►
From YouTube: January 5, 2023 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
Additional information at:
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
Good
afternoon,
everyone,
this
is
the
first
meeting
of
the
2023
Zoning
Board
of
adjustment
for
the
City
of
Minneapolis.
My
name
is
Jacob
softly
I'm.
The
vice
chair
of
this
board
I'll
be
presiding
over
the
meeting.
In
the
absence
of
the
chair,
Matt
Perry
I
call
this
meeting
to
order
and
I
asked
the
city
clerk
to
take
a
roll
call.
C
D
A
A
A
The
applicant
has
requested
a
continuance
I'd
like
to
move
that
into
the
position
of
the
first
position
on
the
agenda.
We'll
call
that
number
five
and
item
number
nine
I'd
like
to
call
that
item
number.
Six
staff
is
advice
that
there's
a
need
for
expediency
in
determining
this
item.
Before
the
rest,
the
subsequent
items
will
be
renumbered
moving
from
eight
until
the
end.
A
A
B
If
I
may
Vice
chair
softly,
the
the
chair
can
take
up
items
in
whatever
number
they
so
seas.
Oh,
you
know,
with
the
approval
of
the
board
so
and
I
think
that's
what
you're
trying
to
do,
but
if
in
case
that
clarifies
things
for
the
board
in
general
that
we're
just
saying
you're,
just
saying,
if
I'm
understanding
you
correctly,
that
you
want
to
take
things
slightly
out
of
order
out
of
the
printed
order,
I.
A
D
A
A
C
F
B
G
We
are
still
currently
in
the
process
of
the
the
new
appointments
they'll
be
going
to
the
city
planning
or
the
City
Planning
Commission
committee,
the
whole
a
week
from
today
on
Thursday,
as
that
cycle
goes
through
at
the
current
rate,
it
probably
will
be
seated
for
the
March
2nd
meeting.
Theoretically,
it
could
be
done
by
February
16th,
but
we're
not
sure
at
this
time.
So.
A
Okay
and
before
we
begin
on
the
action
items
for
today,
I
want
to
give
a
short
reminder
to
applicants
and
everyone
else
in
the
room
that,
if
you're
going
to
be
that
this
is
a
public
hearing,
if
you're
going
to
be
speaking
at
the
lectern,
please
make
sure
to
speak
clearly
in
the
microphone.
Please
speak
one
at
a
time.
We
need
to
ensure
that
only
one
person
is
up
there
speaking
giving
testimony
at
once.
A
Please
sign
in
on
the
sheet
on
that
small
table
to
my
right
towards
the
back
of
the
room
by
the
door
and
if
you've
not
signed
in
you
can
do
so
on
your
way
out
of
the
out
of
the
room
and
that's
if
you're
speaking
today
for
applicants
and
others.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
the
application
or
what
has
transpired
here
at
the
meeting
today,
you
can
speak
with
the
staff
member
assigned
to
your
project
for
more
information
after
the
meeting
is
concluded
or
after
your
agenda
item
has
been
heard.
A
Oh
I'm,
sorry
first
I'll
describe
the
three
basic
types
of
actions
we'll
have.
Today
we
have
some
items
on
the
consent
agenda.
These
are
items
that
are
going
to
be
passed
by
the
board
without
discussion,
we'll
be
hearing
adhering
to
the
staff
recommendation,
which
is
in
the
staff
report
found
out
of
the
agenda
items
recommended
motions
section.
Any
applicable
conditions
will
be
listed
in
the
same
section
if
you
agree
with
the
recommendations,
including
any
applicable
conditions,
you
don't
need
to
do
anything
here
today.
The
and
the
board
will
pass
it
as
recommended.
A
After
an
item
is
passed
on,
consent,
you're,
free
to
leave
the
chambers.
You
don't
have
to
stay
for
the
remainder
of
the
meeting,
please
check
in
with
the
staff
member.
If
you
have
questions,
if
you
disagree
with
the
recommendation
in
the
staff
report-
and
you
want
the
item
to
be
considered
in
that
case,
I,
ask
that
you
remove
the
item
from
the
consent
agenda
and
we'll
put
that
item
on
the
discussion.
Agenda.
A
Continuances
and
withdrawals
are
another
form
of
approval
that
could
come
from
this
meeting.
These
items
will
be
held
over
for
a
future
meeting
of
the
zoning
Board
of
adjustment
or
if
the
application
is
withdrawn
on
the
request
of
the
applicant,
if
it's
continued
I'll
be
stating
in
the
date
upon
which
that
item
will
be
continued
to
so
that
you
know
the
next
time
that
it
comes
to
a
public
hearing
and
then
discussion
items
again.
If
you
read
the
agenda,
you'll
see,
we
have
a
number
of
discussion
items
tonight.
A
These
are
those
that
the
board
will
take
public
testimony
on
and
to
liberate
upon
make
a
decision
here
this
afternoon
after
the
public
testimony
has
been
heard
for
each
particular
discussion
item
I'll,
close
the
public
hearing
and
once
I
close
the
public
hearing.
There
will
be
no
additional
public
testimony,
though
staff
may
be
asked
to
come
up
and
answer
questions
or
concerns
that
the
board
may
have
about
the
testimony.
That's
been
provided
after
the
public
hearing
for
an
item
is
closed.
A
A
A
This
had
been
marked
as
a
discussion
item,
but
the
applicant
has
indicated
they'd
like
to
continue
this
item.
Staff
I.
Believe
that's
one
cycle
is
that
correct
agenda
item
number
eight
2946
Taylor
Street
Northeast.
This
is
a
discussion.
Item
agenda
item
number
9,
1338
Logan,
Avenue
North.
This
is
a
discussion.
Item
agenda
item
number
10,
4121,
Sheridan,
Avenue
South.
This
is
a
discussion
item
that
leaves
us
with
two
items
for
consent.
A
B
A
A
C
A
Item
number
seven
1811
University
Avenue
the
applicant
just
prior
to
the
meeting-
requested
that
this
item
be
continued
for
one
cycle.
I
understand
that
some
people
may
have
made
the
trip
down
to
give
public
testimony
on
this
item,
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
at
4
444
for
the
discussion
on
item
seven.
If
anyone
has
come
up
and
would
like
to
speak
in
favor
or
against
this
application,
please
do
so.
A
I
Thank
you
board
member.
The
applicant
realized
what
would
be
required
for
bringing
the
offense
into
compliance
and
thought
his
clients
would
be
amenable
to
making
that
change.
He
requested
the
continuance
to
bring
it
to
them
if
they're
amenable
to
that
he'll
withdraw
if
they
are
not
it'll,
be
on
the
next
board
meeting.
Thank.
H
A
H
A
I
I
I
B
I
I
The
north
end
of
this
block
is
low
density,
residential
As.
You
move
down
Logan
towards
Plymouth,
there's
a
larger
multi-family
dwelling.
Most
of
the
area
here
follows
the
traditional
grid
pattern.
As,
you
move
closer
to
Plymouth
Avenue.
The
grid
pattern
shifts
from
the
traditional
Logan
plating
to
off
of
Plymouth.
I
I
First
variant
specifically
is
to
go
from
a
maximum
permitted
variance
or
a
maximum
permitted
floor
area
ratio
of
0.7,
and
this
is
based
on
the
affordable
housing
floor
area
premiums
in
chapter
552-230.
That
allows
for
an
additional
tenth
of
far
per
dwelling
unit
meeting
that
affordability
after
the
first.
So
if
one
was
to
build
a
Triplex
here
without
that
affordability
component,
they
would
be
limited
to
0.5
far
because
of
that
affordability.
The
base
far
is
0.7.
I
I
I
I
I
The
next
variance
is
for
the
height
and
again,
staff
is
unable
to
find
any
practical
difficulty
associated
with
this
lot.
There's
not
an
unusual
change
in
topography
again,
the
the
three
stories
the
height
at
the
midpoint,
the
height
at
the
peak.
Again,
those
are
design
choices
by
the
applicant
and
those
are
not
based
on
a
site-specific
issue
or
something
that
would
kind
of
create
the
need
for
this
design.
