the AUGUST 25th, 2026,
Shoreview Planning Commission
meeting. I
m Craig John. I am
the chair of the planning
commission. Please note that
the meeting is streaming live
on the city
s website as well
as broadcast on tv Channel 16.
Applicants will be, um, and
members of the public will be
able to Testify in person
during the appropriate agenda
item. The first item tonight is
roll call. I will note that
Commissioner Helgen is not
present at this time. So 6 of 7
commissioners are here today.
So let
s move on to the
approval of the agenda. Um, in
case someone in our audience
does not have a copy of our
agenda. We have 3 items of new
business tonight. We have a
fence height variance request
for 675 Sunset Court by Mark
Palmquist. We have a
residential design review and
variance requests for 559
Harbor Court. By 580 Shoreview
llc. We also have a variance
request for 804 Connie Road, I
West by Robert Fried. Are there
any changes to the agenda? MR.
Chair. Monsieur Simonson, I
d
like to make a motion to
approve the agenda for AUGUST
22nd as presented been moved in
2nd. All those in favor say aye.
Aye, the same side. We have
unanimous. Approval of the
agenda. So let
s move on to the
minutes from the JULY 28th,
2026 Planning commission. Does
any commissioner wish to
recommend changes to the
minutes? Commission arrested. I
move to approve the minutes as
presented. So moved 2nd, it
s
been moved in 2nd. All those in
favor say aye, aye aye the same
sign once again unanimous. Ok.
Item 5, report on city council
action. Redevelopment director,
assistant Community Development
Director Nikki Hill, would you
please report on city council
s
action that has affected the
commission this past month.
Thank you, chair. I thought
AUGUST 17th City Council
meeting, the Chipotle
Comprehensive Sign Plan at 3333
Rice Street was approved and
that was the only action. I bet.
Thank you. Thank you, MS. Hill.
All right. So before we start
our items of new business, I
m
just gonna provide a brief
description of our meeting
process. For 3 items of
business tonight. Staff will
first give a presentation at
the conclusion of the
presentation. The commission
will be able to ask staff
questions. Then we will ask for
the Applicant to come up and
make comments. And the
commission will then ask
questions of the applicant, and
then we will have the any
members of the public that wish
to speak on that particular
item to come up. After hearing
all your comments and
responding to our questions, we
will bring it back to the
commission to Debrief and
Together a proposal. For
applicants and the public
whenever making a comment, it
is important that you step up
to the mic to be heard over the
recording? We ask that you give
your full name and your address
for the record, and we ask that
you be concise and stay on
topic. If you need to use the
screen, you can do so. There
s
a mouse located right next to
the computer. We prefer you do
that rather than turning point
away from the microphone. Um,
Please direct all your comments
and questions to the planning
commission as a general rule,
we don
t want to give into back
in. 4th debates. We also only
allow one time to testify. We
don
t want. Multiple hearing
the same thing over and over
again. I will note that
decisions on variances in
residential design reviews, our
final decisions by the planning
commission, this won
t move on
to the city council. So with
that, let
s move on to new
business. Item 78 is a fence,
height variance request by Mark
Palmquist. The location is 675
Sunset Court and Associate Pass
uh planner, Will Harris, you
have the presentation. Uh,
thank you, Chair John. One item
of clarification, uh, the city
had noticed for a variance
request at 5803 Churchill, uh,
for a driveway width variants,
if any of the members of the
public are here to speak on
behalf of that, that
application was pulled, uh,
after the notice had already
been sent out, so I just wanted
to provide clarification if
anybody was here to speak on
behalf of that. And with that,
I will get into the request for
675 Sunset Court. As stated,
this is a fence height variance
request, uh, for the location
on the north side of the
property. Uh, which is located
along a city right of way
easement orienting ourselves,
uh, the property is going to be
located on the eastern side of
Turtle Lake, uh, with access
off of Sunset Court, um, with,
uh, the northernmost. Portion
of the property also having um
or a budding, uh, a city right
of way easement that uh is
currently undeveloped. The
property is located within the
r1 zoning district. Um, it is a
substandard riparian lot due to
the lot width of 36.65 ft along
Sunset Court, as you can see
here. In the lower corner of
the property. The total lot
area is 43,221 square feet with
an additional width of 83.69 ft
long Turtle Lake. The home was
constructed in 2019. Uh, it is
3,772 total square feet with an
attached garage, um, and as a
part of that development, it
did go through a residential
design review and variance
request in 2017. Um, That uh
variance was approved for a
lakeside setback variants, uh,
due to the unique lot shape of
the property. Uh, the variance
request and the staff report
that was attached, noted that
uh the setback averaging
requirements for the two
adjacent properties included
this standard non-riparian lot
that is located to the east of
the property, and therefore the
setback range for the front
setback would have been at
about 135. 150 ft, thus
locating the home. Up in this
uh northern corner. Um, and
thus would have required a
setback variance from the
lakeside setback. So it was a
pick your poison moment between
the, the front and the lake
side, uh, ultimately the
homeowners did decide to go
with the lakeside variants,
which was approved by the
planning commission. As stated,
uh, the lot does border, uh, a
city right of way easement
located on that northern side,
a little bit of history with
that, uh, this easement is, uh,
commonly known as Dome
s Alley.
Uh, it was originally platted
back in 1916 with a width of
15.5 ft. Um, the city
previously had been maintaining
and plowing this area, um, but
during the preparation of this
report, Uh, the streets
department and the public works
department of the city
uncovered a resolution that was
passed in 2001, um, which
affected the western 450 ft of
this alleyway along this side
here. So this resolution was
authorized by the property
owners of Uh. The northern
property here and two of the
properties up here we
ll get
into the specific addresses a
little bit later for the
visuals, but, um, it
s 50/59
Alameda, 690 Burch Lane South
and 688 Birch Lane South, um,
had signed a shared access
agreement to maintain this
portion of the alleyway,
including street repairs and
street plowing. So, uh, this
was done in exchange for the
right to use the alleyway for
ingress and egress to some de
Attached garages that are
located on the southern sides
of those properties. Uh, moving
forward, the city public works
superintendent stated that the
residents in this area had been
receiving technically free
plowing based off of that 2001
agreement, um, and so the, the
city moving forward, um, will
be deferring maintenance to
those property owners and no
longer be maintaining that area
moving forward. So, ultimately,
that stretch of Dome
s alley is
going to be maintained by those
property owners and not the
city. The remaining homes along
Birch and Sunset to the north
up here. Um, use this, uh, Lot
b or the uh eastern side of
Dome
s Alley for kind of a a
rear yard area as you
standardly would. Um, there
s
accessory structures and
landscaping areas that are in
close proximity to it, so, um,
if this were to be developed at
a future date into a city right
of way, um. The, the, the width
of the The easement and uh some
serious impacts to those
homeowners would need to be um
considered if that were to take
place, but since 1916, there
has been no thought of
development past that 450 ft
from the agreement that was
previously noted. So the
proposal from the applicant, uh,
is to construct a 4-foot fence
along a portion of the property
and a six-foot fence along that
northernmost property that does
abut the city right of way
easement. Currently there is no
fence in that area. Um, however,
the 4-foot fence of section of
fence could be approved
administratively and a 4-foot
fence could be approved
administratively in the
proposed location of the
six-foot fence. Um, however,
due to Section 10765 subsection
d 7b1. Uh, any fence that is in
any yard adjacent to a public
road right of way or road
easement MAY not exceed that 4
ft height. And so, as you can
see on the screen here, uh,
this gives a nice visual of
what the applicant is looking
for, uh, the area in yellow
here is going to be, um, Where
they
re proposing the 4 ft
fence and the 6 ft fence is
going to be as stated, located
along that easement on the
northernmost portion of the
property. The variance criteria
must meet the three following
items, it must be requested in
a reasonable manner. Uh, the
unique circumstance is, uh, the
property, the plate of the
property is due to the
circumstances that are unique,
not created by the homeowner,
uh, and the request must
maintain the character of the
neighborhood. Staff believes
that a practical difficulty is
present for this request, um,
6-foot fences are permitted
within the r1 residential area,
um, And the, the applicant
s
desire to have a fence in that
location is a reasonable
request, um, staff believes
that the owner faces a unique
circumstance in this situation.
Uh, the unutilized easement
does create, uh, that unique
circumstance that inhibits the
owner from constructing that 6
ft fence, uh, that would
otherwise be allowed, uh, in
this proposed location, should
the easement not be located
there, um, and the, the
variants, if granted, would not
alter the the character of the
neighborhood, uh, again, as
stated, a 4 ft fence could be
approved administratively, um,
but the, due to the location of
the 6 ft fence being uh uh
nearly 200 ft from Sunset Court,
um, and about 200 ft from
Alameda Street, uh, it wouldn
t
really negatively impact the
neighborhood because it would
be very hidden from other
surrounding properties as well.
Uh, staff sent notice to
property owners within 100 ft
or 150 ft of the property. Uh,
one comment was, uh, received
in opposition, and that comment
was included in your packets
this evening. Uh, but
ultimately, staff does
recommend that the planning
commission adopt Resolution
26-66, uh, approving the
variant submitted by Mark
Palmquist for the 6 ft privacy
fence that abuts a city right
of way, easement subject to the
conditions outlined in the
resolution. And with that, I
will stand for questions. Thank
you, MR. Harris, commissioners.
What
s your Ahmadvan? Things.
So, When I
m looking at the
picture with the orange outline
of the property. Um, yeah, that,
that one works. So, Alameda
Avenue or Alameda Street behind
it there comes down and then
that turns into the. Future Uh,
shared alleyway, essentially.
Correct. So Alameda Street, uh,
provides access to, um, there
s
3 homes that are located. Let
s
go back to the aerial. So
Alameda Street provides access
to um, About 3 to 4 homes if
you count 1559, even though
that one is technically one of
those homes that had signed the
maintenance agreement, um, and
then that small portion. Right
here. That starts going
eastward off of Alameda, that
is the alleyway that
s in
question. And in those houses
there. Their driveways come out
to that alleyway. Yes, so there
are. 3 Properties. Um She had a
better visual of it, but yes,
there are 3 properties, 2 of
which that are along Birch Lane
South here. That have rear
garages. That receive access
off of that alleyway. Do we
know if Their driveways go out
to Birch Street by chance or no,
just out of curiosity, like a
like a like a pass through, if
you will, driveway. Um, all the
way through the property, um,
that I do not believe so, no.
Um, however, I
m not sure if
they have an additional front
facing garage where they can
have access off of birch and
off of Dome
s alleyway. Thanks.
Richard Simonson, MR. Chair, uh,
I guess the question I have is,
uh, with Don
s Alley, the 450
ft in terms of the proximity of
the drawing where the forefoo
and the 6 ft fence are being
proposed. How far does that go,
right? 450 ft that you were
talking about earlier, how many
does it go basically to the
edge of the 6 ft fence, the
corner of the property. Uh, yes,
um, that alleyway is gonna
extend to right about um. I
would say it would probably be
like 15 ft. In of where that 6
ft fence is proposed, so just
slightly in there, um. But it
s,
it is not going to be the, the
alleyway does not extend, um,
all the way to the edge of
where the 6 ft fence is
proposed on the eastern side.
And then, then could you
comment some more about the
snow removal, right, so the
part that the city
s not going
to be removing is the 450 ft,
but were they actually
maintaining the alleyway. So
the, the city had been, uh, the
public works department had
been maintaining and plowing
this area, um, and And after
speaking with our public works
director, uh, about some
concerns with putting a fence
along such a small portion of
Ali, um, and some potential
liability that the city would
have with plowing in that area
and whatnot. Um, there was some
comments made about that, but,
um, The, the city engineer was
the one who uh originally was
sent this document by the
Public works superintendent, um,
that just states that the city
is not responsible for the snow
maintenance for this area, so,
um, that it, it takes liability
away from the city to
potentially damage uh a fence
in this location, um, and that,
uh, potential is now kind of
the onus is placed along for
those homeowners I guess I
m
saying the whole alleyway all
the way out to the east is not
gonna be correct the alleyway,
Don
s alley is not gonna be
plowed by the city, the whole
thing, ok. And are there any
other fences in Don
s alley?
Currently. Um, to my knowledge,
no. Um. The, I do not believe
that, um. 50, 59 has won, um.
And I do not believe because of
the access that these
properties receive off of the
alleyway on the backside that
um either 690 or 688 have an
offense, um, but I, that might
be a question for the homeowner
as well to see if um there are
any adjacent fences in the, in
the area. Ok, thanks, MR.
