►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustment and Appeals Meeting March 10, 2021
Description
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/108474?handle=B18A79DAB4E64506952F46277895F79C
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/108473?handle=5A17FC22675C4A0E81AAC5F807662643
1. Chair Finn approved the agenda
2. Call to Order
3. Approval of Minutes
4. Approval of Findings of Fact
6. Public Hearing:
Case VAR2021-001 Applicant: Norris Design Property: 351 Englewood Parkway Request: Variance to reduce the required ground floor commercial space from the required 50.1 percent to 0 percent to develop ...
Due to COVID-19, the public hearing will be held virtually. Anyone interested in speaking in favor or against the variance, please call 303.762.2342 or email commdev@englewoodco.gov 24 hours prior to ...
Case VAR2021-002 Applicant: Jason and Stacey Colson Property: 2925 S. Bannock Street Request: Variance to encroach into the side setback by up to 3.1 feet, and the bulk plane by up to 4 feet for an ad...
7. Staff's Choice
8. Attorney's Choice
9. Board Member's Choice
10. Adjourn
6. Election of Officers
Election of Chair
Election of Vice Chair
5. Rehearing
Case VAR2021-003 Rehearing Request Applicant: David and Abbey Dwyer Property: 4831 S. Jason St. Request: Rehearing request from the January 13, 2021 Board decision. Staff Contact: Will Charles, Planne...
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/108474?handle=B18A79DAB4E64506952F46277895F79C
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/108473?handle=5A17FC22675C4A0E81AAC5F807662643
B
C
A
A
A
B
G
B
H
A
D
H
G
F
A
G
G
G
Any
approved
variants
is
effective
at
the
end
of
the
appeal
period.
Building
permits
for
construction
associated
with
an
improved
variance
will
not
be
issued
until
the
appeal
period
has
ended.
Building
permits
must
be
obtained
and
construction
begun
within
180
days
of
the
variance
effective
date
procedure
for
the
meeting
is
that
the
case
will
be
introduced.
Overview
will
be
given
by
staff.
Applicant
will
present
their
request
and
reasons
the
variants
should
be
granted.
Proponents
will
be
given
an
opportunity
to
speak.
G
G
G
I
D
G
D
You
know
I
I
I've
kind
of
struggled
with
that
one.
This
is
this
is
an
appeal
from
the
the
board's
decision,
and
I
think
that
if
you
start
asking
questions
of
the
applicant,
then
you're
almost
moving
into
a
public
hearing
type
of
issue
right.
So
my
feeling
is
that
the
board
should
vote
as
to
whether
or
not
based
upon
what
you
have
in
front
of
you
as
to
whether
or
not
to
grant
the
appeal
just
from
what
you
have
in
front
of
you
at
this
point.
Okay,
the
applicant
that
the.
D
D
I
think
if
you
can
limit
your
discussion
a
little
bit
unless,
if
a
board
member
has
something
they're
concerned
about,
certainly
I
think
the
board
could
at
least
entertain
that
with
regard
to
the
to
the
request
for
an
appeal
or
the
rehearing,
but
I
think
it
needs
to
be
limited
to
just
what
whatever
that
might
be.
I
know
that's
kind
of
an
open-ended
quest.
Sorry.
G
F
B
C
B
F
G
B
B
A
B
I
I
I
A
A
I
I
The
original
variance
was
approved
by
the
board,
I
believe,
by
a
unanimous
decision,
but
I'll
go
ahead
and
go
through
it
again,
just
in
case
anyone
wasn't
there
or
if
you
guys,
have
any
questions.
So
this
applicant
is
requesting
a
variance
to
encroach
the
side
setback
by
3.1
feet
and
the
bulk
plane
by
up
to
four
feet
for
a
second
story.
Addition
to
an
existing
house.
I
I
The
board
knows
the
variance
can
be
granted
if
the
four
criterion
are
met.
First
criterion
is
that
unique
physical
conditions
exist,
such
as
size
shape,
location,
topography
or
surroundings,
which
are
clear
to
the
land
or
structure
involved
which
deprived
the
applicant
of
privileges
and
enjoyed
by
the
other
properties
in
the
vicinity.
I
The
location
of
the
existing
structure
is
what
makes
this
property
unique.
