►
From YouTube: May 21, 2020 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
Minneapolis Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/
A
B
Good
afternoon,
everyone
welcome
to
this
live
broadcast
of
our
virtual
meeting
today,
May
21st
2020.
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
is
authorized
under
Minnesota
statutes,
section
13,
D
point
0
to
1
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic
for
the
record.
My
name
is
Matt
Perry
and
unsure
of
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment.
I'll
now
call
this
meeting
to
order
and
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
roll
so
that
we
may
verify
the
presence
of
quorum.
D
C
B
B
E
E
F
B
B
C
G
E
B
That
motion
passes
in
the
minutes
during
the
Zoning
Board
of
Adjustment
May,
7th
2020
meeting
are
approved.
Mr.
Ellis,
are
there
any
petitions
or
communications
chair
Perry
members
of
the
board?
There
are
no
petitions
or
communications
this
evening.
Thank
you.
Thanks
very
much.
Let's
review
the
agenda.
I
will
read
the
agenda
number
in
the
address
of
the
project
and
state,
whether
it's
slated
for
consent,
continuous,
withdraw
or
discussion
and
I'll.
Just
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
these
things
are.
Consent
items
are.
B
Those
items
that
will
be
passed
without
discussion
by
the
board
will
be
adherent
to
the
staff
recommendation
found
on
your
agenda
under
the
items
recommended
motion,
section
importantly,
and
the
applicable
conditions
will
be
listed
in
the
same
section.
If
you
agree
with
this
recommendation,
including
any
applicable
conditions,
you
need
to
do
nothing
and
the
board
will
pass
it
as
recommended,
after
the
related
in
this
pastime
consent,
you're
you're
free
to
drop
off
the
phone
call
if
you'd
like,
and
you
can
check
in
with
the
staff
member
signed
to
that
item.
B
We
have
withdrawal
item
and
I
will
talk
about
that
when
we
get
to
it
and
then
discussion
items
these
are
items
for
which
the
board
will
take
public
testimony
deliberate
on
and
make
a
decision
after
the
public.
Testimony
has
been
heard
for
each
particular
discussion
item
and
we'll
close
the
public
hearing
for
that
agenda
item
once
I
close
the
public
hearing
for
an
item,
no
additional
public
testimony
will
be
taken,
but
staff
may
be
asked
to
address
board
questions
after
the
public
hearing.
For
an
item
is
closed.
B
Board
members
will
then
discuss
and
act
on
motions
and
the
chair
only
votes
in
the
case
of
the
tie.
So
let's
look
at
our
four
land-use
requests.
Then
there's
one
appeal
agenda
item
number
five
is
forty,
seven,
thirty,
six
and
forty
seven,
forty
Grand
Avenue
South.
This
is
a
discussion
item
Genda
item
number
six
is
2604
cromwell
court
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
Is
there
anyone
on
the
call
that
would
like
to
speak
against
aside.
B
B
C
G
E
H
Alright,
so
the
application
before
you
has
to
do
with
a
project
at
forty,
seven,
thirty,
six
and
forty
seven
forty
Grand
Avenue
South
on
October
7th,
the
Planning
Commission
approved
two
applications
relating
to
the
construction
of
a
new
four-story
building
on
the
site.
Those
applications
were
a
parking
variance
and
site
plan
review.
An
appeal
was
filed:
October
16th
2019
by
Eric
tank
ashita.
H
With
regards
to
the
Planning
Commission's
decision
to
approve
the
permit
variance
on
November,
8th
2019,
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
upheld
the
appeal
of
the
parking
variance
effectively
denying
that
variance
application
next
slide.
Please,
however,
the
stay
plan
review
application
for
the
building
itself
was
never
appealed
and
became
final
on
October
17th
2019.
H
Just
as
a
note
that
site
plan
review
approvals
are
valid
for
a
period
of
two
years,
with
the
option
of
a
one-year
extension
and
the
the
developer
applicant
had
revised
the
plans,
given
that
the
parking
variance
was
denied
to
then
provide
a
one
to
one
parking
ratio
within
the
building
to
comply
it
with
a
parking
requirement
for
the
site,
which
is
a
one
to
one
ratio.
Next
slide,
please,
the
applicant
has
submitted
or
sorry
the
when
the
applicant
was
going
through
the
preliminary
development
review
process.
