March 14, 2023 — Board of Zoning Adjustment Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] No man. I'm: sure. Okay, this is a meeting of the Board of Zoning adjustment tonight. We have one item. and so of course, we'll start with an end with that item on this item Staff will present, first in the applicant second. then the public will be invited to comment, and then the board will discuss, and we I always like to add this: After staff presents we, the Board, have the opportunity to ask staff questions before we go on to the applicant's presentation. So i'll talk about voting rules, and this is important when we have a we have a just a quorum. So there's only 3 of us right now. Hopefully our fourth member will come. An affirmative vote of 3 or more Board members shall reserve in passage of the motion. An applicant cannot be approved with less than 3 affirmative both, so that will require us to be unanimous. And so we talk about all of this, for for those that are just listening who have an application, and you will have ample will have ample discussion about the consequences and options when it comes to that time.

[1:05] If the first vote taken on a motion to approve or deny an application, results in a tie which it can't tonight, the applicant is normally around a a re hearing in a tie vote on any subsequent motion. Is it to approve her tonight? She'll result in, defeated the motion and denial of the application. So that is important. If the fourth person shows up tonight a vote of 2 to one or one to 2 on a motion. so in all respects be considered a tie. So I guess it does plan. So we are going to do some business first, while we wait to see if our fourth board member is just running a little bit late, so I think we have some minutes to be approved, so that, I think goes to Aaron or or Devin on the minutes doing that. That would be that would be for for you, madam, Chair for the for the rest of the board to make a motion on the minutes.

[2:00] Has everyone had a chance to review the minutes? The last meeting? I see head nods, so I assume that there are no issues with those, and we can proceed to about to one of you. Want to make a motion to approve the minutes from last Board meeting, please. You need to unmute yourself. And yeah, I I I to approve the minutes second. Thank you. So then, individually, all those in favor. I Hi, Hi! Okay. So the minutes from the last Board meeting have now been approved. Do we have anything else you want to talk about? Or should we just go into staff presentation. Aaron, do what do you suggest? Are we still doing, Devin the rules of remote virtual meetings that set that up? Maybe now. by another minute or 2. Yeah, that's to you, Devin.

[3:00] All Righty. Thank you, Madam Chair, appreciate that. So we do have 101 item up for public consideration tonight, and for public participation. Are you all seeing my screen here? Awesome? Thank you. So the city has engaged with community members to create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, Staff board, and commission members, as well as the democracy. For people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. The following are examples of rules and of decorum found in the bold and revised code and other guidelines that support those vision. These will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes 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 testimony is permitted online.

[4:11] When we get to the public participation. There is a couple of options for you to let me know that you're interested. You'll go ahead and hu and click the raise hand function at the bottom of your bar. That will raise your hand during that time. But let me know and indicate to to the Board and myself that you're interested in and participating. There are a couple of shortcuts for this, so if you're on a PC. You can click alt why, and that will automatically raise your hand. Option Y for a Mac or star 9 for your phone. and with that i'll hand it back to you. I'm sure. Thank you. So unless Devin, you've heard something from Jack. I have heard nothing so far. Okay. And did he confirm he was going to attend, or did you just hear nothing? I sent something out just having folks confirmed with me if they would be absent, and I did not hear from him, so it was assumed he would be present.

[5:13] That makes it impossible for them to be with us. So on that note it seems like we'll just have to proceed without him. Let me just pull up the numbers on on this, and we will start if that's okay with you guys. So at this time we are going to call the first item and only item on our agenda which is getting there. Yeah, don't get the right like. Can You give me the number, please, because I don't have it. Of course the first item is going to be boz 2,023,

[6:06] 1 4 5 0 High Street. Thank you. 1415 High Street and Robbie, would you please proceed? Yes. and let me share my screen real quick. Okay, you should see the presentation up on this screen again. This is docket Number bo, Z, 2 0 2 3 0 0 0 2. The address is 1,400 and 50 High Street. and this is a bulk, plan and side yard, while articulation variances application as part of a proposal to construct, reconstruct some walls and roofs as a part of a home, renovation and addition. The applicant is requesting a variance to both the side yard, bulk, plan and side yard wall. Articulation standards for a principal structure in the R. L. One zoning district for bulk plan. The resulting vertical encroachment for a portion of the east wall will be approximately 4 feet 10 inches, where a 2 foot 10 inch vertical encroachment exists today

[7:10] for sideyard wall articulation. The resulting horizontal exceedance along the east side wall will be approximately 10 feet, where a 6 foot 11 inch exceedance exists today. and the resulting horizontal exceedance along the west wall will be approximately 7 feet 7 inches, where a three-foot one inch accedents exist today. and it's worth noting the setbacks and general bulk and appearance of the project depicted within this application we're approved by Bos on May 1220 22 as a part of boz 2,022 dash 0 0 0 8 and bulk plan inside yard, while articulation issues were discovered at a later time. After that Bosa, hearing sections of the land use code to be modified sections 9 7 9 and 9, 7, 10 boulder, revised code, 1,981,

[8:02] and to jump right into the presentation. This is somewhat a different type of variance application. So i'm going to try to kind of go through this a little differently. But explain kind of what the board is considering tonight. Up on the screen. You see the location of the property at 1450 High Street as a part of the application, and as the Board members saw there were 3 written letters of written support from 1,491, in 1,512 High Street, as well as 1,437 Mapleton Avenue, and up on the screen. I showed the location of each of those 3 properties and written supports Oops. and this just kind of gives you an idea of the existing site conditions. You see the existing house on the left. and then you see a survey on the right and one of the reasons, and i'll go into the history a little more here in a minute. One of the reasons why the applicant is back in front of the board is because a new survey was created issued back in June of 2,022 after the last pose, a meeting.

