April 11, 2023 — Board of Zoning Adjustment Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] I was saying that. Okay, i'll do an introduction. This is a meeting of the Board of Zoning adjustments tonight. We have, I think, one item Robbie, right on each item Staff will present, first in the applicant, second. next, the public will be invited to comment, and then the Board will discuss not going to review voting rules right now, because we have some decorum rules that Devin is going to introduce. So devin your term and i'll for my team. I'll be right back. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that. Is everyone able to see my screen awesome. So being that there is one public engagement item for tonight. Didn't want to go over some rules of decorum for that engagement section. So the city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive specific conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and boarding commission members, as well as the democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives.

[1:10] The following are some examples of rules of decorum found in the boulder, revised municipal code and other guidelines that help support this vision. These will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participants shall make threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person ofcenity, 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 individuals, must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online currently, all the audio testimony is permitted online. When we do get to the section for public engagement there will be an opportunity to raise your hand, and that will let myself and the rest of the Board know you are interested in public comment. If you can see this, the little arrow at the Blue arrow at the bottom of the screen. There, that's pointing towards the raise hand function. When we get to this part, all you have to do is click that raise hand function, and that will be. Excuse me. Let everybody know that you're interested in public comment.

[2:10] There are 2 other options, 3 other options for public comment, and to raise your hand there a couple of shortcuts. If you click. If you're on a PC. You can click all to my option wide for a Mac, or if you're on a phone, you can click Star 9, and all 3 of these options will let you raise your head for the public comment. and with that the the the decorum rules are done there. I did want to go ahead, and since this is Ju's first meeting here. I have the oath of office for Drew, so he can officially be. Be a member here. Drew. If you could kind of I might, if you could go ahead and unmute yourself, and then raise your right hand and repeat after me. I will go ahead and read your oath of office, and then we'll get just one in here. All right. I drew Eisenberg. Do you solemnly swear

[3:01] Hi through Eisenberg? Do you solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the State of Colorado. that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the State of Colorado. I. I don't know what my video just stopped. Did it stop for you? Yeah. There you go. and the charter and ordinances of the City of Boulder and the charter and ordinances of the city of Boulder. and faithfully perform the duties of the office of a member of the Board of Zoning Adjustment. and faithfully the duties of the office of a member of the Board of Zoning. Adjustment of the office of the Board of Zoning Adjustment. which I'm. About to enter which I'm. About to enter. Congratulations you, and welcome to the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Thank you. I true. Can you do I just? We we should introduce ourselves, you should introduce yourself. So yeah, i'm not sure. I I don't usually use zoom, so i'm not sure why the the video button kept on cutting itself out. So i'll just turn back on when it turns out.

[4:10] Yeah, i'm Dr. Eisenberg and I, it's it's very weird. So I actually applied for a variance 2 years ago, and I got very interested in all the zoning regulations. And yeah, just to generally found it very interesting, and had lots of opinions on the different matters going past the board, and so I decided to apply. I actually, I think Jack Rud did a fantastic job, and I I didn't know he was going to apply. If I had known I mean maybe I would not have, but he he wasn't committal and back in January. and I guess City Council just chose fresh blood. So yeah, here I am. I'm really excited to contribute. And

[5:06] yeah, a Volunteer Pacific. And then, if I from a professional background. So i'm a engineer by trade. So I actually design wind turbines, the aerodynamics of wind turbines. But I have. you know history with the designing my own house. And then also we are working with the architectural plans and blueprints, and so forth. So i'm. Very capable of of understanding and reading all of those. and bring a very analytical perspective. So that very criteria based. Thank you, Drew. I appreciate the introduction and welcome to the board. We'll go around and introduce ourselves, I will just say for it. It's probably helpful for everybody to know that there's if it's a formal or an informal policy. But the Council tries to keep

[6:05] board appointments for 5 years, and have people move on to other boards, and so there will always be a preference for somebody new over. At least that's what I've been told. So in in health set in stone that is, I don't know, but I ran into it myself. and so that's how I feel like I can speak from experience. It is my second term on the board, but it is a little unusual, not it. It. It depends on how many applications are in the past. People didn't apply to this board. So people were on for a longer period of time. So thank you for applying and being here will Miss Jack, but it sounds like you'll bring your own background to us. Thank you. Who else would like to introduce themselves next, just physically raise your hand. It would be great. Otherwise i'll call on you so nobody's gonna volunteer. Nikki. Come on

[7:03] all right, Marine volunteers, so You're off the buck for a minute. Jerry knows me, because we know each other outside of of of this Drew and my husband work together, and in the wind industry. and so we know each other a little bit, so I don't know that I need to into this myself for myself formerly. But hi! Jer: it's nice to have you to see it. Okay, Nikki. Now i'll put you on the spot. Thanks, Joe. Hi Drew. Nice to have you as part of the board. My name is Nicky Mccord. I do not work in the housing industry, but or construction industry, and I've served on the global housing partners board in the past, and i'm a resident of Boulder. Happy to happen here. Thanks. Okay. Hi! Hi Drew.

[8:00] I am pretty new. I'm the second newest member now to to the Bowser Board. So you're in good company. I I join last fall. So a lot of this is is still new to me, too, and this is the first board in Boulder that I've served on. and my husband and I have lived in Boulder since 2,007, and I that that's about it. I'm a freelance writer, and and that my husband and I live in towards the West End, and and just wanted to to my part in serving on a boulder board. Thank you, Katie and I'm. Gill Wester. I have a few things in my back pocket, but I have a law degree, and ended up in real estate building single family custom homes. doing a little bit of tenant finish over the years, and

[9:02] also work for see, you part time which I've done. I I I've been a teacher as well. So I kind of different backgrounds and and so definitely have a building background and a familiarity with the code from that standpoint. So welcome. Andrew, it's nice, too. Me, too. Thank you. I look forward to working together. So the next thing that happens is that we'll review the voting rules so that you know. So first, what happens is, I said earlier, but i'll say it again. Staff, which means Robby will present the variance request, and then the applicant has the opportunity to speak. Public comment will be followed, and the Board will discuss. There is usually some board discussion after Robbie speaks. So we sort of have 2 times in there where we speak. When we have a full board, which we do tonight an affirmative vote of 3 or more board Member members shall result in passage of a motion.

[10:04] An applicant cannot be approved with less than 3 affirmative vote. So basically we have a quarrel at 3, and if the first vote taken on a motion to approve her, deny an application results in a tie of 2 to 2, the applicant shall be allowed to rehearing a time out on any subsequent motion to approve it tonight shall result in defeat of the motion and denial of the application. a vote of 2 to one or one to 2 on a motion. So in all respects be considered a tie. so that unless you have any questions on that, I will move on to the evenings agenda. Let me just pull up the numbers. I don't have this open here. and our first item for tonight is one that I mentioned earlier on Alpine

[11:01] might have to give me the number if my computer doesn't want to wake up here. Okay, there we go. So, for this application is Doz 2023, basically 4 right, followed by it's 4 0, and a 4. That is correct and over to you. Okay, let me share my screen real quick. Okay. You should see the presentation up on the screen right now. This is again Docket number Boz 2023 dash 0 0 0, for the address is 1,951 alpine avenue, and this is a setback variance as part of a proposal to recognize and permit, and approximately 72 square foot detached son of structure. Within the properties front, south yard the applicants are requesting a variance to the front.

