►
From YouTube: October 1, 2020 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
Good
afternoon,
everyone
welcome
to
this
live
broadcast
of
our
virtual
meeting
today
october
1st
2020..
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
state
statutes,
section
13d
.021,
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic
for
the
record,
my
name
is
matt
perry
and
I'm
chair
of
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment.
D
D
E
C
F
E
D
B
D
H
C
B
G
I
B
K
D
D
I
D
And
chair
perry,
I
see
that
mr
softly
has
joined
us.
I
don't
know,
if
he's,
what
is
your
thought
on
voting
on
the
actions.
B
B
That
motion
passes
and
the
minutes
from
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment
september
17th
2020
meeting
are
approved.
Mr
ellis,
are
there
any
petitions
or
communications.
B
Chair
perry,
members
of
the
board,
there
are
no
petitions
or
communications
this
evening.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Okay,
let's
review
the
agenda.
I'll,
read
the
agenda
number
and
address
of
the
project
and
state
whether
it's
slated
for
consent,
continuance,
withdrawal
or
discussion
and
I'll
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
consent
items
and
discussion
items
are
consent
items
are
those
that
will
be
passed
without
discussion
by
the
board.
We
will
be
adhering
to
the
staff
recommendation
found
on
your
agenda
under
the
items
recommended
motion.
Section
importantly,
any
applicable
conditions
will
be
listed
in
the
same
section.
B
If
you
agree
with
this
recommendation,
including
any
applicable
conditions,
you
need
to
do
nothing
and
the
board
will
pass
it
as
recommended.
Please
check
in
with
the
staff
member
signed
to
that
item.
If
you
have
any
questions
following
the
decision,
if
you
disagree
with
the
recommendation,
please
indicate
you'd
like
to
speak
against
that
item.
When
I
ask
and
we'll
put
it
on
the
discussion
agenda,
so
here's
what
discussion
items
are.
These
are
items
that
the
board
will
take
public
testimony
on
deliberate
on
and
then
make
a
decision
after
the
public.
B
Testimony
has
been
heard
for
each
particular
discussion
item.
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
for
that
agenda
item
once
I
close
the
public
hearing
for
an
item.
No
additional
public
testimony
will
be
taken,
but
staff
may
be
asked
to
address
board
questions
after
the
public
hearing.
For
an
item
is
closed.
Board
members
will
then
discuss
an
act
on
motions
and
the
chair
only
votes
in
the
case
of
a
tie.
B
So
let's
look
at
the
recommended
disposition
of
the
items
under
the
land
use
request
items
on
our
agenda
today.
Agenda
item
number
five:
the
64
groveland
terrorists.
This
is
a
discussion
item
agenda
item
number
six
is
2027
russell
avenue.
North
staff
is
recommending
the
variants
to
reduce
the
required
front
yard
from
approximately
30
feet
to
25.7
feet
for
consent.
B
B
B
B
B
B
J
Good
evening,
chair,
perry
and
members
of
the
board
sure
are
you
asking
specifically
for
the
side,
yard
setback
and
the
withdrawn
application,
or
for
the
three
season
porch
edition.
That's
the.
B
I'm
sorry
2027
russell
avenue
north
the
one
that
had
the
withdrawal
with
it,
so
the
30
feet
to
25.7
feet.
E
B
See
I
made
a
mistake:
it
it's
3916
blazedale.
J
L
Thank
you
champion
members
of
the
board
to
go
into
that
issue
a
little
bit.
The
net
effect
of
that
firewall
separation
requirement
comes
from
a
building
code
requirement.
L
It
isn't
specific
to
the
the
the
zoning
code
but
city
city
staff
from
construction
code
services
issued
a
building
code
interpretation
in
april
2018
and
again.
The
net
effect
of
that
is
a
15
foot
separation
between
the
existing
sidewalls
of
the
the
structures
which
are
primarily
on
the
adjacent
properties,
but
each
one
encroaches
a
portion
onto
the
subject
property
and
that
15
feet
includes
essentially
10
feet
from
those
primary
building.
Walls
of
the
existing
structures
to
an
imaginary
property
line
so
to
speak,
and
then
an
additional
five
foot.
B
Okay,
thank
thanks
for
that
clarification
and
you
brought
up
another
point.
2027
russell
avenue.
North
was
agenda.
Item
number.
Six
that
I
said
was
2027
russell
avenue.
North
was
in
fact
from
last
time's
meeting
it's
4319
grand
avenue
south
that
is
is
being
has
the
one
item
on
consent
and
then
the
other
one
that
is
being
withdrawn.
B
So
I
just
want
to
have
that
for
the
record
corrected
the
4319
grand
avenue
south.
So
let's
visit
our
items
on
consent.
They
are
that
item
that
I
just
spoke
about
agenda
item
number
six
number,
seven
and
number
eight.
Is
there
a
motion
to
adopt
these
items
on
consent.
C
E
D
B
B
So
that
motion
passes
and
what
that
means
is,
if
you
were
here
for
those
agenda
items,
six
seven
or
eight,
your
land
use
requests
are
approved.
Good
luck
with
your
projects,
thanks
thanks
for
dialing
in
so,
let's
move
on
to
our
discussion
items
and
the
first
one
is
number
five
sixty-four
groveland
terrace,
mr
cole
haas.
L
L
First
is
to
develop
on
a
steep
slope
in
the
shoreline
overlay
district,
another
to
reduce
the
minimum
required
side
yard
on
the
west
side
from
seven
feet
to
three
inches
and
a
third
to
reduce
the
minimum
required
interior
side
yard
on
the
east
side
from
seven
feet
to
four
feet.
These
are
all
for
construction
of
an
exterior
wooden
walkway,
including
stairs
and
landings
at
64
groveland
terrace.
L
This
property
is
located
in
the
r2
district.
In
addition
to
the
shoreline
overlay,
the
lot
area
is
just
over
13
000
square
feet,
adjacent
properties
to
the
east
and
west
are
each
single-family
dwellings
and
the
adjacent
properties
to
the
north
are
are
primarily
institutional
uses,
including
the
blake
school
directly
north.
There
are
protected
waters
at
spring.
Lake
are
located
approximately
1000
feet,
northwest
of
the
subject
property
next
slide.
Please.
L
This
is
a
survey
of
the
property
submitted
by
the
applicant.
As
you
can
see,
it's
primarily
developed
with
a
single-family
dwelling
and
an
attached
garage
at
the
bottom.
You
can
see
the
street
groveland
terrace
to
the
south
and
there's
a
driveway
that
leads
from
that
street
towards
the
garage
and
parking
area
behind
the
house.
The
rest
of
the
subject-
property
to
the
north
of
that
that
rear
driveway
primarily
consists
of
a
vegetated
slope
as
well
as
a
detached,
porch
or
gazebo.
L
Just
in
the
north
side
of
the
driveway,
the
rear
of
the
property
is
a
steep
slope,
is
defined
in
the
shoreline
overlay
district
as
having
an
average
slope
of
18
or
greater
for
a
minimum
horizontal
distance
of
50
feet
and
a
minimum
vertical
distance
of
10
feet.
I
apologize.
I
did
find
a
few
typos
in
this
section
of
the
staff
report,
so
I
do
want
to
provide
the
correct
figures
here
as
follows,
and
these
are
the
details
of
that
steep
slope.
L
So,
on
the
subject,
property,
the
greatest
extent
of
that
slope
runs
from
a
high
elevation
of
867.1
feet.
This
is
at
the
east
end
of
the
retaining
wall
along
the
driveway
to
a
low
elevation
of
829
feet
just
outside
the
northeast
corner
of
the
subject
property.
This
is
a
horizontal
distance
of
87.6
feet
for
an
average
slope
of
about
42
and
a
half
percent.
L
L
This
is
just
an
aerial
photo
showing
the
subject
property
again.
You
can
see
groveland
terrace
in
the
bottom
and
that
vegetated
slope
is
the
the
green
area
on
the
north
portion
of
the
subject.
Property
next
slide
again.
Another
aerial
photo
this
time
with
a
better
view
of
that
rear
yard
in
the
slope
next
slide.
L
L
L
So
this
is
looking
north
and
taken
just
on
the
west
side
of
that
detached
gazebo.
This
is
an
existing
set
of
wooden
stairs
and
landings,
which
is
the
only
access
point
from
the
top
of
that
retaining
wall
from
the
driveway
itself
to
the
actual
top
of
the
slope
itself
and
again
these
appear
to
have
been
in
in
this
location
since
at
least
the
1980s
next
slide.
L
So
this
is
taken
from
about
the
same
location
as
the
last
photo
and
is
looking
towards
the
west,
and
you
can
see
that
block
retaining
wall,
which
is
not
the
same
retaining
wall
as
the
one
that's
holding
up
the
driveway,
but
this
portion
of
the
subject
property
is
very
near
to
the
adjacent
property
to
the
west
and
per
the
applicant
survey.
L
F
L
Photo
this
time
looking
north
and
just
looking
down
towards
the
bottom
of
that
slope.
In
the
background
you
can
see
it's
a
freestanding
solar
energy
system
which
was
constructed
in
2017,
and
there
was
a
another
variance
for
development
on
a
steep
slope
which
was
approved
by
the
board
in
in
the
summer
of
2017.
L
next
slide.
This
is
taken
just
looking
more
across
the
slope
to
the
east.
In
the
background,
you
can
see
that
fence
and
retaining
wall
which
are
actually
near
the
east
property
line
of
the
subject
property,
but
do
belong
to
that
that
neighbor
on
that
side,
next
slide
so
looking
towards
the
northeast
and
and
just
getting
closer
to
the
bottom
of
that
slope.
L
Providing
more
context
for
for
what
it
looks
like,
including
on
in
the
top
right,
is
that
same
freestanding
solar
energy
system,
the
in
actually,
in
the
background
of
that
last
photo,
you
can
see
at
the
top
of
a
black
metal
fence
that
does
run
very
close
to
the
rear
property
line
of
the
subject.
Property
next
slide.
L
Looking
up
the
the
slope
and
you
can
see
a
lot
of
the
same
things-
I've
been
talking
about,
including
that
that
detached
gazebo
towards
the
right,
the
retaining
wall
holding
up
the
driveway
behind
the
tree
and
then
the
top
of
top
of
the
house
and,
in
the
very
background,
next
slide.
