►
From YouTube: December 3, 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
december
3rd
2020..
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statute,
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.
C
C
D
D
B
C
D
F
D
B
D
C
B
G
B
There's
some
question
about
that
from
some
of
the
board
members-
and
I
can't
quite
remember
mr
hutchins
will
remember
it
probably
better
than
I,
but
I'm
wondering
if
any
items
have
been
are
in
the
queue
for
appeal.
G
Yes,
chairperry
members
of
the
board,
there
was
an
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
board
related
to
the
denial
at
47.
I
believe
47
28
knocks.
I
could
be
wrong
on
that
one.
That
was
the
one
where
the
there
was
some
incorrect
information
given
to
staff
originally,
and
then
the
building
ended
up
being
too
tall.
That
will
be
going
before
the
the
biz
committee
in
january
due
to
the
the
timing
on
everything.
So
I
was
going
to
update
then,
but
that's
a
good
point.
I
it
has
been
appealed.
B
B
We
have
both
of
those
on
our
agenda
to
to
today.
Consent
items
are
those
items
that
will
be
passed
without
discussion
by
the
board.
We
will
be
adhering
to
the
staff
recommendation
found
on
your
agenda
under
the
item's
recommended
motion.
Section
importantly,
any
applicable
conditions
will
be
listed
in
the
same
section.
If
you
agree
with
this
recommendation,
including
any
applicable
conditions,
you
need
to
do
nothing
and
the
board
will
pass
it
as
recommended.
B
Please
check
in
with
a
staff
member
assigned
to
that
item.
If
you,
if
you
have
questions
following
the
decision,
if
you
disagree
with
the
recommendation,
please
indicate
you'd
like
to
speak
against
the
item.
When
I
ask
and
we'll
put
it
on
the
discussion
agenda,
discussion
items
are
those
items
which
the
board
will
take
public
testimony
deliberate
on
and
make
a
decision
after
the
public.
Testimony
has
been
heard
for
each
particular
discussion
item.
B
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
for
that
agenda
item
and
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
and
act
on
motions
and
the
chair
only
votes
in
the
case
of
a
tie.
B
So
we
have
two
agenda
items
on
for
land
use
requests
agenda
under
item
number.
Five
is
5117
harriet
avenue,
and
this
is
a
discussion
item
agenda
item
number
six
is
728
8th
avenue
southeast.
B
So
I
want
to
note
there
are
four
variance
requests
for
this
item.
The
variance
request
to
increase
the
maximum
height
from
two
and
a
half
stories
to
three
and
the
requests
to
reduce,
reduce
the
required
number
of
off-street
parking
stills
from
for
from
four
to
one
are
both
being
withdrawn.
B
Approval
did
the
agenda
acknowledges
this,
and
no
further
action
is
required
by
the
board
staff
is
recommending
the
remaining
two
requests
for
the
consent
for
for
this
item,
variance
a
and
b
be
on
consent,
and
I
wonder
if
staff
could
just
give
us
a
brief
summary
of
that.
H
Thank
you,
chairperry
members
of
the
board.
The
two
remaining
variances
are
for
the
front
yard
along
eighth
street
southeast
and
eighth
avenue
southeast.
There
have
been
no
revisions
to
the
requests
for
those
two
variances,
so
at
that
time
those
had
initially
been
recommended
for
approval
by
staff.
H
B
C
B
B
Okay,
so
thank
you
for
that
and
I
think
the
I
don't
know
how
we
do
this
in
covid
times,
but
there's
some
recusal
paperwork
that
I
think
the
clerk's
office
can
get
to
you
to
fill
out.
Is
that
correct.
C
B
Okay,
so
we
have
motion
a
second,
the
recu
recusal
by
mr
finlesson.
Is
there
any
further
discussion?
C
C
B
I
I
So.
At
the
hearing
on
november,
12th
staff
presented
four
variants:
requests
for
reductions
in
the
established
front
yard
setback
in
order
to
accommodate
approximately
800
square
feet
of
patio
area,
a
62
square
foot,
in-ground
swimming
pool
and
retaining
walls.
The
applicant
had
also
originally
proposed
a
sport
court
as
well,
but
that
variance
was
withdrawn
in
the
slides.
You
can
see
the
original
site
plan
in
the
middle.
I
At
the
hearing
on
november
12th
board
members
requested
that
the
item
be
continued
in
order
to
give
the
applicant
an
opportunity
to
provide
an
updated
site
plan.
This
new
site
plan
reflects
the
current
scope
of
the
variance
requests
without
the
sport
court
and
without
the
adjacent
patio
areas,
and
that
site
plan
is
the
image
on
the
right.