Anderson, Chair, thank you. Um,
just a couple of questions if I
might, just for clarification
purposes, the, the Jones Alley
ends effectively the paved
service ends. Um, where we see
the kind of. South to north
jutting right there, correct?
So the easement continues, but
there is no. Improved Ali per
se past that point. And then if
you could just so everybody
s
on the same page here, if you
could speak to uh fence
placement requirements along
property lines, just in general,
and if they differ at all from
Being along an easement. Uh,
they would not. Um, the fence
needs to be located wholly
within the homeowner
s property
lines, um, and that would be
inspected by city staff after
the permit and installation had
taken place. Thank you. Any
other questions? Thank you, MR.
Harris. Thank you. And if the
uh property owner or applicant
is in the audience if they
d
like to come up and address the
commission. Please remember to
state your name and address.
Once again. My name is, uh,
Mark Palmquist and reside at
675 Sunset Court. Um, That.
Application variants. I don
t
have a lot to add to it, um,
just outside of um the, the
facts of what we
ve experienced.
We
ve lived there about a year
and a half. We had multiple, uh,
both, uh, couriers, um, and.
We
re assuming personal
vehicles that when they come up
to the end of the. Alleyway. Um,
then they pull into our yard,
turn around, and then go back
out. And we
ve even had two
circumstances of vehicles
actually driving all the way
across our yard to go to Sunset
Court. And we have multiple, uh,
e-bikes, bicycles that come
across, um. And I should
mention we
ve had to replace
multiple sprinkler heads as a
result of the turnaround going
on by vehicles or driving
across the uh the yard. Uh,
this is a property you had
mentioned that was um the home
was built in 2019. Um, it was a,
uh, former. Um, Uh, resort area.
That had been i
m not gonna say
abandoned, but was bought and
so it was an open. Open
property that I think a lot of
people started to just use it
as an access to get across to
Sunset Court. And so we
re
trying to help define. Uh, the
borderlines of of our property.
Uh, and also, um, stop the, the,
uh, direct access, uh, going
across the property. That
s one
of the main things we want to
do. Uh, the reason for the
six-foot variance is there is a.
Um, that, that alleyway
actually goes up a hill. And
with a 4 ft fence, we don
t
think that
s noticeable until
you get all the way up where
the 6 ft helps give better
clarity in terms of the
definition of the property.
Lines that are there. Uh, our
other concern is a 4 ft fence.
It
s a little bit easier, uh,
for people just to hop over the
top or 6 ft becomes a little
more definitive. In terms of
what it is. And the 6 ft fence
also, because it is kind of a
strange lot having an alley run
up. On the side of your house.
Uh, certainly gives more
privacy to the people that have
the Uh, um, uh. Garages and
their driveways on the back. Um,
that that extra 2 ft, we just
won
t be able to see that and
vice versa. They wouldn
t be.
Showing in our property as well
as the headlights as they
re
driving in and driving back out.
But the main issue is just
trying to kind of define that
property line so we don
t have
vehicles going into our
property. Um, I, I
m just gonna
say that Commissioner Halligan
has joined us just. As a Note,
um, Would you mind grabbing the
mouse and kind of pointing out
where that topography issue. Or
the changes that You just sit
on 6 ft hill actually, once you
turn the corner. It
s the
elevation starts, uh, almost
immediately, so it
s probably
maybe 1012 ft where it
s flat.
And then it starts going up.
And it
s gradual on the front,
and then it starts to have a
little bit more of a hill. Uh,
that comes up and peaks. Uh,
right about. Let
s see, I gotta
look at that home that
s next
to me. Probably peaks right
about here. Is where that peaks.
And so being able at that point.
They they
ve come up. Uh, this
close and a little bit before
they hit the other two
properties here because they,
they are up on top. Uh, and so
then that would stop them from
coming up all the way up here.
And that
s the reason for
having that 6 ft fence. The, uh,
the alleyway itself ends, sorry,
I keep getting the. Right,
right, click. The property Or
the alleyway ends right about
here. Right about here. Right
along that property line of the
Between the two, different
homes. And so what they
re
doing is they
re coming in and
they
re then they
re turning
around here. Or they
re coming
in and then driving across to
get the Sunset Court. Or in the
case of the e-bikes. They
re
And my neighbor that lives back
here, they
re coming down his
driveway and then driving
across. And onto my property,
uh, and then on to Sunset Court.
Thank you. Um, does anybody
else have any questions for MR.
Palmquist? MR. Chair, MR.
Simonson, MR. Palmquist, could,
could you comment about when I
look at um, it sounds like. The
thing you
re trying to actually
discourage is cut through of
traffic or pedestrians, bikes,
things like that. And I think
there
s a 4-foot adjacent that
diagonal next to 50/59 and 6 ft,
and you
d say on Donn
s alley.
And one of my questions is,
With with the 4 ft work as well
as a six-foot. I
m kind of
trying to rationalize, uh,
because there
s a 4-foot
proposed in one area and a 6 in
another. Could you explain why?
Yeah, so the 4 ft we
re putting
on the diagonal right here, you
know it
s really more
acknowledgement for our
neighbor, uh, behind is really
what that was. Um, and most of
the traffic that we
re getting
is once people come up the hill,
and they
re that far. Uh, then
they
re coming across actually
where the six-foot fence would
come in. And we
re also seeing
more, more of the, the e-bikes,
uh, coming across farther up.
Even past the alleyway. Yeah,
that
s in present, so, so the
forefront was really. More
about consideration for. The
neighbor that has a home. Uh,
very difficult to see it, but
he actually has a home right
down here, right up next to our
property. This is his home. And
he comes right, right up here.
And you can see he parks his um.
For 2 boats. That he has right
there, but that sits because
he
s flattened it. It sits
lower. Then And where that hill
comes up. And so we just put a
4 ft in there because it
realistically is like a 6 ft at
that point because he
s about 2
ft down. As retaining wall. And
then our for foot goes up. One
quick follow up question is,
would the 4 ft on Don
s alley
accomplish the goal that you
re
looking for? Well, it, it will
accomplish partly. Ok. What
part won
t it accomplish? Well,
I think a 4 ft fence is going
to still make it pretty easy
for people to hop the fence and.
Ok, thanks. Anybody else have a
question for MR. Palmquist?
Thank you, MR. Palmquist. I
would now like to invite
members, any member of the
public that wishes to speak on
this item, to come to the
podium. Ok, seeing none. Let
s
bring this back to the planning
commission. Comments. MR. Chair,
MR. Simonson, I believe, uh,
Steph, correct me if I
m wrong,
but a 4 ft fence could be
placed here with administrative
approval, I believe, without a
variance request for. Obviously
with the 4 foot
s being
proposed and along the 6 ft
area. Correct. Ok. Yeah, I
m,
I
m kind of wrestling. I, I, I
understand. The concern, and
it
s unfortunate that traffic
kind of gets dead ended and I
m
not sure what it does when it,
when someone
s kind of going up
that area and they
re in the
driveway. I mean, it
s pretty
narrow, so I, I would think
it
d be kind of difficult for
traffic or someone that kind of
got lost in a neighborhood, how
to figure out how to turn
around. I think uh. I, I think
just from a standpoint, I think
it
s reasonable to try and
minimize cut through traffic. I
think that makes sense. Uh, I
am, I think there were some
letters we got though that
there were some concerns about
access to the driveway of the
fences. Too tall and too close
to a very narrow, uh, alleyway,
so. I do have concerns about
that, but at the same time, 4
ft could go in there without
any decision from us. Right on
that line I would agree with
that, Commissioner Anderson.
Sure, yeah, I
m torn too, I
guess, uh, you know, on the one
hand, um, 4 ft is allowable. I,
I get the point of the 6-foot
fence, uh, it
s easy to hop a 4
ft fence theoretically. Um, I
struggle a little bit with the
fact that I
m not sure that, uh,
is it a, is a body that we
should be, um, Dictating or
helping prevent trespassing.
That
s more of a Uh, you know,
uh, a criminal offense or, you
know, it, it
s more of a police
situation than anything else, I
would imagine, but, um. You
know, part of me goes back and
forth on it though when you
have a 4-foot fence that
s
adjacent to the six-foot fence?
Do you just walk over and hop
the 4-foot portion of the fence,
uh, you know, and I, and I get
the fact that probably kids,
kids will do what they
re gonna
do, right? But, um, to
Commissioner Solomonson
s point
though, uh, whether it
s 4 or 6
ft as far as the uh comment
that we received, it doesn
t
make really any difference. The
fence can go in there, so, um,
Although it could make that
alleyway tight, I don
t see the,
the height being a difference
or an issue, but the part that
I try that I struggle with is I,
although we
ve. Got what
s
purported to be. You know,
unique circumstances here. I
m
not sure that I
ve Gotten fully
comfortable with unique
circumstances related to the 6
ft height of this fence. Other
than maybe the slope of the
property, um, but at the point
at which it really slopes, to
the point at which it goes to 6
ft, there
s really no There
s
really no alleyway any longer
at that point. So, um, you.
That
s where I
m struggling
particularly is because if
there were, if the easement
wasn
t there, these would be.
Backyards more or less and
nobody would care about a 6 ft
fence, so, but had. If this
easement were to go further
down that or if the alley were
to go further down the easement,
you could have an issue where
now you got a 6 ft fence next
to you. Something that
s been
improved, so. Commissioner
Cortis. So I think the one, you
know, cause. Whether it
s 6 or
4 ft. I mean, I, I, I certainly
Hope The applicant will have a
conversation with, with the
people who back out into that
alley and see if there is a way
to make sure that they can
leave their garage. I don
t
know if the city council can do
anything about that in, in
requirements here or not, I
don
t think we can, that I
m
aware of, but I, I certainly
think if this is a fence 4 or 6
is gonna bar people from
entering or exiting their
garages, um, That would make
For very bad neighbors in your
backyard that I would not want
to have, and I would strongly
hope some conversations could
be had that could maybe fix
that. Um, the part I struggle
with on this variance is
actually criteria number 3, the
character of the neighborhood,
because nobody else has a fence
there. This is used for this
road, these houses have this
access, and suddenly, whether
it
s a, you know, a 4 ft fence
is, is what
s allowable, but
then going another 2 ft at the
top of the hill. So the, the
neighbor
s house goes from
seeing some of it at 4 ft to
now seeing nothing at 6 ft. The
houses across the street are
blocked by the six-foot. I know,
you know, it, it It, it seems
to change the neighborhood to
go even another 2 ft here,
especially if it is in fact the
top of a hill, um, as it
s
going up. So I think there
s,
there
s some. Consideration
there. I don
t know that I
m
gonna vote no just based on
that, frankly, but, but it, it,
it is the one section where I
am kind of concerned about
drawing that line. MR. Ahmadvan,
so Commissioner Kurtz, Cortis
brings up some, um, good points.
I, I would say where I stand is.
Like we all have said already,
it
s a 4 or 6 ft fence is not
going to prevent someone from
backing out of the driveway,
although I recognize the
concern of the other homeowner.
I think if the, the applicant
wants to have a 6 ft fence
there. I think he
s provided
reasonable burden, in my
opinion. Someone
s driving
through my yard to get to the
other side of the street or
e-bikes going through. I would
not like that myself, so. Uh,
I
m inclined to vote yes on
this. MR. Chair, MR. Simonson,
I have another question for
staff. The, the easement that
was what plattered in 1915, a
long time ago. Are there any,
is there anything of city
interest in that easement
currently? And because I think
that what
s before us is the
fact that the six-foot fence is
required because it
s next to
it, I mean, I mean it, it can
t
be more than 4 because it
s
next to a. Right away or an
easement and so. If that
easement, if that right of way
wasn
t there. They could put a
6 ft fence up, right? Correct.
And I was just kind of curious
if anyone
s ever thought about
um. Abandoning the right of way.
