Memorandum

To deny the variance appeal for the following three variances submitted by Robert Freed regarding the property at 804 County Road I, each to maintain a water-oriented accessory structure.

1. Variance to Sec. 115-149 (c) (3) (d) - Lakeside accessory side setback less than 20’
2. Variance to Sec. 115-149 (c) (3) (g) - Lakeside accessory OHW setback less than 25’ 
3. Variance to Sec. 115-155 (b) (3) (a) (2) to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage of 25%

This action is based on the finding that a practical difficulty is not present. The patio was not lawfully established by the previous owner, thereby making it an illegal non-conformity, and the desire to maintain a lakeside accessory structure on a site does not justify exceeding the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage by 10.6%.

Alternate Motions: 

Alternate Motion Number 1 - To approve the following two variances submitted by Robert Freed regarding the property at 804 County Road I, to allow for a 170 square foot water oriented accessory structure. 

1. Variance to Sec. 115-149 (c) (3) (g) - Lakeside accessory OHW setback less than 25’ 
2. Variance to Sec. 115-155 (b) (3) (a) (2) to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage of 25%

This action is based on the finding that practical difficulty is present. The three findings, of reasonable use, unique circumstances, and neighborhood character are outlined as follows:

1. Reasonable Use
2. Unique Circumstances
3. Neighborhood Character

Alternate Motion Number 2 -  To to remand the appeal of the variance application back to the planning commission for further consideration of the updated site plan and new proposal submitted by the applicants on September 8th, 2026. 

The applicant, Robert Freed, purchased the site located at 804 County Road I W in September of 2025 and applied for a new short-term rental license for the property the following month. In accordance with City regulations, staff performed an inspection of the site and, after receiving corrections for the issues noted, issued the license on November 3rd, 2025. Subsequently, staff began receiving complaints from neighbors regarding concerns over parking capacity, location of vehicles parked on the site and on County Road I, occupancy limits, trash, and noise. After receiving further complaints in March, staff performed a thorough evaluation of the site, the listings on Airbnb, and neighbor complaints to compile a comprehensive list of violations of the rental code and municipal code to send to the owners and to bring the property into compliance. During this evaluation, staff found that the property has an illegally installed gravel parking area, a patio located lakeside that was installed in 2022, along with a deck that encroaches further into the lakeside structure setback than was permitted as part of a residential design review on the property, and a hot tub and associated pad in the Shore Impact Zone. The patio currently violates five provisions of the City Code, and the deck violates one provision. 

Staff has met with the owners of the site multiple times to discuss potential options for correcting the violations present on the property. Ultimately, the applicants desire to maintain some of the existing patio that was a part of the home when it was originally purchased and therefore proposed to alter the existing patio to bring it into compliance with two out of the five violations, and to request variances for three of the five violations to maintain the existing water-oriented accessory structure. The applicants also requested a variance to the lakeside structure setback for their deck. 

The Planning Commission heard the following variance requests regarding the patio during its August 26th meeting and voted to deny them via a 5-2 vote:

1. Variance to Sec. 115-149 (c) (3) (d) - Lakeside accessory side setback less than 20’
2. Variance to Sec. 115-149 (c) (3) (g) - Lakeside accessory OHW setback less than 25’ 
3. Variance to Sec. 115-155 (b) (3) (a) (2) to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage of 25%

In addition, the Planning Commission heard the following variance request during its August 26th meeting and voted via a 7-0 vote to approve the following variances relating to the deck:

1. Variance to Development Code Sec. 115-149 (c) (2): The attached deck does not comply with the required structure setback of 50 feet from the OHW level. 

The applicants are appealing the decision of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the three variances regarding the patio. 

Property Description

The subject property is a substandard riparian lot located in the R1-Detached Residential Zoning District. The lot is 9,896 square feet, with a width of 75 feet along County Road I W to the north, thus making it a substandard lot, and depths of 119 feet along the western property line and 129 feet along the eastern property line. The property has a single-family home on it that was originally constructed in 1972, then significantly remodeled in 2003 when it went through a residential design review. As a part of this remodel, the homeowners added 300 sq ft of living space on the street side of the property above the garage. As a part of this RDR, the planning commission approved the owners to exceed the maximum allowed impervious surface coverage to 35.6% with a mitigation affidavit and no lakeside accessory structure. They maintained the existing lakeside setback of the deck at 19.5 feet and stated on their building plans and survey that there would be no changes to the deck. 

