Hello everyone. Before we begin the meeting, I want to offer a friendly reminder to all members and staff and the public that these meetings are broadcast live to enable greater public participation. These broadcasts include real-time captioning as a further method to increase the accessibility of our proceedings to the community. Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech so that they are our captioners can fully capture and transcribe all comments for the broadcast. We ask that all speakers to moderate the speed and clarity of their comments. And with that, um I will call this July 23rd, 2026 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting um open. I am I to order. My name is Matt Perry and I'm chair of the board. I will have the clerk call the roll. >> Board member Callahan. >> Present. >> Board member Ikolts. >> Here. >> Board member Hutchins is absent. Board member Ingram. >> I. >> Board member Israel. >> Present. >> Board member Shannon is absent. Board member Smirkarova. >> I. >> Vice chair Wang. >> Here. >> Chair Perry. >> Here. >> There are seven members present. >> Let the record show that we do have quorum. So that with that, we will proceed to our agenda, a copy of which was posted for public access to the city's legislative information management system available at LIMS, l i m s minneapolis mn.gov. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? >> So moved. >> Second. >> It's moved and seconded. All in favor indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any against? Any abstentions? That motion is approved and we have an approved agenda. So, let's go on to approval of the actions/minutes of our last meeting. I believe all the board members have seen a copy of the minutes from the July 9th, 2026 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting. Is there a motion to approve? >> 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. >> Aye. >> And all against indicate by saying nay. Any abstentions? If you There's one abstention. And with that, the motion passes. The minutes from the Zoning Board of Adjustment July 9th, 2026 meeting are approved. Some general instructions, a reminder to applicants and others that if you're here and you're going to speak at the public hearing, please sign in on the sheet available over the clerk. If you haven't done so, 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 please turn electronic devices on silent or turn them off. I'll We have one land use request on our agenda and it's a discussion item, so I'll just talk about what discussion items are. These are items that 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 only votes in the case of a tie. So, as I said, we don't have any consent items, and we can move on to uh agenda item number four, which is 4629 East Lake Harriet Parkway. And as I said, this is a discussion item. I do want to go into just a little bit more detail on how the flow works here. Staff makes a presentation. Um and board members will ask staff uh to answer questions, possibly. Then I open the public hearing. The applicant then gets 10 minutes to make their presentation. After that, anybody else in favor of the application gets 2 minutes per person. And then anybody who's speaking against the application gets 2 minutes per person. Then I close the public hearing. Then the board uh discusses um issues and makes motions and makes a decision. So, that's how it goes. Mr. Campbell, you want to kick it off? >> Absolutely, thank you, Chair Perry. Uh members of the board. So, this item before you regards property located at 4629 East Lake Harriet Parkway. Uh the variance request in this case is to increase the allowed maximum height for a flat roof structure, or a portion of the structure that has a flat roof, to 33 ft in height. Uh the lot is zoned UN1, Urban Neighborhood 1. It also falls in the Interior 1 Built Form Overlay District and the Shoreland Overlay District, being located just to the east of Lake Harriet. Uh the lot is uh larger, but not out of scale with others was this area, I believe, just over 15,000 square feet. Uh here I have some photos for the existing conditions. Um as noted in the applicant's materials, uh there was a home previously on this lot at 4629 East Lake Harriet Parkway. That was demolished by a previous owner of the lot who then sold the land uh to the current property owner and the applicant in this case. Um you can see from this uh both street views here, it's a lot that does have some topography, some grade change. It does slope generally towards uh the Parkway and towards uh the Lake Harriet area itself in the park itself. Um it does have a a number of mature trees on the side as well. Um some of those would be retained through construction of a new single-family dwelling, which is uh the proposed use from the applicants. Um as mentioned again, this lot is now considered vacant. Um for the purposes of uh kind of the zoning code and its application, uh East Lake Harriet Parkway is considered the front of this lot and then Humboldt Avenue South is the rear uh facing side of this home, uh following basically the predominant platting and the orientation of the rest of the homes on this block. Uh as you can see here, this is a survey of the existing site conditions. And again, you can note um the topography does generally uh drop towards the southwest of this property and then continues to drop as it enters uh the city right-of-way. One thing I will note, and the applicant did confirm, at no point on this lot is there a um we talk a lot about steep slopes in the shoreland where uh an area of grade change exceeds 18% uh change in that grade over a 50-ft run. No area on this lot, while there is uh a lot of topography on the front especially, uh at no point does that qualify as an area of a steep slope and does not trigger those restrictions on development from the shoreland code. In terms of the applicant's proposal, again, they are proposing to build a new single-family dwelling on this lot. Um the majority of that structure would be built uh below the actual maximum allowed height. You can see here this is the proposed front view looking at this from the parkway. Again, you can see the peak of the gable roofs by and large would be at actually what we would call the midpoint allowed for those gables typically of 28 ft in height. The proposal and the need for the variance here is triggered by that taller structure