>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS THE OCTOBER 30th, 2025, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING. MY NAME IS MATT PERRY, AND I'M CHAIR OF THIS BOARD. I WILL NOW CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AND ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL SO THAT WE MAY VERIFY THE PRESENCE OF QUORUM.
>> CALLAHAN IS ABSENT. EICHOLZ. >> HERE. >> GRANS KORSH. >> HERE. >> HUTCHENS IS ABSENT. INGRAHAM. >> AYE. >> SMRIKAROVA IS ABSENT. WANG.
>> HERE. >> CHAIR PERRY. >> HERE. >> THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT WE HAVE QUORUM. WITH THAT WE WILL PROCEED TO THE AGENDA. A COP EOF WHICH IS PROVIDED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE CITY'S LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AVAILABLE AT
LIMS.MINNEAPOLISMN.GOV. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS AGENDA? >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. ANY AGAINST INDICATE BY SAYING NAY. THAT
MOTION PASSES AND THE AGENDA APPROVED. I BELIEVE ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE SEEN A COPY OF THE MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 16th BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION
ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. ALL AGAINST, INDICATE BY SAYING NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? AND THAT MOTION PASSES, AND THE MINUTES FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, OCTOBER 16th,
2025, MEETING ARE APPROVED. A REMINDER TO APPLICANTS AND OTHERS THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE SIGN IN ON THE SHEET AVAILABLE FROM THE CLERK, AND SPEAK CLEARLY INTO THE MICROPHONE. IF YOU HAVE NOT SIGNED IN YET, YOU CAN DO SO ON
THE WAY OUT. ALSO TO APPLICANTS AND OTHERS, PLEASE CONTACT STAFF AFTER THE HEARING WITH ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT YOUR PROJECTS. I WILL NOW REVIEW THE AGENDA AND I'LL READ THE AGENDA NUMBER AND ADDRESS OF
THE PROJECT AND STATE WHETHER IT'S SLATED FOR CONSENT, CONTINUANCE, WITHDRAWAL, RETURN, OR DISCUSSION. LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT BOARD MEMBER CALLAHAN IS HAS JOINED US AND SINCE WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN INTO THE MEAT OF
ANY OF OUR ITEMS, SHE WILL BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THEM. SO LET ME JUST DESCRIBE WHAT DISCUSSION ITEMS ARE. THESE ARE ITEMS FOR WHICH THE BOARD WILL TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, DELIBERATE ON, AND MAKE A DECISION. AFTER THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY HAS BEEN HEARD FOR 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 DOES NOT VOTE EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF OF A TIE. SO WE HAVE EI ONE AGENDA ITEM ON OUR LIST TODAY, AND THAT IS 4709 PARK AVENUE AND
THIS IS A DISCUSSION ITEM. SO BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE AMBER WHO HAS JOINED US, AND AMBER, MAYBE YOU CAN JUST TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOURSELF. >> YEAH, IT'S NICE TO JOIN THE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AS CLERK II. MY NAME IS AMBER SINATRA I'VE BEEN CLERKING HERE FOR ABOUT A YEAR NOW ALONG WITH PAUL, AND I'M EXCITED TO JOIN. THANKS FOR HAVING ME. >> GREAT. WELCOME. WE'RE GLAD TO HAVE YOU. OKAY. SO LET'S GO TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4
MR. CARRIER. AND BEFORE YOU START, JUST FOR THE PUBLIC, THE STAFF DOES A PRESENTATION, THEN WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THE PUBLIC CAN TALK, AND THEN WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND
THEN DISCUSS MOTIONS AND ISSUES THAT MAY HAVE COME UP FROM THE TESTIMONY THAT WE HEAR IN THE STAFF REPORT. OKAY, MR. C CARRIER. >> THANK YOU. CHAIR PERRY, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. WELCOME, AMBER. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M BEN
CARRIER, CITY PLANNER IN THE ZONING ADMINISTRATION. ITEM 4 IS A VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE INTERIOR SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR FROM FIVE FEET TO 3.1 FEET TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE STALL
ATTACHED TO GARAGE FOR THE RESIDENTS AT 4709 PARK AVENUE. THE PROPERTY'S IN THE U.N. 1 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICT. THE INTERIOR 1 BUILT OVERLAY DISTRICT, AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT, IT'S IN THE FIELD
NEIGHBORHOOD AND IN WARD 8. IT'S A 4,789 SQUARE FOOT INTERIOR LOT WITH A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE THAT FACES THE REAR LOT LINE. THE STRUCTURE WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT IN 1933,
AND THE LOT IS SURROUNDED BY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS AND HAS PUBLIC ALLEY AT THE REAR. THE EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE IS 10.9 FEET WIDE, AND CONNECTED TO THE ALLEY BY A
9.6-FOOT DRIVEWAY. THE FRONT CORNER OF THE EXISTING HOUSE IS 3.2 FEET FROM THE NORTH LOT LINE AND THE REAR CORNER OF THE ATTACHED GARAGE IS 2.7 FEET FROM THE NORTH LOT LINE. THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE TO THE SOUTH
