This transcript has been formatted with speaker names and estimated timestamps based on the flow of the meeting. **[00:00] Kevin Edberg (Acting Mayor):** Everywhere? Good evening. Welcome to this meeting of the White Bear Lake City Council. My name is Kevin Edberg. I am the representative of Ward Four and also the chair of the Council. The Mayor is out of town this evening, and by—under our City Charter—that makes me the Acting Mayor until his return, which I hope is soon and speedy and safe. With that, welcome, and I would ask you to join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. **[00:30] Everyone:** I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. **[00:45] Kevin Edberg:** I would ask the Clerk to call the roll, please. **[00:48] City Clerk:** Councilmember Walsh? **[00:49] Bill Walsh:** Here. **[00:50] City Clerk:** Councilmember Hughes? **[00:51] Dan Hughes:** Here. **[00:52] City Clerk:** Councilmember Jones? **[00:53] Steven Jones:** Here. **[00:54] City Clerk:** Councilmember Edberg? **[00:55] Kevin Edberg:** Here. **[00:56] City Clerk:** Councilmember Engstrand? **[00:57] Heidi Engstrand:** Here. **[00:58] Kevin Edberg:** Thank you very much. So, we have a light agenda this evening. Let's move right into item number two on the agenda: the approval of the minutes. You've received the minutes of our last City Council meeting. Are there any corrections or additions? **[01:10] Bill Walsh:** Move approval. **[01:12] Kevin Edberg:** It's been moved and seconded to accept the minutes. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. **[01:15] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[01:16] Kevin Edberg:** Opposed? Motion carries. We have an opportunity to adopt the agenda. Does anyone have anything else they would like to add to the agenda this evening or subtract? Hearing none, I’d accept a motion to accept the agenda as presented. **[01:30] Bill Walsh:** So moved. **[01:32] Kevin Edberg:** Mr. Walsh moves. Is there a second? **[01:33] Steven Jones:** Second. **[01:34] Kevin Edberg:** Jones seconds. Thank you. All in favor signify by saying aye—I'm sorry, if there's something that's supposed to come off the consent agenda, it should come off now, shouldn't it? **[01:40] Lindy Crawford (City Manager):** It comes up when we adopt the consent agenda—is when we pull it. Not when we approve the agenda. **[01:45] Kevin Edberg:** So we're going to approve the agenda with that item on the consent agenda? **[01:47] Lindy Crawford:** Yep. **[01:48] Kevin Edberg:** Okay. So I think we were at adopting the agenda. It's been moved and seconded. Is there... all in favor signify by saying aye. **[01:55] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[01:56] Kevin Edberg:** Opposed? Motion carries. We'll move to the consent agenda. I would like to move item 5G to become the new 8B. Are there any other changes to the items on the consent agenda? Item 4G—I’m sorry, 4G to become 8B. Are there any other changes? Is there a motion to adopt the consent agenda as presented as amended? **[02:20] Bill Walsh:** So moved. **[02:22] Dan Hughes:** Second. **[02:23] Kevin Edberg:** Thank you. Questions? All in favor signify by saying aye. **[02:25] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[02:26] Kevin Edberg:** Opposed? Motion carries. We have no visitors and presentations, no public hearings, no unfinished business. We move directly to new business. The first item is a variance request for 1525 Birch Lake Boulevard North. This item is on our agenda tonight following discussion and presentation and action by the Planning Commission. We have a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Crawford, would you like to introduce it, or Linda? **[03:00] Jason Lindahl (Community Development Director):** Thank you, councilmembers. I'll take you through a brief summary of that and then be available. Is that better? So, the subject property is located at 1525 Birch Lake—excuse me, Birch Lake Boulevard North. The applicants in this case are the property owners, and that's Rick Houston and Tracy Jacobson, and they are in the audience tonight. The subject property is located on the north side of Birch Lake, which is north of Highway 96. The comprehensive plan guides the subject property as low-density residential, and the property is also correspondingly zoned R2 single-family, but also within the Shoreland overlay district for Birch Lake. Again, the request from the applicants in this case is a 10-and-a-half-foot front yard setback variance. The community comment that came in the form of the discussion at the Planning Commission at their last meeting included one conversation with staff prior to the meeting and then that same neighbor attending the Planning Commission meeting. Their questions really had to do with the impact that this application could potentially have on their property. They were satisfied during the meeting that it would not impact their property and really did not have an opinion one way or the other, but really just satisfied that it wasn't impacting their site. The Planning Commission reviewed this item based on the variance review criteria in the Minnesota Statute 462.357. That's detailed in your staff report. At the Planning Commission meeting, or just prior, the applicant did submit their own responses to the review criteria for that statute. That's included in your packet tonight. The application came forward to the Planning Commission with a recommendation