Do
the
location
of
the
existing
residents
construct,
condition
that
meets
the
required
five
foot
setback
would
require
a
significant
jog
in
the
sidewalls
that
would
also
take
away
symmetry
and
complicate
the
framing
and
structural
abilities
of
the
of
the
of
the
structure.
I
Their
criteria
is
that
the
variance
will
not
permanently
impair
the
use
or
development
of
adjacent
conforming
properties
or
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
neighborhood.
This
neighbor
is
comprised
of
developing
low
density.
Residential
developments
position
would
not
permanently
impair
current
or
future
conform
properties.
I
The
as
proposed
the
proposed
edition
would
not
encroach
further
into
the
the
side
setback
than
what
is
currently
existing.
Then.
The
fourth
criterion
is
that
the
variance
is
not
self-imposed
difficulty
or
hardship.
The
variance
request
was
not
found
to
be
a
self-imposed
difficulty
or
hardship,
as
the
variance
is
based
on
where
the
current
structure
is.
Existing
staff
recommends
the
variance
request
be
approved.
J
I
I
F
G
A
G
A
B
B
Okay,
well,
I'm
going
to
trust
you
I'm
going
to
swear
both
of
you
in
at
the
same
time
and
mr
fritz.
If
there's
any
way,
you
can
increase
your
volume,
I'm
going
to
trust
you
raising
your
right
hand,
and
do
you
swear
firm
under
the
penalties
of
perjury,
that
you
will
tell
the
truth
in
this
proceeding
before
the
board
of
adjustment
and
appeals.
L
K
So
we're
what
we're
doing
with
this
beating
is
we're
trying
to
get
it
approved
to
go
much
higher.
It
says
one
foot
seven
and
a
half
higher
than
the
existing
roof
we'd
like
to
go
significantly
higher
than
that
right
now,
that's
the
estimated
height
of
the
new
of
the
new
roof
we've
had
to
raise
it
also
because
the
trusses
have
a
12
inch
heel
height,
which
is
necessary
to
get
the
amount
of
the
correct
amount
of
insulation
in
the
attic.
K
So
we
have
to
have
that
12-inch
height,
which
automatically
raises
another
foot
right
there.
So
that's
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
get
this
whole
thing
approved.
It's
been
around
a
long
time,
as
I'm
sure
you
know
and
we're
anxious
to
get
moving
forward
with
the
spring,
just
right
around
the
corner.
So
if
there's
anything,
you
can
do
to
push
to
approve
this.
We
appreciate
it.
We
believe
we've
gone
to
an
awful
lot
of
work
with
myself
and
especially
cameron,
making
the
changes
on
the
drawings.
K
That's
the
estimated
it
it
you
know,
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
be
much
more
than
that.
It
may
be
an
inch
or
two,
but
that's
as
cameron
is
drawn
as
accurately
as
possible,
but
I
would
rather
not
be
sit
to
that
limit
just
in
case
they
get
out
there
and
they
get
a
transit
and
they
measure
and
it's
a
couple
inches
higher.
We
don't
want
to
have
to
tear
something
off.
So
we
like
a
little
little
flexibility
and
just
in
case
when
it's
built
is
just
slightly
higher.
C
F
K
F
L
L
L
That's
right:
we're
using
22-inch
tji's
to
go
across
the
wall
to
wall
there
and
bob.
Maybe
you
might
be
able
to
expand
a
little
more
on
that,
but
we
had
some
didn't
want
to
necessarily
bear
on
the
in
the
center
of
the
building
without
you
know,
putting
a
column
somewhere
or
something
like
that
to
kind
of
limit
the
the
floor
plan.
The
current
floor
plan
with
that
structural
edition.
K
F
K
F
F
L
L
Yeah
they're
they
sh,
they
should
be
bottom
core
trusses
and
I
think
some
of
the
we
went
to
that
for
a
a
cost
standpoint
for
the
owner
to
kind
of
keep
the
budget
down.
Unless
necessarily-
and
we
could
look
at
that-
I
think
that
the
the
heel
height
still
gets
to
be
a
little
bit
tricky
down
there
with
trying
to
get
some
insulation
and
proper
ventilation
through
the
scissors.
I
G
L
G
F
I
might
push
a
little
bit
harder
on
that
floor
thickness
part
just
because
I
feel
like
it's
not
particularly
our
issue
that
the
floor
thickness
was
decided
to
be
that
the
fact
that
it's
already
designed
is
not
our
issue.
