[0:02] the AUGUST 25th, 2026,

[0:03] Shoreview Planning Commission

[0:03] meeting. I

[0:04] m Craig John. I am

[0:04] the chair of the planning

[0:07] commission. Please note that

[0:08] the meeting is streaming live

[0:09] on the city

[0:10] s website as well

[0:14] as broadcast on tv Channel 16.

[0:16] Applicants will be, um, and

[0:17] members of the public will be

[0:20] able to Testify in person

[0:21] during the appropriate agenda

[0:23] item. The first item tonight is

[0:26] roll call. I will note that

[0:27] Commissioner Helgen is not

[0:30] present at this time. So 6 of 7

[0:35] commissioners are here today.

[0:35] So let

[0:36] s move on to the

[0:38] approval of the agenda. Um, in

[0:40] case someone in our audience

[0:41] does not have a copy of our

[0:43] agenda. We have 3 items of new

[0:45] business tonight. We have a

[0:48] fence height variance request

[0:49] for 675 Sunset Court by Mark

[0:51] Palmquist. We have a

[0:53] residential design review and

[0:54] variance requests for 559

[0:57] Harbor Court. By 580 Shoreview

[1:01] llc. We also have a variance

[1:03] request for 804 Connie Road, I

[1:05] West by Robert Fried. Are there

[1:07] any changes to the agenda? MR.

[1:09] Chair. Monsieur Simonson, I

[1:10] d

[1:11] like to make a motion to

[1:14] approve the agenda for AUGUST

[1:16] 22nd as presented been moved in

[1:18] 2nd. All those in favor say aye.

[1:21] Aye, the same side. We have

[1:24] unanimous. Approval of the

[1:26] agenda. So let

[1:28] s move on to the

[1:30] minutes from the JULY 28th,

[1:33] 2026 Planning commission. Does

[1:34] any commissioner wish to

[1:35] recommend changes to the

[1:42] minutes? Commission arrested. I

[1:43] move to approve the minutes as

[1:46] presented. So moved 2nd, it

[1:47] s

[1:49] been moved in 2nd. All those in

[1:52] favor say aye, aye aye the same

[1:56] sign once again unanimous. Ok.

[1:58] Item 5, report on city council

[2:02] action. Redevelopment director,

[2:03] assistant Community Development

[2:04] Director Nikki Hill, would you

[2:05] please report on city council

[2:06] s

[2:07] action that has affected the

[2:09] commission this past month.

[2:11] Thank you, chair. I thought

[2:12] AUGUST 17th City Council

[2:14] meeting, the Chipotle

[2:17] Comprehensive Sign Plan at 3333

[2:18] Rice Street was approved and

[2:21] that was the only action. I bet.

[2:23] Thank you. Thank you, MS. Hill.

[2:26] All right. So before we start

[2:27] our items of new business, I

[2:27] m

[2:29] just gonna provide a brief

[2:30] description of our meeting

[2:33] process. For 3 items of

[2:35] business tonight. Staff will

[2:36] first give a presentation at

[2:37] the conclusion of the

[2:39] presentation. The commission

[2:40] will be able to ask staff

[2:43] questions. Then we will ask for

[2:45] the Applicant to come up and

[2:49] make comments. And the

[2:51] commission will then ask

[2:52] questions of the applicant, and

[2:54] then we will have the any

[2:55] members of the public that wish

[2:56] to speak on that particular

[3:00] item to come up. After hearing

[3:01] all your comments and

[3:02] responding to our questions, we

[3:03] will bring it back to the

[3:07] commission to Debrief and

[3:09] Together a proposal. For

[3:10] applicants and the public

[3:11] whenever making a comment, it

[3:12] is important that you step up

[3:14] to the mic to be heard over the

[3:18] recording? We ask that you give

[3:20] your full name and your address

[3:22] for the record, and we ask that

[3:23] you be concise and stay on

[3:26] topic. If you need to use the

[3:28] screen, you can do so. There

[3:28] s

[3:29] a mouse located right next to

[3:30] the computer. We prefer you do

[3:32] that rather than turning point

[3:36] away from the microphone. Um,

[3:37] Please direct all your comments

[3:38] and questions to the planning

[3:39] commission as a general rule,

[3:39] we don

[3:41] t want to give into back

[3:45] in. 4th debates. We also only

[3:47] allow one time to testify. We

[3:47] don

[3:50] t want. Multiple hearing

[3:51] the same thing over and over

[3:54] again. I will note that

[3:56] decisions on variances in

[3:57] residential design reviews, our

[3:58] final decisions by the planning

[3:59] commission, this won

[4:00] t move on

[4:02] to the city council. So with

[4:03] that, let

[4:04] s move on to new

[4:06] business. Item 78 is a fence,

[4:08] height variance request by Mark

[4:11] Palmquist. The location is 675

[4:13] Sunset Court and Associate Pass

[4:14] uh planner, Will Harris, you

[4:15] have the presentation. Uh,

[4:19] thank you, Chair John. One item

[4:21] of clarification, uh, the city

[4:25] had noticed for a variance

[4:26] request at 5803 Churchill, uh,

[4:28] for a driveway width variants,

[4:29] if any of the members of the

[4:31] public are here to speak on

[4:33] behalf of that, that

[4:34] application was pulled, uh,

[4:35] after the notice had already

[4:38] been sent out, so I just wanted

[4:39] to provide clarification if

[4:39] anybody was here to speak on

[4:43] behalf of that. And with that,

[4:45] I will get into the request for

[4:48] 675 Sunset Court. As stated,

[4:51] this is a fence height variance

[4:54] request, uh, for the location

[4:55] on the north side of the

[4:58] property. Uh, which is located

[5:02] along a city right of way

[5:03] easement orienting ourselves,

[5:04] uh, the property is going to be

[5:07] located on the eastern side of

[5:09] Turtle Lake, uh, with access

[5:13] off of Sunset Court, um, with,

[5:16] uh, the northernmost. Portion

[5:20] of the property also having um

[5:23] or a budding, uh, a city right

[5:25] of way easement that uh is

[5:29] currently undeveloped. The

[5:32] property is located within the

[5:34] r1 zoning district. Um, it is a

[5:35] substandard riparian lot due to

[5:39] the lot width of 36.65 ft along

[5:40] Sunset Court, as you can see

[5:44] here. In the lower corner of

[5:49] the property. The total lot

[5:50] area is 43,221 square feet with

[5:53] an additional width of 83.69 ft

[5:58] long Turtle Lake. The home was

[6:02] constructed in 2019. Uh, it is

[6:05] 3,772 total square feet with an

[6:06] attached garage, um, and as a

[6:07] part of that development, it

[6:09] did go through a residential

[6:11] design review and variance

[6:17] request in 2017. Um, That uh

[6:20] variance was approved for a

[6:21] lakeside setback variants, uh,

[6:23] due to the unique lot shape of

[6:29] the property. Uh, the variance

[6:31] request and the staff report

[6:37] that was attached, noted that

[6:38] uh the setback averaging

[6:42] requirements for the two

[6:44] adjacent properties included

[6:45] this standard non-riparian lot

[6:48] that is located to the east of

[6:50] the property, and therefore the

[6:52] setback range for the front

[6:53] setback would have been at

[6:57] about 135. 150 ft, thus

[7:01] locating the home. Up in this

[7:04] uh northern corner. Um, and

[7:06] thus would have required a

[7:08] setback variance from the

[7:10] lakeside setback. So it was a

[7:11] pick your poison moment between

[7:12] the, the front and the lake

[7:14] side, uh, ultimately the

[7:15] homeowners did decide to go

[7:16] with the lakeside variants,

[7:17] which was approved by the

[7:23] planning commission. As stated,

[7:25] uh, the lot does border, uh, a

[7:27] city right of way easement

[7:29] located on that northern side,

[7:30] a little bit of history with

[7:34] that, uh, this easement is, uh,

[7:35] commonly known as Dome

[7:36] s Alley.

[7:38] Uh, it was originally platted

[7:41] back in 1916 with a width of

[7:44] 15.5 ft. Um, the city

[7:46] previously had been maintaining

[7:48] and plowing this area, um, but

[7:49] during the preparation of this

[7:50] report, Uh, the streets

[7:52] department and the public works

[7:53] department of the city

[7:56] uncovered a resolution that was

[8:00] passed in 2001, um, which

[8:04] affected the western 450 ft of

[8:04] this alleyway along this side

[8:08] here. So this resolution was

[8:09] authorized by the property

[8:15] owners of Uh. The northern

[8:17] property here and two of the

[8:18] properties up here we

[8:19] ll get

[8:20] into the specific addresses a

[8:22] little bit later for the

[8:24] visuals, but, um, it

[8:25] s 50/59

[8:27] Alameda, 690 Burch Lane South

[8:30] and 688 Birch Lane South, um,

[8:32] had signed a shared access

[8:33] agreement to maintain this

[8:35] portion of the alleyway,

[8:36] including street repairs and

[8:39] street plowing. So, uh, this

[8:40] was done in exchange for the

[8:42] right to use the alleyway for

[8:44] ingress and egress to some de

[8:45] Attached garages that are

[8:47] located on the southern sides

[8:50] of those properties. Uh, moving

[8:52] forward, the city public works

[8:53] superintendent stated that the

[8:55] residents in this area had been

[8:56] receiving technically free

[8:58] plowing based off of that 2001

[9:02] agreement, um, and so the, the

[9:06] city moving forward, um, will

[9:07] be deferring maintenance to

[9:08] those property owners and no

[9:10] longer be maintaining that area

[9:13] moving forward. So, ultimately,

[9:14] that stretch of Dome

[9:15] s alley is

[9:16] going to be maintained by those

[9:17] property owners and not the

[9:24] city. The remaining homes along

[9:25] Birch and Sunset to the north

[9:33] up here. Um, use this, uh, Lot

[9:36] b or the uh eastern side of

[9:36] Dome

[9:37] s Alley for kind of a a

[9:39] rear yard area as you

[9:41] standardly would. Um, there

[9:42] s

[9:42] accessory structures and

[9:44] landscaping areas that are in

[9:47] close proximity to it, so, um,

[9:49] if this were to be developed at

[9:51] a future date into a city right

[9:55] of way, um. The, the, the width

[9:59] of the The easement and uh some

[10:00] serious impacts to those

[10:03] homeowners would need to be um

[10:05] considered if that were to take

[10:08] place, but since 1916, there

[10:10] has been no thought of

[10:12] development past that 450 ft

[10:13] from the agreement that was

[10:17] previously noted. So the

[10:19] proposal from the applicant, uh,

[10:22] is to construct a 4-foot fence

[10:24] along a portion of the property

[10:26] and a six-foot fence along that

[10:28] northernmost property that does

[10:29] abut the city right of way

[10:31] easement. Currently there is no

[10:34] fence in that area. Um, however,

[10:36] the 4-foot fence of section of

[10:38] fence could be approved

[10:40] administratively and a 4-foot

[10:42] fence could be approved

[10:42] administratively in the

[10:44] proposed location of the

[10:45] six-foot fence. Um, however,

[10:50] due to Section 10765 subsection

[10:55] d 7b1. Uh, any fence that is in

[10:57] any yard adjacent to a public

[10:59] road right of way or road

[11:00] easement MAY not exceed that 4

[11:04] ft height. And so, as you can

[11:06] see on the screen here, uh,

[11:08] this gives a nice visual of

[11:10] what the applicant is looking

[11:12] for, uh, the area in yellow

[11:15] here is going to be, um, Where

[11:16] they

[11:17] re proposing the 4 ft

[11:19] fence and the 6 ft fence is

[11:21] going to be as stated, located

[11:22] along that easement on the

[11:23] northernmost portion of the

[11:29] property. The variance criteria

[11:30] must meet the three following

[11:32] items, it must be requested in

[11:36] a reasonable manner. Uh, the

[11:38] unique circumstance is, uh, the

[11:39] property, the plate of the

[11:41] property is due to the

[11:42] circumstances that are unique,

[11:45] not created by the homeowner,

[11:46] uh, and the request must

[11:47] maintain the character of the

[11:51] neighborhood. Staff believes

[11:53] that a practical difficulty is

[11:55] present for this request, um,

[11:57] 6-foot fences are permitted

[11:58] within the r1 residential area,

[12:02] um, And the, the applicant

[12:02] s

[12:05] desire to have a fence in that

[12:06] location is a reasonable

[12:08] request, um, staff believes

[12:11] that the owner faces a unique

[12:12] circumstance in this situation.

[12:15] Uh, the unutilized easement

[12:17] does create, uh, that unique

[12:18] circumstance that inhibits the

[12:20] owner from constructing that 6

[12:22] ft fence, uh, that would

[12:23] otherwise be allowed, uh, in

[12:24] this proposed location, should

[12:27] the easement not be located

[12:28] there, um, and the, the

[12:30] variants, if granted, would not

[12:32] alter the the character of the

[12:33] neighborhood, uh, again, as

[12:36] stated, a 4 ft fence could be

[12:38] approved administratively, um,

[12:40] but the, due to the location of

[12:43] the 6 ft fence being uh uh

[12:47] nearly 200 ft from Sunset Court,

[12:49] um, and about 200 ft from

[12:50] Alameda Street, uh, it wouldn

[12:51] t

[12:52] really negatively impact the

[12:53] neighborhood because it would

[12:55] be very hidden from other

[12:58] surrounding properties as well.

[13:01] Uh, staff sent notice to

[13:02] property owners within 100 ft

[13:05] or 150 ft of the property. Uh,

[13:07] one comment was, uh, received

[13:08] in opposition, and that comment

[13:09] was included in your packets

[13:13] this evening. Uh, but

[13:14] ultimately, staff does

[13:18] recommend that the planning

[13:19] commission adopt Resolution

[13:21] 26-66, uh, approving the

[13:23] variant submitted by Mark

[13:25] Palmquist for the 6 ft privacy

[13:27] fence that abuts a city right

[13:29] of way, easement subject to the

[13:30] conditions outlined in the

[13:32] resolution. And with that, I

[13:33] will stand for questions. Thank

[13:35] you, MR. Harris, commissioners.

[13:36] What

[13:37] s your Ahmadvan? Things.

[13:39] So, When I

[13:40] m looking at the

[13:42] picture with the orange outline

[13:46] of the property. Um, yeah, that,

[13:52] that one works. So, Alameda

[13:54] Avenue or Alameda Street behind

[13:55] it there comes down and then

[14:00] that turns into the. Future Uh,

[14:02] shared alleyway, essentially.

[14:06] Correct. So Alameda Street, uh,

[14:08] provides access to, um, there

[14:08] s

[14:10] 3 homes that are located. Let

[14:10] s

[14:15] go back to the aerial. So

[14:16] Alameda Street provides access

[14:22] to um, About 3 to 4 homes if

[14:23] you count 1559, even though

[14:25] that one is technically one of

[14:28] those homes that had signed the

[14:30] maintenance agreement, um, and

[14:32] then that small portion. Right

[14:37] here. That starts going

[14:38] eastward off of Alameda, that

[14:39] is the alleyway that

[14:39] s in

[14:40] question. And in those houses

[14:44] there. Their driveways come out

[14:46] to that alleyway. Yes, so there

[14:55] are. 3 Properties. Um She had a

[14:57] better visual of it, but yes,

[14:59] there are 3 properties, 2 of

[15:00] which that are along Birch Lane

[15:04] South here. That have rear

[15:07] garages. That receive access

[15:08] off of that alleyway. Do we

[15:12] know if Their driveways go out

[15:15] to Birch Street by chance or no,

[15:16] just out of curiosity, like a

[15:17] like a like a pass through, if

[15:21] you will, driveway. Um, all the

[15:23] way through the property, um,

[15:25] that I do not believe so, no.

[15:26] Um, however, I

[15:27] m not sure if

[15:29] they have an additional front

[15:31] facing garage where they can

[15:33] have access off of birch and

[15:33] off of Dome

[15:37] s alleyway. Thanks.

[15:38] Richard Simonson, MR. Chair, uh,

[15:42] I guess the question I have is,

[15:42] uh, with Don

[15:45] s Alley, the 450

[15:47] ft in terms of the proximity of

[15:48] the drawing where the forefoo

[15:51] and the 6 ft fence are being

[15:53] proposed. How far does that go,

[15:55] right? 450 ft that you were

[15:57] talking about earlier, how many

[15:58] does it go basically to the

[16:01] edge of the 6 ft fence, the

[16:04] corner of the property. Uh, yes,

[16:07] um, that alleyway is gonna

[16:09] extend to right about um. I

[16:11] would say it would probably be

[16:14] like 15 ft. In of where that 6

[16:16] ft fence is proposed, so just

[16:19] slightly in there, um. But it

[16:19] s,

[16:24] it is not going to be the, the

[16:26] alleyway does not extend, um,

[16:27] all the way to the edge of

[16:29] where the 6 ft fence is

[16:30] proposed on the eastern side.

[16:32] And then, then could you

[16:33] comment some more about the

[16:35] snow removal, right, so the

[16:35] part that the city

[16:36] s not going

[16:39] to be removing is the 450 ft,

[16:40] but were they actually

[16:41] maintaining the alleyway. So

[16:44] the, the city had been, uh, the

[16:45] public works department had

[16:46] been maintaining and plowing

[16:49] this area, um, and And after

[16:51] speaking with our public works

[16:54] director, uh, about some

[16:56] concerns with putting a fence

[16:59] along such a small portion of

[17:01] Ali, um, and some potential

[17:03] liability that the city would

[17:05] have with plowing in that area

[17:09] and whatnot. Um, there was some

[17:10] comments made about that, but,

[17:15] um, The, the city engineer was

[17:18] the one who uh originally was

[17:20] sent this document by the

[17:22] Public works superintendent, um,

[17:24] that just states that the city

[17:26] is not responsible for the snow

[17:29] maintenance for this area, so,

[17:31] um, that it, it takes liability

[17:33] away from the city to

[17:35] potentially damage uh a fence

[17:38] in this location, um, and that,

[17:40] uh, potential is now kind of

[17:41] the onus is placed along for

[17:42] those homeowners I guess I

[17:43] m

[17:44] saying the whole alleyway all

[17:48] the way out to the east is not

[17:49] gonna be correct the alleyway,

[17:49] Don

[17:51] s alley is not gonna be

[17:53] plowed by the city, the whole

[17:56] thing, ok. And are there any

[17:56] other fences in Don

[17:58] s alley?

[18:02] Currently. Um, to my knowledge,

[18:07] no. Um. The, I do not believe

[18:14] that, um. 50, 59 has won, um.

[18:16] And I do not believe because of

[18:18] the access that these

[18:19] properties receive off of the

[18:24] alleyway on the backside that

[18:26] um either 690 or 688 have an

[18:29] offense, um, but I, that might

[18:30] be a question for the homeowner

[18:33] as well to see if um there are

[18:34] any adjacent fences in the, in

[18:38] the area. Ok, thanks, MR.

[18:39] Anderson, Chair, thank you. Um,

[18:41] just a couple of questions if I

[18:43] might, just for clarification

[18:46] purposes, the, the Jones Alley

[18:47] ends effectively the paved

[18:50] service ends. Um, where we see

[18:53] the kind of. South to north

[18:54] jutting right there, correct?

[18:55] So the easement continues, but

[18:59] there is no. Improved Ali per

[19:00] se past that point. And then if

[19:01] you could just so everybody

[19:01] s

[19:03] on the same page here, if you

[19:06] could speak to uh fence

[19:06] placement requirements along

[19:08] property lines, just in general,

[19:10] and if they differ at all from

[19:12] Being along an easement. Uh,

[19:14] they would not. Um, the fence

[19:17] needs to be located wholly

[19:18] within the homeowner

[19:18] s property

[19:21] lines, um, and that would be

[19:23] inspected by city staff after

[19:24] the permit and installation had

[19:29] taken place. Thank you. Any

[19:32] other questions? Thank you, MR.

[19:35] Harris. Thank you. And if the

[19:35] uh property owner or applicant

[19:36] is in the audience if they

[19:36] d

[19:38] like to come up and address the

[19:40] commission. Please remember to

[19:42] state your name and address.

[19:50] Once again. My name is, uh,

[19:52] Mark Palmquist and reside at

[19:56] 675 Sunset Court. Um, That.

[19:57] Application variants. I don

[19:57] t

[20:02] have a lot to add to it, um,

[20:03] just outside of um the, the

[20:04] facts of what we

[20:05] ve experienced.

[20:05] We

[20:06] ve lived there about a year

[20:10] and a half. We had multiple, uh,

[20:15] both, uh, couriers, um, and.

