June 13, 2023 — Board of Zoning Adjustment Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] Fantastic. All righty, I'm seeing a quite a few folks in the attendance group here. So I'm gonna run through just the General Advisory board rules of decorum and protocol procedures, for when we get to our public statements for later tonight. do you want me to introduce the meeting? Sure. Go right away. This is a meeting of the Board of Zoning adjustments. We have 2 items. I can address the order after Devin does his The portion that he needs to do, plus we have Lisa Howard here for the 80 you regulations. So devin back to you. Thank you, madam, Chair. is everyone able to see the screen awesome. So there are 2 items on on on the agenda for here tonight that that that do allow for public participation and public comment, and with that the city has engaged with the community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations.

[1:05] This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members, as well as the democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and P. Political preferences. The following are examples of rules at a koram found in the Boulder revised Code and other guidelines that support this 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're commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. When we get to the audio to the public participation section of the meeting, there is a little bar at the bottom of the screen here that you'll see, and when we get to the public participation you'll simply click the raise hand icon right here, and that will let me know. And the rest of the board know that you're interested in and participating in the public comment.

[2:12] There are also a few little little little options for you to go. It's a handicap to options for you to go to raise your hand side there you can use all y for PC, option y. If you're on a Mac or Star 9. If you're on your phone. and with that I'll turn it back to you. I'm sure marine is trying to be promoted to a panelist. She she says she her name is listed as Danica Powell. Okay, perfect. Okay, thank you for letting us know. Drew.

[3:00] All right. So the order of items tonight is We'll start with something that we've seen before. I think it looks like I always have a hard time finding these numbers. So docket number Boz 2,023, 0 0 for 1,951 Alpine avenue. followed by Poc, 23, 0 0 0 one. Hopefully, I said that right? So, we first want to go through kind of the process. So in each item, staff will present first in the applicant, second. next, the public will be invited to comment, and then the board will just be will discuss. Please note that after staff presents. I have no idea why I'm stumbling over my words. I haven't done this a million times. Sorry. I do like people to know that when staff present, we, as a board, will

[4:02] ask them questions before we move on to applicant presentation. The voting rules are such that an affirmative vote of 3 or more board members will result in passage of the motion. An applicant cannot be approved with less than 3 affirmative vote, so a majority. if the first vote taken on a motion to approve or deny an application results in a tie. 2 to 2. The applicant will be allowed to rehearing a tie vote on any subsequent motion to approve it tonight. So result in defeat of the motion and denial of the application. A vote of 2 to one or one to 2 on a motion, she on all respects be considered a tie. and we will review these with the applicant. and they'll have some idea of what our plan is. before we actually vote. So Robbie, in that case, I'm turning over to you, item, basically, number 4 on our docket. Okay. And I just want to let everybody know I'm having headset audio issues. So I'm going through my laptop. And if any of you remember sometimes when I do that my sound cuts in and out pretty bad.

[5:07] so my apologies ahead of time. Hopefully, it won't do that. But I will keep things short, and to the point in an effort to get it moving forward. So let me go ahead and share my screen. Okay, this is docket number Boz 2, 0 2 3, dash 0 0 0, for the address is 1,951 Alpine Avenue. This is a setback variance, and this is a returning item issued a continuance. At the April eleventh goes the meeting 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 yard landscape set that standards for accessory structures in the Ro. One zoning district.

[6:01] the resulting front yard set that will be approximately 3 and a half feet, where 55 feet is required and 3 and a half feet 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 location of this property with Mesa drive to the south, and Tyler wrote to the west, most of what you're going to be seeing is a repeat of what you saw in April. The applicant did provide additional exhibits and clarification and details that was all provided within the application, and a few of those made it into this presentation. But for the most part the proposal has remained the same, and the presentation has remained the same. So with that there are still for written support. from neighbors, and those are all depicted up there on the screen right now, and and this gives you an idea of the location of the property. It is a wedge-shaped property with the front yard being the south and southwest yards.

[7:06] and this shows you about the location of where the detest structure is currently located. And this is within the 55 foot front yard, setback for accessory structures in the Ro one zoning district. So what the board is looking at today is a setback fairings for the new 72 square foot on a structure, and it is a variance to the front south yard, as mentioned, and that's for approximately 3 and a half feet from the subject structure, where 55 feet is required, and approximately 3 and a half feet exist today. and this is one of the additional exhibits that was provided within the most recent round of the application, and this just kind of provides a visual of the site constraints, including setbacks and also easements. and some questions were brought up in terms of what the usments were on the property, and there are 2 active easement on this property, one along the east property line, or the right property line in this image, and that's a 5 foot access easement. And then there's also a 10 foot utility easement from the original

[8:20] plotted subdivision, and that runs along the northeast property line. And then here on the image or the exhibit, you can see that kinda green shaded area that is the only portion of the property that is buildable, or meets all setbacks, and is outside of easement for an accessory structure, so that includes the 55 foot front yard, the 3 foot side and rear, in addition to the 10 foot and 5 foot easements that cannot be built within. and then some additional photos of the property, showing the topography and the existing retaining walls on pretty much all sites of the house.

[9:00] and these were some additional photos provided of the backyard, and the image on the lower right is showing the retaining walls that are scattered across the property. and then some additional images of where, or the renderings of the structure from multiple streets. And then we have the subject structure. Right now we have real time photos below. and then we have the renderings of the 72 square foot structure above. and then some zoning information. The property is zoned. Ro. One. The lot size is around 6,400 square feet. So consider substandard in size. with 7,000 being the minimum for the zoning district and then existing and proposed building coverage. The Max. The left for the property is 2,333. And this building is actually exempt from building coverage because of its size and its height. If it's under 80 square feet and under 10 feet in the height. It is exempt from building coverage

[10:05] and then existing a proposed floor area. The Max Lab for the entire property is around 33 83 square feet, and including this structure, there is a total square footage for the entire lot of around 2,304 scores square feet so well under the maximum allowance. and then, when it comes to side yard wall articulation inside yard, bolt plane, in addition to the solar access due to the height and the location of this building. they will not be impacted, and no violations occurred. And then the history. The home was built circa 1,951 to recent wall permits associated with a larger landscaping project. have been granted, and that's those are 2 events permits, and there are no Cpl cases at this time. and then pending the decision of the board. In this item the applicant would be required to obtain a building permit because it is hooked up to utilities or electric.

