►
From YouTube: April 22, 2021 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
B
C
Good
afternoon,
everyone
welcome
to
this
live
broadcast
of
our
virtual
meeting
today
april
22nd
2021.
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statute,
section
13d
.021,
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic
for
the
record.
My
name
is
matt
perry
and
I'm
chair
of
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment.
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.
D
Yes,
just
waiting
for
it
to
pull
up.
Thank
you
very
much
board
member
finlesson
hi
board
member
hutchins
hi.
E
F
F
C
C
E
G
F
C
So
if
you
were
here
on
march
18th,
you
certainly
can
vote
on
this.
If
you
weren't
here,
please
indicate
so
when
your
name
is
called
and
and
say
abstain.
Is
there
a
motion
to
approve.
C
C
G
F
H
I
Chair
perry,
members
of
the
board-
I
do
have
two
communications
this
evening.
One
is
an
update
on
an
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
board
of
adjustments.
Decision
from
the
march
18th
meeting
on
5116
vincent
avenue,
south
the
board
denied
upheld
staff
recommendation
and
denied
a
variance
to
a
a
rear
setback
for
a
garage
that
was
constructed
too
close
to
the
property
line.
I
It
was
approved
at
the
business
inspections,
housing
and
zoning
committee
and
will
likely
then
be
approved
at
council
at
the
next
cycle
here
and
then
also
at
an
earlier
one.
I
would
have
liked
to
have
updated
everybody
on
march.
On
april
1st,
at
the
april
1st
meeting,
the
the
the
the
board
members
who
were
up
for
reappointment
were
all
approved.
I
That
is
the
peri
softly
and
speaker,
and
then
we
also
will
have
a
new
person
to
replace
mr
ogiva
when
he
is
gone
and
her
name
is
jasmine
freyas
and
she
will
be
able
to
attend
the
may
sixth
meeting.
Thank
you.
C
Okay,
thank
you.
Let's
review
the
agenda
I'll,
read
the
agenda
number
and
address
of
the
project
and
state
whether
it's
slated
for
consent,
continuance,
withdrawal
return
or
discussion
and
I'll
just
talk
about
what
consent
and
discussion
items
are
consent
items
will
be
those
items
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,
any
applicable
conditions
will
be
listed
in
the
same
section.
C
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
for
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.
C
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
for
that
agenda
item
once
they
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.
C
C
C
I'm
not
hearing
or
seeing
anyone
agenda.
Item
number
seven
is
916
26th
avenue
northeast.
This
is
a
discussion
item
agenda
item
number
eight
is
1712.
Marshall
street
northeast
staff
is
recommending.
This
item
be
continued
until
the
may
6
2021
zoning
board
of
adjustment
meeting,
which
is
one
cycle
we
can
discuss
this
more.
When
we
review
requested
continuances
agenda
item
number
nine
is
3311
cedar
lake
avenue
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
Is
anyone
to
speak
against
this
item.
C
C
G
G
E
D
G
D
C
And
that
motion
passes
so
for
those
of
you
who
are
here
for
agenda
items,
number
five
number,
six
number
nine
and
number
eleven
your
land
use
requests
are
approved.
Good
luck
with
your
projects.
So
let's
move
on
to
items
for
continuance
that
is
agenda.
Item
number
eight
1712
marshall
street
northeast,
as
I
mentioned
the
applicant,
is
requesting
this
item
be
continued
and
I
I
don't
know
if
staff
or
the
applicant
is
requesting
this
we'll
hear
from
staff
on
that
in
just
a
minute,
but
be
continued
until
may
6.
C
J
Chair
perry,
this
is
staff
seeking
this
continuance
for
1712
marshall.
There
were
recently
some
mississippi
critical
overlay
area
standards
adopted
by
council.
J
This
was
a
staff
error
staff
reviewed
the
building
permit
in
december,
but
since
the
land
use
application
request
was
not
received
by
the
time.
Well,
the
updated
ordinance
went
into
effect,
mid-december
and
since
staff
did
not
receive
the
land
use
application
request
for
this
variance
by
mid-december.
J
We
need
to
review
that
under
the
new
regulations,
as
opposed
to
the
old
regulations
which
it
was
reviewed
under,
so
there
are
additional
standards
needed
with
the
new
overlay
and
the
property
owner
and
appellant
or
applicant
are
working
with
the
watershed.
J
C
C
C
K
D
D
C
All
right.
Let's
go
on
to
our
discussion
items
the
first
one
is
agenda
item
number,
seven
1916
26
avenue
northeast
mr
liska.
J
Thank
you
chair
good
afternoon,
board,
chairman
or
chair
members
or
chair
board
members.
The
item
before
you
is
an
appeal
of
the
zoning
administrator.
J
This
property
is
located
at
916,
26th
avenue,
northeast
zone
c2
and
has
the
pedestrian
oriented
overlay
district.
J
J
While
that
information
is
correct,
it's
not
complete.
At
that
point.
Somebody
in
zoning
should
have
been
included
in
the
correspondence.
At
that
time.
Zoning
would
have
done
a
substantially
similar
use
determination
followed
up
with
the
applicant.
Unfortunately,
zoning
was
not
included
at
that
time,
and
the
apple
can
move
forward
with
his
plans.
J
J
J
J
J
525.80
requires
or
affords
the
zoning
administrator
to
make
a
substantially
similar
use
determination
with
that,
the
zoning
administrator
looks
through
uses
that
are
found
within
the
zoning
code
and
best
aligns
the
proposed
use
with
the
use
regulated
by
by
code.
J
The
zoning
administrator
conducted
that
use
analysis
and
determined
that
the
use
is
most
similar
to
a
crematory
crematories
are
an
accessory
use
to
cemeteries.
J
More
crematories
must
be,
or
cannot
be
located
within
1000
feet
of
any
exterior
property
line.
If
we
would
look
at
the
zoning
as
well,
cemeteries
are
not
a
permitted
use
in
commercial
zoning
that
would
require
residential
zoning
next
slide.
Please.
J
This
information
is
in
your
your
reports.
I'll
touch
on
some
of
this
definition,
just
a
small
scale,
assembly,
disassembly
fabrication,
manufacturing,
cleaning,
servicing
packaging,
sorting
or
other
handling
of
goods
or
materials,
either
as
an
intermediate
input
for
further
production
or
processing
or
for
final
sale
use
or
consumption.
J
J
Well,
the
applicant
notes
that
the
proposed
use
aligns
with
limited
production
and
processing.
There
are
components
to
that
that
you
know
somewhat
align.
J
However
much
of
their
definition
or
much
of
their
request
aligns
with
cremation
chapter
520
160
regarding
definitions
basically
allows
all
words
and
phrases
not
defined
by
code
to
have
their
common
meaning,
so
code
does
not
specifically
define
crematory
or
cremation.
J
J
J
C
Thank
you,
mr
liska.
Before
we
start,
I
always
do
this
with
appeals
of
the
zoning
administrator,
but
I
want
to
cover
some
procedural
notes.
C
Furthermore,
it's
not
the
board's
responsibility
to
determine
whether
the
zoning
ordinance
is
correct
or
should
be
changed.
We
are
not
a
policy
making
body
in
the
appeals
of
the
zoning
administrator.
We're
we're
not
also
we're
also
not
charged
with
determining
the
efficacy
of
city
process.
So
if
there's
a
process
error,
that's
not
part
of
what
we
are
doing
with
appeals
of
the
zoning
administrator.
C
In
this
particular
case,
we
are
addressing
a
narrowly
defined
technical
issue.
Did
the
zoning
administrator
correctly
determine
that
the
pet
cremation
is
substantially
similar
to
a
crematory
as
a
matter
of
due
process?
