►
From YouTube: October 7, 2021 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
Good
afternoon,
everyone,
this
is
the
virtual
meeting
of
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment
and
it
is
october
7th
2021.
B
C
Hi
board
member
hutchins
will
not
be
joining
us
this
evening.
Board
member
johanneson
aye.
D
B
Thank
you
with
that.
Let
the
record
show
that
we
have
quorum
and
we'll
proceed
to
our
agenda,
a
copy
of
which
was
posted
for
public
access
to
the
city's
legislative
information
management
system
available
at
limbs.
That's
lims.minneapolismn.gov.
F
C
B
B
B
It's
moved
and
seconded.
Is
there
any
discussion
seeing
none
will
the
clerk,
please
call
the
role
and
if
you
were
not
here
at
the
last
meeting,
please
just
note
that
by
saying
abstain.
B
So
that
motion
passes
and
the
minutes
from
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment
september
23rd
2021
meeting
are
approved.
Mr
ellis
is
mr
ellis
on
the
phone
you're
on
the
call
today.
G
I
apologize
yes,
we
do
have
one
communication
for
the
board.
The
there
was
an
appeal
regarding
retaining
walls
in
a
required
yard
at
3748,
west
bidet,
mccaska
parkway
that
went
to
the
biz
committee.
The
decision
of
the
board
approving
the
variances
was
upheld,
so
the
the
appeal
was
denied
the
the
appeal
of
the
board's
decision
and
then
the
council
adopted
staff
findings
and.
B
B
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
or
discussion
and
I'll.
Just
take
a
brief
moment
to
talk
about
what
consent
and
discussion
items
are
consent
items.
There
will
be
those
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.
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
assigned
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
the
item.
When
I
ask
and
we'll
put
it
on
the
discussion
agenda
discussion
items
these
are
items
which
are
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
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
let's
look
at
the
recommended
dispositions
of
the
land
use
requests
we
have
before
us
on
today's
agenda
agenda.
Item
number
five
is
1527
franklin
avenue
west.
This
is
a
discussion
item
agenda
item
number
six
is
16th
9th
street.
South
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
Is
there
anyone
to
speak
against
this
item
and
if
you
want,
if
you
want
to
say
you
want
to
speak
against
it,
press
star
6
on
your
phone
to
unmute
yourself
and
say
you'd
like
to
speak
against
it.
B
I'm
hearing
no
one
agenda.
Item
number
seven
is
26
park.
Lane
staff
is
recommending.
This
item
be
continued
until
the
october
21st
2021
zoning
board
of
adjustment
meeting,
which
is
one
cycle,
and
we
can
discuss
this
more
when
we
review
requested
continuances
agenda
number.
Eight
is
2827
18th
avenue
south.
B
B
E
B
So
that
motion
passes
for
those
of
you
who
are
here
for
agenda
item
number.
Six,
your
land
use
request
is
approved.
Good
luck
with
your
project.
B
Let's
move
on
to
agenda
item
number
five:
this
is
1527
franklin
avenue
west
ms
brandt.
H
Good
afternoon,
chair
perry,
members
of
the
board
application
item
number
five
for
1527
franklin
avenue
west.
The
subject.
Property
is
a
reverse
corner
lot
on
the
corner
of
franklin
avenue
and
irving
avenue.
South
the
parcel
is
zoned
r2,
multiple
family
district
with
the
built
form,
interior,
2
and
shoreland
overlaid
districts.
H
H
The
proposed
addition
and
remodeling
would
constitute
59.2
demolition,
which
does
fall
below
the
threshold
for
being
considered
a
new
build.
It
is
considered
a
remodel
of
the
existing
structure
at
that
60
threshold
is
when
non-conforming
rights
no
longer
carry
over
from
the
previous
structure
so
because
it
is
less
than
60,
those
non-performing
rates
would
remain
intact.
H
H
The
first
is
to
reverse
or
to
reduce
the
reverse
corner
front
yard,
along
irving
avenue
south
from
20
feet
to
approximately
8.8
feet,
to
increase
the
maximum
height
of
a
single
family
dwelling
from
two
and
a
half
stories
or
28
feet
to
three
stories:
37
feet,
2
inches
to
expand
a
non-conforming
curb
cut
for
a
property
that
has
access
off
of
a
public
alley
and
just
as
a
brief
explanatory
note,
with
the
parking
amendment
that
went
through
earlier
this
year
in
may,
the
zoning
code
no
longer
permits
corner
properties
to
have
direct
access
to
the
street
through
a
curb
cut.
H
That
was
something
that
was
previously
permitted,
but
fairly
recently
became
a
non-conforming
condition
for
this
site.
The
fourth
variance
is
to
permit
developments
on
a
steep
slope
in
the
shoreland
overlaid
district.
B
H
B
I
have
a
quick
question
here.
I
usually
don't
interrupt,
but
can
you
just
maybe
you're
going
to
do
this,
but
could
you
delve
into
how
you
can
vary
something
that's
non-conforming?
It
is
no
longer
allowed.
Is
it
because
the
property
is
retaining
its
non-conforming
rights.
H
Correct
so
because
it's
retaining
its
non-conforming
rights,
the
proposal
they're
expanding
the
width
of
the
curb
cut
so
similarly
to
how
the
the
height
is
non-conforming
they're
expanding
the
structure
they're
applying
for
a
variance
to
that
height,
the
variance
is
to
increase
the
size
of
a
non-conforming
curve
cut.
H
If
we
could
move
to
the
next
slide,
please
so
this
is
just
a
quick
overview
on
the
left
is
the
existing
conditions
for
the
site
and
then
on?
The
right
is
the
proposed
site
plan
for
the
addition
and
remodel
and
some
landscaping.
H
Well,
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
slide
please.
So
the
first
variance
is
for
reducing
the
reverse
corner
front
yard,
along
irving
avenue
south
from
20
feet
to
8.8
feet.
The
existing
house
does
have
a
garage
that
projects
into
the
setback
you
can
see.
The
diagram
provided
by
the
applicant
shows
that
the
darker
red
color
is
the
existing
garage
that
will
be
retained
as
well
as
expanded
to
the
south.
So
what
is
now
a
garage
will
become
a
side
entryway.
The
garage
will
shift
the
south
and
slightly
increase
any
footprint.
H
So
all
of
the
the
new
construction
is
8.8
feet
from
the
property
line.
The
existing
portion
of
the
structure
that
is
existing
and
will
remain
is
slightly
closer.
It's
about
six
foot
11
inches
to
that
property
line.
H
H
D
H
Slide
please,
the
second
variance
is
for
to
increase
the
height
of
the
existing
new
structure.
So
the
existing
house
is
a
hip
roof.
You
can
see
the
outline
in
red
on
the
diagram
below
is
a
hip
roof
that
measures
two
and
a
half
stories
31
feet
to
the
midpoint
of
that
hip
roof.
H
The
existing
peak
height
is
38
foot
38.7
feet.
As
I
said,
the
current
type
roof
type
is
a
a
hip
roof
which
is
regulated
a
little
bit
differently
than
the
mansur
type
roof
that
they're
proposing
gable,
hip
and
gambral.
Roofs
are
measured.
Their
height
maximum
is
measured
to
the
midpoint
because
they
decrease
in
bulk
as
they
reach
the
peak.
Every
other
roof
type
is
measured
to
its
its
tallest
point.
H
There
are
some
exemptions
to
the
overall
height
regulations,
however,
because
this
property
is
in
the
shoreline
overlay
district,
none
of
those
exemptions
would
qualify
so
because
the
because
of
the
change
in
roof
style
and
the
expansion
of
the
property,
the
variance
the
height,
is
being
triggered.
The
top
of
the
proposed
structure
is
37
feet,
2
inches
additionally,
because
it's
no
longer
a
hip
or
cable
roof.
