[0:06] >> GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS THE JUNE 12th, 2025, ZONING BOARD [0:11] OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING. MY NAME IS MATT PERRY AND I'M CHAIR OF THE BOARD. I WILL NOW CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AND ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL [0:17] SO THAT WE MAY VERIFY THE PRESENCE OF QUORUM. [0:23] >> BOARD MEMBER CALLAHAN. >> PRESENT. >> EICHOLZ IS ABSENT GRANS [0:30] KORSH IS ABSENT. HUTCHENS. >> HERE. >> INI AM. >> HERE. >> PERRY HERE. [0:37] >> SMRIKAROVA. >> HERE. >> WANG. >> HERE. >> WE HAVE SIX MEMBERS PRESENT. >> SO WE DO HAVE QUORUM, AND WITH THAT WE'LL PROCEED TO OUR [0:43] AGENDA, COPY OF WHICH WAS POSTED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE CITY'S EDGE ALL SLATIVE INFORMATION MANAGE -- LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT [0:50] SYSTEM AVAILABLE AT LIMS.MINNEAPOLISMN.GOV. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS [0:55] AGENDA? >> SO MOVED. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. IS [1:01] THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, INDICATE BY [1:06] SAYING AYE. AND AGAIN, INDICATE BY SAYING NAY. THAT MOTION [1:13] PASSES AND THE AGENDA IS APPROVED. I BELIEVE ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE SEEN A COPY OF THE MINUTES FROM THE [1:18] MAY 22nd, 2025, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? IT'S [1:25] MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S SECONDED. SO WE HAVE A MOTION [1:30] BEFORE US. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION BEFORE US? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, INDICATE BY [1:36] SAYING AYE. ANY AGAINST, INDICATE BY SAYING NAY. ANY [1:43] ABSTENTIONS? >> OH, ALSO ABSTAIN. >> SO WE HAVE TWO ABSTENTIONS. AND WITH THAT, THE MOTION PASSES, AND THE MINUTES FROM THE [1:49] ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF MAY 22nd, 2025, MEETING ARE [1:54] APPROVED. BOARD MEMBER EICHOLZ HAS JOINED US, AND WE ARE -- OF COURSE HE CAN VOTE ON ANY OF THE [2:00] ITEMS SINCE WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THEM YET. REMINDER TO APPLICANTS AND OTHERS THAT IF [2:05] YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE SIGN IN ON THE SHEET AVAILABLE BY THE CLERK AND SPEAK CLEARLY INTO THE [2:13] MICROPHONE. IF YOU HAVE NOT SIGNED IN, YOU CAN DO SO ON YOUR WAY OUT. ALSO TO APPLICANTS AND OTHERS, PLEASE CONTACT STAFF [2:18] AFTER THE HEARING WITH ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR PROJECTS. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS, PLEASE TURN IT OFF OR [2:25] TURN IT ON SILENT SO YOU DON'T DISTURB THE PROCEEDINGS. I'LL READ THE AGENDA NUMBER AND THE [2:32] ADDRESS OF THE PROJECT AND STATE WHETHER IT'S SLATED FOR CONSENT, CONTINUANCE, WITHDRAWAL, RETURN, [2:42] OR DISCUSSION. AND LET'S LOOK AT THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF THE ITEMS BEFORE US. LAND [2:48] USE REQUEST ITEMS. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4 IS 4640 17th AVENUE [2:54] SOUTH. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS ITEM FOR CONSENT. IS THERE ANYONE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? [3:01] >> I LIKE TO PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION IF WE COULD. >> OKAY. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5 [3:08] IS 275 MARKET STREET. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS ITEM FOR CONSENT. IS THERE ANYONE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? I SEE [3:16] NO ONE. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6 IS [3:22] 3343 EAST BDE MAKA SKA, AND STAFF IS REQUESTING THIS ITEM FOR CONSENT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? [3:30] I SEE NO ONE. AND THEN FINALLY, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7 IS 4428 [3:37] EDMUND BOULEVARD, AND THIS IS A DISCUSSION ITEM. SO LET'S REVIEW THE ITEMS FOR CONSENT. [3:44] THEY ARE 5 AND 6. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THESE ITEMS ON CONSENT? [3:49] >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR, INDICATE [3:55] BY SAYING AYE. ANY AGAINST, INDICATE BY SAYING NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? THAT MOTION [4:02] PASSES. SO IF YOU WERE HERE FOR ITEMS NUMBER 5 OR 6, YOUR LAND USE REQUESTS ARE APPROVED. GOOD [4:09] LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECTS. THANKS FOR COMING DOWNTOWN, AND YOU CAN [4:14] STAY IF YOU WOULD LIKE, BUT YOU ARE NOT -- YOU DON'T HAVE TO. [4:20] OKAY. SO LET'S GO BACK TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 446, 4017 [4:30] AVENUE. MR. CARRIER. [4:45] >> GOOD AFTERNOON BO CHAIR PERRY, BOARD MEMBERS. ITEM 4 IS [4:52] VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD FROM 15 FEET TO ZERO FEET. AT 4640 17th [5:01] AVENUE SOUTH SUBMITTED BY HIAWATHA ABC REPRESENTED BY TODD PETERSON. THE PROPERTY'S IN THE [5:08] UN3 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICT AND THE CORRIDOR 3 OVERLAY BUILT DISTRICT. IT'S A [5:14] LOT AREA OF 155,071 SQUARE FEET [5:20] OR 3.56 ACRES, AND IS LOCATED IN THE FIELD REGINA WORTH HP NEIGHBORHOOD IN WARD 11. IT'S A [5:26] LARGE RECTANGULAR THROUGH LOT OCCUPYING AN ENTIRE CITY BLOCK. [5:31] AS A THROUGH LOT, BOTH THE EAST AND WEST PROPERTY LINES ABUTTING PUBLIC STREETS ARE CONSIDERED [5:37] FRONT LOT LINES WITH REQUIRED FRONT YARDS. THE PROPERTY IS -- [5:44] REPRESENTS A WHOLE CITY BLOCK. THE EXISTING PRINCIPAL USE IS A K-8 EDUCATIONAL FACILITY SERVING [5:53] APPROXIMATELY 800 STUDENTS ATTENDING HIAWATHA LEADERSHIP ACADEMY AND HIAWATHA COLLEGE [6:01] PREP. AND BOTH SCHOOLS ARE CO-LOCATED ON THE SINGLE PARCELL [6:07] INCLUDE SURFACE PARKING AREAS AND THE TWO STRUCTURES. THERE'S [6:13] ALSO A RETAINING WALL WITH A FOUR-FOOT FENCE ON TOP ALONG [6:19] 16th AVENUE WHERE THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED. [6:27] >> DO YOU HAVE OTHER INFORMATION YOU CAN SHARE WITH US? >> SURE. >> FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE THE [6:38] FINDINGS. >> YES, SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING [6:46] APPROVAL BASED ON THE REQUIRED FINDINGS. THE FIRST IS [6:52] OBVIOUSLY CHALLENGES EXISTING IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCES BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY, AND THOSE [6:59] UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY PERSONS PRESENTLY HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, AND ARE NOT BASED ON ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ALONE. [7:06] STAFF FINDS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES EXIST IN COMPLYING WITH THE YARD REQUIREMENTS. [7:12] GRADE CHANGES AT THE PROPERTY AT 16th AVENUE SOUTH PRESENT CHALLENGES IN COMPLYING WITH THE [7:18] ORDINANCE. THE EXISTING PLAY AREA CONSISTING OF A PLAYGROUND, PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, AND A PLAY [7:25] FIELD IS IN CLOSED BY THE SCHOOL BUILDINGS, A PARKING AREA, AND IS THREE FEET BELOW GRADE ALONG [7:31] THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE AT 16th AVENUE SOUTH. THE PARCEL'S A THROUGH LOT, WHICH [7:38] OCCUPIES A CITY BLOCK, MEANING THE FRONT YARD SHALL BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED ALONG THE FRONT [7:47] LOT LINE, WHICH IS ALIGNED WITH THE ORIGINAL PLATTING IF THE [7:52] PARCEL. AND THAT SHOULD MATCH THE ESTABLISHED FRONT YARD OF THE CLOSEST PRINCIPLE BUILT [7:59] RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OR CLOSEST PRINCIPAL BUILDING ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES LOCATED ON THE SAME BLOCK FACE. THE ORIGINAL [8:09] PLATTING OF THE PARCEL WAS INTENDED TO MATCH THE