They
submitted
changes
to
the
plan.
H
The
original
building
was
a
four-story
building
with
23
dwelling
units
and
ten
perking
spaces.
The
revised
building
has
18
dwelling
units
and
18
parking
spaces
to
comply
with
that
one-to-one
parking
ratio
required
by
the
zoning
code,
because
the
parking
variance
was
not
granted.
There
have
been
some
changes
to
vehicular
access
to
the
site.
The
original
plan
included
just
a
driveway,
an
access
point
to
the
driveway,
a
shared
driveway
along
south
of
the
site.
The
revised
plans
have
two
vehicular
access
points.
One
is
to
that
shared
driveway
over
that
has
moved
slightly
to
the
east.
H
The
other
is
because
of
the
grade
change
at
the
site.
There
are
actually
the
access
points.
One
is
on
the
first
floor
and
now
one
is
on
the
second
floor
to
access
the
alley,
because
the
alley
is
adjacent
to
the
second
floor
of
the
building
and
I
will
have
some
plans
that
will
demonstrate
that
here
pass
the
next
slide.
Please.
This
is
the
original
proof
site
plan
that
was
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission
in
October
and,
if
you'll
go
to
the
next
slide,
please
this
is
the
revised
site
plan
for
the
first
floor.
H
H
These
are
probably
hard
to
see
on
your
screens,
but
they
are
the
original
proposed
upper
floor
plans
and
next
slide.
Please
and
the
revised
plans
that
made
the
main
changes
come
to
the
second
floor,
where,
in
order
to
accommodate
that
required
extra
parking,
the
the
applicant
revised
the
plans
to
add
eight
parking
spaces
on
the
second
floor
that
has
access
via
the
residential
alley
at
the
rear
of
the
site.
Next
slide,
please.
H
This
is
the
original
building
elevations
that
were
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission,
and
they
show
that
one
vehicular
access
point
because
of
the
significant
grade
change
on
the
site.
The
original
plan
was
that
the
rear
yard
would
be
depressed
in
this
way,
so
the
alley
there
would
be
a
retaining
wall
and
then
along
the
alley
and
then
a
fence,
and
then
we
aren't
so
exposing
all
four
levels
of
the
building
next
slide.
H
Please
now,
with
these
revised
plants
actually
at
the
rear,
the
building
appears
to
be
three
stories,
because
it's
actually
meeting
with
that
existing
higher
grade
on
the
alley.
There's
revisions
to
the
rear
of
the
building
that
add
additional
brick
on
that
facade
and
a
garage
door,
and
that
original
garage
door
on
the
South
elevation
didn't
move
over
towards
the
front
of
the
building.
H
Thirty
point
one
hundred
so
the
Zoning
Administrator
may
authorize
minor
changes
to
an
approve
site
plan
upon
determining
each
of
the
following
one
is
that
the
proposed
changes
would
not
represent
a
substantial
redesign
of
the
project
and
are
consistent
with
the
intent
of
this
chapter
and
the
findings
made
by
the
City
Planning
Commission
and
Zoning
Administrator.
For
this
project,
the
proposed
building
itself.
The
building
envelope
remains
the
same.
H
The
building
bulk
footprint
setbacks,
building
materials
the
street
facing
facade
all
remain
unchanged,
so
staff
determined
that
they
that
that
first
item
did
not
constitute
a
major
change
on
item
number.
Two.
The
proposed
changes
would
not
create
the
need
for
additional
alternative
compliance
or
land
use
applications
not
previously
considered
and
approved
by
the
City
Planning
Commission.
Does
none
of
these
changes
create
the
need
for
additional
alternate
compliance,
nor
do
they
trigger
additional
land
use
applications
for
number
three,
where
the
proposed
changes
would
result
in
additional
building.
H
Both
increase
would
not
exceed
ten
percent
of
the
gross
layer
area
or
twenty
five
hundred
square
feet.
The
project
actually
reduces
the
building
bulk
because
we
do
not
count
in
close
parking
areas
as
building
bulk,
so
it
actually
reduces
the
building
book
by
four.
How
we
count
building
bulk
by
over
2,000
square
feet.
Number
four
has
to
do
with
the
height
of
the
increase
in
the
height
of
the
building.
