►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
Good
afternoon
and
happy
new
year
welcome
to
the
regular
meeting
of
the
business
inspections
housing.
Zoning
committee
for
today,
which
is
february
5th
2021,
I'm
lisa,
goodman
I'll,
be
chairing
the
committee
today.
As
we
begin
I'll
note
for
the
record
that
this
meeting
has
remote
participation
from
members
of
the
city,
council
and
city
staff.
B
D
F
B
Let
the
record
reflect
we
have
a
quorum
for
today's
meeting.
The
consent
agenda
is
in
front
of
us.
This
includes
items
8
through
21
on
the
agenda
item.
8.
Are
the
liquor
license
approvals
for
today?
Item
9?
Are
the
liquor
license
renewals
item
10
are
bids
for
hvac
services
for
our
rental
repair
program.
Item
number
11
is
an
alley
vacation
and
utility
easement
on
behalf
of
trilogy
at
2841
hennepin
avenue.
Item
12
is
a
rezoning
for
boston
sabri
at
2910,
pillsbury
avenue.
B
B
Item
number
15
are
the
planning
commission
appointments
items,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20
and
21
are
all
land
sales
we're
setting
public
hearings
for
january
19th
to
to
consider
the
land
sales
at
a
number
of
properties
listed
on
the
agenda.
Is
there
any
discussion
of
the
consent
agenda
portion
of
this
agenda
or
any
items
anyone
would
like
to
pull
off.
D
A
D
A
G
B
That
I,
those
items
have
been
approved,
we'll
now
move
on
to
our
normal
public
hearing
agenda,
starting
with
item
number
one,
which
is
an
application
for
oreo
oral
or
I'll
eat.
All
right
staff
will
say
the
correct
name
of
the
restaurant
at
5447,
nicolette
avenue
and
the
lovely
11th
ward.
H
Good
afternoon
cherry
goodwin
and
committee
members
happy
new
year
today,
I'm
enrique
velasquez
manager
of
licenses
and
consumer
services,
and
today
I'm
presenting
the
application
from
diamondlike
mb
llp
doing
business
as
orale
mexican
eats
orale
mexican
eats
has
held
an
on
sale
wine
and
strong
beer
with
no
live
entertainment
license
at
this
location.
Since
february
of
2020.,
the
applicant
requests
an
upgrade
to
an
on-sale
liquor
with
limited
entertainment
license.
Additionally,
the
applicant
also
requires
a
permanent
expansion
of
premises.
H
B
I
Thank
you
good
afternoon
to
everyone
thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
allowed
us
to
business
speak.
I
We
want
to
thank
the
community
first
of
all
of
this
great
acceptance
of
our
business
and
such
a
hard
times,
we're
here
tremendously,
really
for
becoming
a
community
and
the
aim
for
our
business
is
not
to
bring
unwanted
or
really
patrons,
but
to
offer
it
just
a
little
more
extension.
I
I
started
customers
having
asked,
whereas
you
know
small
cocktail
here
and
there
we
are
really
aiming
for
that
midnight
just
to
increase
our
food
sales,
because
people
do
want
certain
items
to
eat
at
that
point
of
the
evening
and
not
so
much
for
entertainment
purposes.
The
interesting
purposes
is
because,
just
in
case
we
want
to
have
a
you
know.
A
small
gather
later
on
post
covet
we'd
be
able
to
do
so
again
we're
here
for
the
community,
I'm
a
veteran.
I
I
was
in
wrinkle
for
15
years
and
I
know
the
the
tremendous
responsibility
for
the
community
for
having
a
a
business
of
this
magnitude,
and
I
want
to
reach
out
to
the
community
and
tell
that,
if
any
concerns
that
they
can
reach
me
out,
and
then
we
can
definitely
come
to
a
some
sort
of
a
you
know.
Compromise
we
love
this
this
place.
I
have
attention
this
place.
I
My
the
mother
of
my
kids
mother
actually
worked
on
john
infusion,
which
is
down
the
road
from
us,
and
while
I
was
deploying
in
combat
operations,
they
you
know,
did
prayers
and
stuff
for
me,
so
I
have
a
great
attachment
to
the
community.
We
we
want
to
grow
here
with
community.
We
want
to
to
the
minnesota
money
to
stay
in
minnesota
and
more
in
minneapolis
in
this
times
of
of
uncertainty,
and
we
appreciate
all
the
support
from
every
member
of
the
community
that
has
shown
up
to
us.
B
J
Great,
thank
you
very
for
the
committee
yeah.
My
name
is
sean
morgan,
I'm
a
resident
of
the
windham
neighborhood,
in
which
raleigh
resides
also
a
member
of
the
windham
community
council
board
of
directors,
which
is
the
local
neighborhood
association
and
the
chair
of
the
community
development
committee.
J
The
antenna
of
public
comment
here
is
not
actually
to
raise
specific
support
or
opposition
to
the
proposal,
but
just
to
raise
concern
about
a
precedent
that
relates
to
community
engagement
for
significant
business
developments
like
this
that
have
an
impact
on
on
the
neighborhood.
You
know
the
general
matter.
I
think
our
ideal
process
would
be
to
work
directly
with
the
business
and
the
windham
community
council
to
be
able
to
facilitate
a
forum
community
listening
session
where
we
can
sort
of
free.
J
The
exchange
information
about
the
proposal
and
residents
have
the
opportunity
to
directly
raise
questions
and,
ideally
that
that
that
process
happens
before
the
official
decision-making
process.
J
So
I
would
just
ask
the
council
to
consider
that
we
we
do
have
as
an
opportunity
to
the
previous
speaker,
our
first
neighborhood
association
council
meeting
on
january
14th,
the
first
since
we've
received
notification
of
this
proposal,
and
that
could
be
an
opportunity
to
to
have
that
that
candidate
community
discussion
to
ensure
sort
of
mutual
understanding
amongst
all
all
community
stakeholders
about
what
is
being
proposed
here.
J
So
it
would,
you
know,
ask
the
committee
to
to
consider
in
their
decision
allowing
for
that
that
type
of
forum,
in
short
order
over
the
next
few
weeks
for
that
type
of
direct
community
discussion,
to
again
foster
that
mutual
understanding.
Thank
you.
B
B
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I'd,
like
to
move
this
item
for
approval.
The
this
has
been
a
fantastic
veteran-owned,
minority-owned
business
that
that
that
has
great
food,
so
I'm
happy
to
see
them
expand.
I
also
encourage
saul
to
make
sure
that
they
go
to
the
the
wyndham
neighborhood
council
at
either
the
next
meeting
or
ever
other.
They
do
some
great
work
and
I
always
want
to
make
sure
that
our
businesses
are
being
great
neighbors.
B
D
F
D
K
D
Asman
allison
hi
trader.
L
B
That
carries
and
the
motion
is
approved,
we'll
move
on
to
item
number
two,
which
is
the
public
hearing.
This
is
an
amendment
to
the
us
department
of
housing
and
urban
development's
2020
consolidated
action
plan
for
covet
19
housing
opportunities
for
persons
with
aids,
otherwise
referred
to
as
hopwa.
This
is
a
supplemental
funding
item.
I
will
ask
mr
bauer
to
give
his
report
please.
E
Good
after
good
afternoon
share
good
good
men
and
members
of
the
committee.
This
public
hearing
is
to
review
a
proposed
amendment
to
our
2020
consolidated
plan
to
hud
to
outline
recommended
funding
and
programming
recommendations
for
252
000
of
supplemental
hop
up
opportunities
for
persons
with
aids
funding
that
came
through
the
cares
act
last
summer.
E
This
is
money
for
covet
related
coronavirus,
related
programming
initiatives
that
benefit
members
of
our
community
that
are
hiv
positive.
We
have
three
proposals
before
the
committee
here
for
response
to
this.
E
This
supplemental
funding,
these
proposals
with
claire
housing,
just
us
health
in
hennepin,
county
ryan
white
staff,
are
to
assist
agencies
at
communicating
through
coronavirus,
social
distancing
restrictions,
communicating
with
their
clients
and
keeping
them
up
to
date
with
the
services
that
they
require
it
and
require,
as
well
as
with
a
site-based
housing
with
claire
housing,
to
facilitate
social
distancing
requirements
within
their
facilities
to
allow
their
residents
to
be
able
to
enjoy,
as
as
as
full
of
a
kind
of
a
social
life
as
they
can
with
the
social,
social
distancing
requirements
that
are
in
place.
E
E
Thirdly,
a
third
programming
recommendation,
which
is
going
to
be
a
pilot
with
these
funds,
is
to
work
with
hennepin
county
ryan
white
staff
at
identifying
and
placing
into
temporary
housing
hiv
positive
individuals
that
outreach
staff
have
encountered
at
the
homeless
encampments
through
throughout
the
city.
E
This
will
be
a
pilot
project
and
if
this
we're
going
to
basically
run
as
a
test
and
if
it
works
well,
then
we
may
consider
expanding
this
in
the
future
with
regular
hop-up
programming
dollars.
E
So
it's
a
it's
a
opportunity
to
try
something
that
we
don't
normally
do
and
we're
looking
forward
to
the
opportunity
to
pursue
it
so
to
implement
this
programming,
we'll
need
to
submit
an
amendment
to
hud
to
outlining
the
uses
the
proposed
uses
of
these
dollars
and
programs,
and
then
we
expect
to
get
a
grant
agreement
from
hud
shortly
thereafter,
and
a
requirement
of
that
grant
agreement
for
hopwa
funding
is
that
we
be
able
to
enter
into
contracts
immediately
with
selected
service
providers.
E
B
B
B
So
we're
waiting
comment
from
john
shanahan,
we'll
just
call
again
to
see
if
tracy
holton
has
been
able
to
stay
on
the
call
and,
if
not
we'll,
just
give
john
shanahan
one
more
chance.
If
not,
both
of
the
folks
who
have
called
in
today
are
welcome
to
provide
public
comment
in
writing.
