►
From YouTube: November 12, 2020 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
Good
afternoon,
everyone
welcome
to
this
live
broadcast
of
our
virtual
meeting
today
november
12
2020..
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
is
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
and
I'll
call
this
meeting
to
order
and
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role
so
that
we
may
verify
the
presence
of
quorum.
F
A
F
B
Thank
you.
Let
the
record
show
we
have
quorum
with
that,
we'll
proceed
to
our
agenda,
a
copy
of
which
was
posted
for
public
access
to
the
city's
legislative
information
management
system
available
at
limbs.
That's.
I
F
F
E
K
G
H
B
C
L
F
D
B
F
H
B
Let's
talk
about
our
2021
calendar,
I
believe
all
the
board
members
have
seen
a
copy
of
the
proposed
2021
zoning
board
of
adjustment
calendar
to
get
the
discussion
to
get
discussion
going.
Can
I
have
a
motion
to
to
approve
the
calendar.
B
Is
there
any
discussion
on
this,
usually
I'll
I'll,
just
say
now?
Usually
we
hold
over
for
a
meeting
to
have
board
members
be
able
to
take
a
longer
look
at
it,
but
we
have
an
item
that
is
asking
to
be
continued
into
january
and
so
we'll
need
a
date
from
the
january
from
the
2021
calendar.
So
I'd
like
to
pursue
and
actually
vote
on
this
tonight,
if
anybody's
wondering
why
we're
doing
something
a
little
bit
differently
than
before.
C
E
A
B
You
that
I
I
will
also
note
that
I
am
an
eye
for
the
calendar
vote.
My
apologies
yep,
so
that
motion
passes
and
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment
2021
calendar
is
approved.
Mr
ellis,
are
there
any
petitions
or
communications.
N
B
B
So
let's
go
through
the
land
use
requests
and
the
recommended
dispositions
agenda.
Item
number
six
is
728
eighth
avenue
southeast
the
applicant
is
asking
this
item
be
continued
until
our
third
2020
meeting.
We
can
discuss
this
more
when
we
review
requested
continuances
agenda
item
number
seven
is
2007
27
or
22nd
avenue.
South.
B
This
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consensus
or
anyone
to
speak
against
this
item.
B
B
I'm
hearing
no
one
agenda.
Item
number
nine
is
2744
stevens
avenue.
This
is
a
discussion
item
agenda
item
number
10
is
5117
harriet
avenue
this
isn't
a
discussion
item,
but
please
note
there
are
several
various
requests
with
this
item.
The
variant's
request
to
reduce
the
established
front
yard
setback
from
90.8
feet
to
26.4
feet
is
being
withdrawn
and
approval
of
the
agenda
acknowledges
this
and
no
further
action
is
required
by
the
board
agenda.
Item
number
11
is
5116
vincent
avenue.
South.
B
B
Okay,
let's
review
items
on
the
agenda
for
consent.
They
are
items
seven
and
eight.
Is
there
a
motion
to
adopt
these
items
on
consent
so
mo
femaleson.
B
B
Items
that
are
being
considered
for
continuance
the
first
one
is
item
number
six
agenda
item
number
six.
This
is
728
eighth
avenue,
south
east
and
the
applicant
is
requesting.
This
item
be
continued
until
the
december
3rd
2020
zoning
board
of
adjustment
meeting,
which
is
one
cycle,
could
staff
give
a
brief
background
and
why
the
request.
P
Thank
you,
chairperry
members
of
the
board
in
discussion
with
the
applicant
after
they
received
the
notice
that
we
were
going
to
recommend
denial
of
the
variance
for
the
height
and
the
variance
for
parking
was
determined
that
they
could
make
some
minor
modifications
to
the
plans
to
no
longer
require
those
variances.
So
because
they're
going
to
be
revising
the
plans,
it's
prudent
to
continue
the
item.
One
cycle.
B
B
I
don't
see
any
so
is
there
anyone
here
who
would
like
to
speak
in
favor
of
the.
B
B
I
see
no
board
comment.
Is
there
a
motion
to
continue
the
land
use
request
for
5116
vincent
avenue
south
to
our
december
3rd
2020
meeting.
B
F
E
K
B
So
the
motion
passes,
and
that
means
that
this
item,
this
land
use
application
for
728
8th
avenue
southeast
will
be
continued
one
cycle
to
our
december
3rd
2020
zoning
board
of
adjustment
meeting.
We
have
one
other
item
that
is
being
there's
a
request
by
the
applicant
to
continue
it
and
they're,
asking
it
to
be
continued
until
mid-january
would
step.
Please
provide
a
background
on
the
request
for
the
continuance
of
this
item.
Q
Q
That
was
actually
a
previous
property
owner
had
that
prepared
and
that
copy
is
from
the
city's
records
during
review
and
approval
and
the
inspection
process
for
the
the
structures
on
this
property.
But
the
applicants
for
this
variance
item
before
uf5116
vincent
avenue
south
are
actually
new
property
owners
and
they
staff
agreed
to
share
those
approved
plans
and
and
the
as
built
survey
for
the
purposes
of
this
variance
application.
Q
But
after
this
item
was
scheduled
to
be
heard
at
tonight's
hearing,
the
applicants
requested
that
this
item
be
continued,
so
that
they
could
have
enough
time
to
have
their
own
survey
prepared
and
submitted
as
part
of
their
application
materials
at
the
time
that
staff
prepared
the
the
memo
to
the
board
describing
this.
This
is
earlier
today.
The
the
2021
zoning
board
of
adjustment
hearing
calendar
had
not
been
finalized,
which
is
why
that
memo
contains
the
a
general
recommendation
that
this
be
continued
to
december
3rd
howard.
Q
The
2021
hearing
calendar
has
since
been
approved
earlier
this
meeting,
so
the
board
could
could
choose
to
continue
it
to
a
later
hearing.
B
Yeah
is
the
are
you
speaking
on
behalf
of
mr
kohlhaus?
Is
the
applicant
on
the
phone
or
are
you
speaking
on
behalf?
Do
you
have
knowledge
of
what
date
would
be?
Okay,
I'm
thinking
january
21st,
meeting.
Q
Chair
perry,
members
of
the
board,
I
can't
speak
specifically
for
the
applicants.
I
believe
they
are
on
the
line
as
to
a
specific
date
in
in
january,
but
they
did
say
they
expected
early
to
mid
january.
I
believe
is
the
is
the
phrasing
that
they
used.
R
M
B
So
is
there
a
motion
to
continue
the
land
use
request,
for
I
should
ask:
is
anyone
to
speak
in
favor
continuing
this
item
sounds
like
the
applicant
is
okay
with
continuing
this
item
to
the
21st?
B
B
It's
moved
and
seconded
will
the
is
there
any
discussion
seeing
none
will
the
clerk?
Please
call
the
role.
C
G
F
B
So
that
motion
passes
and
the
land
use
application
for
5116
vincent
avenue
south
will
be
continued
three
cycles
to
the
january
21st
2021
zoning
board
of
adjustment
meeting.
Let's
move
on
to
our
discussion
items.
S
S
S
There
are
some
low
density,
single
and
multiple
family
residential
uses
on
stevens
avenue,
as
well
as
medium
and
high
density
residential,
including
several
apartment
buildings
and
institutional
and
commercial
uses
as
well.
In
the
surrounding
area,
interstate
35w
is
located
roughly
500
square
feet.
Excuse
me,
500
feet
to
the
east
and
two
blocks:
west
is
nikola
avenue,
goods
and
services
corridor
and
the
eat
street
area,
which
includes
a
high
density
of
restaurant,
uses.
S
S
The
proposal
does
meet
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance.
A
private
outdoor
space
for
use
by
properties
residents
is
a
reasonable
use
of
the
property.
The
intent
of
zoning
regulations
regarding
fences
is
to
promote
public
health,
self
safety
and
welfare,
encourage
an
aesthetic
environment,
but
also
to
allow
for
privacy
while
maintaining
access
to
light
and
air.
S
The
proposed
variants
would
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
nor
be
injurious
to
the
use
of
the
property,
nearby
properties
or
the
public
right-of-way.
The
fence
proposed
on
the
subject.
Property
would
not
directly
but
the
public
sidewalk,
so
it
would
not
be
detrimental
to
the
health,
safety
or
welfare
of
the
general
public
or
of
those
utilizing
the
property
nearby
properties
or
of
the
right-of-way
itself.
B
B
It
looks
like
we
have
one
person
in
queue
on
the
phone
for
the
public
hearing,
and
that
is
the
applicant
katie
clare,
ms
claire.
If
you
want
to
press
stair
six
to
unmute
your
phone,
you
can
give
a
your
testimony.
T
All
right
hello
and
thank
you
for
hearing
this
today,
yeah
in
this
property.
T
What
we
disagree
with
is
that
there
are
practical
difficulties
that
exist
in
complying
with
the
ordinance,
mainly
that
the
previous
owners
have
taken
all
of
the
back
offset
yard
and
turned
it
into
a
driveway
space,
so
that
is
now
blacktop
and
all
of
the
mature
trees
that
we
had
that
separated
our
side
lot
from
oncoming
or
traffic
in
that
line
have
since
been
removed
either
by
the
city
or
due
to
storm
damage
over
the
previous
last
year,
because
we
are
up
on
a
slope
and
we
are
next
to
a
very
busy
intersection
that
is
satellite
regulated.
