April 8, 2025 — Board of Zoning Adjustment Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:03] All right. So this is a meeting of the Board of Zoning adjustments. Tonight we have 2 items. The order of the items will be as follows, first, st we'll hear Boz, 2, 0 2, 5, 0 0 2, which is 8, 25, Inca. Parkway. and secondly, we'll hear Bo. Z. 2025, 0 0 0 3, which is 32, 1020th Street. Let's see. on each item. Staff will present 1st and the applicant second. Next. The public will be invited to comment. Then the Board will discuss. So I haven't done this in a while. This is my second time sharing the the meeting. So I'm going to rely heavily on Robbie to help me out here. Robbie, can you help me understand what comes next? In terms of reading the norms of participation.

[1:03] Yes, so I would say, let's next swear in our new board member, Shawn. Get that out of the way. And then, after that, I believe, Thomas, you may have some information protocol rules for virtual meetings. So we could probably just jump into that and then get into the items. If that's okay. That sounds perfect. Let's do it that way. Madam Chair, may I proceed? Please, do. Thank you. Mr. Haney, can you hear me clearly? I can. Can you please raise your right hand and repeat after me the oath of office for the Board of Zoning Adjustments? I, Sean Haney. Hi Sean Haney. Do solemnly swear or affirm. Do solemnly swear or affirm. That I will support the Constitution of the United States of America. That I will support the Constitution of the United States of America.

[2:02] And of the State of Colorado. And of the State of Colorado. And the charter and ordinances of the City of Boulder. And the charter and ordinances of the City of Boulder. And faithfully perform the duties of the office of a member of the Board of Zoning adjustment. And faithfully perform the duties as an officer of the office of? Can we repeat that. Yes, and faithfully perform the duties of the office. And faithfully perform the duties of the office. Of a member of the Board of Zoning Adjustment. As of a member of the Board of Zoning adjustment. Which I am about to enter. Which I'm about to enter. Thank you. And then, if I may ask Robbie, is there a protocol for getting a signature? Given that this is a virtual meeting? Or is that unnecessary. We were told by the clerk's office that it is unnecessary for them to get a copy back. It would be more for our records. So I don't think it would hurt to get that somehow signed. It can be a virtual signature. There's no problem with that, but we can do that, you know, in the coming days. So I will work on that after today.

[3:17] Thank you. Madam, Chair, that concludes the swearing in of the newest member. Excellent. Thank you so much, Dashauna. Welcome, Sean. We're happy to have you as part of the team. Thank you. I think I want to take this opportunity to just introduce everyone. Say hello. So. Shawn has a an idea of who is on the phone. So what I'd like to do like to do is something a little bit different. I'd love to go through each person that we can see on the screen, so that includes you to Shauna Robbie and Thomas. and I'd like to hear you introduce yourself. Let us know what your position is so for staff members. That would be whether you are staff support, whether you are our staff attorney, how long you've worked with the city or in the community for our board members. That would be how long you've lived in the city of Boulder.

[4:11] and I'd also like to hear something that made you smile today something that made you smile today. Okay. so I'm going to go off and start first.st So my name is Nikki Mccord. I am your vice chair of the borders, holding adjustments and something that made me. Oh, I've lived in Boulder for 15 years, and something that made me smile today was the bad, Bunny, tiny desk concert on Npr. So I'm going to move it over to Robbie. Robbie, if you please. Introduce yourself. Hello! I am Robbie Wyler. I am the staff liaison for the Board of Zoning adjustment, and I have been with the city of boulder for going on 13 years now it's been a while, and I've been involved with Bosa most of those years.

[5:00] and then something that has made me smile is when my allergy medicine kicked in this morning, because, yeah, allergies are going strong right now. Excellent. Thank you so much for that introduction, Robbie Dashana. Thank you. So my name is Dashana Sasweta and Shawn. You and I met briefly during your Bosa crash. Course 101. I am taking over Boza from my predecessor. This is my 1st meeting in the absence of Miss Erin Poe, but prior to that I was shadowing this board for the calendar year 2024, and I have been with the Boulder City attorney's office since the end of 2021, and I am very excited to start this journey with you. It's it's a bit new for me as well. Made you smile today. Yes, of course. Probably pancakes for breakfast. I love it excellent! Thank you so much for that introduction. Dashauna.

[6:00] Thomas. Hey, Sean, welcome! I'm Thomas Remke. I'm the board specialist for board, zoning adjustments and for planning board. So I just do a lot of staff support for these roles. I started with City of Boulder in December of 23, which is the same time that I moved to boulder. I was living in Denver previously. And something that made me smile. Today I have a big one. Actually, my, I just found out that my brother's expecting a girl in October, so. Perfect. You're gonna be an uncle. Yeah, I'm already an uncle. I have 2 nephews through him, but gonna have a niece in October. Excellent. Well, congratulations to you, Thomas, and thank you for that introduction. Thank you. And go to Katie next. Katie. We cannot hear you. No, we can't hear you. So this is a great opportunity, Katie. We're going to give you an opportunity to go ahead and see what's going on with the audio, because we definitely want to be able to hear your voice. So while Katie is adjusting her audio. I'm going to go to Drew Drew. Welcome. Please introduce yourself.

[7:17] Yeah. Yeah. I shot him. Drew Eisenberg. I've been on the board for 2 years. I've lived in Boulder for about 16 years. And I design wind turbine blades for a living. So I'm an engineer. And yeah, my experience relevant here is that I actually had a variance that I went through Bose for, and for my own house. So and I got interested in the board and wanted to contribute and the thing that made me smile. I won my March madness pool. So got some cash today. Excellent, wonderful! Thank you so much for that introduction, Drew Ben. Please introduce yourself.

[8:01] Sean. Good to meet you, Ben Doyle. I've been on Bozo for a few months now. I don't think a full year and I'm a real estate lawyer here in town focus on affordable housing development what made me smile today. I walked outside at lunch, and it was a beautiful spring day. People were out on the patios eating lunch, and I thought, Good winter is over. Excellent, wonderful. Thank you so much for that introduction, Ben and Sean. Last. Well, probably not. Last, not least, because we're still waiting for Katie. But, Sean, please introduce yourself. Yeah, thanks. My name is Shawn. I'm new to the board starting today. This will be my 1st meeting. I've lived in Boulder for almost 3 years now, maybe 2 and a half years. Some by day I work in tech support for a software company. But I do have a big interest in development design. So you know, I feel like this board is right up my alley and something that made me smile. Today I think

[9:06] just my dog being a silly self. Excellent, wonderful. Thank you so much for that introduction, Sean. All right, we're going to go ahead and get started with our norms that Thomas is going to go through, and then when Katie joins us again, we'll get Katie's introduction as well. So, Thomas, please go ahead and lead us in our norms. Alright. Give me just a second to get these slides pulled up alright. So I'm just gonna cover some basic rules for our public participation sections. Later in the meeting 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.

[10:04] Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupt or otherwise impede the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. participants are required to identify themselves using the name they're commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted when we get to the public hearing opportunity, and you're called on to speak. You're, and when the chair announces the opportunity to speak, you can look on, zoom at the bottom of your screen and hover your mouse over this, raise hand, function and click on that, and then that should raise your hand, and then we'll call on you. That'll indicate that you want to speak. If you're calling in on the phone today, which I don't believe anybody is, but you can press Star 9 on your phone, and that'll do the equivalent of raising your hand. Depending on your version. You might not have a raise hand function on the bottom of the screen. You might have to click this reactions, button to expand it, and then you should see the raise hand function once you expand that.

[11:06] and that's all. Thank you. Excellent! Back to you. Chair. Thank you so much for that, Thomas. All right, I'm gonna try to stall for a little bit of time while we're waiting for Katie. So I am going to review the voting rules, and I will probably review them again once we get to voting. But just so everyone understands when we get to the point of voting, and 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 for a vote of 2 to one or one to 2 on a motion shall in all respects be considered a tie.

[12:09] It's a lot of information to take in. So do not worry. I will repeat it again. Once we get to the part of voting. I would love to be able to institute some of the things of our last year. Once we get to the discussion portion, I would love to have the most junior member of our board to give their thoughts or discussion first, st and open that up to our most junior member, and then open it up to our subsequent members as well. and while we were biding our time Katie has joined us again. Katie, please introduce yourself. You know we can hear you loud and clear. Computer, look. We can't hear you. Very well, Katie.

[13:02] I heard you for just a second, but it sounds like there might be something in front of your your microphone or something. Maybe try joining from your phone. You have the zoom app. Okay. But I'm just gonna like, Move the computer. Okay, how about now. I hear you now. Don't move. No, I can't hear you. Can you. We can kind of hear you now. If someone can send Katie the dial in number. Katie, what you may want to do is dial in on your cellular phone and turn off and keep. Keep this window open so that you can still see the shared screen. But then mute

[14:00] your computer and then dial in, and then you'll we'll be able to hear you, and then you'll be able to hear us as well. How about? It's cut. It's cutting in and out, Katie, as you move around. So I think the best, the the best solution going forward may be for you to dial in so that we can both hear you, and you can hear us. Discounts. So in the meantime, we'll go ahead and mute, Katie, if someone can do that. Roughly. Is. I don't know who perfect. Thank you so much, Katie. All right. So let go. Let's go ahead and get started. So I'm going to call our 1st case. So this is Boza case BOZ. 20250002825, Inca. Parkway. And I'm going to let the staff do their presentation. So please take it away. Robbie.

[15:04] Hey? Thank you, madam Chair, I'm going to go ahead and share my screen real quick. Okay. this is docket number Boz, 2,025 0 0 2. The address is 825 Inca. Parkway. This is a building separation and setback variance as part of a proposal to recognize and establish an existing non-standard detached building in order to permit an accessory dwelling unit adu within it. The applicant is requesting a variance to both the building, separation and front, east yard landscape setback standards for an accessory building in the Rl. One zoning district. The resulting building separation between the subject accessory building, and the primary building or home, will be approximately 2 feet from the closest 2 points where 6 feet is required, and where approximately 2 feet again, from the closest 2 points exist today. Additionally, the resulting front east yard landscape setback will be approximately 25.5 feet, where 55 feet is required, and approximately 25.5 feet exists today.

[16:16] No modifications to the exterior of the accessory building are proposed at this time, or as a part of this variance request section of the land use code to be modified. Section 971, Boulder revised Code 1981. And up on the screen. You have a location of the property. It is zoned Rl. One residential single family, and its front yard does face east along Inca Parkway, as has been seen. We did not receive any public comment or correspondences regarding this item as of right now. and I'm going to do things a little differently this time I'm going to somewhat present the history. This property has a very unique history, and then usually, I touch on this at the end of the presentation. But I'm going to go ahead and do the zoning information at the beginning, if that's okay. So again, zoned r. 0 1, the lot size is around 9,572 square feet above the minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet.

[17:17] and the history for the property is not too complex. But there is a history worth mentioning. The home was permitted and built circa 1964 and 1965, and it was permitted with a carport. Unfortunately permit record was found. But it was very unclear. Records back in the 19 sixties did not come through very clearly for Staff, so, but I could find that there was a carport originally approved with the original home, and at some point that Carport was converted to a garage. No permit, record or verification of such work could be found. and then also, at some point, an adu, a small adu was added to the back of the garage. No permit record or verification of such work could be found by Staff and the current owners and the applicant of tonight's variance request purchased the home in May of 2024, and are bringing the property into full compliance, including legal establishment of the subject. Adu via a building permit.

[18:23] and the building permit cannot be approved without the subject, building separation and setback variances approval. And that's because we cannot establish a legal adu within a building that is not conforming to the land. Use codes. So because the building in the past was constructed, or is today in a manner that does not meet building separation and the front yard landscape setback, they are required to seek a variance to those 2 standards in order to bring the structure into full compliance, which would then allow them to get the adu within.

[19:01] So I can go through the history in a little more detail if anybody needs to. But that's kind of a a high, level kind of overview of it. And there was also a code enforcement case opened last year for quote, possible illegal unit, second kitchen. That is the adu that we are talking about today, and that is within the detached building. And again, that was open last summer, right after the current owners took over ownership of the property. and then oops. Sorry about that. The existing and proposed building coverage as well as the existing and proposed floor area. Nothing's going to be changing, no changes to the building are proposed at this time, and, as mentioned above, there is an active and still ongoing building permit review to bring everything into compliance, including building and fire code, zoning code. Everything needs to be brought into full compliance. That is all being done under the still active and in review building permit, but zoning cannot sign off on it or approve it until these 2 variances are looked at and pending tonight's decision, they will either have to drop the adu, or they will have, or they can move forward with the building permit, with the variances in hand.

[20:21] And this is a kind of picture of the front of the property from Inca, and then also the Site plan and survey that shows the existing conditions. It appears that the current footprint of the garage has been that way for quite some time. Aerials date it back to the nineties at the latest. At some point, like I said, it was converted into a garage. We don't know when exactly that happened, but it was quite some time ago, and all the aerials, the street views, the permit records somewhat. Reflect this having been done many decades ago. But because they're wanting to establish that adu today, we have to bring it into full compliance because of the unpermitted work that was done decades ago.

[21:07] So what the Board is looking at specifically tonight is the 1st one which I have colored in green. That is the building separation, variance, and it's between the house and the detached garage. And adu, and that's for approximately 2 feet where 6 feet is required and approximately 2 feet exist today. And it's not a horizontal measurement. It's not just a horizontal measurement. It can also be vertical. I often refer to it as the Yoga ball theory. Imagine a 6 foot diameter Yoga ball that needs to fit in between in all directions between 2 buildings, so it could be up. It can be right, it can be left, it can be down. It's not just like a setback as measured from horizontally so with that the closest 2 points of the subject, detached garage and adu, and the house is approximately 2 feet, and nothing will be changing. As a result of this, they're just want to recognize and establish the existing conditions so they can move forward with

[22:09] the building permit. And then the second part to this is the setback variance request, and that is a request for approximately 25.5 feet, where 55 feet is required and 25.5 feet exists today. Had this been a standalone garage, we actually would have permitted the detached garage at 25 feet. We do allow garages and carports to utilize principal structure setbacks, but the second, you add on a non vehicular use, whether that's storage or a studio or an adu, it no longer gets that privilege. So this structure needs to adhere to the standard accessory structure setback requirements, which is 55 feet. So where 25.5 feet exists today, and it was legally established because of the non garage use added onto the back. They have to meet the 55 feet. So that is the second part of the variance request tonight and again, no modifications to the building is proposed. This is just to simply recognize and establish existing conditions, to bring the building into full conformity or full compliance.

