►
Description
Additional information at:
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
Submit written comments about agenda items to: councilcomment@minneapolismn.gov
A
Good
afternoon
welcome
to
the
regularly
scheduled
meeting
of
the
business
inspections,
housing
and
zoning
committee.
For
today,
which
is
February
14th,
Happy,
Valentine's
Day
to
everybody.
We
have
been
joined
by
a
quorum
of
the
committee,
which
is
Council
Members,
Osman,
rainville
and
Chavez
council
members,
chugtai
and
Ellison
are
on
urgent
business
elsewhere
and
working
their
way
back.
They
mean
to
be
here
but
had
to
be
at
the
Capitol
and
another
meeting,
but
they
will
likely
arrive
during
the
meeting.
I
just
wanted
to
note
that,
and
we
will
acknowledge
them
for
the
record
when
they
arrive.
A
We'll
start
with
the
consent
agenda,
which
is
items
three
through
eight.
They
include
our
liquor
license
approvals
and
our
liquor
license
renewals
for
this
cycle.
Accepting
a
grant
from
Minnesota
housing's
impact
fund
we'll
also
be
making
a
change
to
a
procedural
change
to
our
home
ownership.
Works
subsidy
program
item
seven
is
rezoning
for
the
upper
Harbor,
Terminal
and
item
number.
Eight
is
setting
a
public
hearing
with
regard
to
our
home
investment
Partnerships.
Are
there
any
items?
A
Anyone
would
like
to
pull
three
through
eight
saying
that
I'll
move
the
consent
agenda,
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
any
opposed.
Those
items
are
approved,
we'll
move
to
our
public
hearing
agenda
starting
with
item
number
one
I'll
invite
Mr
Ellis
up
to
give
a
report
with
regard
to
the
Zoning
Board
of
adjustment,
appointments,
Mr,
Alice,
welcome.
B
Council
members,
just
we
have
four
well
three
appointments
and
one
reappointment
to
the
Zoning
Board
of
adjustment.
They
were
vetted
by
a
group
of
council
staff
planning
staff
within
cped
and
a
member
of
the
City
Planning
Commission.
They
all
seem
like
they're,
going
to
do
a
a
wonderful
job
and
it
is
unfortunate,
I
mean
I'm,
glad
we're
going
to
have
new
people
on
board.
It's
unfortunately
unfortunate
that
we
are
losing
two
well-respected
long-serving
members
of
the
board
of
adjustment.
A
B
So
we
have
a
reappointment
of
Annie
Wang.
She
has
been
on
the
board
of
adjustment
for
one
three-year
term
so
far
and
it's
being
reappointed
for
another.
We
have
Peter
Ingraham,
who
will
be
taking
the
place
of
an
off-cycle
term.
Dick
Sandberg
is
stepping
down
from
the
board
of
adjustment
so
be
taking
that
place,
and
then
we
have
Anna
Callahan
and
Sally
Graham's
course
who
will
be
taking
the
place
of
some
of
two
people.
Who've
stepped
down,
John
Finlayson
and
Jasmine
Frias.
A
So
with
that,
there
are
four
appointments
that
are
in
front
of
us
and
I
will
see
if
there
are
any
questions
from
members
of
the
committee,
if
not
I'm,
going
to
open
the
public
hearing
on
item
number
one
thank
Mr
Ellis
for
all
the
work
that
it
takes
to
get
to
this
point
as
well
as
all
the
people
who
served
on
the
committee
and
I
will
see.
If
there's
anyone
here
to
speak
to
this
issue,
anyone
anyone
seeing
none
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
council
member
rainville.
C
A
A
C
Board
of
adjustment,
denying
variances
to
the
minimum
required
front
yard
for
lawful
establishment
of
an
existing
pickleball
court
and
retaining
walls
not
retaining
natural
grade
accessory
to
the
single-family
dwelling
at
3501
and
3515
Zenith
Avenue
South.
