The December nine, twenty twenty-five Board of Adjustment meeting will come to order, Mr.

Liazone.

Would you please call the roll?

Yes, Mr.

Norgaard.

I'm here.

Okay.

Ms.

Hammond.

Mr.

Menchu.

Here.

Miss Rogers.

Here.

And Mrs.

Olson.

Here.

You have five.

You have a quorum.

All right.

Uh is there a motion and a second to approve the agenda?

Make a motion.

No second.

Hammond.

All right.

Um, is there any discussion?

Seeing none, uh, let's take a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

No opposed.

All right.

The November eighteenth, twenty twenty-five minutes were distributed to the members of the board.

Um, and Miss Olson received a copy here tonight to review.

Uh, are there any corrections or additions to the minutes?

Yes.

On the last page, talking about the next meeting or the calendar for next year.

There's a statement that because of the Labor Day holiday, then that meeting will be the third Wednesday.

And I think so, Tuesday instead of Wednesday.

Sorry.

Did you get that?

You could go ahead and restate that.

Just make sure we've got it on the so the minutes state that the meeting after Labor Day will be on the third Wednesday instead of the third Tuesday.

Motion from Janet.

I'll second it.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Seeing none.

Uh, would the court reporter please swear in staff?

This evening will be the truth.

Yes, I do.

All right.

So we're going to start with case number 21-2026, and we'll also finish with that case.

A request of Scott and Angela Claybrook owners seeking approval of a five-foot variance from the required 25-foot rear setback of the R2 to family dwelling zoning district.

The applicant seeks applicants seek to expand the existing single family home on the site by attaching as an integral part of the existing dwelling an accessory dwelling unit or ADU.

When an ADU is integral to an existing dwelling, the setbacks applied to the ADU must conform to those applicable to the existing dwelling.

The proposed ADU extends approximately five feet into the required 25-foot rear yard setback of the R2 zoning district, which is not permitted as required by Section 29-3.3 IIV of the Unified Development Code.

Approval of this request would permit a building permit to be issued for the proposed ADU on property addressed as 602 Florence Avenue.

Mr.

Liaison, has the notice been properly advertised?

Yes, it has.

Yes, it has.

Have the parties in interest been notified?

Yes, they were.

Yes, there were, and both of those inquiries came after the uh packet was published for this evening's meeting.

Both uh comments have been submitted to you electronically and should be in front of you this evening as well.

All right, thank you.

Would the individual making application to the board please come forward, state your name and address uh for the court reporter, and then swear in.

My name is Scott Claybrook, and my address is 602 Florence Avenue.

We'll do the truth.

Thank you, by the way, for time tonight.

Appreciate you all.

Uh I'm sure a lighter docket is appreciated.

So I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you guys and just wanted to say thank you also to city staff.

I know you all put in a lot of time and hours in our community, and it's appreciated.

Um standing here tonight on behalf of our family, uh, my wife, uh, my son and daughter and I, as we are seeking a rear yard uh adjustment.

I don't do this every day, so if my language isn't quite right, you'll bear with me, please.

Um but we're looking at an adjustment uh in the rear yard setback uh of a roughly five feet.

And you'll see from the plot plan that the way the house is a little bit caddywampous on the property.

It'll be a little bit different across the back span of that house, uh, but that's about the the distance.

Um as we look at this uh particular property, our home, our residence.

We've lived here about 12 to 13 years.

Uh this was actually a first-time home purchase for us, and we'd like to stay in this home uh long term.

And so some of our uh current lot and and property dynamics include an R2 zone uh as it stands today.

Um with that R2 zone, um we've had the privilege through some of the work we do in the community of building some ADUs over the years, and so we're very familiar with the ordinance and how everything functions in that right.

And so the the R2 does create a situation where by right we are able to create an ADU.

But as I'll show you tonight, uh we don't think it's the best suited ADU that we could create for a number of important reasons.

Uh a number of those are including uh neighbor concerns that we want to honor, uh as well as just the overall open space in our community as well as our our families' needs.

And so we'll we'll dive into that.

So overall, we're seeking uh roughly a five-foot rear yard uh setback or encroachment into that 25-foot uh yard space.