[23:22] And this shows you these are some drawings that were provided as a part of the building permit, and also included with the application. You can see the darker box. That somewhat shows the original footprint of the original carport, then turned garage, and at some point that long extension to the left on the screen was added on, and at some point the bathroom and the small kitchenette were added by definition. Even if it's not even a full kitchen, if it has more than 2 utility hookups. It's considered another accessory unit. So with the current layout, unless they were to remove

[24:04] the bathroom and turn it into just a half bathroom, and then also the sink. They would have to recognize this as an accessory dwelling unit, and we have a legal process for establishing accessory dwelling units, which is what the property owners and applicants are trying to do right now, bringing into conformity and make the adu legal, whereas right now it's not so. This gives you an idea of the interior layout, and then also the exterior of the building. And then this shows you the pictures on the right are the interior, even though the interior is not necessarily pertinent to the request tonight it gives you an idea of what's on the inside, and then also the images on the left. The upper left image is the front from Inca, and the image on the lower left is the back door. I guess you could say the primary door to the adu, but the back of the accessory structure.

[25:00] So with this I'll go through these in a little bit of detail. But Staff is recommending support of the 2 variance requests as they have been presented within the application. And, like, I just went through physical conditions or disability, the unusual circumstances or conditions. One thing we recognize is that the building separation we are not sure if it was constructed with 6 feet or not. That is very unclear. But the condition that we see today has been that way for many decades, it appears. and possibly was original to the original 19 sixties construction. Just at some point some work was done. So the way we look at this is, if this was a proposal, how would we look at it? because of the building separation, the existing conditions, and the fact that it appears the original carport and garage was already at about 2 to 3 feet from the original house. We don't feel that it's

[26:06] necessarily inappropriate to recognize what has been built onto the structure in the past. and we also see that it's an existing condition. It's been connected to the house for quite, quite some time now, many years, many decades, to where we feel that one A is being met, the unusual circumstances that it just happens that it's an oddly skewed house located to a somewhat skewed garage, and they create this somewhat of a wedge kind of between these 2 structures. So we do recognize that one B. The unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or zoning district. It's not common. That stuff is built. you know, within 6 feet, especially within 2 feet of the property line. It's not typical for the zoning district. So this doesn't appear to be kind of an unusual circumstance or condition that you would find in a typical Rl. One zone property, one C. Because of such physical circumstances or conditions, the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. With that one the

[27:16] fix, I guess you could say to the solution would be to remove the kitchen and the bathroom, and to make it just storage. which is not what the property owners are wanting to do with that space they're wanting to utilize what was there when they purchased the property. Unfortunately, they were unaware that all of that was done without a permit, but kind of putting the due diligence aside. It doesn't seem that a reduction in the size of the building, which is the only thing physically that would fix it. Seems appropriate. And the fact that they're not wanting to expand. And they're just want to utilize something that's existing

[28:00] seems appropriate, and that one C is being met, and then one d. Any any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. In general. They moved in with this condition. Yeah, they could have possibly found out that it was done without a permit, and the property owner, the applicant, can probably speak more to this, but it doesn't appear that the hardship which is the current location of the house compared to the current location of the garage, as they both sit on the property is necessarily something that was within control of the property current property owners control. So we feel that one D is also being met, and then 5 a would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. No work, no additional work is being proposed at this time, and the non permitted work was done to the back of the house. It's gone many years without even being noticed, so we don't feel that it would be negatively impact the character of the surrounding neighborhood, especially the street.

[29:01] would not substantially or permanently impair reasonable use and enjoyment of the adjacent properties. We have not heard from any of the neighbors, whether they are for or against this, but that aside, it does not appear that, recognizing something that has been in that condition for quite some time would negatively or noticeably impact the adjacent properties, and there would be the minimum variance to afford to relieve. They are not asking to expand. They are not asking to make the adu itself bigger. They're simply asking to recognize what has been there for quite some time. So we feel that 5 C is also being met, and then due to the location and the size of, I guess the house and the the accessory building, the subject accessory building, it will not violate anything with the solar access. So with that again, staff is recommending support and approval of the Boz 2025, 0 0 0 2, as it has been presented within the application, and I will leave it at that, for now.

[30:12] Thank you so much for that, Robbie. Let me get back to all right. Does the Board have any questions of staff. So, Robbie, just to confirm if the detached garage was actually attached to the main house, would that meet all the setback requirements. That's a good point. So, and that was brought up by the applicants. If this was an attached garage, meaning it wasn't just a breezeway, because right now there's just a breezeway roof, and we do allow those between structures. It appears to be a fully compliant breezeway structure. So the detached garage, even though it's connected by a breezeway, is still considered a detached garage. If they were to enclose that breezeway with.

[31:02] you know, conditioned space like a an enclosed walkway that would then make the now detached garage and attached garage, and it would become a part of the principal structure, and would need to adhere to principal structure setbacks, and go into your question. Drew. This property would comply with all of the principal structure setbacks which would be 7 and a half feet from the north. and then 25 feet from the east, and right now it sits at 10 feet from the north and 25.5 feet from the east, so if it were enclosed, if they were to turn that breeze away into an enclosed entryway, it would still meet principal structure setbacks. Thanks. Thank you, Drew. Any other questions for Robbie Ben. You know, Robbie. Do you mind just restating the staff rationale on 9.2 3

[32:00] h. 1? So the the 1st criterion. I followed you on all the rest, but I I just didn't quite follow the the very 1st criterion. And that really comes down to the part that's other physical conditions peculiar to the affected property. It really comes down to the kind of the location of both the detached structure and the principal home. How they are placed. They've been in that placement for quite some time now, and any work done to either of the buildings would likely result in the need for a variance. So we just felt that the kind of peculiar location the orientation of the 2 structures to the lot itself creates somewhat of a unique circumstance. Thank you. Thank you, Ben, any other questions for staff. Robbie. I have a question. If you can go back to your very last slide that talks about the criteria. And can you help remind us of as board members how we're voting on the criteria? So I know that we have to pick between 1, 2, 3, 4, all the conditions of 5 need to be met. If you can just reiterate that for me that would be fantastic.

[33:16] Of course, so at the very top the non-highlighted part, it says, the Bosa may grant a variance only if it finds the applicable, satisfies all of the applicable requirements of paragraph h. 1 h. 2, h. 3, or h. 4 of this section, and the requirements of paragraph H. 5. So I've kind of condensed all of this. What that means is, any applicant needs to come forward with a response to how they feel. They meet criterion 1, 2, 3, or 4, and then, regardless of which one of those 1st 4 they choose, they have to choose 5. So in this case they are. The applicant is opting to respond to criterion. h. 1 which has an a through A. D.

[34:01] There's 4 of them, and then Criterion h. 5, which has an a through D, so there's 4 of them. So the board is considering 4 individual criterion. Excellent. Thank you so much, Robbie. All right. So at this time I'm going to ask for the applicant to present. So, Thomas, if you can give us our rules for our applicant presentation, including the amount of time the applicant has, and invite them to present, as well. I'm gonna defer to Robbie if he could go over those rules really quickly while I get the applicant promoted. Yeah, no worries. So the applicant. So this is the time for the applicant to either. Add on to what I have to say. Correct something that I said that may have been incorrect, or just to kind of present, whatever they would like to. This is your time.

[35:01] applicant. To speak directly to the board. and then, if you do not have anything to present or to say that is totally fine, it's not a requirement for you to say something, but this is your time to kind of kind of plead your case, and talk to the board directly, and I believe you have upwards of 10 min. To do that, Thomas or Deshana, you can correct me if that's wrong. But this is your time, and I believe you have 10 or 15 min to talk with the board, and you don't have to take that entire time if you don't want to. Kishana. Please go ahead. Thank you, Robbie. Thank you. I believe that similar to staff applicants have 15 min at their disposal. Excellent. Thank you for that, Deshaun. I see we have John S. Who has been promoted. John, if you can please state your full name as well as your address, and then I'll ask a member of the staff to keep track of our time. Welcome, John.

[36:00] Thank you, Nikki. My name's Mitchell Steiner. I go by John, it's my middle name. I I'm the owner and resident of 8, 2, 5 Inca Parkway at Boulder. And 1st of all, just want to say, thanks to Robbie, who provided a lot of clear guidance and support for for us as we navigate this process. And really what initiated it was the retroactive building permit that we're seeking for the the adu which consists of a section of this of this building which includes the garage as well. And so I think Robbie did a very good job of kind of setting out the details as it relates to the zoning requirements and the variance on the table. I don't have anything to add. Really, I think he nailed it and so.

[37:06] without further ado, I second what Robbie had to say. and agree with what he said, and kind of how he presented the case or the the situation, so. Excellent. Thank you, Mitchell, correct. It's Mitchell. Yes. Excellent. Thank you so much, Mitchell. All right. Board. Does the Board have any questions for the applicant? Seeing no questions from the applicant. I'm now going to open it up to public testimony. Thomas, can you let us know if anyone would like from the public, would like to speak on this variance. I'm sorry you cut out there.

[38:01] Do you see anyone from the public who'd like to speak about this variance. Oh, okay, thank you. Nikki. Yeah. So just to be clear, this is our opportunity for public participation. If there's anybody that would like to speak to this item. Please go ahead and raise your hand. I'll give it a minute in the attendees list, otherwise we can move on. I'm seeing no raised hands at the moment. Excellent, wonderful. Thank you so much. Nikki, you're on mute. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you for that, Thomas. With that I will go ahead and close public comment on the matter. And now it is open to the board for discussion. So I'm going to go ahead and start with Sean. Do you have anything that you'd like to discuss in terms of this matter? Nothing in particular, I guess. Just a question on you know, with the variants were approved. How would that affect the enforcement violation that was filed in June.

[39:04] I can speak to that. So as of right now, it's just an open case. And that enforcement case resulted in the building permit case that is currently in review. So really impacts the building permit before it impacts the enforcement case, one led to the other. So if pending tonight's decision, if an approval were not granted, they would have to revise the building permit accordingly, and the Enforcement case just kind of sits there and waits for everything to happen. And then, as soon as a building permit is approved. I believe that is kind of a green light for an Enforcement case to be considered addressed. Excellent. Thank you so much, Shawn Ben. Anything to add to the discussion. I appreciated Staff's presentation. And it sounds like the applicant is in agreement with Staff.

[40:01] It seems to me that you know in, based on the record before us, and just looking at the facts against the criteria here and in Section 9 2, 3 of the the code it. It all seems pretty straightforward to me other than the one that I asked about with the you know, or do we have unusual physical circumstances or conditions. I I think we do. Given the you know what what I'll point to is the irregularity of the the building buildings, location on this particular lot. So I'm in, you know. I'm let at the moment, leaning in support of the variance. But we'll be curious to hear the discussion of of the Board. Excellent. Thank you so much for that, Ben Drew. Please go ahead. Yeah, no, I I agree with what Ben just said. I I also think that the orientation of the principal structure with the detached garage makes it really awkward to connect the 2, and that's and so I do think it is a peculiar physical condition that exists, and and so going through all the criteria, I believe it meets it, and I would be in favor of supporting this variance.

[41:15] Excellent. Thank you so much, drew Katie anything to add. Katie, we can't hear you. We can only read your lips all right. I'm hearing. I'm seeing. I think. Okay, excellent. Thank you so much for that, Katie. And then, Shawn. I did not say this previously. When we go through our discussion, and this is not anything in the rules. It's just kind of how we. you know, do our meetings. We try to give an indication of whether or not, we are in favor of a variance or not. It's kind of our time to give a straw poll, because if we do come to a vote where the board is not in agreement. There are some particular rules that about when an applicant can come back to the board, and so we try generally as a board, not to deny

[42:08] anyone, because then that triggers a lot more time and effort and reapplication that the applicant needs to go through. So we we? When we talk about our discussion, we try to let our colleagues know how we're leaning, so that if there is some disagreement we can talk it out amongst ourselves before we actually give that final decision to an applicant. So just wanted to give you some background. There, Robby, please go ahead. And thank you, Madam Chair, and this is for Katie. I believe you can still use the chat function if there is a question that you have, or if we need some form of a confirmation other than a thumbs up ideally. If you could get your phone, the audio working that would be best. But if not, we understand. And I believe that with the chat function and kind of asking for your questions or confirmation, a motion. If there is a motion doing it that way, I believe that we can have that on record, and that we can use that unless you disagree with me to Shauna, so.

[43:15] If I may, I do not disagree. The chat function would still be captured for any appeal purposes in writing. Thank you for that clarification. Both Robbie and Deshana. Alright. So I'm just gonna go over the rules again. It's a little bit of Overkill, but we have a new member. So I wanna make sure that you're comfortable with how we are proceeding. So what's going? Can you all hear me? We have to mute Katie, because, there's a bad echo when he she is unmuted. Okay, excellent. Thank you so much for that. So I'm going to go ahead and read the rules. What's going to happen next is I'm going to ask for someone to to propose a motion. We'll get a second, and then we will go ahead and vote. But here are our voting rules, so an affirmative vote of 3 or more of the 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

[44:14] 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 1, 2, 2 on a motion, shall in all respects be considered a tie. So with that, I'm going to open it up and ask for a motion on this item. Just a brief comment also to maybe assist to Shawn. I feel like so. Boza is often approving the exterior form of the of the building. Right? So to your question about the enforcement case, I tend to think it's probably on the inside. And so we don't really. you know, pertain to that. So just just a little extra context. I don't know if that's helpful.

