Loading...
4.a) Staff Report-KruegerVariance2015 PC9 1 15 Memorandum To: Scandia Planning Commission Kristina Handt, City Administrator Reference: Krueger 2015 Variance Application, City of Scandia Copies To: John Krueger, Applicant Project No.: 15744.010 From: Sherri Buss, RLA AICP, Planner Routing: Date: August 25, 2015 SUBJECT: Application for a Variance from the OHWL of Big Marine Lake to Construct a Swimming Pool and Related Structures MEETING DATE: September 1, 2015 LOCATION: 12199 205th Street North Scandia, Minnesota APPLICANTS: John and Sia Krueger ZONING: General Rural District and Shoreland Zone 60-DAY PERIOD: October 6, 2015 ITEMS REVIEWED: Application and plan received August 7, 2015; application and materials submitted for variance approved in 2013, City staff report and resolution for 2013 application BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST: The applicants are seeking to build a swimming pool, patio and related structures between the existing home on the property and Big Marine Lake. The proposed location for the pool is within the required structure setback from the lake, and portions of the structures are within the Shore Impact Zone. The City approved a variance to construct a swimming pool 60 feet from the OHWL on this property in 2013. The new request is for a variance to construct the pool approximately 42 feet from the OHWL. The patio and other structures are new elements of the request that were not included in the 2013 application. Krueger 2015 Variance Application Scandia Planning Commission Page 2 September 1, 2015 The parcel includes 5.09 acres; 4.3 acres of the parcel are above the OHWL. The property is located in the General Rural (GR) District and within the Shoreland Zone of Big Marine Lake, a Recreational Development lake. BACKGROUND—PREVIOUS VARIANCE REQUEST The City approved a variance request for a swimming pool at this property in 2013. The approval permitted construction of a pool a minimum of 60 feet from the Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL) of Big Marine Lake. (The required structures setback is 100 feet from the OHWL.) The approval was based on a sketch submitted by the applicant that estimated that the edge of the pool structure would be 60 feet from the OHWL. The applicant wanted approval of the variance prior to assuming the cost to produce detailed plans for the proposed pool. A copy of the sketch is attached. The sketch and previous application did not include the proposed patio areas, cabana, retaining walls, boulder walls, steps, and sand surfaces that are included in the 2015 application. The Planning Commission discussed the 2013 variance request at length and noted concerns that the application did not include a survey that showed the proposed improvements accurately so that the City could identify the actual setbacks and potential impacts to slopes and vegetation. The conditions for approval of the variance included the following:  A requirement that the applicants submit a certificate of survey verifying the setbacks before the City would approve a building permit for the project.  A requirement that the applicants maintain the existing screening between the pool structure and the lake to address neighbor concerns about noise and visual impacts.  A requirement that the applicants submit a grading plan to the City for approval by the Engineer before a building permit would be issued, and that the applicant’s surveyor must stake the location of the project for approval by the building inspector to verify the setback before construction could begin. The 2015 survey includes detailed plans for the project, and shows that the edge of the concrete deck closest to the lake is proposed to be 42 feet from the OHWL. The proposed setback is significantly closer to the lake than the setback approved in the previous variance, and some of the structures are proposed within the Shore Impact Zone. The proposed project shows significantly more impervious surface area than the project proposed in 2013. DETAILED EVALUATION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan and Shoreland Management Ordinance The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the General Rural District includes areas of mixed lot sizes, and will continue to do so. Single-family residential uses, including accessory uses, are supported in the GR District. The plan recommends that the General Rural Area be developed at a maximum density of four dwelling units per 40 acres, with a minimum allowed lot size of 2 acres. The Comprehensive Plan includes goals to protect water and natural resources in the City and its Shoreland Overlay Districts. The plan requires that “development in the Shoreland District be designed to minimize impacts on surface water, floodplains, steep slopes, and other sensitive areas.” The City’s Local Surface Water Management Plan is part of the Krueger 2015 Variance Application Scandia Planning Commission Page 3 September 1, 2015 Comprehensive Plan, and it also includes goals and policies related to protecting water and natural resources, including the following:  The City of Scandia adopted and enforces its Shoreland Ordnance to address the potential impact of development in Shoreland Areas, including Bone Lake and Big Marine Lake where development is a particular concern. The City will manage land use and development to support the protection of surface and ground waters through its Zoning Regulations.  The City has adopted an erosion and sediment control and stormwater management ordinance and enforces the requirements of the ordinance to address those concerns. It also supports the Watershed District rules and permit process related to erosion control.  