►
From YouTube: March 3, 2022 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
Additional information at:
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
B
Good
afternoon,
everyone
welcome
to
this
live
broadcast
of
our
virtual
meeting
today
march
3rd
2022..
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statute,
section
13d
.021,
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic
for
the
record,
my
name
is
matt
perry
and
I'm
chair
of
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment.
I
will
now
call
this
meeting
to
order
and
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role
so
that
we
may
verify
the
presence
of
quorum.
D
E
F
C
G
D
C
H
G
B
I
B
C
D
B
J
Hello,
chair,
prairie
members
of
the
board.
I
have
a
communication
this
evening,
similar
to
the
february
17th
meeting
the
board
of
adjustment.
We
will
be
canceling
the
march
18th
meeting
of
the
board
of
adjustment.
We
received
no
complete
applications
prior
to
the
notification
deadline.
The
notice
deadline
so
we'll
be
canceling.
That
meeting.
Thank
you.
B
Okay,
thanks
for
that
update,
let's
review
the
agenda.
I'll
read
the
agenda
number
and
the
address
of
the
project
and
state
whether
it's
slated
for
consent,
continuance,
withdraw
return
or
discussion
and
I'll
just
talk
about
what
consent
items
are
and
what
discussion
items
are.
Consent
items
are
items
that
will
be
passed
without
discussion
by
the
board.
We
will
be
adhering
to
the
staff
recommendation
found
on
your
agenda
under
the
items
recommended
motion.
Section
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
signed
to
that
item.
If
you
have
any
questions
following
the
decision,
if
you
disagree
with
the
recommendation,
please
indicate
you'd
like
to
speak
to
against
or
the
item.
When
I
ask
and
we'll
put
it
on
the
discussion
agenda,
so
discussion
items
are
those
that
will
be
the
board,
will
take
public
testimony
deliberate
on
and
make
a
decision
after
the
public.
B
Testimony
has
been
heard
for
each
particular
discussion
item.
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
for
that
agenda.
Item
and
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.
So
let's
look
at
the
recommended
disposition
of
our
land
use.
Request
items
on
today's
agenda
agenda.
Item
number:
five
is
3508
45th
street
east.
B
B
B
B
D
G
D
K
D
B
L
Good
evening,
chair
perry
and
members
of
the
board
plan,
one
three
one,
two
one
is
an
application
for
two
proposed
variances
at
3508,
35th
street
east.
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
construct
a
new
detached
garage
next
slide.
Please,
the
subject
site
is
a
sixteen
thousand
six
hundred
and
ten
square
foot
residential
lot
located
in
the
r1
zoning
district
and
the
corridor.
6
built
form
overlay.
L
L
L
The
proposed
plan
is
to
construct
a
500
square
foot
garage
detached
garage
in
in
front
of
the
line
of
the
existing
house
and
attached
garage.
The
new
garage
would
be
located
within
the
front
yard
just
to
the
east
of
the
existing
attached
garage,
which
would
remain
and
would
be
accessed
via
a
small
expansion
of
the
existing
driveway.
L
The
new
garage
is
proposed
to
be
located
three
feet
from
the
front
property
line
and
with
at
with
10
feet
of
separation
from
the
principal
residential
structure.
As
you
can
see
in
the
bottom
picture,
in
order
to
construct
the
garage
at
this
location,
the
applicant
is
requesting
variances
to
allow
a
detached
garage
to
be
located
in
front
of
a
principal
residential
structure
and
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
from
15
feet
to
3
feet
next
slide.
Please
please.
L
L
Although
staff
found
practical
difficulties,
staff
did
not
find
consistency
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
The
applicant
has
an
existing
attached
garage
which
would
remain
so.
It
is
not
a
reasonable.
It
is
not
necessarily
a
reasonable
use
of
the
property
of
the
lot
to
provide
an
additional
parking
area.
L
L
L
In
conclusion,
although
I
found
the
the
first
and
third
variance
findings
to
be
met
for
both
requests,
because
staff
was
not
able
to
conclude
that
the
second
finding
was
met
for
either
request,
staff
must
recommend
denial
of
the
variance
requests.
This
concludes
my
presentation
and
I
am
available
for
questions.
Thank
you.
N
B
N
M
For
allowing
me
some
time
to
speak
this
afternoon,
as
leah
just
explained,
our
property
is
located
at
the
end
of
a
cul-de-sac.
We
are
adjacent
to
the
46th
street
light
rail
station.
Our
property
is
a
unique
shape
and
we
are
unable
to
get
a
vehicle
into
our
backyard.
Our
property
does
have
an
accessory
dwelling
unit,
which
we
added
back
in
2014,
which
has
increased
our
our
housing
density.
M
We
understand
that
we're
unable
to
get
that
vehicle
into
the
backyard,
because
we
do
not
have
an
alley.
Our
garage
will
serve
the
role
of
safety
and
security
for
our
vehicles,
our
bikes
and
our
belongings,
as
well
as
our
personal
safety,
when
we
get
in
and
out
of
the
car
and
on
and
off
of
our
bikes.
M
Our
garage
will
not
impede
on
the
enjoyment
of
others.
We
are
on
the
last
residential
property
in
the
cul-de-sac
and
all
of
our
neighbors
face
a
different
street.
Our
detached
garage
will
be
constructed
in
the
same
architectural
style
as
our
home,
and
I
have
included
a
contractor's
illustration.
