►
From YouTube: September 23, 2021 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
B
A
C
Board
member
sandberg
will
be
absent
this
evening
board
member
softly
aye
board
members.
Mikado
bob
will
be
absent
this
evening
board
member
wang
hi
six
members
present.
B
Thank
you.
Let
the
record
show
that
we
have
quorum
and
with
that
we'll
proceed
to
our
agenda,
a
copy
of
which
was
posted
for
public
access
to
the
city's
legislative
information
management
system
available
at
limbs,
l-I-m-s
dot
minneapolismn.gov.
Is
there
a
motion
to
approve
this
agenda.
D
B
C
B
B
D
A
D
B
B
Thanks,
let's
review
the
agenda,
I'm
going
to
read
the
agenda
number
and
the
address
of
the
project
and
state
whether
it's
slated
for
consent,
continuance
or
discussion
and
I'll
just
describe
those
what
those
things
are.
Consent
items
are
those
items
that
will
be
passed
without
discussion
by
the
board.
We
will
be
adhering
to
the
staff
recommendation
found
on
your
agenda
under
the
item's
recommended
motion
section
and
importantly,
any
applicable
conditions
will
be
listed
in
the
same
section.
B
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
this
decision,
if
you
disagree
with
the
recommendation,
then
please
indicate
you'd
like
to
speak
against
the
item.
When
I
ask
and
we'll
put
it
on
the
discussion
agenda.
B
So
what
are
discussion
items?
These
are
items
which
the
board
will
take
public
testimony
on
deliberate
and
then
make
a
decision
on
after
the
public.
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
only
votes
in
the
case
of
a
tie.
B
So
here's
the
recommended
dispositions
for
our
land
use
requests
before
us
today.
Agenda
item
number
five
is
4153
21st
avenue.
South
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
Is
there
anyone
to
speak
against
this
item?
I
should
note
also
that
board
members
are
able
to
pull
items
if
they
so
choose.
B
B
B
Again,
if
you
do
want
to
speak
against
it,
just
press
star
six
and
we'll
take
it
off
the
consent.
Agenda
agenda
item
number
eight
is
40
and,
and
I'm
hearing
no
one
agenda
item
number
eight
is
4816
upton
avenue
south.
This
is
a
discussion
item
and
agenda
item
number.
Nine
is
1527
franklin
avenue.
West
staff
is
recommending.
This
item
be
continued
until
the
october
7th
2021
zoning
board
of
adjustment
meeting,
which
is
one
cycle,
and
we
can
discuss
this
more
when
we
review
requested
continuances.
B
D
B
B
F
Good
afternoon,
chairperry
members
of
the
board
staff
is
recommending
a
continuance
of
one
cycle
to
the
october
7th
hearing
of
the
board
of
adjustment
in
order
to
give
time
for
the
applicant
to
post
the
required
placards
at
the
property.
F
In
discussions
with
the
applicant,
it
sounds
like
there
was
maybe
a
bit
of
an
issue
with
the
post
office
and
some
kind
of
difficulties
with
their
mail
room
and
the
placards
have
not
been
posted.
So
they
received
updated
placards
for
the
10-7
hearing
in
order
to
meet
the
required
10-day
posting.
B
I'm
hearing
none,
so
is
there
any
one
else
who
would
like
to
from
the
public?
Who
would
like
to
speak
about
this
item
for
or
against
it?
If
you
just
press
star
six,
you
can
speak
for
or
against
it.
Just
give
your
press
star
six
to
unmute
your
phone
and
then
give
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
B
G
A
B
H
H
The
subject
site
is
a
5
128
square
foot
residential
lot
located
in
the
r1a
multifamily
residential
district.
It's
in
the
interior,
one
built
form
overlay
and
the
airport
overlay.
The
site
is
40
feet
wide
and
120
feet
deep.
There
is
an
existing
single
family
home
on
the
site
that
was
constructed
in
1950
with
a
and
a
detached
garage
accessed
via
accessed
via
an
alley.
H
H
The
addition
would
tie
into
the
existing
roof
line,
creating
additional
space
in
the
second
story,
as
well
as
the
first
story,
the
applicant
is
requesting
to
build
the
addition
within
the
established
front
yard
setback
and
the
proposed
edition
would
reduce
the
established
setback
from
35.3
feet
to
29.3
feet
next
slide.
Please.
H
Staff
found
in
reviewing
the
various
proposal
that
practical
difficulties
do
not
exist
in
complying
with
the
ordinance
because
of
the
unique
circum
because
of
unique
circumstances.
The
lot
doesn't
have
any
steep
slopes
or
any
features
that
limit
the
development
of
the
site
toward
the
rear
of
the
property.
H
Staff
found
no
functional
reason
to
place
the
addition
within
the
front
yard
setback,
so
this
finding
was
not
found
to
be
met.
Staff
also
found
that
the
second
finding
was
not
met.