Uh this is the proposed plot plan as provided by um awesome Miss Adrian Stalwick of Monarch Architecture.

You can see the current existing house in light gray, and you can see both the first floor plan coverage, uh, what would now be a covered patio suggested with a single pier uh in that bottom right-hand corner of that plot plan, and then the proposed uh secondary uh story above uh what would be uh the additional uh attached ADU.

You can see here trying to call out just visually what the encroachment and or adjustment would need to pertain to.

That's the five foot, and you can see how it's got a little bit of a variation, uh, but five foot would be the maximum part uh within that encroachment and adjustment.

Uh the kind of shaded area represents the fact that that would be uh over a covered patio, and that that encroachment would be the second floor on that lower and uh southernmost portion of the plot.

Our goals as a family really kind of represented here in four key items.

Sorry, this is a little small.

I'll just kind of characterize them for you.

We're really trying to achieve the most integrated way of caring for aging family members.

So we have a my mother-in-law is getting older, has lost uh her husband in the last two years, and we are just preparing for what may very well be uh an in-home health care need as the years progress.

And so we are wanting to stay in place and help her to age in place to and try to avoid both costly and just difficult nursing home potentials in the future.

In order to build an accommodating structure, um, we're needing to achieve a second story for the sake of space.

So you can see in what I'll show you here in a moment that we can by right build a detached ADU in the rear yard further, so about six foot from the rear yard setback according to the ordinance, but we can only occupy about 30% of the rear yard setback if you're if you're capturing that idea.

It's kind of hard to visualize.

I'll show it to you here in a sec.

That 30% is roughly 458 square feet.

And so to go to the expense of doing this project and to have it detached from the house where we can't get to mom as easily is not really super conducive.

In addition to that, it is a size that is limiting to what we're hoping to accomplish with the overall build.

Um, and in addition, when you build it detached, uh, it has an extreme additional cost from adding exterior, an additional exterior side, an additional exterior footer in the foundation, and everything that comes with that uh detached structure.

Um as I mentioned, the ability is about 458 square feet detached, and again the additional cost.

So those are the goals that we're trying to accomplish with this hardship.

Um the reason we can only go 458 detached as opposed to with the attached being able to build a second story is because of the ordinance itself.

So the ordinance itself is written to where the primary structure cannot be lower or said the other way, the detached unit cannot be higher than the primary structure.

So we cannot get a secondary story in a detached version, and therefore we can't get that additional square footage because of the rear yard coverage.

Uh that's also part of that ordinance.

So as it stands today, an attached unit allows us to raise the existing structure roof, capture a second story, and be a lot more efficient, both in design and the overall functionality of the home for our goals.

Um you can see here some different examples on our street uh of additions and or kind of built-in ADUs that already exist.

Our street is a little cross street between Whorley and Donnelly.

Roughly 10 homes on that street have a Florence Avenue address, about 12 homes are adjoined to the street itself.

I've got three examples on our street right now of build-outs that have already occurred.

Uh, this would be 607 Florence Avenue, where this extended tandem garage has been turned into an in-house ADU for an aging parent.

You actually have a uh it's actually a really great build out.

Um the letter that was submitted by Miss Rachel Cheadle, that is their residence.

So they both added on an ADU in their garage as well as an addition that is not super visible from the street, and that gives their family additional living space and an additional bedroom as their children are aging.

Uh similarly, uh, you have 609 Florence Avenue just due north of them.

Uh kind of an interesting build out where they built an additional uh bedroom on the back.

They've added a stair set and they've been able to go vertical over the years.

Uh, and then similarly, literally right next door to us, 604 uh Florence, they were able to take an additional existing attic space, raise the trusses, uh, and create an additional apartment uh right next door to us with accommodating parking and the secondary entry through that deck.

Um I do want to address uh Mr.

Townsend's uh email that he had sent uh related to his concerns on the tree and the root system.

Um that is also a concern of ours.

Um we work in Central City through some of the work I do with housing, and I know these old trees are can be a little bit challenging.

And so uh we wanted to make sure that that was clear that we have taken that into consideration.