[45:07] Future. But yeah, I put a motion to approve. Boz, 2, 0, 2, 5, dash 0 0 0 2. Excellent. Thank you. Drew. Second. Excellent! Thank you so much, Ben. All right. So the item on the table is approval of the motion. I'll start with Shawn. You can say yes or no. Yes. Wonderful Ben. Yes. Drew. Yes. Katie alright. And then did we get a I wanna make sure that we've recorded Katie's vote for the record. So, Katie, we're either gonna need you to verbally confirm or write something in the chat.

[46:27] And you can just type. I did. Yes. Okay. Excellent. Okay, wonderful. Thank you so much, Katie. I vote in favor as well. Motion to approve has been, oh, motion has been approved. So thank you so much, Mitchell, and good luck on the future of your project. Thanks to everyone for your time today, I really appreciate it. Am I free to go? Is that is that it. 3 to go. That's it. Thanks. Thanks! Everyone take care! Thank you. All right, alrighty. Let's see here.

[47:00] All right. Now we are going to look at our second item. Our second item is docket number BOZ, 2, 0, 2, 5, 0 0 0 3, 32, 1020th Street. And with that I'm going to ask for the staff presentation. Take it away, Robbie. Thank you, madam. Chair. Okay. And again, this is docket number Boz, 2, 0, 2, 5, dash 0, 0, 0 0 3. The address is 32, 1020th Street, and this is a setback variance as part of a proposal to recognize and establish recent after the fact or non permitted additions and construction to the single family home. The applicant is requesting a variance to the rear east Yard setback standards for a principal structure in the Rl. One zoning district. The rear yard setback variance request is for 2 attached covered patios and an attached single car garage slash carport.

[48:00] The resulting rear east setback will be approximately 20.2 feet, taken from the closest setback marker to the rear property line. Amongst the 3 additions where 25 feet is required, and approximately 20.2 feet exists today. Section of the land use code to be modified. Section 971. Boulder revised Code 1981. And I'm sure the Board is well aware we did receive some correspondences from neighbors we have. Those were all provided as part of the final item. So what you see within the packet right now is what the Board can consider. There was one correspondence that requested to remain anonymous, and unfortunately we cannot consider, and for the record have anonymous comment, so that one was left off, and cannot be considered by the board at this time. But if this person, who wanted to remain anonymous is possibly listening in right now we do have the public comment portion of the hearing. You are more than welcome to speak directly to the board. You'll just need to provide at minimum. I believe your name for the record, but other than that, you can still have the opportunity to speak directly to the board and provide comment.

[49:14] But up on the screen we have the 5 neighbors correspondences that were provided that the Board has within their packet for consideration, and the red stars that you see are the location of those 5 properties, including the property immediately to the east of this, which is 2020 Grape Street, and then the others are a little further down, but not too far away on, along Grape Avenue. But this is zoned Rl. One, and it is a single family property. And I'm gonna do what I did with the last one. I'm gonna provide a little bit of history before I get into the specifics, because I think that's gonna help kind of paint the picture and provide some. What I feel is beneficial information to the application. The lot. Size is 9,838 square feet. So it is above the minimum lot size for an r. 0 1 zoned property, which is 7,000 square feet. But this is a corner lot.

[50:12] and I'm going to get into this a little more. This property has 2 front yards, a backyard and a side yard, so they've got 3, 25 foot setbacks, and that'll be a little clear in my next presentation. But in terms of the history of the property. The home was permitted and built circa in 1958, and that was with an attached one car garage. So you see, if you. Anybody had the opportunity to drive by, or even in the pictures. You see, there's a 1 car attached garage that was originally permitted with the House back in 1958, and then a second driveway and a patio Awning slash Carport. It was called a bunch of different things. and the historic records was permitted and built circuit 1963. It was labeled as an Awning, and some of those materials.

[51:00] and it was constructed at about 23 feet from the East property line so not identical to what is out there today with the non permitted replacement of the carport, but very close. What was built back in 1963 was at about 23 feet from that east or rear property line. and that's from the southeast corner of the now deconstructed Carport, and then last year an Enforcement case was opened in April of 2024 for quote work without permit to the Carport and potential interior work that then triggered kind of the enforcement, saying, you need to get a building permit for this work to bring it into compliance, and through that building permit which I happen to be the zoning reviewer. On it was determined that there were setback issues. So this was an after the fact permit. The work was already there, although not completed. But the work was already in place without a permit. So what we would call an after the fact permit was initiated, which means we're reviewing it after it's already been done. You still don't get an automatic pass

[52:12] for having to meet all of the bulk and control standards, setbacks, height. All of that still comes into play, and our job is to make sure that it is all being reviewed appropriately and approved appropriately per title Ix. So through that it was determined that there are, in fact, setback issues, and there are encroachments for the replaced carport and 2 of the patio covers. A portion of each, not the entirety of them, but a portion of each is located within that rear yard setback. So that is where that permit sits today. It's kind of hanging in limbo pending a decision tonight. Were the board to approve the variances tonight, then the building permit would move forward as needed were the variance not to be approved by Boza tonight. Then they would need to go essentially, go back to the drawing board and

[53:08] propose something within the building permit that meets all the setbacks, so they would have to revise the plans accordingly. Revise the design accordingly, and the way that Staff looks at after the fact items is, we almost treat it just like it's a proposal. We're looking at this like it's somebody coming to the board proposing to build to replace the carport and proposing to add 2 covered patios in their backyard. And it's also worth mentioning that the there is an Enforcement case, and then a subsequent building permit that are dealing with the unpermitted work that was done. And the Board's decision tonight is to determine whether or not what is essentially being proposed, even though it's already there, is appropriate and can be approved under the variance review criteria. So I will get into kind of what is out there. So the aerial on the right hand side is outdated. This shows what was there prior to the replacement of the carport. You can see the the 2 driveways. I mentioned that a second driveway and the awning carport, whatever

[54:15] we want to call it, was approved back in the 19 sixties. That driveway that is kind of in the shade of the tree is that second driveway that led to this awning slash Carport, and then you see the original driveway that was constructed with the construction of the home just a few years prior to that, and I circled there in the red box the location of that original carport and awning, and you can kind of see where it's set in relation to the property. And then the next screen is, gonna show you what is out there today. So there's a lot of numbers on this. What the Board is considering tonight is setback variance request. and that is for approximately 20.2 feet where 25 feet is required and 20.2 feet exist today.

[55:03] The red that you see on the screen is the overall variance that's the most extreme. The closest point is going to be 20.2 feet from the east property line, and you can also see that I've labeled the yards. So the front yard of this property is the west yard along 20th Street. The that then makes the rear yard, the east yard, which is the yard that the board is focusing on tonight. That rear yard, the east yard. and then the yard to the north is what we would consider a site equals front, or oftentimes we call it a secondary front yard. and the reason for that is because it is a site adjacent to street. But the property to the east 2020 Grape Street. It has its front yard facing Grape Avenue, which is the street that runs to the north. Because of that the side adjacent to Street Yard, for this property turns into a front yard, and it has to meet front yard, setback standards and pretty much all front yard. It's a secondary front yard.

[56:06] So that's why, on the on the image that I have, we have the 2 front yards. We have the rear yard, and then we have the side yard, which is just an interior side yard minimum requirement, 5 feet. So the home was essentially designed to respect the 3 25 foot setbacks outside of almost each corner of the house, barely encroaching into those setbacks you can see, and the very light image you can see where the applicant provided those 25 foot markers. You can see the northwest corner of the house just encroaches into it by a few inches. The westernmost face or wall of the house barely encroaches into that front yard, set back the west yard, and then the very southeast corner where I have my green dashed line barely encroaches into that. So the home is what we would consider non-standard as is regardless of the patio covers or the

[57:10] carport back in the 19 sixties. I don't. I'm not sure if they paid as close of attention to make sure that it met the setbacks. I don't believe we have any setback verifications dating back to the 19 sixties. So. unfortunately, that is the condition of the property. We have a nonstandard house, and in 1965, I forget the exact date that I said. That awning that was originally there, now deconstructed, was constructed at about 23 feet, and I got that from the survey document that was provided. So with that, the applicant at some point decided to replace the awning Carport with what you see today. And then, on top of that. They wanted to have 2 smaller awnings patio covers, I guess you could say. And you can see those 3

[58:03] different structural elements in the image that have on the screen, you see, proposed single Carport, and the reason I call that slash garage is because of the garage doors. We have a very clear definition of Carport, and it states that must remain open on at least 2 sides. because there are or is, a garage door element. To this we usually go with the most extreme condition, which is, if we call it a garage. That's pretty much going to recognize that there are garage doors that could be opened and closed. Whether or not they're used. That doesn't matter. We just usually take the most extreme definition of what this is. So you're gonna hear me call it Carport garage covered awning. But the setbacks are what they are today, and that is that 22 feet that I have that black arrow pointing to, and that is taken taken from the southeast corner of the carport, and it's worth noting that the green dashed line I have. That's the rear yard setback marker. That's where that 25 feet sits.

[59:10] You can see that it kind of clips the southeast corner of the house, but then it goes through the very southeastern corner of the carport, the southeastern corner of the middle patio cover, I guess I'll call it, and then kind of down the middle of the smaller south patio cover, and that gives you an idea of kind of where that buy right? Location would be located, and then also the red line, which happens to be the kind of the closest of the 3 elements that hits, that is, to that rear also happens to be at the 20% threshold. So this would qualify for an administrative variance because it's 20%. The required setback. 2020% of 25 feet would be a 5 foot variance, and all 3 of these structural elements fall within that threshold.

[60:06] But a part of the requirement for obtaining an administrative variance, or even seeking an administrative variance, is you need to obtain written support from all impacted adjacent property owners, and it doesn't appear that was possible. So what the applicant has. The option to do right now is to go to the full board of zoning adjustment, so some people may or may not be wondering why is something of just a few feet coming in front of the board when typically, that would go the administrative route. Well, that's because it doesn't appear that the full checklist of requirements to qualify for administrative was obtained. So the applicant is coming in front of you tonight because of that. But the board still reviews it under the same criterion, and I can go through kind of what you're looking at in a little more detail. But this image kind of gives you an idea of the overall variance that you're considering tonight. And then the 3 individual variances within that one variance that you're considering, and the board can choose to separate these all out

[61:14] into different variances, or you can group them all together as the one. So this I can come back to the screen at a later time, if the board wants. But I'll continue with my presentation. And then these images, the upper images that I've highlighted in green are what was out there, at least as of last summer. So it gives you an idea of the completed completed product. And then the lower image I've highlighted in blue. was taken in July of 2019. So a few years ago. But that shows you that original awning that was constructed pretty much a couple of years after the house. It's been in that place for a while. You can see that original one car garage. You can see how the awning ties into the house, and then how the new Carport ties into the house. And then one of the

[62:10] letters from the neighbors actually provided some good photos of kind of the side view of what they look like. Hopefully the board was able to look at those. But this gives you an idea of what was there and what is there today? And then these were some drawings. The drawing of the North was provided within the application, but I was also able to find the architectural drawing showing the same 3 elements. This is the carport. This is the middle patio cover, and this is the south or the smaller patio cover that you see, the south elevation is from the south, the side yard. You can see the south end of the garage. Slash Carport right here, and you can see the middle

[63:00] awning right here, or the middle patio cover, and then right here you can see the south patio cover, and then we have a north view which shows from the street what you would be seeing. So you can see the middle awning right here. This is the Carport, and then we cannot see the smaller one to the south, because it's blocked from the north. And now we get into the setback variance criteria. I'm going to go through these in a little more detail. We've received quite a bit of public comment for this item, all of them in opposition and with Staff's recommendation, we definitely take those into consideration. We definitely read through those multiple times, just to make sure, because we want to know kind of what the concerns from the neighbors are, and whether they are pertinent to the variance request at hand. So we do take every single one of those emails in mind when determining whether or not staff can support and recommend for this variance request. So, starting with h. 1 a unusual physical circumstances or conditions, including without limitation, irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of the lot, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the affected property.

[64:20] It is not necessarily the smallest lot, but it is a corner lot that is, quote unquote, blessed with 3, 25 foot setbacks, and, unfortunately for this property, the construction, the orientation of the house in relation to the back property line creates somewhat of a wedge condition. So that's why the majority of the carport that you see today. And what was there actually meets setbacks. It's outside of that rear yard setback, but the southeastern corner is what's violating the setback, and the same holds true for the middle patio. Cover. It creates kind of a diagonal line of what is meeting setback and what is not. And same holds true for the south patio. The smaller patio cover. There's kind of a diagonal line that cuts through it because of the orientation of the house to the rear property line.

[65:17] If it was running parallel to the rear property line, then that would probably result in setback violations to the north of the property, because it's not a perfectly square property, and the house is not perfectly squared onto the property. It's somewhat at an angle. So we do recognize that it's it's a corner lot. It's got 3, 25 foot setbacks and the location. The construction of the house was done so in a manner that creates somewhat of a skewed or wedge shaped backyard to where Really, anything added to the back of the house of reasonable size would require a variance unless it was an odd shape or a kind of a diagonal wedge shaped. So staff does feel that one a given the specific circumstances of this property, the construction, and what they're wanting to propose, staff does feel that one A is being met, one B. The unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or zoning district.