I
Generally
speaking,
staff
has
not
revised
findings
for
this
variance
request
and
is
still
recommending
approval
of
the
variants
to
permit
construction
of
the
retaining
walls
and
denial
of
the
variances
to
construct
the
in-ground
swimming
pool
and
patios
in
excess
of
100
square
feet
in
an
established
front
yard.
Next
slide
please,
for
the
first
variants
for
the
in-ground
swimming
pool,
the
location
and
dimensions
of
the
swimming
pool
have
remained
roughly
the
same
as
the
first
site
plan.
I
Nearby
properties
staff
did
review
the
surrounding
environs
and
the
front
yards
that
are
visible
along
harriet
avenue
and
those
do
remain
unobstructed
green
space.
So
the
staff
is
continuing
to
recommend
denial
for
this
variance
next
slide.
Please,
for
the
second
variance
for
patios
exceeding
100
square
feet
in
a
required
front
yard.
The
new
site
plan
shows
approximately
470
square
feet
of
patios,
which
is
a
reduction
of
the
original
patio
size
proposed.
I
The
patio
is
now
limited
to
one
level
adjacent
to
the
front
entrance,
whereas
before
there
were
two
tiers
of
patio
space
staff
forwarded
findings
for
this
application
as
well.
Finding
that
variance
finding
number
one
had
been
met
and
variance
findings.
Two
and
three
had
not
been
met,
so
staff
is
continuing
to
recommend
denial
of
this
application
as
well.
Next
slide,
please.
I
I
Next
slide,
please,
for
the
third
variance,
a
reduction
in
the
established
front
yard
setback
for
the
construction
of
retaining
walls
that
do
not
maintain
natural
grade
the
location.
The
location
of
the
retaining
walls
has
been
slightly
altered,
so
only
one
portion
of
the
retaining
walls
is
remaining
to
essentially
create
the
flat
tiered
space
in
front
of
the
existing
home,
and
the
second
portion
of
retaining
walls
has
been
removed.
I
Staff
recommended
approval
of
this
application
in
november,
with
all
three
findings
appearing
to
have
been
met
so
relating
to
the
uniqueness
of
the
site,
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
comprehensive
plan
and
ordinance
and
the
essential
character
of
the
surrounding
area.
Next
slide.
Please-
and
these
are
some
examples
provided
by
the
applicant
of
the
retaining
walls
that
are
to
be
proposed
next
slide,
please
and
variance
d
for
the
reduction
in
the
establishment
year
at
setback.
I
B
Thank
you,
ms
roman,
so
we
did
have
a
bit
of
a
discussion
at
the
our
last
meeting
on
this
item.
So
I
I
think
what
I'd
ask
board
members
if
you
have
questions
of
staff,
to
sort
of
focus
in
on
those
areas
that
needed
greater
clarification
for
you
and
hopefully
that
clarification
has
been
provided
with
the
updated
site
plans.
B
I
see
none
and
with
that
we
will
open
the
public
hearing.
B
I
see
that
there
is
one
person
in
the
queue
to
talk
and
it's
the
applicant,
mr
turpin,
if
you
press
stair
six
on
your
phone,
you
can
speak
and
you
have
between
10
to
15
minutes
to
make
your
case,
noting
that
staff
is
finding
for
you
for
the
unique
characteristics
or
hardship
and
is
not
finding
for
findings.
Two
and
three
for
you.
J
Sure
thank
mr
chair
members
of
the
board.
Thank
you.
I
think
I
I
submitted
some
additional
documentation
and
included
some
images
as
well
and
kind
of
gave
an
overview
of
the
property.
I
I
think,
before
kind
of
responding
to
the
variance
items,
I
think
it's
important
to
look
at
how
the
front
yard
setback
line
is
designated
on
our
property,
because
I
think
that
that
plays,
very
importantly,
into
the
consideration
of
what
is
orderly
development
in
this
context
and
what
would
be
in
the
neighborhood
character.
J
And
so,
as
I
lay
out
in
my
the
document,
I
provided
the
the
line
that's
drawn,
that
creates
the
sort
of
technical
front
yard
line
bisects
our
home,
and
that
is
why
the
area
adjacent
to
our
home,
where
we're
proposing
the
pool
and
the
patio
area
are
technically
in
the
front
yard.
So
I
kind
of
call
that
our
our
technical
front
yard.
J
You
know
that
that
parallel
line
where
buildings
about
and
face
a
a
road,
you
can
see
that
that
this
would
be
adjacent
to
our
home
in
a
side
yard,
not
not
in
the
front
yard,
and
so
I
think,
we're
requesting
that
that
that
variants
alter
the
setback
line,
and
so
it
seems
odd
to
take
into
consideration
in
factors
two
and
three
consideration
of
that
that
very
uniquely
drawn
setback
line
when
considering
what
the
the
sort
of
neighborhood
characteristic
or
orderly
development
is
in
the
pictures
that
are
shown.
