2026-10-22 - Zoning Board of Adjustment

00:08Hello everyone. Before we begin the

00:10meeting, I want to offer a friendly

00:12reminder to all board members, staff,

00:15and the public that these meetings are

00:17broadcast live to enable greater public

00:20participation.

00:21These broadcasts include real-time

00:23captioning as a further method to

00:26increase the accessibility of our

00:28proceedings to the community.

00:31Therefore, all speakers need to be

00:33mindful of the rate of their speech so

00:35that our captioners can fully capture

00:38and transcribe all comments for the

00:40broadcast.

00:42We ask that all speakers

00:44to moderate the speed and clarity of

00:47their comments.

00:48And with that, we will

00:51um begin the meeting. Um as I said, good

00:55afternoon. This is the September 24th,

00:572026 Zoning Board of Adjustment regular

01:00meeting.

01:01My name is Matt Perry, and I'm chair of

01:03the board.

01:04I will now call this meeting to order

01:06and ask the clerk to call the roll so

01:08that we may verify the presence of

01:09quorum.

01:12>> Board member Callahan.

01:13>> Present.

01:14>> Board member Eickholt.

01:15>> Here.

01:16>> Board member Hutchins.

01:17>> Here.

01:18>> Board member Ingram.

01:19>> Hi.

01:19>> Board member Israel is absent. Board

01:22member Shannon is absent. Board member

01:25Smirkarova is absent. Vice Chair Wang.

01:28>> Here.

01:29>> Chair Perry.

01:30>> Here.

01:30>> There are six members present.

01:32>> We do have quorum. With that, we'll

01:34proceed to our agenda, a copy of which

01:36was posted for public access to the

01:39city's legislative information

01:41management system available at

01:43lims.minneapolismn.gov.

01:47Is there a motion to approve this

01:48agenda?

01:49>> So moved.

01:49>> Second.

01:50>> It's moved and seconded. Is there any

01:52discussion on the motion?

01:54Seeing none, all in favor of the motion

01:55indicate by saying I.

01:57>> I.

01:57>> I.

01:58>> Any against, indicate by saying nay.

02:00That motion passes and the agenda is

02:03approved.

02:05I believe all the board members have

02:06seen a copy of the minutes from the

02:08September 24th, 2026 Zoning Board of

02:11Adjustment meeting.

02:13Is there a motion to approve?

02:15>> So moved.

02:16>> Is there a second?

02:18>> Second.

02:19>> It's moved and seconded. Is there any

02:21discussion on the motion?

02:24Hearing none, all in favor of the motion

02:26indicate by saying I.

02:27>> I.

02:28>> All against, indicate by saying nay. Any

02:31abstentions? If you weren't here, please

02:33abstain.

02:33>> Calihan abstains.

02:34>> Huggins abstains.

02:36>> And that motion passes. The minutes from

02:38the Zoning Board of Adjustment September

02:4024th, 2026 meeting are approved.

02:45Okay, some general instructions. A

02:48reminder to applicants and others that

02:50if you're going to speak at the public

02:52hearing today, please sign in on the

02:54sheet available with the clerk.

02:57And uh speak clearly into the

02:59microphone. If you've not signed in, you

03:01can do so on the way out.

03:03Also to applicants and others, please

03:05contact staff after the hearing with any

03:08questions regarding your projects.

03:11Uh and lastly, if you have something

03:13like this, if you could turn it off or

03:15put it on silent, I'd appreciate it.

03:18Let's review the agenda. I will read the

03:20agenda number and the address of the

03:22project and state whether it's slated

03:24for consent, continuance, withdrawal,

03:27return, or discussion.

03:29I'm just going to talk about what

03:30consent items are. These are items that

03:33will be passed without discussion by the

03:36board. We will be adhering to the staff

03:38recommendation found on your agenda

03:42under the items recommended motion

03:44section.

03:45Importantly, any applicable conditions

03:47will be listed in the same section.

03:50If you agree with the recommendation,

03:52including any applicable conditions, you

03:54need to do nothing and the board will

03:55pass it as recommended.

03:57After an item is passed on consent,

03:59you're free to leave the chambers.

04:01Please check in with the staff member

04:03assigned to that item if you have any

04:05questions following the decision.

04:07If you disagree with the recommendation,

04:09please indicate you'd like to speak

04:10against that item when I ask and we'll

04:13put it on the discussion agenda.

