►
From YouTube: July 27, 2023 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
Additional information at:
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
Submit written comments about agenda items to: councilcomment@minneapolismn.gov or https://www.minneapolismn.gov/government/meetings/public-comment/online-comment
A
Good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
July
27
2023
Zoning
Board
of
adjustment,
meeting
I'm
Vice,
chair
Jake
softly
I'll,
be
chairing
this
meeting
in
the
absence
of
chair
Perry
and
I
call
this
meeting
to
order
well
the
clerk.
Please
call.
B
C
D
A
B
A
E
A
Thank
you.
That
brings
us
to
the
public
hearing
portion
of
the
meeting.
We
have
three
items
on
the
agenda.
Two
were
slated
for
approval
and
consent.
One
is
scheduled
for
denial.
If
anyone
came
down
here
to
speak
in
favor
of
a
motion
or
an
item
that
is
on
the
consent
agenda,
you
can
indicate
you'd
like
to
speak
in
favor
of
it.
We
can
remove
that
from
the
consent
agenda.
Item
number
five
is
2110
4th
Street
Northeast.
A
A
A
Look
at
that,
if
you
came
down
here
for
items
number
six
and
seven,
your
latest
requests
are
approved.
Thank
you
for
coming
down
and
good
luck
with
your
project.
Okay.
Item
number
five
Mr
Cole
house.
F
Thank
you,
Vice,
chair
softly
members
of
the
board,
for
you
today
is
a
request
for
variances
to
increase
the
maximum
floor
area
ratio
to
increase
the
maximum
width
of
an
attached
front-facing
garage
and
to
reduce
the
minimum
required
interior
side
yard
setback
for
a
side
facing
principal
entrance,
all
of
which
would
be
for
construction
of
a
new
single
family
dwelling
at
2110
4th
Street
Northeast.
This
property
is
in
the
un2
urban
neighborhood
zoning
District,
in
addition
to
the
interior
to
built
form
overlay
District.
F
This
is
the
survey
showing
the
existing
conditions
of
the
property.
It
is
currently
a
vacant
lot.
That
is
largely
it's
paved
over
with
asphalt.
It
is
4363
square
feet
in
area
and
it's
37
feet
wide.
It
does
have
a
frontage
to
the
east
along
4th
Avenue,
including
an
existing
curb
cut,
and
there
is
no
alley
access
to
the
subject.
Property.
F
These
are
some
of
the
proposed
plans
you
can
see
is
a
two-story
single-family
dwelling.
The
proposed
dwelling
would
be
2889
square
feet
in
terms
of
its
gross
floor
area.
To
the
top
right
is
that
front
elevation
drawing
and
you
can
see
there
is
an
attached
front-facing
garage
which
would
make
up
much
of
the
the
front
facade
of
of
the
building
in
the
top
left.
That
is
the
side
elevation
facing
the
South
property
line.
F
Here's
some
floor
plans
on
the
left
is
the
first
floor
and
you
can
see
that
from
facing
garage
on
the
right
is
the
upper
level
and
I'll
also
note
towards
the
top
of
that
the
right
hand
side.
There
is
a
loft
area,
essentially
where
the
floor
wouldn't
be
extending
all
the
way
across
the
building,
but
you
would
be
able
to
look
down
into
the
living
room
on
the
main
level
from
a
portion
of
the
upper
level.
F
So
again,
there
are
three
variances
that
are
being
requested:
first,
to
increase
the
maximum
floor
area
ratio
from
0.5
to
0.663,
a
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
width
of
an
attached,
front-facing
garage
from
60
to
74.1
percent,
and
then
a
variance
request
to
reduce
the
minimum
required
interior
side
yard.
Setback
on
the
south
side
for
a
side
facing
principal
entrance
that'd
be
a
reduction
from
a
15
foot
requirement
for
a
principal
entrance
facing
an
interior
side,
property
line
down
to
five
feet,
which
would
be
the
the
standard
side
step
back
requirement.
F
Staff
is
recommending
approval
of
that
third
variance
request
for
the
the
setback
reduction
for
the
side
facing
principal
entrance
subject
to
some
conditions
of
approval
listed
in
the
staff
report.
I
can
go
into
more
details
about
that
variance
request
if
anyone
on
the
board
is
interested,
but
I
will
focus
on
the
other
two
variants
requests
for
which
staff
is
recommending
denial.
Those
are
the
variances
for
the
far
and
for
the
attached
front-facing
garage
with
for
the
far
variants
just
to
go
through
the
required
variance
findings.
F
Briefly
at
first
finding
regarding
challenges
in
complying
with
the
ordinance
due
to
circumstances
you
need
to
the
property.
The
subject
property
is
slightly
smaller
than
many
low
density,
Residential
Properties
in
Minneapolis.
The
kind
of
typical
single-family
dwelling
lot
is
around
5000
square
feet
or
in
40
feet
in
width.
This
one
is
a
little
bit
smaller
than
that,
but
from
staff's
perspective,
it's
not
so
small
is
to
create
challenges
and
complying
with
this
maximum.
Far
requirement.
F
The
the
zoning
code
guarantees
a
gross
floor
area
of
up
to
2500
square
feet,
which
would
come
out
to
an
far
of
0.572.
That's
a
guarantee,
regardless
of
of
the
size
of
of
the
property
attached
garages
and
Loft
areas.
They
do
count
towards
maximum
gross
floor
area
and
and
floor
area
ratio.
Those
are
included
in
this
proposal
as
design
decisions
made
by
the
applicant
From
staff's
perspective.
There's
not
unique
characteristics
of
the
property
that
create
a
challenge
in
complying
with
the
ordinance.
F
The
property
is,
is
pretty
flat,
there's
no
slopes
or
other
features
that
substantially
impact,
something
like
an
far
calculations.
The
staff
finds
that
that
finding
is
not
met
for
the
second
finding
regarding
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
and
in
reasonable
use
of
the
property.
F
Areas
like
attached
garages
and
lofted
areas
are
counted
towards
gross
floor
area
and
Fir
because
they
contribute
to
the
bulk
of
the
building
and
that's
what
far
calculations
are
intended
to
capture
is
the
bulk
of
the
building,
regardless
of
how
it's?
How
it's
used
internally,
so
staff
lines
that
that
binding
is
not
met.
F
The
third
finding
regarding
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
and
potential
for
injury
or
detriments
to
persons
or
properties
staff
finds
that
this
is
met
for
this
variance
request
for
the
the
remaining
variance
request
regarding
the
width
of
the
attached
front-facing
garage
again
just
to
go
through
the
the
findings.
Briefly,
the
first
finding
about
challenges
due
to
circumstances
unique
to
the
property.
Again,
the
property
is
slightly
small,
but
not
so
small
as
to
really
create
challenges
and
complying
with
the
ordinance.
F
This
property
is
37
feet
wide,
and
the
house
that
is
proposed
is
27
feet
wide,
which
is
the
maximum
width
of
a
structure
that
could
be
built
when
complying
with
the
standard
minimum
side
setbacks
for
a
property
of
of
this
size.
The
maximum
width
of
an
attached,
front-facing
garage
is
60,
which,
for
a
maximum
width
structure
like
this
would
result
in
a
garage
of
up
to
16.2
feet
in
width
is
what
the
ordinance
would
allow
without
a
variance
the
zoning
code
for
an
off
street
parking
space.
F
It
typically
has
a
minimum
width
of
8.5
feet
so
well
below
what
would
be
allowed
on
on
this
site
without
a
variance
in
terms
of
an
attached
front-facing
garage.
If
the
applicants
were
to
propose
putting
a
driveway
around
the
side
of
of
the
house
to
stay
an
off
street
parking
area
or
a
detached
garage
in
the
rear,
a
driveway
typically
needs
to
be
at
least
eight
feet
wide,
so
they
could
still
have
a
24
foot
wide
building
if
they
put
a
driveway
around
the
side.
The
zoning
code
requires
a
minimum
building
width
of
18
feet.
F
Typically,
so
there's
still
some
some
room
to
work
with
here
in
in
terms
of
the
size
of
the
property
and
what
could
be
designed
here
so
any
desire
to
provide
additional
parking
or
storage
space
in
something
like
an
attached.
Front-Facing
garage
is
designed
decisions
made
by
the
applicant
and
not
based
on
anything
unique
to
the
to
the
property,
so
staff
finds
that
that
is
not
met
for
the
second
finding
regarding
reasonable
use
of
the
property
in
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance.
