►
From YouTube: January 20, 2022 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
D
C
B
G
G
B
B
H
B
I
Hi
chairperry
members
of
the
board
there's
one
communication
this
evening:
the
outcome
of
the
appeal
of
the
board
of
adjustments,
decision
on
5550
clinton
avenue
it
did
go
to
the
business
inspections,
housing
and
zoning
committee
on
tuesday.
The
appeal
was
granted,
and
so
they
will
be
able
to
maintain
their
existing
construction
that
they
had
done.
B
A
E
B
B
We
will
be
adhering
to
the
staff
recommendation
found
on
your
agenda
under
the
item's
recommended
motion.
Section
importantly,
any
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.
B
Please
check
in
with
a
staff
member
assigned
to
that
item.
If
you
have
a
question
following
the
decision,
if
you
disagree
with
the
recommendation
of
approval,
please
indicate
that
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
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.
B
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,
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
the
chair
does
not
vote
except
in
the
case
of
a
time.
So
let's
look
at
our
list
of
land
use
requests.
Today,
agenda
number
agenda:
item
number:
six
is
1719.
B
49Th
street
east
staff
is
recommending.
This
item
be
continued
for
one
cycle
to
our
february
3rd
2022
meeting,
and
we
can
discuss
this
more.
When
we
review
items
recommended
for
continuance
agenda
item
number
7
is
3321.
West
44th
street
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
Is
there
anyone
here
to
speak
against
this
item,
if
you're
in
the,
if
you're
on
the
phone?
If
you
want
to
press
star
six
and
mute
yourself,
wait
a
little
bit
and
then
say
you'd
like
to
speak
against
us
or
have
this
pulled.
Please
do
so.
B
H
B
K
B
B
B
B
G
C
C
K
C
B
L
Thank
you,
chair,
perry
and
members
of
the
board.
This
item
is
a
request
for
two
variances
one
for
for
an
increase
in
the
maximum
gross
floor
area
ratio
from
0.5
to
0.68
and
another
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
required
north
interior
side
yard
from
5
feet
to
six
inches,
and
these
are
being
requested
for
the
overall
proposal
being
to
construct
a
single
family
dwelling
with
a
detached
garage
and
retaining
walls
at
2946
taylor
street
northeast.
L
I
will
note
that
the
the
setback
variant
that's
being
requested
is
specific
to
a
retaining
wall
and
not
the
actual
house
itself.
These
photos
on
the
screen
are
photos
of
of
the
existing
property
which
were
supplied
by
the
applicants.
In
this
case
it
is
a
vacant
lot.
It
is
located
in
the
r1a,
multiple
family
district
and
the
interior,
one
built
form
overlay
district
and
it
was
most
recently
used
as
a
as
a
low
density
residential
property,
but
that
previous
structure
was
demolished.
L
I
believe
in
2018
and
though
the
property
has
an
overall,
you
know
slope
down
from
the
front
of
the
property
along
taylor
street
to
the
rear
along
the
public
alley.
It's
an
overall
drop
exceeding
10
feet,
but
there
are
also
some
kind
of
more
extreme
grade
changes
in
in
limited
locations
due
to
the
hole
that
was
left
following
demolition
of
that
previous
structure,
and
we
can
go
to
the
next
slide.
L
This
is
the
proposed
survey
for
the
property,
where
you
can
see
their
proposed
dwelling
and
other
improvements
that
they
would
be
constructing,
such
as
a
detached
garage
in
the
rear
yard,
a
rear,
deck
and
other
retaining
walls,
and
I
will
highlight
the
one
of
the
retaining
walls
that
they're
proposing
is
very
near
the
the
north
lot
line
and
would
extend
more
or
less
from.
You
know
the
middle
of
the
house,
essentially
all
the
way
to
to
the
rear
of
the
property.
L
L
In
this
case,
the
applicants
are
proposing
some
regrading
of
the
property
to
to
smooth
out
some
of
the
contours
and
and
have
a
more
uniform
slope
directing
towards
the
back
of
the
property,
and
so
this
retaining
wall
that
they're
proposing
near
the
north
lot
line
would
not
be
explicitly
retaining
natural
grades.
So
that
is
the
reason
for
that
variance
request
as
well
just
to
touch
on
the
required
findings
and
staff
analysis,
and
for
each
of
these,
two
variance
requests.
Staff
does
find
that
all
required
findings
are
met
for
both
variance
requests.
L
It
is
still
you
know,
similar
to
the
size,
particularly
as
the
the
structure
would
appear
from
the
front
of
the
property.
If
you're
standing
on
on
taylor
street
looking
at
this
property
after
it's
built,
it's
still
going
to
look
like
a
two-story
house,
but
it's
just
because
of
the
exposure
of
the
basement
towards
the
back
that
impacts.
How
far
is
calculated
and
and
requires
the
variance
in
this
case?
So
this
is
still
you
know,
in
line
with
the
built
form.
L
Guidance
for
the
property
and
staff
finds
that
this
is
met
that
this
finding
is
met.
