Hello everyone. Before we begin the meeting, I want to offer a friendly reminder to all members, 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 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. So, this is our June 9th, 2026 um I'm sorry, July 9th 2026 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 role so that we may verify the presence of quorum. >> Board member Callahan is absent. Board member Izz >> here. >> Board member Hutchkins >> here. >> Board member Ingram >> I. >> Board member Israel >> present. Board member Shannon is absent. Board member Samir Carva is absent. Vice Chair Wang >> here. >> Chair Perry >> here. >> There are six members present. >> So we do have quorum uh for you for those who were have came to the last two meetings. I'm sure you're very happy about that and we can proceed with our regular meeting today. Um, so the agenda which was uh publicly posted on the city's legislative information management system was available is available at limbs limit minneapolis.gov. Is there a motion to approve this agenda? >> So moved. >> It's moved. Is there a second? >> Second. >> It's moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion indicate by saying I. I. >> I. Any against? Ind indicate by saying nay. That motion passes and the agenda is approved. I believe all the board members have seen a copy of the minutes from the May 14th, 2026 zoning board of adjustment meeting. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> It's moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor of the motion indicate by saying I. I. Any against? Indicate by saying nay. Any abstensions. >> Ingram Hutchkins abstain. >> Okay. Uh so uh which ones were abstaining? >> Okay. >> Okay. So, that motion passes and the minutes from the zoning board of justice adjustment meeting uh May 14th meeting uh 2026 are approved. A reminder to applicants and others that if you're going to speak at the public hearing, please sign in with the clerk who is over there in the corner um so that we have a record of your name and address. Also to applicants and others, please contact staff after the hearing with any questions regarding your projects. You have something like this, please turn it off or turn it on silent so as not to disturb today's proceedings. Let's review the agenda. I will read the agenda number and the address of the project and state whether it's slated for consent, continuence, withdrawal, return, or discussion. Consent items are those items that will be passed without discussion by the board. We will be adhering to the staff recommendation found on your agenda under the items recommended motion section. Any applicable conditions will be listed in the same section. If you agree with this recommendation, including any applicable conditions, you need to do nothing and the board will pass it as recommended. After the item is passed on consent, you're free to leave the chambers. Please check in with the staff member assigned to that item. If you have questions following the decision, if you disagree with the recommendation, please indicate you'd like to speak against that item when I ask and we'll put it on the discussion item, our discussion agenda. Discussion items. These are items which the board will take public testimony, deliberate on and make a decision. After the pep 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 uh discuss and act on motions. The chair does not vote except in the case of a tie. So here's the recommended dispositions of the agenda items um that we have on our agenda today. Agenda item number four is 2754 Thomas Avenue South and that is a discussion item. Agenda item number five is West uh let me just 3730 West Bedayet Macasca Boulevard item agenda item number Si and that's a discussion item. Agenda item number six is 3015 43rd Street West. This is also a discussion item. Agenda item number seven is 4331 Blazedale Avenue. This is also a discussion item. Agenda item number eight is 3510 Architect Avenue. Now, this item is being withdrawn. Noting this on the agenda acknowledges this and no further action by the board need be taken. Agenda item number nine is 4210 Fremont Avenue South. Staff is recommending this item for consent. Is there anyone here to speak against this item? I see no one. Agenda item number 10 is 4046 Queen Avenue South. Staff is recommending this item for consent. Is there anyone to speak against this item? I see no one. Agenda item number 11 is 2111 Drew Avenue South. Staff is recommending this item for consent. Is there anyone to speak against this item? I see no one. All right. Let um and agenda item number 12 is to be continued to our next meeting and we will um talk about that when we talk about items to be continued. So let's review the items on the agenda for consent. They are 9, 10, and 11. Is there a motion to adopt these items on consent? >> So moved. >> Second. >> It's moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? >> All in favor of the motion, indicate by saying I. >> I. Any against? Indicate by saying nay. Any abstensions? That motion passes. So if you were here for agenda items number nine, 10 or 11, your land use requests are approved. Good luck with your projects and I really appreciate you coming downtown to for this meeting. All right. Um we have our um item for continuous continuence. This is agenda item number 12 proposed zoning text amendments fence regulations. Staff is requesting this item be continued until our July 23rd, 2026 zoning board of adjustment meeting. Is there any board comment or explanation? Um, >> can I just ask why it's being continued? >> Yeah, chair chair, board member Callahan, uh, Sarah Roman, the, uh, planner assigned to the project, was unable to make tonight's meeting. Um, and especially since it's a legislative item, um, we're just continuing. so she can take board feedback at that time. Um, and just as a quick note, if anybody's interested, uh, it is planning to go to the August 10th planning, city planning commission. So the board's feedback will still be g to remain to the to it going forward. >> Go ahead. >> Um, and if we have comments, is it better to send in writing to Sarah or to hold them until the meeting? >> If you have comments now, I'm sure you could probably send it, but you might as well if you can hold to the meeting so we can get so she can answer questions. Um and then if you feel necessary after that, you can definitely continue to follow up in writing as well. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Great. All right. Um so is there a I would entertain a motion to um continue this item to our July 23rd, 2026 zoning board of adjustment meeting. >> Do we need to Are we continuing number eight as well? >> Do we need to do that at the same time? >> I believe it's been withdrawn. Oh, >> eight was withdrawn and acknowledgement of that. The fact it's on the agenda acknowledges that. >> Thank you. Okay, I'll move the continuence of uh the uh regulation item. >> Seconded. >> It's moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? Our July 23rd, 2026 meeting. So, let's move on to our land use request items. The first one being agenda item number 42754 Thomas Avenue South. Um, who is presenting that? It's not Miles. It's Mr. Carrier. >> Hello, Chair Perry. Board members. >> Uh, yeah. My name is Ben Carrier. I'm a city planner with the zoning administration here on behalf of my colleague Miles who can't be here today. Um, I'm gonna present this item and staff's uh recommendations. Let me get it pulled up for you. >> Yep. And while he's doing that, let me explain something to everyone. The way this works is that staff presents I and questions are asked of staff. I then open the public hearing. The applicant speaks first for 10 minutes and then anybody else who's in favor speaks for two minutes each and then anybody against speaks for two me two minutes each and then we close the public hearing then the board has discussions and motions etc. So that's the general way that things flow. So with that Mr. All right. Thank you, Chair Perry. Um, let's see. Uh, as you noted, this item was continued from the June 4th zoning board of adjustment meeting. Uh, it's a variance request to reduce the rear yard requirements at 2754 Thomas Avenue South uh to replace an attached garage. Um, the properties in the UN1 Urban Neighborhood Zoning District. the interior one built form overlay district and the shoreland overlay district. Um it has a lot area of 11,275 square ft. Um it's an interior lot with frontage along Thomas Avenue South. Um it has a single family dwelling with an attached garage located on the rear property line. Uh the lot is an irregular shape um being angled on the east and west sides and the alley serving the home is also set at an angle. Cool. Uh the variance request is to reduce the rear yard setback from 5t to 2t 8 in. The existing attached garage opens towards the southern interior side property line. And um it might be a little difficult to see, but the red line on figures two and three um are the approximate locations of the property line. Uh let's see. City permit records indicate that um the garage was likely attached to the house in the 1990s and is located on the rear property line. Um however there's no associated variance related to the setback of the structure. Um regulations governing non-conforming structures like this um are intended to control the continued existence of legal non-conforming structures by bringing about their gradual elimination by regulating their reconstruction and requiring it to conform to the current zoning code. Um the applicant is proposing to replace the existing attached garage um that's on the rear property line and facing the south with a new attached garage facing the alley. Um the zoning code states where vehicle access doors face a rear lot line, no reduction of the required yard is permitted. Um the applicant has applied for a variance to reduce the rear yard requirements from 5t to 2'8 in. And um the existing driveway at the south would be u maintained as an unenclosed parking space. Let's see. While the new garage design um appears to present no issue uh or impact on surrounding property and setting the structure further back from the rear property line uh should help overall with alley visibility. But staff does have concerns about the reorientation of the