July 9, 2024 — Board of Zoning Adjustment Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] We're recording now. Thank you. This is a meeting of the Board of Zoning adjustments. Tonight we have one item. So that would be the 1st item. and on each item staff will present 1st and the applicant second. Next. The public will be invited to comment. Then the Board will discuss. Now I'm gonna turn it over to you, Thomas, to explain the rules of decorum. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm just gonna share some rules to quorum for our public participation section. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. For more information about this vision and the community engagement processes. Please visit our website.

[1:03] The following are examples of rules of decorum 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 disrupt or otherwise impede the ability to conduct a meeting are prohibited. participants are required to identify themselves. using the name they are commonly known by, and must display their whole name before being allowed to speak. Currently only audio testimony is permitted. Online. When given the opportunity to speak. Hover your mouse or your finger. If you're on your phone over the bottom of the section of your screen to show the control panel and then click, raise hand. When it's your turn the host will adjust the setting, and then you will see the option to. If you don't see the raise hand option. Here you might also see a reaction button which you can expand to, then show the raise hand button.

[2:03] Thank you. Thank you. So the 1st item let me just get to my instruction. So 1st thing is to just go over voting. So we have a full house tonight, a quorum. and everybody's here. An affirmative vote of 3 or more board members shall result in passage of the motion. An applicant cannot be approved with less than 3 affirmative votes. If the 1st vote taken on a motion to approve or deny an application results in a tie, 2 to 2, the applicant shall be allowed a rehearing a tie vote on any subsequent motion, to approve or deny, 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 shall in all respects be considered a tie. So first, st I'm gonna call this. I do wanna say, before this matter begins that I do know Katerina Shar. As a community member.

[3:00] I'd be hard pressed there. There's always going to be a certain percentage of people that I do know having been here so many years. and I do feel that I we're not close neighbors, and I don't. I don't see in any way that it would affect my ability to be objective, but if anybody has a question about that now would be the time to bring it up. Okay, thank you so much. So Robbie, we're gonna do voca. I can see if I can find the number 2024, dash 0, 0, 0, 0 0 7 for 6, 65. Maxwell Avenue. Correct, and just before I get into the description I just want to bring up a couple of things. The board was provided with last minute letters of support. And there was one letter of opposition that has now been added to the packet. And then they were emailed to you earlier today. So I just wanted to make the board aware of that. And then, also, there was some questions going around about the public notice.

[4:05] From a member of the public and staff did verify that everything public notice wise was done appropriately. So if the Board feels the need to bring that up. Jill, as the chair. You can definitely do that. But staff did verify that everything was done as required. So unless there's any need to go into that further, I can dive right into the application. I think the one thing I want to say is, when I read through the emails it sounded as if the person who wrote in read a different code. Is that right? That we comply? Okay. City of Boulder just happens to be in Boulder County. So sometimes people get the 2 codes confused, but they are completely different. But yep, everything was done as required. Thank you. So unless there's a need to talk about that more, I will go right into the items. So this is docket number Boz 2,024,

[5:00] 0, 0, 0, 0 0 7. And the address is 6, 6, 5, Maxwell. And let me share my screen wind. and is the board. It looks a little different on my end. So I wanna make sure everything. Do you see the presentation. Yes. Thank you. So again, this is 6, 6, 5, Maxwell Avenue. This is a setback variance as part of a proposal for a 40 square foot addition to the back of an existing non standard, single family home on a substandard size lot. The applicant is requesting a variance to the single family is the variance to the Standard Single. I'm sorry. A standard to the setback standards for an R. All one zoning district for both the rear, north and site adjacent to street east setbacks. The resulting rear north setback taken from the subject addition will be approximately 15 feet 8 inches, where 25 feet is required, and approximately 21 feet 2 inches taken from the current north extent of the home exists today.

[6:10] and the resulting site adjacent to street east setback taken from the subject edition will be approximately 7 feet, where 25 feet is required, due to a front yard adjacency to the north, and approximately 6 feet 11 inches taken from the current east extent of the home exists today. Section of the land use code to be modified. Section 971. Boulder Revised Code 1981, and up on the screen. I have the location of the property again. It is a substandard sized lot. and we did receive 3 letters from surrounding properties, 2 letters of support, and I have those denoted as the green stars to the east and west of 665 Maxwell, and then we received one letter of opposition today from 652 Concord, and that is the property to the northwest across the alley.

[7:05] and those were again provided in both email and are now a part of the packet application. Should the Board wanna look into those more. And this just gives you an aerial view, and I circled in red the location of the subject. 40 square foot edition that the Board is considering tonight, and you can see, based on the survey on the right, that the property is both substandard in size and non-standard and the setbacks. It does not meet today's setbacks as it sits today. And I have another diagram that provides a little more clarity on that. And these are just some street view as well as some provided photos within the application by the applicant and the 2 images on the top show more specifically where this addition is to be located. And currently, it's stairs accessing the interior, but due to code compliance and wanted updates. This, along with a few other things on the historic home. A setback variance is required, but the 2 upper images show the exact location of where this 40 square feet is going to be added onto the property. And then that's just a corner view of the property from both 7th and Maxwell, the lower image.

[8:23] and these are some interior photos. There were more provided within the application materials just showing you the interior configuration as well as why new and new entrance and more space is needed, and also with the existing code. Kind of how it looks at the existing conditions and why the applicant is needing to bring it up to code. So tonight there are 2 separate setbacks as a part of the overall application. Thank you. The 1st one is the rear north, step back, and that is a request for approximately 15 feet 8 inches from the addition.