Similarly
for
the
retaining
wall,
the
slopes
on
on
this
property
are
very
irregular
and
staff
finds
that
it
is
a
reasonable
use
of
the
property
and
in
keeping
the
dispute
in
the
tent
of
the
ordinance
to
have
a
retaining
wall,
including
limited
alterations
to
great
and
limited
increases
in
grade
for
general
support
of
the
slope,
and
this
impacts
not
just
this
property,
but
also
neighboring
properties
as
well.
L
For
the
third
finding
regarding
essential
character
of
the
locality
and
potential
for
injury
to
persons
or
property.
Again,
staff
finds
that
this
is
meant
for
both
variance
requests.
This
would
be
a
two-story
single-family
dwelling,
which
is
you
know
well
in
keeping
with
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
and,
and
the
overall
slope
in
this
case
is
consistent
with
other
properties
in
the
area
which
similarly
have
slopes
down
from
the
street
down
to
the
alley
and
the
retaining
wall.
L
In
this
case,
though,
it
is
an
alteration
of
the
grade
in
a
way
that
the
zoning
code
generally
doesn't
like,
in
this
case
the
intent
there
is
to
actually
improve
the
condition
of
the
property
and
include
to
improve
the
support
of
the
slope.
With
this
retaining
wall
structures,
the
staff
finds
that
it
would
not
be
creating
any
potential
for
injury
or
detriment
to
persons
or
property.
In
that
regard.
L
M
H
L
Thank
you,
chair,
perry
and
and
board
member
hutchins
for
for
your
question
in
terms
of
the
overall
height
difference
there.
That
does
reflect
the
existing
conditions
of
the
property
right
now,
which
you
know
right
now.
There
is
essentially
no
retaining
wall.
There
is
maybe
some
somewhat
temporary
farmer
calling
from
the
applicant's
photos
some
sort
of
wooden
implements
that
that
are
in
the
same
location,
but
the
overall
height
difference
of
six
feet.
L
That's
the
existing
condition,
and
so
in
terms
of
the
the
the
safety
concern
regarding
retaining
wall
that
would
still
have
that
height
difference.
I
mean
I
certainly
understand
what
you're
saying
where
that
is
a
substantial
fall
and
could
constitute
a
risk.
That
is
something
that
potentially
could
have
some
mitigation
in
terms
of
fall
protection
on
top
of
the
retaining
wall
or
something
to
that
effect.
But
the
retaining
wall
in
itself
is
not
creating
that
six
foot
condition.
H
Thank
you
for
that
it.
So
if
I'm
looking
at
the
picture
right,
it
looks
like
the
retaining
wall
is
sloped
or
the
we'll
call
it
the
retaining
wall.
The
wooden
retaining
wall
is
kind
of
sloped
for
two
to
three
feet
coming
off
the
top
of
it.
So
the
fall
now
is
like
two
feet
and
it's.
It
seems
to
me
a
drastic
difference.
If
you
go
down
to
the
pictures,
maybe
the
very
last
last
couple
slides
in
the
presentation
just
seems
like
an
awfully
large
we're
gonna
carve
out
that
north
property
line
build
it
up.
H
H
If
that's
the
number
we're
supposed
to
achieve?
How
does
that
compare
to
the
neighbors
next
door?
I
know
you
said
it
would
look
similar,
but
if
the
rule
is
42
inches
and
you
start
counting
it,
why
are
we
allowing
the
entire
exterior
perimeter
to
be
42
inches,
not
just
the
sides
that
deal
with
the
sloppage?
L
Thank
you
chairperrian
and
board
member
hutchins,
I'm
just
trying
to
get
another.
Look
at
that
survey.
My
understanding
is
that
the
the
first
floor,
I'm
just
checking
these
these
elevations.
Here
I
mean
this
is
what's
been
proposed
by
by
the
applicants
in
this
case,
and
so
I'm
not
sure
if
they
can
speak
as
to
why
why
they
chose
the
the
elevations
that
that
they
chose
for
the
top
of
the
foundation
in
the
top
of
the
floor.
L
L
It
is
a
calculation
of
the
perimeter
and
how
much
of
that
perimeter
would
be
exposed
more
than
than
42
inches
below
the
main
level,
the
main
level
first
floor,
elevation,
and
if
it's
more
than
50
percent
of
the
perimeter,
that
would
be
exposed
more
than
42
inches.
That's
when
the
basement
starts
to
be
included,
and
that
is
a
function
of
the
current
zoning
code.
That
is
not.
That
applies
to
all
properties,
not
not
just
this
one,
I'm
not
sure.
If
that
answers
your
question
directly,
but
just
to
to
make
that
distinction
clear
as
well.
H
I
guess
no,
I
appreciate
that
it
just
if
the
42
inches
is
to
prevent
us
from
essentially
building
that
first
floor
too
high
compared
to
the
adjacent
properties.
It
feels
like
this
plan
not
only
allows
them
to
have
the
I
shouldn't
say
that
it
just
seems
like
it'll
protrude
out
of
the
ground,
towering
comparatively
to
the
homes
adjacent,
and
I
can't
tell
because
the
blueprints
don't
explicitly
show
the
first
floor.
Elevation
of
the
adjacent
properties,
it
just
seems
like
off
the
elevations
and
the
plot
plan.
L
Sherparian
board
member
hutchins.