WAS ALSO CONSTRUCTED IN THE REQUIRED INTERIOR SIDE YARD AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SURVEY ON THIS SLIDE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REPLACE THE EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE WITH A
NEW SINGLE STALL GARAGE AN IN A SIMILAR LOCATION AND A MUD ROOM ADDITION AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE. THE PROPOSED GARAGE WOULD BE 14 FEET WIDE BY 27 FEET DEEP, AND IT'LL STILL FACE THE REAR LOT LINE. IT'LL BE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE THAN THE EXISTING ATTACHED
GARAGE IS AT 3.1 FEET AWAY. BUT STILL LOCATED IN THE REQUIRED SETBACK, WHICH IS FIVE FEET. THE PROPOSED GARAGE WILL MATCH THE PRIMARY EXTERIOR MATERIALS OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS STUCCO, AND WILL OTHERWISE MAINTAIN
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING CODE. ALL RIGHT. SO YARD REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING CODE STATE MAXIMUM INTERIOR SIDE YARD FOR BUILDINGS LESS THAN 42 FEET TALL, AND THE
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICT IS FIVE FEET. THIS, THE SECTION THAT DISCUSSES REQUIRED YARDS ALSO DISCUSSES PERMITTED OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS. SO THE REQUIRED
SIDE YARD MAY BE REDUCED FOR DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WHEN THE STRUCTURE'S LOCATED IN THE REAR 40 FEET OR 20% OF THE LOT AND AT LEAST 10 FEET AWAY FROM THE HABITABLE PORTION OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCKKER ON THE
ADJACENT PROPERTY. THE ZONING CODE ALSO ESTABLISHES STANDARDS AND RIGHTS FOR NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES, AND STATES THAT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING NONCONFORMING AS TO SIDE YARDS ONLY SHALL HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS OF A CONFORMING STRUCTURE
PROVIDED THAT THE STRUCTURE IS NOT LOCATED KLOSE CLOSER THATTEN THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE. AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE STRUCTURE SHALL NOT BE ENLARGED, ALTERED OR RELOCATED IN A WAY AS TO INCREASE ITS NONCONFORMITY. SO THE EXISTING
HOUSE AND ATTACHED GARAGE IS LESS THAN THREE FEET FROM THE INTERIOR SIDE LOT LINE, AND SO IT DOES NOT HAVE NONCONFORMING RIGHTS TO REBUILD THE PROPOSED GARAGE IN THE REQUIRED YARD. A NEW ADDITION TO THE STRUCTURE MUST COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE YARD REQUIREMENTS AND BE AT
LEAST FIVE FEET FROM THE LOT LINE. THE PROPOSED GARAGE WILL BE 3.1 FEET FROM THE LOT LINE AND REQUIRES A VARIANCE. WE, STAFF AT THE TIME OF THIS HEARING DID RECEIVE ONE PUBLIC COMMENT FROM THE OWNER OF 4705
PARK AVENUE, IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST, AND THAT SHOULD'VE BEEN FORWARDED ONTO YOU FOR REVIEW. ALL RIGHT. SO FOR ANY VARIANCE REQUEST TO BE GRANTED, APPLICANTS NEED TO MEET ALL THREE REQUIRED FINDINGS.
THE FIRST BEING THAT CHALLENGES EXIST IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY. STAFF ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE LEGAL NONCONFORMITIES OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE RESULTING FROM ITS CONSTRUCTION IN THE REQUIRED YARD IN 1933
DOES REPRESENT A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WAS NOT CREATED BY THE APPLICANT. ASIDE FROM THE NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS TYPICAL PLATTING AND NO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES CREATING CHALLENGES IN COMPLYING WITH THE
ORDINANCE'S YARD REQUIREMENTS, YET THE HOUSE WAS NOT CLOSER THAN THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, THEN THE APPLICANT COULD CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED ADDITION ALONG THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT AS LONG AS IT DIDN'T INCREASE THE NONCONFORMITY, BUT THE HOUSE IS
CLOSER THAN THREE FEET TO THE SIDE LOT LINE AND SO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED YARD OF FIVE FEET IS APPLIED AND STAFF DOES NOT FIND ANY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH COMPLYING WITH THAT REQUIREMENT. SO THIS FINDING IS NOT MET. THE
APPLICANT DID MEET THE OTHER TWO REQUIRED FINDINGS. STAFF FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE THE PROPERTY IN A REASONABLE MANNER, AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ALIGNED WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, AND STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WOULD MAINTAIN THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY AND WOULD FO NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY. THE PROPOSED GARAGE WOULD BE ONLY SLIGHTLY LARGER AND SET SLEI SLIGHTLY
FURTHER FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE, AND THE NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE THEN THE
EXISTING GARAGE FIVE FEET TO 3.1 FEET. FOR THE NEW ATTACHED GARAGE, AND RECOMMENDS THE BOARD
DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF STAFF? I SEE -- >> SORRY.
