►
From YouTube: March 4, 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).
D
F
G
D
D
I
B
E
D
J
D
D
I
D
Okay,
let's
review
the
agenda.
I'll
read
the
agenda
number
and
the
address
of
the
project
and
state
whether
it's
slated
for
consent,
continuance,
withdrawal
return
or
discussion
and
I'll
just
take
a
moment
to
talk
about
what
consent
items
are
and
what
discussion
items
are
consent
items
are
those
that
will
be
passed
without
discussion
by
the
board,
we'll
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.
D
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,
what
are
discussion
items
these
are
items
for
which
the
board
will
take
public
testimony
deliberate
on
and
make
a
decision
after
the
public.
D
Testimony
has
been
heard
for
each
particular
discussion
item.
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
does
not
vote
except
in
the
case
of
a
tie.
D
So
with
that
we'll
look
at
the
disposition
of
the
three
line
requests
we
have
before
us
today.
An
agenda
item
number
five
is
605
12th
avenue
southeast.
This
is
a
discussion.
Item
agenda
item
number.
Six
is
2833
east
lake
of
the
ielts
parkway.
This
is
also
a
discussion
item
and
agenda
item
number.
Seven
is
10.
15
26
street
east
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
K
Thank
you
chair.
I
just
was
curious
if
I
can
get
clarification
on
staff
position
about
how
this
park
is
different
from
any
other
park
in
minneapolis,
that
would
that
would
need
it.
That
would
allow
it
to
have
a
variance
from
the
four
to
eight
feet.
K
Their
practical
difficulty
states
that
it's
a
city
where
block
line
block
sized
park
with
three
right-of-ways
or
three-sided
right-of-way-
I
just
don't
see
how
that's
any
different
than
any
other
park.
I
guess
just
looking
for
some
clarification.
I
guess.
L
Council,
member
hutchins,
the
it
isn't
really
any
different
than
any
other
park.
It's
more.
The
the
practical
difficulty
really
comes
from
the
the
unique
uses
of
park
open
space
in
that
recreational
equipment
often
flies
out
of
the
park
and
into
the
street,
so
it
creates
a
safety
hazard
in
the
street.
So
it's
really
it's
really
more
about
the
unique
uses
of
park.
Space.
D
D
C
Thank
you
chair,
good
afternoon,
board
members
if
it
could
pull
up
the
presentation
for.
C
C
I
t:
do
you
have
the
presentation
for
this
item
item
five.
C
So,
as
you
mentioned
chair,
this
variance
request
is
located
at
605,
12th
avenue
southeast
the
proposal
is
for
a
new
home.
There
are
three
specific
yard:
variances
being
requested:
the
front
yard,
north
interior
side
and
south
interior
side.
C
C
She
go
back
one.
Oh,
maybe
that's
right!
Oh
yeah,
you're!
Right,
I'm
sorry!
The
existing
structure
on
site
is
24
and
a
half
by
27
feet.
A
an
enclosed
front.
Porch
exists
on
the
front
of
the
home
and
that
front
porch
to
the
lot
line
is
five
feet.
C
The
structure
on
site
is
considered
a
two-story
home
as
the
second
floor
does
not
intersect
with
the
floor
joists
of
the
first
or
the
roof,
or
the
floor.
Joists
of
the
second
floor
within
two
feet.
So
code
does
consider
this
a
two-story
dwelling,
although
it
very
much
functions
like
a
story
and
a
half
next
slide.
Please.
C
The
front
facade
there
you
see
that
space
between
the
roof
of
the
enclosed
porch
there
and
the
main
roof
line
code
would
call
this
a
one
and
a
half
story.
If
that
space
there
was
two
feet
or
less
and
that's
approximately
four
feet
so
again.
Why
that
matters
in
this
instance
is
mainly
how
we
calculate
our
demolition
calculations
next
slide.
Please.
C
C
With
that
second
story
getting
increased
in
height,
we
are
considering
that
to
be
a
100
percent
demolition
from
zoning.
The
removal
of
that
enclosed
porch
on
the
front
counts
towards
that.
The
applicant
is
also
proposing
a
rear
addition,
so
there's
additional
space.
So
currently
this
is
around
an
80
demolition.
C
Had
this
been
a
story
and
a
half,
it
would
be
closer
to
a
60
demolition,
probably
just
under
so
again
they're
proposing
a
rear
addition
that
rear
edition
does
comply
with
all
of
the
interior
side
yard
setbacks,
they're,
proposing
to
remove
the
existing
enclosed
front
porch
and
also
increase
the
height
of
that
second
story.
C
C
Here
we
have
the
site
plan,
basically
the
existing
structure
on
the
right
side
of
the
screen
there,
almost
that
box.
C
We
see
that
showing
11
feet
to
that
front
lot
line
again
the
north
side
at
1.1,
the
south
side,
I
believe,
2.6.
So
again,
those
are
the
three
variances
requested
by
the
applicant
next
slide.
Please.
D
So
can
you
I'm
sorry
you
you
did
walk
through
this,
but
could
you
just
go
through
in
a
little
bit
more
detail
on
where
the
it's,
the
north
and
south,
that
staff
is
not
finding
for
sure
just
where
those
are
located?
Is
that
for
the
new
the
proposed
edition
or
for
the
raising
the
to
a
full
second
story.
C
Yep,
it
would
be
for
raising
the
second
story,
that
portion
of
the
structure
where
it
says
the
605
12th
avenue
southeast.
That's
the
portion
of
the
structure
that
exists
both
the
first
floor
and
second
floor
at
that
1.1
feet
code.
Doesn't
let
you
go
up
as
a
grandfathered
right,
even
if
this
was
you
know
less
than
60.
So,
regardless
at
the
1.1
feet,
to
do
anything,
you
would
need
a
variance
request
so
that
front
portion
of
the
building,
since
they
are
increasing
that
wall
height.