L
So
this
is
a
photo
provided
by
the
applicant,
which
shows
an
example.
This
isn't
from
the
subject
property,
but
this
is
an
example
of
what
matching
the
specifications
of
what
they'd
like
to
build,
which
is
a
wooden
walkway.
It
would
be
approximately
42
inches
wide
and
extend
no
higher
than
30
inches
above
the
ground
next
slide.
L
I
think
we
can
actually
stay
on
this
slide
for
the
rest
of
my
presentation.
Thank
you.
This
shows
the
applicant's
proposed
walkway
in
the
site
plan.
It's
highlighted
in
yellow
towards
the
top,
and
you
can
see
it
would
extend
beginning
near
the
top
of
the
slope
at
the
bottom
of
those
wooden
steps
that
I
showed
in
the
photos
west
of
the
gazebo
and
kind
of
crisscrossed
down
the
slope
and
ending
at
a
point
about
seven
feet
to
the
south
of
the
rear.
Lot
line
the
total
coverage
of
about
812
square
feet.
L
This
walkway
would
include
some
some
new
stairs
and
landings
as
well
as
two
proposed
viewing
and
seating
platforms
near
the
east
side
of
the
subject.
Property
though
the
applicant
has
not
identified
the
specific
locations
of
all
proposed,
stairs
and
landings
to
be
incorporated
in
the
walkway.
They
have
attested
that
all
components
of
this
walkway,
including
the
stairs
and
landings,
would
be
within
the
footprint
shown
on
this
site
plan.
L
So
again,
to
summarize,
the
applicant's
request
is
for
three
variances
first
to
develop
on
a
steep
slope
in
the
shoreline
overlay
district,
another
to
reduce
the
minimum
required
west
interior
side
yard
from
seven
feet
to
three
inches,
and
this
is
specifically
where
that
walkway
would
connect
to
the
existing
wooden
steps
near
the
gazebo
and
then
a
third
variance
request
to
reduce
the
minimum
required
east
interior
side
yard
from
seven
feet
to
four
feet.
L
For
one
of
the
extended
platforms
which
would
you
know,
part
of
its
intended
use
would
be
for
for
seating
to
talk
about
the
findings.
L
There
are
some
shoreline
specific
findings
which
staff
findings
are,
are
identical
for
all
variance
requests,
so
I'm
going
to
circle
back
in
and
talk
to
those
last
at
the
same
time,
but
I'll
talk
about
the
the
main
variance
findings
for
the
for
each
request
separately,
so
the
first
variance
to
develop
on
a
steep
slope
and
the
first
finding
regarding
practical
difficulties
because
of
circumstances
unique
to
the
property
staff
finds
that
this
is
met.
L
The
steep
slope
extends
across
virtually
the
entire
rear
yard
and
beyond
and
takes
up
approximately
half
of
the
total
lot
area
of
the
subject
property,
especially
when
you
include
the
40
foot
buffer
from
the
top
of
the
steep
slope.
The
presence
of
a
steep
slope
is
considered
a
unique
circumstance
in
minneapolis
and
is
found
to
constitute
a
practical
difficulty.
L
The
applicant's
proposed
walkway
would
improve
access
and
movement
across
and
down
the
slope,
which
is
currently
only
possible
using
a
series
of
informal
dirt
walking
paths
essentially,
and
the
walkway
would
mitigate
potential
for
future
erosion.
By
concentrating
excuse
me
that
pedestrian
movement
on
the
walkway
itself
and
decreasing
direct
disturbance
of
the
slope,
the
third
required
finding
regarding
essential
character
of
the
locality
or
potential
for
injury
staff,
finds
that
this
is
meant
again.
L
The
proposed
walkway
would
improve
the
experience
of
users
of
the
subject
property
by
providing
a
stable,
dedicated
path
across
and
down
the
slope
and
considering
the
location
of
the
walkway
and
its
height
above
grade.
It
should
not
increase
views
to
neighboring
properties
beyond
what
is
already
possible
or
what
is
already
visible
from
the
subject.
Property
and
the
portions
of
the
walkway
may
be
visible
from
the
adjacent
properties
to
the
north.
L
The
second
requested
variants
to
reduce
the
required
interior
side
out
on
the
west
side,
from
seven
feet
to
three
inches.
First,
finding
regarding
practical
difficulties,
staff
finds
that
this
is
met.
The
portion
of
the
applicant's
proposed
walkway
within
the
requested
or
within
the
required
side
yard
in
this
case,
would
again
connect
to
that
existing
wooden
stairway
on
the
west
side
of
the
gazebo,
which
is
the
only
existing
access
point
from
the
actual
sloped
portion
of
the
yard
to
the
rest
of
the
subject:
property
above
that
driveway
and
retaining
wall
again.
L
That
gazebo
and
stairway
appear
to
have
been
in
place
since
at
least
the
1980s,
and
this
is
well
before
the
applicant's
purchase
of
the
property
in
2015
and
before
the
adoption
of
the
city's
current
zoning
ordinance.
L
The
second
finding
regarding
reasonable
use
of
the
property,
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
attended
the
ordinance
and
the
comprehensive
plan
staff
finds
that
this
is
met.
The
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
regarding
required
yards
is
to
provide
for
the
orderly
development
and
use
of
land,
provide
separation
between
uses
and
minimize
conflicts
among
land
uses
and
provide
light
air
and
open
space
again.
L
Furthermore,
this
portion
of
the
property
where
that
existing
wooden
stairwell
is
where
the
where
the
new
walkway
would
connect
to
this
area
is
already
effectively
separated
from
the
neighboring
property
due
to
the
existing
slopes
of
vegetation
and
retaining
walls,
and
these
features
would
not
be
changed
or
modified
as
part
of
this
project.
L
The
third
finding
regarding
essential
character
of
the
locality
staff,
finds
that
this
is
met
for
the
requested
setback
variants
on
the
west
side,
with
similar
findings.
As
for
the
steep
slope
periods
for
the
third
requested
variance
to
reduce
the
required
interior
side
yard
on
the
east
side
from
seven
feet
to
four
feet,
the
first
finding
regarding
practical
difficulties,
staff
do
not
find
that
practical,
practical
difficulties
existing
complying
with
the
ordinance
which
would
support
the
request
to
construct
an
expanded
platform,
including
a
seating
area
within
the
minimum
required
side
yard.
L
Other
other
portions
of
the
walkway
for
viewing
or
seating
platforms,
without
the
need
for
additional
variances,
the
second
finding
regarding
reasonable
use
of
the
property
and
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
and
the
comprehensive
plan
staff
finds
that
this
is
also
not
met.
So,
though,
the
applicant's
general
proposal
to
improve
access
and
viewing
opportunities
is
is
generally
reasonable.
L
Only
these
balconies,
decks
or
patios
are
not
permitted
obstructions
within
a
required
interior
side
yard,
which
is
a
proposal
here,
as
those
areas
are
nearby
adjacent
properties
and
generally
have
a
greater
potential
for
impact
on
on
those
adjacent
properties.
L
The
code
does
separately
allow
walkways
or
landings
as
permitted
obstructions
within
required
interior
side
yards,
but
these
typically
only
apply
to
ground
level
walkways
or
stairs
leading
directly
to
a
building
entrance,
and
not
necessarily
for
a
sort
of
larger
walkway
that
doesn't
lead
directly
to
the
building
in
in
this
case.
L
So
again,
the
staff
does
not
find
that
the
proposal
for
an
expanded
landing
in
the
required
yard
is
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance.
In
this
case,
the
third
finding
regarding
essential
character
of
the
locality
or
potential
for
injury
staff,
finds
that
the
proposed
variants
would
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality,
which
is
primarily
residential
with
semi-private
rear
yards
for
outdoor
seating
and
gathering
and
viewing,
and
it
would
not
be
detrimental
to
the
general
health
or
safety.
L
But
again,
this
staff
does
find
that
the
proposed
variance
in
this
case
has
increased
potential
for
impact
on
that
adjacent
property
to
the
east
compared
to
other
portions
of
the
proposed
walkway,
just
due
to
the
proximity
and
now
to
circle
back
and
talk
about
the
shoreland
specific
findings
again.
The
the
staff
findings
for
these
are
identical.
For
all
requested
variances,
so
the
first
one
regarding
prevention
of
soil
erosion
and
other
pollution
of
public
waters,
both
during
and
after
construction.
L
The
applicants
have
already
installed
some
other
minor
improvements
to
the
slope
as
part
of
a
long-term
erosion
control
strategy
and
these
other
minor
improvements
like
silk
fences
and
a
dry
creek
bed.
There's
no
variants
required
for
for
those
staff
recommendation
does
include
conditions
that
the
applicant
provide
and
follow
an
erosion
control
plan
demonstrating
best
management
practices.
L
Second
shoreline
finding
regarding
the
visibility
of
development
from
protected
waters.
The
property
is
already
effectively
screened
from
spring
lake
by
existing
topography,
vegetation
and
structures.
The
applicants
are
proposing
some
light
vegetation
removal
for
construction
of
the
walkway,
but
the
proposed
project
will
not
substantially
increase
the
view
of
the
property
from
protected
waters.
L
The
finding
regarding
watercraft
does
not
apply,
as
there
are
no
watercraft
proposed
under
this
project,
finding
regarding
existing
development
within
500
feet
of
the
proposed
development.
This
is
met
by
the
existing
house,
garage
gazebo,
retaining
walls
and
other
improvements
on
the
subject,
property
and
nearby
properties.
L
The
finding
regarding
that
the
the
foundation
and
underlying
soils
are
adequate
for
the
proposed
development.
L
So,
in
conclusion,
staff
recommends
approval
of
the
applicant's
requested
variants
to
develop
on
a
steep
slope
in
the
shoreline
overlay
district
and
reduce
the
required
west
interior
side
yard
from
seven
feet
to
three
inches
subject
to
the
conditions
listed
in
the
staff
report.
However,
staff
recommends
denial
of
the
applicant's
requested
variants
to
reduce
the
required
east
interior
side
yard
from
seven
feet
to
four
feet
and
I'm
available
for
questions.
If
need
be.
B
Thanks
for
that
presentation,
mr
colas,
it
was
very
detailed
and
thorough.
Are
there
questions
of
staff.
