►
From YouTube: July 1, 2021 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
C
A
E
B
I
was
using
a
different
you're
right.
I
did.
I
was
using
a
different
sign-up
sheet.
Thank
you
board
member
frius
aye
board
member
johanneson
aye.
D
F
B
Board
number
wang
here
you
have
yay
or
nay
on
the
agenda
or
sorry.
I
I
okay,
thank
you
and
then
chair,
perry,
hi.
Thank
you.
That's
nine!.
A
C
D
D
A
And
with
that,
the
motion
passes,
so
we
have
approved
minutes
for
the
zoning
board
of
adjustments
june
17th
2021
meeting
the
june
17th
2021
meeting
and
now
I'm
going
to
ask
mr
alice:
are
there
any
petitions
or
communications.
G
Chair
prairie
members
of
the
board,
I
had
initially
noted
that
there
were
no
communications,
although
I
do
have
a
revision.
We
have
received
an
appeal
regarding
the
board's
decision
regarding
a
fence
at
3415
two
and
a
half
street
northeast.
As
you
may
recall,
the
board
approved
a
retaining
wall,
but
then
denied
the
variance
for
fence
height
beyond
what
would
normally
be
allowed
in
a
front
and
corner
side
yard,
so
that
will
be
going
to
the
business
inspections,
housing
and
zoning
committee
on,
I
believe
july.
13Th,
okay,.
A
A
Okay,
let's
move
on
to
the
rest
of
the
review,
the
rest
of
the
agenda.
The
land
use
questions.
Oh
miss
cooper.
You
had
a
question,
I'm
sorry
miss
mccarva.
Do
you
have
a
question.
H
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
heard
that
correctly,
so
we
we
didn't,
approve
a
fence
at
that
for
that
particular
case,
but
one
was
installed
anywhere.
They've
been
notified
that
one
was
installed,
and
so
so
the
the
next
step
in
that
is
that
it
goes
to
which
commission
or
maybe
I
misheard-
that.
G
Mr
earl
chairperry
board
members
mccarrova.
It
goes
to
the
business
inspections,
housing
and
zoning
committee.
Currently,
traditionally
they
would
go
to
the
zoning
and
planning
committee,
but
due
to
covet
in
the
declared
emergencies,
council
committees
were
basically
turned
into
two
different
committees
temporarily.
I
imagine
that
will
change
again
as
we
start
to
go
back
into
more
formal
and
normal
hearings
and
meetings,
but
right
now
it's
the
business
inspections,
housing
and
zoning.
So
it
includes
kind
of
everything
you
you
kind
of
you
know.
G
A
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
questions
following
the
decision,
if
you
disagree
with
the
recommendation
of
staff,
please
indicate
you'd
like
to
speak
against
that
item.
When
I
ask
and
we'll
put
it
on
the
discussion
agenda,
the
discussion
items
are
those
items
for
which
the
board
will
take
public
testimony
deliberate
on
and
make
a
decision
after
the
public.
A
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
item
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.
A
So
before
we
go
into
these
items
I
do
want
to
well.
Let
me
just
say:
agenda
item
number:
five
I'll
I'll
go
through
these
items.
Agenda
item
number
five
is
1400
gerard
avenue
north,
and
this
is
discussion.
Item
agenda
item
number.
Six
is
1041
12th
avenue.
Southeast
staff
is
recommend
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
Is
there
anyone
here
to
speak
against
this
item
and
if
you
do
want
to
have
this
item
heard,
if
you
could
press
star
6
on
your
phone
and
just
say
you'd
like
to
have
it.
A
Okay,
so
we
will
have
that
as
a
discussion
item
as
well.
Thank
you,
sir.
A
All
right
before
we
proceed
I'd
like
to
ask
the
board
a
question
and
see
what
what
you
feel
about
this.
There
was
a
problem,
a
technical
problem
with
getting
the
sign
up
sheet
working
properly,
the
electronic
sign
up
sheet,
and
so
we
may
not
have
not
everybody
who
has
wanted
to
sign
up
to
hear
these
or
to
participate
in
the
discussion
of
these
two
items
may
not
have
been
able
to
sign
in
or
sign
up
and
get
the
the
sign
up
the
sign-in
credentials.
A
E
Yes,
sir
okay,
my
position
on
this
is
that
I
have
to
recuse
myself
on
both
items.
E
J
Yeah
chair
perry,
this
is
ken
daler
from
the
clerk's
office.
I
just
wanted
to
provide
a
little
bit
of
context
to
what
you
just
mentioned,
so
we
did
have
one
issue
with
the
online
form
for
signups
earlier
today,
which
resulted
in
the
conference
call
information
being
sent
out
a
little
bit
later
than
normal.
