[GAVEL] ≫ HELLO. BEFORE WE BEGIN THE MEETING, I WANT TO OFFER A FRIENDLY REMINDER TO ALL MEMBERS, STAFF, AND THE PUBLICTHAT THESE MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE TO ENABLE GREATER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. THESE BROADCASTS INCLUDE REALTIME CAPTIONING AS A FURTHER METHOD TO INCREASE THE ACCESSIBILITY OF OUR PROCEEDINGS TO THE COMMUNITY. THEREFORE, ALL SPEAKERS NEED TOBE MINDFUL OF THE RATE OF THEIR SPEECH SO THAT OUR CAPTIONERS CAN FULLY CAPTURE AND TRANSCRIBE ALL COMMENTS FOR THEBROADCAST. WE ASK ALL SPEAKERS TO MODERATE THE SPEED AND CHAIRLY OF THEIR COMMENTS. AND WITH THAT -- SPEED AND CLARITY OF THEIR COMMENTS. AND WITH THAT, WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. THIS IS THE MARCH 12, 2026 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING. MY NAME IS MATT PERRY AND I'M CHAIR OF THE BOARD. AS I SAID, I WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AND ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL SO THAT EWITH MAY VERIFY THE PRESENCE OF QUORUM. ≫ BOARD CALLAHAN. ≫ PRESENT. EICHOLZ, HERE. ≫ INGRAHAM, SMRIKAROVA IS ABSENT. CHAIR PERRY. ≫ HERE. ≫ WE DO HAVE QUORUM. WITH THAT, WE WILL PROCEED WITHTHE AGENDA WHICH WAS POSTED TO THE LIMS SYSTEM, AVAILABLE AT LIMS.MINNEAPOLIS.GOV. IS THERE A MOTION TO I A APPROVE THE AGENDA? ≫ MOVED. ≫ SECOND. ≫ IT IS MOVED AND SECONDED ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY AGAINST, SAY NAY. THAT MOTION IS APPROVED.I BELIEVE THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE SEEN A COPY FROM THE FEBRUARY 26, 2026 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? ≫ SO MOVE. ≫ SECOND. ≫ LET'S TRY THAT AGAIN. ≫ WHO'S MOVING? ≫ SO MOVED. ≫ SECOND. ≫ OKAY. IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION. HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, AND INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. ≫ ALL AGAINST INDICATE BY SAYING NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? ≫ INGRAHAM ABSTAINS. ≫ ALL RIGHT. AND THAT MOTION PASSES. AND THE MINUTES FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 26, 2026 MEETING ARE APPROVED. ALL RIGHT, GOOD. ≫ A REMINDER TO APPLICANTS AND OTHERS IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE SIGN IN ON THE SHEET AVAILABLE FROM THE CLERK. AND SPEAK CLEARLY INTO THE MICROPHONE. ALSO TO APPLICANTS AND OTHERS, PLEASE CONTACT STAFF AFTER THE HEARING WITH ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR PROJECTS. LET'S REVIEW THE AGENDA. I WILL READ THE AGENDA NUMBER AND ADDRESS OF THE PROJECT AND STATE WHETHER IT'S SLATED FOR CONSENT, CONTINUANCE, WITHDRAW, OR DISCUSSION. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS 1424 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH. THIS IS A DISCUSSION ITEM. AND AN AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS 726 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST.STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS ITEM FOR CONSENT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM?I SEE NO ONE. SO LET'S REVIEW THE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA FOR CONSENT. THEY ARE ITEMS NUMBER FIVE. ISTHERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THIS ITEM ON CONSENT? ≫ SO MOVED. ≫ SECOND. ≫ IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. ALLIN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. ANY AGAINST INDICATE BY SAYING NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? THAT MOTION PASSES. IF YOU WERE HERE FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, YOUR LAND USE REQUEST IS APPROVED. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING DOWN. SO LET'S GO BACK TO AGENDA ITEMNUMBER FOUR, 1424 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH. MR. OUELLETTE? ≫ CHAIR PERRY, BOARD MEMBERS, BEFORE YOU TODAY IS AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FENCE IN IF FRONT AND CORNER SIDE YARDS FROM 4 TO 6 FEET. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A CORNER LOT WITH FRONTAGE ALONG FREMONT AVENUE NORTH AND A CORNER SIDE YARD ALONG 15th AVENUE NORTH. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED URBAN 3 NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE EXISTING PRINCIPLE USE AND STRUCTURE IS A TWO AND A HALF STORY, TWO-FAMILY DWELLING. THE SURROUNDING AREA CONSISTS OF OTHER LOW DENSITY USES AND PROPERTIES ZONED UN2 AND UN3 DISTRICT. THE PROJECT IS TO LEGALIZE AN ALREADY INSTRUCTED 6-FOOT TALL FRENT IN THE FRONT AND CORNER SIDE YARDS. THE VARIANCE IS COMING FROM ZONING ENFORCEMENT WITH THE ORDERS CORRECT AND ISSUED IN AUGUST 2025. THE EXISTING FENCE IS BRICK PILLARS AND WRAUGHT IRON PANELS. APPROXIMATELY 52 LINEAR FEET ISSITUATED IN THE FRONT AND CORNER SIDE YARD, WHICH IS NONCOMPLIANT WITH THE FENCE HEIGHTS OF THE ZONING CODE. THE ORDINANCE LIMITS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FENCE IN THE FRONT AND CORNER SIDE YARDSTO 4 FEET WHERE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IS THORDZ AUTHORIZED AS FAR FORWARD AS NECESSARY TO ENCLOSE A CORNER ENTRANCE FACING THE CORNER SIDE YARD. WITH RESPECT TO THE VARIANCE FINDINGS, CHALLENGES DO NOT EXIST IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY. STAFF ASSERTS THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE BRICK PILLAR AND METAL FENCE ARE AN AESTHETIC CHOICE, AND THE INCREASED HEIGHT IS NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTYTHE REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THE INTENT OF THEZONING ORDINANCE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE REGULATING FENCE HEIGHT IS TO ENCOURAGE AN AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT AND ALLOW FOR PRIVACY WHILE MAINTAINING ACCESS TO LIGHT AND AIR. AND TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. THE STANDARDS ARE MORE RESTRICT IN THE FRONT AND CORNER SIDE YARDS AND THESE ARE PUBLIC-FACE PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW VISIBILITY TO AND FROM THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS PROVIDING A WELCOMING STREETSCAPE. THE FENCE WITH THE INCREASED HEIGHT ABUTTS SAND NOT SET BACK WHERE FEESE TO BELIEVE PRESERVE THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT. THE PROPOSED FENCE IS ORNAMENTAL AND THE DESIGN WOULD NOT BLOCK TRAFFIC SIGHT LINES ON ANY ADJACENT STREETS AND WOULD ALLOW VIEWS THROUGH THE FENCE IN THAT REGARD THE THIRD FINDING IS MET.STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT MEET ALL THREE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL, AND RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF A FENCE IN THE FRONT AND CORNER SIDE YARDS. WITH THAT, MY PRESENTATION CONCLUDES, AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. ≫ THANKS FOR THAT PRESENTATION. ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ≫ YES. ≫ ARE THE BRICK PILLARS -- IF THE METAL PART OF THE FENCE WAS LOWER, WOULD THE BRICK PILLARS STILL BE IN VIOLATION? ≫ YEAH, THOSE WOULD BE 6 FEET TALL AS WELL. SO THEY WOULD BE IN VIOLATION. ≫ OKAY. ≫ ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF?YES. ≫ THANKS, CHAIR PERRY. THANKS FOR YOUR REPORT. WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE? BRAND-NEW FENCE?REHABBED FENCE? HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN THERE? ≫ CHAIR PERRY, BOARD MEMBER HUTCHENS, COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? ≫ YEAH, SURE. WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE THIS EXISTING FENCE? ISTHIS A REHABILITATION FENCE? DID IT EXIST PREFER? IS THIS ATUCK POINTING AND THEY FIXED THE PILLARS? ≫ CHAIR PERRY, BOARD MEMBER HUTCHENS, THERE WAS PREVIOUSLY WOOD PANEL FENCE ANDI AM NOT AWARE OF THE SPECIFICS OF THE HEIGHT OR WHERE IT WAS LOCATED AND THE PROPERTY. ≫ I APPRECIATE THAT. WHAT IF IT WAS 6 FOOT TALL AND NONCONFORMING RIGHTS AND REPLACING A 6 FOOT FENCE WITH A 6 FOOT FENCE IN THE SAME LOCATION. ≫ CHAIR PERRY, BOARD MEMBER HUTCHENS, I THINK REPLACING THE FENCE WOULD CREATE ISSUES WITH COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A DEMOLITION OF THE PREVIOUS EXISTING FENCE. I DON'T THINK, AND MR. ELLIS CAN CONFIRM, THAT FENCES WOULD HAVE NONCONFORMING RIGHTS AS TOHEIGHT. ≫ CHAIR PERRY, BOARD MEMBER, YES, I MEAN, IF THEY WERE REPLACING AN EXISTING ONE, THEYWOULD HAVE NONCONFORMING RIGHTS TO IT, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS AN EXISTING FENCE PRIOR TO THIS. ≫ NOT A BRICK PILLAR, WRAUGHT IRON FENCE.≫ LOOKING AT THE GOOGLE STREET VIEW, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS A6-FOOT FENCE EXACTLY WHERE THIS WAS. AM I WRONG? ≫ CHAIR PERRY, BOARD MEMBER HUTCHENS -- ≫ 2019 STREET VIEW OF THE EXACTSAME ADDRESS AND A WOOD 6-FOOT FENCE IN THE EXACT SAME SPOT. I MEAN, EXACT SAME SPOT. ≫ I DON'T KNOW IF THAT -- ≫ SEEMS LIKE A NONCONFORMING. ≫ I DON'T KNOW IF THAT FENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN LEGALLY NONCONFORMING. ≫ THAT IS A SEPARATE ISSUE, TOO. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED. PERHAPS THERE WAS A FENCE BEFORE AND EVIDENTLY YOU ARE SHOWING ONE ON STREET VIEW. ICAN SEE THE ONE. I ALSO DON'T KNOW, I MEAN, WITHOUT ANALYSIS,I CAN'T TELL YOU FOR CERTAIN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO ADDITIONAL RESEARCH, ETC. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THERE BEING A FENCE PRIOR TO INSPECTOR AND RECEIVING THE COMPLAINT. ≫ ALL RIGHT. I HOPE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT ABOUT HIS EXISTING FENCE. ≫ I HAVE ONE QUESTION. THE APPLICANT NOTED AROUND SIGNIFICANT GRADE CHANGE IN THEPROPERTY. AND IF I REMEMBER, ONE OF THE APPLICATIONS A COUPLE OF MEETINGS BACK MENTIONED THAT WEDID HAVE A PERCENTAGE OF WHAT WAS CONSIDERED STEEP GRADING. SO I'M CURIOUS IF WE COULD REFRESH US ON WHAT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT GRADE CHANGE. ≫ THE ZONING CODE -- CHAIR PERRY, BOARD MEMBER WANG, THE ZONING CODE DOESN'T DEFINE STEEP SLOPES OUTSIDE OF THE SHORELAND AREA, BUT RELATIVELY SPEAKING THIS IS A FLAT LOT. ≫ THANK YOU. ≫ ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES? ≫ JUST FOR THE RECORD, GOING BACK TO STREET VIEW, AT A MINIMUM THAT 6-FOOT FENCE WAS THERE SINCE ATLEAST AUGUST OF 2013. JUST FOR THE RECORD.≫ OKAY. TO MAYBE CLEAR THIS UP, MR. ELLIS, WHEN YOU SAY A FENCE HASTO BE ESTABLISHED AS NOT LEGALLY CONFORMING, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? ≫ CHAIR PERRY, THE NONCONFORMING RIGHTS ARE GRANTED IN THE SENSE WHEN SOMETHING WAS LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE RECORD. SO IN A SENSE ONE OTHER ADDITIONAL APPLICATION COULD BE IF WE CAN'T PROVE SOMETHING AND ANYTHING COMING UPON THE APPLICANT AND THE CERTIFICATE OF NCU APPLICATION WHICH WOULD ALSO COME BEFORE THE BOARD. AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED.IN THIS CASE THE FENCE ORDINANCE HAVE BEEN APPROXIMATELY THE SAME SINCE 1963, SO THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A FENCE EXISTED IN APPROXIMATELY THAT SIZE AND HEIGHT PRIOR TO 1963. ≫ BUT DEPENDING ON THE SITUATION, WE CAN LOOK AT IT AND, I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S ABOUT THE BEST I CAN ANSWER. THAT IS HOW WE DEFINE LAWFUL IN THIS SENSE. ≫ I THINK THAT ANSWERS IT FOR ME. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON -- I THINK MR. HUTCHENS IS BRINGING UP A GOOD POINT, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON HOW THAT NONCONFORMING PIECE WORKS WHEN YOU GO FROM ONE STRUCTURE TO ANOTHER STRUCTURE. AND THE TIME FRAME. ALL RIGHT. YES? ≫ ONE OTHER CLARIFICATION. IN TERMS OF THE -- IN TERMS OF IF IT DID HAVE LEGAL NONCONFORMINGRIGHTS AND WE CAN SORT THAT OUT, BUT WOULD THE CHANGE IN MATERIAL AND CHANGE IN TYPE OF FENCE, WOULD THAT CHANGE THAT? OR WOULD THAT HAVE TO BE THE SAME TYPE OF FENCE? CATCH ME UP A LITTLE BIT ON THAT. ≫ YES, CHAIR PERRY, BOARD MEMBER, YOU ARE ALLOWED PER OUR REGULATIONS AND ALSO PER STATE LAW TO REPLACE, BUT IT IS EXPECTED TO BE REPLACED BY EXACTLY AS IS. SO THEY COULD DO ONE THAT WOULDBE IN A SENSE MORE, ASSUMING THAT IS A LAWFUL FENCE, WOULD BE -- WOULD HAVE A GREATER IMPACT IN TERMS OF THE VISIBILITY THAN THE WRAUGHT IRON THAT HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED. ≫ LAST POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON THIS. JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT IS BEFORE THE BOARD IS A VARIANCE WHERE WE HAVE TO MEET THESE THREE FINDINGS, NOT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A FENCE THERE HISTORICALLY. ≫ BOARD MEMBER, CHAIR PERRY, BOARD MEMBER, THAT IS CORRECT. ≫ OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ≫ THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. I AM GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT I WANTED TO EXPLAIN HOW THIS WORKS FIRST. WHOMEVER THE APPLICANT IS WILL GET 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK. AND IT IS ON THAT CLOCK. AND YOU CAN ASSUME THAT WE HAVEREAD YOUR MATERIAL THAT YOU PRODUCED AND WAS IN OUR PACKETS. AND THEN ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTSTO SPEAK AND I HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN-IN SHEET HERE WILL THEN GET TWO MINUTES PER PERSON TO SPEAK FOR AND THEN ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK AGAINST THE SPEAK AGAINST. WITH THAT, LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU COULD STEP FORWARD. AND I'M SORRY, SIR, YES, TEMPERATURE APPLICANT? ≫ YES. ≫ GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE. ≫ MY NAME IS VALENTIN VERA. ≫ GET TO THE MICROPHONE SO WE CAN GET THAT RECORDED. ≫ GREAT. ≫ YOU'RE VALENTIN VERA? ≫ YES. I'M VALENTIN VERA. ≫ ALL RIGHT. ≫ COUPLE THINGS. I STARTED BUILDING THE FENCE, BUT BEFORE I BUILT THE FENCE, I CALLED 311. 