December 13, 2022 — Board of Zoning Adjustment Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Amanda. All right, hey? Everybody and i'll start, and then and then i'll i'll turn it over to you. Sorry about that. this is the meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustment. and we are immediately going to turn it over to Devon Saunders, who is going to tell us about our rules of decorum. Thank you. Thank you for that, madam. Chair. Hello, everybody! My name is Devin Saunders, and i'm the Board specialist for the Board of zoning adjustments here. we do have 2 items on for discussion tonight, and there is a potential for public participation. so I will be sharing my screen here and going over our rules of decorum slides. All righty everybody. There we go. So the

[1:01] maybe if technology will work for me here Today there we go. The city has engaged with the community members at large to create, to co-create a vision to for productive meaningful and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members, as well as the democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. for if you like it, more information on this general community engagement process. this link right here, and i'm happy to send that to you will give you that information. just as a follow as as a general rundown Some examples of rule and decorum found in the boulder revised municipal code and guidelines. include that all remarks and testimony should be limited to matters related to city business. No participant, no participant should make threats or to use other forms of intimidation against any person.

[2:01] Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that dust disrupts, and otherwise. Andies, the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. 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 online currently. Only audio audio testimony is permitted online. When we come to the part for public participation. There are a few ways in which we you can join. If you're on the on zoom, there is a little raise hand function that's right at the bottom over here. You can click over your mouse over that, and then click that raise hand function, and that will alert me that you that you have raised your hand? and have a question and would like to participate. I don't believe we have anybody on our the phone for today. but if in case there is a option to raise your hand on that. there are a couple of shortcuts so you can do Star 9 for your phone. There we go, star 9 for your phone. as well as alt. Why, if you're on a PC. Or option y for a Mac, all 3 of these options will go ahead and raise your hand automatically. so you don't have to worry about clicking any of those buttons. Additionally, there is another one right, another option where you if you were to hit re reactions. There is a raise hand feature there.

[3:24] and with that I will turn that back over to you, manager. You're on Mute Jill. Thank you very much. I appreciate that, Nicky. So tonight we have 2 items and the order of the items, and I actually don't have a numbering right up in front of me. So Do you want to give me that, Rabbi? The next 2, and then the second item will be 1 9.

[4:03] Thank you very much. So on each item Staff will present, first in the applicant, second. next, the public will be invited to comment. Then the Board will discuss makes you do a brief review of the voting rules. They are that an affirmative vote of 3 or more board members shall result in that passage of the motion. An applicant cannot be approved with less than 3 affirmative votes. Tonight we have a board of 4, so just please keep that in mind. If the first vote taken on a motion to approve or deny an application, results in a tie. 2 to 2, the plan applicant should be allowed a rehearing our time vote on any subsequent motion to approve it tonight, so result in defeat of the motion and denial of the application, and when we we try to get a feel for things before we proceed of of with a vote, a vote of 2 to one or one to 2 on a motion she in all respect to be considered a time. So at this time

[5:00] we're going to start with Robbie presented to us and again, Robbie, I don't have the I'm jumping into the link. I'm getting on the wrong page on the city website. So would you please read the case number that we're going to start with. Okay, let me just share my screen real quick for the first item. Okay. The first item is docket number Boz, 2, 0, 2, 2, 0, 0, 1 8. The address is 4, 2, 3 Marine street, and this is a setback variance as part of a proposal to recognize and establish an existing single-story non-conforming detached building. The applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum interior side yard, setback standards for an accessory structure in the Rl. One zoning district. The resulting interior sidewest setback will be approximately 1.7 feet taken from the closest point of the subject building.

[6:06] where 3 feet is required, and where approximately 1 point, 7 feet exists. Today. Section of the land use code to be modified. Section 971 boulder revised code 1,981, you know, up there on the screen. I have the property that is being looked into tonight. They're circled in red. and North is up on this image. and again the property is on the Rl. One, and tonight the board is considering the location of an accessory. a detached building at the back or north side of the property, where, just below where I have Arapaho Turner, Private Alley labeled. and this kind of gives you a closer, a better idea where exactly this detached building is located. There I highlighted it in blue on both the aerial image on the left, as well as the existing site conditions the survey on the right, and it is again located at the back or the north

[7:01] part of the property. and this is a an alley view. they're circled is the subject building that exists today. So tonight the board is considering the interior sidewest setback, and the existing location of the structure. Again, this is a setback variance to recognize and establish existing non-standard setback and that setback specifically, is the anterior side west and it is for approximately 1.7 feet at the closest point where 3 feet is required for an accessory structure. and 1.7 feet exists today. and provided within the materials. that you received a week ago. These are just some elevations and interior layouts of the building. and the intent is to in the future, and there is an active application. Convert this into a detached accessory dwelling unit 80. You so a little in the way of some zoning information, zoned Rl: one. The lot is 72, 81,

[8:05] and there are no changes proposed to the building coverage, floor, area, solar access area or bulk, plane side yard wall articulation. So I kind of I didn't pollute the zoning metrics too much with that information. But the building is currently about 632 square feet. Give or take in footprint, and that is to remain. There are no proposed changes to the exterior of the building and building height is existing, and proposed no changes at about 13.2, 5 feet. So it is below the maximum allowance for a detached building in a little way in the history. no permit or clear permit. History was found subject to when this was constructed, but there was mention of an existing detest building in a 1,994 permit for the main part of the house. So it is assumed that the accessory building was likely. It likely predates 1,990,

[9:02] and again, there is an active 80 you permit through a you are 22 to 0 0, 0 3, 2, that I believe this setback issue was caught within. and pending the outcome of tonight. the applicant would then need to move forward with finalizing that a you are, or the Edu permit. So within the application the applicant did respond to criterion. H. One a and or H one and H 5, and that is what staff used when determining our recommendation. We are recommending support of the item as proposed primarily, because this is an existing condition that was established prior to the current homeowners and there are no exterior changes proposed to the building. They need only have. They only have to get this variance to be able to establish a a future accessory dwelling unit within, because

[10:02] the accessory dwelling in it standards do require a unit to be located within a conforming building, and, as stated, the existing setback that was established decades ago, is at about 1.7 feet, where 3 feet would be the minimum required if this was built today. so in terms of it impacting surrounding properties, and there being any other alternatives to meeting the setbacks without the relocation or demolition of the building itself. Steph finds that this is an appropriate request, and is simply recognizing an existing condition, and not proposing an expansion of any condition. So with that, again, Steph is recommending support and approval, as the item has been presented within the application. and I know we do have somebody here representing the application. Then, if you have any other questions for me, i'd be more than happy to answer them. so i'll leave it at that

[11:02] great Thank you, Robby. I appreciate that. and I do have to pack it up now, so should be able to do it. Fine. so the what time right now is for board Questions of staff. people want have questions for Robbie. I have a head shaking. No making. No, okay. thank you very much. So at this time we asked the applicant to present and and then we'll ask questions after that. So off you go. So I don't think I do this part right. Devin is doing this. Yep. She was just promoted to panelists, and she should be here in just a second one. Okay.

[12:03] hello! Good evening. Can everyone hear me? Yes, hi, hi! Thank you for hearing and reviewing. I think Robbie did an excellent job, very impressive on presenting. I don't really have anything else to add. but my name is Sebastian. I'm with billed Well, and we're representing Jason. Let me the homeowner Who would as asked us to try and help him get any of you approved from the city. And then, as Robbie mentioned we realize we need to. We have to apply for a setback variance. So if there's aren't any questions that I can answer on the history of the project. I think probably we did an excellent job describing it. Yeah. So, Sebastian. If you do me a favor, please, and identify yourself with your full name and address, and that's. I think, your residence address. My full name is Sebastian Barler in.