T
We
constantly
have
traffic
that
is
staring
basically
right
into
our
yard,
with
nowhere
to
go
to
escape
that
a
couple
other
things
worth
mentioning
in
that
we
do
have
heavy
foot
traffic
on
stevenson.
28Th
is
that
we
have
had
several
instances
of
people
wandering
into
our
yard
that
were
not
did
not
appear
to
be
a
found
mind
and
have
woken
up
to
strangers,
either
pass
out
or
sleeping
in
our
yard
or
our
deck
furniture
rearranged.
T
B
Okay,
any
anything
else
you'd
like
to
share.
T
Those
are
my
main
points
that
I
wanted
to
bring
to
attention.
Okay,.
B
K
Thank
you,
chair
perry,
so
I
just
to
understand
again
the
traffic
on
28th
street
here,
if
I'm,
if
I'm
seeing
this
correctly
and
and
I
think
there
may
be
some
old
photos
that
were
included
in
the
staffs
in
the
staffs
presentation
and
the
packet
was
given
to
us
it's
currently
for
for
auto
traffic,
it's
a
one-way
moving
west
to
east
across
this
property.
K
There
is
a
bike
lane
that's
designated
and
set
aside
to
the
south
on
28th,
allowing
for
two
specific
lanes
of
auto
traffic,
and
there
is
an
opposite
direction.
Bus
lane,
traveling
on
this
traveling
from
east
to
west,
is
that
an
accurate
depiction
of
the
traffic
pattern
on
the
street.
T
B
I
have
a
question
miss
claire,
so
you,
I
think
by
right
can
build
an
opaque
fence
up
to
four
feet
tall.
Why
is
some?
Why
isn't
something
like
that
workable
for
you,
you,
don't
you
wouldn't
require
a
variance
to
to
put
something
like
that
up.
T
Yes,
which
we
did
consider,
but
since
we
are
on
a
bit
of
that
slope,
well,
it
would
block
people
from
looking,
I
believe,
directly
at
us.
It
wouldn't
do
anything
to
mitigate
sound
or
obstruct
our
view
of
the
constant
traffic.
We
also
do
have
a
dog
that
is
a
bit
larger
and
we're
you
know
we're
just
not
sure
with
like
pass
or
buyers.
If
that
would
be
enough
to
block
her
from
seeing
all
the
action
going
on.
B
B
I
see
none,
thank
you
for
your
testimony.
Is
there
anyone
else
in
the
queue
to
talk?
Doesn't
look
like
it,
and
so
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
board.
B
I
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
believe
the
applicant
miss
claire
has
stated
some
unique
characteristics
of
this
property:
the
amount
of
traffic.
The
fact
that
it's
with
the
stoplight
now
is
stop
and
go
traffic
tends
to
intrude
on
any
ability
to
have
privacy
in
that
yard.
I
The
fact
that
what
space
in
that
yard
has
been
changed
over
the
years,
not
at
the
fault
of
the
property
owner
in
an
area
that
would
give
them
outdoor
space,
I
think,
is
also
a
unique
characteristic
of
this
property.
So
I'm
tending
to
agree
that
the
variant
should
be
granted.
But
I'd
like
to
hear
from
other
board
members.
M
B
B
I
am
seeing
I'm
hearing
and
seeing
no
second
so
that
motion
I'm
sorry,
mr
ogiba,
do
you
have
a
comment
on
the
motion.
K
Sorry,
chair
perry,
I
I
jumped
the
gun
out.
You
could
finish
your
statement.
I
and
I
have
a
comment
separate
after
after
completing
this.
B
K
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
actually
would
would
echo
the
comments
of
my
fellow
fellow
board
members,
sandberg
and
wood.
I
I
drove
through
this
area
around
this
time
last
night
and
my
best
description
of
the
the
area
on
the
property
is,
it
felt
very
exposed,
both
with
the
the
backing
of
traffic,
the
the
movement
of
traffic
and
the
backing
of
traffic
that
happens
at
at
that
particular
intersection.
So,
while
I'm
I'm
typically
not
a
big
fan
of
of
fencing
is
as
an
alternative,
it
certainly
seemed
like.
K
I
can
understand
the
applicant's
position
and
I
can
understand
the
uniqueness
of
this
particular
area
and
this
particular
lot
and
how
it
sits
specific
to
the
traffic
patterns
along
along
28th,
its
proximity
to
the
other
commercial
districts,
as
well
as
the
greenway,
then
adding
some
potential
pedestrian
traffic
through
to
that
area.
Just
increases
that
what
I
could
see
as
a
desire
and
a
need
for
for
fencing
in
there.
K
So
I
would
actually,
notwithstanding
staff's
recommendation,
would
like
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
variants
as
applied
for
by
the
applicant
saying
the
practical
difficulties
that
I
just
stated
as
well.
As
stated
by
board
member
sandberg
and
then
using
the
finding
supporting
of
both
points,
two
and
three
that
the
staff
has
found
for
this
particular
variance.
H
K
F
E
M
B
And
so
that
motion
passes
miss
claire
your
land
use
request
is
approved.
Good
luck
with
your
project.
S
S
S
You
can
see
the
surrounding
area
is
generally
developed
with
low
density
uses,
primarily
single
family
dwellings,
on
large
lots
and
just
north
east
of
the
property
that
is
the
washburn
park
water
tower,
which
is
on
the
national
register
of
historic
places
for
the
city
of
minneapolis
next
slide.
Please.
S
On
the
left
hand,
side
of
this
slide
are
street
view
images
of
the
property
as
viewed
from
harriet
avenue.
So
this
would
be
the
view
of
the
front
facade
of
the
home
and
the
existing
detached
garage
on
the
upper
right
hand.
Side
of
the
slide
you
can
see
where
high
view
place
actually
dead
ends
adjacent
to
the
subject
site.
S
S
The
proposed
project
includes
approximately
800
square
feet
of
patio
areas,
a
62
square
foot,
in-ground
swimming
pool,
some
new
walkways
and
steps
leading
to
the
existing
detached
garage
and
access
to
the
public,
sidewalk,
and
then
retaining
walls
are
proposed
for
this
project
to
create
two
levels
of
flat
lawn
space.
Some
landscaping
and
fencing
modifications
are
also
proposed.
S
S
In
this
case,
the
developable
area
of
this
parcel
is
located
in
between
those
two
dashed
red
lines
to
construct.
The
project
as
proposed
the
applicant
tonight
is
seeking
variances
to
the
established
front
yard
setback
for
the
in-ground
swimming
pool
for
a
patio
that
exceeds
100
square
feet
and
for
retaining
walls
that
do
not
maintain
natural
grade.
S
Next
slide,
please
for
the
first
variance
for
the
in-ground
swimming
pool.
Practical
difficulties
do
exist
in
complying
with
the
ordinance
due
to
the
circumstances
unique
to
the
property.
S
Staff
does
not
find
the
proposed
variance
to
be
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
comprehensive
plan
or
the
ordinance
construction
of
an
in-ground
pool
would
detract
from
the
physical
environment.
It
would
disrupt
the
traditional
built
form
of
front
yards
which
are
unobstructed
with
accessory
uses
being
located
to
the
sides
or
to
the
rear
of
the
principal
structure,
and
it
would
be
considered
disorderly
development
in
the
opinion
of
staff.
S
S
For
the
second
variance
for
patios
exceeding
100
square
feet,
staff
has
made
similar
findings.
Practical
difficulties
do
exist
as
the
through
lot
greatly
reduces
buildable
area,
and
the
wooded
and
sloped
terrain
continues
to
exist
on
site
staff
does
not
find
the
proposed
variance
to
be
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
comprehensive
plan
or
the
ordinance
construction
of
a
patio
of
this
size,
which
is
over
700
square
feet.
S
S
S
The
caveat
to
that
being
should
the
sole
purpose
of
the
retaining
walls
be
for
allowing
development
of
additional
improvements.
Then
the
retaining
walls
would
not
meet
the
intent
of
code
as
they
would
be
facilitating
disorderly
development,
so
the
proposed
retaining
walls
only
for
their
use
in
creating
open
space
would
also
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
and
would
not
have
a
visual
impact
on
those
utilizing
nearby
properties.
S
The
proposed
variants
would
not
be
detrimental
to
the
health,
safety
or
welfare
of
the
general
public
or
of
those
utilizing
the
property
or
nearby
properties,
so,
as
such
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
this
variance
application
next
slide,
please
so,
as
mentioned
in
the
beginning
of
the
presentation,
the
applicant
has
withdrawn
their
application
for
a
variance
to
reduce
the
required
front
yard
from
90.8
feet
to
26.4
feet
for
the
construction
of
a
sport
court.
M
M
What
to
what
I'll
call
the
backyard
of
the
home,
I'm
a
little
confused
as
to
why
that
variance
doesn't
stand
on
its
own,
given
that
they
would
need
a
variance
for
the
patio
and
the
variance
for
the
patio
or
in
that
pool.
Notwithstanding
a
retaining
wall.
S
Thank
you,
chairperry
members
of
the
board,
so
staff
felt
that,
on
its
own,
the
retaining
walls
were
appropriate
for
increasing
the
amount
of
usable,
open
space,
the
rear
yard
or
the
second
front
yard.
In
the
through
lot
adjacent
to
hill
view,
place
does
have
a
small
amount
of
usable
space.
S
However,
it
does
not
have
a
large
amount
of
backyard
space,
and
so
the
primary
open
space
is
in
the
primary
front
of
the
home
adjacent
to
harriet
avenue,
so
staff
felt
that
it
does
meet
the
intent
of
the
ordinance
to
permit
open
space,
retaining
walls
to
create
just
a
little
bit
more
flat.
