MEETING FORMAT - This meeting is taking place virtually due to COVID-19. Members ofthe public may join the meeting the following ways:

PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android devicehttps://us02web.zoom.us/j/89660086723

PhoneCall 1-312-626-6799Webinar ID: 896 6008 6723

1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.A October 27, 2020 Planning Commission minutes 5. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.A File No. 2770-20-28, Variance - 5251 Hodgson Road, Robert Kim 7.B File No. 2763-20-21, Minor Subdivision/Variance - 5828 Buffalo Lane, Jennifer

Nieters 7.C Public Hearing: File No. 2723-20-10 -Text Amendment, Refuse Collection Time -

Citywide, City of Shoreview 8. MISCELLANEOUS 8.A December City Council Meeting Assignments

CITY OF SHOREVIEWAGENDA

PLANNING COMMISSIONTuesday November 24, 2020

7:00 PM

1

8.B 2021 Calendar and Meeting Assignments 8.C 2021 Chair and Vice Chair Appointments 9. ADJOURNMENT

2

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Kathleen Castle , City Planner

DATE: November 24, 2020

SUBJECT: October 27, 2020 Planning Commission minutes

ITEMNUMBER:

4.A

SECTION: APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Memorandum

REQUESTED MOTIONTo approve the minutes from the October 27, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.

VOTE: AYES: NAYES:

Anderson

Doan

Riechers

Solomonson

Wolfe

Yarusso

Peterson

INTRODUCTION DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS10-27-2020 Minutes

3

1

SHOREVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 27, 2020

CALL TO ORDER Chair Peterson called the October 27, 2020 Shoreview Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. The meeting took place in virtual format due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Instructions to give testimony live or on a phone during the meeting are posted on the City website. ROLL CALL The following Commissioners were present: Chair Peterson; Commissioners Anderson, Doan, Riechers, Solomonson, Wolfe and Yarusso. Also Present: Kathleen Castle, City Planner Aaron Sedey, Associate Planner Niki Hill, Economic Development Coordinator City Attorney Joe Kelly APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: by Commissioner Solomonson, seconded by Commissioner

Yarusso to approve the October 27, 2020 Planning Commission meeting agenda as presented.

VOTE: AYES - 7 NAYS - 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner

Solomonson to approve the minutes of September 22, 2020, as presented.

VOTE: AYES - 7 NAYS - 0 REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS

4

2

City Planner Castle reported that the City Council approved the special purpose fence for Ashley and Fehy Rabemahefa at 265 Jansa Drive. OLD BUSINESS MINOR SUBDIVISION/VARIANCE FILE NO.: 2760-20-18 LOCATION: 735 ARBOGAST APPLICANT: MICHELLE LARSON Presentation by City Planner Kathleen Castle The application is to divide the property into two parcels with the existing home remaining on the southern parcel (Parcel B). The northern parcel (Parcel A) will be developed with a future single family home. At its September meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the application with a request for further information on the southern parcel regarding buildable width and placement of a future home. The application includes a variance request to reduce the required 60-foot front yard setback to 30 feet for the future home. The lot area of the current parcel is 40,242 square feet with a width of 125 feet and depth of 322 feet. The lot consists of open areas and trees with a topography that slopes south and southeast. Frontage is on Arbogast and Emmert Streets. The existing home has access off Arbogast. Arbogast is an improved road. Emmert Street is not an improved road but is used as a bike and pedestrian trail. Access to Parcel B is planned off Victoria through Emmert Street. The resulting new parcel will be a key lot, with more restrictive setback requirements. The rear setback is required at 40 feet. The front setback is determined by the setback of the adjacent home to the north plus or minus 10 feet to establish a setback range. A minimum of 60 feet is required. The proposal complies with the required side setbacks. The from setback of the new house will be set back 30 feet from the Emmert Street right-of-way as measured to the front porch. The main structure has a setback of 36 feet. The rear setback is 56 feet which provides room for a future deck and patio.

5

3

Use of the property is consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. The applicant states that practical difficulty is present to because Emmert Street is not improved and the adjacent property has frontage on Victoria Street. The front setback variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood that includes various home styles and setbacks. Driveway access from Victoria onto Emmert Street has been reviewed by Ramsey County and the City Engineer. Access appears to be feasible. There will be further evaluation with the permit application. The City Engineer has found no concern with the concept grading and drainage plan. Specific grading and drainage plans will be required with the permit application. Property owners have been notified within 350 feet. A notice of the variance request to be considered at the October Planning Commission meeting was mailed. Comments received express concern about the driveway location, storm water management and visual impact to the character of the neighborhood. Staff finds the application consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed two parcels comply with Code standards. Municipal utilities are available to both lots. Staff will further evaluate tree impacts, grading and drainage during the building permit process. Application of the front setback regulation does constrain the buildable lot width. Emmert Street as an unimproved street, and the frontage is different in character from Victoria Street. There are other homes with frontage on this portion of Emmert Street that have setbacks of less than 30 feet. Staff finds that practical difficulty is present and recommends approval of the variance and that the subdivision application be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for approval with the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Michelle Larson, Applicant, stated that the driveway would be crowned for drainage to the sides with a small swale on either side directing water to rain gardens. The distance of the driveway from the property to the north on Victoria has been increased. The driveway crosses the bike path is now at a 90-degree angle. Any landmark trees will be replaced. The rain gardens between the driveway and trail will

6

4

create a physical separation to prevent bikers from riding on the driveway. The rain gardens will be oversized and set to the west and south of the property due drainage and topography of the site. The topography also allows for a full walkout basement. The 56-foot rear setback allows for a 16-foot deck while preserving the required 40-foot setback. There are four evergreen trees over 100 feet tall at the south corner of the proposed house that will be preserved. The contours of the site prevent any drainage of water to the east; water will drain to the south and southwest. Further, Ms. Larson stated that she has a very small garage on her lot that was built in 1949. It is inches from the lot line. She plans to build a larger attached garage in the future which would not be possible with a different configuration of the driveway for Parcel B. Chair Peterson clarified that the rain gardens near the house would capture drainage from the gutters on the house. Commissioner Yarusso asked how many large trees will need to be removed. Ms. Larson did not have an exact number, as the driveway is a concept plan and not a final design. An effort will be made to keep as many trees as possible. Commissioner Yarusso asked the address of the property, whether it is on Victoria or Emmert Street. Ms. Castle answered that the address is on Victoria Street. Commissioner Anderson asked if the rain gardens along Emmert Street are in place of putting in any culverts under the bike path. Ms. Larson answered that is the plan. There is a culvert near Victoria Street. Commissioner Riechers asked if further consideration was given to access from Arbogast. Ms. Larson responded that a driveway from Arbogast would be approximately 300 feet in length and traverse the entire length of her property. Even if there is access from Arbogast, the driveway would cross the bike path. Commissioner Riechers requested some type of alert to bike path users about the driveway traffic that crosses the path. Ms. Castle stated the driveway crosses the path at a 90-degree angle for visibility purposes. No separate signage is required. Commissioner Solomonson noted that rain gardens along the bike path can be tall and block visibility. Chair Peterson suggested adding a

7

5

condition to require signage for the driveway and limit the height of the rain gardens. Chair Peterson opened the discussion to public comment. Mr. Steve Czeck, 3380 Victoria Street, stated that the driveway will be approximately 170 feet with a 90-degree turn. He questioned the ability of emergency vehicles to access this driveway. Rain gardens will hazard visibility. The new landowner will have to maintain the rain gardens. Rain gardens freeze in winter and if not maintained, will not drain properly. His biggest concern is that this will push water onto his property and to the property south of him. There are many children who use the bike path and will not be seen by vehicle drivers on the driveway. Children will not be able to stop in time for cars on the driveway. Further, Mr. Czeck stated that there is a 5-foot drop from the road and another 3.5 foot drop to the bike path. A culvert with trapped area between the two driveways will funnel the water onto his property. He would prefer that area be filled in. There is a full tree line with many trees that will have to be removed. He proposed an alternate plan of a 12-foot wide driveway from Arbogast to Parcel B. City Attorney Kelly expressed appreciation for the resident’s alternate proposal but reminded the Commission that only the proposal presented can be considered. Mr. Czeck then listed his questions to the landowners who will own Parcel B:

• Is the landowner on Parcel A legally responsible for any ground water discharge into the existing properties? Fixing the issue and possible damages to the properties.

• Is Shoreview responsible if the walking/bike path prevents the water from draining away from his house?

• Prior to building with proposed Victoria Street access, would a licensed civil engineer need to layout the driveway to scale and examine the impact of the elevation and water discharge calculations?

8

6

• Is there any other driveways running parallel with the walking/bike path in Shoreview? If so, where?

• Will the Shoreview Planning Commission members and new landowner look at proposed Arbogast access for lower development cost, impact to neighbors, and possible litigation?

Mr. Czech explained that he does not have any excess water on his property at this time. He wants to avoid potential problems and possible litigation which is why he would propose an alternative plan. Mr. John Leeper, 723 Arbogast, stated that approximately 98% of the lots are large, which is a dramatic characteristic of the neighborhood. The large lots provide a level of privacy, serenity and home value. He does not agree that the neighborhood is eclectic and that anything can be done. A large part of the value of his property is not only the home but the large lot. It seems this application is almost pre-approved. His concern is if one variance is granted, will another variance request be made further into the implementation of this plan? He noted that not everyone within 350 feet received a notice. He is concerned about the privacy and market value that he will lose. He is not confident that the grading and drainage plans will address the topography of the property. Rain gardens also need o be planned on the south and east sides of the house. Mr. David Simpson, 15870 91st Lane North, Maple Grove, prospective owner of Parcel B, stated that he is a tree lover. He will save every tree possible and will plant 2 or 3 for every one cut down. He noted that the bike path crosses every driveway along Victoria. It is not new for a driveway to cross the bike path. The house will not be very visible. Mr. Joe Pallo, 736 Arbogast, noted that replanted trees will take a long time to replace the large trees that exist now. He stated he was not notified and not aware of this meeting. He would like an opportunity for more time to review the proposal and not rush it through so it is done right. City Planner Castle provided the following responses to questions and concerns:

9

7

• City Code disallows residents from draining sump pump water onto another property. A grading and drainage plan and erosion control plan are required with a building permit. If damage occurs, it is a civil matter between the two property owners. There is a condition that requires a plan be prepared by a civil engineer, but the city does not require calculations of storm water for a single family residence.

• When the house is completed, as-built plans are required to show that the project complies with what was approved by the city.

• There are many variables that can impact storm water runoff, such as storm events, additional impervious surface. Generally, the city is not responsible for this runoff.

• The city and Ramsey County are requiring a driveway design to be completed by a civil engineer that will be reviewed by Ramsey County.

• Ms. Castle stated she is not aware of any driveways that are parallel to a trail. The trail system includes trails adjacent to roadways with heavy traffic. The driveway location has been reviewed by Ramsey County and the City Engineer, and there is no indication that it is not feasible.

• The notification area was sent to property owners within 350 feet of the subject site. The residents at 736 Arbogast were included in the mailing. A resident who does not receive the mailing does not negate the process.

City Attorney Kelly stated that the city notification was done by mail which is the only method authorized by ordinance and by statute. Commission Discussion Commissioner Solomonson stated that he accepts Ramsey County’s evaluation that driveway access to Victoria Street will not be a problem. He expressed a lot of confidence in the review by the City Engineer’s and Ramsey County on the specific designs. He would suggest the type of rain garden planted by kept to a certain height for safety reasons with the driveway crossing the trail. He asked how overgrown vegetation is handled in the right-of-way next to a trail. Ms. Castle stated that city code has a provision on traffic visibility triangles where streets meet. She would need to check the ordinance on how trails are impacted. Commissioner Solomonson noted that a number of

10

8

driveways cross the trail. The City Engineer will be looking at safety concerns. Both Parcels A and B are large lots, almost two times the size of a minimum sized lot. The key lot is being addressed with the added setbacks. He agreed with staff’s assessment that the application meets the criteria for a variance. Commissioner Doan asked in relation to drainage, if impervious surface and the footprint ratio of the new home meet City Code. Ms. Castle answered that up to 40% impervious surface coverage is allowed. He noted that mitigation will be rain gardens. He asked for clarification on who is responsible for maintenance of a rain garden in city right-of-way. Ms. Castle stated that the intent is that the future land owner of Parcel B will be responsible for maintaining the rain gardens, not the City. Commissioner Doan then noted that the application is for a minor subdivision and variance for a setback. Chair Peterson stated that the variance for a reduced front setback is an easier decision than the minor subdivision. The minor subdivision is a subjective decision. He suggested adding a condition to the motion to clarify the nature of the rain gardens. Another condition would be to clarify that the runoff from the roof of the house will go to the rain gardens by the house. He would approve the application with these conditions. Commissioner Yarusso stated that in her neighborhood in the triangle between Highway 96, Rice Street and Hodgson, there are a number of short trails that run parallel to driveways. This is a good example of unique circumstances. The sewer connections indicate an expectation that this property would be subdivided. One concern is the change in the drainage pattern with the loss of trees. Ramsey County and the City Engineer will resolve these issues. The property owner has the legal right to expand and build additional structures. The city cannot prohibit structures if Code requirements are being met. She would approve the application with the conditions expressed. Commissioner Anderson stated that bike paths cross a lot of driveways. His concern is safety and agreed with Commissioner Solomonson that the height of the rain garden be limited. There is a buildable space on Parcel B. A good effort has been made to meet required setbacks. He also expressed his confidence in the experts who will be reviewing the

11

9

final design of the driveway. The Planning Commission has reviewed and discussed this application twice, and he supports the minor subdivision and variance. Commissioner Riechers agreed that the variance meets all required criteria. The driveway is somewhat removed from the house because of the orientation of the lot. Even though experts will be reviewing the final design, she has concerns about the subdivision and variance and is unsure of her support. Commissioner Wolfe stated that safety of the trail is a key issue. He suggested some there be some alert to bikers and pedestrians about the driveway. Runoff is a key issue. A yard drain may be something to consider. Overall, he is supportive of the plan but is concerned about the driveway. Chair Peterson noted a maintenance agreement is being required as part of the development agreement. Ms. Castle stated that the maintenance agreement is to insure that the rain garden is maintained and continues to function as planned. Language could be added to limit planting heights of the rain gardens for visibility. MOTION: by Commissioner Doan, seconded by Commissioner Yarusso

to adopt Resolution 20-85 approving the variance reducing the minimum front yard setback required for a future home on Parcel A from 60’ to 30’ and recommend the City Council approve the minor subdivision submitted by Michelle Larson to divide her property at 735 Arbogast Street into two parcels, subject to the four conditions for the variance and 10 conditions for the minor subdivision with the addition of the following condition for the minor subdivision:

“That best management practices for water management such as rain gardens shall be taken in order to insure that any impacted property shall meet regulations of the city and watershed district. Any plantings used to manage water runoff shall be maintained to not obstruct sight lines and safety of trail users.”