there. It is a flat roofed enclosure for an elevator in order to access the proposed rooftop deck that would be provided. That elevator area or that enclosure is roughly 6 by 10. Excuse me, 6 by 11 in terms of its area. It would be capped at 33 ft in height which again is the the maximum that we would allow for the peak of a pitched roof. In this case though we do limit flat roof structures at that lower 28 ft height typically. We'll talk about a little bit in the kind of relevant code sections. This is one that is sort of threading the needle in terms of we do have cases where we have exemptions for things like elevators. Those do not apply here largely because it is in that shoreland overlay where there's just a a greater amount of scrutiny given to structure height I would say. Again, in talking about that proposed chimney area, again it would be designed to appear as a chimney when seen from the street. It would be pretty minor in terms of scale. It would otherwise be underneath what we would allow for a exempt elevator in other districts. But again, because this is in the shorelands, necessitates that variance. One thing that we also talked with the applicant about and they looked at some alternatives in terms of the design that they could get at a similar kind of activation of the use with that rooftop deck. One thing that they did note and discover is that by increasing the overall massing of the structure, so by bumping those existing gable roofs up to the maximum allowed, again by right this is a the option below here in this case the lower option would be completely by right without need for any kind of a variance. It does obviously result in a larger overall structure. Um but by doing that you could incorporate sort of a a legal dormer off of one of those gable roofs that could then enclose that same elevator access onto the roof deck. Um again, just very interesting to keep in mind and again, when we're talking about the reasonableness of the variance request, there is always this other option B that obviously might have more significant cost and would have a much more significant um kind of impact on views. Again, this is a render again looking at it from Harriet Parkway. Uh this would be the proposed and kind of the the preferred design from the applicant where there's that uh false chimney that provides the rooftop access versus uh this is looking at kind of with shading what that taller roof structure would look like. Again, that by right option that exists otherwise to tuck that existing kind of enclosure into a dormer itself. I mentioned we talked a little bit about the relevant code. So, first thing here is we're talking about a flat roof structure versus a gabled roof. Gable roofs we do allow for that peak height at 33 ft um and then cap the maximum height at 28 ft typically for the midpoint of the roof. For a flat roof, we just look at that maximum of 28 ft height uh that is allowed by right. Um again, that doesn't uh anticipate things like a chimney though. We do talk about chimney separately as being allowed at that 33 uh ft in height. Secondly, I mentioned that in other districts we do have a baked-in exemption into the code. We talk about exempting uh stairs, elevators, rooftop mechanical equipment up to 10 ft in height above the roof below as long as that's uh in particular with elevators, it's less than 150 sq ft of area for the elevator. In this case, the design would meet those parameters um but because it's in the shoreland, that specific uh 540.410 uh section B would not apply in this case. It's not eligible. And then finally, we do have a uh interpretation from the zoning administrator back in 2017. So, for those of you that are new, there are cases where the zoning administrator will issue a interpretation or determination on code for something that is not reflected in the zoning code itself. We had had a question back in 2017 about allowances for chimneys given that we cap the height at 33 square feet or 33 feet, excuse me. There are building code requirements for chimneys from like a fire safety perspective that they need to have a minimum separation from the roof structure itself. So, that 2017 interpretation said that a chimney is permitted to go above 33 feet in height where it is only exceeding that amount by the absolute minimum to meet building code. So, I believe at the time we talked about it needing 3 feet of clearance. So, if you needed an extra couple of inches above 33 feet, you'd be allowed to do that by right. Again, that is specific though to chimneys because of that building code requirement that exists. We did hear from a lot of neighbors on this proper project as well as from the park board and the local neighborhood association. A couple of those did come in today. So, you should have gotten paper copies. We had three neighbors write in support all together. So, 4621 East Lake Harriet Parkway, 4639 Humboldt, and 1447 Street West. Again, just kind of right off of Humboldt. All three of those neighbors spoke in support of the the applicant's proposal. The applicant actually hosted an event on site last week to kind of cover the topic, discuss it with neighbors, kind of have that before this meeting. I think that did help in terms of uh explaining what it meant by a maximum of 33 feet. We're not talking about the whole structure here. I'll also note here the Lynhurst Neighborhood Association did also reach out. After reviewing the plans and proposals, they were in support of this proposed variance. Um, will just highlight the park board was a little bit different here. They noted they are generally not supportive of height variances in the Shoreland Overlay. Um, they did not provide a recommendation beyond that. They just noted that they would like the applicant when they move forward with construction to basically demarcate those property lines, kind of draw that distinction between park board property with the parkway and their private property. And then as well to apply for any uh necessary permits during construction for use of that park property like the parkway. In terms of staff findings and again, the report goes into a lot more detail on this case. Um, but again, staff sees this as a very reasonable request. The intent of the code in that Shoreland Overlay again is to limit the massing or the size of structures in a lot of cases to preserve views, um, to maintain kind of the existing aesthetic. In this