►
From YouTube: March 18, 2021 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
Thank
you
welcome
to
the
live
broadcast
of
the
minneapolis
zoning
board
of
adjustment.
This
meeting
is
being
conducted
in
the
virtual
format,
but
members
are
participating
via
telephone
or
other
electronic
means,
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statute.
Section
13d
0.021
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic.
B
D
E
F
C
Perry
has
I
told
us
that
he
will
be
absent.
Sandberg.
C
Will
be
absent
this
evening
and
board
member
wang
aye
members
present.
B
B
Just
all
the
board
members
have
had
a
chance
to
take
a
look
at
the
agenda
before
we
begin
today.
Is
there
a
motion
to
approve
this
agenda.
B
H
C
H
B
Thank
you.
The
agenda
is
approved
now,
we'll
take
a
look
at
the
meeting
minutes
from
our
march
4th
2021
meeting.
Is
there
a
motion
to
approve
those.
B
It's
been
moved
and
seconded
by
finland
and
sandberg
respectively.
Is
there
any
discussion
on
the.
B
E
C
C
C
I
I
know
that's
a
thing
that
can
happen
and
just
you're
a
leak
ahead
of
us,
mr
softly.
Okay.
So
we
have
yes,
six
yays
and
one
abstention
for
items
five
and
six,
and
then
we
have
five
yays
and
two
abstentions
for
item
seven.
B
Those
items
are
well,
the
minutes
are
approved.
Thank
you,
everyone,
mr
ellis.
Are
there
any
petitions
or
communications.
K
Vice
chair
softly
members
of
the
board,
there
are
no
petitions
or
communications
this
evening.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
B
Now
I
want
to
discuss
briefly
cons
items
that
are
on
the
consent
agenda.
Then
our
numbers
six
and
number
seven
number
five
is
a
discussion
item
items
that
are
on
the
consent
agenda
will
be
passed
without
discussion
by
the
board.
We
will
be
adhering
to
staff
recommendation,
which
is
found
in
the
underlying
and
bold
sections
of
the
agenda.
If
you
agree
with
this
recommendation,
you
need
to
do
nothing
at
this
time.
B
The
board
will
pass
the
item
as
recommended
after
the
item
is
passed,
you're
free
to
leave
the
meeting.
Please
check
in
with
a
staff
member
assigned
to
that
item.
If
you
have
any
questions
following
the
decision,
if
you
disagree
with
the
recommendation,
please
indicate
so
when
I,
when
I
call
for
the
item
in
the
hearing
and
if
anyone
does
disagree
or
has
it
as
a
if
anyone
does
disagree
with
the
recommendation,
we'll
pull
that
item
and
place
it
on
the
discussion
agenda
on
the
discussion,
we'll
move
it
up
to
for
a
discussion.
B
Now
we
have
no
continuances
or
withdrawals,
and
we
have
one
discussion
item
already
and
those
are
that
item
the
board
will
deliberate
upon
and
make
a
decision
regarding
that
item
now
again,
because
we're
virtual,
we
have
a
little
more
complexity.
But
again
before
I
open
the
public
comments.
Summarize
the
process
for
making
the
public
comments
first,
we'll
be
taking
speakers
in
the
order
order
in
which
they
pre-registered.
B
If
any
at
all,
speakers
will
be
limited
to
two
minutes,
and
we
ask
that
after
your
name
is
called
the
please
state,
your
name
and
your
address
for
the
record
and
then
proceed
to
your
comments
after
we've
completed
the
list
of
pre-registered
speakers
we'll
see
if
there
are
any
other
speakers
who
have
who'd
like
to
call
in
and
give
testimony
and
in
order
to
activate
your
microphones
when
it's
your
turn
to
speak,
please
press
star
six
on
your.
B
Yeah
with
that
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
and
present
items
six
and
seven
to
be
approved
as
consent
items,
is
there
a
motion
or
discussion.
H
C
H
F
G
B
Okay,
that
motion
passes
those
items
are
approved.
Good
luck
on
your
projects
to
everyone
involved
with
items
number
six
and
number
seven.
