►
From YouTube: March 2, 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
A
C
B
A
So
we
do
have
a
quorum.
Thank
you
and
with
that
we'll
proceed
to
our
agenda,
a
copy
of
which
was
posted
for
public
access
to
the
city's
legislative
information
management
system
available
at
lims,
Lim
s,
dot,
Minneapolis
mn.gov!
Is
there
a
motion
to
approve
this
agenda
so
moved
it's
moved?
Is
there
a
second
second,
it's
seconded?
A
D
A
A
E
Hello,
chair
Perry
members
of
the
board,
giving
an
update
on
an
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
board
of
adjustment
for
945
Broadway
Street
Northeast,
that
was
the
overall
size
of
food
and
beverage
products
use
in
an
industrial
district.
The
at
the
biz
committee.
It
was
the
appeal
was
granted
the
main
finding
at
that
point.
The
only
finding
that
they
needed
to
meet
was
finding
one.
They
noted
the
attorney's
office
noted
practical
difficulties
were
the
presence
of
accessory
administrative
and
production
spaces,
even
though
they
were
counted
toward
the
GFA.
E
They
weren't
part
of
the
food
and
beverage
products
used
per
se
and
that
the
the
grain
slope
of
the
public
side,
lock
along
the
Eastern
building
facade,
prevents
the
appellant
from
creating
a
separate
tenant
space,
and
so
that
was
that
was
their
finding
in
order
to
meet
finding
one.
I
will
note
that
this
did
create
some
discussion
among
the
policy
makers
and
it
will
be
looked
and
the
maximum
size
of
a
food
and
beverage
products
use
in
the
industrial
districts
or
in
the
future.
E
What
we
call
the
production
district
is
being
looked
at
and
will
likely
be
increased
from
5000
to
another
number
to
accommodate
that
sort
of
thing.
So
so
this
is
kind
of
an
example
where
we've
discussed
the
board
is
generally
not
a
policy
setting
entity,
but
there
are
items
that
come
before
that
can
either
you
know
end
up
at
Council
or
if
the
board
of
adjustment
is,
you
know,
routinely
granting
or
denying
certain
types
of
applications
it
can
be
looked
at
that
can
create
changes
to
code.
So.
A
Thank
you
so
a
reminder
to
applicants
and
others.
If
you're
going
to
speak
at
today's
public
hearing,
please
sign
in
that
sheet
over
there.
If
you
haven't
done
so
already,
you
can
do
so
on
your
way
out
also
to
applicants
and
others.
Please
contact
staff
after
the
hearing
with
any
questions
regarding
your
projects.
And.
Lastly,
if
you
have
something
like
this,
please
turn
it
off
or
turn
it
on
silent.
So
as
not
to
disturb
today's
proceedings.
A
Let's
review
the
agenda.
I'll
read
whether
the
agenda
number
I'll
read
the
agenda
number
and
the
address
of
the
project
and
state
whether
it's
slated
for
Content
consent,
continuance,
withdrawal,
return
or
discussion
consent
items
are
these
items
will
be
passed
without
discussion
by
the
board.
We
will
be
adhering
to
the
staff
recommendation
found
on
your
agenda
under
the
item's
recommended
motion
section,
any
applicable
conditions
will
be
listed
in
the
same
section.
A
If
you
agree
with
this
recommendation,
including
any
applicable
conditions,
you
need
to
do
nothing
and
the
board
will
pass
it
as
recommended
after
the
item
is
passed
on,
consent
you're,
free
to
leave
the
chambers.
Please
check
in
with
the
staff
member
assigned
to
that
item.
If
you
have
any
questions
following
the
decision,
if
you
disagree
with
the
recommendation,
please
indicate
you'd
like
to
speak
against
the
item
when
I
ask
and
we'll
put
it
on
the
discussion
agenda.
A
So
what
are
discussion
items
these
are
items
the
board
will
take
public
testimony
deliberate
on
and
make
a
decision
after
the
public.
Testimony
has
been
heard
from
each
particular
discussion
item
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
for
that
agenda
item
once
I
close
the
public
hearing
for
an
item,
no
additional
public
testimony
will
be
taken,
but
staff
may
be
asked
to
address
board
questions
after
the
public
hearing.
For
an
item
is
closed.
Board
members
will
then
discuss
and
act
on
motions
and
the
chair
only
votes
in
the
case
of
a
tie.
A
D
F
That
you're
doing
appropriate
structural
review
of
the
existing
piece
that
goes
into
it
because
I'm
concerned
about
it.
