>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS THE MARCH 6th, 2025, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING. MY NAME IS MAT PERRY AND I'M CHAIR OF THE BOARD. I WILL NOW CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AND ASK THE CLERK TO CALL A ROLL SO WE MAY VERIFY THE PRESENCE OF
QUORUM. >> BOARD MEMBER CALLAHAN. >> PRESENT. >> IKE HOEICHOLZ. >> PER. >> HERE.
>> SMFIVE MEMBERSRESENT. >> PLEASE LET THE RECORD SHOW WE DO HAVE QUORUM AND WE WILL PROCEED TO OUR AGENDA, A COPO OF WHICH WAS POSTED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE CITY'S LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AVAILABLE AT
LIMS.MINNEAPOLISMN.GOV. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS AGENDA. >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. ANY AGAINST, INDICATE BY SAYING NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? THAT MOTION PASSES AND T
AGENDA IS APPROVED. I BELIEVE ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE SEEN A COP AOF THE MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 20th, 2025, ZINING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING S. ERE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING
NONE, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. WE HAVE TWO ABSTENTIONS. ANYBODY AGAINST? WITHHAT, THE MINUTES PASSES AND THE MINUTES FOR THE ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT, FEBRUARY 20th, 2025, MEETING ARE APPROVED. LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT MR. EICHOLZ HAS JOINED US IN TIME TO VOTEN ANY ITEMS HENCE FORTH. MR. ELLIS, ARE THERE ANY COMMUNICATNS? >> CHAIR PERRY, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I HAVE TWO COMMUNICATIONS THIS EVENING. THE FIR OF THE
TWO IS THE RESUL OF A VARIANCE APPEAL FROM 41 THIRD AVENUE NORTH. IT WAS ACTUALLY AWHIL AGO. IT WAS EXTENDED AN ADDITIONAL MONTH DUE TO REQUEST FROM THE APPELLANT. BUT THAT WAS PARTIALLY GRANTED AND PARTIALLY UPHELD THE DENIAL.
SO THE VARIANCE FOR THE HEIGHT OF A FENCE IN A REQUIRED FRONT YARD WAS DENIED. THE VARIANCE TO INCREASE MAXIMUM PERVIOUS SURFACE WAS PARTIALLY GRANTED INSTEAD OF 90% AS THE APPLICANT AND APPEL PT HAD REQUESTED IT WAS APPROVED TO 75%, CITING THE SIZE OF THE LOT,
WHICH WAS A, IT'S A STUB STANDARD LOT INSTEAD OF BEING 5,000 SQRE FEET, IT WAS 3500 SQUARE FEET. SO THAT WAS THE PRIMARY CHALLENGE THAT COUNCIL FOUND. >> DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION, MR. HUTCHENS. >> YES, MR. CHAIR. CAN YOU
REMIND ME WHICH ONE THAT WAS? >> CERTAINLY. THIS IS THE ONE TAT CAME OUT OF ENFORCEMENT AND IT HAD LIKE THE DRIVEWAY WIDTH, THE XZ, THE FENCING IN REQUIRED FRONT YARD, PATIO. THEY SPOKE, ONE OF THEIR MAIN CONCERNS W
THEIR MOTHER WAS, YOU KNOW, LEAVING THE PROPERTY WHICH IS WHY THEY'D WANTED THE TALLER FENCE, SOME O THOSE, AND THEN THEY NEEDED -- THEY WERE ASKING FOR THE ADDITIONAL PARKING AREA AND ADDITIONAL OUTDOOR SPACE IF THAT RINGS A BELL. LET'S SEE. SO THAT WAS THAT FINDING.
THE NEXT FINDING WAS ALSO THEY GRANTED THE APPROVAL FOR THE PATIO IN THE REQUIRED FRONT AND CORNER SIDE YARD, SIMILAR THINGS DUE TO THE SIZE AND INABILITY TO HAVE A TRUE REAR YARD WAS KD OF THE FINDINGS RELATED TO THAT.