I
will
now
turn
to
our
discussion
item
number
five,
mr
kolhas,
are
you
ready
to
present
to
us.
L
L
This
item
is
a
request
to
reduce
the
minimum
required
rear
yard
from
five
feet
to
4.7
feet
for
lawful
establishment
of
a
detached
garage
at
5116,
vinson
avenue.
South.
This
item
was
originally
continued
from
the
november
12th
2020
and
january
21st
2021
hearings
of
the
zoning
board
of
adjustment.
The
purpose
of
the
continuances
was
to
provide
the
applicant
some
additional
time
to
have
a
new
survey
prepared
for
the
property
that
new
survey
has
been
prepared
and
submitted
by
the
applicant's
representative
and
shouldn't
be
available
in
your
packets
and
I'll.
L
Have
it
up
later
in
my
presentation
as
well
so
this
item
or
excuse
me,
the
subject:
property
is
located
in
the
r1a
zoning
district
and
the
interior,
one
built
form
overlay
district
and
it
has
a
lot
area
of
5135
square
feet
and
a
lot
width
of
just
under
40
feet.
The
principal
use
of
the
properties
as
a
single-family
dwelling,
the
current
dwelling
on
the
property,
was
constructed
in
2017,
and
this
replaced
a
previous
single
family
dwelling
on
the
property.
L
The
approved
plans
for
the
new
home
showed
that
a
previously
existing
garage
would
have
remained
near
the
northwest
corner
of
the
property
during
construction.
However,
it
became
clear
to
city
staff
that
the
builder
intended
to
remove
that
existing
garage
and
construct
a
new
garage
in
the
southwest
corner
of
the
property.
L
This
rear
setback
of
five
feet,
proposed
by
the
builder
and
approved
by
city
staff,
is
the
minimum
rear
setback
requirement
for
a
detached
garage
with
vehicle
toys
directly
facing
the
alley
shortly
after
this
building
permit
for
the
garage
was
approved,
but
before
construction
began
on
pouring
the
slab
for
the
garage,
a
building
inspector
noted
that
the
property,
corners
and
property
lines
on
the
site
were
not
clearly
marked
to
verify.
The
location
of
the
garage
as
built
would
be
in
compliance
with
the
approved
plans
and
with
the
requirements
of
the
zoning
and
building
codes.
L
L
This
is
a
photo
submitted
by
the
applicants
of
that
new
garage
as
it's
been
constructed,
so
this
is
taken
from
standing
in
the
public
alley
and
you
can
see
the
perspective
showing
showing
the
asville
distance
between
the
garage
and
the
alley
next
slide.
Please.
L
There's
a
note
number
seven
on
this
survey
and
just
to
quote
a
note
that
all
building
dimensions
and
building
tie
dimensions
to
the
property
lines
are
drawn
from
the
very
outside
of
the
stucco
at
grade
next
slide.
Please
now.
This
is
the
new
survey
which
was
prepared
on
behalf
of
the
applicant's
representative
for
for
this
variance.
So
this
is
from
february
of
2021,
and
this
indicates
that
the
rear
setback
of
the
garage
at
the
northwest
corner
is
4.9
feet.
However,
there
is
no
specific
notation
on
this
survey.
L
Staff
finds
that
all
three
required
variance
findings
are
not
met
for
this
application
and
I'll
also
note
that
staff
findings
in
this
case
would
not
be
substantially
different
between
the
4.7
foot
measurements
on
the
2019
survey,
as
opposed
to
the
4.9
foot
measurement
on
the
2021
survey,
staff
findings
would
be
substantially
identical
for
both
of
these.
The
staff
report
primarily
references
the
4.7
foot
measurement,
just
because
it
is
the
more
extreme
of
the
two.
L
So
with
that
to
talk
about
the
first
finding
regarding
practical
difficulty
due
to
circumstances
unique
to
the
property,
the
subject
property
is
typical
in
size
and
width
for
residential
properties.