This
property
is
in
the
R1,
multiple
family,
District,
the
interior,
one
built
form
overlay
and
the
Shoreland
overlay
District
a
little
bit
of
background
on
the
property.
This
property
is
a
single
zoning
lot,
consisting
of
two
individual
Parcels
under
common
ownership
address
3501
and
3515
Zenith
Avenue
South
combined.
C
They
have
a
lot
area
of
28
313
square
feet,
both
Parcels
sloped
down
towards
Zenith
Avenue
in
the
front,
but
these
are
not
steep
slopes
for
the
purposes
of
the
Shoreland
overlay
District.
Previously
each
parcel
was
under
separate
ownership
and
each
had
its
own
single
family
dwelling
and
that's
the
image
you
can
see
in
the
top
shows
those
previous
conditions
as
pictures
from
2018.
C
The
appellant
in
in
this
case
is
the
property
owner
who
has
owned
the
3501
parcel
since
2014,
and
they
purchased
the
3515
parcel
in
2020
and
had
the
previous
house
on
that
parcel
completely
removed.
The
survey
you
see
in
the
bottom
of
your
screen
is
showing
that
3515
parcel
before
the
house
on
that
property
was
removed.
The
house
on
the
3501
parcel
remains
and
Wrecking
the
house
in
the
3515
parcel,
and
the
ongoing
common
ownership
of
these
two
Parcels
is
what
enables
them
to
be
considered
a
single
zoning
lot.
C
After
removing
the
house
in
the
3515
parcel
the
appellant
constructed
a
pickleball
court
and
retaining
walls
not
retaining
natural
grade
on
all
sides
of
the
pickleball
court.
The
court
in
this
case
is
2254
square
feet
in
area.
The
retaining
walls
have
raised
the
grade
as
much
as
six
feet
above
the
previous
conditions,
before
removal
of
the
house
that
used
to
be
in
this
approximate
location,
and
this
project
also
included
the
installation
of
a
transparent
fence
and
some
vegetative
screening
above
the
retaining
walls
and
around
the
pickleball
Corp.
C
Again,
this
is
an
appeal
related
to
setback
variances
for
the
pickleball
court
and
the
retaining
wall.
So,
just
to
talk
about
how
that
setback
requirement
applies.
In
this
case,
the
minimum
front
setback
is
determined
by
either
the
district
standard
minimum
of
20
feet
or
the
line
drawn
between
the
fronts
of
the
neighboring
structures,
which
were
originally
designed
for
residential
purposes.
C
So
in
this
case,
for
the
subject
property,
the
setback
line
is
drawn
between
the
neighboring
house
to
the
north
at
3445,
Zenith
Avenue,
and
the
other
end
of
the
setback
line
is
to
the
the
back.
What
is
now
the
back
in
museum
which
was
originally
designed
for
residential
purposes
at
3537
zenith,
and
so
that
you
can
see
the
the
long
red
line
that
goes
across
your
screen
here.
That's
a
setback
line
as
we
zoom
in
on
the
subject
property.
You
can
see
that
same
setback
line
as
it
crosses
the
subject
property.
C
This
forms
an
applicable
minimum
front,
setback
of
65.1
feet
on
the
North
side
and
96.7
feet
on
the
South
Side.
I
will
note
that
this
determination
of
the
front
setback
is
something
that
was
discussed
with
the
property
owner,
the
appellant
in
this
case
and
his
his
prior
representation
in
in
the
fall.
When
this
originally
came
up,
the
retaining
walls
in
this
case
are
located.
C
10.3
feet
from
the
front
lot
line
at
at
their
closest
point
in
the
pickleball
court
is
located
18
feet
from
the
front
lot
line
at
its
closest
point,
so
it
doesn't
comply
with
this
applicable
front
Snapback.
It
also
wouldn't
apply
with
the
district
standard
minimum
front
setback
of
20
feet.