Usable
space
is
an
appropriate
use.
S
However,
when
the
retaining
walls
are
for
the
sole
purpose
of
creating
additional
developable
area
so
for
accessory
uses
for
accessory
structures
for
a
pool
or
a
sport
court,
then
we
are
moving
into
territory
where
staff
does
not
feel
that
they're
meeting
the
intent
of
the
ordinance.
Does
that
answer
your
question.
M
That
does
help.
Yes,
thank
you
very
much
and
if
I
might
add
a
second
question
separate
from
this
first
one,
but
given
that
this
is
a
through
lot,
would
we
have?
Would
the
city
have
any
problem
with
the
pool
or
with
the
patio
assuming
this
was
a
traditional.
S
If
this
were
a
typical
rear
yard,
the
pool
and
the
patio
would
not
be
an
issue
so
long
as
they
were
within
the
they
maintained
the
side
and
rear
yard
setbacks.
Excuse
me.
S
With
the
unusable
through
lot
space,
we
did
speak
with
the
applicant
about
whether
or
not
they
would
be
willing
to
move
some
of
those
spaces
closer
to
the
sides
or
towards
the
second
front
yard.
That's
along
hillview
place
and
staff
may
have
supported
something
that
was
closer
to
using
those
side
and
what
functions
as
the
rear
yard.
In
this
case,.
S
B
B
U
Yes,
can
you
hear
me.
B
U
Okay,
mr
chair
members
of
the
board,
I
appreciate
the
time
and
effort
the
zoning
staff
and
the
zoning
board
put
towards
reviewing
our
request
prior
to
responding
to
the
specificity
of
the
staff's
finding
with
regard
to
the
variance
criteria
and
the
staff
recommendations,
I
think
would
be
useful
to
talk
through
just
give
some
context
to
the
overall
layout
of
the
property
as
well.
U
I
want
to
address
specifically
some
of
the
questions
about
sort
of
the
space
between
our
home
and
high
view
place
and
emphasize
that
you
know
the
slope
behind
our.
What
is
behind
our
house
is
such
that
when
you
stand
on
high
view,
you
are
actually
above
the
second
story
of
our
house
and
that
change
in
elevation
occurs
in
you
know
approximately
10
feet
so
you're
talking
about
an
extremely
steep
slope.
U
U
You
know
13
14
foot
high,
retaining
wall
to
even
have
any
any
level
space,
so
I
think
there's
just
just
one
piece
to
address
that
initial
question.
Additionally,
I
don't
know
if
it's
possible
to
see
some
of
the
photographs
that
I
had
sent
in
that
are
more
current,
but
there's
significant
instructions
within
the
front
yards
along
all
of
the
five
properties
that
abut
harriet
avenue
on
our
block
to
our
to
our
south.
U
It's
a
heavily
wooded
property
that
completely
obstructs
the
view
of
that
home
it.
It
also
has
approximately
12
to
15
foot
brick
wall,
brick,
retaining
wall
that
fully
encloses
the
yard
behind
that
house
on
the
corner.
There's
a
house
that
is
literally
built
sort
of
sitting
directly,
probably
10
feet
away,
10
or
15
feet
away
from
harriet
avenue
to
our
north
there's
a
home
that
has
that
is
also
set
back
like
ours,
approximately
90
feet
back
from
harriet
avenue,
but
right
on
harriet
avenue.
U
There's
there
is
wooding
that
obscures
and
obstructs
the
view
of
that
home
additionally,
on
the
first
home
to
the
north
on
that
block
also,
is
heavily
wooded
and
obstructs
the
view
of
the
home.
So
I
do
think
just
some
some
additional
information
about
the
the
information
in
our
yard,
and
I
think
now
you
can
see
some
of
the
photographs
that
showed
us,
and
it's
also
important
to
know
that
the
designation
of
precisely
where
our
front
yard
setback
line
is
drawn
is
highly
unusual.
U
Our
property
setback
line
is
dependent
upon
a
building
corner
on
the
adjacent
property
that
is
also
technically
a
through
lot,
but
whose
building
does
not
actually
face
harriet
avenue
and
actually
faces
high
view,
and
so
it
the
the
through
line
drawn,
actually
bisects
our
whole
home
rather
than
running
along
the
front
of
the
home.
Where,
if
you
were
to
take
a
parallel
line
with
harriet
avenue,
all
of
the
patio
and
pool
area
would
be
situated
that
we're
proposing
would
be
situated
in
the
side
yard
of
our
of
our
yard,
not
in
the
front
yard.
U
With
regard
to
the
first
variance
related
to
the
pool,
obviously
we
we
agree
with
staff's
analysis
with
regard
to
factor
one
for
the
variance
regarding
practical
difficulties
with
regard
to
factor
two
regarding
the
reasonable
manner,
that's
keeping
with
the
spirit
intent
of
the
ordinance.
U
The
staff
findings
identify
that
the
spirit
of
the
intent
of
the
setback
ordinance
is
to
create
orderly
development,
protect
residential
character
and
ensure
access
to
light.
Well,
the
staff
findings
on
this
variants.
Don't
don't
state
that
the
proposed
use
will
have
any
impact
on
access
to
light,
which
we
agree
that
it
does
not.
The
findings
do
state
that
the
proposed
pool
would
create
disorderly
development
and
states
that
the
pool
would
not
protect
residential
character,
because
the
traditional
built
form
includes
unobstructed
front
yards.
U
U
We
disagree
with
the
staffs
finding
that
the
pool
would
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality,
and
we
disagree
that
it
would
be
injurious
to
the
use
and
enjoyment
of
neighboring
properties.
As
stated
previously,
then
the
proposed
pool
would
not
alter
the
character
of
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
U
Given
the
placement
of
where
that
proposed
pool
would
be
in
relation
to
to
our
building,
let
alone
what
those
sight
lines
would
be
when
screening,
when
the
proposed
screenings
are
put
in
place.
For
all
these
reasons,
we
disagree
with
the
with
the
findings
related
to
the
variance
for
the
pool
with
regards.
F
U
The
variance
for
the
patio
areas
we
have
some
similar
concern
with
regards
to
factor
number
one.
We
agree
with
the
staff
analysis.
The
practical
difficulties
do
exist
with
factor
number
two.
The
staff
findings
identify
that
the
spirit
of
intent
is
to
create
orderly
development
and
protect
residential
character
and
ensure
access
to
light
again.
Staff
do
not
state
that
there
that
this
will
have
any
impact.
U
The
patio
will
have
any
impact
on
access
to
light,
but
it
does
state
that
it
would
create
disorderly
development
and
states
that
the
patio
area
would
not
protect
residential
character,
because
the
traditional
built
form
includes
unobstructed
front
yards
again,
as
we
said
with
regards
to
the
pool
we
disagree
with
this,
because
the
proposed
use
does
not
significantly
deviate
with
the
current
development
in
place
on
our
block.
Nor
does
it
significantly
differ
from
the
residential
characters
in
our
surround
in
in
our
surrounding
neighborhood.
U
As
you
can
see
from
the
photos,
the
the
adjacent
properties
all
contain
significant
obstructions
between
the
pool
between
the
buildings
and
harriet
avenue,
each
of
which
are
substantially
more
obstructing
of
the
views
than
those
of
those
buildings
than
than
this
patio.
Additionally,
with
regard
to
the
patio's
impact
on
residential
character,
the
patio
is
proposed
to
be
adjacent
to
the
house
in
an
area
that
would
be
considered
a
side
yard.
I
do
want
to
mention
one
clarification.
U
The
proposed
plan
that
was
shown
identified
two
locations
of
patio.
Our
intent
was
not
to
seek
the
patio
area
on
the
lower
lower
yard
area.
We
had
intended
to
retract
that,
and
so
we
were
only
seeking
the
variance
to
create
the
patio
in
the
area
just
adjacent
to
the
home
up
on
the
upper
part
and
again
so
that
would
be
our
view
would
be.
U
While
we
agree
with
the
staff's
finding
that
the
proposed
patio
would
not
be
detrimental
to
health
safety
or
welfare
of
the
public,
we
disagree
that
it
would
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
and
disagree
that
it
would
be
injurious
to
the
use
and
enjoyment
of
neighboring
properties.
To
begin
with,
it's
important
to
note
that
the
staff
findings
identify
the
proposed
patio
area
is
approximately
800
square
feet,
but
the
proposed
plan
we
had
discussed
would
have
been
a
patio
area
of
just
over
400
square
feet.
U
Lines
of
the
patio,
especially
when
such
screening
is
put
into
place.
Finally,
with
regard
to
variance
with
the
with
regard
to
the
to
the
third
variant
regarding
the
retaining
walls,
we
agree
with
and
support
the
staff.
B
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
turpin,
for
your
testimony.
Are
there
any
questions
of
mr.
B
B
I'm
seeing
none
so,
let's
see,
if
there's
is
there
anybody
else
in
the
queue
in
the
phone
queue
for
who
would
like
to
speak
for
this
application.
B
So
let's,
oh
there's
a
question
of
mr
turpin
and
mr
johanneson.
A
Thanks
sure
perry,
I
guess
I
have
a
question
for
the
owner
of
the
property.
Have
you
talked
to
the
individual
who
lives
to
the
south
of
you
about
this
project?.
U
We
have,
we
have
discussed
it
with.
