►
From YouTube: August 29, 2019 Zoning & Planning Committee
Description
Minneapolis Zoning & Planning Committee Meeting
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
Good
morning,
I'm
gonna
call
to
order
this
regular
meeting
of
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
for
August
29th.
My
name
is
Jeremy
Schrader
and
I'm.
The
chair
of
this
committee
with
me
at
the
dinosaur,
councilmember
Ellison,
councilmember,
Reich
and
councilmember
Goodman.
Let
the
record
reflect
that
we
have
a
quorum.
We've
got
six
items
on
today's
agenda,
including
a
public
hearing
and
two
quasi
judicial
hearings,
but
we'll
first,
a
dispense
with
the
consent
agenda.
A
Item
number
4
is
a
rezoning
application
submitted
by
Solomon's
porch
for
the
property
located
100
West
246
Street
item
number
5
is
a
rezoning.
Application
submitted
by
dancing
bear
chocolate
for
their
property
located
at
43,
67,
Thomas,
Avenue,
north
and
item
number.
Six
is
a
Street
vacation
application
submitted
by
the
Public
Works
Department.
Is
there
any
discussion
on
these
items
or
would
any
mic?
Many
members
like
to
pull
anything
off,
seeing
nothing
I
move
items
number
4
through
6,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye,
all
those
opposed
say
no.
A
The
ice
habit
and
that
motion
carries
we'll
now
move
to
our
public
hearing
item
number
1,
which
is
a
public
hearing
regarding
the
appointment
of
Adam
Hutchins
to
the
Zoning
Board
of
adjustments,
I'll
first
open
the
public
hearing
is
there
anyone
else.
Is
there
anyone
here
to
speak
on
item
number
1,
all
right,
not
seeing
anyone
I'm.
A
B
Well,
thank
you
chair.
Then.
You
members,
my
name,
is
Adam
Hutchins
I'm,
looking
to
get
on
the
Board
of
Adjustment
I'll.
Take
any
questions.
I
live
in
Minneapolis
my
whole
life.
We
bought
our
first
house
in
North
Minneapolis,
we're
renovating
it
right
now,
a
little
bit
by
a
little
bit.
I
just
want
to
contribute
back
to
the
city
with
my
time.
So
thank.
C
A
A
D
Thank
You,
chair
trader
council
members,
as
you
mentioned,
the
matter
at
hand
is
an
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
Zoning
Board
of
adjustments
to
deny
a
variance
to
permit
a
curb
cut
where
a
property
is
served
by
alley.
Access.
The
property
in
question
is
50
420
Colfax,
Avenue
South,
as
a
bit
of
background
on
the
property,
was
first
identified
when
the
applicant
came
in
for
a
building
permit
to
construct
a
garage
through
the
Minneapolis
development
review
counter
the
Public
Service
Center.
At
that
point
it
was
identified
that
a
variance
would
be
required.
D
D
The
retaining
wall
that
was
built
was
a
little
bit
different
than
the
retaining
wall
that
had
been
there
prior,
but
was
still
within
the
confines
of
the
zoning
ordinance
so
that
the
retaining
wall
that
had
been
built
is
is
a
permitted
development
of
the
property
on
the
21st
of
June.
The
applicant
had
a
complete
application
to
administrate
it'll
increase
the
height
of
a
garage,
which
is
an
application
where
you
can
exceed
the
height
of
the
point
of
her
garage
as
long
as
it
matches
the
cladding
material
in
the
roof
pitch.
D
The
house
on
the
wall,
height
of
the
garage
does
not
exceed
10
feet
that
was
approved
on
the
27th
of
June,
at
which
point
it
was
deemed
complete
that
the
variance
could
precede
the
variance
hearing
took
place
on
the
25th
of
July
staff,
and
the
board
were
unable
to
make
finding
number
1
in
large
part,
due
to
the
existence
of
a
one
stall
garage
which
has
since
been
demolished.
The
exist.
The
one
call
one
stall
garage
that
had
been
there
was
accessed
off
of
the
alley,
as
are
all
of
the
other
properties.
On
this
block.
D
The
great
change
that
exists
on
the
site
does
affect
many
parcels
on
this
block
and
throughout
the
city
of
Minneapolis
staff
and
McCoy
were
also
unable
to
make
the
second
finding,
which
is
that
the
request
is
in
compliance
with
the
zoning
ordinance
and
the
Comprehensive
Plan.