[11:02] If this was a standalone building that had no electric or utility hook up, and it was under 10 feet and under 80 square feet. It would otherwise not require a building permit, but it would still have to meet Sip. X. So with that being said, staff is still in support of the variance set, that variance request, as has been presented within the application materials, including the additional exhibits and visuals that were provided with the most recent round of materials. we feel that given the topographic and site constraints, including the setbacks and easements that are in place for the web shaped lot, and a lot that is smaller than what is the minimum required for the ro. One zoning district step bills. It's an appropriate request, and again is recommending support as it has been presented, so I'll leave it at that, and if you want me to go over anything, or show anything, or answer any questions? I'd be more than happy to

[12:07] thank you, Robbie, who has questions for Robbie, please. hey? Will the applicant be making a presentation? I'm not sure but the applicant is here. So. Devin. do you know? Yep, I just promoted them to a panelist, so they should be able to. Hop on here. Ransom, would you? Please proceed as soon as you are able. I yes, I think Kyle wanted to start really quick. That's fine. Thank you. A joint presentation, but just wanted to thank everyone again for reconvening to discuss our variance requests.

[13:05] We we really jump to hard everyone's feedback in the last meeting, and spent considerable time and energy reviewing possible by rice for the accessory structure. we spend time with the city. Understanding the 2 outstanding easements in the rear yard, we spoke with our neighbors and talked to a structural engineer to evaluate this, the difficult slope conditions the existing retaining walls. and do some exploring of possible sighting and possible building, of retaining walls. again in in search of that by right solution. our landscape architect, ransom Beagles, has prepared a presentation to walk through all of those issues. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, everyone. As Kyle said, I'm ransom. Be go with our design landscape architecture. and excuse me. I want to just also say thank you for reconsider, or for considering this. And taking this supplemental information.

[14:03] my firm has worked in Boulder for 20 years and completed over a hundred residential projects. So we certainly understand, the importance of the Board of Zoning and adjustments process. And that's why I want to provide you with some extensive background on what we're proposing here. So can everybody see my screen? Okay, I just wanted to run through this and kind of we familiarize everyone with the site. This is the structure the home, 1951 Alpine. It's boarded by 3 residential lots, 1,975 balsam, 1,941, Tyler in 1,965 Alpine you can sort of see. The the shape of the site is such that it's kind of a wedge, and the traditional front yard, which on many sites would only be one part of the yard. It was actually both the southwest and south parts of the yard. So Alpine Avenue runs east, west here, and Tyler road runs to the northwest on this side here.

[15:14] And what we wanted to do. We took to heart. When you guys had brought up that the question of Did you evaluate the by right considerations? And we came up with 5 points that we wanted to bring up in detail, and we kind of broke those out and their existing site constraints that were purchased with the home by the homeowners. and we kind of broke them into a series of diagrams. So I'll start by sharing. This is just a site. The green shows. the buildable area that's not covered by the house. The pink shows the existing house that's in place. and if we start with just the setbacks. So the 55 foot front yard set back and the 3 foot side yard set by setbacks. You can see the green that's remaining as the remaining developable area.

[16:12] The next layer that again was purchased, and part of the agreement when the house was by were 2 additional easement. One is a 10 foot easement that runs along the north, west, or northeast corner of the site. and one is a 5 foot access segment that runs all the way along the east side of the site. So if this were just a flat site. this would be constrained to this high shaped area that you see in back here, which is quite small. it's only 14 feet from the house on the widest, and it's about 7 feet from the house on the narrowest. If we add in the 6 foot separation from architecture, set back, it limits that even further.

[17:01] And so now we have a shape that's only 8 feet wide and 2 foot 8 inches wide at this location. Here And then the last consideration we had were the existing trees that remain. There's actually an additional tree. That's right on this property line right here. So you can see the by right area. It becomes very small. And that's just with the kind of legal documentation that it exists with this site. But that is just one part of the story. Another factor that's very important to consider is the topography. So all of these walls that you see especially here, are existing and located on the site, and every single one of these walls is retaining. a couple of things. I want to point out the neighbor at 1,965. The Alpine has a structure which encroaches into this access easement. which is part of the agreement.

[18:02] These retaining walls help hold up that structure, and they also tie in to the retaining walls which run alongside the back of the residence in 1,951 Alpine. There's another wall that we are calling, what one which starts in the 1,951 Alpine property, and continues running north along all of the properties adjacent to it on Boston Avenue, and it holds all of the grade up for those particular sites. So these retaining walls that exist are not only holding grade for this site, they're actually holding up neighboring sites, grading and topography as well. with regards to the topography or the slopes on this site. It's It's very extreme. The high point which is on the northern edge sits 21 feet above. right here, adjacent to the house. So that's only 40 feet down, which means this is a 2 to one slope, which is extreme. it's far above the slope that is required when you submit with the city engineering department.

[19:14] it also sits 9 feet from the door threshold of the house here. So if this was just simply re-graded, it would be over 3 to one, and and slope, which is again exceeds the minimum slope requirements. So the topography and the existing retaining walls. are both are necessary in order to hold up the grade behind it 1,951, but also the neighboring lots themselves. And I know diagrams sometimes don't always tell the story. So we included a number of pictures to kind of give you some background. So this is wall one which starts on their property and continue, as you can see, the property lines about in this location. Here.

[20:00] these are timber walls. They're tied together. so it's much more than just a matter of taking out a little portion of wall that would have impact that would go down all of the walls into the neighboring properties. These 2 smaller walls are on property, and they're holding back that grade of 2 to one to allow slope retention to occur. You can see where there's not retaining. It's almost impossible to grow vegetation. this is just showing the extent of that one that one that runs from their property outward. This is a view of the house on the west side. So this is one of 2 access points to the by right location. and you can see from standing west of the house on the picture of on the left there's a 21 foot grade change over only 40 feet. so it's relatively inaccessible. it by foot, and certainly by equipment. and these show the series of retaining walls how they're all holding the grade back.

[21:09] Excuse me for slope stabilization in behind the house. this depicts one on the left. That shows the property line in white. and how this wall extends beyond the property line and is being used as a retention measure for lots at 1,941 Tyler, and on Boston Avenue. and then on the picture to the right, you can see that these retaining walls. Tie into this structure, which is on the neighboring property, and is part of access to a deck off of the house. Here the condition of these retaining walls is such that we did speak with our structural engineer, and he was very reticent to suggest doing any kind of construction in this area, because not only of the impact it would have

[22:04] on 1,951 Alpine, but the possible erosion that it could cause on the adjacent sites. So the topography and the existing walls are certainly a factor. and then another factor. I'll talk about it in a little bit. Here is just the accessibility not only for foot traffic, but to do any kind of a construction would impact this structure that you see here, which is tied into the neighboring property on 1,965 Alpine This is where that easement encroaches, so the opposite side, which is the west side has a 21 foot grade change over 40 feet. and the East side access is is cut down by the access easement that exists and the existing structural walls. So this just depicts access and the challenges that we face you can kind of see here. this is the property line. and these are the walls that encroach into the access easement.