We
have
discussed
development
of
the
property
with
our
other
property
or
with
adjacent
property
owners,
including
sharing
you
know,
updated
survey,
information
and
plan
information
with
them
and
have
received
no
no
direct
opposition
or
or
statement
in
opposition
to
those
plans.
U
F
U
They
have
not,
and
I've
been
in
contact
with
them
several
times,
just
along
the
course
of
planning
again
in
in
a
very
collaborative
way,
just
making
sure
we
identified
accurately
where
the
survey
lines
were
and
we're
clear
on
on
how
those
properties
adjoin,
because
it
as
you
can
maybe
see
it,
is
a
unique
property
line
both
are
and
and
unique
throughout
through
lap
of
ours
and
the
adjacent
property.
And
so
we
have
worked.
U
You
know
collaboratively
to
you
know,
to
clarify
those
lines
and
and
in
each
of
those
discussions
there
was
no
statement
in
opposition
or
or
concern
related
to
our
plans.
I
B
Mr
ogiba
has
a
comment
and
then
mr
johannesson
has
a
comment
and
then
mr
softly
has
a
comment.
So
mr
ogiba.
K
Great
thank
you,
chair
perry
and
thank
you
to
staff,
for
your
presentation
and
and
to
the
applicant
for
for
your
testimony.
K
I
guess
one
of
the
the
pieces
I'm
struggling
a
little
bit
with
here
is
is
really
I
guess,
having
what
I
would
call
a
detailed
understanding
of
exactly
what
were
being
asked
to
vote
on
here
from
plans
from
the
applicant.
So
as
I
as
I
look
at
this,
and
I
listen
to
the
testimony,
I
found
myself
a
bit.
I
guess
overall
confused.
K
I
understand
the
sport
court
is
no
longer
part
of
these
plans,
but
I
feel
like
we're
being
asked
to
vote
on
and
make
a
decision
on
something
that
staff
isn't
supporting
without
kind
of
a
full
picture
of
exactly
what
that
end
result
would
be
or
what
that
end
result
might
appear
to
be.
So,
given
that
I'm
I
I
guess
my
comfort
level
in
in
that
understanding
is,
is
not
there.
K
A
Thanks,
sir
perry,
I
don't
know,
I
see
a
lot
of
uniqueness
in
this
property
and
I
also
you
know
I
look
along
the
roadway
that
we've
talked
about,
which
is
basically
their
front
yard,
with
their
mailbox
on
their
garage,
that's
underground.
It.
A
Over
and
if
you
look
at
the
other
side
that
we're
calling
we
call
the
other
side,
the
front
yard,
I
mean
there's
a
chain,
you
know
I
mean
there's
a
fence
there,
you
can't
even
get
down
in
there.
I
I
think
when
I
look
at
the
plans,
I
do
see
the
sport
court,
but
I
I
can
kind
of
phase
that
out
and
not
think
that
there's
a
sport
court
there
I
and
the
pool
to
me
I
mean
it's
a
plunge
pool
this.
Isn't
like
this
big
huge.
A
You
know
super
splash
party
pool.
It
looks
like
it's
a
small
pool.
It
looks
like
it's
well
out
of
the
way
from
the
street
and
I'd
like
to
try
to
find
a
way
to
kind
of
side
with
them.
I
I
think
this
isn't
that
extreme.
In
my
opinion,
and
I'd
like
to
hear
the
rest
of
the
board
provide
some
comment.
If
they
want
thanks.
M
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
agree
with
board
member
johannesson.
I
think
that
the
applicant
did
a
tremendous
job
supporting
their
case.
I
also
take
a
look
at
steph's
argument
and
I
think
that
the
the
arguments
that
cut
against
the
traditional
built
form
of
rear
yard
seem
rather
speculative
and
seem
unsupported.
M
In
my
opinion,
I
very
much
appreciate
the
comments
from
mr
ogiba
in
that
I
think
there
is
some
confusion
about
what
exactly
we
are
voting
to
approve
right
now,
and
that
does
give
me
some
apprehension,
but
I
would
like
to
I
would
like
to
approve
all
three
very
all
variances
and
I
believe
that
there
is
support
to
do
so.
B
All
right,
thanks
for
those
comments,
anyone
else
would
like
to
comment.
I
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
also
agree
with
mr
ogivas
and
mr
I'm
sorry
with
mr
johannes
and
mr
softley's
comments.
I
My
understanding
is
that
the
development
that
might
be
visible
and
be
obstructive
are
the
retaining
walls
that
facilitate
flat
areas
in
this
yard
and
which
is
recommended
for
approval
that
the
other
parts
of
the
development,
the
plunge
pool
and
the
patio
are
essentially
at
the
grade.
That's
created
by.
I
I
noticed
the
applicant
mentioned
that
the
lower
patio
is
not
intended
to
be
a
paved
patio.
I
guess
it
would
be
a
new
flat
area
of
the
yard
and
if
we
do
vote
to
approve
this,
I
guess
I
would
suggest.
Maybe
we
reduce
the
requested
square
footage
of
the
patio
to
represent
what
the
applicant
is
planning
to
build.
B
K
Addressed,
thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
I'm
afraid
I'm
not
going
to
be
able
to
add
any
clarity
to
the
addressing
the
the
points
that
you
had
of.
On
that
I
I
actually
I
would
like
again,
I
I
I
agree
with
my
fellow
board
members
and
I,
I
believe,
there's
a
solution
here
and
there's
a
development
opportunity
here
for
the
land
or
for
the
owner,
and
I
I'd
like
to
to
find
a
way
to
make
that
work.
K
K
The
findings
would
perhaps
look
to
want
to
continue
this
item
to
get
an
updated
plan
on
what
exactly
in
specifications
of
whether
it's
you
know
if
we're
talking
about
unpaved
patio
or
paved
patio,
if
we're
talking
about
other
items
within
this
to
so
that
that
I
can
in
in
good,
conscious
and
good
comfort,
perhaps
provide
to
the
applicant
what
they're
looking
for
from
the
variants,
because
I'm
afraid,
even
as
as
I
hear
fellow
board
comments-
and
perhaps
this
is
of
my
own
doing
here-
but
just
can't
can't
find
a
comfort
level
in
a
project
here
that
that
I'm
able
to
vote
in
favor
of
at
this
time.
B
Sure
so
one
of
the
things
it
sounds
like
is
you're
contemplating
a
motion
to
continue
the
item
until
additional
information
can
be
updated,
plans
can
be
provided
to
you
and
additional
information
on
those
updated
plans
can
be
provided,
which
you
can
ask
the
board.
I
mean
that's,
not
a
call
that
I
make
that's
a
call
that
the
board
makes
so
that's
a
something
that
you
would
make
a
motion
for,
and
we
would
then
vote
if
there's
a
second.
We
wouldn't
then
vote
on
it.
K
So
so
that
that
being
said,
thank
you
chair
perry.
Then
I
would
like
to
enter
that
motion
to
the
board
to
continue
this
item,
and
I
I
guess
I'd
be
open
on
the
amount
of
time
that
the
applicant
would
need.
Perhaps
it
would
be
as
short
as
one
cycle
and
I'd
prefer
that
to
try
to
get
a
quick,
a
more
quick
response
to
to
the
applicant
if
the
applicant,
indeed
and
staff
feel
that
would
be
sufficient
time
to
provide
that
information.
K
So
I'd
make
a
motion
to
continue
this
item
and
I
will
say
one
cycle
to
the
next
meeting,
which
I
don't
I
apologize.
I
don't
have
a
calendar
in
front
of
me
of
when
that
would
be,
but
would
would
make
that
would
make
that
motion
to
to
continue
to
that.
Next
to
the
next
meeting.
B
Yep,
that
would
be
to
december
3rd
and
is
there
it's
looks
like
mr
hutchins
second
set
motion.
Is
that
correct.
B
B
So
to
the
applicant,
we
have
a
cut
before
I
talk
to
the
applicant.
We
have
a
couple.
Other
people
come
up
and
queue.
So,
mr
softly,
you
have
a
question.
M
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
this
does
not.
If
the
continuance
were
granted
that
we
would
still
have
open
board
commentary
on
this
application.
Is
that
correct.
B
If
we
continue
the
item,
we
will
that
ends.
The
discussion
for
tonight.
M
L
I
just
wanted
to.
I
think
it's
okay
to
continue
it.
I
don't
know
if
I
feel
the
need
to,
but
I
think
it
would
be
okay
to
continue
it,
but
I
would
like,
in
the
document
that
we
receive
in
order
to
discuss
it,
that
you
know
we
get
some.
We
get
clarity
specifically
around
the
lack
of
sport
court
and
having
the
plan
reflect
that
and
then
also
more
partner
information
from
the
applicant
around
findings.
Two
and
three.
B
Okay,
so
what
I'll
do
is
is
the
so
that
we
have
full
information
here.
B
I'd
like
to
get
staff
to
weigh
in
is
staff.
Can
you
do
you
believe
you
have
enough
time
to
address
the
concerns
that
some
of
the
board
members
have
brought
up?
Who
are
asking
to
continue
this
item?
Can
you
do
that
in
one
cycle.
S
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
Members
of
the
board
staff
is
certainly
willing
to
work
with
the
applicant
to
address
some
of
the
question
marks
surrounding
what
development
is
slated
to
occur
and
what
development
they
are
not
proposing
at
this
time
if
the
applicant
can
provide
plans
in
a
timely
manner,
so
it
would
certainly
depend
on
the
turnaround
time
for
the
planned
documents
that
could
be
provided.