Because it, it
s functioning
basically as a driveway
currently. Yes, um, and I think
that goes back to uh the
maintenance agreement that was
signed in 2001, um, this, the
city doesn
t want to accept the
liability for plowing and
maintaining such a small
stretch of alleyway, um, and
with the width of the, the
easement as well. There just
isn
t really potential to
develop it into a right of way
or a private road, um, so with
With that, I would say no, they,
there really isn
t a, a desire
for the city to pursue that at
this moment. It was just a
thought as to a way that would
remedy that because then a 6 ft
fence would be allowed. Mm
Commissioner Weston
Commissioner Anderson, I
m in
favor of the 6 ft fence. Uh,
the reasons I believe that this
should be granted is because
typically alleys are only
around this size and width
anyways, um, older
neighborhoods like this one,
the alley width would actually
be less than what it currently
is, um, it does not seem that
there
s any desire to have, uh,
this become a full alley all
the way through. Um, because
all the properties to the east
do not have rear access and are
currently using it as part of
their yard, um, which would um,
create um, a lot of controversy
with folks, um, going forward,
and typical alley fences are 6
ft high. Um, so I feel that
this is within reason, um, and
both of the properties on Birch
do have parking, aka turning
around areas, um, in the front
of their houses. So there
s, I
don
t really understand why.
There
s any vehicle going down
that far to deliver a package
or anything anyways. So I feel
this is a reasonable request.
It meets the three criteria in
my mind, um, and I
ll be voting
yes. Commissioner Anderson.
Yeah, thank you. I
m just gonna,
thank you, MR. Chair. I
m gonna
piggyback maybe just a question
on, uh, Commissioner
Solomonson
s question, but. Uh,
So the portion of the easement
that is unimproved. Is there a
process by which, and I guess
would it be the city that would
initiate it? Would it be
homeowners would initiate it to
actually request. The vacation
of that or abandonment of that
easement. Yeah, Commissioner
Anderson, so, uh, adjacent
property owners are an adjacent
property owner could petition
for a vacation of the easement.
That requires a petition of at
least 50% of the Adjacent
property owners to consent to
it or agree with it, and then
there
s a public hearing
process along that where the
city would need to make a
finding that it
s in the public
interest to vacate. Thesement
itself, right, and I guess
where I
m going with that is if
that a lot of ifs and thens,
but if that were to happen.
That was vacated became.
Property owned by those
property owners along that that
easement, a six-foot fence.
Would be permissible. On the
unimproved portion of this.
That
s correct, correct. Ok,
thank you. Commissioner Cortis.
No, it
s ok. I
m, I
m not gonna,
I don
t think we need to dive
into these hypotheticals any
further. I
m gonna, I
m gonna
make the motion. Thank you.
Except Actually, if somebody
else could cause I closed on me
by accident. Sorry, I will,
Commissioner West, you can help
me out with the second part
there, Cortis. Ok, to adopt
motion to adopt resolution 2666
approving the variance
application submitted by Mark
Palmquist, 675 Sunset Court for
a 6 ft tall privacy fence that
abuts the city road easement.
Said approval is subject to the
3 conditions listed in the
report. Second, so it has been
moved in 2nd. Any further
discussion on this topic?
Hearing none, all those in
favor say aye. Aye aye pose,
same sign. Motion carries 70.
So thank you, MR. Palmquist.
Let
s move on to item 7b, a
residential design review and
variance request by 580
Shoreview llc. Location is 559
Harbor Court, and senior
planner, Isaac Peterson has the
staff presentation. It
s all
yours, MR. Peterson. Thank you,
MR. Chair, members of the
commission, as the chair noted
tonight for your review and
consideration will be
residential design review and
variance request for 559 Harbor
Court, uh, the applicant, uh,
580 llc joins us along with, uh,
members of Wooddale Builders,
uh, to speak on the request for
the application. So just to get
our bearings here, uh, we
re
looking at the 559 Harbor Court
property that
s located within
the harbor Shores development.
It
s on the, uh, kind of, it
s
one of the first. Uh, repairing
lots or lake lots on the north
of the curve of Harbor Court,
uh. This is just to the south
of the joint access beach lot,
um, and it
s the, from the time
of the developments
construction. This is the 2nd
riparian lot that the city has
received building plans for. So,
um, it is located within the r1
detached residential zoning
district. So some members of
the commission that were here
at the time will recall a
portion of the harbor shores
development was located within
a pud, the interior lots. Uh,
on the northern portion of the
development and that interior
loop of harbor Court along with
some properties to the east of
Harbor or the lake lots were
straight r1 zoning within the
city shore land ordinance, uh,
for minimum lot size and sizes
and standards. So this lot is
considered a substandard
repairing lot due to reduced
front lock. Line width less
than 100 ft. Um, it does have a
lot area of 25,000. Square feet,
which is about 10,000 square
feet over the minimum along
with an average depth of 236 ft.
Again, it was plaited with the
harbor shores development at
the time of its consideration
and the Platt
s consideration.
This is one of two lots that
was considered with a variance
request, uh, to permit that
reduced frontline line width.
Um, so at that time, um, the
planning commission considered
it. There was a denial, the
subsequent appeal, the city
council approved, uh, the, uh,
reduced lot line with, with the
finding, uh, that there was a
practical difficulty in meeting
that minimum dimensional
requirement, um, In large part
because of kind of the push
pull effect of the location of
the Harbor Court Road, uh, in
the topography that
s present
on these lots, uh, this lot
itself doesn
t, uh, contain a
bluff, as the city and dnr
defines a bluff, but it does
contain a steep slope. Um, so
the concern at that time was if
the roadway was pushed, uh, to
the west with the latte, uh,
that. Buildable area and the
location of that road would be
located on a steeper slope, uh,
requiring more sight impacts,
and there
s a practical
difficulty in actually
constructing it. Um, along with
that, there is a common
development retaining wall that
was constructed following the
Platt approval that runs, uh,
through this property and I
ll,
I
ll show the location at a
subsequent slide further to the
south, uh, through 3 additional
platted lots that are common,
uh, joint retaining walls to
accommodate greed and slope
stabilization, uh, within the
development. So just on the
screen here, again, uh, a
substandard relot means a lot
of record that does not meet
the minimum standards for the
zoning district, which it is
located within. So this
property is located within the
shoreland district and the r1.
Uh, district, it
s within a
general development waters lake,
snail lake, um, so what we
re
referring to here is, uh, it is
standard in its width as
measured, um, at the, uh,
ordinary, high water line of
Snail Lake, so it
s 110 ft.
There
s a 3 with requirements
of the location at the lake,
the buildable pad, which is
approximately here, so 50 ft
off of Snail Lake within that
ordinary high water line
setback, where it
s just over
100 ft. Um, and then again, at
the curvature of the road or
that front property line meets
the Harbor Court right of way.
It
s at 82.24 ft. So the
applicants this evening are
proposing to construct a 2,922
square foot single family, uh,
home on the lot containing, uh,
you know, attached garage, a
standard, uh, home, uh, layout,
uh, on the property, uh, as the
commission knows, the
residential design review is
required for the construction
of new homes on substandard
repairing lots, um, and through
the proposal, there is a
variance to section 1.
15-155b3b for height of 43 ft
10 inches, which is greater
than the 35 ft height maximum
permitted, which is measured
from the lowest finish grade to
the highest peak of the roof.
So on the, on the screen here
is the, um. An elevation plan
of the proposed house along
with a rendering, so you can
see on the front side of the
property, it is a two-story, uh,
walkout home, um, with access
to harbor Court and then that
half, uh, walkout basement, uh,
at the lower level of the rear
facing snail lake. The proposed
location of the house is, uh,
centered off the curvature of,
of Harbor Court here. So the
front setback, uh, is about
just over 36 or just. Under 36
ft, uh, from the front property
line, the rear setback from the
lake, which is typically the
concern on a lot of riparian
builds is, uh, well in excess
of the minimum of 50 ft. Uh,
there is no setback averaging,
which has been a, a
conversation through many of
our substandard reviews, uh, in
recent months, uh, simply by
the fact that there
s no
adjacent homes here. In fact,
that What? A was planted as a
joint access lot, uh, for
shared access for, uh, the, the,
uh, interior property owners to
have shared access to Snail
Lake. Uh, in terms of our kind
of typical requirements within
a, a, a substandard lot, uh,
the, the application and the
proposal does meet and exceed
those standards in most aspects,
uh, in terms of lack coverage,
uh, it
s, it
s underneath the
25%. Require or maximum
requirement, uh, they
re
proposing 17.9% of the lot area
in terms of foundation area, it
is well below the maximum. This
is in large part because it is
a larger lot, uh, and, and
exceeds our, our minimums in,
in that, uh, regard. The
proposed attached garage, uh,
is under the 1000 square feet
per minute. Then again, the
front setbacks are, are met and,
uh, exceeded on all, all sides.
Uh, the building height is
shown at 43 ft 10 inches, uh,
what is permitted on the
property is 35 ft. Um, Going
through that, so the city code
does, uh, provide a two-part
definition for building height.
I
ll spare you the full reading
of the first height requirement,
but it effectively says for, uh,
the, the measurement
requirement for different, uh,
roof types, um. In most cases,
uh, in the city of Shoreview,
we
re talking about a pitched
roof, uh, on most residential
properties and the general
requirement is from the front.
You know, right of way, side,
front property line, side of
the finished grade for standard
lot, uh, the height requirement
is effective from that front
finish grade. Uh, to the, the
mean or median height of a
pitched roof, so. Shown in the
some of the application
material. This is accurate.
It
s on a typical, uh, height
review for a building permit,
we
re looking from the front
elevation to the midpoint of
the highest roof pitch. For
substandard lot, uh, the
requirement is that, uh, roof
height or building height is
measured from the lowest finish
grade to the tallest, uh, peak
of the tallest pitch of the
roof, effectively. So in most
cases, um, on a lake property
that lowest finished grade just
by virtue of grade towards a
lake is gonna be on the lake
side. Um, I should note the
application does propose to
exceed that, so you can kind of
see that, uh, difference of, uh,
what
s, what would be a
standard measurement at 28 ft,
uh, or just over, uh, on the
front elevation, and then again
43 ft 10 inches from that
lowest finish grade on the rear
lake side of the property of
the tallest bitch of the roof.
He
s planning commission is
aware, uh, when reviewing
variants applications,
three-part test that the
property owner uses to use the
property in a reasonable manner,
not permitted by code. That
there are unique circumstances
in the plight of the property
owners due to circumstances
unique to the property, not
created by the property,
previous property owners and
lastly, the the character of
character of the neighborhood
character of character of the
neighborhood will character of
not be adversely impacted. Or
altered. When reviewing the
request, um, Steph took a long
look at this, uh. Application.
So in terms of reasonable
manner, Steph does believe that
the proposed use of the
property is a reasonable use of
the, the site, uh, the
application does propose to
construct a single-family home
with that which is permitted
within the district, uh,
additionally, the proposed roof,
uh, or building height is
consistent with, uh, the height
requirements elsewhere outlined
by code and below that maximum
of 35 ft. Uh uh. On the front
elevation of the property. In
Terms of unique circumstances,
um. When looking at the slope
in the grade of the site, uh,
in that interplay with the
required front setback zone,
which is a 25 ft minimum and
40-foot maximum. The property
does contain a steep slope,
which is consistent with the
historic grade of the property.
The, the, the, uh. Herbert
Court portion of the grade is,
is a very similar to what was
present previously, um, in fact,
this. Lot contained the
northern, uh, foundation extent
of the Union Gas Bowl Mission
building itself. So that
largely remained unchanged. The
installation of the wall, um.
Raise the elevation a bit, but
as you can see from the Harbor
Court right of way. Almost
instantly and just outside of
that front setback zone, the
grade drops 8 to 10 ft rather
rapidly, uh, towards the
buildable pad of the house, so.
That, that grade change and
drop is really proportional to
the request that the applicant
is proposing this evening where
they
re in excess of just over
8 ft or 88.86 ft, um, which is
proportional to the grade
change observed on the site.
There is, um. There has been
evaluation of alternatives in
part, uh, whether grade could
be adjusted, um, or altered
through reduced roof height or
stories. Either way, there
would have to be, there is some
degree of fill that is required.
Uh, in staff
s review, the
proposed application seeks to.
Introduce the least amount of
Phil Lakeside of the house or
kind of within those sensitive
shoreland areas. So
alternatively, the applicant
has considered. Filling and
leveling the site, uh, to
achieve a similar house form
that would require, uh, about
1500 cubic yards of fill and
additional retaining wall, um,
for largely a similar product,
um, you know, one of the kind
of push pulls in the minimum
grading or fill that would be
required on the site would be
to raise the foundation.
Particularly the driveway to
have a pitch away from. Um, You
know, the entrance to the
garage and from house to street
to, uh, you know, send
stormwater in large part from
the front of the house towards
the stormwater system that was
installed with the development.
So, um, staff believes that.