J
Typically,
we
send
it
out
an
hour
before
the
meeting
and
due
to
an
error,
it
didn't
successfully
get
sent
until
about
four
o'clock
today,
so
it
went
out
a
little
bit
later
than
normal.
J
We
also
did
receive
one
complaint
from
a
caller,
maybe
about
20
minutes
before
the
meeting
that
he
had
signed
up
but
did
not
receive
the
information
and
he
did
not
make
it
on
to
our
sign
up
list.
We're
not
aware
of
any
broad
issues
with
people
being
able
to
sign
up.
We
actually
had
several
successful
sign-ups
for
zoning
board
of
adjustment
today,
including
a
test
sign
up
that
rit
person
had
sent
around
noon
today
and
we've
had
several
successful
sign
ups
this
week
for
other
meetings.
J
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
clarification
and
we
also
have
it
initially.
We
didn't
have
the
applicant
for
the
appellant
actually
for
item
number
five,
but
we
do
now.
So
I
will
add
that
as
well.
So
I'll
just
ask
is:
is
there
a
motion
to
continue
these
items?
If
not,
we
can
proceed
forward.
E
K
K
This
site
is
a
7
890
square
foot
residential
lot
with
an
existing
duplex.
The
duplex
was
constructed
in
1910.
The
lot
is
in
the
r2b,
multiple
family
zoning
district
and
the
i2
interior
2
built
form
overlay
district
per
the
zoning
district
and
overlay.
A
maximum
of
three
dwelling
units
are
permitted
on
this
lot.
Next
slide,
please
in
and
I'm
just
going
to
give
you
some
background
on
what
was
originally
approved
and
proposed
in
november
of
2019,
the
appellant
applied
for
a
building
permit
to
install
a
quote
kitchenette
in
each
of
the
existing
dwelling
units.
K
The
kitchenettes
were
proposed
to
be
constructed
in
the
basement
and
attic
spaces
of
the
structure.
Zoning
staff
indicated
on
the
permit
that
inc,
that
quote,
incomplete
kitchens
were
approved
to
be
added
to
the
basement
and
attic
portions
of
the
structure,
and
that
quote
no
more
than
two
complete
kitchens
were
approved
on
the
property
and
that
no
change
of
use
from
the
existing
duplex
was
approved
under
the
building
permit,
and
you
can
see
all
that
information
on
the
photo
there
next
slide.
K
Please,
during
the
inspection
for
the
building
permit,
two
new
complete
kitchens
were
identified
in
the
structure
and
the
building
inspector
noted
that
all
levels
quote
all
levels
have
full
kitchens.
The
kitchens
and
other
elements
of
the
build-out
of
the
basement
and
attic
spaces
were
flagged
as
adding
two
additional
non-conforming
dwelling
units
in
the
structure.
K
The
appellant
requested
a
zoning
administrator
determination
regarding
the
definition
of
a
dwelling
unit
and
what
constitutes
a
complete
kitchen
facility
within
a
dwelling
unit.
In
the
requested
determination.
The
zoning
administrator
provided
the
ordinance
definitions
of
dwelling
unit
and
noted
that
the
zoning
ordinance
does
not
specifically
define
the
terms
kitchen,
complete
kitchen
or
kitchen
facility.
K
End
of
quote
in
favor
of
the
applicant
in
favor
of
the
appellant.
Excuse
me,
the
appellant
further
argues
that
the
prohibition
of
partial
kitchens
and
kitchenettes
should
be
clearly
expressed
in
the
zoning
ordinance
next
slide.
Please
in
reviewing
the
materials
from
city
records
provided
by
the
city
inspectors
and
the
appellant
staff
made
the
findings
that,
based
on
the
ordinance
definition
of
a
dwelling
unit,
the
ordinance
clearly
states
that
a
single
complete
kitchen
facility
is
permitted
in
a
dwelling
unit,
even
without
an
ordinance
definition
of
kitchen.
K
Allowing
the
kitchens
in
the
basement
and
attic
to
remain
functionally
allows
the
subject
property
to
be
converted
to
and
used
as
a
fourplex,
which
is
not
an
allowed
use
in
the
r2b
district.
Next
slide,
please
in
conclusion,
based
on
the
evidence
provided
in
the
staff
report
and
the
findings,
staff
recommends
that
the
board
deny
the
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
zoning
administrator's
determination
that
a
dwelling
unit
may
not
have
more
than
one
single
complete
kitchen
facility.
A
A
A
Furthermore,
it's
not
the
board's
responsibility
to
determine
whether
the
zoning
ordinance
is
correct
or
should
be
changed,
we're
not
a
policy
making
body
in
the
appeals
of
the
zoning
administrator.