[9:01] where 25 feet is required, and approximately 21 feet 2 inches exists today. This is the property's rear yard set back. So that's why there's the 25 foot requirement. and then the second variance that the board is considering tonight is on the around the corner from the north setback, and that is the site adjacent to street, east setback. and they're requesting approximately 7 feet again from the addition, where 25 feet is required, and approximately 6 foot 11 inches exists today. and even though this is a site adjacent to street because of the adjacency rule, the property to the north, having a front yard along 7th Avenue. This site adjacent to street is required to act as a second front yard. Essentially. So that is where the 25 foot requirement comes in. So 6, 6, 5. Maxwell is has 3 25 foot yard setbacks, and then they've got the typical interior side setback on the west side. But as the building sits today. A good chunk of it is already in the site adjacent to street as well as the rear yard setback.

[10:07] and they are wanting to modify the current entrance, ingress and egress while also making it code compliant. Hence the 40 square Foot Addition and the applicant can probably go into a little more detail in terms of the specifics of what that is when I am completed. And this just gives you some architectural drawings of again that small addition to the back of the house. I just focused on the the east elevation as well as the north rear elevation since nothing else is being done to the remainder of the house that requires boses consideration. and these are some 3D. Drawings. Of the 40 square foot addition. The lower right image gives you a better view without the fence and the vegetation of what it's ultimately gonna look like. And right now there's a screened in area just adjacent to this, and that's going to be turned in the glass windows. But that actually does not require the bows of errands, because they're just replacing windows. But the addition of the 40 square feet is what's triggering the variance tonight?

[11:11] So with that a little bit in the way of some zoning information, it is zoned RL. 1, and the lot size is 4,557 square feet. Typically in RL. 1, 7,000 is the minimum that we see and existing and proposed building coverage. Well, the proposed building coverage, including the addition, will come in at around 1,425 square feet, and the maximum allowed for this property is 1,868. So they're under the allowed floor area for this property. and I think I just switched my words. That is, building coverage floor area. The maximum allowed is 2,825 feet, and with this small addition, the proposed floor area will be 2,453 square feet. Sorry I mixed my building coverage and floor area up there and then solar access area, one due to the size and location of the addition. It will not create any issues. And the same holds true for sideyard wall. Articulation and sideyard bulk plane, due to the design and the location of the addition. They will not be impacted

[12:14] and height will not be changed. And currently the height is around 26 feet, and the maximum lab for this property is 28 feet. and then a little bit in the way of history. The home was built circa in 19 0, 2, and boulders zoning Regs were actually established in the 19 twenties. So this house predates boulders, zoning Regs, and it is considered a contributing structure to the Mapleton Hill Historic District and Historic Review and Lac. For the subject edition was has been reviewed through application, his 202-40-0096. The applicant is not utilizing criterion, for even though they responded to it within their application, the landmarks Board did not explicitly provide that criterion for support, as is required for them to take a deposit, but they did also respond to criterion one and 5,

[13:09] and with that that is what staff used when determining our recommendation, we are recommending support of the application as it has been presented. Given the existing conditions of the site that it's substandard in size, and also the existing conditions of the property and the location of the house that predates our zoning rigs as we see them today, we do feel that it's a modest and appropriate request. We did hear back from surrounding properties some of the concerns that were presented regarded the respecting the 25 foot setback, but Steph also recognizes that this is a secondary front yard to pit it simply, and that the building existed prior to that standard going into place. So with that, they just want to utilize an existing entrance ingress egress. They want to bring it up to Code staff feels that it's a modest and appropriate request, and

[14:07] we are recommending support as it has been presented. So I will leave it at that. I can answer any questions that you may have, and I know that we also have a representative of the application here as well. Thank you, Robbie. so do people have questions for staff. What? So was it approved. With the Landmarks board, the modification. So I looked at the landmark alteration certificated. Although it's not closed, they did provide support of the overall design. So whether or not it's full approval. I'm not sure sorry my phone was ringing on the other side. so there was support provided. But the application is still open so they might be waiting on Boza approval. Understood. and then another question. There was no floor plan in the application. Is a floor plan required or

[15:06] It is not always required, but they. I did request from the applicant that they provide at least of the subject area of where the addition is going. So we don't require full housing floor plans unless it impacts that part of the house. Typically oftentimes people do provide it. But it's not necessarily required to provide the entire properties floor plan, but we do our best to provide that if it's pertinent to the variance at hand. Yeah, I guess I was. I was wondering if I could. There's another stairwell, or that was the only stairwell that was, that was my main question. So. And I and I know the applicant can probably expand on that. A little more. Go. Yes, Nikki. My question. Thank you. My question is related to Drew's question as well. So I just want to understand the sequence of events. So if the landmarks board has something open, but they're waiting for Boza. doesn't it?

[16:00] Historically? Doesn't the landmarks board make a decision 1st before it goes to those? Or what is the what is the normal sequence of events? There. So not necessarily. This is kind of the chicken or egg type thing. We usually have to juggle these around. It's not required that that be provided. But we do typically request because landmarks is a design board. So if the design changes, you wouldn't want to go to Boza, get an approval. And then that design change, and you have to go back to Boza. So typically, we wait for landmarks to do as much as they can, but them having to provide full approval is not required for somebody to go to Boza. It's just typically recommended. And what I saw looking through the his application was that the support from the landmarks design committee was provided, but I saw the case is still open, so Rene, who's here representing the application, might have a little more on the landmarks, history, and how that's moving forward. But I just saw that the case was still open and not closed. So that's why, I said, it may not necessarily be fully approved at this point.

