##VIDEO ID:gZGIYPoTptg## >> GOOD AFTERNOON, THIS IS THE  JANUARY 9, 2025, ZONE OF  ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING. MY NAME IS ANNIE WANG AND I AM  CHAIRING THE MEETING TODAY IN  CHAIR PERRY'S ABSENCE. I ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL SO WE CAN VERIFY THE PRESENCE OF QUORUM. >> BOARD MEMBER CALLAHAN. >> PRESENT. >> EICHOLZ. >> PRESENT. >> HUTCHENS IS ABSENT. INGRAHAM. >> AYE. >> JOHANNESSEN IS ABSENT. PERRY IS ABSENT. SMRIKAROVA. >> AYE. >> AND WANG. >> HERE. >> THERE ARE SIX MEMBERS  PRESENT. >> THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT WE'LL PROCEED TO  R AGENDA. A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN POSTED  FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE CITY'S  LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION  MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AVAILABLE AT  lims.minneapolis.gov. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE  THIS AGENDA? >> SO MOVED. >> A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> THA YOU. ARE THERE ANY DISCUSSIONS? SEEING THERE IS NONE, ALL IN  FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDATE BY  SAYING AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] >> ANY INDICATIONSAYING NAY. THAT MOTION PASSES AND THE  AGENDA IS APPROVED. ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS SHOULD  HAVE SEEN A COPY OF THE MINUTES  FROM THE DECEMBER 12, 2024,  BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? >>O MOVED. >> SECOND. >> IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOON SAYING AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] ALL AGAINST SAYING NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? INGRAHAM ABSTAINS. THAT MOTION PASSES. AND THE MINUTES FROM THE  DECEMBER 12, 2024, MEETING IS  APPROVED. FOR PETITIONS AND  COMMUNICATIONS, MR. ELLIS, ARE  THERE ANY PETITIONS OR  COMMUNICATIONS? >> VICE CHAIR WANG, MEMBERS OF  THE BOARD, THERE ARE TWO  COMMUNICATIONS THIS EVENING. THE REAPPOINTMENTS ARE GOING TO  THE NEXT MEETING OF THE  BUSINESS, HOUSING, AND ZONING  COMMITTEE. IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IT'S NOT NECESSARY THAT YOU  ATTEND IF YOU WANT TO ATTEND AS  ONE OF THE REAPPOINTMENT PEOPLE. AND IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN  ATTENDING KEEP ME IN THE LOOP  AND LET ME KNOW. OTHERWISE THEY WILL JUST BE  APPROVED AT THAT COMMITTEE. THEOTHER, THERE WILL NOT BE A  JANUARY 23RD MEETING. THERE WERE NO COMPLETE  APPLICATIONS IN TIME FOR AT. AS A QUICK NOTE, I DIDN'T GIVE  THE DATE, THE BUSINESS HOUSING  AND ZONING COMMISSION WOULD BE  JANUARY 21ST. IT'S A FAIRLY LARGE AGENDA, SO  I'M NOT SURE WHAT TIME IT WOULD  HAPPEN. THE MEETING WOULD START AT 1:30, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHEN THE ACTUAL END TIME OR ACTUAL ITEM WOULD BE HEARD. >> PERFECT. THANYOU, MR. ELLIS. LET'S JUST A GENRE MINDER TO  APPLICANTS AND OTHERS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC  HEARING, MAKE SURE TO SIGN IN AT THE SHEET AVAILABLE WITH THE  CLERK AND REMEMBER TO SPEAK  CLEARLY INTO THE MICROPHONE. IF YOU HAVE NOT SIGNED IN, YOU  CAN ALSO DO IT ON THE WAY OUT. AND ALSO TO APPLICANTS AND  OTHERS, YOU MAY CONCT STAFF  AFTER THE HEARING FOR ANY  QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR  PROJECTS. SO WE'LL REVIEW THE AGENDA. I'LL READ THE AGENDA NUMBER AND  THE ADDRESS OF THE PROJECT. SO CONSENT ITEMS ARE ITEMS THAT  ARE PASSED WITHOUT DISCUSSION  FROM THE ARD. WE'LL BE HEARING STAFF  RECOMMENDATIONS UNDER THE  RECOMMENDED MOTIONS SECTION. AND ANY APPLICABLE CONDITIONS  WILL BE LISTED IN THE SAME  SECTION AS WELL. FOR DISCUSSION ITEMS, THESE  ITEMS ARE THOSE THAT THE BOARD  WILL TAK PUBLIC TESTIMONY,  DELIBERATE ON, AND ALSO MAKE A  DECISION. AFTER THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY HAS  BEEN HEARD FOR EACH DISCUSSION  ITEM, WE ONLY HAVE ONE TODAY, I  WILL CSE 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. SO AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR  THE ITEM IS CLOSED, THE BOARD  MEMBERS WILL THEN DISCUSS AND  DELIBERATE ON THE ACTS OF E  MOTION. SO THE CHAIR ONLY VOTES IN CASE  OF A TIE. SO GOING BACK TO THE AGENDA,  AGENDA NUMBER FIVE5 IS 6052ND AE SOUTH, 1107th STREET SOUTH,  1396th STREET AND STAFF IS  REMMENDING THIS ITEM FOR  CONSENT. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE  TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM. SEEING THAT THERE IS NONE,  AGENDA NUMBER 641 33rd AVENUE  NORTH, THIS IS SLATED A A  DISCUSSION ITEM. ITEM 7, 2115 52nd STREET SOUTH. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE  TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. AGENDA ITEM 8, 41 EAST MINNEHAHA AVENUE. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS ITEM  FOR CONSENT. IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST  THIS ITEM? I SEE NONE. GOING BACK TO THE ITEMS FOR  CONSENT, THAT'S 5, 7, 8. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THESE ITEMS ON CONSENT? >> SO MOVED. >> A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> THERE'S A MOTION AND A  SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION,  INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. ANY AGAINST, INDICATE BY SAYING  NAY. AND ANY ABSTENTIONS? ONE ABSTENTION. SO THAT MOTION PASSES. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE HERE  FOR AGENDA NUMBER ITEMS 5, 7, OR 8, YOUR LAND USE REQUESTS ARE  APPROVED SO GOOD LUCK WITH YOU  PROJECTS. NOW MOVING ON TO TO THE  DISCUSSION ITEM, ITEM NUMBER SIX IS 401 33rd AVENUE NORTH. >> VICE CHAIR WANG AND BOARD  MEMBERS, BEFORE YOU ARE FOUR  APPLICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT 401 33rd AVENUE NORTH. THE SUBJECT SITE IS A CORNER  PARCEL AT 4th STREET NORTH AND  33RD AVENUE NORTH. THE SITE IS ZONED URBAN  NEIGHBORHOOD 1 AND INTERIOR 1  BUT FORM OVERLAY DISTRICTS. THERE IS AN EXISTING TWO-STORY,  TWO-FAMILY DWELLING ON THE  PROPERTY. ZONING STAFF VISITED THE  PROPERTY IN JULY OF 2024 AND  IDENTIFIED SEVERAL CODE  VIOLATIONS RELATED TO  IMPROVEMENTS THE PROPERTY OWNER  HAD MADE TO THE SITE. THE APPLICANT DECIDED TO PURSUE  VARIANCES TO LAWFULLY ESTABLISH  AND RETAIN THE NONCOMPLIANT  IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SITE. THESE ARE JUST SOME PHOTOSF  THE IMPROVEMENTS AS THEY RELATE  TO THE VARIANCES. SO THE FENCE, IMPERVIOUS  SURFACES, GROUND-LEVEL PATIO,  AND DRIVEWAY. THE FIRST VARIANCE IS TO  INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF A FENCE  IN THE REQUIRED FRONT-END CORNER SIDE YARDS