The
height
of
the
building
remains
unchanged
and
number
five
also
has
to
do
with
building
bulk
and
height.
Those
remain
unchanged
next
slide,
please
so.
H
Staff
determined
that
the
proposed
changes
to
the
plan
that
were
submitted
as
part
of
the
preliminary
development
review
project
process
do
not
constitute
a
major
change.
They
can
be
considered
a
minor
change,
so
staff
was
able
to
approve
those
changes
for
an
eighteen
unit,
building
with
18
parking
spaces
as
as
minor
change
and
determined
that
this
does
not
require
a
new
application
before
the
Planning
Commission,
and
so
the
application
before
you
today
was
an
appeal
submitted
by
takashina,
with
an
appeal
of
that
decision
by
the
Zoning
Administrator
to
approve
these
changes
as
minor
changes.
H
Next
slide,
please
I,
also
just
most
of
the
appellant
statement
have
to
do
with
changes
to
vehicular
access
on
the
site.
Some
minor
changes
with
landscaping
and
other
access
type
things.
Well
there
there
are
some
changes
to
the
site
with
River
soo
vehicular
access,
pedestrian
access.
You
know,
there's
been
some
additional
brick
added
to
the
facades.
That
sort
of
thing.
H
The
main
item
that
we
look
at
on
that
table
of
minor
changes
is:
are
these
changes
resulting
in
additional
alternative
compliance?
That's
required,
or
are
they
triggering
new
land
use
applications,
or
are
they
meeting
those
specific
categories
of
increases
to
bulk
height
or
significant
changes
to
the
building?
And
and
with
regards
that
this,
these
proposed
changes.
They
are
not
and
staffs
opinion
meeting
any
of
those
standards.
I
also
wanted
to
address
one
of
the
concerns
and
the
appellant
narrative
about
incompatibility
with
the
Minneapolis
2040
plan.
H
However,
all
the
the
policy
guidance
within
the
2040
plan
still
needs
to
be
adopted
into
the
zoning
code,
and
that
has
not
happened
yet
and
is
slated
to
happen
late
this
year
likely
in
the
last
quarter
of
the
year.
So
the
RFI's
owning
district
that
has
been
in
place
that
was
in
place
last
year,
is
still
in
place
today
that
r5
zoning
district
still
allows
a
four-story
building.
So
even
if
the
you
know,
the
changes
proposed
were
determined
to
be
major
changes.
H
All
that
would
require
is
that
the
applicant
file,
an
amendment
to
site
plan
review
for
an
already
approved,
four-story
building,
and
just
to
reiterate
that
the
site
plan
review
was
approved
in
October
in
this
valid
for
two
years,
with
the
option
of
a
one-year
extension.
So
this
is
not
an
appeal
of
this
cycle
interview
itself
that
has
already
been
approved.
H
This
is
just
about
the
minor
changes
that
were
proposed,
the
applicant
to
comply
with
that
one-to-one
parking
ratio
and,
if
you'll
move
to
the
next
slide,
please
staff
is
recommending
that
the
Board
of
Adjustment
adopt
staff
findings
and
deny
the
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
Zoning
Administrator.
Approving
the
preliminary
development
review
for
an
eighteen
unit,
building
with
18
parking
spaces
at
47,
36
and
forty
seven,
forty
Grand,
Avenue,
south
and
I
am
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
B
Thank
you
very
much
miss
before
we
start
I'd
like
to
just
go
through
a
couple
of
procedural
notes.
Before
we
have
board
members,
ask
questions
and
then
hear
from
the
appellant
appeals
of
the
Zoning.
Administrator
are
not
variances.
They
are
also
not
determinations
on
whether
to
grant
non-conforming
use
certificates.
The
board's
job
is
nearly
defined
to
determine
whether
the
Zoning
Administrator
correctly
interpreted
and
administered
the
current
provisions
of
the
zoning
ordinance
that
are
the
subject
of
the
appeal.
B
B
As
a
matter
of
due
process,
the
appellant
is
afforded
broad
latitude
in
the
testimony
that
they
provide
to
make
their
case.
However,
since
written
testimony
has
been
provided
for
the
record,
this
body
will
ask
the
opponent
to
be
respectful
of
the
amount
of
time
they
use
in
providing
their
testimony
today,
the
same
broad
latitude
and
testimony
provided
provided
applies
only
to
the
appellant.