U
B
B
That
should
be
addressed
to
make
things
go
more
smoothly
with
when
we,
if
we
vote
to
continue
this
item
and
again,
if
you
don't
feel
comfortable
continuing
the
item,
you
would
vote
no,
if
you
would
are
okay
continuing
it.
The
motion
on
the
table
right
now
is
to
continue
it
to
our
december
3rd
meeting
in
2020.
F
E
I
B
So
that
motion
passes
and
we'll
continue
this
item
to
our
december
3rd
2020
meeting.
That
means
mr
turpin
you'll
need
to
come
back
at
that
time,
we'll
be
focusing.
B
B
So
with
that,
we'll
we're
done
with
that
item
thanks
for
staying
on
the
call
so
late
and
we
are
now
on
to
item
number
12,
4724
york,
avenue
south
mr
friends.
V
V
The
property
is
currently
occupied
by
a
single
family
home
and
a
detached
garage.
Both
of
these
were
constructed
in
2019.
The
home
as
constructed
is
in
violation
of
both
the
maximum
permitted
floor
area
ratio,
as
well
as
maximum
permitted
height
and
is
not
lawfully
established
in
its
current
configuration.
V
The
applications
before
you
today
are
to
legalize
the
home
as
built
in
march.
2019
applications
were
submitted
to
remove
the
existing
home
on
the
property
and
construct
a
new
two-story
home
partially
utilizing
the
existing
foundation
as
the
project
met
the
definition
of
demolition
under
the
zoning
ordinance
but
retained
a
portion
of
the
former
structure.
The
project
was
subject
to
site
plan
review
and
lost
non-conforming
rights
under
the
zoning
code,
but
was
treated
as
a
remodel
under
the
building
code.
The
land
uses
and
building
permit
applications
for
the
project
were
approved.
V
The
applicant
chose
to
utilize
a
drafts
person
to
determine
the
elevation
of
the
existing
foundation
that
the
home
was
to
be
built
on.
After
enforcement
action
began
against
the
property.
The
applicant
hired
a
license
surveyor
to
provide
elevation
information
on
the
home
as
built
and
that's
fair
determined
that
the
proposed
first
floor.
B
Mr
friends,
you're
you're
breaking
up
for
some
reason,
so
we
missed
a
section
of
what
you
said
after
you
noted
that
a
draftsman
had
been
employed.
B
So
I
don't
know
if
you're
speaking
too
rapidly
to
keep
up
with
your
microphone
or,
if
there's
something
on
the
the
your
internet
connection.
But
maybe,
if
you
could
slow
down
a
little
bit
and
see
if
that
helps.
I
V
V
V
After
enforcement
action
began
against
the
property,
the
applicant
hired
a
licensed
surveyor
to
provide
elevation
information
on
the
home
as
built
that
survey
determined
that
the
proposed
first
floor,
elevation
provided
on
the
plans
submitted
to
the
city
was
1.47
feet
lower
than
the
first
floor
elevation
as
built
and
also
found
a
discrepancy
of
0.2
feet
in
the
provided
spot
elevation.
That's
used
as
the
basis
for
determining
height
under
the
ordinance.
If
you
go
to
the
next
slide,
please.
V
V
The
applicant
is
seeking
a
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
permitted
floor
area
ratio
to
lawfully
establish
the
home
is
built.
Go
to
the
next
slide.
Please,
on
this
slide,
the
elevation
on
the
left
is
the
front
elevation
as
approved,
and
the
elevation
on
the
right
is
the
as
built
elevation
provided
as
part
of
the
variance
application,
the
maximum
permitted
height
for
a
single
family
home.
In
this
district
is
28
feet
and
that
height
is
measured
at
the
midpoint
of
the
roof.
V
V
The
plans
submitted
to
and
approved
by
the
city
as
part
of
the
land
use
and
building
permit
applications
indicated
an
overall
height
of
27.07
feet
and
a
peak
roof
height
of
32.23
feet.
However,
the
home
as
built
measures,
28.6
feet
overall
at
the
midpoint
of
the
roof
and
33.9
feet
at
the
peak.
The
applicant
is
seeking
a
variance
to
increase
both
the
maximum
permitted
structure:
height.
That's
the
midpoint
height
and
the
maximum
permitted
roof
peak
height
to
lawfully
establish
the
homeless,
build
several
public
comments.
I
think
about
15
were
received
and
included
in
your
packets.
V
Three
additional
sets
of
comments
were
received
after
publication
of
the
agenda,
and
you
should
have
received
those
earlier
today
regarding
the
first
required
finding
staff
has
found
that,
for
both
variances
practical
difficulties
do
not
exist.
There
are
no
conditions
unique
to
the
property
which
were
not
created
by
the
applicant
that
created
difficulty
in
complying
with
the
ordinance
any
need
to
vary
either
height
or
floor
area
ratio
was
created
by
errors
made
by
the
contractor
and
their
agents,
and
does
not
qualify
as
a
practical
difficulty.
V
V
The
first
required
finding
I'm
happy
to
address
any
questions.
Thank
you
and
thank
you
for
bearing
with
my
difficulty
with
the
internet
connection.
K
Thank
you,
chair
perry
and
thank
you,
mr
fronds,
so
just
just
as
a
point
here.
K
If
we
are
to
deny
the
variance,
then
what
are
the
next
steps
for
the
homeowner
that
I
I
guess
would
be
would
be
my
question
right
as
we
look
at
this
and
and
we
see
what
the
the
question
before
us
on
the
two
variances
would
be,
what
what
options
of
the
homeowner
have,
assuming
that
approval
means
status,
quo
and
denial
means
what.
V
Chair
perry
board
member
okiba.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
If
the
variance
applications
were
not
approved,
the
home
would
need
to
be
modified
to
comply
with
the
with
the
maximum
floor
area
ratio
and
the
maximum
height.
So
both
the
floor
area
ratio
and
the
height
would
need
to
be
reduced.
V
There
are
a
number
of
ways
to
potentially
do
that,
but
the
the
most
straightforward
way
would
be
to
lower
the
height
of
the
foundation.
So
it
would
be,
you
know,
involved
and
expensive
and
inconvenient,
but
the
the
most
straightforward
way
to
to
correct
the
home
would
be
to
raise
the
home
off
of
the
foundation
to
lower
the
foundation
height
and
then
to
lower
the
home
back
onto
the
the
lowered
foundation.
A
I
do
thanks
chair
perry,
I
guess
andrew
I'm
wondering.
Is
there
another
option
to
like
raise
the
grade
enough
around
the
perimeter,
with
maybe
the
use
of
small
retaining
walls
to
get
that
change,
or
you
know
what
I
mean?
Can
they
add
soil
to
the
site
to
raise
the
point
of
measurement.
V
Chair
perry
board
member
johannesson
thanks
for
the
question,
no,
the
the
height,
both
the
the
the
point
used
for
the
basis
of
measuring
height
the
zero
point
for
measuring
height,
as
well
as
that
42
inch
threshold
for
the
the
first
floor
elevation
and
excluding
the
basement
floor
area
from
the
gross
floor
area.
V
Calculation
are
based
on
pre-construction
grade
they're
based
on
natural
grade,
and
the
intent
there
is
to
is
to
to
prevent
the
the
manipulation
of
grade
in
order
to
allow
for
for
a
taller
building.
But
in
this
case
it
would
also
prevent
the
manipulation
of
grade
being
used
to
rectify
this
condition.
Great.
B
M
Softly,
thank
you,
chair
perry.
Thank
you,
mr
friends.
I've
got
a
question
for
you
about
obligations
and
the
plan.
There
are
several
comments
in
the
packet
from
from
the
applicant's
perspective
that
the
city
failed
to
spot
the
discrepancies
through
the
approval
process.
In
your
understanding,
what
obligation
does
the
city
have
to
spot
discrepancies
in
the
as-built
height
of
these
projects
as
they
move
through
the
building
phase?.
V
Chair
perry
board
member
softly.
You
know
this.
This
project
you've
seen
projects
like
this
before
it
falls
into
a
a
relatively
small
category
of
projects
that
are
reviewed
as
new
homes
under
the
zoning
ordinance,
but
are
reviewed
as
remodels
under
the
building
code.
V
This
this
occurs
when,
when,
when
there's
a
project
that
meets
or
exceeds
the
definition
of
demolition
under
the
zoning
ordinance,
but
where
a
portion
of
the
of
the
of
the
former
structure
is
retained,
so
those
projects
are
are
relatively
uncommon,
but
we
do
see
you
know
a
few
handfuls
of
them
every
year
and-
and
I
know
that
a
number
of
them
have
come
before
the
board,
for
various
reasons
when
a
project
is
is
in
that
in
that
situation,
where
it's
treated
as
a
remodel
from
the
building
code
perspective
it
it's
not
subject
to
the
same
submittal
requirements
and
inspection
process
as
as
a
as
a
ground-up
new
home
that
is
treated
as
a
new
home
from
both
the
zoning
code
and
building
code
side.
V
So
since
2014,
the
city
has
required
the
submittal
of
a
top
of
block
survey
part
way
through
the
construction
process
for
new
single-family,
do
single-family
homes
and
duplexes
to
verify
the
height
of
the
foundation
prior
to
framing,
and
that
was
you
know
that
was
put
in
place
when,
when
the
42-inch,
you
know
threshold
for
the
for
the
floor
area,
ratio
for
the
basement
floor
area
was
put
in
place
and
was
put
in
place.