C
On
that
second
floor,
we
have
that
four
feet:
existing
they're
proposing
another
four
feet
to
go
for
a
full
second
story,
so
that
requires
the
variance
on
on
the
north
side.
There,
the
south
side,
also
existing
increasing
in
height,
staying
at
2.6
feet,
but
going
up
the
portion
on
the
rear,
the
22
by
26
or
22
by
18
and
a
half
they're
showing
an
eave
there.
That
almost
looks
like
it's
in
the
required
yard.
C
The
structure
itself
is
complying
with
all
zoning
standards
so
and
the
front
again
at
11
feet.
This
is
zoned
r2b
r2b
has
a
standard
setback
of
20
feet
or
the
established
line
connecting
we
can
get
into
some
more
of
that
during
those
variance
findings.
Did
you
have
additional
questions
about
this?
Can
I
no.
D
So
that
helps
out
as
you
get
into
the
findings,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
was
following
where
you
were
talking
about
as
you
went
through
the
findings.
C
Sure,
thank
you
next
slide.
Please
hi
t
so
on
issuing
a
variance.
Three
findings
must
be
met.
The
first
finding
relates
to
practical
difficulties
and
circumstances
unique
to
the
property,
both
the
front
yard,
setback
and
interior
side
yard
setbacks.
Both
of
those
variance
requests
are
tied
to
the
size
of
this
parcel.
It's
very
small
at
2800
square
feet
and
very
narrow
at
at
28
feet
in
width.
C
C
M
C
Last,
the
proposed
variants
will
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
area.
The
proposed
step
backs
are
largely
the
setbacks
that
are
on
site.
Many
of
the
homes
along
this
block
have
fairly
tight.
Setbacks
are
are
built
that
in
ways
that
we
wouldn't
you
know
allow
today
as
of
right,
but
it
has
been.
These
setbacks
are
existing,
obviously
they're
being
expanded
upon,
but
that
would
blend
with
that
existing
character
of
the
area.
C
D
Thank
you
for
that
presentation,
mr
liska,
and
thanks
for
addressing
the
questions
I
had.
I
think
I
might
have
a
few
others
if
no
one
else
changed
then,
but
I
see
that
mr
johannesson
would
like
to
ask
a
question.
Please
proceed.
Mr
johannes.
N
Thank
you,
chair
perry
and
thanks
for
your
presentation,
mr
liska,
in
the
setbacks
and
the
ordinances
are
trying
to
keep
structures
apart.
Is
that
also
the
intent
to
keep
them?
I
guess
more
safe
in
a
fire
condition,
or
something
like
that?
Is
there
enough
room
between
these
buildings
now
that
the
fire
department
can
get
in
there?
Five
six
feet
seems
tight
to
me
and
I'm
just
curious
about
that.
C
The
applicant
is
working
with
ccs
plan
review.
Plan
review
has
additional
standards
that
come
into
play
when
structures
are
close
to
the
lot
line.
C
So,
yes,
that
that
is
less
of
an
issue
as
ccs
can
find
ways
regarding
the
building
permit
itself
to
approve
at
this.
At
this
distance.
C
Construction
code
services,
our
folks
in
ccs
play
interview,
enforce
the
the
building
code.
So
thank
you.
O
This
is
mike
sweedall,
the
applicant.
D
We'll
give
you
an
opportunity
to
speak
when
we're
done
as
having
staff
answer
questions
and
that
we
open
the
public
hearing
and
give
you
an
opportunity
to
provide
testimony.
Sir.
D
You're
welcome.
Are
there
any
other
questions
of
mr
liska
on
his
presentation,
mr
hutchins.
K
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
Thank
you,
mr
liska.
Am
I
correct
in
assuming
that
they
would
need
all
three
variances
to
build
that
addition
going
up?
Mr
liska?
Yes,
okay!
Thank
you!
So
if
we
are,
if
we
approve
the
one
that
you
you
that
staff
had
found
findings
for
it
still
wouldn't
do
them
any
good
without
the
other
two
correct
all
right.
Thank
you,
sir.
D
I
have
a
question,
so
what
is
the?
What
can
the
applicant
do
by
by
right?
They
can
put
on
their
edition.
D
It
is
considered
new
construction
because
of
the
demolition
so,
but
they
can't
go
up
without
a
variance
so
could,
but
does
that
mean
that
they
could
maintain
they?
They
couldn't
do
a
debt
any
demolition
above,
and
the
second
story
is
that
what
we're
really
getting
down
to.
C
I
mean
yeah.
Ultimately,
if,
if
the
board
would
deny
those
interior
side
yard
setback
requests,
the
applicant
would
still
be
able
to
build
in
addition
to
the
rear.
The
structure
that
exists
on
site
today
would
largely
remain
the
same.
You
could
demo
the
the
existing
front
porch.
That
would
be
fine.
You
could
do
your
rear
addition,
you're
going
to
be
less
than
60
percent
there
and
that
building
would
be
considered
or
zoning
would
view
that
as
a
remodel
and
not
a
new
structure,
so
those
existing
setbacks
that
are
there
wouldn't
come
into
play.
D
Thank
you
all
right.
Are
there
any
other
questions
of
mr
alaska?
I
see
none,
let's
open
the
public
hearing
and
the
applicant
sir.
I
didn't
catch
your
name.
I'm
sorry
mike
sweet
all
right,
cerrito,
mr
sweethealt.
If
you
would
like
to
give
testimony-
and
if
you
want
to
answer
the
question
that
came
up
too
you
could
you
could
do
that
at
this
time.
O
Sounds
good
thank
you
good
afternoon
and
thanks
andrew
for
presenting
that
basically
yeah
we've
been
working
with
the
construction
code,
services
and
andrew
to
kind
of
dial
this
project
in
basically
we're
fire
proofing,
both
sides
of
the
house
with
exterior
sheetrock
and
interior
sheetrock,
so
that
the
wall
will
be
literally
an
hour
or
more
rated
due
to
the
closeness
of
the
property
line.