Sorry,
there's
a
typo
on
that
slide.
There
half
stories
are
only
permitted
under
hip
or
gable.
Roofs.
H
Half
stories
under
partial
stories
under
any
other
type
of
roof
are
considered
a
full
story,
so
the
proposal
would
be
considered
a
three-story
structure
that
finds
that
there
are
not
practical
difficulties
related
to
this
request
to
increase
the
height.
The
request
is
due
to
the
design
decisions
of
the
project
and
not
to
to
conditions
of
the
parcel
itself.
H
The
proposal
does
not
meet
the
intent
of
the
ordinance.
It
is
not
in
keeping
not
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
and
is
not
found
to
be
a
reasonable
request.
The
proposal
is
not
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
intended.
The
sorry
proposal
is
not
in
keeping
with
the
essential
character
of
the
area,
but
would
not
present
a
detriment
to
health
safety
or
welfare
of
those
utilizing.
This
property
or
neighboring
properties.
H
Next
slide,
please,
the
third
variance
is
to
expand
the
existing
non-conforming
curve
cut,
as
I
mentioned
before.
As
of
may
curve,
cuts
are
no
longer
allowed
for
corner
properties
that
have
alley
access.
H
The
proposal,
part
of
the
proposal,
includes
an
expansion
of
the
existing
curb
cut
from
21
20
feet.
1
inch
wide
to
25
feet
wide,
as
well
as
shifting
it
to
the
south.
As
part
of
that,
shifting
of
the
garage
that
I
discussed
previously,
staff
finds
that
there
are
not
practical
difficulties
related
to
this
request.
H
H
H
B
No,
I
I
think
we're
familiar
with
those
so
and
we've
all
read
the
packet.
So
do
you
have
any
more
comments
on
the
the
item.
H
B
So
I
was
just
this
is
very:
this
table
is
very
helpful.
I
was
just
going
to
ask
the
only.
It
seems
like
the
only
one
that.
B
Has
been
found
for
completely
not
for
the
first
three
is
finding
three
for
the
front
yard.
B
B
I
see
none:
okay,
let's
open
the
public
hearing,
we'll
start
out
with
the
people
as
they
have
been
registered
and
we'll
have
you
speak
one
at
a
time
to
keep
things
orderly
and
able
to
be
followed
in
the
case
that
we
have
to
review
this
at
a
later
time,
so
I'll
start
out
with
joshua
winter,
who
is
the
applicant
and
if
mr
winter,
if
you
could
press
star
six
to
unmute
your
phone
and
provide
testimony
if
you
so
desire.
I
Yeah
hello,
can
everyone
hear
me.
B
I
All
right,
thank
you,
so
much
so,
as
stated:
I'm
josh
winter,
I'm
a
project
manager
at
t2
architect,
thank
you,
chair
perry
and
the
board
members
for
your
time
and
attention
to
our
application,
and
I
also
want
to
thank
alyssa
for
all
of
her
time
and
reviewing
our
project
as
well.
I
For
perfect,
thank
you
so
much
so
we
were
hired
by
russ
haywood
to
help
transform
a
unique
property
that
he
is
looking
to
renovate
into
the
dream
home.
He
has
always
envisioned
for
his
growing
family.
His
intent
is
to
create
a
generational,
single-family
home
that
his
kids
can
grow
up
in
and
someday.
He
can
pass
on
to
them.
I
So
we
were
selected
as
part
of
the
team
due
to
our
decades
of
work
in
minneapolis,
creating
additions
and
new
residences
that
are
known
to
be
sensitive
and
good
neighbors
to
their
surrounding
context.
We
do
not
seek
variances
lightly
and
we
believe
that
our
requests
are
appropriate
for
the
neighborhood
and
this
unique
hillside
properly
property.
I
I'm
going
to
do
my
best
to
go
through
all
these
three
variances
that
we
want
to
address
as
quickly
as
I
possibly
can
so.
Please
bear
with
me,
but
I
would
like
to
first
focus
on
our
response
on
variances
one
and
three
since
they're
regarding
the
garage
and
the
drive
respectively,
as
they
both
directly
impact
each
impact
each
other.
I
So
please
turn
to
page
two
variance.
One
is
to
reduce
the
reverse
corner
front
yard,
setback
from
20
feet
to
where
the
existing
garage
sits
at
about
roughly
eight
foot.
Eight,
this
variance
has
a
long
history
of
being
approved
by
the
city
due
to
the
fact
that
this
is
a
unique
situation
in
the
city
of
minneapolis,
as
stated
by
the
city
staff
report,
the
recent
shift
on
this
variance
is
due
to
a
court
case
lost
by
the
city
for
the
approval
of
a
new
construction
garage.
I
You
can
turn
to
page
three.
Existing
garages
are
visible
from
this
property
that
are
not
built
into
the
ground
to
conceal
their
mass
as
much
as
our
existing
and
proposed
garage
would
be.
They
are
located
similar
distances
to
the
streets,
all
impinging
on
the
20-foot
setback.
We
are
staying
within
the
established
language
of
the
neighborhood
with
our
proposed
garage.
I
If
you
would
please
turn
to
page
four,
we
would
like
to
address
the
first
recommendation
by
staff,
which
is
to
relocate
the
garage
back
to
the
20-foot
setback.
This
relocation
would
require
roughly
10-foot
high,
retaining
walls
on
both
sides
of
the
drive
that
would
extend
an
additional
12
feet
into
the
site.
It
would
permanently
gut
a
considerable
amount
of
the
site
and
hillside.
I
The
second
recommendation
is
to
relocate
the
garage
to
have
access
off
the
alley,
which
would
create
multiple,
practical
difficulties.
If
you
could
please
turn
to
page
five,
an
alley
alternative
presents
surveillance
concerns
for
the
clients.
If
the
alley
garage
would
be
blind
from
the
house,
keeping
a
proposed
irving
street
entrance
would
be
more
consistent
with
crime
prevention
through
environmental
design.
Principles
for
natural
surveillance,
structural
redesign
and
rebuild
of
the
existing
retaining
wall
would
considerably
increase
the
cost
of
site
work.
I
The
logistical
aspect
of
demolishing
and
rebuilding
this
wall
presents
difficulties
with,
and
issues
within
the
neighborhood,
the
neighboring
house
at
2015
irving
avenue.
That's
only
two
foot,
eight
inches
away
from
the
alley
alley.
Access
would
need
to
be
recessed
for
the
proper
turning
radius
because
of
the
wall
and
would
result
in
a
dark
entry
adjacent
to
their
neighbor's
living
spaces.
I
If
you
could,
please
turn
to
page
six
I'll
move
on
to
variance
three,
this
variance
was
due
to
the
fact
that
code
for
curb
cuts
on
properties
with
ali
access
was
very
recently
implemented
in
may
of
this
year.
Curb
cuts
were
previously
permitted
and
typically
accepted
for
this
condition.
I
I
If
you
turn
to
page
seven,
the
proposed
curb
cut
shifts
to
the
south
to
allow
for
pedestrian
entry
into
the
existing
garage
structure.
We
did
not
shift
the
entry
to
the
north
to
try
and
salvage
the
existing
crop
cut,
because
we
would
encroach
on
an
existing
42-inch
hackberry
tree
and
the
position
to
the
left-hand
side
of
the
garage
is
for
the
proposed
entry
aligned.
You
know
more
clearly
with
the
house,
which
is
at
above
grade
for
kind
of
logical
direct
access.
I
I
This
is
the
architecture
of
the
existing
house
and
neighborhood
that
is
driving
our
design
decisions
in
response
to
the
height
of
the
current
home.
The
staff's
assertion
is
that
our
roof
is
a
mansard
roof
due
to
the
flat
portion.
