May 13, 2025 — Board of Zoning Adjustment Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:03] And we're recording. All right. Well, thank you, everyone. This is a meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Tonight we have 2 items, and the order of items will be as follows. make it a lot bigger for me to see. We're going to start with Boz 2, 2, 0, 2, 5, 0 0 4, and then we're going to move on to Boz 2, 0 2, 5, 0 0 5 on each item. Staff will present 1st and applicant second. Next, the public will be invited to comment, and the Board will discuss. I like to start our meetings because we normally have folks. Yep, we have folks that are participating, who may not know who we are. And so I like to start our meetings with just an introduction of who we are. Your name, your position on the Bosa Board, whether you're board and or staff. How many years you've lived in the city of Boulder, and something that made you smile this week.

[1:08] All right, so I will start myself. So my name is Nikki Mccord. I am the chair of the Bosa Board. I've lived in Boulder for 15 years, and something that made me smile this week was. Oh, man, I gotta think what is today is today. Tuesday, knowing knowing that this week started out. Strong gave me a nice little smile. So thanks everyone for being here. I'm going to move. Move on to Robbie. If you'll introduce yourself, please. And Robbie Weiler, city of Boulder Bosa liaison and I have been working for the city for going on 12 and a half 13 years now, and Bosa specifically for about 12 of that so long time, and something that made me smile is the summer weather moving in may not be permanent right now, but I like it today.

[2:02] Excellent thanks for joining us. Robbie Dashauna. Hello, everyone my name is Dashauna Sasweta. I am a member of the city attorney's office, and I have been with my team for about 3 and a half years now. My air conditioner has made me smile this week, so far. Wonderful thanks for being here to Shauna. Thomas. Oh, Thomas, you're currently on mute. Thank you, Nikki. Hi, everyone. I'm Thomas Rimke. I'm the board specialist for Bosa. I also work with planning board and provide some agenda support for city council as well for the city as I've lived in Boulder for 2 years, and as I was trying to think of something that made me smile this week. I just saw a Cybertruck with a trampoline in the back of it go by my window. So it is fully assembled a trampoline.

[3:03] so that made me laugh at least. Laughing counts as a smile. Excellent! Thank you so much, Thomas, for being here. Sean, please introduce yourself. There. I'm Sean Haney. I am a member of the Boza Board. This is my 1st year on the board. I've been living in boulder for 3 years now almost 3 years. And something that made me smile. This week is lots of birds visiting our balcony. We installed a planter box, not for birds, but I think they're attracted to the bugs in it. And so every time I look out the window, there's another bird on the railing. Excellent. I love that. Thanks so much for being here, Sean Drew. Please introduce yourself. Yeah, I'm drew Eisenberg. I'm on the Bose board I lived in Boulder for 15 years, and today is my son's 3rd birthday, so he was very happy this morning. Well, let's get this meeting off and running so you can get to that yourself.

[4:03] That'd be great. Absolutely. Thank you so much for being here today. Sean. Katie, please introduce yourself. My name's Katie Crane. I've lived in Boulder for 18 years, and something that make me smile this week. Thinking about. We're going to New York City next week, and we're gonna see Hugh Jackman in his one man show, and so sort of thinking about the trip and preparing for it. That made me smile. Excellent love, that anticipation. Thanks for being here today, Katie. Last, but certainly not least, our vice chair. Ben, please introduce yourself. Ben Doyle Bose, a board member, been here in Boulder about 20 years, and my daughters are almost finished with their school. It's almost summertime. So that's made our house smile sweet. Excellent, wonderful. Thank you so much for being here with us today as well, Ben.

[5:01] So I am going to start with Thomas giving us a review of our norms, and then I will go into the voting rules, and then I will go into our 1st Bosa case. So, Thomas, if you can. Please take it away. Alright. Thank you. Nikki. yeah. So I'm just gonna go ahead and share some basic rules that cover our public participation section this evening. The city is engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members staff and the Board and Commission members, as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. You can find more information about this vision and the community engagement process behind it. On our website. the following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision.

[6:01] These will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and last, but not least, participants are required to identify themselves, using the name they are commonly known by, and you must display your whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted. When we get to the public participation section, we'll give a call for anybody that wants to speak to raise your hand, and you can find the raise hand button on the bottom bar of the zoom panel. If you're joining us over the phone. You could press Star 9, and that'll do the same the equivalent of raising your hand. And then if you don't see that icon. Immediately. You should look for this reactions button instead, you can click on that. That'll expand, and then you should see the raise hand, icon.

[7:03] and that is all. Thank you. Back to you. Chair. Awesome thanks. So much for that, Thomas. All right. So I will remind us of our order of operations. So on. Each item staff is going to present 1st and the applicant second, the applicant will have 15 min in total to present. So that means, if there are lots of people presenting with the applicant. Your total amount of time to present will be 15 min. Next, the public will be invited to comment, and we are giving the public over. Mind me, I believe it's 5 5 min, Thomas, help me out! 5 min for each public participant. Thank you. It's 3 min. 3 min. Sorry. Sorry public got to take 2 min away from you, so the public will have 3 min to speak. and then the Board will discuss 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.

[8:17] A vote of 2 to one or one to 2 on a motion, shall in all respects be considered a tie. So we are going to go ahead and get started with Boza case BOZ. 2, 0 2, 5, 0 0 4, which is 8, 25, slash, 827. Dewey Avenue and Robbie will provide the staff presentation. Please go ahead, Robbie. Right. Thank you, madam. Chair, and you should have the screen up. Now this is again docket number Boz 2, 0, 2, 5, 0 0 4. The address is 8, 2, 5, 8, 2, 7, Dewey Avenue, and it is a setback variance as part of a proposal to replace the exterior elevated decking and entrance canopy, and cover into 825. Dewey.

[9:13] as part of a larger renovation and addition to the entire non-standard duplex. The applicant is requesting a variance to the combined side yard setback standards for a principal structure in the Rmx. One zoning district, the resulting side east setback from the east deck to the subject entrance, and the subject entrance cover. The only deck requiring a variance will be approximately 7 feet 6 inches. where approximately 13 feet 4 inches is required due to the west setback of the structure being in remaining at one foot 8 inches from the west property line, and where approximately 7 foot 6 inches exists today. Section of the land use code to be modified. Section 971. Boulder Revised Code 1981. And up on the screen. I have circled the location of this property. It is again zoned, Rmx. One, and it is a duplex structure. So there are 2 dwelling units within the same structure. But the entrance to the 825 unit or residence is what is receiving the variance today, but it is technically both applications.

[10:20] And I'm going to go ahead and provide some of the zoning information ahead of time before I get into the details of the application again, it is zoned. Rmx. One. The home was permitted and built circa 1966. As the duplex use that we see today and building permit. Bld. Sfa 2024, 0 0 4 8 was submitted to the Planning and Development Services Department back in November of 24, for the complete renovation of the entire structure of both units. So this is a part of a larger project, and issues with the deck replacement were found during some of those reviews, and the building permit was ultimately approved with the removal of the subject deck that you're

[11:07] considering tonight, taken out of that scope so that they can move forward with the remainder of the project, and the permit will then be revised and resubmitted. With the east deck pending the outcome of those decision tonight. So if you drove out there recently and you see some work happening, that is okay the building permit was approved. They're just gonna have to revise it to include this deck pending the Board's decision tonight and the existing and proposed building coverage is around 2,245 square feet, including everything, and the maximum allowed is 2,269. Usually, you see, will be verified at time of building permit. But we've had the privilege to actually look at this already through the building permit. So we have verified that building coverage is compliant, including this deck. And then same work for floor area. The maximum allowed for the property is 3,539 square feet, and they're proposing 3,427 square feet, and this has also been verified as a part of that building permit that already went through the process. And then solar access area to side yard, wall, articulation, side yard, bulk, plan and height, no issues due to the design and location

[12:22] of the deck replacement were found, and all other modifications to the building have already been verified through the building permit process. and this gives you an idea. The image on the left is the survey of the property showing the duplex structure. Then on the right you can see the aerial view. If you did happen to drive by it. You probably noticed a lot of trees, so it's somewhat difficult to see the house from the street, but the applicant did provide some helpful photos that I will show here in a minute. But what the Board is considering tonight is a setback variance request to the side East, and that is specifically to allow the elevated east deck, and a an entrance cover to be replaced. It is for the most part a replacement in kind.

[13:13] but because of the fact that it's coming down, and a new structure is going up. They have to meet all underlining zoning standards. As we have today. So with that we have the combined side yard setback requirement setbacks are always split up into 2 different requirements. You have the minimum which for Rmx. One is 5 feet, and you can see that on both the East and West any new development is meeting the minimum setbacks. So you're not you're not considering a variance to the minimum setback requirements just to the combined. And what the combined is is that both side yards for new development have to add up to no less than 15 feet, because the existing West setback of the home, which is not going to be changing its remaining in place is at one foot 8 inches.

[14:05] That means any new development to the east side of the home needs to be the difference of 15 feet and one foot 8 inches, which is where we get the 13 foot 4 inches and 13 feet 4 inches from the east property line. Is that dashed line, you see. cutting the house down the middle. So any work done to the house would need to get a setback variance, and because the east deck cannot just be remodeled, it needs to be completely replaced, due to the aging of materials. New construction means they have to get a variance, which is why they're in front of you today. So the request is to replace the east deck and a roof cover for the most part in kind, with a few design changes, and that would be a request of approximately 7 and a half feet, where 13 feet 4 inches is required and approximately 7 and a half feet exists today.