We
are
also
not
charged
with
determining
the
efficacy
of
city
process.
In
this
particular
case,
we're
addressing
a
narrowly
defined
technical
issue.
Did
the
zoning
administrator
correctly
determine
that
a
dwelling
unit
may
not
have
more
than
one
single
complete
kitchen
facility
as
a
matter
of
due
process,
the
appellant
has
afforded
broad
latitude
in
the
testimony
they
are
provided
to
me
to
make
their
case.
A
However,
since
written
testimony
has
been
provided
for
the
record,
this
body
will
ask
the
appellant
or
the
representative
to
be
respectful
of
the
amount
of
time
they
use
in
providing
their
testimony
today,
and
with
that,
I
will
open
the
floor
to
the
board
for
questions
of
staff.
Are
there
any
questions
of
staff?
F
K
That's
a
that's
a
pressing
question
in
the
zoning
office
we
have,
we
have
determined
or
the
the
the
basis
we
have
been
using
for
a
complete
kitchen
involves
a
sink,
a
refrigerator
and
a
heating
appliance.
So
in
in
the
past,
we
have
approved
wet
bars
that
have
a
sink
with
an
under
the
counter
refrigerator,
but
but
any
kind
of
heating
appliances
or
plumbed
in
gas
stoves
or
anything
like
that
have
not
been
permitted.
K
L
Thanks
chair
perry,
my
question,
I
guess,
is
more
of
a
clarification
it.
I
guess
that
what
I'm
seeing
is
the
question
is
that,
if
it
has
a
full
kitchen
is
perceived
that
someone
can
live
in
the
space
and
thus
make
it
an
official
dwelling
unit.
Is
that
correct.
K
A
I
don't
see
at
this
time
miss
dawkins,
but
we
may
have
you
back
later
on
after
we
get
done
with
the
public
hearing.
Thank
you
again
for
your
presentation.
So,
let's
open
the
public
hearing.
A
A
Is
the
applicant
present
if
you're,
if
you're
here,
if
you
could
press
star
six
to
unmute
your
phone
and
then
give
your
name
and
address.
M
M
Sure
so
I'm
not
exactly
clear.
I
would
hope
that
all
the
members
of
the
board
have
my
written
statement.
Would
that
be
correct.
A
Yes,
we
have
okay,
we
get
a
packet
that
has
your
written
material
in
it
and
any
other
supporting
material
that
you've
submitted
to
the
city.
Okay,
excellent.
M
I'll
try
not
to
go
over
it
all
word
by
word.
I
do
have
some
comments,
so
hopefully
I'm
able
to
be
you
know
able
to
go
over
all
that
information.
First
off
I'd
like
to
thank
everyone
for
taking
the
time
to
hear
this
case,
I'm
not
exactly
sure
where
to
start.
I
guess
I'd
like
to
start
in
response
to
the
city's
comments.
M
First
and
foremost,
I'm
not
trying
to
have
four
complete
kitchens
in
the
property,
I'm
fine
having
two
complete
kitchens
and
two
incomplete
kitchens.
I
am
not
asking
anybody
to
have
four
complete
kitchens.
That
is
not
okay.
I've
never
said
that's
okay
and
that's
not
what
I'm
asking
for
the
thing
that
seems
to
be.
I
don't
know
what
is
going
on
exactly,
but
the
only
thing
I
did
differently.
That's
not
in
the
approved
plans
is
I
put
the
complete
kitchens
in
the
attic
and
the
basement.
M
What
is
on
the
second
and
first
floor
are
incomplete
kitchens
or
partial
kitchens.
So
that's
the
only
thing
I've
changed,
so
I
guess
I'm
confused.
I've
been
told
that
I
need
to
rip
everything
out
on
the
in
in
the
attic
in
the
basement.
If
the
city
is
just
saying
I
put
in
complete
kitchens,
then
why
can't
I
just
remove
the
fridge
in
both
of
them,
which
is
what's
on
the
plans.
M
I
don't
understand
why
I
need
to
tear
everything
out
if
they're
saying
hey,
it's
a
complete
kitchen
now,
and
you
can't
do
that,
I
did
explain
why
we
moved
the
full
kitchens
complete
kitchens
to
the
attic
in
the
basement.
That's
because
they're
the
nicest
floors
now
in
the
apartment,
so
the
main
floors
will
be
the
attic
and
the
basement
now
so
anyway.
M
As
as
you
can
see
in
the
on
the
approved
drawings,
it
says,
add
incomplete
kitchens
and
basements
and
third
level,
no
more
than
two
complete
kitchens
on
the
property.