That filling, uh, to
accommodate and meet the height
requirement for the house, um,
is well in excess of a typical,
uh, grading plan that would be,
uh, considered for a, a
building application of the
sort of this type, um, and that
they
re largely be additional
impacts resulting from that to
adjacent properties. In terms
of character of the
neighborhood, uh, the, the
applicant did provide, um,
precedent examples, um, which
is consistent with staff
s
review of building permits
throughout the development
where, uh, you know, throughout
the development there, the, the
proposed house is consistent
with building heights that are
under construction right now or
have been constructed. Um, you
know, most, uh, fall within
that, uh, 26 to 29 ft. Standard
lot height measurement and our
around 40 to 44 ft if they were
measured from the rear of the
house. So the proposed
elevation plans, uh, do not
appear as though they would Uh,
be outside of the character of
the neighborhood. Within the
harbor shores development. In
terms of public comment, notice
was distributed to property
owners within 150 ft of the,
the site, uh, currently no
staff hasn
t received any
public comment. Uh, staff would
recommend, uh, given the, the
practical difficulty outlined
approval or adoption of
resolution 26-67, which would
grant the variants to increase
the maximum permitted building
height from 35 ft to 43 ft 10
inches. Uh, with conditions as
outlined within my report and
with that, MR. Chair, I will
stand for questions. Thank you,
MR. Peterson, Commissioner
Simonson MR. Chair, uh. MR.
Peterson. Could you comment? I
know it
s been a while. I
should, I should remember this,
but uh. Are there other uh
substandard repairing lots
along in this development,
there is one, additional
substandard repairing lot
within the development. Uh,
that had a similar condition as
a 548 Harbor Court, um, sort of
lot 5, I believe, um, so that
is, does have the same
restriction imposed, uh, I
would say, and not to speak for
the applicant that there is
concern about the viability of
achieving the height
requirement on that lot. Um,
And there
s some discussion on
whether the commission would
Consider a request for that.
Staff
s response was that, you
know, we, we don
t wanna
discuss or consider a variance
request without looking at
plans. MR. Peterson is, I, I
guess my, my question is
because it
s substandard,
that
s where the height
definition changes where you
have the top of the roof to the
lowest point, whereas if it was
a standard lot, it would
essentially be. The front yard
and it
d be half roof roof
height, which takes ok, and
then so the reason I asked that
question and from the lakeside.
You
re gonna have houses
probably with walkouts. That
would probably look similar
adjacent to it, I would think
that is correct, Commissioner
Solomon. So this is the other
riparian lot that is a standard
lot that is under construction
and has had a building permit
issued. Ok, thanks. MR.
Anderson, thank you, MR. Chair.
MR. Peterson, so if you could
pull the diagram back up of the
Phil example. Just so I
m fully
understanding this. So
effectively what we
re saying
is the backside of the house,
the lake side of the house
would no longer have a walkout
in that example, is that
correct? But otherwise would be
designed similarly. So more or
less. Choosing a home design
that meets this lot. Or so it
d
be a lookout home rather than a
walkout. Great. All right,
thank you. Commissioner Ammann,
one clarification, Commissioner
Anderson, but The, the top one
that wouldn
t be at the. 40 3
feet 10 inches, correct, or
would it? Yes, Commissioner
Aman, so what
s really being
conveyed here is, uh, if you
look at kind of the elevation
on the left side here. So the,
the peak of the roof is
effectively still at uh let
s
say a 950 elevation. Whereas
the peak of the roof currently
is just uh. Over that 950
elevation. So. Very similar in
style and overall height. Um,
But With, as a result of
raising the grade with Phil,
that measurement off the back
would. Be, you know, within
that. Its name, yeah. MR. Chair,
I have a follow-up question, uh,
so the geometry, maybe it
s
just because it
s not a square,
it
s hard to really tell, but
is the width of this lot
changing as it gets towards the
lake. And, and at what point,
what is considered illegal with
and so what part of the house
would probably be in what I
would call. The proper width.
Would there be a part of the
house that would be in what I
would call a. An approved width
for a standard lot. Yeah, so
Christian, Commissioner
Solomonsson, so the geometry of
the lad, if you look from this
northern point in the southern
point, it flares out and gets
wider a little bit as it goes
from here to here. The
applicant provided a. Diagram.
It
s 100 ft right here,
effectively at the building pad
for the house. Um, it
s that
location. Right on Harbor Court
where there
s a reduced width.
Um, at the time of the
development consideration,
there is, there
s thought given
to Do you pull that Harbor
Court curvature further inward
into the property to achieve
the minimum width or not a
variance was considered and
ultimately approved. That
favored Pulling it away from
the, the steepness of the
property. Uh, as a result of
the grade, um, instead of
having a, a standard lot right
there. So that
s why the lot
was created. As it is, as it
exists today. So maybe you
clarify where is the
restriction restrictive width.
I just wanna make sure I
understand that. It
s just this
front property just that area
there, but the width of the lot
in general. Is much wider. Ok,
that
s, that helps. Thanks.
Yeah. Anybody else have any
questions for staff? Ok, thank
you, MR. Peterson. If the
applicants, the audience would
like to, uh, stand up and
Address the commission. Uh,
please remember to give your
name and address. The record.
Excuse me. Thank you Chair and
members of the commission for
evaluating this request. My
name is Bob Moser. My address
is 986 Priestster Lane, Hudson,
Wisconsin, although I
m a
Longtime Shoreview resident, my
younger years and currently
office in Shoreview, so I
m
very familiar with the area and
appreciate all you
ve done. Um,
After review of the staff
report and after hearing the
presentation tonight, I feel as
though things were. Very
thoroughly covered, but I
m
happy to answer any questions
you might have. I have a
question for you. Why not just
lower the roof? The character
of the neighborhood is, is the
primary reason for that. Uh, I
don
t know. There are some
other examples here of things
that that are being done in the
neighborhood. But just so you
know, Wooddale Builders, is the
exclusive builder in this
neighborhood. And one reason.
Uh, an individual builder was
selected, was there a quality
builder who, who build.
Consistently. Uh,
architecturally consistent
structures within the
neighborhood to make it. Very
attractive. Um, As an example
of that, I will go through and
show some other things that Um,
I was looking for some
perspective drawings here. See,
here we go. Ok, I guess here
s
one here. Maybe i
ll, I
ll
answer that in two ways. Number
1 is there is a steeper pitch
on the front to make it
architecturally consistent with
others in the neighborhood. Uh,
but this pitch for the 2nd
story here is reduced
substantially to try to keep
the height down as much as
possible. So you aesthetically
can achieve the look of the
Nehir wood with a front gables.
But on the main part of the
house, it has been reduced, but
it
s somewhat obscured by the
architectural design here. So
now, if you go to. A home built
on. Let
s see here. I
m trying
to get my Here we go. This is a
home-built, currently being
built on Lot 7, right next door,
the subject property is on lot
8. And this is actually a
one-story home. Um, and as you
will see, The Uh, on the next
page. If the height for this
structure were determined based
on the same criteria as being
used for the, for the home
proposed for Lot 8. This home
would be 42 ft high. As
compared to just over 43 ft for
the subject property. And there
again, that
s due in large part
to the architecture. That
s,
that
s being integrated into
all the designs for the homes
in the neighborhood. Even the
villas in that neighborhood.
And I have an example here. So
here
s a villa here. It
s built
on one of the, on one of the
interior lots. There again, if
you look at the height, uh,
calculation for that one is 41
and 9 3/4 inches. From a, a
standard lot. Calculation, it
s
only 21 ft tall. But there
again, uh, I get the important
aspect of bringing this up is
that for, for the villas and
the single-family homes. To all
be consistent in nature, which
as I know is something very
important as part of any.
Exclusive development like this.
That
s exactly why we also said
we don
t want to come to. One
lot or potentially 2, and have
something that
s totally
architecturally inconsistent.
So there again, it
s the
character that a neighborhood
criteria that we feel, you know,
justifies asking for this
variance. Ok, thank you, uh,
any other questions for MR.
Mosher? Thank you. Thank you
very much. Um, let
s move to
the public. If the public has
any comments or questions,
please come to the podium. Your
name and address for the record.
Hi, my name is Jane Friedman,
and my partner and I live at
4455 Harbor Place Court. Uh,
which is just slightly down the
road from this development and
it is a riparian lot, um. And
When my house was built in
about 1992, it, uh, required no
trees to be cut down, no
retaining walls to be built,
and it is mainly, uh, uh.
Protected bluff, so the
protective bluff is a huge
chunk of the property, and yet
still they were able to build a
house with reasonable size. Our
house is 3700 square feet. Um,
Uh, with, without requesting,
uh, a height variance. Instead,
with this property in this
particular Um, parcel.
Alterations have been
constantly requested for this.
So, first, they made it a
substandard lot, uh, because
otherwise they
d have to remove
11 lot from, from the mix, uh,
and that would not be
financially, um, Um, you know,
profitable, uh, so they got,
they got that variance approved,
um, understanding that there
are things that go along with
having a substandard lot, um,
that might not make it easy for
them to, uh, build on that. The
second thing was, uh, Bob Moser
asked, uh, the city for
permission to put in the
retaining wall, and he said, I
quote, so that we can
Established building pads and
end up with a reasonably sized
backyard. So the idea was to
have a very high retaining wall
and fill it in with fill, and
then there would be this nice,
uh, nice backyard for those 3.
Properties, uh, the, the height
of the wall was, did not get up
to that high amount, but they
still were allowed to have the
retaining wall, and at the same
time, They, um. Cut down all 29
trees on the lot between where
the retaining wall is and the,
the upper, uh, you know, and,
and the roadway, the, the
circle roadway. So all those
trees went away. So now, of
course, they have this strange,
um, you know, cross section,
and To, for, for no good reason
at all. They want to have this
really tall house, and they say,
well, on the front, it, it
would. You know, blend in with
the rest of the, of the, uh,
neighborhood, and, and that is
the case, um, but. On the On
the uh public water side, this
is like. The same Visual impact
as a four-story high home with
a flat roof. It
s massive, and
because they removed the trees.
Uh, there are only some trees
down by the water, which is,
you know, quite a bit down the
slope. And so, so much of that
house is going to be Visible to
people recreating on the public
lake, and it
s out of character
with. The rest of the homes on
the lake in that respect. And
all these things are caused by
the property owner. These
aren
t unusual circumstances
that, that, you know, uh, you
know, made the property owner a
victim, uh, of, of
circumstances, uh, and And so,
It it
s, it just, uh, Uh, I, I
believe that the, the property
owner should work within the
confines of the law, uh, and,
and build a house. On their
property, they, the, the
setbacks are large on this, the,
the front setbacks and the side
setbacks are much more than the
minimum, and so they could move
the house forward. And then
they won
t have to deal as much
with the slope in the back.
They can plant more trees to,
you know, deal with any erosion
issues that might be on this
slope that they, you know, so
badly, um, messed up, um, so I
think that it
s It, it doesn
t
meet all the criteria that is
required for to allow a
variance, um, You know,
especially that out of
character view that People will
see from the lakeside, and for
that reason, I, I I would ask
you to not allow this variance
and have the, have the builder
go back and Figure something
else out. Thank you, thank you,
MS. Freeman. Anybody else? Hi,
my name is uh Lee Erickson. I
live at uh 260 Wexford Heights
Drive in New Brighton, uh, soon
to be a homeowner in this
development. Uh, in fact, I
think that top picture MAY be
the home that
s being built for
me right now at 588 Harbor
Court. And so, um, I
m just
here to say that. You know,
I
ve seen the pictures of the
of the proposed house, and I
think it
s consistent with With
the character of the
neighborhood and I
d be pleased
to be, uh, have that house in
our neighborhood. So, thank you.
Thank you, MRS. Erickson. Good
evening everybody. My name is
Steve Walsh. I live currently
live at 18 Maycomb Lane in
North Oaks. Um, I am also, um.
The future homeowner of the
adjacent lot to the variance
requested, uh, Lot 7. Uh, that
address would be 555 Harbor
Court, uh. Originally a
Shoreview resident back in the
70s, my parents moved to South
Birch Lane and I bring him back
uh Dome
s Alley. That was a lot
of, uh, reminiscence for me
riding and running around that
alley, uh, in the neighborhood,
but, um, Ironically enough, uh,
also along with Herb Brooks, uh,
I endorsed. This community
center years ago, uh, as an
athlete that, uh, played
college football down at the
University of Miami. They, uh,
I would imagine it was your,
your commission that asked me
to endorse that, and uh
obviously a beautiful community
center that, uh, we have here
in Shoreview. Um, I
ll just say
this, um, you know, one of the
things that attracted me to the
community. Uh, as you look at,
uh, you know, Metro lake and,
and, you know, obviously, uh,
high demand for those types of
properties, um. You know,
typically you
d go into a
community and, and maybe tear
down a lot and build, build
something new. Uh, but this
community offered brand new
home sites, uh, beautiful, uh,
uh, you know, homes, uh,
obviously a very good builder.
