November 8, 2022 — Board of Zoning Adjustment Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Doing it after that. Yes, yes, all right. Good evening, um or afternoon. I guess we're kind of in the afternoon. Still, this is a meeting of the Board of Zoning adjustment tonight. We have three items. Is that right? Probably is that Did I get that right? And um? The order of the items is outlined in the in the um hearing. But we have uh first twenty, one, twenty-four Pine Street, then nine Hundred and Seven Eleventh Street, and then eight, twenty, Thirty-six street on each item. The staff will present first, and the applicant second. Um, Just so you know right after Staff presents uh the Board normally ask staff questions, and then the applicant gets uh their opportunity to present. After that the public will be invited to comment. If there's anyone here, and then the Board will discuss some of the things we try to share with. People are voting rules, et cetera. But before I do that we normally do have a decorum Comment Uh: is that Devin? Are you gonna do that? I will actually do this? Um for tonight's meeting, gentlemen? Thank you, Amanda. Welcome. Yeah, let me just share my screen here real quick.

[1:18] Just you all can follow along with the slides, oops and the right one. Okay, Um. So These are our guidelines for public participation at city meetings. Um, get into presentation mode here. Okay. So the city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. Um. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. Um, for more information about this vision and the community engagement processes. Um! You can certainly visit our website listed here.

[2:07] Um. The following are examples of our rules of decorum found in the boulder based code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting. Um, all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. Uh no participant shall make threats or use or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Um. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, uh participants are required to identify themselves, using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak um currently. Only audio testimony is permitted online. Um, As Jill mentioned when it's time for any type of public participation. Um,

[3:03] you can use the raise hand function um on the bottom bar of your screen. We're in zoom Webinar format. Um. If there are any participants um on the phone, you may dial star nine um! Which will alert us that you have raised your hand to speak um when it's your turn. Um! I will be adjusting the settings and allow you to unmute yourself. Um. And again, here's just a little graphic to show you kind of where the raise You can click on the reactions here and the raise hand function. Um, if you would like to speak, and with that chill oh, turn it back over to you. Thank you very much appreciate it. And now we're welcoming Devon, who'll be our zip facilitator uh in future meetings. Um! So welcome aboard Devon. Thank you. Glad to be here. Thank you. So when you go over the voting roles now. Um! Just so that everybody, when you're it's your turn. You know how our board works, so we have a full board here tonight. An affirmative vote of three or more board members shall result in passage of the motion. An applicant cannot be approved with less than three affirmative votes.

[4:18] If the first vote taken on a motion to prove or deny an application, results in a tie, two to two, the applicant shall be allowed to rehearing a tie vote on any subsequent motion. To approve or deny, shall result in defeated the motion and denial of the application. A vote of two to one or one to two on a motion, shall in all respect to be considered a tie; and for those of you that are presenting. We'll go through this at the time before we vote, and we'll kind of give you an idea of where things are going. So I am. We are now ready to proceed. Um! With the first item on our docket uh which is, I get there back to the beginning of this long packet, for today is poc twenty, twenty-two dash zero, zero one five, twenty, one twenty-four, Pine Street robbie over to you.

[5:07] Thank you, Jill, and let me just go ahead and share my screen. Okay, this is docket Number Boz, two hundred and twenty-four Pine Street and this is a setback variance as part of a proposal to add a rear two-story addition onto the single story single family nonconforming house. The applicant is requesting a combined side yard setback variance to the west side yard setback for a principal structure in the Rmx. One zoning district. The resulting west setback will be approximately five point seven feet taken from the closest point of the rear addition, where eight point six feet is required, and we're approximately five point seven feet taken from the closest point of the house exists today. Section of the land use code to be modified for the revised Code Um,

[6:00] Section nine hundred and seventy-one boulder revised code, one thousand nine hundred and eighty-one, and up there on the screen you have the location of the subject property. Two hundred and twenty-four Pine Street, the front Yard is up or north along Pine Street, and within the packet i'm um the board. I'm sure you notice that there were two letters of support, and that was from two, one, one, Eight Pine Street and two one, two Zero Pine Street, which are the two properties to the west; also the two properties that would be directly impacted by the combined side yard setback variance, and to the south of the property is, it's called the Twenty-first Street Alli It is a an ally, and there, up on the screen. You see the existing site conditions as well as to the right. You see the um survey plat that shows the existing, and down is the front of the property. Um, in case that looks a little off, so um to the upper portion, where it's a single family brick house. That's where the subject addition is going to be um added on to the house pending tonight's decision, and then we have the existing conditions today. This is the single story. Single family house, nonconforming house that is out there today.

[7:16] So what the Board is considering tonight is again a setback variance for the new rear addition, and this is to meet the minimum combined. Um side yard setback requirements, and this is a side or west setback variance of a pro for approximately five point seven feet from the closest point where eight point six feet is required, and five point seven feet exists today. Up there on the screen. The front yard or Pine Street is up and circled there in red. I have the subject side of the house. Um. The single family homes are required to meet two setbacks, two different setback requirements. One is the minimum setback, which is five feet, and then the other is combined. Setback, which is the total of both yards needs to add up to fifteen,

[8:03] and we call that the zigzag rule, and I know that uh, most of you, if not all of you, have dealt with the combined side yard requirements. So tonight it is not a minimum setback uh variance. It is just the combined Um! That's why it's um. They're meeting five on both sides, So they're meeting the minimum. But because the East um, or right on the image set back is currently at six point four feet. The difference of fifteen is six point. Four means that they have to have at least eight point six feet on the west side. Um with that um, they're proposing five point seven. So that's why it is a combined side. Here it's set that variance um, and not a minimum. And then we also have. This is all provided within the application materials. We have the subject existing and proposed conditions, or the proposed conditions of both the main level and the upper level as well as up there on the screen. Um, you see the um proposed elevations, architecture, elevations for all sides of the house,

[9:03] and then the kind of darker area that um denotes the the addition to the house, and you can see on the lower right image that is the west um side of the house the more impactful side of the house, and you can see the subject. Addition um to the right of that image into the right of the existing house little on the way of the zoning metrics. It is owned. Rmx. One lot size is just over seven thousand square feet, where six thousand is the minimum for the zoning district. The maximum allowed building coverage for the property is twenty, four, fifty, one, and including the addition, the proposed building coverage comes in at about twenty to thirty-five, so under the maximum allowance and for floor area, the maximum allowed floor area for the entire property is thirty, eight, sixteen, and with the addition, the proposed floor area is um proposed at twenty-seven, forty-three, both of these would be confirmed at time of building permit,

[10:03] and then solar access area two, which is a twenty-five foot solar fence um not impacted, and no violation is created as a result. Of the addition we'll verify that at building permit like always and then same with um side yard, while articulation and side yard bulk plane not impacted, but will be verified at time of building permit, and then maximum height, for the property is thirty-five feet, and with the addition, the proposed height is twenty nine foot nine inches about ten feet above where it is um today, and then low away in the history. The house was built circa in one thousand nine hundred and five, so the existing setback conditions are um were somewhat different than what we would see today, especially the combined setback requirements. With that being said, the applicant did respond to criterion. H. One and H. Five, and that is what Staff also reviewed when determining our recommendation. We are gonna we are recommending um support of the application as it has been presented by the application.

[11:04] Um, considering the law restrictions and the um fact that it's not a minimum side here at setback, but one of the two combined setback uh combined setback requirements. Oh, we feel it is a minimal variance. Um, relatively speaking, and um would not a negatively impacted surrounding properties or the neighborhood, or the character of the neighborhood, and then the two neighbors that would be directly impacted, have written in um with support, and that has been provided so with that staff is recommending support of the application as presented. And, um! I can answer any questions if you have any. Thank you, Robbie. So who on the board has questions for Robbie? Okay, I think none of us. So um the applicant, if they're ready, maybe you can bring them in, Amanda, please?

[12:05] Yes, certainly. Hello, Hi! It is. Uh, is Hol is here? Yes, and let me remind you, uh, welcome to the meeting, because before each of you speak. Whoever speaking please state your name and your address for the record. Thank you. I i'm Hollis, Daniel and some husband count model Um. Our existing address is thirty, one Ninety-seven Street, but twenty one twenty-four is hopefully sooner than later. Our new address. Thank you. And then, who's going to speak, that this is just when you speak is when you introduce, so it's fine, perfect, Whichever who I' going next go for it.

[13:04] Oh, let's say halls, if you want to go ahead. Well, we're just saying I I mean Robbie did a great job, explaining all the things that we are requesting. Um. We love this house. We've owned it for a little bit now, and I grew up in the wood your neighborhood. So we're just trying to update this old cool house, and The reason we're asking for that side set back is so that it doesn't the addition doesn't look like a big mushroom in the back. We kind of want to keep it like a little bit more discreet on the side, and since the house is in l shape fitting it in that side L is what we felt like need it modernized for our family and our two children, yet still sticking to the like ethos of the woodier neighborhood. Thank you. Um I'm Buffy Andrews. I live at fifteen thirty, six easy Rider Lane um in Boulder and um, and working with Hollis and Callum. Uh Yes, and and thank you, Robbie, you did a fact, this job explaining it. Um. And so basically we wanted to keep the footprint as compact as possible.