However,
historically
steeper
sloped
roofs
with
concealed
flat
centers
are
used
as
an
architectural
strategy
to
connect
hipped
grooves
of
wider
buildings,
while
simultaneously
preserving
the
steeper
sloped
roof,
which
is
then
proportional
to
the
home.
Underneath
this
does
not
allow
the
peak
of
the
hipped
roof
to
get
overly
tall.
I
I
On
page
11,
you
can
see
the
red
outline
of
where
the
existing
roof
line
and
ridges
exist
over
the
proposed
utilizing.
A
flat
portion
should
not
constitute
an
increase
in
stories
or
change
where
the
house
should
be
measured
to
considering
that
we
are
working
with
an
existing
home
with
existing
seep
slopes
and
heights.
I
I
The
existing
home
is
in
need
of
repair,
and
the
proposed
renovation
will
be
a
refresh
to
the
corner
of
franklin
and
irving,
providing
an
attractive
and
consistent
enhancement
that
meets
the
spirit
and
intent
better.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
burying
with
me
through
all
of
those
there's
a
lot
to
address
today.
So
I
just
thanks
again.
K
I
I
want
to
thank
you
very
much
for
the
presentation
and
I
just
have
a
quick
question
related
to
the
percentage
of
demolition,
because
we've
had
a
few
issues
lately,
where
people
inadvertently
or
unexpectedly
go
over
the
60
demolition
limit
and
I'm
curious
to
know
how
you
intend
to
ensure
that
the
project
stays
below
the
60
demo
limit.
I
Yeah,
so
thank
you
for
the
question.
Throughout
the
process
we've
been
really
focusing
on
how
demolition
would
actually
occur
and
where
it
would
be
occurring,
because
we
know
that
we're
we're
very
close
to
that
threshold.
I
So
we've
been
kind
of
consulting
structural
engineers
and
our
own.
You
know
in-house
team
to
try
and
make
sure
that
we're
not
assuming
that
something
can
stay
that
shouldn't.
So
essentially,
what
we're
doing
is
trying
to
be
as
cautious
about
it
so
that
we
don't
have
any
kind
of
unexpected
plans
or
anything
like
that
that
come
through
the
construction
process.
K
B
I
have
a
a
question,
a
couple
of
questions.
It
seems
like
first
on
the
garage
and
the
curb
cut
it's
a
two-car
garage.
That's
being
proposed.
Is
that
correct.
I
It's
actually,
it
can
fit
three
cars,
but
the
the
double
wide
garage
door
for
two
cars
to
kind
of
easily
pull
into
and
then
a
third
to
be
pulled
in
towards
the
back.
The
client
doesn't
necessarily
doesn't
have
three
cars,
but
kind
of
is
looking
to
maximize
the
space
for
storage,
and
he
also
has
electric
chargers
and
everything
like
that.
So
trust
trying
to
have
additional
space
within
the
garage.
L
I
Yeah,
so
the
garage
is
shifting
to
the
south
by
kind
of
the
distance,
that
it
is
because
we're
looking
to
incorporate
an
entrance
from
the
streets
from
the
sidewalk
into
the
house,
and
so
there's
now
to
the
left-hand
side,
we're
keeping
the
north
wall
of
the
garage
in
place
so
that
we
don't
impact
an
existing
tree.
That's
there
and
building
in
that
little
entrance,
which
then
is
pushing
the
south
excuse
me
is
pushing
the
garage
south
about
eight
or
ten
feet.
I
believe.
I
Yes
and
when
we
started
the
garage
when
we
started
the
design
and
renovation
and
coordination
with
the
city
on
this,
that
variance
for
the
curb
cut
was
not
in
place,
so
we,
you
know,
had
typically
been
able
to
get
the
curb
cut,
adjusted
on
these
corner
lots,
but
with
the
new
variants
or
excuse
me
with
the
new
code
being
applied
in
may.
B
I
B
I
Was
that
was
stated
very
briefly
today,
but
essentially
yeah
they're
they're,
classifying
it
as
a
mansard
roof,
because
there's
a
flat
portion
at
the
top
of
the
roof,
but
as
we
look
at
historical
precedence
throughout
the
entire
city,
a
mansard
roof
has
incredibly
steep
sides
and
the
proportion
of
the
flat
portion
to
the
sloped
portion
is
usually
greater.
I
So
we
are
only
a
small
percentage
of
our
overall
roof.
Space
is
flat
and
the
only
reason
that
we
were
kind
of
really
trying
to
do.
That
was
because
we
were
trying
to
add
on
to
the
existing
non-conforming
house,
and
so
in
order
to
do
that
and
cover
up
the
new
addition
to
the
south.
For
the
second
floor,
which
is
only
extending
10
feet,
we
cleaned
up
the
roof
form,
essentially
because
it's
been
added
on
many
many
times
over
the
years.
I
I
I
The
practical
difficulty
is
essentially,
if
we
were
to
add
on
to
the
existing
house,
we
would
have
in
to
conform
with
the
existing
code.
We
would
have
to
change
the
the
slope
of
the
house
or
the
pitch
of
the
roof,
so
essentially
we
would
have
a
different
roof
form
that
would
be
attached
to
the
existing
house,
and
then
we
would
also
which
would
kind
of
just
not
work
with
the
current
architecture
of
the
of
the
house
itself.
B
But
let's
say
is
that
true,
you
said
and,
and
I
this
is
what
I
read-
that
even
if
it
was
a
hip
roof,
you'd
still
need
to
get
a
variance.
So
is
that
the
argument
for
if
it
were
a
hip
proof
rather
than
a
mansard,
is
this-
is
staff
a
saying
that
same
practical
difficulty
as
what
you
were
claiming.
I
Yes,
eventually
yep,
because
the
first
floor
is
very
tall
ceilings.
It
has
maybe
10-foot
ceilings
and
then
the
second
floor
has
eight
foot
ceilings
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
and
so
if
we
wanted
to
have
any
kind
of
reasonable
space,
because
we're
already
so
tall
within
our
existing
floor
plates
and
with
this
shallower
pitch
in
order
to
meet
the
meet
the
guidelines,
we
would
not
be
able
to
essentially
we'd
have
to
shift
our
floor
plates
in
the
addition
as
well,
in
order
to
kind
of
make
any
sort
of
space.
B
I
Yeah
we're
our
our
statement
that
it's
our
position,
that
it's
not
a
mansard
roof
that
still
applies.
We
still
think
that
it's
a
hipped
roof.
However,
we
would
still
need
a
variance
for
the
hipped
roof
to
match
the
existing
home
because
of
the
non-conforming
height
as
it
is
today.
B
B
Thank
you,
mr
winter.
Let's
move
on
here
next
yep!
Thank
you.
Let's
move
on
to
our
next
speaker,
mr
christopher
huntley,
if
you
could
press
six
and
to
on
me
your
phone
to
give
testimony,
and
if
you
could
give
your
address
as
well,
please.
C
Chair
perry,
it
appears
that
the
registered
phone
number
for
mr
huntley
is
not
currently
on
the
call.
A
A
A
We've
been
talking,
we've
only
learned
about
this
proposal
in
the
last
two
weeks
and
looking
at
the
plans
and
the
discussions
today
that
we've
been
listening
to,
we
essentially
view
it
as
a
tear
down.
I
know
that
technically
it's
28
under
and
you
asked
a
very
astute
question
someone
did
about.
How
do
you
guarantee
that
that
won't
go
over
having
lived
in
a
neighborhood
for
so
long
we've
seen
projects
like
this
that
have
gone
over.
