►
From YouTube: October 21, 2021 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
C
Board
member
frias
will
not
be
able
to
join
us
this
evening
board.
Member
finn:
listen.
A
D
D
C
D
D
E
B
D
G
D
B
H
Chair
perry,
members
of
the
board.
Yes,
we
have
one
communication.
This
evening
there
was
an
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
board
of
adjustment
on
2827
18th
avenue
south.
That
was
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
that
was
too
large
and
per
code
and
too
close
to
the
north
side
property
line.
They
appealed
the
size
of
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
or
total
accessory
structure,
but
they
did
not
appeal
the
location
in
the
side
yard,
so
that
will
be
going
to
the
business
inspections,
housing
and
zoning
committee
in
november.
B
Can
thank
you,
mr
ellis,
can
you
do
you
happen
to
recall
what
the
what
the
size
they
wanted
was
versus
what
is
allowable?
I.
B
Okay,
that
that's
that's
fine.
I
when
we
hear
the
update,
I'm
sure
you'll
include
that,
depending
on
how
that
comes
out.
Okay
thanks,
so
let's
review
the
agenda.
I
will
read
the
agenda
number
and
address
of
the
project
and
state
whether
it's
slated
for
consent
or
discussion
and
I'll
talk
about
what
those
two
items
are
right
now
one
is
the
consent
items.
These
are
items
that
will
be
passed
without
discussion
by
the
board.
We
will
be
adhering
to
the
staff
recommendation
found
on
the
agenda
under
the
items
recommended
motion.
B
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'll
put
it
on
the
discussion
agenda,
so
what
are
discussion
items?
These
are
items
which
the
board
will
take
public
testimony
deliberate
on
and
make
a
decision
after
the
public.
Testimony
for
an
item
is
heard.
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
for
that
agenda
item
once
I
close
the
public
hearing
for
an
item.
B
B
B
Agenda
item
number
six
is
2704
40th
street
west.
This
is
a
discussion.
Item
agenda.
Item
number
seven
is
5321
ewing
avenue
south.
This
is
also
a
discussion
item
agenda.
Item
number.
Eight
is
4050
lyndon
hills.
Boulevard
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
Is
there
anyone
here
to
speak
against
this
item?.
B
B
G
Jerry
perry,
this
is
board
member
sandberg.
I
think
I
read
in
the
public
comments
that
some
neighbors
of
the
applicant
of
item
five
intended
to
be
at
this
meeting.
We
may
want
to
check
again
and
make
sure
that
they
are
not
available.
B
I
Your
my
name
is:
go
ahead.
Sorry,
no,
please
yeah!
My
name
is
matt
wingard,
I'm
with
salah
architects,
and
we
were
the
designers
of
the
the
project,
the
accessory
structure,
and
I
know
that
the
client
had
spoken
with
the
neighbor
earlier
today
and
kind
of
talked
through
some
of
the
concerns.
So.
B
Let's,
let's
see
if
there
is
anybody
else
on
the
phone
for
item
number
five
and
again,
if
you
press
star
six
that
unmutes
your
phone
and
your
phone,
might
you
might
have
your
phone
muted
itself,
so
you
might
have
to
press
two
buttons
to
unmute
your
phone
and
if
so,
if
you
want
to
speak
against
us,
please
do
that
and
let
us
know
I'll
just
wait
for
a
few
moments
here
to
let
people
do
that.
Stair,
six
thing.
B
D
D
D
D
C
B
D
J
J
per
code.
This
property
has
two
front
yards,
so
one
along
40th
street
west
and
one
along
thomas
avenue.
South
the
surrounding
area
has
a
neighborhood
character
typical
for
minneapolis
and
includes
low
density,
single
and
multiple
family,
residential,
primarily
one
and
two
family
dwellings.
The
property
is
located
within
four
blocks
of
badei
makaska
lake
harriet
and
joe
pond.
J
This
property
was
the
subject
of
a
prior
approval
in
2014
when
the
board
of
adjustment
heard
a
variance
request
by
lake
west
developments
for
the
reduction
of
a
required
front
yard
setback
along
40th
street
west.
For
the
construction
of
a
new
single
family
dwelling,
there
was
a
condition
included
in
that
approval,
where
the
board
of
adjustment
required
that
50
lineal
feet
of
screening
along
thomas
avenue,
south
and
a
minimum
of
20
feet
of
screening
moving
west
along
the
alley
was
required,
and
that
was
in
an
effort
to
retain
some
trees
and
shrubs
in
that
area.
J
There
is
also
an
existing
retaining
wall
in
the
rear
portion
of
the
property,
as
a
legally
established
retaining
wall
grade
is
measured
from
the
top
of
the
retaining
wall.
Where
present,
a
variance
is
required
for
the
height
of
this
fence,
open
and
decorative
fences
located
in
a
reverse
corner
front
yard
are
subject
to
a
maximum
height
of
four
feet,
as
they
are
considered
to
be
the
same
as
front
yards.
J
J
For
the
variance
findings
regarding
finding
number
one,
the
uniqueness
of
the
property
staff
does
find
this
to
be
met
due
to
the
location
of
the
structure
and
the
attached
garage
on
this
property.
The
property
does
lack
a
reasonable
sized
rear
yard.
The
only
usable
open
space
on
the
lot
is
located
in
that
required.
Reverse
corner
front
yard
along
thomas
avenue,
south
of
unique
circumstances
were
not
created
by
persons
presently
having
an
interest
in
the
property
and
are
not
based
on
economic
considerations
alone.
J
In
regards
to
the
third
finding
staff
finds
that
the
proposed
variants
would
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality,
as
there
are
no
other
properties
with
existing
fences
in
a
required
front
or
reverse
corner
front
yard.
With
a
height
of
six
feet
in
the
vicinity,
the
proposed
fence
height
would
be
a
substantial
deviation
from
the
requirements
in
front
yards
within
the
entire
city
of
minneapolis.
B
That
picture
right,
the
green
and
the
blue
for
my
color
blind
eyes,
sort
of
melds
together.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that,
from
my
understanding
of
the
code,
the
green
and
blue
for
the
fence
height,
where
variance
is
required,
is
where
the
gr,
where
the
garage
structure
meets
the
home
structure.
Is
that
correct.
J
So
this
this
site
plan
was
provided
by
the
applicant
four
front
yards.