The motion is also based on the three Findings of Fact listed.

12

10

Variance 1. This approval allows a proposed home on Parcel A to be setback

30-feet from the front lot line adjacent to Emmert Street. 2. This approval is subject to approval of the Minor Subdivision

application by the City Council. 3. This approval will expire after one year if the subdivision has not

been recorded with Ramsey County. 4. The approval is subject to a 5 day appeal period.

Minor Subdivision

1. The minor subdivision shall be in accordance with the plans submitted. A certificate of survey shall be submitted prior to the City Council’s consideration of this application.

2. For the new northern parcel, a Public Recreation Use Dedication fee as required by Section 204.020 of the development Regulations before a building permit is issued for a new home on the property. The fee will be 4% of the fair market value of the property.

3. Public drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City as required by the Public Works Director. The applicant shall be responsible for providing legal descriptions for all required easements. Easements shall be conveyed before the City will endorse deeds for recording.

4. Municipal water and sanitary sewer service shall be provided to the new home constructed on the northern parcel.

5. The applicants shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the City. This agreement shall be executed prior to the City’s release of the deeds for recording. A Development Agreement will also be required for the construction of a new home on the northern parcel.

6. Access to northern parcel from Victoria Street requires a permit from Ramsey County.

7. 7. Information on the driveway design, including location, construction details, trail crossing, grading and drainage shall be submitted with an application for a building permit on Parcel A. The driveway design does require approval by the City Engineer.

8. A tree protection and replacement plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of

a. a building permit (including a grading permit). Tree protection shall be implemented prior to the

13

11

commencement of work on the property and maintained during the period of construction. The protection plan shall include wood chips and protective fencing at the drip line of the retained trees.

9. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the building permit application and implemented during the construction of the new residence. This plan shall be completed by a Minnesota licensed civil engineer.

10. 10. This approval shall expire after one year if the subdivision has not been recorded with Ramsey County.

This approval is based on the following findings:

1. Practical Difficulty has been found as stated in Resolution 20-85. 2. The proposed minor subdivision complies with the minimum lot

area standard for the R1 district. 3. The proposed use of the property for single-family residential is

consistent with the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. Discussion: Commissioner Solomonson asked the City Attorney if the added condition under the minor subdivision regarding best management practices would conflict with the grading and drainage plan requirements. City Attorney Kelly answered that he does not believe there are any conflicts. Commissioner Yarusso, who worked on the Clean Water Council, clarified that best management practices are a set of practices or a number of alternatives that are considered best management. Commissioner Riechers expressed support of the variance and the subdivision but has safety concerns for the trail. She would like to see more done to address the safety issue. Commissioner Doan recognized that it is not unique for trails to cross driveways. The 90-degree turn will slow drivers down and create more time for trail users and drivers to see each other. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Anderson, Doan, Solomonson, Yarusso, Peterson NAYES: Riechers, Wolfe

14

12

Chair Peterson called a five-minute recess and reconvened the meeting at 9:05 p.m. NEW BUSINESS VARIANCE FILE NO.: 2766-20-24 LOCATION: 5942 ROBIN OAK COURT APPLICANTS: BOB AND STEFF MURPHY Presentation by City Planner Kathleen Castle The application for a variance is to build a 6-foot fence in the side yard that abuts Meadow Lane. The maximum fence height permitted is 4 feet. Robin Oak Court and Meadow Lane are local roads. The property is developed with a single family home and attached accessory structure. A pool was recently put in the rear yard. The property is zoned R1, Detached Residential. Fences are permitted in any yard adjacent to a public right-of-way but shall not exceed 4 feet in height. The height can be increased to 6 feet with a setback of 10 feet on corner lots abutting an arterial roadway with plantings between the fence and the property line. In an interior side and rear yard 6-foot fences are permitted. The applicant states that the fence will increase privacy to the back yard. The yard has a slope that makes a 4-foot fence ineffective because it would sit lower than the patio and pool. The new fence would replace an existing fence that was present when the Murphy’s purchased the property. Notice of the application was sent to property owners within 150 feet. Two comments were received in support of the fence. Staff does not find that practical difficulty exists. While the yard does slope, a 4-foot fence would be sufficient if built further back from the road. Meadow Lane is a local road. An increased setback for a 4-foot fence and landscaping would achieve more privacy. The character of

15

13

the neighborhood would be altered with a 6-foot fence. There are no 6-foot fences on Meadow Lane or on Robin Court. There are three corner lots in the area, none of which have 6-foot fences. Staff is recommending denial of the application. Commission Solomonson noted that a 6-foot fence would be allowed in the interior of the yard. Mr. Bob Murphy, Applicant, stated that an existing 5-foot fence is being replaced in the exact same location. The fence was around the property. Meadow Lane has an arc which makes the fence on both corners at the front and rear of his house at 11 feet from the roadway. The middle portion is 14 feet from the roadway. He read his wife’s statement which gives the main reason for the fence as one for privacy and safety. The desire is to create a private back yard for two children and two dogs. Their son has Asperger’s Syndrome. While he functions at a high level but suffers from social anxiety and does not like loud noises and crowds and is fearful of what might happen to his family. The fence is an effort to create a safe place for him to enjoy his family. There are several 6-foot fences on Meadow Lane but not on corner lots. Buying this house was difficult, but it is a place their son feels at home. The original 5-foot fence worked well until he grew taller. The fence was also in disrepair. The pool was put in to entice their son to spend time outdoors. With COVID, there are more people at home and more traffic on Meadow Lane, which creates difficult circumstances for their son. The fence chosen is of quality material and will be an upgrade to the neighborhood. Commissioner Yarusso noted a recent fence approved for a family with special circumstances on Jansa. This seems like a similar request and could be approached in the same manner. City Attorney Kelly stated that the fence on Jansa is a special fence permit, which means that the fence will no longer be lawful once the special conditions no longer exist. Commissioner Yarusso suggested the application could be tabled for the application to be modified to request a special fence permit rather than a variance.

16

14

Mr. Murphy asked the timing if this application were tabled and submission of an application for a special fence permit. He missed the deadline for submittal for the last Planning Commission meeting which meets only once a month. He does not want to have to wait until December to build the fence. This process has taken a long time. Ms. Castle stated that two options can be considered. If the application is not withdrawn, the Commission would continue with this application. If denied, a special fence permit application could be submitted. Commissioner Doan stated he would like to hear public testimony and is inclined to approve it today. Mr. Murphy responded that his intent was to not make this fence a big issue. His son’s condition was not included in the documentation submitted to the city to keep their matters private. Chair Peterson opened the discussion to public comment. There were no public questions or comments. Commissioner Anderson expressed support for a special purpose fence. He asked if the Commission could include a condition that includes special purpose fence language. Attorney Kelly answered that would not be possible because a variance runs with the land. A special purpose fence is treated as a special or interim use, so that if circumstances change, the fence would have to be removed. If a special purpose fence application has support of neighbors, it is possible the application could go directly to the City Council without review by the Planning Commission which would make the process a little faster. Commissioner Solomonson would not support a variance but would favor a special purpose fence, but the location is still an issue because it is on the property line rather than 10 feet back. Commissioner Anderson clarified that the proposed fence would be set back 10 feet to the property line and not on the street. Ms. Castle further explained that the fence would have to be 10 feet from the property line within which landscaping would be added. Commissioner Solomonson stated that because Meadow Lane is not an

17

15

arterial road, the location of the fence is an issue and is more intrusive than what is allowed on arterial roads. Commissioner Doan stated that he would like Mr. Murphy to be able to get approval quickly. Approving the current application is not ideal because the variance will stand after the special circumstances no longer exist. He would support approval as quickly as possible to also provide safety for the swimming pool which a minimum 4-foot fence. Commissioner Yarusso stated that she would not support a variance but is supportive of a special purpose fence. Chair Peterson stated that the long-term impact of code is important. The special purpose fence is the appropriate application. He would support denial of the variance and support a special purpose fence. Mr. Murphy stated that the fence is not on the property line. It is 1 foot in on the corners and 4 feet in at the middle. The footings are already in and cannot be moved. The reason for the placement of the fence that existed is that most fences are put on the property line. Moving the fence in would limit back yard space and eliminate the side yard. He does not see any issues for the neighborhood. Commissioner Riechers stated that because it is already winter and there is COVID, she would support the variance. Commissioner Wolfe would support a variance with additional conditions. He is also open to supporting a special purpose fence. Commissioner Doan asked for clarification of the impacts of denial, tabling the application or approval. Ms. Castle explained that the application could be tabled and a special permit fence application could be submitted. If approved, the variance application could be withdrawn. If denied, a similar application cannot be submitted for six months. City Attorney Kelly stated that a special purpose fence application can be considered if the current application is tabled. If the variance is denied, he would defer to staff as to whether a special permit fence is so similar that it would have to wait six months.

18

16

Commissioner Solomonson stated that he would support denial of the application and support a special purpose fence application. MOTION: by Commissioner Solomonson, seconded by Commissioner

Yarusso to deny the variance application submitted by Bob and Steph Murphy, 5942 Robin Oak Court for a 6-foot tall privacy along the side property line adjacent to a road right-of-way. The fence does not meet the spirit and the intent of the ordinance because it does not comply with the height. Practical difficulty is not present as findings cannot be made for unique circumstances and character of neighborhood.

ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Solomonson, Yarusso, Anderson. Peterson NAYS: Doan, Riechers, Wolfe MINOR SUBDIVISION FILE NO.: 2765-20-23 LOCATION: 3720 RUSTIC PLACE APPLICANT: JEANNIE JORDAN Presentation by City Planner Kathleen Castle This application for a minor subdivision is to divide the property into two parcels with the existing home and attached garage would remain on the southern parcel that is oriented to and with access from Rustic Place. The northern parcel would be developed with a single family residential home. The new southern parcel would have access from Rustic Place. The property consists of 1.83 acres with a lot width of 270 feet and depth of 304 feet. The lot has double frontage on Rustic Place and Rice Street. The property has woods and vegetation with some lawn areas. The topography shows a slope from west to east. Staff finds that the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The two parcels would comply with code standards for the R1 District. Municipal utilities are available to both lots. There will be further evaluation during the permit process regarding tree impacts. Tree

19

17

replacement will be required at a ratio of 2 to 1 for landmark trees. Also, grading and drainage plans will be required for a permit. A notice of the application was sent to property owners within 350 feet. No comments were received. The City Engineer has provided comments regarding municipal utilities which are on Rustic Place. The subdivision is consistent with Low Density Residential land use as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The parcels comply with minimum lot standards. Staff is recommending the application be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for approval subject to the conditions in the staff report. Ms. Jeannie Jordan, Applicant, stated that she hopes to build a new home for her daughter. She owns the property adjacent to the lot. Chair Peterson opened the discussion to public comment. There were no questions or comments. Commissioner Solomonson stated this is a straight forward proposal. The two lots far exceed the city standards. He supports the application. MOTION: by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner

Doan to recommend the City Council approve the minor subdivision submitted by Jeannie Jordan dividing her property at 3720 Rustic Place into two parcels, subject to the following nine conditions and two findings:

Minor Subdivision

1. The minor subdivision shall be in accordance with the plans submitted.

2. For new northern parcel, a Public Recreation Use Dedication fee as required by Section 204.020 of the Development Regulations before a building permit is issued for a new home on the property. The fee will be 4% of the fair market value of the property.