We
also
included
it
in
her
presentation.
M
M
Our
garage
mainly
functions
as
storage
and
a
place
to
secure
bikes,
his
bike,
our
children's
bikes
and
then
also
our
family
vans.
We
do
have
what
I
call
toys.
We
enjoy
gardening
and
landscaping
and,
as
we
invest
in
new
eco-friendly
equipment,
we
do
need
to
make
sure
that
it's
properly
secured
and
our
backyard
is
not
an
option
for
that.
M
M
So
to
reach
that
goal.
It
is
a
partnership
financially
between
ourselves,
we'll
be
paying
for
the
new
detached
garage
and
my
mother-in-law,
who
will
be
paying
for
the
renovations
to
eliminate
our
current
attached
garage
for
safety
reasons.
We
cannot
go
any
longer
without
additional
garage
space
and
safe
parking.
M
We
have
a
relative
who's
staying
with
us
up
in
the
adu,
and
she
has
endured
a
lot
of
safety
issues
and
crime
to
her
vehicle
parked
on
the
street
and
so
having
secure
parking
for
her
will
allow
her
to
continue
to
live
with
us
as
she
does
provide
financially
to
our
household.
Just
as
my
mother-in-law
will,
when
she
moves
in.
M
Like
I
said
step
one
to
reaching
our
goal
of
multi-generational
housing
started
last
fall.
We
did
apply
for
a
building
permit
to
turn
a
portion
of
our
current
attached
garage
into
a
mud
room.
We
made
this
decision
after
speaking
with
leah,
about
the
variance
process
discussing
the
criteria
of
adding
the
detached
garage
and
the
issues
with
our
unique
property.
M
We
cannot
exceed
a
thousand
square
feet
per
city
regulations
when
applying
for
this
variance
and
building
the
new
detached
crash.
It
was
an
easy
decision
to
eliminate
current
garage
space
as
we've
never
actually
used
it
as
garage
space
step.
Two
will
be
of
transitioning
to
multi-generational.
Housing
will
be
to
build
that
detached
garage,
and
in
the
middle
of
this
step
we
have
been
hit
with
some
safety
issues.
M
Sadly,
safety
and
crime
are
daily
concern
and
they
are
adding
stress
to
our
lives
and
my
niece's
life
on
the
surface.
It
appears
to
be
mostly
nuisance
crimes,
but
these
crimes
do
impact
our
stress
levels
and
our
overall
happiness
since
purchasing
our
home.
We
have
taken
on
the
responsibility
to
help
curb
crime
within
our
neighborhood.
We've
installed
a
privacy
fence
for
our
backyard,
and
we
keep
our
gate
locked
at
all
times.
We've
installed
auto,
locking
deadbolts
for
exterior
doors
on
our
house,
and
we've
installed
a
camera
system
to
help
record
criminal
acts
and
document.
M
Even
with
all
these
proactive
steps,
crime
is
happening
daily
at
our
place
and
I've
included
several
videos
to
kind
of
illustrate.
I
think
it's
better.
If
you
get
to
see
it
with
your
own
eyes,
then
hear
about
it
so
feel
free
to
click
on
those
videos
and
watch.
But
in
the
last
year
we've
had
a
bike
stolen
off
of
our
deck.
M
We've
had
a
car
hit
and
run
the
bumper
was
broken
and
parts
of
it
fell
off.
My
niece's
car
was
opened
and
items
were
stolen.
Our
car
doors
are
checked
weekly.
Our
backyard
has
been
entered
multiple
times.
It
is
like.
I
said
it's
unsafe,
to
store
anything
back
there,
because
it
will
not
remain
back
there.
The
license
plates
were
taken
from
my
niece's
vehicle
and
car
windows
have
been
broken.
M
Moving
on
to
step
three,
I
just
wanted
to
introduce
you
to
my
mother-in-law:
she'll
be
retiring
in
18
months,
she's,
a
widow
and
she's,
looking
forward
to
spending
her
time
with
family
and
friends.
She
currently
owns
a
larger
home.
She
raised
eight
children,
but
she
is
eager
to
downsize
the
sale
of
linda's
home
will
finance
the
renovations
and
elimination
of
our
current
attached
garage.
M
The
remaining
space
will
serve
as
secure
storage
for
her.
She
can
store
bikes
tools,
fitment
fitness
equipment
and
seasonal
decorations.
This
space
could
also
be
used
as
an
artist
studio
or
a
workshop
you're,
probably
wondering
why
a
detached
garage
first,
why
not
just
renovate
everything
and
then
build
it,
a
detached
garage
for
the
next
two
years.
The
detached
garage
will
serve
as
safe
parking
and
storage
for
our
niece,
who
sleeps
in
the
ad
adu
unit.
M
At
our
place,
the
detached
garage
will
also
safely
store
our
current
garage
content
during
the
renovation
and
elimination
of
our
attached
garage.
The
detached
garage
allows
us
to
provide
safe
parking
for
our
niece
and
in
return
she
will
continue
to
financially
contribute
to
our
household.
We
need
to
retain
this
financial
support
until
the
renovations
are
completed
and
my
mother-in-law
moves
in
and
takes
over
financially
supporting
our
household
our
house
in
the
2040
plan.
M
Taking
these
steps
not
only
benefits
our
family,
but
I
believe
it
contributes
to
the
vision
of
the
2040
plan
years
down
the
line
when
my
mother-in-law
is
no
longer
able
to
live
with
us,
her
unit
will
easily
shift
to
affordable
housing
for
others.
