►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustment - 04-08-2021
Description
Board of Adjustment - 04-08-2021
A
F
And
then,
if
you
go
down
to
the
next
one
voting
in
favor
of
where
it
says
for
to,
let's
see
dolly
and
then
voting
against,
only
eight
board
members
are
listed
instead
of
nine
and
then,
if
you
go
go
down
to
the
next
one,
it
says
voting
in
favor
of
oletsky
forward
motion
carried,
but
it
doesn't
list
anybody
else.
But
oletsky
and
ford.
B
A
B
Yeah
and
they're
off
to
a
good
start,
even
I
guess,
even
if
we
just
don't,
we
just
take
back,
I
guess
the
motions
and
then
we
just
bring
it
back.
I
mean
I
don't
know,
though
it's
out
on
the
agenda
it
might,
it
might
be
cleaner
to
say,
we'll,
make
a
motion
to
postpone
until
the
next
board
of
adjustment
meeting.
E
H
B
A
B
D
B
F
B
So,
as
it
was
stated,
this
is
a
variance
request
for
the
property
at
116.
South
lake
drive
the
owner
is
looking
at
demolishing
this
storage
shed
and
then
adding
on
to
the
existing
attached
garage
on
the
property,
and
so
the
variance
is
for
a
7.2
foot
setback
when
typically
this
is-
and
this
is
zoned
r1
single
family
residential.
B
Typically,
you
need
a
nine
foot
setback,
so
he
is
asking
for
the
1.2
feet:
foot
variance
for
the
side
yard
setback
on
the
you
know,
northwest
side
of
the
property
and
just
to
note
here
too,
that
the
the
existing
storage
shed
actually
where
the
garage
will
be
to
it'll,
come
to
the
same
point
so
it'll
be.
The
garage
will
now
be
35
feet
wide,
but
it
will
still
land
where
this
existing
storage
shed
exists.
G
G
D
E
A
Hearing
none
I'll
I'll
close
the
public
hearing.
Personally,
when
I
look
at
applications
like
this,
I
mean
one
of
the
main
things
I
try
to
look
for
is
you
know,
does
it
impede
more
than
it
previously
did
and
in
this
case,
seeing
the
shed?
In
my
opinion,
it
does
not,
and
the
second
thing
I
like
to
look
for
is:
does
it
conform
with
the
neighborhood
in
the
neighborhood?
There
was
a
recent
variance
to
the
immediately
adjacent
property.
So
I
just
point
those
out.
I
don't
know
if
there's
any
other
comments
by
anyone.
F
I
looked
at
the
staff
report
on
page
11,
which
indicates
in
granting
of
variance
the
board
shall
ascertain
that
the
following
criteria
are
met,
and
one
is.
The
staff
has
determined
that
reasonable
use
of
the
property
will
not
be
denied
if
this
isn't
approved,
and
also
that
there
is
no
unnecessary
hardship
involved
in
not
approving
this.
F
I
guess,
I
think,
there's
still
appropriate
land
for
reasonable
use
there.
If
we
don't
approve
this
1.2
or
1.5
foot
variance
and
myself,
I
we
aren't
quite
sure
if
the
shed
had
a
building
permit
or
not
and
a
shed
isn't
as
long
as
this
garage
will
be.
I
I
would
not
personally
include
that
shed
in
the
original
footprint
of
of
that
garage.
H
A
A
D
B
F
B
B
A
Thank
you
for
that
clarification,
so
that
motion
passes
and
then
moving
forward.
We'll
have
bill
so
we'll
have
seven,
but
so
moving
on
we'll
move
on
to
item
4b
board
consideration
requesting
the
ability
to
rebuild
an
existing
single
family
residence
at
10,
17,
third
avenue
northwest
and
c3
highway
commercial
brandy.
B
G
B
So
if
so,
we
can
assume
that
it
was
it
pre-existed,
this
zoning
designation.
So
it
is
it.
It
exists
there
today.