[23:08] and then, of course, on the west side. Here. it's it's somewhat flat until it gets to this point, and then it the grade increases 21 feet. This wall that retains 1,941. Tyler, then adjacent property, actually holds the grade up as well, so it could not be compromised because it is holding a grade above the residents next door. And these are just some images to kind of give you a sense. This is the East side, the yard access and the West side yard access. another and very important factor that we considered is percent potential site impacts to the neighboring properties. So 1,965 Alpine, which is the neighborhood to the East has written a letter in support of our variance request.

[24:07] If we were to place this structure in the remaining by right location. it would be in direct view of her primary viewing corridor to the mountains, it would also be in view of the 1975 balsam corridor, and then, in view of a secondary corridor from 1,941 Tyler Avenue And these neighbors have expressed they would not be in favor of the structure being located in this position. So this is just a view from the neighboring property. Looking across the by right, location is about where you see this pink here. That's where the structure would have to be located. And The last factor that we wanted to bring up with this particular location that we feel is a constraint is the environmental impact and the reasonability of construction. the the compromising that would occur would be the removal or repairing of these walls which could put provide potential damage for a just a excuse. Me, adjacent lots.

[25:12] it could put it. Risk the stabilization of the slope. It would create a large impact and footprint on the excavation that would occur. that excavation and construction would have to be routed through 2 almost inaccessible corners, one by the access easement to the neighbors, and 2 from the 2 to one slope that occurs on the west side of the site. And 3. It would compromise the existence of 4 large existing trees that are on site now, and have sort of been surviving, and our help of being with the erosion control and slope stabilization of this site. so our proposed variance request

[26:02] is the placement of this accessory structure in the front yard. Step back. we feel it does that within the character of the neighborhood. many of the sites south of mate of Alpine Avenue have accessory structures within this proximity of the streets. We also have created a plan that is under construction for a new landscape. which the line work is shown here that is going to beautify the entire site and fits the proposed structure in nicely. another layer that we've added onto that. And these are just some images of the structure we do understand the importance of screening. There are 3 large evergreen trees that exist on the neighboring property, which help conceal the structure from the east. and as a part of the design by right and permitted fences are being placed in. these locations that you see here, as well as additional plant material to help kind of screen and soften the structures. Impact to the street.

[27:16] and this is just a kind of a rendering showing you what it would look like as it's fit in the place that we are proposing. So I I really appreciate the opportunity to share this with you. We wanted to dive into the by right considerations very closely, and look at all the existing conditions of the site before we came back and presented to you. So I want to thank you for your time for this, and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Ransom. so does the Board have any questions of the applicant.

[28:01] I have a question. Just quickly. I was wondering, Ransom, if you had a view of the rendering showing what the structure would look like from the street. Yes, Isn't there a photograph of the structure from the stage stream it's already installed. This is on the far right is what it looks like before the fence will go in. Which run these are things posts here. Okay? Does that help? Yes, thanks. Sorry. Missed it. That doesn't show the trees that we're going to place in front of the the unit as well. Other questions.

[29:01] thank you. I guess the question would be, is there anybody here in the audience who's interested in speaking to this matter? Do we have public comment? Devin? Yes, thank you, madam. Chair I still see I'm still seeing 3 folks in the audience, so now would be the time to raise your hand on the very bottom bar. If you're interested in having a comment for this item. seeing no hands, madam Chair. Thank you very much. So if there's no public comment, then it is open to the board for discussion. Who would like to go first, please? Well, we have some discussion. So be brave. Yeah. Hey? yeah, no. Thanks a lot for putting this together. I I really know that it takes a long time to put this all together, and it's really probably a little frustrating. but it. You know, this does live past. when you guys own the property. And so it's important that we know all the facts and

[30:14] have the information make the right decision. to me. The the key piece that I didn't understand last time is the ten-foot utility easement in the northeast corner when I was talking about the distance from the house and trying to understand why it wasn't, there wasn't a by right solution. I don't think that was mentioned. given that fact, and that there is that flat area back there that is covered by the easement. I would be in support of the application, because I do think it does meet the criteria one c, so be my input. Yeah, I would. I would agree. I I I think.

[31:00] The topography of the site and the easement are both hard chips, I think, according to the code. And so it was really helpful to see the photos at the site and the circulation circulation. That's almost impossible, really, on to the back of the yard So I would also be in support. Thank you, Marine Nikki. Yes, thank you for this additional information. I think this information helped me understand more what was going on. And so. because of this presentation tonight, and the additional information, I will be in support of the experience as well. Katie. Yeah, I mean, I I was. I was inclined to support it last time, just based on sort of. you know, without the additional photographs, and just based on more of the verbal description. But just looking at the photographs. And how clear it is. you know that topography mainly is a big factor. I. I remain in support of the project.

[32:11] Thank you, everybody. I'm probably in with Katie on this one, but I'm very familiar with this area. This is very, not quite close enough to keep me from speaking or voting on it, but it's my neighborhood. So I drive by this area all the time that I was by there yesterday looking at the site. So it sounds like we're in good shape to somebody. Have a motion, please. I'll I'll make a motion to approve the project. Okay? So if you could stated in terms of, and I always have to find that number. yeah, I I don't have the number hand. Probably it's yeah, I I actually do. it's Poc, 202-30-0004. I make a motion to approve

[33:01] that project. I have a second, please, Drew. Thank you. So in order we'll just go through marine. You're on my screen. First. I I proof I agree. Katie. Hi through and the I The motion has been approved. thank you for taking the time to provide such a detailed explanation to the board. It really made it much easier for them to make that decision. we appreciate your time. Thank you very much. We really appreciate this. Yeah, thank you to the board. Thank you. We'll now move on to The next item on the agenda, which is the Oz. 2023. Dash basically one, right? Right. and if you will proceed we'll go through the same process. Thank you.

[34:09] there we go, and you shouldn't be seeing the presentation. So this is docket number be oz. 2, 0, 2, 3, 0 one. The address is 7, 45, 30, Fifth Street. This is a parking in the front yard setback variance as part of a proposal to relocate a single off street parking space onto an existing driveway with access up 30 Fifth Street. The applicant is requesting a variance to the front yard landscape setback standards for conforming parking in the Ro. One zoning district. the subject 9 foot by 19 foot. The parking space will be located approximately 8 feet from the front east property line, where 25 it is required and no conforming or recognized parking exists at this location today.

