►
From YouTube: July 23, 2020 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
C
C
For
the
record,
my
name
is
matt
perry,
I'm
sure
of
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment
I
want
to
just
before
we
call
the
role
I
want
to
thank
people
for
hanging
in
there.
There
was
a
meeting
before
ours
that
went
long,
and
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
people
who
were
watching
either
through
the
live
stream
or
on
tv
were
able
to
see
the
visuals.
D
C
Thank
you.
We
have
quorum
and
with
that
we'll
proceed
to
our
agenda,
a
copy
of
which
was
posted
for
public
access
in
the
city's
legislative
information
management
system
available
at
lims
l,
I
m
s,
dot
minneapolismn.gov.
Is
there
a
motion
to
approve
this
agenda.
D
C
There's
a
motion
in
a
second:
is
there
any
discussion
on
the
motion?
Seeing
none
will
the
clerk.
Please
call
the
role.
A
G
H
A
D
C
I
J
A
D
E
C
K
K
That
committee
voted
to
uphold
the
board's
decision
on
two
different
items:
denying
appeals
of
the
decision
of
the
board
of
adjustment,
the
first
being
an
appeal
of
a
parking
variance
or
a
parking
variance
application
at
525,
10th
avenue,
southeast
and
the
other
being
an
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
zoning
administrator
regarding
whether
something
was
a
major
or
minor
change
at
4736
to
4740
grand
avenue
south.
Thank
you.
D
C
Thank
you
all
right.
Let's
review
the
agenda,
I
will
read
the
agenda
number
and
the
address
of
the
project
and
state
whether
it's
slated
for
withdrawal
or
discussion.
We
don't
have
any
items
on
the
the
agenda
for
land
use,
requests
that
are
consent
items.
So
let
me
just
quickly
talk
about
what
discussion
items
are.
C
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.
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
on
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.
Board
members
will
then
discuss
and
act
on
motions
and
chair
only
votes
in
the
case
of
a
tie.
C
C
Portland
avenue-
and
this
is
a
discussion
item
agenda-
item
number-
six-
is
3501
grand
avenue
south.
This
item
is
being
withdrawn.
Approval
of
the
agenda
with
this
item
on
acknowledges
this
and
no
further
action
on
the
part
of
the
board
is
required
agenda.
Item
number:
seven
is
1713
36th
avenue
north
east,
and
this
is
a
discussion
item.
C
So
with
that
we
will
move,
we
don't
have
any
consent
items
on
our
agenda
to
consider.
So
we
will
move
right
into
agenda
item
number
five,
which
is
2209
and
22
11,
and
I
think
that's
ms
brandt.
L
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
Members
of
the
board
item
number
five
is
for
2209
and
2211
portland
avenue.
These
are
a
pair
of
mid-block
parcels
with
a
r4,
multiple
family
zoning
district.
Currently,
on
this
site,
there
is
a
party
wall
duplex
that
was
constructed
in
1977.
L
C
L
C
L
Sure
a
party
wall
is
basically
where
there's
a
an
unperforated
wall
separating
the
units
of
a
duplex,
so
they're
entirely
self-contained
with
a
lot
line
running
down
the
middle.
L
The
proposal
before
you
is
to
construct
a
720
square
foot
garage.
If
this
were
a
single
parcel,
it
would
exceed
the
allowable
allowable
size
of
a
garage.
But
given
that
these
are
two
separate
parcels,
each
of
them
is
allotted
676
square
feet.
So
the
size
of
the
garage
is
in
conformance
with
the
requirements
of
the
zoning
code
similar
to
the
duplex.
L
L
So
if
we
could
move
to
the
next
slide,
please
so
practical
difficulties
do
exist
on
this
site
with
regards
to
locating
and
locating
an
accessory
structure
not
entirely
to
the
rear.
The
structure
is
within
four
feet
of
the
lot
lines
on
either
side
and
similarly
is
not
served
by
a
public
alley.
So
there
is,
there
is
no
physical
way
to
get
a
vehicle
to
the
rear
of
the
site,
so
staff
does
find
that
there
are
practical
difficulties
in
complying
with
the
ordinance
that
are
associated
with
this
request.
L
Similarly,
this
proposal
is,
in
contrast
with
several
goals
of
the
minneapolis
2040
comprehensive
plan,
such
as
establishing
clear
sight
lines
in
and
out
of
dwellings,
natural
surveillance
eyes
on
the
street,
and
those
are
reinforced
with
the
city's
adopted
crime
prevention
through
environmental
designer
september
policies.
L
But
generally
the
the
low
intensity
residential
development
that
we
see
in
here
predates
the
zoning
code
for
the
for
the
for
the
most
part,
then
encode
was
initially
adopted
in
1924
and
the
the
regulations
that
were
adopted
both
in
the
initial
zoning
code
and
every
sort
of
iteration
of
the
zoning
code
since
then
have
been
informed
to
regulate
and
incentivize
the
sort
of
development
that
we
saw
prior
to
the
adoption
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
L
L
Similarly,
constructing
a
detached
garage
in
the
front
could
potentially
present
a
detriment
to
health
safety
and
welfare.