The City supports and requires landowners to use storm water best management practices that minimize impervious surfaces, incorporate natural topography, preserve natural vegetation, swales and storage areas, and promote the use of Low Impact Development techniques. The Shoreland Management Ordinance permits single-family residences and accessory structures, and includes standards related to the location of structures, construction on steep slopes, erosion and sediment control, and vegetation screening and management. The Ordinance requires that the city evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development visibility from public waters, and if necessary, include conditions for development to prevent erosion and preserve existing vegetation screening of structures and facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters. The proposed residential use of the property is consistent with the residential use permitted in the Comprehensive Plan for the General Rural District and Shoreland Overlay District. However, the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreland Management Ordinance require that the City evaluate the potential impacts of the project, including impacts of structures, proposed impervious surfaces, grading, potential erosion and sedimentation, and impacts to vegetation and screening. The Comprehensive Plan and its LWMP require that development with Shoreland areas minimize potential impacts to surface waters, steep slopes, and other sensitive areas such as existing vegetation. Development Code Requirements: Lot Size and Setbacks The applicants’ lot includes 4.3 acres above the OHWL. The Shoreland Ordinance requires that only areas above the OHWL be used to calculate dimensions and ordinance standards. The General Rural District requires a minimum lot size of 2.0 acres, and the Shoreland Overlay District requires that existing lots on Recreational Development lakes meet the lot size requirements of the underlying district The lot meets the lot size requirement. The required setbacks in the Shoreland Overlay District for Big Marine Lake (a Recreational Development Lake) include the following:  Right-of-Way Line of a Public Street: 40 feet  Side: 10 feet  Structure setback from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL): 100 feet  Shore Impact Zone: 50 feet from OHWL The applicant is proposing to locate the swimming pool and related patio 42 feet from the OHWL of the lake. The proposed structures therefore require a variance. The proposed structures meet the side lot line and right-of-way setback requirements. Krueger 2015 Variance Application Scandia Planning Commission Page 4 September 1, 2015 The applicants stated that they reviewed other options for potential location of the pool for the application in 2013. Sites that would meet the setback requirement from the OHWL are occupied by the home, driveway, and the primary and secondary septic fields. They stated that a location to the east of the secondary septic field would be a long distance from the house, limiting view of the pool and creating safety concerns, and would require the removal of existing trees. They suggested that tree removal would conflict with Shoreland District standards to preserve natural vegetation. The 2015 application did not include an additional rationale for locating the project closer to the OHWL, or for the additional structures shown on the survey. It did not address whether the applicants looked at options to place the pool farther from the OHWL or reduce the project impacts within the required structure setback. The “Shore Impact Zone,” is an area of particular concern in the Shoreland Ordinance. The Zone is the land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50% of the required structure setback.” In this case the shore impact zone is the area within 50 feet of the OHWL. The Zone has a higher level of protection than other areas within the required 100-foot structure setback from Big Marine Lake. The Shoreland Ordinance prohibits grading and filling with the Shore Impact Zone. It appears that the plan could be revised to move the pool and related structures outside the Shore Impact Zone to eliminate the potential grading, filling, and vegetation impacts in the Zone. The Planner recommends that the plan be revised so that no grading or filling occur within the Shore Impact Zone. This means that the pool, patios and structures need to be moved outside the Shore Impact Zone, and the plan needs to be revised so that no grading or filling to construct the pool and related structures would occur within the Shore Impact Zone. Accessory Structures The Development Code allows up to 2 non-agricultural accessory structures up to 2,500 square feet in size on lots that are more than 3.0 acres and less than 5.0 acres in size. The property includes one existing shed that was shown on the 2013 sketch. The proposed plan includes a cabana structure that would be 288 square feet in size, and a pool equipment structure approximately 50 square feet in size. The total area of accessory structures meets the ordinance requirement. The structures are proposed within the required setback from the OHWL, and the equipment structure is proposed within the Shore Impact Zone. Both structures could be located outside the required setback and Impact Zone. The Planner recommends that the plan be revised to locate the proposed cabana and pool equipment structures outside the required setback from the OHWL. Lot Coverage The Shoreland District allows impervious coverage up to 25% of the area of the parcel that is above the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). The