►
From YouTube: February 18, 2021 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).
B
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statutes,
section
13d
.021,
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic
for
the
record.
My
name
is
matt
perry
and
I'm
chair
of
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment.
I'll
now
call
this
meeting
to
order
and
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role
so
that
we
may
verify
the
presence
of
quorum.
D
C
B
E
B
C
C
B
And
with
that,
the
motion
is
approved
is
approved
and
we
have
an
approved
agenda.
So,
let's
move
on
to
the
minutes
from
the
last
meeting,
I
believe
all
the
board
members
have
seen
a
copy
of
the
minutes
from
the
february
4th
2021
zoning
board
of
adjustment
meeting
is
their
motion
to
approve.
D
B
B
B
So,
let's
review
the
agenda.
I'll
read
the
agenda
number
and
the
address
of
the
project
and
state
whether
it's
slated
for
consent,
continuance,
withdrawal
return
or
discussion
and
I'll
talk
about
what
consent
items
are
and
what
discussion
items
are
consent
items
are
those
that
will
be
passed
without
discussion
by
the
board,
we'll
be
adhering
to
the
staff
recommendation
found
on
your
agenda
under
the
items
recommended
motion.
Section
importantly,
any
in
applicable
conditions
will
be
listed
under
the
same
section.
B
If
you
agree
with
this
recommendation,
including
any
applicable
conditions,
you
need
to
do
nothing
and
the
board
will
pass
it
as
recommended.
Please
check
in
with
the
staff
member
assigned
to
that
item.
If
you
have
any
questions
following
the
decision,
if
you
disagree
with
the
recommendation,
please
indicate
you'd
like
to
speak
against
that
item.
When
I
ask
and
we'll
put
it
on
the
discussion
agenda
and
what
are
discussion
items,
these
are
items
which
the
board
will
take
public
testimony
deliberate
on
and
make
a
decision
after
the
public.
B
Testimony
has
been
heard
for
a
particular
discussion
item.
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
for
that
agenda
item
once
I
close
the
public
hearing
for
an
item.
No
additional
public
testimony
will
be
taken
from
stat
be
taken
from
the
public,
but
staff
may
be
asked
questions
by
board
members
after
the
public
hearing.
For
an
item
is
closed.
Board
members
will
then
discuss
and
act
on
motions.
B
The
chair
only
votes
in
the
case
of
a
tie.
So
with
that,
let's
look
at
the
recommended
dispositions
for
items
on
the
agenda
for
land
use.
Requests.
Agenda.
Item
number
five
is
30
park
lane.
This
is
a
discussion
item
agenda
item
number
six
is
3037
dupont
avenue
south.
This
is
also
a
discussion
item
agenda.
Item
number
seven
is
5345
pleasant
avenue.
Staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
Is
there
anyone
to
speak
against
this
item?.
B
B
C
C
B
F
Present,
thank
you
chairperry
and
members
of
the
board.
Could
it
staff
pull
up
a
copy
of
the
slides
that
staff
had
submitted
for
this
item?
This
is
a
request
for
variances
for
construction
of
a
new
single
family
dwelling
with
an
attached
garage
at
30
park
lane.
The
subject
property
is
located
in
the
r1,
multiple
family
district
and
the
shoreland
overlay
district.
This
item
was
originally
on
the
agenda
for
the
february
2nd
2021
hearing
of
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment,
but
it
was
continued
to
tonight's
hearing
following
some
recent
plan.
F
From
the
original
proposal
next
slide,
please,
this
property
has
a
lot
area
of
19
671
square
feet
and
a
lot
width
of
approximately
83
feet,
measured
along
the
required
front
yard
for
zoning
purposes.
The
front
of
the
property
is
to
the
east
along
park
lane
and
the
rear
of
the
property
is
to
the
west
immediately
west
of
the
subject
property.
There
is
a
separate
parcel
measuring
approximately
40
feet.
F
F
F
F
This
is
an
a
survey
of
the
existing
conditions
of
the
property
you
can
see.
There
is
an
existing
one-story
single-family
dwelling
with
an
attached
front-facing
garage
extending
in
front
of
the
rest
of
the
house
so
to
the
northeast,
though
the
main
front
pedestrian
entrance
to
the
house
is
farther
back
on
the
structure
still
facing
the
east
and
there
is
a
walkout
basement
facing
the
rear.
F
There
are
two
existing
front
driveways
and
curb
cuts
leading
to
park
lane,
plus
some
additional
paved
turnaround
space
on
the
south
sides
of
the
driveway,
with
both
of
these
driveways
leading
to
that
attached,
front-facing
garage
in
the
house.
There
are
other
other
existing
landscaping
improvements
on
the
property,
including
patios,
decks,
retaining
walls
in
the
front
and
rear
yards.
F
F
The
steep
slopes
in
this
case
are
located:
northwest
and
southwest
of
the
existing
house
on
the
subject
property,
as
well
as
another
steep
slope
that
essentially
runs
through
the
the
center
of
the
existing
house,
just
based
on
the
way
that
we
have
to
calculate
those
slopes
with
the
the
difference
between
the
average
of
the
existing
elevation
points.
F
These
are
some
photos
of
the
existing
properties
submitted
by
the
applicants.
These
are
taken
from
in
the
front
yard,
looking
west
towards
that
existing
house.
So,
on
the
right
hand,
side
you
can
see
that
attached
front
facing
garage
and
to
the
left
it's
kind
of
behind
that
tree
in
the
foreground,
but
in
the
background
on
the
left,
is
that
existing
pedestrian
entrance
for
for
the
house
next
slide.
Please.
F
This
is
another
photo
taken
from
approximately
the
same
area,
but
this
time
looking
to
the
east
towards
park
lane
so
in
the
foreground,
you
can
see
those
the
two
existing
driveways
leading
to
the
curb
cuts
along
park
lane
they
have
this
landscaped
vegetated
island
in
between
the
two
driveways,
but
both
of
these
lead
to
that
attached.
Front-Facing
garage
next
slide.
F
Another
photo
this
time
taken
from
the
backyard
looking
towards
the
back
of
the
house
on
the
bottom.
You
can
see
that
walk-out
basement
and
above
it
is
the
rest
of
the
house
and
in
the
deck,
some
other
landscaping,
improvements
and
vegetation,
etc.
F
This
is
the
proposed
site
plan
submitted
by
the
applicants,
and
their
proposal
again
is
to
demolish
that
existing
single
family
dwelling
and
construct
a
new
two-story,
single-family
dwelling,
so
the
design
of
their
proposed
house
would
be
similar
in
a
lot
of
aspects
to
the
old
house
would
still
have
that
similar
kind
of
l-shaped
design
with
the
attached
front-facing
garage
to
the
northeast
and
the
main
pedestrian
entrance
further
back
on
the
structure,
it
would
still
have
a
walk-out
rear
basement,
still
have
a
rear
deck
this
time
in
the
southwest
corner,
as
opposed
to
closer
to
the
northwest
and
other
landscaping
improvements
like
patios,
retaining
walls,
landscape
walls.