3. Public drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City as required by the Public Works Director. The applicant shall be responsible for providing legal descriptions for all required

20

18

easements. Easements shall be conveyed before the City will endorse deeds for recording.

4. Municipal water and sanitary sewer service shall be provided to the new home constructed on the northern parcel.

5. The applicants shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the City. This agreement shall be executed prior to the City’s release of the deeds for recording. A Development Agreement will also be required for the construction of a new home on the northern parcel.

6. Access to northern parcel shall be from Rustic Place. 7. A tree protection and replacement plan shall be submitted prior

to issuance of a building permit (including a grading permit). Tree protection shall be implemented prior to the commencement of work on the property and maintained during the period of construction. The protection plan shall include wood chips and protective fencing at the drip line of the retained trees.

8. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the building permit application and implemented during the construction of the new residence. This plan shall be completed by a Minnesota licensed civil engineer.

9. This approval shall expire after one year if the subdivision has not been recorded with Ramsey County.

This approval is based on the following findings:

1. The proposed minor subdivision complies with the minimum lot standards for the R1 district.

2. 2. The proposed use of the property for single-family residential is consistent with the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan.

ROLL CALL VOTE

AYES: Riechers, Solomonson, Wolfe, Yarusso, Anderson, Doan, Peterson

NAYS: None VARIANCE FILE NO.: 2768-20-26 LOCATION: 1304 WEST ROYAL OAKS DRIVE APPLICANT: KHATIWADA

21

19

Presentation by Associate Planner Aaron Sedey The proposal is to build a 6-foot fence at the rear of the property which abuts Hamline Avenue. The fence would be set back approximately 40 feet from the curb. The property is developed with a single family home and attached accessory structure. It is zoned R1, Detached Residential District. It is located on the corner of Hamline Avenue and W. Royal Oaks Drive. Both streets are collector roadways with a sidewalk along both streets. There are trees in the side and rear yards. Fences adjacent to a public right-of-way cannot exceed 4 feet in height. Corner lots abutting arterial roadways can increase fence heights to 6 feet, if the fence is set back 10 feet from the property line and plantings are put within the 10 foot setback. Fences in an interior side and rear yard are permitted up to a height of 6 feet. The applicant states that the fence is to increase privacy from Hamline Avenue, a busy road. The fence will also provide safety for their children and prevent their dog from escaping. A 6-foot fence has already been put in on a corner lot nearby on Hamline. This portion of W. Royal Oaks has other 6-foot fences that exist at the corner with County Road J. The proposed fence is set back approximately 40 feet from Hamline and will not hinder visibility for drivers or change the character of the neighborhood. A notice was sent to property owners within 150 feet of the property. Two comments were received—one in support and one opposed. Concerns expressed are in regard to private covenants that exist. A 6-foot fence would alter the character of the neighborhood. The city’s Natural Resources Coordinator questioned the impact of the fence location on the existing trees. If landmark trees are removed, replacement must occur at a one to one ratio. Staff finds that practical difficulty exists. The property is one of only a few with frontage on W. Royal Oaks Drive with the side and rear yards exposed to Hamline Avenue which impacts privacy. The property is located at the juncture of two local collector roadways. The traffic count on Hamline is approximately 1500 vehicles per day; W. Royal Oaks

22

20

Drive is approximately 10,200 vehicles per day. Traffic on these two roadways is expected to increase through 2040. Staff finds that the proposal meet the variance criteria, spirit and intent of the Code and recommends approval of the 6-foot fence in the side yard adjacent to the public right-of-way. Chair Peterson stated there are no 6-foot fences between Lexington and W. Royal Oaks Drive, and Hamline is a local collector street. Commissioner Anderson noted that the fence would extend into the side yard about the width of a gate. Mr. Sedey stated that the fence would extend to the trees. The trees would be inside the fence. He questioned 10,200 vehicles on W. Royal Oaks a day, which seems very high. Commissioner Solomonson noted the gate is approximately 6 to 8 feet from the house. He asked if the fence could be placed so as not to need a variance. Mr. Sedey explained that if the fence were placed straight out from the third stall garage, a variance would not be needed. However, trees would have to be removed. Mr. Harik Hatiwada, Applicant, stated that the proposed fence is for privacy and safety for his children and to prevent his dog from jumping the fence. He stated will not take any trees down. The fence will be 30 to 40 feet from Hamline Avenue, which will not impact drivers. He also does not believe the character of the neighborhood will be changed. Chair Peterson opened the discussion to public comment. Ms. Rebecca Vilendrer, 5980 Hamline Avenue North, across the street and facing 1304 W. Royal Oaks. There are few fences in the neighborhood except for homes with pools. Neighbors who have dogs have electric fences. There are covenants for property of Royal Oaks West. The covenants run with the land for a period of 30 years at which time should be extended for a 10-year period. The covenants hold until 2028. Her concern is that the view from her front yard will be of the proposed fence. It will impact the character of the neighborhood and her property value. The fences at County Road J are much different without residences.

23

21

City Attorney Kelly stated that restrictive covenants in developments do run with the land. They are private covenants between private parties. The city does not and should not consider private covenants in review of an application. If the city were to grant a fence permit that violates a private covenant, it is the responsibility of the private parties to bring enforcement action. The city should not enforce private covenants. Commissioner Solomonson stated that the applicant is taking into account the location of the adjacent home. It is important to access the back yard and he supports the variance. Commissioner Anderson stated that generally he would not support this variance, but it is reasonable to work around the trees. It is not a large distance to preserve them. If he were to support the variance, he would want a condition that the trees would be preserved. However, it looks like the fence could extend straight back from the garage and would not impact the trees. Commissioner Doan noted that a 4-foot fence on the Hamline side of the property would not require a variance. He stated that he leans toward not approving the application. He does not see a need for a 6-foot fence. A 4-foot fence would be adequate with the trees. A 4-foot fence would not require a variance. Chair Peterson stated that this would be the first 6-foot fence that would extend into the side yard, which is out of character of the neighborhood. The trees are an unusual circumstance. They create a buffer to make the fence less visible. He would support the variance. Commissioner Yarusso stated that the layout of the trees makes it difficult to place a fence in a reasonable manner without extending into the side yard. However, the trees were planted by the property owner to create this circumstance. She appreciates that the applicant has minimized the degree to which the fence would extend into the side yard. She is inclined to approve the application. Commissioner Riechers stated she would like further discussion on the issue of 6-foot fences in a Commission workshop. She agreed with Commissioner Doan’s comments.

24

22

Commissioner Solomonson also supported a workshop discussion on 6-foot fences. Mr. Hatiwada stated that to go straight back from the corner of the house toward the rear would not impact trees. Chair Peterson explained that a 6-foot fence could be built from the corner of the house to the rear property line without a variance. Mr. Hatiwada stated that it is his understanding that along Hamline only a 4-foot fence can be built which is the reason for the application. He wants to put a 6-foot gate at the corner of the garage that would extend into the side yard requiring the variance. Commissioner Yarusso stated she would no longer approve the variance because putting in a gate at a certain orientation is a homeowner decision. The trees are not obstructing the fence. Commissioner Solomonson stated that the trees were never the issue. The high traffic counts are the reason for the 6-foot fence, which is why he supports the variance. Ms. Castle clarified that the traffic count on W. Royal Oaks Drive is 800 to 900 trips per day; Hamline Avenue is 1500 vehicles day. Commissioner Anderson agreed with Commissioner Yarusso and would not support the variance. MOTION: by Commissioner Doan, seconded by Commissioner Yarusso

to deny the variance application submitted by Hari and Krishna Khatiwada, 1304 West Royal Oaks Drive, for a 6-foot tall privacy fence setback 58-feet on the side of property that is adjacent to Hamline.

ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Yarusso, Anderson Doan Riechers Peterson NAYS: Solomonson, Wolfe COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN FILE NO.: 2767-20-25 LOCATION: 565 SHOREVIEW PARK ROAD

25

23

APPLICANT: ROBERT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, LLC Presentation by Associate Planner Aaron Sedey This application is for a Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment for the industrial building located at 565 Shoreview Park Road. There is an existing sign on the north face of the building. The requested amendment is to allow a second sign in the same sign band as the existing sign with the same channel letters to match. The Development Code allows sign plan deviations when the following criteria are met:

• The color, materials, size and illumination are consistent.

• Practical difficulty is relieved.

• The sign package is unified with aesthetic appeal.

• There is no special privilege conferred with approval.

• The sign is effective, functional, attractive and compatible with community standards.

Staff finds that the materials/style is consistent with the development. Practical difficulty is present because the property is a multi-tenant building. The new sign has the same aesthetic appeal as the sign package. No special privilege is given with approval. The new sign is functional and effective in identifying the multi-tenant building that faces I-694. Property owners within 350 feet were notified of the proposed amendment. No comments were received. Staff is recommending the application be forwarded to the City Council for approval with the attached conditions. Chair Peterson opened the discussion to public comment. There were no questions or comments. Chair Peterson noted that this is the type of situation that has been discussed to change in the Code for processing through administrative review. The request is reasonable for visible signage.

26

24

MOTION: by Commissioner Solomonson, seconded by Commissioner

Wolfe to recommend the City Council approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment submitted by Robert Commercial Properties LLC, subject to the following conditions:

1. Future signs shall comply with the plans submitted for the

Comprehensive Sign Plan application. Any significant change will require review by the Planning Commission and City Council.

2. The applicant shall obtain a sign permit prior to the installation of any signs on the property.

Approval is based on the following findings:

1. The plan proposes signs consistent in color, illumination, size and materials throughout the site. Staff believes that sign package utilizes signs that will be a consistent use for the property. This will allow the consistent style while retaining individual business preferences.

2. Approving the deviation is necessary to relieve a practical difficulty existing on the property. Being a multitenant building it is difficult when applying the sign code to evenly apply it, however a comp sign plan allows for deviations for this purpose. This deviation is necessary to allow for this for a business to capitalize on the advertisement on 694.

3. The proposed deviations from the standards of Section 208 result in a more unified sign package and greater aesthetic appeal between signs on the site. Staff believes with the attached conditions approved, it will become a more unified sign package.

4. Approving the deviation will not confer a special privilege on the applicant that would normally be denied under the Ordinance. Typically multi tenant buildings have more signage and display for tenants. A Comprehensive Sign Plan is needed to comply and this allows for deviations from the City Code. Staff does not believe this approval will confer a special privilege on the applicant given the history of past City approvals for signs.

5. 5. The resulting sign plan is effective, functional, attractive and compatible with community standards. Staff believes the sign proposes an effective and functional method to advertise tenants, in a manner compatible with the industrial use.

27

25

ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: Wolfe, Yarusso, Anderson, Doan, Riechers, Solomonson, Peterson NAYS: None MISCELLANEOUS November City Council Meeting Assignments Commissioners and Riechers and Chair Peterson will respectively attend the November 2nd and November 16th City Council meetings. Planning Commission Workshop The Planning Commission will have a workshop meeting November 10, 2020, at 6:30 p.m. to discussion on the Development Code. The meeting will be held by zoom. The schedule of Planning Commission meetings, workshops and assignments to City Council meetings will be available at the November Planning Commission meeting. Next Meeting The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission is November 24, 2020, at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: by Commissioner Doan, seconded by Commissioner

Solomonson, to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. VOTE: AYES - 7 NAYS - 0 ATTEST: _______________________________ Kathleen Castle City Planner

28

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Kathleen Castle , City Planner

DATE: November 24, 2020

SUBJECT: File No. 2770-20-28, Variance - 5251 Hodgson Road, Robert Kim

ITEMNUMBER:

7.A

SECTION: NEW BUSINESS

Memorandum

REQUESTED MOTIONSee the attached motion. INTRODUCTION

Robert Kim, 5251 Hodgson Road, submitted a variance application to construct a detachedaccessory building on his property. The proposal requires a variance because this would the bethird detached accessory building on the property, exceeding the maximum numberpermitted, two.

DISCUSSION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The property is located on the east side of Turtle Lake off of Hodgson Road. Access to theproperty is gained via a private driveway easement that extends across the property directly tothe east at 5245 Hodgson Road. The lot has an area of 1.45 acres and a width of about 130feet. The lot is substandard because it does not have public street frontage.

The property is developed with a single family home, a detached garage and water orientedstructure (boathouse). The house has a foundation area of 3,262 square feet. The detachedgarage is 864 square feet in size and located to the east of the home. The boathouse is 220square feet in size and located west of he home near the shore of Turtle Lake.

The applicant is proposing to construct another detached accessory structure on the propertyas additional storage space is needed for lawn and maintenance equipment. The structureproposed is a 192 square foot storage shed that has a height of 13’6”. It is a barn-style shed andwould be located in the front yard area east of the detached garage.

DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS

The property is located in the RE(40), Residential Estate District (Section 205.081) and iswithin the Shoreland Overlay District (Section 209.080). In this district, accessory structuresare allowed provided certain standards are met (Section 209.082 (D5). The maximum area

29

permitted for the primary detached accessory building is 1000 square feet or 80% of thedwelling unit foundation area. Secondary detached accessory buildings are permittedprovided they do not exceed 440 square feet. The combined area of all accessory buildingscannot exceed 1,500 square feet or 100% of the dwelling unit foundation area, whichever ismore restrictive.

Secondary detached accessory buildings under 200 square feet in size need to be setback aminimum of 5 feet from a side lot line and 10 feet from a rear lot line.

The maximum number of detached accessory buildings permitted is two (Section 209.082(D5c).

Variance Criteria (Section 203.070)

When considering a variance request, the Commission must determine whether the ordinancecauses the property owner practical difficulty and find that granting the variance is in keepingwith the spirit and intent of the Development Code. Practical difficulty is defined and reviewedusing these criteria:

1. Reasonable Manner. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonablemanner not permitted by the Shoreview Development Regulations.

2. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances uniqueto the property not created by the property owner.

3. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essentialcharacter of the neighborhood.

Applicant’s Statement

The applicant states the purpose of the variance is to provide additional storage space for theequipment that is needed to maintain the large property. The boathouse is not suitable for thestorage of these items. If the garage was attached, instead of detached, then the proposedstructure would be allowed without a variance. The existing garage does not have sufficientspace as it is used for the parking of vehicles and other items, including bikes. The shed willnot be visible from Hodgson Road. Please see the attached statement.

STAFF REVIEW

Staff reviewed the proposal in accordance with the Development Code standards and thevariance criteria. The proposed building does comply with the accessory building regulationsrelated to size and location. The following table summarizes the proposal in accordance theDevelopment Code requirements.

AreaCombinedArea

Setback

Side

Setback –Front Height

Total numberdetachedbuildings

DevelopmentCode

Maximum of440 sf 1,500 sf 5’ 20’ 18’ 2

Proposedbuilding

192 sf 1,276 sf 10’ + 100’ +/- 13’6” 3

Again, a variance is required to exceed the maximum number of detached accessory buildings

30

permitted on the property. Staff concurs with the applicant that practical difficulty is present.

Reasonable Manner. The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonablemanner. Detached accessory buildings are permitted in the Residential Estate Districtprovided certain standards are met. Unique Circumstances. Unique circumstances related to the property are present. Theproperty is located in the RE zoning district and larger than the typical single-familyresidential property. While the development code does consider the size of the property withrespect how much accessory building square footage is permitted, it is not considered withregards to the number of detached accessory building allowed. Further, properties that have adetached garage versus an attached garage are more restricted as the detached garage iscounted towards the maximum number permitted.The property is also a riparian lot, therefore, the storage needs differ from other non-riparianlots. The boathouse, located near Turtle Lake, serves as a storage area for lake related items. Because of the proximity to the shoreline and distance from the main yard area, it is notreasonable to use the boathouse for the storage of lawn maintenance and equipment. Character of the Neighborhood. The proposed building will not have an impact on theneighborhood character. Along the perimeter of the property there is a mix of trees andshrubs. The eastern portion of the front yard is wooded. The building will not be visible fromHodgson Road and will exceed the minimum setbacks required from the side and the front lotlines. The home will also remain the main feature of this property as it is larger than thecombined area of all three detached accessory buildings.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Property owners within 150 feet were notified of the applicant’s request. No comments havebeen received.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff reviewed the variance in accordance with the Development Code requirements andvariance criteria. In Staff’s opinion, practical difficulty is present and the variance is justified. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 20-92 approving thevariance subject to the conditions attached.

1. The project must be completed in accordance with the submitted as part of the Varianceapplication. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner,will require review and approval by the Planning Commission.

2. The applicant shall apply for a Riparian Lot – Detached Accessory Structure Permit.Approval is subject to the issuance of this Permit.

3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit prior to the construction of this structure onthe property.

4. The proposed detached accessory building shall comply with the other standards ofSection 205.082 (D5)

5. Said approval is subject to a 5-day appeal period.

Attachments

1. Resolution 20-92

2. Location Map

31

3. Applicant’s Statement and Plans

4. Notification Map

5. Motion

ATTACHMENTSFile No. 2770-20-28, Variance - Combined Attachments

32

EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SHOREVIEW, MINNESOTA

HELD NOVEMBER 24, 2020

* * * * * * * * * * * * * Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Shoreview, Minnesota was duly called and held at the Shoreview City Hall in said City at 7:00 P.M. The following members were present: And the following members were absent: Member __________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption.

RESOLUTION NO. 20-92 VARIANCE

WHEREAS, Robert Kim, submitted a variance application for the following described property:

Lot 1 of BIRCH LANE,RAMSEY CO., MINN. EX E 408 FT; THE FOL TRACT; S 31.78 FT OF LOT 1 & N 100 FT OF LOT 2

(This property is commonly known as 5251 Hodgson Road) WHEREAS, pursuant to the Development Code Section 205.082 (D5c), the maximum number of detached accessory buildings permitted on the property is two, and; WHEREAS, the applicant requested a variance to increase the number of detached accessory buildings to three, and; WHEREAS, the Shoreview Planning Commission is authorized by State Law and the City of Shoreview Development Regulations to make final decisions on variance requests; and WHEREAS, on November 24, 2020, the Shoreview Planning Commission approved the variance and adopted the following findings of fact:

33

File No. 2770-20-28, Kim 5251 Hodgson Road Resolution 20-92 Page 2 of 4

1. Reasonable Manner. The property owner proposes to use the property in a

reasonable manner not permitted by the Shoreview Development Regulations. The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. Detached accessory buildings are permitted in the Residential Estate District provided

certain standards are met.

2. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner. Unique circumstances related to the property are present. The property is located in the RE zoning district and larger than the typical single-family residential property. While the development code does consider the size of the property with respect how much accessory building square footage is permitted, it is not considered with regards to the number of detached accessory building allowed. Further, properties that have a detached garage versus an attached garage are more restricted as the detached garage is counted towards the maximum number permitted.

The property is also a riparian lot; therefore, the storage needs differ from other non-riparian lots. The boathouse, located near Turtle Lake, serves as a storage area for lake related items. Because of the proximity to the shoreline and distance from the main yard area, it is not reasonable to use the boathouse for the storage of lawn maintenance and equipment.

3. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed building will not have an impact on the neighborhood character. Along the perimeter of the property there is a mix of trees and shrubs. The eastern portion of the front yard is wooded. The building will not be visible from Hodgson Road and will exceed the minimum setbacks required from the side and the front lot lines. The home will also remain the main feature of this property as it is larger than the combined area of all three detached accessory buildings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SHOREVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION, that the variance request for property described above, subject to the following conditions:

1. The project must be completed in accordance with the submitted as part of the Variance application. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, will require review and approval by the Planning Commission.

2. The applicant shall apply for a Riparian Lot – Detached Accessory Structure Permit. Approval is subject to the issuance of this Permit.

3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit prior to the construction of this structure on the property.

4. The proposed detached accessory building shall comply with the other standards of Section 205.082 (D5)

5. Said approval is subject to a 5-day appeal period.

34

File No. 2770-20-28, Kim 5251 Hodgson Road Resolution 20-92 Page 3 of 4

The motion was duly seconded by Member _________ and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against the same: Adopted this 24th day of November, 2020 ____________________________ Kent Peterson, Chair Shoreview Planning Commission ATTEST: ____________________________ Kathleen Castle City Planner ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS: ____________________________ Robert Kim

35

File No. 2770-20-28, Kim 5251 Hodgson Road Resolution 20-92 Page 4 of 4

STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) ) CITY OF SHOREVIEW ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Manager of the City of

Shoreview of Ramsey County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully

compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a meeting of said City of

Shoreview Planning Commission held on the 24th day of November, 2020 with the

original thereof on file in my office and the same is a full, true and complete

transcript there from insofar as the same relates to adopting Resolution No. 20-92.

WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager and the corporate seal of the

City of Shoreview, Minnesota, this 24th day of November, 2020.

Terry C. Schwerm City Manager

SEAL

36

Map Ramsey

Personal Property

Tax Parcels

Cities

County Offices

11/19/2020, 3:46:26 PM

0 0.09 0.180.04 mi

0 0.1 0.20.05 km

1:3,600

Ramsey CountyRamsey County MN

37

38

39

Build-A-Quote Number: 2005531 Created: Nov 9, 2020 11:52:41 AM

Customer Information Shipping Information

Robert Kim5251 Hodgson Rd Shoreview, MN 55126rekimmn@yahoo.com

Robert Kim5251 Hodgson Rd Shoreview, MN 55126

Description Qty List Price Discount Ext Net Price

Premier Tall Barn 12 x 16 1/Ea $5608.00 $0.00 $5608.00

Upgrade - 4' x 6'7" Single Shed Door 1/Ea $225.00 $0.00 $225.00

Credit for Removal of Default Door 1/Ea $-200.00 $0.00 $-200.00

Paint - Cherokee Red 483/Ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Paint - Delicate White 1/Ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Paint 10% of building base price 1/Ea $561.00 $0.00 $561.00

Paint discount, customer to apply 2nd coat. Tuff Shedsupplies paint, roller & brush

1/Ea $-224.00 $0.00 $-224.00

Golden Cedar 3 Tab 306/SqFt

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00

16"x8" Wall Vent - White 2/Ea $21.00 $0.00 $42.00

Generator Rental 1/Ea $100.00 $0.00 $100.00

Leveling 0"-4" 1/Ea $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Delivery Fee 1/Ea $95.00 $0.00 $95.00

List Price $6207.00 USD

Discount $0.00 USD

Subtotal $6207.00 USD

Tuff Shed Inc. 1777 S Harrison St Denver, CO 80210 | 1-800-BUY-TUFF | Page 1 of 240

Prices shown in the online Build-A-Quote process are subject to change without notice, do not reflect custom quote selections or any local taxes, andwill be verified at time of order. Online customers selecting the Buy Now option will have appropriate local taxes added to their order. While Tuff Shedmakes every effort to ensure correct information is included in the online Build-A-Quote process, Tuff Shed is not responsible for technical malfunctionof any telephone network, telephone or data lines, computer online systems, servers, internet providers, computer equipment, or software that mayresult in a pricing error or other discrepancy with the online Build-A-Quote process. Additional delivery charges and / or sales taxes may apply for out of state customers.

Building price is based on level lot and does not include any engineering fees or building permits unless otherwise indicated on order. Customer isresponsible for site preparation.Engineered plans may be required for permit application, and are not included in above prices. Engineering chargesare relative to style and size of building. Cancelled orders are subject to a restocking fee. This saved quote includes any applicable promotional discounts, which have limitations and expiration dates.

The price quoted is valid through the expiration date of the promotion. Once an order has been placed, pricing is guaranteed for up to 12 months. If theinstallation is not completed within 12 months for any reason, Tuff Shed has the right to modify the order pricing. You will be notified regarding anyprice adjustment prior to installation or incurring any additional charges.

Tuff Shed Inc. 1777 S Harrison St Denver, CO 80210 | 1-800-BUY-TUFF | Page 2 of 241

42

1

PROPOSED MOTION

MOVED BY COMMISSION MEMBER____________________________ SECONDED BY COMMISSION MEMBER _________________________

To adopt Resolution 20-92 approving the variance permitting a maximum of three detached accessory buildings on the property located at 5251 Hodgson Road. This variance is subject to the following conditions:

1. The project must be completed in accordance with the submitted as part of the Variance application. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, will require review and approval by the Planning Commission.

2. The applicant shall apply for a Riparian Lot – Detached Accessory Structure Permit. Approval is subject to the issuance of this Permit.

3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit prior to the construction of this structure on the property.

4. The proposed detached accessory building shall comply with the other standards of Section 205.082 (D5)

5. Said approval is subject to a 5-day appeal period.

This approval is based on the following findings: 1. Accessory buildings are permitted in the RE(40) Residential Estate Zoning

District.

2. Practical Difficulty has been found as stated in Resolution 20-92.

3. The dwelling unit will remain the primary feature of the property since the as the total area of the accessory buildings is less than the foundation are of the home.

VOTE: AYES: NAYES: Anderson Doan Riechers Solomonson Wolfe Yarusso Peterson Regular Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 2020

43

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Aaron Sedey , Associate Planner

DATE: November 24, 2020

SUBJECT: File No. 2763-20-21, Minor Subdivision/Variance - 5828 Buffalo Lane,Jennifer Nieters

ITEMNUMBER:

7.B

SECTION: NEW BUSINESS

Memorandum

REQUESTED MOTIONSee attached. INTRODUCTION

Jennifer Nieters submitted a minor subdivision application to divide her property at 5828Buffalo Lane into three parcels. The existing home will remain on the southern parcel whilethe northern two parcels will be created for new single-family homes.

The applicant has also submitted two variances. The first is to reduce the required average lotdepth of 125' to 117 ' for Parcel C. The second relates to the existing detached garage. Ms.Nieters is proposing to attach the garage to the existing home. This garage is setback 17.5 feetfrom the Buffalo Lane right of way, less than the minimum 25' required, therefore a variance isneeded. DISCUSSION

SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The property is located on the east side of Buffalo Lane and is zoned R1, Detached Residentialas are the adjoining properties to the north, west and south. The property to the east isdeveloped with townhomes and zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development.