[12:03] Your landscape setback standards for accessory structures in the Rl. One zoning district. The resulting front yard setback will be approximately 3 and a half feet, where 55 feet is required and 3 and a half need to exist today. Section of the land use code to be modified. Section 9, 7, one boulder revised code, 1,981, and up on the screen you see the approximate location of the property. They're circled in red. and as a part of the application, there were 4 neighbors that provided written support within the application. Materials, and those properties are to the west, east, and then 2 properties to the south, across Mesa Drive, and those are denoted as the green stars that you see up on the screen right now. and the existing residence. This is an aerial as well as a site, plan, or survey of the existing residents. The variance tonight is not specific to the house itself, but an accessory structure or son of structure

[13:09] that is considered an accessory structure within the land use code that is not shown on the screen, but the next screen will show it. and this was all provided within the application. It detailed. The existing conditions of the site. and I won't. Go through all of these. But in case we do need to come back to these photos, I just wanted it within the presentation for the Board to be able to look at and discuss if needed. But we can come back to this the photos of the existing conditions if needed. So tonight the Board is looking into or considering a setback variance again for a new S. Roughly 72 square foot son of structure, and the specific variance being considered, is to the front south yard, and that's for approximately 3 and a half feet from the subject Sauna, where 55 feet is required, and approximately 3 and a half feet exists today, and the image on the left was an image that did show the location of the son. It is out there today.

[14:15] and I believe, and this is something the applicant might be able to talk about in a little more detail. It is a part of an overall landscape update to the property. and I believe there are current fence and retaining wall permits out there approved. But those are not associated with the son of the Sauna require separate approval. But the image you see up on the screen both the left and the smaller right kind of shows the exact location of the subject. Detached son of structure that is out there today, and photos of that we're also provided, and i'll show those here in a second. But that is the request that the board is considering this evening. and these are just some rendering showing the location from all angles of the subject.

[15:04] So, on a structure related to standing on the street. and this is the structure itself, and the pictures on the bottom are the existing conditions. Again, you can see some of the site work happening as a part of the overall landscaping project. And then the subject structure tonight, which is technically in the properties, front yard, setback, and the requirement for accessory structures within a front yard is 55 feet. So the request tonight is for a 3 and a half foot set back from that south property line where 55 feet would otherwise be required for any accessory structure. and a little bit in the way of some zoning information the property is zoned ro one. and the lot size is 64, 17, about 500 and some change below square feet

[16:01] below the maximum. The minimum allowance for our all one lots, which is typically 7,000 square feet. and exposed, proposed building coverage. The a maxillet for this property is around 2333 square feet. and this building is actually exempt from building coverage per our definition, due to its size and height. If it's under 10 feet and less than 80 square feet, it does not count towards building coverage. and then for existing and proposed floor area. And Max allowed for the property is 3,383, and the proposed, including the roughly 72 square foot detached. Sauna is gonna come to about 2304, which is well under the maximum allowance for the overall property and solar access, as well as side yard. Well, articulation and side yard bulk, plane because of the location and the size and design of these subjects on a structure. All 3 of these are not impacted

[17:02] or create any sort of violations. And then the history. The home was built circ in 1,951. As as mentioned, there were 2 recent permits associated with the landscaping changes. Those were fence permits, which also includes the retaining walls within our in 2,020, and then another one in 2,027, and there are no compliance cases active on this property at this time. So all that being said staff is recommending support of the setback variance, as it has been presented within boz 2023 dash 0 4, and I can go into the review criteria in a little more detail if the Board wants; but, in short, we recognize the restrictions and the more importantly the shape of the lot, and then the location of the existing house as a hardship to any development. regardless of its size on the lot, because there is essentially no buildable space to the north or east of the existing house, and what is

[18:09] kind of treated, and what appears to be a backyard of the property is technically the front yard, due to a continuous front yard along the south span of the property, so, recognizing the site, restrictions in the as well as the size and scope of the structure. And then also, we have some neighbors in. So we have 4 neighbors in support. The most impacted properties to be more specific staff does feel that it would not, you know, negatively impact the essential character of surrounding properties, and there is neighbor support. So all that being said, we are recommending support of the application as has been presented. so I will leave it at that. And if you have any other questions, i'd be more than happy to answer those.

[19:00] Does anybody have questions for Robbie? Because the only question I would have then is, if this was a shed under this it 80 square feet or 42. I can't remember what that 80 square feet this is 72. Could a shed be placed there, or would they have to come in and get variance for a should. Oh, a structure under 10 feet and less than 80, and that is not hooked up to utilities or electric, and this is coming from building Code does not require a building permit, and is exempt from some like coverage. some areas, but I believe, and the applicant can probably speak to this more specifically. Any structure, regardless of its size, if it is hooked up to electric or utility, would require a building permit review, which would happen after tonight's decision pending tonight's decision. So

[20:05] sometimes sheds do not require a building permit. but they do require compliance with the setbacks. regardless of if there is a permit or not. So a lot of times that people assume. If you don't need a permit. you don't have to meet the setbacks. That is not the case. You still have to meet setbacks. and so, in order for it to meet, set back, it would have to go through variance process. Whether this was a shame because it's essentially in their front yard. Correct. Okay, those that was my only question. Nikki: yeah. thanks. Thank you, Roddy, can you help me understand the purpose of a setback? Yes, in general it's to more honor spacing between properties, whether that's spacing from a street or spacing from a side to kind of help with neighbors. So it's really to provide open space and overall visual kind of separation, whether that's from a street or a neighbor.

[21:09] So a lot of times side setbacks are less than front and back, because the front set back a lot of times will involve visual setback from a street. and the rear is to provide kind of, you know, private amenity, space for a property. and then sides are more to kind of respect for both fire and safety, but, in addition just visual separation amongst neighbors. But the 25 feet in between would be almost impossible for most structure. So it has side setbacks are reduced to more of a 5 to 10 foot separation, so front really has to do with maintaining front yards, visual distance from a street rear for private use and enjoyment of a home. and then sites kind of for the same reasons, to kind of provide just a visual and privacy, separation from your neighbors immediately to the side.

[22:05] and then not all properties are perfectly square in boulder. So we run across some situations where a backyard is not necessarily a typical backyard, and same for front and side. So setbacks are strictly visual. like considerations of what I what I guess i'm trying to understand. Is. Are there any health or safety reasons why we have set so? I did hear you say, in terms of the side setbacks for fire, but I want to know in this and a front set back. Are there any health or safety reasons why we have self setbacks for front and back? No, I cannot think of any unless there was some sort of an easement which this property does not have a lot of times. You'll see utility or access easem in place, and those kind of act as setbacks for specific reasons.