I
I
agree
with
the
consent
item,
but
I'm
very
concerned
that
calculations
need
to
be
done
carefully
and
connections
need
to
be
really
thoroughly
reviewed
so
that
it
doesn't
become
a
liability
to
you
or
to
some
innocent
person.
A
A
D
A
It's
moved
and
seconded.
Is
there
any
discussion
on
the
motion
all
in
favor
of
the
motion
indicate
by
saying
aye
aye
any
against
and
to
keep
by
saying,
nay,
any
abstentions
that
motion
passes?
So,
if
you
were
here
for
agenda
item
number,
five
or
seven,
your
land
use
requests
are
approved.
Good
luck
with
your
projects,
thanks
for
coming
down.
G
G
Another
variance
request
to
increase
the
maximum
height
of
an
opaque
fence
within
a
required
reverse
Corner
front
yard,
and
a
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
improvious
surface
coverage
or
lawful
establishment
of
existing
site
improvements
accessory
to
the
single-family
dwelling
at
223,
40th,
Street
East.
This
property
is
in
the
r1a,
multiple
family
district
and
the
interior.
One
build
formula:
Valley
district
has
a
lot
area
of
6072
square
feet.
G
This
is
a
aerial
photograph
showing
the
previous
conditions
of
the
property
from
2018,
and
this
property
is
a
reverse
corner
lot.
The
north
side
of
the
property
is
the
reverse
Corner
side
and
it's
regulated
as
a
front
yard
for
zoning
purposes.
The
principal
use
and
structure
of
the
property
is
a
single
family
dwelling
with
other
site
improvements,
including
a
detached
garage
and
a
driveway
on
the
south
side
of
the
property
they
have
a
deck
on,
on
the
west
side
of
the
house
walkways
hard
surface
walkways
around
various
parts
of
the
property.
G
This
is
a
Google
Street
View
image
from
May
of
2019
showing
the
previous
conditions
of
the
property,
and
this
is
looking
at
that
North
Side.
You
can
see
there
is
a
a
retaining
wall.
Approximately
20
inches
high
right
alongside
the
public
sidewalks
that
retaining
wall
is
in
the
in
the
public
right-of-way
behind
that
was
an
opaque
fence
a
little
bit
further
back
and
then
behind
that
fence
was
a
shed
that
was
located
in
the
northwest
corner
of
the
property,
but
that
fence
and
the
shed
that
you
see
here
have
since
been
removed.
G
Now,
there's
a
Google
Street
View
image
from
November
of
this
past
year,
and
you
can
see
some
improvements
that
have
been
made,
including
the
retaining
wall
being
increased
in
height
to
34.5
inches.
With
the
grade
behind
the
wall
being
raised
to
match
the
new
Wall
height,
a
six
foot
tall,
opaque
fence
has
been
constructed
immediately:
Atop
The
the
retainable,
and
also
highlight,
on
the
right
hand,
side
of
these
photos.
You
can
see
a
driveway
and
that's
for
the
neighbor's
property
to
the
West.
G
This
is
a
survey
showing
the
existing
conditions
of
the
property,
and
you
can
see
some
of
those
improvements
that
I
just
talked
about
it,
as
well
as
some
other
recent
improvements,
including
a
ground
level,
Patio
near
the
northwest
corner
of
the
property,
so
approximately
the
location
of
that
previous
shed.
This
patio
is
approximately
128
square
feet
in
area.
It's
located,
1.3
feet
from
its
from
the
north
lot
line
of
the
subject:
property
and
the
patio
is
9.6
feet
from
the
public.
G
The
staff
recommendation
in
this
case
is
for
denial
for
each
of
the
the
variants
requests
and
this
table
here
shows
the
staff
analysis
and
findings
for
each
of
the
required
findings
for
for
each
variance
request
to
summarize
sort
of
collectively,
for
the
reasons
why
a
staffer
is
recommending
denial
and
the
findings
are
found
not
to
be
met.
Our
subject
property.
It
is
over
6
000
square
feet
in
area.
So
it's
pretty
typical
in
size
for
a
low
density
residential
property
in
Minneapolis.
G
G
G
The
the
intent
of
the
code
when
it
comes
to
accessory
uses
for
something
like
a
patio
is
for
those
those
improvements
to
be
located
to
the
side
or
rear
of
the
dwelling
and
not
in
the
front
yard
and
staff
finds
that
with
the
retaining
wall
and
the
fence
in
particular,
it
creates
some
potential
for
visibility,
issues
around
the
public
sidewalk
and
in
that
neighbor's
driveway,
there's
some
potential
for
conflict
between
vehicles
and
pedestrians
in
the
area.