The
appellant
is
afforded
broad
latitude
in
the
testimony
they
provide
to
make
their
case.
However,
since
written
testimony
has
been
provided
for
the
record,
this
body
will
ask
the
appellant
and
their
their
team
to
be
respectful
of
the
amount
of
time
they
use
in
providing
their
testimony
today,
the
same
broad
latitude
and
testimony
provided
applies
only
to
the
appellant.
C
C
H
Hello,
can
everyone
hear
me?
Yes,
okay,
perfect
hi,
my
name
is
jacob
stuart
and
I'm
the
owner
of
carrying
paws
located
at
916
26th
avenue
northeast
here
in
minneapolis,
and
I
guess
for
the
record.
I
hear
a
cat
on
the
call
and
that's
not
mine,
so
I'm
just
hoping
that
there's
someone
there
that
has
a
cat
and
also
loves
pet
thanks
for
taking
the
time
today
to
hear
my
appeal
and
obviously
no
one
likes
thinking
about
death
or
death
care
or
cremation,
including
myself,
and
there's
lots
of
negative
feelings
and
fears
surrounding
death.
H
G
H
Similar
in
name
only
not
practice
or
scope,
I've.
H
Businesses
here
in
minneapolis
for
over
15
years
and
one
of
my
businesses
has
locations
in
10
different
markets
across
the
country
and
I'm
sharing
that
background,
not
as
a
way
to
break
but
to
let
everyone
on
the
board
know
that
this
isn't
my
first
time
running
a
business.
This
isn't
my
first
time
working
with
the
city.
I
always
doubt
my
eyes.
I
always
cross
my
keys.
I
jump
through
all
the
hoops
and
I
do
things
by
the
books
and
I
believe
I
did
everything
by
the
books
when
I
started
carrying
paws,
I
hope
everyone.
H
I
mr
liska
said
that
he
would
give
everyone
a
copy
of
the
marked
up
staff
report
that
I
replied
to,
because
there
were
a
bunch
of
items
on
there
that
I
felt
needed
clarity.
So
I
hope
everyone
has
that
and
then
that
way
I
don't
have
to
address
those
things
so
I'll.
Just
assume
that,
but
I
reached
out
to
cped
in
may
of
2020
regarding
carrying
pause
and
seeking
approval.
B
H
When
you
look
at
the
staff
report,
when
my
appeals
denied
my
last
name
is
not
spelled
correctly
and
to
me
that's
kind
of
just
symbolic
of
this,
of
what
this
entire
process
has
been
like
for
a
person
for
a
business
owner,
I
you
know,
I
know
you're
not
voting
today
about
how
frustrated
I
am
and
whether
or
not
that's
right
or
wrong.
My
understanding
is
that
the
job
today
is
to
determine
whether
or
not
the
similar
use.
H
Was
conducted
correctly
and
I'll
try
to
cut
to
the
chase
and.
L
H
On
that
point,
hopefully
the
appeal
speaks
for
itself,
but
here's
why?
I
don't
believe
the
similar
use
analysis
was
conducted
correctly
or
fairly,
as
required
required
by
the
charter.
The
city
code
of
ordnance
requires
that
substantially
similar
use
analysis
not
only
include
a
statement
of
clarification,
but
also
includes
findings
that
led
to
such
a
conclusion,
and
so
eight
months
after
I
reached
out
to
cpec.
So
nobody
was
rushed
to
say
the
least,
and
here
is
the
entire
statement
that
I
received.
H
H
You
know
what
is
factual
and
required
that
should
be
there
is
that
the
city
makes
a
clear
distinction
between
animals
and
humans.
You
know
animals
are
referred
to
as
carcasses
when
they
pass
when
humans
pass
they're
referred
to
as
bodies.
H
The
other
thing
that's
required
by
the
city
charter
is
also
the
basic
principle
of
fairness,
and
you
know
when
a
similar
use
is
found.
You
know
that
similar
you
should
be
able
to
be
met
somewhere
within
the
city,
and
so
the
analysis.
The
human
crematorium
would
require
that
carrying
paws
be
an
accessory
or
adjacent
to
a
pet
cemetery,
and
I
think,
as
everyone
probably
knows,
pet
cemeteries
are
prohibited
in
the
city
of
minneapolis,
so
carrying
paws
could
not
be
an
accessory
to
a
cemetery,
as
the
analysis
suggests,
you
can't
bury
a
pet
in
minneapolis.
H
So
you
know
here:
pet
owners
are
with
a
deceased
pet
that
must
be
taken
care
of
in
a
timely
manner,
but
minneapolis
doesn't
want
to
allow
a
pet
crematorium
within
the
city,
and
so
you
know
nonetheless,
since
1982
a
human
crematorium
has
existed
in
c1,
a
more
restrictive
commercial
zone,
and
I
can
go
on
and
on
about.
You
know
my
grievances
and
again
I'll
try
not
to,
but
you
know
mr
liska
mentioned
how
we
said
you
know
we're
most
similar
to
limited
use
production.
H
My
understanding
is
that
it's
not
we're
simply
suggesting
another
alternative
use
that
we're
more
similar
to
we're
contending
that
we're
not
the
most
similar
to
a
human
crematorium.
You
know
if
we
want
an
even
more
similar
use
comparison.
How
about
a
funeral
home?
H
You
know
I
can
kind
of
go
on
to
like
what
makes
me
a
lot
more
like
a
funeral
home.
I
don't
like
it.
Let
me
just
briefly
and
I'll
try
and
keep
this
brief.
H
Funeral
homes,
even
in
the
city
outsource
their
cremation
to
services
outside
of
the
city,
and
so
human
crematoriums
in
the
area
are
extremely
industrial,
they're,
extremely
factory-like.
They
have
multiple
ovens
that
are
cremating
bodies,
24
hours
a
day,
seven
days
a
week,
and
so
let's
just
compare
that
to
what
I'm
doing
here
you
know.
My
guess
is
that
some
of
you
have
household
ovens
that
are
larger
than
my
crematory
oven.
It
was
inspected
and
being
safe
by
the
city.
It
meets
all
the
state
environmental
regulations.
H
H
So
10
percent
of
what
I
do
is
actual
cremation
and
the
other.
Eighty
percent
of
what
I
do
is
making
cloth
paw
prints
is
harvesting
and
packaging.
Hair
clippings
is
transporting
pets
from
people's
homes
to
carrying
paws
is
transporting
pets
from
vet
clinics
or
diagnostic
labs
to
carrying
pots.
It's
connecting
owners
of
sick
pets
with
vets
that
provide
palliative
care
that
provide
hospice
care
that
offer
euthanasia
services.
H
I
connect
pet
owners
with
aging
pets,
or
I
connect
pet
owners
of
asian
pets
with
a
local
photographer
that
specializes
in
photo
shoots
to
memorialize
the
pet.
While
it's
alive
when
the
client
brings
their
pet
to
caring
pause,
I
carry
their
pets
into
caring
paws
I
clean
their
pet
off.
I
make
their
pet
look
peaceful,
so
they
can
say
their
goodbyes.
H
H
This
service
is
far
more
similar
to
a
funeral
home
which
is
permitted
within
c2.
I
provide
grief,
support
to
the
clients.
I
provide
the
clients
with
resources
to
help
them
and
their
children
process
and
move
through
grief,
every
client
that
that
comes
to
caring
pause.
I
reach
back
out
to
two
weeks
after
to
see
how
they're
doing
and
I
continue
to
communicate
with
clients
via
email
and
and
even
get
phone
calls
from
previous
clients.