The
entire
length
would
be
required
to
be
four
feet
so
if
it
was
a
typical
corner
yard,
once
you
are
at
the
rear
of
the
house,
you
are
permitted
to
increase
the
fence
height
from
that
three
or
four
feet
to
six
feet
for
a
reverse
corner
front
yard,
where
it's
just
a
front
yard
that
entire
height
is
required
to
be
four
feet.
But
I
do
apologize
for
the
colors
of
that
diagram.
B
Okay
thanks,
mr
sandberg,
you
have
a
question.
G
B
M
Yes
good
afternoon,
thank
you
for
your
time
and
apologies.
Sarah
was
too
kind
to
apologize
for
the
colors.
That
was
actually
my
doing
so.
My
apologies
on
that,
but
I
am
the
applicant.
I
do
own
the
home
and
I
don't
have
a
whole
lot
more
to
add
to
what
sarah
already
presented.
But
what
I
would
say
is
that
I
I
sort
of
understand
this
notion
that
the
two
yards
available
to
me
are
for
city
purposes
considered
front
yards,
albeit
quite
confusing.
As
a
homeowner.
M
M
I
I
sort
of
highlighted
it
in
the
memo
that
I
submitted,
so
I
won't
repeat
all
of
that,
but
I
would
say
it
doesn't
convey
a
sense
of
privacy
and,
if
you've
seen
my
property,
I
am
on
a
hill
sort
of
on
an
angle,
and
so
you
know
walkers
by
full
eye
shots
of
everything.
In
my
yard,
there's
just
absolutely
no
privacy
at
all
and
with
my
location
there
tends
to
be
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
people
since
I
purchased
this
property
I
did
do.
M
I
did
plant
about
10
trees
on
this
property
and
I
did
put
about
75
000
worth
of
landscaping
into
this
property.
So
I
very
much
appreciate
the
importance
of
keeping
things
as
natural
and
not
overly
constructed
as
as
possible,
I'm
simply
looking
for
a
reasonable
amount
of
privacy
within
the
little
space
that
I
have
available
to
me.
B
Doesn't
seem
like
there
are
any
questions
for
you,
so
thanks
for
your
testimony,
I
will
say:
do
you
have
anything
to
add
to
finding?
I
know
it's
a
little
bit
confusing
and
we
don't
expect
you
to
be
a
city,
planner
or
a
zone
zoning
expert,
but
you
can
hear
what
staff
has
said
they
can't
find.
We
have
to
find
for
these
three
legal
findings.
B
It's
not
a
matter
of
whether
we
think
you
know
whether
you
think
we
think
you've
done
a
good
job,
improving
your
property
or
what
have
you,
but
we
have
these
legal
findings
that
we
have
to
find
for,
and
so
staff
is
telling
us
they
can't
find
for
findings.
Two
or
three
do
you
have
anything
that
you
could
add
that
might
help
us
find
for
you
for
those
two
findings.
M
Yeah,
it
sounded
like
for
finding
two
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
got
the
impression
that
there
was
a
bit
of
a
split
on
that
one,
that
the
spirit
of
one
aspect
was
fulfilled,
but
perhaps
not
a
second
aspect
is
is
what
I
thought
I
heard
sarah
say
you
know
when
I
think
about
the
intended
use
the
property.
I
again,
I'm
not
a
city
planner,
so
I
can't
speak
to
that.
M
Unfortunately,
what
I,
what
I
can
say
is
you
know
from
a
safety
perspective,
there's
there's
I'm
not
looking
for
anything,
I'm
not
looking
for
a
anything
that
will
create
any
safety
issue
or
any
sort
of
an
eyesore
or
prohibit
the
ability
to
see
into
the
property.
It's
it's
simply
to
create
a
sense
of
privacy
and
on
that
on
the
third
finding
with
it
will
alter
the
character
again.
If
sarah's
comments
are,
this
would
be
a
unique
exception
in
terms
of
its
height
for
a
reverse
side
yard.
M
I
don't
have
anything
to
argue
that
other
than
to
say
it's.
I
appreciate
the
view
of
the
city
and
that
it's
a
reverse
side
yard.
For
for
my
purposes,
it's
the
only
yard
I
have
I
don't.
I
don't
have
another
yard
and
when
I
purchased
the
property
quite
frankly,
I
I
wasn't
aware
of
all
of
this,
not
that
it
would
have
changed
my
decision,
but
you
know
that's
a
bit
of
a
surprise
to
me,
so
I'm
not
entirely
sure
how
this
would
affect
the
community
in
any
sort
of
a
negative
way.
M
So
I
you
know
I
apologize.
I
wish
I
had
more
insightful
responses,
but
it
just
it
yeah
it's
just
it's
really
hard
to
have,
and
all
I'm
seeking
is
is
a
reasonable
amount
of
privacy.
That's
all.
B
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
for
indulging
me
in
the
the
additional
questions
about
two
findings.
Two
and
three
again,
we
don't
expect
you
to
be
a
city
planner,
but
any
help
that
we
can
have
is
always
good
as
we
discuss
these
things
once
we
close
the
public
hearing,
so
I
don't
think
there's
anybody
else
in
the
queue
to
speak
on
this
item.
At
least
I'm
not
seeing
anybody.
B
N
Yeah
thanks
to
your
prairie-
and
I
thank
you
for
coming
down
and
discussing
this
with
us.
I
feel
sorry
for
your
condition,
but
I
believe
the
way
the
property
is.
That's,
that's
the
yard.
That's
there
and
I
don't
agree
raising
a
fence
there.
I
think
natural
vegetation
will
take
time
but
it'll
be
a
solution
that
could
be
other,
but
I
support
staff
findings.
N
I'd
be
enlightened
by
my
fellow
board
members.
If
they
have
any
comment.
B
Thank
you,
mr
johannesson,
and
I
might
ask
miss
roman
if
you
could
just
do
something
quick
for
me
again.
If
you
could
talk
about
why
finding
two
is
not
found
four,
and,
as
ms
weiser
said
it
sound
it
part
of
it
is
part
of
it
is
not.
Could
you
just
talk
about
the
part
that
isn't
so
that
we're
all
on
the
same
page,
on
the
board
as
we
discuss
this.
J
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
Yes,
I
would,
I
would
be
happy
to
so
so.