[23:02] But that's not every property in Boulder, and this property does not have usments. So you are correct on that. Thank you. Robbie. Also Wouldn't you say, Robbie, that usments utilities are typically running on the front or the back and not on the side. Yeah, typically yes, not always okay. Anyone else. True. And I I guess what we're really approving, though, is the size and shape and location of an accessory structure. The fact that it's a sauna is it? Could it could change their They can choose the use as they wish. Is that correct? That's correct the board doesn't Typically, look at the specific use within. and you are approving specifically the setback that 3 and a half foot from the front yard. But overall the the general bulk of the building is what you are approving. So. pending tonight's decision, were it to be approved, they could not make it taller or bigger or closer. You are approving the location and the general bulk of the building, not the design or sp or specific use.

[24:15] but the size right. But the size? Yes. yeah, size and location any other questions before we it is there an applicant presenting, as I don't, I can't see them. Yes, we do. Have we sorry about that much, Madam Chair? We do have 2 folks who are here to present for the applicant's presentation. So at this time I think we're finished with staff questions, and we'll move into the applicant's presentation. Welcome, and then, Branson, are you going to do the presentation? Should I start with you. Actually, do you want to start with Kyle? Who's the home, or you just right as well?

[25:02] Hello, everybody. Yeah, thanks for hearing us out. Appreciate that we get a chance to talk in front of the the Bosea Committee. Robbie. That was a great overview of the situation. I don't have a ton more to end, although I will answer the couple of things you mentioned in your first. Yeah, it it is just an awkward property. We live on the corner of 2 streets, Alpine and Tyler. So we really just have one long continuous front yard. which caused some initial confused confusion on our side. When we were looking at where to place the sauna we had. We do have a small little. you know more, Hollywood in our backyard, which is in the the back corner. and it was just not feasible, given the grade to really do anything with that land. And so that's why the the son is where it is right now, and it is part of a bigger landscape update to the front of the property.

[26:02] and the plan has always been to conceal it as much as possible. We do have retaining wall and fence permits that we got ahead of time. and that's why we're You know we're we're coming to you guys again. For this variance we will go through a building permit process, as Robbie mentioned, because this this we thought it was a shed, but it is electrified technically, because there are, if there is a light on the front of it, and then there is a stove, obviously because it is a stop Asana. And so, for those reasons, you know, you know, you know an electrified shed requires a building permit. So that is our our next course of action. If you guys were to so graciously approve our variance request. If you have any questions, please ask away.

[27:06] I'm happy to present. If I can share a screen, and it'll mostly be a iteration of what Robbie had shared. But see. Okay, so i'll try to keep this brief. But I think 1 point Robbie mentioned is that not all sites in boulder are square or the same. They're also not flat, and that's a big consideration here. If you can see the screen, the topography of kind of their. The site's typical backyard is very steep, and actually the site to the north, east of it it sits above. So when you look at all the setbacks. There was one possible buildable location which was right here. and even to build with in conformance. You would be too close to the existing structure. So your kind of pigeon hold based upon existing conditions, and as everybody has mentioned.

[28:08] the front yard, which is adjacent to both Tyler and Alpine are really the 2 locations that are functionally serveable as a more traditional yard. and the perceived front door is, even though this house is 1,951 Alpine. The entry is really Tyler. This is the front door. So thinking of that is kind of the more conventional front yard. That's what sort of led to where we developed the plan. So if you look at the existing conditions, there is retaining walls here at the front, which lead to a flat area that is adjacent to the main living area of the home. And then to the northeast you can see the existing retaining walls that are holding back the site above it, which is an adjacent property. So a couple of quick things on the sauna structure itself.

[29:06] One thing about this is it's it's got an aesthetic quality that's maybe different than it shed in that there's high quality materials here, and the structure itself is formed to kind of complement, the architecture, and as a design firm. We looked at it as a real, nice opportunity to actually add something of value to the character of the neighborhood. But in Kyle's point we're really trying to conceal this as much as possible. So the location that we're proposing what's existing adjacent to the east are several large evergreen trees. and then from the west it's hidden by the fence which we, which exists today, and is going to be rebuilt in a much nicer form. So it's really concealed from the general public, both in a driving and even on a sidewalk experience. But it does create just a nice backdrop here for the house

[30:09] and grading wise. Really, the only flat, reasonable part of the site is this southeast corner. There's 2 existing trees that we've worked really hard to preserve through our new construction. and because of that they're on different levels of slope. So really, the only flat usable area is here in the driveway which leads to the the garage. Of course so, and to the point. I know that this is a consideration only for this structure, but I think it is important to bring up that the clients have invested in a overall plan which really incorporates this structure into a greater landscape. And not only is it permitted. It's actually under construction as we speak. And so these are just some images of what the ultimate plan will be, and it's not the conceptual, and that we're hoping someday it'll be this. This is certainly under construction now, so you can see the Sauna is concealed primarily by defense.

[31:13] which is going in on from. If you're driving toward the east, and then from the west you can see the large evergreens on the adjacent property. and then the size and scale the sauna. We feel compliments. The home nicely and doesn't contribute to any sort of solar offset issues. and it just the quality of materiality, even when you do see. It is a very pleasant structure, something that's much nicer than a shed. and as one thing that we would just like to kind of mention is, we do have neighbor support from all the adjacent properties, especially the 2 to the south, which are most highly impacted visually by this structure

[32:00] so hopefully you'd like to a good overview again. Thank you like, Kyle said, for listening to our presentation, and i'm happy to answer any questions as well. Thank you. Ransom Ford questions. Yes, Katie, I I just had a quick question. So is is this on a bright up against the fence? Essentially it is not. It's actually set back 3 and a half feet from the fence. Nikki. Sorry. Oh, no, no, no! Worries Hi. Thanks for the presentation. Can you help me understand the order of operations? So this structure. as of like April eleventh today exist on the property, so can you help me understand the order of operations in terms of how is the property there before the Bullshit Board has made a decision on

[33:01] whether to grant the variance. Go ahead. I can. Dylan, if you want. Okay. Nikki. That obviously is the £800 a grill in the room. So we applied for several permits fence permits or retaining more different, retaining well permits. and we did a full sort of permitting scope, figuring out what needed to permit what didn't need a permit. and we, when it came to the Sauna we were just a little bit confused, whether it counted as a shed or not. and so that was that was the primary issue. We thought it was a shed, and you know we thought, you know, hey, this isn't that different from a shed that someone might, you know, string a light bulb to, and, you know, be able to turn on and off. But it, as we learned more and more in the process after it got delivered. it was brought to our attention that you know this. Really, this really was something a little bit different. It really is an accessory structure.

[34:02] And so that was the confusion in our part, and you know we take responsibility for it. But and that's why we're we're sort of applying for the variance after the the Sauna had been installed and delivered rather than the the other way around. We much would have preferred to be here before you without this, on a currently where it is, and and asking for a a setback, so we could install it. That would obviously be the ideal order of operations. Thank you other questions. True. you unmuted. So I'm, assuming that you want to ask. Can you talk about a little bit about the the by right solutions that you considered to, as far as

[35:00] I guess. Yeah. can I just say one thing, drew it. It's fine question to ask. I think it's been answered. because they? That's what they were talking about in the backyard. where the by right solutions are. So if you'd address that to explain to you using the word by right. You didn't bring that word up. But you did explain. So I think if if you went over that and explained that it would be more clarifying absolutely. So by right there's setbacks to the front sides and backyard. The rear yard set back, I believe, is 3 feet. The side yard setbacks are 5 feet on one side and 10 on another. and that starts to bring that triangle that's in the back and compresses it. And so, when we looked at the size of the sonus structure by right. Once we place that in the plan it would be closer than 9 feet from the primary structure, which is also a violation

[36:03] so essentially, nowhere in that area could we have actually placed this structure legally by right, with on another variance. looking at that particular area that grading and topography was such that it would be of really heavy undertaking to actually place the structured there. And then we would again have to come back and have a variance process anyway. So when we looked at all the other options on the site, and at the time operating under the assumption that this was a shed. The most logical places where it was placed on the toad. Wording is a a little bit vague, and the size of the structure is actually under the size of a shed. So that was where the assumption had been mis misleading on our part. And once we have this, but I try to mention that because of that utility component, this would be considered more than in this accessory structure. That's when we are. Excuse me more than a shed. That's when we started this process.