A
Thanks
chair
prairie,
thanks
for
your
presentation,
alex,
I
have
a
question
then
I
guess
part
of
my
I'm
wondering
is:
why
do
we
interpreted
the
west
side
which
is
inside
of
the
setback?
But
then
we
didn't
want
to
give
them
the
east
side,
and
is
it
because
the
west
side
is
already
there
from
the
80s
that
part?
I
don't
get,
because
when
I
look
at
the
photos,
it
looks
to
me
like
where
the
six
by
eight
platform
two
would
be
given
within
the
setback.
A
L
Thank
you,
chairperion
board
member
johannesson
on
the
west
side
of
the
subject
property,
where
the
existing
stairs
and
landings
are
on
the
west
side
of
that
gazebo.
That's
the
only
existing
access
point
up
and
down
from
that,
there's
that
retaining
wall
that
runs
along
the
north
side
of
the
driveway
and
that
stairwell
is
the
only
existing
access
point
and
staff
recommendation
or
staff
findings
are
that
the
use
of
that
portion
of
the
property
is
primarily
just
for
the
actual
pedestrian
access.
L
It's
less
likely
to
have
sort
of
a
congregation
for
lack
of
a
better
term
or
people
kind
of
hanging
out
on
that
portion
of
it.
As
it
is
the
connection
there
is
to
sort
of
facilitate
the
broader
connection
from
the
two
different
portions
of
the
property
on
the
east
side,
where
there's
that
expanded
viewing
platform
it,
the
specific
intent
is,
as
described
by
the
applicant,
is
for
an
expanded
area
for
for
seating
which
implies
longer.
L
You
know
people
are
going
to
be
staying
longer,
groups
of
people
potentially
and
has
more
potential
for
impact
on
neighboring
properties
due
to
a
potential
noise
or
other
impacts
due
to
groups
or
more
prolonged
stays,
and
so
that
was
the
difference
for
staff
in
making
a
recommendation
to
support
the
variants
for
the
setback
on
the
west
side,
as
opposed
to
recommending
denial
of
the
variants
on
the
east
side.
A
Okay-
I
guess
I
I
understand
some
of
that,
but
I
I
mean
the
gazebo
is
going
to
have
discussion
in
it
also
and
there's
only
another
three
or
four
feet:
five
feet
from
the
property
line
anyway.
I
I
I
disagree
with
your
assumptions
here,
but
thank
you
for
your
answer
and
I'm
done
for
now.
Thank
you.
B
You
know
I'd
like
to
follow
up
on
mr
johannesson's
question.
Maybe
ask
it
a
different
way.
What
are
the
unique
aspects.
B
There
you're
you're
saying
there
aren't
any
unique
aspects
on
the
east
side.
What's
the
unique
aspect
again
on
the
west
side,
mr
kohas.
L
Thank
you,
chair
perry
staff
finds
at
the
location
of
that
existing
that
existing
set
of
wooden,
stairs
and
landings
which
was
built
to
to
accommodate
access
to
from
the
top
of
the
retaining
wall
to
the
bottom,
and
it's
been
in
place
since
at
least
the
1980s,
according
to
the
photo
evidence
that
was
provided
by
the
applicants,
and
it's
a
well
before
the
the
applicants,
purchase
the
property
and
well
before
the
adoption
of
the
city's
current
zoning
ordinance.
That
location
of
the
existing
development
is
is
the
practical
difficulty
in
staff
finding.
B
All
right,
thank
you.
I
don't
see
any
more
questions
from
board
members,
so
with
that
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
either.
Pete
is
the
applicant
present.
B
B
So
you
you've
submitted
a
rather
lengthy
apple
application
detail.
M
Well,
thank
you,
chairman
perry
and
members
of
the
board.
I'll
try
to
be
very
crisp
because
I
I
know
you
have
busy
schedules
and
a
lot
on
the
agenda.
I
first
want
to
thank
staff
for
their
analysis
and
I'm
going
to
focus
my
comments
on
the
particular
variants
that
they
have,
that
the
staff
had
recommended
be
denied,
which
is
the
request
for
the
variants
that
we
had
made
to
go
into
the
east
setback
by
a
factor
of
three
feet
or
no
more
than
three
feet.
M
I
should
say
so
that
there
would
be
left
four
feet
of
side
setback
on
that
west
side
and
as
one
of
the
board
members
already.
I
M
There
is
a
a
fairly
substantial
cement
wall
and
and.
M
Later,
a
rock
wall,
all
that's
capped
with
a
fence
so
that
really
the
neighbor
to
the
east,
good
people,
good
friends.
M
They
can't
see
into
our
backyard
from
their
backyard
because
of
the
fence
and
when
my
wife
and
I
bought
the
property
in
2015,
what
had
happened
over
the
years
is
really
a
buckthorn
forest
had
developed
and
a
lot
of
buckthorn
in
there,
which
I
took
out
about
300
of
that
invasive
species
in
the
summer
of
2017,
and
then
my
wife,
as
we
have
explained
in
the
submission
we
look
to
put
in
a
native
a
natural
garden
and
try
to
take
out
the
noxious
plants
that
are
in
there.
M
The
the
main
concern
or
the
reason
we
wanted
to
encroach
into
the
setback
on
the
east
side
is
because,
if
we
shorten
up
and
pull
into
out
of
that
setback,
that
gives
us
a
shortened
length
of
traverse
across
the
hill.
And,
as
you
heard
from
mr
colas
there's
a
fairly,
it
is
a
fairly
steep
hill
and
we
wanted
to
see
about
getting
as
much
traverse
length,
both
in
a
direction
first
to
the
east
and
then
later
going
to
the
west.
M
So
as
to
take
up
some
of
that
distance,
we
think
that
if
we
are
required
to
pull
the
proposed
viewing
platform
and
hence
other
pieces
of
the
boardwalk
into
the
east-
or
excuse
me
to
the
west
further-
that
the
will
lose
some
of
that
traverse
and
it'll
actually
sort
of
crunch
the
boardwalk
pieces
so
that
it
it'll
make
it
more
likely
where
we
would
have
a
steeper
slope
on
the
on
the
traverse
or
have
more
stairs.
M
And
again,
we
were
hoping
to
avoid
that.
The
other
thing
is
the
platform
itself
is
not
going
to
be
big
enough
for
a
multitude
of
chairs,
where
we
would
have
many
people
up
there.
It's
just
basically
something
where
we're
hoping
my
wife
and
I
could
have
an
adirondack
type
chair,
one
of
us
each
and
but
still
have
enough
room
in
front
of
us.
M
So
if
someone
third
party
was
out
on
the
garden
with
us,
they
could
walk
in
front
of
our
feet
without
tripping
themselves,
and
so
we,
the
the
platform
itself,
is
really
only
six
by
eight
and
we
would
be
planting
other
natural
vegetation
all
around
the
backyard.
M
You
know,
including
the
places
where
we've
removed
a
lot
of
the
noxious
and
non-native
weeds
and,
and
so
the
garden
will
flush
out
over
a
period
of
years
and
really
be
a
wonderful
space.
What
we're
trying
to
do
is
we
said
before
create
a
space
for
birds
and
pollination
and
really
make
a
a
beautiful
place.
M
M
But
I
I
really
that's
our
our
concern
was
primarily
having
the
right
access
and
a
safe
access
and
also
trying
to
prevent
erosion,
and
we
were
concerned
by
pulling
in
from
the
east
setback
up
that
we
would
kind
of
exacerbate
some
some
problems,
and
we
didn't
want
to
do
that.
B
All
right!
Well,
thanks
for
that
testimony,
mr
kohlhas.
I
have
a
question
of
you
before
we
open
it
up
to
other
board
members.
The
variance
request
is
to
reduce
the
required
side
yard
to
four
feet.
B
And
so,
while
in
this
case
we're
we're
talking
about
a
walkway,
a
boardwalk
with
maybe
some
adirondack
chairs
put
on
it,
what
the
the
variance
itself
would
say
is
much
more
general
in
that
anything
could
be
built
there.
I
shouldn't
say
anything,
but
it's
more
than
just
a
boardwalk
that
could
be
built
within
that
required
yard
that
we
had
if
we
were
to
approve
it,
that
we
have
reduced.
Is
that
correct.
L
And
chairman
jerry
perry,
members
of
the
board,
I
believe,
that's
correct
and
I
apologize
by
misunderstanding,
your
question,
but
we
couldn't
necessarily
get
into
the
level
of
detail
of
how
many
chairs
they
have
on
this
platform.
But
the
request
is
for
this
platform
which,
as
the
applicant
stated,
would
measure
six
feet
by
eight
feet
and
that
that's
what
the
request
is
for
and
now
what
what
they
place
on,
that
on
that
platform,
such
as
chairs
or
plantings
or
other
matters,
are
not
necessarily
something
that
we
can
change
after
the
fact.
If
that
is.
B
Yes,
so
so
what
we're
really
doing?
If
we
were
to
approve
this
just
both
for
for
for
the
mr
ladner
and
for
the
public
listening
is,
we
would
be
approving
a
variance
that
would
be
reducing
that
required
side
yard
setback
to
four
feet
and
allowing
things
that
normally
would
be
prohibited
in
the
side
yard
setback
to
be
built
there.
B
Not
just
this
boardwalk.
It
happens
to
be
the
boardwalk
that
the
applicant
is
interested
in
building
with
some
chairs
on
it
right
now,
but
it's
a
broader
allowance
than
than
than
what
we're
talking
about
in
the
specific.
B
So
with
that,
I
would
ask
if
any
of
our
board
members
had
questions
of
mr
ladner.
B
B
I
think
you
are
the
only
person
on
the
phone
for
this
item
for
item
number
five,
and
so
is
there
anyone
else
just
to
make
sure
there
isn't
anybody
else
who's
come
online
since
we
began
the
discussion.
I
Yes,
chair
perry,
thank
you
for
that
clarification
and
exactly
what
that
setback
means.
That
being
said,
I
actually
do
agree
with
staff
findings,
and
that
is
the
end
of
my
comments.
N
Thank
you,
chair
perry
and
thank
you
to
the
staff
for
their
presentation
and
for
the
applicant
and
their
added
information.