[66:19] It is not common that someone has 3, 25 foot setbacks, regardless of the size of their property. And it is also not common that a house is constructed at an angle from any of the property lines, especially the rear property line. which creates somewhat of a construction issue. If somebody wants a squared off patio cover, in most cases they might be able to do that. In this case it would have to be an angled patio cover in order to respect that rear yard setback. So unless it's a kind of a 2 foot wide by 5 or 6 foot deep. This is the south patio cover. Then anything beyond that size would likely require a variance. So Staff recognize that these conditions, specific to this property. 32,

[67:10] 1020th Street. It's somewhat unique in the situation of how the orientation of the house to the lot is presented. So staff does feel that h, 1 b is being met. h. 1 c. Because of such physical circumstances or conditions, the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. What this is essentially saying is the key word. There is reasonably so. What the applicant is seeking is replacement of the awning carport, and then the addition of 2 covered patios. We feel that a reduction of at least the South one would result in an unnecessary or unusable cover. It would just be a roof overhang essentially. And then we also recognize that the middle one is. It's not larger than the patio that's been there for quite some time. Seems like a modest request to put a cover over that. It just happens that because of the angle of the property line in the house putting anything other than

[68:18] a squared off patio cover would require some sort of a variance. So we felt that the physical kind of circumstances of the property results in kind of the need for these at least corners of these covers to encroach into some setbacks. and then any unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant staff does recognize that the applicant did do this work before a permit was obtained. So in that sense, yes. the hardship was somewhat created, but at the same time we recognize that it's not just one hardship. We look at this like, if it was a proposal, how would Staff look at this? If this was a proposed condition and not something that's already been done? Would staff. Look at this the same way, and the answer is, we would, because we would recognize that again the angle of the back property line with the angle of the house, and someone wanting to put what appears to be a modest size

[69:19] patio, cover one story not overly tall than what you would otherwise see in any other property in Boulder seems appropriate. So we're looking at the hardship in the sense that it is the property. It is the orientation of the house, and it is the need of the property owner. One patio covers that results in us, feeling that one D is being met because the hardship itself is the location of the house, the location of the patio, and the location of the rear property line. and then jump into 5 criterion. H. 5 would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the lot is located. Staff does appreciate all of the feedback and the comments made by the surrounding property owners.

[70:08] We also recognize that and feel that this would not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. In fact, the property to the East 2020 great itself received a rear yard setback variance back in 1985 to allow for that rear addition at 21 feet, where 25 feet is required. So it's not an unusual thing for this neighborhood to get a variance. It's not unheard of. and we also feel that the kind of the size of the patio covers and the Carport Carport edition. Seems reasonable. It's not a two-story edition. It's not an overly sized carport. It's not a 2 car carport. So we felt that kind of keeping with what was there, and then adding, relatively speaking, modest sized patio covers seemed appropriate, and would not negatively impact the surrounding property, and then going to 5 d. Specifically, would not substantially or permanently impair reasonable use and enjoyment of the adjacent property.

[71:14] One thing that Staff looked at was, what would these do if they were built by right? So we do allow, you know, up to 25 feet is where you could place something, and then we do allow 2 and a half feet or 30 inches of roof overhang into that. So theoretically, the support columns could be shifted to where they're at the 25 feet, and then they would be allowed another 30 inches, 2 and a half feet beyond that looking at it from the property to the east, the most impacted property to this property. reducing it, reducing the bulk by in some cases just a few inches upwards of 4 feet wouldn't necessarily reduce the visual impact from the property to the east. It's not a height variance. It's not a locational variance north or south. It's really a how close is it to that east property line? The shared property line with 2020 grape and a reduction in

[72:14] that scope to where the support columns, which is where we determine setbacks. Were taken. If those were all put at the 25 foot marker. It would create some angled covered patios but from the east it really wouldn't change the visual impact. We would still allow it to be built that tall, we would still allow it to be built in those locations. It's just they. From east to west they would be reduced by upwards of 2 or 3 feet. It appears so, Steph. We hear the neighbor to the east having concerns about that. Some of the concerns weren't necessarily pertinent to the variance request at hand. But we did look at what would happen with a buy right solution, and it doesn't appear. The visual impact would necessarily change from the East, so we do feel that 5 B is being met for this application. 5 c. Would be the minimum variance to afford relief, and would be the least modification of the provisions of this title. Any more reduction in these would result in pretty much unusable roof covers. Patio covers

[73:23] the patio to the South. If it was reduced at that angle to where it was meeting setbacks, it would wouldn't really serve a purpose. I guess you could say the middle one, the pretty much the lower southeastern 3rd would be cut off. Could it be used? Yes. Does it seem like structurally feasible? I'm not sure. And then the carport replacement. It is bigger compared to what was there. We do recognize that it is, I believe, about a foot closer to the East property line than what was there and then the the architect, the applicant, can maybe speak more in terms of what the exact changes were. But overall. It doesn't appear that reducing it even more

[74:10] would result in any benefit. And also the the majority of the carport is meeting setback. It's just that southeast corner of the carport that is not meeting setback. So taken off that corner would create a really funny looking carport, and possibly an unusable carport. We recognize that. But we feel that what is out there today, even if this was if this came to us as a proposal and not something that was already out there today. Staff would probably come to the same conclusion, which is 5 C would be the minimum bearings to afford. Relief is being met. and then 5 d. Would not conflict with the provisions of solar access due to the height and location of all 3 of these structural elements. Solar access is not being violated, and that has actually already been reviewed through the building permit. So height, and all other setbacks and interior have all been reviewed through building permit the only issue that is preventing an approval of the building permit are the setback issues, which is what the Board is considering tonight.

[75:16] So that's a lot. That's a lot of information in numbers, and me using the word angular and wedge. But if you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them, and then also go back to any of the slides. So with that I will hand it back over to you, madam, chair. Thank you so much for that very thorough report, Robbie. I appreciate all the detail that you go into in terms of educating us as a board. With that I'm going to open it up for questions for staff. So I'm going to start with Sean. Any questions for staff. Yeah, historically, has have these variances been denied due to The permit being filed after the work has begun.

[76:04] No. So that's where we kind of separate the 2 out. And the way Staff looks at it and the board. You can decide how you want to approach it, but it might be best to approach this as in it's a proposal. We have a process dealing with the done without a permit that is actually going through, but historically, because it was there does not mean that the Board has automatically denied it, and it does not mean that they have automatically approved it, because it's there does not mean that you're guaranteed an approval. It's far from that. So I think, with the approach of this one, and the board can decide how they want to approach it. But Staff's approach to kind of deal with the fact that it's already there. You actually have an image of what it looks like that's not very common is to consider this under the kind of scope of if they were coming to you with. We want to do this. This is a proposal. and if the board decides it's appropriate. Under that view, then you can move forward as needed. If the Board decides that what is out there today would not meet the Criterion, then you take action accordingly. So it being there, doesn't necessarily sway one way or the other. What the board decides.

[77:21] Thank you, Robbie Sean. Anything else. No, thank you for that, that was all. Thanks, Sean Ben, any questions for staff. Yes, I just have 2 for you, Robbie. So one is I think you had mentioned that this is on the graphic slide where you showed the 3 different setbacks from the eastern. Pull that. I think you'd sort of presented this as it's a single application. But if the board wanted to, we could look at those 3. Yeah, the 22 feet, the 20.2 feet, and the 20.3 feet. So it sounds like we could look at those individually. Did I hear you right there.

[78:04] Yep, and that is correct. So I you have the overall umbrella, one which is the most extreme setback, the closest point. But the board has every right to break these up into 3 individual variances within the one. All of that information has been provided within the application. It's not new information. It's just I provided it in a way that kind of separates it out. So if the board decides, even if you're just wanting to discuss it with the 3 different elements that's completely appropriate, and then you can decide to separate it out at time of motion. If there is a motion or you can just use the general overall umbrella. Okay, thank you. And my second question relates to the gray box on this same chart that's on the other side of the primary structure in the front yard there. Right here. Yeah. So if if I understand correctly that we do not have a setback issue, there is that correct? That's really not part of our consideration tonight, even though it's depicted here.

[79:03] Correct. So that is the front porch, and it meets all the standards, and that's been kind of given the green light through the building permit, but because the building permit cannot be approved at this time it hasn't technically been approved. But the front porch is not a part of the purview of tonight's variance request. Okay, thank you. That's all, madam. Chair. Thank you. Ben drew any questions for Staff. Yeah. I think some clarity on the roof overhang that you mentioned. Would be good right? I believe you're allowed 30 inches of roof overhang. Is that correct? Correct. So what I was trying to say. Sorry if it wasn't clear. So this green line is the 25 foot marker. That's where you can construct up to. So imagine all of these, it looks like there's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 support columns

[80:03] needing a variance. If these were all moved to this 25 foot marker, which we would allow through a building permit without a review. We would then allow an additional 30 inches of roof overhang into the setback beyond those. So you've got your 25 foot marker, and then you've got an allowance of up to up to 2 and a half feet beyond that, and if somebody comes in with a 3 foot roof overhang where the wall of the building's at a setback marker that would technically require a variance, because you're over by about 6 inches when it comes to our allowed roof overhang. So we allow, regardless of the location of the support columns as long as they meet setbacks we give you 2 and a half inches of roof overhang, and those can encroach into a setback. 2, 2 and a half feet. 2 and a half feet. Thank you. Okay.

[81:01] Any other questions. Drew. Nope. Thank you, Drew Katie any questions for Staff. And I can't see Katie if she's typing, because I have my screen share on. So if someone could just let me know if she has any questions for me. So I think she's trying to connect via phone. Correct, Katie. So it looks like May. Maybe on the phone you could be muted. Thomas is there? They're oh. I think we just had to promote you. So your phone is muted. So I think that there is a function through Zoom Phone. Thomas, do you have that? Oh, there you go, Katie, please go ahead. I cannot hear you over the phone, Katie.

[82:05] Your phone is. we cannot hear you, Katie. Unfortunately, I apologize. Okay. And then, if we can unmute Katie's phone and no, we cannot hear you, Katie. Unfortunately. Get on mute. Continue Katie. Maybe try. We don't hear you try taking out your headphones, maybe take your headphones out of the

[83:05] of the computer. No, now you're muted. You can. You can type something to me. If if you wanted. Why don't you go ahead and and type, Katie? We're gonna give Katie an opportunity to type her questions to staff. I. 13038836035: Bye-bye. 13038836035: 1, 2, 3. 13038836035: This is really super frustrating. Go ahead, Katie! 13038836035: You can hear me now. Yes, yes, yeah. Don't turn. Don't move. It will turn on. The audio. Drew. If you can go on mute, please. and if everyone else can go on mute, please. 13038836035: All right. Can you guys, how's that going?

[84:00] 13038836035: Just just my only question is for Robbie. If you turn off the volume on your computer there won't be an echo. 13038836035: Pretty. Do you have a zoom? Link me? 13038836035: I'm trying to. I'm trying to. 13038836035: I don't know how to turn off my gotta go settings. 13038836035: My husband my husband 13038836035: here? Sure, sure. 13038836035: All right. Now, I'm just on the phone. 13038836035: Can you guys hear me? We can absolutely hear you. Katie, please go ahead. 13038836035: Okay, and then I'll call back in so you can see me. My only question was for Robbie about you mentioned that because of the orientation of the house. They they had 25, they had 3, 25 yard setbacks, correct, and that was a peculiar function of the way the house was oriented.

[85:06] So the can you hear me, Katie? I just want to make sure the orientation of the house really has nothing to do with the 3, 25 foot setbacks. The property is what results in the 3 25 foot setbacks, but the orientation of the house is that it was constructed to kind of squeeze right into where the building envelope. The Buy right envelope is located. So the 3, 25 foot setbacks aren't necessarily because of the house. It's just something that comes with the property. And then the house was constructed to respect those 3, 25 foot setbacks, which is why we have a somewhat wedge shaped rear. East yard is because the house is not perfectly parallel to the rear property line. 13038836035: Okay, okay, got it. Any other questions for staff. Katie.

[86:03] 13038836035: No, that was really it. I people. The some of the other questions covered some of my issues. Excellent. Thank you so much, Katie. Any other questions for staff? I believe my questions were also answered by our by my colleagues, but I wanted to open it up just in case if any additional questions arose from the board to the staff. Okay, excellent. Thank you so much for that detailed report, Robbie. Now we're going to hear from the applicant I'm going to repeat and then ask for Staff to help me reiterate the rules for the applicant. So we're going to promote the applicant to be a panelist so that they can give their testimony. The applicant will have 15 min to give their testimony, and we do ask that the applicant begin their testimony, stating their name and their address. Have I left anything out staff.

[87:05] I think it sounds good, and then, I believe, after the staff present or the applicant presentation, the Board can ask questions to the applicant. That is correct. Thank you so much for that reiteration, Robbie Thomas, if you can please, promote our applicant if they are available. Sure. Give me just one second. I'm working on it. 13038836035: Recording in progress.

[88:24] I believe they're rejoining as a panelist, so it may just take a second for them to get back in. Okay. Thanks. All right. So I'm gonna try to find a little bit of time while we're waiting for Katie to rejoin, either by video or audio. I see we have 2 people who are represented by the applicant. You all have 15 min total. In your presentation. So just wanted to let you know that.

[89:02] And if both of you are speaking, we do ask that each one of you. Introduce yourself yourselves individually, and give your address as well. Awesome. Understand where you're coming from as well. Our other board member has joined. So please, applicant, go ahead with your presentation. Thank you. My name is Jeff design Group. Our business address is 5. 0, 1 Walnut Street in Frederick. Do you need home address? Is that good enough with me is I'm the senior architectural designer at Millstone. I work on this project. and so yeah, I'm the the lead on this project. So I guess to start with, I want to thank Robbie for his work on this and the presentation. I don't know that we have a whole lot to add to that other than I did want to sort of reiterate a few things, and then I do have some sort of history on the project, and a little bit of timeline information, if that's useful for your deliberation.

