[0:02] the AUGUST 25th, 2026,
[0:03] Shoreview Planning Commission
[0:03] meeting. I
[0:04] m Craig John. I am
[0:04] the chair of the planning
[0:07] commission. Please note that
[0:08] the meeting is streaming live
[0:09] on the city
[0:10] s website as well
[0:14] as broadcast on tv Channel 16.
[0:16] Applicants will be, um, and
[0:17] members of the public will be
[0:20] able to Testify in person
[0:21] during the appropriate agenda
[0:23] item. The first item tonight is
[0:26] roll call. I will note that
[0:27] Commissioner Helgen is not
[0:30] present at this time. So 6 of 7
[0:35] commissioners are here today.
[0:35] So let
[0:36] s move on to the
[0:38] approval of the agenda. Um, in
[0:40] case someone in our audience
[0:41] does not have a copy of our
[0:43] agenda. We have 3 items of new
[0:45] business tonight. We have a
[0:48] fence height variance request
[0:49] for 675 Sunset Court by Mark
[0:51] Palmquist. We have a
[0:53] residential design review and
[0:54] variance requests for 559
[0:57] Harbor Court. By 580 Shoreview
[1:01] llc. We also have a variance
[1:03] request for 804 Connie Road, I
[1:05] West by Robert Fried. Are there
[1:07] any changes to the agenda? MR.
[1:09] Chair. Monsieur Simonson, I
[1:10] d
[1:11] like to make a motion to
[1:14] approve the agenda for AUGUST
[1:16] 22nd as presented been moved in
[1:18] 2nd. All those in favor say aye.
[1:21] Aye, the same side. We have
[1:24] unanimous. Approval of the
[1:26] agenda. So let
[1:28] s move on to the
[1:30] minutes from the JULY 28th,
[1:33] 2026 Planning commission. Does
[1:34] any commissioner wish to
[1:35] recommend changes to the
[1:42] minutes? Commission arrested. I
[1:43] move to approve the minutes as
[1:46] presented. So moved 2nd, it
[1:47] s
[1:49] been moved in 2nd. All those in
[1:52] favor say aye, aye aye the same
[1:56] sign once again unanimous. Ok.
[1:58] Item 5, report on city council
[2:02] action. Redevelopment director,
[2:03] assistant Community Development
[2:04] Director Nikki Hill, would you
[2:05] please report on city council
[2:06] s
[2:07] action that has affected the
[2:09] commission this past month.
[2:11] Thank you, chair. I thought
[2:12] AUGUST 17th City Council
[2:14] meeting, the Chipotle
[2:17] Comprehensive Sign Plan at 3333
[2:18] Rice Street was approved and
[2:21] that was the only action. I bet.
[2:23] Thank you. Thank you, MS. Hill.
[2:26] All right. So before we start
[2:27] our items of new business, I
[2:27] m
[2:29] just gonna provide a brief
[2:30] description of our meeting
[2:33] process. For 3 items of
[2:35] business tonight. Staff will
[2:36] first give a presentation at
[2:37] the conclusion of the
[2:39] presentation. The commission
[2:40] will be able to ask staff
[2:43] questions. Then we will ask for
[2:45] the Applicant to come up and
[2:49] make comments. And the
[2:51] commission will then ask
[2:52] questions of the applicant, and
[2:54] then we will have the any
[2:55] members of the public that wish
[2:56] to speak on that particular
[3:00] item to come up. After hearing
[3:01] all your comments and
[3:02] responding to our questions, we
[3:03] will bring it back to the
[3:07] commission to Debrief and
[3:09] Together a proposal. For
[3:10] applicants and the public
[3:11] whenever making a comment, it
[3:12] is important that you step up
[3:14] to the mic to be heard over the
[3:18] recording? We ask that you give
[3:20] your full name and your address
[3:22] for the record, and we ask that
[3:23] you be concise and stay on
[3:26] topic. If you need to use the
[3:28] screen, you can do so. There
[3:28] s
[3:29] a mouse located right next to
[3:30] the computer. We prefer you do
[3:32] that rather than turning point
[3:36] away from the microphone. Um,
[3:37] Please direct all your comments
[3:38] and questions to the planning
[3:39] commission as a general rule,
[3:39] we don
[3:41] t want to give into back
[3:45] in. 4th debates. We also only
[3:47] allow one time to testify. We
[3:47] don
[3:50] t want. Multiple hearing
[3:51] the same thing over and over
[3:54] again. I will note that
[3:56] decisions on variances in
[3:57] residential design reviews, our
[3:58] final decisions by the planning
[3:59] commission, this won
[4:00] t move on
[4:02] to the city council. So with
[4:03] that, let
[4:04] s move on to new
[4:06] business. Item 78 is a fence,
[4:08] height variance request by Mark
[4:11] Palmquist. The location is 675
[4:13] Sunset Court and Associate Pass
[4:14] uh planner, Will Harris, you
[4:15] have the presentation. Uh,
[4:19] thank you, Chair John. One item
[4:21] of clarification, uh, the city
[4:25] had noticed for a variance
[4:26] request at 5803 Churchill, uh,
[4:28] for a driveway width variants,
[4:29] if any of the members of the
[4:31] public are here to speak on
[4:33] behalf of that, that
[4:34] application was pulled, uh,
[4:35] after the notice had already
[4:38] been sent out, so I just wanted
[4:39] to provide clarification if
[4:39] anybody was here to speak on
[4:43] behalf of that. And with that,
[4:45] I will get into the request for
[4:48] 675 Sunset Court. As stated,
[4:51] this is a fence height variance
[4:54] request, uh, for the location
[4:55] on the north side of the
[4:58] property. Uh, which is located
[5:02] along a city right of way
[5:03] easement orienting ourselves,
[5:04] uh, the property is going to be
[5:07] located on the eastern side of
[5:09] Turtle Lake, uh, with access
[5:13] off of Sunset Court, um, with,
[5:16] uh, the northernmost. Portion
[5:20] of the property also having um
[5:23] or a budding, uh, a city right
[5:25] of way easement that uh is
[5:29] currently undeveloped. The
[5:32] property is located within the
[5:34] r1 zoning district. Um, it is a
[5:35] substandard riparian lot due to
[5:39] the lot width of 36.65 ft along
[5:40] Sunset Court, as you can see
[5:44] here. In the lower corner of
[5:49] the property. The total lot
[5:50] area is 43,221 square feet with
[5:53] an additional width of 83.69 ft
[5:58] long Turtle Lake. The home was
[6:02] constructed in 2019. Uh, it is
[6:05] 3,772 total square feet with an
[6:06] attached garage, um, and as a
[6:07] part of that development, it
[6:09] did go through a residential
[6:11] design review and variance
[6:17] request in 2017. Um, That uh
[6:20] variance was approved for a
[6:21] lakeside setback variants, uh,
[6:23] due to the unique lot shape of
[6:29] the property. Uh, the variance
[6:31] request and the staff report
[6:37] that was attached, noted that
[6:38] uh the setback averaging
[6:42] requirements for the two
[6:44] adjacent properties included
[6:45] this standard non-riparian lot
[6:48] that is located to the east of
[6:50] the property, and therefore the
[6:52] setback range for the front
[6:53] setback would have been at
[6:57] about 135. 150 ft, thus
[7:01] locating the home. Up in this
[7:04] uh northern corner. Um, and
[7:06] thus would have required a
[7:08] setback variance from the
[7:10] lakeside setback. So it was a
[7:11] pick your poison moment between
[7:12] the, the front and the lake
[7:14] side, uh, ultimately the
[7:15] homeowners did decide to go
[7:16] with the lakeside variants,
[7:17] which was approved by the
[7:23] planning commission. As stated,
[7:25] uh, the lot does border, uh, a
[7:27] city right of way easement
[7:29] located on that northern side,
[7:30] a little bit of history with
[7:34] that, uh, this easement is, uh,
[7:35] commonly known as Dome
[7:36] s Alley.
[7:38] Uh, it was originally platted
[7:41] back in 1916 with a width of
[7:44] 15.5 ft. Um, the city
[7:46] previously had been maintaining
[7:48] and plowing this area, um, but
[7:49] during the preparation of this
[7:50] report, Uh, the streets
[7:52] department and the public works
[7:53] department of the city
[7:56] uncovered a resolution that was
[8:00] passed in 2001, um, which
[8:04] affected the western 450 ft of
[8:04] this alleyway along this side
[8:08] here. So this resolution was
[8:09] authorized by the property
[8:15] owners of Uh. The northern
[8:17] property here and two of the
[8:18] properties up here we
[8:19] ll get
[8:20] into the specific addresses a
[8:22] little bit later for the
[8:24] visuals, but, um, it
[8:25] s 50/59
[8:27] Alameda, 690 Burch Lane South
[8:30] and 688 Birch Lane South, um,
[8:32] had signed a shared access
[8:33] agreement to maintain this
[8:35] portion of the alleyway,
[8:36] including street repairs and
[8:39] street plowing. So, uh, this
[8:40] was done in exchange for the
[8:42] right to use the alleyway for
[8:44] ingress and egress to some de
[8:45] Attached garages that are
[8:47] located on the southern sides
[8:50] of those properties. Uh, moving
[8:52] forward, the city public works
[8:53] superintendent stated that the
[8:55] residents in this area had been
[8:56] receiving technically free
[8:58] plowing based off of that 2001
[9:02] agreement, um, and so the, the
[9:06] city moving forward, um, will
[9:07] be deferring maintenance to
[9:08] those property owners and no
[9:10] longer be maintaining that area
[9:13] moving forward. So, ultimately,
[9:14] that stretch of Dome
[9:15] s alley is
[9:16] going to be maintained by those
[9:17] property owners and not the
[9:24] city. The remaining homes along
[9:25] Birch and Sunset to the north
[9:33] up here. Um, use this, uh, Lot
[9:36] b or the uh eastern side of
[9:36] Dome
[9:37] s Alley for kind of a a
[9:39] rear yard area as you
[9:41] standardly would. Um, there
[9:42] s
[9:42] accessory structures and
[9:44] landscaping areas that are in
[9:47] close proximity to it, so, um,
[9:49] if this were to be developed at
[9:51] a future date into a city right
[9:55] of way, um. The, the, the width
[9:59] of the The easement and uh some
[10:00] serious impacts to those
[10:03] homeowners would need to be um
[10:05] considered if that were to take
[10:08] place, but since 1916, there
[10:10] has been no thought of
[10:12] development past that 450 ft
[10:13] from the agreement that was
[10:17] previously noted. So the
[10:19] proposal from the applicant, uh,
[10:22] is to construct a 4-foot fence
[10:24] along a portion of the property
[10:26] and a six-foot fence along that
[10:28] northernmost property that does
[10:29] abut the city right of way
[10:31] easement. Currently there is no
[10:34] fence in that area. Um, however,
[10:36] the 4-foot fence of section of
[10:38] fence could be approved
[10:40] administratively and a 4-foot
[10:42] fence could be approved
[10:42] administratively in the
[10:44] proposed location of the
[10:45] six-foot fence. Um, however,
[10:50] due to Section 10765 subsection
[10:55] d 7b1. Uh, any fence that is in
[10:57] any yard adjacent to a public
[10:59] road right of way or road
[11:00] easement MAY not exceed that 4
[11:04] ft height. And so, as you can
[11:06] see on the screen here, uh,
[11:08] this gives a nice visual of
[11:10] what the applicant is looking
[11:12] for, uh, the area in yellow
[11:15] here is going to be, um, Where
[11:16] they
[11:17] re proposing the 4 ft
[11:19] fence and the 6 ft fence is
[11:21] going to be as stated, located
[11:22] along that easement on the
[11:23] northernmost portion of the
[11:29] property. The variance criteria
[11:30] must meet the three following
[11:32] items, it must be requested in
[11:36] a reasonable manner. Uh, the
[11:38] unique circumstance is, uh, the
[11:39] property, the plate of the
[11:41] property is due to the
[11:42] circumstances that are unique,
[11:45] not created by the homeowner,
[11:46] uh, and the request must
[11:47] maintain the character of the
[11:51] neighborhood. Staff believes
[11:53] that a practical difficulty is
[11:55] present for this request, um,
[11:57] 6-foot fences are permitted
[11:58] within the r1 residential area,
[12:02] um, And the, the applicant
[12:02] s
[12:05] desire to have a fence in that
[12:06] location is a reasonable
[12:08] request, um, staff believes
[12:11] that the owner faces a unique
[12:12] circumstance in this situation.
[12:15] Uh, the unutilized easement
[12:17] does create, uh, that unique
[12:18] circumstance that inhibits the
[12:20] owner from constructing that 6
[12:22] ft fence, uh, that would
[12:23] otherwise be allowed, uh, in
[12:24] this proposed location, should
[12:27] the easement not be located
[12:28] there, um, and the, the
[12:30] variants, if granted, would not
[12:32] alter the the character of the
[12:33] neighborhood, uh, again, as
[12:36] stated, a 4 ft fence could be
[12:38] approved administratively, um,
[12:40] but the, due to the location of
[12:43] the 6 ft fence being uh uh
[12:47] nearly 200 ft from Sunset Court,
[12:49] um, and about 200 ft from
[12:50] Alameda Street, uh, it wouldn
[12:51] t
[12:52] really negatively impact the
[12:53] neighborhood because it would
[12:55] be very hidden from other
[12:58] surrounding properties as well.
[13:01] Uh, staff sent notice to
[13:02] property owners within 100 ft
[13:05] or 150 ft of the property. Uh,
[13:07] one comment was, uh, received
[13:08] in opposition, and that comment
[13:09] was included in your packets
[13:13] this evening. Uh, but
[13:14] ultimately, staff does
[13:18] recommend that the planning
[13:19] commission adopt Resolution
[13:21] 26-66, uh, approving the
[13:23] variant submitted by Mark
[13:25] Palmquist for the 6 ft privacy
[13:27] fence that abuts a city right
[13:29] of way, easement subject to the
[13:30] conditions outlined in the
[13:32] resolution. And with that, I
[13:33] will stand for questions. Thank
[13:35] you, MR. Harris, commissioners.
[13:36] What
[13:37] s your Ahmadvan? Things.
[13:39] So, When I
[13:40] m looking at the
[13:42] picture with the orange outline
[13:46] of the property. Um, yeah, that,
[13:52] that one works. So, Alameda
[13:54] Avenue or Alameda Street behind
[13:55] it there comes down and then
[14:00] that turns into the. Future Uh,
[14:02] shared alleyway, essentially.
[14:06] Correct. So Alameda Street, uh,
[14:08] provides access to, um, there
[14:08] s
[14:10] 3 homes that are located. Let
[14:10] s
[14:15] go back to the aerial. So
[14:16] Alameda Street provides access
[14:22] to um, About 3 to 4 homes if
[14:23] you count 1559, even though
[14:25] that one is technically one of
[14:28] those homes that had signed the
[14:30] maintenance agreement, um, and
[14:32] then that small portion. Right
[14:37] here. That starts going
[14:38] eastward off of Alameda, that
[14:39] is the alleyway that
[14:39] s in
[14:40] question. And in those houses
[14:44] there. Their driveways come out
[14:46] to that alleyway. Yes, so there
[14:55] are. 3 Properties. Um She had a
[14:57] better visual of it, but yes,
[14:59] there are 3 properties, 2 of
[15:00] which that are along Birch Lane
[15:04] South here. That have rear
[15:07] garages. That receive access
[15:08] off of that alleyway. Do we
[15:12] know if Their driveways go out
[15:15] to Birch Street by chance or no,
[15:16] just out of curiosity, like a
[15:17] like a like a pass through, if
[15:21] you will, driveway. Um, all the
[15:23] way through the property, um,
[15:25] that I do not believe so, no.
[15:26] Um, however, I
[15:27] m not sure if
[15:29] they have an additional front
[15:31] facing garage where they can
[15:33] have access off of birch and
[15:33] off of Dome
[15:37] s alleyway. Thanks.
[15:38] Richard Simonson, MR. Chair, uh,
[15:42] I guess the question I have is,
[15:42] uh, with Don
[15:45] s Alley, the 450
[15:47] ft in terms of the proximity of
[15:48] the drawing where the forefoo
[15:51] and the 6 ft fence are being
[15:53] proposed. How far does that go,
[15:55] right? 450 ft that you were
[15:57] talking about earlier, how many
[15:58] does it go basically to the
[16:01] edge of the 6 ft fence, the
[16:04] corner of the property. Uh, yes,
[16:07] um, that alleyway is gonna
[16:09] extend to right about um. I
[16:11] would say it would probably be
[16:14] like 15 ft. In of where that 6
[16:16] ft fence is proposed, so just
[16:19] slightly in there, um. But it
[16:19] s,
[16:24] it is not going to be the, the
[16:26] alleyway does not extend, um,
[16:27] all the way to the edge of
[16:29] where the 6 ft fence is
[16:30] proposed on the eastern side.
[16:32] And then, then could you
[16:33] comment some more about the
[16:35] snow removal, right, so the
[16:35] part that the city
[16:36] s not going
[16:39] to be removing is the 450 ft,
[16:40] but were they actually
[16:41] maintaining the alleyway. So
[16:44] the, the city had been, uh, the
[16:45] public works department had
[16:46] been maintaining and plowing
[16:49] this area, um, and And after
[16:51] speaking with our public works
[16:54] director, uh, about some
[16:56] concerns with putting a fence
[16:59] along such a small portion of
[17:01] Ali, um, and some potential
[17:03] liability that the city would
[17:05] have with plowing in that area
[17:09] and whatnot. Um, there was some
[17:10] comments made about that, but,
[17:15] um, The, the city engineer was
[17:18] the one who uh originally was
[17:20] sent this document by the
[17:22] Public works superintendent, um,
[17:24] that just states that the city
[17:26] is not responsible for the snow
[17:29] maintenance for this area, so,
[17:31] um, that it, it takes liability
[17:33] away from the city to
[17:35] potentially damage uh a fence
[17:38] in this location, um, and that,
[17:40] uh, potential is now kind of
[17:41] the onus is placed along for
[17:42] those homeowners I guess I
[17:43] m
[17:44] saying the whole alleyway all
[17:48] the way out to the east is not
[17:49] gonna be correct the alleyway,
[17:49] Don
[17:51] s alley is not gonna be
[17:53] plowed by the city, the whole
[17:56] thing, ok. And are there any
[17:56] other fences in Don
[17:58] s alley?
[18:02] Currently. Um, to my knowledge,
[18:07] no. Um. The, I do not believe
[18:14] that, um. 50, 59 has won, um.
[18:16] And I do not believe because of
[18:18] the access that these
[18:19] properties receive off of the
[18:24] alleyway on the backside that
[18:26] um either 690 or 688 have an
[18:29] offense, um, but I, that might
[18:30] be a question for the homeowner
[18:33] as well to see if um there are
[18:34] any adjacent fences in the, in
[18:38] the area. Ok, thanks, MR.
[18:39] Anderson, Chair, thank you. Um,
[18:41] just a couple of questions if I
[18:43] might, just for clarification
[18:46] purposes, the, the Jones Alley
[18:47] ends effectively the paved
[18:50] service ends. Um, where we see
[18:53] the kind of. South to north
[18:54] jutting right there, correct?
[18:55] So the easement continues, but
[18:59] there is no. Improved Ali per
[19:00] se past that point. And then if
[19:01] you could just so everybody
[19:01] s
[19:03] on the same page here, if you
[19:06] could speak to uh fence
[19:06] placement requirements along
[19:08] property lines, just in general,
[19:10] and if they differ at all from
[19:12] Being along an easement. Uh,
[19:14] they would not. Um, the fence
[19:17] needs to be located wholly
[19:18] within the homeowner
[19:18] s property
[19:21] lines, um, and that would be
[19:23] inspected by city staff after
[19:24] the permit and installation had
[19:29] taken place. Thank you. Any
[19:32] other questions? Thank you, MR.
[19:35] Harris. Thank you. And if the
[19:35] uh property owner or applicant
[19:36] is in the audience if they
[19:36] d
[19:38] like to come up and address the
[19:40] commission. Please remember to
[19:42] state your name and address.
[19:50] Once again. My name is, uh,
[19:52] Mark Palmquist and reside at
[19:56] 675 Sunset Court. Um, That.
[19:57] Application variants. I don
[19:57] t
[20:02] have a lot to add to it, um,
[20:03] just outside of um the, the
[20:04] facts of what we
[20:05] ve experienced.
[20:05] We
[20:06] ve lived there about a year
[20:10] and a half. We had multiple, uh,
[20:15] both, uh, couriers, um, and.