[9:10] and with that came new topographical or grade details and information. So that plays into one of the reasons why you're seeing this property, this application back in front of you. But the survey you see up there on the screen right now, and that was provided within. The application is the June 2,020 to the most recent improvement Survey plat. and just some street view looking to the south from High Street. and then also the location of the existing slash proposed east and west walls that we're going to be talking about, or that the Board is going to be considering in detail tonight as a part of the 3 variance elements under the Boz application. and i'm gonna switch it around a little bit. I'm gonna provide a little bit of zoning metrics and history before I get into the actual 3 elements

[10:06] just because I kind of want to explain the history and just the site conditions of the property before I get into that again. It's zoned Rl: one. The lot size is 65, 11. So it is considered a substandard sized a lot, the minimum lot size for all one is typically 7,000 square feet and maximum building coverage for the property is calculated at around 2,352. That's what would be allowed as a part of the overall project. The proposed building coverage is shown at 2319. This has already gone through one round of building. Permit review, and of course we would verify prior to the issuance of that building permit. And pending tonight's decision, that building coverage is compliant as a part of the overall project, and then same with floor area. The maxim for the property

[11:02] would be calculated at 3402 square feet, and the proposed square footage is at Oops. I'm sorry I mis type that so it shows that 37 10. But portions is below great. So that's actually not the counted floor area. So my apologies for having that number that shows a violation that is not the case. But floor area does not require any sort of a variance, and it's not a part of the variance tonight. and that would be a verified at building permit, and it has already gone through one round of review for compliance. Solar access, 12 foot solar fence it is at time of the building permit will be verified that it is compliant, and the first round, and not of building permit. Review did not come up with any issues for solar. and then, pending tonight there is the need for a side yard, wall, articulation and side yard, bulk, plane variance.

[12:00] and then building height. There is no change to the existing building height as a part of the changes that are being brought in front of the board tonight. and then a little bit of the history that I think, is pertinent to the upcoming discussion. The home was built circa, 1,957. There was a variance granted in 1,957 for a subject garage, and Carport. and establishing side yards as they sit today back in 2,001, there was a permit issued for an existing edu that was approved back in 2,001, and, as mentioned, there were setback variances granted last May for the proposed editions and modifications as seen tonight. And then tonight the board is considering bulk, plain and side yard, while articulation issues that were later discovered. After that 2022 boza application and hearing, and that's due to new.

[13:02] It's a typographic survey information as well as an initial review through the building permit process. and then the image that I placed up on the screen is the approved bulk slash design under Boz 22 dash 8. The overall bulk and design of the building is not changing from what the board looked at last. May. It's just because new issues were presented. Variances are required to recognize the overall design. and, more importantly, the overall bulk. So now i'm going to get into the 3 elements that the board is looking at. and I just label them 1, 2, and 3. The first one is a bulk plan variance, and that's to modify a walls and roof, and this is for the side east wall. and this is a vertical encroachment of approximately 4 foot 10 inches. where a vertical encroachment of approximately 2 foot 10 inches exists today. The image you see on the upper left shows the 2 foot 10 in. That's the existing house today.

[14:12] and the image you see on the lower left. That's that 4 foot 10, and the yellow is showing the portions of the house that are encroaching into the bulk plane. and you see all and the 2 images on the right show a more zoomed out version, and you can see the yellow. Those are the areas that are encroaching outside of it. You can see the existing house currently has book plan violations. and the proposed house is increasing that bulk plan encroachment, which is why there is a need for a variance for bulk plane tonight. So this is the first of 3, and we can come back to this, and I can explain our methods of calculating bulk plan, if any of the Board's members want.

[15:00] but for the sake of conversation i'll move on to the to the next element. and the next 2 elements actually involves side yard, wall articulation, which I know many of you board members. I don't think you've varied any side yard. Well, articulation standards in your tenure, but i'll go at sideyard while articulation I call it the 1414 40 Rule. and that pretty much states that any wall or walls within 14 feet of a side property line that rise more than 14 feet above finished grade shall not span cumulatively more than 40 feet. That's where I got the 1,440, 1414, 40 rule. and the applicant on the images that were provided within the application. The existing is left. The proposed is right. The 2 red lines that you see on each site plan that's the 14 foot set back. So what the applicant is showing you is any and all of the walls that are

[16:07] closer than 14 feet set back from the each side property line. and you can tell that on both sides of the house, the east, and the West there are walls within that 14 feet. which is why the 2 application or 2 elements tonight are cider, while articulation and the next image will kind of clarify what exactly the board is looking at. So we're gonna go to number 2, which is the side east wall. and for the sake of conversation, when I use the word exceedance, i'm talking about any walls spanned beyond the 40 foot allowance again that goes back to the 1414, 40 rule. So anything beyond 40 feet which would be allowed is what i'm calling exceedance. So for the side east walls, the horizontal span exceedance of approximately 10 feet. where there is currently a 6 foot 11 inch Accidence.

[17:08] and on the images you see the upper image. That's the existing conditions. You see 46 foot 11 inches. and that's measuring any of the walls that are taller than 14 feet and within 14 feet. and that's why there's an Accidence today of 6, but 11 inches, and that's the 46 11, minus the 40 that would be allowed with the plans, the overall project to the house. that exceedance would be increased to about 10 feet, and you can see the lower left image. You see that red line which is that 14 foot tall wall. and the measurement of that wall which includes railings for the sake of measuring wall span, you can see is now at 50 feet. so it's an increase of about 3 foot, one inch beyond what is out there today.

[18:03] and if we go to the flip side of the house. The number 3. The third element of tonight is for the side west wall. and it's a variance for her horizontal span exceedance of approximately 7 feet 11 inches. where 3 foot one inch. I'm sorry 7 feet 7 inches, where a 3 foot, one inch accedents exist today. and same role. The image on the upper left is what is out there today, and you can see the 43 feet One inch. That means they're going beyond by about 3 foot one inch. and the proposal, including railings, is for a span of about 47 feet 7 inches. so that's a new span of about 7 feet 7 inches beyond that 40 feet. So those are the 3 elements that the board is considering tonight. I know that's a lot of information, and it's a lot of new information for everybody, so I am more than happy to go back to anything

[19:05] but to kind of wrap up steps, presentation, and what was the applicant did kind of split these out. and their narrative and justification. and the review criteria that was used by both the applicant and for Staff's consideration of our recommendation are criterion. H. One and H. 5, and I can go into this in more detail, but, in short, staff is will be recommending support of the variance application as it has been presented. And that's including all 3 variance elements that I just went over primarily because of there are topographical restrictions, especially with the new topographical survey that came out. which provided more accurate numbers compared to the last time this went to Bosa. It is a somewhat steep lot, and it is a substandard size lot, and it is a

[20:06] not incredibly thin or skinny a lot. But it is not a large lot when it comes to the actual width and the existing structure was granted, it's location variance setback variance is back in 1957. That's what essentially established its current location on a lot. and then another variance was granted for setbacks last year. So, with all that being said, we did hear from some neighbors, there was written supports. We are considering the overall impacts to this rounding property, including the the grade. The topographical lay out of the site, and we do understand that there are some hardships, and then also, Staff is recognizing that there is not an overall or large expansion of the footprint. It's mostly remote modification of existing conditions, raising a roof lines, not the maximum roof line, but just existing rooms, and the roof form is changing somewhat, but because it's within bulk, plain.