vehicle access doors um towards the alley which um would leave very little room for maneuvering. Vehicle access doors would uh be located within the rear the required rear yard here. Um and vehicles may need to back out into the alley with no visibility. Um, the new garage would substantially uh yeah, we can see a little better on this slide, but the new garage would substantially line up with the neighboring garage across the alley uh which would create hazardous conditions. So, um, given that there is room to the south, um, of the proposed location to move the vehicle access door outside of the required rear yard, um, staff find the applicant has not met the required criteria for finding number three. Um, and the proposed variance could be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public. or of those utilizing the property or nearby properties. Therefore, staff um recommend the zoning board of adjustment adopt staff findings and deny the variance request to reduce the required rear yard from 5t to 2'8 in for the new the new garage at 2754 Thomas Avenue South. Um, public comments received prior to this public hearing were included in the staff report linked to the meeting for this agenda. Um, so those are available for review. And that concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you. >> Yeah, thanks for the presentation. Are there questions of staff? >> Yes. >> Thanks, Jerry. Thanks for stepping in and doing a good job. Uh question about the the five foot setback when the zoning code is trying to restrict you from having your uh garage doors right up against the property line going into an alley. My assumption is there it's a blind turn out essentially a safety concern. Is there any consideration for the fact this is not a parallel garage door entrance to the alley? It's a a skew we'll call it. So, it's not, you know, thoughts on you on the zoning code not caring if it's not a safety concern. Uh, yeah, Cher Perry, um, board member Hutchkins, thanks for the question. Um, the setback, as you mentioned, is intended to ensure safety um, and visibility for vehicles accessing the alley. Um that's if your vehicle access door faces the rear property line. Um in this case uh with the garage the neighboring garage to the west uh their vehicle access door faces the south. Um, and with the proposed attached garage here facing the rear, um, we see a potential conflict with, you know, vehicles accessing the alley. >> Yeah. >> From those orientations. >> Yes, Mr. Chair Perry, board member Hutchkins. And just to follow up a little bit, um, the, you know, we're noting kind of, um, finding one was met. There are some unique circumstances. Our biggest concern as as staff is just kind of the safety. And really it does boil down just to that one corner because there are obviously parts of the garage that are much farther away um that wouldn't pose any sort of worry. So really it's just that kind of one area um and it it's pretty close but that that's where staff ended and and so we saw that sort of interesting find where we find for one and two and three is not met which is not usually the way a recommendation comes forward but um does make for some discussions. Thank you. >> Any other questions of staff? >> Okay. Thank you. So, let's open the public hearing. Is the applicant present? >> So, we'll set that clock up for 10 minutes and it will go off and I'll gently remind you if you're not done if you could wrap it up. Thank you. >> And if you could give your name and address for the record too. >> Absolutely. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay, great. Um, good afternoon board chair. My name is Megan Lungquist. I am here representing the Bardwash family, 2754 Thomas Avenue South. I live at 2901 East Old Shakpi, Bloomington. Um, thank you to Ben for presenting for miles, the staff person that we have been working with on this project. Um, I, as I mentioned, I'm here with the homeowners Joy and Satch Bardwash, who, um, will step up and and say something in a moment here. Um, but they've lived in their home for 18 years. And this request is to replace a failing non-conforming garage with something that's safer and more functional that substantially reduces the existing encroachment into the rear setback. So, I'll add a little bit more context to um what Ben presented and what you've seen in the packet for tonight. Um, so this slide shows the existing site and alley conditions. The attached garage is an older legally established non-conforming structure that was built before current setback standards and it sits directly on the property line. The average setback across the garages immediately adjacent to the Bardwash garage are shown in red here. So kind of varying from 1T8 at the Bardwage family to 5'8, 11'5 as we move north in the alley and then 57, 49, and 44 moving south. The lot is not rectangular. It's angled on both sides, which creates an unusual condition along the alley and makes the garage placement a little bit more difficult than on a typical rectangular lot. The current homeowners didn't create these conditions. Um, and the variance request is driven by the geometry of the lot and this inherited non-conforming garage. So, this is the proposed plan. The garage is reoriented as Ben mentioned so that the overhead door faces west which will improve how vehicles enter and exit from the alley um which is shown in the dashed um turn radius lines. The proposal also steps the building away from the alley property line which improves the relationship to neighboring garages and increases that average setback of the current garage from that 1T8 previously to 6'9. This also eliminates the need for this oversized um paved turning area that exists currently today um that's south of the garage. We did study moving the garage further south to try to solve some of these setback issues. Um, but because of the angled lot, it creates a lot of unusable dead space to the north of the garage. And it also significantly reduces the light and visibility towards the alley from that living room, um, which is just southeast from the garage. So, this proposal is not just a preferred layout, it's the best solution that we found to meaningfully reduce the nonconformity while maintaining a safe and reasonable use of the property. So um this is kind of the key existing condition today. About 91 square feet of the garage extend into that required setback. The garage is also directly on the property line. So the current condition is both more encroaching and more constrained than what we're proposing. So under our proposal that encroachment is reduced from approximately 91 square ft to approximately 9 square feet. So, roughly a 90% um reduction in the non-conforming area. This project also has neighborhood support. Um in your packet, there was a petition signed by neighbors. The five most immediate neighboring households highlighted with the green star on the plans as well as additional families in the neighborhood are in support of this project and signed the petition. So to summarize, this request is based on a very unique lot condition and a non-conforming structure that the homeowners did not create. The proposal simplifies the alley conditions, maintains a safe and functional garage, and reduces the nonconformity of the garage. So we respectfully ask for your approval. Um, and I'm available for questions or discussions if needed. >> Sure. Thanks very much. Thank you. >> Are there any questions? >> Yep. Mr. Hutchkins. >> Thanks, Chair. Thanks for coming down again. Appreciate it. Can you speak to I think uh anybody on the board looking to try and find a way through this would be most concerned about uh the safety of folks in the alley as you're backing out. Can you talk about the existing uh well say uh scenario of you guys backing out or driving into the alley uh the safety of that today versus this improvement? >> Yeah. So, um, highlighted, it's quite faint, but on the screen in blue and green are kind of standard turn radiuses in and out of that, um, that driveway and garage. So, they're kind of entering and exiting the garage, pulling in and backing out, um, in that kind of south westernish corner um, of the driveway. And in the new version, it's a similar condition, backing in and out towards the southwest corner of the of the property. Um, but in this case, there is still visibility to any car that would be backing out of the Jaffrey family driveway or, you know, coming down the alley from the south going north. Does that answer your question? >> Thanks. >> Any other questions? I don't see any. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Um, is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? >> Welcome. If you could give your names and addresses. >> Good afternoon, Chair Perry and the board. I'm Satch Bardage. This is Joy Bardage. We're the homeowners at 2754 Thomas Avenue South. >> We appreciate you hearing >> our condition here. We've been in this house, as Megan mentioned, for 18 years. We've been in the neighborhood for 20. We love our neighborhood. We love our neighbors. And we have always had trouble with our garage. Right now, it's failing. We've tried every option to save it as is. We've had folks come in and look at repporting the floor. We've had numerous concrete contractors tell us that they're unwilling to do so because the structure isn't stable enough to support even repouring the floor and trying to shore up what's there. So, we're forced into doing something. This plan is the best we could come up with. Um, and we did it in conjunction with the Jaffres who I think safety we're most concerned about in that area. Um, and in fact, it was Draper's idea to turn the garage to face the alley. Um, our neighbors call us getting into our garage the magic trick because we make these two 90 degree turns and the cars disappear. um which is fun but not without problem. Um and certainly speaking to the question earlier about how we feel backing out into that space making two kind of sharp 90° turns to back out is currently a visibility issue for us and we feel like turning it is really going to help address that. So thank you again for your consideration. >> Sure. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak in favor of this application? I don't have anybody else down, but would anybody you like to speak against this application? I see no one. So, I'm going to close the public hearing and take board comment. Yes. >> So, Chair Barry, I had a question for the homeowner, actually. >> Oh, you did? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, the the public hearing is closed, so maybe you could just voice your question. Maybe someone else can answer it. >> And I think Yeah. So the question is I've I've heard that the garage is currently failing. Are there any work orders on are there open work orders on the current garage? Is there a necessity a city a regulatory necessity to de demolish the existing garage? >> Can staff speak to that? I'm sorry for putting on the spot, >> Mr. Ellis. Chair Barry, board member Ishmail. I I can look it up, but I don't believe there are any orders from housing or anything along those lines uh against the property owner. I'm sure that they're experiencing issues with the garage and failing, but there's no um city orders that it's failing and could cause a an issue or other life safety concern from that perspective. >> Okay. Thank you. Any anything any other comment? Yes, Mr. Hutchkins. >> Thanks, Chair Perry. I'm going to quote uh the staff here in their staff report on number three, finding number three, which is what we're trying to solve for. >> Yep. >> Visually, there are no issues or impacts to surrounding properties with new garage design. It should actually help uh with the overall visibility, alley visibility. Staff can concerns about the reorientation, yada yada yada. for maneuvering. I would argue the maneuvering they're doing now is way more dangerous to everybody around them, neighbors, pedestrians, everybody walking by. I would I would argue that staff did a really good job on it and sent it to us and uh this is exactly what we're here to do. >> So, you see this as a proposal meets item number or finding number three? Yeah, I think it substantially increases the safety, which I think is the entire uh variance uh finding number three we're trying to find for. I would I would uh without debating it, I would like to hear what anybody else does to think. >> Okay. Board member Calhan, >> I agree with uh board member Hutchkins. Um I think that there's going to be safety concerns uh backing in and out of this alleyway across all of the homes, I would imagine. Um, and I think that the uh proposal before us does increase the safety issues that are currently being experienced. So, I would I guess I would hear other comments, but I would make a motion whenever we're ready. >> If you want to make a motion now, you can. >> Yes. >> I'll just quickly say I'm in favor of my colleagues. Um it it seems that the existing nonconformity is being reduced and it just seems to it seems to make more sense than what's there in plain terms. >> Okay. Do you want to make a motion to that effect? I'd like I'll make a motion to approve the um variance as submitted >> as uh as requested by the applicant. Is that correct? >> Yeah, I'll take that as a friendly amendment. >> Okay. Uh is there a second? >> Second. >> It's moved and seconded. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the role? Board member Kellan. >> I. >> Board member Izz. >> I. >> Board member Hutchkins. >> I. >> Board member Ingram. >> I. >> Board member Israel. >> I. >> Vice Chair Wang. >> I. >> There are six eyes. >> So that passes. Uh your your request is approved. Good luck with your project. And um I I won't say this to everybody, but for everybody who came down the last two meetings, thank you and I'm glad it worked out. So we're on to the next one, which is number five, 3730 West Pedayet Macasca Parkway. I said Boulevard before, it's Parkway. Mr. with that. >> Chair Perry, board members, uh before you today is an application for a variance to increase the maximum permitted width of an attached garage facing the front lot line from 60% to 97% of the width of the structure. The application is part of a project to add a third enclosed parking stall to the principal structure. Um, the site is a corner parcel. There we go. The site is a corner parcel, 13,900 ft in size. There is an existing single family dwelling on the property with an attached tandem twocar garage. The property fronts Washburn Avenue to south to the west uh with a corner sideyard uh property line along Westbed Parkway to the north. The site and structure. The site and surrounding properties are zoned urban neighborhood one interior one built form overlay districts and shoreland overlay district. The neighborhood is comprised of lowdensity residential uses. Um and as you can note, Beday Mccaska Park and Parkway are situated immediately north of the site. The applicant is proposing to construct additional enclosed garage space and they are seeking a variance to allow that um attached garage face facing the front line to comprise 97% of the width of the structure. With respect to the first variance finding, there are not practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance due to circumstances unique to um unique to the property. The property has an existing twocar garage. Um there is not a minimum requirement for enclosed parking for single family dwellings. Um the zoning code allows enclosed parking areas up to 10% of the lot area. Um the larger size of this property does enable more enclosed parking space than what typically is allowed on a Minneapolis lot. Um additional parking stalls within this allocation should be constructed in compliance with the zoning code. With respect to the second variance finding, attached garages are an accessory use. The zoning code standards regulate attached garage width to ensure such uses are subordinate in design and purpose to the principal structure. A garage comprising 96% of the width of the structure is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance or the comprehensive plan. The requested variance in this regards is not the minimum relief necessary from the code standards to enable enclosed parking on the property. Regarding the third finding, staff asserts the garage would have an increased visual impact on the streetscape, but do not find that the addition would alter the essential character of the locality. Staff has also determined that this project is compliant with the variances um uh for projects within the shoreland overlay district. Staff finds the proposal does not meet the required findings for approval and recommends denial of the variance request to expand the width of the garage facing the front property line from 60 to 97% of the width of the principal structure. That concludes my presentation. I'll stand for questions. >> All right. Thanks for the presentation. Uh questions? >> You do. Okay. Mr. Hutchkins. >> Thanks, Chair. Great. Thanks for the presentation. Uh I have a suspicion that we're going to hear a lot about uh which direction we're calling the front. >> Would you address that a little bit? >> Yeah. >> And why it matters or doesn't matter for this? So the front property line is um the lot line from which the predominant platting orientation of the block. And as you can see here, um, while there are currently only, I think, three properties on this block, um, the majority of the underlying plat, well, all of them face, uh, Fremont A to the west or Yeah. And so that's how we determine the front lot line, even though it may be that the house is designed towards the north. Um, >> does that help out? >> Yeah. Uh so they all face Washburn except for this one. >> They all front towards Washburn. >> Okay. And then uh I assume a lot of their contention is going to be the front of their house is actually bed makosca. Can staff maybe address how it matters or doesn't matter when we're going for findings? Uh, I would say Chair Perry, board member Hutchkins, um, the north property line is considered a corner side property line. Um, whereas the the front is restricted to Fremont. >> Thanks. >> Any other questions of staff? I see none. Thank you very much. Let's open the public hearing. Is the applicant present? >> Yes. Okay. Uh, would you like to give testimony? If you would, if you could step up, give your name and address for the record. And as I have noted, you'll have 10 minutes once you get your your stuff going to do your presentation. Thanks, Thank you, chair. Thank you, board. Hello. I'm Bill Braniff with White Crane Construction. We're the general contractor for the proposed project at Justine and John's home at 3730 West Pudday Makosca Parkway. I'd like to present to you project information that supports our strong belief that this variance should be granted. This project has been designed to enhance this residential property by addressing parking safety and livability issues. These two photos show the current and proposed exterior facades facing Washburn Avenue. This design is modest and thoughtful. The garage addition at 3730 West Bed McCoscott Parkway are modest improvements that integrate well with the property's unique corner lot and surrounding neighborhood. The project mitigates safety concerns and parking challenges created by unique conditions. The need for this variance is based on the property's front lot line designation which we were just discussing not long ago. Washurn Avenue is designated as the front lot line despite the home facing Bedet Macauska Parkway. The home's practical frontage and entrance face Bedet Macauska Parkway not Washurn Avenue. There is an associated zoning code impact. This designation activates zoning section 550.340 limiting garage size and layout facing the front lot line. And the rationale for our variance request is as follows. The variance request is due to historic administrative classification, not design, scale, or excess. Zoning non-compliance rules are only triggered by the unique and outdated designation of Washurn Avenue as the front of the home. The home's practical frontage and entrance faced West Metay West bedet makosca Parkway, not Washburn Avenue. A few notes about the neighborhood. its proximity to public amenities. Our project property is indicated by the yellow star or the gold star. 3730 West Bed Makosca Parkway is a corner lot facing the lake and the parkway. It's adjacent to the popular Thomas Beach and volleyball courts. The Thomas Beach parking lot closes at 8:00 p.m. after which people move cars to surrounding streets and hang out. And a few notes about the block on which