>> BELPLEASE. >> I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS A LITTLE BIT SO PLEASE HELP ME. RIGHT NOW THERE IS AN EXISTING 1933 STRUCTURE THAT FOR 62.5 YEARS HAS BEEN 2.7 FROM THE LOT LINE, RIGHT? SO IT'S SO FOR 64,
FOR OVER CLOSE TO 100 YEARS IT'S BEEN WRONG ACCORDING TO OUR CALCULATIONS. AND I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE FACT THAT WHEN THE NEW, IF THE NEW IS BUILT, THAT WOULD ALLOW THIS 1.11 INCHES, I MEAN, WE'RE
ASKING IT TO LITERALLY BE MOVED 1.11 INCHES, CORRECT? >> YES. >> OKAY, FOR 1.11 INCHES, I GUESS I'M STILL GOING OFF ON THAT HERE. WE'RE, WE'RE, THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS TO DO, SO WE'RE ASKING TO MOVE, MOVE THE PROJECT 1.11 INCHES EVEN THOUGH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, WHICH IS ONLY 8 FEET LARGER THAN THE OTHER ONE HAS BEEN STANDING
THERE FOR SINCE 1933. RIGHT? >> RIGHT, CORRECT. >> SO WE DON'T GIVE ANY MODIFICATION FOR THAT AGE OR THE FACT THAT TO MOVE A STRUCTURE 1.11 INCHES AWAY FROM THE CORNER COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE
CORNER OF A STRUCTURE THAT'S THAT OLD. I MEAN, IT COULD ADD CONSTCONSTRUCTABILITY ISSUES WHEN YOU KNOW TO TURN A CORNER. THERE MIGHT HAVE TO BE UNDER PINNINGS NOW ON THE CORNER AS WELL AS THAT WOULD NOT HAVE
TO BE DONE IF IT WAS A STRAIGHT SHOT, CORRECT? 7 72 NEE WE DON'T CONSIDER THAT AN ISSUE, A CONSTRUCTABILITY ISSUE OF THAT? >> WELL THE ZONING COZ DIDN'T. THE ZONING CODE ESTABLISHES THE SETBACK, WHICH IS FIVE FEET HERE.
>> GOT IT. GOT IT. SO FOR 1.11 INCHES IT COULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY COSTLY AS WELL AS DETRIMENTAL TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, OKAY. THANK YOU. >> YES. >> THANK YOU, BEN. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PART, THE SLIDE THAT YOU WERE CITING, THE APPLICABLE
ZONING. >> YEAH, THANK YOU. >> SO CAN YOU JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT, YOU MENTIONED THIS, IT'S NOT THE FULL SCOPE OF WHAT THE SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS AND THE NONCONFORMITY PIECE IS NOT, IS THIS THE FULL TEXT IN THE ZONING CODE OR IS THIS AN EXCERPT. >> THIS IS A SUMMARY.
>> OKAY. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING, SO BECAUSE BASED ON THE SUMMARY THAT YOU'VE PROVIDED A IN THE PRESENTATION, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S ANY SINGLE TWO, THREE FAMILY DWELLING THAT'S NONCONFORMING, SO BUT THAT YOU -- THEN WHEN YOU WERE SPEAKING YOU SAID THAT BECAUSE
THE REAR CORNER IS 2.7 FEET AS OPPOSED TO 3 FEET, NOW THE FULL 5 FEET IS BEING THE STANDARD THAT IT'S BEING HELD TO? CAN YOU JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT U ABOUT WHY THAT IS AS OPPOSED TO THREE FEET THAT IS QL NONCONFORMING WHEN HALF OF THE
HOUSE IS NONCONFORMING UNDER THIS PART OF THE ZONING. >> YES, THANK YOU. BECAUSE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE'S CLOSER THAN THREE FEET, THAT'S THE STANDARD IF THE ZO -- IN THE ZONING CODE. THAT'S WHAT'S APPLIED.
IF IT WERE NOT CLOSER THAN THREE FEET, THEN THE STRUCTURE COULD BE EXTENDED ALONG THE SAME FOOTPRINT. BUT BECAUSE IT'S CLOSER THAN THREE FEET, IT'S REQUIRED TO MEET THE SETBACK.
>> PART OF THE BILLING BUILDING IS WITHIN, 3.1, AND PART OF THE BUILDING IS LESS THAN 3 FEET, AND WE'RE HOLDING IT TO THE REAR CORNER AS OPPOSED TO THE FRONT CORNER. IN TERMS OF LIKE WHAT IS -- LIKE IN TERMS OF THIS 3-FOOT -- OR AGAIN REALLY ARGUING OVER CENTIMETERS IN
TERMS OF LIKE -- WE'RE SPLITTING HAIRS ESSENTIALLY IN TERMS OF THE FEET. >> TRUE. BUT BECAUSE A PORTION OF THE HOUSE IS CLOSER THAN THREE FEET, THE FIVE-FOOT STANDARD IS APPLIED, AND IN TERMS OF ZONING. >> OKAY, AND ALSO JUST TO, I JUST WANT TO ALSO FLAG IN TERMS OF LIKE THE SUMMARY AGAIN OF THE
TEXT, IT SAYS LIKE INCREASING ITS NONCONFORMITY -- NONCONFORMITY, BUT IN FACT, THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS DECREASING ITS NONCONFORMITY. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY. >> YEP. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> SORRY. THANK YOU AGAIN.