This
item
will
not
be
finally
approved
until
a
week
from
friday,
we'll
ask
staff
if
there
are
any
other
people
who
have
signed
up
to
speak
at
this
public
hearing
today,
no.
B
D
N
D
O
G
B
P
Good
afternoon
councilmember
goodman
members
of
the
committee-
this
is
an
application
by
18t
mobility
for
a
site
located
at
10
west
lake
street.
This
is
the
former
kmart
site
that
the
city
has
now
purchased
next
slide.
Please
18t
is
proposing
to
construct
a
temporary
cellular
antenna
on
the
northeast
corner
of
the
site.
P
Next
slide,
please
the
tower
and
the
equipment
will
be
located
within
an
existing
fenced-in
area.
Next
to
the
building
next
slide,
please
there
is
an
existing
tower
located
at
13,
west
29th
street.
That
att
is
currently
on.
However,
they
were
not
able
to
renew
the
lease
on
that
tower
and
need
to
vacate
the
premises
by
january
31st
of
this
year,
and
the
proposed
location
at
the
former
kmart
site
is
temporary
until
18t
can
find
a
permanent
location
for
their
antennas
next
slide,
please,
the
city
council
can
waive
ordinance
requirements
for
interim
uses.
P
Cped
is
recommending
that
the
council
waive
the
screening
and
landscaping
requirements
around
the
base
of
the
tower,
given
the
temporary
nature
of
this
use.
Next
slide,
please
at
t
had
requested
a
125
foot
tower,
but
the
zoning
ordnance
only
allows
a
tower
that
is
as
tall
as
112
and
a
half
feet
in
the
zoning
district,
and
att
is
okay,
with
this
condition
of
approval
next
slide,
please,
this
slide
just
shows
a
close-up
view
of
where
the
tower
and
the
equipment
will
be
located.
P
B
B
B
F
F
B
B
D
K
D
Q
D
Osman
allison
hi
trader.
G
B
That
carries
in
the
motion
is
approved,
we'll
move
to
public
hearing
item
number
four,
which
is
an
interim
use
permit
on
behalf
of
the
wall
companies.
I
would
call
on
mr
hanauer
to
please
give
a
report.
R
All
right,
customer
goodman,
malcolm
yards
just
west
of
surly,
received
approvals
planning
development
approvals
in
2020
for
a
three
building
project:
the
renovation
of
an
eighteen
thousand
square
foot,
harris
machinery,
building
into
a
food
hall
building
and
then
two
new
construction,
portions
of
the
project,
a
184
unit,
mixed
use,
building
and
a
164
unit,
affordable
housing
project.
R
The
interim
use
permit
application
before
you
next
slide.
Please
is
for
a
112
space
principal
parking
facility,
just
north
of
the
harris
machinery
building
or
the
food
hall.
It
would
serve
that
establishment
and
also
be
a
space
for
construction
workers
and
construction
equipment
for
the
other
portions
of
the
project.
The
applicant
requested.
The
parking
lot
be
allowed
for
three
years.
R
B
Thank
you,
mr
hannower,
for
your
report.
I
will
check
and
see
if
there
are
any
questions
for
mr
hanno
or
given
that
we
have
been
contacted
by
the
university
of
minnesota
with
some
points
that
they'd
like
to
make
we'll
see
if
there
are
any
questions
from
anyone
on
the
committee
seeing
none.
Thank
you,
mr
hanauer,
for
your
report.
I'm
going
to
proceed
to
open
the
public
hearing
and
ask
if
there
are
any
speakers
in
queue,
it
looks
like
jeff,
ellard
and
carol.
Lansing
are
in
queue.
I
will
ask
carol
lansing
to
speak.
C
Hi,
this
is
carol
lansing,
sorry
for
the
failure
to
unmute.
We
really
are
just
here
for
questions,
we're
not
aware
of
any
comments
from
the
university.
So
if
you
have
any
questions
for
us
before
that
would
be
happy
to
address
them.
Otherwise,
maybe
we
can
hear
what
the
university's
comments
are
and
then
respond
as
appropriate.
B
B
Okay,
I'm
not
hearing
from
this
is
jeff
ellard.
B
U
Thank
you
very
much
chair
goodman
and
I'm
happy
to
move
this
forward
for
approval.
I
I
will
just
let
my
colleagues
know
that
this
property
is
the
first
development,
that's
actually
north
of
a
university
expressway
between
their
two
campuses.
U
So
the
university
of
minnesota
is
very
concerned
about
possible
delays
to
their
express
bus
service
along
here.
So
we've
sorry
about
that.
So
we
have
had
lots
of
discussions
about
the
crossings
and
we're
adding
a
crossing
here
on
30th,
but
the
development
team
has
you
an
agreement
made
and
they're
actually
paying
for
the
installation
of
the
traffic
controls
at
that
intersection.
U
Those
will
be
put
in
and
I
think
those
will
address
any
of
the
concerns
that
the
university
has
and
I
actually
the
the
development
team
is
also
investing
in
signalizing
another
crossing
malcolm
there,
and
then
public
works
has
been
very
involved
in
these
negotiations
as
well,
and
then
the
city
will
certainly
operate
those
and
maintain
them
into
the
future.
B
L
D
L
G
V
V
Today
I
am
presenting
an
appeal
application
submitted
by
hunt
associates
llc,
who
is
the
applicant
and
the
appellant
of
the
december
1st
2020
heritage,
preservation,
commission's
denial
of
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
to
demolish
the
first
church
of
christ.
Scientists
located
at
614
15th
street
east
a
locally
designated
historic
landmark
in
the
elliott
park.
Neighborhood
next
slide.
Please
614
15th
street
east
was
built
in
1897
and
was
the
first
christian
science
church
built
in
the
state
of
minnesota,
designed
by
septimius
j
bowler.
The
church
is
a
scaled
down
version
of
beau's
arts,
classicism
and
renaissance
revival.
V
Styles
featuring
the
dork
order.
The
building
was
both
designated
by
the
minneapolis
hpc
and
listed
in
the
national
register
of
historic
places
in
1986
for
significance
in
the
areas
of
architecture
and
religion.
Next
slide:
please,
the
property
has
been
vacant
since
2006
and
has
seen
significant
physical
deterioration
next
slide.
Please,
the
current
owners
purchased
the
property
in
2015
and
have
developed
the
site
adjacent
to
the
east
into
six
story.
Apartments.
V
On
december
1st
2020
the
heritage
preservation
commission
denied
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
application
to
demolish
the
historic
landmark
church,
stating
that
it
would
set
a
negative
precedent
for
any
property
owner
who
did
not
keep
up
with
the
maintenance
of
their
property
effectively
allowing
demolition
over
time
in
staff's
evaluation.
The
demolition
of
the
designated
historic
landmark
does
not
meet
the
findings
of
a
certificate
of
appropriateness.
V
V
It
is
clear
the
building
is
in
a
severe
state
of
disrepair.
That's
undeniable.
The
building
official
noted
in
a
letter
sent
on
september
12
2019
that
the
building
based
on
a
visual
inspection
was
an
imminent
neighbor
of
collapse.
Next
slide,
please,
however,
the
documents
provided
by
the
applicant's
structural
engineer
do
not
state
that
the
building
is
in
imminent
danger
of
collapse.
V
Next
slide,
please
in
an
evaluation
of
reasonable
alternatives,
the
applicants
show
that
the
building
will
be
far
more
costly
to
repair.
Now
in
2020
or
2021,
at
four
million
two
hundred
nine
hundred
and
fifty
eight
dollars
versus
the
four
hundred
and
twenty
three
thousand
three
hundred
and
forty
dollars,
it
would
cost
to
demolish
the
property
and
convert
it
into
a
patio
next
slide.
Please,
the
appellant
is
the
applicant
daniel
hunt
of
hunt
associates
llc,
who
is
presenting
on
behalf
of
the
property
owner
of
614
15th
street
east.
V
B
Thank
you
very
much
much
ms
burke
for
your
report.
Are
there
any
questions
for
ms
burke
seeing
none
I'm
going
to
proceed
to
open
the
public
hearing
with
this
type
of
public
hearing
we'll
give
the
appellant
an
opportunity
to
make
their
case
first.
I
know
dan
hunt
is
on
the
line,
so
I
would
invite
him
to
speak
now.
Please
press
star
6
to
unmute
mr
hunt.
K
Thank
you.
The
the
property
was
purchased
by
our
client
whitener
apartment
homes
after
they
acquired
the
property
to
build
the
apartment
building
at
1400
park
in
2015.
K
When
it
became
clear
to
us
that
that
the
event
owner
of
the
church
wasn't
going
to
do
anything
which
is
going
to
sit
on
the
property
hope
for
something
to
happen.
That
would
be
financially
helpful
to
him
and
we
were
concerned
that
the
property
in
its
state
was
a
bad
reflection
on
the
property
we
wanted
to
build.
So
the
property
was
acquired
in
2015.
K
K
The
proforma
that
we
put
together
envisioned
some
type
of
an
office
user
that
would
give
us
the
most
rent.
Wasn't
it
terribly
more
expensive
to
make
it
the
office
space
than
any
other
kind
of
space,
but
even
at
those
rents,
the
property
would
barely
cash
flow
and
widener
would
see
no
return
on
their
on
their
equity
investment.
K
K
W
B
B
We
have
people
who
are
interested,
although
I
will
say
that
the
owner
has
been
gracious
and
letting
people
go
through
the
building.
They
have
not
yet
had
an
opportunity
to
find
someone
who
can
make
a
go
of
it,
perhaps
due
to
economic
considerations
that
might
need
to
be
shifted
in
order
to
save
the
building.
B
I
suppose
there
might
be
a
time
in
the
future
when
I,
the
neighborhood
or
some
of
the
advocates
on
the
preservation
side
might
have
different
feelings,
but
clearly
this
is
not
that
time
and,
as
a
result,
I
am
going
to
move
to
deny
the
request
to
demolish.
