►
From YouTube: July 22, 2021 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
Good
afternoon,
everyone
welcome
to
this
live
broadcast
of
our
virtual
meeting
today
july
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.
A
A
C
D
B
A
B
B
A
A
B
B
E
Good
afternoon,
chair,
perry
and
members
of
the
board,
just
one
update
on
a
previous
agenda
item
from
the
june
3rd
board
of
adjustment
meeting
34-15
second
and
a
half
street
northeast
border
may
remember.
This
is
a
property,
a
triangular
shaped
lot.
The
applicant
was
requesting
variances
for
a
retaining
wall
and
fences
on
the
front
and
side
yards
that
had
already
been
constructed.
E
B
Hearing
none,
let's
move
on
and
let's
review
the
agenda,
I
will
read
the
agenda
number
and
the
address
of
the
project
and
state
whether
it's
slated
for
consent,
continuance,
withdrawal,
return
or
discussion
I'll
just
mention
what
describe
briefly
what
consent
and
discussion
items
are
consent
items
are
those
items
that
will
be
passed
without
discussion
by
the
board.
B
We
will
be
adhering
to
the
staff
recommendation
found
on
the
agenda
on
your
agenda.
Under
that
item's
recommended
motion
section,
any
applicable
conditions
will
be
listed
in
the
same
section.
If
you
agree
with
this
recommendation,
including
applicable
conditions,
you
need
to
do
nothing
and
the
board
will
pass
it
as
recommended.
B
Please
check
in
with
a
staff
member
assigned
to
that
item.
If
you
have
questions
following
the
decision,
if
you
disagree
with
the
recommendation,
please
indicate
you'd
like
to
speak
against
that
item.
When
I
ask,
and
we
will
then
put
it
on
the
discussion
agenda,
discussion
items
are
those
that
will
be
which
the
board
will
take
public
testimony
deliberate
on
and
make
a
decision
after
the
public.
Testimony
has
been
heard
for
each
particular
discussion
item.
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
for
that
agenda
item
once
the
I
close,
the
public
hearing
for
an
item.
B
B
B
B
B
F
Yes,
I
just
like
the
members
of
the
board
to
know
that
this
applicant
is
my
neighbor
across
the
street
and
I
actually
don't
know
them
and
don't
know
anything
about
the
project.
So
I'm
not.
I
don't
have
an
interest
that
way,
but
I
did
want
to
make
the
board
members
aware
in
case
anyone
had
any
concerns.
B
Thank
you
do
board
members
have
any
concerns
about
ms
freya's
voting
on
this
item
as
part
of
the
consent
agenda.
B
A
C
C
B
G
Thank
you,
chair,
perry
and
members
of
the
board,
good
it
staff.
Thank
you
pull
up
a
copy
of
my
slides.
This
item
is
a
request
for
a
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
required
north
interior
side
yard
from
eight
feet
to
one
point:
four
feet
for
lawful
establishment
of
an
existing
freestanding
solar
energy
system
at
714
and
716
madison
street
northeast.
This
property
is
located
in
the
r2b
zoning
district,
as
well
as
the
interior.
3
build
form
overlay
district
next
slide,
please
the
subject:
property
is
a
double
lot.
G
It
is
80
feet
wide
and
10
360
square
feet
in
area.
According
to
the
city's
permit
history
records
the
lawfully
established
use
of
the
property
is
as
a
multiple-family
dwelling
with
three
units,
as
well
as
an
off-street
parking
area
in
the
rear.
The
dwelling
in
this
case
is
a
two-story
structure
that
is
more
or
less
centered
on
the
property
next
slide.
Please.
G
G
After
construction,
it
became
apparent
that
the
system
was
in
fact
constructed
closer
to
the
property
line
and
with
an
as
built
north
setback
that
is
less
than
the
eight-foot
minimum
requirement.
What
is
on
the
screen
right
now
is
the
as
built
survey
prepared
on
behalf
of
the
applicants,
for
this
variance,
and
it
shows
that
the
as-built
setback
for
the
solar
energy
system
was
1.4
feet
at
the
northwest
corner
of
the
system,
and
I
think
1.7
feet
at
the
northeast
corner.
G
G
This
is
just
a
photo
showing
the
asvil
conditions
is
taken
from
the
the
front
of
the
subject
property
and
you
can
see
that
solar
energy
system,
which
is
pretty
close
to
that
fence
that
runs
in
between
subject
property
and
the
neighboring
properties.
The
applicants
are
requesting
this
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
required
north
interior
side
yard
from
8
feet
to
1.4
feet
or
lawful.
G
Establishment
of
this
freestanding
solar
energy
system,
as
constructed
to
talk
about
the
required
findings
and
starting
with
the
first
required
finding
for
practical
difficulty,
staff
finds
that
this
is
not
met
again.
This
property
is
a
double
lot.
It's
relatively
large,
both
in
area
and
width
compared
to
most
low
density,
residential
properties
in
minneapolis,
it's
also
relatively
flat.
So
there
are
no
slope
issues
that
would
cause
significant
issues
with
the
location
of
a
system
like
this.
G
Furthermore,
the
existing
dwelling
is
set
back
approximately
25
or
excuse
me
29
feet
from
the
the
north
lot
line
at
the
back
of
the
house.
So,
there's
a
lot
of
space
for
locating
a
freestanding
solar
energy
system
on
the
north
side
of
the
house
and
outside
of
that
required
setback
in
the
north
side.