The property is over 1 acre in size with 51,438 sf. and has a width of 408 feet. The depth of theproperty varies from 107' at the north lot line to 130' at the south lot line. A split-entry singlefamily home was built on the property in 1977 and has an attached and detached garage. Thishome is located in the southern part of the property.

Vegetation on the property includes a mixture of open lawn area and trees. The topographychanges very little on the property, seems to be a little higher at the house and slopes down tothe rear property line.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

44

The applicant is proposing to divide the property into three parcels to create two new parcelsfor future single-family homes. Again, the existing home will remain and be located on thesouthern parcel. The detached garage would be retained and attached to the home. Futurehomes will be required to comply with the standards of the R1 zoning district.

DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS

Minor subdivisions require review by the Planning Commission and approval by the CityCouncil. Minor subdivisions must be reviewed in accordance with subdivision and zoningdistrict standards in the Development Regulations.

The City’s subdivision standards (Section 204) require all lots to front on a publicly dedicatedright-of-way. Municipal sanitary sewer also must be provided to the new lot. These standardsalso require 5-foot public drainage and 10-foot utility easements along property lines wherenecessary. Public drainage and utility easements are also required over infrastructure,watercourses, drainages or floodways.

The property is zoned R1, Detached Residential, as are the adjacent properties. In this district,lot standards (205.082(D)) require a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a width of 75feet and a depth of 125 feet. Minimum structure setbacks for a dwelling are 25-40 feet from afront and 30 feet from a rear property line and 10 feet from an interior side lot line. A 5-footminimum side yard is required for accessory buildings including detached garages.

The existing parcel is considered a key lot because the side lot line abuts the rear lot line of theproperty to the north of 5828 Buffalo Lane. If subdivided, the new northern parcel would alsobe key lot. Key lots are defined as a lot that has a rear lot line abutting the side lot line of anexisting parcel or the side lot line abutting the rear lot line of an existing parcel (Section 202,Definitions). While key lots are discouraged, they can be permitted provided the lot is at least15 feet more in depth or width than required for the zoning district (Sec. 204.030(C)(9)). Theadded width or depth is required to ensure that there is enough buildable area on the lot, asgreater structure setbacks are required.

Principal and accessory structures on key lots are required to have a minimum 20-foot side lotline setback when the side lot line abuts the rear lot line of an existing parcel or aminimum 40-foot rear lot line setback when the rear lot line abuts the side lot line of anexisting parcel (Sec.205.080(D)(1)(f)).

VARIANCE CRITERIA

When considering a variance request, the Commission must determine whether the ordinancecauses the property owner practical difficulty and find that granting the variances is in keepingwith the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Practical difficulty is defined as:

1. Reasonable Manner. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonablemanner not permitted by the Shoreview Development Regulations.

2. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances uniqueto the property not created by the property owner.

3. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essentialcharacter of the neighborhood.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT

45

The applicant states that creation of the two new lots have been designed to make up for thelack of depth on the most northern lot, by giving it extra square feet. Retaining the detachedgarage is a desire as the building is in great shape and they do not want to destroy it. This willnot change the character of the neighborhood, as adjacent lots have similar area and depthcharacteristics.

STAFF REVIEW

MINOR SUBDIVISION

The applicant is proposing to retain the existing home, including the detached garage(to beattached) and divide the property into three parcels, with new Parcels B and C being for futuresingle-family residential development. As shown below, the proposed parcels exceed theminimum R1 District lot requirements. Parcel C has an average depth of 117' and is less thanthe minimum required depth of 125 feet.

Requirements

Parcel A

(5828 BuffaloLane)

Parcel B(Middle)

Parcel C (Northern)

Area: 10,000 sf 25,735 sf 10,380 sf 15,323 sfWidth: 75 feet 198 feet 80 feet 130 feet

Depth: 125 feet129.98 feet

129.29 footaverage

117.99 footaverage

Parcel B complies with the minimum lot standards and has sufficient buildable width for a newhome when the minimum structure setbacks are applied. Although Parcel C has a depth lessthan 125', there is still an adequate buildable area for a new home. The lot area at 15,323square feet is one and half times the required minimum lot size. The building pad depthranges from 73 feet near the south property line to 51+ near the northern property line.

Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is already provided to the existing home on ParcelA. Two sets of water and sewer service connections were installed to the northern portion ofthe property in anticipation of a future lot split. Connections are required for future homes onParcel B and C. The standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines will berequired.

Tree impacts will be evaluated further during the building permit review process. Landmarktrees that are removed are subject to a 1 to 1 replacement requirement. Tree removal,replacement and protection will be addressed in the building permit for the new houseconstruction.

A grading and drainage plan will also need to be submitted with the building permitapplication.

Buffalo Lane has a paved width of 20 feet, which is less than the city’s standard road width of

46

28 to 30'. The City does not have specific capacity guidelines for local roadways although thereare capacity guidelines for roads that serve a higher purpose. Generally, local road capacity isbased on the development potential of the area. Local roads are designed to accommodatetraffic generated by low density residential development. Single-family residential generatesbetween 8 and 10 vehicle trips per day. The level of service on the roadway will not be reducedas a result of the subdivision.

VARIANCES

The two variance requests were reviewed by staff in accordance with the variance criteria. Instaff’s opinion, practical difficulty is present. Parcel C almost one and half times the squarefeet required for a R1 lot and is proposed to be 15,323 square feet and allows for an appropriatesized building pad. The detached accessory building to be attached to the principal structurehas been in place since 1989 and will conform to the maximum 1,000 sqft attached to aprincipal structure.

Staff believes practical difficulty is present, based on the following findings:

1. Reasonable Manner. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonablemanner not permitted by the Shoreview Development Regulations. Parcel C - Lot DepthThe applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. The proposed single-family residential use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's low density residential landuse designation. The new parcels created exceed the minimum lot area and width required forthe R1 district and have ample building pad area for new homes. The shallower lot depth ofParcel C has minimal impact on the buildable area of the property. Garage SetbackThe detached accessory building has been in that location for 31 years and no part of theattachment will come closer the front property line. The building has been maintained andadds value to the property. Attaching the building to the home will bring the building intocompliance with the City's size requirements for accessory buildings. Otherwise, the buildingwould need to be demolished. 2. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique tothe property not created by the property owner. Lot Depth.Staff believes that unique circumstances are present due to the historical creation of theneighborhood, the large width and proximity to townhomes. When Buffalo Lane wasestablished, the right-of-way generally followed an existing driveway that provided accessfrom Lexington Avenue to the house at 5800 Buffalo Lane. This affected the depth of theproperties in the Buffalo Lane neighborhood and resulted in a shallower depth for the 5828property. The parcel, however, is wide and provides the land area needed for the subdivision. The neighboring property to the east is a townhome property that parcels out each unit andhas common area between this property and the townhome parcels. This common area has adepth of 30' and the townhomes are an estimated 50’ from the property line of 5828 BuffaloLane. This common area offers extra buffer space and is similar to the required 30-foot rearyard setback required in the R1 District. This mitigates the impacts of the subdivision on this

47

adjoining townhome neighborhood. Garage SetbackA building permit for the detached garage was issued in 1989 and it passed the finalinspection. Attaching the garage to the home does not have an impact on the existing setback. The addition needed to connect the garage to the home will comply with the minimum 25 footrequired from the front lot line. 3. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential characterof the neighborhood. The character of the neighborhood will not be altered. Parcel C - Lot Depth.In this neighborhood, lots have been subdivided over time creating parcels for single familydevelopment. While this property has a shallower depth, the two new lots will be comparablein lot size to others. Further, the lot at 5869 Buffalo Lane has a lot depth of 120'.Garage SetbackFor the garage, the structure has been part of the neighborhood for 31 years and no part of theattachment will come closer the front property line. Attaching the garage to the home will nothave an impact on the neighborhood character.

COMMENTS

Property owners within 350 feet were notified again of the applicant’s request. At the time ofthe writing of this report no comments were received from the public.

City Engineer Tom Wesolowski commented that there are two connections already in place forfuture subdivisions. A grading plan is required with the building permit. Stormwaterinfrastructure is sized to handle the additional lots.

Rice Creek Watershed will require a Stormwater Management Plan, as the subdivision willoccur with a lot exceeding one acre of land.

Natural Resources Coordinator Ellen Brenna commented on the trees, with preservation andprotecting as many as possible and requiring a tree survey for the property.

Building Official Dave Scherbel commented that the detached garage needs to verify it is onfootings.

RECOMMENDATION

The minor subdivision and variance applications have been reviewed in accordance with thestandards of the Development Regulations and found to be in compliance with thesestandards. Leaving the existing home, attaching the detached garage and the creation of twoadditional lots for single-family residential development supports the City’s land use andhousing policies by creating an opportunity for new housing. Staff is recommending theplanning commission adopt Resolution 20-86 approving the variance requests andrecommend the City Council approval the minor subdivision including the requireddevelopment agreements, subject to the following conditions:

Variances

48

For Parcel C

1. This approval allows Parcel C, to be created with an average lot depth of 117.99 feet.2. This approval is subject to approval of the Minor Subdivision application by the City

Council.3. This approval will expire after one year if the subdivision has not been recorded with

Ramsey County.4. The approval is subject to a 5 day appeal period.

Garage Setback

1. This approval allows the detached garage to be attached to the principal structure being17.5 feet from the front property line.

2. The addition shall comply with the minimum 25-foot front yard setback required in theR1 District.

3. The garage shall be attached within one year after the minor subdivisio n is recorded, orshall be removed from the property.

4. This approval is subject to approval of the Minor Subdivision application by the CityCouncil.

5. This approval will expire after one year if the subdivision has not been recorded withRamsey County.

6. The approval is subject to a 5 day appeal period.

Minor Subdivision

8. The minor subdivision shall be in accordance with the plans submitted.9. For Parcel B and C, a Public Recreation Use Dedication fee as required by Section

204.020 of the Development Regulations before a building permit is issued for a newhome on the property. The fee will be 4% of the fair market value of the property.

10. Public drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City as required by thePublic Works Director. The applicant shall be responsible for providing legaldescriptions for all required easements. Easements shall be conveyed before the City willendorse deeds for recording.

11. Municipal water and sanitary sewer service shall be provided to Parcel B and C asreflected in the City Engineers comments as well as curb and gutter with associatedpermit fees and escrows.

12. The applicants shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the City. This agreementshall be executed prior to the City’s release of the deeds for recording. A DevelopmentAgreement will also be required for the construction of a new home on Parcel B and C.

13. A permit or approval from Rice Creek Watershed prior to a building permit is issued.14. A tree protection and replacement plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building

permit (including the demolition permit). The approved plan shall be implemented priorto the commencement of work on the property and maintained during the period ofconstruction. The protection plan shall include wood chips and protective fencing at thedrip line of the retained trees.

15. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the building permitapplication and implemented during the construction of the new residence. This planshall be completed by a Minnesota licensed civil engineer.

16. This approval shall expire after one year if the subdivision has not been recorded withRamsey County.

49

17. An escrow of $2,000 will be held for the attachment of the detached accessory structure,if not attached within one year of the recording of the minor subdivision then the garageshall be removed.

ATTACHMENTS2763-20-21, Minor Subdivision/Variance - Combined Attachments

50

1

PROPOSED MOTION

MOVED BY COMMISSION MEMBER____________________________

SECONDED BY COMMISSION MEMBER _________________________

To adopt Resolution 20-86 approving the variance reducing the require depth for Parcel C in the subdivision of 5828 Buffalo Lane and reducing the front yard setback for the detached garage to be attached to the home. Also recommending the City Council approve the minor subdivision dividing the property into three parcels, subject to the following conditions:

VariancesFor Parcel C

1. This approval allows Parcel C, to be created with an average lot depth of 117.99 feet.

2. This approval is subject to approval of the Minor Subdivision application by the City Council.

3. This approval will expire after one year if the subdivision has not been recorded with Ramsey County.

4. The approval is subject to a 5 day appeal period. Garage Setback

1. This approval allows the detached garage to be attached to the principal structure being 17.5 feet from the front property line.

2. The addition shall comply with the minimum 25-foot front yard setback required in the R1 District.

3. The garage shall be attached within one year after the minor subdivision is recorded, or shall be removed from the property.

4. This approval is subject to approval of the Minor Subdivision application by the City Council.

5. This approval will expire after one year if the subdivision has not been recorded with Ramsey County.

6. The approval is subject to a 5 day appeal period. Minor Subdivision

1. The minor subdivision shall be in accordance with the plans submitted. 2. For Parcel B and C, a Public Recreation Use Dedication fee as required by

Section 204.020 of the Development Regulations before a building permit is issued for a new home on the property. The fee will be 4% of the fair market value of the property.

3. Public drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City as required by the Public Works Director. The applicant shall be responsible for providing legal descriptions for all required easements. Easements shall be conveyed before the City will endorse deeds for recording.

4. Municipal water and sanitary sewer service shall be provided to Parcel B and C as reflected in the City Engineers comments as well as curb and gutter with associated permit fees and escrows.

