[0:23] >> 31st, 2025, ZONING BOARD OF [0:25] ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING. MY [0:26] NAME IS MATT PERRY AND I'M CHAIR [0:27] OF THE BOARD. I WILL NOW CALL [0:29] THIS MEETING TO ORDER, AND ASK [0:31] THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL SO [0:32] THAT WE MAY VERIFY THE PRESENCE [0:33] OF A QUORUM. [0:37] >> BOARD MEMBER CALLAHAN. [0:38] >> PRESENT. [0:42] >> IKE HOLES. [0:43] >> HERE. [0:43] >> GRANS KORSH. [0:44] >> HERE. [0:45] >> INGRAHAM IS A ABSENT. [0:50] PERRY. [0:51] >> HERE. [0:51] >> SMRIKAROVA IS ABSENT. [0:53] >> WANG. [0:53] >> HERE. [0:54] >> WE HAVE SIX MEMBERS PRESENT. [0:54] >> WE DO HAVE QUORUM AND WITH [0:56] THAT WE WILL PROCEED TO THE [0:57] AGENDA, A COPY OF WHICH WAS [0:58] POSTED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE [1:00] CITY'S LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION [1:02] MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AVAILABLE AT [1:07] LIMS.MINNEAPOLISMN.GOV. IS [1:08] THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS [1:09] AGENDA? [1:09] >> SO MOVED. [1:10] >> SECOND. [1:10] >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. IS [1:11] THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE [1:13] MOTION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN [1:14] FAVOR OF THE MOTION, INDICATE BY [1:15] SAYING AYE. ANY AGAINST, [1:18] INDICATE BY SAYING NAY. THAT [1:20] MOTION PASSES, AND THE AGENDA IS [1:23] APPROVED. I BELIEVE ALL THE [1:27] BOARD MEMBERS HAVE SEEN A COPY [1:28] OF THE MINUTES FROM THE [1:30] JULY 17th, 2025, ZONING BOARD [1:31] OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING S. THERE A [1:32] MOTION TO APPROVE? [1:34] >> SO PLUVED. [1:35] >> SECOND. [1:35] >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. IS [1:37] THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE [1:38] MOTION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN [1:41] FAVOR OF THE MOTION, INDICATE BY [1:43] SAYING AYE. ALL AGAINST, [1:44] INDICATE BY SAYING NAY. IF YOU [1:47] WEREN'T HERE, PLEASE ABSTAIN. [1:48] >> ABSTAIN. [1:49] >> THERE'S ONE ABSTENTION, THAT [1:50] MOTION PASSES, AND THE MINUTES [1:51] FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF [1:55] ADJUSTMENT JULY 17th, 2025, [1:55] MEETING ARE APPROVED. REMINDER [1:59] TO APPLICANTS AND OTHERS, IF [2:02] YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK AT THE [2:02] PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE SIGN IN [2:04] ON THE SHEET AVAILABLE FROM THE [2:06] CLERK, AND SPEAK CLEARLY INTO [2:08] THE MICROPHONE. IF YOU HAVE NOT [2:10] SIGNED IN YET, YOU CAN DO SO ON [2:11] YOUR WAY OUT. ALSO TO [2:13] APPLICANTS AND OTHERS, PLEASE [2:16] CONTACT STAFF AFTER THE HEARING [2:16] WITH ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING [2:18] THEIR PROJECTS, AND IF YOU HAVE [2:20] SOMETHING LIKE THIS, PLEASE TURN [2:21] IT OFF OR TURN IT ON SILENT SO [2:23] AS TO NOT DISTURB TODAY'S [2:25] PROCEEDINGS. LET'S REVIEW THE [2:30] AGENDA. I WILL READ THE AGENDA [2:32] NUMBER AND THE ADDRESS OF THE [2:32] PROJECT AND STATE WHETHER IT'S [2:33] SLATED FOR CONSENT, CONTINUANCE, [2:36] WITHDRAWAL, RETURN, OR [2:38] DISCUSSION. LET'S LOOK AT THE [2:42] RECOMMENDED DISPOSITIONS OF OUR [2:43] LAND USE REQUEST ITEMS TODAY. [2:44] AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4 IS 400 [2:47] PROSPECT AVENUE. THIS IS A [2:48] DISCUSSION ITEM. AGENDA ITEM [2:52] NUMBER 5 IS 53 23rd AVENUE [2:56] NORTHEAST. STAFF IS [2:57] RECOMMENDING THIS ITEM FOR [2:59] CONSENT. IS THERE ANYONE TO [3:00] SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? I SEE [3:06] NO ONE. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6 IS [3:10] 2903 HIAWATHA AVENUE. STAFF IS [3:13] RECOMMENDING THIS ITEM FOR [3:14] CONSENT. IS THERE ANYONE TO [3:16] SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? I SEE [3:22] NO ONE. LET'S REVIEW THE ITEMS [3:26] ON OUR AGENDA FOR CONSENT. THEY [3:29] ARE 5 AND 6. IS THERE A MOTION [3:31] TO ADOPT THESE ITEMS ON [3:32] CONSENT? [3:32] >> SO MOVED. [3:34] >> SECOND. [3:34] >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. IS [3:35] THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE [3:36] MOTION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN [3:39] FAVOR, INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. [3:43] ANY BE AGAINST, INDICATE BY [3:46] SAYING NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? [3:48] SEW THSO THAT MOTION [3:50] PASSES AND IF YOU WERE HERE FOR [3:51] ITEMS 5 OR 6, YOUR LAND USE [3:53] REQUESTS ARE APPROVED . GOOD [3:56] LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECTS AND [3:58] THANKS FOR COMING DOWN FOR THIS [4:01] HEARING. SO LET'S GO BACK TO [4:04] AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4, 400 [4:08] PROSPECT AVENUE. MS. BRANDT, [4:11] AND IF WE COULD, THERE ARE TWO [4:16] VARIANCES. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO [4:18] IS DO A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE [4:24] ONE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING FOR [4:25] CONCEPT, AND P -- CONCEPT, AND [4:30] PUT MAJOR FOCUS ON THE ONE STAFF [4:31] IS RECOMMENDING FOR DENIAL. [4:38] >> CLERK, CAN WE GET THE [4:39] DOCUMENT CAMERA? THANK YOU. [4:52] GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR PERRY, [4:52] MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THE ITEM [4:54] BEFORE YOU IS 400 PROSPECT [4:56] AVENUE, AND JUST FOR A MATTER OF [4:58] CLARITY, THIS PARCEL IS IN THE [4:58] PROCESS OF BEING SPLIT. SO THE [5:01] PREVIOUS ADDRESS WAS 400 [5:03] PROSPECT. THE NEW ADDRESS OF [5:05] THE WESTERN PARCEL OF THE [5:06] SUBJECT OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST [5:09] IS LIKELY TO BE 404. IT IS [5:13] REFERRED TO SOMETIMES AS 400 [5:14] PROSPECT. SOMETIMES AS 404. [5:17] SOMETIMES AS 400 PARCEL B. JUST [5:18] FOR A MATTER OF CLARITY, WE ARE [5:20] TALKING ABOUT THE WESTERN [5:21] PORTION OF THE FORMER SITE AS [5:23] CLEARLY INDICATED ON THE SITE [5:25] PLAN THAT THE LINES OF THE [5:29] EXTENT OF CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED [5:30] FOR THIS PROJECT, BUT JUST TO [5:31] PUT THAT OUT THERE FOR A POINT [5:32] OF CLARITY. THE ADDRESS WILL [5:34] LIKELY CHANGE FROM WHAT IT IS. [5:37] HASN'T FULLY GONE THROUGH ALL OF [5:40] THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS WITH [5:42] HENNEPIN COUNTY AND CITY OF [5:44] MINNEAPOLIS, BUT, THERE'S NO [5:47] CHANCE THAT WE'LL GET UNAPPROVED [5:48] T. JUST HASN'T FULLY FINALIZED [5:49] GETTING AN ADDRESS YET. THE [5:55] SITE IS LOCATED MIDTOWN IN [5:58] TANGALTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD WITH [5:59] RECTANGULAR WIDTH OF 42 FEET AND [6:00] A DEPTH OF 232257 FEET FOR A [6:04] TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 9200. [6:06] IT IS IN THE UN1 ZONING DISTRICT [6:09] WITH THE INTERIOR 1 AND AIRPORT [6:11] OVERLAY DISTRICT. CURRENTLY [6:12] THIS SITE IS VACANT. A HOUSE [6:15] THERE WAS DEMOLISHED IN EARLY [6:18] 2024 WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE [6:19] PARCEL SPL ALONG THE ORIGINAL [6:20] PLATTING APPROVED IN APRIL OF [6:26] 2024. THE SITE IS MODERATELY [6:27] SLOPED AT THE FRONT, AND MORE [6:29] STEEPLY SLOPED TOWARDS THE REAR. [6:31] THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU IS TO [6:32] BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WITH [6:34] A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING [6:35] UNIT. THE REQUESTED VARIANCES [6:37] ARE TO REDUCE THE ESTABLISHED [6:39] FRONT YARD, WHICH IS SHOWN HERE [6:42] ON THE SITE PLAN DRAWN IN RED. [6:47] THEY'RE ALSO REQUESTING TO [6:49] INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF THE [6:51] DWELLING. OTHER THAN THE [6:53] REQUESTED VARIANCES, THE [6:54] PROPOSAL WILL COMPLY WITH THE [6:55] ZONING CODE. THE PROPOSED FLOOR [6:57] AREA RATIO IS 0.41, AND THE [7:00] PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IS [7:02] 39%. THE VARIANCE FINDING FOR [7:05] REDUCING THE FRONT YARD IS BASED [7:07] ON THE UNIQUE CHALLENGE OF A [7:10] 40-INCH MATURE WHITE OAK TREE. [7:12] THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES [7:13] PRESERVATION OF SUBSTANTIAL OR [7:15] NATIVE TREE SPECIMENS. A WHITE [7:17] OAK OF 40 INCHES IS BOTH OF [7:19] THOSE, SO THE ZONING ORDINANCE [7:21] DOES REQUIRE THAT THAT TREE BE [7:23] PRESERVED BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE. [7:27] THIS, THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE [7:28] FRONT YARD DOES ALSO MEET THE [7:29] SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE [7:31] ORDINANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE [7:31] PLAN, AND WOULD NOT ALTER THE [7:33] ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA. [7:34] SO STAFF FINDS THAT ALL THREE [7:36] OF THE REQUIRED FINDINGS ARE MET [7:38] FOR THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE [7:40] ESTABLISHED FRONT YARD. WITH [7:45] REGARDS TO THE REQUEST TO [7:47] INCREASE THE HEIGHT, WE HAVE [7:58] HERE THE FRONT ELEVATION. THE [8:02] HEIGHT OF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME [8:02] IS MEASURED FROM THE EXISTING [8:05] GRADE POINT TO 10 FEET IN FRONT [8:05] OF THE CENTER OF THE STRUCTURE. [8:07] IN THE STAFF REPORT THERE ARE [8:09] VERY DETAILED NUMBERS ABOUT THE [8:11] GRADE CHANGE AND THE CONSTRUCTED [8:13] PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION HEIGHT OF [8:14] THE DWELLING, BUT STAFF FINDS [8:16] THE CHALLENGES, UNIQUE [8:18] CHALLENGES DO NOT EXIST ON THIS [8:19] SITE. THE DEGREE OF THE SLOPE [8:20] OF THE FRONT YARD IS RELATIVELY [8:22] STANDARD FOR A LOT IN [8:24] MINNEAPOLIS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU [8:25] CONSIDER THAT WE ARE MEASURING [8:26] FROM THE FRONT FACADE TO THAT [8:28] POINT 10 FEET IN FRONT OF THE [8:29] CENTER OF THE STRUCTURE. THE [8:31] MAJORITY OF THE SLOPE ON THE [8:32] FRONT OF THE LOT IS THAT SORT OF [8:35] A SIDEWAYS ANGLE, SO THERE IS [8:38] VERY MINIMAL SLOPE WITHIN THAT [8:39] FIRST 10 FEET IN FRONT OF THE [8:40] HOUSE, WHICH IS WHERE WE MEASURE [8:42] THE HEIGHT TO. THE PROPOSAL [8:44] DOES NOT MEET THE SPIRIT OR [8:46] INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE OR OF [8:48] THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH IS [8:49] INTENDING TO LIMIT THE BULK OF [8:51] THE HOUSE, AND THEIR APPEARANCE [8:53] FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE [8:54] EXISTING GRADE OF THE [8:55] NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE AMOUNT OF [8:57] EXCAVATION PROPOSED WILL NOT [8:58] SATISFY THESE REQUIREMENTS. THE [9:00] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALSO REQUIRES [9:02] THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT BE HELD TO [9:03] THE SAME STANDARDS AS EXISTING [9:06] DEVELOPMENT WHEN REQUESTING [9:08] INCREASES TO THE HEIGHT OF A [9:11] PROPOSED DWELLING. THE PROPOSAL [9:12] WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL [9:14] CHARACTER OF THE AREA OR BE [9:17] DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, [9:18] SAFETY, OR WELFARE OF THOSE [9:19] UTILIZING THE PROPERTY OR [9:20] NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. STAFF [9:22] IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD [9:23] OF ADJUSTMENT DENY THIS VARIANCE [9:24] DUE TO FINDINGS 1 AND 2 NOT [9:25] BEING MET, AND I WILL STAND FOR [9:27] QUESTIONS. [9:28] >> THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION. [9:29] ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF STAFF? I [9:34] SEE NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [9:37] LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. [9:38] IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? DO [9:43] YOU WANT TO SPEAK? [9:45] >> SURE. [9:48] >> OKAY, SO IF YOU COULD GIVE [9:49] YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE [9:51] RECORD, AND THEN BETWEEN 10 AND [9:55] 15 MINUTES MAX, AND, AND IF YOU [10:02] COULD ASSUME WE HAVE READ THE [10:04] REPORT SO JUST HIGHLIGHTS THE [10:06] THINGS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO TALK [10:07] ABOUT. [10:10] >> SURE. ROBIN GANZER, CURRENT [10:11] ADDRESS AT 3510 PLEASANT. AND [10:14] YEAH, THE OWNER OF 400 PROSPECT. [10:17] REALLY APPRECIATE THE STAFF [10:19] REPORT. I THINK THE ANALYSIS ON [10:22] THE FRONT SETBACK IS GREAT, [10:25] MAKES SENSE. BEAUTIFUL TREE. [10:27] YOU KNOW, SUPPORT FROM BOTH OF [10:28] THE NEIGHBORS TO DO SO. AND [10:30] JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THOSE [10:31] EXISTING HOMES ARE SET BACK [10:33] QUITE A BIT FROM THE STREET. SO [10:35] PUSHING THE FRONT PORCH INTO THE [10:40] REQUIRED SETBACK, YOU KNOW, I [10:42] THINK WILL ACTUALLY COMPLEMENT [10:44] THE NEIGHBORHOOD QUITE WELL. [10:45] THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO NOTE [10:49] ON THE HEIGHT IS THE KIND OF [10:52] INCONSISTENCIES WITHIN THE [10:54] ZONING CODE WHERE NONRESIDENTIAL [10:56] STRUCTURES WITHIN THE ZONING [10:58] DISTRICT ARE ALLOWED 35 FEET. [11:00] RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ARE [11:02] ALLOWED 2 1/2 STORIES, WHICH AT [11:05] A 24-FOOT WIDE KIND OF STANDARD [11:06] HOUSE, YOU CAN'T REALLY FIT [11:08] WITHIN 33 FEET. AND THEN [11:11] THERE'S THE 28-FOOT MIDPOIND. [11:12] THERE ARE JUST KIND OF THESE [11:15] THREE STANDARDS THAT ARE EACH A [11:16] LITTLE BIT INCONSISTENT WITH [11:17] EACH OTHER DEPENDING UPON THE [11:18] WIDTH OF THE HOUSE, SO YOU KNOW, [11:20] DESIGNING THE FLOOR TO SIT VERY [11:22] CLOSE TO GRADE WITH TOP COURT [11:26] BEARING TRUSSES GETS THE [11:27] STRUCTURE AS DESIGNED WITH A [11:31] 12X12 ROOF WITHIN THAT 35 FEET. [11:33] I UNDERSTAND IF IT'S A DENIAL, [11:35] YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT THE END OF [11:36] THE WORLD. WHERE JUST DI -- [11:39] I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THE [11:41] GOAL WAS TO KIND OF CREATE SOME [11:42] CONSISTENCY, BOTH OF THE 12X12 [11:44] THAT YOU SEE ALL OVER SOUTH [11:46] MINNEAPOLIS WITH THAT KIND OF [11:46] FORM OF HOUSE, GET THE 2 1/2 [11:49] STORIES, AND FIT WITHIN THE [11:51] 35 FEET THAT'S ALLOWED FOR [11:53] NONRESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. [11:56] >> OKAY, THANKS. [11:57] >> THAT'S ALL. [11:58] >> WE CAN DO A QUICK TO HELP YOU [12:01] OUT. MR. ELLIS S , IS THAT [12:04] SOMETHING YOU CAN SPEAK TO TO [12:05] WHY THAT LIMITATION EXISTS? [12:09] >> I APOLOGIZE, CHAIR PERRY. I [12:12] WASN'T PAYING FULL ATTENTION AT [12:14] THAT CAPACITY. YEAH, I WAS [12:15] CHECKING MY EMAIL. [12:18] >> WHY THE 12X12 LIMITATION AT [12:23] 28 FEET? [12:23] >> CHAIR PERRY, MEMBERS OF THE [12:24] BOARD. THE HEIGHT LIMITATION [12:26] ISN'T NECESSARILY EXPLICIT TO [12:27] THE ACTUAL PITCH. IT IS MORE -- [12:29] I MEAN, WE REGULATE HEIGHT BASED [12:32] ON STORIES AND FEET TO THE [12:34] MIDPOINT, AND MAX, AND TO THE [12:35] PEAK. SO AS YOU GET A STEEPER [12:37] ROOF PITCH, YOU'RE GOING TO JUST [12:39] RUN INTO THOSE NUMBERS JUST [12:42] NATURALLY WITH THAT, ESPECIALLY [12:43] THE PEAK HEIGHT BECAUSE THAT YOU [12:47] KNOW ON A STEEPER ROOF PITCH, [12:49] YOU'RE GOING TO HIT THAT EVEN IF [12:50] YOU CAN MANAGE TO MAKE THE [12:51] MIDPOINT BE BELOW THE [12:54] REQUIREMENT. [12:55] >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. [12:56] >> YEAH, JUST TO REITERATE THAT [12:57] WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS AT A KIND [13:00] OF STANDARD 24-FOOT WIDE HOUSE, [13:01] WHICH IS COMMON ACROSS SOUTH [13:03] MINNEAPOLIS, AND A 12X12 ROOF [13:05] WHICH S YOU KNOW, DOMINANT IN [13:07] THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU ACTUALLY [13:08] CAN'T GET 2 1/2 STORIES WITHIN [13:10] THE 33 FEET. THE 28 FEET, YES. [13:13] BUT IT USUALLY PUSHES UP TO [13:16] ABOUT 34 1/2, WHICH IS WHAT THIS [13:17] IS, THIS IS DESIGNED AT. AND I [13:19] WAS NOTING THE INCONSISTENCY [13:21] WITHIN THE ZONING CATEGORY, [13:24] WHERE RESIDENTIAL HAS A 33-FOOT [13:26] LIMIT BUT NONRESIDENTIAL, WHICH [13:28] WOULD GENERALLY HAVE GREATER [13:29] BULK ANYWAY, HAS THE 35-FOOT [13:31] LIMIT. SO I WAS SIMPLY [13:32] REQUESTING THE SAME AS THE [13:33] NONRESIDENTIAL USES OF THE [13:35] 35 FEET, WHICH WOULD, YOU KNOW, [13:37] CREATE CONSISTENCY WITHIN THE [13:38] CODE. [13:39] >> YEAH, AND THAT IS SOMETHING I [13:42] WOULD SAY WE CANNOT VARY BASED [13:45] ON THE LOGIC THAT YOU JUST [13:48] PRESENTED. [13:48] >> SURE. [13:48] >> IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING [13:50] UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY. [13:52] >> RIGHT, LIKE SLOPE -- [13:55] >> RIGHT, THAT THEN PRESENTS A [13:56] PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR YOU. [13:58] >> SURE. [14:00] >> OKAY. [14:00] >> ?IEWR. [14:00] >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? [14:02] >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I [14:03] DON'T SEE ANY. THANKS FOR [14:05] COMING DOWN. [14:05] >> YEAH, THANK YOU. [14:06] >> IS THERE ANYONE WHO -- ANYONE [14:09] ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN [14:10] FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION? IS [14:15] THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO [14:16] SPEAK AGAINST IT? [14:18] >> YES. [14:19] >> GREAT. IF YOU COULD COME UP [14:20] TO THE PODIUM, GIVE YOUR NAME [14:24] AND ADDRESS -- [14:28] >> [OFF MIC] [14:31] >> SURE. [14:32] >> I'M MIKE McCABE. I'M A [14:34] CLOSE NEIGHBOR OF THE PLACE. [14:34] BEEN THERE FOR 20 YEARS IN [14:36] TANGLETOWN, AND I WANT TO [14:37] ADDRESS A FEW INADEQUACIES [14:38] ALREADY MENTIONED. ONE IS THE [14:41] PITCH OF THE ROOF OF THE HOUSE [14:42] DOES NOT AT ALL MATCH ANYTHING [14:46] NEAR THE SURROUNDING AREA. IT'S [14:47] COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN [14:48] ANYTHING ELSE. IT'S TRYING TO [14:52] MAXIMIZE THE SMALL PLOT, WHICH [14:53] WAS A DOUBLE LOT, NOW IT'S A [14:55] SINGLE LOT. AND IF YOU'RE [14:58] LOOKING AT THE SOUTH ASPECT OF [15:01] THIS HOUSE, LOOKING TOWARD THE [15:02] STREET, YOU'RE FACING THE WATER [15:05] TOWER. YOU KNOW THE TYPES OF [15:06] HOUSES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. [15:08] THIS HOUSE WILL NO WAY FIT IN. [15:11] IT'LL STICK OUT LIKE A SORE [15:13] THUMB. NOT THAT YOU HAVE TO [15:15] CONSIDER THAT, BUT IT IS IN NO [15:17] WAY KEEPING OF ANY HOUSE IN THE [15:19] NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT NOW. ANOTHER [15:21] INCONSISTENCY IS THAT THE [15:24] NOTIFICATIONS ON THE LOT LINES, [15:27] THE YELLOW TAG THAT IS ON [15:28] INDICATING THAT THERE IS A [15:29] HEARING TODAY, ONE IS ON THE [15:31] PROPERTY OF 400, AND THE OTHER [15:33] ONE IS ON 404, COMPLETELY [15:36] DIFFERENT PID NUMBERS, OWNED BY [15:37] THE SAME PERSON, BUT STILL, IT'S [15:41] AN ERROR IN FILING OF THE [15:44] PROPERTY OR OF THE NOTICE. SO I [15:46] BELIEVE THAT THE VARIANCE TO THE [15:47] CITY ORDINANCES SHOULD NOT BE [15:49] GRANTED FOR THE FOLLOWING [15:52] REASONS. CONSISTENCY WITH [15:52] ZONING AND PLANNING GOALS, [15:54] GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD IF [15:56] THE MINE THE CITY'S LONG-TERM [15:58] ZONING PLANS AND OBJECTIVES. [15:59] THE EXISTING ORDINANCES ARE [16:01] DESIGNED TO ENSURE ORDERLY [16:03] DEVELOPMENT PRESERVE THE [16:04] CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD [16:06] AND PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND [16:07] SAFETY. THIS DOESN'T FIT IN AT [16:10] ALL. ALLOWING DEVIATIONS FROM [16:11] THESE STANDARDS COULD SET A [16:13] PRECEDENT THAT ENCOURAGES [16:15] FURTHER NONCOMPLIANT [16:18] DEVELOPMENTS. ULTIMATELY [16:18] DISRUPTING THE COMMUNITY'S [16:20] COHESION AND AESTHETIC INTEGRITY [16:24] . IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORING [16:25] PROPERTIES. THE REQUESTING, [16:28] REQUESTED VARIANCE COULD [16:29] NEGATIVELY AFFECT SURROUNDING [16:30] PROPERTIES, ESPECIALLY IN TERMS [16:32] OF AESTHETICS, PRIVACY, AND [16:34] POTENTIAL FOR OVERCROWDING. [16:36] THEY TOOK A SINGLE LOT, WHICH [16:37] WAS A DOUBLE LOT, CUT IT IN TWO, [16:39] AND ARE NOW BUILDING LOT LINE TO [16:41] LOT LINE. AND THAT'S WHAT IS [16:44] SHOWN THERE WITH THAT GARAGE IS [16:46] THE ONLY PLACE YOU CAN PUT IT [16:48] ON, SO TO NARROW, NARROW LOT. [16:51] IT'S LONG BUT NARROW, LONG BUT [16:53] NARROW. DEV AIATING FROM [16:55] ESTABLISHED GUIDELINES COULD [16:56] DIMINISH THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR [16:58] NEIGHBORS, ME AND MY OTHER [16:59] NEIGHBOR WHO WAS HERE AND REDUCE [17:00] PROPERTY VALUES IN THE AREA [17:01] WHICH WOULD NOT ALIGN WITH THE [17:03] CITY'S MISSION TO MAINTAIN AND [17:04] IMPROVE RESIDENTIAL AND [17:07] COMMERCIAL AREAS. LACK OF [17:08] HARDSHIP. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT [17:10] DEMONSTRATED A LEGITIMATE [17:12] HARDSHIP THAT JUSTIFIES THIS [17:14] VARIANCE. THE PURPOSE OF [17:15] VARIANCES IS TO ADDRESS [17:17] SITUATIONS WHERE STRICT [17:18] APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE [17:20] WOULD CREATE AN UNDUE BURDEN OF [17:22] THE PROPERTY OWNER. I DON'T SEE [17:24] AN UNDUE BURDEN. YOU LOOK AT [17:26] THE THREE HOUSES THAT THEY WANT [17:27] TO BUILD IN LINE. THIS ONE'S [17:29] GOING TO STICK OUT. ON ANNUAL [17:31] BUDGETTAL FROM THE OTHER TWO ON [17:34] EITHER -- ON AN ANNUAL FROM THE [17:34] OTHER TWO ON EITHER SIDE OF IT. [17:36] BUT THIS DOES FOUGHT -- THE [17:38] PURPOSE OF THE VARIANCE IS TO [17:40] ADDRESS SITUATIONS WHERE STRICT [17:41] APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE [17:42] WOULD CREATE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON [17:44] THE PROPERTY OWNER. BUT THIS [17:46] DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE CASE [17:48] HERE. THE APPLICANT CAN STILL [17:50] DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY IN [17:51] COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING RULES, [17:53] AND THERE IS NO COMPELLING [17:54] REASONS TO DEVIATE FROM THE [17:57] ESTABLISHED CODE. IN ADDITION [17:58] THIS HOME SITE HAS BEEN [18:01] CONTENTIOUS. SOME OF YOU MAY [18:02] HAVE BEEN HERE A COUPLE YEARS [18:04] AGO WH WHEN THEY HAPPEN [18:06] THEY WANTED TO CARE IT -- WHEN [18:08] THEY WANTED TO TEAR IT DOWN AND [18:09] WE DIDN'T WANT IT. THE PREVIOUS [18:13] DOUBLE LOT HAS BEEN DIVIDED IN [18:14] HALF, AND WILL NOT BE IN KEEPING [18:17] WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTY. [18:18] I'D REQUEST DENIAL OF ANY [18:22] VARIANCE OF THE PROPERTIES AT [18:24] 4400 PROSPECT AVENUE OR 404 [18:27] PROSPECT AVENUE, WHICH IS WHERE [18:29] THE NOTICE IS POSTED. [18:31] >> THAT WAS GOING TO BE ONE OF [18:33] MY QUESTIONS. YOU USED THE WORD [18:35] VARIANCE THROUGHOUT YOUR [18:38] STATEMENT, AND THERE ARE TWO [18:41] VARIANCES. ARE YOU -- [18:42] >> BOTH OF THEM. [18:44] >> SO YOU'RE SAYING BOTH, BOTH [18:48] VARIANCES APPLY TO THE [18:49] STATEMENTS THAT YOU READ? [18:50] >> THE VARIANCE OF HEIGHT [18:53] REQUIREMENT, IF YOU STAND OUT IN [18:54] THE STREET OR IF YOU'RE LOOKING [18:56] AT THE GORGEOUS WATER TOWER [18:57] BEHIND YOU, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE [18:59] LOVELY HOUSE A LOVELY HOUSE, AND [19:02] WITH A BIG POINTY PIECE OF NEW [19:05] MANUFACTURING, WHICH IS NOT [19:06] GOING TO FIT. I THINK THE [19:08] HOUSES ON EITHER SIDE DON'T HAVE [19:11] A 12X12 PITCH ON THEM. THEY [19:12] DON'T HAVE A 6X6 PITCH. THEY [19:15] MAY EVEN BE A FLAT ROOF. I'M [19:16] NOT REALLY SURE. [19:17] >> SO YOU'RE AGREEING WITH [19:19] STAFF. [19:20] >> THAT THEY SHOULD DECLINE THIS [19:21] VARIANCE, BOTH OF THEM. [19:22] >> YEAH, OH, BOTH OF THEM. [19:23] >> BOTH VARIANCES, IT JUST [19:24] DOESN'T FIT. AND IT'S AN [19:26] ATTEMPT TO MAXIMIZE A LOVELY [19:29] LOT, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY [19:30] PLATTED AS A DOUBLE AND NOW [19:32] THEY'RE SPLIT STING UP AND IT'S [19:33] NOT GOING -- SPLITTING IT UP AND [19:35] IT'S NOT GOING TO FIT. THERE [19:35] ARE SO MANY DOUBLE LOTS IN THIS [19:37] NEIGHBORHOOD. I'VE GOT A DOUBLE [19:38] LOT. HEATHER'S GOT A DOUBLE [19:39] LOT. EVERYBODY'S GOT A DOUBLE [19:41] LOT AND WE BUILT