The
proposed
the
purpose
of
the
established
setback
is
to
encourage
and
ensure
orderly
development
within
the
context
of
the
surrounding
homes
and
neighborhood.
H
The
subject
block
has
a
unified
streetscape
with
1.5
story.
Homes
on
both
sides
of
the
street
placed
exactly
at
the
same
setback
for
all
the
interior,
lots
on
the
block.
The
ordinance
already
permits
the
subject
site
to
have
a
vestibule
extending
seven
feet
into
the
established
front
yard,
which
would
allow
some
additional
entryway
space
for
the
home.
H
H
B
Thanks
for
that
presentation,
ms
dawkins-
I
I
just
want
to
reiterate,
and
have
you
reiterate,
that
staff
is
not
finding
for
any
of
the
three
legal
findings
that
we
have
to
find
for?
Is
that
correct.
B
Okay,
other
questions
of
staff.
B
I
am
not
seeing
anybody
in
the
queue
to
speak,
but
we
may
have
you
back
one
after
the
public.
Hearing
is
closed.
So
with
that,
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
and
we
have
two
speakers
who
are
the
applicants
and
I
will
again
say
to
speak.
What
you
want
to
do
is
press
star
6
on
your
phone
and
then,
if
you
give
your
name
and
address
for
the
record-
and
we
have
I'm
just
going
to
take
the
people
on
the
order
that
they
have
registered.
I
I
Mind
and
if
the
board
doesn't
mind
I'll,
actually
take
the
lead
on
the
response
to
that
the
city
reports.
My
husband
is
also
here
to
speak,
but
we
had
discussed
beforehand
that
I
would
take
the
lead
on
responding.
If
that's
okay,
sure.
B
No
yeah,
that's
fine,
whatever
order,
just
so
that
you're
not
talking
at
the
same
time,
because
we're
recording
this
and
again
it
can
be
hard
to
follow
when
both
people
are
talking
at
the
same
time.
So
if
you
could
go
first,
then
your
husband
could
go
second.
That
would
be
great.
I
Thank
you
and
we
will
ensure
to
have
one
of
us
needed
when
the
other
is
speaking.
Just
briefly,
I
I
don't
know
if
you
have
the
18-page
packet
that
was
put
together
in
anticipation
of
today's
meeting
in
front
of
you.
I
can
walk
you
through
certain
pages
of
that
it
was
circulated
by
miss
dawkins
to
ourselves,
and
I
plan
to
reference
certain
pages
in
that.
I
If
it's
not
available,
I
can
certainly
point
you
to
specific
pages
within
the
application
as
well,
but
I
just
wanted
to
start
by
going
over
the
property
itself
and
the
plans
that
we
have
submitted.
If
you
do
have
the
18
page
pdf
in
front
of
you,
it's
on
page
14
of
the
pdf
that
actually
sets
forth
the
plans
for
the
property.
It
was
also
set
forth
in
the
powerpoint
that
ms
johnson
had
put
together
as
well,
but
this
lays
out
the
proposed
addition
to
the
home.
I
I
It
also
keeps
the
design
consistent
with
the
cape
cod
design,
predominantly
through
the
neighborhood,
with
the
peak
on
the
roof,
as
well
as
the
traditional
one
and
a
half
story
just
again
with
the
peak
move
slightly
from
where
it
is.
Currently,
I
want
to
walk
through
each
of
the
practical
difficulties
with
respect
to
each
of
those
for
each
of
the
three
elements.
I
The
land
itself
for
our
property
does
create
practical
difficulties
with
respect
to
what
is
able
to
be
built
on
the
property,
as
was
noted
previously
by
the
staff.
There
is
a
large
elevation
change
from
the
rear
of
our
home
to
the
site
of
the
garage,
it's
in
excess
of
three
and
a
half
four
feet,
and
so
there's
a
large
slope
for
the
majority
of
our
backyard.
We
have
a
very
small
space
that
is
actually
a
flat
elevation.
I
I
If
you
look
to
page
17
of
the
pdf
that
was
submitted
is
a
small
area
that
abuts
our
neighbor's
home,
that
that
is
the
only
space
on
the
back
of
our
residence.
That
is
flat.
I
understand
I
believe
our
neighbors
located
at
5016
have
also
submitted
correspondence
prior
to
today's
hearing.
Please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
those
are
the
the
neighbors
that
are
directly
next
to
our
home
and
directly
next
to
that
flat
space.
That's
the
only
flat
area
of
the
rear
of
our
home.
I
Now,
if
there
was
anything
built
on
that
area,
the
only
flat
space
on
the
rear
of
the
home
that
would
directly
above
the
residents
located
at
58,
16,
44th
avenue
south,
that's
only
approximately
nine
feet
away
from
our
residents,
and
so
anything
that
was
built
in
that
area
of
our
property
would
be
injurious
to
their
property
because
it
would
impede
access
to
sunlight.