I
Second,
the
proposed
variants
might
alter
the
essential
character
again.
Much
like
the
first
Point
Homes
in
this
area
are
just
not
this
big,
not
this
tall
having
predominantly
one
and
a
half
two-story
homes
with
a
three-story
house
that
may
negatively
impact
adjacent
houses
and
again
changes
the
essential
character
again,
I
think
I
missed
two.
Actually,
the
the
proposed
height
is
not
a
reasonable
use
of
the
property.
I
A
J
So
right
here,
okay,
my
name
is
Lena
Gardner
I
am
the
executive
director
of
the
black
lives
of
Unitarian,
universalism
or
blue
we're
the
owners
of
the
lot
the
creator
of
the
project.
We
also
have
our
attorney
here
representing
us
who's
going
to
comment.
We
also
have
our
developer
team
here
and
cats
who
submitted
the
application,
who
are
also
going
to
speak
in
favor
of
this.
J
J
So
the
first
thing
I
want
to
say:
is
this?
Isn't
one
home?
This
is
three
homes
that
are
stacked
next
to
each
other.
The
vision
for
the
project
is
to
house
and
black
and
Indigenous
single
mother
families
in
a
Cooperative
housing
configuration
that
is
also
in
a
land
trust,
and
so
we're
moving
really
far
along.
In
that
the
reason
we
did
that
was
in
the
initial
stages
of
this
project.
We
were
researching
what
are
the
needs
of
the
city
around
housing.
J
What
we
found
was
that
there
is
scarcely
few
available,
affordable
housing
for
mothers
or
two
parent
families
that
have
multiple
children.
So
you
see
a
lot
of
one
and
two
bedroom
apartments
that
are
affordable
or
you
can
get
subsidies,
but
you
just
don't
see
three
or
four
bedroom
homes
or
apartments
that
are
available
at
an
affordable
price.
So
we
thought
this
is
a
slice
that
we
can
look
into.
J
J
So
we
originally
wanted
to
put
four
houses
on
that
site,
but
because
the
site
is
actually
not
a
typical
City
lot,
it's
more
narrow
and
it's
smaller.
We
feel
that
the
city
staff
may
have
overlooked
this
fact
that
it
is
a
narrower
lot.
It
is
a
smaller
lot,
so
we
actually
got
rid
of
one
of
our
units
and
said
well
we're
going
to
go
down
to
three
units,
then,
because
we
just
can't
make
that
work.
J
We
also
did
some
other
adjustments
around
setbacks
to
come
into
compliance,
some
different
reconfigurations
on
the
first
floor
and
then-
and
that
meant
that
we
can
we
and
getting
that
fourth
bedroom
in
there
also
meant
we
had
to
go
up
a
little
bit.
But
if
you
look
into
the
details
of
it,
it's
actually
not
up
a
significant
portion.
We
also
developed
this
project
working
with
the
neighborhood
association
and
you'll,
find
the
letter
of
support,
enthusiastic
support.
I
will
say
for
variance
approval
from
members
in
the
community.
J
J
So
I
just
want
to
point
out
those
couple
of
things
and
also
to
point
to
the
committee
that
this
I
think
is
a
place
where
the
ordinances
of
the
City
versus
the
goals
and
the
vision
pointed
out
in
the
2040
plan
around
Equitable
housing
sort
of
clash
with
each
other,
because
if
we
were
presenting
this
housing
model
and
we
stacked
them
on
top
of
each
other
instead
of
vertical,
we
would
be
in
compliance.
However,
that
puts
a
family
in
the
basement
and
there's
lots
of
data
out
there.
J
That's
that's
worth
less
money
that
contributes
to
different
mental
and
also
physical
health
contributions
to
have
a
basement
unit
and
I
speak
as
someone
who
lives
in
a
basement
unit
of
a
condo,
because
that's
what
I
could
afford
and
we
don't
want
to
do
that
to
other
families.
So
we
put
them
side
by
side
so
that
there's
equity
in
the
structure
of
the
housing
and
they're,
virtually
all
the
same,
except
for
that
middle
unit
is
going
to
have
two
shared
walls
instead
of
one.
J
J
So
I
think
the
last
thing
I
just
wanted
to
say
is
that
blue
we
aren't
developers,
that's
why
we
hired
Darwin
homework's
team.
We
are
a
group
of
of
black
Unitarian
universalists
and
we
really
saw
this
project
as
Justice,
making
and
Liberation
through
our
faith.
So
we
took
our
financial
resources
to
be
able
to
really
deeply
invest
in
this
project
and
we
have
spent
over
a
quarter
of
a
million
dollars
between
and
it's
part
of,
a
bigger
project.
J
J
So
I'll
stop
there
and
let
other
members
of
my
team
chime
in
we're
really
asking
for
your
support
today
to
go
against
the
city
recommendations
and
approve
the
variances
and
in
doing
so
in
The
Firm
knowledge
that
you
we
have
the
support
of
nerc
and
the
people
who
live
in
the
community
and
that
we're
also
fully
funded
and
ready
to
go
in
construction
in
Spring
and
part
of
that.
Funding
is
coming
from
the
Minneapolis
homes
program
through
the
city
who
are
have
heavily
investing
in
this
project
as
well.
J
J
H
I
H
Okay,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
okay,
thank
you
and
then
the
question
I
have
for
you.
We
have
to
have
a
practical
difficulty
about
the
actual
lot
itself.
We,
you
know
we
can
enjoy
and
totally
agree
with
the
rationale
behind
the
need
we,
but
we
don't
have
the
authority
at
this
level
to
give
a
variance
if
there's
not
a
practical
difficulty
with
complying
with
the
ordinance.
So
is
there
something
specific
about
the
lot
Beyond,
just
the
width?
Yes,
the
width
is
the
width.
J
J
I
will
say
that
if,
if
we
were
stacking
them,
the
it
wouldn't
be
exactly
the
same
right,
we
wouldn't
actually
have
to
go
that
high,
so
it
so,
it
would
in
fact
be
in
accordance
with
the
ordinance
if
we
were
stacking
them.
One.
Two
three
does
that
make
sense,
because
we
would
sink
it
down
into
the
ground
right
that.
J
K
A
C
A
K
Favor
of
the
okay.
So
when
we
were
looking
at
this
project,
especially
from
the
perspective
of
this,
is
going
to
be
homeownership,
it's
not
going
to
be
rental,
they're
going
to
be
for
families,
and
so
the
need
for
a
third
bedroom
was
evident,
and
then
we
look
at
setbacks
right
so
yeah
we
have
neighbors
on
both
sides.
K
Our
parcel
is
less
than
40
feet
wide
when
we
have
five
feet
on
each
side
to
respect
the
the
distance
from
Neighbors,
we
get
to
a
very
small
narrow
footprint,
and
when
we
also
look
at
the
width
of
the
lot
and
tries
taking
advantage
of
the
half
floor,
the
half
story-
I,
don't
know
if
you
guys
understand
the
definition,
but
the
half
story
has
to
be
only
classifies
I'm
oversimplifying,
but
it
only
classify
as
a
half
story
if
it's
within
attic
space.
So
if
you
think
about
a
wide
home,
edit
space
creates
more
void.
K
Therefore,
you
can
use
that
for
the
livable
space
once
you
bring
this
together,
the
attic
space
becomes
very
tiny,
so
there's
no
way
of
us
occupying
the
attic
for
the
third
bedroom,
as
as
of
you,
can
see
in
many
houses
in
Minneapolis,
because
it's
just
very
narrow.
So,
as
you
can
become
this
together,
you
just
lose
the
head
space
so
for
cut
because
of
that
we
are
proposing
it.
The
third
story
for
the
third
bedroom
is
not
a
full
story.
K
We
occupy
only
half
of
the
footprint,
but
because
we
don't
fit
with
sand
the
Attic,
which
means
in
the
center
of
the
building
and
in
a
very
narrow,
without
access
of
the
stairs
or
headspace.
We
are
now
not
able
to
classify
as
half
story.
That's
why
the
need
for
a
third
story
variance
comes
way,
and
then,
when
we
talk
about
height,
we
are
barely
above
the
of
the
maximum
permitted.
