Okay, so it's uh seven oh two.

Let's get started.

Welcome to the July twenty second.

Meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Um for those who have not been to a meeting um of the BZA, here is a brief procedural overview.

So when a case is called, the city staff will have up to five minutes to present their case, after which their applicant and their representatives will also have up to five a total of up to um five minutes to present their position as well.

And then finally, the case will be open to public comments with each speaker limited to five minutes.

Members of the public must fill out a speaker form for the record, and you can fill um you can find those forms um outside this room.

The board may ask questions during any of these presentations, and the response to board questions do not count against your five minutes.

However, speakers are asked to only respond to the question and refrain from elaborating, restating their position, or asking questions of the board.

Once public comment is closed, the board will deliberate on the case during which the board may ask additional questions to staff or the applicant.

As always, speakers are asked to only respond to the question and refrain from discussion.

Um the Board of Zoning Appeals is a seven-member board with a four-member quorum requirement.

And all motions must have four affirmative votes to pass, regardless of the number of board members in attendance.

Uh so with that being said, Miss Christmason, please call the roll.

Mr.

Liu?

Here.

Mr.

Justice?

Here.

Miss Eveland?

Here.

Mr.

Burke?

Here.

Mr.

Foley.

Here.

We do have a quorum.

The first item on the docket is BZA 2026, 0008, 2500 DeWitt Avenue public hearing in consideration of a request for a variance of an after-the-fact accessory structure and the required vision clearance area.

Zoned R two five residential.

Staff may begin their presentation whenever you're ready.

Thank you.

And I have the pleasure of going over 2500 Duet Avenue.

Uh the variance request.

Next, no one managed to difficulties, folks.

I was wondering why it wasn't full screen, but I was like, well, okay, everyone's cool.

Yep.

Um sorry, can myself refocused here.

So the request for the variance is to allow an after-the-fact pergola to remain within the vision clearance.

Um key elements at the discussion is obviously the vision clearance requirements and also for permitted obstructions that are required within required yards.

Next.

As you can see on the left, that is the photo of the proposed pergola, and on the right is a diagram of the height diagram.

It's a hundred and twenty-six point two six square foot pergola, and it measures nine feet in height.

Um it does comply with the permitted obstruction section, which we'll go over later to be allowed within any required yard.

That's why it can be allowed to be located forward of the front building wall of the house.

It just cannot be located within the vision clearance, which we'll get into.

So tonight's there.

The vision clearance requirement is a 30 by 30 uh foot triangle that comes out of um the curb.

So the proposed vision clearance that the applicant is requesting is 23.89 feet.

So the relief they're requesting is 6.11 uh feet.

Staff is recommending denial of the variance because it does not meet all of the criteria for a variance.

If you have any questions, the board members have questions for staff at this time.

I understand there was a tree that was in that position previously.

That is correct.

And did that not have the same sort of obstruction issue that this is purported to have?

Correct, but um trees are allowed within the vision clearance, and we believe this structure does not meet the same definition as if uh if a tree or like some short shrubbery was within the vision clearance.

That's why they uh are normally our requests to build without outside of the vision clearance.

So the tree that was there was more obstructing, much more obstructing.