YOU'VE DUB A GREAT JOB HERE -- DONE A GREAT JOB HERE, AND I DON'T MEAN TO PICK APART BUT I'M JUST STUCK HERE. SO THE FRONT, GOING OFF OF COMMISSIONER CALLAHAN'S COMMENT, THE FRONT IS 3.2, CORRECT? >> YES. >> OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD IT. SO THE FRONT IS 3.2, THE BACK IS 2.7,
AND WE ARE SAYING THAT IT HAS TO BE PUSHED TO THE FULL 5, WHICH IS 1 FOOT 11 INCHES GREATER THAN WHAT'S THERE. OKAY. >> OKAY, I CAN WE HAVE EXHAUSTED
THE QUESTION -- I THINK WE HAVE EXHAUSTED THE QUESTIONS FOR NOW. >> THANK YOU. >> AND AS AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. AND WITH THAT WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE APPLICANT'S GOING TO COME FORWARD. IF YOU COULD GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS
FOR THE RECORD. YOU HAVE SUBMITTED SOME DOCUMENTS, SO WE HAVE THOSE AND YOU CAN ASSUME WEENWE'VE READ THEM. SO YOU GET ABOUT 10 MINUTES TO TALK, AND IF YOU COULD HIT THE HIGHLIGHTS, AND YOU CAN HEAR
SOME OF THE QUESTIONS ALREADY THAT PEOPLE ARE ASKING. >> YEAH, NO, I APPRECIATE THOSE QUESTIONS. HI, MY NAME IS C CARRIE NELSON I'M OWNER AND ARCHITECT OF K. NELSON ARCHITECTS. I'M HERE
REPRESENTING. I THINK BEN DID A GREAT JOB EXPLAINING THE ISSUES WITH THE CODE, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS THATT THE BOARD ASKED HERE. THOSE ARE THE EXACT SAME QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE BEEN POSING TO OURSELVES BEHIND THE SCENES AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND BETTER. I WILL SAY THIS IS PRETTY OBSCURE. IT'S OBSCURE ENOUGH TO TRIGGER THESE
QUESTIONS. IT'S ALSO OBSCURE ENOUGH THAT PRIOR TO ISSUING FOR PERMIT, WE SENT THE DRAWINGS TO SOMEONE AT ZONING NAT WE HAVE A PAST WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH, AND HE RESPONDED THAT YOU WOULD
BE PERMITTED TO BUILD BACK FROM THE ENCROACHING SETBACK 3-FOOT 1 BUT WITHIN THE REQUIRED 5-FOOT YARD SETBACK. SO AGAIN I'M NOT GOING TO SAY BUT THIS IS GRAY AREA WHERE WE'RE GETTING
DIFFERENT FEEDBACK FROM VARIOUS REVIEWERS AT THE CITY. IT FELT A LITTLE BIT LIKE IT COULD BE INTERPRETED IN DIFFERENT WAYS. AND SO I WANTED TO MENTION THAT, SO WE THOUGHT WE WOULD PROCEED WITH THE PERMIT AND BE STARTING CONSTRUCTION A FEW WEEKS AGO BUT
WE'RE HERE INSTEAD, AND WHAT OUR UNDERSTANDING IS, I THINK THIS CAME TO LIGHT IN A FEW MINUTES, TO TRY TO SIMPLIFY IT, IT'S B BASICALLY THE EXISTING, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN PULL BACK UP THAT DRAWING, BUT I HAVE ONE HERE AS
WELL. DO YOU GUYS HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT SCREEN AT ALL? >> THE CLERK DOES, SO. >> OKAY, I CAN'T SEE. IT'S NOT ON HERE.