[14:06] And um really use that nook um to maximize the amount of area that we can get, but not spread it all the way across the site, as well as architecturally work within the historic nature of that building which is such a neat building um on pine that we wanted. Uh, and the clients wanted to preserve the you know the building itself and just work within its envelope. It's already established. Um, But yeah, if you guys have any questions, Um, Rob, you did a great job. So thank you. Questions, comments for Jack. Please. Quick question. Um! The house is not occupied now. How long is it been unoccupied? Forty years? It's off the charts got it great. Thank you. Now I want to ask all these questions like, What was it like inside? What is it, and welcome to come? See it

[15:06] nice. There's no asbestos, so it's like from the twenties. It's the asbestos may may two thousand and twenty-one Great! Great. Thank you. So i'm taking it from the back that we don't have a lot of questions that we don't have a lot of controversy here. So in that case, is there someone who would like to make a motion, please. Oh, Aaron, what what did I do? Pup public comment? Thank you. I was getting ahead of myself because I don't have images of anybody else being here. So i'm not sure about the Webinar Um. Is there anyone from the public, Amanda, who is here to comment, Yeah, if if anybody would like to um raise their hand now, it's the time to do so, so i'll give them just a second for that.

[16:09] But there are only a couple of attendees on the on the list, so I i'm not seeing any raise hands alright, In that case we tried to give you adequate time if you wanted to speak So we are now closing public comment. So once Um! The public hearing is closed. I kind of jumped over that, and went to board discussion. So we've had our board discussion, and um it doesn't seem like it's very controversial. So now may I please ask whether or not there. Is um a motion uh I moved there. We approved the request for variance, for uh, those uh number two thousand and twenty-two to zero, zero, one five uh two thousand one hundred and twenty-four Pine Street as exhibited. Have a second

[17:00] second Maureen has seconded. Okay. So i'll call you in order, because, remember, we need to make a verbal record. So um Nikki. Yes, Marine. Yes, Katie. Yes, Jack, Hi, yes, five uh in favor. Thank you for your time. Good luck with your reconstruction. Maybe I will wander by. Please do. Thank you. Alright. Cool. So the next um matter is poc twenty twenty-two zero, zero zero, one, six, nine, zero, seven, eleven street. And who is here to present on that matter? Are they here? Just fine. We know there's somebody here

[18:03] off to you, Robin. Okay, Obviously been too long since I've spoken on this meeting. Okay. So this is Docket Number Boz, two, zero, two, two, zero, zero, one, six. The address is nine Hundred and Seven Eleventh Street, and this is a fence setback variance as part of a proposal to recognize and establish a portion of an existing fence along the South property line. The applicants are requesting a variance to the defense setback from a public sidewalk standard for a single family property in the Rl. One zoning district. The resulting fence setback from the subject Public side walk along Aurora Avenue will be approximately zero feet, where eighteen inches is required and approximately zero feet exists today. Section of the land Use code to be modified. Section nine hundred and fifteen, all the revised code, one thousand nine hundred and eighty one

[19:01] and um going into my presentation. This is somewhat different from um most, if not all the Board members a fence setback variance. Um, this is not um, as it relates to the house, but just specifically the fence along Aurora Avenue and up there on the screen we have the property. Aurora is to the south and Eleventh Street is to the front, and then we have an alley um to the west or left of the property up on the screen. They're circled in red, is the subject fence that I mentioned within the project. Description Um. This is associated with an active ongoing enforcement matter. Um more particularly um a site triangle um issue that was that that was presented along the alley. So the left part of that circle, and the applicant Um has been working with the city um to get that addressed, and in that review it was also realized. Recognize that there is a fence set back

[20:06] um matter um Within the code we do require eighteen inches that is, within um Boulder revised Code nine, nine, fifteen, and it does provide an avenue through Bosa to get a fence height or setback. I know the board has seen in the last year a height variance. This is just a setback, and One of the reasons or the reason for the eighteen inches is primarily transportation, engineering, and safety from public sidewalks, not having fences right up to them. Um! But that being said um once, you know, she doesn't fit all. So we do recognize that sometimes the eighteen inches isn't possible or necessary, so within the application materials. Um, i'm not sure if the Board members noticed. But there was a letter from the city from our uh transportation engineering manager and that group, um, stating their support of the setback variance from that group who primarily is who oversees the safety of the sidewalks. And um anything transportation related.

[21:13] This is part of a bigger project which is to address site triangle as well as setback, but they did provide that support for the setback specifically. Um, in case the board was wondering what would the city's view on having less than eighteen inches be? So that is why that letter was provided, and up on the screen. We have some images. Um. Some of these were provided within the application. The lower right image is a twenty nineteen street view. They're circled and red. That is the subject fence that the board is talking about, not the fence, the the black, broad iron fence that is before that, but just the wooden fence, and you can see the sidewalk along a roar avenue that goes right up to it, So that's where we're getting that approximately zero inches. And then um beyond that, closer to the alley is where that um nine feet of fence will be modified to meet the site. Triangle um requirements. But there is a portion of the fence that um is proposed to remain

[22:15] the majority of that fence that I have circled, and then also on the screen. I wanted to provide um. This fence has been here for a while. It has gone through many iterations, but for the most part it has been in this location. At this height I have a street view. The upper left image is a street view from two thousand and seven, which shows a different fence, but in the same location, and then, and I can come back to these if needed. Also. Um! There is permit history. There was a fence permitted back in one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight, and this was all detailed within the applicants materials. Um! And then also there was some fixing of the fences, and all of that after one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight. So this fence has gone through lots of eyes and hands, and even permits. Um, Unfortunately, though the eighteen inches was not caught

[23:08] so. Um rather than uh replacing the entire fence, the applicant is requesting a fence setback variance for just that portion along Aurora Avenue at approximately zero feet, where eighteen inches is required, and there the red line that you see up on the screen is the proximate uh of where that fence is to be, or is to remain. And then also, like I said, a portion of the fence around the um around the northwest corner of the property, or right by the alley will be reconstructed to meet the site. Triangle requirements, and that's going to be about a nine foot span in each direction from the northwest corner of the house, and I'm. Sure the applicant can maybe explain this in a little better detail than I can, but they request tonight is to recognize and establish the existing fence at the current location. Um, where eighteen inches would otherwise um be required for the land use code.

[24:12] And uh, that being said, there are no zoning metrics. Um, there's no floor areas uh setbacks to the house height. Anything. So I kind of left that slide out for the sake of conversation. But um, when determining whether or not Staff could support this, we use just like the applicant criterion, H. One a or H. One, and H five. All things considered, Um, this is an existing condition that has been in place for twenty, if not more years, through multiple um permits that. Um. The eighteen inches was not um recognized through those permits, but also um. We recognize that there is some work being done to address another issue at hand, which is the site triangle, and then on some of the photos provided. Um, You see that there is a um typographic drop off

[25:06] um of one to two feet. Um just within the fence, and to move the fence back eighteen inches. Um, although it might be possible. Um, it won't be just straightforward moving offense it would require having to uh modify and move a existing rock wall, and possibly do some grade work. And with that um it is an existing condition we recognize it is not um kind of detrimental to the having that less eighteen inches is not detrimental to the surrounding properties. And also we've heard back from our colleagues in transportation engineering that the eighteen it just does not present a problem as far as they're concerned. So all that being said, Steph is recommending support as presented, and this is kind of a new one. So if you have any questions, i'd be more than happy to answer them. But I also know the applicants might have more to um add on in terms of the history, and moving forward, so I will leave it at that.

[26:07] Thank you, Robbie. So first we'll ask um board whether they have questions of staff. And then how did the site triangle become an issue? Did somebody walk down the street and say, Gee! I think we need a side triangle here, or was there an accident? Why, how did that happen? It was a an enforcement matter. There is an active, ongoing enforcement case, and within that it is detailed as a possible issue to the site triangle for this fence, and through evaluation of that Enforcement matter. It was also um made known that there is a setback issue with offense. So it was kind of presented through the Enforcement case. So the Enforcement case was specific to the site triangle. Yeah, I think that's why I was just about to ask for clarification. There's not a separate enforcement.

[27:02] Okay, What's up? Um. I I've talked to the prosecutor. Um, Who's been involved in helping the applicants in the site triangle issue, and she was not aware of a complainant. Um, so I don't know how the code enforcement originally saw it, if it was their own investigation, or but a a complaint is not known as at least as far as the prosecution Office is aware. It looks like the applicant might have an answer. Let's let's hold that thought Um and Nikki. Why don't you go ahead? We'll come back to it. Yeah, thanks, Jill. Um, Maybe Aaron will know this. I'm interested in liability issues. So if someone trips and falls on the sidewalk, and we, as a buzz a board, have approved a variance to this fence that

[28:02] someone trips and falls because there's not enough. I I heard Robbie say that part of the eighteen inches is due to safety issues. So, Aaron, maybe, or anyone else, can you speak to what happens if if if we, as a board say, yeah, this is cool, this is okay. And then somebody trips and falls, and they say, well, there should have been eighteen inches here and there. Wasn't the sure I could. I can speak to that, Nicki. The The city can have liability for sidewalk issues. If there's a known safety problem. So you know, say, we get a report that a sidewalk is uneven, and we ignore it. Uh, and someone trips and falls that can lead to liability. Uh, but i'm i'm not aware of a of a specific safety with the eighteen inches The site triangle um the bos uh variance would not change those requirements. Um! And from from what I know of the code Enforcement prosecution, that's what they're concerned with. As to safety. Um, not so much the eighteen inches. So we're We're not aware of a safety problem that Bozo would be kind of ignoring.