H
So
I
mean,
if
looking
for
a
similar
use
analysis,
it's
closer
to
a
funeral
home
than
a
human
crematorium,
and
I
know
these
have
been
stressful
times
for
everyone
and
the
loss
of
the
pet
during
the
pandemic,
and
it's
even
been
more
heart-wrenching.
I
just
want
to
close
with
just
a
couple
of
situations
that
maybe
kind
of
will
illustrate
what
I
actually
do
on
a
daily
basis.
H
H
These
aren't
things
that
human
crematoriums
do.
I've
taken
song
requests
from
pet
owners
that
used
to
drive
around
with
their
pet
to
play
for
their
pet.
While
they
arrive
to
caring
paws,
I've
had
to
read
a
heart-wrenching
goodbye
notes
to
pets
from
pet
owners
who
are
not
able
to
to
be
here
who
have
mobility
issues.
H
This
is
a
service
that
edina
offers.
This
is
a
service
that
denver
grove
heights
offers,
and
I
just
I
I
just
want
to
be
able
to
help
and
I'm
just
unsure
why
why
the
city
is
unable
to
feel
this
service
is,
is
needed
and
useful
and
helpful,
and
I'd
like
to
like,
allow
my
attorneys,
chime
in
and
and
actually
speak
to
any
sort
of
legal
questions.
C
C
Stewart
I'm
not
hearing.
Oh
there
is
a
question,
mr
softly.
M
H
Yep
and-
and
so
our
appeal,
there's
a
lot-
there's
a
lot
of
information
in
the
appeal
as
well
regarding
the
emissions,
but
long
story
short,
and
I
think
one
of
the
misconceptions
about
cremation
is
that
what
is
exiting
the
building
is
completely
100
percent
carbon
dioxide.
So
there
are
no
smells.
There
are
no
orders,
you
don't
see
anything,
it's
invisible,
so
the
only
emission
is
carbon
dioxide
and-
and
if
you
look
at
some
of
the,
I
think
we
included
this
in
the
appeal.
H
Most
people
agree
that
a
common
bonfire
is
actually
more
harmful
to
the
environment
than
a
cremation
than
a
human
cremation,
and
obviously
a
petri
nation
we're
talking
about
a
lot
smaller
mass,
that's
being
cremated.
So
I
hope
that
answers
your
question.
It
does.
C
I'm
not
seeing
any
so
we'll
move
on
to
ms
woods.
A
Yes,
I
can
you
hear
me.
C
And-
and
I
would
just
ask,
I
would
just
ask
you:
we've
heard
quite
a
bit
of
testimony
from
mr
stewart,
if
you
would
just
please
not
repeat
what
he
has
already
said.
We
we,
I
think,
we've
got
that
point
the
points
that
he's
made
and
they
re
they
are
reflective
of
the
documentation
that
was
submitted
by
himself
and
yourself.
A
Sure
sure,
yes,
I
will
not
repeat
that,
so
I
might
jump
around
just
slightly
but
I'll
keep
it
brief.
So
after
mr
stewart
contacted
cped,
specifically
in
may
of
2020
asking
if,
if
this
use
was
allowable
at
this
property,
which
was
zone
c2,
he
was
and
cped
is
part
of
the
zoning
zoning
department.
A
So
I
I
don't
know
how
you
know
he
would
have
known.
Well,
I
got
to
send
a
separate
email
or
or
contact
zoning
department
separately,
because
the
point
is:
there's
a
portal
that
a
new
business
owner
contacts,
the
city
of
minneapolis,
which
is
what
he
did
so
that
individual
at
cped
told
him.
You
know
check
with
mpca
and
make
sure
that's
okay,
and
he
did.
A
He
went
through
that
and
that's
all
been
submitted
and
mpca
the
emissions
are
de
minimis
and
mtca
does
not
even
regulate
regulated
and
then
also
speaking
of
the
admissions,
as
you
said,
he's
done
about
a
hundred
since
I
think
january
or
february,
and
there
have
been
no
complaints.
There's
no
one.
A
A
This
use
is
a
small
fraction
of
what
is
at
his
property,
because
you
know
his
his
main
business
is
going
to
be
running
again.
The
photo
the
traveling
photo
booth,
but
the
the
pet
cremation
is
only
about
310
square
feet
or
seven
percent
of
of
his
entire
view
property
their.
So
this
is
this
is
just
a
small
portion
of
the
overall
footprint
and
then
the
actual
cremation.
A
The
one
small
oven
is
just
even
a
smaller
fraction
of
that
in
terms
of
the
substantially
similar
use
analysis
that
was
done
about
eight
months,
eight
months
after
he
was
actually
approved.
To
do
this,
I
I
will
note
that
every
represent
the
city.
Coach
at
crematory
is
prefaced
with
the
term
human,
so
there
is
a
difference
with
a
human
crematory
versus
a
pet
crematory.
A
Similar
minnesota
statutes
address
human
crematory,
but
not
a
pet
crematory,
and
they
specifically
provide
human
crematory.
Pets
are
legally
personal
property,
I
mean
no
one
really
wants
to.
You
know
address
that,
because
again,
death
is
not
pretty,
but
a
human
I
mean
a
pet
body
is
a
carcass.
It's
not
it's,
not
a
human
body.
So
all
the
same
regulations
don't
apply
to
pets
as
they
do
to
human
bodies.
A
Obviously
you
know:
there's
no
paperwork,
there's
no
death
certificates
for
death
of
the
pets,
there's
no
regulation
at
city,
county
or
state
level
for
dealing
with
disposal,
a
pet
remains
other
than
the
city
and
minneapolis
does
require
that
the
bodies
be
disposed
of
within
12
hours,
which
is
a
very
quick
time
frame.
I
mean,
I
understand,
there's
probably
very
little
enforcement
of
that,
but
it
is
in
the
minnesota
in
the
minneapolis
statutes
or
the
minneapolis
code.
A
So
this
is
a
service.
It's
a
small,
small-scale
service.
It's
personalized!
It's
not
a
large-scale
industrial
operation
and
it
provides
a
service
which
is
you
know,
a
valuable
service
to
minneapolis
residents
and
again
it's
it's
in
a
c2
district.
The
the
largest
human
cremation
is
in
c1
district
and
has
been
since
about
1982.
I
realized
it
was
grandfathered
in,
but
I
mean
that
is
fairly
significant
in
terms
of
just
a
fairness
analysis
here.
A
I
think
you
know,
I
think
I
think
the
substantially
similar
use
would,
as
jacob
mentioned,
would,
would
be
similar
to
a
funeral
home,
but
at
the
same
time
it
is
also
similar
to
limited
production
and
processing.
I
mean
because
that's
he
does
provide
these
products
out
of
the
the
pet
cremains
and
also
there
is
a
catered
call
category
called
memorial
monuments,
which
is
exactly
what
he's
preparing
and
those
are
permitted
uses
in
the
c2
district.
A
C
M
Thank
you,
chair
perry
and
thank
you
miss
woods.
I
have
a
question
related
to
the
last
comment
you
had
about
memorial
monuments
and
I'm
curious
if
the
basis
of
the
denial
as
you
read
it
is,
is
based
on
the
creation
of
memorial
monuments
or
if
the
basis
of
the
denial
is
on
the
cremation
oven
and
if
you
could
elaborate
a
little
bit
on
those
two
distinctions.
A
F
A
What
you
know,
what
was
that
that
memorial
monuments
are
part
of
this
whole
process,
so
there
wasn't
really
any
back
and
forth
or
any
sort
of
analysis
other
than
they
saw
the
word
cremation,
they
said.
Well,
that's
got
to
be
close
to
human
cremation.
It's
just
not
allowed.
C
I
see
none
is
there
anyone
else
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
matter
for
or.
C
C
C
Okay,
any
comment
from
the
board
ms
samar
carva.