case, the proposal by the applicant kind of demonstrably has less concerns around that massing question than the by right alternative that they've um proposed. Uh, again, this meets the intent of those exemptions for elevators that would exist outside of the Shoreland Overlay District. Um, I'll also just quickly note that for the three findings that are required for all variances in the Shoreland Overlay, uh, prevention of soil erosion, limiting visibility of structures, and suitability of the uh water for new watercraft, staff has no concerns on these three. Again, we would expect best management practices be followed for erosion control. Um, the structure would certainly be visible from the lake, but it would not necessarily be out of character with the surrounding development that exists today. Uh, really the only uh hang up that staff has on this is that first finding in terms of the unique circumstances of the site. Um, that this is a property in the Shoreland Overlay is not unique to this property. Um, otherwise, we do not see enough kind of going on with the lot itself or the property itself to meet finding one. Um, again, from staff's perspective. I'm sure we do have uh both the applicant and the property owner here. They'd be happy to speak on any of these items uh in further detail, some of those design challenges they meant. Um, but otherwise I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have. >> Thanks for the presentation. Yes. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Campbell, for the presentation. Can you, um, just clarify, so the Park Board wrote in the a letter, does this project then need to go through for a Park Board like permit and approval beyond what they outlined in the letter? >> Uh, Chair Perry and Board Member McLellan, as far as I'm aware, no, it would not need like a separate approval from the Park Board. Um, the permit they discussed would be specifically for use of kind of right-of-way or activity in that, uh, public right-of-way that the Park Board in this case owns along East Lake Harriet Parkway. >> Okay. Can I just ask a follow-up question? This is a non-related to the Park Board. I also had a question just on the Zoning Administrator um, finding from 2017 that you cited. So, the 33 height, uh, is that only the exception, is that only for gabled roofs, I guess, or is that also for flat roofs? >> So, uh, Board Member McLellan, that would be specific to the, uh, chimney itself. So, the, uh, where we talk about, um, section 565.90, those that definition of structure height, it actually does not address chimneys at all. There's not a a reference to chimneys or mechanicals. That's where it talks about a flat roof versus a gable roof. Um, we've otherwise allowed chimneys at that 33, the the peak height in this case versus the the maximum, to use some confusing jargon here. Um, but that determination specifically allows in a case where someone has built to maybe that 33-ft maximum and needs additional spacing to meet the building code required for that chimney. They're allowed to build up to that minimum. >> All right. Any other questions or Okay. Thank you. Um, we may have you back up later on. And we will now open the public hearing. The clock gets set to 10 minutes. And Um, if you're going to have two people sort of try and speak or is it just >> It'll just be me, myself, and the homeowner. >> Uh, do you want to divide that 10 minutes up between the two of you? >> full 10, so you'd be welcome to >> Okay. Sure. If you could give your name and address. >> Yeah, absolutely. Uh, thank you, uh, Chair Perry and board members. Uh, my name is Colby Matson with Charlene Company Design. Uh, we're the designers of the home representing our clients, uh, Tom and Melinda Bormann uh, at uh, 4629 East Lake Harriet Parkway. Uh, Miles, thanks for the great presentation. I don't know that I have a lot more to add. Uh, I thought he did a really good job summarizing. He's been really helpful in this process. Um, really the one clear clarification uh, or at least nuance to the discussion I'd like to have is the chimney itself in its current design uh, would be allowed up to that 33 if the elevator did not extend up into that third story. And so, from an overall form standpoint uh, if they just extended their elevator to their second floor and first floor, the form of this wouldn't change at all. And so, what the clients are just asking is for an internal allowance of bringing that that elevator up to the third story for accessibility. Um, there'd be a couple of different ways that we could get up there that might involve stairs uh, with our clients uh, just with some uh, mobility and aging aspects would really like to have access to that third story uh, which Tom can talk to in a moment. But, just want to as we were clarifying it with um, with Miles that uh, when we talked with the neighbors, the chimney could remain. It's just whether or not that elevator internally is allowed to extend to the third story uh, to the rooftop deck or not. Um, that's really the only piece I wanted to add. Um, we've managed We really would like to keep the massing down of the house and keep the intent of the short land overlay district. We really interpret that with the spirit and intent of that of keeping that scale down. And in this instance, we think that the proposed design embodies that a little bit better than the one that was by right. So. >> So, one thing I'll just ask you is that um having talked to Seth member to um Campbell is that you know that we have to meet these legal findings and you have not met one of them in staff's mind, which is the practical difficulty. Can you kind of help us out >> Yep. >> on what that practical difficulty is from your client's perspective? >> In In a lot In certain instances, we talked a little bit about accessibility of being able to access as part of this property that they they could get to that they can legally build and trying to do it in a responsible manner that would be more respectful to the neighbors. The other piece is I mean, looking at the contouring of the property, it is sloping down. When they did backfill, um if you look at some of the original survey information, the backfill of the existing foundation did pull back a little bit of that existing contouring. And so, overall, the the lot is a few feet lower than when the previous house was there because they just didn't backfill the home properly. Um