[29:17] Hey, you go ahead and Nicky, thank you for that, Erin. So then, maybe, if I can go back to Robbie, then, when you said that the eighteen inches was due to safety, can you help me understood what you meant by that? So I think. Um, that is more to do with. Why, it was put in the code, just as a way to ensure that there is a buffer of some sort. Um. So when I say it's because there is a concern for safety that may not necessarily be accurate. An accurate way to say it. It's more. It was put in the code to ensure that there is a buffer, but, like with all variance matters. It is something that can be modified, and that really does not come specifically from zoning, which is why we did reach out to our colleagues in transportation engineering to get their input. Um. If they had concerns with a setback of eighteen inches they would have let us know in that would have

[30:12] possibly been a different presentation tonight. Um! But they did not have concerns with the eighteen inches. They're more focused on the the site triangle and modifying the fence to meet that um which is not in front of the board tonight. So it's more of a it's in the code. It was put in the code a while ago. And um! The fact that we did provide an avenue to seek a variance does mean that there it's not black and white. It's. There is a way to get it reduced. Um! And that is why they're in front of you tonight. So it's more of an engineering transportation thing. But um. Zoning is fortunate to kind of oversee Bosa, so we get to take these to Bosa. Hi! Can I tag along with that one Nikki um So in my neighborhood. Um! Many people take out existing fences that are on the sidewalk and install tall wood fences, and every time it happens I like on a call, but I don't necessarily call

[31:13] because this is a really sticky area. So what I've been told is that it has to do with Well, if you had a bicycle, right? And you're riding on the sidewalk, and the fence is that close You're likely to catch your handlebar Well, technically, and I'm supposed to be riding your bicycle on the sidewalk, I think right. And And so when I heard that explanation first, I was like, you know that's what it is, and then I thought about it, for instance. Well, but you shouldn't be writing about. You might be pushing it, but you should be writing, and so I think in my mind that because Niki i'm kind of where you are, I I was absolutely like, Hmm. I don't really feel like I want to approve something that's pretty clear in the call, but the way Robbie is explaining it with the

[32:00] you know they've given a pathway to variance. Secondly, I wish my neighbors would have gone and gotten variances Because, Ted, you know, if they're supposed to pull up, perm it's this really complicated thing going on with the fence code, and it not is not always logical. Um! So this one is tricky, and I just want to say I feel the angst over. Well, why is it there? Then you know, Why do we have eighteen inches, is it? And and you can see if you walk on a sidewalk where the fence is right necessary. You definitely feel more constrained. But okay, I mean, I I don't. I don't have a good answer for it, but I i'm just saying it's a mixed one. Um! So do we have any other questions for Robbie from the board, or shall we let the applicant have their say? Hey, Thank you rob you. We obviously had to get our brains around this one, so we appreciate it. So thanks everybody. Um! So is that Amanda, Can you let the applicant Come in, and

[33:05] yes, we have um, Jonathan with us. I see that you're unmuted, but we don't hear you speaking yet. So you have Video: Um, he's on the screen with us, but I don't see he should be allowed these unmuted. You should be. I don't see a video. I I just have his name. Okay, Um. Apologies for that. Um. So uh, thanks so much, Robbie, for the presentation. My name is Jonathan Skinner Thompson. I'm. One of the property owners of Nine Hundred and Seven Eleventh Street, in Boulder, with my husband Scott, who's not able to be here. We purchased the property, I think, in two thousand and fifteen, but, as Robbie explained, um, there had been a fence in that location along Aurora and along the alleyway for a number years of years, dating back to at least one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight,

[34:17] and in one of the images, too, that was included. You could see that there was a rock retaining. Wall, um! We believe that that wall was permitted as part of the one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight construction um it sometime uh handful of years ago. Now there was some wind events, and then part of our fence was uh fell down. We replaced it. The people that we uh contracted with to replace it, ended up cutting the stretch along Aurora um, and so we had to rebuild that, and we put it in the same spot where it was, though a different style. Um, my understanding to get back to, I think Jack's question um how this started as an Enforcement action, my understanding

[35:03] as someone was walking around in the neighborhood and reported it to the Enforcement team which led to the investigation. It was at least reported to me initially Um, with respect to the site, Triangle Um. Through some discussions. It was then raised that, or at least identified, that there was the eighteen and set back issue as well. Um. And so we've been in discussions with the city's attorney's office, and with um various folks in the city to resolve the issues. And so What we're requesting today is Robbie notes, and you can see it in one of the diagrams that we attached with our application that we're not requesting a variance of the eighteen inch setback for the entire stretch of the existing events we're planning to address. The site triangle issue that was raised, so there will be nine feet um from the corner of the alleyway, where there will be no fence, or at least we'll draw a triangle there, so that that will be unobstructed um to to address the the safety concerns that the city had identified. Um. But we would request, or are requesting, that the eighteen and setback requirement for the remaining portion of the wooden fence.

[36:12] Um, that we be granted a variance for that in light of the reasons that we um included in our application, and that were highlighted by Robbie um pertaining to um kind of the unusual situations with the rock wall and the and the drop off, et cetera. So um, I'd be more than happy to address any questions that you have. Does anyone have questions for the applicant? Okay, um. We have any citizen comment on the application. We have a couple of attendees if you would like to um participate in public comments. Now is your time. If you'd like to raise your hand.

[37:08] I'm. I'm not. I'm not seeing any raised hands. So okay, then, at this point we will close um the public hearing. Jonathan, did we get your address when you spoke before I I just want to make sure. If not, Would you please make that record? Just state your name and address again. Okay, thank you. But that's your personal residence. Okay. So shall we? Um, perceive. Is there any discussion? Comments? Questions? We have lots of controversy evidently tonight? Yeah, surely you have something to say, maybe not controversial, though it it seems. I mean, there are a lot of pieces of this lot of moving pieces. But in the end it's very simple. I mean It's it's there's There's a

[38:04] trying to say if we followed every little rule we'd be here all night, but I think for this one there are enough things that are working that we can go ahead and say, yes. Um, let's accept this. I i'm amazed that it got to this level quite honestly. But that's my own personal feeling, because again, any one of these things taken separately, any one of these setback, the triangle issue, taken separately would be a no greater. But at this point we have to make a rate on an effort. Nicki. Thank you, Jack. Thank you, Jack, I respectfully disagree um with kind of the simplicity of it. What i'm feeling is, we as a city have failed. This homeowner, um understanding that

[39:01] people went through the permanent process to put this fence up, and it didn't adhere to the rules. And so the fact that our own processes did not catch. This, I think, is a failure on our part. And so i'm very sympathetic to the homeowner in that regard. With that being, said, I'm also an advocate for the folks who don't have a voice. The people who aren't on this call um, and i'm thinking when when I heard that eighteen inches, and I heard the safety, and and I did hear from Robbie, as well as kind of. They talked to transportation transportation didn't raise this as an issue. I'm, feeling very uncomfortable with the buck like with us, being another kind of link in this chain that's also saying like kind of pushing it. It's not pushing it down the road, but also saying, like, Yeah, okay, it's fine.

[40:00] Um, What I we don't have the power to do this as this board. But i'm also I like creative thinking. Um, I and I may give in trouble for saying this. So here it goes. I mean we'll. We'll correct it if we need to. Aaron stop her. She says it can't see. I mean I i'm thinking of. Can we do some type of cost sharing with the homeowner to to get it into compliance, because I'm I'm. Very concerned about this eighteen inches, and i'm concerned about the safety. But I do also understand that the homeowner paid a lot of money to put this fence up. So in order to get to the safety of this, and again, this is nothing that this board can approve, and i'm not asking us to approve it. But i'm just saying, like the reason why I probably would not approve. This variance is because I want to see.

[41:00] I want to see eighteen inches, and and in wanting eighteen inches. I'm. Trying to also give hopefully some type of solution in which both parties can share in the responsibility. So thank you. Thank you, Nikki. I'm going to tag along on that a little bit, and just kind of reflect um, because i'm uh like Nicky, i'm pretty conflicted about this largely because of the precedent that it sets um for all the other fences that are non conforming As a matter of fact, we'll never get reinforcement on all of these fences, and the question of To what extent is it? A safety issue or not is, is um partially effective to me by a perception of how level the rest of the ground is adjacent to the sidewalk, and I couldn't tell from the images, and unfortunately I didn't get to drive by, so I don't know the answer, and we can ask. I'll ask you that in a minute, Jonathan. But um! I think I want to go back a little bit if I can nick it. Everybody, Robbie, you put up the image with multiple years of photos on there, and I wondered if you could put that back up again just for a minute,

[42:10] and then I want to talk about Why, there's from the rock wall, and what that's addressing, because I assume there's a great issue on the other side of the fence. Um and and Jonathan you mentioned one thousand nine hundred and ninety eight, but I think the oldest image we have is two thousand and seven, so i'm going to ask the applicant if you would step in and answer. So I have two questions. One is, why is there a rock wall and two when you reference one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight. Um! Is that one of these photos, or is that is there another reason why you know that? Sure, i'm happy to answer that So with respect to the rock wall, you can see that in exhibit the the top right corner. Unfortunately, there's snow there. But um, though the level of the the sidewalk is at the bottom of the the wooden fence, and you can see the other side of it in the two thousand and nineteen photo um on the other side of that fence. Of course there's about um a a two foot drop off into where our yard is.