51

2

5. The applicants shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the City. This agreement shall be executed prior to the City’s release of the deeds for recording. A Development Agreement will also be required for the construction of a new home on Parcel B and C.

6. A permit or approval from Rice Creek Watershed prior to a building permit is issued.

7. A tree protection and replacement plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit (including the demolition permit). The approved plan shall be implemented prior to the commencement of work on the property and maintained during the period of construction. The protection plan shall include wood chips and protective fencing at the drip line of the retained trees.

8. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the building permit application and implemented during the construction of the new residence. This plan shall be completed by a Minnesota licensed civil engineer.

9. This approval shall expire after one year if the subdivision has not been recorded with Ramsey County.

10. An escrow of $2,000 will be held for the attachment of the detached accessory structure, if not attached within one year of the recording of the minor subdivision then the garage shall be removed.

This approval is based on the following findings:

1. Practical Difficulty has been found as stated in Resolution 20-86.

2. The proposed minor subdivision complies with the minimum lot area standard for the R1 district.

3. The proposed use of the property for single-family residential is consistent with the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan.

VOTE: AYES: NAYES:

Anderson Doan Riechers Solomonson Wolfe Yarusso Peterson

Regular Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 2020

52

EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SHOREVIEW, MINNESOTA

HELD NOVEMBER 24, 2020

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Shoreview, Minnesota was duly called and held at the Shoreview City Hall in said City at 7:00 P.M.

The following members were present:

And the following members were absent:

Member __________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption.

RESOLUTION NO. 20-86 VARIANCES

WHEREAS, Jennifer Nieters, submitted a variance application for the following described property:

See Attachment A (This property is commonly known as 5828 Buffalo Lane)

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Development Code Section 205.082 (D)(1), the lot depth for parcel shall be a minimum average depth of 125 feet; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Development Code Section 205.082 (D)(2), the front yard setback range for parcel shall be 25-40 feet; and

WHEREAS, the applicants have requested a variance to create the lot with an average 117.99 feet in lot depth; and

WHEREAS, the applicants have requested a variance to reduced the front yard setback to 17.5 feet from the front property line; and

53

File No. 2763-20-21, Nieters 5828 Buffalo Lane Resolution 20-86 Page 2 of 6

WHEREAS, the Shoreview Planning Commission is authorized by State Law and the City of Shoreview Development Regulations to make final decisions on variance requests; and

WHEREAS, on November 24, 2020, the Shoreview Planning Commission approved the variances and adopted the following findings of fact:

1. Reasonable Manner. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Shoreview Development Regulations.

Parcel C - Lot DepthThe proposed single-family residential use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's low density residential land use designation. The new parcels created exceed the minimum lot area and width required for the R1 district and have ample building pad area for new homes. The shallower lot depth of Parcel C has minimal impact on the buildable area of the property. Garage SetbackThe detached accessory building has been in that location for 31 years and no part of the attachment will come closer the front property line. The building has been maintained and adds value to the property. Attaching the building to the home will bring the building into compliance with the City's size requirements for accessory buildings.

2. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner.

Lot Depth.Unique circumstances are present due to the historical creation of the neighborhood, the large width and proximity to townhomes. When Buffalo Lane was established, the right-of-way generally followed an existing driveway that provided access from Lexington Avenue to the house at 5800 Buffalo Lane. This affected the depth of the properties in the Buffalo Lane neighborhood and resulted in a shallower depth for the 5828 property. The parcel, however, is wide and provides the land area needed for the subdivision.

The neighboring property to the east is a townhome property that parcels out each unit and has common area between this property and the townhome parcels. This common area has a depth of 30' and the townhomes are an estimated 50’ from the property line of 5828 Buffalo Lane. This common area offers extra buffer space and is similar to the required 30-foot rear yard setback required in the R1 District. This mitigates the impacts of the subdivision on this adjoining townhome neighborhood. Garage SetbackA building permit for the detached garage was issued in 1989 and it passed the final inspection. Attaching the garage to the home does not have an impact on the existing setback. The addition needed to connect the garage to the home will comply with the minimum 25 foot required from the front lot line.

54

File No. 2763-20-21, Nieters 5828 Buffalo Lane Resolution 20-86 Page 3 of 6

3. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The character of the neighborhood will not be altered.

Parcel C - Lot Depth.In this neighborhood, lots have been subdivided over time creating parcels for single family development. While this property has a shallower depth, the two new lots will be comparable in lot size to others. Further, the lot at 5869 Buffalo Lane has a lot depth of 120'. Garage SetbackFor the garage, the structure has been part of the neighborhood for 31 years and no part of the attachment will come closer the front property line. Attaching the garage to the home will not have an impact on the neighborhood character.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SHOREVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION, that the variances requested for property described above, subject to the following conditions:

For Parcel C1. This approval allows Parcel C, to be created with an average lot depth of 117.99

feet. 2. This approval is subject to approval of the Minor Subdivision application by the

City Council. 3. This approval will expire after one year if the subdivision has not been

recorded with Ramsey County. 4. The approval is subject to a 5 day appeal period.

Garage Setback1. This approval allows the detached garage to be attached to the principal

structure being 17.5 feet from the front property line. 2. The addition shall comply with the minimum 25-foot front yard setback

required in the R1 District. 3. The garage shall be attached within one year after the minor subdivision is

recorded, or shall be removed from the property. 4. This approval is subject to approval of the Minor Subdivision application by the

City Council. 5. This approval will expire after one year if the subdivision has not been

recorded with Ramsey County. 6. The approval is subject to a 5 day appeal period.

The motion was duly seconded by Member _________ and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:

And the following voted against the same:

55

File No. 2763-20-21, Nieters 5828 Buffalo Lane Resolution 20-86 Page 4 of 6

Adopted this 24th day of November, 2020 ____________________________ Kent Peterson, Chair Shoreview Planning Commission

ATTEST:

____________________________ Aaron Sedey Associate Planner

ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS:

____________________________ Jennifer Nieters

56

File No. 2763-20-21, Nieters 5828 Buffalo Lane Resolution 20-86 Page 5 of 6

STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )

COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) )

CITY OF SHOREVIEW )

I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Manager of the City of

Shoreview of Ramsey County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully

compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a meeting of said City of

Shoreview Planning Commission held on the 24th day of November, 2020 with the

original thereof on file in my office and the same is a full, true and complete

transcript there from insofar as the same relates to adopting Resolution No. 20-86.

WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager and the corporate seal of the

City of Shoreview, Minnesota, this 24th day of November, 2020.

Terry C. Schwerm City Manager

SEAL

57

File No. 2763-20-21, Nieters 5828 Buffalo Lane Resolution 20-86 Page 6 of 6

ATTACHMENT A

58

This

map

is a

use

r g

en

era

ted s

tatic

outp

ut

fro

m a

n I

nte

rne

t m

ap

pin

g s

ite a

nd

is fo

r re

fere

nce

on

ly. D

ata

laye

rs th

at

app

ea

r o

n t

his

map

ma

y o

r m

ay

not

be

accu

rate

, cu

rre

nt,

or

oth

erw

ise r

elia

ble

.

© R

am

se

y C

oun

ty E

nte

rprise

GIS

Div

isio

n

600.0

TH

IS M

AP

IS

NO

T T

O B

E U

SE

D F

OR

NA

VIG

AT

ION

NA

D_

198

3_

HA

RN

_A

dj_

MN

_R

am

sey_

Fee

t

Feet

600

.00

300

.00

No

tes

Ente

r M

ap

De

scr

iptio

n

Leg

en

d5

82

8 B

uff

alo

La

ne

City

Halls

Sch

ools

Hosp

itals

Fire S

tations

Polic

e S

tations

Recr

ea

tiona

l Cente

rs

Parc

el P

oin

ts

Parc

el B

ounda

ries

Pers

onal P

rope

rtie

s

59

COUNTY ROAD I WEST

HA

MLI

NE

AV

EN

UE

NO

RTH

LEX

ING

TON

AV

EN

UE

NO

RTH

C.S.A.H. NO. 51

LEX

ING

TON

AV

E. N

.

SITE

OH

E

OH

E

OH

E

OH

E

OH

E

OH

E

OH

E

S

S

S

S

H

Y D

W

T

WSO

W

TVTW

SOE

WSO

E

T

AC

G

AC

S0°

43'0

0"E

408

.00

S0°

41'2

5"E

247

.11

L=70

.50

R=

440

.57

PID=033023130003JENNIFER NIETERS

PARCEL A

PARCEL B

PARCEL C

BU

FFA

LO L

AN

EΔ

= 13 °

5 3'1

2 "R

=38 0

.57

L=9 2

.24

N89°26'55"E 130.02

N89°26'55"E 107.33Δ

=9°1

0 '06

"

N89°26'55"E 129.93

N89°26'55"E 128.64

T

LEXINGTON AVENUE N.C.S.A.H. NO. 51

CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY

FILE NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDLAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF

DATE: LIC. NO.

DATE AMENDMENTS PREPARED FOR:BY CHRIS ARLANDSON

MINNESOTA.

Shawn M. Kupcho L.S. 10/13/20 49021

October 13, 2020

AS SHOWN

JMB

SMK

2020-11657

10/15/20 REVISED BOUNDARY PER PRORATED SECTION BREAKDOWN SMK

11/3/20 REVISED PROPOSED LOT LINES SMK

© 2020 WIDSETH

0

SCALE ( IN FEET )

30 60

NO

RTH

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:(Quit Claim Deed No. 4363000)That part of the North 771 feet of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, lying Westerlyof the East 360 feet, and lying Easterly of a line 30 feet Westerly of the following described centerline; Beginning at a point on the North lineof the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, distant 825 feet East of the Northwest cornerof said Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4; thence Southerly and parallel with the West line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 adistance of 326.83 feet; thence along a tangential curve concave to the West having a radius of 410.57 feet, a central angle of 13 degrees53 minutes 12 seconds a distance of 99.51 feet to a point of reverse curvature, thence along a 410.57 foot radius curve concave to theEast, central angle of 13 degrees 53 minutes 12 seconds a distance of 99.51 feet; thence Southerly and tangent to said curve to the Southline of the North 771 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 and there terminating, except the North 363 feet thereof, RamseyCounty, Minnesota

= DENOTES A SECTION CORNER MONUMENT

= DENOTES A SET 1/2" IRON PIPE MONUMENTMARKED LS 49021

= DENOTES A FOUND IRON MONUMENT

LEGEND

QUARTER LINE

RIGHT OF WAY EXISTINGBOUNDARY LINE

BUILDING SETBACK LINESIXTEENTH LINE

OHE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC

POWER POLE

PARCEL LINELOT / DEED LINE

STORM SEWERSANITARY SEWERWOOD FENCECHAIN LINK FENCE

BUILDING WALL HATCH

BITUMINOUS SURFACE

CONCRETE SURFACE

PAVER SURFACE

GUY ANCHORAC AC UNIT

E

S

ST

H

Y D

W

W

WSO

TTV

E

ELECTRIC METERELECTRIC PEDESTAL

G

GATE POST

SANITARY MANHOLECLEANOUTSTORM MANHOLECATCH BASINHYDRANTWATER VALVEWELLCURB STOPTELEPHONE PEDESTALTV PEDESTALGAS METER

VICINITY MAPSECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 30 N, RANGE 23 W

1"=600'

NO

RTH

SURVEY NOTES:

1. The orientation of this bearing system is based on the Ramsey County Coordinate System NAD83 (1986 Adj).

2. Property Address: 5828 Buffalo Lane, Shoreview, MN 55126

3. The field work was completed on October 1, 2020

4. Total area of the property is: 51,438 Sq. ft. or 1.18 Acres

5. The property is zoned R1 - Detached Residential (per City of Shoreview Zoning Map)

6. Building setbacks: (per City of Shoreview Municipal Code)

Front Yard : 25 feetSide Yard (Dwelling and Accessory) : 10 feetRear Yard : 30 feet

7. No document for an apparent 60 foot wide road easement for Buffalo Lane was provided and is not shown on the survey.

8. For the purposes of this survey the North line of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 3, Township 30, Range 23 was determined by using a prorated section breakdown method. This method was used for the location of the boundary lines for the properties on the West side of Buffalo Lane. The monumented South line of the property lies 2.6' to 3.1' southerly of the boundary determined using the prorated section breakdown method. It is unclear what section breakdown method was used when the found monuments were set.

PROPOSED PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS:

PROPOSED PARCEL A DESCRIPTION:

The South 198.00 feet of the North 771.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 3, Township 30North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota lying westerly of the East 360.00 feet and lying easterly of a line 30.00 feetwesterly of the following described centerline;

Beginning at a point on the North line of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, Township 30 North, Range 23West, distant 825 feet East of the Northwest corner of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4; thence Southerly and parallelwith the West line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 a distance of 326.83 feet; thence along a tangential curveconcave to the West having a radius of 410.57 feet, a central angle of 13 degrees 53 minutes 12 seconds a distance of 99.51feet to a point of reverse curvature, thence along a 410.57 foot radius curve concave to the East, central angle of 13 degrees53 minutes 12 seconds a distance of 99.51 feet; thence Southerly and tangent to said curve to the South line of the North 771feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 and there terminating.