The
word
ad
means
exactly
that
the
city
gave
permission
to
add
two
additional
kitchens
to
a
property
that
already
had
two.
There
was
no
ambiguity
about
the
fact
that
there
would
be
two
new
kitchens,
albeit
partial,
in
the
property,
in
the
addition
to
the
existing
two
with
the
approved
plans.
M
We
begin
the
work,
the
city
inspected,
the
work
over
a
period
of
one
year
from
multiple
inspections,
all
different
kinds
of
departments
went
through
the
house.
No
one
stopped
to
work.
No
one
said
you
can't
do
that.
Nobody
said
hey,
let's
take
another.
Look
at
this.
The
plumbing
inspectors
didn't
say
that
the
hvac
inspector
didn't
say
that
the
state
electrical
inspector
didn't
say
that
after
spending
one
year
and
a
whole
lot
of
money
on
the
property,
we
were
ready
for
the
final
inspection,
not
the
final
electrical
plumbing
or
mechanical
inspections.
M
Those
had
already
been
completed
and
passed
all
by
the
city
of
minneapolis.
The
final
final
inspection
is
just
the
building
inspection.
The
most
basic
concession,
one
could
argue,
the
house,
the
interior
of
it,
had
all
been
completed
for
practical
purpose
for
all
practical
purposes.
Since
january
of
2021.
the
inspection
was
sometime
in
march.
It
was
after
this
final
building
inspection.
Not
even
during
the
national
section.
The
city
told
me,
the
kitchens
in
the
attic
and
basement
are
illegal.
You
must
remove
them.
Not
hay
is
complete.
M
As
opposed
to
partial
hay.
You
weren't
approved
complete
kitchens.
You
were
approved,
partial
kitchens,
please
make
it
a
partial
kitchen.
All
they
said
was
no.
You
must
remove
them
completely,
which
again
that
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
me
in
any
way.
I
was
understandably
crushed
and
incredibly
frustrated.
I
told
the
city
exactly
what
I
wanted
to
do.
They
approved
it.
I
built
it,
they
inspected
it
over
12
months.
How
could
they
say
this
after
I
had
completed
it?
I
didn't
try
to
get
away
with
anything.
I
didn't
try
to
skirt
rules.
M
M
You
you've
seen
other
pictures
of
the
kitchens
and
adding
in
the
basement
again
it's
important
to
note
that
I'll
go
back
to
the
itemized
list
of
up
on
the
top
here.
The
only
thing
that
differs
in
the
final
product
versus
the
approved
plans
is
the
fact
that
we
have
the
complete
kitchens
in
the
attic
in
the
basement.
M
M
So
if
the
city
has
any
actual
right
to
demand
or
make
changes,
it's
requesting
that
the
full
slash,
complete
kitchen
would
be
on
first
and
second
floor
and
the
partial
kitchens
be
in
the
attic
in
the
basement
as
planned.
I
would
be
completely
fine
with
having
to
remove
the
fridge
in
the
attic
in
the
basement
and
having
the
stove
and
the
sink,
as
the
approved
plans
gave
me
permission
to
do.
M
That's
absolutely
completely
fine
with
me.
All
I
was
saying
was
all
I
had
done
is
say
the
you
know.
After
all,
the
renovations,
the
basement
and
the
attic
are
the
nicest
floors
in
the
house.
Now
they
should
have
the
complete
kitchen.
The
second
floor
on
the
first
floor
had
incomplete
kitchens.
If,
if
I'm
supposed
to
go,
buy
the
approved
plans,
I'm
fine
move,
I'm
fine
making
the
first
floor.
M
In
the
second
floor,
the
quote:
unquote
complete
kitchens
as
they
were
originally
and
have
the
quote:
unquote:
incomplete
kitchens
or
parcel
kitchens
in
the
basement
in
the
attic.
Aside
from
that,
I
think
I've
stated
everything
it's
just.
It
would
be
completely
unfair
to
ask
me
to
tear
out
everything
as
they've
asked
me
to
do.
It's
look
like
I
said
it's
not
hey.
M
I
see
that
you
have
full
full
kitchens
now
in
the
atticum
basement.
Please
please
make
them
partial,
it's
hey,
tear
everything
out
and
you
can't
have
any
kitchens
in
the
attic
and
basement
that's
what
they
have
ordered
and
that's
what
I'm
arguing
against
I'm
not
trying
to
have
four
complete
kitchens.
All
I'm
having
all
I'm
trying
to
do
is
to
have
two
full
kitchens
in
the
house
and
then
two
incomplete
sorry,
two
complete
kitchens
and
two
partial
locations.