The
zoning
ordinance
states
that,
where
direct
access
are
where
the
direct
access
to
the
street
shall
not
be
permitted
where
an
alley
serves
a
single
or
two
family
dwelling,
except
for
such
curb
cut,
extends
into
a
corner
side
or
a
reverse
corner
side
yard.
D
Staff
in
the
board
were
also
unable
to
make
a
complete
third
finding,
which
is
that
the
various
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
or
present
a
safety
hazard
or
hazard
to
safety,
health
safety
or
welfare
staff,
and
the
board
were
able
to
find
that
the
variance
would
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
but
found
that
it
may
present
a
safety
hazard.
Being
the
only
curb
cut
on
the
block
would
be
an
unanticipated
manoeuvre
to
have
a
car
coming
from
a
lot
onto
the
street.
D
A
Okay,
thank
you.
There
any
questions
from
my
colleagues
I
also
like
record.
We
reflect
that.
We
have
been
enjoined
by
the
council
president
and
council
member
Gordon
all
right.
Thank
you.
At
this
point,
I
opened
the
hearing
and
I'll
first
get
the
applicant,
the
appellant
hood
applicant,
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
the
committee
with
the
excuse
me,
the
appellant
represent
kept
time
to
speak.
Thank
you.
If
we
could
say
your
name
and
address
for
record
sure.
E
His
staff
has
indicated
the
nickels
are
seeking
a
variance
they're
seeking
access
from
Colfax
Avenue
due
to
the
grade
change
from
the
alley
to
the
back
of
their
lot,
and,
of
course,
that
requires
a
curb
cut
and,
as
we've
I
won't
go
into
all
the
findings
that
we've
described
in
detail
in
our
appeal.
But
we
do
believe
that
there
are
practical
difficulties
present
here.
E
They
also
confirmed
that
there
was
a
pretty
precarious
manoeuvring
situation
at
the
top
of
that
retaining
wall,
because
in
order
to
back
out
of
that
that
garage
you're
skirting
the
top
of
that
eight-foot
8-foot
retaining
wall.
So
if
they
were
to
rebuild
that
wall
in
the
current
location
and
with
the
current
arrangement
they
were
gonna
have
to
bring
in
a
substantial
amount
of
compacted
and
engineered
soil.
That
would
dramatically
impact
the
design
of
that
essentially
expand
that
retaining
wall
further
into
their
yard.
E
As
they
looked
at
those
designs
that
would
result
into
a
pretty
significant
looming
tower
over
the
adjacent
property.
I
think
it's
about
two
feet
from
the
property
line.
The
resulting
garage
would
be
pretty
detrimental
to
access
to
light
and
air
for
that
property
to
the
north.
But
the
second
issue
that
quickly
arose
was
related
to
accessibility
and
I'll.
Show
you
the
picture
here
of.
E
They
wanted
to
live
here
and
retire
here
and
grow
old
here,
but
getting
from
the
yard
to
the
alley
required
14
steps
and
even
fully
able-bodied
in
a
Minnesota
winter
14
steps
outdoors
is
a
challenge
and
they
looked
at
what
it
would
be
to
retrofit
what
it
would
take
to
retrofit
as
they
look
towards
growing
old
here
and
I
won't
get
into
the
medical
details.
But
we
do
anticipate
that
at
some
point
in
the
future,
we're
gonna
need
an
accessibility
ramp.
E
So
that
was
a
major
consideration
and
given
the
height
of
this
wall,
this
ramp
and
the
minimum
grades
or
the
maximum
grade
of
an
accessibility
ramp,
would
need
to
be
over
120
feet
long.
So
that's
either
the
entire
length
of
the
property,
or
you
know
a
dozen
switchbacks
occupying
most
of
that
back
yard.
I
suppose
another
alternative
would
have
been
a
an
elevator
or
a
lift,
which
again
is
gonna,
be
a
pretty
significant
undertaking
for
a
single-family
home.
They
would
have
to
build
an
enclosure
and
that's
just
an
unduly
burdensome
or
burdensome
cost.
E
So
we
look
to
what
is
the
most
reasonable
alternative
here
and
the
given
that
this
lot
is
actually
one
and
a
half
Lots
wide.