the property sits. Washurn Avenue is a non-standard block. Uh standard platted Minneapolis blocks are some 660 by 330 ft. But because the diagonal shoreline of Beday Macauska cuts through the traditional street layout, the block of Washburn Avenue between the parkway and 38th Street is significantly shorter than the standard grid, limiting on street parking options for residents. And we'll see more of this on the next slide. This block also does not have an alley, which additionally limits garage placement and on street parking options at this location. combined with heavy lake traffic in the area. This creates a hardship for residents. Historic platting of the neighborhood, which is referred to as Cottage City from the 1890s, helps to tell us how we got to where we are today. The yellow star again indicates our project property. The original platting occurred before the parkway existed and assumed that homes or cottages as these lots were just 25 ft wide would be built facing Washburn Avenue. Alleys were included in the original planning but don't exist today, at least not on our block. And after the parkway was created, the home, which was built in 1931, consolidating some four of these small 25- ft lots plus part of the alley, um was built in 1931 facing the parkway as the front of the home. However, the front lot line was not updated at that time. If it had been, we would not need to be seeking a variance today. Here are some photos that show how heavy lake traffic limits available street parking. This is bedday makosca parkway to the front of the house. Washburn Avenue on the side of the house and some additional photos that show current street parking challenges. Bedosca Parkway looking the other way and another view of Washurn Avenue. Here are some photos of the current garage that we are eager to begin improving. This is a tandem garage that's logistically difficult with shuffling cars, one in front of the other. Uh, it's got a leaking flat roof that needs replacement. It's got an exposed water mane in the garage that has pipe pipe freezing issues that must be enclosed, which will actually reduce the uh parking stall at the front of the garage, reducing it to more like a onesot garage. And note the short apron and the sidewalk prevent any legal parking in front of the garage. And keeping the garbage bins off the sidewalk blocks the garage entry and exit with limited space. Here is the city defined front of the house which faces Washurn Avenue which does not comply with zoning development standards as a principal entrance as section 550.320 principal entrance and pedestrian access states single family homes shall include a principal entrance facing the front lot line. In the case of a corner lot, the principal entrance shall face the front lot line. This shows also the garage at the lower level, the primary structure above. And again, this is classified as the front yard. Here's the actual front of the home which faces med bedday makosca Parkway. This does comply with zoning development standards 550.320 as the principal entrance. For here we have the address and the front entry and pedestrian access. It's the architectural focal point. It f faces the lake and the parkway. Um and yet this is classified as the corner sideyard, but a garage placement here would not be practical nor desirable. Again, here is the city defined front of the home facing Washurn Avenue on the left and the city defined side of the home facing Beda Makosca Parkway on the right. To summarize this garage edition and rooftop deck project, the garage edition features include a one-story single stall garage edition using brick, stucco, and wood to match the existing home's style, ensuring cohesion. Rooftop deck utilization. The flat garage roof is repurposed as a functional rooftop deck, maximizing space without adding building height. Driveway and parking improvement. A new functional driveway provides true off- streetet parking, improving safety and property access. Design, compliance, and integration. The design complies with height setbacks, shoreline requirements, minimizing visibility, preserving neighborhood character. That's our proposed project. I'd also like to mention we are adding trees and greenery to enhance the project's aesthetics and curb appeal. And also to note that the proposed garage addition at 394 square ft uh highlighted in the circle there um is modest in size and proportional to the lot size and scale of the home. And these last two slides show the west elevation. This is our existing. And here's our proposed. And here we can see how the single stall garage addition is clearly subordinate to the home, the primary structure above and behind it, aided additionally by the garage located at the basement level and built into the grade. I'd like to in I'd like to conclude my presentation um at this time. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Uh let's see if there's any questions. Any questions? I I see none. So with that, thank you for your presentation. And I would ask if there's anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application. Yep. You want to step forward? You have two minutes. If you could start off with your name and address. >> Is it Justine? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> 3730 West Maska Parkway. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you members of the zoning board for your time and consideration. As you've seen from our contractor's presentation, this request for variance is based on the unique physical characteristics of our property and the need to create a functional solution for our home. We fully support the city's goal of limiting the visual impact of garages on the front of homes. Although Washburn is legally designated as our front lot line, our home is uniquely situated. As shown in the photographs, our front entrance, front yard, and pedestrian access are all on the Parkway side of the home, consistent with the orientation of many homes along Minneapolis Parkways. Additionally, I respectfully disagree with the staff finding stating that the other homes on this portion of the block are oriented towards um Washurn Avenue. Only three of the eight homes on this stretch of the block had their pedestrian access and front facade oriented towards Washurn Avenue. What we are proposing is not a garage that is oversized or out of character with the neighborhood. The proposed addition is being measured against the narrow side of our home that was never intended to be a front facade. This garage would only occupy about 15% of our Washburn frontage, which remains primarily open lawn and it does not create the type of garage dominance the ordinance is intended to prevent. If measured against the facade that actually functions as the front of our home, the two garage stalls would represent less than 40% of that width. Our property also has permanent physical constraints that leave us with no reasonable alternative. Parkboard restrictions prevent driveway access from the parkway side. We have no alley access because it was removed many years ago and there is no other feasible location on our property for a garage. The water man is currently located in the unheated garage and is vulnerable to freezing. We need to enclose it back into the basement as originally recommended by our inspector and that will further limit the functionality of our existing tandem garage. This project provides a practical solution while respecting the character of the neighborhood. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Let's see if there's any questions since you're the homeowner. Are there any questions? >> I I >> Yes. >> Excuse me. Thank you, chair. So I I saw the the Washburn elevation. I almost called it the front. So the Washburn elevation it sits on on a hill. Correct. I mean if let's just go down this side that the idea is if you put the garage on the Washurn side where would would you basically have to cut into the How would that happen? Is that Did you guys explore that? >> Yep. So, there would be a driveway at the side of the current garage and then the the the proposed garage would be farther in back. I don't know. I guess I can show you more on a picture, but >> the proposals for you asking about >> the cost. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I was talking about Excuse me. I was I was never just Never mind. It just didn't seem so feasible and I just thought maybe somebody else may be able to help my help my visualization. It's okay. >> Yes. >> Thanks, Chair Barry. Thanks for coming down again. Maybe this is more for staff. I think we run into this a lot where the home exists and the front is designated prior to a parkway or a main thoroughare being developed and they're stuck as a corner lot with the quote unquote incorrect orientation. Is there a remedy to that or they're just stuck with that orientation forever? >> Cheer Perry, board member Hutchkins. Um, currently as defined, I mean, we base it on the the platting of the lot. So, it's not necessarily about the way the the house or any other structure on the property fits. So, that's why they are in this situation now. Uh, remedies for when they run a foul of the code in something that might otherwise be logical are here coming to the board of adjustment uh to address the issues. >> That's what I wanted to hear. Thanks. >> So, I also would just bring up that um uh right now you have a twocar garage that's tandem, right? Is that >> right now? We do. Yes, >> we have to. We have our wa in the past our um previous owners took part of the basement to increase the side of of the garage leaving the water man in the garage >> which is not safe and so we have to enclose that again. So then once we enclose it we will not have a standard two space for two stalls anymore. >> I see. Okay that's helpful. Okay. Um, one of the things that will come up in our discussion, I think, um, just for you to know is the city does staff has probably told you this. There isn't a requirement anymore for single family homes to have garage spaces. >> It It's not a requirement. Um, >> can I comment on that? >> You many people have commented on that. It makes it challenging to live in Minneapolis with a family if there isn't sufficient garage space. >> Uh you're that is a common complaint. Um any other questions of the homeowner? Thanks for the presentation. >> Yeah, thank you so much. >> Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? >> And your name and address. And you have two minutes to speak, sir. >> My name is Ed Bell. Um Oh, yeah. >> I live across the street. >> Yep. >> Um I live in a building that has ugly garage doors facing their property and is more than 60% of the facade. Um uh I'm an architect, realtor, and former uh variance board member when I was practicing architecture downtown. Our front door is also on the Parkway. Um, I think that we are frustrated by the zoning. Um, we have an alley uh behind uh our property unplatted, unpaved. Um, the utilities from the property on Xerxes go in front of our house. Uh that's how the idiosyncrasies the water man is 9 in from our front door and it was broken and they had to go into Washurn to serve the property on Xerxes. Not that this is part of the issue. I've lived in the area. We since 2008 I've witnessed several water breaks by the previous owner in the property. Um, we witness tons of evening activity from uh car breakdowns, drug traffic, afterhour party, and leaving leftover debris. We're fortunate that sometimes the park board does on their scooter come around and that area. Um, I'm in favor, my wife's in favor, we are in favor, the neighbors are, and it provide a safe place for their children to play. Thank you. >> Thanks for coming down. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in favor? Is there anyone who would like to speak against the application? I see no one. Uh so I'll close the public hearing. Board comment. Yes. Mr. >> Uh can I ask a question of staff? >> Yeah. >> Um is so just to clarify, so there's they're not allowed to have um driveways face the parkway. Is that correct? Is that what I was that what I heard? >> Mr. would like can you speak to that? >> Uh, Chair Perry, board member I holds. Um, they would I have to request a variance to get a second curb cut from the parkway, but I I'm not as familiar if the park board would even permit a curb cut to West Benedame McCaska Parkway. >> Okay. So, this is this is the only practical site that they can have uh uh their garage face. Is that correct? >> I'm I'm not uh Chair Perry, board member IDs, I I'm not a designer, so I can't speak to that. >> Okay, that that'll be it for now. >> Mr. Mr. Al, can you help out? >> Sure. Board member following that. I mean, yes, for all intents and purposes, this is the only practical place they can have it. really it's about the scope and scale of of the garage and garage spaces because it doesn't I I don't know honestly. The park board is very reticent to grant curb cuts. If it is the only alternative, they will grant them and they are very expensive. >> Um I will say that when we've had new construction before. >> That makes sense. Thank you so much. Um yeah, I guess I'll just say um yeah, I I don't think we would necessarily want them facing that way anyway um from my perspective. So, it seems to make sense that it would go this way, but I'm interested to hear what others think about the uh the scope and size of it. >> Great. Um, anyone else for comments? >> Yes. >> Um, I think it's important that we don't design the project for them and we evaluate the project that has been presented before us. Um, I personally agree with staff fundings. Um, there is a garage there. I understand there's difficulties around having around parking in the city and around off- streetet parking. Um but that's my personal opinion um in terms of the staff report. I agree with what's in there. >> Are there any other comments or motion? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> I appreciate it. Uh, I mean, I'll uh I'll just say I do find a little bit I do find some uh practical difficulties just with the parkway restrictions, the no alley. Uh they're not asking to increase the curb cut, which I appreciate. So, I think uh the risk to to folks uh commuting through it or walking through it isn't as uh isn't that risky. I get we're doing the percentage of the actual face of the facade uh restriction, but because the house is orientated towards a road that existed after the platting was put in place, I think we said 1931 was when the house was built, then the parkway was built after that. So, there's no consideration to the the house's construction prior to that. It was just looking at a lake. So, I I do see there's some practical difficulties. I'd be interested to hear if anybody else sees anything there. >> Okay. Anyone else? Yes, Mr. Ingram. >> Yeah, I think I agree with with uh member Hutchkins. I I think if we take what the applicant is suggesting and consider it the front of the house to be facing the park the parkway, then I believe that could meet both findings. Any other comments or a motion? >> Yes, Mr. Hutchkins. Uh, I make a motion to notwithstanding staff findings for two uh findings one and two. Uh I would move to grant the variance request uh based on kind of the factors I already talked about the no alley uh the house orientation existing prior um to the platting decisions coupled with the fact that their address is even pointed towards the parkway. Obviously, some version of the city here considers that the front and the pedestrian side of the of the home is obviously anybody looking at that house is looking at it thinking that the front is actually Bedamaca. Um, yeah. So, I'd move staff uh findings for number three, but I'd um be looking to grant the variance on number one and two. >> Okay. Yes. You have a question? >> I I have a question for staff. So, if the address says not Washburn, how did we I mean, I'm just curious about why the address is the way it is if that is not the front of the house. >> Yes, Mr. Alice. >> Um, chair board member Wang, uh, it's a historical anomaly. If if there were new construction on the site, despite having all that uh area along Bed McCasco, we would require uh the addressing under current code to be that way. So really, it's a change in code. And in the past, we would see on a corner lot, houses would sometimes face them the other way, things like that. But um over time, we've gotten sort of more, I guess, stricter, for lack of a better term, in terms of addressing up the front, making sure you're facing the front, etc. So, I mean, if new construction here would require a, as they note, a front entrance facing the front lot line, which the applicant was talking about, um, there's not on the current one, but we would require it now for new construction. So, I hopefully this is answering your question, but um, you would see that, um, you know, we do see it in other parts of the city, too, where I mean, we will still argue that the front goes a certain way, but you'll see that it'll be addressed off the side street. Uh, in this case, the side street happens to be, you know, a major parkway, but we do see that in other parts of the city, too. >> Got it. Thank you. >> So, there is a motion. Is there a second? >> Can I second? >> Can I beef up mine? Uh, before we get too far, can I beef up my number two findings a little bit before we vote? >> Uh, just looking back at the staff findings, it says, you know, that for finding two, it's to orderly development and making sure it's compatible and all that jazz. >> I would argue that this is actually trying to meet this. Their proposal is actually trying to meet the intent. They're not trying to create a gigantic frontfacing garage uh comprising 96%. They're actually trying to keep it on the side of their house that I think anybody look at it would call it the side. So I'll leave it there. I think it is in the spirit and intent of the ordinance. >> Are you okay with that? Is >> okay. Um so we have a proper motion before us. Uh is there any discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the role? Board member Callahan. >> Nay. >> Board member Iicults. >> I. >> Board member Hutchkins. >> I. >> Board member Ingram. >> I. >> Board member Israel. >> I. >> Vice Chair Wang. >> I. >> There are five eyes and one nay. >> That motion passes. So that means uh your request is approved. Notwithstanding staff recommendation. Good luck with your project. Let's move on to uh number six, which is 3015 43rd uh Street West. And Mr. Wulette is uh is going to be our planner for the rest of the evening, I think. >> Thank you, Chair Perry. Uh board members, before you today is an application for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback. Um the application is part of a project to construct a screened in front porch addition. The subject property is an interior lot measuring 7,994 ft in area. The existing two family dwelling on the property um there is an existing two family dwelling on the property. The property fronts 43rd Street west to the north and has an existing setback of 56.5 ft as established by the adjacent residential structures on neighboring lots. The property is in the Lynen Hills neighborhood and the surrounding area consists of other lowdensity residential uses. Adjacent properties are single family dwellings um and surrounding areas zoned UN1, UN2 and UN3 urban neighborhood districts um as well as RM1 residents good goods and services district. Uh Linton Hills Park is located towards the west end of the block. The applicant is proposing to construct a 337 ft front porched edition with uh within the required front yard. The screened porch edition is subject to the standards of an enclosed building edition. Habitable areas of the structure include unfinished areas easily converted into livable spaces. As such, the screened porch addition is considered a principal building addition and not a permitted encroachment within the required front yard. With respect to the first variance finding, uh there are not practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance due to unique circumstances of the property. The subject property is relatively large compared to many low-density residential properties in Minneapolis. There is ample developable space for an enclosed edition. The increased front yard requirement um is not a unique condition within the city of Minneapolis and reflects the existing built form of the block. This finding is not met. Um with the respect of the second variance finding the spirit and and intent of the ordinance regulating u required yards in part are to provide for the orderly development and use of land to provide