current impervious coverage on the parcel is 8.2% of the area above the OHWL. The proposed pool and patio addition will increase the lot coverage to 10.5% of the area above the OHWL. Both the Carnelian-Marine St. Croix Watershed District (CMSCWD) and DNR staff noted concerns regarding the large area of new impervious cover that is proposed within the required structure setback from the OHWL. Krueger 2015 Variance Application Scandia Planning Commission Page 5 September 1, 2015 The proposed project includes several new concrete patio areas in addition to the pool. These areas were not part of the project that received a variance in 2013. Much of the new impervious surface is within the required structure setback and some of it is within the Shore Impact Zone. The Planner recommends that the plan be revised to remove all new structures and impervious cover within the Shore Impact Zone and to reduce the new impervious area within the required structure setback. Reducing the proposed impervious areas to include only the new pool and a 4’ walkway area around the pool (or minimum walkway necessary for safety and access), to preserve the Shore Impact Zone, minimize the impacts of the project within the required structure setback area, and revise the project to be more similar to the project approved for a variance in 2013. Building Height The height of the proposed cabana structure is not shown on the plans. The structure should be no more than one story in height and should be screened so that it is not visible from the water. The revised plans should show the location, height and screening for the structure. Wastewater Treatment The proposed expansion does not require additional wastewater treatment on the parcel. Stormwater Management and Land Alteration—City Engineer Comments The Shoreland Ordinance requires that the City must evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development visibility from public waters before issuing a permit for construction of any structures on steep slopes (slopes over 12% that are not bluffs). Some of the slopes where construction is proposed for this project or where grading could occur during construction are 40% slopes. If necessary the City must attach conditions to permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures as viewed form the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. As noted previously, grading and filling is prohibited within the Shore Impact Zone. In this case the shore impact zone is the area within 50 feet of the OHWL. The Planner sent the application to the City Engineer, the Carnelian-Marine Watershed District and the Minnesota DNR for review and comment. The City Engineer’s comments regarding stormwater, grading and land alteration include the following: 1. The proposed project will disturb fifty (50) cubic yards or more and/or disturbance of 1,000 square feet or more along with clearing trees. The City’s ordinance requires that the applicants obtain a land alteration and grading permit if 1,000 square feet or more of land area will be disturbed. Since disturbance is proposed within 1,000 feet of a lake, pond or flowage, Watershed District and DNR comments should be addressed as well. 2. The owner must submit additional information on the proposed boulder wall that includes the height of the wall, backfill material, draintile location, and reinforcement spacing/location. If the wall is over 4’ in entire height (including the buried base), the owner must submit plans signed by a professional engineer for the design of the proposed wall and obtain a building permit. Krueger 2015 Variance Application Scandia Planning Commission Page 6 September 1, 2015 3. The proposed steps and boulder wall shown on the south side of the house should be relocated because they would encroach over the septic area. He noted that with the information available on the plan, it is assumed that the drainfield pipes will be affected. 4. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be prepared for review by the City. The plan should include sequencing and location of devices protecting the existing lake and drainage way to the lake. Temporary restoration may be required to contain erosion prior to final restoration. The location(s) for spoil piles from an excavation for the proposed work should be shown on the plan and should be handled with care. Material should be hauled off-site immediately or stored in a manner that has perimeter protection. All erosion control devices must be installed before any construction work begins. During the work the owner shall anticipate having to clean out or adjust erosion control best management practices as necessary. 5. Construction access shall be shown on the erosion and sediment control plan as the access will disturb existing turf restoration, and likely will be in locations with slopes 18% or greater. 6. The owner has not submitted any geotechnical soil information for the proposed pool, cabana, boulder wall, or proposed pool equipment storage. Potential soil correction or reinforcement may be necessary if poor soils are encountered and the slope is not suitable for the proposed weight of improvements that could result in a slope failure. The applicants should complete slope calculations to ensure that the weight of the proposed improvements will not create a potential slope failure. If the geotechnical review and slope failure calculations determine that the soils are not adequate to support the proposed weight, the applicants shall revise the plan. The Planner recommends that the applicants submit the following for City Engineer and agency review prior to the City’s decision regarding the Variance request:  A revised plan that removes the structures from the shore impact zone and that requires no grading or filling within the shore impact zone.  