[20:15] We

[20:16] re assuming personal

[20:16] vehicles that when they come up

[20:20] to the end of the. Alleyway. Um,

[20:22] then they pull into our yard,

[20:23] turn around, and then go back

[20:26] out. And we

[20:28] ve even had two

[20:30] circumstances of vehicles

[20:31] actually driving all the way

[20:32] across our yard to go to Sunset

[20:38] Court. And we have multiple, uh,

[20:39] e-bikes, bicycles that come

[20:42] across, um. And I should

[20:42] mention we

[20:44] ve had to replace

[20:46] multiple sprinkler heads as a

[20:47] result of the turnaround going

[20:48] on by vehicles or driving

[20:52] across the uh the yard. Uh,

[20:54] this is a property you had

[20:57] mentioned that was um the home

[20:59] was built in 2019. Um, it was a,

[21:03] uh, former. Um, Uh, resort area.

[21:06] That had been i

[21:08] m not gonna say

[21:09] abandoned, but was bought and

[21:13] so it was an open. Open

[21:14] property that I think a lot of

[21:16] people started to just use it

[21:17] as an access to get across to

[21:20] Sunset Court. And so we

[21:21] re

[21:24] trying to help define. Uh, the

[21:27] borderlines of of our property.

[21:31] Uh, and also, um, stop the, the,

[21:33] uh, direct access, uh, going

[21:34] across the property. That

[21:34] s one

[21:36] of the main things we want to

[21:39] do. Uh, the reason for the

[21:39] six-foot variance is there is a.

[21:43] Um, that, that alleyway

[21:45] actually goes up a hill. And

[21:47] with a 4 ft fence, we don

[21:48] t

[21:48] think that

[21:49] s noticeable until

[21:51] you get all the way up where

[21:53] the 6 ft helps give better

[21:54] clarity in terms of the

[21:57] definition of the property.

[21:59] Lines that are there. Uh, our

[22:01] other concern is a 4 ft fence.

[22:01] It

[22:03] s a little bit easier, uh,

[22:05] for people just to hop over the

[22:06] top or 6 ft becomes a little

[22:08] more definitive. In terms of

[22:11] what it is. And the 6 ft fence

[22:14] also, because it is kind of a

[22:15] strange lot having an alley run

[22:18] up. On the side of your house.

[22:20] Uh, certainly gives more

[22:21] privacy to the people that have

[22:26] the Uh, um, uh. Garages and

[22:28] their driveways on the back. Um,

[22:30] that that extra 2 ft, we just

[22:31] won

[22:32] t be able to see that and

[22:34] vice versa. They wouldn

[22:35] t be.

[22:39] Showing in our property as well

[22:40] as the headlights as they

[22:41] re

[22:41] driving in and driving back out.

[22:44] But the main issue is just

[22:46] trying to kind of define that

[22:48] property line so we don

[22:48] t have

[22:49] vehicles going into our

[22:53] property. Um, I, I

[22:54] m just gonna

[22:55] say that Commissioner Halligan

[22:58] has joined us just. As a Note,

[23:00] um, Would you mind grabbing the

[23:02] mouse and kind of pointing out

[23:04] where that topography issue. Or

[23:08] the changes that You just sit

[23:10] on 6 ft hill actually, once you

[23:12] turn the corner. It

[23:13] s the

[23:15] elevation starts, uh, almost

[23:16] immediately, so it

[23:16] s probably

[23:17] maybe 1012 ft where it

[23:19] s flat.

[23:22] And then it starts going up.

[23:22] And it

[23:24] s gradual on the front,

[23:25] and then it starts to have a

[23:28] little bit more of a hill. Uh,

[23:31] that comes up and peaks. Uh,

[23:32] right about. Let

[23:33] s see, I gotta

[23:33] look at that home that

[23:34] s next

[23:35] to me. Probably peaks right

[23:37] about here. Is where that peaks.

[23:40] And so being able at that point.

[23:41] They they

[23:44] ve come up. Uh, this

[23:46] close and a little bit before

[23:48] they hit the other two

[23:49] properties here because they,

[23:52] they are up on top. Uh, and so

[23:54] then that would stop them from

[23:57] coming up all the way up here.

[23:57] And that

[23:58] s the reason for

[24:02] having that 6 ft fence. The, uh,

[24:03] the alleyway itself ends, sorry,

[24:05] I keep getting the. Right,

[24:10] right, click. The property Or

[24:11] the alleyway ends right about

[24:18] here. Right about here. Right

[24:20] along that property line of the

[24:21] Between the two, different

[24:24] homes. And so what they

[24:24] re

[24:24] doing is they

[24:25] re coming in and

[24:26] they

[24:26] re then they

[24:26] re turning

[24:29] around here. Or they

[24:30] re coming

[24:31] in and then driving across to

[24:34] get the Sunset Court. Or in the

[24:35] case of the e-bikes. They

[24:37] re

[24:39] And my neighbor that lives back

[24:39] here, they

[24:41] re coming down his

[24:41] driveway and then driving

[24:45] across. And onto my property,

[24:46] uh, and then on to Sunset Court.

[24:49] Thank you. Um, does anybody

[24:50] else have any questions for MR.

[24:54] Palmquist? MR. Chair, MR.

[24:56] Simonson, MR. Palmquist, could,

[24:57] could you comment about when I

[25:00] look at um, it sounds like. The

[25:01] thing you

[25:03] re trying to actually

[25:06] discourage is cut through of

[25:07] traffic or pedestrians, bikes,

[25:11] things like that. And I think

[25:11] there

[25:13] s a 4-foot adjacent that

[25:15] diagonal next to 50/59 and 6 ft,

[25:16] and you

[25:16] d say on Donn

[25:17] s alley.

[25:21] And one of my questions is,

[25:23] With with the 4 ft work as well

[25:23] as a six-foot. I

[25:24] m kind of

[25:25] trying to rationalize, uh,

[25:26] because there

[25:26] s a 4-foot

[25:28] proposed in one area and a 6 in

[25:31] another. Could you explain why?

[25:32] Yeah, so the 4 ft we

[25:33] re putting

[25:35] on the diagonal right here, you

[25:36] know it

[25:37] s really more

[25:37] acknowledgement for our

[25:39] neighbor, uh, behind is really

[25:42] what that was. Um, and most of

[25:43] the traffic that we

[25:44] re getting

[25:45] is once people come up the hill,

[25:46] and they

[25:49] re that far. Uh, then

[25:49] they

[25:50] re coming across actually

[25:51] where the six-foot fence would

[25:53] come in. And we

[25:54] re also seeing

[25:58] more, more of the, the e-bikes,

[26:00] uh, coming across farther up.

[26:03] Even past the alleyway. Yeah,

[26:03] that

[26:05] s in present, so, so the

[26:07] forefront was really. More

[26:10] about consideration for. The

[26:12] neighbor that has a home. Uh,

[26:14] very difficult to see it, but

[26:15] he actually has a home right

[26:17] down here, right up next to our

[26:21] property. This is his home. And

[26:23] he comes right, right up here.

[26:25] And you can see he parks his um.

[26:30] For 2 boats. That he has right

[26:32] there, but that sits because

[26:32] he

[26:33] s flattened it. It sits

[26:37] lower. Then And where that hill

[26:41] comes up. And so we just put a

[26:43] 4 ft in there because it

[26:44] realistically is like a 6 ft at

[26:45] that point because he

[26:45] s about 2

[26:49] ft down. As retaining wall. And

[26:51] then our for foot goes up. One

[26:52] quick follow up question is,

[26:55] would the 4 ft on Don

[26:56] s alley

[26:56] accomplish the goal that you

[26:57] re

[27:00] looking for? Well, it, it will

[27:04] accomplish partly. Ok. What

[27:04] part won

[27:05] t it accomplish? Well,

[27:06] I think a 4 ft fence is going

[27:07] to still make it pretty easy

[27:08] for people to hop the fence and.

[27:14] Ok, thanks. Anybody else have a

[27:15] question for MR. Palmquist?

[27:18] Thank you, MR. Palmquist. I

[27:20] would now like to invite

[27:21] members, any member of the

[27:22] public that wishes to speak on

[27:23] this item, to come to the

[27:28] podium. Ok, seeing none. Let

[27:28] s

[27:29] bring this back to the planning

[27:34] commission. Comments. MR. Chair,

[27:36] MR. Simonson, I believe, uh,

[27:38] Steph, correct me if I

[27:38] m wrong,

[27:41] but a 4 ft fence could be

[27:42] placed here with administrative

[27:44] approval, I believe, without a

[27:46] variance request for. Obviously

[27:47] with the 4 foot

[27:48] s being

[27:48] proposed and along the 6 ft

[27:55] area. Correct. Ok. Yeah, I

[27:55] m,

[27:55] I

[27:57] m kind of wrestling. I, I, I

[28:00] understand. The concern, and

[28:00] it

[28:01] s unfortunate that traffic

[28:03] kind of gets dead ended and I

[28:03] m

[28:06] not sure what it does when it,

[28:06] when someone

[28:07] s kind of going up

[28:08] that area and they

[28:09] re in the

[28:10] driveway. I mean, it

[28:10] s pretty

[28:12] narrow, so I, I would think

[28:12] it

[28:14] d be kind of difficult for

[28:15] traffic or someone that kind of

[28:16] got lost in a neighborhood, how

[28:17] to figure out how to turn

[28:23] around. I think uh. I, I think

[28:25] just from a standpoint, I think

[28:25] it

[28:26] s reasonable to try and

[28:27] minimize cut through traffic. I

[28:30] think that makes sense. Uh, I

[28:31] am, I think there were some

[28:32] letters we got though that

[28:33] there were some concerns about

[28:34] access to the driveway of the

[28:38] fences. Too tall and too close

[28:40] to a very narrow, uh, alleyway,

[28:42] so. I do have concerns about

[28:43] that, but at the same time, 4

[28:45] ft could go in there without

[28:47] any decision from us. Right on

[28:51] that line I would agree with

[28:52] that, Commissioner Anderson.

[28:52] Sure, yeah, I

[28:53] m torn too, I

[28:57] guess, uh, you know, on the one

[29:00] hand, um, 4 ft is allowable. I,

[29:02] I get the point of the 6-foot

[29:03] fence, uh, it

[29:05] s easy to hop a 4

[29:06] ft fence theoretically. Um, I

[29:06] struggle a little bit with the

[29:07] fact that I

[29:08] m not sure that, uh,

[29:11] is it a, is a body that we

[29:15] should be, um, Dictating or

[29:16] helping prevent trespassing.

[29:16] That

[29:19] s more of a Uh, you know,

[29:20] uh, a criminal offense or, you

[29:20] know, it, it

[29:22] s more of a police

[29:24] situation than anything else, I

[29:26] would imagine, but, um. You

[29:27] know, part of me goes back and

[29:29] forth on it though when you

[29:30] have a 4-foot fence that

[29:30] s

[29:31] adjacent to the six-foot fence?

[29:32] Do you just walk over and hop

[29:34] the 4-foot portion of the fence,

[29:36] uh, you know, and I, and I get

[29:37] the fact that probably kids,

[29:38] kids will do what they

[29:38] re gonna

[29:42] do, right? But, um, to

[29:43] Commissioner Solomonson

[29:43] s point

[29:44] though, uh, whether it

[29:46] s 4 or 6

[29:47] ft as far as the uh comment

[29:48] that we received, it doesn

[29:48] t

[29:49] make really any difference. The

[29:52] fence can go in there, so, um,

[29:53] Although it could make that

[29:54] alleyway tight, I don

[29:55] t see the,

[29:56] the height being a difference

[29:59] or an issue, but the part that

[30:01] I try that I struggle with is I,

[30:01] although we

[30:04] ve. Got what

[30:04] s

[30:06] purported to be. You know,

[30:07] unique circumstances here. I

[30:07] m

[30:07] not sure that I

[30:10] ve Gotten fully

[30:11] comfortable with unique

[30:12] circumstances related to the 6

[30:15] ft height of this fence. Other

[30:17] than maybe the slope of the

[30:18] property, um, but at the point

[30:19] at which it really slopes, to

[30:21] the point at which it goes to 6

[30:21] ft, there

[30:23] s really no There

[30:23] s

[30:24] really no alleyway any longer

[30:28] at that point. So, um, you.

[30:28] That

[30:29] s where I

[30:29] m struggling

[30:31] particularly is because if

[30:32] there were, if the easement

[30:32] wasn

[30:34] t there, these would be.

[30:36] Backyards more or less and

[30:37] nobody would care about a 6 ft

[30:40] fence, so, but had. If this

[30:41] easement were to go further

[30:42] down that or if the alley were

[30:43] to go further down the easement,

[30:44] you could have an issue where

[30:45] now you got a 6 ft fence next

[30:47] to you. Something that

[30:48] s been

[30:52] improved, so. Commissioner

[30:56] Cortis. So I think the one, you

[30:58] know, cause. Whether it

[30:59] s 6 or

[31:02] 4 ft. I mean, I, I, I certainly

[31:06] Hope The applicant will have a

[31:08] conversation with, with the

[31:09] people who back out into that

[31:11] alley and see if there is a way

[31:12] to make sure that they can

[31:13] leave their garage. I don

[31:14] t

[31:16] know if the city council can do

[31:18] anything about that in, in

[31:19] requirements here or not, I

[31:20] don

[31:21] t think we can, that I

[31:21] m

[31:23] aware of, but I, I certainly

[31:25] think if this is a fence 4 or 6

[31:27] is gonna bar people from

[31:29] entering or exiting their

[31:33] garages, um, That would make

[31:34] For very bad neighbors in your

[31:36] backyard that I would not want

[31:39] to have, and I would strongly

[31:39] hope some conversations could

[31:40] be had that could maybe fix

[31:43] that. Um, the part I struggle

[31:45] with on this variance is

[31:46] actually criteria number 3, the

[31:47] character of the neighborhood,

[31:49] because nobody else has a fence

[31:52] there. This is used for this

[31:54] road, these houses have this

[31:55] access, and suddenly, whether

[31:55] it

[31:57] s a, you know, a 4 ft fence

[31:58] is, is what

[31:59] s allowable, but

[32:01] then going another 2 ft at the

[32:03] top of the hill. So the, the

[32:03] neighbor

[32:04] s house goes from

[32:05] seeing some of it at 4 ft to

[32:08] now seeing nothing at 6 ft. The

[32:09] houses across the street are

[32:11] blocked by the six-foot. I know,

[32:14] you know, it, it It, it seems

[32:16] to change the neighborhood to

[32:17] go even another 2 ft here,

[32:19] especially if it is in fact the

[32:21] top of a hill, um, as it

[32:21] s

[32:22] going up. So I think there

[32:22] s,

[32:23] there

[32:24] s some. Consideration

[32:26] there. I don

[32:27] t know that I

[32:27] m

[32:28] gonna vote no just based on

[32:31] that, frankly, but, but it, it,

[32:33] it is the one section where I

[32:34] am kind of concerned about

[32:38] drawing that line. MR. Ahmadvan,

[32:39] so Commissioner Kurtz, Cortis

[32:41] brings up some, um, good points.

[32:43] I, I would say where I stand is.

[32:47] Like we all have said already,

[32:47] it

[32:48] s a 4 or 6 ft fence is not

[32:50] going to prevent someone from

[32:51] backing out of the driveway,

[32:52] although I recognize the

[32:54] concern of the other homeowner.

[32:55] I think if the, the applicant

[32:57] wants to have a 6 ft fence

[33:01] there. I think he

[33:01] s provided

[33:03] reasonable burden, in my

[33:04] opinion. Someone

[33:05] s driving

[33:06] through my yard to get to the

[33:07] other side of the street or

[33:11] e-bikes going through. I would

[33:13] not like that myself, so. Uh,

[33:13] I

[33:14] m inclined to vote yes on

[33:18] this. MR. Chair, MR. Simonson,

[33:19] I have another question for

[33:22] staff. The, the easement that

[33:24] was what plattered in 1915, a

[33:26] long time ago. Are there any,

[33:28] is there anything of city

[33:28] interest in that easement

[33:34] currently? And because I think

[33:35] that what

[33:36] s before us is the

[33:38] fact that the six-foot fence is

[33:39] required because it

[33:39] s next to

[33:40] it, I mean, I mean it, it can

[33:40] t

[33:41] be more than 4 because it

[33:41] s

[33:45] next to a. Right away or an

[33:48] easement and so. If that

[33:49] easement, if that right of way

[33:49] wasn

[33:51] t there. They could put a

[33:53] 6 ft fence up, right? Correct.

[33:55] And I was just kind of curious

[33:56] if anyone

[33:56] s ever thought about

[33:59] um. Abandoning the right of way.

[34:03] Because it, it

[34:03] s functioning

[34:04] basically as a driveway

[34:09] currently. Yes, um, and I think

[34:11] that goes back to uh the

[34:13] maintenance agreement that was

[34:16] signed in 2001, um, this, the

[34:17] city doesn

[34:19] t want to accept the

[34:21] liability for plowing and

[34:23] maintaining such a small

[34:25] stretch of alleyway, um, and

[34:27] with the width of the, the

[34:29] easement as well. There just

[34:29] isn

[34:31] t really potential to

[34:33] develop it into a right of way

[34:35] or a private road, um, so with

[34:38] With that, I would say no, they,

[34:39] there really isn

[34:40] t a, a desire

[34:42] for the city to pursue that at

[34:45] this moment. It was just a

[34:47] thought as to a way that would

[34:49] remedy that because then a 6 ft

[34:52] fence would be allowed. Mm

[34:54] Commissioner Weston

[34:56] Commissioner Anderson, I

[34:56] m in

[34:59] favor of the 6 ft fence. Uh,

[35:01] the reasons I believe that this

[35:05] should be granted is because

[35:07] typically alleys are only

[35:09] around this size and width

[35:11] anyways, um, older

[35:13] neighborhoods like this one,

[35:15] the alley width would actually

[35:17] be less than what it currently

[35:19] is, um, it does not seem that

[35:19] there

[35:22] s any desire to have, uh,

[35:22] this become a full alley all

[35:25] the way through. Um, because

[35:28] all the properties to the east

[35:30] do not have rear access and are

[35:31] currently using it as part of

[35:33] their yard, um, which would um,

[35:35] create um, a lot of controversy

[35:39] with folks, um, going forward,

[35:42] and typical alley fences are 6

[35:44] ft high. Um, so I feel that

[35:46] this is within reason, um, and

[35:48] both of the properties on Birch

[35:52] do have parking, aka turning

[35:52] around areas, um, in the front

[35:54] of their houses. So there

[35:55] s, I

[35:56] don

[35:58] t really understand why.

[35:58] There

[35:59] s any vehicle going down

[36:02] that far to deliver a package

[36:04] or anything anyways. So I feel

[36:05] this is a reasonable request.

[36:07] It meets the three criteria in

[36:08] my mind, um, and I

[36:08] ll be voting

[36:11] yes. Commissioner Anderson.

[36:12] Yeah, thank you. I

[36:12] m just gonna,

[36:14] thank you, MR. Chair. I

[36:14] m gonna

[36:15] piggyback maybe just a question

[36:17] on, uh, Commissioner

[36:18] Solomonson

[36:20] s question, but. Uh,

[36:23] So the portion of the easement

[36:25] that is unimproved. Is there a

[36:26] process by which, and I guess

[36:27] would it be the city that would

[36:28] initiate it? Would it be

[36:30] homeowners would initiate it to

[36:33] actually request. The vacation

[36:34] of that or abandonment of that

[36:38] easement. Yeah, Commissioner

[36:40] Anderson, so, uh, adjacent

[36:42] property owners are an adjacent

[36:43] property owner could petition

[36:47] for a vacation of the easement.

[36:48] That requires a petition of at

[36:51] least 50% of the Adjacent

[36:53] property owners to consent to

[36:55] it or agree with it, and then

[36:55] there

[36:56] s a public hearing

[36:57] process along that where the

[36:58] city would need to make a

[36:59] finding that it

[37:00] s in the public

[37:02] interest to vacate. Thesement

[37:03] itself, right, and I guess

[37:04] where I

[37:05] m going with that is if

[37:06] that a lot of ifs and thens,

[37:08] but if that were to happen.

[37:11] That was vacated became.

[37:12] Property owned by those

[37:13] property owners along that that

[37:15] easement, a six-foot fence.

[37:18] Would be permissible. On the

[37:19] unimproved portion of this.

[37:19] That

[37:20] s correct, correct. Ok,

[37:23] thank you. Commissioner Cortis.

[37:23] No, it

[37:25] s ok. I

[37:25] m, I

[37:25] m not gonna,

[37:26] I don

[37:28] t think we need to dive

[37:28] into these hypotheticals any

[37:30] further. I

[37:31] m gonna, I

[37:32] m gonna

[37:33] make the motion. Thank you.