O
The
garage
to
the
south
is
a
one-story
garage
and
it
won't
affect
anything
as
far
as
the
second
story
going
up
another
four
feet,
and
you
know
in
general
we're
just
trying
to
keep
the
existing
structure.
We're
not
trying
to.
We
want
to
use
the
existing
foundation
in
order
to
go
up.
The
existing
structure
is
outdated.
It's
the
stairs
are
not
compliant
the
floor.
Systems
are
not
compliant.
The
ceilings
are
not
compliant.
D
Okay,
so
one
of
the
things,
mr
swedal,
that
we
have
to
do
and
you've
probably
been
told
this
by
staff-
is
in
order
to
get
a
variance
we
have
to
we
have.
There
are
three
legal
findings
that
we
have
to
find,
for.
D
One
is
practical
difficulty,
one
is
whether
it's
reasonable
or
not,
and
the
other
is
whether
it
is
injurious
and
whether
it's
in
keeping
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
D
So
one
of
these
findings
the
whether
it's
being
done
in
a
you're
using
the
property
in
a
reasonable
way
with
this
variance,
has
not
been
found
for
because
it's
not
meeting
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance.
Can
you
speak
to
that?
I
know
that's
a
little
bit
technical,
but.
B
O
Mean
the
overall
intent
is
to
remodel
the
house,
get
it
up
to
code,
it's
dilapidated,
it's
small!
It's
been
it's
had
many
band-aids
over
the
year
and
we're
just
trying
to
get
it
back
together.
O
But
in
order
to
do
that,
you
know
you
end
up
kind
of
chasing
your
tail,
so
if
you're
going
to
do
it,
do
it
right
and
that's
kind
of
our
intent
is
to
build
it,
make
that
second
story,
which
has
kind
of
been
band-aided
and
added
onto,
and
not
we
just
kind
of
wanted
to
strip
it
down
and
basically
make
a
full
two-story
and
then
also
be
compliant
on
the
north
and
south
side
by
fire
rating.
It.
O
O
We
want
to
use
the
existing
structure
and
not
have
to
demo
it
and
and
try
to
recycle
that
material
we'd
rather
keep
it
reuse
it
and
add
on
to
it
and
make
it
more
functionally
obsolescent
for
the
people
that
were
to
occupy
it
after
we
were
done.
O
And
as
far
as
the
intent,
it's
r2b
interior,
three,
which
is
one
to
three
stories
typical
housing
in
the
neighborhood,
is
all
three
three
and
a
half
story.
O
D
Yeah,
so
I
think,
if
I'm
correct,
in
remembering
the
presentation
properly,
that
the
staff
is
found
for
the
first
and
third
finding
what
they
haven't
found
is
that
you,
the
request,
is
within
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
of
keeping
distance
between
properties,
which
you
would
have
by
right
to
be
able
to
do.
If
you
didn't
go
up,
and
you
didn't
do
you
just
did
the
addition
to
the
rear
you,
you
could
take
off
the
front
porch.
D
Okay,
does
anybody
have
any
questions
of
mr
sweedall
anyone
else.
D
Can
I
get
your
address,
mr
swedel,
I
should
have
asked
for
that.
In
the
beginning.
O
My
home
address.
O
D
O
D
Thank
you.
We
just
need
that
for
the
public
record,
all
right
thanks
for
your
testimony
and
thanks
for
answering
my
questions,
is
there
anyone
else
who
would
like
to
speak
in
favor
of
this?
I
don't
think
anybody
else
is
in
the
call
q
for
this
item,
and
with
that
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
board
comment.
F
M
D
Okay,
so
if
you
could
just
take
care
of
that
with
miss
blandford,
the
paperwork
afterwards
and
ms
blandford,
if
you
would
note
that
when
you
call
the
roll.
D
Is
there
anyone
else
who
would
like
to
make
a
comment?
Mr
sandberg.
H
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
agree
with
staff
findings
for
items
one
and
three
for
findings.
One
and
three.
H
I
think
we
could
discuss
some
more
about
the
reasonableness
of
this
project,
in
that,
if
the
project
is
not
done
it,
it's
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance
is
still
not
met,
so
I
think,
having
a
project
that
is
improving
the
neighborhood
by
reducing
the
setbacks
from
the
front
yard
by
taking
off
the
front
porch
by
building
an
addition
that
conforms
to
the
required
setbacks.
D
Sure-
and
I
think
just
to
be
clear-
I
think
the
issue
is
that
staff
was
not
able
to
find
for
number
two,
which
is
this,
that
it's
meeting
the
spirit
intent
of
the
ordinance
and
if
they
didn't
do
the
if
they
didn't
go
up,
they
wouldn't
require
a
variance
so
you're
correct
that
there
would
be
that
it
would
be
non-conforming,
but
that's
they
could
continue
to
have
those
non-conforming
rights
because
they
were
it
wasn't
a
complete
demolition.
Is
that
right,
mr
liska?
Do
I
have
that
right.
C
That's
correct,
we'd
review
it
like
a
remodel
rather
than
a
new
home.
The
remodel
would
be
fine,
acknowledging
the
existing
setbacks
of
the
existing
structure
and
looking
at
the
rear
building
edition
as
to
how
that
complies
with
code.
D
Okay,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we're
on
the
same
page
with
what
the
issue
is
that
we're
dealing
with,
and
I
appreciate
mr
sandberg's
bringing
up
that
point.
Anybody
else
would
they'd
like
to
weigh
in.
N
D
Thanks
for
those
comments,
mr
hutchins.
D
Yes,
and
so
I
think
that
mr
sandberg
is
making
a
similar
point,
and
the
issue
is
whether
I'm
not
trying
to
speak
for
or
against,
but
I
think
the
issue
is
that
his
staff
has
stated
that
this
is
a
a
demo
and
so
they're,
basically
starting
from
scratch,
because
of
what
they're
doing,
and
so
we
have
to
find
that
is.
Is
it
within
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
as
if
it
were
a
new
building?