[20:15] We
[20:16] re assuming personal
[20:16] vehicles that when they come up
[20:20] to the end of the. Alleyway. Um,
[20:22] then they pull into our yard,
[20:23] turn around, and then go back
[20:26] out. And we
[20:28] ve even had two
[20:30] circumstances of vehicles
[20:31] actually driving all the way
[20:32] across our yard to go to Sunset
[20:38] Court. And we have multiple, uh,
[20:39] e-bikes, bicycles that come
[20:42] across, um. And I should
[20:42] mention we
[20:44] ve had to replace
[20:46] multiple sprinkler heads as a
[20:47] result of the turnaround going
[20:48] on by vehicles or driving
[20:52] across the uh the yard. Uh,
[20:54] this is a property you had
[20:57] mentioned that was um the home
[20:59] was built in 2019. Um, it was a,
[21:03] uh, former. Um, Uh, resort area.
[21:06] That had been i
[21:08] m not gonna say
[21:09] abandoned, but was bought and
[21:13] so it was an open. Open
[21:14] property that I think a lot of
[21:16] people started to just use it
[21:17] as an access to get across to
[21:20] Sunset Court. And so we
[21:21] re
[21:24] trying to help define. Uh, the
[21:27] borderlines of of our property.
[21:31] Uh, and also, um, stop the, the,
[21:33] uh, direct access, uh, going
[21:34] across the property. That
[21:34] s one
[21:36] of the main things we want to
[21:39] do. Uh, the reason for the
[21:39] six-foot variance is there is a.
[21:43] Um, that, that alleyway
[21:45] actually goes up a hill. And
[21:47] with a 4 ft fence, we don
[21:48] t
[21:48] think that
[21:49] s noticeable until
[21:51] you get all the way up where
[21:53] the 6 ft helps give better
[21:54] clarity in terms of the
[21:57] definition of the property.
[21:59] Lines that are there. Uh, our
[22:01] other concern is a 4 ft fence.
[22:01] It
[22:03] s a little bit easier, uh,
[22:05] for people just to hop over the
[22:06] top or 6 ft becomes a little
[22:08] more definitive. In terms of
[22:11] what it is. And the 6 ft fence
[22:14] also, because it is kind of a
[22:15] strange lot having an alley run
[22:18] up. On the side of your house.
[22:20] Uh, certainly gives more
[22:21] privacy to the people that have
[22:26] the Uh, um, uh. Garages and
[22:28] their driveways on the back. Um,
[22:30] that that extra 2 ft, we just
[22:31] won
[22:32] t be able to see that and
[22:34] vice versa. They wouldn
[22:35] t be.
[22:39] Showing in our property as well
[22:40] as the headlights as they
[22:41] re
[22:41] driving in and driving back out.
[22:44] But the main issue is just
[22:46] trying to kind of define that
[22:48] property line so we don
[22:48] t have
[22:49] vehicles going into our
[22:53] property. Um, I, I
[22:54] m just gonna
[22:55] say that Commissioner Halligan
[22:58] has joined us just. As a Note,
[23:00] um, Would you mind grabbing the
[23:02] mouse and kind of pointing out
[23:04] where that topography issue. Or
[23:08] the changes that You just sit
[23:10] on 6 ft hill actually, once you
[23:12] turn the corner. It
[23:13] s the
[23:15] elevation starts, uh, almost
[23:16] immediately, so it
[23:16] s probably
[23:17] maybe 1012 ft where it
[23:19] s flat.
[23:22] And then it starts going up.
[23:22] And it
[23:24] s gradual on the front,
[23:25] and then it starts to have a
[23:28] little bit more of a hill. Uh,
[23:31] that comes up and peaks. Uh,
[23:32] right about. Let
[23:33] s see, I gotta
[23:33] look at that home that
[23:34] s next
[23:35] to me. Probably peaks right
[23:37] about here. Is where that peaks.
[23:40] And so being able at that point.
[23:41] They they
[23:44] ve come up. Uh, this
[23:46] close and a little bit before
[23:48] they hit the other two
[23:49] properties here because they,
[23:52] they are up on top. Uh, and so
[23:54] then that would stop them from
[23:57] coming up all the way up here.
[23:57] And that
[23:58] s the reason for
[24:02] having that 6 ft fence. The, uh,
[24:03] the alleyway itself ends, sorry,
[24:05] I keep getting the. Right,
[24:10] right, click. The property Or
[24:11] the alleyway ends right about
[24:18] here. Right about here. Right
[24:20] along that property line of the
[24:21] Between the two, different
[24:24] homes. And so what they
[24:24] re
[24:24] doing is they
[24:25] re coming in and
[24:26] they
[24:26] re then they
[24:26] re turning
[24:29] around here. Or they
[24:30] re coming
[24:31] in and then driving across to
[24:34] get the Sunset Court. Or in the
[24:35] case of the e-bikes. They
[24:37] re
[24:39] And my neighbor that lives back
[24:39] here, they
[24:41] re coming down his
[24:41] driveway and then driving
[24:45] across. And onto my property,
[24:46] uh, and then on to Sunset Court.
[24:49] Thank you. Um, does anybody
[24:50] else have any questions for MR.
[24:54] Palmquist? MR. Chair, MR.
[24:56] Simonson, MR. Palmquist, could,
[24:57] could you comment about when I
[25:00] look at um, it sounds like. The
[25:01] thing you
[25:03] re trying to actually
[25:06] discourage is cut through of
[25:07] traffic or pedestrians, bikes,
[25:11] things like that. And I think
[25:11] there
[25:13] s a 4-foot adjacent that
[25:15] diagonal next to 50/59 and 6 ft,
[25:16] and you
[25:16] d say on Donn
[25:17] s alley.
[25:21] And one of my questions is,
[25:23] With with the 4 ft work as well
[25:23] as a six-foot. I
[25:24] m kind of
[25:25] trying to rationalize, uh,
[25:26] because there
[25:26] s a 4-foot
[25:28] proposed in one area and a 6 in
[25:31] another. Could you explain why?
[25:32] Yeah, so the 4 ft we
[25:33] re putting
[25:35] on the diagonal right here, you
[25:36] know it
[25:37] s really more
[25:37] acknowledgement for our
[25:39] neighbor, uh, behind is really
[25:42] what that was. Um, and most of
[25:43] the traffic that we
[25:44] re getting
[25:45] is once people come up the hill,
[25:46] and they
[25:49] re that far. Uh, then
[25:49] they
[25:50] re coming across actually
[25:51] where the six-foot fence would
[25:53] come in. And we
[25:54] re also seeing
[25:58] more, more of the, the e-bikes,
[26:00] uh, coming across farther up.
[26:03] Even past the alleyway. Yeah,
[26:03] that
[26:05] s in present, so, so the
[26:07] forefront was really. More
[26:10] about consideration for. The
[26:12] neighbor that has a home. Uh,
[26:14] very difficult to see it, but
[26:15] he actually has a home right
[26:17] down here, right up next to our
[26:21] property. This is his home. And
[26:23] he comes right, right up here.
[26:25] And you can see he parks his um.
[26:30] For 2 boats. That he has right
[26:32] there, but that sits because
[26:32] he
[26:33] s flattened it. It sits
[26:37] lower. Then And where that hill
[26:41] comes up. And so we just put a
[26:43] 4 ft in there because it
[26:44] realistically is like a 6 ft at
[26:45] that point because he
[26:45] s about 2
[26:49] ft down. As retaining wall. And
[26:51] then our for foot goes up. One
[26:52] quick follow up question is,
[26:55] would the 4 ft on Don
[26:56] s alley
[26:56] accomplish the goal that you
[26:57] re
[27:00] looking for? Well, it, it will
[27:04] accomplish partly. Ok. What
[27:04] part won
[27:05] t it accomplish? Well,
[27:06] I think a 4 ft fence is going
[27:07] to still make it pretty easy
[27:08] for people to hop the fence and.
[27:14] Ok, thanks. Anybody else have a
[27:15] question for MR. Palmquist?
[27:18] Thank you, MR. Palmquist. I
[27:20] would now like to invite
[27:21] members, any member of the
[27:22] public that wishes to speak on
[27:23] this item, to come to the
[27:28] podium. Ok, seeing none. Let
[27:28] s
[27:29] bring this back to the planning
[27:34] commission. Comments. MR. Chair,
[27:36] MR. Simonson, I believe, uh,
[27:38] Steph, correct me if I
[27:38] m wrong,
[27:41] but a 4 ft fence could be
[27:42] placed here with administrative
[27:44] approval, I believe, without a
[27:46] variance request for. Obviously
[27:47] with the 4 foot
[27:48] s being
[27:48] proposed and along the 6 ft
[27:55] area. Correct. Ok. Yeah, I
[27:55] m,
[27:55] I
[27:57] m kind of wrestling. I, I, I
[28:00] understand. The concern, and
[28:00] it
[28:01] s unfortunate that traffic
[28:03] kind of gets dead ended and I
[28:03] m
[28:06] not sure what it does when it,
[28:06] when someone
[28:07] s kind of going up
[28:08] that area and they
[28:09] re in the
[28:10] driveway. I mean, it
[28:10] s pretty
[28:12] narrow, so I, I would think
[28:12] it
[28:14] d be kind of difficult for
[28:15] traffic or someone that kind of
[28:16] got lost in a neighborhood, how
[28:17] to figure out how to turn
[28:23] around. I think uh. I, I think
[28:25] just from a standpoint, I think
[28:25] it
[28:26] s reasonable to try and
[28:27] minimize cut through traffic. I
[28:30] think that makes sense. Uh, I
[28:31] am, I think there were some
[28:32] letters we got though that
[28:33] there were some concerns about
[28:34] access to the driveway of the
[28:38] fences. Too tall and too close
[28:40] to a very narrow, uh, alleyway,
[28:42] so. I do have concerns about
[28:43] that, but at the same time, 4
[28:45] ft could go in there without
[28:47] any decision from us. Right on
[28:51] that line I would agree with
[28:52] that, Commissioner Anderson.
[28:52] Sure, yeah, I
[28:53] m torn too, I
[28:57] guess, uh, you know, on the one
[29:00] hand, um, 4 ft is allowable. I,
[29:02] I get the point of the 6-foot
[29:03] fence, uh, it
[29:05] s easy to hop a 4
[29:06] ft fence theoretically. Um, I
[29:06] struggle a little bit with the
[29:07] fact that I
[29:08] m not sure that, uh,
[29:11] is it a, is a body that we
[29:15] should be, um, Dictating or
[29:16] helping prevent trespassing.
[29:16] That
[29:19] s more of a Uh, you know,
[29:20] uh, a criminal offense or, you
[29:20] know, it, it
[29:22] s more of a police
[29:24] situation than anything else, I
[29:26] would imagine, but, um. You
[29:27] know, part of me goes back and
[29:29] forth on it though when you
[29:30] have a 4-foot fence that
[29:30] s
[29:31] adjacent to the six-foot fence?
[29:32] Do you just walk over and hop
[29:34] the 4-foot portion of the fence,
[29:36] uh, you know, and I, and I get
[29:37] the fact that probably kids,
[29:38] kids will do what they
[29:38] re gonna
[29:42] do, right? But, um, to
[29:43] Commissioner Solomonson
[29:43] s point
[29:44] though, uh, whether it
[29:46] s 4 or 6
[29:47] ft as far as the uh comment
[29:48] that we received, it doesn
[29:48] t
[29:49] make really any difference. The
[29:52] fence can go in there, so, um,
[29:53] Although it could make that
[29:54] alleyway tight, I don
[29:55] t see the,
[29:56] the height being a difference
[29:59] or an issue, but the part that
[30:01] I try that I struggle with is I,
[30:01] although we
[30:04] ve. Got what
[30:04] s
[30:06] purported to be. You know,
[30:07] unique circumstances here. I
[30:07] m
[30:07] not sure that I
[30:10] ve Gotten fully
[30:11] comfortable with unique
[30:12] circumstances related to the 6
[30:15] ft height of this fence. Other
[30:17] than maybe the slope of the
[30:18] property, um, but at the point
[30:19] at which it really slopes, to
[30:21] the point at which it goes to 6
[30:21] ft, there
[30:23] s really no There
[30:23] s
[30:24] really no alleyway any longer
[30:28] at that point. So, um, you.
[30:28] That
[30:29] s where I
[30:29] m struggling
[30:31] particularly is because if
[30:32] there were, if the easement
[30:32] wasn
[30:34] t there, these would be.
[30:36] Backyards more or less and
[30:37] nobody would care about a 6 ft
[30:40] fence, so, but had. If this
[30:41] easement were to go further
[30:42] down that or if the alley were
[30:43] to go further down the easement,
[30:44] you could have an issue where
[30:45] now you got a 6 ft fence next
[30:47] to you. Something that
[30:48] s been
[30:52] improved, so. Commissioner
[30:56] Cortis. So I think the one, you
[30:58] know, cause. Whether it
[30:59] s 6 or
[31:02] 4 ft. I mean, I, I, I certainly
[31:06] Hope The applicant will have a
[31:08] conversation with, with the
[31:09] people who back out into that
[31:11] alley and see if there is a way
[31:12] to make sure that they can
[31:13] leave their garage. I don
[31:14] t
[31:16] know if the city council can do
[31:18] anything about that in, in
[31:19] requirements here or not, I
[31:20] don
[31:21] t think we can, that I
[31:21] m
[31:23] aware of, but I, I certainly
[31:25] think if this is a fence 4 or 6
[31:27] is gonna bar people from
[31:29] entering or exiting their
[31:33] garages, um, That would make
[31:34] For very bad neighbors in your
[31:36] backyard that I would not want
[31:39] to have, and I would strongly
[31:39] hope some conversations could
[31:40] be had that could maybe fix
[31:43] that. Um, the part I struggle
[31:45] with on this variance is
[31:46] actually criteria number 3, the
[31:47] character of the neighborhood,
[31:49] because nobody else has a fence
[31:52] there. This is used for this
[31:54] road, these houses have this
[31:55] access, and suddenly, whether
[31:55] it
[31:57] s a, you know, a 4 ft fence
[31:58] is, is what
[31:59] s allowable, but
[32:01] then going another 2 ft at the
[32:03] top of the hill. So the, the
[32:03] neighbor
[32:04] s house goes from
[32:05] seeing some of it at 4 ft to
[32:08] now seeing nothing at 6 ft. The
[32:09] houses across the street are
[32:11] blocked by the six-foot. I know,
[32:14] you know, it, it It, it seems
[32:16] to change the neighborhood to
[32:17] go even another 2 ft here,
[32:19] especially if it is in fact the
[32:21] top of a hill, um, as it
[32:21] s
[32:22] going up. So I think there
[32:22] s,
[32:23] there
[32:24] s some. Consideration
[32:26] there. I don
[32:27] t know that I
[32:27] m
[32:28] gonna vote no just based on
[32:31] that, frankly, but, but it, it,
[32:33] it is the one section where I
[32:34] am kind of concerned about
[32:38] drawing that line. MR. Ahmadvan,
[32:39] so Commissioner Kurtz, Cortis
[32:41] brings up some, um, good points.
[32:43] I, I would say where I stand is.
[32:47] Like we all have said already,
[32:47] it
[32:48] s a 4 or 6 ft fence is not
[32:50] going to prevent someone from
[32:51] backing out of the driveway,
[32:52] although I recognize the
[32:54] concern of the other homeowner.
[32:55] I think if the, the applicant
[32:57] wants to have a 6 ft fence
[33:01] there. I think he
[33:01] s provided
[33:03] reasonable burden, in my
[33:04] opinion. Someone
[33:05] s driving
[33:06] through my yard to get to the
[33:07] other side of the street or
[33:11] e-bikes going through. I would
[33:13] not like that myself, so. Uh,
[33:13] I
[33:14] m inclined to vote yes on
[33:18] this. MR. Chair, MR. Simonson,
[33:19] I have another question for
[33:22] staff. The, the easement that
[33:24] was what plattered in 1915, a
[33:26] long time ago. Are there any,
[33:28] is there anything of city
[33:28] interest in that easement
[33:34] currently? And because I think
[33:35] that what
[33:36] s before us is the
[33:38] fact that the six-foot fence is
[33:39] required because it
[33:39] s next to
[33:40] it, I mean, I mean it, it can
[33:40] t
[33:41] be more than 4 because it
[33:41] s
[33:45] next to a. Right away or an
[33:48] easement and so. If that
[33:49] easement, if that right of way
[33:49] wasn
[33:51] t there. They could put a
[33:53] 6 ft fence up, right? Correct.
[33:55] And I was just kind of curious
[33:56] if anyone
[33:56] s ever thought about
[33:59] um. Abandoning the right of way.
[34:03] Because it, it
[34:03] s functioning
[34:04] basically as a driveway
[34:09] currently. Yes, um, and I think
[34:11] that goes back to uh the
[34:13] maintenance agreement that was
[34:16] signed in 2001, um, this, the
[34:17] city doesn
[34:19] t want to accept the
[34:21] liability for plowing and
[34:23] maintaining such a small
[34:25] stretch of alleyway, um, and
[34:27] with the width of the, the
[34:29] easement as well. There just
[34:29] isn
[34:31] t really potential to
[34:33] develop it into a right of way
[34:35] or a private road, um, so with
[34:38] With that, I would say no, they,
[34:39] there really isn
[34:40] t a, a desire
[34:42] for the city to pursue that at
[34:45] this moment. It was just a
[34:47] thought as to a way that would
[34:49] remedy that because then a 6 ft
[34:52] fence would be allowed. Mm
[34:54] Commissioner Weston
[34:56] Commissioner Anderson, I
[34:56] m in
[34:59] favor of the 6 ft fence. Uh,
[35:01] the reasons I believe that this
[35:05] should be granted is because
[35:07] typically alleys are only
[35:09] around this size and width
[35:11] anyways, um, older
[35:13] neighborhoods like this one,
[35:15] the alley width would actually
[35:17] be less than what it currently
[35:19] is, um, it does not seem that
[35:19] there
[35:22] s any desire to have, uh,
[35:22] this become a full alley all
[35:25] the way through. Um, because
[35:28] all the properties to the east
[35:30] do not have rear access and are
[35:31] currently using it as part of
[35:33] their yard, um, which would um,
[35:35] create um, a lot of controversy
[35:39] with folks, um, going forward,
[35:42] and typical alley fences are 6
[35:44] ft high. Um, so I feel that
[35:46] this is within reason, um, and
[35:48] both of the properties on Birch
[35:52] do have parking, aka turning
[35:52] around areas, um, in the front
[35:54] of their houses. So there
[35:55] s, I
[35:56] don
[35:58] t really understand why.
[35:58] There
[35:59] s any vehicle going down
[36:02] that far to deliver a package
[36:04] or anything anyways. So I feel
[36:05] this is a reasonable request.
[36:07] It meets the three criteria in
[36:08] my mind, um, and I
[36:08] ll be voting
[36:11] yes. Commissioner Anderson.
[36:12] Yeah, thank you. I
[36:12] m just gonna,
[36:14] thank you, MR. Chair. I
[36:14] m gonna
[36:15] piggyback maybe just a question
[36:17] on, uh, Commissioner
[36:18] Solomonson
[36:20] s question, but. Uh,
[36:23] So the portion of the easement
[36:25] that is unimproved. Is there a
[36:26] process by which, and I guess
[36:27] would it be the city that would
[36:28] initiate it? Would it be
[36:30] homeowners would initiate it to
[36:33] actually request. The vacation
[36:34] of that or abandonment of that
[36:38] easement. Yeah, Commissioner
[36:40] Anderson, so, uh, adjacent
[36:42] property owners are an adjacent
[36:43] property owner could petition
[36:47] for a vacation of the easement.
[36:48] That requires a petition of at
[36:51] least 50% of the Adjacent
[36:53] property owners to consent to
[36:55] it or agree with it, and then
[36:55] there
[36:56] s a public hearing
[36:57] process along that where the
[36:58] city would need to make a
[36:59] finding that it
[37:00] s in the public
[37:02] interest to vacate. Thesement
[37:03] itself, right, and I guess
[37:04] where I
[37:05] m going with that is if
[37:06] that a lot of ifs and thens,
[37:08] but if that were to happen.
[37:11] That was vacated became.
[37:12] Property owned by those
[37:13] property owners along that that
[37:15] easement, a six-foot fence.
[37:18] Would be permissible. On the
[37:19] unimproved portion of this.
[37:19] That
[37:20] s correct, correct. Ok,
[37:23] thank you. Commissioner Cortis.
[37:23] No, it
[37:25] s ok. I
[37:25] m, I
[37:25] m not gonna,
[37:26] I don
[37:28] t think we need to dive
[37:28] into these hypotheticals any
[37:30] further. I
[37:31] m gonna, I
[37:32] m gonna
[37:33] make the motion. Thank you.