Portland
avenue
is
quite
a
busy
street
for
both
vehicle
and
pedestrian
traffic
and
removing
those
sight
lines
of
a
vehicle
backing
out
of
a
garage
does
have
the
potential
to
create
safety
concerns.
L
The
established
front
yard
is
at
an
angle
there,
with
the
farthest
point
requiring
a
setback
of
16.5
feet.
The
southern
corner
of
the
garage
you
can
see
is
meeting
the
established
front
yard
as
it
intersects
with
the
district
front
yard
of
15
feet.
L
L
Separation
between
the
two
structures
staff
finds
that
this
proposal
does
meet
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
of
the
zoning
ordinance
and
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
and
while
the
front
yard
variants
in
and
of
itself
may
not
negatively
affect
the
essential
character
or
the
health,
safety
or
welfare
as
discussed
previously,
the
proposal
as
a
whole
is
not
meeting
that
third
finding.
L
L
Each
of
the
lots
individually
is
only
25
feet
wide
and
as
seen
in
some
of
the
pictures
or
in
the
report,
this
very
much
reads
as
a
single
50-foot
wide
lot,
rather
than
two
side-by-side
25
feet
lots.
So
the
the
narrowness
of
the
lot
constitutes
a
practical
difficulty
and
given
the
the
nature
of
the
development
staff
finds
that
it
does
meet
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
because
it
doesn't,
it
doesn't
appear
to
be
two
separate
parcels
again
with
regards
to
that.
L
Third,
finding
the
sideyard
variance
in
and
of
itself
would
not
negatively
affect
essential
character
or
health
safety
or
welfare,
but
the
proposal
as
a
whole
does
have
some
some
negative
effects
in
that
regard.
C
Thank
you,
miss
brandt,
for
your
presentation.
Are
there
any
questions
of
staff
before
we
open
the
public
hearing.
C
I
see
none
so,
let's
open
the
public
hearing
would
would
the
applicant
like
to
speak
if
you're
on
the
phone,
please
plus
star
six,
to
speak.
M
Great,
thank
you
so
yeah.
Thank
you
for
the
time
today
and
thanks
alyssa
for
that
presentation.
I
I
can
definitely
tell
you.
It
was
not
my
intent
to
have
the
front
yard
variants,
so
that
is
simply
a
mistake
by
my
surveyors.
M
He
told
me
that
I
should
be
within
the
front
yard
setback
requirement,
so
I
did
acknowledge
that,
but
in
terms
of
your
concerns
of
the
the
health
and
safety
and
well-being
of
the
community
based
on
this
plan,
I
do
actually
feel
that
the
the
garage
and
the
changes
to
the
property
will
actually
enhance
that
and
fully
comply
with
the
2040
plan.
M
M
You
know,
including
nine
feet
of
direct
visibility
between
those
areas
to
the
house
to
provide
natural
surveillance
from
the
property
to
the
public
right-of-way.
In
addition,
this
the
garage
has
a
height
of
14
feet,
which
I
understand
you
know
could
be
understood.
As
you
know,
obstructing
the
view.
However,
the
house
is
two
and
a
half
levels
high
in
totals
34
feet
and
as
such,
there
are
numerous
front-facing
windows
on
the
second
and
third
levels
that
would
oversee
the
garage
all
the
way
to
the
street
and
sidewalk
level.
M
In
addition,
the
area
between
the
garage
and
the
house
that
would
be
obstructed
from
the
street
and
sidewalk
do
have
direct
lines
of
sight
between
both
adjacent
properties
and
their
side
windows,
to
allow
for
natural
surveillance
and,
in
addition,
as
part
of
the
design
and
structure
and
location
of
this
garage,
it
will
replace
existing
mature
trees
and
vegetation
that
currently
obstruct
that
view.
So
not
only
will
it
be
similar
in
size,
it
will
be
comparable
to
what
is
currently
there
today
and
then
in
regards
to
the
public.
M
The
plan
is
to
remove
dense
vegetation
trees
and
a
three
foot
high
wood
retaining
wall
with
built-in
vegetation
that
are
both
immediately
adjacent
to
the
sidewalk
as
part
of
removing
those
the
sight
lines
and
visibility
will
actually
be
enhanced
by
having
the
garage
as
it
will
be
just
surface.
You
know
driveway
in
and
out
of,
instead
of
you
know
current
obstructions
and
then
lastly,
to
enhance
the
public.
You
know
health
and
safety
of
the
neighborhood.
M
I
think
a
key
component
of
theft
and
crime
prevention
is
to
deter
criminal
activity
by
removing
opportunities
for
crime
and
by
providing
a
secure
garage
for
storage
of
vehicles
and
personal
possessions.
It
places
high
value
assets
out
of
sight
and
reach
of
criminal
activity
and
thus
could
improve
the
health,
safety
and
welfare
of
the
local
community.