I
I
also
want
to
point
to
the
setbacks
on
our
block,
specifically
with
respect
to
the
setbacks.
There
is
already
one
home
that
is
at
a
an
approximately
29-foot
setback,
which
again
is
consistent
with
what
we're
submitting
for
in
this
case
as
well.
If
you
look
at
page
16
of
the
pdf,
you
can
see
directly
down
the
block
where
the
end
residence
is
already
at
29
square
at
29
feet,
as
opposed
to
the
33
feet
that
we
are
currently
at
now.
I
The
existing
setback
on
our
property
is
larger
than
any
maximum
measure
setback
of
any
other
home
on
the
surrounding
blocks.
All
other
surrounding
blocks
have
lower
maximum
measured
setbacks
since
currently
is
present
at
our
property.
We've
submitted
a
summary
of
setbacks
on
page
10
of
the
pdf
that
was
submitted.
I
Now
the
requested
variance
also
substantially
conforms
with
what
with
what
is
already
permitted
under
the
code
of
ordinances.
The
total
square
feet
that
we're
requesting
for
the
addition
on
the
front
of
the
home
is
104
square
feet,
with
the
ability,
of
course,
to
build
above
that
edition.
So
two
stories
total
the
additional
knee-
would
extend
six
feet
towards
the
front
of
the
residence
again
reducing
the
setback
from
35
to
29
feet
and
there's
already
the
the
house
on
the
block
at
29
feet
under
section
535.280
of
title
20.
I
I
It
doesn't
limit
how
how
tall
you
can
go
with
the
with
the
vestibule
and
so
really
with
what's
permitted
under
the
title
20
versus
what
we
are
proposing.
There's
minimal
differences
and
therefore,
with
respect
to
the
first
element,
the
practical
difficulties.
We've
satisfied.
All
of
those
requirements
with
respect
to
item
number
two
just
referencing
the
staff
report.
I
I
Ultimately,
here
the
proposal
and
the
variants
that
we're
requesting
are
consistent
with
the
remainder
of
the
neighborhood.
It's
consistent
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinances
and
the
comprehensive
plan,
and
it
wouldn't
be
altering
either
of
those
two
elements
now.
Finally,
with
respect
to
item
number
three
with
not
altering
the
essential
character
of
the
locality,
not
the
interest
other
enjoyment
of
other
property
in
the
in
the
vicinity.
That
element
is
certainly
meant,
as
well
as
we've
already
talked
about.
The
proposed
design
is
consistent
with
the
design
of
the
neighborhood.
I
We've
provided
multiple
examples
of
homes
in
a
four
by
four
block
area,
just
to
the
north
of
our
property.
With
this
design
already
in
place,
examples
of
the
homes
are
found
in
appendix
3
to
our
application.
That
is
found
on
page
12
of
the
pdf
submitted
in
anticipation
of
today's
meeting
separately.
We
had
pictures
submitted
of
these
residences
in
connection
with
our
application,
this
style
of
variance
or
the
style
of
the
design
that
we're
requesting
is
already
used
on
all
of
those
homes.
I
I
want
to
note
that
that's
a
representative
sample
of
homes
in
our
neighborhood,
it
does
not
account
for
all
of
the
homes
in
our
neighborhood
that
have
this
design
already
in
place,
but
we
wanted
to
point
out
that
this
is
not
altering
the
the
spirit
of
the
neighborhood
or
changing
anything,
because
this
is
already
a
design.
That's
in
place
on
multiple
other
homes
within
a
four
by
four
block
area,
also,
there's
no
interference
with
neighboring
properties
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
addition
again.
I
If
we
were
forced
to
build
off
the
back
of
the
home,
there
would
be
interference
with
our
neighboring
property,
specifically
the
property
at
58,
16
44th
avenue
south,
whereas
the
proposed
edition
off
the
front
of
the
house
in
this
instance
would
create
no
interference
with
the
neighboring
properties
and
again,
I
believe
that
we've
had
communication
submitted
with
respect
to
neighbors
being
in
favor
of
this
as
well.
I
B
B
I'm
not
seeing
any
in
cue,
so
why
don't
we
have
your
husband,
joel,
speak.
G
Good
afternoon
this
is
joel
rabbi.
I
don't
have
anything
further
to
add.
I
think
at
least
covered
everything
quite
well,
so
I
will
leave
it
at
that.
Okay,.
E
Thank
you,
chair
prairie.
I
think
I'm
leaning
to
support
staff
findings
in
this
one
and
I'm
curious
to
see
what
my
other
board
members
feel.
D
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
You
know,
I
agree
with
mr
johansson
johannesson.
You
know
it's
a
peculiar
technicality,
but
at
the
same
time
I'm
compelled
by
staff's
report
and
it's
an
unfortunate
circumstance,
but
but
these
are
the
margin
cases
that
the
code
is
meant
to
capture
and
I
think
it's
working
the
right
way.