Staff
did
find
that
that
the
variants
did
meet
the
intent
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
for
you
know,
safety
and
having
fencing
and
things
like
that,
where
staff
did
not
find
that
the
variance
met
the
intent
or
where
it
met
the
finding
was
for
the
intent
of
the
zoning
code.
So
the
zoning
codes
intent
is
to
create
these
unobstructed
front
yards
and
to
really
allow
those
sight
lines
between
front
yard
areas
and
from
code's
perspective.
J
This
is
a
front
yard,
because
the
houses
that
are
on
thomas
have
faced
thomas
ab
and
so
that
reverse
corner
condition
is
created
here
and
code
is
fairly
strict
about
how
we
look
at
the
height
offenses
in
in
front
yards.
B
Okay:
okay,
thanks
any
other
board
comment.
If
not,
could
I
get
a
motion?
B
B
A
motion
to
deny
and
adopt
staff
findings
is
there
a
second
to
mr
softley's
motion?
Second
johanneson,
it's
moved
and
seconded
is
any
further
discussion
on
the
motion
before
us.
E
D
D
B
So
that
motion
passes
and
what
that
means
is
the
request
is
denied
ms
weiser.
You
can
talk
to
staff
about
what
your
options
are
going
forward.
You
do
have
options,
so
you
can
talk
to
ms
roman
about
what
your
options
are
going
forward.
Let's
move
on
now
to
5321
ewing
avenue
south,
and
this
is
ms
dawkins.
P
P
The
subject
site
is
a
5,
100
square
foot
residential
prop
residential
lot.
That
is
40
feet
wide
and
127
feet
deep.
The
subject
site
is
located
in
the
r1a,
multiple
family
zoning
district
and
is
within
the
interior.
One
built
form
overlay.
The
site
is
an
interior
lot
and
the
north
interior
yard
setback
of
that
existing
house
is
4.3
feet.
The
surrounding
neighborhood
consists
largely
of
single
family
dwellings.
All
within
that
r1a
zoning
district,
the
existing
home
was
constructed
in
1926
and
significantly
remodeled
in
2019,
when
a
second
story
was
added.
P
An
egress
window
well
was
approved
in
2019,
showing
the
edge
of
the
egress
well
to
be
two
feet
from
the
property
line.
After
purchasing
the
property.
The
the
applicant
obtained
a
formal
survey
showing
that
the
existing
egress
well,
that
was
installed
in
2019,
is
only
1.1
feet
from
the
north
property
line.
Next
slide.
Please.
P
On
july,
28th
of
2021
a
code
enforcement
order
was
ordered
to
correct,
was
issued
for
the
subject
site.
The
violation
letter
noted
that
the
egress
window
well
did
not
meet
the
two-foot
setback
for
the
from
the
property
line
and
directed
the
applicant
to
remove,
relocate
or
reduce
the
size
of
the
window.
Well,
the
applicant
purchased
the
property
after
the
2019
perm
building
permit
was
completed
and
inspected
and
was
not
aware
of
the
non-conforming
eager
as
well
until
receiving
the
code
enforcement
letter.
P
P
P
The
ordinance
permitting
egress
wells
within
required
yards
is
intended
to
permit
unobtrusive
and
safe
egress
from
finished
basement
bedrooms,
while
still
allowing
for
enough
space
to
safely
navigate
around
window
wells.
Reducing
the
required
setback
creates
a
safety
issue
by
not
allowing
sufficient
space
for
safe
egress
for
from
the
structure
or
maintaining
a
path
for
emergency
responders
and
is
therefore
not
a
reasonable
use
of
the
property,
nor
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
ordinance
to
promote
orderly
development.
P
Finally,
staff
found
that
the
proposed
variance
creates
a
safety
hazard
for
users
of
the
property
and
therefore
is
detrimental
to
the
health,
safety
and
welfare
of
those
using
the
property.
Therefore,
finding
three
was
not
found
to
be
met
next
slide,
please
in
conclusion,
because
staff
found
that
the
proposal
met
none
of
the
required
findings,
staff
is
recommending
denial
of
the
variance
request.
This
concludes
my
presentation
and
I'm
available
for
questions.
Thank
you.
P
P
The
the
surrounding
properties
are
all
at
a
similar
width.
They
weren't
surveyed,
but
pretty
much
all
the
properties
on
the
block
are
40
feet
wide.
F
Okay
thanks,
then
just
another
quick
follow-up.
Is
there
that
window
well,
look
pretty
shallow
in
the
respective
depth
from
the
house
moving
outwards.
That's
got
to
be
probably
close
to
the
minimum
possible
right.
P
P
F
Okay
and
then
just
my
last
one
sorry
to
keep
going
the
in
their
application,
they
had
noted
the
willingness
to
create
a
we'll
call
it
a
lid,
a
removable
lid
that
can
support
the
weight.
That
would
would
that
alleviate
the
city's
concern
about
the
safe
function
of
the
egress
and
walkway
is
that
is.
P
H
Yes
to
answer
that
question
specifically,
the
building
code
does
require
a
minimum
three
foot
by
three
foot
window
well
in
order
in
order
to
be
considered
an
egress
if
you're
finishing
a
basement
or
anything
along
those
lines
like,
for
example,
for
a
bedroom.
So
thank
you.
So
if
it
was
shrunk
in
any
direction
beyond
that
three
feet,
then
it
wouldn't
comply
with.
B
I'm
not
seeing
anyone,
so
let's
open
the
public
hearing
and
we
have
one
speaker,
it
seems
in
the
queue
and
that
is
the
applicant
mr
drew
care.
If
you
want
to
press
stair
six
to
unmute
your
phone
and
give
testimony.
Q
Q
The
first
one
practical
difficulties
at
this
point.
This
home
has
been
completely
finished,
the
basement
is
finished
and
while
the
egress
window
could
be
reduced
in
size,
the
relocation
of
the
egress
window
to
serve
in
another
to
be
in
another
location
and
serve
the
function
of
providing
a
basement
bedroom
is
prohibitive
in
terms
of
whether
or
not
this
would
allow
this
presents
a
safety
concern.
Q
I
think
the
request
that
we're
making
is
pretty
reasonable,
we're
talking
about
a
relatively
small
difference
between
the
required
setback
and
what
exists
currently,
which
is
a
matter
of
about
11
inches
or,
if
you
put
out
your
hand
it's
about
that
wide.