[17:09] but they did provide. I did see that they provided support of the overall design of the application. So design change shouldn't be in the future on this project. Thank you. Then. Yes, I'm not sure it was a question for you, Robbie, or for Erin. But does the city have rules on expanding a non conforming structure. and if so, is that appropriate for Boza to look at or not? So in this case it's not. It's not the expansion of a non-conforming use. That's typically where a special review has to come into play. This property is conforming to the use. It's just on a really small lot. So they're held to the maximum floor area and building coverage like any other property would be. It's just their maximum allowance is smaller because they have a smaller lot. So this property is a single family home. So expansion of floor area would be required if it was, say, a duplex

[18:09] or something like that. So because it's single family home, they don't have to go through any sort of a special review, and they can just go straight to a variance. Okay. Thank you. Vicky. Robbie, going back to your slides where you had the I don't know. It was probably like 2 slides before it. Am I correct in this in saying that the addition is going to be less, because when you talked about the the rich more. and I think you said 25 feet were allowed, 25 feet were allowed 21. You! Before this one. Not allowed. Let's see. So we're we're talking about setback requirements. I just wanna make sure on the same page.

[19:00] This? Yeah, this? Yes, this. Just make sure, Nikki. So we're 20. So I actually had trouble with this, too. Just wanna make sure that we're on the same page. So 25 feet is required on the side and the rear on a conforming lot that applies, even though the lot is non-conforming. And that's why we're here for variance. So. Correct. Sorry. I'll let you finish. Sorry. No, but I think what was confusing is this in the application? And when you talked about it a little bit, you're talking about the difference from the already encroaching. So it's already got a setback encroachment. It could never conform, because the structure was built 19 0. 2, before there was zoning, and it was built within the 25 foot setback period. So what they're really asking for is more more encroachment into the setback is that kind of what you were asking, Nikki. I just want to make sure I'm on the same page.

[20:05] I was asking that. Yes, and additionally, I was asking when we talk about the rear north. where they're asking for 15 feet, where 21 feet exist today. So they're actually asking for it to be closer in to the home. But I have Jill the Chairwoman's question as well. Okay? So with that. So regardless of how big the lot is, they're required the same setback requirements. So right now, we have the south yard, which is their front yard, which is this, is the 25 foot demarcation of the 25 foot front yard set back. We have the rear yard which is shown right here. so you can see some of the house today does exist within the rear yard setback. and then we have the site adjacent to street equals front. It's their second front yard that is this line right here. So all of this is what the applicant was showing is currently encroaching into

[21:04] a setback is all of this hashed area right here. This is the new addition right here, the gray box area. So here's where the existing 21 feet. Nikki is located. They're proposing it. The addition out to here, which is where that 15 feet comes in. and for the east yard the existing setback is right here about 6 foot 11 inches. and then the proposal right here is going to be stepped in by an inch or 2 to 7 feet. So this is where the 7 feet is coming from right here. If you could see my cursor and this is where that 15 feet is coming from. So the hashed area is existing encroachment and the blue or blue box. The gray box is new. Addition that 40 square feet that I keep touching on. So the 2 lines are the 2 setbacks that the board is considering.

[22:00] To piggyback on that. So I wanna cause something you said made me think what what my confusion is as well. What we're changing is 25 feet, reduced to 21.2, which is existing reduced further to 15 feet 8 inches. Correct. So their death. The depth of their from the distance of this addition to their backyard pro property line will be reduced from 21.2 feet to 15 point 15 feet 8 inches. Correct, and that's this measurement is right. Here is the reduction and setback in the rear yard, and then. They're not asking for less. They're asking for more. They're asking for more encroachment. More encroachment, yep. Thank you. Chair woman, because that's that was where my confusion was. So thank you for that clear clarification. Yeah. It is confusing. And that's more encroachment in the rear yard for the east yard. They're actually stepping it back by a couple of inches.

[23:01] so that would not be more on the east side, and that's where this 6 foot 10 existing and 7 foot proposed comes in. One inch difference. Yeah. But yeah, bigger one. It's difference. And can I ask how much more encroachment is in the rear north? So maybe I just need to do math. That is right here, that is, that looks like 5 foot 4. I think that's what they're trying to say. The 5 foot 4 that they're talking about. Thank you. Additional encroachment. Okay. Do we have any other questions for Robbie? Of staff before we move on to the applicant? Because I, those of you who asked applicant questions. You'll have your opportunity. So who is here on behalf of the applicant? Please will you introduce yourself? Give us your. Address. And proceed. I am Renee Kalobic, and I am at 3, 3, 2, 5, 19th Street, in Boulder, Colorado, and I am representing the applicant as their architect. So I'd 1st like to start out.

[24:08] Yes. Oh! Sorry, never mind. Go ahead! Your address. I missed. Okay, so I will. Robbie did a great job of presenting. It is confusing to figure out like you know how we're approaching, and I was trying to talk to my son about this. He's only 13, so he's like, I don't understand what you're doing, and I'm like, I know, very confusing. And so like, that's why I was really trying to like hatch diagonally hatch and then shade the area which we're asking for so ultimately the homeowners who are on the call, but have not been promoted, so I don't know if if they can be promoted or not. But you know they have a reasonably small house for Mapleton Hill district. They have a beautiful house. It is a contributing building in the Maple Hill district. So for the landmarks part.