SURROUNDING PARCELS, WHICH ARE [8:15] CHARACTERIZED BY INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL USES AND WOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED FRONTAGE ALONG 16th AVENUE SOUTH. THIS [8:23] STANDARD IS NOT EASILY APPLIED TO THE EXISTING USE AND BUILT FORM OF THE PARCEL BECAUSE IT [8:30] DOESN'T CONFORM TO THE ORIGINAL PLATTING. IT'S, THERE ARE NO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES ON THE [8:36] SAME BLOCK FACE, AND THE ENTIRE BLOCK IS OCCUPIED BY THE EDUCATIONAL FACILITY. AS SUCH, [8:44] THE INTENDED BENEFITS OF BUFFERING AND SCREENING ASSOCIATED WITH THE REQUIRED YARDS AND LANDSCAPING [8:49] REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT ACHIEVABLE HERE. FOR THE SECOND FINDING, [8:55] THE PROPERTY OWNER OR AUTHORIZED APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE THE PROPERTY IN A REASONABLE MANNER [9:01] THAT WILL BE IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE [9:09] PLAN. SCHOOLS GRADE K-12 ARE A PERMITTED USE IN THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICTS. THE CONTINUED USE OF THE [9:15] PROPERTY AS AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY IS IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE [9:22] PLAN. YARD CONTROLS PROVIDE FOR THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND USE [9:28] OF LAND AND TO MINIMIZE CONFLICTS AMONG LAND USES BY [9:33] REGULATING THE DIMENSIONS AND USE OF YARDS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE LIGHT, AIR, OPEN SPACE, [9:39] AND SEPARATION OF USES. YARD CONTROLS ALSO PLAY A ROLE IN [9:45] STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, DEFINING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SPACES, AND CREATING A LAND SCAPE BUFFER FOR [9:51] GROUND LEVEL RESIDENTIAL USES. THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD FROM 15 FEET [9:56] TO ZERO FEET ON THIS THROUGH LOT IS REASONABLE CONSIDERING THE [10:04] LOT TAKED UP THE ENTIRE SETTEE BLOCK, IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY ADJACENT USE PT O SATE BLOCK [10:10] FACE AND WILL NOT RESULTS IN EXCESSIVE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OR ANY PRACTICAL CHANGES TO THE FRONT YARD WHICH [10:16] SITS THREE FEET BELOW THE ADJACENT GREAT. AND THEN FOR THE THIRD FINDING, THE PROPOSED [10:22] VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY OR BE INJURIOUS TO THE USE OR ENJOYMENT OF OTHER PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY, AND IF [10:31] GRANTED, THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE GENERAL PUB LIC ALL OR OF [10:38] THOSE USING THE -- PUBLIC OR OF THOSE REQUIRING THE PROPERTIES. THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD WOULD NOT [10:46] ALTER THE LOTALITY. IF GRANTED THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE DET RMMENTAL TOO HEALTH, SAFETY, OR [10:51] WELFARE OF THOSE UTILIZING THE PROPERTY OR NEARBY PROPERTIES, AND ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR WILL [10:57] STILL BE MAINTAINED, AND THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WILL IMPROVE THE EXISTING PLAY AREA, [11:03] CONTRIBUTING TO THE ENJOYMENT OF THE STUDENTS AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY AND GENERAL PUBLIC, [11:08] WHICH UTILIZES THE PROPERTY AND PLAY AREA WHEN THE SCHOOL IS NOT IN SESSION. SO THE DEPARTMENT [11:14] OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDS THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ADOPT STAFF FINDINGS FOR THE [11:22] REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD FROM 15 FEET TO ZERO [11:29] FEET. THANK YOU. >> OKAY, THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION. ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF STAFF? YES, [11:35] MR. HUTCHENS. >> THANKS CHAIR PERRY. THANKS FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. I GUESS, WHERE I'M HUNG UP ON IT IS THE [11:40] PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. YOU CITE GRADE CHANGE, GRADE CHANGE IS FOUR FEET ACROSS AN ENTIRE [11:47] CITY BLOCK. THAT'S NOT A GRADE CHANGE. THAT'S, I MEAN, THAT'S PRETTY FLAT. I GET A LITTLE CONFUSED [11:52] WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THAT ONE, AND THEN THE OTHER PORTIONS OF SITE AND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IS ESSENTIALLY ZONING IS HARD TO [12:00] CONFORM WITH. I'M LOST ON CAN YOU HELP ME ON THAT ONE? I'M NOT SEEING WHERE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IS. HOW IS THIS ONE [12:08] DIFFERENT THAN EVERY OTHER PARK, SCHOOL, PLAYGROUND, IN THE CITY? [12:15] TO PLANT GRASS, GRADE CHANGE REALLY ISN'T A PRACTICAL [12:21] DIFFICULTY. >> SURE. THE GRADE CHANGE ALONG [12:27] 16th IS THE RETAINING WALL THERE RETAINS THE GRADE AT 16th, AND THEN THERE IS THE [12:33] DROP-OFF TO THE SCHOOL PROPERTY. >> HOW DOES THAT STOP YOU FROM PLANTING GRASS? [12:42] >> IT DOESN'T. >> OKAY. >> YEAH. IVMENT ANY OTHER [12:47] QUESTIONS OF STAFF? I SEE NONE. [12:55] THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL MAYBE HAVE YOU COME UP AGAIN. SO LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC [13:00] HEARING. IS THERE, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? DO YOU WANT [13:06] TO GIVE TESTIMONY? GREAT. IF YOU COULD COME UP TO THE [13:12] MICROPHONE AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND LIMIT YOUR TESTIMONY TO 10 [13:18] MINUTES. >> MY M NAME'S TODD [13:23] METERSON WITH HIAWATHA ACADEMIES. I'M THE SENIOR FINANCE OFFICER. WE'RE LOCATED [13:29] AT, IN THE NORTHRUP NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'RE ALSO HAVE OUR PRIMARY FACILITIES OR OUR HIGH SCHOOL FACILITIES IS IN THE [13:37] LONG FELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD, 3500 [13:42] EAST 38th STREET. SO WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, [13:47] AND WHAT WE'RE REFERRING TO WHEN WE HAVE TRIED GRASS, RIGHT NOW [13:53] IF YOU LOOK AT THE LOT, THE ENTIRE LOT IS DIRT. RIGHT NOW IT'S MUD, AND YOU HAVE 800 [14:00] CHILDREN ON WHAT WAS GRASS AT ONE TIME. GRASS, SHRUBS, ANY [14:07] OTHER THING CANNOT LIVE UNDER THE FEET OF 800 CHILDREN FOR 170 [14:14] DAYS IN ALL TYPES OF WEATHER. AND SO WE ARE PUTTING IN TURF TO [14:20] HELP WITH BOTH THE PHYSICAL [14:25] APPEARANCE, THE USABILITY FOR THE STUDENTS, SAFETY FOR THE STUDENTS BECAUSE DURING THE WINTER THAT TURNS INTO AN ICE [14:32] RINK UNDER ALL THE FEET AND THE SNOW AND EVERYTHING ELSE. AND SO WITHOUT THE PROPER [14:38] DRAINAGE, WHICH IS LIMITED BY [14:43] MUD AND JUST THE GENERAL, ALL OF THE WATER COMES DOWN THROUGH [14:48] THAT, FROM THAT BLOCK COMES THROUGH THAT PLAY AREA, AND [14:56] TAKES TOP SOIL WITH IT INTO THE DRAIN AND INTO OUR BASIN, WHICH [15:01] OUR WASTEWATER BASINS AND SO ON. SO WE WANT TO TURF THAT, THE PLAN IS TO TURF THE PLAYGROUND, [15:09] AND WE'RE REALLY JUST LOOKING FOR THAT, THOSE ADDITIONAL 15 FEET SO THAT WE CAN BRING THE [15:15] TURF UP TO THE EDGE OF THE EXISTING RETAINING WALL. OTHERWISE, WHAT YOU HAVE IS A, [15:24] WE'LL HAVE TURF, AND THEN A STRIP OF MUD FOR THAT, FOR THAT [15:29] SPACE. AND THEN THERE IS THART THAT WILL REMAIN OR THAT WILL [15:36] BE, THAT ATTACHES TO MORE OF A PLAYGROUND AREA, SO WHERE THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT DOESN'T [15:43] MOVE ANY, MOVE ANY CLOSER TO THE, TO THE STREET OR WITHIN THAT 15 FEET, BUT IT WOULD JUST [15:49] BE WOOD CHIPS GOING UP TO THE WALL THERE. AND SO THERE'S TWO [15:55] DIFFERENT, TWO DIFFERENT SURFACES, WOOD CHIPS AND TURF. [16:02] >> SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DO IS FIND FOR A [16:07] PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. THERE ARE THREE FINDINGS. ONE OF THEM IS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. AND I, [16:19] AND UNIQUENESS. AND SO I THINK THE ISSUE THAT YOU -- I DON'T [16:24] KNOW THAT YOU'VE REALLYDRIESED IT YET IS WHAT IS UNIQUE FROM [16:30] YOUR SCHOOL TO ANY OTHER SCHOOL THAT HAS LOTS OF KIDS RUNNING [16:35] ALL OVER THE PLAYGROUND. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU CAN HELP US OUT WITH THAT? [16:40] >> WELL, I THINK FOR ONE, THE UNIQUENESS IS THAT WE ARE BELOW THE GRADE, SO THAT RETAINING [16:46] WALL IS THERE. IT'S NOT GOING AWAY. AND IT EXISTED WELL [16:52] BEFORE HIAWATHA ACADEMIES DID IN THAT SPACE. AND SO WHEN YOU ARE [16:58] ON THE SIDEWALK OR THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO USE THE PLAYGROUND AND [17:04] SO ON, IT, IT DOESN'T VISUALLY CHANGE ANYTHING TO BRING THE [17:11] TURF ALL THE WAY TO THE WALL. AND SO THAT THE UNIQUENESS OF [17:16] THE SPACE IS THAT WE ARE PRETTY MUCH LANDLOCKED OR JUST, WE'VE [17:22] GOT TWO BUILDINGS, AND A RETAINING WALL, AND A PARKING LOT. AND SO IT'S A VERY LIMITED [17:27] SPACE, AND THAT'S WHY TRYING TO PUT 800 STUDENTS INTO THAT VERY [17:33] LIMITED SPACE CREATES THE ELEMENT WHERE THAT'S, WHERE GRASS CAN'T GROW BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY KIDS IN A LIMITED SPACE [17:40] IN ONE, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THAT, WITHIN THAT AREA. ANY, AND I [17:47] WISH, I THOUGHT TO BRING YOU AN AERIAL PHOTO OR SOMETHING WHERE YOU COULD ACTUALLY SEE THE SPACE ITSELF, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT IT, [17:54] YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A LOT OF KIDS THAT PLAY IN THAT SPACE, AND SINCE NO [18:02] GRASS OR SHRUBS OR OTHER THINGS GROW, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD [18:07] MAKE IT A LIT LITTLE MORE UNIQUE. IF WE HAD MUCH MORE SPACE FOR THE KIDS TO RUN OR IF THE WHOLE THING WAS BLACKTOP, [18:14] WHICH I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SEE, IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE DIFFERENT. [18:22] >> OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? YEAH? [18:28] >> SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A BAD IDEA AT ALL TO PUT THE TURF. I JUST THINK THE PRACTICAL [18:33] DIFFICULTIES, A THIN ARGUMENT THAT KIDS PLAY ON A PLAYGROUND. [18:40] I'M LOOKING AT OLDER GOOGLE PICTURES. THERE IS GRASS IN THE FIELD. I DON'T -- I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THE PRACTICAL [18:47] DIFFICULTY, AND STAFF DOESN'T HAVE ANY PHOTOS OTHER THAN A PLOT AERIAL SHOT, SO TO YOUR [18:52] POINT, MAYBE SOME PHOTOS WOULD'VE HELPED US OUT ON THIS, BUT I DO NOT SEE A PRACTICAL [18:58] DIFFICULTY ON PLANTING A GRASS ON A FIELD FOR KIDS, SO THAT'S JUST ME. THANKS. >> I DON'T THINK THE ISSUE IS [19:03] WITH PLANTING IT. IT'S KEEPING IT ALIVE. WE WOULD HAVE TO THEN RUN IRRIGATION JUST FOR THAT, [19:10] THOSE FEW FEET, AND YOU KNOW, I JUST, IT DIDN'T SEEM APPROPRIATE [19:17] FOR THE STUDENTS OR FOR THE COMMUNITY WHO WANTS TO, WHO USE THE SPACE WHILE CLASS IS NOT IN [19:26] SESSION. >> RIGHT, I THINK WE UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT. IT MAY BE THAT WHEN THE BOARD VOTES, THEY DON'T [19:32] AGREE WITH IT, BUT I THINK EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS YOUR ARGUMENT AND YOU'VE MADE YOUR [19:38] CASE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANKS. IS THERE ANYONE WHO [19:44] WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS [19:50] APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE. SO WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. [19:56] BOARD COMMENT? YES. [20:03] >> I'D LIKE TO THANK BOARD MEMBER HUTCHENS FOR PULLING THIS FOR DISCUSSION. I THINK A LOT [20:08] OF THE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED, I'M NOT SURE THAT I SEE THAT THIS IS MEETING THE THREE FINDINGS FOR THE REASONS THAT WEEN ALREADY KIND OF DISCUSSED. [20:17] THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS TO INCREASE SIN THELTIC TURF ON A PLAYFIELD, AND THERE IS ALSO [20:22] LOTS OF SCHOOLS THAT HAVE LOTS OF CHILDREN THAT USE THEIR SCHOOLYARD SPACES AND ARE ABLE TO KEEP GRASS, SHRUBS, TREES, [20:30] ET CETERA. AND THERE'S ALSO LOT OF ORGANIZATIONS IN THE CITY THAT PROVIDE TREES AND HELP WITH THE MAINTENANCE FOR THOSE IN THE [20:36] LONG TERM. SO THAT'S MY BOARD COMMENT. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I DON'T [20:42] SEE ANY, SO I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I MEAN, I DON'T THINK IT'S A BAD IDEA TO PUT TURF, BUT I'M [20:48] GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THIS, YOU KNOW, TO GO AGAINST STAFF FINDINGS AND DENY THE [20:54] VARIANCE. >>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> THERE IS A MOTION BEFORE US [20:59] THAT HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY -- YES? >> YEAH, I'LL JUST SPEAK ON IT [21:04] QUICK TOO. >> SURE. >> YEAH, I APPRECIATE THIS GETTING PULLED AND KIND OF COMING UP TO OUR ATTENTION. I WAS LIKE, LIKE YOU MENTIONED I [21:11] WAS GOING BACK THROUGH GOOGLE STREET VIEW, AND WITH THIS AREA IN PARTICULAR BY THE STREET, [21:19] FROM WHAT I CAN SEE AT LEAST IN HISTORICALLY, IT LOOKS LIKE GRASS HAS BEEN ABLE TO GROW [21:24] THERE, AND IN TERMS OF TURF, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'VE KIND OF DISCUSSED THAT OBVIOUSLY HERE [21:30] BEFORE TOO, AND FROM THE CITY'S POINT OF VIEW, UNLESS, UNLESS, YOU KNOW, THE RULES AND ORDINANCES ARE CHANGED, YOU [21:35] KNOW, WE DON'T CONSIDER THAT A LIKE A PERMEABLE SURFACE AND THAT. SO WE ARE KIND OF MORE OR [21:41] LESS CONSIDERING IT ALMOST AS OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT BLOCKTOP BUT WE'RE ALMOST KIND OF HAVING TO LOOK AT IT IN A SIMILAR WAY [21:47] BECAUSE WE CAN'T ENSURE DRAINAGE AND IT'S YOU KNOW NOT NATURAL FEATURES. SO I THINK WITH WHAT [21:52] WE'VE DISCUSSED HERE BEFORE, AND YEAH, NOT REALLY SEEING ANYTHING REALLY PARTICULARLY UNIQUE OR [21:57] ANY CHALLENGES HERE, I SUPPORT THE MOTION TOO. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK, THANKS FOR THOSE COMMENTS. ANY OTHER [22:04] COMMENTS ON THE MOTION OR DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? [22:14] >> BOARD MEMBER CALLAHAN. >> AYE. >> EICHOLZ. >> AYE. [22:21] >> HUTCHENS. >> AYE. >> INGRAHAM. [22:26] >> NAY. >> SMRIKAROVA. >> NAY. >> WANG. [22:32] >> NAY. >> AND CHAIR PERRY, WE HAVE A TIE. >> WE DO HAVE A TIE. SO ONE OF THE THINGS I FORGOT TO MENTION WHEN I STARTED IS THE CHAIR ONLY [22:40] VOTES EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF A TIE. DOESN'T HAPPEN OFTEN, BUT [22:46] IT IS HERE. WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ARTIFICIAL [22:52] TURF AT THIS BOARD, AND CODE WAS [22:57] CHANGED TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS ARTIFICIAL TURF ON PROPERTIES, [23:03] SO THE CITY COUNCIL GOT THE FEEDBACK WHEN WE MADE CERTAIN DECISIONS AND THOSE DECISIONS [23:09] WERE APPEALED, AND CODE WAS CHANGED TO ADDRESS THIS VERY MATTER. AND SO I AGREE WITH [23:18] BOARD MEMBER HUTCHENS THAT THERE ISN'T ANYTHING PARTICULARLY UNIQUE ABOUT TH THIS, AND WE [23:27] HAVE CODE THAT IS SPECIFICALLY I WON'T SAY ANTI-ARTIFICIAL TURF [23:32] BUT DEFINITELY THERE HAS TO BE A VERY COMPELLING REASON TO HAVE IT. AND SO I AM GOING TO VOTE [23:39] AYE. >> SO WE HAVE FOUR AYES AND THREE NAYS. [23:45] >> SO THE MOTION PASSES. THE REQUEST IS DENIED. YOU CAN SEE [23:50] STAFF WHAT YOUR OPTIONS ARE GOING FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. [23:58] LET'S GO ONTO 4428 EDMUND [24:06] BOULEVARD. BEFORE WE START TOO, [24:12] I WANT TO JUST SAY SOMETHING ABOUT 4428 EDMOPPED BOULEVARD. [24:18] -- EDMUND BOULEVARD. I HAVE READ THIS AS ALL MY COLLEAGUES HAVE. THERE IS A LOT OF [24:24] MATERIAL IN HERE ABOUT A LOT OF [24:29] ISSUES. AND IF I WAS A RESIDENT WHO IS LIVING NEXT TO THIS, I WOULD BE FRUSTRATED, I WOULD BE [24:36] ANGRY, I WOULD BE INCENSED. BUT WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE -- WHAT WE [24:43] HAVE TO RECOGNIZE IS THIS BOARD HAS A PURVIEW OF THAT IS VERY [24:50] NARROW WHEN IT COMES TO APPEALS OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. [24:57] AND SO THE WRITTEN TESTIMONY WILL BE FILED. IT WILL BE PART OF THE RECORD. BUT I DO NOT [25:05] WANT TO DISCUSS ISSUES THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE PURVIEW OF [25:10] OF THIS BOARD, PROCESS ISSUES, FOR EXAMPLE. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING WE CAN ADDRESS. [25:18] POTENTIAL ZONING ISSUES. WHEN THEY BECOME ZONING ISSUES, THEY'LL COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, AND WE WILL ADDRESS THEM. BUT [25:24] POTENTIAL ZONING ISSUES IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WILL, ARE GOING TO ADDRESS TODAY. SO WHAT [25:30] I WOULD LIKE IS STAFF, THE [25:35] BOARD, AND THE PEOPLE WHO SPEAK TO CONCENTRATE ON THE ITEM AT HAND, WHICH IS THE DETERMINATION [25:41] OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON THE PILINGS. AND WITH THAT, I'LL HAND IT OVER TO STAFF. [25:48] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR PERRY, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED MIDBLOCK ON EDMUND BOULEVARD [25:56] HERE WITH THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER ACROSS TO THE EAST. IT'S AN [26:02] AVERAGE WIDTH LOT, BUT IT'S VERY DEEP, MAKING IT LARGE FOR A CITY LOTTAGE, A BIT OVER 10,000 [26:07] SQUARE FEET. SINCE FEBRUARY OF 2024, THERE HAS BEEN WORK GOING ON ON THE PROPERTY TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. [26:14] THIS STARTED OFF AS A REMODELING PROJECT THAT TURNED INTO A FULL NEW CONSTRUCTION. THERE WAS WORK THAT EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF [26:20] THE BUILDING PERMIT AT TIMES, BUT AFTER STOP WORK ORDERS WERE ISSUED, ALL REQUIRED BUILDING [26:25] PERMITS AND LAND USE APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, REVIEWED, AND APPROVED BY CITY STAFF. AS THE [26:34] CHAIR NOTED, THIS WORK IS UNQUESTIONABLY BEEN DISRUPTIVE TO THE NEIGHBORS, BOTH THROUGH THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY [26:40] AND ALSO THROUGH THE, YOU KNOW, APPEARANCE OF THIS NEW HOUSE. AND SO A NUMBER OF ISSUES HAVE [26:46] BEEN RAISED BY NEIGHBORS OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST YEAR. THIS SITE HAS BEEN INSPECTED NUMEROUS TIMES BY BUILDING [26:52] INSPECTORS, ZONING INSPECTORS, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS, THE CITY BUILDING [26:58] OFFICIAL, AND THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, AND THE CITY COUNCILMEMBER HAS ALSO HAD A MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORS REGARDING THIS PROJECT. THE [27:05] APPELLANT IN THIS CASE SENT, THE CITY ZONING INSPECTOR A LETTER IN MARCH OUTLINING A NUMBER OF [27:11] ISSUES WITH THE PROPERTY AND ON APRIL 7th THE CITY ATTORNEY RESPONDED TO THIS. A NUMBER OF [27:16] ISSUES AS YOU NOTED, CHAIR, THAT WERE RAISED IN THIS LETTER WERE [27:22] RUR RELATED TO BUILDING CODES AND BUILDING PROCESS AND OUTSIDE OF THE PURVIEW OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. AND SO TO AVOID [27:30] CONFUSION, I WILL BE FOCUSING ON THE ITEM THAT CAN BE APPEALED THAT IS BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY, AND THAT IS REGARDING PILINGS [27:39] THAT WERE INSTALLED FOR EXCAVATION WORK AT THE PROPERTY. [27:46] SO YOU CAN SEE HERE THE SHORING WALL THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED TO ALLOW FOR THE EXCAVATION OF [27:51] CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOUNDATION AND BASEMENT. THE INDIVIDUAL [27:57] BUILDING PERMIT IF THE SHORING WAS TO INDICATE THIS WAS A TEMPORARY SHORING WALL TO BE REMOVED WHEN THE WORK WAS COMPLETED. HOWEVER THE [28:03] CONTRACTOR LATER DETERMINED THAT IT WASN'T FEASIBLE TO GET THE EQUIPMENT ONTO THE SITE NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE PILINGS. [28:12] AND SO RATHER THAN PULL OUT THE PILINGS THEY WERE CUT OFF, WHERE THEY WENT INTO THE GROUND. YOU [28:19] CAN SEE HERE THE PIECES THAT WERE CUT OFF. AND THEN FILL WAS BROUGHT IN TO COVER THE, THE [28:25] PIECES THAT REMAINED. SO THESE, THE TOPS OF THESE CUT OFF PIECES [28:31] ARE APPROXIMATELY SIX TO EIGHT FEET BELOW THE GRADE. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS INDICATED THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE [28:37] BUILDING CODE THAT REQUIRES THE REMOVAL OF THIS, AND HASFURCATE THEREDICATED THAT IT IS NOT [28:42] UNCOMMON FOR THIS TO BE DONE ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, ESPECIALLY ON SITES THAT ARE A [28:47] BIT MORE NARROW. THE APPLICANT [28:52] HAS RAISED THIS AS A POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND THE ZONING [28:58] ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINED THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE COMPLETELY AND SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW THE FINISHED [29:03] GRADE THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS WHICH IS OF COURSE THE SUBJECT OF THE -- YOU CAN SEE HERE THIS IS A PICTURE FROM MARCH. THAT [29:11] WALL WOULD'VE BEEN ALONG HERE APPROXIMATELY ONE FOOT FROM THE [29:16] PROPERTY LINE SO YOU CAN THAT FILL HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP, THE GRADE HAS BEEN BROUGHT BACK UP AND THOSE ELEMENTS ARE [29:21] COMPLETELY BURIED AND BELOW GROUND. REGARDING YARDS, THERE ARE THREE RELEVANT CODE SECTIONS I WILL CITE HERE. THE FIRST IS [29:29] THE ZONING CODE DEFINITION OF A YARD, WHICH STATES, AN OPEN SPACE ON THE SAME ZONING LOT WITH A USE, BUILDING, OR [29:35] STRUCTURE, WHICH IS UNOCCUPIED AND UNOBSTRUCTED FROM THE LOWEST SURFACE LEVEL TO THE SKY, EXCEPT [29:42] AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. SECTION 54890 WHICH DEALS WITH PERMITTED [29:48] OBSTRUCTIONS AND REQUIRED YARDS, STATES IN GENERAL ARE REQUIRED [29:53] YARDS SHALL REMAIN OPEN AND UNOBSTRUCTED FROM GROUND LEVEL TO THE SKY. AND SECTION 54800 [29:59] IN GIVING THE PURPOSE FOR REQUIRED YARDS STATES YARD CONTROLS PROVIDE FOR THE ORDERLY [30:04] DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF LAND AND TO MINIMIZE CONFLICTS AMONG LAND USES BY REGULATING THE DIMENSIONS AND USE OF YARDS IN [30:11] ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE LIGHT, AIR, OPEN SPACE, AND SEPARATION IN USES. AGAIN, THESE PILING [30:19] REMNANTS ARE BURIED APPROXIMATELY SIX TO EIGHT FEET BELOW THE FINISHED GRADE TODAY, AND DO NOT EXTEND ABOVE THE SURFACE LEVEL OF THE LOT AT ALL. [30:29] MEANING THAT THEY DO NOT VIOLATE THE PROVISION -- THE DEFINITION OF A YARD, WHICH AGAIN TALKS ABOUT THE LOWEST SURFACE LEVEL [30:36] OF THE LOT OR THE PERMITTED OBSTRUCTION SECTION, WHICH TALKS ABOUT THE GROUND LEVEL TO THE [30:44] SKY. THE CITY HAS REGULARLY -- OR PREVIOUSLY AND REGULARLY ALLOWED STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS [30:49] THAT ARE BELOW THE GROUND TO BE LOCATED IN REQUIRED YARDS AND NOT ENFORCE REQUIRED SETBACKS. [30:55] THIS INCLUDES AS I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED PILINGS SIMILAR TO THIS ON OTHER PROJECTS, OTHER [31:01] TYPES OF FOUNDATION STABILIZATION AND REPAIR ELEMENTS THAT ARE USED TO SHORE [31:07] UP FAILING FOUNDATIONS ON EXISTING PROPERTIES. BELOW GROUND TUNNELS TUNNELS [31:14] CONNECTING HOUSES TO GARAGES AND EVEN PACKERRING GARAGES, ALL OF THESE THINGS AGAIN HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AND NOT SUBJECTED TO [31:22] YARD REQUIREMENTS. THE LAST THING I'LL NOTE IS THAT WHILE THIS APPLICATION WAS BROUGHT ON BY THIS PROJECT AND THIS [31:28] PROPERTY, THE QUESTION AT HAND IS NOT WHETHER THE PILINGS FOR THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK [31:33] REQUIREMENTS BUT WOULD BE, HAVE A CITYWIDE IMPACT, SO ALL OF THOSE ELEMENTS THAT I JUST [31:38] TALKED ABOUT THAT AGAIN THE CITY HAS HISTORICALLY ALLOWED WOULD BE AFFECTED SHOULD IT BE [31:46] DETERMINED THAT THEY WERE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIRED SETBACKS. SO BASED ON THIS [31:52] INFORMATION, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE APPEAL. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE. [31:57] >> THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION. ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF STAFF? YES, MR. HUTCHENS. [32:02] >> THANKS, CHAIR. THANKS FOR THE GOOD PRESENTATION. CAN I CLARIFY SOMETHING YOU SAID THAT THIS WOULD HAVE IMPACTS ON ALL [32:08] EXISTING UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES CITYWIDE? WE DON'T MAKE PRECEDENTS OR WE DON'T SET PRECEDENTS? HOW WOULD THAT FLOW [32:15] OVER TO THOSE? >> SO CHAIR PERRY, BOARD MEMBER HUTCHENS, AGAIN, THE QUESTION AT [32:22] HAND ISN'T WHETHER THESE PARTICULAR PILINGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIRED YARDS. IT WOULD BE O ARE PILINGS SUBJECT TO [32:29] REQUIRED YARDS. >> GOTCHA, THANK YOU. >> SO IT'S NOT THE QUESTION -- ISN'T JUST FOR THIS PROPERTY. >> APPRECIATE IT. THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION. [32:35] >> OTHER QUESTIONS? YES? >> ALSO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. CAN YOU JUST [32:40] CLARIFY FOR US YOU TALK ABOUT IN THE CODE IT STATES STRUCTURE, AND YOU REFERENCE STRUCTURAL, [32:46] AND I THINK THERE'S AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO WORDS THAT ARE BEING USED SO CAN YOU JUST GIVE SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT [32:52] THE CITY CONSIDERS LIKE A STRUCTURE IN TERMS OF, I KNOW WE'RE GETTING SORT OF SEMANTIC QUESTION BUT I THINK IMPORTANT [32:58] TO THE QUESTION. >> SURE. I DON'T HAVE THE ZONING CODE WITH ME. IT DOES DEFINE A STRUCTURE AS BASICALLY [33:04] ANYTHING THAT'S, YOU KNOW PLACED PERMANENTLY ON A PROPERTY. [33:12] >> IS THAT SOMETHING -- >> [OFF MIC] >> A SHED IS A STRUCTURE, A DECK [33:17] IS A STRUCTURE. >> A WALL. >> YES. >> GREAT, THANK YOU. [33:22] >> MR. ELLIS, DO YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THAT? [33:28] >> [OFF MIC] >> YES. THAT'S HOW I [33:34] INTERPRETED IT. >> CHAIR PERRY, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. A STRUCTURE IS DEFINED [33:39] AS ANYTHING CONSTRUCTED OR -- [33:44] MUNI CODE MOVED. I APOLOGIZE. LET'S SEE. NOW I HAVE TO WAIT [33:59] FOR IT TO RELOAD. A STRUCTURE [34:07] IS ANYTHING CONSTRUCTED OR ERECTED WITH A MORE OR LESS FIXED LOTIONS ON LOCATION ON [34:14] THE GROUND OR IN OR OVER A BODY OF WATER. A STRUCTURE IS -- CANOPIES, DECKS, PADIO, [34:21] ANTENNAE, PEERS, DOCKS AND ANY OBJECTS OR THINGS PERMANENTLY ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURE. [34:29] >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES? >>> SO MY QUESTION IS WOULD THIS [34:35] BE FOR, IT'S JUST LIMITED TO SHORING PILINGS WITH THIS, WITH [34:40] OUR DETERMINATION, AND THEN WOULD THIS BE THE CASE FOR ALL [34:46] SHORING PILINGS THROUGHOUT THE CITY? >> CHAIR PERRY, BOARD MEMBER, [34:51] INGRAHAM, YES, AND I BELIEVE IT WOULD IMPACT THOSE OTHER THINGS MENTIONED THAT I THINK AGAIN BASED ON THE ZONING CODE [34:57] DEFINITION TALKING ABOUT SURFACE OF THE GROUND, TO THE SKY, GROUND LEVEL TO THE SKY, ALL THOSE THINGS WERE PERMIT BASED [35:04] ON THAT LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE. >> THANK YOU. >> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF [35:10] STAFF? I SEE NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. VRCHOTA. SO WHAT [35:18] WE WILL DO IS HAVE THE APPELLANT SPEAK FIRST JUST LIKE WE DID WITH THE OTHER ITEM. THOSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE [35:26] APPELLANT'S POSITION, AND THEN THOSE WHO ARE SPEAKING AGAINST THE APPELLANT'S POSITION. AND [35:34] THE APPELLANT HAS, WE'LL SAY BETWEEN 10 AND 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR CASE. AND EVERYONE [35:40] ELSE GETS TWO MINUTES. SO WITH THAT, ARE YOU THE APPELLANT, [35:46] SIR? >> YES. >> IF YOU COULD STEP FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. AND [35:52] AS I SAID, IF YOU COULD STICK TO [35:57] THE PARTICULAR APPEAL THAT YOU ARE FOCUSING ON, I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT. OTHERWISE I'M GOING TO HAVE TO INTERRUPT YOU [36:03] AND CUT YOU OFF, AND I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. >> I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU FOR [36:10] THE OPPORTUNITY OF -- >> CAN I GET YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, TOO. [36:15] >> YES, MY NAME IS DUG KELLEY, AND IIVE ALL AT 4432 EDMUND BOULEVARD. [36:21] >> OKAY, THANKS. >> AN ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE [36:26] 4428. AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE YOU [36:33] TODAY. AFTER READING THE STAFF REPORT, YOU MAY ASK WHY I AM [36:39] HERE, AND, I'M REALLY NOT THE PARIAH OR THE NIMBY THAT IS [36:47] CONCERNED ABOUT IT, AND I'M GLAD THE CHAIR HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS ANGER INVOLVED WITH [36:54] THIS ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF HOW THIS PROJECT WAS PUT TOGETHER AND PRESENTED TO OUR COMMUNITY. I'M HERE [37:06] BECAUSE LIKE MY NEIGHBORS, I GET ANGRY WHEN I'M LIED TO. AND [37:13] WHILE I WILL AVOID SOME ITEMS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN MY APPEAL, THERE IS A DISHONESTY THAT WAS [37:20] PRESENT WHEN THIS PROJECT WAS STARTED. AND I THINK THAT'S OUTLINED IN MY APPEAL. I [37:29] BELIEVE THAT ALSO IT CARRIES THROUGH AS IT RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO THE TEMPORARY [37:35] SHORING. IN PARTICULAR, THERE'S [37:42] A FUNDAMENTAL AND WHAT APPEARS TO ME AND NOT BEING AN EXPERT ON ZONING, MY CAREER IN PUBLIC [37:49] SERVICE FOR 30 YEARS WAS IN BUILDING BUILDINGS AND GETTING PROJECTS DONE. AND IN DOING SO, [37:58] I AM USED TO READING LANGUAGE AND INTERPRETING THESE [38:03] DOCUMENTS, AND I AM FINDING THAT SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS THAT ARE [38:08] INCLUDED IN MY APPEAL DID NOT MAKE IT INTO THE STAFF SUMMARY [38:13] REPORT, AND I FIND THAT TO BE VERY UPSETTING. BUT I REALLY [38:19] DON'T WANT TO PRESENT HERE THAT ANGER. I DO WANT TO GET A FAIR [38:26] HEARING, AND IF IT'S JUST LIMITED TO THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, I'LL ACCEPT THAT FOR THE TIME BEING. [38:32] >> IT IS. >> IT IS. I WILL SKIP THROUGH A [38:39] NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT CAME UP, BUT WILL GO DIRECTLY TO THE [38:48] SHORING. IN DOING SO, I WOULD LIKE TO READ SOME ELEMENTS THAT [38:54] RELATE SPECIFICALLY TO ZONING INTENT, AND THEY'RE VERY FUNDAMENTAL TO THE ZONING LAWS. [39:01] MCO 520. FINE 0, REQUIREMENTS ARE DECLARED A MINIMUM. IN [39:08] THEIR INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION. THIS ZONING ORDINANCE SHALL BE HELD TO [39:13] MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROMOTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AESTHETICS, ECONOMIC VIABILITY, AND WELFARE. THE [39:21] CITY MAY IMPOSE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS WHERE DEEMED REASONABLE AND NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC INTEREST AND [39:29] ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS AND PURPOSES OF THE ZONING ORDINANCES. RULES OF [39:38] CONSTRUCTION. THE WORD SHALL IS MANDATORY AND NOT DISCRETIONARY. ZONING ORDINANCE NOT TO BE [39:44] DEEMED A DISSENT -- A CONSENT OR LICENSE. NOTHING CONTAINED IN [39:49] THIS ZONING ORDINANCE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A CONSENT, LICENSE, OR PERMIT TO USE ANY PROPERTY OR [39:58] TO LOCATE, CONSTRUCT, OR MAINTAIN ANY BUILDING, [40:04] STRUCTURE, OR FACILITY. GOING [40:10] ON, MCO525620 ZONING PERMIT -- PURPOSE. THE PURPOSE SHALL BE [40:16] OBTAINED FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, EXCUSE ME, A ZONING PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED [40:21] FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR PRIOR TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING. [40:26] I'LL SKIP FORWARD. ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES A BUILDING OR [40:34] GRADING PERMIT, AND THE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE AS ACCURATELY AND ACCURATELY SHOW THE PROPOSED [40:41] BUILDING OR STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE ZONING COMPLIANCE. [40:50] ANOTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION IS THAT OTHER CITY LOCAL, [40:55] REGIONAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS COMPLIANCE IS [41:01] REQUIRED. AND IT GOES ON FURTHER IN LATER IN THE PARAGRAPH TO SAY THE -- IF THERE [41:07] IS A CONFLICT WITH OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE LAW, THE MORE [41:12] RESTRICTIVE PROVISION SHALL APPLY EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE [41:18] PROVIDED. ONE OF THE MOST FUNDMENTAL THINGS WHERE I FEEL [41:24] LIKE I'VE BEEN PRESENTED INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN [41:30] DISHONEST IS THAT SENIOR CITY OFFICIALS HAVE COME AND REPORTED [41:35] TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SAID AFTER THIS PERMIT MORASS THAT [41:41] STARTED THE PROJECT, EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE DONE BY THE BOOK. [41:48] WE'RE GOING TO INVESTIGATE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE [41:54] HAZARDOUS MATERIALS THAT WERE CAUSED AND RELEASED DURING THE DEMOLITION, AND WE'RE GOING TO [41:59] DEAL WITH HYDROLOGY OF THE SITE, AND WE ARE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING BY THE BOOK. WELL, [42:07] WHEN IT CAME TIME TO PULL OUT, THE TEMPORARY SHORING, WHICH BY [42:12] THE WAY, WAS PERMITTED RETROACTIVELY, EVEN AFTER IT HAD [42:18] CAUSED DAMAGE TO ADJOINING PROPERTY AND AFTER THE CITY WAS NOTIFIED OF THOSE DAMAGES, [42:26] INSPECTIONS REQUESTED, AND WE WERE TOLD THAT THE CITY DOES NOT GET INVOLVED IN THAT. IF THE [42:31] CITY CAN'T GO OUT AND INVESTIGATE DAMAGES, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO ENFORCE THE CODE [42:38] REQUIREMENT THAT SAYS ADJOINING PROPERTY HAS TO BE PROTECTED? [42:45] SO GETTING BACK TO TEMPORARY SHORING. THE TEMPORARY SHORING WAS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT [42:51] ADJOINING PROPERTIES WHEN IN FACT IT DAMAGED IT. IT CRACKED THE FOUNDATION OF A 1950s HOME [42:57] ON THE NORTH SIDE IS AND OF THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN IN THE PICTURES IN MY APPEAL. AND IT'S [43:03] CRACKED THE PLASTER AND [43:08] FOUNDATION CEMENT ON MY OLD 1900 [43:15] CIRCA HOME TO THE SOUTH. THESE VIBRATIONS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE [43:20] MONITORED. THE MONITORING TEST EQUIPMENT TO MONITOR THE VIBRATIONS OF THIS SHORING [43:26] SYSTEM WERE LOCATED FARTHER AWAY FROM THE IMPACT OF THE HAMMER [43:34] THAN THEY WERE THAN THE HOUSE WAS FROM THE HAMMER. SO WE FIND [43:40] THAT OKAY, YOU WANT TO USE TEMPORARY SHORING? ON A REGULAR BASIS? WELL, IT BETTER BE SAFE, [43:49] AND THE ZONING INTENT IS CLEACLEAR THAT IT'S TO [43:54] PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY, AND AS IT WAS INSTALLED TDID NOT DO THAT. IN FACT, IT DAMAGED PROPERTY. IT'S [44:03] A VERY SERIOUS CONCERN. IT'S VERYIING A VUIGATING, AND [44:08] WEAVE RIR -- VERY AGGREGATING AND WE HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AND MADE TO BE ACCUSED TO BE THE [44:16] PARIAHS OF THUS PROJECT. THE -- THIS PROJECT. THE ONLY PENALTY [44:21] THAT WAS REQUIRED FOR THE DEMOLITION, THE EXCAVATION, UNPERMITTED EXCAVATION, THE [44:29] UNMEASUREMENTED DEMOLITION, AND THE UNPERMITTED TEMPORARY SHORING WAS A $200 FINE. IT'S NOW COST ME $600, THREE TIMES [44:36] THAT AMOUNT, TO JUST BRING THIS BEFORE THIS BOARD. I DO NOT [44:42] FIND THAT FAIR ADMINISTRATION, WHICH IS A ZONING CONSIDERATION. [44:47] IT IS AN OBJECTIVE OF THE ZONING [44:54] ORDINANCES. I'D LIKE TO ALSO INCLUDE THAT A SENIOR OFFICIAL [45:00] WHEN ASKED ABOUT YOU KNOW IT WAS REPORTED TO THEM, THAT THIS, [45:08] THAT THESE SHORING PILES WERE BEING CUT OFF BELOW GRADE, AND I [45:13] WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT PHOTOS OF THE SHORING PILES, [45:20] THESE SHORING PILES WERE ORIGINALLY AROUND 20 FEET LONG. THE SHORING PILES ARE ON A PALLET. THE PALLET IS ABOUT [45:25] THREE FEET WIDE. SO THESE THINGS ARE ABOUT 3 1/2 FEET THE CUTOFFS, AND IT'S NOT JUST A [45:31] FEW. IT'S A LOT. I THINK THERE IS PHOTOGRAPHS OF FOUR PALLETS. [45:37] SOME OF THOSE PALLETS HAVE 50 PILES ON THEM, SO IF YOU DO THE [45:45] MATH, I WOULD SAY PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THE PILES WERE CUT OFF, AND THEY WERE CUT OFF LEAVING A [45:52] PILE CUT OFF TOPS OF ONLY THREE FEET. SO IF YOU DO THE MATH, [45:57] THAT MEANS 17 FEET OF PILING IS STILL ON THAT PROPERTY LINE. [46:03] WITH THAT PILING ON THAT PROPERTY LINE, AND WHEN YOU [46:08] WATCHED AND HEARD AND FELT HOW THOSE PILES WERE BEING DRIVEN, THEY HIT OBSTRUCTIONS. AND THEY [46:14] VEER WHEN THEY HIT OBSTRUCTIONS. IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY AT THE PICTURES, Y YOU'LL SEE THAT [46:21] THEY ARE NO LONGER PLUMB, THEY ARE NO LONGER STRAIGHT. THEY ARE BENT AND WHEN THEY ARE DRIVEN, THEY MOVE. WHEN THAT [46:28] WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF CITY OFFICIALS, THERE HAS BEEN [46:34] NO PROOF OFFERED WHATSOEVER THAT THOSE PILES STAYED WITHIN THE [46:39] PROPERTY. THERE ARE REPORTS FROM THE CONTRACTOR THAT OH, THIS WAS UNSAFE. OH, THE [46:45] NEIGHBORS, WELL, THEY DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T ALLOW US TO BRING THEIR HEAVY EQUIPMENT ACROSS [46:50] THEIR PROPERTY. THE FACT IS THEY NEVER TALKED TO US AT ALL. THEY JUST CUT THEM OFF. AND I [46:58] REALLY WONDER IF THEY HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE THAT THEY EVEN TRIED TO PULL ONE OF THE [47:04] PILES OUT. >> YOU KNOW, SIR. I DON'T WANT [47:09] TO BE TOO INTERRUPTIVE, BUT I THINK YOU'VE MADE YOUR CASE THAT [47:14] YOU HAVEN'T BEEN TREATED FAIRLY BY THE CITY FROM YOUR [47:21] PERSPECTIVE. AT 5:22, YOUR TIME IS UP. YOU STILL HAVE NOT [47:27] REALLY ADDRESSED THE ISSUE BEFORE US. >> OKAY. >> AND I DON'T WANT YOU TO [47:32] LEAVE, COME DOWNTOWN, PAY YOUR $600 AND LEAVE WITHOUT HAVING A [47:39] FIGHTING CHANCE ON THIS. 72 WELL, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WILL POINT OUT IS THE [47:46] FOUNDATION OF, THE REASON I READ THESE ORDINANCES ABOUT THE PERMIT IS THAT'S A FOUNDATION OF [47:53] ENFORCEMENT. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ACCORDING TO THE ZONING LAWS UNLESS YOU HAVE A PERMIT. AND THE PERMIT HAS TO [48:00] BE ACCURATE. THAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE. WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS [48:05] A PERMIT THAT SAYS THAT PROMISED THAT THESE WERE TEMPORARY. AND [48:13] INSTEAD, THEIR PERMANENT. THERE WAS NO APPROVAL GIVEN FOR THOSE TO BE PERMANENT. IT'S [48:21] UNPERMITTED WORK. SO RIGHT THERE THE FACT THAT THESE ARE LISTED AS HAVE, ARE PERMITTED TO [48:28] BE TEMPORARY AND THEN BECOME PERMANENT, AND FOR BUILDING OFFICIALS TO SAY THAT THERE [48:34] ISN'T A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY, TO ME IS MIND-BOGGLING. I ALSO WANT [48:42] TO POINT OUT THAT THESE STRUCTURES THAT ARE IN THE [48:47] GROUND ACCORDING TO ZONING ARE BELOW GRADE, BUT NOT TO THE [48:54] EXTENT THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAS CLAIMED AND THAT THE CITY HAS PASSED ON WITHOUT PROOF THAT [49:00] THEY ARE ANYTHING DIFFERENT. THESE WERE CUT OFF THREE FEET BELOW GRADE, WHICH MEANS THEY'RE [49:06] ABOVE THE FROST LINE, WHICH MEANS THEY COULD HEAVE AND PROBABLY WILL HEAVE. NOW, THAT, [49:15] THAT OBSTRUCTS THE SIDE YARD, BOTH IN TERMS OF VEGETATION AND IT ALSO OBSTRUCTS THE, THE SIDE [49:22] YARD IN TERMS OF THE PERMANENTING STATED THE END TABLE I BELIEVE IT'S 540. THERE [49:30] IS NO REFERENCE TO SHORING IN THAT TABLE THAT SAYS THAT IT'S [49:36] AN ALLOWABLE PERMITTED [49:42] OBSTRUCTION. THE, I THINK THE FINAL THING THAT IS REALLY [49:47] DISTURBING TO ME IS THAT THESE PILINGS OFFER NO BENEFIT IN THE [49:55] GROUND. SO THERE'S NO REASON FOR THOSE THINGS TO BE LEFT IN [50:01] PLACE. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE, THE ARGUMENT THAT'S [50:08] PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT IF I CAN GIVE A HILLBILLY EXAMPLE, [50:14] IF I TOOK, MY TRUCK DIED AND I PARKED IT IN MY BACKYARD I PROBABLY GET A ZONING VIOLATION. [50:22] IF I THEN DECIDED, WELL, THE WHAT I CAN DO WITH THIS NOW IS [50:28] BURY IT. SO I BURY IT. WOULD I STILL BE COMPLIANT WITH ZONING? [50:35] I DON'T SEE VERY MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT TRUCK AND THESE [50:40] PILINGS. THAT IS MATERIAL THAT SHOULDN'T BE HERE. AND FOR THE CITY TO ALLOW THAT IS NOT [50:49] CONSISTENT AT ALL WITH THE INTENT OF ZONING ORDINANCES. [50:55] >> OKAY. >> I APPRECIATE THE TIME. THANK YOU FOR -- >> WELL, THANKS FOR COMING DOWN. ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF THE APPELLANT? MR. HUTCHENS? [51:05] >> THANKS, CHAIR PERRY. I APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN. I'LL BE TRUTHFUL. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO WIN THIS ONE. I [51:10] THINK YOU NEED A COURT OF LAW TO ADDRESS A LOT OF THE ISSUES YOU BROUGHT UP. I DON'T THINK [51:15] THE ZONING BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO DO A LOTT OF THE REMEDIES YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, JUST TO BE HONEST. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE EVEN WRONG ON A BUNCH OF IT. I [51:20] JUST DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE RESOLUTION YOU'RE LOOKING FOR HERE. IT'S THE WRONG VENUE FOR IT. >> MAY I POINT OUT THAT I THINK [51:31] MY DISCUSSION OF REMEDIES IS BEING MISCONSTRUED BY THE STAFF REPORT. I OFFER THOSE FOR [51:38] CONSIDERATION. THERE IS A WIDE RANGE OF SOME PRETTY BIG ITEMS. I CERTAINLY WANT DAMAGES TO BE [51:45] ADDRESSED. BUT I'M TOLD HERE THAT THIS ISN'T THE VENUE FOR THAT. EVEN THOUGH I'M, WOULD [51:52] DISAGREE WITH THAT. I THINK THE BOARD DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY, BUT THAT'S YOUR CALL. I THINK [51:59] THAT THESE REMEDIES ARE FAIRLY [52:05] STRAIGHTFORWARD IN TERMS OF REMOVAL OF THIS. WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS FOR THAT TEMPORARY SHORING TO FOLLOW THE [52:14] REQUIREMENT THAT OF THE PERMIT THAT THE CONTRACTOR, I WANT THE CONTRACTOR TO DO WHAT HE SAID HE [52:20] WOULD DO WHEN HE FILED FOR HIS PERMIT. AND THAT WAS TO INSTALL TEMPORARY SHORING, NOT PERMANENT [52:29] SHORING. >> OKAY. GREAT. THANKS FOR [52:35] YOUR PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU. >> YEP. SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SPEAK [52:43] IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLANT, AND YOU EACH GET TWO MINUTES. DOES [52:48] THAT CLOCK WORK? >> THIS ONE? YES. >> SO YOU CAN WATCH THAT CLOCK. [52:54] WHEN IT HITS ZERO, YOU'LL HAVE TO STEP DOWN. SO WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE [53:00] APPELLANT'S POSITION? ANYONE? YES, SIR. IF YOU COULD STEP UP, [53:07] GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> HI, GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME [53:13] IS JOSH WELLE. I LIVE AT 4424 EDMUND BOULEVARD. I HAVE THE [53:19] MISFORTUNE OF LIVING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF ADJACENT TO THIS PROJECT, AND I'M GOING TO FOCUS [53:24] ALTHOUGH THERE ARE, AS THE BOARD HAS RECOGNIZED A LOT OF ISSUES I'M GOING TO TRY TO FOCUS ON THE PILINGS. I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO IT IN TWO [53:30] MINUTES. THE BUILDER SHOULD'VE BEEN HONEST WITH THE CITY WHEN THEY APPLIED FOR THEIR ZONING PERMIT. THIS IS A ZONING ISSUE. THEY SHOULD'VE SUBMITTED AN [53:37] ACCURATE ZONING APPLICATION, AND WHEN THINGS CHANGED, THEY SHOULD'VE SOUGHT A VARIANCE. THIS IS A ZONING ISSUE. SO I [53:43] MEAN, LOOK AT THESE PILINGS, THEY ARE 20-FOOT STEEL BEAMS. THEY WERE INSTALLED WITHOUT ENGINEERING. THEY WERE [53:50] INSTALLED WITHOUT A PERMIT. THEY WERE INSTALLED WITH NO INSPECTION, NO ACCOUNTABILITY, AND NO ZONING APPROVAL [53:55] WHATSOEVER. THESE ARE STRUCTURES. IT'S A DIVERSION TO SUGGEST THAT THIS IS A YARD [54:00] ISSUE. THESIS ARE STRUCK -- THESE ARE STRUCTURES. WE DID WITNESS FIRSTHAND SEVERE WARPING [54:06] AND DEFLECTION DURING WEEKS OF VIOLENT POUNDING. YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW TRAUMATIC 24 THAT [54:12] WAS FOR US BEING ABOUT FIVE FEET AWAY WITH OUR SMALL CHILD. OKAY? BUT WHY THAT'S RELEVANT [54:17] IS WE SAW SEVERAL BEAMS, ONE RIGHT OUTSIDE OUR WINDOW THAT THEY POUNDED ON FOR DAYS AND IT [54:24] BENT SEVERELY. THEY HAD TO BRING IN LARGER EQUIPMENT TO POUND THIS IN. A 20-FOOT BEAM BEING INSTALLED AND BY THE WAY, [54:29] IT WAS NOT A FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. IT WAS INCHES FROM THE PROPER LINE. I'M SORRY, THERE IS NO WAY THAT THAT [54:35] HASN'T CROSSED THE PROPERTY L LINE: THIS IS A BLATANT ZONING [54:40] VIOLATION, AND THEY SHOULD HAVE SUBMITTED A APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE, AND THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO THAT NOW. AS [54:46] PART OF THAT APPLICATION FOR THE VARIANCE, THEY THE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO [54:53] PROVIDE ACCURATE, RELIABLE, AS BUILT DATA ABOUT EXACTLY WHERE THESE ARE. NOT JUST WHERE THEY [54:59] WERE INSERTED AT THE SURFACE BUT WHERE THEY ARE NOW BECAUSE THE FACT IS NOBODY KNOWS. THEIR OWN ENGINEER DOESN'T EVEN KNOW. [55:05] THEY BROUGHT IN AN ENGINEER AFTER THE FACT TO SIGNING OFF [55:12] AND GET PLANS FOR THEIR RETROACTIVE PERMIT THAT THEY SHOULD'VE GOTTEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. I REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER THAT THIS SYSTEM WAS SEVERELY [55:20] DEFLECTING. WE HAD EARTH FROM OUR PROPERTY FOLLOWING INTO THE HOLE, AND THE ENGINEER INSISTED THAT THE DEFLECTION WAS TWO [55:25] INCHES. THAT'S NOT TRUE. HE SAID IT WAS ONLY AT THE TOP. THAT'S NOT TRUE. HE SAID IT WAS ONLY IN THE MIDDLE OF A [55:31] NEIGHBOR'S YARD, NOT NEAR ANY STRUCTURES. ALSO NOT TRUE. I SENT HIM PHOTOS OF THESE ISSUES. [55:38] HE IGNORED THOSE. AND LATER I WAS TOLD THAT THIS ENGINEER NEVER ACTUALLY SET FOOT IN THE [55:43] EXCAVATION TO INSPECT THIS DEFLECTED SHORING UP CLOSE. AS PART OF THIS SITUATION, WE'VE [55:49] HAD TO HIRE OUR OWN ENGINEERS TO PROTECT OUR HOUSE, WHICH IS SEVERELY BROKEN. OUR OWN [55:56] ENGINEERS AFTER REPEATED REQUESTS WERE DENIED ACCESS WHEN WE WERE GENUINELY CONCERNED ABOUT OUR SAFETY. THEY WERE [56:01] DENIED ACCESS. THEY WOULD NOT LET ANYBODY OBSERVE WHAT MEASURE OR RECORD WHAT'S ACTUALLY [56:07] HAPPENING DOWN THERE, WHY