[21:12] and side yard, while articulation areas, a variance would be required. So with all that being said, Steph is again recommending support, as it has been presented for all 3 elements of poz, 2,022 dash 0 0 0 2, and i'm gonna leave it at that for now i'm sure there's a lot of questions. That was a lot of information. So i'll leave it at that and back to you, Madam Chair. I like being called Madam Chair. Thank you. That's nice. So, Jack, you've joined us, were you? I didn't notice when you came in. Were you able to hear most of that? We can't hear you? You need to unmute there you still muted. Is he in as a panelist?

[22:03] I came in as Robbie was talking about both playing issues. So it's been about 5 min. Okay. And did you have a chance to review the application so that you I did. I drove by the house as well to a look at it from from even below. I took a look at it. So, being an architect, I think it, it sounds like you feel like you can move forward. Aaron, is that okay? If you didn't hear the full presentation. Yes, Jack, if you like, Robbie, to go back over anything. i'm sure he would, or if you have questions for him, or just at the point. Now, of questions for Robbie? No, no, Robbie's been pretty close to the application in terms of describing the project. So that's that's good for me. Okay, Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay? Questions of Staff. You don't have any questions, Nicky, on this one. It's so complicated.

[23:01] I don't have any questions for staff on this one. I have a question about bulk playing in in essence. Tell me if you were saying this and coming if you weren't. But basically the bulk plane is based on what was there before and what's been there for quite a long time. So, as the the walls change. you're somehow coming back to the original bulk plane and then building on top of that. Is that correct? Yes, so we have 2 methods of determining bulk plane. The one that the applicant is using tonight is what we call the parallel method. and you see a lot of the lines. They're all 10 feet apart, and that's just how we measure a bulk plan, especially with steep lots. It kind of benefits our helps out the homeowners. and each of those lines you have to mute the bulk plane within that that line. So what is out there today? The existing bulk plane. There are existing encroachments. You could say that's that 2 foot 10 inch, I believe, and what is being proposed tonight just for one side of

[24:13] of the house is for that existing encroachment to get a little more, to encroach a little more to over 4 feet to 4 foot 10 inches. So we have existing encroachments. and we have proposed encroachments, and the proposed encroachments are because of the rising of walls, modification of roof lines. and it just results in an increase into that encroachment, so they would have to get a variance to recognize, even if a wall gets taller by an inch. if it's already a wall that is within a bulk plane or encroaching, they would have to get a variance for that one inch. There can be no expansion of or development within a within a bulk plane without a variance.

[25:04] Okay. I may have another question regarding that. But go ahead. Katie. Questions. No, I mean I would. I was sort of curious about the the history of that. The 40 foot. the you know, the 1,440 40. Where did that 40 come from? So the 1414 40 rule something. I came up with it Just usually it tends to kind of simplify the overall requirement, but the actual, the I don't know where exactly the 40 came from, but the intent of that was to prevents large walls, large spanning walls from overshadowing neighbors. So a lot of times the side yard, while articulation comes into play for single family homes or single family zone properties, and it's a way to limit all spanning walls

[26:03] as a neighbor sees it. So that's why we say, if you're 14 feet away, the wall can be as long as you want it to be. If it's within 14 feet. You're going to be limited in both height and the span. How long that wall can be, and that's mostly really to consider and help protect the surrounding neighbors. so it probably could add to that a little bit if you wanted Katie. So this the bulk plane ordinance came out of kind of this movement against what we're referred to as Mc. Mansions, and because, under our previous planning the these mass, more massive buildings could be built closer to the property line, and it bothered people, and then it was a really complex negotiation. How they came up with these rules. but I think most of us came away from it, knowing that you couldn't build it more over a 40 foot wall without some degree of relief from the mass, so it has to reced back or come forward, and it affects the interior design when you do that. So

[27:16] that's where it came from. It was so complex, Rob, you had to make up a rule for it a a name for the rule. Well, that's my name. So it's not a please. Don't hold me to that one question that I may have missed this because I did come in late. I apologize. The second survey. It showed new topography. Now, when was that done, and Why was that done? And was the context around that? And then in terms of why was it done? I'm sure the applicant can explain. But it was done in June of 2,022. So it and it was a full improvement survey PET flat a full plat so June of 22, and the last time this went to Bosa was may have

[28:06] 2022. So it was. The survey was after the last both the meeting, and just before they went to building permit. So it was the last summer, and I'm. Assuming it was in preparation for the Building Department Review, which requires a lot more. Okay. Okay, Thank you. So at this time we're ready for the applicant to present. And is that right? That drop Tucker Will. Is that correct? You'll be presenting from woodcraft. Yes, that's correct. And so, when you start talking, would you please say your name and your address before you move into your presentation for the record? Thank you. My name's Jot Tucker, with Woodcraft design. Co. My address is 38, 49 Heatherwood, Circle Johnstown, Colorado, 80534.

[29:01] Thank you everyone for hearing our case this afternoon. It is somewhat complex, and I think Robbie did an excellent job at explaining the crucial details of the the variance requests. I'm going to back it up to the construction of the original home house is built in 1,957 and at that time it was granted a variance to build the home within the setbacks. Robbie mentioned that. and that resulted in us coming before the board back in May to receive a setback adjustment variance, because we propose to rebuild and reconstruct certain exterior walls and roof structures that were built within the set back end, although we weren't changing them much. The rule states that even if a wall is rebuilt in the exact same location and in the exact same size.