It's
got
an
extra
20
feet
than
any
other
lot
on
the
block,
or
there
might
be
two
that
are
similarly
situated.
The
the
easiest
and
most
sensible
approach
would
be
to
take
access
off
of
the
street
to
build
a
detached
garage
facing
the
street
and
curb
cut.
E
So,
while
the
Nichols
absolutely
understand
that
that
alone
does
not
constitute
a
variance
they
having
never
been
through
this
process
before
believed
that
it
was
at
least
implied
that
these
would
be
given
that
these
were
permitted,
that
these
would
be
supported,
that
this
variance
would
be
supported
and
that
staff
would
likely
support
it,
or
at
least
it
would
be
a
procedural
necessity,
but
a
foregone
conclusion.
Now
I
understand
having
having
been
a
city
planner
and
having
been
a
land-use
attorney
that
that's
not
how
it
works.
E
But
you
know
I,
don't
think
it's
fair
to
expect
that
that
they
hire
an
attorney
upfront
or
not
have
knowledge
that
standard
person
would
not
so
if
they're
denied,
unfortunately,
because
of
the
phasing
of
these
conditions,
we
would
have
to
either
move
or
remove
this
$35,000
retaining
wall
that
they've
already
installed
in
their
yard,
and
that
would
still
not
address
our
forthcoming
accessibility
issue.
That
will
be.
E
We
anticipate
a
distinct
need
in
the
future,
so
we
believe
that
there
are
clear,
practical
difficulties,
as
are
laid
out
in
our
appeal
that
exists
and
that
this
is
not
a
precedent-setting
variance.
This
is
a
very
unique
situation.
It's
unfortunate
that
we've
we've
had
these
mix
ups
with
the
permits,
and
we
were
here
seeking
approval
of
this
appeal
and
approval
of
disappearance.
F
E
Mr.
chair,
because
member
good
men
there
are,
interestingly
enough,
looking
at
the
plant,
there
are
three
Lots
in
the
center
of
the
alley
that
do
have
these
significant
grade
changes
and
those
are
the
three
Lots
on
the
block
that
have
a
one
and
a
half
foot
or
one
and
a
half
wide
lot,
and
we
believe
the
intent
was
because
there
was
an
acknowledgment
that
you
really
can't
make
it
have
to
back
the
car
off
a
hill
to
get
down
at
this
slide.
So
there's
really
only
three
Lots
on
this
alley
that
have
significant
grade
changes.
E
This
is
the
most
significant
of
all
three
in
terms
of
grade
changes,
and
if
you
look
at
the
staff
report,
there
is
a
topographical
map
that
does
indicate
that
so
there's
really.
This
is
a
very
unique
situation
and
even
the
adjacent
properties
are
not
affected
in
the
same
manner.
Due
to
the
great
changes
over
the
block.
A
Thank
you
not
seeing
any
other
questions.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you.
Allah
and
now
open
up
the
hearing
to
members
of
the
public
who
would
like
to
speak,
and
please
limit
your
comments
to
two
minutes
per
person,
which
will
be
tracked
at
the
timer
by
the
clerk.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
like
to
speak.
A
A
F
F
So
it
doesn't
make
me
all
that
empathetic
to
be
honest,
but
I
I
don't
want
to
be
the
one
to
have
to
draw
up
any
findings
because
I
I
have
lots
of
constituents
have
to
go
more
than
20
feet
all
over
Lake
of
the
Isles
in
Cedar
Lake.
There
are
big
grade
differences,
and
you
should
know
that
when
you
buy
the
house
on
the
flip
side,
I'm
not
enthusiastic
about
making
them
tear
down
that
giant
wall
and
I
feel
like
we're
being
backed
into
a
corner
and
I.
Don't
appreciate
it.
A
Think
I
think
I.
Second,
that
I
mean
it
is
something
that
we
it's
very
clear
in
the
law
which
I
take
to
heart.
The
comment
that
you
know
not
every
presumption
is
an
attorney
should
have
to
do
that
with
their
property
bug.
It's
it's
there
for
a
reason
like
if,
when
we
have,
if
there
are
real
impediments-
and
someone
is
put
them
up
like
it
puts
the
city
to
like
that's,
that's
the
whole
point
of
the
zoning
code-
we're
not
going
to
be
helped
victim
to.
A
If
somebody
builds,
those
kind
of
builds,
a
wall
builds
a
moat,
build
something
that
makes
it
very
difficult.
