►
From YouTube: January 19, 2023 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
Additional information at:
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
A
C
A
C
B
A
A
Moved
and
seconded
is
there
any
discussion
seeing
none
all
in
favor
of
the
motion
indicate
by
saying
aye
aye
any
against
him
to
keep
saying,
nay
and
that
motion
passes
and
the
agenda
is
approved.
I
believe
all
the
board
members
have
seen
a
copy
of
the
minutes
from
the
January
5th
2023
Zoning
Board
of
adjustment
meetings.
Their
motion
to
approve
so.
C
A
E
A
F
Members
of
the
board,
there
was
an
appeal
of
one
of
the
decisions
of
the
board
of
adjustment
from
the
January
5th
hearing
1338
Logan
Avenue
North.
That
Triplex,
that
that
was
denied
by
the
board
of
adjustment
has
been
appealed
and
will
be
going
to
the
business
inspections,
housing
and
zoning
committee.
I
believe
on
we'll,
say
the
31st
I
believe
January
31st.
So.
A
Okay,
sorry,
questions
of
staff,
none!
Okay!
Thank
you
very
much,
a
reminder
to
applicants
and
others.
If
you're
going
to
speak
at
the
public
hearing,
please
sign
in
on
the
sheet
over
in
the
corner
there.
If
you
haven't
done
so,
please
do
so
on
your
way
out
also
to
applicants
and
others.
Please
contact
staff
after
the
hearing
with
any
questions
regarding
your
projects.
Lastly,
if
you
have
something
like
this,
please
turn
it
off
or
turn
it
on
silent.
So
it's
not
Disturbed
so
as
to
not
disturb
today's
proceedings.
A
A
All
of
our
items
are
discussion
items
so
I'll
just
talk
about
what
discussion
items
are.
These
are
items
for
which
the
board
will
take
public
testimony
deliberate
on
and
make
a
decision
after
public.
Testimony
has
been
heard
for
each
particular
discussion
item
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
for
that
agenda
item
once
I
close
the
public
hearing
aid
hearing
for
that
item,
no
additional
public
testimony
will
be
taken,
but
staff
may
be
asked
to
address
board
questions
after
the
public
hearing.
A
So
let
me
go
through
these.
The
proposed
disposition
of
these
items
agenda
item
number.
Five
is
1811
University
Avenue
Northeast.
This
is
a
discussion
item
agenda
item
number
six
is
1313
Nicolette
Mall.
This
is
a
discussion
item
in
agenda
item
number.
Seven
is
3501
to
35
15
Zenith
Avenue
South,
and
this
is
a
discussion
item.
G
The
applicant
is
Seeking
a
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
height
of
a
fence.
The
subject
site
is
home
to
the
public
safety
building
and
Associated
parking
lot.
The
safety
building
structure
is
located
on
the
parcel
that
is
zoned
C1
to
the
South.
There
are
the
two
residential
structures,
that's
where
the
parking
lot
exists.
G
This
area
is
a
mix
of
residential
and
Community
commercial
uses.
There
is
a
medium
industrial
or
a
medium
multi-family
use
across
the
street
on
University,
the
applicant
constructed
a
new
wrought
iron
fence
and
measure
seven
feet
in
height.
That
extends
from
the
front
corner
on
the
north
side
of
the
structure
to
University
then
runs
down
University
to
the
corner
of
the
corner
parcel
and
it
extends
all
the
way
back
to
the
rear
lot
line.
G
Again,
the
the
red
is
showing
that's
kind
of
hard
to
see
the
red
is
showing
where
the
fence
is
constructed
with
regulating
fence
Heights.
Both
the
zoning
district
and
uses
come
into
play
so
again
with
the
residential
structure
and
use
to
the
north.
There's
a
25
foot
reflective
setback
into
the
C1
property
again,
the
home.
G
So
the
reflective
setback
is
in
place
to
protect
Residential
Properties
from
typically
commercial
uses.
It
could
be
an
industrial
use
as
well.
So
we
have
the
the
structure.
Roughly
here
code
would
say
that
while
C1
doesn't
have
a
required
yard,
they
would
be
able
to
have
a
fence,
but
the
reflective
setback
says
you
can
have
a
fence,
but
it
needs
to
be
that
25
feet
from
the
residential.
G
So
that's
defense,
that's
in
violation
again
the
blue
line
here.
That
would
be
a
fence
that
would
just
comply
with
the
standards
as
a
right,
so
in
issuing
a
variance,
three
findings
are
required.
The
first
is
that
there's
practical
difficulties
unique
to
the
property
again
this.
This
property
is
home
to
the
public
safety
building
which
houses,
police
and
fire,
but
staff
finds
that
the
parcel
itself
never
mind
the
use,
There's,
no
practical
difficulty
in
having
a
taller
fence
in
this
area
as
requested.
G
G
Lastly,
staff
finds
that
the
essential
character
of
the
area
may
be
disrupted.
This
is
a
an
area
with
predominantly
residential
uses.
There
are
some
commercial
uses
if
you'd
go
down
University
in
this
area,
you'd
not
find
any
other
seven
foot
fence
in
the
front
yard,
there's
hardly
any
other
offenses
in
front
yards,
and
here
we
have
some
some
photos
that
demonstrate
the
fence
that
exists
on
site
in
not
meeting
any
of
the
three
variance
findings.
Staff
recommend
this
denial
I'll
be
here
for
questions.
The
applicant
is
also
present.
D
D
G
To
go,
they
were
seeking
to
rezone
the
southern
Parcels
to
commercial.
The
25-foot
reflective
setback
off
the
north
property
would
still
apply
here
when
you're
rezoning
from
residential
to
commercial.
You
need
to
obtain
signatures,
and
the
applicant
was
unable
to
obtain
those
signatures
to
authorize
the
rezoning
application.
H
Chad
lemons
l-e-m-m-o-n-s,
representing
public
safety
building
LLC
my
address
is
2350
Wycliffe
w-y-c-l-I-f-f,
that's
in
St,
Paul
I'm,
actually
with
me,
is
Cheryl
Schmidt
and
officer,
Kevin,
Milner
and
I'm
going
to
let
them
really
explain
the
situation
with
the
property
and
the
reason
why
I
think
we
meet
the
variance
requirements
is
the
use
itself
is
unique.
It
is
the
office
for
the
fire
for
the
saint
for
the
Minneapolis
Fire
Union,
firefighters,
Union
and
the
Minneapolis
Police
Federation
Union.
It
also
serves
as
the
Clinic
mental
health
clinic
for
both
officers
and
firemen.
H
H
It's
a
safety
issue
and
Cheryl's
going
to
explain
now
what
the
what
the
issue
is.
I,
don't
disagree
with
with
Mr
liskus.
What
he's
talking
about
where
the
location
the
fence
are
I
mean
the
facts
are
are
correct,
but
it's
the
we
feel
the
variance
is
necessary
because
it's
the
safety
issue
and
it's
Unique,
because
this
is
the
only
building
that
houses,
both
unions
and
the
mental
health
clinic
for
the
firemen,
fire
persons
and
police
officers.
H
A
H
You
should
know
that,
historically,
there
was
a
four
foot
fence
there
and
that
didn't
protect
the
building,
but
the
amount
of
vandalism
that
occurred
was
minor.
Since
you
know
the
civil
unrest,
the
amount
of
not
just
vandalism
but
alt-right
well,
I'll
tell
you
they
found
they
found
on
mats
off
cocktails
on
top
of
the
roof
of
the
building
there
have
been
damages
to
the
cars
tires
have
been
slashed
this
and
for
that
reason
the
fence,
a
seven
foot
fence,
is
required.
H
There's
a
recent
article
in
the
Minneapolis
Tribune,
which
talked
about
the
Consortium
of
police
departments
and
cities
around
the
metropolitan
area
that
are
banding
together
to
purchase
eight-foot
fences
for
the
purpose
of
protecting
civil
buildings,
including
police
buildings
due
to
potential
unrest
and
eight
foot
is
required.
They
feel
eight
foot
is
necessary
to
protect
the
buildings
and
to
protect
the
people
themselves,
both
the
protesters
and
the
police
to
avoid
incidents.
So
the
fence
in
question
here
is
reasonable,
given
the
use
of
this
building.
I
H
I
I
am
I
was
working
on
that
we
just
were
unable
to
obtain
all
the
signatures
we
came
within
with
about
two
or
three
of
signatures,
but
that's
as
far
as
we
got
and
under
the
ordinance,
if
you
don't
have
the
necessary
signatures,
you
can't
proceed
with
the
rezoning
of
the
property.