[37:11] I guess, Robbie, could you comment? I don't know if you evaluated putting the shed in the backyard area. I I think it's 6 feet clearance with the main structure. Is that correct? Yeah. And staff did evaluate kind of Could there be a by right or meeting code location for this and the rear and side setbacks to the northwest and east setbacks for an accessory structure are 3 feet. and then the front is 55. Feet. So with that in mind, we also have to take into consideration, as you mentioned, drew building separation so between 2 buildings on a property, and that's including roof overhangs and anything attached to it. There's no less than a 6 foot requirement, so it's not just setbacks, but also building separation that has to be taken into consideration, and with all that staff to look at the somewhat smaller

[38:09] non typical backyard as well as the topography of that space. And we agree with what Ransom and Kyle mentioned. It's not feasible to put any structure within what is technically the rear yard of the property. and then same for the side yards there just wasn't didn't seem to be any buildable space for even an accessory structure. and then that leaves the front yard that 55 foot south span which eliminates a lot more of the developable areas. So Staff did take into consideration the setbacks, the building separation as well as kinda the buildable area, the overall topography and site conditions when considering our recommendation. So yeah, that's a good point to make. Is there was also building separation to take into mind. Thank you, Nikki. Please.

[39:00] Thanks for that explanation, Robbie. Then I I have another question. Then, in terms of that backyard. when you were considering the setback for the backyard. Was it based upon the current size of the structure? And if the structure was a different size. would it have? What could it have gone there by right. It's kind of both that's a very good point specific to this recommendation. We did mostly just use the proposal at hand. The 72 square foot, 9 foot tall structure. and still found it somewhat unfeasible, not easy to put it simply to put that specific structure in the location, but definitely not a larger, like a typical one. Car Garage definitely could not go back into that space. So for this recommendation we specifically looked at the 72 square foot on a structure when determining whether or not Staff would provide support.

[40:03] So and if you can't answer this question, please Don't. But if if this variance was brought to you in in the conception phase, and we were considering what size structure could fit by right and what size structure could not fit by right. Would that be something that you all would talk to the applicant about and and make a consideration about? There might be discussion, but it's really hard to say what would and what would not feasibly fit within. for example, that backyard space. So there might have been a discussion like that, but it very likely would have come to the same conclusion. Which is, it's a very limited topographically kind of restricting area. There's a lot of grade change even within that small north yard, the rear yards. So specifically there's no I don't think there would have been a this is the size that would work, and that is not typically something staff does. We usually just guide them and recommend If there is a by right meeting, code, design, solution, or location, that's always the best path forward

[41:15] this one preliminarily, it probably would not have been easy to find a by right meeting code location for any structure, but that discussion was not made, so I can't really say. What would it come out of it? Thank you, Robbie. Thank you, Robbie. Any other questions for the applicant before we go on to public. I don't know if there's anybody here from the public. Okay. So thank you. Everybody devin. Do you have anybody here from the public who's interested in speaking to this issue. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. We do have one person in the attendees here. So if you are interested in public comment on this item. Please raise your hand at this time. Otherwise this is this: is going to be the time to offer your comment.

[42:06] Give them a few seconds. But i'm not seeing the hand here. and that's using the zoom function of raising a hand. Right? That is correct. Reaction. Yeah. yeah, it looks like we're good, Madam Chair. Thank you so much. Public hearing is now closed. So if there's no other public comment, this matter, it's now open to the board for discussion. I I will, you know, as usual. wait one of the instructions. Just so. You know that because this should be my last shared meeting. We'll be looking for a new chair which we didn't mention at the beginning, I think. But maybe you can start thinking about that as we go into this discussion. I do have some comments on this, but I i'll refrain from making those comments until I hear what other people have to say. Who will.

[43:05] One question I do want to make sure it's clear. It sounds like this is either a compliance case or an issue that came up. Do do, during the permitting the application for the permits. Can I get some clarification on that? Who I looked into that? And I did not see any compliance cases, so I am not sure it was. I think it was just the applicant who brought this for, but I did not see any compliance cases. thank you, and I just think that's helpful to understand that. And that's why I started off talking about the shed. Because I knew that the shed piece was confusing, so i'll. I'll talk again like I said later. So who on the board would like to open discussion, please? If there's any further discussion. Nicki feel free.

[44:03] Thanks. let him share. I I think I will need the help of my colleagues to convince me to vote in favor of granting this variance. I'm specifically looking at H. One C. And D particularly D. So drew we look at H. One, and whether they meet all of the criteria under ABC. And D and D read any unnecessary hardships has not been created by the applicant. and that's that's kind of where i'm leaning right now, just because I feel like I feel like this. I feel like the order of operation could have been a lot better in taking some time to think about what could fit

[45:09] in the area. I do understand that in the backyard you would have. Still. they would have had to apply for a variance. and that works for me like that's cool. I it's it's it's okay to apply for a variance. It's just I feel like that consideration should have been taken, and so I'm. I'm struggling with whether or not i'm struggling with whether this application meets that H. One d criteria. and then also the C. Because of such physical circumstances or conditions, the property cannot be, reason cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of this Chapter i'm. I'm. Not completely there. I mean. I I understand that there is a possibility for it to fit in the backyard with a variance. I think

[46:07] I think I just would. I, I think what i'm leaning on is, I would have rather had exhausted that option before the Sauna was put in place. Like I think I would have just. I would have to have heard that. Well, we made a plan for this, or we tried this, and you know this is kind of our last option, and the sun is going to be delivered next weekend. We we're trying to get a variance or whatever. I think it's the fact that the sun is there, and it's kind of like. If we deny this application, then the homeowner is going to have to move something that's already there. So I kind of. I backed into a corner in terms of Well, if I vote to not have this variance go forward now. I'm saying that the homeowner has to spend all this time and effort to

[47:00] to move it or to make other considerations. So I don't like being put in that position, and that's why i'm looking at H. One C. And D in terms of not reaching the experience. Thank you, Nikki. Katie. I I I just want to offer that I actually as opposed to Niki. I i'm. I'm. I'm. In favor of approving the variance, simply because everything that Ransom and Kyle and and Robbie have laid out sound to me, sort of reasonable, and I. I sort of contract the process that the homeowner and his consultant went through, and you know I I can sort of put myself in their shoes and and understand. You know how they were initially under the assumption, maybe, that it would be considered a shed. and it turned out to be erroneous. But it's still very understandable.