04:17So, let's look at the recommended

04:20dispositions of our items here. Agenda

04:23item number four is 2415 Bloomington

04:26Avenue. Staff is recommending this for

04:29consent. Is there anyone to speak

04:31against this item?

04:34I see no one.

04:35>> Can I ask a question of staff, Chair

04:36Perry?

04:37>> absolutely.

04:39Mr. Carrier?

04:47>> Hey, thanks. Uh, the question I have is

04:48just more for my own clarity and

04:50understanding.

04:51Uh, on finding number one,

04:55uh, challenges is it existing applying

04:56with the zoning circumstance? Could you

04:59maybe elaborate on what your finding is?

05:01I'm I'm not following, I guess.

05:04>> Um, sure. Uh, Chair Perry, um, board

05:07members.

05:08Um, with regard to the required finding

05:11for practical difficulties, um,

05:15the practical difficulty

05:17uh, in meeting the intent of the code is

05:20related to the changing grade with the

05:21adjacent property.

05:23Um, the adjacent property with a

05:25residential use uh, in the urban

05:27neighborhood zoning district, uh, it's

05:31about 4 ft grade change, um,

05:34and that's the reason there's a front

05:36yard requirement um,

05:39>> [clears throat]

05:39>> for this the subject property.

05:42Um,

05:43increasing a fence height would not

05:45affect the adjacent property, um

05:48and so the

05:50the

05:52the binding is met for that reason.

05:55>> So the

05:57just so I follow along, the

05:59they would not be allowed to have a 6-ft

06:01tall fence, or I'm sorry, they would be

06:02allowed to have a 6-ft tall fence if the

06:04zoning was the exact same as the as the

06:07parcel in reference. If that is only

06:10code extended to that one, they wouldn't

06:12need a variance. Is that what I'm

06:13understanding?

06:14>> That's correct.

06:14>> So the intent is to make sure that if

06:16these two types of zonings are next to

06:18each other, they don't build a 6-ft tall

06:20fence.

06:21>> Um

06:22>> But then we're saying since there is a

06:23hill

06:25they're alleviated from that.

06:27>> Essentially, Chair Perry, Board Member

06:29Hutchins, um

06:32the yard requirement in the urban

06:34neighborhood zoning district, um is

06:36applied for the first 25 ft on the

06:39adjacent parcel, which is the subject

06:41property.

06:42Um so

06:44but for that requirement, um the subject

06:48property would be allowed to have a

06:49fence up to 6 ft tall. Um

06:53the requirement is that it should not

06:55exceed 4 ft in height for that first 25

06:58ft. Um staff find it's reasonable that

07:02the height should be allowed to increase

07:04to 6 ft. Um

07:07because of the grade change of the

07:09adjacent property, the top of the fence

07:12on the adjacent property in the front

07:13yard, um would still exceed the height

07:16of the 6-ft tall fence on the subject

07:18property.

07:20>> I think that's where I'm going with this

07:21is that it doesn't alleviate or it

07:24doesn't help at all making it 6-ft tall

07:26if you can still hop over it from the

07:28higher grade change.

07:30That's I get That's where I get a little

07:32lost.

07:35>> Okay.

07:37>> Uh

07:38I'll leave it alone, though. That's

07:39fine.

07:39>> Are you satisfied with that? Otherwise,

07:43we can pull it.

07:44>> Sure.

07:45>> You're satisfied?

07:46>> Sure.

07:47>> Okay.

07:48>> Thank you.

07:48>> Um

07:49Thank you, Mr. Carrere. Um So, is there

07:52anyone I I asked if anybody was wanted

07:55to speak against it. Um I saw no one.

07:58So, let's go on to agenda item number

08:00five, which is 4021 Queen Avenue South,

08:03and staff is recommending this item for

08:05consent. Is there anyone to speak

08:07against this item?

08:09You'd like to speak against this? Okay.

08:11We will pull that.

08:16Pardon?

08:17Okay.

08:18Yep.

08:19>> I'm Kurt Adams.

08:20>> Oh, I'm sorry. So, how this works for

08:23discussion items,

08:25there's a process that we follow.

08:26>> Oh, sorry.

08:27>> So,

08:28>> Okay.

08:29>> Um Thank Thanks for being ready to

08:31speak, though.

08:32>> Okay.