If
that
were
the
case,
pickleball
court
and
retaining
wall
is
not
retaining
natural
grade
are
not
a
permitted
obstruction
in
a
required
front
yard
and
the
appellant
requested
these
variances
for
lawful
establishment
of
these
improvements,
as
constructed.
C
Let's
go
back
to
that,
the
staff
recommendation
in
this
case
was
for
denial,
and
that
was
ultimately,
the
Zoning
Board
of
adjustment
voted
to
adopt
staff
recommendation
and
deny
the
variance,
and,
in
this
case,
I'll
just
go
through
the
the
staff
findings.
As
the
committee
are
aware,
in
play
for
variance
requests
like
this
for
the
first
required
finding
regarding
practical
difficulties,
a
staff
found
that
this
was
not
met.
The
subject
property
is
relatively
large.
C
They've
still
have
a
lot
of
space
outside
of
that
front,
step
back
area
where
they
could
have
located
improvements
like
this,
without
needing
a
variance
and
placing
these
improvements
where
they're
located,
which
is
approximately
the
location
of
the
previous
house.
That
was
only
facilitated
through
the
direct
actions
of
the
property
owner
and
appellant
in
this
case,
in
demolishing
that
house,
for
the
second
required
finding
regarding
reasonable
use
of
the
property
in
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
and
the
comprehensive
plan.
C
So
the
spirit
and
the
tent
of
the
ordinance
regarding
setback
requirements,
front
setback
requirements
specifically
to
promote
the
orderly
development
and
use
of
land
to
provide
for
separation
of
uses,
minimize
conflicts
among
land
uses
to
align,
New,
Uses
and
structures
with
the
existing
development
pattern
of
the
area
and
maintain
visibility
across
the
front
of
Residential
Properties
and
for
accessory
uses
and
structures.
The
intent
of
the
code
is,
for
those
generally
to
be
located
to
the
rear
of
the
principal
uses
that
that
they
would
serve
on
on
a
property.
C
In
this
case,
the
pickleball
court
and
the
retaining
walls
have
been
constructed
in
a
conspicuous
location
at
the
front
of
the
property
either
closer
than
than
the
house
and
closer
than
the
old
house
used
to
be
staff
found.
This
does
not
follow
the
the
predominant
development
pattern
and
the
retaining
walls
with
the
screening.
They
substantially
block
the
views
across
the
front
of
the
property
and
and
have
some
impacts
on
on
storm
water.
C
Storm
water,
as
it
runs
across
this
part
of
the
property
for
the
third
finding
regarding
essential
character,
the
locality
and
potential
for
injury
or
detriment
to
persons
or
property
staff
also
finds
this
is
not
met.
Staff
doesn't
find
that
this
would
create
potential
for
injury
or
detriment
to
persons
or
property,
but
we
do
find
it's
an
alteration
of
the
essential
character
as
outdoor
recreational
uses
like
this
are
not
common
in
residential
front
yards.
C
So
there's
some
additional
context
in
in
the
staff
report
for
some
other
parts
of
the
code
that
are
that
are
relevant
in
this
case,
but
in
the
interest
of
time
I'll
I
guess
I
will
just
touch
on.
There
are
some
additional
findings
related
to
the
Shoreland
overlay
District
that
apply
in
this
case
staff
found
that
those
were
all
met
in
this
case.
I
can
go
through
those
if
the
committee
is
interested,
but
I'll
conclude
just
by
reiterating
that
the
board
decision
was
for
denial
based
on
the
staff
recommendation
analysis.
C
In
this
case,
there
were
a
number
of
public
comments
which
have
received,
some
of
which
were
prior
to
the
board
of
adjustment
hearing
last
month
and
some
additional
findings
that
were
received
after
that
point,
but
before
today's
Biz
hearing,
those
should
all
be
available
in
your
packets,
I
believe
the
appellant
and
his
representatives
are
in
attendance
today.