[37:36] Except Actually, if somebody
[37:38] else could cause I closed on me
[37:40] by accident. Sorry, I will,
[37:41] Commissioner West, you can help
[37:43] me out with the second part
[37:46] there, Cortis. Ok, to adopt
[37:48] motion to adopt resolution 2666
[37:49] approving the variance
[37:51] application submitted by Mark
[37:53] Palmquist, 675 Sunset Court for
[37:55] a 6 ft tall privacy fence that
[37:58] abuts the city road easement.
[37:59] Said approval is subject to the
[38:00] 3 conditions listed in the
[38:04] report. Second, so it has been
[38:07] moved in 2nd. Any further
[38:09] discussion on this topic?
[38:11] Hearing none, all those in
[38:14] favor say aye. Aye aye pose,
[38:18] same sign. Motion carries 70.
[38:20] So thank you, MR. Palmquist.
[38:20] Let
[38:22] s move on to item 7b, a
[38:24] residential design review and
[38:27] variance request by 580
[38:30] Shoreview llc. Location is 559
[38:31] Harbor Court, and senior
[38:32] planner, Isaac Peterson has the
[38:34] staff presentation. It
[38:34] s all
[38:36] yours, MR. Peterson. Thank you,
[38:37] MR. Chair, members of the
[38:39] commission, as the chair noted
[38:42] tonight for your review and
[38:42] consideration will be
[38:44] residential design review and
[38:45] variance request for 559 Harbor
[38:48] Court, uh, the applicant, uh,
[38:51] 580 llc joins us along with, uh,
[38:53] members of Wooddale Builders,
[38:56] uh, to speak on the request for
[38:57] the application. So just to get
[38:59] our bearings here, uh, we
[39:00] re
[39:02] looking at the 559 Harbor Court
[39:02] property that
[39:03] s located within
[39:05] the harbor Shores development.
[39:05] It
[39:07] s on the, uh, kind of, it
[39:07] s
[39:10] one of the first. Uh, repairing
[39:12] lots or lake lots on the north
[39:14] of the curve of Harbor Court,
[39:19] uh. This is just to the south
[39:22] of the joint access beach lot,
[39:23] um, and it
[39:24] s the, from the time
[39:25] of the developments
[39:27] construction. This is the 2nd
[39:29] riparian lot that the city has
[39:32] received building plans for. So,
[39:35] um, it is located within the r1
[39:37] detached residential zoning
[39:38] district. So some members of
[39:39] the commission that were here
[39:41] at the time will recall a
[39:43] portion of the harbor shores
[39:44] development was located within
[39:47] a pud, the interior lots. Uh,
[39:50] on the northern portion of the
[39:51] development and that interior
[39:53] loop of harbor Court along with
[39:55] some properties to the east of
[39:59] Harbor or the lake lots were
[40:01] straight r1 zoning within the
[40:03] city shore land ordinance, uh,
[40:05] for minimum lot size and sizes
[40:09] and standards. So this lot is
[40:10] considered a substandard
[40:11] repairing lot due to reduced
[40:15] front lock. Line width less
[40:18] than 100 ft. Um, it does have a
[40:21] lot area of 25,000. Square feet,
[40:23] which is about 10,000 square
[40:24] feet over the minimum along
[40:27] with an average depth of 236 ft.
[40:30] Again, it was plaited with the
[40:32] harbor shores development at
[40:34] the time of its consideration
[40:35] and the Platt
[40:35] s consideration.
[40:37] This is one of two lots that
[40:39] was considered with a variance
[40:42] request, uh, to permit that
[40:43] reduced frontline line width.
[40:48] Um, so at that time, um, the
[40:49] planning commission considered
[40:50] it. There was a denial, the
[40:52] subsequent appeal, the city
[40:55] council approved, uh, the, uh,
[40:57] reduced lot line with, with the
[40:59] finding, uh, that there was a
[41:02] practical difficulty in meeting
[41:02] that minimum dimensional
[41:05] requirement, um, In large part
[41:07] because of kind of the push
[41:10] pull effect of the location of
[41:13] the Harbor Court Road, uh, in
[41:14] the topography that
[41:14] s present
[41:17] on these lots, uh, this lot
[41:17] itself doesn
[41:19] t, uh, contain a
[41:21] bluff, as the city and dnr
[41:24] defines a bluff, but it does
[41:25] contain a steep slope. Um, so
[41:29] the concern at that time was if
[41:31] the roadway was pushed, uh, to
[41:33] the west with the latte, uh,
[41:36] that. Buildable area and the
[41:38] location of that road would be
[41:41] located on a steeper slope, uh,
[41:42] requiring more sight impacts,
[41:43] and there
[41:44] s a practical
[41:44] difficulty in actually
[41:47] constructing it. Um, along with
[41:50] that, there is a common
[41:51] development retaining wall that
[41:53] was constructed following the
[41:55] Platt approval that runs, uh,
[41:56] through this property and I
[41:56] ll,
[41:56] I
[41:59] ll show the location at a
[42:00] subsequent slide further to the
[42:03] south, uh, through 3 additional
[42:06] platted lots that are common,
[42:08] uh, joint retaining walls to
[42:10] accommodate greed and slope
[42:11] stabilization, uh, within the
[42:14] development. So just on the
[42:17] screen here, again, uh, a
[42:18] substandard relot means a lot
[42:20] of record that does not meet
[42:21] the minimum standards for the
[42:23] zoning district, which it is
[42:25] located within. So this
[42:27] property is located within the
[42:29] shoreland district and the r1.
[42:31] Uh, district, it
[42:31] s within a
[42:33] general development waters lake,
[42:35] snail lake, um, so what we
[42:36] re
[42:39] referring to here is, uh, it is
[42:41] standard in its width as
[42:43] measured, um, at the, uh,
[42:45] ordinary, high water line of
[42:46] Snail Lake, so it
[42:47] s 110 ft.
[42:47] There
[42:50] s a 3 with requirements
[42:52] of the location at the lake,
[42:54] the buildable pad, which is
[42:56] approximately here, so 50 ft
[42:57] off of Snail Lake within that
[42:59] ordinary high water line
[43:00] setback, where it
[43:00] s just over
[43:03] 100 ft. Um, and then again, at
[43:05] the curvature of the road or
[43:07] that front property line meets
[43:09] the Harbor Court right of way.
[43:09] It
[43:14] s at 82.24 ft. So the
[43:15] applicants this evening are
[43:19] proposing to construct a 2,922
[43:21] square foot single family, uh,
[43:23] home on the lot containing, uh,
[43:25] you know, attached garage, a
[43:29] standard, uh, home, uh, layout,
[43:31] uh, on the property, uh, as the
[43:33] commission knows, the
[43:34] residential design review is
[43:35] required for the construction
[43:37] of new homes on substandard
[43:39] repairing lots, um, and through
[43:40] the proposal, there is a
[43:46] variance to section 1.
[43:48] 15-155b3b for height of 43 ft
[43:50] 10 inches, which is greater
[43:52] than the 35 ft height maximum
[43:53] permitted, which is measured
[43:54] from the lowest finish grade to
[43:57] the highest peak of the roof.
[43:59] So on the, on the screen here
[44:03] is the, um. An elevation plan
[44:04] of the proposed house along
[44:05] with a rendering, so you can
[44:06] see on the front side of the
[44:11] property, it is a two-story, uh,
[44:13] walkout home, um, with access
[44:15] to harbor Court and then that
[44:18] half, uh, walkout basement, uh,
[44:20] at the lower level of the rear
[44:26] facing snail lake. The proposed
[44:28] location of the house is, uh,
[44:30] centered off the curvature of,
[44:33] of Harbor Court here. So the
[44:35] front setback, uh, is about
[44:40] just over 36 or just. Under 36
[44:42] ft, uh, from the front property
[44:44] line, the rear setback from the
[44:46] lake, which is typically the
[44:49] concern on a lot of riparian
[44:51] builds is, uh, well in excess
[44:54] of the minimum of 50 ft. Uh,
[44:55] there is no setback averaging,
[44:57] which has been a, a
[44:59] conversation through many of
[45:02] our substandard reviews, uh, in
[45:03] recent months, uh, simply by
[45:05] the fact that there
[45:05] s no
[45:06] adjacent homes here. In fact,
[45:10] that What? A was planted as a
[45:12] joint access lot, uh, for
[45:16] shared access for, uh, the, the,
[45:17] uh, interior property owners to
[45:18] have shared access to Snail
[45:24] Lake. Uh, in terms of our kind
[45:24] of typical requirements within
[45:28] a, a, a substandard lot, uh,
[45:30] the, the application and the
[45:31] proposal does meet and exceed
[45:33] those standards in most aspects,
[45:36] uh, in terms of lack coverage,
[45:36] uh, it
[45:37] s, it
[45:37] s underneath the
[45:41] 25%. Require or maximum
[45:44] requirement, uh, they
[45:44] re
[45:45] proposing 17.9% of the lot area
[45:48] in terms of foundation area, it
[45:50] is well below the maximum. This
[45:52] is in large part because it is
[45:54] a larger lot, uh, and, and
[45:56] exceeds our, our minimums in,
[46:00] in that, uh, regard. The
[46:01] proposed attached garage, uh,
[46:03] is under the 1000 square feet
[46:05] per minute. Then again, the
[46:08] front setbacks are, are met and,
[46:11] uh, exceeded on all, all sides.
[46:13] Uh, the building height is
[46:16] shown at 43 ft 10 inches, uh,
[46:17] what is permitted on the
[46:22] property is 35 ft. Um, Going
[46:25] through that, so the city code
[46:29] does, uh, provide a two-part
[46:31] definition for building height.
[46:31] I
[46:34] ll spare you the full reading
[46:35] of the first height requirement,
[46:38] but it effectively says for, uh,
[46:39] the, the measurement
[46:41] requirement for different, uh,
[46:44] roof types, um. In most cases,
[46:46] uh, in the city of Shoreview,
[46:46] we
[46:48] re talking about a pitched
[46:51] roof, uh, on most residential
[46:51] properties and the general
[46:53] requirement is from the front.
[46:55] You know, right of way, side,
[46:57] front property line, side of
[46:59] the finished grade for standard
[47:02] lot, uh, the height requirement
[47:03] is effective from that front
[47:08] finish grade. Uh, to the, the
[47:09] mean or median height of a
[47:12] pitched roof, so. Shown in the
[47:13] some of the application
[47:15] material. This is accurate.
[47:15] It
[47:17] s on a typical, uh, height
[47:18] review for a building permit,
[47:18] we
[47:21] re looking from the front
[47:22] elevation to the midpoint of
[47:26] the highest roof pitch. For
[47:28] substandard lot, uh, the
[47:30] requirement is that, uh, roof
[47:31] height or building height is
[47:34] measured from the lowest finish
[47:36] grade to the tallest, uh, peak
[47:38] of the tallest pitch of the
[47:40] roof, effectively. So in most
[47:43] cases, um, on a lake property
[47:44] that lowest finished grade just
[47:45] by virtue of grade towards a
[47:46] lake is gonna be on the lake
[47:53] side. Um, I should note the
[47:54] application does propose to
[47:55] exceed that, so you can kind of
[47:58] see that, uh, difference of, uh,
[47:58] what
[47:59] s, what would be a
[48:02] standard measurement at 28 ft,
[48:04] uh, or just over, uh, on the
[48:06] front elevation, and then again
[48:08] 43 ft 10 inches from that
[48:10] lowest finish grade on the rear
[48:11] lake side of the property of
[48:13] the tallest bitch of the roof.
[48:14] He
[48:14] s planning commission is
[48:18] aware, uh, when reviewing
[48:19] variants applications,
[48:20] three-part test that the
[48:21] property owner uses to use the
[48:22] property in a reasonable manner,
[48:25] not permitted by code. That
[48:26] there are unique circumstances
[48:28] in the plight of the property
[48:29] owners due to circumstances
[48:30] unique to the property, not
[48:32] created by the property,
[48:33] previous property owners and
[48:35] lastly, the the character of
[48:36] character of the neighborhood
[48:36] character of character of the
[48:37] neighborhood will character of
[48:38] not be adversely impacted. Or
[48:42] altered. When reviewing the
[48:44] request, um, Steph took a long
[48:47] look at this, uh. Application.
[48:49] So in terms of reasonable
[48:51] manner, Steph does believe that
[48:53] the proposed use of the
[48:55] property is a reasonable use of
[48:57] the, the site, uh, the
[48:58] application does propose to
[48:59] construct a single-family home
[49:01] with that which is permitted
[49:03] within the district, uh,
[49:06] additionally, the proposed roof,
[49:08] uh, or building height is
[49:11] consistent with, uh, the height
[49:12] requirements elsewhere outlined
[49:14] by code and below that maximum
[49:18] of 35 ft. Uh uh. On the front
[49:21] elevation of the property. In
[49:22] Terms of unique circumstances,
[49:26] um. When looking at the slope
[49:30] in the grade of the site, uh,
[49:32] in that interplay with the
[49:33] required front setback zone,
[49:37] which is a 25 ft minimum and
[49:39] 40-foot maximum. The property
[49:41] does contain a steep slope,
[49:43] which is consistent with the
[49:45] historic grade of the property.
[49:49] The, the, the, uh. Herbert
[49:52] Court portion of the grade is,
[49:56] is a very similar to what was
[49:57] present previously, um, in fact,
[50:00] this. Lot contained the
[50:02] northern, uh, foundation extent
[50:05] of the Union Gas Bowl Mission
[50:07] building itself. So that
[50:09] largely remained unchanged. The
[50:12] installation of the wall, um.
[50:14] Raise the elevation a bit, but
[50:16] as you can see from the Harbor
[50:19] Court right of way. Almost
[50:21] instantly and just outside of
[50:23] that front setback zone, the
[50:26] grade drops 8 to 10 ft rather
[50:27] rapidly, uh, towards the
[50:31] buildable pad of the house, so.
[50:33] That, that grade change and
[50:36] drop is really proportional to
[50:38] the request that the applicant
[50:40] is proposing this evening where
[50:41] they
[50:42] re in excess of just over
[50:46] 8 ft or 88.86 ft, um, which is
[50:48] proportional to the grade
[50:50] change observed on the site.
[50:56] There is, um. There has been
[50:57] evaluation of alternatives in
[50:59] part, uh, whether grade could
[51:02] be adjusted, um, or altered
[51:05] through reduced roof height or
[51:06] stories. Either way, there
[51:08] would have to be, there is some
[51:09] degree of fill that is required.
[51:12] Uh, in staff
[51:14] s review, the
[51:18] proposed application seeks to.
[51:20] Introduce the least amount of
[51:22] Phil Lakeside of the house or
[51:25] kind of within those sensitive
[51:27] shoreland areas. So
[51:28] alternatively, the applicant
[51:30] has considered. Filling and
[51:32] leveling the site, uh, to
[51:34] achieve a similar house form
[51:38] that would require, uh, about
[51:40] 1500 cubic yards of fill and
[51:43] additional retaining wall, um,
[51:44] for largely a similar product,
[51:46] um, you know, one of the kind
[51:48] of push pulls in the minimum
[51:50] grading or fill that would be
[51:52] required on the site would be
[51:55] to raise the foundation.
[51:57] Particularly the driveway to
[52:00] have a pitch away from. Um, You
[52:03] know, the entrance to the
[52:05] garage and from house to street
[52:07] to, uh, you know, send
[52:08] stormwater in large part from
[52:10] the front of the house towards
[52:12] the stormwater system that was
[52:14] installed with the development.
[52:18] So, um, staff believes that.
[52:21] That filling, uh, to
[52:23] accommodate and meet the height
[52:25] requirement for the house, um,
[52:27] is well in excess of a typical,
[52:30] uh, grading plan that would be,
[52:32] uh, considered for a, a
[52:33] building application of the
[52:36] sort of this type, um, and that
[52:36] they
[52:38] re largely be additional
[52:39] impacts resulting from that to
[52:41] adjacent properties. In terms
[52:43] of character of the
[52:45] neighborhood, uh, the, the
[52:47] applicant did provide, um,
[52:49] precedent examples, um, which
[52:50] is consistent with staff
[52:50] s
[52:52] review of building permits
[52:53] throughout the development
[52:55] where, uh, you know, throughout
[52:58] the development there, the, the
[52:59] proposed house is consistent
[53:01] with building heights that are
[53:02] under construction right now or
[53:04] have been constructed. Um, you
[53:07] know, most, uh, fall within
[53:12] that, uh, 26 to 29 ft. Standard
[53:15] lot height measurement and our
[53:17] around 40 to 44 ft if they were
[53:19] measured from the rear of the
[53:21] house. So the proposed
[53:22] elevation plans, uh, do not
[53:24] appear as though they would Uh,
[53:25] be outside of the character of
[53:27] the neighborhood. Within the
[53:30] harbor shores development. In
[53:32] terms of public comment, notice
[53:34] was distributed to property
[53:35] owners within 150 ft of the,
[53:37] the site, uh, currently no
[53:38] staff hasn
[53:39] t received any
[53:43] public comment. Uh, staff would
[53:45] recommend, uh, given the, the
[53:47] practical difficulty outlined
[53:51] approval or adoption of
[53:52] resolution 26-67, which would
[53:54] grant the variants to increase
[53:56] the maximum permitted building
[53:57] height from 35 ft to 43 ft 10
[54:01] inches. Uh, with conditions as
[54:02] outlined within my report and
[54:05] with that, MR. Chair, I will
[54:07] stand for questions. Thank you,
[54:09] MR. Peterson, Commissioner
[54:11] Simonson MR. Chair, uh. MR.
[54:14] Peterson. Could you comment? I
[54:14] know it
[54:15] s been a while. I
[54:16] should, I should remember this,
[54:21] but uh. Are there other uh
[54:23] substandard repairing lots
[54:25] along in this development,
[54:27] there is one, additional
[54:28] substandard repairing lot
[54:30] within the development. Uh,
[54:34] that had a similar condition as
[54:37] a 548 Harbor Court, um, sort of
[54:40] lot 5, I believe, um, so that
[54:43] is, does have the same
[54:44] restriction imposed, uh, I
[54:46] would say, and not to speak for
[54:48] the applicant that there is
[54:49] concern about the viability of
[54:51] achieving the height
[54:53] requirement on that lot. Um,
[54:53] And there
[54:54] s some discussion on
[54:57] whether the commission would
[55:00] Consider a request for that.
[55:02] Staff
[55:02] s response was that, you
[55:02] know, we, we don
[55:02] t wanna
[55:04] discuss or consider a variance
[55:04] request without looking at
[55:06] plans. MR. Peterson is, I, I
[55:07] guess my, my question is
[55:08] because it
[55:09] s substandard,
[55:09] that
[55:11] s where the height
[55:12] definition changes where you
[55:14] have the top of the roof to the
[55:15] lowest point, whereas if it was
[55:16] a standard lot, it would
[55:19] essentially be. The front yard
[55:19] and it
[55:20] d be half roof roof
[55:23] height, which takes ok, and
[55:24] then so the reason I asked that
[55:27] question and from the lakeside.
[55:27] You
[55:28] re gonna have houses
[55:31] probably with walkouts. That
[55:32] would probably look similar
[55:34] adjacent to it, I would think
[55:36] that is correct, Commissioner
[55:38] Solomon. So this is the other
[55:40] riparian lot that is a standard
[55:42] lot that is under construction
[55:44] and has had a building permit
[55:47] issued. Ok, thanks. MR.
[55:49] Anderson, thank you, MR. Chair.
[55:50] MR. Peterson, so if you could
[55:53] pull the diagram back up of the
[55:56] Phil example. Just so I
[55:56] m fully
[55:58] understanding this. So
[55:59] effectively what we
[55:59] re saying
[56:00] is the backside of the house,
[56:01] the lake side of the house
[56:03] would no longer have a walkout
[56:05] in that example, is that
[56:08] correct? But otherwise would be
[56:09] designed similarly. So more or
[56:12] less. Choosing a home design
[56:15] that meets this lot. Or so it
[56:15] d
[56:17] be a lookout home rather than a
[56:18] walkout. Great. All right,
[56:22] thank you. Commissioner Ammann,
[56:23] one clarification, Commissioner
[56:26] Anderson, but The, the top one
[56:27] that wouldn
[56:32] t be at the. 40 3
[56:32] feet 10 inches, correct, or
[56:37] would it? Yes, Commissioner
[56:37] Aman, so what
[56:38] s really being
[56:40] conveyed here is, uh, if you
[56:42] look at kind of the elevation
[56:44] on the left side here. So the,
[56:48] the peak of the roof is
[56:50] effectively still at uh let
[56:51] s
[56:53] say a 950 elevation. Whereas
[56:56] the peak of the roof currently
[56:59] is just uh. Over that 950
[57:03] elevation. So. Very similar in
[57:06] style and overall height. Um,
[57:10] But With, as a result of
[57:11] raising the grade with Phil,
[57:12] that measurement off the back
[57:14] would. Be, you know, within
[57:21] that. Its name, yeah. MR. Chair,
[57:22] I have a follow-up question, uh,
[57:23] so the geometry, maybe it
[57:24] s
[57:24] just because it
[57:25] s not a square,
[57:25] it
[57:27] s hard to really tell, but
[57:28] is the width of this lot
[57:29] changing as it gets towards the
[57:33] lake. And, and at what point,
[57:34] what is considered illegal with
[57:36] and so what part of the house
[57:37] would probably be in what I
[57:40] would call. The proper width.