[13:02] and my address is 8, 6, 5, 30 Fourth Street older. I I I should have mentioned that when I introduced you. I have some questions that could really be answered by either either one of you. this one in particular by you. so i'm gonna ask it now. you're not gonna want it. So first of all is the garage being uses a garage right now, or ha! And has it been recently, or is it not used as a garage currently in this, not being used as a garage when Jason Litman, the homeowner, bought it. I, as I understand the previous homeowner, had kind of turned it into a like a little workshop. Okay, you know, had done some a local and had done something. It was incomplete. So when Jason bought the property he wanted to get it up to

[14:00] a code and get it nice, or you know, Standard, he wants to be able to use it as kind of a like an office. and with that so accordingly there's no change in use of parking on the site. There's a single parking space there, and that's where they park. That's my goal here is trying to figure that out. There is a single parking space. There's one that is to the east the exist structure, and in 80 you application. We've applied to have the other parking space just to the north of the garage, and that's still within It's still on the property. Okay. that's helpful to know and then is this a: I assume this is an affordable unit based on the square footage. Is that right? I think we are. It is. I think we are just under the square fridge to apply for as a market rate

[15:01] just over or just under. I'm not sure. I understood that it's a little break up in your signal. So sorry it must be my Wi-fi. we are applying for it as a market rate. You not a affordable Okay, so it What size would that be? Then I think that the the garage itself is under 550 square feet. And I think that that is the it is. Yeah, yeah, I just want to, because the building itself is a little bigger than that. So it's just curious how that was was working out. Okay, those are my questions. Team. Anybody else have questions of the applicant. Katie, you're good. Okay.

[16:00] at this time. we ask for public input. And I i'm pretty sure. I've been told that there's no one else here but Dev and I do have to rely on you for that. Yeah, thank you, madam. Chair. i'm not seeing any attendees or public participants at this time. But this is the time, and what in which you would do so. If anyone would like to participate. Please raise your hand at this time. seeing No, i'll defer back to you, manager. Thank you very much. given that the public hearing is closed. given. There's no public comment. let's open the matter to the board for discussion. Who would like to go first place? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Jack. Jill. I'm very curious. You've been on the board longer than I have, so you know about the AD. You issues. Can you help me understand your question in regards to market weight market rate versus affordable AD you.

[17:06] So all I was asking so a detached to you. in order to be charge market rate has to be less than 550 square feet, as stated by the applicants representative. And so that was my question. Just it it, whether it it it doesn't really impact the decision. for us. I'm more. I'm curious again on the a. Do you think, since you're going through this process of re-examining a to use. I'd like to know what their, what what applicants are being told is that is one of the issues where they have indicated, they may make a change. So I was curious because of timing. because since that's on the table. if I was getting an affordable unit because of size, and it's so on the so close on this one I would want the applicant to know that. But in this case it doesn't matter, because it's 500 less than 550 square feet. So that's where I was going with that.

[18:04] Yeah. thank you for asking other questions. More comments. Jack, did you have your hand up? yes, I did. I think this is a. This is a very appropriate Ask for the the owner. again, there's no change to the existing building. There's no change in the character neighborhood. Everything is simply in place ready to to start, and there's what we're doing in in essence is a just a required procedure to get this moving so and again I find the request very appropriate and supported. So I guess I had one thought on that. Thank you, Jack. So I just wanted to clarify some based on something that you said

[19:00] that he wanted to bring it to Code, but I understand his work was being done without a permit. So was there an intention to get a permit. They just started some work and got called in by a neighbor. Or how did that go? yes, I believe what would happen was that he had hired a like a local car do some base for dry wall paint. And What I think happened is an alleyway number had seen that we're going on and then call the city and the stop we're order with the issue. And that's when Jason had called us and said, hey, this is the situation. I'm in Can you please help me get a permit? These are the goals. And now we've applied for the to you. We're here now. Okay, Thank you. Good, quick, quick question. So what did you have to then? Back pedal and and make changes to the scope of the project from the construction side? Or or is this more just getting a permit?

[20:06] You know what I what I would imagine will happen is that we will need to back. Put a little bit the energy code. you know we'll we'll have to install solar panels, i'm sure on the south facing roof. so I think that there will probably be a little bit of additional work to meet city standards. But as Robbie said, it'll be nothing, I suppose. Solar panels on the will be an exterior change, but everything else will be on the inter of the building. Okay. and a follow up question if I may have you talked with the complainant the the neighbor who complained. I personally have not. No and I and i'm not sure what neighbor it was. i'm not sure if this

[21:00] yeah, I I can't really. to the sort of the genesis of of the stop record. Okay, Great. Thank you. Thank you, Jack. Any other questions or comments. Katie. you good. You're muted. I'm good. I don't have any other questions. yeah. And I ask more about the this compliance. You know we want people to bring the compliant. So this isn't it that intended to be punitive. I just wanted to clarify how it got here. So I think with that in mind. do we have a motion? I'm gathering that people are comfortable with this application is that right? Is anybody opposed. probably should ask that question. So may I please have a motion from the floor

[22:01] motion to approve docket e Oz. 2022. That's 0 0 1 8. Can I have a second second? Okay, all those in favor. I'll start with Nicki. Yeah, yes. Katie. Yes, Jack. Yeah, yes. yay from me. So this. Your application is approved, and we thank you for bringing it forward and good luck in the building Process building permit process, I should say Thank you very much for your time and understanding. Okay, we are now ready to move forward with poc 2022 to one-nine. which is 5 away. Pleasant Street, I think. Robbie, it's yours. Okay.

[23:01] Okay. This is Docket Number Boz 200 200 one-nine. The address is 500 and 8 Pleasant Street. and this is a setback variance as part of a proposal to recognize and establish an existing but non-permanent elevated bridge connecting the single family house to a detached grudge. Therefore, making both structures a single structure when it comes to land, use standards and compliance the applicants are requesting a variance to the principal structure, rear south interior side, west, and combined side west Yards setback standards for a house in the Rl. One zoning district. The resulting rear south set back will be approximately 12 feet taken from the closest point of the garage. where 25 feet is required, and where approximately 12 feet exists today. the resulting interior sidewest setback will be approximately 3.6 feet. It's taken from the closest point of the garage, where 5 feet is required, and where approximately 5 feet exists, or 3.6 feet exists today, and the resulting combined west setback will be approximately 3.6 feet

[24:09] taken from the closest point of the garage, where 7 point, one feet is required, and we're approximately 3.6 feet exists today. Section of the land use code to be modified. Section 971 boulder revised code, 1,981. And this one has a lot of history and numbers. I'm gonna try to lay these out as clear as possible. But I can repeat anything as needed. I'm sure the Board members need me to. So up there on the screen you see the location of the property. and south or the alley side is the rear yard. and the reason. This is in front of the board tonight, and I'm going to kind of jump into the history a little bit. Usually I do. This at the end was back in 2,020 An enforcement case was opened. that work was being done outside of the permit, and that was from a previous property owner.

[25:01] and that long story short, turned into a building permit application which was to recognize some of the changes that were being done, and something that was caught or noticed during that early 2,021 accessory building permit was that a former breezeway roof cover that connected the house to the subject building was at some point in 2,016 believed was converted into a a walkway or a bridge. So that's Why, it was kind of worded that way within the application. It was not done through a permit, but it was recognized through that 2,021 permit and within that permit it was proposed to remove the structure along with there was some other working done to the house that permit was never finalized, approved. It's still to this day sitting pending open.

[26:00] waiting for Resum middle. And we now have new homeowners. at the property. So this the issue with the bridge was brought to the new homeowners attention. And the reason why these 3 set x are needing approval from the board is because that bridge connection essentially turns the what is otherwise. A detached accessory building into part of the principal house that has to meet principal structure setbacks. So, I'll go into the details of the numbers. And why here in a little bit. But I just wanted to kind of paint that that history a little bit. But what is out there today? There are no changes proposed as a part of this application. It's primarily to recognize the bridge connection, which therefore makes the detest building part of the main house. So I know that's a lot to kinda take in, and I can go into detail if needed. So up on the screen you have the public alley you see on the screen is where you access this subject garage structure

[27:07] and let me click on this. and the image on the left is the the existing conditions on the site outside of some landscaping and papers that were done to the property. Everything else remains the same, and you can see the subject bridge connector from the rear patio to the detached garage. They're on the aerial and on the right they're circled in red. I have the subject bridge structure, and you can also see the existing location of the one story. It's actually a 2 story. but that doesn't change anything of the subject garage. And then you have the house and the deck to the North. I tried to call those out in separate boxes just for easier reading, but that is the location of the bridge that the Board is looking into tonight. and then we have some existing photos. There you can see the bridge on both images. The image on the left is the view from the existing rear deck of the house looking east.