V
Sort
of
to
to
prevent
situations
like
this
from
occurring,
but
this
project
is
is
is
part
of
a
relatively
small
number
of
projects
that
are
that
are
not
subject
to
that
requirement.
Throughout
the
inspection
you
know,
then,
as
as
the
the
process
proceeds,
the
building
inspectors
are
out
at
the
site
very
regularly.
Building
inspectors
are
there.
You
know
at
many
points
throughout
the
construction
process
to
verify
that
the
home
is
being
built
to
the
submitted
plans
and
to
the
building
code,
and
in
this
case
the
home
was
built
to
the
submitted
plans.
V
The
issue
was
that
the
submitted
plans
were
not
accurate.
They
did
not
accurately
reflect
the
existing
conditions
on
the
site,
so
the
the
building
inspectors
did
not
make
an
error
when
they
approved
the
the
framing
for
for
the
property,
because
the
help
the
home
was
framed
in
accordance
with
the
plans
and
in
accordance
with
the
building
code.
The
the
submitted
plans
did
not,
you
know,
properly
reflect
the
elevation
of
the
site
for
a
project
like
this.
The
zoning
inspector
typically
only
has
two
scheduled
inspections.
V
The
zoning
inspector
has
a
has
a
first
inspection,
that's
scheduled
to
take
place
near
the
end
of
the
framing
process,
so,
ideally
that
first,
zoning
inspection
would
take
place
shortly
after
framing
is
completed
and
before
interior
finishes
are
in
place
and
that
first
inspection
is
intended
to
make
sure
that
there
aren't
any.
V
You
know
glaring
issues
with
the
home
from
a
from
a
zoning
perspective
when
it
comes
to
things
like
the
placement
of
windows
and
doorways
things
like
decks
that
weren't
on
on
this
on
the
the
approved
plans
in
this
case
that
inspection
took
took
place
a
little
bit
later
than
would
normally
have
have
been
ideal.
V
And
that's
when
the
the
issue
was
was
first
spotted
and
then
the
zoning
inspector
is
typically
back
out
at
the
property
for
the
final
inspection
before
the
issue
of
a
certificate
of
occupancy,
just
to
inspect
that
final
grading
is
in
place
final
landscaping
and
that
the
property
is
fully
in
compliance
with
the
approved
plans.
V
So
I
know
that's
kind
of
a
long
answer,
but
I
hope
it
addresses
your
question.
V
M
All
right,
hey,
thank
you
and
the
last
question
is
you
know:
who
bears
the
obligation
to
correctly
measure
the
heights
of
projects
and
to
build
according
to
plan?
Is
it
the
city
or
is
it
the
builder.
V
Chair
perry
board
member
softly,
you
know
the
the
city
is-
is
reliant
on
the
applicant,
submitting
plans
that
that
truthfully
depict
the
property
and
truthfully
depict
the
project.
This.
The
city
inspects
a
project
as
it's
under
construction
and
after
it's
under
construction
for
compliance
with
the
submitted
and
approved
plans
and
compliance
with
the
zoning
code
and
the
building
code,
but
prior
to
construction,
we
do
not.
We
do
not
do
any
type
of
pre-construction
inspection.
The
city
does
not.
V
You
know,
visit
visit,
a
property
prior
to
the
start
of
construction
to
verify
that
the
plans
submitted
by
the
applicant
are
are
accurate.
As
far
as
the
the
city's
responsibility.
V
I
I
don't
know
that
I'm
qualified
to
answer
that
from
a
from
a
legal
perspective,
if
you'd,
like
additional
information
that
on
that,
I
think
brad
ellis
might
be
able
to
to
provide
a
bit
more.
M
B
W
Chair
perry,
this
is
mike
morgan's,
I'm
the
legal
counsel
for
the
applicant
as
well,
and
I
just
wanted
to
touch
on
a
couple
points,
and
then
I
will
turn
it
over
to
miss
weissman
and.
R
Okay,
yeah,
can
you
can
you
hear
us?
This?
Is
these?
Are
the
homeowners
ryan,
lieutenant
and
leona
weissman?
Yes,
please,
okay,
okay,
great
yeah!
We
may
have
covered
some
of
this,
but
we
put
together
a
statement
for
you
all
so,
first
of
all
good
evening,
chairman
perry
and
the
board
of
adjustments.
Members
thank
you
for
considering
our
very
variance
application.
I
really
wish
we
could
be
doing
this
in
person
and
I
really
appreciate
the
board's
flexibility
to
do
this
remotely
we're
going
to
provide
a
well.
R
This
opening
statement
here
is
just
to
kind
of
outline
our
situation
where
we
are
then
we'll
allow
our
contract
and
their
council
to
provide
any
details
as
needed.
So
this
is
just
kind
of
you
know
our
perspectives
and
then
yeah.
We
can
go
from
there
for
details
and
questions.
Could
you
like.
B
R
L
R
To
know
many
of
our
neighbors
and
we
feel
very
lucky
to
live
here,
the
fulton
community
and
our
block.
It
really
does
feel
like
a
community
and
a
community
that
we
feel
welcomed
in.
We
look
forward
to
raising
our
family
here
and
are
expecting
our
first
child
actually
in
march.
So
many
of
our
neighbors,
those
that
we
know
and
know
that
we
don't
have
written
to
express
their
support
of
the
approval
of
our
variants
and
I'll
hand
this
over
to
leona
to
go
over
some
more.
O
Hi
everyone,
so
we
purchased
our
home
in
january
of
2019,
and
our
original
intention
was
to
remodel
the
ghosting
house
and
to
add
on
to
it.
We
really
loved
our
original,
the
original
house
on
the
property,
and
we
thought
it
was
charming
and
we
were
very
excited
about
the
remodel.
O
However,
once
we
started
doing
the
demolition
our
contractor
started
doing
the
demolition,
we
learned
that
the
home
was
not
structurally
sound,
and
at
that
point
it
became
very
clear
that
the
only
practical
solution
was
to
construct
a
new
home
on
the
existing
foundation.
O
Unfortunately,
due
to
a
series
of
events
that
were
out
of
our
control,
which
include
a
measurement
error
on
the
part
of
the
draftsman
who
was
working
for
our
contractor
and
our
contractor
was
his
fox
homes,
discrepancies
between
several
natural
grade
surveys
and
untimely
inspections
from
the
zoning
department,
the
home
as
built,
is
taller
than
anyone
ever
understood
from
what
we
understand
the
situation.
O
The
draftsman's
error
was
missed
because
of
the
change
from
a
remodel
to
a
new
construction
and
that
new
construction
was
built
on
the
original
foundation
and
the
transition
from
a
remodel
permit
to
a
new
construction.
Permit
this
as
andrew
discussed
the
city
did
not
do
a
block
survey
like
they
typically
would
for
a
new
home
after
the
permits
were
approved.
Soft
homes
built
the
new
home
according
to
the
approved
plan.
O
O
R
And
as
a
result
of
that
measurement
error,
the
greatest
survey
discrepancies,
the
city.
Zoning
department
has
determined
that
our
home
is
approximately
0.9
feet
too
tall
at
as
andrew
had
pointed
out
the
issue
it
was
identified
about
two
months
after
we
had
moved
into
our
home.
Assuming
that
we
were
already
moving
into
a
compliant
home.
We
were
disappointed
to
learn
that
if
this
could
have
been
caught
earlier
in
the
construction
process,
it
could
more
easily
be
rectified.
R
The
city-
and
our
contractor
have
told
us
both
that
this
is
a
relatively
unprecedented
situation
for
an
issue
like
this
to
essentially
be
identified
after
the
home
is
already
occupied
and-
and
we
had
been
occupying
the
home
for
about
two
months
before
the
city
had
identified
the
issue
and
before
we
received
any
letters
of
non-compliance,
so
we're
asking
you
the
board
to
consider
our
variance
and
to
approve
the
variance,
allow
our
home
just
to
remain
as
built.
R
If
the
variance
is
not
approved,
that
house
obviously
has
to
be
modified.
We've
tried,
we
had
already
discussed,
but
the
modification
just
includes
I
mean
the
logistics
of
it
are
lifting
the
home
off
the
foundation.
R
Then
deep
digging
a
deeper
foundation
because
it's
not
just
knocking,
you
know
lifting
up
the
home
and
taking
the
top
of
the
block
down.
If
we
were
to
do
that
and
put
the
house
back
down
on
the
existing
foundation,
we
would
have
a
basement
that
was
about
five
and
a
half
feet
tall,
so
obviously
that
would
be
out
of
compliance
too.
So
it's
not
just
lifting
it
up.
The
entire
foundation
would
then
have
to
be
ripped
out
and
redone
and,
as
you
can
imagine,
this
is
not
just
financially
burdensome.
R
It
is
emotionally
logistically
and
environmentally
burdensome
for
us,
because
we
would
obviously
have
to
find
another
place
to
live.
While
this
happened,
logistically
disconnected
it's
a
several
several
months:
long,
construction
process
and
environmentally
you
know
it's
just
it
kind
of
turns
into
a
waste,
because
at
the
very
least,
the
foundation
and
perhaps
any
of
the
attached
decks
would
have
to
be
taken
down,
taken
out
and
ultimately
put
in
the
landfill
just
to
be
dug
out
and
replaced
so
that
we
could
have
a
deeper
basement.
R
The
last
thing
we
want
to
do
is
move
out
of
our
home
and
start
that
whole
process
again,
particularly
as
we
are
expecting
our
first
child.
