►
From YouTube: July 27, 2017 Zoning & Planning Committee
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
A
For
good
morning,
I
will
call
to
order
I
reckon
Planning.
Committee
today
is
July
27th
2017
I'm
Lisa
vender
I
chair
the
committee.
We
have
a
quorum
with
council
members,
Reich,
Goodman
and
Andrew
Johnson
I
think
we
expect
Council
President
Johnson
and
councilmember
Warsaw
Mia's
absence.
We
have
four
items
on
our
agenda
today,
as
we
typically
do.
We'll
start
with
the
two
consent
items
first
and
then
return
back
to
the
public
hearing
item
number
three
is
a
rezoning
for
a
mixed-use
development
at
11,
West,
15th,
Street,
near
Nicollet,
Avenue
and
item
number.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
just
want
to
make
a
note
of
item
number
three,
which
is
rezoning
to
facilitate
a
project
that
we
just
approved
bond
financing
for
in
the
community
development
committee
this
week.
I
want
to
know
if
this
is
a
an
activity
district,
it
was
zoned
c1
and
the
developer
came
forward
and
put
out
a
project
that
the
neighbourhood
strongly
supports
and,
as
a
result,
we're
changing
the
zoning
to
c2.
B
This
might
be
a
little
similar
to
the
situation
we
dealt
with
in
committee
and
the
council
in
the
last
cycle,
except
for
the
differences,
the
neighborhood's
really
supportive
of
a
six-story
building
on
this
commercial
corridor.
At
this
location
and
I'll
note
that
this
project
in
particular
is
important
to
the
city,
because
there
are
forty
four
three
bedroom
apartments
being
built
on
this
site,
which
is
almost
unheard
of
as
well
as
almost
90
two-bedroom,
Apartments,
100%,
affordable
to
people
at
60%
or
lower
the
metro
wide
median.
The
neighborhood
wanted
some
retail
in
the
project.
B
There
will
be
retail
in
the
project.
In
fact,
it
sounds
like
there
might
be
some
of
the
existing
tenants
who
might
come
back,
and
this
is
on
a
block
that
has
been
long
utter
underutilized
on
Nicollet
between
15th
and
the
highway.
So
I
think
this
is
a
good
example
of
a
win-win
where
the
developer
went
out
of
their
way
to
work
with
the
neighborhood
that
had
very
low
zoning
to
do
something
that
they
really
wanted,
and
you
can
see
that
I,
don't
think.
There's
anyone
here
to
object
to
the
change
in
zoning
today.
C
C
C
C
So
the
proposal
was
boring,
three-car
garage,
998
square
feet
and
size.
The
maximum
size
allowed
for
ADT
attics
for
all
detached
accessory
structures
on
the
site
would
be
1,000
square
feet
based
on
a
larger,
larger
lot
area.
The
applicant
is
proposing
an
l-shaped
so
that
the
bulk
would
be
concentrated
toward
the
northeast
corner
of
the
site.
African
states
that
this
configuration
is
needed
to
maximize
a
usable
backyard
area
given
the
location
of
the
existing
home
and
the
pool,
and
it's
also
intended
to
maximize
sight
lines
from
the
house
to
the
alley.
C
First,
variance
that
is
required
is
to
reduce
the
north
side
yard
setback
from
8
feet
to
three
and
a
half
feet.
This
is
a
setback
of
1
foot
would
actually
be
allowed
if
the
entire
structure
were
located
within
the
rear,
40
feet
or
20%
of
the
lot,
but
the
current
the
proposal
does
not
meet
that
one
foot
reduction,
because
it
is
48
feet
from
the
rear
property
line,
so
it
is
therefore
subject
to
the
districts
like
district
setback
of
8
feet
along
the
north
property
line
and
also
the
self
property
line.
C
The
proposed
step
back
for
the
structure
is
three
and
a
half
feet.
Staff
finds
that
practical
difficulties
do
not
exist
in
complying
with
the
or
with
the
ordinance.
The
site
conditions
do
not
significantly
limit
the
construction
of
a
garage
that
would
comply
with
the
zoning
code
setback
requirements.
Also,
the
north
wall
would
be
38
feet.
Long
30
feet
feet
long
along
the
north
property
line.
The
structure
would
be
55
feet
from
the
adjacent
dwelling
to
the
north
and
it
would
contain
no
windows
as
proposed.
C
The
reduced
step
back
in
this
proposed
location
would
result
in
less
separation
between
uses
and
Steph
finds
that
the
proposal
could
be
revised
to
qualify
for
the
1
foot.
Setback
for
the
second
variance.
It's
to
increase
the
maximum
height
of
the
detached
detached
structure
from
12
feet
to
12
feet,
8
inches.
So
in
the
zoning
code,
the
maximum
height
of
a
detached
accessory
structure
can
be
as
tall
as
16
feet.
The
midpoint,
without
a
variance
if
the
top
plate
does
not
exceed
10
feet
and
also
requires
matching
materials
and
roof
pitch.
C
C
Is
the
wall
on
the
alley
side
here
so
that
could
be
shortened
by
15
inches
to
meet
the
the
10
foot
max
requirement
or
the
applicant
could
lower
the
overall
garage
height
by
8
inches
and
keep
the
taller
wall
height,
so
either
option
would
not
require
variance
the
scale.
The
scale
of
the
proposed
structure
is
larger
than
most
accessory
structures
in
the
immediate
area.
C
A
D
Good
morning
my
name
is
Anne
McDonald
and
I'm
the
property
owner,
along
with
my
husband,
Ron
Howard,
at
44
15
three
months.
Thank
you
for
listening
to
our
appeal
today.
So
we
have
a
presentation,
as
it
projected
up
there
for
you
and
I,
think
we
also
distributed
paper
copies
so
the
first.
How
do
I
see
this
word
right?
D
D
We
attached
we're
killing
today,
because,
obviously
we
disagree
with
the
board
of
adjustments,
decision
and
there's
several
points
that
we
want
to
clarify
in
the
record
that
we
think
make
a
material
difference
in
the
choice.