I
think,
there's
a
question
about
sort
of
staff
analysis
regarding
that
and
again
I
certainly
don't
mean
to
speak
for
the
applicant.
I
think
just
considering
the
overall
slope
of
the
property
and
the
challenges
that
that
does
entail,
which
is
more
towards
the
back
overall
they're
within
their
right
to
propose
that,
and
this
might
be
a
little
bit
higher
than
what
we
often
see
for
other
projects,
but
that
in
itself
wasn't
a
particular
concern.
L
You
know.
Maybe
we
were
a
little
bit
more
focused
on
the
exposure
towards
the
rear,
because
that
is,
you
know,
has
more
obvious
implications
for
calculations
regarding
floor
area
ratio,
which
is
the
subject
of
one
of
these
variances.
But
it
in
itself
is
not
necessarily
something
we
can
directly
prevent
by
by
the
zoning
code.
I
mean
it's
captured
by
requirements
like
including
an
far
in
including
a
basement
towards
far
or
a
more
extreme
threshold
for
including
a
basement
as
a
story
which
is
not
the
case
here.
L
It's
still
a
two-story
structure
with
the
basement
for
zoning
purposes,
but
there
are
mechanisms
of
the
zoning
code
to
capture
when,
when
a
basement
or
when
a
structure
is
is
built
too
high
in
a
property
and
and
the
condition
of
the
slope
itself
in
this
case
was
substantial
enough.
That
that
wasn't
necessarily
a
particular
concern
for.
B
N
Hi,
this
is
jeff
hefferman
with
inspire
architects.
The
question
related
to
the
42
inch
height
that
42
inch
height
is
from
the
existing
grade,
so
we're
actually
raising
the
grade
up
after
the
basement
is
dug
out
to
match
more
or
less
the
house
height
of
the
neighborhood
of
the
two
neighboring
houses.
So
we're
not
trying
to
raise
the
house
beyond
the
neighboring
houses.
H
N
H
So
in
in
the
photo
compared,
where
is
the
property
line
in
the
photo?
Is
it
are
you
removing
that
wood
retaining
wall?
I
assume
and
going
out
a
little
bit
to
the
north?
I
assume
so
then
you
are
changing
the
grade
because
you're
taking
away
three
to
four
feet,
I
assume
on
the
north
of
the
property
and
making
it
a
straight
up
and
down
vertical,
face
versus
a
slope
to
a
two
foot
drop.
It
does
change
the
existing
grade.
N
N
B
K
B
B
H
B
B
H
H
So
the
decision
is
made
for
an
art.
You
know
for
a
use
issue.
I
understand
that,
but
it
flattens
out
significantly
or
a
quarter
of
the
property,
if
I'm
looking
at
this
right
and
then
actually
begins,
dropping
again
that
the
design
decision,
based
solely
on
making
a
more
usable
back,
porch
deck
area,
so
they're,
foregoing
the
safety
of
a
neighborhood
or
a
neighbor
strictly
to
make
a
more
suitable
backyard.
H
H
You
know
exceeding
42
inches
along
the
sides
in
the
back
because
of
the
grade
change
I
get
that,
but
if
they're
gonna
bring
in
more
backfill
to
level
off
the
front,
why
would
we
allow
the
front
of
the
house
to
protrude
out
more
than
42
inches
from
the
plant
elevation?
That
was
my
only
concern
but
they're
saying
that's
not
a
concern
so
I'll.
Let
that
one
go.
I
guess.
A
I
do
I
appreciate
it.
Is
there
I
guess
I'm
looking
for
some
kind
of
knowing
the
six
foot
retaining
wall
issue.
I
agree
with
board
member
hutchins
on
this,
but
I
think
isn't
there
something
about
providing
a
guard
in
the
code
that
would
require
them
to
protect,
protect
that
drop.
I
know
the
residential
code
deals
with
torches
and
such
30
inches
or
more
something
like
that,
but
I
I
just
want
to
know
if
the
retaining
wall
is
required
to
have
a
guard
rail
because
of
that
drop.
A
L
Crohas,
thank
you,
chair
perry
and
thank
you
board,
member
joe
anderson
for
the
question.
Any
requirements
like
that
would
not
be
located
within
the
zoning
code
specifically
a
requirement
that
they
have
some
sort
of
fall
protection
on
on
top
of
something
like
a
retaining
wall.
That
would
most
likely
be
a
provision
of
the
building
code,
which
is
administered
by
construction
code
services
staff
here
at
the
city.
B
B
D
H
K
B
L
Thank
you,
chair,
perry
and
members
of
the
board.
This
item
is
a
request
for
two
variances
one
to
reduce
the
minimum
required:
reverse
corner
front
yard,
on
the
drew
avenue
side
of
the
property
and
another
to
develop
honor
within
40
feet
of
the
top
of
the
steep
slope
in
the
shoreland
overlay
district.
These
are
requested
for
construction
of
a
covered
deck
at
2121
drew
avenue
south.
This
property
is
located
in
the
r1,
multiple
family
district,
as
well
as
the
interior,
one
built
form
overlay
district
and
the
shoreline
overlay
district.
As
I
mentioned,
the
subject.