[25:09] I think. My you know my! The moving forward was, let's get landmarks approval, and then that'll give us support for the bosa application right? And the landmarks approval. I did get an email from Claire on Friday, and she said, I did send a letter of support for 6. What? Maxwell, based on the conditional approval for Ldrc. Let's wait to hear what they say about it hopefully. They'll approve the variance. Once you have that we'll wrap it up on the landmark alteration certificate. And then she needs window details and color proposed. So just some minor details to wrap up her part so that hopefully will answer the landmarks. Questions and feel free to ask more. The idea of this addition is really that they have a very small, a smaller house, and to get to the basement. Now you saw those pictures. It is like the stairs are super steep there. The risers are 9 inches and some higher. For code. You have to be 7 and 3 quarters.

[26:23] so for them to get down into the basement, which is more used for storage, or somewhat of a seller, because it's a rock rebel foundation in that area. So but they want to use it. They have 2 kids. They want to expand into the basement to be able to, you know, grow, and actually have She is from Sweden, so she would want her. She, the her mother-in-law, comes, and or his mother-in-law. Her mom comes from Sweden and stays quite a while, and you know, I mean, it's nice to have a place for your family to come and feel welcome and to stay. So the idea is that we're gonna finish the basement and how to get to the basement. There's no other way to get to the basement inside the house without really destroying the character of the house.

[27:11] and there is one stairwell as you walk in that gets you to the second floor. Those the way that stair works is a non, a code compliance stair with the height and getting underneath that way just would be. It would really wreck the structure of the house, and I think for the landmarks we would have to do a little bit more outside work. So we felt like the lowest impact was to have an addition off the back so we can make the stairs from the main level, go down to the platform code compliant, be able to get back to the garage area that they have and and then be able to go down into the basement so that 40 square feet is as minimal as possible. I think I have it like around actually 37 square feet. But I did wanna make sure that, like, you know, I had enough room to be able to provide it with the energy code and make sure the walls are thick enough for those type of things that we will be required for the building.

[28:19] I believe I let's see, I have your landmarks. Note from Claire and the floor plan. The existing floor plan. Ha! Does have stairs to go up, and the stairs to get down. Is that the stairs that you saw in that back addition? So Is there additional questions. Board members. This is your opportunity to ask app the applicants representative questions. Okay, okay, Katie, do you have sound? Do we know you're currently muted.

[29:03] Did you check. Unmuting. Yeah. Perfect. I was just wondering if Renee could you just clarify again the the way the stairs will be refurbished, so that you've got that interim landing? And and how is is that a refurbishing of the existing stairs so like will part of the existing stairs still be used. No, the existing stairs are not going to plan at all like the way to get from the main level down onto the platform like the platform to exit the house, as you see. Those stairs are wood stairs, but the height is too high for code, so if we alter them in. Anyway, the building required. The building code requires us to bring everything up to go so for the addition as it stands, I can't get enough rise and run to be able to get down into the basement with the square footage I have now.

[30:04] so that the I'm only asking for the minimum amount for us to have a required landing at the top of the stairs from the main level, go down the stairs, and Robbie might have, like a floor plan of this to show so. Do you mind if I share the screen? I didn't want to interrupt you, Renee, so. No, yeah, no, go right ahead, cause my hair. You're really. Healthy. This is provided within the application. So I think this is gonna gonna help with what you're explaining right now. Yeah. And there you go. Yeah. So off to the left. Here you can see the the stairs, you know. You got off to the left. You got one, you know. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 steps to get to the landing, very steep, and then there's even a riser in the middle of the door to step out onto the outside. So as you walk in from the outside, there is a riser directly in the middle

[31:09] which is obviously non code compliant. Then, when you walk down to the basement, those are all stone rubble foundation, and the idea is because this is a contributing building. We can't really change much of the exterior. So the existing walls, as you see, besides the one wall with the door in it. those walls were re actually remain from the outside. The only thing we're changing is this little addition. This little existing part actually has screens in it. And so we've asked Landmark to approve that we put in fixed panes of glass so that it's not a it can be a condition space. It doesn't have to be a screened, non conditioned space. So we've asked that the existing windows remain the miss. Existing screens remain, but be able to have glass, and then, as you walk down the stairs

[32:07] into so on the right hand side you will see there's the landing at the top, the 3 foot landing, and then you have 6 risers that are 7 and 3 quarters, and then you hit a landing right there to where the door opens up into the where you can open the door and go out the back to where you have the garage. and then at that landing which is required, a landing is required for every at the top and the bottom of the stairs, and it has to be minimally the width of the existing landing. So right there I have 3 foot 2 inches, and the minimum is allowed to be 3 feet. So as you then then turn down to go into the basement. I will have those risers be 13 risers at 3 and a quarter minimum to head down into the basement. So I think that was a long winded answer, but I will not refurbish the stairs, they cannot be reused. I need. When I touch one part of the stairs for building code, I do have to remove them and make them code compliant, and they will have risers and handles and you know, hand rails to go down.