[90:08] So I guess to start with, I wanted to reiterate sort of where the questions are going and what Ravi was talking about in terms of what actually, this variance is requesting. Essentially, what we're looking for is a variance to the location of the columns that are holding up these porch roofs, as well as the overall length of the porch roof. The exterior use of the patios, the outdoor living, landscaping, all of that is by right. It's not actually part of this variance application. So from our point of view, any of the concerns from the neighbors about outdoor uses or acoustics, or that sort of thing may not be directly related to the variance that's actually being applied for in this case. So I I think that's that's pertinent. At any rate. So as far as a little bit of history on the project, the the we actually started with the owners back in 2023. On this project

[91:06] they actually reached out to the neighbor to the east to try to get their feedback and and sort of their feedback on the design, and what their thoughts were. There was actually an ongoing conversation at that time about the height of landscaping height of the structures, the actual location of the structures I don't think was ever really discussed. And then, since then they've sort of been unable to get communication back from the neighbor. I think, as Robbie suggested, that this process would have been reviewable through the administrative variance process if they had been responsive, but the neighbor refused to participate in that process. So we're going this way. Since then we worked with the owners to put together the permit set for the remodel. It included a full architectural set as well as structural engineering, for the improvements that got packaged up, handed to the contractor, and, as far as we knew it was submitted, approved, and they performed construction based on approved permits. It turns out that wasn't the case. So now what we're doing is going back to, as Robbie mentioned, get the after the tax permit. From our point of view

[92:19] this process would have happened a year ago, if if, in fact, it had been submitted for permit. The error with the rear setback was a misunderstanding really on our part as to what that setback would be from the East property line. So the drawings that are submitted now that are before you would have been in front of you a year ago had this actually been submitted for permit. So I appreciate what Robbie was saying. This being interpreted, or being reviewed as a proposal, as opposed to, you know, asking for some sort of forgiveness for construction that got done without a permit is that's not what we're trying to do. We're looking for a review of the proposal.

[93:03] And then, yeah, as Rob said, it's in for permit. Now it's ready for approval. Assuming, you know, pending your decision on whether or not this variance is reasonable. I guess. The only other thing that I point out. I think Robbie made a good point about the the roof. Would the roof overhangs are allowed to extend beyond the the setback line. I think it might actually be. And I don't know, Robbie, if you can go back to your 1st slide in your presentation that showed the neighborhood sort of in yellow. One of the things that's sort of my understanding of what's critical in a variance application is sort of showing hardship as well as showing the uniqueness of your hardship. And to me this slide is actually telling. When you look at the other 4 properties that front on the 20th Street.

[94:00] It does not appear that any of those properties are accommodating 25 foot setbacks on 3 sides. They all seem to be dealing with it in some other way. So it seems reasonable that the owners, and and in fact us, when we put this design together, didn't anticipate that requirement and are not trying to like get away with something we're trying to to kind of push an envelope that wouldn't otherwise have been like, consistent with the neighborhood that we're we're occupying. There are. There is certainly precedent within this immediate neighborhood, and I'm sure, throughout the city of similar conditions. And I think that's worth noting. I would also note that if if the front setback had been interpreted as Grape Street as opposed to 20th Street, then we would have a side setback on the East property line. That side setback would be a lot less restrictive offhand. I don't remember if it's 7 and a half feet, or what that distance would be as it is with our proposed roof line being 20 something feet away. We are way less impactful to the neighbor than any of the other neighbors continuing to the east. From from this lot.

[95:11] Each of those is, you know, closer to 5 feet 7 feet from the property line. And I think what we're doing is essentially very in keeping with the neighborhood context. So just wanted to point that out and then happy to answer any questions about sort of the history of the project, or or what our design intent was, or kind of where we're going from here. So thank you for your time, and thank you for considering the project. Excellent. Thank you both for your presentation. We're now going to open it up to questions from the board to the applicant. I'm going to start with Sean any questions to the applicant. I would say, I have no questions. You know. I think everything presented you know, makes perfect sense to me.

[96:00] Excellent. Thank you so much, Sean Ben. Sure. Yes, I have 2 questions for the applicant. One is in variance, criteria h, 1 we. We discusses that because of the physical circumstances or conditions, the property can't reasonably be developed in conformity with the code. I guess I'm. Sure. Struggling a little bit with that one. Can you maybe address that one specifically like, why, why couldn't the. Sure. The improvements that have been built on that eastern edge. Confirm. Form to the code. I mean, I guess really the- the critical word there is reasonably like. Yes, we could build a patio and a roof cover that conforms to the code, but that roof cover that patio would not be a reasonable size, space, a reasonable kind of condition to use for outdoor living, or even, for that matter, for the storage of furniture for outdoor living in terms of keeping it out of the rain, keeping it out of the snow. The constructability of some of that also becomes challenging. You know. 30 inch roof overhang isn't crazy.

[97:07] but it certainly becomes a little bit more challenging than, say, a 1 foot overhang. And and so when we're when we're looking at what's reasonable, I think that's sort of where we're coming from. and by accommodating the angular rear property line relative to the house. With this variance it allows us to get a reasonable size. Padding or roof cover reasonable size, carport, and if that makes sense. Okay, thank you. And the other criteria I just wanted to ask about was, it's in H. 5 B, which is the. The variance. Would not. Awesome. Or permanently impair reasonable use and enjoyment or development of adjacent property. So, of course, we do have in the record a number of neighbor comments, all opposed, and I think probably the most pertinent one would be the immediately adjacent property owner. So I just wanted to give you a chance to. I think you touched on some of this earlier, but you know, relating to acoustics and so forth, things that maybe are not appropriate for us to consider. But

[98:10] if you could just just address that like, why does why do the proposed improvements not impair the reasonable use and enjoyment or development of the adjacent property. Well, I think the big piece there is that it's not the roof overhang, or the columns that are impacting the use of the neighboring properties. So what's impacting the neighbors is the fact that these owners want to have an outdoor living space. They want patios. They want landscaping. They want to be able to spend time outside with their friends, which I think is reasonable. Certainly something I want to do in my own home, and none of that is limited by the roof structure. So the roof structure, which is what we're applying for the variance, for the only way that that might impact the neighbors. Reasonable use of their property would be if it shaded their property, or if it maybe blocked views from their property. Something like that. But we've been very careful in the design of the structure to keep those roof lines low below the existing ridge line of the house, you know, kind of conforming with the original kind of mass and scale of the original house, so that everything

[99:11] feels appropriate to both the original house construction and the neighborhood, and the separation from those neighboring properties for that vertical construction. I think a lot of what was in the concerns from the neighbors had to do with the use of that outdoor space. or even the use of the indoor space when the windows are open, which seems challenging to me, since people are allowed to use their indoor space with their windows open. They're allowed to use their backyards with or without a roof. There was a comment in there about the roof, potentially amplifying sound onto neighboring properties. I can't speak too much to the engineering of that other than when we've worked on amphitheater projects and other type of acoustic where acoustic performance is important. The angle of the surfaces certainly had a significant impact, but in this case the roof angles north toward the street, as opposed to east towards the neighbor, so it actually should be directing sound away from the neighboring property, not amplifying it toward the neighboring property. So I'm not sure if there's some other characteristic. They're referencing. But as far as I can tell, that that probably isn't

[100:20] entirely accurate. That helps. Thank you. Thank you so much. Ben Drew. Yeah, I guess I'll be honest. That this is a tough one, and in your application. Why did you not include the east elevation or photos of of the outdoor space. As far as a drawing. Yeah, I mean it was. It was honestly, it was hard to evaluate from the your application, because you didn't have one. The original configuration of the home, or actually what was built a view, you know, from the East. I guess Robbie had to show that in his

[101:11] Yeah. Presentation. He had to find it up for the permit, and the neighbors had to send it to us. It certainly wasn't intended as an omission from trying to hide anything. I think part of it is that everything that we're trying to do has been submitted through to from our point of view to the city for building, permit review, and what we were trying to do is simplify the permit this variance application as much as we could, so that you weren't having to review. you know, reams of paper. I'm sure you do, anyway. Well, I guess it's not paper anymore. But yeah, I mean, I apologize. If it felt like we were trying to hide something. But frankly, like you're the city, if that's fair, and and it seems to us like once something submitted. I I recognize this left and right hand at the city, but it's sometimes confusing for us. Yeah, we don't see it unless it's in the application. So.

[102:02] Makes sense. But yes, but that's that's probably more of why something was omitted rather than some intentional to see. Okay. Any other questions. Drew. I think that's it at this time. Thank you, Drew. Katie. Either type or ask your questions. Please. Alright! Not hearing me, Katie. while Katie is typing her questions, I have 3 questions that I'm gonna go ahead and ask.

[103:00] Actually, we'll go ahead, and Katie says no questions, no questions at all, Katie. Excellent, wonderful! Thank you so much for that, Katie. I have questions for the applicant. So my 1st question. So I'm trying to think of this as 3 separate variances. So my 1st question is about the carport replacement. So can you help me understand why. The propellant. Carport replacement is bigger than what was originally there. So maybe the easiest thing. Sorry, Robbie, if you go back to your presentation. You had the exterior pictures of the before and after the original harpour was essentially one of those I hate to call them cheesy, but cheesy metal awnings with the sort of latticework columns, very thin type of construction, and also not particularly robust, or, in our opinion, in keeping with the architecture of the house or the neighborhood.

[104:03] So what we were trying to do is, create a more solid construction that could, in our point of, from our point of view, tie in better with the architecture of the home advance. The architecture of the home, so that it was a little bit more nice. And then, and in doing so we needed a little bit wider structural column to support that construction as opposed to the as you can see in that bottom left picture those very thin steel posts that are holding up what's probably not a permitable piece of structure today in terms of snow loads. Wind loads, certainly wind loads so so that that drove a little bit of extra structure and then fitting a car inside that structure didn't allow us to shrink it in board. We so we had. We chose to grow it upwards. Okay, thank you. That's very helpful.

[105:00] One of the things that you said was in in your testimony. Everyone's kind of dealing with setback issues in the neighborhood. And I'm just trying to understand in terms of our criteria. And you'll have to excuse me because I'm working with like multiple screens here. So our one B says, the unusual circumstance or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or zoning district in which the property is located. But what I'm hearing from. Your testimony is. Actually, this is common in the neighborhood in terms of people having to deal with. Issues. So can you help me understand? Understand how you're responding to criteria b. as the unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or zoning district. Yeah, I appreciate that. That's a that's a great question. And Robbie, maybe that 1st slide again. Thanks for being the.

[106:01] So, I guess my point was that it's really those corner lots, those awkward corner lots that are fronting on the 20th that have that condition in a lot of different places, and in every one of those they violated the setbacks it's. And then when you get off those awkward shaped lots, and you get into the regular like rhythm of great drive and the rhythm of Glenwood going. Those are regular shaped lots, and those houses are much more. You can see the back lines. The back of the houses tend to line up the front of the houses, tend to line up. They're accommodating the setbacks. So from a percentage standpoint, most of the lots are those regular shaped lots, and so most are in compliance with, or have the ability to be in compliance with, with, standard setbacks. It's these weird ones on the corner that we are one of 4 or 5 that that I'm kind of referencing when I'm saying that it's it's the variance we're asking for while it's a unique condition overall in the neighborhood. It's still in keeping with the neighborhood because of this, these weird neighboring lots.

[107:07] So I guess I guess I want it. I want it both ways. But but that's that's my thought on that. I appreciate it. Thank you for that answer. And then my last question at this point is, I'm trying to understand the difference between what is proposed and what is allowed by right. So we keep talking about this overhang, and what I've heard from Robbie is, if if it constructed by right. There is an ability, for I believe, 2 and a half feet that it can encroach with, you know. No, no problems whatsoever. So what I'm trying to understand is in this proposal that we're looking at tonight. What is that? Size difference? What's the size difference between what is proposed and what would be allowable understanding that we have that 2 and a half foot wiggle room.

[108:00] So I guess there's sort of 2 answers to your question. So the 1st is that Wiggle Room only applies to the roof structure and not the columns that hold it up. So if you were to draw a line between the green line and the red line on this drawing like exactly halfway. That would be 2 and a half feet, so the roof line could extend to that new imaginary line that's between green and red. But the columns would have to sit at or behind the green line. Is that helpful? So we could. We could theoretically move those columns back to the green line and then move the roof line back to where that new line is between green and red, and that would be the use by right allowable condition from a like a numerical standard. The going down that list, the the 22 feet for the the carport would wind up, being 22 feet 6 inches, for the roof line

[109:00] and 25 feet for the column that's holding up that corner of the cardboard. and then the 20.2 foot setback that we're proposing. That would be 25 feet for the column, and again 22.5 feet for the roof line, so we would lose about 2 feet on that roof, 2 and a half feet. and then the last one same. Basically the same applies. We lose about 2 and a half feet on that roof line, and then I'd like to add in, and then those roofs. If we did, that would all be irregularly shaped. There would be pie shaped. you know, over a room, so there'll be smaller on one end and and a lot larger on the other end. So using it would. If you create an awkward usability, the usability would be kind of, you know, less on the on the shorter side. And then, as you get towards the middle. It's pretty much use unusable space. So you're constructing things. Something that's not usable. I appreciate that. Thank you so much. I don't have any other questions for the applicant, but I want to make sure that the board questions have been satisfied. Does the Board have any additional questions for the applicant?

[110:10] All right, thank you so much. Applicants for that presentation at this point we're going to open it up to. Public. Comment. So I'm assuming, yes, there are 15 participants on the call. So I'm assuming we have some public comment. Staff, can you please help me help remind me of our rules for public comment. So why don't you remind me, instead of me trying to say things? And then you having to correct me. Why don't you go ahead and let our public comment? Folks know their their rules and guidelines, how much time they have, how they need to introduce themselves, etc. Sure. Thank you. Nikki. So yeah, this will be our opportunity for public comment. Each speaker can have up to 3 min to speak, and I will pull up a timer that you should be able to see on my screen. Let me know if you all aren't able to see that in just a moment.

[111:09] Please keep discussions civil and related to the the subject matter, and that's pretty much the primary rules. We'll ask you to go ahead and raise your hands. If you want to speak that way. We know about how many people we're expecting. We have one raised hand at the moment. Excellent. So, Thomas, I'll give you an opportunity to go ahead and put that timer on the screen so we can see that. And I ask everyone who participates in public comment to please start by introducing yourself with your name and your address. I'll ask for that as we get started. So, Thomas, if we can see the timer and then I'll let you go ahead and start the public comment period as well.