[28:06] and then the image on the right is you from the same rear deck of the house, but looking west. So you got both directions, and in between you can see that space. What you see as a bridge today prior to 2,016, was just a roof cover that would otherwise meet our breeze away standards and be permitted without the need for a variance, but because it was turned into usable floor space, as we call it, or a floor that can be used, and to access different buildings. It is no longer considered a breeze way, so cannot use the breezeway standards. It is a walkway connecting the 2 buildings. and then these pictures were actually taken today of the existing garage, and you can see the 12, roughly the 12 foot driveway to the backside of the garage, and then the There's a level below it that cannot be seen. That's actually a subgrade patio.

[29:00] but this kind of shows you the alley view of the garage structure. and the 12 Foot is pretty much taken from the alley, which is where the property line is to the face of the structure that you see up there on the screen. So tonight the board is considering 3 different elements, because this is now considered a principal structure, and has to meet principal structure. Setbacks? there are 3 variances that would need to be recognized in order for this bridge structure to remain the first one, and it's the red line, and I also have it in. The red Text is the rear south setback. and that's a request for approximately 12 feet at the closest point. the garage isn't perfectly parallel to any property line so approximately 12 feet at the closest point where 25 feet is required and 12 feet exist today. Number 2 is on the left side of the garage on the image is for an interior sidewest setback variance.

[30:06] That's for approximately 3.6 feet, where 5 feet is required. That's the minimum for a principal structure and 3.6 feet, exists today. and then the third element, which is kind of wrapped into the second. One is a combined sidewest setback again of 3.6 feet at the closest point where 7.1 feet is required, and i'm sorry that should actually be 3.6 feet exist today. so no changes to the existing setbacks, but it is recognizing that they do not meet the principal structures setback standards. If this was a standalone structure, not connected by the bridge. It would be compliant with the accessory structure, setback standards. and all other standards, including height and everything. but is that connection that kind of changes things up just a little bit. and then these were provided within the materials. I do wanna

[31:01] clarify something. I don't know if the Board members notice. But there were references to a rear setback of 5.5 feet. and then some of the images show a larger garage. It's just worth noting that those have not been approved and never were implemented, but they were a part of a prior building permit that did get wrapped into this application. So any reference on the site plan that's not the 12 feet I guess that can be ignored, because that is not what's in front of you tonight, and also not what's proposed. It was just an outdated document that was provided that did show a former proposal. so tonight no expansion. I didn't know if any of the Board Board members caught that, but there is no expansion proposed tonight. We're just talking about establishment of that bridge, and then there for the the setbacks. and then we've just got some. These were also provided, some deconstruction plans showing what was proposed, but also showing where that bridge is.

[32:02] and then again, as a part of the 2,021 accessory building permit it was recognized that the the bridge would be removed and turned back into a breeze weight. But the applicant tonight is asking the board to allow the the maintenance, or to allow that bridge to remain. which is why they're seeking their variance tonight, and i'm sure the applicant can go into more detail. but that was also all described within the the narrative in terms of the why the bridge would be preferred to be kept versus demolished. and then a little on the way of some zoning metrics. It's zoned Rl: one. Everything that the board is looking at tonight is existing. So there's no expansion of coverage, floor, area. solar access bulk planes, side yard. Well, articulation, none of those are impacted specific to the bridge. and there is no exterior work proposed.

[33:00] So what is out there today would otherwise meet an accessory structure in terms of setbacks. Height. bulk, plane, everything like that. it is all compliant, but it's the bridge that is kind of throwing a wrench into things. and the history I kind of went over already, but i'll quickly touch on that an enforcement case in 20 late 2,020 I believe was for a work without a permit, and that also included an unpermitted bridge and then a building permit in 2,021 early 2,021 proposed exterior work, including converting the end the unpermitted 2,016 bridge back into a breeze away cover, and that was never approved or acted upon. And even today it sits as pending res middle to this day. it's unlikely that we would, we would probably have to redo a building primitive that were to come in, and then the previous owner sold the house right before or before the permit was some approved or any work completed, and the home was purchased in April of 2,021 by the current owner, applicant

[34:09] who was unaware of the bridge issue, as was detailed within the variance review criteria response as well as the narrative. So all that being said, I know that was a lot the criteria that was used for Staff's recommendation. and also that was responded to by the applicant criterion. H. One and h 5 staff is recognizing that There is an existing non-permitted condition that could be remedied. and that remedy would be to turn the walkway. The existing walkway back into a breeze way cover which would close off the door to the garage, not the only door to the garage, but that north door to the grudge and access to the back patio. But we also recognize that this was not a hardship or a condition created by the current property owners

[35:06] and the removal of this would really not lessen the impact of the the physical structure of the connector itself outside of railings being on it. And then also the applicant did recognize that the use of this walkway is preferred. due to criteria, one a. There are some now I'm situations where they do have family members and friends who use that access from the main level of the garage to get to the main level of the house versus going downstairs and then back upstairs. because this is again a sunken patio, sunken area. So the garage and the what is otherwise. The second story of the house are both the main level. So the applicant homeowner would prefer to keep that connection between the the garage and the house. So all that being said Staff, is again recommending support of the application as it has been presented.

[36:03] I can answer any questions you have in terms of the history, or just the numbers that I just threw out at you. but that is a lot to chew on, and I know that somebody here is representing the application, and then I can also answer anything, so I will leave it at that. Thank you, Robbie. We appreciate your time as always. Well, They don't board with questions of staff. Yes, thank you, please. Hey, Robbie, thank you for that. not saying that we would deny this. But if if this board denies the variance. What would be what would be the implication of a denial of the variance? So I think we can remove, remove the bridge. Correct? So a denial would essentially mean that They could not utilize that bridge, and it would, it appears the deck would be closed off. That walkway would be closed off in the door.

[37:07] in the garage leading to the breeze way would likely be just closed off, because I don't think our building code would allow a door leading to a non-safe walkway, cause we would make them remove the railings and everything. Thank you. Good. Question. Yeah, check, please. If the if the bridge were taken away. wouldn't the garage need to be a minimum 6 feet away from the existing house. There's a so yes, and it is meeting the breeze way. If it were a true breeze way that is allowed in between 2 buildings, but there would be a roughly a 6 foot separation in between the 2 structures. but it would still be called a breeze way, or it would simply be called if the walkway, the railings, the capability of walking on it were taken away.

[38:04] it would we have breeze away standards that specifically allow roof connectors between 2 buildings? It would be that we would allow it as a breeze way roof. unless they just wanted to flat out, remove it, and not have any covered. so Standalone, the accessory building does meet. All the land use requirements as a as what would then be called a single structure correct. Those structures were divided that would no longer play. Yeah, that breeze ways don't make 2 structures the same. But a walkway does because one of the breezeway standards is that it cannot have usable floor space above it, or walk way above it. And this is exactly what it is so because of that. It's not a breeze way. You can't get those exemptions for a breeze way. It is just a walkway. but if you remove those railings, and being able to walk on it.