B
It
is
not
afforded
to
others
testifying
who
are
not
the
appellant
or
a
member
of
the
appellant
steam
if
I
feel
public
testimony
or
board
member
questions
or
comments
are
straying
through
the
aforementioned
purpose.
I
will
interrupt
speaker
and
ask
them
to
address
the
decision
before
this
body.
This
is
not
to
be
rude,
but
we
respectful
the
purpose
of
these
proceedings
and
with
that
I'll
open
questions
to
the
board
for
miss
Silas.
B
I
I
Our
appeal
focus
is
on
the
first
of
the
five
requirements
that
Miss
Silas
mentioned
in
Section
five
3100
section,
one
right
so
specifically
five
on
five
3100
one,
eight
and,
as
you
can
see
on
the
first
slide
of
my
deck
within
that
first
section,
there
are
three
requirements
that
must
be
met
for
staff
to
have
the
authority
to
approve
changes
to
a
site
plan.
Each
of
these
three
requirements
must
be
met.
Number
one.
The
changes
must
be
consistent
with
the
findings
of
Planning
Commission
number.
I
Two:
the
changes
must
not
be
a
substantial
redesign
of
the
overall
project,
not
just
the
building
number.
Three.
The
changes
must
be
consistent
with
the
intent
of
chapter
530
site
plan
review.
In
this
case,
not
a
single
one
of
these
requirements
are
met.
Much
less
all
three.
There
are
changes
that
are
not
consistent
with
the
findings
of
the
Planning
Commission.
There
are
changes
that
substantially
redesign
the
project
and
the
changes
are
not
consistent
with
the
intent
of
chapter
530,
because
none
of
you
three
requirements
have
been
met.
I
The
staff
does
not
have
the
authority
to
approve
the
proposed
changes.
I'll
now
walk
through
each
of
these
three
criteria
in
greater
detail.
First,
there
are
five
specific
ways
in
which
the
proposed
changes
are
not
consistent
with
the
findings
of
the
Planning
Commission.
As
you
can
see
on
page
two,
the
proposed
changes
include
an
entirely
new
parking
garage
that
was
never
discussed
or
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission.
As
noted
by
staff
there.
I
Now
not
one
Vic
euler
act
response
the
Planning
Commission
found
there
to
be
no
new,
curb
cuts
and
that
all
vehicle
access
would
come
from
Grand
Avenue.
Due
to
the
grade
change
the
significant
grade
change
along.
We
have
if
those
changes
can
contradict
these
findings
of
the
Planning
Commission.
On
pages
3,
&
4,
you
can
see
how
moving
the
ground-floor
garage
door
is
not
consistent
with
the
planning
findings
of
the
Planning
Commission
that
the
hickler
access
was
quote
designed
to
minimize
conflict,
close
quote
with
the
adjacent
properties
and
pedestrians.
I
On
page
3,
you
can
see
two
photographs.
The
first
shows
how
headlights
from
cars
exiting
the
parking
garage
in
the
original
design
would
shine
on
to
the
neighbor's
garage.
The
second
shows
were
headlights
on
the
existing.
From
from
the
exiting
cars
would
now
Shine
directly
into
the
neighbor's
house,
specifically
a
bedroom
and
a
kitchen
if
these
proposed
changes
are
approved,
that's
pretty
significant.
On
page
four,
you
can
see
that
moving
the
stairwell
to
the
rear
towards
the
rear
of
the
site
means
people
now
need
to
walk
across
the
driveway
to
get
to
the
stairs.
I
Both
of
these
are
examples
of
how
moving
the
garage
door
to
the
middle
of
the
building
increases
conflict
between
vehicles
in
the
adjacent
property
and
vehicles
and
pedestrians
contradicting
the
Planning
Commission's.
Finding
that
vehicular
access
is
quote
designed
to
minimize
conflict
on
page
five,
you
can
see
the
Planning
Commission
required
a
fence
along
the
retaining
wall
at
the
rear
of
the
property.
I
Because
of
that
severe
finger
grade
change,
the
proposed
changes
do
not
include
this
required
sensing,
there's
no
gate
across
the
driveway
or
along
the
retaining
walls
on
either
the
north
or
south
side
of
the
building.