[37:36] Except Actually, if somebody

[37:38] else could cause I closed on me

[37:40] by accident. Sorry, I will,

[37:41] Commissioner West, you can help

[37:43] me out with the second part

[37:46] there, Cortis. Ok, to adopt

[37:48] motion to adopt resolution 2666

[37:49] approving the variance

[37:51] application submitted by Mark

[37:53] Palmquist, 675 Sunset Court for

[37:55] a 6 ft tall privacy fence that

[37:58] abuts the city road easement.

[37:59] Said approval is subject to the

[38:00] 3 conditions listed in the

[38:04] report. Second, so it has been

[38:07] moved in 2nd. Any further

[38:09] discussion on this topic?

[38:11] Hearing none, all those in

[38:14] favor say aye. Aye aye pose,

[38:18] same sign. Motion carries 70.

[38:20] So thank you, MR. Palmquist.

[38:20] Let

[38:22] s move on to item 7b, a

[38:24] residential design review and

[38:27] variance request by 580

[38:30] Shoreview llc. Location is 559

[38:31] Harbor Court, and senior

[38:32] planner, Isaac Peterson has the

[38:34] staff presentation. It

[38:34] s all

[38:36] yours, MR. Peterson. Thank you,

[38:37] MR. Chair, members of the

[38:39] commission, as the chair noted

[38:42] tonight for your review and

[38:42] consideration will be

[38:44] residential design review and

[38:45] variance request for 559 Harbor

[38:48] Court, uh, the applicant, uh,

[38:51] 580 llc joins us along with, uh,

[38:53] members of Wooddale Builders,

[38:56] uh, to speak on the request for

[38:57] the application. So just to get

[38:59] our bearings here, uh, we

[39:00] re

[39:02] looking at the 559 Harbor Court

[39:02] property that

[39:03] s located within

[39:05] the harbor Shores development.

[39:05] It

[39:07] s on the, uh, kind of, it

[39:07] s

[39:10] one of the first. Uh, repairing

[39:12] lots or lake lots on the north

[39:14] of the curve of Harbor Court,

[39:19] uh. This is just to the south

[39:22] of the joint access beach lot,

[39:23] um, and it

[39:24] s the, from the time

[39:25] of the developments

[39:27] construction. This is the 2nd

[39:29] riparian lot that the city has

[39:32] received building plans for. So,

[39:35] um, it is located within the r1

[39:37] detached residential zoning

[39:38] district. So some members of

[39:39] the commission that were here

[39:41] at the time will recall a

[39:43] portion of the harbor shores

[39:44] development was located within

[39:47] a pud, the interior lots. Uh,

[39:50] on the northern portion of the

[39:51] development and that interior

[39:53] loop of harbor Court along with

[39:55] some properties to the east of

[39:59] Harbor or the lake lots were

[40:01] straight r1 zoning within the

[40:03] city shore land ordinance, uh,

[40:05] for minimum lot size and sizes

[40:09] and standards. So this lot is

[40:10] considered a substandard

[40:11] repairing lot due to reduced

[40:15] front lock. Line width less

[40:18] than 100 ft. Um, it does have a

[40:21] lot area of 25,000. Square feet,

[40:23] which is about 10,000 square

[40:24] feet over the minimum along

[40:27] with an average depth of 236 ft.

[40:30] Again, it was plaited with the

[40:32] harbor shores development at

[40:34] the time of its consideration

[40:35] and the Platt

[40:35] s consideration.

[40:37] This is one of two lots that

[40:39] was considered with a variance

[40:42] request, uh, to permit that

[40:43] reduced frontline line width.

[40:48] Um, so at that time, um, the

[40:49] planning commission considered

[40:50] it. There was a denial, the

[40:52] subsequent appeal, the city

[40:55] council approved, uh, the, uh,

[40:57] reduced lot line with, with the

[40:59] finding, uh, that there was a

[41:02] practical difficulty in meeting

[41:02] that minimum dimensional

[41:05] requirement, um, In large part

[41:07] because of kind of the push

[41:10] pull effect of the location of

[41:13] the Harbor Court Road, uh, in

[41:14] the topography that

[41:14] s present

[41:17] on these lots, uh, this lot

[41:17] itself doesn

[41:19] t, uh, contain a

[41:21] bluff, as the city and dnr

[41:24] defines a bluff, but it does

[41:25] contain a steep slope. Um, so

[41:29] the concern at that time was if

[41:31] the roadway was pushed, uh, to

[41:33] the west with the latte, uh,

[41:36] that. Buildable area and the

[41:38] location of that road would be

[41:41] located on a steeper slope, uh,

[41:42] requiring more sight impacts,

[41:43] and there

[41:44] s a practical

[41:44] difficulty in actually

[41:47] constructing it. Um, along with

[41:50] that, there is a common

[41:51] development retaining wall that

[41:53] was constructed following the

[41:55] Platt approval that runs, uh,

[41:56] through this property and I

[41:56] ll,

[41:56] I

[41:59] ll show the location at a

[42:00] subsequent slide further to the

[42:03] south, uh, through 3 additional

[42:06] platted lots that are common,

[42:08] uh, joint retaining walls to

[42:10] accommodate greed and slope

[42:11] stabilization, uh, within the

[42:14] development. So just on the

[42:17] screen here, again, uh, a

[42:18] substandard relot means a lot

[42:20] of record that does not meet

[42:21] the minimum standards for the

[42:23] zoning district, which it is

[42:25] located within. So this

[42:27] property is located within the

[42:29] shoreland district and the r1.

[42:31] Uh, district, it

[42:31] s within a

[42:33] general development waters lake,

[42:35] snail lake, um, so what we

[42:36] re

[42:39] referring to here is, uh, it is

[42:41] standard in its width as

[42:43] measured, um, at the, uh,

[42:45] ordinary, high water line of

[42:46] Snail Lake, so it

[42:47] s 110 ft.

[42:47] There

[42:50] s a 3 with requirements

[42:52] of the location at the lake,

[42:54] the buildable pad, which is

[42:56] approximately here, so 50 ft

[42:57] off of Snail Lake within that

[42:59] ordinary high water line

[43:00] setback, where it

[43:00] s just over

[43:03] 100 ft. Um, and then again, at

[43:05] the curvature of the road or

[43:07] that front property line meets

[43:09] the Harbor Court right of way.

[43:09] It

[43:14] s at 82.24 ft. So the

[43:15] applicants this evening are

[43:19] proposing to construct a 2,922

[43:21] square foot single family, uh,

[43:23] home on the lot containing, uh,

[43:25] you know, attached garage, a

[43:29] standard, uh, home, uh, layout,

[43:31] uh, on the property, uh, as the

[43:33] commission knows, the

[43:34] residential design review is

[43:35] required for the construction

[43:37] of new homes on substandard

[43:39] repairing lots, um, and through

[43:40] the proposal, there is a

[43:46] variance to section 1.

[43:48] 15-155b3b for height of 43 ft

[43:50] 10 inches, which is greater

[43:52] than the 35 ft height maximum

[43:53] permitted, which is measured

[43:54] from the lowest finish grade to

[43:57] the highest peak of the roof.

[43:59] So on the, on the screen here

[44:03] is the, um. An elevation plan

[44:04] of the proposed house along

[44:05] with a rendering, so you can

[44:06] see on the front side of the

[44:11] property, it is a two-story, uh,

[44:13] walkout home, um, with access

[44:15] to harbor Court and then that

[44:18] half, uh, walkout basement, uh,

[44:20] at the lower level of the rear

[44:26] facing snail lake. The proposed

[44:28] location of the house is, uh,

[44:30] centered off the curvature of,

[44:33] of Harbor Court here. So the

[44:35] front setback, uh, is about

[44:40] just over 36 or just. Under 36

[44:42] ft, uh, from the front property

[44:44] line, the rear setback from the

[44:46] lake, which is typically the

[44:49] concern on a lot of riparian

[44:51] builds is, uh, well in excess

[44:54] of the minimum of 50 ft. Uh,

[44:55] there is no setback averaging,

[44:57] which has been a, a

[44:59] conversation through many of

[45:02] our substandard reviews, uh, in

[45:03] recent months, uh, simply by

[45:05] the fact that there

[45:05] s no

[45:06] adjacent homes here. In fact,

[45:10] that What? A was planted as a

[45:12] joint access lot, uh, for

[45:16] shared access for, uh, the, the,

[45:17] uh, interior property owners to

[45:18] have shared access to Snail

[45:24] Lake. Uh, in terms of our kind

[45:24] of typical requirements within

[45:28] a, a, a substandard lot, uh,

[45:30] the, the application and the

[45:31] proposal does meet and exceed

[45:33] those standards in most aspects,

[45:36] uh, in terms of lack coverage,

[45:36] uh, it

[45:37] s, it

[45:37] s underneath the

[45:41] 25%. Require or maximum

[45:44] requirement, uh, they

[45:44] re

[45:45] proposing 17.9% of the lot area

[45:48] in terms of foundation area, it

[45:50] is well below the maximum. This

[45:52] is in large part because it is

[45:54] a larger lot, uh, and, and

[45:56] exceeds our, our minimums in,

[46:00] in that, uh, regard. The

[46:01] proposed attached garage, uh,

[46:03] is under the 1000 square feet

[46:05] per minute. Then again, the

[46:08] front setbacks are, are met and,

[46:11] uh, exceeded on all, all sides.

[46:13] Uh, the building height is

[46:16] shown at 43 ft 10 inches, uh,

[46:17] what is permitted on the

[46:22] property is 35 ft. Um, Going

[46:25] through that, so the city code

[46:29] does, uh, provide a two-part

[46:31] definition for building height.

[46:31] I

[46:34] ll spare you the full reading

[46:35] of the first height requirement,

[46:38] but it effectively says for, uh,

[46:39] the, the measurement

[46:41] requirement for different, uh,

[46:44] roof types, um. In most cases,

[46:46] uh, in the city of Shoreview,

[46:46] we

[46:48] re talking about a pitched

[46:51] roof, uh, on most residential

[46:51] properties and the general

[46:53] requirement is from the front.

[46:55] You know, right of way, side,

[46:57] front property line, side of

[46:59] the finished grade for standard

[47:02] lot, uh, the height requirement

[47:03] is effective from that front

[47:08] finish grade. Uh, to the, the

[47:09] mean or median height of a

[47:12] pitched roof, so. Shown in the

[47:13] some of the application

[47:15] material. This is accurate.

[47:15] It

[47:17] s on a typical, uh, height

[47:18] review for a building permit,

[47:18] we

[47:21] re looking from the front

[47:22] elevation to the midpoint of

[47:26] the highest roof pitch. For

[47:28] substandard lot, uh, the

[47:30] requirement is that, uh, roof

[47:31] height or building height is

[47:34] measured from the lowest finish

[47:36] grade to the tallest, uh, peak

[47:38] of the tallest pitch of the

[47:40] roof, effectively. So in most

[47:43] cases, um, on a lake property

[47:44] that lowest finished grade just

[47:45] by virtue of grade towards a

[47:46] lake is gonna be on the lake

[47:53] side. Um, I should note the

[47:54] application does propose to

[47:55] exceed that, so you can kind of

[47:58] see that, uh, difference of, uh,

[47:58] what

[47:59] s, what would be a

[48:02] standard measurement at 28 ft,

[48:04] uh, or just over, uh, on the

[48:06] front elevation, and then again

[48:08] 43 ft 10 inches from that

[48:10] lowest finish grade on the rear

[48:11] lake side of the property of

[48:13] the tallest bitch of the roof.

[48:14] He

[48:14] s planning commission is

[48:18] aware, uh, when reviewing

[48:19] variants applications,

[48:20] three-part test that the

[48:21] property owner uses to use the

[48:22] property in a reasonable manner,

[48:25] not permitted by code. That

[48:26] there are unique circumstances

[48:28] in the plight of the property

[48:29] owners due to circumstances

[48:30] unique to the property, not

[48:32] created by the property,

[48:33] previous property owners and

[48:35] lastly, the the character of

[48:36] character of the neighborhood

[48:36] character of character of the

[48:37] neighborhood will character of

[48:38] not be adversely impacted. Or

[48:42] altered. When reviewing the

[48:44] request, um, Steph took a long

[48:47] look at this, uh. Application.

[48:49] So in terms of reasonable

[48:51] manner, Steph does believe that

[48:53] the proposed use of the

[48:55] property is a reasonable use of

[48:57] the, the site, uh, the

[48:58] application does propose to

[48:59] construct a single-family home

[49:01] with that which is permitted

[49:03] within the district, uh,

[49:06] additionally, the proposed roof,

[49:08] uh, or building height is

[49:11] consistent with, uh, the height

[49:12] requirements elsewhere outlined

[49:14] by code and below that maximum

[49:18] of 35 ft. Uh uh. On the front

[49:21] elevation of the property. In

[49:22] Terms of unique circumstances,

[49:26] um. When looking at the slope

[49:30] in the grade of the site, uh,

[49:32] in that interplay with the

[49:33] required front setback zone,

[49:37] which is a 25 ft minimum and

[49:39] 40-foot maximum. The property

[49:41] does contain a steep slope,

[49:43] which is consistent with the

[49:45] historic grade of the property.

[49:49] The, the, the, uh. Herbert

[49:52] Court portion of the grade is,

[49:56] is a very similar to what was

[49:57] present previously, um, in fact,

[50:00] this. Lot contained the

[50:02] northern, uh, foundation extent

[50:05] of the Union Gas Bowl Mission

[50:07] building itself. So that

[50:09] largely remained unchanged. The

[50:12] installation of the wall, um.

[50:14] Raise the elevation a bit, but

[50:16] as you can see from the Harbor

[50:19] Court right of way. Almost

[50:21] instantly and just outside of

[50:23] that front setback zone, the

[50:26] grade drops 8 to 10 ft rather

[50:27] rapidly, uh, towards the

[50:31] buildable pad of the house, so.

[50:33] That, that grade change and

[50:36] drop is really proportional to

[50:38] the request that the applicant

[50:40] is proposing this evening where

[50:41] they

[50:42] re in excess of just over

[50:46] 8 ft or 88.86 ft, um, which is

[50:48] proportional to the grade

[50:50] change observed on the site.

[50:56] There is, um. There has been

[50:57] evaluation of alternatives in

[50:59] part, uh, whether grade could

[51:02] be adjusted, um, or altered

[51:05] through reduced roof height or

[51:06] stories. Either way, there

[51:08] would have to be, there is some

[51:09] degree of fill that is required.

[51:12] Uh, in staff

[51:14] s review, the

[51:18] proposed application seeks to.

[51:20] Introduce the least amount of

[51:22] Phil Lakeside of the house or

[51:25] kind of within those sensitive

[51:27] shoreland areas. So

[51:28] alternatively, the applicant

[51:30] has considered. Filling and

[51:32] leveling the site, uh, to

[51:34] achieve a similar house form

[51:38] that would require, uh, about

[51:40] 1500 cubic yards of fill and

[51:43] additional retaining wall, um,

[51:44] for largely a similar product,

[51:46] um, you know, one of the kind

[51:48] of push pulls in the minimum

[51:50] grading or fill that would be

[51:52] required on the site would be

[51:55] to raise the foundation.

[51:57] Particularly the driveway to

[52:00] have a pitch away from. Um, You

[52:03] know, the entrance to the

[52:05] garage and from house to street

[52:07] to, uh, you know, send

[52:08] stormwater in large part from

[52:10] the front of the house towards

[52:12] the stormwater system that was

[52:14] installed with the development.

[52:18] So, um, staff believes that.

[52:21] That filling, uh, to

[52:23] accommodate and meet the height

[52:25] requirement for the house, um,

[52:27] is well in excess of a typical,

[52:30] uh, grading plan that would be,

[52:32] uh, considered for a, a

[52:33] building application of the

[52:36] sort of this type, um, and that

[52:36] they

[52:38] re largely be additional

[52:39] impacts resulting from that to

[52:41] adjacent properties. In terms

[52:43] of character of the

[52:45] neighborhood, uh, the, the

[52:47] applicant did provide, um,

[52:49] precedent examples, um, which

[52:50] is consistent with staff

[52:50] s

[52:52] review of building permits

[52:53] throughout the development

[52:55] where, uh, you know, throughout

[52:58] the development there, the, the

[52:59] proposed house is consistent

[53:01] with building heights that are

[53:02] under construction right now or

[53:04] have been constructed. Um, you

[53:07] know, most, uh, fall within

[53:12] that, uh, 26 to 29 ft. Standard

[53:15] lot height measurement and our

[53:17] around 40 to 44 ft if they were

[53:19] measured from the rear of the

[53:21] house. So the proposed

[53:22] elevation plans, uh, do not

[53:24] appear as though they would Uh,

[53:25] be outside of the character of

[53:27] the neighborhood. Within the

[53:30] harbor shores development. In

[53:32] terms of public comment, notice

[53:34] was distributed to property

[53:35] owners within 150 ft of the,

[53:37] the site, uh, currently no

[53:38] staff hasn

[53:39] t received any

[53:43] public comment. Uh, staff would

[53:45] recommend, uh, given the, the

[53:47] practical difficulty outlined

[53:51] approval or adoption of

[53:52] resolution 26-67, which would

[53:54] grant the variants to increase

[53:56] the maximum permitted building

[53:57] height from 35 ft to 43 ft 10

[54:01] inches. Uh, with conditions as

[54:02] outlined within my report and

[54:05] with that, MR. Chair, I will

[54:07] stand for questions. Thank you,

[54:09] MR. Peterson, Commissioner

[54:11] Simonson MR. Chair, uh. MR.

[54:14] Peterson. Could you comment? I

[54:14] know it

[54:15] s been a while. I

[54:16] should, I should remember this,

[54:21] but uh. Are there other uh

[54:23] substandard repairing lots

[54:25] along in this development,

[54:27] there is one, additional

[54:28] substandard repairing lot

[54:30] within the development. Uh,

[54:34] that had a similar condition as

[54:37] a 548 Harbor Court, um, sort of

[54:40] lot 5, I believe, um, so that

[54:43] is, does have the same

[54:44] restriction imposed, uh, I

[54:46] would say, and not to speak for

[54:48] the applicant that there is

[54:49] concern about the viability of

[54:51] achieving the height

[54:53] requirement on that lot. Um,

[54:53] And there

[54:54] s some discussion on

[54:57] whether the commission would

[55:00] Consider a request for that.

[55:02] Staff

[55:02] s response was that, you

[55:02] know, we, we don

[55:02] t wanna

[55:04] discuss or consider a variance

[55:04] request without looking at

[55:06] plans. MR. Peterson is, I, I

[55:07] guess my, my question is

[55:08] because it

[55:09] s substandard,

[55:09] that

[55:11] s where the height

[55:12] definition changes where you

[55:14] have the top of the roof to the

[55:15] lowest point, whereas if it was

[55:16] a standard lot, it would

[55:19] essentially be. The front yard

[55:19] and it

[55:20] d be half roof roof

[55:23] height, which takes ok, and

[55:24] then so the reason I asked that

[55:27] question and from the lakeside.

[55:27] You

[55:28] re gonna have houses

[55:31] probably with walkouts. That

[55:32] would probably look similar

[55:34] adjacent to it, I would think

[55:36] that is correct, Commissioner

[55:38] Solomon. So this is the other

[55:40] riparian lot that is a standard

[55:42] lot that is under construction

[55:44] and has had a building permit

[55:47] issued. Ok, thanks. MR.

[55:49] Anderson, thank you, MR. Chair.

[55:50] MR. Peterson, so if you could

[55:53] pull the diagram back up of the

[55:56] Phil example. Just so I

[55:56] m fully

[55:58] understanding this. So

[55:59] effectively what we

[55:59] re saying

[56:00] is the backside of the house,

[56:01] the lake side of the house

[56:03] would no longer have a walkout

[56:05] in that example, is that

[56:08] correct? But otherwise would be

[56:09] designed similarly. So more or

[56:12] less. Choosing a home design

[56:15] that meets this lot. Or so it

[56:15] d

[56:17] be a lookout home rather than a

[56:18] walkout. Great. All right,

[56:22] thank you. Commissioner Ammann,

[56:23] one clarification, Commissioner

[56:26] Anderson, but The, the top one

[56:27] that wouldn

[56:32] t be at the. 40 3

[56:32] feet 10 inches, correct, or

[56:37] would it? Yes, Commissioner

[56:37] Aman, so what

[56:38] s really being

[56:40] conveyed here is, uh, if you

[56:42] look at kind of the elevation

[56:44] on the left side here. So the,

[56:48] the peak of the roof is

[56:50] effectively still at uh let

[56:51] s

[56:53] say a 950 elevation. Whereas

[56:56] the peak of the roof currently

[56:59] is just uh. Over that 950

[57:03] elevation. So. Very similar in

[57:06] style and overall height. Um,

[57:10] But With, as a result of

[57:11] raising the grade with Phil,

[57:12] that measurement off the back

[57:14] would. Be, you know, within

[57:21] that. Its name, yeah. MR. Chair,

[57:22] I have a follow-up question, uh,

[57:23] so the geometry, maybe it

[57:24] s

[57:24] just because it

[57:25] s not a square,

[57:25] it

[57:27] s hard to really tell, but

[57:28] is the width of this lot

[57:29] changing as it gets towards the

[57:33] lake. And, and at what point,

[57:34] what is considered illegal with

[57:36] and so what part of the house

[57:37] would probably be in what I

[57:40] would call. The proper width.

