August 13, 2024 — Board of Zoning Adjustment Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Have to start. It's not alright. It's not on my little cheat sheet, but I know that Thomas goes through the rules of decorum first.st Is that how we want to start? I would like to start that way, Thomas, can you please? Go over the rules of decorum. Sure. Yeah, I'll pull those up right now. Can you all see these slides? Yes. Great. So 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 process. You can visit our website at this link.

[1:00] 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 the meeting are prohibited. and participants are required to identify themselves, using the name they are commonly known by when prompted to give your public comment. You can raise your hand by hovering your mouse or finger over the bottom section of your screen or your phone. If you're using mobile for the control panel to show and then click, raise hand. If you don't see the raise hand button, you may need to click the reactions, button to expand it, and then just click the raise hand button here. and that's all. Thank you. Thank you so much, Thomas. All right, I'm going to go ahead and get started. This is a meeting of the border zoning adjustments tonight we have one item.

[2:05] and there's no order, because there's only one item on on each item. Staff will present 1st and the applicant second. Next. The public will be invited to comment. Then the Board will discuss. I'm going to review the rules for voting, as we have one missing member. So just going to go over the rules of voting as well. 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. One of the things that I know Jill mentions in her spiel is we normally take a straw poll as a board, and so I'd like to do that as well. After we hear the information from Staff, the applicant and the public, I'd like to give us an opportunity to take a straw poll to see where we're at as a board, thinking before we

[3:20] approve or deny a motion that's come before us. So with that I will go ahead and go to the next part of our meeting alright. So we are going to start with Boza Docket, Boz, 2024, 0 0 0 9 at 2 0 5 0 mesa. Drive and staff. If you can go ahead and start your presentation, please. Can do, madam Chair, and let me share my screen real quick. And can everybody see the presentation sounds? Okay. Thank you. So this is docket number Boz 2, 0, 2, 4, 0 0 0 9. The address is 2050 mesa drive.

[4:07] and this is a bulk plan variance as part of a proposal to construct a new single family house on a substandard sized, vacant lot. The applicant is requesting a variance to the bulk plan requirements for a principal structure in the Rmx. One zoning district. The resulting bulk plane projection at both the west and east sides of the proposed house will project vertically beyond the plane by approximately 9 feet at the greatest vertical measurement for the west side of the home, and approximately 6 feet at the greatest vertical measurement for the east side of the home 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 currently a vacant lot located on the south side of Mesa Drive. We did not receive any written correspondence from any of the neighbors any public comment prior to the hearing itself. We did receive a few questions from the public, but none of them resulted in written statements. So at this time there are no written comments for the application.

[5:17] and I'm gonna switch the order of my presentation a little bit, and I'm gonna kind of go into the history and the zoning metrics of the property before I get into the the metrics of the bulk plan variance itself. Again, it's zoned. Rmx. One. The property, the lot size, is around 4,403 square feet. The minimum for a typical Rmx. One zoning or property is 6,000 square feet per the code. This property was approved and essentially established through an ordinance last year through City Council Ordinance 8, 5, 7, 9. That information was provided within the application packet. As well as a little bit of the history. The applicant and the architect kindly provided some of that background. I won't get too much into the details of that ordinance.

[6:09] but this is a somewhat different application that the board is used to seeing, but essentially what the ordinance allowed was for special setback and height allowances for a property of this size. but did state that all other development standards, such as bulk plan did need to be met as the code requires, and that bosa is relief to those standards. So if a variance is needed, they would go to Boza like any other person or property owner in boulder. So with this the applicant is requesting the bulk plan variance. There are no other variances as a part of the request tonight. and existing and proposed building coverage the proposed building coverage. Is shown at 1,790 square feet. The Max allowed for this property would be 1,805, and for floor area the proposed floor area is around 2,595 square feet, and the maximum allowed for this property

[7:10] is 3,031 square feet. So both building coverage and floor area are shown to have met or will meet those requirements. It is solar access area to a 25 foot solar fence. Due to the location and the size and scale of the house. No issues for solar access have been presented. This would be verified at building permit. and then side yard wall articulation. No issues have been presented again. Something like this would be verified at building permit side yard bulk plan. I have that highlighted simply because that is what the board is considering tonight, and then height is proposed at 34 feet, and the ordinance does allow this property or this structure to go up to 35 feet. And then again, the history. It is currently a vacant lot, and the development standards are spelled out through ordinance 8, 5, 7, 9, which was approved by city Council last summer. And outside of setbacks and height, all other development standards are as the code would require, like anybody else in Boulder.

[8:11] so I will get into kind of what a bulk plane is. I know I've had a few questions from the public of what Boulder or what boulder is, what bulk plan is, and this is straight out of the code. Section 9, 7, 9, the purpose of bulk plane is the site or bulk plan is to ensure that buildings step down towards neighboring properties in order to enhance privacy, preserve some views and visual access to the sky for lots or parcels that are adjacent to new development and the way we measure it is essentially at the property line. This is the parallel method. So every 10 feet for both the East and West property line. In this case you find the elevation at the property line. Go up 12 feet, and then you go in at a 45 degree. Angle the gold, the lighter gold color that I have on there. That is the actual bulk plan for the property. It's the envelope or the building limitation for a property, and it caps off, or maxes at the allowed building height for the property, which is a separate standard, and I have that shown in the darker gold or the orange color

[9:19] and that maximum height is typically 35 feet above the low point for the property, and I have that marked with the the orange X, so we can get into this a little more if the board wants. But I just wanted to kind of touch base, since it's not something the Board commonly sees. I wanted to just explain for both the public and the board what a bulk plan is. And again we can come back to this if needed. so go into the application the request at hand. This shows you a location of the property. The aerial view shows the vacant property with the surrounding single family homes, and then across the street is Multi dwelling housing. and then the image on the left. This is the survey. This is a good example, or it shows the topography or the grade of the property. The north part of the property is somewhat steeper, and then the property levels off a little bit towards the south part.

[10:15] and this was touched on. Excuse me, this was touched on through the applicants narrative. and then we have some pictures in case we need to come back to these. We can kind of show you what the existing conditions of the of the vacant lot look like today. And then the applicant did provide a good visual of surrounding properties. We did a little research, and this was also touched on during the narrative. This is a somewhat unique street, in that there are several properties on mesa drive that have special approvals. whether that's through a pud also known as a planned unit development, which is where a property is given almost a site review or special approvals through an ordinance like the one that is within this application.