F
The
spirit
and
the
tent
of
the
ordinance
in
this
case
is
to
limit
the
size
of
attached
front-facing
garages.
Parking
is
generally
considered
to
be
an
accessory
use
to
the
principal
use
of
the
property
in
this
case,
the
dwelling
being
that
principal
use
and
garages
are
intended
to
be
subordinate
in
size
and
bulk
and
location
requirements
around
garages
and
and
parking
are
also
intended
to
align
with
the
traditional
built
form
of
low
density,
Residential
Properties
in
Minneapolis,
with
parking
to
the
rear
of
the
dwelling,
including
on
Lots,
without
alley
access.
F
The
ordinance
was
amended
in
2021
to
eliminate
minimum
off
street
parking
requirements
in
the
city,
and
that
was
generally
intended
to
sort
of
limit
the
the
impacts
of
Austria
vehicle
parking
and
to
promote
Transportation
alternatives
to
private
Vehicles.
F
The
applicants
are
proposing
the
largest
possible
structure
on
this
site
in
terms
of
its
width
and
would
still
be
exceeding
that
maximum
width
of
an
attached,
front-facing
garage,
so
staff
finds
that
this
finding
is
also
not
met
for
the
attached
front-facing
garage
variants,
the
last
finding
about
essential
character
of
the
locality
and
potential
for
injury
or
detriment.
Staff
finds
that
this
is
met
for
this
variance
request.
F
So,
in
conclusion,
I'll
just
reiterate
that
the
recommendation
is
for
denial
of
the
requested
variances
related
to
the
far
and
the
width
of
the
attached
front-facing
garage
staff
does
recommend
approval
of
the
third
variants
relating
to
the
side
setback
subject
to
conditions
listed
in
the
staff
report.
I
will
note
if
the
board
is
inclined
to
Grant
either
of
the
two
variances
that
staff
is
recommending
denial
for.
We
would
recommend
that
you
include
similar
conditions
of
approval
for
those
other
two
variances
as
well.
F
There
were
a
number
of
public
comments
that
you
received,
many
of
which
were,
after
the
staff
report,
was
initially
published
for
this
application.
Those
should
all
have
been
made
available
for
your
consideration
and
entered
into
the
public
record.
The
applicants
are
in
attendance
during
this
hearing.
This
concludes
my
presentation,
but
I'll
stand
for
questions.
Thank.
G
Thanks
guys,
I
I
haven't
seen
the
public
comments.
Has
anybody
else
on
the
board
seen
the
public
comments,
my.
B
Apologies,
the
board
through
the
chair,
I'm
printing,
some
in
the
other
room
and
I'll
have
them
for
you
shortly.
That
was
my
mistake.
G
Okay,
that's
one
thing:
you
said
they
built
they're,
building
the
largest
possible
home
on
the
project,
which
is
a
reasonable
thing
to
do
right,
especially
on
a
small
lot.
If
they
were
to
trim
it
down
narrowly
enough
to
scoot
a
car
around
on,
say
the
south
side
of
the
property
they'd
be
allowed
to
build
a
detached
garage
in
the
back
correct.
F
Vice,
chair
softly
board,
member
Hutchins.
Theoretically,
yes,
okay,
you
know
there
are
obviously
many
other
factors
that
could
go
into
that
that
type
of
design,
but
theoretically
they
could
propose
a
detached
garage
in
the
rear
access
by
okay
by
a
driveway.
A
H
Yeah
I'm
I'm
very
concerned
about
this,
because
I
look
at
these
kinds
of
lots
of
as
really
difficult
and
I'm
really
grateful
when
an
unacceptable
use
becomes
an
acceptable
use
and-
and
so
it
really
is
exciting.
H
If
this
lot
was
a
50
foot
by
117
it
would
it
would
equal
the
far
correct
because
I
mean
I
even
looked
at
it.
If
the
lot
was
instead
of
37
feet,
if
it
was
40
feet,
it'd
be
4
800,
so
we
would
be
very
really
close
to
the
far
correct.
So
is
there
any
wiggle
room
at
all
in
there
on
you
know,
when
do
you
say
that
it's
going
to
be
denied
like
if
it's
0.51
or
if
it's
0.52.
F
Vice,
chair
softly
board,
member
Grant's
court
is
there's
not
necessarily
a
set
rule.
That
says
there
are
X
number
of
square
feet
above
what
the
zoning
code
allows
and
that's
something
that
staff
would
recommend
approval
or
denial
for
it's
kind
of
a
comprehensive
evaluation
of
the
entire
Proposal.
With
regard
to
the
the
variance
findings
that
are
discussed
in
in
the
staff
report,
we
haven't
considered
under
other
hypothetical
conditions
like
if
the
property
was
this
much
wider
than
it
is
now,
then
this
exact
design
would
would
be
allowed
right.
H
F
Zoning
code
does
in
in
part,
try
to
account
for
that
by
saying.
Okay,
usually,
a
a
standard
lot
is
around
5000
square
feet.
That's
our
minimum
lot
area.
The
maximum
far
is
0.5
that
comes
out
to
exactly
2500
square
feet
of
allowable
gross
floor
area
on
it
on
a
typical
lot.
So
the
zoning
code
guarantees
that
2500
square
feet
of
gross
floor
area
for
any
property
in
the
city.
Regardless
of
that
of
you
know,
one
two
or
three
unit
dwelling
is
permitted,
regardless
of
how
big
the
lot
area
actually
is.
F
H
The
code
right
right
did
anything
get
into
taking
consideration,
since
it
is
in
the
urban
District.
This
fact
that
so
many
of
the
houses
around
this
area
are
actually
would
not
meet.
The
current
far
I
mean
is
anything
is
that
is
that
actually
a
possibility,
because
for
an
exclusion
or
an
approval
of
this
simply
because
so
many
of
these
buildings
around
this
area
would
not
meet
our
current
standards
and
I
find
that
little
disingenuous.
You
know
in.
F
In
my
mind,
that
somewhat
relates
to
that
third
variance
finding
which
includes
the
essential
character,
the
locality.
You
know
that's
something
where
we
might
be
looking
at
other
properties
in
in
the
area
to
see,
but
for
those
first,
two
variants,
findings
that
are
talking
about
you
know
reasonable
use
and
spirit
and
intent
of
the
code
as
I
mentioned,
or
challenges
due
to
the
the
circumstances
of
the
individual
property
at
hand.
F
I
F
I
F
Theoretically,
it's
possible
that
there
could
be
an
issue
with
something
like
a
maximum
impervious
surface
requirement,
depending
on
the
specifics
of
the
design,
and
that's
not
something
that
staff
have
evaluated
in
detail.
There
are
potential
options
like
doing
a
what
people
call
like
a
ribbon
driveway
or
a
track
driveway
where
it's
not
a.
You
know
a
paved
surface
for
the
entire
width,
but
just
you
know
two
to
three
feet
for
each
tire
track,
so
to
speak.
J
F
D
Thank
you,
Vice
chair.
If
the
driveway
was
in
place
on
the
side,
then
South
do
they
still
need
the
five
foot
setback
from
the
driveway
itself.
A
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
further
questions?
Okay,
seeing
none!
Thank
you!
Mr
Full
House
is
the
applicant
here.
Okay,
this
is
a
public
hearing,
so
you're
welcome
to
come
up
and
speak.
Make
sure
that
you
sign
in
on
the
table
next
to
the
entrance
there
after
you're
done
speaking
and
I'd,
ask
that
you
speak
one
at
a
time
and
we'll
speak
in
a
sequence.
So,
once
you
finish
speaking,
your
time
is
done
and
the
next
person
will
go
and
make
their
presentation.
K
Okay,
well,
I
am
John
Thompson
I'm,
one
half
of
the
ownership
of
this
beautiful
lot
that
you
see
right
there
I
think
I'd
like
to
start
just
by
kind
of
going
back
and
answering
or
commenting
on
some
of
the
questions
that
were
asked.
K
K
In
addition
on
the
south
side
of
the
of
the
lot
where
we
would
have
the
driveway,
the
neighbors
deck
overhangs
onto
our
lot
line,
so
would
it
be
a
one
foot
plus
eight
foot
driveway
or
would
we
need
to
go
further
or
will
we
need
to
have
a
civil
issue
asking
this
neighbor
of
ours
too?
Take
down
their
deck?
That's
been
there
for
20
plus
years.