D
So
if
it,
if
they
don't
go
up,
then
we
don't
have
to
it.
It
becomes
a
non-question,
it's
a
non-issue,
and
it's
it's.
It's
not
only
the
fire
code,
but
it's
light
and
air
and
other
things.
It's
the
space
between
the
buildings.
K
A
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
Thank
you
for
the
presentation,
everybody
in
the
comments,
I
think
for
me.
The
turning
point
is
that
it's
a
good
living
space
on
a
third
level
and
whether
it
technically
qualifies
for
the
third
level
is
sort
of
irrelevant
to
me
at
this
point,
because
it
is
so
close
to
the
property
line.
I
think
I
could
support
the
applicant
if
this
were
going
to
be
strictly
two
level
two
level
living,
but
with
that
third
level,
I
think
it's
far
too
tight.
A
I
think
the
air
in
space
is
a
real
issue.
I
understand
that
the
neighborhood
itself
is
really
unique
in
this
in
this
regard,
that
there
are
a
lot
of
homes
that
are
really
close
together,
just
have
to
take
a
look
at
the
flat
map
and
see
how
long
and
narrow
everything
is,
but
I
think
that
this
is
too
tall,
given
the
the
lateral
constraints
on
the
on
the
parcel.
D
Thanks
for
those
comments,
mr
selfley,
anyone
else,
otherwise,
I
would
entertain
emotion
from
somebody.
H
Yeah,
thank
you
chair
period.
I
just
wanted
to
raise
a
question
about
what
mr
softly
said.
As
I
understood
the
plans,
there
are
three
levels
of
living
space,
but
one
isn't
in
the
basement.
I
may
maybe
I'm
incorrect
about
that,
but
I
thought
it
was
just
raising
the
second
floor
to
make
it
more
habitable.
C
Yep
so
again
the
the
structure's
already
a
two-story
per
code.
If
the
second
floor
joist
would
be
within
two
feet
of
the
first
floor,
this
would
be
a
story
and
a
half
that
four
foot
band
that
exists
on
the
house
today
makes
it
a
two
story:
they're
looking
to
increase
that
band
to
create
full
living
on
that
second
story.
So
I
guess
it's:
it
complies
with
height
and
everything.
It's
it's
that
additional
four
feet
of
wall
on
the
existing
second
story.
That
creates
the
need
for
all
of
these
variances.
C
N
Yeah
just
to
clarify
on
you
know,
looking
at
the
floor
plans,
the
the
attic
space
is
is
shown
as
as
a
living
area
board
member
sandberg,
so
there's
two
full
stories
as
you
look
at
the
plans
and
then
the
attic
or
the
roof
is
is
shown
as
having
bedrooms
and
the
like
in
it.
Oh.
N
K
Thank
you,
chair
perry,
if
you
just
so
are
clear.
The
houses
to
the
north
and
south
are
both
the
same
height
or
the
same
style
with
that
third
story
attic
space
as
the
proposed,
so
it
would
not
exceed
or
look
bulky
or
be
injurious
to
the
area
that
it's
occupying
compared
to
the
houses
next
to
it.
Just
so
we're
clear.
D
Yes,
and
I
think
thanks
for
that
comment,
I
think
staff
is
saying
that
it
does
fit
in
with
the
the
surrounding
area.
The
the
resulting
proposed
plan
would
fit
in
with
the
result,
the
the
surrounding
area,
so
I
think
that's
why
finding
they
they
have
found
for
the
applicant
for
finding
number
three.
D
But
I
appreciate
that
comment
and
pointing
that
out.
Anyone
else.
D
D
Okay,
it's
seconded,
and
so
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second
and
is
there
any
further
discussion?
We've
had
quite
a
bit
of
discussion,
so
I
assume
not
but
I'll,
give
an
opportunity.
D
Seeing
none
will
the
clerk.
Please
call
the
role
on
the
motion,
which
is
to
deny
I
I
should
be
make
make
clear
what
the
motion
is
to
approve
the
front
yard
setback
and
deny
the
two
side:
yard
setbacks.
D
E
Board
member
finlesson
has
recused
himself
board
member
hutchins.
K
J
E
D
The
application
is
the
application
for
the
front
yard,
setback
is
approved,
but
the
the
south
and
north
side
setbacks
are
denied
and
the
applicant
can
follow
up
with
mr
lisko
to
see
what
their
options
are
going
forward.
Let's
move
on
to
the
second
item:
I'm
sorry
agenda
item
number
six,
which
is
2833
east
lake
of
the
isles
parkway.
L
L
The
subject
site
is
a
4420
square
foot
residential
lot.
The
subject
site
is
located
in
the
r1,
multiple
family
zoning
district
and
in
the
interior,
three
built
form
overlay
and
the
shoreland
overlay
district.
The
lot
is
an
irregular
shape
with
five
sides
and
is
a
through
lot
with
the
rear
property
line
facing
james
avenue.
South
the
existing
structure
is
a
duplex
and
has
a
non-conforming
setback,
front
yard,
setback
of
14.5
feet.
The
existing
front,
porch
is
considered
a
non-conforming
front
yard
obstruction
and
is
located
8.33
feet
from
the
front
property
line
next
slide.
Please.
L
L
As
I
noted,
the
existing
front,
porch
is
8.33
feet
from
the
front
property
line,
and
the
new
porch
would
be
6.5
feet
from
that
property
line.
The
variance
request
is
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
from
the
district
minimum
of
20
feet
to
that
6.5
feet.
That
would
be
to
the
new
porch
next
slide.
Please.
L
Staff
found
that
practical
difficulties
unique
to
the
property
do
not
exist
in
relation
to
the
proposed
expansion
of
the
front
porch.
Although
the
lot
is
somewhat
smaller
than
a
standard
r1
lot,
there
is
nothing
about
the
parcel
in
particular
that
requires
the
expansion
of
the
front
porch.