That's
all
I
want,
and
that's
all
I've
ever
want.
M
So,
if
they're
trying
to
say
otherwise
that
that
I'm
trying
to
you
know
sneak
full
for
kitchen
full
full
kitchens
in
that's
not
what
I'm
trying
to
do
again.
The
first
and
second
floor
are
partial.
I
don't
think
I
have
anything
else
to
add
other
than
again.
It
would
be
completely
unfair
and
unjust
to
make
me
tear
out
the
kitchens,
because
that
is
not
what
is
approved.
A
I
just
want
to
make
sure
you
understand
that
as
a
board,
what
we're
doing
is
looking
at
this
appeal
as
an
appeal
of
the
zoning
administrator's
decision
of
whether
a
determining
the
dwelling
unit
may
not
have
more
than
a
single
one
single
complete
kitchen
facility,
we're
not
we're
not
a
board
that
is
telling
you
to.
We
don't
have
purview
over
whether
something
is
torn
out
or
not
sir,
so
I
appreciate
the
testimony,
but
that's
a
little
bit
outside
the
realm
of
our
purview.
C
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
Thank
you,
mr
zucker,
for
your
presentation.
I
just
want
to
be
clear,
so
you're,
saying
you're,
full
kitchens
now
you're
stating
are
on
your
attic
and
your
basement.
So
tell
me
about
the
kitchen
or
incomplete
kitchens
you
claim
to
have
on
first
floor
and
second
floor.
What
does
the
first
floor
kitchen
currently
have
in
it
to
make
it
an
incomplete
kitchen.
M
C
A
F
M
M
I
would
please
sure
okay,
then
I
am
formally
asking
you
to
reject
the
decision
by
the
zoning
I
mean.
Actually,
I'm
not
sure
what
I'm
asking,
because
I'm
not
trying
to
say
one
unit
should
have
more
than
one
complete
kitchen.
I
am
a
hundred
percent
in
agreement
that
one
unit
should
have
one
complete
kitchen.
M
All
I'm
asking
for
is
to
have
my
plans,
which
were
approved
to
be
enforced
where,
as
opposed
to
so
what
was
okay
for
the
approved
plans
is
a
incomplete
kitchen
quote:
unquote,
is
a
range
and
a
sink
so
that
that
was
approved
by
the
city
of
minneapolis,
so
those
quote
unquote.
Incomplete
kitchens
are
now
on
the
first
and
second
floor.
The
full
kitchens
are
now
in
the
basement
in
the
attic.
M
So
if,
if
a
full
kitchen
was
okay
on
the
second
and
first
floor
and
incomplete
kitchens,
as
approved
were
okay
in
the
basement
and
attic,
then
it's
completely
okay
to
have
the
full
kitchens
be
in
the
attic
and
the
partial
kitchens
be
on
the
first
or
second.
So,
like
I
said,
I'm
fine,
keeping
that
I'm
fine,
I'm
fine.
Having
two
quote
unquote
convert
you
know
the
full
kitchens
in
the
in
the
the
complete
kitchens
in
the
basement
and
attic
back
to
partial
and
have
the
full
kitchens
be
on
the
first
and
second
floor.
A
Ms
dawkins,
can
you
step
in
for
a
minute
and
provide
some
clarification
for
me,
so
we're
hearing
from
mr
zoker
what
he's
trying
to
accomplish,
but
that
seems
to
be
a
detail
of
implementation.
That
doesn't
really
seem
to
be
a
question
of
what
you
are
saying.
The
appeal
was
about.
Is
that
correct?
It
seems
like
there's
two
different
conversations
going
on
here
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
we're
we're
sticking
to
the
appeal
itself
that,
rather
than
what
mr
zucker
is
trying
to
accomplish
with
his
dwelling
unit.
K
Okay,
so
are
you
so
you're
asking
specifically
about
the
the
zoning
administrator's
determination,
and
that
is
that's
what's
being
appealed
right
now,
so
there's
a
the
the
basis
of
the
zoning
administrator's
determination
was
that
one
single
kitchen
is
in
a
dwelling
unit,
and
that
was
based
on
the
ordinance
definition,
and
that
is
what
we
are
talking
about
today
in
this
appeal,
the
issue
with
whether
or
not
to
remove
or
partially
alter
the
kitchen.
The
the
new
kitchens
to
meet
the
building,
both
the
building
code
and
the
zoding
ordinance
is
related
to
this.
A
Mr
zoker
can
secrete,
let's
say
we
we
deny
the
appeal,
and
it
is
the
zoning
administrator
was
correct.