N
Thank
you
chef.
I
I
think
that
the
appellants
makes
a
very
good
case
for
that.
The
analysis
was
incorrect.
I
am
unclear
if
it
being
the
similar
use
being
funeral
home,
makes
a
difference
and
enough
that
he
would
be
able
to
continue
operating
where
he
is.
I
think
it
does,
but
all
the
additional
services
outside
of
actually
the
cremate
creation
sound
like
a
differentiator
between
just
a
cremate
cremation
factory
and
and
what
he
does
so
I
I
I
think
that
maybe
that
it
was
incorrect.
N
The
analysis
and
similar
use,
designation.
C
So
before
we
get
to
mr
ogiba,
maybe
we
can
ask
staff
about
that.
Your
question
regarding
whether
funeral
home
would
make
a
difference.
Can
staff
weigh
in
on
that.
J
Yeah,
a
funeral
home
is
permitted
in
this
zoning
district.
A
funeral
home
does
not
allow
you
to
cremate
humans
or
pets.
Staff
doesn't
have
an
issue
with
memorial
monuments.
You
know
that
use
it's
specific
to
the
burning.
J
The
appellant
was
noting
the
property
that
exists.
C1
zoning
that
use
was
established.
I
think
sometime
in
the
80s
and
had
been
a
tremendous
issue
for
the
city
and
that's
why
code
was
changed
to
require
that
all
burning
be
done
at
least
a
thousand
feet
from
those
exterior
lot
lines,
because
the
city
did
experience
that
there
was
a
real
issue
with
that.
N
C
You,
yes,
thank
you,
mr
liska,
mr
ogiba
and
then
mr
softly.
E
E
Here,
I
think,
is
the
the
case
that
the
appellant
seems
to
be
bringing
forward
is
really
an
attempt
to
kind
of
focus
on
all
of
the
other
services
that
are
that
are
included
here
in
making
the
cremation
seem
almost
as
a
tertiary
and
secondary
use
of
what's
happening
here,
which
is,
is
a
bit
contrary
to
some
of
the
things
when
you
look
at
just
if
you
were
to
do
a
google
search
of
caring
pause
and
it
comes
up
as
the
website
is
caring,
pause,
prep,
cremation
service
or
pet
cremation,
whatever
the
exact
url
is,
I
I
apologize
for
not
having
a
100
correct,
but
it
comes
right
into
that
point,
and
I
think
that
the
focus
of
this
has
to
be
on
that
we're
talking
about
a
fire,
a
place
that
that's
burning,
a
temperature
or
something
that's
being
controlled
here.
E
In
doing
that,
I
think
the
services
that
they're
providing
well
great
the
city
doesn't
have
a
definition
of
that
they
have
to
assign
and
look
at
that
from
a
certain
way,
and
I
think
in
this
particular
case
the
zoning
administrator
did
so.
I
also
you
know
there.
There
was
a
lot
of
talk
from
the
appellant
about
there's,
you
know
looking
at
the
and
how
this
was
was
viewed
and
feeling
that
there
was
an
approval,
and
I
guess
I
just
I.
E
I
don't
see
the
the
city's
statement
of
saying
that
we
don't
license
this
type
of
business
as
any
as
any
sort
of
approval
from
that.
So
in
in
this
particular
case
and
and
looking
at
this
and
the
the
specific
specificity
sorry
of
these
cremation
service,
I
think
the
city
and
the
zoning
administrator
correctly
has
applied.
C
Thanks
for
those
comments,
mr
softly.
M
Thank
you,
chair,
perry,
dan
stole
my
thunder.
I
agree
with
everything
dan
said.
I'd
further
say
from
what
I
from
what
I
see.
I
I'm
really
sympathetic
to
the
business
owner
to
mr
stewart
for
all
the
hoops
that
you
do
have
to
jump
through.
I
don't
think
that
there
was
a
zoning
request
made
under
the
criteria
that
the
city
requires.
C
Thank
you,
chairman
perry,
who's
speaking.
H
It's
mr
stewart,
the
appellant.
H
O
Thanks
jared
perry,
I'd
like
to
voice
my
opinion
that
I
think
the
appellant
is
correct,
but
they're
closer
to
a
funeral
home,
and
I
think
to
echo
what
miss
smirkova
said
that
it
is
drastically
different,
especially
when
you
talk
about
cremating,
a
human
being
versus
cremating,
a
pet.
I
think
they
are
vastly
different
and
the
assessment
of
the
analysis
was
a
tad,
short-sighted
or
incomplete
in
my
opinion,
so
I
would
go
with
the
appellant
in
this
one.
To
be
honest,
thank
you.
F
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
sympathize
with
the
appellant,
certainly,
and
I
understand
that
he
should
have
gotten
more
complete
information
from
the
city
when
he
made
his
applications
for
his
business.
I'm
not
sure
that
the
city
should
prohibit
uses
that
that
that
he
is
doing.
F
Unfortunately,
the
zoning
code
does
not
permit
it
and
that's
the
rules
that
we
have
to
follow.
If
a
use
is
not
specifically
state
stated
as
permitted,
then
the
zoning
administrator
looks
for
the
most
similar
thing
and
I
think
that's
what
the
zoning
administrator
did.
So,
unfortunately,
I
think
it's
a
policy
decision
that
we
cannot
make.
I
think
maybe
the
city
council
should
permit
this
kind
of
use,
but
it's
not
up
to
us
to
do
that.
So
I
agree
with
the
zoning
administrator's
findings.
C
Thank
you,
mr
sandberg.
Does
anybody
else
want
to
speak?
Mr
ellis,
do
you
want
to
weigh
in
on
something
I
see
you're,
making
a
comment
in
the
comment
section.
I
Yes,
chair
perry,
members
of
the
board.
I
just
want
to
reiterate
what
mr
aliska
had
said
in
the
event,
I
know
there's
a
lot
of
debate
going
on
with
the
board
right
now,
but
to
be
clear,
the
specific.
Let's
get
mr
liskett
noted
that
the
specific
development
standard
for
a
funeral
home
explicitly
says
funeral
home
crematory
shall
be
prohibited,
except
for
accessory
to
a
cemetery.
It
again
kind
of
would
get
back
to
our
argument
that
we
were
arguing
that
a
pet
crematory
is
a
is
a
crematory.
I
Therefore,
I
mean
it
would
be
kind
of
ended
up
in
a
circular
argument.
If
the
board
gets
into
a
larger
debate,
I
think
if
you
still
say
funeral
home,
we
would
still
be
arguing
that
it
would
be
a
prohibited
use,
so
I'm
not
sure
that
that
would
be
the
route
for
a
substantially
similar
use
analysis.
Should
the
board
disagree
with
the
zoning
administrator's
determination
wish
to
assign
it
a
different
use?
Classification.
C
Okay,
that
so
that
makes
sense
to
me
and,
as
I
say,
about
the
appeals
of
the
zoning
administrator,
if
you
don't,
if
you
determine
that
you
are
going
to
not
find
for
the
zoning
administrator
analysis,
you
have
to
come
up
with
something
substantially
similar
in
order
to
grant
the
appeal
you
can't
just.
C
C
So
if
there
are
other
questions
of
mr
aliska
or
mr
ellis,
if
we
go
down
that
route,
certainly
please
raise
your
hand
or
ask
to
be
recognized.
Is
there
any
other
comment.
E
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
would
make
a
motion
to
move
staff
findings
and
uphold
the
decision
of
the
zoning
administrator.
C
G
B
E
C
And
so
that
motion
passes
mr
stewart,
you
can
talk
to
staff
about
what
your
options
are
going
forward
and
we
move
on
to
our
next
item.