So
we've
attached.
First
a
picture
of
the
front
of
the
house.
We
bought
this
property
about
two
years
ago.
It's
a
house
that
was
constructed
in
1915
and
the
garage
has
fallen
into
disrepair.
We've
spent
a
considerable
amount
of
time
we
having
the
interior
of
the
home,
and
we
bought
the
old
house.
D
D
We
attached
a
picture
of
the
back
of
the
house
just
to
give
you
a
sense
of
the
size
and
scale
these
are
large
locks
in
Minneapolis
are
a
lot
is
0.37
acres.
Our
neighbor's
life
is
over
a
half
an
acre.
It's
one
of
the
largest
lots
of
Minneapolis,
so
large
lots
large
homes
that
can
accommodate
what
I
would
admit
at
large
accessory
structure.
So
we're
proposing
to
replace
and
rehabilitate
the
two-car
garage
and
expand
it
to
a
three-car
garage
we've
attached
a
picture
here.
D
D
We've
attached
a
picture
here,
just
a
satellite
image
trying
to
show
you
that
we've
considered
a
lot
of
different
options
and
we'll
explain
why
this
is
the
best
option.
But
what
we're
really
proposing
to
do
is
just
expand.
The
current
footprint
at
the
two-car
garage
in
each
direction
a
bit
and,
as
you
can
see,
our
neighbor
to
the
north
has
an
expansive
lot
and
there's
an
extraordinary
amount
of
space
between
the
garage.
We
would
propose
the
accessory
structure
we
were
proposed
and
the
nearest
point
of
their
home.
D
D
One
of
the
reasons
we're
here
to
appeal
today
is
the
standard
that's
being
applied.
We
think
that
board
member
softly.
He
voted
for
the
variants,
both
variances,
and
we
think
he
really
understood
our
perspective
and
articulated
the
standard
well
and
pointed
out
that
the
standard
isn't
whether
there's
any
other
alternative.
That
can
be
both
it's
whether
there
are
practical
difficulties
and
he
articulated
that
we
don't
have
to
look
for
undue
hardship
or
any
other
alternative.
It's
just
whether
there's
a
practical
difficulty
to
building
them,
and
then
a
variance
can
be
granted.
D
We've
included
some
statistics
for
your
reference
here.
We
have
a
look.
It's
a
large
footprint
home
2,300
square
feet,
it's
double
storey,
so
it
has
significant
presence
on
the
line,
but
even
with
this
accessory
structure,
we'd
be
well
below
the
lot
coverage
limit,
so
we're
allowed
to
build
up
to
45
percent
of
a
lot
and
we're
less
than
half
of
that.
At
twenty
point,
seven.
D
D
We
believe
we
understand
the
standards
I
think
they're
different
than
how
staff
sees
them.
First
of
all,
we're
proposing
to
build
at
a
four
foot
setback,
not
a
three
and
a
half
foot
setback
along
the
entire
structure
and
secondly,
the
next
slide
addresses
the
ability
to
build
at
a
one
click
setback.
Our
understanding
of
the
code
is
that
there's
no
scenario
in
which
we
can
build
at
a
one
foot
setback
and
that's
driven
by
the
eave
depth
of
the
principal
structure.
D
So
the
house
has
very
deep
eaves
and
our
understanding
is
that
the
accessory
structure
needs
to
match
the
principal
structure
both
in
terms
of
deciding.
So
we
need
to
match
the
brick
house
with
a
berth
garage
and
then
we
also
need
to
match
the
eave
depth
and
then
that
eave
depth
drives
the
setback
and
so
we're
required
to
build
that
1/4.
What's
that,
that's
no
matter
what
we
build
and
that's
what
we're
proposing
to
do.
Our
request
is
just
that:
we're
able
to
build
a
little
bit
beyond
that
40-foot
line
to
accommodate
the
workshop.
D
So
we've
articulated
the
standards
here.
We
obviously
need
to
have
unique
circumstances
that
create
practical
difficulties
that
are
not
of
our
creation.
That
proposes
that
these
are
of
our
creation
and
we
would
submit
they're
not.
We
have
not
done
anything
to
the
lot
since
we
purchased
it
in
2015
other
than
trim
trees.
So
everything
that's
on
the
lot
was
there
before
we
bought
it.
D
The
unique
circumstances
that
exist
on
the
slaughter
there
are
three.
The
first
is
that
it
is
a
she
articulates
that
it
was
a
flat
lot.
It
is
a
flat
lot
in
the
back,
with
the
exception
of
the
very
end
of
it,
it
drops
20
inches
from
really
the
very
end
into
the
alley,
and
you
know
when
you
hear
20
inches
that
may
not
sound
like
much,
but
just
to
give
a
sense
of
that.
That
years
right
now
is
17%
well
to
go
from
the
alley
into
the
garage
and
we've.
D
They
obviously
need
some
slope
to
accommodate
runoff
and
drainage,
but
a
17%
slope
is
right
now,
three
times
what
the
safe
limit
is
and
having
lived
in
the
house
now
for
one
winter,
three
of
our
four
family
members
have
fallen
back
to
our
drain
when
it's
icy.
So
we
need
to
address
that
and
get
that
slope
more
in
alignment
with
what
a
state's
an
appropriate
standard
is,
and
to
do
that,
we
are
proposing
to
dig
out
some
of
the
earth
and
level
it
out
a
bit,
but
that
creates
a
unique
circumstance
along
that
lot.
D
Secondly,
attach
the
picture
here:
it's
a
relatively
challenging
alley
to
navigate
and
you
can
see
in
this
picture.
Our
lot
is
a
bit
unique
in
that
the
other
Lots
as
you
move
from
44th
or
from
our
address
at
44
15
to
46th
Street.
All
those
other
garages
are
built
on
grade
and
it's
right
at
our
lot
line
that
that
alley
starts
to
drop
down
to
get
to
44th
Street,
but
the
other
houses
that
are
faced
with
that
condition
are
all
accessing
their
garages,
either
from
the
side
street
of
44th
or
from
the
street.