K
We
are
definitely
a
third
story,
but
not
much
higher
in
footage
than
what
is
allowed
verisonic
code
and,
of
course
the
far
is
is
0.21
increase
that
we
are
asking
for.
We
we're
granted
0.2
based
on
the
affordability,
the
addition,
the
two
additional
homes
that
we
have
in
the
site,
so
we
are
requesting
a
0.21
with
about
a
thousand
square
feet
increase,
and
all
of
that
comes
to
play
really
to
provide
that
third
bedroom
in
the
third
floor.
K
That
could
be
actually
a
half
story
that
we
are
we
are
seeking,
so
we
are
constrained
by
a
narrow
site,
less
than
40
feet,
obeying
other
setbacks,
because
we're
trying
to
be
respect
for
The
Neighbors
having
a
more
modern
Equitable
design.
Everybody
access
at
street
level
instead
of
at
entrance
levels,
say
because
these
streets
below,
but
we
are
trying
to
not
have
the
reinforcing
of
whatever
hierarchy
you
live
in
the
basement
or
live
in
the
top
floor.
K
How
does
that
play
in
an
equitable
proposition
of
Blue
from
Blue
side-by-side,
Town
Homes,
everybody
access
the
same
level.
Everybody
has
the
first
floor
that
is
visitable.
We
are
trying
to
make
it
as
accessible
as
possible,
but
we're
seeing
the
constraint
of
the
site.
We
needed
this
space
for
a
third
bedroom
to
be
considered
a
family
home.
That's
why
the
constraints
came
into
play.
A
K
It
doesn't
kill
the
project,
but
definitely
and
again
the
zoning
code
allows
for
three
units
we
are
trying
to
maximize
the
density.
The
2040
allows
us,
and
also,
of
course,
is
one
one
family
that
would
miss
the
opportunity
to
own
a
home
and
I
know:
blue
has
six
selection
of
sites.
There
are
a
card
from
the
county
and
we
are
pursuing
the
same
approach,
but
then
there
are
families
that
are
lining
up
for
these
projects
right.
So
we
are
preparing
families
for
home
ownership,
credit
ready,
Gap.
C
J
It
actually
would
kill
the
project,
because
our
funding
through
cpet
is
that
that
application
process
was
two
years
long,
and
if,
if
where
that
change
would
mean,
we
wouldn't
get
the
funding
and
it
would
be,
that
would
be
a
yep.
That's
nine
hundred
thousand
dollars
of
funding
that
we
would
not
get
so
I
can't
raise
any
more
that
fast.
So
it
wouldn't,
it
would
kill
the
project.
A
L
My
name
is
Diane
galadowicz.
My
address
is
2108
Saint,
Anthony,
Avenue,
St,
Paul
Minnesota
I'm,
here
on
behalf
of
council
for
blue
and
I'm,
an
attorney
with
Stinson
LLP
here
in
Minneapolis.
Lena
did
a
great
job.
Speaking
to
the
background
in
the
context
of
this
project,
I
had
it
on
here
to
lay
that
out.
I
think
I
I'm,
probably
best
served
here
to
speak
to
the
the
legal
requirements
for
granting
the
variance
in
response
specifically
to
board
member
Hutchins
questions
about
practical
difficulties,
and
then
I
can
talk
through
the
other
factors
as
well.
L
So
speaking
to
the
the
Practical
difficulty
standard
of
the
variance
requirements,
that's
required
under
State
Statute
here
the
standard
is
really
the
circumstances
that
are
unique
to
the
property
not
created
by
the
property
owner
here.
The
the
width
of
the
lot,
the
size
of
the
lot
can
be
a
circumstance
of
the
property
related
to
the
property.
That's
not
created
by
blue
blue
did
not
subdivide.
This
lot
create
this.
The
the
plot
here
they
purchased
this
property,
and
this
is
the
size
lot
that
they're
working
with
this
is
similar
to.
L
If
you
know
other
factors
that
are
considered
in
this,
that
in
this
analysis
would
be,
if
there's
you
know,
a
lake,
that's
confining
the
prop
the
development
to
a
certain
section
of
the
property,
there's
a
slope
or
incline:
that's
forcing
the
development
in
a
certain
area
of
the
property
here.
The
lot
is
narrow,
so
that's
pushing
the
slot
in
into
this
this.
This
use
onto
this
smaller
lot.
This
use
for
a
Triplex
is
permitted
within
the
r1a
district.
L
A
recent
rezoning
change
or
not
rezoning,
but
a
permitted
use
within
the
r1a
district
here
blue,
is
putting
this
change
that
the
city
has
made
for
enabling
greater
density
within
residential
districts
into
action.
This
proposal
is
not,
you
know,
a
a
single
family
home,
that's
a
mcmansion
on
this
small
lot.
This
is
three
family
houses
that
are
included
on
this
lot.
They
have
worked
with
City
staff
and
City
staff
has
been
great
to
work
with.
L
It's
also
important
to
note
and
that
this
is
not
being
driven
by
economic
considerations.
This
is
not
of
building
additional
units
to
be
sold
for
the
the
profit
of
blue
or
Urban
homework
as
a
developer.
Here
this
is
to
create
more
affordable
housing
within
the
City
of
Minneapolis
for
bypoc
families.
L
The
other
factors
that
are
part
of
this
analysis
are
that
this
that
the
proposed
variances
are
reasonable
for
this
property,
and
here
the
proposed
use
is
reasonable.
The
the
proposed
project
is
the
minimum
size
that
you
can
have
three
Equitable
housing
units
that
are
built
for
families
within
this
lot.
It
these
these
Lots.
These
units
will
have
three
accessible
units
that
can
be
accessed.
On
the
first
floor,
no
one's
delegated
to
the
basement.
L
It
also
incorporates
indoor
and
outdoor
spaces
and
Community
spaces,
which
in
part,
comes
from
that
additional
third
floor,
because
it
is
three
units
it
does
take
up
more
of
the
property
they
Incorporated
the
design
and
has
incorporated
space
onto
that
third
floor,
including
patio
space.
So
that's
built
into
that,
and
so
that's
another
factor
in
including
that
third
story,
which
leads
us
to
the
need
for
the
the
height
variants,
but
accommodates
other
goals
that
are
in
the
2040
plan.
L
Finally,
the
the
third
factor
in
the
variance
analysis
is
that
the
variance
of
granted
will
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
here.
The
scale
and
character
of
nearby
buildings
do
vary
in
density.
This
this
property
is
located
at
the
edge
of
the
r1a
zoning
District,
it's
close
to
Plymouth
Avenue.
There
are
primarily
two-story
houses
on
this.
This
block
there
are
several
duplexes
within
the
area
two
on
this
block,
so
this
is
not.
This
won't
be
kind
of
a
towering
structure.
L
In
the
middle
of
this
you
know
single
story
block
and
in
effect
it
will
be
a
good
transition
from
the
lighter
density
into
a
more
heavy
density
on
Plymouth
Avenue.
There
are
I
think,
there's
I,
believe
it's
a
seven
story.
Building
on
Plymouth
Avenue,
just
down
the
block,
there
are
town
homes
on
on
Plymouth
Avenue.
L
A
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
questions
for
our
testifier?
No
I
have
a
question.
I
still
haven't
heard
a
reason
why
I
mean
there's
a
there's
hierarchy
in
who
lives
upstairs
in
the
top
level,
with
access
to
the
outdoors,
just
as
there's
hierarchy
with
who
lives
in
the
basement.
Further,
this
hierarchy
sort
of
assumes
picking
one
family
over
another
family,
but
this
is
sort
of
these
units
are
segregated
on
the
basis
of
their
horizontal
layout,
so
that
each
ownership
unit
is
vertical
and
So
within
the
family.
They
could
contend.
A
Who
wants
to
be
on
the
top
floor
and
who
wants
to
be
on
the
bottom
floor?
No
one
is
sort
of
relegated
to
the
bottom
and
I
keep
hearing
that
as
part
of
this
Equity
argument,
but
it's
got
me
rather
confused
about
what
Equity
has
to
do
with
decisions
within
a
family
for
where
they
live
within
a
home
and
I'm
curious
why
there
can't
be
Construction
in
the
basement
level.