Mr
zoker
can
still
seek
relief
from
these
other
things
that
he
is
talking
about
that
in
terms
of
the
city
saying
he
has
to
rip
out
all
of
his
kitchen
in
the
attic
or
basement
and
thing
things
of
that
nature
is
that.
Am
I
following
that
correctly.
K
L
Yes,
thanks,
chair
perry,
miss
dawkins.
I
guess
I
didn't
see
where
the
city
had
explicitly
informed
him
that
they
had
to
rip
things
out
and
that's
what
we
were
just
discussing
right
there.
Isn't
there
wasn't
any
formal
thing
in
writing
that
I
found
that
that
city
had
said
you
must
destroy.
What
you've
put
in
is.
K
That
correct
the
city
did
not
say
that
we,
the
co
both
buildings
there,
there's
email,
there's
like
several
emails
and
inspection
notes
in
our
tracking
files,
that
that
show
conversations
that
were
had
with
the
appellant
requiring
him
to
remove
the
the
cooking
implement
and
then
fill
in
the
counter.
K
It
wouldn't
require
him
to
pull
out
the
full
kitchen,
but
it
was
requiring
him
to
meet
to
to
pull
out
the
portion
of
the
kitchen
where
you
could
cook
and
then
and
then
close
off
that
piece
of
the
counter,
so
that
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
just
slide
another
appliance
in
and
from
a
building.
I
can't
speak
to
the
building
code,
but
the
issue
was
the
kind
of
permitting
building
code
permitting
that's
required
to
have
a
a
triplex
or
a
fourplex
versus
a
duplex,
and
it's
a
diff.
A
And
so,
mr
johannesson,
just
to
make
a
point
to
to
your
question
or
your
clarification,
that's
the
the
moving
forward
after
we
make
our
decision,
that's
something
that
would
be
explored
after
we
make
our
decision,
whether
in
favor
or
against
the
appellant's
appeal
about
the
zoning
administrator's
decision
about
this
complete
kitchen
within
a
single
dwelling
unit.
A
Are
there
any
other
questions
of
mr
zokart.
M
I
don't
understand
how
the
city
can
just
make
that
comment.
I
have
countless
emails
from
them
saying
that
they
will
accept
nothing
less,
but
the
complete
removal
and
dismantling
of
the
third
floor
and
basement
kitchen.
They
had
asked
me
before
sorry.
They
had
made
the
proposal
that
that
I
removed
the
ranges
from
the
basement
and
the
attic.
I
accepted
that
proposal
and
said
I
don't
even
want
to
go
through
this
hearing.
I
will
remove
the
ruler.
I
will
remove
the
stoves
from
the
attic
in
the
basement
and
call
it
a
day.
M
They
did
not
accept
that
they
said
no.
We
will
only
accept
you
destroying
the
kitchens
I
have
it
in
email.
I
didn't
submit
it
to
you
because
I
didn't
think
I
needed
it.
The
cd
is
absolutely
according
to
everything.
They've
told
me,
I
don't
trust
them
for
one
second
to
say:
we're
not
gonna
make
you
rip
out
everything
you've
done,
because
that's
what
they've
told
me
in
writing
countless
time.
A
M
A
M
They
argue
they
argue
amongst
themselves,
about
what
defines
a
complete
kitchen
or
not
because
it
is
so
ambiguous.
You
have
to
decide
and
again
I
got
a
permit
for
it.
They
said.
I
only
did
it
because
they
said
I
could
do
it.
It
is
inherently
unfair
to
say
I
can't
do
something
that
they
said.
I
could
do
after
it's
done.
A
Yes,
you
have
been
pretty
clear
on
that.
Miss
frias.
N
Yeah,
I
have
sort
of
a
clear
clarifying
question
for
myself,
so
I'm
not
sure
how
we
move
forward
because
it
seems
like
the
report
we
got
before.
This
is
more
about
the
issue
with
the
appellant
wanting
to
turn
it
into
a
fourplex,
but
in
his
testimony
he
shared
that
as
it
is
right
now,
it's
still
technically
a
duplex
is
my
understanding
correct.
There.
A
So,
as
as
I
was
saying,
we
have
two
different
issues
going
on.
Mr
zilker
is
trying
to
react
to
the
city's
request
to
do
certain
things
that
he
has
documentation
about
to
comply
with
building
and
zoning
code.
But
that's
not
the
subject
of
the
appeal.
The
appeal
is
different.
The
appeal
is
whether
the
zoning
administrator.
O
A
Okay,
let's
close
the
public
hearing,
then
board
comment:
we've
had
some
some
discussion
with
staff
and
with
the
the
appellant
to
some
degree,
so
we
have
had
some
discussion
already,
but
I
certainly
want
to
suss
out
what
we
have
been
talking
about
amongst
ourselves.