FROM FOUR FEET TO SIX FEET. STAFF DO NOT FIND THAT  CHALLENGES CONSIST APPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE. THE PARCEL BEING A CORNER LOT IS NOT A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE TO THE SITE. THE SPIT AND INTENT OF THE  ORDINANCE REGULATING FENCE  HEIGHT IS TO ENCOURAGEN  AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT, TO ALLOW  FOR PRIVACY WHILE MAINTAINING  ACCESS TO LIGHT AND AIR AND TO  PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND  WELFARE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. E PROPOSED ORNAMENTAL FENCE  DESIGN IS GENERALLY IN KEEPING  WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF  THE ORDINANCE, HOWEVER THE  INCREASED HEIGHT AND LACK OF A  SETBACK FROM THE SIDEWALK DO NOT PRESERVE THE PEDESTRIAN  ENVIRONMENT AND THIS FINDING IS  NOT MET. STAFF DO NOT FIND THAT THE  PROPOSED VARIANCE WOULD NOT  ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY, NOR CREATE  POTENTIAL FOR INJURY OR  PROPERTY. THE SECOND VARIANCE IS TO  INCREASE THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS  SURFACE COVERAGE FROM 60% TO 89. STAFF DO NOT FIND CHALLENGES  EXIST WITH COMPLYING WITH THE  ORDINANCE. THE SMALLEST SIZE OF THE PARCEL  IS NOT A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE. THE PARCEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE  MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE DOES  NOT HINDER COMPLIANCE WITH THE  IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE. THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE  ORDINANCE IS TO COMBAT THE URBAN ISLAND HEAT EFFECT, PROVIDE  ADEQUATE SPACE FOR LANDSCAPING  AND REDUCE STORMWATER RUNOFF. THE ADDITIONAL PATIO  ENCROACHMENT WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE EXCESS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE  COVERAGE AND FAILS TO MEET THE  INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. STAFF FINDS THAT THIS WOULD  NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE HEALTH,  SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THOSE  UTILIZING NEARBY PROPERTIES IN  THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS  NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND LOCAL STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD BEAR THE BURDEN OF INCREASED  STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM THIS  SITE. THE THIRD VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM FRONTARD AND CORNER  SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR A  GROUND LEVEL PATIO TO 0 FEET,  STAFF DO NOT FIND CHALLENGES  CONSIST IN COMPLYING WITH THE  ORDINANCE RELATING OBSTRUCTIONS  IN REQUIRED YARDS. THE SITE HAS LITTLE TO NO CHANGE IN TOPOGRAPHY, AND THERE IS  BUILDABLEREA FOR A  GROUND-LEVEL PATIO TO THE REAR  OF THE BUILDING OR TO ESTABLISH  A GROUND-LEVEL PATIO OR DECK IN  COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAXIMUM SIZE FOR A PERMITTED OBSTRUCTION IN  THE REQUIRED FRO AND CORNER  SIDE YARDS. FOR GATHERING SPACES SUCH AS  PATIOS, BUFFERING IS  ACCOMPLISHED BY DISTANCING  IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE PROPERTY  LINE AND THERE IS NO SUCH BUFFER IN THIS INSTANCE. THE POTENTIAL FOR OFF SIT  IMPACTS IS INCREASED BY  ENOACHING