B
Thanks
for
those
comments,
ms
wang.
J
Yeah
respectfully,
I
don't
see
any
practical
difficulties
or
any
of
the
other
reasons
stated.
I
also
don't
see
the
connection
between
the
significant
elevation
of
the
backyard
to
the
front
yard
request,
simply
on
the
fact
that
the
neighbors
don't
have
enough
sunlight
and
also
in
my
mind.
I
want
to
point
out
that
the
style
of
other
homes
in
the
area
isn't
a
factor
since
we're
only
looking
at
the
specific
property.
B
Hearing
no
one
or
seeing
no
one,
I
would
entertain
a
motion
then.
D
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
make
a
motion
to
deny
the
request
and
approved
staff
at
approve
staff
recommendation
so.
B
C
B
So
to
the
right
eyes,
that
means
that
your
request
is
denied.
You
can
talk
to
ms
dawkins
about
what
your
options
are
going
forward.
I
do
want
to
say
on
behalf
of
myself
that
I
was
very
impressed
with
the
presentation,
the
material
you
want
you
put
together
and
presented
today,
and
I
appreciate
the
amount
of
time
it
probably
took
to
put
it
together.
B
K
Great
thank
you
chair
good
afternoon,
chair
board
members.
The
next
variance
application
is
for
4816
upton
avenue.
This
is
a
single-story
home
on
the
site.
The
site
is
standard
sized
just
over
5100
square
feet.
The
lot
is
largely
flat.
There
is
a
small
retaining
wall
on
the
front
of
the
site,
detached
garage
in
the
rear
accessed
by
the
alley.
K
K
K
K
K
Egress
wells
needed
to
have
two
feet
of
clearance
beyond
the
well,
so
you
would
need
five
feet
from
the
property
line
to
that
building
wall.
Clearly,
there's
0.9
feet
here
and
that
is
in
conflict
of
code
as
well.
K
In
reviewing
the
variants,
there
are
several
findings
that
must
be
met.
The
first
finding
looks
at
practical
difficulties.
Staff
finds
that
there
are
no
practical
difficulties
in
complying
with
the
ordinance.
This
is
a
flat
lot.
It's
standard
sized,
the
applicant
worked
with
staff
in
reducing
down
the
amount
of
demolition
staff
approved
those
plans.
K
So
a
lot
of
this
is
getting
to
the
applicant
just
not
building
to
the
approved
plans
with
that
they've
gone
from
a
remodel
to
a
new
home
and
with
that
are
not
able
to
comply
with
this
yard,
but
that
is
very
much
their
own
doing
again.
Looking
at
the
financial
considerations,
there'd
be
nothing
stopping
them
from
relocating
that
foundation.
Wall
to
comply
with
the
five
foot
required
yard,
as
code
indicates,
the
next
variance
finding
is
for
a
reasonable
use
of
the
property.
K
Again.
Staff
finds
that
this
is
not
a
reasonable
use.
The
intent
of
code
is
to
limit
demolition
on
remodels
to
60
and
if
that's
met,
staff
or
the
code
affords
them
grandfathered
rights
to
existing
side
yards
in.
K
In
that
sixty
percent
demo,
it's
it's
codes
way
of
saying
that
if
you
are
looking
for
a
new
home,
you
will
need
to
comply
with
these
required
yards.
So
in
demolishing
95
of
this
existing
structure,
that's
in
direct
conflict
of
codes
requirement
of
yarns,
so
this
is
not
a
reasonable
use
of
the
property
staff
does
find
that
the
requested
variants
would
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
this
area.
There
is
a
wall
here,
an
interior
side
guard
wall
in
and
of
itself
will
not
impact
that
essential
character.
K
K
B
Thank
you,
mr
liska,
for
that
presentation.
Are
there
any
questions
of
mr
liska
from
the
board.
B
I
seeing
none-
I
have
a
question
mr
liska
is
so
is
the?
Is
there
some
specific
intent
about
the
60
in
the
city's
desire
to
have
buildings
remodeled
versus
torn
down,
or
is
it
more
a
matter
of
once
it's
torn
down
that
the
grandfather
rights
go
away
just
as
a
matter
of
course,.
K
Yeah,
so
code
is
flexible
on
on
new
builds
versus
remodels.
K
Some
line
needs
to
be
drawn
when
when
this
work
is
being
done
and
the
demolition
definition
has
been
in
code
for
a
number
of
years-
and
that
has
been
sixty
percent,
so
coaches
says,
if
you're
looking
for
a
new
home,
that's
fine
on
this
site.
You
just
need
to
comply
with
all
of
your
yards
or
seek
those
variances
code
may
be
slightly
incentivizing
remodels
in
saying
you
can
keep
non-conforming
setbacks,
but
if
you're
looking
for
a
new
home,
a
foot
1.1
feet
may
not
be
the
end
of
the
world.