Are
there
other
comments
or
questions
on
my
motion?
N
G
B
M
M
M
M
So
the
applications
that
we're
considering
today
under
appeal,
one
of
which
is
the
reduction
to
the
minimum
established
front
yard.
The
red
line
on
the
site
plan
that
you
see
here,
is
how
the
front
yard
is
regulated
with
the
existing
established
setbacks
on
the
north
and
south
property
lines.
So
the
proposed
structure
would
require
a
variance
to
reduce
that
minimum
required
yard
from
25
feet
to
16
feet.
M
16
would
comply
with
the
underlying
zoning
on
the
site,
but
not
the
established
setbacks
next
slide
and
then
the
other
denial
concern
the
conditional
use
permit
to
exceed
the
maximum
height
in
the
or1.
Under
the
former
zoning
code,
the
maximum
height
in
the
or1
district
would
have
been
2.5
stories
or
35
feet.
M
However,
because
the
application
was
considered
final
prior
to
the
adoption
of
the
new
built
form
regulations,
we
are
evaluating
the
applications
under
the
previous
regulatory
code,
so
the
cup
is
therefore
required
for
this
application,
although
it
wouldn't
be
if
someone
were
to
submit
the
application
today
and
I'll.
Just
conclude
my
comments
there,
I
can
take
any
questions
from
the
committee.
B
Are
there
any
questions
for
mr
crandall
with
regard
to
his
report,
seeing
none
I'm
going
to
open
the
public
hearing
with
this
type
of
hearing,
we
will
give
the
appellant
an
opportunity
to
make
their
case.
Mr
singh
or
I
see
he's
on
the
call,
and
so
I
would
invite
him
to
press
star
six
and
please
make
your
presentation
as
the.
B
Appellant
we're
waiting
on
aj
singh,
the
appellant-
if
you
could
please
press
star
six,
you
are.
This
would
be
your
time
to
speak
hello.
Can
you
hear
me
now
we
can,
sir.
Thank
you.
Q
Yes,
so
there
are
a
couple
things
we
are
proposing.
You
know.
One
thing
is
the
height
to
two
and
a
half
story
to
three
story.
We
meeting
all
the
setbacks
and
by
a
right
we
can
build
a
two
and
a
half
story
which
will
allow
us
to
go
like
28
feet.
But
you
know,
then
we
will
be
closer,
two
feet
closer
to
you
know
the
neighbor
properties
and
we
believe
with
the
three
stories.
Q
We
will
be
two
feet
even
further
away
from
you
know,
from
the
from
the
neighbor
properties
and
and
one
like
peter
said,
for
2021,
we
are
already
allowing
you
know,
city
laws,
to
like
build
four
story
and
go
beyond
35
feet.
Q
So
I
mean
that's
that's
a
one
thing
and
for
the
second
for
this
front
setback-
and
you
know
one
thing-
I
want
to
bring
that
the
lindell
is
very
very
busy
street
and
the
front
yard
enjoyment
doesn't
serve
any
purpose
for
for
families,
and
you
know
for
kids
to
use
that
space.
It's
a
it's
a
very
dead
space
and,
furthermore,
all
the
neighborhood
properties
within
you
know
the
blocks.
Q
The
setback
is,
even
you
know,
less
than
15
foot
which
we
are
proposing,
and
you
know.
Moreover,
there
is
a
a
big
parking
I
mean
park
in
the
front
of
the
you
know
lot
and
that
can
be
utilized,
for
you
know
any
enjoyment
and
front
yard.
Q
You
know
activities,
and
you
know
city
already
approved
at
least
more
than
like
a
four
or
five
projects
which
is
which
are
bigger
than
this
or
similar
projects
within
the
seven
you
know
blocks
from
the
site
and-
and
we
we're
not
sure
like
why
this
is
you
know
different
from
those
projects.
Those
projects
already
implemented
and
the
front
yard
for
those
properties
are,
even
you,
know,
less
than
15
foot.
B
Okay,
thank
you
so
much
for
your
testimony.
Now
we'll
move
on
to
members
of
the
public
who
would
like
to
speak
to
this
item.
I
see
there
are
five
people
from
the
public
who
have
signed
up
to
speak.
I'm
going
to
ask
the
clerk
to
give
each
speaker
two
minutes
to
speak
to
this
issue,
we'll
start
with
joel
hunting,
followed
by
colleen
day,
barbara
meyer,
chadley,
copenhaver
and
then
jerome
chateau.
B
X
X
B
O
O
Could
mr
singh
reduce
the
footprint
and
save
our
safety
sight
lines
and
sunlight
by
restructuring
his
plan
so
that
the
house
becomes
a
triplex
and,
if
need
be,
if
need
be
a
fourplex,
he
could
attach
a
garage
with
an
extra
unit
on
top
and
then
that
would
reduce
the
excessive
height
and
front
yard.
Push
out
of
nine
extra
feet
and
what
I
mean
by
safety
and
sight
lines
is
people,
animals,
buses,
traffic,
vandalism,
fires,
theft,
looting,
density.
O
O
This
is
a
displaced
plan
in
the
middle
of
turn
of
the
century
homes
built
in
the
early
1900s.
It
makes
no
sense
it's
aesthetically
displeasing.
The
pictures
of
mr
singh's
plan
leave
out
adjoining
homes,
so
you
cannot
see
how
out
of
scope.
This
is
for
the
neighborhood.
The
density
of
his
plan
is
four
times
my
home.
Where
will
people
park?
O
O
I
looked
at
building
a
garage
and
I
was
told
I
needed
a
professional
architect
to
the
tune
of
thousands,
not
a
land
surveyor,
I
was
told
I
had
to
do
a
20
to
30
foot
setback
for
a
garage,
and
I
was
told
by
a
housing
inspector
the
homes
weren't
far
enough
apart
per
the
egress
windows
used
for
escape.
This
does
not
seem
to
be
the
case
with
his
plan.
This
is
unfair.
B
Y
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair
goodman,
I'm
barbara
meyer.
I
live
at
3312,
south
lindale
and
I
do
have
some
concerns.
The
developer
asks
to
reduce
the
front
yard
variants
from
25
feet
to
16
feet,
which
is
a
huge
amount.
Yet
actually
it
would
be
even
more
12
feet,
because
four
four
feet
will
be
the
porch
on
the
front.
Y
So
the
planning
commission
is
said.
Porches
must
be
deeper
than
this
that
this
port
is
not
designed
to
foster
interaction
with
the
community,
but
simply
a
place
to
stand
out
of
the
ring
when
you
ring
the
doorbell.
The
back
porch
is
similar.
The
backyard
is
40
feet
wide
by
18
feet,
deep,
barely
the
size
of
four
stalls.
If
a
tenant
has
a
larger
vehicle,
it
will
hang
out
into
the
alley.
Y
Furthermore,
there's
no
plan
for
the
bins:
how
will
they
interact
with
the
sidewalk
the
alley?
The
parking
stalls,
one
set
of
one
of
each
a
trash,
a
recycling
and
a
compost,
measures
almost
three
feet
by
six
feet,
so
four
sets
would
require
five
and
a
half
by
twelve
feet.
That
is
a
lot
of
space
being
ignored
in
this
plan.
Y
I'm
curious:
what
is
the
rationale
of
building
an
80
foot,
long,
building
right
next
to
single
family
sized
units
on
a
small
city?
Lot,
I'm
concerned
about
the
ratio
of
the
building
to
the
lot
size.
It
leaves
almost
no
green
space
nor
bike
storage,
which
goes
against
the
2040
plan.
If
the
intention
is
for
four
families
to
move
in
here,
where
are
the
children
going
to
play?
There's
no
yard-
and
I
disagree
with
mr
singh
on
that
we
use
our
front
yard
and
we
see
children
and
other
people
using
their
yards
along
this
block.
Y
There's
just
not
near
enough
space
to
accommodate
his
plan.
I'm
concerned
also
like
colleen
about
the
safety
issues.
We
won't
be
able
to
see
around
the
corners
of
the
top
of
this
house
to
the
corner
of
glendale
or
down
the
alley
and
with
the
crime
rate
increasing.
This
is
a
concern
and
the
pro
goes
against
the
provision
of
ordinance.
Five
to
five
point:
five
hundred
part:
three,
I'm
also
curious.
Y
Why
would
one
hundred
percent
fiber
siding
be
allowed
for
this
multi-family
structure,
which
is
not
normally
done,
and
last
month's
planning
commission
meeting
staff
recommended
approval
for
exterior
building
materials
instead
of
sticking
to
required
guidelines,
because
in
his
words,
it
is
somewhat
smaller
in
scale
than
many
of
the
multi-family
buildings
that
they
apply
these
standards
to
and
is
integrated
within
the
context
of
largely
single
and
two-family
homes.
Yet
this
design
is
80
feet
long
and
therefore
grossly
out
of
scale
with
surroundings.
Y
I'm
also
concerned
about
ordinance
five
to
five
point:
five
hundred
one
which
talks
about
practical
difficulties
existing
complying
with
the
ordinance
because
of
circumstances
unique
to
the
property.
I
would
argue
that
every
one
acre
site
in
minneapolis
would
have
difficulty
in
complying
with
the
ordinance
to
densify
this
much.
So
it
is
not
a
unique
situation.
Y
Y
May
I
have
one
one
final
moment
sure
quickly.
Thank
you.
I
I
just
want
to
say
the
planning
commission
upholds
certain
building
standards
and
is
pro-density
yet
they've
denied
this
plan.
It's
a
compelling
argument
against
it,
so
I
simply
feel
there's
no
reason
for
council
to
overturn
that
decision.
I
thank
you
for
your
time.
B
S
Okay
good
afternoon
good
afternoon,
and
thank
you
for
hearing
me,
council
person
and
and
council
people
I'm
having
a
weird
echo
here.
So
it's
throwing
me
on
a
little
bit.