[15:02] And then this image I focus primarily just on the level where the deck impacts the image. On the left is the deconstruction plan. You can see there's a lot of deconstruction going on. As a part of this overall project. Inside and outside. We've looked at this many rounds of review, and very closely determine what, if anything needed a variance and what did not, and it was ultimately determined that the replacement of the east deck is the only thing that requires a variance at this time, and if you look at the image on the right, that is the the new image, the new floor plan on the inside, the renovated floor plan, including that deck and the deck cover on the east side. and then these are some elevations proposed elevations. The image on the left is the south elevation which is the from Dewey Avenue. So the front of the house very much hidden by trees for most of the year, and then the image on the right is the east side of the home, so the side of the home where the elevated deck is, and you can see that replaced deck there, leading to the primary entrance to 825, Dewey, and then above that, you can see the

[16:15] the entrance cover. That is also a part of this variance application. And then here are some photos and the 2 images on the lower. The 2 lower images are the 3D. Renderings of what the the deck and the elevated deck, and the porch or the entrance cover will look like, and then the image on the right is the view from the street. The house is somewhat stepped down from the street. It does have some topography, and then also has a lot of vegetation around it. So the house, for the most part, is very hidden, but still needs to meet the setbacks for any work that is done. So with that staff is recommending approval of the setback variance request as it has been presented within the application.

[17:02] I can go into the specific criterion in more detail. If any of the Board members would like, but, in short, we feel that it does meet h. 1 a. Through d. In full, and H. 5 a. Through d. In full. We did not hear from any of the neighbors for or against. and then we also recognize that the applicant is kind of doing their due diligence. An issue arose during the permit process, and they determined, through multiple evaluations, that this deck could not simply just be replaced. Material wise. They would have to take it down and rebuild it. So with that we feel that it's an appropriate request that it meets the criterion h. 1 a. And a 1 HH. 1 a. Through d. And H. 5 a. Through d. In full. and are recommending support. As presented. So with that I will hand it back over to you, Madam Chair, and if you have any questions I'd be more than happy to answer them.

[18:06] Excellent. Thank you so much, Robbie, for that Explanation board. Are there any questions for staff? Go ahead, Katie. Robbie, can you just explain again, just briefly. Why we don't have to consider the 5 foot minimum and why we're just considering the combined side yard setback. Yes, and I'm gonna put my screen right back up and okay. So the image up here I pointed out the 2. So when it comes to. We're not seeing your screen. Oh, I am so sorry! I guess I didn't click the share button hard enough. Are you seeing it now? Yes. Okay? So we have the 2 setbacks, the minimum and the combined. And when it comes to combined. I kind of call it the crisscross rule you have to take in an existing setback on one side, and that means any new development on the other side

[19:07] has to meet no less than 15 feet. So with 5 foot minimum, that's 1 setback requirement. You can see the deck that the deck and the cover that you're considering tonight is proposed at 7 and a half feet. So it's meeting that 5 foot minimum setback. So a variance to that standard is not required when we pivot over to the combined setback requirement, which is an additional setback requirement. That's the crisscross rule where you take one side of the house. So in this case the existing West, and that one foot 8 inches is going to remain. The difference that means any new development to the East side can be no less than 13 foot 4 inches, in order to meet that 15 foot combined requirement. Okay. So because of that. The 13 foot 4 inches is this line right here? Pretty much cuts the house.

[20:00] not down the middle, but it cuts straight through the house. So any work done within that 13 foot 4 inches would need to seek a combined side yard setback variance, which is why it's in front of you tonight, and they're proposing to put it right back at set roughly 7 and a half feet. But because it's within that 13 foot 4 inches a variance is required, and that is what the board is considering tonight. and I can leave this up in case anybody else has any other questions. I have a quick question. So, seeing as they're not expanding the footprint of either of the decks, how did they get approval for the decks that are there now? Was it a variance back in the day, or were they built before under different setback standards? That's a good question. This house or the duplex was constructed back in the 19 sixties. So it's likely that they happened a while ago, and the applicant can probably touch on this a little more, but it appears they're pretty close to original

[21:09] of the house, given the need for replacing them, which is why they're in front of you today. So it appears that these were constructed over time and decades ago back, you know, when the house was a little newer, and before a lot of the standards that we have in place that we see today. Got you. Any other questions, for Staff drew Ben. Excellent, all right. So now we are going to move on to the applicant presentation. Thomas, can you set us up for the applicant presentation, please? All right. Yes, Alex is on here as a panelist, and I just gave him Co. Host permission, so he should have screen sharing capabilities. Now.

[22:04] Awesome. Thank you so much for joining us, Alex. If you don't mind introducing yourself, you will have 15 min for your presentation, and you can begin at any time. So thanks so much for being with us. Great thanks, everyone. And thank you, Robbie, I think you did a great job explaining kind of you know where we're coming from and and what the issue is at hand here. It's relatively straightforward. In my opinion, we're really not trying to add any additional building coverage or or change the original footprint. Everything that we're doing is in that original footprint. It just so happens that when this house was built it was within a pre-existing setback may have been different at the time, and the really, the main reason that we feel that we need to reconstruct this deck is for just structural issues that we've discovered, you know, once we kind of got into the original cantilever

[23:01] and I think that is something worth noting. And I don't know if I can share. Let's see trying to pull this up. Okay. are you guys able to see my screen. It's. It's basically just our construction drawings. Right now. you should be able to share. You should have the the rights to do that. Oh, I had. There we go. Sure. Alright. So I'm just gonna go to a section. So in the bottom right here number 4 entry wall, section. This this pretty much shows the existing structure. And this is actually the proposed structure. But it's it's essentially the same thing as the existing where we have to cantilever out from the house. So that's the reason we're having issues right here. There's been water damage. There is improper flashing. So everything that goes back into the house. Is in really bad disrepair.

[24:17] And in addition to that, we are slightly changing. The design of this roof right here. So we do have a couple existing photos here. you know. You can kind of see how everything is cantilevering. And they have this simple deck structure that just offers some protection from the main entrance here. And basically what we're trying to do with the new design. We're still keeping the original footprint, but we're adding diagonal columns as opposed to straight columns, and just changing the style of it a little bit more. So it matches the rest of the renovation. And so in doing so, we still need to cantilever certain areas back into the house. But we are adding posts.

[25:07] Let's see. Yeah. So on the ground floor plan. We are adding additional columns here at the front and then midway back, so that we can better support this deck without having to cantilever. We're only cantilevering above the entrance to the unit below, so that we don't have a column coming right at the bottom. So really, we're trying to preserve. And we are preserving the the existing footprint. We're just changing the structure so that we can accommodate. You know, something better suited for this property, and to ensure that we're not going to have the same water damage issues that we did previously. And that's kind of all I have, you know.

[26:00] unless you guys have any additional questions for me. Thank you so much, Alex and Alex, for the record. Can you please introduce yourself? Your name? Your company, and the company address? Please. Oh, yeah, sorry. I forgot that part. Yeah. So my name's Alex Perilis. I'm an architect at mountain design build. I'm also the architect on this project. So I've been working with the clients to develop this over the past couple of years now, and now that we're finally in construction. We're we're excited to see things happen. But, as as Robbie mentioned, we did eliminate the scope of work for this deck to move the permit. Forward! So as of right now we're just, we're keeping it as existing and if if this does pass with the board, we'll resubmit so that we're able to do the work we need to. Awesome, and the address of your firm. Please. Yep, it's oh, my God! I'm drawing a blank.

[27:02] Why am I drawing a blank right now? 381-50-3082 sterling circle! Wonderful. Colorado. Excellent. Thank you so much, Alex. Sorry about that. No worries whatsoever. Does the Board have any questions of the applicant? I'll start with you, Sean. Yeah. So, looking through all of this you know, it does indeed seem like it's a unique layout of both the lot and house to where the entrance can really only be on the side. And in addition, it looks like they're not adding any square footage. It's the same footprint. Just kind of Sounds like the original footprint was created at a time before we had these standards, so in which case I feel like it does satisfy all of the criteria. So I'm leaning towards approving. Awesome, and I apologize. I wasn't very clear. If anyone has any questions for the applicant at this time, we'll we'll raise those questions. That's my fault, Sean. But if you have any questions, Sean.

[28:11] No, I thought all that was pretty concise. Awesome. Thank you so much. Any other questions from the board to the applicant. All right, seeing none. Thank you so much, Alex, for your presentation. Now we'll open up any presentations from the public. Thomas, do we have anyone from the public who'd like to speak to this matter. Thank you, Nikki, not seeing any raised hands at the moment. But this is our opportunity for the public comment for this item. So if you would like to speak, please go ahead and raise your hand. and I'm seeing none, so I believe that we can move on. All right. Looks like oh, go ahead, Robbie.

[29:02] I was just gonna say, Alex, you can go ahead and unshare your screen that way. We can look at each other. Thank you. There we go! Thanks so much, Robbie, all right, since there is no public comment on this matter, then it's now open to the board for discussion, so I will start with our most junior member, Sean. If you have any comments for the Board in terms of discussion, you can raise those now. Yeah, I guess I'll just you know everything, I said in my last comment. Stands you know. It does seem like again just a very unique house and lot situation that seemed to be all fine when it was 1st built. But now, because of new standards, what was built and legal when it was built. you know, technically no longer is. But now I think it satisfies all of the criteria, and I'm leaning towards approved.