So.
B
I
have
another
question
we
have
from
my
memory.
We
have
denied
requests
before
such
that
foundations
did
have
to
be
moved
before
this
board
right,
so
that
wouldn't
be
something
unusual
to
do.
I
know
these
are
work
foundation.
Movements
are
rare
cases,
but
we
have
denied
the
request
and
and
property
owners
have
had
to
do
something
with
their
foundations
as
a
result.
Is
that
my
is
my
memory
correct?
K
Correct
typically,
this
has
been
steph's
position
on
this,
and
I
think
that
was
also
a
a
direction
from
council.
In
the
existing
foundation
in
and
of
itself
is
not
a
practical
difficulty.
So
staff
has
very
much
denied
similar
requests
fairly
recently.
B
Okay,
thanks
thanks
for
filling
that
in
I
don't
know
if
that
generated
any
other
questions
from
my
fellow
board
members,
if
so
indicate
you'd
like
to
speak,
I'm
seeing
none.
So
with
that,
let's
open
the
public
hearing
and
we
have
the
applicant
and
their
representative
present.
B
If
you
want
to
press
stair
six
to
speak,
I
don't
know
there.
There
are
two
of
you.
I
don't
know
if
one
would
like
to
go
before
the
other.
B
Ms
munch,
would
you
like
to
speak
before
mr
hobbs.
A
L
Mr
chair,
I'm
brad,
I'm
not
on
the
official
sign
up
for
the
speaking.
Am
I
allowed
to
speak
if
I'm
in
the
same
presence.
L
Yeah
brad
pollard,
4816,
upton
avenue
south
with
rachel
mancha,
48,
16
up
10
avenue
south
as
well
just
want
to
say
a
few
words
randy's
going
to
probably
do
a
bulk
of
the
the
technical
details
as
as
the
pandemic
hit,
we
were
stuck
in
a
one-story
home,
the
two
of
us
working
full-time
in
a
house
sales
built
in
the
1940s
with
minimal
floor
space
and
no
clear
separation
between
working
space
and
life.
Space
rachel
was
working
on
top
of
a
desk
in
the
master
bedroom.
L
I
was
working
on
top
of
a
dresser
in
the
basement,
both
in
you
know,
there's
no
separation
between
that
work-life
balance.
Right.
So,
over
the
course
of
that
year,
we
decided
that
we
needed
to
do
something
which
was
a
remodel
in
our
heads
and
from
every
intent
of
the
start
of
this
project
was
a
remodel,
not
a
not
a
new
construction,
so
we
needed
workable
space.
We
needed
livable
space
and
we
needed
that
separation
between
the
two.
L
So
we
opted
to
go
with
this
plan
to
remodel
the
home
over
the
course
of
that
that
construction
phase,
when
they
demoed
the
walls,
there
was
full
intent
to
use
the
north,
south
and
east
walls
as
they
got
into
the
demolition.
We
noticed
the
significant
amount
of
mold
rotting
and
structurally
unsound
wood.
L
L
It
was
a
matter
of
us
collaborating
with
with
our
builder
asking
his
professional
opinion
as
far
as
what
we
should
do
as
far
as
treating
the
walls
leaving
them
replacing
them,
and
so
we
made
the
decision
not
knowing
that
we
were
trying
to
create
a
new
home
with
no
intent
to
update
or
excuse
me
upset
the
design
that
we
have
agreed
upon,
but
just
build
safer
and
healthier
roles
for
for
us
moving
forward.
So
that's
all
I
have
to
say
rachel.
I
don't
know
if
you
have
anything
else
to
add,
but.
L
So
I
guess,
with
that
we'll
hand
it
over
to
randy
hopps.
B
B
I'm
not
seeing
any
so,
let's
move
on
to
mr
hobbs
and
we
just
mr
hobbs,
we
we
have
received
all
the
board.
Members
have
received
a
packet
with
materials
that
you
submitted,
and
so,
if
you
want
to
please
highlight
rather
than
go
into
every
detail
again,
I
would
appreciate
it.
You
can
assume
we
have
read
through
those
materials.
M
Can
you
hear
me
now
yep
go
ahead?
Okay,
great
hi
hi!
Thank
you
for
giving
the
opportunity
to
speak,
so
I
think
just
in
general.
I
want
to
say
you
know
that
the
process
of
receiving
the
the
permit
field
took
a
little
longer
than
usual.
You
know
the
last
time
I
did
a
permit
in
the
city
of
minneapolis.
It
took
maybe
one
or
two
days
this
one
took
you
know
five
weeks
through
the
zoning
process
there.