L
Property
has
a
lot
area
of
8728
square
feet
and
it
is
a
reverse
corner
lot,
which
means
that
it
is
a
corner
lot
where
both
of
the
lot
lines
of
the
subject-
property
which
are
along
the
public
streets,
are
functional.
Extensions
of
front
lot
lines
on
the
adjacent
properties
on
reverse
corner
lots
both
of
the
sides
of
the
subject.
Property
facing
public
streets
are
considered
front
yards
for
zoning
purposes.
L
So
in
this
case,
the
subject.
Property
is
a
reverse
corner
lot,
with
a
platted
front
to
the
southwest
along
22nd
street
and
a
reverse
corner
front.
To
the
northwest
along
drew
avenue
south
the
existing
principal
use
and
structure
on
the
property
is
a
two-story
single-family
dwelling
with
an
attached
garage
access
from
drew
avenue
and
an
existing
deck
on
the
rear
yard.
On
the
northeast
side
of
the
house,
as
well
as
a
retaining
wall
on
the
southwest
side
of
the
house.
In
that
platted
front
yard.
L
I
will
note
that
the
platted
front
yard
on
the
southwest
side
of
the
house
so
towards
22nd
street.
It
is
a
steep
slope
with
a
grade
of
23
at
some
extremes
and
the
threshold
for
being
a
steep
slope
is
defined
in
the
zoning.
Ordinance
is
an
average
grade
of
at
least
18
percent
for
a
minimum,
horizontal
distance
of
50
feet
and
a
minimum
vertical
distance
of
10
feet,
and
so
the
steep
slope
on
this
property
does
meet
those
thresholds
and
does
extend
more
or
less
up
to
the
southwest
wall
of
the
house.
L
And
there
is
that
retaining
wall
which
mitigates
some
of
that
slope.
But
the
retaining
wall
itself
does
not
impact
how
a
steep
slope
is
calculated
or
a
determination
in
this
case
that
this
is
a
a
steep
slope
and
we
can
stay
on
this
slide
for
for
a
little
bit.
On
the
left
hand
side
you
can
see
the
proposed
survey
and
I've
called
out
specifically
the
deck
that
the
applicants
are
proposing
on
the
southwest
side
of
the
house
so
facing
the
planet
front
along
22nd
street
west.
L
It
would
extend
the
width
of
the
house
and
extend
12
feet
out
from
the
wall
of
the
house,
and
the
eastern
half
of
the
deck
would
be
covered
with
a
new
shed
roof,
the
other
half
of
the
deck
would
be
uncovered
and
the
entire
deck
would
not
be
enclosed
by
any
walls,
but
it
would
be
an
open
deck.
In
this
case.
I
will
also
note
going
back
to
the
steep
slope
issue
that
a
variance
is
required
for
any
development
on
or
within
40
feet
of
the
top
of
a
steep
slope
in
the
shoreland
overlay.
L
L
This
is
that
same
proposed
survey,
but
I've
added
some
additional
kind
of
notation
to
highlight
the
reverse
corner
yard
issue.
So
the
minimum
required
reverse
corner
front
yard
along
drew
avenue
along
the
revenue.
Side
of
the
property
is
22.8
feet,
and
this
is
based
on
the
established
front.
Setback
of
the
dwelling
on
the
adjacent
property
to
the
northeast
addressed
at
2111
drew
avenue
south.
L
Reverse
corner
front
yard
requirement
and
there
is
a
portion
of
the
proposed
deck
on
the
southwest
side
of
the
house,
which
would
also
be
within
this
required
yard
as
well.
So
the
applicants
are
also
reducing.
This
excuse
me
also
also
proposing
this
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
required
reverse
corner
yard
from
22.8
feet
to
17.3
feet
in
this
case,
and
we
can
stay
on
this
slide
for
the
rest
of
my
presentation
to
talk
about
the
required
findings
and
staff
analysis.
L
In
this
case,
we'll
say,
overall
staff
finds
that
all
required
findings
would
be
met
for
for
both
variance
requests,
in
this
case,
for
the
practical
difficulty.
I'll
just
note
that
the
slope
of
the
lot
itself
is
considered
to
be
a
unique
circumstance
within
minneapolis
which
substantially
limits
the
buildable
area
of
the
lot
and
constitutes
a
practical
difficulty
in
itself
with
regard
to
the
reverse
corner
front
yard
variants.
The
underlying
plating
of
the
block
as
a
reverse
corner
lot
is
also
considered
a
unique
circumstance
constituting
a
practical
difficulty.
L
The
proposed
deck
in
this
case
is
on
the
southwest
side
of
the
house,
so
it's
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
property
compared
to
the
house
on
the
adjacent
property
at
211
drew
avenue
south
which
creates
that
reverse
corner
condition.
So
it
does
not
create
any
issues
with
with
visibility
in
in
that
regard
and
would
not
encroach
any
closer
to
the
reverse
corner
front
lot
line
along
drew
avenue.
L
South,
it
would
not
approach
any
closer
than
the
existing
dwelling,
so
staff
also
finds
this
to
be
met
as
well
for
the
third
required
finding
regarding
essential
character
of
the
locality
and
potential
for
injury
to
persons
or
property
staff,
also
finds
that
this
is
meant
for
both
variances
on
the
the
platted
front.