[57:41] Would there be a part of the
[57:42] house that would be in what I
[57:46] would call a. An approved width
[57:49] for a standard lot. Yeah, so
[57:50] Christian, Commissioner
[57:51] Solomonsson, so the geometry of
[57:54] the lad, if you look from this
[57:56] northern point in the southern
[57:58] point, it flares out and gets
[58:01] wider a little bit as it goes
[58:02] from here to here. The
[58:07] applicant provided a. Diagram.
[58:07] It
[58:09] s 100 ft right here,
[58:11] effectively at the building pad
[58:12] for the house. Um, it
[58:12] s that
[58:15] location. Right on Harbor Court
[58:16] where there
[58:18] s a reduced width.
[58:20] Um, at the time of the
[58:21] development consideration,
[58:22] there is, there
[58:22] s thought given
[58:28] to Do you pull that Harbor
[58:29] Court curvature further inward
[58:31] into the property to achieve
[58:34] the minimum width or not a
[58:35] variance was considered and
[58:36] ultimately approved. That
[58:39] favored Pulling it away from
[58:40] the, the steepness of the
[58:44] property. Uh, as a result of
[58:47] the grade, um, instead of
[58:48] having a, a standard lot right
[58:49] there. So that
[58:49] s why the lot
[58:52] was created. As it is, as it
[58:54] exists today. So maybe you
[58:55] clarify where is the
[58:56] restriction restrictive width.
[58:57] I just wanna make sure I
[58:58] understand that. It
[58:59] s just this
[59:00] front property just that area
[59:01] there, but the width of the lot
[59:06] in general. Is much wider. Ok,
[59:06] that
[59:07] s, that helps. Thanks.
[59:11] Yeah. Anybody else have any
[59:14] questions for staff? Ok, thank
[59:17] you, MR. Peterson. If the
[59:18] applicants, the audience would
[59:23] like to, uh, stand up and
[59:24] Address the commission. Uh,
[59:25] please remember to give your
[59:28] name and address. The record.
[59:31] Excuse me. Thank you Chair and
[59:33] members of the commission for
[59:33] evaluating this request. My
[59:36] name is Bob Moser. My address
[59:37] is 986 Priestster Lane, Hudson,
[59:38] Wisconsin, although I
[59:41] m a
[59:42] Longtime Shoreview resident, my
[59:43] younger years and currently
[59:44] office in Shoreview, so I
[59:44] m
[59:45] very familiar with the area and
[59:45] appreciate all you
[59:49] ve done. Um,
[59:50] After review of the staff
[59:51] report and after hearing the
[59:52] presentation tonight, I feel as
[59:54] though things were. Very
[59:55] thoroughly covered, but I
[59:56] m
[59:56] happy to answer any questions
[59:59] you might have. I have a
[1:00:00] question for you. Why not just
[1:00:03] lower the roof? The character
[1:00:05] of the neighborhood is, is the
[1:00:07] primary reason for that. Uh, I
[1:00:07] don
[1:00:10] t know. There are some
[1:00:11] other examples here of things
[1:00:12] that that are being done in the
[1:00:14] neighborhood. But just so you
[1:00:16] know, Wooddale Builders, is the
[1:00:16] exclusive builder in this
[1:00:19] neighborhood. And one reason.
[1:00:22] Uh, an individual builder was
[1:00:24] selected, was there a quality
[1:00:26] builder who, who build.
[1:00:29] Consistently. Uh,
[1:00:30] architecturally consistent
[1:00:30] structures within the
[1:00:32] neighborhood to make it. Very
[1:00:34] attractive. Um, As an example
[1:00:36] of that, I will go through and
[1:00:40] show some other things that Um,
[1:00:41] I was looking for some
[1:00:42] perspective drawings here. See,
[1:00:47] here we go. Ok, I guess here
[1:00:48] s
[1:00:48] one here. Maybe i
[1:00:49] ll, I
[1:00:49] ll
[1:00:51] answer that in two ways. Number
[1:00:53] 1 is there is a steeper pitch
[1:00:55] on the front to make it
[1:00:56] architecturally consistent with
[1:00:58] others in the neighborhood. Uh,
[1:01:01] but this pitch for the 2nd
[1:01:02] story here is reduced
[1:01:03] substantially to try to keep
[1:01:04] the height down as much as
[1:01:07] possible. So you aesthetically
[1:01:08] can achieve the look of the
[1:01:10] Nehir wood with a front gables.
[1:01:11] But on the main part of the
[1:01:14] house, it has been reduced, but
[1:01:14] it
[1:01:16] s somewhat obscured by the
[1:01:17] architectural design here. So
[1:01:21] now, if you go to. A home built
[1:01:26] on. Let
[1:01:26] s see here. I
[1:01:27] m trying
[1:01:32] to get my Here we go. This is a
[1:01:32] home-built, currently being
[1:01:34] built on Lot 7, right next door,
[1:01:36] the subject property is on lot
[1:01:37] 8. And this is actually a
[1:01:39] one-story home. Um, and as you
[1:01:43] will see, The Uh, on the next
[1:01:47] page. If the height for this
[1:01:48] structure were determined based
[1:01:50] on the same criteria as being
[1:01:52] used for the, for the home
[1:01:54] proposed for Lot 8. This home
[1:01:56] would be 42 ft high. As
[1:01:58] compared to just over 43 ft for
[1:02:00] the subject property. And there
[1:02:00] again, that
[1:02:02] s due in large part
[1:02:04] to the architecture. That
[1:02:05] s,
[1:02:05] that
[1:02:07] s being integrated into
[1:02:08] all the designs for the homes
[1:02:10] in the neighborhood. Even the
[1:02:12] villas in that neighborhood.
[1:02:17] And I have an example here. So
[1:02:17] here
[1:02:19] s a villa here. It
[1:02:19] s built
[1:02:21] on one of the, on one of the
[1:02:23] interior lots. There again, if
[1:02:25] you look at the height, uh,
[1:02:28] calculation for that one is 41
[1:02:30] and 9 3/4 inches. From a, a
[1:02:33] standard lot. Calculation, it
[1:02:33] s
[1:02:35] only 21 ft tall. But there
[1:02:37] again, uh, I get the important
[1:02:39] aspect of bringing this up is
[1:02:41] that for, for the villas and
[1:02:43] the single-family homes. To all
[1:02:44] be consistent in nature, which
[1:02:46] as I know is something very
[1:02:48] important as part of any.
[1:02:49] Exclusive development like this.
[1:02:50] That
[1:02:51] s exactly why we also said
[1:02:51] we don
[1:02:54] t want to come to. One
[1:02:55] lot or potentially 2, and have
[1:02:56] something that
[1:02:56] s totally
[1:02:57] architecturally inconsistent.
[1:02:58] So there again, it
[1:02:59] s the
[1:03:01] character that a neighborhood
[1:03:04] criteria that we feel, you know,
[1:03:04] justifies asking for this
[1:03:08] variance. Ok, thank you, uh,
[1:03:09] any other questions for MR.
[1:03:15] Mosher? Thank you. Thank you
[1:03:16] very much. Um, let
[1:03:16] s move to
[1:03:19] the public. If the public has
[1:03:20] any comments or questions,
[1:03:24] please come to the podium. Your
[1:03:25] name and address for the record.
[1:03:28] Hi, my name is Jane Friedman,
[1:03:31] and my partner and I live at
[1:03:34] 4455 Harbor Place Court. Uh,
[1:03:37] which is just slightly down the
[1:03:38] road from this development and
[1:03:43] it is a riparian lot, um. And
[1:03:46] When my house was built in
[1:03:49] about 1992, it, uh, required no
[1:03:51] trees to be cut down, no
[1:03:53] retaining walls to be built,
[1:03:56] and it is mainly, uh, uh.
[1:03:57] Protected bluff, so the
[1:03:59] protective bluff is a huge
[1:04:01] chunk of the property, and yet
[1:04:05] still they were able to build a
[1:04:08] house with reasonable size. Our
[1:04:12] house is 3700 square feet. Um,
[1:04:15] Uh, with, without requesting,
[1:04:19] uh, a height variance. Instead,
[1:04:20] with this property in this
[1:04:26] particular Um, parcel.
[1:04:27] Alterations have been
[1:04:29] constantly requested for this.
[1:04:32] So, first, they made it a
[1:04:34] substandard lot, uh, because
[1:04:34] otherwise they
[1:04:38] d have to remove
[1:04:41] 11 lot from, from the mix, uh,
[1:04:43] and that would not be
[1:04:47] financially, um, Um, you know,
[1:04:49] profitable, uh, so they got,
[1:04:53] they got that variance approved,
[1:04:54] um, understanding that there
[1:04:56] are things that go along with
[1:04:59] having a substandard lot, um,
[1:05:01] that might not make it easy for
[1:05:03] them to, uh, build on that. The
[1:05:06] second thing was, uh, Bob Moser
[1:05:09] asked, uh, the city for
[1:05:11] permission to put in the
[1:05:13] retaining wall, and he said, I
[1:05:16] quote, so that we can
[1:05:17] Established building pads and
[1:05:19] end up with a reasonably sized
[1:05:22] backyard. So the idea was to
[1:05:24] have a very high retaining wall
[1:05:26] and fill it in with fill, and
[1:05:30] then there would be this nice,
[1:05:33] uh, nice backyard for those 3.
[1:05:34] Properties, uh, the, the height
[1:05:37] of the wall was, did not get up
[1:05:38] to that high amount, but they
[1:05:40] still were allowed to have the
[1:05:41] retaining wall, and at the same
[1:05:49] time, They, um. Cut down all 29
[1:05:52] trees on the lot between where
[1:05:56] the retaining wall is and the,
[1:05:58] the upper, uh, you know, and,
[1:06:00] and the roadway, the, the
[1:06:01] circle roadway. So all those
[1:06:03] trees went away. So now, of
[1:06:06] course, they have this strange,
[1:06:09] um, you know, cross section,
[1:06:14] and To, for, for no good reason
[1:06:17] at all. They want to have this
[1:06:18] really tall house, and they say,
[1:06:19] well, on the front, it, it
[1:06:22] would. You know, blend in with
[1:06:24] the rest of the, of the, uh,
[1:06:26] neighborhood, and, and that is
[1:06:31] the case, um, but. On the On
[1:06:32] the uh public water side, this
[1:06:39] is like. The same Visual impact
[1:06:41] as a four-story high home with
[1:06:42] a flat roof. It
[1:06:44] s massive, and
[1:06:46] because they removed the trees.
[1:06:48] Uh, there are only some trees
[1:06:49] down by the water, which is,
[1:06:52] you know, quite a bit down the
[1:06:54] slope. And so, so much of that
[1:06:58] house is going to be Visible to
[1:07:00] people recreating on the public
[1:07:01] lake, and it
[1:07:01] s out of character
[1:07:05] with. The rest of the homes on
[1:07:08] the lake in that respect. And
[1:07:10] all these things are caused by
[1:07:12] the property owner. These
[1:07:13] aren
[1:07:13] t unusual circumstances
[1:07:16] that, that, you know, uh, you
[1:07:18] know, made the property owner a
[1:07:20] victim, uh, of, of
[1:07:25] circumstances, uh, and And so,
[1:07:25] It it
[1:07:30] s, it just, uh, Uh, I, I
[1:07:33] believe that the, the property
[1:07:35] owner should work within the
[1:07:38] confines of the law, uh, and,
[1:07:40] and build a house. On their
[1:07:42] property, they, the, the
[1:07:44] setbacks are large on this, the,
[1:07:47] the front setbacks and the side
[1:07:49] setbacks are much more than the
[1:07:51] minimum, and so they could move
[1:07:54] the house forward. And then
[1:07:54] they won
[1:07:56] t have to deal as much
[1:07:58] with the slope in the back.
[1:07:59] They can plant more trees to,
[1:08:01] you know, deal with any erosion
[1:08:03] issues that might be on this
[1:08:05] slope that they, you know, so
[1:08:08] badly, um, messed up, um, so I
[1:08:09] think that it
[1:08:12] s It, it doesn
[1:08:12] t
[1:08:15] meet all the criteria that is
[1:08:16] required for to allow a
[1:08:20] variance, um, You know,
[1:08:22] especially that out of
[1:08:25] character view that People will
[1:08:27] see from the lakeside, and for
[1:08:30] that reason, I, I I would ask
[1:08:32] you to not allow this variance
[1:08:34] and have the, have the builder
[1:08:37] go back and Figure something
[1:08:38] else out. Thank you, thank you,
[1:08:50] MS. Freeman. Anybody else? Hi,
[1:08:53] my name is uh Lee Erickson. I
[1:08:55] live at uh 260 Wexford Heights
[1:08:57] Drive in New Brighton, uh, soon
[1:08:57] to be a homeowner in this
[1:09:01] development. Uh, in fact, I
[1:09:02] think that top picture MAY be
[1:09:02] the home that
[1:09:03] s being built for
[1:09:05] me right now at 588 Harbor
[1:09:08] Court. And so, um, I
[1:09:08] m just
[1:09:10] here to say that. You know,
[1:09:10] I
[1:09:11] ve seen the pictures of the
[1:09:14] of the proposed house, and I
[1:09:14] think it
[1:09:16] s consistent with With
[1:09:17] the character of the
[1:09:18] neighborhood and I
[1:09:18] d be pleased
[1:09:20] to be, uh, have that house in
[1:09:21] our neighborhood. So, thank you.
[1:09:34] Thank you, MRS. Erickson. Good
[1:09:35] evening everybody. My name is
[1:09:36] Steve Walsh. I live currently
[1:09:37] live at 18 Maycomb Lane in
[1:09:42] North Oaks. Um, I am also, um.
[1:09:44] The future homeowner of the
[1:09:46] adjacent lot to the variance
[1:09:48] requested, uh, Lot 7. Uh, that
[1:09:50] address would be 555 Harbor
[1:09:53] Court, uh. Originally a
[1:09:56] Shoreview resident back in the
[1:09:58] 70s, my parents moved to South
[1:09:59] Birch Lane and I bring him back
[1:09:59] uh Dome
[1:10:00] s Alley. That was a lot
[1:10:02] of, uh, reminiscence for me
[1:10:03] riding and running around that
[1:10:05] alley, uh, in the neighborhood,
[1:10:08] but, um, Ironically enough, uh,
[1:10:10] also along with Herb Brooks, uh,
[1:10:14] I endorsed. This community
[1:10:15] center years ago, uh, as an
[1:10:17] athlete that, uh, played
[1:10:17] college football down at the
[1:10:19] University of Miami. They, uh,
[1:10:21] I would imagine it was your,
[1:10:22] your commission that asked me
[1:10:24] to endorse that, and uh
[1:10:25] obviously a beautiful community
[1:10:27] center that, uh, we have here
[1:10:28] in Shoreview. Um, I
[1:10:29] ll just say
[1:10:30] this, um, you know, one of the
[1:10:31] things that attracted me to the
[1:10:34] community. Uh, as you look at,
[1:10:36] uh, you know, Metro lake and,
[1:10:38] and, you know, obviously, uh,
[1:10:40] high demand for those types of
[1:10:43] properties, um. You know,
[1:10:43] typically you
[1:10:44] d go into a
[1:10:45] community and, and maybe tear
[1:10:46] down a lot and build, build
[1:10:49] something new. Uh, but this
[1:10:50] community offered brand new
[1:10:54] home sites, uh, beautiful, uh,
[1:10:56] uh, you know, homes, uh,
[1:10:59] obviously a very good builder.
[1:11:02] And, uh, the steep roofs that
[1:11:04] lead to the, the height of
[1:11:07] these buildings, uh, certainly
[1:11:08] aesthetically pleasing in
[1:11:09] modern construction and, and
[1:11:12] for, for me and my wife, um,
[1:11:13] looking at a, a community of
[1:11:15] homes like this, of custom
[1:11:15] homes, uh, that
[1:11:17] ll be along the
[1:11:20] lake, uh, that design, uh, is
[1:11:22] certainly something that we, uh,
[1:11:23] wanted to be part of. So that
[1:11:23] s
[1:11:23] all I
[1:11:26] ll say, and I, I would
[1:11:27] certainly support the variants
[1:11:29] as, as it was shown. On the
[1:11:31] slide, uh, my home is, is
[1:11:33] basically, uh, with a standard
[1:11:37] lot, uh, at that 42 to 43 ft,
[1:11:37] um, height, so I don
[1:11:38] t want to
[1:11:39] have a neighbor necessarily
[1:11:42] with a, with an architectural
[1:11:42] design that
[1:11:43] s dramatically
[1:11:44] different than mine, so thank
[1:11:45] you for your time. Thank you,
[1:11:57] MS. Walsh. My name is Doug
[1:11:58] Jones. I reside at 550 Harbor
[1:12:03] Court. And, uh, want my
[1:12:04] contention is, is when I
[1:12:06] decided to move in there was a
[1:12:07] type of architecture that was
[1:12:10] going to be built by Wooddale.
[1:12:12] And I think the consistency of
[1:12:13] the product in the homes that
[1:12:16] are. Being built there should.
[1:12:20] All in. And With that type of
[1:12:22] architecture. All I really have
[1:12:24] to say. Thanks. Thank you, MR.
[1:12:31] Jones. Ok, well, uh, seeing
[1:12:32] nobody else, let
[1:12:32] s bring it
[1:12:36] back to the commission.
[1:12:37] Commissioner Salmonsson, yeah,
[1:12:40] MR. Chair, I When I look at
[1:12:42] this, uh, at least when I, I
[1:12:44] just consider the lake view and
[1:12:45] no one
[1:12:46] s gonna see how narrow
[1:12:47] the street is, and we
[1:12:47] re
[1:12:48] talking about 100 ft, but the
[1:12:51] lot is. Essentially 25,000
[1:12:52] square feet. It
[1:12:53] s a half an
[1:12:53] acre. It
[1:12:54] s generous and the
[1:12:56] width, the only time it really
[1:13:00] the width comes into play is on
[1:13:02] um the street side, otherwise
[1:13:04] the width is ample, pretty much
[1:13:06] more than exceeds a standard
[1:13:07] lot. So from the, from the
[1:13:10] lakeside. I do tend to agree
[1:13:11] that the character of the
[1:13:13] neighborhood, you could have.
[1:13:16] Uh, uh, I think from the lake
[1:13:17] and having the houses be
[1:13:19] similar is is a reasonable
[1:13:21] request, and I think the
[1:13:22] uniqueness here is because of
[1:13:23] that little piece of strip on
[1:13:25] the front of the street and
[1:13:27] seems to um. It
[1:13:29] s hard to use
[1:13:31] that as a reason to deny this
[1:13:32] kind of request. I think it
[1:13:33] s
[1:13:35] more important to have, uh,
[1:13:37] consistent houses, uh, from the
[1:13:39] Lakeview next to each other,
[1:13:40] and, and like I said, these
[1:13:41] lots aren
[1:13:42] t small and this is a
[1:13:45] big lot, 25,000 square feet. So,
[1:13:45] so I
[1:13:48] d say that, uh. Basically,
[1:13:49] I think this is a realistic
[1:13:51] request. And it
[1:13:51] s kind of a,
[1:13:52] it
[1:13:53] s one of those things with
[1:13:55] math problems cause you have a
[1:13:57] frontage that basically goes up
[1:13:58] and cuts over and that little
[1:14:03] 100 ft makes it an uh. Meets
[1:14:04] the definition of non-standard,
[1:14:05] but yeah, when I look at this
[1:14:06] lot, it sure looks standard to
[1:14:09] me in terms of size and scope.