Okay,
I
will
say
this,
it's
my
understanding.
I
I
I
G
E
H
H
A
J
J
I
know
there
were
questions
about
the
signatures
and
we
did
we
part
of
the
issue
with
the
signatures.
Is
we
just
didn't
get
the
second
taxpayer
on
it?
We
have
left
messages
with
them
and
then
there
is
paperwork
sitting
with
one
other
person
they
just
haven't,
got
it
notarized.
So
I,
don't
remember
who
asked
that
question.
So
that
was
the
issue
with
the
with
the
signature
piece
of
that
and
another
person
on
that.
He
just
doesn't
want
that
property.
Zone
commercial
he's.
J
He
owns
the
apartment,
the
duplex
across
the
street
and
he's
concerned
about
it,
turning
us
selling
the
bill
or
public
safety
building
selling
the
building
and
then
something
going
there
that
he
doesn't
want,
so
he
wouldn't
sign
it.
He
was
in
support
of
the
fence,
but
wasn't
didn't
want,
doesn't
want
the
property
rezoned
so
that
just
to
address
the
fencing
piece
of
that
or
the
signature
piece
of
that,
I
will
tell
you
prior
to
having
that
taller
fence
on
when
we
had
the
shorter
fence.
We
had
a
lot
of
vandalism.
J
Our
building
was
our
building
and
parking
lot
were
spray
painted.
We
had
during
one
of
the
civil
unrest
before
2020
and
I.
Don't
remember,
it
was
2018.
I
know
that
that
temporary
fencing
was
erected
around
the
building.
We
took
it
down
and
then
the
the
Dan.
The
damages
still
happened.
It
was
an
eight
foot,
temporary
fence
or
seven
foot
temporary
fence
with
the
Jersey
barriers
we
did
during
the
civil
unrest.
J
We
actually
boarded
the
entire
building
and
put
up
more
temporary
fencing
the
same
stuff
that
was
up
on
2018..
During
that
people
cut
holes
in
the
fence
to
gain
access
to
that
parking
lot
again
spray
painted
they
hung
banners
off
of
the
building
got
up
onto
the
roof.
We
did
find
when
we
went
up
there
to
make
sure
that
nothing
was
damaged
up
there,
that
there
were
unignited
Molotov
cocktails
up
there
when
we
went
up
there
with
the
firefighters
to
check
on
the
the
latch
block
on
the
top
of
the
building.
J
Since
we
have
erected
this
fence,
we've
been
trying
to
come
into
compliance
with
the
various
things
that
have
been
told
to
us
that
we
have
to
do,
but
we
have
not
had
any
other
incidences
of
damage
I.
Personally.
Prior
to
the
defense
going
up,
I've
had
to
replace
three
tires
on
my
current
car
and
two
on
my
previous
car,
due
to
debris
being
thrown
in
the
parking
lot
Nails
put
under
our
tires.
Broken
glass,
various
other
objects
being
deposited
in
our
into
our
parking
lot.
K
My
name
is
Dennis
Milner
3101,
Nicollet,
Avenue,
South,
obviously
I'm
a
police
officer
been
doing
this
for
over
20
years
with
the
city
born
in
the
stadium
and
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
here.
The
reason
I
became
police
officer
is
because
I
looked
at
myself
as
being
a
problem.
Solver
and
I
realized
that
we
have
a
problem
right
now.
K
I
inherited
this
problem
somewhat,
because
I
was
elected
to
the
board
within
the
last
two
years
and
I've
looked
I
put
a
significant
amount
of
time
into
the
issue
from
Gathering
signatures
from
residents.
I
had
conversations
with
residents
when
we
were
discussing.
Why
we're
doing
this?
What
the
purpose
was
and
asking
for
their
support
and
I
found
a
lot
of
support
from
people
and,
as
Cheryl
said,
I
had
a
lot
of
people
who
were
willing
to
sign
the
petition
to
get
us
to
our
goal
of
enough
signatures
required
for
rezoning.
K
Besides
the
property
damage
to
the
building
the
vehicles
stuff
thrown
over
I
I,
this
last
fall
I
put
significant
amount
of
time
in
to
beautifying
the
area,
because,
let's
be
honest,
that
building
looked
like
crap
for
the
last
couple
years,
we
had
plywood
over
the
windows
screwed
up,
so
we
you
know
no
light.
Everybody
drives
down
the
university.
All
they're
seen
is
plywood
over
the
windows
and
I'm
sure
wondering
what's
going
on
or
why?
Okay?
Well,
we
took
that
off.
We
we
got
all
that
stuff
cleaned
up.
D
Yeah,
thank
you.
Yes,
sir.
You
mentioned
application
for
rezoning
to
commercial.
As
Mr
liske
explained,
the
offense
would
still
be
required
to
have
a
setback
on
the
University
Avenue
side,
even
with
that
rezoning
to
commercial.
If
that
were
to
occur,
would
would
the
property
be
in
favor
of
doing
that?
Or
would
you
try
to
keep
the
fence
at
the
University
line?
I.
K
Think
we
try
to
keep
it
there,
I
I,
don't
know
and
I
can't
necessarily
say
that
I
can
answer
that
question
right
now
without
having
that
conversation
with
the
rest
of
the
people
on
my
committee.
I
am
definitely
just
looking
for
a
way
to
solve
this
problem
without
us
having
to
spend
twenty
thousand
dollars
to
remove
a
fence.
Sure.
D
One
other
follow-up
question
I
think
Mr
Lemon
mentioned
Mental
Health
Services
applied
there
and
I,
don't
know
if
there's
any
opportunity
for
considering
reasonable
accommodation
for
those
kind
of
services
and
in
granting
a
variance,
but
that's
something
I'd
like
to
explore
with
the
use
and
with
staff.
If,
if
that
is
a
reasonable
question,.
L
Thanks
Jeff
Perry,
thanks
for
your
testimony,
if
I
guess
is
there
another
way
in
the
building,
if
the
fence
was
to
move
out
of
the
front
of
the
building
itself
in
a
line
with
the
edge
that's
Southwest
edge
of
the
building,
is
there
another
way
to
get
in
to
the
building
from
the
parking
lot
or
is
the
way
it's
configured
now
it
looks
like
the
front
door
is
protected
by
the
fence.
The.
L
K
I
Thanks
Jeffery,
so
when
the
city
came
to
you
came
to
you
and
said:
hey,
the
defense
is
out
of
compliance.
What
was
the
thought
of
not
just
moving
it
back
to
that
blue
line?
Is
it
strictly
Financial,
just
because
it's
costly,
it's
going
to
be
costly,
like
you
said,
is
that
essentially
the
driving
Factor
absolutely.
K
A
E
I
I
D
F
Chair
Perry
board
member
Sandberg,
a
reasonable
accommodation
is
outlined
in
the
zoning
code.
It
is
usually
it
is
usually
attached
to
a
protected
class
from
being
able
to
live
where
they
want
to
live
or
being
able
to
use
the
property
in
the
manner
in
which
they
otherwise
would
that
that
is
handled
administratively,
although
we
do
notify
surrounding
neighbors.
It
is
something
we
could
look
at,
but
that
being
said,
usually
it's
around
residential,
like
the
ability
to
live
where
you
want
to
live
or
continue
to
use
that
property.
F
You
would
have
to
find
a
Nexus
from
the
fence
to
that
and
it's
a
little
bit
more
difficult
than
maybe
allowing
the
use
in
and
of
itself
at
that
location.
So
I,
you
know,
I
can't
give
you
unequivocally.
You
know
an
answer
on
that,
but
I
lean
toward
I
don't
know
if
it
would
be
something
that
would
apply.
We
would
have
to
talk
to
both
the
zoning
administrator
and
the
city
attorney's
office
to
see
if
that
would
even
be
something
that
could
be
done.
F
C
D
L
M
A
N
Thank
you,
chair
Perry
members
of
the
board.
This
item
is
a
request
for
variances
related
to
on-premise
signage
for
the
property
at
1333.
Nicollet
Mall
I'll
go
over
the
specific
variance
request
in
a
moment,
but
just
to
provide
with
a
start
with
some
background
on
the
property.
In
the
top
left,
you
can
see
the
the
zoning
map.
This
property
is
in
the
b4s
downtown
service,
zoning
District,
the
transit
20
built
form
overlay
district
and
the
Downtown
parking
overlay
District.