N
I
actually
disagree
with
staff
findings
on
this
and
believe
what
has
been
presented
to
us
and
what
is
truly
practical
on
this
property
would
allow
for
granting
of
a
variance
to
the
side
yard
setback
on
the
east
side
of
the
property.
A
couple
of
the
things
that
note
from
a
practical
difficulty
standpoint.
N
You
know
this
slope
itself
is
extremely
steep
and
it
is
extremely
covered
in
in
vegetation
in
this
particular
area.
So
concerns
about
what
could
possibly
be
built
there,
I
feel,
are
significantly
mitigated
by
the
property
itself
and
looking
at
it,
this
isn't
a
standard
lot.
This
isn't
a
standard
flat
lot
that
could
have
a
lot
of
things
on
it.
N
The
property
itself
is,
it
would
be
limiting
to
what
could
be
on
there
and
what
could
be
covered
by
various
other
portions
of
the
code,
so
that
itself
gives
me
no
pause
or
or
no
concern
from
a
practical
difficulty
standpoint.
I
think
that
the
applicant
made
a
good
case
for
why
this
had
to
be
put
on
the
east
side.
N
This
way,
the
only
way
to
traverse
and
go
across
this
steep
slope,
you
have
to
start
from
the
west
and
move
to
the
east
in
order
to
make
a
turn
down
in
order
to
best
utilize
the
property
and
to
do
that
safely
and
securely
in
kind
of
the
most
organized
manner.
I
believe
what
they
presented
is
accurate,
so
I
think
the
practical
difficulty,
and
not
only
the
steepness
of
the
slope
but
the
location
of
the
existing
gazebo
in
the
in
the
backyard
causes
for
this
one
direction.
N
If
you
will
for
this
boardwalk
to
go
and
for
them
to
be
able
to
go
from
that
standpoint,
you
know
knowing
the
neighborhood
and
knowing
the
other.
You
know
the
area
around.
There
are
a
number
of
other
very
well
kept,
very
well
designed,
gardens
and
various
other
use.
You
know
in
intuitive
uses
of
these
properties
that
people
have
come
with.
I
think
what
the
applicant
has
done
is
reasonable
and,
I
think
fits
within
the
within
the
neighborhood
as
as
well.
G
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
tend
to
agree
with
staff
findings
on
this.
I
understand
why
the
west
side
is
a
unique
characteristic
because
of
the
existing
structure
there
and
the
the
stairway
and
the
gazebo
doorways
that
need
to
be
avoided.
The
east
side
is
this
is
new
construction.
G
Nobody
that's
going
to
use
this
area
is
going
to
get
there
without
going
down
some
steps
anyway.
So
I
think
staff
called
it
correctly
in
that
with
new
construction
of
variance
is
not
justified.
A
Thanks
chair
prairie,
I
agree
with
board
member
o'giva,
obviously,
and
I
I
think
they're
doing
the
best
they
can
to
make
this
property
usable
and
very
enjoyable.
And
I
believe
the
less
amount
of
stairs
that
we
build
is
the
less
amount
of
peers
that
will
disrupt
the
area
and.
F
A
B
I'm
seeing
no
one,
I
would
entertain
a
motion
from
someone
mr
ogiba.
N
Thank
you,
chair
perry,
I'd
like
to
move
notwithstanding
staff
findings
to
grant
the
variance,
as
requested
for
a
reduction
of
the
east
side
yard
interior
setback
from
seven
feet
to
four
feet.
If
staff
is
comfortable
with
the
comments
that
I
made
previously
to
the
findings,
I
would
move
those
if
they'd
like
more
detail.
Let
me
know.
B
B
Yep,
okay,
can
I
get
a
comment
from
st
staff?
Is
fine
with
the
the
the
comments
you
made,
mr
ogiba,
in
terms
of
findings,
so
with
that
with
the
clerk?
Please
call
the
role
so
just
to
be
clear.
B
A
vote
yes
for
the
motion
that
has
been
on
the
floor
by
mr
put
on
the
floor
by
mr
ogiba
means
that
you
would
not
be
supporting
staff
recommendation
and
instead
would
be
supporting
the
applicant
applicants
request,
and
this
is
for
we're
talking
about
all
three
motions
or
variances.
I'm
sorry.
N
B
C
D
A
D
N
D
B
So
with
that,
the
variance
requests
are
approved.
Mr
ladner,
good
luck
with
your
project.
B
Okay:
let's
proceed
now
to
agenda
item
number
nine.
Mr
cole
has
your
back
up
again.
L
Thank
you
chairperry
members
of
the
board,
and
could
we
again
pull
up
staff
slides
that
were
submitted
for
item
number
nine
in
this
case,
and
so
this
item
is
a
request
for
two
variances
one
to
develop
within
40
feet
of
the
top
of
a
steep
slope
in
the
shoreline
overlay
district
and
another
to
reduce
the
minimum
off
street
parking
requirements
from
13
spaces
to
nine
spaces
where
eight
spaces
are
non-conforming.
L
This
is
for
construction
of
an
addition
and
other
site
improvements
at
3343
east
bedemicoscope
park
properties
located
in
the
r1a
zoning
district.
In
addition
to
the
shoreline
overlay,
the
lot
area
is
approximately
17
300
square
feet.
The
surrounding
properties
are
generally
small
scale.
Residential
and
baday
makowska
is
located
directly
across
the
parkway
to
the
west
of
the
subject.
Property
next
slide.
Please.
L
This
is
a
survey
showing
the
existing
conditions
of
the
property.
The
front
is
on
the
left
side
so
to
the
west,
and
you
can
see
east
bada
makoska
parkway
there
again
on
the
left.
The
principal
structure
on
this
property
was
originally
constructed
as
a
single
family
dwelling,
but
it
has
been
occupied
primarily
by
the
minnesota
zen
meditation
center.
Since
the
1970s,
the
zen
center
is
considered
a
place
of
assembly
use
for
zoning
purposes,
and
they
are
the
applicants
for
these
variances
there's.
L
Also
one
lawful
dwelling
unit
within
the
principal
structure
on
the
subject:
property
as
well
the
traditional
front,
pedestrian
entrance,
and
actually
could
we
stay
back
on
that
last
slide
for
a
bit.
Thank
you.
The
traditional
front,
pedestrian
entrance
is
located
near
the
southwest
corner
of
the
building
and
is
accessed
using
a
set
of
concrete
stairs
in
a
walkway
leading
to
the
public
sidewalk.
L
In
the
front,
there
is
an
existing
parking
area,
access
from
the
parkway
on
the
northwest
portion
of
the
subject
property,
and
this
includes
a
one
stall
attached
garage
on
the
north
side
of
the
structure,
as
well
as
two
exterior
parking
spaces,
and
these
existing
spaces
are
non-conforming
to
the
minimum
size
and
location
requirements
of
the
zoning
code.
These
are
separate
from
the
eight
non-conforming
spaces
that
were
described
in
in
the
variance
request.
I'm
going
to
circle
back
to
those
later
in
this
presentation.
L
There
is
also
another
pedestrian
entrance
entrance
to
the
building
on
the
east
side
in
the
rear.
At
the
back
of
the
property
directly
adjacent
to
the
public
alley,
there
is
a
dirt
area
which
users
of
the
subject
property
have
used
for
austria
parking.
This
is
sometimes
referred
to
as
the
upper
alley
area
and
there's
room
for
approximately
six
vehicles
there
directly
west
of
this
dirt
area.
There's
a
four
and
a
half
foot
retaining
wall
with
a
wooden
fence
on
top.
L
These
are
all
located
on
the
subject:
property
at
the
bottom
of
that
retaining
wall
further
to
the
west
is
a
an
existing
gravel
driveway,
which
extends
the
entire
width
of
the
subject.
Property
and
again.
This
runs
parallel
to
the
public
alley,
but
is
a
separate
driveway.
This
driveway
is
used
for
vehicle
access
for
many
of
the
neighboring
properties
in
this
area
to
in
order
to
access
the
public
alley
around
that
that
retaining
wall,
this
gravel
driveway
is
sometimes
referred
to
as
the
lower
alley.
L
This
land
having
an
average
slope
of
18
of
greater
with
a
minimum
rise
and
run
requirements
as
it
relates
to
the
subject
property.
The
the
steep
slope
in
this
area
has
an
average
slope
of
approximately
19.9
percent,
and
the
existing
front
entrance
for
the
zen
center
is
approximately
37
feet
from
the
top
of
the
steep
slope
next
slide.
Please
again,
I
have
a
series
of
photos
just
to
show
some
of
these
features
on
the
property.
L
This
is
the
that
existing
front
pedestrian
entrance
with
the
concrete
stairs
and
walkway
at
the
southwest
corner
of
the
zen
center
structure.
Next
slide.
L
L
L
So
this
is
taken
from
the
east
side
of
the
public
alley
behind
the
subject
property
and
it
is
looking
towards
the
zen
center
building.
You
can
see
in
white
in
the
background
in
in
the
foreground,
it's
a
little
hard
to
tell
here,
but
there
is
a
cement
area
kind
of
in
between
these
two
sets
of
trash
bins.
That
cement
area
is
the
public
alley
on
the
far
side
of
that
is.
L
The
dirt
area,
which
I
mentioned,
is
typically
used
for
parking
by
users
of
the
zen
center,
and
on
the
other
side
of
that,
you
can
see
a
wooden
fence
which
is
on
top
of
that
retaining
wall
I
mentioned
next
slide.
L
This
just
shows
that
a
lower
alley
I
talked
about-
or
what's
referred
to
as
the
lower
alley.
It's
that
gravel
driveway
that
extends
along
the
the
width
of
the
subject,
property
towards
the
rear
and
again
this
is
entirely
on
the
subject
property,
but
is
primarily
used
by
users
of
adjacent
properties.
Next
slide.
L
L
Next
slide,
this
is
the
proposed
site
plan
prepared
by
the
applicants.
The
orientation
of
this
sheet
has
changed,
and
now
the
front
or
the
west
is
towards
the
bottom
and
north
is
to
the
left.
So
you
can
see
that
the
proposal
is
to
demolish
that
existing
attached
garage
on
the
north
side
of
the
structure
and
construct
a
new
addition,
which
would
be
766
square
feet
and
would
function
as
an
expanded,
zendo
room.
There
would
also
be
finished
basement
levels
faced
below,
including
exterior
access.