Then
we
get
into
adverse
possession
laws
our
Lotus
Torrens.
Their
lot
is
abstract
in
the
City
of
Minneapolis.
K
Torrance
would
take
precedence
on
that,
still
doesn't
mean
we
wouldn't
end
up
in
court,
so
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that
right
away
in
terms
of
other
buildings
in
the
area
exceeding
the
far
I
forget
the
date
but
I
as
I
understand
it.
There
is
a
rule
allowed
that
non-new
construction
homes
are
allowed
up
to
a
500
square
foot
addition
the
with
without
consideration
of
far
so.
If
your
home
is
already
there
and
is
say
below
far
by
200
square
feet,
you
are
allowed
500
square
feet
in
additional
space.
K
We
would
never
be
granted
this
due
to
the
new
construction
nature
of
our
home.
So
what
gets
built
or
capped
we're,
also
getting
hit
with
the
attached
garage
which
that
rule
was
changed
prior
to
I
forget
the
date
when
I
say
it
was
like
2014,
where
they
only
counted
a
portion
of
it.
It
was
two
to
three
hundred
square
feet.
It
was
just
it
didn't
matter
how
large
it
was.
That
was
a
flat
you
have
an
attached
garage.
This
is
flat
amount.
K
The
reason
for
the
design
of
the
building
is
to
make
it
cheap
to
build
it's
just
four
walls.
It
you
know
it's,
it's
not
the
prettiest
thing
in
the
world,
we'll
admit
to
that.
K
So
the
garage
has
taken
takes
away
from
us,
but
we
want
the
lasted
space
because
it
allows
for
a
larger
surface
area
on
the
rooftop,
for
what
we
hope
to
have
is
a
very
large
solar
array
in
the
future
and
then
also
there
is
a
15
glazing
rule
which
has
been
really
difficult
to
work
around
and
that
is
not
allowed
to
be.
We
cannot
request
a
variance
for
that,
so
15,
15
percent
of
the
surface
area
of
the
first
floor
needs
to
be
glass.
K
Work,
glass,
work
within
your
doors
and
your
garage
door
do
not
count
towards
that
number.
So
we
have
a
very
large
window
at
the
front
of
the
home
which
meets
our
15
percent,
and
that
is
why
variance
3
is
was
requested
because
the
primary
entrance
of
the
home
then
needed
to
be
on
the
south
side
of
the
lot.
K
We
you
know
had
a
little
bit
of
depth
in
the
front
of
the
home
originally.
However,
then
we
were
also
corrected
in
that
the
primary
entrance,
if
it's
on
the
side
of
the
lot
or
side
of
the
home
needs
to
be
attached
to
the
facade
of
the
home.
So
everything
had
to
be
pulled
forward.
Now
we
have
this
giant
foyer
in
there,
so
in
the
entire
foyer
it
gets
counted
against
us
as
well.
K
Understand
that
you
know
the
two-car
garage
like
we're
not
entitled
to
a
two-car
garage,
the
policy
six
of
the
Viking
using
public
transit.
That's
us
between
the
two
of
us.
We
have
six
bikes.
Brittany
is
working
on
me
for
a
seventh
bike.
She
wants
to
get
an
e-bike,
so
she
can
resume
commuting
to
work
all
the
way
out
in
Plymouth,
and
she
does
do
that
currently
on
her
regular
bike.
So
she's
a
bike,
commuter
I
bike,
quite
a
bit
as
well.
K
We
you
know
we
walk
to
all
of
our
coffee
shops
in
our
current
neighborhood.
We
do
our
grocery
shopping
when
we
walk
and
we
drop
off
our
compost.
So
but
the
reality
is
that
we
are
still
a
two-car
household.
Neither
of
us
are
fully
remote
and
we
work
in
different
cities,
so
it
just
doesn't
really
work.
K
And
going
through
all
these
rules,
we
realized,
you
know
it
was
going
to
be
challenging,
but
we
also
noticed
that
these
rules
were
never
written
to
take
into
consideration
a
37-foot
wide
lot
with
no
side
or
rear
access.
We've
been
really
trying
to
fit
a
square
peg
into
a
round
hole
and
it's
just
been
really
difficult.
K
We
have
talked
to
previous
owners
of
the
lot
as
well,
and
the
lot
has
been
vacant
for
years.
It's
over
a
decade,
we've
seen
house
plans
of
the
owner
prior
to
us
and
he
had
to
abandon
them
for
similar
reasons.
Costco's
also
is
becoming
super
prohibitive
and
was
prohibited
in
his
case.
I
think
I'm
just
gonna
stop
there
and
let
you
go.
L
So
I'm
Brittany
I'm,
the
other
half
I,
do
want
to
get
a
Fat
Tire
Bike
I'll
admit
that
six
bikes
feels
like
a
lot,
but
winter
is
a
whole
thing
here.
So
just
a
few
things
in
addition
to
what
John
talked
about
and
I
think
a
big
thing
you'll
see
in
the
application
we
put
together
was
that
we
feel
like
a
lot
in
its
current
state
is
a
detriment
to
the
neighborhood
and
that
this
plan
proposes
something
that
would
make
the
neighborhood
better.
L
We've
done
a
lot
of
conversing
with
neighbors,
because
we
we
want
to
know
them
and
we're
excited
to
live
next
to
them,
and
so
we
know
that
the
lot
has
been
overgrown
in
the
past.
It's
been
unshoveled
throughout
the
winters.
L
L
So
I
think
that's
super
key
and
then
I
think
just
a
little
bit
about
us.
I
think
for
you,
guys,
is
to
know
sort
of
what
we're
doing
here
right.
We
we
love
living
in
Minneapolis,
we
currently
live
in
Minneapolis.
We
want
to
stay
living
in
Minneapolis,
but
obviously,
as
you
guys
know,
there's
some
challenges
that
come
with
living
in
an
urban
neighborhood
and
when
we
took
on
this
project
we
knew
it
would
be
hard,
and
so
we
hope
that
you
can
understand
like
this
is
just
business
for
you.
L
But
this
is
our
whole
life
plan.
So
we
want
you
to
know
that,
like
we're,
super
excited
about
this
as
a
potential,
so
annoying
I'm.
So
sorry
there's
a
potential
place
to
live
and
we
have
big
plans
and
we
think
they're
going
to
be
great
for
the
neighborhood,
so
I'm.
A
Are
you
well,
thank
you
for
your
testimony.
Is
there
anyone
else,
who'd
like
to
speak
in
support
of
the
application.
A
C
Sir,
your
name
for
the
record:
yes,
my
name
is
Evan
Hall
I'm,
assisting
with
the
project
there's
just
one
thing:
I
wanted
to
mention
regarding
Alex
Alex,
actually,
gracefully
mentioned
it
a
few
times,
but
is
regarding
the
square
footage.
There's
a
two
story:
a
two-story
interior
space
in
the
project
that's
proposed
in
the
design
that
second
void
space
is
taking
up
square
footage
in
the
Florida
area
ratio.
C
So
the
yellow
portion
on
the
screen
here
is
is
taking
up
square
footage
that
it
would
be
in
excess
of
the
2500
square
feet,
which
we
wanted
to
note
and
possibly
request
that
that
be
if
the
recommendation
is
approval
for
the
Florida
area
ratio
that
that
could
be
built
into
the
request
that
that
space
remains
two-story.
So
so
it's
a
little
bit
more
advantageous
to
the
board
and
the
city
to
see
the
two-story
space
remain
in
the
project.
C
Also,
there
there's
a
two.
The
curb
cut
is
currently
a
two
car
curb
cut
that
goes
into
the
empty
parking
lot.
The
the
proposed
plan
has
a
curb
cut
that
is
similar
to
the
existing
curb
cut
on
the
lot.
So
those
are
a
few
items
that
kind
of
relate
to
the
existing
conditions
of
the
lot
and
the
proposed
conditions
that
we
thought
were
of
note.
C
And
then
you
know
everyone's
been
really
working
hard
on
this,
including
Alex,
but
especially
John
and
Brittany,
and
and
they're
just
they're
really
diving
into
the
code.
So
we're
just
kind
of
really
excited
about
this
project
and
thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
review
it
today.
Sure.
A
Thank
you,
Mr
Hall
I
have
a
couple
of
questions.
Can
you
clarify
the
capacity
in
which
you're
serving
to
assist
with
the
project
I'm
the
drafts
person,
the
drafts
person
yeah?