D
So
you
can
see
this
is
our
neighbor's
backyard
and
there's
a
substantial
berm
to
hold
their
yard
up
as
well,
and
so,
when
you
back
your
car
out
of
that
garage,
there's
really
no
wiggle
room
at
our
old
house
on
Park
Avenue.
We
could
kind
of
maneuver
a
little
bit
because
our
neighbors
had
driveways
back
there
too,
but
to
get
your
car
out
and
not
constantly
run
on
to
their
berm.
You
really
have
to
have
a
little
bit
of
space
on
that
side,
yard
setback
or
the
teaching,
the
back
yard.
D
So
I
think
people
believed
that
there
were
other
options
that
we
can
build
and
we
just
want
to
make
clear
that
we
considered
many
other
options
and
really
no
other
option
is
going
to
work
because
of
these
practical
difficulties
and
they
entered
the
other
practical
difficulties.
I
didn't
mention
are
the
current
structures
on
the
property,
so
the
pool
the
deck,
the
equipment
and
the
cement
walkways
that
are
currently
in
place
that
we
would
seek
to
me
team.
D
So
we've
considered
a
host
of
other
options
in
terms
of
how
to
build
the
accessory
structure
and
in
order
to
accommodate
the
elevation
change,
we
really
can't
move
the
structure
back
towards
the
alley.
It's
got
a
10-foot
setback
right
now
and
we're
proposing
to
maintain
that
10-foot
setback
to
move
it
closer
to
the
alley,
wouldn't
allow
us
to
accommodate
that
elevation
change
or
to
get
a
car
out
of
there
in
the
wintertime
and
then
we've
included
some
other
slides
here,
drawing
we
won't
go
through
all
of
them,
but
just
different
drawings.
D
That
show
you
alternate
paths,
but
all
of
them
basically
run
into
the
current
infrastructure
on
the
lot
and
require
the
disruption
of
a
considerable
amount
of
that
burn.
Our
proposal
limits
the
driveway
to
just
two
feet
beyond
what
the
driveway
is
now
in
any
of
these
structures
basically
create
a
massive
driveway
disrupting
that
berm,
so
you
can
flip
through
there's
a
whole
host
of
them
here
just
to
acclimate
on
this
slide.
D
The
next
slide
shows
a
picture
of
their
north.
It's
our
north
lot
line
their
South
flat
lines.
You
can
see
that
it's
all
covered
in
trees
and
there's
basically
a
wood,
that's
their
fence
and
on
their
side
of
the
fence,
it's
a
bunch
of
trees
on
that
north
lot
line.
So
we
don't
believe
it
would
impact
them
in
any
way.
D
Finally,
staff
proposed
that
the
essential
character
might
be
in
jurist
to
the
neighbors
and
cited
the
lack
of
windows
on
the
north
side.
We'd
be
happy
to
install
windows.
That
was
merely
an
oversight
in
our
plan.
We'd
be
happy
to
do
that
further.
They
mentioned
this
shape
of
the
garage
and
the
shape
is
not
really
visible
from
anywhere
except
our
second
story.
The
neighbors
to
the
north
would
see
just
a
wall,
the
neighbors
from
the
alley
or
anyone
passing
in
the
alley
would
see
that
picture.
D
D
They
cite
that
the
L
state
structure
is
not
in
keeping
with
the
neighborhood.
We
would
disagree
with
that.
The
neighborhood
has
a
wide
variety
of
structures.
That's
the
beauty
of
living
in
Minneapolis
everything's
a
little
different.
It's
not
a
development.
There
are
between
two
and
four
car
garages.
There
are
people
who
have
garages
and
additional
accessory
structures.
Some
are
tucked
under
some
are
attached,
some
are
detached,
so
we
don't
feel
that
what
we're
proposing
is
in
any
way
out
of
step
with
the
neighborhood.
D
D
For
any
of
you
have
remodeled.
You
know
that
it's
not
as
easy
as
starting
with
just
a
blank
slate.
If
we
were
starting
with
the
teardown
here,
where
there
was
nothing
on
the
structure,
I
would
agree.
It
wouldn't
be
appropriate
for
us
to
come
and
ask
you
for
a
variance
to
do
this,
but
we're
trying
to
improve
the
property
within
the
parameters
that
we've
been
given
by
the
hundred
years
of
development
that
have
occurred
on
the
property,
as
well
as
the
natural
conditions
of
the
elevation
change.
D
So
what
this
picture
shows
on
the
right
hand,
side
would
be
the
home
and,
on
the
left,
hand
side
would
be
the
alley
and
in
order
to
accommodate
that
xx
and
jela
vation
change
we're
proposing
to
dig
out
some
of
the
earth
and
sink
the
garage
a
bit
into
the
dirt
to
create
a
slope
on
the
alley
side.
That's
more
in
keeping
with
that
five
to
six
percent,
that's
appropriate,
so
we
would
be
entitled
if
that
was
the
end
of
the
story.
D
If
we
were
just
building
a
garage,
we
could
build
between
12
and
16
feet
purely
with
administrative
review.
We
wouldn't
have
to
ask
for
variance,
but
because
we're
digging
down-
and
we
need
to
build
the
interior
wall
in
excessive
ten
feet,
to
accommodate
that
big
down.
That's
what
pushes
us
into
requesting
a
variance
for
the
twelve
feet.
Eight
inches,
so
we
proposed
the
twelve
feet,
eight
inches
in
working
with
our
architect
to
build
a
garage.
That's
in
proportionality
to
the
house.
D
We
could
shrink
it
down,
but
we
believe
it
looks
squat
in
comparison
to
the
home
and
so
we're
asking
for
the
additional
eight
inches
to
build
a
proportional
structure,
but
then
accommodate
that
big
down
on
the
interior
wall
at
the
garage.
None
of
that
none
of
the
interior
wall
will
be
visible
to
the
neighborhood.
They'll
only
see
the
12
foot
8
inch
brush.