>> I'M ONE OF YOUR LESS TECH SAVVY ARCHITECTS. IS THAT WORKING? >> NOT YET. >> OKAY. WELL, I'LL GIVE IT A
MINUTE. THERE WE GO. I THINK THAT'S FINE. YOU COULD ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT MORE. I SEE IT ON THE LITTLE SCREEN WHAT YOU'RE SEEING. SO THIS IS THE EXISTING
IS SITUATION, CAN YOU SEE MY PENCIL. THERE IS A LITTLE RED LINE DRAWN TO SCALE, A LITTLE LARGER THAN TO SCALE, THAT IS WHERE THE EXISTING HOUSE ENCROACHENCROACHES ON THE EXISTING THREE-FOOT YARD SETBACK. THAT'S THE EXISTING HOUSE. UP HERE ON THIS NORTHWEST CORNER, WE'RE AT
3.2 FEET. SO THAT IS NOT ENCROACHING ON THIS THREE-FOOT SETBACK. THIS YELLOW IS THE EXISTING GARAGE. THAT COULD BE DEMOED WITHOUT ANY KIND OF VARIANCE. DEMO OF EXISTING GARAGE IS NOT AN ISSUE. ONCE WE DEMO THAT GARAGE, WE HAVE WHAT I
BELIEVE IS A VERY VALID EXISTING HARDSHIP IN THAT THE EXISTING HOUSE IS NOW 2-FOOT 10 1/2 INCHES, AND I DID BRING THIS DIAGRAM. THIS IS HOW MUCH IT'S OVER THE PROPERTY LINE, OKAY, TH THAT'S AN INCH AND A HALF. OVER THE THREE-FOOT. IF WE DID
NOT HAVE THE INCH AND A HALF OVER THE THREE-FOOT SETBACK, WE WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED INTO GETTING THE, ANY NEW GARAGE, FRANKLY ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE, AS A THREE-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. BUT THE EXISTING HARDSHIP BECAUSE THIS OVERLAPS, THAT INCH AND A HALF, WE THEN NOW STEP
BACK FIVE FEET AND I THINK IS IT COMMISSIONER CALLAHAN BROUGHT THAT UP AND SO THAT WAS A CORRECT INTERPRETATION. YOU KNOW WHETHER THAT PART OF THE ZONING CODE SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE FUTURE IS NOT WHY I'M HERE, BUT I DO THINK THAT WE ARE
SHIFTING THAT NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE EXISTING GARAGE. WE ARE PULLING IT BACK INTO BETTER CONFORMITY BY FOUR INCHES. SO THAT WAS WHAT WE FELT WAS OUR HARDSHIP WAS THE EXISTING HOUSE, WHICH WE'RE NOT ASKING TO MODIFY. WE'RE NOT ASKING TO CHANGE, AND THAT HAS BEEN THERE FOR ALMOST 100 YEARS. WHE
WE FEEL IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST. IT'S A SINGLE CAR GARAGE ATTACHED, AND I JUST WANT TO MOCK SURE THAT WE GOT A CHANCE TO KIND OF EXPLAIN SOME OF THESE DIAGRAMMATICALLY BECAUSE I DO THINK IN THE VARIANCE APPLICATION, IT CAN BE A LITTLE HARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT MINUTIA, AND THIS ONE IS QUITE
UNIQUE IN THAT THE PROVISION THAT'S SET UP FOR CITY PROPERTIES WHEN YOU ALREADY ARE OVER 5 FEET, THEN YOU CAN CONTINUE THAT SETBACK. THAT PROVISION GETS SCRAPPED FROM THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING HOUSE LOCATION.
SO WANTED TO BE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.. TEGAN IS HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL. >> SO CAN YOU, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE STUDIED OUR PROCESS, AND PROCEDURES. >> WE DO A LOT OF WORK IN MINNEAPOLIS.
>> YEP, SO WE HAVE TO HAVE THE PRAPRACTLE DIFFICULTY WHICH IS AMONG THE THREE FINDINGS. ONE IS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. WHAT, AND IT'S USUALLY ABOUT THE
PROPERTY ITSELF, SO YOU CAN MAYBE. YOU'VE SHOWN YOUR INCH AND A HALF. IT'S -- >> I WON'T SHOW IT AGAIN. >> I GET THAT. BUT CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? LIKE OTHER THAN IT BEING KIND OF WEIRD IF THE GARAGE WERE PUSHED
WHAT WOULD IT BE. >> IF THE VARIANCE IS NOT GRANTED. >> WHAT HAPPENS, WHEN, FOR YOUR DESIGN? IS. >> WELL, WE DON'T KNOW. YOU KNOW? THERE ARE A FEW DIFFERENT OPTIONS THIS PROPERTY COULD
TAKE, BUT A PERSON, WHETHER IT ENDS UP BEING MY CLIENT PURSUING IT OR NOT S WHAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING AFTER TODAY. BUT THEORETICALLY, I THINK YOU'RE ASKING THEORETICALLY, CORRECT, YOU COULD BUILD THIS EXACT SAME
DESIGN THAT WE HAVE. AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO SHIFT IT THE TWO FEET OR SLIGHTLY LESS THAN TWO FEET BECAUSE WE'RE AT 3.2. YOU'D HAVE TO SHIFT IT TWO FEET SO IT MEETS THE FIVE-FOOT, YOU THEN LOSE PART OF YOUR SOUTHERN
EXPOSURE. YOU LOSE LIGHT. YOU LOSE ACCESS TO THE BACK. IT WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING TO BE HONEST SHE WOULD PURSUE BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT THEN DOES ENCROACH INTO THAT AREA SO THEN THE EXISTING GARAGE AT 2.7 FEET.
