►
From YouTube: July 9, 2020 Zoning Board of Adjustment (FULL)
Description
Minneapolis Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Board/Agenda/ZBA/1744
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/
B
Okay,
good
afternoon,
everyone
welcome
to
this
live
broadcast
of
our
virtual
meeting
today
july
9th
2020.
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statute.
Section
13d
point
zero,
two
one
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.
I'll
now
call
this
meeting
to
order
and
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role
so
that
we
may
verify
the
presence
of
quorum.
C
E
F
E
B
H
G
B
H
B
H
B
B
B
We
will
be
adhering
to
the
staff
recommendation
found
on
your
agenda
under
the
item's
recommended
motion
section,
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
B
So
what
are
discussion
items?
These
are
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.
I
will
call
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
and
act
on
motions
and
the
chair
only
votes
in
the
case
of
a
tie.
B
B
B
B
B
B
D
D
B
I
I
This
is
a
mid-block
parcel
near
lake
of
the
isles,
approximately
6
909
square
feet
in
area
that
is
currently
vacant
with
an
abandoned,
curb
cut
as
an
aside
staff
is
recommending.
If
the
board
should
move
to
approve
this
item,
staff
would
recommend
an
application
or
a
condition
of
approval
that
the
the
curb
could
be
closed.
I
I
I
However,
the
state
department
of
natural
resources
does
have
stricter
rules
that
cities
must
abide
by
in
proximity
to
protected
waters,
in
this
case,
like
the
isles,
so
because
the
property
is
in
the
shoreland
overlay
district
does
not
qualify
for
any
sort
of
exemptions
that
would
normally
be
excluded
from
from
the
height
calculation
staff
finds
that
there
are
not
practical
difficulties
on
the
site.
Related
to
this
specific
request.
I
Properties
are
allowed
as
standard
676
square
feet
of
space
devoted
to
accessory
structures
for
parking.
This
can
be
increased
to
10
percent
of
the
lot
area,
not
to
exceed
1
000
square
feet,
where
that
is
where
the
light
area
is
greater
than
where
10
of
the
light
area
would
be
greater
than
676
square
feet.
The
subject
property
would
be
allowed
690
square
feet
of
of
garage
space
under
the
ordinance
as
written.
I
Both
variances
meet
the
required
findings
for
development
in
the
shoreline
overlay,
district
erosion
control
measures,
view
from
the
water
and
generation
of
watercraft,
given
that
neither
of
these
variances
has
met
all
three
findings.
Staff
does
recommend
that
the
board
deny
the
applications
and
I'm
available
for
questions.
K
K
K
Okay,
thank
you,
so
I'll
just
go
through
kind
of
my
thoughts
on
this
and
then
take
any
questions.
I
I
think
that
you
know
these.
These
developments,
for
the
duplexes,
obviously,
is
something
that
the
2040
plan
has
encouraged
and
and
will
be
open
questions
for
you
and
the
city
moving
forward.
This
is
a
location
that
would
have
allowed
it
before,
as
this
is
in
a
a
row
of
duplexes
and
triplexes
and
quads
along
irving
avenue,
and
in
these
tiles
and
I've
seen
you
know,
the
2040
plan
is
is
really
looking
to
address.
K
And
I
think
that
this
is
one
of
those
central
questions
that
is
unanswered.
As
of
yet
is
how
do
we
increase
density
specifically
within
the
neighborhood
such
as
this
that
have
higher
property
values,
because
they
would
definitely
support
single-family
homes?
And
if
we
are
going
to
encourage
or
allow
duplexes
or
triplexes
that
we
need
to
allow
parking,
that's
going
to
be
adequate
for
those,
and
indeed
this
is
an
area
surrounding
that
already
has
parking
to
provided
for
most
of
these
properties.
K
So
you
do
see
larger
carriage
houses
or
garages
that
exceed
those
minimums
or
are
excusing
maximums
on
surrounding
properties.
So
this
is
something
that,
over
time
over
history,
even
when
the
code
was
different,
it
was
being
supported
that
families
have
two
cars
and
the
question
is:
are
we
gonna
have
the
park
in
the
street?