N
This
is
a
corner
lot,
it's
an
irregular
parcel
with
regard
to
its
shape
and
it
has
a
lot
area
of
approximately
6
200
square
feet.
The
address
of
the
property
is
on
Nicollet
Mall
Nicollet
Mall
ends
just
south
of
the
subject,
property
and
actually
turns
into
Nicollet
Avenue
on
the
other
side
of
Grant
Street.
The
subject:
property
is
not
located
in
the
Nicollet
Mall
overlay
District,
that's
further
to
the
north
closer
to
the
downtown
core
and
ends
that
the
Nicollet
Mall
overlay
District
ends
about
two
blocks
north
of
the
subject
property.
N
So
it
doesn't
include
this
property,
even
though
it
has
a
Nicollet
Mall
address
in
the
top
right.
You
can
see
the
previous
conditions
of
the
property,
it
was
a
two-story
restaurant
Ichiban
and
in
the
in
that
building
takes
up
essentially
the
entire
footprint
of
the
property
in
the
bottom
right.
You
can
see
the
existing
conditions.
N
This
is
a
Google
Street
View
image
from
September
of
2022
and
it
is
the
same
building,
but
you
can
see
it's
undergone
a
substantial
remodel
over
the
last
year
or
so
that
includes
the
addition
of
a
partial
third
story.
There
is
a
a
marquee
overhanging,
the
the
front
of
the
front
entrance
to
the
businesses
along
nicklin,
Avenue
and
substantial
alterations
to
the
the
roof
lines
and
the
massing
and
just
the
architectural
character
and
design
of
the
building.
But
it
is
the
same
building.
The
use
is
still
a
restaurant.
N
It's
different
tenants.
Now,
it's
now
two
tenant
Ames
are
Nicola.
Diner
and
Roxy's.
Cabaret
occupy
this,
the
property,
so
here's
another
existing
conditions
photo
and
some
elevation
drawings
provided
by
the
applicant
and
and
some
signed
details
you
can
see
there
are
a
number
of
signs
that
have
been
installed
on
the
property.
These
are
on-premise
signs,
advertising
the
businesses
on
the
that
are
located
at
this
property.
There's
multiple
wall
signs,
projecting
signs,
roof
signs
signs
on
the
Marquee.
N
Most
of
these
are
located
on
the
west
and
south
elevations
of
the
building
and
in
the
bottom
left
you
can
see
the
detail
for
a
shoe,
sculpture
or
statue.
That's
been
installed
above
the
Marquee,
so
above
the
roof
of
of
the
first
story.
A
quick
note
on
that
shoe
sculpture.
This
is
something
that
has
come
up
during
preliminary
discussions
between
staff
and
and
the
applicants
and
their
representatives
that
took
place
largely
during
2022.
N
It
became
clear
that
it
does
incorporate
The,
Branding
of
of
the
business
activity
and
that's
included
in
other
signs,
and
so
that
shoe
statue
in
itself
does
need
to
be
regulated
as
a
sign
for
for
zoning
purposes
to
go
over
the
specific
variance
request
and
I'll
try
to
highlight
where
these
are
located,
identify
where
these
are
located
on
the
property.
The
first
variance
request
is
to
increase
the
total
maximum
sign
area
on
the
west,
primary
building
walls.
N
That's
the
elevation
drawing
in
the
bottom
right
and
that's
an
increase
from
a
maximum
of
285.3
square
feet
to
336.5
square
feet.
There's
another
variance
request
to
the
total
maximum
sign
area.
This
one
is
for
the
South
primary
building
wall.
It
increased
from
148.8
square
feet
of
signage
allowed
to
274.6
square
feet.
N
N
N
Is
that
shoe
sculpture,
which
is
new,
and
then
the
sixth
and
final
variance
request
is
to
the
specific
standards
for
roof
signs,
and
the
zoning
code
sets
a
maximum
vertical
dimension
of
two
feet
per
story
for
a
roof
sign
with
an
overall
cap
of
five
feet.
So
in
this
case
again,
the
that
kind
of
pole
sign
is
existing.
Non-Conforming,
that's
allowed
to
remain
as
such
and
is
not
the
subject
of
this
variance,
but
that
shoe
statue
is,
you
can
see
on
the
the
detail
in
the
bottom
left.
N
N
D
N
Of
for
all
of
the
variances
at
once,
I'll
do
it
for
for
each
finding,
so
for
the
first
finding
regarding
practical
difficulties,
stuff
finds
that
this
is
not
met.
Many
of
these
variances
are
related
to
the
the
size
of
the
building
and
of
the
property,
both
in
terms
of
the
relative
amount
of
signage,
as
well
as
the
the
size
or
the
height
of
individual
signs.
The
subject
property
is
Not
Unusual
in
terms
of
the
size
of
an
individual,
a
commercial
property
in
Minneapolis.
N
The
size
of
the
building
is
partly
based
on
previous
conditions,
but
it's
also
the
result
of
of
alteration
by
the
property
owner,
including
the
addition
of
that
third
story
and
and
the
addition
of
the
Marquee
that
the
shooting
statue
is
located
on.
The
the
architectural
and
aesthetic
design
and
character
of
the
building
and
of
the
property
does
not
create
a
practical
difficulty
in
complying
with
the
code.
N
With
regards
to
the
sign
variances
that
are
being
requested,
the
second
required
finding
regarding
reasonable
use
of
the
property
and
spirit
and
attended
the
ordinance
and
the
comprehensive
plan
staff
also
finds
that
this
is
not
met.
The
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
regarding
on-premise
signage
are
generally
to
limit
the
amount
of
signage,
the
total
amount
of
signage.
So
it
relates
to
the
size
of
the
building
and
of
the
property.
N
The
code
is
also
intended
to
prevent
visual
clutter
due
to
signage
and
to
limits
on-premise
signage
to
the
The
Pedestrian
scale,
the
downtown
zoning
districts,
which
cover
the
entire
downtown
area
of
the
city.
They
do
have
the
largest
sign
area
allowances
in
in
the
Pro.
Excuse
me
in
the
city,
the
only
places
in
the
city
where
more
signage
is
allowed
than
here
are
in
the
Nicollet
Mall
overlay
District,
a
couple
of
blocks
north
or
in
the
downtown
entertainment
area,
which
is
kind
of
a
sub-district.
N
That's
along
a
stretch
of
Hennepin
Avenue
around
the
the
Theater
District.
So
this
property
does
have
a
Nicollet
Mall
address,
but
is
not
located
in
the
Nicola
Mall
overlay
District,
where
it
would
be
allowed
to
have
more
signage
and
overall,
there
are
eight
signs
which
are
proposed,
which
directly
incorporate
the
name
or
branding
of
the
two
businesses
here
and
there's
additional
permanent
signage.
N
This
is
a
variance
regarding
signage.
There
are
two
additional
findings
that
are
specific
to
signage,
so
just
to
go
through
those
quickly,
a
finding
that
the
variance
will
not
significantly
increase
or
lead
to
sign,
clutter
in
the
area
or
result
in
a
sign
that
is
inconsistent
with
the
purpose
of
the
zoning
District
staff
finds
that
this
is
not
met
again.
N
Establishment
and
staff
find
that
these
signs
do
relate
to
that
character.
With
the
exception
of
that,
the
shoe
statue
sign
we've
as
previously
described.
The
maximum
height
of
a
roof
sign
in
that
area
is
two
feet,
and
this
sign
is,
is
over
10
feet
in
in
its
vertical
Dimension.
If
this
sign
were
located
on
another
part
of
the
property,
it
would
be
able
to
be
larger
than
it's
allowed
to
be
in
its
current
location.
For
example,
it's
right
now
it's
located
over
the
first
story.
N
It's
only
allowed
a
maximum
vertical
dimension
of
two
feet.
If
it
was
over
the
Second
Story,
they
could
have
a
vertical
dimension
of
four
feet.
It
was
over
the
third
story.
They
could
have
a
vertical
dimension
of
five
feet:
that's
the
overall
cap,
so
just
based
on
where
it's
located,
it
is
it's
the
most
restrictive
part
of
of
the
building
for
for
for
Rift
science,
so
in
in
that
sense,
staff
finds
that
it
doesn't
relate
to
the
the
size
of
the
building.
N
In
conclusion,
staff
recommendation
is
for
denial
based
on
the
the
findings
that
I
just
went
over
not
being
met.