[11:02] So we have a lot of properties that don't essentially meet the code or are as title Ix. The land use code would allow, and a lot of those were given special approval, such as front setbacks, side setbacks. There's some building coverage variances that have gone on through the years, and some of these were even established prior to bulk, plan and side yard wall articulation regulations like that. But this is one of those streets where, you know, there's a lot of differences and a lot of special approvals to consider, and the character of the neighborhood is somewhat different than you would see maybe a few blocks away on another Rmx. One Zone property and And then I also showed the view, looking east from 2,050 mesa drive and the view looking west. the lower right image from 20 50 mesa drive. Just to give you an idea. If you weren't given a or if you didn't have the chance to drive down the street. This gives you an idea of what it looks like.

[12:04] and then we get into the actual structure. These are the architectural drawings. It's rare. We get to see hand drawn drawings like this. But this is a great example of what the actual building is gonna look like. And then also some of the bulk, plane encroachments or the parts of the home that exceed the bulk plane envelope are shown there in red. The upper left image is the west elevation, and the lower right image is the east elevation, or the right side of the house. If you're at the back of the house. and then we have the north elevation, which is the front of the house. From Mesa drive is the upper left image, and then the lower right image is the back of the house, the south side of the house. and then we can come back to these. But the applicant did provide some very detailed floor plans of all the levels. From left to right. It's the lower level mid level and the upper level.

[13:03] And then we get into the request at hand tonight, which is a bulk plan variance. It's 1 request, but it involves 2 sides of the house, so I split it up into those 2 sides of the house. The 1st one is the side west. That's the upper left image, you see with the arrow, and the applicant is requesting a variance for a maximum vertical projection outside of the bulk plane of approximately 9 feet. I use the most extreme part of the encroachment versus giving you every single point. Just for simplicity reasons. And then also this this image kind of provides you where that 9 foot location is, and then the lower right image is for a side east bulk, plane variance, and that's for a medical Ver or maximum vertical projection outside of the bulk plane of approximately 6 feet, and again, that 6 feet is the maximum vertical encroachment, or how much up above the bulk plane that the

[14:04] proposed. Home goes. and then this gives you a plans view, or an above aerial view of the home of those same encroachments I flopped or flip flopped the east and west. The upper one shows the side east again projection outside of the bulk plane 6 feet. and then the side west, which is the lower arrow, and that's for a maximum verbal projection outside of the bulk plan of 9 feet. and then we have some architectural elevations that without the semi opaque bulk plane over it. This gives you a clear view of what exactly what structural elements of the home are resulting in an exceedance of that bulk plane or an encroachment outside of that bulk plane. And again, you can see, I circled on both images. That most extreme point, the 9 feet is the upper image, and the lower image shows that kind of 5 foot

[15:00] or 6 foot vertical encroachment. But all of the areas in red are the areas that are encroaching outside of the bulk, plan and reason, or require the Board's approval. For them to move forward to the next step, which would, which would be a building permit. And then we have the architectural elevations for the the north front. which is the upper image, and the south rear, which is, or the back of the house, which is the lower right image. So getting into the criteria. There was a lot of evaluation and consideration from staff on this one. We will not be recommending approval of this application, and I'll go through briefly each of the criteria as to which ones staff supports and which ones we don't h 1 a was split into 2 parts. The applicant even responded to them in 2 parts.

[16:00] and staff is in support, or agrees that criterion. h. 1 a. Both I and I I are being met. It is a somewhat unique lot. It's smaller than the minimum lot size for in a typical Rmx, one zoning district. It's also a property that has a lot of unique topography, especially at the north end. So we recognize that this is not just a flat, large lot. It's a smaller lot, not the smallest the board have seen, but it is a smaller substandard size lot with some topography on it, and we also understand that there is the need for an elevator for future goal, physical disability. The need for the elevator is a necessity. As stated by the applicant. We recognize that we see that so under one A. Both I and I, I. Staff, does agree that it has been met under one B. The unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or zoning district.

[17:04] This is not common for the zoning district, but just looking up and down the street, and based on the information that I provided that a lot of these homes on the street have been given special approval. Special consideration. This is this is something that has occurred a lot, so the circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood. They do technically, but also the zoning district. They don't. So depending on which one zoning district or the neighborhood. One is being met. One is not so with this staff considers the zoning district with this is not common for the Rmx one. So we are saying that one B is being met one C, because of such physical circumstances or conditions, the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. This was one of 2 that we felt were not being met primarily, because this is a vacant lot. It's a clean slate.

[18:03] It feels like the design of a home to meet the restrictions of the bulk plane put in place, for this property could be met with a design that respects the bulk plane standards. So Steph does not consider one C having been met. and then one d. Any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. This one it's a small lot. The lot's been in this configuration for a while, even before the establishment of 2,050 through the ordinance and then also, there's some unique topography unique as in it's not a flat lot. So Staff could actually, get behind one d. Just saying that it's a somewhat unique and smaller than typical lot for Rmx. One jumping forward to 5 a. Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district. We are in support of 5 a. Simply because the street is very unique. There's a lot of special approvals. There's not a uniform setback. I don't know if there's even one a 25 foot setback within the next few lots around this property for a front yard. Most of them were given reduced front yard setbacks

[19:16] or side yards, so we do feel that this would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district, especially the street, that 2050 mesa is located on 5 B would not substantially or permanently impair reasonable use and enjoyment or development of adjacent properties. We did not hear back from any of the surrounding properties. Typically, when we don't hear back, we consider that people aren't necessarily against it. That said we do still have the public hearing portion of the meeting, so there could very well be neighbors that come out. But up to this point we have not received any written correspondence from any of the neighbors, so as of right. Now, staff feels that 5 B is being met.

[20:00] 5 c. Would be the minimum variance that would afford a relief, and would be the least modification of the app applicable provisions of this title well, like with one C staff, just feels that is this the minimum variance to afford relief, the relief being the construction of the home in its configuration, its size, its height. and we feel that because again, it's a vacant lot with a essentially a clean slate that a home could be designed to respect the bulk plan standards. Like it has respected the setbacks. the side yard wall, articulation solar. All of the other standards have been met. But unfortunately, the bulk plan standards could not be met, and this is probably something the applicant can expand upon also with one C. As to why it could not be designed in a way to respect the bulk plan, but as of right now, and what was provided within the application materials, including the applicant's response, and supporting materials. Staff does not feel that 5 C is being met.

[21:05] and then, lastly, 5 d. Would not conflict with the provisions of solar access. The applicant has stated that solar access will not be of issue. It's also a solar access area, too. Which is a more liberal more liberal solar access area with a 25 foot solar fence. So with the location and the design of the home no solar access violations have been presented and pending tonight, and then this going through a building permit. Eventually we would verify all of that at the building permit. So with that, I'll leave it at that. I know we have the applicant here. And then also, if you have any general zoning questions, I'd be more than happy to respond to those, and with that I will hand it back over to you, madam. Chair. Thank you, Robbie. So now I'd like to ask, does the board have any questions of staff.