So
I
think
that
this
does
continue
to
provide
the
access
to
and
from
the
front
of
the
property
and
rear
of
the
property
that
that
is
caught
in
having
a
side
yard.
Q
And
then
I
think
the
third
third
area
here
is
addressed
similarly
by
that
by
the.
For
those
same
reasons,
I'd
also
like
to
just
note
that
the
the
site
plan
that
was
referenced
in
the
comments
from
staff
and
the
staff
report
is
not
something
that
we
have
been
able
to
locate
because
the
records
no
longer
exist.
So
while
we
believe
that
the
five
foot
was
shown
on
the
approved
site
plans,
we
can't
know
that
for
certain
we
would
like
to
have
had
those
plans
available
to
us.
Q
Q
And
finally,
I
this
is
just
my
human
appeal
to
you
as
a
board.
Is
that
as
homeowners,
we
trusted
the
builder
trusted
the
city
inspector
trusted
the
independent
inspector
to
identify
any
known
issues
and
to
to
flag
them,
and
this
was
missed
at
several
turns
of
course,
of
course
now,
in
the
benefit
of
hindsight,
we
would
have
obviously
had
this
issue
remedied
before
purchase
or
not
purchased
the
home
at
all.
To
be
quite
honest.
Q
B
B
Board
comment,
mr
softly,
and
then
mr
hutchins.
F
Thanks
chairperry,
I
reluctantly
I
feel
for
the
applicant,
but
I
don't
see
any
path
forward
that
we
can
get
to
all
three
findings.
So
I
would
I
reluctantly
make
the
motion
to
accept
staff
findings
and
reject.
B
D
D
D
B
So
that
means
the
app
the
request
for
the
variants
is
denied.
Mr
kerr,
I
think
you
can
hear
in
the
tone
of
the
voice
of
people
that
they
are
unhappy
that
they've
had
to
vote
that
way,
but
we
do
have
to
find
for
the
three
findings
and
we
could
not,
but
you
can
talk
to
the
staff
member
assigned
to
this
ms
dawkins
and
see
if
what
your
options
are
going
forward.
Thanks
for
your
time,.
B
R
B
R
S
Good
afternoon,
chairperry
members
of
the
board
agenda
item
number
nine
1305
7th
street
southeast
is
a
an
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
zoning
administrator
that
the
use
of
rock
as
a
landscaping
material
is
not
permitted
under
the
minneapolis
zoning
code.
S
The
site
is
an
interior
lot
in
southeast
minneapolis
near
the
university
of
minnesota
campus
and
is
currently
under
construction
as
a
new
three
unit
dwelling,
which
went
through
the
building
permit
approval
process
in
october
of
2020..
S
S
As
I
mentioned,
it
is
not
a
permitted
landscaping
material
under
the
ordinance
the
zoning
ordinance
does
list
landscape
covers
that
are
approved.
S
S
Site
plan
review
application
was
approved
on
october,
2nd
of
2020
and
is
standard
as
a
standard
practice.
A
condition
of
approval
was
placed
on
that
administrative
site
plan
review
application
that
rocks
shall
not
be
permitted
to
be
used
as
a
landscaping
material.
S
S
This
condition
was
not
appealed
during
the
appeal
period
for
the
administrative
site
plan
review
application,
and
so,
if
the
board
were
to
grant
this
appeal,
that
condition
of
approval
would
remain
in
effect
on
this
property
next
slide.
Please,
so
here
are
some
photos
that
were
taken
by
the
zoning
inspector,
showing
the
extent
of
landscaping
rock
that
was
used
around
the
foundation
and
elsewhere
on
the
property.
B
Okay,
thanks
for
your
presentation,
just
some
procedural
notes
before
we
go
to
board
questions,
I
always
do
this
for
appeals
of
the
zoning
administrator
appeals
of
the
zoning
administrator
are
not
variances
they're,
also
not
determinations
on
whether
to
grant
non-conforming
use
certificates.
B
The
board's
job
is
nearly
defined
to
determine
whether
the
zoning
administrator
correctly
interpreted
and
administered
the
current
provisions
of
the
zoning
ordinance
that
are
the
subject
of
the
appeal.
Furthermore,
it's
not
the
board's
responsibility
to
determine
whether
the
zoning
ordinance
is
correct
or
should
be
changed.
B
We
are
not
a
policy
making
body
in
appeals
of
the
zoning
administrator.
We
are
also
not
charged
with
determining
the
efficacy
of
city
process.
In
this
particular
case,
we
are
addressing
a
narrowly
defined.
Technical
issue
is
rock
a
permitted
landscaping
material.
According
to
the
zoning
code,
as
a
matter
of
due
process,
the
appellant
is
offered
afforded
a
broad
latitude
and
the
testimony
they
provide
to
make
their
case.
B
However,
since
written
testimony
has
been
provided
for
the
record,
this
body
will
ask
the
appellant
to
be
respectful
of
the
amount
of
time
they
use
in
providing
this
testimony
today
and
when
I
say
that
I
mean
between
10
and
15
minutes,
since
we
have
read
the
material
in
the
packet
that
was
provided
to
us.
So
with
that
we'll
start
with
questions
of
staff.
Mr
sandberg.
G
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
was
wondering
if
we
could
get
from
staff
a
little
more
description
of
why
rock
is
not
a
permitted
material.
I
know
it's
commonly
used
in
in
many
areas
and
I've
seen
it
many
times.
So
I
was
surprised
actually
to
find
this
element
of
the
zoning
code,
but
it
certainly
is
there,
but
I
would
appreciate
a
better
understanding
of
why
it
is
not
permitted.
S
Thank
you,
chair
very
important
member
sandberg.
The
majority
of
the
reason
that
it's
not
an
approved
landscaping
material
is
that
it
tends
to
have
negative
effects
on
stormwater
infiltration
and
drainage,
providing
drainage
away
from
the
foundation
of
the
house.
B
H
Thank
you,
chair,
perry,
members
of
the
board.
I
get,
I
guess,
to
help
answer
that
question
a
little
bit
some
of
the
rationales
behind
it.
There
are
quite
a
quite
a
few.
It
stems
heavily
from
originally
from
the
kind
of
commercial
development.
H
We
would
see
a
lot
of
problems
with
rock
getting
out
onto
the
sidewalk,
especially
the
public
sidewalk
or
out
in
the
street,
where
it
can
cause
issues
if
people
are
using
mechanical
snow
removal.