So
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
why
that
couldn't
be
designed
with
a
beam
that
makes
that
shorter,
because
you
certainly
have
bearing
wall
points
in
the
floor
plan.
K
L
G
B
B
A
B
G
I
Sure
so
the
variance
that
was
granted
in
december
was
granted
with
conditions,
so
the
variance
itself.
Let
me
make
sure
you
get
the
the
proper
wording.
It's
the
same
wording
as
the
current
one,
so
the
it
was
a
variance
to
encroach
the
side
setback
by
up
to
3.1
feet
and
the
bulk
plane
by
up
to
four
feet
for
a
second
story,
addition
to
an
existing
house,
with
the
condition
that
the
new
addition
not
be
taller
than
the
existing
structure.
D
C
E
F
I
guess
I
don't
see
a
reason
that
we
shouldn't
be
expecting
him
to
to
stay
within
our
requirements.
I
would
say
that,
on
my
side,
I
didn't
have
a
problem
with
the
height,
but
I
would
have
a
problem
with
not
meeting
the
existing
eaves,
which
would
be
the
maintaining
the
same
bulk
plane.
The
overall
height
is
not
an
issue
to
me,
in
other
words,
if
the
north
roof
followed
the
same
roof
pitch
as
the
existing,
I
don't
care
what
the
south
side
does
so
it'd
be
a
little
bit
difference
in
and
how
rewarded
that.
C
C
The
testimony
described
the
roof
height
in
the
new
plan
and
proposal
is
required
by
the
insulation
and
the
structure
of
the
building
and
the
support
that
it
has
existing
and
needs
to
be
added
to
add
the
second
story.
So
I
I
don't
think
additional
efforts
are
needed
required
to
meet
that
criteria.
I
think
if
they
are
required,
it
would
be
an
issue
with
the
applicant
not
enjoying
the
privileges
enjoyed
by
others.
So
I
think
that's
matt.
C
F
J
Actually,
I'm
gonna
deny
two
first
criteria,
still
kind
of
questionable
on
it.
I
guess
the
answers
were
completely
given
second
criteria,
I'm
nothing!
It's!
Okay,
third
criteria;
okay
with
fourth
criteria,
not
being
self-imposed
again,
I
I
think
there
are
other
additional
things
that
might
be
able
to
be
done.
So
I'm
gonna
deny.
E
B
A
N
A
G
All
right,
the
public
hearing
for
case
number
var
2021-001,
the
applicant
is
norris
designs.
The
property
is
351
inglewood
parkway.
It's
a
variance
to
reduce
the
required
ground
floor
floor,
commercial
space
from
the
required
50.1
percent
to
0
to
develop
the
property
is
a
multi-family
residential
community
case
is
now
open.
G
N
N
16-6-1.2.4
of
the
englewood
municipal
code-
and
there
is
a
second
request
with
this
application-
and
that
is
an
extension
to
the
one-year
expiration
of
the
board
of
adjustment,
variance
approval
from
the
one
year.
Two
four
years
per
section,
16-2-16
point
g,
the
property
we're
talking
about
in
this
application
is
located.
N
Where
you
see
the
large
black
star,
it
is
a
6.25
acre
site,
bounded
on
the
north
by
floyd
avenue
to
the
west
by
south
pilate
to
the
east
by
south
cherokee
street,
and
there
is
a
separate
parking
area
to
the
south
that
you'll
see
on
the
next
slide
that
is
owned
by
hamden
place,
llc
and
not
part
of
this
application.
You
can
see
the
surrounding
zoning.
N
N
N
N
So,
as
mentioned,
this
proposal
for
this
site
is
part
of
a
redevelopment
plan.
It's
a
conceptual
development
plan.
At
this
point,
what
is
proposed
is
two
buildings,
one,
a
three-story
and
one:
a
four-story
multi-family
residential
building
with
a
two-story
parking
garage
structure
located
centrally
on
the
site,
and
at
present
there
are
275
dwelling
units
proposed.
N
N
That
said,
the
community
development
department
staff
is
recommending
that
the
variants
request
to
reduce
the
required
ground
floor,
commercial
from
50.1
percent
to
zero
percent
be
approved
for
the
reasons
stated
in
the
staff
report
and
additionally,
staff
is
supportive
of
the
four-year
time
lapse
for
your
lapse
date.