Okay,
and
so
did
you
draft
the
the
plans
for
the
home?
Yes,
okay.
With
regard
to
the
curb
cut
you
mentioned
as
part
of
the
plan
review,
are
you
being
required
to
install
new,
curb
Cuts,
or
are
you
able
to
reuse
the
existing
curb
Cuts
or
third?
Is
this
a
premature
question.
C
A
Yeah
and
then
I'm
going
to
try
to
reiterate
what
you
had
said
to
make
sure
I
understand
it
correctly.
With
regard
to
the
the
open
air
second
floor,
space
you're,
just
seeking
a
clarification
from
this
board
to
recognize
that
if
we
were
to
Grant
the
variance
that
it
would
that
you
have
internal
unusable
floor
space.
Is
that.
C
The
the
request
is,
if
it
were
too
much
of
a
leap
to
consider
the
Florida
area
ratio
being
exceeded,
Beyond
2500
square
feet
to
consider
the
fact
that
part
of
the
score
footage
in
that
polarity
ratio
is
not
usable
space.
It's
void
space
above
the
first
floor
and
just
if
it
were
possible
to
consider
that
as
a
part
of
the
the
resolution
that's
described
around,
the
variance
would
be
one
possibility
to
kind
of
compromise
on
that,
and
in
other
words
the
2500.
C
It
would
be
a
2500
square
foot
house,
except
for
the
fact
that
the
void
space
is
taking
up
additional
square
footage
under
the
current
zoning
requirements
and
that
if
the
ceiling
is
more
than
12
feet
above
the
floor,
it
counts
twice
or
just
square
footage.
So,
for
example,
this
room
would
be
counted
two
times
because
the
ceiling
is
over
12
feet
and
that's
basically
why
the
Florida
air
show.
N
M
L
M
F
Yeah
Mr
softly
board
member
kellyanne.
If
you
look
at
the
outside
of
this
house
here,
it
just
looks
like
a
two-story
house,
it's
being
counted
as
for
far
purposes.
The
calculation
is
the
same
regardless
of
whether
that
floor
actually
extends
all
the
way
across
or
not
correct.
If
it
was,
if
the,
if
the,
if
there
was
no
loft
or
void
space
and
the
second
floor,
surface
went
all
the
way
across
the
far
calculation
would
be
exactly
the.
G
A
A
Well,
I'll
ask
one
more
time:
if
there's
anyone
here
to
speak
in
favor
of
the
project,
is
there
anyone
here
to
speak
against
the
project?
Well,
please
come
up
to
the
microphone
same
same
rules,
one
at
a
time
you'll
each
get
your
turn
to
speak.
O
A
Okay
and
you
submitted
a
letter
in
email
and
in
opposition
of
this
application.
Okay
sure
by
all
means.
P
In
1978
my
husband
and
I
bought
the
house
at
2106
4th
Street
Northeast,
our
housed
a
lot
at
2010
and
the
bar
at
22nd
and
University
were
owned
by
Don
Moore
and
the
lot
next
to
you
know,
2010
was
used
as
a
parking
lot
for
many
years
for
the
bar
and
I
believe
it
was
Don
Moore
who
put
up
the
fence
where
it
is.
You
know
right
now
and
that's
where
we
we
thought
our
boundary
was.
You
know,
and
we
did
not
know.
P
The
fence
was
wrong
until
it
started
to
be
put
up
for
sale
sold
for
45
years,
plus
I've
taken
care
of
the
area
by
the
fans.
In
fact,
Last
Summer,
the
City
of
Minneapolis,
sent
me
a
letter
saying
I
had
to
cut
down
two
ash
trees
right
by
the
fence
and
which
I
did
and
paid
for
it
and
I
do
not
want
a
driveway
right
by
my
bedroom
window
or
bathroom,
which
is
right.
P
You
know
on
that
side
and
there
would
be
absolutely
no
privacy
and
there
would
be
no
privacy
and-
and
it
would
just
be
too
close
and
then
I
wanted
to
say,
I
I,
don't
care
for
the
idea
of
the
main
entrance
of
their
house
on
the
salt
side,
which
is
my
side,
which
it
would
be.
You
know,
and
I
and
I
want
to
know
all
that's
going
to
happen
to
the
south
side
of
the
slot
and
and
I
was
I
understand.
They
want
to
take
down
any
retaining
walls.
P
O
The
the
concerns
for
the
building,
especially
being
within
five
feet
of
the
property
line
or
the
side
yard
that
that
variance
the
concern
with
that
is
where
her
house
is
located
on
on
her
property
or
towards
her
property
line
or
the
share
property
line
that
that
structure
would
be
very
close
to
her
main
bedroom.
Her
the
one
bathroom
in
that
house
and
just
the
concerns
with
it
being
detrimental
for
her
privacy
and
for
the
actual
structure
of
her
home.
A
Okay,
well,
thank
you
for
the
testimony
for
the
record.
I
want
to
make
sure
I
have
the
names
right:
it's
Karen,
Nelson
and
Ella
yeah,
okay!
Well,
thank
you
for
coming
down.
A
M
A
Sure
I'll
I'll
that
here
miss
Callahan
go
ahead
in.
M
Light
of
the
comments
that
we
just
heard
from
you're
a
butter,
can
you
give
some
explanation
on
why
the
entrance
is
located
on
the
south
side
of
the
property
as
opposed
to
the
north
side?
Just
given
the
proximity
between
the
two
buildings
versus
on
the
North
side,
it
looks
like
there's
more
space
between
the
existing
dwelling
and
the
current
proposal
that
you
guys
have.
L
What
the
garage
side
went
further
back
and
so
for
us
to
not
need
a
fourth
variance.
The
door
is
on
the
south
side,
because
the
distance
from
the
street
had
to
be
under
a
certain
amount
of
feet
and
I
can't
remember
how
much
it
is,
but
for
us
to
go
past
the
garage
to
be
a
main
entrance
and
no
longer
qualified,
we
would
have
needed
two
variances
instead
of
one
okay.
D
Mr
Johansson:
are
you
Vice,
chair,
I'm,
supporting
staff
findings,
unless
someone
can
convince
me
otherwise.
G
Thanks
Vice
chair
softly,
so
I
I
kind
of
want
to
set
the
table
to
think
about
variance,
A
and
B
separately,
because
I
I
I
think
I
can
find
my
way
to
variance
a
I.
Don't
know
if
I
can
find
my
way
to
variance
C
I
guess
I
asked
app
a
question,
a
clarifying
question
if
they
would,
when
it's
talks
about
width
of
the
garage,
a
fun-facing
garage,
does
it
take
into
account
the
door
with
the
use
width
so
the
room
itself?
F
Mystery
softly
board
member
Hutchins
I'm
paraphrasing
the
code
language,
but
when
staff
is
looking
at
it
we're
going
to
an
exterior
building
wall
if
the
garage
extends
that
far,
which
is
the
case
in
the
north
side.
On
the
south
side,
there
is
an
interior
wall
between
the
garage
and
kind
of
a
mud,
room
or
foyer
I.
Think,
as
the
applicant
mentioned,
usually
we'll
go
to
like
the
middle
of
that
interior
wall
separating
those
spaces.
G
Thanks
for
the
clarifying
question,
I
guess:
I
I'm
willing
to
hear
if
anybody
is
interested
to
go
down
the
road
to
try
to
find
variances
a
I
think
there's
some
room
there,
like
the
applicants
brought
up
quite
a
bit
and
I.
Think
it's
pretty
obvious
that
the
zoning
code
is
not
thinking
about
a
37
foot
wide
lot.
I
Yeah
I
think
looking
through
it.
What
board
member
Hutchin
says
I
completely
agree
with
point
a
I
think
that
you're
gonna
just
end
up
facing
another
problem
and
another
problem
in
another
problem
and
you'll
be
back
here.
Potentially.
N
I
Reaches
the
challenge,
I
think,
for
the
other
part,
what
we're
talking
about
the
far
I
think
that
we
could
actually
combine
them
a
bit,
because
we're
also
talking
about
the
garage
problem
again,
because
that
space
is
being
counted
again,
they
will
run
into
other
problems
along
the
way
and
that
will
lead
them
to
either
a
smaller
garage
there
or
one
car
garage
is
what
it
would
end
up
having
to
be
in
the
front
and
then
the
one
car
in
the
back
or
something
like
that
or
just
a
plethora
of
problems,
because,
as
in
the
third
finding
it,
this
lot
is
unusually
narrow
and
so
I
think
that
I
can
find
myself
to
get
to
both,
because
the
garage
issue
is
going
to
lead
to
both
parts.