[112:01] Alright. Great. Thank you so much. Yeah, I. The the timer won't appear until it actually starts, and I'm having to bounce back and forth a little bit with the unmuting. But so yeah, we'll go ahead and begin. So please go ahead and raise your hands. Now 1st up we have Amina. Amina, please state your full name and address at the beginning of your comment. I'm going to go ahead and click, allow to talk. but please wait till you see the timer start. And and actually you, you will just do it the the same way that we've done it in the past. If you want to promote that person. And, Amina, you are welcome. If you would like to appear on screen, you're more than welcome to to share your video. But if you do not. That is your choice as well. Oh, it was my understanding that we don't normally allow video testimony. But we don't. Yeah, okay, thank you for that. I apologize. Go ahead. Go ahead, Amina, with your testimony. Thanks. Everybody.

[113:10] Thank you. Now. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you now. I'll go ahead and start this timer over for you. Great. Thank you. So my name is Amina Simon. I'm currently at 1040 pine, but I've lived most of my life at 2320, 20 Great Avenue, and I continue to spend a lot of time there. My mom Joni is the owner. So I wanted to speak to a couple of points that have come up so far. First, st the applicants had mentioned, and a few people had mentioned the administrative variance application, and I did want to just clarify that my mom and myself were communicating willingly with the owners about their application or their request for that variance, but they were really not forthcoming with information when we were asking about what it was they wanted us to agree to, and my mom to agree to. So I did want to mention that it's not entirely true that we were not being cooperative. We didn't feel that it was being approached fairly for our about the impact on us.

[114:14] I also wanted to address the item of, or the claim of, the property not being able to be reasonably developed, which a couple of you have asked questions about as well. and I'm not sure why it hasn't been necessarily talked about the potential for development of a patio or living space on the other side. So on the west side of the home there's space within the setback for similar covered patios that they could have considered they could have fenced that yard, as far as I know. so I don't necessarily think that this side facing our home is the only way that that property could have been developed within the setbacks, and then I also wanted to mention the comments about enjoyment. The applicants have stated that it's probably not the roof, and it's just the neighbors wanting to be outside. That's creating the noise issues.

[115:08] But having lived in that home for my entire life with many neighbors who had friends and also spent time outside. I can testify that the noise is significantly more disruptive now than it ever was previously without that construction. So, not being a sound engineer. As far as I can tell, the roof is the thing that changed, not people being outside and having fun. So I also I have a question for the board. I don't know if you can answer it or not, but there is a foundation laid for an additional separate shed structure that's very close to their property line. I don't know whether setbacks apply to that or anything. I know. It's not part of this app. I don't see it in the application. But I'm curious if anyone's able to answer the question of whether it's setbacks apply to detached structures as well. That's everything I have to say, thank you all so much for your time. It's been really interesting and fun to engage in this type of a city meeting as well. I've never done it before, so it was a fun experience for me, and I appreciate it. Thank you.

[116:11] Thank you. Thank you for joining us, Amina. We can go ahead and move on to our next participant. We have another from Joni. Actually, I want to chime in to see if there are any questions of this of our public comment first, st is that how we've done it in the past, Robbie. Would you like for me to answer that question about the setbacks. No. Oh, okay. So what I'd like to know is traditionally. Have we asked questions? Have we opened? No, no, that's right. I'm thinking of it now. Comment. Awesome, pop. Close the public comment, and then we ask questions. Yeah, correct. Thank you, everybody for your patience, Amina. Thank you so much for your testimony as well. And please, Thomas, take it away in terms of our next public comment.

[117:03] Sure. Thank you. We do have one more raised hand at the moment from Joni. Joni, I'm gonna go ahead and unmute you, and you should see this timer pop up in just a moment. We cannot hear you yet. I don't see a timer. Oh, okay, I was just waiting to hear your voice to make sure that your audio was working. I'm gonna go ahead and start the timer for you. Okay. Yeah. My daughter spoke to a lot of what I was going to ring up. One of the things I'm wondering about the 2 is Why, the garage slash Carport has half of a wall on the East Side, you know. On my side of that you would think that if they thought that they were building within the property setback it would they would have actually built the whole wall. It has half a wall, which is very strange

[118:04] and the acoustic. I'm going to repeat what she said a little bit, because the acoustic of what they've built are crazy different than they've been at any other time in the history. I've lived here for 25 years. We've had families and all kinds of. We've had renters. We've had lots of different neighbors living on that property never had a problem with the noise. This is just very, very different. So. and it is that main, the middle structure that is causing that which is amplifying the the noises, their voices, etc. And it's almost unbelievable honestly, that we can hear their conversations so clearly when we are, you know. when they're inside their house with just the patio door partially open. So

[119:01] And again, like there doesn't seem to be any reason, I mean, they remodeled the whole interior of their house so they could have even put their living room. main living room on the other side of the house when they redid that, and had the extension of their living room on the west side of the house, as opposed to the east side of the house, and they wouldn't have it have had a variance problem. I mean, they can still very easily do that. They already have part of a roof overhang built there. They could even add on to that. I don't understand why they didn't plan for that from the beginning. let's see. oh, also the way that the building is now, according to the plan that I was originally sent by one of the residents. It shows that the middle patio cover

[120:05] structure is actually only 18 feet 4 and a half inches from the property line, not 20 feet 2 inches, so there would be a modification required for that as well. And what else? Oh, the patio roofs could be designed in a way that looks right with a house, even if with the They stuck with a very with a head back. I see my time's up. Thank you. Joni. Yeah, that is the end of your time. Please go ahead and conclude any final thoughts you may have had, otherwise we can go ahead and move on. We appreciate your participation. Yeah. Also, I mean, they they bought the house in 2023. It wasn't that long ago. They knew what they were getting and they either did know, or should have known about the setback rules before they started construction.

[121:07] obviously, or or designed anything. Thank you, Joni. I'm going to go ahead and pass it back over to the chair. I appreciate it, and I will do one final call for anybody else to raise their hands. That may want to speak, but I don't see any at the moment. I think we are all right to move on. Thank you, Joni, so much for your testimony, and thank you, Thomas, for running our public comment period. So with that being said, Let me go back to my notes. Okay, if there is no other public comment on this matter, then it is open to the board for discussion. So I'm going to close our public comment period. And I'm actually going to jump in 1st and ask the Board a question. I'm and I personally am interested in looking at this as 3 different variances, and actually voting on them as 3 different variances. For me. It's

[122:10] if we get into the discussion about all of it. It's very confusing to me about what is allowable and is not allowable. And so, before we start the discussion, I just want to have a previous discussion with the Board to find out if you all are okay with discussing these as 3 separate variances, or if you do, have very strong opinions about looking at all of these as one variance. So that's how I want to start on the discussion with the board. Ben, go ahead. Yes. I agree, madam. Chair. Yeah. I think I'm open to discussing it as 3 separate variances. Thank you, Ben Katie. I think I heard a me, too. Thank you, Katie. Sean drew.

[123:03] Yeah, I'm open to discussing as 3 separate. Yep, that's a fine approach. Perfect. Thank you so much for that. Y'all okay. And thank you so much for Katie entering. she says. Oh, okay, I apologize. Katie says that she's more in favor of discussing as one if you can just provide a little bit more context, Katie, so we can understand your reasoning. That'd be great. Nope. but don't feel strongly okay. I'm gonna ask that we discuss these as 3 separate ones, Katie, are. Is that okay with you, or fine. Okay, I appreciate you. Your your willingness to compromise with us, Katie. So thank you so much for that. So let's discuss this starting with our 1st variant. So that would be the carport the very 1st one. So let's open that the carport up for discussion. And I'm gonna start with Shawn and Shawn. In your discussion with the board, asking questions.

[124:10] you can. If you feel comfortable, let us know how you're leaning towards approving that car, port variance or not. It's something that we traditionally do on this board. But, Sean, I'm gonna go ahead and start with you. No. Yeah, I think, starting with at least with the Carport one. I'm leaning in favor, especially since that's not, at least, for the posts are located which are going to be required for the heavier roof. They're not too much further out from where the post from the original carport was located. And I think that specific structure didn't really possess as many of the quality life issues for neighbors as well as didn't impede the setback as much as the other 2. Thank you, Sean Ben, at the carport.

[125:02] Yeah, I think what Shawn just said was well stated. I'm in much the same place. And maybe I'll just leave it at that, for now. Thank you. Ben Drew. Carport. Yeah, I mean, I think it actually has a similar footprint to what was there? It's hard. Tell exactly what was there. And additionally, if that post there's an echo from Katie, maybe Katie mute her computer. Thanks. You know, if that post was slightly further in, this would be my right or or very, very close to being And yeah, I do think it is odd that there is the missing wall. But that is, I think the owners prerogative to have that.

[126:02] Thank you so much, drew Katie, the carport. 13038836035: I'm in favor of the carport. If we're considering just the you know, that particular variance, I'm in favor of approving that particular part of the variance. Thank you so much, Katie. Yeah, I think I'm gonna agree with my colleagues. In terms of the carport. I my question was with the one to one replacement, but I felt like the applicant answered, that sufficiently in terms of the the size of the post and things like that. So I'm in favor of the carport as well. So I'm going to use that as a straw poll. I'm actually not going to ask for a motion right now. I want us to discuss all of it before going through the motions, but it sounds like from the Board's perspective. Our straw poll is agreement with the carport. So thank you, everyone for your discussion before I close out any other discussion on the carport.

[127:07] Excellent. Let's talk about the middle. Let's talk about the middle variance. So, Shawn, I'm gonna go ahead and start with you. Any discussion on that middle portion that we're looking at. Yeah. So for. And my opinion is gonna be similar in both the middle and the port, the southernmost porch. You know, I'm in favor leaning in favor of approving, but I don't feel as strongly as I did about the Carport I think the biggest issue it sounds like, for. you know, neighborhood quality of life is that the structure is significantly amplifying the sound either from people outdoors or even from inside with the door open. I'm not sure if that's within our specific purview to talk about. But it's possible that maybe we would say. you know, come back and find some soundproofing methods for those, and then come back and approve it. Because otherwise, when it come where, when it comes to the setback,

[128:07] there doesn't seem to be a realistic way to modify that, to get it to comply, if they were to make the roof shorter, the posts would have to be very close to the house, and the overhang really wouldn't cover any of the concrete slab, or really any usable space, and I don't think I mean I haven't seen a floor plan of the house, but I'm not sure I'm assuming. The bedrooms are all at the front of the house, and the back is the kitchen living area, I assume putting a porch would make most sense to be off the living area and kitchen. I'm not sure how feasible it would have been for them to renovate the house, to swap the bedrooms with the kitchen and living room. And then again, that might. That's probably out of our purview, anyway, since that's interior. So yeah, I mean, I haven't open, you know. I'm willing to hear what everyone else on the board thinks. But I'm leaning slightly towards approve.

[129:02] Excellent, and, Shawn, I just want to reiterate for our edification. So as a board, we are really looking at the criteria. And so there are definitely things that as humans we want or don't want in terms of neighborhood character and getting along with neighbors. But when we're when we're making our decisions. We're really looking at those criteria. And is it meeting that criteria? Even when we're asking folks to come back? It's to come back to satisfy that criteria, and so I encourage you. Listen. It's your 1st meeting. I was there once once myself, right in your shoes. So yes, I just encourage you to to always rely on the criteria as you continue to make your decisions, whether either for or against. But thank you so much for your comments, Sean, and your comments on both the middle and the end. Ben, I'll open it up to you if you want to talk about the middle and the end, or if you just want to talk about the middle, go ahead, please.

[130:04] Sure I think my comments similarly are are gonna address both the middle and end. I'm leaning against approving in both cases. But I'm torn so curious to hear the discussion from the rest of the board here. you know. I guess I'd start by saying I'm I'm a cognizant of the 20% administrative variance rule that I do think that sort of sets some context here that we're not talking about a huge departure from from the base rules. But nonetheless we we couldn't get there because we did have the adjacent neighbor asking for for this process that we're in now. So we are where we are. you know, for me it really. when I look at the criteria, I mean, I'm not really that convinced that we have peculiar or physical conditions peculiar to this property. I mean, I think it's a pretty good size lot, you know. I do appreciate the the 3 25 foot setbacks.

[131:03] but it seems to me that in this case the property owner knew what they were buying or should have. I'm sympathetic to that. They're also not. If this is not a situation where somebody is just keeping an existing condition in place and just working with the city, to try to legalize it in terms of building coverage for floor area. They're they're definitely expanding both. So anyway, we take that sort of takes me to looking at the specific criteria. And you know, the ones I'm having trouble with, we need. So even if we assume that h. 1, a is satisfied because of the 3 25 foot setbacks. you know I don't, and I still get stuck on h. 1 c. Because I think the property could reasonably develop could reasonably be developed in conformity with the code. and then my my other one that's challenging for me is 5 B. Would not substantially or permanently impair reasonable use and enjoyment or development of the adjacent property, and I guess I what I'm getting hung up on there is.

[132:08] you know. I get that. We're not like looking at a noise ordinance or something here. But why is that criteria in there? You know. What does it mean? I mean here. So here, on this record, we have. The adjacent neighbor has come in and said. this is substantially impairing the reasonable use and enjoyment of my property because of the design of the improvements that are encroaching. I don't think that criteria is satisfied in my mind yet, but I'm but I'm interested in the rest of the discussion here. Excellent. Thank you so much, Ben, for your comments and questions, drew. I was gonna say something pretty similar to what Ben was getting at. I mean, again, we have to go back to this criteria. And I also, you know, think about the carport. I mean I.