L
The
applicants
are
also
proposing
to
construct
a
set
of
wooden
entry,
stairs
and
landings
for
that
existing
entrance
near
the
southwest
corner
of
the
building
or
on
the
on
the
bottom
right
of
the
sheet,
and
they
would
also
reconstruct
that
front
parking
area
with
a
revised
parking
layout.
Other
interior
and
exterior
renovations
are
proposed,
including
main
level
restrooms,
some
accessibility
improvements
and
a
wooden
trash
enclosure
near
the
alley.
L
So
to
again,
to
summarize
the
variance
requests,
the
the
first
one
is
a
steep
slope,
variant
similar
to
the
last
agenda
item.
It's
previously
described
that
new
wooden
front
entry,
stairs
and
landings
would
be
within
40
feet
of
the
top
of
a
steep
slope.
So
therefore,
a
variance
is
required
for
that
proposed
development.
L
To
summarize,
the
the
parking
variance
is
a
little
bit
more
complicated,
so
I'm
going
to
try
to
go
over
what
factors
into
that
briefly.
First
I'll
mention
that,
in
order
for
a
parking
space
to
be
considered
for
a
parking
space
serving
a
non-residential
use,
excuse
me
to
be
considered
lawful.
It
needs
to
be
serviced
with
an
approved
material
as
designated
in
the
zoning
code.
L
The
zoning
code
requires
one
off
street
parking
space
for
the
dwelling
unit
on
this
property,
but
the
zoning
code
also
allows
the
parking
requirement
for
a
non-residential
use
on
this
property
to
be
reduced
by
one
space
due
to
the
provision
of
bicycle
parking,
which
in
this
case
is
in
the
public
right-of-way
in
front
of
the
property.
So
the
the
residential
parking
requirement
of
one
space
and
the
bike
parking
reduction
of
one
space
effectively
cancel
each
other
out.
What's
left
is
the
parking
requirement
for
the
place
of
assembly
use
and
create
go
to
the
next
slide?
L
Please
so
again,
I'm
bringing
up
the
existing
floor
plan
again,
as
it
does
relate
to
the
to
the
parking
calculation
so
for
place
of
assembly
uses.
The
zoning
code
sets
a
minimum
off
street
parking
requirement
equal
to
10
of
the
capacity
of
the
main
auditorium,
plus
any
rooms
which
can
be
added
to
the
main
auditorium
by
opening
doors
or
windows
to
obtain
audio
or
video
unity.
L
In
this
case,
the
zendo
is
considered
the
main
auditorium
for
these
purposes,
and
the
applicant
has
indicated
on
their
floor
plans
that
there
is
kind
of
the
main
hall
space
and
another
adjacent
room
further
left
on
this
page,
which
are
commonly
used
as
overflow
spaces
for
the
zendo.
So
those
the
occupancy
of
those
spaces
is
also
factored
into
the
parking
calculation
and
another
note
that
building
code
occupancy
limits
are
used
for
determining
the
the
capacity
of
these
spaces.
L
So
again,
the
existing
parking
requirement
is
based
on
the
existing
zendo
capacity,
which
is
a
total
of
109
occupants
for
an
existing
parking
requirement
of
11
spaces.
The
subject
property
currently
has
three
lawful
parking
spaces
for
an
existing
non-conformity
of
eight
and
again
to
break
that
down
a
little
bit
more.
The
current
requirement
is
11
spaces.
They
are
providing
three
one
in
the
attached
garage
and
two
in
that
front
parking
area
which
are
non-conforming
to
size
and
location,
but
are
still
lawful,
non-conforming
parking
spaces,
so
they
are
currently
short.
L
Eight
parking
spaces
based
on
their
their
current
requirement.
Next
slide.
Please,
and
we
can
stay
on
this
slide.
I
think
for
the
rest
of
the
presentation.
So
this
is
a
proposed
floor
plan
and
you
can
see
that
that
proposed
edition,
including
the
zendo
on
the
left
side.
L
So
the
applicant's
proposal
would
increase
zendo
capacity,
including
the
adjacent
space
designated
for
overflow,
a
total
capacity
of
128
occupants
for
a
minimum
parking
requirement
of
13
spaces
and
again
the
applicants
are
also
proposing
to
to
reconstruct
that
that
front
parking
area
and
redesign
it
in
a
way
that
would
reduce
the
number
of
lawful
parking
spaces
to
one,
so
their
actual
requirement
increases
by
two
spaces
from
11
to
13
and
the
amount
that
they're
proposing
to
provide
decreases
by
two
spaces
from
three
to
one.
L
So
again,
to
summarize,
the
zoning
code
requires
that,
when
the
intensity
of
a
use
is
increased
through
the
addition
of
gross
floor
area
or
other
other
changes,
parking
and
loading
facilities
shall
be
provided
for
such
intensification,
considering
there
is
that
existing
non-conformity
of
eight
spaces,
which
they
retain
their
rights
to
the
applicants,
are
requesting
a
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
off-street
parking
requirement
from
13
spaces
to
nine
spaces,
where
eight
are
non-conforming
so
again.
Thirteen
spaces
to
nine
spaces
is
that
net
change
of
four
to
talk
about
the
findings.
L
Oh
I'm
trying
to
spend
too
much
time
on
these
and
again,
there
are
some
shoreline
specific
findings
which
I'll
touch
on
briefly
towards
the
end,
but
for
the
steep
slope
variants,
the
first
finding
regarding
practical
difficulty
due
to
unique
circumstances,
the
property
staff
finds
this
is
met.
The
steep
slope
extends
within
40
feet
of
the
existing
building
entrance
of
the
southwest
corner
of
the
structure
and
that
40
feet.
Buffer
already
includes
the
existing
concrete
entry
landing
and
stairs.
L
L
Second,
finding
regarding
reasonable
use
of
the
property
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
attention
of
the
ordinance
in
the
comprehensive
plan
staff
finds
that
this
is
met,
considering
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
as
previously
described,
the
applicants
propose.
Entry,
stairs
and
landings
would
improve
access
and
usability
for
this
existing
entrance,
particularly
with
regard
to
building
code,
accessibility
requirements
and
staff,
finds
that
this
is
a
reasonable
use
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
to
provide
for
a
beneficial
utilization
of
shoreline
areas.
L
The
third
finding
regarding
essential
character
of
the
locality
and
potential
for
injury
staff,
finds
that
this
is
met.
The
proposed
walkway
again
would
improve
access
for
users
as
a
subject
property
and
would
largely
replace
existing
features.
The
footprint
of
the
proposed
the
proposed
stairs
and
landings
is
slightly
larger
than
what
is
existing,
but
would
still
remain
sufficiently
separated
from
adjacent
properties
of
the
public,
right-of-way
and
protected
waters,
without
creating
a
significant
potential
for
impact.
L
The
other
required
finding
excuse
me,
the
other,
require
requested
variants
to
reduce
the
minimum
off
street
parking
requirement
from
13
spaces
to
nine
spaces,
where
eight
are
non-conforming.
First
finding
regarding
practical
difficulties,
staff
do
not
find
that
practical
difficulties
existing
complying
with
the
ordinance
which
would
support
the
request
to
reduce
the
minimum
parking
requirement.
In
this
case,
the
subject:
property
is
relatively
large,
with
a
lot
area
over
17
000
square
feet
and
is
subject
to
a
maximum
impervious
surface
coverage
of
60
of
the
total
lot
area
and
for
context.
L
Considering
the
minimum
sizes
of
parking
spaces
and
drive
aisles
required
by
the
zoning
code,
providing
four
additional
off-street
parking
spaces
would
result
in
at
least
1
360
square
feet
of
additional
impervious
surfaces
above
what
is
already
proposed,
which
would
result
in
a
proposed
impervious
surface
coverage
just
under
42
percent,
still
well
below
the
maximum
of
60,
the
second
finding
regarding
reasonable
use
of
the
property
and
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
and
the
comprehensive
plan.
Staff
also
finds
that
this
is
not
met.
L
The
comprehensive
plan
does
have
some
policy
support
for
inland,
eliminating
minimum
off-street
parking
requirements
throughout
the
city,
but
today
no
amendments
to
the
zoning
code.
Implementing
that
specific
policy
have
been
adopted.
The
current
minimum
of
street
parking
requirement
in
the
zoning
code,
and
in
this
case,
specifically
for
place
of
assembly
uses,
is
constructed
to
anticipate
demand
for
parking
as
a
function
of
potential
capacity,
and
the
code
also
specifically
requires
the
provision
of
additional
parking
for
proposals
which
would
increase
the
intensity
and,
by
extension,
increase
the
potential
demand
for
parking.
L
So,
therefore,
staff
finds
that
the
proposed
variance
is
not
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
existing
zoning
ordinance
to
provide
off-street
parking.
In
response
to
anticipated
demand
based
on
the
proposed
use
of
a
property,
furthermore,
the
applicants
could
retain
up
to
six
additional
non-conforming
parking
spaces
along
the
alley,
provided
that
the
paved
that
the
area
was
paved
with
an
approved
material
such
as
asphalt
or
concrete.
As
a
zoning
administrator
determination,
the
the
third
required
finding
regarding
essential
character
of
the
locality
and
potential
for
injury
staff
finds
that
this
is
met.
L
L
The
applicant's
proposal
would
reduce
the
number
of
spaces
in
this
area,
which
should
reduce
the
potential
for
disturbance
of
the
adjacent
property
to
the
north,
which
is
a
single
family
dwelling,
and
there
is
limited
on-street
parking
available
on
the
parkway
near
the
subject:
property,
as
well
as
a
bicycle
parking
and
the
dedicated
pedestrian
paths
nearby,
which
provide
other
means
of
accessing
the
subject.
Property
now
to
touch
briefly
on
those
shoreland
findings
and
staff.
L
Findings
for
these
are
similar
for
all
all
requested,
variances,
the
first
finding
regarding
prevention
of
soil
erosion
or
other
pollution
of
public
waters.
During
and
after
construction,
there
are
portions
of
the
property
within
40
feet
of
the
top
of
the
steep
slope,
which
would
be
disturbed
for
installation
of
footings
for
the
new
wooden
front,
entry,
stairs
and
landings.
There
are
other
areas
of
the
subject.
L
L
It
is
sufficiently
separated
from
those
waters
by
the
the
parkway
itself,
runs
in
between
them
and
a
few
kind
of
micro
slopes.