THE OTHER THING THAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THE FARTHER WE MOVE IT TO WHAT ENDS UP BEING THE SOUTH, THE FARTHER WE SHIFT IT TO THE SOUTH, AND THE DRIVEWAY THEN SHIFTS, THERE IS A MULTIPLE I THINK YOU CAN SEE MY PENCIL HERE, THERE ARE MULTIPLE OLD GROWTH PINES ALONG THIS WAY. >> YEAH. >> AND THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
WITH THIS DESIGN MAINTAIN WHEALL OF THOSE. I BELIEVE THAT WE ADDRESSED THAT IN OUR WRITE-UP. SO AS THAT WHOLE THING SHIFTS, YOU'D HAVE TO SHIFT THE DRIVEWAY ACCORDINGLY AND COULD LOSE ADDITIONAL TREES, SO THAT IS IN JUST FULL TRANSPARENCY NOT SOMETHING SHE
IS CONSIDERING AS AN OPTION. >> YEAH, OKAY. SO THAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT THE IMPACT ON THE TREES. >> MM-HMM. >> WHICH QUITE FRANKLY WHEN I READ THE MATERIAL, I DID NOT PICK UP ON THAT. >> OKAY, I'M GLAD I GOT A CHANCE TO READ THROUGH IT. >> I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS IN
THERE AND I DIDN'T SEE IT BUT I DIDN'T GET THAT, SO THAT'S HELPFUL. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH? >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. SO WHEN YOU DEMOED THE GARAGE BUT WOULD YOU BE EXPOSING PART OF THE NORMAL -- THE HOUSE STRUCTURE
THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW WHERE IT'S NOT AN EXTERIOR WALL? WOULD YOU BE -- >> EXPOSING PART OF THE HOUSE STRUCTURE, THAT'S WHERE IT'S NOT PART OF THE EXISTING. >> ON THAT CORNER. >> YEAH, WE WOULD HAVE TO
BECAUSE THAT, I MEAN, BECAUSE IT IS 2-FOOT 10 1/2 THERE AND WE INTENTIONALLY DIDN'T ASK FOR THAT AS A VARIANCE, PERHAPS THAT WOULD'VE BEEN JUST AS EASY OF ONE WAS TO JUST CONTINUE THE TWO FOOT 10 1/2 YARD SETBACK. BUT WE DID INTENTIONALLY PULL IT BACK PAST THE THREE FOOT BECAUSE
MY UNDERSTANDING PART OF THE REASON OF THE THREE-FOOT PROVISION IS THAT AT THREE FEET, YOU CAN STILL GET A FIRE PERSON THROUGH THERE, ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE AN ACCESSORY BUILDING LIKE A SHED THAT'S TIGHT AT NO TIME PROPERTY LINE, SO WE DID -- TO THE PROPERTY LINE SO WE DID FEEL LIKE THAT WAS A, A CODE
COMPLIANCE THAT WE WANTED TO SUPPORT. SO THAT'S WE DID PULL IT THAT FOUR INCHES BACK TO HIT THE THREE FEET. WE WOULD BE EXPOSING THEN APPROXIMATELY 4 TO 5 INCHES OF THE EXISTING HOUSE AND THE BUILDER WHO'S GOT A TON OF EXPERIENCE WITH OLD HOMES,
VERY QUALIFIED BUILD,ER, I WORKED WITH HIM FOR OVER 15 YEARS, HE WILL STUCCO OVER THAT AND WE HAVE ENGINEERING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE. SO I LIKE THE WAY YOU THOUGHT ABOUT IT BECAUSE IN THEORY, YES, IT'S A LITTLE BIT BETTER FOR THE HOUSE TO JUST COME RIGHT OFF OF THAT CORNER AND NOT HAVE TO POTENTIALLY WEAKEN THAT, BUT
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WILL ARKTURALLY ADDRESS AND MAKE SURE IT'S TAKEN CARE OF. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> CAN I JUST CLARIFY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING
THE ISSUES OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY REVIEWING. IT'S THE CONCERN FOR THE OLD GROWTH TREES. IT'S THE CONCERN FOR THE DRIVEWAY AND THE, AND THE FENCE WOULD HAVE TO BE PROBABLY MOVED.
IT'S CERB ABOUT THE LOSS OF LIGHT TO THE SOUTH EXTERIOR OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. AND GENERALLY FOR THE CONSTRUCTABILITY ISSUES WILL BE MORE DIFFICULT FOR IN ESSENCE WHAT YOU SAID WAS ONE FOOT
-- >> I THINK YOU'RE SAYING 1 FOOT 11 INCHES, YEAH. >> RIGHT, YEAH. >> THAT'S ALL CORRECT, I MEAN, I THINK THERE WOULD BE A FEW MORE SMALLER THINGS, BUT THAT WOULD BE -- >> CAN YOU NAME THOSE SMALLER THINGS. >> WHERE THE ALLEY CORRECTS TO THE DRIVEWAY -- CONNECTS TO THE DRIVEWAY WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE, AND WE CALL THAT SOMETIMES A
CURB CUT OR THE ALLEY ACCESS TO THE DRIVEWAY. I THINK IF YOU DID SHIFT IT, THAT ADDITIONAL LET'S CALL IT TWO FEET FOR SIMPLIFICATION, THAT ADDITIONAL TWO FEET YOU ARE EXPOSING MORE OF THE EXISTING HOUSE, AND THAT CORNER STRUCTURE THEN TH
THAT'S BEEN USED TO A MORE SHEER WALL, STRUCTURAL BRACING FROM THE ATTACHED GARAGE COULD BE COMPROMISED EVEN MORE. >> I CALL THAT MEMORY. >> MEMORY, YES, EXACTLY. CONSTRUCTABILITY. OFTENTIMES WHEN YOU TAKE A 1933 STRUCTURE AND THAT YOUIC ATUALLY ALTER IT,
THE FACT THAT IT ALWAYS WAS HAVING SOMETHING OF SUBSTANCE LEANING AGAINST IT AND NOW ALL THE SUDDEN YOU'RE REMOVING THAT, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO PUT IN SOME SIGNIFICANT EXTRA FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATIONS AND REBAR FOR OR THAT WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE DONE IF IT WAS JUST THE FOUR INCHES, SO. >> THE VAST MAJORITY OF HOUSES WE WORK ON ARE PRE-1950s, AND
IT WAS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION WHERE IT ALL DEPENDED ON ITSELF MORE THAN SOMETHING LIKE THE POST-60s. >>> OKAY.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS? YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT IF YOU WANT TO, YOU CAN. ALL RIGHT. LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BOARD COMMENT OR MOTIONS OR WHATEVER.