NOT? THEY TOOK EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES TO ACTIVELY CONCEAL WHAT'S [56:12] ACTUALLY DOWN THERE. THIS IS PART OF THIS PROANGT. IT'S ALL ABOUT ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS, [56:18] NOT PERMISSION. THIS PLAINLY DOES ACALL FOR A VARIANCE BECAUSE IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR ORIGINAL ZONING APPLICATION. AND -- [56:23] >>LL RIGHT, THANK YOU, MR. WELLE. >> I JUST, THE CITY HAS BEEN TOLD A LOT OF LIES THAT IS, I [56:29] WANT TO GET THIS ON THE RECORD. THE BUILDING TEAM HAS FALSELY REPRESENTED THE NUMBER OF [56:34] PILINGS, TELLING YOU THERE ARE ONLY 10% OF THE ORI [56:40] ORIGINAL AMOUNT. THAT IS NOT TRUE. THEY TOLD THE CITY THE LENGTH OF THE CUT POST IS SIX TO EIGHT FEET. THAT'S NOT TRUE. [56:46] MOST INCREDIBLY THEY BLAMED THE NEIGHBORS, ALSO COMPLETELY FABRICATED. SO MY QUESTION IS, IF THIS IS ALSO ABOVE THE BOARD, [56:52] WHY ALL THE LIES? BOARD, THERE SHOULD BE A SPECIAL [56:57] INVESTIGATION, PLEASE, PLEASE, LOOK AT THE, LOOK AT THE AUTHORITY CITED IN MR. KELLEY'S [57:04] L LETTER. THERE'S A LOT IN [57:09] THERE. >> AS I SAID TO ALL OF YOU, OUR PURVIEW IS VERY NARROW. UNFORTUNATELY, RIGHT NOW, WE ARE [57:17] YOUR ONLY OUTLET. AND -- >> I'M ONLY -- MR. PERRY, I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT ZONING. [57:23] >> YES. >> I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT ZONING. I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT PILING. THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER ISSUES, BELIEVE ME. [57:29] >> YES. >> I AM STAYING FOCUSED ON EXACTLY WHAT THIS BOARD HAS AGREED TO. >> YOUR TIME WAS UP. I'D LIKE TO LET OTHER PEOPLE SPEAK. [57:35] >> THIS IS AN UNPERMITTED STRUCTURE. IT'S IN VIOLATION OF MINNEAPOLIS ORDINANCE 525620. [57:40] THIS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ZONING APPROVAL, AND IT IS ABSOLUTELY WITHIN THIS BOARD'S PURVIEW. THANK YOU FOR THE [57:46] LIMITED TIME OF HEARING ME AND OUR NEIGHBORS. >> THANK YOU. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE [57:53] APPELLANT'S POSITION? ANYONE? [58:01] WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE APPELLANT'S [58:07] POSITION? I SEE NO ONE. SO WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BOARD COMMENT? YES? [58:17] >> YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK WE OBVIOUSLY AS A BOARD PROBABLY ALL FEEL, FEEL FOR THE DIFFICULT [58:25] SITUATION THAT YOU ALL ARE IN, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T THINK AN APPEAL TO THE ZONING [58:30] ADMINISTRATOR SPECIFICALLY IS THE CORRECT ROUTE TO FIX THESE ISSUES. WE AREN'T REALLY ABLE [58:36] TO TAKE ONE INDIVIDUAL PERMITTING ISSUE IN THIS CASE, A PROPERTY LINE ISSUE, POOR [58:41] WORKMANSHIP, FOR US THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, MAKE CHANGE -- CHANGE [58:47] LAND USE AT EVERY PROPERTY IN MINNEAPOLIS, AND BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A VARIANCE REQUEST, BUT MUCH [58:54] LARGER SCOPE, MAYBE IT SHOULD'VE BEEN A VARIANCE REQUEST, BUT THAT'S NOT OUR PURVIEW. WE [58:59] TAKE WHAT IS GIVEN TO US. LEAVING ASIDE THE OTHER OBJECTS IN THE GROUND AT LARGE, BUT [59:06] REQUIRING ALL SHORINGS TO BE TAKEN OU OUT OF THE GROUND, I WAS NOT PROVEN IN MY EYES. [59:13] >> THANKS FOR THOSE COMMENTS. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO PROVIDE COMMENT? YES? [59:23] >> I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS A CASE, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE ZONING [59:29] ADMINISTRATOR MADE AN ERROR IN THEIR RULING AROUND THE PILINGS [59:34] SPECIFICALLY, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING. I DO, I THINK [59:40] THAT IT IS, THERE IS SOME MERIT TO WHETHER OR NOT A VARIANCE APPLICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AT SOME POINT IN THIS [59:48] PROCESS. WE STILL CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT EITHER, BUT THAT, THAT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE [59:54] THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MAYBE THERE WERE SOME REMEDY THAT THIS BOARD COULD HAVE PROVIDED [1:00:01] THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THE PROCESS OF A VARIANCE APPLICATION, AND I EMPATHIZE [1:00:06] THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT THROUGH THIS PROCESS TODAY OR PROBABLY RETROA [1:00:14] RETROACTIVELY. BUT JUST NOTE THAT I DON'T THINK THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MADE AN ERROR, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO VOTE ON IN ORDER TO [1:00:22] APPROVE THE APPEAL. >> THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS. ANYONE ELSE? SO, I WILL JUST [1:00:32] SAY AS I SAID BEFORE, I'VE READ THE PACKET. AS MY COLLEAGUES [1:00:38] DID, I HAVE DEALT WITH THE CITY MANY YEARS AGO IN A SITUATION [1:00:45] THAT WAS EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING. IT WAS MIND-BOGGLING. I NOW AS [1:00:55] PART OF THIS BOARD REPRESENT THE CITY. [LAUGHTER] SO I'M SORRY THAT OUR HANDS ARE [1:01:02] REALLY TIED IN WHAT WE CAN DO TO [1:01:08] HELP. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I THINK EVERYONE HERE FEELS [1:01:15] FOR THE SITUATION THAT YOU'RE IN AND WISHES THEY COULD DO SOMETHING MORE THAN WE ARE [1:01:23] LIKELY TO BE ABLE TO DO. AND I WISH YOU THE BEST OF LUCK. I KNOW THAT IT IS NOT VERY MUCH TO [1:01:31] SAY, BUT I REALLY DO WISH YOU THE BEST OF LUCK. YOU'VE WORKED WITH YOUR COUNCILMEMBER. I [1:01:37] WOULD CONTINUE TO FOR TRY AND WORK WITH -- CONTINUE TO TRY AND WORK WITH YOUR COUNCILMEMBER. [1:01:43] AND, AND AT LEAST TRY AND GET SOME RELIEF FROM THE CITY IN [1:01:48] THAT REGARD. AND I JUST, I CAN'T GIVE THIS ADVICE, I'M NOT [1:01:54] GIVING ADVICE, LEGAL ADVICE, BUT I KNOW THAT DEALING WITH CERTAIN THINGS REQUIRES YOU TO [1:02:02] DO A, YOU HAVE TO TAKE THIS INTO A MATTER OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL [1:02:08] TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, AND I THINK UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S THE WAY IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE [1:02:14] RESOLVED BECAUSE YOU HAVE TRIED YOUR VERY LEVEL BEST TO DO THE RIGHT THING, AND THE WRONG THINGS HAVE HAPPENED. SO IS [1:02:23] THERE A MOTION BEFORE US? THERE IS NOT. YES? >> I'LL MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF [1:02:29] FINDINGS. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE [1:02:36] MOTION? SEEING NONE, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? [1:02:42] >> BOARD MEMBER CALLAHAN. >> AYE. >> EICHOLZ. >> AYE. [1:02:48] >>> HUTCHENS. >> AYE. >>> INGRAHAM. >> AYE. [1:02:53] >> SMRIKAROVA. >> AYE. >> WANG. >> AYE. >> WE HAVE SIX AYES AND ZERO [1:03:00] NAYS. >> SO THAT MOTION IS APPROVED. YOUR APPEAL IS DENIED. THIS [1:03:06] ISN'T THE END OF THE LINE. YOU CAN, THERE ARE OTHER STEPS YOU CAN PURSUE, AND YOU CAN TALK TO [1:03:15] MR. VRCHOTA ABOUT THOSE STEPS. AND WITH THAT, I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING DOWNTOWN. [1:03:25] COMING DOWNTOWN IS NOT AN EASY THINK SO I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR SPENDING YOUR AFTERNOON COME [1:03:30] DRIVING DOWNTOWN FOR THIS HEARING. I THINK WE'VE GOT ALL OF OUR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING UNLESS THERE IS OLD [1:03:36] OR NEW BUSINESS. >> CHAIR PERRY, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THERE IS NO UPDATES OR OLD OR NEW BUSINESS THIS [1:03:42] EVENING. >> OKAY, OUR NEXT MEETING IS JUNE 26th, 2025. AND I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. [1:03:48] >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR, INDICATE BY SAYING [1:03:53] AYE. WE ARE ADJOURNED.