from staff based on the statute review for denial, and during the Planning Commission, they had a discussion over this item and eventually voted 4 to 3 to support that recommendation for denial that comes before you tonight. Just to give you a little context of the zoning process: the city's zoning standards right now have a base zoning for all R2 District properties, but also includes a mechanism that tries to take into account the variation that occurs in communities like White Bear Lake that have developed over time. That's where this setback averaging comes into play. In this case, our ordinance has an underlying base setback but establishes a process to mitigate that by allowing for averaging based on the neighboring properties around you. Really, the spirit and intent here is already to try to allow some variation in setback based on the context you are already in with your adjacent neighbors. In this case, that works out to having a neighbor with a front yard setback of 83 feet on one side and their existing setback of 85 feet for the subject property, and then the other neighbor at 78 feet comes up to an average of 80.5 feet. The application in this case is a 15-foot addition, which results in that 70-foot proposed setback, which gets us to the 10-and-a-half-foot variance. The applicant also includes some existing and proposed layouts of their home to try and demonstrate the addition. A significant rationale for their request here is that they're trying to modernize and update their house to fit their current needs, and that includes adding—as you can see on the right side of this slide—a master bedroom, turning one of the existing bedrooms into a hallway, master bath, and closet, and then also an office portion on that side of the property. The criteria we use to look at a variance is in State Statute. The "elevator speech" I give to people about variances is that local governments can set our own standards about what the front yard setback is or what the height of a building is, but the standards for reviewing a variance are actually in state standards. They look at these five questions: First, whether the proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. The applicant talks about how the site would only be slightly closer than the homes around it and that their current design is non-functional under modern standards. Staff looked at this from the position where the code already allows for deviation through the average setback standard. Second, whether it's consistent with the comprehensive plan. The applicant cites the varying age and style of homes around Birch Lake. Staff would offer that if other properties in the neighborhood have been improved, they've done that either with the averaging setback or within the zoning standards. Third, whether the property is being put to "reasonable use." The applicant states the rear yard isn't suitable because of internal layouts and that the variance allows them to meet current housing needs. Staff looks at it from a stricter perspective: they already have a single-family home, and options for additions would include going out the rear or going up a story. Fourth, unique circumstances not created by the landowner. The homeowner talks about the layout, trees, and an old foundation in the back that limit the ability to do a rear addition. Staff offers that these are existing conditions created historically. The rear yard setback is 40 feet, and there is 90 feet from the house to the rear property line, so there is an envelope for a rear addition. The applicant mentions cost, but statute says financial criteria alone can't be the sole reason for a practical difficulty. Finally, whether the variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The homeowner offers that it won't because of existing varying setbacks. Staff believes it would change the character based on the averaging tool already in our ordinance. That's a summary of staff's analysis. The staff report recommends denial of this variance. I'll take any questions. **[11:30] Kevin Edberg:** Thank you. My suggestion is that we have Council conversation first about what Mr. Lindahl just presented. Does anybody wish to offer express disagreement with that approach? All right. Any questions for Mr. Lindahl on the thinking or the basis of the recommendation? **[11:55] Dan Hughes:** Mr. Lindahl, just some stupid questions. When we're talking about the setback, it's from the property line closest to the lake, correct? **[12:05] Jason Lindahl:** Council, what we're talking about is the front yard setback to the foundation of the principal structure. **[12:12] Dan Hughes:** Okay. Even though they own lakefront, we're not talking about that? And we don't take into consideration if someone has a big deck or non-pervious structure built out front? **[12:25] Jason Lindahl:** You're correct. It's the foundation of the principal structure. If somebody put a deck out in front, that wouldn't be part of this discussion. **[12:35] Dan Hughes:** Okay, I was just curious about that. Thank you. **[12:40] Bill Walsh:** Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just tree removal—how much tree removal? Does the statute deal with that? I like to keep trees if we can. Where does that stand in the hardship case? **[12:55] Jason Lindahl:** Members of the Council, the City’s position is we want to maintain tree cover. But if you look at it strictly, as to whether there are conditions not created by the