A
A
You
know,
you
know
when
we
started,
I
was
inclined
to
agree
with
staffs
recommendation,
which
we
would
normally
do
on
something
this
small
but
I
think
you've
just
made
such
a
good
case,
including
in
particular
this
argument
that
that
overall
size
of
the
structure
fits
within
what
is
allowed
as
of
right.
So
that
was
the
critical
piece
which
is
making
me
inclined
to
move
the
support
of
your
appeal,
such
a
grant.
The
appeal
for
both
variances
see,
if
there's
any
discussion
from
the
committee,
just
member
Goodman,
Thank.
B
You
councilmember
runner
I
agree
with
you
I
kind
of
came
into
it
thinking
at
a
lot
of
large
lots
in
my
ward,
so
I'm
super
sensitive
to
that
issue,
but
I
think
they
made
a
really
compelling
case,
which
is
proof
that
getting
up
and
testifying
makes
a
lot
of
sense
in
a
lot
of
cases.
I
also
am
really
sensitive
to
the
fact
that
the
neighbor
next
door
has
a
really
large
lot
so
and
if
they're
not
standing
here,
saying
don't
let
them
do
this
large
locks
have
different
rules
and
regulations.
B
A
Want
to
know
that
comfortable
member
that'll
did
step
in
that
she
had
to
leave.
This
is
her
ward
was
very
close
to
the
edge
of
mine
as
well,
so
any
further
discussion
seeing
none
all
in
favor,
please
say
aye
aye
any
opposed,
and
that
would
also
should
have
moved
along
with
that
to
direct
staff
to
prepare
findings
in
support
of
granting
the
appeal
on
favor.
Of
that
view,
say:
aye
aye
can
you
pose
that
carries
as
well?
E
E
E
E
The
applicant
is
seeking
a
variance
and
it
is
unique
to
the
parcel
of
land
it's
unique
and
that
there's
the
steep
slope
in
the
front
yard
and
Lake
of
the
Isles
to
the
west
that
Cree
that
40-foot
buffer
from
the
top
of
the
steep
slope
and
that
limits
the
buildable
envelope
for
this
parcel,
the
applicant
is
proposing
a
reasonable
use
of
this
property.
It's
a
single-family
two-story
dwelling
tuck
under
garage
very
consistent
with
this
zoning
district.
E
A
You
are
there
any
questions
for
staff,
seeing
none
I'll
open
the
public
hearing,
and
so
how
many
people
are
sick
on
this
item
looks
like
four
or
five
okay.
Why
don't
we
start,
then,
with
the
M
I,
just
wanna,
make
sure
I
say
correctly:
the
answer
the
appellant,
the
the
owner
of
this
property,
that
make
sense
good
Lansing.
F
Good
morning
committee
members
on
Carol
Lansing
I'm,
representing
Peterson
Keller,
the
architectural
firm,
that's
designing
the
house
for
the
prospective
buyers
I
want
to
emphasize
that
this
is
a
variance
to
build
within
40
feet
of
the
top
of
a
steep
slope.
It's
not
requesting
to
build
on
the
slope
and
it's
not
requesting
a
variance
of
any
other
standards,
not
the
front
yard,
not
any
other
standards
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
F
In
fact,
it
complies
with
the
front
yard
requirement,
even
though
it's
substantially
larger
than
the
standard
25
foot
setback
because
of
the
established
location
of
the
neighboring
houses-
and
this
is
there's
nothing
if
this
request
that
it
relates
to
the
driveway
either
the
driveway
on
this
property
or
the
neighbor's
driveway
I've,
distributed
some
additional
exhibits
to
you.
That
I
think
help
illustrate
the
proposal
and
its
relationship
to
other
properties.
F
F
This
is
the
site
plan,
shows
you
the
proposed
home
in
relationship
to
the
neighboring
houses.
This
it's
a
little
hard
to
see
here,
but
this
red
line
is
the
string
test,
front
yard
requirement,
and
so
this
house
does
meet
that
test.
In
fact,
met
efforts
have
been
made
to
step
it
back
even
further
from
that
front
yard
along
the
South
property
line.
Views
from
this
house
to
the
lake
are
not
something
protected
by
any
of
these
ordinances.
That
might
be
a
front
yard
consideration
again
the
front
yard
setback,
but
consideration
has
been
given
there.
F
This
shows
you
he
allow
us
to
preserve
some
backyard
usable
for
this
property
shows
you
the
location
of
the
driveway,
that
the
Park
Board
has
basically
mandated
that
this
driveway
connect
to
the
neighbor's
driveway.
All
of
this,
though,
is
in
park
board
land
and
that's
not
something
that
our
clients
have
any
control
over.
F
Although
we
understand
there's
concerns
about
it,
it's
also
not
related
to
the
steep
slope
variance
this
I've
just
drawn
in
this
is
a
footprint
it's
in
orange
on
the
exempt
degree
that
you
have
I
just
darkened
it
to
show
you
the
footprint
of
the
house,
that
used
to
be
there
that
was
demolished
in
2010.
Basically
we're
talking
about
the
same
footprint
again,
not
a
requirement,
but
question
that's
been
raised.
F
In
areal
of
the
houses,
this
is
the
vacant
lot
that
we're
talking
about.
This
is
the
established
pattern
of
setbacks
along
this
part
of
the
parkway
to
require
this
house
will
be
in
character
with
that
historic
character
and
to
require
it
to
be
further
back,
would
be
I,
think
jarring,
and
not
what
the
city
looks
for
in
establishing
yard
requirements.
F
Just
another
illustration,
rendering
of
an
aerial
of
how
the
houses
will
be
set
back
in
relation
to
each
other
and
the
driveway
and
then
again
showing
that,
although
not
a
protected
interest,
the
house
to
the
south,
the
appellant
house
will
continue
to
have
to
use
towards
the
lake,
and
one
thing
I
wanted
to
note.
It's
been
suggested
that
the
house
should
be
built,
at
least
within
the
footprint
of
the
old
house.
That
house
would
have
that
location
would
also
require
a
variance
from
the
top
of
a
steep
slope.