It
just
would
naturally
be
very
prohibitive
for
us.
R
R
We
hope
that
you
will
recognize
that
this
was
some
unfortunate
mistakes
and
ultimately
allow
us
to
remain
in
our
home,
as
we
really
look
forward
to
many
years
here.
So
there
are
any
questions
for
liana
and
I
right
now
we
would
be
happy
to
take
them.
B
Applicants,
I
am
seeing
no
questions
for
either
one
of
you.
There
was
quite
a
detailed
amount
of
information
in
the
staff
packet
that
we
all
received
and
read.
So
I
think
that
is
probably
one
reason
you're
not
getting
questions,
because
a
lot
of
the
information
that
you
just
talked
about
had
been
covered,
including
the
possible
at
least
one
possible
alternative
to
what
would
have
to
be
done
if
the
variances
were
denied.
B
I
would
ask
I
I
do
have
a
question
of
either
one
of
you,
the
the
issue
we
have
to
find
legally
for
you,
and
maybe
this
is
for
your
attorney
to
to
answer
but
I'll.
Ask
you
and
then
I'll
separately
ask
the
attorney
if,
when
he
has
his
time
to
speak,
if
you
don't
have
the
answer,
but
what
is
the
unique
circumstance?
B
G
O
I
was
my
my
perception
of
what's
unique
about
the
property
and
and
mike
morgan's.
The
attorney
for
our
our
contractor
can
speak
to
this
as
well.
But
I
think
it's
that
we
we
preserved
the
existing
foundation,
which
essentially
is
a
foundation
from
the
1960s
that
is
further
out
of
the
ground
than
a
typical
foundation
would
be
now
and
that
you
know
our
original
plan
was
to
preserve
about
half
of
the
original
house.
O
But
because
that
wasn't
possible
due
to
structural
issues,
we
ultimately
went
with
keeping
the
original
the
height
of
the
original
foundation,
expanding
that
sound
that
existing
foundation
and
that's
kind
of
where,
where
the
original,
the
problem
sort
of
originally,
and
that
that
I
think
that's
unique
to
our
fire
home
situation.
R
Yeah,
that's
exactly
what
I
was
gonna
say
was
attempts
at
using
the
existing
foundation
from
the
home.
It's
obviously
our
original
intention
was
simply
a
renovation
to
the
the
existing
home
that
was
here
and
then
it
really
quickly
became
obvious
once
the
demolition
and
the
interior
demolition
began
that
the
only
really
structurally
sound
part
of
the
house
was
the
foundation.
So
the
intention
was
to
reuse
it
as
much
as
possible.
B
Mr
mergens,
do
you
have
any
testimony
that
you'd
like
to
give
that
is
not
duplicative
of
what
has
already
been
stated.
W
Chair
perry,
thank
you.
I
do
and
I
will.
I
will
be
brief.
I
know
late
into
the
night
already
please.
W
Share
perry
board
members
again,
my
name
is
mike
mergens.
I
am
the
legal
counsel
on
this
application.
W
I
am
also
involved
in
a
number
of
development
companies
and
I'm
involved
in
this
project,
because
everyone
on
this
side
wants
to
wants
to
find
a
solution,
and
I
just
want
to
share
with
you
at
the
outset
that
the
intent
of
of
me
being
involved
in
this
is,
is
to
help
the
homeowners
who
are
the
the
applicants
here.
Work
work
through
something
that's
very
catastrophic
for
them.
W
I
think
we've
outlined
in
the
letter
exactly
what
it
means
to
have
this
application
denied
that's
an
impact
not
on
the
home
just
on
the
homeowners,
but
on
the
neighbors
as
well.
I
really
do
think
in
my
experience
and-
and
everybody
may
have
something
different
experiences,
but
in
my
experience
I've
never
been
involved
in
a
land
use
application
where
there
were
14
people
who
were
willing
to
come
forward
and
speak
in
support
of
the
project,
and
I
think
that
really
says
something
about
this
particular
project
and
how
easily
it
meets
factors.
W
Two
and
three
which
this
which
the
staff
found
and
so
really
what
we're.
Looking
at
s,
as
you
pointed
to
is,
is
the
practical
difficulties
and
there
are
a
couple
things
that
I
think
I
would
view
differently
than
what's
in
the
staff
report
number
one.
This
wasn't
only
a
draftsman
there's
a
surveyor
that
was
involved
in
the
beginning.
It
was
eagen
field
and
nowac,
a
top.
A
block
survey
wasn't
done
because
one
one
wasn't
needed
and
typically
contractors
don't
incur
extra
costs
that
that
aren't
necessary.
W
It's
unfortunate
and
it
certainly
should
have
been.
But
this
was
one
of
those
situations
which
is,
I
think,
unique
and-
and
that
is
when
ryan
and
leanna
purchased
this
property.
It
was
never
to
build
a
new
home.
They
purchased
the
property
to
add
10
feet
onto
the
back
of
the
existing
home.
That's
what
their
intent
was.
That's
what
their
desire
was.
That's
all
they
wanted
when
they
began.
W
Unfortunately,
as
you
heard
them
talk
about
the
century-old
house,
once
they
got
in
and
opened,
the
walls
was
not
what
they
thought
it
was,
and
so
now
they're
put
into
a
situation
where
a
young
couple
has
a
house
that
they,
they
simply
have
to
try
to
make
the
best
plan
that
they
can
and
that's
what
everybody
tried
to
do
here
and
there
were
there
were.
There
was
a
mistake.
W
There
was
clearly
a
mistake
that
was
done
by
setting
the
natural
grade
elevation,
but
I
think
it's
a
mistake
that
that
you
certainly
can't
put
on
the
applicants
right.
The
applicants
are
the
are
the
homeowners.
They
didn't
hire
anybody,
they
didn't
make
any
choices,
they
just
bought
a
property,
they
wanted
a
house,
they
could
live
in,
they
couldn't
have
the
house
that
they
bought
and
and
they
wanted
the
next
best
thing.
That's
all
they've
ever
wanted
out
of
this
deal,
so
the
question
then
becomes
should
should
fox
have
no.
W
The
interesting
thing
in
this
particular
case
is
stator.
Burques
came
in
afterwards
right.
The
other
birdcare
is
an
exceptionally
well
known,
well-respected,
reliable
survey
company.
They
had
difficulty
right.
What
mr
friends
didn't
include
in
his
report
is
their
first
as-built
survey.
W
Got
it
wrong.
They
thought
the
house
was
33
feet
tall.
They
said
it's
it's
okay,
they
had
to
reduce
the
the
natural
grade,
and
I
agree
with
mr
friends.
The
the
the
zoning
code
says
you
have
to
measure
from
from
natural
grade.
The
difficulty
here
is
that
a
whole
lot
of
experts
had
a
hard
time
figuring
out
what
natural
grade
was.
Ultimately,
they
settled
on
something
that
is
7.7
feet
below
what
was
on
the
application
that
was
submitted.
W
It
it
got
missed
right,
it's
a
mistake,
so
the
question
is:
are
there
practical
difficulties
and
from
a
from
a
from
just
a
practical
perspective,
is
this
really
the
right
thing
to
do
to
go
into
a
situation,
bring
a
crane
in
have
it
in
the
the
road
for
for
two
months,
as
the
house
is
lifted
up
a
crew
is,
is
put
into
a
confined
space
underneath
the
home
to
try
to
dig
the
the
basement
down
report,
a
new
slab,
pull
all
the
concrete
out,
throw
it
in
a
landfill.
W
Put
the
new
foundation
in,
hopefully,
all
without
incident
then
get
the
the
house
reset
on
the
new
foundation
and
hopefully
reconnect
it
in
a
way
that
the
house
works
without
any
settling
or
cracking
or
damage
to
the
house,
because
a
professional
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
applicant.
W
W
W
If
that
structure
had
been
built,
the
way
it
was
supposed
to
be
built
and
no
one
knew
what
the
condition
was,
because
it
was
buried
inside
the
wall,
if
that
had
happened,
we
wouldn't
be
here
there
wouldn't
be
a
new
house.
W
W
It's
not
really
a
a
new
house,
so
that
adds
to
the
complications
and
then
you've
got
a
professional
that
came
in
and
yes,
that
the
professional
made
the
mistake.
But
I
don't
think
it's
fair
to
ignore
what
led
up
to
that
point
and-
and
that
is
ryan
and
leanna
wanting
a
house
that
they
built
with
10
feet
added
on
to
the
back
of
it,
and-
and
I
do
think
that
is
a
unique
circumstance
to
this
case.
W
I
don't
think
I
have
ever
seen
a
case
where
professionals
had
this
much
difficulty
finding
what
the
the
natural
grade
was,
but
certainly
if
the
professionals
have
a
really
hard
time
doing
it.
It's
hard
to
say
fox
should
have
known
about
it
and
it's
exceptionally
hard
to
say
that
ryan
and
leanna
should
have
known
about
it,
and
I
think
the
last
thing
that
that
I
would,
I
would
just
leave
you
with
after
you
go
from
the
fact
that
that
the
house
that
they
purchased
could
not
survive.