F
There,
the
new
house
would
have
a,
I
believe,
it's
a
larger
floor
area
than
the
one
that
is
there
now
in
a
slightly
different
location,
slightly
different
orientation
on
on
the
property,
but
would
match
the
existing.
In
a
lot
of
regards
regarding
the
driveway.
Their
proposal
is
to
eliminate
that
the
existing
north
driveway
and
curb
cut
and
also
eliminate
the
existing
turnarounds
paved
area
on
the
south
side
of
the
driveways
and
make
some
other
modifications,
but
otherwise
leave
much
of
that
existing
south
driveway.
F
That
would
be
used
to
access
the
new,
the
new
attached,
front-facing
garage
and
they're,
also
proposing
to
leave
a
portion
of
that
existing
north
driveway.
You
can
see
it
kind
of
sticks
out
to
the
northeast
of
the
rest
of
the
driveway,
which
would
serve
as
kind
of
a
turnaround
or
or
some
maneuvering
area
on
the
property
so
based
on
how
we
have
to
measure
the
width
of
the
driveway,
which
is
perpendicular
to
the
primary
direction
of
vehicle
traffic.
F
This
kind
of
bump
out
for
for
the
turnaround
space
results
in
a
proposed
driveway
width
of
35
feet,
eight
inches,
as
shown
on
their
plans
here
next
slide.
Please
these
are
some
elevation
drawings
in
this
case
both
showing
different
perspectives
on
that
front
elevation.
So
on
the
top,
this
is
kind
of
the
true
perspective
of
if
you're
standing
looking
in
or
if
you're
standing
in
the
driveway.
Looking
at
the
house
on
the
right-hand
side,
you
can
see
the
garage
door
for
that
attached,
front-facing
garage
further
left
in
the
foreground.
F
There
is
what
I
think
is
labeled
on
the
plans
as
a
covered
entry
structure.
This
is
a
detached
accessory
structure
that
they
are
proposing.
My
understanding
is,
the
intent
is
sort
of
an
architectural
feature
that
would
guide
the
the
pedestrian
activity
towards
the
main
pedestrian
entrance.
Further
back
on
the
property.
F
F
Next
slide,
please
some
additional
elevation
drawings
on
the
top
is
the
proposed
west
elevation
so
facing
the
rear.
You
can
see
that
walkout
basement
on
the
level
or
on
that
walkout
basement
on
the
bottom
level.
This
basement
is
very
exposed
on
on
the
west
elevation,
but
is
sufficiently
buried
on
the
other
sides
of
the
house
that
it
does
not
constitute
a
story
on
its
own,
so
just
to
be
clear
that
the
proposed
structure
does
need
the
zoning
code
definition
of
a
two-story
structure,
even
though
the
basement
is
very
exposed
on
the
rear.
F
So
there
are
three
variances
which
are
required
for
this
project,
which
the
applicants
are
requesting.
First
is
a
required
variance
for
development
on
a
steep
slope
or
within
40
feet
of
the
top
of
a
steep
slope
in
the
shoreland
overlay
district,
and
then
there
are
two
separate
variances
which
are
required
both
related
to
the
width
of
the
driveway,
which
again
measures
35
feet,
8
inches
as
proposed
at
its
greatest
extent.
F
So
this
this
last
bit.
This
is
a
specific
provision
of
chapter
537
of
the
zoning
code
which
regulates
accessory
uses
and
structures,
and
it
specifically
lists
some
stricter
requirements
for
a
driveway
for
which
any
portion
of
the
driveway
would
extend
more
or
less
parallel
to
the
front
lot
line,
and
in
this
case
the
the
driveway
sort
of
has
that
jog
over
to
to
line
up
with
the
location
of
of
the
garage.
F
F
So,
even
though
the
existing
driveways
are
non-conforming
in
in
several
regards,
including
just
the
fact
that
there
are
these
two
existing
front
driveways,
the
applicants
are
proposing
to
demolish
that
existing
dwelling
and
replace
it
with
this
new
house,
which
means
they
would
lose
any
non-conforming
rights
for
the
property,
including
for
aspects
like
the
driveways
which
are
not
directly
related
to
the
house
residential
properties.
F
Without
ali
access
like
this
one
are
permitted
to
have
one
front,
driveway
and
curb
cut,
but
having
two
front
driveways
and
curb
cuts
like
the
existing
property
has
is
no
longer
permitted
on
a
residential
property
like
this.
This
is
why
the
applicants
are
required
to
eliminate
one
of
the
existing
driveways
and
curb
cuts
to
bring
the
property
into
compliance
with
this
maximum
of
one
driveway
and
curb
cut,
even
though
their
specific
proposed
driveway
design
would
still
require
these
two
variances
relating
to
the
different
maximum
driveway
with
requirements
of
the
code
next
slide.
F
F
Regarding
these
findings
in
more
detail,
if
necessary,
especially
if
there
are
any
questions
of
staff
regarding
these
topics,
but
in
the
interest
of
time,
I'll
focus
on
the
other
variants,
requests
and
findings
which
stack
does
not
find
or
met
so
for
the
two
variances
related
to
the
driveway
with
staff.
Findings
for
these
are
substantially
identical
to
each
other.
F
So
I'll
talk
about
both
of
these
at
the
same
time
as
well
for
the
first
finding
regarding
practical
difficulties,
staff
do
not
find
that
practical
difficulties
exist
because
of
circumstances
unique
to
the
property
which
support
either
of
the
proposed
variances.
Regarding
the
maximum
driveway
width,
the
subject
property
is
relatively
large
and
relatively
wide
compared
to
most
residential
properties
in
minneapolis,
and
this
portion
of
the
property
where
the
driveway
is
located
between
the
house
and
the
street
is
is
also
relatively
flat.
F
There
is
some
existing
vegetation
in
between
the
house
and
the
street,
but
the
applicants
could
still
reduce
the
width
of
the
driveway
to
meet
these
requirements
without
encroaching
on
existing
landscape
areas
or
compromising
their
ability
to
access
the
proposed
garage
for
the
second
required
finding
regarding
reasonable
use.
In
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
and
the
comprehensive
plan,
staff
does
not
find
that
this
is
met
either.
F
The
intent
is
really
to
limit
the
visual
impacts
of
auto
oriented
aspects
of
the
property,
so
that
these
auto
oriented
aspects
are
not
the
dominating
features
on
the
property,
but
so
that
the
the
driveway
remains.
You
know
clearly
accessory
to
the
principal
use
of
the
property.
In
this
regard,
the
excessive
driveway
width
in
this
case
is
primarily
due
to
that
maneuvering
or
turnaround
area
that
the
applicants
are
proposing
in
front
of
the
garage
to
provide
just
a
little
bit
of
context
on
on
some
other
areas
of
the
code.
F
The
zoning
code
strictly
prohibits
any
vehicle
maneuvering
in
the
public
right
away,
including
backing
a
vehicle
onto
a
street.