A
If
you
look
at
the
drawings,
you'll
notice
that
the
basement
excavation
work
is
extensive,
which
is
one
of
the
most
major
concerns
of
our
neighborhood,
and
that
basement
is
not
included
in
that
ratio,
but
it's
as
big
as
an
event
center
complete
with
an
incredible
number
of
amenities.
A
A
A
B
B
K
F
J
I'm
also
leaning
toward
staff
findings.
I
think
that
while
very
detailed
and
hyperspecific
it
does
seem
like
there
could
be
different
choices
and
it
would
have
an
allowable
outcome
though
it
is,
it
is,
you
know,
admirable
to
design
for
future
generations
as
such.
B
I
wouldn't,
since
I
don't
see
any,
I
would
entertain
a
motion
from
someone.
B
All
right
there's
a
motion
to
adopt
staff
findings
and
deny
the
variances,
except
for
the
building
in
in
the
overlay,
the
shoreland
overlay
district.
Second
johannesson,
it's
moved
and
seconded.
Are
there
any
questions
on
what
the
motion
is.
I
kind
of
confuse
that
a
little
bit.
B
So
the
motion
will
mean
that
if
you
vote
yes,
you
will
be
denying
the
three
variances
that
staff
said
were
to
be
denied
and
adopting
the
one
that
staff
said
would
be
approved,
and
with
that
I
would
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role.
E
J
B
So
that
motion
passes
and-
and
we
have
that
means
the
the
staff
findings
are
adopted,
and
the
applicant
can
talk
to
ms
brandt
to
see
what
their
options
are
going
forward.
B
Let's
move
on
to
number
eight
and
by
the
way
for
those
wondering
what
happened
to
number
seven,
the
continuance
discussion
and
voting
on
the
continuance.
I
dropped
the
ball
on
that.
We
will
take
that
up
after
we
get
through
the
remainder
of
these
variance
requests.
So,
let's
move
on
to
number
eight.
N
Thank
you,
chair,
perry
and
members
of
the
board
and
thank
you
to
the
clerk's
19
staff
for
pulling
up
the
slides.
This
item
is
a
request
for
two
variances
one:
to
increase
the
maximum
combined
floor
area
of
the
footprint
of
all
detached
accessory
structures
and
another
variance
request
to
reduce
the
minimum
required
north
interior
side
yard.
These
are
for
construction
of
a
detached
accessory
dwelling
unit
or
adu
at
2827,
18th
avenue.
South.
N
N
The
existing
principal
use
and
structure
on
the
property
is
a
two-story
single
family
dwelling
and
it
does
have
two
existing
detached
garages
in
the
rear
yard.
That's
what
you
can
see
in
the
photo
on
the
left-hand
side
of
this
slide,
so
on
the
left-hand
side
of
that
photo.
That
garage,
that
is
to
the
north,
that
existing
garage
is
348
square
feet.
N
These
are
on
on
the
top
is
the
existing
site
plan,
which
also
notes
the
proposed
demolition
of
that
existing
garage
to
the
north.
That's
near
the
top
right
hand,
side
the
northeast
corner
of
of
the
property,
and
on
the
bottom
of
this
slide,
you
can
see
the
proposed
site
plan,
which
notes
the
proposed
adu
that
they
would
be
constructing
in
roughly
the
same
location
in
the
northeast
corner
of
the
property.
N
The
proposed
adu
would
be
one
story.
It
would
have
a
slightly
different
footprint
than
that
existing
garage,
that
it
would
that
it
would
replace
the
proposed
adu
would
have
a
footprint
of
384
square
feet,
which
is
36
square
feet
larger
than
the
garage
it
would
be.
Replacing
the
proposed
combined
accessory
structure
footprint,
including
the
proposed
adu,
as
well
as
the
existing
south
garage
to
remain,
is
770
square
feet
and
this
exceeds
the
maximum
combined
accessory
structure,
footprint
of
676
square
feet
for
the
property.
N
Furthermore,
the
proposed
north
interior
side
setback
for
the
adu
is
one
foot
8.5
inches,
which
is
approximately
1.7
feet
and
approximately
matching
that
existing
setback
for
the
north
garage,
but
this
is
below
the
minimum
required
interior
side
setback
of
three
feet
for
a
detached
adu.
So
the
applicant
is
requesting
these
two
variances
for
construction
of
the
adu,
as
proposed
next
slide.
Please
to
talk
about
the
required
findings
for
the
first
required
finding
regarding
practical
difficulty
due
to
circumstances
unique
to
the
property
staff
finds
that
this
is
not
met
for
either
variance
request.
N
N
It
might
be
possible
to
shift
that
without
really
eliminating
or
compromising
the
use
of
other
areas
on
the
property,
including
that
that
parking,
your
landscaping
space
that
is
proposed
in
between
these
two
structures
for
the
second
required
finding
regarding
reasonable
use
of
the
property
and
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
for
the
variance
request
relating
to
maximum
detached
structure
footprint
staff
finds
that
this
is
met.
N
The
sphere
and
intent
of
that
particular
aspect
of
the
zoning
ordinance
is
to
limit
the
extent
of
accessory
structures
and
ensure
that
they
are
subordinate
to
the
principal
uses
and
structures
that
they
would
serve,
particularly
on
low
density,
residential
properties.
Like
this
maximum
accessory
structure
footprint
this
maximum
676
square
feet,
this
is
only
one
way
to
to
sort
of
measure
or
regulate
the
the
bulk
of
a
building,
and
this
only
again
accounts
for
the
amount
of
ground
that
is
being
covered
by
the
structure
and
doesn't
factor
in
other
aspects
of
building
bulk.
N
Like
the
height
or
the
number
of
stories.
There
are
separate
zoning
requirements
that
do
regulate
those
other
aspects
of
building
bulk,
and
this
proposal
is
in
in
compliance
with
many
of
those
other
requirements.
It's
just
this
total
accessory
structure,
footprint
of
676
square
feet,
which
is
the
the
issue
here.
What
the
applicants
are
proposing
with
this
one-story
adu
is
384
square
feet.
This
is
relatively
small
compared
to
a
lot
of
adus
that
that
we
see
a
lot
of
times.
We
do
see
two
stories
with
parking
space
on
the
bottom
and
living
space
above.
N
This
is
a
relatively
small
floor
area
that
they're
proposing,
so
staff
does
find
that
it
still
meets
the
spirit
of
intent
of
the
ordinance
to
limit
detached
accessory
structures
for
the
sphere
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
relating
to
setbacks.
However,
staff
finds
that
this
is
not
met.
The
spirit
and
intent
of
those
particular
aspects
of
the
ordinance
related
to
setbacks
are
to
ensure
access
to
light
and
air
to
provide
separation
between
uses
and
structures
and
also
to
align
with
minimum
building
code
requirements
for
windows
near
a
shared
property
line.
N
The
the
building
code
requires
a
minimum
of
three
feet
in
between
an
exterior
wall
for
a
building
with
habitable
space
and
a
shared
property
line
like
the
north
property
line
here,
even
though
the
zoning
code
might
not
require
a
minimum
percentage
of
window
coverage
on
a
side,
elevation
facing
side
elevation
of
an
adu
facing
a
shared
property
line,
the
intent
of
this
three-foot
setback
requirement
in
the
ordinance
is
to
facilitate
the
current
or
future
provision
of
windows
on
on
this
facade
of
the
building
by
aligning
with
those
building
code
requirements.
N
N
There
is
that
existing
detached
garage
in
this
location,
which
has
the
same
setback
as
what
is
being
proposed
here,
so
this
would
not
be
altering
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
in
that
regard,
and
though
this
is
a
larger
structure
that
they
would
be
building
compared
to
what
they
would
be
removing.
It
is
a
relatively
small
increase
of
36
square
feet
in
in
floor
area
or
in
footprint,
so
also
not
a
radical
change
in
the
essential
character.