[22:00] Ben? Please go ahead. Yes, Robbie, can you just go back to the variance criteria, please. and on the top line there it mentions that either h, 1 h, 2 h, 3, or h. 4 have to be satisfied. plus h. 5. See the very top line there, but we don't address h, 2, h, 3 or H. 4 here. Can you just remind us for the record what 2, 3, and 4 deal with. Of course, so I don't have H. 2, 3, or 4 on this. But what the code says is, you have to meet 1, 2, 3, or 4, and 5. So most most of the time, 80% of the time. What the Board sees is people responding to one in 5, criterion. 4 is more for landmark properties. So usually it's if a property is landmark, they can go to landmarks and get them to support a variance. And if that's the case, they would respond to 4 and 5, not one and 5 so, and then 2 and 3 involve electrical

[23:07] efficiency and all of that stuff. So 90, probably 80 to 90% of the time, you'll see one and 5. But we do give people the option to respond to 1, 2, 3, or 4, and 5. So with tonight the applicant responded to, and what staff used in our recommendation is criterion h. 1, and Criterion H. 5. Thank you. Drew you got both Drew, and then Katie. Sorry I'm mute. so, Robbie. I believe there's exceptions to the bulk plane rules with dormers. How would the applicant possibly work around. With those additional exceptions. So with, and I can read that code section if you want me to find it. But, in short, we do allow dormers to encroach into a bulk plane, if they're no taller than a certain amount, no wider than a certain amount, and total dormers cannot

[24:07] add up to accumulative length of so much. None of these are considered dormers, so they wouldn't apply for the exception section. But if you want me to read through the exceptions in a little more detail, I'd be more than happy to to. But typically we give size limitations for encroachments like chimneys and dormers. Okay? So actually, so, the like, the chimneys that were highlighted as being violating might not actually violate. Yeah, the the 2 pipes. I'm gonna call that on the image. Those would be considered like a chimney. So they are considered something that can encroach, but not the the rooms, the roof, forms that are below it. Okay? And I hypothetically. If I see the the elevator shaft encroaches.

[25:01] would that small section be considered a dormer? I don't believe so, and that's the part where there's a tree shown on top of it in one image, but not the other. That is, not, considered an explicit and something that can encroach into a bulk plane. And I'll I'll verify that. But I don't believe elevator shafts are considered an exception to the bulk plane. Alright. Thank you. Katie. Robbie, I was just wondering why or you don't see very many of these variance requests for ball, please. Is there a theory behind. Why, they don't come in that often. More times than not somebody can design a home, whether it's an addition or a new home to respect the bulk plane standards. We do have a lot of those exceptions, like gabled ends of roofs, are allowed to encroach up to a certain size. Dormers are allowed to encroach up to a certain size. So typically people can design something to meet it.

[26:02] That's not always possible. Which is why there's a variance avenue. Through Bosa that can be done. But, the reason why you probably don't see it is more times than not somebody can design whether it's a dormer or a part of a house to respect the 979 bulk claim standards. Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Robbie, and for the record, I'd like to know what is a dormer. A dormer. Oh, let me see if I can find the definition. It's pretty much a an extension beyond the main roof form for headspace. Whether that's a room. Dormers can be big dormers can be small through the bulk plan standards we limit how much can encroach in terms of height and width, but it's essentially just an extension off the main roof form for head space, so you can put windows in a lot of times. Dormers are put in for natural lighting and a lot of times they're also put in to provide more floor area within. Say, an attic space where you're gonna have that pitched gabled roof.

[27:03] If you want to have an extension of floor area or usable space, a lot of people will put dormers in to provide that. Excellent. Thank you, Robbie. and then my other question. You answered this in your presentation, but I just want to hear the answer again. What is the purpose of a bulk? Plane? I am going to go back to the definition. I'll just go ahead and read that again. So the purpose of side yard bulk plan is to ensure that building step down towards neighboring properties in order to enhance privacy, preserve some views and visual access to the sky for lots or parcels that are adjacent to new development. In short, it's meant to protect your neighbors from big, bulky homes being built next to you. This, in addition to side yard, bulk planes, solar access, and a few other standards are essentially meant to protect your neighbors, and from big boxy homes

[28:01] being built right up to your property line. So it's really a way to help. even though we don't have view corridors in Boulder. It's a way to help protect views, sunlight sky and just preventing homes from towering over other homes, especially when there's a vacant lot next to a an already developed lot. Thank you, Robbie. Does the board have any other questions for staff? Okay, thank you. All right. So now we are going to have the applicant presentation. and I don't have this on my cheat sheet. So, Thomas, where are you, Thomas? Can you please remind me of the requirements for the applicant's presentation, the name, the address. and the time limit. Please. Oh!

[29:00] Or Erin. I can do that. I I have that available. The applicant time period is 15 min, and we ask that they introduce themselves by name and provide an address. Excellent. Thank you. Erin. Thomas. Yeah. If you can keep track of that, that'd be great. So now we are going to have the applicant presentation, and who will be presenting to start is that Christopher or Peter. Christopher. Christopher, okay. And Peter oh, oh, Peter went away. Okay. Oh, there's Peter. I'm gay. Okay? And so, if I remember correctly, the applicant has a total of 15 min between Peter and Christopher. So you all can divide that time, however, you'd like but I'd ask that each one of you please state your name and your address before you start. The testimony. I'm Christopher Melton. architect. and 7, 6, 1 North Avenue, Macon, Georgia.

[30:00] and I'll take the whole 15 min if that's okay with you, Peter. Yeah, that's fine. It just said the applicant needed to start it. So if you're okay with that, I'm perfectly fine. With that. Okay. It's your. Everybody ready! Thomas, are we ready. Did everybody have enough? I said it. Can you hear me. We can. Can you hear me? Yes, please go ahead, Mr. Melton. So did all of you have an opportunity to read. The narrative has a question. Can you hear me? Yes. Everyone had an opportunity to read the narrative. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Well, I'm gonna start by a little bit more elaboration on the history of the project. and and an explanation of the design procedure which led me to this project solution the way it is now. you know, 1st of all. when an architect's retained to design a house full blank

[31:04] piece of land. There's so many things to take into consideration. Most primary is all the site conditions and how the the program fits the site. We work the program out with the client. And that's a very important aspect in the design process. Have to conform to the to the clients program. So in this case. there's several unique things about this particular site that sort of determine the form massing, and so forth and siding of the house. The I don't know if you can access things like parts of my presentation to you or submittal to you, but the property to the east of our of our land

[32:01] has uniquely along. Mesa drive an open space which is gonna remain open. It's too small to meet any kind of codes and variances would be, I mean, zoning and variances would be really, really difficult. So that was a new piece that's gonna remain an open space. And I wanted to be sure to take advantage of that in doing the layout of the house. Okay? So you can see there that there's that piece that's open just to the east northeast of our property. and you can also see in this particular photograph I mean drawing, that the residents to the east is set back, or roughly 20 feet from the side yard. Property line, the the interior property line.