So
it's
not
necessarily
one
straight
shot
downhill
into
the
water.
So
there
is
some
potential
for
mitigation
of
soil
erosion
from
reaching
the
lake
staff
recommendation
for
the
steep
slope.
Variants
includes
conditions
that
the
applicant
provide
and
follow
an
erosion
control
plan
demonstrating
best
management
practices
as
they
relate
to
the
new
wooden
entry,
stairs
and
landings.
L
Second,
shoreline
fighting
regarding
visibility
of
the
development
from
protected
waters.
The
existing
property
and
structures
are
already
largely
visible
from
the
protected
waters,
just
due
to
its
proximity
and
in
the
orientation
of
of
the
slopes.
In
this
case,
so,
though,
the
proposed
improvements
may
also
be
partially
visible.
E
L
Third,
finding
regarding
watercraft
this
does
not
apply.
Is
there
no
watercraft
proposed
as
part
of
this
project?
The
finding
regarding
is
existing
development
within
500
feet
of
the
proposed
development.
This
is
met
by
the
existing
structures
on
the
subject,
property
and
beyond,
finding
regarding
foundation
and
underlying
soils
being
adequate
for
the
proposed
development.
L
The
applicants
are
proposing
concrete
footings
and
again
the
applicants
attest
to
the
suitability
of
slope
conditions
and
soil
type
of
the
property
for
the
proposed
construction
methods
and
materials
for
the
last
shoreline,
finding
regarding
danger
of
falling
rock
mud,
uprooted,
trees
or
other
materials.
The
footprint
of
the
proposed
front
entry
stairs
and
landings
would
largely
replace
the
existing
features.
L
It's
a
little
bit
larger
footprint
and
would
come
within
a
few
feet
of
an
existing
retaining
wall
on
the
property,
but
the
the
retaining
wall
I'm
talking
about
is
less
than
one
foot
tall
and
the
the
new,
the
new
stairs
and
and
landings
for
the
entry
would
be
sufficiently
separated
from
any
other
rocks
or
significant
trees
in
such
a
way
as
to
not
create
any
substantial
potential
for
falling
materials.
B
Thank
you
so
much
for
mr
tolas
for
your
presentation
again,
like
the
previous
one,
quite
detailed
and
lengthy,
but
I
think
that
was
very
helpful
and
we'll
see
if
peop,
if
staff
board
members
have
questions
of
staff-
and
I
think
both
mr
johannesson
and
mr
ogiba
have
questions
so.
Mr
joe
henderson,
you
go
first.
A
Thank
you,
sir
perry,
and
thanks
again
for
your
presentation,
I
have
a
question:
if,
if
we
were
done,
if
they
were
required
to
put
in
the
parking
spaces
that
were
asking
how
much
square
footage-
and
I
mean,
does
it,
can
they
build
the
parking
lot
there
large
enough
to
meet
code
on
the
property
being
on
the
shoreland
and
and
etc?
You
know
what
I
mean
like
if
we're
making
them
make
this
parking
lot
as
it
should
be,
will
it
actually
fit
and
meet
the
code.
L
Thank
you
chairperrian
board
member
joe
henderson.
If
is
it
possible
to
pull
up
I'm
looking
for
a
slide
number,
I
think
this
is
slide.
Number
10,
that's
the
proposed
site
plan.
I
don't
know
if
we
can
pull
that
up.
Just
to
take
a
look
at
to
to
answer
your
question.
Staff
finds
that
it
is
possible
to
provide
those
the
required
parking
spaces
to
meet
the
code
requirement
and
again
the
the
way
that
that
parking
requirement
is
is
formulated.
This
is
a
little
bit
complicated.
L
L
That
would
be
necessary
for
something
like
this,
and
actually,
I
think
I
was
looking
at
either
the
maybe
the
slide
before
or
after
this,
but
but
again
providing
that
additional
parking
space
would
be
about
1300
square
feet,
or
so,
if
I,
if
I
recall
correctly,
and
so
they
would
be
well
below
their
maximum
impervious
surface
requirements
for
this
property,
they
have
about
20
percent
of
the
overall
lot
area
that
is
still
buildable
from
a
law
coverage
perspective.
L
There
are
some
setback
requirements
that
apply
to
off-street
parking
spaces
as
well,
especially,
I
think
on
that
north
side
they
have
some
setback
requirements
of
somewhere
in
the
seven
to
eight
foot
range.
I
believe
I
apologize
that
I
don't
recall
the
exact
number
off
the
top
my
head,
but
staff
does
find
that
there
is
enough
room
for
them
to
provide
again.
The
requirement
is
is
just
for
four
spaces,
because
that's
the
net
change
that
they're,
creating
as
as
part
of
this
proposal.
A
B
Okay,
thanks
for
the
question
mr
johannes
and
mr
ogiva.
N
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
Thank
you,
mr
claus,
for
your
presentation.
I
I
my
question
is
around
you
used
the
the
term
a
place
of
assembly
or
the
use
as
a
place
of
assembly,
and
I'm
not
as
familiar
with
that
that
particular
use.
Can
you
describe
that
a
little
in
a
little
bit
more
detail
to
specifically
what
what
the
definition
of
that
would
be?
I
may
have
a
second
part
to
that,
depending
on
the
answer
to
that
question.
L
Thank
you,
chair,
perry
and
board
member
ogiba
I'll
read.
The
definition
from
this
is
chapter
520
of
the
zoning
code,
a
place
of
assembly
and
also
the
title
here
also
as
comma
religious
institution
is
defined
as
a
church,
synagogue,
temple,
mosque
or
other
facility
that
is
used
for
prayer
by
persons
of
similar
beliefs
or
a
special
purpose,
building
that
is
architecturally
designed
or
particularly
adapted
for
the
primary
use
of
conducting
on
a
regular
basis,
religious
services
and
associated
accessory
uses
by
a
religious
congregation.
N
Great,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
that's
very
helpful
and
then
my
second
question
is
in
regards
to
the
requirements
for
parking.
If
I
understood
your
presentation
correctly,
the
the
capacity
of
this
the
the
equation
you
used
was
based
on
the
capacity
of
the
of
the
place
of
assembly
and
then
and
that
equation
that
led
to
the
number
of
spaces
that
were
required
for
the
property.
Is
there
any
consideration
given
to
any
public
parking
that
off
street
public
parking?
L
Thank
you
terpery
and
board
member
agiba.
There
is
no
provision
of
the
zoning
code
that
allows
for
a
reduction
of
the
minimum
off
street
parking
requirement
or
the
parking
requirement
on
the
actual
subject:
property
based
on
the
availability
of
of
nearby
on-street
parking
in
the
public
right-of-way
staff
findings
didn't
sort
of
take
that
into
consideration.
Just
regarding.
I
think
it
was
for
the
reasonable
use
of
the
property,
because
there
are
some
other
options,
including
you
know,
along
the
parkway.
G
Yeah,
thank
you
chair
perry
and
mr
kohas
for
your
presentation.
Did
I
understand
you
correctly
that
if
the
applicant
were
to
pave
the
dirt
area
adjacent
to
the
alley
that
is
currently
used
for
up
to
six
parking
spaces
that
they
would
consequently
meet
the
parking
requirement.
L
Chair
perry
board
member
sandberg
that
is
correct
again,
the
zoning
administrator
had
determined
that
and
to
provide
a
little
bit
more
context.
The
space
that
dirt
area
adjacent
to
the
alley
is
on
the
subject
property,
and
there
is
room
for
approximately
six
vehicles
there.
It
is
non-conforming
to
the
size
and
location
requirements
of
the
zoning
code
and
is
also
not
not
paved
within
an
approved
surface.
L
The
zoning
administrator
had
determined
that,
if
those,
if
some
or
all
of
those
faces
were
paid
with
an
approved
material
such
as
concrete
asphalt
or
or
papers
that
they
have
a
few
other
options,
then
they
could
count
towards
the
minimum
austria
parking
requirement
and
potentially
satisfy
this.
This
requirement
that's
outstanding
in
this
case.
E
Hi,
this
is
ted
o'toole,
co-guiding
teacher
of
minnesota,
zen
meditation
center
and
we're
expecting
wayne
moskowitz
is
the
chair
of
our
building
committee
to
make
a
presentation
wayne.
Are
you
here
today.
F
I
am
also
here
kimberly
johnson
administrative
director
of
the
zen
center
and
I
will
attempt
to
contact
wayne
ted.
Perhaps
you
would
like
to
address
the
concerns
begin
addressing
the
concerns
of
our
neighbor
hi.
B
To
to
keep
things
since
we're
done.
B
So,
to
keep
things
relatively
clear
on
the
phone
since
we're
all
on
phones
or
on
video,
if
you
could
speak
one
at
a
time,
take
turns
one
at
a
time.
H
B
H
H
Sure
so
I
will
address
the
practical
difficulty
finding
and
also
the
second
factor
about
being
consistent
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
before
I
do
so.
I
just
want
to
put
in
context
what
we're
seeking
so
we're
trying
to
keep
our
parking
area
about
the
same.
We
want
to
maintain
the
status
quo
of
our
parking
situation,
so
we
have
a
lower
parking
area
now,
that's
about,
I
think,
1200
square
feet
and
we're
not
really
seeking
to
reduce
the
number
of
spots
there.
H
The
only
the
maximum
number
of
spots
of
legal
spots
we
can
sit
in
that
area
is
one
because
the
requirement
for
a
22
foot
two-way
drive
aisle.
So
we
tried
to
fit
two
spots
in
there
and
it
doesn't
fit
unless
we
get
additional
variances.
H
So
by
keeping
that
parking
area
the
same
size
it'll
just
be,
we
can
only
fit
one
spot
and
the
other
spot.
The
third
spot
that
we
have
down.
That
area
is
the
garage,
but
the
garage
is
used
purely
for
storage,
so
we're
not
seeking
to
reduce
the
amount
of
parking
we
have
and
that
parking
area
is
used
by
the
occupant
of
the
house,
not
by
guests.
So
our
goal
was
to
not
have
to
increase
that
paved
area
and
our
other
goal
was
not
to
have
to
pave
over
the
spots
in
the
upper
alley.
H
H
We
use
our
yard
for
fundraisers
for
weddings,
but
also
we
really
believe
we
don't
need
the
bigger
parking
lot.