Are
we
gonna
have
the
park
in
the
garage?
K
I
think
that
I
disagree
respectfully
with
with
staff
and
their
interpretation.
I
I
think
that
the
intent
of
the
code
to
me
has
always
been,
and
justly
so
is
to
limit
the
size
and
scale
of
garages
and
and
that's
absolutely
important.
We
never
want
houses
attached
to
garage
garages
or
have
garages
seem
overpowering
in
any
way.
K
We
actually
initially
had
a
proposal
that
didn't
come
before
you,
but
that
had
a
tuck
under
here
utilizing
that
access
off
irving
and
then
also
the
access
off
the
alleyway
in
order
to
provide
underground
parking
that
was
not
supported
by
the
staff
as
well,
because
of
that
curb
cut.
So
with
a
push
back
there,
we
revised
it
in
order
to
try
to
provide
that
that
needed
parking
that
would
not
be
on
street
parking
through
the
back.
K
And
I
say
the
the
scale
you
know
we're
we're
under
the
maximum
far
here,
so
we
could
have
a
larger
building,
but
even
because
they're
attached,
these
garages
are
counted
within
the
overall
far
and
we're
under
what
that
limitation
is.
So
we're
not
increasing
the
size
or
asking
for
far
variance
beyond
what
we'd
be
allowed
because
of
it,
and
we
do
have
that
administrative
bonus,
because
there's
all
of
these
series
of
larger
duplexes,
triplex's
quadplexes
along
along
this.
K
Area
on
the
regarding
the
height-
I
think,
that's
you
know.
That's
one.
We've
worked
on
a
number
of
projects
over
the
years
where
there
is
this
roof
access,
and
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
like
it
as
a
designer
is
because
it
allows
us
to
justify
green
groups.
It's
always
a
hard
sell
to
our
clients,
because
it's
something
you
have
it
on
that
upper
those
upper
roofs.
You
can't
see
it
and
it's
a
huge
investment
for
things
that
people
can't
see
having
access
up.
K
K
K
We
don't
there's
they're,
not
tall
enough
way
heights
measured
to
qualify
for
administrative
exemption
to
go
higher,
but
we
are
less
massive
than
those
surrounding
homes
and
indeed
the
top
of
this
railing,
which
we,
which
were
designed
to
be
all
glass,
is
below
those
those
surrounding
ones.
So
I
think
the
challenge
here
for
staff-
and
you
know
the
challenge
for
us-
is
to
understand.
Why
is
this
a
practical
difficulty?
Not?
Why
is
it
reasonable?
K
Because
you
can't
see
it
and
it
doesn't
have
an
impact
on
the
on
the
lake
and
it's
below
what
those
surrounding
structures
are,
so
it?
You
know,
and
I
think
that
this
is
something
we've
run
into
before,
where
there's
a
challenge
of
how
to
create
this
access
for
structures
that
are
that
are
modern,
that
don't
have
gable
roofs,
and
so
this
is
something
we've
been.
B
B
K
Yes,
I
I
understand
I
understand
like
this-
is
a
conversation
we've
had.
Maybe
before
mr
perry,
I
I
think
it's
you
know,
and
this
is
something
that
before
I
just
answer
that
I
think
it's
something
that
is,
we
do
mostly
residential
work
as
a
firm.
We
do
do
some
commercial
work
and
there's
definitely
a
different
attitude
on
commercial
projects,
rightly
or
wrongly,
in
terms
of
how
how
that
code
is
interpreted
and
and
when
you
know,
I
think
it's
looking
at
the
garages
specifically.
You
know
I
look
at
this
at
this.
K
It's
not
just
first.
Does
it
have
a
practical
difficulty
period,
but
does
reasonable
development
of
this
property
create
a
practical
difficulty?
Is
it
practically
difficult
to
create
a
reasonable
project-
and
I
think
in
this
case,
when
we're
looking
at
a
duplex
in
order
to
provide
the
parking,
that's
needed,
and-
and
this
is
the
same
way
as
if
you
had
a
you
know-
we
have
a
lot
with
some
really
significant
front
setbacks
that
makes
it.