08:35>> Um

08:36So, let's get to our one item that is on

08:40consent. Is there a motion to adopt this

08:43item on consent? This is item number

08:44four.

08:45>> So moved.

08:46>> Is there a second?

08:48>> Second.

08:49>> And there's a motion and a second. Is

08:52there any discussion on the motion?

08:54All in favor, indicate by saying I.

08:56>> I.

08:57>> Any against, indicate by saying nay.

09:01That motion passes, and that item is

09:03appro- That consent item is approved. Um

09:07And so, if you were here for that, good

09:10luck with your project. Um

09:14Um we wish you well.

09:16So, let's go on to

09:19agenda item number five.

09:25And I want to explain to the public how

09:28this works.

09:30Um The first thing that we do is we hear

09:34from the staff. They give a staff

09:36report.

09:37And then the applicant, if they're here,

09:41gets an opportunity to speak.

09:44I open the public hearing and then the

09:46applicant gets an opportunity to speak.

09:48And then

09:50anybody who's in favor of the

09:52application gets to speak.

09:54And then finally anybody who is not in

09:58favor of the application gets to speak.

10:01So it sounds like

10:02a couple of you would like to speak, so

10:04you'd be that last group of people

10:06speaking.

10:07And with that I'll

10:09hand it over to Mr. Rulet.

10:12>> Thank you.

10:16Chair Perry and board members, before

10:18you today is a variance application to

10:20authorize development within 40 ft of

10:22the top of a steep slope in the

10:24Shoreline Overlay District.

10:28The property is an interior parcel 6,583

10:32sq ft in size with frontage along Queen

10:34Anne Ave South at the west property line

10:36and no alley access. A single-family

10:39dwelling on the site was recently

10:41demolished.

10:47The zoning district for this property

10:49are urban neighborhood one, shoreline

10:51overlay, and interior one built form

10:53overlay.

10:54Um the surrounding neighborhood is zoned

10:56urban neighborhood one with urban

10:58neighborhood two and urban neighborhood

11:00three zoned properties toward Sheridan

11:02Ave to the west.

11:04The neighborhood is comprised of low and

11:05medium density residential uses.

11:08Portions of the property satisfy

11:10conditions for having a steep slope

11:12having an average grade of 18% or

11:14greater with a minimum horizontal

11:16distance of 50 ft and a minimum vertical

11:19distance of 10 ft.

11:22The existing conditions survey

11:25shows a 40-ft radius from the top of the

11:27measured steep slope. Uh with the

11:29location of the steep slope, any

11:31development the property requires a

11:33variance.

11:36The applicant is proposing to construct

11:38a two-story single-family dwelling with

11:40an attached garage.

11:43Regarding the findings for all

11:44variances,

11:47first, staff finds challenges exist in

11:49complying with the ordinance because of

11:50circumstances unique to the property.

11:53The topography of the site impacts the

11:54buildable area and any development on

11:56the property requires a variance. The

11:58buildable area impacted by a steep slope

12:01is considered a unique circumstance to

12:03the property. Second, the spirit and

12:05intent of the ordinance regulating

12:07development near the top of a steep

12:09slope in the shoreline overlay district

12:11is to preserve and enhance the

12:13environmental qualities of surface

12:15waters and the natural economic values

12:17of shoreline areas within the city, to

12:19provide for efficient and beneficial

12:21utilization of those waters and

12:23shoreline areas, to comply with the

12:25requirements of state law regarding the

12:27management of shoreline areas, and to

12:29protect the public health, safety, and

12:31welfare. Staff finds the proposed use of

12:33the property is in keeping with the

12:35spirit and intent of the ordinance. And

12:37third, staff finds that the proposed

12:39variance would not alter the essential

12:41character of the locality, nor be

12:43injurious to the use or enjoyment of

12:45persons or property in the area. The

12:47single-family dwelling use is consistent

12:49with other properties in the

12:50neighborhood, and the project would

12:52comply with all other applicable zoning

12:54requirements.

12:56Further, the project meets the

12:57additional standards for variances

13:00within the shoreline overlay district

13:01and standards for development within 40

13:03ft of the steep slope. I'll summarize

13:06here, um, erosion control devices will

13:09be employed during construction in order

13:11to protect public waters from any

13:13possible sediment intrusion. Vegetation

13:15will be added after construction to

13:17further stabilize the steep slope on

13:19this property. The project does not have

13:21a The project does have a soil erosion

13:23control permit, which includes

13:25monitoring of erosion control measures.