This
is
prohibited
for
non-residential
uses
or
for
more
dense
residential
uses
with
with
five
units
or
more
with
the
understanding
that
these
more
intense
uses
are
more
likely
to
generate
just
more
traffic
in
in
terms
of
the
number
of
vehicles
and
also
potentially
larger
vehicles,
which
may
have
more
difficulty
with
with
maneuvering.
F
So
we
require
all
that
maneuvering
to
be
done
on
on-site
for
residential
properties
with
one
to
four
units.
However,
vehicle
maneuvering
in
the
public
right-of-way
is
permitted
because
it
is
found
to
be
less
likely
to
result
in
in
issues
like
this,
so
considering
the
fact
that
the
ordinance
specifically
allows
off-site
maneuvering
associated
with
single-family
dwellings,
staff
does
not
find
that
the
proposed
variance
is
to
exceed
the
maximum
width
of
the
driveway.
F
The
proposal,
their
revised
design
for
the
driveway,
does
constitute
an
overall
reduction
in
driveway
area
compared
to
the
two
existing
driveways
on
the
property.
Much
of
the
existing
driveway
would
be
in
compliance
with
the
maximum
driveway
widths.
It's
really
just
this
proposed
maneuvering
area
in
front
of
the
garage
door
that
exceeds
that
maximum
width.
F
So,
in
conclusion,
staff
recommendation
is
for
approval
of
the
applicant's
requested
variants
for
development
on
a
steep
slope
in
the
shoreline
overlay
district
subject
to
the
conditions
listed
in
the
staff
report.
However,
staff
recommendation
is
for
denial
of
the
applicant's
other
requested
variances
to
exceed
the
maximum
width
of
a
driveway
in
a
residential
zoning
district,
as
well
as
to
exceed
the
maximum
width
of
a
driveway
extending
along
the
length
of
the
required
front
yard.
F
There
are
some
additional
application
materials
submitted
by
the
applicants
which
should
have
been
included
in
the
packets
and
I
believe
the
applicant's
representatives
are
in
attendance
during
this
hearing
as
well.
There
were
a
number
of
written
public
comments
which
were
received
prior
to
the
publication
of
the
staff
report,
so
those
should
be
available
as
well.
This
concludes
my
presentation,
but
I
am
available
for
questions
if
necessary.
B
Thank
you,
mr
cohass,
for
your
presentation.
Are
there
any
questions
of
staff.
H
Thank
you,
chair
perry
and
thank
you,
mr
kallhouse.
I
wanted
to
ask
a
question
with
regard
to
the
the
arguments
you
made
related
to
the
size
of
the
lot
you
had
mentioned
that
the
the
size
gives
the
applicant
plenty
of
space
to
design
a
driveway
that
would
be
in
compliance
with
the
code,
but
I
look
at
the
size
a
lot
and
I
see
a
space
that
that
is,
first
of
all,
quite
unique
in
its
size
being
three
times
larger,
but
requires
some
maneuvering
on
a
long
driveway
to
get
from
the
street
fully.
H
F
Share
period
board,
member
softly
the
the
size
of
the
lot
and
the
width
of
the
lot
specifically
are
found
just
to
give
the
applicants
more
room
for
for
design
of
of
a
driveway
in
this
case,
so
that
they
are
not
necessarily
limited
by
a
smaller
space
where
they
have
to
or
they
have
to
put
a
driveway
in
a
specific
location.
F
They
are
using
much
of
that
existing
south
driveway
for
their
their
proposed
driveway
that
they're
using.
So
they
are
responding
to
existing
conditions
in
in
that
regard.
But
it's
just
the
fact
that
the
property
is
of
such
a
size
that
they
just
have
more
room
to
work
with
so
where,
if
they
did
want
to
have
a
narrower
driveway
that
went
somewhere
else
on
the
property
and
provided
a
more
direct,
a
more
direct
access.
They
have
the
opportunity
to
do
so
because
the
the
site
is
so
large.
F
B
I
see
none,
so
I
will
open
up
the
public
hearing.
We
have
people
in
queue
to
speak,
keith
and
barbara
lurie,
if
one
or
if
you
could
go
one
at
a
time
because
we're
recording
this
it.
I
I'm
getting
the
word
that
they
may
not
be
online
anymore.
So
is
dan
knapp
available.
B
I
I
If
someone
can
put
up
since
I
can't
see
it
in
real
time,
the
the
pdf
attachment
that
we
sent
today
with
image
number
one
I'll
request
that
as
we
go
through
11
different
images
regarding
the
variance
3.1
and
4.1
practical
difficulty,
the
staff
reports
that
that
the
staff
did
not
find
there
are
practical
difficulties
we
do
believe
there
are.
There
are
two
primary
ones.
I
I
B
Mr
apparently
there's
the
it
people
have
got
it.
Oh
okay,
they've
got
an
image
up.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
your
images
were
being
presented.
B
I
B
B
So
you
wanted
to
be
what
what
image
did
you.
I
Image
to
site
plan.
B
I
Back
are
you
in
the
attachment
that
we
have
from
today
there.
K
I
Thank
you
again.
As
I
mentioned,
this
is
the
need
to
remove.
Maneuver
is
relative
to
safety,
even
though
the
zoning
code
prescribes
the
back
straight
out,
which
fits
for
a
conventional
minneapolis
lot
and
conventional
neighborhood
and
street
with
we
have
none
of
those
here.
I
The
proposed
south
driveway
is
safer
entry
point
than
the
suggested
alternate
by
staff
of
the
north
entry,
which
is
aligned
at
the
t
intersection
creating
another
angle
from
on-street
traffic
and,
very
importantly,
the
park
lane
itself
is
atypically
narrow
for
a
minneapolis
residential
roadway,
which
means
backing
out
would
have
to
occur
over
both
lanes
of
traffic.
I
I
B
No,
we
have
what
the
staff
report
had
as
well
as.
B
So
we
have
something
that
says:
okay,
so
I
it
has
found
it
which
is
good
for
everyone.
I
Okay,
thank
you
great
so
in
in
addition
to
the
roadway
being
below
guideline
at
home,
there
are
no
sidewalks
in
boulevard
which
helps
with
providing
line
of
sight.
I
So,
additionally,
on
the
applicant
side,
there's
existing
topography
a
little
bit
of
roll
down
plus
the
vegetation
which
makes
it
also
more
difficult
for
line
of
sight.
So
if
the
car
is
to
be
back
into
the
traffic
there,
there
is
no
parking
lane.
I
Buffer
visibility
is
less,
and
so
we
do
think
turning
around
is
a
much
safer
piece
and
that's
really
all
we're
asking
for
here
is
not
full-fledged
off-street
parking,
but
just
enough
room
when
we
tried
to
tailor
it
as
tight
as
we
can
to
be
able
to
back
up
and
key
and
turn
around
from
the
garage
image.
Four
please,
which
would
be
the
diagram
of
the
neighborhood.