That
said,
I,
you
know
very
much
agree
with
councilmember
Goodman
I'm,
very
empathetic
that
I
don't
like
having
to
put
down
the
wall.
So
I
think
that
we
need
to
think
about
some
way
to
be
able
to
explain
the
process
a
little
bit
better.
So
people
know
mr.
G
F
Just
wondering
cuz,
the
applicant
did
not
get
up
and
speak
which
I
would
have
done.
If
I
were
you
and
explain
to
us
how
you
could
build
the
$35,000
retaining
wall
without
thinking
that
you
could
you
knew
you
couldn't
put
a
garage
and
once
you
did,
you
think
a
curb
cut
would
be
cool
and
everyone
would
be
good
with
that
or
what
was
your
thinking?
I
mean
I,
don't
understand
how
we'd
get
to
the
issuing
a
building?
Permit,
that's
fine,
but
that
the
city
probably
thought
good
for
you.
F
You're
not
gonna,
build
a
garage
and
that's
the
direction
we're
moving
in,
which
is
less
cars,
less
garages,
less
curb
cuts.
So
maybe
you
could
just
explain
your
thinking
in
that
once
you
built
that
retaining
wall,
you
knew
you
couldn't
do
a
garage.
Were
you
just
like
thinking,
okay,
they're
gonna?
Let
us
do
a
curb
cut.
It's
no
big
deal.
You
could
hear
we're
pretty
empathetic.
So
can
you
get
up
and
make
your
case.
H
So
my
name's
John
Nichols
and
I'm
the
property
owner-
and
this
is
all
very
confusing
for
us
obviously,
and
the
reason
that
we
we
we
put
up
the
wall
is
because
we
thought
we
were
doing
what
was
required
so
and
we
got
a
permit
for
it.
Originally
we'd
applied
for
an
application
in
May
for
a
garage
with
with
a
curb
cut.
At
that
time.
We
believe
that
we
provided
enough
information
for
a
curb
cut.
It
wasn't
until
we
heard
from
the
Planning
Department
that
it
required
a
variance
which
we
didn't
know
at
the
time.
H
H
I
I'm
prepared
to
move
that
we
grant
the
appeal
I
know
that
this
is
a
big
mess,
but
I
think
there
are
definitely
practical
difficulties
with
the
great
situation
here
and
they've
made
the
case,
particularly
in
the
winter
they're,
more
difficult
than
the
neighboring
properties
and
others
and
I
think
it's
unique
circumstances
to
the
property,
which
is
what
I
would
base
my
findings
on
and
be
moving
forward
with.
This.
J
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
my
comments
would
echo
what
what
under
1
has
said
so
far,
I
did
want
to
reflect
that
a
lot
of
the
same
sentiments
were
part
of
the
Zoning
Board
of
Adjustment
discussion
as
well,
where
that
board
was
struggling
with
the
same
frustration
and
I
think
they
did
highlight
there.
Really
that
excuse
me,
there
did
seem
to
be
some
miscommunication
or
issues
with
the
staffing
piece
of
it.
So
I
don't
know
that
that
really
had
come
forward,
but
the
CBA
did
talk
about
a
couple
of
other
examples.
J
They've
seen
over
the
years
where
different
parts
you
know
different
staff
in
different
areas
of
the
department
are,
are
reviewing
just
one
piece
instead
of
the
holistic
application,
so
it
seems
like
there
are
some
process
things
to
work
out,
I
I'm,
also
very
torn
I,
think
the
findings.
The
first
part
of
the
findings
is
the
practical
difficulties.
One
I
think
if
you
consider
the
fact
that
the
wall
is
there
now
that,
along
with
the
elevation
change
that
that
would
satisfy
the
finding
number
one.
J
B
J
C
I
E
C
D
Share
straighter
councilmember
Allison,
there
are
elevation
contours
on
here,
they're,
very,
very
small,
but
this
line
here
represents
an
elevation
of
884,
and
this
line
here
is
890,
so
a
total
of
six
feet
as
measured
by
these
contour
lines
and
then
there's
an
existing
another
two-foot
line
right
here.
So
a
total
of
8
feet
between
those
lines.
A
One
kind
of
question
might
I'm
leaning
against
supporting
the
motion.