G
So
I
can
go
through
the
findings
in
more
detail
if
the
board
is
interested,
but
in
the
interest
of
time
I'll
I'll
just
conclude,
I
I
will
note.
If
the
board
is
inclined
to
to
Grant
any
of
these
requests,
staff
would
recommend,
particularly
for
the
retaining
wall
and
and
the
fence,
that
the
board
included
condition
of
approval
that
the
applicant
receive
encroachment
permit
approvals
from
the
public
works
department.
There
were
two
written
public
comments
that
were
received
after
the
staff
report
was
published.
G
A
C
Thanks
for
your
presentation,
sir
I
have
one
question:
why
are
the
brick
papers
not
permeable.
G
Chair
Perry
board
member
Joe
Henderson,
even
if,
if
there
is
a
little
space
in
between
something
like
like
pavers,
it
still
is
considered
a
substantial
disruption
in
the
flow
of
water
similar
to
to
they
make
like
driveway
systems
that
are
are
highly
engineered
and
the
the
maintenance
requirements
for
those
are
are
pretty
substantial
in
a
lot
of
cases,
and
we
have
no
enforcement
capability
to
ensure
that
it
is
really
still
allowing
some
some
storm
water
infiltration
in
between
the
pavers
and
in
this
case,
so
we,
and
especially
if
they
have
been
installed
immediately
adjacent
to
each
other.
H
Thanks
chair
Perry,
thanks
Mr
Claus,
when
we
were
taken
into
account
the
total
area
of
the
property.
It
looks
like
on
the
plot
plan
to
me
the
two
of
the
property
lines:
that'd
be
the
South
and
the
West
property
lines
actually
are
being
utilized
by
their
respective
neighbors.
True.
G
Yeah,
looking
at
the
survey
you
can
see,
essentially
a
continuation
of
the
pavement
that
is,
the
the
neighbor's
driveway
to
the
West,
does
extend
across
the
property
line
any
disputes
for
lack
of
a
better
term
between
Property
Owners,
about
where
improvements
have
been
located
or
uses
of
an
area.
That's
not
something
that
the
city
can
really
weigh
in
on
it's
not
directly.
G
H
Thanks
for
the
answer,
I
just
he's
only
he's
a
60
was
a
6072
square
foot
lot.
If
he
was
a
6
000
square
foot
lot,
the
size
would
be
appropriate
for
his
coverage.
Correct.
G
H
A
I
know
it
soon
thanks,
we
may
have
you
up
again
for
questions.
Is
the
applicant
present?
Yes,
sir,
would
you
like
to
give
testimony
you
you
it's
up
to
you?
It's
your
option.
I
So
Chris
Ruiz
Christopher,
please
and
I,
don't
know,
I
mean
a
lot
of
things
that
Alex
salom
said
here.
I
mean
we've
talked
and
exchanged
many
emails,
so
I
wish
I
would
have
known
some
of
the
facts
that
he's
up
here
talking
about
about
like
details,
but
the
reasons
for
all
the
improvements
that
I've
done
is
just
for
accessibility.
I
You
can
see
some
of
the
pictures.
There
is
quite
a
big
difference,
so
I
was
never
able
to
access
the
front
of
the
house,
this
new
sidewalks
and
the
patio.
That's
there
is
all
big
enough
for
me
to
widen
up
for
me
to
cross
through
and
Patio
I
need
a
table
there.
I
have
other
company
there.
I
I
just
want
to
be
able
to
spin
around,
have
more
space
right,
and
it's
not
even
that
big
enough
space
as
it
is,
and
then
the
fence,
the
tall
fence
in
the
front.
Obviously
I
need
some
privacy,
the
rest
of
the
city
isn't
accessible,
even
the
curb
Cuts
getting
just
across
the
street,
to
the
to
my
garden
and
or
to
the
park.
The
new
bridge
that
was
built
there
is
not
accessible
at
also
I
want
somewhere
to
be
outside
privacy.
I
have
very
small
dogs
that
were
getting
out
too.
I
So
this
basically
a
reasons
for
my
improvements
on
the
yard.
So,
okay,
there.
I
A
A
B
J
Is
there
any
consideration
for
well
a
patio
versus
a
ramp
right
because
he
says
that
he's
using
mostly
for
accessibility
into
the
house
or
the
yard,
and
it
doesn't
matter
whether
or
not
it's
considered
a
patio
or
if
it's
considered
a
ramp
or
is
it
the
the
coverage
of
the
yard
and
the
Purvis
surface?
Still
it's
calculated
the
same.
G
Chair
Prairie
board
member
sneakerova,
the
for
the
impervious
surface
issue,
in
particular,
if
it's
a
accessibility
ramp,
that's
going
to
count
the
same
as
a
patio
when
it
goes
into
the
calculation.