[33:00] so that side in terms of how this bulk plane is affecting neighbors. and then you see as well. You can see that small square in the property towards the south end of our development. In that little square is a detached accessory building to the property that still is accessed from the lower street bluff. and that is more than likely, because I mean, it's exactly the size of a 2 car garage. a minimum, 2 car garage. But I think it's more than likely a studio of some sort. I want to point out there, too, that the north edge of that studio is in line, more or less, plus or minus a foot or 2, with the south edge of the upper level of my design. And so projecting bulk plane directly off of the

[34:05] east property line. That ball plane is not encroach that is not encroaching on the sky, accessibility, view, etc, of the little studio. And clearly and obviously it's not affecting the houses set back 20 feet from the property line. That's too far back for this ball playing to even come into play now on the East Side. Well, let me get back to the, to the, to the, to the process of design. So that was an important consideration to design the building where we had the the furthest and and most separate structures on the east side. So we designed the massing of the building so that our 3 story portion

[35:03] well, which is actually well, it is a 3 story building. So walk out basement is what it is. but so that the east side of the building has all the public spaces and bedrooms. because that would be the least intrusive outside of the property. The west side, where the where the building is is 4 feet from the property line. The the existing house on the west side is 4 feet from the property line. There. I wanted for that side of the our building to only have the carport and circulation that way we could limit our windows, and we wouldn't have bedrooms looking into bedrooms that would ensure the privacy of of ourselves. our property, as well as the

[36:01] the house to the west. So that's how that how the arrangement of spaces evolve. and the siding of the house was a consequence of wanting to incorporate the the open spaces uniquely existing on mesa Drive, with an open space that we could provide by setting the the mid level of the house, which is lower down, 10 feet. The mid level of this house is 10 feet below the street. and so that's the main living area. Living room, dining room, kitchen. and so that's 10 feet below and comes out on grade from the kitchen. And that way we could incorporate that open space that exists along with the northeast corner of our property as more or less a sunken garden. and had that relate to the kitchen living room, dining room space very private in there, and we would stay away from everyone else because of the setback of the East House and the remoteness of the little studio that exists in the northwest corner of the Bluff Street property there on our East side.

[37:19] So that's how the the the massing and the program of the house evolved. and the it originally. And there's another piece of history that I don't think 15 min is going to be enough. But anyway, the the history of this of this design process we initially designed, I initially designed the House based on it being a non-standard lot and use the required setbacks. Well, the Rmx. One sound. and because of it being a non-standard lot, we had a restricted height.

[38:00] So we decided we would ask for site, review and increase it as for an increase in the height, because it was very difficult to deal with this house with the restricted house, the height of the of the non standard lot. So we went for a site review asking for a variance for the height and when we submitted for that variance, and and also in because of the restrict, more restrictive nature of the Rmx. One zone as opposed to the Pud, the city council reinstated for us after a 4 and a half year long. Lawsuit. or the the city council reinstated our Pu. D. And and I could go into detail about that, but it's not important. But they did. They reinstated it. So it changed after the house was schematically designed with a carport, because we couldn't make it work with an enclosed a 2 foot front yard setback. We negotiate. We had a an 11 foot front yard setback, based on front yard setback, averaging in the neighborhood, because

[39:12] everybody along that street is violation of a 25 foot required setback. There happens to be the Rmx. One zone, and was also the required setback at the time of the puds were issued, so everybody got a a relief from the required front yard setbacks that happened so in the initial design we could only make a carport work. We had everything within the bulk, plane. far side yard, articulation. everything except the height, and we needed a variance on the height. To make this happen. we submitted for a site review, and 1st response from the city was, you don't need a site review. You're operating under a pud, or you don't have to conform to the restricted height you're available to go ahead with the 35 foot height.

[40:13] That was great. Then we got 2 or 3 conflicting or pieces of information from the city after that, with the final one being, we're sorry we you don't have a building lot anymore, because because you're under the merger proposition, where, if you have it built on a subdivided lot within a certain length of time, and it's been remained under a certain ownership for that length of time. Then the city considers the lots merged, even though it to this day, and since 1987 those 2 lots have existed as 2 non standard lots in the clerk and recorders, offices of the State of Colorado, and my client had been paying taxes on 2 separate lots that period of time. So now the city has told us at this point that no, you don't have a building site at all these lots. It's merged, and you can only have one house on the lot, and it's already existing down on Bluff Street.

[41:20] So then my client retained attorneys, and for 4 and a half years, battled with the city and finally won. The basis of the the win was that it's unconstitutional both from the State of Colorado and the United States for a taking of value. You can do imminent domain, and under those circumstances take something, but you have to pay for it. But the city of Boulder, and based on this ordinance, actually reduce the 600,000 plus value of a non-standard building lot in Boulder, Colorado. Believe it or not

[42:01] reduce that to 0. So they took the value of my clients house, based on this ordinance as complicated. Understand? I'm talking as fast as I can, because I've only got 15 min. So City Council agreed they didn't want to set a precedent in court, and the city attorney advised more than likely, and I'm speculating here that the the courts would not uphold the constitutionality of that particular ordinance in these particular circumstances. So city council and city attorney advised of. Let's concede. And they did. And so that's the 85 79, the new ordinance. That's what we're operating under now. So now the the design program has changed, the parameters have changed as a consequence of this litigation. And so now we have a situation where yes, we can have a garage, and at this point, my client decided, I'm getting older.

[43:05] took 4 and a half years. I didn't know about it. But now I'm getting older. And so I'm gonna need an elevator. Well, the whole thing is set up with the advantages of the unique advantages that the site is presenting to us. And so I didn't want to mess with that at all. That is exactly the way the program fits most appropriately on this site. It solves all of my my clients, desires and problems. and it does it in a very integrated and efficient way. except for the fact that that elevator had to be contiguous with the garage as a consequence. Of course you want to come out of the garage at the level of the elevator. get in the elevator and go up or down. And so that was the only way to connect that elevator with the garage.