My
main
concern
is
the
precedent
that
this
would
set
that
I
completely
believe
in
this
situation,
that
this
is
all
in
good
faith
that
the
wall
was
built
but
understand
it's
not
even
about
this
property.
It's
about
all
the
properties
coming
forward.
So,
if
maybe,
if
the
appellant
wants
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
like
why
this
would
not
be
mentioned
that
this
would
not
be
precedent
setting
if
you
could
kind
of
give
some
examples
of
how
that
would
be.
E
E
The
adjacent
property
will
be
approximately
at
the
same
level
as
this
backyard,
maybe
two
feet
different
and
if
we
were
gonna
build
a
garage
on
top
of
that.
That
would
result
in
pretty
significant
obstruction
to
light
now,
and
we
believe
that
those
the
confluence
of
those
situations
ultimately
make
this
a
unique
situation.
And,
ultimately,
you
know
I
think
if
we
would
have
gone
through
this
process
differently.
E
L
F
You
mr.
chair
I'm,
good
with
the
motion
I,
understand
the
explanation,
I'm
more
concerned
that
someone's
gonna
like
not
realize
that
they're
in
an
alley
and
then
there's
like
a
giant
drop
off.
Is
there
a
fence?
That's
gonna
be
put
up.
That
is
just
not
in
the
picture,
because
I
don't
want
to
be
cut
like
someone
say,
we're
liable.
We've
allowed
this
weird
thing
and
then
someone
falls
off.
You
don't
want
that
either.
E
A
M
M
Carport
is
not
a
permitted
encroachment
into
required
setback.
The
house
was
granted
conditional
approval
on
February
25th
at
the
applicants,
request,
notice,
meet
application,
deadlines
for
financing,
and
things
like
that.
There
were
several
conditions
of
approval
placed
on
the
the
plans
and
one
of
those
called
for
the
removal
of
this
non-conforming
carport.
Most
of
those
issues
have
been
resolved.
M
The
first
finding
related
to
practical
difficulties
on
the
property
not
created
by
the
applicant.
The
subject.
Property
does
not
have
an
ally,
and
so
they
are
entitled
to
have
a
curb
cut
and
lack
of
an
ally
sometimes
can
constitute
a
practical
difficulty,
but
staff
found
that
it
does
not.
In
this
case,
this
property
is
nearly
twenty
feet
wider
than
a
the
minimum
lot
width
for
an
r1
zone,
property
that
does
not
have
alley
access
and
is
nearly
4,300
square
feet
larger
than
the
minimum
lot
area
for
an
r1
zone
property.
M
The
property
is
large
enough
and
wide
enough
to
allow
design
alternatives
that
would
eliminate
the
need
for
the
variance
the
garage
the
entire
house
could
have
been
pushed
back
in
the
lot.
The
garage
could
have
been
detached
with
the
carport
taking
the
place
of
the
garage
or
the
carport
could
be
reduced
or
eliminated.
M
In
short,
the
need
for
the
variance
is
driven
by
the
design
of
the
house,
not
by
an
a
unique
characteristic
of
the
house,
the
property
itself,
finding
second,
finding
talks
about
the
reasonable
reasonableness
of
the
requests
and
also
meeting
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
and
the
comprehensive
plan.
Certainly
constructing
a
new
carbon
neutral,
accessible
house
is
both
a
reasonable
use
of
the
property
and
need
several
comprehensive
planning
goals.
Power.
M
Inclusion
of
the
carport,
especially
in
the
front
yard
setback,
does
not
meet
the
spirit
or
intent
of
the
ordinance,
which
is
to
limit
or
eliminate
parking
and
and
vehicle
related
structures
at
the
front
of
the
property,
and
it's
said
to
have
them
at
the
back
of
the
property.
So
again,
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
is
not
being
met.
M
The
final
planning
speaks
to
the
meeting
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
also
a
potential
impacts
to
life,
safety
and
welfare
use
of
other
properties.
This
likely
would
not
have
any
impact
on
health,
safety
or
welfare
or
anybody
else's
used
to
their
property,
but
it
would
not
be
in
keeping
with
the
character
of
the
area.
There
are
several
properties
in
the
area
that
do
have
attached
front
facing
garages.
Many
others
also
have
detached
garages
at
the
rear
of
the
lot.
M
I
Want
clarity
on
the
map
which,
which
is
the
no
not
that
the
diagram?