311 TOLD ME I COULD BUILD THE FENCE ON THE PROPERTY LINE, OKAY. SO I SAID, OKAY.SO I STARTED IN THE BACK OF MY HOUSE WITH THE PILLARS. AND I WAS TOO CLOSE. THE CITY INSPECTOR CAME OUT AND HE SAYS,YOU'RE TOO CLOSE. I SAID, OKAY.HOW FAR DO I GOT TO BE? I THINK IT WAS 9 FEET OR 10 FEET BACK FROM THE CENTER OF THE ALLEY. AND I SAID, OKAY. SO I SAID, WHAT CAN I DO? THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO IS MOVE IT. WELL, IF YOU SEEN THE COLUMNS THAT NICHOLAS PUT UP THERE, IT WAS PRETTY HARD TO MOVE THEM. SO I SAID, OKAY. INSTEAD OF HAVING TO FIGHT WITHTHE CITY, I SAID, OKAY. SO I WENT AND DID IT. I MOVED THE COLUMNS. COST ME $7,000. AND IT WAS ON A FRIDAY. SATURDAY I GET A LETTER FROM THE CITY SAYING ALL I HAD TO DO WAS MOVE THEM 6 FEET. I MOVEDTHEM 4 FEET BECAUSE THE CITY INSPECTOR TOLD ME TO. SO I MOVED THEM. I WAS A LITTLE MAD BECAUSE IT COST ME QUITE A BIT OF MONEY TO MOVE IT. THEN I CALLED THE CITY INSPECTOR. AND HE TOLD ME, WELL, I WENT AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD JUST INTHE 350 FEET FROM MY HOUSE, AND I TOOK PICTURES. AND A LOT OF THE FENCES ARE -- WHY MY FENCE IS HIGHER IS BECAUSE I'M NOT FLAT. I HAVE A LITTLE HILL. AND IF YOU CAN SEE THE RETAINING WALL, THAT'S WHAT'S STOPPING THE DIRT. AND IN THE BACK, WHERE THEY SAID I DIDN'T HAVE A FENCE, THAT FENCE WAS A WOODEN FENCE AND IT WAS RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT WHAT WAS HAPPENING IS I WAS-- MY HILL WAS -- BECAUSE IT WAS A HILL, IT STARTED WASHING OUT. AND I SAID, HOW AM I GOING TO ELIMINATE IT? I PUT MY COLUMNS UP. AND THEN I PUT A WRAUGHT IRON FENCE ON TOP OF MY RETAINING WALL. THE FENCE IS A 5-FOOT FENCE. THE WRAUGHT IRON IS 5 FOOT, BUTTHE RETAINING WALL IS 14 INCHES HIGH. THAT'S STOPPING MY HILL FROM ERODING. AND I HAD A WOODEN FENCE AND I DIDN'T NEVER GET A COMPLAINT. WHEN I TALKED TO THE INSPECTOR,WHAT HE TOLD ME, HE SAYS, THIS IS WHAT WE DO. IF YOU WANT TO GO AND TAKE PICTURES OF OTHER FENCES, YOU CAN. CALL 311 AND MAKE A COMPLAINT. AND WE'LL GO OUT AND DO IT. AND I SAYS, WELL, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT LOOKS NICE. THE OTHER FENCE IS JUST -- ACROSS THE STREET. AND I TOOK PICTURES OF THEM. AND I PUT THE MEASUREMENTS IN THE BACK. AND MY FENCE IS 7'6" I THINK. BUT THE REASON WHY MY FENCE IS THAT WAY IS BECAUSE THE CITY SIDEWALK IS DOWN HERE AND MY HILL COMES UP. I WASN'T GOING TO PUT MY FENCE THERE EVEN THOUGH THE CITY, 311, I EXPLAINED IT TO HER. I AM PUTTING BRICK COLUMNS. ASLONG AS YOU'RE ON YOUR PROPERTY SHE SAYS. IT WILL BE ALL RIGHT. SO I SAID, I'M MOVING THE FENCEIN. I MOVED IT IN EVEN SOME ON GOING DOWN, WHAT IS THAT? 15th STREET. I MOVED THE FENCE IN. I'M 18 INCHES AWAY FROM THE CITY SIDEWALK. AND THE CITY INSPECTOR CAME BACK OUT AND HE SAYS, NOPE, NOPE, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. GOT TO BE 6 FEET. AND THEN THEY TOLD ME I HAD TO HAVE IT BACK. I'M EVEN WITH THE FENCE I HAD 6 FOOT BEFORE. I'M AT THE CORNER OF THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE. I AIN'T BLOCKING, NO OBSTRUCTING TRAFFIC OR ANYTHING BECAUSE I LIVE ON FREMONT. AND I'M ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FREMONT. WHEN YOU COME UP TO FREMONT, YOU'RE LOOKING DOWN NORTH. YOU'RE NOT LOOKING DOWN SOUTH BECAUSE OF SOUTH IS A ONE-WAY FREMONT. SO I'M NOT EXTRACTINGANY KIND OF TRAFFIC OR ANYTHING. ≫ AND I'LL POINT OUT, I THINK, STAFF AGREES WITH YOU ON THAT POINT. ≫ BUT I WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCEDURE AND I HAVE A LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP, FROM NORTH SIDE. EVERYBODY LOVES IT. EVERYBODY LIKES IT. AND I'M TRYING TO MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVE. IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THAT'S AWRAUGHT IRON FENCE, SO YOU CAN SEE THROUGH IT. MY COLUMNS ARE16 INCHES. MY COLUMNS ARE 7 FOOT, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE THE CITY SIDEWALK IS DOWN HERE AND MY YARD IS UP HERE. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT SOME PICTURES THAT I DID TAKE, ALL THE FENCES AIN'T ON THE CITY SIDEWALK. THEY BUILD A LITTLE RETAINING WALL AND PUT THEIR FENCE UP ON TOP OF THAT, SO THAT MAKES THE FENCE HIGHER, BUT IT'S A 6-FOOT FENCE. IT'S A 6-FOOT FENCE. BUT THE RETAINING WALL BECAUSE I PUT ITON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL MAKES IT TALLER. AND THE COLUMNS, IF I WOULD HAVE MADE THE COLUMNS DOWN, THEN I WOULD HAVE TO PUT MY FENCE BACK DOWN TO THE SIDEWALK. AND THERE I'M HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM. THEN I'M GOING TO HAVE ISSUES OF EROSION AND THE DIRT COMING BACK DOWN ON MY CITY SIDEWALK. I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO MAKE IT LOOK GOOD AND I SPENT $7,000 AND THEN I HEAR ALL I HAD TO DOIS MOVE IT 6 INCHES? I CALLED 311.AND THIS IS WHAT I TOLD THE INSPECTOR. I SAID, IF THAT WASTHE CASE, YOU SHOULD EXPLAIN IT TO 311 BECAUSE THEY ALSO TOLD