[44:00] So we did, and in the process of doing that, because the elevator lobby at ie. Entrance from the garage in the house is at a level only 2 and a half feet below the upper level of the Oh of the of the upper level. Then it made perfect sense. Then, since we already had to have a landing coming from the elevator on the south side of the property. We already had to have that landing, to accommodate the elevator. to. To just make this a quick stare up from the entrance from the garage to the upper level beside the elevator. So the only thing that's really in encroaching on the or side yard bulk plane is the elevator and the vertical circulation to get to the 3rd floor necessitated by

[45:03] the elevator being there. How are we doing? Are we listening. Rebecca? Can anybody hear me? Oh, we're closing in on it, Robbie. I need more time. Robbie, can you hear me? Can anybody hear me. Yes, I am, and no one. Can hear me. Nikki. I believe you send it. Don't mute me. How do you make it. Unmute. Thank you so much. Mr. Melted. Yeah. Now, can you hear? Yes, we heard all of your testimony. Don't! Don't mute me, please. No, no, wait, no, wait, please. Yup so. No, you haven't. Please wait just one moment, please. Mr. Melton, Mr. Melton. No, wait! Please wait! Mr. Melton. Yeah, we we have. We have. Yes. We have gotten to our 15 min period, and we did hear your testimony. So thank you so much for your testimony. No way, please. This? No. So Mr. Melton. Wait, listen, wait. Mr. Melton at this time. I do need to proceed with the rest of our our meeting, so thank you so much for your testimony.

[46:00] I don't think that I don't think that's fair. It's cost us enormous amount of time and effort. You muted me again. It's cost us an enormous amount of time and effort to get to this position. And now I can't explain the process to you, because I've run out of. Yes, I do understand, Mr. Milton. We everyone on the board was able to. My 15 min allowed. It's cost us thousands of dollars to gain, you know. I get 15 min. Robbie, can you hear me, Robbie? Yes, Mr. Melton. Hear me! Yes, Mr. Nelson, my name is Nikki Mccord, and I'm the acting chair of this committee at this point in time. Thank you so much for your testimony. We did hear all 15 min of your testimony, as well as receive all of your application materials as well. So with that I will now ask if the Board has any questions for the applicant, and I'm going to start with our most junior member and go to our most senior member. So, Ben, do you have any questions for the applicant at this point in time.

[47:02] Yes, I do just have one point of clarification, Mr. Milton. You were referencing the open space to the east. Can you just expand on that is, that protected by a conservation easement? Or what? What does that mean? Open space. No, no, it just means it doesn't have anything built on it, and won't have anything built on it. And so it was an opportunity for us to but our open space in this 25 foot setback that we've used between. or our property line and the building, to make that contiguous with an existing open space. So visually they connect. And that's that's a very logical and and a compelling thing to do when you have that situation existing on the lot.

[48:01] And so that's what I mean. It can't be built on, because if you put in a a 25 foot front yard setback and 25 foot rear yard setback in that little pan handle. It sticks out there and a 5 foot side yard setback, or is that in this case it has to be a 10 foot side yard setback. Then you you don't have any space left to build on at all, and so it's not going to get built unless somebody can come before Bozo and get total exceptions from front, side and rear yard setbacks, which is not likely. And so that's what I meant by open space. It's not designated open space. It is simply open space without a building on it, giving some air to an otherwise way. Tight set of houses along Mesa, and it's a unique situation

[49:02] thing. Thank you. Follow. You got it. Correct. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Ben, did you have any other questions for the applicant? No, that answers it. Thank you. Thank you. Ben drew questions for the applicant. Please. Nice man. Yeah, looking at the design, I guess you focused on the the western side. I guess. Could you explain why the elevator? Which I think is the main reason for the encroachment could not be placed to the east of the garage or closer to the garage. It it it well, it can, but perhaps it can. I haven't investigated that. But perhaps it can. It would be really hard to explain to you how tightly this thing has been configured. That is the

[50:00] certainly that relationship to the garage is the best relationship. But there's so much more I wanted to mention about that west side. And yeah, okay, yeah, that answers your question. Yes, it. Of course it could be. And you know, in in a little blurb that I wrote to my client because he's rather concerned there in in designing there. There's there's so much that has to be taken into consideration. and especially with the constricted nature of this site and paramount, or the clients program. And second to that is how you site the house and and get it there. The garage needs to be in the location. It's in it. If if I didn't orient it in the way that I did, then the entire garage would be encroaching on the bulk plane if I had set it right to the side yard setback.

[51:09] We aren't able to use the side yard setback because of the side yard bulk plane to its maximum. But we have in some cases, and the only thing that's encroaching in the side yard bulk plane is the elevator and the vertical circulation to the upper level that could be moved. but it would it would have a a a very bad effect on the function of the small open space that we have available to us is shared with the open space to the east as well, it it could be moved. But it would. you know, of course, if if I'm denied this I will redesign use by right. That's I'm a very good architect. I've been practicing for 55 years. I can do that.

[52:04] But in my opinion. as I developed this project of all things to all the things that came up. that we're restricting this design. The one that was least impactful for anyone was the 4% of the volume of the building surface. It's falling in a bulk plane. The the house of the West has considerably more area in the bulk plane than our house, because at that time they didn't have a bulk plane ordinance when they built all those houses along. Oh, Mesa, they're all jammed up against this property lines, and they're all encroaching on each other's bulk plane. And so, when I considered all of the things, and as I mentioned in the history.

[53:02] this, the the elevator, and and the circulation move occurred after the House was principally designed and cited, and all of the program information was arranged in in the best possible way. Like, I said, with the living spaces and the bedrooms on the east side, and the carport and circulation on the west side, affording privacy to our neighbor on the West and affording us privacy from them. The other side is not an issue of privacy. And so I don't see the bulk plane over there, as I've pointed out earlier. I don't see the East Side bulk plane being of any consequence at all. It's not impending anyone. And and you know, because this. The the principal house that is on mesa is 2020 feet away from our property line. It's not going to be affected by the vault plane at all.

[54:08] And and the little studio is south of our 3 story element, and it's not going to be affected by the ball plane at all. And so that's that's how this whole thing developed. And why, rather than site review, which was our initial request, we ended up here at Bozo with a very minor, relatively minor encroachment into the side yard bulk plane. And it's the least impactful piece that I could eliminate from integrating everything that is of great consequence into a piece of architecture. And now Robbie's told me ever so many times that this board is not in the least bit concerned with architecture. However, as an architect, I am very concerned with architecture.

[55:03] and I've done an excellent job on this house, with the exception of the very minor encroachment on the west side of the building into the side yard bulk plain. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Melton, for that. Answer absolutely, Judy. Have any other questions for the applicant. I guess. So. Yeah, on the on the East side, which I we didn't talk much about, but it looks like the encroachment. It's a closet in the master bedroom. I guess. Yeah, I guess. Maybe explain why why the encroachment is needed. There. Well. I could lower it by a foot. The the ceiling in the closet is at this point at 7 foot. But is it the code minimum for for inhabitable habitatable space.