[57:41] Would there be a part of the

[57:42] house that would be in what I

[57:46] would call a. An approved width

[57:49] for a standard lot. Yeah, so

[57:50] Christian, Commissioner

[57:51] Solomonsson, so the geometry of

[57:54] the lad, if you look from this

[57:56] northern point in the southern

[57:58] point, it flares out and gets

[58:01] wider a little bit as it goes

[58:02] from here to here. The

[58:07] applicant provided a. Diagram.

[58:07] It

[58:09] s 100 ft right here,

[58:11] effectively at the building pad

[58:12] for the house. Um, it

[58:12] s that

[58:15] location. Right on Harbor Court

[58:16] where there

[58:18] s a reduced width.

[58:20] Um, at the time of the

[58:21] development consideration,

[58:22] there is, there

[58:22] s thought given

[58:28] to Do you pull that Harbor

[58:29] Court curvature further inward

[58:31] into the property to achieve

[58:34] the minimum width or not a

[58:35] variance was considered and

[58:36] ultimately approved. That

[58:39] favored Pulling it away from

[58:40] the, the steepness of the

[58:44] property. Uh, as a result of

[58:47] the grade, um, instead of

[58:48] having a, a standard lot right

[58:49] there. So that

[58:49] s why the lot

[58:52] was created. As it is, as it

[58:54] exists today. So maybe you

[58:55] clarify where is the

[58:56] restriction restrictive width.

[58:57] I just wanna make sure I

[58:58] understand that. It

[58:59] s just this

[59:00] front property just that area

[59:01] there, but the width of the lot

[59:06] in general. Is much wider. Ok,

[59:06] that

[59:07] s, that helps. Thanks.

[59:11] Yeah. Anybody else have any

[59:14] questions for staff? Ok, thank

[59:17] you, MR. Peterson. If the

[59:18] applicants, the audience would

[59:23] like to, uh, stand up and

[59:24] Address the commission. Uh,

[59:25] please remember to give your

[59:28] name and address. The record.

[59:31] Excuse me. Thank you Chair and

[59:33] members of the commission for

[59:33] evaluating this request. My

[59:36] name is Bob Moser. My address

[59:37] is 986 Priestster Lane, Hudson,

[59:38] Wisconsin, although I

[59:41] m a

[59:42] Longtime Shoreview resident, my

[59:43] younger years and currently

[59:44] office in Shoreview, so I

[59:44] m

[59:45] very familiar with the area and

[59:45] appreciate all you

[59:49] ve done. Um,

[59:50] After review of the staff

[59:51] report and after hearing the

[59:52] presentation tonight, I feel as

[59:54] though things were. Very

[59:55] thoroughly covered, but I

[59:56] m

[59:56] happy to answer any questions

[59:59] you might have. I have a

[1:00:00] question for you. Why not just

[1:00:03] lower the roof? The character

[1:00:05] of the neighborhood is, is the

[1:00:07] primary reason for that. Uh, I

[1:00:07] don

[1:00:10] t know. There are some

[1:00:11] other examples here of things

[1:00:12] that that are being done in the

[1:00:14] neighborhood. But just so you

[1:00:16] know, Wooddale Builders, is the

[1:00:16] exclusive builder in this

[1:00:19] neighborhood. And one reason.

[1:00:22] Uh, an individual builder was

[1:00:24] selected, was there a quality

[1:00:26] builder who, who build.

[1:00:29] Consistently. Uh,

[1:00:30] architecturally consistent

[1:00:30] structures within the

[1:00:32] neighborhood to make it. Very

[1:00:34] attractive. Um, As an example

[1:00:36] of that, I will go through and

[1:00:40] show some other things that Um,

[1:00:41] I was looking for some

[1:00:42] perspective drawings here. See,

[1:00:47] here we go. Ok, I guess here

[1:00:48] s

[1:00:48] one here. Maybe i

[1:00:49] ll, I

[1:00:49] ll

[1:00:51] answer that in two ways. Number

[1:00:53] 1 is there is a steeper pitch

[1:00:55] on the front to make it

[1:00:56] architecturally consistent with

[1:00:58] others in the neighborhood. Uh,

[1:01:01] but this pitch for the 2nd

[1:01:02] story here is reduced

[1:01:03] substantially to try to keep

[1:01:04] the height down as much as

[1:01:07] possible. So you aesthetically

[1:01:08] can achieve the look of the

[1:01:10] Nehir wood with a front gables.

[1:01:11] But on the main part of the

[1:01:14] house, it has been reduced, but

[1:01:14] it

[1:01:16] s somewhat obscured by the

[1:01:17] architectural design here. So

[1:01:21] now, if you go to. A home built

[1:01:26] on. Let

[1:01:26] s see here. I

[1:01:27] m trying

[1:01:32] to get my Here we go. This is a

[1:01:32] home-built, currently being

[1:01:34] built on Lot 7, right next door,

[1:01:36] the subject property is on lot

[1:01:37] 8. And this is actually a

[1:01:39] one-story home. Um, and as you

[1:01:43] will see, The Uh, on the next

[1:01:47] page. If the height for this

[1:01:48] structure were determined based

[1:01:50] on the same criteria as being

[1:01:52] used for the, for the home

[1:01:54] proposed for Lot 8. This home

[1:01:56] would be 42 ft high. As

[1:01:58] compared to just over 43 ft for

[1:02:00] the subject property. And there

[1:02:00] again, that

[1:02:02] s due in large part

[1:02:04] to the architecture. That

[1:02:05] s,

[1:02:05] that

[1:02:07] s being integrated into

[1:02:08] all the designs for the homes

[1:02:10] in the neighborhood. Even the

[1:02:12] villas in that neighborhood.

[1:02:17] And I have an example here. So

[1:02:17] here

[1:02:19] s a villa here. It

[1:02:19] s built

[1:02:21] on one of the, on one of the

[1:02:23] interior lots. There again, if

[1:02:25] you look at the height, uh,

[1:02:28] calculation for that one is 41

[1:02:30] and 9 3/4 inches. From a, a

[1:02:33] standard lot. Calculation, it

[1:02:33] s

[1:02:35] only 21 ft tall. But there

[1:02:37] again, uh, I get the important

[1:02:39] aspect of bringing this up is

[1:02:41] that for, for the villas and

[1:02:43] the single-family homes. To all

[1:02:44] be consistent in nature, which

[1:02:46] as I know is something very

[1:02:48] important as part of any.

[1:02:49] Exclusive development like this.

[1:02:50] That

[1:02:51] s exactly why we also said

[1:02:51] we don

[1:02:54] t want to come to. One

[1:02:55] lot or potentially 2, and have

[1:02:56] something that

[1:02:56] s totally

[1:02:57] architecturally inconsistent.

[1:02:58] So there again, it

[1:02:59] s the

[1:03:01] character that a neighborhood

[1:03:04] criteria that we feel, you know,

[1:03:04] justifies asking for this

[1:03:08] variance. Ok, thank you, uh,

[1:03:09] any other questions for MR.

[1:03:15] Mosher? Thank you. Thank you

[1:03:16] very much. Um, let

[1:03:16] s move to

[1:03:19] the public. If the public has

[1:03:20] any comments or questions,

[1:03:24] please come to the podium. Your

[1:03:25] name and address for the record.

[1:03:28] Hi, my name is Jane Friedman,

[1:03:31] and my partner and I live at

[1:03:34] 4455 Harbor Place Court. Uh,

[1:03:37] which is just slightly down the

[1:03:38] road from this development and

[1:03:43] it is a riparian lot, um. And

[1:03:46] When my house was built in

[1:03:49] about 1992, it, uh, required no

[1:03:51] trees to be cut down, no

[1:03:53] retaining walls to be built,

[1:03:56] and it is mainly, uh, uh.

[1:03:57] Protected bluff, so the

[1:03:59] protective bluff is a huge

[1:04:01] chunk of the property, and yet

[1:04:05] still they were able to build a

[1:04:08] house with reasonable size. Our

[1:04:12] house is 3700 square feet. Um,

[1:04:15] Uh, with, without requesting,

[1:04:19] uh, a height variance. Instead,

[1:04:20] with this property in this

[1:04:26] particular Um, parcel.

[1:04:27] Alterations have been

[1:04:29] constantly requested for this.

[1:04:32] So, first, they made it a

[1:04:34] substandard lot, uh, because

[1:04:34] otherwise they

[1:04:38] d have to remove

[1:04:41] 11 lot from, from the mix, uh,

[1:04:43] and that would not be

[1:04:47] financially, um, Um, you know,

[1:04:49] profitable, uh, so they got,

[1:04:53] they got that variance approved,

[1:04:54] um, understanding that there

[1:04:56] are things that go along with

[1:04:59] having a substandard lot, um,

[1:05:01] that might not make it easy for

[1:05:03] them to, uh, build on that. The

[1:05:06] second thing was, uh, Bob Moser

[1:05:09] asked, uh, the city for

[1:05:11] permission to put in the

[1:05:13] retaining wall, and he said, I

[1:05:16] quote, so that we can

[1:05:17] Established building pads and

[1:05:19] end up with a reasonably sized

[1:05:22] backyard. So the idea was to

[1:05:24] have a very high retaining wall

[1:05:26] and fill it in with fill, and

[1:05:30] then there would be this nice,

[1:05:33] uh, nice backyard for those 3.

[1:05:34] Properties, uh, the, the height

[1:05:37] of the wall was, did not get up

[1:05:38] to that high amount, but they

[1:05:40] still were allowed to have the

[1:05:41] retaining wall, and at the same

[1:05:49] time, They, um. Cut down all 29

[1:05:52] trees on the lot between where

[1:05:56] the retaining wall is and the,

[1:05:58] the upper, uh, you know, and,

[1:06:00] and the roadway, the, the

[1:06:01] circle roadway. So all those

[1:06:03] trees went away. So now, of

[1:06:06] course, they have this strange,

[1:06:09] um, you know, cross section,

[1:06:14] and To, for, for no good reason

[1:06:17] at all. They want to have this

[1:06:18] really tall house, and they say,

[1:06:19] well, on the front, it, it

[1:06:22] would. You know, blend in with

[1:06:24] the rest of the, of the, uh,

[1:06:26] neighborhood, and, and that is

[1:06:31] the case, um, but. On the On

[1:06:32] the uh public water side, this

[1:06:39] is like. The same Visual impact

[1:06:41] as a four-story high home with

[1:06:42] a flat roof. It

[1:06:44] s massive, and

[1:06:46] because they removed the trees.

[1:06:48] Uh, there are only some trees

[1:06:49] down by the water, which is,

[1:06:52] you know, quite a bit down the

[1:06:54] slope. And so, so much of that

[1:06:58] house is going to be Visible to

[1:07:00] people recreating on the public

[1:07:01] lake, and it

[1:07:01] s out of character

[1:07:05] with. The rest of the homes on

[1:07:08] the lake in that respect. And

[1:07:10] all these things are caused by

[1:07:12] the property owner. These

[1:07:13] aren

[1:07:13] t unusual circumstances

[1:07:16] that, that, you know, uh, you

[1:07:18] know, made the property owner a

[1:07:20] victim, uh, of, of

[1:07:25] circumstances, uh, and And so,

[1:07:25] It it

[1:07:30] s, it just, uh, Uh, I, I

[1:07:33] believe that the, the property

[1:07:35] owner should work within the

[1:07:38] confines of the law, uh, and,

[1:07:40] and build a house. On their

[1:07:42] property, they, the, the

[1:07:44] setbacks are large on this, the,

[1:07:47] the front setbacks and the side

[1:07:49] setbacks are much more than the

[1:07:51] minimum, and so they could move

[1:07:54] the house forward. And then

[1:07:54] they won

[1:07:56] t have to deal as much

[1:07:58] with the slope in the back.

[1:07:59] They can plant more trees to,

[1:08:01] you know, deal with any erosion

[1:08:03] issues that might be on this

[1:08:05] slope that they, you know, so

[1:08:08] badly, um, messed up, um, so I

[1:08:09] think that it

[1:08:12] s It, it doesn

[1:08:12] t

[1:08:15] meet all the criteria that is

[1:08:16] required for to allow a

[1:08:20] variance, um, You know,

[1:08:22] especially that out of

[1:08:25] character view that People will

[1:08:27] see from the lakeside, and for

[1:08:30] that reason, I, I I would ask

[1:08:32] you to not allow this variance

[1:08:34] and have the, have the builder

[1:08:37] go back and Figure something

[1:08:38] else out. Thank you, thank you,

[1:08:50] MS. Freeman. Anybody else? Hi,

[1:08:53] my name is uh Lee Erickson. I

[1:08:55] live at uh 260 Wexford Heights

[1:08:57] Drive in New Brighton, uh, soon

[1:08:57] to be a homeowner in this

[1:09:01] development. Uh, in fact, I

[1:09:02] think that top picture MAY be

[1:09:02] the home that

[1:09:03] s being built for

[1:09:05] me right now at 588 Harbor

[1:09:08] Court. And so, um, I

[1:09:08] m just

[1:09:10] here to say that. You know,

[1:09:10] I

[1:09:11] ve seen the pictures of the

[1:09:14] of the proposed house, and I

[1:09:14] think it

[1:09:16] s consistent with With

[1:09:17] the character of the

[1:09:18] neighborhood and I

[1:09:18] d be pleased

[1:09:20] to be, uh, have that house in

[1:09:21] our neighborhood. So, thank you.

[1:09:34] Thank you, MRS. Erickson. Good

[1:09:35] evening everybody. My name is

[1:09:36] Steve Walsh. I live currently

[1:09:37] live at 18 Maycomb Lane in

[1:09:42] North Oaks. Um, I am also, um.

[1:09:44] The future homeowner of the

[1:09:46] adjacent lot to the variance

[1:09:48] requested, uh, Lot 7. Uh, that

[1:09:50] address would be 555 Harbor

[1:09:53] Court, uh. Originally a

[1:09:56] Shoreview resident back in the

[1:09:58] 70s, my parents moved to South

[1:09:59] Birch Lane and I bring him back

[1:09:59] uh Dome

[1:10:00] s Alley. That was a lot

[1:10:02] of, uh, reminiscence for me

[1:10:03] riding and running around that

[1:10:05] alley, uh, in the neighborhood,

[1:10:08] but, um, Ironically enough, uh,

[1:10:10] also along with Herb Brooks, uh,

[1:10:14] I endorsed. This community

[1:10:15] center years ago, uh, as an

[1:10:17] athlete that, uh, played

[1:10:17] college football down at the

[1:10:19] University of Miami. They, uh,

[1:10:21] I would imagine it was your,

[1:10:22] your commission that asked me

[1:10:24] to endorse that, and uh

[1:10:25] obviously a beautiful community

[1:10:27] center that, uh, we have here

[1:10:28] in Shoreview. Um, I

[1:10:29] ll just say

[1:10:30] this, um, you know, one of the

[1:10:31] things that attracted me to the

[1:10:34] community. Uh, as you look at,

[1:10:36] uh, you know, Metro lake and,

[1:10:38] and, you know, obviously, uh,

[1:10:40] high demand for those types of

[1:10:43] properties, um. You know,

[1:10:43] typically you

[1:10:44] d go into a

[1:10:45] community and, and maybe tear

[1:10:46] down a lot and build, build

[1:10:49] something new. Uh, but this

[1:10:50] community offered brand new

[1:10:54] home sites, uh, beautiful, uh,

[1:10:56] uh, you know, homes, uh,

[1:10:59] obviously a very good builder.

[1:11:02] And, uh, the steep roofs that

[1:11:04] lead to the, the height of

[1:11:07] these buildings, uh, certainly

[1:11:08] aesthetically pleasing in

[1:11:09] modern construction and, and

[1:11:12] for, for me and my wife, um,

[1:11:13] looking at a, a community of

[1:11:15] homes like this, of custom

[1:11:15] homes, uh, that

[1:11:17] ll be along the

[1:11:20] lake, uh, that design, uh, is

[1:11:22] certainly something that we, uh,

[1:11:23] wanted to be part of. So that

[1:11:23] s

[1:11:23] all I

[1:11:26] ll say, and I, I would

[1:11:27] certainly support the variants

[1:11:29] as, as it was shown. On the

[1:11:31] slide, uh, my home is, is

[1:11:33] basically, uh, with a standard

[1:11:37] lot, uh, at that 42 to 43 ft,

[1:11:37] um, height, so I don

[1:11:38] t want to

[1:11:39] have a neighbor necessarily

[1:11:42] with a, with an architectural

[1:11:42] design that

[1:11:43] s dramatically

[1:11:44] different than mine, so thank

[1:11:45] you for your time. Thank you,

[1:11:57] MS. Walsh. My name is Doug

[1:11:58] Jones. I reside at 550 Harbor

[1:12:03] Court. And, uh, want my

[1:12:04] contention is, is when I

[1:12:06] decided to move in there was a

[1:12:07] type of architecture that was

[1:12:10] going to be built by Wooddale.

[1:12:12] And I think the consistency of

[1:12:13] the product in the homes that

[1:12:16] are. Being built there should.

[1:12:20] All in. And With that type of

[1:12:22] architecture. All I really have

[1:12:24] to say. Thanks. Thank you, MR.

[1:12:31] Jones. Ok, well, uh, seeing

[1:12:32] nobody else, let

[1:12:32] s bring it

[1:12:36] back to the commission.

[1:12:37] Commissioner Salmonsson, yeah,

[1:12:40] MR. Chair, I When I look at

[1:12:42] this, uh, at least when I, I

[1:12:44] just consider the lake view and

[1:12:45] no one

[1:12:46] s gonna see how narrow

[1:12:47] the street is, and we

[1:12:47] re

[1:12:48] talking about 100 ft, but the

[1:12:51] lot is. Essentially 25,000

[1:12:52] square feet. It

[1:12:53] s a half an

[1:12:53] acre. It

[1:12:54] s generous and the

[1:12:56] width, the only time it really

[1:13:00] the width comes into play is on

[1:13:02] um the street side, otherwise

[1:13:04] the width is ample, pretty much

[1:13:06] more than exceeds a standard

[1:13:07] lot. So from the, from the

[1:13:10] lakeside. I do tend to agree

[1:13:11] that the character of the

[1:13:13] neighborhood, you could have.

[1:13:16] Uh, uh, I think from the lake

[1:13:17] and having the houses be

[1:13:19] similar is is a reasonable

[1:13:21] request, and I think the

[1:13:22] uniqueness here is because of

[1:13:23] that little piece of strip on

[1:13:25] the front of the street and

[1:13:27] seems to um. It

[1:13:29] s hard to use

[1:13:31] that as a reason to deny this

[1:13:32] kind of request. I think it

[1:13:33] s

[1:13:35] more important to have, uh,

[1:13:37] consistent houses, uh, from the

[1:13:39] Lakeview next to each other,

[1:13:40] and, and like I said, these

[1:13:41] lots aren

[1:13:42] t small and this is a

[1:13:45] big lot, 25,000 square feet. So,

[1:13:45] so I

[1:13:48] d say that, uh. Basically,

[1:13:49] I think this is a realistic

[1:13:51] request. And it

[1:13:51] s kind of a,

[1:13:52] it

[1:13:53] s one of those things with

[1:13:55] math problems cause you have a

[1:13:57] frontage that basically goes up

[1:13:58] and cuts over and that little

[1:14:03] 100 ft makes it an uh. Meets

[1:14:04] the definition of non-standard,

[1:14:05] but yeah, when I look at this

[1:14:06] lot, it sure looks standard to

[1:14:09] me in terms of size and scope.

[1:14:12] And when you put in that

[1:14:13] definition of determining

[1:14:15] height, half full roof height

[1:14:16] versus half. It

[1:14:17] s kind of a,

[1:14:17] it

[1:14:19] s definitely a disadvantage

[1:14:21] and uh to apply that standard

[1:14:24] to this lot. So I would be in

[1:14:27] support of the variants.