>> YEAH, YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK. I THINK IN TERMS OF DOING THE PROCESS, I THINK THE STAFF KIND OF, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE FLOW CHART OF THINGS THAT THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH WITH WHAT THE CURRENT OR HOW IT'S WRITTEN UP, I THINK THEY DID THAT RIGHT, BUT I THINK WE'RE DEFINITELY IN
A WEIRD GRAY AREA THAT THIS WASN'T, YOU KNOW, PROPERLY ACCOUNTED FOR AND MAYBE IN THE IN THAT SO I THINK WE'RE IN A GRAY AREA, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS BOARD EXISTS FOR, SO YEAH, ESPECIALLY WITH THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE TREE IF
THEY WERE TO BUILD IT TO THE CONFORMING HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE, ACCORDING TO CURRENT CODE THAT WOULD PROBABLY IMPACT THAT TREE SO I DO THINK THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW FOR THIS VARIANCE. AND HOPING THAT ONE OF YOU CAN
TAKE A STAB AT THE FINDINGS FOR THAT. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> OKAY. SO THE FINDINGS I THINK WERE STATED BY YOU. >> OKAY, YEAH, TO STATE, FAIR ENOUGH. SO I WOULD, I WOULD MOVE TO THAT WE, WE ADOPT
FINDINGS FOR THAT THE TREE, THE IMPACT ON THE TREE WOULD BE THE REASON TO ALLOW FOR THIS VARIANCE. >> YEAH, OKAY. >> CAN I SECOND IT AND ADD TO THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? >> SURE. >> I ALSO THINK THERE ARE A SERIES OF OTHER THINGS THERE THAT ARE REALLY CRITICAL. ONE
IS THE CONSTRUCTABILITY OF THE PROJECT ON THE EXISTING HARDSHIP THAT COMES WITH THAT. THE LOSS OF LIGHT. THE DRIVEWAY. THE EXISTING CONNECTION FROM THE CURB CUT FROM THE ALLEY, AND THE EXPOSURE OF THE SOUTHERN EXTERIOR. AND I DO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE STAFF DID A
GREAT JOB ON THIS, BUT I AM CONCERNED THAT THIS IS FAR DIFFERENT THAN THE PROJECT THAT WE LOOKED AT LAST TIME, WHICH WE DID NOT APPROVE THEM ALIGNING IT, BUT THEY HAD A SERIES OF DIFFERENT ISSUES HERE, AND I THINK THIS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT
AND SO I AGREE WITH THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO APPROVE THIS VARIANCE. >> YES, BOARD MEMBER WANG. >> I'M GOING TO ADD THE COMMENT THAT I WOULD SECOND BOARD MEMBER EICHOLZ'S COMMENT BUT I WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE WE'RE FOCUSED ON THE
PROPERTY ITSELF, WHICH INCLUDES THE TREES, AND NOT MANMADE STRUCTURES SUCH AS DRIVEWAYS, EXISTING FENCES, OR THESE SORTS OF CHALLENGES. BUT THE PROPERTY ITSELF. >> OKAY. SO WHAT WE DO IN THAT
CASE IS WE HAVE ACTUALLY A MOTION AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. >> IT WAS A SECOND. >> [OFF MIC] >> IF I MAY, I THINK THIS MIGHT BE EASIER FOR BE JUST KEEP IT TO THE -- WE JUST KEEP IT TO THE TREE FINDING BECAUSE OTHERWISE I THINK SOME OF THE THINGS
INTRODUCED WERE FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS WHICH WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO ALSO CONSIDER. AND I THINK WE'RE ALL KIND OF ON THE SAME PAGE IF WE LEAVE IT TO THE EXISTING PROPERTY AND THE IMPACT ON THE TREE THERE, SO I'M THINKING THAT MIGHT BE THE QUICKEST ROUTE HERE. >> IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT?
>> SURE, SECOND IT. >> OKAY. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? AND WITH THAT WOULD THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> CALLAHAN. >> AYE. >> EICHOLZ. >> AYE. >> GRANS KORSH.
>> AYE. >> HUTCHENS IS ABSENT. INGRAHAM. >> AYE. >> SMRIKAROVA IS ABSENT. WONG. >> AYE. >> CHAIR PERRY. >> I DON'T VOTE EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF A TIE, AND WITH THAT,
THE MOTION IS APPROVED AND YOUR VARIANCE REQUEST IS APPROVED AS REQUESTED. AND GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT, AND THANKS FOR COMING DOWN. OKAY. LET'S MOVE ON UPDATES, WE HAVE A COUPLE.