C
K
K
The
subject:
property
has
a
lot
area
of
7425
square
feet
and
a
lot
width
of
just
under
50
feet
wide.
This
is
a
aerial
photograph
of
the
area
from
I
believe
this
is
from
the
spring
of
2018,
so
more
or
less
the
existing
conditions.
K
The
existing
principal
use
of
the
property
is,
as
a
single-family
dwelling,
the
current
house
was
established
on
this
property
in
1947
with
some
subsequent
alterations.
There
are
also
two
existing
detached
garages
in
the
rear
yard,
one
of
which
you
can
see
more
on
the
on
the
north
side
so
towards
the
top
there's.
The
larger
and
newer
of
the
two.
It's
just
under
900
square
feet
and
was
constructed
under
land
use
application
approvals
in
1999
by
a
previous
owner
of
the
property.
K
K
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
demolish
the
existing
dwelling
on
the
subject
property
and
construct
a
new
two-story
single-family
dwelling.
The
applicants
are
also
proposing
to
demolish
that
smaller
existing
garage
in
the
southeast
corner
of
the
property
and
they
would
restore
that
area.
With
kind
of
you
know:
grass
landscaping,
as
just
as
open
yard,
space,
open
yard
space
excuse
me,
and
they
are
also
proposing
to
keep
that
that
larger,
newer
garage
on
the
north
side.
K
That's
still
shown
on
on
their
proposed
survey
here
to
focus
back
on
the
new
house,
though
the
district
standard,
minimum
front
yard
in
the
interior,
two
built
form
overlay
district
is
20
feet.
However,
the
zoning
code
requires
an
increased
minimum
front
yard
and
this
is,
you
know,
potentially
increased
beyond
that
20
feet
district
standard
minimum
that
minimum
is
increased
when
either
of
the
neighboring
houses
are
set
back
farther
than
that
district
standard
of
20
feet,
and
that
is
the
case
here.
So
the
minimum
required
front
yard
for
the
subject.
K
Property
is
actually
determined
by
the
line
drawn
between
the
corners
of
those
neighboring
houses
located
nearest
to
their
front
lot
lines
not
including
permitted
obstructions
like
open,
porches
or
vestibules,
which
is
the
case
for
the
neighboring
houses
on
either
side
of
this
property.
So
you
can
see
that
dashed
line
that
is
drawn
between
the
the
corners
of
the
neighboring
houses
and
that
that
dashed
line
is
the
minimum
required
front
yard
for
the
subject
property.
K
The
front
of
the
proposed
dwelling
on
the
subject.
Property
would
have
an
open
covered,
porch
and
some
eve
overhangs,
which
are
permitted
obstructions
within
a
required
front
yard.
But
the
rest
of
that
proposed
dwelling
is
subject
to
the
minimum
front
yard
requirements,
and
so
this
includes
the
kind
of
the
main
building
bulk,
as
well
as
a
proposed
cantilever.
That
they
would
have
on
the
upper
level
on
the
front
of
the
house.
This
cantilever
would
extend
two
feet
closer
to
the
front
lot
line
than
the
main
level
building
bulk.
K
I'm
calling
this
out
because
the
the
nearest
corner
of
that
cantilever
would
be
set
back
20.1
feet
from
the
front
lot
line.
This
cantilever
is
not
a
permitted
obstruction
in
a
required
front
yard.
So
this
is
kind
of
the
nearest
point
of
the
house,
which
is
not
a
permitted
obstruction
in
the
nearest
point
to
the
front,
lock
property
line.
So
that's
where
the
proposed
setback
for
the
house
is
determined.
That's
where
the
20.1
foot
number
comes
from.
K
As
I
said
much
of
the
proposed
building
bulk
on
both
levels
of
the
structure,
so
not
just
that
cantilever,
but
including
a
substantial
portion
of
the
main
level
building
bulk
would
be
within
that
required
front
yard
determined
by
the
line
drawn
between
the
fronts
of
the
neighboring
houses.
The
applicants
are
requesting
this
variance
to
reduce
the
required
front
yard
to
20.1
feet,
as
shown
on
the
plans
here
to
speak
about
staff
analysis
for
the
required
findings.
Briefly,
for
the
first
finding.
K
Regarding
practical
difficulty,
due
to
circumstances
unique
to
the
property
not
created
by
persons
presently
have
an
interest
in
the
property
and
not
based
on
economic
considerations
alone.
Staff
finds
that
this
is
not
met.
The
subject
property
has
a
lot
area
of,
as
I
said,
around
7
400
square
feet.
It's
just
under
50
feet
wide
and
just
under
150
feet
deep.
This
lot
size
for
a
small
scale,
residential
property.
K
You
know
a
single
family
dwelling
in
this
case
is
not
necessarily
unusual,
although
there
are
a
lot
of
single-family
dwelling
properties
in
minneapolis
which
are
a
little
bit
smaller
than
this.
But
again,
as
I
said,
the
lot
dimensions
in
this
case
are
not
necessarily
unusual
again.
They
would
be
keeping
that
existing
garage.
The
the
northern
garage
which
is
relatively
large
and
does
extend
relatively
far
forward
on
the
subject
property
compared
to
you
know
most
detached
garages.
K
We
see
accessory
to
single
family
dwellings,
even
though
that
neighboring
house
to
the
north
is
set
back
relatively
far
from
from
the
front
lot
line,
especially
compared
to
a
lot
of
other
houses
on
on
the
same
block
face
and,
and
this
neighboring
setback
does
result
in
a
greater
minimum
required
front
yard
for
the
subject.
Property
there's
still
a
lot
of
space
in
between
the
the
garage
which
they
would
keep
on
the
subject,
property
and
the
greatest
extent
of
that
required
front
yard.
K
There's
still,
I
think
it's
around
57
feet
of
distance
in
between
those
still
a
substantial
amount
of
space
for
for
locating
a
dwelling
on
the
property
and
considering
that
the
other
garage
on
the
subject,
property
would
be
removed
and
that
area
would
be
restored
as
as
kind
of
open
yard
space.
There
would
still
be.
K
The
spirit
intent
of
minimum
yard
requirements
generally
is
to
promote
the
orderly
development
and
use
of
land
to
provide
for
adequate
light
air
and
open
space
and
to
ensure
adequate
separation
of
uses
for
these
minimum
front
yard
requirements
specifically-
and
you
know,
based
on
the
locations
of
neighboring
houses,
which
is
the
case
here.
The
intent
of
those
particular
requirements
are
to
promote
uniformity
of
front
yard
space
across
an
entire
residential
block
face.
K
I
I
think,
ideally,
every
house
on
a
block
would
have
a
similar
front
setback
and
all
the
houses
would
be
more
or
less
in
line
with
each
other.
Although,
as
we
all
know,
that's
not
always
the
case
and
is
not
the
case
here.
There
is
some
variation
in
in
the
established
front
yards
for
all
the
houses
on
this
block
and
and
that
having
variation
like
that
is,
is
not
uncommon.
K
When
there
is
some
variation
like
this,
the
zoning
code
requires
new
improvements,
such
as
a
new
structure,
as
is
the
case
here
or
alterations
to
an
existing
structure
like
in
addition
to
a
house.
The
zoning
code
requires
those
those
improvements
to
be
farther
from
the
lock
from
the
front
lot
line
by
requiring
this
minimum
front
setback
and
the
intent
is
to
preserve
views
up
and
down
the
street
from
the
fronts
of
existing
dwellings.
K
So
you
know
those
views
from
a
neighboring
house
wouldn't
be
blocked
from
changes
on
on
the
property
next
door
in
such
a
way
that
would
you
know,
block
the
views
up
up
and
down
the
street.