AND THEN FINALLY, THE, THEY UPHELD AND DENIED THE DRIVEWAY WIDTH VARIANCE. >> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS O? >> SO YEAH THERE HASN'T BEEN A FORMAL -- IT HASN'T BEEN FORMALLY, YOU KNOW, RECORDED ON THAT. WE'RE STILL, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS STILL WORKING THROUGH THE FINDINGS ON THAT, BUT THAT'S
WHAT COUNCIL HAD SAID AT THE BUSINESS HOUSING AND ZONG COMMITTEE. >> SO THAT HAS YET TO HAVE FINDINGS AND GO TO THE FULL >> CORRECT, IT HAS NOT YET GONE TO FULL COUNCIL, BUT THAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF THE BH Z, AND IT WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTE.
>> OKAY. YES? >> REGARDING THE FINDINGS ON THIS 40,133R 401 33RD NORTH, I RECALL LOOKING AT THE PROJECT BEFORE AND AFTER, BOTH BEFORE THE OWNERS BOUGHT IT AND AFTER THEY DID THE IMPROVEMENTS
ON IT BECAUSE OF THE DESBLED MOTHER. I KNOW I HAVE TO SAY I WAS TOLD THIS PUBLICLY I WAS TOLD IT WAS POSSIBLE B I WANT TO SAY FOR THE RECORDS IT IS WRONG IN MY OPINION THAT WE CHARGE THE SAME VARIANCE FEE, $600 OR FOR THE UPHELD THAT WE DO ON HOUSE THAT'S WORTH ABOUT
$160,000 THAT WE DO ON MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE THAT DOES A TENNIS URT OR A BUSINESS THAT'S WORTH THREE OR FOUR $000,000 ON HENNEPIN AVENUE. I JUST FEEL LIKE IT'S WRONG AND IT NEEDS TO BE SAID ON THE PUBLIC RECORD THAT WRE NOT DOING SOME KIND
OF MORE RESPECTFUL ANDQUITY ON THESE APPEAL PROCESSES BECAUSE THE COST OF $600 FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY I SUSPECT WAS ONE OF THE MANY REASONS WHY IT TOOK A LONG TIME TO MATURE. SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD THAT IT'S WRONG THAT WE CHARGE THE SAME A
HOUSE VALUED AT $160,000 THAT WE DO FOR A STRUCTU THAT'S A COUPLE OF MILLION. I CAN SEE WHERE THERE IS A MINIMUM THAT SHOULD BE RUIRED, BUT I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE CHARGE THE SAME FOR SUCH DPARITY IN PROPERTY ASSESSMENT.
>> WELL, THANKS FOR THOSE COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT. >> AND CHAIR, CHAIR PERRY. AND THE SECOND COMMUNICATION RELATED TO THAT WAS WE FINALLY COMPLETED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ANNUAL REPORT. IT JUST WAS COMPLETED TODAY, SO IT WAS A LITTLE TOO, IT WASN'T, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET IT ONTO THE AGENDA FOR
TODAY, SO WE'LL PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR MARCH 20TH FOR REVIEW AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU SEE ANY ISSUES AT THAT POINT, YOU CAN NOTE STAFF AND OTHERWISE POST, POST THAT HEARING THEN WE CAN GET IT POSTED ONLINE. >> OKAY. SO MY REQUEST WOULD BE
THAT IF WE CAN GET IT AHEAD OF TIME, SO THAT PEOPLE CAN VOTE ON THE 20th. >> YEAH, WE'LL EMAIL IT OUT AHEAD OF TIME, AND IT'LL BE AVAILABLE ALSO THEN ON THE PUBLIC RECORD. >> OKAY. GREAT. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. LET'S REVIEW THE
AGENDA. I WILL READ THE AGENDA NUMBER AND ADDRESS OF THE PROJECT AND STATE WHETHERT'S SLATED FOR CONSENT, CONTINUANCE, WITHDRAW, RETURN, OR DISCUSSION. AND I WILL GO TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5, WHICH IS OUR ONE AGENDA ITEM WITH LAND USE
REQUESTS IN IT. IT'S 4100 UPTON AVENUE SOUTH. STA IS RECOMMENDING THIS ITEM FOR CONCEPT. -- CONSENT. IS THERE ANYONE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? I SEE NO ONE. SO
LET'S GOO THE ITEMS THAT ARE ON OUR AGENDA FOR CONSENT. THEY ARE ITEM NUMBER 5, IS. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THIS ITEM ON CONSENT. >> SO MOVED. >>S THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE
MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. ANY AGAINST, INDICATE BY SAYING NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? AND THAT MOTION PASSES, SO IF YOU WERE HERE FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5, YOUR LAND USE REQUEST IS APPROVED. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT,ND
APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWNTOWN. ALL RIGHT, WE'VE COMPLETED ALL OF OUR ITEMS ON THIS AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING. OUR NEXT MEETING IS MARCH 20th, 2025. I WOULD -- >> EXSE ME, CHAIR, PERRY.