Her
unit
will
offer
safety
for
the
resident,
as
well
as
safety
for
their
belongings.
They
can
easily
store
a
bike
and
personal
belongings
in
our
renovated
space
and,
most
importantly,
they
can
enjoy
all
the
benefits
of
living
directly.
M
Next
to
the
light
rail,
this
type
of
setup
is
a
fantastic
way
to
increase
population
density
in
minneapolis.
It
also
promotes
a
non-vehicle
lifestyle
and
supporting
housing
that
complements
what
the
light
rail
offers
adds
value
to
the
community.
Having
a
well
thought
out,
plan
that
focuses
on
healthy
living
safety
and
crime
reduction
within
the
community
benefits
everyone.
In
addition,
the
new
detached
garage
roof
is
perfect
for
solar
panels.
Our
current
roofline
does
not
support
having
these
installed.
M
I
just
want
to
leave
you
by
letting
you
know.
We
are
very
passionate
about
this
project.
Over
the
past
few
years,
we've
made
many
we've
had
many
family
discussions
and
spent
hours
brainstorming.
This
project
we've
paid
for
a
residential
land
survey
of
our
property.
We've
spoken
to
leah
on
numerous
occasions
about
our
goals
and
what
this
project
means
to
us,
and
we
do
really
appreciate
her
time.
M
We've
shown
good
faith
effort
in
completing
this
three-step
project
by
getting
a
building
permit
and
starting
the
elimination
of
our
attached
garage
space
by
creating
our
mud
room,
we've
completed
the
variant
paperwork
and
paid
considerable
fees
associated
with
it,
and
this
was
our
choice,
but
it
was
the
use
of
our
vacation
money.
We've
committed
to
seeing
this
project
completed.
Please
help
support
us
and
grant
our
variance.
B
O
I'm
actually
looking
for
some
guidance
and
insight
from
my
fellow
board
members.
The
part
that
I'm
really
stuck
on
is
that
second
variance
where
it
talks
about
the
applicant
has
an
existing
attached
garage
which
would
remain
so.
It
is
not
a
reasonable
use
of
the
lot,
and
so
if
it's
multi-generational
housing
with
the
testimony
and
the
intention
has
been
shared,
it
pretty
much
aligns
with
the
2040
plan.
So
I
guess
I'm
not
sure
how
that
is
considered,
not
reasonable.
So
just
looking
for
feedback
here,
thanks.
L
L
And
while
I
understand
that
there
is
no
other
reasonable
location
for
a
detached
garage,
if
they
had
our,
if
they
didn't
have
any
garage
at
all,
it
would
be
much
easier
and
more
straightforward
to
say
to
recommend
approval
and
to
find
yes
for
that
particular
find
and
and
to
find
that
that
finding
was
met.
But
in
the
case
that
they
already
have
what
the
city
considers
to
be
a
garage,
regardless
of
what
the
future
intention
is
for
that
space.
P
Hi,
yes,
I
appreciate
the
the
question
and
the
concern.
It
feels
like
a
very
similar
case
where
we're
in
between
2040
and
what
is
but
but
also
the
the
goal
is
admirable.
The
generational
housing.
But
I
can
understand
how
it
is
odd,
to
have
essentially
two
garages
on
the
same
lot
and
then
there's
the
adu
designation
versus.
P
P
I'm
not
quite
sure
how
that
would
play
out
in
other
properties
if
it
would,
if
it
would
encourage
other
variances
that
maybe
because
basically
that's
based
on
the
intention
of
the
applicant
and
there's,
I
guess
we
could
tie
it
to
them
having
to
follow
through
with
the
further
application.
But
it's
kind
of
hard
to
sort
of
approve.
B
L
I
think
that
I
don't.
I
don't
think
that
you
can
condition
future
plans
for
the
property.
So
that's
not
really
a
way
in
the
case
of
the
applicant's
intent
to
convert
the
garage
space
as
an
addition
onto
the
existing
adu
or
you
know,
use
it
for
for
livable
area.
I
don't
think
you
can.
Actually
you
could
say.
Oh
we're
going
to
approve
this
detached
garage
on
the
condition
that
this
other
thing
happens.
L
I
don't
think
that's
a
great
condition.
You
could
theoretically
do
that,
but
I
don't
know
that
it's
very
workable.
If,
if
the
board
wants
to
hang
their
hat
on
the
intent
of
the
2040
plan,
I
think
that's
a
more
reasonable,
a
more
reasonable
direction
to
go
in
to
create
a
finding.
That
speaks
to
the
intent
of
the
2040
plan.
G
K
K
C
H
D
I
D
B
Q
Thank
you,
chair,
perry
and
members
of
the
board.
This
item
is
a
request
for
variances
for
construction
of
a
two-story
single-family
dwelling
with
an
attached
garage
and
other
site
improvements
at
34
park
lane.
This
property
is
located
in
the
r1,
multiple
family
district,
the
interior,
one
built
form
overlay
district
and
the
shoreland
overlay
district.
I'm
going
to
go
over
the
specific
variance
requests
in
more
detail
later
on
my
presentation,
but
for
now
we
can
go
on
to
the
next
slide.
Q
This
is
the
existing
or,
I
guess,
previous
conditions
of
the
subject
property.
It
has
a
lot
area
of
just
under
18
000
square
feet.