It's
just
not
necessary
because
we
have
plenty
of
available
street
parking
and
our
we
don't
believe
our
zendoo
edition
is
going
to
increase
the
need
for
parking.
The
zendo
edition
is
designed
to
accommodate
our
current
usage.
So
right
now,
at
most
we
get
about
40
to
60
people
on
a
sunday.
That's
the
one
day
of
the
week
where
we're
crowded
our
current
send
out
could
hold
about
30
people
comfortably
with
this
new
vendo.
H
We
can
fit
40
to
60
comfortably
and
and
so
we're
not
not
expecting
to
grow
by
adding
this
nuzendo
we're
not
like
a
restaurant,
where,
if
you
add
an
addition
and
lots
of
table
to
get
bigger
crowds,
we're
still
going
to
be
a
non-stream
small
religious
organization.
H
H
Also,
we
sit
on
cushions,
so
we
can't
fit
as
many
people
in
but,
moreover,
even
if
we
did
have
some
more
usage,
there's
still
plenty
of
street
parking,
and
so
our
membership
thinks
we
really
don't
need
additional
parking
and
just
to
be
clear,
it's
not
just
us
that
don't
want
this
literally!
No
one
wants
us
to
pave
our
yard
or
pay
for
our
alley.
No
one
wants
us
to
build
a
large
parking
spot,
so
our
immediate
neighbors
don't
want
us
to
do
that.
H
There's
one
ms
knutson,
who
submitted
a
letter
saying
that
supporting
our
request,
another
neighbor
mr
candidate,
submitted
a
letter.
I
hope
it's
in
the
record.
It
came
late
saying
he
doesn't
want
us
to
pave
the
alley,
our
neighborhood
organization,
the
echo
organization.
They
support
our
various
requests.
H
They
don't
want
us
to
pave
our
yard
and
build
a
bigger
parking
lot
and
they
don't
want
us
to
pave
the
alley
and-
and
the
issue
is
that
the
neighbors
feel
that
they
don't
want
to
increase
alley
usage
for
safety
reasons,
because
there's
children
playing
in
the
alley
behind
us
and
we
believe
our
local
council
person,
lisa
bender-
doesn't
want
us
to
increase
a
paved
parking
area.
We've
tried
to
get
in
contact
with
her
and
we
understood
that
she
supported
us.
H
And
it's
true:
we
could
fit
a
larger
parking
bot
in
there
to
us.
The
parking
lot
that
will
be
required
would
be
extremely
large,
so
maybe
it's
it
would
not
exceed
the
maximum
amount
of
impermeable
space,
but
it
would
double
our
current
parking
lot.
It
would
be
bigger
than
our
zendo
edition.
H
It
would
be
really
a
terrible
thing
if
we
had
to
tear
up
our
green
space
to
build
a
parking
lot,
and
you
know
our
staff
has
been
very
helpful
to
us
throughout
this
process,
but
I
respectfully
disagree
with
their
finding
that
we
haven't
shown
practical
difficulties
and
they're
looking
at.
It
is
there's
no
practical
difficulty,
because
you
can
just
build
a
big
paved
parking
lot
and
that's
true.
H
We
could
just
go
over
a
big
chunk
of
our
yard
and
make
a
parking
lot,
but
I
think
that's
that's
not
the
right
way
to
look
at
practical
difficulty
in
this
context,
for
two
reasons:
one:
it
ignores
a
dictionary
definition
of
difficulty
and
then,
more
importantly,
it
ignores
the
state
law
definition
of
practical
difficulty.
H
So
I'm
first
going
to
talk
about
the
dictionary
definition
which,
if
you
google,
difficulty
the
google
dictionary
says
it's
the
state
or
condition
of
being
difficult
which
isn't
helpful.
But
then
it
defines
difficult
as
one
is
needing
much
effort
or
skill
to
accomplish,
which
is
the
usage
that
staff
is
using
like
how
hard
is
it
to
do
this,
but
then
a
secondary
definition
is
characterized
by
or
causing
hardships
or
problems,
and
when
you
look
at
it
that
way,
having
us
pave
over.
H
H
It's
going
to
cause
us
to
increase
the
paved
surfaces
directly
across
the
street
from
the
day
makaska
and
convert
green
space
across
the
street.
From
the
daymataska
into
paved
surface,
which
increases
water
runoff
into
the
lake
and
it
harms
a
natural
environment-
and
this
is
a
problem
because
it's
contrary
to
public
policy-
and
there
are
four
public
policies
in
the
2040
plan
that
this
violates
policy
74
about
integrating
water
management
into
development.
H
An
action
step
is
to
encourage
and
require
reductions
in
amounts
of
impervious
surfaces,
and
then
policy
13
about
landscaping
require
landscaping
in
conjunction
with
new
development
that
complements
its
surroundings
and
enhances
the
built-in
built
environment.
H
So
the
action
steps
are
encouraging.
Larger
planting
areas
promote
landscape
areas
that
include
plant
and
tree
types
that
address
ecological
function,
including
the
interception
and
filtration
of
stormwater,
and
then
it
says.
Another
action
item
is
to
encourage
using
porous
pavement,
but
recognizing
that
parts
pavement
is
not
meant
to
be
a
substitute
for
ground-level
landscaping
of
sites,
as
landscaping
provides
both
a
natural
amenity
and
aesthetic
beauty
to
the
urban
landscape,
and
then
the
last
policy
that
building
the
parking
lot
would
violate.
H
So
that's
the
first
practical
difficulty
is
we're
increasing
paved
surfaces
directly
across
the
street
from
the
day
macoska,
which
the
city
doesn't
want
us
to
do,
and,
and
second
it's
particularly
problematic
and
impractical,
to
build
a
large
parking
lot.
Private
parking
lot
in
this
specific
location,
because
first
of
all,
going
to
residential
block
and
staff
mentioned
that
one
of
the
findings
and
favorite
granting
of
variants
is
that
it
would
reduce
the
disturbance
to
our
neighbor
to
the
north.
H
H
It
would
have
bad
traffic
issues
because
right
now,
the
only
way
to
turn
around
on
east
mukaska
parkway
by
us
is
to
pull
into
our
driveway,
because
there
are
concrete
barriers
on
the
parkway,
so
you
can't
turn
around.
H
So
if
we
build
a
parking,
a
bigger
parking
lot
that
you
enter
from
the
democracy
parkway,
it's
going
to
increase
people
pulling
in
and
pulling
out,
creating
a
lot
more
traffic
there
and
it's
right
next
to
a
pedestrian
crossway.
H
So
there's
already
a
little
bit
of
a
bottleneck
problem
from
people
turning
around
pulling
up
going
in.
It
would
be
a
lot
worse
to
have
a
big
parking
lot.
There
it'll
create
pedestrian
headaches
and
then
last,
as
mr
kulhaus
mentioned
this,
this
vegetative
slope
is
what
our
yard
is
it
slopes
towards
the
lake
towards
the
west.
The
area
of
our
parking
is
a
low
area
water
just
pours
in
there
right
now,
it's
absorbed
by
landscaping.
H
It
won't
be
absorbed
by
pavers
as
well.
So
the
second
practical
difficulty
is
is
creating
this
large
parking
lot
right
in
this
specific
area
and
then
the
last
practical
difficulty
is
paving
the
alley
spots.
For
all
the
reasons
I've
been
talking
about
about,
you
know
increasing
paved
areas
across
from
bidet
makaska.
H
This
has
the
additional
practical
difficulty
of
increasing
traffic
in
our
alley
in
this
residential
block
that
our
neighbors
are
complaining
about,
and
they
do.
Our
neighbors
do
not
want
us
to
pay
this
those
six
spots
because
they
believe
it'll
increase
usage.
H
Also,
those
spots
are
elevated
above
our
backyard
or
yard.
There's
a
retaining
wall
below
it.
Water
pours
over
that
retaining
wall
from
those
six
spots
onto
our
our
lot
and
then
towards
the
democracy,
would
only
make
that
issue
worse.
H
So
I
think,
if
you
look
at
practical
difficulty
in
the
context
of
its
secondary
meaning
of
causing
problems
causing
unnecessary
problems,
I
think
we've
shown
it.
Those
are
three
big
problems
that
would
result.
So
if
you
have
two
plausible
interpretations
of
practical
difficulty,
one
is:
could
you
do
it
yeah?
We
could
do
it,
but
the
other
is:
will
it
cause
necessary
problems?
H
I
think
you
should
use.
The
definition
that
leads
to
the
correct
result
leaves
the
reasonable
result.
It's
it's
the
only
reasonable
result,
because
nobody
wants
the
parking
lot.
Nobody
wants
to
save.
We
want
to
maintain
this
that
it's
called
parking
and
we
don't
need
it.
H
462-357
subdivision
6
for
n2
close
to
run.
This
is
the
state
law
that
governs
board
of
adjustments,
responses
to
variance
requests
in
municipalities,
and
this
statute
says
variances
may
be
granted
when
the
applicant
establishes.
There
are
practical
difficulties
in
complying
with
the
zoning
ordinance
and
then
it
defines
practical
difficulties.
It
says
practical
difficulties,
as
used
in
connection
with
the
granting
of
a
variant
means
one
that
the
property
owner
proposes
to
use
the
property
in
a
reasonable
manner,
not
permitted
by
the
zoning
ordinance.
H
H
Building
a
larger
parking
lot
or
paving
this
area
will
be
contrary
to
the
public
interest
as
such
work
from
the
2040
plan.
It's
reasonable
because
nobody
wants
it.
You
know
neither
the
landowner
nor
its
neighbors,
nor
the
city
council,
nor
the
neighbor
organization
wants
it
and
it's
contrary
not
just
to
the
policies
that
I
was
talking
about
with
regard
to
paving
green
space
near
lakes,
it's
also
contrary
to
specific
public
policies
adopted
by
the
city
council
about
parking.
H
They
don't
want
increased
parking
lots,
so
policy
six
is
to
regulate
land
use
and
site
design
to
prioritize
walking,
then
bicycling
and
transit
and
last
motor
vehicle
use
and
the
action
step
is
not
just
eliminate
requirement
for
off-street
parking
minimums.