L
In
conclusion:
although
staff
found
the
second
and
third
variance
findings
to
be
met,
because
staff
did
not
find
a
practical
difficulty,
we
are
recommending
denial
of
the
variance
request.
This
concludes
my
presentation
and
I'm
available
for
questions.
Thank
you.
D
I
see
none
is
the
so,
let's
open
the
public
hearing,
we
have
a
couple
people
on
the
line
for
speaking
on
this
application.
The
applicants
are
first
and
I'll.
Let
them
go
first
ellen
and
jim
van
gerward.
D
You
are
done
if
I've
got
the
pronunciation
wrong.
Please
correct
me
and
if
you
could
give
your
address
for
the
record.
D
If
you
could
please
proceed
with
your
testimony
and
you
pretty
much
heard
that
and
know
from
talking
to
staff
that
it's
the
practical
difficulty
finding
that
they
can't
find
for.
Q
Yes,
yes,
and
I
will
this
is
jim
down.
I
work
and
I
have
with
me
my
wife,
ellen
and
the
the
building
in
question
at
28
33
lake
of
the
isles
parkway
is
our
home.
Q
We
love
our
1922
duplex
center
neighborhood
and
we
want
to
make
the
house
as
beautiful,
functional
and
true
to
its
surroundings
as
it
can
be.
Unfortunately,
though,
the
existing
porch
isn't
functional
for
our
family
and
the
family
includes
ellen
and
me
in
the
upstairs
unit
and
ellen's
84
and
85
year
old
parents.
In
the
first
floor
unit
ellen's
parents
moved
into
our
building
after
her
father
was
diagnosed
with
multiple
myeloma,
which
substantially
limits
his
mobility.
Q
Well,
as
you
probably
noticed,
the
header
on
the
variance
report
describes
our
request,
as
going
from
a
20
foot,
set
back
down
to
six
and
a
half
feet
and
that's
probably
the
required
format,
but
to
lay
people
like
us,
it
sounds
like
we're
proposing
to
add
on
14
feet
closer
to
the
proper
leather
line.
Q
Q
All
three
neighbors
existing
and
our
proposed
porches
would
be
about
10
feet
from
the
public
sidewalk
as
part
of
the
project
we'll
be
removing
a
brick
planter.
That's
several
feet
closer
to
the
sidewalk
and
property
line,
and
the
proposed
ports
will
be
so.
The
built
structures
will
be
further
back
than
they
are
now
right.
Now,
our
existing
porch
and
front
entry
are
difficult
to
use
and
would
be
even
if
they
weren't
deteriorating.
Q
We
have
no
usable
front
yard
because
of
the
slope
down
to
the
sidewalk.
The
porch
is
all
there
is.
The
proposed
porch
would
be
much
more
useful
and
make
it
much
easier
to
enter
our
home.
Part
of
that
relates
to
the
existing
front
door
and
storm
door
because
of
this
or
purchase
small
depth.
Our
front
door
and
storm
door
are
installed
in
opposite
directions,
because
it's
hard
to
get
around
the
storm
door
on
the
porch
and
it's
awkward
for
anyone
to
get
in
the
building
and
even
more
so
for
ellen's
parents.
Q
Q
D
Mr
van
iworten,
I
do
have
a
question.
I
do
have
a
question
of
you.
What
is
the
practical
difficulty
that
you
have
you've
mentioned
some
things
we
can't
really
well
well,
we
certainly
the
city
acknowledges
hardship
for
people
who
are
not
able
to
get
around
as
easily
as
they.
Maybe
they
once
were
able
to
the
the
variances
go
with
the
land,
not
with
people.
D
Q
Think
could
speak
more
accurately
to
the
practical
technology.
G
Hi
this
is
ellen
danai
warden
and
I
share
jim's
thanks
to
all
of
you
for
your
work
since
and
on
this
issue.
Please
agree
that
this
is
exactly
the
type
of
situation
that
a
variant
is
designed
for
and
as
rick
dawkins
said
in
her
opening.
You
know
the
other
two
findings:
the
findings
that
a
setback
requirement
is
really
designed
to
handle
change.
G
Given
where
our
house
was
filled
originally,
there
is
no
conforming
spot
in
the
front
yard
for
the
front
porch
to
enter
our
house
and,
as
you
may
have
seen
from
the
pictures,
our
front
door
is
almost
a
story
and
a
half
higher
than
the
sidewalk
below.
So
we
have
this
steep
slope
and
then
a
shorter
long
flight
of
stairs
in
the
shorter
flat
stairs
to
get
up
to
the
spot,
and
we
we
basically
have
no
other
front
yard
than
the
front
porch,
which
you
know
goes
up
to
the
edge
of
the
slope.
G
So
the
practical
difficulty
is
really
the
stiffness
of
our
front
yard,
the
extremely
small
size
of
the
front
yard
and
the
very
narrow
lot
we
do.
Our
house
is
just
five
feet
from
the
property
line
on
either
side
they
were
these
beautiful,
beautiful,
almost
homes
were
packed
into
these.
You
know
to
a
very
small
lot
and
we
feel
like
why
we
understand
the
policy
that
we
could.
G
You
know
we
can
rebuild
what
we
already
have
that
locks
in
place,
a
permanent
design
search
from
1922,
and
we
feel
like
there's
a
room
with
the
variants
designed
to
handle.
Just
that
situation,
letting
a
property
owner
improve
their
property
without
impacting
the
neighbors
enjoyment
or
the
our
fellow
parkway
and
confusers
enjoyment.
G
So
we,
I
think
that
you
know
we're
doing
something
reasonable
and
in
character
with,
and
we
didn't
create
the
situation,
and
we
hope
that
you
will
see
our
practical
difficulties
and
approve
this
here.
D
Thanks
for
that,
testimony
is,
does
anybody
have
any
questions
of
the
van?
I
wardens.
D
I
see
none
so
again.
Thank
you
for
your
testimony.
Next,
in
on
the
line
is
mr
hoyland,
if
you
could
stare
six
to
unmute
yourself
and
give
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
D
B
Yes,
I'm
david
hoyland,
I'm
the
next
door
neighbor
on
the
northeast
side.