The
front
of
the
property
is
to
the
east
along
park,
lane,
which
is
the
only
vehicle
access
to
the
property
and
the
rear
of
the
subject.
Property
faces
cedar
lake
to
the
west,
though
the
subject,
property
and
cedar
lake
itself
are
separated
by
a
narrow
stretch
of
park
board
land.
Q
The
subject
property
was
originally
developed,
with
a
single-family
dwelling
in
1941,
along
with
an
attached
garage
and
subsequent
editions.
That
is
the
the
structure
that
you
see
on
the
on
the
survey
here
that
the
garage
for
that
dwelling
was
accessed
from
an
existing
front,
driveway
and
curb
cut
to
park
lane
near
the
southeast
corner
of
the
lot.
However,
I
will
note
that
this
dwelling
was
demolished
in
2021,
and
so
the
property
is
currently
vacant
and
being
prepared
for
redevelopment
while
we're
looking
at
this
slide.
Q
Q
Large
portions
of
the
subject:
property
are
on
steep
slopes,
including
the
essentially
the
entire
footprint
of
that
previous
dwelling,
along
with
much
of
the
yard
spaces
immediately,
south
and
west
of
that
previous
dwelling,
and
also
much
of
the
front
yard
in
the
property,
is
within
40
feet
of
the
top
of
that
steep
slope.
Next
slide,
please.
Q
Q
The
photo
on
the
bottom
is
standing
either
from
the
rear
yard
of
the
subject
property
or
it
might
be
from
that
park
board
land.
But
it's
looking
at
the
backyard
of
the
of
the
subject.
Property
next
slide.
Please
this
is
the
proposed
site
plan
you
can
see
they
are
proposing
to
construct
a
new
single
family
dwelling.
It
would
be
two
stories
plus
a
walk-out
basement
facing
facing
cedar
lake
to
the
west,
and
they
would
also
have
an
attached
side
facing
garage
in
the
front.
Q
Other
aspects
of
their
proposal
include
relocating
the
driveway
and
the
curb
cut
further
north,
some
more
towards
the
center
of
the
front
yard,
and
you
can
see
on
the
north
side
of
the
proposed
driveway,
so
opposite
of
the
garage.
They
would
have
an
additional
paved
area
for
for
more
off-street
parking
and
their
site
plan
includes
other
improvements
like
accessory
structures
like
a
boat
shed
in
the
back
and
some
patio
space
in
the
back
as
well
other
retaining
walls,
fencing
landscaping
in
other
parts
of
the
property.
I
will
mention
from
a
storm
water
perspective.
Q
They
are
proposing
to
install
a
storm
water
system
which
would
collect
runoff
from
the
roof
of
the
dwelling
and
in
the
garage,
the
driveway
in
the
parking
area.
The
runoff
from
these
areas
would
be
carried
to
the
rear
yard
by
a
below-grade
storm
water
system,
which
would
run
on
either
side
of
the
house,
and
I'll
also
mention
that
the
applicants
are
proposing
some
regrading
on
the
site,
in
particular
I'll
call
out.
Q
Q
I
will
also
just
mention
that
it
does
not
appear
that
the
grade
would
be
increased
at
any
point
above
previous
conditions,
including
around
the
retaining
walls,
but
it
is
a
three
to
four
foot
drop
in
the
elevation
of
the
front
yard.
That's
being
proposed
to
talk
about
the
required,
variances
and
and
the
variances
that
are
being
requested
in
this
case,
just
to
go
through
those
quickly
as
previously
described.
Much
of
the
subject.
Property
in
the
surrounding
areas
are
steep
slopes.
Q
A
variance
is
required
for
any
development
on
a
steep
slope
or
within
40
feet
of
the
top
of
a
steep
slope
in
the
shoreline
overlay
district,
including
for
construction
of
new
principle
or
accessory
structures.
There
are
also
two
variances
which
are
being
requested
which
relate
to
the
proposed
off
street
parking
area.
One
is
a
variant,
that's
being
requested
to
the
location
requirements
for
off-street
parking.
The
zoning
code
strictly
prohibits
location
of
an
off-street
parking
area
between
the
principal
building
and
the
front
lot
line
in
a
residential
zoning
district.
Q
So
that's
one
variance,
that's
being
requested.
The
other
parking
area
variants
is
for
a
portion
of
that
off
street
parking
area
which
would
extend
into
the
required
front
yard,
and
in
this
case
the
required
front
yard
is
drawn.
It's
marked
by
a
line
drawn
between
the
fronts
of
the
neighboring
dwellings.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Requests
if
the
members
of
the
board
have
any
particular
questions
about
the
steep
slope,
variants
and
staff
findings
or
staff
analysis
regarding
the
shoreline
findings,
I'm
happy
to
respond
or
go
into
more
detail,
but
in
the
interest
of
time
I
will
focus
on
the
variances
and
the
findings
which
staff
finds
are
not
met
in
this
case.
So
with
that,
could
we
go
to
the
next
slide?
Please.
Q
To
talk
about
the
two,
the
two
parking
area,
variances,
one
for
the
location
requirements
and
the
parking
area
being
between
the
house
and
the
front
line
line,
the
other
being
the
portion
of
the
parking
area
with
the
required
front
yard
staff.
Findings
for
these
two
variances
are
substantially
identical,
so
I'm
going
to
go
through
both
of
them
together
for
the
first
required
finding.