The
zoning
code
does
have
other
differences.
For
example,
a
a
handicap
ramp
is
allowed
as
a
permitted
obstruction
within
a
required
yard
meeting
certain
standards,
something
like
this
patio
would
not
meet
those
standards,
even
if
it
was
designed
in
in
such
a
way.
G
D
G
D
G
Reasonable
accommodation
questions
I
would
defer
to
Mr
Ellis
all
right.
Thank
you.
E
Chair
Perry,
Vice,
chair
softly,
the
the
zoning
code
does
give
some
considerations
in
terms
of
a
ramp.
So,
as
Mr
Claus
noted,
the
the
on
the
permitted
obstructions
table
handicap
ramp
with
with
certain
dimensions
and
turning
radiuses
is
allowed
to
encroach
in
a
side
yard.
E
To
your
question,
specifically
in
terms
of
what
you
can
consider
well,
the
board
of
adjustment
can
certainly
consider
everything
in
terms
of
that.
When
making
the
findings
you
know
and
given
the
considerations
there,
I
mean
if,
if
the
board
of
adjustment
fails
for
some
reason
that
it
is,
you
know
functioning
as
a
ramp
or
other
thing
that
just
isn't
classified
you
know
strictly
to
have
been
allowed
administratively.
That's
something
that
the
board
of
adjustment
could
think
about
separately
from
that,
though,
it
isn't
technically
allowed
eligible
for
reasonable
accommodation.
E
In
that
I
mean
obviously
the
consideration
here,
reasonable
accommodation
could
apply
for
certain
things,
for
example
similar
situations.
You
know,
we've
allowed
for
a
mode
average
ramp
or
or
a
lift
within
a
required
yard,
which
would
ordinarily
not
be
allowed
Etc.
The
patio
in
and
of
itself
wasn't
treated
from
a
staff
perspective
as
something
that
would
be.
E
You
know
granted
under
reasonable
accommodation
because
it
doesn't
Express
Express
leap
like
prohibit.
You
know
the
the
person
from
living
in
the
house
Etc
now,
if
and
so
we're
lucky
we're
talking
about
accessory
Bill
except
access.
Excuse
me
access
to
the
house,
and
you
know,
from
a
staff
perspective.
We
viewed
this
more
as
like
an
outdoor
Gathering
space
which
could
be
on
another
portion
of
the
lot
and
does
not
prevent
somebody
from
living
their
life
at
the
house.
If
that
makes
some
sense,
yeah.
D
And
yeah
can
I
restate
it
and
see
if
I
understood
right.
So
when
the
zoning
code
projects
a
issue
of
strict
compliance
and
Ada
reasonable
accommodation,
then
the
zoning
code
is
allowed.
We're
allowed
to
consider
variances
to
the
zoning
code
to
enable
someone
to
access
a
home
or
a
place,
but
when
we're
dealing
with
an
amenity,
something
that
is
like
a
nice
to
have,
but
not
a
need
to
have.
In
that
case
the
Ada
is
inapplicable
as
a
reason
to
vary
the
zoning
code.
E
I
I
guess
what
I'll
do
is
I'll
separate
out
the
two
different
things
so
today
before
you
was
a
variance
process.
Reasonable
accommodation
is
a
separate
process
that
is
granted
via
the
zoning
administrator
and
the
city
attorney's
office,
and
in
that
case
we
don't
do
the
full
public
hearing
notice,
but
it's
just
the
adjacent
neighbors
are
notified
in
the
event
of
that
sort
of
reasonable
accommodation,
and
that
is
a
report,
then
that
is
drafted
by
a
planner
but
goes
through
the
city
attorney's
office
and
is
determined
whether
reasonable
accommodation
should
be
granted.
E
In
this
case.
However,
with
the
variance,
it
is
certainly
something
you
can
factor
in
as
members
of
the
board.
Given
the
circumstances
now
granted
the
issues
we
have
to
have.
Are
you
know
when
you're
meeting
all
the
different
findings
you
know?
Does
it
constitute
a
practical
difficulty
unique
to
the
parcel
that
that's
you
know
harder
to
make,
certainly
in
terms
of
spirit
intent
in
the
ordinance
or
other
things
like
that?
That
may
be
something
that
would
help
board
members
make
findings,
but
certainly
it
is
something
that
can
be
considered
by
the
board
of
adjustment.
C
You
thank
you
Brad.
My
question
is
kind
of
related
to
that.
Then.
If
this
it
sounds
like
this
rear,
paver
space
is
the
accessible
means
to
the
home,
because
the
front
doesn't
have
a
ramp.