[1:14:27] Commissioner Anderson, thank

[1:14:30] you, MR. Jerry. Yeah, so

[1:14:31] apparently I

[1:14:31] m conflicted with

[1:14:34] everything tonight, but, um, so

[1:14:36] I was a part of the process of

[1:14:39] this original proposal as a

[1:14:41] planning commission member, um,

[1:14:43] and, and to, uh, Dennis

[1:14:43] Friedman

[1:14:44] s point, you know, it,

[1:14:45] part of what bothers me a

[1:14:48] little bit here is that uh

[1:14:50] There was a request basically

[1:14:52] to have an extra lot around

[1:14:53] this loop and now because of

[1:14:55] that, we have a substandard lot,

[1:14:56] and because of that, we

[1:14:57] ve got

[1:14:58] kind of what

[1:14:59] s before us here,

[1:15:01] to Commissioner Somonson

[1:15:01] s

[1:15:02] point, yes, there

[1:15:03] s very little

[1:15:04] distinction between these lots,

[1:15:05] uh, as far as just really at

[1:15:07] the street there is the only,

[1:15:08] the only difference, not far

[1:15:09] back from the street, you

[1:15:09] re

[1:15:11] meeting that requirement. Uh,

[1:15:13] if it were the, the house next

[1:15:14] door, the house to the south,

[1:15:15] from the lakeside, you

[1:15:16] re gonna

[1:15:18] have exactly the same view of

[1:15:20] this house as you would have

[1:15:23] the adjacent house, so. I think

[1:15:23] what we

[1:15:25] re seeing on paper, uh,

[1:15:27] to me is, is a distinction, but

[1:15:29] I think in actuality, um, there

[1:15:30] is no distinction, but on the

[1:15:32] flip side of the coin, this is

[1:15:33] the cards that were dealt.

[1:15:34] These are the cards that were

[1:15:38] dealt and. To, uh, Chair John

[1:15:38] s.

[1:15:42] Question. There is a different

[1:15:44] design that would work here.

[1:15:47] Now, There is maybe some value

[1:15:49] to the fact that there

[1:15:49] s a

[1:15:50] single builder and, you know,

[1:15:50] they

[1:15:51] re trying to achieve a

[1:15:52] look in this neighborhood, um,

[1:15:53] but I

[1:15:54] m on the fence still. I

[1:15:55] just, I honestly don

[1:15:55] t know, uh.

[1:16:01] Neither, um. Neither answer

[1:16:05] seems. 100% good to me. Thank

[1:16:07] you, Commissioner Cortes. Yeah,

[1:16:07] I, I

[1:16:11] m 100% with Commissioner

[1:16:12] Anderson on the extreme

[1:16:13] frustration I have on this one.

[1:16:16] I mean, I voted no on this

[1:16:17] development, specifically for

[1:16:18] this reason. I said they were

[1:16:19] gonna come back, they

[1:16:20] re gonna

[1:16:21] ask us for more variants

[1:16:22] because they weren

[1:16:23] t doing this

[1:16:25] properly, they were squeezing

[1:16:26] things in improperly to make

[1:16:27] the most money as opposed to

[1:16:29] doing what was right and within

[1:16:30] our code, and now they

[1:16:30] re back

[1:16:33] here doing the same thing. And

[1:16:35] I, you know, I hope maybe the

[1:16:37] city council will, will think

[1:16:38] about that when, when the

[1:16:40] planning commission, you know,

[1:16:41] has some thoughts about that

[1:16:43] and then. They they don

[1:16:44] t take

[1:16:45] those into consideration. We we

[1:16:47] have to deal with this again.

[1:16:48] Taking this property, however,

[1:16:52] individually, I think it does

[1:16:54] technically meet the

[1:16:55] requirements of the variants,

[1:16:58] rules that we have here. And as

[1:17:00] frustrated as I am with that

[1:17:01] they

[1:17:03] re back here, um, when we

[1:17:05] said this would happen, uh, I

[1:17:05] don

[1:17:07] t think I can treat the

[1:17:11] property or the property owner.

[1:17:12] Differently because we already

[1:17:14] approved it and said they could

[1:17:15] do this, um, and, and if it

[1:17:17] were any other development in

[1:17:17] any other lot, I don

[1:17:18] t know,

[1:17:19] Commissioner Anderson, if he

[1:17:19] d

[1:17:21] be struggling as much as, uh, I,

[1:17:24] I feel like I am with it

[1:17:25] because of the background of

[1:17:27] this development, so I, I will

[1:17:29] probably be voting aye, but I

[1:17:30] don

[1:17:35] t feel good about it.

[1:17:37] Anybody else have any comments,

[1:17:46] questions, or concerns? We, ok,

[1:17:46] I

[1:17:49] d like to move to adopt

[1:17:50] resolution 2667 granting a

[1:17:52] variance to increase the

[1:17:53] maximum permitted building

[1:17:54] height on a substandard

[1:17:57] repairing lot from 35 ft to 43

[1:18:00] ft 10 inches for the property

[1:18:02] located at 5559 Harbor Court,

[1:18:04] subject to the six conditions

[1:18:06] in the report and based on the

[1:18:08] three findings of fact. Second,

[1:18:11] it has been moved in seconds,

[1:18:12] any further discussion on the

[1:18:14] matter. I

[1:18:15] ll just throw my 2

[1:18:17] cents in there. This is more of

[1:18:19] a design problem than a a

[1:18:21] variance issue, so I would

[1:18:22] agree with what Commissioner

[1:18:25] Cortis. And Commissioner, um,

[1:18:28] Anderson had brought up, so.

[1:18:29] Just wanted to point that out

[1:18:31] before we take the vote. All

[1:18:34] those in favor indicate by

[1:18:36] saying aye. I oppose same sign.

[1:18:46] i. Motion passes 6 to 1. Ok, so

[1:18:50] we move to item 7c. This is a

[1:18:51] variance request by Robert

[1:18:53] Fried. The location is 804

[1:18:55] County Road, I West. Associate

[1:18:57] planner Will Harris, you have

[1:19:04] the presentation. Thank you,

[1:19:08] chair. Ah, one item of note

[1:19:10] related to my previous

[1:19:12] presentation, uh, for 675

[1:19:14] Sunset, um, that item is

[1:19:16] subject to a five-day appeal

[1:19:17] period that was not stated. So

[1:19:20] I just wanted to clarify, um,

[1:19:22] if there is anybody out there

[1:19:23] who wished to, there

[1:19:23] s that

[1:19:27] option. And with that, uh, we

[1:19:30] will get into the variance

[1:19:31] requests, variances requested

[1:19:33] in the residential design

[1:19:34] review for 804 County Road,

[1:19:40] West. Orienting ourselves, uh,

[1:19:42] this property is located along

[1:19:43] the northern side of Turtle

[1:19:49] Lake. Um. Access is provided

[1:19:56] off of County Road I. Uh, the

[1:19:58] property is a located within

[1:20:00] the r1 detached residential

[1:20:02] zoning district. Uh, it is a

[1:20:04] substandard repairian lot for

[1:20:05] lot width. According to the

[1:20:07] most recent survey that we have

[1:20:12] of the property, uh, the lot is

[1:20:14] 9,896 square feet with a width

[1:20:17] of 75 ft along County Rhode I

[1:20:19] and depths of 119 ft on the

[1:20:22] western side and 129 ft along

[1:20:23] the eastern side, there is an

[1:20:25] existing single family home.

[1:20:26] That was originally developed

[1:20:31] on the site in 1972. Uh,

[1:20:33] however, that property went

[1:20:34] through a residential design

[1:20:37] review in 2003 that included

[1:20:38] the approval of the following

[1:20:41] items. An additional 300 square

[1:20:44] feet of living area that was

[1:20:44] constructed above the garage

[1:20:51] space. Located here. Uh, a

[1:20:53] maximum allowed impervious

[1:20:56] surface coverage of 35.6%, with

[1:20:58] the conditions of a signed

[1:21:01] mitigation affidavit and no

[1:21:01] lakeside accessory structures

[1:21:06] constructed, uh, and a lakeside

[1:21:07] setback of the existing deck

[1:21:10] not to be changed, which was

[1:21:15] 19.5 ft. A little bit of

[1:21:17] property history for you. Uh,

[1:21:20] with that residential design

[1:21:22] review in 2003, uh, as stated,

[1:21:25] there was an attached deck that

[1:21:27] was included within the survey

[1:21:30] and the building plans for that

[1:21:33] rdr that showed uh 19.5 ft

[1:21:34] setback from the ordinary high

[1:21:37] water line. Uh, that was

[1:21:39] approved because the, um, that

[1:21:40] was the existing conditions and

[1:21:40] there weren

[1:21:42] t going to be any

[1:21:44] alterations to that existing

[1:21:48] setback, uh, after that was

[1:21:53] approved, um, the homeowners at

[1:21:54] that time had actually

[1:21:56] constructed a different deck.

[1:21:58] Um, that according to the most

[1:22:00] recent survey that we have

[1:22:03] currently 6 sits at 17.9 ft

[1:22:05] from the ordinary high water

[1:22:07] line, thus encroaching a little

[1:22:12] bit further into that setback.

[1:22:14] Later on in 2022, uh, a

[1:22:16] different homeowner of the

[1:22:21] property, uh, constructed, um,

[1:22:22] a few different alterations to

[1:22:26] the property, including an

[1:22:26] illegal water-oriented

[1:22:27] accessory structure, which is

[1:22:30] going to be the patio scene on

[1:22:37] the left image. Here? As well

[1:22:40] as a gravel parking pad

[1:22:42] addition located on the

[1:22:43] northeastern side of the

[1:22:49] driveway. Here. That brings us

[1:22:51] to today where the current

[1:22:53] owners and the applicants today

[1:22:55] purchased the property in

[1:22:59] SEPTEMBER of 2025. Uh, they had

[1:23:01] installed an additional

[1:23:02] unpermitted water-oriented

[1:23:03] accessory structure, uh, which

[1:23:06] is going to be shown as the

[1:23:08] blue square giving just a

[1:23:09] general location of where that

[1:23:13] is since it was not um included

[1:23:14] in that 2022 screenshot shown

[1:23:18] on the screen. Um, that was

[1:23:20] installed between the purchase

[1:23:23] of the home in SEPTEMBER and

[1:23:27] the spring of 2026. Uh, it is

[1:23:28] important to note that the

[1:23:29] existing home currently does

[1:23:31] operate as a licensed

[1:23:31] short-term rental within the

[1:23:38] city. So The As as you can see

[1:23:40] on the screen, uh, there are 2

[1:23:42] images. One is going to be the

[1:23:44] most recent aerial image that

[1:23:47] was taken of the property on

[1:23:49] the right-hand side as well as

[1:23:51] the most recent survey that we

[1:23:52] have of the property located on

[1:23:55] the left-hand side. As it

[1:24:00] currently sits, there are 6

[1:24:03] violations of city code with

[1:24:05] regards to the existing

[1:24:09] property and the deck. The

[1:24:12] first of which is the amount of

[1:24:13] water-oriented accessory

[1:24:15] structures. Currently, there

[1:24:19] are 2 with the hot tub and the

[1:24:21] patio, both located between the

[1:24:23] ordinary high water level and

[1:24:26] the required structure setback.

[1:24:30] The second is the maximum area

[1:24:32] of a water-oriented accessory

[1:24:36] structure at 250 square feet.

[1:24:40] The current patio is 35314

[1:24:42] square feet, and the existing

[1:24:43] hot tub, I don

[1:24:43] t have it on

[1:24:45] screen, but I believe it is 62

[1:24:53] square feet. The 3rd Is the

[1:24:54] side yard setback for a

[1:24:55] water-oriented accessory

[1:24:59] structure. The current patio

[1:25:02] sits at 10 ft from the eastern

[1:25:03] side of the eastern property

[1:25:06] line. The required setback is

[1:25:11] 20 ft for that structure. The

[1:25:15] 4th is that any water-oriented

[1:25:16] accessory structure MAY not be

[1:25:18] located within the shore impact

[1:25:22] zone. That Distance is 25 ft

[1:25:23] from the ordinary high water

[1:25:27] line. The current patio is

[1:25:29] located 10 ft and 9 inches from

[1:25:30] the ordinary high water line.

[1:25:32] It is important to note that

[1:25:35] code does permit that this

[1:25:36] setback can be waived by the

[1:25:38] planning commission, but not

[1:25:41] reduced to Less than 10 ft from

[1:25:43] the ordinary high water line.

[1:25:45] Um, if the planning commission

[1:25:47] determines that there is a

[1:25:49] practical difficulty that would

[1:25:50] prohibit strict compliance with

[1:25:54] this code provision. The code

[1:25:56] specifically calls out that

[1:25:58] this usage of practical

[1:26:01] difficulty is due to topography

[1:26:02] or other circumstances that are

[1:26:04] acceptable to the city. The 5th

[1:26:10] item Is the total maximum

[1:26:10] impervious surface coverage on

[1:26:16] the site. As it sits today, uh,

[1:26:20] it is hovering around 41.5%

[1:26:23] impervious surface coverage,

[1:26:25] even though the residential

[1:26:27] design review from 2023 had

[1:26:32] approved the property at 35.6%.

[1:26:35] That criteria has been altered.

[1:26:37] With the introduction of a

[1:26:38] water-oriented accessory

[1:26:40] structure. With that introduced

[1:26:43] to the property, the total

[1:26:44] impervious surface coverage is

[1:26:47] then restricted to 25%. And

[1:26:52] lastly, Uh, the deck edition or.

[1:26:57] Newly constructed deck further

[1:27:03] encroachment. Um. Is a

[1:27:05] violation of the structure

[1:27:06] setback from the ordinary high

[1:27:10] water line, um, code requires

[1:27:12] that this is standard 50 ft.

[1:27:15] However, because it was a

[1:27:18] nonconformity, um, It was

[1:27:20] subject to that 19.5 ft that

[1:27:21] was approved as a part of that

[1:27:22] residential design review from

[1:27:29] 2003. Uh, as you can see on the

[1:27:32] screen, um, this is going to be

[1:27:33] reiterating the existing

[1:27:36] conditions of the property as

[1:27:38] long or along with the

[1:27:41] proposals from the applicant,

[1:27:43] um, to bring the property into

[1:27:45] compliance with city code,

[1:27:47] whether that be alterations or

[1:27:49] through the variances that are

[1:27:52] presented to you tonight. To

[1:27:56] reduce, uh, to correct the, the

[1:27:57] first violation, the applicants

[1:27:59] are proposing to remove the

[1:28:01] existing hot tub, thus reducing

[1:28:03] the amount of water-oriented

[1:28:03] accessory structures to a

[1:28:07] number permitted by code.

[1:28:09] Secondly, uh, they

[1:28:10] re proposing

[1:28:12] to reduce the total square

[1:28:14] footage of the accessory

[1:28:16] structures, uh, to a total of

[1:28:20] 200 square feet, um, thus, by

[1:28:22] reducing the total patio size

[1:28:23] and also getting rid of the hot

[1:28:28] tub square footage. The final 4

[1:28:29] items the applicants are

[1:28:32] requesting variances for. Uh,

[1:28:34] the applicant is requesting a

[1:28:35] variance to the side yard

[1:28:38] setback on the eastern side. To

[1:28:40] maintain the current 10 ft

[1:28:41] setback that the patio is

[1:28:45] currently sitting at. The

[1:28:48] second variance requested is to

[1:28:53] maintain, uh, the patio at 17.6

[1:28:54] ft from the ordinary high water

[1:28:56] line, they would be reducing

[1:29:00] the size of the patio in the

[1:29:02] area that is between the lake

[1:29:03] and the home to try to mitigate

[1:29:10] that. Thirdly, is a variance

[1:29:11] request for the maximum

[1:29:12] impervious surface coverage of

[1:29:15] the home. As stated earlier,

[1:29:17] they are now subject to the 25%

[1:29:20] with the introduction of the

[1:29:21] water-oriented accessory

[1:29:24] structure, uh, the applicants

[1:29:27] are proposing a 35.6%

[1:29:28] impervious surface coverage,

[1:29:31] which, as Important to note is

[1:29:33] the amount that was approved as

[1:29:36] a part of that residential

[1:29:38] design review in 2003, but

[1:29:40] would require an additional

[1:29:41] variance today, because of that

[1:29:42] wire-oriented accessory

[1:29:46] structure. And lastly, uh,

[1:29:47] their they

[1:29:48] re requesting a

[1:29:52] variance to um the 50 ft uh

[1:29:52] setback from uh the ordinary

[1:29:54] high water line for the

[1:29:58] structure, uh, to maintain that

[1:29:59] 17.9 ft setback for the

[1:30:04] existing deck on the site. So

[1:30:06] this is just another

[1:30:09] visualization, um, of the

[1:30:12] proposed variances this evening,

[1:30:14] along with a survey that was

[1:30:16] sent to staff with uh some

[1:30:18] visuals as to how they

[1:30:19] re

[1:30:19] reducing the impervious surface

[1:30:21] coverage. As you can see on the

[1:30:24] northern side of the property,

[1:30:24] they

[1:30:26] re planning on removing,

[1:30:27] uh, that illegally installed,

[1:30:32] um, Gravel portion along here.

[1:30:33] They

[1:30:34] re also proposing to

[1:30:36] remove a small portion of a

[1:30:37] turnaround area that was

[1:30:40] permitted, uh, just to reduce

[1:30:40] some additional impervious

[1:30:44] surface coverage on the site.

[1:30:46] The items that are circled. Are

[1:30:49] going to be the ones that the

[1:30:50] applicant is requesting

[1:30:53] variances for And I think the

[1:30:57] the one to note would be the

[1:31:00] removal of some of that patio

[1:31:02] area to one, get it down to

[1:31:06] that 200 square foot mark. But

[1:31:10] also visualizing, um, the

[1:31:12] reduction of the setback from

[1:31:14] the ordinary high water line or

[1:31:19] um That, um, Oh, now I

[1:31:20] m

[1:31:21] forgetting the name of it, but

[1:31:29] yes. Again, uh, because this is

[1:31:31] a substandard lot. It does

[1:31:32] require residential design

[1:31:37] review. Um, The 4 columns that

[1:31:40] are shown on screen are going

[1:31:43] to include uh the allowed

[1:31:48] amounts by code. The permitted

[1:31:50] amounts that were approved as a

[1:31:51] part of that 2003 residential

[1:31:54] design review. The current

[1:31:57] conditions of the property. And

[1:31:59] what is being proposed for you

[1:32:01] this evening. And as you can

[1:32:04] see, the 4 variances. Are bold

[1:32:09] on the right hand side. As you

[1:32:12] are familiar, uh, the variance

[1:32:15] criteria are subject to uh the

[1:32:19] 3 items shown on screen. Um,

[1:32:21] the reasonable manner, the uh

[1:32:22] property owner is proposing to

[1:32:26] use, or the Um, the applicant

[1:32:28] is proposing something that is

[1:32:29] reasonable within the, the

[1:32:31] property. Uh, there

[1:32:32] s a unique

[1:32:34] circumstance that is unique to

[1:32:35] the property owner and or the

[1:32:36] property and it

[1:32:37] s not created

[1:32:38] by the property owner, uh, or a

[1:32:41] previous one. And lastly, the

[1:32:43] character of the neighborhood,

[1:32:45] uh, that the, uh, proposed work

[1:32:46] would not alter the essential

[1:32:53] character. So For For For For

[1:32:55] the For For the 3 variances

[1:32:57] requested regarding the patio

[1:32:58] and its location. Uh, staff

[1:33:00] believes that a practical

[1:33:02] difficulty is not present for

[1:33:06] these three items, uh, due to,

[1:33:07] uh, the unique circumstance not

[1:33:11] being met. While the patio is a

[1:33:13] reasonable request, uh, both

[1:33:17] within the r1 zoning district,

[1:33:18] as well as uh for a riparian

[1:33:22] lot long term. Turtle Lake. Um,

[1:33:24] and staff believes that this

[1:33:26] application would not alter the

[1:33:27] essential character of the

[1:33:30] neighborhood, um, given that,

[1:33:31] again, many other properties

[1:33:33] along Turtle Lake have lakeside

[1:33:36] patios, um, some of which are,

[1:33:41] uh, Kind of. Close, closer than

[1:33:44] standard ones, um, but the

[1:33:45] unique circumstance, staff

[1:33:46] believes just isn

[1:33:48] t present. Um,

[1:33:52] one, due to the total amount of

[1:33:53] impervious surface coverage

[1:33:55] that is being requested by the

[1:33:59] applicants, um, The, the

[1:34:02] deviation is for an additional

[1:34:03] 10.6% of impervious surface

[1:34:06] coverage on the site, uh, which

[1:34:09] is a, a fairly substantial

[1:34:10] amount given the um the

[1:34:13] location of where a lot of that

[1:34:16] is, um, the staff received

[1:34:19] comments from our engineering

[1:34:20] department about uh the

[1:34:22] importance of the impervious

[1:34:24] surface coverage requirements

[1:34:25] and code, um, typically because

[1:34:27] they don

[1:34:29] t want that water

[1:34:30] draining towards water sources,

[1:34:33] um, and given that a lot of

[1:34:34] that improved or additional

[1:34:37] impervious is going to be

[1:34:38] lakeside, um, it

[1:34:38] s, it

[1:34:39] s going

[1:34:41] to be a substantial impact on

[1:34:44] the body of water, Turtle Lake.

