## Variance Board Agenda Wednesday, May 6, 2026 ## 5:30 PM ## City Council Chambers In accordance with Minnesota Statutes §13D.02 and City policy, Council and Commission members may attend meetings remotely up to three times per calendar year. (Times listed are approximate – please note that items may be earlier or later than listed on the agenda) 1. Call to Order ## 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Review of Minutes a. Review of April 1, 2026 Minutes ## 5. Public Hearing a. Request to allow a proposed front entry addition within the required minimum setback from the front property line and to increase the nonconforming impervious coverage at 1211 Josephine Road (PF26-006) 6. Adjourn Page 1 of 29 ## REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Date: 5/6/2026 Item No.: 4.a. ## Department Approval Agenda Section ## Review of Minutes ## Item Description: Review of April 1, 2026 Minutes Page 1 of 1 1 2Application Information 3n/a 4 5Background 6n/a 7 8Staff Recommendation 9n/a 10 ## 11Requested Planning Commission Action 12Review the April 1, 2026 minutes and make a motion to approve subject to requested corrections. 13 14Alternative Actions 15n/a 16 Prepared by: ## Attachments: 1. April 1, 2026 Minutes 17 Page 2 of 29 ## Variance Board Regular Meeting ## City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Draft Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2026 – 6:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 1 Chair Aspnes called to order the regular meeting of the Variance Board meeting at 2 approximately 6:00 p.m. and reviewed the role and purpose of the Variance Board. 3 4 2. Roll Call & Introductions 5 At the request of Chair Aspnes, City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. 6 7 ## Members Present: Chair Aspnes, Members Cyra and Campbell Jensen 8 9 ## Members Absent: None 10 11 ## Staff Present: City Planner Thomas Paschke, Community Development Director 12 ## Janice Gundlach, and Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd 13 14 3. Approval of Agenda 15 16 ## MOTION 17 Member Cyra moved, seconded by Member Campbell Jensen, to approve the 18 agenda as presented. 19 20 Ayes: 3 21 Nays: 0 22 Motion carried. 23 24 4. Review of Minutes: March 4, 2026 25 ## MOTION 26 Member Campbell Jensen moved, seconded by Member Cyra, to approve the 27 March 4, 2026, meeting minutes. 28 29 Ayes: 3 30 Nays: 0 31 Motion carried. 32 33 ## 5. Annual Organizational Business 34 City Planner Paschke explained that in accordance with City Code Section 201.03.A, 35 each advisory commission shall elect a chair and a vice-chair from among its appointed 36 members for a term of one year. 37 38 ## MOTION 39 Member Cyra moved, seconded by Member Campbell Jensen, to appoint 40 ## Pamela Aspnes as Chair of the Variance Board. 41 Page 3 of 29 ## Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2026 Page 2 42 Ayes: 3 43 Nays: 0 44 Motion carried. 45 46 ## MOTION 47 Member Aspnes moved, seconded by Member Cyra, to appoint Allison 48 ## Campbell Jensen as Vice-Chair of the Variance Board. 49 50 Ayes: 3 51 Nays: 0 52 Motion carried. 53 54 6. Public Hearing 55 56 a. PLANNING FILE 26-003 57 Request to Allow Nonconforming Conditions in the Surface Parking Area for an 58 ## Apartment Facility. 59 Senior Planner Lloyd reviewed the variance request for this property, as detailed in 60 the staff report dated April 1, 2026. 61 62 Senior Planner Lloyd explained that the application involves a parking area at 2610 63 Snelling Curve, where an apartment building currently has fewer parking spaces than 64 required under the zoning code. The proposal is tied to adding an 18th unit, which 65 increases the required number of parking stalls. The applicant plans to reconfigure the 66 existing parking layout and add new spaces, with limited new paving, to increase 67 overall parking capacity. While the site will remain nonconforming, the changes 68 would make it less nonconforming than it is today. 69 70 Mr. Lloyd noted that the revised layout removes parking across the property 71 boundary, reorganizes stalls within the site, and includes designated clear areas to 72 meet fire department access requirements. He stated that staff supports the variance 73 request, provided those clear access areas are maintained, and referenced a draft 74 resolution recommending approval with that condition. 75 76 Chair Aspnes asked one question regarding off-street parking. She inquired whether 77 any feedback had been received from neighbors regarding existing parking, 78 particularly given that on-street parking would be used to help meet residents' 79 additional parking needs. 80 81 Mr. Lloyd stated that no feedback had been received from nearby residents or 82 homeowners regarding parking concerns. He explained that on-street parking is 83 already available and currently used by some residents, and the proposal would not 84 change the number of those spaces. 85 86 Page 4 of 29 ## Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2026 Page 3 Mr. Lloyd noted that he received a phone call from an individual who misunderstood 87 the public hearing notice and applied it to their own property. Still, no specific 88 concerns were expressed about the site or the adjacent on-street parking. 89 90 Chair Aspnes noted that the site is an unusually shaped lot and referenced information 91 in the packet indicating the fire department had no concerns about access. She asked 92 for confirmation that the 20-foot-wide access area would be sufficient for fire 93 vehicles to reach the building, even when parking spaces are occupied. 94 95 Mr. Lloyd explained that the drive aisle is narrower than what the zoning code 96 typically requires for perpendicular parking stalls. He noted that, based on 97 measurements from Ramsey County’s online map, the width may approach the 24-98 foot standard, but regardless, the plan maintains at least 20 feet, which meets the fire 99 department’s access requirements and is addressed through the variance request. 100 101 Mr. Lloyd added that the fire department’s primary requirements include designated 102 five-foot clear access areas, specifically aligned with the sidewalk and along the north 103 side of the building. 104 105 Chair Aspnes asked whether the applicant had any comments. 106 107 Mr. Thomas Brama introduced himself as the property owner and explained that he 108 purchased the building approximately three years ago. He stated that the site currently 109 has limited parking due to the building’s age, the garage's placement, and the lot's 110 irregular shape. He noted that there are currently 16 off-street parking spaces, while 111 the City code requires 33, leaving many vehicles to rely on on-street parking. 112 113 Mr. Brama explained that the proposal would increase the number of off-street spaces 114 to 23, while the updated requirement with an additional unit would be 34 spaces. As a 115 result, the shortfall would be reduced from 17 to 11 spaces, meaning fewer vehicles 116 would need to park on the street. He added that the plan was developed in 117 coordination with City staff over the past year as a practical solution given the site’s 118 constraints and expressed willingness to answer questions. 