Things
like
that,
and
also
I
mean
to
be
honest.
One
of
the
one
of
the
issues
is
traditionally
you
know
just
trying
to
minimize
the
amount
of
rocks
that
are
available
that
can
be
weaponized
or
used
or
thrown.
H
You
know
one
of
the
it's
been
a
standard
condition
of
approval
on
a
lot
of
things
that
have
gone
to
the
planning
commission
and
then
kind
of
recently,
we've
seen
a
more
uptick
in
its
use
with
new
construction.
Traditionally,
you
know
it
is
a
very
common
landscaping
material.
You
know
very
heavily
used
and
you
know
we
don't
see
it
a
lot
on
older
things
of
people.
H
We
do
their
things
because
we're
complaint
based,
so
we
tend
to
catch
it
in
situations
like
this,
where
we
have
a
site
plan
review
and
we've
reviewed
something,
and
then
the
inspector
goes
out,
and
so
we
do
have
concerns,
especially
when
it
broadens
out
beyond
your
sort
of
normal
landscaping,
and
it
just
becomes.
You
know,
sort
of
fills
an
entire
side
yard,
because
again,
the
goal
of
the
code
here
is
to
have
as
much
infiltration
as
possible
to
have
green
space,
whether
that
is
turf,
grass
or
native
plantings
or
other
sorts
of
plantings.
H
B
I
don't
see
any
so,
let's
open
the
public
hearing
and
we
have
in
cue
four
people
I'll
call
your
names
and
if
you
could
give
your
name
and
address
for
the
record,
I
would
appreciate
it.
Our
first
person
who
is
signed
up
is
an
applicant,
and
that
is
mr
tim
harmson.
B
L
L
And
so
we
also
had
noticed
that
lots
of
the
buildings
right
around
there
have
rock
and
they
use
rock
to
cover,
especially
around
the
foundations
where
you
do
get
these
areas
of
kind
of
messy
stuff
and
it's
hard
to
keep
them
clean
and,
and
we
and
that's
what
we're
really
trying
to
do.
We've
got
glenn
rank
willing
to
talk
and
he's
got
some
more
technical
ideas
regarding
rodent
infestation,
and
then
I
think
william
walls.
The
architect,
has
also
got
a
comment
to
make.
L
B
Okay,
are
there
any
questions
of
mr
harmson
and
again
remember
we're
we're
not
looking.
B
As
I
said
at
the
beginning,
the
code
is
what
the
code
is,
and
so
we
have
to
determine
whether
the
zoning
administrator
made
the
right
call
that
or
whether
he
didn't,
and
so
I
think,
if
you
could
focus
your
comments
around
that
that
would
be
helpful
as
well
as
questions
from
the
board.
B
Our
next
next
speaker
in
queue
is
mr
justin
jacobs.
If
you
could
press
star
six
to
unmute
your
phone,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
please
proceed,
and
could
you
give
your
address?
Could
you
give
your
address
to
well.
T
I'm
the
builder
for
the
property
our
office
address
is
7103
highway
65
in
fridley.
Thank
you,
you're
welcome.
T
I
have
a
few
points
I'd
like
to
make
in
regards
to
this
issue
number
one
being
we
have
89
documents
right
now
in
our
project
docs
file
for
this
project
that
includes
applications,
contracts
that
had
to
be
signed,
engineering
documents,
architectural
job
documents,
approved
city
plans,
approved
city
permits
everything
imaginable
to
build
a
three
a
three
unit
triplex.
These
consist
of
hundreds
of
pages
of
documents
in
all
of
those
documents
and
everything
that's
stamped
by
the
city
and
everything
we
have
to
sign.
Nowhere
anywhere.
T
Does
it
say
anything
about
rock
not
being
permitted
aside
from
one
page
in
one
document
at
the
very
bottom
of
the
zoning
approval
letter.
There's
one
line
that
says
rock
is
not
permitted.
Okay.
Now,
if
rock
was
such
a
major
issue
with
the
city,
you'd
think
that
there'd
be
a
little
bit
more
emphasis
in
the
approved
plans
and
the
documents
that
we're
required
to
sign
to
build
this
project
to
emphasize
that
rock
is
not
allowed
as
a
pervious
surface,
because
we
all
know
rock
is
a
very
pervious
surface.
T
In
addition,
I'd
like
to
point
out
to
the
board
the
fact
that
that
statement
in
the
zoning
approval
letter
that
rock
is
not
permitted
directly
contradicts
the
actual
minneapolis
code
ordinance
on
the
subject.
The
ordinance
of
minneapolis
specifically
allows
for
mulch
rock
by
definition,
is
a
mulch
and
you
can
call
any
landscaper
or
landscape
architect
in
the
twin
cities
and
ask
them
if
rock
is
an
approved
mulch
and
they
will
say
it
is
absolutely
considered
a
mulch.
If
you
look
at
merriam-webster's
dictionary
definition
of
mulch,
which
has
been
the
source
of
definition
since
1828.
T
T
If
we
go
to
the
nation's
leading
expert
in
building
and
landscape,
bob
vila
bob
bela
has
an
entire
article
on
his
website
about
mulch,
and
he
says
this.
Various
types
of
mulch
material
do
not
decompose
and
therefore
do
not
need
to
be
replenished
very
often
to
mr
tim
harmson's
point.
These
options
include
rock
stone,
lava
rock
and
he
goes
on
to
list
several
others,
and
then
he
goes
into
all
the
benefits
of
having
a
mulch.
Specifically,
he
calls
rocky
mulch
all
the
benefits
of
having
a
mulch
like
this
down.
T
T
You
know
we
obviously
received
that.
We
obviously
read
that
I
don't
recall
seeing
the
line
item
about
rock
not
being
approved,
but
I
guess
my
greatest
argument
would
be
that
that
line
item
in
the
approval
letter
completely
contradicts
what
the
ordinance
actually
reads,
and
I
think
that's
where
the
confusion
is
coming
in
here
on
this
issue.
A
B
Add
that's
my
argument.
Okay,
are
there
you're
also
listed
as
part
of
the
applicant
team,
so
I'll
give
you
give
the
board
an
opportunity
to
ask
you
any
questions.
Does
the
board
have
any
questions
of
mr
jacobs.
B
Let's
move
on
to
mr
glenn,
yes,
are
you?