Could
you
put
a
miniature
house
there?
K
Yes,
you
could,
but
it's
definitely
been
something
that
that
has
been
seen
as
a
practical
difficulty
to
do.
A
reasonable
development
in
order
to
go
into
a
front
setback
when
that
is
otherwise
significant
or
limit
some
type
of
reasonable
development
there,
and
so
I
think
in
the
in
the
case
of
a
duplex,
which
is
supported
by
both
its
underlying
zoning
and
now
the
new
2040
plan,
which
has
changed
all
of
them.
K
It
requires
that
the
so
that's
how
I
would
answer
that
on
the
first
one
and
the
second
one
I
was
alluding
to
it,
which
is
that
there's
a
practical
difficulty
in
a
flat
rift
structure,
and
I
would
try
to
differentiate
that
from
just
the
code
is
what
the
code
is,
but
that
putting
that
on
and
accessing
that
structure
is
is
a
challenge,
and
it's
certainly
a
challenge.
That's
been
recognized
on
many
prior
occasions
with
with
developments
that
are
either
taller
or
more
noticeable
from
the
lake
than
what
ours
is.
L
Thank
you,
chair
mary
and
mr
keller.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
presentation
similar
to
chair
perry,
I'm
still
searching
for
the
practical
difficulty
that
you're
trying
to
articulate-
and
I
know
we-
you
spoke
generally
about
flat
roofs
being
a
challenge,
but
if
you
can
expand
a
little
bit
more
on
what
exactly
it's
is
a
concrete,
practical
difficulty.
I
know
I
would
appreciate
it.
I
think
the
rest
of
the
board
would
appreciate
it.
L
K
K
K
There
is,
and
I'm
sorry
that
the
technology
challenge
here
of
not
being
able
to
control
the
presentation,
but
in
your
packet
you'll,
see
an
image
that
shows
a
gable
roof
kind
of
dotted
in
in
the
front
elevation
with
the
with
the
railings
and
that's
alluding
to
any
gable.
Roof
structure
can
go
up
higher
than
the
28
feet.
K
So
when
you're,
so
you
can,
you
can
design
in
a
half
story
above
that
maybe
over
portions
of
it
that
allows
you
to
go
out
and
in
that,
in
those
cases
the
railing
has
not
been
counted
by
as
a
as
a
height
of
a
structure.
It's
been
simply
the
midpoint
and
the
peak
of
that
roof
we're
going
through
a
flat
roof.
The
railing
is
now
being
counted
within
that.
K
L
K
K
This
is
one
that
is
important
because
it
you
know,
I
think,
personally,
that
increased
density
in
a
sense
in
a
way
is
a
positive
thing
for
us
as
a
city,
and
I
think
that
shouldn't
just
happen
in
in
neighborhoods
with
lower
property
values,
and
I
think
that's
something
that
should
happen
in
my
neighborhood
as
well,
and
just
how
do
we
do
that?
And
this.
M
K
B
Thanks
for
that
comment,
I
will
add
that
the
2040
plan,
regardless
of
what
one
thinks
of
it,
really
de-emphasizes
the
use
of
automobiles.
So
there
is
a
call
for
increased
density
while
there
is
at
the
same
time,
de-emphasizing
of
automobiles,
so
it
has
there's
actually
two
components
to
it
and
I
am
familiar
with
the
market.
So
I
I
understand
where
you're
coming
from.
K
And
and
the
other
neighbors
too,
I
think
that's,
that's
that's
the
because
the
question
is
how
supported
can
it
be,
and
if
so,
how
does
it?
And
I
think
that
the
neighborhood
support
of
this
typically,
they
would
indicate
they
have
no
objection,
but
but
actually,
in
both
instances,
they've
they've
enthusiastically
supported
it
and
recommended
it,
and
I
think
that's
a
reflection
of
why
they
their
feedback
to
council
and
others
in
terms
of
where
they
see
the
values
lie.