[35:02] Section of the Land East Code to be modified. Section 971. Boulder Revised Code 1,981. And up there on the screen. You see the location of the property. it is zoned R. All one, and the front yard is to the east, or right on the image, on 30 Fifth Street. and provided within the application materials. There were several neighbors in the immediate neighborhood who did provide written support. I have those listed there on the left hand side of the screen, and then the stars Do you know where exactly those neighbors are located? 2 stars were off, my Mac. So I just kinda put them at the top. But they are the properties immediately to the north of the map. So in total, 6 neighbors did provide written support for this parking variance application. And here's the location, the kinda existing site conditions. You can see the subject driveway there to the right of the house, and then on the right hand side, you can see the a floor plan that was provided with the previous

[36:07] building permit application. That shows the location of the house and then also the existing site conditions. So what the Board is looking at today, it is a setback variance to establish parking on an existing driveway within the front yard setback. There is existing, conforming, parking located at this property, and that's located within the one car garage there at the southeast portion, and I did draw a lighter blue box on the image you see on the screen, showing where the existing parking is located. The request today is in part to convert that existing garage into living space a bedroom as was detailed within the applicants. materials. so what the city requires is, if you remove conforming parking, you still have to provide conforming parking, and this property is required one single off street parking space.

[37:06] and that is what is in front of you today. So the only place that the a homeowner applicant could find parking is within the existing driveway, and that is denoted with the darker box. And then I also showed where the 25 foot front yard set back. That's that green line that crosses the property from north to south. and it is a 9 by 19 space, and we do require that parking spaces cannot be located within a frontier of landscape setback. So all that being said, there is an encroachment of the proposed parking space into that front yard setback. and the request is for an approximate 8 foot from the East property line where 25 feet is required and we're conforming. Parking exists within the attached garage. and I can go over the parking regulations or any other details. in more detail, if the board wants me to.

[38:07] And then this shows the existing site conditions. It was shown as 37 feet on the plans. It is actually 27 feet. so that's just a little miss type on the plans. But from the property line to the front of the house. It is a 27 foot setback. and the proposed parking space you can see right there in the red box is going to be about 2 feet into the that 27 fee which means it's gonna extend well within the front yard setback, and that's where we're getting the 8 foot. It's the 27 minus the 19 is where you get the the 8 foot set back. And then just another image of from the street of the existing site conditions. and then, as detailed within the application, there were some in queries into whether or not the driveway could be moved or parking could be placed on the north side of the house, and that was done between the applicant and our transportation engineering group.

[39:12] And it was not suggested that the driveway being moved or a new access point be produced. which would have to happen if the parking was to be placed on the north side of the house. So it is being requested that they just the homeowner, just utilize the existing driveway that's on the property, and have that as their required single space for parking. And there's not a whole lot of zoning information, because this is a parking variance. There's no modification to the building, no expansion of building coverage, solar access side yard. Well, articulation, bulk plan, none of that's being modified or impacted because of the parking variance, and it is an existing driveway, as mentioned. a little bit in the way of history for the property, though, as the house was built circa 1960 s. It does. Currently it was constructed with and currently has conforming parking within the one car garage accessed off a driveway and 30 Fifth Street.

[40:13] and in 2,006. There was a rear, 250 square foot bedroom office addition to the house. That was all permitted back in 2,006, and a setback variance is needed to establish parking within the 25 foot front yard setback on the existing driveway for 9, 7, one. If the existing parking were to be removed, which is part of the overall proposal to convert that garage into habitable living space. and then pending both the action. A building permit will be needed to establish the use of the conforming parking in the driveway, and for any interior work as a part of the garage conversion to living space and utilizing criterion. H. One and H. 5. For this Steph is not recommending support. of the parking setback variance as has been presented.

[41:05] we understand that there are some site restrictions. but all. And also there was neighbor support provided from several neighbors. but we primarily had concerns. Whether or not this request was meeting H. One C and H. One d. H. One C, is because of such physical circumstances or conditions. The property cannot recently be developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, and then also H. One d. Which is any unnecessary hardship, has not been created by the applicant. The overall need for this variance is being driven by the removal of conforming parking that exists today, and Staff does not feel that it meets criterion. H. One d. Because the hardship in the condition is being created by the applicant by the removal of the parking in the garage. Then, also, there appears to be some other options in terms of getting an additional bedroom on the property. There may be some other options in the way of a rear addition. that doesn't require the removal of the garage in the garage use within.

[42:16] So all that being said, Staff is again not recommending support as it has been presented, and I'd be more than happy to answer any questions or go over any other parking regulations. if the Board wants me to, so I will leave it at that for now. Thank you, Robbie. I have questions that I like to hold them and see who's who's ready besides me, Katie? so, Robbie, can you just talk a little bit more about you said you had identified maybe other options for a a bedroom or something? aside from the garage. and that primarily comes from there appears to be some other options in terms of there could be a rear addition if an additional bedroom is needed.

[43:06] staff does understand why the conversion of the garage is the preferred path forward, but at the same time there does appear to be some buildable area at the rear of the property. If another bedroom is ultimately what the goal is. So we just consider the conversion in the removal of parking in the garage. Not the only option to obtain an additional bedroom. I I since since this is the first sort of type of this variance request that I've seen since I've been on the board. you know I was in reading the application. I was, I was, you know, just a s swayed a little bit that There isn't a whole lot of extra resources to sort of build an extra structure. for a bedroom. How is it? Is there any like is that taken to into account at all.

[44:03] Just in reading her application, it sounded like she. She didn't have a whole lot of extra resources to build an additional structure. And, Aaron, did you need to speak to something? Yeah, Aaron, please. I don't want to jump in front of you, Robbie, but I I can address you past interpretations by the board. If you'd like. I I I would say the the financial aspect has been taken into account by past boards in terms of hardship, and in trying to quantify what is hardship for a particular family or owner. so I've seen it come in that that way. Thank you, Aaron. I was going to mention that as well. I appreciate the support from the legal side. anybody else.

[45:04] So so, Robbie. the front yard. It's 27 foot set back from the property line. But I is it? Actually 37 feet from the sidewalk. from the sidewalk. It's around 27 feet. and that's also roughly where the property line is, and we do setbacks from property lines. so I did some measurements, and I could not come up a come up with where 37 feet was coming from, and also on the provided site plan. It. shows 27 feet to the property line. Little blurry, but it's it's there. right. But I think we the sidewalk is looks a bit farther off in the property line from the street sidewalk you had. It's closer to 37 feet. But How we measure setbacks it would be the 27 feet understood.