and so, to that point, whether or not that would have made a difference between the 33 and 28, unsure. Um but, the uh from our standpoint, the um with that short land overlay, they were trying to embody, you know, the intent of that versus if we were outside of that shoreline overlay district, um we would be able to be up at 43 ft as opposed to uh the 33. The other piece, whether or not it's addressing your first topic, the two neighbors, if we're looking at I'm going to just open up uh the building height. I'm sorry. The two neighbors, the one to the south and the one to the north, obviously they were designed and built outside of when the shoreline overlay district uh was adopted, which I believe was in 2020. Um that the this house will be actually considerably lower than both of them, even though all of the topography here goes from it's the highest at the north end and then continuously slopes down. The house to the north has a max peak of uh 42 and 1/2 ft. The house to the south has a max peak of 33 uh sorry, 35 and 1/2. So, our max p our chimney is actually lower than both homes, even the one to the south that has a lower topography. So, just from a standpoint of trying to do the responsible thing for the neighbors, keeping that massing low is really what we're contending. >> Okay. Any other questions? Yes. >> Um just following up on kind of the question on So, the there's this is the proposed design and then but there is an alternative design that would be allowed by right. Can you talk about the impacts on like some of the trees on site on like would that impact like how would that impact the design and how the um site how like the design is cited on the on the property. >> Uh so, thank you. Um So, in this instance here, um this would be the the footprint really wouldn't have to change to that point uh between the two two versions where close this. You can see our eaves would go considerably higher. Really the main impact to this alternate design would be impacting the neighbors, creating larger mass. Our eaves would be higher, potentially affecting some of the adjacent tree canopies potentially, which could be a detrimental impact as well. And so just trying to keep a home that's in scale with some of the more some of the smaller homes in the neighborhood as opposed to doing the by right. The other piece when we're talking about the nuance of a flat roof in the code there's not really a discussion about the composition with dormer. And so that the area that we're talking about of this chimney is approximately it's under 70 square feet. I think we're at 66 square feet. The size of the by right dormer in that flat roof area is around 200 square feet. So in the sense of you know, trying to do again the responsible piece. The other piece that we did talk with a lot of the neighbors about was the location of the chimney. If it were on the perimeter of a home and that would be casting shadow onto a neighbor's property, that I could understand the impact there. But because of the location of our open this up of our chimney, which is you can see here in this box right here. It's on the south side. So any shadow that would be cast from that chimney would be going onto the body of our of this property, not onto a neighbor's property. And it wouldn't be having any sort of tall vertical effect that might be next to somebody's side yard. So we took, you know, pretty great lengths tried to be as creative as we could to accomplish these goals, be respectful of the neighbors and and and you know, embody the the nature of the short land overlay district. >> Great. Okay. Anybody else? You know, I'm going to ask staff a question. Um Um so, you can turn the clock off for a minute here or stop it. Um so, what can you help me try understand the problem that we're trying that the city's trying to solve with this um cap on the height of a faux chimney? I I'm not really getting what we're we're trying to to uh solve and um why that's so important. I mean, we've just heard some pretty good reasons why they should be able to do it. I'd like to hear what the I I'm not picking up on it what the city's problem is with it. >> Yeah, absolutely, Chair Perry. Um and I can speak a little bit to it. Um I think the intention from those and again, we do have a exemption for other districts where we say, "Okay, you have a a roof top mechanical, you know, a condenser unit or something along those lines. Um we're not going to hold you to that standard um in those districts where we're going to allow for a little bit of extra room because we understand that there might be that that need for the extra height there in those cases." Uh what I would say is probably in the Shoreland, there's just a a greater degree of scrutiny or maybe protection of that that airspace, that kind of taller structure and trying to Again, the Shoreland Overlay talks a lot about preserving the views to and from the lake itself. Um so, be that from somebody a block back on Humboldt or from somebody, you know, kayaking or sailing the lake today. Um what I will say also in terms of those exemptions is those apply beyond the maximum height. So, one thing to note is that part of the reason I don't think those apply in the Shoreland Overlay is that we're looking at a structure today that is built well below the maximum in terms of those gabled roofs. Uh if that exemption were just allowed by right, in theory, the applicant could bring a structure that has a, you know, midpoint at 28 ft, the peak of that structure is at 33, and then still gets 10 additional feet for a elevator structure above that. So, then well above what we're talking about today of a a structure that ends at 33 ft. Um again, I was not in a in the room when they drafted that language, but my guess is that is again, the intent from that shoreline overlay is always to um protect that water both from a like a a water quality perspective, but also that that kind of aesthetic or that visual feel. >> Sure. Thank you. That helps. Um any other questions? The public hearing is still open. So, would anyone else like to speak? >> Can I? >> Sure. Yes, sir. Your name and address, please. >> Yeah, sure. Um my name is Tom Bormann. Um my address is at the Carlyle, 100 3rd Avenue South. >> Okay. >> Chairman, Vice Chairman, board members, I um appreciate your service. Uh many years ago, I'm dating myself, I uh uh was a commerce commissioner for the state of Minnesota. It was one