[30:01] Excellent, wonderful! Thank you so much for that, Sean. I'm drew. Yeah, I mean, I think it's pretty clear that it meets all the criteria with the site entry. It's a very unique physical circumstance that it requires the deck and also fun. Fact. One of my friends rented that house for many years, so I've been in it multiple times. But yes, I would be leaning towards, or I would I would approve this and vote for approval. Thank you so much, Drew. Katie. Nothing to add. I I agree that I'm I'm inclined to approve it. since it's not increasing the footprint at all, and so meets the criteria. Excellent. Thank you, Katie. Ben. Yeah, I'm in the same place as my fellow board members so far. I think Staff's analysis of the whether it meets the criteria is persuasive here, and I'm leaning in favor of supporting it. Thank you, Ben. And yeah, I'm on board with my fellow board members have nothing to add. I'm in leaning in favor of support as well. Then we will need a motion to approve this matter. Do we have a motion? Someone who would be willing to make a motion.

[31:15] I'll move to approve. Boz 2025, 0 0 0 4. Excellent Drew is going to move that a second. Second. Oh, Katie, got you? Ben? Katie's going to go ahead and second let's see here. So then I will call the role Shawn. Yes. Drew. Yes. Katie. Yes. Ben. Yes. Nikki. Yes, motion passes. Excellent job. So good luck with your project, Alex, but I think we're gonna probably see you again in a in a few minutes. Sounds good. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Everyone, all right.

[32:02] So the the application is approved as submitted. So next we are going to move on to Boza case. Oh, golly! Gotta go up to my 1st page again. Boza case BOZ. 2, 0, 2, 5, 0 0 5. This is 3,585 Longwood Avenue, and then we're going to go ahead and start with our staff presentation. So, Robbie, please take it away. Thank you, madam. Chair. Okay. I think I hit the share button hard enough this time. So you should see the presentation on the screen again, this is docket number Boz 2,025, 0 0 0 5. The address is 3,585 Longwood Avenue, and this is a solar access exception, as part of a proposal to modify and expand a portion of the upper story as a part of a larger renovation.

[33:00] and in addition to the single family home, the applicant is requesting a solar access exception to the solar access area. One regulations the properties directly to the west, 3,555, Longwood to the northwest. This should actually say 3, 1, 3, 0 Cottrell, not 3, 1, 2, 0 Cottrell. and then the property to the north 3, 1, 4, 0. Cottrell Court will be the only properties affected by this request. Section of the land use code to be modified. Section 9, 9, 17. Boulder revised Code 1981. And this is a new one for most, if not maybe all, of the board members. Typically a solar exception goes through the administrative review or Adr track. It is an administrative level review, but sometimes it does kind of get bounced to Boza. For whatever reasons we do have a very specific detailed checklist of what all is required in order to qualify for the administrative

[34:02] avenue, and for this one the 3 one of the 3 neighbors. That are directly impacted. Did not provide written supports. They did not speak out against it, but there was just no support provided at time of application. So because of that, we would need all 3 impacted neighbors to sign off for it to qualify for administrative. That means that the applicant needs to go in front of Bosa at a hearing for the solar exception. So that is why you are seeing something tonight that is not typically put in front of you. But you do have the purview to review these. So here it is in front of you. So again, the address is 3, 5, 8, 5, Longwood Avenue, and it is zoned r. 0 1, and the 2 properties that did provide support, and this was provided within the application materials. That would be the property to the west, which is 3, 5, 5, Longwood, and that is the Green star immediately to the left of the property, and then 3, 1, 3, 0 Cottrell Court, which is the property to the northwest, and then the other property. The 3rd property that is impacted by this solar access

[35:18] solar exception, I should say, is the property directly to the north, which is 31 40 cottrell and written support was not provided for that. So that is why there is no star there, and that is why they are in front of you this evening and let me there we go. There's a lot of information on this, and I'm gonna kind of go through the solar access standards. First, st just to kind of give a refresher to some of the board members who may not be board members and members of the public who may not be as familiar with the solar access regulations. But in front of you you see the survey to the left, showing the location of the property, and then we also have some images on the right. The upper right image shows both the existing and proposed front yard, so that is, from Longwood Avenue itself to the south, and then the image on the

[36:14] south is the rear elevation. The back of the house from the north, and the left is the existing, and the right is the proposed. and then this shows the aerials. The reason I provided the contours. The topographical changes is this, is a very steep property. It essentially drops off by a lot, I think, around 20 feet from the house to the back of the property, and then it continues dropping off control court to the north. You can see those houses lining it. You can see that contour change. And because of that this house essentially towers over from Control Court. You look up and see the back of this house.

[37:02] and that makes it very interesting when trying to comply with the solar access regulations, and I'll explain why that is here in a second. But it essentially creates a very long shadow from the house projected to the north onto these 3 properties to the west and north and northwest. So I just wanted to provide the topographical background kind of showing that this is not a flat lot. This is a somewhat steep lot, and that plays into kind of the Re variance review criteria that the board is considering tonight, and then the lower right image is the existing house from the street. So solar access is meant to provide protection for your neighbors, not you, but your neighbors, so that they can essentially collect have photovoltaic photo collection capability. And we split it up into 3 different categories or what we call areas, there's area one, area 2 and area 3.

[38:06] This property is solar access area 3. And what is it is intended to do is to protect your neighbors so they can install their own solar collection systems in their south yards, there, on south walls and on rooftops. and an example of solar access area, too, is it's more densely zoned areas where the homes are closer together. They're somewhat more bulkier, so that really only protects south walls and rooftops. Not necessarily yards, because yards tend to be smaller in solar access area, too. But what you're considering tonight is a solar access area, one property which means that what the board is gonna really want to consider tonight is what areas are being impacted by this extra shading or what we'd say, the violating shadow.

[39:01] and that is mostly for south yards, south walls and rooftops. How are those all impacted? And then what the board is looking at is they're essentially modifying the upstairs right now. It's low ceiling. It's an area that's not necessarily ideally habitable. So they're wanting to essentially square off the upper floor. This is the upper floor of the home. It's split level. They want to make it a space where they can actually reside office and what this includes is, you can see, the this is the front of the house. The existing house is the upper image, and the lower image is the proposal. and you can see that squaring off, or the head height increase of just that portion above the left side of the home. And then there's a small addition to the front or to the south. That is not a part of the solar exception. It's not casting any additional shadows or violating shadows, and it's fully meeting setbacks, etc. So what the board is really looking at tonight is this area circled in red, which is kind of the the squaring off, or the addition to the home above the existing footprint, but just kind of extending the existing roof to where it's not what it is today.

[40:24] And then we're gonna take a little walk around the side of the house. So this is the west side of the house. I'm trying not to get all my directions mixed up. This is the side of the house, the left side of the house, or the west side of the house. The view from 3,555 Longwood, and you can see that same roof form. You can see the maximum Ridge height is staying the same, but they're kind of bringing it down more as a gable versus what it is today. And and they're essentially extending it to the south. And you can see in that lower red circle, that roof, that flat roof extending to the south. That addition is what's causing these additional shading or the modification of the shading onto the properties to the north.

[41:13] and then we're gonna keep walking around to the backside of the house, and this gives you the same view. You can see the upper image is the existing house, and then they're kind of leveling off or extending that roof form. The lower image is the proposed home. and then this gives you an idea of the roof plan. The left one is where they are planning on removing the roof. and then the right image is the proposed roof, so really only the left side of the house. No other modifications to the roof are proposed. as a part of this solar exception and ultimately pending tonight's outcome, a building permit. But you can see the hatched area is where the roofs going to be removed and modified or replaced to what you see on the right.

[42:03] And then I just focused on the upper floor. When it comes to the interior. I just wanted to give you an idea of what rooms? We're going to be modified, and where the roof heights and things like that we're going to be replaced. The applicant can probably provide a little more detail in terms of what and why these changes are needed. They did provide very good explanation within the application, but I'll let them kind of continue with that. But this gives you an idea of what is out there today, and what is proposed. The image on the left is what is out there today. The deconstruction demo plan, and the image on the right is the upper level proposed plan. So not many changes to the footprint. It really has to do with the roof and the head height. And now we get into the the fun, the math part of it, and what the board is specifically looking at tonight. So, as mentioned, this house casts a shadow.

[43:00] and I'm kinda gonna try to put this in as simple terms as possible. So when the house casts a shadow, we say it can only cast up to a certain point, and we have 2 different types of solar analysis. We have an adjusted shadow, and we have an actual shadow. The adjusted shadow is what 95% of people provide us within a building permit. And what it's saying is that our addition, or our home, or the changes that we're making, will not cast a shadow onto my neighbor's properties more than what a hypothetical 12 foot fence at the property line would cast. So that's where the solar access area 1, 2, and 3 come into play, because in solar access area 2, you cannot cast a shadow onto your neighbor's property more than what a hypothetical 25 foot fence would cast. So solar access area. One is meant for bigger yards, more single family, less dense. So because of that, it's a 12 foot hypothetical fence.

[44:01] Sometimes. We have homes that currently do not meet that which means any new development would have to adhere to today's standards kind of like with the last variance that you considered, you've got existing conditions. So any new conditions would have to adhere to today's standards. And because of this project or the I'm going to keep calling it the squaring squaring off of the the roof. They are casting additional shadows. Not much, but they are casting some to the point where they have to obtain a solar exception from the Board of Zoning adjustment to allow that shading onto these neighboring properties and those 3 properties are 3,555 Longwood, and you can see I have labeled in the 3 Arrows, the new shadows. There's a sliver of new shadow onto 355 Longwood at the northeast of their property. In their backyard there is a a larger but still sliver of new shadow onto 3, 1, 3, 0 Cottrell. That's the property to the northwest.