A
You
can
tell
me
if
I
understand,
correct,
essentially
you're
saying
that
the
lot
is
too
narrow
and
that
narrow
width
is
enough
of
a
unique
practical
difficulty
and
that
the
narrowness
of
the
the
lot
is
a
practical
difficulty
sufficient
to
support
both
variances
A
and
B.
And
then
it's
a
unique
condition
not
created
by
the
applicant.
I
I
That
is,
I,
I,
do
and
I
think.
The
second
element
I
think
we
have
to
look
at
kind
of
the
broader
Spirit
of
the
2040
plan,
which
is
in
support
of
additional
housing
and
against
more
vacant
Lots.
The
the
larger
intent
of
the
2040
plan
is
to
increase
housing
capability
in
the
city
and
so
I
think
this
is
a
reasonable
request
and
with
the
larger
Spirit
of
the
2040
comprehensive
plan.
J
Can
I
just
ask
a
clarifying
question
for
which,
for
a
it,
being
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
a
being
the
far
variance
and
B
being
the
garage?
Okay,
that's
fine.
Q
I
generally
believe
in
adding
density
and
I'm,
taking
advantage
of
vacant
lots
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
but
I
think
in
this
case
that
the
house
is
just
designed
too
big
for
this
lot
and
I.
Think
I
also
would
move
staff
findings
that
the
code
has
been
set
up
for
calculations
that
are
based
on
both
typical
lots
and
additional
sort
of
Odd
Sides
lots
and
the
the
fact
that
it's
so
close,
but
not
quite,
and
that
if
you
remove
something
here
and
add
something
there.
Q
Basically
the
lots
that
are
this
size
are
designed
to
allow
for
houses
of
a
certain
size.
And
this
house
is
just
not
designed
for
this
size
lot
and
it
is
atypical
because
not
the
size
of
a
typical
lot,
but
because
the
design
fixes
are
such
that
they
would
have
they
would
go
by
the
code.
It
doesn't
seem
that
extreme
that
it
would
warrant
a
variance.
H
Respectfully
I
guess
I
do
agree
that
the
larger
intent
of
the
2040
plan
is
to
take
advantage
of
these
kind
of
situations
and
I'm
knowing
I'm
familiar
with
the
area
and
also
respecting
the
fact
that
the
Holland
neighborhood
Group,
which
has
not
done
a
strong
proponent
of
a
lot
of
things
in
high
density,
actually
commented
and
spent
the
time
to
say
that
this
was
a
good
project
and
worthwhile
anytime.
You
can
get
Grumpy's
Bar
in
the
Holland
neighborhood
degree
on
anything.
I
think
it's
kind
of
a
miracle,
so
Kudos
I'm.
H
So
sorry
about
the
people
who
are
against
this
I
too
have
found
problematic
situations
in
my
own
neighborhood,
where
three
and
four
or
five-story
buildings
were
put
next
five
feet
less
than
two
feet
away
from
Neighbors
buildings,
single-family
dwellings
and
that's
just
the
way.
This
building
this
building
overlays
has
been
happening
and
we
just
have
to
accept
it
and
I'm
I'm.
H
Sorry
for
those
kinds
of
situations
that
it's
putting
one
person
in
a
problem,
but
for
the
sake
of
the
whole
city
and
Community,
the
size
of
this
structure
is
similar
to
other
structures
in
that
neighborhood.
H
So
again,
I
I,
you
know
we
can't
get
a
video
camera
and
drive
around
and
see
it,
but
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
very
large
structures
around
there.
So
this
doesn't
feel
like
it's
out
of
place.
So
I
think
we
have
to
add
a
little
rationale.
On
top
of
the
the
well
thought
out
and
presented
building
issues,
but
again
I
go
back
to
the
small
lot
and
I
think
it's
I
think
for
variance
a
I
think
it's
really
appropriate
to
to
let
it
exceed
the
the
0.5.
R
I
intend
to
agree
with
Miss,
Maricopa
and
also
Johannesen
to
go
with
staff
findings.
I
agree
a
lot
with
being
a
proponent
of
having
more
density
and
making
use
of
empty
and
vacant
Lots.
However,
just
kindly
as
a
reminder,
we
are
not
the
Board
of
Architecture
to
try
to
solution
how
to
fit
certain
projects
in
a
certain
plot
of
land,
certain
plating.
R
G
Thanks
very
seriously,
I
guess:
I'm
gonna
take
a
crack
at
variance
a
and
try
and
push
for
notwithstanding
staff
findings
under
the
practical
difficulties
or
the
challenge
or
the
lot.
Now
that
we
change
the
language
for
the
findings
that
you
just
need
to
challenge
to
the
challenge
is
the
width
of
the
lot.
The
fact
that
the
with
a
lot
creates
an
issue
where
the
far
is
kind
of
hard
to
build
within
it's
a
constraint
couple
that
with
the
lofted
area
being
considered
gross
flow
area.
G
But
it's
really
not
I
think
those
two
things
together
creates
a
challenge
spear
in
the
tent
of
the
ordinance
to
go
to
finding
two
the
spirit
and
intend
the
ordinance
is
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
build
too
much
flooring
or
too
much
floor
space
in
one
lot.
I,
don't
think
that
this
house
is
doing
that,
so
I
would
say
it's
a
reasonable
consideration
to
not
count
the
lofted
spaces
gross
floor
area
because
of
the
width,
a
lot
I
would
say
if
their
law
was
four
times
bigger.
Now,
maybe
that's
not
really
consideration.
J
S
A
Q
I
think
I'm
worried
that
we
are
going
on
a
slippery
slope
of
defining
terms
and
math
in
the
code.
So
the
definition
of
floor
area
ratio
is
what's
before
us.
It's
the
level
of
the
building
that
you
walk
on
and
there's
other
terms
that
make
it
make
sense.
But
we
can't
decide
that
the
law
that
space
does
not
count
towards
the
that's
not
considered
floor
area,
because
the
definition
of
floor
area
is
is
just
that
I.
Q
Don't
think
it's
anything
wrong
with
the
motion
and
we
should
definitely
vote
on
it,
but
we're
gonna
get
down
a
wrong
path.
If
we
start
trying
to
redefine
what
the
terms
in
the
code
are
because
they
are,
they
are
what
they
are
and
it's
a
different
process
for
that
I
think
in
it,
and
it's
also
just
an
equation.
So
you
can't
argue
with
math,
but
thank.
A
H
D
J
B
A
And
with
that,
the
the
motion
is
denied
variance
a
is
not
approved
on
those
terms.
Do
I
have
any
other
motions
from
the
board.
Mr
Johansson.
D
E
A
Thanks
for
the
question
A
and
B,
and
out
of
curiosity,
we
have
yes,
of
course,
so
variance
is
a
and
b.
We
also
need
to
approve
C.
Q
A
That
was
unconscious.
I
I
only
put
issues
number
six
and
seven
up
for
consent.
So
my
by
my
score,
we
need
to
approve
number
the
third
variance
for
this
application.
E
Best
yourself,
hey
members,
the
board
that
is
true
as
well.
You
know
just
to
be
clear
on
that
I.
Just
the
last
discussion
that
had
been
the
last
motion
was
just
for
item
a
so
I
just
wanted
to
be
clear
that
we
were
addressing
all,
or
in
particular,
since
the
board
had
started
breaking
it
out
in
various
different
options.
A
H
H
A
H
Because
if
my
house
was
on
the
lot
today,
I
would
not
be
allowed
because
we
have
too
large
of
a
doors
that
is
similar
to
this.
So
I
feel
a
little
disingenuous
that
I
have
to
that.
I
have
to
be
an
objection
to
the
proposal,
so
I'm
just
clarifying
for
the
rest
of
the
board
here.
So
they
understand
where
I'm
coming
from
okay.
A
J
J
H
Because
I'm
very
troubled
by
the
fact
that
this
particular
house
with
this
size
of
a
garage
to
me,
is
still
in
keeping
in
character
with
many
of
the
other
garages
that
are
in
that
area,
including
my
own.
In
fact,
my
if
I
was
to
come
before
the
board.
I
would
not
be
able
to
build
the
house
that
I'm
building,
because
of
the
way
our
garages
are
Outdoors.