Should
the
board
of
adjustment
appeals
be
inclined
to
approve
the
variance
request
in
order
to
accommodate
the
time
frames
for
existing
leased
tenants
on
the
property?
N
So
the
applicant
is
really
looking
at
beginning
phases
of
this
redevelopment
plan.
They
have
obviously
the
least
tenants
on
the
site
right
now,
so
they
would
like
to
go
ahead
and
have
some
maturity
moving
into
the
future
that
they
can
get
this
variance
taken
care
of,
so
that
they
can
further
their
redevelopment
plans
and,
as
you,
the
board
knows
many
of
you.
This
requirement
in
the
code
is
one
that
the
staff
has
and
is
proposing
for
removal
during
the
code
rewrite
process
which
is
in
its
beginning
stages
as
well.
N
C
N
I
mean
that
that
would
be
a
a
tool,
but
in
another
wire
right
in
in
an
otherwise
by
right,
use
for
the
property
going
through
the
full
pud
doesn't
make
the
most
sense
because
the
density
is
set.
You
know
the
parking
set
the
height
set
and
that
that
is
all
within
the
current
proposal
that
the
applicant
is
working
with.
N
C
H
N
N
That's
correct,
so
it
would
go.
The
variance
would
take
effect
on
the
the
residential
the
residential
buildings
they're
proposing,
so
it
essentially
would
apply
to
those
two
buildings
and
it
would
state
that
there
would
not
be
any
requirement
for
ground
floor
commercial
which
would
otherwise
be
required.
Yes,
within
any
buildings
that
they're
they're
wanting
to
build.
N
F
E
N
E
N
So
that's
why
you
know
you're.
Looking
at
you
know,
maybe
a
small
coffee
shop
like
like
was
mentioned,
which
is
very
valuable,
very
popular
coffee
shop,
but
when
you're
looking
at
some
of
these
mu1
and
mub1
properties
that
are
off
the
main
arterials,
you
start
really
getting
into
difficulty
attracting
commercial
tenants
in
there
that
will
be
viable,
and
so
that's,
where
we're
getting
into
the
struggle
with
this.
G
B
So
yes,
if
you're
going
to
speak,
if
you
would
come
off
mute
and
go
on
video
and
I'll
swear
you
all
in
and
then,
as
you
speak,
if
you
just
the
first
time
state
your
name
and
your
address,
that
would
be
great
all
right
here
we
go.
Do
you
swear
or
firm
under
the
penalties
of
perjury,
that
you
will
tell
the
truth
in
this
proceeding
before
the
board
of
adjustment
and
appeals.
O
G
A
All
right
perfect!
Well,
thank
you.
Everyone
good
evening.
Thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
hear
our
requests
tonight.
My
name
is
allison
wendland,
with
norris
design,
we're
located
at
1101,
bannock
street
denver,
colorado,
80204
and,
like
I
said,
we've
got
just
a
brief
presentation
that
we're
going
to
go
through
to
give
you
some
additional
detail
and
I'm
actually
going
to
turn
it
over
to
chris
simoniello.
He
is
the
director
of
national
development
for
kimco
realty,
who.
J
O
Thank
you
allison
good
evening
everybody
chris
ciminello
kimco
realty
500,
north
broadway,
suite
201
jericho,
new
york,
11753.
I
am
in
new
york
right
now.
My
children
are
sleeping,
but
they've
been
known
to
get
up
in
the
middle
of
the
night.
So
I
do
apologize
if
I
see
some
little
ones
scurrying
behind
me
so
before
before
we
begin
and
if
you
permit
me,
I
just
want
to
give
a
brief
presentation
about
you
know
who
kimko
is
a
lot
of
people,
even
though
we're
a
nationally
recognized
company.
O
Sure
so
why
don't
I
just
skip
to
the
englewood
plaza
and
and
the
state
of
retail?
So
we
we,
we
angle,
the
plaza
was
built
in
the
1980s
across
from
the
cinderella.
Mall
now
the
walmart
we
purchased
the
center
in
1998
after
the
mall
was
demolished
as
part
of
the
mall
redevelopment
that
created
a
new
city
grid
and
to
provide
walmart
a
deeper
parking
field.
West
gerard
avenue
was
relocated
to
the
front
of
englewood,
plaza
and
renamed
englewood
parkway.