[43:15] Um, and so they're on different planes, and my sense is that this rock wall was constructed to, and I suspect it also predated the sidewalk um to help hold up whatever fence was originally permitted there. Um! The one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight date is the first permit that we were able to find for a six foot fence and retaining Wall, um! And that's the one that was referenced in um one of our these other uh slides here Uh, of course, we don't have a a photo of that we're not able to confirm um with any images. We also didn't purchase the property until um after two thousand and fifteen. So even the two thousand and seven photo like um that that predates us as well. Um,

[44:03] there is a photo in uh our application. Um, That shows you the fence that existed immediately prior to the one that we built. Um! It's rather faded. It's an old cedar fence. Um! That's the one that we believe that has been there for, uh, at least when we were chatting with the prior owners. Um! We think that was about twenty or so years, but we're not exactly sure we can't confirm that. So it answers my questions. Thank you. Um! And you could drop that screen share. I will hold on one second, so I think um one of the things if I was, if we were all together. If you guys imagine I don't think you can see my cursor. But um, Robbie, if you ran a cursor along the fence line from the Yup. Uh-huh! And all the way back to the end of the fence.

[45:01] You can actually sort of see that there's grade change back here. And so I think that i'm going to be comfortable approving this variance, because the I think the existing site conditions are stuff such that there's really no other option. Um! Short of moving that fence, rebuilding the retaining while creating a situation. When I can walk down the street. Nicki Come on by, and i'll see you There's like ten non-compliant fences in my neighborhood where it is flat. So um I just I I think that for me i'm going to be comfortable with this, but I do appreciate your concerns, Nikki, and I think that um. I think that that this is another one of those rules where people end up, probably saying things like, Why do we have this? Can we be more clear? Why we have this, Aaron, did you have a comment for us because I got a little message on here? But I didn't see the message. I believe the exhibit That shows the the prior fence is exhibit f

[46:03] um, that the applicant referenced. If if anyone has has access to that and and I don't know if in nineteen ninety-eight, the eighteen inches was a requirement or something that that changed um subsequent to the fence being built and the tricky part with exhibit F. If you look at that. One is that you can't see the condition on the other side of the fence, so you can see there's a retaining wall in the in and and I, Robbie, is. It was the eighteen inch, not a code requirement in one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight I unfortunately cannot speak to when exactly that came into establishment. Sorry. Yeah. So that would be another question. Um, you know, there's always the option to to get the answers to our questions and and address this, you know, thirty days from now at the next meeting. If um, if that would make people more comfortable, I I don't know how other people feel about it. So we might want to do a little bit of um

[47:03] polling of the board. Um, you know. Obviously Nikki and I are a bit divided on on this one struggling, and as certainly, let me say, from my standpoint, I don't want to create a precedent where the Board says It's okay to have offensive eighteen inches unless there's that's really the reasonable solution. We have a pathway to a variance, Whatever language you use in the motion, or whatever will be of record. Aaron, I want it to reflect the fact that site conditions are certainly a major reason why we would approve this, the and such that it's not a hey? Everybody go for it. The city is no longer enforcing the eighteen it's set back. Does that make sense? Okay, I I can't really, I mean, you think if we work backwards from the one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight permit, the perm it was issued, and you know, did the issuing party choose to not enforce? They can't step back, or do they overlook it?

[48:07] We don't know the answer to that. So you know, since uh i'm just i'm falling back to um. It's in place, you know the amount of effort to redo It is little bit more than we like to do. And I I understand the worry about liability. I'm. Not that for me. That's a smaller issue. Yeah, I I think that's what i'm saying, too, is that we have a non-conforming condition that was permitted. Yeah, Usually they're not perpetrated that's right then we have a little more leeway than when they're permitted. That you know, kind of like That's the way it was, Robbie. You want to say something. Katie wants to say something. Jonathan wants to say something. Okay, I don't know who was first. So let me go with Katie because I saw her first. You're muted, Huh!

[49:02] I was just gonna offer that um, You know I I i'm not so worried about. You know, sort of both of sending a signal that we're, you know, just off all offense regulations, you know. Are, you know, throwing caution to the wind, just because I feel like the fact that Jonathan and his husband have submitted this application and sort of gone through this process, and and you know our our abiding by rules that apparently people on your street, you know Haven't even bothered with um. They They they're already, you know, above and beyond what a lot of people are doing without even trying to apply to the board um to get a variance. So um I i'm just inclined to You approve it simply because there they go. They're going through the proper process to get the variance. Um, and they're trying to sort of correct a pass wrong which they didn't have anything to do with. So

[50:04] that's my feeling. Thank you, Robbie and I was just gonna say if there are any concerns that the board would be setting precedent just like with any other variance application. This would not be um. This has the same criteria that a setback variance, for in addition to the House would have. And the reason is so that the Board can make your decision based off the review criteria specifically, and on the requests on merit. So um because um were this to get an approval, it would not set a precedent that somebody down the street or next door could do the same thing, they would have to apply just like this, and respond to the criteria and um justify how it does meet the criteria. So um, I sound like there were some concerns whether or not Um, it would be setting a precedent just like with anything else it would not be, and also the letter from the city is just additional supporting materials.

[51:01] Um, it's not um saying that because of this, you know, it does or does not meet the criteria. It was more of a if there were concerns that approving this would create other issues or be a concern. Um! Through other review processes. That letter is just kind of clarifying that. No, it would not be. And this is an ongoing, bigger matter which involves the site triangle. So I just mostly wanted to say that this is um just like with anything else to be tied into the review. Criteria um and um, i'll leave it at that. Thank you. Was gonna say Robbie had um addressed as well specific to your concerns, too, with the setting potentially a precedent or some suggestion that there's um that this requirement is not necessary, you know. I think our property also demonstrates that we um when appropriate um support the eighteen and setback requirement in part. If you look at the metal fence that we built afterwards, that satisfies even more than eight, I think it might be even twenty inches.

[52:11] Um! And so we certainly appreciate that. But as we went through the variance criteria, noting that there are unusual physical conditions that we did not create. Um, I think that hopefully we would give you some comfort, and recognizing that this Isn't trying to suggest that um all fences would be able to avoid this this requirement, and we just want that limited um approval for this particular situation. Yeah, I just wanted to say i'm not concerned about outside of the um triangle like a traffic triangle, or however, they call it um, which definitely was a concern of mine. Um! In terms of safety i'm not concerned about the fence being uh on the sidewalk for safety purposes. My guess is, it's more of a aesthetic um

[53:05] um requirements uh than anything. Um I I would have to disagree with Nikki when she asks that we not not about cost sharing, but about rebuilding defense. I think we also need to be um careful in terms of um using resources that um we don't need to. And when in times that um the everything you know like we don't want to create additional waste, if we don't have to. However, I think we can probably approve and say that when the time comes that defense needs to be rebuilt. Um! It should be real bit rebuilt. Um within that eighteen inches um requirements or something like this.

[54:04] Okay, i'm going to disagree with you. So I would be approving this on the basis of site, physical site, conditions that make it just as they outlined uh in their application that make it difficult for them, if not impossible, to build that fence accordingly, and I believe that those site conditions, so that's under um nine s two to three desk eight, where there's unusual physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity and the topography in this case is such that if we were out there there's a drop off there, and somebody built a retaining wall, so that sidewalk wouldn't fall down, but the the grade is below it, and and going off in that dress at least that's what I see. Am I right about that? Yeah, thanks, Jonathan. So um that part I have to disagree with. I don't think we can in the future require somebody to do anything any differently, this fence will have to be replaced. It's a sad nature of wood fences. They actually Don't last that long. Obviously it's been replaced. Now this is what appears to be the third time the fence has been replaced.

[55:09] Um, yes, Aaron, and similar to structures. The variance would be for this fence to be constructed. So if this fence was removed, just like if the building was removed, the variance goes away, and an applicant would have to come back for a new variance. So in a way it that's addressed. Um, just by the nature of variances. So I think that a permit I I don't believe, repair would if it's still, you know you're repairing a couple of the the panels, or something like that. But if the whole fence was removed, and Robbie correct me if i'm wrong. Um. But but in that case I think a new permit would be required. Is that correct, Robbie?

[56:04] Well, if it's just a replacement of panels. No, there's nothing that needs to be done but um, even up to. I think any fence over six feet requires permit, but anything under would not, even though you still have to meet the fence set back and height standards. So that's why something like this would be overlooked. Is it's under six feet. But the setback was not being met, so it it won't necessarily require a fence permit, if it's replaced in kind. But um and Aaron correct me if i'm wrong. Um, maybe it could the Board add a condition of approval should they approve it to where any full replacement of the fence would require um a new variance review, or something like that. So maybe that's addition of approval that can be added is that any replacement of the fence would require a new variance review that that could be a condition.