Sorry,
this
I
plant
are
we
concerned
about
the
orange
part
of
the
green
in
the
orange
part
or
the
green
in
the
orange
in
the
purple
part
I
mean
what
sure.
M
A
K
K
So
I
would
like
to
address
the
the
points
that
were
made,
as
mentioned
before
we're
doing
a
pilot
project.
My
firm
T
Studio
is
pioneering
Passivhaus
construction
at
Twin
Cities
for
the
first
Architects
to
do
this
in
Minneapolis.
We
are
huge
proponents
of
the
climate
action
plan.
We
support
that
wholeheartedly.
I've
been
personally
lobbying
the
city
for
15
years
or
longer
to
engage
in
these
activities
and
now
I'm
spending
my
family's
money
on
doing
so.
K
We
have
project
partners
at
the
city,
including
the
Department
of
Sustainability,
the
health
department
and
CPD,
including
some
of
the
members
here
in
the
room
and
together
we
embarked
on
the
journey
to
construct
a
demonstration
home,
a
pilot
project,
and
so
we've
had
a
journey
of
many
conversations,
design,
reviews,
ideas,
all
sorts
of
things
and
had
good
support
on
making
this
project
happen.
As
designed,
the
building
revolves
around
a
few
key
approaches:
carbon
neutrality
and
energy
performance
being
one
of
them
without
going
too
deep.
K
It
requires
the
building
to
be
oriented
shaped
and
set
just
so
on
a
property
to
maximize
passive
solar
heat
gain,
as
one
component
sheltering
it
from
the
north
side.
We're
using
the
low
slung
garage
building
to
actively
do
that
which
gives
the
building
a
further
performance
boost,
we're
also
demonstrating
stormwater
management
and
accessibility
with
this
project,
which
are
other
key
aspects
that
help
demonstrate
the
best
practice
approach
and
again
the
layout
on
site.
K
I
want
to
speak
about
the
front
porch
in
detail
a
little
bit
more,
so
the
what
is
referred
to
as
a
carport
was
conceived
off
as
a
front
porch,
not
the
carport,
the
carport
function
or
is
a
function
of
the
fact
that
there
is
no
alley
access
and
thereby
the
driveway
traverses
the
space.
But
it
was
always
designed
as
a
drop-off
point
that
is
sheltered
during
all
seasons
and
also
covers
these
entries.
The
parking
function
and
in
the
garage
and
outside
has
been
minimized.
K
We
designed
the
house
to
only
have
a
single
car
stall
or
with
stall,
it's
deeper
to
detract
from
vehicle
parking.
So
some
of
the
findings
that
were
made
are
actually
completely
counter
to
what
the
design
intended
to
do
we're
trying
to
minimize
the
impact
we
set
the
garage
back
on
purpose
and
there's
plenty
of
precedent
in
the
neighborhood
for
garages
that
are
out
in
front
and
center
we're
trying
to
do
the
opposite:
we're
trying
to
create
a
safe
space
to
arrive
to
leave
of
space
for
gathering
and
activity.
K
We
want
to
be
good
stewards,
the
best
stewards,
that's
why
we've
come
forward
with
this
project,
and
so
this
has
become
that
sticking
point
so
stormwater
management,
accessibility
and
then
the
performance
of
the
house
are
driving
this
design.
Durability.
I
also
want
to
mention
again.
These
doors
need
to
be
covered.
The
site
entrance
to
the
house
is
effectively
the
garage
door
to
minimize
the
frontage
of
the
garage
we
opted
out
of
having
a
person
door
in
an
overhead.
The
one
we're
just
using
one
door
makes
it
narrower
and
so
we're
effectively
covering
our
sight.
K
The
word
with
this,
and,
and
so
it
does
double
duty-
it's
a
multi-purpose
space
when
I
give
you
a
couple
of
images
here,
because
we're
talking
about
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
This
is
our
next-door
neighbor
and
you
can
see
the
arrangement
is
very
similar
in
the
sense
that
the
garage
is
attached
next
to
the
house,
and
it's
set
back
from
the
front
of
the
home.
The
only
difference
there
is,
they
don't
have
it
covered,
so
they
don't
have
a
sheltered
and
covered
entry
and
a
safe
access
to
the
building
throughout
the
seasons.
K
So
we
feel
that
we
we
need
that
some
other
examples.