And, uh, the steep roofs that
lead to the, the height of
these buildings, uh, certainly
aesthetically pleasing in
modern construction and, and
for, for me and my wife, um,
looking at a, a community of
homes like this, of custom
homes, uh, that
ll be along the
lake, uh, that design, uh, is
certainly something that we, uh,
wanted to be part of. So that
s
all I
ll say, and I, I would
certainly support the variants
as, as it was shown. On the
slide, uh, my home is, is
basically, uh, with a standard
lot, uh, at that 42 to 43 ft,
um, height, so I don
t want to
have a neighbor necessarily
with a, with an architectural
design that
s dramatically
different than mine, so thank
you for your time. Thank you,
MS. Walsh. My name is Doug
Jones. I reside at 550 Harbor
Court. And, uh, want my
contention is, is when I
decided to move in there was a
type of architecture that was
going to be built by Wooddale.
And I think the consistency of
the product in the homes that
are. Being built there should.
All in. And With that type of
architecture. All I really have
to say. Thanks. Thank you, MR.
Jones. Ok, well, uh, seeing
nobody else, let
s bring it
back to the commission.
Commissioner Salmonsson, yeah,
MR. Chair, I When I look at
this, uh, at least when I, I
just consider the lake view and
no one
s gonna see how narrow
the street is, and we
re
talking about 100 ft, but the
lot is. Essentially 25,000
square feet. It
s a half an
acre. It
s generous and the
width, the only time it really
the width comes into play is on
um the street side, otherwise
the width is ample, pretty much
more than exceeds a standard
lot. So from the, from the
lakeside. I do tend to agree
that the character of the
neighborhood, you could have.
Uh, uh, I think from the lake
and having the houses be
similar is is a reasonable
request, and I think the
uniqueness here is because of
that little piece of strip on
the front of the street and
seems to um. It
s hard to use
that as a reason to deny this
kind of request. I think it
s
more important to have, uh,
consistent houses, uh, from the
Lakeview next to each other,
and, and like I said, these
lots aren
t small and this is a
big lot, 25,000 square feet. So,
so I
d say that, uh. Basically,
I think this is a realistic
request. And it
s kind of a,
it
s one of those things with
math problems cause you have a
frontage that basically goes up
and cuts over and that little
100 ft makes it an uh. Meets
the definition of non-standard,
but yeah, when I look at this
lot, it sure looks standard to
me in terms of size and scope.
And when you put in that
definition of determining
height, half full roof height
versus half. It
s kind of a,
it
s definitely a disadvantage
and uh to apply that standard
to this lot. So I would be in
support of the variants.
Commissioner Anderson, thank
you, MR. Jerry. Yeah, so
apparently I
m conflicted with
everything tonight, but, um, so
I was a part of the process of
this original proposal as a
planning commission member, um,
and, and to, uh, Dennis
Friedman
s point, you know, it,
part of what bothers me a
little bit here is that uh
There was a request basically
to have an extra lot around
this loop and now because of
that, we have a substandard lot,
and because of that, we
ve got
kind of what
s before us here,
to Commissioner Somonson
s
point, yes, there
s very little
distinction between these lots,
uh, as far as just really at
the street there is the only,
the only difference, not far
back from the street, you
re
meeting that requirement. Uh,
if it were the, the house next
door, the house to the south,
from the lakeside, you
re gonna
have exactly the same view of
this house as you would have
the adjacent house, so. I think
what we
re seeing on paper, uh,
to me is, is a distinction, but
I think in actuality, um, there
is no distinction, but on the
flip side of the coin, this is
the cards that were dealt.
These are the cards that were
dealt and. To, uh, Chair John
s.
Question. There is a different
design that would work here.
Now, There is maybe some value
to the fact that there
s a
single builder and, you know,
they
re trying to achieve a
look in this neighborhood, um,
but I
m on the fence still. I
just, I honestly don
t know, uh.
Neither, um. Neither answer
seems. 100% good to me. Thank
you, Commissioner Cortes. Yeah,
I, I
m 100% with Commissioner
Anderson on the extreme
frustration I have on this one.
I mean, I voted no on this
development, specifically for
this reason. I said they were
gonna come back, they
re gonna
ask us for more variants
because they weren
t doing this
properly, they were squeezing
things in improperly to make
the most money as opposed to
doing what was right and within
our code, and now they
re back
here doing the same thing. And
I, you know, I hope maybe the
city council will, will think
about that when, when the
planning commission, you know,
has some thoughts about that
and then. They they don
t take
those into consideration. We we
have to deal with this again.
Taking this property, however,
individually, I think it does
technically meet the
requirements of the variants,
rules that we have here. And as
frustrated as I am with that
they
re back here, um, when we
said this would happen, uh, I
don
t think I can treat the
property or the property owner.
Differently because we already
approved it and said they could
do this, um, and, and if it
were any other development in
any other lot, I don
t know,
Commissioner Anderson, if he
d
be struggling as much as, uh, I,
I feel like I am with it
because of the background of
this development, so I, I will
probably be voting aye, but I
don
t feel good about it.
Anybody else have any comments,
questions, or concerns? We, ok,
I
d like to move to adopt
resolution 2667 granting a
variance to increase the
maximum permitted building
height on a substandard
repairing lot from 35 ft to 43
ft 10 inches for the property
located at 5559 Harbor Court,
subject to the six conditions
in the report and based on the
three findings of fact. Second,
it has been moved in seconds,
any further discussion on the
matter. I
ll just throw my 2
cents in there. This is more of
a design problem than a a
variance issue, so I would
agree with what Commissioner
Cortis. And Commissioner, um,
Anderson had brought up, so.
Just wanted to point that out
before we take the vote. All
those in favor indicate by
saying aye. I oppose same sign.
i. Motion passes 6 to 1. Ok, so
we move to item 7c. This is a
variance request by Robert
Fried. The location is 804
County Road, I West. Associate
planner Will Harris, you have
the presentation. Thank you,
chair. Ah, one item of note
related to my previous
presentation, uh, for 675
Sunset, um, that item is
subject to a five-day appeal
period that was not stated. So
I just wanted to clarify, um,
if there is anybody out there
who wished to, there
s that
option. And with that, uh, we
will get into the variance
requests, variances requested
in the residential design
review for 804 County Road,
West. Orienting ourselves, uh,
this property is located along
the northern side of Turtle
Lake. Um. Access is provided
off of County Road I. Uh, the
property is a located within
the r1 detached residential
zoning district. Uh, it is a
substandard repairian lot for
lot width. According to the
most recent survey that we have
of the property, uh, the lot is
9,896 square feet with a width
of 75 ft along County Rhode I
and depths of 119 ft on the
western side and 129 ft along
the eastern side, there is an
existing single family home.
That was originally developed
on the site in 1972. Uh,
however, that property went
through a residential design
review in 2003 that included
the approval of the following
items. An additional 300 square
feet of living area that was
constructed above the garage
space. Located here. Uh, a
maximum allowed impervious
surface coverage of 35.6%, with
the conditions of a signed
mitigation affidavit and no
lakeside accessory structures
constructed, uh, and a lakeside
setback of the existing deck
not to be changed, which was
19.5 ft. A little bit of
property history for you. Uh,
with that residential design
review in 2003, uh, as stated,
there was an attached deck that
was included within the survey
and the building plans for that
rdr that showed uh 19.5 ft
setback from the ordinary high
water line. Uh, that was
approved because the, um, that
was the existing conditions and
there weren
t going to be any
alterations to that existing
setback, uh, after that was
approved, um, the homeowners at
that time had actually
constructed a different deck.
Um, that according to the most
recent survey that we have
currently 6 sits at 17.9 ft
from the ordinary high water
line, thus encroaching a little
bit further into that setback.
Later on in 2022, uh, a
different homeowner of the
property, uh, constructed, um,
a few different alterations to
the property, including an
illegal water-oriented
accessory structure, which is
going to be the patio scene on
the left image. Here? As well
as a gravel parking pad
addition located on the
northeastern side of the
driveway. Here. That brings us
to today where the current
owners and the applicants today
purchased the property in
SEPTEMBER of 2025. Uh, they had
installed an additional
unpermitted water-oriented
accessory structure, uh, which
is going to be shown as the
blue square giving just a
general location of where that
is since it was not um included
in that 2022 screenshot shown
on the screen. Um, that was
installed between the purchase
of the home in SEPTEMBER and
the spring of 2026. Uh, it is
important to note that the
existing home currently does
operate as a licensed
short-term rental within the
city. So The As as you can see
on the screen, uh, there are 2
images. One is going to be the
most recent aerial image that
was taken of the property on
the right-hand side as well as
the most recent survey that we
have of the property located on
the left-hand side. As it
currently sits, there are 6
violations of city code with
regards to the existing
property and the deck. The
first of which is the amount of
water-oriented accessory
structures. Currently, there
are 2 with the hot tub and the
patio, both located between the
ordinary high water level and
the required structure setback.
The second is the maximum area
of a water-oriented accessory
structure at 250 square feet.
The current patio is 35314
square feet, and the existing
hot tub, I don
t have it on
screen, but I believe it is 62
square feet. The 3rd Is the
side yard setback for a
water-oriented accessory
structure. The current patio
sits at 10 ft from the eastern
side of the eastern property
line. The required setback is
20 ft for that structure. The
4th is that any water-oriented
accessory structure MAY not be
located within the shore impact
zone. That Distance is 25 ft
from the ordinary high water
line. The current patio is
located 10 ft and 9 inches from
the ordinary high water line.
It is important to note that
code does permit that this
setback can be waived by the
planning commission, but not
reduced to Less than 10 ft from
the ordinary high water line.
Um, if the planning commission
determines that there is a
practical difficulty that would
prohibit strict compliance with
this code provision. The code
specifically calls out that
this usage of practical
difficulty is due to topography
or other circumstances that are
acceptable to the city. The 5th
item Is the total maximum
impervious surface coverage on
the site. As it sits today, uh,
it is hovering around 41.5%
impervious surface coverage,
even though the residential
design review from 2023 had
approved the property at 35.6%.
That criteria has been altered.
With the introduction of a
water-oriented accessory
structure. With that introduced
to the property, the total
impervious surface coverage is
then restricted to 25%. And
lastly, Uh, the deck edition or.
Newly constructed deck further
encroachment. Um. Is a
violation of the structure
setback from the ordinary high
water line, um, code requires
that this is standard 50 ft.
However, because it was a
nonconformity, um, It was
subject to that 19.5 ft that
was approved as a part of that
residential design review from
2003. Uh, as you can see on the
screen, um, this is going to be
reiterating the existing
conditions of the property as
long or along with the
proposals from the applicant,
um, to bring the property into
compliance with city code,
whether that be alterations or
through the variances that are
presented to you tonight. To
reduce, uh, to correct the, the
first violation, the applicants
are proposing to remove the
existing hot tub, thus reducing
the amount of water-oriented
accessory structures to a
number permitted by code.
Secondly, uh, they
re proposing
to reduce the total square
footage of the accessory
structures, uh, to a total of
200 square feet, um, thus, by
reducing the total patio size
and also getting rid of the hot
tub square footage. The final 4
items the applicants are
requesting variances for. Uh,
the applicant is requesting a
variance to the side yard
setback on the eastern side. To
maintain the current 10 ft
setback that the patio is
currently sitting at. The
second variance requested is to
maintain, uh, the patio at 17.6
ft from the ordinary high water
line, they would be reducing
the size of the patio in the
area that is between the lake
and the home to try to mitigate
that. Thirdly, is a variance
request for the maximum
impervious surface coverage of
the home. As stated earlier,
they are now subject to the 25%
with the introduction of the
water-oriented accessory
structure, uh, the applicants
are proposing a 35.6%
impervious surface coverage,
which, as Important to note is
the amount that was approved as
a part of that residential
design review in 2003, but
would require an additional
variance today, because of that
wire-oriented accessory
structure. And lastly, uh,
their they
re requesting a
variance to um the 50 ft uh
setback from uh the ordinary
high water line for the
structure, uh, to maintain that
17.9 ft setback for the
existing deck on the site. So
this is just another
visualization, um, of the
proposed variances this evening,
along with a survey that was
sent to staff with uh some
visuals as to how they
re
reducing the impervious surface
coverage. As you can see on the
northern side of the property,
they
re planning on removing,
uh, that illegally installed,
um, Gravel portion along here.