So what you've got imaged here before you is basically the center of that tree and then the drip line as it stands on the best I could give you from an aerial map.

I don't have a drone, so I use Google Maps to be able to accommodate that.

You can see the measurement from the house where the bump out exists at 13.91 feet, which is a little bit more than is imaged in our plot plan for that for the bottom floor of the ADU.

So the bottom floor would be the only thing plus the pier on that southern corner that would have anything to do with the root system at a three-foot dig for a footer.

And we don't believe it's going to encroach into Mr.

Townsend's concern.

What we do believe would encroach is that 458 square foot detached.

That's definitely going to live in that area of that drip line.

And with that in mind as well, we again that's not our desire.

Our desire is to be able to build in that footprint as we're describing and avoid some of those concerns.

Just a couple of things I want to point out.

Familiar with our comprehensive plan and some of the work we do in the community and uh thankful uh for the city that thinks ahead.

And so as I was reviewing that, I was just struck by some of the things that the plan is trying to accomplish.

One in particular was with land use principles and and policies on if you were interested on page 120.

It talks about strategies for supporting diverse and inclusive housing options.

Uh just kind of calling out one key piece of the puzzle here.

It says that strategies to support diverse and inclusive housing options include the promotion of universal design, aging in place and affordable housing.

Universal design uh universal design is the design of goods and environments to be usable by everyone to the greatest extent possible without the need for adaptation.

Universally designed homes allow for people to live in the homes for longer periods of time as their physical abilities change.

An inclusive community also considers policies to promote aging in place.

The concept of aging in place means that people will have access via proximity, transportation options, and universal design.

So these are some of the things that we're trying to accomplish in this move and and thereby uh the five-foot adjustment request.

Um so quickly in review, uh, we are trying to make the least variation possible.

Um we are trying to create a solution that is in line with the existing neighborhood.

So an attached structure, just like three other examples exist on our street of ten.

We're trying to make sure that open space is accommodated for and that neighbors' concerns like Mr.

Townsend's are taken into view.

We're really trying to make sure that our aging family is well taken care of and a structure that both accomplishes the space needs with a low rising stair set, uh, enough space to be able to adequately live in and make transition and to be able to care for those aging needs directly attached to our our structure.

And lastly, you know, we're trying to create solutions that are in view with our city's comprehensive plan.

So that's all I have for you guys tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Claybrook.

Are there any questions from the board?

I had a question about the tree while you're collecting your thoughts.

Um at the in the neighbor's yard.

So is his concern about the tree or the roots of the tree?

His concern sounded like it was twofold in the email.

I did call him after I found out about this uh just to see if we could have a conversation.

We had an initial conversation and then he said he would get back to me, and I've not been able to reach him since.

Um but my understanding is his concern is that he has had dropping limbs in years past.

We had one limb drop thankfully it was further back in our yard over the fence line.

And so one of his concerns is building closer causes more potential for that to occur on an actual structure.

And then secondarily, his concern that because the root system, the drip line extends over our property, any footer or concrete work has the potential to damage that and thereby kill the tree long term.

But the tree is in his yard.

That's correct.

Okay.

Probably about 10 feet off his his rear yard, if I had to guess, something like that.

How many bedrooms are in your house, the existing house?

Uh three.

And how many would be in the ADU?

One.

Yeah, it would be a larger one-bedroom, one bath with the view in mind of uh you know, aging parent transitioning from having a larger house down to something smaller.

And you've built other ADUs?

I have.

Didn't have any setback issues with any of them.

No, we we've built a number of variations attached.

Um I've been involved in some detached work here in the community.

We've been exploring ADUs as a viable option for affordable housing.

That's the primary work I do.

I work with an affordable housing nonprofit here in the city.

So I couldn't really tell from the diagram we are given.

The um second floor would also infringe on the setback or just the first floor or both.

Yeah, so if you look at the plot plan here, um yeah, it's it's not the greatest imagery I can see where there could be confusion.

So the second floor is directly above the first and extends over that patio.

Yes.

It kind of creates a, if you were to look at the side view, it creates a side patio uh that both structures have access to.

But not into the backyard set back.

Well, so it would it because it runs the span of the house, it would actually have a overlay as well.