F
The
project
request
does
meet
the
requirements
for
a
variance.
The
circumstances
are
unique,
unique
doesn't
mean
it's
the
only
situation.
There
are
other
clearly
houses
within
40
feet
of
a
steep
slope
along
this
lake,
but
the
impact
and
the
degree
of
impact
on
this
property,
if
it
was
required
to
comply,
would
be
severe.
The
steep
slope
is
not
a
natural
condition.
F
Development
then,
on
this
lot,
without
a
variance
is
a
practical
difficulty
for
allowing
a
a
house
of
reasonable
size
and
preserving
backyard
space
again.
The
proposed
location
is
also
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
of
intent
of
the
ordinances,
the
shoreland
ordinances
intended
to
preserve
the
quality
of
the
public
waters.
In
the
end,
the
public's
experience
of
those
waters
in
the
natural
environment.
Again
this
doesn't
disrupt
a
natural
condition.
F
It's
in
no
way
to
tremendo
to
the
water
quality
or
the
people's
experience
of
the
lake
and,
as
I
mentioned,
forcing
the
house
to
be
more
than
40
feet
back
from
this
or
40
feet
back
from
the
steep
slope.
Would
be
out
of
character
with
the
city's
ordinances
that
encourage
kind
of
a
uniform
character
of
suspects?
It
is
not
required
to
be
reasonable
that
there's
that
we
show
you
that
there
are
no
other
options.
We
need
to
show
you
that
what's
proposed
is
reasonable.
F
The
fact
that
you
could
build
a
house-
that's
smaller
and
further
back
does
not
mean
that
the
variance
standard
is
not
met
and,
as
has
been
shown,
the
character
of
the
area
is
consistent
with
the
proposed
setback,
so
it
will
not
alter
the
essential
character.
The
area
and
the
purpose
of
the
ordinance
is
unrelated
to
views
of
the
lake,
but
efforts
have
been
made.
This
will
not
be
injurious
to
the
use
of
either
neighbor's
property.
F
In
terms
of
where
this
house
is
located,
we
understand
that
there
are
concerns
about
adding
another
user
to
the
bottom
of
the
driveway.
That
starts
on
the
neighbor's
property
because
of
the
steepness
of
the
driveway
on
the
neighbors
to
the
north
property,
but
the
experience
is
unrelated
to
that
condition.
I
am
here
for
additional
questions.
Lars
Peterson,
the
architect,
is
here.
If
you
have
questions
about
the
design
and
Travis
Stanley,
our
landscape
designer
is
also
here
who
has
got
a
lot
of
experience
with
steep
slope
conditions.
Thank.
A
G
Good
morning,
chair
committee
members,
my
name
is
David
Dodd
Meyer
Wisconsin,
Leonard
Street,
and
we
represent
Christopher
40
in
this
appeal
of
the
Board
of
adjustments,
grant
of
the
variance
of
two
developed
within
40
feet
of
the
top
of
the
steep
slope
in
the
shoreland
overlay
district
at
the
subject,
property
to
863,
East
Lake,
the
owl's
Parkway
mr.
hardy
is
the
property
owner
immediately
to
the
south
of
the
property
for
which
the
variance
was
granted.
Our
client
respectfully
requests
that
this
committee
recommend
the
council
overturn
the
grant
of
the
variance
mr.
G
hardy
maintains
that
the
Board
of
Adjustment
essentially
disregarded
the
plain
meaning
of
controlling
ordinance
when
it
granted
the
variance.
In
these
circumstances,
as
you
well
know,
there
are
three
required
findings,
two
grants
and
ordinance.
The
first
requires
practical
difficulties
in
complying
with
the
ordinance
due
to
circumstances
that
are
unique
to
the
property.
Those
unique
circumstances
were
not
created
by
persons
having
an
interest
in
the
property.
G
The
circumstances
cited
by
the
department
and
its
staff
report
are
simply
not
unique
to
this
property.
The
steep
slope
is
not
unique.
The
steep
slope
is
one
reason
why
the
shoreland
overlay
district
exists.
It
is
a
district.
Many
properties
have
the
steep
slope.
It
is
not
unique.
The
distance
from
the
property
to
Lake
of
the
house
is
not
unique.
Many
homes
line
the
lake
many
homes
sit
in
relatively
close
proximity
to
the
lake.
That
distance
is
not
unique.
Third,
the
grade
toward
the
rear
of
the
property
is
not
unique.
B
Van
Dalen
I'm,
not
sure
you
understand
the
shoreland
overlay
and
so
I'm,
going
to
ask
our
staff
to
clarify
the
shoreland
overlay,
the
shoreland
overlay.
It
was
put
in
place
to
make
sure
that
properties
that
were
building
close
to
a
shoreline,
including
Loring
Park,
the
lake
didn't
pollute
the
lake
or
otherwise
cause
environmental
concerns
with
the
lake.
The
shore
land
overlay
is
not
a
height
restriction.
And/Or
a
overlay
that's
put
into
place
in
order
to
prevent
development.
It's
to
ensure
that
development
that
happens
is
environmentally
friendly.
B
Perhaps
our
staff
can
clarify
that
I
have
a
lot
of
experience,
unfortunately,
with
the
shoreland
overlay,
I'm,
also
interested
in
your
analysis.
With
regard
to
the
zoning
code
itself,
the
code
itself
covers
the
whole
city.
A
steep
slope
is
unique
within
the
whole
city.
It
might
not
be
unique.
The
zoning
code
has
to
kind
of
take
into
consideration
everything
going
on
citywide,
not
just
the
immediate
area
where
there
happens
to
be
a
steep
slope.
G
Thank
you
for
those
questions.
Councilmember
Goodman
you're.
First
regarding
the
shoreland
overlay
district
I
understand
that
that
district
was
designed
to
enact
special
environmental
protections.
At
the
time
it
was
adopted.
The
City
Council
determined
that
one
way
it
would
achieve
its
objectives
would
be
to
generally
prohibit
development
within
40
feet
of
the
top
of
a
steep
slope
expressly
under
the
language
of
the
ordinance.