[33:22] Okay. Thank you. Then, Robbie, am I allowed to speak to the one email about the the Co. OP. Opposition. And Jill. I believe you can make that call, but I I wouldn't have any issue with it. Yeah, I I don't think. Yeah, it. We object to the the concerns, but it would be good for you to address, and of course. Yeah. So I read, I read his email to right before the meeting. And I just wanted to address you know, he is addressing the the front adjacent

[34:04] front yard set back. So what I considered the side yard, which is really the front yard side adjacent. And he's concerned about allowing for that 7 feet to be, you know. Set a president in in every location, and it's that we already have that 7 feet. We already have 6 feet 10 and 3 8 of an inch for the existing building, and the reason being is because it was built in 19 0 6, and we didn't have zoning laws. We didn't have these. The actual plot of this building, you know it was built. I don't know. I can't remember the historic who live there before and the contributing. It's always fun to figure out the history of the building, but I just wanted to say that we're not making that condition worse. And for the landmarks we have to set it back just enough to make the difference between old and new.

[35:02] Thank you. Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant? Nikki. Yes, thank you, manager, I actually have a a few questions. You say that this is a small house, can you? Can you tell me the square footage, the bedrooms, bathrooms for the small house. Yes, so there's a 3, 3 bedroom, 2 bath house, and if we promote Stewart and Katarina, they're welcome to speak to that, too. The upstairs has. You know, this is the kind of area where you know you got the you can't. If the full this roof slope of the house. I don't have to actually you have to. How do I say this for the zoning? So the slope, the pitch of the roof. When you walk up the stairs. Everything is, you know, 6 feet 8 inches is where I have to count the square footage. Well, a lot of these rooms are quite small, and the slope of the roof.

[36:08] where there isn't a dormer allows for, like, you know, these little tiny crevices. And that's a that's normal for historic house. So what I mean is, when you have this bedroom, and you can put in a twin size bed for your kid. The little corners are, you know, not really usable, but somebody would use them like we could put little niches in there, and things like that. So that's what I mean is, when you go up in the there's a roof. So I think. Let me you wanna pull up the slide where the existing square footages obviously. So cool. Yes, I can do that. You. What is this getting at? Nikki said. There's not a floor plan, so you can't see the usable square footage of the upstairs. So, even though it's in the neighborhood 2,200 square feet. It's not It's it's not fully usable at 2,200 square feet. I think that's what you're trying to say. I'm not.

[37:05] And. Out for today, but. No, no, no, I appreciate it. I'm just trying to understand. You said it was a small house, and based upon what we have in the packet. I just wanted to understand from your definition what a small house was, and you said it was 3 bedrooms, 2 bath and 2,200 square feet. Okay. Yeah. Well, I I guess I mean small house in comparative to other clients, especially in Maple Hill district, that want to demolish the whole house and build 45, 4,500 square foot house. They wanna maximize any ability to get as much square footage as possible. So I feel like this house being as small as it is, and allowing them to grow and change their basement, and be able to use their basement and get stuff down and up, even if they don't. At the end of this, you know, we're going to remodel the basement is where it started. And then we realized that you can't even get to the basement in a code compliant matter. And so that's the reason for this addition.

[38:13] So I wanna remind the board something just before we get further deep into this. it is our job to look at whether or not. This variance is reasonable or not. We are not a design board. The information that's been provided to us it sounds like it would have been helpful, think would have been helpful, and I agree it would have been helpful to have a floor plan showing that spaces in the house aren't usable. Given the roof slope. I can imagine it, but it's easier for us if we can see it. So it would have gone more to your point. But it doesn't. It's not required. It sounds like Robbie, right? It it. What? What they, the area we're talking about right now is a 40 square foot addition to accommodate a code compliance stair. They wanna make sure everybody on the board understands what a code compliance stair is, because that's the piece that really goes to this. And I. It's not my job to advocate or not advocate for this application. But I feel like we're wandering into areas that

[39:13] really aren't relevant to this request. The. It's not for us to judge whether or not they can use their basement or not. It's not for us to judge whether or not their house is too big or too small. The question is, is the variance request the minimal needed? And we can go through the code and go through that so, Nikki, to the extent that your question I totally understand the frustration with not having a drawing, and I feel like it would have been more explanatory for us, but I just want to make sure we don't get this broadened. Is that fair, Erin? Yes, I think it's important to stick to the criteria, and and one thing I will add about floor plans is that we once someone submits a floor plan to the city. Anyone can see it.

[40:02] and especially with identifying children's bedrooms. Th. There are concerns about that. So we we don't require it necessarily. Thank you. Thank you, Aaron. So to the extent, Nikki, that you can narrow your questions to those relevant to that portion, I think it would be more helpful. Okay, my next question is, about the minimal amount of allowance here. So again, without seeing the floor plan, you mentioned that there is another. There's another steer. Well, and you mentioned that using that stairwell to access, the basement would have changed the character of the building. So there is no other stairwell that goes to the basement. There is a stairwell that goes to the second floor. Okay. Not really Stairwell. It's a stair area. Yeah. There with. It's stairs. Yes, it's stairs that go to the second floor inside the house as you enter the building, and then this stairs that go to the basement that are existing are the ones we are discussing.