119 120 Member Campbell Jensen commented that the proposed increase in off-street parking 121 could provide added relief during winter conditions. She noted that when snowfall 122 requires vehicles to be removed from the street, having additional on-site parking 123 would help reduce the burden on residents. 124 125 Mr. Brama agreed that increasing off-street parking would help alleviate pressure on 126 surrounding streets. He added that the benefit would extend beyond current residents, 127 noting that the area includes nearby homes and may see additional single-family 128 development. Mr. Brama indicated that reducing on-street parking demand now could 129 help minimize impacts on future homeowners as the area continues to develop. 130 131 Chair Aspnes reviewed the protocol for Public Hearings and public comment and 132 opened the Public Hearing at approximately 6:18 p.m. 133 Page 5 of 29 ## Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2026 Page 4 134 ## Mr. Jeff Johnson 135 Mr. Johnson identified himself as a neighboring property owner to the south and 136 asked whether a site plan showing existing conditions was available for comparison 137 with the proposed layout. He expressed confusion about the location of current 138 parking spaces, noting that vehicles also park along the adjacent area. 139 140 Mr. Johnson stated that his primary concern is that some of the proposed changes 141 appear to encroach closer to his property and may create tight conditions, particularly 142 for maneuvering vehicles such as garbage trucks accessing the dumpster. He added 143 that despite these concerns, on-street parking is already very congested, and he 144 supports adding more off-street parking. He also questioned how the proposal results 145 in a net gain of spaces if some existing spots appear to be removed. 146 147 Mr. Lloyd explained that a trash enclosure is planned around the dumpster, if it has 148 not already been constructed, and would be incorporated as the site improvements 149 move forward. He noted that the existing site conditions did not include two parking 150 stalls that extend beyond the property boundary, so they were not counted in the 151 official parking total. 152 153 Mr. Lloyd clarified that the proposal includes a mix of reconfigured and newly striped 154 spaces within the existing paved area, along with a few additional stalls. He stated 155 that the net increase in parking results in part from the fact that previously uncounted, 156 off-property stalls are not included in either the existing or proposed totals, so they 157 are not considered lost under the revised plan. 158 159 Member Cyra asked whether parking in that area would be prohibited under the 160 proposed plan, or if people would still attempt to park there despite the changes. 161 162 Mr. Lloyd explained that the paved area in question would be removed as part of the 163 parking reconfiguration, eliminating its use for parking. He noted that while there is 164 no formal parking plan for direct comparison, the current stall layout can be identified 165 on Ramsey County’s online mapping, which helps illustrate how the proposed 166 arrangement differs from existing conditions. 167 168 Chair Aspnes asked for clarification on whether the parking spaces located on the 169 adjacent property, which are not part of the subject site, were excluded from both the 170 existing and proposed parking stall counts. She sought confirmation that those spaces 171 were not included in either total. 172 173 Mr. Lloyd explained that a portion of the paved area extends beyond the property 174 boundary, creating spaces that overrun onto the adjacent site. He clarified that those 175 spaces are not included in the existing count of parking stalls. 176 177 Chair Aspnes confirmed that the parking spaces located off the property are not 178 subject to an easement agreement and therefore cannot be counted toward the site’s 179 Page 6 of 29 ## Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2026 Page 5 parking totals. She clarified that those spaces were not included in the existing count 180 and are not being considered in the proposed plan. 181 182 Chair Aspnes then asked if there were any additional questions or if any members of 183 the public wished to come forward to speak. 184 185 ## Ms. Linda Fearing, 2578 Pascal Street 186 Ms. Fearing stated that she lives nearby on Pascal Street and, while not directly 187 adjacent to the property, wanted to comment on the parking situation. She described 188 on-street parking in the area as a significant issue and expressed support for efforts to 189 move more vehicles off the street and onto the property. 190 191 Ms. Fearing suggested that, if feasible, removing one or two garage stalls to create 192 additional parking behind the building could be considered, particularly with the 193 addition of another unit. She also raised concerns about nearby properties across the 194 street that appear to be in disrepair and accumulating items, as well as a landscaping 195 truck that has been parked in the cul-de-sac for an extended period. She expressed 196 hope that the city will proactively enforce applicable ordinances to help maintain 197 neighborhood conditions and concluded by encouraging continued efforts to improve 198 the situation. 199 200 Ms. Gundlach addressed the concerns raised about outdoor debris and a potentially 201 improperly parked commercial vehicle. She explained that the City does not conduct 202 proactive nuisance code enforcement but does respond to complaints. 203 204 Ms. Gundlach stated that residents should contact the Community Development 205 Department if they observe such issues, and staff will investigate and follow up on 206 any violations. She added that she would treat the comment as a complaint and 207 arrange for an inspection of the area the following day. 208 209 Chair Aspnes closed the public hearing at 6:26 p.m. 210 211 ## MOTION 212 Member Campbell Jensen moved, seconded by Member Cyra, for the adoption 213 of Variance Board Resolution No. 178 (Attachment 4), entitled “A Resolution 214 Approving a Variance to Surface Parking Standards About an Apartment at 215 2610 Snelling Curve (PF26-003).” 216 217 Ayes: 3 218 Nays: 0 219 Motion carried. 220 221 b. PLANNING FILE 26-005 222 Request by Hempel Real Estate, in Cooperation with 2700 Snelling Avenue LLC, 223 for a Variance from Table 1013.04-2, Minimum Number of Required Electric 224 Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS) and §1013.01.D.2.1 Regarding the Required 225 ## Number of Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE) (PF26-005). 226 Page 7 of 29 ## Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2026 Page 6 City Planner Paschke reviewed the variance request for this property, as detailed in 227 the staff report dated April 1, 2026. 