[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]