Regarding
practical
difficulties,
staff
finds
that
this
is
not
met.
Q
Q
These
conditions,
these
are
as
the
result
of
design
decisions
made
by
the
applicant
staff,
does
not
find
that
they
are
due
to
conditions
which
are
unique
to
the
property
park.
Lane
does
appear
to
be
slightly
narrower
than
a
typical
low-density
residential
street,
but
on-street
parking
does
appear
to
be
allowed
on
both
sides
of
the
roadway.
I'll
also
note
that
the
proposed
garage
would
be
828
square
feet
with
space
for
three
vehicles
and
I'll
also
mention
that
parking
of
vehicles
is
permitted
on
driveways,
which
lead
to
a
legal
parking
space
like
a
garage.
Q
So
just
summarizing
for
the
practical
difficulty
again,
we
do
not
find
that
there
are
unique
circumstances
of
the
property
which
support
these
requested
variances
relating
to
the
parking
area
and
any
difficulty
in
complying
with
these
requirements
of
the
code
is
due
to
the
applicant's
proposed
use
of
the
property
and
the
number
of
vehicles
that
they're
proposing
to
to
park
here.
I'll
also
just
mention
regarding
the
setback
variants
in
particular.
Q
Even
if
off
street
parking
areas
were
allowed
between
the
house
and
the
front
lot
line,
the
applicant
could
revise
their
plans
to
have
a
smaller
paved
area
for
off-street
parking
between
the
house
and
the
front
lot
line
without
encroaching
into
the
required
front
yard
for
the
second
required
finding
regarding
reasonable
use
and
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
in
the
comprehensive
plan
against
staff
finds
that
this
is
not
met.
The
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
regarding
the
prohibition
of
off-street
parking
areas
in
front
of
a
house.
Q
This
is
intended
to
regulate
the
location
of
off-street
parking
and
the
driveways
and
aisles
that
provide
access
and
maneuvering
space,
and
it's
also
required
to
excuse
me.
It's
intended
to
prevent
an
off-street
parking
area
from
being
the
dominant
feature
of
a
front
yard
and
to
require
such
off
street
parking
areas
to
be
to
the
side
or
the
rear
of
a
dwelling.
Q
The
zoning
code
specifically
recognizes
that
excessive
off-street
parking
for
automobile
automobiles
conflicts
with
the
city's
policies
regarding
transportation,
land
use,
urban
design
and
sustainability
for
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
regarding
required
yards.
These
are
generally
to
provide
for
the
orderly
development
and
use
of
land
to
minimize
conflicts
among
land
uses
to
ensure
the
separation
of
uses.
Q
These
also
play
into
other
topics
like
storm
water
management,
defining
public
and
private
spaces
and
creating
landscape
buffers
for
ground
floor
residential
uses
and
again,
in
this
case,
with
the
required
front
yard
being
determined
by
the
line
drawn
between
the
fronts
of
the
neighboring
houses.
The
intent
is
to
guide
new
development
to
follow
the
broader
development
pattern
of
the
area,
specifically
requiring
new
improvements
to
be
set
back
as
far
or
farther
than
neighboring
dwellings.
Q
Usually,
this
is
more
relevant
for
or
more
apparent,
when
we're
talking
about
like
a
new
structure
or
in
addition
to
the
front
of
an
existing
structure,
but
this
also
applies
for
other
proposed
improvements,
such
as
an
off
street
parking
area.
The
intent
is
to
have
these
new
improvements,
follow
the
broader
development
pattern
of
the
area
and
and
not
be
the
dominant
feature
of
a
front
yard.
Q
These
aspects
of
the
code
are
they're
consistent
with
other
aspects
like
requirements
on
the
total
maximum
size
of
accessory
uses
and
structures
designed
for
parking
vehicles,
requirements
of
the
code
allowing
off
street
parking
as
permitted
obstructions
within
required
side
and
rear
yards,
but
not
permitted
obstructions
within
a
required
front
yard.
As
I
mentioned,
allowing
vehicles
to
be
parked
on
residential
driveways
leading
to
legal
parking
spaces,
but
capping
that
at
two
vehicles
per
unit
per
lot,
except
not
including
vehicles
and
garages.
Q
City-Wide
there's
a
lot
of
aspects
of
the
zoning
ordinance
which
are
intended
to
minimize
the
impacts
of
parking,
particularly
on
front
yards
and
to
incentivize
or
require
parking
to
be
in
the
rear
and
so
staff
finds
that
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
is
not
met.
In
this
case.
For
the
third
required
finding
regarding
essential
character
and
potential
for
injury
to
persons
or
property
staff
finds
that
this
would
not
be
injurious
to
the
use
or
enjoyment
of
property
in
the
vicinity
or
detrimental
to
the
health,
safety
or
welfare.
Q
This
parking
area
it
would
be
sufficiently
separated
from
adjacent
properties
and
the
public
right-of-way,
and
it
would
be
substantially
screened
by
topography,
retaining
walls,
fencing
and
plantings.
However,
staff
does
find
that
these
variances
regarding
the
parking
area
would
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
with
regard
to
off
street
parking
in
the
front
yard.
Q
Having
attached
front
or
side
facing
garages
and
parking
of
vehicles
on
driveways
is
common
in
this
area,
but
having
a
distinct
off
street
parking
area
in
a
front
yard
like
what
is
proposed
here.