of the best years of my life. I mean, I really enjoyed and uh public service, and you guys are doing it, and I appreciate it. I only wanted to talk about uh why we came to this. Um my wife uh visited the home next door. I'm not sure what the address is, but it's right next door to the lot, and was taken up to the roof, and they had a rooftop deck. And she fell in love with it. And because you can look over the trees and see Lake Harriet. And that's, you know, a large part of why we're there. And so, she became very interested in this, and we tried to find a way to do it that didn't um that was very sensitive to the to the neighborhood. Um the elevator is needed cuz I can barely walk. I mean, I have you you don't want to know all the problems I've got, but I can't go upstairs. And I talked to a friend who had put one of these at their place. Um A rooftop deck containing The intent was to entertain, bring people up there, have a good time, see I think it was Lake Calhoun. Um And then she And And she said we never use it. Because we couldn't get to the roof. And you think about going out of a What's the roof the the top? You have a hatch and you have to go up steps and you have to if you're going to carry some orders or a drink or make a party out of it. It's It's work and they just don't do it. So they never used it. And so we came up with the idea of taking And And yes, I do. I really have trouble going up and down steps. So we wanted to take it up one more floor and do it in a way that was uh the least intrusive on the neighborhood. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> So I will just um I'll mention while I have the opportunity um something that um Mr. Campbell may have said to you is these variances go with the land, not with the person. So um even though it sounds uncaring that we're not sensitive to your uh mobility issues, we have to think about the property and not the people who are actually in the property. So just food for thought. >> No, I I understand that and if I can I don't want to over lawyer this cuz that's what I used to do. Uh there's really to to the neighbors, there's no difference. They've got the chimney. We've got We can put the chimney there or and and or we can put a a chimney in a >> Hence my questions. >> But Eric Thank you. >> Thank you. Is anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? I see no one. Would anybody like to speak against this application? I see no one. Let's close the public hearing. Board comment. Yes. >> I'm sorry. >> Mr. >> Yep. And then and then Board member Callahan. >> Um yeah, Jared Berry, board members. Uh I think this is a a very reasonable request that doesn't get to the unique findings of the property. I think it makes a lot of sense what they're doing and I would be open to if anyone can find the uniqueness of the of the property that would make it possible. >> Yes, board member Callahan. >> Okay. Sorry to jump ahead. Um I am I feel like there could be an argument to be made about the impacts of on the tree canopy with the proposed um like the design by right would impact tree canopy the design as proposed impact on tree canopy. Um so I feel like that could be a finding for the first um >> The uniqueness. >> the uniqueness of the property. So that would be my >> Okay. >> for it. I I I want to echo what um Board member Ingram also said. I think this is a there's a lot of merit to the project um and a lot of um it seems like there's sort of a technicality on why this is not advancing um and so I guess I want to open it up to other >> Sure. >> thoughts from my board members. >> Thank you for your comments. Yes, board member Wang. >> So I thought there we could find a unique challenge of the property. So when we heard the testimonies about when the previous house was demolished and how the way that was backfilled sat a little bit lower, I think it is worth exploring on what that original property looked like, what what that topography actually was before all of those changes were made. >> Mhm. >> So, that is why I'm inclined at this point to think that there the unique challenges have been met. >> So, we I don't think we can go back, but we can to specifics, but we could certainly say that changes to to the topography have been made and they cause something unique about the the property itself. >> Right. And I think my current struggle was some of the staff comments about, you know, forward looking, what would this mean? So, I guess my very pointed question to the staff is, let's say in some, you know, alternate universe this house is built and then we it gets demolished for some reason and then the exact same house gets put on it, then are they allowed to build that without a variance in the future? >> Mr. Campbell, can you address that? >> Yep. >> Uh Chair Penny, Vice Chair Wing, the kind of common the way to think about it is that the variance would run with the land, but they are specific to the proposal in front of you. Typically, if things are going to drastically change or again the kind of circumstances where that variance are changing, it would require a new variance or an amendment to that older variance to be applied. Someone could not take kind of a variance that says you can build up to 33 for a flat roof and then build an entire structure that has a flat roof. It would need to be largely what is before you today. >> Mhm. >> With some amount of wiggle there. >> And then another staff question. So, if we were to support the applicant's findings, um they would be obligated to follow the park board as or would that have to be included into the motion? >> You could certainly include it as as condition of the approval Um, adopt kind of the the notes from the Minneapolis Park Board um, in terms of those requirements they laid out. >> All right, thank you. Then, with that I'm ready to make a motion unless there are >> Um, I'd like to make a motion to support the applicant's findings under the stipulation that the asks from the Park Board are accepted. >> Is there a second to that motion? >> Second. >> It's moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Yes. >> Uh, I don't know. Did we did we actually put the findings into the Do we have to put the findings in? So, I think the findings were the the um, potential shading effects and then the and then the >> the topography. >> Topography, right. So, that would be with the findings. So, I just wanted to add that. But, >> thank