N
So
in
conclusion,
because
there
are
those
those
particular
findings
which
staff
finds
are
not
met
for
each
variance
request,
staff
recommendation
is
for
denial
of
both
requested
variances
for
construction
of
this
detached
adu.
I
will
note
if
the
board
were
inclined
to
approve
either
variance
request
staff
would
recommend
the
standard
conditions
of
approval
for
each
of
those,
including
a
condition
that
final
construction
plans
be
approved
by
cped
staff
and
another
condition
that
construction
be
completed
within
two
years
of
today's
date,
unless
extended
by
the
zoning
administrator.
N
There
were
a
number
of
public
comments
of
written
public
comments
which
were
received
by
staff,
some
of
which
were
received
prior
to
publication
of
the
staff
report,
and
those
should
have
been
attached
and
made
available
with
that
publication.
There
were
also
a
number
of
written
public
comments
that
were
received
after
that
publication,
but,
prior
to
today's
to
the
beginning
of
today's
hearing,
those
comments
should
have
all
been
forwarded
along
for
for
your
consideration
separately
as
well.
I
believe
the
applicants
and
their
representatives
are
in
attendance
during
this
hearing.
B
Thank
you,
mr
cohass,
for
your
presentation.
Are
there
any
questions
of
staff,
mr
softly.
K
Thank
you.
I
think
you
guys
can
hear
me
now.
Yes,
thank
you
for
the
presentation,
I'm
curious
about
why,
whether
whether
or
not
requiring
the
applicant
to
construct
a
window
on
the
side
yard
would
be
a
satisfactory
condition
to
apply
and
whether
that
would
satisfy
whether
that
would
meet
the
need
for
spirit,
intent
and
orderly
art
development.
N
Thank
you,
chair,
perry
and
board
member
softly
for
that
that
that
question
regarding
a
potential
condition.
I'm
I'm
gathering
that
you're
just
wondering
if
this
is
something
staff
would
find
appropriate
for
for
something
like
this.
N
Yeah,
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
I
don't
think
that's
a
condition
that
staff
would
necessarily
recommend,
though
it
may
be
sort
of
related
to
this
overall
issue.
But
again
the
zoning
code
does
not
require
a
minimum
percentage
of
windows
on
this
the
side
of
an
adu.
It
does
require
a
minimum
percentage
of
windows
on
sides
that
are
facing
public
alleys
or
public
streets.
N
So,
though,
again
the
intent
is
just
to
allow
it
to
be
an
option,
but
we
would
not
necessarily
recommend
mandating
a
window
in
this
area
where
that
isn't
built
into
the
code.
B
So,
mr
cole
haas,
if
that's
the
case,
why
are
you
finding
for
the
for
finding
number
two
for
the
increase
to
the
maximum
combined
floor
area,
or
is
that
the
reason
why
you're,
denying
and
number
two
in
the
decreasing
the
minimum
required
for
requirement
for
the
interior
side
yard?
Have
I
got
this
mixed
up.
N
N
In
that
case,
I
don't
think
it
was
mentioned
in
the
staff
report
regarding
the
other
requested
variants
relating
to
relating
to
the
the
maximum
combined
footprint
of
accessory
structures,
and
that
staff
did
find
that
that
was
met
for
that
that
footprint
variants,
but
for
different
reasons.
B
Sure,
so,
thank
you
for
that
clarification,
so
part
of
the
the
reason
why
there
was
you.
Staff
did
not
find
for
number
two
for
the
minimum
required
interior
side
yard
setback.
Was
this
potential
for
windows
to
be
placed
in
the
adu,
even
though
they're
not
required.
N
Correct
and
specifically
because
the
building
code
requirements
also
align
with
this
three-foot
setback
requirement.
That's
why
the
zoning
code
is
such
is
to
align
with
those
requirements
in
particular,
even
though
the
zoning
ordinance
didn't
also
include
a
minimum
window
coverage
percentage.
That
is
the
reason
why
why
staff
finding
for
that
particular
finding
was
such
yep.
B
B
Let's
move
on
to
the
next
person
who's
registered
nicole
diemer.
O
Chair
perry,
this
is
ken
taylor
from
the
clerk's
office.
Just
a
potentially
helpful
reminder
for
people
on
the
line
you,
if
you've,
muted
your
own
device,
you'll
need
to
unmute
your
device
in
addition
to
pressing
star
six.
So
just
in
case
that's
the
issue.
Callers
are
having
just
want
to
say
that
thank.
B
So
also
not
hearing
from
nicole
diemer
jamie
sulp,
pistad.
B
N
Chair
perry,
if
I
may
have
apologies
interrupt,
but
I
did
just
receive
an
email
from
the
applicant
scotty
hall,
saying
that
they're
in
attendance
and
and
trying
to
press
star
six
but
for
some
reason
it's
not
quite
working
but
just
to
convey
that
communication.
B
Okay,
we're
fighting
technology
here,
I'm
gonna
keep
going
through
the
speakers
and
while
they
struggle
to
get
their
their
phones,
unmuted
or
whatever's
going
on
nikki
robert,
can
you
press
star
six
to
unmute
your
phone.
P
Yes,
this
is
vicky
robert
3650
11th
avenue
south.
P
All
right,
good
afternoon
board
members,
I'm
speaking
in
support
of
the
variants
required
to
construct
a
yard
home
on
the
property
of
scotty
hall,
so
the
yard
homes
program.
I
think
that
there
are
other
people
that
are
were
are
signed
up
to
speak,
who
can
probably
speak
better
to
the
spirit
of
the
program
than
I
can,
but
they
have
a
partnership
with
the
city
of
lakes,
community
land
trust
to
provide
adus
that
will
be
rented
to
people
who
are
receiving
rental
assistance,
so
they're
putting
adus
on
land
trust
properties.
P
So
when
I
first
heard
of
the
art
homes
program
and
their
partnership
with
the
city
of
lakes,
community
land
trust,
I
was
very
excited
to
hear
about
this
visionary
model
for
increasing
the
affordable
housing
stock
in
our
city.
Like
scotty,
I
am
also
a
clclt
homeowner
that
personally
personally
benefited
by
access
to
long-term,
affordable
housing
as
housing
costs
have
risen,
precipitously
much
faster
than
income.
P
I
felt
very
lucky
to
have
a
predictable
and
stable
mortgage
access
to
this
resource
has
allowed
me
to
pursue
small
business
ownership
and
survive
job
losses,
busted
cars
and
other
unexpected
bills,
without
worrying
about
keeping
a
roof
over
my
head.
It
is
a
tragedy
that
we
are
now
living
in
a
time
where
this
basic
security
is
not
available
for
so
many
of
our
neighbors,
because
my
home
is
on
a
half
lot.
P
The
clclt
yard
homes
program
was
not
available
to
me,
but
I
was
very
happy
to
share
this
information
about
the
program
with
scottie
scotty's
home
sits
on
a
larger
than
average
lot,
and
I
know
the
program
would
be
an
excellent
fit
for
them.
Scotty
is
deeply
invested
in
their
home
and
works
tirelessly
towards
creating
a
more
creative,
equitable
and
just
community
for
themselves
and
their
neighbors.
P
The
majority
of
new,
affordable
housing
in
minneapolis
is
large-scale
apartment
buildings
built
by
private
developers.
Such
units
are
necessary
to
remedy
the
housing
prices
we
are
experiencing,
but
it
is
only
a
piece
of
the
puzzle.
Yard
homes
are
an
excellent
example
of
the
missing
middle
housing.
Our
city
needs
to
be
aggressively
pursuing,
and
this
unit
on,
18th
will
add
significant
value
to
the
neighborhood.
Please
approve
this
variance
and
show
our
city
that
we
can
work
together
towards
ensuring
there
is
housing
for
everyone.