[45:08] and then you can see a another kind of 3rd or second sliver of new shadow. That's the upper arrow of the 3 arrows. That kind of hugs, both 3, 1, 3, 0 and 3, 1, 4, 0 control. Those new shadows are why, the solar exception is front of the board tonight, and the darker shading that you see is existing, shading. And there's actually some reduction in shading. You can see the very upper left corner of the shading diagram you can see a part that is being removed about 9 square feet. So there are some shades shading being removed. But that still doesn't mean you can add shading without a solar exception. So tonight the board is considering the solar exception request and ignore that side east that's left over from a different presentation. But it is impacting specifically 3, 5, 5, Longwood, 3, 1, 3, 0 Cottrell and 3, 1, 4, 0 Cottrell.

[46:09] And then this is a little bit of playing around. I did, just for visual to help visually. I superimpose the aerial onto the actual shadow. And this kind of shows where these shadows will be cast, and it's also worth noting that when we calculate the shadow it's taken on December 20, th at 10 Am. And 2 Pm. And December 20th is when the sun is at its lowest in the sky. It's gonna therefore project the largest or the longest shadow during the summertime. The sun's more directly above, which means these shadows are going to be less less impactful to the neighboring properties. and but we always use worst case scenario, most extreme shadow, the longest shadow. This is the longest it's going to be throughout the year.

[47:01] So I forgot to mention that earlier, but it is quite important. So this shows you where these new shadows are going to be cast onto the properties. There's the 355 Longwood. You can see it's at the kind of the northeast corner of their property in their backyard, and then we have the 3, 1, 3, 0 Cottrell, which is along with 3 55, Longwood provided the support for the solar exception and 3 1 3 0. Cottrell is probably being the impacted. The most of the 3 properties. You can see that the new shading is it is in their south yard, but it is kind of minimal, in staff's opinion in terms of the size of the encroachment, and then it also falls into an area of property of the property, where it may not necessarily be ideal for solar collection. Installing ground level solar panels may not be ideal in this part of the property, and then

[48:01] I outlined the actual houses, the homes. The black, dotted lines kind of give you an idea of where the homes fall. So one thing that Staff was looking at was, is this also impacting south walls. And is this impacting rooftops because solar access area one does take into consideration rooftops, south walls and south yards. All 3 of those are to be considered. So it impacts the south yard, but it doesn't appear to impact a south wall or a rooftop for 3, 1, 3 0 Cottrell, and then we pivot to the 3rd property. 3, 1, 4, 0, Cottrell. Directly to the north. You can see where the house is. I believe there is a deck behind that, and then we have a lot of shading and vegetation, also somewhat of a a great change. There's a lot of topography in this part of the property. but the sliver, the North sliver, does somewhat or slightly kind of encroach into 3, 1, 4, 0 control. Because of that they are considered an impacted property and a part of this solar exception. But it appears to impact

[49:09] the kind of south of the house, possibly onto the deck, and it's also worth noting that these shadows aren't a horizontal projection. They do angle down as kind of the shadow kind of progresses. So where the outer perimeter of the shadow is essentially at ground level, and then it angles up towards where the actual ridge of the home is, and where these kind of are being projected. And all of these numbers down here is this is one of the ways that we kind of determine solar access compliance. It's a lot of math, a lot of numbers, not my favorite thing in the world, but gets the job done. And this lets us know whether or not there is or is not a solar access issue in this case there was. I think it's a total of less than 150 square feet of new shadows. And that's not taken into consideration the removal

[50:06] of some of the shadows. So that is what the board is considering tonight. The impacts onto these 3 properties, and whether or not the board feels that the criteria, the review criteria specific to solar access exceptions, is being met and a little bit in the way of zoning information. It is zoned. r. 0 1. The lot size is 10,039 square feet roughly, and the home was permitted and built circuit 1975, and purchased by the current owners in 2021, and existing and proposed building coverage as well as existing and proposed floor area are both under the maximum. There is no expansion of the of the building coverage, but floor area. They are adding floor area to the as part of the overall project, so we will have to verify at time of building permit that both of these are being met based on preliminary review. They are, and we will verify this officially at time of building permit pending tonight's decision and then solar access area. One is pending the Board's decision tonight. Whether or not that's

[51:17] kind of going to be met. That is the purpose of tonight. And then bulk, plane, side yard, wall articulation and height, no issues due to the design and location. There is no change in the height or the structural low point, and it will remain at 34.5 feet approximately. And we will verify all of this at time of building permit. And now for the Solar Exception review criteria hopefully in my email, it was clear that solar exceptions do use very unique review criteria, and this is what the Board will be considering tonight as a part of their decision. The applicant was kind enough to provide also the 9, 2, 3 h. 1 and 5. That's a lot of good information. The board can refer to information that was presented within

[52:08] the criteria. But for making a decision tonight, the board is going to need to stick with the 9 9, 17 F. 6, and there's an A, BCDE, FGHI. So there's quite a few, and it's worth noting that 9, 9, 17 F. 6 a is. There's a 1, 2, 3, 4, and it's 1, or 2, or 3 and 4. Kind of like what you see with the 9, 2, the H. 5 there's a lot of ors. So 2 criteria of the 6 A will need to be met, and that's either 1, 2, or 3 and 4, and then B, so with that, I'll go ahead and kind of jump into staffs. kind of response, and our justification for our recommendation to the board. So because of the basic solar access protection requirements and the land use regulations, reasonable use cannot otherwise be made of the lot to which the exception is requested, or the part of the adjoining lot or lots proposed, structure would shade inherently unsuitable

[53:14] as a site for a solar energy system, or any shading would not significantly reduce the solar potential of their protected lot. Of those 3 staff actually supports all 3 of them. You only need to pick one of them, but because of the topography of the land, this house sits roughly 20 to 30 feet above the property to the north. So that's going to cast a really long shadow. There's also a lot of vegetation, a lot of topography, and any addition or modification to the home would likely result in a shadow that casts beyond the protected areas of the property. Because of that, they're wanting to square off. They're not expanding, they they're not adding further to the north towards the Cottrell Court properties, and they're wanting to square off that upper floor roof to have more habitable space for their family

[54:10] staff feels that 6 a. In. Full is being met. 6 B. Is, except for actions under sub. Of the subparagraphs of this section, the exception would be the minimal action to afford relief in an economically feasible manner. Again, they're wanting to utilize existing footprint and a part of the house that is not ideal for habitation, and they're wanting to turn those rooms into rooms that they can use for their family. So because they're not expanding out or up from what is out there today. Staff does feel that 6 B is being met. 6 c. The exception would cause the least interference possible with basic solar access protection for other lots. I'm just gonna repeat kind of what I said. The last ones given the scope of the work that they're proposing. The majority of the work is south of the ridge.

[55:02] So a lot of the new addition. The new floor area is not itself going to be casting any new shadows or additional shadows. We felt that that was an appropriate request and kind of something, utilize what they were given today with what they need for their family. Steph felt that 6 c. Was being met. and then 6 d. And 6 E are not applicable. In this case it's not a historic property, and the proposed roof. Is not because of an existing solar collection system. It's not shading onto an existing solar collection system. So 6 f. If the proposed interference with the basic protection would be due to a solar energy system. This is the one that's not applicable. It's not due to a solar collection system. So d and F are not applicable. E is applicable. and then 6 g. If an existing solar system would be shaded. As a result of the exception.

[56:03] the beneficiary of that system would nevertheless still be able to make reasonable use of it. This is not planned to project into any existing solar collection systems. In fact, it appears it shades onto some shaded areas for the sake of calculation and determining solar access. Kind of take out all the trees, kind of give it a clean slate. But when it comes to the solar the review criteria we do then have to take into consideration. Where is it shading? Is it an area of the property that is ideal for solar collection rooftops, south walls and parts of the south yard or south yards that somebody could put a standalone solar collection system. Steph does not feel that the 3 properties where it is shading is necessarily an ideal place where somebody would want to put it on their property. and then 6 H.

[57:02] And my presentation is blocking it. There we go. 6 H. The exception would not cause more than an insubstantial breach of solar access protection. And I actually have the definition of insubstantial breach for the Board's viewing pleasure. In short, this is a subjective skinny shadow is kind of what I like to call it. It is something projecting, a very minimal, usually long, oblong shadow that for maybe a minimal part of the day would be blocked. So it's not a big, bulky shadow that is going to be covering something for several hours throughout the day. Something like a chimney is only going to block a specific point for a very short period of time. So chimneys, utility poles, wires, flagpoles, slender items. That's why I mentioned the subjectively skinny. You know what is a small shadow, typically something cast by a thin object is what we would consider an insubstantial breach.