Why
is
that
something
that
just
cannot
happen
in
this
in
this
project?
Sure.
L
Yeah
I
think
one
helpful
thing
here
to
consider
and
with
guiding
our
sensor
use
of
the
term.
Equity
here
is
that
this
is
the
structure
here
and
the
I
guess.
The
ownership
model
will
be
housing,
Co-op
and
so
the
all
of
each
occupant
of
the
unit.
So
each
family
will
have
a
equal
ownership
share
in
this
housing
Co-op.
So
really
it's
Equity
at
the
family
level
and
that
the
ownership
in
the
housing
Co-op.
L
So
the
value
and
the
intent
of
having
side
by
side
units
which
would
have
more
consistent
market
value
would
be
different
than
if
you
had
a
basement
apartment
or
a
basement
housing
unit
which
does
have
a
lower
market
value
than
a
first
floor
or
second
floor.
It
does
factor
into
the
the
marketability
and
the
the
market
value
of
housing
units.
So
it
isn't
it.
You
know,
and
it's
true
within
the
the
units
different
family
members
might,
you
know,
have
a
hierarchy
and
you
know
who
sleeps
on
the
first
floor
versus
I.
A
For
some
reason,
I
think
I,
maybe
I'm,
not
understanding
something.
My
understanding
looking
at
the
plans
and
please
correct
if
I'm
wrong,
is
that
the
ownership
is
a
vertical
unit
where
the
same
family
will
inhabit
the
top
floor
and
the
bottom
floor
in
the
same
general,
vertical
space
right
okay.
So
there
is
no
family
living
in
the
basement
unit.
Correct
right.
L
L
J
A
M
N
Hi,
my
name
is
Anne
ketz
I'm
with
Urban
homeworks
apologies
I
still
need
to
register.
My
address
is
1460
Upper,
Afton,
Road,
St,
Paul,
Minnesota,
55106
and
I
I.
Don't
have
a
whole
lot
of
new
things
to
add
to
what's
already
been
said,
I
just
wanted
to
get
my
comments
on
the
record.
I
think
what
I'll
say
is
I,
don't
think
and
I'll.
Okay,
we're
the
contracted
developer
blue
is
the
owner.
They
don't
they.
They
haven't
done
a
development
project.
N
In
the
past
we
do
both
affordable
ownership
and
Rental
development.
We've
been
working
in
North
Minneapolis
for
a
long
time.
That's
where
predominantly
our
work
happens,
and
so
we
come
in
with
the
experience
and
the
entitlements
process
development
process,
the
funding
process.
All
of
that
and
I
think
what
I
want
to
add
is
that
I
think
we
don't.
We
don't
think
our
requests
are
unreasonable,
the
variance
requests.
We
understand
that
it's
not
meeting
the
current
code,
but
that
again
it's
not
going
to
significantly
alter
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
N
That
is
one
of
the
requirements,
so
we're
working
through
that
and
then
just
adding
again
I
think
that
we
kind
of
you
know
when
this
these
projects
take
a
long
time
to
put
together,
especially
when
we're
working
in
affordable
housing.
We
have
a
lot
of
different
funding
sources
to
stack
together
to
make
this
work.
We
were
trying
to
sell
these
these
units
to
60,
Ami
households
and
again
families
with
children.
N
So
the
need,
for
you
know
more
bedrooms,
but
also
our
square
footage
is
only
like
14
or
1500
square
feet
per
unit,
so
they're
not
they're,
not
huge
units.
Again
to
that
point
of
like
this
is
not
an
oversized.
You
know
unnecessary
space,
but
we're
trying
to
get
three
units
on
one
lot
and
that's
what's
difficult,
but
I
think
you
know
we
kind
of
this
project
started
when
the
2040
plan
was
approved
and
we've
gotten
caught
up
a
little
bit
in
the
legal
issues
with
that.
N
N
So
if
we
were
to
have
to
go
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
reduce
the
number
of
units
change
the
design,
it
would
probably
take
another
two
years
so
again
with
the
need
for
affordable
housing
and
the
and
the
main
point
that
this
is
not
an
extreme
request.
We're
not
we're
not
so
far
outside
of
the
bounds
that
this
isn't.
What
we
think
is
reasonable,
but
I
think
that's
all.
If
there's
any
questions.
N
A
A
O
Good
evening
my
name
is
William
Wells
18,
North,
12th,
Street
unit
number
3961,
Minneapolis,
Minnesota,
55403
I
am
here
and
speak
in
support
of
the
application.
I
think
this
design
is
fantastic.
I
think
this
is
exactly
what
this
neighborhood
needs.
I
think
this
is
a
great
project.
I
think
this
is
exactly
what
the
intent
of
the
2040
comp
plan
was
for.
O
The
City
of
Minneapolis
I
have
been
an
architect
in
Minneapolis,
working
on
the
design
of
monthly
family
housing
for
20
years
20
years,
I
have
designed
multi-family
housing
in
every
neighborhood
in
Minneapolis
all
scales,
all
sizes.
These
people
know
me
very
well.
The
most
difficult
building
type
that
I
have
ever
designed
is
a
Triplex.
It
is
the
most
regulated
building
form
of
any
type
of
housing
in
Minneapolis.
A
Triplex
has
the
most
rules,
the
most
complexity
and
takes
the
longest
to
get
approved.
O
A
triflex
I've
designed
100
unit
apartment
buildings
that
got
approved
faster
with
less
rules,
100
unit
buildings,
I've
designed
in
Minneapolis
that
were
easier
to
get
approved
than
a
Triplex.
These
people,
from
the
time
that
they
start
till
they
get
their
permit,
will
be
a
year
at
least
a
year.
It
is
ridiculous.
The
amount
of
rules
and
regulations
are
ridiculous.
I
want
to
talk
about
one
rule
that
I'm
extremely
concerned
about
staff
said
the
basis
of
denial.
O
O
It's
it's
not
possible.
It's
not
possible
this.
This
is
a
problem
within
the
zoning
code,
but
it's
a
policy
problem.
It's
a
policy
problem
and
you're,
not
policy
makers,
you're,
not
policy
makers,
so
I,
don't
know,
I,
don't
know
how
you
can
change
a
zoning
code
tonight
and
support
this
application,
because
the
change
needs
to
happen
over
there.
O
It
needs
to
happen
at
the
city
council
and
this
project
needs
to
go
in
front
of
the
city
council
and
we
need
to
talk
about
this
I
support
this
project,
but
there
are
some
problems
within
the
city
that
need
to
be
fixed,
and
this
needs
to
go
in
front
of
the
mayor
and
in
front
of
the
city
council
members.
We
need
to
talk
about
these
rules
and
what
is
happening
on
these
triplexes
I
support
this
project.
It's
fantastic,
I,
love
these
goals,
it'd
be
great
for
the
neighborhood.
O
A
P
C
C
D
M
Speaker,
that's
all
right!
So
if
it's
true
that
the
LIE
is
more
narrow
than
average,
then
that
feels
like
a
practical
difficulty.
That's
not
borne
by
the
ownership.
As
far
as
in
youth
with
or
and
lead
with,
the
use
and
as
other
properties
are.
It
appears
that
the
the
building,
while
it
is
taller
than
the
other
buildings
it
doesn't
seem
as
far
as
the
window
Heights
and
the
stories
that
line
up
it
doesn't
appear
as
though
it's
actually
towering
over
the
neighbors
and
so
I.
M
Don't
think
that
it's
incredibly
disruptive
as
far
as
the
Cadence
of
the
area
that
it's
in
now
I
know
that
there
were
images
provided
that
show
the
actual
towers
and
taller
properties
that
are
nearby
but
they're,
not
in
the
same
district
and
they're
not
on
the
same
street.
But
I
do
think
that
it
is
very
close
in
size
and
almost
perceptible
in
a
way.
That
is
not
disruptive
and
agree
with
all
the
statements
about
policies
and
that.