This
is
not
common
for
low
density
residential
uses
in
this
specific
neighborhood
or
elsewhere
in
minneapolis,
the
staff
finds
that
this
is
not
met
as
well.
Q
For
the
fourth
variance
request
regarding
maximum
fence
height
and
required
front
yard,
first,
finding
regarding
practical
difficulties,
staff
finds
that
this
is
not
met
again.
The
existing
pre-construction
conditions
of
the
front
yard
is
relatively
flat.
The
site
layout
that's
being
proposed
here
is
designed
on
behalf
of
the
existing
property
owner,
including
substantial
alterations
from
previous
conditions
as
a
result
of
their
design
decisions.
Q
Again,
staff
finds
that,
similarly
for
the
the
two
variances
discussed
previously
regarding
the
parking
garage
or
the
parking
area,
excuse
me
the
the
need
for
this
variance
for
the
fence.
Height
is
created
not
by
circumstances
unique
to
the
property
but
created
by
design
decisions
of
the
applicant,
including
the
relocation
of
the
driveway
and
the
regrading
of
the
site
for
the
second
finding
regarding
reasonable
use
and
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
in
the
comprehensive
plan
staff
finds.
This
is
also
not
met.
Q
This
is
just
one
component
of
the
overall
design
which
would
contribute
to
the
screening
of
the
site
in
the
front
yard.
They
have
other
components
like
the
retaining
walls,
the
plantings
that
are
being
proposed
in
this
area
and
the
overall
regrading
of
the
front
yard
to
lower
its
elevation
below
existing
conditions.
Q
These
all
contribute
to
the
screening
of
the
front
yard,
and
these
would
substantially
limit
views
to
and
from
the
site,
undermining
much
of
the
opportunity
for
natural
surveillance
of
the
area.
Even
though
the
fence
is
just
one
part
of
everything.
That's
contributing
to
this
issue
is
the
one
part
that
would
be
explicitly
out
of
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
So
in
that
sense,
staff
finds
the
spirit
and
attended.
Q
The
ordinance
would
not
be
bad
for
the
third
finding
regarding
essential
character
and
potential
for
injury
to
persons
or
property
staff
finds
that
this
is
met
for
this
variance
request
again,
the
portion
of
defense
requiring
the
variance
is
limited
to
a
relatively
short
portion
across
the
driveway.
Most
of
the
other
fence
would
be
in
compliance
with
the
applicable
maximum
fence
heights
and
this
fence,
including
the
portion
that
requires
the
variance
it
would
still
be
sufficiently
separated
from
the
curb
and
the
roadway
along
park
lane.
So
it's
not
to
create
any
any
sight
line.
Q
Issues
next
slide,
please
in
conclusion,
staff
recommendations
for
the
first
requested
variants
regarding
development
on
a
steep
slope.
Staff
recommends
that
that
is
approved
based
on
the
or
including
the
conditions
listed
in
the
staff
report.
However,
staff
recommendation
is
for
denial
of
the
other
three
variance
requests
due
to
the
findings
which
staff
finds
would
not
be
satisfied.
In
this
case,
there
were
a
number
of
written
public
comments
which
were
received
after
publication
of
the
staff
report.
Q
K
Q
Thank
you,
chair,
perry
and
board
member
sandberg
they're.
The
subject
property
would
be
in
compliance
with
applicable
maximum
lot
coverage
requirements.
There
is
a
maximum
structural
coverage
of
45
and
staff
calculations
had
them
at
about
37.2
percent
proposed
as
far
as
total
impervious
surface
coverage,
including
structures
and
other
things
like
the
driveway
and
patios.
B
R
Absolutely
this
is
john
kirk,
with
raycat
larson
architects.
I'm
joined
by
todd
irvine
the
landscape
architect
on
this
project
appreciate
your
time
today
and
the
help
of
the
city
staff
over
the
last
couple
months.
Developing
this
project
and
getting
here
today
so
alex,
did
a
great
job
explaining
the
steep
slope
issues
that
we
have,
if
you
guys
could
fast
forward
through
the
first
couple,
slides
to
the
steep
slope
page
we're
about
two
minutes
behind
on
the
video
feed.
R
R
The
main
reason
why
we're
locating
this,
where
it
is,
is
to
meet
all
the
other
requirements
of
the
zoning
code
and
also
to
fit
it
in
between
sort
of
the
shadow
you
could
call
it
between
the
neighbor
to
the
north
to
the
neighbor
to
the
south.
So
those
two
lines
that
are
on
the
outside
of
the
house
we're
trying
to
get
this
house
to
live
between
the
two
in
a
way
that
you
know
fits
in
the
neighborhood,
and
this
really
made
us
drop
the
house
a
few
feet
as
alex
described.
R
R
One
other
thing
to
note
is
the
side
loaded
garage
we've
done
that,
so
that
we
don't
end
up
with
the
garage
doors
facing
the
street.
We
think
that's
another
choice,
that's
a
design
choice,
as
alex
mentioned
that
we
made
so
that
it
fits
into
the
neighborhood
context
a
little
bit
better
and
it
is
screened
with
landscaping,
and
that
gave
us
an
opportunity
for
a
turnaround
and
we
call
it
guest
parking
as
well,
but
it
doubles
as
a
turnaround
space.
R
F
R
So
if
we
want
to
meet
all
the
other
requirements
of
the
zoning
code,
the
further
it
goes
towards
the
lake,
the
further
the
floor
plate
has
to
drop
now
at
the
street
level.