In
minneapolis,
as
well
as
the
size
and
location
of
the
house
itself,
is
fairly
typical
prior
to
construction
of
the
garage.
The
proposed
plans
showed
that
the
garage
would
meet
the
minimum
rear
yard
requirement
of
five
feet.
L
The
proposed
and
approved
plans-
I
should
note-
and
the
non-conformity
with
the
as-built
setback
in
this
case,
is
due
to
an
error
during
construction
by
the
builder
or
their
agents.
So,
even
though
the
error
was
not
caused
by
the
applicants
for
the
variance
in
this
case
and
the
applicants
for
the
variants
are
the
new
property
owners,
even
though
the
error
was
not
caused
by
the
applicants.
L
The
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
in
this
case
regarding
the
required
rear
yard
for
detached
garages
when
the
vehicle
doors
directly
face
through
the
rear,
lot
line
and
face
the
alley
is
to
allow
for
sufficient
views
for
pedestrians
and
drivers
as
vehicles
are
maneuvered
out
of
the
garage
and
to
allow
sufficient
room
for
maneuvering
vehicles
in
and
out
of
the
garage,
using
only
the
subject,
property
and
the
public
right-of-way,
and
not
requiring
use
of
any
portion
of
a
neighboring
property
or
properties
across
the
alley.
For
for
this
vehicle
maneuvering.
L
So,
even
though
it
might
be
possible
to
still
maneuver
a
vehicle
in
and
out
of
this
garage
without
going
on
to
any
neighboring
property
staff
finds
that
the
applicant's
requested.
Variance
in
this
case
is
not
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
to
provide
this
additional
space
for
visibility
and
maneuvering
for
garages
directly
facing
the
alley,
as
opposed
to
a
garage
which
did
not
face
the
alley
directly
and
would
be
permitted
by
the
zoning
ordinance
to
be
located
closer
to
that
rear
line
line
for
the
third
finding.
L
Regarding
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
and
potential.
For
injury
or
injury
to
use
or
enjoyment
of
other
property
or
attachment
to
the
general
health,
safety
and
welfare
staff
does
not
find
that
the
proposed
variants
would
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality
where
detached
garages
with
vehicle
doors
facing
the
alley
are
not
uncommon.
L
However,
staff
finds
that
the
proposed
variance
has
potential
for
detriment
to
users
of
the
subject:
property
users
of
nearby
properties
and
nearby.
The
public
right
away
by
reducing
visibility
for
drivers,
exiting
the
garage
and
reducing
maneuvering
room.
Therefore,
increasing
the
potential
for
conflict
between
vehicles
and
pedestrians
in
this
area
and
increasing
the
likelihood
of
drivers
encroaching
onto
neighboring
properties,
particularly
across
the
alley,
while
entering
or
exiting
the
garage
in
question.
L
So
in
conclusion,
staff
recommends
denial
of
the
applicant's
requested
variants
to
reduce
the
minimum
required
rear
yard
from
5
feet
to
4.7
feet
for
lawful
establishment
of
the
detached
garage.
There
were
two
public
comments
received
for
this
item
before
its
original
scheduled
hearing
back
in
november
of
2020.
Those
written
comments
should
be
available
in
your
packets.
I
believe
the
the
property
owners
themselves,
as
well
as
their
representative,
are
in
attendance
during
this
hearing.
As
well,
this
concludes
my
presentation,
but
I
am
available
for
questions.
L
B
B
J
M
Yeah,
it's
a
little
history
here.
I
know
everybody's
got
their
own
definition
of
hardship,
but
just
a
few
brief
comments
here
we
got
a
certificate
of
occupancy
for
this
property
on
august
30
2019,
and
we
later
learned
that
the
city
had
tried,
unsuccessfully
to
get
the
builder
dan
shaffer
to
follow
through
for
months
literally,
to
close
this
out,
we
weren't
aware
of
this
encroachment
into
the
easement
at
all.
It's
not
something
that
you
can
see
with
the
naked
eye.
M
I
uploaded
some
photos
onto
the
application
as
well
as
well
as
my
registration
for
this
phone
call
today.