[58:06] And what this is telling us is that the exception would not cause more than an insubstantial breach, more than what a chimney or a flagpole, or something kind of a small architectural feature that's going to cast a shadow for a minimal part of the day and going back to the new shadows being projected as a part of this project. Staff does agree that this is not gonna cause more than an insubstantial breed, something like a chimney. What it would cast. So with that we feel that 6 G is also being met. or 6 H is also being met, and then 6 I. All other requirements. Have been met. That's kind of just the kind of the ending review criteria, just making sure that everything that's required as a part of 9, 9 17 is being met. Staff has looked at this multiple times, and all other requirements are being met. So with that the we feel that 6 A through I are being met in full, as it has been presented by the applicant, and I'm going to stop talking for now, if you have any questions for me, I'd be more than happy to answer them. I know this is a kind of a new

[59:19] type of variance presented from the board, but hopefully that presentation provided some clarity and then, if not, I'd be more than happy to answer questions, and we also have the applicant here tonight. So with that I will hand it back over to you. Excellent. Thank you so much for that very thorough explanation. Robby. Does the Board have any questions for Staff? I see Ben has his hand up so, Ben, why don't you start us off. Yeah, thank you, madam. Chair. Just a question, Robbie, on Criterion 6 a. I just couldn't quite tell. If were you saying that Staff found that all all 4,

[60:02] a 1 through a 4, have been satisfied. Or were you picking out just a couple of those. Oh, we actually felt that all 4 were being met. and only 2 of the 4 need to be met in order for the board to support it. But we read through all 4 of them, and we supported all 4 of them. Okay, just a brief follow up question. So can you just run us through just because we don't normally hear these types of requests? How does Staff look at the solar potential for the protected lot to add. you know, and set whether something's inherently unsuitable. I I think you've mentioned that you don't. Staff's analysis is that this proposal would not basically materially, negatively impact the ability of these neighbors to put solar in these air in their backyards or in their yards. But can you just clarify that a little bit. Of course. So the image right here is the we have the existing. And then right here we've got the new Shadow number One and new shadow number 2, where those shadows fall

[61:10] is really what we're looking for, because existing shadows are existing shadows. We don't penalize people for having existing shadows. But if you're doing a change to your home, we need to make sure that you're not creating new shadows, especially new violating shadows. And what this is showing us is the new shadows as a part of the project to the house down here is casting this right here. So what we look for is where exactly is that on these 3 impacted properties. And then we have this kind of skinny shadow totaling 18 square feet right here that hugs the 2 properties we're looking at. Where exactly does that fall? And again, keep in mind? These are for the most part especially up here at foot level over here. It's going to be a little higher, just because it's closer to the kind of source. So this is shading at the northeast part of the property. It's an area that's very steep. For the contour map that I showed earlier. It's very wooded.

[62:11] ideally. We don't feel that somebody would want to put a solar collection system at that part of their property. So we felt that that was appropriate. That a shadow is being cast there because the property 3, 5, 5. Longwood would otherwise not put a solar collection area at the very northeast corner of their property. going to 3, 1, 3, 0 Cottrell, the property to the northwest. We look at where exactly this falls and this falls. We're looking at solar access area, one which again is rooftops south walls and south yards. Rooftops are not being impacted. The south walls are not being impacted. And it's really just that south yard. So we're within that south yard it is. Shading is what we're looking for. And again, it's a somewhat

[63:03] topographically, you know, fluctuating area. There's a lot of contours. There's a lot of gray change. And then also, there's a lot of vegetation trees during the wintertime. Some of these trees may not have leaves, but it is still something that we consider is is this a part of the property where somebody ideally would want to put a photo? You know, solar collection system and get the most solar collection input or capability on their property. If they were looking for the most bang for their buck and getting the most solar collection. This is probably not a part of the property that somebody would want to put a collection system more more times than not. People put it on their rooftop because it's you without. There's no obstruction. You've got the full sun. When you put it into yards you've got a lot of grade changes, and you got a lot of trees that interfere with that collection and then the property to the north control. It's the small sliver right here that we're looking at again. Rooftops not impacted. The south wall of the house is not impacted. It looks like it may impact like a south deck.

[64:06] But it really comes down to. Is this a part of the property that somebody would want to put a solar collection system and of the entire property? This does not appear to be an area where somebody would. you know, want to put it for maximum solar collection so long winded? Answer. But hopefully it answered. That that helps. Thank you. Thank you, Ben, for your question. Any other questions for Staff. Yes, i i 2 2 technical questions. I guess it's hard to tell how much further the shadow extends past the 12 foot fence. I guess I can't tell from this. How large that would be. And then I guess the follow up question is also, how does staff

[65:03] validate this analysis? Do the does the applicants and like, do a CAD model? Or is it you just? You just trust this analysis on paper. Well, the second part of that is, it's all the calculation. So when it comes to solar access. typically when it comes to the adjusted, and that tells us whether or not there is a problem, whether or not you're casting a shadow beyond the 12 foot hypothetical fence. There's a very specific math that we input. It takes the height of the structural element, and then it takes the elevation of the property line, and with the math we get a length of shadow adjusted shadow. When it comes to actual shadow, we take out that hypothetical fence, and it kind of gives you what you have more times than not. We just consider the neighboring properties flat, just because there's a lot of math, and there's a lot of well, the line could be this long and not that long. We want to know where it impacts the properties. So with that the hypothetical fence on this would be roughly about 31 feet

[66:10] west of the this property line right here. So the majority. if not all, of this new shadow, is within that 12 foot hypothetical fence shadow. So there really isn't much of an issue on this part of the property. but it is still being impacted. This property out here does tend to fall slightly outside the 12 foot shadow length again. At 10 am. Is going to be roughly about 31 feet from the property line, which falls roughly right where these arrows are falling. So really, it's this new shadow right here for 31, 30, Cottrell. and then also this shadow right here that are projecting beyond what a 12 foot fence would cast

[67:03] so the math can get really muddy. We do our best to provide like a real life situation of where that shadows gonna cast. I believe it's about 130 feet from this point to the home. as how long that shadow is. And there's also a 20 to 30 foot grade change between this area. So it's a very long shadow longer than what we're used to. But we really depend on the architectural elevations, and then also the surveyed elevation points at property lines. You can see these right here. Those are all official numbers. There are numbers that we accept, and that we review as a part of the building permit process that this is usually going through. So with that we can then determine? How long would this hypothetical shadow. or proposed shadow cast so. Right? And yeah, okay, that makes that makes sense. And that's that's why we normally look at the

[68:03] fence or the height of the shadow at the property line, because it's known under the survey, because the this shadow goes into area that is not surveyed. And so it's actually kind of unknown where it actually lands. But yeah, just curious. Thanks. That. Thank you. Drew. Any other questions for staff. All right, let's go ahead and move on to the applicant presentation. Thomas, if you can please promote the applicant, and I apologize. I I was confused. Page 36 of our packet says, still has Alex's name. So that's why I was confused over who was who was presenting. But we have Lisa. Who's going to be presenting Lisa, if you can. Please introduce yourself. Your your full name as well as your the address of your business, and you have 15 min total for your presentation. As well. Thank you so much for being here. Go ahead, Lisa.

[69:06] Thank you. My name is Lisa Larson. I am the architect and designer for this proposed project. My business address is 1419, Mapleton Avenue in Boulder. Thanks, Robbie, that was amazing. That was a lot of information. I'm gonna keep it brief because I know he did such a great job. But I do want to just touch on a couple of things, one of which is this. property is very unique. I mean, we do live in boulder, and there are a lot of topography changes, especially as you get further west and south. But there is 33 feet actually from the top of the main level floor. To their property line grade. So it's it's a lot of height change between this property and the property below on control. And I thought I might just show you first, st because I know it's probably hard to tell in the plans, how we

[70:05] what what the existing condition is, and and the minimal amount we're trying to do inside. how do I share? Let's see, not saying, share my screen. Do you see the green? Okay, got it? Okay. Peace. So I think the best way to do that is to look at this Matterport. this is the inside of the house. Can you all see that? Yeah, okay, so this is the the the current roof line that we're proposing to raise, and it only occurs on the west side of this stair element. And then this is the main living space which is one level below. So it's this very unique architectural way that it was designed originally with these 2, this gable ridge coming down the center, and to kind of lower eaves. So this makes oh, I don't know who that is, this makes this top of wall like

[71:11] 5 foot 4 or something. And so we're proposing to raise this top of wall. And then this is the. As we go further west you can see this is that lower roof that comes down, and we're proposing to take this ridge all the way to that exterior wall which this addition is about 150 square feet of area, and that will allow this space to become a habitable office space for the homeowners. So I thought that might be helpful just to see kind of what's going on inside the building. And then When we did this, we actually are adding floor area below grade in order to give them some of the things that they desire, which one of which is a workshop for the homeowner who's a a wood Turner

[72:07] and we've we tried to think of different ways that we could add an addition above grade for more light and accessibility, but it became clear that this was going to be the best for the property and kind of keep us within most of the zoning. And so this is where we ended up. I think one of the other things that I just wanted to say about the properties is, there is a 7 foot easement at The north side of 35, 85, Longwood, and the south side of all the the Cottrell there's a wildlife easement that is, 7 feet on both properties. Not that that is all of that area, but it is important to note that nothing could be built in that 7 feet and I think that's pretty much

[73:02] everything that I wanted to address. Oh, I think the other important thing for the property that we did not get any feedback from the neighbors. As we move that ridge line where it currently terminates. As we move it west, it actually makes the encroachment the existing encroachment better on that property, because topography is getting higher toward the west, and so everything kind of moves with that in terms of that roof line and the shadow that it creates. And that's kind of what you're seeing in these diagrams. And I think that's all I have. If you have questions I'd be happy to answer. Excellent. Thank you, Lisa, for that presentation. Open it up to the board. Any questions from the board to the applicant. Just have one question, for the for the other house on control the 31 40. Was there some reason why they they didn't just give their support, or were they just you just couldn't reach them or.

[74:09] No, they they, the the my clients, did reach out to the neighbors. In fact, they were all on like a group text, and that neighbor just didn't comment at whatsoever. Thank you, Katie, any other questions for the applicant. I have a question. I was curious as to why the neighbor at 35, 55, Longwood. Their support was notarized yet the support from the neighbor at 31 30. Cottrell was not notarized. Well, we originally thought that we were going to be going through the Staff Level Review, and and then we ended up having to come here, and because we didn't hurt here from the other impacted neighbor. And so that was what the document that we had gotten from them. And it just seemed like rather than having them redo it. That's what we provided.