I
would
note
if
the
board
is
inclined
to
approve
any
of
these
variances
staff
would
recommend
a
condition
of
approval
that
the
applicant
receive
appropriate,
signed
permit
approvals
as
necessary.
There
are
no
public
comments
received
for
this
item.
I
believe
the
applicant
and
their
representatives
are
in
attendance
during
this
hearing.
This
concludes
my
presentation,
but
I'm
available
for
questions.
M
Good
evening,
chair,
Perry
board
members.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
So
for
those
who
don't
know
me,
I'm
Steve,
Port,
director
of
development
services
and
I
work
in
cpanemasa,
the
zoning
administrator,
so
going
back,
I
believe
it
was
in
June
when
the
building
was
being
redone.
There
was
a
number
of.
There
was
actually
a
number
of
issues
with
the
remodeling
of
this
property.
Some
had
to
do
with
water
service,
some
other
issues,
so
I
was
asked
to
come
out
to
the
site.
M
Look
at
the
site
and
we
specifically
talked
about
the
shoe
the
shoe
at
the
time
was
there
was
no,
it
was.
It
was
an
element,
so
it
wasn't
at
the
time
my
understanding,
maybe
there's
miscommunication.
It
wasn't
part
of
a
logo.
It
was
an
artifact,
it
is.
It
is
part
of
the
intended
use
of
the
property
as
one
as
a
diner
and
one
is
for
entertainment.
M
I
did
not.
We've
had
similar
cases
where
we've
had
objects
that
may
relate
in
a
tenuous
way
to
the
costumes
of
the
performers,
but
I
didn't
feel.
It
was
strong
enough
to
say
that
that
shoe
means
that
automatically
you
know
it's
a
burlesque
I
mean
it
could
have
been
a
shoe
store
if
it's
a
shoe
store
and
you're
selling
shoes.
That's
a
much
tighter
connection.
M
That's
my
recollection.
The
applicant
may
have
a
different
one,
but
I
don't
think
there
was
any
ill
will
here.
I
also
think
it
was
the
right
interpretation
at
the
time.
I
did
talk
to
staff
about
it.
They
knew
about
it.
It's
when
the
sign
package
came
in
that
there
was
a
different
determination
made
on
it.
So
that's
if
you
have
more
questions
about.
O
M
Yes,
so
here's
an
example:
if
people
remember
jukebox
Saturday
night
had
a
car
sticking
out
of
the
front
of
it
on
5th
Street.
Does
anybody
remember
that?
Thank
you
at
the
time
that
was
not
considered
the
sign.
We
had
looked
at
it
that
the
verbiage
was
subsequently,
though
it
became
popular.
They
worked
it
into
a
lot
of
advertising
and
branding.
M
M
Think
the
applicants
just
can
speak
to
their
own
use
about
what
they're
trying
to
achieve
at
the
site.
What
the
nature
of
the
business
is,
how
they're
trying
to
differentiate
that
business
from
other
businesses
but
I'll.
Let
them
speak
that.
But
it
is
unusual
and
that's
why
I'm
here
tonight
to
address
it,
because
I
thought
you
might
have
a
question
about
it.
M
D
M
I
would
have
to
defer
to
the
applicant
again.
We
met
out
on
the
site
when
this
was
kind
of
I,
don't
say
it's
theoretical,
but
we
were.
We
were
talking
about
it.
So
I
can't
speak
to
that
I'll.
Let
them
speak
to
that,
but
to
my
knowledge
it
wasn't.
It
was
really.
It
was
to
me
it
was
an
interesting
artifact
on
a
building,
I've
kind
of
given
some
other
examples.
We
had
it
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
M
My
recollection
is
that,
at
the
time
the
planning
manager
made
a
decision.
We
had
the
church
down
on
one
other
corner
and
frankly
we
had
two
hotels.
We
had
the
old
Holiday
Inn.
We
had
the
Hyatt,
they
had
very
specific
rules
for
hotels
that
really
allowed
them
to
do
more
different
types
of
signage,
particularly
at
the
tops
of
the
buildings
for
the
flags
I'm
getting
off
a
field
it.
The
Nicollet
Mall
area,
didn't
go
down
that
far.
A
P
P
Despite
having
a
Nicollet
Mall
address,
it's
not
in
the
zoning
overlay,
so
we
I'll
kind
of
skip
over
that
before
I'm
playing
speech.
It
is
important
to
note,
though,
if
the
overlay
was
extended
that
most,
if
not
all,
items
considered
today
would
be,
would
fall
under
the
zoning
overlays
restrictions
as
I'm
sure
you
can
imagine.
P
Livability
crimes
and
public
safety
issues
have
been
a
major
concern
and
impact
on
our
business
and
they
impact
everything
that
we
do
and,
in
our
experience
the
best
way
to
combat
that
is
by
creating
a
bright
and
vibrant
and
active
space.
And
that
is
why
that
was
in
large
part.
What
drove
us
to
the
design
and
the
direction
that
we
went.
P
Our
business,
specifically
Roxy's
Cabaret
in
its
very
nature,
is
an
outgoing
is
an
outgoing
glamorous
and
glitzy,
and
Our
intention
was
to
design
a
project
that,
without
becoming
cluttered
or
gaudy
or
over
the
top,
it
still
was
glamorous
and
glitzy
and
frankly,
I
feel
like
we
hit
the
mark
without
going
overboard.
Right
I
understand
that
it
seems
absurd
that
a
restaurant
would
need
six
variances
for
their
signage,
be
it
the
matter
of
the
shoe.
P
If
If
a
shoe
is
considered
a
sculpture
and
not
a
sign,
then
three
of
our
variances
instantly
go
away.
I,
while
I
understand
there
is
a
shoot,
so
the
acts
and
roxies
is
two
shoes.
Right
could
maybe
see.
The
I
could
maybe
see
the
the
finding
if
we
had
two
shoes
on
top
of
the
building,
but
we
don't
the
and
to
answer
a
previous
question.
We
don't
use
the
shoe
in
our
marketing
materials
per
se.
We
do
use
the
Roxy's
logo
where
the
x
is
made
into
is
made
out
of
two
stiletto
heels.
P
And
then
yeah
we've
talked
about.
Originally
we
were
told
that
it
would
be
okay,
which
is
why
we
proceeded
I
also
think-
and
it's
noteworthy
that
my
sign
guy
is
here
too.
He
wasn't
able
to
build
the
sign.
He
had
to
hire
an
artist
to
do
it
because
it
is
a
piece
of
art.
It's
something
like
you
would
see
at
the
Walker
right,
it's
frankly,
we
looked
at
the
Walker
and
said:
hold
our
beer
like,
let's
see
what
we
can
do
and
it
was,
the
goal
was
definitely
an
art
installation
versus
a
branding
installation.
P
So
if
I
hope
that
the
committee
agrees
today
that
our
sculpture
is
in
fact
an
art
installation
and
shouldn't
be
considered
signage,
making
three
of
those
three
of
these
variances.
No,
and
if
that
were
the
case,
that
would
put
us
at
44.3
feet
under
the
limit
on
the
front
and
we're
asking
for
a
variance
to
increase
by
30.3
feet
on
the
west
right.
So,
overall,
we're
still
under.
If
you
add
both
sides
right
by
15
feet.
P
Frankly,
we
anticipated
that
would
be
a
pretty
straightforward
request
for
you
and
any
anyone
else
that
looked
at
it,
mostly
because
the
five
buildings
that
are
surrounding
us,
their
signs
are
significantly
higher
than
ours
by
a
hundred
feet
or
more
in
a
lot
of
cases,
Additionally.
The
lowering
the
sides
would
interfere
with
the
architectural
design
of
the
building.
They
would
cover
windows
or
impact
like
an
air
curtain
over
our
patio.
P
On
the
second
floor,
so
they're
at
the
the
height
that
makes
the
building
look
the
best
and
function
the
best,
and
that's
why
I
mean
that's,
why
we
anticipated
it
being
a
pretty
easy,
sell,
I
guess
for
lack
of
a
better
term,
we
haven't
had
any
opposition
or
pushback
didn't
feel
like
the
location
of
these
signs,
looks
great
and
fits
well
with
the
neighborhood.
So
our
final
request
is
that
you
would
support
those
variances
as
well.
I
appreciate
your
time
and
I'm
having
to
answer
any
questions.
L
P
It's
it's
our
instagramable
moment.