With the current conditions of the property, the patio violates five provisions of the Shoreview City Code.  The five patio violations include:

1. There are currently two water-oriented accessory structures on the property: the patio and the hot tub. This violates Sec. 115-149 (c), which states that on residential property, only one water-oriented accessory structure may be located between the OHW level and the required structure setback.
2. The water-oriented accessory structure, as it currently sits, is 314 sq ft, which exceeds the maximum area of 250 square feet per Sec. 115-149 (c) (3) (a).
3. The patio is currently 10 feet from the side property line on the eastern side, which exceeds the minimum setback of 20 feet per Sec. 115-149 (c) (3) (d).
4. The patio is currently located within the shore impact zone, which is an area where only lawfully created boathouses or off-season ice fishing houses may be permitted per Sec. 115-149 (c) (3) (g). This area is anywhere within 25 feet of the ordinary high water line. The current patio is located 10 feet 9 inches from the OHW. Code does permit that this setback requirement can be waived, but not reduced to less than ten feet from the OHW, if the planning commission determines that a practical difficulty exists which renders strict compliance to be unreasonable. This portion of code defines this usage of "practical difficulty" as due to topography or other circumstance acceptable to the city.
5. The home had a variance approved at 35.6% impervious surface coverage, which exceeded the previous limit of 30%. With the installation of a water-oriented accessory structure, the permitted amount of impervious surface coverage decreases to a maximum of 25% per Sec. 115-155 (b) (3) (a) (2). With the unpermitted improvements on the property, the site is currently at 41.5% impervious.

Project Description

To remedy the violations, the applicants are proposing the following modifications:

1. The owners are proposing to remove the existing hot tub to reduce the number of water-oriented accessory structures to one; therefore, they will not need a variance for Sec. 115-149 (c).
2. The owners are proposing to reduce the total square footage of the patio from 314 sq ft to 200 sq ft and replace the removed materials with sod; therefore, they will not need a variance for Sec. 115-149 (c) (3) (a) for exceeding 250 square feet.
3. The owners are requesting a variance to Sec. 115-149 (c) (3) (d) to maintain the existing patio setback of 10 feet from the side property line.
4. The owners are requesting a variance to Sec. 115-149 (c) (3) (g) to maintain the patio in its existing location within the shore impact zone, but will be reducing the amount of impervious surface within that area that is closest to the lake. The new patio will be located 17.6 feet from the OHW.
5. The owners are requesting a variance to Sec. 115-155 (b) (3) (a) (2) to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage amount of 25% when the property contains a water-oriented accessory structure. The owners are proposing to reduce the existing impervious surface coverage of the site from its current area of 4,102 sq ft to 3,522 sq ft, and the overall percentage of impervious surface from 41.5% to 35.6% by removing the hot tub and underlying pad, removing a portion of the patio, all of which is located within the shore impact zone, and removing a small portion of the cement surface of the driveway and the adjacent pea gravel area, both of which would be replaced with sod. While this meets the total percentage that was approved through the residential design review in 2003, the need for the variance stems from the addition of the lakeside accessory structure and the subsequent reduction of allowed impervious coverage to 25% instead of the previously approved 35.6%.

Development Code Requirements

Residential Design Review for Substandard Lots
Development Code Sec 115-155(b) requires that no structures be expanded, constructed, or reconstructed on a substandard lot of record unless design review approval is first obtained from the city in accordance with Sec 103-5. As the various improvements made to the site were not reviewed by the city, Planning Commission review and consideration are required.

Variance Criteria

When considering a variance request, the commission must determine whether the ordinance causes the property owner practical difficulty and find that granting the variance is in keeping with 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 reasonable manner not permitted by the Shoreview Development Regulations.
2. Unique Circumstance. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner.
3. Character of the Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.