M
M
M
Oh
sorry,
my
name
is
matt
abens,
the
property
owner
of
2209,
portland
avenue
and
manager
of
2211
portland
avenue.
D
C
M
Nope,
that
is
not
an
issue
at
all.
My
intent
was
to
be
fully
within
the
front
yard
setback
requirements
and
my
surveyor
indicated
that
I
was,
but
he
obviously
made
an
inner,
and
I
was
only
within
the
district
required
front
yard
setback
of
15
feet,
but
I
I
do
see
now
that
it
does
not
meet
the
established
front
yard
setback.
So
I
would
have
no
air
no
issue
or
no
concern
with
moving
the
property.
You
know
one
foot
closer
to
the
residence
to
comply
with
that.
F
F
M
Yes,
that
is,
from
the
the
you
know
very
top
of
the
the
top
of
the
peak
of
the
roof,
so
the
center
and
highest
point
of
the
roof,
as
it
will.
You
know,
slant
in
each
direction
towards
the
house
and
towards
the
driveway
sidewalk
area.
That
is
the
absolute
highest
point
in
the
garage
is
14
feet.
M
Same
thing,
so
in
in
the
immediate
you
know
the
middle
of
the
property,
the
peak
of
the
roof
is
34
feet
high
and
and
that's
the
very
immediately
there's
no,
you
know
attic
space
or
anything.
It's
just
all
the
way
up
to
the
roof.
D
M
Roughly
five
feet
high,
it
looks
out
and
then
there's
that's
a
horizontal
window
and
then
there's
a
vertical
window.
That's
you
know
four
feet
tall.
That
you
know
is
in
the
middle
of
the
room.
So
you
know
it's
roughly
at
knee
height
and
goes
to
above
your
head.
F
M
F
I'm
referring
to
the
ones
at
the
very
top.
The
photo
that
I
have
is
towards
the
back
of
our
board
packets
and
I'm
seeing
that
there
are
at
the
very
bottom,
the
very
lowest
level.
I
have
three
windows
that
appear
to
be
about
knee
height,
maybe
two
and
a
half
feet,
and
then,
above
that
we'll
say,
maybe
seven
feet
higher.
F
M
That
that
is
well,
so
the
middle
window
is
actually
roughly
10
feet
from
the
very
bottom
of
the
window.
M
The
middle
window
is
just
a
sole
window
that
is
roughly
10
feet
from
the
ground.
M
M
F
Okay,
so
when
we're-
and
this
is
a
little
cumbersome
over
video
conference-
but
if
we
look
and
count
say
the
the
shingling
or
not
the
shingles,
the
the
siding
yep,
are
you
estimating
that
that
siding
is
about
one
foot,
each
that
each
piece
of
siding
measures,
approximately
one
foot
in
height.
M
M
F
Okay,
but
I
mean
that
still
puts
my
measurement
somewhere
in
the
20-foot
range,
though,
if
we're
counting
20
feet
to
the
top
of
the
uppermost
windows.
M
F
C
C
E
Yeah.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
agree
with
staff
recommendation
and
I
would
tend
to
support
that.
I'd
like
to
hear
from
the
other
board
members.
B
Thanks
chairperry,
I
think
it's
I
think
I
keep
looking
at
the
site.
I
keep
seeing
that
it's
going
to
be
beyond
you
know,
it'll
be
set
back
from
the
road
far
enough
to
align
with
the
other
buildings.
There
are
a
lot
of
driveways
already
along
that
stretch
and
they're
going
to
park
there
anyway.
So
if
they're
going
to
back
out
with
a
garage
or
they're
going
to
back
out
without
a
garage,
I
don't
see
a
problem
with
that.
B
I
hate
to
set
a
precedent,
but
it's
a
weird
lot:
it
is
tight.
It's
small
there's
no
alley
and
getting
getting
cars
off
the
street
in
a
safe,
secure
manner
seems
to
make
sense
to
me
so
I'm
leaning
to
support
the
applicant.
F
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
am
leaning
to
support
staff,
but
I
want
to
just
throw
my
agreement
in
with
with
board
member
johansen
that
that
the
cars
are
parked
there
anyway,
and
I
don't
see
any
additional
danger
from
backing
out
of
a
garage
than
there
is
from
backing
out
of
the
existing
surface
parking.
N
I
agree
that
there's
no
added
danger
to
backing
out
of
a
parking
space
versus
a
garage,
especially
with
how
far
setback
that
garage
will
be
off
the
road
it
looks
like
it'll,
be
almost
in
line
with
the
adjacent
property
structure,
so
I
would
go
I'm
leaning
towards
the
applicant
side
of
this
thing
too.
So
anybody
else
got
something
on
it.
C
L
I
think
I
have
your
question
right.
You're.
You
wanted
to
kind
of
go
over
like
what
the
september
policies
are
for
the
city.
Is
that
correct.
C
Yeah
well
so
some
of
our
board
members
are
talking
about
whether
there's
a
safety
issue
backing
up
and
having
cars.
There
is
that
staffs
is
that,
where
staff
had
contention
with
finding
number
three.