G
Even
though
the
solar
access
on
the
north
side
of
the
property
may
be
somewhat
limited
by
the
location
of
the
house,
the
this
location
of
the
house,
somewhat
centered
on
on
the
property
and
the
the
solar
access.
As
a
result
of
that,
the
circumstance
is
not
unique
to
the
subject.
Property
and
and
staff
finds
that
it
does
not
constitute
a
practical
difficulty
for
the
second
required
finding
regarding
reasonable
use
and
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
staff
also
finds
that
this
is
not
met.
G
G
So
again,
staff
finds
that
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
in
this
regard
is
not
met
by
the
requested
variants
for
the
third
required
finding
regarding
essential
character
of
the
locality
and
potential
for
injury
to
persons
or
property.
The
property
would
remain
primarily
residential
and
the
staff
does
not
find
that
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
would
be
altered
by
this
proposal.
G
However,
staff
finds
that
the
proximity
of
the
solar
energy
system
to
the
north
lot
line
does
create
potential
for
detriment
to
users
of
particularly
particularly
the
neighboring
property,
as
the
size
and
location
of
the
solar
energy
system
are
very
conspicuous,
even
though
there's
an
existing
opaque
fence
in
between
the
two
properties,
the
solar
energy
system
does
extend
substantially
higher
than
that
fence
and
would
be
highly
visible
from
that
neighboring
property.
So
staff
finds
that
this
is
a
potential
for
detriment
in
that
regard
and
that
this
finding
is
not
met.
G
There,
I
believe,
there's
one
public
comment,
including
a
few
photos
which
were
received
after
the
staff
report
was
published,
but
they
should
have
been
forwarded
along
separately
for
your
consideration.
I
believe
the
applicant's
representatives
are
in
attendance
as
well.
This
concludes
my
presentation,
but
I'm
available
for
questions.
B
B
I'm
hearing
none,
let's
open
the
public
hearing,
mr
priestley,
we
have
you
as
the
first
person
in
queue.
Would
you
like
to
give
testimony.
B
D
You
guys
hear
me
yep,
okay,
hi
good
morning,
good
afternoon
board,
my
name.
My
name
is
chad,
priestley,
I'm
the
most
current
manager
here
of
our
branch
here
in
minnesota.
Could
you.
D
I'll
just
continue
by
saying
I'm
I'm
happy
to
be
in
attendance
here
to
work
through
this
process
on
behalf
of
empire.
Just
want
to
state
that,
with
all
of
our
projects
in
minnesota,
we
do
at
our
utmost
to
abide
by
all
rules
and
specifications
led
forth
by
all
ahas
and
minnesota
laws.
D
Unfortunately,
this
has
happened
outside
of
my
scope
and
previous
to
me,
I'm
here
to
do
whatever
it
takes
to
fix
it,
though
I
just
wanted
to
speak
on
that
to
let
you
know
that
we
are
we
are
here.
We
are
doing
our
due
diligence,
it's
unfortunate
that
this
had
happened,
and
we
would
like
to
just
make
it
right.
D
D
B
Okay,
so
you
heard
there
are
three
findings:
do
you
have
any
comments
on
the
other
two
findings.
B
Okay,
are
there
any
questions
of
mr.
B
I'm
seeing
none
so
thank
you
for
your
testimony,
sir.
We
have
ms
claire
andrews.
B
If
you
could
press
star
six
to
unmute
your
phone
nope,
she
is
not
online
okay,
so
those
are
the
people
who
were
signed
up
to
speak.
Is
there
anyone
else
who
is
online?
Who
would
like
to
speak
if
you
press
stair
six
to
unmute
your
phone?
That
would
be
great.
B
B
Is
any
board
comment
on
this
item
mr
hutchins,
and
then
mr
sandberg
and
then
mr
softly,
mr
hutchins.
H
A
Yeah,
thank
you
chair
perry.
I
agree
with
staff
findings
and
I
would
move
that
we
adopt
them
and
consequently
deny
the
variance.
B
A
A
A
A
B
So
that
motion
passes
and
the
request
is
denied.
Mr
priestley,
you
can
talk
to
mr
kohas
about
what
your
options
are
going
forward
with
that
we
have
completed
all
items
on
the
agenda
for
this
meeting.
Are
there
any
other?
Is
there
any
old
or
new
business,
mr
verkota
or
anyone
else.
E
Chairperry
members
of
the
board
of
staff
has
no
updates
to
a
new
business.
Okay.
B
Thank
you
and
with
that
without
objection,
I
will
declare
this
meeting
adjourned.
Oh
mr
hutchins,
you
have
a
question
about
in-person
date.
H
Yes,
just
is
there?
Is
there
any
discussion
of
when
the
in-person
meetings
are
going
to
take
place
again.
E
E
We
haven't
received
as
far
as
I'm
aware,
firm
guidance
on
what,
when
the
boards
will
begin
meeting
in
person
again,
but
I
would
I
would
anticipate
some
time
in
september,
but
I
don't
have
a
firm
answer
on
that.
E
B
And
my
understanding
as
well
is
that
they
are
looking
to
they're
working
with
it
on
a
hybrid
model
for
meetings,
and
so
that
will
get
rolled
out
as
is
technically
possible.
Is
that
true,
mr
ricotta?
B
That's
correct!
Okay!
Does
that
help?
Mr
hutchins?
I
know
that's
not
a
specific
date
for
you,
but
I
know-
and
I
know
we
would
like
to
get
back
together
as
a
group.