M
But
if
the
2040
had
all
the
goals
that
are
listed
in
the
in
the
report
and
in
all
of
the
different
policy
expectations,
it
is
ideally
code
would
be
able
to
catch
up
with
that,
so
that
you
can
follow
through
on
those
policies,
but,
furthermore,
how
we
would
be
able
to
approve
the
variances
so
that
we
could
influence
the
policy
it's
kind
of
like.
Is
it
something
granular
so
that
more
triplexes
could
get
approved,
because
it's
there's
a
way
that
they
get
built?
M
That
just
makes
sense
on
lot
sizes,
or
is
this
something
that
we
have
to
approve
very
specifically
for
this
site,
which
is?
Is
it's
not
as
easy
to
apply
that
to
a
policy
if
it's
site
by
site?
But
if
there
was
something
that
we
could
say?
Generally
speaking,
triplexes
on
Lots
in
this
area
could
work.
That
is
an
easier
way
to
sort
of
influence
policy,
but
it
does
feel
like
so
many
of
the
2040
goals
are
present
here
and
so
the
alignment
there
it's
like-
and
it's
so
close.
E
Yeah
I'll
add
one
comment:
I
agree,
I,
think
it's
great
and
has
a
lot
of
support
and
much
needed.
The
Practical
difficulty
I've
heard
is
the
lot
size.
But
to
me
that
means
that
this
specific
development
isn't
meant
for
this
lot.
It
doesn't
mean
we
should
necessarily
adjust
or
or
Justify
a
practical
difficulty
because
you're
trying
to
fit
something
bigger
on
this
smaller
lot.
So
that's
what
I'm
struggling
with
but
yeah
I,
don't
know.
If
anyone
has
any
more
comments.
H
Thanks
Vice,
chair,
I,
think
I'm.
Echoing
a
lot
of
what
everybody's
set
up
here
today,
I
think
the
goals
are
great
I
think
the
project
looks
awesome,
I
think
it
doesn't
I
mean
for
both
variances
on
findings,
two
and
three
I
think
it
doesn't
affect
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
A
negative
way.
I
think
it
fits
right
in
I.
H
I
can
see
both
variants
two
and
three,
but
I
struggle
with
variance
one
or
the
findings.
One
I
don't
see
a
practical
difficulty
about
the
lot
size,
but
the
lot
is
the
lot.
The
zoning
code
can't
be
the
Practical
difficulty.
We
don't
have
the
authority
to
give
just
like
the
previous
testimonials.
We
don't
have
the
authority
at
this
level,
so
no
Prejudice
about
the
project
we
like
it
but
I,
don't
think
we
have
the
authority
to
get
it
there.
So
that's
kind
of
where
I'm
sitting
right
now.
A
C
D
A
A
Q
Thank
you,
Vice,
chair
softly
members
of
the
board.
This
item
is
a
request
for
variances
to
reduce
the
minimum
required,
North
interior
side
yard
setback
from
five
feet
to
two
feet
and
another
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
impervious
surface
coverage
from
60
to
66.8
percent,
for
lawful
establishment
of
an
existing
off
street
parking
area
accessory
to
the
single
family
dwelling
at
2946,
Taylor,
Street
Northeast.
Q
This
property
is
in
the
r1a,
multiple
family
district
and
the
interior,
one
built
Forum
overlay
district
and
it
has
a
lot
area
of
just
over
5000
square
feet
in
area
just
to
go
through
some
of
the
history
for
this
property
and
this
project.
This
this
project
was
the
subject
of
previous
variance
applications
back
in
January
of
2022.
Q
When
construction
of
the
house
and
other
site
improvements
were
being
proposed,
they
previously
had
variance
approvals
to
increase
the
maximum
floor
area
ratio
and
also
a
different
setback,
variance
for
a
retaining
wall
knot
retain
it.
Excuse
me
not
retaining
natural
grade
near
the
north
property
line,
and
this
on
your
screen
here
is
this
survey
that
that
was
part
of
that
variance.
Application
then,
was
subsequently
used
for
their
building
permit
and
site
plan
review
other
construction
applications
which
were
approved
in
in
February
of
2022..
Q
So
this
initial
approval
showed
the
garage
towards
the
northwest
corner
of
of
the
property,
and
the
area
is
immediately.
North
and
south
of
the
garage
garage
would
have
been
landscaped
or
vegetated
yards
faces,
sloping
down
about
four
feet
from
the
east
side
of
the
garage
towards
the
west
and
this
site
plan.
The
initial
approval
had
a
proposed
impervious
surface
coverage
of
51.6
percent,
which
was
in
compliance
with
the
maximum
improved
surface
coverage
of
60
percent.
I'll,
also
note:
the
property
does
have
a
significant
slope.
Q
Q
So
after
their
construction
approvals
were
issued,
they
began
construction
of
the
project
through
much
of
last
year
and
and
it
came
back
to
the
city
in
August
of
2022,
with
a
revised
site
plan.
This
is
fairly
common
for
an
applicant
to
come
back
with
some
revisions
after
the
original
approval
just
for
minor
changes,
they
want
to
make
to
the
site
design.
So
this
is
what
they
came
back
with
in
August
of
2022,
and
you
can
see
they
shifted
the
garage
further
to
the
South.
Q
So
it's
closer
to
the
southwest
corner
of
the
property
and
created
an
off
street
parking
area
on
the
north
side
of
of
the
new
garage
location.
This
the
east
side
of
this
parking
area
would
have
been
basically
in
line
with
the
east
side
of
the
garage
and
there
would
have
been
a
retaining
wall
right
there
and
some
steps.
So
there
would
have
been
this
flat
yard
area
in
between
the
house
and
the
garage
and
this
these
kind
of
discreet
tears
down
the
property.
Q
The
parking
area
is
designed
here
on
the
August
2022
proposed
site
plan.
It
would
have
been
entirely
within
the
rear,
40
feet
of
the
property
and,
as
such
would
have
been
a
permitted
obstruction
within
the
required
setback
on
the
north
side
of
the
property.
It
would
be
allowed
as
close
as
one
foot
to
that
North
property
line
and
as
proposed
on
this
plan,
it
would
have
been
1.5
feet
from
that
property
line,
and
this
August
2022
plan
had
a
proposed
impervious
surface
coverage
of
56.8
percent
so
still
below
that
maximum
of
60
percent.
Q
After
all,
the
construction
is
substantially
completed,
and
so
that's
what
you
see
here-
and
this
has
some
changes
from
the
the
previous
plans
that
were
approved,
notably
the
the
parking
area
and
the
north
side
of
the
driveway-
has
been
extended
even
further
to
the
east.
Almost
all
the
way
to
the
the
back
of
the
house.
Q
They
eliminated
that
retaining
wall
that
would
have
extended
for
extended
northward
from
the
east
side
of
the
garage,
and
they
also
made
some
other
changes
to
this
site,
like
they've
changed
the
the
size
and
shape
of
the
deck
on
the
back
of
the
house,
they
added
the
concrete
walkway
and
some
steps
on
the
north
side
of
the
house.
A
few
other
changes
Beyond
just
the
parking
area
in
in
this
case.
Q
This
parking
area
is,
is
shown
on
the
as
built
site
plane,
which
reflects
the
the
conditions
of
the
property.
It
is
not
located
entirely
within
the
rear,
40
feet
of
the
property
and
it's
not
a
permitted
obstruction
within
a
required
side
yard
in
that
case.
So
it's
subject
to
the
district
standard
interior
side
yard
setback
of
five
feet
from
the
north
property
line
and
the
parking
space
in
this
case
is
located
only
two
feet
from
the
property
line.
Q
Furthermore,
the
the
total
of
the
the
site
changes
that
they
made
results
in
an
as
built
impervious
surface
coverage
of
66.8
percent,
which
exceeds
that
maximum
of
60
percent.
So
this
was
submitted
to
the
staff
in
October
of
2022.
It
was
not
approved
due
to
the
setback
and
impervious
coverage
issues
mentioned
before
so
the
applicant
is
requesting
these
variances
staff
recommendation
is
for
Denial.
