►
From YouTube: July 9, 2020 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
Minneapolis Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Board/Agenda/ZBA/1744
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/
A
A
B
A
Good
afternoon,
everyone
welcome
to
this
live
broadcast
of
our
virtual
meeting
today,
July
9th
2020.
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
is
authorized
under
Minnesota
statute,
section
13
D
point
0
to
1
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
and
I'll
call
this
meeting
to
order
and
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
roll
so
that
we
may
verify
the
presence
of
quorum.
D
C
B
C
A
You
with
that,
we
will
proceed
to
our
agenda.
We
have
quorum,
so
we
can
proceed
to
our
agenda,
a
copy
of
which
was
posted
for
the
public
acts
for
posted
for
public
access
to
the
city's
legislative
information
management
system
available
at
Lim's.
L
ims,
minneapolis
MN
gov.
Their
motion
to
approve
this
agenda.
G
A
A
H
C
E
A
A
You,
let's
review
the
agenda:
I'll
read
the
agenda
number
and
the
address
of
the
project
and
state
whether
it's
slated
for
consent
or
discussion.
I'll
just
talk
a
minute
about
what
those
things
are.
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
items
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.
A
It
is
recommended,
please
check
in
with
the
staff
member
signed
to
that
item.
If
you
have
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
item,
the
discussion
agenda.
Sorry.
So
what
our
discussion
items
these
are
items
to
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
and
will
cause
it
closed.
A
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
clones
board.
Members
will
then
discuss
and
act
on
motions
in
the
chair,
only
votes
in
the
case
of
a
tie.
A
A
A
J
A
K
K
J
A
A
E
A
I
J
I
H
I
Property
is
eligible
for
an
administrative
fer
increase
to
increase
above
what
we
typically
allow
as
an
FA
a
0.5,
but
they
will
need
to.
Staff,
has
analyzed
this
and
the
property
does
qualify
for
their
proposed
floor
area
ratio,
but
that
application
will
need
to
be
filed
prior
to
permitting
I.
Don't
know
if
this
is
the
correct
presentation.
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
The
lot
is
overall
flat,
a
very
standard
grade
change
in
terms
of
with
what
we
typically
see
in
the
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis,
the
staff
finds
that
there
are
not
practical
difficulties
with
relation
to
this
request.
The
proposal
does
meet
the
spirit
and
intents
of
the
ordinance.
The
deck
is
set
back
from
the
front
and
rear
facade
of
the
house
and,
as
such,
will
not
be
visible
from
the
public
public
right-of-way
or
from
the
protected
water,
which
does
meet
the
intent
of
the
DNR
regulations
with
stricter
height
requirements.
The
shoreland
overlay
district.
I
I
The
subject
property
would
be
allowed
690
square
feet
of
garage
space
under
the
ordinance
as
written.
Their
proposal
is
for
854
square
feet,
which
does
exceed
that
10%
of
the
lot
area.
Staff
finds
that
there
are
not
practical
difficulties
that
are
unique
to
the
property
and
are
not
economic
in
nature
that
relate
to
this
request.
E
I
Built
on
lots
of
similar
sizes
that
do
not
request
this
variants
that
are
able
to
work
within
the
ordinance
with
regards
to
their
garage
size
staff,
minds
that
the
proposal
will
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
or
be
injurious
to
the
use
or
enjoyment
of
this
property
or
neighboring
properties
will
not
present
a
detriment
to
health
safety
or
welfare.
Both
variances
meet
the
required
findings
for
development
in
the
shoreland
overlay,
district
erosion
control
measures,
view
from
the
water
and
generation
of
watercraft,
given
that
neither
of
these
variances
has
met
all
three
findings.
L
L
L
A
L
Thank
you,
so
I'll
just
go
through
how
my
thoughts
on
this
and
then
take
any
questions.
I
think
that
you
know
these.
These
developments
for
the
duplexes,
obviously
is
something
that
that
2040
plan
is
encouraged
and
will
be
open
questions
for
you
and
the
city
moving
forward.