Side
of
the
property
to
the
southwest
towards
22nd
street
accessory
uses
and
structures
are
pretty
common
in
front
yards,
particularly
on
on
this
block
face,
and
there
is
minimal
soil
disturbance.
That's
being
proposed.
L
It's
limited
to
four
holes,
which
would
be
which
would
be
excavated
for
the
posts
and
the
footings
for
the
deck.
Also
just
note
that
this
proposal
would
be
in
compliance
with
all
other
applicable
requirements
of
the
zoning
code,
including,
but
not
limited
to
the
maximum
height
of
of
the
deck
and
the
shed
roof.
That
would
be
above
a
portion
of
it.
L
Regarding
separation
of
uses,
there
are
some
additional
required
findings
regarding
the
shoreline
overlay
district
in
the
interest
of
time.
I'll
just
note
that
staff
finds
that
all
of
these
would
be
met
for
both
required
variances
and
all
I'll
conclude
by
just
stating
that
again,
because
staff
finds
that
all
required
findings
would
be
met
for
this
application.
L
Staff
recommendation
is
for
approval
of
both
requested
variances
subject
to
the
conditions
listed
in
the
staff
report.
There
were
a
number
of
written
public
comments
which
were
received
summer,
all
of
which
came
in
after
the
staff
report
was
published,
so
those
should
have
been
forwarded
along
separately
for
your
consideration.
L
B
B
B
B
G
J
Can
can
you
hear
me
now?
Yes,
we
can
please
pursue
okay,
my
name
is
damon
eggers.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
had
presented
a
slideshow.
I
believe
you
had
it
up
briefly
there,
this
opening
page,
okay,
so
just
for
the
record,
my
name's
damon
eggers,
my
wife
jennifer
and
I
own
and
occupy
the
home
at
3512
west
22nd
street,
which
is
basically
directly
east
to
the
applicant.
J
We
had
previously
written
or
provided
a
written
statement
that
we
sent
in
objecting
to
the
approval
of
the
variances,
but
we
really
want
to
take
this
opportunity
to
explain
to
everyone
on
the
board
how
this
will
affect
us
and
how
it
will
affect
us
beyond
what
pieces
of
paper
you
can
look
at
and
show
and
look
at
drawings
and
schematics.
We
just
want
you
to
hear
our
story,
so
my
wife's
going
to
tell
you
more.
O
So
this
is
jennifer
eggers.
As
our
letter
states,
we
purchased
our
home
in
2016,
and
we
underwent
a
lengthy
and
very
costly
whole
home
renovation.
We
were
very
deliberate
and
very
careful
in
our
planning
and
our
process.
We
want
it
known
that
we
did
absolutely
nothing
to
change
the
exterior
envelope
of
our
hope.
I'm
sorry
envelope
of
our
home
the
pre-existing
setback
that
that
maintained
a
uniformity
along
the
the
streets,
the
the
picture
that
I
have
here
shows
and
it's
the
same
as
the
applicants.
O
I
I've
had
to
do
a
crash
course
in
trying
to
figure
out
why
these
ordinances
exist,
what
they
mean
and
it
dawned
on
me
and-
and
it
was
helpful
for
me
to
learn
specifically
as
it
pertains
to
this
case.
There's
a
reverse
corner
property
that
requires
two
front
yard
setbacks
and
the
whole
purpose
of
this
is
to
maintain
a
uniformity
not
to
just
one
side
but
to
the
other
side,
and
everything
about
how
it
currently
exists.
O
O
I
can
look
to
the
right
and
I
have
a
180
degree
unobstructed
view
and
that
uniformity
that
line
that
is
maintained
exists
so
that
my
right
to
that
view
is
the
same
as
my
neighbor's
right
to
that
view
and
their
neighbor's
view
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
There
is
a
reason
that
that
line
was
created
why
that
home
was
built,
why
my
home
was
built
where
it
was
how
these
homes
are
in
relation
to
each
other,
how
they're
oriented
and
more
so
I
believe
why
those
windows?
Why?
O
Why
why
you
place
windows
where
you
do
and
again
we
did
nothing
to
to
change
how
this
was
how
this
was
previously
arranged
when
our
house
was
built
in
1964.
So
if
you
could
scroll
forward
to
the
next
slide,
we
want
to
make
it
known
so
shortly
after
the
applicant
purchased
his
property.
He
he
approached
it
several
times
about
different
ideas
and
intent
to
renovate
his
home,
and
it
was
kind
of
off
the
cuff
and
point
blank
and
we're
we're
nice
people.
O
It's
it's
absolutely
going
to
disturb
the
the
front
of
that
line,
and
and
and
secondarily,
if
you,
if
you
look
at
these
sizes,
I
have
pictures
the
the
applicant's
home
is-
is
going
to
be
to
the
left.
Our
house
is
going
to
be
the
first
picture
on
the
left
that
you
see
and
the
next
house
to
that
and
the
next
house
to
that.