PROPOSED PARCEL B DESCRIPTION:

The South 80.00 feet of the North 573.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 3, Township 30 North,Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota lying westerly of the East 360.00 feet and lying easterly of a line 30.00 feetwesterly of the following described centerline;

Beginning at a point on the North line of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, Township 30 North, Range 23West, distant 825 feet East of the Northwest corner of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4; thence Southerly and parallelwith the West line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 a distance of 326.83 feet; thence along a tangential curveconcave to the West having a radius of 410.57 feet, a central angle of 13 degrees 53 minutes 12 seconds a distance of 99.51feet to a point of reverse curvature, thence along a 410.57 foot radius curve concave to the East, central angle of 13 degrees53 minutes 12 seconds a distance of 99.51 feet; thence Southerly and tangent to said curve to the South line of the North 771feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 and there terminating.

PROPOSED PARCEL C DESCRIPTION:

The South 130.00 feet of the North 493.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 3, Township 30North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota lying westerly of the East 360.00 feet and lying easterly of a line 30.00 feetwesterly of the following described centerline;

Beginning at a point on the North line of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, Township 30 North, Range 23West, distant 825 feet East of the Northwest corner of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4; thence Southerly and parallelwith the West line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 a distance of 326.83 feet; thence along a tangential curveconcave to the West having a radius of 410.57 feet, a central angle of 13 degrees 53 minutes 12 seconds a distance of 99.51feet to a point of reverse curvature, thence along a 410.57 foot radius curve concave to the East, central angle of 13 degrees53 minutes 12 seconds a distance of 99.51 feet; thence Southerly and tangent to said curve to the South line of the North 771feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 and there terminating.

60

804 Lincoln Avenue • Saint Paul, MN 55105

(612) 990-0266 November 9, 2020 City of Shoreview Re: 5828 Buffalo Lane, Shoreview MN 55126 – Subdivision variance request To Whom It May Concern, I have submitted a proposal to subdivide the above-referenced property into three parcels. The proposed subdivision necessitates two variances as follows: • The Northernmost lot (Parcel C) has an average depth equal to 111.4’, which is less

than the statutory 123’ minimum. Compensating for this shortfall, this parcel is much wider and larger in area than the minimum allowable. This lot is intended to be used in a reasonable manner as a residential buildable lot. The lot has reasonable proportions, with a 127.6’ width that well exceeds the minimum requirement, the lot will be 14,225 square feet in area, and the lot will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood (adjacent lots have similar area and depth);

• The front setback to the existing shop (see attached survey) is 17.5’, which is less

than the statutory 25’ minimum. This structure has existed in this location for more than twenty years, and it conforms to esthetic standards prevailing in the neighborhood. Further, the alignment of Buffalo Lane in front of this structure is such that there is more than 30’ of grass/lawn between the structure and the roadway pavement. The position of the structure therefore does not appear unusual or non-conforming.

Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Regards,

Chris Arlandson, P.E. 612-990-0266 (mobile) MN P.E. #26806

61

62

63

64

65

11/17/2020 Shoreviewmn.gov Mail - Minor subdivision and Variances

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=eb35886ee7&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1682924615319858079&simpl=msg-f%3A1682924615319858079 1/1

Aaron Sedey <asedey@shoreviewmn.gov>

Minor subdivision and Variances

Dave Scherbel <dscherbel@shoreviewmn.gov> Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:46 PMTo: Aaron Sedey <asedey@shoreviewmn.gov>

Hi Aaron, I guess the only comment that I have is that if they intend to attached the current detached structure to the home, theyneed to verify the detached structure is on footings, or present a design that will meet code.Thanks,

Dave

Dave ScherbelBuilding Official4600 Victoria St. NCity of Shoreview651-490-4691

[Quoted text hidden]

66

This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site andis for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be

accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.

© Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division

400.0

THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION

NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet

Feet400.00 200.00

Notes

Enter Map Description

Legend350 BUFFER MAP

City Halls

Schools

Hospitals

Fire Stations

Police Stations

Recreational Centers

Parcel Points

Parcel Boundaries

Personal Properties

67

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Ben Harrington , Community development intern

DATE: November 24, 2020

SUBJECT: Public Hearing: File No. 2723-20-10 -Text Amendment, Refuse CollectionTime - Citywide, City of Shoreview

ITEMNUMBER:

7.C

SECTION: NEW BUSINESS

Memorandum

REQUESTED MOTIONSee the attached motion. INTRODUCTION

The City is initiating a text amendment to revise the established hours for refuse hauling in aresidential zoning district.

DISCUSSION

DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS

Section 209.020, Noise, regulates noise emissions in the City and addresses hourly restrictionsfor certain operations. Subsection C3 establishes the permitted hours for refuse hauling inresidential zoning districts. This section states, “No person shall collect or remove garbage orrefuse in any residential district except between the hours of 6:00 am and 6:00 pm on Mondaythrough Saturday.”

The intent of the hourly restrictions is to maintain the peace and quietness in residentialneighborhoods during the early morning and evening hours.

STAFF REVIEW

Over the years, the City has received a few complaints from residents regarding the collectiontime, specifically, the morning hour of 6:00 am. Residents do perceive this to be a nuisance asit disturbs the peace and quiet of neighborhoods in the early morning hours. A residentrecently contacted staff about this matter, therefore, this text amendment is being initiated.

Staff has reviewed ordinances from nearby Cities and found that the hours for refuse pick-upvaries with majority establishing 7:00 am as the pick-up start time. The following tablesummarizes staff’s findings:

68

City Hours PermittedRoseville 7:00 am to 9:00 pmVadnais Heights 7:00 am to 7:00 pmMounds View 7:00 am to 6:00 pmArden Hills 6:00 am to 6:00 pmNew Brighton 6:30 am to 8:00 pm

In addition to refuse hauling, the noise ordinance restricts other operations that occur inresidential neighborhoods. This includes the use of domestic power equipment which isrestricted to 8:00 am and 10:00 pm. Construction activities may occur between the hours of7:00 am and 10:00 pm on any weekday or between the hours of 8:00 am and 9:00 pm on anyweekend or holiday. The discharge of fireworks is limited to 8:00 am and 10:00 pm.

A key issue regarding the amendment pertains to the ability of the refuse haulers to adjust to alater time. Staff has contacted all registered haulers in the City as well as Eureka Recycling. Acomment was received from Ace stating that the change isn’t ideal while their administrativestaff is working from home, but it is possible to adjust. Eureka recycling also stated that theyare not fully supportive of the change, although their contract with the City identifies a starttime of 7:00 am. Currently, they begin pick-up at 6:00 am and received staff approval to doso. They can make an adjustment to their pick-up schedule if required.

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT

The text amendment proposed is as follows:

Section 209.020 (C) Hourly Restriction of Certain Operations.

(3) Refuse Hauling. No person shall collect or remove garbage or refuse in any residentialdistrict except between the hours of 6:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday throughSaturday.

PUBLIC COMMENTNotice of the hearing was published October 27th in the City’s Legal Newspaper. No commentsfrom the public have been received. RECOMMENDATION

The Staff believes the proposed amendment revising the refuse collection hours in residentialzoning districts from 6:00 am to 7:00 a.m. preserves the peace and quiet during the earlymorning hours. The proposed start time of 7:00 am is similar to that of our neighboringcommunities and more consistent with other activities regulated in residential areas. Staff isrecommending the Planning Commission recommend approval of the text amendment to theCity Council. If the change is adopted, the staff will inform the refuse haulers and providethem a time period to make adjustments to their pick-up schedules.

Attachments:1. Section 209.020 (C)2. Comments received3. Motion

69

ATTACHMENTSFile No. 2723-20-10 -Text Amendment, Refuse Collection Time - Combined Attachments

70

City of Shoreview Municipal Code Section 209.020 Noise

(C) Hourly Restriction of Certain Operations.

(1) Recreational Vehicles. Except for emergency purposes, no person shall drive or operate any minibike, snowmobile or other recreational vehicle not licensed for travel on public highways between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.

(2) Domestic Power Equipment. No person shall operate a power lawnmower, power hedge clipper, chain saw, mulcher, garden tiller, edger, power device for bug eradication, drill or other similar domestic power maintenance equipment except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Snow removal equipment is exempt from this provision.

(3) Refuse Hauling. No person shall collect or remove garbage or refuse in any residential district except between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Saturday.

(4) Construction Activities. No person shall engage in or permit construction activities involving the use of any kind of electric, diesel or gas-powered machine or other power equipment except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on any weekday or between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on any weekend or holiday.

(5) Consumer Fireworks. No person shall discharge any consumer firework except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.

71

11/19/2020 Shoreviewmn.gov Mail - ACE Solid Waste

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=ea64e65e7a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1683120588057100807&simpl=msg-f%3A1683120588057100807 1/1

Ben Harrington <bharrington@shoreviewmn.gov>

ACE Solid Waste

Randy Triplett <Randy.Triplett@wasteconnections.com> Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 8:41 PMTo: Ben Harrington <bharrington@shoreviewmn.gov>

Hey Ben – no a big fan of reducing our ability to provide service given the current situa�on of people being athome. This �me next year it is a non issue. How many people are making noise about the situa�on?

[Quoted text hidden][Quoted text hidden]

72

1

PROPOSED MOTION

MOVED BY COMMISSION MEMBER_______________________________________________ SECONDED BY COMMISSION MEMBER __________________________________________

To recommend the City Council approve the text amendment revising Section 209.020 (C3), hourly restrictions for refuse hauling. The proposed change preserves the peace and quietness in residential zoning districts in the early morning hours.

This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed hours are consistent with the hourly restriction of other noise

generating activities in the residential zoning districts.

2. The proposed hours are consistent with those imposed by nearby communities and the industry.

VOTE: AYES: NAYES: Anderson Doan Riechers Solomonson Wolfe Yarusso Peterson Regular Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 2020

73

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Kathleen Castle , City Planner

DATE: November 24, 2020

SUBJECT: December City Council Meeting Assignments

ITEMNUMBER:

8.A

SECTION: MISCELLANEOUS

Memorandum

REQUESTED MOTION INTRODUCTIONDecember 7 - SolomonsonDecember 21 - Doan DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS

74

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Kathleen Castle , City Planner

DATE: November 24, 2020

SUBJECT: 2021 Calendar and Meeting Assignments

ITEMNUMBER:

8.B

SECTION: MISCELLANEOUS

Memorandum

REQUESTED MOTION INTRODUCTIONThe 2021 Community Development Calendar and the City Council meeting assignmentschedule are attached. DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS2021 Community Development Calendar2021 Planning Commission - City Council Meeting Assignments

75

Key: Council Meetings Holidays

PC Meetings

PC Application Deadline

PC Workshop

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

January February March

1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 28 29 30 31

31

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

April May 1 June

1 2 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

25 26 27 28 29 30 30 31 27 28 30

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

July August September

1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

October November December

1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 31

31

2021 Community

Development Schedule

76

2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ASSIGNMENTS

JANUARY 4 Peterson

JANUARY 19 Yarusso

FEBRUARY 1 Solomonson

FEBRUARY 16 Doan

MARCH 1 Wolfe

MARCH 15 Anderson

APRIL 5 Riechers

APRIL 19 Peterson

MAY 3 Yarusso

MAY 17 Solomonson

JUNE 7 Doan

JUNE 21 Wolfe

JULY 6 Anderson

JULY 19 Riechers

AUGUST 2 Peterson

AUGUST 16 Yarusso

SEPTEMBER 7 Solomonson

SEPTEMBER 20 Doan

OCTOBER 4 Wolfe

OCTOBER 18 Anderson

NOVEMBER 1 Riechers

NOVEMBER 15 Peterson

DECEMBER 6 Solomonson

DECEMBER 20 Doan

77

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Kathleen Castle , City Planner

DATE: November 24, 2020

SUBJECT: 2021 Chair and Vice Chair Appointments

ITEMNUMBER:

8.C

SECTION: MISCELLANEOUS

Memorandum

REQUESTED MOTION INTRODUCTIONThe City Council will appoint the Chair and Vice Chair for the Planning Commission inJanuary 2021. DISCUSSIONThe Chair and Vice Chair positions are appointed by the City Council. In the past, thesepositions have rotated among the Commission members to give each member the opportunityto serve in a leadership capacity. Attached is a handout that describes the Chair role in moredetail. Section 304 of the Municipal Code is also attached as it describes the role of theCommission. RECOMMENDATIONPlease send an email to Kathleen Castle, City Planner, kcastle@shoreviewmn.gov if you areinterested in serving as Chair or Vice Chair for the 2021 calendar year. Your interest must besubmitted by December 28th. ATTACHMENTSChairing the Planning Commission.pdfSection 304 2021.pdf

78

16

P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N E R S J O U R N A L / N U M B E R 7 0 / S P R I N G 2 0 0 8

F E AT U R E

Chairing the Planning Commissionby Carol J. Whitlock

Planning commissions comein all sizes. There are small onesand large ones and each seems tohave its own set of bylaws and methods of operation. But they all haveone thing in common. They all have achairperson.