So
there's
just
there
was
no
way
we
could
be
aware
of
this.
The
city
didn't
mention
it
to
us
when
we
got
the
certificate
of
occupancy
or
we
wouldn't
have
closed
on
this
purchase.
M
This
is
a
you
know,
we're
talking
about
1.2
inches
into
the
easement.
You
look
at
the
photos,
there's
literally
no
effect
whatsoever
on
anybody,
and
I
just
think
it's
patently
unfair
to
impose
a
what
could
be
a
thirty
thousand
dollar
bill
to
tear
down
and
reconstruct
a
garage.
It
just
seems
incredibly
wasteful
to
me
and.
M
B
Thank
you,
mr
weiniger.
Does
anyone
on
the
board
have
any
questions
for
mr.
B
B
N
B
N
M
M
Sure
go
ahead,
so
the
the
builder
dan
schaefer
schaefco,
you
know
he
has
other
projects
he's
trying
to
do
in
the
city
of
minneapolis
and
and
he
has
completely
failed
to
keep
to
upend
his
responsibilities.
Here.
That's
why
I
had
to
take
on
filing
for
this
application.
M
He
he
would
not
respond
to
phone
calls,
emails
or
texts
for
months,
and
you
know
we
we
bought
this
home
in
good
faith.
We
did
everything
we
possibly
could
to
properly
inspect
it
do
our
due
diligence,
but
at
no
point
were
we
ever
given
the
idea-
and
this
is
pre-closing-
that
there
was
a
property.
Even
after
closing,
when
we
get
the
certificate
of
occupancy,
we
were
absolutely
in
the
blind
that
anything
was
here,
and
you
know
I.
I
recognize
that
the
old
survey
said
4.7
feet.
M
M
Was
commissioned
by
me
paid
for
by
me,
and
you
know
we
don't
know
why
there's
a
little
discrepancy
between
4.7
and
4.9,
but
again
the
photos.
I
think
spell
out
the
you
know
the
issue
and
they
just
they
poured
the
thing
a
little
bit
crooked.
So
a
tiny
corner
of
the
garage
is
about
1.2
inches
into
the
encroachment.
That's.
H
B
Mute
next
up
I'll
call
on
either
stephanie
or
mike
stevenson
one
at
a
time.
Please,
if
you
are
available,
please
press
star
six
and
limit
your
testimony
to
ten
minutes.
A
piece.
O
This
is
stephanie
stevenson
and
we
own
5116
vincent
avenue
south,
and
I
just
would
like
to
reiterate
what
john
said,
and
I
also
think
it
would
be
an
absolute
shame
to
have
to
tear
down
a
perfectly
good
garage
at
the
at
our
expense
and
the
result
of
all
the
stuff
that
would
have
to
go
to
the
landfill,
not
to
mention
the
energy
used,
not
to
mention
the
disturbance
to
our
neighbors
and
the
traffic
in
the
alley
it
just
it
just
seems
crazy.
There
has
to
be
a
better
solution.
O
Well,
I
would
like
to.
I
would
also
like
to
add
that
if
the
board
members
haven't
looked
up
the
alley
and
seen
our
garage,
I
would
encourage
them
to
do
that
and
see
that
it
doesn't.
It
doesn't
create
any
kind
of
encumbrance
or
traffic
issues
in
our
alley,
and
I
believe
our
all
of
our
neighbors
would
agree.
They
would
think
that
it
would.
It
is
an
atrocious
idea
to
tear
down
the
garage
for
the
mere
inches.
B
F
Unfortunately,
I
wasn't
here
to
hear
john's
part,
but
obviously
we
bought
this
house
not
knowing
the
situation
existed.
We
bought
the
house
in
good
faith,
thinking
everything
was
compliant
and
up
to
code,
and
I
know
that's
not
something
that
you
give
consideration
to,
but
I
I
would
just
echo
what
steph
said
and
we
have
talked
to
all
the
neighbors
and
none
of
our
neighbors
think
our
garage
is
an
issue
and
have
shared
their
support
of
us,
hopefully
getting
a
resolution
through
the
board.