[30:08] it has to receive its own separate setback adjustment variance. So at that time we had an Ilc survey. which I so submitted with this application as a supplement to the application. and we we're under the impression that that's the only survey information that we would be required to present for our permitting. But then, after initial review. we were informed that we would have to provide the ISP, which is the Improvement Survey Plat. That's been submitted in this application. That shows the additional topography topography that resulted in us finding the these other encroachments and exceedances of these 2 issues. So that's why we're here today. Because once we had the top of graphical information, it was determined that the

[31:10] bolt plane was already being encroached upon. and our proposed plan would require the bolt plane encroachment to increase by 2 feet beyond this existing encroachment, and then our east and west side yard wall articulations, although already exceeding the allowed amounts, we were requesting those items to be increased by 3 foot, one beyond the existing exceedance on the east side, and 4 foot 6 beyond the current exceedance on the west side. One thing that Robbie did not mention in explaining the side yard wall. Articulation is that

[32:00] decks and deck railing contribute to the overall value of the side yard wall articulation. and on the west side in particular, the the existing deck contributes to the entirety of the exceedance. whereas our proposed deck is virtually the exact same size as the existing deck. However, along with the setback adjustment variance that was granted in May. allowing the conversion of the Northwest Garage space into finished living space. that proposed plan requires the raising of the roof on the northwest section, which pushes forward the 14 foot point in which you start your measurement for the cider. Well, articulation. So

[33:05] that's exceedance, is contributing both to that as well as the the deck. The East Side Side yard wall. Articulation is primarily it primarily exists based on the existing structure there. Isn't really any changes to the footprint of the home. The only change is to the angular sloping section on the southeast corner of the house. and then an additional railing that sits on top of it, which is contributing to the additional accidents on the east side of the property. the Bolt plane encroachment. The proposed plan for the southeast corner proposes to raise the flooring system to match the existing floor throughout the house and provide adequate ceiling and roof. Height over that section which is causing the bulk plane additional bulk, plane encroachment.

[34:15] Do you guys have any questions? Thank you. Check, though. So you went, we you went through. You saw us in May. Thank you. That was good. And then you submitted for a building permit in June. We actually submitted for permitting in March last year. Then you went through this variance process and resubmitted in June. Is that what i'm hearing? Actually, I think we resubmitted in late July early August. Once we had collected the additional information that the city requested.

[35:03] Okay. So so it's been since then that you've been working on this to to come up with a solution? Could you not find a solution that didn't require, You know, variance. or did you know that direction? We didn't find out until the end of November the start of December, that there were additional issues. so we were proceeding as though there weren't any additional issues, and we actually somewhat expected to get our permits in November. But then, when we found that there were these issues, that's when we started looking and turning over your every stone, trying to find alternate solutions that wouldn't require coming before the board again. for additional variance requests. But there weren't any adequate solutions that would satisfy our situation. So here we are.

[36:03] So it's probably felt like a waterfall of problems one leading to the next to the next to the next I would say, that is maybe an understatement. Okay. yeah, that that's the only question I have for now, really. Nicky. Hi, thanks for that testimony. So my question has to do with the the minimum variance that would afford relief. So we already know that the 1957 variance allowed you to exceed the book plain, get my my terms right? So the original variance allows you to exceed it. and we also know that even if you were to go an inch of foot above that accident you would still have to come to Bosa for that variance.

[37:01] So my question is with the minimal relief. So because, if I remember, from Robbie's presentation. You're now exceeding. I think, 3 feet on one side and maybe 2 feet on another side, one on the east side, one on the West side. So I guess what my question is. and I do understand that even if it were the same exact type, you'd still have to come back to those. So my question is the minimum. the minimum variance, that little 4 relief, and it I If it is that additional 3 feet like, Why, why are you going the additional 3 feet over the rather than sticking with what the 1957 variance allowed you to to do? Well, there's a multi-tiered answer to your question. The primary thing that you should consider is that in 1,957 the house that was approved for construction is vastly different than the one that's here now.

[38:09] because this home was also approved. Remodeling permits twice, once in the eighties, and once in 2,001 and additional square footage was added to it. So, although these the setback variance was approved in 1,957, no other elements were existing at that time with their design. And so and also these rules and regulations didn't exist at that time as well; but they wouldn't have exceeded or encroached upon those if it had been. The rules have been implemented at that time. and then regarding the minimum relief necessary to achieve our goal, the

[39:02] The main problem with what we were trying to achieve is to convert some unfinished space into finished space. And in those areas the floors were sunken. One area was a garage. and it has a step down going into the garage and the the hu one of the remodels that was approved by the city. I think this was the one in the eighties. They actually added on a car port at some point, and then that was closed in and turned into this garage, and and rather than changing the roof line at that time they just continued with the existing roof, structure and slope which it was fine for the time being, but it resulted in that roof going down very low. So the existing garage door height is only 6 feet.

[40:03] and so the ceiling in that garage is very low, and the only vehicles that could fit in there would be a sedan or something like that if you had an Suv or any other type of vehicle that was slightly larger. You wouldn't be able to fit it in the garage, so the garage is fairly useless for the most part. And then the other area is the southeast corner, where the Adu was approved in 2,001, and when that detach. I say, detached because it was a separate structure, built separate from the original structure, but then it was connected to the existing house and built over the top of it. But it was done very strangely. and it's it. They followed the same principles as they did with the garage conversion. where they continued the roof slope down without changing or altering the existing roof resulting in the door. Going into this area above the Atu, which I call a sauna room

[41:13] to have a lower than average door height. There's only also 6 feet tall, and then several steps down into this summer room. So in order for us to make use of that room and take advantage of that square footage. because we are trying to get the most out of the existing property as we can. As Robbie mentioned, it's a substandard size lot for the zone, and it's essentially all house basically there's not much of anything else on this property, so we're very limited. Yes, Jill. So I think I would. Exactly. I had the similar question to Nikki, and I appreciate her asking that question, and i'm looking for in the response, I think what would help us is to know what that interior space.

[42:06] what it how it changes. So you know, I know that a standard door height is 6 foot 8 inches. I don't know if Nicki knows that. So right? So I think some of it is, if if you understand, some of our board is late people, and some of us are professionals. and so I think if you would approach it from the standpoint of I know you're an architect, and I'm a builder, and Jack is an architect, but not everybody else here has credentials after them date. So I think your explanation is great. It's very detailed, but I think if you just talked, even if you have, I don't know, if you have drawings or not, that you just demonstrate that first of all, 6, 8 versus 6 feet, you know. Obviously that's a there a big difference. And then what happens? What you can do now that you've raised the roof right? So as a result of raising the roof height we have. This is what happens on the interior, from a practical standpoint, would be, I think, helpful to us if you could do that, please.