W
W
Unfortunately,
no
one
knew
of
the
mistake
in
the
natural
grade
and
when
you
look
at
the
consequences
from
saying
no
the
minimalness
of
what's
at
issue
here
and
and
the
fact
that
there
are
practical
difficulties,
if
you
go
back
to
the
beginning
of
the
story,
as
I
think
you
always
should,
it
is
variances
that
should
be
granted,
and
we
ask
you
to
to
just
look
at
all
the
circumstances
and
and
allow
these
two
homeowners
to
get
on
with
living
and
stay
in
the
house
that
they're
in-
and
I
thank
you
all
for
your
time
tonight
and
I
know
it's
a
odd
set
of
circumstances
so
chair.
W
B
I
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
I
don't
think
we
as
a
board
would
be
doing
any
service
to
the
city
or
to
the
neighbors.
By
denying
this
variance,
I
think
the
disruption
that
would
be
caused
by
making
this
property
come
into
conformance
would
be
would
outweigh
any
benefits
that
would
exist
by
having
a
bill
form
on
this
property
that
conforms.
I
I
know
we
probably
have
to
contrive
a
finding
for
unique
circumstances,
but
I
guess
I
would
take
a
guess
at
or
a
proposal
at
saying.
The
lack
of
information
is
a
unique
circumstance
in
this
case
that
the
homeowners
were
not,
and
the
applicants
were
really
not
at
fault
for
creating.
I
B
Thank
thanks
for
those
comments,
mr
sandberg
I'll,
just
point
out
that
we
we
have
had
situations
over
the
course
of
my
time
on
the
board
where
there
have
been
missteps
by
one
person
or
another
in
the
process,
and
that
what
what
the
unique
circumstances
is
not
the
circumstances
of
the
process,
but
the
circumstance,
the
unique
characteristics
of
the
property
itself.
B
That's
what
that
finding
number
one
is
mr
hutchins.
F
Thank
you,
chair,
perry,
I'd
like
to
tackle
the
mr
sandberg's
comments,
and
I
don't
think
we're
doing
anybody
any
favors
by
uprooting
this
house
and
changing
the
way
it's
built.
I
would
say
maybe
we
could
lean
on
finding
for
number.
One
would
be
something
along
the
lines
of
the
fact
that
it's
occupied
currently.
F
Is
that
a
unique
enough
circumstance
of
the
building
that
the
the
existence
of
occupancy
and
having
been
given
an
occupancy
or
the
certificate
of
occupancy
would
be
its
own
difficulty
there,
because
now
you'd
have
to
uproot
the
family
to
move
the
home
where
the
couple
ones
I've
seen
that
are
similar
to
this.
They
didn't
have
the
certificate
of
occupancy
so
see.
If
that
fits
the
bill
or
not.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
B
Thanks
for
those
comments,
I
mr
softly
and
then
mr
johanneson.
M
Thank
you,
chair
perry
and
thank
you
to
everyone
who's
presented
tonight.
I
would
suggest
that
the
practical
difficulty
exists
in
the
choice
to
use
portion
of
the
existing
foundation.
M
The
homeowners
testified
that
the
the
foundation
as
existing
was
at
a
higher
level
than
would
normally
be
found
and
that
the
choice
to
to
use
that
as
the
basis
for
the
the
new
foundation
report
is
what
largely
contributed
to
the
cause
of
the
mistake.
Notwithstanding
the
errors
that
were
made
after
the
fact,
but
I
think
that
the
new
foundation
joined
to
the
old
foundation
is
a
practical
difficulty.
That's
unique
to
this
particular
property.
A
A
I
I
think
to
me
that
word
gets
out
that
you
can
screw
up
and
make
it
bigger
than
it
is
supposed
to
be
and
get
away
with.
It
is
something
that
upsets
me
to
me.
The
practical
difficulty
for
the
applicants
is
a
human
error
and
it's
totally
out
of
their
hands,
and
I
want
to
cite
for
the
applicants,
because
this
is
obviously
no
one
wants
to
tear
this
down.
A
But
I
I
I'm
getting
tired
of
the
people
who
made
these
mistakes,
have
no
there's
no
recourse
for
them
and
they
can
just
put
up
another
building
in
another
time
that
would
exceed
the
zoning
ordinances
and
we'd
go
through
this
whole
thing
again,
so
I'm
encouraged
that
we
want
to
support
this
family
and
this
applicant,
but
I'm
I'm
very
obviously
upset
with
this
consistency
we
see.
A
So
I
would
be
encouraged
to
hear
some
more
of
the
board
comment,
but
that's
all
I
have
to
say.
V
Thank
you,
chair,
harry
and
board
members.
I
did
just
want
to
provide
a
couple
quick
points
of
clarification,
as
you
are
drafting
your
potential
findings
here.
One
point
I
I
did
want
to
make
is
that
this
property,
I
believe,
does
not
have
a
final
certificate
of
occupancy
and
then
the
other
point
I
did
want
to
make
is
about
the
existing
foundation.
V
V
We
did
receive
a
staff
direction
from
the
city
council
that,
in
a
situation
like
this,
where
there
was
a
complete
demolition
of
the
structure
and
utilization
of
of
a
previous
foundation
for
a
new
home
that
that
that
the
utilization
or
the
location
of
that
existing
foundation
should
not
constitute
a
practical
difficulty.
I
just
wanted
to
make
those
those
two
points
so
that,
when
you
do
come
up
with
your
your
final
response
to
that,
first,
finding
that
that
that
finding
is
solid.
Thank
you.
B
So
it
sounds
like
so
far
we
have
yes,
mr
sofie.
M
Thank
you,
chair
perry,
and
thank
you,
mr
french,
for
bringing
that
up.
If
my
recollection
is
correct
and
I'm
sorry
to
put
you
on
the
spot,
but
I
I
believe
that
that
this,
the
the
prior
directive
regarding
foundations
related
to
the
the
reuse
of
the
existing
foundation,
in
the
context
of
not
not
of
its
presence
or
of
its
height.
M
But
if
the
rationale
for
the
variance
was
predicated
on
elimination
of
waste
disposal
or
disruption
of
noise
to
the
neighbors,
and
that
is
just
to
clarify.
That's
not
what
I'm
trying
to
pin
the
finding
on.
In
this
particular
case.
Do
I
have
the
correct
understanding,
or
am
I
running
afoul,
of
that
staff
directive.
N
Board
members
softly
chair
perry,
yes,
it
was
actually
more
specific
to
using
it
specifically
as
a
practical
difficulty
as
it
relates
to
side
yard
setbacks.
It
was
more
specific
to
especially
the
ones
that
were
maybe
three
feet
from
our
property
line.
Where
cur
where
currently,
if
the
building
exists,
you
can
build
upward
or
backward
and
and
maintain
those
non-conforming
rights.
So
the
the
council
directive
was
more
around
that
specifically
it
wasn't.
N
This
is
a
slightly
different.
This
is
a
different
situation
than
that,
because
it's
not
actually
a
setback.
In
that
sense,
it's
more
the
floor
area
ratio
and
whatnot.
So
I'm
hoping
that
clarified,
mr
softly
did
that
help.
J
Yeah
we've
had
these
in
the
past
and
in
the
past
and
over
on
beard
about
10
years
ago,
we
made
somebody
move
a
foundation
because
they
strayed
on
setback
and
probably
about
four
or
five
years
ago.
There
was
a
property
near
pershing
park
in
fulton,
where
we
made
them
jack
the
house
up
and
lower
the
foundation,
and
I
don't
know
what
has
changed
in
particular.
This
is
a
contractor
mistake.
This
is
a
board
of
adjustment,
not
the
board
of
maintaining
contractor
equity.
J
I
think
they
need
to
pay.
I
think
they
need
to
make
the
mistake
right.
I
don't
think
they
should
be
allowed
to
get
away
with
this
kind
of
thing.
They
didn't
order,
a
survey
because
it
would
cost
too
much
money
and
cut
into
the
bottom
line.
That's
my
interpretation
of
it,
so
I'm
not
in
favor
of
granting
variants.
B
Else
at
this
point,
since
no
one
else
would
like
to
speak,
what
I
would
ask
is
for
a
motion
and
if
you
are
moving
to
a
a
finding
for
practical
difficulty,
that
is
in
line
with
what
we've
heard
from
mr
friends
and
mr
alice.
K
Thank
you,
chair
perry
and
thank
you
again
to
everyone
for
the
for
their
testimony
on
doing
this
all
I.
I
think
this
is
a
very
unfortunate
situation,
however,
and-
and
I
certainly
agree
with
the
standpoint
that
I
don't
think,
there's
any
advantage
to
anyone
or
or
anyone
within
the
city
in
order
to
in
order
to
require
any
additional
work
to
be
done
at
this
home.
K
However,
I
also
see
our
purview
on
this
board
as
board
member
finlandson
described
as
being
very
narrow,
and
I
as
much
as
it
pains
me
to
do
this
or
to
feel
this
certain
way
I
in
based
on
what
I
believe
our
directive
has
been
from
from
the
city.
I
I
don't
see
where
the
practical
difficulty
is
or
how
we
can
find
for
that
in
this
particular
case.
K
I
know
that
if
that
were
to
be
the
case,
the
applicant
would
have
appeal
options
and
I
would
encourage
them
if
that
would
be
the
case
to
to
look
at
those
and
look
at
what
all
their
other
options
are.
But
with
all
that
being
said,
I
would
move
staff
findings
to
deny
the
variance
as
applied
for.
B
There's
a
a
a
motion
and
a
second,
mr
hutchinson,
hutchins
sorry.
F
R
W
C
B
I
B
The
motion
passes,
and
so
that
means
the
variance
requests
are
denied.
You
can
talk
to
mr
friends
about
what
to
the
applicants.