you for that. >> Yeah, absolutely. No, otherwise yeah, I'm I think we're all in agreement that this is a very reasonable ask and seems like there's just kind of a hole in the code that's that technicality that's not allowing for it. Um, but I think we all wanted to get there. So, I I'm in support of the motion and we'll be voting in favor. >> Okay. Uh, any further any other dis- Yes, Mr. >> Actually, I I did want to actually on the the with the the variance is Do we I think you've probably just answered it that we don't need to make any conditions that it's just for this small thing. So, it sounds like cuz the the variance is for raising the maximum of a of a flat roof height. But, so it sounds like we don't need to put any conditions that it's just for this small thing and that they wouldn't be able to do the whole flat roof height this high. Is that correct? >> Um, Mr. Campbell. >> Uh, correct. That's my understanding. >> Okay. Perfect. Thank you. >> Great. All right, I think we got all that ironed out and I will ask the clerk to call the roll. >> Board Member Callahan. >> Aye. >> Board Member Ikolts. >> Aye. >> Board Member Ingram. >> Aye. >> Board Member Israel. >> Aye. >> Councilmember Israel? >> Aye. >> Thank you. Councilmember Syrian Carvah? >> Aye. >> Vice Chair Wang? >> Aye. >> Chair Oh, excuse me. There are five ayes and one nay. >> So, that motion passes and your notwithstanding staff recommendation, your request is approved. Good luck with your project. Thanks for coming down. All right, we have agenda item number five, which is uh staff uh proposed zoning code text amendments, fence regulations, which has been a long time coming. And we are happy to see you. Uh I'll I'll just say uh I've worked with Ms. Roman on a She was staff before and she moved on to her new position and I'm very excited to see her working on this project, too. So, welcome. >> Thank you very much. Um so, good evening, Chair Perry, members of the board. My name is Sarah Roman. I am a senior planner on our code development team within CPED Planning. Um and I'll be bringing forward for uh a discussion with you all some proposed text amendments to our fence regulations. Um so, we have an amendment that's been introduced by Council members Vita and Palmisano. Uh they are looking at two changes that are around providing additional flexibility to the fence ordinance. And then one change that is related to a um life safety issue that we experienced with an interior side yard fence issue. Um so, all three of those changes would be within Chapter 550 development standards. So, a little bit of current context, how we got here. Um enforcement is almost completely complaint-based in the city. Um so, we do not do any um, required permitting for fences, for building permits, um, unless they're over 7 ft tall. And we don't require site plan review. Um, so what generally happens is that a homeowner or a fence contractor will construct their fence, and then they will find out that their fence does not meet code, is out of compliance once the city has received a complaint, um, and an inspector has gone out and written orders against them. Um, so once a fence is installed incorrectly, they're either told that they can alter their fence, or they need to seek a variance to gain compliance. Um, as you all know very well, um, obtaining a variance, um, is the only way to move forward when your fence does not comply with code. Um, so there are pros and cons to coming forward with a variance. What we're looking for is uniqueness to the property when we're granting a fence variance. And so things that we see commonly from applicants are, um, arguments around uh, necessity for safety, um, which is generally not considered a circumstance unique to the property historically at board. Um, whereas things like being along a high-traffic roadway, um, or not having a rear yard for privacy have traditionally been accepted as reasons for a fence variance for height. Um, but seeking a variance does increase project cost and time. Hence, when we're looking at things through an equity lens, um, asking people to come forward for a variance is not necessarily, um, the best path forward for all applicants, and outcomes are unpredictable. And so the types of requests that were being seen by Councilmember Vitale and Palmisano's office led them to request some flexibility from staff around the fence ordinance for these these types of changes that were being requested often and didn't necessarily meet the standards for a variance. Um so in terms of our existing rules, very generally speaking, we require shorter fences in front yards, and then as you move along the side of the house, you get a little bit taller. Once you get into the rear yard, we start to allow the 6-ft privacy fences. So keeping that front open so people can see in and out of the yards, um allowing for that access to light and air, especially between houses, and then allowing that privacy in the rear yard. And then what that looks like on a diagram, um this is taken from our code, but is also in our fence handout. Um what you can see from our asterisks is that there's like lots of little exceptions to our fence code, but generally, shorter in the front, taller as you go back. Um and open and decorative towards the front, more opaque as you go back to allow for privacy. So for the changes being requested, the first proposed change is to corner side yards. So the corner side yard where the fence change would apply is along the portion that's adjacent to the home and adjacent to the street. So you have your front yard where you have your street, and then you if you're on a corner property, you turn, you're adjacent to the street on that side as well. What we currently allow is a 4-ft tall fence unless you're enclosing a side door. If you're enclosing a side door, you can extend your 6-ft privacy fence forward to enclose a side door to give you um better access for your rear yard. What would we What we would be proposing to allow here is that a 6-ft tall fence would be allowed to be constructed up to the front wall of the house if the top 2 ft is open and decorative. So what that looks like in practice um is what we currently allow is on the left. So, either you end up with a step down along the house to comply with that 4-ft provision, um, or a privacy fence to enclose a door like that home, um, on the bottom left. And what we would propose to allow is either an