Design information for the proposed boulder wall identified by the City Engineer for his review, including plans signed by a professional engineer if the total height of the wall exceeds 4’.  An erosion and sediment control plan that meets the Engineer’s requirements, including identification of construction access.  Geotechnical and soil information for the pool and related structures that meets the Engineer’s requirements  A revised site plan that addresses the issues identified by the Engineer and Planner in this staff review. If the variance is approved, the applicant shall obtain a land alteration and grading permit for the project. DNR and Watershed District (CMSCWD) Comments DNR Comments on the proposed project included the following:  The house footprint shown on the survey is about 6,110 square feet. The area of the proposed pool and decks (not county the area of new deck under old deck) is 4,810 square feet. This does not include the area covered by the proposed steps to the south Krueger 2015 Variance Application Scandia Planning Commission Page 7 September 1, 2015 and proposed walls. How is this significant increase in impervious surface so close to the lake being mitigated for?  I’ve attached a photo from 2013 that shows how valuable the existing trees are at screening the structure from view from the lake. What is the tree replacement plan, and how is that going to be effective in both the short term and long term?  No effort is being made to minimize the variance (both the deck and pool could be smaller, and/or additional new decks on the back of the house that are not part of the pool area are not required for installing a pool).  In 2013, DNR had a violation because Mr. Krueger was running a jet to move sediment around to keep vegetation from growing. Also, at that same time the beach area was issued an after-the-fact permit. A proposed beach area below the OHWL like this would not have been authorized by the DNR. CMSCWD comments included the following:  The Managers of the Watershed District cannot endorse a variance allowing any additional hard cover within the lake setback.  If the City chooses to grant a variance in this situation, a District permit will be required for Shoreline Buffers at a minimum in an attempt to mitigate some of the potential negative consequences. Based on the DNR and CMSCWD comments:  The plan shall be revised to minimize new impervious surface within the required structure setback area and to minimize the variance required from the setback from the OHWL.  The proposed sand surface areas below the OHWL shall be removed from the plan.  The revised plan should clarify if the “wood steps” are existing or proposed. If proposed, the steps need to meet the Shoreland Ordinance requirement for stairway size and screening from view from the water. The landscape plan should indicate any trees that will be removed to construct the steps, and proposed screening.  The revised plan should minimize impacts to existing vegetation within the required setback.  The applicants should contact the CMSCWD regarding the required buffer area, and include this on the revised plan. Landscape Plan As noted above, the Shoreland Ordinance requires preservation of existing vegetation within the shore impact zone and on steep slopes (slopes over 12%), and screening of structures as viewed form the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. The Shoreland Ordinance also prohibits the cutting or removal of trees over six inches in diameter (as measured at a point 54 inches above ground level) within the required building setback unless the trees are dead, diseased, or pose a documented safety hazard. The plan shows that approximately 10 trees larger than six inches in diameter are proposed for removal within the required setback. Landowners must obtain a certificate of compliance from the City prior to removal of any trees in the Shoreland Zone. Krueger 2015 Variance Application Scandia Planning Commission Page 8 September 1, 2015 Selective removal of natural vegetation outside the shore impact zone is permitted provided sufficient vegetative cover remains to screen cars, dwellings, and other structures when viewed from the water. The Planner recommends that the plan be revised to eliminate all grading and vegetation alteration within the Shore Impact Zone. The Planner recommends that the applicants shall submit a landscape plan to the City along with the erosion and sediment control plan that shows preservation of existing vegetation and methods to protect vegetation within the Shore Impact Zone during construction; any vegetation that will be removed, including trees over 6” in diameter within the Shoreland structure setback area; proposed tree replacemen; and proposed screening for the pool and related structures to meet the Shoreland Ordinance requirements. The Planning Commission should discuss requirements for tree replacement outside the Shore Impact Zone. The City’s ordinance requirement for tree replacement for new development would require that each deciduous tree between 6 and 20 inches in diameter proposed to be removed with the plan be replaced by one of the following: a deciduous tree at least 4 caliper inches or a coniferous tree at least 12 feet in height, or at least 2 deciduous trees 2.5 caliper inches or 2 coniferous trees at least 6 feet in height, or 4 deciduous trees at least 1.5 caliper inches or 4 coniferous trees at least 4 feet in height. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES AND FINDINGS Chapter 1, Section 6.0 of the Development Code includes the criteria and required process for considering variance requests. Variances may only be granted when the terms of the variance are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the development code. The other variance criteria include: 1. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Development Code. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. 5. 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 impair property values within the neighborhood. 6. The required variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. 7. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The applicants are requesting a variance from the Shoreland Overlay District regulations to place a swimming pool and related structures within the required structure setback from Big Marine Lake. The required setback is 100 feet. The closest structure is proposed to be located approximately 42 feet from the OHWL. The applicant’s variance rationale is that the proposed Krueger 2015 Variance Application Scandia Planning Commission Page 9 September 1, 2015 location is the only potential location due to location of existing buildings, driveway and septic system on the parcel, the need to have the pool reasonably close to the home, and the goal to maintain existing vegetation on the property. The current owner did not create those conditions. Findings The following bullets present the Planner’s findings related to the Krueger request for a variance, based on the statutory criteria for granting a variance. Each of the criteria is shown in italics:  Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control. The Comprehensive Plan supports single-family residential uses in the General Rural District and Shoreland District. Accessory structures such as swimming pools are permitted in the GR District and Shoreland District. The Comprehensive Plan also requires protection of water and natural resources, and compliance with the Shoreland Ordinance and Watershed District requirements that protect water resources. The Plan requires that projects in Shoreland areas minimize impacts to surface waters, steep slopes, and existing vegetation. The proposed plan for the pool and related structures does not comply with the purpose and intent of the Shoreland Ordinance regarding avoiding impacts within the Shore Impact Zone and minimizing impacts within the Shoreland area, including impacts related to erosion and sediment control, steep slopes, and vegetation management. Revisions to the plan and additional information from the applicants are needed to determine if the proposed pool and related structures can comply with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreland Ordinance.  The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner under the conditions allowed by official control(s). Single Family Residences and accessory structures are reasonable uses in the General Rural District and Shoreland Overlay District.  The practical difficulties are not caused by the landowner, and are unique to the property. The proposed location of the pool is based on the location of the existing home, driveway, septic system and vegatation, and the desire to have the pool within a reasonable distance from the home and viewable from the home for safety. The practical difficulties were not caused by the landowner and are unique to the existing development and vegetation on the property.  The variance would not alter the essential character of the area. The applicants’ home is near other residential structures that have a variety of accessory structures. Development on nearby parcels is not located with the Shore Impact Zone and has maintained a significant vegetative screen between all structures and the lake. Krueger 2015 Variance Application Scandia Planning Commission Page 10 September 1, 2015 The Shoreland Ordinance prohibits structures, grading and filling within the Shore Impact Zone, requires that structures be screened from view from public waters, and that existing natural vegetation be preserved. The current plan would alter the essential character of the shoreland area around the property by developing structures in the Shore Impact Zone, and by reducing or eliminating existing vegetation that provides screening. Granting the proposed variance would not meet the ordinance requirements to maintain essential character of the area.  Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. The practical difficulties are related to the shape of the existing lot, location of existing structures, septic system and vegetation. The practical difficulties are not only economic in nature.  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 impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed variance will not impair the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. It will not increase congestion, endanger the public. The Shoreland Ordinance prohibits structures, grading and land alteration within the Shore Impact Zone and requires screening of structures in order to protect property values within the neighborhood. The construction of the proposed pool and related structures within 42 feet of the OHWL, potential impacts to steep slopes and loss of vegetation and screening has the potential to diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.  