[56:03] 7 feet. That's the code minimum. And codes are like, not like P. And Z. You can't get a variance for a code. It's life. Safety issues. P and Z is not life. Safety issues is communal issues. It's relationship issues. how buildings relate to each other, and in the process Pnz deliberately said, in fact, in place variance processes to accommodate circumstances, and in this case we very clearly demonstrated a hardship, as Robbie has confessed to. We've demonstrated the hardship that that the site drops off 10 feet before even gets to our building or or envelope. and and but by then the bulk plane should out try to build on the 4 foot setback that was gifted to us, I should say gifted to us at the cost of 4 and a half years of legislation or or litigation. It was gifted to us the 4 foot West Side yard setback. We can't take advantage of it, because anything any building

[57:25] built on that 4 foot side yard setback is the building the bulk plane is going to encroach on. If it meets the minimum height of the code required minimum height, anything. That's why I skewed the garage the way I did to get just the tip of that garage in the bulk plane. and then it came up that we have to locate the elevator and the stairs to access the 3rd floor.

[58:00] The ideal position for them. and is causing nobody any problems. Thank you. Mr. Milton. Looks like Drew may have another question. Do you? Did you have a follow up to that. Nope, thank you very much. Much talking. Thank you very much for your testimony. You're welcome. Thanks for asking the question. How about you, Erwin? Katie. I'll I'll go ahead and run the meeting. Thank you, Katie. Do you have any questions for the applicant at this time? No drew's questions regarding that the elevator and the West Side encroachment? His question sort of got it. The issues that I was interested in. So I'm good. Excellent. Thank you, Katie. Mr. Milton, I have a question in regards to the studio that you're talking about on the other side of the house. You talked about the studio not being impacted. Have you or the or anyone else from your team spoken to those neighbors about the impact that this

[59:02] bolt playing would have on their on their studio, or on any part of their residence. Haven't talked to any. I haven't talked to any of the neighbors. Okay, I'm in Georgia for one and I don't know if Peter, my, I, Peter, was hired to navigate the digital process. It is exclusively the process used to submit for these variances and and building permit and so forth. I don't know how to do that. I'm a luddite, and proud that I my neighbor, bless his heart! Nathan is over here coaching me on how to use this device. I'd much rather have been in a meeting. But anyway no, I haven't spoken to any of the neighbors. What I'm telling you is about is about where it is situated, relative to the house, and relative to the parts of the house that are encroaching on the vault plain on the east side. It's south of that portion of the house. It's

[60:05] it's more or less right at the point where the house drops 10 feet. And so it's the ball playing is not encroaching on his sky view. Okay. Thank, thank. There's nothing I could go on but. That that answered. Question. That answered my question. Thank you so much, Mr. Milton. At this time. Thomas. I'm going to ask that you remove the applicant from our zoom screen. Because I'm going to start with the public testimony. So, Thomas, if you can go ahead and take care of that, and while you are taking care of that, I will go ahead and read the instructions for citizen comment on this application. So if we do have any citizen comment. Thomas was able to read the rules and regulations in regards to that public comment earlier in our meeting. But I'm just going to go over a couple of things as well. All speakers must speak into the microphone and give their names and addresses.

[61:13] All comments should be addressed to the hearing body should be relevant to the application and should not be a personal nature. We're going to have 3 min for each person who would like to add public comment, and Thomas is going to help me keep track of that. So we're going to have a 3 min time limit. Please avoid repetitive comments and unruly behavior, such as booing, or hissing, or or harassing remarks, is prohibited. So with this, I would like to know from Thomas, if we have any members of the public who are well, who are willing to testify on this matter. Sure. Yeah, at this time, if you'd like to give your comment on this matter. Please go ahead and raise your hand, using the raise hand function on zoom. and then we'll go ahead and call on you in order, and you'll each be given 3 min to speak.

[62:10] and we do have one hand raised right now. 1st up we have tim coral coral. Tim, please state your name for the record, and then you'll be given 3 min. Just one second. Let me get this timer up. And Thomas. I do believe Tim needs to be promoted. Hello, Tim! Thank you. Everyone. Can. I be heard. Yes, we wonderful. So this is Tim coral. Yeah. Good job of pronouncing the name. I am the owner of the property immediate to the immediately to the East. and therefore the subject of this quote unquote, vacant lot area. and so I

[63:00] have a comment related to the section 5 B. Sorry I couldn't get anything written in earlier we received the notification this meeting about 10 days ago, and then, looking over the guidance, it said that written comments had to be received 2 weeks in advance, so I'm glad I could attend the meeting and just and just put my comments in that way. So I agree with Mr. Melton. It is correct that under current zoning rules that flag side lot, that empty property can't be built on. However, 5 BI noticed the word permanently, and you know it is a presumption of Mr. Milton that that side lot could never be built on the little studio that's being referred to. Would fit quite nicely, in my opinion, and quite comfortably on there, and I know that boulder is always driving for increased density. Affordable housing, you know. What could we do

[64:04] in within the city? So I think it's just a presumption that that property can never be built on. Can't be now. But who knows what will happen in the future with the city and different zoning? So just wanted to reflect that on 5 B. I do believe that the variance that's being asked for is pretty minor. I looked at all it. I looked at the lot I looked over there. I think it's pretty minor. I'm not. I don't have a big concern about that. Just don't want to impact any future development opportunities. With regard to the the rule. 5 B. That I saw. So thank you so much for your attention and appreciate your considerations. Thank you so much, Mr. Corley. Is there any. This time, if anybody else would like to speak. Please raise your hand, and I'll go ahead and

[65:00] call on you and get your time up. Otherwise we'll move on to the next section of the meeting. and nobody else has raised their hands. Excellent. Thank you so much, Thomas. So if there is no other public comment on this matter, then it is open to the board for discussion. So I'm going to go the same way that I went previously. I'm going to start with our most junior member and go to our most senior member. So, Ben, any comments that you'd like to give for discussion of this item. I appreciated the applicants. History on the evolution of the design that was helpful. I certainly agree with the facts that it's a challenging site. I think I'm struggling a bit to. I didn't hear a clear rebuttal from the applicant to Staff's position that

[66:00] you really could design and build house on this site without a side yard bulk plan variance and then related to that. Is this really the minimum variance needed? And I guess what I'm struggling with a little bit is. you know, I find the the variance request on the eastern side less compelling. On the western side. you know I hear the elevator as the driving design factor there. but it seemed like the applicant said it actually could be moved elsewhere. and I hate to ask an owner to to go through a redesign process, and I know it's expensive. It takes takes time, but just trying to apply the criteria here. It seems like it maybe could reasonably be developed without the need for a variance. And so I'm a little stuck there. I don't think we have an obligation to approve a project with an elevator.