So you can see it overlaps the first floor and then the patio as well.

So it's really kind of a one-for-one uh encroachment, but it doesn't go any further than the existing structure.

Okay.

So the first floor and the second floor are the same footprint.

Footprint.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, as far as where it encroaches because the first floor doesn't encroach the whole way because there's a patio.

That's correct, yeah.

Oh right.

The patio doesn't encroach, but the house does.

The patio has been existing at about that depth as it stands, yeah.

So can you go, would you be able to go from inside the ADU into the primary house?

Through the exterior door shared by the patio itself.

But there is no adjoining door.

They are technically separate units.

And how high is the ADU?

What's the height?

Um I it's hard to pull that measurement.

Um it is encompassed by that additional extension of the gable for the existing structure that is planned.

Any further questions?

Yeah.

What specifically is the hardship?

Yeah, so the hardship has to do with um creating a unit that is not going to be accommodating at 458 square feet.

In addition to that, um, the concerns with neighbor trees and root systems, um, as well as creating a space that is really different than the other existing additions on our street.

Um I know cost is not a hardship that you all take much in consideration in this board.

For us, that is a big hardship.

It's about a difference in a delta of about 17 to 25,000.

Again, that may not be in view here, but really the bigger hardship is again creating a unit that's not accommodating.

It's too small for what we're trying to accomplish for aging family, again, neighbor concerns, and then creating an environment where we can get two family members that's adjoined rather than multiple 10, 12 feet from the house itself.

So what about an addition?

Like adding on to your house.

Is that not?

So if you're so I mean, really it's it's the same exact concern.

So the rear yard setback, that 25 foot, uh huh, uh, you can't build into it no matter what.

So that would be ADU or addition.

Um so because of the way that this R2 lot has been laid out, uh, you wouldn't be able to go too far deep because it's a it's a more shallow lot.

So a lot of our R2 lots in the first ward are very deep, uh hundred feet plus, which makes this kind of a non-issue pretty easily.

Uh in our case, uh it was a lot that was subdivided some years ago from independence to Florence that cut the lot in half.

And so it it does have a little bit of a more kind of a stout approach, the lot the lot itself.

So we couldn't accomplish that really effectively.

Um you can kind of see the uh the bump out there causes uh roughly about a nine foot to the to the 25-foot setback, which makes that pretty unusable space.

Do any of the other three ADUs infringe on setbacks that are in your neighborhood?

Uh I couldn't speak on it.

I wasn't involved in their processes.

Yeah.

Hope not, huh?

So it's I mean, I'm looking at this map that shows the different streets.

And it looks like almost every lot in there is really deep, except for these six lots between Florence and Independence.

Um basically what you're saying is almost every other neighbor in there could do this or has done it.

Um just those lots don't don't allow for that because of the depth.

Exactly.

Yeah.

Across the street, uh there I think when the neighborhood was plotted, my understanding is that they had actually plan for a uh alleyway between Harden and Florence and those properties that adjoin.

So it's a huge, huge, huge uh rear yard.

I mean, they are massive.

I mean, the kids play football back there, almost full football length, you know.

Uh but yeah, in this case it was also a very large lot that was then subdivided.

Um then I guess the other question I've got is that you you say you could do an ADU non-attached on a different spot in the yard.

It would just have to be really small.

Is it?

Yeah.

So what's um I should have imaged this differently on the plot plan as well.

But if you can see that measurement at 13 feet, you have got to stay with a detached according to the ordinance.

You have got to stay 10 foot from the rear of the house.

Six foot from the rear yard setback.

So it's a very it's interesting how it's written.

So we could build a detached all the way back to six-foot setback and six foot from the side yards, uh up to four hundred and fifty-eight square feet because that's about 30 percent.

So I guess that's about 30 percent of that entire rear yard setback.

So there's a couple different parameters that the ordinance provides to try to define how that all works.

Um in this case, this is what comes out of that process because of the smaller, kind of more stout lot.

Um could we do that?

I mean, we can, and I mean, but it's not going to produce an environment that's really cost-effective.

And again, the way our code is written, you have investigated it, and you could do that.

We could.