If
your
second
question
about
uniqueness,
our
client
would
maintain
that
you
know
the
ordinance
speaks
for
itself.
G
It
requires
circumstances
that
are
unique
to
the
property.
It
does
not
require
circumstances
that
are
unique
to
the
district
in
which
the
property
live.
In
a
case
like
this,
if
steep
slope
justifies
uniqueness
under
the
required
findings
for
variant,
virtually
any
property
within
the
shoreland
overlay
district
would
be
susceptible
to
a
variant
and.
G
Which
would
undermine
the
very
protection
established
by
the
shoreland
overlay
district
I'd
like
to
move
on
to
my
second
point,
which
is,
there
is
no
practical
difficulty
here.
The
staff
pointed
to
again
the
steep
slope
and
proximity
to
Lake
of
the
Isles,
reducing
the
buildable
area
on
the
property,
but
that
buildable
area
has
been
highlighted
and
showed
it's
in
the
record.
It
is
an
area
in
which
the
applicant
could
build
without
practical
difficulty.
They
they've
requested
the
variance
because
they
do
not
want
to
build
there,
because
it
would
reduce
the
size
of
their
backyard.
G
A
G
In
short,
the
applicants
would
face
no
practical
difficulty
building
in
this
buildable
area
without
violating
the
ordinance.
If
you
look
on
the
applicants
own
diagrams,
that
shows
the
footprint
of
the
home
to
the
north.
A
footprint
that
approximate
that
that
approximately
that
kind
of
size
and
placement
of
a
home
would
work
perfectly
well
on
the
property
and
the
only
practical
difficulty
here
was
really
created
by
the
applicants
in
insisting
on
building
home
of
the
specific
design
of
a
specific
size
and
on
a
specific
location
on
the
property.
G
Rendering
submitted
by
the
applicant
show
a
very
large
structure.
It
really
dominates
the
surroundings.
It's
pulled
as
far
forward
as
possible
to
the
top
of
that
steep
slope
even
further
than
the
property
that
existed
there
until
it
was
demolished
in
2010
they've
designed
a
home
that
it's
built
as
tall
and
it's
wide.
If
the
city
will
possibly
allow
and
added
a
large
new
area
of
impervious
surface
right
in
front
of
the
home
and
approaching
the
steep
slope.
G
G
Last
I
want
to
point
out
that
our
clients,
use
of
his
properties,
enjoyment
of
his
property,
would
be
harmed
counsel.
Lansing's
diagrams
showed
presented
an
image
prepared
by
the
architect,
showing
the
alleged
views.
Our
client
will
still
enjoy,
following
construction
of
this
very
large
house,
that
very
far
forward
on
the
property,
and
we
respectfully
dispute
the
impression
left
by
that
rendering
our
client
maintains
that
his
views
would
be
largely
eliminated
by
this
new
home
and
its
placement.
Now
we're
not
asking
for
an
exception
from
city
law
to
protect
our
clients
view.
G
By
contrast,
the
applicants
have
requested
and
been
granted
a
variance
so
that
they
can
have
an
accept
so
that
they
can
achieve
of
you.
They
would
not
otherwise
be
able
to
achieve
without
that
variance.
Now
the
city
is
going
to
take
into
consideration
the
applicants
concern
for
its
view
and
decided
to
allow
it
a
variance
from
the
shoreland
overlay
requirements,
then
by
right
or
in
fairness.
Rather,
the
city
should
consider
our
clients
concern
for
the
effect
of
the
variance
on
his
view
of
Lake
of
the
Isles.
G
G
Again,
as
I've
said,
this
would
be
a
very
large
structure
that
not
just
pulled
far
forward
the
call
and
wide
with
a
large
area
of
new
impervious
surface
on
the
lawn,
which
would
be
the
view
seen
from
like
the
Isles,
which
ties
into
the
second,
a
second
factor
stated
in
the
shoreline
overlay
ordinance,
which
is
the
extent
to
which
that
he
will
be
limited
from
the
lake.
From
from
from
view
from
people
on
or
near
the
lake.
G
G
Trees
will
be
removed
to
facilitate
construction
of
the
driveway,
enable
as
a
result
of
the
grant
of
an
encroachment
permit
by
the
Park
Board.
Additionally,
for
most
months
out
of
the
year,
the
foliage
will
be
far
less
than
it
is
now
in
sunny
July,
resulting
in
frankly,
a
clear,
clear,
shot
view
of
the
development.
G
G
Excuse
me,
without
a
variance
to
uphold
the
variance
in
the
circumstance,
would
be
not
only
to
undermine
the
shoreline
overlay
district
protections,
but
it
would
injure
our
clients
view
of
the
property
and
harm
the
character,
billet
allottee,
and
for
these
reasons
our
client
respectfully
request
this
committee
overturn
the
grant
of
the
variance
and
thank
you
very
much.
Okay,.
A
H
Due
respect
to
Minh
may
I
may
I
ask
for
five
minutes,
but
that'll
be
fine.
Okay,
I'll
be
I'll,
be
I,
hope
to
complete
before
them.
Thank
you.
So
thank
you.
So
much
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
you.
My
name
is
Sofia.
Hans's
I
live
at
two
eight
five,
nine
East
Lake
of
the
Isles
Parkway
and
I-
am
the
neighbor
to
the
north
of
this
proposal.
H
I've
lived
there
for
30
years
and
for
23
of
those
years,
I
have
had
a
house
near
me
right
next
to
me
and
in
fact,
I
opposed
the
demolition
of
that
property.
So
this
is
not
about
a
neighbor,
not
wanting
a
house
to
be
built.
This
is
about
a
neighbor
that
would
like
to
address
the
part
of
the
ordinance
that
it's
in
your
handout.
F
H
Talks
about
safety
to
the
public
and
that's
what
I
would
like
with
you
briefly
today:
I,
don't
know
how
this
works,
but
let
me
just
go
with
the
handout
because
of
my
time
limitation.
Oh,
it
is
okay.
Thank
you.