228 229 Mr. Paschke explained that the request relates to redevelopment at 2700 Snelling 230 Avenue, where an office building and parking structure have been removed, and the 231 site is being prepared for new construction. He noted that the City adopted standards 232 in March 2023 requiring a minimum number of electric vehicle charging stations and 233 supporting infrastructure based on parking capacity, which apply to this project. 234 235 Mr. Paschke stated that the site is planned to include approximately 528 parking 236 stalls, which would require 26 charging stations and 53 pieces of supporting electrical 237 infrastructure under the ordinance. However, the applicant has proposed a reduced 238 number of charging stations and service equipment installations based on operational 239 needs, including 8 charging stations and 22 service equipment installations. He 240 explained that staff reviewed the request against variance criteria and determined the 241 proposal meets the standards, noting that the requirement may be excessive given the 242 nature of the site, its private use, and infrastructure considerations. He added that staff 243 supports the variance, concluding it remains consistent with the intent of the 244 ordinance while allowing reasonable use of the property. 245 246 Member Cyra asked for clarification on how the city envisioned evaluating and 247 potentially adjusting the electric vehicle charging ordinance adopted in 2023. He 248 referenced language indicating a “wait and see” approach. He inquired whether 249 adjustments were expected to occur through the variance process or through future 250 review and revisions by the City Council. 251 252 Mr. Paschke explained that the “wait and see” approach relies on real projects coming 253 forward, as the City cannot fully understand how the ordinance functions until it is 254 applied to actual developments. He noted that project size and context vary, and while 255 smaller projects have generally met the requirements without issue, larger 256 developments can present challenges. 257 258 Mr. Paschke stated that the variance process serves as a key tool for evaluating how 259 the ordinance performs in practice. He indicated that, after reviewing several variance 260 requests, the City can better assess whether adjustments are needed, particularly for 261 larger sites with extensive parking. He added that recent cases, including the Rosedale 262 project and the current proposal, provide useful benchmarks for considering future 263 modifications to the ordinance. 264 265 Ms. Gundlach added that evaluating the ordinance requires real-world application 266 through projects, especially since few cities had comparable EV charging 267 requirements in place when the ordinance was adopted. She explained that the City 268 implemented the standards proactively, with few external examples to guide it. 269 270 Ms. Gundlach noted that while the City could revise the ordinance rather than grant 271 variances, doing so could delay projects as staff studies potential changes. She stated 272 Page 8 of 29 ## Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2026 Page 7 that relying on the variance process allows projects to move forward in the short term 273 while the City gathers information to inform future adjustments. 274 275 Member Campbell Jensen commented on the growth of electric vehicle adoption, 276 noting that Minnesota has seen an increase from approximately 2.3% to 8% in recent 277 years, with national figures around 10%. She stated that, given these trends, she found 278 the proposed reduction in ordinance requirements significant and expressed concern 279 that the reduced number of charging spaces may not adequately meet future demand. 280 281 Member Campbell Jensen indicated that, in her view, a percentage closer to 10% of 282 parking capacity would be more appropriate, particularly for a site with multiple 283 shifts, where employees may need to charge vehicles during the workday. She 284 acknowledged the importance of supporting business development but emphasized 285 the need to balance that with long-term infrastructure needs. 286 287 Member Campbell Jensen also noted limitations in alternative transportation options 288 in the area, stating that public transit access is limited and that walking or biking may 289 not be practical for many people, particularly during winter months. 290 291 Chair Aspnes stated that she has some reservations about the proposal, noting that the 292 ordinance imposes a higher requirement than the applicant is requesting. She 293 referenced a discussion in the presentation about potential future expansion and asked 294 whether it referred to adding more active charging stations over time. 295 296 Chair Aspnes indicated her understanding that the proposal includes a smaller number 297 of installed charging stations, with additional infrastructure in place to allow more 298 units to be brought online later, and sought confirmation that this interpretation was 299 correct. 300 301 Mr. Paschke clarified that the proposal does not include plans to add additional 302 electrical service equipment beyond what has been proposed for the site. 303 304 Chair Aspnes asked whether the total number of electric vehicle charging-related 305 spaces would be capped at 30 under the proposal. She also asked who would 306 determine when the additional 22 pre-wired spaces would be activated, given the 307 ordinance's current structure. 308 309 Mr. Paschke explained that the property owner or operator would decide whether to 310 activate additional charging stations. He noted that as demand increases, they would 311 install additional charging stations using the pre-wired infrastructure. 312 313 Chair Aspnes sought confirmation that the decision to install additional charging 314 stations would be within the applicant's control. 315 316 Mr. Paschke confirmed that, as a private business, the applicant would control when 317 additional charging stations are installed. He explained that if employee demand 318 Page 9 of 29 ## Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2026 Page 8 increases, the applicant could add more chargers using the pre-installed infrastructure 319 to bring additional stations online. 320 321 Chair Aspnes stated that the proposal includes eight active charging stations with the 322 potential for 22 additional units. Still, they noted that those additional stations may 323 never be installed, and asked for confirmation of that understanding. 324 325 Member Cyra asked for clarification on the appeals process, specifically whether the 326 applicant could appeal a denied variance to the City Council within 10 days. He also 327 inquired about the timeline for when the City Council would consider such an appeal 328 and make a decision. 329 330 Mr. Paschke stated that while he was not certain of the exact language of the 331 ordinance, his understanding is that the City Council would need to consider the 332 appeal within approximately 30 days. He added that the intent would be to bring the 333 matter before the Council as quickly as possible. 