[46:03] Feel like I want to jump in here. Would that be? Okay? So honestly, Ravi is surprised you guys were not in support of this. you know I I don't want to display somebody. I don't want somebody whose mother is coming to live with him. to be put into a financial situation when they are so many houses in South Boulder that have done garage conversions long ago. and so I struggle with that. And, Aaron, you. We may have to ask you to go to that. It's I'm not a big fan of anything that's nindy. And so it's kind of like, well, I got it that you can't have it. And I do believe that when we were discussing the ag ordinance back in the day, Lisa, you might even be able to chime in on this one, if if probably doesn't remember. there was a lot of discussion by the Council about South Boulder. In these circumstances, where those original homes were provided with a driveway and a single car garage.

[47:02] and it's very complex in the city to address parking. But one thing I do know is that giving people less parking doesn't mean we have less cards. It just hasn't worked that way, even though that's been the theory. this is a property that probably that garage doesn't get used. It's typically those garages are too narrow, and people put their things in on one side and the other side. They just can't get a door open. so that's one of the reasons we have a lot of cars down in South Boulder. In addition to the fact that there's lots of people living down there. It's just the fact. The garages aren't useful. And so I, Hi, really struggling with this because I just can't imagine saying to somebody who's put together and looks like on her own. A fairly articulate presentation here, and I don't know if she here to make a presentation to us. Is she going to do that. Yes, madam, Chair, she is ready for a presentation. What? Yeah, Nikki, you go ahead because I I'm questioning my question. Is

[48:07] Robbie, really? Why? And that was kind of where I was coming from, and I sort of launched probably farther into things than I needed to go. And I can respond to that when needed. Okay. thank you, madam. Chair. So, Robbie, I know that you mentioned that. Yeah, I'm on. You mentioned h one seeing C and d. But I I'm interested in addressing J. And I wanted to understand. What are you? How you consider J. In terms of variances from parking spaces? And did you feel that any of the requirements, one through 7 were met or not meant? I just want to have an understanding of staff thought process and evaluating J. And and in your decision as well.

[49:10] And one of the first few does say was the conversion completed prior to a certain year prior to this ownership. and that's the main reason why this wouldn't even qualify for J is because that's intended for past non-permitted conversions of garages and allowing current homeowners to put parking elsewhere on the property, so Jay cannot be considered for this one just because this is an active or proposed conversion of a garage, and not a past conversion of a garage. Thank you. That answers my question. And do you want to wait to answer mine until we're filling this with board discussion, since I kind of wandered into that territory. in short, steps does recognize the the hardship, the financial hardships or items like that. But we also are recognizing that this is a proposed removal of conforming parking.

[50:06] and the reason for the variance is because of that proposed removal of required parking. All properties are required. That and We do allow people to park in a driveway within a front yard setback, if it specifically leads to conforming off street parking like within a garage. So we do allow people that in essentially we don't care if you park in front of your garage as long as that garage is in use. so we also recognize that. But also staff is looking at this from it's a created variance due to created project which is removing, existing parking on the site. and if the parking was placed to the north of the property out of the front yard set back, there would be no need for a variance, and they could then convert that But that doesn't seem to be a a preferred approach is to move the driveway and the parking, and we understand that we respect that.

[51:04] and we also understand that they want to utilize an existing condition. That driveway and parking is already used on the driveway. We do see that. But we also are coming back to this is a created issue or created lack of parking because of the conversion project. So. Jill, I don't know if that helps any or fills in any, but it really comes down to this is the creation of the variance through the removal of existing parking on the site. I don't know that we're answer, but we we can go deeper. Yeah, Katie, go So so, Robbie, just to clarify. You sort of acknowledge, that people do use existing driveways to to park And you guys are fine with that as long as the garage is an option. But in this case, because the garage would not be an option, because it's utilized as living space.

[52:05] That's that's not okay. But it's okay. If it if it's a if the garage is an option, I I just want to clarify. If that like, you guys, that's what you're saying right that that you acknowledged that in in. maybe on this street or nearby streets, people do park in the car, in the driveways. But the what makes it different is that in this case they could use the garage if they wanted to. whereas here, that wouldn't be an option is is that the distinction you're trying to make. and it doesn't have to be used as parking, but it needs to have the possibility or the capability of the. So right now, that's the situation. The one car garage although very small and substandard with today's needs of vehicles it can be used as a garage, and is recognized as

[53:09] the required parking for the property. So because of that, they can then park a car within the driveway. Removing that parking, then removes that allowance of you. Can park a car on the drive with that leads to other parking. Yeah, through you a question. Go ahead. So you're saying, I I go through the neighborhood, and there's many houses that don't have a garage in the drive. They have a driveway. You're saying they're illegally parked. possibly, and that's also possibly where they could use a person could use criterion J, or 9, 2, 3 j. If it was done without a permit. But this is a an issue that Boulder sees, which is garage conversions without permit and without the city to be able to look at it. And and there's probably a lot of properties without conforming parking today.

[54:03] Which ones I don't know. I have a question. Can you please explain? The new addition to me? Is this something that happened? Is this a proposal? What is this new addition that's drawn on there? Is it existing? take it directly from a 2,006 building permit. And was that this family that did that 2,006 building permit? It feels like it's a good time unless anybody has more specific questions for Robbie, for us to give the floor to the applicant who can maybe answer some of our questions. And so, Devin, I'll rely upon you to make that happen. Yeah, absolutely. Jules, you are promoted to panelists here, so all you have to do is unmute, and you'll be ready to talk to the board

[55:04] and use your video, please. We use the video. Hi. yes, you sound right. You are welcome to proceed. I So some of the questions that were asked. So the addition was put on in 2,006. it's basically a small office space, because that was back when we had desktop computers. It's not large enough to be a a living space. right now it's kind of storage And then I have a closet in the second bathroom, because I live with 2 teenage girls. and a second bathroom

[56:02] and then a a large room in a closet. So that's the addition that was put on in 2,006. My uncle passed away, and he he left me some money to do that. And then, as far as the garage conversion goes. I can. I first just want to get some clarification on that. So our what you're saying is in the 250 square foot addition is a laundry, a bathroom, a small area where you can work but it is not a full 250 square feet available for a bedroom. No, ma'am. thank you. Go ahead. Not at all. Okay, go ahead, please. I wish I wish it was, life would be much less complicated right now. So as far as the the garage goes, the garage is unusable for a vehicle. There is absolutely no way I could fit

[57:04] a car in there, nor do I know of anyone that has a garage in this neighborhood that can fit a car in their garage unless it's a car port because even if I was to drive my car in, I could not open the door to get in and out of said car. in that garage. So currently, the garage is camping gear and bicycles, and you junk. it'd be actually incredibly satisfying to to clear it out. you know, we're we're trying to create this space for my my 78 year old mother to live because she has been removed from her home. So that's this. It's situation. Are there any other questions? It looks like everything kind of froze. Oh. it does look like it's closing.