H
H
H
One
of
the
things
that
I
wanted
to
point
out
is
that
the
proposed
driveway
actually
cuts
the
driveway
at
nine
feet,
nine
inches
and
it's
a
steep
driveway.
They
will
either
have
to
back
out
or
come
out
forward,
but
the
collision
probability
is
great
from
the
top
of
my
driveway
to
theirs,
particularly
in
the
wintertime
I.
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
I
know
you're,
not
the
park
board.
I
know
you
are,
but
it
does
affect
when
you
have
it
in
your
own
code
about
safety.
So
I
did
the
calculations
for
impervious
surfaces
and
lo
and
behold
utilizing
that
flat.
Driveway
is
less
impervious
surface
than
what
the
proposed
access
is
cutting
through
my
driveway.
H
Finally,
I
feel
so
passionate
about,
because
I
know
this
driveway
I
know
what
can
happen
at
the
bottom
of
it
that
what
I
did
is
I
filed
a
claim,
a
legal
claim
with
my
title,
insurance
company,
disputing
the
fact
that
the
park
board
has
the
right
to
access
my
driveway
to
enforce
me
to
have
an
encroachment,
and
so
now
what
were
it
is
legally.
Is
that
they're?
Looking
for
the
easement
that
I
believe
I'm
granted
that
I
was
the
best
property
was
granted
way
back
because
it
can't
just
be
my
driveway.
H
In
your
packet,
this
is
the
list
of
people
that
are
also
affected
by
a
governmental
authority.
Coming
in
and
saying
this
is
what
you
have
to
do.
All
these
neighbors
are
affected
as
well.
So,
in
closing,
what
I
would
like
to
say
is
that
I
want
you
to
have
your
home
I,
want
you
to
have
a
safe
home
I.
Want
you
to
I
respectfully
ask
that
you
overturns
experience
based
on
the
disaster.
H
It's
going
to
happen
at
the
bottom
of
this
driveway
and
to
ask
people
to
redesign
the
parcel
so
that
there's
a
flat
and
access
in
and
out
of
that
driveway.
Mr.
Peterson
has
said
several
times
in
several
in
several
meetings.
He
can
build
this
house
it
without
the
variance
and
and
I
just
respectfully.
Ask
that
you
consider
that
the
the
house
that
was
there
before
actually
is
not
those
renderings
are
not
correct.
The
house
that
that
has
being
proposed
is
actually
18
feet
ahead
of
where
the
other
house
was
and
I
have
documentation
for
that.
I
Muttering
well,
chairperson
bender
committee
members.
My
name
is
Peter
Mason
I,
look
at
twenty
five.
Thirteen
urban
Avenue
South
I'm,
also
a
board
member
of
the
Styles
residents
Association.
Unfortunately,
I'm
here
today
to
clarify
numerous
missed
statements
made
by
the
subpage
support
statement
by
the
attorney
mr.
Alan
Bend
Ellen,
representing
mr.
Gordy,
in
support
of
the
appeal
of
the
Board
of
adjustments
granted
a
variance
for
this
property.
That's
the.
F
I
Reason
I'm
here
mr.
Bendele,
refused
to
admit
a
statement
after
he
Stiles
reached
out
to
him
documenting
a
run,
question
non
position
with
regard
to
this
property
and
we're
in
regarding
a
variance
or
the
property
itself,
or
the
development
as
you're
aware
properly
in
your
packets
correspondence
was
sent
to
this
committee,
stating
our
non
position
and
as
you're
well
aware,
neighborhood
associations
show
their
support
or
not
support
through
resolutions
either
stating
we
support
XYZ,
where
we
explicitly
do
not
support
XYZ.
None
of
that
was
done
here
whatsoever,
however,
in
mr.
I
Mandela's
letter
entitled
his
first
section,
which
purportedly
would
be
as
strongest
East,
Isles
residents
association
conclusion.
This
is
false.
There
was
no
conclusion
in
this
section.
He
states
that
both
the
zoning
committee
of
the
he
styles
resident
Association,
as
well
as
the
board,
came
to
a
conclusion
not
to
support
the
development
at
this
property
again.
This
is
false.
This
did
not
occur
in
either
committee
or
at
the
board.
In
fact,
because
it
didn't
occur
to
committee,
it
did
not
come
to
the
board.
I
Some
other
residents
did
come
to
the
board
and
again
no
action
was
taken
by
he
Styles
whatsoever
and,
in
fact,
at
the
end
of
that
section,
explicitly
says
for
the
City
Council
to
give
strong
consideration
to
IRA
East
Isles
resident
associations
stamps
on
this
matter.
Yet
again,
another
falsehood
there
was
no
stance
whatsoever
taken
by
a
Stiles
when
we
reached
out
and
asked
him
to
clarify
this
and
to
put
in
an
amended
statement.
Mr.
Van
Alen
refused
saying
his
statements
were
consistent
with
the
styles
and
the
differences
are
simply
a
matter
of
semantics.
I
That
is
yet
another
false
statement
and,
personally,
frankly,
offensive
and
violence
to
language
where
words
are
used
in
ways
to
make
them
be
nothing.
In
fact,
this
is
what
our
president
does
on
a
daily
basis,
often
Bueller
times
a
day
conclusion
stands:
support
are
not
ambiguous,
they
have
meaning
and
for
him
to
state.
Otherwise,
that's
why
I
feel
strongly
enough
to
come
here
personally
to
correct
this.
He
declined
the
opportunity
to
have
his
words,
have
meaning
in
to
correctly
state
our
position.
Stuffs
I
feel
I
needed
to
come
here
in
person.
I
I
personally,
he
believe
he's
doing
his
client
of
serious
disservice
by
not
doing
that
amendment
and
about
what
the
actual
non
position
of
the
resident
Association
was
and
frankly,
it
makes
me
question
whether
other
statements
in
his
support
letter
are
also
similarly
inaccurate,
misleading
or
potentially
simply
false
and
I
said.