ME, YES, YOU CAN PUT IT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. AND I EXPLAINED WHAT I WAS DOING. AND SHE SAID, YEAH, THAT'S FINE. AND I ASKED DO, I NEED TO GET A PERMIT? NO. ≫ RIGHT. FENCES DON'T REQUIRE A PERMIT. ≫ AND GOING BACK TO THE STAFF THERE, I DID HAVE A WOODEN FENCE. AND I WISH I WOULD HAVE TOOK PICTURES BEFORE I TORE IT DOWN BECAUSE IT LOOKED REALLY BAD, REALLY BAD. AND THE FENCE WHICH YOU SEE IN THE BACK OF IT IS BECAUSE I HAVE A DOG. SO I DID IT WHEN I WAS BUILDING THE NEW FENCE, I PUT THAT UP SOTHE DOG COULDN'T GET OUT. BUT I HAD WOODEN FENCE ALL THE WAY DOWN. AND I BROUGHT A COUPLE OF THE NEIGHBORS. AND I MEAN, I SPENT A LOT ON THAT FENCE. AND IF I HAVE TO TEAR IT DOWN,IT WOULD BE PRETTY BAD FOR ME. AND I HOPE YOU GUY CANS CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, THE FENCE. AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF YOU LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP ALL AGREED ON IT, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? I JUST DON'T SEE IT. I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE RULES AND EVERYTHING. JUST LIKE WHAT HE SAID. BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT, ITHINK THAT'S DISCRIMINATION. BECAUSE IF I CAN'T HAVE IT, NONE OF THESE PEOPLE -- OOPS -- NONE OF THESE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE FENCE. AND YOU GUYS SHOULD DO IT, NOT ME, BECAUSE THEY'RE MY NEIGHBORS. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THEM MAD AT ME. THEIR FENCES LOOK BEAUTIFUL. WE'RE TRYING TO BRING THE NEIGHBOR BACK UP. WE LIVE IN OLD HIGHLAND. IT'S A NICE NEIGHBORHOOD. ≫ I CERTAINLY THINK SPEAKING ONBEHALF OF THE CITY, WE APPRECIATE THE INTENT, BUT WE DO HAVE THESE LEGAL RULES THAT WE HAVE TO FIND FOR. AND STAFF HAS NOT FOUND FOR TWOOF THE THREE, AND THIS BOARD WILL DISCUSS WHETHER THERE CAN BE SOME EXCEPTION OR SOME EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE. ≫ I HOPE SO. ≫ THAT LEADS TO A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, FOR ONE. AND IS IN THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE, NUMBER TWO. BECAUSE THEY AGREE WITH YOU ON NUMBER THREE THAT IT'S NOT DANGEROUS. ≫ NO, NO. ACTUALLY, I DON'T KNOW. BUT I UNDERSTAND YOU GUYS HAVE RULES. BUT I WOULD MAKE SURE BEFORE I CALLED 311 THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. BECAUSETHAT AIN'T FAIR FOR ME. ≫ I CAN'T COMMENT ON THAT. ≫ I KNOW. BUT IT'S JUST -- YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. I THINK IT'S KIND OF SILLY. WHY WE'RE EVEN HERE. AND THEN I EVEN PAY. I PAY FOR THIS. ≫ YEP. ≫ I KNOW. ≫ I DON'T KNOW. ≫ I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, IGUESS. I AM TRYING TO BEAUTIFY THE HOUSE AND MAKE IT LOOK A LOT BETTER. AND THEN I GET KIND OFTURNED DOWN. IT IS KIND OF SAD WHEN I ALREADY SPENT $7,000 MOVING MY FENCE FOUR FEET AND ALL I HAD TO DO IS MOVE IT SIX FEET. AND THAT WAS A CITY INSPECTOR WHO TOLD ME THAT. THE CITY INSPECTOR WHO WORKS MYNEIGHBORHOOD TOLD ME THAT. INSTEAD OF ARGUING, I MOVED IT,BUT IT COST ME $7,000. ≫ SO YOU'VE ONLY GOT 30 SECONDSLEFT. IS THERE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? HAS MR. OUELLETTE TOLD YOU ABOUT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTYS? ≫ NO, HE DIDN'T TELL ME HARDLY ANYTHING. AND ACTUALLY, I DON'T WANT TO SAY WHAT I WANT TO SAY BECAUSE HE TOLD ME IT WAS CONFIDENTIAL.HE SAID, DON'T SAY IT TO NOBODY, BUT NONE OF THESE INSPECTORS REALLY KNOW IT. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO REALLY KNOWABOUT HEIGHTS AND ALL THIS IS ZONING. THE CITY INSPECTOR DOESN'T KNOW ALL THIS. AND THAT WAS A TOP GUY FROM ZONING. AND IF YOU WANT, I'LL GO THROUGH MY PHONE AND I'LL FIND HIS NUMBER AGAIN. ≫ YOUR TIME IS UP. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING UPPER LEVEL DISTURBANCE YOU WOULD LIKE TO OFFER? ≫ NO, I DON'T. ≫ ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. ≫ ALL RIGHT. AS I SAID, OTHER SPEAKERS GET TWO MINUTES. I HAVE THREE OTHER PEOPLE. BRIAN. DO YOU WANT TO COME UP AND GIVETESTIMONY? YOU GET TWO MINUTES. AND COULD YOU GIVE YOUR ADDRESS AS WELL. ≫ SURE. MIRE ADDRESS? ≫ YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. ≫ BRIAN 1415 EMERSON AVENUE. SO IT'S THE PROPERTY, WELL, JUST ACROSS THE ALLEY FROM VAL'S HOUSE. SO I ONLY HAVE TWO MINUTES, SO I'LL TRY AND BEQUICK. I'M AN ARCHITECT IN MINNEAPOLIS. I WORK DOWNTOWN. I HAVE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR ABOUT SIX YEARS NOW. AS VAL STATED, THERE WAS A FENCE THERE PREVIOUSLY. IT WAS A FULL PRIVACY FENCE. IT WAS ACTUALLY TALLER THAN THE ONE THAT'S THERE NOW. AND IT WAS TIPPING OVER INTO THE SIDEWALK. AND PRETTY MUCH EVERY