[43:00] So how one? If I could add on that. as part of the context as you do, go through and describe these. Could you show us or tell us why this problem was not caused by the current owner. The basically the current owner in inherited a lot of these issues. So if you could, you leave, use that as a context that would be helpful to Yes. i'm trying to backtrack to Jill's question. I do have some images that I could present. I included quite a few of those interior pictures for the May Bosa. and I can pull those up, if need be and share my screen if you guys would like to see some of those items. But to Joe, could you ask your question one more time just to make sure that i'm I think it if you would simply

[44:00] talk about. Oh, do you want to speak? Do you want to let it it's the home, or, if you go, would like to, and maybe from his personal experience, Would that be okay with you, Jot. If he so devin, let's recognize Hugo and let him talk. Thank you. I'm I'm Hugo Schumann, 1450 High Street, I know, for the property and good evening, everyone, and and thank you for your time and reviewing this case. I I I thought I would talk about my experience, and I i'm not a technical architect or anything like that. So in the it. This is sort of how the property was when I boarded. This is what we're trying to achieve. I'll start with the garage that, as jot mentioned had a very low roof, and basically was not usable for anything other than a tiny car. And so what we wanted to do was convert that into part of the living room space. And when we sort of got off to the last bose, or approval when we kind of looked at it, we realized that you'd have to step down from the living room into that cloud port space

[45:04] and this and and it had a really really low ceiling or roof by the by the time it approached the end of the wall. And so what we thought is, let's lift up the floor so that it's the same level as the rest of the of the floor and the rest of the house. When we did that, or we sorry when when we looked at doing that the the ceiling became like ridiculously small, and so Jot was suggesting. We we push up that part of the roof so that it's a 6 or 9 to 8 feet roof. and because of doing that it triggered the at the start of that 40 foot length. Sorry, Madam Chair. Yeah. What i'd like you to clarify again is is probably easier for us if you say, instead of using what's like low and high. The ceiling height was 4 foot 8, and whatever it was, and that maybe John has to come in, and we are asking as a result of this variance, which some of you know there's probably 11 inches of roof

[46:05] that is going to take up that space. So when they raise it to get the interior space. So that's usable. That's what we're looking for, and we're not a design board, and i'm not trying to design it to you. I'm just asking you to explain it in a way that somebody could understand why you felt this was minimum, because we would like to approve the minimum variation variance rather than anything in excess. And I think you could get there if if you could just explain it a a little more technically but definitely. You're in the right direction, Hugo, so maybe I can add the the height so that we understand. Okay, we're now going to have a standard high door. The ceiling height will be X. You won't. Hit your head, or for how much of the room that runs? Can you do that for us if I can jump in there? So if you aren't familiar, very standard ceiling and wall height is 8 feet. and with that you find most houses that are built in this era are roughly that height. However, this house, strangely, has lower than standard ceiling heights. To begin with.

[47:13] the the plate height is actually 7 foot 8, so 4 inches below standard height, and then it also has a one in 12 pitch roof, which is extremely low. It's almost flat. and so there isn't any added space above it. It's just the roof and the ceiling are one, and that's all there is. So when they closed in the car cord into the garage, and extended that slope down the resulting wall height on the garage door opening was actually only 7 feet high from ground to top of roof. and then. by raising the floor. But the inside at 7 feet was what

[48:02] the top of the roof is. 7 feet. What's the interior? It was actually about 6 foot 4, so the thickness of the roof rafters is there 2 by 8, nominal. so it's about roughly 8 inches thick, so the inside was about 6 foot 4 inches, so that didn't leave much room not adequate at all. and then by proposing to raise the floor inside of that space so that it would match the existing floor throughout the rest of the house, so there wouldn't be a step down that created even more of an issue by reducing that ceiling height by an additional 8 inches, bringing it down from 6 foot, 4 to 5 foot 8, which you know most people are not going to find that to be very comfortable.

[49:04] Thank you. I I I think that's what we were looking. I what I was looking for. I'm sure if that helps Nicky or not, but I know for me, I want to know. Are you trying to put in a tense with ceiling, and there you put it, trying to put a knife with ceiling 8 foot. And in this case, Robbie, would you confirm habit? All habitable space to be counted? The ceiling height? Yes, anything 6 feet or above is considered habitable. Anything under that is uninhabitable. Additionally, the same conditions were present on the south east corner of the home, as well as I mentioned. They followed the same principle when they added onto the house by continuing the existing roof slope. which resulted in the same conditions with a very low ceiling height. Hey? Again i'm gonna ask you to be really specific. Okay, because we have heard you say this so you could keep it shorter if you would just tell us what the ceiling heights were in each situation. I think you have the Sauna left this area and your turn that in the sun, and not to cut you off. But I I would like to just focus on numbers, because I think it's really easier for us.

[50:19] Hmm. That's not a problem. Can you guys hear me. Okay, because it looks like my video is freezing. Yeah. And if you need to that video, you can shut the video off and just use audio because it will sometimes freeze. But I think we can hear you. Can you guys hear him? Okay, yeah. So you could not worry about how you look, or you could turn your video off either one Give me in just a second. I think that might be having some technical difficulties here.

[51:03] like, I said, we can hear you all right. So if you want to just talk, just talk, and then just we need those numbers. And then, if you guys anything to add, we'll have them do that. Thank you. I wonder if you can't hear me? Can we hear us drop? I can hear you, but I think he's having trouble. Do you want to leave and come back, John? Sometimes that or Devin? Can you reach out to him and tell him to leave and come back. Now we can hear you. So I If you could just regard the audio we can at the video, we can hear your audio. But if you're worried about us hearing you. That's an issue. I'm not convinced he's hearing us me right. Doc, can you hear us? I I don't think he's consistently hearing us.