Not it's a good idea or whatever, but I'm just saying our code allowed the way our code is written, you're not allowed to do what you are proposing, but you would be allowed to put the structure back there, which would actually encroach more on the free in the backyard.

Yeah, that's correct.

All the way to the six-foot mark.

Currently it will be about twenty feet from that rear yard setback with this propo proposed design.

Any further questions?

All right, thank you, Mr.

Clayborough.

Thank you so much.

If there's anybody in the audience who wishes to speak in favor, please come forward.

Seeing none, is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak against?

Please come forward.

None.

Mr.

Denner, would you like to give your report or so as uh Mr.

Claybrook has pointed out, uh a little bit of the history back in this subdivision.

Uh the subdivision um and the lot that Mr.

Claybrook uh purchased uh already had the home on it, but uh this particular lot was subdivided in 2001 from the 1948 knipbog subdivision, which at the time that this subdivision was originally recorded, uh the lot in question uh was roughly a hundred and eighty-six feet deep.

It went from independence all the way back over to Florence.

Um the subdivision action that actually divided uh Mr.

Claybrook's lot was preceded by a uh planting action uh in several years earlier, 1986, of the lot immediately to the north of him.

Uh the lot immediately to the south, which would constitute the six lots that are all smaller than everything in the neighborhood has not yet been platted.

Uh, but as stated in the staff report, it does appear as though those six the the lot to the south, which consists of two detached single-family homes, those two lots are likely legal lots by our legal lot definition, even though they have not been platted.

So this is a unique subdivision environment.

When when we look at what the hardship is and we look at is the land part of that unique element, these lots got created out of what was a much larger lot, and therefore they complied with the R2 standards that existed at the time that they were resubdivided, 86 and 2010.

They are over uh 5,000 square feet apiece, meaning that the single family homes that exist on these lots are all fully compliant.

Um they are now they are not so large, however, that they would be allowed to be improved with a duplex, two dwelling units.

So they are under seven, they were under 10,000 square feet at the time that they were created.

Uh our current standard now would require a minimum of 7,000 square feet.

But Mr.

Clayburgh's lot as well as the other five that surround it do not even qualify for a duplex.

ADU standards were adopted in 2015 in the city.

If a garage had been constructed within this particular neighborhood on any one of these six lots, that garage back in 2010 could have been within three feet of a property line, and because there were no ADU standards, that garage potentially could have been improved with a dwelling unit above it.

And so we evolved, of course, in five years from when this lot was created to the adoption of our ADU standards and said, well, if you're going to put a dwelling unit above a garage, you have to double your setback.

However, the rules also say that you can have up to 30 percent of improvement in your of accessory improvement in your rear yard.

And so that could be the garage, it could have been an ADU.

As stated in the staff report, there's roughly 19 feet of the 25-foot rear yard setback that could accommodate the ADU.

But when you run the calculations on what 30 percent is of the required rear yard of this 60-foot-wide lot, you get to the 458 square feet that Mr.

Clayburgh has stated.

That's the maximum size.

Furthermore, the current zoning provisions that exist prohibit the ability of an accessory structure, be it a detached garage or be at the ADU to exceed the height of the principal dwelling.

Based upon some rough measurements, it would appear as though the height of the primary structure that is presently on the lot is probably about 14 feet tall to the and obviously if we're going to try to construct a two-story ADU, as Mr.

Clayburgh has indicated, utilizing general floor-to-ceiling heights of anywhere between eight to nine feet apiece, you are going to end up with 18 feet, you're going to be over.

And so when Mr.

Claybrook is making a statement that he can't really build a functionally useful ADU, it's because he can't get the second story on it.

Ironically, if you add on to the house, I believe as Ms.

Rogers is suggesting, the height of a home within the R2 zoning district, the maximum height is a total of 35 feet.

So if you're adding a second floor on top of the 14-foot tall structure, you're going to end up at about a 25-foot tall dwelling unit that has the extended gable on the front going up to the uh going up to a second floor of the ADU, and therefore it's going to look more like a typical two-story structure in that neighborhood.

When we evaluated this, and I I we don't enter property uh unless we are invited by the property owner.