O
The
parking
field
is
not
controlled
by
kimco
and
is
utilized
by
the
medical
office
building
for
overflow
overflow
parking,
as
you
can
imagine.
This
poses
a
great
challenge
to
our
center
by
impacting
visibility
and
access,
so
much
so
that
we
have
some
struggling
retailers
that
are
there
right
now,
whose
sales
trail
that
of
their
national
average.
O
The
center
lacks
control
over
the
parking
fields
that
front
to
center.
The
creation
of
englewood
parkway
made
the
retail
build
buildings
really
feel
far
from
the
road
and
created
atypical
access
for
our
standard
neighborhood
shopping
center,
the
retail
core
of
englewood
shifted
to
west
hampton
avenue,
one
block
south
of
the
site
and
south
broadway.
One
block
to
our
re
one
block
to
our
east.
Excuse
me
in
plain
terms:
our
center
is
on
the
wrong
street
for
a
retail
project.
O
We've
been
in
the
shopping
center
business
for
over
60
years,
and
over
that
time,
we've
seen
the
retail
landscape
shift
and
the
desires
of
consumers
change,
while
grocery
stores,
discounters
and
experiential
retailers
have
done
well.
Over
the
past
decade,
the
moms
and
pops
have
struggled
as
we
can
see
by
the
chronic
vacancies
on
englewood
parkway,
to
bring
it
back
to
our
request
to
eliminate
the
retail
requirement
at
our
site.
O
M
M
We
have
something
like
seven
multi-family
communities
being
developed
up
and
down
front
range
today,
and
we
are
also
the
most
active
grocery
anchored
retail
developer
in
the
state,
so
something
that
we
know
a
little
bit
about
both
sides
of
of
this
question.
So
yeah
allison
go
ahead
and
flip
to
the
next
slide,
so
real
quickly
wade
did
a
great
job
of
describing
the
property
approximately
275
units.
In
this
current
plan,
we
is
the
diagonal
line
that
runs
across
this.
M
On
the
on
our
retail
development
side,
you
know
in
our
in
our
grocery
anchored
properties,
we've
had
a
significant
reduction
in
the
amount
of
inline
retail
that
we've
been
building
with
those
in
the
old
days.
We
would
generally
build
40
000
square
feet
of
retail
next
to
a
king,
supers
or
a
safeway
or
other
major
chain,
and
today
that
number
is
shrunk
to
about
10.
M
M
There
was
a
question
about
you
know
where
the.
If,
if
there
were
retail
required
in
this
property
yeah,
it
would
end
up
on
the
lottery
in
cherokee,
because
englewood
parkway,
formerly
gerard,
has
been
separated
from
the
property
with
the
relocation
of
englewood
parkway,
so
neither
of
those
are
great
retail
spaces
other
as
well.
There
was
a
question
about
live
work.
I
have
some
experience
with
that
and
what
and
where
we've
looked
at
that
and
or
built
it
in
the
past?
It's
really
not
done
very
well.
M
M
It's
it's.
The
four-year
request
is
to
manage
the
leases
in
the
property.
We
have
leases
that
run
and
chris.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
jump
in
here,
but
there
are
leases
on
that
property
that
run
at
least
three
and
I
think,
into
four
years,
and
so
we
just
you
know
we
want
to
get
the
variance
done
so
that
we
can,
you
know,
spend
some
money
on
actual
design
of
the
property,
because
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
do
that.
O
M
So
the
the
intent
is
forced
to
get
started
on
design
of
the
property,
and
that
is
the
million
dollar
question
literally,
and
so
we
really
need
to
know
that
we're
going
to
be
able
to
build
what
we're
going
to
be
able
to
build
before
we
get
into
that
design
process
and
it
takes
time
the
design
process
takes
time.
The
approvals
take
time.
H
M
H
You
have
four
years,
and
so
that's
more
than
enough
I
mean,
even
if
you
waited
a
year,
you
would
still
then
have
three
years
to
do
your
design
work.
So
I
guess
I'm
not
understanding
within
four
years
that
you
couldn't
go
through
it
either
wait
for
the
ldo
to
be
updated
or
go
through
a
rezoning
process.
Yeah.
O
O
A
O
M
The
project
is
developed
as
chris
is
alluding
to
you
really
don't
know,
what's
going
to
happen
with
retail
and
the
retail
base,
so
the
so
kimco
is
trying
to
get
this
thing
set
up
and
ready
to
go
and
if
it
ends
up
being
on
the
shelf
for
a
year
while
we're
you
know
as
we're
waiting
at
the
tail
of
the
leases,
so
be
it.