WITHIN THE REQUIRED  YARD FOR GROUND-LEVEL PATIOS. THE FOURTH VARIANCE IS TO  INCREASE THE MAXIMUM WIDTH OF A  DRIVEWAY TO 22.6 FEET. STAFF DO NOT FIND CHALLENGES  EXIST IN COMPLYING WITH THE  ORDINANCE REGULATING DRIVEWAY  WIDTH. THE PARCEL IS UNENCUMBERED BY  STEEP SLOPES OR OTHER NATURAL F  DRIVEWAY SIZE. THERE IS SUFFICIENT ROOM TO  OVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING SPACE  ON A 20-FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY. THE REGULATIONS ARE INTENDED TO  AVOID CONFLICT WITH PARKING IN  RROUNDING AREAS SUCH AS THE  PEDESTRIAN REALM. THE INCREASE IN PAVEMENT WOULD  INCREASE SUCH CONFLICT. THE VARIANTS WILL ALTER THE  ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE  LOCALITY BY INCREASINGHE  PARKING AREA IMMEDIATELY  ADJACENT TO THE PARKING  RIGHOF-WAY AND TO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD OF THE PARCEL TO THE  SOUTH. THE WIDENED DRIVEWAY IS  PROMINENTLY VISIBLE FROM THE  PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS FINAL SLIDE DETAILS THE  FOUR VARIATIONS IN WHICH  FINDINGS HAVE BEEN MET OR NOT BY STAFF. WITH THAT, THE STAFF  RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING  BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS TO DENY  THE FOUR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION  AND I WILL STAND FOR ANY  QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FROM BOARD  MEMBERS? MS. GRANS KORSH. >> THANKS FOR YOUR REPORT. I AM CURIOUS HOW DID THIS COME  ABOUT THAT YOU JUST SHOWED UP AT THIS PROPERTY FROM JULY OF 2024? WAS THERE A CALL OFONCERN  BECAUSE WE HAVE AS I'VE NOTED  MANY TIMES ON THE PUBLIC RECORD, WE HAVE NUMEROUS FENCES THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE. SO I'M TRYINGO UNDERSTAND WHY  ALL OF A SUDDEN IN JULY OF 2024  STAFF ACTUALLY WENT THERE. >> YEAH, ZONING INSPECTION. STAFF VISITED THE PROPERTY AND  THERE WERE MULTIPLE CODE  VIOLATIONS IDENTIFIED BY THE  ZONING INSPECTION STAFF. I BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE CALLED  OUT THERE TO INSPECT THE  PROPERTY FOR A COMPLAINT  REGARDING POTENTIAL CODE  VIOLATIONS. >> ARE T CODE VIOLATIONS WHAT  WE'RE SEEING HERE OR THEY WERE OTHER BUILDING CODE -- >> WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE. >> SO WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE,  THERE WAS A CALL MADE AND THEN  STAFF RPONDED BY GOING TO THE  PROJECT? >> YEAH, AND MAYBE MR. ELLIS CAN PROVIDE MORE INPUT ON THE  PROCES IN WHICH ZONING  INSPECTION STAFF GO VISIT A  PROPERTY. >> THE INITIAL COMPLAINT WAS  FENCE IS TOO HIGH IN FRONT AND  SIDE YARDS AT THE CORNE  PROPERTY AND THAT WAS THE  COMPLAINT WE RECEIVED. BUT UPON VISITING THE SITE, THE  INECTOR NOTED ADDITIONAL  VIOLATIONS BEYOND THE INITIAL  COMPLAINT THAT WAS SUBMITTED VIA THE11 SYSTEM. >> THANK YOU, MR. ELLIS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR FOLLOW  UPS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? I SEE NONE. SO THANK YOU. LET'S OPEN THIS UP FOR THE  PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO GIVE THEIR  TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THIS  ALLOCATION? PLEASE COME ON UP. THANK YOU. AND JUST AS A REMINDER, MAKE  SURE YOU'RE SIGNED IN. >> YESMA'AM, I DID. >> INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND ALSO  YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE. >> YES, MY NAME IS CATHERINE  HILL. I'M THE OWNER OF 401 33rd AVENUE NORTH. IS IT OKAY IF I PASS THIS OUT TO YOU GUYS? THIS IS JUST SOME NOTES THAT I  MADE. >> YES, YOU CAN HAND IT TO THE  CLERK. >> THANK YOU. I'M NOT GOOD AT PUBLIC SPEAKING  SO BEAR WITH ME. WE DO HAVE A REVERSE CORNER LOT.  