landowner—like an extreme slope or a large wetland—staff just didn't see trees as a strong enough support to find a unique situation with this particular property. **[13:30] Steven Jones:** I don't have any questions, but I just figured I'd throw out my opinion, which I'm sure— **[13:35] Kevin Edberg:** Could we hold your opinion until after? Because I'd like the owner response to it. **[13:38] Steven Jones:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, my two cents is it's kind of like you bought a home next to an airport and you're complaining about the sound. The houses along the street are a hodgepodge. But I'm finding that the circumstances involve expenditure of funds. I don't think that's our problem—for a chimney or removal of an existing foundation to create a hardship... or practical difficulty. Thank you. That's where my brain is at, with a close vote for denial. I might be persuaded; I've flipped and flopped before. **[14:30] Kevin Edberg:** Mr. Lindahl, I have one question. The example you gave—is that our written practice? That we take the neighbor on either side? And if we took two on either side, would that make a material difference? **[14:50] Jason Lindahl:** Members of the Council, the section of the code that talks about front yard setback averaging does specifically talk about the neighbors on either side of you. It creates that context for neighboring properties. **[15:15] Lindy Crawford:** Council, just one clarification. The way the statute is set up, it indicates that the applicant has the burden of establishing the existence of practical difficulties. It’s not as though the City has to disprove it; they have to prove it. **[15:40] Kevin Edberg:** If the homeowners would like to give... you have five minutes. Welcome to address us. If you would state your name and address for the record, please. **[15:50] Tracy Jacobson (Applicant):** For the record, Tracy Jacobson. I live at the subject home, 1525 North Birch Lake Boulevard. Jason, I think you did a great job summarizing, so thank you for that. There’s a couple of things that weren't brought up. As far as the statutory language, one specific thing the statute mentions is the lack of access to light for solar energy installation. That is something we've explored. We cannot build off the north side of the house and put solar on our roof. So just straight out of the statute, that alone is a practical difficulty by law. The other thing is the financial burden. It would cost us a lot more money to put an addition on the back because of the structure of the house. Financial difficulty cannot be the sole reason, but it is a consideration. And trees—based on the configuration of the trees in our backyard, they may not all be human-planned. We have old, big oak trees we'd have to significantly trim or take down to get equipment into the backyard. And Councilmember Jones, I want to address your comment about buying a house next to an airport. We bought the "fixer-upper" with the intent to improve the property. This is the smaller house on the north side of the lake still waiting for someone to make additions to it. That was the appeal to us. **[18:00] Rick Houston (Applicant):** Rick Houston, property owner. I would just add that in pursuing the variance, it would have been really helpful to have an explanation of what things like the "comprehensive plan" really mean. I would not have known it was a waste of time to put it in in the first place. I strongly encourage you to take a step back and review that variance process. **[18:30] Steven Jones:** Mrs. Jacobson, any compromise wheel and deal? On what aspect? The amount of footage coming out? **[18:40] Tracy Jacobson:** We can't really compromise—we're not going to build off the north side because there’s no return on investment and no solar. The south side... possibly some negotiation, but I don’t know why we would need to. It doesn't affect either neighbor. It's us asking permission to put a hundred thousand dollars into our property that will improve the look of the house, the neighborhood, and we'll pay more taxes. I don't see any cons. **[19:15] Rick Houston:** It’s a circumstance of the house—it’s longer than it is wide. That 10-and-a-half foot allows for the expanded bathroom. It’s either off the back side or the front side. **[19:35] Tracy Jacobson:** Also, Jason, do you have the photo of the house? The reason we're asking for this specific distance is because there's a little sidewalk. The 15 feet would come out just to cover over that part of the sidewalk. It would be a covered walkway. If it were a foot shorter, it would look stupid. This variance covers only the gravel or rock next to the house; it doesn’t cover any grass yard. **[20:15] Steven Jones:** Which is existing now, correct? The gravel? **[20:17] Tracy Jacobson:** The gravel is there now. It’s already not being used. It would cover that and not the usable green space. **[20:30] Dan Hughes:** Silly question, but is that what it's going to look like? [Referring to a rendering]. **[20:35] Tracy Jacobson:** No, no, no. That would be a very stupid design. It’s just to show where the footage would come out. We want to put big windows and solar. They won't come and assess solar until we have a structure. It will have beautiful windows, and underneath will be a patio area, which is currently rocks and weeds. **[21:15] Kevin Edberg:** Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Council. We have a recommendation