That
is
in
fact
it's
higher
than
the
neighboring
properties
you
can
see
by
the
topography
lines.
If
you
have
those
documents
in
front
of
you,
we're
either
at
or
higher
than
the
adjacent
properties,
and
so
we
wanted
to
keep
roof
lines
in
line
with
the
neighbors
and
keep
the
home
essentially
fitting
into
the
neighborhood
context.
It's
it.
R
It
was
very
close
to
the
to
the
street
and
it
was
also
like
two
feet
away
from
the
neighbor,
so
the
previous
home.
It
wasn't
in
compliance
with
current
zoning
code
and
it
didn't
really
fit
into
where
the
other
homes
were
on
the
street.
It
was
extremely
close
to
that.
To
that
front,
front
setback
and
the
street
itself,
so
the
minute
you
start
pushing
this
house
away
to
fit
better
into.
F
F
Right
you
playing
with
the
roof
levels
and
such
so
it
was
really.
I
I
guess
to
me
it
to
me.
It
seems
that's
what
I
really
was
I'm
trying
to
understand.
I,
it
seems
like
there's
a
lot
of
aesthetic
that
goes
into
that
also,
and
not
just
the
engineering
type
of
ideas
that
the
program
could
adjust
in
a
different
manner
right
to
fit
that
condition.
R
F
S
N
Yeah,
I'd
like
to
speak
to
variants
two
and
three
kind
of
as
in
a
in
concert
with
each
other
since
they're
kind
of
related,
and
then
I'll
speak
a
little
bit
about
variance
four.
So,
as
you
know,
variants
two
and
three
relate
to
the
off
street
parking
and
the
encroachment
into
the
front
yard
setback.
N
Our
goal
with
trying
to
get
some
guest
parking
in
the
front
yard
of
the
property
is,
as
you
know,
it's
twofold:
it's
one
to
be
able
to
maneuver
a
car
in
and
out
of
the
on
and
off
the
site,
easily
with
the
side
loaded
garage
so
that
we're
not
looking
at
garage
doors
from
the
street.
This
will
give
us
the
opportunity
to
back
out
of
the
garage
and
pull
out
onto
the
narrow
street
forward,
rather
than
backing
out
into
the
into
traffic,
which
can
be
kind
of
congested.
N
It's
basically
impassable
to
get
another
car
through,
so
we're
trying
to
minimize
that
there's
no
public
sidewalk
along
the
road,
so
pedestrians
are
also
forced
to
walk
into
the
in
the
road
and
with
the
added
congestion
of
guest
parking
backing
cars
out
onto
the
street,
we
thought
from
a
safety
standpoint.
It
was
important
to
to
help
get
some
of
the
some
of
the
guest
vehicles
off
the
road
and
there
are
precedents
in
the
neighborhood.
N
N
N
You
won't
see
the
cars
in
the
front
front
yard,
so
those
are
kind
of
our
main
bullet
points
of
our
argument
for
allowing
the
variants
two
and
three
as
far
as
variance
four
goes,
that
one
relates
to
the
increased
height
for
the
gate
portion
of
the
front
fence
to
be
six
feet
tall,
and
this
is
also
kind
of
an
aesthetic
issue.
In
our
mind,.
N
Like
we
kind
of
miss,
if
we
have
the
four
foot
fence
all
the
way
along
the
front
of
the
property
and
then
the
gate
kind
of
dipping
down
two
feet,
so
we
so
we
thought
aesthetically
based
on
the
architecture
style.
The
house
and
kind
of
the
less
is
more
concept
that
keeping
the
height
of
the
the
fence
and
gate
kind
of
timing
out
with
each
other.
N
All
the
way
across
the
property
would
be
more
aesthetically,
pleasing
and-
and
yes,
if
we,
if
the
driveway
was
not
sloping
down
the
two
feet
to
get
into
the
garage
and
the
home,
the
top
of
the
fence
wouldn't
be
any
different
than
it's.
Basically,
a
four
four
foot
height
on
the
existing
grade,
with
the
exception
that
we're
cutting
down
that
two
feet
to
get
into
the
driveway.
N
N
S
S
As
john
and
todd
just
referenced,
we're
we're
quite
a
bit
behind
on
the
video
and
the
only
thing
I
I
I'm
part
of
I'm
the
builder
in
the
team,
and
I
don't
need
to
say
anything
additionally
to
what
they've
said,
except
that
we
had
some
photographs
that
illustrate
the
congestion
on
the
street
and
narrowness
of
the
street.
And
I
think
that
the
key
thing
that
we're
trying
to
accomplish
is
get
getting
traffic
or
getting
parked
cars
off
the
street,
because
it's
so
difficult
to
get
by
there.
S
B
B
D
S
I
formerly
lived
on
the
street
and
I
can
tell
you
from
personal
experience.
It
is
really
tough,
there's
a
lot
of
events
that
people
have
on
the
street
and
when,
when
there
are
large
gatherings
which
is
fairly
often,
you
know
it's
very,
very
difficult,
but
neighbors
have
to
coordinate
with
each
other
and
agree
on
where
everybody's
going
to
park,
and
one
of
the
big
concerns
is
just
getting
emergency
vehicles
through
there,
particularly
when
there
are
vehicles
parked
on
the
street.
It
can
get
it's
just
extremely
tight.
B
T
Okay,
a
couple
of
things
that
I
want
to
discuss
from
what
john
said
is
that
the
garage
having
it
face,
not
the
street
but
sideways,
would
be
fit
into
the
neighborhood
more.