[39:03] we would call it a breezeway. Well, I've been like that a little bit, just so make sure everybody's on the same page, because that terminology can be a little confusing. So a breeze way it correct me if i'm wrong. The idea of a breeze is that you have a sheltered walkway to work from off from one building to the next building. That's the only purpose of the breeze way. And so when you say the term, walk away, we're talking about the area below the breezeway, not the area on top of the breeze way, because if it was on top of the breezeway, it wouldn't be a breeze way. it would be right. And so it's a semantical difference, because in the net effect in my opinion on in this structure in this case, and we can talk about it later. The appearance. The only thing that's going to change is where there's you know where there is a balanced or not, there railing there, and whether they have a deck it outside of that crash, because they could just

[40:02] use close off that connection, and it would just be a breeze. Wait, go back to being a brief way. So just to be clear, Robbie, before we go on. There is an entry door right? And what happens at that entry door. I don't know if that's in there. The drawing on the interior. Maybe that's for the There is a door, and it's likely through building code and for safety purposes we would make them remove that door and put either wall or window something that can't be used as a door. This is one of those things that you can have nightmares about. You know the door to nowhere. so let's i'm willing to have that conversation with the applicant. Are there? Is anyone else has specific questions for Robbie right now. Katie, and then we'll come back to Nikki. Yeah, go ahead. Robbie. I was just curious in in your staff deliberations. you know it. It looked like

[41:03] I I personally, in reading reading the application. I felt kind of bad for the applicant given that it, the prior owner didn't disclose the non compliance in the disclosure agreement. And I just was curious as to whether Staff takes that into consideration when you're making your staff recommendation when it comes to the answers. Yes, when it especially when it comes to. Was this the applicant doing was this created by the applicant, which is one of the specific criteria. That is a time when we do consider it. and I think it was made clear that this was not created. It's just unfortunate. It was not cut in the home purchasing process. And It was actually in the process of possibly being fixed or resolved. And unfortunately the previous homeowner decided to sell versus fixing it

[42:01] so. we do consider that, and it's really comes down to Was this a condition that was created prior to the applicant, the current ownership and the answer to that is, yes. So we did take that into consideration. Mickey. Thank you, Robbie. Can you help me understand what triggered this to be in front of us? Because normally it's, you know, if someone's expanding something, or you've got a lot of like construction outside. It comes to us. But i'm i'm having a hard time understanding. I understand why it's before us. I'm, not understanding what the the trigger was to get it to us. That's a good question. It took me a while to figure it out, too. But I do know the answer. So the history real quick Enforcement case work without a permit back in late 2,020, I believe. eventually turned into a okay. We're going to turn in a building permit

[43:02] for this work. There was other work proposed through that permit and through that it was realized that the bridge that we're talking about tonight was never permitted. and per the aerials that we kind of dug around Enforcement dug around it became clear that at some point I believe, in 2,016, this bridge was turned from a breeze way roof to an actual walkable that was never permitted. So through the building. Permit staff specifically zoning it wasn't me who looked at the permit. It was Brian Holmes. and it was recognize that because this is now physically connected. you no longer have a true detached, accessory structure, so you cannot utilize the accessory structure Setbacks you have to utilize the principal structure Set X. And that is all because this breeze way turned it into a connected part of the main house. So it gets the privilege of all those principal structure setbacks which is a 25 foot rear.

[44:08] and a 5 foot side, where otherwise it would be meeting it. If this was not a breeze way. So through enforcement and a building permit, it was recognized that the establishment of this bridge change the requirements for the setbacks if the bridge was removed, it would not have that issue, because it's now no longer having to meet the principal structure setbacks. So it sounds like to me, Robbie, if if i'm not mistaken. Code Enforcement must have had like an open case. And and so code enforcement just kind of went to whoever lives there now, and said. Hey, you've got a a code violation, I guess i'm just trying to understand like, how do the if the owner isn't doing any type of how does the owner, the current owner, figure out that there was something awry, and we have the owner here, so i'm sure the owner can probably

[45:13] clarify that a little more, but it was through enforcement permitting. But I think they can provide a little more in the way of detail. Yes, Jack, quick question. Probably in your opinion, Does the bridge? Is it open up a loophole? In a sense. What do you mean by allows allows the owner to do things it might not otherwise be able to do other than accessing the upper level of the garage through a second door, because there is already a door, but it takes you downstairs really not the actual bulk of the building won't change other than the the railings. and the use of the building remains the same. It's going to be a garage on the upper level.

[46:00] it's just it changes the access from the main level of the house to the garage. If this were removed you would have to go downstairs and then back upstairs to get to the garage. So it really just changes the use and flow of the 2 buildings. I wouldn't say there are any loopholes. and they are not proposing any changes to the building existing building at this time. They just wanna have a conforming property understandably so. I don't know if that answers the loophole question exactly, but I don't believe this opens up anything because we've got an existing structure. it's it's that bridge that's bringing them to you tonight. Okay, Great. Thank you. So should we take the opportunity to have the board have the applicant present, and it might answer some of our questions, and of course, then we can ask questions with the applicant as well. So feels like we're ready for that. But, Nikki, do you have another question? I did. I'm sorry it just it. But Jack asked, Just made me think of something else to ask Robbie.

[47:07] So right now, because there is a bridge, it is one single structure. So does that mean that that garage can never be used as an 80, you in the future. because it's considered one structure. Well, we can allow attached to to use, and when it comes to the AD you standards specifically. i'm not sure, because in the building code this is likely still very much considered 2 different buildings. But for the zoning purposes it's considered one. So you know, clear as mud code as always. But I believe there will be points where it's still going to be considered 2 buildings for safety building.

[48:00] 80 standards, Possibly. But I can't speak specifically to the 80 You, if they would consider this attached or detached, but we allow both. So it appears there is the possibility of an 80 you. if that were presented to the city; but it doesn't appear that is, at this time. and I think the crucial part of that is that you can have a larger attached a to you. Then you can a detached Edu. So there is some significance there, and should we approve this, we may be looking to our attorney here for some advice on how to make it clear that if we're going to approve it, what we're really approving, and whether or not we can address that concern, because that would be the difference. Yes, so so so, Jill. I I think we could do that through some of the language that Robbie mentioned that this is for zoning, and not for the purposes of determining detached or attached AD you

[49:06] status. so you'll help us when we get to that point. If we if we get to that point. just because I I do think that's that's a very good point being raised. I I agree. thank you. Erin, appreciate that. So shall we? Now we'll have the presentation. We'll have more discussion, and so on. So we're we're a long way off from making a decision. so, devin. If you're ready to help us out. Let's do that. Thank you. Eric. You're able to go ahead and start your presentation. Oh, good evening. My name is Eric Rfini. I live at 5 away Pleasant Street in Boulder, and I appreciate your time tonight. i'm the relatively new homeowner at 5 Away Pleasant Street, and we sort of inherited this bridge freeway problem. and I I've been learning a lot about this myself. When we bought the house in April 2,021

[50:06] we had. We knew that the owner had had plans and it was in the process of getting a building permit, and had some remodel plans. We never saw those and that was kind of the end of the discussion on that. And and we really moved into the house, loved it, and had really didn't see any need for a major remodel of the garage, or patio and it wasn't until a few months, maybe 4 or 5 months ago I got a cold call from an enforcement, a staff member at the at the city about this this existing sort of Enforcement case, and and it was, I guess it was flag during this whole permit review process. And so it was really really surprising to me, and and you know I went back. I talked to my real, and I I I dug out the old disclosure from the sellers, and there was nothing about this.

[51:01] and then I went and contacted the You know I I I contacted the architect that was on the project, and in kind of the the contractor, and and got the back story here and and kind of that's where I got all the design work, and some of the surveys that we submitted in this, and trying to piece it together. What really happened, and what did they agree to? What was what was the cause I really just. You know I just want to bring this. I don't really want to have this problem over my property, and I kind of wanted. I I was just looking for some clarity, and what what to do with this this bridge or bridge I got. I called it a bridge and you know. And it came, I think, Robbie said. You know, kind of give the history pretty good. Looks like this was put in place according to Google Earth around 2,000. 18,017. So that was actually, and another owner like 2 owners removed from me. and I don't. I don't even think there was a a breeze way. I think the connection that it was one that was in place. That's what it looks like, because before 2,015. There was no connection between the garage and the patio.