C
E
Chair
Perry
board
member
Joe
Henderson.
That
would
be
up
to
the
board
of
adjustment.
It
is
certainly
something
to
think
about,
because
obviously
we
have
several
variances
before
the
board
of
adjustment.
Today,
it's
much
easier.
You
know
to
kind
of
make
that
Nexus
with
a
with
the
setback
versus
the
impervious
surface,
but
should
the
board
you
know
wish
to
consider
that
they
certainly
could
much
to
your
questions
of
you
know
in
terms
of
pavers
whether
something
is
impervious
impervious
Etc.
C
A
I
have
a
question,
so
it
seems
like
there's
two
different
processes
that
can
be
pursued
for
reasonable
accommodation.
One
is
through
the
zoning
administrator,
and
one
is
through
this
board.
Is
that
true?
That
is
true?
Okay,
so
and
not
getting,
the
variances
would
not
negate
their
the
applicant's
ability
to
pursue
the
other.
That.
D
A
Correct:
okay,
when.
A
So
we
have
variances
that
go
in
the
land,
so
when
these
are
approved,
they're
approved
not
for
the
particular
applicant,
but
for
the
land
itself
right
that.
A
Yeah,
and,
and
so
does
that
change
if
someone
doesn't
need
those
reasonable
accommodations
anymore
in
that
property.
E
Theoretically,
if
reasonable
accommodation
is
granted
upon
the
no
longer
needing
that
reasonable
accommodation,
the
improvements
are
supposed
to
be
removed,
I'm,
not
sure.
If
that
has
been
done.
You
know
in
other
things
such
as
you
know,
perhaps
somebody
had
needed
the
lift
and
they
no
longer
live
at
that
property.
We
currently
don't
have
a
mechanism
by
which
we
go
back.
That
being
said,
I
mean
in
many
respects.
It
functions
the
same
as
sort
of
an
administrative
variance
in
order
to
help
people
under
the
either.
A
D
Thank
you,
chair,
Perry,
I
am
persuaded
by
staff's
report.
I,
don't
see
the
I,
don't
see
the
facts
that
allow
us
to
deviate
and
Grant
these
variances,
as
requested
but
I'm
open
to
hearing
comment
from
the
board.
A
F
I'm
really
concerned
about
this
one
and
it's
my
very
first
meeting.
So
it's
a
little
embarrassing
to
to
be
at
at
odds
with
this
I
totally
in
agreement,
as
is
the
one
writer
who
did
send
something
about
that.
The
fence
is
absolutely
unacceptable
that
it's
actually,
why
I
appreciate
that
it's
done
for
for
privacy
purposes.
It
is
a
public
nuisance
and
I
totally
agree
that
this
fence
has
to
be
reduced
in
in
size,
as
well
as
opaqueness
to
meet
code.
F
I'm
more
troubled,
though
by
the
the
setback,
requirements
and
I'm
and
I'm
wondering
if
there
was
any
way
to
negotiate
that
and
bring
about
some
minor
changes
that
would
still
allow
this
space
to
be
used
because
it
is
a
side
yard,
because
the
front
yard
is
not
accessible
and
I'm
I'm.
F
Looking
to
the
other
board
members
here
to
see,
I
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
you've
stated
that
you
felt
that
the
setback
issue
is
acceptable,
but
I
noticed
that
in
other
areas
that
we've
allowed
the
setback
to
be
done,
and
so
is
there
a
magic
number
that
you
know
you
know
if
it's
not
1.3
feet,
could
it
be
10
feet?
F
A
E
Chair
Perry
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
reasonable
accommodation
is
the
specific
requirement
of
the
code
required
by
the
federal
housing
act.
So
I,
you
know,
don't
really
want
to
use
that
term
exactly
you
know
here,
but.
K
E
Is
something
you
can
certainly
factor
in
some
of
the
issues
that
are
faced,
that
you
know
that
an
applicant
is
facing
when
making
certain
findings,
but
I
I,
you
know
I,
don't
prefer
to
not
use
the
term
reasonable
accommodation.
However,
we
we've
had
these
questions
come
up
before
where
people
are
saying,
you
know,
you
know,
they're,
seeking
a
variance
and
they're
wondering
and
we've
had
questions
you
know.
Could
this
be
accommodated
through
reasonable
accommodation?
Usually
the
answer
is
no.
E
If
it's
before
the
zoning
Board
of
adjustment,
because
there's
usually
I
mean
you
know
like
I,
always
give
the
example
of
the
lift
in
a
required
yard,
something
that
would
not
be
allowed
per
the
zoning
code,
but
it
doesn't
come
before
the
Zoning
Board
of
adjustment,
because
we
we
grant
that
through
that
other
process,
so
I
know
that
only
probably
probably
partially
answers
it.