Thank
you.
Q
B
Q
B
No,
let's
just
check
if
scotty
hollow
is
on.
Q
B
R
Q
Q
B
B
Okay,
so
let's
go
ahead
with
ms
hall:
let's
go
ahead
with
you
first
and
since
you
are
the
the
property
owner
and
if
you
could
give
your
address
and
your
name
for
the
record
and
then
your
testimony,
that
would
be
great.
M
Okay,
thank
you
so
much
for
your
time.
My
name
is
scottie
hall
and
I
live
at
2827,
18th
avenue
south
I'm
going
to
actually
be
repeating
some
of
the
stuff
that
nikki
just
talked
about.
I
am
working
with
an
organization
called
yard
home,
which
has
a
program
called.
Why
help
to
add
a
384
square
foot
one
bedroom
adu
in
my
backyard,
which
yard
home
will
rent
to
a
low
income
individual
who
qualifies
for
housing
assistance.
M
We
are
asking
for
the
extra
space
out
of
the
dignity
and
respect
of
the
person
who,
I
hope
will
want
to
live
in
the
home
for
a
meaningful
duration
of
time.
They
deserve
the
comfort
of
a
reasonably
sized
space
and
also
the
program
that
I'm
working
with
requires
that
it
be
a
one-bedroom
rather
than
a
studio.
M
The
current
existing
ordinances
were
created
before
the
minneapolis
2040
plan
was
put
in
place
and
we
believe
they
need
to
be
updated
to
support
the
city's
commitment
to
the
minneapolis
2040,
which
is
a
10-year
plan
to
create
and
support
equitable
access
to
housing.
Among
other
things,
and
just
on
a
personal
note,
I
bought
this
house
four
years
ago
with
the
help
of
the
city
of
lakes,
community
land
trust.
M
The
program
allows
low
income.
People
like
me
to
purchase
a
first
home.
I
would
not
have
this
house
without
their
program
and
it
has
been
a
wonderful
experience
to
build
friendships
and
relationships
with
my
neighbors
and
to
have
the
security
of
a
home.
I
have
seen
firsthand
how
our
city
is
in
dire
need
of
affordable
housing.
M
I
live
right
on
the
greenway,
which,
just
last
summer,
had
a
huge
unhoused
population
living
on
it,
and
I
just
think
it's
heartbreaking
and
shameful
that
that
we
have
such
a
large
unhoused
population
here,
and
this
program
provides
a
creative
way
to
share
land,
build
community
and
offer
secure
housing
for
everyone.
M
So
our
hope
that
this
will
be
a
precedent
that
and
that
that
it
will
become
easier
for
additional
yard
homes
or
other
low
income
housing
options
to
be
built.
B
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
testimony.
I
I
just
want
to
make
a
couple
of
things
clear
that
you
may
not
be
familiar
with
having
probably
not
dealt
with
the
city
before
or
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment,
we're
not
a
policy
making
body.
So
we
don't
get
to
change
the
rules
or
the
the
code.
B
We
have
to
find
for
findings
of
fact
to
allow
for
variances
to
be
granted.
So
one
of
the
findings
of
fact
that
we
need
to
find
for
is
a
practical
difficulty.
Can
you
speak
at
all?
To
I
mean
the
program
that
you're
talking
about
sounds
wonderful.
I
wasn't
familiar
with
it.
B
M
M
M
I
can
I
have
nicole
from
yard
home
speak
to
this.
I.
B
B
Q
Yep,
I'm
here
I'm
also
here
with
my
name's
nicole
damer,
I'm
the
ceo
and
founder
founder
of
yard
home.
So
we
have
the
program
that
provides
for
the
adus
that
would
be
installed
on
charity's
property.
My
business
partner,
jamie
stokolstead,
is
here
with
me
as
well.
I
know
he's
registered
as
the
speaker,
so
if
he
and
I
would
be
given
the
opportunity
to
take
team
here-
I
think
that
would
be
great.
We
could
save
some
time
and
address
these
issues
together,
as
it
relates
to
the
maximum
square
footage.
B
Q
Yep
yep,
definitely
as
it
relates
to
the
maximum
square
footage
calculation.
You
know.
Currently,
scotty's
property
has
the
allowable
space
to
add
a
larger
adu,
but
is
being
capped
by
a
accessory
coverage
ratio
percentage
of
676..
Q
We
believe
strongly
that
the
minneapolis
2040
plan
that
is
put
into
place
has
the
intention
of
removing
this
coverage
ratio
cap
to
allow
for
more
density
and
allow
for
larger
units.
In
fact,
so
we
feel
like
this
is
maybe
a
lag
behind
in
the
order
ordinance
not
being
updated
to
reflect
the
spirit
of
the
plan,
and
this
will
be
forthcoming.
Q
So
we
feel
that
and
the
other
practicality
that
we
know
is
not
conditional
upon
the
city
statutes,
but
the
goal
here
is
to
create
a
unit
that
is
large
enough
to
comply
with
the
vash
voucher
program,
which
does
require
for
the
unit
to
have
you
know
a
single
bedroom
in
the
unit,
so
allowing
for
the
additional
square
footage
allows
for
us
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
program
and
allow
us
for
the
adu
to
be
considered
livable
space
as
it
relates
for
them
as
it
relates
to
the
minimum
setback.
Q
Requirements
of
1.7
versus
the
three
foot
now
required.
It's
already
considered
a
a
non-conforming
use
under
that
rule,
we're
just
asking
for
that
non-conformity
to
be
retained
and
ask
for
to
substitute
the
type
of
property.
Q
That's
in
that
location,
we've
had
discussions
with
the
building
permit
department
and
they
are
comfortable
with
a
1.7
distance
for
an
adu
as
long
as
we
add
some
additional
fire
retardant
to
the
wall
that
faces
that
that
that
fence,
which
is
something
that
is
very
agreeable
from
yard
homes,
perspective
and
cut,
and
can
be
incorporated
into
the
cost
effectiveness
of
this.
So
we
feel
that
we
can
can
meet
the
spirit
intent
of
that
as
well.
Q
R
R
B
Okay,
anything
else
nope.
Okay,
thanks,
we
have
one
more
person
who
has
signed
up
to
speak,
and
that
is
mr
tim
springer.
If
you
could
press
star
six
to
unmute
your
phone,
hopefully
that
works.
L
L
L
Regarding
the
variance
related
to
the
maximum
combined
square
floor
area
of
accessory
structures,
I
agree
with
staff
finding
number
two
that
the
proposed
structure
is
consistent
with
the
2040
plan
in
terms
of
land
use,
built,
form
and
visual
quality.
I
also
agree
with
staff.
Finding
number
three
quote:
the
adu
would
be
only
36
square
feet
larger
than
the
existing
north
garage.
It
would
replace
and
would
not
be
detrimental
to
the
use
of
the
property
or
nearby
properties.
L
I
disagree
with
staff's
finding
number
one
that
the
holding
to
the
maximum
square
footage
for
accessory
structures
altogether
does
constitute
a
practical
difficulty
for
my
neighbor
scotty.
In
that
it
would
require
removal
of
the
other
existing
garage,
which
was
on
the
lot
when
scotty
blocked
the
home
and
scotty
uses
that
garage
for
storage
and
charging
over
her
electric
car
and
storage
of
bicycles
and
for
storage
of
lawn
tools
and
as
a
work
area
for
different
projects.
L
L
If
granted,
the
proposed
variance
would
not
be
detrimental
to
the
health,
safety
or
welfare
of
the
general
public
or
those
utilizing
the
property
or
nearby
properties.
I
don't
think
placing
a
new
yard
home
closer
than
three
feet
to
the
north.