K
Another
potential
exception,
that's
built
into
the
code,
is
if
the
majority
of
houses
along
a
block
face,
have
established
fund
setbacks
that
are
less
than
the
district
standard
of
20
feet.
In
this
case,
then,
the
subject
property
can
also
have
a
front
setback
that
is
less
than
the
district
standard,
but
still
not
less
than
the
line
drawn
between
the
neighboring
houses.
So
the
burden
of
proof
in
these
cases
has
not
really
been
met.
K
So,
even
though
that
neighboring
house
to
the
to
the
north
is
set
back
relatively
far
compared
to
most
of
the
other
houses
on
the
block,
it
doesn't
meet
the
specific
thresholds
that
are
built
into
the
code
for
actually
removing
it
from
consideration
in
this
case,
and
so
staff
does
not
find
that
it's
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
in
this
regard
for
the
third
finding
regarding
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
and
potential
for
injury
to
persons
or
property
staff,
does
find
that
this
is
met.
K
The
the
neighborhood
in
this
case
does
include
a
variety
of
building
sizes
of
architectural
styles,
of
the
locations
of
buildings,
on
on
a
property,
and
I'm
speaking
mostly
about
you
know
across
the
low
density
residential
ranges,
as
that
is
kind
of
the
most
common
type
of
use
in
this
neighborhood.
The
proposed
front
setback
for
the
subject
property
for
that
new
dwelling
is
still
20.1
feet.
It
still
meets
that
district
standard
minimum
of
20
feet,
for
you
know
providing
that
minimum
separation
in
between
the
house
and
the
public
right
away.
K
In
this
case,
the
the
proposed
house
would
be
in
compliance
with
the
minimum
side
setback
requirements
so
on
the
north
and
south
sides
of
the
house.
So
the
staff
does
not
find
that
this
you
know,
creates
any
potential
for
injury
to
detriment
in
that
regard.
K
C
Thanks
for
that
presentation,
mr
softly.
M
Thank
you,
chair
perry
and
thank
you,
mr
calls
for
the
presentation.
I
have
two
questions.
First
is
maybe
a
clarification.
You
mentioned
an
exception
for
the
string
line
test
where
an
adjacent
property
is
25
feet
behind
the
established
setback
for
the
district.
Is
that
correct.
K
Thank
you,
chairperry
board,
member
softly
that
25
foot
measurement
in
this
case
for
removing
a
house
from
consideration
is
not
from
the
district
standard,
but
it's
from
from
any
other
neighboring
or
any
other
house
on
the
same
block
face.
I
should
say
so.
If
the
neighboring
house
in
in
this
case
that
that
house
to
the
north
is
the
one
that's
mostly
the
issue
here.
K
If
it
had
been
25
feet
further
back
than
any
other
house
on
that
block
face,
then
we
could
have
removed
it
from
consideration
here
and
and
then
draw
on
the
line
to
the
next
neighboring
house,
but
that
that
that
burden
of
proof
you
know,
then
we
have
to
start
looking
at
the
entire
blockchains,
and
that
was
not
necessarily
met
in
this
case.
M
Okay,
well,
okay,
correct
then
walk
me
through
this
and
just
if
I'm
wrong
be
brutal
with
me,
but
I'm
looking
at
the
the
the
document
you
have
on
the
screen
right
now
and
the
property
to
the
north
has
a
survey
measurement
of
46.4
feet
in
the
front
property
line
and
the
property
to
the
south
has
a
measurement
of
19.9,
and
that
looks
to
me
to
be
more
than
25
feet.
M
K
Thank
you,
chair
prairie
board
members
softly,
so
I
should
have
been
more
clear
in
my
previous
comments
that
the
the
front
setbacks
when
we're
looking
at
whether
you
know
where
to
measure
an
established
setback
to
for
a
house.
That's
existing.
We
don't
include
anything
that
meets,
meets
the
conditions
for
being
a
permitted
obstruction,
which
I
think
is
in
chapter
535
of
the
zoning
code.
And
so
there
are
many
different
types
of
permitted
obstructions,
including
an
open
front.
Porch
is
a
common
example.
K
B
K
The
letters
are
a
little
small,
but
I
think
it's
just
under
20
feet
where
it's
drawn
to
that
kind
of
forward
most
corner
of
of
the
polygon
that
that
front
little
bump
out
that
you
can
see
on
the
left
side
of
that
house
to
the
south.
That
is
a
vestibule
that
meets
the
conditions
for
being
a
permitted
obstruction.
It
is,
I
think,
less
than
75
square
feet
in
area
and
extends
less
than
seven
feet
in
front
of
that
house.
K
So,
even
though
the
survey
shows
that
you
know
it
notes
that
you
know
just
under
20
feet
measurement
for
zoning
purposes,
the
established
front
setback
of
that
neighboring
house
is
actually
drawn
not
to
that
forward,
most
corner
but
kind
of
to
the
next.
You
know
primary
building
wall
and
that's
where,
if
you
look
at
the
dashed
line
drawn
between
those
two
neighboring
houses,
that's
why
it's
drawn
to
that
kind
of
northernmost
corner.
On
on
that
neighboring
house.
I'm
not
sure
if
that
is,
is
more
clear,
completely
answers
your
question.
M
That
is
very
helpful.
Yes,
thank
you,
so
it
looks
like
we're
dealing
with
possibly
20
feet
of
variance
and
not
or
20
feet
of
difference
and
and
not
the
25
plus
that
I
had
thought
it's
like
accurate,
correct.
Okay,
thank.
C
L
C
L
Yeah
challenges
of
technology
everybody's
in
love
with
this
yeah,
so
I
think
you
know
thanks
to
alex
for
putting
out
the
the
summary
of
the
of
the
proposal.
L
Again,
you
know
a
lot
of
it
hangs
on
the
on
the
northern
neighbor
in
the
location
of
his
house.
I
you
know
it
seems
like
it's.
We.
What
we're
trying
to
do
is
is
get
our
get
our
the
new
place
to
be
ex
constructed
where
our
current
house
resides.
That's
that's
the
crux
of
the
of
the
request,
and
it
does
you
know
as
we
look
at
the
letter
of
the
law
and
where
the
lines
are
drawn
it
does.
L
You
know
that
the
proposal
would
would
not
be
in
in
the
code,
which
is
why
we're
actually
actually
for
the
variance.
Obviously,
this
is
all
clear
to
everybody,
but
I
think
where
it
gets
where
it
gets
a
little
hairy.
There
is
just
like
the
location
of
the
northern.
The
northern
neighbor
is
really
definitely
affecting
our
our
ability
to
to
build
where
we
would
like
again
where
our
current
home
is
currently
located.
L
That's
what
I
guess,
what
makes
it
a
little
bit
confusing
to
us
and
unfortunately,
today
was
kind
of
the
first
day
that
I
understood
that
it
was
going
to
be
actually
requested
to
be
denied
kind
of
coming
along
thinking
that
this
was
that
staff
were
in
favor
of
this.
So
a
little
bit
disappointing
to
kind
of
hear
the
the
current
recommendation.
But
again
I
you
know
what
we're
really
asking
for
here
is
the
construction
of
the
new
home,
where
the
current
home
resides.
L
We
didn't
think
that
that
was
outside
the
bounds
of
of
the
of
the
letter
of
the
law
and,
again,
the
northern,
the
northern
home,
affecting
the
current
position
of
our
home.
L
What
oh
yeah,
the
and
the
reason
you
know
why
we
want
it
where
the
where
the
current
home
is
located
is
if
we
were
if
we
are
to
slide
back
it
moves
the
proposed
structure
right
up
against
the
the
larger
than
normal
garage,
which
again
is
we
put
about
six
feet
six
feet
or
less
by
about
five
feet
between
the
new
structure
and
the
garage
which
sort
of
eliminates
the
usefulness
of
the
of
the
backyard,
and
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
enjoy
staying
in
this
neighborhood
is
the
the
yard
that
we
have
in
the
lot
that
we
have,
which
is
a
little
bit
larger
than
the
average
lot
in
the
city
we
enjoy
the
neighborhood.