In
this
case,
staff
did
not
find
that
any
of
the
required
findings
were
met
for
either
of
these
variances.
Q
The
subject
property
is
typical
in
size
and
width
and
location
of
the
house
on
the
property.
It
does
have
that
slope,
that's
an
existing
condition,
but
that
slope
really
has
no
bearing
on
the
expansion
of
an
off
street
parking
area
like
like
this.
The
previously
approved
plans
demonstrated
compliance
with
the
applicable
zoning
requirements
and
the
applicant
for
for
this
variance
before
you
today,
or
these
two
variances
is
the
current
property
owner
and
was
also
the
property
owner
when
the
house
was
designed
and
for
the
previous
variance
applications.
Q
So
any
deviation
from
the
approved
plans
previously
is
solely
the
result
of
actions
of
the
applicant
and
their
agents.
Not
anything
unique
to
the
property.
I
can
go
through
the
other
findings
in
more
detail,
but
in
the
interest
of
time,
I'll
conclude
and
note
that
there
is
one
public
comment
which
came
in
today
that
should
have
been
forwarded
along
for
your
consideration,
I
believe
the
applicant
in
attendance
during
today's
hearing.
This
concludes
my
presentation
but
I'm
available
for
questions.
A
R
R
This
is
a
lot
of
cards
in
the
street
and
like
especially
in
this
time
in
the
snow,
we
have
to
move
the
cars
and
you
know,
and
my
brother,
my
mom
and
everyone
who
lives
with
me
and
everybody
we
have
cards
and
I
was
thinking,
do
a
big
driver,
so
we
can
park
two
cars
and
the
side
of
the
house
and-
and
we
can
have
also
a
garage
so
then
we
can.
You
know
we
can
not
bother
to
the
neighbors
in
the
street
and
we
can
you
know
we
can
not
have
any
tickets.
R
Also,
because
all
the
time
we
have
tickets
moving
back
and
you
know
and
then
that's
why
I
think
and
then
you
know,
when
I
do
the
my
yard
and
I
have
yard
I
have
yard
in
the
front.
That's
enough
for
me,
you
know
and
I
like
how
I
it
is
in
my
house
right
now
and
but
you
know,
I
didn't
know.
I
was
over
the
concrete
six
percent
and
Alex.
R
He
told
me
later
when
I
finished
he
said
he
over
to
the
concrete
then,
and
then
you
know
they
told
me:
I
had
to
take
her
out.
The
six
percent
I
did
extra
and
then
you
know
I
I
called
to
this
guy
who
helped
me
with
the
concrete
I
still
do
payments
for
it,
and
then
he
said:
okay
I'm
going
to
charge
three
hundred
and
five
thousand
like
yeah
3500,
to
take
the
concrete
and
cutter
everything.
And
then,
when
I
call
Alex,
he
said
you
have
to
pay
this
much
to
the
nabarians.
R
But
you
know
we
don't
know.
If
I
am
going,
you
guys
going
to
help
me
with
this
decision
and
then
I
told
him.
Okay,
I
go
for
this
way
and
see
you
know:
I
will
try
it
and
see.
I
can
keep
my
driver
how
it
is
right.
Now,
if
you
know
I
didn't
know,
I
am
going
against
the
law
because
you
know
I
I
didn't
know.
I
was
doing
wrong
thing,
but
you
know
if,
if
I
know
it
before
doing
before,
I
spent
before
I
do
a
lot
of
work.
R
R
They
are
so
happy
how
it
is
my
house-
and
you
know,
they're
very,
very
nice,
my
neighbors
and
they're
happy
and
because
they
say,
oh,
it
is
a
nice
house
and
before
it
was
lit
just
a
lot
just
a
throat
some
trash
in
there
and
you
know,
but
right
now
it
looks
beautiful
then
and
I
saw
please
help
me
with
this
and
I.
Don't
know
what
else
can
I
say.
A
H
R
C
R
Wasn't
like
a
hill,
so
then
we
figure
out
the
the
guy
who
do
held
me
the
concrete
he
said:
hey.
You
have
a
lot
of
car.
Just
move
like
this.
You
want
to
be
nice
and
you're
going
to
have
a
driveway
for
your
cars.
So
I
said
okay,
so
just
do
it
and
then
you
know
that
was
a
run
thing
where
I
did,
but
in
that
time,
as
I
saw
it
was
okay
to
do
it.
It
was
easy
in
that
time
do
it,
but
then
you
know
I
didn't
know
it
was
the
wrong
thing.
A
A
Mr
kohas,
the
the
second
component
of
this
variance
request,
is
constructing
a
parking
stall
too
close
to
the
adjoining
neighbor.
Is
that
correct?
That's
correct?
Okay,
thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
understood
that,
because
we've
had
testimony
and
discussion
about
the
impervious
surface
coverage,
but
not
so
much
about
that
item.
Okay,
thank
you.
H
Q
Vice,
chair
softly
members
of
the
board
board
member
Hutchins
for
the
impervious
surface
variants.
In
particular,
the
applicant
could
choose
whichever
impervious
surfaces
on
the
property
they
wanted
to
remove
as
long
as
they
get
below
60
percent,
in
terms
of
avoiding
the
variance
that
walkway
in
the
stairs
in
the
north
side
of
the
house.
There's
no
setback
issue
with
that.
A
walkway
is
a
permitted
obstruction
within
a
required
side
yard
as
designed
here.
So
if
they
could
remove
enough
impervious
surfaces
from
other
parts
of
the
property,
they
could
keep
the
walkway.
H
So
then,
a
follow-up
question.
Thank
you
for
that.
How
far
so
from
that
cut
right
at
the
we'll
call
it
the
yard
line
that
matches
the
back
concrete
patio,
how
much
of
the
driveway
itself
going
east
to
west?
Would
you
have
to
reduce?
Did
you
do
the
math?
Yet
how
much
would
they
have
to
reduce
footage
wise
to
get
them
into
compliance.
Q
A
C
C
My
inclination
is
to
take
staff
recommendation
at
this
point
and
suggest
that
the
applicant,
if
it
they
have
to
follow
staff
recommendation
that
the
consult
with
staff
as
to
how
many
square
footage
and
what
the
location
is
for
the
removal
of
some
concrete,
but
to
restate
I'm
in
favor
of
staff's
presentation.
At
this
point,
thank
you
all.
D
C
H
D
A
A
Q
Thank
you,
Vice,
chair
softly
members
of
the
board.
This
item
is
a
request
for
variances
to
reduce
the
minimum
required
front
and
reverse
Corner
front
yards
for
construction
of
retaining
walls,
not
retaining
natural
grade
accessory
to
the
single-family
dwelling
at
4121,
Sheridan,
Avenue
South.
This
property
is
in
the
R1,
multiple
family
District,
the
corridor,
3
built
form
overlay
and
the
Shoreland
overlay
District.
Q
This
is
a
survey
provided
by
the
applicant
showing
the
existing
conditions
of
the
property
as
a
lot
area
of
just
under
5200
square
feet.
It
is
a
reverse
corner
lot,
with
frontages
along
Sheridan
Avenue
to
the
west
and
42nd
Street
to
the
South,
and
that
west
side
of
the
property
facing
Sheridan
is
considered
the
platted
front
for
zoning
purposes.
The
south
side
is
the
reverse
Corner
front,
the
neighbors
to
both
the
North
and
the
east
of
the
subject.
Property.
Their
fronts
are
both
facing
those
those
two
streets
as
applicable.
Q
So
that
is
what
creates
the
reverse,
Corner
condition
for
the
subject
property,
because
both
three
facing
frontages
for
the
subject
property
are
extensions
of
front
yards
for
the
Neighbors
on
either
side.
The
subject
property
has
an
existing
single-family
dwelling
with
an
attached
garage
accessed
from
42nd
Street
other
site
improvements,
including
rooftop
deck
above
the
garage.
The
housing
garage
on
the
subject.
Property
are
located
towards
the
northeast
corner
of
the
lot.
There's
not
really
any
any
substantial
rear
yard
space.
Q
It's
just
that
that
attached
garage
there
are
open
yard
spaces
on
the
west
and
south
sides
of
the
house
on
the
sides
with
the
two
street
frontages.