This
is
a
location
that
would
have
allowed
it
before
is.
This
is
in
a
row
of
duplexes
and
triplexes
and
quads
along
Irving
Avenue
and
any
styles
and
I've
seen
you
know.
The
2040
plan
is
really
looking
to
address.
L
Why
is
this
a
good
location,
as
I
mentioned?
This
is
on
a
thoroughfare
I,
do
which
I
do
live
on
myself,
Irving
Avenue
three
styles,
and
that
is
reflected
in
the
surrounding
architecture
and
the
vocabulary
in
our
presentation
packet,
there's
a
number
of,
and
maybe
you
could
just
go
through
the
presentation
packet
whoever's
controlling
that
just
in
general,
I'll
just
talk
but
there's
quite
a
few
duplexes
triplexes
large
apartment
buildings
that
are
that
are
a
longer
being
Avenue
and
in
fact
this
one
was
one.
L
Olivia
de
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
triplex
is
there?
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
provide
it
for
most
of
these
properties.
So
you
do
see
larger
carriage
houses
or
garages
that
exceed
those
minimums
or
excuse
me
maximums,
on
surrounding
properties.
L
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
going
to
have
the
park
in
the
street
or
we're
gonna?
Have
the
park
in
the
garage
I
think
that
I
disagree
respectfully
was
with
staff
in
their
interpretation.
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.
L
We
we
never
want
houses
attached
to
garage
garages
or
have
garages
team
overpowering
in
any
way.
We
actually
initially
had
a
proposal
that
didn't
come
before
you,
but
that
had
tuck
under
here
utilizing
that
access
off
urban
and
also
they
access
off
the
alleyway
in
order
to
provide
underground
parking
that
was
not
supported
by
a
staff
as
well,
because
of
that
curb
cut.
So
with
a
push
back
there,
we
revised
it
in
order
to
try
to
provide
that
needed
parking
that
would
not
be
on
street
parking
through
the
back.
L
This
is
something
that
the
neighborhood,
when
we
Bend
for
neighborhood
a
number
of
times,
we
do
have
their
support
and
it's
a
huge
priority
for
them
to
have
off
street
parking
and
I.
Think
that
comes
back
to
a
lot
of
the
questions
of
the
2040
plan
was
how
how
is
this
increased
density
going
to
be
supported
and
and
received
and
implemented
in
different
ways
within
different
communities?
L
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.
L
L
It's
something
that
the
interpretation
or
implementation
of
that
code
seems
to
have
changed
over
the
years
in
terms
of
what's
allowed
and
what's
not
without
a
height
variance
and
with
a
flat
roof,
it's
more
challenging
so
well
well,
below
the
height
of
these
adjacent
homes,
we
don't
they're,
not
tall
enough.
The
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
it's
below
those
those
surrounding
ones.
L
L
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
better
modern
that
don't
have
gabled
roofs,
and
so
this
is
something
we've
been
I,
don't
know
before
you,
but
before
other
boards
in
the
city,
with
other
properties
that
at
requesting
those
variances
or
seen
ups
for
for
that
purpose,
so
I
I'd
leave
it
open
for
any
questions.
But
those
were
kind
of
the
points
that
I
that
I
wanted
to
to
make.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Mr.
Keller
I
will
say.
Maybe
a
question
to
kick
it
off
is
that
it
sounds
like
you
are
aware
of
the
findings
that
we
must
find
for
in
order
to
grant
variances,
and
one
of
them
is
that
there's
something
unique
about
the
property
that
is
not
economic
in
nature.
That
creates
a
hardship
where
the
code
is
created,
a
hardship
and
I'm
wondering
if
you
could
expand
on
that
for
for
either
one
of
the
variances
in
the
code,
the
code
being
the
code
is
not,
and
you
can't
can't
be
a
hardship.
A
L
I
understand
I
think
this
is
a
conversation
we've
had
maybe
before
it's
very
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
is
looking
at
the
garages
specifically.
L
You
know
I
look
at
this
at
this.
It's
not
just
first.