You
know
so
on
the
other
side
of
it
is
our
patio,
which
is
15
feet
deep
and
120
feet
long
on
the
second
floor
of
our
restaurant
and
very
often
after
shows
people
go
up
even
in
the
winter
go
out
on
the
patio
and
they
want
a
picture
with
the
shoe.
So
it's
a
they're
they're
not
doing
that
with
our
with
the
Nicola
diner
sign
you
know,
so
it
is
a
very
integral
part
of
what
we're
doing
it's
kind
of
the
wow
factor.
P
P
D
P
Didn't
speak
with
City
staff
directly
I
did
have
conversations
with
Mr
poor,
the
meaning
that
he
referenced.
I
was
there.
We
walked
through
everything
we
walked
through.
The
building.
I
have
I,
guess
I
didn't
point
out
that
we
had
stiletto
heels
in
our
in
our
logo,
but
our
logo
is
everywhere
on
the
building.
So
I
thought
that
if
that
later
finding
out
that
that
was
a
problem,
I
was
quite
surprised.
A
Q
The
we
always
knew
that
we
would
have
to
apply
for
a
variance
for
for
the
two
signs
that
are
above
the
32
foot
limit
at
the
we
started
working
on
finding
out
what
we
can
do
and
what
we
can't
do
and
to
address
Mr
Sandberg.
We
had
many
discussions
with
the
city
about
this,
about
the
shoe
and
with
the
staff
we
were
told
right
up
to
about
October
November,
that
it
would
be
considered
either
an
art
form
or
an
architectural
enhancement.
Q
At
the
last
minute
they,
the
city,
decided
that
it
was
part
of
The
Branding,
because
it
with
the
with
this,
with
Sam's
logo
Roxy,
and
it
is
an
X
and
we
made
up
a
drawing
showing
the
high
heels
and
at
the
last
minute
they
decide.
Well,
let's
go
with
the
heels
because
it
it
tells
a
story.
It
is
not
part
of
their
registered
logo
when
we
did
it
kind
of
at
the
last
moment
and
I
think,
because
we
added
those
shoes
on
the
sides.
Q
That's
when
the
city
decided
Well,
they're,
branding
those
shoes
where
that
wasn't
really
Our
intention
at
all.
So
when
the
the
main
artist
art
piece
went
up,
all
of
a
sudden,
it
looked
like,
we
were
trying
to
tie
those
two
in
which
wasn't
the
intent
at
all
the
it
counting.
The
shoe
as
a
sign
is,
what's
causing
an
awful
lot
of
confusion
with
the
variances.
Q
As
far
as
the
city
was
concerned,
branding,
then
a
lot
of
those
other
variances
came
into
play
and
it
looks
like
we're
after
something
that
shouldn't
be,
but
I
really
think
it'd
be
a
mistake
to
consider
that
artwork
that
we
didn't
make
well
I
had
to
job
it
out
to
someone
else
as
a
sign
I
think
it's
a
I
think
it's
a
very
nice
architectural
enhancement
it.
It
fits
with
the
Cabaret
theme.
Q
A
Q
Q
There
was
times
where
months
went
by
when
I
was
trying
to
get
answers
of
what
can
I
directly
permit
and
what
do
I
have
to
get
variances
for
it
took
me
forever
to
get
to
the
bottom
of
that,
and
that's
what
caused
some
of
that
so
with
crane
rentals
and
other
trades
that
had
to
have
this
stuff
done.
I
was
kind
of
forced
to
do
things
a
little
bit
ahead
of
schedule
and
and,
like
I
said,
we've
been
assigned
business
in
Minneapolis
for
90
years.
Q
We
know
when
we're
bending
the
the
rules
and
we
did
bend
them
there,
but
it
was
just
to
keep
the
project
going.
I
mean
we
can't
hold
up
a
million
dollar
project
waiting
for
that,
especially
when
we
really
kind
of
thought.
We
had
a
good
chance
of
getting
those
two
variances
because
they
were
just
based
on
height,
okay,.
A
Q
A
E
Q
E
Q
H
Q
E
Q
Not
really,
it
was
just
the
art,
the
the
designers
and
The
Architects
always
had
those
signs
on
the
building
right
from
the
get-go.
When
Sam
had
to
go
in
to
get
you
know,
just
a
permit
to
build
the
place.
All
those
signs
were
in
place,
not
by
Sam
or
by
a
sign
company
that
was
all
designed
for
designers
and
Architects,
that
put
those
there.
A
A
D
N
Terry
Perry
members,
the
board-
that
is
the
type
of
question
that
could
be
submitted
as
an
application
for
an
appeal
of
a
decision
of
the
zoning
administrator.
That's
not
the
application
that
that's
been
made.
That's
a
determination
that
the
question
of
whether
it's
art
or
it's
a
sign.
There
is
a
determination
that
was
made
earlier
in
2020
and
then
a
different
determination
that
was
made
later
in
20
or
in
2022.
N
Excuse
me
and
then
later
in
2022
after
the
sign
was
installed,
and
we
saw
how
it
incorporates
The
Branding
and
that
later
determination
was
communicated
by
the
applicants
and
they
did
not
submit
an
appeal
like
that.
That's
something
like
an
appeal
that
that
specifically
wasn't
discussed
with
the
applicants,
but
it
was
because
there
were
other
variances
already
identified,
and,
and
so
we
were
anticipating
variance
application
anyways.
It
was
sort
of
rolled
in
with
the
rest
of
the
variances
and.
A
I
have
another
question
about
the
Nicollet
Mall
District,
so
when
you're,
when
you're
close,
but
not
quite
in
it,
what
has
been
the
past
history
of
granting
variances
I
mean?
Is
there
some
sort
of
you're
close,
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
let
you
go
ahead
and
do
this
or
does
there
have
to
be
a
strict
Red
Line
for
granting
variances
chair.
N
Consideration
of
something
like
this
I
think
it
could
relate
to
some
of
the
other
findings,
for
example,
findings
about
whether
this
meets
the
intent
of
the
code
regarding
signage
downtown
generally
or
on
Nicollet
Mall,
specifically
or
talking
about
the
its
compatibility
with
the
surrounding
area
as
another
example,
there
could
be
ways
to
relate
that
to
those
findings,
but
there
isn't
necessarily
one
hard
and
fast
rule
that
is
said
if
it's
so
far
out
of
the
overlay
District.
This
is
how
we
treat
it
or
anything
like
that.
M
Thanks
chair
Perry,
the
issue
is
that
we've
not
had
a
lot
of
variances
right
around
the
Nicollet
Mall.
What
we
get
is
conditional
use
permits
for
height,
because
the
hotels
down
there
would
change.
Flags
change
go
into
the
hotel,
so
it
was
routine.
You'd
get
CPS
for
the
height
of
the
signs
and
there
might
be
variances
attached
to
the
size
of
the.
M
But
not
we
haven't
had
one
as
relative
to
that
District
in
and
of
itself.
Okay,
because,
frankly,
the
Ichiban
was
kind
of
that
little
thing
at
the
end
there
that
it
it
had
just
not
changed
hands
for
a
very
very
long
time
until
this
substantial
redo
of
the
property
occurred.
So
there's
just
not
a
lot
of
history
on
that.
Okay,.
E
N
N
The
South
elevation,
the
the
signage
that
counts
towards
this,
the
sign
faces
that
are
they
that
are
visible
on
the
south
elevation
drawings
that
includes
the
24-hour
diner
projecting
sign
the
Nicollet
Diner
roof
sign
in
the
background
here,
the
the
shoe
sculpture,
which
does
it
rotates,
and
so
that
contributes
to
what
Mr
Turner
was
was
describing
with
regards
to
accounting
in
in
both
directions.
There
is
a
sign
on
the
side
of
the
Marquee
here
that
it's
a
little
hard
to
make
out,
but
there
is
some
some
business
branding
there.
N
N
N
They
would
still
be
a
bit
over
on
on
the
total
sign
area
on
the
south
elevation
I
think
they
would.
They
would
be
good
on
the
west
side,
but
still
over
by
about
30
square
feet
or
so
to
another
thing
that
Mr
Turner,
said
and
I
can
confirm
that
the
way
we
calculate
sign
area,
if
it's
not
a
square
or
rectangular
sign,
we
we
draw
a
rectangle
around
the
greatest
extent
of
it.
So
you
can
see
the
dimensions
there
for
the
the
shoe,
sculpture
or
nine
foot
two
wide
and
ten
foot
five
tall.