[52:01] he he sent me a message asking if I could jump in because he's frozen. Can you text him to to jump out and come back in again. Okay, Thank you. Modern technology. Okay, we're all coming in remotely as well. So he's he's trying to get in and out. Okay, if you know the ceiling. I it's fine for you to tell us, Hugo, and otherwise I don't know that we need to. We can. We can have some d dialogue and wait until he comes back. Whatever you guys want to do, Aaron, do you have a I'd i'd like to give you the right answer, so i'll. I'll wait for Job to confirm the numbers with me. I I've asked them to text me. but it it was a similar problem we had in that part of the house to the one in the garage, the the master bedroom. You basically walked out towards

[53:02] the end of the house, and then it was this drop down to what Job refers to is the Sauna room. and what we wiping up to do is to convert that one room into part of the master bedroom all along one line of of floor. and and make better use of that area. John's texting me so. 6 foot 8 is what it was before. and we want it to be 8 foot. The over is the rest of the room. and just that sauna area which how big is that. So that area I'll just ask you. and then we should probably talk as a board about this. After that you agree. Okay, unless Katie has any questions. He did get out. So apologies for that

[54:00] for that technical issue. There we have things happen these the sort of areas 120 square feet 10 by 12. Okay. And that basically enables us to have a nice size master bedroom. which takes advantage of the view of the flat lines from from the room. all on one level without stepping down. And what's the overall size of the mouse of the primary we tend to call them? Now I'll, i'll start again. Robbie. Do we not have floor plans as a part of this application? No. I can try to pull open the building, permit to see if there's structural or not, I don't know if i'm allowed to do that, Aaron. bring in new exhibits from other applications to discuss, but we can

[55:02] pull open, like the active building, permit to see what's in there that would give structural or floor plan if it's needed. But i'm not sure if we can do that, Aaron. This is for this applicants project that we're submitted for other permits. It's the building permit that is actively in review related to this project. Yes. it's just it's not included as a part of the Bose application. I I would ask the applicant's permission absolutely fine, and and I have the answer to Madam Chair's question. It's 270 square feet. It's the total size of what we're proposing for the master. So excuse me for the primary suite. Thank you. And it it's just a helpful to understand that basically 130 square feet of that room is at 8 feet and 120 feet of that space. Is that

[56:02] 6, 8. Is that right? Is that what it feels like when you look at it? Okay, so it's a 130 square foot primary at this time. And yeah, so I I think without the floor plans. We. I am okay with it. But if anybody else wants floor plans. I'm happy for Robbie to pull them in. What do you feel like guys. Nicky? There Also, I just pulled up the main board packet. so you can go to the archives. I I'm. Assuming that's okay, Aaron. Their former application. That's a good. Do you have that? Then in front of you, as Robbie should be able to pull that up and share it as well that the May applications what you're talking about. We've seen floor plans before for this. At first I wasn't sure I remembered it, but now I feel like I I was there for this. I can bring up the either the May application materials, or I can bring up

[57:03] the floor. Plans as they were, have been presented within the building. Permit. which is going to reflect what the Board is looking at. So here's my question board. How? How, how much work are we gonna do to prepare the applicant for our questions to be fair in order to determine whether or not this we feel. This is a minimal relief. So one way to avoid this coming back to us is to take a moment and pull up at least the May plans. or to have John and Hugo share screen if they have it with whatever the current plans are. If they're not significantly different, there's no reason why we can't use the May ones, but I would like to have some feel from the board where we're going with this, and we haven't even opened board discussion. Yet we are just still asking applicant a lot of questions. so can I get a little bit of a pull. Nikki, do you want to say something's first?

[58:04] Yeah, i'm. I'm pretty satisfied with the explanation. I'm: i'm completely fine about looking at the floor plans. But because that is one of the criteria that we look at is the minimum. the minimum variance that would afford relief. That's why I asked the question for what i'm hearing. It sounds like it is. But again i'm completely fine with looking at the floor planet that makes other. But my colleagues feel there. Thank you, Katie. Do you have a comment? No, I mean I mean I I feel like it. I'm pretty satisfied just based on the explanations, and as far as I understand them, that it's the minimum variance that would it, ford Relief and I and I place a lot of weight on the staff recommendation, too, so I I feel like I'm. I'm. I know enough right now.

[59:05] Jack. Thank you, Katie. I think it might be good to take a quick look at the floor plans to make sure we're in the same on the same page that that it's it's picky enough that there's precise stuff here that we need to look at. It'll be nice to make sure we're all thinking along the same lines. If you do have it open to the page. I have the link open, but if you happen to know the page number that would be great. So I think the page number would be like 81 around page 81. I remember this now. It's it's looking at it coming back to me as well. Okay. So we have 81, and Robbie pull that up. No, we're I. Oh, Nicky got that for us.

[60:00] And so we approved these modifications. There's a lot of layers to go through here, so bear with us as we're. so it might be helpful to have a little explanation on these. Do you guys have the same length? So, John, do you see that we're looking at the I don't know if he gets that link. Yeah. Can you guys see and hear me now? So we're just kind of trying to figure out whether we need to look at this or not. Look at it, but we have at least a couple of us would think there's a benefit to taking a look at it. And so what we're looking at is just trying to understand what your, how much you're asking for. and so that we feel comfortable that it is the minimal release. and so far I think we're leaning in that direction. I don't know how much you heard that

[61:06] you missed. But I think so, Nicki. When i'm looking at this, I can see that certainly with the garage space you would be it. It would be tricky with that ceiling. He was as low as it was. Jack, do you want to comment on the master? I don't know if I would page the master is on. Actually. did you find it? My My computer's very slow to. I don't know. I don't find slow, too, because I remember looking at the plans this morning. It it seemed fine. I mean it didn't seem there was really much there was overdone at all. but especially I I I can't pull up the master bedroom in my screen right now. But looking at it this morning, I wasn't taken by anything that was egregiously large at all. Yeah, the spaces are not huge. It

[62:02] so, John, where is the primary on? Is it on the same level as the lot as the So with that I just need to know what page this is on, because it not labeled in these drawings. I'm not sure which document that you're looking at, but on the floor plan of the home. The primary bedroom is on the same level as the garage conversion, which is a living area next to the front door. so it's just the main level, and then a basement so level one is the main floor that contains both the primary as well as the proposed converted garage. and there really isn't much of a floor plan for the existing. But there is a demo plan. It's okay. Okay. So can I share this, Steven. How what do I do to share this.

[63:02] I just do share screen. Yeah. So if you have something that you like to share, you, just hit share screen, and then click the screen that you would like to share. So this is what we're talking about here. This is the expanded primary room. This is the expanded living room space. So this was that old garage, the step down this these, say I don't know if you can read that or not, but this is on a room to be converted to bedroom. So yeah. I I feel comfortable. Does anyone else need to see this up any closer? Are you good? Okay, Looks like we're good. I'm going to stop sharing at this point, I think. Have we? Asked the applicant any as many questions as we need to before, and obviously we can go back to them. Okay, I see head nodding. So at this point the question is, is there any public comment? Is anybody here from the public that wants to comment. Devin, this goes to you.