Since
you
know
the
question
is
mainly
directed
at
the
board
of
adjustment
and
other
examples.
E
However,
I
just
want
to
caution
against
using
that
specific
term,
since
it
has
legal
meanings
as
it
relates
to
the
code
and
compliance
with
the
federal,
fair
housing
act.
That
being
said,
you
know
there's
a
lot
of
considerations
that
can
be.
You
know,
brought
into
board
deliberation
when
going
there,
and
you
know
just
because
it's
not
eligible
for
reasonable
accommodation
doesn't
automatically
mean
the
board
of
adjustment
should
discount
every
aspect
of
a
request.
Sure.
A
F
Well
again,
I
guess
I'm
just
I'm
just
struggling
here,
because
the
front
setback
was
in
the
item
that
we
allowed
has
a
consent.
Piece
went
from
39
feet
to
31
feet
and
I'm
just
wondering
again.
If
any
effort
has
been
made
to
try
to
work
with
the
applicant
so
that
if
it's
an
all
or
nothing
component,
then
we
are
stuck
with
just
the
information
that
we've
got
before
us.
G
Chair
Perry
board
member
grants,
of
course,
something
like
a
a
a
compromise
finding
a
middle
ground
of
of
not
requesting
a
variance
to
establish
it,
as
it's
already
been
been
constructed
at
one
point.
One
1.9
feet:
1.3
feet
at
its
current
location.
To
some
other
location
is
not
something
that
I
have
specifically
discussed
with
the
applicant
in
this
case.
I,
obviously,
don't
want
to
speak
for
for
the
applicant
in
terms
of
what
he
may
or
may
not
consider
for
something
like
this,
but
we're
responding
to
the
situation
that
is
already
in
place.
G
These
have
already
been
constructed
and
he's
requesting
these
variances
to
keep
them
where
they
are
an
alternative
to
that.
If
the
variances
are
denied
are
the
the
applicant
could
choose
to
appeal
that
if
he
wanted
to
or
he
could
do
the
work
to
move
them
into
compliance
to
move
the
patio
20
feet
from
the
property
line
in
in
this
case,
but.
F
E
Board
member
Gran
squish
kind
of
related
to
this
in
procedural
and
one
thing
to
think
about
is
you
know,
as
the
board
deliberates
if
they
find
something
that
is
reasonable
and
can
make
a
Nexus
to
it?
They
certainly
are
able
to
Grant
in
lieu
of
sorts
of
requests.
So
maybe
staff
is
saying
no
it's
supposed
to
be
at
20
feet.
The
applicant
wanted
it
two
feet,
but
the
board
of
adjustment
says
well,
you
know
a
rational
thing
would
be
eight
feet.
E
An
example
of
this
would
be
an
application
we
had
for
that
Playhouse
earlier
this
year,
where
the
board
of
adjustment
didn't
formally
denied
but
granted
a
variance
in
lieu
of
two.
What
would
be
the
corner
side
yard
it
was
still
in
it
still
would
not
comply
with
the
ordinance
because
it
was
closer
than
eight
feet.
However,
it
wasn't
the
full
amount
that
staff
had
recommended
denial
for
so
I
mean
again
that's
a
deliberation
that
the
the
board
of
adjustment
has
the
authority
to
make
and
would
have
to
make
a
Nexus
through
the
findings.
E
Saying:
okay,
given
given
the
circumstances
and
what
we're
doing,
maybe
it
doesn't
make
sense
at
whatever
feed
I,
don't
I
apologize,
I,
don't
know
the
specifics
of
this
application.
I
will
just
defer
to
Mr
Cole
house
on
that.
But
you
know
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
the
the
you
know
the
board
of
adjustment
has
that
authority
to
make
in
lieu
of
you
know
approvals
or
denials.
Honestly,
although
with
a
denial,
it's
usually
carte
blush.
I
shouldn't
have
even
said
that
I
apologize
and
denial
is
a
denial,
so.
H
Thanks
chair,
Perry,
I
think
because
of
the
there's
three
main
issues
here:
right:
size
of
the
property,
impervative
surface,
the
fence,
location
and
height,
and
the
retaining
wall
think
just
to
cut
some
of
the
Clutter
out.
We
should
take
one
of
the
variances
off
the
table.
I
think
personally,
I
think
the
fourth
variance
requested
of
Staff
would
bring
up
the
four
variances
and
the
findings
needed
for
it.