They
re also proposing to
remove a small portion of a
turnaround area that was
permitted, uh, just to reduce
some additional impervious
surface coverage on the site.
The items that are circled. Are
going to be the ones that the
applicant is requesting
variances for And I think the
the one to note would be the
removal of some of that patio
area to one, get it down to
that 200 square foot mark. But
also visualizing, um, the
reduction of the setback from
the ordinary high water line or
um That, um, Oh, now I
m
forgetting the name of it, but
yes. Again, uh, because this is
a substandard lot. It does
require residential design
review. Um, The 4 columns that
are shown on screen are going
to include uh the allowed
amounts by code. The permitted
amounts that were approved as a
part of that 2003 residential
design review. The current
conditions of the property. And
what is being proposed for you
this evening. And as you can
see, the 4 variances. Are bold
on the right hand side. As you
are familiar, uh, the variance
criteria are subject to uh the
3 items shown on screen. Um,
the reasonable manner, the uh
property owner is proposing to
use, or the Um, the applicant
is proposing something that is
reasonable within the, the
property. Uh, there
s a unique
circumstance that is unique to
the property owner and or the
property and it
s not created
by the property owner, uh, or a
previous one. And lastly, the
character of the neighborhood,
uh, that the, uh, proposed work
would not alter the essential
character. So For For For For
the For For the 3 variances
requested regarding the patio
and its location. Uh, staff
believes that a practical
difficulty is not present for
these three items, uh, due to,
uh, the unique circumstance not
being met. While the patio is a
reasonable request, uh, both
within the r1 zoning district,
as well as uh for a riparian
lot long term. Turtle Lake. Um,
and staff believes that this
application would not alter the
essential character of the
neighborhood, um, given that,
again, many other properties
along Turtle Lake have lakeside
patios, um, some of which are,
uh, Kind of. Close, closer than
standard ones, um, but the
unique circumstance, staff
believes just isn
t present. Um,
one, due to the total amount of
impervious surface coverage
that is being requested by the
applicants, um, The, the
deviation is for an additional
10.6% of impervious surface
coverage on the site, uh, which
is a, a fairly substantial
amount given the um the
location of where a lot of that
is, um, the staff received
comments from our engineering
department about uh the
importance of the impervious
surface coverage requirements
and code, um, typically because
they don
t want that water
draining towards water sources,
um, and given that a lot of
that improved or additional
impervious is going to be
lakeside, um, it
s, it
s going
to be a substantial impact on
the body of water, Turtle Lake.
Um, secondly, uh, the site does
allow for the homeowners to
reduce and or alter the patio
to conform to that side yard
setback, it would reduce the
patio to a little bit less than
150 square feet, uh, but it
would be an additional variance
that would not be in front of
you tonight, if that were to be
have been proposed. Um, and
then lastly, staff believes
that the definition for a
practical difficulty involving
the setback from the ordinary
high water line is not present
for the proposed application.
For the variants that is
requested regarding the deck.
Staff does believe that a
practical difficulty is present
for this variant
s request, um,
again, uh, the staff believes
that the, the application for
uh a lakeside deck is again a
permitted use and something
that is very common with many
of these properties along
County Rhodede and on Turtle
Lake. Um, the unique
circumstance in this situation
is, um, again, you
re, you
ll
be fairly familiar with this,
given that a variance was
requested and approved for
another property on County
Rhode Is for a very similar
situation that um the ordinary
high water line for when the
original 2003 residential
design review was approved, uh,
has thus changed to now, um,
the, the property has Um,
eroded along that western edge,
and Turtle Lake has come up a
little bit thus reducing, um,
that distance between the, the
current deck and where that
ordinary high water line sits,
so staff believes that um this
reduction in the setback is a
result of natural changes, um,
but not, uh, well, caused by
the owner but not caused by the
owner, if that makes sense. Uh,
and lastly, staff believes that
The proposed setback would not
alter the character of the
neighborhood, um, the, there
are similar, again, variances
that have been requested and
granted that have been
requested and granted that have
been requested and granted for
that have been requested and
granted that have been
requested and granted for um
similar distances for decks, uh,
set back at this distance, um,
and it
s important to note that
the neighbor to the west is, uh,
less than 1 ft, um, from Turtle
Lake for, for a deck. So, uh,
staff does not believe that
this request would alter the
character of The neighborhood.
On screen is just a
visualization of the um unique
circumstances that were stated,
showing the distances from the
proposed deck from 2003 on the
right hand side, uh, with a
reduced elevation of Turtle
Lake and an increased western
property line, uh, as well as,
um, the existing conditions on
the left hand side with where
Turtle Lake currently sits, uh,
where the deck. Currently is
set back from that ordinary
high water line, as well as the
reduction in the western
property line, um, and the
reduction of that. Comments, um,
staff did receive one, well, uh,
one written public comment from
uh two different homeowners
that was submitted, uh,
expressing disapproval of the
variants request, that item was
included in your packets this
evening, um, as stated, staff
did receive a comment from
engineering regarding the
importance of shore reviews
impervious surface coverage on
the uh cumulative negative
impacts of runoff towards the
body of water. Uh, and lastly,
staff received a comment from
the Race Creek Watershed
District, uh, providing
comments about their permitting
specifications and um their
notification requirements for
uh potential fill weather, uh,
any alteration to the existing
patio, uh, would be impacted
this evening. So Uh, staff
recommends that the planning
commission deny 3 variances
submitted by Robert Fried
regarding the property at 804
County Rhode I, uh, each of
which involves, uh, the patio
structure, the first being to
exceed the maximum impervious
surface coverage, the second,
uh, to allow the water-oriented
accessory structure, uh, to
encroach within the shore
impact zone. And lastly, to
reduce the water-oriented side
setback to 10 ft. Uh, however,
staff does recommend that the
planning commission adopt
Resolution 26-68, uh, proving
the 17.9 ft structure setback
for the existing deck that is
on the property, subject to the
conditions outlined in your
packets. And with that, I will
stand for questions. Thank you,
MR. Harris. Any questions, MR.
Chair Commissioner Simonson. I
guess the question is there
s a
number of variances here and
there
s a lot of. I don
t, so
the question is, if, if the
variants don
t pass, is, is the.
Is a city trying to get the hot
tub and the patio removed. So
compliance, yes, um. So the
original, um, how this all
started, I guess, um, when the
property owners had applied for
their short-term rental license.
Uh, staff had gone through and
done an inspection of the
property. Uh, they had approved
the rental license and issued
that, um, as a part of our code
enforcement and rental program,
Staff did receive a couple of
complaints from surrounding
property owners, which, as a
part of those complaints
included, um, parking issues on
that gravel patch on that
eastern portion. And so, once
we looked at that, we started
doing a little bit deeper of a
dive into the property, found
numerous other violations, and
uh actually issued the property
owners a letter both for rental
code violations and property
violations, what you are seeing
tonight is the property
violations and the request of
The homeowner to uh maintain
something that they kind of
walked into without knowing, um,
and since then, uh, the rental
code violations, uh, excluding
the parking violations have
thus been corrected. And a
follow up question is the the
parking, there
s no variance
request for that. That
s being
eliminated the, the gravel.
Parking pad, I guess, or
correct. Ok. Commissioner
Cortis, yeah, so I just, uh,
trying to understand more about
what, what happened in the rdr
with the 35.6%. So it, it in
the staff report, it talks
about how. There was a, a no
lakeside accessory structure,
period, as part of that, or, or
how was that passed as part of
the variance cause we don
t
have those, those minutes or,
or what whatever from 2003.
Yeah, so the, as a part of that
residential design review, um,
the homeowners were. They were
actually exceeding the
impervious surface coverage
again on the site, um, and a
part of that residential design
review and a request by staff
was, uh, to mitigate or to Uh,
reduce that impervious surface
coverage back to the 35.6, um,
and that was approved as a part
of that rdr. And so as part of
the, the conditions in, in that
approval was the no lakeside
accessory structures or it was
not specifically outlined
within those conditions.
However however, as a part of
all of our, um, Memos or uh rdr.
Procedures, so to speak. Um,
there is a provision in there
that states that any
significant alteration to the
property would require the
approval of the planning
commission, and with a
significant alteration such as
the addition of a lakeside.
Accessory structure, um, which
would then, again, put them
down into that 25% impervious
surface coverage. Bucket Um,
They, they violated the terms
of that rdr with that. Um,
edition. And so with with with
that rdr. Were they already
built up to the 35.6 or was it?
The ability to go up to 35.6.
Like what, what I guess changed,
I guess there
s 6% more now,
but, but, and some of that
s
the hot tub. What was the 35.6
at that time is my question. So,
If I MAY, Commissioner Cortes,
when that property went through
that residential design review
in 2003, they were, as well
stated, higher. They were at 37.
Something. I don
t recall the
number off the top of my head,
but as part of their mitigation.
To do those improvements to the
property, that is when they
brought it down to that 35.6.
So they removed some impervious
surface coverage that had been
on the property, likely prior
to our shore and regulations
changing in 1992. And so this
was a way for the city to get
them to bring it closer to
compliance. And so at that
point they were allowed to keep
35.6%, but that. As was stated,
um, did not include any
lakeside structures, so they
re
maximum at that point would
have been 30%. So they were
still above it, but they were
still reducing it to what the
property had historically held,
so the city was happy to see
that reduction. Ok, and I guess
I
m just trying to figure out
what was, what was the, at that
time, the 35. 0.6 essentially.
Like what was there when They
reached that agreement. Um, I,
the, the survey from the
original submission is shown on
screen on the right hand side,
um, I think that a lot of that
is gonna come back to, uh, a
lot of this concrete that runs
along the side and along the
rear of the home back here, um,
But the, again, uh, a, a small
portion of that too, um, could
be related to uh the change in
the ordinary high water line
too. Ok, and so. Just so I
understand what I
m looking at
then. So there
s there
s this
kind of ring of concrete around
the existing house, like a
sidewalk or something, and then
it says deck, and does that
mean above ground deck or is
that a patio ground patio at
the time, above ground deck. Ok.
I, I don
t have anything else.
Any other comments, questions?
Ok, thank you, MR. Harris.
Thank you. If the applicant is
in the audience and like to
address the commission. I
d
invite you to come up and State
your name and address for the
record. To 2 people are allowed.
Yes, it wouldn
t be the first
time. I
m Robert Fried. I live
at 49 South Deep Lake Road in
North Oaks. And this is my
daughter-in-law Allie Fried.
And you live at. Yes, I live at
6583 in Lino Lakes, Minnesota.
Um, So. My wife and I, my wife
isn
t here. She
s not feeling
well, but, um, My wife and I
have lived in the. Shoreview,
the larger Shoreview community.
Uh, since 1987. Um, Yeah, we
were. We moved away for a short
period of time and moved back.
In 1995 and uh. Uh, have lived
in North Oaks for 30 years. Um,
i
m active in the Shoreview
community. I
m a mem my wife
and I are both members of the
Rotary Club. Uh, we were active,
uh. Creating the Pollinator
garden at McCullough. Park And
um. Uh, we contribute to the
shore view. Foundation. On a
regular basis. Um, It
s been
difficult to us for us to
realize that there are a lot of
issues with this property. Um,
there were 2. Prior owners. Uh,
uh. And we don
t know. Exactly
what either uh prior owner did.
But, um, Uh Thanks to the
playing staff, we
ve come to
realize that there
s some
issues. And, and, uh, and we
ve
been working hard to try to Uh,
Come up with a plan and Uh,
perhaps we need to do, More
work in that regard, but in any
case, um. Uh, Ali, you
re gonna.
Have some opening remarks. I
ll
stay here. Answer questions. Or
to see if I go into labor, I
think. Uh, well, good evening.
My name is Allie Fried. My
father-in-law and mother-in-law
Robert and Miriam own the home
at 804 County Road I. They
purchased it nearly a year ago
in SEPTEMBER of 2025, the first
and only cabin they
ve ever
owned, a dream realized after
more than 40 years of diligent
saving. My in-laws have called
the Mounds View School District
home for decades and are both
active members of the Shoreview
and Arden Hills Rotary Club.