L
Staff
had
contention
with
both
elements
of
the
third
finding
with
regards
to
meeting
the
essential
character
of
the
area.
A
garage
in
front
of
a
house
is
quite
a
change
from
the
typical
built
form
of
this
area
and
then
additionally
did
have
additional
concerns
regarded
to
the
safety
not
just
of
the
vehicular
movements,
but
of
having
this
sort
of
lack
of
visibility
created
by
having
a
detached
garage
in
front
of
the
house.
D
C
Thank
you
and
I
didn't-
I
don't
mean
to
put
words
in
the
mouths
of
my
colleagues,
so
I
think
they
are
also
talking
about
the
essential
character
when
they
say
the
cars
are
going
to
be
parked
there
anyhow
there's
going
to
be
something
there
all
right.
Are
there
additional
comments?
O
Thank
you,
chair
perry,
one
of
the
one
of
the
concerns
in
in
looking
at
this
plan
and
as
I've
gone
through,
it
kind
of
going
back
to
the
essential
character
piece
is
just
the
pure
bulk
of
this
garage
servicing
two
units
as
one
single
kind
of
superstructure
in
front
of
the
house.
I
I
just
don't.
O
I
understand
the
need
to
have
parking
for
each
unit
and
for
each
each
portion
of
the
duplex,
but
combining
that
together
in
one
particular
building
out
in
front
of
this,
doesn't
seem
to
me
to
fit
very
much
in
in
a
character
of
of
how
that
would
feel.
I
know
from
a
size
standpoint.
It
was
approximately
10
little
under
10
percent
larger
than
what
would
be
allowed
if
this
was
a
single
lot
in
a
single
family
home.
O
I
I
certainly
I
I
look
at
the
safety
issue
and
I
understand
the
same
thing.
Cars
parked
in
the
front
yard
isn't
aesthetically
pleasing,
nor
necessarily
part
of
what
I
think
the
city
envisions
or
or
would
be
part
of
this.
So
I
I
don't
know
that.
I
think
there
could
be
a
solution
here.
I
just
don't
know
if
this
is
the
best
one
necessarily,
but
I
don't
necessarily
believe
it
also
makes
the
situation
any
worse.
O
The
other
part
I'd
like
to
say
I
know
as
as
we
go
through
this
procedurally,
and
I
I
in
hearing
from
the
applicant,
which
was
was
very
helpful,
was
that
we
have
three
variances
here
and
variance
a
regarding
the
front
yard.
Setback
is
something
that
the
applicant
believes
is
is
achievable
without
variance.
O
I
certainly
can
say
hearing
that
was
great
as
I
I
do
not
support
that
portion
of
the
variance
and
moving
it
closer.
The
other
two
I'm
certainly
open
to
to
further
comment,
an
idea.
I
just
wanted
to
share
those
thoughts.
I
It's
my
feeling
they
already
have
have
parking
and
that
I
favor
staff's
position
on
this
matter.
I
think
they've
analyzed
it
correctly.
Thank
you.
N
Speaking
of
mr
o'giva's
point
about
the
bulk
of
the
structure
being
kind
of
not
in
line
with
the
with
the
area,
I
just
wanted
to
say
I
look
at
looking
up
the
maps
and
street
views
and
stuff
in
the
area,
there's
apartment
buildings
and
flat
lots
and
homes
right
on
their
front
property
lines.
I
mean
the
the
area
is
quite
varied,
I
mean
so
agreed.
The
bulk
is
large,
but
compared
to
some
of
the
other
structures
around
it.
It's
really
not
overboard
in
comparison
just
want
to
make
that
point.
C
F
Sorry
I
had
a
little
internet
hiccup
there.
Given
mr
o'gibba's
comments,
I
think
it
would
be
prudent
to
move
to
deny
the
front
yard
variants
separately
from
the
other
two,
because
I
think
we
have
some
divided
opinions
on
the
board.
D
F
C
There's
there's
a
motion
and
a
second
to
deny
the
reduction
of
the
front
yard
variants.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
roll.
A
A
C
So
the
request
is
denied
and
I
think
we
can
take
from
a
practical
point
of
view.
I
think
we
can
take
the
two
others
as
a
group
of
and
make
a
motion
on
those.
Unless
there's
further
comment.
E
Yeah
thanks
mr
chair
I'll
move
staff
recommendation.
F
A
G
I
D
C
So
that
motion
passes
and
the
requests
are
denied.
Mr
aben,
you
can
talk
to
the
staff
person
who
was
assigned
to
that
project
to
see
what
your
options
are
going
forward.
C
Yep
thanks
for
hanging
in
there
on
the
phone
call.
Let's
move
on
to
item
number
seven.
This
is
1713
36
avenue
northeast
mr
colhaas.
J
J
36Th
avenue
northeast
this
property
is
located
in
the
r1.
Zoning
district
can
be
advanced
to
the
next
slide.
Please,
the
property
is
a
single
family
dwelling,
one
story
with
a
detached
garage
in
the
rear
yard.