[1:14:12] And when you put in that
[1:14:13] definition of determining
[1:14:15] height, half full roof height
[1:14:16] versus half. It
[1:14:17] s kind of a,
[1:14:17] it
[1:14:19] s definitely a disadvantage
[1:14:21] and uh to apply that standard
[1:14:24] to this lot. So I would be in
[1:14:27] support of the variants.
[1:14:27] Commissioner Anderson, thank
[1:14:30] you, MR. Jerry. Yeah, so
[1:14:31] apparently I
[1:14:31] m conflicted with
[1:14:34] everything tonight, but, um, so
[1:14:36] I was a part of the process of
[1:14:39] this original proposal as a
[1:14:41] planning commission member, um,
[1:14:43] and, and to, uh, Dennis
[1:14:43] Friedman
[1:14:44] s point, you know, it,
[1:14:45] part of what bothers me a
[1:14:48] little bit here is that uh
[1:14:50] There was a request basically
[1:14:52] to have an extra lot around
[1:14:53] this loop and now because of
[1:14:55] that, we have a substandard lot,
[1:14:56] and because of that, we
[1:14:57] ve got
[1:14:58] kind of what
[1:14:59] s before us here,
[1:15:01] to Commissioner Somonson
[1:15:01] s
[1:15:02] point, yes, there
[1:15:03] s very little
[1:15:04] distinction between these lots,
[1:15:05] uh, as far as just really at
[1:15:07] the street there is the only,
[1:15:08] the only difference, not far
[1:15:09] back from the street, you
[1:15:09] re
[1:15:11] meeting that requirement. Uh,
[1:15:13] if it were the, the house next
[1:15:14] door, the house to the south,
[1:15:15] from the lakeside, you
[1:15:16] re gonna
[1:15:18] have exactly the same view of
[1:15:20] this house as you would have
[1:15:23] the adjacent house, so. I think
[1:15:23] what we
[1:15:25] re seeing on paper, uh,
[1:15:27] to me is, is a distinction, but
[1:15:29] I think in actuality, um, there
[1:15:30] is no distinction, but on the
[1:15:32] flip side of the coin, this is
[1:15:33] the cards that were dealt.
[1:15:34] These are the cards that were
[1:15:38] dealt and. To, uh, Chair John
[1:15:38] s.
[1:15:42] Question. There is a different
[1:15:44] design that would work here.
[1:15:47] Now, There is maybe some value
[1:15:49] to the fact that there
[1:15:49] s a
[1:15:50] single builder and, you know,
[1:15:50] they
[1:15:51] re trying to achieve a
[1:15:52] look in this neighborhood, um,
[1:15:53] but I
[1:15:54] m on the fence still. I
[1:15:55] just, I honestly don
[1:15:55] t know, uh.
[1:16:01] Neither, um. Neither answer
[1:16:05] seems. 100% good to me. Thank
[1:16:07] you, Commissioner Cortes. Yeah,
[1:16:07] I, I
[1:16:11] m 100% with Commissioner
[1:16:12] Anderson on the extreme
[1:16:13] frustration I have on this one.
[1:16:16] I mean, I voted no on this
[1:16:17] development, specifically for
[1:16:18] this reason. I said they were
[1:16:19] gonna come back, they
[1:16:20] re gonna
[1:16:21] ask us for more variants
[1:16:22] because they weren
[1:16:23] t doing this
[1:16:25] properly, they were squeezing
[1:16:26] things in improperly to make
[1:16:27] the most money as opposed to
[1:16:29] doing what was right and within
[1:16:30] our code, and now they
[1:16:30] re back
[1:16:33] here doing the same thing. And
[1:16:35] I, you know, I hope maybe the
[1:16:37] city council will, will think
[1:16:38] about that when, when the
[1:16:40] planning commission, you know,
[1:16:41] has some thoughts about that
[1:16:43] and then. They they don
[1:16:44] t take
[1:16:45] those into consideration. We we
[1:16:47] have to deal with this again.
[1:16:48] Taking this property, however,
[1:16:52] individually, I think it does
[1:16:54] technically meet the
[1:16:55] requirements of the variants,
[1:16:58] rules that we have here. And as
[1:17:00] frustrated as I am with that
[1:17:01] they
[1:17:03] re back here, um, when we
[1:17:05] said this would happen, uh, I
[1:17:05] don
[1:17:07] t think I can treat the
[1:17:11] property or the property owner.
[1:17:12] Differently because we already
[1:17:14] approved it and said they could
[1:17:15] do this, um, and, and if it
[1:17:17] were any other development in
[1:17:17] any other lot, I don
[1:17:18] t know,
[1:17:19] Commissioner Anderson, if he
[1:17:19] d
[1:17:21] be struggling as much as, uh, I,
[1:17:24] I feel like I am with it
[1:17:25] because of the background of
[1:17:27] this development, so I, I will
[1:17:29] probably be voting aye, but I
[1:17:30] don
[1:17:35] t feel good about it.
[1:17:37] Anybody else have any comments,
[1:17:46] questions, or concerns? We, ok,
[1:17:46] I
[1:17:49] d like to move to adopt
[1:17:50] resolution 2667 granting a
[1:17:52] variance to increase the
[1:17:53] maximum permitted building
[1:17:54] height on a substandard
[1:17:57] repairing lot from 35 ft to 43
[1:18:00] ft 10 inches for the property
[1:18:02] located at 5559 Harbor Court,
[1:18:04] subject to the six conditions
[1:18:06] in the report and based on the
[1:18:08] three findings of fact. Second,
[1:18:11] it has been moved in seconds,
[1:18:12] any further discussion on the
[1:18:14] matter. I
[1:18:15] ll just throw my 2
[1:18:17] cents in there. This is more of
[1:18:19] a design problem than a a
[1:18:21] variance issue, so I would
[1:18:22] agree with what Commissioner
[1:18:25] Cortis. And Commissioner, um,
[1:18:28] Anderson had brought up, so.
[1:18:29] Just wanted to point that out
[1:18:31] before we take the vote. All
[1:18:34] those in favor indicate by
[1:18:36] saying aye. I oppose same sign.
[1:18:46] i. Motion passes 6 to 1. Ok, so
[1:18:50] we move to item 7c. This is a
[1:18:51] variance request by Robert
[1:18:53] Fried. The location is 804
[1:18:55] County Road, I West. Associate
[1:18:57] planner Will Harris, you have
[1:19:04] the presentation. Thank you,
[1:19:08] chair. Ah, one item of note
[1:19:10] related to my previous
[1:19:12] presentation, uh, for 675
[1:19:14] Sunset, um, that item is
[1:19:16] subject to a five-day appeal
[1:19:17] period that was not stated. So
[1:19:20] I just wanted to clarify, um,
[1:19:22] if there is anybody out there
[1:19:23] who wished to, there
[1:19:23] s that
[1:19:27] option. And with that, uh, we
[1:19:30] will get into the variance
[1:19:31] requests, variances requested
[1:19:33] in the residential design
[1:19:34] review for 804 County Road,
[1:19:40] West. Orienting ourselves, uh,
[1:19:42] this property is located along
[1:19:43] the northern side of Turtle
[1:19:49] Lake. Um. Access is provided
[1:19:56] off of County Road I. Uh, the
[1:19:58] property is a located within
[1:20:00] the r1 detached residential
[1:20:02] zoning district. Uh, it is a
[1:20:04] substandard repairian lot for
[1:20:05] lot width. According to the
[1:20:07] most recent survey that we have
[1:20:12] of the property, uh, the lot is
[1:20:14] 9,896 square feet with a width
[1:20:17] of 75 ft along County Rhode I
[1:20:19] and depths of 119 ft on the
[1:20:22] western side and 129 ft along
[1:20:23] the eastern side, there is an
[1:20:25] existing single family home.
[1:20:26] That was originally developed
[1:20:31] on the site in 1972. Uh,
[1:20:33] however, that property went
[1:20:34] through a residential design
[1:20:37] review in 2003 that included
[1:20:38] the approval of the following
[1:20:41] items. An additional 300 square
[1:20:44] feet of living area that was
[1:20:44] constructed above the garage
[1:20:51] space. Located here. Uh, a
[1:20:53] maximum allowed impervious
[1:20:56] surface coverage of 35.6%, with
[1:20:58] the conditions of a signed
[1:21:01] mitigation affidavit and no
[1:21:01] lakeside accessory structures
[1:21:06] constructed, uh, and a lakeside
[1:21:07] setback of the existing deck
[1:21:10] not to be changed, which was
[1:21:15] 19.5 ft. A little bit of
[1:21:17] property history for you. Uh,
[1:21:20] with that residential design
[1:21:22] review in 2003, uh, as stated,
[1:21:25] there was an attached deck that
[1:21:27] was included within the survey
[1:21:30] and the building plans for that
[1:21:33] rdr that showed uh 19.5 ft
[1:21:34] setback from the ordinary high
[1:21:37] water line. Uh, that was
[1:21:39] approved because the, um, that
[1:21:40] was the existing conditions and
[1:21:40] there weren
[1:21:42] t going to be any
[1:21:44] alterations to that existing
[1:21:48] setback, uh, after that was
[1:21:53] approved, um, the homeowners at
[1:21:54] that time had actually
[1:21:56] constructed a different deck.
[1:21:58] Um, that according to the most
[1:22:00] recent survey that we have
[1:22:03] currently 6 sits at 17.9 ft
[1:22:05] from the ordinary high water
[1:22:07] line, thus encroaching a little
[1:22:12] bit further into that setback.
[1:22:14] Later on in 2022, uh, a
[1:22:16] different homeowner of the
[1:22:21] property, uh, constructed, um,
[1:22:22] a few different alterations to
[1:22:26] the property, including an
[1:22:26] illegal water-oriented
[1:22:27] accessory structure, which is
[1:22:30] going to be the patio scene on
[1:22:37] the left image. Here? As well
[1:22:40] as a gravel parking pad
[1:22:42] addition located on the
[1:22:43] northeastern side of the
[1:22:49] driveway. Here. That brings us
[1:22:51] to today where the current
[1:22:53] owners and the applicants today
[1:22:55] purchased the property in
[1:22:59] SEPTEMBER of 2025. Uh, they had
[1:23:01] installed an additional
[1:23:02] unpermitted water-oriented
[1:23:03] accessory structure, uh, which
[1:23:06] is going to be shown as the
[1:23:08] blue square giving just a
[1:23:09] general location of where that
[1:23:13] is since it was not um included
[1:23:14] in that 2022 screenshot shown
[1:23:18] on the screen. Um, that was
[1:23:20] installed between the purchase
[1:23:23] of the home in SEPTEMBER and
[1:23:27] the spring of 2026. Uh, it is
[1:23:28] important to note that the
[1:23:29] existing home currently does
[1:23:31] operate as a licensed
[1:23:31] short-term rental within the
[1:23:38] city. So The As as you can see
[1:23:40] on the screen, uh, there are 2
[1:23:42] images. One is going to be the
[1:23:44] most recent aerial image that
[1:23:47] was taken of the property on
[1:23:49] the right-hand side as well as
[1:23:51] the most recent survey that we
[1:23:52] have of the property located on
[1:23:55] the left-hand side. As it
[1:24:00] currently sits, there are 6
[1:24:03] violations of city code with
[1:24:05] regards to the existing
[1:24:09] property and the deck. The
[1:24:12] first of which is the amount of
[1:24:13] water-oriented accessory
[1:24:15] structures. Currently, there
[1:24:19] are 2 with the hot tub and the
[1:24:21] patio, both located between the
[1:24:23] ordinary high water level and
[1:24:26] the required structure setback.
[1:24:30] The second is the maximum area
[1:24:32] of a water-oriented accessory
[1:24:36] structure at 250 square feet.
[1:24:40] The current patio is 35314
[1:24:42] square feet, and the existing
[1:24:43] hot tub, I don
[1:24:43] t have it on
[1:24:45] screen, but I believe it is 62
[1:24:53] square feet. The 3rd Is the
[1:24:54] side yard setback for a
[1:24:55] water-oriented accessory
[1:24:59] structure. The current patio
[1:25:02] sits at 10 ft from the eastern
[1:25:03] side of the eastern property
[1:25:06] line. The required setback is
[1:25:11] 20 ft for that structure. The
[1:25:15] 4th is that any water-oriented
[1:25:16] accessory structure MAY not be
[1:25:18] located within the shore impact
[1:25:22] zone. That Distance is 25 ft
[1:25:23] from the ordinary high water
[1:25:27] line. The current patio is
[1:25:29] located 10 ft and 9 inches from
[1:25:30] the ordinary high water line.
[1:25:32] It is important to note that
[1:25:35] code does permit that this
[1:25:36] setback can be waived by the
[1:25:38] planning commission, but not
[1:25:41] reduced to Less than 10 ft from
[1:25:43] the ordinary high water line.
[1:25:45] Um, if the planning commission
[1:25:47] determines that there is a
[1:25:49] practical difficulty that would
[1:25:50] prohibit strict compliance with
[1:25:54] this code provision. The code
[1:25:56] specifically calls out that
[1:25:58] this usage of practical
[1:26:01] difficulty is due to topography
[1:26:02] or other circumstances that are
[1:26:04] acceptable to the city. The 5th
[1:26:10] item Is the total maximum
[1:26:10] impervious surface coverage on
[1:26:16] the site. As it sits today, uh,
[1:26:20] it is hovering around 41.5%
[1:26:23] impervious surface coverage,
[1:26:25] even though the residential
[1:26:27] design review from 2023 had
[1:26:32] approved the property at 35.6%.
[1:26:35] That criteria has been altered.
[1:26:37] With the introduction of a
[1:26:38] water-oriented accessory
[1:26:40] structure. With that introduced
[1:26:43] to the property, the total
[1:26:44] impervious surface coverage is
[1:26:47] then restricted to 25%. And
[1:26:52] lastly, Uh, the deck edition or.
[1:26:57] Newly constructed deck further
[1:27:03] encroachment. Um. Is a
[1:27:05] violation of the structure
[1:27:06] setback from the ordinary high
[1:27:10] water line, um, code requires
[1:27:12] that this is standard 50 ft.
[1:27:15] However, because it was a
[1:27:18] nonconformity, um, It was
[1:27:20] subject to that 19.5 ft that
[1:27:21] was approved as a part of that
[1:27:22] residential design review from
[1:27:29] 2003. Uh, as you can see on the
[1:27:32] screen, um, this is going to be
[1:27:33] reiterating the existing
[1:27:36] conditions of the property as
[1:27:38] long or along with the
[1:27:41] proposals from the applicant,
[1:27:43] um, to bring the property into
[1:27:45] compliance with city code,
[1:27:47] whether that be alterations or
[1:27:49] through the variances that are
[1:27:52] presented to you tonight. To
[1:27:56] reduce, uh, to correct the, the
[1:27:57] first violation, the applicants
[1:27:59] are proposing to remove the
[1:28:01] existing hot tub, thus reducing
[1:28:03] the amount of water-oriented
[1:28:03] accessory structures to a
[1:28:07] number permitted by code.
[1:28:09] Secondly, uh, they
[1:28:10] re proposing
[1:28:12] to reduce the total square
[1:28:14] footage of the accessory
[1:28:16] structures, uh, to a total of
[1:28:20] 200 square feet, um, thus, by
[1:28:22] reducing the total patio size
[1:28:23] and also getting rid of the hot
[1:28:28] tub square footage. The final 4
[1:28:29] items the applicants are
[1:28:32] requesting variances for. Uh,
[1:28:34] the applicant is requesting a
[1:28:35] variance to the side yard
[1:28:38] setback on the eastern side. To
[1:28:40] maintain the current 10 ft
[1:28:41] setback that the patio is
[1:28:45] currently sitting at. The
[1:28:48] second variance requested is to
[1:28:53] maintain, uh, the patio at 17.6
[1:28:54] ft from the ordinary high water
[1:28:56] line, they would be reducing
[1:29:00] the size of the patio in the
[1:29:02] area that is between the lake
[1:29:03] and the home to try to mitigate
[1:29:10] that. Thirdly, is a variance
[1:29:11] request for the maximum
[1:29:12] impervious surface coverage of
[1:29:15] the home. As stated earlier,
[1:29:17] they are now subject to the 25%
[1:29:20] with the introduction of the
[1:29:21] water-oriented accessory
[1:29:24] structure, uh, the applicants
[1:29:27] are proposing a 35.6%
[1:29:28] impervious surface coverage,
[1:29:31] which, as Important to note is
[1:29:33] the amount that was approved as
[1:29:36] a part of that residential
[1:29:38] design review in 2003, but
[1:29:40] would require an additional
[1:29:41] variance today, because of that
[1:29:42] wire-oriented accessory
[1:29:46] structure. And lastly, uh,
[1:29:47] their they
[1:29:48] re requesting a
[1:29:52] variance to um the 50 ft uh
[1:29:52] setback from uh the ordinary
[1:29:54] high water line for the
[1:29:58] structure, uh, to maintain that
[1:29:59] 17.9 ft setback for the
[1:30:04] existing deck on the site. So
[1:30:06] this is just another
[1:30:09] visualization, um, of the
[1:30:12] proposed variances this evening,
[1:30:14] along with a survey that was
[1:30:16] sent to staff with uh some
[1:30:18] visuals as to how they
[1:30:19] re
[1:30:19] reducing the impervious surface
[1:30:21] coverage. As you can see on the
[1:30:24] northern side of the property,
[1:30:24] they
[1:30:26] re planning on removing,
[1:30:27] uh, that illegally installed,
[1:30:32] um, Gravel portion along here.
[1:30:33] They
[1:30:34] re also proposing to
[1:30:36] remove a small portion of a
[1:30:37] turnaround area that was
[1:30:40] permitted, uh, just to reduce
[1:30:40] some additional impervious
[1:30:44] surface coverage on the site.
[1:30:46] The items that are circled. Are
[1:30:49] going to be the ones that the
[1:30:50] applicant is requesting
[1:30:53] variances for And I think the
[1:30:57] the one to note would be the
[1:31:00] removal of some of that patio
[1:31:02] area to one, get it down to
[1:31:06] that 200 square foot mark. But
[1:31:10] also visualizing, um, the
[1:31:12] reduction of the setback from
[1:31:14] the ordinary high water line or
[1:31:19] um That, um, Oh, now I
[1:31:20] m
[1:31:21] forgetting the name of it, but
[1:31:29] yes. Again, uh, because this is
[1:31:31] a substandard lot. It does
[1:31:32] require residential design
[1:31:37] review. Um, The 4 columns that
[1:31:40] are shown on screen are going
[1:31:43] to include uh the allowed
[1:31:48] amounts by code. The permitted
[1:31:50] amounts that were approved as a
[1:31:51] part of that 2003 residential
[1:31:54] design review. The current
[1:31:57] conditions of the property. And
[1:31:59] what is being proposed for you
[1:32:01] this evening. And as you can
[1:32:04] see, the 4 variances. Are bold
[1:32:09] on the right hand side. As you
[1:32:12] are familiar, uh, the variance
[1:32:15] criteria are subject to uh the
[1:32:19] 3 items shown on screen. Um,
[1:32:21] the reasonable manner, the uh
[1:32:22] property owner is proposing to
[1:32:26] use, or the Um, the applicant
[1:32:28] is proposing something that is
[1:32:29] reasonable within the, the
[1:32:31] property. Uh, there
[1:32:32] s a unique
[1:32:34] circumstance that is unique to
[1:32:35] the property owner and or the
[1:32:36] property and it
[1:32:37] s not created
[1:32:38] by the property owner, uh, or a
[1:32:41] previous one. And lastly, the
[1:32:43] character of the neighborhood,
[1:32:45] uh, that the, uh, proposed work
[1:32:46] would not alter the essential
[1:32:53] character. So For For For For
[1:32:55] the For For the 3 variances
[1:32:57] requested regarding the patio
[1:32:58] and its location. Uh, staff
[1:33:00] believes that a practical
[1:33:02] difficulty is not present for
[1:33:06] these three items, uh, due to,
[1:33:07] uh, the unique circumstance not
[1:33:11] being met. While the patio is a
[1:33:13] reasonable request, uh, both
[1:33:17] within the r1 zoning district,
[1:33:18] as well as uh for a riparian
[1:33:22] lot long term. Turtle Lake. Um,
[1:33:24] and staff believes that this
[1:33:26] application would not alter the
[1:33:27] essential character of the
[1:33:30] neighborhood, um, given that,
[1:33:31] again, many other properties
[1:33:33] along Turtle Lake have lakeside
[1:33:36] patios, um, some of which are,
[1:33:41] uh, Kind of. Close, closer than
[1:33:44] standard ones, um, but the
[1:33:45] unique circumstance, staff
[1:33:46] believes just isn
[1:33:48] t present. Um,
[1:33:52] one, due to the total amount of
[1:33:53] impervious surface coverage
[1:33:55] that is being requested by the
[1:33:59] applicants, um, The, the
[1:34:02] deviation is for an additional
[1:34:03] 10.6% of impervious surface
[1:34:06] coverage on the site, uh, which
[1:34:09] is a, a fairly substantial
[1:34:10] amount given the um the
[1:34:13] location of where a lot of that
[1:34:16] is, um, the staff received
[1:34:19] comments from our engineering
[1:34:20] department about uh the
[1:34:22] importance of the impervious
[1:34:24] surface coverage requirements
[1:34:25] and code, um, typically because
[1:34:27] they don
[1:34:29] t want that water
[1:34:30] draining towards water sources,
[1:34:33] um, and given that a lot of
[1:34:34] that improved or additional
[1:34:37] impervious is going to be
[1:34:38] lakeside, um, it
[1:34:38] s, it
[1:34:39] s going
[1:34:41] to be a substantial impact on
[1:34:44] the body of water, Turtle Lake.