Applicant Statement

The present owners of the property at 804 W Co Rd believe the need for these variances is required in part, first, by the placement of the houses in this area are very close to one another on relatively narrow lots, by their respective builders, leaving only relatively small side setbacks between each of the respective houses, and second, by a prior owner or prior owners of the present property who, perhaps separately, built a deck and an adjacent lakeside patio, which arguably violated provisions of the code, and that were existing, and which added to the value to the property, when the property was purchased by the present owners in September of 2025.

We agree to take the actions described above if we can obtain the requested variances from the Planning Commission and the Commission believes the proposed actions will be sufficient, along with the requested variances, to bring the property into compliance with the provisions of the code. It is believed by the present owners that the requested variances, together with the actions the present owners have tentatively proposed, will bring the property into compliance with the provisions of the code. 

It will be appreciated that the present owners wish to be in compliance with provisions of the code, and that the actions they have agreed to take if the requested variances are granted, would be taken at significant trouble and expense, and that the practical difficulties associated with addressing the further aspects of the code that are not addressed by the proposed actions, which the present owners tentatively agree to take, and that would prevent the present owners from complying with the provisions of the code, are believed to consistent with the property owner using the property in a reasonable manner that would not be permissible under the code if the variances are not permitted.

Furthermore, it is believed that the present property owners' circumstances are unique to the present property and were not created by the present property owners. In addition, it is believed by the present property owners that none of the variances that have been requested will do anything that will alter the essential character of the neighborhood.

The applicants have also included pictures of the property that are taken from several vantage points to show what can be seen or not seen of the current patio, and presumably, would likely be seen or not seen of the proposed patio from these respective vantage points if the proposed actions are taken. The pictures taken from the dock show the steps that lead away from the patio to the dock, but the height of the rocks of the "riprap" on the lakeside of the current patio, and the grass adjacent to the patio, would likely prevent anyone on the dock or on the water in the lake adjacent to the shoreline from seeing the patio. Similarly, there are two pictures showing the area near the property line on the east side of the property, also showing that the current patio is not visible from the neighboring lot because of the rise of the landscaping provided in the area encompassing the lot line. We are providing these pictures to supplement the information provided in the present application.

Although we appreciate that drainage of rainwater from the roof of the house is not a central matter of concern with regard to the Commission's consideration of this matter, it was mentioned in one of our discussions as a matter of some limited concern that might put us in a favorable light with the Commission. We have reviewed this matter and note that one of the prior owners has upgraded the gutter system on the house and placed five separate downspouts connected to the respective gutter system at different corners of the house, each of which drains into a separate catch basin, each of which is believed to drain away from the house into grassy areas in the yard that is spaced well away from the lake.

The present owners of the property at 804 W Co Rd wish to express their appreciation for the consideration and communication provided by the City planning staff with respect to this matter and also the further consideration provided regarding this matter by each of the respective members of the Planning Commission. Thank you.

STAFF REVIEW

Residential Design Review - Staff has reviewed the proposal in accordance with the standards specified for the R1 zoning district and for substandard riparian lots.

Staff has reviewed the proposal for the three variance requests relating to the lakeside accessory structure in accordance with the variance criteria. Upon review, staff determined that practical difficulty is not present because a unique circumstance not created by the property owner does not exist.

1. Reasonable Manner. A lakeside accessory structure within the R1 zoning district is a reasonable request provided certain dimensional requirements are met.
2. Unique Circumstances. Staff has determined that a unique circumstance is not present. The approved residential design review from 2003 was conditioned on the homeowners removing 5% of their impervious surface coverage on the site as a mitigation practice to get down to an approved 35.6%, which still exceeds the maximum allowed percentage. With the addition of a lakeside accessory structure reducing the maximum allowed percentage down to 25%, staff believes the preference for a lakeside accessory structure on a site does not justify an exceeding of the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage by 10.6%. Secondly, the site does allow for the homeowners to reduce/alter the patio to conform to the side setback that borders 800 County Road I and maintain a nearly 150 sq ft patio. Finally, staff believes that a "practical difficulty" involving the required setback from the OHW is not present. There are no topographical issues that present a practical difficulty in that area. And while the distance of the house from the OHW only allows for between 4 to 5 feet of space between the setback line and the home, the proposed location of the water-oriented accessory structure does not appear to be making a full attempt at reaching as close to compliance as possible. 
3. Neighborhood Character. Staff has determined that granting the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood due to other properties along County Road I on Turtle Lake having patios.