RACHEL IS NOT WITH US ANYMORE. SO WE HAVE PAUL AND PAUL, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU EVER REALLY SAID WHO YOU WERE -- [LAUGHTER] YOU HAVE BEEN HERE QUITE A LOT. >> YEAH, -- >> BUT MAYBE YOU CAN JUST TALK A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOURSELF AS WELL. >> I DON'T THINK I GOT SUCH A WARM WELCOME AS AMBER GOT WHEN I JOINED, BUT NO, MY NAME IS PAUL NASVIK. I JOINED A WEEK AFTER AMBER JOINED LAST YEAR. AND I'VE BEEN KIND OF ON ALL OF THE NIGHT MEETINGS. I NOW AM LIKE A OFFICIALLY ON
ALL OF THEM, AND SO YOU'LL SEE ME HERE EAR W OR THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OR BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND TAXATION AND THEN DURING THE DAYTIME, DURING THE LIGHT WITH OAUDIT COMMITTEE. I LIKE BEING HERE. IT'S NONE. THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU AGAIN, AND AS WELL AS AMBER, WE'RE GLAD TO HAVE YOU. AND BRAD, DO YOU HAVE ANY UPDATES FOR US? >> [OFF MIC] >> I DON'T KNOW THE STATUS. >> I'M UNSURE ABOUT HER
DEPARTURE WITH THE CITY. >> SO BRAD, CAN YOU GIVE US ANY UPDATES YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> CHAIR PERRY, MEZOF THE BOARD, WE DO HAVE AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTING A VARIANCE
TO DEVELOPMENT WITHIN, WITHIN 40 FEET OF THE TOP OF A STEEP SLOPE THAT WAS AT 2821 BROOKWOOD TERRACE AT THE LAST HEARING. SO THAT WILL BE GOING TO THE B BHZ COMMITTEE ON NOVEMBER 13th I WANT TO SAY. >> SO THERE WAS A SIDE YARD
SETBACK WHICH WE DENIED. >> YES, CHAIR PERRY, THAT WAS DENIED AND THE APPLICANT -- >> WHAT'S BEING APPEALED IS THE STEEP SLOPE DEVELOPMENT? >> CORRECT, SO THE APPLICANT ACCEPTED THE RESULTS BUT THE, A NEIGHBOR IN OPPOSITION APPEALED THE DECISION THAT GRANTING THE DEVELOPMENT.
>> OKAY, YEP. GREAT. AND LASTLY, DO YOU, HOW ARE WE DOING ON NEW BOARD MEMBERS? >> CHAIR PERRY, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, WE DO HAVE SEVERAL APPLICATIONS, AND I'M SORRY, ON ME THAT WERE A LITTLE BIT DELAYED ON THIS, BUT I'M IN THE
PROCESS OF SETTING UP INTERVIEWS THAT WILL INCLUDE, YOU, CHAIR PERRY, AS WELL AS OTHER MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND COUNCIL AIDES AS WELL AS A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE COVERING ALL OF OUR BASES ON THAT. BUT WE DO HAVE, I
THINK FIVE APPLICATIONS OR SIX FOR TWO SPOTS. >> GREAT. ANY QUESTIONS OF BRAD. >> YEAH, CAN I JUST ASK, I'M CURIOUS, DOES IT, IS IT GOING TO IMPACT THE ELECTION DEPENDING UPON THE CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE? DOES THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
>>> CHAIR PERRY, BOARD MEMBER GRANS KORSH, IT SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THAT. I MEAN, TRADITIONALLY WE'VE HAD, YOU KNOW, A COUNCILMEMBER EVEN COUNCILMEMBERS WHO ARE LEANING, YOU KNOW, IT'S USUALLY BECAUSE COUNCIL IS ULTIMATELY WHO APPOINTS IT BASED ON A LIST GIVEN TO THEM BY THE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, IT COULD I GUESS THEORETICALLY HAVE AN IMPACT NEXT YEAR. BUT I WOULD, I WOULD BE SURPRISED AT THAT POINT BECAUSE WE VET IT BROADLY TO MAKE SURE. >> AND I WOULD JUST ADD, HAVING
BEEN THROUGH THIS PROCESS SEVERAL TIMES, IT'S A VERY APOLITICAL PROCESS, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE FOR SOME BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. WE HAVE A SMALL GROUP THAT MEET, AS BRAD SAID,
I'M ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. THEN IT GOES ONTO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THEN IT GOES TO THE BHZ COMMITTEE SO IT'S NOT REALLY HITTING THE POLITICAL PEOPLE UNTIL WE'VE GOT A PRETTY SOLID SLATE OF PEOPLE TO REPLACE US.
GREAT. ANYTHING ELSE? AND WITH THAT I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO -- OH, OUR MEETING IS THE 13th OF NOVEMBER, AND WITH THAT I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR, INDICATE BY
SAYING AYE. WE ARE ADJOURNED.