[1:34:46] Um, secondly, uh, the site does

[1:34:48] allow for the homeowners to

[1:34:50] reduce and or alter the patio

[1:34:52] to conform to that side yard

[1:34:54] setback, it would reduce the

[1:34:57] patio to a little bit less than

[1:34:59] 150 square feet, uh, but it

[1:35:01] would be an additional variance

[1:35:02] that would not be in front of

[1:35:04] you tonight, if that were to be

[1:35:07] have been proposed. Um, and

[1:35:10] then lastly, staff believes

[1:35:12] that the definition for a

[1:35:13] practical difficulty involving

[1:35:14] the setback from the ordinary

[1:35:17] high water line is not present

[1:35:20] for the proposed application.

[1:35:23] For the variants that is

[1:35:25] requested regarding the deck.

[1:35:27] Staff does believe that a

[1:35:29] practical difficulty is present

[1:35:29] for this variant

[1:35:31] s request, um,

[1:35:33] again, uh, the staff believes

[1:35:36] that the, the application for

[1:35:38] uh a lakeside deck is again a

[1:35:40] permitted use and something

[1:35:42] that is very common with many

[1:35:43] of these properties along

[1:35:44] County Rhodede and on Turtle

[1:35:47] Lake. Um, the unique

[1:35:49] circumstance in this situation

[1:35:50] is, um, again, you

[1:35:51] re, you

[1:35:52] ll

[1:35:53] be fairly familiar with this,

[1:35:56] given that a variance was

[1:35:57] requested and approved for

[1:35:58] another property on County

[1:36:01] Rhode Is for a very similar

[1:36:03] situation that um the ordinary

[1:36:07] high water line for when the

[1:36:08] original 2003 residential

[1:36:11] design review was approved, uh,

[1:36:14] has thus changed to now, um,

[1:36:18] the, the property has Um,

[1:36:20] eroded along that western edge,

[1:36:23] and Turtle Lake has come up a

[1:36:27] little bit thus reducing, um,

[1:36:28] that distance between the, the

[1:36:29] current deck and where that

[1:36:32] ordinary high water line sits,

[1:36:34] so staff believes that um this

[1:36:36] reduction in the setback is a

[1:36:38] result of natural changes, um,

[1:36:40] but not, uh, well, caused by

[1:36:42] the owner but not caused by the

[1:36:45] owner, if that makes sense. Uh,

[1:36:47] and lastly, staff believes that

[1:36:49] The proposed setback would not

[1:36:51] alter the character of the

[1:36:53] neighborhood, um, the, there

[1:36:56] are similar, again, variances

[1:36:58] that have been requested and

[1:36:59] granted that have been

[1:37:00] requested and granted that have

[1:37:00] been requested and granted for

[1:37:01] that have been requested and

[1:37:02] granted that have been

[1:37:02] requested and granted for um

[1:37:03] similar distances for decks, uh,

[1:37:05] set back at this distance, um,

[1:37:05] and it

[1:37:06] s important to note that

[1:37:08] the neighbor to the west is, uh,

[1:37:11] less than 1 ft, um, from Turtle

[1:37:14] Lake for, for a deck. So, uh,

[1:37:15] staff does not believe that

[1:37:16] this request would alter the

[1:37:20] character of The neighborhood.

[1:37:23] On screen is just a

[1:37:26] visualization of the um unique

[1:37:29] circumstances that were stated,

[1:37:31] showing the distances from the

[1:37:33] proposed deck from 2003 on the

[1:37:36] right hand side, uh, with a

[1:37:39] reduced elevation of Turtle

[1:37:41] Lake and an increased western

[1:37:44] property line, uh, as well as,

[1:37:45] um, the existing conditions on

[1:37:47] the left hand side with where

[1:37:48] Turtle Lake currently sits, uh,

[1:37:50] where the deck. Currently is

[1:37:51] set back from that ordinary

[1:37:54] high water line, as well as the

[1:37:56] reduction in the western

[1:37:58] property line, um, and the

[1:38:05] reduction of that. Comments, um,

[1:38:08] staff did receive one, well, uh,

[1:38:10] one written public comment from

[1:38:11] uh two different homeowners

[1:38:13] that was submitted, uh,

[1:38:14] expressing disapproval of the

[1:38:16] variants request, that item was

[1:38:18] included in your packets this

[1:38:20] evening, um, as stated, staff

[1:38:22] did receive a comment from

[1:38:23] engineering regarding the

[1:38:25] importance of shore reviews

[1:38:28] impervious surface coverage on

[1:38:29] the uh cumulative negative

[1:38:30] impacts of runoff towards the

[1:38:34] body of water. Uh, and lastly,

[1:38:35] staff received a comment from

[1:38:36] the Race Creek Watershed

[1:38:38] District, uh, providing

[1:38:42] comments about their permitting

[1:38:45] specifications and um their

[1:38:47] notification requirements for

[1:38:49] uh potential fill weather, uh,

[1:38:51] any alteration to the existing

[1:38:54] patio, uh, would be impacted

[1:38:58] this evening. So Uh, staff

[1:39:01] recommends that the planning

[1:39:03] commission deny 3 variances

[1:39:04] submitted by Robert Fried

[1:39:06] regarding the property at 804

[1:39:08] County Rhode I, uh, each of

[1:39:11] which involves, uh, the patio

[1:39:14] structure, the first being to

[1:39:16] exceed the maximum impervious

[1:39:19] surface coverage, the second,

[1:39:21] uh, to allow the water-oriented

[1:39:24] accessory structure, uh, to

[1:39:24] encroach within the shore

[1:39:28] impact zone. And lastly, to

[1:39:29] reduce the water-oriented side

[1:39:32] setback to 10 ft. Uh, however,

[1:39:34] staff does recommend that the

[1:39:36] planning commission adopt

[1:39:39] Resolution 26-68, uh, proving

[1:39:41] the 17.9 ft structure setback

[1:39:42] for the existing deck that is

[1:39:44] on the property, subject to the

[1:39:44] conditions outlined in your

[1:39:47] packets. And with that, I will

[1:39:49] stand for questions. Thank you,

[1:39:51] MR. Harris. Any questions, MR.

[1:39:52] Chair Commissioner Simonson. I

[1:39:53] guess the question is there

[1:39:54] s a

[1:39:55] number of variances here and

[1:39:55] there

[1:39:59] s a lot of. I don

[1:39:59] t, so

[1:40:01] the question is, if, if the

[1:40:01] variants don

[1:40:01] t pass, is, is the.

[1:40:07] Is a city trying to get the hot

[1:40:10] tub and the patio removed. So

[1:40:14] compliance, yes, um. So the

[1:40:16] original, um, how this all

[1:40:20] started, I guess, um, when the

[1:40:23] property owners had applied for

[1:40:24] their short-term rental license.

[1:40:25] Uh, staff had gone through and

[1:40:27] done an inspection of the

[1:40:29] property. Uh, they had approved

[1:40:31] the rental license and issued

[1:40:34] that, um, as a part of our code

[1:40:35] enforcement and rental program,

[1:40:38] Staff did receive a couple of

[1:40:39] complaints from surrounding

[1:40:40] property owners, which, as a

[1:40:42] part of those complaints

[1:40:46] included, um, parking issues on

[1:40:48] that gravel patch on that

[1:40:51] eastern portion. And so, once

[1:40:52] we looked at that, we started

[1:40:54] doing a little bit deeper of a

[1:40:57] dive into the property, found

[1:40:59] numerous other violations, and

[1:41:02] uh actually issued the property

[1:41:05] owners a letter both for rental

[1:41:07] code violations and property

[1:41:09] violations, what you are seeing

[1:41:10] tonight is the property

[1:41:13] violations and the request of

[1:41:15] The homeowner to uh maintain

[1:41:17] something that they kind of

[1:41:19] walked into without knowing, um,

[1:41:22] and since then, uh, the rental

[1:41:25] code violations, uh, excluding

[1:41:26] the parking violations have

[1:41:30] thus been corrected. And a

[1:41:31] follow up question is the the

[1:41:32] parking, there

[1:41:33] s no variance

[1:41:35] request for that. That

[1:41:35] s being

[1:41:37] eliminated the, the gravel.

[1:41:39] Parking pad, I guess, or

[1:41:43] correct. Ok. Commissioner

[1:41:45] Cortis, yeah, so I just, uh,

[1:41:47] trying to understand more about

[1:41:51] what, what happened in the rdr

[1:41:55] with the 35.6%. So it, it in

[1:41:56] the staff report, it talks

[1:42:00] about how. There was a, a no

[1:42:02] lakeside accessory structure,

[1:42:04] period, as part of that, or, or

[1:42:06] how was that passed as part of

[1:42:07] the variance cause we don

[1:42:07] t

[1:42:08] have those, those minutes or,

[1:42:12] or what whatever from 2003.

[1:42:15] Yeah, so the, as a part of that

[1:42:18] residential design review, um,

[1:42:21] the homeowners were. They were

[1:42:23] actually exceeding the

[1:42:24] impervious surface coverage

[1:42:27] again on the site, um, and a

[1:42:29] part of that residential design

[1:42:31] review and a request by staff

[1:42:35] was, uh, to mitigate or to Uh,

[1:42:37] reduce that impervious surface

[1:42:41] coverage back to the 35.6, um,

[1:42:42] and that was approved as a part

[1:42:47] of that rdr. And so as part of

[1:42:49] the, the conditions in, in that

[1:42:53] approval was the no lakeside

[1:42:56] accessory structures or it was

[1:42:57] not specifically outlined

[1:42:58] within those conditions.

[1:43:01] However however, as a part of

[1:43:06] all of our, um, Memos or uh rdr.

[1:43:12] Procedures, so to speak. Um,

[1:43:14] there is a provision in there

[1:43:16] that states that any

[1:43:18] significant alteration to the

[1:43:20] property would require the

[1:43:22] approval of the planning

[1:43:24] commission, and with a

[1:43:25] significant alteration such as

[1:43:28] the addition of a lakeside.

[1:43:29] Accessory structure, um, which

[1:43:31] would then, again, put them

[1:43:33] down into that 25% impervious

[1:43:37] surface coverage. Bucket Um,

[1:43:40] They, they violated the terms

[1:43:42] of that rdr with that. Um,

[1:43:46] edition. And so with with with

[1:43:49] that rdr. Were they already

[1:43:54] built up to the 35.6 or was it?

[1:43:57] The ability to go up to 35.6.

[1:44:00] Like what, what I guess changed,

[1:44:00] I guess there

[1:44:01] s 6% more now,

[1:44:03] but, but, and some of that

[1:44:04] s

[1:44:06] the hot tub. What was the 35.6

[1:44:08] at that time is my question. So,

[1:44:13] If I MAY, Commissioner Cortes,

[1:44:14] when that property went through

[1:44:16] that residential design review

[1:44:18] in 2003, they were, as well

[1:44:22] stated, higher. They were at 37.

[1:44:22] Something. I don

[1:44:23] t recall the

[1:44:24] number off the top of my head,

[1:44:25] but as part of their mitigation.

[1:44:29] To do those improvements to the

[1:44:30] property, that is when they

[1:44:32] brought it down to that 35.6.

[1:44:34] So they removed some impervious

[1:44:35] surface coverage that had been

[1:44:37] on the property, likely prior

[1:44:40] to our shore and regulations

[1:44:41] changing in 1992. And so this

[1:44:42] was a way for the city to get

[1:44:44] them to bring it closer to

[1:44:46] compliance. And so at that

[1:44:49] point they were allowed to keep

[1:44:53] 35.6%, but that. As was stated,

[1:44:56] um, did not include any

[1:44:57] lakeside structures, so they

[1:44:57] re

[1:44:58] maximum at that point would

[1:45:01] have been 30%. So they were

[1:45:02] still above it, but they were

[1:45:04] still reducing it to what the

[1:45:05] property had historically held,

[1:45:07] so the city was happy to see

[1:45:08] that reduction. Ok, and I guess

[1:45:08] I

[1:45:09] m just trying to figure out

[1:45:11] what was, what was the, at that

[1:45:15] time, the 35. 0.6 essentially.

[1:45:17] Like what was there when They

[1:45:24] reached that agreement. Um, I,

[1:45:27] the, the survey from the

[1:45:28] original submission is shown on

[1:45:31] screen on the right hand side,

[1:45:33] um, I think that a lot of that

[1:45:36] is gonna come back to, uh, a

[1:45:37] lot of this concrete that runs

[1:45:39] along the side and along the

[1:45:43] rear of the home back here, um,

[1:45:47] But the, again, uh, a, a small

[1:45:51] portion of that too, um, could

[1:45:52] be related to uh the change in

[1:45:53] the ordinary high water line

[1:45:59] too. Ok, and so. Just so I

[1:46:00] understand what I

[1:46:00] m looking at

[1:46:01] then. So there

[1:46:01] s there

[1:46:01] s this

[1:46:03] kind of ring of concrete around

[1:46:05] the existing house, like a

[1:46:07] sidewalk or something, and then

[1:46:09] it says deck, and does that

[1:46:10] mean above ground deck or is

[1:46:12] that a patio ground patio at

[1:46:13] the time, above ground deck. Ok.

[1:46:18] I, I don

[1:46:23] t have anything else.

[1:46:24] Any other comments, questions?

[1:46:25] Ok, thank you, MR. Harris.

[1:46:28] Thank you. If the applicant is

[1:46:30] in the audience and like to

[1:46:31] address the commission. I

[1:46:31] d

[1:46:34] invite you to come up and State

[1:46:35] your name and address for the

[1:46:42] record. To 2 people are allowed.

[1:46:42] Yes, it wouldn

[1:46:42] t be the first

[1:46:48] time. I

[1:46:51] m Robert Fried. I live

[1:46:52] at 49 South Deep Lake Road in

[1:46:55] North Oaks. And this is my

[1:46:58] daughter-in-law Allie Fried.

[1:47:02] And you live at. Yes, I live at

[1:47:06] 6583 in Lino Lakes, Minnesota.

[1:47:12] Um, So. My wife and I, my wife

[1:47:12] isn

[1:47:12] t here. She

[1:47:13] s not feeling

[1:47:16] well, but, um, My wife and I

[1:47:20] have lived in the. Shoreview,

[1:47:23] the larger Shoreview community.

[1:47:26] Uh, since 1987. Um, Yeah, we

[1:47:30] were. We moved away for a short

[1:47:34] period of time and moved back.

[1:47:38] In 1995 and uh. Uh, have lived

[1:47:44] in North Oaks for 30 years. Um,

[1:47:44] i

[1:47:45] m active in the Shoreview

[1:47:46] community. I

[1:47:47] m a mem my wife

[1:47:49] and I are both members of the

[1:47:52] Rotary Club. Uh, we were active,

[1:47:57] uh. Creating the Pollinator

[1:47:59] garden at McCullough. Park And

[1:48:05] um. Uh, we contribute to the

[1:48:09] shore view. Foundation. On a

[1:48:18] regular basis. Um, It

[1:48:19] s been

[1:48:21] difficult to us for us to

[1:48:23] realize that there are a lot of

[1:48:25] issues with this property. Um,

[1:48:29] there were 2. Prior owners. Uh,

[1:48:32] uh. And we don

[1:48:36] t know. Exactly

[1:48:39] what either uh prior owner did.

[1:48:44] But, um, Uh Thanks to the

[1:48:45] playing staff, we

[1:48:46] ve come to

[1:48:46] realize that there

[1:48:46] s some

[1:48:50] issues. And, and, uh, and we

[1:48:50] ve

[1:48:54] been working hard to try to Uh,

[1:48:58] Come up with a plan and Uh,

[1:49:01] perhaps we need to do, More

[1:49:03] work in that regard, but in any

[1:49:05] case, um. Uh, Ali, you

[1:49:06] re gonna.

[1:49:09] Have some opening remarks. I

[1:49:09] ll

[1:49:12] stay here. Answer questions. Or

[1:49:15] to see if I go into labor, I

[1:49:17] think. Uh, well, good evening.

[1:49:19] My name is Allie Fried. My

[1:49:20] father-in-law and mother-in-law

[1:49:22] Robert and Miriam own the home

[1:49:24] at 804 County Road I. They

[1:49:26] purchased it nearly a year ago

[1:49:28] in SEPTEMBER of 2025, the first

[1:49:29] and only cabin they

[1:49:30] ve ever

[1:49:31] owned, a dream realized after

[1:49:33] more than 40 years of diligent

[1:49:35] saving. My in-laws have called

[1:49:36] the Mounds View School District

[1:49:37] home for decades and are both

[1:49:39] active members of the Shoreview

[1:49:40] and Arden Hills Rotary Club.

[1:49:41] They

[1:49:41] ve asked me to speak on

[1:49:44] their behalf tonight. Thank you

[1:49:45] for your time and genuinely

[1:49:47] thank you, Will, for all that

[1:49:47] you

[1:49:48] ve put into this. 5 months

[1:49:50] is a long time to work through

[1:49:51] something like this, but we

[1:49:51] ve

[1:49:53] had a laundry list to get

[1:49:54] through, and we felt the effort

[1:49:56] from your side. I want to start

[1:49:58] with something that we actually

[1:49:59] agree with Steph on. They

[1:50:00] ve

[1:50:01] recommended approving the deck

[1:50:02] variants and their reasoning

[1:50:04] makes sense to us. The setback

[1:50:06] problem goes back to something

[1:50:07] nobody could control the

[1:50:10] shoreline eroding into the slot

[1:50:11] since 2003, not anything my

[1:50:13] in-laws did. We

[1:50:14] re grateful

[1:50:15] that the planning staff saw

[1:50:16] this clearly because it

[1:50:17] s the

[1:50:19] case. We think the patio

[1:50:19] deserves the same conclusion,

[1:50:20] and here

[1:50:22] s why. My in-laws

[1:50:22] didn

[1:50:24] t build the patio. They

[1:50:24] didn

[1:50:26] t rebuild the deck either.

[1:50:28] Both were already there,

[1:50:29] exactly as can be seen now when

[1:50:31] they bought this house last

[1:50:32] SEPTEMBER. They walked into

[1:50:33] this situation and didn

[1:50:33] t

[1:50:35] create it. And there

[1:50:35] s a piece

[1:50:36] of this lot

[1:50:37] s history that

[1:50:39] matters here too. This property

[1:50:41] has been recognized by the city

[1:50:43] as a substandard lot since long

[1:50:46] before my in-laws owned it.

[1:50:48] Just 9,896 square feet, well

[1:50:50] under the 15,000 square foot

[1:50:52] standard. On the lot, only 75

[1:50:54] ft wide. That

[1:50:56] s exactly why in

[1:50:58] 2003, this commission granted

[1:51:00] this property additional

[1:51:00] flexibility on impervious

[1:51:02] coverage in the first place.

[1:51:04] The physical constraints of

[1:51:04] this lot aren

[1:51:05] t something my

[1:51:06] in-laws created. There

[1:51:07] s

[1:51:08] something the city itself

[1:51:09] already recognized as unique to

[1:51:12] this property. The stricter 25%

[1:51:13] limit we

[1:51:15] re asking you to look

[1:51:15] past isn

[1:51:17] t about preference.

[1:51:17] It

[1:51:19] s what happens when two code

[1:51:21] provisions, the substandard lot

[1:51:23] allowance, and the Lakeside

[1:51:24] Accessories structure cap

[1:51:25] collide on a lot this size and

[1:51:28] shape. That collision is a

[1:51:29] unique circumstance, and it has

[1:51:31] nothing to do with any choice

[1:51:33] my in-laws made. We

[1:51:34] d ask you

[1:51:35] to consider just how tight that

[1:51:37] collision really is. Our

[1:51:38] surveyor, who has been an

[1:51:41] amazing help. His calculations

[1:51:43] show that even if every

[1:51:45] accessory feature on this

[1:51:46] property were removed entirely.