B
I
Thank
you
so
there's
also
a
clear
pattern
of
non-conforming
driveways
in
the
neighborhood,
especially
on
these.
What
we're
calling
lake
lots?
50
percent
of
the
driveways
are
non-conforming
on
the
lake
lock.
So
if
you
can
look
at
that
diagram,
we're
so
we're
not
asking
to
be
different
than
our
neighbors.
In
fact,
they're
asking
to
be
similar
to
what
as
half
of
them
already
have
there.
I
It's
it
is
a
fully
new
house.
We
are
removing
those,
so
I
don't
think
we're
setting
precedence
here
with
what
we're
doing
could
we
go
to
image?
Five,
please
propose
design
and
entry
staff
report
suggests
that
coming
in
the
north,
entry
would
eliminate
the
wider
drive
that
is
being
applied
for
in
regards
to
that
the
north
versus
south
entrance.
I
The
the
the
suggestion
is
that
we
came
in
from
the
north,
which
is
a
few
degrees
straighter
than
the
southern
entrance,
and
a
little
this
little
bit
less
wind
around
the
tree
girl.
We
would
not
need
the
turnaround
we
disagree
with
that.
We
have
basically
the
same
issue
and
we
would
still
be
applying
if
we
use
the
north
one
for
this
variance
to
get
the
turnaround
piece.
I
Additionally,
if
we
had
the
north
side,
we
would
not
be
able
to
surveil
the
north
side
at
all
from
the
house
used
to
be
screened
by
the
garage,
so
the
the
proposal
to
go
from
the
north
would
not
meet
the
standard
or
the
the
goals
of
the
principles
of
the
crime
prevention
through
environmental
design,
of
having
natural
surveillance
of
the
time.
I
I
Could
we
go
to
image
six,
please
back
to
the
site
plan
that
zoomed
in
a
little
bit
regarding
variance
3.2
and
4.2,
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
and
comprehensive
plan
staff
states
that
the
specific
intent
of
the
maximum
widths
is
to
reduce
impervious
surfaces.
I
The
proposed
design
that
we
have
actually
reduces
impervious
surface
from
the
code
prescribed
solution
of
a
25
foot
wide
straight
out
version
and
the
existing
drive.
You
can
see
the
numbers
we
listed
in
the
submission
that
we
did
today,
but
the
new
design
total
for
the
property
is
1481
square
feet
less.
I
So
the
south
driveway
because
of
the
unconventional
lot
depth,
the
unique
neighborhood
and
patterns
of
garage
and
driveway,
have
afforded
us
a
different
approach
that
we
believe
diminishes
the
garage
more
than
the
prescribed
code
approach
of
going
straight
in
and
meets
the
spirit.
I
I
The
driveway
then
slightly
bends
around
the
evergreens
towards
the
garage
which
further
diminishes
the
appearance
of
the
garage.
This
this
allows
hiding
of
the
garage
door
behind
the
planting
and
the
trees
and
a
mature
grove.
I
That's
there
and
then
the
garage
door
itself
and
the
front
face
are
further
diminished
from
the
street
by
being
deeply
recessed
under
a
ten
and
a
half
foot
eave
with
supporting
and
screening
architectural
half-height
balls
and
columns
on
the
sides.
I
Additionally,
the
new
garage
in
relationship
to
to
the
old
is
10
feet
further
back
on
average,
for
a
total
of
80
feet
back,
which
was
on,
I
think,
on
average,
a
fairways
back
for
homes
in
minneapolis.
So
we
think
this
design
very
much
fits
the
context
of
the
existing
black
lots
that
are
in
this
neighborhood.
I
Can
we
go
to
image?
Seven
please,
which
is
a
view
of
existing
north
entrance
and
garage
the
north
drive
suggested
entrance,
does
not
meet
the
superiority
intent
nearly
as
well
as
you
can
see.
The
drive
of
the
north
side
directs
one
only
to
the
garage
which
we
see
meets
less
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
artists
and
comprehensive
plan.
I
Driving
up
to
the
garage
would
be
the
first
and
only
thing
one
would
see,
and
none
of
the
house
wouldn't
have
to
leave
their
car
and
walk
around
in
order
to
see
the
facade
of
the
home
and
again
this
would
be
a
possible
area
to
surveil.
Coming
into
that
site.
Can
we
go
to
image
eight,
please
propose
design
and
entry
staff
state
that,
even
though
the
code
permits
off-site
maneuvering
vehicles,
our
proposal
does
not
meet
the
spirit
and
intent.
I
We
respectfully
disagree
with
that.
The
proposed
design
does
a
better
job
to
minimize
the
extent
of
driveway
and
impervious
service.
I
stated
previously.
This
sign
is
actually
less
impervious
surface
than
the
25
foot
wide
straight
in
driveway.
In
addition,
the
visual
impact
of
the
previous
driveway
from
the
street
is
actually
much
less
with
the
tools
design.
J
I
So
we
do
believe
that
proposed
design
meets
the
spirit
of
intensity
or
it's
better
than
that
prescribed
solution
in
the
public.
Can
we
go
to
image
nine?
Please
analysis
in
neighborhood,
driveway
context,
the
neighborhood
character
and
pattern
supports
this
proposed
driveway.
In
our
belief,
this
is
a
really
unique
small,
isolated
neighborhood
of
less
than
two
blocks.
I
I
So
the
this
factor
of
no
alleys
and
the
focus
on
the
on
the
lake
is
creates
a
certain
type
of
typology
of
garages
which
are
typically
flush
or
forward
of
the
homes
and
not
set
back,
and
this
is
this
pattern-
is
a
key
indication
how
unique
these
garages
and
drive
layouts
are
and
how
unique
this
neighborhood
is.
I
These
factors
result
in
75
percent
of
the
homes
on
the
lakeside
to
have
same
or
similar
garage
positions
that
face
further
forward
than
five
feet
or
extend
with
a
side
entry
very
far
in
front
of
the
home,
including
one
that
is
into
the
front
yard,
set
back
and
even
more
specifically
regarding
the
unique
pattern
for
this
two
block
stretch.
Half
of
the
driveways
themselves
are
non-conforming.
M
I
I
Driveway
with
the
neighborhood
contacts,
the
minimum
turnaround
spot
would
be
well
screened
from
the
street
and
would
not
appear
as
a
significant
additional
parking
or
work
as
additional
parking
without
blocking
garage
access.
So
we
go
to
image
10,
please
state
plan
so
for
appearance,
piece,
3.3
and
4.3
not
alter
the
essential
character
or
be
detrimental
to
health
or
safety
and
welfare
staff
report
states
that
the
majority
of
the
driver
is
in
compliance,
including
the
area
closest
to
the
street.
I
We
see
this
staff
report
is
generally
supportive
other
than
the
minimal
area
for
maneuverability.
This
is
a
key
indicator
to
us
that
our
driveway
is
of
the
characters
of
this
unique
neighborhood.
In
fact,
from
our
analysis,
the
neighborhood
would
be
more
consistent
and
attractive
enhancement,
rather
than
a
detriment.