[52:04] So that's you know it's it's, and i'm just trying to figure out what the best way forward is, we do use it. it does provide some access from the garage directly into our house. and we don't use it a lot. But there are, you know, times when when our grandparents come, and they don't want to do all the steps, and and so, and they if they're especially if there's luggage involved, we do that. So that's kind of the the the history there. I'm happy to answer any other questions that you guys might have about this. so thank you, Eric. I appreciate that. I'm sure we have questions. So let's start. Just if you all have questions. Just raise your hand, so I know, and i'll I'm calling you no questions. Okay, I have questions. Then. Okay, Nikki, please. Hi. Eric. Thanks for presenting

[53:02] Maybe I'm, I'm mistaken. I'm looking in my pack, and I could be looking at the wrong picture. But one of the things that you said in your application. Was it, adhere to one of the criteria that talks about people with disabilities or mobility issues being able to access the home. And I guess i'm a little confused because I want if anybody cares. I'm on page thirty- of the packet and i'm trying to understand how someone with mobility. limitations would access the walkway because it looks like it's upstairs. And so I just want some clarification in terms of what was included in your application, and and you know, and what i'm seeing it doesn't make the House handicap accessible by any means. It does aid for people who are mobility, because you just have less steps, right? So you can. If you park in the garage, you really you can. Basically, there's one step up to the door in the door. Then you can roll right in onto the patio, and that takes you into basically our master bedroom. And there's there's 3 bedrooms on the top of our

[54:14] top floor of our house that you there are still internal stairways in our house that you would have to go down. but it does. It just is like we, You know we've had a a woman to come visit us in the summers, and she that's what how she uses to access it. So the car is actually, this is what Robbie said when it's when he said it was sunken. So the car is actually coming in at the same level as your master bedroom. Is that correct? Yeah, exactly. There's one step in the garage from that that takes you up into that bridge connection. Thank you. And to follow that up. Eric. do. We have a visual of the front side, you know. Where, if can people park in front and enter at the main level?

[55:05] on on on Pleasant Street, on the the entrance on Pleasant stream. Is that what we're talking about. I don't have a a visual from there. There's about it. 8 steps up so pleasant is below the level of the house. Yeah. right? So no matter what you do with this house. it we're we're not going to create a handicap accessible structure, not a 100. I mean, it's it would be like if you came in from you would like we still have an internal stairway in our house. That so? A handicap person. you know, still has to go down once. It's not a one-level house by any means. Yeah. And is that Why, when you said you use it in frequently? Because I was thinking well for groceries, and so on. But we actually don't have it that I can see an internal layout of the house as it exists. Now I think we have the Put post remodel plan, so I guess I was curious. If you could walk us through at least verbally, what happens when you open that door

[56:03] and come in your wheelchair. Where are you? Actually, it's in, and that's why it's really it's not that useful? Because you really you open that door, you come onto that pad, you, and there's a sliding glass door that enters the master bedroom. and then that's the the top floor of our house, and there's 3 bedrooms on the top floor in a bathroom, and then you walk down a center staircase, and you're on sort of the main floor, which has a living dining room kitchen. And then there's a basement as well, so it's a three-floor house that brings you into the top level of the house. And do I see because there's also a number of steps in front of that slider? It looks like. So again, I think it's it's confusing what we have here. so if I look at I I it may just be the way it looks in this picture. i'm back on 35 again.

[57:01] Is that a set of stairs that are coming down to the sliding door is that just a an octave? Yeah, because it is the slide, the sliding door, and the main master and the and the bridge are all on the same level. Same level. Okay, Good. Yeah. So what you're saying is basically, if if you have an elderly person, let me see if I can restate this and they come to your house, you can drive them into the garage. You can. They can get out in a wheelchair. and they can access the interior of your house. If it was a family member you would still have to provide. I mean, I'm I'm saying you're not going to do this for once in time. Yes, you would have to be doing this for a frequent guess where you would have to install a chair left. Okay. So anybody else have questions of the applicant besides me. all right. I think we're finished with that portion of things. So now it's time for. And again I don't know that we have anybody, but if we have any

[58:01] citizen comment. Now is the time for citizen comment. So I turn that over to you, Devin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am seeing 0 attendees other than the panelists here. So there are no public participants at this time. Okay. thank you. in that case we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. and since there's no public comment on this matter, then it's open to the board for discussion. Who's going first, please. and I guess I might so usually try to defer to junior members. But i'd like to just say a couple of things on this I i'm. I'm not saying one way or another what to do about it. I I want to talk about it from a builder's perspective. so it's a very practical circumstance to the bridge in some ways and in other ways. It's very impractical, right? Perhaps somebody in 2,000. 17,016. We have no way to know right. Just thought it was a great idea, which is easier to come in the house that way than go down the stairs, go up the stairs, etc.

[59:06] to bring in groceries. Whatever there doesn't appear to be a logical reason, because typically those things are going to come in on the main level. They're not going to come into the bedroom level. so I definitely see this as being possible to go either way. I do think I want the thing. I wanted to comment about is that you have a land condition where the road itself, the access point, the drive, wherever they're getting into the garage is at the bedroom level. So you have a landscape condition or a a top topographical condition that is dictating this. Otherwise they would have it would be on the ground level. We wouldn't be having this conversation. so I just want to make sure we're we're all on the same page with why this comes up because it's. It would be much more clear, I think, if you if you were entering at the main level of the I think we could all agree that then it makes sense that there's a handicap need.

[60:04] But when you already have to go downstairs and upstairs it's, it's more convenient. But is it really meeting that need. And maybe, Nicki, that was some of the thinking that you had around the disability stuff. So that's where I am. So now can I ask if people want to take over talking, please. Jack, please. I think you're talking about contractors. What I see when I look at this plan It is a series of mistakes that were made. you know. just like why were some. Why do you walk out of the garage into the master bedroom? you know the stairs as you mentioned on and on and on. sometimes contractors, sometimes architect, sometimes engineers, you know, get into a run of bad decisions, and it seems to be what it's happened here.

[61:01] But these decisions were not made by the current owner. they purchase the property with every good intention in in their hearts, and in a sense, that really begins to stand out. And you're talking with Eric. It really began to stand out that you know they did not make these decisions. They were. you know, foisted upon them, so to speak. so. I mean. this is a very interesting little project. and be interested to hear some other opinions. Thank you, Jack. Katie. yeah, I just I I i'm in a place where I feel I I feel for the owners because they sort of in, as he said As Eric said, he inherited this problem, and you know, I feel I feel like, in a way I mean they they It was never included in the the disclosure agreement when they purchased the house, that there was a zoning issue, and

[62:06] I feel like that was kind of on the other that was on the prior owner. They should have disclosed it. And so you know, as as as an aside, i'm sort of curious whether the current owners are are addressing go addressing that issue with the prior owner. But in any event, I feel like They inherited this, and they're they're, you know, making every effort to to come into compliance. by seeking a variance. So i'm. I'm favorably inclined towards towards this. Thank you, Katie. Yes, Nikki, you're on. I've got what this variance is for. is it? What this is gonna it's for Robbie or anybody. You know it's it's to convert. Basically.

[63:01] So it allows a breeze way. which is the roof structure. I'm gonna just you layman's terms. And Robbie jump in here. If i'm not correct as a bridge. so a breezeway, which is a permitted use. It attaches a separate dwelling, and at least that dwelling is detached. Then becomes a connector that's used as usable space, and they can walk across to access the house, which then means that the accessory dwelling or it sorry. The accessory structure is now part of the main part of the house. Does that help Nikki? Yeah, it's okay, Robbie. So it's not sorry. I think I got something being confused between the first one and the second one. So it's not. It's not the set back in terms of the no. it's really I mean the the the house stays where it is, does what it does. Right now. Nothing changes

[64:00] except you have a written statement that in a sense gives it permission to be there. I I think I appreciate you saying that, Jeff. So, Nicky, when I and everybody, when i'm thinking about this, and I, Katie, you were really persuasive on this point, and and Jack as well. you know we have sometimes got non-conforming conditions that are not the fault of the owner right? And I think that's what we're talking about. Here. We have a circumstance where the gets a phone call one day, and it's told that something they didn't do that they were unaware of is a problem, and so they could remove it and go to the expensive removing it. But it offers them some convenience now and then. and the question is, Can we structure this so that we don't create any invitation to somebody else to mimic the circumstance, unless their particular circumstance requires it. And because I can definitely see this as being a circumstance it required. If you were entering at the main level.