B
B
S
Okay,
so
did
you
get
my
attachments
and
the
document
that
I
sent
to
all
the
members?
Do
you
all
have
access
to
that.
B
S
Because
I
don't
want
to
go
over
that
with
the
time
constraints.
So,
basically,
we've
we've
lived
here
for
about
24
years
of
minneapolis,
20
years
plus
at
this
site.
I
have
had
some
experience
in
the
neighborhood
with
the
committees,
the
husband
corridor,
up
by
the
by
the
cemetery.
S
I
also
worked
with
the
park
on
their
lighting
and
worked
on
that
committee,
and
that
was
a
success,
so
I
I
know
that
we've
made
some
efforts
in
this
community
to
make
it
better.
I
also
was
we
lived
here
when
they
redid
lindell
avenue,
which
was
to
from
my
understanding
the
project
was
to
calm
the
traffic,
reduce
anxiety
and
have
a
transition
from
a
more
commercial
area
into
a
more
neighborhood
area.
S
As
the
developer
says,
lynndale
is
a
very,
very
active
street
and
in
complete
disagreement
with
him,
the
front
yards
are
in
our
case
used
for
kids
that
come
over
because
we
have
a
fence.
It
provides
safety
for
our
dog.
It
also
provides
a
distance
and
a
barrier
from
lindale,
which
is
you
know
loud
and
dirty
and
a
lot
of
action
on
lindale.
S
So
I
disagree
with
moving
it
to
the
front
and
I
sent
some
pictures
that
show
a
similar
building
that
is
further
north
on
lindale
between
the
32nd
and
33rd
block.
It's
the
images
that
I
showed
you
and
they
anyway,
I'm
I'm
trying
to
hurry
and
I'm
sorry.
It's.
S
That's
that's
really
unfortunate,
so
in
conclusion
I
was
never
none
of
the
things
were
answered
from
from
our
original
questions
for
the
developer.
As
far
as
the
2040
plan,
we
had
issues
with
green
space,
there's
no
green
space,
there's
no
realistic
storage.
There's
a
bike
storage!
That's
a
2040
plan,
the
mechanical
plan
for
the
air
conditioners,
as
I've
shown
you
pictures
of
examples.
I
don't
know
what
it's
going
to
look
like.
S
Do
you
have
to
have
an
architect
design
this,
because
I'm
not
sure
it's
a
wise
decision
to
put
that
many
people
in
one
spot
regarding
the
plan
or
lack
of.
S
S
My
point
is
this:
it's,
like
I'm,
not
really
excited
about
walking
into
my
backyard
sitting
down
and
having
a
cup
of
coffee
reading
my
book
and
having
a
bunch
more
people
looking
at
me
from
an
80-foot
wall
that
wasn't
there.
So
I
have
safety
concerns
for
what
we
can
see.
I
have
some
issues
for
why
he
can't
do
this
within
the
regulations
that
are
appropriate
for
our
neighborhood.
S
W
Yeah
hello,
madam
chairman
and
council
members,
happy
new
year
to
you.
Let's
hope
it's
a
better
year
for
all
of
us
and
we
are
starting
with
with
a
project.
First,
I
would
need
to
introduce
myself.
I
am
a
vice
president
of
south
uptown
neighborhood
and
I'm
also
chair
of
the
land
use
committee,
but
I'm
speaking
just
for
myself,
not
on
behalf
of
the
committee.
We've
never
had
a
visit
from
the
developer
in
regards
to
this
project
and
that's
very
unfortunate
when
it
comes
to
density.
W
So
in
this
case
I
hope
you
guys
stand
by
the
planning
commission,
I
think
when
it
comes
to
density,
I
want
to
make
clear
that
we
are
in
favor
of
identity,
we're
also
very
concerned
with
gentrification
and
we
like
to
increase
or
for
sure,
definitely
not
diminish
the
diversity
of
our
neighborhood,
and
we
are
particularly
attentive
to
the
what
the
projects
can
offer
and
this
type
of
density,
which
I
call
this
very
inefficient
use
of
the
land.
W
This
looks
like
a
new
jersey,
suburb,
building
a
railroad
building
between
two
houses
in
a
massive
massive
structure
without
taking
into
consideration
the
neighborhood
is
very
unwarranted,
especially
when
this
city,
which
claims
to
be
inferior
density,
does
nothing
about
its
innumerable
surface
slots
that
are
everywhere.
There's
no
policy
to
try
to
deal
with
this,
and
this
is
also
not
only
a
social
urban
but
also
an
environmental
concern,
because
we
are
all
concerned
about
the
heat
island
effect
and
water
runoff.
W
So
my
my
point
with
this
project,
I
see
no
reason
for
you
in
view
of
everything.
That's
happened
in
our
neighborhood
in
view
of
the
density
policy
of
the
city.
To
turn
down
the
motion
of
the
planning
commission,
you
should
stand
by.
There
will
be
a
building.
There
will
be
some
density,
but
it
won't
be
as
massive
not
as
intruding.
It
would
be
better
four
of
us
and
we
don't
need
to
give
another
nine
feet
to
gentrification
and
to
speculation.
W
B
D
B
I'm
not
sure
how
we
handle
people
who
call
in
that
we're
unaware
if
they're
speaking
at
a
public
hearing
or
not.
I
doubt
it's
on
the
live
air,
so
perhaps
someone
can
talk
to
those
callers
and
find
out
if
they're
here
for
this
issue
before
I
close
the
public.
B
D
At
any
rate,
no
one
else
has
signed
up.
I
don't
know
that
any
of
those
numbers
are
here
for
3308
lindale
or
not.
D
It
doesn't
if
somebody
hasn't
come
in
by
now,
they
probably
are
are
not
here
for
that
item.
I
think.
B
Should
everyone
want
me
to,
or
someone
might
be
able
to
make
the
case
in
a
different
direction.
I
was
very
open
when
I
walked
into
this
today
to
understanding
both
sides
of
this
particular
debate.
But
what
really
hits
me
is
item
six
number,
two,
the
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
established
front
yard
setback.
I
don't
see
any
practical
difficulty
to
issuing
a
variance
of
this
kind,
there's
nothing
about
this
property
that
is
unique
to
it.
B
That
should
allow
us
to
give
a
variance
and
the
pictures
in
terms
of
the
way
this
would
protrude
based
on
other
homes.
I
think
is
quite
revealing.
I'm
also
concerned
about
the
garbage
can
situation
as
well
as
the
siding,
so
I'm
somewhat
indifferent
on
the
other.
Two
issues,
but,
given
that
the
planning
commission,
which
rarely
denies
anything,
did
deny
this,
it
seems
to
me
as
though
there's
no
practical
difficulty
on
the
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
established
yard.
I
don't
think
what
we
want
is
what
we
saw
in
the
picture.
B
N
D
U
X
B
Z
The
homeowners
have
appealed
that
denial
in
march
2019
applications
were
submitted
to
remove
the
existing
home
on
the
property
and
construct
a
new
two-story
single-family
home
partially
utilizing
the
existing
foundation
as
the
project
met
the
definition
of
demolition
under
the
zoning
ordinance
but
retained
a
portion
of
the
former
structure.
The
project
was
subject
to
site
plan
review
and
lost
non-conforming
rights
under
the
zoning
code,
but
was
treated
as
a
remodel
under
the
building
code.
Z
After
several
revisions,
the
plans
submitted
to
the
city
by
fox
homes
appeared
to
comply
with
the
zoning
and
building
codes
and
the
land
use
and
building
permit
applications
were
approved
by
city
staff
on
may
28,
2019
building
code
inspections
throughout
the
construction
process
were
also
approved
by
the
building
inspector
for
the
area.
As
the
home
was
built
to
the
approved
plans
on
november
6
2019,
the
zoning
inspector
for
the
area
noted
that
the
first
floor
elevation
of
the
new
home
appeared
unusually
tall
relative
to
grade.
Z
It
was
eventually
determined
that
the
plans
submitted
as
part
of
the
land
use
and
building
permit
applications
did
not
accurately
depict
the
property
rather
than
utilizing
a
licensed
surveyor
to
provide
all
elevation
information.
The
contractor
on
the
project
chose
to
utilize
a
surveyor
to
provide
measurements
for
existing
grade
and
to
use
utilize
a
draft
person
to
determine
the
elevation
of
the
existing
foundation
that
the
home
was
to
be
built
on.
Z
After
enforcement
action
began
against
the
property.
The
applicant
hired
a
licensed
surveyor
to
provide
elevation
information
for
the
home.
As
built,
this
surveyor
determined
that
the
proposed
first
floor
elevation
provided
on
the
plans
submitted
to
the
city
as
part
of
their
applications
was
1.47
feet
lower
than
the
first
floor.
Elevation
as
built,
the
city
is
dependent
on
permit
applicants
submitting
accurate
plans.
Z
In
this
case,
the
plans
submitted
to
the
city
by
the
contractor
fox
homes
complied
with
the
ordinance
as
submitted,
but
were
based
on
an
incorrect
measurement
of
the
existing
foundation
resulting
in
the
home,
as
built
being
in
violation
of
two
provisions
of
the
zoning
code.
Next
slide,
please,
the
maximum
permitted
floor
area
ratio
in
this
district
is
0.5
for
single
family
homes.
Basement
floor
area
is
excluded
from
the
home's
gross
floor
area.
If
the
first
floor,
elevation
is
located
less
than
42
inches
above
pre-construction
grade
for
at
least
50
percent
of
the
home's
perimeter.
Z
The
plans
submitted
to
and
approved
by
the
city
as
part
of
the
land
use
and
building
permit
applications
for
the
project
provided
a
first
floor
elevation
of
863.33
feet,
which
resulted
in
the
home's
basement
area
being
excluded
from
the
home's
gross
floor
area
and
a
floor
area
ratio
of
0.41
in
compliance
with
the
zoning
ordinance.