Where
there's
that
grade
change,
the
proposed
changes
do
not
meet
the
requirements
that
were
laid
out
by
the
Planning
Commission
and
on
page
six
you'll
see
that
the
Planning
Commission
found
the
original
plan
followed
best
practices,
close
quote
in
crime
prevention
through
Environmental
Design
sips
it.
I
Unfortunately,
the
proposed
changes,
eliminate
windows,
reduce
natural
surveillance,
create
a
dangerous
recess
driveway
and
an
indefensible
dead-end
along
the
north
side
of
the
property.
These
changes
are
not
consistent
with
the
findings
of
Planning
Commission,
because
they're
not
quote
best
practices
incepted.
I
The
second
criteria,
that's
in
that
first
part
to
allow
staff
to
make
a
minor
change
is
that
the
changes
must
not
substantially
redesign
the
project.
The
quote
project
is
more
than
just
the
building
right
chapter.
Five,
thirty
site
plan
review
has
an
article
pertaining
to
building
placement
and
design,
but
it
also
has
articles
regarding
access
and
circulation
landscaping
and
screening
and
additional
standards
such
as
septic.
These
other
factors
must
be
considered
as
part
of
the
overall
project,
and
in
this
case
the
proposed
change
proposed
changes
are
more
than
simply
just
decreasing.
I
The
number
of
units
from
23
as
18
as
staff
have
suggested.
As
you
can
see
at
page
7,
while
some
aspects
of
the
building
are
unchanged,
the
overall
project
has
been
substantially
redesigned,
there's
an
entirely
new
parking
structure
that
increases
parking
by
80
percent
from
what
was
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission,
the
location
of
the
garage
doors,
pedestrian
entrances
and
sidewalks
have
been
changed.
There.
Changes
to
the
retaining
walls,
fencing
and
landscaping
and,
as
noted
above
there's,
changes
that
impact
the
crime
prevention
through
Environmental
Design
considerations
of
the
site
in
isolation.
I
Minneapolis
2040
designates
forty
seven
thirty,
six
and
forty
seven
forty
grand
as
interior
to
fine
for
quote
small
scale
residential
presidential
with
up
to
three
dwelling
units
on
an
individual,
a
lot
increase
in
the
number
of
parking
spaces
from
the
ten
that
were
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission
to
18.
In
order
to
build
18
units
of
housing
means
the
building
would
be
3
times
3
times
larger
than
what
would
be
allowed
under
Minneapolis
2040.
I
Thus,
the
proposed
changes
are
not
consistent
with
the
intent
of
chapter
530
because
it
can
flicked
with
Minneapolis
2040
a
plan
that
has
been
approved
by
the
City
Council.
In
closing,
we
urge
the
board
of
adjustments
to
support
our
appeal.
It's
clear
that
staff
does
not
have
the
authority
to
authorize
the
proposed
changes.
The
proposed
changes
are
not
consistent
with
the
findings
of
the
Planning
Commission.
They
are,
is
the
state
to
redesign
of
the
overall
project
and
they
are
not
consistent
with
the
intent
of
chapter
5:30.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
I
You
the
question
at
you
at
its
core:
this
is
about
the
law
right.
The
city
I
used
to
work
for
the
city
for
a
number
of
years
right,
and
this
is
about
these
deaths
needing
to
follow
the
law.
That's
that's
my
number
one
priority
here
right.
So
that's
that's,
first
and
foremost,
why
this
appeal
has
been
filed
right.
I
Speak
to
miss
Silas
mentioned
that
we
didn't
actually
appeal.
The
site
plan
was
approved
in
October
and
that's
true.
We
didn't,
because
I
think
we
were
really
hopeful
that
we
could
work
with
the
developer
and
the
developer
to
come
back
with
a
plan
to
build
ten
useless
houses
right.
Instead,
they
increased
that
to
eighteen,
almost
double
right.
They
haven't
met
with
us
at
all.
They've
refused
me
with
us.
In
fact,
right
and
so
part
of
this
is.
I
So
this
is
about
following
a
walk,
and
this
is
about
due
process
and
allowing
for
the
community
to
have
an
opportunity
to
speak
directly
to
the
developer
and
for
the
Planning
Commission,
then
to
hear
our
concerns
and
make
a
judgement
rather
than
having
staff
make
it
behind
closed
doors.