Is
this
mr
wells
hi?
I'm
sorry,
I
was
pushing
the
wrong
button.
Okay,.
K
Great,
my
name
is
william
weld.
I
am
the
architect
on
the
project
addresses
18
north
12th
street
suites,
3961
minneapolis,
minnesota
5543.
I
did
work
on
this
project
and
I
was
responsible
for
submitting
the
site
plan
review
application
to
the
city
of
minneapolis.
I
have
been
in
front
of
me
where
they
have
design
standards
in
the
point
system
that
I
signed
the
letter.
I
have
reviewed
this
letter.
I
do
not
see
anywhere
on
it
or
on
the
application
that
I
submitted
where
it
says
we
can't
use
rocks
as
a
mulch
covering.
K
K
I
think
that
there
was
a
letter
that
went
to
the
contractor
with
the
line
item,
but
it
never
went
to
me
or
the
owner
the
architect,
so
we
never
saw
it.
We
would
have
addressed
it.
We
would
have
addressed
it
had
I
seen
it,
but
staff
didn't
send
it
to
me.
That's
that's
an
administrative
mistake
to
not
copy
me
the
architect
and
send
that
to
me
that
never
happened.
K
That's
an
important
point
that
there
is
a
failure
and
a
breakdown
of
the
process
here
of
communication
that
that
staff
needs
to
own.
I
would
like
to
point
out
a
couple
other
things.
I
completely
agree
with
the
contractor.
I
called
other
landscape
architects
today
and
asked
them
what
the
definition
of
mulch
is
and
told
them
about
this
project.
K
They
told
me
the
same
thing
that
small
stones
and
rocks
are
a
mulch
covering
and
it
is
used,
and
it
is
in
compliance
with
the
zoning
code
and
I
called
other
architects
and
landscape
architects.
Today
they
were
shocked
by
this
situation
because
rocks
are
being
used
on
other
projects,
new
homes
in
the
city
of
minneapolis.
K
K
That
is
not
true.
The
rocks
do
drain
and
it's
no
different
than
if
we
put
down
a
cedar
mulch
in
that
area,
there's
no
difference
in
the
drainage.
So
to
that
point,
they're
wrong.
That's
not
correct
they're,
saying
that
the
tenants
use
them
as
weapons
and
throw
them.
That's
never
happened.
Never.
There
are
no
reports,
no
problems
of
students.
There's
a
student
residents
university
minnesota
student
residents.
They
don't
throw
rocks,
it's
not
happening.
There's
no
police
reports,
there's
nothing!
There's
no
evidence.
K
K
I
agree
with
what
the
at
what
the
contractor
and
owner
have
installed.
I
think
it
looks
really
good.
I
think
it's
a
sustainable
material
that
will
look
good
year-round.
K
The
the
problem
that
staff
seems
to
have
is
the
amount
of
rocks
that
was
that
was
installed
in
the
side
yard.
That
is
something
that
caught
my
caught
my
attention
as
potentially
reasonable
the
amount
of
rocks
in
the
side
yard,
where
it's
draining
next
to
the
neighbor.
That
is
one
point
that
I
would
listen
to
them.
If
some
of
the
rocks
in
the
side
yard
needed
to
be
removed,
that
would
be
towards
the
that
would
be
towards
the
west.
K
It
needs
to
move
some
better
drainage.
I
think
we
would
listen
to
them
because
that'd
be
reasonable,
but
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
the
contractor
is
in
compliance
with
installing
rocks
as
a
mulch,
because
it
meets
the
definition
of
mulch
and
if
there
are
any
questions,
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
those
questions.
B
I
don't
see
any
again
thanks
for
your
testimony
and
finally,
we
have
mr
glenn
rank.
If
you
give
your
address
for
the
record
and
if
you
could
press
star
6
to
unmute
your
phone.
U
Yes,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair
board
members
and
ms
brandt.
We
we
appreciate
your
time
today.
I
will
be
very
brief.
I
I
just
wanted
to
let
everyone
know
that
that
we're
constantly
working
on
re-engineering
all
of
our
all
of
our
projects
through
the
construction
process.
This
was
in
no
way
meant
as
as
something
where
we
wanted
to
flaunt
the
the
authority
of
anyone
or
anything
else.
We
just
we
came
upon
an
opportunity
to
improve
the
property.
It
was
actually
more
expensive.
It
wasn't
as
money
saving.
U
It
was
just
more
expense
to
make
it
nicer
and
make
it
better.
It
matched
the
property
next
door,
as
you
can
see
from
the
photos
there.
The
green
space
that
was
actually
created
between
the
two
buildings
is
beautiful
and
the
rock
on
both
sides
and
all
of
the
green
in
the
middle
really
really
turned
out
nicely,
but
this
was
in
no
way
something
where
we
were
trying
to
circumvent
anyone's
authority
or
circumvent
any
process,
and
with
that
we're
we're
we're
tim
mentioned
earlier.
U
We're
always
looking
at
mitigating
problems.
Rodents
are
a
problem
in
a
densely
populated
urban
area
and
we're
working
with
our
working
with
our
pest
control
companies.
They
always
recommend
that
we
clean
up
and
and
have
have
something
such
as
gravel
or
kind
of
crate
next
to
the
building
to
to
help
with
that
problem.
U
So
those
those
are
some
of
the
reasons
that
this
was
being
done,
but
it
matches
exactly
what's
on
the
building
that
about
that,
that
is
right
next
door
and
that
really
it
it
creates
a
really
nice,
entryway
and
walkway
into
that
area.
And
with
that
I
I'm
open
for
any
questions,
but
that
that's
what
I
had
to
say.
B
Okay,
thanks
for
your
testimony,
are
there
any
questions
of
mr
rank.
B
All
right
before
we
close
the
public
hearing,
mr
sandberg
has
a
question
of
staff.
G
S
Thank
you,
chairperry
board,
member
sandberg.
The
zoning
code
does
not
explicitly
define
the
word
mulch,
but
it
does
say
that,
where
words
are
not
explicitly
defined,
then
the
the
common
definition
shall
prevail
so
using
the
common
definition
of
of
mulch
would
be
the
appropriate
path
forward.
I
think
mr
mr
jacobs
did
list
out
the
the
definition
of
mulch
and
I
think
that
whether
or
not
mulch
and
rock
mulch
are
encapsulated
within
that
is
sort
of
the
material
of
the
discussion
here.