However,
the
home's
first
floor
elevation
as
built
is
864.8
resulting
in
the
home's
basement
area
being
included
in
the
gross
floor
area
and
an
far
of
0.58.
Z
A
variance
is
required
to
increase
the
maximum
permitted.
Far
to
lawfully
establish
the
home
is
built
next
slide.
Please,
the
maximum
permitted
height
for
a
single
family
home
in
this
district
is
28
feet.
That
height
is
measured
at
the
midpoint
of
the
roof.
Additionally,
the
home
is
subject
to
a
maximum
permitted
roof
peak
height
of
33
feet
for
both
provisions.
Height
is
measured
from
pre-construction
grade
at
a
point
10
feet
towards
the
front
property
line
from
the
front
center
of
the
structure.
Z
The
plan
submitted
to
and
approved
by
the
city
as
part
of
the
land
use
and
building
permit
applications
process
indicated
an
overall
height
of
27.07
feet
and
a
roof
peak
height
of
32.23
feet,
both
in
compliance
with
the
zoning
ordinance.
However,
the
home
as
built
measures,
28.6
feet
overall
and
33.9
feet
at
the
peak,
a
variance
is
required
to
increase
both
the
maximum
permitted
structure
height
and
the
maximum
permitted
roof
peak
height
to
lawfully
establish
the
home
is
built
next
slide.
Please.
Z
As
the
committee
is
aware,
there
are
three
findings
required
by
our
ordinance
in
order
for
a
variance
to
be
granted.
The
first
finding
requires
that
a
practical
difficulty
in
complying
with
the
ordinance
exists,
which
was
not
created
by
someone
who
has
an
interest
in
the
property
and
is
not
economic
alone.
Staff
did
not
find
that
either
variants
met
this.
Z
The
second
and
third
findings
relate
to
whether
the
request
is
reasonable,
meets
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
and
comprehensive
plan
and
whether
the
request
would
have
any
negative
impacts
on
adjacent
properties
or
the
public
staff
found
that
the
variances
met
both
of
these
findings,
the
board
of
adjustment,
adopted
staff
findings
and
denied
both
variants
requests
due
to
the
lack
of
practical
difficulties
under
finding
number.
One
staff
recommends
that
the
committee
uphold
the
action
of
the
board
and
deny
the
appeal.
This
concludes
my
presentation
and
I'm
available
to
address
any
questions.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
mr
friends,
very
much
for
your
report.
There
could
be
questions.
This
is
somewhat
of
a
complicated
issue,
and
so
I
just
want
to
open
the
floor
to
members
of
the
committee
to
see
if
they
have
any
questions,
seeing
none
I'm
going
to
open
the
public
hearing.
With
this
type
of
hearing,
we
give
the
appellant
an
opportunity
to
make
their
case
first,
so
lyanna,
weisbloom
or
ryan
ledden
or
their
representative.
You
are
welcome
to
speak.
You
will
not
be
limited
to
two
minutes.
C
B
Variants,
which
should
be
allowed
much
of
the
public
testimony
we've
received
to
date,
is
people
who
feel
bad
and
they
are
entitled
to
feel
bad,
but
we
need
to
focus
on
what
is
a
you
pre?
What
is
the
practical
difficulty
to
issue
a
variance
in
this
case
and
I'd
appreciate,
is
the
appellants
if
you
address
that
issue
at
least
first.
B
Sure,
oh
sure,
absolutely
yourselves
or
your
representative.
We
will
a
lot
about
10
minutes
for
your
testimony
and
take
two
minutes
of
other
testimonies,
so
feel
free
to
use
it
any
way.
You'd
like
sir
ryan
ryan.
T
Yeah
this
this
is
mark
becker
here.
Can
you
hear
me
we
can,
sir.
Thank
you.
Okay,
thank
you.
I'm
mark
becker,
I'm
the
attorney
for
the
applicant
leanna
and
ryan,
I'm
with
the
fabiancy
western
heart
and
thompson
law
firm,
I'm
the
past
chair
of
the
construction
section
of
the
minnesota
state
bar
association,
I'm
here
today
as
a
private
attorney.
T
I
think
that
the
variance
should
be
granted
based
on
the
facts
and
the
applicable
law,
and
I
prevent
provided
a
powerpoint
presentation
that
you
can
all
follow
along
with
to
go
through
my
presentation
and
I'd
first
like
to
start
with
the
facts,
to
make
sure
that
you
understand
them,
because
we
disagree
with
the
facts
that
were
presented
by
mr
friends
and
you
need
to
understand
where
those
differences
are
and
where
the
agreements
are
so,
but
the
first
first
next
slide
please.
T
The
first
is
that
ryan
and
leanna
purchased
this
100
year
old
home
with
the
intention
of
remodeling
it,
and
only
during
that
demolition
did
they
determine
or
was
the
did.
The
contractor
determine
that
the
100
year
old
home
proved
structurally
unsound
and
could
not
be
reused
and
that's
certainly
a
unique
condition
and
circumstance
for
this
project.
T
The
contractor,
designed
and
built
the
home
on
the
existing
foundation,
which
was
not
changed.
The
plans,
as
you
heard
from
mr
friends,
were
approved
by
the
city.
The
permit
was
issued
by
the
city,
and
this
is
very
important
for
purposes
of
the
legal
analysis.
T
The
construction
was
inspected
by
the
city
throughout
with
no
issues
identified
no
zoning
violations
identified
during
any
of
those
inspections
after
completion.
It
was
only
then
that
the
city
staff
thought
that
the
house
looked
high
at
the
time
they
had.
The
city
had
no
survey
evidence
of
itself
of
its
own
before
they
issued
the
violation
warning
letter,
and
that
was
without
any
actual
survey
evidence.
So
we
could
go
to
the
next
slide,
please.
T
So,
in
response
to
that,
the
the
contractor
fox
homes,
they
hired
a
surveyor
sailor
bergquist
to
perform
some
surveys.
T
The
first
survey-
and-
let
me
just
say
this
case-
turns
on
the
existing
grade
that
pre-existed
the
construction
of
the
project.
That's
the
survey
point
that
both
of
the
variants
items
before
you
on
the
height
and
then
on
the
first
floor
ratio.
T
T
We
provided
a
december
29
2020
letter
from
sather
bergquist,
who
was
the
surveyor
that
hired
was
hired
to
provide
those
two
surveys
that
I
just
described
to
you
and
we
question
the
use
of
the
lidar
data
and
there's
a
letter
that
we
submitted
and
I'll
quote,
read
it
from
you.
This
is
from
sailor,
bergquist,
the
very
same
surveyor
who
provided
the
survey
upon
which
the
violation
is
based,
the
alleged
violation.
T
They
say
the
average
existing
grade
on
site
was
determined
by
using
2012
lidar
data
in
surveying
an
engineering
field.
We
use
gis
lidar
data
on
a
regular
basis.
We
have
found
lidar
data
to
be
accurate
at
times,
but
at
other
times
we
have
found
it
to
be
unreliable
and
contain
errors
due
to
due
to
the
presence
of
trees,
houses
and
other
objects.
T
T
They've
said
that
the
lidar
methodology
used
is
not
a
reliable
method
and
that
they
cannot
determine
the
elevation,
and
so,
as
a
result,
there
has
been
no
proof
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
or
even
by
any
other
standard
that
there's
actually
a
violation.
Now
we
still
want
the
variance
to
be
granted
and
here's.
Why?
T
The
house
would
need
to
be
lifted
off
the
foundation,
the
foundation
and
basement
slab
lowered
and
the
house
was
set,
and
we
have
submitted
a
letter
if
you,
if
you
could
turn
the
page
please
next
next
slide,
we've
submitted
a
letter
in
our
materials
from
crl
associates,
llc
and
its
owner,
william
c,
a
professional
engineer
and
geotechnical
engineer.
T
Mr
kwazny
is
one
of
the
foremost
experts
in
geotechnical
engineering
in
the
upper
midwest,
and
what
he
said
in
looking
at
this
issue
is
that
this
area
of
the
city
actually
has
a
high
water
table
because
of
its
relation
to
the
lake
and
during
his
investigation
he
determined
based
on
a
review
of
a
pit
across
the
street
and
and
was
able
to
determine
where
the
water
table
is.
T
He
also
evaluated
the
public
safety
issues
in
actually
lowering
the
house
and
removing
the
slab,
and
what
he
says
is
that
if
you
remove
the
slab
to
allow
for
the
lowering
of
the
house,
what
will
happen
is
that
you
are
actually
removing
lateral
support
for
the
foundation.
Walls
that
support
the
adjacent
properties
and
when
you
remove
those
lateral
supports,
you
are
running
a
great
risk
of
life,
limb
and
property,
all
for
the
irrational
reason
of
saving
a
at
nine
inches
or
so
there's
no
engineering
basis.
T
To
do
that,
the
risk
is
not
outweighed
by
the
benefit
and
there's
a
letter
from
mr
quasi.
In
there
and
I'll
quote
you
his
opinions
quote.
It
is
my
professional
opinion
that
the
risk
of
excessive
wall
movement
and
resulting
damage
to
the
residents
and
possibly
to
the
adjacent
residents,
is
such
that
lowering
the
of
the
house
should
not
be
undertaken
further.
T
T
The
other
facts
are
that
all
the
neighbors
support,
leanna
and
ryan's
application
to
a
great
degree,
and
it's
not
just
about
feeling
bad
it's
about
giving
honor
to
the
neighbors
and
to
let
them
have
the
neighborhood
that
they
like
without
the
disruption
that
a
massive
renovation
would
c
cause
all
to
address.
T
What
you
know
is
a
disputed
issue
and
so
you've
seen
the
many
letters
of
support
on
the
record.
Already
and
frankly,
we
haven't
seen
any
opposition
to
the
variance
application,
except
for
a
belief
that
nine
inches
should
be.
T
The
house
should
be
lowered
by
nine
inches.