[64:04] Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I do see 2 attendees sitting in the slots there. So if you. Any of you folks would like to participate in the public comment Here, now would be the time, if you could please. Just raise your hand. That will indicate to myself and the board that you were interested. Give it a couple of minutes here. I don't actually see anybody, so i'm seeing 2 attendees, but they're not raising their hands. So I think we might be okay, manager. I'm gonna check it. I'm like one last last point, please. We we it in answer to Nicki's original question, we really did try everything we could to avoid having to come back to that. It's the this project has taken a really long time we we submitted. Obviously the buzzer. Originally we didn't just the permits, and and so we we were looking at every single opportunity not to come back. and and the what we've proposed is is the minimum for us to kind of really make use of the space on a flat on one level.

[65:05] Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So i'm going to close the public hearing. If there's no public comment on this matter and let's open the board for discussion. Please raise your hand if you have something you want to say. Oh. it it! It could be your your hand hand, or the other hand. It doesn't matter to me. Nobody has anything, you know. There's no discussion. Yes, of course, there's some discussion that to be had. This this is this: is we. I remember this project from last year, and we at that time we were going. I I was thinking myself. I hope we don't see this again simply because it seems some of the information available for that to metal wasn't settled down, and it hadn't really been defined, which is, that's normal. It's not like every project has to be 100% complete.

[66:03] But I do have that that memory that since memory is like, I hope we don't see this again. I am tend to be in favor of the project, though I don't actually believe that the you design is showing the minimal relief. I think it's it's it's reasonable for sure, but I think you know there could be things that we could cut back. It is, and it isn't a unique problem in the neighborhood. It's a problem associated with that neighborhood, and all of the houses that are facing south up there on on on your side. So I i'm not that doesn't help me at all. Oh. I think the biggest thing that really makes sense to me is the problem is not cost by the owner, and the problem was not remedied, as yours has gone on, and you know other permits have been that off for this project. But

[67:00] for this moment, this, this, this very small moment. This problem is not caused by the owner, in fact. Is he what you just hear the other? Said he'd rather maybe things have been easier. so I I tend to favor not a 100%, certainly in favor. So. Jeff, I would like to know what you think would be more so I so I have that in my frame of reference, please. Or could you ask that again? I'm sorry. So you said in your statement that these requests were reasonable, but not the minimum, and I wanted to know what you felt was minimum. To avoid. The minimum would would just be downsizing some of the rooms, and not not requesting some of the expansions. especially on the what we what I call the left side of the plan.

[68:05] but it's it's you know it's right there on the edge. Okay. anybody else have something They might add. Nikki, Did I see you on mute? Yes, thank you, madam. Chair. I like calling you madam chair, too. Yeah. So I'm I'm looking at 5 a. Through D. And from my understanding of the ceiling heights. I do think that this is the minimum variance that little for relief. If Jack has a difference of opinion, I'm. More than happy to to hear it understand your your line of thinking they are but just having an understanding of the standard heights and what they're trying to achieve. I did find that it it.

[69:01] c. Qualified in our abcd, she qualified for that. My, I think the only thing. So i'll say 2 things 1, 2, the homeowner. Thank you for getting the largest support I like to always say that because I can't remember what last time when we saw this in May, I don't remember if there was an issue or not I. I don't want to go back in and go through all the notes or anything, but I seem to remember that you know it was a new property. It just bought it. I think that there were neighbor objections, but I don't know, and so I don't it this that was a past application. So it doesn't it doesn't have any buried on what this application is. But I appreciate you getting the the neighbor support. The only other thing that I would say is the whether or not this was caused by the homeowner. and that's

[70:01] I don't know. I guess I guess I don't understand how you could have the opinion that it wasn't caused by the homeowner. But yet this is also not the like minimum relief. if that makes sense. So that was kind of the only thinking from our discussion as Board members that I was thinking about. But with that being said, I am in a position to approve this application, because I believe it would. It satisfies the requirements of 5 a. Yeah quickly. I'm a big fan of designing your way out of a problem rather than going to get a variance for it for the solution. My sense is oh. you know. this project kind of could have helped with then help with the little design.

[71:00] but nonetheless it still kind of did solve the problem eventually. That makes sense. I think one question, Rabbi aren't ISP is always required. or is it a a project that's just remodeling doesn't need just could could have done. And i'll see, because my recollection is right. Now that was that you have to have an ISP for everything for a project like this. Yes, for Bose application. No, but for a lot of building permits you do need a full survey. so that, coming as a surprise, I guess that was the one thing, John, that I wasn't sure I understood why the ISP was a surprise for you, and maybe you could explain that a little bit. because it it depends on the level of alteration or the classification that your permit falls under. and sometimes that isn't determined. It's really not up to me as the applicant to determine what that is. It's up to the city.

[72:01] So in the base requirements. It states that an Ilc is required. But then, once it's established, what level of alteration, or what classification it is, then you can be asked to provide additional information which was the case. Thank you. Katie. Do you have anything that you want to ask or say? No. No. So. And are you leaning in one direction or another, we usually try to do a so. They know I i'm leaning in in favor of of approval. You know I I don't have the I don't have the technical knowledge, and I wasn't obviously there last May, but i'm sort of convinced by everything that i'm hearing that it's it's close to the minimum that they. you know, could have could have proposed for relief. And

[73:00] and, like I said, I do, I do sort of strongly defer to to staff recommendations. So i'm i'm comfortable saying that I would approve the project. Thank you. I'm just gonna do a brief summary and add my my 2 cents on it. So. And that's more because I've been here for 40 plus years at this point. and I've seen many, many oddly constructed buildings, particularly those built in the sixties. or in this case 1957, where you're like, what were they thinking? And there's an angle here and there's a low roof here, and then, unfortunately, I have to confess to having built houses with sunken living rooms in my time, and guess what's the most deadly thing they can do when you're an old person is, have a tripping hazard built into your house, so I can really relate to this because we look to downsize. We look all the time to downsize, and I can't tell you how many hours I go into it, and then I go. Nope. and leave, and it is sometimes you can fill them in, but then you usually are lowering the ceiling height, and it it just looks funny. And so it was a trend. I don't think this house necessarily was trended into it. But these are things that, as my experience tells me.