This
is
all
within
a
two
to
three
block
radius,
a
little
bit
tough
to
spot,
but
there's
a
carport
right
there
and
that's
all
it
does
somebody
built
a
lean-to
on
their
house.
They
have
a
boat
and
cars
in
there.
That
is
not
what
we're
doing.
That
is
not
the
intent
of
this
design.
Just
one
block
over
from
our
structure,
you
find
this,
which
is
a
combination
of
a
carport
with
a
block
all
terrorists
balcony,
on
top
of
it,
with
zero
setback
to
the
neighbor.
K
So
these
are
existing
conditions
in
our
neighborhood
one
block
up
from
our
house.
You
find
this
beauty
right
here,
and
so,
if
we're
talking
about
you
know
the
design
and
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
I
have
to
say
I
think
you
know
we
spent
a
little
bit
more
time.
Thinking
about
it,
then
then
these
people
did
and
that
got
permitted
and
built,
obviously,
our
current
next-door
neighbor
on
the
same
block,
similar
idea
here.
You
have
a
garage
way
out
forward
of
the
house
way
out
forward
of
anybody.
K
There's
not
even
enough
setback
to
the
street
right
here
so
that
they
can
park
in
front
of
their
garage
and
that
is
used
as
a
living
roof
up.
Above
so
there's
a
terrorist
activity
out
there,
which
is
completely
out
of
character
for
the
neighborhood
and
it
got
built
and
it's
sitting
there.
So
there's
plenty
of
examples.
A
couple
other
points
I
want
to
make
front
porch
versus
carport.
K
We
asked
for
an
explanation
of
what
a
carport
is
that
was
not
presented
neither
Prior
nor
during
that
hearing,
and
so
you
know
I
calling
it
a
carport
is
one
opinion
like
I
said
designed:
it
was
as
a
front
porch
and
it
serves
those
functions
and
everything
that
it
does
is
a
function
of
property,
not
having
alley
access,
design,
minutes
and
minimizing
the
hardscape
and
still
doing
stormwater
management.
Sheltered
arrival,
zero
step
entry,
as
I
mentioned
before,
if
deemed
the
front
porch,
it
is
a
permitted
obstruction
into
the
setback.
K
We
can
call
it
a
walkway,
a
porte-cochere
drop-off
point.
All
of
those
things
I
think
are
fair
descriptions
and,
as
such,
a
variance
is
actually
not
needed
for
this
and
then
also
in
terms
of
the
ordinance
without
a
clear
description
of
a
carport.
We
argue
that
variants,
then,
in
that
case
it's
not
necess,
and
so
these
are
the
points
that
I
wanted
to
highlight.
As
part
of
that,
I
also
want
to
stress
that
the
Zoning
Department
find
it.
K
It
does
not
in
fact,
have
any
significant
impact
on
my
neighbors,
so
the
use
of
enjoyment
of
anybody
in
the
Parana
property
or
around
the
property,
and
it
doesn't
impact
health,
safety
and
welfare.
So
without
those
findings,
we
feel
there's
no
harm
done
in
building
it
as
intended,
and
letting
this
pilot
project
become
a
beacon
for
the
city
of
Minneapolis,
which
was
it
was
intended
to
be.
Thank
you
thank.
A
You
alright,
at
this
point,
I'll
open
the
hearing
to
other
members
of
the
public
if
anyone's
interested
in
speaking
just
know
that
will
limit
your
comments
to
two
minutes
per
person
and
we'll
be
tracking
that
at
the
clock
by
the
clerk.
If
you
can
come
up
and
say
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
good.
N
Morning
my
name
is
Amy
Anne
I'm,
his
wife
property
owner
I.
Think
Tim
did
a
pretty
good
job
thoroughly
discussing
all
the
points
that
we
had
to
say.
I
would
just
also
to
the
point
of
the
neighborhood,
the
fabric
of
the
neighborhood
and
how
people
are
responding
to
this.
It's
been
an
interesting
journey.
Tim
is
also
part
of
the
construction
project
at
the
moment
and
the
amount
of
people
that
stop
by
on
a
regular
basis,
to
comment
and
and
who
are
intrigued
by
this
type
of
building.
That's
different
is
incredible.
N
We've
gotten
to
know
a
lot
of
people
just
in
this
in
the
span
of
construction
that
we've
that
we
have
been
through
so
far
there
is.