[48:05] and I feel like they have gone through, you know, all Once they realize that they have gone through all this steps that they needed to go through in order to request the variance. And to me it just sounds like a very human situation that I can completely understand. And so I i'm. I'm. In favor of of supporting it. Also I I always put a lot of weight on staff recommendations, and so the fact that Robbie and his team have sort of looked at it thoroughly, sways me a lot, so I I am in favor despite. I I understand that these concerns, but I think. in in spite of all that I'm. I'm. In favor of granting the variance. Thank you, Marine, please. Thanks. I actually am more on the keys. leaning more towards Nikki's opinions. I

[49:06] I don't know that you can talk about the hardship if you want to install the Sauna, and for a moment our attorney has raised her hand, and she has to be addressed. Please go ahead, Aaron. Do you mean to have your hand raise? I I do, and and I can wait until after marine, but I just wanted to talk about, for to make sure that we preserve the record, what the applicant has identified as hardship is in their materials, and it's the topographic layout they have not mentioned having to move the structure as a hardship. Yeah, I I would like Madam Chair Aaron. I I I planned on making that record. So. But thank you for that reminder. Please go ahead. So, yeah, please, as you are addressing your concerns. Maybe i'll make do a reminder right now. We are not a punitive board here. This is we are not here to punish. We are here to evaluate whether or not this meets criteria or not.

[50:06] People do come to us after making mistakes. and we are an avenue of correcting those mistakes. so we can certainly have Aaron speak to those issues and our role. So it's it's. You know there are other comments that can be made about this. But I it's it's important that we stick to the criteria that we are required to evaluate a variance on. Okay, Thank you. Marine. Yeah, no. I would add that my worries to set a precedent if we're asked to it in approve a 3.5 foot set back where 55 feet are required, and i'm worried about the precedent that it would create potentially for other homeowners to come later.

[51:07] Thank you. Yes, Robby. you're muted. You didn't think i'd ever do that again. Thank you for that, marine, and it's Staff never looks at these as you're setting a precedent for everybody to be able to do the same thing. These are all looked at case by case and on their own merit. And with this one just kind of respond to a few comments, Steph did look at the topographic specific hardship. and then also just the general idea that any structure, regardless of, if it's existing or not, whether or not it could go in there also we recognize the general overall shape of the lot, and the fact that it's substandard and size technically from 7,000 square feet. So we did take the topography and the site layout, as was laid out within the applicants materials. When considering whether or not we agreed it meant

[52:06] the criteria specifically, C. And D is multiple people have brought up, so i'll leave it at that. Thank you, Robbie True. Do you want to say something now? Do you want? But I guess first off I mean how I view these applications as I I actually think that it's kind of irrelevant. If if the mistake has been already been made or not, we're looking at. If that form of structure can exist on that lot in in perpetuity, right? And so also take that into account with the your neighbors change. Homeers change it. But we're really, you know, granting is the existence of that structure in that location. and I guess my what i'm still not clear on. And maybe this is going to get.

[53:04] and the details is on that. you know criteria, one, c. If it can be reasonably developed. When i'm looking at the survey. Robbie, I see 26 feet between the rear of the structure and the northeast property line. And so i'm i'm just wondering why a 6 foot wide, 6 and a half foot wide structure wouldn't fit in. That was 26 feet. and that is probably a question more for the applicant, but the key where there is reasonably developed. So it is ultimately up to board members specifically what you consider reasonable or logical kind of development of the site, and also the applicant. But we did look into that and kind of the way Staff looked at. It was that entire front 55 feet is non developable land. It would require a setback, but a lesser variance might be possible. That's something that the applicant would need to speak to.

[54:07] but we considered it an appropriate location, given multiple circumstances and the overall topography and layout of the site. So with that we agree that this was a reasonable and what works best for the applicant. and shifting it to another location would still result in some sort of a variance. If a lesser variance is possible that that might be a thing, but we didn't consider it inappropriate to put it in this location, so that is something we looked at as well when drafting our recommendation. Thank you. Do you have another question, Drew, or well, I guess where i'm leaning is? I I tend to believe that a a lesser variance would be possible, especially in the backyard

[55:03] in the north northeast corner. And then I also on. you know, in terms of the the character of the neighborhood. and I, I do. you know, feel we we're talking about what the purposes of setbacks, you know. I think setbacks also create the character of a neighborhood, and then, you know, having a front yard accessory structure definitely impacts that character. So so to me, the 2 criteria that I am questioning, or one C. And 5 a. Okay. Thank you. Everybody, for you know this is discussion. So we everybody has the opportunity to speak. We can have further discussion on it. I, Before I talk I would like to ask Ransom to address

[56:01] the issue that Drew has brought up, and maybe Robbie as well. It is so. I live in this neighborhood. I don't live close enough to be eliminated by, you know, to vote on this because i'm not that close. But i'm very familiar with this site. It is a very difficult site to work with. and so I don't know if each of you had the opportunity to drive by and take a look at it. and I So. although I think what Robbie is saying is. we could look at other locations on the site. This is what was brought to us, and we considered it reasonable. And so I think, Ransom, if you would just review the location that drew his raise and make sure we're all in agreement and understanding whether it is topography, difficulty of access, and so on. And again, this is not me talking about where I am right now this is me asking for clarification. In response to Drew's question.

[57:11] Yes, thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on that it Can I share my screen again. please. Okay. Okay. Oops. Okay. The area, I believe. and that Drew is mentioning is this corner here? And while this survey shows 2060 back. I don't know if it's clear what the topography is doing. So the elevation here and this is, i'm going up memory a bit. But the elevation at this point, compared to the elevation of the floor of the house, is something like

[58:01] 14 or 16 feet in change of elevation. Here I would have to verify that with the actual survey, but it's it's a significant slope. and the challenge with placing it back Here is not only is it a significant slope, it continues to slope to the property that's further above it. And so anything you do in here would require, I I would say it would require more variance than just a simple variance, because it would require significant retaining walls that could potentially exceed the height of retaining wall that is considered acceptable to create a structure in this location. One of the things that I know it says in the packet as a hardship is. Did the applicant choose? I am I paraphrasing a bit. But the route of the least amount of, I guess. Challenge.

[59:04] Yeah, the minimum hardship. So we feel like placing it in this location. We require a lot more than just a simple variance, because if there's a flat site that would certainly make a lot of sense. but with the amount of topography and great change that you have here in this particular location. That's where the hardship really became a challenge. The existing retaining walls that are on site are holding up the grade, but it would be compromising all of them if we were to try to place it structure in this location. And so that's why we thought placing it here would be the least amount of environmental impact on the site for one and then 2 would be a variance process that would be simpler than this entire corner here. and just one thing to add to what ransom mentioned

[60:01] our neighbor to the East. Who that slope continues into their yard. They actually they have a small gate and a pathway that comes right along the property right there. I'm not sure if it's in the pictures, ransom or not. but that goes from their kitchen area down to their parking area with their garages. And I really, you know, we really didn't want, you know. to impact them. I mean I I grew with Drew Drew in theory the back. This little backyard area would be ideal for something like this. But there it the access issue is huge getting equipment back there to build the retaining walls, and we did look into it. It's just not it wasn't feasible without really disturbing our neighbor's yard, and that that little small walkway that they they already have, that we also wanted to preserve. Thank you, Kyle.