[74:13] Look this house isn't being torn down, they're trying to work the best that they can with it. Every step of the way they have run into something that we weren't they were hoping to avoid, but did not avoid. And so I I think you know. One thing I will say is, that if you have to come through us again. please be, you know. Think about how everybody might not be as technical as you are, and just, you know, keeping it very simple. But I, too, think that you know You've worked with it, and certainly for me, Jack. It's minimal Enough that it doesn't, you know. Sometimes we can't. I? I don't want to say okay, so with the ceiling. I jogged a little bit. We could it? It didn't solve their problem, because one inch they had to come back in front of us, so why not have it be the same. So to me, if it was like, okay, we decided to break open the roof and do a cathedral ceiling. Okay, that wouldn't work for me. That would not be minimal relief. But to come in and say, okay, we're going to have the same ceiling height in the bedroom.

[75:13] That seems minimum reasonable. So I think, in conclusion, this is probably why we're all leading in this direction. We don't like to see stuff come back again. I'm sure you are all going. No; but you know, having been there for this role, knowing that many homes were constructed, including my own prior to ball complaint. There are, you know, new laws come into place. We have to work with them, but that's what the board is here for, so i'm, ready to entertain a motion should anyone care to make one. And please, if you'll raise your hand, that would be great. And, Robbie. you might want to remind everybody what that those in number is like. I wrote it down to so e of z 2 0 2 3, one more time. How many zeros? There's a 2 at the end.

[76:04] Okay. So whoever is going to propose let me know. Nikki do you want to propose? I? I? I make motion to approve bos 2023 for Zeros 2. Do I have a second. Okay, Jack is seconded. Okay, so all this in favor in order, Katie. I Jack. bye, bye. I so your motion has been approved. Go forth and build good good luck to you and and Robbie, thanks to your to your team for a hard work. We think. Good luck, guys. You just got your master's degree and doing this. Thank you.

[77:03] Goodbye. So we covered minutes already. So we're basically at the point where matters from the attorney got anything for us. And Nope. No matters from the attorney's office. What about staff application? Deadline was yesterday for the April eleventh meeting. A couple of applications did come in. I have yet to do completeness checks on those. So you'll probably get an email from me by the end of the week. just with the status as to the April meeting. So please keep that in mind, and just to wait an email for me. And then also I know Council is appointing Boards and Commission members on Thursday. I'm. In Devon. You might have more to say. On this we don't have any information as of now. But I know, Jack, this could be your last meeting. We don't know yet. So I think you're gonna get a big email from

[78:10] somebody here soon, if not from staff. So and Devin, you can probably make that sound a little better than I just did. No, you hit the nail on the head there, though. Yeah, no, absolutely so. The Council will be taking their action on that. On appointing council on appointing board members on the Sixteenth on Thursday, and then the following day the clerk's office will be sending out an email to all the applicants and forming of of the of Council's decision. So you should be, Jack. You should be receiving a a email on Friday from the City clerk's office, and I believe the Board as a whole through the Bolza email will receive some sort of correspondence kind of communicating this to you guys. And so on. That note I have 2 things. First of all marine is just absent today, right? She's not not coming back. Just wasn't able to make it so. I want to thank Jack Regardless. It's an opportunity to say Thank you for working with us, and being such a great member of the board. I I hope that you stay with us, but I know it's completely out of our control. And

[79:12] since I experienced this last time, I know that it's sort of weird to. Just be like you're off or you're on. and there's not an opportunity for us to say anything. So i'm. I'm happy to take the opportunity to say it's been a pleasure to work with you and hope to see you back. But if not, we'll welcome the new member either way, and hope to see you around town doing the good work that you do great. Thank you. One quick thing in it. In following the project we just looked at, and you know the fifties and sixties and boulder. There's a whole school of architects that did things minimally minimal window detailing the cheapest things you could buy, and for them to say. you don't need an 8 foot ceiling you can get by with a 7 foot ceiling. It's very typical of all of these guys, and they work eyes. So so, in a sense. This house is part of that culture, and

[80:06] maybe not the best part of that culture. But, on the other hand, thank you guys, if I don't if I don't see you next meeting. you'll know that they took my eco pass away. But thank you all for for all, all the fun you've had with me. No, I will miss you for sure. Does anybody else want to say anything before Jack goes? Thank you, Jack. I got to work with Jack on writing the Council letter. That was my first time working with Jack, and I had just an absolute pleasure talking to you and learning from you. So thank you for your service to the Board, and for being so welcoming to me when I came to the board as well, and hope you come back. But if you don't we I will miss you as well. Yeah, I if I will miss you. If I don't come back as well. But it's better pleasure. Really, truly. I'll just say that since i'm New I've just started working with you, so I hope I get to continue to work with you. I I hate change. So I I hope you stay. But either way it was great to work with you for a little bit.

[81:06] Okay, Thank you so much. Right well on that note. Are there any matters from the board? That was my matter for the Board any? Yeah, Nicky. Yes, I know it's way into the future. But I will not be at the August meeting. I know, because we have to do a quorum. I know for a fact that I will not be here for the August meeting. and there's a potential that I may not be here for the September meeting as well. So I just wanted to let you all know, because those are already on my calendar. and I would probably should take piggyback on that. It's highly unlikely. I'll be here for the August meeting. like I said, my plans aren't set yet, but I am looking at about 6 weeks away, and that the majority of that will be in August. So that puts you down to 3. If all 3 of those can make it. If I, If I get selected for the board, I will. Nonetheless, I will not be here for me.

[82:05] Okay. So I just think it is helpful, Robbie, to know, because don't you have to publish something if we can't have the meeting. Yeah, we have to figure out what to do. If we don't have a corn, we don't have a quorum. But thank you for these. It's up. So i'm trying to write them down, as everybody saying with August, August, and May right now, if Jack's on still anything else. And then in September and possibly September. You can plan that far ahead. I'm. You have to get your camping reservations, so you have to get those 6 months in advance. So I my camping reservations. Yeah. Very important. Okay. Anything else for the from the board? If not, i'm ready to join the meeting if it doesn't seem like there's anything else in good on to our evening. So see you all next time. Okay.

[83:00] I appreciate it.