The
people
are
just
incredibly
intrigued
by
this
they're
excited
to
see
something
positive
happened
with
the
neighborhood.
Maybe
even
had
people
say
you
should
start
a
GoFundMe
project.
This
is
so
such
an
improvement
from
what
was
there
before
people
would
probably
be
happy
to
contribute.
It's
so
amazing.
What
you're
doing
so
I
just
wanted
to.
N
A
A
L
Thank
You
mr.
chair
I
think
the
points
in
terms
of
what
findings
we
would
have
to
support.
Variants
have
been
well
explained
in
the
presentation
by
the
applicant
or
the
appellant
I'll.
Just
emphasize
one
key
point:
this
was
an
intentional
experiment
that
was
driven
by
our
our
goals
of
trying
to
say.
Okay,
we
have
a
code,
that's
been
informed
over
the
years
for
certain
objectives.
Well,
what?
If
the
objective
was
maximum
energy
efficiency,
something
I
think
is
quite
urgent.
L
What
would
the
code
do
in
response
to
that,
and
so
the
question
was:
don't
try
to
fit
it
in
the
existing
code
show
us
what
the
most
energy-efficient
building
can
be
on
a
typical
site
in
a
typical
neighborhood.
That
experiment
was,
of
course,
achieved
through
Tim
Ian's
work
and
I.
Now
think
that
we
do
not
want
to
go
backwards
when
we
now
or
have
an
a
model
of
how
we
can
go
forwards.
So
if
it's
a
carport
or
not
a
car
apart
to
me,
it's
do
we
care
about
carports.
We
care
about
energy
efficiency.
O
Trader
counts:
remember
right:
I,
just
like
to
respond
to
those
comments
as
I
was
in
some
of
those
meetings
and
I
appreciate
the
clients
patient
with
the
process.
I
do
think
that
what
we've
seen
today
on
the
first
variant,
some
struggles
staff
sign
it
kind
of
has
applying
the
code
sometimes
with
our
customers.
This
one
was
a
little
different,
was
very
engaging
and
and
I
think,
with
the
adoption
of
the
2040
plan,
we're
gonna
this
kind
of
highlight
some
of
the
interim
period
that
we're
in
where
we're
struggling
with
the
existing
code
and
aspirations.
O
So,
for
instance,
on
our
first
code,
we
talked
a
lot
about
tree
preservation
and
the
tree.
Canopy
trees
were
a
virtue,
but
when
you
have
a
passive
solar
project
in
certain
circumstances,
a
tree
can
be
a
vice,
and
so
staff
is
kind
of
having
to
shift
our
perspective.
We
have
existing
codes
and
we're
trying
to
look
through
a
lens
and
it
puts
staff
in
a
challenging
position.
Is
it
a
carport?
Is
it
a
drop
zone?
So
I
just
want
to
acknowledge
that
council
member
Wright's
comments
about
we've
got
a
lot
of
aspirations.
O
We're
kind
of
in
the
process
of
getting
code
around
that
and
getting
them
into
the
zoning
code,
but
we
have
to
bring
for
thinking
projects
under
the
existing
code
and
it
sometimes
hamstrung
staff
with
a
recommendation.
So
I
just
want
to
appreciate
that
applicants,
patience
and
and
the
acknowledged
the
comments,
a
council
member
right
so
I'd
leave
it
at
that
and
I'm
open
to
questions.
If
anybody
has
a
thank.
A
You
director
I
also
just
want
to
go
to
directors,
comma,
so
thank
you
so
much
for
the
I
felt
your
frustration
and
I
very
much
appreciate
bringing
a
project
like
this
forward.
Like
we
has
talked
about
the
climate
action
plan,
we
have
so
far
to
go
and
we're
going
to
need
so
many
more
projects
like
this
to
meet
our
goals
with
that
comes
member
rights
motion
is
before
us
all.
Those
in
favor
council
members,
president
bender
Thank,.
J
You
mr.
chair
sorry,
I
just
want
I
feel
like
compelled
to
say
publicly
for
the
record
that
we
I
think
we
had
two
very
unique
situations
in
front
of
us
today.
That
happened
to
have
the
same
theme,
but
in
no
way
does
this
mean
that
the
City
Council
wants
people
to
start
building
projects
before
they
have
the
proper
permits
and
I
think
you
know.