WAY THIS IS A HUGE IMPROVEMENT FROM WHAT WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY.IT'S PULLED OFF THE ALLEY IN THE PREVIOUS FENCE WAS ON THE ALLEY, WHICH COULD GET IN THE WAY OF GARBAGE TRUCKS, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO HE'S IMPROVED IT BY PULLING IT BACK. HE'S IMPROVED IT BY OPENING UP AND ALLOWING MORE ACCESS TO VIEWS, AIR, LIGHT. THE GENTLEMAN WHO PRESENTED KIND OF WENT THROUGH THAT. THAT'S SORT OF THE PURPOSE OF THESE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. AND WHAT'S DICTATING THE HEIGHTS OF THE FENCE. IS TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR NEIGHBORS GET ACCESS TO NATURALLIGHT. THEY GET AK ACCESS TO OPEN AIR. THIS FENCEIS COMPLETELY OPEN. IT LOOKS BEAUTIFUL. IT MATCHES THE CHARACTER OF THENEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS ESTABLISHED IN, LIKE, PRETTY MUCH 120 YEARS AGO OR SO. AND I'M JUST -- I LIKE TO ADVOCATE FOR IT TO STAY. LIKE YOU SAID, WE'VE GOT RULES FOR A REASON. IF I WAS GOING TO MAKE A LEGAL CASE FOR THIS, IT WOULD BE TO GRANDFATHER IN THE FENCE THAT WAS ALREADY THERE. IF WE COULD GO BACK AND FIND PHOTOS OF WHAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKED LIKE BACK IN THE 1900s, FENCES OF THIS CHARACTER AND THIS SIZE WERE EVERYWHERE. AND A LOT OF THEM HAVE BEEN TAKEN DOWN. SO THANK YOU. ≫ THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. I HAVEPHILLIP. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? ≫ OKAY. ≫ SAME ROUTINE. YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. AND TWO MINUTES OF TIME. ≫ GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS PHILLIP ALEXANDER, 1502 FREMONTAVENUE. I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM VAL AND I HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE 1996. I BOUGHT MY HOUSE. THE FENCE THAT'S IN QUESTION, THE OLD FENCE WAS PROBABLY FALLING DOWN. THE FENCE THAT IS THERE NOW, ITIS BEAUTIFYING THE NEIGHBORHOOD.IT IS MAKING THE PROPERTY LOOK MORE PRESENTABLE AS FAR AS VISITORS COMING BY, SEEING THE PROPERTY. IT IS AN UPGRADE FROM WHAT IT WAS BEFORE. SO I THINK THE FENCE SHOULD STAY THE WAY THAT IT IS RIGHT NOW. ≫ OKAY. THANKS FOR COMING DOWN. ≫ NO PROBLEM. ≫ AND GIVING TESTIMONY. ≫ LASTLY, I HAVE AISHA DAVIS. AND IF YOU COULD GIVE YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE. ≫ ADDRESS IS 916 16th AVENUE NORTH. ≫ OKAY. ≫ I HAVE BEEN LIVING THERE SINCE, WELL, THE HOUSE GOT BUILT AND MY GRANNY AND GRANDPA OWNED THAT HOUSE SINCE 1972, I BELIEVE. AND I HAVE BEEN LIVING THERE SINCE 1978. AND THE FENCE HE HAS IS JUST SO GORGEOUS. IT'S BEAUTIFUL. YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH IT. I THINK IT'SAN UPGRADE, AND I THINK IT NEEDS TO STAY. HE PUT A LOT OFTIME AND EFFORT IN THERE AND I LOVE IT. SO I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU THAT. ≫ THANKS FOR COMING DOWN AND SAYING SO. ≫ THANK YOU. ≫ ALL RIGHT. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE SIGNED UP, BUT WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? FOR OR AGAINST? I SEE NO ONE, SO I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BOARD COMMENT? ≫ THANKS, CHAIR PERRY. I GUESS I'M WILLING -- I THINK THE FENCE IS EXACTLY IN THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T IMPEDE SIGHT LINES FOR TRAFFIC AND THAT THERE'S NOT A SAFETY ISSUE WITH THE OPAQUE FENCE BEING TOO CLOSE TO A SIDEWALK OR TO PATH OF TRAVEL. THIS COMPLETELY DOES THAT. I THINK THERE IS AN EXTREME HIGH RISK OF THE TRAFFIC FLOW ON FREMONT IS A FAST ROAD. IT IS A ONE-WAY ROAD A CONCRETE COLUMN ON THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE TO STOP TRAFFIC FROM SMASHING UP THES BY, HISTORIC BRICK HOUSE, COMPLETELY A SAFETY FEATURE. I'M ON BOARD. HE SAID HE HAS EXTREME WASHOUT ISSUES. THERE IS A GRADE ISSUE FROM WHERE THE YARD SITS TO WHERE THE PILLAR SITS. IF IT WAS ANYOTHER MATERIAL, IT WOULD GET WASHED OUT. THAT IS WHY THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD SAID THE FENCE WAS FALLING INTO THE STREET. THAT IS 100% TRUE. I THINK IT'S EVIDENCE BY HIM SAYING THERE IS GRADE ISSUES. WE CAN SEE IT ON THE PHOTOS ANDTHE FENCE -- THE OLD FENCE THAT'S BEEN THERE SINCE AT LEAST 2013 IS FALLING INTO THE STREET BECAUSE OF THE WASHOUT. I THINK THAT'S 100% TRUE. I WANT TO HEAR WHAT ANYBODY ELSE SAYS, BUT I WOULD GO AND MAKE A MOTION IF WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH IT. ≫ WHAT I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU IS YOU HAVE MADE SOME COMPELLING POINTS FOR FINDING NUMBER THREE. NO? ≫ I THINK THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IS THE HIGH TRAFFIC FLOW AND THE WASHOUT ISSUE. I THINK THAT IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND THE WASHOUT AND THE TRAFFIC FLOW. AND WHERE HIS HOUSE SITS AND THE SAFETY FEATURES. AND I THINK THE SPIRIT AND INTENT, I THINK THIS IS IN THE SPIRIT AND INTENT IS TO CREATE OPAQUENESS AND THIS IS MEETING WHAT THE INTENT IS.THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T LOSE SIGHT LINES FOR TRAFFIC. IT IS A ONE-WAY STREET. THERE IS NO TURNING ON HIS CORNER THAT WOULD BE IMPEDED BY THAT FENCE CORNER WHERE IT IS MEETING AND SO WE DON'T CREATE BLIND CORNERS AND DOESN'T IMPEDE ANY PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. IT DOESN'TIMPEDE THE BIKE LANE. IT IS 70 FEET AWAY PROBABLY FROM A BIEN LANE AND THERE IS NO TURNING OF A CAR THAT DIRECTION. IT'S A ONE-WAY STREET. IT'S NOT -- THE INTENTIS TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T CREATE BLIND CORNER, AND THIS DOES NOT DO THAT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. IF ANYTHING, IT OPENED UP THE SIGHT LINES FOR THE GARBAGE TRUCKS IN THE BACK AND THE FOLKS IN THE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY TO CROSS THAT ALLEY EXIT. THING EXACTLY DOES ONE AND TWO. ≫ JUST TO PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, HOW -- WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS FENCE HEIGHT. SO I HEAR -- I JUST HEARD WHAT YOU SAID. BUT NONE OF THAT ADDRESSED THE FENCE HEIGHT. THAT'S REALLY -- THAT'S WHAT THE VARIANCE IS ASKING FOR IS FENCE HEIGHT. ≫ I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK THE FENCE HEIGHT ALSO COMES INTO PLAY FOR THE SAFETY OF THE CONCRETE COLUMN HAS TO MATCH THE REST OF IT. I THINK THE SAFETY OF THE TRAFFIC FLOW AND KEEPING IT 6 FOOT MAKES IT SAFER. ≫ OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? THOUGHTS? ≫ YEAH, SURE. I'M DEFINITELY THERE ON TWO AND THREE. I'M HAVING A LITTLE BIT TOUGHERTIME ON ONE. SO YOU'RE CONTENTION WOULD BE THAT BASICALLY THE GRADE HEIGHT WOULD BE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THERE. OKAY. YEAH, I'M GOING TO KEEP THINKING ON IT. I HOPE SOMEBODY ELSE HAS ANYTHING TO SAY, BUT I'M FOR SURE GOOD ON TWO AND THREE, BUT ONE I'M CAUGHT A LITTLE BIT ON IN TERMS OF THE LEGALITY. BUT YEAH, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. ≫ ALL RIGHT. OTHER BOARD COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? OUR THOUGHTS? ≫ I THINK SIMILAR TO BOARD MEMBER EICHOLZ, THERE IS A COMPELLING ARGUMENT FOR TWO AND THREE. I THINK I DON'T SEE -- I DON'T SEE WHY THERE WOULD BE A REASON FOR IT TO BE 6 FOOT HEIGHT VERSUS 4 FOOT HEIGHT IN TERMS OF THE OTHER ISSUES IN TERMS OF THE COLUMNS THEMSELVES, I THINK YOU CAN STILL GET A LOT OF -- FIT'S SERVING AS A RETAINING WALL AGAINST THAT SLOPE, YOU CAN STILL SERVE THAT PURPOSE AT THE LOWER HEIGHT.AND THEN WITH THE IRON FENCE ON TOP OF IT, THEY SELL THAT IN 5 FOOT AND 3 FOOT, SO YOU COULD PUT THAT IN AT A LOWER HEIGHT. I'M OPEN IF OTHERS WANT TO TAKE A STAB AT IT. I AGREE THERE'S CLEAR FROM THE TESTIMONY THAT THIS FENCE IS AN IMPROVEMENT FROM WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE. AND I JUST DON'T THINK THERE ISCAUSE FOR THE FIRST FINDING, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT THIS ALL HINGES ON. ≫ ANYONE ELSE? YES? ≫ I AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS FORONE AND TWO. AND I THINK THAT THE GRADING DOES SATISFY ONE MOSTLY BECAUSEAS WAS SAID, IT'S EVIDENT THAT IT'S NOT SECURE BECAUSE THE OTHER FENCE WAS FALLING DOWN. AND FALLING IN TO THE SIDEWALK AND CAUSING ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT -- THAT WAS CAUSING PROBLEMS THAT WOULD HAVE DENIED THE VARIANCE. THAT FENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED A VARIANCE BECAUSE IT WAS CAUSING THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE SAYING THIS FENCE DOESN'T.I THINK THE ISSUES WITH 311 AND INSPECTORS AND MISCOMMUNICATIONS IS UNFORTUNATE. WE HAVE SEEN SIMILAR THINGS BEFORE, AND KIND OF EBBS AND FLOWS. THAT IS UNFORTUNATE AND FRUSTRATING AND I JUST WANT THAT TO BE NOTED THAT IT DOES SOUND LIKE THAT WAS DIFFICULT. I KNOW THERE'S KIND OF TWO SIDES OF EVERY STORY, AND THAT KIND OF THING, BUT I WOULD SECOND THE BOARD MEMBER'S MOTION IF MADE.