At
least
in
this
in
this
neighborhood.
B
B
B
B
G
G
G
G
H
D
Yeah,
I
tend
to
agree
with
mr
finlayson
on
this
one.
It
doesn't
feel
like
with
new
construction.
There
is
the
need
for
a
variance
for
parking.
I
know
it's
near
a
lot
of
public
use
spaces,
but
you
think
about
all
the
buildings
downtown.
You
think
about
all
the
apartment
buildings
we
have
all
over
the
city.
Don't
have
two.
B
D
L
N
So
that
makes
me
think
that
the
idea
is
to
build
duplexes,
but
not
have
all
the
parking
that
comes
with
duplexes,
which
I
think
two
cars
per
household
say.
If
there's
you
know
two
people
living
in
each
duplex
that
one
can
make
an
argument
for
that,
whether
or
not
it's
realistic
that
a
duplex
would
only
need
two
cars
and
therefore
only
one
of
those
garage
spaces.
N
But
at
the
same
time
I
feel
like
the
garage
itself
is
only
a
hundred
feet
or
so
larger
than
what
it's
supposed
to
be.
And
I
I
don't
that
doesn't
bother
me
as
much
as
being
forced
to
use
street
parking
and
struggling
to
do
so
and
that
impacting
the
businesses
and
neighborhoods
in
the
in
the
previous
statement.
So
I
would
also
be
in
favor
of
granting
the
variances.
G
Yeah,
thank
you,
mr
chair,
just
one
other
point
that
I
observed
in
this
application,
and
that
was
that
the
parking
structure
is
not
a
standalone
parking
structure
which
I
think
the
ordinance
is
trying
to
alleviate
in
in
city
lot.
It's
really
integrated
into
the
living
space,
and
so
I
think
it's
really
part
of
the
part
of
one
structure
and
if,
if
that,
if
those
parking
areas
were
not
used
for
parking,
they
could
be
used
for
living
space
with
the
same
amount
of
building
mass.
That
is
permitted.
G
G
M
E
D
H
C
M
B
I
Approximately
7
500
square
feet
close
to
the
mississippi
river
and
their
proposal
is
to
construct
a
two-story
rear
edition
with
an
attached
garage
and
a
carport
on
the
main
level
and
then
living
space
above
side
yard
setback
is
determined
by
the
width
of
the
lot
at
the
district
front
yard
setback.
So
in
this
particular
case
that
would
be
25
feet
back
from
the
front
lot
line
is
where
we
take
the
width
mother
measurement
for
the
purpose
of
determining
the
side
yard
setback.
I
At
that
point,
this
property
is
90
feet
wide,
which
results
a
side,
yard
setback
of
10
feet.
The
north
side
is
taking
advantage
of
a
provision
in
the
ordinance
which
allows
non-conforming
existing
non-conforming
setbacks
to
expand
along
that
plane,
but
the
south
side,
along
that
public
alley
is
where
the
variance
is
requested.
I
You
can
move
on
to
yep
that
side
staff
finds
that
practical
difficulties
do
exist.
It
could
back
up
a
slide.
Please.
The
plotting
of
the
lot
is
unique.
Due
to
the
angled
alleyway,
you
can
see
here
the
blue
triangle
kind
of
outlines
where,
where
they
would
be
able
to
build
without
the
variants,
so
you
can
see
towards
the
towards
the
rear
towards
the
right
on
the
screen.
I
I
If
we
could
advance
to
the
next
slide,
please
staff
finds
that
this
does
meet
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance.
As
I
mentioned,
their
request
is
to
vary
the
side
yard
down
to
five
feet,
which
is
kind
of
the
the
side
yard
setback
that
we
see
and
the
the
overwhelming
majority
of
lots
in
city
in
the
city
of
minneapolis,
some
of
which
also
have
alleys
along
their
interior
sides.
I
Five
feet
is
also
the
standard
requirement
for
the
rear
yard
setback
for
properties.
You
know
what
which
have
a
an
alley
along
the
back
staff
also
finds.
I
think
you
could
advance
a
slide.