Basically,
what
this
conditional
use
is
doing
is
allowing
for
a
single
family
residential
structure
to
be
rebuilt,
if
a
casualty
that
would
destroy
it,
more
than
60
percent
would
occur,
and
so
it's
just
really
to
have
for
the
home
to
have
value
yeah
with
that
open
it
up
for.
A
Questions.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
brandi.
I
I
do
have
a
question
when,
when
we
as
a
city
created
the
r2a
zoning
district,
was
that
property
considered
being
part
of
the
r2a
since
it
was
residential.
I
know
right
at
the
boundary
lines.
You
know
they
would
kind
of
hit
some
residential
some
commercial.
I
just
I
don't
know
if
that
was
looked
at,
I
mean
you
know.
B
It
was,
but
this
was
the
route
that
they
wish
to
to
take
and
then,
as
far
as
rezoning
as
well,
I
mean
is
that
what
we
want
either.
I
know
with
granting
this
conditional
use.
It
does
kind
of
allow
that
single-family
house
to
exist
in
perpetuity
until
it
would
be
redeveloped,
so
it
really,
if
denied
you
know,
they
could
come
back
for
a
rezone
to
r2a,
and
I
don't
know
if
the
applicant
is
here
and
would
want
to
speak
on
that
at
all.
E
H
G
B
C
B
E
A
That's
a
that's
a
really
good
guess
of
what's
happening,
typically
on
something
like
this.
When,
when
someone's
looking
for
this,
it's
either,
you
know
they're,
either
looking
to
sell
looking
to
refinance
or
looking
to
do
an
addition,
and
since
we
don't
have
a
building
permit,
you
know
I'm
guessing
it's
one
of
the
first
two
which
I'm.
H
D
A
C
D
D
Well,
okay!
Well,
I'm
not
saying
make
it
part
of
the
condition,
let's
just
let's
grant
the
conditional
use
to
allow
them
to
get
whatever
this
is
if
it's
a
refinance
or
or
to
sell
or
buy
the
house
or
whatever
it
is
and
then
initiate
the
rezone.
If
we
think
that's
appropriate
or
at
least
initiate
that
discussion
in
the
planning
commission
side.
A
No,
that
that
is
a
good
idea.
I
mean
before
we
get
too
far
ahead
of
ourselves
on
what
we're
gonna
do
in
the
plan.
Commission
I
mean
we
do
have
to
to
vote
on
this
particular
item.
I
do
have
the
public
hearing
open
so
far,
there's
no
one
has
spoken
in
favor
against,
but
it
is
still
open
if
anyone
would
like.
E
B
Yes,
so
it's
in
a
sense,
it's
kind
of
the
same
thing
other
than
so.
If
we
would
see
the
long-term
redevelopment
of
this
property
as
being
commercial,
then
for
as
long
as
the
house
exists
there
that
it
would
be
remain
the
single-family
home,
or
do
we
want
to
rezone
it
to
perpetuate
that
it
would
be
a
residential
use.
G
One
thing
that
the
board
could
consider
too
is
beings
is
how
the
applicant
isn't
here
to
speak
to
this.
It
certainly
could
be
postponed
to
the
to
the
next
meeting,
and
then
that
way
that
would
hopefully
give
the
applicant
a
chance
to
appear
in
front
of
the
board
and
state
their
reasoning.
Why
and
exactly
what
they're
seeking
this
for.
G
We
would
need
a
separate
application
and
stuff
for
advertising
and
we
could
certainly
go
through
that
with
them
and
talk
through
that
with
them
at
the
staff
level.
I
do
think
it
may
make
it
a
bit
easier,
but
it
is
a
board
decision.
You
have.
You
know
every
right
to
deny
this.
It's
just.
If
there's
something
that
we're
missing,
then
there
may
be
a
problem
coming
back
for
a
conditional
use
within
that
specified
time
frame,
but
staff
would
be
happy
to
talk
with
the
applicant
and
offer
up
the
the
rezoning
option.
F
C
H
C
B
D
Chair
go
ahead.