[41:09] Okay. My next question is with the picture that Robbie showed while you were giving your testimony. Which picture was that was that the stairs. Yeah, that was the stairs. Let me pull that up again and bear with me. I have that separately. So and all right. and I believe this is what you're talking about. Correct. Okay? So my question is related to the

[42:00] pull up my code minimum variance that would afford relief and the least modification. So if I'm looking at the left and I'm looking at the right. What I'm not understanding is I'm understanding the proposed addition encroachment on the I'm gonna say, the West Side. I don't know if it's technically West, but on the left side of of the proposed I'm understanding that part. What I'm not understanding is the proposed encroachment to the north. because what I'm seeing is there's a doorway, and there are stairs to go down, so I'm not really understanding, and I understand the porch, and this, and not the screened in porch, but the glass porch. But then we're still having an encroachment here, and so what I'm trying to understand is why

[43:00] why is this additional space needed, instead of just the space that's opening the door and allowing for the stairs as they've been proposed on the right-hand side. Can I ask another question? With that? Please. Please. Renee. Is this the minimum required for code compliance stairs, period. This is the minimum for code compliance stairs. I need a 3rd 3 foot landing at the top of the stairs. I need the stairs to go down at a rise no higher than 7 and 3 quarters, so that requires me so many treads on the left. On the way, going down to the 1st landing. It's 6 risers and then going 13 risers from the landing down into the basement. So and that's the minimum. You can't go any higher than 3, 7 and 3 quarters. The existing risers change between part like 9. They're relatively too tall for that to work. Robby, do you happen to have the section through

[44:12] that one might. Goodness. Maybe some. This is the. This is the document you provided. So is it this? Let's see, that's the end of that one. It might be above it. I pull this directly. Maybe. Burials. Yeah, let me see, I maybe I didn't. I probably will have to talk through it. So you could go to the maybe the proposed east elevation. Yep, and you can at least see. Would you like 3D. Or architectural. I think the architectural. So here on the left you have you can see the shaded addition on the bottom right, so the and you can see the height of the proposed 1st floor. Is that right there? So right now, as we make the way down to the stairs. It's not code compliant, and it's within that little which I could be able to

[45:21] draw on it. whiteboards. No, okay on. When I do the landmarks. One I'm able to note. Oh, there we go! So here is the main floor, and then you step down. like to, I mean here, and then you. Then you walk, you go more into the basement. Right? So these steps, as they are existing, are not code compliant, and are relatively a hazard to the, you know, if somebody, if a if a building official, came in and we were trying to adjust it or make it any way. So they basically we could not.

[46:12] They cannot upgrade their basement without having the small addition. because we cannot get a code of compliance stairs into the basement without allowing for an addition to allow for these stairs to get down to the basement. You, bye. Helpful. I still have my question, though, so if we can go back to the. Nikki. I don't understand your question either. Well, I like. I like to go back to the picture because I'm confused, and if I'm confused I'd like some clarity. So I'd like to go back to the picture that Robbie previously had up. The image, the actual photo of the stairs. No, not the photo of the stairs. This. Is that what I think? You're.

[47:00] Okay. So here. So I wanna I wanna so here's my thing. I wanna ask Erin. I don't think this is appropriate. I feel like. We either don't have enough information for people to decide. or we don't have enough information for Nikki to understand. So I'm a builder of 40 years. I completely understand this issue. I that's a handicap for me, Nikki, and trying to help you because I don't understand what your confusion is. This is the minimum required in order for them to transition from upstairs to downstairs. It can't be done any other way, according to Rene. If you are asking, is there another way to do it. Then I think, yeah, we have to. We have to say to them, you haven't presented enough information for me, Nikki, to under make a decision. I don't understand this, and I think that's fair. I am not arguing with you at all. I'm just saying I don't know if we're gonna get out of it in words what you're looking for we can try. But, Erin, do you have a comment on it?

[48:05] I I think I think I understand. And Nikki correct me if I'm wrong, because I think I'm I see what you're seeing, that on the right hand side of that document. It shows where the door enters in the required landing space. But then, on top of that it says something proposed addition. And then on top of that. 7, 2. Those it says proposed encroachment on top of that. Right? And is that what you're not. Is that what you're asking. That is what I'm asking about. That's I think that's a fair question, because it it. This diagram is hard to tell where the proposed construction is. Is it limited to where the door swings in, or is there something beyond that? Is it my restating it accurately? Nikki. I appreciate that I I had no idea what you were talking about. You're talking the lines that are on this drawing that look like they're the proposed addition. That is.

[49:03] So. And what I'm what I'm being very specific about is Robbie. If you can just scroll, I guess down a little bit where I can see the no, no, I sorry. Other one sorry. The question specifically is about this proposed encroachment because we've already talked about where are my notes? We're we're already talking about the building already. Encroaches because it existed before the code was written. I understand that. but we're asking for a 5 foot additional encroachment, which is where the 7, 1 7 feet, one and 1 4th inches proposed encroachment ends. So my question is why I'm trying to understand the reason for the additional 5 feet of encroachment. My question is related to the minimum variance that would be afforded relief.

[50:01] I'm and do is that 5 foot, the minimal variance that could be afforded? Or is it at this 7 foot 2 inches. where the proposed addition is? Because, either way, whether it's at 7 foot 2 inches, or if it's at that 7 foot one and a quarter inches it's going to encroach. I understand that my question is the minimal variance that would afford relief. And so that's what I'm trying to understand. Do you need that 5 feet? Is that required by something to meet that 5 feet? Or could it be at that 7 foot 2 inch proposed addition mark. or at the or at the Oh. So let me ask a question, Nikki. Does that make sure? Let me. Now, I think I understand what you're asking. is it? When you look at this drawing right? And you see the and I want clarification from the architect.