They
ve asked me to speak on
their behalf tonight. Thank you
for your time and genuinely
thank you, Will, for all that
you
ve put into this. 5 months
is a long time to work through
something like this, but we
ve
had a laundry list to get
through, and we felt the effort
from your side. I want to start
with something that we actually
agree with Steph on. They
ve
recommended approving the deck
variants and their reasoning
makes sense to us. The setback
problem goes back to something
nobody could control the
shoreline eroding into the slot
since 2003, not anything my
in-laws did. We
re grateful
that the planning staff saw
this clearly because it
s the
case. We think the patio
deserves the same conclusion,
and here
s why. My in-laws
didn
t build the patio. They
didn
t rebuild the deck either.
Both were already there,
exactly as can be seen now when
they bought this house last
SEPTEMBER. They walked into
this situation and didn
t
create it. And there
s a piece
of this lot
s history that
matters here too. This property
has been recognized by the city
as a substandard lot since long
before my in-laws owned it.
Just 9,896 square feet, well
under the 15,000 square foot
standard. On the lot, only 75
ft wide. That
s exactly why in
2003, this commission granted
this property additional
flexibility on impervious
coverage in the first place.
The physical constraints of
this lot aren
t something my
in-laws created. There
s
something the city itself
already recognized as unique to
this property. The stricter 25%
limit we
re asking you to look
past isn
t about preference.
It
s what happens when two code
provisions, the substandard lot
allowance, and the Lakeside
Accessories structure cap
collide on a lot this size and
shape. That collision is a
unique circumstance, and it has
nothing to do with any choice
my in-laws made. We
d ask you
to consider just how tight that
collision really is. Our
surveyor, who has been an
amazing help. His calculations
show that even if every
accessory feature on this
property were removed entirely.
The hot tub, the patio in full,
the gravel area next to the
driveway and the driveway
trimmed down to its simplest
form. This lot would still sit
at 32.5% in previous coverage.
Well above the 25% threshold.
In other words, the home itself
and the minimum access it
requires already exceed that
number before a patio even
enters the picture. That
s not
a result of how we use this
property. It
s a function of
this lot
s size in the house
that stood on it since 1972.
We
d ask the commission to
weigh whether a standard this
lot cannot reasonably meet
under any configuration is one
that should stand in the way of
a modest, substantially reduced
accessory structure. And I want
to address one phrase directly
because I don
t think it
reflects what we
re actually
asking. Staff
s recommendation
describes this as maintaining
the patio as a matter of
preference rather than a unique
circumstance. Respectfully,
we
re not asking to maintain
anything as it stands when this
home was purchased a year ago.
We
re proposing to cut the
patio nearly in half, 314
square feet down to 200. Remove
the hot tub outright and bring
total impervious surface
coverage down from 41.5 to
35.6%. The same figure this
commission approved for this
lot in 2003. A preference would
be leaving it alone. We
re
asking for the chance to shrink
it substantially and keep
what
s left. And on the
neighborhood, staff
s own
report says granting this
wouldn
t change the character
of the area and the other homes
on County Rhode already have
patios of their own. This isn
t
out of place here. And there
s
one more thing we want to
address directly because we
suspect it MAY come up tonight.
This home is a family gathering
place that also operates on a
limited basis, as a short term
rental, fully licensed and
approved by the city. Whatever
tonight
s comments touch on,
we
d ask the commission to hold
on to one distinction. These 4
variances are about the
physical dimensions of a deck
and a patio, a setback a size,
and a percentage of coverage.
None of that turns on who is
standing on the property or how
often. In fact, the three-part
test, your own staff report
lays out for tonight.
Reasonable manner, unique
circumstance, and neighborhood
character. Doesn
t ask anywhere
who occupies this home or how
often, and that
s not an
oversight. Those criteria are
about the land, not the use,
and we
d ask you to apply them
exactly as written. It is our
belief that comments about
short-term rental use tonight,
however sincere, have no
bearing on these four variances
and shouldn
t factor into your
decision. Tonight we
re asking
you to rule on the dimensions
in front of you and nothing
more. We are participating in
this process in good faith.
We
ve hired a licensed
surveying company to assist us.
We propose less and not more.
Engaging in this process has
already met real financial
costs for my in-laws, and it
will likely mean more before
this is resolved. Costs they
never expected when they bought
their first and only cabin last
year for conditions that
existed on this property long
before they ever saw it. All
we
re asking is that the
commission apply the same logic
to the patio that staff already
applied to the deck. And
approve all four variances,
including resolution 2668.
Thank you. We
re able to answer
any questions you have. Thank
you. Um, anybody have any
questions for the Freeds?
Seeing them. Thank you for your
information. Appreciate your
time. Any members of the public
that wish to come up and uh.
Everything about this property.
Anything to say? Did you get my
letter from Will? I think
Wilson is gonna be in the
packet. By chance if not I can
hand out a copy. Can you say
your name and your address so
we can know if it
s the one
that we that we received, yeah
that we that we received, yeah,
um, Brett Markard 800 Conard I.
Ok, awesome. Oh. You guys have
a difficult job, so, um. You
know, it
s funny, preparing for
this, um, Both MR. Peters, MR.
Harris have actually I met MR.
Peterson about 3 years ago and
I called him about a project on
a different house because I
believe in proactive planning,
like, hey, can I build this
addition to my house and He
informed me no. So that was my
first interaction, out with the
planning staff of Shoreview.
It
s amazing these memes are
recorded, so whoever set that
up, thank you, allow us to go
back and see the debate you
have, and I think as a
committee, it
s clearly a
healthy committee. You guys
disagree. I, you know, the, the
meeting I watched was not
unanimous, even tonight was not,
and I think that
s a great, a
great sign. Um, so the neighbor,
It
s been interesting too to
the reasonable manner, unique
circumstance, and character of
the neighborhood. And I
m just
gonna zoom in on unique
circumstance that this is not a
unique circumstance. This is a
luxury amenity. This when
someone and I talk about the
whole overall variances, I
think it
s focused and, and
focused specifically on the
patio. The patio is 10 ft from
my property line. And it
s a
luxury amenity that has
fostered large gatherings all
summer long. Hundreds of people
have moved through the property,
uh, last weekend, there was a
private bachelorette party with
a chef, uh, and dance party. Uh,
it
s great. It
s a beautiful
property. It
s a beautiful spot,
and I think the challenge for
the planning commission is, you
can
t look at us or the Fried
family. You have to look at the
overall vision of Shoreview.
Like, what does this look like
as a community, not just us as
owners now. Anything about
what
s the long-term water
quality effect? What does it
look like to prove this
structure as is. And when you
think about inheriting this, um,
it is unfortunate that the
prior owner didn
t resolve this.
It
s unfortunate in the buying
process that they didn
t sort
it out. Um. You know, we have
highly, you know, clearly,
Ali
s an incredible, they
re,
they
re great people. I do
enjoy them. Um, and it
s a good
speaker. Bob
s an attorney.
These are very sharp folks.
It
s unfortunate that this
wasn
t resolved during the
purchase process, but now. As a
member of the community of
Shoreview, who values the parks,
the lakes, all the things we
love. I really encourage you to
support the town
s
recommendations to deny the
variance request, um, as, as
proposed. Thank you. Thank you,
MR. McCardin. Anyone else
wished to address the
commission on this subject.
Seeing none, we
ll bring it
back to the commission.
Commissioner Amman. Oh, MR.
Chair, oh. So go ahead,
Commissioner Simonsonen, ok.
Yes, I, I always, uh, I know
Shoreview typically has a
complaint-driven system and,
and I always hate when. It
s
frustrating when things come to
us after the fact, and they do
have a lot of respect. For
previous planning commission
decisions and things like that,
so I have to put a different
hat on tonight, and I have to
be, put the hat on that says,
if this would have came before
me and they would have asked.
For a hot tub for a patio. Uh,
would I be inclined To support
it and, and, you know, at the
same time we
ve had a lot of
discussions. Our, our goal is
to try and preserve the
character of the lake to
preserve the setback, the
drainages, and, and a lot of
these things go against a lot
of the things we
ve been trying
to do, at least I
ve been
trying to do when I
ve been on
the planning commission, um.
It
s a very uh small lot. Um,
there
s not really a lot of
space between the house and the
lake. Um, so when you start
talking about drainage. Uh, the
chance for the water to to not
go into the lake. There
s not
much of an opportunity. Um, so
from a standpoint of um. When I
first looked at this, I, I was,
I was kind of disappointed, you
know, that some of these things
went in there, the patio, the
hot tub, but yet at the same
time when I look at this, I
think. You can just, you know,
people that are on the lakes,
they wanna sit towards the
lakeside. It kind of common
sense patio makes sense, but
you also have a deck, so you do
have the, the, a, a, a way to
actually uh look at the lake, I
guess if if you
re on the deck.
And, and so basically when I
look at this, I
m, I
m having a
hard time supporting, um, the
variances and agreeing with, I
tend to agree with staff that
in a way, I think in a perfect
world, the nonconformity would
be removed and I, I just don
t
support the Bavariances, the 3
of the 4 variances I do support
the deck variants, as staff
said. MR. Anderson, all right,
thank you, uh, Chair John. I,
I
ll just weigh in with my two
cents on this too. I
m kind of
probably along the same lines
as Commissioner Solomonson, you
know, when you think about
unique circumstances, it
s,
it
s not created by a property
owner, right? And, and although
I
ve huge sympathy for the fact
that you didn
t create this
unique circumstances. It It was
they were created by the by a
property owner, right? So,
That
s kind of the conundrum
here. Um um. Uh Yeah, I do
recognize and appreciate, uh,
the point that there is really
no effective way to get this to
25%, and I don
t think that was,
uh, the spirit of the intent or
even, even the mandate of the
previous planning commission
decision to allow for 35%
because it was recognized that
is probably a number that needs
to exist on this property to
allow for a driveway and house
and, and things on a smaller
nature or uh to accommodate a
smaller, a smaller lot, I
should say, um. So to me, uh,
you know, getting it back to
that 35% is reasonable. I think
the problem that I have is
there is a bit of a, there
s a
preference in where that. Uh,
impervious surface lies, um.
Previously, it was not Lakeside,
now it
s Lakeside. We
ve heard
from uh a city engineer or or
uh. I think it was a city
engineer that had had spoken to
impervious runoff Lakeside, and,
and that, that, that does make
a difference, and, and we are
sensitive to that, um. I, I
will say also that the, the
short term rental, uh, is
irrelevant to me. It
s, I
ve
been up here long enough and
heard enough of this, uh, these
type of proceedings that uh
please know that that doesn
t
really weigh into any of our
decisions in regards to what
s
before us tonight. Um, with all
of that said, I, you know, I
again, I come, I come back to
that, uh, not created by a
property owner and, and I just
don
t see how, although I
appreciate it and, and again,
I
m very pathetic and, and, uh,
feel bad for the situation. I
can only imagine how
frustrating it is to buy into
something, come to find out
after the fact that there
s a
problem there and then it has
to be rectified. We
ve had
Permitting issues come before
us when there are existing
homeowners that don
t do things
properly and that
s hard enough.
And so I am, I, I do apologize
for the situation that you
re
in, but that being said, Uh,
that unique circumstance is
kind of, it
s one of the three
pillars, and we have to be, in
my opinion, very, uh, very true
to it, and so for those reasons,
I would support the staff
s
recommendations as a precedent
tonight. MR. Cortis. So I, I
guess I
m just. Curious, you
know, uh, they. Staff, they,
they, you know, they
ve come
and said if we get rid of
everything and tear up, we
still aren
t going to be at
that 30%. Coverage. And nowhere
near 25. I mean, if we pass 25%
is it seems like 25 with
lakeside access and 30% with no
leg side accessory structure. I
mean, what else are they
tearing up or are those numbers
wrong? Where are we kind of,
what? I mean, what
s the result
of Of that based on what
they
re telling us versus
what
s in the, the
recommendations from staff. Uh,
So just to clarify, with the
removal of the lakeside
accessory structure, uh, they
would be subject to the
Previously approved impervious
surface coverage percentage
from 2003. So they would be
required to, or they would be
held to that because that
structure is no longer present
on the property. What is that,
the patio and the hot tub? Or
just the hot tub. Both. So if
we do the 25%, they have to
tear out the the entire patio.