Does
it
have
a
plastic
difficulty
period
but
does
reasonable
development
of
this
property?
We
create
a
practical
difficulty.
Is
it
practically
difficult
to
create
a
reasonable
and
I
think
in
this
case
they
were
looking
at
a
duplex
in
order
to
provide
the
parking
that's
needed,
and
this
is
the
same
way
as
if
you
had
a
you
know,
we
have
a
lot
with
some
really
significant
front
setback
that
makes
it.
Could
you
put
a
miniature
house
there?
L
Yes,
you
could,
but
it's
definitely
been
something
that
that
has
been
seen
as
a
practical
difficulty.
Give
you
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
case
of
a
duplex,
which
is
supported
by
both
its
underlining
zoning
and
now
the
new
2040
plan,
which
has
changed
all
of
them.
K
L
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,
roofed
structure
and
I
would
try
to
differentiate
that
from
just
the
codes.
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
unnoticeable
from
the
lakes
and
then
what
ours
is.
D
Thank
You,
chair
Perry
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
do.
You
spoke
generally
about
flat
roofs
being
a
challenge,
but
if
you
can
expand
a
little
bit
more
on
what
exactly
it
is
a
concrete
practical
difficulty
I
know,
I
would
appreciate
it.
I
think
the
rest
of
the
board
would
appreciate
it.
L
L
So
in
terms
of
that
that's
clearly
what
would
happen
is
it'll,
be
a
single-family
home,
the
the
property
owners,
not
not
here,
but
I'm
sure
he
would
agree
with
that.
Just
in
terms
of
what
we
look
at
this
in
every
which
way-
and
you
know,
of
course
you
can't
no
matter
what
we
do-
we
can't
provide
that
that
parking
and
I
don't
think
duplexes
can
be,
can
be
sold
here
without
that
and
you
just
acock
with
the
cost
of
construction
and
I
know.
L
Economic
considerations
can't
be
the
only
reason
but
the
cost
of
construction
and
the
cost
of
land
on
this
neighborhood.
You
can't
justify
something:
that's
at
a
lower
price
point,
because
it
just
can't
be
built
and
sold
within
that
and
that's
why
I
think
there's
these
unique
challenges
for
these
projects
within
these
higher
value,
property,
value
of
neighborhoods,
Linden,
Hills,
and
here
before
that,
in
terms
of
the
what
I
was
specifically
referring
to.
L
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
with
the
railings
and
that's
alluding
to
any
gable.
Roof
structure
can
go
up
higher
than
the
28
feet.
So
when
your
so
you
can,
you
can
design
and
a
half
story
above
that
maybe
open
over
portions
of
it.
L
L
D
L
Sir
I,
just
the
last,
to
reiterate
this
is
I,
think
that
this
is
something
that
is
this.
Is
this
question
I
know:
that's
not
just
your
body
and
myself
that
are
considering
this
across
the
city,
but
I
think
that
this
is.
This
is
one
that
is
important
because
it,
you
know,
I,
think
personally,
that
increased
density
in
a
sense
of
the
way,
the
positive
thing
for
us
was
the
city
and
I
think
that
shouldn't
just
happen
and
in
neighborhoods
with
low
property,
values
and
I.
L
Think
that's
something
that
should
happen
in
my
neighborhood
as
well,
and
just
how
do
we
do
that,
and
this
is
the
type
of
things
that
is
required
in
order
for
that
to
happen,
and
this
is
definitely
a
spot.
It's
had
a
duplex
for
100
years
hundred
and
twenty
years,
it's
surrounded
by
other
duplexes
and
triplexes,
but
this
is
what's
required
to
do
that.
That's
all.
Thank
you.
A
L
L
Too
I
think
that's
that's.
The
kind
of
the
question
is
how
supported
can
it
be,
and
if
so,
how
does
it
and
I
think
that
the
neighborhood
supported
this?