[1:51:49] The hot tub, the patio in full,

[1:51:51] the gravel area next to the

[1:51:51] driveway and the driveway

[1:51:52] trimmed down to its simplest

[1:51:57] form. This lot would still sit

[1:52:00] at 32.5% in previous coverage.

[1:52:02] Well above the 25% threshold.

[1:52:04] In other words, the home itself

[1:52:06] and the minimum access it

[1:52:08] requires already exceed that

[1:52:10] number before a patio even

[1:52:11] enters the picture. That

[1:52:11] s not

[1:52:13] a result of how we use this

[1:52:13] property. It

[1:52:14] s a function of

[1:52:15] this lot

[1:52:16] s size in the house

[1:52:19] that stood on it since 1972.

[1:52:19] We

[1:52:20] d ask the commission to

[1:52:22] weigh whether a standard this

[1:52:25] lot cannot reasonably meet

[1:52:26] under any configuration is one

[1:52:28] that should stand in the way of

[1:52:29] a modest, substantially reduced

[1:52:33] accessory structure. And I want

[1:52:34] to address one phrase directly

[1:52:35] because I don

[1:52:36] t think it

[1:52:37] reflects what we

[1:52:38] re actually

[1:52:39] asking. Staff

[1:52:40] s recommendation

[1:52:41] describes this as maintaining

[1:52:43] the patio as a matter of

[1:52:44] preference rather than a unique

[1:52:46] circumstance. Respectfully,

[1:52:47] we

[1:52:48] re not asking to maintain

[1:52:50] anything as it stands when this

[1:52:52] home was purchased a year ago.

[1:52:52] We

[1:52:54] re proposing to cut the

[1:52:56] patio nearly in half, 314

[1:52:59] square feet down to 200. Remove

[1:53:02] the hot tub outright and bring

[1:53:03] total impervious surface

[1:53:07] coverage down from 41.5 to

[1:53:08] 35.6%. The same figure this

[1:53:10] commission approved for this

[1:53:13] lot in 2003. A preference would

[1:53:14] be leaving it alone. We

[1:53:15] re

[1:53:17] asking for the chance to shrink

[1:53:17] it substantially and keep

[1:53:17] what

[1:53:21] s left. And on the

[1:53:21] neighborhood, staff

[1:53:22] s own

[1:53:23] report says granting this

[1:53:23] wouldn

[1:53:24] t change the character

[1:53:27] of the area and the other homes

[1:53:28] on County Rhode already have

[1:53:30] patios of their own. This isn

[1:53:30] t

[1:53:33] out of place here. And there

[1:53:33] s

[1:53:34] one more thing we want to

[1:53:35] address directly because we

[1:53:38] suspect it MAY come up tonight.

[1:53:41] This home is a family gathering

[1:53:43] place that also operates on a

[1:53:45] limited basis, as a short term

[1:53:46] rental, fully licensed and

[1:53:49] approved by the city. Whatever

[1:53:49] tonight

[1:53:50] s comments touch on,

[1:53:50] we

[1:53:52] d ask the commission to hold

[1:53:55] on to one distinction. These 4

[1:53:56] variances are about the

[1:53:59] physical dimensions of a deck

[1:54:01] and a patio, a setback a size,

[1:54:03] and a percentage of coverage.

[1:54:05] None of that turns on who is

[1:54:07] standing on the property or how

[1:54:09] often. In fact, the three-part

[1:54:11] test, your own staff report

[1:54:13] lays out for tonight.

[1:54:14] Reasonable manner, unique

[1:54:15] circumstance, and neighborhood

[1:54:17] character. Doesn

[1:54:19] t ask anywhere

[1:54:20] who occupies this home or how

[1:54:21] often, and that

[1:54:21] s not an

[1:54:24] oversight. Those criteria are

[1:54:26] about the land, not the use,

[1:54:26] and we

[1:54:27] d ask you to apply them

[1:54:30] exactly as written. It is our

[1:54:31] belief that comments about

[1:54:33] short-term rental use tonight,

[1:54:35] however sincere, have no

[1:54:37] bearing on these four variances

[1:54:37] and shouldn

[1:54:38] t factor into your

[1:54:40] decision. Tonight we

[1:54:40] re asking

[1:54:42] you to rule on the dimensions

[1:54:42] in front of you and nothing

[1:54:46] more. We are participating in

[1:54:48] this process in good faith.

[1:54:48] We

[1:54:49] ve hired a licensed

[1:54:51] surveying company to assist us.

[1:54:53] We propose less and not more.

[1:54:55] Engaging in this process has

[1:54:57] already met real financial

[1:54:58] costs for my in-laws, and it

[1:55:00] will likely mean more before

[1:55:02] this is resolved. Costs they

[1:55:03] never expected when they bought

[1:55:06] their first and only cabin last

[1:55:07] year for conditions that

[1:55:08] existed on this property long

[1:55:10] before they ever saw it. All

[1:55:10] we

[1:55:12] re asking is that the

[1:55:13] commission apply the same logic

[1:55:14] to the patio that staff already

[1:55:17] applied to the deck. And

[1:55:19] approve all four variances,

[1:55:21] including resolution 2668.

[1:55:22] Thank you. We

[1:55:23] re able to answer

[1:55:25] any questions you have. Thank

[1:55:26] you. Um, anybody have any

[1:55:29] questions for the Freeds?

[1:55:33] Seeing them. Thank you for your

[1:55:34] information. Appreciate your

[1:55:37] time. Any members of the public

[1:55:43] that wish to come up and uh.

[1:55:45] Everything about this property.

[1:55:53] Anything to say? Did you get my

[1:55:54] letter from Will? I think

[1:55:54] Wilson is gonna be in the

[1:55:57] packet. By chance if not I can

[1:55:58] hand out a copy. Can you say

[1:55:59] your name and your address so

[1:56:00] we can know if it

[1:56:01] s the one

[1:56:02] that we that we received, yeah

[1:56:03] that we that we received, yeah

[1:56:04] that we that we received, yeah,

[1:56:05] um, Brett Markard 800 Conard I.

[1:56:10] Ok, awesome. Oh. You guys have

[1:56:12] a difficult job, so, um. You

[1:56:13] know, it

[1:56:14] s funny, preparing for

[1:56:16] this, um, Both MR. Peters, MR.

[1:56:18] Harris have actually I met MR.

[1:56:19] Peterson about 3 years ago and

[1:56:20] I called him about a project on

[1:56:21] a different house because I

[1:56:22] believe in proactive planning,

[1:56:23] like, hey, can I build this

[1:56:25] addition to my house and He

[1:56:27] informed me no. So that was my

[1:56:29] first interaction, out with the

[1:56:31] planning staff of Shoreview.

[1:56:31] It

[1:56:32] s amazing these memes are

[1:56:33] recorded, so whoever set that

[1:56:35] up, thank you, allow us to go

[1:56:35] back and see the debate you

[1:56:37] have, and I think as a

[1:56:37] committee, it

[1:56:38] s clearly a

[1:56:39] healthy committee. You guys

[1:56:41] disagree. I, you know, the, the

[1:56:42] meeting I watched was not

[1:56:43] unanimous, even tonight was not,

[1:56:44] and I think that

[1:56:45] s a great, a

[1:56:47] great sign. Um, so the neighbor,

[1:56:48] It

[1:56:50] s been interesting too to

[1:56:52] the reasonable manner, unique

[1:56:54] circumstance, and character of

[1:56:55] the neighborhood. And I

[1:56:55] m just

[1:56:57] gonna zoom in on unique

[1:56:58] circumstance that this is not a

[1:57:01] unique circumstance. This is a

[1:57:02] luxury amenity. This when

[1:57:03] someone and I talk about the

[1:57:04] whole overall variances, I

[1:57:05] think it

[1:57:06] s focused and, and

[1:57:07] focused specifically on the

[1:57:09] patio. The patio is 10 ft from

[1:57:12] my property line. And it

[1:57:13] s a

[1:57:14] luxury amenity that has

[1:57:15] fostered large gatherings all

[1:57:17] summer long. Hundreds of people

[1:57:19] have moved through the property,

[1:57:21] uh, last weekend, there was a

[1:57:22] private bachelorette party with

[1:57:25] a chef, uh, and dance party. Uh,

[1:57:25] it

[1:57:25] s great. It

[1:57:26] s a beautiful

[1:57:27] property. It

[1:57:27] s a beautiful spot,

[1:57:29] and I think the challenge for

[1:57:30] the planning commission is, you

[1:57:30] can

[1:57:31] t look at us or the Fried

[1:57:33] family. You have to look at the

[1:57:33] overall vision of Shoreview.

[1:57:35] Like, what does this look like

[1:57:37] as a community, not just us as

[1:57:38] owners now. Anything about

[1:57:38] what

[1:57:39] s the long-term water

[1:57:41] quality effect? What does it

[1:57:42] look like to prove this

[1:57:45] structure as is. And when you

[1:57:47] think about inheriting this, um,

[1:57:48] it is unfortunate that the

[1:57:48] prior owner didn

[1:57:49] t resolve this.

[1:57:49] It

[1:57:50] s unfortunate in the buying

[1:57:51] process that they didn

[1:57:51] t sort

[1:57:54] it out. Um. You know, we have

[1:57:55] highly, you know, clearly,

[1:57:55] Ali

[1:57:56] s an incredible, they

[1:57:56] re,

[1:57:56] they

[1:57:57] re great people. I do

[1:57:58] enjoy them. Um, and it

[1:57:59] s a good

[1:57:59] speaker. Bob

[1:58:00] s an attorney.

[1:58:02] These are very sharp folks.

[1:58:02] It

[1:58:03] s unfortunate that this

[1:58:04] wasn

[1:58:04] t resolved during the

[1:58:07] purchase process, but now. As a

[1:58:08] member of the community of

[1:58:09] Shoreview, who values the parks,

[1:58:11] the lakes, all the things we

[1:58:13] love. I really encourage you to

[1:58:14] support the town

[1:58:15] s

[1:58:16] recommendations to deny the

[1:58:18] variance request, um, as, as

[1:58:21] proposed. Thank you. Thank you,

[1:58:24] MR. McCardin. Anyone else

[1:58:26] wished to address the

[1:58:31] commission on this subject.

[1:58:31] Seeing none, we

[1:58:32] ll bring it

[1:58:34] back to the commission.

[1:58:37] Commissioner Amman. Oh, MR.

[1:58:40] Chair, oh. So go ahead,

[1:58:41] Commissioner Simonsonen, ok.

[1:58:45] Yes, I, I always, uh, I know

[1:58:46] Shoreview typically has a

[1:58:47] complaint-driven system and,

[1:58:49] and I always hate when. It

[1:58:49] s

[1:58:51] frustrating when things come to

[1:58:52] us after the fact, and they do

[1:58:55] have a lot of respect. For

[1:58:56] previous planning commission

[1:58:57] decisions and things like that,

[1:58:59] so I have to put a different

[1:59:00] hat on tonight, and I have to

[1:59:03] be, put the hat on that says,

[1:59:04] if this would have came before

[1:59:07] me and they would have asked.

[1:59:09] For a hot tub for a patio. Uh,

[1:59:13] would I be inclined To support

[1:59:15] it and, and, you know, at the

[1:59:15] same time we

[1:59:17] ve had a lot of

[1:59:18] discussions. Our, our goal is

[1:59:20] to try and preserve the

[1:59:21] character of the lake to

[1:59:23] preserve the setback, the

[1:59:25] drainages, and, and a lot of

[1:59:26] these things go against a lot

[1:59:26] of the things we

[1:59:27] ve been trying

[1:59:28] to do, at least I

[1:59:28] ve been

[1:59:29] trying to do when I

[1:59:31] ve been on

[1:59:34] the planning commission, um.

[1:59:35] It

[1:59:37] s a very uh small lot. Um,

[1:59:37] there

[1:59:38] s not really a lot of

[1:59:39] space between the house and the

[1:59:42] lake. Um, so when you start

[1:59:45] talking about drainage. Uh, the

[1:59:46] chance for the water to to not

[1:59:47] go into the lake. There

[1:59:48] s not

[1:59:51] much of an opportunity. Um, so

[1:59:54] from a standpoint of um. When I

[1:59:55] first looked at this, I, I was,

[1:59:57] I was kind of disappointed, you

[1:59:58] know, that some of these things

[2:00:00] went in there, the patio, the

[2:00:02] hot tub, but yet at the same

[2:00:03] time when I look at this, I

[2:00:05] think. You can just, you know,

[2:00:08] people that are on the lakes,

[2:00:08] they wanna sit towards the

[2:00:10] lakeside. It kind of common

[2:00:11] sense patio makes sense, but

[2:00:13] you also have a deck, so you do

[2:00:17] have the, the, a, a, a way to

[2:00:19] actually uh look at the lake, I

[2:00:19] guess if if you

[2:00:21] re on the deck.

[2:00:22] And, and so basically when I

[2:00:22] look at this, I

[2:00:23] m, I

[2:00:25] m having a

[2:00:27] hard time supporting, um, the

[2:00:28] variances and agreeing with, I

[2:00:30] tend to agree with staff that

[2:00:32] in a way, I think in a perfect

[2:00:34] world, the nonconformity would

[2:00:36] be removed and I, I just don

[2:00:37] t

[2:00:38] support the Bavariances, the 3

[2:00:40] of the 4 variances I do support

[2:00:41] the deck variants, as staff

[2:00:49] said. MR. Anderson, all right,

[2:00:51] thank you, uh, Chair John. I,

[2:00:51] I

[2:00:52] ll just weigh in with my two

[2:00:53] cents on this too. I

[2:00:53] m kind of

[2:00:55] probably along the same lines

[2:00:56] as Commissioner Solomonson, you

[2:00:58] know, when you think about

[2:00:58] unique circumstances, it

[2:00:59] s,

[2:00:59] it

[2:01:00] s not created by a property

[2:01:03] owner, right? And, and although

[2:01:03] I

[2:01:04] ve huge sympathy for the fact

[2:01:05] that you didn

[2:01:07] t create this

[2:01:09] unique circumstances. It It was

[2:01:10] they were created by the by a

[2:01:12] property owner, right? So,

[2:01:12] That

[2:01:13] s kind of the conundrum

[2:01:19] here. Um um. Uh Yeah, I do

[2:01:21] recognize and appreciate, uh,

[2:01:22] the point that there is really

[2:01:24] no effective way to get this to

[2:01:25] 25%, and I don

[2:01:27] t think that was,

[2:01:28] uh, the spirit of the intent or

[2:01:31] even, even the mandate of the

[2:01:32] previous planning commission

[2:01:34] decision to allow for 35%

[2:01:36] because it was recognized that

[2:01:37] is probably a number that needs

[2:01:39] to exist on this property to

[2:01:40] allow for a driveway and house

[2:01:43] and, and things on a smaller

[2:01:44] nature or uh to accommodate a

[2:01:46] smaller, a smaller lot, I

[2:01:49] should say, um. So to me, uh,

[2:01:51] you know, getting it back to

[2:01:52] that 35% is reasonable. I think

[2:01:53] the problem that I have is

[2:01:55] there is a bit of a, there

[2:01:56] s a

[2:01:59] preference in where that. Uh,

[2:02:03] impervious surface lies, um.

[2:02:04] Previously, it was not Lakeside,

[2:02:05] now it

[2:02:06] s Lakeside. We

[2:02:07] ve heard

[2:02:09] from uh a city engineer or or

[2:02:11] uh. I think it was a city

[2:02:13] engineer that had had spoken to

[2:02:14] impervious runoff Lakeside, and,

[2:02:16] and that, that, that does make

[2:02:18] a difference, and, and we are

[2:02:22] sensitive to that, um. I, I

[2:02:24] will say also that the, the

[2:02:26] short term rental, uh, is

[2:02:26] irrelevant to me. It

[2:02:27] s, I

[2:02:27] ve

[2:02:28] been up here long enough and

[2:02:31] heard enough of this, uh, these

[2:02:32] type of proceedings that uh

[2:02:33] please know that that doesn

[2:02:33] t

[2:02:35] really weigh into any of our

[2:02:37] decisions in regards to what

[2:02:37] s

[2:02:38] before us tonight. Um, with all

[2:02:40] of that said, I, you know, I

[2:02:42] again, I come, I come back to

[2:02:45] that, uh, not created by a

[2:02:46] property owner and, and I just

[2:02:46] don

[2:02:49] t see how, although I

[2:02:49] appreciate it and, and again,

[2:02:49] I

[2:02:53] m very pathetic and, and, uh,

[2:02:54] feel bad for the situation. I

[2:02:55] can only imagine how

[2:02:56] frustrating it is to buy into

[2:02:58] something, come to find out

[2:02:59] after the fact that there

[2:02:59] s a

[2:03:01] problem there and then it has

[2:03:02] to be rectified. We

[2:03:04] ve had

[2:03:07] Permitting issues come before

[2:03:09] us when there are existing

[2:03:10] homeowners that don

[2:03:11] t do things

[2:03:12] properly and that

[2:03:12] s hard enough.

[2:03:15] And so I am, I, I do apologize

[2:03:16] for the situation that you

[2:03:16] re

[2:03:22] in, but that being said, Uh,

[2:03:23] that unique circumstance is

[2:03:23] kind of, it

[2:03:24] s one of the three

[2:03:26] pillars, and we have to be, in

[2:03:28] my opinion, very, uh, very true

[2:03:30] to it, and so for those reasons,

[2:03:32] I would support the staff

[2:03:32] s

[2:03:33] recommendations as a precedent

[2:03:38] tonight. MR. Cortis. So I, I

[2:03:38] guess I

[2:03:42] m just. Curious, you

[2:03:44] know, uh, they. Staff, they,

[2:03:45] they, you know, they

[2:03:45] ve come

[2:03:47] and said if we get rid of

[2:03:47] everything and tear up, we

[2:03:48] still aren

[2:03:48] t going to be at

[2:03:54] that 30%. Coverage. And nowhere

[2:03:58] near 25. I mean, if we pass 25%

[2:04:00] is it seems like 25 with

[2:04:01] lakeside access and 30% with no

[2:04:03] leg side accessory structure. I

[2:04:05] mean, what else are they

[2:04:07] tearing up or are those numbers

[2:04:07] wrong? Where are we kind of,

[2:04:09] what? I mean, what

[2:04:10] s the result

[2:04:12] of Of that based on what

[2:04:12] they

[2:04:13] re telling us versus

[2:04:13] what

[2:04:14] s in the, the

[2:04:18] recommendations from staff. Uh,

[2:04:21] So just to clarify, with the

[2:04:23] removal of the lakeside

[2:04:25] accessory structure, uh, they

[2:04:29] would be subject to the

[2:04:31] Previously approved impervious

[2:04:33] surface coverage percentage

[2:04:36] from 2003. So they would be

[2:04:39] required to, or they would be

[2:04:40] held to that because that

[2:04:41] structure is no longer present

[2:04:47] on the property. What is that,

[2:04:49] the patio and the hot tub? Or

[2:04:56] just the hot tub. Both. So if

[2:04:58] we do the 25%, they have to

[2:05:02] tear out the the entire patio.

[2:05:05] No, so the With the

[2:05:08] introduction of a lakeside

[2:05:10] accessory structure that puts

[2:05:15] them at the 25%. So Because

[2:05:15] they

[2:05:18] re already present. They

[2:05:21] would need a variance. Because

[2:05:21] they

[2:05:25] re asking for an

[2:05:28] additional 10.% above that 25%.

[2:05:31] So if they get rid of those.

[2:05:32] Then they

[2:05:33] re going to be put

[2:05:35] back into that category that

[2:05:37] they were already approved at

[2:05:38] in 2003, and they

[2:05:40] re going to

[2:05:47] be subject to the 35.6%. Ok, so

[2:05:49] the, the staff

[2:05:49] s recommendation

[2:05:50] is essentially they, they have

[2:05:51] to tear out the entirety of the

[2:05:53] patio, and I think the hot

[2:05:53] tub

[2:05:54] s gone either either way,

[2:06:01] but Is that correct? Yes, ok.

[2:06:05] Commissioner Halligan. When you

[2:06:06] buy a lake property, you want

[2:06:09] to be able to enjoy the lake. I

[2:06:11] would want to enjoy the lake.

[2:06:11] I

[2:06:13] m ok with having a patio. And

[2:06:14] I think they made a good faith

[2:06:21] effort to comply. Somebody else.

[2:06:28] Ok. Fisher West, I

[2:06:29] ll get my 2

[2:06:32] cents. Um, I concur with what

[2:06:34] Commissioner Anderson and MR.