[61:00] Thank you again, everybody, and you can stop sharing if you want to. For now Ransom, Thank you. So you know, having the longest history here on the board. I'm going to bring up a couple of other that one another case in particular, where we looked at a front yard shed situation. It may maybe Aaron and Robbie, Remember, this was over on a we're. A fairly small shed. 40 square feet was built in the front yard setback. and we spent a lot of time talking about it. A lot of time was one of those very long meetings. and ultimately, in that case there were multiple other spots not preferable to the homeowner on that site where this shed could be relocated. and that's what it came down to, and I don't think I think we denied that application is my recollection, or we sent them back to figure it out, and then they didn't come back again.

[62:04] So one thing I want to remind Ransom and Kyle about is depending on how the vote goes. We can. We can talk about those options when we go when we're before we vote. So we we won't move to voting, until, because there's some consequences to us having a final vote that affect you. I think, part of what so not particularly too much on the fence with this, but I would say that there might be this little bit of okay. It's a son. since for me of like is this necessary, but that's not our criteria. Okay. So that's that's something I personally have to just step back from and say. this could be a shed with a little electricity. This could be somebody, she said. This could be any number of things, and knowing the location, and knowing the site and looking at this enormous front yard.

[63:05] and no other buildable area or accessible area on the site. I just have absolutely no problem, seeing that the topography is a serious hardship to the development of this, and I I lean toward Katie. I I think that this was a sincere error. I understand that the shed code is confusing, or perhaps I I wouldn't have known that if you had any power in there, because I see so many shows with the power, you know, if you it wanted to plug in any kind of a device. For example, supposing you want to hang up a weed wacker and they're now going to be electric. People are going to want to electrify their sheds, and they're going to start running into this issue. So I I personally am. I am leaning towards approval of this. but it is because I do think this site is extremely difficult, and I think you I can't even imagine

[64:00] trying to walk back there to that Sauna. It's just not logical. or she shed, or any shed back there in terms of the impact on the neighbors. You know it's sitting behind a retaining. Wall. It's fairly tall, to begin with, and I think that was raised at the beginning in your application. But I, you know I may be in the minority tonight, as may be, Katie and I, I I just want everybody to let's work with Aaron to make sure that we're making this decision based upon criteria. and not on personal preference, and not our feelings about how things progressed. We don't have a compliance case here. This is not an, and it wouldn't matter if we did. You know it's still our job to decide based upon the criteria. So I do believe that this is a reasonable option on the site. I agree with Staff's analysis, and I don't always right, Robbie. I'm not a 100% just with you guys.

[65:06] There have been times when i'm. I I don't agree. but I just don't have a problem with it. I I do believe that there are physical circumstances or conditions that it cannot be developed in this way, and I think some of the dispute is. should it be developed this way at all? It's not the purpose not to use the fact that it's there it's. Is it reasonable to allow an accessory structure in this unusual front yard, Robbie, please. and I can wait till you're finished, Jill? I didn't want to interrupt. I think the notes that I I have down here is talking about the shed talking about the unusual topography, talking about the very large front yard. I mean that's what's happened here. This is a huge 5 yard and a very tiny backyard, with very difficult topography.

[66:03] If there's you know the question I would have for Aaron is in, and Robbie is, Can we place a value judgment on the purpose of the shed versus And I just don't think the criteria allow us to do that. But I I would appreciate some clarification on there. Do you want to go first, Robbie? Okay. There there is inherently some sort of discretionary decision to be made about the use you. You are approving a structure that could be a shed, an electrified shed. So, looking at what is reasonable for this this lot, this property, I I I guess that's how I would frame it it less about the interior use, but about the size of the structure, the placement.

[67:06] and and what is reasonable. And and we certainly, over the years have seen. you know the debate about what's reasonable for residential development is a two-car garage reasonable? Or should it just be a one car and as as times evolve? You know, storage needs evolve, and I think what Robbie was going to say is, is, we both believe that that prior case you mentioned on a rap a how the shed in the front yard was actually approved. But do you think so? Okay. So that's helpful. So that is another situation. Where? But I don't remember it that way. So you have the records. I don't. I looked it up, and it was back in June of 2,019, and it was approved. Thank you, Robbie. I I appreciate an extensive discussion about it. and ultimately

[68:02] we I i'm gonna guess we could look up the record, and we can also, you know, if we have to take a pause on this tonight and come back and revisit after that, because that record is so, we have this. This situation. Is it precedent right? It's not establishing precedent for other sites. it is saying. Every once in a while we come up with a very unusual, difficult situation, where there's a value judgment. Yes, Robbie, please. and i'm sorry there was a kind of a first. I was someone to clarify the It was a 40 score fit shit back in 2,019, but also to kind of go back to something, drew a question you brought up, which is kind of the the reasonable use is there a. By right, a lesser variance? It's kind of hidden in the details. But one thing that we did look into is, if it could be moved closer to the house or further from the street. What would that be? And right now there's a proposed about a 9 foot separation between the house and the subject

[69:08] accessory structure. So there is maybe a 2 to 3 feet of wiggle room without kicking in a variance for building separation or something like that, so there's about 2 to 3 feet that could possibly work. But again it comes down to. Is that reasonable for the applicant, the homeowner to move the shed that to 3 feet without requiring other sorts of variances. So that's on the site plan specifically. Where zoom's in on the structure kind of shows you the the workable space that somebody might have in terms of possibly moving that shed. And then we still agree that the kind of the backyard and the side you are due to topography are very limited, not suitable for any structure, regardless of size due to that 10 to 15 foot to topography change. So I just wanted to clarify that there is a little bit of

[70:04] clarity in terms of where something could be moved within the subject front yard, and that's on the provided site plan. Do you want to show that to us, Robbie? I think that would be there? We go. Okay, this is what I was talking about was: this is the proposed location, the 3 and a half foot variance to the south. and this is that 9 feet in between the house and the shed, and i'm not sure if that 9.2 is taken into consideration, roof overhangs, which would be something that we would consider. But I just wanted to kind of clarify what I meant by. Are there any other locations on this site where a shed, regardless of existing or proposed could be located. So the actual site conditions of the front yard itself we're even somewhat restricted for any structure. So this is what I was talking about the subject detached structure, site, plan.

[71:15] and so probably is that the 72 square foot structure, or is that the box in which it would have to fit. This is the actual proposed location where it is, and what they're requesting for tonight. So, as we requested tonight, there would be about a 9 foot, 2 inch separation between the house and the detached structure. and as it moves closer you have a diagonal measurement, as well as the you know is, it approaches the corner of the house, or is it stay the same so it can. It might be able to go somewhere between 2 and 3 feet, depending on the roof, overhangs, slide it back further. What would that gain for people? So, without running into issues with building separation, there might be a 2 to 3 foot, and this is

[72:07] I'm. Not taking into consideration Kathaways topography, or anything, but it looks like there's about a 2 to 3 foot kind of separate, or a possibility of moving it north. That would then create about a looks like a 5 and a half to 6 foot south Setback. Not a big one, but it's something that i'm sure the applicant considered. Is it possible to make it lesser of a variance. and that lesser of a variance without kicking in other variances would be about 2 to 3 feet before you run into building separation issues. Thank you. Okay, I don't think I have anything to add, do you guys want to talk some more? Do you have any comments or questions because we're we'll take a straw poll before we vote. But let's let's just see if there's any further discussion.