Hopefully,
that's
responsible.
B
B
E
Yes,
Thank
You,
chair,
Perry
I
agree
with
the
Zoning
Administrator
in
this
case,
for
the
five
reasons
stated
by
staff.
I
believe
that
the
changes
are
indeed
minor
that
if
it
were
to
go
back
to
the
Planning
Commission,
the
they
had
approved
a
site
plan
that
was
much
more
improved,
intrusive,
I
would
think
and.
E
G
H
The
the
proposal
to
reduce
the
number
of
units
and
increase
the
parking
and
add
the
additional
vehicular
access
door
does
not
trigger
any
of
those
five
items
that
are
defined
in
Chapter
five.
Thirty
point:
one
point:
one
hundred
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
we
we
look
at
when
we're
making
these
determinations
is,
if
the
if
this
project
came
through
as
a
new
project,
is
that
something
that
we
would
not
have
allowed,
because
it
would
have
required,
alternate
compliance
or
a
variance
or
something
like
that?
H
This?
You
know
the
proposal
to
add
the
parking
and
the
second
vehicular
access
point
is
something
that
would
not
have
triggered
alternative
compliance
would
not
have.
You
know,
caused
issues
in
terms
of
making
the
findings.
We
need
to
make
a
spurt
a
site
plan,
our
view
and
therefore
staff
determined.
It
does
not.
You
know,
trigger
any
of
those
five
items
from
five
point.
One
hundred.
B
E
B
L
Good
afternoon
chatter
period,
members
of
the
board,
the
application
before
you
is
a
request
to
vary
the
off-street
parking
requirement
from
19
or
required
off
street
stalls
down
to
11
in
order
to
convert
several
dens
or
storage
areas
into
lawful
bedrooms.
If
we
could
pull
up
the
presentation
that
I
had
prepared.
L
L
The
building
was
constructed
in
2014
and
at
that
time,
initially
received
a
variance
for
reduction
from
15
to
11,
as
well
as
a
front
yard,
variance
and
site
plan
review,
but
did
include
these
sleeping
areas
or
so
nestle,
not
sleeping
areas
stands
or
storage
areas
which,
according
to
the
applicant,
have
been
being
used
since
that
time
as
sleeping
areas.
If
we
could
advance
the
next
slide,
please.
L
We
have
here
a
floor
plan
for
the
third
floor,
which
is
the
floor
where
these
the
rooms
and
questions
are
located.
They're
clouded
in
the
middle
of
that
floor
plan,
the
applicant
has
labeled
them
as
as
built
showing
doors
and
closets
and
beds,
but
on
the
next
slide
of
the
presentation
we
have
the
approved
copy
from
city
records
from
their
application
to
the
Planning.
Commission
have
clouded
that
same
area
that
shows
that
those
were
clearly
open
rooms.
L
With
regards
to
the
required
findings
for
parking
variance,
if
we
could
advance
to
the
next
slide,
please
staff
finds
that
there
are
not
or
so
I
think
the
next
slide.
After
this
sorry,
Thank
You
staff
finds
that
there
are
not
practical
difficulties
that
are
unique
to
the
property
proximity
to
high
transit
routes
is,
thankfully,
not
a
unique
condition
in
the
city,
nor
does
it
represent
a
difficulty
in
complying
with
an
ordinance
that
is
specifically
written
to
regulate
the
area
around
the
university
staff
finds
that
the
proposal
does
meet.
L
Policies
of
the
Comprehensive
Plan
it
is
in
compliance
with
the
2040
plan
is
adopted,
which
does
call
for
the
elimination
of
parking
requirements
throughout
the
city.
However,
that
has
not
yet
been
adopted
into
the
zoning
ordinance,
whilst
I
find
that
it
does
meet.
The
comprehensive
plan
does
not
meet
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance,
as
I
mentioned.
The
ordinance
is
specifically,
in
this
instance,
intended
to
regulate
the
differing
manner
in
which
housing
is
used
in
the
area
around
the
University,
as
opposed
to
other
areas
of
the
city.
A
L
That
it
may
have
a
negative
impact
on
use
and
enjoyment
of
neighboring
properties
by
increasing
the
demand
for
off
street
parking
area
or
a
street
increase
in
the
demand
for
on
street
parking,
which
is
always
a
concern
in
and
around
the
university.