The
other
thing
is
that
lyanna
is
currently
pregnant
and
the
stress
of
having
to
go
undergo
this
nightmare
of
not
of
their
doing
by
having
a
massive
potential
reconstruction
of
their
home
over
a
questionable
violation
for
which
the
surveyor
has
recanted
this
testimony.
All
during
the
course
of
a
pandemic
is
simply
simply
too
much
for
anybody
to
bear,
and
now
I
want
to
turn
to
the
next
slide.
T
T
B
Y
B
T
Thank
you.
So,
let's
talk
about
the
the
practical
difficulties.
I've
talked
to
you
about
the
the
facts
that
justify
that
another
part
of
the
ordinance
is
it's
very
specific
that
the
applicant
and
here
that's
lyanna
and
ryan
did
not
create
the
circumstances
and
that's
fundamentally
the
case.
Lion
and
lyanna
and
ryan
did
not
create
these
circumstances.
T
T
I
want
to
go
to
the
next
slide
here
and
and
remind
the
board
here
that
the
definition
of
unique
circumstances
is
actually
quite
broad,
based
on
rulings
from
the
minnesota
court
of
appeals
that
have
cited
my
materials
and
all
of
the.
If
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
all
of
the
materials
are
suggest
that
there's
unique
circumstances
a
hundred
year
old
home
that
was
found
to
be
unfound,
the
existing
foundation
was
reused
and
unchanged.
T
The
plans
were
proved
by
the
city
and
the
permit
issued
by
the
city
and
the
construction
inspected
by
the
city.
Without
any
issues,
there's
a
high
water
table
and
there's
the
safety
risk
of
doing
anything
differently
than
what's
already
there
next
slide.
Please
the
standards
for
after
the
fact,
variances
requests
are
very
different
than
beforehand,
and
we've
cited
the
law
in
in
ray
statsold
in
our
materials.
T
You
are
to
consider
the
good
faith
of
the
applicant,
of
which
there
can
be
no
doubt
whether
attempts
were
made
to
comply
with
the
ordinance.
As
you
saw,
the
plans
were
submitted
in
compliance
with
the
height
requirements.
Well,
there's
substantial
investment
was
made.
That's
the
next
factor.
Of
course
there
was,
a
house
was
built
whether
the
construction
was
completed.
Of
course,
it
was
whether
there
are
similar
structures
in
the
area.
Absolutely
there
are
many
two-story
homes
on
the
building
street
that
look
very
similar
to
this.
T
Also,
if
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
I
want
to
talk
about
the
establish
and
that's
a
concept
where,
if
a
property
owner
relies
in
good
faith
on
an
act
or
admission
of
the
government
and
changes
their
position
in
reliance,
then
you
can't
have
strict
enforcement
of
the
zoning
power,
and
I
would
submit
to
you
that
when
we,
the
the
plans
were
submitted,
a
permit
was
issued
and
homes
are
inspected.
All
with
no
issues.
T
Lyanna
and
ryan
ryan
relied
on
the
city
to
protect
them
during
that
site
inspection
process
and
that
permit
review
process,
so
things
could
be
fixed
properly
before
they
become
this
particular
issue
and
they
relied
on
the
city
for
that,
and
so
we
think
it's
inequitable
and
improper
to
strictly
enforce
the
zoning
ordinance
over
at
best
a
de
minimis
violation
and
also
maybe
there's
no
admission
or
no
violation
at
all.
And
finally,
in
conclusion,
with
the
next
slide,
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
I'm
sorry
I
went
over.
T
As
you
said,
this
is
a
complicated
matter
requires
a
detailed
consideration,
benefits
that
I
can
see
by
enforce
the
zoning
code
to
require
lowering
of
the
house
by
nine
inches
when
they're
at
all
that
doesn't
serve
any
legitimate
purpose
that
we
can
see,
and
with
that
I
would
ask
that
the
variance
be
granted
and
thank
you
for
for
allowing
me
to
speak
a
little
extra.
I
appreciate
it
very
much
and
so
do
my
clients.
AA
Yes,
chair
goodman:
this
is
ryan
ladine
and
leona
weisblum.
We
are
the
homeowners
and
applicants
for
the
appeal.
We
did
prepare
a
statement,
it's
just
about
seven
minutes
and
we
we
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
that
and
this
is
really
important
to
us.
So.
B
AB
AA
AB
Okay,
we
won't
go
into
the
legal
arguments
because
we
feel
both
have
been
covered
here.
However,
we
wanted
to
start
by
saying
that
we
purchased
our
property
in
january
2019,
with
the
intention
to
renovate
our
the
home
that
we
purchased,
which
was
nearly
100
years
old.
We
were
drawn
to
the
neighborhood
and
we're
excited
about
living
here,
long
term
and
raising
our
family
in
our
new
home.
We're
now
expecting
our
first
child
a
boy
in
march
and
we're
hoping
that,
despite
our
situation,
he
can
grow
up
here.
AB
You
know
the
situation
we
hired
fox
homes
to
renovate
our
home,
and
once
it
was
demolition
began,
we
we
soon
learned
that
the
house
was
not
structurally
sound,
as
was
typical
in
most
situations
when
homeowners
hire
contractors
to
renovate
or
build
a
home
fox
homes
submitted
all
plans
and
permit
applications
to
the
city
throughout
the
construction
process.
Neither
of
us,
ryan
or
I
have
home,
have
home
building
or
construction
experience.
All
permits
and
plans
submitted
by
fox
homes
were
approved
by
the
city
throughout
the
construction
process.
AA
Yes
and
I
believe
that
our
council
went
over
all
the
the
the
practical
difficulties
that
that
are
clearly
there
and
then
the
precedent
set
by
the
minnesota
supreme
court.
So
I'll
try
my
best
here.
To
also
add
to
that.
B
D
I
believe
the
applicant
was
cut
off
with
his
testimony,
so
if
he
can
wrap
up
the
end
portion
of
what
he
was
saying
before
he
was
cut
off
his
his
light
is
still
on,
I
believe,
he's
still
actively
online.
D
B
We'll
try
to
work
out
the
technical
problem
with
the
applicant.
In
the
meantime,
the
order
of
speakers
of
the
members
of
the
public
who
have
patiently
waited
on
the
line
would
be
joel
hunting,
followed
by
mark
becker,
kate,
reedy,
megan
o'hara,
mike
mergens
ian
keys.
That
would
be
the
order
of
the
public
speakers.
We
will
strictly
adhere
to
a
two-minute
timeline
for
each
speaker
and
if
something
has
already
been
said,
I'd
ask
you
to
pass
on
your
time.
Please.
B
X
Great,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
I
will
be
brief.
I
just
want
to
start
by
saying
that
I
have
no
issues
with
the
height
of
the
home
and
there's
no
way
that
I
would
notice
any
differences
if
the
height
of
the
house
was
changed
or
the
floor
area
ratio
was
adjusted.
Hello.
B
Okay,
ms
weisblum,
we
have
decided
that
we
were
going
to
let
all
of
the
people
who
were
signed
up
to
speak,
speak
and
then
pass
you
back
in
because
we
lost
connection
with
you,
so
we're
in
the
middle
of
that
process.
Now,
if
you
were
hearing,
mr
hunting
was
speaking
and
we're
cutting
into
his
time.
So
why
don't
we
let
that
process
play
out
first,
please
thank
you.
X
I
I
will
just
continue
now,
so
I
also
understand
that
the
situation
is
really
due
to
a
mistake
by
a
contractor.
X
It's
not
caused
by
ryan
and
lyanna,
as
has
been
noted,
but
they
are
ultimately
the
ones
that
are
going
to
have
to
bear
most
of
the
burden,
they're,
the
ones
that
are
going
to
have
to
move
out,
move
out
with
their
what
will
be
newborn
in
the
middle
of
a
pandemic
so
that
the
house
can
be
lowered,
eight
inches
and
it's
really
hard
to
see
how
that
would
cause
any
positive
effects
in
the
neighborhood.
X
The
property
itself
is
attractive.
It
fits
in
with
a
lot
of
the
architecture
on
the
block,
and
ultimately
I
see
no,
I
just
see
no
benefit
from
my
perspective
of
making
these
remediations
the
only
the
only
outcome
that
I
see
is
that
it's
going
to
cause
a
tremendous
burden
for
ryan
and
lyanna,
and
it's
also
going
to
cause
a
burden
on
all
of
the
neighborhoods
to
deal
with
all
of
the
construction
and
the
potential
safety
concerns.
Even
that
have
been
that
have
been
raised.
X
Our
neighbors
are
wonderful
people
and
I'm
just
really
frankly,
begging
you
to
not
make
them
go
through
this
extensive
nightmare
that
they're
they're
dealing
with.
Thank
you
for
considering
my
perspective.
I'm
done.
B
B
T
Yeah
you've
already
heard
from
me
I'm
their
representative,
their
legal
representative,
their
attorney
so
I'll.
Let
you
hear
from
the
public.
AC
AC
It
has
that
classic
front
picture
window
right
into
our
living
room
and
all
through
the
construction
process
of
their
home.
We
sat
here
in
our
living
room
and
watched.
The
whole
thing
happen.
AC
I
think
that
this
goes
much
more
beyond
the
fact
that
we
feel
bad
for
them,
as
others
have
alluded
to
the
disruption
of
trying
to
correct
this
error.
That
was
that
that
they,
that
was
none
of
their
doing
is
gonna,
would
have
a
tremendous
impact
on
this
neighborhood.
When
we
moved
here
26
years
ago,
there
were
two
children
on
the
street,
and
now
we
have
14
children
that
live
on
the
sea
street
all
under
the
age
of
10.
AC
I
think,
and
that
doesn't
even
include
side
streets,
ancillary
streets
where
all
the
kids
join
in
with
them.
The
neighbor
immediately
to
the
north
of
ryan
and
lyanna
has
lived
in
the
neighborhood
longer
than
what
jim
and
I
have.
She
is,
I
believe,
93
years
old,
and
why
would
you
put
her
through
this
situation
of
trying
to
lift
us
home
from
foundation
just
to
try
to
correct
this
nine
inch
difference?