L
We
love
it
here.
We
want
to
stay
here.
We
don't
want
to
fly
to
the
suburbs
we'd
like
to
invest
in
minneapolis,
our
kids
go
to
school
here,
we're
just
trying
we're
just
out
of
room.
We
have.
We
have
had
several
contractors
come
through.
We've
had
several
bids
come
through,
as
I
noted
in
my
documentation,
those
those
bids
for
for
construction
exceed
the
cost
of
new
construction.
We've
had
several
contractors
tell
us,
don't
even
put
another
dollar
into
this
place,
so
it's
it's
been
frustrating
process.
L
So
far
I
mean
I'm
not
blaming
the
city
for
the
housing
market.
I
know
everyone's
working
on
the
stock,
but
it's
we're
really
looking
forward
to
trying
to
stay
in
our
neighborhood.
We've
made
lifelong
friends
here
with
a
lot
of
our
neighbors
and
we
we
are
the
center
gathering
point
for
for
our
neighborhood.
That
being
said,
I
understand
what
the
and
I'm
open
for
the
the
vote
so
I'll
end.
My
comments
there.
C
Okay,
mr
elders,
the
you
you
understand,
you
heard
from
staff
that
there
is
a
need
for
finding
practical
difficulty.
Are
you
d?
Do
you
have
a
practical
difficulty
that
you
can
come
up
with?
L
I'm
not,
I
don't
want
to
tear
down
the
garage
that
would
that
would
be
foolish
constructing
the
new
home
in
accordance
with
the
with
the
vari,
with
the
current
lines
as
drawn.
So
if
the
ift,
if
we
look
at
the
site
plan,
I
think
it's
page
13..
L
L
It
would
be
irrational,
I
think,
to
locate
a
new
home
that
far
back
in
the
lot
to
meet
the
requirement
of
the
line
drawn
from
the
yeah
you
lose,
the
you
lose
the
the
backyard.
Essentially,
you
have
a
very
large,
unusable
front
yard
that
and
we
spend
our
our
lives
in
our
backyard.
So
that's
that's
the!
Unfortunately,
that's
that's
that's
the
best
I
can
come
up
with.
Is
it
it
just
ruins
the
entire?
L
The
entire
feel
of
the
of
the
lot
we
and
again
we're
trying
to
get
the
current
property,
and
this
this?
This
is
chaos.
I
understand:
go
home
dogs,
two
kids,
we're
just
trying
to
get
it
constructed
where
the
current
one
is
located.
That's
that's
all.
M
I'm
wondering
if,
if
the
applicant
would
indulge
me
and
discuss
the
two
items,
one
the
swale,
that
is
mentioned
in
the
staff
report
and
and
how
that
might
affect
like,
where
that
will
be
located
along
the
northern
boundary
and
how
that
location
would
affect
the
house
or
the
new
home
construction.
M
L
I
I'm
sorry,
I
think,
you're
asking
about
the
the
swale.
At
one
point
we
had
the
we
had
the
home
report,
the
proc
the
projected
home,
located
up
against
the
northern
lot
line,
and
we
had
proposed
to
put
a
retaining
wall
there.
The
reason
why
is
that
there's
a
between
the
northern
house
and
our
house
there's
a
flat
relatively
flat
driveway.
L
Our
lot
is,
is
relatively
elevated
compared
to
our
neighbor's
lot,
so
we
propose
to
kind
of
put
like
a
little
retaining
wall
in
there
to
help
with
drainage
and
drain
towards
the
right
of
way
in
working
with
alex
that
that
kind
of
that
flew
for
a
little
while
and
then
it
was
like.
That's
that's
not
gonna
work
get
that
out
of
here.
So
we
move.
L
We
did
move
the
proposed
structure
further
south
to
have
more
available
to
have
more
available
space
between
the
lot
line,
the
northern
lot
line
in
the
home
to
shape
the
property
for
drainage.
There's,
there's
there's!
You
know
I've
become
an
ex
I'm
the
homeowner
by
the
way.
So
this
is
all
very
new
to
me.
I've
become
expert
in
reading
survey
lines,
so
the
the
we
don't
have
a
ton
of
drop
from.
I
guess
it's
east
to
west
on
the
on
the
lot.
L
So
we
have,
we
did
have
to
move
the
house
further
south
to
get
more
space
to
be
able
to
shape
the
land
for
the
drainage
and
work
with
what
we
had
from
a
from
an
elevation
standpoint.
I
think
that
was
your
first
question.
I
could
I
didn't
quite
catch.
Your
second
question,
just
due
to
some
commotion
in
my
home
here.
M
Sure,
thank
you,
mr
elders.
I
I.
What
I'm
trying
to
understand
is
how
topography
might
impact
the
construction
of
the
home,
and
you
know
your
discussion
of
swale-
has
helped
me
understand
that.
But
can
you
elaborate
on
as
to
why
topography
might
impact?
How
far
towards
the
forward
lot
line
the
front
yard
setback
versus
how
far
back
from
the
front
yard
setback
you
might
need
to
place
your
home
sort
of
east
to
west.
L
Computer
issues
yeah
the
the.
L
I
I
I
guess,
I'm
not
quite
falling.
I
I'm
I'm
trying
to
understand
what
the
question
is.
I'm
just
not
I'm
just
not
the
the
expert
on
what
you're
asking
sure
can
you
rephrase
it
one
more.
M
L
Got
it
yeah
the
again,
the
the
drainage,
I
think,
is
the
main
concern.
I
think,
the
the
closer
that
we
can
reasonably
arrive
to
the
right-of-way,
the
the
less
we'll
have
to
the
less
we'll
have
to
work
the
drainage
from
from
east
to
west.
So,
ideally,
we
can.
The
closer
the
home
is
to
the
to
the
public
right
away,
the
the
less
distance
that
the
water
will
have
to
travel
from
from
the
home
towards
the
right
of
way.
L
And
again
I
should
I
should
point
out-
and
I
don't
know
if
it's
helpful,
I
I
didn't,
have
anybody
submit
any
material
in
advance
of
the
of
the
discussion,
but
all
of
our
neighbors
north
south
east
west
are
all
in
favor
of
of
this
variance
being
granted,
and
if
there
is
a-
and
I
apologize-
I
could
have
worked
with
alex
on
this,
but
if
there
is
an
opportunity
for
folks
to
submit
documentation
in
favor
of
it,
I'd
be
happy
to
gather
that
for
the
for
the
committee.
C
We
will
mr
elders
will
be
making
a
decision
today
so
that
unless
it's
not
really
necessary-
and
there
could
be
a
mute
point
at
that
point,.
C
B
Great
thanks,
chair
perry.
I
think
my
question
kind
of
relates
to
what
mr
softly
was
talking
about
and
I
feel
like
do
you
feel
the
design
of
the
house
the
way
it's
oriented
now
is
the
way
it
has
to
be,
or
do
you
feel
if
you
redesigned
it
to
maybe
rotate
the
house?
B
You
know,
I
know
it's
redesigning
what
you
have,
but
it
seems
to
me
if
you
rotate
the
home
90
degrees,
you
may
have
some
area
to
play
and
still
maintain
some
backyard,
so
I'm
kind
of
leaning
towards
supporting
staff
findings
right
now,
because
I
feel
this
is
pretty
much
a
new,
a
new
slate.