For some planning commissions thechairperson is elected by members of thecommission for only a single term of oneor two years; some allow additionalterms; while others have a rotation sys-tem where every commissioner eventual-ly becomes chairperson.

The first thing to remember as a plan-ning commission member and potentialchairperson is that being a wonderfullyeffective member does not mean you willmake a wonderfully effective chairper-son. This article addresses those who areless than confident about their abilities tochair meetings.

For most planning commissions themajor responsibility of the chairperson isthe conduct and control of each meeting.Sounds very simple until you throw intothe mix that this requires working withnot only your fellow planning commis-sion members, but the general public,

many of whom are there because theyare: (1) totally in the dark about someproject planned for their neighborhood,(2) mildly unhappy with what is beingproposed, or (3) up in arms about whatis going on. Then you throw into the mixthe applicant and professionals – devel-

opers, lawyers, etc. – who have their ownagenda as well. Conducting and control-ling the meeting can be a challenge.

The most important thing to remem-ber as chairperson is that it is your goalto be fair to everyone – regardless ofwhether you agree or disagree with them.Here are a few simple ideas to help withmeeting that goal. For the usual, routineitems on the agenda these will help, butwon’t really come into play as life saversfor the chairperson until the “hot” topicsshow up.

• Always be fair. This is perhaps themost important responsibility of thechairperson. Remember it is your job togive everyone their “day in court,” not todecide who is right or wrong. (You willdo that also, but outside of your job aschairman).

Many planning commissions beginhearings with staff comments and anoverview of the project, followed by a

Online Comments“It is very important to explain theprocess and what role the commis-

sion and the public have prior to each hearingon each item. This sets the expectation of whatcan be achieved … If it is an administrativeitem versus legislative the public should knowthe scope of their ability to give input.”

– Meg Ryan, Planning Consultant, Utah League ofCities and Towns

“I have been on the BZA and the Planningand Zoning Commission 28 years (at the end ofthis current term) with 95 percent of that timeas chairman. I have experienced a lot of whatCarol writes about in this article and it’s a goodfeeling for me to know that I am on the samepage with her.”

– Richard L. Snyder Sr., Planning and ZoningCommission Chairman, West Jefferson, Ohio

“Carol’s article certainly is a good guide forall chairpersons. … it is essential to set the‘ground rules’ up front … Having time limits onpublic comment is unfortunate, but necessary,

in order to properly manage meetings thatsometimes go well into the wee hours. I alsothink that a reminder should be given for com-menters not to repeat what someone else hassaid. Allow them to concur verbally, but notrepeat. Also, for certain groups such as homeassociations, it is often effective if a spokesper-son representing the entire group can deliverthe thoughts for everyone by allowing thespokesperson an extended amount of time. Onegood speaker for ten minutes may be betterthan 20 people speaking for two hours. And, inthis way, their message is more succinct andeasier to follow.”

– Larry Frey, AICP, Bradenton, Florida

“To keep comments germane, the chair alsoshould remind the public (and commissioners,if needed) about standards of review for thecase under discussion, for example, ‘consistencyand compatibility with the comprehensiveplan,’ ‘meeting standards of zoning ordinance.’… One other thing that isn’t specifically withinthe scope of the article, but that affects the toneand productivity of meetings a lot, is the pub-lic’s ability to access information relevant to the

hearings, like staff reports and hearing notices,in advance.”

– Alissa Barber Torres, AICP, Chief PlannerResearch and Strategic Planning Section OrangeCounty [Florida] Planning Division

“There is more that a Chairman can do thateffects the conduct of the meeting. Making sureall commissioners do their homework beforethe meeting is one. Unless they have studied theapplication beforehand … the commissionerswill either spend a lot of time at the meetingunnecessarily or miss some very significantpoints that should be considered. It will certain-ly allow them to ask more intelligent and infor-mative questions. I am especially concernedthat the commissioner representing the districtin question is fully knowledgeable about theapplication. … Another item affecting the meet-ing and even the long term outcome of the vote,is ensuring that the commissioners have a fullunderstanding of what can and cannot be con-sidered or voiced at the meeting.”

– Allan Slovin, Chairman, Town of Braselton[Georgia] Planning Commission

“ALWAYS BE FAIR. THIS ISPERHAPS THE MOST

IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITYOF THE CHAIRPERSON.”

79

From a StaffPerspectiveby Lee Krohn, AICP

Carol’s column covers interesting andhelpful strategies for being an effectiveBoard chair and for running effectivemeetings. One of her suggestions, to meetwith your community’s planning director(or appropriate staff person) before eachmeeting, is excellent. Let me add somethoughts on this from a staff perspective.

This kind of pre-meeting or pre-hear-ing discussion allows us to create appro-priate and effective strategies as neededfor each matter and for the overall meet-ing. Let me be clear: we do not seek pre-determined outcomes on cases. What wetry to do is build a shared understandingabout which cases will be more complex;what key questions or issues are likely tocome up; and how to deal with potentialquestions of law, procedure, or process.

It also helps that the chairs of our various boards (and we have several citi-zen boards in addition to the planningcommission) have me right at their sideduring hearings. Everyone knows that I am not a board member, nor can I vote;however, this close proximity allow us toconfer as needed on key questions orissues, while maintaining a smooth flowof discussion for each case. It alsodemonstrates, both literally and figura-tively, that staff and board collaborate as a team on behalf of our community.

There are many more pieces of thispuzzle than can be covered here. I hopethis is a helpful beginning, and helps tostimulate thoughtful consideration aboutthe dynamics of public service in the landuse arena. While it may not feel this wayin the heat of a contested matter, how weapproach our work, and the behavior weoffer by example, does make a difference.Let us all seek to do this important worktogether within a context of trust, care,and mutual respect.

Lee Krohn has served in many capacities(often concurrently) for the Town ofManchester, Vermont, since 1989, includingPlanning Director, Zoning Administrator, TreeWarden, E-911 Coordinator, and Interim TownManager. He has also served from “the otherside” as Chair of the Putney, VermontPlanning Commission.

• Develop a good working relationshipwith your planning director (or whoever is your key staff support person). This

is vital. In my years’ of expe-rience as chairperson,

I have also foundthat meeting with

our planningdirector before

each public meeting has

strengthenedour relationship,

while providingme with a heads

up about any uniqueor “hot” items on the

agenda.• Discuss issues with respect. Another

important aspect of conducting and con-trolling a meeting is the way the planningcommission handles its own discussions.

I have been lucky to have fellow plan-ning commissioners who respect eachother’s opinions. Should you have aproblem of lack of respect among mem-bers, remember it isn’t your place to cor-rect the planning commission member,just control the meeting. Your onlyrecourse is to stop the meeting untileveryone cools down (call a 10-minuterecess) and then take up again. Shouldthe problem persist, rectifying it is up tothe mayor, city administrator, or some-one else at that level.

The suggestions I have set out arebasic, common sense actions for runninga meeting. But if you have not been onthe gavel side of the table before, maybethey will help a bit. And if you have beenthere, perhaps they will add to what youhave already learned and help you out inthe future. ◆

Carol J. Whitlock is a reg-istered professional engi-neer. She currently chairsboth the Merriam, Kansas,and the Johnson County,Kansas, Planning Commis-sions. Carol has served onthe Merriam PlanningCommission for over 20years, including 17 years as chairperson, and hasserved on the Johnson County Planning Commis-sion for 12 years, chairing it for 8 years.

presentation by the applicant. After that,it’s usually the public’s turn to weigh in.

If it looks like there are large numbersof people wishing to speak, orif the applicant or his orher representativesindicate they have alot to cover, set atime limit. Theimportant thingis to set it at thestart of the meet-ing and then stickto it for everyone.Be reasonable. Mostcitizens can say whatthey have to say in 5-10minutes, applicants can general-ly describe and discuss the most complexproject in 30 minutes. Additionally, leteveryone know that there will be a “oneto a customer” rule. That is, say every-thing you have to say in your first, andonly, time to speak.

Often citizens try to bypass the chair-person and ask questions directly of theapplicant, his lawyer, or other represen-tative. Don’t allow this. Have the appli-cant or his representative respond to allquestions at the end of the public inputpart of the meeting. This will help pre-vent back and forth discussions thatoften become arguments.

• Do not allow the audience to break inwhen someone else has the floor. If patient-ly telling members of the public to waittheir turn doesn’t work, stop the meetingand let everyone sit and stew until itcomes back under control. No need toyell, pound the gavel, or demand control.Things will settle down if all businessstops until peace reigns. Only one timehave I ever had to threaten to get thepolice to clear the room and that wasbecause of one totally irrational gentle-man who settled down after thethreat/promise of police intervention.

• Patiently listen until every person whowishes to speak has had their say. This iswhere the time limit comes in to helpyou out. But more importantly, if every-one understands that they will be heard,they are much more apt to sit patientlyand not disrupt the meeting.

17

P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N E R S J O U R N A L / N U M B E R 7 0 / S P R I N G 2 0 0 8

ILLU

STR

AT

ION

BY

PAU

L H

OFF

MA

N

80

City of Shoreview Municipal Code Chapter 300. Council and Administration

Section 304. Planning Commission 304-1

304 Planning Commission 304.010 Establishment. A planning commission for the city of

Shoreview is hereby established. The Planning Commission shall be the City planning agency.

304.020 Composition. The Planning Commission shall consist of seven

(7) members who shall be appointed by the City Council. Any member of the planning commission may be removed by a majority vote of the City Council.

304.030 Terms and Compensation. Appointments to the Planning

Commission shall be made at the first regular January meeting of the City Council, or more often if required. Members shall be appointed for three year terms beginning February 1 and ending January 31 of the third year following. In the event of a vacancy occurring during any term, appointments shall be for the balance of the unexpired term. Members of the Planning Commission shall receive as compensation such fees or salary as the City Council shall provide as resolution. Members of the Planning Commission shall hold office until their successors are appointed and qualified.

304.040 Organization. The City Council shall appoint a chairman from

among the members of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may create and fill such other offices as it may determine. All officers of the Planning Commission shall serve until the following January 31.

304.050 Meetings and Reports. The Planning Commission shall hold

at least one regular meeting each month. It shall adopt rules for the transaction of business. It shall keep a public record of all motions, resolutions, transactions, findings, minutes, and reports, which shall be promptly reduced to writing and a copy forwarded to each member of the City Council. The City Attorney and the City Engineer shall be official advisors to the Planning Commission. They shall attend Planning Commission meetings upon request and shall be compensated therefore in the same amount as that received for attending City Council meetings.

81

City of Shoreview Municipal Code Chapter 300. Council and Administration

Section 304. Planning Commission 304-2

304.060 Expenditures. Expenditures of the Planning Commission shall be within amounts appropriated by the City Council. The Planning Commission shall submit a report of all expenditures to the City Council on or before January 1st of each year.

304.070 Powers and Duties. The Planning Commission shall be the

City's planning agency. It shall exercise the duties imposed on it by the City Council including, but not limited to, the following:

(A) Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission shall

prepare and periodically review the City's Comprehensive Municipal Plan. It shall make recommendations to the City Council regarding the adoption of the plan or amendments thereto. Prior to submitting its recommendations to the City Council, the Planning Commission shall hold at least one Public Hearing. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published once in the City's official newspaper at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing.

(B) Official Controls. After a Comprehensive Plan has been

adopted by the City Council, the Planning Commission shall prepare and propose reasonable and practical regulations for the implementation of the policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan including, but not limited to, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, and official maps.

(C) Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The Planning

Commission shall be the City's Board of Adjustments and Appeals. In this capacity the Planning Commission shall have the following duties:

(1) To hear and make recommendations to the City Council

where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative officer in the interpretation or enforcement of the City's Zoning or Subdivision Regulations.

(2) To hear and determine requests for variances pursuant

to Chapter 214.

82

City of Shoreview Municipal Code Chapter 300. Council and Administration

Section 304. Planning Commission 304-3

(3) To hear appeals from affected property owners when a building permit for the construction of a building is not issued because the building is to be constructed within the limits of a mapped street, outside of any building lines that may have been established upon an existing street, or within an area identified for public purposes on an official map or maps adopted by the City. The Board may authorize the issuance of a permit for such buildings in any case in which the Board finds, upon the evidence and arguments presented to it, as follows:

(a) That the entire property of the affected property

owner, of which such areas identified for public purposes forms a part, cannot yield a reasonable return to the owner unless such a permit is granted; and

(b) That, when balancing the interest of the City in

preserving the integrity of the official map or maps and of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan against the interests of the affected property owner in the use and enjoyment of the benefits of ownership, the issuance of the permit is required by considerations of justice and equity.

If the Board authorizes the issuance of a building permit as provided herein, the City shall have six (6) months from the date of the decision of the Board to institute proceedings to acquire such land or interest therein. If no such proceedings are started within that time, the building permit shall be issued in accordance with applicable ordinances, if the application for such permit otherwise conforms to City regulations.

(D) Development Regulations. The Planning Commission shall

have the power and duties imposed on it by the City's Development Regulations.

83