[57:03] No, Oh, please, thanks. I have a question so. And can I ask? Well, i'll ask you. J. And then you can say if the applicant can answer. But i'm interested in if a permit was pulled when the fence was repaired. When they you got the wind the image. So you said that there was some wind damage pretty recently, and there was some rep here, or did I mistaken? It was just accidentally removed. And so it was a replacement, because the fence was there

[58:00] as a pre-existing non-conforming use. I believe the code allows you to repair or replace a non-conforming use if it's damaged by natural disasters. But we had the contractor accidentally cut it down that wouldn't allow us to to rely on that provision. And so it's a new fence. Wait: Yeah. So, Nikki, what? Let me Let me see if I can restate it. And I think he says it in in his application, that this portion of the fence for which they and and I don't know how much of it, Jonathan, you could clarify that but um A contractor without permission of the owner, removed the existing fence that required them when it was rebuilt and rebuilt it. Maybe that I assume the site triangle wasn't there before either Right It was corner. So when that happened, somehow, it came to their attention. Whether it was a neighbor who said, Hey,

[59:02] they need a permit for that fence, and then put. Enforcement came in and said, Not only do you need a permit you need a variance. Um, so th that's what brought it in front of us, to begin with, is an error in removing the fence, otherwise it would have still been there as it was before the prior prior installation. Okay, thank you for that, I think. And I know i'm being really nit picky here, and I apologize. I'm: I'm trying to work through this, like everyone else. But I think that's making it difficult for me, Jill, to approve it, based upon the applicant, did not create the situation because, and I I want to be really sympathetic here, because, trust me, this stuff is expensive to replace and redo.

[60:02] But what i'm hearing is a contractor de remove this fence, and that's why we're true. It's triggering this whole eighteen inches, and so Mhm someone I hired did something that they weren't supposed to do, Then that's my responsibility to fix it. And again I want to be. I'm trying to be very sensitive in my language here, because i'm i'm not trying to put blame or anything. But I think for me That's why. Finding it difficult to say that No, the applicant did not create the situation with like mal intent, or anything like that. But if a contractor didn't do their due diligence with the permits and things like that, I I i'm having. I'm having a hard time trying to approve it on on on those on that basis, Joe. Thank you, Nikki, for sharing your observations, Jack. Did you ever want to say something.

[61:02] Well, generally what Nicki, what you're saying is right on it's. I mean It's the exact thing. The contractor is responsible for the contractors actions. So I I agree with that when the shifting here is, uh one thing that makes it comfortable for me to approve. This is the traffic engineers, the people who are really concerned with safety and moving vehicles if given this one. And okay uh, they've seen looked at it. They've checked it out. And uh Robbie correctly. If i'm wrong with you, They're supportive of of this variance, Aaron. I wanted to make sure that the record is correct about the language of the criteria it. What it says is that any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant, so just so that you have the exact wording with it, and I believe the applicant has his hand up to It's it's not yellow. It's a little less um before we talk to you, Jonathan. One minute here.

[62:13] So I First of all, our decision does not have to be unanimous, and so we can each vote how we wish to, and and we can give you an idea where that voting is going to go. Um before a final decision gets made, because there are implications of our voting, if it's not approved. Secondly, this is not the first time, nor will it be the last time that a contractor has done something contrary to uh the owners wishes, and having been a contractor in this town for some forty years. I don't want to talk about all the times I've left a job site with what I think are explicit instructions on what's to happen, and I come back, and i'm like, Did I say that

[63:00] because I don't think I said that, and I've learned to draw pictures and do lots of other things. And unfortunately, I think what Aaron is. What you're saying is the applicant doesn't mean. Does that mean the applicant and their employees, or you're saying the applicant it to to me. I I think it means that the hardship there the applicant can create some hardship, and it still can be approved. Um, it's. It's unnecessary hardship, so, and that can be. You know the the drop off. You know it depends on how the Board members what you considered to be the hardship, because that was the other thing I was going to say, and then I will let you talk, John, and I promise um. Is that for me the hardship I would be would be in this position either way, whether you intentionally remove the fence, and you are here asking for a variance, or whether somebody else removed the fence. The issue remains. If there's a grade change there that creates this very difficult situation and rebuilding a retaining wall two feet into the property. Um may not be the practical solution. So for me, i'm. Okay with it.

[64:08] Now I will give you the floor. Sorry about that. No, no, I appreciate it. And I'm, that's that's really what I wanted to speak to, and this is in response to Nicki's concerns. We we're not trying to point to the contractors as our hardship. As to why the fence is being rebuilt. We're really focusing on the unusual site conditions which you alluded to Jill, or are focused on that those weren't created by us, the great, the retaining wall. Those are the unusual um conditions. Um, the the hardship, so to speak, that we're not created by us, that we're relying on for purposes of the variance, not the the contractor situation that was more just to provide you more background information about why we're in this position. Um, rather than that being the quote unquote hardship. Um, if that's um helpful. I just have to say who'd have thought that a fence permit would cause this much discussion.

[65:04] So um! At this point I i'd like to have a straw poll, so that Jonathan has an idea where we're going, in case it's not going to be approved, in which case he might have a decision to make. Um. So, Katie, I thought I heard you say you were leaning towards support. Um, yes, I I am in support. Okay, and Jack uh in support. I am not going to. Yeah. I mean, we have to vote in our consciousness. But even if there were just three of us it through to three to two, it would still um be approved. So um. I do, however, wish to have some explicit um findings in the motion, so I might need a little help in. You know, in stating that Aaron um to that you always tell me I can't, so can you, You know, definitely want to say that it's based upon um the unusual topography there.

[66:12] Um physical unusual, physical circumstances uh for me, that's important. Um. So can you help us state the motion at as we need to state it, or maybe it doesn't matter. Yes, one one question. Did you want to have a finding about a greater safety concern being created if the fence was located in a compliant location, or you mean how you mean If the fence was, for example, on the ground below the the drop off, So that would be a concern. Okay, So how how about a motion to approve application by Oz Twenty twenty-two sixteen, as submitted?

[67:03] Finding that unusual circumstances are created by the grade change, and finding a greater safety concern would be created if the fence was located in a compliant position due to site conditions. I'm fine with that. And you anybody have an issue with that? Oh, very, very, very well done. Alright. Thank you for the heads up, Jill it time to start drafting, so I will submit the motion um to approve, as stated by our attorney. Um. This application because i'm not gonna restate. Um, she just wrote it. So um have a second second. Okay, so um Nikki do it. No, um. And if I can explain my vote after we vote just so we we'll do a rehash, because I think it. I think it's fine to do a rehash after um. So we have a No, Jack.

[68:18] Yes, Maureen, yes, and i'll i'll agree so. Um the uh motion as Yes, ma'am, and Katie, I think you skip Katie didn't you say it Yes, in the beginning. I'm sorry I thought you said Yes, I I think I did it as part of the straw poll. But but oh, you're right. Yup, Yup. Sorry, Katie, please. My apologies. That's okay. I won't. Be offended, and I'm: A: Yes. So now I can draw the conclusion that this this motion has passed um we the board like a little bit of discussion, and um Nikki I I I probably have some follow up as well, so i'd. I'd like to give you the floor first. So so at this point, Johnson, you're welcome to stay with us, but we're just going to rehash a little bit. Um,

[69:08] we we, and then we will move on to um. Our next variance application. Thank you, Joe. I'll just make it quick. I just wanted to put on the record that my no vote was because I did not feel I did not agree with my colleagues in terms of it. Meeting um criteria a I um in terms of the topography. But I did want to just let the the applicant know i'm i'm happy that it it passed, and that you're not going to have a hardship. But really I i'm I'm very concerned about safety, and that's not part of our criteria. And so I could not reference that as this is why i'm not voting for it. But um, you know I I just want to make sure that we're all the equitable, and being safe um out here in in the city, and so it was not against you, applicant or anything um like that. It's just. I have a a greater thought about safety, and making sure that that we keep especially our most vulnerable residents safe. So thank you for for the very robust um application.

[70:14] Yeah, I think one of this issue has the element in the public realm. You have pedestrians going by. You have bicycles going by, et cetera, et cetera, that brings a greater urgency to it than just a regular residential sidewalk. So I think your your sense of the the importance of the decisions is very well placed, because of that. It's clearly a concern, and and I think it would really help us if we had some historic understanding of the eighteen inch requirements. So robbing. If you could delve into that and bring it back to us in the next couple of board meetings, I think it would be useful should this come up again. Um, I think another solution a very costly solution, and probably the one Nicki was alluding to you. Tell me if i'm right or wrong, would be to rebuild the retaining, while eighteen inches farther into the property

[71:06] put in the fill and put the fence up on that, and this would probably create um a significant financial burden for the homeowner. Um that I've definitely seen. We've had. We've had a couple of them like some have had code enforcement on them. Some people who said no, they didn't do anything, and another place where we literally there was a building from it. Out they built the sidewalk. They replace the fence where it was, and ultimately was put twelve and a half inch, twelve and a half feet deeper on the lot. But then they just took the they they really don't have to rebuild everything. They just reset the posts and attach the fence that they'd already built so little less of a hardship significantly less of a hardship than building a retaining wall, bringing in filter, um and things so on. So if there had been no path, as Robbie explained. So for me. If the if the coordinates itself did not consider the fact that there's a pathway through this to a variance, I would be with you, Nikki. So

[72:09] there we go for better or worse. Jonathan best wishes to you. Thanks for your time for your considerations and your thoughtful um feedback. Thank you quick question, Jonathan. You mentioned a wind event some time ago. Yes. Is that your house where a giant limb went down through the the roof of the garage. Uh, no. I went across the street. Um, but not through our house, fortunately. Okay. Good. Yeah, thanks. We are now going to go turn our attention to boz two thousand and twenty-two dash zero, zero, one, seven, eight, thirty, eight, twenty sorry, thirty, Sixth Street desktop investment. Um! Let me. I I just want to make a note here. I'm. I think we are responsible, and Amanda and devin you'll have to say we while we're in attendance in the meeting. I think we have to be on video. So what are the rules about that, Aaron? If we need to leave for a minute, Do we need to excuse ourselves, can we?