M
I
think
that
you
know
I
have
just
one
issue
with
the
representation
of
of
the
the
project
description
where
they
say
the
project
started
as
a
building
permit
for
a
second-story
edition
staff,
reviewed
the
application
and
responded
in
regard
to
the
amount
of
demolition
proposed,
the
applicant
revised
plans
and
and
to
bring
the
proposed
stimulation
below
the
60
threshold
and
the
plans
were
approved.
The
zoning
approval.
Well,
that
never
happened.
I
only
I
submitted
plans.
M
The
only
conversation
with
zoning
was
about
the
front
setback
which
they
were
concerned
about
making
sure
that
the
front
porch
was
not
out
further
than
the
rest
of
the
homes
on
the
block,
and
we
were
able
to
find
that
the
next
door
neighbor
north
of
us
was
out
almost
you
know,
14
or
15
feet
out
in
front
of
this
house
after
we
would
be
completed.
M
So
that
was
the
only
conversation
with
zoning
that
I
had
at
that
time
and
then
he
approved
and
then
it
set
for
a
while,
and
then
I
finally
sent
an
email
to
michael
and
the
email
was
we
paid
the
permit
for
for
this
project
and
have
not
received
any
information
regarding
the
permit
and
cannot
get
a
hold
of
anyone
to
ask
okay.
So
we
tried
multiple
times,
calling
multiple
numbers
and
weren't
able
to
get
invite,
but
I've.
M
But
I
had
talked
to
michael,
so
I
did
have
his
email,
and
I
said
I
know
this.
Isn't
probably
your
area,
but
you
have
a
name
of
someone
that
I
can
reach
out
to.
The
permit
line
does
not
accept
messages
and
they
don't
have
any
one
extension
or
name,
and
so
then
he
was
able
to
then
give
me
a
name.
You
know
he
said
reach
out
to
rosa
sosa.
You
know
I
copied
her
says.
Both
reviewers
have
completed
all
tasks
and
approved
this.
M
So
then
I
reached
out
and
then
I
was
able
to
continue
the
process.
They
call
back
and
we're
able
to
work
through
the
process.
So
so
I
guess
my
point
there
is
that
you
know
there
was
never
any
conversation
about
the
60-foot
setback.
The
last
or
60
demolition
of
the
last
remodel
I
did
in
minneapolis
was
probably
in
19.
M
You
know
maybe
20
years
ago
you
know,
most
of
my
work
is
done
in
st
was
park
edina
pretty
much
in
my
neighborhood
actually,
so
I
just
so.
My
concern
is
that
they're
saying
that
there
that
there's
somehow
there
was
some
communication
about
the
60.
M
It
wasn't
a
law
at
that
time
or
it
wasn't
in
the
city's
information
at
that
time,
and
so
it
was
something
that
was
new
to
to
me
at
the
time
we
were
we,
you
know
we,
so
we
we
demoed
the
project.
We
started
a
demo.
We
found
out
that
the
stucco
we
deal
with
the
stucco
and
followed
that
there
was
city
inside
the
stucco,
as
you
can
probably
see
on.
M
Well,
I
think
a
good
one
to
see
is
a2,
it
shows
suckle
and
then
it's
still
sighting
and
then
a
eight
a7
would
get
even
a
better
picture
of
of
the
stucco
and
then
the
siding
underneath
and
this
that's.
What
created
the
water
issues
on
this
project?
The
the
this
mold
and
mildew
and
and
rot
is
not
normal.
As
you
know,
staff
has
represented,
we
could
stick.
You
know
our
fingers
through
the
sighting.
They
were
spinning
through
the
sheeting.
There
was
sheeting
missing
on
the
exterior.
M
Unfortunately,
these
pictures
were
the
homeowner's
pictures
because
they're
trying
to
just
document
their
you
know
their
build.
You
know
and
and
the
progress
and
things
like
that,
so
we
if
we
would
have
known
we're
going
to
be
in
this
situation,
we
would
have
pictures
of
the
exterior
and
showed
a
vast
rotting
on
the
exterior
of
this
house
so
anywhere
that
you're
seeing
you
know
black
is
somewhere
where
you
could
take
a
finger
through
force,
your
finger
through
or
a
fist
through
for
sure,
right
or
you
can
or
if
it
was
on
the
exterior.
M
You
could
pull
the
siding
off
and
it
would
just
crumble
or
the
the
sheeting,
and
so
the
homeowner
came
in,
saw
this
and
was
concerned.
You
know,
and
it
was
you
know
it
was
truly
only
about
you
know
their
health
and
safety.
This
was
not,
you
know,
and
I
told
them.
I
typically
do
not.
You
know,
I'm
a
remodeler.
I
remodel
cape
cod.
You
know
every
day
in
st
louis
park
in
edina,
and
but
they
were
just
concerned-
and
I
said
you
know,
then
we
can
you
know.
M
Then
we
would
you
guys
would
pay,
for
you
know
the
lumber
and
then
I
would
take
them
down.
We'd,
build
new
walls
and
that's
yeah.