O
The
the
square
footage
alone
of
the
deck
that's
being
proposed
is
over
three
times
the
size
of
our
deck
and
and-
and
you
can
see,
I
mean
we
have
a
deck
space
up
here
of
about
a
hundred
square
feet,
the
the
property
next
to
us,
it's
almost
more
of
a
balcony
type
structure
and
then
there's
another
house
and
there's
a
deck
and
that
doesn't
even
face
the
front
of
the
house.
That's
not
to
even
mention
the
fact
that
none
of
these
structures
are
covered,
there's
no
covering
on
any
of
these.
O
So
it's
it's,
I
believe,
discongruent
with
the
appearance
of
what
you
already
have,
not
alone
the
scope
and
the
size.
So
I
think
it's
also
important
to
note-
and
it
was
noted
in
in
the
initial
report
by
alex
that,
if
there's
any
hardship
that
that
that's
claimed,
whether
that's
enjoyment
of
the
property,
specifically
outdoor
access
and
spaces,
there
is
a
pre-existing
deck
on
this
house.
It
is
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
house.
It
is
there
for
a
reason.
O
O
So
if
we
scroll
forward
or
page
next
so
any
structure,
any
structure,
that's
going
to
extend
towards
22nd
street
is
going
to
place
our
home
front
in
a
recessed
position
next
to
each
of
our
neighbors,
which
is
going
to
be
discongruent
to
the
uniformity
of
that
line
that
was
created
and
these
homes
were
built
60
plus
years
ago.
It's
been
that
way
for
60
years
when
we
purchased
our
home
and
we
put
our
time
and
our
money.
As
you
can
see
in
the
picture
on
the
left,
we
opened
up
these
windows.
O
We
were,
we
were
taking
advantage
of
our
views
and
our
sight
lines
up
and
down
the
street
and
and
and
created.
You
know
these
changes
because
of
that.
So
if,
if
that
structure
is
allowed
to
come
out
there,
it's
absolutely
gonna
decrease
the
curb
appeal
of
our
property
as
it
pertains
to
how
it
looks
on
the
outside.
O
You
know
what
we
see
when
we
look
out
of
our
house
and
that's
absolutely
gonna
negatively
affect
our
property
valuation
and,
furthermore,
the
notion,
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
that
this
is
not
going
to
limit
the
visibility
of
other
homes
and
will
not
alter
the
use
or
enjoyment
of
the
other
property
in
the
vicinity
is
absolutely
false.
That's
what
I'm
trying
to
demonstrate
here,
our
external
sight
lines
will
be
affected
and
are
not
mitigated
by
the
applicant's
claim
that
this
is
an
open
deck.
O
O
That's
an
obstruction
to
a
sight
line,
let
alone
there
being
a
deck
there
in
the
first
place,
and
and
what's
most
concerning
and
egregious
to
us
and
just
heart-wrenching
to
us
that
we
put
our
time
and
our
money-
and
this
is
our
family
home-
is
that
it's
going
to
allow
for
direct
sight
lines
into
the
interior
of
our
home
and
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
demonstrate
by
the
pictures
that
I've
got
up
here.
As
you
stand
in
my
great
room,
you
can
see
my
dining
table.
O
You
can
see,
there's
a
portion
of
a
bump
out,
that's
highlighted
if
you
can
look
at
the
plans
here
on
the
very
front,
the
bottom
right
side,
there's
an
interior
portion
of
the
home
that
extends
into
the
deck
as
an
extension
of
our
internal
living
room,
and
you
can
say
on
the
the
picture
to
the
left-hand
side.
We
have
a
chair
there.
If
you
go
to
the
second
picture
in
this
is
a
chair.
O
If
you
back
up
the
15
or
20
or
25
feet
that
the
proposed
structure
is
going
to
be
placed
and
you
go
out
12
feet,
I
can
already
see
directly
into
my
bump
out
into
my
living
room
and
you
can
imagine
the
sight
lines.
That's
going
to
create
I'm
going
to
sit
at
my
dining
table
and
know
that
as
it
was
concerning
and
as
read
to
me,
a
semi-private
outdoor
gathering
space,
there
are
going
to
be
people
that
are
going
to
be
allowed
to
look
directly
into
the
front
of
my
home.
O
O
B
B
G
Okay,
thank
you.
I
appreciate
it
first
of
all
how
they
feel
about
this
blows
me
away,
because
they've
never
once
really
mentioned
any
of
the
skoomy
before
and
for
the
last
two
years.
I've
talked
to
them
about
it,
but
but
regardless
of
that,
and
I
apologize,
this
is
causing
them
some
issues,
but
per
code.
I
can
go
out
15
feet
from
my
property,
but
I
went
back
only.
I
went
out
12
feet
to
try
to
keep
the
tree
there
and
to
not
impose
as
much
as
they
think
I
am
on
into
their
house.
G
I
are
we.
We
drew
it
our
architect,
one
of
the
things
I
said
to
them.
I
need
to
be
concerned
about
my
neighbors
because
they
don't
want
me
to
be
able
to
look
inside
their
house.
So
that's
why
we
took
it
back
from
15
to
take
down
the
tree
to
12,
so
we
could
satisfy
some
of
their
concerns
and
if
you
look
at
there's
a
survey
that
I'll
I'll
just
leave
it
at
the
obviously
with
it
I'll
just
leave
it
at
that
by
code,
I
can
go
on
15
feet.