As
such
staff
recommends,
denying
the
application
and
I
will
stand
for
questions.
B
K
Yeah
Thank
You,
chair
and
board,
and
thank
you,
miss
grant.
My
name
is
Mattie
wolf,
I'm,
an
attorney
with
tap
water
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
applicant,
the
variance
request
comes
before
you
today
to
bring
an
existing
condition
of
this
property
into
legal
compliance.
The
property
was
developed
in
2013
and
was
designed
to
have
29
bedrooms
as
well
as
storage
and
study
areas
within
the
units.
These
swords
and
study
areas
have
regularly
been
used
by
university
student,
tenants
and
other
tenants
as
additional
sleeping
quarters,
which
caused
the
conflict
with
the
zoning
code.
K
Have
had
closets,
essentially
added
to
these
rooms
to
basically
accommodate
the
use
of
Dardan
being
made
of
these
of
these
rooms
and
and
the
been
the
the
conflicts
arose
as
a
result.
So,
due
to
time,
tenants
prior
use,
we've
seen
a
river
that
a
representative
sample
of
parking
needs
on
the
property
and
surrounding
the
property.
Under
this
increased
load,
the
party
needs
of
the
resident
have
consistently
been
met
and
I'm
not
aware
of
any
complaints
by
tenants
or
neighbors
with
regard
to
parking
issues
caused
by
the
occupancy
of
this
building.
K
Second,
we
are
aware
of
at
least
two
instances
where
a
greater
parking
variance
request
was
granted
under
substantially
similar
circumstances,
including
the
required
variance
findings
which
were
similar
and
substantially
similar
locations
and
proximity
to
transit
and
both
of
those
were
MD.
University
overlay
located
just
south
of
this
property,
the
first
of
the
property
located
at
11:21
4th
Avenue
southeast,
which
a
lot
of
variants
found
at
0.25
parking
spaces
per
bedroom
and
the
second
of
the
property
located
at
1202
4th
Street
southeast,
which
a
lot
of
variants
down
to
0.24
spaces
per
bedroom.
K
Using
the
same
proposed
findings
that
we
had
proposed
in
this
case,
where
we
are
looking
for
our
bearings
down
to
0.28
spaces
per
veteran,
while
we
recognize
that
these
variances
do
not
set
legal
precedent,
we
request
that
they
be
recognized
that
setting
the
practical
standard
for
how
similarly
situated
requests
for
variances
will
be
treated.
Similarly,
our
variance
request
is
in
line
with
the
goals
articulated
in
the
2040
plan
and
is
mindful
of
practical
considerations
that
take
into
account
the
property's
proximity
to
the
University
and
to
available
transit
options.
B
You
don't
see
any
right
off
the
bat,
but
I
have
a
question.
Mr.
wolf
I
am
we
have
to
find
for
three
findings
as
I'm
sure
you're
aware.
One
of
them
is
the
uniqueness
of
the
property
and
the
practical
difficulty
I'm,
not
really
hearing
what
that
practical
difficulty
is
and
I
think
staff
has
pointed
out
and
its
staff
report
that
things
that
would
be
considered
assets
you're,
referring
to
as
practical
difficulties.
Can
you
talk
about
what
the
practical
difficulties
are?
I.
K
Most
residents
will
not
up
cars
and
will
walk
or
bike
to
school
and
work
and
will
utilize
car
services
for
longer
trips.
There
are
high-frequency
bus
lines
in
close
proximity
to
the
site
and
we're
the
project
located
outside
of
the
UA
overlay.
The
project
would
qualify
for
a
50%
reduction
in
its
parking
requirement,
and
this
creates
a
practical
difficulty
with
meeting
the
appropriate
demand
for
the
property
and
complying
with
this
ordinance,
and
that
was
the
staffs
finding
in
a
in
the
request
that
brought
this
down
to
0.25
variance
for
parking.
B
F
E
B
E
B
So
the
request
is
denied
mr.
wolf.
You
can
talk
to
the
staff
person
assigned
to
the
project
to
see
what
your
options
are
going
forward
with
that
we
have
completed
all
of
our
items
on
the
agenda
for
this
meeting
and
will
ask
members
and
staff
if
there
are
any
other
matters
to
come
before
this
meeting.