I
mean
that's,
we
really
we
weren't
trying
to
escape
the
system.
I
matter
of
fact,
steve
wickman
came
who
red
tagged
our
project
that
called
me
that
night
and
was
telling
me
that
they're
red
tagging,
or
that
they
had
the
city
was,
and
he
said
I.
H
M
And
then
he
goes,
I
walk
through
your
project
and
how
come
you
didn't
take
the
floors
out
and,
and
he
goes
there,
you
know
everything's
creepy
and
I
go
yes
because
they
need
to
be
fixed.
I
said,
but
that
was
never
our
intent
and
that's
why
they're
in
and
you
can
see
the
old
floors
or
the
four
joists
in
a1,
which
are
still
there.
M
You
know,
I
think
it's
important,
that
you
know
that
they
you
understand
this
homeowner.
You
know,
because
I
work
with
a
lot
of
homeowners
and
families
that
are
doing
multiple.
You
know
bedrooms
and
bathrooms,
and
you
know
the
houses
are
taken
from.
You
know:
1500
square
foot
to
41
or
5100
square
feet.
This
was
not
the
case.
M
These
homeowners
were
doing
this
out
of
necessity.
You
know
not
convenience,
not
because
they
wanted
to
have
you
know
a
huge
family
or,
to
you
know,
have
a
house
where
they
can
do
you
have
you
know?
You
know,
you
know
you
know
parties
or
you
know,
none
of
those
things.
There's
no
arrogance
in
this
process
at
all
when
it
came
to
them.
Building
this
or
remodeling
this
house,
for
example,
they
had
two
bedrooms
up.
B
I
I'll
just
have
to
respond
to
that
to
and
maybe
help
you
out
in
order
for
you
to
help
them.
This
isn't
a
question
about
their
health
or
safety
and
whether
the
city
is
trying
to
punish
anybody.
This
is
a
question
of.
There
are
certain
requirements
for
new
builds,
which
this
home
falls
under
for
the
reasons
that
you
have
pointed
out,
there's
95
percent
demo
and
now
the
issue
is:
is
there
a
practical
difficulty
that
would
allow
them
to
get
relief
for
that
five
foot
side
yard
requirement.
G
B
And
you
really-
and
I
have
to
say
at
least
I'm
not
speaking
for
my
fellow
board
members,
but
for
for
me
you
really
haven't.
You
haven't
answered
that
question.
B
L
L
G
E
Yeah
I
do
thanks
chair
prairie.
Thanks
for
your
presentation,
I
my
biggest
question
is
for
you
I'm
not
necessarily
trying
to
punish
the
owners.
I
think
they
put
their
trust
into
you
and
your
architect
to
find
these
types
of
instances
and
stop
construction
and
discuss
these
with
the
city
at
the
time.
M
That's
a
great
question,
and
that
was
where
I
was
going
next
and
thank
you
for
asking
that
question.
So
I
asked
whitman,
I
said:
hey,
I
don't
you
know
I
didn't
even
I
didn't
realize
that
this
even
existed.
This
60,
you
know
existed
right
and
he
goes
well.
It
should
have
been
told
to
you
at
zoning
at
the
zoning
meeting
right
when
you
step
in
so
typically
you
come
into
the
city
of
minneapolis.
You
you
go
to
zoning
first
right
and
they
give
you
all
this
information.
M
It
was
not
given
to
me
this
information.
He
said
he
should
have.
He
should
have
you
know
it
told
you
about
this
and
he
goes
any
any
stated
that
things
are
difficult
now
because
it
called
it
and
it
may
have
been
missed.
Okay,
so
the
process
is
not
the
same.
The
the
only
reason
that
we're
in
this
situation
is
because
of
the
process
to
me,
that's
what
I
did
and
the
fact
that
these
walls
would
feel
bad.
E
M
I
understand
what
you're
saying,
but
you
know
I
build
all
the
time
I
have
multiple
homes
going
and
I
have
in
stateless
park
any
diner
and
I
deal
with
I.
I
think
I
sent
you
guys
a
picture
right
now.
The
house
we're
working
on
right
now.
That
is
a
remodel
as
a
matter
of
fact,
my
architect
and
our
drawers.
When
I
told
them
we're
in
this
situation,
they
go.
You
don't
care
down
enough
walls,
it's
funny
you're
the
person
that's
into
this
in
this
situation,
because
you
never
tear
down
walls
right.
M
So
I
sent
you
guys
a
picture
of
cambridge
avenue
in
st
louis
park,
which
is
typical.
This
house
is
almost
20
years,
older
than
the
house
that
upton
avenue
right
and
you
can
see
how
we've
remodeled
it
and
you
can
see
the
lack
of
damage.
You
know
typical,
and
this
was
this
house
had
a
well
that
I
haven't
seen
before
in
20
years.