HAVE HAD VARIANCES APPROVED  IN THE PAST. AND WHEN WE WERE DOING THAT  PROCESS TO GET THOSE VARIANCES  APPROVED, WE WERE TOLD THAT OUR  PROPERTY QUALIFIES FOR VARIANCES BECAUSE OF IT BEING A REVERSE  CORNER LOT AND HOW SMALL IT IS WE WERE APPROVED IN THE PAST FOR A 20-FOOT CURB CUT. AND I JUST WANT TO LET YOU GUYS  KNOW THAT WE DID REMOVE THE TWO  EXTRA FEET FROM OUR DRIVEWAY. SO THAT PART HAS ALREADY BEEN  TAKEN CARE OF. SO THAT ROAD IS UP TO CODE. CURRENTLY WE HAVE A 12-FOOT CURB CUT AND IN THE WINTERTIME WHEN  IT'S ICE AND SNOW IT GETS  REALLY, REALLY NARROW WHERE WE  CAN BARELY GET OUR CARS IN AND  OUT. AND THEN WE CALLED 311 AND WE  ALSO SPOKE WITH CITY WORKERS W WERE REPLACING UNEVEN SIDEWALKS  AND THEY TOLD US THAT WE COULD  PUT ASPHALT ON BOTH SIDES OF OUR CURB CUTS BECAUSE WE HAVE A  REVERSE CORNER LOT, WE DON'T  HAVE ALLEY ACCESS. SO WE HAVE TO HAVE OUR GARBAGE  CANS IN THE FRONT AND IN THE  WINTERTIME, WE CAN'T KEEP IT  CLEAR WITHOUT IT BEING ABLE TO  SNOW BLOW IT. WE CAN'T SNOW BLOW GRASS. SO THEY TOLD USO GO AHEAD AND  DO THAT SO WE EVEN ASKED DO WE  NEED PERMITS, DO WE NEED  ANYTHING TO DO THIS. THEY SAID NO, YOU DON'T NEED  PERMITS, YOU CAN JUST GO AHEAD  AND DO IT. SO THAT'S WHAT WE DID. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE PAVERS  GO, WE WERE TOLD BY 311 THAT WE  DIDN'T EVEN NEED A PERMIT FOR  THAT BECAUSE IT WAS CONSIDERED  TO BE -- IT WASN'T CONSIDERED TO BE PERMANENT. BECAUSE IT CAN BE REMOVED. WE ALSO CALLED 311 ABOUT THE  MULCH. THEY ALSO SAID WE DON'T NEED A  PERMIT FOR THAT EITHER. SO IF WE DON'T NEED A PERMIT FOR THAT STUFF TO GET INSTALLED, HOW WOULD WE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT  NEEDING A VARIANCE FOR IT WHICH  IS WHY WE DIDN'T GO ABOUT  TTING ONE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T  KNOW. AND THEN THE COMPANY THAT BUILT  THE DECKS AND THE PATIOS, THEY  DIDN'T TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT  NEEDING A VARIANCE. THEY ACTUALLY SHOWED US, BECAUSE THEY WER THE ONES WHO DID THE  WINDOWS AND THEY REPLACED THE  ROOF AND THEY SHOWED US AERMIT FOR ALL OF THAT. AND AN INSPECTOR EVEN CAME AND  STOPPED THEM AND ASKED THEM TO  SEE THE PERMIT AND THEY SHOWED  THEM. AND THE INSPECTOR SAID GO AHEAD  AND FINISH. SO WE DIDN'T KNO ANYTHING ABOUT NEEDING A VARIANCE FOR US EITHER BECAUSE THEY SHOWED US THE  PERMIT. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE FENCES G  MOTHER-IN-LAW HERE THAT SHE HAS  A BRAIN INJURY FIRST OF ALL,  SHE'S A VULNERABLE ADULT. SHE HAS MENTAL ISSUES, SHE GOES  TO SHOCK TREATMENT ONCE OR TCE A WEEK DEPENDING ON HOW SHE'S  DOING THAT WEEK. AND SO THE FENCE HEIGHT IS FOR  HER SAFETY BECAUSE AT HER  PREVIOUS ADDRESS BEFORE SHE  MOVED IN WITH US, THERE WAS A  FENCE OF FOUR FEET THERE AND SHE WOULD CLIMB OR THAT AND GO  ROAMING AROUND THE CITY OR NOT  THE CITY BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SHE'S ACTUALLY