B
Okay,
thank
you
for
your
comments,
mr
stevenson.
Do
any
board
members
have
a
question
for
mr.
B
A
This
one
to
three
inch
difference.
Well,
I
agree
that
it
may
not
be
noticeable,
but
my
concern
here
is
that
supporting
the
request
sets
the
presence
for
future
requests.
I
don't
see
any
practical
difficulties
and,
in
my
eyes
this
isn't
a
significantly
historically
significant
property
or,
as
an
example,
a
home.
That's
been
built
on
a
steep
cliff.
B
Thank
you
board,
member
wang.
I
want
to
interject
and
ask
staff
quickly.
I
are
there
any
other
callers
waiting
on
the
line
to
speak
at
the
about
this.
B
Item:
okay:
I
see
that
there
are
no
other
callers,
so
the
public
hearing
will
remain
closed.
Mr
sandberg,
you
have
a
question.
I
I
L
Vice
chair
softly
bournemouth
sandberg.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
The
the
formal
process
that
one
would
use
to
inquire
about
something
like
this
specifically
about
an
open
zoning
violation
would
potentially
be
through
what
we
call
a
zoning
letter
process.
So
this
is
where
someone
could
request
from
the
city.
It's
sort
of
a
form
letter
that
we
will
fill
out.
L
That
explains
the
the
zoning
districts
that
the
property
is
in
and
whether
or
not
an
existing
or
proposed
use
is
permitted
on
a
property,
and
we
will
also
explain
if
there
are
any
open
zoning
violations
on
record
for
the
property.
At
the
time
of
the
zoning
letter
request,
we
will
make
note
of
those
specifically
in
in
that
letter.
There
is
a
fee
required
for
that.
L
It
often
takes
you
know
a
few
business
days
to
to
prepare
it,
but
that
is
potentially
an
option
for
for
interested
parties
for
situations
like
this
otherwise
informally,
we
zoning
staff
are
available
for
general
questions
for
situations
like
this.
If
someone
might
suspect
that
there
could
be
a
potential
issue
with
the
property
and
not
even
limited
to
a
situation
like
this,
where
it's
prior
to
prior
to
buying
a
home
people,
you
know
we're
available
for
questions
and
and
can
provide
that
information
for
people
informally
as
well.
L
Hamburg,
anecdotally,
I
would
say
that
no,
I
don't
think
it
is
very
common
for
for
potential
purchasers
of
a
single
family
dwelling
to
request
a
formal
zoning
letter
prior
to
signing
a
purchase
agreement
or
as
part
of
their
due
diligence.
We
do
not
see
it
as
commonly,
as
we
might
see,
prior
to
a
a
larger
project.
I
And
then
I
guess
another
question
is:
would
it
be
reasonable
for
us
to
consider
this
as
a
circumstance
of
the
property
that
not
created
by
the
applicant
that
we
could
consider
a
something
that
created
not
a
hardship
but
actions
that
would
be
unreasonable.
L
B
Thank
you,
mr
cohassel
I'll
recognize,
mr
ellis
at
the
moment.
K
Thank
you
vice
chair,
softly
board
member
sandberg,
and
then
it
looks
like
after
this
board
member
joe
henderson
will
also
have
a
commenter
question.
Yeah
generally,
the
the
zoning
letter
is
used
in
conjunction
with
properties
where
a
lender
might
be
concerned.
So
outside
of
a
few
key
situations,
we
almost
never
see
a
zoning
letter
with
a
single
family
home.
We
generally
see
them
with
two
plexes
three
plexes
multi-family,
those
sorts
of
things
where
the
lender
wants
a
little
bit
more
insurance.
K
Single-Family
homes
tend
to
be,
you
know,
sort
of
the
basis
of
a
lot
of
the
lending
institutions
and
they
they
tend
to
move
quickly
and
if
there
isn't
some
sort
of
obvious
non-conformity
generally,
the
lending
institution
will
not
request
so
it.
It
is
something
that
you
wouldn't
see
with
a
single
family
home
almost
ever
and
to
double
check.