334 335 Chair Aspnes asked whether the applicant had any comments. 336 337 Mr. Josh McKinney, representing the applicant as a consultant, stated that he 338 understood concerns about the significant reduction from ordinance requirements to 339 the proposed number of charging stations. He explained that there are technical and 340 infrastructure limitations that impact the project, particularly for a site of this size. 341 342 Mr. McKinney noted that each charging station requires substantial electrical 343 capacity, and meeting the full ordinance requirement would necessitate a transformer 344 comparable to powering the entire facility. He indicated that the site does not 345 currently have sufficient electrical capacity to support that level of demand and that 346 coordination with the utility provider has been limited. He added that, working with 347 engineering consultants, the team developed a plan to initially install eight charging 348 stations, with infrastructure in place for an additional 22, while still maintaining 349 adequate power for the building overall. 350 351 Member Campbell Jensen acknowledged the applicant’s explanation regarding 352 electrical capacity constraints but emphasized the broader importance of expanding 353 energy infrastructure. She cited examples of solar installations, such as those at the 354 University of Minnesota and a local church, noting that alternative energy solutions 355 can help meet electrical demand, even though they may pose challenges for grid 356 integration. 357 358 Member Campbell Jensen expressed her longstanding concern about climate issues 359 and stated that increasing support for electric vehicles is an important step toward a 360 more sustainable future. She indicated that, while she understands the project’s 361 limitations, she is inclined to support stronger encouragement of EV infrastructure in 362 line with the City’s ordinance. 363 364 Page 10 of 29 ## Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2026 Page 9 Chair Aspnes asked about the placement of the electric vehicle charging stalls, noting 365 that they are located near the front of the building. She confirmed that the green stalls 366 represent those to be installed initially and the orange stalls represent future 367 installations. 368 369 Chair Aspnes then asked for clarification on the reasoning behind this location and 370 who is primarily expected to use those charging spaces. 371 372 Mr. McKinney explained that the charging stations are intended for use by employees 373 of the facility, which is a private medical research lab. He noted that the site is not 374 designed to function as a public charging location. 375 376 Chair Aspnes clarified that she was asking whether the facility would have frequent 377 foot traffic, rather than about public access to the charging stations. 378 379 Mr. McKinney stated that the facility is expected to operate primarily on employee 380 shifts rather than with frequent visitor traffic. He indicated that it would not function 381 as a high-turnover or transient-use site. 382 383 Mr. McKinney also explained that the charging stations are located near the front of 384 the building because they are positioned as close as possible to the electrical room. 385 He noted that minimizing the distance for electrical runs helps reduce costs associated 386 with installing the charging infrastructure. 387 388 Chair Aspnes acknowledged that practical considerations drive the placement of the 389 charging stations. She contrasted the project with a previous variance request for 390 Dick's Sporting Goods, noting that retail locations experience more transient traffic 391 with customers coming and going who may use charging stations during visits. She 392 clarified that, unlike a retail setting, this facility is not expected to have regular visitor 393 traffic and instead primarily serves employees. 394 395 Mr. McKinney clarified that the facility is not expected to have a significant number 396 of visitors. He explained that there is no operational need for large numbers of people 397 coming and going, and that activity at the site will primarily involve employees. 398 399 Chair Aspnes confirmed that the charging stations are intended for employee use and 400 asked whether eight initial stations would be sufficient. She also requested 401 clarification on the total number of parking spaces used in the project calculations. 402 403 Mr. McKinney stated that the parking study identified approximately 528 parking 404 spaces for the site, including some overlap due to shift changes. He explained that the 405 proposed number of eight initial charging stations is based on data from the tenant’s 406 existing facilities, reflecting current usage patterns with an added allowance for future 407 growth. 408 409 Page 11 of 29 ## Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2026 Page 10 Chair Aspnes asked what process would be used to determine when, or if, the 410 additional 22 charging stations would be brought online. 411 412 Mr. McKinney explained that the decision to bring additional charging stations online 413 would be driven by employee demand. He noted that if the existing stations are 414 consistently full and employees express the need for more, the additional pre-wired 415 stations could be activated. 416 417 Chair Aspnes asked whether the employer has a formal process in place to monitor 418 demand and determine when additional charging stations should be installed. 419 420 Mr. McKinney stated that, based on his discussions, the employer has established 421 processes for gathering employee feedback and making decisions about facilities. 422 While he is not directly involved in those internal operations, he indicated that the 423 organization appears to have a structured approach to assessing demand and 424 determining when additional charging stations would be needed. 425 426 Chair Aspnes expressed concern that, while the proposal includes infrastructure for 427 additional charging stations, only eight would be installed initially, and the remaining 428 22 may never be activated. She noted that although the electrical infrastructure would 429 be in place, there is no requirement to ensure that those additional stations would be 430 brought online, meaning the approval could effectively result in only eight active 431 charging spaces. 432 433 Mr. McKinney confirmed that the electrical infrastructure and capacity for the 434 additional 22 charging stations would be installed upfront. He explained that the 435 actual installation of those stations would occur later and would be driven by on-site 436 demand. 437 438 Chair Aspnes asked for confirmation that the necessary electrical capacity would be 439 installed upfront, so that additional charging stations could be added later without 440 requiring further upgrades or approvals. 