[65:03] right? I mean, then we really really want to have something in place that would address that. We probably do, because we've terrain changes. It would have to be addressed in that case, and it probably occurs in a number of circumstances, and not a lot of them, but in a number of them. So this, then, brings me back to my question with with Aaron or attorney about. If we're going to go ahead and approve this, we want it very clear why we're approving it, and under what what? We are actually approving. so that we're not inviting other people to converted briefly into a walkway. That's that's a great point. I can imagine people walking by going. I want to do the he. They could do it. Why can't I? It it has that look to it so where to? So, Nicki, I want to bring it back to you. I just wanted to to follow up on sort of that question in that opening. But so where did? Where does that leave you

[66:05] in the conversation? Yeah, Thank you for that explanation. I think, when i'm having trouble, so first of all, I sympathize with the the homeowner. I sympathize with someone getting into a situation that you did not know exist. I guess what i'm struggling with is. and I had to struggle last month, too. When I think, Joe, you told me, if something is. is a variance ofable consideration, we should consider the variance. I think what i'm struggling, and that's in the that's in my mind, Jill. But she said last month. But my struggle is, i'm kind of like I kinda don't want to get involved to a certain extent. I'm kind of like. And and this is why I prefaced it by saying I I sympathize with the homeowner, because i'm not. I'm not trying to penalize the homeowner, but I also

[67:03] kind of I kind of Don't want to get involved in this. So so i'm torn. I don't want. I don't. I don't want to. I don't want to, though. No, because obviously there's use for it. it was not created by the current homeowner like that is all in the front of my mind. What is it? Yeah, go ahead, Joe. So i'm we we we're not thinking, if terribly, differently, on this one. And I think, that's why i'm i'm very concerned that whatever we do, if we do it, we craft it very carefully, because you and it's fairly recent that this happened right. And. Robbie, I think maybe we need an Aaron. We need some guidance on when you start looking at the you know our criteria. So that's what i'm kind of looking at here is.

[68:07] you know. Are we meeting the requirements for this exception, I mean, are we able to find because they don't have a disability right? They didn't create the hardship as we walk through the our our guidelines, so that we have to use for making these decisions. So if I just walk through h one. So there I do think we could find this unusual physical circumstances or conditions. I mean clearly this relationship between the garage and the house is unusual. But there is no physical disability affecting the owners of the property, or any member of the family that owner. I don't know if the unusual circumstance or conditions exist in the neighborhood.

[69:01] I think that they address that. I I think they said it does not. but you know, obviously it's been developed in conformity, but at the same time like, Well, who doesn't want to? I have a detached garage, so I understand we couldn't do it Greece way. We you know I I know what the rules are. That's why i'm i'm pretty familiar with it. And but then we you know, so I don't know that you would say that it can't reasonably developed, and we can't change what's there? It it it is what it is, and the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. So in most of h one we've met that and then we have 5. We're not all to the central care to the neighborhood or district in which the MoD is located. I that's not right, right, Jack. It's not going to do that. That. We sharing it. Yeah. and wouldn't substantially, permanently impair the reasonable use enjoyment of a development of an adjacent property. No, the only question I have is. did I hear you guys say that the breezeway came in in 2,015.

[70:03] Did somebody say that? And it was Eric? I think it was really in reference to Google a Google image. It's I look to verify through aerials, and it. The actual walkway was constructed 2,016 to 2,017. It was not there prior to 2,016. It was there after 2,016. This is based off aerial. Actually, there was not. It was completely separated. So I may have missedspoken on that. But there was nothing prior to 2,016, I believe. and also Robbie. Why, you you know I am always shaunted the ones that causes so much trouble. This is a tricky one. When you I was gonna ask you a question about the breeze way like. what did they gain by putting the breeze we in? So if it was a true breeze way, it would be the covered walkway between

[71:05] the whatever is on the back side of the house, and nothing because it doesn't lead to a door. The other door is on the side of the garage, so it would just be a a cover not leading from door to door. So then. essentially, if you start in 2,015 or so, it's probably meant to be a bridge. Yeah, it's meant to be a bridge. so the other thing I was to say is okay. Then we have a homeowner. who really, I don't think and rob you to speak to this. There is no way they could find this out unless the so is it clear that the previous applicant with the building permit knew. This. Is that clear from the record. the preview, it is assumed. The previous owner knew about this because it was called out as a non-permitted connector edition. but the it is now clear that the current homeowner was not aware of it, and did not find out through the disclosure, and that's why the disclosure information was provided within the application, which is unusual for a Bose application.

[72:08] which is why, Jill, I'm. Just gonna jump in. Which is why I'm saying, I don't want to get involved. Because it seems to me this seems like a dispute between the previous owner and the current owner. And so that's that's part of the reason why i'm like I don't know if I want to get involved in this True. the previous owner left many things to fix. and I walked away. And you know, for those of us who are fixers. Look at that. Look at this and go. It's got to be a better way to do this. It has to be a better way to is, as Joe said to Craft, a language will be very clear and concise about the situation. And you what our goal to be.

[73:01] i'm trying to figure out whether or not we can make this decision, because I think that what what i'm hearing from Nikki is that this is a legal matter basically that she's pointing out it's a dispute created by the prior owner in failing to disclose this, because it had they disclosed it, then they could have gone through this process. We could have made a decision independently, because the owner, the new honor. And so that might be another way to look at it. Would we allow this? Had it been brought to us ahead of time, because this could have been brought to us as an application as a building permit. You know we want to do this. Can we do this? Do you want to talk about that way a little bit? Just so we can set aside the issue of you know. I think Aaron is going to probably tell us not our to figure out. Usually she does that. She's very good, I think. I think the only problem is who has been harmed.

[74:02] That's not our job. I know, I know, but we'd love for it to be our job sometimes. Yes, thank thank you very much. And so so. 2 things one I I think I heard with the criteria. H. One Just to make sure the Board knows an applicant does not have to meet both of the conditions of unusual physical circumstances or disability. It's an or so. Either or they don't have to meet both, and the Board has to consider the applications that are brought to it. even though you may feel there is a a different or maybe better, option. They have paid their fee and submitted their application. So the Board has to go through the criteria. You can deny if you go through those criteria and you find that they're not met. That's a denial. But you you have to go through that

[75:00] process at this point. Thank you. So I think what you're saying is, So I read that wrong. or just try to include too much. It's a one or a 2 correct. Okay. But B C and D are. do apply yeah, it. And it's actually like H. One a little I or little double. I right? Okay. And Robbie has a slide. If it's helpful that could be put back up if you need that, to walk through the criteria. and I. I often end up having to to be the person that explains this because the law background. But we are not a court of law. We are quasi judicial board. And so what Aaron is telling us is, we have to consider the application on its merits. We don't get to punt. so if you're not going to support it. you need a criteria for variances reason not to support it, not a legal decision.

[76:04] because wait, it's not our job. Is that right, Aaron? Am I saying it right now? That was perfect? Thank you. Thank you. So with that in mind. So I will say that I'm going to give you an out Nikki, and that i'm going to support this application. And that means that I think we have a majority. And so this happened last time as well for you and it's your call. I would appreciate it if you would think for a minute, though, about your You know whether you really want to part. You know what I'm saying what it it might be important, because you need to consider it based on the criteria. So even though you don't necessarily have to I think that might be an Erin question of whether or not. You really even can perform your job by interjecting sort of the the

[77:00] The thing that concerns you. It's a hard thing to say. I'm: sorry. I yeah, I think I think you know we don't have majority and minority opinions for Bosa, but it just is a statement of even before the vote. This is this is why I don't find the criteria to be fulfilled. I'm and we, I think we've had other Board members do that in the past, you know I don't. I don't believe that it's Minimum relief is is another common one. so I would appreciate it. If that's if you're going to refrain, or from supporting this application that you do it under under a criteria based reason. if that is fair, so Is there any further commenting for discussion. Or do we? Are you ready for a motion? Because if already i'd love it if someone gave me ready for a motion. Thank you I move that we accept the request from applicant at

[78:00] the Bozo 2,02224 or 8 Pleasant street 2022 dash. So Nikki, before a pause. We have some notation by Aaron as well. Is that what you were going to go to? Yes, oh, okay. So I don't know if you saw that or not. Nikki. Go ahead. Tone. Oh, yes, so, Jack, my friendly amendment is to just read what is the last thing in the chat box, please. The last thing in the chat box. Do you see the chat box on the right? You'll need to click on chat and show it up. I've never done this. so if you bring your cursor down to the bottom of the screen, it gives you options. Click on, chat