[1:34:46] Um, secondly, uh, the site does
[1:34:48] allow for the homeowners to
[1:34:50] reduce and or alter the patio
[1:34:52] to conform to that side yard
[1:34:54] setback, it would reduce the
[1:34:57] patio to a little bit less than
[1:34:59] 150 square feet, uh, but it
[1:35:01] would be an additional variance
[1:35:02] that would not be in front of
[1:35:04] you tonight, if that were to be
[1:35:07] have been proposed. Um, and
[1:35:10] then lastly, staff believes
[1:35:12] that the definition for a
[1:35:13] practical difficulty involving
[1:35:14] the setback from the ordinary
[1:35:17] high water line is not present
[1:35:20] for the proposed application.
[1:35:23] For the variants that is
[1:35:25] requested regarding the deck.
[1:35:27] Staff does believe that a
[1:35:29] practical difficulty is present
[1:35:29] for this variant
[1:35:31] s request, um,
[1:35:33] again, uh, the staff believes
[1:35:36] that the, the application for
[1:35:38] uh a lakeside deck is again a
[1:35:40] permitted use and something
[1:35:42] that is very common with many
[1:35:43] of these properties along
[1:35:44] County Rhodede and on Turtle
[1:35:47] Lake. Um, the unique
[1:35:49] circumstance in this situation
[1:35:50] is, um, again, you
[1:35:51] re, you
[1:35:52] ll
[1:35:53] be fairly familiar with this,
[1:35:56] given that a variance was
[1:35:57] requested and approved for
[1:35:58] another property on County
[1:36:01] Rhode Is for a very similar
[1:36:03] situation that um the ordinary
[1:36:07] high water line for when the
[1:36:08] original 2003 residential
[1:36:11] design review was approved, uh,
[1:36:14] has thus changed to now, um,
[1:36:18] the, the property has Um,
[1:36:20] eroded along that western edge,
[1:36:23] and Turtle Lake has come up a
[1:36:27] little bit thus reducing, um,
[1:36:28] that distance between the, the
[1:36:29] current deck and where that
[1:36:32] ordinary high water line sits,
[1:36:34] so staff believes that um this
[1:36:36] reduction in the setback is a
[1:36:38] result of natural changes, um,
[1:36:40] but not, uh, well, caused by
[1:36:42] the owner but not caused by the
[1:36:45] owner, if that makes sense. Uh,
[1:36:47] and lastly, staff believes that
[1:36:49] The proposed setback would not
[1:36:51] alter the character of the
[1:36:53] neighborhood, um, the, there
[1:36:56] are similar, again, variances
[1:36:58] that have been requested and
[1:36:59] granted that have been
[1:37:00] requested and granted that have
[1:37:00] been requested and granted for
[1:37:01] that have been requested and
[1:37:02] granted that have been
[1:37:02] requested and granted for um
[1:37:03] similar distances for decks, uh,
[1:37:05] set back at this distance, um,
[1:37:05] and it
[1:37:06] s important to note that
[1:37:08] the neighbor to the west is, uh,
[1:37:11] less than 1 ft, um, from Turtle
[1:37:14] Lake for, for a deck. So, uh,
[1:37:15] staff does not believe that
[1:37:16] this request would alter the
[1:37:20] character of The neighborhood.
[1:37:23] On screen is just a
[1:37:26] visualization of the um unique
[1:37:29] circumstances that were stated,
[1:37:31] showing the distances from the
[1:37:33] proposed deck from 2003 on the
[1:37:36] right hand side, uh, with a
[1:37:39] reduced elevation of Turtle
[1:37:41] Lake and an increased western
[1:37:44] property line, uh, as well as,
[1:37:45] um, the existing conditions on
[1:37:47] the left hand side with where
[1:37:48] Turtle Lake currently sits, uh,
[1:37:50] where the deck. Currently is
[1:37:51] set back from that ordinary
[1:37:54] high water line, as well as the
[1:37:56] reduction in the western
[1:37:58] property line, um, and the
[1:38:05] reduction of that. Comments, um,
[1:38:08] staff did receive one, well, uh,
[1:38:10] one written public comment from
[1:38:11] uh two different homeowners
[1:38:13] that was submitted, uh,
[1:38:14] expressing disapproval of the
[1:38:16] variants request, that item was
[1:38:18] included in your packets this
[1:38:20] evening, um, as stated, staff
[1:38:22] did receive a comment from
[1:38:23] engineering regarding the
[1:38:25] importance of shore reviews
[1:38:28] impervious surface coverage on
[1:38:29] the uh cumulative negative
[1:38:30] impacts of runoff towards the
[1:38:34] body of water. Uh, and lastly,
[1:38:35] staff received a comment from
[1:38:36] the Race Creek Watershed
[1:38:38] District, uh, providing
[1:38:42] comments about their permitting
[1:38:45] specifications and um their
[1:38:47] notification requirements for
[1:38:49] uh potential fill weather, uh,
[1:38:51] any alteration to the existing
[1:38:54] patio, uh, would be impacted
[1:38:58] this evening. So Uh, staff
[1:39:01] recommends that the planning
[1:39:03] commission deny 3 variances
[1:39:04] submitted by Robert Fried
[1:39:06] regarding the property at 804
[1:39:08] County Rhode I, uh, each of
[1:39:11] which involves, uh, the patio
[1:39:14] structure, the first being to
[1:39:16] exceed the maximum impervious
[1:39:19] surface coverage, the second,
[1:39:21] uh, to allow the water-oriented
[1:39:24] accessory structure, uh, to
[1:39:24] encroach within the shore
[1:39:28] impact zone. And lastly, to
[1:39:29] reduce the water-oriented side
[1:39:32] setback to 10 ft. Uh, however,
[1:39:34] staff does recommend that the
[1:39:36] planning commission adopt
[1:39:39] Resolution 26-68, uh, proving
[1:39:41] the 17.9 ft structure setback
[1:39:42] for the existing deck that is
[1:39:44] on the property, subject to the
[1:39:44] conditions outlined in your
[1:39:47] packets. And with that, I will
[1:39:49] stand for questions. Thank you,
[1:39:51] MR. Harris. Any questions, MR.
[1:39:52] Chair Commissioner Simonson. I
[1:39:53] guess the question is there
[1:39:54] s a
[1:39:55] number of variances here and
[1:39:55] there
[1:39:59] s a lot of. I don
[1:39:59] t, so
[1:40:01] the question is, if, if the
[1:40:01] variants don
[1:40:01] t pass, is, is the.
[1:40:07] Is a city trying to get the hot
[1:40:10] tub and the patio removed. So
[1:40:14] compliance, yes, um. So the
[1:40:16] original, um, how this all
[1:40:20] started, I guess, um, when the
[1:40:23] property owners had applied for
[1:40:24] their short-term rental license.
[1:40:25] Uh, staff had gone through and
[1:40:27] done an inspection of the
[1:40:29] property. Uh, they had approved
[1:40:31] the rental license and issued
[1:40:34] that, um, as a part of our code
[1:40:35] enforcement and rental program,
[1:40:38] Staff did receive a couple of
[1:40:39] complaints from surrounding
[1:40:40] property owners, which, as a
[1:40:42] part of those complaints
[1:40:46] included, um, parking issues on
[1:40:48] that gravel patch on that
[1:40:51] eastern portion. And so, once
[1:40:52] we looked at that, we started
[1:40:54] doing a little bit deeper of a
[1:40:57] dive into the property, found
[1:40:59] numerous other violations, and
[1:41:02] uh actually issued the property
[1:41:05] owners a letter both for rental
[1:41:07] code violations and property
[1:41:09] violations, what you are seeing
[1:41:10] tonight is the property
[1:41:13] violations and the request of
[1:41:15] The homeowner to uh maintain
[1:41:17] something that they kind of
[1:41:19] walked into without knowing, um,
[1:41:22] and since then, uh, the rental
[1:41:25] code violations, uh, excluding
[1:41:26] the parking violations have
[1:41:30] thus been corrected. And a
[1:41:31] follow up question is the the
[1:41:32] parking, there
[1:41:33] s no variance
[1:41:35] request for that. That
[1:41:35] s being
[1:41:37] eliminated the, the gravel.
[1:41:39] Parking pad, I guess, or
[1:41:43] correct. Ok. Commissioner
[1:41:45] Cortis, yeah, so I just, uh,
[1:41:47] trying to understand more about
[1:41:51] what, what happened in the rdr
[1:41:55] with the 35.6%. So it, it in
[1:41:56] the staff report, it talks
[1:42:00] about how. There was a, a no
[1:42:02] lakeside accessory structure,
[1:42:04] period, as part of that, or, or
[1:42:06] how was that passed as part of
[1:42:07] the variance cause we don
[1:42:07] t
[1:42:08] have those, those minutes or,
[1:42:12] or what whatever from 2003.
[1:42:15] Yeah, so the, as a part of that
[1:42:18] residential design review, um,
[1:42:21] the homeowners were. They were
[1:42:23] actually exceeding the
[1:42:24] impervious surface coverage
[1:42:27] again on the site, um, and a
[1:42:29] part of that residential design
[1:42:31] review and a request by staff
[1:42:35] was, uh, to mitigate or to Uh,
[1:42:37] reduce that impervious surface
[1:42:41] coverage back to the 35.6, um,
[1:42:42] and that was approved as a part
[1:42:47] of that rdr. And so as part of
[1:42:49] the, the conditions in, in that
[1:42:53] approval was the no lakeside
[1:42:56] accessory structures or it was
[1:42:57] not specifically outlined
[1:42:58] within those conditions.
[1:43:01] However however, as a part of
[1:43:06] all of our, um, Memos or uh rdr.
[1:43:12] Procedures, so to speak. Um,
[1:43:14] there is a provision in there
[1:43:16] that states that any
[1:43:18] significant alteration to the
[1:43:20] property would require the
[1:43:22] approval of the planning
[1:43:24] commission, and with a
[1:43:25] significant alteration such as
[1:43:28] the addition of a lakeside.
[1:43:29] Accessory structure, um, which
[1:43:31] would then, again, put them
[1:43:33] down into that 25% impervious
[1:43:37] surface coverage. Bucket Um,
[1:43:40] They, they violated the terms
[1:43:42] of that rdr with that. Um,
[1:43:46] edition. And so with with with
[1:43:49] that rdr. Were they already
[1:43:54] built up to the 35.6 or was it?
[1:43:57] The ability to go up to 35.6.
[1:44:00] Like what, what I guess changed,
[1:44:00] I guess there
[1:44:01] s 6% more now,
[1:44:03] but, but, and some of that
[1:44:04] s
[1:44:06] the hot tub. What was the 35.6
[1:44:08] at that time is my question. So,
[1:44:13] If I MAY, Commissioner Cortes,
[1:44:14] when that property went through
[1:44:16] that residential design review
[1:44:18] in 2003, they were, as well
[1:44:22] stated, higher. They were at 37.
[1:44:22] Something. I don
[1:44:23] t recall the
[1:44:24] number off the top of my head,
[1:44:25] but as part of their mitigation.
[1:44:29] To do those improvements to the
[1:44:30] property, that is when they
[1:44:32] brought it down to that 35.6.
[1:44:34] So they removed some impervious
[1:44:35] surface coverage that had been
[1:44:37] on the property, likely prior
[1:44:40] to our shore and regulations
[1:44:41] changing in 1992. And so this
[1:44:42] was a way for the city to get
[1:44:44] them to bring it closer to
[1:44:46] compliance. And so at that
[1:44:49] point they were allowed to keep
[1:44:53] 35.6%, but that. As was stated,
[1:44:56] um, did not include any
[1:44:57] lakeside structures, so they
[1:44:57] re
[1:44:58] maximum at that point would
[1:45:01] have been 30%. So they were
[1:45:02] still above it, but they were
[1:45:04] still reducing it to what the
[1:45:05] property had historically held,
[1:45:07] so the city was happy to see
[1:45:08] that reduction. Ok, and I guess
[1:45:08] I
[1:45:09] m just trying to figure out
[1:45:11] what was, what was the, at that
[1:45:15] time, the 35. 0.6 essentially.
[1:45:17] Like what was there when They
[1:45:24] reached that agreement. Um, I,
[1:45:27] the, the survey from the
[1:45:28] original submission is shown on
[1:45:31] screen on the right hand side,
[1:45:33] um, I think that a lot of that
[1:45:36] is gonna come back to, uh, a
[1:45:37] lot of this concrete that runs
[1:45:39] along the side and along the
[1:45:43] rear of the home back here, um,
[1:45:47] But the, again, uh, a, a small
[1:45:51] portion of that too, um, could
[1:45:52] be related to uh the change in
[1:45:53] the ordinary high water line
[1:45:59] too. Ok, and so. Just so I
[1:46:00] understand what I
[1:46:00] m looking at
[1:46:01] then. So there
[1:46:01] s there
[1:46:01] s this
[1:46:03] kind of ring of concrete around
[1:46:05] the existing house, like a
[1:46:07] sidewalk or something, and then
[1:46:09] it says deck, and does that
[1:46:10] mean above ground deck or is
[1:46:12] that a patio ground patio at
[1:46:13] the time, above ground deck. Ok.
[1:46:18] I, I don
[1:46:23] t have anything else.
[1:46:24] Any other comments, questions?
[1:46:25] Ok, thank you, MR. Harris.
[1:46:28] Thank you. If the applicant is
[1:46:30] in the audience and like to
[1:46:31] address the commission. I
[1:46:31] d
[1:46:34] invite you to come up and State
[1:46:35] your name and address for the
[1:46:42] record. To 2 people are allowed.
[1:46:42] Yes, it wouldn
[1:46:42] t be the first
[1:46:48] time. I
[1:46:51] m Robert Fried. I live
[1:46:52] at 49 South Deep Lake Road in
[1:46:55] North Oaks. And this is my
[1:46:58] daughter-in-law Allie Fried.
[1:47:02] And you live at. Yes, I live at
[1:47:06] 6583 in Lino Lakes, Minnesota.
[1:47:12] Um, So. My wife and I, my wife
[1:47:12] isn
[1:47:12] t here. She
[1:47:13] s not feeling
[1:47:16] well, but, um, My wife and I
[1:47:20] have lived in the. Shoreview,
[1:47:23] the larger Shoreview community.
[1:47:26] Uh, since 1987. Um, Yeah, we
[1:47:30] were. We moved away for a short
[1:47:34] period of time and moved back.
[1:47:38] In 1995 and uh. Uh, have lived
[1:47:44] in North Oaks for 30 years. Um,
[1:47:44] i
[1:47:45] m active in the Shoreview
[1:47:46] community. I
[1:47:47] m a mem my wife
[1:47:49] and I are both members of the
[1:47:52] Rotary Club. Uh, we were active,
[1:47:57] uh. Creating the Pollinator
[1:47:59] garden at McCullough. Park And
[1:48:05] um. Uh, we contribute to the
[1:48:09] shore view. Foundation. On a
[1:48:18] regular basis. Um, It
[1:48:19] s been
[1:48:21] difficult to us for us to
[1:48:23] realize that there are a lot of
[1:48:25] issues with this property. Um,
[1:48:29] there were 2. Prior owners. Uh,
[1:48:32] uh. And we don
[1:48:36] t know. Exactly
[1:48:39] what either uh prior owner did.
[1:48:44] But, um, Uh Thanks to the
[1:48:45] playing staff, we
[1:48:46] ve come to
[1:48:46] realize that there
[1:48:46] s some
[1:48:50] issues. And, and, uh, and we
[1:48:50] ve
[1:48:54] been working hard to try to Uh,
[1:48:58] Come up with a plan and Uh,
[1:49:01] perhaps we need to do, More
[1:49:03] work in that regard, but in any
[1:49:05] case, um. Uh, Ali, you
[1:49:06] re gonna.
[1:49:09] Have some opening remarks. I
[1:49:09] ll
[1:49:12] stay here. Answer questions. Or
[1:49:15] to see if I go into labor, I
[1:49:17] think. Uh, well, good evening.
[1:49:19] My name is Allie Fried. My
[1:49:20] father-in-law and mother-in-law
[1:49:22] Robert and Miriam own the home
[1:49:24] at 804 County Road I. They
[1:49:26] purchased it nearly a year ago
[1:49:28] in SEPTEMBER of 2025, the first
[1:49:29] and only cabin they
[1:49:30] ve ever
[1:49:31] owned, a dream realized after
[1:49:33] more than 40 years of diligent
[1:49:35] saving. My in-laws have called
[1:49:36] the Mounds View School District
[1:49:37] home for decades and are both
[1:49:39] active members of the Shoreview
[1:49:40] and Arden Hills Rotary Club.
[1:49:41] They
[1:49:41] ve asked me to speak on
[1:49:44] their behalf tonight. Thank you
[1:49:45] for your time and genuinely
[1:49:47] thank you, Will, for all that
[1:49:47] you
[1:49:48] ve put into this. 5 months
[1:49:50] is a long time to work through
[1:49:51] something like this, but we
[1:49:51] ve
[1:49:53] had a laundry list to get
[1:49:54] through, and we felt the effort
[1:49:56] from your side. I want to start
[1:49:58] with something that we actually
[1:49:59] agree with Steph on. They
[1:50:00] ve
[1:50:01] recommended approving the deck
[1:50:02] variants and their reasoning
[1:50:04] makes sense to us. The setback
[1:50:06] problem goes back to something
[1:50:07] nobody could control the
[1:50:10] shoreline eroding into the slot
[1:50:11] since 2003, not anything my
[1:50:13] in-laws did. We
[1:50:14] re grateful
[1:50:15] that the planning staff saw
[1:50:16] this clearly because it
[1:50:17] s the
[1:50:19] case. We think the patio
[1:50:19] deserves the same conclusion,
[1:50:20] and here
[1:50:22] s why. My in-laws
[1:50:22] didn
[1:50:24] t build the patio. They
[1:50:24] didn
[1:50:26] t rebuild the deck either.
[1:50:28] Both were already there,
[1:50:29] exactly as can be seen now when
[1:50:31] they bought this house last
[1:50:32] SEPTEMBER. They walked into
[1:50:33] this situation and didn
[1:50:33] t
[1:50:35] create it. And there
[1:50:35] s a piece
[1:50:36] of this lot
[1:50:37] s history that
[1:50:39] matters here too. This property
[1:50:41] has been recognized by the city
[1:50:43] as a substandard lot since long
[1:50:46] before my in-laws owned it.
[1:50:48] Just 9,896 square feet, well
[1:50:50] under the 15,000 square foot
[1:50:52] standard. On the lot, only 75
[1:50:54] ft wide. That
[1:50:56] s exactly why in
[1:50:58] 2003, this commission granted
[1:51:00] this property additional
[1:51:00] flexibility on impervious
[1:51:02] coverage in the first place.
[1:51:04] The physical constraints of
[1:51:04] this lot aren
[1:51:05] t something my
[1:51:06] in-laws created. There
[1:51:07] s
[1:51:08] something the city itself
[1:51:09] already recognized as unique to
[1:51:12] this property. The stricter 25%
[1:51:13] limit we
[1:51:15] re asking you to look
[1:51:15] past isn
[1:51:17] t about preference.
[1:51:17] It
[1:51:19] s what happens when two code
[1:51:21] provisions, the substandard lot
[1:51:23] allowance, and the Lakeside
[1:51:24] Accessories structure cap
[1:51:25] collide on a lot this size and
[1:51:28] shape. That collision is a
[1:51:29] unique circumstance, and it has
[1:51:31] nothing to do with any choice
[1:51:33] my in-laws made. We
[1:51:34] d ask you
[1:51:35] to consider just how tight that
[1:51:37] collision really is. Our
[1:51:38] surveyor, who has been an
[1:51:41] amazing help. His calculations
[1:51:43] show that even if every
[1:51:45] accessory feature on this
[1:51:46] property were removed entirely.