[73:09] How does it work? I i'm not aware of any specific rules. Um, you know. Uh, the Board could always call up brief recess. Um. You have. Someone needs to be gone for long enough to not hear things, but you know I know sometimes in Council meeting council members Will would use to go into the kitchen and get something to eat or get something to drink. Um. So I would say, you know it's You're probably hearing the testimony and evidence. If it's not a long protracted break, and if it is, it might be better to take a official break. Thank you. Um. Are we ready to proceed. Robbie. Uh, yes,

[74:02] okay. And this is docket Number E O, Z. Two, zero, two, two, zero, zero, zero, one seven. The address is a Twenty Thirty Sixth Street, and this is a parking in front yard setback and a setback variance as part of a proposal to recognize and establish a single Off-street, parking space within an existing access driveway off Thirty Sixth Street, as well as to add in and closed entry room to the front west side of the house. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow both the parking and the addition in the front west Yard setback. The subject, nine foot by nineteen foot parking space will be located approximately eight feet from the front west property line, where twenty-five is required and no conforming parking exists today. The subject front entry addition will be located approximately twenty feet from the front west property line, where twenty-five feet is required. And twenty-seven, feet taken from the front of the House exists today. Section of the land use code to be modified Section nine hundred and seventy-one, B, the revised code, one thousand nine hundred and eighty-one, and up on the screen. You have the property. It is a single

[75:12] story. Single family house in the Ro, one zoning district off of Thirty Sixth Street, in the front yard off Thirty Sixth Street is the west or left yard in the image, and up on the screen you have some existing conditions. Um! The upper right image is the existing street view, showing the subject driveway, and also the subject. Um, formerly um enclosed a one car garage that is now habitable space uh condition space. And then to the left of that driveway is the location of the subject entry away seventy square for entry away. Addition. The two circles that you see in both the left image and the lower right image show the location of that entry way, and also the location of where the parking space is proposed,

[76:04] but the next um diagram shows that in a little more detail, so up on the screen Um, you see that there are two variances that the board is considering tonight. The first is a setback variance, and i'll just go based off how I put it on the image above. The first is a setback variance for a front entry way addition, and that is a front west setback for approximately twenty feet where twenty-five feet is required, and twenty-seven feet exists today. The subject seventy square for entry o addition has been um denoted on the site plan. And you see, that blue box that is the seventy square feet, and then I also placed a red line. That is where that twenty foot um markers is located, so that's the most. It's going to encroach into the front yard setback, and just below that is the second um variance item that the board is considering this evening, and that is a parking setback variance to establish parking with access up Thirty Sixth Street within the front yard setback that is a front-west set back of approximately eight feet,

[77:12] and that is taken from the west extent of the subject parking space, where twenty-five feet is required, and no conforming parking exists today, and the red line that I placed um over where the parking spaces that is where that eight feet is being taken. So that's where the the nineteen foot stall will um, and essentially um pending the decision of the board tonight. So those are the two um variance items that the board's looking at this evening. There is also as a part of the bigger um picture, a rear addition being constructed to the back of the house that is not in requiring any sort of a variance. Um, it will go through the building. Permit process just like um anything else, but it does not require a variance, so it's not within the um items being considered by the board this evening, but it is shown on the site plan. So I just wanted to clarify that in case there were any questions,

[78:07] and then, within the application, some existing and um conditions. You can see the existing main floor and the roof plants also showing where the demolition of the roof will be taken place as a part of the overall addition to both the front and back, and then we have the proposed floor plan, as well as the proposed roof plan, showing that front entry. Um! It's labeled as front porch, but it is not a front porch. It is just in addition, it's conditioned, and it does not meet our porch standards because it is enclosed. So if it does say front porch, it's not a front porch, and then we also have some architectural elevations, showing the proposed front and side, as well as the proposed rear and um other side the south side of the house shown, and then I circled where that front entry away would be, and I can go back to any of these if the board needs to look at them again

[79:04] little on the way of some zoning metrics. It is owned, Ro One. It is a seven thousand square foot lot, where seven thousand is required, the and maximum allowed building coverage for the properties around two thousand four hundred and fifty, and including the additions, they're proposing around one thousand eight hundred and eighty, and when it comes to building coverage, the maximum allowed. And i'm sorry, I said, that in reverse that first part was the um actual building coverage, and this part is the floor area. The maximum allowed floor area is three thousand five hundred square feet, and including the proposed editions, the it will come in at about one thousand eight hundred and eighty square feet. It's a one story house. So the coverage and the floor area are basically the same thing. There's no upper floor, and then solar access area. One not impacted due to the scope of work, proposed Um, especially the front entry Way addition, and then same with side yard, Waller T. Circulation and bulk plane not impacted. All of this will be confirmed at time the building permit,

[80:07] and then building height is currently at fourteen feet, and there is no change, and the maximum allowed is thirty, five feet, and the house was built circa one thousand nine hundred and sixty one, and at some point in the past, and um. The applicant might be able to go into this in a little more detail. There was an existing attached one car garage, and you could see that in the existing floor plans that um prior to the current owner was converted to living space uh conditioned space. So there is currently no conforming parking on this property, and in order to move forward with certain um projects, and to allow for certain permits, a property owner does have to show compliance with the parking standards, so that being said because there are two, um variance is being considered. Tonight there are two different groups of criteria that the board um is going to consider, because this is a parking in the front yard setback variance that relates to a previously converted garage that the property used to have.

[81:15] They do qualify to um respond to a criterion nine, two, three, J. Which is specific to converted garages, no longer providing parking for the site. So for the parking element. Specifically, the board um should consider criterion nine, two, three, J. One through seven, and that is what the applicant did respond to, and I can leave this up on the screen when the board gets to that, if they want to, and then jumping to the other variance. Item: the board will consider the the basic, the typical H one and H five, and that is specific. To the front entry away the seventy for fit addition encroaching into the setback so specific. I'm. Going to go back one slide specific to the parking setback variance staff is in support of the application as it has been presented, using criteria nine, two, three, J. One through seven. It meets the zoning district. It. Um! It was a conversion that was done.

[82:16] We don't know an exact year that I know it, but it was done quite a while ago, and the current property owner was not responsible for the conversion, and all of this was detailed within the application. And then um, even though it is possible to bring compliant parking by, maybe a a garage in the backyard that would result in a new driveway. Um! On the other side of the house. Um leading to the the backyard, which may or may not be feasible or logical for this property owner. Um. But using an existing driveway for the purposes of establishing what is recognizing and establishing what's already there. Um seems appropriate as far as um staff's concerned, and we are recommending support of the parking variance as it has been presented,

[83:06] and then jumping to the setback variance for the front edition. We are also recommending support, as it has been presented the current house as designs it's at about twenty-seven feet, so meeting setbacks. Um! But the the need for the property owners to have a um for implement, whether is to have a protected space for entry way rather than something opening up into a living room and reconfiguring the interior. So the need for this um variance is to help, you know, with an entry away an enclosure that protects from weather, and we also recognize that the lot does not in the existing house itself does not provide um ample space to have a similar size entry away. Addition? Um! You would have to build into the existing um living room or family room, and um Staff recognizes that in addition to the front of the house

[84:07] that in bulk overall does mimic a typical front porch, but because it's in close, we cannot call it a front Porch, and it cannot meet the nine hundred and seventy-four encroachment standards. So that being said, we do feel that there are some hardships in terms of existing conditions. Um, that may not necessarily have been created by the applicant. And then we've also not received any um formal feedback from surrounding property owners. Um in the form of written um correspondences for or against, so we do not necessarily have anything from the neighbors showing if they are concerned or not. We did have a neighbor reach out recently with questions in terms of how, if if approving the parking, how would that impact the parking? And I can speak to that, and that this is only establishment of a single parking space. It's not allowing three, four, five parking stalls to go in place,

[85:04] and this would just be establishing the one single parking space, and then you could therefore part behind it, as we do allow in our parking standards, so the board would not be approving any more than one single conforming, parking space. Um for this property, and I can kind of clarify that a little more, if anybody needs so. But that being said, staff is recommending support as um. It's been presented for both the parking as well as the front entry away. Setback variance, and um I can answer any other questions. If you haven't. Thank you, Robbie. So board questions for Staff. Katie, did you raise your hand? Oh, i'm sorry, Jack, go ahead. I am not sure at this very moment what it is, but I know the um applicant. The representative can speak to that.