But
I
do
think
chris,
don't
you
have
some?
I
mean
not.
Everybody
expires
in
in
2024
right.
You've
got
expirations
in
the
two
or
three
years.
Proceeding
that.
O
F
M
Issue
yeah,
actually
it
actually
sits
under
the
hobby
lobby
building
today,
it's
a
it's
a
really
really
interesting
easement,
it's
it's
very
old,
well,
very
old!
It
goes
back
to
the
80s
and
it
yeah.
I
I've
never
seen
one
quite
like
this
before
it
allows
buildings
on
top
of
it.
It's
not
not
your
current
current
easement
situation.
M
F
M
M
You
know
art
walks
is
right
in
the
center
of
the
block
and
you
go
through
the
clubhouse
and
out
to
the
pool
in
the
back.
So
it
presents
a
you
know:
it's
a
nice
presentation,
it's
a
it's
a
tool
for
leasing
and
it's
amenity
for
the
residents
and
if
you
want
to
be
happy
to
talk
about
what
kind
of
things
we
put
in
those,
but
I
was
trying
to
stay
grief
as
I
could.
M
M
G
M
B
B
B
B
B
E
J
H
C
E
Yeah,
I
think,
there's
some
things
that
are
unique
to
this
site
that
are
useful
to
know
beyond
just
what
the
city
is
considering
and
not
trying
to
predict
what
councils
may
or
may
not
do
related
to
zoning
code
changes.
Just
I
mean
I
don't
want
to
get
into
that
game,
but
I
think
there
are
some
unique
things
to
this
site
about
its
history
and
and
some
of
what
would
make
it
difficult
to
put
retail
in
these
spaces.
So
I
think
that
that
helps
a
lot.
What
we
heard
on
the
first
criterion,
definitely.
F
I
certainly
agree
with
that
too.
The
the
parking
lot
to
the
south
is
extremely
unique
and
extremely
prohibitive
to
doing
anything
on
that
site.
I
think
it's
a
well
thought
out
unique
solution
to
the
thing
and
helps
that
area
out,
but
the
mistakes
that
were
made
in
that
area
were
30
years
ago,
not
now
so.
H
I
don't
think
that
this
is
appropriate
for
the
board
to
hear.
I
think
that
this,
because
of
the
timeline
they're
looking
at
that
this
could
go
to
council
for
a
rezoning
or
wait
for
the
ldo
for
council
to
address
this
in
the
ldo.
So
I
guess
I
struggle
with
criterion
number
two.
I
think
it
absolutely
is
not
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
zone
district
regulations.
I
mean
that's
trying
to
change
the
use,
which
is
the
basis
of
the
zone
district
regulation,
so
I
would
struggle
to
get
to
a
yes
on
this.
E
F
F
F
E
C
E
J
G
G
G
C
C
C
Let's
see
to
do
a
second
criterion,
does
it
support
the
intent
of
the
zone
district,
and
what
we
do
know
is
that
the
commercial
in
the
bottom
level
is
not
is
not
working
to
achieve
that
intent.
So,
as
we
have
in
previous
cases,
I
would
say
it
does
achieve
that
intent
by
mixing
in
more
people
into
the
middle
of
what
is
surrounding
commercial.
To
make
to
make
that
happen.
Third
criterion
will
not
permanently
impair
the
use
of
development
of
adjacent
conforming
properties.
C
F
J
H
I
vote
no,
I
don't
think
it
meets
a
second
criteria
and
that
I
think
that
it
is
not
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
zone
district.
I
think
the
appropriate
avenue
for
the
developers
to
either
rezone
the
property
or
wait
until
the
land
development
ordinance
is
updated
and
take
it
up
with
council
to
remove
that
requirement
from
the
sound
district.
H
C
N
A
M
H
G
All
right
so
so
I
think
that's
it.
I
don't
know
if
we
have
cases
next
month,
but
again
thank
everyone
for
their
time.
I
think
this
is
you
know
it's
a
great
volunteer
gift
that
everyone
does,
and
I
I
appreciate
it
other
than
that
we
will
see
you
guys
at
some
point,
I'm
assuming
nancy
any
clue
on
when
probably
late
in
the
summer.