I
Age
11
please.
This
is
an
image
of
the
proposed
drive
entry
in-house.
So,
in
summary,
the
site
does
have
practical
difficulties,
with
the
creep
grove
and
with
safety,
with
the
roadway
below
guidelines
and
with
coresight
lines.
I
The
drive
meets
the
spirit
intent
by
removing
non-conforming
elements,
reduces
the
impervious
from
the
prescribed
approach
and
reduces
the
visual
amount
of
driveway
from
the
street.
It
also
provides
better
surveillance
and
conceals
the
garage
more
than
either
the
straining
code
prescription
or
the
suggested
code
allowed
alternate.
Northern
route
following
it
does
not
do
is
meet
the
technical
prescription
of
width
at
the
widest
area.
I
The
ranch
request
all
comes
down
to
the
small
area
used
to
turn
around
for
safe
safety
on
a
uniquely
deep
lot
in
a
very
unique
neighborhood,
and
this
design
is
very
consistent
with
this
neighborhood,
which
is
reinforced
with
all
the
strong
recommendations
from
multiple
neighbors
that
have
submitted
the
variance
requests
show
how
our
approach
to
drive
is
better
for
the
neighborhood
than
prescribed
approach,
or
the
suggested
alternate
north
approach,
which
would
both
lessen
the
experience
for
the
neighborhood
to
us.
It
meets
the
spirit
and
intent
better.
B
Thanks
for
that
detailed
testimony,
mr
nepp,
I
I
have
a
question:
what
is
the
in
the
proposed
driveway?
B
B
I
It's
I
believe,
around
80
feet,
there's
also
another
person
from
our
firm
aaron
frazier,
who
I
think
is
set
up
to
speak
as
well.
He
can
have
more
facts
on
that.
If
he
can
star
6
and
unmute
himself
might
be
able
to
answer
that
more
accurately.
B
Okay,
before
we
do,
that
is,
does
anybody
else
have
any
questions
of
mr
knapp.
B
B
G
Hi,
okay,
you
can
hear
me
yes
from
dan's
response
about
the
the
depth
from
the
the
streets
of
the
drive.
It
is
in
a
direct
dimension
of
80
feet,
so
mandarine
with
the
turn
to
the
south
driveway.
It's
it's
probably
closer
to
95
in
total
drive,
length,
90
or
so.
B
L
L
When
we
first
found
this
house
on
the
street,
we
were
thrilled,
the
neighborhood
is
very
special
and
the
house
is
not
too
big,
not
too
small
and
we
endeavored
with
danette
and
aaron
to
keep
a
very
similar
footprint,
and
then
we
discovered
that
we
could
not
even
apply
for
a
variance
for
a
double
curb
cut
because
those
are
not
allowed
anymore,
and
so
that
presented
the
challenge
that
we're
dealing
with
today,
we
would
love
to
have
a
double
curb
cut.
It
makes
the
most
sense.
L
Aesthetically
most
makes
the
most
sense
from
from
what
is
there
today
and
we
certainly
don't
want
to
cut
down
the
trees,
but
we
need
to
have
a
way
to
safely
pull
out
of
our
driveway
and
that's
the
essence,
and
I'm
very
concerned
that
if
we
have
to
back
out
onto
a
narrow
street,
especially
where
there's
a
hill,
that
is
dangerous,
it's
dangerous
for
us
dangerous
for
our
neighbors
and
we
won't
be
able
to
survey
the
street
from
a
crime
perspective.
L
So
I
would
strongly
encourage
you
to
take
those
factors
into
consideration,
first
and
foremost,
the
safety
of
the
drivers
and
then
the
security
of
the
neighborhood,
and
then
the
fact
that
we're
really
trying
to
preserve
the
feel
of
the
place,
minimal
changes
and
then,
finally,
this
is
a
really
beautiful
block.
A
beautiful
neighborhood
and,
frankly,
one
size
shouldn't
fit
all
when
it
comes
to
these
rules.
That's
why
we
have
this
variance
process.
A
B
K
Thanks
chair
perry,
oh
I
look
at
this
and
I
feel
like
there's
a
lot
of
odd
ordinances
that
prevent
us
from
being
the
quality
product.
It
should
be
I'd
agree
with
testimony
that
backing
into
this
road
is
dangerous.
It's
a
tight
road,
there's
a
lot
of
trees
I
feel
like
and
having
it
could
have
a
much
wider
driveway
that
runs
perpendicular
in
to
the
into
the
garage
door,
which
then
everyone
just
gets
to
see
your
garage
door,
which
is
kind
of
counter
the
2040
plan.
K
To
my,
in
my
opinion,
you
know
seeing
the
house
first
and
then
the
garage
and
not
seeing
a
bunch
of
cars
in
the
driveway
and
stuff.
I
feel
like
this
is
kind
of
nitpicky.
This
site
is
very
unique
and
I
don't
feel
this
is
not
a
bounce.
I
would
right
now
I'm
leaning
towards
supporting
the
applicants
in
this,
but
I'm
and
I'd
love
to
hear
what
the
other
board
members
might
have
to
say.
D
N
B
D
Motion
would
staff
beco?
Thank
you.
Chairperry
would
staff
be
comfortable
with
the
applicant's
findings
for
the
two
variances
they're
looking
to
deny,
or
would
we
have
to
come
up
with
better
language?
Tab
is
fine.
Mr
coast
says
okay,
so
yeah
I'd
like
to
move
forward
with
allowing
granting
the
two.
The
three
variances
requested
counter
the
staff's
findings,
using
the
findings
that
the
applicant
is
given
for
his
numbers.
Two
and
three
I
believe.
B
B
C
D
D
H
G
C
O
C
B
That
motion
passes
so
the
requests
are
approved.
Good
luck
with
your
project
to
the
lorries
and
now
we'll
move
on
to
agenda
item
number
six,
which
is
3037
dupont,
avenue
south
mr
liska.
P
Thank
you
board
chair
good
evening
if
it
could
bring
up
the
presentation
for
me,
please.
P
P
There
are
some
commercial
uses
here
as
you
move
south
down
dupont,
it's
a
mix
of
residential
uses
ranges
from
single
families
like
this
proposed
project,
to,
I
believe,
a
17
dwelling
unit
apartment
there
on
the
corner
of
31st
and
dupont.
P
P
P
When
we're
looking
at
a
variance,
three
findings
must
be
met.
First,
one
involves
practical
difficulties.
Staff
finds
that
there
are
no
practical
difficulties
in
complying
with
the
ordinance.
This
lot
is
of
standard
size.
It
has
no
unique
features
that
would
make
complying
with
this
ordinance
challenging
the
second
variance
finding
regards
the
use
of
the
property.
Is
it
done
so
in
a
reasonable
manner?
P
The
proposed
variance
staff
finds
is
not
a
reasonable
use
of
the
property.