BEFORE WE HAD THE FENCES PUT UP, WE FOUND HER  45 MINUTES LATER AFTER WE WERE SEARCHING AROUND. SHE WAS IN OUR NEIGHBOR'S GARAGE GOING THROUGH OUR NEIGHBOR'S  STF. AND OUR NEIGHBOR WAS LIKE IT'S  OKAY, I KNOW SHE DOESN'T MEAN  ANY HARM BY IT. AND THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER DAY  WHERE IT TOOK US AN HOUR AND A  HALF TO FIND HER AND SHE WAS  LIKE 2 OR 3 BLOCKS OVER. SO IT'S FOR HER SAFETY THAT WE  HAVE THE FENCE HEIGHT BECAUSE  LIKE I SAID SHE CAN CLIMB OVER  THE FOUR FEET. I OW SHE DOESN'T LOOK LIKE SHE CAN, BUT SHE CAN. BUT EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE DON TO THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN DONE  FOR AT LEAST THREE YEARS. SO I THINK IT'S KIND O FUNNY  THAT THREE YEARS, FOUR YEARS  LATER, FIVE YEARS LATER PEOPLE  WANT TO CALL NOW ABOUT IT WHEN  WE'VE GOTTEN SO MANY COMPLIMENTS THROUGHOUT THOSE YEARS. WE GET THEM ALL THE TIME ABOUT  HOW GOOD THE PROPERTY LOOKS AND  HOW MUCH WE'VE DONE TO IMPROVE  IT. LIKE THERE'S A CHURCH UP THE  STREET FROM IT AND ALL OF THE  CHURCH MEMBERS EVERY TIME WE  TALK TO THEM, THEY ARE  COMPMENTING US ON WHAT A GREAT JOB WE'VE DONE. AND SOVERYTHING WE'VE DONE HAS BEEN TO HELP THE SAFETY OF OUR FAMILY AND OUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY THAT HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN THE GREATEST AREA OVER  THERE. AND IN FACT WE'RE STILL DEALING  WITH STUFF OVER THERE. WE'RE BEING LIKE THE WHAT DO YOU CALL IT, NIGHT WATCH PEOPLE. WE'RE OUT THERE WITH A  FLASHLIGHT SHINING IT ON PEOPLE  THAT ARE TRYING TO SELL DRUGS IN OUR AREA. BUT EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE DONE,  IT'S BEEN FOR THE SAFETY OF THE  FAMILY AND THE COMMUNITY AND  ALSO TO HELP BRING OUR AREA'S  BEAUTY OUT. BECAUSE IT IS A BEAUTIFUL AREA,  BUT UNFORTUNATELY THERE'S QUITE  A FEW PROPERTIES THAT HA LET  IT GO. AND SO WE'RE JUST DOING WHAT WE  CAN TO IMPROVE OUR AREA. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. CAN YOU STA THERE FOR A SECOND  IF BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY  QUESTIONS. >> YEAH, I WANT TO BE REALLY  CLEAR ON SOMETHING. SO FOR THE VARIANCE D, YOU'VE  ALREADY TAKEN OUT THAT 2-FOOT OF DRIVEWAY THAT'S IN QUESTION. >> YES, MA'AM. >> SO AT SOME POINT, I NEED TO  UNDERSTAND DO WE STILL VOTE ON  THAT ISSUE? BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY TAKEN CARE  . >> BRAD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHED  SOME LIGHT O THAT? >> CHAIR WANG, BOARD MEMBER  GRANS KORSH, YOU WOULD STILL  NEED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION,  IN THE EVENT THAT THE BOARD OF  ADJUSTMENT GRANTS THE VARIATION, THEY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO  THEN EXPAND IT AGAIN. SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO, THEN YOU  COULD. IFDENIED, THEY WOULD ALREADY BE IN COMPLIANCE AND THERE WOULD  NOT BE ANY ENFORCEMENT NEEDHEN AN INSPECTOR WENT OUT. SO YOU SHOULD STILL TAKE A VOTE. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. >> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO  WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT  OF THIS ITEM? THAT'S OKAY. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO -- OH  SHE'S COMING. ALL RIGHT. >> HELLO. MY NAME IS DEBORAH. I HAD SURGERY ON MY LEFT FOOT. I'VE FALLEN DOWN. BUT THE SURGERY HELPED ME. >> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SAY? >> I PRAY IN THE NAME OF JESUS  CHRIST AND GOD ALMIGHTY, HELP ME GET THROUGH THE DAY. >> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY ABOUT THE HOUSE? >> I HAVE --  >> DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY  QUESTIONS FOR HER? >> DO WE HAVE ANY FOLLOW-UP  QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR  TESTIMONY. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO WOULD  LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS IT? I'M SEEING THAT THERE I NONE. I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC  STIMONY HEARING. WOULD BOARD MEMBERS LIKE TO  COMMENT? ANY BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS OR  TIONS? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> IF I MIGHT, I HAVE ALWAYS  BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THIS 6-FOOT REQUIREMENT AND I WILL  CONSISTENTLY VOTE AGAINST IT  BECAUSE IEEL THAT THEY ARE  DOING WHAT IS APPROPRIATE IN AN  AREA THAT HAS BEEN HIT BY CRIME, BUT PLUS THEIR OWN INTERNAL  SITUATIONS TO BRING IT DOWN TO  FOUR FEET I ACTUALLY CAN SEE  WHERE THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM. MY QUESTION IS THOUGH IS THAT  CAN WE DO A TEMPORY VARIANCE  OF SOME SORT? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT A VARIANCE  GOES WITH THE PROPERTY, RIGHT? BUT I'M SAYING THAT IN THE  FUTUREF THEY SOLD THE  PROPERTY, COULD WE THEN COME  BACK AND INVESTIGATE THIS PIECE? >> VICE CHAIR WANG, BOARD  MEMBER, UNFORTUNATELY NO. VARIANCE RUNS WITH THE PROPERTY  AND IIS PERMANENT REGARDLESS. I BELIEVE THERE HAS BEEN A COURT CASE SAYING YOU CAN'T LIMIT THE  TIME OF A VARIANCE, THAT IT  WOULD RUN PERMANENTLY. >> THANK YOU. AND THEN MR. ELLIS, I DO HAVE A  FOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR  DISABILITY ZONING AND PARKING,  DOES THAT IMPACT HOW WE VIEW  THIS AS WELL? >> VICE CHAIR WANG, COULD YOU  ELABORATE A LTLE BIT OR BE  MORE SPECIFIC? I THINK YOU MEAN A PARKING AREA  OUT FRONT? >> YES. >> TT WOULD BE IF THERE WAS A  PARKING AREA OUT FRONT, YOU  WOULD GO THROUGH PUBLIC WORKS IN ORDER TO GET THE HANDICAP ZONES  THAT YOU WILL SEE ON THAT END  YOU C JUST DEMONSTRATE THAT  FOR PUBLIC WORKS AND THEY'RE  ABLE TO DO THAT. I THINK THEY HAVE A SMALL FEE  ASSOCIATED WITH INSTALLING THE  SIGNS, BUT THEN THEY'RE THE  DURING THAT TIME. THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY IMPACT ANYTHING ON THE PROPERTY, SO I  DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S AN  ADDITIONAL FOLLOW-UP OR  DISCUSSION RELATED TO THAT? >> THANK YOU. THAT WAS WHAT I WAS CURIOUS  ABOUT. ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR A MOTION? YES? MR. INGRAHAM. >> I RECALL WE HAVE ONE OF THESE BACK IN THE DAY WHERE WE WERE  TALKING ABOUT ADA COMPLIANCE AND THINGS LIKETHAT, AND HOW WE  REALLY COULDN'T TAKE THAT INTO  ACCOUNT. AND SO BASED ON THAT AND THE  FACT THAT IT GOES WITH THE PROPERTY IN PERPETUITY, I DON'T  SEE ANYTHING WITH THE LOT  SPECIFICALLY THAT WOULD GRANT  THESE VARIANCES. UNFORTUNATELY. >> THANK YOU, MR. INGRAHAM. D JUST AS A REMINDER FOR THE  PUBLIC AND BOARD MEMBERS AS  WELL, WE DO HAVE TO FIND FOR  THREE LEGAL FINDINGS. AND ONEHING