Now,
mr
sandberg.
D
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
perry.
As
I
understand
it,
mr
zokert
actually
agrees
with
the
zoning
administrator
and
he's
got
another
problem
with
the
building
inspectors
as
to
what
to
do,
I
think
the
zoning
administrator
told
them
each
unit
can
have
one
complete
and
and
could
have
an
incomplete
kitchen
and
he's
willing
to
to
do
that.
So
I
think
I
agree
that
we
and
that
we
need
to
support
the
zoning
administrators
findings
in
this
case.
P
I
was
just
going
to
add
that
you
know
not
minimizing
mr
zerger's
experiences
but
what's
been
brought
to
us
that
I
also
agree
with
mr
sandberg
and
mr
and
johannes
and
I
I
do
see
that,
as
you
know,
more
than
one
single
complete
kitchen
in
a
dwelling
unit
and
then
the
solution
to
the
so-called
incomplete
kitchens,
as
mr
zokart
suggested
is
you
know
just
to
get
rid
of
the
ranges
and
call
it
a
day.
But
that's
obviously
a
question
for
somebody
else
on
the
next
steps.
A
B
C
L
F
A
Thank
you
so
that
motion
is
approved
and
the
deny
the
the
appeal
is
denied.
Mr
zoker,
you
can
see
staff
about
what
you're
on
the
appeal
itself,
what
your
options
are
going
forward.
I
do
want
to
echo
ms
wang's
comments
and
I
think
the
board
feels
the
same
way
that
we
are.
A
We
feel
for
your
frustration
in
in
your
desire
to
try
to
meet
what
city's
staff
have
been
been
guiding
you
to
do
and
what
you
feel
was
the
proper
process
to
follow.
So
it
just
isn't
in
the
realm
of
this
board
to
address
those
questions.
A
So
we
wish
you
the
best
of
luck
in
getting
that
figured.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Its
variants
would
not
be
detrimental
to
health,
safety
or
welfare
of
the
general
public
or
those
utilizing
this
property
or
nearby
properties
with
that
staff
recommends
approval
of
this
lot
split
or
the
variance
to
the
minimum
lot
size
I'll
be
here
for
questions.
I
believe
the
applicant
is
also
online.
A
I
see
none
will
staff
please
put
in
the
key
put
in
chat
the
queue
list
again
for
me.
A
I
just
want
to
thank
you,
so
we
have
in
the
queue
michael
sweedall.
If
you
want
to
press
star
six
to
unmute
your
phone.
I
believe
you
are
the
applicant.
A
A
Yes,
could
you
give
your
address
for
the
record.
O
I
was
here
just
to
support
what
andrew
basically
laid
out.
It's
pretty
straightforward.
We
were
just
looking
to
basically
do
a
lot
split
back
to
the
existing
subdivision,
so
it's
that
was
what
the
owner
was
doing
and
I'm
supporting
it
and
hoping
we
can
just
get
the
lot
split
and
move
with
the
new
development
on
the
lot.
A
I
was
asking
if
the
board
had
any
questions
of
you,
sir,
I'm
seeing
none.
So,
let's
move
on
to
the
next
person
in
the
cube,
patricia
eliason.
If
you
want
to
press
star
6
to
unmute
your
phone.
R
Yes,
2418
coal
avenue
southeast
minneapolis.
Thank
you.
I've
been
in
the
neighborhood
for
over
25
years,
and
I
I
have
an
issue
with
the
point
on
the
slideshow
that
says
that
this
is
within
character
of
the
neighborhood.
I
think
the
development
is
completely
out
of
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
I'm
going
to
read
the
letter
that
I
wrote
earlier
this
week
to
the
zoning
board.
R
Many
of
us
in
the
como
southeast
neighborhood
have
been
appalled
at
the
teardowns
and
huge
developments
by
mike
sweedall
and
go
gopher
in
our
neighborhood.
The
teardowns
replace
single-family,
affordable
housing
with
rental
property
that
is
uncharacteristic
of
the
neighborhood
unaffordable
for
homeowners
and
unsustainable.
For
these
small
sized
lots,
these
huge
buildings
remove
green
space.
There
are
many
trees
on
this
property
that
would
have
to
be
removed.
R
A
There
was
just
some
crosstalk
there.
Thank
you,
ms
eliason.
I
don't
think
anybody
has
any
questions
of
you
and
we
did
get
your
letter
and
you
can
assume
that
we
all
read
it
as
well.
So
thank
thanks
for
your
testimony.
A
O
A
Thanks
for
that
clarification,
but
what
I'm
really
looking
for
are
questions
that,
for
ms
elias
and
from
the
board
mr
swedal.