AC
I
would
say
that,
with
all
of
the
new
building
in
the
area
that,
if
the
developers
it's
the
developers
and
the
builders
who
should
be
held
accountable
for
these
things
and
that
perhaps
new
regulations
and
things
need
to
be
enacted
so
that
they
know
better
what
has
to
be
done.
But
to
me
to
us,
the
horse
is
out
of
the
barn
at
this
point
and
we
just
need
to
leave
things,
as
is
for
the
neighborhood.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
time.
B
AD
Hi
this
is
megan
o'hara.
Please
proceed.
Okay,
thank
you
for
allowing
us
to
speak
today
on
behalf
of
them.
I
had
a
whole
thing
prepared,
but
don't
want
to
reiterate
everything
that
people
have
already
said,
but
yeah
the
disruption
would
be
immense
to
the
neighborhood.
For
what
would
be,
I
would
call
it
a
perceived
error
versus
an
actual
error.
AD
I
mean
it's,
we
don't
actually
know
if
it's
an
arrow
based
on
what
their
attorney
has
said
and
it
it
just
doesn't
seem
right
to
do
that
when
on
we
have
ryan
and
lyanna
who,
after
denied
through
the
last
process,
have
to
hire
an
attorney.
But
then
we
have
contractors
specifically
the
ones
across
the
street
from
us
who
are
submitting
plans
that
they
know
that
they
don't
plan
on
going
with
that,
they're
going
to
resubmit
plans
later
to
get
variances
and
then
their
variances
are
getting
granted.
AD
No
one
in
the
neighborhood
thinks
that
this
needs
that
we
need
to
correct
this
nine-inch
error,
and
I
would
just
really
hope
that
the
city
that
the
people
on
the
city
council
would
see
that.
But
this
is
not.
This
is
not
someone
who
wants
nine
feet
of
additional
space
to
add
a
monstrosity
to
someone's
land.
This
is
just
a
height
difference
that
you
cannot
see
when
you
look
at
the
other
houses
in
our
neighborhood.
So
thank
you
for
hearing
us
in
the
neighborhood
speak
and
thank
you
and
good
afternoon.
B
AE
Good
afternoon,
michael
mergens,
I'm
with
the
enter
partner
law
firm.
I
am
legal
counsel
to
the
builder.
I
will
be
quite
brief.
I
wanted
to
emphasize
what
came
out
of
the
board
of
adjustments
was
a
was
a
split
vote
and-
and
there
was
clearly
a
lot
of
struggle
with
what
to
do,
and
ultimately
at
least
two
board
of
adjustment
members
who
seem
to
be
in
support
of
the
variants
change
their
vote
after
some
discussions
about
making
sure
that
they
hold
contractors
accountable,
and
so
I
just
want
to
bring
up
two
points.
AE
Number
one
fox
homes
without
question
believed
and
intended
to
at
all
times
comply
with
the
zoning
requirement.
This
is
not
a
a
circumstance
where
they
built
something
and
then
knew
they
were
going
to
beg
for
forgiveness
afterwards.
The
other
thing
I
just
want
to
point
out
is:
there
has
been
a
surveyor
from
the
beginning.
Egan
nowak
was
the
original
surveyor,
and
then
this
project
changed
from
a
remodel
to
a
construction
on
a
new
home
on
an
existing
foundation
and
within
that
conversion
and
russian
timelines.
AE
Certainly
that's
where
this
issue
comes
up,
but
fox
homes,
with
all
effort
and
without
hesitation
did
what
they
believed
at
all
times
was
exactly
what
the
city
asked
of
them
and
at
all
times
en
acted
in
good
faith
to
comply
with
the
zoning
requirements,
and
so
I
I
would
ask
you
to
to
take
those
facts
into
consideration
and
and
really
to
understand.
I
agree
with
what
ryan
lyanna
and
their
counsel
said.
AE
AF
Keiss
I
live
in
the
home
immediately
to
the
south
of
rhinelanders
47-28
york.
I
was
previously
the
board
chair
of
linden
hills,
neighborhood
association,
although
my
contacts
aren't
as
robust
as
they
used
to
be.
I
can
say
for
certain
that
nobody
in
the
neighborhood
has
expressed
to
me
any
issue
or
concern
with
the
home
at
47
24
or
their
variance
request,
and
just
the
opposite.
AF
AF
Ryan
and
leanna
have
been
great
additions
to
the
neighborhood
they've
improved
the
property
greatly.
They
had
a
new
fence,
landscaping
they've
done
many
things
benefiting
the
neighborhood
in
the
city,
just
an
example.
After
the
city
again
failed
the
flower
street
after
most
recent
snowfall,
they
removed
the
snow
and
from
the
street,
so
houses
like
myself
and
our
neighbors
could
park
there
without
an
issue.
AF
I
don't
think
anyone
will
notice
or
benefit
from
their
foundation
being
lowered,
but
I
can
say
for
certain:
it
will
negatively
impact
us
if
they're
forced
to
do
so.
We
have
an
incredible
amount
of
construction
already
in
the
neighborhood,
including
across
the
street,
with
the
three
new
lots
being
constructed
and
if
4724
has
to
undergo
construction.
This
spring
myself,
who
works
from
home
quite
a
bit,
and
my
daughter
who
does
distance
learning
at
lake
harriet
upper
campus,
will
for
sure
be
negatively
impacted.
AF
I
can't
say
enough
about
how
great
of
neighbors
rhinoline
have
been,
how
pleased
them
with
their
home.
I'm
very
hopeful.
This
group
grants
them
the
variance,
and
I
think
it
would
be
fundamentally
unfair
if
the
city
punishes
them
for
a
minor
issue
like
this,
that
they
had
no
part
in
and
potentially
uses
taxpayer
dollars
to
force
any
litigation
that
might
result
from
this.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you
for
your
testimony.
We'll
now
go
back
to
the
applicants,
who
have
two
minutes
left
to
complete
their.
AB
I
think
a
lot
of
the
points
have
already
been
addressed,
but
we
just
want
to
make
it
clear
that
the
burden
on
us
as
homeowners
would
far
outweigh
the
benefit
to
the
city
if
you
required
our
home
to
be
modified.
In
fact,
mr
friends
stated
in
our
most
recent
meeting
to
prepare
for
this
hearing.
That
quote
no
one
benefits
by
there
being
significant
alterations
to
the
home.
He
also
stated
that
it
is
quote
unfortunate
that
you,
the
homeowners,
are
the
ones
most
impacted.
AB
When
you
played
very
little
role,
we
asked
that
you
please
consider
our
situation
and
what
requiring
our
home
to
be
modified
would
mean
for
us,
particularly
as
we
have
prepared
to
welcome
our
first
child
in
just
two
months.
AB
D
AB
AA
B
B
I'll
then
thank
the
clerk
for
that
and
I
am
going
to
close
the
public
hearing.
I
think
there
are
a
number
of
questions
for
staff,
we'll
start
with
councilmember
schrader.
G
Thank
you,
chair
goodman.
I
did
want
to
do.
I
have
a
question
for
the
city
attorney
and
then
maybe
with
some
follow-up
from
staff,
the
the
first
well,
the
big
question
is
really
the
estoppel
question
that
was
brought
up
by
the
applicants
council.
If
you
could
really
address
that
and
then,
if
staff
could
respond
to
that,
afterward.
AG
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
committee
members,
joel
fussy
from
the
city
attorney's
office.
Although
I'm
not
super
well
acquainted
with
the
facts
of
this
particular
case.
I
I
know
that
our
office
has
looked
at
some
of
the
legalities
regarding
the
the
the
stadsvald
case
that
was
cited,
and
also
the
estoppel
aspect
that
was
that
has
been
brought
up.
AG
I
would
just
to
kind
of
summarize
that
say
that
that
stats
hold
case
did
not
establish
a
legal
principle,
that
a
city
must
consider
additional
or
a
different
set
of
factors
when
analyzing
after
the
fact
variance
request
and
that
the
city
does
generally
have
the
right
to
be
as
strict
as
it
wants
with
regard
to
its
analysis
and
that
there's
broad
discretion
to
deny
a
variance,
but
it
does
that
case
that
did
definitely
stand
for
the
proposition
that
the
government
or
the
city
may
consider.
AG
Such
factors
and
consideration
of
those
factors
could
support
a
decision
to
approve
and,
after
the
fact
variance,
and
so
essentially
it's
ultimately
more
of
a
factual
or
equitable
decision
to
be
made
by
the
committee.
The
the
city
could
certainly
choose
to
be
strict
in
the
application
of
the
ordinances
that
and
deny
the
appeal,
and
there
are
legitimate
reasons
I
would
imagine
to
do
that
in
terms
of
establishing
future
precedents
and
things
along
those
lines,
but
the
proposed.
AG
AG
Even
if
the
error
was
upon
directly
upon
the
city
in
terms
of
granting
a
building
permit
or
or
having
a
mistake
along
those
lines
that
the
city
may
still
enforce
the
terms
of
its
ordinance,
and
in
this
case
I
don't
believe
that
the
facts
necessarily
support
that
the
city
was
at
fault
at
all.
It
looks
like
the
contractor
was
at
fault
in
this
case.
So
ultimately
it's
a
it's.
A
mixed,
legal
and
equitable
decision
that
the
committee
has
the.
AG
Fairly
great
determination.
B
Councilmember
schrader
did
you
want?
Mr
did
you
want
stat,
mr
friends,
to
answer
a
question
also
or
no.
G
Z
Schumer's
raider
and
committee
members,
like
mr
fussy
just
mentioned
you
know
in
in
this
situation,
we
have
not
identified
that
any
staff
error
occurred.
Like
I
mentioned
in
my
presentation,
we
are
reliant
on
an
applicant
to
submit
accurate
plans
both
depicting
existing
conditions,
as
well
as
their
proposed
project,
and
the
the
plans
were
reviewed
for
compliance
with
both
the
zoning
code
and
the
building
code,
and
they
were
approved
based
on
the
information
that
was
that
was
submitted.