Liam
I
mean,
if
we're
inclined
to
re-zone
this,
I
don't
understand
why
we
don't
just
approve
the
conditional
use,
because
if
we
then
subsequently
rezone
it,
that
makes
the
conditional
use
issue
mote,
and
so
we
won't
have
done
anything
and
we
and
we
won't,
have
potentially
harmed
or
created
an
additional
hurdle
or
challenge
for
the
applicant.
A
That's
a
good
point,
and
I
I
have
my
ordinance
book
open
in
front
of
me
and
the
more
I
kind
of
reading
it.
I
don't
even
know
if
I
agree
that
it
needs
to
be
rezoned.
I
mean
one
of
the
conditional
uses
in
the
c3
is
any
and
all
permitted
uses
in
the
r1
and
r3
zones,
and
typically
when
we
look
at
conditional
uses,
we
look
at
them
as
we've
deemed
these
generally
compatible
with
the
surrounding.
They
just
may
need
conditions.
A
You
know
and
that's
where
we
look
at
our
conditions,
such
as
screening
of
refuse
and
lighting
and
stuff
which
this
single
family
residents
wouldn't
really
infringe
on
those.
So
the
more
I
kind
of
read
these
this
ordinance
as
we
think
through
this
I
I
almost
feel
more
inclined
that
this
could
be
approved
and
wouldn't
need
to
come
back
before
us
even
for
a
rezone.
But
that's
that's
my
thoughts.
A
Correct
and
and
that
kind
of
goes
back
to
we've
as
a
board
and
as
a
city
we've
decided
that
these
uses
are
generally
compatible
in
this
zone.
So
I
think
that
the
question,
for
me
at
least,
is
not.
Is
this
house
allowed?
It's?
Should
there
be
any
conditions,
because
that's
what's
before
us
today
is,
is
the
conditional
use?
So
that's
that's
my
thought.
My
thought
should
be
more.
We
should
talk
about
what
conditions
are
needed
if
any.
A
My
interpretation
is,
I
look
at
this
property
and
I
look
at
it,
and
I
say
this
meets
the
r1
criteria,
it's
adjacent
to
r2a
and
when
this
ordinance
was
written
or
when
when
r2a
was
first
written
in
2006,
it
was
written
at
that
time.
That
r2a
could
not
be
expanded
upon,
and
that's
probably
why
there
is
an
r2a
listed
in
this
conditional
use,
since
2006
actually
is
about
three
or
four
years
ago.
We've
allowed
the
expansion
of
r2a,
but
a
conditional
use
like
number
17
listed,
doesn't
have
r2a
listed.
B
B
A
D
C
A
B
A
B
B
C
A
B
G
I
just
have
one
thing
to
add:
this
is
kind
of
a
unique
design
and
maybe
the
applicant
can
speak
more
about
it,
but
essentially
it
looks
like
two
duplex
structures
with
a
small
connection.
I
believe
that
was
for,
like
a
utility
or
a
laundry
area
between
the
two
structures.
So
essentially,
when
you
look
at
this
is
really
going
to
look
like,
like
you
know
two
duplexes
essentially,
but
there
is
this,
this
small
area
that
is
connected
in
between
yes.
A
Yep
yeah,
thank
you
for
pointing
that
out.
When
I
looked
at
the
the
application
and
the
drawing,
I
thought
that
too.
I
thought
this
looks
like
two
duplexes
and
if
this
was
two
lots,
two
duplexes
or
one
duplex
on
each
lot
would
fit.
It
would
meet,
stand
our
standards
and
our
setbacks
and
won't
even
need
to
come
before
us,
but.
A
A
G
B
A
G
One
thing
I
wanted
to
point
out
too:
I'm
just
as
a
side
note,
if
I
could,
mr
the
applicant
is
planning
to
install
the
sidewalk
along
8th
street
with
this
proposed
development.
Should
it
should
it
pass
this
evening,
and
then
we
would
be
working
with
him
to
get
a
waiver
of
right
to
protest
for
any
future
sidewalk
improvements
in
that
area
and
then,
of
course,
your
our
typical
building
permit
review.