But
there
is
no
open
yard
space
to
the
rear
of
the
dwelling.
As
I
mentioned
those
yards
on
the
west
and
south
sides,
they
sloped
down
approximately
four
to
six
feet
from
the
house
to
the
sidewalk
on
on
either
side.
Q
This
is
the
proposed
site
plan
showing
their
proposal
to
construct
retaining
walls
along
the
public
sidewalks
on
the
west
and
south
sides
of
the
property.
I
will
note
that
construction
on
these
retaining
walls
had
already
begun
prior
to
submittal
of
this
variance
application.
The
retaining
walls
as
proposed
would
extend
a
total
of
four
feet:
four
inches
tall
above
the
sidewalk
grade.
That
would
consist
of
four
feet
in
height
for
the
wall
itself,
plus
an
additional
four
inches
above
that
for
a
cap
on
top
of
the
wall.
Q
The
grade
retained
by
this
retaining
wall
would
be
raised
by
four
feet
above
existing
conditions
along
the
sidewalk
or
previous
conditions
along
the
sidewalk
they're,
also
proposing
to
install
a
four
foot
tall,
open
and
decorative
fence
right
at
the
top
of
the
retaining
wall.
I
will
note
if
if
these
variances
are
approved
and
the
proposed
retaining
wall
and
and
raised
grade
are
are
approved,
then
that
fence
would
be
in
compliance
with
applicable
zoning
code
requirements
for
for
fence
height,
based
on
that
finish
grade.
Q
If
it
is
lawfully
established
under
these
variance
applications
for
zoning
purposes,
both
Street
facing
frontages
on
our
corner
lot
are
regulated
as
front
yards,
including
minimum
front
setback
requirements.
That's
based
on
the
established
front,
step
back
to
the
neighboring
houses.
So,
on
the
west
side
of
the
subject
property,
it's
a
minimum
front
setback
of
29.3
feet
and
on
the
South
Side,
it
is
a
minimum
of
19.9
feet.
Q
Q
The
staff
recommendation
in
this
case
is
for
denial
and
it's
primarily
due
to
the
first
finding
regarding
practical
difficulty.
Staff
did
not
find
that
there's
a
practical
difficulty
in
this
case
which
supports
the
requested
variances
and
both
variances
are
basically
the
same
analysis.
From
staff's
perspective,
so
I'll
just
go
through
them
at
the
same
time.
The
subject
property
is
slightly
irregular
with
regard
to
its
Dimensions.
Q
It's
about
50
feet
wide
by
a
hundred
feet,
deep,
as
opposed
to
a
more
typical
layout
being
like
40
by
120
feet
for
a
lot
of
low
density,
Residential
Properties
in
Minneapolis.
It's
also
slightly
atypical
with
regard
to
the
location
of
the
house
being
located
in
that
back
corner
is,
is
a
little
unusual
for
for
Residential
Properties
like
this.
However,
the
property
is
still
just
over
5000
square
feet
in
an
area
just
in
terms
of
the
square
footage.
Q
So
it's
not
necessarily
a
small
lot
compared
to
other
low
density,
Residential
Properties
in
Minneapolis,
and
they
do
have
that
existing
rooftop
deck,
that's
to
the
rear
of
the
house.
That
provides
some
semi-private
outdoor
Gathering
space
for
for
the
property.
So
when
the
intent
for
for
the
retaining
walls
is
to
decrease
the
intensity
of
the
slope
in
the
west
and
and
South
yards
to
create
more
usable
yards
for
lack
of
a
better
term,
staff
does
not
find
that
there
are
practical
difficulties.
Q
It's
also
subject
to
additional
variances
additional
findings.
Excuse
me
specific
to
that
overlay
staff
finds
that
those
Shoreland
specific
findings
are
met.
I'm
happy
to
go
through
those
in
more
detail.
If
the
board
is
interested,
but
I'll
conclude
by
saying
again,
staff
recommendation
is
for
denial,
primarily
based
on
that
practical
difficulty.
H
Q
Vice
chair
safely
board
member
Hudgens.
That's
my
understanding.
Much
of
the
The
Proposal
much
of
the
retaining
walls
would
be
located
outside
of
the
property
lines
in
the
public
right-of-way.
There
are
some
portions
of
the
retaining
walls
that
would
extend
within
the
property
lines
and
other
Associated
improvements
like
the
replacing
the
front
steps
and
walkway
to
the
front
door
of
the
house,
and
much
of
the
altered
grade
that
would
be
retained
by
this.
Retaining
wall
would
be
within
the
property
line.
Q
Q
A
S
Thank
you
so
much
for
having
me
and
and
sticking
around
and
listening
to
to
to
me
as
well.
I'm
Brad
Moser
I'm,
the
owner
of
412,
on
Sheridan
Avenue
South,
we've
been
to
Minneapolis
my
wife
and
I
since
for
a
long
time
and
we've
been
in
that
residence
since
2011.,
we
have
two
small
children,
I
have
a
six-year-old
and
an
eight-year-old.
We
literally
that
residence
ever
since
that
time.
We
love
our
location,
we
love
the
the
the
property
there.
S
This
is
It's
been
this.
The
background
on
this
corner
lot
is
interesting.
After
reading
the
staff's
notes-
and
they
they
had
stated
that
the
the
property
had
been
parceled
off
to
a
Neighbors
on
the
east
side
there,
and
that
was
probably
60
years
ago.
So
maybe
in
the
in
the
original
ownership
of
that
property,
it
may
have
been
part
of
that
property,
but
now
so
that
may
have
been
the
original
yard.
But
now
there
there
really
is
minimal
usable
yard
space.
S
This
area
on
that
corner
of
42nd
and
Sheridan
has
been
been
a
big
issue
for
our
neighborhood.
It's
probably
the
most
I
would
say
the
most
uncontrolled
corner
of
that
neighborhood.
There's
no
there's
a
bus
line
that
runs
down
there,
the
the
the
in
there
there
they
will
be
increasing
with
the
2040
project.
S
And
this
has
become
such
an
issue
because
my
son
three
years
ago,
was
almost
hit
by
one
of
the
daycare
families
that
was
harried
and
she
had
driven
in
there
and
literally
we
were
in
the
driveway
playing
and
the
her
bumper
was
about
four
to
six
inches
from
his
head,
and
so
it
became
a
really
big
issue
for
our
neighbors
and
us
because
you
know
it
happens
dozens
of
times
a
day
and
that's
the
only
place
where
our
children
can
play
is
in
that
driveway.
Because
of
the
sloped
yard.
S
The
staff
makes
the
point
of
saying
we
can
play
on
the
rooftops
for
our
children.
I,
don't
think
that's
a
viable
place
for
children
to
play.
I
mean
the
upper
deck
is
actually
slanted
it's
not
even
as
flat
roof,
and
so
you
know
what
we're
asking
for
here
is
is,
is
you
know,
allowing
us
to
kind
of
go
forward
and
build
that
yard
for
our
children
to
keep
it
safe
and
I?
Understand
that
there
are
there.
Are
these
you
know
so
again,
it's
this.
S
You
know
referring
to
the
Practical
difficulties
here
that
exist,
I,
think
it's
a
combination
of
issues
such
as
the
safety
for
our
children,
the
the
daycare
that's
increased
four
times
in
size
without
informing
neighbors
or
having
any
kind
of
public
discussion
in
that
regard.
I
think
it's
the
fact
that
42nd
Street
is
actually
a
EMS,
Fire
and
Fire
link
to
the
lake.
That's
a
two-way
street
right
there
to
42nd
on
the
staff
report.
It
says
that
it
is
not
a.
S
It
is
not
a
goods
and
services
Corridor,
it
may
not
be
officially,
but
they
certainly
use
it
to
get
around
to
43rd
street,
where
the
restaurants
are
so
they
drive
through.
They
come
through
every
day.
The
the
U.S
food
trucks,
The
Cisco
trucks,
drive
right
in
front
that
same
street
right
there,
while
daycare
is
going
on
while
there
are
cars
parked
on
either
side
and
making
it
very
unsafe.