[58:05] I think you're okay. I keep forgetting I'm muted myself. thank you. So if that's what you want to say, we can certainly see if the board has questions for you. So sometimes people have a prepared presentation. So I just want to make sure you feel that you said what you wanted to say. Jp, wanted to say something about the measurement of the street. Yes, sir. so I think there was a question how long, or what the distance is between the front of the house and the edge of the sidewalk. and I just just to reconfirm my measurement. I double measured this. And it's actually 37 feet. And that's from exactly the edge of the house to the side of the sidewalk. That's faces the house. So it's a total length of concrete that spans across the front yard from some walk to edge of house.

[59:05] Thank you. I'm pretty sure the discrepancy arises, because the property line isn't aligned with the sidewalk. Robbie, is that correct? Sorry as muted? Yes, that is correct. right away easement that goes beyond the sidewalk at. Is it 10 feet? I know we have a 10 footer here, but it can be 4, 6, 8, or 10 feet, so it just the point is just that it doesn't give you that it. It gives a visual of the additional footage, but it doesn't actually create an additional setback. but that I thank you for the Clarification Board members. Questions for the applicant. None. Okay, thank you.

[60:03] I'm sorry. The the neighbors next door over over on the other side. they did in approve of. They did also send a letter in. But it was, they are okay with everyone around is okay with, with the addition, we're actually a very close cohesive neighborhood, especially since the pandemic we all get together and hang out in our front yards, and we're all very close here. So it was just a matter of who was home at the time when I collected the signatures. Thank you. At this time. I guess. I think that's where we are. Do we have public comment, Devin? Thank you, applicant. Yes, I'm seeing 1 one attendee in the panel here. Margaret and Lewis. So if you're interested in in commenting on this item, feel free to go ahead and raise your hand. I mean, if so, please introduce yourself with your last name as well.

[61:13] Yeah, Madam Chair, we have one person looking to speak. I don't see them, so you need to let me know when they're in. Okay, there we go. Margaret and Lewis. I'll put my timer on the on my screen here. But if you can go ahead and introduce yourself with your first and last name for both. that would be great. Thanks must be time for a new chair. yeah. Can you put video on Margaret and Lewis, please. Just for it, you applicant. You may chat your video off if you're finding it's trouble maintaining the signal that happens with Zoom. So stay on as long as you want to, or turn your video off. But stay with us, please.

[62:00] Okay, you need to unmute Margaret and Lewis. There you go! Hello! I'm Lewis Elliot. I'm Margaret. Look, and we're at 7 35 30 Fifth Street. and I had one question to start. I wanted to ask about you mentioned the the H. Onej. I guess that's a The variance for for past conversions before ownership. Can you explain what H. One C and H. One d. What those are you mentioned those. But I don't understand what the with what those are about. and I don't want this. I I'll try to make this quick. since we're down to 2 min. But H. One J is one of the criteria that the board of zoning adjustment can use when approving past conversions of garages. There are multiple criteria that have to be met in order for a variance to be approved.

[63:01] H, one C and D, that's actually H, one C and D, and there's also an H 5. That's a different section of the code. That's additional review criteria that the Board has to find a request meets in order to approve it. So H. One J. This did not qualify for, because that's past conversions. So this application has to respond to h, one and h 5, and that's in all the revised code 9, 2, 3. If you wanted to. find that in the code. most of them there's very few that we're not have converted the car ports into living space. So this is this home at 745 falls into that

[64:02] criteria where that original parking space, not considered in outdoors. was converted. Basically, it was basically closed off as a as a garage. So thank you. And if. almost all of the homes in the subdivision that were built in the sixties. so many people have turned garages and carports into extra rooms. and we still all have driveways, which, of course, we are going to use to park our car on the driveway. I was confused about the the piece about you have a driveway leading to a garage, but are you not supposed to use your driveway at all. If you have a garage, can you not park a car on a driveway? If you have a garage, or

[65:01] if you have 2 cars, you can put one in the garage and one on the driveway. Thank you. Did you? Did you get enough time to answer? Because, say, what? You wanted to say, Okay, yeah, thank you. We appreciate your, you're taking the time to join the meeting and give us some feedback. I think we can address that response. But I I think one thing I like to say is, you have to remember that the codes are written at a time certain. and when they're written. They're written. and our job is to help through the variance process. Individuals change things so that we can meet a hardship. But these are issues that can be brought up to council for them to address with legislation as well in terms of how to deal with it wide spread. So I and Aaron, if I'm not overstepping myself and saying that. my balance, anyway. I think I think that's the way you have to approach. This is this is an individual bringing forward an individual request.

[66:06] Just the staff doesn't agree. Staff is how they're interpreting the the rules, and we can't argue with how they're interpreting them. But we do have the power as a board to make a difference and make a change if we feel it's appropriate. So At this point, if there's no other public comment. it's open for board discussion. and I ask who would like to have the floor first, please. Yes, Katie. I just like to say, I I I like how you framed that in in sort of team up the discussion. and just you know I'm inclined as much as I appreciate that. this particular project doesn't meet the H one C and D criteria. Technically, I I kind of I feel I feel like it. It. This is sort of one of those technicalities of the code that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense on its face. And I mean, I'm inclined to support this project because I feel like it would

[67:16] solve a lot of problems for the applicant. even though technically, it doesn't meet those 2 criteria. I it just seems I mean just sort of on its face. It seems a little bit arbitrary that you can have a garage that you know doesn't is hasn't been converted and and have somebody parking in the in the driveway, and that's fine. But if it is converted to a living space, then that then it's not fine. so just sort of in this particular case I'm inclined to support. you know. Approve this variance. But I kind of I I agree with where Jill was going in terms of, if this is an issue in South Boulder, it it might be something that you know we could

[68:05] maybe, through this variance sort of raise it as an issue to city council for addressing in a larger scale. Jared Attorney wants to say something, so we'll give her the floor. Good. Thank you, Katie. but thank you. I just wanted to offer, in response to Katie's concern about criteria. See that? Just as the financial situation has been taken into account by pass boards in a criteria D about hardship, it also has been taken into account bypass boards for what it reasonably be developed means, and if the cost for developing is so high to do it in in conformity whereas the cost of parking in the driveway, it much less passports have found that to fit the criteria.