≫ I GOT ONE FOLLOW-UP IF YOU WOULD ALLOW. ≫ YEAH. ≫ TO KIND OF ADDRESS SOME OF THE STRENGTHENING UP, FINDING ONE, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND STUFF LIKE THAT. IF YOU ARE FAMILIARWITH WARD FIVE, FAMILIAR WITH THAT CORNER ESPECIALLY. I HAVE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR YEARS. IT DEFINITELY HAS SAFETY ISSUES WITH SECURITY OF THE HOME. TO PUT A 6 FOOT FENCE EKROO YATES SECURITY IN THE HOME ALONG WITH WASHOUT, ALONG WITHALL THE OTHER THINGS. I'M COMPLETELY COMFORTABLE WITHNUMBER ONE BEING A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF THAT LOCATION ON A CORNER, ON FREMONT, WITH WASHOUT ISSUES, GRADE ISSUES. I'M -- I'LL MAKE A MOTION IF WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. ≫ PLEASE DO. ≫ MAKE A MOTION TO NOT ADOPT STAFF FINDINGS AND TO GRANT THE VARIANCE BASED ON THE FINDINGS I HAVE ALREADY ANNOUNCED. IF THE CITY IS OKAYWITH IT? I DON'T NEED TO REPEAT THEM? ≫ NO, YOU DON'T NEED TO REPEAT THEM. ≫ BUT I WILL. ≫ JUST AS A QUICK NOTE, WE DID MAKE FINDING THREE, SO DON'T SAY ALL STAFF FINDINGS. ≫ ADOPT THREE. ≫ AND FIND FOR VARIANCE FINDINGS ONE AND TWO. ≫ I SECOND THE MOTION. ≫ IT IS MOVED AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ≫ WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. ≫ BOARD MEMBER CALLAHAN. ≫ AYE. ≫ BOARD MEMBER EICHOLZ. ≫ AYE. ≫ BOARD MEMBER HUTCHENS. ≫ AYE. ≫ BOARD MEMBER INGRAHAM. ≫ NAY. ≫ BOARD MEMBER SMRIKAROVA. ≫ AYE. ≫ VICE CHAIR WANG. ≫ AYE. ≫ AND THERE ARE FIVE AYES AND ONE NAY. ≫ SO YOUR REQUEST IS APPROVED. AND THAT MEANS YOU DON'T HAVE TO MOVE IT AGAIN. AND I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY WHO CAME DOWN AND GAVE TESTIMONY. I WILL ALSO SAY THAT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, WE'RE SORRY YOU HAD TO GO THROUGH A LOT OF RIGAMAROLE. AND HOPE THAT FUTURE EXPERIENCES ARE BETTER. ALL RIGHT.LET'S SEE. ARE THERE ANY UPDATES, MR. ELLIS? ≫ CHAIR PERRY, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I HAVE TWO UPDATES TODAY. ONE, IF ALL GOES WELL, WE WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE NEW BOARD MEMBERS AS WELL AS THE REAPPOINTMENTS ON APRIL 7 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. SO I'M HOPING EVERYTHING STAND FROM THERE. IF IT MOVES FORWARD, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE COUNCIL WOULD BE APRIL 9, AND HOPEFULLY BE ABLE TO GET EVERYONE MOVING AND MAYBE BY MID TO LATE APRIL AT THE LATEST. ≫ OKAY. ≫ AND THEN AS A FOLLOW-UP, A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLICATED, THE CHURCH PROPERTY THAT WE -- ≫ THAT WE DEALT WITH ON 45th AVENUE, I BELIEVE IT WAS. OR WAS IT 41st? I CAN BRING UP THE EXACT ADDRESS, BUT I THINK EVERYONE REMEMBERS IT. COUNCIL DID END UP PARTIALLY GRANTING THE APPEAL. AND SO IT'S A LOWER NUMBER. INSTEAD OF THE FULL REQUEST, THE MAXIMUM LOT AREA WAS 66%. AND THEN THE MAXIMUM PERVIOUS SURFACE WAS MOVED TO 70%, SO A PARTIAL GRANTING OF THE APPEAL, PARTIAL UPHOLD. AND PRIMARY ISSUES, THEY DID HAVE CONDITIONS AS WELL. THEY DID HAVE TO HAVE THE INSTALLATION OF RAIN GARDENS ASINDICATED ON THE SITE PLAN IN ORDER TO HANDLE THE IMPERVIOUSSURFACE AND STORM WATER RELATED TO THAT. ≫ BOARD MEMBER HUTCHENS? ≫ WHAT WERE THEIR FINDINGS FOR THAT? ≫ YOU CAN LOOK ONLINE, BUT I CAN READ THEM OFF TO YOU AS WELL IF YOU WOULD LIKE. SO CHALLENGES -- THIS WAS THE MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHOWDHURY. CHALLENGES EXIST IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY, THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE APPLICANT. AND SO IT INCLUDES A PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE THAT SAW THE LAST MAJOR EDITION BEFORE THE ADOPTION AND INCORPORATION FOR THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT AND REQUIREMENTS INTO THE STATE BUILDING CODE. THE BUILDING WAS DESIGNED WITH SPLIT-LEVEL ENTRIES FROM THE STREET NECESSITATING SIGNIFICANT FOR ELEVATOR LIFT FACILITIES, ACCESSIBLE RESTROOMS AND INTERNAL PATHS OF TRAVEL. THESE CONSTITUTE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CREATE CHALLENGES IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE AND NOT CREATED BY PERSONS PRESENTLY HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY. ≫ CAN YOU REMIND ME IF THAT AFFECTS FUTURE CASES OF SIMILAR -- DOES THAT SET A PRECEDENT? AND SIMILAR BUILDINGS LIKE THAT? ≫ CHAIR PERRY, BOARD MEMBER EICHOLZ, EVERY VARIANCE IS BASED ON THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT WE'VE SEEN ONES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE USED PLACEMENT OF BUILDINGS BEFORE AND SUCCESSFULLY ARGUED TO HAVE THEPLACEMENT OF THE BUILDING. AND IT DOESN'T SET A PRECEDENT,BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE AREMINDFUL AND COULD BE USED IN THE THOUGHTFUL MANNER TO TRY TOMAKE FINDINGS IN THE FUTURE FOR OTHER VARIANCE APPLICATIONS. BUT EACH INDIVIDUAL VARIANCE APPLICATION IS BASED ON ITS OWNMERITS. ≫ ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF BRAD? I DON'T SEE ANY. MOTION TO ADJOURN WOULD BE ENTERTAINED. ≫ SO MOVED. ≫ SECOND. ≫ ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. ≫ WE ARE ADJOURNED.