441 442 Mr. McKinney confirmed that the project would include the required electrical 443 capacity up front, allowing additional charging stations to be added in the future 444 without further major upgrades. He noted that meeting the full ordinance requirement 445 would present significant technical and cost challenges, particularly related to 446 electrical capacity and infrastructure, which could involve substantial expenses. 447 448 Chair Aspnes asked whether it would be possible to install an additional transformer 449 to support more charging capacity. 450 451 Page 12 of 29 ## Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2026 Page 11 Mr. McKinney explained that installing an additional transformer would be extremely 452 costly, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. He noted that this level of 453 expense raises significant concerns about the project's overall financial feasibility. 454 455 Mr. Dan Gleason, representing the prospective tenant, explained that the facility will 456 be an employee-focused operation and not open to the public. He noted that most 457 employees who drive electric vehicles are expected to have home charging, meaning 458 on-site charging would be a supplemental convenience rather than a primary need. 459 460 Mr. Gleason stated that the tenant typically does not provide charging stations at its 461 other facilities and initially did not believe they were necessary for this site. He 462 emphasized that the facility’s primary focus is supporting its medical operations, 463 including managing electrical capacity for core functions. He added that while the 464 parking supply is strong, actual usage may vary due to shift changes, and the 465 proposed number of charging stations reflects anticipated employee demand rather 466 than broader public use. 467 468 Chair Aspnes asked Mr. Paschke whether the ordinance considered differences 469 between retail uses, which tend to have more transient users, and private commercial 470 or employee-based uses. She specifically inquired whether that distinction was 471 discussed during the development of the ordinance. 472 473 Mr. Paschke stated that the ordinance did not specifically distinguish between retail 474 or transient uses and private, employee-based operations. He noted that, at the time 475 the ordinance was developed between 2022 and 2023, there was limited data and few 476 comparable examples available to guide the development of those distinctions. 477 478 Mr. Paschke added that more information and case studies may now be available to 479 help refine the ordinance, but researching and implementing those changes would 480 take time. 481 482 Chair Aspnes stated that when considering variance requests, she evaluates whether 483 the outcome will improve, worsen, or have no impact. She noted that, in this case, the 484 proposal would result in eight new charging stations where none currently exist, 485 which she viewed as a positive outcome. 486 487 Chair Aspnes added that there is also potential for 22 additional stations in the future 488 if demand increases, further supporting the proposal's benefits compared to having no 489 charging infrastructure at all. 490 491 Chair Aspnes opened and closed public comment at approximately 7:09 p.m. 492 493 Member Cyra reviewed the variance criteria and stated that he agreed the proposal is 494 consistent with the comprehensive plan, represents a reasonable use of the property, 495 Page 13 of 29 ## Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2026 Page 12 and would not alter the essential character of the locality. However, he expressed 496 concern about the criteria related to alignment with the zoning ordinance's intent and 497 the presence of unique circumstances. 498 499 Member Cyra indicated that the ordinance is relatively recent and clearly established, 500 and questioned whether it is appropriate for the variance board to apply it effectively. 501 He suggested that revisiting or modifying the ordinance would be more appropriately 502 handled by the Planning Commission and City Council. He also noted that, while 503 denying the variance could delay the project, the City has the option to reevaluate or 504 revise the ordinance through its formal legislative process. 505 506 Member Campbell Jensen added that, based on information she reviewed on the City 507 of Roseville website, the ordinance aligns with broader state-level actions. She noted 508 that in March 2023, the Minnesota State Legislature approved adding EV charging 509 requirements to the State Building Code for commercial and multifamily properties 510 with on-site parking. She indicated that, at the time, additional guidance from the 511 Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry was expected and suggested that more 512 up-to-date information or research may now be available to help inform future 513 decisions regarding EV charging requirements. 514 515 Ms. Gundlach provided additional background, explaining that the City has been 516 waiting for the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry to release guidance on 517 how EV charging requirements may be incorporated into the State Building Code. 518 She noted that a Technical Advisory Committee has been convened to study the issue, 519 but no final determinations have been made. 520 521 Ms. Gundlach stated that any future recommendations from the state could be 522 considered when the city revisits its ordinance, with the Planning Commission 523 leading that review and staff providing technical support. 524 525 ## MOTION 526 Member Aspnes moved, adoption of Variance Board Resolution No. 179 527 (Attachment 5), entitled “A Table 1013.04-2. Minimum Number of Required 528 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS) and §1013.04D2D1 Regarding the 529 Required Number of Electrical Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE) Required for 530 the 528-Stall Parking Lot Associated with the Proposed 125,400 Square Foot 531 Medical Office, Research, and Laboratory Facility at 2700 Snelling Avenue 532 ## (PF26-005).” 533 534 Chair Aspnes stated that both the applicant and staff presented a reasonable case for 535 approving the variance, particularly given the unusually large size of the parking lot 536 and the employee-based nature of the site. She indicated that requiring the full 537 number of charging stations under the ordinance did not seem reasonable in this 538 context and viewed the proposal for eight initial stations, with the potential for 22 539 more, as a practical compromise and an improvement over having none. 540 541 Page 14 of 29 ## Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2026 Page 13 Chair Aspnes noted that broader concerns about the ordinance should be addressed 542 through future discussions with the Planning Commission and City Council, which 543 would take time. She encouraged the applicant to remain responsive to employee 544 demand and consider activating additional stations if needed. 545 546 Chair Aspnes asked if there was a second to the motion. There was not a second. 