So I went back to the southeast corner where Mr.

Townsend's property and Mr.

Clayburgh's property match and stood on my tippy toes and took a picture over the fence that is in that backyard, and there is not necessarily any topographical related issues to this property.

Its size, however, is unique when you think about it in comparison to the rest of the lots in the Nipbog subdivision.

It is about half the size of any lot that's there.

The house, however, that Mr.

Claybrook and his family purchased was not of their design, was not of their choice.

It was an existing home.

So that is, again, a constraint from staff's perspective.

They bought a home.

They're now trying to accommodate what would be an otherwise lawful use of their dwelling and in their zoning district.

So when we look at it from the perspective of, well, what potentially is the impact of requiring that ADU to be built in the rear yard as it would otherwise be allowed.

Well, A, it occupies 30 percent of a rear yard or of a lot that is half the size of any other lot in the neighborhood.

It creates a detached structure, uncharacteristic of anything that is within this neighborhood.

What does the five-foot maximum variance permit?

It permits building a home that would be more consistent with a standard two-story construction that would have been allowed in this neighborhood had somebody maybe been more thoughtful and had foresight that maybe a family that was trying to accommodate an aging parent or aging family members in place, maybe would have built a two-story structure in order to do this.

So there are a number of factors that we looked at as to, well, what is more beneficial for the neighborhood.

We want to keep consistency with the housing stock that's there.

We really don't want to promote basically building a detached structure in an environment when that impact, in our opinion, occupying the 30 percent of the rear yard and creating a greater impact to the adjoining property owner as well as the neighborhood as a whole, would be created.

Attaching it to the house, from our perspective would appear to be a much more practical approach.

It achieves the objectives, yes, of the applicant, but it also ensures that the neighborhood is not negatively impacted by the expansion of a dwelling unit to the rear of the property to where it may create other impacts.

I think the one thing that we have to we we consider as is a practical approach here is the five-foot variance still allows for roughly 20 feet behind the structure to be met.

You build an ADU, a dwelling unit at six.

Instead, we're going to get it 20 feet away from the adjoining property.

As stated in the staff report and based off of aerial photography measurement, there is probably about 45 to 50 feet between dwelling units if attached to the house.

The impact is going to be, from our perspective, negligible.

But the benefits may be extremely significant in fulfilling not only our comprehensive plan goals and objectives, but also allowing the applicant to better utilize this structure for their unique familial needs that they have identified now that they are there.

With that, those are the facts that we have identified and we have uncovered as we have done the evaluation.

I think we, from a staff perspective, do not see this as a significant impact.

As Mr.

Claybrick pointed out, based on the drip line, which is the outermost area of the tree that is in question that Mr.

Townsend is concerned about.

There is a maintenance responsibility associated with the tree that does overhang this property, and that maintenance responsibility is a private civil matter.

That is really not a matter that is really germane for this board as it relates to the ability to allow the applicant to encroach into the rear yard a maximum of five feet.

Can't really do anything with the house.

However, that may structurally not be sound either, given that the foundation for the home that is there today may not be capable of carrying that weight.

And so what you are looking at is the solution that is probably the least impactful to the existing residents by having to do additional foundation-related work, and probably the least impactful as it relates to the surrounding neighborhood by allowing it to be connected.

If you have any questions, I will be more than happy to try to answer them.

And before we get to that, let me respond to Ms.

Hammond's question.

Were the other structures that are there built legally?

We did not evaluate that.

I would assume that yes, they were, only because if they are within the confines of the footprint of the existing structure, such as the home to the north, or an extension of possibly a tandem garage that was already a pre-existing improvement.

Our permitting staff, I'd like to think would have identified that as a violation before the building permit was issued.

And we are hopeful that a building permit was issued to make those improvements.

But without going through the permit records, I can't verify for you in fact that those dwelling units have not expanded into their required setback either.

One would assume, though, that they are not, given that we haven't heard anything about them.

What parking is required now and if this ADU is built?

So under the ADU regulations, there is no parking when you have fewer than three bedrooms associated with it.

The present dwelling unit itself is required to have two parking spaces as are as is our all one and two-family dwelling units within the City of Columbia, and this property does have the required requisite two parking spaces.