[75:11] and that's what's required for the Staff Level Review. It has to be notarized for that other application. Okay, thank you. And Robbie. I'm sure you're going to say that again. But go ahead, please, Robbie. As to reiterate what Lisa said is, yeah, typically, we get these through the administrative avenue. But at some point it was decided this was going to go through a bosa, so we don't require a notarization of support when it goes to Bosa. Excellent. Thank you for that clarification to both the applicant and Robbie. Can I? Just one thing I forgot to just show you guys, is that there are solar panels on both 35, 55 Longwood, as well as 3,140 control, and you can see them in this aerial and that the proposal is not impacting where they have current solar panels that the North West property on control doesn't have solar panels currently. But the other 2 properties do. And I thought that might be interesting to note for you as well.

[76:16] Thank you, Lisa, for that additional information. Any other questions for the applicant. All right, thank you so much, Lisa, for your presentation. At this point we're going to open it up to public comment. Any comment from the public. I'm not seeing any raised hands, but we do have one person in attendance. If you would like to speak, please go ahead and raise your hand. seeing none, so I believe we can move on. Excellent. Thank you so much. So now it's going to be open to the board for discussion, and I'm going to start with our most junior member, Sean.

[77:00] Yeah. Looking at this, I do feel like it meets the criteria. The actual shadow coverage isn't really changing too much from the existing footprint of the shadow. It's not encroaching on any exterior walls or roofs of other properties, and it looks like the area that it. The shadows are on. The other properties are already wooded areas and not flat ground and then just the lot in question. In general, it's just such a odd topography that if it was, say a slightly, if it was maybe lower than the neighbors, or maybe even even with the neighbors, they probably wouldn't have even be running into this solar access issue to begin with. So I do think it is a hardship just based on the unique layout of the property. But otherwise I feel like it meets the criteria, and I would move to approve. Excellent. Thank you so much for that. Sean drew. Yeah, I actually read through a lot of the 9,970 requirements. Those are all new to me. And yeah, I believe it meets all the criteria listed there. It's a challenging property, and they clearly try to respect the solar shadow. Very hardly, you know, with a lot of effort with the minor modifications they made to the Northern, or I guess the Southern roof line.

[78:22] so I would. I would vote to improve. Excellent. Thank you so much, drew Katie. Yeah, I I agree that I'm I'm leaning towards approval. I thought Robbie's presentation and the applicants lisa's subsequent follow up was really thorough and obviously all the criteria are sort of new. I have never seen all those criteria, but it seems like it meets all of them. And the you know the shadow is is basically what's existing today. Just a tiny bit more. So I'm inclined to approve it. Thank you so much, Katie. Ben.

[79:02] Yeah, I'm in the same place as the previous speakers. Just so we build a clear record here. I I think we are only looking at 9. Dash 9, dash 17. I think it's 6. Sorry. So, for example, I don't think that, you know, hardship is in there as a something we need to look at, whereas maybe it. It is in the other typical variance criteria. But anyway, in any case, looking at those 9 dash 9 dash, 17 criteria, I think it meets the criteria based on what we've heard today. Excellent. Thank you for that clarification, Ben, and thank you for your comments. Yes, I'm in agreement with. The rest of the board, Robbie, thank you so much for actually going through each one of the 9 9 17 a through I that was very helpful for me. I'm just gonna get on my soapbox a little and say, I appreciate the applicant reaching out to the neighbors to talk to the neighbors. I'm

[80:05] I'm a little disappointed that one neighbor was non-responsive. My soapbox is, you know, if we're going to live together we should be in community, and so I would really love it if people could be able to talk to their neighbors so that issues don't arise in the future. But I do appreciate the applicant for doing their due diligence, and I just wanted to get on my soapbox and put that on the record as well. So with that I will entertain a mission, and I'm in favor of approving as well. So I entertain a motion for a motion on this matter. But move that board approve. Boz. 2025. Dash 0, 0 0 0 5 as presented. Thank you, Ben. We need a second, please. Reckon. Awesome. Thank you so much, Drew, so I'm going to ask for the vote. So Sean.

[81:01] I vote? Yes. Katie. Yes. Drew. Hi. Ben. Bye. Nikki. Yes, congratulations. Your proposal has been approved. Thank you all for your participation. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Alrighty. Y'all, let's go to the oh, wait! We have a special guest. Let me go back to my agenda. Alrighty. Here, let's see here. Okay, so I did not see. Did I miss the minutes? I didn't see minutes attached to our packet, or did I miss something. Think they're at the very end. They were. They're they were a bit of a late ad. So if you didn't get a chance to review them, we can always.

[82:02] Oh, you know what no. Future meeting. There they are. I see them okay, perfect. So what I will do now is entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the April 8, th 2,025 right. Which meeting is this. Yes, 25. Do I have 24 on there? Yep, yeah. Noah Thomas, please do not take us back in the past. We are moving. We're marching forward, so I'll take a motion to approve. The April 8, th 2025, Boza meeting minutes. So moved. Thank you. Ben. Second. Second. Awesome. Thank you so much, Katie Shawn, so I'll take the roll call. Shawn. Yes, I. Drew. Alright! Katie. Yes. Ben, Hi. Nikki. Yes, awesome. We've gotten our minutes approved. Thank you so much for that matters from the Board. Any matters from our board members

[83:09] seeing none. Let's move on matters from the city attorney, Deshauna. Nothing from the city attorney's office. Excellent. I don't see matters from Staff. I don't wanna leave Staff out but I'll go. You know what I'll do matters from staff last, because Robbie always has something interesting to tell us about the upcoming meeting. We are planning and development services, that is, staff. Oh, that's y'all! So usually, if you don't mind me taking. Hey! Go ahead! So just real quick before we get into the presentation of the night. Just to let you know the application deadline for the June 17th meeting. This is the meeting that was pushed back one week was this week, and I should know by the end of this week what it's looking like, but it does appear that the continuation or the continuance item from the April meeting will be moving forward to the June 17th meeting. So be on the lookout for that. Hopefully, everybody can attend, because I think we had full attendance for that meeting, so

[84:12] it would be very helpful if we could once again get full attendance, if at all possible. So stay tuned on that I'll provide an update once. I kind of know what the June 17th meeting looks like. and that's it for me. And with that I guess I will introduce my colleague, Lisa Hood. She is a principal city planner in planning and development services, and she is going to talk about access management and parking strategy project off street parking standards, update and discussions. So with that, I will hand it over to you. Lisa. Thank you, Robbie. Good evening. Board members like Robbie said. My name is Lisa Hood. A few of you I saw. I think I was last year, 2 years ago, giving kind of a similar update on an accessory dwelling unit ordinance. But for the new members nice to meet you, I have a short presentation for you today to go along with the memo that was in your packet on our Amps project.

[85:14] which is a mouthful but access management and parking strategy and our code and policy enhancements. Let me get the slides a little bigger. It's actually a multi departmental project. So it's planning and development services, transportation and mobility and community vitality, all working together on this trifecta of projects. So it's affecting our off street parking requirements, our on street parking management strategies, and also our transportation demand management or Tdm requirements. They all have separate ordinances, but we've been working over the last year year and a half on all 3 of them together to really take a holistic view on the regulation of parking and transportation in the city. So going forward to council in the next month or so our 2 ordinances, one related to Off street parking, one related to on street parking, and then Tdm. Will come in the next couple of months as a 3rd ordinance for council.

[86:14] This project falls under the Amps umbrella, which is actually a project that's been going on for 11 years at the city. There's been lots of different phases and work that's been done. There was kind of a long pause during Covid, but we've restarted it in the last year or 2, and hope to finish it in the next couple of months. The scope of the project is, there was a Amps report that was adopted by city Council back in 2017. That identified several different recommendations related to access and parking in the city. And there are only 2 items left that haven't been done which was updating our off street parking standards and creating a new Tdm plan ordinance like requirements for new developments. Right after we restarted the project. We also had a new factor come in, which is the Colorado State Legislature, passed a bill related to minimum off street parking requirements, and once that happened, we wanted to make sure. We were also thinking about our on street parking management strategies

[87:15] to make sure that we were potentially mitigating any issues that might come up through the State bill. I'll explain the State bill a little more on the next slide. It applies the changes that we're proposing apply to new developments and redevelopments so it wouldn't retroactively apply just new applications that come in the ordinance adoption process. I haven't been here in 2 years, so we don't come too frequently to Bosa to give you updates. But we want to give you updates when something affects a Bosa decision. And so that's why I'm here. But the typical ordinance adoption process that we're following right now is we have public hearings. Usually it's just at planning board, but because it's transportation related. We also were at Transportation Advisory Board last night for a public hearing.

[88:04] We'll be at planning board next week, and then in June it will go to the City Council. Formal Review so early June 1st reading and then a public hearing. At the end of June the effective date of the changes would be June 26th if Council adopts it, but similar to what we did with the accessory dwelling unit ordinance 2 years ago. We wanted to make sure to come to Bosa. Let you know about the project and get any feedback that you want to share, and then we would include that in our memo to council. It's not like a formal recommendation or anything that you're making. It's just making you aware of the project and the potential changes, and making sure you have an option to provide feedback and share that with council. So I'm really going to focus just on the 1 1 side of the triangle, the off street parking standards because that lives in the zoning code or the land use code. So would be more in the world that you all are reviewing applications. And then there's 1 specific item related to Boza that I'll cover as well. But I just want to give you kind of background

[89:09] general background on minimum parking requirements. Boulder has had minimum off street parking requirements, so those are requirements that need to be accommodated, not on the public right of way, but on private property we've had those since 1954. Almost every city in the country has had them since World War 2. They've significantly influenced our urban form and development, as well as our mobility options. And I'm sure you all are aware. But they're typically a ratio. So it's a number of parking spaces that are required per square foot of a certain use types. So there's some examples from our code. We allow parking reductions in boulder so that can be approved either administratively or through planning board, and over the last 15 years or so almost half of our major development projects have included a parking reduction, which is why this project has been identified for a long time. Of that our parking requirements might be mismatched with what is actually needed.