[1:51:49] The hot tub, the patio in full,
[1:51:51] the gravel area next to the
[1:51:51] driveway and the driveway
[1:51:52] trimmed down to its simplest
[1:51:57] form. This lot would still sit
[1:52:00] at 32.5% in previous coverage.
[1:52:02] Well above the 25% threshold.
[1:52:04] In other words, the home itself
[1:52:06] and the minimum access it
[1:52:08] requires already exceed that
[1:52:10] number before a patio even
[1:52:11] enters the picture. That
[1:52:11] s not
[1:52:13] a result of how we use this
[1:52:13] property. It
[1:52:14] s a function of
[1:52:15] this lot
[1:52:16] s size in the house
[1:52:19] that stood on it since 1972.
[1:52:19] We
[1:52:20] d ask the commission to
[1:52:22] weigh whether a standard this
[1:52:25] lot cannot reasonably meet
[1:52:26] under any configuration is one
[1:52:28] that should stand in the way of
[1:52:29] a modest, substantially reduced
[1:52:33] accessory structure. And I want
[1:52:34] to address one phrase directly
[1:52:35] because I don
[1:52:36] t think it
[1:52:37] reflects what we
[1:52:38] re actually
[1:52:39] asking. Staff
[1:52:40] s recommendation
[1:52:41] describes this as maintaining
[1:52:43] the patio as a matter of
[1:52:44] preference rather than a unique
[1:52:46] circumstance. Respectfully,
[1:52:47] we
[1:52:48] re not asking to maintain
[1:52:50] anything as it stands when this
[1:52:52] home was purchased a year ago.
[1:52:52] We
[1:52:54] re proposing to cut the
[1:52:56] patio nearly in half, 314
[1:52:59] square feet down to 200. Remove
[1:53:02] the hot tub outright and bring
[1:53:03] total impervious surface
[1:53:07] coverage down from 41.5 to
[1:53:08] 35.6%. The same figure this
[1:53:10] commission approved for this
[1:53:13] lot in 2003. A preference would
[1:53:14] be leaving it alone. We
[1:53:15] re
[1:53:17] asking for the chance to shrink
[1:53:17] it substantially and keep
[1:53:17] what
[1:53:21] s left. And on the
[1:53:21] neighborhood, staff
[1:53:22] s own
[1:53:23] report says granting this
[1:53:23] wouldn
[1:53:24] t change the character
[1:53:27] of the area and the other homes
[1:53:28] on County Rhode already have
[1:53:30] patios of their own. This isn
[1:53:30] t
[1:53:33] out of place here. And there
[1:53:33] s
[1:53:34] one more thing we want to
[1:53:35] address directly because we
[1:53:38] suspect it MAY come up tonight.
[1:53:41] This home is a family gathering
[1:53:43] place that also operates on a
[1:53:45] limited basis, as a short term
[1:53:46] rental, fully licensed and
[1:53:49] approved by the city. Whatever
[1:53:49] tonight
[1:53:50] s comments touch on,
[1:53:50] we
[1:53:52] d ask the commission to hold
[1:53:55] on to one distinction. These 4
[1:53:56] variances are about the
[1:53:59] physical dimensions of a deck
[1:54:01] and a patio, a setback a size,
[1:54:03] and a percentage of coverage.
[1:54:05] None of that turns on who is
[1:54:07] standing on the property or how
[1:54:09] often. In fact, the three-part
[1:54:11] test, your own staff report
[1:54:13] lays out for tonight.
[1:54:14] Reasonable manner, unique
[1:54:15] circumstance, and neighborhood
[1:54:17] character. Doesn
[1:54:19] t ask anywhere
[1:54:20] who occupies this home or how
[1:54:21] often, and that
[1:54:21] s not an
[1:54:24] oversight. Those criteria are
[1:54:26] about the land, not the use,
[1:54:26] and we
[1:54:27] d ask you to apply them
[1:54:30] exactly as written. It is our
[1:54:31] belief that comments about
[1:54:33] short-term rental use tonight,
[1:54:35] however sincere, have no
[1:54:37] bearing on these four variances
[1:54:37] and shouldn
[1:54:38] t factor into your
[1:54:40] decision. Tonight we
[1:54:40] re asking
[1:54:42] you to rule on the dimensions
[1:54:42] in front of you and nothing
[1:54:46] more. We are participating in
[1:54:48] this process in good faith.
[1:54:48] We
[1:54:49] ve hired a licensed
[1:54:51] surveying company to assist us.
[1:54:53] We propose less and not more.
[1:54:55] Engaging in this process has
[1:54:57] already met real financial
[1:54:58] costs for my in-laws, and it
[1:55:00] will likely mean more before
[1:55:02] this is resolved. Costs they
[1:55:03] never expected when they bought
[1:55:06] their first and only cabin last
[1:55:07] year for conditions that
[1:55:08] existed on this property long
[1:55:10] before they ever saw it. All
[1:55:10] we
[1:55:12] re asking is that the
[1:55:13] commission apply the same logic
[1:55:14] to the patio that staff already
[1:55:17] applied to the deck. And
[1:55:19] approve all four variances,
[1:55:21] including resolution 2668.
[1:55:22] Thank you. We
[1:55:23] re able to answer
[1:55:25] any questions you have. Thank
[1:55:26] you. Um, anybody have any
[1:55:29] questions for the Freeds?
[1:55:33] Seeing them. Thank you for your
[1:55:34] information. Appreciate your
[1:55:37] time. Any members of the public
[1:55:43] that wish to come up and uh.
[1:55:45] Everything about this property.
[1:55:53] Anything to say? Did you get my
[1:55:54] letter from Will? I think
[1:55:54] Wilson is gonna be in the
[1:55:57] packet. By chance if not I can
[1:55:58] hand out a copy. Can you say
[1:55:59] your name and your address so
[1:56:00] we can know if it
[1:56:01] s the one
[1:56:02] that we that we received, yeah
[1:56:03] that we that we received, yeah
[1:56:04] that we that we received, yeah,
[1:56:05] um, Brett Markard 800 Conard I.
[1:56:10] Ok, awesome. Oh. You guys have
[1:56:12] a difficult job, so, um. You
[1:56:13] know, it
[1:56:14] s funny, preparing for
[1:56:16] this, um, Both MR. Peters, MR.
[1:56:18] Harris have actually I met MR.
[1:56:19] Peterson about 3 years ago and
[1:56:20] I called him about a project on
[1:56:21] a different house because I
[1:56:22] believe in proactive planning,
[1:56:23] like, hey, can I build this
[1:56:25] addition to my house and He
[1:56:27] informed me no. So that was my
[1:56:29] first interaction, out with the
[1:56:31] planning staff of Shoreview.
[1:56:31] It
[1:56:32] s amazing these memes are
[1:56:33] recorded, so whoever set that
[1:56:35] up, thank you, allow us to go
[1:56:35] back and see the debate you
[1:56:37] have, and I think as a
[1:56:37] committee, it
[1:56:38] s clearly a
[1:56:39] healthy committee. You guys
[1:56:41] disagree. I, you know, the, the
[1:56:42] meeting I watched was not
[1:56:43] unanimous, even tonight was not,
[1:56:44] and I think that
[1:56:45] s a great, a
[1:56:47] great sign. Um, so the neighbor,
[1:56:48] It
[1:56:50] s been interesting too to
[1:56:52] the reasonable manner, unique
[1:56:54] circumstance, and character of
[1:56:55] the neighborhood. And I
[1:56:55] m just
[1:56:57] gonna zoom in on unique
[1:56:58] circumstance that this is not a
[1:57:01] unique circumstance. This is a
[1:57:02] luxury amenity. This when
[1:57:03] someone and I talk about the
[1:57:04] whole overall variances, I
[1:57:05] think it
[1:57:06] s focused and, and
[1:57:07] focused specifically on the
[1:57:09] patio. The patio is 10 ft from
[1:57:12] my property line. And it
[1:57:13] s a
[1:57:14] luxury amenity that has
[1:57:15] fostered large gatherings all
[1:57:17] summer long. Hundreds of people
[1:57:19] have moved through the property,
[1:57:21] uh, last weekend, there was a
[1:57:22] private bachelorette party with
[1:57:25] a chef, uh, and dance party. Uh,
[1:57:25] it
[1:57:25] s great. It
[1:57:26] s a beautiful
[1:57:27] property. It
[1:57:27] s a beautiful spot,
[1:57:29] and I think the challenge for
[1:57:30] the planning commission is, you
[1:57:30] can
[1:57:31] t look at us or the Fried
[1:57:33] family. You have to look at the
[1:57:33] overall vision of Shoreview.
[1:57:35] Like, what does this look like
[1:57:37] as a community, not just us as
[1:57:38] owners now. Anything about
[1:57:38] what
[1:57:39] s the long-term water
[1:57:41] quality effect? What does it
[1:57:42] look like to prove this
[1:57:45] structure as is. And when you
[1:57:47] think about inheriting this, um,
[1:57:48] it is unfortunate that the
[1:57:48] prior owner didn
[1:57:49] t resolve this.
[1:57:49] It
[1:57:50] s unfortunate in the buying
[1:57:51] process that they didn
[1:57:51] t sort
[1:57:54] it out. Um. You know, we have
[1:57:55] highly, you know, clearly,
[1:57:55] Ali
[1:57:56] s an incredible, they
[1:57:56] re,
[1:57:56] they
[1:57:57] re great people. I do
[1:57:58] enjoy them. Um, and it
[1:57:59] s a good
[1:57:59] speaker. Bob
[1:58:00] s an attorney.
[1:58:02] These are very sharp folks.
[1:58:02] It
[1:58:03] s unfortunate that this
[1:58:04] wasn
[1:58:04] t resolved during the
[1:58:07] purchase process, but now. As a
[1:58:08] member of the community of
[1:58:09] Shoreview, who values the parks,
[1:58:11] the lakes, all the things we
[1:58:13] love. I really encourage you to
[1:58:14] support the town
[1:58:15] s
[1:58:16] recommendations to deny the
[1:58:18] variance request, um, as, as
[1:58:21] proposed. Thank you. Thank you,
[1:58:24] MR. McCardin. Anyone else
[1:58:26] wished to address the
[1:58:31] commission on this subject.
[1:58:31] Seeing none, we
[1:58:32] ll bring it
[1:58:34] back to the commission.
[1:58:37] Commissioner Amman. Oh, MR.
[1:58:40] Chair, oh. So go ahead,
[1:58:41] Commissioner Simonsonen, ok.
[1:58:45] Yes, I, I always, uh, I know
[1:58:46] Shoreview typically has a
[1:58:47] complaint-driven system and,
[1:58:49] and I always hate when. It
[1:58:49] s
[1:58:51] frustrating when things come to
[1:58:52] us after the fact, and they do
[1:58:55] have a lot of respect. For
[1:58:56] previous planning commission
[1:58:57] decisions and things like that,
[1:58:59] so I have to put a different
[1:59:00] hat on tonight, and I have to
[1:59:03] be, put the hat on that says,
[1:59:04] if this would have came before
[1:59:07] me and they would have asked.
[1:59:09] For a hot tub for a patio. Uh,
[1:59:13] would I be inclined To support
[1:59:15] it and, and, you know, at the
[1:59:15] same time we
[1:59:17] ve had a lot of
[1:59:18] discussions. Our, our goal is
[1:59:20] to try and preserve the
[1:59:21] character of the lake to
[1:59:23] preserve the setback, the
[1:59:25] drainages, and, and a lot of
[1:59:26] these things go against a lot
[1:59:26] of the things we
[1:59:27] ve been trying
[1:59:28] to do, at least I
[1:59:28] ve been
[1:59:29] trying to do when I
[1:59:31] ve been on
[1:59:34] the planning commission, um.
[1:59:35] It
[1:59:37] s a very uh small lot. Um,
[1:59:37] there
[1:59:38] s not really a lot of
[1:59:39] space between the house and the
[1:59:42] lake. Um, so when you start
[1:59:45] talking about drainage. Uh, the
[1:59:46] chance for the water to to not
[1:59:47] go into the lake. There
[1:59:48] s not
[1:59:51] much of an opportunity. Um, so
[1:59:54] from a standpoint of um. When I
[1:59:55] first looked at this, I, I was,
[1:59:57] I was kind of disappointed, you
[1:59:58] know, that some of these things
[2:00:00] went in there, the patio, the
[2:00:02] hot tub, but yet at the same
[2:00:03] time when I look at this, I
[2:00:05] think. You can just, you know,
[2:00:08] people that are on the lakes,
[2:00:08] they wanna sit towards the
[2:00:10] lakeside. It kind of common
[2:00:11] sense patio makes sense, but
[2:00:13] you also have a deck, so you do
[2:00:17] have the, the, a, a, a way to
[2:00:19] actually uh look at the lake, I
[2:00:19] guess if if you
[2:00:21] re on the deck.
[2:00:22] And, and so basically when I
[2:00:22] look at this, I
[2:00:23] m, I
[2:00:25] m having a
[2:00:27] hard time supporting, um, the
[2:00:28] variances and agreeing with, I
[2:00:30] tend to agree with staff that
[2:00:32] in a way, I think in a perfect
[2:00:34] world, the nonconformity would
[2:00:36] be removed and I, I just don
[2:00:37] t
[2:00:38] support the Bavariances, the 3
[2:00:40] of the 4 variances I do support
[2:00:41] the deck variants, as staff
[2:00:49] said. MR. Anderson, all right,
[2:00:51] thank you, uh, Chair John. I,
[2:00:51] I
[2:00:52] ll just weigh in with my two
[2:00:53] cents on this too. I
[2:00:53] m kind of
[2:00:55] probably along the same lines
[2:00:56] as Commissioner Solomonson, you
[2:00:58] know, when you think about
[2:00:58] unique circumstances, it
[2:00:59] s,
[2:00:59] it
[2:01:00] s not created by a property
[2:01:03] owner, right? And, and although
[2:01:03] I
[2:01:04] ve huge sympathy for the fact
[2:01:05] that you didn
[2:01:07] t create this
[2:01:09] unique circumstances. It It was
[2:01:10] they were created by the by a
[2:01:12] property owner, right? So,
[2:01:12] That
[2:01:13] s kind of the conundrum
[2:01:19] here. Um um. Uh Yeah, I do
[2:01:21] recognize and appreciate, uh,
[2:01:22] the point that there is really
[2:01:24] no effective way to get this to
[2:01:25] 25%, and I don
[2:01:27] t think that was,
[2:01:28] uh, the spirit of the intent or
[2:01:31] even, even the mandate of the
[2:01:32] previous planning commission
[2:01:34] decision to allow for 35%
[2:01:36] because it was recognized that
[2:01:37] is probably a number that needs
[2:01:39] to exist on this property to
[2:01:40] allow for a driveway and house
[2:01:43] and, and things on a smaller
[2:01:44] nature or uh to accommodate a
[2:01:46] smaller, a smaller lot, I
[2:01:49] should say, um. So to me, uh,
[2:01:51] you know, getting it back to
[2:01:52] that 35% is reasonable. I think
[2:01:53] the problem that I have is
[2:01:55] there is a bit of a, there
[2:01:56] s a
[2:01:59] preference in where that. Uh,
[2:02:03] impervious surface lies, um.
[2:02:04] Previously, it was not Lakeside,
[2:02:05] now it
[2:02:06] s Lakeside. We
[2:02:07] ve heard
[2:02:09] from uh a city engineer or or
[2:02:11] uh. I think it was a city
[2:02:13] engineer that had had spoken to
[2:02:14] impervious runoff Lakeside, and,
[2:02:16] and that, that, that does make
[2:02:18] a difference, and, and we are
[2:02:22] sensitive to that, um. I, I
[2:02:24] will say also that the, the
[2:02:26] short term rental, uh, is
[2:02:26] irrelevant to me. It
[2:02:27] s, I
[2:02:27] ve
[2:02:28] been up here long enough and
[2:02:31] heard enough of this, uh, these
[2:02:32] type of proceedings that uh
[2:02:33] please know that that doesn
[2:02:33] t
[2:02:35] really weigh into any of our
[2:02:37] decisions in regards to what
[2:02:37] s
[2:02:38] before us tonight. Um, with all
[2:02:40] of that said, I, you know, I
[2:02:42] again, I come, I come back to
[2:02:45] that, uh, not created by a
[2:02:46] property owner and, and I just
[2:02:46] don
[2:02:49] t see how, although I
[2:02:49] appreciate it and, and again,
[2:02:49] I
[2:02:53] m very pathetic and, and, uh,
[2:02:54] feel bad for the situation. I
[2:02:55] can only imagine how
[2:02:56] frustrating it is to buy into
[2:02:58] something, come to find out
[2:02:59] after the fact that there
[2:02:59] s a
[2:03:01] problem there and then it has
[2:03:02] to be rectified. We
[2:03:04] ve had
[2:03:07] Permitting issues come before
[2:03:09] us when there are existing
[2:03:10] homeowners that don
[2:03:11] t do things
[2:03:12] properly and that
[2:03:12] s hard enough.
[2:03:15] And so I am, I, I do apologize
[2:03:16] for the situation that you
[2:03:16] re
[2:03:22] in, but that being said, Uh,
[2:03:23] that unique circumstance is
[2:03:23] kind of, it
[2:03:24] s one of the three
[2:03:26] pillars, and we have to be, in
[2:03:28] my opinion, very, uh, very true
[2:03:30] to it, and so for those reasons,
[2:03:32] I would support the staff
[2:03:32] s
[2:03:33] recommendations as a precedent
[2:03:38] tonight. MR. Cortis. So I, I
[2:03:38] guess I
[2:03:42] m just. Curious, you
[2:03:44] know, uh, they. Staff, they,
[2:03:45] they, you know, they
[2:03:45] ve come
[2:03:47] and said if we get rid of
[2:03:47] everything and tear up, we
[2:03:48] still aren
[2:03:48] t going to be at
[2:03:54] that 30%. Coverage. And nowhere
[2:03:58] near 25. I mean, if we pass 25%
[2:04:00] is it seems like 25 with
[2:04:01] lakeside access and 30% with no
[2:04:03] leg side accessory structure. I
[2:04:05] mean, what else are they
[2:04:07] tearing up or are those numbers
[2:04:07] wrong? Where are we kind of,
[2:04:09] what? I mean, what
[2:04:10] s the result
[2:04:12] of Of that based on what
[2:04:12] they
[2:04:13] re telling us versus
[2:04:13] what
[2:04:14] s in the, the
[2:04:18] recommendations from staff. Uh,
[2:04:21] So just to clarify, with the
[2:04:23] removal of the lakeside
[2:04:25] accessory structure, uh, they
[2:04:29] would be subject to the
[2:04:31] Previously approved impervious
[2:04:33] surface coverage percentage
[2:04:36] from 2003. So they would be
[2:04:39] required to, or they would be
[2:04:40] held to that because that
[2:04:41] structure is no longer present
[2:04:47] on the property. What is that,
[2:04:49] the patio and the hot tub? Or
[2:04:56] just the hot tub. Both. So if
[2:04:58] we do the 25%, they have to
[2:05:02] tear out the the entire patio.
[2:05:05] No, so the With the
[2:05:08] introduction of a lakeside
[2:05:10] accessory structure that puts
[2:05:15] them at the 25%. So Because
[2:05:15] they
[2:05:18] re already present. They
[2:05:21] would need a variance. Because
[2:05:21] they
[2:05:25] re asking for an
[2:05:28] additional 10.% above that 25%.
[2:05:31] So if they get rid of those.
[2:05:32] Then they
[2:05:33] re going to be put
[2:05:35] back into that category that
[2:05:37] they were already approved at
[2:05:38] in 2003, and they
[2:05:40] re going to
[2:05:47] be subject to the 35.6%. Ok, so
[2:05:49] the, the staff
[2:05:49] s recommendation
[2:05:50] is essentially they, they have
[2:05:51] to tear out the entirety of the
[2:05:53] patio, and I think the hot
[2:05:53] tub
[2:05:54] s gone either either way,
[2:06:01] but Is that correct? Yes, ok.
[2:06:05] Commissioner Halligan. When you
[2:06:06] buy a lake property, you want
[2:06:09] to be able to enjoy the lake. I
[2:06:11] would want to enjoy the lake.
[2:06:11] I
[2:06:13] m ok with having a patio. And
[2:06:14] I think they made a good faith
[2:06:21] effort to comply. Somebody else.
[2:06:28] Ok. Fisher West, I
[2:06:29] ll get my 2
[2:06:32] cents. Um, I concur with what
[2:06:34] Commissioner Anderson and MR.