for separation between and minimize conflicts among land uses to provide for adequate light air and open space and to create a landscape buffer for ground level residential uses. With respect um the ordinance and comprehensive plan are intended to allow front yard encroachments for certain types of structures including but not limited to open porches, ground level patios and vestibules. The intent of the ordinance is to restrict primary structures from their required yards and permit less obstructive features within the required yard. staff finds the proposed encroachment significantly diverts from the spirit and intent of the ordinance, an open front porch could be constructed and would provide the desired gathering space and not necessitate a variance. Uh the second finding is not met. Regarding the third variance finding, the request to reduce the setback um for the required front yard uh would alter the essential character of the locality. Even though the applicants indicate no desire to fully enclose the screen porch, the addition would provide the structure with enclosed building rights in the required yard and would alter the established front yard setback for adjacent properties. This third finding is not met. Staff finds the proposal does not meet the required findings for approval and recommends denial of the variance request to reduce the front yard setback from 56.5 ft to 47.5 ft. That concludes my presentation. I'll stand for any questions. >> Thanks for your presentation. Are there questions? >> Yes, Mr. Hutchkins. >> Sorry to keep doing this. So, uh, uh, you said the front porch that's not enclosed would not require a variance. At what point does it become fully enclosed in the city's eyes in the zoning code once the screens exist or the roof or the door? Where are we talking? >> Chair Perry, board member Hutchkins. I think um once the screens are proposed on the front porch that leans it into the habitable structures. >> Thanks. Appreciate it. >> Any other questions? Um, we read through a lot of staff reports, but is this the uh I think the applicant made the case that um their the two houses on either side were set farther back, which pushed their house farther forward and would put their porch in into the required yard. Is am I thinking of the right >> chair Barry? That does not ring a bell for me. >> Okay. >> Maybe the applicant can. >> Okay. I'll ask the applicant. >> Who was? >> All right. Um so without any further questions, I will um open the public hearing. Is the applicant present? >> Yes, sir. >> Thanks for coming down again. >> Not at all. Um, I've got a paper copy. Can I put this on the overhead? Yep. >> It's really just the one plan that I need to >> We'll need to Do we need to do some magic? >> Okay. Are we up? >> It works. >> Thank you. Good evening, members of the board and Chairman Perry. Uh, thank you for your time. Uh, my name is Pat Mackey with Mackie Mail Architects. We are the designers for this project on behalf of Elaine and Brian Lacy, the homeowners. Uh we are requesting this variance to allow the homeowners to build a seasonal screened front porch. We believe this to be a mod modest and reasonable request. This house is the only house on the block without a porch and the proposed porch would help the home fit more closely with the established character of the block. A front porch is part of how neighbors interact in Minneapolis, especially on warm summer evenings like we're enjoying now. The practical difficulty comes from an unusual condition on this side of the block. The front yards are extraordinarily deep uh at the at the near neighbors, roughly 2 and 1 half to four times the standard uh statute depth of 20 ft. Uh because of that, the front yard increased rule creates a self-reinforcing setback that makes it difficult to add the kind of porch that is otherwise common or ubiquitous in the neighborhood. An open porch of this size, as Mr. Wlette explained, would be allowed without a variance. Uh of the variance is only needed because the homeowners prefer to they want to have it screened mainly for mosquitoes and longer seasonal use and they do not they want to do it the right way. They don't want to flout the regulation. They don't want to build an open porch and pop screens up and just hope nobody calls it in. So, hence the seeking of the variance. Uh we believe the proposed use to be reasonable. A seasonal screen front porch is a traditional residential feature common in the neighborhood. It supports the residential use of the property. It does not create a new use, increase density, or introduce unusual activity. It simply allows the homeowners to use the front of their house in the same neighborly way that nearly all other homes on the block already do. Um the there as as staff pointed out there are other areas on the lot on the site where a a screen porch could be built. But uh one uh side of the house is paved driveway. The other side of the house is on a hill that looks over the uh the neighbor to the west and would position the screen porch looming over the living room of the of of the neighboring house and uh all the the additional spaces are in the rear. Um the request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in our opinion. It instead reinforces that character. the closest affected neighbors uh including this neighbor uh the neighbor directly across the street and one of these two I forget which um have written their support uh which should be in near packet um as one neighbor wrote there's no downsides to a good front porch the homeowners are seeking the variance for their long-term use in good faith this is not a flip or a short-term investment strategy they bought the duplex as a two generation home close to their daughter and grandchildren upstairs and the family has roots in Lynen Hills going back to the 1930s. They also understand the city's concern that a screen porch could later be converted to living space. They are willing to accept any condition confirming that the porch will remain a seasonal screen porch and will not be enclosed as permanent living space without city further city approval. For those reasons, we respectfully ask the board to approve the variance. And if time allows, I'd like to read a statement from the homeowner who could not be here tonight. >> You have six minutes, so use them as you would like. >> Very good. Um, this is from the homeowners, Brian and Elaine Lacy, who again could not be here tonight. >> Mhm. >> Statement to the zoning board. One thing we love most about our house is that it is on a busy pedestrian street in the heart of Lynen Hills. We have beautiful perennial gardens bordering both sides of the front public sidewalk. When I work in the gardens, which is most days in the summer, almost everyone walking by on their way to the library, the farmers market, or the hardware store has a greeting for me, a question about a plant or just a friendly smile. It's how I have gotten to know the neighbors. When I walk in our neighborhood, I see lots of people sitting on their front porches. We smile and wave to each other and sometimes exchange a few words. Front porches are a way to live as much as possible outside and to really be part of the neighborhood. Before air conditioning and TV lured us all inside, pretty much everyone spent their summer evenings on their front porch reading, playing games, watching folks go by, and exchanging greetings. This is how we and our daughter whose home is on the second floor apartment. And my husband Brian and I, when he is retired, want to spend our summers in our neighborhood. We're the only house in our immediate block without a front porch. Not having one isolates us from the neighbors. We are excited to become part of our very special Lynen Hills neighborhood and to contribute to the sense of community that makes our neighborhood such a great place to live. The summer porch we want to build will allow us to do that. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um are there any questions from Mr. Mackey? >> Yep. >> Thanks for coming down. Are you going to build the porch uh if you don't get the variance and just leave it open? >> Uh that's the intent. That's that's plan B is see what uh you know what what what can be done and but that's that's the strongest uh contender at this point. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions or of Mr. Mackey? >> I see none. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the application? Is there anyone who'd like to speak against the application? I see none in both cases. And so we'll close the public hearing. Board comment. Yes. >> Can I ask a question of staff? >> Yes. >> I just want to follow up on something that the applicant uh suggested >> around adding a condition on for future development of the porch. Is that actually something that is feasible and that we can do or or that can be enforced in any way? Uh, Chair Perry, board member Callahan. Uh, it's my understanding that conditions are typically not um added to variances because it requires staff to follow up on and and make sure that they're being uh adhered to. Um, I don't have anything else to add unless uh Mr. Ellis does. board member I I guess it would depend on the on you know what sort of a condition are we talking about. Are we talking about a condition where like in the future could not um build above that or something along those lines without seeking a new variance because something along those lines might be something that could be conditioned um because otherwise I mean one of the concerns staff always has is we now make it so that uh you can build up uh in a front yard um whereas we never used to just to try to minimize we were granting all of them at the board. So these are that's another example of board decisions impacting code over time where you know we where we try to be rational about things. So um I suppose that would be something would be conditioned. Of course it would be incumbent upon staff in the future however long from now if that should that ever occur to catch that. Um but we generally do look to see if there was a land use application or something interesting on a property when we receive a permit. >> Can I just ask a follow-up question just so everyone is on the same page. So just to make sure in terms of like the the enclosed porch to habit is now if we approve