A
G
D
B
A
With
that,
the
motion
passes,
the
application
for
variances,
A
and
B
is
denied
variance.
C
is
granted.
You
can
speak
with
staff
to
see
what
your
options
are
moving
forward.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
coming
down
and
I
wish
you
good
luck
with
your
project,
regardless
of
how
it
turns
out
here.
Thank
you,
okay.
That
brings
us
to
our
next
agenda
item
number
eight
Mr,
Cole
house
or
Mr
Ellis.
S
Good
afternoon
board
members
I'm
Jason
Wittenberg
I
manage
the
code
development
team
in
cped.
We
are
the
team
that
works
on
regulatory
Improvement
and
comprehensive
plan
implementation,
I'm
joined
by
Joe
Bernard,
also
from
the
code.
Development
team
and
Janelle
widmeyer
had
a
scheduled
day
off
she's
also
on
the
co-development
team,
but
she
could
not
be
here
to
join
us
today.
Thank
you
for
allowing
us
to
come.
S
Have
a
discussion
about
the
the
new
zoning
code
as
you're
aware
that
the
new
code
went
into
effect,
July
1st,
following
unanimous
adoption
earlier
this
year
by
the
city
council,
we
have
about
25,
slides
I,
think
that
we'd
like
to
run
through
with
you,
maybe
take
up
a
half
hour
of
your
time.
Depending
on
how
much
discussion
we
have
we're
going
to
set
the
table
with
some
background,
provide
a
really
high
level
overview
of
some
of
the
aspects
of
the
ordinance
and
then
review.
S
Some
changes
that
are
more
applicable
to
things
that
are
are
more
commonly
in
front
of
the
board
of
adjustment,
which
is
what
we're
going
to
spend
the
majority
of
our
time
on
Joe
and
I
are
going
to
tag
to
you
a
bit
here,
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
him
for
the
initial
slides
with
the
content.
Thank
you.
T
Thank
you
Jason
good
afternoon
board
members.
We
just
want
to
start
off
by
recapping
a
little
bit.
How
we
got
here
I
was
very
pleased
to
hear
in
your
discussion
the
previous
item,
so
much
mention
of
Minneapolis
2040..
T
So,
prior
to
the
adoption
of
of
that
plan,
the
city
spent
three
years
engaging
with
stakeholders
on
the
future
of
Minneapolis
and
as
part
of
the
comprehensive
Plan
update
process,
the
city
is
called
to
bring
all
of
our
ordinances
into
conformance
with
the
plan,
something
required
by
state
law.
We
have
done
that
as
at
this
point,
with
the
final
adoption
of
the
the
land
use.
T
Rezoning
study
eliminated
all
of
those
conflicts
that
we
could
identify
between
our
policies
in
Minneapolis
2040
and
in
our
zoning
ordinances,
and
we'll
highlight
for
you
this
evening
the
the
biggest
items
that
we
think
that
the
board
should
be
paying
attention
to.
As
you
continue
to
do
your
good
work
as
refresher
Minneapolis
2040
includes
partial,
specific
guidance
for
the
size
of
buildings
on
every
property
which
is
built
form
and
we
have
guidance
for
the
types
of
uses
that
can
be
on
a
property
which
is
identified
as
land
use,
built,
form,
work,
height,
setbacks.
T
As
we're
doing
our
work,
we
asked
ourselves
these
questions
repeatedly,
trying
to
make
sure
that
we're
looking
back
on
the
policies
in
Minneapolis
2040
as
our
grounding
mechanism
and
making
sure
that
whatever
we're
doing
is
not
going
to
have
any
unintended
consequences
in
the
long
run.
Of
course,
we
see
the
zoning
code
as
a
living
document,
we're
going
to
find
things
that
aren't
working
well
and
we'll
come
back
and
fix
those
in
the
future
as
well.
T
I
mentioned
some
of
this
already,
but
quickly
a
plan
is
adopted
in
2019
and
the
major
other
milestones
and
changes
to
the
zoning
code
that
we've
achieved
in
recent
years
is
our
inclusionary
zoning
code
text
Amendment
one
to
three
unit
buildings
being
allowed
at
our
lowest
density
districts
in
2020,
built
form,
rezoning
study
in
2021,
elimination
of
parking,
minimum
requirements
and
new
travel
demand
management
regulations
in
2021
and
then
finally,
the
land
use.
Rezoning
study
signifies
the
last
major
piece
in
the
zoning
code
update,
which
means
that
we've
essentially
Rewritten
the
entire
zoning
code.
T
We're
all
excited
to
have
this
information
in
one
place
now
today
in
a
single
unified
table
where
you
can
find
information
about
whether
or
not
a
use
is
permitted
across
all
the
districts
and
whether
there
are
unique
regulations
for
that
specific
use.
Whether
it's
a
limit
on
Gross,
floor
area
or
specific
design
considerations
use
standards
is
what
we
call
them
found
elsewhere
in
the
the
use
chapter
foreign
there
are
15
new
primary
zoning
districts
in
the
code
and
they
replace,
formerly,
we
had
23
primary
zoning
districts.
T
So
again,
something
that
we're
happy
about
is
is
simplifying
the
code
where
we
could
making
it
easier
to
navigate
and
understand.
There
are
six
residential
districts
shown
here.
Urban
neighborhood
districts
are
are
almost
exclusively
residential
use,
residential
mixed
use,
districts.
Those
next
three
again
are
residential
Focus
but
allow
a
limited
number
of
commercial
uses
and
then
the
remainder
of
the
districts
here,
allowing
the
widest
breadth
of
uses,
including
residential,
commercial
and
Industrial.
T
Including
so
created
all
new
primary
zoning
districts,
we
also
had
to
remap
the
entire
city
with
these
new
districts
and
they
largely
reflect
the
policy
guidance
from
Minneapolis
2040,
where
you
see
destination
mixed
use,
which
is
what
the
cm4
district
is.
It's
mapped
the
same
way
in
Minneapolis
2040
as
we've
mapped
it.
In
the
zoning
code,
the
Oh
I
thought
I
was
going
to
talk
about
parking
next,
but
I'm
handing
it
off
to
Jason
for
a
little
bit.
So
a
built
form
changes
is
what
he's
going
to
cover.
S
S
A
few
things
to
note,
however,
you're
all
familiar
with
the
fact
that
in
the
residence
and
office
residence
districts,
when
you
have
adjacent
buildings
that
are
set
back
farther
than
the
district
standard,
you
suddenly
have
to
meet
that
that
requirement
of
a
greater
front
yard
in
the
residence
and
office
residence
districts.
That's
still
the
case,
but
only
in
the
interior
built
form
districts
on
corridors
and
other
areas
that
might
have
Urban
neighborhood.
What
would
have
formally
been
residence
districts?
S
That
front
yard
is
just
going
to
be
governed
by
the
standard
District
requirement
rather
than
having
to
meet
the
adjacent
setbacks.
So
you
may
see
a
few,
a
few
fewer
variances
of
that
type
going
forward.
Goods
and
services
corridors
are
designated
on
on
the
future
land
use
map
that
they
allow
a
greater
mix
of
uses.
In
some
cases,
in
the
higher
density
built
form
districts
along
those
goods
and
services
corridors,
there
are
reduced
more
flexible
yard
requirements.
S
Now,
as
of
January
1st
one
thing
that
I
know
our
zoning
staff
is
very
happy
to
see
as
a
change
is
that
interior
side
yard
requirements
for
a
period
of
time
were
or
based
on
how
wide
the
lot
was.
The
rationale
was
that
the
wider,
your
lot
was,
the
more
you
should
have
the
ability
to
provide
a
little
bit
more
space
for
your
neighbor.
S
It
was
not
the
funnest
thing
to
have
to
administer,
so
we
have
eliminated
that
in
the
in
the
the
un2
zoning
district,
for
example,
you
have
a
the
same
setback
regardless
of
how
wide
your
lot
is.
Now,
a
few
changes
to
permitted
obstructions
these
are
things
that
are
allowed
in
setback
areas,
there's
a
little
bit
more
flexibility
now
for
open
porches
and
to
be
closer
to
a
front
lot
line.
S
The
second
bullet
point
here
under
this
item:
energy
efficient
wall
assemblies.
What
that
essentially
means
is
we've
had
instances
where
people
are
trying
to
trying
to
retrofit
an
existing
house
into
a
highly
energy
efficient
structure
that
essentially
involves
putting
like
a
coat
on
the
house.