A
I
I'm
at
10
55
14th
avenue
southeast
for
this
matter
in
front
of
the
board
to
justify
a
lot
split
variance.
The
applicant
has
to
provide
reasonably
complete
proposal
that
the
use
is
a
reasonable
use,
a
reasonable
manner
of
use
of
the
property,
and,
on
that
basis,
from
what
has
been
described,
the
tear
down
of
the
existing
house
at
1041.
I
The
applicant
makes
a
statement
that
the
new
housing
proposed,
the
pair
of
duplexes,
have
good
curb
appeal.
However,
unfortunately,
it's
the
case
that
much
of
this
recent
development
in
the
last
year
has
very
little
curb
appeal
and
is
compares
very
poorly
to
the
surrounding
existing
houses
in
the
area.
Another
essential
point
in
your
deliberations
today
is
that
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
not
be
modified.
I
Finally,
I'll
point
out
that
there
is
more
historical
research,
that's
being
done
to
see
whether
the
existing
structure
at
1041
does
qualify
for
historic
status
in
minneapolis
and
finally,
a
lot.
The
last
point
that
the
board
needs
to
consider
is
the
local
area
plan
and
the
kinds
of
housing
that
it
proposes
for
como.
I
It
stresses
that
single
person,
housing
is
valuable
and
it's
important
that
we
have
a
good
proportion
of
that,
but
also
that
the
neighborhood
really
needs
housing,
oriented
towards
working
people
and
families,
and
it
seems
very
unlikely
that
the
high-density
duplexes
proposed
to
replace
the
existing
structure
in
the
newly
split
lot
will
in
fact
match
that
area
approved
local
area
plan.
So,
for
all
these
four
or
five
reasons,
I
would
ask
the
board
then
to
either
deny
the
permit
or
to
only
allow
it
with
the
stipulation
that
the
existing
house
be
preserved.
As
is
thank
you.
A
A
Yeah,
so
mr
crawford
has
suggested
a
condition
to
be
placed
on
the
the
if
we
were
to
appr.
If
the
board
were
to
approve
this,
that
a
condition
be
placed
on
it.
Is
that
condition
one
that
can
be
placed
on
a
variance
like
this.
Q
I'm
not
familiar
with
a
condition
placed
on
a
lot
split
variants
like
that.
I
do
know
that
it
would
have
other
issues
in
looking
at
the
site
plan
of
that
existing
structure.
Q
If
the
applicant
sought
that
he
would
have
gone
through
that
route
to
the
planning
commission,
he
is
proposing
to
raise
the
existing
house
and
create
two
lots
that
do
not
meet
the
5
000
square
foot
minimum
all.
G
Chair
perry,
members
of
the
board,
chair,
perry,
specific
to
your
question.
I
believe
mr
liska
answered.
We
would
end
up
with
a
whole
series
of
other
applications
and
it
wouldn't
even
be
going
to
the
board.
It
would
be
a
minor
subdivision
in
that
event,
but
I
kind
of
want
to
bring
it
back
to
the
fact
that
I'm
not
sure
there
would
be
a
specific
nexus,
a
specific
legal
nexus
for
that
condition
of
approval
to
be
added
to
that.
Should
the
board
decide
to
approve
it.
A
Yes,
that
that
was
actually
my
my
question
whether
there
was
that
that
nexus
point
that
made
sense.
Aside
from
all
all
the
other,
the
the
fact
it
would
be
before
a
different
body.
G
Certainly
and
sherry
perry
just
to
follow
up
related
to
that,
because
I
mean
what
we're
narrowly
looking
at,
isn't
necessarily
the
building
or
type
of
building.
So
much
as
the
size
of
the
lot
is,
what
kind
of
is
what
the
board
is
looking
at
tonight?
So,
yes,.
A
Okay,
mr
johanneson,
there's
you
have
a
question
for
mr
liska.
L
Yes,
I
do
mr
liska,
thanks
for
your
presentation
being
that
the
owner
owns
this
large
lot
and
it's
an
r1a
how
large
of
a
building
could
they
build
as
a
single
building
and
not
two
duplexes
and
meet
code.
Q
Q
Code
would
allow
up
to
three
units
on
this
site
there.
This
site
is
zoned
interior
too,
in
putting
together
what
the
zoning
code
looks
like
based
on
comprehensive
plan
policy
guidance
staff
was
wondering
if
this
would
be
a
property
where
upzoning
would
be
supported.
Q
I
can't
say
for
certain
based
on
just
pretty
surface
level
discussions
with
some
of
those
colleagues.
A
A
I
would
yes,
mr
johannesson.