In tandem.

In tandem, yes, that is correct.

And as I understood, if the ADU is built, there's three bedrooms in the original house, there would be one bedroom in the ADU.

Doesn't that make four?

The ADU, so this is a single-family dwelling unit in a two-family zone.

The ADU is considered a single-family dwelling unit, but the code specifically excludes additional parking for ADUs that are fewer than three bedrooms.

Oh, the ADU fewer than the And because this is R2, there is a so there's a nuance here.

The R2 zoning district allows two dwelling units.

However, this is not considered a duplex.

The ADU is not equivalent to that.

It is basically accessory to the single family use.

If it were considered a duplex, this ADU wouldn't even be allowed because it doesn't meet the minimum lot area for a duplex.

A duplex requires 7,000 square feet.

This lot is just over 5,000, just under six, just over 6,000 square feet, if I recall correctly.

So it is it it when you do the ADU side of this, that is how it is allowed, because an ADU, a minimum lot size for a single family home with an ADU is 3,000 square feet.

This fits well within the boundaries of that, but would not allow a traditional duplex to be built.

Which would trigger the additional parking that I think you're you are referring to.

So the existing driveway is adequate.

That is correct, along with the street side parking that is permitted along Florence.

What amount of green space is required in the front yard, the backyard, the total yard?

So there is not a green space calculation or minimum for single and two-family development, as there is for other types of development within the community, which is 15 percent.

The green space that you would end up with in a standard residential single or two-family lot is normally going to be made up by your front yard setback, which is 25 feet, the width of the lot, and then your rear yard setback, which is the 25 feet and the width of the lot itself.

And this is why we don't we try to maintain specify the maximum coverage of a rear yard is 30 percent, because you are trying to ensure that the rear yard, the private recreational space that would normally be possibly enclose with a fence, isn't being diminished such to a point that it is, as I point out in the staff report, potentially pushing the private open space needs elsewhere, either back out onto the public street, creating a more dangerous situation, or in the worst case scenario, expanding off into neighboring properties that may not be fenced in.

As Mr.

Claypert points out, there is very large lots in this neighborhood where maybe the families that live within the community allow their children and others within the neighborhood to play, because you know, these some of these lots are smaller, and therefore, you know, some of those demands, you don't get to play a football game in a backyard that is only about 34 feet deep by 60 feet wide.

But if you go across the street to where you have a hundred feet of rear yard still left after your home is, uh that happens.

And so what we don't want to do is we don't want to create an area that makes the house less desirable long term.

This is the whole idea, part of the underlying objectives of creating a livable and sustainable neighborhood.

You reduce the usable green space on this lot by having a detached structure, you may really diminish the desirability of this property long term.

You may achieve one goal, and that is getting aging in place compliantly without a variance, but then you may on the flip side create a different problem when it comes to resale and somebody wanted something that may have had a little bit more backyard and the secondary dwelling unit, but we forced the dwelling unit to be built where the backyard would have been, and therefore you may reduce your availability to potential buyers that may want to buy into that community or that neighborhood itself.

Let me understand what you said.

The maximum coverage of a rear yard.

There needs to be 30 percent green space in a rear yard?

No.

It would be uh 80 percent if we if we look at, if we look at what the maximum, what the maximum coverage is is 30, it is 70 percent green then.

And the rear yard is anything that is behind the building.

Uh so rear yard by definition is anything that is behind the rear wall of the structure, there is a there is a difference between general rear yard behind the rear wall of a structure, and then there is a required rear yard.

The required rear yard is the regulatory setback, and that is 25 feet in the R 1 and the R2 zoning districts.

So that particular area, unless you build an accessory structure, is generally left open because you don't have a structure back there.

Your primary residence can't be within that regulatory setback.

And so the ADU is considered accessory.

It is allowed to be within six feet of the rearmost boundary of that lot, but it's detached.

Yeah, detached.

Well let's not talk about detaching.

Yeah, detached.

And then it can't cover more than 30 percent of that required rear yard.

So if this variance is granted, and this addition this ADU is built, does it meet the requirement for green space in the backyard?

Yes, it would.