It
makes
the
walls
a
bit
thicker.
We
have
recognized
that
by
allowing
those
retrofits
to
be
a
little
bit
closer
to
the
lot
line
than
than
previously
allowed
and
finally,
electrical
Transformers
are
allowed
in
some
circumstances
when
adjacent
to
alleys.
S
Reverse
Corner
lots
a
popular
thing
to
show
up
at
the
board
of
adjustment.
They
often
necessitate
variances
when
people
try
to
develop
or
or
build
additions
on
them.
We
now
have
significantly
increased
flexibility
on
reverse
Corner
Lots.
This
diagram
was
actually
put
into
the
code
and
I
think
is
quite
helpful.
If
you
see
this
kind
of
this
residential
structure
adjacent
to
the
alley
previously,
that
residential
structures
Frontage
on
that
East-West
Street
would
have
meant
front
yard
requirement
for
both
the
homes
to
the
East
and
to
the
West.
S
The
flexibility
that
has
been
added
is
that
that
front
yard
requirement
only
carries
over
to
the
property
to
the
east.
In
this
example,
for
a
distance
of
25
feet
and
the
property
to
the
west
across
the
alley
isn't
affected
at
all
that
in
in
previous
code,
that
front
yard
requirement
would
have
carried
entirely
across
that
property,
with
leaving
very
little
space
to
to
develop
that
that
reverse
corner
lot.
S
One
unique
thing
that
had
historically
not
been
a
part
of
the
city,
zoning
ordinance
is
maximum
lot
sizes.
The
idea
was
once
the
city
allowed
duplexes
and
triplexes
in
our
lowest
density
districts
was
the
maximum
lot
areas
where
one
tool
to
to
govern
the
overall
bulk
of
those
structures.
We
have
a
couple
of
years
now
of
implementing
those
rules
and
we
now
have
a
little
bit
more
flexibility
up
to
just
under
9
000
square
feet
for
one
to
three
unit
buildings
instead
of
7
500.
S
The
large
lot
provision
is
a
fairly
obscure
requirement
that
that
when,
when
you
have
an
area
of
the
city
where
the
predominant
lot
sizes
are
much
greater
than
the
standard,
you
have
to
do
a
complicated
calculation
of
the
averages.
If
you're
looking
to
subdivide
a
lot,
we've
created
a
little
bit
more
flexibility,
and
now
we,
you
don't
have
an
increase
in
that
minimum
lot
size
in
those
areas.
Unless
that
average
is
at
least
nine
thousand
square
feet.
S
D
S
Formerly
we
had
R1
and
r1a
Zoning
districts
that
had
different
minimum
lot,
widths
of
either
40
or
50
feet.
Now
all
of
the
these
lower
intensity
districts
have
a
consistent,
40-foot
requirements.
When
you,
when
no
alley
is
present,
that
requirement
is
increased
to
50
when
subdividing
on
subdividing
land
in
those
situations
party,
wall,
splits.
S
This
is
the
one
you're
developing
a
side-by-side
duplex.
We
essentially
have
more
flexibility
now
for
developing
a
side-by-side
duplex.
You
essentially
get
to
recombine
those
two
lots
in
a
way
that
would
basically
consider
those
to
be
two
single-family
homes
adjacent
to
one
another,
rather
than
subjecting
them
to
the
9000
square.
Foot
maximum.
S
In
the
vein
of
simplifying
the
ordinance,
there
are
a
four
overlay
districts
that
have
been
eliminated
from
the
zoning
ordinance,
the
industrial
living
overlay
District.
We
were
well
served
by
that
overlay
District
in
a
lot
of
ways,
but
now
its
Provisions
are
essentially
built
into
the
production
mixed
use,
districts
making
the
that
overlay
District
obsolete.
It's
a
lighter
industrial
district
that
allows
residential
uses
in
the
same
similar
manner
to
the
industrial
living
overlay,
District
The
Pedestrian
over
oriented.
J
S
S
Similar
West
Broad
overlay
District
was
quite
similar
to
The
Pedestrian
oriented
overlay
District,
so
that
was
eliminated
for
similar
reasons
and
the
Nicollet
Mall
overlay
District
was
made
redundant
by
the
downtown
destination
District,
which
included
some
of
the
standards
that
were
that
were
in
that
particular
overlay.
District.
S
We
worked
closely
with
the
DNR
on
whether
we
would
how
much
flexibility
we
had
for
things
like
minimum
lot
area
in
in
the
Shoreland
overlay
District,
and
one
thing
just
highlighting
here,
is
that
in
the
in
the
zoning
District
that
first
allows
four
or
more
unit
buildings,
in
other
words,
more
than
a
Triplex.
You
have
to
have
a
substantially
wider
and
larger
lot
in
the
Shoreland
overlay
District
than
you
would
otherwise
be
required
to
have
again
that's
based
on
state
requirements
for
the
Shoreland
overlay,
District.
S
This
isn't
something
that
will
be
real
common
in
front
of
the
board
of
adjustment.
But
something
to
be
aware
of
is
that
there's
a
new
use
called
a
common
lot
development.
It
has
more
flexibility
for
arranging
multiple
residential
structures
on
a
lot
previously.
That
really
could
only
be
accomplished
through
planned
unit
development
or
cluster
development,
and
then
accessory
dueling
units
are
are,
of
course,
also
a
thing
common
lot.
S
Developments
are
something
that
are
considered
administratively,
there's
really
not
any
flexibility
that
common
lots
have
from
rules
in
the
same
manner
that
are
are
present
present
with
plan
unit
developments
or
cluster
developments.
You
have
to
meet
all
of
the
Heights
floor
area,
ratio,
setbacks,
impervious
surface
and
lot
coverage
requirements,
but
if
you
can
do
that,
you
can
now
develop
two
homes
on
on
a
lot.
S
If
you
choose,
we
have
developed
a
guide
for
our
staff
in
kind
of
spelling
out
all
of
the
differences
between
these
development
scenarios,
common
Lots,
PDS
or
and
clusters,
and
and
accessory
dwellings.
We
also
hope
to
develop
one,
that's
more
accessible
for
the
public
and
put
that
online
as
as
soon
as
practical
yeah.
A
Yeah,
if
you
I,
have
a
question
about
the
common
lot
as
compared
to
the
accessory
dwelling
unit.
You've
shown
one
of
my
favorite
homes
in
the
yeah
in
the
Whittier
neighborhood.
Here
is
the
intention
to
bring
older,
adus
and
Carriage
Houses
into
a
sort
of
compliant
form,
or
is
the
common
lot
development
directed
towards
new
build?
Only
that's.
S
S
A
couple
of
changes
for
our
fence
regulations,
fence
height,
was
actually
increased
in
the
front
yard.
However,
in
exchange
for
that
fence,
all
fences
now
in
the
front
yard,
have
to
be
of
open
decorative
materials.
You
can
now
can
no
longer
build
a
solid
fence
in
your
front
yard,
we'll
see
if
that
is
something
that
produces
an
occasional
variance.
S
We
created
a
little
bit
more
flexibility
for
fences
in
the
corner
side
yard.
So
at
the
bottom
of
that
diagram,
where
you
see
the
four
foot
limits
with
the
little
asterisk
the
exception
there
is
that
when
somebody
has
a
a
door
that
faces
that
Corner
side
Lot
line,
the
zoning
administrator
has
the
ability
to
allow
them
to
take
that
six
up
to
six
foot
fence
that
would
be
in
the
rear
yard
and
enclose
that
door.
S
G
G
P
I
E
The
I
I'm
not
sure
if
Mr
Wittenberg
is
heading
into
other
areas.
Some
of
the
considerations
related
to
this
were
allowances
for
retaining
walls,
Etc
and
a
required
front
yard,
and
so
that's
one
of
the
things
that
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
going
to
be
touched
on,
but
that
was
part
of
the
interplay
in
terms
of
allowing
the
defense.
My
original
I
was
just
espousing
originally
that
we
just
have.
E
You
know,
based
on
experience
and
also
I
manage
the
enforcement
side
of
things
as
well,
that
we
just
have
a
four
feet
and
not
worry
about
that.
One
of
my
original
goals
of
this
was
just
to
try
to
simplify
what
I
was
espousing
to
the
code.
Development
team
was
to
simplify
as
much
as
possible
and
have
fewer.
If,
then,
then,
this
and
just
try
to
say
it's
four
or
it's
six
and
just
make
it
easier
for
the
public
on
that.