The
intent
of
code
is
to
provide
a
separation
between
uses
the
six-foot
privacy
fence
that
exists
between
the
patio,
gazebo
and
hot
tub
and
along
the
adjacent
neighbor
does
shield
some
of
that
but
code.
P
I
noted
the
six
foot
fence
that
runs
between
the
nearest
adjacent
residential
property,
that
six
foot
fence
would
buffer
a
significant
amount
of
the
noise,
there's,
not
a
huge
difference
in
impact
when
we're
looking
at
those
uses
at
3.2
feet
or
3.6
feet
compared
to
the
five
feet,
as
required
by
code
next
slide.
Please.
P
P
With
that
staff
recommends
denial
of
this
variance
request
to
the
interior
side
yard
setback.
The
staff
report
does
just
list
that
one
variance
variance
a
worth
mentioning
is:
if
the
board
is
able
to
make
variance
bindings
for
some
or
all
of
these,
you
would
be
able
to
approve
some
or
or
not.
All
you
would
be
able
to
pick
one
or
two
or
all
three.
It
wouldn't
just
be
a
a
yes
or
a
no
to
all
three.
So
if
you
guys
have
questions
I'll
be
here,
the
applicant
is
also
present.
B
Thanks
for
that
presentation,
mr
liska
do:
are
there
any
questions
of.
B
Staff,
I
see
none,
so
let's
open
the
public
hearing
and
we
we
have
ms
now
on
the
line.
If
you
could
press
star
six
to
unmute
yourself.
Q
Yes,
so
further
to
andrew's
findings
of
a
b
and
c
and
the
separate
variances
we
are
willing
to
you
know,
move
the
hot
tub
and
move
the
gazebo
to
the
extent
we
realize
that
that
could
affect
our
neighbors,
even
though
you
know
less
than
three
feet.
I
don't
think
it
really
affects
the
neighborhood
in
terms
of
noise
or
anything
like
that.
Q
But
really
what
I'm
most
concerned
with
is
that
the
patio
itself,
which
is
you
know,
barely
off
the
ground,
and
we
have
a
french
drain
and
a
pit
underneath
for
drainage
issues,
and
I
think
that
you
know
if
we're
forced
to
cut
off
some
of
the
patio.
It's
really
going
to.
You
know
mess
with
the
aesthetics
of
it.
Q
The
concrete
is
color
stained.
That's
why
you
have
to
do
it
all
at
once,
so
it
all
matches
yeah.
We've
done
a
lot
of
work
to
the
property
and
really
raised
its
value
for
not
only
us
but
for
the
neighborhood.
So
I
I
would
respectfully
request
that
we'd
be
allowed
to
leave
the
patio,
as
is.
B
So,
ms
now,
in
talking
to
mr
liska,
you
probably
know
that
there
are
three
findings
that
we
have
to
find
to
legally
grant
a
variance,
and
one
of
them
is
practical
difficulties
and
it
can't
be
solely
for
an
economic
reason.
So
can
you
help
us
out
a
little
with
your
testimony
on
what
practical
difficulties
or
what
uniqueness
about
the
property
requires
you
to
have
the
patio
where
it
is
and
how
it
is.
Q
Well,
really,
the
the
practical
difficulty
there
is
that
we
have
installed
the
the
french
drain
with
the
drainage
pit
to
make
sure
that
water
is
obviously
awake
going
away
from
the
house.
So
there
was
that
and
the
the
backyard
was
really
uneven
and
we
had
to
grade
the
soil
and
do
all
of
that
and
then
also
because
we
did
lay
down
concrete
for
the
sidewalk
area
as
well.
If
you
look
at
the
photos,
if
we
have
to
move
the
patio,
we
would
probably
have
to
redo
the
entire
back
meandering
walk
as
well.
Q
So
I
I
understand
that
it's
not
just
economic
difficulties,
but
we
would
probably
essentially
have
to
redo
the
whole
thing
and,
like
I
said
we,
you
know
we're
fine
moving,
the
hot
tub
and
the
gazebo.
We
can
do
that.
That's
not
going
to
be
a
huge
issue,
I
mean
we
will
have
some
issues
with
removing
electrics
and
doing
that.
But
it's
really
the
patio
that
we're
most
concerned
about.
B
Thank
you.
Does
anybody
else
have
any
questions
of
mrs.
B
B
I
guess
not.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
your
testimony.
Is
there
anyone
else
in
the
queue
that
would
like
to
speak
for
or
against
this
application?
B
B
K
Thanks
chair,
perry,
yeah,
I
don't
know
I
look
at
this
and
it's
unfortunate.
It's
been
built,
it's
unfortunate
even
more
that
it's
conflicting
with
the
ordinance.
K
K
I
guess
I
don't
know
less
noisy
for
the
neighbor
or
the
neighborhood
seems
kind
of
trivial
to
me
again,
I'm
not
happy
that
things
were
built
against
the
ordinance,
but
I
don't
see
how
you
know
being
less
than
a
block
off
lake
street
that
the
noise
from
their
house
and
the
noise
from
the
neighbors
house
I
mean,
if
you
look
at
these
houses,
they're
very
close
together.
K
Almost
all
of
them
have
fences.
It
doesn't
seem
to
me
in
my
opinion,
and
it's
that
it's
a
big
deal
and
so
I'm
I'm
leaning
towards
the
applicant,
but
I
would
like
to
hear
from
my
fellow
board
members.
D
Thank
you
cheer
perry.
I
appreciate
what
mr
johannes
and
said
the
only
thing
is.
I
don't
like
the
precedent
that
it
sets
that
you
can
build
something
without
looking
into
the
zoning
and
then
immediately
just
we
just
grant
it
because
it's
already
built,
I
don't
like
that.
We
don't
do
it
with
houses.
Now
we're
going
to
do
with
hot
tubs.
I
don't
like
that
precedence.
D
It
sets
the
one
thing
I'd
be
interested
if
people
are
interested
in
voting
separately
on
these
issues,
maybe
lumping
the
hot
tub
and
the
patio
since
the
applicant
is
okay
with
with
those
maybe
lumping
those
into
one
vote
and
separating
the
patio
discussion
for
another
vote.
That's
interest
to
the
board.
Thank
you.
B
B
D
H
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
was
actually
going
to
iterate
the
point.
I
think
that
we
we
do
have
findings
that
it's
a
reasonable
use.
I
would
certainly
vote
for
for
that
aspect
of
the
project,
but
I'm
still
searching
for
what
the
practical
difficulty
is.
So
if
anyone
else
can
help
me
get
there,
I'm
on
board
to
approve,
but
right
now
I
just
can't.
B
B
N
D
B
B
Okay,
is
there
any
further
discussion.
O
I
just
wanted
a
second,
but
I
don't
have
to
strenuous,
beat
me
to
punch
okay.
B
D
L
R
C
B
P
P
Thank
you.
This
land
use
application
before
you
is
located
at
1324,
quincy
street
northeast,
involving
los
campagnes
gym,
los
cabanones
gym,
operates
out
of
the
13
000
square
foot.