J
High
brick
wall
turret
that
that
is
in
front
of
the
home
adjacent
to
us
on
the
south
and-
and
so
part
of
that
is,
is
what
I
I
think
makes
more
sense
to
to
take
into
consideration
so
kind
of
with
that
overview,
as
you
said,
you
know
we
certainly
we
agree
with
the
staff
findings
on
the
variance
factor,
one
for
for
both
of
the
variances,
but
for
factor
two.
J
You
know
the
staff
file
findings
include
a
statement
that
the
spirit
antenna,
the
setback
or
ordinance,
is
to
create
orderly
development,
protect
residential
character
and
ensure
access
to
light.
They
do
not
include
any
statement
that
this
proposed
use
will
have
any
impact
on
access
to
light.
We
agree
with
that
that
a
pool
or
patio
would
not
have
such
an
impact.
J
They
do,
however,
state
the
proposed
pool
area
would
create
disorderly
development
and
would
not
protect
residential
character,
because
quote
traditional
built
form
includes
unobstructed
front
yards.
We
disagree
with
these
findings
because
this
proposed
use
does
not
significantly
deviate
with
the
current
development
in
place
on
our
block.
Nor
do
they
significantly
differ
from
the
residential
character
of
our
surrounding
property,
as
described
earlier.
J
The
setback
line,
define
that
defines
our
technical
front
yard
facing
harriet
avenue
is
highly
unusual
in
that
it
actually
bisects
our
home
with
the
majority
of
the
footprint
of
our
house
sitting
in
the
technical
front
yard,
facing
harriet
avenue,
no
other
property
fully
located
on
the
51
block.
5100
block
of
harriet
has
such
an
extreme
setback,
and
so
for
consideration
of
what
is
orderly
development
or
residential
character.
It
does
not
seem
appropriate
to
treat
all
of
the
technical
front
yard
the
same.
J
Even
if
this
differentiation
is
rejected,
the
location
these
proposed
items
and
these
elements
would
support
findings
that
these
proposed
elements
do
not
create
disorderly
development
or
deviate
from
the
residential
character.
Adjacent
properties
all
contain
significant
obstructions
between
that
are
located
between
the
buildings
and
harriet
avenue,
including
a
heavily
wooded
front
yards
and
one
12
to
20
foot
tall
stone
wall.
J
Each
of
these
are
substantially
more
obstructing
of
the
views
of
those
buildings
from
harriet
avenue
than
this
proposed
pool
and
patio
area
which
at
most
might
create
obstructions
of
a
foot
or
so
from
the
ground.
Additionally,
the
pool
and
patio
area's
placement
in
relation
to
the
distance
from
the
street
and
from
the
sidewalk,
both
both
measured
horizontally
and
vertically,
would
be
significantly
greater
than
other
pools
or
patio
areas
that
are
in
side
yards
or
backyards
and
surrounding
areas,
especially
those
that
are
placed
on
corner
lots
as
for
variance
factor
3.
J
While
we
agree
that
the
staff's
finding
that
the
proposed
pool
would
not
be
detrimental
to
health
safety
or
welfare
or
the
patio
would
be
detrimental
to
those
things,
we
disagree
that
the
staff's
finding
an
analysis
that
these
would
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
and
would
be
injurious
to
the
use
and
enjoyment
of
neighboring
properties
with
regard
to
altering
the
essential
character
of
the
of
the
locality.
J
For
many
of
the
same
reasons
that
we
just
that
I
described
earlier,
the
location
of
these
items
would
not
deviate
from
from
placement
in
similar
locations
in
similar
properties
near
us
again.
The
just
the
amount
of
distance
from
harriet
avenue
is
much
further
for
the
placement
of
these
than
in
patios
or
pools
that
are
located
in
in
other
properties.
J
J
Finally,
this
proposed
pool
and
patio
area
would
not
be
injurious
to
the
use
and
enjoyment
of
neighboring
properties.
The
staff's
findings
and
analysis
appear
to
suggest
that
the
visual
impact
of
the
pool
and
patio
area
alone
would
make
it
injurious
to
the
user
enjoyment
of
surrounding
cross
properties.
J
Similarly,
with
regard
to
the
property
adjacent
to
the
north
and
adjacent
to
the
house
and
and
and
adjacent
to
the
south,
our
home,
the
screening
and
or
the
topography
of
the
property
would
fully
screen
any
visibility
of
either
the
pool
or
the
padding
area
so
again.
For
that
reason,
we
also
believe
that
factor
three
is
met
and
and
based
on
that
reason,
we
believe
that
the
variance
should
be
granted.
B
F
Great
thank
you,
chair,
perry
and
thank
you,
mr
turpin,
and,
and
I
appreciate
your
patience,
understanding
and
and
additional
information
that
you
submitted
from
our
last
meeting.
So
thank
you
for
doing
that.