open and decorative fence that's 6-ft tall or that mixture where you have 4-ft of opaque fencing, 2-ft of open and decorative on top that could go up to the front wall of the house. So, if you're looking at that gray house again, where that shrub is, they could come up to that corner of the home as an example. Whereas, that little vestibule that's poking out in front, that would not be considered part of the area that they could enclose with a fence. For proposed changes to front yards, we are proposing to go essentially back to prior to what we changed under the land use rezoning study in 2023. So, prior to 2023, we allowed open and decorative fences that were up to 4-ft tall. And we also allowed opaque fences that were a maximum of 3-ft tall. In 2023, we removed the allowance for opaque fences. So, typically that's a like masonry wall or a stone wall, but could also be wood or any other material that's allowed under the fence ordinance. Um, but so inadvertently, what's happened is that we've had a lot of, um, enforcement on fences where people just didn't know the code changed. And we have also now prohibited the type of situation that's shown in this top image where some of our multi-family properties, um, or larger commercial projects where they have a required yard, like to differentiate between public and private space by doing a little bit of like a 3-ft stone wall. You can either sit on it or it's just a kind of differentiate between public and private. Um, but those are no longer allowed. Um, so, not to say that we've had a lot of like negative outcomes from changing code, but it just has removed flexibility that we had prior. Um and typically as we've been updating the code, the goal is to be more flexible where we feel like it makes sense and we're not seeing negative outcomes. And then the proposed change related to fences in interior side yards. So that interior side yard is the yard that's along the house between two houses. So you have the property line um or the house, a property line, a house. And what we currently allow is a property line um a fence to be built directly on the property line. Um what has uh led to this amendment being proposed was we had a life safety issue where a fence was constructed on a property line and an adjacent home that was built within 3 ft of the property line was not able to open their door anymore. And then there was a safety issue where that was a problem. And so generally speaking, our setback ordinance prevents this issue. New houses are built 5 ft from the property line. So anything that's built in compliance with code today is not going to have any sort of issue with complying with this regulation. We also previously had a 3 ft setback. So even homes built at 3 ft are generally not going to have an issue complying with this ordinance, but we do very occasionally see homes that are built within 1 ft, 2 ft of the property line. And this would have just essentially prohibit a fence from being constructed on that property line where that door is located. So they could either step back the fence just where that door is located or build the entire fence a little bit further back, but it essentially allows for that side door on an adjacent property to be used for safe ingress and egress in the case of like a fire for example. Um we expect this provision to be enforced really rarely. Um we we've seen it at the very small handful of times in in the time that I've been at the city and that um uh Manager Ellis has been at the city. Um but certainly it is something that um has come up and and has been uh a safety issue and that is why um that is being included in this in this uh group of proposed changes. Um and so happy to go into more detail and kind of discuss how we came to these recommendations, um but we are looking for feedback from you all tonight. You see the fence variances that come before you. Um and so we're interested to hear your feedback about whether or not you feel like these are um it within the interest of the city, whether they are reasonable, whether the flexibility makes sense. Um some of the feedback that we heard from Commission Planning Commission Committee of the Whole was um if we can make them more straightforward or less confusing and so um really anything that you would like to share with me, I'm very open to hearing. Um and I'll stand for questions. >> Great pre-presentation. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Questions? Yes. >> Now, I appreciate your presentation and your work to have less of this come to us. Um uh will there be any changes to enforcement? >> Enforcement will still be complaint-based. Um that is what the staff has capacity for at this point in time. Um any direction related to what we would enforce, so whether or not um fences would be enforced in a different man in a different manner, would come from Director McMahon and we haven't heard any um uh sort of indication that we would change the way we're doing things at this point. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> I was kind of curious about how these changes were suddenly sparked, if it with there was a trend or if there were a specific number of complaints that kind of instigated all this. >> Yeah, thank you for your question. Um through the chair, so um the request came from council members' office because they were receiving um complaints that they could that property owners weren't able to build the types of fences that they wanted to be able to build. So, particularly in the corner side yard, wanted to be able to just have a little bit more privacy. Um that is a regulation that's permitted in St. Paul, and so people drive to other parts of the cities and see other areas with fences and um corner side yards that allow for more privacy and we're just looking for those types of options. And we're um correctly being told by staff that that was not an option and that a variance was not a path forward in most cases for those properties. And so, it's a mixture of um requests from property owners directly to council, um and based on the number of citations that we were issuing in regards to the issue and whether that we felt like that was a necessary um requirement that we were pursuing. >> Anything anybody else? You know, I have a a couple of things. One in two different areas. One is um how these changes get communicated. And I understand right now, I always had the dream that you had to