P
The
site
is
zoned
i1
and
is
in
the
industrial
living
overlay
district.
Within
that
9
000
square
foot
courtyard,
on
the
north
side
of
this
site.
There's
a
solar
array:
a
concrete
wall
exists
to
the
rear
along
the
alley:
the
gym
building
wall
to
the
south,
an
adjacent
building
wall
and
structure
to
the
north
and
a
six-foot
fence
along
quincy
street.
To
the
front,
this
site,
again,
like
I
said,
is
zoned
i1
and
is
in
the
industrial
living
overlay
district.
P
If
we
look
to
the
east
there,
we
see
that
darker
gray,
that
darker
gray
is
i2
zoning,
medium
industrial
and
if
we
look
to
the
west,
we
see
residential
properties
off
of
monroe
street.
That
is
r2b.
Zoning
next
slide.
P
Below
is
the
site
plan
demonstrates
where
the
solar
array
is
in
that
courtyard
some
distances
provided
there
from
the
from
the
rear,
not
quite
30
feet.
The
the
rear
there
kind
of
on
the
north
side
of
that
site
plan
would
be
towards
those
residential
structures.
P
P
There
are
always
the
enclosed
building
standards
associated
for
these
uses.
This
is
not
specific
to
1324
quincy
street
northeast.
This
is
across
the
board
applicable
to
all
gyms.
This
site
is
zoned
industrial.
There
is
a
large
wall
to
the
rear,
along
that
shared
boundary
with
that
residential
zoning
that
may
offset
some
of
those
impacts.
But
again,
this
regulation
is
for
all
gyms,
so
nothing
specific
or
unique
to
this
property.
P
The
second
variance
finding
looks
at
whether
this
is
being
used
in
a
reasonable
manner.
The
proposed
variance
is
a
reasonable
use
of
the
property,
especially
in
a
pandemic.
However,
the
intent
of
the
code
is
to
minimize
off-site
impacts
associated
with
those
outdoor
uses,
specifically
the
noise
generated
by
this
use
and
how
that
may
affect
adjacent
uses.
P
P
The
proposed
variance
would
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
area,
although
it
could
be,
it
is
injurious
to
the
enjoyment
of
other
properties
in
the
area.
Again,
the
industrial
zoning
has
louder
uses
than
some.
The
city
got
involved
with
this
application
due
to
zoning
complaints
made
by
neighbors
nearby.
So
we
do
know
that
the
the
use
outside
is
negatively
impacting
people.
P
P
On
the
top
upper
left,
we
are
looking
at
the
the
building
associated
with
the
gym
los
companiones
on
the
upper
right.
We
are
looking
at
the
adjacent
structure
to
the
north
when
we
drop
down
that
lower
left
is
the
concrete
wall
that
exists
along
the
rear
of
the
property
and
the
lower
right
is
the
fence
existing
between
the
courtyard
and
quincy
street
northeast
next
slide.
Please.
P
H
P
It
is
my
understanding
that
the
the
variance
request
for
outdoor
or
to
around
the
enclosed
building
would
be
applicable
to
other
uses.
If
the
board
was
amenable
to
granting
this
variance,
I
would
suggest
maybe
adding
a
condition
that
limits
the
use.
If
that
is
of
concern.
H
O
In
light
of,
I
think
one
of
things
you
mentioned
about
it
being
coveted
times-
and
this
is
not
specific
to
this
gym-
that
all
gyms
have
the
same
requirement.
Is
there
anything?
O
Is
there
any
special
licensing
or
or
variance
or
limited
access
sort
of
conditional
anything
that
the
city
has
prepared
for
the
specific
culvert
uses?
I'm
just
curious:
if
there's
anything,
if
there's
any
answer
to
the
covet
crisis
that
has
come
out
into
these
sort
of
policies
or
regulations.
O
P
Yeah
we
have
a
lot
of
flexibility,
especially
regarding
restaurants.
A
few
other
uses.
We've
got
some
additional
flexibility
in
temporary
use
permits
that
flexibility
does
not
extend
to
gyms,
so
we
are
kind
of
tied
there.
Thank
you.
B
I
see
none,
let's
open
the
public
hearing
and
we'll
start
off
with
the
applicant,
mr
benjamin
lower.
F
S
And
so,
when
I
took
over
the
property,
I
did
a
significant
investment
in
making
it
yeah.
You
know
there
was
no
fire
exits,
so
I
made
fire
exits.
There
was
no
wheelchair
accessibility,
so
I
made
made
ada
compliant
space.
The
fence
was
the
front
fence.
Well,
the
the
quincy
fence
was
destroyed,
so
I
made
a
new
fence.
S
I
redid
the
concrete
because
it
was
a
tripping
hazard
and
I
also
placed
the
large
solar
canopy
in
that
space
to
power
my
facility
and
to
provide
shade
for
people
out
there
exercising,
because
it
was
of
you
know.
Bad
sunburns
were
happening
the
first
year
and
and
it
was
going
well
and
then
I
as
soon
as
I
got
noise
complaint,
we
cancelled
all
music
out
there.
S
We
put
signs
up
and
and
the
staff
patrolled
regularly
to
ensure
that
what
there
was
no
music
being
played,
because
I
did
not
want
to
have
a
negative
effect
on
the
neighborhood
and
and
then
I
also
put
down
a
very
large
piece
of
turf
as
in
like
a
astro
turf,
and
that
was
to
soften
the
area.
So
it
wasn't
all
concrete.
So
a
lot
of
the
activities
were
taking
place
on
the
turf,
instead
of
the
concrete
to
also
make
it
quieter.
B
B
We
have
these
three
legal
findings
and
one
of
them
is
practical
difficulty,
and
I
appreciate
all
the
things
that
you
have
done
to
make
things
quieter
and
to
try
to
address
the
noise.
But
that's
not
really.
The
the
motivation
of
the
law
is
that
to
not
disturb
neighbors
with
outdoor
noise,
but
yeah.
The
the
variance
itself
that
you're
asking
for
is
to
have
a
workout
space
outdoors.
S
At
this
location,
the
practical
difficulty
is
that
without
the
outdoor
space,
I
am
not
confident
that
that
location
will
be
a
viable
business
for
me
because,
like
I
said,
I
was
under
the
presumption
that
it
was
allowed,
and
so
without
the
outdoor
space,
and
especially
with
colbit,
I'm
not
confident
that
business
will
continue
to
you
know
be
there
without
it.
B
P
S
Initially
applied
when
I
initially
applied
for
the
solar
array
and
the
new
concrete
on
the
the
plans
that
I
submitted
to
the
city,
it
clearly
showed
outdoor
work
out
space
labeled
on
that
plan
that
the
city
approved.
So
that
also
made
me
confident
that
it
was
allowed
before
I
started
all
the
work.
B
S
B
B
I'm
getting
notification
that
mr
bailey
may
not
be
online.
So
mr
jack
nelson
palmyre,
if
you
could
give
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
star
six
to
unmute
yourself.