[67:02] so I don't even know that I could give a straw poll vote yet. Madam Chair, but that's where I'm at. Thank you. Ben Drew. I have similar sentiments to as Ben I also came to this similar conclusion as Robbie, that the one C and the 5 c are the 2 that are in question of whether or not they they meet the criteria, you know. I just. I always go through the criteria. I do think it is a challenging lot that topography makes it difficult. I do think that the narrow, the lot width is standard in that neighborhood. and so yeah, I I do think. that that it does meet the the criteria on the the difficulty. But the the main question is is whether or not it can be built within the conformity of the the current code.

[68:01] and I I guess I'm not convinced that it can't be. I believe that there's not not a clear reason why it needs to. you know, needs an exception to the code. so. and I guess similar to what Robbie and and Ben has said. Thank you, Drew. Katie. Sort of the same, I mean, when when Drew asked him? Asked the applicant. Essentially, you know, sort of could the elevator be moved sort of restructured so that it was within the bulk. Plane. He it sound a again. It sounded like I I mean, I'm I was a little confused by it all, but it sounded like the applicant. He didn't give a strong rebuttal. He kind of pondered and and sort of thought about it and and sort of left open the possibility that it could be

[69:05] restructure potentially to to lie within the bulk plane and so that just led me to think. Maybe this is not the minimum variance that could be. You know that he didn't mean the minimum criteria So you know it. It's hard, when you're not an architect, to to know exactly how difficult it would be to to redesign it so that it would be within the the bulk plane requirement. But it it just sounded like the applicant didn't have a strong rebuttal to that. To that question. Thank you, Katie. So for me, I'm relying on criteria 5 c. With the minimum variance would be the minimum variance that would afford relief, and would be the least modification of the of the applicable provisions of this title.

[70:09] And for me, I'm I'm in agreement with my colleagues. I I think that this site can be developed in a way, where they don't need the variance and so I I don't think that this is the minimum variance that could be afforded, and so for that I would not be in in favor of supporting this motion. Now, however. we do have a practice on Boza to not straight out. deny a motion, because there are implications that come with denying a motion, one being that the applicant has, I believe, a year. I'm looking to Erin to to help me out here, but a year to be able to reapply, and so what I'd like to do at this time. Well, I saw Erin take herself off mute, Erin, if you'd like to add something.

[71:00] Yes, thank you, madam. Chair under the Bozo rules. If an applicant is denied, they are barred from bringing a substantially similar application for one year from the date of denial. Thank you for that clarification, Erin. So what I'd like to do now is just offer a straw straw poll. This is a non binding. it's not even about it's a poll. So I'd like to hear from the colleagues in terms of your willingness to approve or deny this motion just based on the straw poll as it as we kind of presented it. So I'll start with you, Ben. Yeah. So I would not be in favor of approving the variance as proposed today. I would be open to tabling this to give the applicant a chance to come back. And just on the narrow issue of why is their proposal the minimum minimum variance needed. and to explain why

[72:01] the program can't reasonably be developed within the bulk plane. Excellent, thank you. Ben Drew. I agree with Ben. I couldn't support this as as it is written today. and I guess just as a as a side note. You know. I know that it'll probably they've come back with an alternative proposal. It'll probably take 2 months. But in the in the scheme of things that the house is going to be there for a very long time. So I think it's important that we get this correct? So I just want to put that in perspective. I know it can be frustrating. Thank you for those comments Drew. Katie. Yeah, I I agree. Rather than an outright denial. It seems like a continuance would be the best approach. and hopefully he could, you know, either modify it pretty inexpensively, or come up with maybe just a clearer rationale. Why, this was this is the only design that

[73:04] that he can come up with. Excellent. Thank you, Katie. I, too, am in agreement with my colleagues in terms of doing a continuance by the board, so that the applicant has more time to make modifications and answer some of the questions that the Board has about this application. So I have a I have something on continuance by the board, so the board may continue the hearing on a matter upon motion of a member. If the motion is made and passed before passage or denial of said application, provided, however, the movement shall publicly state the reason for the motion and the board can allow both the applicant and spokesperson for the opposition, an opportunity to state the opposition on the proposed continuance before vote is taken. So Erin, in plain, in plain English, it sounds like we need a motion to continue. Is that correct?

[74:00] That is correct, and the applicant can speak to whether or not they are in support of that continuance. And and I guess there is no real opposition. But perhaps Robbie Wyler would give a staff position on it. And and typically the the rules say it's scheduled for a date certain no later than the next regularly scheduled hearing date, or is otherwise granted the board. So something for the Board to think about is when you wanna have them come back by it could be 90 days, or it could be since the the days work out oddly with the second Tuesday meetings that maybe it's by the November Bose, a meeting, or or December, or whatever you prefer. Thank you, Erin, and then my, my next question is. do we make the motion for the continuance first, st and then the discussion happens on whether or not the applicant and and or Robbie would like to speak to that motion because it's a motion on continuance? Or does the discussion happen before the motion on continuance is raised.

[75:09] I. I would take the discussion first, st because that may impact the motion that is ultimately made. Okay, excellent. And do we have time limits? And historically, have we had time limits on the continuance discussion. No, at at your discretion, as chair. Okay, I'd like to grant 5 min to the applicant and to Robbie. Robby, you have the 5 min, if you like to use it, but I'd like to. I'd like to give 5 min to both the applicant and Robbie to talk about Their opposition of the of the proposed continuance before the vote is taken. So, Mr. Melton, if you'll want to go ahead and we'll put 5 min on the timer for you.

[76:00] Circle. I'm muted. We can hear you, Mr. Melter. Hear me! Yes, we can hear you. Please continue. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. let me understand. Continuous it'd be. I can come back to you with a revised design, getting everything out of the bulk plane, at least on the west side, and then ask for variance. For example, on the East Side, which nobody seems to object to, not even the the owner of the property on the East Side is that is that sound like something that's probable. I think that the best course of action going forward is to submit something that responds to the questions that the Board had in terms of not being able to approve this variance at this point in time. I want to know what I'm going to be designing

[77:01] that's what I want to know, I want to know what my new parameters are going to be if I come back to this board and have some bulk plane encroachment. Is that a no, no! Do I have to come back to this board with no bulk plane encroachment. That's a question. So if there is no bulk playing encroachment, you would not be coming to this board because you would not be asking for variance. If there will be a bulk plane encroachment in the future, then yes, that would need to come before the bows aboard again. I can't hear you. Alright, I'm I'm. It says, get started. She's only breaking out. Yeah, no. Is there anything. Okay, I heard that you couldn't hear me. Sorry. And Erie. All right. I'll go ahead and repeat myself. Then. Mr. Melton, if you come back without encroaching in the bulk plane at all, you will not need to come back to Boza, because there will be no need for a variance. You can build by right. However, if you do submit a design in the time period in which we the board will discuss that has a bulk plane encroachment. Then. Yes, you would be coming back to the Boza board, and asking for a variance for that.