[51:00] Those darkened lines to me that are where it says 5 foot 4 proposed addition encroachment. and the those are the walls that you are proposing to build, correct. Yes. And the box lines that are the excite, and I can't point to it right it. So, Robbie, if you point to it where it says, proposed addition and the slash lot lines. Not that one up here where it says 7 foot 2, and below that, right, right, 7 and a quarter and 7 foot 2. Is this structure, or are these just lines trying to explain the 5 foot 4. I actually think I know. So all of this, the additions not out here. This is the addition. And we're talking about 2 different setback encroachments. Both are depicted on the same diagram. We have number one rear yard encroachment. Right now. The entrance is right. Here. You can see it hashed out. They are expanding into the rear yard 5 foot 4 inches more than what is there today? So that's number one, number 2 is the east setback, which is this?

[52:09] 7, 1, 4 encroachment. That's just telling you the width of the addition. and the proposal is for it to be at 7 feet, which is right here. so we've got the. I'm sorry that yellow box keeps popping up. We've got both the encroachment to the rear yard, which is the 5 foot 4 inches additional. and then we've got the encroachment into the east yard, which technically is 7 foot one and a half encroachment. But the existing buildings, already about an inch beyond that. So those are the 2 encroachments. All of this out here is not the addition. It's just this gray boxed area right here. This is the 40 square feet. So what Rene was saying was, in order to meet building code, you have to have a landing with the 3. You have 3 foot landing, which is what all of this is, with also the existing stairs. This was the minimum of this configuration. In order to meet the purpose of the project which is to build code compliant stairs. This was the minimum per Rene to accomplish that

[53:12] and to something that building code could require. So they're asking for additional encroachment to the rear into the east setback, which is what this is showing. So right here is just that 40 square feet. And Rene is saying, this is pretty much the minimum needed to meet to build a code compliant entrance and stairs. Thank you. I don't have. And and this little and this little section right here is just the you have to have a exterior landing like a concrete landing when you exit a building. So that's just a concrete landing when we're walking outside. So this little blue box I drew is the outside and then this. this is the. This little box will be the actual addition, the actual built edition that will go into it. These numbers above that are a little you know, like there's this number, and then there's this number. So this is 7 foot one and a quarter is the actual encroachment. My addition will be 7 feet 2 inches. So there's 3 quarters of that inch

[54:18] that I'm not asking for that encroachment. It is actually on the other side. But so that might be a little bit of a confusion. But that's for the east encroachment. And then this is the 5 feet 4 inches of the minimum amount that is required to get me co-compliant stairs to go to the rear. So I think that your concern is this number the 5 feet 4, where you're understanding the East set back. But the North set back, I think, is what the proposed addition and the encroachment is. So the reason for that is because I need more stare threads

[55:04] than I have currently to get to the location into the basement. So I need that additional square footage. So I can get additional trends. Is that helpful and not more confusing? I don't have any. Any other additional questions. Does anyone else have any questions? Okay. do you want to go around and see where people are? Nikki, are you satisfied? Or, yes, Erin? Yeah. Please don't forget members of the public who would like to comment. I, yeah, there was a lot of talking there. And your applicants. Do they have anything they want to say, either? Are we done. I I they are on so. I don't know if you can promote them. If

[56:06] I think that we can move forward with the public. If knee fee. So. Is there anyone here? Tom? Is Thomas here, cause I don't see him right now. Hi! I'm here! I just turned my camera off in preparation for putting the timer on. Is there anyone here from the public that wishes to speak to this Thomas. Yeah, we do have one raised hand, and if anybody else would like to speak please go ahead and raise your hand. Thank you. 3 min to speak. I'll just remind that all speakers must speak into the microphone and give their names and addresses, please. And it's a 3 min timelit, right? We didn't. Okay, thank you. So, Robert Compton. you have your hand raised. I'm going to go ahead and click, allow you to talk, and then I'll turn the time around.

[57:02] Can you hear me now. Robert, are you there? Can you proceed? Please. Trying to help me. We cannot hear you. I can hear, Robert. It's just very quiet. Can you hear me now? Little bit. Okay, sorry. I'm literally my noses to my computer. It's good. Now. So I I'm Bob Comp. Robert Compton, and I'm at the 652 Concord. And 1st off I wanna withdraw my objection. and the reason is, I, honestly, I couldn't follow. I couldn't understand what was exactly going on. but having seen Robbie's presentation and and Renee's comments it. It makes sense to me, and I have. I have no problem at all with it. I would like to make one other point real quickly. I hope this doesn't embarrass him.

[58:00] but I think the Board should know you have an excellent associate in Robbie Wiler. He was incredibly responsive to a flurry of emails from me. And he was. He was very kind, very patient. and as an old man, I I really appreciate that. So thank you, Rob, I just wanted the Board to know that. Thank you, Robert. We we do appreciate Ron. very much nice of you to say so. Okay, so usually, we do a straw poll. Basically, just because there have been at at least, Nikki, you've got a lot of questions. So fairly enough. Should we go around and have some discussion here before we have a motion. Who would like to speak first? st Jump in. I think this meets the criteria. I think it's a you know, as has been stated by by the staff and through the applicants. Presentation. It is a smaller lot. It's a historic home, you know. It's a to me. This is the kind of situation where this is kind of wide variance exists as a as a mechanism in the code.

[59:13] and the applicants proposed, as you know, what's been characterized as a as a modest proposal to just do the minimum required for life. Safety to, you know, finish out their basement seems reasonable to me. It's not a hardship they created. I don't see any other criteria that they are running afoul of, so I'm in favor. Thank you, Ben. Anyone else. Katie. True. No, I I think Ben articulated it. Well, I I was pretty much gonna say much the same thing. It seems like the minimum required. And so I'm I'm in favor. Thank you. True. Yup, I concur. Going through the criteria. I think it meets all the criteria.