547 548 Ms. Gundlach stated that the motion failed for lack of a second. She noted that staff 549 had recommended approval of the variance and that, if the Commission intends to 550 deny the request, a motion should be made with clearly stated findings to support the 551 denial for the record. 552 553 ## MOTION 554 Member Cyra moved, seconded by Member Campbell Jensen, denying the 555 variance (PF26-005).” 556 557 Member Cyra stated that his reason for moving to deny the variance was that he does 558 not believe the request meets the five required criteria for approval. 559 560 Chair Aspnes asked whether the motion for denial should include more specific 561 findings, particularly identifying which criteria the request fails to meet. 562 563 Mr. Paschke indicated that it would be appropriate to specify which criteria are not 564 being met, so that the record clearly reflects the basis for denying the variance. 565 566 Member Cyra elaborated that, in his view, the proposal does not meet specific 567 variance criteria. He stated that, for the criterion related to unique circumstances, he 568 does not believe the property qualifies, as it is a new development and is not 569 constrained in a way that would prevent compliance with the code. 570 571 Member Cyra also stated that the proposal does not align with the zoning ordinance's 572 intent, noting that the ordinance clearly establishes requirements for electric vehicle 573 charging infrastructure that the request does not meet. 574 575 Ayes: 2 576 Nays: 1 (Aspnes) 577 Motion carried. 578 579 Chair Aspnes stated that the variance board's decision is final unless an appeal is filed 580 within 10 days. She explained that the applicant may submit an appeal, or any 581 Roseville property owner may, and that it must be filed in writing with the City 582 Manager by noon on April 13, 2026, to be heard by the City Council. 583 584 7. Adjourn 585 586 ## MOTION 587 Page 15 of 29 ## Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2026 Page 14 Member Campbell Jensen, seconded by Member Cyra, to adjourn the meeting 588 at 7:20 p.m. 589 590 Ayes: 3 591 Nays: 0 592 Motion carried. 593 Page 16 of 29 ## REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Date: 5/6/2026 Item No.: 5.a. ## Department Approval Agenda Section ## Public Hearing Item Description: Request to allow a proposed front entry addition within the required minimum setback from the front property line and to increase the nonconforming impervious coverage at 1211 Josephine Road (PF26-006) Page 1 of 4 1 2Application Information ## 3Applicant: Custom by Kuntz, LLC ## 4Property Owner: Chelsea Tupy 5Location: 1211 Josephine Road 6Application Submission: March 24, 2026 7City Action Deadline: May 23, 2026 ## 8Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR) 9 10Background 11According to Ramsey County property data, the existing house was built in 1964 on a lot created in 12the Tilton Addition plat that same year, essentially splitting off the yard space belonging to the house 13immediately to the east of this new lot. The creation of these two lots in the Tilton Addition plat and the 14construction of both of these homes clearly predated any lot size, building setback, or impervious 15coverage regulations pertaining to shoreland properties that were established in 1975, so the lot area, 16the setback of the existing improvements from the ordinary high water level, and the impervious 17coverage are all legally nonconforming conditions on the property. As illustrated in the site plan included 18with this RVBA as Attachment 3, a small front entry addition is proposed which would encroach into the 19minimum required front yard setback and further add to the excess impervious coverage. 20 21Variance Analysis 22• §1004.09(b) establishes a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet for structures in the Low 23Density Residential district. The purpose of this requirement is primarily aesthetic--to preserve a 24uniform arrangement of houses along the streets that serve them. 25• §1004.09(c)(2) limits impervious coverage to 25% of a residential parcel in the Shoreland 26Overlay District. The primary purpose of this provision is to minimize the impacts of storm water 27runoff on designated lakes. 28• §1012.03(f)(5) requires a minimum 50-foot ordinary high water level (OHWL) setback for 29structures on parcels abutting a General Development lake like Lake Owasso. Despite the 30proposed addition being on the front (or non-lake side) of the building, it is only slightly more 31than 50 feet from OHWL. This fact isn't strictly relevant to the case, but it serves to help illustrate 32the extent of the existing nonconformities on such a small shoreland lot. 33 34The enclosed portion of the proposed addition, extending to about 24.5 feet from the front property line, 35is small enough that it alone could be accommodated without a variance through Roseville's 36Administrative Deviation process, which is designed to allow small encroachments like this. Additionally, 37if the proposed roof extending farther toward the street were about four feet shorter than proposed, it Page 17 of 29 Page 2 of 4 38could also be allowed without a variance by virtue of the fact that the zoning code encourages open front 39porches by permitting them with a front yard setback of only 22 feet. But the requested variance is 40necessary because even the small area of the enclosed addition adds to the already 41nonconforming impervious coverage, increasing the coverage from 36.7% of the lot area to 37.2%, and 42such an increase can only be considered and approved through the variance process. 43 44Roseville's Shoreland Overlay District mandates a certain amount of shoreline restoration as a standard 45condition of a variance approval that "...allow[s] a structure to be located within the ordinary high water 46level setback or that allow[s] more impervious surface coverage than the standard..." In anticipation of 47this requirement, the applicant worked with City staff for several weeks prior to submitting the variance 48application, and a proposed shoreland restoration plan is included with this RVBA as part of 49Attachment 3. Because this is the first time the City will need to interpret and apply this shoreline 50restoration requirement, Planning Division staff shared the proposal with water quality professionals, 51both internally and at other public agencies, for their review and input. The feedback was broadly 52supportive of the plan as representing a meaningful step toward mitigating impacts on Lake 53Josephine. Most of these professionals further recognized that, while removal of the rip rap and 54inclusion of aquatic plants below OHWL would align more closely with a strict interpretation of 55"restoration," such measures could also cause further harm by compromising the integrity of the 56remainder of the rip rap that is contributing to shoreline stabilization. 