get a permit for a fence. But, the reality of that is there isn't enough staff to do that, so it has to be complaint-based. Um but, is there something that could be like once a year put in their water bill, for example, that could explain this so they could when they're doing their the we we've had people doing their fence themselves. They've gone online. They've tried to figure out what is possible and what is not. Or, they haven't gone online at all. They just think oh, that fence down there looks about that height. I will do it. So, that that's not really getting to the specific of the regulation, but more about communicating it. So, that would be my feedback. Um, and I just I'm trying to think of things that get sent out as a matter of course already. >> Yeah, thank you, Chair Perry. Um, absolutely, we are looking at ways we can better communicate information and changes to the public. Um, so certainly we'll be updating our handout. Um, we will be circulating this with fence contractors as they come in and ask questions of us and with the public as they come in and ask questions. Um, but we have also explored like whether we could do a mailer um, or some social media blasts, things like that. Ways that are are effective at communicating with the public because this is one of the most um, high touch points with the city. Um, most of the time when people are coming in and and asking questions, it's related to things like fences and um, patios. And so, this is a good opportunity for us to do better with communicating with the public. >> So, the other thing I just wanted to touch on, and I think the new regulations address this, is that um, for for properties that don't have the standard 20-ft or 25-ft front yard required yard, uh, which is a 20 or 25-ft. >> Uh, the standard I believe is 20. Um, unless they have a um, a required yard based on like a string line or something. >> my concern would be your 3-ft on the required side yard, your front yard is less than 20, and you're able to build or put up a fence that is um, makes it difficult to see people maybe coming down the sidewalk. I don't know if that was really addressed in your presentation. >> Yeah, correct. So we have sightline requirements in our fence ordinance and so if there is an issue related to sightlines between Sightlines are generally for like vehicles turning but also encompass sidewalk area for pedestrians. So they would still be required to comply with our sightline requirements and sightline angles. >> Great. Great. Yes. Oh, is it yes? >> Thank you for your presentation and I second the Hope that we would get less variance requests for fences. They just if it's not a health and safety issue it It usually comes across as neighbors nitpicking or tattletaling or Um Yeah, someone decided to put their own fence up and just never thought they'd even have to check for something. I also second the We can't make it a requirement that you get a permit for a fence but whenever we get Contractors come down for the variance requests They are just so bewildered that like there was even an issue or that if there is a law in place and it's just like It's frustrating for all parties involved because they're The way that they present their cases are very much why am I even here and that doesn't feel great for a board and it also Doesn't encourage us to Be positive as we would like to be as a civil servants and and with the community. So thank you for taking the time to take a look at it and make some adjustments. Um, I don't see anything that's um moving in the wrong direction, so thank you. >> Absolutely, thank you. >> Thanks for this comment. Yes. >> Um, thank you for the staff report. I thought it was great. Um, I echo all of the comments that have already been made. Um, I just wanted to echo um Chair Perry's comment on like communication around the fence regulations, and I appreciated the way that um you included photos and diagrams of like what would and would not be allowed. And I guess I would just um sort of request if it's possible to also include some of those photos in the fence regulation handout that you all had included as like the external, cuz I thought that was also a great one-pager, but I think for um the layperson does not understand what 60% opaque necessarily translates into um into reality. And so, I think I would just sort of sort of request on that piece. And I guess my other question around some of the zoning language is if it's possible to kind of simplify some of that language, cuz it to me it reads like that the corner side lot fence regulations in general are it's for 6 ft is actually with these exceptions um of the unless it's 60% unless it's not 60% opaque, otherwise it's 4 ft. So, I guess if there's a opportunities to kind of simplify um some of that language that's in the actual regulation for the zoning would be would be great. >> Okay. Absolutely, we can take a look at that language. >> Uh and not to cut off any other comments, but one thing I do want to get some clarity on is you're gathering input, which is great. Um, really appreciate that. Uh if we have written um uh comment that we would like to send to you, what is the cutoff date as you're trying to wrap this up and get this through the uh council. >> Good question. Um so we are going to planning commission for public hearing on August 10th and then it will go to biz in September. So any requested changes um from planning commission would be prior to the 10th of August. Um changes can still be requested by planning commission and so there's an opportunity for those changes to be incorporated prior to biz. Um those comments would just be forwarded to council as opposed to commission. So really um it's when it goes to biz committee for hearing which would be in September. >> Okay. >> At the latest. >> Yep. Okay. Well, thank you very much for the presentation as always. I knew it would be very good and I appreciate the uh um answering all our questions. >> Great. Thank you for your feedback. Appreciate it. >> Yes. Okay. Um Let's see. We have uh Mr. Ellis, are there any updates? >> Mr. Chairman members of the board, no updates today. >> Okay. Um and our next meeting is on the 6th of August. And with that, I think we have completed all our items on the agenda for this meeting. So I'd entertain a motion to adjourn. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor, indicate by saying I. >> I. >> We are adjourned. >> Mhm.