THAT MR. INGRAHAM  HAD MENTIONED TOO IS ADA  COMPLIANCE AND BEING ABLE TO  ACCOUNT F THESE  ACCOMMODATIONS. SO WOULD ANY BOARD MEMBERS LIKE  TO MAKE A MOTION OR ANY  ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? YES. >> MY COMMENT IS THAT THE  APPLICANT HAS SAID THAT THEY'VE  CALLED 311 SEVERAL TIMES AND  THAT THEY HAD SOMEONE PULL A  PERMIT TO DO THE WORK AND SO  IT'S CONCERNING THAT IT SEEMS  LIKE IT FELL THROUGH THE CRACKS  OR IT'S BEEN THREE YEARS,  BECAUSE IT SEE LIKE IT WOULD  BE THE RIGHT THING TO DO TO SEEK INFORMATION AND GET AN ANSWER  AND YOU DO SOMETHING AND TO BE  TOLD LATER THAT IT WAS INCORRECT OR YOU'VE BEEN MISLED. THAT BEING SAID, I DON'T HAVE A  SPECIFIC REASON TO DO WITH THE  LOT ITSELF AS TO WHY THE  VARIANCES SHOULD BE APPROVED. I COULDN'T FIND FOR THAT. I THINK THE KIND OF LOT THAT IT  IS, IT SEE LIKE THE CODE IS  STILL MAKING ALLOWANCES FOR THE  SPECIFIC KIND OF LOT HAS ITS OWN RULES AND EVEN THOSE RULES DON'T ALLOW FOR T VARIANCES THAT ARE REQUESTED. AND THEN THE CHALLENGES EXIST IN COMPLYING. THE REASONABLE MANNER AND USE. AND SPECIFICLTERING ESSENTIAL  CHARACTER. I THINK THE ALTERING OF  ESSENTIAL CHARACTER, I COULD BE  IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S FITTING INTO  THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT'S  PROVIDING THE ACCESS THEY NEED  TO GET TO THEIR PARKING AND  THINGS OF THAT NATURE. BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT I COULD  FIND FOR ALL THREE FINDINGS TO  APPROVE THE VARIANCE. >> THANK YOU, BOARDMEMBER  SMRIKAROVA. BOARDMEMBERS, ANY OTHER  COMMENTS? WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A  MOTION? >> I'LL MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF  FINDINGS. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A SECOND. WILL THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL,  PLEASE. >> BOARDMEMBER CALLAHAN. >> AYE. >> EICHOLZ. >> AYE. >> GRANS KORSH. >> IN CASE OF AN APPEAL I AM  CERTAINLY GOING TO VOTE NO. >> INGRAHAM. >> AYE. >> SMRIKAROVA. >> AYE.  THERE ARE FOUR AYES AND ONE  NAY. >> SO THAT MOTION PASSES IN  FAVOR OF STAFF FINDINGS. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND TALKING TO  STAFF ON NEXT STEPS. THOSE ARE ALL OF THE COMPLETED  AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE DIFFERENT  DISCUSSION TOPICS. SO FOR UPDATES, MR. ELLIS, ARE  THERE ANY PETITIONS O  COMMUNICATIONS, NEW BUSINESS? >> VICE CHAIR WANG, THERE IS NEW BUSINESS. THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING WILL  INCLUDE ELECTIONS SO WE SHOULD  TAKE NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR AND  VICE CHAIR AT THIS MEETING. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. IN THAT CASE, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A NOMINATION FOR CHAIR TO NOMINATE CHAIR PERRY AGAIN. IS THAT SUFFICIENT, BRAD? >> YES, THANK YOU. >> WE HAVE COMPLETED ALL OF THE  ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS  MEETING. ARE THERE ANY OTHER MATTERS THAT NEED TO COME BEFORE THIS MEETING FO BOARD MEMBERS OR STAFF? OTHERWISE KNOW OUR NEXT MEETI  WILL BE ON FEBRUARY 6, 2025. AND IS THERE A MOTION TO  ADJOURN? >>O MOVED. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION  PLEASE SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.