H
The
fourth
variance
is
to
increase
the
maximum
impervious
surface
coverage
from
60
to
62.9
percent
and
the
staff's
report.
They
said
anything
under
a
6
000
square
foot
lot.
They
would
be
allowed
to
have
65
percent.
Well,
if
you
look
at
the
plot
plane
itself,
the
neighbors,
the
South
and
the
West
are
taking
up
some
of
the
impervious
surface
count
coupled
with
the
Ada
ramp
needed
for
the
applicant,
and
the
width
of
the
walkways
needs
to
be
considered
when
it
comes
to
ADA
compliance.
H
A
B
Number
four:
okay
board:
member
Callahan.
K
Can
you
read
the
full
motion
back,
oh,
would
you
be
willing.
H
Would
be
to
notwithstanding
staff
findings
would
be
to
Grant
variance
for
to
increase
the
maximum
previous
service
coverage
from
60
to
62.9
percent.
Under
the
findings
that
I
stated
earlier
that
the
lot
lines
being
kind
of
encroached
upon
by
two
different
neighbors,
coupled
with
the
ADA
compliance
issues,
that
we
would
grant
that
variance
specifically.
B
Exactly
so
with
that,
would
you
vote
yay
or
nay.
K
D
A
So
that
motion
passes
and
that
request
is
approved.
Notwithstanding
staff
recommendation.
A
F
Variance
number
c
that
we
really
do
need
to
deny
the
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
height
of
this
opaque
fence
from
three
to
six
feet.
It
is
a
public
Hazard
to
be
it
at
this
level
and
we
have
had
neighborhoods
neighbor
consensus
too
on
that
issue,
so
I
would
state
that
I
would
move
that.
J
I
like
to
make
a
comment
yeah,
so
this
is
a
case
of
a
reverse.
What
is
it
called?
Reverse
side,
backyard,
reverse
Corner,
front
yard
and
those
are
notoriously
tricky
and
they're
they're.
A
zoning
designation
that
doesn't
line
up
with
the
experience
of
the
property
owner,
and
so
it's
just
I
just
want
to
note
that
it
it
does
feel
like
this
is
being
used
as
a
front
yard.
J
It
does
feel
like
this
is
how
the
home
is
being
accessed,
but
practically
it's
not
considered
that
way
in
zoning
and
that's
I
know
that
can
be
very
frustrating,
but
the
idea
that
you
would
put
up
a
fence
for
privacy
to
use
your
front
yard
because
the
Park's
not
accessible
is,
is
really
quite
reasonable
to
me
and
I
do
agree
with
that,
but
unfortunately
you
can't
it
would
be
difficult
to
make
a
it
would
be
difficult
to
find
the
findings
to
approve
it.
H
Thanks
chair,
Perry
I
think
I'd
like
to
Echo
somewhat
Miss
markova,
said:
I
think
it
is
a
reasonable
use
of
the
property
due
to
the
proximity
of
the
neighbor.
If
you
look
at
the
plot
plan
again,
the
neighbor
to
the
west
is
their
driveway
is
right
on
top
of
the
property,
no
matter
what
you
did
in
that
yard,
there's
a
safety
issue
with
the
cars
being
parked
right
on
top
of
them
that
they
don't
control.
There
is
a
retaining
wall.
H
The
kid
child
Ada
wheelchairs,
you
could
come
up,
falls
off
the
retaining
wall
to
the
West
into
the
driveway,
so
I
think
there's
some
room
there
I
think
it's
a
reason.
We
use
Tawana
offense
around
your
what's
effectively
your
backyard
I
know
it's
a
reverse
Corner
side
yard,
but
I'd
like
to
hear
some
other
board
comment
on
it
before
we
vote.
I
guess.
F
I
do
want
to
comment
because
this
is.
This
is
an
issue
that
hits
to
home.
We
had
a
neighbor
who
wanted
to
take
her
front
yard
and
make
a
sanctuary,
because
she
was
dealing
with
some
significant
health
and
pstg
syndrome
issues,
and
but
it
really
was
a
safety
hazard,
because
people
were
coming
around
and
you
couldn't
see
behind
them.
I
would
just
argue
that
there
are
fences
that
could
be
done
that
are
transparent,
that
that
you
could
have
some
still
sense
of
privacy.
There
is
plantings
that
could
be
done.
F
There
are
other
things
that
could
be
done.
That
would
help
create
the
enclosure
that
the
applicant
wants,
but
that
to
have
an
opaque
fence
that
is
in
essence
with
the
with
the
retaining
wall.
It's
it's
really
quite
High
to
me.