I
can
think
of
one,
maybe
maybe
two
that
are
that
way.
Otherwise
every
garage
faces
the
street,
so
that
is
a
fallacy
and
as
far
as
maneuver
lowering
the
front
parking
area
that
they're
doing
that,
so
that
roof
lines
are
not
too
high
and
would
match
the
other
homes
and
well.
T
T
As
he
said,
going
closer
as
you
go
closer
to
the
lake,
the
front
has
to
be
lowered.
Well,
I
think
that
was
the
spirit
and
the
intensiveness
is
to
go
as
far
as
they
could
towards
the
lake
with
the
building
and
therefore
they
have
to
lower
in
order
for
this,
as
he
said,
with
foundations
and
such,
and
let's
say
when
also
when
they're
talking
about
difficulties
getting
up
and
down
our
street
we've
lived
here
since
1986.,
so
we're
going
to
be
going
on
40.
I
T
And
yes,
we
have
a
narrow
street,
but
that
is
one
of
the
charms
of
living
on
park
lane
and
getting
you
know.
We
know
all
of
our
neighbors.
We
have
you
know
christmas
parties
together
and
summer
parties
and
we
are
at
least
it
seems
to
be
a
very
congenial
neighborhood
and
that's
part
of
the
openness
and
the
charm
of
parklane.
Now
it's
true
there's
a
lot
of
parked
cars,
but
that's
all
due
to
construction
on
this
street.
T
We
are
basically
going
to
be
having
a
side
wall
now
extending
out
as
a
neighbor,
along
with
a
six-foot,
aluminum
security
fence
and
there's
nothing
that's
going
to
be
securing
this
house
when
it
comes
to
fencing
anybody
can
come
across
the
lake
walk
along
the
lakeshore
which,
as
the
park
board
is
trying
to
do,
is
approved
the
front
and
make
it
more
accessible.
So
security
fencing
is
really
not
going
to
do
anything.
I
don't.
I
I
It
may,
of
course,
pass
regulations
or
not,
but
this
is
all
by
purpose
of
their
design
and
that's
what
creates
the
front
problems
that
they
have
and
the
variance
they're
asking
for
this
is
because
of
their
doing
not
because
of
any
hardship,
and
so
we
we
support
the
city
and
saying
those
variances
should
not
be
passed,
but
we
also
don't
agree
with
the
first
variance
on
the
slope
side.
We
really
believe
that
they
should
design
the
house
to
be
more
up
on
the
bluff,
as
other
houses
are
and
how
the
lakefront's
always
been.
B
H
H
H
I've
heard
today
that
the
architects
wanted
to
build
a
house
and
design
a
house
and
landscape.
A
house
would
be
in
keeping
with
the
neighborhood
and
while
parts
of
the
house
certainly
are,
the
six
foot
fence
is
not,
and
in
fact
burnham
and
parklane
have
a
y
close
to
dean.
Parkway
and
cedar
lake
parkway
see
lake
parkway
and
at
the
y
I
think
when,
when
the
road
becomes
park
lane,
there
are
no
other
houses
on
park.
Lane
that
have
a
fence
and
certainly
brian,
is
entitled
to
have
a
fence.
H
H
So
it
may
be
more
difficult
to
have
a
six
foot
high
fence
and
try
to
keep
people
out
and
be
able
to
what's
going
on
behind
that
fence.
Now
he's
accomplished
this
or
the
architects
have
accomplished
this
by
having
six
feet
just
at
the
driveway,
but
they've
lowered
the
land
behind
or
effectively
created
a
berm.
H
You
know,
you
really
should
say
something.
So
it's
going
to
immediately
just
immediately,
you
know,
be
contiguous
for
their
property,
so
I
wanted
to
voice
that
we.
We
are
looking
forward
to
working
with
brian,
on
trying
to
beautify
the
common
boundary
line
between
our
properties.
We've
talked
about
that,
but
I
wanted
to
weigh
in.
N
H
B
F
F
G
D
G
B
So
what
that
means
is
the
variants
to
build
in
the
shoreline
develop
in
the
shoreline
overlay
district
on
a
steep
slope
is
approved,
but
the
other
three
variance
requests
are
denied
and
you
can
see
staff
about
what
your
options
are
going
forward.
With
that
we've
completed
all
the
items
on
the
agenda
for
this
meeting.
Is
there
anything
else
any
new
business
or
old
business
from
staff.
E
J
Yes,
members
of
the
chairperson
members
of
the
board
they're
the
boards
and
commissions-
will-
I
probably
should
defer
to
the
clerk's
office
on
this,
but
the
boards
and
commissions
will
start
to
come
back,
live
after
council
does,
as
as
I
understand
it,
council
has
still
not
set
a
date
as
to
when
they
will
return.
So
you
know
we'll
give
as
much
notice
as
possible.
J
One
of
the
impacts
is
that
you
know
an
in-person
meeting
versus
a
virtual
meeting
has
a
different
notice,
so
we'll
always
need
to
know
well
in
advance
in
order
to
properly
notice
for
a
meeting
anyway,
so
that
the
public
can
attend
either
virtually
or
in
person,
depending
on
on
how
the
meeting
is
set
up.
So
I
guess
the
you
know.
That
was
the
long
answer.
The
short
answer
is
no.
I
have
no
updates
for
you.