Typically,
they
would
indicate
they
have
no
objection,
but,
but
actually,
in
both
instances,
they've
they've
been
thews
II,
a
Stickley
supported,
I
recommended
it
and
I
think
that's
a
reflection
of
why
they
there
their
feedback
to
council
and
others
in
terms
of
where
they
see
the
values
lie,
at
least
in
this.
In
this
neighborhood,
sir.
K
A
A
F
Yes,
thank
you
mr.
chair.
This
project
does
not
seem
to
me
to
be
an
example
of
what
the
ordinances
are
set
up
to
try
and
regulate
from
a
number
of
stand
points,
but,
for
example,
for
the
height
variance
I
understand
the
finding
of
staff
that
you
can't
use
the
ordinance
itself
as
a
practical,
difficult.
F
The
purpose
of
the
ordinance
is
to
minimize
the
impact
of
of
the
appearance
of
a
structure
from
either
the
protected
shoreland,
the
protected
body
of
water
or
the
right-of-way
in
front
of
the
house,
and
in
this
case
the
staff
found
that
neither
of
those
things
occur.
So
if
I
were
looking
for
a
finding
of
uniqueness
of
this
property,
it
might
be
the
fact
that
it's
far
enough
away
from
the
protected
water-
and
this
is
where
for
which
this
design
has
no
impact
on.
F
But
you
know
on
the
ordinance
itself,
I
think
with
respect
to
the
also
the
garages
in
the
square
parking
footage.
I.
Think
if
you
look
at
and
looking
at
these
plans,
I
see
that
are
five
bedrooms
associated
with
this
plan
and
I
think
it's
unreasonable
to
expect
a
five
bedroom
structure
to
get
by
with
tube
off-street
parking
spaces,
which
is
essentially
what
it
would
be
limited
to
so
I
think
it's
it's
reasonable.
F
Difficulty
with
with
regard
to
parking,
it
would
be
the
fact
that
this
property
is
close
to
the
close
to
the
lake
and
park
period,
a
lot
of
non
neighborhood
people
used
and
close
to
the
Hennepin
Avenue
business
district,
which
a
lot
of
neighborhood
people
use
as
well
as
it
being
a
thoroughfare,
as
the
applicant
mentioned
so
I
think
there
is.
There
is
a
practical
difficulty
for
parking
with
this
particular
property,
so
I'd
like
to
hear
from
other
board
members
but
I'm
inclined
to
support
the
applicant
in
this
case.
Thanks.
A
H
E
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
if
you
think
about
all
the
buildings
downtown,
when
you
think
about
all
the
apartment
buildings
we
have
all
over
the
city,
don't
have
two.
A
E
D
G
With
sambar
but
I
I
struggle
with
this
idea
that
the
only
way
to
get
a
new
duplex
on
the
site
is
by
building
to
two
garages
for
four
cars.
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
it
was.
You
know
two
people
living
in
each
duplex
that
one
can
make
an
argument
for
that,
whether
or
not
it's
realistic.
G
That
duplex
would
only
need
two
cars
and
therefore
only
one
of
those
garage
spaces,
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
thanks.
F
Yeah
Thank
You
mr.
George.
It's
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
a
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
that,
if
those
parking
areas
were
not
used
for
parking,
they
could
be
used
for
a
living
space
with
the
same
amount
of
building
mass.
F
K
J
A
B
Yes,
mr.
Shea
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
the
space
back
there
for
driveway
will
actually
be
increased.
So
you
know
any
cars
parked
there.
We
actually
have
more
space
and
on
this
structure
of
the
garage
portion
will
actually
not
come
out
any
further
to
the
South.
Then
the
existing
garage
wall
does
so
in
almost
every
way
it's
going
to
be
better
than
it
was
before.
From
your
perspective,
yeah.
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
I
apologize
for
not
coming
over
and
talking
with
you
directly
I
just
saw
the
that
printed
or
my
wife
sent
me
a
picture
of
the
printed
thing.
So
that's
why
I'm
calling
and
I
apologize
not
doing
it
face
to
face
and
having
to
do
it
under
this
forum,
but
I
think
it
sounds
great
and
wish
you
well
with
your
with
your
project.