57 58The Shoreland Overlay District also includes the requirement that the Minnesota DNR be notified and 59allowed to comment on variance applications. Accordingly, Planning Division staff notified the DNR's 60Area Hydrologist responsible for lakes in Roseville, who also indicated their support for the proposed 61restoration plan. 62 ## 63Review of Variance Approval Requirements 64Section 1009.04.C (Variances) of the City Code explains the purpose of a variance is “to permit 65adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties applying to a parcel of land or 66building that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by the zoning.” Given the 67existing conditions on the subject property, there is no location for even a modest home addition that 68would conform to all applicable setback requirements and not increase the impervious coverage on the 69property. The Planning Division finds that this collection of spatial constraints on the property represents 70a practical difficulty that the variance process is intended to relieve. 71 72Section 1009.04.C of the City Code also establishes a mandate that the Variance Board make five 73specific affirmative findings, as stated below, about a variance request as a prerequisite for approving 74the variance. Planning Division staff have reviewed the application and offer the following draft findings. 751. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Division staff finds that the 76proposed addition is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it represents a 77standard improvement on a residential property and embodies the sort of continued investment 78promoted by the Comprehensive Plan’s goals and policies for residential neighborhoods. 792. The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. Although the 80proposed front entry addition would be closer to the front property line than other homes along 81Josephine Road, most of the homes on the north side of the street are on much larger properties 82and situated as close to the shoreline as possible, which has resulted in most of the structures 83having front yard setbacks that are arbitrarily larger than the 30-foot standard. And while the 84proposed front entry addition would further increase the impervious coverage, the resulting 85coverage does not appear to be any greater than that of the several homes similarly situated on 86small lots. Planning Division staff finds the proposal does not meaningfully deviate from the 87purpose of the front yard setback and impervious coverage requirements. 883. The proposal puts the subject property to use in a reasonable manner. Planning Division staff 89finds the proposed front entry addition meaningfully improves the functionality of the home with 90about as much conformance with zoning standards as possible, and would thereby put the 91property to use in a reasonable manner. Page 18 of 29 Page 3 of 4 924. There are unique circumstances to the property which were not created by the landowner. 93Planning Division staff finds the dramatically nonconforming lot area and the lack of alternative 94locations for an entry addition to be unique circumstances that were not created by the 95landowner. 965. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Although the 97proposed front entry addition would stand significantly closer to the front property line than other 98houses in the area, the arrangement of the other homes around the shoreline has already 99created an environment of arbitrary front yard setbacks and Planning Division staff finds that the 100variance, if approved, would not negatively alter the character of the surrounding residential 101neighborhood. 102 103Public Comment 104At the time this RVBA was prepared, Planning Division staff have not received any comments or 105questions about the proposed addition. 106 107Staff Recommendation 108Adopt a resolution approving the requested variances to the minimum front yard setback and maximum 109impervious coverage at 1211 Josephine Road, based on the content of this RVBA, public input, and 110Variance Board deliberation, with the conditions that the applicant shall 111a. Implement the proposed shoreline restoration plan, and; 112b. Execute an Operations and Maintenance Agreement to ensure the restored area remains in 113place and functions as intended. 114 115 ## 116Requested Planning Commission Action 117Adopt a resolution approving the requested variances to the minimum front yard setback and maximum 118impervious coverage at 1211 Josephine Road, based on the content of this RVBA, public input, and 119Variance Board deliberation, with the conditions that the applicant shall 120a. Implement the proposed shoreline restoration plan, and; 121b. Execute an Operations and Maintenance Agreement to ensure the restored area remains in 122place and functions as intended. 123 124 125Alternative Actions 126A. Pass a motion to table the item for future action. An action to table consideration of the 127variance request must be based on the need for additional information or further analysis to 128reach a decision on one or both aspects. Tabling may require extension of the action deadline 129established in Minn. Stat. 15.99 to avoid statutory approval. 130B. Adopt a resolution denying the requested variances. A denial must be supported by specific 131findings of fact based on the Variance Board’s review of the application, applicable zoning 132regulations, and the public record. 133 134 Prepared by: ## Bryan Lloyd, Senior Planner ## Attachments: ## 1. Area Map ## 2. Aerial Photo Page 19 of 29 Page 4 of 4 ## 3. Proposed Plans ## 4. Draft Resolution 135 Page 20 of 29 ## BELAIR CIR ## JOSEPHINE RD ## LEXINGTON AVE N ## FERNWOOD ST ## D ## U ## N ## L ## A ## P ## C ## I ## R 3027 1165 2985 1175 1183 1195 1199 1201 1211 1225 1233 1245 1251 1255 1261 1265 1275 1281 1287 1299 1270 1262 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 1190 1180 1170 1160 2960 2950 2942 2936 2941 2937 2933 2929 2970 1221 1245 1250 1244 1240 1220 1230 1231 2932 2938 2944 2941 2947 2950 ## Data Sources ## * Ramsey County GIS Base Map (3/4/2026) For more information regarding the contents of this map contact: ## City of Roseville, Community Development Department, ## 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN ## Disclaimer The maps provided by the City of Roseville are compilations of records, information and data from various sources, and they are to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant or guarantee that the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data or maps are complete, current, or accurate. The data is offered “as is” and the City of Roseville does not represent that the GIS data can be used or is accurate for legal, navigational, or any purposes requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.03, Subdivision 21, the City of Roseville disclaims any liability for claims based on alleged or actual inaccuracies in the GIS data or maps. For more information, please contact 651-792-7044. ## Site Location Prepared by: ## Community Development Department Printed: April 28, 2026 0 50 100 150 ## Feet ## Location Map ## L ## Attachment 1: Planning File 26-006 Page 21 of 29 ## BELAIR CIR ## JOSEPHINE RD Prepared