into the OHWL setback. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. If the variance were granted, it would not alter the essential character of the locality. Structures in the locality generally encroach into both the front setback and OHWL setback due to historic lots that are nonconforming. d. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. Economic conditions are not the sole factor in the variance. e. May include, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The proposed variance is not related to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. f. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impa ir property values within the neighborhood. The proposed variance will not impair adequate supply of light and air to adjacent 6 | P a g e property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood . g. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The proposed variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The applicant is proposing to create an encroachment into the front (street side) setback, but expansion on the lot is impossible without encroaching into a setback and an encroachment into the front setback is a more minimal request than a further encroachment into the OHWL setback. ANALYSIS Review Comments The submittal was sent to city staff and other regulatory agencies for review and comment. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District The Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District provided comments and information regarding the subject property and variance request. Key comments are summarized as follows: • The current property offers no screening or natural habitat features between the primary structure and the lake. • CMSCWD encourages the City to consider recommended conditions of approval to achieve greater conformance with the intent of the Shoreland Ordinance that will support the Big Marine Lake ecosystem. The letter includes two recommended conditions of approval for this variance request, and notes that these conditions cannot be required by the CMSCWD permitting process. The CMSCWD letter is provided as an attachment to this report and staff has provided a response to the comments below. Department of Natural Resources The DNR Area Hydrologist provided comments on the variance request. Key comments are summarized as follows: • The DNR identified the limitations placed on replacements of nonconforming structures established in the UDC. • The proposed structure is subject to the lowest floor elevation requirements in Ordinance No. 198, Section 6.43. Note the effective Washington County Flood Insurance Study indicates the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) for Big Marine Lake is 942.6 feet (NAVD88 vertical datum). The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE) is 1 foot above the BFE, or 943.6 feet (NAVD88 vertical datum). 7 | P a g e • The DNR recommends that appropriate conditions of approval be adopted to mitigate for the encroachment into the ordinary high water level (OHWL) setback. To mitigate for the additional visibility of the structure from the lake and reduced natural character istics of the setback area, DNR recommends requiring a native vegetation buffer subject to the Watershed District’s rules. The complete list of DNR comments is provided as an attachment to this report and staff has provided a response to the comments below. Engineering Department The City Engineer provided no comment. Fire Department The Fire Chief provided no comment . Minnesota Pollution Control Agency MPCA staff provided guidance on the location of the septic system as the system is permitted by the state. Minnesota Rules 7080.2150 F. states, “Infringement on property line setbacks must be made through accepted local procedures.” Staff do not find the proposed septic tank location to be directly related to this variance request as it is required to be upgraded by the city’s standards and approved by the Public Works Department. The Public Works Director will approve the location of new septic tanks on city owned systems prior to a building permit being issued. Public Works Department The Public Works Director provided the following comment: “Due to many other (septic) tanks which are placed as close or closer to the property lines within the neighborhood which we as a City maintain does not pose an issue with Public Works. The existing tanks on the property do not conform to current standards so if the new tank is allow ed to be placed within the area described in the survey would not be creating a new condition, it would be matching the current condition or very close to current conditions.” Washington County Washington County staff provided the following comment: “…the Bliss Collector Wastewater Treatment Facility is a Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System permitted under the State Disposal System (MN0054119) and the local county SSTS ordinances/setbacks would not apply to this system.” Washington Conservation District Washington Conservation District provided no comment . 8 | P a g e Staff Analysis Staff find that the proposed plan is consistent with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan prioritizes environmental stewardship on lakeside lots. Stormwater controls are proposed to capture stormwater created by new impervious surfaces by directing flow to new turf infiltration basins on the site. The proposed improvements do not encroach further into the OHWL setback but require a variance from the front ROW setback. Staff find the variance to meet the UDC criteria of a practical difficulty . Conditions recommended by CMSCWD and the DNR relate to screening from the lake and vegetation on the lot. The request ed variance has no direct relationship to the amount of vegetation on the lot. Vegetation that is being removed are dead or diseased trees and are not being removed due to the variance request. Therefore, any conditions related to screening or vegetation along the shoreline cannot legally be included as they are not directly related to the variance request. Should the applicant propose changes within the shore impact zone in the future, then the standards established in Sec. 8.23 of the Shoreland Ordinance shall apply. Additional plantings will be required at the time of building permit, as detailed earlier in the staff report. The DNR also commented on the nonconforming standards established in the UDC. The City Attorney has advised city staff that the existing standards that limit replacement to 50% of a structures value are inconsistent with statute and should not be applied. Staff initiated an amendment to address this earlier this year, but the amendment was tabled. Staff intends to bring the issue forward to a meeting again in the near future. The replacement of the existing septic tank, and proposed placement along the west property boundary is required by the city’s public works ordinance. The location of the proposed tank is approved by the Public Works Director and consistent with the charac ter of the neighborhood. The Bliss Facility is permitted under the MPCA and is currently licensed. Septic systems are reviewed at the time of building permit application and approved by the Public Works Department. COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission can do one of the following: 1. Recommend approval, with or without conditions, of the attached resolution. 2. Recommend denial, with findings, of the attached resolutio n. 3. Table the request for further review/study. Staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed variance. Staff have prepared conditions of approval for consideration: 1. The location and layout of structures and impervious surfaces on the lot shall be substantially consistent with the plans and setbacks submitted to the City and 9 | P a g e reviewed with this request with the exception of where revisions are required with this approval. 2. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City for review, showing any areas of soil disruption, construction entrances, building floor elevations, including the garage, and drainage patterns. 3. A driveway permit shall be submitted to the City for approval. 4. If any tree removal is expected to occur as a result of the approved structure, the applicant or owner shall notify the city before trees are removed. Any tree removed without prior review, approval, and replacement determined shall be treated as a “Primary Deciduous, greater than 20 inches in diameter” or a “Coniferous, greater than 24 feet in height,” for replacement purposes depending on the original species. 5. The applicant shall secure all applicable permits required from the watershed as well as all local, state, and federal entities. 6. The applicant shall pay all other fees and escrows associated with this application. 7. The applicant must commence the authorized use or improvement within one year of the date on which the variance is issued. After one year, the approvals issued under the provisions of the Section shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or Board . 8. The applicant shall record the variance with Washington County within one year of the date when the variance is approved by the City. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend the Planning Commission: Motion to recommend approval of the attached resolution to approve a variance to allow an encroachment into the minimum structure setback to the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) and front setback, with conditions as described by staff within the staff report. Attachments 1. Draft Resolution 2. Application 3. Applicant Narrative 4. Certificate of Survey 5. Site Plan 6. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District comments, dated April 8, 2026. 7. Department of Natural Resources comments, dated April 28, 2026. 8. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency comments, dated April 30, 2026. 9. Washington County comments, dated April 29, 2026.