[69:02] Thank you, Erin. 3. Yeah, I I I think I would like to offer to once. The first is I I I think, converting the garage in this case. it's probably the most sustainable and efficient way to use this space. It's a really like it's it's a 0 footprint improvement to the house. where you know, this city tends to go above and towards thousands of per foot. editions. Here we are examining a really reasonable request, is my first comment. And the second one is, I think, there's enough for a precedent in the neighborhood. And beyond that in probably the whole South boulder, where garages have been converted to living space. That it would not be fair

[70:08] to not grant approval for this and I don't know that I don't know that it as I I think that's what. Also where Katie was going is there? It doesn't exactly fit, maybe the way the code is written, but I think it's It's up to our interpretation to what what we do with it. So I would be in favor. of this project. Thank you, Marie. True? Yeah, I I I agree with marine. I'd also add that right? The alternative solution of putting the parking on the the north side like that would just add concrete. You probably would never park there anyway. And the fact that the the access would be difficult.

[71:01] and so yeah, this does seem like a reasonable solution in terms of the criteria. You know, I going through. I actually think that the criteria that I I struggled with was a one B, where, you know, is it an unusual situation? Right? And and actually. I think I have to realize that it kind of is unusual. They have a garage still. that you know. Many of the units have already been converted, or their carpets, and so forth. So I do think it meets the criteria for a variance. Thank you. Nikki. Hi, yes, so I am also in support of approving this variance. I did hear Staff say that. If the garage can be reasonably used, and I think that something that I'm sure said earlier about

[72:05] when ordinances and laws are written. They're written at that particular time, and I think we are. We all know that our modern cars do not fit into these substandard garages, and so I don't agree with Staff that the garage can be reasonably used as a garage. Knowing the information that we now have about the size of vehicles The other thing that I wanted to say is, you know. so many times we in Boulder say that we want a diverse community. We want an inclusive community. We want to a community where everyone can feel welcome. And this is an opportunity to actually do the things that we say. we've heard from the applicant that creating more space to create an addition is going to be a financial hardship. We say as a community that we want people of all income levels and all generations to live in our community. And so I think that we, as a board, have a wonderful opportunity, because

[73:09] unless you' disagrees, but we have a wonderful opportunity to live up to what we say we want as a community. And so for all of those 3 reasons, and because I do feel that this meets 5 ace, 5 a, B, C, and D, I will be voting in support of the experience. Thank you, Nikki? did you want to say something else? True? Yeah, I did. Just to add on to a reasonable size, just for feedback for council, you know about. How do we fix things? you know a 9 by 19 spot inside a garage is not wide enough for a for a modern car, right. So as a potential solution, if you made it, maybe 1010 and a half feet wide, you guys even that's tight for a garage

[74:04] that might also eliminate or help these neighborhoods that have this problem. because then you won't be actually removing your viable parking spot. Just an idea. Yeah. Well, we we we an opportunity every year to write a letter to city council. Sometimes they listen to, and sometimes they don't, and or they read it and move on, or it doesn't fit what they have to do. But you know, obviously, this is a concern. I think some of the things that happen for us is, how often do we see it come up? You know how often this is a concern, and you know also, I like people to do permitted projects, you know, so I don't want to create a situation where somebody is going to go underground to do something because everybody else has done it. When we have a perfect opportunity here to I mean it. It it's de facto. I guess it's for I would use. They're not parking in that garage. So it's a technical compliance with

[75:03] the legislation. But we have the opportunity, as our attorney has pointed out, to select financial hardship as one of the reasons, and we may need a little bit of help from you, Aaron, in explaining on what basis we're going to make this motion. But I think we all feel that this is. and I'm sorry, Robbie, that we're not going along with Staff on this one, but all 5 of us are. We're there. I I I totally feel like everybody is on the same page. This is a perfect example. At 450 to $500 a square foot. There's no way they're going to be able to do and it. And never mind, I can't hear from people that you can't get plans through the city. It would be such an extraordinary hard to. It would be 2 years at least before they could build that out. Even so, I trust that they will get a building permit and design it according to code, and build it according to code. But I'm looking forward to the motion that complies with the regulations, and allows us to grant this family what is a solution to their dilemma, and somebody that already is in existence in many, many homes in that neighborhood.

[76:16] So to that. is that a a reasonable conclusion for everybody? Thank you. so I we need a motion. But I think we might need a little bit, or Robbie a little bit of help, just making sure that we, because we are making an exception based on financial hardship in in large part. and you had another portion of that, Aaron. So I was starting to write it down. I have h one C, and and that you can not reasonably developed in conformity with the code. yes, and I I think you can keep it pretty simple, similar to how Nicky phrased her comments that the board finds that the criteria for H. One to be met.

[77:04] Okay. that's it. And and and yes, and that will take that way. You can rely on what's been said here this evening, and also the materials submitted by the applicant. Okay, Nikki, since you said it so well, would you please make the motion. All righty, madam, Chair. So I move that as a docket number via Z. 2,023 0 0 0 1 the approved, as the board finds the criteria for H. One to have been met. Second Kit. Katie say it. I I checked the motion. Thank you. All those in favor marine. I am through Katie. Hi, Nicky, Hi! Jill bye approved. We wish you the best in your endeavors. to

[78:01] construct this working with the city to get your permits, and so on, and hope your mom does very well in her new bedroom. Thank you. So we have Lisa Howard here. I hope I'm saying your name right? Lisa. it's Hood. But is it like hou de? I say, Hood. Yeah. Okay, my apologies. so. Lisa, I think. let me just check and see we do. Minutes after Robbie. would you? Minutes are actually at the beginning of the agenda, and then it's matters from board matters, from city attorney. And then, madam, for planning and development. Alright sorry, Lisa, I'm tight. So everybody had a chance to review the minutes from last time. Okay, and I have a motion to approve the minutes, please anybody. I make a motion to approve the minutes.

[79:08] Second the motion. Thank you. All those in favor, marine. Katie. Hi, Vicky! Hi. hey! Hi! Okay. Minutes are approved. Thank you. Devin. matters. I'm looking in order here. Matters from the attorney start with that. So there! I do not have any any matters, but I do have another night meeting that I have to go to this evening. So, with the the Board's permission I may leave and not stay for the Edu presentation, so that I have some time for dinner before I have to go to the next meeting. I think we have head nods. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Thanks for being here. We always appreciate your advice

[80:04] real quick before our Lisa jumps in yesterday it was the application deadline for the July meeting. and it it appears we may not have a meeting in July. I'm still running through the applications is just making sure. So probably by the end of this week I will send an email out with updates on the July meeting. But I know we have some planned absences coming up as mentioned. And I'll just let everybody know by the end of this week. what the July meeting is looking like. Thank you, and I won't be there in July. I will be in France. So if there is no meeting even better. And for me, that's the day before I fly out to Germany. So I hope not. But I'm playing out tomorrow. Okay, thank you. And then to the board, have anything they want to bring up before we segue.