[2:06:37] Commissioner Sullivan said, um,
[2:06:40] Not a good result, but sounds
[2:06:40] like people are intelligent
[2:06:42] enough, they should have known
[2:06:43] better to check these types of
[2:06:44] things. Um, if you
[2:06:44] re going to
[2:06:45] be a homeowner, you need to be
[2:06:47] the respon do the
[2:06:48] responsibility of a homeowner.
[2:06:51] Um, so I would go with the
[2:06:51] staff
[2:07:00] s report recommendations.
[2:07:01] Just say I concur with Steph.
[2:07:05] So thank you. Do we have a
[2:07:07] motion then. I
[2:07:09] ll move. Mission
[2:07:10] West Ead. Let me get my right
[2:07:14] screen here. All right. Uh, do
[2:07:16] you want us to do these all as
[2:07:18] one with the. As presented in
[2:07:20] the packet. Or do you want us
[2:07:21] to split the denial and the
[2:07:28] approval. That
[2:07:29] s a good
[2:07:31] question, um, MR. Chair and
[2:07:33] Commissioner Wested, um, I
[2:07:35] think we can go ahead and try
[2:07:37] it as stated, and, and if
[2:07:37] that
[2:07:38] s not confusing, we can
[2:07:39] move forward with that if it
[2:07:39] s
[2:07:40] confusing, we can break them up
[2:07:41] if that makes sense, but let
[2:07:41] s
[2:07:42] try that first. Great, thank
[2:07:43] you. I would actually kind of
[2:07:46] request we break them up.
[2:07:47] Because I have different votes
[2:07:50] for them. I think that
[2:07:51] s fine
[2:07:52] too as long as it
[2:07:52] s clear what
[2:07:52] we
[2:07:53] re voting on, you can, we
[2:07:56] can split them up. Ok. So I
[2:08:01] will. Move to deny the
[2:08:03] following 3 variants submitted
[2:08:04] by Robert Fried regarding the
[2:08:06] property at 804 County Road I,
[2:08:10] each to maintain a patio,
[2:08:12] water-oriented sex accessory
[2:08:18] structure, one variants to
[2:08:19] development code section
[2:08:21] 115-155b3a2 to exceed the
[2:08:23] allowed impervious surface of
[2:08:26] 25% to variants to the
[2:08:27] development code section
[2:08:30] 115-149. See a water, a
[2:08:31] water-oriented accessory
[2:08:33] structure MAY exist between the
[2:08:35] ordinary high water and the
[2:08:35] required structure setback so
[2:08:37] long as it does not encroach
[2:08:40] into the shore impact zone, 25
[2:08:42] ft from the ordinary high water
[2:08:45] line, the existing patio is
[2:08:47] within the shore impact zone,
[2:08:52] and 3 variants to development
[2:08:54] code 115-149c3d, the patio has
[2:08:57] a side setback that is 10 ft ft
[2:09:00] rather than 20 required for.
[2:09:01] The water-oriented structure.
[2:09:03] This action is based on the
[2:09:04] finding that practical
[2:09:06] difficulty is not present. The
[2:09:07] patio was not lawfully
[2:09:09] established by the previous
[2:09:11] owner, thereby making it an
[2:09:13] illegal nonconforming, and the
[2:09:15] desire to maintain the patio at
[2:09:16] its current size and location,
[2:09:18] a matter of preference rather
[2:09:20] than a unique circumstance.
[2:09:21] It
[2:09:25] s been moved. It
[2:09:25] s been
[2:09:26] moved in 2nd, Commissioner
[2:09:28] Cortis. Yeah, since I, I didn
[2:09:28] t,
[2:09:29] I asked some questions, but I
[2:09:29] didn
[2:09:32] t give my two cents. Um,
[2:09:32] I
[2:09:33] m, I
[2:09:35] m in support of
[2:09:39] everything other than the uh
[2:09:40] impervious surface request here
[2:09:42] and, and having them narrow the
[2:09:44] patio down. I, I think that
[2:09:44] s
[2:09:46] reasonable, um, looking at what
[2:09:50] was improved, approved in 2003,
[2:09:53] it did, you know, there is a, a
[2:09:54] portion of that concrete that
[2:09:57] is in the back, that is there,
[2:09:58] uh, and counts as impervious
[2:10:00] surface underneath there, going
[2:10:02] around the house, uh. And you
[2:10:05] know, if the only difference
[2:10:06] between that 35% and what we
[2:10:07] re
[2:10:09] looking at today is some of the
[2:10:10] concrete in the front and side
[2:10:12] of the house being shifted
[2:10:15] proportionally to a bigger
[2:10:16] driveway and to the um patio
[2:10:20] deck. I, I think it
[2:10:20] s
[2:10:21] disingenuous of us to say that
[2:10:23] that portion in the back
[2:10:23] doesn
[2:10:24] t get to count anymore,
[2:10:25] and that they have to entirely
[2:10:27] remove something in the back
[2:10:29] when a prior commission
[2:10:31] approved up to 35.6%. So I
[2:10:31] think we
[2:10:34] re kind of Splitting
[2:10:34] some hairs here by saying you
[2:10:36] could have had that, but you
[2:10:36] can
[2:10:39] t have. A portion of your
[2:10:41] deck back there. So that
[2:10:42] s why
[2:10:43] I will vote against that one,
[2:10:44] but in favor of the others.
[2:10:46] Thank you, MS. Hill. You had
[2:10:48] something that MR. Harris. Uh,
[2:10:52] yes, just to clarify, um, the,
[2:10:54] the image shown on screen on
[2:10:57] the right hand side. Those were
[2:10:59] the existing conditions prior
[2:11:02] to the mitigation affidavit. So
[2:11:04] the impervious surface coverage
[2:11:06] that existed at the time of
[2:11:09] that survey along. The southern
[2:11:11] portion of the existing home,
[2:11:13] the, uh, left-hand side of the
[2:11:16] existing home, that concrete
[2:11:18] path that was removed as a part
[2:11:19] of that mitigation affidavit.
[2:11:26] So, um, The 35.6% approved
[2:11:30] coverage, um, That does not
[2:11:32] include what is shown on screen
[2:11:36] on the right-hand side. Ok,
[2:11:36] then I still don
[2:11:37] t get how we
[2:11:43] get to your math. Like I, I. I
[2:11:44] mean they made the, the, the
[2:11:45] current house makes the
[2:11:49] driveway bigger, and the patio.
[2:11:49] I don
[2:11:51] t get how you get down to
[2:11:54] 25%. Even with that, based upon
[2:11:56] this. Can
[2:11:56] t. You can
[2:11:57] t. I mean,
[2:11:59] I, I mean, That
[2:12:00] s the problem
[2:12:01] is like, I mean, then you also
[2:12:02] are saying they have to take
[2:12:04] out a portion of their driveway
[2:12:07] and that side piece, correct? I
[2:12:08] mean, this is the, the math
[2:12:09] part I can
[2:12:10] t get to the
[2:12:12] regulation is made to help
[2:12:13] protect the lakeside property
[2:12:16] and to protect. Just scale of
[2:12:18] development on a property. So
[2:12:20] the 25% impervious surface
[2:12:21] coverage is meant to scale to
[2:12:23] the size of a property. And as
[2:12:27] was mentioned. This property is
[2:12:29] smaller. What is there now is
[2:12:30] scaled larger, so even if they
[2:12:32] were to remove, you know, put
[2:12:33] the driveway down
[2:12:33] proportionally. It was
[2:12:35] mentioned that they could get
[2:12:37] down to 32%. The 25% MAY not be.
[2:12:40] A realistic goal just based on
[2:12:42] what is on the property and
[2:12:43] what the size of the property
[2:12:44] is, but that doesn
[2:12:45] t change
[2:12:46] what our regulations are and
[2:12:46] what they
[2:12:47] re meant to protect
[2:12:48] either, but that is why they
[2:12:49] re
[2:12:49] going through the variance
[2:12:53] process so you can. See if that
[2:12:55] meets that unique definition.
[2:12:57] Unique circumstances definition
[2:12:59] or not, but it, it could be
[2:13:00] that they reasonably can
[2:13:01] t get
[2:13:03] to 25%, but is what they
[2:13:03] re
[2:13:05] doing enough and are there
[2:13:06] reasons unique enough? That
[2:13:06] s
[2:13:07] up for the commission to
[2:13:09] determine, right, but I mean,
[2:13:10] my problem is I don
[2:13:10] t see how
[2:13:13] they even get to the 30%.
[2:13:15] Permitted. That
[2:13:16] s, that
[2:13:17] s the
[2:13:17] math I don
[2:13:18] t understand here is,
[2:13:20] if I MAY, they don
[2:13:21] t get there,
[2:13:23] so like for example, so. If
[2:13:23] you
[2:13:24] re looking at the existing
[2:13:28] right now on the left-hand side,
[2:13:30] if you take away the patio and
[2:13:31] the hot tub pieces, you
[2:13:33] ll be
[2:13:35] at that 36.5, which is what was
[2:13:38] allowed in 2003. Because those
[2:13:39] items were added without the
[2:13:40] approval, they went over. So
[2:13:40] what we
[2:13:42] re trying to do is get
[2:13:46] back to that 2003 approval, um,
[2:13:48] Because that is what was given
[2:13:49] because of the realization of
[2:13:51] the planning commission at that
[2:13:52] time, that 25% just wasn
[2:13:52] t
[2:13:54] feasible. So we
[2:13:55] re trying,
[2:13:55] we
[2:13:56] re asking, we
[2:13:56] re essentially
[2:13:58] saying here they need to go
[2:14:01] back to that 36, whatever, um,
[2:14:04] amount. Sure, John, Ahmad, we
[2:14:06] had a motion and we had a
[2:14:09] second. Do we have a second? We
[2:14:10] should edit his comment. I
[2:14:13] think we Go to vote, MR. Chair,
[2:14:15] who had the second just for
[2:14:17] clarification, it was confusing
[2:14:18] who, who did the second?
[2:14:20] Solomon I did. You took me as a
[2:14:21] second, ok, because you quickly
[2:14:22] went to course that
[2:14:22] s why I
[2:14:23] wasn
[2:14:24] t sure. Ok, you scared me
[2:14:25] by saying that. Ok, I wanted to
[2:14:26] make sure I was. I wanted to
[2:14:28] make sure I was the 2nd. You
[2:14:30] were the 2nd. Yes, thank you.
[2:14:31] And, and MR. Chair, 00, I
[2:14:31] ll
[2:14:35] just. No more comments, ok.
[2:14:39] Emotion in front of us is to
[2:14:40] deny those three variances that
[2:14:42] up right now Chair John, I
[2:14:43] asked for a roll call vote on
[2:14:44] that. Let
[2:14:46] s do it. Roll call.
[2:14:54] Please. Commissioner Ahmedabad.
[2:15:01] Uh, Aye. Or Point, point of
[2:15:03] order. Are we doing these by
[2:15:06] individual 12, and 3. No that
[2:15:08] was on the table. The motion is
[2:15:12] all three of those. Items. Ok.
[2:15:16] Commissioner Anderson. I
[2:15:19] Commissioner Cortes.
[2:15:21] Commissioner Helgen? No.
[2:15:24] Commissioner Solomonson.
[2:15:27] Commissioner West. Chair John.
[2:15:34] I So motion passes 5 to 2. So
[2:15:36] we still are sitting on one
[2:15:38] last motion, Commissioner
[2:15:38] Weston, thank you. I
[2:15:40] d like to
[2:15:44] move to adopt resolution 2668
[2:15:45] approving the 17.9 ft structure
[2:15:47] setback submitted by Robert
[2:15:49] Fried at 804 County Road, I
[2:15:50] West for the existing deck set
[2:15:52] back on the property. Se
[2:15:54] approval is subject to the 4
[2:15:54] conditions listed in the staff
[2:15:59] report. Second, it has been
[2:16:01] moved and seconded. Any further
[2:16:03] discussion on this motion.
[2:16:06] Commissioner Hogan. This allows
[2:16:08] the deck to remain, correct?
[2:16:08] Yes, that
[2:16:10] s. That
[2:16:15] s the intent.
[2:16:17] Seeing no other discussion. All
[2:16:18] those in favor, well, let
[2:16:18] s
[2:16:24] just do a roll since we did it.
[2:16:26] Commissioner Ahmedabad,
[2:16:27] Commissioner Anderson,
[2:16:27] Commissioner Cordes,
[2:16:31] Commissioner Helgen.
[2:16:31] Commissioner Solomonson
[2:16:32] Commissioner West. And Cher
[2:16:39] John. I Motion carries 70.
[2:16:41] Again, decisions, uh, variances
[2:16:42] are final decisions through the
[2:16:43] planning commission, but there
[2:16:46] is a Appeal process to the city
[2:16:47] council within 5 business days
[2:16:48] if you wish to appeal our
[2:16:54] decision. Thank you. So that.
[2:16:55] Um, if you wouldn
[2:16:56] t mind just
[2:16:57] staying after and addressing
[2:16:59] with staff on that. And we
[2:16:59] ll
[2:17:00] just uh finish up the meeting
[2:17:05] and then go from there. So that
[2:17:07] takes us to item 8 on the
[2:17:09] agenda, city. I lost my spot,
[2:17:14] sorry. City councilor. Oh,
[2:17:16] calendar assignments, any um
[2:17:16] commissioners resigned or
[2:17:18] anything like that? Anything
[2:17:19] you want to share? I was gonna
[2:17:20] wait till miscellaneous for
[2:17:22] that 10, ok, sorry, I stepped
[2:17:27] on your touchdown call. Um, But
[2:17:28] for the city council
[2:17:29] assignments, um, SEPTEMBER 8th,
[2:17:31] which would be a Tuesday, would
[2:17:32] be Commissioner Solomonson. So
[2:17:33] if there were any appeals to
[2:17:37] the variances. Um, It would
[2:17:38] either be the 8th or the 21st,
[2:17:40] which would be you, um, Chair
[2:17:43] John, we will follow up
[2:17:44] accordingly depending on
[2:17:44] notification period on what,
[2:17:47] which one we can hit if there
[2:17:52] is an appeal. Ok. And then, yes,
[2:17:53] they
[2:17:56] re um. Under miscellaneous,
[2:17:59] we do have a commissioner who
[2:18:00] is resigning because they
[2:18:00] re
[2:18:01] moving out of Shoreview, so
[2:18:06] this is their last meeting. And
[2:18:08] so what I do want to take a
[2:18:09] moment to recognize
[2:18:10] Commissioner Anderson and thank
[2:18:11] him for his 8 years of service
[2:18:14] on the planning commission. He,
[2:18:15] um, has been a thoughtful,
[2:18:17] steady, and incredibly valuable
[2:18:18] member of this commission, and
[2:18:20] he has always brought a calm
[2:18:21] perspective to discussions, as
[2:18:22] thoughtful questions, and
[2:18:22] genuinely cared about making
[2:18:25] sure of you a great place. His
[2:18:26] guidance through the
[2:18:27] comprehensive planning process.
[2:18:29] Previously, in particular, was
[2:18:30] greatly appreciated and we will
[2:18:31] MISS Him during this upcoming
[2:18:33] round. But we are excited for
[2:18:35] you in your next chapter and
[2:18:36] You know, hopefully you do make
[2:18:39] that curtain call back. Yeah, I
[2:18:42] appreciate that. Uh, if I MAY,
[2:18:45] yeah, so, uh, having spent 27
[2:18:46] years of my life in this
[2:18:48] community, I grew up here, uh,
[2:18:49] as I like to say, and I
[2:18:49] ve said
[2:18:50] many times, played in the woods.
[2:18:54] That are now the city, city
[2:18:55] hall and the, and the wonderful
[2:18:56] park we have over there, uh,
[2:18:58] probably a lot more engaging
[2:19:00] than the woods that I played in,
[2:19:00] uh, with whatever kind of forts
[2:19:04] we made up back in the day, um,
[2:19:07] just really appreciate, uh, the
[2:19:08] professionalism of city staff.
[2:19:12] I mean, I think. You come to,
[2:19:14] um, take it for granted maybe
[2:19:15] sometimes, but you know, if you,
[2:19:16] if you ever have a chance, and
[2:19:17] I know we
[2:19:17] ve got commissioners
[2:19:19] that have served in other
[2:19:21] cities too, um, take a look at
[2:19:23] some other cities proceeding
[2:19:24] sometime and just how, how
[2:19:25] things are handled and just uh
[2:19:27] the, the, again, the, the level
[2:19:29] of detail and, and just skill
[2:19:31] that we have, uh, working
[2:19:32] within our city here. I really
[2:19:32] appreciate all that you guys
[2:19:34] have done over the years that
[2:19:34] I
[2:19:36] ve been on the uh on the
[2:19:37] commission and the challenge
[2:19:38] that I had was I said, you know,
[2:19:39] obviously, uh, I think. One of
[2:19:41] the, one of the best parts of
[2:19:42] being on the planning
[2:19:43] commission is going through
[2:19:45] that comp plan process, uh,
[2:19:46] Commissioner Solomonson
[2:19:46] s been
[2:19:49] through. This will be the 4th,
[2:19:52] 3rd, ok 10 years, yep, not
[2:19:53] quite that far yet. You
[2:19:55] re, uh,
[2:19:55] uh, I apologize for, uh,
[2:19:57] leaving you as the, the, the
[2:20:00] sole, um. A person that
[2:20:00] s been
[2:20:01] through that process before,
[2:20:02] but that is the, yeah, I really
[2:20:03] do think that
[2:20:04] s the fun of
[2:20:05] being on this commission is
[2:20:06] really getting to have a say in
[2:20:07] what this, what this great city
[2:20:09] looks like in the future, and
[2:20:11] Um, I, I will MISS Being a part
[2:20:12] of that process. I always
[2:20:14] really look forward, looking
[2:20:17] forward to it, um.
[2:20:18] Unfortunately, uh, something
[2:20:21] came up that, uh, you could say
[2:20:23] doom scrolling, uh, real estate
[2:20:24] sites as a negative consequence
[2:20:26] to. Uh, sometimes, and this is
[2:20:26] where I
[2:20:27] m, I
[2:20:28] m feeling that,
[2:20:30] and um by the time the next
[2:20:32] Meeting worlds around, I will
[2:20:32] no longer be a Shoreview
[2:20:34] resident, so I
[2:20:34] ve got to step
[2:20:36] away and let the next great
[2:20:38] person sit up here and I, I
[2:20:41] thank all of you for your, uh,
[2:20:42] for your service, and it
[2:20:43] s been
[2:20:46] fun to kind of see the, the
[2:20:47] commission grow and change over
[2:20:49] the years, and I think uh I
[2:20:49] m
[2:20:51] walking away with it, with the,
[2:20:53] with it in good hands, feeling
[2:20:54] that uh that I can come back
[2:20:57] and retire in place or uh not
[2:20:59] retire in place, uh, what
[2:20:59] s our,
[2:20:59] what
[2:21:01] s our term that we we
[2:21:03] ve
[2:21:04] used uh agent place.
[2:21:05] Commissioner Doan we will
[2:21:05] appreciate that. He
[2:21:06] s always a
[2:21:08] champion for the agent place,
[2:21:09] so or not commissioner, city
[2:21:11] council member, Don, but
[2:21:12] anyways, thank you for all that
[2:21:12] you
[2:21:13] ve done, and I, uh, it
[2:21:13] s
[2:21:16] been a pleasure to serve. I
[2:21:18] just wanna say one of the
[2:21:19] greatest challenges I have
[2:21:21] sitting in this chair is who I
[2:21:21] followed. I think she did a
[2:21:25] really good job. Chairing the
[2:21:25] commission and it
[2:21:25] s been hard
[2:21:28] to live up to that. Not to get
[2:21:29] too emotional or anything like
[2:21:30] that, but you
[2:21:30] re doing a fine
[2:21:34] job. I appreciate that. Anybody
[2:21:34] else have any comments,
[2:21:37] questions? Ok. So that brings
[2:21:42] us to The end of the meeting.
[2:21:45] Commissioner Westted, we
[2:21:46] adjourn at 9:21 P.M. Second,
[2:21:47] it
[2:21:48] s been moved in 2nd, all in
[2:21:53] favor, say aye. Both same sign.
[2:21:55] Unanimous, we are adjourned.
[2:21:55] Congratulations. Where are you
[2:21:59] moving? Uh, you spell. That
[2:21:59] s
[2:22:00] far away. It
[2:22:01] s a little ways
[2:22:01] away. It
[2:22:02] s a long commute.
[2:22:04] Where, whereabouts? And stuff,