[90:11] Parking reform has also become a really popular topic in the zoning world. In the last decade or so, especially after 2017, when Buffalo, New York, became the 1st major city to completely eliminate all minimum parking requirements citywide. And since then 78 cities across the United States have eliminated all of their minimum parking requirements, including our neighbor Longmont. and then almost a thousand have reduced parking requirements. So it's definitely a trend that we're seeing throughout the country. States are also taking notice, either passing, introducing legislation or passing legislation which leads us to Colorado, which passed legislation last year. House Bill 2413, 0, 4 was passed by the legislature which actually prohibits local

[91:00] governments like Boulder from having minimum parking requirements. So like one space per dwelling unit, if a property is located within the transit service area, and then that's defined in the bill. It only applies to certain land uses, so it only applies to multifamily residential development or adaptive reuse or mixed use. But when we looked at the transit service area for Boulder, the map on the right, it actually included 77% of city parcels. And so the State also required that we have to come into compliance with that by the end of June, so we cannot enact or enforce minimum parking requirements for those uses in those areas past June 30.th When we took this project to council and planning board for initial feedback last year, we got direction from them that it, just because it was taking up so much of the city, would be kind of silly to have different requirements in those little islands.

[92:02] Than for the other parts of the city. And so we got guidance from the council members and planning board and Transportation Advisory Board to just go ahead and eliminate minimum parking requirements for all land uses citywide, like those 78 other cities have done, rather than limiting it to just the extent of the State Bill. The State Bill talks about a lot of studies that have shown that having minimum parking requirements, like local requirements, actually increases the vehicle miles that are traveled in a city, they increase the greenhouse gas emissions, and parking is extremely expensive to build, and so it also increased development increases development and housing costs when we have requirements that are higher than is actually needed. So that's kind of the rationale for the House Bill and also for City Council's direction on this project over the last 10 years of the project. We've also been collecting data on parking supply and utilization. So we've done it many different times at many different places, and have continuously come to the same conclusion, which is that across all different types of land uses there is more parking than there is more parking available than is actually being utilized. It differentiates by

[93:19] different land uses, but for the most part with 75 years of parking regulations, we've built a lot more parking than we actually need for the uses that are in the city. I mentioned that the city also offers parking reductions, so people can apply for parking reductions. We looked at several large recent developments that had pretty significant parking reductions approved. And even those sites. This is a multifamily residential development, even those sites. We're not using all of the parking that they needed the reduced number for. So that tells us that even those reduced requirements are kind of over what the actual utilization would be.

[94:05] So what we did about it. This issue is, we drafted ordinance 8,696. There's a link in your memo. If you want to read it, it's 60 pages long, so lots of fun ordinance language. But just a summary. The main point is eliminating the minimum off street parking requirements citywide for all land uses which I mentioned already. There were the reason. It's 60 pages is because parking has been intricately intertwined into our land use code over those 70 years. So we needed to also remove all of the separate references to required parking our parking reduction processes. Anything about required parking has also been removed in the proposed ordinance. We also wanted to make sure that we were as we were taking away those minimums. We were encouraging, sharing, of parking, just knowing that parking is not being fully utilized and not trying to, or trying to efficiently use the space that we already have, and so making some tweaks in our land use code to make it easier for folks to share parking.

[95:12] There's been lots of discussion with Council and planning board and Transportation Advisory Board about ev charging. So there's some changes to make sure that there would still be ev spaces based on the parking spaces that are provided on a site but not necessarily required. And then there's been lots of discussion about bike parking standards just to update the security and usability so that folks can easily have the option to bike as well. But the item that I wanted to bring up specifically for Bosa is front yard setback variances. This photo is not from Boulder. I made sure to find one that was not picking on someone from Boulder, but this is just to give you an idea of the reason why we have a prohibition on parking in the front yard, so that we don't have situations like this.

[96:01] but I wanted to explain a bit of what the current rules are, and this is laid out in the memo, and what the proposal is in the ordinance. So right now parking is prohibited in the front landscaped yard. There's an exception in some of our lower density districts that you can park 2 cars in that front landscaped yard if the parking requirement is met on the site, so if you have a garage or something, you could park 2 spaces in front of it, because the the parking requirements have been met for that property. There's a variance option that comes straight to Boza so automatically you would see that. So some of you might have seen these kinds of variances, I think, when Robbie and I talked a lot of it comes up when, like a garage has been converted or something, so they're no longer able to meet their parking requirement. But they want to be able to park in their driveway. So there's 2 different sets of criteria that can be met kind of the situation where it's an existing condition that's been like that for a while, or if people are trying to propose a new condition.

[97:04] So that's where we are now, because it was based on whether a parking requirement was met. That's why it got flagged as part of this ordinance that we needed to identify a new way to think of that. And so internally we talked and wanted to continue to prohibit the parking in the front yard to avoid the situation from the picture before, but also keep that exception for those certain districts, and instead of relying on the required parking, it would be if the driveway is leading to a legal off street parking space required or not. So if they have a garage or a space that meets the right requirements that's out of the landscape setback, then they can have those 2 extra spaces so wanted to continue to provide that flexibility. And then the change procedurally is that instead of automatically requiring that book, that variance to come to you all.

[98:00] we provided in the ordinance an option for it to be an administrative variance, so kind of similar to what Robbie's last item that he was explaining was, if you were to able were able to get the written approval of the impacted property owners, you could have that processed administratively if you're not able to. There's the option to come to Bosa for approval. Again, there would be the different situations, whether it's an existing condition. You can meet the criteria in subsection. J, or if it's a proposed condition, you'd need it in H. So those are the changes related to front yard setback variances, so providing the option for administrative variances, and then just not basing it on parking requirements, but rather whether parking is located on the site. and that is the kind of crux of it. There's a lot more to this project. I could give a 40 min presentation on this, but I just wanted to give you kind of the high points that I thought would be most relevant to the type of projects that you all see, I'll give you a quick overview of the on street changes. So, as we were thinking of the Off street changes, we wanted to make sure, as I said, to be thinking about how we manage on street parking as well, so some of the changes are

[99:18] when there's a large development going in, just making sure that we have a trigger for the city staff to look at whether there's already a parking issue on streets surrounding that project, and whether permit parking should go in. To try to manage that park and walk is an idea related to like areas around schools, to try to reduce congestion around schools where you'd be allowed to park 2 times a day near a school to drop off or pick up your child from school. Some changes to the neighborhood, permit parking program, and how people get day passes and permits for people to come. They live in an Npp neighborhood, permit parking area

[100:04] as well as restricting it. Right now we allow people to have 2 permits per person, and it would just be one person or one per person. And then finally, we're doing a pilot program in the Goss Grove neighborhood, where we're switching from timed parking to paid parking for people that don't have permits, and then also providing eco passes to the neighborhood. And just we'll see how that works, and then see if we want to extend that out to the rest of the city or to other neighborhoods or neighborhood permit parking as far as Tdm. The ordinance is still under development, but it would be a much stronger transportation demand management requirement for mostly really large scale development would apply to that. So that's really the summary I had in the memo just some ideas for discussion. If it's helpful you don't have to follow these, but hoping to see if you have any comments related to the proposal about allowing administrative variances?

[101:04] For those parking spaces in a front yard landscape setback rather than them all automatically coming to you, and then also happy to hear any feedback on the rest of the project. And it's also a very complex project. So I'm happy to answer any just clarifying questions you have, or curiosities. and thank you. That's all I have. Excellent. Thank you so much, Lisa, for that presentation, and thank you for the materials in the packet as well. This was a nice little review to what was in the packet. So with that, I'll open it up to the board for any questions or comments for Lisa. Yeah. If you could go back, maybe share your screen. Back to the variants, the the current and proposed. I honestly do not understand what the variance would be for if they're not required to have

[102:00] all 3 parking. So yeah, maybe maybe, Robbie, do you understand? Or or Lisa, wherever. Yeah, I can take a stab at it, Robbie. You can clarify anything. So the variance would be to allow parking spaces people to park in their front yard landscape setback as long as there's like a garage that it's leading to. So you can't just have a driveway that's not going anywhere, but you would be able to park in that front yard landscape setback. So if you think of like a house in Martin Acres, this is where this comes up frequently, where they have the small attached garage. If they converted that to a like a living space. That's not a garage right now, then, they're not meeting their parking requirements, and you can't park in the driveway. And so this would similarly they would need a variance to park in the driveway, because it's not leading to a parking space. Right, but I guess we don't give variances

[103:01] like, you know, that's like a parking violation right. It is a violation of the code, but that's also you can get a get a variance for it to allow it. So what? Alright! What the Board reviews when it comes to a parking in the front yard. Landscape setback is not always the required parking for that property. What Lisa was saying or is saying is that we're still keeping it in the code that says you cannot park in your front yard unless it leads to off street or a parking not in the front yard landscape setback. But we're not saying you have to have that parking right now. We're saying, you have to have parking. So what you're typically what you see is they get rid of a garage which was their required space. So they're wanting to park in the front yard landscape setback. It doesn't lead to officer or to additional parking, which means they can't have it. They have to get a variance that's still gonna hold true. If somebody comes in and converts or has a converted garage, but still wants to use that driveway in front of it. They still have to get a variance, even though it's not required parking in order to use it as parking, they still have to get that variance.