>> YES? >> THIS IS -- I DON'T KNOW IF IS IS NECESSARILY AN ANNOUNCEMENT BUT THIS IS A CONCERN I SHOULD BRING UP. THIS IS THE THIRD MEETING AU THIS AUGUST BODY HAD THAT WAS LESS THAN 10 MINUTES. I WN'T AT THE LAST MEETING BUT IT WAS ONLY
EIGHT MINUTES AND 47 SECONDS. I'M CONCERNED AND I GUESS I NEED TALK TO STAFF. I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A DUE PROCESS AND THERE IS CONSTRUCTION THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, BUT IS THERE MORE EFFICIENT WAY OF HAVING US DO THESE KINDS OF MEETINGS, STILL ALLOWING THE PUBLIC TO COME FORTH AND SAK, BUT AT THE SAME
TIME, BEING MORE COG MI -- COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT IT'S RIDICULOUS, WE MADE A JOKE AT ONE POINT THAT IF WE ARE HERE FOR ONLY TEN MINUTES THAT WE SHOULD ONLY GET HALF OF OUR PER DIEM BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S A JOKE, I THINK IT'S SINCERE. WASTING TIME TO COME TO A PUBLIC
MEETING, IF WE CAN TAKE CARE OF IT VIRTUALLY OR IN OTHER WAYS AND STILL HAVE THE PUBLIC COME FORTH, I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. SO AGAIN, I WOULD TASK THAT JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY THINKS WE CAN'T DO IT VIRTUALLY THERE ARE DECISION-MAKING BODIES THAT DO THINGS VIRTUALLY, AND I
WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE US TO DO THAT. SO YOU KNOW, TO HAVE REE MEETINGS AND HAVE THEM ALL BE UNDER 10 MINUTES JUST SEEMS, SEEMS, SEEMS REALLY WASTEFUL, AND AS TAXPAYER WHO PAYS A LOT OF MONEY, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT.
>> YES, THANKS FOR THOSE COMMENTS. MR. HUTCHENS. >> SO IN THE SAME IDEA, IF IT GOES THREE HOURS, WOO EGET -- WE GET PAID MORE? >> WELL, THAT'S A GOOD POINT, AND I DO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT I DID SPEND 15 MINUTES LOOKING OVER THIS DOCUMENT BECAUSE I WAS FASCINATED BY THE FACT THAT THE VARIANCE WENT THROUGH SO SMOOTHLY AND IT TOOK ME AWHILE
TO REALLY UNDERSTAND IT. THE DOCUMENTS WERE REALLY QUITE THOROUGH. BUT YEA I WOULD ARGUE THAT MAYBE THAT'S THE CASE, BUT I WOULD CHALLENGE US AS, AGAIN, MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE HISTORICALLY WE HAVE LASTED FORF MEETINGS I HAVE BEEN AT, THE
LAST THREE ANYWAYS FOR SURE HAVE BEEN UNDER 10 MINUTES, AND EVEN BEFORE THAT, THEY WERE UNDER, THERE WAS ONLY ONE THAT I REMEMBER I THE R LAST YEAR THAT WENT OVER AN HOUR AND A HALF, SO. I JUST THINK IT'S SOMETHING TO CONDER THAT WE LOOK AT OTHER FORMS OF DELIVERY, BOTH PUBLIC COMMENT AND GOOD
CONSENSUS DISCUSSION. I BELG ON OTHER BOARDS WHERE WE HAVE VIRTUAL, AND WE HAVE GOOD DISCUSSIONS, ANDOOD RESULTS THAT COME OUT OF IT. AND I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT JUST BECAUSE IT'S BEEN DONE THIS WAY FOREVER, DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NECESSARILY A GOOD WAY TO DO THINGS.