N
E
N
H
N
A
D
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair,
Perry,
I.
Think,
there's
some
unique
characteristics
of
this
property
that
could
be
considered
one
is
the
shape
of
the
building,
which
was
not
really
created
by
the
applicant
I,
think
they
had
to
deal
with
existing
structure
and
add
to
it
and
that
kind
of
affects
the
location
as
well
as
the
height
of
some.
D
Some
of
the
signage
I
think
also
a
unique
characteristic
of
of
the
property
is
that
it's
at
the
end
of
the
Nicollet
Mall
district,
and
as
you
mentioned
it's
it's
close,
it's
not
there,
but
a
lot
of
the
uses
along
the
Nicollet
Mall
are
given
variances
for
signs.
We've
considered
several
in
the
recent
times.
S
E
You
chair,
Perry,
I'll,
just
jump
on
what
Mr
stanberg
said
about
the
location.
I
think
that
there
are
some
practical
difficulties
being
where
it
is
adjacent
to
the
hotels
in
the
area
and
the
parking
structure.
I
think
that
visibility
is
challenging
for
anyone
who
is
unfamiliar
with
downtown
and
the
South
Nicollet
Mall
at
some
point
when
they
get
to
where
the
Westminster
church
is.
A
A
I
L
A
A
N
A
A
D
I
would
move
granting
the
variances
as
applied
for
I
think
we
might
need
some
help
with
findings,
but
I.
Think
the
finding
for
practical
difficulty
is
myself
and
Mr
softly
mentioned,
would
be
what
I
have
in
mind
and
reasonable
use
and
intend
to
the
ordinance,
I
I
think
I
think
it
is
a
reasonable
use.
A
D
D
R
E
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair,
Perry
I
as
much
as
I.
Don't
want
to
deny
all
of
these
variances
outright.
I
am
still
struggling
with
how
to
come
around
the
first
additional
sign
standard.
You
know
Mr
Sandberg,
you
mentioned
it.
It's
adjacent,
I,
I,
agree.
It's
adjacent
for
practical
purposes,
I
think
it's
all
one
in
the
same
district
as
Nicollet
Mall,
but
it
is
a
it
is
a
different
district
and
I'm
struggling
with
that
and
I
guess.
E
What
I'm
trying
to
get
wrapped
get
my
head
around
is
how
we
can
approve
variances
for
the
general
signage.
Without
answering
the
question
of
whether
or
not
the
zoning
administrator
properly
decided,
you
know
the
the
the
sculpture
as
a
as
a
sign
or
as
a
as
a
sculpture
and
I.
Don't
know.
Maybe
I'm
I'm
overthinking
this
it's
hard
to
do
this
on
the
fly
when
you're
trying
to
counter
staff
staff
recommendation.
F
Chairperson
Vice,
chair
softly
I,
guess
I
would
say
the
question
before
that
is
not
the
question
before
you
today.
You
would
need
to
operate
under
the
assumption
that
it
is
signage,
because
that
is
the
current
decision
of
the
zoning
administrator.
That
has
not
been
appealed.
If
it
were
appealed,
it
would
go
before
you
and
then
you
could
deliberate
that.
But
at
this
point
you
know
just
treat
it
as
signage.
F
F
F
You
know
we're
not
making
a
decision
in
terms
of
you
know
whether
it
is
or
not,
but
that
can
certainly
you
know,
color
your
thought
process
in
terms
of
you
know
granting
the
variances
you
know.
Obviously
you
still
need
to
make
the
findings,
but
that
could
be
something
that
you
acknowledge
as
part
of
the
findings
that
you
know,
maybe
it
doesn't
function
as
signage.
Those
are
sorts
of
things
that
you
can
explicitly
say
as
part
of
your
findings,
but
okay,
you
have.
F
E
Motion,
that's
what
I'm,
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
do.
I
guess
is
that
I
I
think
Mr
poor
is
correct
in
that
it.
It's
a
sign.
I!
Think
that
that
creates
problems
then,
with
the
maximum
signage
I,
do
have
a
problem
with
violating
the
maximum
signage
I.
Guess
that's
the
better
way
to
say
to
say
it
I'm,
not
in
favor
of
granting
a
variance
for
exceeding
the
maximum
signage,
but
I
am
in
favor
of
granting
variances.
For
you
know,
the
height
I
am
in
favor
of
granting
variances
for
well
I.
E
C
One
of
the
things
that
we
can
do
here
is
is
both
things
up
or
vote
things
down,
but
we
don't
really
have
the
ability
to
start
I
call
it
flicking,
fly
specks
out
of
pepper
in
terms
of
redesigning
the
whole
thing,
so
I
think
I
don't
want
to
try
to
Destroy
This
by
going
for
perfection
when
the
basic
request
is
sufficiently
good
in
and
of
itself.
So
that's
my
reason
for
supporting
it.
A
L
D
A
A
N
This
item
is
a
request
for
variances
to
reduce
the
minimum
required
front
yard
for
lawful
establishment
of
an
existing
pickleball
court
and
retaining
walls
not
retaining
natural
grade.
These
are
accessory
to
the
single
family
dwelling
at
3501
and
3515
Zenith
Avenue
South,
which
is
in
the
R1
multiple
family,
District,
the
interior,
one
build
formal
relay
district
and
the
Shoreland
overlay
District
some
background
on
on
this
property.
The
subject
property
is
a
single
zoning
lot,
which
consists
of
two
individual
Parcels
which
are
under
common
ownership
and
address
3501
and
3515
Zenith
Avenue
South.
N
Previously
each
parcel
had
been
under
separate
ownership
and
each
had
its
own
single-family
dwelling
is
the
principal
use
and
structure
on
each
property,
and
that's
you
can
see
the
arrangement
in
the
the
photo
on
the
top
right.
This
is
from
back
in
2018
when
there
are
still
individual
houses
on
on
each
of
these
properties.
The
applicant
for
for
these
variances
has
owned
the
3501
parcel
since
I
believe
2014
and
the
applicant
purchased
the
3515
parcel
in
2020
and
had
the
house
on
the
3515
parcel
completely
removed
that
same
year
in
the
in
the
bottom
right.
N
That's
a
portion
of
a
survey
from
it
just
showing
the
previous
conditions
of
that
3515
parcel,
so
that
house
that's
shown
in
the
survey
in
the
bottom
right.
That's
what
we
is
removed
from
the
property
in
in
2020.
The
house
on
the
3501
parcel
does
remain,
and
it
is
now
because
these
properties
have
been
brought
into
common
ownership
and
there's
just
one
house.
N
It's
considered
a
single
zoning
lot
for
the
purposes
of
administering
the
zoning
ordinance,
and
so
after
removing
the
house
on
the
3515
parcel
the
applicant
constructed
a
pickleball
court
and
retaining
walls
not
retaining
natural
grade
on
all
sides
of
the
pickleball
court.
This
court
is
approximately
2
250
square
feet
in
area.
N
The
retaining
walls
in
this
case
have
raised
the
grade
as
much
as
six
feet
at
their
greatest
extents
and
that's
six
feet
above
previous
conditions,
which
were
before
the
old
house
on
the
3515
parcel
was
removed
and
that
six
foot
grade
increases
at
the
at
the
northwest
corner
of
the
retaining
walls.
But
then
there's
been
other
grade
increases
to
lesser
extents,
along
other
portions,
of
the
retaining
walls.
N
This
project
has
also
included
the
installation
of
a
fence
and
an
open
fence
on
all
sides
of
the
core
and,
in
addition
to
vegetative
screening
right
above
the
retaining
walls
and
of
on
on
multiple
sides
of
the
pickleball
court.
This
has
all
been
constructed
generally
in
the
area
where
the
old
house
on
the
3515
parcel
used
to
be
located,
though
the
pickleball
court
and
the
retaining
walls
are
a
bit
closer
to
the
front
property
line,
then
than
the
house
used
to
be.
N
N
But
it
is
the
the
nearest
structure
originally
designed
for
residential
purposes.
It's
currently
the
the
back
in
museum.
So
it's
not
a
residential
use
currently,
but
the
building
was
originally
designed
for
residential
purposes.
So
we
need
to
draw
the
line
there.
This
is
laid
out
in
the
zoning
code
when
we're
determining
the
front
setback
for
for
the
property
in
between,
and
so
you
can
see
the
the
subject.