13:27There is no impact to visibility of the

13:30property from nearby protected waters

13:32and no watercraft access is proposed

13:34with the project. There is existing

13:36development on or within 40 ft of a

13:38steep slope within 500 ft of the subject

13:41property

13:42including dwellings on neighboring

13:43properties.

13:44The soil is adequate in supporting the

13:46proposed development. The proposed

13:48single-family dwelling requires site

13:50plan review and building permit.

13:52Construction code services will review

13:53the plans to ensure all aspects of the

13:55project comply with building code

13:57standards. New trees and vegetation

13:59coverage will be provided with the

14:01project and the development will be

14:03consistent with the appearance of the

14:04hillside when viewed from protected

14:06waters.

14:07I'll add that as a condition of approval

14:09um

14:10is that soil erosion control measures

14:12shall be implemented prior to

14:13construction and shall remain in place

14:15until construction is complete.

14:17Environmental health monitors that and

14:19they have been inspecting the site.

14:22With that, staff recommends approval of

14:23the variance to authorize development

14:25within 40 ft of the top of a steep slope

14:28in the Shoreline Overlay District. That

14:29concludes my presentation. I'll answer

14:31any questions.

14:32>> Thanks for that presentation. Are there

14:34questions?

14:37Yep.

14:38>> Hey, thanks for your presentation.

14:39Thanks you very Thanks for your

14:40presentation. Can you bring up a plot

14:41plan

14:42of that project?

14:44of the of the proposed project, yeah.

14:46Can you kind of indicate where the 40 ft

14:49would be?

14:50>> Yeah. Uh it's more

14:53best illustrated on the existing

14:54condition survey. So, I've got two

14:56measurements there that um A and B that

14:59indicate steep slopes.

15:00>> So, essentially it's undevelopable

15:04without having a variance.

15:05>> a variance application.

15:06>> literally nothing you could build there,

15:08it looks like, right? Including the

15:09front setbacks and everything else.

15:11>> Correct.

15:11>> Okay. Do you have a Do you have a slide

15:13that shows uh the actual buildable area

15:15if you met all zoning code?

15:17>> Uh I do not have a slide that shows

15:19that.

15:19>> Okay.

15:20Thanks. Appreciate it.

15:22>> Are there any other questions of staff?

15:26I see none. Thank you very much.

15:30And with that is I'm going to open the

15:33public hearing. Is the applicant

15:36present?

15:37Yep.

15:39We give you up to 10 minutes to talk.

15:43Um you can

15:46you don't need to use all 10 minutes.

15:50>> Um I don't really have anything to add.

15:52Um I think the staff person

15:54>> One thing you could do for me though is

15:56give me your name and address.

15:57>> Okay. I'm Caleb Caleb Germa.

16:00I serve as the president of Dream Homes.

16:02We do

16:03tear down and rebuilds of new homes.

16:05>> Okay.

16:06>> We've done over 100 in the city of

16:08Minneapolis.

16:09This happens to be one that needs a

16:11variance and that's why we're here.

16:13>> Okay.

16:14>> Um I have nothing to add from

16:15information. I think the staff member

16:18presented the information the best

16:21way I guess.

16:22>> All right.

16:23Thank you very much.

16:24>> Thank you.

16:25>> Is there anyone else who would like to

16:27speak in favor of this application?

16:32Is there anyone who would like to speak

16:33against? We know there's at least one

16:35person.

16:36And for people two? Okay. For people

16:39speaking against you get two minutes to

16:42speak against and that clock tells you

16:45when your time is up.

16:46And again, if you could do your address

16:48name and address, please.

16:50>> My name is Kurt Adams. I'm at 4020 4717

16:54Queen Avenue South to the north side of

16:55the lot.

16:56The contours that were shown in the

16:58existing conditions and the proposed

17:00development are false. The only way he

17:03achieved those was by

17:05bringing in loads of dirt and filling in

17:08the back of the lot. An 8-ft high lot

17:12height, 20 ft deep, 50 ft across. And

17:16that's what's shown on your existing

17:18contour map, but that was not the

17:20original contour, and that's not the

17:22contour as it is today after he took

17:25down the house.

17:26So, I'm

17:27puzzled why those contours are being

17:30shown like that when they don't exist

17:32and never existed.