My
address
is
2829
lake
of
the
isles
parkway
east
lakeland
parkway
and
my
porch
is
a
couple
feet.
Deeper
goes
a
couple
feet
farther
toward
the
sidewalk,
which
allows
us
to
get
three
or
four
chairs
and
a
small
table
out
there
and
enjoy
enjoy
our
porch.
B
Side
of
the
van
I
wardens
and
if
I
for
some
reason
that
we
don't
know
or
understand
that
by
an
eye
wardens
got
the
short
end
of
the
stick
when
the
house
was
built
in
1922,
and
so
their
porch
is
about
six
feet
extended
about
six
feet
from
their
house
instead
of
eight
or
nine
feet
from
their
house,
and
so
I
support
I
support
enlarging
their
porch
and
I
think
that
the
the
practical
difficulty
well,
while
the
staff
has
said
that
that
requirement
has
not
been
met.
B
It
says
they
state
that
the
portraits
do
not
create
an
established
front
yard
setback,
the
ones
on
either
side
and-
and
I
understand
that-
that's
probably
technically
correct.
But
when
I
look
at
the
definition
of
practical
difficulty,
it
talks
about
unique
conditions
of
a
property
that
cause
compliance
with
the
standards.
In
this
case,
compliance
with
the
setbacks
could
deprive
the
property
owner
of
substantial
rights
similarly
similar
to
those
enjoyed
by
property
owners
in
the
same
zoning
district.
B
So
in
this
case
it
seems
like
we're
awfully
close
to
property
difficulty
or
or
we
have
one
in
the
fact
that
the
neighbors
have
porches.
That
are
usable
because
of
their
size,
the
neighbors
on
either
side
the
next
door
neighbors,
but
for
some
reason
the
applicant's
porsche
was
built
smaller,
making
it
really
just
a
way
to
get
in
the
front
door,
not
not
a
place
to
enjoy
something
just
sit
down
at
or
to
hardly
turn
around
and
coming
and
going
from
the
house.
And
for
those
reasons
I
support
their
various
requests.
And
that's
my
testimony.
D
Thank
you,
sir.
I
don't
think
anybody
else
is
in
queue,
but
I'll
ask.
Is
there
anybody
else
who
would
like
to
speak
for
or
against
the
application?
You
can
press
star
six
to
unmute
yourself
and
get
if
you
would
give
your
name
and
address
for
the.
D
A
D
Thanks
for
that
comment,
anyone
else
mr
sandberg.
H
Thanks
jeff
perry,
I
think
if
there
is
a
practical
difficulty,
it
might
be
the
steepness
of
the
front
yard
and
the
ability
to
use
any
other
part
of
the
front
yard,
then
that
front
porch.
D
N
Thanks
to
perry,
I
agree
with
board
member
sandberg.
I
think
there
is
practical
difficulties.
A
lot
is
there's
nowhere
to
be
out
in
the
front,
and
this
is
a
way
to
allow
them
access
to
do
that,
it's
very
steep
to
get
to
the
sidewalk.
N
D
I
think
I'd
like
to
ask
staff
a
question,
if
I
may,
for
myself:
yes,
what
is
the
so
when
there
is
a
required
yard,
we're
talking
certain
about
the
fact
that
there
is
a
steepness
to
the
front
slope
of
the
yard?
These
other
you.
D
Let
me
just
be
clear.
I
I
thought
I
read
something
that
the
fact
that
there
was
a
steep
slope
in
the
front
yard
was
not
unique
to
the
property
that
other
properties
face
the
same
issue,
not
necessarily
in
right
next
door
but
across
the
city,
but
how?
How
is
staff
seeing
steep
slopes
for
front
yards
in
terms
of
practical
difficulties.
L
My
interpretation
generally
is
that
we
look
at
in
this
case,
particularly
it's
it's
a
steep
slope
initially,
but
then
it
levels
off
and
in
terms
of
practical
difficulties,
we
don't
generally
interpret
a
slope,
a
sloped,
a
slope
to
get
up
to
a
flat
lot
to
be
a
practical
difficulty.
That
is
very
unique
because,
generally
there
are
steps
built
up
and
it
doesn't
present.
L
It
doesn't
really
present
a
problem.
In
this
case.
The
the
larger
difficulty
is
just
that
the
location
of
the
existing
structure
is
is
built
really
close
to
the
front
property
line,
so
it
really
limits
the
space
in
the
front
yard
that
they
have
to
work
with,
and
when
you
combine
that
with
the
slope
where
they
can't
build
out
over
the
slope,
they
do
sort
of
lose
that
square
footage
in
the
front
yard.
B
D
D
I
happen
to
live
in
an
area
where,
on
the
other
side
of
the
street,
there
are
many
homes
that
where
the
the
the
front
yard
is
all
but
gone
because
of
the
steepness,
but
then
plateaus
out,
like
you,
said,
and
leads
up
to
either
open-ear
parches
or
a
porch
like
the
applicants,
something
of
that
nature
or
a
vestibule.
D
So
that's
why
I
was
asking
how
the
city
of
staff
generally
viewed
conditions
like
this.
D
Okay,
mr
johannesson,
you
have
a
question.
N
Yeah,
I
guess
maybe
a
question
and
a
comment.
Then,
since
the
house
is
built
14-6
from
the
property
line
and
the
traditional
setback
is
20
right
25..
Is
it
a
practical
difficulty
that
the
house
was
built
closer
to
infringe
upon
the
front
setback
and
not
allow
them
the
ability
to
provide
a
front
porch
as
such,.
L
The
way
that
we
interpret
that
interpreted,
that
is,
that
the
existing
location
of
the
structure
in
it
in
and
of
itself,
isn't
necessarily
a
practical
difficulty
and
the
fact
that
they're
allowed
to
that
the
the
fact
that
the
applicants
are
allowed
to
maintain
the
existing
porch
in
the
same
location.