[2:06:37] Commissioner Sullivan said, um,

[2:06:40] Not a good result, but sounds

[2:06:40] like people are intelligent

[2:06:42] enough, they should have known

[2:06:43] better to check these types of

[2:06:44] things. Um, if you

[2:06:44] re going to

[2:06:45] be a homeowner, you need to be

[2:06:47] the respon do the

[2:06:48] responsibility of a homeowner.

[2:06:51] Um, so I would go with the

[2:06:51] staff

[2:07:00] s report recommendations.

[2:07:01] Just say I concur with Steph.

[2:07:05] So thank you. Do we have a

[2:07:07] motion then. I

[2:07:09] ll move. Mission

[2:07:10] West Ead. Let me get my right

[2:07:14] screen here. All right. Uh, do

[2:07:16] you want us to do these all as

[2:07:18] one with the. As presented in

[2:07:20] the packet. Or do you want us

[2:07:21] to split the denial and the

[2:07:28] approval. That

[2:07:29] s a good

[2:07:31] question, um, MR. Chair and

[2:07:33] Commissioner Wested, um, I

[2:07:35] think we can go ahead and try

[2:07:37] it as stated, and, and if

[2:07:37] that

[2:07:38] s not confusing, we can

[2:07:39] move forward with that if it

[2:07:39] s

[2:07:40] confusing, we can break them up

[2:07:41] if that makes sense, but let

[2:07:41] s

[2:07:42] try that first. Great, thank

[2:07:43] you. I would actually kind of

[2:07:46] request we break them up.

[2:07:47] Because I have different votes

[2:07:50] for them. I think that

[2:07:51] s fine

[2:07:52] too as long as it

[2:07:52] s clear what

[2:07:52] we

[2:07:53] re voting on, you can, we

[2:07:56] can split them up. Ok. So I

[2:08:01] will. Move to deny the

[2:08:03] following 3 variants submitted

[2:08:04] by Robert Fried regarding the

[2:08:06] property at 804 County Road I,

[2:08:10] each to maintain a patio,

[2:08:12] water-oriented sex accessory

[2:08:18] structure, one variants to

[2:08:19] development code section

[2:08:21] 115-155b3a2 to exceed the

[2:08:23] allowed impervious surface of

[2:08:26] 25% to variants to the

[2:08:27] development code section

[2:08:30] 115-149. See a water, a

[2:08:31] water-oriented accessory

[2:08:33] structure MAY exist between the

[2:08:35] ordinary high water and the

[2:08:35] required structure setback so

[2:08:37] long as it does not encroach

[2:08:40] into the shore impact zone, 25

[2:08:42] ft from the ordinary high water

[2:08:45] line, the existing patio is

[2:08:47] within the shore impact zone,

[2:08:52] and 3 variants to development

[2:08:54] code 115-149c3d, the patio has

[2:08:57] a side setback that is 10 ft ft

[2:09:00] rather than 20 required for.

[2:09:01] The water-oriented structure.

[2:09:03] This action is based on the

[2:09:04] finding that practical

[2:09:06] difficulty is not present. The

[2:09:07] patio was not lawfully

[2:09:09] established by the previous

[2:09:11] owner, thereby making it an

[2:09:13] illegal nonconforming, and the

[2:09:15] desire to maintain the patio at

[2:09:16] its current size and location,

[2:09:18] a matter of preference rather

[2:09:20] than a unique circumstance.

[2:09:21] It

[2:09:25] s been moved. It

[2:09:25] s been

[2:09:26] moved in 2nd, Commissioner

[2:09:28] Cortis. Yeah, since I, I didn

[2:09:28] t,

[2:09:29] I asked some questions, but I

[2:09:29] didn

[2:09:32] t give my two cents. Um,

[2:09:32] I

[2:09:33] m, I

[2:09:35] m in support of

[2:09:39] everything other than the uh

[2:09:40] impervious surface request here

[2:09:42] and, and having them narrow the

[2:09:44] patio down. I, I think that

[2:09:44] s

[2:09:46] reasonable, um, looking at what

[2:09:50] was improved, approved in 2003,

[2:09:53] it did, you know, there is a, a

[2:09:54] portion of that concrete that

[2:09:57] is in the back, that is there,

[2:09:58] uh, and counts as impervious

[2:10:00] surface underneath there, going

[2:10:02] around the house, uh. And you

[2:10:05] know, if the only difference

[2:10:06] between that 35% and what we

[2:10:07] re

[2:10:09] looking at today is some of the

[2:10:10] concrete in the front and side

[2:10:12] of the house being shifted

[2:10:15] proportionally to a bigger

[2:10:16] driveway and to the um patio

[2:10:20] deck. I, I think it

[2:10:20] s

[2:10:21] disingenuous of us to say that

[2:10:23] that portion in the back

[2:10:23] doesn

[2:10:24] t get to count anymore,

[2:10:25] and that they have to entirely

[2:10:27] remove something in the back

[2:10:29] when a prior commission

[2:10:31] approved up to 35.6%. So I

[2:10:31] think we

[2:10:34] re kind of Splitting

[2:10:34] some hairs here by saying you

[2:10:36] could have had that, but you

[2:10:36] can

[2:10:39] t have. A portion of your

[2:10:41] deck back there. So that

[2:10:42] s why

[2:10:43] I will vote against that one,

[2:10:44] but in favor of the others.

[2:10:46] Thank you, MS. Hill. You had

[2:10:48] something that MR. Harris. Uh,

[2:10:52] yes, just to clarify, um, the,

[2:10:54] the image shown on screen on

[2:10:57] the right hand side. Those were

[2:10:59] the existing conditions prior

[2:11:02] to the mitigation affidavit. So

[2:11:04] the impervious surface coverage

[2:11:06] that existed at the time of

[2:11:09] that survey along. The southern

[2:11:11] portion of the existing home,

[2:11:13] the, uh, left-hand side of the

[2:11:16] existing home, that concrete

[2:11:18] path that was removed as a part

[2:11:19] of that mitigation affidavit.

[2:11:26] So, um, The 35.6% approved

[2:11:30] coverage, um, That does not

[2:11:32] include what is shown on screen

[2:11:36] on the right-hand side. Ok,

[2:11:36] then I still don

[2:11:37] t get how we

[2:11:43] get to your math. Like I, I. I

[2:11:44] mean they made the, the, the

[2:11:45] current house makes the

[2:11:49] driveway bigger, and the patio.

[2:11:49] I don

[2:11:51] t get how you get down to

[2:11:54] 25%. Even with that, based upon

[2:11:56] this. Can

[2:11:56] t. You can

[2:11:57] t. I mean,

[2:11:59] I, I mean, That

[2:12:00] s the problem

[2:12:01] is like, I mean, then you also

[2:12:02] are saying they have to take

[2:12:04] out a portion of their driveway

[2:12:07] and that side piece, correct? I

[2:12:08] mean, this is the, the math

[2:12:09] part I can

[2:12:10] t get to the

[2:12:12] regulation is made to help

[2:12:13] protect the lakeside property

[2:12:16] and to protect. Just scale of

[2:12:18] development on a property. So

[2:12:20] the 25% impervious surface

[2:12:21] coverage is meant to scale to

[2:12:23] the size of a property. And as

[2:12:27] was mentioned. This property is

[2:12:29] smaller. What is there now is

[2:12:30] scaled larger, so even if they

[2:12:32] were to remove, you know, put

[2:12:33] the driveway down

[2:12:33] proportionally. It was

[2:12:35] mentioned that they could get

[2:12:37] down to 32%. The 25% MAY not be.

[2:12:40] A realistic goal just based on

[2:12:42] what is on the property and

[2:12:43] what the size of the property

[2:12:44] is, but that doesn

[2:12:45] t change

[2:12:46] what our regulations are and

[2:12:46] what they

[2:12:47] re meant to protect

[2:12:48] either, but that is why they

[2:12:49] re

[2:12:49] going through the variance

[2:12:53] process so you can. See if that

[2:12:55] meets that unique definition.

[2:12:57] Unique circumstances definition

[2:12:59] or not, but it, it could be

[2:13:00] that they reasonably can

[2:13:01] t get

[2:13:03] to 25%, but is what they

[2:13:03] re

[2:13:05] doing enough and are there

[2:13:06] reasons unique enough? That

[2:13:06] s

[2:13:07] up for the commission to

[2:13:09] determine, right, but I mean,

[2:13:10] my problem is I don

[2:13:10] t see how

[2:13:13] they even get to the 30%.

[2:13:15] Permitted. That

[2:13:16] s, that

[2:13:17] s the

[2:13:17] math I don

[2:13:18] t understand here is,

[2:13:20] if I MAY, they don

[2:13:21] t get there,

[2:13:23] so like for example, so. If

[2:13:23] you

[2:13:24] re looking at the existing

[2:13:28] right now on the left-hand side,

[2:13:30] if you take away the patio and

[2:13:31] the hot tub pieces, you

[2:13:33] ll be

[2:13:35] at that 36.5, which is what was

[2:13:38] allowed in 2003. Because those

[2:13:39] items were added without the

[2:13:40] approval, they went over. So

[2:13:40] what we

[2:13:42] re trying to do is get

[2:13:46] back to that 2003 approval, um,

[2:13:48] Because that is what was given

[2:13:49] because of the realization of

[2:13:51] the planning commission at that

[2:13:52] time, that 25% just wasn

[2:13:52] t

[2:13:54] feasible. So we

[2:13:55] re trying,

[2:13:55] we

[2:13:56] re asking, we

[2:13:56] re essentially

[2:13:58] saying here they need to go

[2:14:01] back to that 36, whatever, um,

[2:14:04] amount. Sure, John, Ahmad, we

[2:14:06] had a motion and we had a

[2:14:09] second. Do we have a second? We

[2:14:10] should edit his comment. I

[2:14:13] think we Go to vote, MR. Chair,

[2:14:15] who had the second just for

[2:14:17] clarification, it was confusing

[2:14:18] who, who did the second?

[2:14:20] Solomon I did. You took me as a

[2:14:21] second, ok, because you quickly

[2:14:22] went to course that

[2:14:22] s why I

[2:14:23] wasn

[2:14:24] t sure. Ok, you scared me

[2:14:25] by saying that. Ok, I wanted to

[2:14:26] make sure I was. I wanted to

[2:14:28] make sure I was the 2nd. You

[2:14:30] were the 2nd. Yes, thank you.

[2:14:31] And, and MR. Chair, 00, I

[2:14:31] ll

[2:14:35] just. No more comments, ok.

[2:14:39] Emotion in front of us is to

[2:14:40] deny those three variances that

[2:14:42] up right now Chair John, I

[2:14:43] asked for a roll call vote on

[2:14:44] that. Let

[2:14:46] s do it. Roll call.

[2:14:54] Please. Commissioner Ahmedabad.

[2:15:01] Uh, Aye. Or Point, point of

[2:15:03] order. Are we doing these by

[2:15:06] individual 12, and 3. No that

[2:15:08] was on the table. The motion is

[2:15:12] all three of those. Items. Ok.

[2:15:16] Commissioner Anderson. I

[2:15:19] Commissioner Cortes.

[2:15:21] Commissioner Helgen? No.

[2:15:24] Commissioner Solomonson.

[2:15:27] Commissioner West. Chair John.

[2:15:34] I So motion passes 5 to 2. So

[2:15:36] we still are sitting on one

[2:15:38] last motion, Commissioner

[2:15:38] Weston, thank you. I

[2:15:40] d like to

[2:15:44] move to adopt resolution 2668

[2:15:45] approving the 17.9 ft structure

[2:15:47] setback submitted by Robert

[2:15:49] Fried at 804 County Road, I

[2:15:50] West for the existing deck set

[2:15:52] back on the property. Se

[2:15:54] approval is subject to the 4

[2:15:54] conditions listed in the staff

[2:15:59] report. Second, it has been

[2:16:01] moved and seconded. Any further

[2:16:03] discussion on this motion.

[2:16:06] Commissioner Hogan. This allows

[2:16:08] the deck to remain, correct?

[2:16:08] Yes, that

[2:16:10] s. That

[2:16:15] s the intent.

[2:16:17] Seeing no other discussion. All

[2:16:18] those in favor, well, let

[2:16:18] s

[2:16:24] just do a roll since we did it.

[2:16:26] Commissioner Ahmedabad,

[2:16:27] Commissioner Anderson,

[2:16:27] Commissioner Cordes,

[2:16:31] Commissioner Helgen.

[2:16:31] Commissioner Solomonson

[2:16:32] Commissioner West. And Cher

[2:16:39] John. I Motion carries 70.

[2:16:41] Again, decisions, uh, variances

[2:16:42] are final decisions through the

[2:16:43] planning commission, but there

[2:16:46] is a Appeal process to the city

[2:16:47] council within 5 business days

[2:16:48] if you wish to appeal our

[2:16:54] decision. Thank you. So that.

[2:16:55] Um, if you wouldn

[2:16:56] t mind just

[2:16:57] staying after and addressing

[2:16:59] with staff on that. And we

[2:16:59] ll

[2:17:00] just uh finish up the meeting

[2:17:05] and then go from there. So that

[2:17:07] takes us to item 8 on the

[2:17:09] agenda, city. I lost my spot,

[2:17:14] sorry. City councilor. Oh,

[2:17:16] calendar assignments, any um

[2:17:16] commissioners resigned or

[2:17:18] anything like that? Anything

[2:17:19] you want to share? I was gonna

[2:17:20] wait till miscellaneous for

[2:17:22] that 10, ok, sorry, I stepped

[2:17:27] on your touchdown call. Um, But

[2:17:28] for the city council

[2:17:29] assignments, um, SEPTEMBER 8th,

[2:17:31] which would be a Tuesday, would

[2:17:32] be Commissioner Solomonson. So

[2:17:33] if there were any appeals to

[2:17:37] the variances. Um, It would

[2:17:38] either be the 8th or the 21st,

[2:17:40] which would be you, um, Chair

[2:17:43] John, we will follow up

[2:17:44] accordingly depending on

[2:17:44] notification period on what,

[2:17:47] which one we can hit if there

[2:17:52] is an appeal. Ok. And then, yes,

[2:17:53] they

[2:17:56] re um. Under miscellaneous,

[2:17:59] we do have a commissioner who

[2:18:00] is resigning because they

[2:18:00] re

[2:18:01] moving out of Shoreview, so

[2:18:06] this is their last meeting. And

[2:18:08] so what I do want to take a

[2:18:09] moment to recognize

[2:18:10] Commissioner Anderson and thank

[2:18:11] him for his 8 years of service

[2:18:14] on the planning commission. He,

[2:18:15] um, has been a thoughtful,

[2:18:17] steady, and incredibly valuable

[2:18:18] member of this commission, and

[2:18:20] he has always brought a calm

[2:18:21] perspective to discussions, as

[2:18:22] thoughtful questions, and

[2:18:22] genuinely cared about making

[2:18:25] sure of you a great place. His

[2:18:26] guidance through the

[2:18:27] comprehensive planning process.

[2:18:29] Previously, in particular, was

[2:18:30] greatly appreciated and we will

[2:18:31] MISS Him during this upcoming

[2:18:33] round. But we are excited for

[2:18:35] you in your next chapter and

[2:18:36] You know, hopefully you do make

[2:18:39] that curtain call back. Yeah, I

[2:18:42] appreciate that. Uh, if I MAY,

[2:18:45] yeah, so, uh, having spent 27

[2:18:46] years of my life in this

[2:18:48] community, I grew up here, uh,

[2:18:49] as I like to say, and I

[2:18:49] ve said

[2:18:50] many times, played in the woods.

[2:18:54] That are now the city, city

[2:18:55] hall and the, and the wonderful

[2:18:56] park we have over there, uh,

[2:18:58] probably a lot more engaging

[2:19:00] than the woods that I played in,

[2:19:00] uh, with whatever kind of forts

[2:19:04] we made up back in the day, um,

[2:19:07] just really appreciate, uh, the

[2:19:08] professionalism of city staff.

[2:19:12] I mean, I think. You come to,

[2:19:14] um, take it for granted maybe

[2:19:15] sometimes, but you know, if you,

[2:19:16] if you ever have a chance, and

[2:19:17] I know we

[2:19:17] ve got commissioners

[2:19:19] that have served in other

[2:19:21] cities too, um, take a look at

[2:19:23] some other cities proceeding

[2:19:24] sometime and just how, how

[2:19:25] things are handled and just uh

[2:19:27] the, the, again, the, the level

[2:19:29] of detail and, and just skill

[2:19:31] that we have, uh, working

[2:19:32] within our city here. I really

[2:19:32] appreciate all that you guys

[2:19:34] have done over the years that

[2:19:34] I

[2:19:36] ve been on the uh on the

[2:19:37] commission and the challenge

[2:19:38] that I had was I said, you know,

[2:19:39] obviously, uh, I think. One of

[2:19:41] the, one of the best parts of

[2:19:42] being on the planning

[2:19:43] commission is going through

[2:19:45] that comp plan process, uh,

[2:19:46] Commissioner Solomonson

[2:19:46] s been

[2:19:49] through. This will be the 4th,

[2:19:52] 3rd, ok 10 years, yep, not

[2:19:53] quite that far yet. You

[2:19:55] re, uh,

[2:19:55] uh, I apologize for, uh,

[2:19:57] leaving you as the, the, the

[2:20:00] sole, um. A person that

[2:20:00] s been

[2:20:01] through that process before,

[2:20:02] but that is the, yeah, I really

[2:20:03] do think that

[2:20:04] s the fun of

[2:20:05] being on this commission is

[2:20:06] really getting to have a say in

[2:20:07] what this, what this great city

[2:20:09] looks like in the future, and

[2:20:11] Um, I, I will MISS Being a part

[2:20:12] of that process. I always

[2:20:14] really look forward, looking

[2:20:17] forward to it, um.

[2:20:18] Unfortunately, uh, something

[2:20:21] came up that, uh, you could say

[2:20:23] doom scrolling, uh, real estate

[2:20:24] sites as a negative consequence

[2:20:26] to. Uh, sometimes, and this is

[2:20:26] where I

[2:20:27] m, I

[2:20:28] m feeling that,

[2:20:30] and um by the time the next

[2:20:32] Meeting worlds around, I will

[2:20:32] no longer be a Shoreview

[2:20:34] resident, so I

[2:20:34] ve got to step

[2:20:36] away and let the next great

[2:20:38] person sit up here and I, I

[2:20:41] thank all of you for your, uh,

[2:20:42] for your service, and it

[2:20:43] s been

[2:20:46] fun to kind of see the, the

[2:20:47] commission grow and change over

[2:20:49] the years, and I think uh I

[2:20:49] m

[2:20:51] walking away with it, with the,

[2:20:53] with it in good hands, feeling

[2:20:54] that uh that I can come back

[2:20:57] and retire in place or uh not

[2:20:59] retire in place, uh, what

[2:20:59] s our,

[2:20:59] what

[2:21:01] s our term that we we

[2:21:03] ve

[2:21:04] used uh agent place.

[2:21:05] Commissioner Doan we will

[2:21:05] appreciate that. He

[2:21:06] s always a

[2:21:08] champion for the agent place,

[2:21:09] so or not commissioner, city

[2:21:11] council member, Don, but

[2:21:12] anyways, thank you for all that

[2:21:12] you

[2:21:13] ve done, and I, uh, it

[2:21:13] s

[2:21:16] been a pleasure to serve. I

[2:21:18] just wanna say one of the

[2:21:19] greatest challenges I have

[2:21:21] sitting in this chair is who I

[2:21:21] followed. I think she did a

[2:21:25] really good job. Chairing the

[2:21:25] commission and it

[2:21:25] s been hard

[2:21:28] to live up to that. Not to get

[2:21:29] too emotional or anything like

[2:21:30] that, but you

[2:21:30] re doing a fine

[2:21:34] job. I appreciate that. Anybody

[2:21:34] else have any comments,

[2:21:37] questions? Ok. So that brings

[2:21:42] us to The end of the meeting.

[2:21:45] Commissioner Westted, we

[2:21:46] adjourn at 9:21 P.M. Second,

[2:21:47] it

[2:21:48] s been moved in 2nd, all in

[2:21:53] favor, say aye. Both same sign.

[2:21:55] Unanimous, we are adjourned.

[2:21:55] Congratulations. Where are you

[2:21:59] moving? Uh, you spell. That

[2:21:59] s

[2:22:00] far away. It

[2:22:01] s a little ways

[2:22:01] away. It

[2:22:02] s a long commute.

[2:22:04] Where, whereabouts? And stuff,

Planning Commission

Transcript