To
answer
the
question.
Also:
where
would
you
locate?
There
is
one
thing
that
this
is
actually
kind
of
brought
to
my
attention.
K
Traditionally,
we
have
had
sort
of
code
enforcement
cases
available
on
the
internet,
but
I'm
looking
now
at
some
of
the
changes,
and
while
we
have
the
service
requests
which
might
show
a
complaint
or
something
about
those
lines,
they
don't
necessarily
have
the
the
like
a
code
enforcement
case.
So
in
this
case
we
didn't
get
a
complaint
about
it.
K
It
was
discovered
as
part
of
the
inspections
process,
so
it
goes
straight
to
code
enforcement,
so
it
doesn't
show
up
as
a
service
request
that
somebody
could
look
up
online,
and
so
you
know
that
that
does
kind
of
beg.
The
question
on
this.
As
far
as
the
question
as
to
whether
the
board
can
use
it,
the
board
can
make
what
findings
it
wants
regarding
this.
If
the
board
feels
that
it's
sufficient,
they
can
certainly
do
so.
You
know
I
I
could
never
even
begin
to
you
know
as
staff,
that's
not
a
finding.
K
We
could
be
able
to
make,
but
the
board
might
be
able
to
you
know.
That
being
said,
you
know,
I
don't
know
how,
like
anything,
would
come
out
in
a
lawsuit.
However,
you
know
if
the
board
is
inclined
to
approve
it.
That
is
something
they
could
add
as
part
of
the
findings.
N
Thank
you
vice
chair
softly,
I'm
I'm
leaning
towards
lack
of
due
diligence
here.
I
I
looked
at
a
property
search
and
both
of
the
both
of
the
permits
for
the
home
and
the
garage
are
still
open
and
you
can
see
which
which
reviews
failed
in
past,
and
so
I
feel
like
someone
may
have
purchased
the
property
without
doing
research
and
knowing
that
there
were
open
issues
on
this.
I
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair
softly
to
mr
joe
hannahsen's
point.
I
did
look
at
the
property
records
for
this
and
I'm
not
sure
I
understand
it
entirely,
but
I
saw
the
the
building
permit
for
the
garage
and
it
looked
to
me
like
there
was
a
final
inspection
listed
as
passed
in
august
of
2019.
N
No,
I'm
fine,
I'm
fine.
I
understand
that,
but
I
look
at
the
same
thing,
so
I
get
it,
but
it's
it's
true,
but
it's
still
confusing
to
me
and
it
would
draw
my
attention
to
maybe
ask.
J
Looking
at
this,
I
think,
if
I
understood
the
city's
position
on
this
and
knowing
that
we
have
a
very
narrow
scope
of
items
to
look
at
and
need
to
find
in
favor
of
all
three
findings
in
order
to
grant
a
variance
I
looking
at
this,
I
I
disagree
with
the
city's
position
on
what
I
refer
to
as
findings.
Two
and
three
as
as
noted
by
the
applicant
and
representative
of
the
applicant
this
this
particular
property,
I
don't
think,
is
anyway
harmful
to
the
neighborhood.
J
I
don't
think
there
is
any
situation
that
it's
any
detriment
to
the
area
or
to
the
surrounding
properties
there.
J
Secondly,
I
also
don't
think
I
think
they're
looking
to
use
it
in
a
reasonable
manner
to
have
a
garage
and
have
a
garage
that
that
has
spaces
that
back
out
into
the
alley,
I
think,
is
very
much
reasonable
and
have
have
no
issues
with
with
either
items
from
two
and
three
and
believe
that,
given
some
testimony
of
the
applicant
that
that's
been
demonstrated.
J
However,
where
I
find
my
hook
here
is
on
finding
number
one
in
the
practical
difficulty
to
see
that
there's
something
unique
to
this
particular
property
that
would
cause
for
us
to
grant
a
variant,
and
I
agree
with
the
applicant
it
seems
to
be.