We
wouldn't
prevent
them
from
rebuilding
it,
and
so
because
the
request
is
to
expand
the
porch.
D
Okay,
are
there
any
other
comments
or
questions
on
this
matter?.
F
Yeah,
the
applicant
had
nothing
to
do
with
citing
the
property,
that
is
to
say
the
improvement
on
the
lot
yeah
it's
as
found
by
them,
and
so
I'm
in
favor
of
granting
the
variance
request.
As
as
requested.
F
F
D
Thanks
for
those
comments
at
this
point,
we've
had
a
bit
of
discussion.
So
is
there
a
motion
to
be
entertained.
D
And
with
the
practical
difficulties,
as
described
by
board
members
speaking
in
favor
of
the
granting
of
the
application.
K
H
J
D
And
so
that
motion
passes,
and
so
for
the
that
means
that
the
application
is
approved,
your
variance
requests
are
approved
to
the
then
I
wardens
and
good
luck
with
your
project.
Thanks
for
providing
testimony
today
appreciate
it.
D
Okay,
I
get
notice
that
mr
southley
needs
to
leave
the
meeting.
We
are
going
on
to
item
number
seven,
which
is
10
15
26th
street.
M
A
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
This
is
board
member
softly
signing
off
today.
L
Chair
perry
and
board
members
on
to
the
next
presentation
for
plan
one
two,
one:
six:
nine,
which
is
a
variance
request
to
increase
the
height
of
a
fence
in
the
required
front
yard,
from
six
four
feet
to
eight
feet
for
stewart
park.
Next.
D
Slide
and
what
I
would
do
is
I
would
just
give
the
quick
highlights,
and
we
know
that
one
of
the
board
members,
mr
hutchins,
has
a
concern
about
questions.
L
Okay,
just
a
little
bit
of
site
background,
the
site
is
located
at
10,
15
26th
street
east.
The
site
is
in
the
r2b
multiple
family
district
in
the
parks
built
form
overlay.
L
It's
a
5.3.13
acre
park
and
it's
bounded
on
three
sides
by
public
right
of
way
and
the
anderson
community
school
is
to
the
just
to
the
south
of
the
park.
They
share
the
same
super
block
next
slide.
Please
the
proposed
the
proposal
would
add
a
new
fence
along
the
north
side
of
stuart
park
adjacent
to
the
26th
street
east.
L
The
fence
is
proposed
to
be
eight
feet
tall
and
within
the
the
technical
front
yard
setback
off
of
26th
street
east,
which
triggered
the
variance
to
allow
the
increase
in
fence
height
from
four
feet
to
eight
feet.
Next
slide,
please
the
stuff
that,
as
far
as
staff
findings
and
I'll
just
focus
on
the
practical
difficulty
here,
the
staff
found
that
the
configuration
of
the
park
in
relation
to
the
adjacent
rights
of
way
with
and
the
unique
uses
of
parkland
constitute
practical
difficulties
in
meeting
the
ordinance.
L
The
proposed
fence
would
be
eight
feet
tall
for
the
length
of
the
fence
which
breaks
with
breaks
in
the
fence
to
accommodate
walking
paths
through
the
park.
The
circumstances
of
the
park
were
not
created
by
the
minneapolis
parks
and
recreation
board
as
stewart
park
and
the
adjacent
street
grid
was
established
in
the
early
20th
century.
L
I
would
just
add
that
staff
has
typically
recommended
approval
of
park
fence
variances
because
of
the
unique
circumstances
parks
pres
represent
in
residential
districts.
Park
parks
just
require
fencing,
that's
taller
and
more
intense
than
fencing
would
than
than
the
fencing
that's
needed
on
residential
lots.
So
the
the
very
fact
that
it
is
a
park
creates
a
unique
practical
difficulty
and
I
can
go
into
the
other
findings,
but
I
don't,
if
you
don't
want
me
to,
I
don't
have
to.
D
No,
that's
fine,
so
the
recommendation
is
tonight
to
deny,
because.
L
The
the
excuse
me,
the
staff
recommendation,
was
to
recommend
approval
of
the
requested
variants
to
increase
the
height
of
the
fence
from
four
feet
to
eight
feet.
D
D
D
L
Possibly,
we
have
recently
approved
variances
to
increase
fence
heights
at
cedar
park.
We,
the
board,
just
approved
a
variance
for
that
parks.
I
believe
that-
and
I
think
the
applicant
can
speak
more
to
this,
but
I
believe
parks
is
in
a
capital
improvement
phase
where
they're,
where
they're
proposing
a
lot
of
improvements
to
a
lot
of
parks
and
fencing,
is
involved
in
many
of
those
projects
just
to
increase
public
safety.
D
Okay,
any
other
questions
of
miss
dawkins.
K
Thanks
chair
perry,
so
my
question
is
still
the
same.
Why,
if
it's
going
to
be
on
every
park
like
this,
which
I
don't
argue,
the
validity
of
needing
a
fence
that
I
totally
understand
that
it
just
if
it's
going
to
be
on
every
fence.
Why
is
it
going
to
be
a
variance
every
time
instead
of
just
going
to
the
code
and
fixing
it.
L
That
is
a
totally
fair
question,
one
that
I
cannot
totally
answer,
because
I
am
not
I'm
not
in
the
code
writing
section
of
cped
so
but
but
that's
a
totally
legit.
It
will
continue
to
be
an
issue
if
the
code
isn't
fixed
and
this
this
will
continue
to
be
a
request
from
parks
to
increase
the
height
of
fences,
and
it
looks
like
mr
ellis
has
an
answer.
I
Cheer
perry
board,
member
finless
and
members
of
the
board.
The
one
of
the
issues
we
have
with
parks
is
that
they
are
all
traditionally
have
been
zoned
residential,
so
they
all
do
technically
have
residential
setbacks.
However,
of
course,
those
residential
setbacks
are
primarily
intended
for
residential
development.