[86:08] What's the difference is literally numbers of cars on the street. If you have three uh or four uh uh renters, they usually have three or four cars, whereas families maybe have one or two cars. So it's really just a matter of, and uh more bedrooms you have the more cars you have if it's a rental. Yes, I I would say, stick to the criteria as much as possible, and keep the discussion focused on those areas, though sometimes it can. You know you don't know how it may connect to a criteria. But ultimately the decision has to be criteria based.

[87:00] Uh, I thought it was another hand, Katie, would you? That time? Yeah, I was just gonna say they based on reading the application. I recall that it was parents who were buying the house for their son, um or Cu. Student, and that he and a couple of roommates. Um, So you know, to the extent that that answers Jack's question. Um, I I agree it. However, it's not part of the criteria. The fact that they disclose that to us is, you know, it could be anybody so just wanted to be sure that everybody knows that we just It's not who lives there that on which we make these decisions. Um! Sorry you want to be careful. Um! So with that in mind. Um, do we have any specific comments? Um. Questions for Robbie before we move on to the applicant's presentation.

[88:01] Okay, um. Do you have an applicant here, Amanda, who's going to speak to this application. Yeah, yeah, this is coming on right now, Lisa. You should be able to unmute. Hi, there! This is Lisa Mauer. Oh, there we are. Hi. Thank you for taking the time. Can you hear me? Okay, Yeah, highly. So just when you stay your name for the record. Please also state your address where you live. Please. Absolutely. Um. My name is Lisa Mauer. I'm. The owner and the registered agent of Dashka investments, which is the family Llc. That we purchase this property under the properties at eight, twenty, Thirty-six street and boulder mit ctl, and we actually need your personal address, and my address is nine one hundred and one bash, or drive anchorage. Alaska. That's our permanent residence. Thank you. Appreciate that. Yes, so please proceed. One hundred and one absolutely. Um, I Robbie, did an excellent job summarizing our case. Um! I just wanted to reiterate that our main concern is um just recognizing and establishing the single parking space in the existing dry way. So we we're not talking about building anything additional uh to accommodate parking uh the driveway and the parking current parking location was, as is in front of the enclosed garage, which was done at least two owners ago.

[89:25] Um! And I also want to point out we've gone through um two uh rental permit applications and um inspections as part of this property purchase we inherited a previous tenant Um, who's now no longer there. But, uh, no point was this issue disclosed until we attempted to apply for a building permit. So the main the main concern is just getting approval of this uh that we have conforming parking, and whether or not we decide to proceed with the um. Addition is another issue. At this point we've lost a year um due to these issues that have come up with the property. So our goal is just to give a place for our son to Park, and then future um uh roommates or tenants for the small house.

[90:09] Thank you, Lisa. Um for numbers. Too many questions for the applicant. Okay, um, Jeff, if it and do we have anybody from the public here that is going to speak to this application? Amanda. Um, we have one attendee. If you'd like to raise your hand and speak but um, not seeing that at the moment. So we'll just give them a minute to raise their hands. Sorry I actually have the question for Lisa. Um! Did you try and ask your neighbors um if they would support all of this? We haven't really talked to the neighbors specifically about it, just because the people have been parking there for years. So it's never. It's never been an issue, and we weren't doing anything different with that um. But both the neighbors on the either side know what we're doing. Um! And I would also say that many of the houses um in that neighborhood, and on that street have converted garages, and they all park in front of them. So many of them have.

[91:19] They do have the three to five cars parked in front, which we're only looking for parking for one which is already there. Yeah, And I hear you, when you say it, that you don't want it like your mostly considering the parking variance. But you're asking for approval for two variances. Um, you know I would be more comfortable if you had asked your neighbors um if they would agree with the other um with the additions on the front. Hmm. Uh yeah, We haven't had a lot of involvement. Um. Both of the neighbors on either side have built directly up against the fence, so without permits we've noticed. But we've gone through the permitting process. So I think that's pretty typical in the area. Everybody has a shed. Everybody's building up against the fence, so I think we're the first,

[92:14] the first of the people, at least in the last year in that neighborhood, are actually applying for a building permit. But sure we'd be happy to talk to them. I know we have students on the other side, and then a family that we have gotten to know on the other side. Thank you. Marine and Lisa. Um. I think we're We're given enough time for public comment. So there isn't anyone. So we'll close the public portion of the meeting and have more discussion with marine essentially has. Uh opened that door up there. Um, you know it sounds like you, like many people have run into the delays associated with Covid and the complexities of our code. And um,

[93:05] it can be a difficult task to do to go through this. I want to say that. Um I've set with the city council meetings and discuss the issue of parking in the front yard set back, which is essentially not an enforced uh provision of the code, even if I mean, I don't even know how they enforce it. It Just the only time that comes up is when people apply for billing permit, and the goal is to have a every single family residents have at least one off street parking space Right? Probably that's a fair way to say that Oops. Sorry I didn't mean to raise my hand. That little excited there. They talk. Um! So when it comes to parking we do require the one off street parking space, and we do also allow you to park up to one vehicle directly behind us, you know, leading to conforming parking. So we don't necessarily say you can't have this many or that many partner spaces, but we do just say you have to have the one,

[94:04] and we also do not necessarily regulate the width of a a driveway, so it is very difficult to enforce um parking. But we do detail in the code specific to parking, and that is, you have to provide the one for single family homes. It's more for others. Um! And then you can park up to one vehicle directly behind that as long as it doesn't block a sidewalk. So that's about the extent um for single family homes that we talk about parking. And yet this condition is a current throughout, uh, particularly Martin Acres area. Um where and probably this part, which I don't think it's. I don't know. I think William Martin built that area. But Um, we're They only provide that single car R. Just very small homes, one, two, and three bedroom, one bathrooms. And so the logical plan affordable place for people to expand is into that garage in um. This has come up with for us before, so some of you who are new um may have some questions about how it works. And Robbie I'm. I'm trying to think of circumstances. I can remember with the eighty you um where we've waved the extra parking requirement. But it seems to me there are other circumstances where we've also allowed,

[95:15] and particularly a circumstances like this where um the homeowner didn't create the problem they've inherited the problem. And in effect, Um, we're really codifying something. That is a matter of fact that it exists, and people are going to park there that way, So can you address, like what some examples of other circumstances where we or where it's appropriate for Boza to get ran of our experience. So the appropriateness comes from. There is an avenue forward, and more specifically, we actually do have specific criteria for garage conversion issues, which is what this is it the property used to have conforming, parking the one parking space that's required. But

[96:01] in a prior year it was converted. Um! More times than not not through a permit, and it was done prior to the ownership of this property. So the criteria, the nine, two, three, J. Are specific to a request like this, which is there used to be parking, but it was converted Now we don't have any parking. It was not done by us. Can we have parking now? But there are also there's a more recent example of a parking in the front yard setback variance. I think it was three four months ago. Um! Where they never had conforming parking. There was no garage conversion, so they actually did not use the nine, two, three J. Criteria. They use the standard nine, seven, one or nine, two, three setback variance, because we do regulate parking within our setback standards as well, so that one was um comparable because it was a parking variance, but it's different, because it did not involve the conversion of a garage. So there is a more recent um to get back to your um question, Jill. There are more recent examples of the Board considering parking, but this one's even different, because it's specific to a garage conversion that was done without a permit, and prior to the current ownership

[97:16] they have been granted. The one that was three, four months ago is that the one we didn't grant? No, it was granted. Okay, I know there's one we didn't Grant. But that was a while back. Okay, any comments questions? Nothing. Yes, Nicky, just a quick comment. Robbie for the J. Are we? Does it have to satisfy all seven or just one of the seven? Yep. So it says, Um, i'll just go ahead and read the code. It says: Variances for parking spaces in front yard s effects. The bosom may grant the variance to the nine hundred and ninety-six parking standards to allow the required parking space to be located within the front yard. Setback. If it finds that the application satisfies all of the following requirements, So That's J. One through seven.

[98:07] Thank you, Robbie. Right? Well, now, I gotta get j one through seven up here, so I can see it. Thank you, Nikki. This is an application, Right? Yes, and their response, I believe, has the actual criteria. If not, I can put it back up on the screen. If you put it up on screen because I have the response here, and it on my screen that I could just go through that verbally if one through seven up, and there you go. Okay. So their response was: It was originally built in an Rl. One zoning district. It originally had a car, port, a a garage which we are aware of. The garage was converted prior to the um ownership occupation, evidently prior to January. Two thousand and five

[99:05] um. They, the the honor. Wasn't responsible uh parking space cannot be reasonably placed anywhere else within the existing buildings. Yeah, restoring it would result in a significant economic hardship. Clearly, Um. And then I think the important one for me is that um! It's not less than nine feet or sixteen feet, and with or sixteen feet, and with or ninety feet in length, no more than sixteen feet with Okay, Um: Yeah. So that that Thank you. I think that we've reviewed that J: One through seven. You can drop that, Robbie. I think so with that um, you know, with the in close ports as small as these homes are. Um! Does anybody have any questions or concerns about that part. I think I think at this point. Um!