this variance the enclosed porch will then be considered a habitable space which means that the applicant could also enclose that space and transform it into a living space that is an addition to their home and also build above it unless we had the condition that Mr. Ellis just suggested around a hypothetical condition around not having it as not allowing them to build above it without another variance. >> Yes, board member Callahan, I I guess I would say yes. I don't want to use the term habitable specifically in this case. Basically, we're treating it, you know, because as it stands, it's not a habitable portion. I mean, you couldn't go sleep out there or or hang out there in the winter. Um, but I would say that it would um it does then get classified as building bulk. So you know couch storage are floor area ratio seex etc. So it's part of the building. Um so if I'm answering this correctly and please correct me if I'm not um you could put some sort of a condition that you know without receiving another variance or something along those lines. we would not or want to we would not want to or would not I don't even think be able to conditioned in such a way that they could never you know do anything in the future say like you would never be able to expand something along that lines but something a condition that would maybe be drafted in such a way that would say you know if con you know that they would require a new variant should they wish to expand or convert to fully habitable something along those lines >> okay that's really helpful I mean I think this is more just my personal thought experiment question I don't know that actually the based on where they're proposing putting their porch, they'd be able to make it an true addition to their home given that there's a rock fireplace uh or fire uh chimney. So, they're not going to knock that down because that would be a core part of the house. But just in the bigger scheme of how this translates to like the variance process, >> thank you. >> Any other com? Yes. >> Yeah. One point of clarification. So if as presented as presented a variance is issued and then homeowner wants to finish it puts a permit in is there is is there a the current code would they they don't need any other further authority. Uh, Chair Perry, board member uh, Israel, if >> Yes. So, if if the board if the board grants a variance tonight and just grants it, uh, as a, you know, as of right doesn't add any conditions or anything like that, uh, in the future, should the applicant wish it, they would, we would be treating it the same way we do now as as portion of the building bulk. And so, if they came in and wanted to convert that into fully enclosed space, habitable, etc., that would be allowed as of right. if they wanted to do an addition on top um that would be allowed as of right assuming it was complying with all the other standards in our non-conforming like non-conforming as to yards only section in the zoning code. So hope hopefully that explains but it it basically yeah we're granting them rights. It's basically the same as if think about it in terms of you know the way staff is viewing it is if they were just doing a full-on addition out in the front yard. That's how staff treats it. You know just going out forward. Um, but we also recognize that it's it there are differences, but it's treated by code that way. So, we read it as such. >> Do you have a followup? >> I just fear that I've led us down a path that we should not be focused on as a board at this moment because we need to if there we are not even at the approving the variance because there's three findings that still need to be met. That was more my comment. >> Okay. Yes. Uh, did you want to comment? >> Going to No, we'll pass. >> Okay. Yes, Mr. sharing room. >> Okay, this is another question for staff, but it's not on the same line. Um, would they have needed a variance request if uh their neighbor looking at the screen was the neighbor two doors down as opposed to uh who is their next door neighbor? >> Uh, Chair Perry, board member Ingram, uh, corrective variance would still be required. That's actually the current situation that's being reflected. Um this is an exhibit that the applicant had put together included in the packet. Um where a house when the front setback is increased is more than 25 ft behind other the the adjacent homes on the same block face. You then eliminate that house from the string line from setback and it's drawn across that property. So you can see here this house is omitted and >> perfect. Okay. I appreciate it. helpful. Any other comments? Um, we're shy uh some findings. Um, but I would um be open to a motion for or against. >> Yes. I still have not heard a compelling argument about any of the findings being met despite all the discussion. So I'd like to make a motion to support staff findings. >> Second. >> It's moved and seconded. Is there any dis more discussion on the motion? >> Seeing none, will the clerk please call the role? >> Board member Callahan, >> I. >> Board member Iults, >> I. >> Board member Hutchkins, >> I. >> Board member Ingram, >> I. Board member Israel. >> I, >> Vice Chair Wang, >> I. >> There are six I's. >> So, uh, your request is den is denied. Um, in cases like this, what you should do is talk to staff to see what your alternatives are going forward. And again, I recognize you for your previous coming to meetings. So, thank you very much for coming down even though it didn't turn out the way you wanted it to. All right. Uh, our last one is 4331 Blazedale Avenue and this is Mr. We let again. Hello again. Uh, Chair Perry, board members, this item is an application uh for a variance to reduce the required sideyard setback from 5T to 3 ft. The application is part of a project for a two-story addition to the rear of the existing principal structure. The site is a midblock parcel 5,700 578 square ft in size and fronts Blazedale Avenue to the west. There is an existing single family dwelling on the property with a detached garage and access to the alley to the rear. The existing single family dwelling was constructed in 1906 and is set back 2.3 ft from the north property line. uh and situated within the required sideyard. The site is zoned urban neighborhood 2 and the whole block face similarly zoned UN2. Properties to the west are zoned urban neighborhood 1 and properties to the east are zoned CM2 corridor mixeduse district. Nicollet A Avenue, a goods and services corridor, is located on the west side of this block and consists of residential and commercial uses. The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a two-story addition within the required sideyard setback. With respect to the first variance finding, there are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance due to unique circumstances of the property. The existing dwelling is located less than 3 ft to the north property line and was established prior to the city's first designoning ordinance in 1924. The historic age of the home and structural layout create issues with additions to the south of the structure. These conditions were created prior to the applicant's interest in the property and are not solely economic in nature. With respect to the second variance finding, staff finds the seconds story addition step back from the existing sideyard encroachment does not significantly divert from the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The addition would be located further back from the north interior side lot line. Um but the proposed addition would still expand the extent of the structure within the required north interior sideyard. The addition does not increase the level of nonconformity for the building setback. Regarding the third variance finding, the applicant is proposing to add a two-story addition without increasing the encroachment into the required sideyard. Uh the proposed variance would not alter the essential character of the locality nor create potential for injury or detriment to persons or property. Staff recommends approval of the variance for a two-story addition within the required sideyard setback. That concludes my presentation. and I'll stand for questions. >> Great. Uh, any questions? >> Yep. >> Thanks for your presentation. Thanks, Chip. Uh, finding three, I think, is what we're going to get the most conversation about, how it's not going to be injurious to their neighbors. Can you address uh what could they even build that would not impact their neighbors from the light and enjoyment if they were to expand their house going to the rear? Uh, Chair Perry, board member Hutchkins, I don't think I could address what other potential designs could be feasible. The applicant put forward this design for our consideration. >> How about this? What's the threshold uh the city uses to decide if it's injurious to the neighbors? There's got to be some trigger. >> Uh, Mr. Alice, can you address that? Chair Perry, board member Hutchkins. I mean, it's an analysis on each individual presentation in front of us. Uh we don't have a drawn out, okay, this is fine and this is where we draw the line, etc. Uh you know, we'll take each individual application um as it comes uh and analyze it to the best of our ability uh in our staff meetings. >> Do you have a metrics or any sort of like guidance documents that walk your staff through like does it do X, yes, no? Uh, not for this particular for a setback in a side yard. No. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Okay. Any other questions of staff? I see none. Thank you very much. We may have you back up. So, let's open the public hearing. Is there is the applicant present? Yep. So, do you want to come up one at a time? >> Sure. So the way this works when there are two applicants is you you get a total of 10 minutes. Sure. >> So you can divide that up how you want. And if you could give your name and address for the record, that'd be great. >> My personal address >> or just the address of the of the property? >> Are you working? >> I'm I'm the builder and that's my client who lives in the home. So I just >> uh your business address. >> Sure. Sure. Uh my name is uh Tamatha Miller. I'm with Elliot Healing Remodelists and um our business address is 9inth uh 575 Southeast 9th Street in Minneapolis. >> Okay. >> So, why has our screens gone black? >> I think I hit a button. >> Okay. >> So, uh I'm not sure if I turned something off, but I don't know if anybody can help me with that. Apologies. I just wanted to speak to Can I do would you like to wait until this is >> Do you have a presentation? >> I do. I was just going to speak to the point that he couldn't speak to as far as the uh what we attempted to do with the design. Um Okay. In a different way. >> Let's let's get it up. >> All right. I don't have anything uh visual. I'm just going to speak if that's what you meant. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Sure. >> Um I'm just going to read from So my architect and partner was here at the last meeting uh when there wasn't a quorum. Uh, so I'm filling in in her in her steps, >> uh, doing the best I can because I am not the architect or the designer on this project. I merely own the company and and run the schedule if it moves forward. So, I'll do my best here. Great. >> Um, I'm going to use her words, um, as far as her application that spoke to that. Um, not sure what packets you all get, um, but it might be a repeat of what you've already seen. And she speaks to the possibility of a side addition in the back. Um the city um they the staff has already discussed um why um we're in our in this position. The side addition or rear edition offset to the south would create roof disongruence, significantly alter the street presence and create extreme circulation difficulties for the interior spaces. The property has made significant investment in solar panels on their south facing roof and has two primary AC compressors located at the southeast corner of the house. Both of those uh both of these added the functional challenges and proposed solutions addressed by the additions are specific to the historic circumstances of the northeast corner of the house and those were all well addressed I think by the city. Um and I don't know if you'll have questions for me. It might be after we hear from others. Um, but I'm happy to speak at that time if that's helpful. >> Okay. Are there any questions of Miss Miller? I would also state one other thing that wasn't written in hers that we did actually after um after this came up and we heard that there was a neighbor concern. We had a meeting with the client at our office and we were very sure to look at the uh at the design and see if there was any other thing that we could do because we did not want to do that. The roof structure that we added for this addition is significantly lower than it could have been. It could have been a much the pitch is not even the same as the um the existing house. And we did go through many different um looks at what we could do. Um and the interior, the way that the interior uh rooms work together, it just isn't a viable option to go to the to a different side um based on that as well as um the others. So, we do uh make sure that we do the best we can to not impede on neighbors. That's something that we really strive to do as a company, not just on this project. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the application? Could you reset that clock to two minutes, please? Oh, we're using the rest of the time. I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Hi, my name is Karen Opman. I live at 4331 Blazedale. I am the um homeowner along with my husband and we have two kids um Freya and Torren who also um live in this very old house that we have that we're just trying to um love up as much as we possibly can and make it work for our family. Um and so I just am speaking on behalf of a homeowner who's just trying to do her absolute best for her family um and also be a really great neighbor and we are just absolutely heartbroken. um that they are concerned about this addition. That's one of the reasons why um we love our neighborhood is because of our neighbors. Um and my son who is nine says that if we won a million dollars, we would buy a mansion, but then we'd have to buy a mansion for them. So, this has really caused um a lot of heartache in our house. Um but, you know, we believe strongly in our design and that it's really the best thing for our family. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Are there any questions of the homeowner? I don't see any. Thanks very much for coming down. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the application? Is there anyone who'd like to speak against the application? Are you Mr. Schaefer? >> Yes, that's me. >> Okay. >> So, I'm Charlie Schaefer. I'm an attorney that represents um Jacqueline Hager and Kate Gatsy that live nearby at 4327 Blazedale. >> And your address, sir? >> Yes. I'm at the law firm of Chestnut Camron. We're at 100 Washington Avenue South sweet 1700 in Minneapolis here. >> I'm a St. Paul resident, so please don't hold that against me, though. Um my clients request that the application be denied for for one reason. Essentially, the application seeks to expand a non-conforming use. This should be denied for one reason like I said because the practical difficulties factors the variance factors are not satisfied. Starting with the first one with respect to the unique nature of the home. This is not met. the there are no unique features of the home that prevent them from putting it in a way that does not encroach upon the setback. When we looked at um staff's presentation, there was a slide where you could see where they envision the um addition. There's plenty of room nearby to the left of that to the south of that that wouldn't encroach and violate the setback requirement. Second, um the spirit of the code. One of the uh purposes of the code is to allow for light. With respect to my clients, this um interferes with that scope um in that purpose of the code. Last, um my clients contend that this will be injurious to them because it will harm their ability to recover to to obtain sunlight and for it to enter the home. Um, in the applicant's application themselves, they cite that one of the reasons they want the addition is because of the light that they'll be able to capture. It's so light is important to the applicant. It's also important to my clients, and that's why we request that the application be denied. If there are any questions for me, I'll I'll be happy to to answer them. >> Any questions? I see none. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. Uh you're the last one in the room, so I'm assuming no one else will be speaking against and I'll close the public hearing. Uh board comment, >> anybody? >> I'll thanks Cher Perry. I think the city got it right. U I would uh entertain any more comments. doesn't sound like there's a lot of them, but I move a staff findings if nobody wants to object to that. >> Second. >> It's moved and seconded. Is there further discussion? >> Seeing none, will the clerk please call. >> Board member Callahan >> I. >> Board member Izz. >> Board member Hutchkins. I. >> Board member Ingram. >> I. Board member Israel. Hi. Uh, Vice Chair Wang >> I. >> There are six I's. >> So, your request is denied. >> Approved. >> I'm sorry. Approved. >> Yes. I apologize. Your request is approved. Uh, good luck with your project. Oh, >> always like to end on a happy note even when I um sort of out in left field there. Um are there any updates, Mr. Ellis? Okay. Um one thing that I want to do is uh I I do want to take a moment to talk about quorum. Um, you may have seen my email about quorum. It's very important. It's one of the questions that we ask during the interview process. Things come up and can get crazy um in our family life and business and so forth. Uh, but without quorum like we had in these last two meetings, um, a whole cascade of things start to happen. So, um, if you can do anything you can to be here, it will be really appreciated. One of the things that I'd like to do is if you don't have I'd like to ask staff if they can send out the one pager that has all the dates of our meetings on it for 2026. Can that be sent out to uh to the board again? Uh, Chair Perry, members of the board, uh, yes, there's a couple of different options. There's either I'm not sure whether you would prefer the overall calendar. Um, there was a physical one that was adopted by the board that we can send that out. Um, and I believe we also have a public, uh, one that sort of outlines the meetings and then it's really more for when staff is, you know, talking to applicants about this is when you pro, this is when the due date, the deadline would be for us to be able to review the application and get it all in. So, I'm not sure what would be better. I can go I can do both. I mean >> the thing that's simplest so that people can set up their own systems whatever systems they're going to use. >> Um >> chair Perry >> yes >> I would be happy to send out the wears calendar. >> Okay. >> It's available on limbs as well but I will be happy to send it out. So the second thing is that um if you can't make the meeting um we we never really talk about this and Osmosis was not our friend. Um you should send to Zach and to me um when you can't make the meeting. Um, and uh, let me see if there's any if there Oh, and the third thing is that I am going to ask that Zach send out on either Thursday or Friday whenever the automated system sends that out, sends that out to your city addresses. So, you have another prompt in case all else fails. If anybody has any other suggestions, I'm open to them. >> All right. Yes. I >> mean I mean every other board I've sat on has its own calendar. We get invites for them. I mean >> that >> we we we do >> I think we on our city addresses. I believe that staff has sent out calendar invites for all of the meetings. >> Or maybe it's just to me because I think I have it on my calendar. There hasn't been there there were a couple occasions where that didn't happen. >> Oh, okay. Maybe it was last year. My apologies. >> That would be great if the staff could do that for this year. >> So, you also um you also can sign up for the calendar notification or the meeting notification to be go to your personal email address. So, that's another way you can do it. All right. So, I think um those those are the new items I wanted. We also have a board member who hasn't joined us yet uh but they are fully on board and we hope to see him soon. Our next meeting is July 23rd, 2026. And I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? I I we are adjourned.