I
So
in
many
circumstances
we
have
an
issue
here
where
the
parks
they
they're
they're
unique
uses
in
a
sense
for
residentially
zoned
lots
but
they're
residentially
zoned
parcels,
so
there
I
mean
so
I
think
ms
dawkins
has
gotten
into
quite
a
bit
of
that
and
and
what
we're
doing
generally,
this
is
sort
of
one
of
the
reasons
why
variances
exist
when
you
have
uses
that
are
different
or
there's
something
unique
about
the
lot
or
the
use
of
the
lot
or
it
might
be.
This
is
sort
of
the
mechanism
to
get
to
there.
I
Generally,
we
try
to
keep
the
code
as
simple
as
possible
in
in
a
sense,
I
guess
maybe
the
way
to
think
about.
It
is
the
reason
that
offense,
the
the
issues
with
the
fences
here
are
because
they're
in
required
yards
I
mean
in
a
sense
we
don't
eliminate
the
required
yards
for
parks,
even
though
they're,
not
residential
they're,
not
going
to
em
generally,
when
they're
a
block
like
this
they're
not
going
to
impact
and
joining
residential
use,
which
is
the
point
of
the
residential
yard
to
create
part.
I
You
know
to
have
open
space
in
the
front
light
and
air.
All
those
sorts
of
things
will
parks
by
definition.
Are
that
so
it's
sort
of
part
and
parcel
to
the
fact
that
we
have
required
yards
for
something
that
really
doesn't
need
a
required
yard,
but
we
can't
eliminate
the
required
yard
without
amending
the
zoning
code.
I
Quite
a
bit
we
have
banning
about
as
part
of
the
2040
plan,
maybe
creating
a
parks
and
open
space
zoning
district
so
we'll
see
as
we
you
know,
get
into
more
zoning
districts,
whether
that
could
impact
that
when
we
come
down
to
it
a
couple
of
years
from
now,
because
as
ms
dawkins
noted,
it
is
parks
and
open
space,
and
so
we'll
have
production
mixed
use.
I
We
have
core,
we
have
a
lot
of
things,
so
all
we've
done
so
far
is
the
the
built
form
overlay
as
we
come
forward
and
try
to
tackle
the
use
aspect
of
things.
This
could
be
something
we
could
take
a
look
at
so,
but
for
the
meantime,
we
have
been
recommending
approval
due
to
the
findings
that
have
shown
by
ms
dawkins
other
part.
We
do
have
other
examples
where
some
parks
have
received
variances
to
their
fence
height
for
the
similar
reasons
as
well
as
recently
there
was.
I
I
can't
remember
the
park
exactly,
but
the
there
was
a
modified
to
allow
a
skating
area
like
a
skate
park
as
part
of
the
park
that
was
in
a
required
yard
as
well
in
many
respects,
it's
similar
findings
to
the
fence
variants
in
this
case.
So
hopefully
that
answers
your
question.
D
Thank
you,
mr
ellis.
Did
that
help
mr
hutchins.
K
Yeah,
I
just
I
appreciate
it
thanks
cheer
perry,
I
just
think
this
gets
on
the
verge
of
policy
making
if
we're
just
going
to
see
park
after
park
after
park,
come
up
and
then
we're
going
to
just
say
yes
every
time.
Well
then,
at
a
certain
point,
why
are
we
even
granting
a
variance
if
it's
not
really
a
variance
from
the
norm,
but
I'll
go
with
it?
Thank
you.
D
Okay,
so
since
I
didn't
see
any
other
questions
of
ms
dawkins,
I
will
open
the
public
hearing.
We
have
one
person
who
is
in
the
queue
to
speak,
and
it
is
ms
rowe
essler.
Do
you
want
to
give
testimony
and
if
you
could
press
star
six
to
unmute
yourself
and
give
your
address
as
well.
M
D
D
You're
welcome
without
anybody
else
in
the
queue.
Let's
close,
the
public
hearing
board
comment.
F
Yeah,
it's
I
have
no
problem
granting
this
particular
variance.
Nor
do
I
have
problems,
granting
parks
other
variances
for
other
fences
as
required,
but
it's
good
to
remember
things.
Don't
just
go
one
way:
they
can
go
both
ways
so
because
of
the
zoning.
This
opens
the
argument
for
a
homeowner
to
make
for
a
residential
property
that
truly
is
residential
for
offense,
so
there
it
sits.
D
Thanks
for
those
comments,
mr
sandberg,
did
you
want
to
make
a
motion.
H
Yes,
thanks:
chairperio
move
staff
findings.
D
K
D
D
Seeing
none
and
without
objection,
I
will
declare
this
meeting
adjourned.
Our
next
meeting
will
be
march.
18Th
2021..
Thank
you.
Everyone,
oh
I'm,
sorry
miss
cooper,
I'm
sorry
miss
smirkarva.
D
Yes,
so
I
think
that
is
the
16th.
If
staff
could
give
us
a
time
for
that,
is
that
9
30
at
6
00
on
the
16th.
I
Chair
perry
board
members,
I've
worked
on
that
and
I
still
still
tripped
over
it
when
I
had
to
drive
for
the
first
time.
Let
me
double
check
for
that.
Yes,
it
is
march
16th
at
1
30.
I
believe:
okay,
1
30.,
yes,
1
30,
looking
at
my
calendar,
so
we
do
have
quite
a
few
items
on
the
general.
It
is
the
actually
the
business
inspections,
housing
and
zoning
committee,
not
pogo.
I
So
it's
the
it's
biz
committee,
so,
okay,
yeah,
there's
only
two
two
committees
currently
operating
as
I
understand
it
with
the
council.
Everything
was
condensed
due
to
covid,
so
yeah
awesome.
D
Okay,
thank
you.
So
you
will
be
joined
by
mr
softly
and
you
would
have
been
joined
by
me,
but
I
will
be
traveling
and
unable
to
join
you,
and
the
expectation
is
that
you
will
just
have
to
say
a
few
words.