E
This
was
one
of
the
ones
due
to
some
interplay,
with
the
fact
that
we
will
also
allow
a
short
retaining
wall
in
a
in
a
required
front
yard.
You
know
due
to
some
of
the
variances
the
board
has
seen
before.
E
We
figured
open
and
decorative
so
you
didn't
end
up
with
a
scenario
where
you
had
a
six
foot
fence
along
the
sidewall,
a
public
sidewalk.
So
if
that
answers
I
mean
the
the
goal
here
board,
member
Hutchins
is
to
try
to
minimize
enforcement
actions
that
come
out
of
that,
because
that
is
my.
The
zoning
inspectors
spent
an
inordinate
amount
of
their
time
on
fences,
so.
E
S
A
couple
of
relatively
minor
changes
related
to
science.
We,
it
was
not
our
intent
to
completely
rethink
the
same
chapter
that
whenever
we
do
that,
it's
a
major
can
of
worms.
So
we've
made
some
relatively
small
adjustments
in
addition
to
some
kind
of
simplification.
A
couple
of
things
to
note
here,
I
think
you
not
long
ago
saw
an
increase
in
the
allowed
variance
to
increase
the
signed
height
in
a
downtown
district.
S
We've
we've
brought
that
into
alignment
with
some
of
the
other
districts.
So
there's
a
little
bit
more
flexibility
now
in
the
downtown
districts
compared
to
the
previous
standard,
and
then
this
other
standard
I
actually
had
to
ask
Brad
what
this
was
a
reference
to,
because
I
had
forgotten
what
the
issue
was
here,
but
there
was
a
quirk
in
the
zoning
ordinance
that
that
didn't
allow
poll
signs
in
the
industrial
now
production
districts,
but
it
had
a
maximum
height
for
them.
E
Yeah
members
of
the
board,
Ted
Mr
wittenberg's
point.
The
the
board
recently
saw
a
variance
that
actually
took
advantage
of
that
provision.
The
board
granted
a
variance
to
the
sign
type
to
allow
the
poll
sign,
but
it
didn't
need
a
variance
to
sign
height
because
of
that
provision
that
was
just
left
over
in
the
code
allowing
it
to
be
up
to
20
feet.
It
was
that
Realty
sign
in
southeast
I.
Don't
remember
the
exact
address.
T
The
next
few
slides
we're
going
to
dedicate
to
changes
in
the
parking
to
parking
regulations
that
remind
everyone
that
we
adopt.
We
did
a
major
overhaul
of
the
parking
chapter
just
a
couple
years
ago,
so
these
are
just
tweaks
around
the
edge
of
things
that
we
wanted
to
make
sure
we
addressed
first
thing
here
is
that
we
have
banned
very
clearly
banned
parking
being
cited
between
the
principal
structure
and
the
front
line.
T
T
The
next
change
here
is,
that
is,
to
surface
parking
restrictions.
We
already
have
in
place
of
a
maximum
vehicle
count
parking
spaces
of
a
hundred
for
surface
parking
lots.
We
have
added
a
limit
on
Surface
parking,
Street
Frontage
of
not
more
than
40
feet.
This
is
one
of
those
regulations
that
existed
in
the
pedestrian-oriented
overlay,
District
that
we
have
now
applied
more
broadly
throughout
the
city.
T
If
you
could
jump
in
and
help
me
if
I
missed
something
the
you
it's
the
first
item
here
item
a
that
we've
restricted
the
width
of
curb
Cuts
in
the
UN
and
RM
districts,
rm1
District
to
no
more
than
20
feet,
I
think
the
the
allowance
was
25
or
30
previously,
and
otherwise
everything
else
on
this
slide
I
think
it's
Remains,
the
Same
as
it
was
before
just
referencing
the
new
districts
and
the
last
item
here
on
parking.
Is
that
just
make
everyone
aware
previously?
T
In
the
code
we
had
a
number
of
individually
enumerated
unique
variances
for
parking
related
issues,
they're
now
all
put
under
one
item.
So
when
you
see
parking
variance
requests,
they
will
all
fall
under
the
language
that
you
see
here
they'll
hand
it
back
to
Jason
I
think
we
just
got
a
couple
more
slides
left.
S
Another
issue
that
has
been
an
occasional
enforcement
issue
is
the
definition
of
kitchen,
and
in
a
dwelling
unit
it
has
been
a
long-standing
requirement
that
a
dwelling
unit
have
a
singular
kitchen.
S
There's
been
some
debate
about
what
constitutes
a
kitchen,
however,
so
we
have
now
defined
that
and
defined
wet
bar,
which
is
is
something
that
falls
short
of
a
kitchen
and
that
you
can
have
in
addition
to
a
kitchen
in
your
dwelling
unit,
I
believe
there
was
at
least
one
appeal
that
came
in
front
of
the
board
of
adjustment
around
this
issue
within
the
past
year
or
two.
S
There
were
some
changes
to
accessory
structures,
maybe
the
one
that's
most
relevant
to
the
board.
After
many
years
of
limiting
garage
size
to
676
square
feet,
we
actually
have
now
more
flexibility
now
up
to
800
square
feet.
That's
a
change
that
was
not
universally
loved
by
all
of
our
staff,
but
is
where
we
landed.
S
Some
of
our
adjacent
communities,
including
St
Paul,
allow
up
to
a
thousand,
so
we're
actually
still
a
little
bit
more
restrictive,
but
a
a
800
square
foot
garage
is
a
small
four-car
garage
right
now,
it's
676
will
get
you
a
small
three-car
garage,
so
you
still
have
to
meet.
Of
course,
all
lot
coverage
and
previous
surface
standards
within
when
you're
sighting
a
garage,
but
a
little
bit
more
flexibility.
Now,
in
terms
of
the
area
of
that
structure,.
E
Oh
Mr
wettenberg
on
the
the
second
part,
two
was
the
one
that
actually
triggered
more
variances
I
think
before
the
board
of
adjustment
at
least
ones
that
were
granted
to
I
just
kind
of
want
to
address.
The
10
of
the
lot
area
was
capped
at
a
thousand
square
feet,
and
now
it's
just
ten
percent
of
the
lot
area.
E
Some
of
the
variances
had
been
granted
related
to
that
on
large
Lots,
where
you
would
see
a
13,
000
or
14
000
square
foot
lot.
So
this
was
one
that
just
it
was
deemed.
There
was
no
point
to
take
it
anymore
and
get
the
variances
yeah
thanks.
Q
S
And
I'll
note
that
we
have
excessive
dwelling,
you
know,
regulations
that
are
a
little
bit
different
than
this
as
well.
They
are
allowed
up
to
I
believe
1300
square
feet.
Oh.
E
It
did
board
members,
it
will
allow
for
some
additional
flexibility
with
accessory
dwelling
units,
because
accessory
dwelling
units
now
will
be
able
to
have
a
larger
footprint
as
well.
So
while
that
didn't
necessarily
change
that
allows
more
flexibility
in
the
design
of
an
accessory
dwelling
unit,.
S
We
have
been
developing
a
number
of
resources
to
help
people
understand
and
navigate
the
code.
These
are
hyperlinks
which
obviously
aren't
beneficial
to
you
right
now,
but
we
will
follow
up
with
with
the
electronic
version
of
this
and
and
the
link
it
to
the
board's
agenda
for
today
as
well.
S
Zoning
maps
that
are
searchable
by
address
are
are
in
place,
we're
working
on
all
of
the
plates
zoning
plates
Maps
throughout
the
city
municode
the
city's
electronic
code.
We
have
heard
from
our
codifier
that
it's
going
to
take
them,
maybe
another
month
and
a
half
to
to
get
that
all
online.
So
in
the
in
the
meantime,
we
do
have
an
indexed
pdf
online
that
people
will
use
for
the
elect
for
the
electronic
version
of
the
code.
We
have
a
land
use
handbook
that
explains
all
of
the
new
zoning
districts.
S
The
built
form
handbook
that
has
been
in
place
for
a
couple
of
years
is
being
updated
to
reflect
the
new
zoning
districts
and
then
I'm
happy
to
report
that
all
of
our
our
staff
was
able
to
update
all
of
our
forms
by
July
1st
so
that
they
are
relevant
and
applicable
to
current
zoning
districts
and
and
fees
and
requirements
with
that
happy
to
take
any
questions.
Feedback
concerns.