The required variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The variance granted in 2013 proposed a pool structure located 60 feet from the OHWL in order to provide separation between the pool, existing structures and the septic system, and to provide as much separation from the lake as possible without impacting other structures. It was approved as a variance that was the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The 2015 request proposes large patio areas adjacent to the home and surrounding the pool, so that the pool and structures encroach into the Shore Impact Zone and significantly increase impervious surface and potential impacts to slopes and vegetation within the building setback area. The applicants have provided no rationale regarding why the large patio areas are necessary for the pool structure, or why the pool cannot be moved farther from the OHWL. The proposed plan could be modified to reduce the impacts in the Shoreland area while still providing a swimming pool to meet the practical difficulty identified by the variance. The proposed variance is not the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty.  Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The variance is not related to a need for direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Krueger 2015 Variance Application Scandia Planning Commission Page 11 September 1, 2015 PLANNER’S FINDINGS The Planner finds that the proposed plan does not meet the criteria for granting a variance. It may be possible for the applicants to revise the plan and provide additional information to the City for review that would permit approval of the plan. The Planner recommends that the Planning Commission table the application at the meeting on September 1, to permit the applicants to revise the plan and provide the additional information, and that the review period be extended for the application. If the applicant is not willing to revise the plan and resubmit it along with the additional information required, the Planner recommends that the variance be denied based on the following findings:  Granting the proposed variance is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, which includes the Shoreland Ordinance. It is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Plan and Code to protect water resources and minimize impacts to surface waters, slopes, and existing vegetation. The variance request includes impacts to the Shore Impact Zone that could be avoided, structures and impervious surfaces that could be relocated or reduced to avoid or minimize impacts, and preserve existing slopes and vegetation.  Granting the proposed variance would alter the essential character of the area by placing structures within the Shore Impact Zone and altering existing vegetation that would screen the structures from view from public waters and surrounding properties.  The proposed variance is not the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. A pool could be constructed on the property without impacting the Shore Impact Zone, and with less impervious surface and less impacts within the required setback from the Ordinary High Water level. ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission should receive public comments at the hearing on September 1. The Planning Commission should discuss the variance request, and can recommend the following: 1. Approval 2. Approval with conditions 3. Denial with findings 4. Table the request PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planner recommends that the Planning Commission table the request to locate a pool and related structures 42 feet from the OHWL of Big Marine Lake on the property located at 12199 205th Street North. The Planner recommends that the applicants complete the following: 1. The applicants shall revise the plan for the project as follows: a. Locate all structures and related grading, filling, vegetation, and other impacts outside the Shore Impact Zone. Krueger 2015 Variance Application Scandia Planning Commission Page 12 September 1, 2015 b. Locate the cabana and other proposed structures outside the required structure setback, indicate the proposed height of the structures and vegetative screening that will be maintained or added so that the structures are not visible from the lake. c. Reduce the proposed impervious area within the required structure setback to include only the new pool and 4-foot wide walkway (or minimum width needed for safety and access) around the pool. All other patio, deck, and building structures shall be located outside the required structure setback. d. Relocate the proposed steps and boulder wall on the south side of the house so that they do not impact the septic area. A structure setback of at least 10 feet is required from septic drain fields. e. Remove the proposed sand surface area below the OHWL. f. Design and screening information for wood steps, if these are a proposed rather than an existing structure. 2. The applicants shall provide the following addition information to the City for review: a. Additional design information for the proposed boulder wall as required by the City Engineer b. Relocation of the proposed steps and boulder wall on the south side of the house to avoid impacts to the septic area as noted by the Engineer. c. An erosion and sediment control plan as required by the City Engineer, including proposed construction access. d. Geotechnical and soil information for the proposed structures as required by the City Engineer. e. Slope calculations as required by the City Engineer. f. A revised grading plan that shows no grading, filling or structures within the Shore Impact Zone. g. A landscape plan that meets the Shoreland Ordinance and Development Code requirements, including avoiding or minimizing impacts to existing vegetation, identifying mitigation for trees proposed for removal, identifying screening for the pool and related structures, and identifying the Shoreline Buffers to meet CMSCWD requirements.