[79:02] the second one that said made a small change is the one we'd be going on. So we will include this language. That's my that's my friendly amendment. You don't have to accept my friendly amendment, Jack; but my friendly amendment is just to make the motion that is listed in the chat box. and we do. We include that in the I think you just read it. I'll just read it. I move to, except I excuse me, i'm just looking at 2 things at once. Just go ahead and do that. You've got the language. Well, it only because I've read it like 3 times right. so if you follow along in the chat, Jack, you can You'll see what what i'm doing. So

[80:02] i'm. I will make the motion to approve application. Boz 2,022 dash 19, as submitted on the condition that the garages classification as an attached or detached accessory unit for the purposes of any future or similar application not be changed by this variance approval. Now. I actually think we need to address this owning question. So we would need Robbie in there. Robbie, is that if if we're going to say we're going to approve this wouldn't it be based upon a zoning criteria, or ain, maybe you're the one. So this would be good. What this is stating is that there's a whole review process for determining. Attach detest that is done through an accessory use. Review. What this is saying is none of that changes as a result of tonight's motion tonight's motion is just recognizing that bridge in the setbacks. It's not changing any other standards, so they would still have to if this were to ever be an accessory dwelling in it.

[81:11] which is not proposed at the time, it would still have to go through that, and they would then determine if this is attached, detached not this variance tonight. so it's you're good with the way it says. All right. I've made the motion need a second. I second. Thank you. Okay, let's go in order of Jack. Those in favor. Yes. Katie. Yes. Nikki, you're on. Yes. Jill. Yes. Okay. But good points. Thank you. Nikki. Eric. you can sleep tonight.

[82:02] We wish you the best. Thanks. Okay? Well, I had no idea that was going to be that complicated, but I did wonder about it when I saw it. It was. It was too simple not to be complicated. Precisely. Thank you so much, everybody, for giving it due consideration. And council for your learned advice as always. all right. It looks like we have a few things to address. One of the things I want to ask Devin. I I wrote to Devin and asked him about why they have their video off. I would prefer to see people, but I didn't want to say it and interrupt it. So. There was also something that popped up devin right when we came on saying that participants will not be a video unless something that I don't remember what it said. Yeah. So when it comes to that. I went ahead and promoted everybody to the panelist. Scroll and so in that panelist role there's a a little box that will come up that's automatically populated by zoom with that language in it to say if they want to have their video on or not. I would defer to our city attorney. whether if that mandating, if a video was it on is something that is appropriate for the board. but

[83:21] yeah, I would defer. I think that can be a a a good way to bring them into the meeting, Jill, or you know whoever is chairing to say. okay, your your panelists there, you can turn on your video. We prefer to have see you if that's at all possible, because there's always the potential that due to technology or W. Whatever system limitation they may have, they can't do video. But I think you're well within your rights to invite and encourage them to have it on. It's nice to have that. you know, visual. if we can. They may not not just know. You know the zoom happens so fast, and they're not familiar with it.

[84:03] That that was the sense I had tonight was that they didn't know So here we go. Okay. and I never got to say the application is approved as submitted. But there we go. We have minutes that need to be approved. There are no minutes for this for today's meeting. and then do we have matters from the Board because somebody remind me when i'm done being chair. So some of the rest of you start thinking about being chair. We we did have a discussion earlier, so somebody somebody is thinking about it. Somebody's saying, oh, I miss that discussion. Okay, is it March? Or is it January? Yes. So so, Jill. Actually, we were. We were looking at the bylaws, and i'll find it here again

[85:00] the Board shall by majority vote at its first regular meeting, the calendar year after the city council has made its regular annual board appointments. So if they make the appointments in March it could be April. Okay, though. The Board can decide to to have a a new election if desired at any time. Okay? Well, I defer to the board. Kay, do you have a comment? Can't hear you, dear? No. Since i'm new. How long have you been chair. This is my second time, sure, so I've been on the board, for for is this my seventh year, sixth or seventh year? so I served in a previous chair term, and then i'm serving as chair now. So I think I've been on since March, because so maybe this is my sixth year. Is that right to people?

[86:01] So I I thought it probably ended in March, but it would be nice if if somebody else would love to come up at least in March. That'd be great. You You weren't you i'm sorry, Katie. your your times as chair. We're not consecutive right. You were a chair once in your former term, and now in the second term, you have been I think so. Is that right? Check? That's right correct. He's Jack his chair. Jill. Jack, Joe. Yeah. Chill and check. Like to throw the chair back and forth. I guess we you know we are also the senior members of you know. of the committee. So we've been on a long time. nikki. You're catching up to us at some point, though very slowly Catch it. because I think you and Marine started at the same time. Didn't you, you know. So

[87:03] and Katie is just here, so Sometimes it's just It's really not that hard to be the chair. it's just, you know, being able to answer questions. And and I think the one thing that is in the notes is that they ask you, and I try most of the time to do this. I'm not 100. You don't want the chair to dominate the meeting. They want the chair to make sure that the junior members speak first to the extent that you can, so it's a lot of it's about acknowledging input from other members. It's very hard to know how people are going to take things. And and Nicki, although we we couldn't necessarily do it. What you're saying it. It's very valid consideration. You know the important point that you raise, so I think it's important to to hear for everybody. So, anyway, keep thinking about that as as a we head into the New Year. And, is anybody stepping off of our board?

[88:01] Is everybody going to continue to serve. I believe one of you is stepping off. that's actually on the website. I can pull that up real quick. I could be wrong on that Let's see you mean falling off or stepping up or falling off. I'm sorry nobody at least has of right. Now it looks like Jack, your term ends in 2,023. But we need to. Yeah, whatever 2023 is. So it appears maybe next march Zack Zack. Sorry Jack will have to make some decisions. One of those decisions a year from this march or term it says term years, for Jack is 2,018 through 2,023. So If he is to come back, I believe if you can come back, you would have to reapply for a another

[89:05] term. but you mean in 2,024, and 2,023. So this yeah, Jack, is 2,018 to 2,023. So I had a 5 year slot. Okay. Well, Jack. get ready. So where do we end up? Okay, so any other matters from the board. Okay, any other matters in the city attorney. As I was looking up that election issue, I found a typo. So there are 2 number two's under section one of the bylaws. So, Jill, if that's okay with you, I will correct that and recirculate the bylaws. I I apologize for that.

[90:03] I I I can't say that I proved them with my usual editorial, I so yeah. a little dry man I I have not. I have nothing else besides that. and then, Robbie. it's 2 things. One is Yesterday was the deadline for the January meeting, and it appears as of today. That will again be a virtual meeting via zoom. So be prepared for that. But we did get one or 2 applications. I have not done completeness checks for them. but it does appear we are going to have a January tenth meeting, so as always, if you can make it great, if not just to let us know as soon as possible. I'll send out a confirmation email, probably by the end of the week with a thumbs up that we are, in fact, having a meeting. but that being said and as Joe mentioned earlier, we do have another round of amendments to the 80 standards kind of moving their way forward to counsel. Early to mid next year.

[91:09] and about a week ago I was a staff member on our coding amendment team. I reached out to me, and she is leading all of this, and has actually asked to if she could provide an overview of the evaluation that they recently completed and a possible discussion Of the potential upcoming changes to the 80 standards most of this time would be then, presenting the results of this evaluation and what it tells them about what could and should be done in the future. My question to you tonight is, is this something that the Board would be interested in placing on the January agenda. and if so, we'll make it happen, and the Board can actually have this discussion. she's just waiting to kind of hear back. If this is something that interests the board.