S
So
this
is
an
issue
again,
that's
gotten
to
the
point
of
where
we
have
had
meetings
with
Lena,
El,
Masano,
pre-pandemic
and
again
recently
because
of
the
amount
of
traffic.
That's
on
that
street,
for
parking
with
for
the
daycare
and
and
so
it
it
it.
It
is
really
we
want
to
stay
here.
We
want
to.
We
want
to
be
in
this
home
long
term,
and
we
feel
that
it's
a
it's
a
project
that
I
think
is
is
is
worth
pursuing.
S
I
do
have
some
pictures
of
neighbors
I
did
go
around
the
London
Hills
neighborhood
and
find
similar
properties
again
I'm,
not
an
expert
at
that
I'm
in
healthcare
I'm,
an
ex
I'm,
not
an
expert
at
properties
and
zoning
and
things
of
that
nature.
But
if
you
don't
mind,
I'd
like
to
show
you
some
of
these
retaining
walls
that
have
been
done
in
our
property,
that
would
be
very
similar.
Potentially,
what
we're
doing
this
is
a
property
on
38,
3800,
West,
38th,
Street.
Sorry,
it's
a
little.
S
It's
a
little
dark
I,
don't
know
if
that
can
be
lightened
up,
but
this
this
here
is
a
retaining
wall
of
about
four
feet
high.
On
top
of,
that
is
another
again
a
fence
there
as
well-
and
that
would
be
you
know
quite
similar
I-
think
that
what
we
would
be
doing-
here's
another
property
in
our
neighborhood
again
a
corner
lot
with
a
with
an
elevated
with
a
fence
there
and
a
elevated
retaining
wall.
Here's
another
one.
This
is
just
down
the
street
from
muslin
Hills
Boulevard
4201.
S
They
have
a
pretty
high
retaining
wall
there,
creating
that
yard
space
for
children,
here's
another
one,
4840
Sheridan,
so
other
side
of
the
lake,
again
creating
yard
space
and
and
leveled
space.
Here's
another
one,
Russell
Avenue
4901,
so
again
that
retaining
wall
with
a
fans
creating
yard
space
for
their
family.
The
here's
another
one
I
have
36
examples
here
from
our
neighborhood
I
think
it
creates
precedent,
I'm,
not
sure
if
they've
had
to
apply
for
variances
here's
another
one.
This
we
measured
about
6
foot
high.
S
This
is
on
4552
Washburn,
but
this
is
about
six
foot
high.
This
looks
like
a
brand
new
retaining
wall.
Here's
a
fence-
in
fact
that's
on
that
one.
This
is
the
same
house
right
here
again:
kind
of
similar,
creating
I
think
a
nice
yard
for
their
children.
Here's
another
one.
This
is
just
down
the
street
Washburn
Avenue
4401,
creating
a
flat
yard.
So
again,
I
could
go
through
all
of
those
for
you,
but
I
think
there's,
there's
maybe
precedence.
S
A
T
Name
is
Shasta
for
Android
address
is
14033
Commerce,
Prior,
Lake
I
just
wanted
to
come
in
and
a
couple
of
the
staff
recommendations
there
were
as
far
as
building
the
wall
as
far
as
the
wall
design.
There's
nothing
wrong
with
that
and
we're
able
to
comply,
we're
able
to
comply
with
Watershed
District
as
well.
If
there's
some
erosion
control
issues,
we're
very
highly
recommended:
Landscape
Company
we're
doing
this
it'll
be
a
nice
aesthetic,
Walden
neighborhood.
T
T
So
it's
when
you
combine
that
that
corner
when
you
combine
there's
a
lot
of
places
where
I
have
traffic
there's
a
lot
of
places
that
may
have
daycare
next
to
them,
but
there's
not
a
lot
of
places
where
I
have
the
hill,
the
traffic
and
all
those
combined
things
together
in
one
property.
So
I
think
all
those
things
together
provide
us
the
uniqueness
and
it's
really
like
I've
got
kids
too
I've
got
five
kids
I
get
it
like.
T
A
F
M
Q
Moisture
softly
board
memory
speakerova,
where
the
wall
is
located,
as
shown
on
the
plans,
essentially,
anything
would
require
a
variance
if
it's
going
to
raise
the
height
of
the
grade
there
if
they
did
want
to
push
the
wall
back
further
away
from
the
sidewalk
towards
the
house
and
essentially
have
the
top
of
the
wall
meet
wherever
the
grade
is
somewhere
in
the
middle
there.
That
could
be
something
that
would
be
considered
retaining
natural
grade
as
a
permitted
obstruction
within
a
required
yard.
Q
E
Yeah
I
have
a
comment:
I
think
the
site
is
unique,
considering
where
the
grade
is
from
the
sidewalk
and
that
it's
sort
of
from
the
photos
dips
down
right
before
it's
not
very
gradual
into
the
sidewalk.
So
I'm
wondering
if
anyone
else
can
sort
of
justify
that
as
something
unique
about
the
site
and
a
practical
difficulty.
D
Q
Mentioned
something
about
Johannes
and
there
are
portions
of
the
retaining
wall
itself.
Significant
portions
I
think
that
are
outside
of
of
the
property
lines
right.
I.
Think
if
you
look
at
the
survey
that
the
darker
black
line
is,
is
the
property
lines
and
you
can
see
it
shows
it
as
labeled
under
construction
on
on
this
survey
of
a
gray
line
that
is
the
retaining
wall.
It's
there's
a
lot
of
it.
That's
outside
of
the
property
lines.
Q
H
Q
H
You
so
that
being
said,
I
I
do
feel
like
board
member
free,
as
it
said
that
there
is,
the
aggregate
of
the
factors
could
lead
me
to
start
finding
a
practical
difficulty.
Yeah
a
daycare
street
is
not
a
practical
difficulty,
but
volume
increase
bust
lines.
Safety
of
the
children
come
into
count.
I
think
you
put
them
all
together.
They
make
a
practical
difficulty
standing
on
their
own
I,
don't
think
they
have
the
Merit,
but
I
could
find
personally
so
I'd
like
to
hear
where
you
guys
are
on
that.
D
P
D
A
S
Individually,
probably
yes,
I.
Think
in
combination
is
our
Point
to
argue
for
the
practice
with
the
difficulty
of
that
lot,
then
the
demonstration
of
the
setbacks
that
I
just
showed
you
with
all
the
all
the
other
36
retaining
walls
that
are
present
in
a
neighborhood
that
was
that
setback
I,
don't
have
the
data
on
all
of
those
homes.
S
S
You
know
which
isn't
our
property
so
I
think
it's
I
think
it's
in
the
whole,
looking
at
it
as
a
whole
and
I
think
what's
been
what's
been
gone
through
with
this
and
and
again
it's
brought
us
to
the
level
of
contacting
Ms,
Paul
Masano
and
having
multiple
meetings
with
her
about
this.
So
you
know
I
think
it's.
We
really
asked
for
your
your
your
help
on
this
and
your
approval
for
this.
Thank
you.
T
So
we
had
a
lengthy
discussion
with
the
neighborhood
with
the
neighborhood
about
this
as
well,
and
they
they
ask
similar
questions
and
they
were
talking
about
that,
and
so
it
was.
It
was
the
aggregate
with
them
and
they
were
I
mean
on
that
report.
There
you
have
their
the
neighborhood
recommendation
that
they
were
seeing
this,
that
they
that
they
agree
with
the
circumstances.
T
A
C
D
A
Okay,
and
with
that
the
the
motion
passes
and
your
land
use
application,
your
variance
is
approved
with
the
stated
conditions
you
can
talk
to
Mr
Cole
house
or
Mr
Ellis
after
the
meeting
to
find
out
how
to
move
forward
with
your
project.
But
congratulations
on
the
variants,
foreign,
okay.
That
brings
us
to
the
end
of
our
discussion
items
and
moves
us
into
board
business.
We
have
nominations
for
chair
and
vice
chair
in
this
case,
I
am
seeking
a
nomination,
so
I
will
turn
the
meeting
over
to
Mr
finlison.