by: ## Community Development Department Printed: April 28, 2026 0 50 100 ## Feet ## Location Map ## Attachment 2: Planning File 26-006 ## Data Sources ## * Ramsey County GIS Base Map (3/4/2026) ## * Aerial Data: EagleView (4/2024) For further information regarding the contents of this map contact: ## City of Roseville, Community Development Department, ## 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN ## L ## Disclaimer The maps provided by the City of Roseville are compilations of records, information and data from various sources, and they are to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant or guarantee that the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data or maps are complete, current, or accurate. The data is offered “as is” and the City of Roseville does not represent that the GIS data can be used or is accurate for legal, navigational, or any purposes requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.03, Subdivision 21, the City of Roseville disclaims any liability for claims based on alleged or actual inaccuracies in the GIS data or maps. For more information, please contact 651-792-7044. Page 22 of 29 ## RVBA ## Attachment 3 Page 23 of 29 ## RVBA Attachment 3 Page 24 of 29 ## 1211 Josephine Restoration Plan ## Plan Details: Install erosion control blanket for soil retention. Plant 2 clump river birch, 13 red dogwoods, and 200 little bluestem, prairie dropseed, and blue grama native grasses. Spread native low growth seed in the dirt areas around the plants. ## RVBA Attachment 3 Page 25 of 29 Page 1 of 3 ## EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE ## VARIANCE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE * * * * * * * * * * * Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Variance Board of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the 5th day of May 2026 at 5:30 p.m. The following members were present: _____ and ____ were absent. Member ____ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: ## VARIANCE BOARD RESOLUTION No. ____ ## RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCEs TO DIMENSIONAL AND IMPERVIOUS ## COVERAGE STANDARDS PERTAINING TO A HOME ADDITION AT 1211 ## JOSEPHINE ROAD (PF26-006) WHEREAS, the subject property is in the Low-Density Residential (LDR) District, is within the Shoreland Overlay District, is assigned Ramsey County Property Identification Number 03-29-23- 14-0009, and is legally described as Lot 2, Tilton Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota; WHEREAS, City Code §1004.09(b) requires a minimum 30-foot front yard (OHWL) setback for structures on parcels in the LDR district; and WHEREAS, City Code §1004.09(c)(2) limits impervious coverage to 25% of a residential parcel in the Shoreland Overlay District; and WHEREAS, Custom by Kuntz, LLC, representing the owner of the property at 1211 Josephine Road, has requested variances to said standard to allow proposed a front entry home addition; and WHEREAS the proposed addition has an enclosed area, which would extend to as close as 24 feet from the front property line, and an open portion, which would extend to as close as 18 feet from the front property line; and WHEREAS the proposed addition would increase the impervious coverage from 36.7% of the parcel area to 37.2% of the parcel area; and WHEREAS, City Code §1009.04 (Variances) establishes the purpose of a variance is "to permit adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties applying to a parcel of land or building that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by the zoning;" and WHEREAS, the Variance Board has made the following findings: ## RVBA Attachment 4 Page 26 of 29 Page 2 of 3 a. Given the existing conditions on the subject property, there is no location for a reasonable home addition that would conform to all applicable setback requirements and not increase the impervious coverage on the property. Therefore the collection of spatial constraints on the property represents a practical difficulty which the variance process is intended to relieve. b. The proposed home addition is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it represents a standard improvement on a residential property and embodies the sort of continued investment promoted by the Comprehensive Plan’s goals and policies for residential neighborhoods. c. Although the proposed front entry addition would be closer to the front property line than other homes along the north side of the street and, while the proposed front entry addition would further increase the impervious coverage, the proposed addition is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance because many nearby homes are on much larger properties and situated as close to the shoreline as possible so most of the structures have front yard setbacks that are arbitrarily larger than the 30-foot standard, and the resulting coverage does not appear to be any greater than that of the several homes similarly situated on small lots. d. The proposed front entry addition meaningfully improves the functionality of the home with about as much conformance with zoning standards as possible, and would thereby put the property to use in a reasonable manner. e. The dramatically nonconforming lot area and the lack of usable lot area between the OHWL setback and the sewer easement on the property are unique circumstances which were not created by the landowner. f. Although the proposed front entry addition would stand significantly closer to the front property line than other houses in the area, the arrangement of the other homes around the shoreline has already created an environment of arbitrary front yard setbacks and Planning Division staff finds that the variance, if approved, would not negatively alter the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Roseville Variance Board to approve the requested variances to allow the proposed home entry addition to encroach into the required front yard setback and increase the impervious coverage at 1211 Josephine Road, based on the content the public record, public input, and Variance Board deliberation, with the conditions that the applicant shall: a. Implement the proposed shoreline restoration plan: and b. Execute an Operations and Maintenance Agreement to ensure the restored area remains in place and functions as intended. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ____ and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: ____; and ____ voted against the same. ## RVBA Attachment 4 Page 27 of 29 Page 3 of 3 WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ## RVBA Attachment 4 Page 28 of 29 Page 4 of 3 ## Variance Board Resolution No. ____: 1211 Josephine Road (PF26-006) State of Minnesota ) ## ) SS County of Ramsey ) I, undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 5th day of May 2026, with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 5th day of May 2026. ___________________________ ## Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager ## SEAL ## RVBA Attachment 4 Page 29 of 29