[92:01] I know a few of you are kind of connected interested in the eightyu standards. So If you're open to having somebody talk to you about these new changes we can make it happen at the January meeting. So yeah, question is, would you like to have somebody present? Oh. well. the the only reluctance I have is that that is a meeting. I may not be able to attend. I am. I haven't got plans yet, but I haven't been able to. I haven't seen my grandkids in a while, so i'm working on a trip to Germany. But I don't know if it's going to materialize or not, but if it does, it will cross over with that time. Now it it is midnight. It's a little better now. It is at 4 o'clock instead of it. you know 5 or 6. But I just want to mention that I don't know if February too late. what difference is it going to make? Are they going to listen to any input we have. Is it all. or is it just gonna happen? And

[93:01] it's information only. and that's that is something to consider is I believe they could. I don't think these anything is going forward until March or April. so I believe, and I can confirm this February is a possible if you would like to be present even in February. We don't know if it's going to be virtual or in person, but that doesn't change anything. But I also think, to answer your other comments. I believe this is mostly a presentation to the board. They're going to allow a discussion and questions, but I don't believe they are seeking feedback necessarily, or what would you like to see changed? But if there is something that you have a question or a concern or whatnot. This is the time when they will definitely listen, because She purposely came to me and said we would like to speak to Bosa, because they understand that Bosa does touch on 80, you, you know, especially 80, you size variances. So they want the board to be aware of what's coming forward. So I think there will be

[94:05] the possibility of questions and exchange and stuff like that. But whether or not they are gonna take that and make changes to whatever they're presenting to council next year, I don't know, is this more of a presentation to the board. and I can ask if February is a possibility. If that would be better for you, Jill. Well, I I guess first question is, do the rest of you care? You know I care I I can. I could see that we would be on a tightrope. you know. Sometimes it took us a year to figure out what the Council had in mind for us to do with the we were just stopped for a while. On the other hand, I don't think it can hurt. I don't think it can hurt us to take the time and get a little more understanding, even though we may not be able to to

[95:01] use that understanding and what we're doing. At least we'll have it. and they're gonna They're gonna listen. I mean, if you ask something or present a concern there, that's why I want to make it an agenda item. So the Board can actually, I think, believe. Talk about it. and Aaron, if you need to correct me or update me on anything but They They will listen and possibly take stuff. Write it down, and as they're actively amending the standards Some of this could be taken into consideration. So I don't think they're gonna in any way ignore anything that's asked or said of the Board. because what i'm what i'm thinking is. I mean, if we were to make a presentation we would use the work we're doing as that presentation and use you know, different cases as examples of what leads to a to you. and they About a month ago I did present them with in the last 2 years what all the 80 specific variances the Board has considered. So they have that information As they were working towards this evaluation. So they did get that information. About a month or 2 ago. I believe I didn't know. That's where they were going with it, but they do have it

[96:14] so. They know what you have a looked at and considered. I Just so. You guys know I was interviewed for that I mean had a personal interview with them. that was not intended to be as if as a chairperson. I I think they they wanted me to talk to you about the chairperson, but we had talked about it, and I was like, you know it's really I can talk to you for my personal experience of what happened to what I feel. And so in talking with them. I think we we run into this issue of how do we feel? What do we think? I? What what is our role as as board members, and so I think we we I it's a tightrope for me. I i'm still not convinced that they

[97:03] really understand. because when they sent out the i'll tell you why they sent out this survey. But you didn't include in there. It's a category of people who applied, and then didn't go through with it. So they don't know why people didn't go through, and that's my objection to their process. They should have asked if you applied for an or an a. You are technically Did you accepted? Did you proceed, or what are you doing? And I think it would have been a lot more informative for them, because there's a whole group of people who applied, and I know because I hear about them through my, you know building stuff that either are stuck in the process because they don't know what to do with it. or declined to proceed because of the lack of clarity or a variety of other reasons.

[98:03] Some of these, some of these people, I've heard heard it explained, is banking a do so. They may not have a plan to do an AD you initially, but we'll go through the process in order to have the ability to do that. So it's It's not often. Yeah, all kinds of people. So Katie Nikki. Aaron Aaron. Yes. Oh, I checked with Robbie, and it will be recorded because either January or February we run the risk of someone not being able to be here, so it will be recorded. and a missing member could always watch the video and provide feedback to over. The presenters are going to be, you know, but I would say it's usually easier to impact the process the earlier you get involved, and sometimes, if you wait for weeks it's harder to course. Correct. if you see things that are problematic. So just just wanted to put that out there I can. If it was one or 2 in the morning, I wouldn't do it. But you know midnight is not the end of the world. So it's not great. But you know I could do that. Nikki. Yeah.

[99:13] Cool. This may help you, Jill. I don't know if i'm going to be at the junior meeting because I have a work engagement that's up in the air. so what I was going to suggest, and I appreciate what you said Aaron, about doing it earlier versus later. I didn't really catch a lot of Jack and Jill's conversation, because I haven't been here long enough. So my suggestion was, if there can be some type of internal presentation about a to use in January, and then oh, no! So Aaron jumped in here, because so we have the Sunshine law, and so we have to find out we we could call special meeting right? I mean Aaron. It's not like we don't have time have a special meeting at a time when we can all be there.

[100:01] Oh, good! How are you? Yeah. Like an information packet? but sometimes that's a tool that council uses so that you get some written material. So at least you have the ability to start absorbing. And then. you know, February, You're not trying to get up to speed and provide all the feedback all at once, and if you see some easy corrections that you want to put out there, you know you can do that via email at individually, not as a a a group meeting. I just feel like I don't understand the issue right now. I I i' i'm gleaning what the issue is, but I don't I don't have a full information, so you don't, nor do I I know what my issues are. I do not know what they are going to do with them right there that they in the little stuff it's been out in the press. It's not clear. but I want to know. I even want to know, Jill, like what we, as of those of board, has discussed about a to use and and kind of. I want to understand what

[101:05] my colleagues like. Historical you know opinions are about it even before I hear the the city's presentation, because, knowing what y'all have been through, and what you all have discussed in the past, I think will help me when I see whatever. They're putting that out now. That's just all i'm saying. Oh, good point I guess this is what I i'm I I I think we should have a special meeting. Honestly, just don't think that it's the right time to do it. During our meeting. I think that it's gonna take an hour. I think we're gonna have a lot of questions. I i'm extremely familiar with it, and I still have a lot of questions, and Nikki and Katie are probably not familiar with it. I don't know what marine status is, but I think it's. You know they should be coming in with a presentation that starts. This is what brought us to this place. You know, in the process that we went through to get the at you.

[102:08] Permit process improved, and what it segue, and what it did to short term rentals and what it because it there's a lot of little things in here and then stepping through to okay, this intermediate part. And what I can tell you, the one thing I want to say is, they promised us that they would thoroughly identify the issues and do reviews every 2 years and figure out what happened. Of course we had code. and so none of that has happened until just now, and even that process is flawed so, and I I stand firmly that it was a flawed process. So When we, when we go to do this with them, I think it should be a special meeting, and so I, Aaron, I don't know what we need to do to do that. But if if we could find a time that was mutually agreeable. If it's another.

[103:00] however, we would do that. It's only purpose would be to understand. Yeah. i'm not just trying to stop her from talking. i'm here and everything. Everybody is saying, I'm gonna take this to this group just with everything that was just said. Also probably work with Aaron and Devin, and it might come down to a special meeting or an informational packet email. we'll figure that out. But I took notes and heard everything that everybody said in terms of what you want to get out of this and what? How you would like to participate. So with that. I would say, just stay tuned Something in either. In January, February will be coming your way. How that is? we'll figure out because we want to make sure that it's informative for you, and is something that you want to do. So. yeah, I wasn't stop in the conversation. But I am gonna kind of go back to the drawing board and also talk with this group in terms of how they'd like to present to the board.

[104:07] I I think that's the piece that I would just say, I don't think people want to lose the opportunity to have an interactive process. So that's my worry with an information packet is that, you know, for people who aren't clear or have questions, we really need a a meeting, but certainly an information packet that we could read ahead of time be very helpful. definitely noted. Okay. Thank you. I think that we're good. I think we covered more ground than I anticipated. Thank you, everybody. So are you good, Robbie? Is that it? All right? Most she's getting mad. She wants to eat so. thanks, everybody at this time. i'm gabbling us out. Thank you. Thank you.