I
I
can
imagine
your
frustration
in
the
process
could
be
there.
So
again,
I
I
appreciate
you
doing
so.
After
reviewing
the
the
resubmittal
and
the
testimony
of
the
applicant
today,
I
certainly
disagree
with
staff
findings
regarding
what
I'll
refer
to
as
variances
a
and
b
specifically
items
findings.
F
Two
and
three.
I
certainly
believe
what
has
been
presented
by
the
applicant
in
their
resubmittal
of
the
plans,
definitely
appears
to
be
orderly
development.
I
think
it
is
certainly
reasonable
and
in
the
spirit
of
intent,
given
the
the
challenges
and
what
what
I
would
call
the
the
asymmetrical
nature
of
not
only
their
lot
but
of
of
the
neighborhood
right.
This
isn't
we're
trying
to
look
at
code
here.
That
applies
to
very
normal
lots
and
things
plotted
out
and
and
in
a
kind
of
normal
fashion.
F
F
Thirdly,
the
incentive
character.
I
don't
believe,
there's
any
visual
impact
from
this,
given
the
the
heights
that
are
there,
as
well
as
the
proposed
screening,
the
materials
that
will
be
required
to
be
used
that
were
shown
as
part
of
the
application
certainly
seem
to
fit
in
with
the
neighborhood
and
with
the
character
of
that.
So
from
that,
I
would
certainly
support
the
variances
a
and
b
for
for
the
applicant,
and
we,
I
certainly
agree,
then,
with
staff
findings
regarding
variance
c.
A
Thanks
chairperry,
I
agree
totally
with
the
board
member
o'giva
and
I
think
I
I
support
the
applicant
here.
I
I
don't.
I
you
kind
of
walk
up
and
down
that
street.
I
think
this
stuff's
gonna
go
away
and
you
know
we
all
know
the
setback
line
is
from
house
to
house,
but
this
is
way
more
than
what
we're
typically
used
to
seeing
and
as
a
board
member
agiba
said.
This
is
definitely
not
a
standard
lot.
So
I
support
the
applicant
here.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
agree
with
the
fellow
board
members
and
I
appreciate
the
applicant's
testimony
I'll
echo
again
that
we're
dealing
with
extreme
technical
definitions
here,
and
I
want
to
put
emphasis
on
extreme
and
I
think,
given
that
those
extremities
the
modest
size
and
of
their
projects,
really
fits
into
the
scale
of
the
neighborhood
and
the
property
that
they
have.
E
F
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
If,
if
possible,
chair
perry,
are
you
comfortable
with
me
combining
variances,
a
b
and
c
all
into
one
motion
sure
all
right
so
breaking
that
up?
F
Based
on
the
definitions
of
of
the
variances,
a
b
and
c
in
the
agenda
regarding
variances
a
and
b,
notwithstanding
staff's
findings,
I
would
move
to
approve
the
variance,
as
requested
by
the
applicant,
on
the
grounds
that,
as
staff
found
there
are,
there
are
agreeing
with
staff
that
there
are
practical
difficulties
and
then,
echoing
my
previous
comments,
that
the
applicant
has
presented
a
project
that
is
an
orderly
development,
reasonable
and
fits
the
spirit
intent
of
the
ordinance
based
on
the
asymmetrical
nature
of
this
portion
of
the
city
and
his
neighborhood,
and
also
regarding
finding
three
that
there
is
limited
visual
impact
from
this
project
and
from
the
proposal
of
the
applicant
and
that
it
would
fit
within
the
essential
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
then.
E
C
D
C
A
D
C
B
Is
I
was
just
going
to
say,
as
others
have
said,
thanks
for
your
patience
as
we
carried
this
over
for
an
extra
cycle.
A
Yeah,
I
just
we,
I
reapplied
what's
the
status
of
the
reapplications,
and
this
is
the
last
month
of
the
year
and
how
is
all
that
going
what's
going
on,
I
could
get
an
update.
Please.
G
I'm
not
sure
if
rachel
can
either
I
haven't,
heard
anything
out
of
the
clerk's
office
related
to
it.
So
we'll
have
to
follow
up
on
that
our
intention,
although
we're
always
looking
for
good
candidates,
you
know,
there's
been
obviously
no
issues
with
any
of
the
members
with
any
of
the
board
members
and
there
were
no
voluntary
vacancies,
so
our
intention
was
to
have
all
of
those
just
reappoint
everyone
reappointed.
However,
I
haven't
heard
back
from
them,
so
we'll
give
you
an
update
via
email
here
as
soon
as
we
can.
A
B
Okay,
anything
else.
Anybody
have
okay
hearing,
none
without
objection.
I
will
declare
this
meeting
adjourned.
Our
next
meeting
will
be
january,
7th
2021.
Thank
you.
Everyone.