Lot
line
is
problematic,
given
that
there
is
a
privacy
fence
there
now
with
a
structure
right
up
next
to
it,
and
the
new
structure
would
have
its
north
wall
in
the
same
place
as
the
existing
structure.
L
I
encourage
you
to
approve
the
variance
to
allow
a
smaller
side,
yard
setback
and
reading
through
the
packet
that
was
online
related
to
this
agenda
item.
I
noticed
that
originally
the
yard
home
was
planned
to
be
16
feet
by
28
feet
and
that
it
has
been
decreased
to
16
by
24,
apparently
in
an
effort
to
address
the
variance
issue
of
the
maximum
allowable
accessory
structure
square
footage.
L
And
I'm
I'm
going
to
shoot
for
the
moon
and
suggest
that
you
not
only
approve
the
variance
request.
But
you
approve
it
for
the
initial
size
of
16
by
28,
because
if
this
is
going
to
be
a
home
with
a
bedroom,
in
that
four
feet
is
going
to
make
all
the
difference
between
how
it
feels
to
live
in
there
between
being
too
small
and
just
right.
B
Thanks
for
your
comments,
so
I
think
we've
heard
from
everybody
who
signed
up
and
if
there's
anybody
else
who
would
like
to
speak,
you
can
press
star
six
to
unmute
your
phone
now
and
give
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
mr
springer.
By
the
way,
could
you
give
your
address
for
the
record.
B
I
will
reiterate
that
is
for
the
public,
we're
not
a
policy
board,
so
we
don't
set
precedent,
we're
not
a
precedent
setting
body.
We
are
looking
at
individual
properties
and
doing
findings
of
fact
that
we
legally
must
do
in
order
to
find
for
for
the
applicant
to
get
variances
and
that's
the
scope
of
our
our
purview
so
with
that
is
their
board
comment.
L
Excuse
me,
chair
perry,
I'm
sorry
to
jump
back
in
again
I
get
confused
with
the
lag
on
the
phone
versus
the
video,
but
my
address
is
28
36
18th
avenue
south.
I
apologize.
B
B
Well,
people
are
thinking
about
their
comments.
I'd
also
like
to
say
that
the
yard
homes
program
sounds
like
it's
a
great
program,
we'll
see
if
we
can
find
for
the
applicant
or
not,
but
regardless
of
whether
we
do
or
we
don't,
I
think
it's
a
great
program
and
if
we
don't
find
for
it
and
mean
it
another
avenue
to
look
at
is
talking
to
your
city
council
people
to
get
the
code
changed
so
that
the
art
homes
program
can
work
with
city
ordinance.
J
E
Thank
you,
sir
perry.
I
did
have,
I
guess
maybe
a
question
of
staff,
and
that
would
be
the
setback
issue
appears
to
be
because
of
the
location
of
the
existing
structure
there.
My
understanding
with
this
project
is
that
the
new
adu
would
require
a
different
foundation
and
could
be
moved
to
meet
the
setback.
E
Did
staff
find
any
reason
that
the
applicant
gave
as
to
why
they
could
not
create
this
structure
with
the
required
setback?
At
least.
N
Chair
perry
board
member
sandberg.
Thank
you
for
the
the
question
the
staff
finding
was
that
we
did
not
see
there
was
a
practical
difficulty
regarding
the
location
of
of
the
setback
and
particularly
with
trying
to
match
that
existing
setback
for
for
the
existing
garage.
N
My
understanding
of
the
proposal
is
that
it
is
to
completely
demolish
that
existing
north
garage
and
including
the
mini
slab
or
foundation
that
is
constructed
on
and
build
a
totally
new
structure
for
the
adu,
including
a
new
foundation,
and
I
can't
speak
for
the
applicants.
My
understanding
is
that
their
their
their
intent
is
to
match
the
you
know
that
existing
setback,
but
staff
did
not
find
a
practical
difficulty
regarding
that.
Regarding
that
particular
aspect
of
the
project,
in
that
variance
request.
E
B
Okay,
thank
you
and
mr
johannesson.
You
have
a
comment.
F
I
do
thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair
perry,
and
I
agree
with
your
sustenance.
I
feel
this
is
a
great
program,
but
in
this
case
I
I
really
am
not
in
support
of
this
setback,
because
I
I
myself
have
a
garage,
that's
it's
meets
the
requirements
and
my
neighbor
has
a
garage
that
meets
requirements
and
maintaining
the
space
between
those
garages
is
almost
impossible
and
in
this
case,
with
the
fence
and
a
building
right
there.
F
I
don't
support
that.
Some
support
staff
findings
on
that
point,
and
I
do
believe
I
just
don't
believe
this
site
is
the
appropriate
site
for
the
size
of
this
temporary,
like
structure.
I
think,
unfortunately,
in
this
case
I'm
supporting
staff
findings
on
both
items,
and
I'm
I'd
like
to
hear
what
my
fellow
board
members
have
to
say.
E
I
move
that
the
board
accepts
staff
findings
and
denied
the
variances.
I
agree
with
your
comments
that
this
is
a
good
project,
but
I
believe
it
could
be
done
in
a
way
that
would
meet
the
zoning
requirements.
B
B
That
motion
passes
so
the
requests
are
denied.
Ms
hall,
you
can
talk
to
the
mr
kohas
about
what
your
options
are
going
forward
and
with
that
we
move
on
to
our
last
variance
request
or
land
use
requests.
It's
at
5749
clinton
avenue.
Ms
brandt.
H
Good
evening
again,
chair
prairie
members
of
the
board
agenda
item
number.
Nine
is
the
variance
request
for
5749
clinton
avenue,
which
is
an
interior
lot,
which
is
adjacent
to
diamond
lake
in
south
minneapolis,
slightly
irregular
in
shape
and
approximately
8
100
square
feet
in
area.
It
is
zoned,
r1,
multiple
family
district
with
interior,
one
built
form
overlay
district,
as
well
as
the
airport
or
relay
district
and
shoreland
overlay
district.
H
It
is
directly
adjacent
to
the
parkland
around
diamond,
like
their
rear
law
line
is
right
up
to
the
parkland.
H
The
existing
house
on
the
site
is
a
three-story
house
and
their
proposal
is
to
construct
a
two-story
rear
edition
and
a
deck.
The
variances
that
are
required
are
to
increase
the
floor
area
ratio
from
0.5
to
0.52
and
to
permit
development
on
a
steep
slope
in
the
shoreland
overlay
district.
Next
slide.
Please.
H
So
this
is
just
showing
the
floor
plan,
the
basement
main
floor
second
floor
and
that
third
floor
and
then
the
proposed
elevations,
which
are
being
changed.
There
is
no
front
elevation
because
there
will
be
no
change
to
the
front
and
just
as
a
note
that
third
floor
is
existing,
there
are
no
proposed
changes
to
that
third
floor
next
slide.
Please.
H
So
the
first
variance
is
for
to
increase
the
floor
area
ratio
from
0.5
to
0.52
staff
finds
that
there
are
no
practical
difficulties
that
are
unique
to
this
parcel
related
to
the
request
to
increase
the
floor
area
ratio,
the
rear
of
the
site
does
slope
down
quite
a
bit
towards
diamond
lake,
but
the
area
around
the
house
is
quite
relatively
flat
such
that
the
basement
is
not
included
in
the
floor
area
ratio.
The
existing
conditions
on
the
site
were
created
by
the
applicant
last
added
onto
the
property
in
2003.
H
I
believe
the
proposal
does
not
meet
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
which
is
to
limit
the
bulk
of
structures.
The
proposal
would
not
be
detrimental
to
health
safety
or
welfare
and
would
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality.
H
Next
slide,
please,
in
the
interest
of
time
I'll,
wrap
this
up
quickly
and
say
that
staff
was
able
to
find
for
all
of
the
shoreland
overlay
findings,
including
the
the
technical
construction
findings.