N
So
if
we
Zoom
back
in
on
on
the
subject
property,
you
can
still
see
that
setback
line
as
it
crosses
more
or
less
across
the
middle
of
the
subject:
property
on
the
north
side
of
the
property.
It's
a
setback
requirement.
It's
a
65.1
feet
back
from
the
front
property
line
on
the
south
side
of
the
property.
It's
a
setback
requirement
of
96.7
feet.
N
The
staff
recommendation
in
this
case
is,
is
also
for
denial.
I'll
go
through
the
the
findings
again
they're
more
or
less
the
same
for
the
pickleball
courts
compared
to
the
retaining
wall
so
address
both
of
those
for
each
finding.
At
the
same
time,
the
first
finding
regarding
practical,
difficult
difficulties.
Excuse
me
a
staff
finds
this
is
not
met.
N
The
subject
property
is,
is
relatively
large,
I
think
it's
over
28
000
square
feet
in
an
area,
and
it
has
a
substantial
amount
of
open
yard
space
remaining
on
the
property
outside
of
required
yards
where
improvements
like
this
accessory
uses
and
structures
could
be
located
without
needing
this
variance.
Also
note
the
previous
dwelling
on
the
3515
parcel
again.
It
was
removed
on
on
the
behalf
of
the
the
property
owner
and
applicant
for
for
this
variance.
N
So
any
feasibility
of
this
location
for
for
constructing
a
pickleball
court
and
rotating
walls
is
the
only
facilitated
through
actions
of
of
the
applicant
and
property
owner
in
this
case,
for
the
second
finding
regarding
reasonable
use
of
the
property
and
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
and
the
comprehensive
plan.
Staff
also
finds
that
this
is
not
met.
N
The
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
regarding
required
yards
generally
to
promote
the
orderly
development
and
use
of
land
to
provide
for
the
separation
of
uses
and
minimize
conflicts
between
uses
is
to
it's
intended
to
align
New,
Uses
and
structures
with
the
existing
development
pattern
of
the
area
to
maintain
visibility
across
the
fronts
of
Residential
Properties,
and
the
code
is
intended
with
accessory
structures
accessory
uses
and
structures
to
be
located
to
the
rear
of
the
principal
use
and
structure
of
the
property
and
to
be
subordinate
in
size
and
location.
To
that
principal
use.
N
In
this
case,
the
pickleball
court
and
the
retaining
walls
have
been
constructed
in
a
very
conspicuous
location
on
the
front
of
the
property.
It's
closer
to
the
street
than
the
remaining
house
on
the
3501
parcel
is
closer
than
the
old
house
and
the
3515
parcel
used
to
be
to
to
the
front
property
line.
This
does
not
follow
the
existing
development
pattern
with
regards
to
locations
of
of
uses
and
structures
on
properties
and
and
staff
finds
that
this
contributes
to
disorderly
development.
N
For
the
purposes
of
of
this
finding,
for
the
retaining
walls
in
particular,
including
the
screening,
that's
been
placed
at
the
top
of
the
retaining
walls.
This
substantially
blocks
views
across
the
property
and
when
you
consider
the
retaining
walls
decreasing
the
the
slope
and
and
they're
holding
up
this
large
Improvement
a
surface
the
court
surface
itself,
it
brings
a
lot
of
that
storm
water
run
out
further
forward
on
the
property
and
reduces
the
amount
of
of
impervious
surface.
N
This
is
all
this
also
relates
to
the
parts
of
the
code.
Regarding
non-conforming
uses,
non-conforming
structures,
non-conforming
Lots,
the
previous
house
on
the
3515
parcel,
was
also
non-conforming
to
the
same
setback
requirements,
but
the
zoning
code
is
structured
so
that
non-conforming
structures
can
be
can
be
retained.
N
In
this
case,
the
applicant
voluntarily
removed
the
house
on
the
3515
parcel
and
effectively
abandoned
those
non-conforming
rights
to
the
front
setback,
so
staff
finds
this
would
not
be
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
the
tent
of
the
ordinance
regarding
bringing
non-conforming
properties
into
into
compliance.
One
other
thing,
I'll
note
in
this
regard
is
that
if
these
variances
were
approved
and
then
the
applicant
were
to
hypothetically,
sell
one
or
both
of
these
properties
and
bring
them
out
of
common
ownership,
the
city
cannot
prevent
the
buying
or
selling
a
property.
N
So
if
they
were
to
sell
one
or
both
of
these,
the
the
pickleball
court
could
no
longer
be
considered
accessory
to
to
the
house
it
would.
It
would
have
to
be
its
own
principal
use,
which
would
require
additional
land
use,
applications
to
lawfully
establish
it
as
its
own
principal
use,
or
they
would
have
to
build
a
new
house
on
the
3515
parcel
that
the
pickleball
court
could
be
accessory
to.
N
This
is
a
hypothetical,
but
just
to
go
through
some
of
the
implications
of
if
these
variances
were
approved,
the
city
would
not
be
able
to
prevent
the
buying
or
selling
of
any
of
these
properties
and
bringing
them
further
out
of
compliance
for
the
third
finding
regarding
essential
character
of
the
locality
and
potential
for
injury
or
detriment
to
persons
or
property
staff
finds
that
this
is
not
met.
The
staff
finds
this
while
it
doesn't
create
potential
for
injury
or
detriment
to
persons
or
property.
It
does
have
potential
to
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality.
N
There
are
some
other
outdoor
recreational
uses
like
the
golf
course
across
the
street
to
the
west
and
Park
Board
Park
Board
uses
in
the
area,
but
having
a
substantial
outdoor
recreation
use
in
a
residential
front
yard
is
not
common
in
this
area
or
elsewhere.
In
the
city,
there
are
some
additional
required
findings
specific
to
the
Shoreland
overlay.
District
staff
finds
that
those
are
met
for
in
in
all
instances.
N
Excuse
me
all
instances
in
this
case,
so
I
can
go
through
those
in
more
detail
if
the
board
is
interested,
but
in
the
interest
of
time
I'll
I'll
conclude
by
again
reiterating
and
staff
recommendation
is
for
denial
based
on
those
three
main
findings
being
found
not
to
be
met.
I
think
there
are
a
total
of
nine
public
comments
which
were
received,
most
of
which
should
have
been
attached
to
the
original
staff
report.
N
I
N
I
They
get
that
Wrecking.
Permit,
yes,
do
they
need
a
follow-up
question,
if
you
would
would
they
need
needed
to
have
gotten
a
permit
to
build
that
exact
same
project
if
they
did
been
within
the
setback?
If
they'd
have
put
it
in
the
further
to
the
east
behind
the
line,
would
they
have
had
to
get
a
permit
for
that.
N
Potentially
not
I
mean
the
biggest
thing
here
that
that
could
require
a
permit
would
be
the
retaining
wall
and
I
think
the
threshold
is
like
a
four
foot
high
retaining
wall
or
greater
requires
a
permit,
but
towards
the
back
of
the
property.
It's
much
flatter
back
there.
So
I,
obviously
can't
speak
for
for
the
applicants
or
or
their
agents
in
terms
of
I
haven't
done
a
comprehensive
design
of
whether
they
would
need
to
alter
the
grade.
I
N
There
is
a
maximum
lot
area
requirement
of
9
000
square
feet
for
a
one
to
three
unit
use
in
the
R1
zoning
District.
If
the
applicants
did
apply
to
to
formally
combine
these
properties
into
a
single
PID,
that
would
not
be
permitted
that
could
not
be
approved
because
of
that
maximum
lot
area
requirement,
but
we
cannot
prevent
the
buying
or
selling
of
properties.
We
can't
prevent
someone
from
buying
two
properties
adjacent
to
each
other
and
basically
using
them
as
one
property
as
because
the
zoning
code
has
this
existing
framework
for
a
zoning
lot.
N
C
A
S
Thank
you.
My
name
is
Charles
Moody
Chuck
Moody
I
live
at
3501,
Zenith
Avenue
South.
First
of
all,
thank
you
all
for
hanging
in
here.
As
long
as
you
have
this
evening
and
I
know
it's
extra
Duty.
So
thank
you.
I'm
just
going
to
go
through
a
few
comments.
If
you
don't
mind,
Minnesota
has
been
home
to
my
to
me,
my
entire
life
and
to
Minneapolis.
Specifically,
it's
been
home
for
the
past
11
years
with
the
last
nine
years
here
being
at
3501,
Zenith
Avenue.
S
We
have
cherished
this
Zenith
neighborhood
and
we've
created
meaningful
and
wonderful
friendships.