I
didn't
need
a
server.
G
G
O
G
A
L
Yeah
yeah
sorry
to
interrupt
if
you
had
more
at
all
more
to
say
thanks
yeah,
thanks
chairperry
and
board
member
john
anderson
for
the
question
just
to
clarify.
There
are
two
variances
which
are
being
requested
here.
One
is
for
development
on
or
within
40
feet
of
the
top
of
a
steep
slope
in
the
shoreline
overlay
district.
L
That
is,
that
variance
is
required
for
any
type
of
deck
like
this,
regardless
of
how
you
know
the
specific
dimensions
or
specifications
and
the
other
variants,
that's
being
that's
being
requested
and
the
other
variants
that's
required
is
to
reduce
the
minimum
required,
reverse
corner
front
setback,
and
that
is
on
the
drew
avenue
side
of
the
property
that
it's
not
on
the
side
of
the
property
that
we're
really
talking
about
here,
which
is
more.
You
know
how
far
it
extends
towards
22nd
street.
L
So
that's
the
property
at
3512,
22nd
street
and
because
of
the
specifications
of
of
these
two
properties
that
minimum
required
front
setback
on
the
22
on
the
22nd
street
side
of
the
property
that
is
based
on
the
line
drawn
across
from
the
front
of
the
neighbor's
front
deck,
and
there
are
provisions
of
the
zoning
code
that
that
kind
of
lead
to
that
conclusion
and
and
as
the
applicant
stated,
their
design
as
proposed
is
meeting
that
requirement.
They
are
you
know
well
behind
that
that
minimum
required
front
setback
line.
L
So
we
are
here
to
talk
about
these
two
specific
variances
which
are
related
to
other
aspects
of
the
property
and
other
aspects
of
the
zoning
code.
But
it
is
not
specifically
related
to
how
far
out
that
deck
extends
from
from
you
know
towards
22nd
street.
I'm
not
sure
if
that
answers.
You
know
the
totality
of
your
questions,
but
just
to
make
that
distinction
clear
that
the
extension
of
this
deck
towards
22nd
street
is
not
specifically
their
reason
for
either
the
variances
that
are
required
and
being
requested
here.
A
E
B
B
J
B
J
L
And
thank
you
chairperry
and
members
of
the
board
good.
Thank
you
for
pulling
up
the
slides
to
the
clerk
and
I.t
staff
as
well.
This
item
is
a
request
for
a
variance
to
reduce
the
minimum
required
lot
area
for
the
property
at
18th
avenue.
South
this
property
is
located
in
the
r2b
multiple
family
district,
as
well
as
the
interior
ii
build
forum
overlay
district.
L
Could
we
scroll
down
a
little
bit
just
to
get
a
full
view
of
that
certificate
of
survey?
Thank
you.
This
is
the
existing
conditions.
Survey
of
the
property.
The
existing
parcel
has
a
lot
area
of
9886
square
feet,
and
this
existing
parcel
is
made
up
of
two
individual
platted
lots
which
were
originally
created
as
individual
properties,
but
then
were
combined
at
some
point
to
create
the
existing
9
800
square
foot
parcel.
L
L
We
can
stay
on
this
slide
for
the
rest
of
my
presentation.
The
applicants
are
proposing
to
demolish
the
existing
uses
and
structures
on
the
property
and
divide
that
existing
parcel
back
into
two
lots,
so
they
would
be
reverting
back
to
the
historic
plating
of
of
the
specific
area.
The
the
lot
areas
of
each
resultant
lot,
which
would
be
created
by
this
division,
are
4
944
square
feet
on
the
north
side
and
4942
square
feet
on
the
south
side.
L
Now
the
minimum
lot
area
requirement
for
a
residential
use
in
the
r2b
zoning
district
excuse
me
is
5
000
square
feet,
and
so
this
is
a
variance
that
the
applicant
is
requesting
to
reduce
this
minimum
lot
area
for
division
of
this
parcel.
I
will
also
mention
that
the
applicant
has
generally
described
their
intent
again
to
demolish
the
existing
structures
and
and
on
each
resultant
parcel.
L
If
this,
if
the
split
is
approved,
including
this
variance,
they
would
be
developing
each
parcel
with
a
multiple
family
dwelling
with
three
units
might
have
similar
accessory
structures
like
off-street
parking
areas,
et
cetera
and
I'll.
Just
note
that
the
proposed
site
plan
that
that
you
see
here
which
is
submitted
for
this,
this
does
show
you
know
the
footprints
of
their
proposed
structures
and
other
improvements.
This
is
what
they've
submitted
for
the
purposes
of
this
variance
application,
which
approval
of
this
would
not
necessarily
lock
in
this
particular
design.
L
They
would
be
free
to
to
make
some
you
know
alterations
to
the
specifics
of
the
design,
but
any
proposal
that
they
ultimately
come
forward
with.
Is
you
know
for
building
out
each
triplex
if
that's
what
they
move
forward
with
those
are
subject
to
the
full
requirements
of
the
current
zoning
code
and
other
applicable
requirements
such
as
the
building
code
and
any
subsequent
development
proposals?