17:34Another question is is this variance

17:37allowing him to build farther back on

17:39the lot than the the two adjacent

17:42structures because

17:44that's what I'm seeing in the proposal

17:46is that he's going farther back closer

17:47to the park

17:49creating more runoff. And with those

17:51contours, those contours come right down

17:52on my driveway, and again, I had 8-ft

17:56slope directly from my driveway up,

17:58and nothing was done. He didn't notify

18:01any neighbors, didn't notify the city,

18:02had no permits for any of that infill,

18:05and so, I'm wondering what

18:07accountability there is for violations

18:10for that and in the future.

18:12How How do you hold them accountable?

18:16>> Uh

18:17so,

18:19we're not a mediation board,

18:22but what we can do is we can ask staff

18:27some questions on your behalf. So,

18:31you've raised a couple of questions, and

18:33I'd like to ask staff or

18:36Mr. Ellis if he can speak to either of

18:38those things. Who actually regulates

18:40those things?

18:41>> Okay.

18:43>> Mr. Ellis, can you do that for us?

18:45>> Uh certainly, Chair Perry. Um

18:49the I I Mr. Willett uh spoke to quite a

18:52bit of it that a lot of that is handled

18:55through the actual erosion control

18:56measures are handled through

18:59Environmental Health Group uh within the

19:01City of Minneapolis.

19:03Um I will note that even it is in the

19:04shoreland, uh great regrading is allowed

19:07uh with permission from the city

19:10engineer and and the health department.

19:12There what has been an enforcement case

19:14environmental health health has been

19:16out. They've written orders on the

19:18property and have continued to monitor

19:20it during this time period and they

19:23still have it open and under monitor and

19:25are and are watching to make sure

19:28for things.

19:29>> Okay. So,

19:30according to those contours there's

19:32going to be a lot of runoff to my

19:33driveway and to my structure to the back

19:35of my lot.

19:36>> Yeah, so

19:37>> redirect that?

19:38>> I would like to ask Mr. Olson another

19:41question

19:42which is something that I often

19:46um

19:47heard before us is is this when you

19:53build a home, are you responsible for

19:57making sure that the water that falls on

19:59your property stays on your property and

20:01does not run off to other people's

20:03property?

20:04>> Uh chair Perry members of the board,

20:06yes. Uh there's a series of code

20:08provisions throughout um the city. Um

20:11the one specific does owning is fairly

20:13minor. We usually don't write the order

20:15related to that drainage because it's

20:17just follow best practices which isn't

20:19very enforceable. However, we do have

20:22elements within other portions of the

20:23code and the Minnesota building code. Um

20:26so uh it's not necessarily possible to

20:28have everything stay on your property in

20:30the in the current situation some would

20:31sometimes go off as well. However, they

20:33are required to create swales or do

20:35additional things to make sure that the

20:37drainage isn't going on to neighboring

20:38properties.

20:39>> Okay.

20:39>> Uh I have not analyzed the proposed uh

20:43construction in terms of that, but it

20:45would be something reviewed during the

20:46building permit process.

20:48>> Yep. So, uh again, we're not an

20:51enforcement body. We handle it um

20:54uh

20:55variances. Um so, we look at policy and

20:58see whether a variance is appropriate.

21:02Um but hopefully that gives you some You

21:06you may not be

21:07um

21:08And I don't I don't want to drag this

21:10out. You may not be um

21:13satisfied with that kind of answer, but

21:15there is

21:16a

21:17there are requirements to not have water

21:21running onto your property.

21:22>> I understand that, but you're an

21:23approval body. And the way that it's

21:25shown, all that water is going to run

21:27onto my driveway, onto my structure,

21:30right? Adjacent to it.

21:33And that's part of your approval.

21:35That's not allowable. It's a city

21:37ordinance. You cannot allow water to run

21:39off to another property. And the

21:40contours are going to create that. And

21:42there's no way to create a swale given

21:44the distance and the contours that are

21:46shown.

21:48>> Understood.

21:50Anything else?

21:52>> Do not approve it.

21:53>> Okay.

21:55What's There's someone else who'd like

21:57to speak against it? And again, if you

21:59could provide your name and address for

22:00the record, please.

22:01>> Sure.

22:03>> [clears throat]

22:03>> Uh my name is Burket Keskin. I am at

22:054011

22:06Queen Avenue, uh a few houses north of

22:09the proposed structure. And I I get it.