[73:07] Yeah, guys just real quick. I I just want to say for for me the things that stand out really are sort of the staff. I feel like they really really ran it to ground and and looked at all options. A a. And I feel like the as you've described the difficulty of the site. You know it. It's very hard. It sounds like it's very challenging to have tried to figure it out, and they sort of. They. They figured out an option that sounds like almost the only option that would work on this site, so that that goes long way for me. and and and and and and also the the applicants. You know they've They've gone through the process appropriately that that weighs heavily. and and I don't feel like we're going to be necessarily setting any precedence.

[74:02] And and I also just don't feel like any anything that sort of smells of value judgment about the use of. You know the structure. I I feel really uncomfortable with that, You know this is it it? It it's, it's it's their property, and and so I don't feel like we should be getting into anything that resembles that. So that's all I want to say. Thank you, Katie. Anyone else. Okay, and marine. You're still with us, right? You just have your video off. Video: yeah, we saw that I saw that. I think it's because it's too sunny. So it's like even second life. So i'm here. Just yeah, we'll shut down my view. So I think the first question is, are we looking at a 3 to 2

[75:01] denial. or has anybody who expressed concerns about it reconsidered? I have not reconsider, and i'm sure, and i'm leaning on criteria. H. One see in terms of me not touching. Okay, thank you and true. I'm. I'm kind of torn I I I'm. Also I I I really. I I hear Robbie and Jill on on one, c. I mean I I It's it's, I guess, up to us to determine what is reasonably be developed.

[76:01] Yeah, I guess. Yeah, there's there's a 9 9 foot separation height between the the rear and the for explore level. according to survey. So I no okay, thank you. And then marine where you yeah. I'm also torn. But i'm leaning towards not approving for criteria, H. One, C as well. So, just to be clear, Aaron, can you go over what it means. H. Onec. Means because i'm guessing. The interpretation is that they are leading on it's not. That is, that the shed is not a reasonable development.

[77:02] No, I to clarify it cannot be. The Lent cannot be reasonably developed. I i'm not convinced that cannot. I believe that it could be developed. So are you saying that there you believe there's a by right solution here. I I that that's the part that i'm you know I I I've walked by the site. I've looked at the survey. Obviously Robbie has looked into this much more and obviously the applicants have looked into this much more. So that's but I you know the the applicant talks a lot about the the slope of the the rear lot being undevelopable. and I mean I I. You know land. There can be moved to make

[78:03] the structure back there and then. That's but that that's that's what i'm coming to. I don't, but I I can't. I don't know. So it it's helpful, though what you've said is helpful to me, so it helps me to frame what I want to say to the applicant. So what happens when we are divided like this is that if we vote and turn you down, and Aaron help me if I don't say it right. But i'm going to go over this right. First of all. an affirmative vote of 3 or more board members shall result in passage of the motion. so we have to have 3, or we can't pass. If the boat is a tide doesn't sound like we are going to have a tie. the applicant would be allowed to re hearing. and if if we tied twice it would be a denial. and or

[79:00] we can do a continuance to the board. and the board may continue the hearing on a matter upon motion of a member. If the motion is made and passed before passage or denial of set application, which is why we're talking about it right now. provided you Weber. the movement shall publicly state the reason for the motion and the board call. and what this call shall allow both the applicant, the spokesperson of the Opposition, an opportunity to state the opposition on the proposed continues before the vote is taken. So I need Robbie or Aaron to just go over what happens when you're turned down. because it has effects, please, Aaron. Thank you, Jill. If if you're turned down. Then you cannot reapply with a similar application for one year. So the good thing about a continuance is, you don't have to pay the fee again. You've heard the concerns from the members. You can take a month, or to whatever date the Board approves. Think about that, how you address it, how you.

[80:08] You know what information you may want to provide if you come back to the Board to try to address those concerns. and they've all cited criteria which will hopefully help you Pinpoint that a little bit. Thank you, Aaron. So where i'm going with this is that certainly we can vote it. It feels to me. My observation is, we don't have enough information. I mean we should be able to say, there's no reasonable by right solution here. so I feel that, but I cannot point. because through is pointed out, there's some topographical information that we're missing. I think better imagery of the backyard to show, and and the limitations on access in order to even get back there. And you do have some pictures about that, and I know how difficult it is to get a little.

[81:07] you know, schedule back there, and you'd be too close to the house. So how you know, I think some help with that might might alleviate some of the concerns about whether or not you've actually chosen the only location on the site. and that's been brought up as well. Whether or not there's any movement, whether there's an appreciable difference between 2 or 3 feet. I don't know what other board members feel about that we're dealing with a 55 foot rule that happens with accessory structures that cannot be met on this site very easily or even recently, and that should be something that should be very clear to everyone. So if it's not very clear. you have an option. So the first question is to you. the applicant. Do you want us to vote, or do you want to continue it?

[82:05] Can I take some time and and talk with Ransom? Is that possible? Or do you have to make a decision right now it sounds like it sounds like we vote it will get denied. So I'd much rather continue in. Thank you again for everyone for that. Your consideration. you know where we can definitely get better pictures of of the backyard. Explore the I right solution a little bit more in detail. and just furnish everybody with more information. It would certainly, I think, make it easier for people who are unsure about this to feel like it was fully explored, and and and not be making decisions that we're just not completely clear on. So if it's okay with you, I board members. Either someone can help me and make that motion, or I will make the motion. Aaron. I can't. Can I make that motion? Yes.

[83:01] so the question is, Does anybody oppose? I I don't think we can oppose. Can we oppose the continuance before you could? All right. Does anybody oppose to a continuance. since no one's saying anything or raising a hand? I'm. Gathering. There's no opposition. So at this time does anybody want to make a motion for me? Thank you, Nikki. Yes. so I move to continue. Docket via Z: 2,023 0 0 0 4 until the applicant comes back. But no, we got it. Yeah, so. And and this is it's not your fault. So, Aaron, as usual, we probably need some guidance on how to word this. So typically it's one month. But usually we will extend that because one month. Deadline happens. Robbie could explain it if you want to jump in. But it happens like yesterday or something. And so we have. Yeah, Robbie, we explain, please. Thank you.

[84:05] So in the past, I believe, the Board has said, returning no more than 3 months or 90 days. A lot of times is possible to come back the next meeting, but we've already hit our application deadline. It is possible, if there were any changes or modifications to the application, they could still make the May meeting. That is something that would be hashed out kind of after the meeting behind the scenes with Staff and the applicant. But to allow for enough time, we typically say within to return within 90 days of tonight. There are only one thing I want to bring up for you summer months. so it is often that we do not have a full a quorum. You know. We barely get 3 at a meeting in the summer, and I think we've already stated that August is. We're not going to have a pour on for. So I just

[85:00] as we do that. What is the longest extension. Could it be extended to September? They may want to come back in June or July? Don't know but what's reading it? It could be it's can be any other date that the board agrees upon. So I I think we've even done 6 months is maybe the longest that I recall off the top of my head for something that was. It was very complicated. We'll pause one. Thank you. So i'm traveling a lot this summer. and this is this is, you know. I think we need a full board there to make this decision to make it fair to the applicant. so I would ask that we stayed for 6 months. So, Nikki. Now, do you have enough information to make that motion always need more information? Yeah. So I move that we continue docket number by 2,023 0 0 4 until the September.