[100:10] The the homeowner is indicating the higher priority for them is the parking space. Um, because it's possible that they won't go forth. So I guess my question is, are you saying you're not going to proceed because typically people are going to come here and to us what they want. You've applied for two variances, and you have a building. Permit possibility. But maybe your son's gonna be finished with school before you decide to do this. Maybe you won't keep the house. Um! But you I mean you don't have to tell us that you can just leave the application exist. And, Aaron, maybe I just. I don't want to walk in a path that is problematic, for I just want to be clear with her that i'm getting a bit of an ambivalent message. And um yeah, I I think it's good to clarify that there are still two different variances moving forward, and then the Board could take one component vote on that, and then take the other component vote on that. If the you know the owner would like to pursue both of those.

[101:13] So, Lisa, you have your hand up, Robbie. You have your hand up. Who Who wants to go first? Robbie. Go ahead. Okay, And also um want to make clear. There is actually an ongoing building permit in place. So there is, and it was um. I don't know if it was caught through that building. Permit I? It may have been caught by me. I don't know, but um! There is an active building permit for the overall project, and I think, and I don't want to speak for um Lisa, but I believe it was more um. The Board does have the ability to separate out the variances within an application, so the priority was to get that parking um. But all the application does include in the request is for both of them overall. But I think um. But Lisa was saying, was, There is a priority on one versus the other, because they just want to make it habitable.

[102:06] Okay, So I think on that basis at least, i'll let you talk if you want to add something. But I'd say, let's let's deal with parking, and then we'll deal with the porch. Um, If that's okay with everybody on us, everybody's in favor of both, in which case we can just do both of them. Um, I'm: okay with both of them. I don't need a lot of discussion about the the entry way personally. Um, But how about other people. I'm: Okay, with both. I'm: Okay, with that. Okay. So I I don't think we need to belabor it. I mean, I think we just need a motion is at least a Do you want to say something else, or is that good for you?

[103:01] It's just gotten inconvenient at this point, because Now the house is inhabited, and we don't want to interview the boys. Okay, So can I get a motion, please? I'll i'll. I'll make a motion to approve great um! Can you stay? So there's this fancy way that Aaron likes us to say, the number of the Um and it's boz twenty, twenty-two zero zero, zero, one seven. My second is that is that okay, Aaron? The way she said that, or did she need the same? That's fine. I I guess I would just clarify as submitted to be approved as submitted. I I make a motion for this to be approved as submitted. Thank you. We have a second,

[104:02] my second. Okay, all those in favor. Let's go around Nikki. Yes, Jack Brain. Yes, Katie. Yes, me yes, go forth and build good luck to you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. You're welcome. Thanks for all your work. Appreciate it all right. We've now already had a long board meeting, and we still have matters from the attorney. Um on our table folks. So does anybody need a break? We good to keep plowing through. Okay, So who's first? Well, I mean we have. We have matters from planning and and matters from the attorney. So i'm just because I know we. I got an email from you, Aaron, about it. I've gotten several emails about the red line

[105:04] which we're supposed to do something about which i'm sure, like everybody else, We're kind of busy and barely got to look at. So So so yeah, if we want to take matters from the city attorney first, uh what's been proposed are an update to the bosa and rules um. The biggest change is to incorporate hybrid and virtual attendance in the past Attendance has had to be in person. Um, and this clarifies that attendance by a board member includes a virtual. When we move to a hybrid situation, you know, board members um can come in through zoom, or they can be in person, and it kinda just um. It keeps the options open for how board members can appear. Um! It also clarifies some of the continuance language. And so these are the same, the same updates that we've been working on, I think, for at least a a year now. Um! So the the

[106:07] Pdf. In the packet. I I don't know if it was just my system viewing it, but I couldn't see the red lines. I could see marks on the side showing where changes had been made. But I didn't see like strike through and and uh additions. And so the the version that I emailed is in word, and it shows all the changes. Um, we. We don't have a a certain deadline that we have to do this by uh. So if anyone needs more time to go through it. We can have conversation tonight, or questions and kind of keep moving it down or making changes. Um is as long as we need to. I mean, I read it before I see It's similar. And uh, I'm: Okay. With it. How about other people? I'm: uh, I'm: okay with it. I I did get the red Pr. So that it seemed to work.

[107:00] Um, let me question. I had really going through. It. Is this document meant for applicants as well as board members correct it. It would be a a public document, you know, one for the the Board to use in in knowing what to do and how things are run, but also, for you know, an applicant or a potential applicant to look at and understand how the board operates, so it would be a public city document. So, Robbie, is this a document you share with applicants? No, not as a part of my pre-application process if they ask for it, I could. Some of this is what I talk about when I talk about voting this, that that the three two is is coming from this document, but it's in our notes. I mean It's something that Cindy, our previous fearless leader, um put, you know, has provided to me and to everybody who who act as chair.

[108:03] Um. So I don't know if it would change what we say there. Those actually need to be edited. Devin. I'll say that to you. There's a number of typos in there. It's called the both the meeting outline, so you may get that. And, Amanda, you might wanna you guys might take a look at that. And just because in some places, especially if you're reading, I mean, I've been doing this for a long time. But um, i'm not likely to be the chair again, so um I think it'd be nice to clean this up. I'm happy to look at that if you send me a word document. But anyway, irrelevant to that, the question is, can we move? Make a motion on this uh for these rules to be approved so that we can take it off the docket, Or do we want to delay it? Team I'd make a motion to approve it, everybody else agree, heading on, we can do this Okay, great. So Katie has made a motion to approve the rules as provided to us by, and the rule changes by our attorney, Aaron Po. Can I have a second, please?

[109:01] Second, Second: Okay. All those in favor. Nicki, Jack? Yes, Katie and me. Yeah, I Jill: Okay, we're moving on. Was there another order business from you, Aaron? No; but what I will do is send out a a clean copy, Jill, for you to sign as chair, and then we'll distribute that new updated version to all the Board members, so that you have them for the December meeting. Thank you all very much. This has been a project, I I think, really, that started before the pandemic. Um. So thank you all for your input on it. It it's great to. I think I think it will be good for applicants. It's something we can link to from the both the web page to um. But yeah, Thank you very much. It was definitely time for some updates. And um i'm just you know. I'm out of town for the next week, so if you need it signed. You need to send it with docusign because i'm not gonna be in a position We can wait till you get back. Thank you. Um, Robbie, do you have anything?

[110:06] Uh, no, And just to kind of go back to Jack, Do we provide this to the applicants? We don't, but this does guide the language that we put within the application in terms of a message to the applicants, which is something that's on the application forum. So we don't give them the detailed information like this, but it does guide our message to them as a part of the the pre meeting process, so I didn't want to flat out. Say, no, we don't want to show this to them. It's just we typically don't. So I don't wanna double on that too much, But um, we do. It does guide the message um definitely, and then going back to anything else from staff. Um. This is one of those rare times where the application deadline for the next Month's meeting Isn't until next week, the second Monday of the month. So I don't have anything in terms of. Are we going to have a December meeting, but I can tell you that I know of at least one that has been submitted. So it appears

[111:02] we are going to have a meeting. Um! It would be great if everybody can attend. I know it's the holidays. So if you cannot, for whatever reason, just let us know as soon as possible. If not, I would love to see everybody in that for the December thirteenth meeting, and it does appear we are going to have one virtually. Yeah, I was gonna say, can we continue to meet? Virtually? It sounds like we can, if we choose, even if there's a time when we start to gather again, Aaron, the the rules are going to allow us to have that choice. Yes, as individual members. As as long as the Secretary has the technology and can support it, which I I I don't see changing any time soon as long as we have all those zoom licenses and can can can make that work. Um! That that's another option for board members. I'm i'm getting pretty house found so um I don't know what the rest of you. But driving and parking is this much easier?

[112:02] Um, Okay, Anybody from the Board have anything they want to bring up before we adjourn? I do. I have an issue in my Echo Pass. I don't know if this is um the right time to talk about it. It. Doesn't work anymore. I went to Rtd. They told me to that. I needed to have a new card printed, and I don't know who I should ask. Um. Well, I I believe human resources takes care of all of that. So I can certainly um that email them and let them know that it's not working. What is your i'm sorry. When did it stop working? Um! I don't know the last few times I took the bus. It didn't work. Um, typically I Well, when I had to make it the first time I I asked Cindy, and she did it for me.

[113:09] So yeah, i'll, I'll message them marine. Thank you. See what we can get figured out. Yeah, I I think you the city has to provide the form to Rtd. Or something like this. Um, But to me and I can go to Rtd: something like this. Now. Okay, yeah, I'll follow up on that. Thank you. Let you know, sure. And and and I. I apologize. I missed this, but we missed a step with just approving the August um meeting minutes. Yeah. Well, we're not done yet. We could still do it. No problem. Um feel like I read those minutes, and we talked about, and then you made that one edit. Yes, um, and I apologize. I did get your edit, but um. I was having trouble with the website this afternoon. So sorry that edit, Isn't reflected. But it will be

[114:00] yeah as long as it will be. I I I'm. Okay with the minutes. Everybody else good with the minutes I can Alright, So I I move that we approve the minutes from the August meeting, and a second, please. Second, Thank you, Katie. All those in favor. Uh Katie. Yes, three. Yes, Jack, you're muted. I thank you, Nikki. Yes, and me. Yes, So with that, Are we finished? Okay, thanks. Everybody appreciate your time. See you on December. Thank you.