It's
a
real
dangerous
thing
and
I
know
that
this
woman
actually
was
very
angry
and
she
just
took
a
chainsaw
and
cut
it
down
to
three
foot
and
it
looks
like
Eck,
but
the
reality
is
is
that
is
that
it
really
did
help
the
public
safety
getting
around
that
corner.
F
A
And
as
I
said
before
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
when
the
public
hearing
is
closed,
no
further
comment
by
the
public
is
allowed.
So
sorry
about
that,
since
I
don't
hear
anybody
else,
let's
take
a
vote
on
the
motion.
C
C
A
D
Make
a
motion
to
for
variances
one
and
two,
the
remaining
items
to
move
staff
finding
and
deny
the
application
the
applied
variances.
A
It's
moved
and
seconded
is
there
any
further
discussion
on
the
motion.
B
A
L
B
L
C
B
A
A
We
are
now
on
to
the
next
section
of
our
agenda,
which
is
we
actually
have
two
things
I'd
like
to
do
the
first,
which
is
the
introduction
of
new
board
members
I'd
like
to
give
them
an
opportunity
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
who
they
are,
and
if
you
want
to
say,
while
you're
on
the
board,
you
can
do
that
as
well,
but
just
briefly
who
you
are
and
what
your
background
is
and
Mr
Ingram,
you
want
to
start
with
you.
L
Yeah,
my
name
is
Peter
Ingram
I
am
currently
finishing
my
Master's
in
economics,
with
Nemesis
and
public
economics
and
policy
and
financial
economics
from
Purdue
University,
with
two
credits
remaining.
So
hopefully
we
get
through
that.
I
am
a
resident
of
Ward,
10.
and
yeah.
What
else
are
we
looking
for.
L
No,
absolutely
I
I
wanted
to
join
the
board
just
because
I'm
looking
for
ways
to
serve
the
city
that
I
love
and
try
to
help
us
make
the
best
decisions.
We
can
and
use
my
education
so
yeah,
that's
that's
kind
of
where
I
come
from
and
my
thought
process
behind.
K
Oh,
thank
you.
I'm
a
renter
in
Ward,
three
I
have
a
background
in
urban
planning.
K
I've,
recently
relocated
back
to
the
Twin
Cities
from
the
city
of
Boston,
where
I
worked
as
a
private
planner,
as
well
as
a
planner
for
the
city
of
Boston,
where
I
did
essentially
what
Brad
ellista's
in
terms
of
providing
recommendations
to
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
in
Boston
and
so
I'm
excited
to
be
joining
the
board
and
sitting
on
the
other
side
of
the
seat
and
just
looking
forward
to
getting
to
know
my
fellow
board
members
and
also
serving
the
City
of
Minneapolis.
Welcome.
F
A
Welcome
aboard
thanks
for
your
contribution
today,
all
of
you,
so
our
next
bit
of
business
is
the
annual
report
which,
if
you
were
glued
to
your
Dropbox
account
and
your
email
at
like
3
15.
You
know
that
it
popped
up
in
there,
so
I
will
hand
it
over
to
Brad
we're
not
looking
to
make
a
decision
today,
because
he
just
got
it.
E
So
yeah,
chair,
Perry
members
of
the
board,
feel
free
to
take
a
look
at
the
the
draft
annual
report
for
2022,
see
if
there's
anything
that
stands
out
to
you
as
like,
maybe
an
error
or
anything
I
mean
in
the
past.
We
had
made
a
mistake
in
terms
of
maybe
the
year
somebody
had
been
on
et
cetera,
so
you
know
take
a
look
at
all
of
those.
If
you
see
anything
or
if
there's
something
that
stands
out
to
you,
you
can
certainly
maybe
even
talk
about
it
at
the
next
hearing.
E
If
you
want
to,
but
really
you
know,
we
just
pull
the
data
from
the
prior
Year's
actions
and
just
present
it
in
a
format
for
for
the
public
to
look
at
so
you
know
we'll
make
a
decision
in
terms
of
adoption
or
you'll
make
a
decision
in
terms
of
adoption
at
the
next
meeting
of
the
board.
So
you
know
feel
free
to
take
a
look
and
give
us
any
feedback
at
the
next
meeting.
Yep.
A
So
take
a
look,
I
think
it'll
be
for
our
new
members.
I'll
be
especially
interested
in
what
you
guys
think
of
the
report
for
our
existing
or
returning
members.
Your
input
also
is
always
welcome.
So
if
there's
something
that
you
see
or
you
think
should
be
in
there
that
isn't
there.
Please
come
with
comments
about
that.
All
right,
I
think
that's
all
the
new
business
we
have
I.