H
H
I'm
sorry
amended
the
the
parking
ordinance
yet
zoning
code,
but
that
doesn't
mean
what
we're
doing
isn't
reasonable
doesn't
mean
we
have
to
have
blinders
on
them,
not
take
into
account
what
the
city
said.
Our
public
policy
is
and
then
lastly,
the
there's
a
public
policy
policy
number
16
about
addressing
the
environmental
impacts
of
transportation,
which
is
to
reduce
the
impact
of
using
cars
and
phase
out
fossil
fuel
vehicles,
and
so
an
action
step
is
to
disincentive
it
disincentivize
driving.
H
So
the
first
aspect
of
the
definition
of
practical
difficulties
that
is
our
proposed
use
is
reasonable
and
not
permitted
by
the
funding
ordinance
is
met.
What
we're
doing
is
reasonable,
because
it's
consistent
with
what
the
city
wants
us
to
do
and
what
our
neighbors
want
us
to
do,
and
then
the
second
aspect
of
the
state's
definition
is
the
plight
of
the
land
order
is
due
to
circumstances
unique
to
the
property
not
created
by
the
landowner.
Well,
this
is
due
to
our
location
across
from
the
dame
makaska
on
a
residential
block.
H
It's
not
due
to
anything,
we've
done
and
then
last.
The
last
aspect
of
the
state
statute's
definition
of
practical
difficulty
is
the
variance
if
granted
will
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
and
the
staff
has
made
this
finding
on
page
nine
of
the
report
and-
and
we
agree
with
it-
it's
true,
so
we've
made,
I
believe,
a
showing
of
practical
difficulties.
H
B
Mr
moskowitz,
you
you've
you've
been
speaking
for
quite
a
bit.
I
need
you
to
wrap
it
up.
H
Okay,
the
last
point
is,
we
believe
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
parking
code
is
met
because
the
spirit
and
intent
to
step
forth
in
the
purposes
which
are
recognize
the
parking
and
loading
needs
of
uses,
and
we
don't
need
this
parking.
H
Second
to
enhance
the
compatibility
between
parking
and
loading
areas
well,
turning
green
space
into
parking
isn't
compatible
and
then
last
to
promote
flexibility
and
recognize
that
excessive
offshore
parking
conflicts
with
the
city's
policies.
So
that's
we're
asking
for
the
for
flexibility
and
to
recognize
city
policies
and
staff's
approach
is
basically
the
city.
The
parking
ordinance
sets
forth
how
much
parking
is
needed,
so
you're
asking
for
less
than
that,
so
you're,
not
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance.
H
I
don't
I
I
don't
think
that's
the
proper
way
to
look
at
it,
because,
whenever
you're
trying
to
seek
a
variant,
you're
not
complying
with
what
the
code
thinks
that
you
need.
So
with
that.
Thank
you
for
your
indulgence
and
listening
to
me
and
that's
all.
I
have
to
say.
B
Thanks
thanks
for
your
testimony,
I
will
just
point
out
something
before
we
see
if
anybody
else
would
like
to
speak
or
if
board
members
have
questions
of
you,
that
we
are
not
a
policy
making
body.
B
So
what
we
have
to
work
with
not
withstanding
your
statements
about
us
complying
with
a
policy
guideline
document
which
was
which
is
the
master
comprehensive
plan,
but
we
have
to
look
at
what
the
ordinance
is
today
and
that's.
What
mr
cole
has
was
was
saying
is
that
the
parking
ordinances
are
what
they
are
today
and
as
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment,
not
being
a
policy
making
body,
we
have
to
work
with
the
code
as
it
is
whether
we
like
it
or
not.
B
E
I
would
like
to
briefly
address
three
ways
in
which
I
think
our
property
is
unique.
E
Some
of
them
wayne
referred
to
one
is
that
we're
the
only
property,
except
for
one
other
among
this
group
of
houses
on
the
east
shore
of
the
day,
makaska
that
has
a
driveway
entering
into
bidet
makaska
parkway,
so
we're
different
from
our
neighbors.
In
that
way,
that's
not
of
our
making.
F
I
E
B
N
Thank
you,
chair
perry,
and
thank
you
again
for
the
testimony
there
from
the
applicant.
I
have
to
admit
I'm
struggling
with
this
one.
It
it
seems
from
the
information
is
laid
out
by
the
city
that
there's
certainly
a
need
given
the
use
and
specifics
of
this
property
for
the
additional
parking
at
the
space.
N
However,
I
from
a
practicality
and
just
a
reasonability
standpoint,
it
seems
kind
of
ridiculous
that
we
would
want
to
pave
over.
You
know
whether
it's
1300
square
feet
or
thereabouts
of
surface
right
across
the
street
from
bidet
mikasa.
It's
seemingly
non-congruent,
with
the
the
general
thoughts
and
directions
and
everything
else
as
as
the
city
has,
has
guided
and
seems
to
be
leading.
N
So
I
I'm
struggling
through
here
as
I
go
through
my
notes
to
really
get
through
and
dig
down
to
specific
findings
again,
I
just,
but
I'm
also
in
my
head,
having
trouble
finding
directly
for
the
city
and
and
having
the
belief
that
that
is
in
indeed
the
right
approach
to
this,
however,
absent
the
ability
to
set,
find
those
or
commit
to
those
findings.
B
Thank
you,
mr
ogiba.
I
I
will
just
point
out
again
for
the
public
and
for
my
colleagues
we
represent
the
city,
so
we
are
the
city
at
this
point.
In
the
case
of
an
appeal,
you
would
again
be
working
with
the
city
council,
where
they
would
then
be
acting
as
the
city,
but
right
now
we
are
the
city,
mr
sandberg,.
G
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair
perry.
As
I
understand
the
situation
here,
I
think
the
applicant
has
an
opportunity
to
bring
some
of
the
currently
used
spots
up
by
the
alley
into
conformance
and
meet
their
requirement
for
not
requiring
this
variance.
So
with
with
that
understanding,
I
guess
I
would
support
staff
recommendation
that
they
find
a
way
to
do
it.
I
think
the
applicant
is
talking
about
paving
over
green
space
within
their
front
yard
or
right
off
the
street,
but
I
think
they
already
have
a
fairly
easy
approach
to
achieving
parking
conformance.
K
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
just
want
to
kind
of
echo
what
mr
sandberg
said:
board
member
sandberg
just
to
remind
everybody,
people
already
parking
in
the
gravel
upper
alley
and
if
it
were
to
be
paved,
they
talk
about
the
current
water.
Runoff
goes
into
their
back
lot
over
the
retaining
wall.
K
If
it
was
adequately
concreted
or
paved,
it
could
be
sloped
so
that
it
was
put
into
the
alley
and
brought
into
the
storm
sewer
system,
thus
negating
the
fact
that
it's
running
into
their
back
their
back
yard
for
better
word
and
just
a
question
for
staff.
Maybe
somebody
can
clear
it
up
for
me
what
happens
if,
when
this
project
is
completed,
we
allow
the
variants
and
it
changes
hands.
No,
the
applicant
no
longer
holds
it
and
we
allow
them
to
have
no
parking.
Does
that
variance
transfer
hands
once
it's
done?
L
Thank
you,
chair,
perry
and
board
member
hutchins.
If
there
were
another
change
in
the
use
of
the
property,
for
example,
changing
from
what
now
we
consider
to
be
a
place
of
assembly
to
a
new
ownership,
a
totally
different
use,
separate
from
place
of
assembly,
then
we
would
have
to
re-evaluate
their
proposal
and
apply
the
current
the
current
parking
requirements
that
would
apply
at
that
time
of
change.
L
Similarly,
to
what
we're
doing
now,
if
a,
if
the
minnesota
zen
meditation
center
were
to
leave
this
property
and
another
place
of
assembly
use
were
to
establish
here,
such
as
a
church
or
a
mosque
or
a
synagogue
or
other
religious
institution,
then
they
could
potentially
retain
the
same
rights
that
would
be
approved
under
this
variance,
specifically
regarding
the
parking.
B
Okay,
mr
hutchins,
do
you
have
a
follow-up
comment
to
that
or
yeah.
K
Thank
you
chairperry.
Thank
you.
I
just
because
of
that
fact
of
changing
hands
between
denomination
to
denomination.
They
talked
about
how
they
would
not
need
the
parking
because
of
the
type
of
services
they
provide.
The
square
footage
per
occupant
of
the
service,
where
other
religious
purposes
may
not
have
that
availability
of
space
per
occupant.
K
So
the
argument
that
all
will
we
sit
on
couch
cushion
or
we
sit
on
cushions
or
pads,
and
we
take
up
a
certain
square
footage
per
use
per
person
to
me
that
doesn't
carry
over,
because
if
we
give
it
give
this
variance
and
all
of
a
sudden,
the
occupancy
does
go
to
the
full
load
that
the
fire
marshal
would
allow
it.
You
can
get
four
to
five
times
as
many
people
in
there
legally,
with
now
even
less
parking
than
what
they
needed
for
the
reduced
usage
that
their
denomination
used.
A
Thanks
chairperry,
I
agree
with
sandberg,
I
think
a
pervious
paper
system
that
allows
vegetation
to
grow
or
allows
drainage
on
this
upper
area
where
they
obviously
already
painted
the
sign
or
they've
already
painted
parking
on
the
fence.
I
mean
it
seems
like
a
solution
to
me,
so
I
I
agree
with
sandberg.
B
I
saw
mr
hutchins
first
seem
to
second
the
motion,
so
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
of
that
motion
is
there
any
further
discussion
on
the
motion
seeing
none
with
the
clerk.
Please
call
the
roll.
C
E
K
D
N
G
D
B
So
that
motion
passes
and
for
the
members
of
the
zen
center,
that
means
that
your
request
is
denied
for
the
parking,
but
the
building
in
in
the
shoreline
overlay
district
is
approved.
B
You
can
see
mr
cole
has
for
what
your
options
are
going
forward,
which
you
can
do
after
this
meeting,
so
that
we,
with
that
we
have
completed
all
the
items
on
the
agenda
for
this
meeting
I'll
ask
members
and
staff
if
there
are
any
other
matters
to
come
before
this
meeting,
and
I
am
seeing
that
staff
is
saying,
there's
no
new
or
old
business,
and
so
without
objection.
I
will
declare
this
meeting
adjourned.
Our
next
meeting
will
be
october,
15
2020..