>> SO I WOULD, I WILL RESPOND TWO WAYS. ONE, I WILL ASK STAFF TO TALK TO THE CLERK, THE CITY CLERK ABOUT WHAT THAT WOULD ENTAIL TO DO AN INVESTIGATIVE
LOOK AT THAT. THE SECONDS, IT'S NOT ONLY HISTORICALLY WHY WE DO THINGS. IT'S, THE CLERK'S OFFICE IS SET UP, THESE MEETINGS GENERALLY HAVE THE SAME LOOK AND
FEEL THAT MEETINGS LIKE THIS THAT ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL HAVE THE SAME LOOK AND FEEL. O IF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE CASE WITH US, ITOULD ALSO APPLY TO THE HPC AND THE CPC. AND I DON'T
KNOW WHETHER THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THEM AS WELL. SO THERE'S, I'M JUST INFORMING YOU, THERE IS ANOTHER DIMENSION TO IT. IT'S NOT JUST, WE DO THIS HIORICALLY. IT'S THAT THERE IS A DESIRE TO HE CONTINUITY
ACROSS MEETINGS SO THAT WHEN YOU COME BEFORE THE CITY, Y'RE FEELING LIKE IT'S THE SAME BODY AND THE SAME ORGANIZATION. BUT I WOULD ASK, I WOULD ASK TO GET A RULING ON THAT FROM THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
>> CHAIR PERRY AND THE BOARD, IF I MAY SPEAK TO IT JUST BRIEFLY. OBVIOUSLY I'M NOT THE DECISIONMAKER ON THIS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE HAVE CONSIDERED DOING HYBRID MEETINGS POST-PANDEMIC IF YOU WILL, AND IT HAS BEEN VETTED THOROUGHLY BY THE CITY AORNEY'S OFFICE, AND
I DON'T SEE A LOT OF RECOURSE THERE, BUT I WILL FORWARD YOUR CONCERNS TO MR. CARL, THE CITY CLERK OF MINNEAPOLIS, AND SEE IF HE CAN AT LEAST PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS TO WHY IT'S NOT POSSIBLE AT THE CITY WHEN IT'S POSSIBLE WITH YOUR OTHER BOARDS. THANK YOU. >> I APOLOGIZE IF I'M TAKING UP THE TIME O THIS COMMITTEE EVEN
THOUGH IT'S ONLY AN EXTRA THREE MINUTES, BUT YOU CAN SPEAK TO M OFFLINE THEN. I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BURDEN THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE IF IT'S NOT A CONSIDERATION OF THEIRS. >> SO I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD FOR A LONG
TIME., MANY YEARS, AND I HAVE FOUND THAT OVER THE COURSE OF TIME, THE TIME EVENS ITSELF OUT, SO IT'S NOT -- I MEAN, WE'VE HAD A RUN OF SHORT MEETINGS, BUT OVER THE COURSE OF, IF YOU LOOK
AT THE LAST FIVE YEARS WHAT IS THE AVERAGE MEETING LENGTH, I THINK IT AVERAGES OUT TO SOMETHING MORE THAN -- IT'S NOT GOING TO BE 8 MINUTES. WE HAVE, WE'VE HAD A SITUATION WHERE THE LASTOUPLE OF MEETINGS HAVE BEEN SHORT, BUT I WOULDN'T CONTINUE TO EXPECT THAT, AND
WE'RE JUST GETTING INTO THECONSH THAT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE T ADD? >> NO, THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME. >> SURE. SO IS THERE ANY NEW BUSINESS OR OLD BUSINESS FROM STAFF? OKAY. WITH THAT, I'D
ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR, INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. WE ARE ADJOURNED.