H
This
is
brad
ellis,
so
chair,
perry,
board
member
sandberg.
We
do
tend
to
go
to
the
dictionary
definition
of
things
as
ms
brant
noted,
and
so
the
definition
I
don't
have
the
one
that
zoning
administrator
has
in
his
office.
Unfortunately,
but
it
is
the
merriam-webster
a
protective
coverings
as
of
sawdust
compost
or
paper
spreader
left
on
the
ground
to
reduce
evaporation,
maintain
even
soil
temperature,
prevent
erosion,
control,
weeds,
enrich
the
soil
or
keep
fruit
such
as
strawberries
clean.
H
So
like
our
our
commonly
held
definition
in
the
code
is-
or
I
mean
it's,
not
in
the
zoning
code,
but
it
is
basically
organic.
Mulch
primarily
bark
is
what
we'd
like
to
see
the
various
forms
of
wood
or
wood
chips,
but
that's
the
best
I
can.
I
can
give
you
in
terms
of
like
the
rationale
and
thought
process
behind
it.
B
Okay,
if
there's
no
questions
of
any
of
our
speakers,
then
I
will
close.
Are
there
any
questions
of
the
speakers
or
the
people
who
testified
hearing
none?
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
go
to
board
comment.
We've
already
had
a
question
of
staff
again
I
just
want
to
before
I
call
on
ms
wang,
who
has
a
comment.
I
want
to
reiterate.
B
There's
been
some
questions
about
the
efficacy
of
the
process.
Again,
that's
not
in
our
purview.
Our
there's
been
some
question
about
whether
there
should
rock
should
be
involved,
be
a
part
of
the
definition.
That's
a
policy
decision.
It
may
very
well
be
an
appropriate
material
to
be
included
explicitly,
but
it's
we.
We
have
to
determine
whether
the
zoning
administrator
made
the
right
call
with
the
words
that
are
in
the
zoning
code,
so
we
can't
add
words
that
are
not
there
since
we're
not
a
policy-making
body.
E
Yeah,
so
to
my
understanding,
a
rock
is
a
mulch.
Manure
could
also
be
classified
as
a
mulch,
so
outside
of
semantics,
I'm
having
a
lot
of
trouble,
understanding,
staff
findings,
and
this
nuanced
reason,
because
of
that
definition
of
rocks
versus
mulch,
and
it
makes
me
wonder
that
that
really
nuanced
differentiation,
if
there's
like
a
commercial
versus
residential
properties,
factor
that
was,
you
know,
needed
to
be
included
into
it.
E
That
was
missing
in
that
letter,
mr
jacobs
was
referring
to
so
I'm
really
leaning
towards
not
supporting
staff
findings,
but
again
I'm
having
a
lot
of
trouble
kind
of
understanding
it.
So
if
one
of
my
fellow
board
members
have
anything
to
add
to
that,
that
would
be
really
helpful.
F
So
I
I
currently
work
for
a
facility
that
does
training,
and
it
also
offers
a
landscaping
course-
and
I
was
curious
about
this
and
I
went
and
read
our
chapter
about
landscaping
and
mulch.
It
absolutely
had
rock
and
crushed
stone
as
a
mulch
product
out
of
a
textbook.
So
that's
just
to
leave
that
here.
I
am
I'm
kind
of
veering
towards
miss
wang's
argument
that
I
think
we
would.
I
would
support
a
motion
to
reject
staff
findings.
G
Yeah,
thank
you
chair
perry.
I
think
with
the
ambiguity
in
the
zoning
code
definition,
I
would
not
support
the
decision
of
the
zoning
administrator
on
that.
The
fact
that
the
applicant
or
the
and
the
builder
got
a
letter
specifically
excluding
rock
as
a
material,
a
landscaping
material.
B
Thanks
for
that
comment,
maybe
staff
can
illuminate
us
to
with
mr
sandberg's
comment:
the
applicant,
the
applicant's
team,
some
of
them
got
information.
That
said,
rock
was
not
permitted
and
some
did
not
get
any
clarification
on
that.
Can
you
tell
us
why
that
was
and
who
gets
what.
S
Thank
you,
chair
prairie
standard
protocol
is
to
upload
the
approved
site
plan
review
approval
letter
into
the
the
permitting
online
portal
that
we
have
and
then,
when
the
permit
is
the
building
permit
is
ready
to
be
issued.
The
applicant
gets
all
the
stamps
plans,
all
of
the
approval,
letters
from
from
zoning
and
building
code
staff
all
as
one
to
go
through
and
have
at
their
disposal
and
to
keep
on
site.
B
So
you're
saying
that
mr
jacobs
should
have
seen
this
statement
that
rock
was
not
an
approved
material.
B
B
B
Mr
ellis,
I
think
it
would
be
important.
It
seems
like
from
mr
sandberg's
comment
that
our
observation
that
there
was
a
information
that
was
given
to
the
applicant's
team
that
said
rock,
was
not
approved
that
somewhere
else.
There
must
be
some
information
that
says
that
rock
is
not
a
mulch,
a
part
of
mulch
notwithstanding
what
mr
hutchins
and
others
may
have
gotten
through
dictionary
definitions.
H
Yes,
chair
perry,
I
think
this
one
gets
extra
confusing
on
on
a
wide
variety
of
levels,
because
you
know
we're
not
we
weren't
going
to
you
know
not
allow
an
appeal
at
this
point.
If
you
want
to
be
very,
very
technical,
when
we
had
that
condition
of
approval,
the
appeal
should
have
occurred
at
that
time.
H
You
know
saying
that
we
don't
have
the
authority,
but
you
know
it
occurred
retroactively,
but,
of
course
we're
going
to
allow
the
appeal
to
go
in
because
they
need
to
have
their
ability
to.
You
know
refute
the
city's
findings.
So
you
know
it's
an
interesting
thing
that
even
I
mean
technically,
even
if
the
board
found
that
we,
you
know,
have
to
accept
rock
as
a
landscaping
material.
You
know
that
condition
of
approval
is
on
there
and
was
accepted
because
it
wasn't
appealed.
H
I
don't
think
we
would
be
so
overly
bureaucratic
as
to
say
you
know
that
that
condition.
If
the
board
decides
you
know
to
not
uphold
the
decision
of
the
zoning
administrator
in
terms
of
like
our
authority.