22:13I mean, he's got to build someone on the

22:15property.

22:16Uh I guess my concern is more like that

22:19they knew they knew it when they bought

22:21the property. And to give them a blanket

22:24check to you can build anyone the

22:25property. I saw the proposed proposed

22:29structure, and just by looking at it,

22:30you can see that the proposed structure

22:32is already a good probably like 15 20 ft

22:35further towards the towards the what do

22:39you call like the the slope. The entire

22:41the entire block actually sits on top of

22:43the slope, and then there it really goes

22:45down steep towards the parkland. And by

22:49basically giving them like a blank

22:51check, hey, you don't have to adhere to

22:52this 40-ft variance, you will basically

22:56allow them to build anyone on the

22:57property.

22:58And um

23:00I'm not a I'm not an expert, but I mean

23:02just like hearing what has been

23:04previously done by the developer, I have

23:06I have great concerns to just giving

23:08them the blanket check without any, I

23:10guess like a second look at it. I also

23:13heard the staff person, it sounds very

23:16like I mean it sounds reasonable, it's

23:17the entire plot. But I think my original

23:20thought was that the 40 ft would stop

23:24would kind of like start at the end of

23:26the property to make sure that there's

23:28no

23:29significant runoff going to either the

23:31neighbors, but also into the park and

23:33behind it. So, that is my that's my

23:36objection. I don't think they should

23:38give you should be like I don't think

23:39the variance should be approved in the

23:40current form without some strong

23:42stipulations to make sure that the it

23:45doesn't create negative impact to the

23:47surrounding areas, neighbors, and the

23:49parkland behind it. Okay.

23:5130 seconds.

23:53>> [laughter]

23:53>> Thank you.

23:54>> Thank you.

23:56Um

23:58So, um is there anyone else who'd like

24:00to speak against this application?

24:03>> Can I ask a question of the applicant

24:05since we got the public hearing still

24:06open?

24:12>> Thanks for coming down again so maybe to

24:14address some of the issues they brought

24:16up. I see you have a retaining wall on

24:18both sides. There is a pretty steep uh

24:22water drain off

24:24to both sides. What's your plan? I don't

24:27see any like water mitigation plans on

24:29our packet so is there drain tiles,

24:31swales? What are you going to do here?

24:33>> And uh and

24:34in the existing [clears throat] in the

24:36proposed or the site plan,

24:38we indicated that we're going to be

24:39installing retaining walls

24:41um to mitigate

24:43runoff into the neighboring properties.

24:46Uh in addition to that, we'd have

24:47swales. All that is presented on the

24:49site plan. And typically

24:52which will also be the case for this

24:54project, the zoning department and the

24:56building department would be looking at

24:58the

24:59our application to make sure that we

25:01adhere to all the guidelines.

25:05>> So, it looks like you got Appreciate the

25:06answers. It looks like you got 2 ft of

25:07grade change from the adjacent property

25:10to

25:12we'll say the bottom of the retaining

25:13wall on your side of the property.

25:16At the bottom of that retaining wall,

25:18are you going to put some sort of drain

25:19tile or something cuz it's going to just

25:20pool there

25:21and seep into their property. Do you

25:23have any plan there?

25:24>> Mhm. It's um we're going to be grading

25:27it towards the backyard um ensuring that

25:30nothing goes over. I mean, we're lower

25:33than we're going to be lower than the

25:34neighboring homes. Mhm. So, there's not

25:37going to be a runoff into the

25:38neighboring properties.

25:40>> Thanks. Appreciate it.

25:41>> Yep. Thanks.

25:43>> All right.

25:44Um

25:45does anybody else want to speak?

25:48With that, I will close the public

25:50hearing. Board comment.

25:59Anybody?

26:00Mr.

26:02>> Feel like I'm uh monopolizing the

26:03microphone here. If anybody else wants

26:05to talk.

26:05>> ahead.

26:06>> Uh I mean, I

26:08uh I hear the neighbor's concern. I

26:09think it's a legitimate concern. I do

26:11see on the plan there's a retaining

26:12wall. It's a 2-ft grade change from

26:14neighbor to this uh property in

26:16question. 2-ft grade change is pretty

26:18significant to hold back retaining wall.