The
property
is
slightly
irregular,
with
a
front
lot
line
and
a
61
feet
wide
and
which
is
a
little
bit
wider
than
the
rear
lot
line,
which
is
54
feet.
The
other
two
sides
of
the
property
are
each
130
feet,
long,
the
property
slopes
down
slightly
from
the
front
to
the
rear,
and
there
is
a
a
public
alley.
J
An
improved
public
alley
behind
the
property
across
that
alley
to
the
north
is
a
a
private,
wooded
undeveloped
area
and
some
railroad
right
away.
So
the
nearest
homes
to
the
north
of
the
subject,
property
are
approximately
400
feet
away.
C
J
Chair
perry,
the
the
two
lines
going
along
that
alley
are
actually
the
sides
of
the
boundaries
of
that
public
alley.
If
you
look
at
the
photo
on
the
screen
now
to
the
left
of
that,
furthest
left,
yellow
line
is,
is
a
private
parcel.
J
That
is
all
part
of
that
undeveloped
wooded
area,
and
so
there
the
you
can
see
the
dirt,
and
you
know
maybe
the
area
where
people
are
driving
and
and
parking
vehicles
doesn't
exactly
follow
the
the
the
lines
of
that
improved
alley,
but
from
public
works
has
confirmed
that
it
is
an
improved
alley
and
those
are
the
approximate
lot
lines
that
are
that
are
there.
C
So
can
I
so
some
of
it
looks
like
from
this
picture.
There's
some
vehicles
that
are
in
the
alley
itself.
J
As
it
appears
on
this
photo,
that
is
correct
again.
The
the
property
lines,
as
shown
here
are
approximate
in
in
their
location,
maybe
off
by
a
few
feet
or
so
in
any
direction,
but
you're
correct
that
it
does
appear
that
way
in
this
photo.
J
That's
okay,
thank
you,
checker,
and
can
we
actually
continue
to
the
next
slide?
Thank
you.
These
are
some
photos
that
are
submitted
by
the
applicant
that
show
the
detached
garage
on
the
subject,
property
and
some
other
improvements
in
the
rear
yard,
including
a
paddle
patio
area
and
the
bottom
photos
are
of
the
rv
which
has
been
purchased
by
the
applicant.
It
measures
approximately
35
feet,
long
and
8
feet
wide,
with
a
height
of
10
and
a
half
feet
at
the
highest
point
in
the
back
next
slide.
Please.
J
These
are
some
additional
photos
by
the
applicant.
It's
a
little
small,
but
in
the
top
right
corner,
you'll
see
a
photo
that
shows
the
rv
and
that
is,
and
the
rv
is
parked
on
the
subject:
property
as,
as
shown
by
the
rest
of
the
applicant's
application
materials.
It's
a
parking
area
that
was
constructed
by
the
applicant
and
is
located
entirely
on
the
subject
property
so
not
on
not
in
the
right
of
way
the
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
to
park
the
rv
on
this
portion
of
the
subject
property.
J
So
this
is
outside
of
an
enclosed
structure
when
he
is
not
using
it.
For
recreation
off
of
the
subject
property,
we
go
to
the
next
slide.
Please,
and
then
we
can
stay
here
for
the
rest
of
the
presentation.
J
This
is
a
site
plan
prepared
by
the
applicant
and
also
shows
the
subject
property
in
the
bottom
left.
You
can
see
the
the
proposed
rv
parking
spot
as
designated
by
the
applicant.
It
would
be
have
a
setback
of
one
foot
from
that
that
alley
side
permitted
uses
of
the
rv
on
the
subject.
Property
are
limited
just
to
the
actual
parking
or
storage
of
the
rv
itself,
as
well
as
any
incidental
sort
of
preparation
necessary
for
its
use
off
off
the
subject
property.
J
The
zoning
code
does
require
that
unlocks
that
are
130
feet,
long
or
greater,
which
for
rvs,
which
are
not
stored
in
an
enclosed
building.
The
rv
shall
not
exceed
a
length
of
30
feet,
but
the
zoning
code
does
authorize
variances
to
increase
the
maximum
allowed
length
of
an
rv
to
no
more
than
35
feet,
which
is
the
applicant's
request
in
this
case.
J
To
talk
about
the
findings,
the
first
finding
regarding
practical
difficulties,
staff
finds
that
this
is
met.
The
applicant's
garage
is
set
back
approximately
24
feet
from
the
rear
lot
line,
which
is
relatively
large
setback
in
this
case
closer
to
the
house,
and
it
creates
a
significant
open
space
directly
along
the
alley.
This
is
as
opposed
to
most
garages
in
the
city,
which
are
typically
located
closer
to
the
alley,
with
the
bulk
of
the
open
space
on
the
property
being
between
the
the
house
and
the
garage.
J
These
conditions
were
created
during
the
original
planning
of
the
area
and
the
construction
of
the
garage
in
in
this
location,
which
are
both
prior
to
the
adoption
of
the
city's
current
zoning
ordinance
and
not
created
by
the
applicant,
the
finding
regarding
reasonable
use
of
the
property,
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
in
the
comprehensive
plan.