I
can
go
over
those
if
you'd
like,
but
to
conclude
my
recommendation.
Staff
recommendation
is
to
deny
the
variance
for
floor
area
ratio
and
approve
the
variance
for
construction
on
a
steep
slope.
T
Share
period
commissioners,
good
evening,
thanks
for
for
listening
to
us
this
evening,
we
just
recently
received
the
staff
report.
We
do
believe
that
there
are
extenuating
circumstances
with
regards
to
the
building
bulk,
which
is
the
main
factor
in
recommending
denial
of
the
of
the
far
we
would
like
to
have.
You
consider
a
continuance
of
this
for
us
to
put
together
a
rebuttal.
B
H
B
Okay,
okay
is
there
so
the
board
can
move
to
continue
an
item
and
that
would
take
a
motion
by
someone
on
the
board
and
a
second
and
then
a
majority
vote
to
continue
the
item
to
a
future
date.
B
So
I
will
ask
the
board:
is
there
anyone
who
would
like
to
continue
it
make
a
motion
to
continue
given
mr
anderson's
desire
to
formulate
a
rebuttal
to
the
staff
findings.
F
Yes,
thanks
chairperry
can
we
may
we
ask
him
questions
sure
about
his
rebuttal.
B
Yeah-
and
I
I
think
there
is
also
potentially
emotion,
but
if
you
want
to
ask
a
question,
mr
anderson's
just
go
ahead.
F
Okay,
thank
you,
chair
prairie.
Thank
you,
mr
anderson.
Will
your
rebuttal
be
revising
to
meet
the
ordinance.
T
T
B
You
very
much
so
it
sounds
like
mr
anders
anderson
is
saying
he
would
like
to
find
for
practical
difficulties
in
the
other
findings
and
present
them
to
us.
Mr
sofley,
you
have
a
question
and
miss
frias.
I
know
you
have
emotion
that
you're
considering,
but
I
will
let
mr
softly
go
first
with
this
question.
K
T
B
Thank
you
so
miss
frias.
You
have
a
a
motion
to
make.
B
B
And
can
staff
tell
me
what
the
next?
What
is
the
meeting
date
for
the
next
is
that
the
21st.
A
B
So
we
will
continue
on
mr
anderson.
That
motion
fails
we're
not
going
to
continue
the
item
and
you.
T
The
the
extenuating
circumstances
that
we
were
able
to
briefly
talk
about
today
with
the
homeowners
and,
I
believe,
they're,
on
the
call
listening.
If
you
look
at
the
the
aerial
we
have.
T
And
I
think
it's
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
on
the
survey
there
are
very
large
easements
directly
to
the
south
of
us,
and
so
it
provides
an
appearance
of
a
much
larger
piece
of
property.
That's
there,
the
two-story
addition
is
really
nothing
more
than
taking
an
existing
deck
and
enclosing
it
at
the
main
level
and
the
level
above
it's
on
the
back
side
of
the
home
won't
be
visible
really
from
the
street
and
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
the
bulk
of
the
building,
which
is
really
the
sticking
point
here.
T
It
won't
be
recognized
the
bulk,
the
bulk
of
two
tenths
over
over
five
or
0.5.
I
should
say
it
won't
be
recognizable
from
from
from
anyone,
because
of
this
existing
easement
that
we
have
directly
to
ourselves.
T
In
the
other
variants
that
we
that
was
approved,
the
staff
found
that
the
proposal
would
not
alter
essential
character
of
the
area
or
be
injurious
to
use
or
enjoyment
of
the
nearby
property.
T
B
S
And
chair
this
is
lisa
bilsick
homeowner.
If
I'd
have
an
opportunity
to
speak,
I'd
appreciate
that.
B
S
Go
ahead
so
lisa
built
5749
clinton
avenue
and
to
answer
a
question
that
was
earlier
posed
about
when
the
homeowner
received
the
information
from
the
staff.
It
was
at
9
39
a.m
this
morning
and
then
just
to
radiate
reiterate
the
information
that
mr
anderson
just
provided
in
addition
to
a
60-foot
easement
to
the
south
of
the
home.
S
There
is
a
50-foot
easement
that
goes
to
the
lake
side,
which
is
on
the
east
side
of
the
home,
so
again
understanding
that
we
don't
meet
the
actual
requirements,
thus
fitting
the
request
for
the
variants,
but
the
intent
in
having
the
overall
bulk
on
the
parcel
of
land.
I
think
with
those
two
additional
easements
that,
from
a
visual
perspective,
I
think
it
meets
the
intent.
S
Furthermore,
we
have
had
conversations
with
all
of
our
neighbors,
and
especially
the
neighbor
to
the
north,
which
is
the
only
neighbor
that
would
have
any
visual
lines
to
the
addition
itself
and
she
is
in
support
of
it.
I
know
she's
not
on
this
call,
but
we
didn't
have
an
opportunity
to
prepare
that
and
that's
all
I
have
to
disappoint
unless
there
are
questions.
B
I
don't
hear
any
or
see
any
thanks
for
testimony
and
I
don't
think
there's
anybody
else
in
queue
for
to
speak.
So
I'm
going
to
close
the
public
hearing
and
ask
for
board
comment
or
questions
or
motion.
B
Is
there
any
board
comment,
mr
johannesson
you'd
like
to
make
a
motion?
Mr
softly
would
like
to
make
a
comment,
so
why
don't
we
hear
his
comment?
First.
K
You
know,
after
hearing
testimony
from
the
applicant,
I'm
persuaded
that
the
steps
finding
regarding
item
number
two
that
I
disagree
with
staff's
finding
in
that
regard.
I
think
that,
given
the
extra
space
given
the
surrounding
area,
that
the
bulk
of
the
home
is
not
a
not
an
issue
that
would
disrupt
disrupt
the
neighborhood
and
I
think
it's
a
reasonable
addition
to
make,
but
I'm
still
not
convinced
that
there's
a
practical
difficulty,
I
don't
see
that
and
I
agree
with
staff's
finding
with
regard
to
practical
difficulties.
K
B
E
E
A
B
B
So
we
have
one
more
item
we
have
to
deal
with,
and
I
apologize
to
mr
liska
for
keeping,
if
he's
still
on
the
line
for
item
number
seven,
which
is
an
item
to
continue
26
park
lane
for
one
cycle,
mr
liska,
if
you're
still
here,
could
you
provide
some
background
for
the
re?
The
reason
for
the
request
for
continuance
cheer.
G
Perry
members
of
the
board-
I
I'll
speak
for
mr
liska
in
this
case,
since
it
was
continued
longer
than
he'd
anticipated.
I
told
him
I
would
take
care
of
this,
for
him
sure
be
ready
for
any
presentation.
Should
it
be
continued
the
it's.
Actually,
it's
a
noticing
error.
It
is
a
staff
error,
unfortunately,
but
notices
the
wrong
pid
number.
G
The
wrong
property
identification
number
was
entered
into
the
into
our
form,
so
the
mailings
went
out
to
a
completely
different
set
of
properties,
so
nearby
neighbors
were
not
properly
notified
of
this
application.
So
we
were
worried
that
people
would
not
have
the
opportunity
to
speak
for
against
the
item.
Okay,.
B
K
B
B
Thank
you
all
for
sticking
in
there
it's
been
kind
of
a
long
meeting,
but
we
covered
a
lot
of
business
and
unless
there
is
any
new
or
old
business
that
we
have-
and
I
see
for
mr
ellis
that
staff
does
not
have
any
new
or
old
business
I
will
without
would
and
without
objection.
I
will
declare
this
meeting
adjourned.
Our
next
meeting
will
be
october,
21st
2021..
Thank
you.
Everyone
and
good
night.