M
Yes,
hi
jack,
nelson
paul
myer
and
my
address
is
actually
2021
28th
avenue
south
in
in
minneapolis,
which
is
nearby
another
location,
but
I
wanted
to
share
some
of
my
concerns
about
the
outdoor
space
of
los
campiones
and
just
for
very
quick
comments.
The
first
one
is
the
outdoor
space
is,
is
almost
always
noisy
and
it
can
start
very
very
early
in
the
morning.
M
M
The
third
complaint
that
I
would
have
is
that
in
our
area,
other
noises
that
could
be
mitigated
often
are
not
done.
So,
for
example,
there
is
often
music
that
is
coming
from
the
building
itself
out
onto
that
space
and
even
more
problematic
is
there
are
sometimes
they
got
rid
of
the
parking
lot
or
part
of
their
parking
lot
in
order
to
create
this
outdoor
space,
so
you
have
at
times
cars
parked
either
in
the
parking
lot
or
on
the
street
right
outside
blasting.
M
So
I
would
say
over
the
years
I
I've
called
dozens
of
times,
including
sometimes
several
times
a
day,
to
complain
about
noise
depending
upon
who
is
at
the
desk,
sometimes
that
that
my
concern
will
be
addressed
many
times
it
won't.
Sometimes
it
will
be
addressed
and
then
an
hour
later
I'll
have
to
call
again.
M
So
those
are
the
concerns
I
have
this
facility
that
I'm
talking
about
is
on
franklin
avenue
and
28th
avenue.
But
my
experience
with
the
outdoor
facility
is
that
has
in
some
ways
come
at
the
expense
of
of
the
the
peacefulness
of
of
our
neighborhood.
M
J
J
I
believe
it
was
august
of
2019.
That
is
when
the
solar
array
began
to
get
put
up
and
the
outdoor
noise
started,
and
things
got
completely
different
than
the
previous
owner's
uppercut
gym.
When
I
think
about
uppercut,
I
think
about
quiet,
respectful,
jump,
rope
running
nothing,
nothing
wrong
with
that.
When
I
think
about
the
new
gym,
I
think
about
people
yelling
swear
words,
fights
breaking
out
or
hearing
fights
close
to
starting
cheering
yelling
clanking
of
weights,
it's
worse
than
having
construction
behind
your
house.
J
So
just
to
give
you
an
idea
of
the
proximity,
I'm
in
the
bottom
left
picture.
On
page
nine,
my
house
is
the
one
that
you
can
see
about
10
feet
away
from
that
retaining
wall.
That
does
nothing
to
quiet
things.
I
mean
literally
it's
like
there's
no
wall
there.
I
would
echo
the
sentiment
that
the
the
seven
to
seven
hours
are
not
accurate.
There's
people
there
6
a.m,
to
10
p.m,
not
every
day.
J
J
I
feel
terrible
that
covet
is
going
on
and
that
the
gym
is
experiencing
difficulties,
but
I
I
do
think
that
they
had
the
intent
of
this
outdoor
workspace
well
before
august,
20
or
well
before
covid
started
and
then
the
last
thing.
I
just
want
to
echo
back
to
what
what
you
all
were
saying
earlier
with
the
hot
tub
hearing
and
the
precedent
that
it
sets.
J
F
J
Just
lastly,
add
that
there
are
five
kids
under
the
age
of
four
within
the
five
houses
behind
the
gym,
so
that
swearing,
yelling
and
fighting
is
heard
by
a
bunch
of
kids.
So
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
B
N
Hi,
my
name
is
nick
hardlicka.
I
live
at
1317
monroe
street
northeast
my
property
borders,
the
gym
to
the
west.
N
Since
they
took
over
the
property
at
1324
quincy
summer
of
2019,
you
know,
there's
they've
basically
been
using
that
outdoor
workout
area
since
day,
one
and
basically
before
that
it
seemed
to
be
more
of
a
parking
lot.
Really.
N
If
you
look
on
google
maps,
they
provided
some
pictures.
I
don't
know
if
you
guys
have
those
or
not,
but
you
can
see
that
it's
a
parking
lot,
you
know,
and
they
just
said,
oh
we're
going
to
turn
it
into
an
outdoor
workout
space.
N
N
If
you
can
imagine
outdoor
classes
going
on
at
six
a.m.
You
know
on
a
saturday
morning
or
wednesday
morning
or
whatever.
N
And
clanking
weights
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff-
it's
it's
it's
pretty
terrible.
You
can't
even
really
enjoy
your
backyard
at
all.
Also,
the
gym
has
been
in
violation
due
to
noise
pollution.
Three
times
through
the
city
since
they've
moved
in
and
as
recently
as
february
11th
of
this
year,.
N
D
B
N
M
E
N
Don't
use
oh
yeah,
the
city
told
us
not
to
use
music
anymore
outside,
so
we
stopped
that.
Well,
it
never
stopped,
and
you
can
even
hear
that
in
the
video.
If
you
listen
on
top
of
the
ridiculous
yelling
and
clanking
of
weights,
you
can
hear
music
in
the
background.
So
I
think
the
owner
says
one
thing
and
does
another
and
that's
that's
the
way
it's
been
since
day,
one
since
he
moved
in
but
yeah.
It
seems
like
any
of
the
neighbors
that
border
the
property
have
issues
with
it.
N
Anyone
who's
been
in
support
of
it
have
been.
Basically,
you
know
business
voters
down
the
street
or
maybe
there
have
been
neighbors,
but
they
live
further
down
the
block
they
don't.
They
don't
have
to
hear
the
noise
so
but
yeah
so
based
on
those
facts,
you
know
it,
you
shouldn't
be
allowed
to
operate
outdoors
and
I
think
it's
as
simple
as
that
yeah.
That's
all
I
got.
B
R
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chairperry
everything.
I've
heard
tonight,
I
think,
supports
staff
findings.
I
if
I
recall
the
ordinance
properly,
I
believe
there
are
some
outdoor
uses
that
are
allowed,
like
landscape
materials
and
so
forth
in
that
kind
of
an
industrial
business.
But
I
from
what
I've
heard
here
tonight,
it's
appropriate
that
outdoor
exercise
is
not
one
of
those
outdoor
business
activities.
So
beyond
that,
I'd
like
to
hear
from
other
board
members.
B
Thanks
for
those
comments,
mr
johannesson.
B
K
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
that
we
approve
staff
findings.
D
R
C
B
Okay,
that
motion
passes,
so
the
variance
request
is
denied
and
you
can
see
staff
after
mr
lair.
You
can
see
steph
after
or
talk
to
staff
after
this
meeting
or
whenever
you
have
an
opportunity,
I
would
suggest
soon,
since
there
are
time
factors
involved
about
what
your
options
are
moving
forward
and
so
that
staff
person
would
be
mr
liska,
with
that
we've
completed
all
of
our
items
on
the
agenda
for
this
meeting
I'll
ask
if
there
are
any
other
matters
to
come
before
this
board.