[81:08] I'm getting head nods. No, okay, Lisa. I think the floor is yours. All right. Thanks, Jill. Good evening, board members. It's nice to see you all again. You might remember I was here back in February to talk about some proposed changes to the adu or accessory dwelling unit regulations. and Robbie and I just wanted to circle back, because now city Council has adopted those regulations. So I just have a very brief presentation just a couple of slides to go over the changes. So you're aware of them. and what changes you might expect to see with variances that come to you. So I will share my screen. 1 s alright. So we have our eightyu update project. This is one of the City Council's priorities for the last 2 years, and they adopted ordinance 8,571 on May fourth of this year may remember, we talked through each of these changes back in February, but they were adopted within that ordinance. So we have. The city has eliminated the saturation limit for accessory dwelling units that limited the number of within a certain radius in a few of the zoning districts in the city.

[82:23] but we've also modified the size limits for a to use. I'll go into that in a little more detail. In the next slide. We did a number of changes that clarified and simplified the 80 regulations, and then we'll also be improving the approval process and making things more streamlined. The ordinance, although it's been passed. So it's passed in May. It doesn't go into effect until September first. so we're still working under the old 80 regulations until that point, and then, as at at September. First, any building permits that come in, we'll use the new process and new regulations for a to use. as the board, you review floor area variances for a to use. So I thought you'd be most interested in the adopted code changes related to the size limits. So the first thing was that we have removed the unique eightyu floor area measurement definition. there was just a different way of measuring a to use. We talked about that last time. Now we will use for area the same for a definition for a to use like we do for every other building in the city.

[83:26] and then the big change is the modification of size limits. So we have both attached and detached accessory drawing units. The T is within the same structure as the principal home, detached as a separate structure. but for the attached it, it went from a third of the principal unit to a half of the principal unit, or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less, so, that provides some more flexibility. for houses with attached units for the detest or the separate structure. It's been increased from 550 square feet to 800 square feet. And that's just kind of the basics for attach and detach. We also have rules for 80 that are designated as affordable.

[84:06] and also a to use that are within historically designated properties, so for those properties, either affordable or historic, their increase or their size limit, has in been increased up to 2 thirds of the principal unit, or 1,200 square feet for the attached. and then to a thousand square feet for detached. So we wanted to. City council wanted to preserve the incentive for affordable units and historic units. So that's why it's a a bit bumped up even more than the the typical attached and detached. So the difference for you all is that if you see a variance for floor area for 80, you we're starting at that bigger number now. So rather than something that was 600 square feet and a detached unit needing to come to you for a variance. You'd only be seeing things that are over 800 square feet. if they're not affordable, or half of the principal unit, that kind of if they're meeting those

[85:01] right hand columns. So that's really the biggest impact that would affect your board and what we're working on now over the summer are all of the process improvements. So we're working on updating all of the handouts and videos related to the Edu approval process. And then because we are moving from a 2 step review to a one step review where the 80 you is reviewed during the building permit. We also have some permitting updates with our online system that we're working on. And then we'll be ready for the effective date of September first, to implement all of these process changes and the new regulations. So that's kind of an overview. Not. There were no major changes to the ordinance from the proposal that you all saw in February. So it kind of went through the process and was recommended for approval by have and planning board and city council, and now it's been adopted as an ordinance, so I'm happy to take any questions, if you have any. And where would I be if I didn't have a question about a to use? Right? okay. So my first question is.

[86:05] what happens for changes for existing affordable a to use that now, because of the size change, are less than 800 square feet, and would therefore be market rate. So yeah, so if if people would like to remove the affordable designation like their 7, they were approved as affordable. And now they'd like to be market rate. They have to go back through the approval process because we have to update the legal documents and things like that. But they'd be reviewed under the new standards. so if they choose to do that, they can do that. Are you talking about? They have to pay architects and and whoever else they need? Or do they just resubmit with it? I mean, is it I? I I'm suggesting that there' be a simplified process. But please, yeah, yeah, it would be essentially a change of use building, permit application which you can. They could use the plans that they had used last time. And it's really just to update kind of the paperwork. for that. So and then there wouldn't be a major scope of work, obviously, to create a fee.

[87:08] So it's really just to cross the legal to you, and I's what I say, and there'd be costs associated with it, but not as much as a exactly it wouldn't. It wouldn't be like a whole new building permit. It would just be a essentially no work building permit to update that in the in the our files, and also with the county. What about utilities? I think this is something that's probably a big concern for people that put in a to us as in the affordable you had to pay you. The owner had to pay all the utilities and couldn't charge There's something I mentioned to you is like, How do you control tenant? Use? How do you encourage a tenant to be efficient about their utility usage? or what about credits for solar panels? I don't know if these things have been considered, but I'm just curious whether it it only applies to the affordable units, or if it applies to all of them.

[88:01] Yeah. So the utilities question didn't really come up as a major point of discussion. One thing that is that we have talked about is a major differentiator between having an Edu and having another dwelling unit technically separate utilities. And so the city is pretty strict about the 80. You cannot have separate utilities. And so that isn't something that changed. But certainly the conversation for a to use, I think, is continually going to be ongoing. And again many incremental changes over time, so that could be something for the next round of conversations. And as we see more and more a to use. come about. It might be something that we need to address next. Thank you. Who else has questions? Okay, I guess I'm the one who's just always got something to say about an 80. Well, if that's all, that's all she wrote As a reminder, I'll be out in August.

[89:03] So Depending on what happens with meetings? are you the your Nicki? Are you the coach at the vice chair? Is that what I call yeah, I am. And I'm not going to be here for a this meeting, either. Oh, no! Are we not going to have a quorum? We may not have a point. When do you get back, marine? I'm back on July twelfth. So you're okay. So what I'm thinking about this, that I, Devin. I don't know if you have the the guide for people that I I got from you know, in the past meetings, and it needs some edits. So I I'm gonna look and see if I've got the word or the the Google Doc, make some edits and then pass that around to everybody, so so that whoever sits in as as substitute chair can. if if we have a meeting in August would have that with them, because it's really helpful, actually.

[90:05] So I'll do that. Okay. if that's good, I think we can gavel out. Yeah, true. Yes, I will. I'll be here in August. It sounds like you have a quorum. We just have to see if there's there's any applications. So yeah, so we'll just. I'll just make sure we've got something updated before I leave town, so that it's a little more. There's some typos in there. And so it's I think there's a word appliance instead of applicant, and I always have to be careful not to say appliance. anyway. Thank you, Lisa, for coming and and updating us good work really? Well done. Yeah, thank you. Thank you all for going over the proposed ordinance back in February. It's really helpful. I think a lot of people probably feel heard, and that's huge in government. So

[91:03] so I would gavel us out. Everybody have a great summer. Thank you.