Please,
staff
minds
of
the
proposal
will
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality,
does
not
present
a
detriment
to
health,
safety
or
welfare.
I
It
is
not
injurious
to
the
use
or
enjoyment
of
properties
in
the
vicinity
similar
to
the
last
one.
This
property
is
also
in
the
shoreland
overlay
district.
If
you
could
advance
a
slide,
please,
and
this
proposal
beats
all
those
standard,
shoreland
overlay
district
findings.
There
doesn't
present
a
danger
of
erosion,
won't
be
visible
from
the
river.
It
is
not
anticipated
to
generate
any
watercraft,
so
staff
recommends
that
the
board
move
to
approve
the
application
with
the
standard
conditions
of
approval.
B
B
F
Okay,
yes,
I
have
really
nothing.
I
you
know
thank
you
to
miss
brandt
and
the
staff
and
and
to
this
board
for
hearing
our
application.
I
I
think
she
did
a
very
thorough
she.
She
captured
exactly
what
we're
trying
to
do
in
the
spirit
of
our
request,
we're
kind
of
hampered
by
a
triangular
lot,
where
the
code
makes
the
measurement
at
the
widest
portion
and
we're
just
requesting
a
setback.
J
B
A
Personally,
I'm
the
building
contractor-
and
I
just
wanted
to
you-
know,
definitely
point
out
again
that
the
difficulties
with
the
side
set
backs
would
be,
and
then
the
intent
of
the
spirit
would
be
not
to
overwhelm
the
property
but
reduce
the
overall
appearance
of
the
property.
With
the
addition
and
con
and.
D
B
J
M
J
I'm
I'm
sorry
I'm
having
telephonic
difficulties.
This
is
jeff
shea.
I
live
at
3552,
edmond
boulevard
and
I
don't
have
an
objection
more,
a
question
and
clarification
or
several,
I
think
my
main
question
was
just
answered
by
the
gentleman
who
spoke
right
before
me,
whose
name
I
do
apologize.
I
I
did
not
write
down,
but
I
want
to
confirm
that
the
existing
detached
garage
is
in
fact
going
to
be
torn.
J
A
J
And-
and
I'm
wondering
it
appears
that
there
is
a
larger
driveway
contemplated
both
for
the
carport
and
for
the
the
two-car
garage,
that's
being
built,
so
that
what
I'm
looking
for
is
confirmation
that
there's
a
large
enough
driveway
that
a
car
could
be
parked
there.
So
it
will
not
be
encroaching
on
the
alleyway,
as
has
been
done
in
the
past.
A
Yes,
mr
shea,
that's
correct,
the
driveway
will
be
large
enough
for
at
least
the
car
too,
into
the
driveway,
and
the
purpose
of
the
carport
was
to
also
provide
parking
space
off
the
alleyway
and
off
the
street,
as
well
as
a
covered
garage.
That
would
then
conceal
any
of
the
owners.
You
know
another
car
and
then
also
trash
cans
and
and
other
things.
You
know
lawn
mowers
and
such
you
know,
kind
of
hidden
away
from
from
the
neighborhood.
J
B
F
Yes,
mr
say
I'll
come
and
speak
to
you
about
it
personally,
but
just
so
you
know
when
the
when
the
garage
is
eliminated,
the
actual
amount
of
con,
the
space
back
there
for
driveway
will
actually
be
increased.
So
you
know
any
cars
parked
there.
We
actually
have
more
space
and
on
the
structure
of
the
garage
portion
will
actually
not
come
out
any
further
to
the
south
than
the
existing
garage
wall
does
so
in
almost
every
way
it's
going
to
be
better
than
it
was
before
from
your.
J
And
I
appreciate
that
and
that's
what
it
looked
like
from
the
drawings
like
I
said
I
wasn't
sure
if
the
garage
was
coming
out.
I
figured
that
was
the
case
and,
and
I
apologize
for
not
coming
over
and
talking
with
you
directly,
I
just
saw
the
the
printed
or
my
wife
sent
me
a
picture
of
the
printed
thing.