[133:00] If if we say that the car part is is acceptable, then we have to say that also that visit physical circumstances, the h. 1 a. Or h 1 a one, anyway, the the 1st one and I do think that the 2 points in contention on the awning is B the sorry. My formatting is very weird on my criteria list. C. Sorry. Where it cannot be recently developed in conformity with the provisions. Where you could come up with a different conclusion on the awnings versus the carport, and the same could be said about criteria. 5 B, where? Yeah, the carport might not affect reasonable use enjoyment and where the awnings might impact it. So I think we should focus on those 2 criteria.

[134:04] Thank you so much for your comments, Drew. Katie. 13038836035: You guys can hear me. Okay. Yes. Yes. 13038836035: Great 13038836035: I guess my stance is I appreciate, you know, Drew, what you just said about those 2 criteria, but I'm I'm sort of convinced that 13038836035: the the issues that the neighbors have with regard to like the acoustics on the overhang 13038836035: and and for the patios that that they are not exactly pertinent to the criteria. I hear their issues, but as far as just strictly adhering to the criteria that Robbie laid out, I feel like 13038836035: They they meet the criteria again is, you know, going by Robbie's guidance to us. Forget about the fact that they

[135:07] 13038836035: started this work ahead of time and and view it just as a proposal. I feel like it meets the criteria, and I'm definitely sympathetic to some of the neighbors concerns. But I feel like they're not. I'm convinced that they're not 13038836035: necessarily pertinent to the variance requests. 13038836035: If that makes sense. 13038836035: So I'm so I'm inclined to support the variances 13038836035: for the the 2 patios, as well. Thank you, Katie. I want to make sure I can't see you, so I want to make sure you don't have anything else to say did you have any other comments Katie. 13038836035: No, no, that was it.

[136:00] Perfect. Thank you so much for your comments, Katie. I, when looking at the criteria. actually before looking at the criteria, what I keep trying to remind myself, is this is a proposal. So if someone was coming to us with just plans, how would I? How would I look at this, and for me, 5 C. I'm having problems with 5 C. Because if someone were to come in with plans and say, Listen, we tried to draw it this way. We tried to draw it this way. We tried to configure it this way. We tried to configure it that way, and it just won't work. I think I would be more inclined to say that 5 C is being met. However, with that being said, I feel like I don't have enough information. And so, because I don't have enough information, I'm not. I'm not leaning towards approval of the middle and the end. If we're looking at this strictly as a proposal.

[137:06] So I am leaning towards having the applicant come back with more information that that gives me more information about satisfying that 5 c. For the middle, and the end for me to then make a decision of, you know, approval or not approval. So that's where I'm sitting. I was swayed by what our colleagues were saying. I do hear what Katie saying in terms of of taking all 3 together. But I I'm looking at 5 C. And I don't feel like I have all of the information at this point in time to make a decision that it satisfies 5 C. Drew. I saw your hand go up. Go ahead! Drew. Just to be 100% clear. You're talking about the minimum variance that would afford relief.

[138:00] Correct. Okay. Good. Wait. Let me make sure hold on. So I'm looking at 2 different screens here, too. Yes. 13038836035: Yeah, that that is 5 c. Yes, that is what I'm talking about, and that's what I wrote down previously. So yes, that is what I am referring to, Ben. Go ahead, please. And so just expanding on that a little bit. Madam chair. So just hypothetically, if we were to table tonight, and then ask the applicant. If they were, you know, interested in coming back with the information that you're asking about. Should we provide any additional guidance, is it? Are we talking about where the posts are. Are we talking about the 30 inch rule? We talk, you know. Do we want to take into account constructability? Or, you know some, all the issues that have come up today. Can you expand a little bit on what we would need to be able to make the assessment. Yes, that's a very good question.

[139:02] When I think about this as a proposal, I would be more than open to asking all of those questions, because there's nothing there. It's all conceptual. And so we can ask questions about. If you were to do this, if you were to move that, what would it be? And then we could get more information. And then I could say, Okay, sounds like you. You did all the math and and figured out that this this does satisfy. 5 c. I'm in a pickle because my brain and the criteria and the rules are saying, think of it as a proposal. But the reality of the situation is, there's something that already exists. So I'm trying to. I think I'm trying to give the applicant more time to convince me that they are meeting 5 C, and then I can say, Okay, this makes sense to me, while also understanding that there's something that that's already there.

[140:05] Could I also just ask for for clarity? Are you of the mindset that h. 1 c has been satisfied? Which is the that it cannot reasonably be developed. And then the other one we had talked about was criteria 5 B. You know, substantially impairing reasonable use of the neighbor. Did you want to make any comments on that, either one of those. So the 1st one was one, a correct. One c. One. C, yeah, I have questions on one C, because because of such physical circumstances or conditions, the property cannot reasonably developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. I am not as concerned with 5 B.

[141:03] That's actually something that I'm I'm not as hung up on. I do care about neighbors being able to to get along. But I'm not convinced. Let me just say by what I've read and and the the testimony that I'm her. I've heard. I'm not convinced that changing anything that already exists is going to satisfy the neighbors. And so I'm I'm I'm really looking at other parts of the criteria, and not as focused on the the neighbor impact at this point. In time. Yeah, I I've just you know. So I I am sympathetic on the noise. When I look at the photo that Joni sent.

[142:01] I'm guessing from her second story, looking at the the outdoor space. I mean it. It. The roof is kind of angled right towards her house, and I could see how that is an issue acoustically. So, and then other things I wanted to mention. You know again, when I look at this. We have to look at it as a proposal. Right? That it's not already there. And also there was a a point in a I think, a couple of the the letters about precedent. I just wanted to address that. And I, and maybe the our legal counsel, can comment on this, but my understanding is that you know none of these. variances set a precedent right every board is different. And we each view it independently, and the board continually changes. And so this is not, would not set a precedent.

[143:04] Deshauna. Can you go ahead and address that? Please? Yes, thank you by precedent. If we are saying binding legal decisions that limit future review on similar issues. No, we're not dealing with precedent. Variances are taken up on a case by case basis, and so were a similar or a different kind of variance from the neighborhood come before the board. Then the outcome of today's hearing would not be binding on that it would be reviewed. Based on the application. Ed submitted. Thank you to Shauna Drew. I have a question for you in in kind of helping me form my opinion. So one of the reasons why I said, I'm I'm not as swayed by the enjoyment of the neighbor is because I'm looking at as a as a proposal. And so, if I'm looking at this as a proposal. The neighbor doesn't know what the sound is going to be like. Everything is just drawings on paper.

[144:08] And so I could reasonably say, because I haven't heard the noise, yeah, this makes sense. This. This looks right. You've designed this in a way you've convinced me that it is adhering to a 1 and 5 C, because you've shown me all the drawings you've tried to reconfigure it in different ways. And this is the minimal impact that it's going to make. So, looking at it as a proposal, that is the reason why I'm not as swayed by the argument that it's it is the reasonable enjoyment. Now it's there, like, we know, we have that information. And so how? How are we going to weigh looking at this as a proposal, if it would have come to us in the proper channels in the proper manner, as well as weighing the fact that it exists. The neighbors are being impacted. And we have that information, and we know it.

[145:11] So Drew. Actually. So my question would be, and I'd love to hear what you have to say my question would be if we were to ask the applicant to come back. What would you be asking the applicant to do differently, or think about differently to help you satisfy that. What is it? 5 d. Help me? And how would you ask the applicant to help you understand how to vote on that part of the criteria. Yeah, So I guess, for 1st on the noise aspect, I mean, I think we have to think about it both ways, right? Where. Yeah, we would not have realized that in an in a proposal, right? We would not have realized that there is a noise impact. But I'd say that from their testimony that there is a noise impact, and the owners of the property should, you know, realize that, and maybe try to mitigate it?

[146:09] And then going to like, what would I want to see? I mean, I can. Just sorry to criticize the application. It's not a very convincing application of you know, it just said, Yep, the owners want this. This is what they got. We didn't really consider any other alternatives right getting at Nikki's point. Like it's it's hard to fully justify if this is the minimum variance, right? Because you you didn't explore other options. So if if they did come back, that that's how I would approach it. Now, having said that we have all of us here, we have the applicant here. Is it possible that you know that something they could say. You know we could ask them questions that would sway your mind.

[147:05] I guess that's you know I you know I'm on the fence here, and and you know, as Ben said, it's also it could be an administrative variance if there was some agreement between the neighbors. That actually is also a possibility that we could leave here, and then they can come up with something that that works for both of them. Anyway, some. Some of my thoughts. Thank you, Drew. Ben. Go ahead. Well, I I kind of like where Drew's going there, and I wonder if there's a scenario where we again don't approve or deny tonight. But we ask the applicant to go away and maybe think, are there any mitigating? Yeah. Approaches here, you know, such that they could get the consent of the neighbor, such that we would be back in an administrative variance posture.

[148:06] And failing that, then I think we would be asking them to come back and show that you know the 5 C has been met that this is the minimum minimum variance that would afford relief. I and I would just also confess I struggle a little bit here with. you know, with the word relief. I mean, it's it's relief from what? From the 3 25 foot setbacks. I just I'm not very compelled on the middle and Southern variances. You know. The carport makes sense to me. changing the corporate from a garage like, okay. You know, I can get to satisfying h. 1 a and 5 B, 5 C. But I just struggle with those in the middle, and the Southern requests.

[149:02] I appreciate, Ben, and to answer your question, yes, that is within our purview. And so I'll have to ask for the technical language. But basically, we would be tabling this. We wouldn't be making a decision, but we would be providing guidance to the applicant as to what we would like to see when we take this up, and so I believe, and deshaun after I speak I'm going to recognize you, I believe, and I'll let Deshauna say if I'm wrong. We can say, you know we would love to be able to see if you can solve this by administrative. Oh, I'm seeing seeing the head nod. No, I I think, and Deshauna is going to tell me if I'm wrong. I think we can say, you know. Go back, see if you can solve this administratively as well as convince us that you are satisfying 5 c. Because what I'm hearing from folks, and if I've missed anything else in the criteria. Please let me know, but we can say, Please, please let us know that you are satisfied.

[150:08] a 1 and 5 C. And then when they come back they can provide that information, and we can make that determination. But, Deshaun, I see you nodding your head, so I want to make sure that I am speaking correctly. Thank you. So it is my position. And I I welcome input from Robbie as well that as far as the administrative variance request to see if that is feasible between the the neighbors. I don't think that that is something that's before the board. That's something that is related to your scope, but is not something that is directly on point with the criteria. But the board can go forward and request that this matter be continued, and so the the term of art would be continuance here. A member of the Board needs to to make a motion to continue the matter. You have to

[151:01] state clearly the reason why you are moving to continue this, and then both the applicant and then the spokesperson of the opposition is how the wording is so. One of our public speakers, whoever feels that they are going to speak on behalf of the opposition to the request, also has an opportunity to state their position. And so all that needs to occur before a formal vote. So, as a beginning matter, someone needs to. If the desired on the board make a motion for continuance. State your reasons with specificity, so that both the applicant and opposition spokesperson can respond and then vote accordingly. But it is my position that you could only request to continue this matter, as it pertains to the criteria and not the administrative variance given, that that is, beyond the this Board's scope. Thank you so much for that clarification. Dashana. Robbie, did you want to add anything to that?

[152:00] No, that was great to Shauna. I was just gonna say it sounded like the board might have been leaning towards going the Administrative Review route, the Adr route. This application technically already qualifies for that. So this would be a new application new fee if it were if you were to direct them through a different application process. It might be better. Just to be very clear on which criterion the Board has concerns and wants more information on. and if one of those ties into feedback from the neighbors, then so be it. Maybe they can come back with. We talked to our neighbors, and this is what was said. Maybe not, but I would avoid putting them through a different application process that they have already tried to go through they would actually need a signature from and support from the neighbors to even apply for it. So it almost feel like it almost be impossible for them to apply for it until they got the neighbors support. So I don't. I'm not sure if that's exactly what you were proposing. They do. But

[153:06] I would maybe avoid going through a different application process and just sticking with which criterion are there concerns with? Does some of them involve interacting and getting feedback from your neighbors. Possibly they can do that through the continuance rather than through a different application process. So I just I just wanted to be clear if I was hearing that correctly or not. Thank you for that, Robbie. That's very helpful, Katie. I can't see you, so I just wanna make sure that I'm not missing any comments that you have, Katie, are you do you have any comments? As we continue to discuss this. 13038836035: No, I don't. I don't. It sounds like 13038836035: the continuance is the way to go 13038836035: to, you know. Have everyone feel comfortable that the applicants have satisfied the criteria mainly the criteria that this is the minimum variance that would afford relief. So I'm I'm comfortable with that.

[154:03] Thank you so much for those comments, Katie. So this is what I'm going to propose. We're we're hearing. I'm hearing 2 different things. So I am hearing that we are ready to make a motion and the decision on the carport. So we'll be able to do that before we. So this is the order that I would like to proceed in. I like to have the motion for the carport and the voting on the carport, so that matter can be decided. I'd also like to understand from the board the criteria that you would like the applicant to come back with in the continuance, because after we make the motion for the carport. I'll ask for the motion for the continuance, and I want to make sure that we are being very specific about the criteria that we like for people to answer. So all of the criteria is out there. It's all open for you all to ask for additional information. I just want to make sure that I'm understanding. So what I have so far is more information on a 1

[155:14] 5 C and 5 B. And, Madam Chair, can I just clarify that 1st one? Did did you mean 9, 2, 3 h. 1. a. Is that what you were? Okay? Exactly what I meant. h, 1, a. Okay. So what I'm hearing is more information on h. 1, a. 5 B and 5 C. And so my other clarification would just yeah, I think. At least for me, I was more interested in

[156:03] as to the middle and Southern encroachments about the h. 1 c. Charlie. because I think and the reason, I say that is Drew's point earlier, that if we are going to move forward with approval on the Carport Slash garage. and I think we probably have gotten comfortable with h. 1 a. Yup! So so just to say, say that maybe a same thing a different way for me the continuance motion would be tied to more information on h, 1 c. 5 B, and 5 C. Thank you, Ben, for that. Sure. Dashaun Dashauna. Thank you, Madam Chair, I do apologize, interrupting, but from a I guess, going forward and looking at the request as a 1 hearing matter for the purposes of a continuance. It does create

[157:08] seemingly some confusion about the Board's desire. If it wants to address the carport today and then continue the other 2 pieces. I know the Board was speaking about the 3 separate variances during deliberation, but it's the city attorney's offices. Understanding that this was submitted as one application and one request, and so I'm chiming in to encourage the Board to consider taking the continuance as a blanket continuance for all all matters. Understand? That makes sense. Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you so much for that, Dashana. So go ahead, Drew. You have your. So Katie is Katie is for this. I just want to hear Sean's stance. I know he's new, but.