THAT WAY. AND [19:42] NOW THIS THING'S GOING TO BE, [19:45] IT'S, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH A [19:46] SHOT GUN HOUSE, THAT'S WHAT THIS [19:49] PIECE OF PROPERTY IS. IT'S JUST [19:51] A NARROW PIECE OF PROPERTY LIKE [19:53] YOU WOULD FIND IN NEW ORLEANS [19:55] WHERE YOU CAN FIRE A SHOT GUN [19:56] FROM THE FRONT DOOR RIGHT OUT [19:58] THE BACK DOOR, THAT'S WHY THEY [19:59] CALL IT A SHOT GUN HOUSE IN NEW [20:01] ORLEANS. THIS IS NOT GOING TO [20:02] FIT AT ALL. THAT'S WHAT I HAVE [20:07] TO SAY. I'LL -- ANY QUESTIONS? [20:09] >> OKAY. ARE THERE ANY [20:10] QUESTIONS OF MR. McCABE? I [20:12] SEE NONE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH [20:13] FOR THAT TESTIMONY. IS THERE [20:16] ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO [20:18] SPEAK AGAINST THIS APPLICATION? [20:22] AGAIN, YOU KNOW THE ROUTINE. [20:23] YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE [20:25] RECORD, PLEASE. [20:30] >> HI. MY NAME IS HEATHER [20:31] JONES. I LIVE AT 5100 HARRIET, [20:35] WHICH IS A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE [20:37] PROPERTY, AND I DID NOT COME [20:38] QUITE AS ORGANIZED AS MIKE DID, [20:42] BUT I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH [20:44] WHAT HE SHARED AND HIS POSITION [20:50] WITH THE PROPOSED BUILDING. [20:52] >> OKAY. THANKS FOR COMING [20:54] DOWN, GIVING TESTIMONY. [20:55] APPRECIATE IT. IS THERE ANYONE [20:57] ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK [20:59] AGAINST THIS APPLICATION? I SEE [21:02] NO ONE. SO WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE [21:05] THE PUBLIC HEARING. BOARD [21:08] COMMENT? YES? [21:09] >> THANKS, CHAIR PERRY. I THINK [21:10] THE STAFF READ IT RIGHT. I [21:12] THINK THE OAK TREE DOES GIVE [21:14] THEM PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WITH [21:16] THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND I [21:20] DON'T AGREE THAT THERE'S A [21:21] PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. I THINK [21:22] THE CITY READ IT RIGHT. I WOULD [21:23] MOVE STAFF FINDINGS IF THERE IS [21:24] NOTHING ELSE. [21:26] >> I SECOND THAT. [21:30] >>> SO THERE IS A MOTION AND A [21:32] SECOND TO BE DISCUSSED. IS [21:33] THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE [21:37] MOTION? I SEE NONE. WILL THE [21:38] CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? [21:43] >>> BOARD MEMBER CALLAHAN. [21:46] >> AYE. [21:50] >> EICHOZ. [21:51] >> AYE. [21:51] >> GRAN KORSH. [21:52] >> AYE. [21:53] >> HUTCHENS. [21:53] >> AYE . [21:56] >> WANG. [21:56] >> AYE. [21:56] >> THERE ARE FIVE AYES AND ZERO [21:58] NAYS. [21:59] >> THAT MOTION PASSES SO STAFF [22:01] RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED. AS [22:04] AS WRITTEN AND YOU CAN DEPENDING [22:07] ON WHAT YOUR POSITION IS, TALK [22:08] TO STAFF TO SEE WHAT YOUR [22:11] OPTIONS ARE. LET'S SEE. DO WE [22:17] HAVE ANY NEW BUSINESS OR [22:18] UNFINISHED BUSINESS? [22:19] >> CHAIR PERRY, MEMBERS OF THE [22:20] BOARD, THERE IS NO NEW BUSINESS [22:22] OR OLD BUSINESS, AND THERE ARE [22:23] NO COMMUNICATIONS. [22:25] >> OKAY. AND WE HAVE OUR NEXT [22:27] MEETING ON THE 14th OF AUGUST, [22:29] AND WITH THAT, I WOULD UNDER [22:31] ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. [22:34] >> SO MOVED. [22:34] >> SECOND. [22:35] >> WE'RE MOVED AND SECONDED. [22:35] ALL IN FAVOR, INDICATE BY SAYING [22:38] AYE. WE ARE ADJOURNED. [22:50]