The
committee
also
may
have
those
concerns.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
G
G
He
was
asked
about
this
very
question
of
the
position
of
the
Neighborhood
Association
at
the
Board
of
Adjustment
hearing,
and
he
responded
honestly
at
that
time
that
he
acknowledged
that
the
Association
did
not
formally
take
a
position,
his
original
statement
and
intent,
whether
or
not
that
was
conveyed
clearly
or
whether
it
was
considered
as
in
the
statement,
was
to
to
to
make
the
point
that
the
Association
was
asked
to
support
the
variance
and
the
Association
did
not
support
it.
Thank
you.
Okay.
A
Thank
you.
Okay,
with
that,
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
hearing.
We
did
have
some
questions
of
staff
to
clarify
and
I
shared
those
questions,
so
that
was
about
the
purpose
of
our
shoreline
overlay
district
and
the
steep
slope
variance
now.
This
is
in
the
packet,
of
course,
from
the
staff
report,
but
if
mr.
J
Bender
comes
on
our
council.
My
argument
is
correct
that
the
shoreland
regulations
are
largely
in
place
to
foster
environmental
stewardship
in
shoreland
areas,
including
preventing
erosion
of
steep
sloped
areas.
It's
I
think
relevant
to
note
that
Shore
land
regulations
are
state
mandated
and
that
rules
that
we
have
adopted
in
Minneapolis
are,
in
some
cases
quite
similar
to
rules
that
would
apply
to
a
remote
Lake
in
northern
Minnesota
and
when
you
apply
those
rules
in
urban
area
that
has
developed
over
the
course
of
the
century
or
more,
but
those
rules
often
cause
practical
difficulty.
J
The
fact
that
they
often
cause
practical
difficulty
doesn't
negate
the
fact
that
those
have
unique
circumstances
associated
with
them.
Also,
it's
important
to
note
on
the
note
of
practical
difficulty
that
the
standard
is
not
that
the
applicant
has
some
ability
to
develop
a
home
somewhere
on
the
property
it
does.
The
proposal
is
the
proposal.
A
reasonable
use
of
the
property
in
question
and
staff
has
typically
found.
The
practical
difficulty
does
exist
when
a
property
owner
is
prevented
from
matching
the
predominant
character.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
so
I
will
go
ahead
and
make
the
motion,
and
then
we
can
have
any
additional
questions
or
conversation.
So
on
item
2
I
will
move
to
deny
the
appeal
that
would
then
sustain
the
Zoning
Board
of
adjustments
finding
to
approve
the
variance
then
I'll.
Just
briefly
say
you
know
you
have
the
situation
here.
That's
essentially
created
by
the
park
board
position
on
the
driveways,
and
none
of
the
parties
here
have
any
control
over
that
and
I
understand
the
position
of
the
lawsuit.
A
That's
aimed
at
the
Park
Board,
of
course,
as
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
of
the
City
Council
have
no
authority
over
that
Park
Board
decision,
and
so
that
leaves
us
with
the
condition
that
we
have
I.
Think
staff
did
a
great
job
in
their
reports
articulating
the
reasons
that
a
steep
slope
is
a
why
they've
recommended
granting
the
variance
and
will
say
that
a
slope
is
sort
of
a
classic.
A
You
know
example
used
in
in
in
legal
causes
for
variances
to
be
granted
so
and,
as
others
have
said,
this
is
a
very
typical
condition
to
have
certain
number
of
Lots
in
our
city
to
have
these
kinds
of
slopes
in
certain
areas,
but,
of
course,
across
the
city.
It's
an
unusual
condition
compared
to
a
typical
residential
lot
in
most
of
being
up.
So
with
that
I'll
see.
If
there's
any
other
comments
from
committee
members
couple
number
bike,
I
think.
K
K
There
are
a
lot
of
situations
we
have
to
share
your
access
myself,
I
have
a
easement
where
I
have
to
be
very
friendly
with
my
neighbors
I'm,
the
last
of
six
garages,
and
so
I
can
see
how
that
could
be
an
inconvenience,
but
we
have
do
have
a
unique
built
environment
where
these
things
happen.
But
that's
an
answer.
I
think.
That's
not
really,
in
my
mind,
germane
to
the
main
question
before
us,
as
you
articulated
chair,
so
I'll
concur
with
your
findings
and
the
staff
findings,
consumer.
B
Chair
I
also
concur
with
your
motion.
I
think
miss
ANSYS
is
done
a
really
good
job
of
identifying
what
the
problem
is
is
it
pertain
to
the
park
system
and
access
to
park.
Waive
this
isn't
the
only
time
there's
a
problem
I'm
having
right
now
which
staff
is
working
on
on
Kenwood
Parkway,
where
the
park
urbanism
front,
give
access
for
someone
to
be
able
to
build
a
driveway
and
if
they
want
to
condemn
out
that
property
and
consider
to
taking
they
should
do
that.
B
But
I
don't
think
that
that
has
anything
to
do
with
the
steep
slope.
Variance
that
we're
taking
into
account
today
I
voted
against
the
demolition
of
this
house
I.
Remember
it
fairly
vividly
I,
remember
the
house
that
was
there
and
I
don't
believe,
and
this
ANSYS
also
took
that
position
so
I,
don't
believe
it
has
anything
to
do
with
her
interest
or
lack
thereof
and
having
a
house
next
door.
I.
Think
the
issue
with
regard
to
sharing
the
driveway
is
the
issue
and
I
would
guess.
B
But
in
the
end
the
steep
slope
variance
is
what
we're
talking
about
and
if
we
were
going
to
use
the
shoreland
overlay
as
a
reason
to
deny
a
two-story
house
on
Lake
of
the
Isles,
and
we
better
pay
a
lot
of
attention
to
what's
happening
on
West
Lake
Street,
where
buildings
are
going
up
at
85,
feet
and
65
feet,
neighbors
are
supporting
them
and
neighborhoods
are
supporting
those
projects
in
the
shore.
Land
overlay,
I,
don't
think
the
shore
land
overlay
here
is
a
height
restriction
and
I.
Don't
I
don't
buy
the
appellant
argument
at
all.