[158:01] Yeah, I'd be in support of making this into a continuance. Thank you, Sean. So what I'm hearing we're in our still in our straw pole is that someone is interested in making a motion for a continuance and asking the applicant to come back with additional information on h. 1 c, 5 B, and 5 C. I'm seeing head, nods, head, nods, head nods. Okay. so with that I will entertain a motion from the board. I move that we continue Boza 2025 dash 0, 0 0 3 to ask the applicant to come back with more information on criteria h. 1 c. 5 B. And 5 C.

[159:06] Thank you, Ben. A second. 13038836035: I second the motion. This is Katie. Thank you so much, Katie. I'm gonna pause. Robbie, go ahead. If we can provide some sort of a timeline typically, the board says, within 90 days or 3 meetings, meaning they could come back at the next meeting in May, or they could come back June or July. Thank you, Robbie Ben, would you like to amend? Oh, wait! Hold on! Dashauna has her hand up. Go ahead, Deshana. I thank you. I had raised my hand to say that perhaps prior to getting into the specificity of the the length of the continuance, it has not yet been formally voted on, and so it may be beneficial to move to the applicant, and opposition comment to the motion for a continuance, because the applicant may be able to tell us how much time they think they need to properly respond to the specific concerns raised in the motion for continuance.

[160:07] And and I believe the applicant also can choose to have us vote right? They can say, I don't want a continuance. Is that true? Dashana? The board can request a continuance of its own accord. It has to give the applicant a chance to make a statement or give a position on that, but they cannot tell the Board that the Board does not have the right to ask for more information. So if that makes sense. We can hear the position out, but the board ultimately, if it wants a continuance, it can occur. Thank you. Everyone so deshawn. What I'm hearing is we have a motion on the table without a timeline. We're going to pause because we're not going to vote on that motion yet. We're going to hear from the applicant. We're going to hear from the opposition after we hear from both of those parties, then the Board will either decide to modify that application. Excuse me that that motion with any time, period, and or vote.

[161:07] That is correct. Excellent. Thank you so much. So there's a motion on the table right now, so we'll hear from the applicant first.st And is there a time limit to the applicant, as well. Here we have. We're gonna say, 3 min because we're going going long. So we're gonna give both the applicant and the opposition 3 min. So, applicant. Please go ahead and. Fuck. Well, thank you. I guess. Yeah. I mean, we're certainly hoping for a determination tonight. But I would rather come back with more information to help you understand the application. So we're not in objection. We don't have any objection to the the continuance. as far as timeline goes, essentially, everything you're asking for is stuff that was done 2 years ago. So we just need to pull files and submit them and try probably find a way to do that where it doesn't just feel like a document dump on you for all the other options that we explored

[162:01] way back when but we can do that and get it turned back in. So I mean, it might be nice to have a reasonably wide window of within 90 days, but our intent would be to submit at the next available opportunity. Thank you so much from the applicants. Now we'll have 3 min for any opposition and applicants if y'all can mute yourselves. That'd be awesome. Thank you. Can everybody hear me. Yes, go ahead, please. Okay. Great. This is Amina again, as the spokesperson for the opposition. Thank you all so much for your deliberation and for hearing our concerns. We're also in favor of the continuance. I would like to reiterate as well that we are open to discussion with the applicants about how they might mitigate the impact on our quality of life, of the current construction.

[163:00] I feel that maybe we've been painted as not wanting to collaborate. But that's not true. We do request that the communication with the applicants be in writing and with clear information about what they're trying to do, so that we can communicate clearly, we're very detail oriented people. And so that was our original request. When they were looking for the administrative step back or the administrative variance. And I think you know, that's where the confusion about whether we wanted to be cooperative came in was because we were asking for clear written communication. And exactly what was being asked of us, as well as just reasonableness. And again, that written element where the owners who were the applicants represented here are the architects or the the kind of post facto architects. The owners live elsewhere, and their adult children live in the residence and are our actual neighbors. So we've wanted to have friendly dialogue in that way. And so we're absolutely open to collaboration and hope that

[164:04] in the pursuit of this continuance we're also treated as people who are being impacted and not just like. you know, meanies or something who don't want change. That's not the case. We want friendly relationships with our neighbors. So really appreciate you all listening to our our position and the applicants I would ask you to please involve us in your in your information, submission for the continuous for the board as well, we would love to find a solution that actually is favorable and maybe mitigate some of the negative impact that we've been experiencing rather than sort of waving that office something that doesn't matter. But we'd absolutely be open to, you know, working together to hopefully find something that's easier for the Board to vote on as opposed to something that you know leaves us feeling feeling unheard or upset. So yeah, I think that's what I had to say in favor of the continuance, and we'd love to be collaborative as opposed to oppositional to the applicants wherever possible. Thank you.

[165:08] Thank you so much, Amina, as well. All right. So we've heard from the applicant that 90 days is reasonable for them. So, Ben, would you like to modify your motion? Please. Sure. Would you like the whole motion again, or just the modification. He can just do a friendly amendment to the modification right to Shauna. It. It would be ideal if we could just have the the full, clear motion stated, for the record. Thank you so much, Shoshana. Go ahead, Ben. I move that we continue Boza 2025, dash 0, 0, 0 0 3. To allow the applicant 90 days, or up to 90 days to come back to the board with more information on criteria h. 1 c.

[166:02] 5 B. And 5 C. Excellent. Thank you so much, Ben. Second a second on that motion. 13038836035: I second the motion. Thank you so much, Katie, and then we will vote. We'll start with you, Sean. Yay, nay, yes, no, please let us know. A yay. Thank you. Sean, Ben. Yay! Drew. Yay, I I see there's a hand raised. I'm just wondering. But yay. Thank you, Drew. Katie. 13038836035: Yay! And Nikki is a yay or an aye. With that the motion passes. Thank you so much, everyone. Thank you so much. Applicants as well as neighbors for all of your time and your testimony tonight as well. Okey, dokey artichokeys. Okay,

[167:04] okay. So now we are going to go to the minutes. Yes, I'm seeing headnots. All right. We're gonna go to the minutes. So let me see what my little sheet says about the minutes. All right. Are there any corrections to the minutes? Can I please have a motion to approve the minutes. 13038836035: This is Katie. I make a motion to approve the minutes. Thank you so much, Katie. Second. Whole, second. Who said that? True. Oh, thank you! Drew drew seconds. All in favor, Sean, please. I. Ben. Hi. Drew. Hi. Katie. 13038836035: I. Nikki. I motion passes. Thanks, everybody. and then we have one other item. Right? Oh, wait! Hold on!

[168:01] Let's see other matters from the board any other matters from the board, seeing not, oh. seeing none other matters from the city attorney. Thank you. maybe not the ideal place to address this, but, as the board is aware, it is time to nominate a new vice chair and chair. I'm uncertain how the Board would like to proceed, whether folks would like a time to ponder that. But that's something that is something that needs to be addressed today or at the next meeting as soon as possible. Excellent. Thank you, Dashana. Robbie, go ahead. And typically in the past, it's been very casual. If somebody wants to nominate the chair the board just votes on it, and then we do the same thing for the vice chair. It's pretty straightforward. You could do that today. You could do that right now, or if the board wants more time. That just means, Nikki. I think you're the

[169:00] next chair at the next meeting until a new chair and vice chair are decided upon. But that's up to the board. If you want to do it today, you can, if you want to wait till the next meeting to think about it. You're more than welcome to. Excellent. Thank you so much, Robbie. Katie, would you like to decide on chair and vice chair today or later. 13038836035: later, only simply because I've got to run and I have to be. It's something at 7 but I I feel I I would have, you know, left my own devices. I would nominate you to be chair Nikki and and Ben to be vice chair. But I'm I'm happy to go either way. If people wanna postpone it to the next meeting. Fine people, if if there are other nominations fine with that, too. Thank you so much, Katie Ben. I saw you take yourself off mute now or later. I'm happy to vote next month. and I would also support you being chair.

[170:00] and I would humbly accept Katie's nomination of me as vice chair. Excellent. Thank you so much for that, Ben, through narrow. Can we just make a motion that Nikki's the chair and Ben's the vice chair. 13038836035: I will make that motion. Okay, I make a motion. 13038836035: I'll make that motion. Okay. Okay. 13038836035: No, no, I'll second your motion. Okay, right? All right. So we have motion on the table. Second, Katie, voting yes or no. 13038836035: Yes. Sean. Yes. Drew. Bye. Then. Alright! Nikki. Aye, thank y'all, all right. So we have a chair and vice chair excited to work with you, Ben. Thank you. Everyone matters from the Board, matters from staff. And just a few things. One is reminder that Tuesday, may 13, th is your next meeting. And because of tonight, it sounds like we're gonna have at least one, possibly one items. It sounds like they're gonna wanna come to the next meeting, and they do have the time to do that.

[171:07] But I will provide an official update to the May 13th meeting at the end of next week after the application deadline has occurred. That is this upcoming Monday, and then, once staff has kind of done formal completeness checks. So expect an official update from staff at the end of next week regarding the May 13th meeting, but, like always, if there are anticipated absences, please just let us know as soon as possible that way. We can plan accordingly, and also make sure we have a quorum and oh, go ahead! Did you have? Go ahead. Go ahead, Robbie! Number 2. The I don't know if anybody has noticed, but the June meeting has been pushed back one week instead of the second Tuesday of the month, which is June 10.th It is the 3rd Tuesday of the month, June 17.th You can blame me for that, because I will not be in town that week, and was talking with Thomas and Amanda, and we decided that pushing it back one week would be okay for staff. That being said, it obviously needs to be okay with the board. So if all of you could just check your calendars if there are issues with us having a quorum on June 17.th

[172:20] We'll act accordingly. We'll figure out what to do. But if that is not a problem, just a heads up, that meeting's gonna be June 17, th not June 10, th pending the board actually being able to get a quorum that day. So let us know if that's gonna be a problem or not, and you could just let us know what the next meeting even. And then, last, but not least, our now departed former Bosa member, Joe Lester was unable to get a farewell thing. So I have been in talks with her, and she is open to just a very casual morning coffee with everybody, yourself included, Shawn, and we were thinking 3, rd the morning of Thursday, April 24th location, to be determined, exact time to be determined. But if everybody could just check your calendars for the morning of Thursday, April 24th it seems to work for Jill and staff, and we just kind of want to have a very casual quick goodbye for her.

[173:20] and the city also provides a departing gift. So we want to give that to Jill. It came quick, the kind of changing of the guard this year, so we were unable to do this at the last meeting that we did not have so again. I know I've said, check your calendars. Check it again, and just let us know if April 24th is going to be in okay, or a problem for anybody. and it's not required. That, is it? Thank you so much for that, Robbie. I just want to call attention to Staff. I know that there are a couple of questions in the chat box from our audience members. So if Staff can figure out how to respond to those that would be, or figure out what to do with those. I just wanna make sure that you all see those before we close out the zoom.

[174:07] So with that, I'm going to adjourn the meeting. Thanks, everybody. I'm excited to work with everybody, Sean, welcome to the team and use us all for support. We're a pretty collaborative bunch, and thanks everybody for hanging in there. See? Y'all next one. Oh, just wait. Who? Yes, true. I guess Joni has her hand raised. I know there's not like public comment, but I feel like it's nice to allow her to speak. I don't know. I don't know what. I don't see. Oh, I just raised my hand. I guess I didn't see the hand raised function. It may relate to her question in the chat, which is, How will neighbors be informed of the new meeting on this issue? I could touch on those questions real quick, right now, if that's okay, madam, Chair. Yes, please go. There was one question about the detached shed from Amina, that being said, detached sheds have setback requirements, 25 from the north, 3 from the sides, and they would have to get a building permit for that which would have to be reviewed, and if they are located within any of those setbacks, they would have to get another variance, a separate variance

[175:14] so that would be handled through the building permit process. It appears there is a pad out there today that pad is allowed in a setback, but a structure on top of it would not be so. That could be a problem. If something's going to be built on top. But we will deal with that when it comes in front of us, as of right now. There is no official proposal for a shed in that location. So there's really nothing we can do. We do allow pads. concrete pads and setbacks. So Staff Will is, keep an eye on that, and we will direct the applicant property owner accordingly, if they do ever want to put a shed in, and then we have another question about, how will neighbors be informed about new meetings? On this it will be reposted, and mailers will go out and yard signs will go up, depending on the next meeting that they go to.

[176:06] If they decide to go to the May meeting you will be given usually about 2 weeks prior to the meeting. You'll get something in the mail. The yard signs will go back up saying that there is a public hearing at the May meeting, and then it will be posted in the newspaper. I'm not sure if people actually read the newspaper anymore. But that's another way that we inform the public. So all of that will still be done, depending on when they decide to come back to Bosa. Did I get all the questions. Looks like you did. Okay. Thanks for that, Robbie, and gave Katie 4 min to get to her next meeting. So thank you. Everyone see you when I see you, Ciao. Bye, everyone. 13038836035: Thank you. I just wanted, and I just wanted to apologize for the sound difficulties. I will get that addressed by the next meeting. So sorry for being disruptive. No problem, Katie. We've all been there. Thanks for participating. We appreciate it. 13038836035: Thanks a lot. You guys.

[177:01] Bye ready. Well, have a good night. 13038836035: Bye.