Staff
finds
that
this
is
also
met
for
rvs.
J
J
But
the
subject
property
again
is
relatively
wide
at
the
rear,
with
enough
space
for
the
applicant
to
park
parallel
to
to
the
alley
and
this
maximizes
the
separation
from
nearby
dwellings,
as
well
as
the
public
street,
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
with
a
finding
regarding
essential
character
of
the
locality
and
potential
injury
or
detriment
to
the
subject,
property
or
nearby
properties.
Staff
finds
that
this
is
met.
J
The
proposed
variants
would
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
or
be
injurious
to
the
use
or
enjoyment
of
other
property
in
the
vicinity
again.
The
alley
or
the
area
across
the
public
alley
from
the
subject.
Property
is
a
private,
wooded
undeveloped,
land
and
railroad
right
away,
which
limits
the
number
of
residential
properties
directly
near
near
the
subject.
Property
and
with
higher
potential
for
impact.
J
The
entire
rv
would
be
parked
in
the
rear
nine
feet
of
the
subject
property
as
far
away
from
neighboring
dwellings
in
the
public
street
as
as
possible,
and
the
rv
would
be
substantially
screened
from
the
public
street
and
nearby
properties
due
to
existing
structures
on
on
the
property,
as
well
as
the
slope
and
vegetation
in
the
area.
So
visibility
of
this
rv
when
it's
parked
there
should
be
relatively
limited.
C
F
Thank
you,
tripp
perry
and
thank
you,
mr
colas.
I
had
a
quick
question
related
to
a
statement
you
made
about
halfway
through
your
presentation,
and
I
wanted
to
make
sure
I
understood
it
correctly
here.
It
sounds
like
you
said.
The
applicant
has
by
right
the
ability
to
store
up
to
a
25
foot
rv
on
his
property
and
when
the
property
exceeds
125
feet
in
length,
he
can
add
an
additional
foot
per
foot
of
property
line
with
an
absolute
maximum
of
30..
J
Thank
you,
chair,
perry
and
board
member
softly.
The
absolute
maximum
allowed
length
of
the
recreational
vehicle,
as
allowed
by
the
zoning
ordinance
is
30
feet.
The
zoning
ordinance
does
authorize
variance
applications
to
extend
that
up
to
35
feet.
That
is
the
applicant's
request
in
this
case
is
to
extend
from
a
maximum
of
30
allowed
by
the
zoning
code
to
the
35
feet
proposed.
E
Yeah,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
think
you
said
that
if
an
rv
were
stored
inside
it
would
not
require
variance.
Is
there
enough
room
on
this
property
to
build
a
structure
that
would
enclose
this
rv.
J
Thank
you,
chair,
perry
and
board
member
sandberg
there
it's
possible
that
they
could,
but
they
would
need
to
make
substantial
alterations
to
the
rest
of
the
property,
including
potentially
tearing
down
the
existing
detached
garage,
which
is
I'm
guessing.
It's
not
tall
enough
to
store
the
rv
that
that
is
in
question
here,
so
it
is
possible,
but
not
without
making
substantial
other
other
alterations.
E
Could
be
made
without
without
a
variance.
F
C
It
seems
like
what,
when
I
read
the
report,
it
seemed
like
the
practical
difficulty
actually
was
more
a
uniqueness
about
the
property
rather
than
a
practical
difficulty,
where
the
practica,
where
the
uniqueness
of
the
property
was
that
there
was
room
for
the
location
of
the
rv
to
be
in
the
rear
part
of
the
yard.
J
Thank
you,
chair,
perry,
yeah,
staff's
position
is
that,
due
to
the
the
size
of
the
property,
which
is
slightly
irregular
and
and
larger
than
many
residential
properties,
as
well
as
the
arrangement
of
the
existing
buildings,
including
the
garage
being
set
back
further,
that
that
creates
the
conditions
that
would
allow
this
garage
to
be
there
when-
and
this
relates
back
to
the
spirit
and
intent,
the
intent
is
generally
to
push
that
further
back
the
rv
further
back
towards
the
property,
which
typically,
is
just
not
possible
where
in
this
case
it
is
on
the
subject.
Property.
C
I
P
Yes,
okay,
great
thank
you,
chair,
perry
and
members
of
the
board
for
listening.
My
only
comments
are
that
we
do
intend
to
park
this
here.
Limitedly
it'll
be
stored
over
the
winter
months,
mostly
for
loading
and
unloading
and
minor
repairs
and
maintenance.
P
You
know
from
a
practical
difficulty
standpoint
we
do
have
some
unique
soil
conditions
due
to
kind
of
a
previous
garbage
dump
that
was
in
the
area,
and
so
the
soil
conditions
are
really
poor
to
put
a
new
garage
in,
we
would
have
to
dig
down
15
to
20
feet
through
garbage,
basically
to
hit
something
solid,
and
so
that
is
a
uniqueness.