26:21I don't see a drainage issue. I see

26:23where they're coming from, but I think

26:24the staff got it right. I'd like to hear

26:26anybody else's comments, though.

26:27>> Thank you, Mr. Hutchins. Other board

26:30comment? Yes, Mr. Eickholt.

26:32>> Um yeah, I mean, yeah, ditto to all of

26:34that. I think um from from my my

26:37perspective, it you know, it sounds like

26:38that uh zoning staff and that will be

26:41keeping an eye on those things, too. So,

26:42I think it's something to for them to

26:44keep an eye on, and it sounds like that

26:46is part of the process, and it does seem

26:48like there are mitigation things going

26:49on to start with, and they'll be making

26:51sure that those are uh you know,

26:53continued going forward to get this

26:56final approval. But for in terms of the

26:58actual variance that we're looking at, I

27:00think staff found it correctly for for

27:02the things that are within our purview.

27:04So, yeah, I'll be in support.

27:07>> Okay.

27:08Anybody else?

27:12Yes, Mr. Ingram.

27:13>> I move staff findings.

27:15>> Is there a second to that?

27:17>> Second.

27:17>> It's moved and seconded. Is there any

27:19further discussion on the motion? And

27:22the motion is to

27:24um approve the request for the variance.

27:27So, with that, I will ask the clerk to

27:30call the roll.

27:32>> Board member Callahan.

27:34>> Aye.

27:35>> Board member Eickholt.

27:36>> Aye.

27:37>> Board member Hutchins.

27:38>> Aye.

27:38>> Board member Ingram.

27:39>> Aye.

27:40>> Board member Smirkarva.

27:42>> Aye.

27:43>> Vice Chair Wang.

27:44>> Aye.

27:45>> Chair Perry.

27:48>> I I don't vote.

27:50>> But I will vote aye.

27:51>> There are seven ayes.

27:56>> And with that,

27:59um

28:00your request is approved. Um to the

28:02people who dissented, I think one of the

28:05things you can do is talk to Mr.

28:07Carrier, Mr. Willette, I'm sorry,

28:11um about um

28:13the the process going forward and what

28:15kind of uh protections you can get from

28:18the city as they are as a project going

28:20forward, cuz you

28:22you hear the city is they're not just

28:24going to let things be built. They're

28:27going to be keeping an eye on the

28:29project itself. So, my hope is it all

28:33works out for you. I think it will.

28:36Um the other thing I would do is

28:38definitely keep in contact with the

28:41builder.

28:42Um and as long as he's open to

28:45communication, which it sounds like you

28:47would be, sir.

28:48Uh then, I think things will work out.

28:52Thanks for coming down.

28:54Appreciate it.

28:59Um we have an agenda item number six,

29:03which is approval of the 2027 calendar.

29:07Um as I often state um at this time of

29:10year when we have a calendar,

29:12uh our calendar is dictated by

29:15the council calendar. And so,

29:19um

29:19you can offer suggestions, but they will

29:22not be accepted.

29:24>> [laughter]

29:27[gasps]

29:28>> You have to run for council.

29:30>> [snorts]

29:31>> Um with with that, I would entertain a

29:34motion to uh

29:36approve the 2027 calendar.

29:38>> So moved.

29:39>> Second.

29:40>> And with that, uh maybe we can just uh

29:44do a uh all in favor.

29:46>> I.

29:46>> I.

29:47>> I.

29:47>> I.

29:47>> Any against? Any abstentions?

29:50That's approved. And so, uh let's just

29:53see.

29:55Um there are updates from Mr. Ellis, I

29:57know.

29:59>> Uh Chair Perry, members of the board, we

30:02do not have any complete applications

30:03that we're able to go in time for

30:04noticing for the November 5th meeting of

30:07the Board of Adjustment, so we will be

30:08canceling that now. Uh you'll receive

30:10notices on that via GovDelivery and

30:13whatever else.

30:14Um otherwise, uh we I believe we do have

30:17some applications that are in process

30:19for the next meeting after.

30:20>> Yeah, so I think the next meeting after

30:23is the 19th of November, if I have that

30:26right.

30:27So,

30:28if you could put that on your calendars,

30:30and we'll see you all then. Is there a

30:32motion to adjourn?

30:34>> So moved.

30:34>> Second.

30:35>> All in favor, indicate by saying I.

30:37>> I.

30:38>> I.

30:38>> I.

31:38>> Mhm.