H
Under
that
clause,
noted
in
the
site
plan
review
chapter
where
we
reference
it,
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
hold
necessarily
them
to
that
condition,
because,
essentially
you
know
the
condition
would
be
arbitrary.
I
mean
we
could
do
it,
but
I
I
could
see
you
know
if
it
went
to
court
or
something
along
those
lines.
It
just
seems
like
an
arbitrary
decision
if
we're
not
basing
it
upon
the
code,
so
we
would,
in
that
case,
relent
on
that
condition
of
approval.
H
B
Little
bit,
I
I
mean
I'm
I'm
kind
of,
of
course,
other
board
members
can
chime
in,
but
I'm
mr
sandberg
has
brought
up
an
interesting
comment,
which
is
the
the
city
as
whereas
mr
mr
hutchins
has
read
in
his
landscape
section.
That
rock
is
a
landscape,
is
a
is
a
mulch
and
the
applicant
or
the
appellant
and
their
team
say
the
same
thing.
B
We
get
this
thing
in
the
the
app
the
appellant
gets
in
their
in
their
package.
That
rock
is
not
permitted,
so
it
seems,
like
the
city
really
means
that
mulch
does
not
include
rock.
That.
H
Is
that
is
correct
the
the
cities,
the
way
the
city
defines
mulch,
or
at
least
in
the
way
we
have
interpreted
our
code
in
the
subset
in
the
in
the
clause,
called
out
where
the
what
the
permitted
landscaping
materials
we
do
not
include
rock
under
mulch
and
what
the
app
and
what
the
pellet
is
arguing
is
that
rock
should
be
included
under
mulch
and
so
that
that
is
how
we've
done
it,
and
it's
one
of
the
reasons
we
we
didn't
used
to
have
it
as
a
standard
condition
of
approval.
H
Although
we
had
enforced
it,
it
was
only
in
the
recently
we've
seen
it
start
to
be
used
in
more
of
a
filling,
an
entire
side
yard
sort
of
method,
at
which
point
it
becomes
a
less
of
a
of
a
landscaping
material
in
terms
of
you
know,
you're
using
it
as
an
area
for
planting,
and
it's
just
sort
of
a
ground
cover
at
that
point,
which
becomes
more
of
a
problem.
H
That
being
said,
I
hope
I'm
explaining
that,
in
the
sense
that
the
city's
position
is
that
rock
is
not
included
under
mulch
as
it's
outlined
under
the
code
as
a
permitted
material.
And
so
the
appeal
essentially
has
focused
on
that.
I
know
mr
wells
and
and
the
other
opponents
have
have
expressed
that
rock
should
be
allowed
under
mulch
and
so
that
that's
kind
of
what
ends
up
being
the
core
of
the
argument
here
so
that
mulch
to
us
that,
like
an
organic
material.
B
Okay,
all
right
any
other
board.
Members
have
comments.
B
B
Okay,
if,
if
I
can
get,
I
I
think
you
need
to
provide
a
reason
why.
E
B
V
I
do
I
wonder
if
it
it
sounds
almost
like
the
I
don't
think
common
or
working,
but
it
sounds
like
at
the
time
that
the
zoning
administration
administrator
made
the
ruling
or
what
have
you
that
the
definition
of
mulch
has
evolved
since
then
or
had
evolved,
but
the
code
hadn't,
and
I
don't
think
I
know
we're
not
trying
to
change
code
or
write
policy.
V
I
think
at
the
time
that
the
administrator
made
their
ruling,
they
based
it
on
the
existing
code
and
they
they
did
not.
They
did
not
make
a
ruling
correctly
based
on
the
code
as
it
was
written
because
the
code
was
written
in
a
way
that
kind
of
expired
or
had
had
evolved,
and
so
the
terminology
of
mulch
and
the
definition
of
mulch
had
already
evolved
past.
That,
and
so
I
think,
at
the
time
they
made
the
ruling,
it
did
not
match
the
definition
of
mulch.
E
And
I
just
want
to
add
a
quick
comment
and
that
summarized
my
thoughts
exactly
which
is,
maybe
perhaps
it's
not
actually
emotion,
but
I
think
I'm
at
a
loss
here
of
what
is
appropriate,
and
I
see
that
mr
ellis
has
commented
on
something
so
I'll.
Just
wait
for
that.
Okay,.
H
Certainly,
chair
perry,
I
guess
what
board
member
taylor
and
board
members
carava
should
really
focus
on.
If
you
are
going
to,
you
know,
rule
against
staff
findings
again,
I
think
it
is
focus.
The
correct
thing
to
do
is
just
kind
of
explain
how
the
zoning
administrator
is
misinterpreting
that
ex.
That
specific
word
is
what
you
would
is
what
you
would
call
it.
So
you
know
legally
that's
how
you
would
address
that
to
say.
H
E
Yeah
yeah,
so
in
response
to
that-
and
I
guess
thank
thank
you
for
that.
Mr
ellis-
is
that
you
know
that
motion
to
reject
is
simply
on
the
basis
of
that
misunderstanding
and
ambiguity
of
what
mulch
actually
means
and
as
board
members.
Marikova
also
commented
on
two
is
there's
some
changes
in
some
slip.
Flips
kind
of
in
between
is,
I
I
don't
I
I
mean
I
don't
think
that
it's
fair
to
rule
against
the
applicant,
which
is
why
I'm
suggesting
and
making
the
motion
to
reject
staff
findings.
B
Okay,
so
you're
agreeing
with
mr
ellis
that
the
word
mulch
is
more
encompassing
than
the
cities
than
the
zoning
administrator
had
ruled
correct
and
does
include
rock
correct.
Okay.
C
Board
member
finland
he's
recusing.
Oh
yes,
thank
you
board
member
hutchins.
D
D
B
That
passes,
and
so
the
appeal
of
the
zoning
administrator
is,
is
granted,
and
so
I
won't
say
you
can
see
staff
for
what
your
options
are.
Your
appeal
is
granted
and
good
luck
with
your
project,
which
I
think
is
done
as
we
speak.
So
I
think
that's
all
the
business
that
we
have
before
us
today
unless
there's
something
else.
Is
there
any
newer
old
business?
B
I
will
declare
this
meeting
adjourned.
Our
next
meeting
will
be
november.
4Th
2021.
thanks
for
your
time,
and
thanks
for
everybody
who
participated.