[78:24] Okay. But okay. yeah, I understand that now. That was silly of me. If I don't have any of various requests, and there's no point in coming back to you guys for sure and And and you're gonna figure out a time that I, the soonest time I can come back. Yes, from the discussion. I'm sorry. Please go ahead, Mr. Malton. I don't have a little green thing. There we go. Well, that was it. Go ahead, discuss it. Tell me when I can come back.

[79:02] Okay. And so you still have 2 min on the timer. If you'd like to use the rest of your time, if not, we can move on. I'm afraid to. I'm afraid to. I'm afraid to. I'm upset with the board. I'm an architect of 55 years. Somebody on the Board wanted to know what a dormer was. I had don't mean to be flipping, but yeah, I'm not sure how much of what I said got understood, and I'm extremely disappointed that I didn't get to explain the whole thing. We've been 4 and a half 5 years actually in the process of getting this house to a building permit and thousands of dollars just to get to this board. And I got 15 min that comes to thousands of dollars per minute.

[80:01] you know. And I I just feel like having been railroaded by rules again. I'm not down with rules, particularly because they don't conform to circumstances, and that's why they have boards like border zoning adjustments. It's because rules can't conform to circumstances. There's too many circumstances. They're infinite. That's That's sort of a comment. I hope I haven't pissed anybody off except myself. Done. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Mr. Melton. At this time we've stopped the timer, and I'd like to start the time. 5 min, and, Bobby, I'm giving you an opportunity to speak as well. I've never been timed during a Bozo meeting, but I'll make it happen. Pending the decision of Boza with a continuance. typically, we say, within 90 days, or, like Aaron said, by a certain meeting time.

[81:05] I can tell you. If it were like by next month, we would need all materials by 2 next Tuesday at the latest, which doesn't seem possible. So usually we give them 3 months, or if you wanted 4 months, that's completely up to the Board to discuss and vote on but during that time it gives staff time to work with the applicant to provide revised materials. We also have public notice requirements. There's a lot of behind the scenes that goes on. But also, if the applicant decides that they're going to redesign to something that does not require a variance during that time. They can request a withdrawal of the application through staff. They wouldn't have to come back to Bosa for that withdrawal. So they have that option as well, so they can redesign work with staff make deadlines that we would present to them, depending on what meeting they wanted to go to, and if they decided to withdraw they could do that and not have to do that in front of the board.

[82:02] I believe so, Aaron, correct me if I'm wrong on that. I believe that's what is happened that the board kind of gives the outer time limit by which the applicant has to come back, and then the exact meeting is worked out between planning staff and the applicant. Yep. And that's it from me. Okay, thank you, Erin and Robbie. Alright. So at this time I'd like to entertain a motion for continuance of me. Pull up the. So I registered. Just a just a comment on the amount of time allowable. I guess I would be in favor of maybe up to 6 months for them to come back. Just to allow the time for them to propose something new and go, you know, with behind the scenes, and also to develop the new idea.

[83:05] and obviously they can come as soon as they're ready to come. But I I personally don't know if there's much advantage to giving less time. But that's up for discussion. Thank you, Drew. So you're you're proposing a upper limit of February 2025. Yeah, okay. thank you for that, Drew. So I'd like to entertain a motion. So I'd like for someone to make a motion to continue both. Boz 2, 0, 2, 4, 0 0 0 9 to February of 2025. I move that we continue voz point 24 dash 0 0 9 9

[84:01] to allow the applicant time to revise their materials. And we would give them up to the greater of 180 days, or to the February close the meeting. and that well, if they come back to Boza. They focus on criteria h. 1 c. And H. 5 C. But under the code. Okay, can I just wanted for clarification? Can we put the second part in the motion in terms of focusing on particular parts of the of the ordinance. I would maybe frame it as a suggestion, so that they I like. I like what Ben's doing, that the applicant is on notice what was what was missing here, that the Board needs to hear more about. To consider the criteria. Okay, that's. Is that okay, Ben, would that fit with your motions? Yes, thank you.

[85:01] Thank you, Ben. I need a second. Please. Second. Thank you, Katie. And then we'll vote. Ben. I've. Drew. I. Katie. Right. I vote and affirmative as well. All right. So those of 2024, 0 0 9 has been continued up until February 2025 and the applicant has an opportunity to come before us sooner if they need a variance, or to withdraw their application if they no longer need a variance going forward. So thank you, everyone for your testimony. Thank you for the applicant for providing their testimony as well as to the public. drew. Just a suggestion for the applicant. The recording will involve a very clear recording of the meeting, so I think there might have been a few comments that were missed maybe due to poor poor connection. So I recommend listening to the recording, to, to fully hear all of our comments.

[86:05] Thank you for offering that up Drew. All right. So that is the only business item we have on the agenda. So next we'll go to the minutes. So were there any corrections to the July 9, th 2024. Bozeman, meaning minutes. All right. Is there a motion to approve. So moved. Thank you. Ben. Second. Second. Thank you, Katie. Ben. but I okay, perfect. Drew. Alright! Katie. Aye. I vote in affirmative as well. Perfect. All right, we'll move on to other matters. Are there other matters from the board at this time. Okay, are there other matters from the city attorney?

[87:00] No, thank you. No, no matters here. Alrighty freezing right along. Anybody from staff. So no, I'm just kidding we just have one item. The application deadline for the September 10th meeting was Monday. and we did receive, or we do have 2 applications that, as of today are moving forward. So it does appear. We're going to have a September meeting and pending the application tonight we might very well have 3 formal completeness. Checks have not occurred that usually occurs at the end of the application week. But it does appear. We're going to have a September meeting, so, as always, I'll say it again. If you have a planned absence. Let us know as soon as possible, and then we'll probably ask you to remind us again closer to the meeting. But we would love to see everybody at that meeting, especially since it appears we're going to have multiple items. So that's it from staff. Excellent. Thank you so much, Robbie, all right. Looks like our meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Everyone, for your participation, and see you all next month.

[88:03] Thank you, Lydia. Great. Yeah. Good job. Nikki. Thanks all. Thank you. Bye. Bye. I.