COMMENTS

Public Comments

Property owners within 150 feet were notified of the applicant’s original request. At the time of this report, one written public comment from two homeowners was submitted expressing disapproval of the variance request. 

Staff and Agency Comments

Engineering staff provided comments regarding the importance of Shoreview's impervious surface limits: These regulations provide a consistent standard for builders and homeowners to help prevent cumulative negative impacts from rain runoff to drainage systems, flooding, and water quality. Excess impervious coverage on lake lots can directly affect water quality because rain will not soak into the ground, but can flow directly into the lake. When rain runs off the impervious surfaces, it can carry sediments and other pollutants to the lake.

Rice Creek Watershed District provided comments outlining their permitting specifications, which may be required for the removal of the patio if they are stockpiling over 50 cubic yards of erodible earth material and/or disturbing 5,000 sq ft.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

At their August 25th meeting, the planning commission denied the submitted variance requests for the following items:

1. Variance to Sec. 115-149 (c) (3) (d) - Lakeside accessory side setback less than 20’
2. Variance to Sec. 115-149 (c) (3) (g) - Lakeside accessory OHW setback less than 25’ 
3. Variance to Sec. 115-155 (b) (3) (a) (2) to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage of 25%

These decisions were made via a 5-2 vote as the planning commission was unable to find that a practical difficulty was present, necessitating the variance request.

During the same August 25th meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously (7-0) moved to adopt Resolution 26-68 granting a variance to reduce the lakeside structure setback from 19.5’ to 17.9’ to accommodate a deck. Therefore, no action is required on this item. 

APPLICATION UPDATES

After the Planning Commission meeting, the applicants worked with their surveyor to submit an update to their application materials and request. The owners' updated proposal includes a reconfiguration of the existing patio to 170 sq ft total and reducing the size of it on the eastern side to meet the 20-foot setback. Along with the reconfiguration, they proposed to completely remove the turnaround located on the eastern side of the driveway to further reduce the amount of impervious surface coverage on the site to 34.2%.  

With the alterations proposed, the applicants would need variances to the sections listed below; 

1. Variance to Sec. 115-149 (c) (3) (g) - Lakeside accessory OHW setback less than 25’ 
2. Variance to Sec. 115-155 (b) (3) (a) (2) to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage of 25%

The City Council is asked to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission’s action based on the application that was presented to and acted upon by the Planning Commission. The applicants have subsequently proposed modifications to the plans, as described above. Staff is not making a recommendation regarding the proposed modifications.

Staff recommends that the City Council deny the variance appeal for the following three variances submitted by Robert Freed for the property at 804 County Road I, each related to maintaining a water-oriented accessory structure:

1. Variance to Sec. 115-149 (c) (3) (d) - Lakeside accessory side setback less than 20’
2. Variance to Sec. 115-149 (c) (3) (g) - Lakeside accessory OHW setback less than 25’ 
3. Variance to Sec. 115-155 (b) (3) (a) (2) to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage of 25%

Staff’s recommendation is based on the finding that a practical difficulty is not present. The patio was not lawfully established by the previous owner and therefore constitutes an illegal nonconformity. In addition, the desire to maintain a lakeside accessory structure on the property does not, in staff’s opinion, constitute a practical difficulty that justifies exceeding the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage by 10.6 percent.

The City Council may take one of the following actions:

1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s action based on the application as originally presented;
2. Consider and act on the proposed modifications to the application; or
3. Remand the matter to the Planning Commission for review and action on the proposed modifications before the City Council takes final action.

If the City Council chooses to consider the proposed modifications, the Council should determine whether the modified proposal meets the applicable variance standards and make the required findings regarding practical difficulty for any variances it is considering.