P
Our
existing
garage
is
sinking
in
four
different
directions
and
that's
a
little
further
up
the
hill
on
better
soil,
but
to
get
a
rv
pulled
in
and
out
of
a
garage
and
to
build
that
garage
because
of
the
well
former
garbage
dump
would
be,
I
think,
more
of
a
practical
difficulty
than
a
uniqueness
a
lot.
P
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
comment
and
then
just
say
that
you
know,
because
of
the
uniqueness
of
that
alley,
it's
out
of
the
way
of
all
garbage
trucks
and
interference
and
there's
about
outside
on
that
alley
that
so
there's
about
seven
people
that
use
that
that
alley
to
access
those
garages
and
beyond
that.
I
think
that
thank
the
staff
member
that
you
did
a
great
job
of
presenting
our
proposal.
C
Sure
are
there
any
questions
on
mr
sherbert.
O
Great,
thank
you
chair
perry.
Thank
you,
mr
sherbert,
for
for
being
on
the
line
and
holding
on
to
all
this.
Can
I
just
just
some
date
clarifications
just
so
make
it.
When
did
you
purchase
this
rv.
F
P
That's
my
wife
she's
upstairs
and
on
the
phone
too
and
hoping
to
make
a
comment
so
we're
married.
P
Probably
just
an
oversight
on
her
part,
mostly
we've
been
working
to
resolve
differences
with
neighbors
and
try
to
accommodate
their
concerns,
and
so
she's
a
peacemaker
or
negotiator
a
little
bit
more,
and
so
her
comment
is
more
of
a
compromise
as
to
how
to
make
this
a
less
of
a
concern
to
the
neighbors.
So.
P
Q
Q
Hi
there,
yes,
this
is
jill
wilhelmy
for
for
the
questions
earlier.
No,
no
intent
to
deceive.
I
do
live
at
the
property
with
my
husband,
lauren
sherbert.
We
purchased
the
house
in
2003.
Q
I
I
consider
the
rv
to
be
perhaps
a
bit
of
an
unusual
hobby
in
the
sense
that
he
enjoys
vintage
things
and
you
know
would
would
like
to
spend
some
time
remodeling
this
rv,
to
make
it
how
he
wants
it
to
be
he's
correct
that
some
of
our
neighbors
are
are
not
excited
about
the
idea
of
an
rv
being
permanently
parked
in
that
location.
Q
I,
I
think
a
reasonable
compromise
that
a
lot
of
people
could
live
with
would
be
that
if
you
know
the
the
vehicle
can
be
parked
there
for
limited
time
and
limited
purpose,
you
know
I
I
think
you
know
he
he
has
been
updating
the
rv
making
remodeling
it
on
the
inside.
You
know
he's
hung
curtains
and
did
tile
and
and
some
things
like
that,
or
you
know
perhaps
when
he
is
getting
ready
for
a
trip,
unloading
or
loading.
Q
C
C
D
H
H
I
don't
know
if
it
comes
across
clearly
in
the
photos.
It
is
different
from
an
aerial
photo
to
staying
up
close
and
while
I
realize
aesthetics
are
a
subjective
thing,
I
don't
know
of
anybody
that
would
pay
more
for
a
house
with
the
equivalent
of
a
50s
diner
in
their
backyard,
but
from
a
safety
issue,
and
I
do
want
to
focus
on
that
because
I
think
that's
less
objective.
H
You
know,
I
realize
we
have
some
yellow
lines
on
the
photo
in
terms
where
the
official
lines
are
from
the
alley,
but
people
follow
the
road
the
way
it's
laid
out
or
they
see
asphalt.
This
is
an
alley
that
does
get
very
narrow
in
spots,
including
right
next
to
where
the
rv
would
be
parked.
H
This
is
absolutely
a
safety
issue.
The
the
rv
is
parked
very
close
to
my
property,
where
my
driveway
is
at.
I
have
a
garage,
a
two
and
a
half
card
attached
garage
back
there,
where
both
my
wife
and
I
park
our
cars.
My
son's
car,
which
I
think
you
can
actually
see
in
the
photo,
is
in
the
back
there.
It's
a
silver
malibu.
H
Thankfully
most
of
the
people
in
our
neighborhood
drive
at
a
reasonable
speed
down
the
alley,
but
I
cannot
say
that
for
everyone
we
have
people
that
frequently
drive
very
fast
through
the
alley
that
is,
unfortunately
not
enforced
by
the
police,
and
we
have
a
you
know:
six
seven
eight
feet
in
terms
of
the
width
of
that
rv.
Blocking
that
view
when
we're
either
pulling
out
or
walking
across
the
street
with
either
my
son
or
our
pets,
but
just
in
general
with
the
vehicles
getting
through
there.
I
think
there
is
a
significant
safety
issue.
There.
C
C
G
G
It
would
be
okay
and
I
would
move
to
adopt
to
approve,
but
looking
forward
to
hearing
comments.
B
Thank
you,
chair
prairie,
I
don't
know
I
I
don't
even
feel
like
it's
really
an
alley.