This
concludes
my
presentation,
but
I'll
stand
for
questions
are.
A
There
any
questions
for
Mr
Ellis
on
item
number,
two
seeing
none.
Thank
you
for
your
report.
I'll
note.
This
is
a
quasi-judicial
public
hearing
and
the
appellant
has
the
opportunity
to
speak
first,
you
are
entitled
to
10
minutes
and
you
can
use
it
any
way.
You'd
like
and
then
we'll
open
it
up
to
the
general
public.
Should
there
be
comments
on
either
side
of
the
issue
and
I
would
welcome
Mr
Bell
to
give
your
presentation.
A
A
Need
to
pull
it
out,
it's
okay,
we're
pretty
casual
I.
I
will
remind
you,
however,
that
we're
not
interested
if
people
like
it
or
not.
We
need
you
to
stick
to
the
criteria
as
set
out
to
be
able
to
get
get
a
variance
from
the
city,
so
I'd
urge
you
to
stick
to
those
points.
Please.
D
Foreign
good
afternoon,
my
name
is
Brian
Bell.
My
address
is
50
South
6th,
Street
I.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
today,
and
the
standards,
as
the
chair
indicated,
are
first
that
there
are
practical
difficulties.
Second,
that
the
use
is
reasonable
and,
third,
that
the
variance
is
consistent
with
the
essential
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
I.
Do
want
to
focus
today
on
why
there
are
practical
difficulties
in
this
case.
The
first
practical
difficulty
is
the
bend
in
Zenith
Avenue,
which
in
this
case,
makes
an
unreasonable
setback
of
96.7
feet.
D
And
so,
if
you
look
at
the
property
to
the
north,
it
has
a
setback
of
36.8
feet.
The
property
to
the
South,
which
is
the
Bakken
Museum,
has
a
setback
of
just
28.7
feet
and
that's
marked
off
of
the
fence
at
the
Bakken
Museum.
But
those
relatively
modest
setbacks
of
36.8
and
28.7
feet
require
a
maximum
setback
in
this
case
of
96.7
feet,
and
so
that's
really
I'd
say.
The
Keystone
of
our
argument
is
that
the
curve
of
Zenith
Avenue
creates
this
unreasonable
setback
requirement
for
the
Moody's.
D
I
would
note
that
originally
this
is
the
house,
that's
been
torn
down,
but
originally
the
setbacks
for
the
homes
followed
the
Contour
of
Zenith
Avenue.
So,
as
you
went
farther
south,
the
the
setbacks
again
moved
farther
to
the
West,
just
as
Zenith
Avenue
does
be.
This
is
the
line
that
shows
the
setback
that
is
required,
and
this
is
where
the
pickleball
court
is,
and
this
is
what
what
should
be
really
the
buildable
area
and
so
effectively.
D
Half
of
the
property
due
to
this
large
setback
is,
is
front,
yard
and
can't
be
used,
except
for
for
permitted
obstructions,
and
so
really
this
is
the
only
portion
in
in
the
backyard
that
could
be
permitted.
Development
under
the
strict
language
of
the
zoning
code,
the
second
practical
difficulty
that
I'll
focus
on
is
the
grade,
and
that
is
that
the
elevation
rises
from
the
street
to
the
back
of
the
property
by
16
feet,
and
this
is
in
I
think
about
200
feet
so
that
so
for
Minneapolis.
D
This
is
a
pretty
large
grade
change
and
then
I
would
also
note
that
in
the
back
of
the
property,
the
the
the
backyard
or
where
the
buildable
part
to
the
east
of
the
setback
line
line
is
about
three
I.
D
D
Having
that
additional
25
feet
of
space
effectively
extends
the
setback
by
just
over
25
feet,
and
so,
as
we've
said,
the
Moody's
really
improved
the
drainage,
as
opposed
to
the
previous
house.
This
is
a
picture
of
the
previous
house.