[86:05] Oh, I I said. for 6 months I have a second a second Thank you, Marine. All those in favor we go around the room to, and because we have to record, we everyone has to say I. So, Nicki, I marine I through Hi. Katie, Hi. and I so thank you so much. The motion has been approved to give you a continuous for 6 months, and hopefully you can, as Aaron said, Take away from this meeting what you want to put into it, to to see if you can be more. You can convince other board members that it's what needs to happen or not. So thank you so much for your patience with us and your time. Yeah, Ransom, You have a question. Sorry. I just saw your hand.

[87:04] No. no problem. I just once wondering, is in the with the application process. Do we submit supplemental material that is supplementary to the current application as we had done before, and that's how we get back on the docket. It's a Robbie question. and that's exactly what it is. I will work with you and Kyle. whoever I need to work with, we could even touch base tomorrow, sometime, and what it would come down to is the application is still live. It's still active. You would just provide revisions or revised materials as you see fit, and that's just something that's probably going to need to be determined sooner rather than later. and depending on when we can get those revisions. If there are any. you might be able to make the May meeting, if not the June meeting. It just depends on when we can or when you can get all that together. So you would work with me, and we'd work on revising or adding to the already existing materials.

[88:12] Thank you. Thank you. So at this time that portion of our meeting, our it is resolved, and we just have a few things orders of business. You gentlemen can stay or go as you wish. Thank you for your your time with us in your presentation. Thank you for your time, everybody. Thank you. We appreciate it. Thank you. You're welcome. So we have minutes to approve, so can I have a motion to approve. The minutes from the last meeting Drew. I I don't think you can do that. But. Katie yeah, I I I make a motion to approve the minutes second. Thank you. All those in favor. Katie. Hi! I mean. I was in there at the meeting, so i'm not gonna approve. or

[89:06] I think that Aaron said last time, what did you say that doesn't matter If you, If you don't have to be there, you can still vote to approve the minutes. If you add, stain, it counts as a yes vote. Okay. I abstained Vicki, bye. and I. So the minutes are approved from last meeting. so we we certainly have a matter from the board, which is the new chair and the vice chair. So how do we want to do that? Do you guys have any other stuff like city attorney planning development to bring up. I I would just say Hi to Drew Drew. I'm Aaron Po. I'm the deputy city attorney and I work with Bosa. I'm. Not generally one of the planning attorneys, so so Bosa is kind of my for right into title 9. Usually

[90:00] so Robbie provides a lot of the technical expertise, and I help more out on the the code and rule interpretation. and i'll be giving the board and chair orientation on Saturday. So you'll see more of me then, or on video, if you're watching that via video, but but welcome. It's great to have you here, and really we weren't trying to haze you with the zoom video issues, and by throwing a kind of a oddball one at you right off the bat. But thank you very much for your service. Yeah. Thanks for the warm welcome. Yeah, I was hoping for an easier one to to begin with. So how are we gonna move forward with the chair? I I don't know how how to do this part. I I I think, in the past there's been a general discussion about who might be interested or willing to be nominated. And then there's a motion for chair of Motion for a vice chair, with their corresponding votes in between

[91:09] who is like, who is interested in serving as the chair? Is there a reason why Jill cannot serve as the chair? I I don't think there's a reason why I can't continue this. Not legally. I'm nominate Joe to Service chair of. Do you want to do it, Joe? I mean, I never mind doing it. I I guess one of the things I I would. I would say, I'm I I know that i'm traveling this summer. so someone will have to serve as a vice chair, you know. Jack and I were the senior members on the board, so I can certainly see a desire to have a senior member, but I do hope somebody will serve as a vice chair If I serve again as a chair as a chair.

[92:02] So is there any one like Nicky. What do you think or marine? I I would be interested in serving and vice to the reason why I nominated you. Jealous? Because I want. If If the board wants me as the vice chair, I want to just pay more attention to what you do, and I guarantee you I have a cheat sheet. Just so you You will get a cheat sheet for sure, and it actually needs some edits, so i'll, you know, try to work on that because I got these from Devin, so is anybody else interested in serving? Because if not, then we we need a motion first for the chair and then for the vice chair. I love those volunteers on Nikki. I'll make a motion. Okay, Did I make it all together? Can I say and make a motion for jail as chair and Nicki as vice chair. Definitely not. Yeah. We do them individually. Alright. So I make a motion for Jill to continue his chair.

[93:05] Second. Thank you, guys. That's nice of you. All those in favor. Oh, I have to say that all those in favor let's go around the room. Nicky. All right, I Katie, I through Thank you. I appreciate the vote of confidence. And how about a motion for the vice chair? If you want to list your vote, though, on you, or you can abstain from your vote. It sounds like you either win or lose. depending on your interpretation. Yes, anyway. So i'll just say, yes. Yeah, Sorry I But I said something like, yeah, yeah. So that motion is passed. I guess I've retained this position is shared. We'll get you well trained, Nikki. and thank you. So then, Katie, for the next motion. Yeah. So I make a motion for Nicki Mccord as vice chair.

[94:10] Second. Thank you, Marine. All right. Here we go, Drew. Bye. Katie, Hi! Marine. I Vicki, I Jill I okay. So we now have a chair and a new vice chair, and thank you all for the nomination. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Appreciate your service as well, and I will edit these. I mean devin if you can figure out what Amanda. So I got this from Cindy, and it's a bunch of typos in there, so I don't want to give them to her with a typo. If you happen to have the original, I'll look and see. I may even have it in my email. That would be great in it, so that that's in a usable form for the next time we have a meeting. So that's all we have anything from you, Robbie.

[95:00] Okay, they get Rose in my hand. Just didn't want the meeting to end. I just have a real quick update, and i'm not sure devin if you have anything to follow. But mine is yesterday, was the application deadline, and it looks like we do have at least one that came in. I haven't done a completeness. Check on that, a formal one. So that's still pending. and then also depending on what the applicant tonight decides to do with their application that could very well go in May or June. and just while I have all of you, May and June. I saw a couple I won't be here July, September, etc., May and June. Are we good to go when it comes to having a quorum, or even a full board based on today? I know things change. But i'm just curious if May and June look okay for everybody. I'll be here, man, just in case it comes back in May or June. Yes. Okay, Thank you. I mean, what about you?

[96:01] Yeah, I'll be there in in my engine. I mean, I actually think i'm here I i'm here till July 12 i'm leaving the day after the June one, so if there's no meeting you'll be I will appreciate it. But I think i'm flying out the day after the bosom meeting next time. Yeah. like tomorrow. I am planning to. All right. Great thanks, everybody. And Aaron, are you good? Do you have anything else for us. Everybody have a great month. Thank you all. Thank you. Bye, bye.