It
looks
like
a
paved
area
where
people
drive
in
and
out
and
I
think
adding
five
feet
in
the
opposite
direction
of
mr
and
linwood's
property
seems
like
not
a
big
deal
to
me.
I
know
it's
big,
but
if
it
was
30
feet
by
10
feet
by
8
feet,
it
could
be
there.
So
I
agree
with
staff
findings.
I'm
curious
what
my
other
board
members
feel.
E
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
have
some
concerns,
as
as
you
brought
up
with
the
idea
that
the
unique
characteristic
of
this
property
is
something
that
enables
the
variances
and
and
not
the
fact
that
it
requires
a
variance
in
order
to
conform.
E
I
think
there
is
no
uniqueness,
unique
characteristic
to
this
property
that
would
not
allow
it
to
be
in
an
enclosed
space,
which
then
would
not
require
variance.
So
I
have
some
concern
about
just
the
the
premise
of
this
and
I
guess
if
I
thought
it
should
be
denied,
it
would
be
based
on
the
absence
of
unique
characteristics
of
this
property.
O
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
You
know
essentially
looking
at
this
variance
we're
we're
talking
about
the
rv
and
not
the
lot
we're
looking
at
at
an
increase
in
the
size
of
what
we're,
what
we're
allowing
of
well
over
15
percent
in
size.
So,
just
looking
at
and
thinking
about
the
scope
of
what
what
ordinance
or
code
allows
for
what
we're
being
asked
to
vary
to
me,
that's
that's
fairly
significant!
We're
not
we're
not
trying
to
fit
a
small
piece
in
here.
I
think
it's
a
really
cool.
O
Looking
rv,
I
think
it's
fantastic
to
spend
time
and
and
money
and
and
rehabbing
it
and
and
being
there
just
because
a
lot
could
fit.
It
doesn't
mean
it
should
and
I'm
looking
at
this
and
I
essentially
agree
I
actually
in
all
honesty,
don't
find
for
any
of
the
three
findings.
I
think
the
property
could
fit
it
that
doesn't.
I
don't
see
where
the
difficulty
is
in
in
fitting
in
fitting
the
rv
that
would
require
us
to
to
change
a
variance
by
15.
O
I
certainly
don't
know
that
it
fits
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
I
I
realize
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
kind
of
parked
in
the
back
of
that
of
the
homes
along
that
area.
I
don't
know
that
means
we
should
legally
add
to
it
and
and
condone
that
more
things
kind
of
fit
back
into
that,
and
I
certainly
think
it
can
create
a
safety
issue.
I
mean
it,
can
it
it's
a
looks.
O
I
mean
looking
at
the
size
of
that
from
the
photos
on
the
front
to
the
front
of
the
house
think
about
from
the
back
of
the
house
that
creates
you
know
a
gigantic
barrier
there.
That
could
certainly
be
an
area
that
it
almost
fence
like
in
its
nature,
the
area
that
it
could
block
viewpoints.
It
could
be
an
area
for
for
other
shenanigans
or
things
as
well.
So,
notwithstanding
staff's
recommendation,
I
I
I
don't
see
fine
for
any
three
of
the
variances
in
this
in,
in
my
opinion,.
C
I
Yeah,
this
is
one
of
those
instances
where
I
think
that
the
intent
of
the
original
ordinance
with
the
size
limitation
was
to
limit
the
impact
a
vehicle
like
that
would
have
on
a
neighborhood
and
simply
because
the
lot
is
larger
and
would
allow.
It
doesn't
particularly
mean
that
it's
a
good
idea.
So
I'm
not
in
favor
of
granting
the
variance.
C
Like
to
speak,
mr
ogiva,
you
would
like
to
make
a
motion.
O
Thank
you,
chair,
perry,
yeah,
I'd
like
to
make
motion,
notwithstanding
staff's
findings,
to
deny
the
the
variance
as
requested
again.
I
I
don't
find
for
any
of
the
three
findings.
I
don't
believe
there
are
practical
difficulties
on
the
lot
that
would
allow
for
compliance
with
the
ordinance.
I
don't
see
this
as
fitting
in
the
essential
character
nature
of
or
of
the
neighborhood,
and
I
certainly
think
that
it
could
have
effect
on
the
health
and
and
safety
and
welfare
of
the
adjoining
property.
C
Thank
you,
there's
a
motion
and
a
second
is
there
any
further
discussion
and
with
that
with
the
clerk,
please
call
the.
C
Roll
again,
the
motion
is
to
deny
the
the
to
adopt
staff
finding
and
deny
the
request.
A
A
C
So
that
motion
passes
and
what
that
means.
Mr
sherbert
is
that
your
request
is
denied.
You
can
talk
to
the
staff
member
assigned
to
this,
mr
kohas,
about
what
your
options
are
going
forward
and
with
that
we've
come
to
the
end
of
our
items
for
land
use
requests.
C
I
see
none
and,
if
not
without
objection,
I
will
declare
this
meeting
adjourned.
Our
next
meeting
will
be
august,
13th
2020..
Thank
you.
Everyone.