For
you
know,
establishment
of
these
triplexes
in
this
case
would
require
additional
applications,
including,
but
not
limited
to
preliminary
development,
review,
administrative
site
plan,
review
and
and
building
permits.
L
Those
are
all
what
would
be
required
if
this
variance
is
approved
to
talk
about
the
required
findings,
first
required
finding
regarding
practical
difficulty,
staff
finds
that
this
is
met.
This
is
the
practical
difficulty
in
this
case,
being
the
underlying
plating
with
the
historic
loss.
The
original
planet
lots
each
being
smaller
than
5
000
square
feet.
L
This
in
itself
is,
is
considered
to
be
a
unique
circumstance
and
then,
furthermore,
those
lots
were
then
subsequently
combined
and
developed
for
the
existing
duplex,
which
I
believe
was
originally
constructed
as
a
single
family
dwelling
and
then
converted
into
a
duplex
at
some
point
along
the
way.
All
of
this
plating
and
then
combination
and
construction
of
the
original
dwelling
all
took
place
before
adoption
of
the
city's
first
zoning
ordinance
in
1924.
L
These
are,
you
know,
considerably
unique
circumstances
in
this
case
and
do
constitute
a
practical
difficulty
for
the
second
required
finding
regarding
reasonable
use
and
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
spirit
and
intent
of
the
minimum
lot
area
requirements
being
to
ensure
sufficient
area
for
the
functional
needs
of
land
uses
and
to
reinforce
existing
or
plan
development
patterns.
In
this
case,
staff
finds
this
to
be
met.
The
size
of
the
variance
request
in
this
case
is
relatively
small.
L
Each
resultant
lot
would
meet
the
minimum
width
of
40
feet
and
staff
finds
that
there
would
be
sufficient
space
for
reasonable
development
of
a
one
to
three
unit
dwelling
on
each
resultant
lot,
while
still
meeting
other
applicable
zoning
requirements
like
like
setback
requirements,
maximum
height
maximum
lock
coverage
and
etc.
Some
of
those
other
requirements
that
get
to
you
know
potential
for
for
injury
or
detriment
in
that
case.
L
So
in
conclusion,
because
staff
finds
that
all
required
findings
would
be
met,
staff
recommendation
is
for
approval,
subject
to
the
conditions
listed
in
the
staff
report.
I
believe
there
are
two
written
public
comments
which
were
received
and
I
think
they
were
received
early
enough
to
be
attached
to
the
staff
report
for
this
item.
I
believe
the
applicants
are
in
attendance
during
this
hearing
as
well.
This
concludes
my
presentation,
but
I'm
available
for
questions
if
necessary.
B
E
B
B
E
E
E
F
Hi,
thank
you.
Yes,
this
is
sherry,
I'm
a
neighbor.
I
live
directly
behind
this
property
and
I
have
to
say
that
this
is
property
has
been
a
real
hot
mess
if
anybody's
seen
it.
So
you
know
we're
pleased
that
it's
going
to
be
improved
upon.
However,
I
would
ask
some
consideration
about
the
impact
on
the
neighborhood
and
particularly
the
neighbors,
who
are
behind
directly
behind
this
property.
This
is
going
to
add
six
parking
spaces.
B
Sure
I
have
a
question
of
you,
ms
beal.
I
I'm
not
sure
what
you're
asking
I'm
not
sure
what
you're
asking
the
board
for
right
now
because
of
the
2040
comprehensive
plan.
There
is
no
off-street
parking
required
for
any
new
development,
and
so
our
hands
are
kind
of
tied
on
what
kind
of
parking
is
there
or
is
not
there.
F
B
F
B
B
J
B
And
that
motion
passes
so
the
the
request
is
approved.
Good
luck
with
your
projects,
your
project.
Rather,
let's
move
on
to
items
for
continuance.
There
was
one
it
is
item
number
six,
17
1949th
street
east
staff
is
requesting.
This
item
be
continued
until
february
3rd
2022,
and
I'm
wondering
if
staff
is
still
here
to
give
a
reason
behind
the
request
for
the
continuance
or,
if
mr
ellis
could
speak
to
that.
P
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
Yes,
I
am.
This
item
is
being
requested
for
continuance
by
the
applicant
who's,
the
property
owner.
They
would
like
to
revise
their
plans
in
order
to
move
from
a
two-story
addition
to
a
single
story
edition
these
revisions
would
minimize
potential
impacts
to
the
shoreline
overlay
district
to
view
sheds,
so
staff
is
recommending.
The
item
be
continued.
One
cycle.
B
B
N
B
So
that
motion
passes
the
land
use
application
for
1719
49th
street
east
will
be
continued
to
our
february
3rd
2022
zoning
board
of
adjustment
meeting.
Now
we
move
on
to
as
part
of
our.
This
is
our
annual
meeting,
and
so
we
have
officer
elections
myself
and
mr
softly
are
in
a
slate
and
since
we
are
being
voted
on,
I'm
going
to
turn
the
meeting
over
to
mr
finnelson
for
that
election
process.
Mr
fendelson.