[104:16] Okay? I mean, I guess it seems kind of weird. I mean, we usually give, you know, variances to, you know where someone can build right. You're giving a variance that someone's allowed to park in their driveway. Is that a variance is permanent for that property? Well, isn't the variance for the side yard setback? Isn't that what the what the trigger is? Yeah, it's essentially that you're doing something in your front yard setback that's not allowed. So whether that's a building or parking in it. That's what the variance is for. And I guess it would. It would go with the property. It would basically say, this property they're allowed to park in their

[105:06] setback. Great. Correct. Just like with any other variance, it goes with the property. It's specific. They cannot then build a 2 car wide driveway like it's that one space, it's very tied to the variance, and if down the road we get rid of, or allow people to park in the frontier landscape setback regardless. Then these variances will go away overall. But right now we're it sounds like we're wanting to hold on to the You cannot park in your front yard landscape setback, unless it leads to additional parking. Okay. Understood what the variance is. you know a lot, a lot, a lot of properties and many properties of boulder have this right where they have a driveway in their front yard, and it's leading to something. Now that something is often not

[106:02] usable parking, but it might look like a garage so we don't. Currently, I mean, I don't think people are going around and getting tickets for parking in their in their driveway. That doesn't really occur right. Robbie, shaking his head. No. Well when it comes to. No, we do not go around looking for even our code enforcement team. Who kind of oversees this doesn't go around looking for it. It's all a complaint base. If somebody complains about it, they look into it to determine. Okay, how's your parking? And when it comes to the garage. and this holds true with any permit. If it can be used as parking, we count it as parking. You don't have to use it as parking, you can use it as storage. It just has to have the capability of being parked. That's how we look at it. Right. Yeah. And I would say, just to add that most of the code enforcement issues that come up are more look more like this where it's not just like A

[107:05] and someone parking nicely in their driveway. It's that people have pretty egregiously parked in their front yard. Right, and that. And that's kind of what I'm getting at. Is that Then shouldn't shouldn't the code be directly against that rather than you know a single car in your front yard setback. if we don't, and if if the city doesn't currently care about that. Yeah, we had a lot of internal discussions with, like our engineering staff and our code Enforcement staff, our planning staff, our zoning staff with Robbie and we kind of wanted to take, because eliminating minimum off street parking is a pretty significant shift. In, you know, 75 years of our zoning regulation. We were trying to take a maybe lighter touch with some changes and see how things go for a while, and then, maybe, if it's not an issue. We could eventually

[108:04] change this regulation. But yeah, I would say, probably the answer is that internally we wanted to take a lighter touch and make sure that the changes weren't too drastic. Yeah, I guess my my 1st thought is this is probably never gonna come to a variance unless some neighbor complains, and then they have to go through this variance process, and I well, I don't know what the criteria would be, but it would be very tough to say that this person can't park in their front yard when everyone else does, and they just don't have neighbors that are angry about it. And we we had an example. I think it was last year the year before. I think some of you were on that where we had somebody who actively wanted to convert their single car garage into a space for their aging mother so they couldn't fall under Criterion J. Because it wasn't a prior conversion. So they had to go through 9, 2, 3, h, 1 and 5 just like with any other variance. And that's an example of is, they wanted to maintain that parking in their front yard.

[109:16] but they didn't, and they were at that. At this time. They are still required to provide a single space, but because they wanted to keep and use the driveway they've been using for who knows how long they had to get a variance. so we could then permit the conversion of that garage. So, and then we had all the neighbors. I think we had. A lot of neighbors came out and support. So it's an example of, and it was even brought up well, so and so down the street parks in their front yard, so and so down the street parks in their front yard. It comes up. We recognize that it's kind of we. We've got to stick to the code, and it doesn't appear. We're getting rid of the camp park in your front yard thing. So it really comes down to. It's a complaint driven

[110:01] thing. We don't go actively looking for these, and it's probably going to continue to be that way, a neighbor complaining. They have 10 cars in their front yard and us, saying, All right. Well, can they do it? Yes or no, and it's going to be the same for the most part. But the big changes, instead of going straight to Boza. They have the option of doing the administrative review. Now, if this gets passed. Right, and I think that's a big bonus be but it's gonna be sticky where you know they have to show that it's not representative, you know, not common throughout the neighborhood, and usually these neighborhoods. Every single house has a driveway in their front yard and and it would never meet that criteria you actually, you know, follow that criteria. So I I'm not sure I don't have an answer to this. I'm just kind of pointing out that this is. I don't know if it's great to rate code. That will be fun, you know, functionally applied. Anyway, anyone anyone else have thoughts.

[111:04] You drew Ben. Go ahead, and then Katie. Oh, I was just gonna say broadly, I think this is the right policy direction for the city. Thanks for the presentation. Lisa and Robbie totally support all this on on Drew's points. I think he has a good point, and I understand that the city staff and council may want to move in incremental fashion for now. But I do think it's worth thinking about just the facts on the ground that Drew's highlighting that I mean most of the city. This is probably true. so like is, would there not be some way to in the next iteration of the code, if not in this one add in some kind of allowance, for you know, is it? I don't know if it's like one car per house, or if you tie it to number of occupants. I know occupancy standards have been moving around, so I I don't have a great proposal either, but

[112:01] I do hear what Drew is saying that it seems a little bit silly in the sense that it's not really reflective of reality, plus just the mechanics of those are hearing a variance on this. you know, would we have special variance criteria for for this or. The criteria would stay the same. So there are. There's special criteria for existing conditions like Robbie said, or if it's a prior conversion. And then there's just the general variance criteria. If it's not a prior condition. Well, it feels that part of it feels a little bit like work in progress. The rest of the project great. keep trucking. Okay. Thank you. Robbie, go ahead! And to go back to Drew. If you, if there are concerns specifically about Cri, if they have to meet Criterion H, and don't qualify under J. If you're worried about h. 1 b, which is the unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood. The key part to that is it also says, or zoning district.

[113:09] So it's neighborhood or zoning district and parking in the front yard is not typical for zoning district, so the Board has the option to decide either or so. Maybe that might help a lot with these conditions where it's like, well, every single property on this block is parking in their front yard. How can we approve this? The or zoning district is probably a big part of that, and might actually might help you. Nope, that's a good point. And another thing I just thought of is that for an administrative variance you need your neighbor's permission, or like a signed agreement to it. And most likely it's the neighbor that's complaining about your parking. Yep. Thank you, Katie. Go ahead. My! My question was sort of related about the neighbors, and going through the new administrative process. Is it just the neighbors on either side of the house, or is it like, you know, 5 neighbors on the street, or like, How how would that work.

[114:13] So we use the same language that's in the other variances. So it's impacted property owners. Robbie, you'd probably be better to explain how you decide who's an impacted property owner. And that's so when it comes to impacted adjacent property owners. Typically, we say, if it's if you're abutting the property. So if you've got corner lots and stuff like that. It's people across the street people diagonal. So it's really impacted any property that touches this property. If it was getting a parking setback parking the front yard setback variance. Then it would likely be the side neighbors, the neighbors across the street, but not the neighbor behind, where they're not really being impacted by somebody parking in the driveway because they can't see it. They're on the other side of the house. So it's really

[115:03] we kind of treat all administrative applications the same, which is, if it's somebody who's really touching your property and can really see this, we're going to need their support. Better to be safe than sorry. Thank you, Robbie. Go ahead, Katie. No, that was that that answered my question. That's helpful. Excellent. My question is regarding any language changes. So on slide 15, you talked about changes to J. And H. Or or the ordinance is going to be just changing things. Are there going to be? Language changes to the criteria that Boza considers? So that's my 1st question. No, there's no proposed changes to those criteria. It's just the administrative the option for the administrative, and then the change from parking requirements to if there's a parking space on the site, basically.

[116:00] Okay. So alright. those are not. Then those are not part of the criteria. That's just part of, like the the explanation of what the variance is. Okay, okay, excellent. That was my question. Then. And then I just had a comment about these eco passes for the Goss Grove neighborhood. So this whole neighborhood is going to get is. is, are they going to get Eco passes, or is it going to become an Eco Pass neighborhood where that they can apply for eco passes. What's the situation with that. So I'm not the expert on it. So I'm hoping I'm saying this right. But I've heard the presentation now lots of times, and worked with our community vitality staff on it. I believe everyone in the neighborhood will get an Eco pass, and then they will change. It will change from timed parking to paid parking, and that's why it's a pilot is to see how it, how it works and whether people use the Eco pass and things like that. Okay, interesting. I I would. I would love to see that. That's that's that's very interesting. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Lisa.

[117:03] Excellent. Well, thank you, Lisa, for the explanation in the packet as well as your presentation tonight. It was very helpful with that. Any other comments from Staff city attorney or the board. Go ahead, Katie. I just wanted to thank Lisa for I I am from Buffalo, New York, so I did not realize that Buffalo was the 1st place to eliminate minimum parking requirements. So thank you for that little trivia. Yes, they get a lot of kudos all the time for being the 1st to tackle it. Those are. It was a big change. Yeah. Good. To know. Yeah. Excellent. Well, with that I will go ahead and adjourn our meeting for tonight. Thanks everybody for participating, and see y'all in June. Bye, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. You too.