You
know
again
and
even
to
answer
your
question
that
I
have
most
of
the
inspectors
in
st
louis
park
and
edina's
phone
numbers,
their
cell
phone
numbers.
M
B
Mr
hobbs,
this
is
this
is
chair,
perry
yeah.
I
have.
I
have
another
question
for
you.
Let's
say
you
were
told
that
the
60
and
and
I'm
going
to
ask
staff
what
for
for
an
explanation
of
this
as
well,
when
we
close
the
public
hearing,
but
let's
say
you
knew
of
it
and
the
the
homeowners
have
said,
and
you
have
said
that
you
had
to
tear
the
walls
down.
B
What
would
you
have
done
differently
because
you're
still
going
to
be
in
the
same,
you
would
still
be
in
the
same
situation.
The
the
walls
were
not
in
good
shape.
There
was
mold
and
and
rot,
and
so
what
would
you
have
done
differently?
You
would
still
have
to
come
up
with
a
practical
difficulty
for
the
variants.
M
Yeah,
so
I
would
have
called
the
the
the
the
first,
the
I'm
sorry
indrana.
M
I
would
have
called
not
michael
wii,
but
I
would
call
the
the
city
person
that
was
in
yo
the
I'm
terrible.
It's
I'm
looking
for
the
name.
This
know
the
inspector
I
would
have
called
the
inspector
I
just
looking
for
his
name.
I
had
it
out
here
and
would
have
asked
him
what
to
do
so.
That's
the
point
I'm
making
this
was
not
something
I
would
if
it
was
a
cold
issue
and
I
knew
about
the
cold
issue.
I
would
have
called
it's
that
simple.
This
would
not.
I
mean.
M
B
B
M
I
I
don't
know,
that's
the
inspector
would
have
probably
have
told
me
that
information.
You
know,
because
I
I
didn't
know
I.
I
asked
that
question.
I've
talked
to
a
couple
people
and
they
said
you
would
have
called
and
then
they
would
have
think
we
between
us.
We
would
have
worked
it
out.
You
know,
and
I
talked
to
a
couple.
You
know
contractors
since
this
you
know
the
red
tag
and
have
talked
to
them
and
they've
done
different
things.
M
You
know
to
try
to
skirt
the
system,
but
no
one
could
answer
the
question
about.
You
know
what
to
do
with
the
walls.
At
this
stage,
most
people
have
not
seen
walls
as
bad.
B
Do
you
have
any
additional
testimony
you'd
like
to
give.
M
B
I
don't
see
any
so
we're
going
to
close
the
public
hearing
and
I
will
ask
for
board
comment
and
before
we
before.
I
ask
for
a
board
comment.
I
do
want
to
ask
staff
this.
I
want
to
ask
staff
I
want
to
get
this
cleared
up.
Mr
hobbs
has
made
an
allegation
that
he
has
not
been
informed
of
the
60
demolition.
B
As
I
have
said,
it
really
doesn't
matter
in
my
mind
as
a
as
a
board
member,
not
speaking
for
the
board,
but
it
doesn't
matter.
I
mean
if
you're,
if
you
had
to
tear
the
walls
down,
you
had
to
tear
the
walls
down
and
you'd
have
to
find
a
practical
difficulty,
but
just
to
clear
the
error
on
the
issue
of
whether
he
was
informed
or
not.
K
Well,
I
wasn't
the
assigned
staff
that
worked
on
this
project
upfront,
so
I
can't
say
for
certain
that
the
planner
communicated
that
to
the
applicant
verbally.
I
do
know
that
we
reviewed
the
plans
and
included
that
demolition
calculation
in
the
approvals
so
the
applicant
when
they
receive
their
their
approved
plans,
they're
paying
for
that
and
they're
able
to
see
plan,
reviews,
comments
and
zoning's
comments,
and
that
information
was
provided
to
the
applicant
based
on
his
proposed,
like
scope
of
work.
B
B
D
B
Thank
you,
mr
softly,
for
that
comment.
So
is
there
anybody
else
before
I
call
for
a
vote
on
the
motion
before
us.
D
E
B
So
the
request
is
denied
ms
mensch
and
mr
palmer.
You
can
talk
to
mr
liska
about
what
your
options
are
going
forward
and
I
appreciate
all
of
you,
mr
hobbs,
as
well,
for
taking
time
to
provide
testimony
and
put
the
packet
material
together
that
we
looked
at
again.
As
with
the
previous
applicants,
I
thought
you
did
a
very
good
job
of
laying
out
your
arguments
and
making
your
case,
but
ultimately
the
votes
were
not
there
to
grant
your
variance.
B
B
I'm
not
seeing
any
none
from
staff.
Okay,
mr
has
said
that
there
is
none
and
with
that
and
without
objection,
I
will
declare
this
meeting
adjourned.
Our
next
meeting
will
be
october,
7th
2021..
Thank
you.
Everyone.