[60:02] Nicky. I would be a paper. Thank you. Drew. I believe it meets all the criteria. Thank you. I I wanna say that I as hard as that was part of that is because the application is confusing. I just want to say fairly, Renee, I think that you have to know when you come to this board, that not everybody has a building background. and so making it really clear with some cross sections, I think would have made it much easier to understand, and I know it feels like a criticism. I'm just trying to say, next time you come to us, and you may come to us in the future. Just be mindful of that. Not everybody's necessarily going to know how to read plans and understand what's happening. Exactly. Nikki works very hard with that stuff, and I've seen great strides with it. And i i i, too, was confused by these drawings. So However, I agree that this is the minimum

[61:00] required, and I think we're there. Can I have a motion, please. I'll move. Go ahead! Drew go. I was gonna have to search for the for the docket number. So you go ahead, drew. Me, too. I make motion to approve. Bose 2, 2024, dash 0 0 0. 0. 0, 6. 7. 7. I didn't see that guy. I know it's hard. Thank you. Can I have a second? Please? Second. Okay. All those in favor will go around. Nikki. Please. Aye. Ben. Aye. Drew. Aye. Katie. Aye. Aye, for me. The motion is approved unanimously. Thank you for your time, both to you, Renee, and for the applicants, and Robert for coming on and talking to us as well. Thank you.

[62:02] Okay. At this point in the meeting we have no other items on the agenda, the public and course I probably never send. The public hearing is closed. I'm falling down on the job. So at this point do we have any matters from the attorney to Detro. No, Nope, I have no matters, thank you. And the board. Yes, Nikki. Madam Chair, I appreciate. Your comments earlier. I have a lot of questions. It's it's true that I don't have a building background. But I I care about my duty here, and I want to make sure that I always understand before I make a decision. And so and I'm I'm a capable person. I'm a smart person. But I'm going. I'm going to ask questions, and sometimes those questions may not make sense to other people, but they make sense to me. I'm not trying to derail anytime.

[63:08] So, yeah. I'm really trying to have an understanding, because I want to make. I want to vote in a way that I feel good about, and that's reflective of my service on on this board. So I just wanted to make sure that everyone understood that I'm I'm going to keep asking questions because it's my nature. I always question everything because I wanna make sure at the end of the day that my vote is something that I believe in my standby, and I appreciate all of my colleagues. with all of your questions, with with piggybacking, on my questions, with asking clarifications. Is this what you meant? I appreciate that because that's part of the learning the learning process. But I just wanna make it known that I'm I'm it's not my intent, and I'm not trying to to drill any process or to bring us into territory that is not appropriate for our decision making. So I just wanna make sure that I made that very clear to everyone as well.

[64:06] Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you, Nikki. anything else from the board? Yes, Ben. Robbie next time. If you could just ask the applicant to write landing on that little concrete. Yeah. Okay, noted, definitely noted. Yeah, I kind of feel bad saying something, but I think a lot of the confusion was generated by limitations of the drawings. And so, Nikki, I appreciate your your questions. That's why I said. I understand. But when we look at it it's just not clear, and it's not fair. I mean. Some of people here are laypeople. It should be clear. It's not that hard. Maybe we got there, but I so part of what. And if you'd like to know what I was going to is center back. So I was actually the point of saying, if you if this isn't clear enough to make a decision.

[65:04] Then then let's give them a delay. Let her redraw. Let her make it more clear, and that's where I was going. It was not about faulting you, I was more sort of saying. Come on, this is not that hard? If it's this hard, it's this hard, because your drawings aren't clear, not because your questions aren't good questions. So and we've done it before. Right, Robbie, that we have sent people back. You know we can't make this decision doesn't make sense to any, you know, to some portion portion of the board. That's where it goes. I'm glad we got there, but that's where I was going. So okay, you got anything in our for us, Robbie. Got a couple of things. I just want to respond to Nikki saying, you're always more than welcome to reach out to me on the side. Even if you wanted to talk tomorrow to kind of talk about what happened tonight, I'd be more than happy to discuss it. That's kind of what I'm here for is to hopefully answer all the questions that are asked. And then also, it's always a learning experience for me, which is, I do my best to get a clear document in front of the board to where hopefully questions don't come up like what you had. But sometimes they do.

[66:17] So asking questions like that always keeps us on our toes. So we love that. So please always feel free to ask questions like you did. And if you ever just wanna talk on the side? About anything? Reach out to us. That's what we're here for. And then beyond that application deadline for the August 13th meeting was yesterday, and it looks like we have 2 applications. I have yet to do. Formal completeness checks on them, but it does appear. We are going to have an August 13th meeting, so, as always, if you think you're going to be gone or have a planned absence, let us know as soon as possible, and then we'll probably still ask again if you're going to be absent. We tend to forget about that. So just August 13.th It looks like we're going to have a meeting. So let us know if there's going to be any conflict with your attendance.

[67:07] and that's it. Okay. Yes. Sir. Thomas. We do also have the June 11th meeting minutes for approval in the packet. If you all had a chance to review those. That's right. Take a motion to approve the June 11th meeting. Minutes. Second. All those in favor. Aye. Bye, yeah. I think we got them all kind of sequentially there. Thank you. Thanks for bringing that up. Anything else I think we're good for now we'll see you all in August, and and thank you again, each of you, for your service. I appreciate it as well. You, too, Joe. Be able to. Good night. But tonight.