Z
That
information
turned
out
to
be
inaccurate
due
to
errors
made
by
the
by
the
the
drafts
person
employed
by
the
contractor
and
then
throughout
the
inspections
process.
You
know
a
building
inspector
is
inspecting
for
compliance
with
the
approved
plan
and
with
the
building
code
and
the
you
know,
the
height
of
the
existing
foundation
is
not
something
that
a
building
inspector
is
going
to
be
verifying
as
as
part
of
a
framing
inspection,
so
the
the
inspectors,
the
building
inspectors,
did
not
error.
In
approving
you
know
inspections
on
on
the
home.
Z
You
know
at
the
time
that
the
violation
was
identified
by
the
zoning
inspector.
You
know
a
a
temporary
certificate
of
occupancy
had
been
issued
and
and
the
homeowners
had
moved
into
the
property,
but
the
final
construction
was
by
no
way
by
no
means
approved.
I
was
part
of
a
you
know
that
inspection
was
part
of
the
routine
zoning
inspections
process.
Z
That
happens
during
a
a
new
build
like
this,
and
so
our
our
position
is
is
that
the
city
did
not.
City
staff
did
not
error
in
the
approval
or
inspection
of
this
project.
U
Yeah,
this
is
certainly
a
tough
case
here,
and
I
have
a
lot
of
sympathy
for
the
property
owners
in
this
instance
and
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
what
they're
actually
would
be
doing
to
comply
with
it.
We've
got
a
some
problem
with
the
floor
area
ratio
as
well
as
with
the
height
six
inches
in
height,
doesn't
necessarily
seem
like
a
lot,
but
it
seems
like
the
easiest
thing
to
do
would
be
to
shave
off
something
from
the
roof,
and
that
would
certainly
be
expensive
and
challenging
and
difficult
and
very
onerous.
U
I
I
wish
we
wouldn't
be
issuing
temporary
certificates
of
occupancy
when
we
have
a
problem
that
we
think
is
this
significant
that,
after
the
fact,
we
think
it
needs
such
dramatic
corrections,
I'm
just
wondering:
if
how
would
they
comply
with
the
floor
area
ratio?
Would
they
have
to
then
also
shrink
the
footprint
of
the
house
or
one
of
the
floors?
U
Z
Councilmember,
gordon,
you
know
there
have
been
situations
like
this
in
the
past,
where
there
are
issues
with
floor
area
ratio
caused
by
the
first
floor,
elevation
being
too
high
in
the
past.
Those
issues
have
been
corrected
by
raising
the
home
off
of
the
foundation
and
lowering
the
height
of
the
foundation
through
the
removal
of
one
or
potentially
two
courses
of
block.
Z
Sometimes
they
have
been
corrected
rather
than
through
removing
part
of
the
foundation
through
changing
the
the
the
structure
of
the
of
the
floor,
truss
switching
to
a
a
top
cord
bearing
truss
or
something
similar.
Z
In
this
case,
the
the
potential
alteration
that
the
applicant
has
has
discussed
and
considered
would
involve
lifting
the
home
up
and
completely
removing
the
existing
foundation
and
putting
in
a
new
foundation
at
a
lower
elevation
and
the
the
reason
for
that
is
that
lowering
simply
removing
the
top
of
the
existing
foundation
to
to
lower
the
first
floor
would
result
in
a
basement
with
with
less
headroom
clearance
than
is
required
by
the
building
code
for
a
building
of
this
type.
Now
the
city,
doesn't
you
know
we?
Z
The
city
has
not
had
a
structural
engineer
or
the
building
official.
You
know
evaluate
potential
alternatives
in
detail,
so
it
it
may
be
possible
that
there
could
potentially
be
another
way,
but
that's
the
the
route
to
compliance
that
has
been
discussed
by
the
applicant.
B
I
have
a
question
for
staff.
Also,
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
a
question
for
the
city
attorney
or
mr
friends,
I'm
interested
in
this
argument
that
the
homeowners
and
the
builder
are
just
two
totally
separate,
disinterested
parties
and
that
this
isn't,
like
fox
homes,
came,
tore
down
a
house
built
a
new
spec
home
and
then
sold
it
to
innocent
buyers.
B
These
these
unfortunate
owners
were
working
with
the
builder,
and
so
it
seems
like
the
narrative.
We're
hearing
is
well
were
the
people
who
are
appealing.
We
didn't
do
anything
wrong
when,
in
fact
the
contractor
was
them
and
acting
on
their
behalf,
and
so
they
are
the
same
party.
I'm
wondering
why
they're
not
suing
each
other
and
or
their
applicant
isn't
going
after
the
builder
instead
of
trying
to
make
the
government
look
as
though
we've
done
something
wrong.
When
I
just
heard
you
say
it's
actually
not
our
job
to
come
out
and
determine
the
elevation.
B
That
is
the
job
of
the
builder.
When
we're
not
the
city,
it's
not.
Our
responsibility
is
the
city
to
verify
all
of
the
information
given
to
us
by
builders
at
any
stage.
I
suppose,
unless
it
gets
to
a
point
like
this,
so
could
you
maybe
address
that
assertion
that
these
are
disinterested
third
parties,
these
applicants
and
that
that
this
is
the
an
arm's
length
transaction?
Therefore,
they
shouldn't
have
to
pay
the
cost
of
this
or
bear
the
burden.
I
guess
I
should
say.
Z
Yeah,
chair
goodman,
perhaps
mr
fussy
would
would
want
to
follow
up
on
this.
But
but
that's
that's
correct.
You
know,
so
the
our
ordinance
in
that
in
that
first
finding
does
is
not
specific
to
the
owner
of
the
property.
It
is
anyone
who
has
an
interest
in
the
property,
and
in
this
case
you
know
these
the
contractor
here
fox
homes.
Z
You
know
they
were
the
primary
point
of
contact
on
the
land,
use
applications
and
the
building
permit
applications
for
the
property,
and
they
you
know
those
applications
are
still
open.
Those
applications
did
not
have
final
approval
of
their
inspections.
Z
I
think,
if
you
were
to
follow
the
logic
that
that
the
owner
and
the
and
the
contractor
are
are
completely
separate,
we
would
have
no
way
to
enforce
most
violations
that
that
occur,
and
so
we
certainly
you
know,
do
do
treat
that
finding
to
include
a
contractor-
and
you
know,
agents
of
the
contractor
like
like
a
drafts
person
that
are
employed
by
the
owners.
AG
I
I
would
simply
echo
what
mr
friends
said.
Certainly,
that
is
how
it's
viewed
from
an
enforcement
standpoint,
although
I
would
also
state
that,
along
with
everything
that
can
be
fact
dependent-
and
there
are
spectrums
of-
I
guess-
alignment
with
regard
to
builders
and
owners
and
contractors.
B
And
then
I
guess
I
would
just
ask
you:
I
mean
there
needs
to
be
a
reason
to
grant
a
variance,
and
that
needs
to
be
a
reason-
that's
fairly
prescribed-
and
we
saw
this
in
the
last
issue
in
front
of
us
today,
where
I
made
the
point
that
I
didn't
think
they
had
a
practical
difficulty
in
getting
a
nine
foot
variance
to
move
the
house
closer
to
the
street,
because
there
was
nothing
unique
about
that
and
I'm
not
sure
what
the
unique
circumstances
are
other
than
they
didn't
build
the
building
according
to
height
and
far,
and
now
it's
built.
B
AG
Yes,
madam
chair
and
committee
members,
I
will
say
that
again
I
I
haven't
been
closely
following
this
case
other
than
what's
been
in
front
of
the
public
record.
Today
I
can
say
from
a
legal
perspective
that
the
courts
do
allow
in
these.
After
the
after
the
fact,
variance
requests
do
allow,
but
do
not
require
that
you
know
agencies.
Governmental
agencies
may
take
into
consideration
kind
of
these
equitable.
AG
After
the
fact
clean
hands
types
arguments
they
don't
necessarily
have
to
rule
the
day,
but
they
are,
they
can
be
factors,
and
I
think,
if
you
look
at
the
analysis
that
our
office
has
provided,
I
think,
from
a
legal
perspective,
a
decision
probably
could
be
supportable
coming
down
in
either
fashion.
Today,.
AH
Oh
thank
you,
madam
chair.
Listening
to
ryan
and
lyanne
and
their
story.
It
is
a
tough
situation
to
be
in
considering
that
you
know
my
mother
and
I
just
purchased
a
new
home
and
and
the
contract
and
the
person
you're
contracting
with
is
the
person
that
mostly
represent
to
you
and
then
that
you
do
trust,
but
it
sounds
like
what's
important
here
is
listening
to
the
neighborhood
and
the
residents
that
that
think
how
much
support
they
getting
from
there
and
and
there's
no
issue
or
concerned.
AH
I
think
that
is
one
thing
to
also
consider
that
that
they
are
getting
their
neighbor,
their
neighbors,
they
getting
so
much
support
from
their
neighbors
and
so
on.
And,
yes,
we
are
in
a
tough
time,
and
you
know,
and
having
a
new
baby
and
and
all
the
things
that
are
gone.
It's
a
lot
of
consideration
to
consider
and
listening
to
the
city,
lawyers
and
city
staff.
AH
It
sounds
like
this
case
can
go
either
way.
So
just
wanna,
I'm
leaning
to
more
approving
their
appeal.
L
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
want
to
I'll,
be.
I
will
be
supporting
councilmember
reich's
motion
today.
I
I
this.
This
is
a
heartbreaking
case,
but
it
is
also
a
case
where
you
know
we
have
a
contractor
that
screwed
up,
and
this
is
something
that
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
setting
a
precedent
that
doesn't
matter
where
this
happens
in
the
city
that
contractors
are
going
to
be
held
accountable.