I
think
one
of
the
terms
used
was
invisible
problem
and
you
know
it's
not
something
that
that
any
of
us
are
going
to
be
able
to
discern
with
the
naked
eye
and
go
through
and
do
it.
J
However,
there's
a
violation
of
of
code
or
a
difference
varying
from
the
specifics
of
the
code
that
was
done
here.
I
don't
find
the
fact
that
it
was
done
prior
to
purchase
of
the
applicant
to
necessarily
be
specific
and
create
that
particular
practical
difficulty.
J
As
such,
I
I'm
having
trouble
finding
in
favor
of
granting
this
applicant,
and
while
I
am
sympathetic
to
to
the
cause
and
certainly
believe
that
it
seems
just
it
seems
that
we're
like
you,
said
we're
we're,
there's
a
problem
here
that
doesn't
need
to
exist.
It's
it
is
outside
the
lines
of
of
code,
and
I
don't
believe
that
it's
been
proven
to
this
board
that
a
practical
difficulty
with
the
property
exists
that
would
allow
for
us
to
grant
for
that
variance.
J
B
Thank
you,
mr
o'keefe.
I
have
a
question
for
staff
and
this
could
be
either
mr
colas
or
mr
ellis
both
speak
freely.
If,
if
you
need
to
rely
on
each
other,
but
if
the
board
were
to
approve
the
application
and
grant
the
variance
would
would
the
approval
be
limited
to
the
garage
as
built
or
would
the
approval
essentially
eliminate
the
rear
yard
setback.
L
Vice
chair
softly
that
approval
would
be
for
the
garage
as
built
as
noted
as
in
the
in
the
staff
report,
using
that
4.7
feet
measurement
at
the
northwest
corner
and
would
not
allow
you
know
a
larger
garage
or
an
expansion
of
a
garage
on
this
property
up.
You
know
closer
to
the
rear
lot
line
than
the
garage
as
constructed
today.
I
I
I
think
we
do
consider
as
built
situations,
often
on
properties
for
variances
for
doing
things
such
as
retaining
walls
that
may
be
existing,
and
I
think
in
this
case
the
fact
that
the
applicant
had
nothing
to
do
with
creating
the
circumstance
is
a
special
case
to
ms
wang's
comment
about
creating
a
precedent
and
concern.
I
understand
that,
but
this
board
being
quasi-judicial
does
not
create
precedence.
I
We
do
not
create
an
obligation
to
do
the
same
thing
again,
should
a
similar
situation
arise
and
it
cannot
be
used
as
a
as
a
precedent
for
supporting
future
acts,
actions
by
people
with
property
in
the
city.
So
I'm
still.
I
appreciate
mr
o'giva's
statement
of
findings
on
finding
two
and
three,
but
I
think
we
still
have
some
consideration
for
finding
one
in
practical
difficulty.
D
Chair
softly
john
pendleson.
D
D
That,
however,
does
not
strike
me
as
the
basis
for
making
a
variance.
The
problem
is,
it's
still
a
violation
of
code,
and
it's
unfortunate,
the
builder
is
not
well
behaved,
but
there
are
other
remedies
involved
if
there
were
any
real
estate
agents
involved
in
this,
and
the
builder
has
to
have
a
real
estate
license.
If
no
one
else
does,
then
those
remedies
exist
and
they're
legal
remedies
and
they
involve
obtaining
a
settlement,
for
whatever
has
to
be
done
to
make
sure
that
this
is
done
right.
D
But
as
such,
I
cannot
support
a
variance,
and
I
am
in
support
of
the
staff's
position.
Thank
you.
B
J
Thank
you
vice
chair
softly.
If
I
could
have
a
question
for
the
motion
maker
and
my
question
would
be
is:
is
the
motion
before
us
to
move
staff
findings,
our
staff
position
and
on
all
three
findings?
One
two
and
three.
B
Okay,
we
will
now
call
a
vote
to
support
staff
findings
and
deny
the
variance
request
in
in
full
clerk.
Would
you
please
call
the
roll.
O
C
Hi,
remember
hutchins.
Maybe
I
cut
out
board
member
hutchins.