In
January
of
2019,
the
neighboring
property
at
3515
was
sold
to
a
developer
without
the
property
going
on
the
market.
The
developer
spent
the
next
year
planning
for
the
Redevelopment
of
the
property,
with
the
intent
to
build
a
Triplex
under
the
newly
permitted
City
Residential
guidelines.
S
S
In
addition,
our
plan
was
to
install
a
sport
court
that
would
be
the
pickleball
court
as
well
as
potentially
basketball.
We
believe
the
best
location
for
this
court
was
where
the
existing
home
resided
and
building
into
the
hill,
where
the
home
was
made
the
most
sense
and
in
our
opinion,
the
natural
flow
was
greatly
improved,
not
hindered
because
of
the
sizable
increase
in
Green
Space,
as
well
as
because
of
the
elimination
of
a
house
foundation.
S
Redirecting
the
water
flow
as
the
owner
of
the
home
I
am
the
one
who
is
ultimately
responsible
in
making
sure
proper
permits
and
approvals
are
performed.
However,
I
can
honestly
say
that
both
the
landscape
general
contractor,
as
well
as
the
sport
court
subcontractor,
indicated
that
no
permits
were
needed
as
long
as
we
stayed
within
the
setbacks.
S
Both
of
these
groups
have
been
in
business
for
more
than
25
years
and
are
highly
regarded
and
Professionals
in
their
trades.
I
would
like
to
respond
to
the
staff
report
without
taking
up
too
much
more
of
your
time.
In
the
staff
analysis
part,
one
practical
difficulties
exist
in
complying
with
the
ordinance
because
of
unique
circumstances.
S
Staff
indicates
that
they
do
not
find
the
Practical
difficulties
exist.
I
do
believe
myself
that
a
16
foot,
elevation
change
from
the
back
of
the
lot
to
the
to
the
street
is
a
significant
and
practical
difficulty
to
contend
with.
That
was
certainly
the
reason
why
and
the
rationale
as
to
why
the
previous
home
at
3515
was
designed
and
constructed
as
a
reverse
walkout
layout
for
the
home,
a
design
layout
that
is
highly
unusual
and
in
this
market
a
much
more
typical
in
a
mountain
or
Hillside
type.
S
These
homes
were
not
aligned
with
the
staff's
calculation,
a
setback
as
it
was
a
significant
impact,
then
on
the
buildable
space
of
those
particular
Lots
and
then
to
draw
a
line
all
the
way
down
to
the
back
and
where
the
line
traverses
two
other
Lots
in
between
is
simply
not
fair.
In
my
opinion,
respectfully
I
do
not
agree
with
the
fairness
of
this
approach.
I
believe
the
staff
setback
calculation
is
Harsh
and
penalizes
properties
within
a
winding
road
like
ours.
Our
neighborhood
area
does
not
compare
to
the
standard
straight-line
city
blocks.
S
I
do
agree
that
a
sliver
of
the
northeast
corner
of
the
Court
does
cross
into
the
20-foot
setback.
This
is
no
more
than
10
square
feet
of
Curt
Court
surface
that
crosses
into
the
setback
given
the
angle
of
the
court,
and
there
is
no
structure
or
impediment
above
the
ground
of
the
Court.
It
is
just
open
air
in
part.
Two.
It's
noted
that
the
property
owner
proposes
to
use
the
property
in
a
reasonable
manner
that
will
be
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
and
comprehensive
plan.
S
S
We
have
significantly
improved
the
sight
lines
and
minimize
the
obstructions
by
removing
a
nearly
30
foot
high
home
structure,
and
now
we
are
left
with
a
four
foot
stone
wall
with
five
foot
high
Evergreens
in
the
front
that
are
highly
consistent
and
prevalent
in
this
neighborhood
I
believe
our
execution
is
more
than
reasonable
and
in
keeping
with
the
neighborhood
large
and
significant
landscape
walls
are
prominent
in
our
neighborhood.
Given
the
topography,
just
look
at
the
Bakken
photos
that
are
in
the
package
that
shows
a
sizable
stone
wall
around
the
entire
property.
S
But
what
is
even
more
unreasonable
to
note
is
that
our
stone
is
obstructing
the
water
flow
to
the
contrary.
First,
we
have
planted
significant
sod
and
green
space
that
absorbs
most
of
the
water,
and
second,
any
flow
of
that
is
not
that
is
not
absorbed,
simply
flows
over
the
stone.
There
is
nothing
that
blocks
it.
It's
similar
to
that
painting
right
there
of
the
river,
where
the
water
is
Flowing
just
over
the
stone.
S
So
to
think
that
the
activity
of
the
Court
does
not
fit
or
is
unreasonable
to
me
does
not
carry
and
in
part
three.
The
staff
analysis
notes
that
the
PO
there's
a
potential
that
there
will
all
that
this
will
alter
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
I,
don't
believe,
all
eight
immediate
neighbors
would
send
letters
of
support
for
variants
if
they
believe
that
this
somehow
was
altering
the
essential
character
of
our
neighborhood.
S
As
noted
in
the
report,
all
standards
of
Shoreline
District
are
met
and
the
variances
will
not
be
injurious
to
the
health,
safety
and
Welfare
of
the
general
public
or
the
residents
of
the
surrounding
area.
To
summarize,
I
do
not
believe
the
staff
report
has
been
fair
and
reasonable
with
their
interpretations.
I
firmly
believe
we
have
met
the
criteria
for
a
variance.
S
Within
the
last
year
we
have
endured
a
break-in
to
our
home,
which
resulted
in
our
car
being
stolen.
We
survived
a
shooting
between
the
parties
to
the
immediate
east
of
our
property,
where
one
of
the
guns
was
left
in
our
driveway
and
then
a
couple
days
later,
a
stabbing
four
houses
down
along
the
lake
occurred
resulting
in
a
killing.
S
S
For
for
a
couple
reasons,
number
one-
we
were
trying
to
make
this
as
far
away
from
the
houses
as
possible.
That
location
clearly
is
the
furthest
location
to
be
able
to
put
an
activity
like
this
that
doesn't
disrupt
or
come
in
contact
with
any
of
the
neighboring
homes
and
is
in
the
packet.
It
shows
that
this
is
by
far
the
furthest
point
from
that.
S
S
T
Good
evening
Council,
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak
tonight.
My
name
is
Berkeley
Carter
I
live
at
3445
cniff
directly
next
to
Chuck's
house
here,
I
just
wanted
to
know
in
2016
the
same
front
yard
setback
we
were
renovating
our
house
same
front
yard
setback
came
into
an
issue
with
us,
as
we
were
building
up
over
an
existing
garage,
the
curvature
of
that
street
and
drawing
a
straight
line
for
my
two
neighbors
enacted,
this
ordinance
and
so
coming
in
front
of
the
city.
T
You
guys
were
very
receptive
to
kind
of
what
was
going
on
with
that
street
and
the
unique
nature
of
that.
The
ordinance
clearly
would
make
sense
on
a
grid
layout,
which
is
probably
90
of
the
homes
in
Minneapolis,
but
on
a
street
like
this,
it
just
really
didn't
fit.
The
variance
was
approved
in
my
case
in
2016
and
just
wanted
to
be
here,
and
you
know,
neighborly
support
for
what
Chuck's
doing
I
think
he's.
You
know
created
a
very
beautiful
space
case.
It's
uplifted
with
landscape
lighting.
T
R
Thank
you,
chairman
Perry,
and
the
rest
of
the
board.
My
name
is
Michelle
engstrand
I
live
at
3434,
Zenith
Avenue,
South
I
live
kitty
corner
to
Chuck
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
street.
Honestly,
we
welcome
my
husband
and
I
and
the
rest
of
her
family.
Welcome
the
change
that
Mr
Moody
Chuck
has
done
to
3515.
The
house
that
was
existing
on
that
structure
was
an
eyesore.
It
was
not
maintained
or
well
cared
for
at
all.
A
U
So
what
what
I'm
a
little
bit
stuck
on
is,
even
though
the
pickleball
court
is
only
going
to
be
used
a
couple
times
a
year,
it's
not
going
to
be
around.
We
have
winter
for
so
long,
but
it
is
the
rest
of
it
how,
despite
noise
and
everything
going
around
around
it,
what
does
that
look
like?
So
it's
three
that
I
am
inclined
to
agree
with
staff
findings,
but
not
for
practical
difficulties.