Obviously
it
has
a
considerable
amount
of
impervious
surface
and
then
here
is
a
picture
of
the
front
yard
with
the
pickleball
court.
It
is
screened
from
from
you
know,
passersby
or
from
the
right-of-way
I
would
say.
D
The
lot
line
is
probably
about
here,
and
so
we
have
this
additional
25
feet
of
pervious
surface
that
can
be
used
for
water
infiltration,
and
the
slope
that
you
can
see
from
this
picture
is
from
the
back
of
the
property
to
the
front.
That
was
the
case
before
the
pickleball
court
was
developed
and
also
after
the
pickleball
court
was
added.
I
will
just
briefly
touch
on
the
fact
that
the
the
use
of
the
property
is
reasonable.
This
is
Sport
courts
are
a
permitted
accessory
use
throughout
the
City
of
Minneapolis
I.
D
Believe
staff
has
conceded
that
the
variance
request
is
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
but
I
would
also
note
that
it's
consistent
with
the
purpose
of
setback,
and
that
is
in
part
because
of
this
extended
setback
in
the
front.
This
additional
25
feet
between
the
lot
line
and
the
sidewalk
and
the
Moody's
deliberately
placed
the
sport
court
where
it
is
to
move
it
farther
away
from
the
property
neighbor
to
the
East
and
closer
to
the
minicata
club,
which
is
just
to
the
west
of
them.
D
So
it's
moving
it
closer
to
another
recreational
amenity
and
further
away
from
neighboring
houses
and
then
I'll.
Just
briefly
close
on
this.
This
is
certainly
a
residential
neighborhood,
but
it
is
as
much
as
any
other
neighborhood
in
the
city.
It
has
a
lot
of
recreational
amenities,
there's
a
tennis
court
or
a
sorry,
a
basketball
court,
a
few
houses
to
the
north
of
them
right
here,
Tennis
Courts
at
the
minacata
club.
D
Of
course,
the
minnecotta
club,
their
neighbor
to
the
east,
has
a
front
yard
swimming
pool
and
then,
of
course,
on
the
south
west
corner
of
the
day,
makaska
is
a
volleyball
court.
It's
a
beach
and
things
like
that.
So
again,
although
it
is
a
a
residential
neighborhood,
it's
one
that
is
plush
with
recreational
amenities.
Like
this,
the
sport
court,
as
Mr
Cole
house
mentioned,
there's
there
we
received
a
number
of
letters
of
support.
Those
are
marked
on
in
X's
here,
but
I
won't
dwell
on
that
again.
D
I
would
just
say,
because
there's
practical
difficulties
in
complying
with
the
zoning
code,
the
Moody's
use
of
the
property
is
reasonable
and
it's
consistent
with
the
essential
character
of
the
neighborhood.
We
would
ask
that
the
committee
Grant
the
or
recommend
granting
the
variants
and
I'm
happy
and
Mr
Moody
is
here
to
answer
any
questions.
A
We'll
we'll
conclude
your
testimony,
we'll
see
if
there's
any
questions
from
members
of
the
committee,
it
does
not
look
like
they
are.
Thank
you
for
your
presentation.
Will
the
committee,
the
public
hearing,
is
open,
we'll
see
if
there's
anyone
else
who
would
like
to
testify
on
this
issue?
Anyone
anyone
sing.
None
will
close
the
public
hearing
on
this
item
we'll
see
if
anyone
wants
to
speak
to
it
before
I.
A
Do
anyone,
okay,
I'm
gonna,
move
to
Grant
the
appeal
and
direct
staff
to
prepare
findings
with
regard
to
practical
difficulty,
basically
based
on
the
fact
that
there
is
a
96
foot
setback
here,
including
the
way
the
street
curves,
as
demonstrated
by
the
applicant
I'll,
also
note
that
16-foot
grade
change
from
front
to
back
is
much
much
much
larger
than
anything.
We've
seen,
I
think.