But
that's
my
question
to
you:
are
you
opposed
to
rotating
the
house
and
plan.
E
L
Know
I
don't
know
how
to
do.
I
would
I
wouldn't
know
how
to
do
that.
It
would
certainly
change
how
it
would
look
what
it
would
look
like
what
it
would
do.
We
would
have
to
redesign
everything
I
think,
but
I
think
what
your
suggestion
that
you're
suggesting
is
make
a
home
that
is
wider
and
not
longer
and
have
it
meet
the
requirements.
Is
that
kind
of
what
you're
suggesting.
L
Yeah
and
that
I
mean
obviously
everything's
possible,
we
would
have
to
start
over
again
on
bids
construction,
budgeting
builder
plans-
all
of
that
would
get,
would
have
to
be
redone
and
we
would
lose
any
investment
that
we've
put
forward
so
far
to
do
that.
It
would
be
starting
over
from
ground
zero.
C
So
I
don't
want
to
get
in.
I
don't
want
to
get
into
design
in
the
meeting,
because
that's
not
really
their
purpose,
but
I
think
you've
answered
the
question.
Thank
you,
mr
sandberg.
F
L
No,
I
I
was,
I
was
the
benefactor
of
the
garage
that
probably
caused
the
divorce.
So,
yes,.
G
C
Hearing
none
is
there
anyone
else
who
would
like
to
speak
for
or
against
this
item?
I
don't
think
we
have
anyone
else
in
the
queue.
The
call
cue.
C
And
I'm
hearing
no
one,
so
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
board
comment.
We've
already
had
some
comments
and
questions,
but
let's
have
some
board
comment
on
the
application
before
us.
E
Thank
you,
chair
perry,
thank
you,
staff
for
your
presentation
and
and
mr
elders
for
coming
from
the
board
today.
E
Ultimately,
I'm
in
favor
of
staff's
position
on
here,
the
the
issue
seems
to
be
the
the
garage
and
the
oversized
garage
that
required
a
variance
at
the
time
of
being
built
in
order
to
be
built,
so
the
size
of
the
garage
and
the
position
in
the
garage
that
required
a
variance
at
the
time
when
it
was
built,
is
now
causing
the
requirement
for
another
variant
in
order
to
build
the
home
there.
E
I
I
don't
think
I
think
it's
a
problem
that
was
even
if
not
initiated
by
the
applicant
is.
It
was
caused
by
the
need
for
a
variance
and
going
over
and
above
code
to
have
that
garage,
and
I
think
stacking
variances
that
are
needed
in
order
because
of
a
prior
variance,
just
doesn't
doesn't
feel
right
to
me.
So
I
I'm
a
supportive
staff
position
on
this
side.
C
Hearing
no
further
commentary,
I
would
entertain
a
motion.
B
Thanks
chair
perry,
I
I
make
a
motion
to
approve
staff
findings.
D
F
F
H
G
C
So
in
this
case,
we
have
a
tie,
so
I
vote
and
I
think
the
from
the
documentation
provided
and
the
testimony
that
we've
heard
today
I
will
vote
in
for
the
motion.
I
I
think
that
there
it's
it's
unfortunate,
that
the
circumstances
are
what
they
are
and
that
the
house
was
you're,
basically
building
where
the
house
is,
but
it's
new
construction,
and
so
when
we're
starting
with
a
clean
slate.
C
There's
not
only
the
uniqueness
that
was
not
found
for
by
staff,
but
there
was
also
the
reasonableness
clause,
finding
number
two
which
was
not
found
by
staff,
and
I
cannot
find
for
reasonableness.
So
with
that
I
have
to
vote
in
favor
of
the
motion
and
support
staff.
Finding
so
you're
happy
excuse
me.
D
C
Yep,
thank
you.
So
that
motion
is
passed
and
the
application
is
denied.
Mr
elders,
you
can
see
the
staff
member
for
what
your
options
are
going
forward.
I've
already
hinted
at
what
they
include
thanks
for
your
testimony
we
have,
and
so
we're
done
with
the
land
use
applications
for
new
business.
We
do
have
some
new
business
I'll,
be
very
brief,
but
hopefully
we'll
have
some
time
to
be
a
little
bit
more
verbose,
but
mr
ogiba
is
leaving
us.
C
This
is
his
last
meeting
today
we
have
a
new
board
member
joining
us
on
may
6th,
and
I
wanted
to
thank
mr
ogiba
for
his
service
today
was
typical
of
mr
ogiba's
way
value
that
I
see
him
adding
to
the
the
board,
which
is
to
stay
within
the
confines
of
our
legal
findings,
which
we
have
to
do
but
put
a
human
face
on
it,
and
I
think,
that's
very
important.
C
I
think
he
lets
people
know
that
he
they
have
been
heard
who
come
before
us
and
I
think,
that's
very
important,
and
I
think
he
brings
forth
also
a
keen
eye
in
the
legal
findings
and
making
sure
that
we're
all
keeping
in
mind
what
we
have
to
do
when
it
comes
to
to
meeting
those
findings.
So,
mr
ogiba,
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
years
of
service.
C
I
don't
know
in
fact
how
long
you
have
served.
I
should
know
that,
but
it's
been
several
years,
and
I
appreciate
all
the
time
that
you
have
put
in.
E
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
It
has
been
almost
10
years,
so
I
I
appreciate
I
appreciate
and
and
and
do
want
to
say
thank
you
to
to
to
you
to
former
council
member
schiff
that
you
guys
were
the
gave
me
the
initial
opportunity
to
join
the
board
almost
a
decade
ago,
when
I
had
this
opportunity,
it's
truly
been
a
pleasure
serving
with
each
and
every
member
of
the
board
throughout
this
time,
and
also
thank
you
to
staff.
I've
learned
a
ton
over
this
over
this
time.
E
I've
truly
enjoyed
it.
It's
been
a
pleasure
to
to
serve
with
you
and
to
serve
the
community
as
a
whole.
I
I
will
miss
these
meetings
and
miss
being
part
of
it,
but
we'll
keep
a
keen
eye
on
on
your
work
and
everything
that
you're
doing,
and
and
thank
you
to
everyone
on
the
board
for
your
continued
service.
It's
been
a
pleasure.
C
Thank
you,
I
think,
as
a
as
the
vice
chair,
mr
softley
might
want
to
also
comment.
M
Sure,
well,
thanks
for
the
courtesy,
matt
dan,
I
just
want
to
say
thanks
for
being
amazing,
on
the
board.
I
want
to
highlight
that
you
often
had
an
ability
to
to
show
us
or
show
me
anyway,
different
sides
of
the
application
that
sometimes
get
overlooked
and
that
you
had
a
real
tenacity
and
a
real,
meaningful
way
of
being
very
friendly
and
very
agreeable
and
bringing
people
over
to
your
side.
And
so
I
I
will
miss
your
insights
on
the
board
and
good
luck.
C
All
right
so
with
that
we
have
completed
all
of
the
items
on
our
agenda
for
this
meeting,
and
I
see,
though,
that
we
maybe
have
some
new
business
for
mr
ellis
that
didn't
get
addressed.
I
Thank
you,
chairperry,
members
of
the
board.
I
realized
I
neglected
to
bring
up
one
additional
thing
in
communications
at
one
of
our
may
meetings,
probably
the
may
6th
meeting,
jason,
wittenberg
and
janelle
widmeyer
will
bringing
will
bring
a
primer
or
primer
to
the
board
of
adjustment
on
some
of
the
changes
that
have
been
made
as
a
result
of
the
2040
plan,
things
that
will
help
maybe
frame
the
changes
and
and
what
you'd
be
looking
at
in
future
variances
as
we
go
forward.
C
Will
that
be
part
of
new
business.