of denial from the Planning Commission. **[21:30] Dan Hughes:** I really don't want to deny it. I struggle with the reasons laid out, but I tend to want to say to the homeowner: "You're willing to invest a ton of money into this property, and I appreciate that." These are old houses. It doesn't seem like a big, egregious ask. **[22:00] Steven Jones:** I feel the same way every single time one of these comes up. But I'm looking at—we used solar a lot. I don't see a lot of solar going on that addition. There are other options, and the homeowners have said no to options. I think there are other options. It’s close, but with staff's denial and our Planning Commission's recommendation, I say no. **[22:45] Bill Walsh:** I'm with both of you. I want to say yes, but I don't think the "practical difficulty" test has been passed here. With the backyard available—that concrete pad can be ripped up. It’s difficult, but it’s about the integrity of the process and precedence. I don't think the argument for practical difficulty has been made. **[23:30] Steven Jones:** I will make a motion to approve the resolution for denying a setback variance for 1525. **[23:45] Heidi Engstrand:** Second. **[23:47] Kevin Edberg:** Discussion on the motion? This was not an easy one. The Planning Commission gave us a 4-3 vote. Just a reminder: if you vote "Yes," you are voting to deny. **[24:10] Dan Hughes:** Mr. Edberg, you usually do chime in and I value your opinion. **[24:15] Kevin Edberg:** I intend to vote in favor of the resolution to deny, based on the failure—in my opinion—to meet the requirements for practical difficulty. Clerk, please call the roll. **[24:35] City Clerk:** Councilmember Edberg? **[24:36] Kevin Edberg:** Aye. **[24:37] City Clerk:** Councilmember Walsh? **[24:38] Bill Walsh:** Aye. **[24:39] City Clerk:** Councilmember Jones? **[24:40] Steven Jones:** Aye. **[24:41] City Clerk:** Councilmember Engstrand? **[24:42] Heidi Engstrand:** Aye. **[24:43] City Clerk:** Councilmember Hughes? **[24:44] Dan Hughes:** [No/Nay]. **[24:45] Kevin Edberg:** The motion carries. We’ll move to item 8B, the fire service agreement. I've asked to have that pulled because I think it's worthy of conversation. City Manager, is this contracting with neighboring municipalities in our interest? How does this help us? **[25:30] Lindy Crawford:** Chair, members of the Council. We provide wholesale water to Birchwood Village, building inspections to Mahtomedi, and police services to Gem Lake. Any partnership is a good thing. It helps spread our budget out. We would still need the same amount of equipment to serve just our city limits, so this is a benefit. A downside can be workload—like the recent hail storm—but it's still a good partnership. They do not receive a "sweetheart deal." The fire contract is based on budgeted costs, depreciation, and dispatch fees, divided by tax capacity and population. **[27:45] Kevin Edberg:** Do we get any special benefits? Scale? **[27:50] Lindy Crawford:** I don’t think we achieve scale in equipment, but taxpayers benefit by spreading the budget across more jurisdictions. **[28:15] Bill Walsh:** This is an opportunity for the city to be entrepreneurial. I like this because it’s a core service. If we can market that to other communities and it makes sense financially, I like it. **[29:00] Steven Jones:** I totally respect what Ms. Crawford is saying. Those other municipalities add up to 36% of the total population served. That's a big chunk. It helps when we're talking about buying a new truck or the public safety building. My only comment: I would strengthen these contracts. We’ve been unceremoniously dumped before by a municipality that didn't abide by their contract. If you sign a contract, stay with it. Also, regarding Gem Lake—they don't have the internal staff for development. How can we help them help us? We all benefit economically from that corridor. I value that planning ability. Can we sell that service on a case-by-case basis? **[31:00] Lindy Crawford:** It’s a nice concept, but we don't have the staff capacity right now. We are helping with the County Road E corridor, where Gem Lake is involved. **[31:30] Kevin Edberg:** I’ll just add one last comment. Our relationships with neighboring municipalities are really important—whether it's the lake, watershed districts, or water issues. Coming out of COVID, we have an opportunity to engage more with our neighbors. I’d welcome a motion to approve the action plan. **[32:00] Steven Jones:** I'll move approval of the resolution. **[32:05] Bill Walsh:** Second. **[32:08] Kevin Edberg:** All in favor signify by saying aye. **[32:10] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[32:11] Kevin Edberg:** Opposed? Motion carries. Communications from the City Manager? **[32:15] Lindy Crawford:** Thank you, Chair. Upcoming events: County Road E Corridor study workshop on October 12th. Ribbon cuttings: Adorn Homes on the 13th and Frontline Industries on the 18th. Also, the City Clerk and I met with a business owner to discuss THC. There’s still confusion out there between CBD and THC, so we are beginning research on that. **[33:00] Kevin Edberg:** Any other items? If not, I’d accept a motion to adjourn. **[33:05] Bill Walsh:** So moved. **[33:07] Dan Hughes:** Second. **[33:09] Kevin Edberg:** All in favor signify by saying aye. **[33:10] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[33:12] Kevin Edberg:** Motion carries. Meeting adjourned.