No, so the With the
introduction of a lakeside
accessory structure that puts
them at the 25%. So Because
they
re already present. They
would need a variance. Because
they
re asking for an
additional 10.% above that 25%.
So if they get rid of those.
Then they
re going to be put
back into that category that
they were already approved at
in 2003, and they
re going to
be subject to the 35.6%. Ok, so
the, the staff
s recommendation
is essentially they, they have
to tear out the entirety of the
patio, and I think the hot
tub
s gone either either way,
but Is that correct? Yes, ok.
Commissioner Halligan. When you
buy a lake property, you want
to be able to enjoy the lake. I
would want to enjoy the lake.
I
m ok with having a patio. And
I think they made a good faith
effort to comply. Somebody else.
Ok. Fisher West, I
ll get my 2
cents. Um, I concur with what
Commissioner Anderson and MR.
Commissioner Sullivan said, um,
Not a good result, but sounds
like people are intelligent
enough, they should have known
better to check these types of
things. Um, if you
re going to
be a homeowner, you need to be
the respon do the
responsibility of a homeowner.
Um, so I would go with the
staff
s report recommendations.
Just say I concur with Steph.
So thank you. Do we have a
motion then. I
ll move. Mission
West Ead. Let me get my right
screen here. All right. Uh, do
you want us to do these all as
one with the. As presented in
the packet. Or do you want us
to split the denial and the
approval. That
s a good
question, um, MR. Chair and
Commissioner Wested, um, I
think we can go ahead and try
it as stated, and, and if
that
s not confusing, we can
move forward with that if it
s
confusing, we can break them up
if that makes sense, but let
s
try that first. Great, thank
you. I would actually kind of
request we break them up.
Because I have different votes
for them. I think that
s fine
too as long as it
s clear what
we
re voting on, you can, we
can split them up. Ok. So I
will. Move to deny the
following 3 variants submitted
by Robert Fried regarding the
property at 804 County Road I,
each to maintain a patio,
water-oriented sex accessory
structure, one variants to
development code section
115-155b3a2 to exceed the
allowed impervious surface of
25% to variants to the
development code section
115-149. See a water, a
water-oriented accessory
structure MAY exist between the
ordinary high water and the
required structure setback so
long as it does not encroach
into the shore impact zone, 25
ft from the ordinary high water
line, the existing patio is
within the shore impact zone,
and 3 variants to development
code 115-149c3d, the patio has
a side setback that is 10 ft ft
rather than 20 required for.
The water-oriented structure.
This action is based on the
finding that practical
difficulty is not present. The
patio was not lawfully
established by the previous
owner, thereby making it an
illegal nonconforming, and the
desire to maintain the patio at
its current size and location,
a matter of preference rather
than a unique circumstance.
It
s been moved. It
s been
moved in 2nd, Commissioner
Cortis. Yeah, since I, I didn
t,
I asked some questions, but I
didn
t give my two cents. Um,
I
m, I
m in support of
everything other than the uh
impervious surface request here
and, and having them narrow the
patio down. I, I think that
s
reasonable, um, looking at what
was improved, approved in 2003,
it did, you know, there is a, a
portion of that concrete that
is in the back, that is there,
uh, and counts as impervious
surface underneath there, going
around the house, uh. And you
know, if the only difference
between that 35% and what we
re
looking at today is some of the
concrete in the front and side
of the house being shifted
proportionally to a bigger
driveway and to the um patio
deck. I, I think it
s
disingenuous of us to say that
that portion in the back
doesn
t get to count anymore,
and that they have to entirely
remove something in the back
when a prior commission
approved up to 35.6%. So I
think we
re kind of Splitting
some hairs here by saying you
could have had that, but you
can
t have. A portion of your
deck back there. So that
s why
I will vote against that one,
but in favor of the others.
Thank you, MS. Hill. You had
something that MR. Harris. Uh,
yes, just to clarify, um, the,
the image shown on screen on
the right hand side. Those were
the existing conditions prior
to the mitigation affidavit. So
the impervious surface coverage
that existed at the time of
that survey along. The southern
portion of the existing home,
the, uh, left-hand side of the
existing home, that concrete
path that was removed as a part
of that mitigation affidavit.
So, um, The 35.6% approved
coverage, um, That does not
include what is shown on screen
on the right-hand side. Ok,
then I still don
t get how we
get to your math. Like I, I. I
mean they made the, the, the
current house makes the
driveway bigger, and the patio.
I don
t get how you get down to
25%. Even with that, based upon
this. Can
t. You can
t. I mean,
I, I mean, That
s the problem
is like, I mean, then you also
are saying they have to take
out a portion of their driveway
and that side piece, correct? I
mean, this is the, the math
part I can
t get to the
regulation is made to help
protect the lakeside property
and to protect. Just scale of
development on a property. So
the 25% impervious surface
coverage is meant to scale to
the size of a property. And as
was mentioned. This property is
smaller. What is there now is
scaled larger, so even if they
were to remove, you know, put
the driveway down
proportionally. It was
mentioned that they could get
down to 32%. The 25% MAY not be.
A realistic goal just based on
what is on the property and
what the size of the property
is, but that doesn
t change
what our regulations are and
what they
re meant to protect
either, but that is why they
re
going through the variance
process so you can. See if that
meets that unique definition.
Unique circumstances definition
or not, but it, it could be
that they reasonably can
t get
to 25%, but is what they
re
doing enough and are there
reasons unique enough? That
s
up for the commission to
determine, right, but I mean,
my problem is I don
t see how
they even get to the 30%.
Permitted. That
s, that
s the
math I don
t understand here is,
if I MAY, they don
t get there,
so like for example, so. If
you
re looking at the existing
right now on the left-hand side,
if you take away the patio and
the hot tub pieces, you
ll be
at that 36.5, which is what was
allowed in 2003. Because those
items were added without the
approval, they went over. So
what we
re trying to do is get
back to that 2003 approval, um,
Because that is what was given
because of the realization of
the planning commission at that
time, that 25% just wasn
t
feasible. So we
re trying,
we
re asking, we
re essentially
saying here they need to go
back to that 36, whatever, um,
amount. Sure, John, Ahmad, we
had a motion and we had a
second. Do we have a second? We
should edit his comment. I
think we Go to vote, MR. Chair,
who had the second just for
clarification, it was confusing
who, who did the second?
Solomon I did. You took me as a
second, ok, because you quickly
went to course that
s why I
wasn
t sure. Ok, you scared me
by saying that. Ok, I wanted to
make sure I was. I wanted to
make sure I was the 2nd. You
were the 2nd. Yes, thank you.
And, and MR. Chair, 00, I
ll
just. No more comments, ok.
Emotion in front of us is to
deny those three variances that
up right now Chair John, I
asked for a roll call vote on
that. Let
s do it. Roll call.
Please. Commissioner Ahmedabad.
Uh, Aye. Or Point, point of
order. Are we doing these by
individual 12, and 3. No that
was on the table. The motion is
all three of those. Items. Ok.
Commissioner Anderson. I
Commissioner Cortes.
Commissioner Helgen? No.
Commissioner Solomonson.
Commissioner West. Chair John.
I So motion passes 5 to 2. So
we still are sitting on one
last motion, Commissioner
Weston, thank you. I
d like to
move to adopt resolution 2668
approving the 17.9 ft structure
setback submitted by Robert
Fried at 804 County Road, I
West for the existing deck set
back on the property. Se
approval is subject to the 4
conditions listed in the staff
report. Second, it has been
moved and seconded. Any further
discussion on this motion.
Commissioner Hogan. This allows
the deck to remain, correct?
Yes, that
s. That
s the intent.
Seeing no other discussion. All
those in favor, well, let
s
just do a roll since we did it.
Commissioner Ahmedabad,
Commissioner Anderson,
Commissioner Cordes,
Commissioner Helgen.
Commissioner Solomonson
Commissioner West. And Cher
John. I Motion carries 70.
Again, decisions, uh, variances
are final decisions through the
planning commission, but there
is a Appeal process to the city
council within 5 business days
if you wish to appeal our
decision. Thank you. So that.
Um, if you wouldn
t mind just
staying after and addressing
with staff on that. And we
ll
just uh finish up the meeting
and then go from there. So that
takes us to item 8 on the
agenda, city. I lost my spot,
sorry. City councilor. Oh,
calendar assignments, any um
commissioners resigned or
anything like that? Anything
you want to share? I was gonna
wait till miscellaneous for
that 10, ok, sorry, I stepped
on your touchdown call. Um, But
for the city council
assignments, um, SEPTEMBER 8th,
which would be a Tuesday, would
be Commissioner Solomonson. So
if there were any appeals to
the variances. Um, It would
either be the 8th or the 21st,
which would be you, um, Chair
John, we will follow up
accordingly depending on
notification period on what,
which one we can hit if there
is an appeal. Ok. And then, yes,
they
re um. Under miscellaneous,
we do have a commissioner who
is resigning because they
re
moving out of Shoreview, so
this is their last meeting. And
so what I do want to take a
moment to recognize
Commissioner Anderson and thank
him for his 8 years of service
on the planning commission. He,
um, has been a thoughtful,
steady, and incredibly valuable
member of this commission, and
he has always brought a calm
perspective to discussions, as
thoughtful questions, and
genuinely cared about making
sure of you a great place. His
guidance through the
comprehensive planning process.
Previously, in particular, was
greatly appreciated and we will
MISS Him during this upcoming
round. But we are excited for
you in your next chapter and
You know, hopefully you do make
that curtain call back. Yeah, I
appreciate that. Uh, if I MAY,
yeah, so, uh, having spent 27
years of my life in this
community, I grew up here, uh,
as I like to say, and I
ve said
many times, played in the woods.
That are now the city, city
hall and the, and the wonderful
park we have over there, uh,
probably a lot more engaging
than the woods that I played in,
uh, with whatever kind of forts
we made up back in the day, um,
just really appreciate, uh, the
professionalism of city staff.
I mean, I think. You come to,
um, take it for granted maybe
sometimes, but you know, if you,
if you ever have a chance, and
I know we
ve got commissioners
that have served in other
cities too, um, take a look at
some other cities proceeding
sometime and just how, how
things are handled and just uh
the, the, again, the, the level
of detail and, and just skill
that we have, uh, working
within our city here. I really
appreciate all that you guys
have done over the years that
I
ve been on the uh on the
commission and the challenge
that I had was I said, you know,
obviously, uh, I think. One of
the, one of the best parts of
being on the planning
commission is going through
that comp plan process, uh,
Commissioner Solomonson
s been
through. This will be the 4th,
3rd, ok 10 years, yep, not
quite that far yet. You
re, uh,
uh, I apologize for, uh,
leaving you as the, the, the
sole, um. A person that
s been
through that process before,
but that is the, yeah, I really
do think that
s the fun of
being on this commission is
really getting to have a say in
what this, what this great city
looks like in the future, and
Um, I, I will MISS Being a part
of that process. I always
really look forward, looking
forward to it, um.
Unfortunately, uh, something
came up that, uh, you could say
doom scrolling, uh, real estate
sites as a negative consequence
to. Uh, sometimes, and this is
where I
m, I
m feeling that,
and um by the time the next
Meeting worlds around, I will
no longer be a Shoreview
resident, so I
ve got to step
away and let the next great
person sit up here and I, I
thank all of you for your, uh,
for your service, and it
s been
fun to kind of see the, the
commission grow and change over
the years, and I think uh I
m
walking away with it, with the,
with it in good hands, feeling
that uh that I can come back
and retire in place or uh not
retire in place, uh, what
s our,
what
s our term that we we
ve
used uh agent place.
Commissioner Doan we will
appreciate that. He
s always a
champion for the agent place,
so or not commissioner, city
council member, Don, but
anyways, thank you for all that
you
ve done, and I, uh, it
s
been a pleasure to serve. I
just wanna say one of the
greatest challenges I have
sitting in this chair is who I
followed. I think she did a
really good job. Chairing the
commission and it
s been hard
to live up to that. Not to get
too emotional or anything like
that, but you
re doing a fine
job. I appreciate that. Anybody
else have any comments,
questions? Ok. So that brings
us to The end of the meeting.
Commissioner Westted, we
adjourn at 9:21 P.M. Second,
it
s been moved in 2nd, all in
favor, say aye. Both same sign.
Unanimous, we are adjourned.
Congratulations. Where are you
moving? Uh, you spell. That
s
far away. It
s a little ways
away. It
s a long commute.
Where, whereabouts? And stuff,