Because you're you're only encroaching five feet.

So if we Oh, so all is needed is okay, wait.

So tell me why?

So the five feet all we're encroaching into that rear yard is five feet.

So this is a 60-foot wide lot, 60-foot wide lot, and you're going to end up having 20.

Uh so 60 by 60 by 5 is 300, if I'm not incorrect.

Um 25 by 25 by 60, it's going to be bear with me here.

Let me get my calculator out.

So 25 times 60.

So that's 1,500 square feet of green space that would be required if you don't build a structure in it if it's not accessory, detached, a detached structure.

So it's 1,500 square feet.

Right now, you're going to take roughly 300 square feet out of that with the variance.

So you are going to end up with a 1,200 square foot green space.

So that's really when we look at it from open area, compare open area to open area, you're losing 300 square feet roughly.

And the difference if you were to build a separate ADU is you would have about 1,100 square feet, 1140 or something.

Correct.

But it just wouldn't be continuous.

It would be around that building as opposed to being one larger backyard.

Correct.

And I mean there's there's there's ways that if if the detached structure were to be placed in the required rear yard, you could offset it to one side of the property, uh thereby creating maybe more of a usable square, but still you'll end up taking out about another 180 square feet of usable lawn area than allowing the five-foot encroachment.

So let me ask you another question.

Because it's zoned R2, but really small for R2.

Um is there an additional potential hardship if you if we didn't allow the variance uh or if the if the person wanted to utilize it as R2.

Um I mean I always think about if you if I say no to something, what am I forcing, potentially forcing someone into if they want to utilize the property the way they want to use it?

Because it's zoned R2, but it's not really usable as R2.

Um, is there an additional hardship there in in your mind if they if they wanted to create big enough space for for to accomplish what they are wanting to get?

So what that would result in, so we deny the current variance request, which is to encroach five feet into the required rear yard.

The alternative that the applicant would have is they could come back and they could ask for two different design, they could ask for two different variances then.

One would be to allow for greater than 30 percent coverage in the required rear yard, and allow a structure greater than the height of the principal dwelling.

So again, from an efficiency perspective of dealing with the impacts to the applicant for processing a variance, this is the simplest way of getting the issue resolved.

So that is one of the questions we ask as a part of the criteria.

Is this solution, is this request uh uh the the most conducive?

And you know, i it would be given that all if we deny, we then have two other variances that would need to be considered.

And you know, ultimately at that point, it would be, I think, more challenging for us from a staff perspective to suggest that there truly is uh a hardship at that point.

It's it's more or less you have got a house that is already here, you're wanting to build something new.

Well, you don't have to build something new detached from the home, as Ms.

uh Roger suggested, just do a home addition.

And at that point you basically can avoid the issue, but doing a home addition isn't the same as doing an ADU.

An ADU is truly creating a second dwelling that will coexist, uh which m fulfills more of the general objective of the R2 zoning district as a two-family zone.

Um it's just the ADU is restricted on its size, and therefore you're not getting a full-scale secondary dwelling unit, so to speak.

And that's the so we are controlling the impacts in that way to the neighborhood as well.

But it we'd enter we would either if you deny this evening these requ this requests, then we end up coming back probably with an alternative request which would possibly not have the same parameters associated with it, and therefore not necessarily be as supportable.

So then last question.

Um with the idea of creating affordable housing, uh I mean, isn't there some part of that that includes keeping the housing we have affordable or if you want to expand, because to go find a four-bedroom, you know, sell what you have, go move to another neighborhood, find something bigger becomes more challenging.

I mean, isn't because I know part of the goal we discussed with the with the with the uh Airbnb ruling was to try to keep some of the housing that might be used for other things to keep it in play to keep it used by single family to keep that affordability there.

I mean, isn't this in a way the same sort of attempt and to keep something affordable to a family who is trying to grow?

I mean, uh we don't want our our uh zoning laws to work against what our other goal is, right?

I am not sure if I said that as well.

I understand what you are driving at, Mr.

Minshew, and I think you are correct.

So uh part of what Scott does in his day job uh is actually trying to create uh attainability for folks that may be on the margin of being able to afford uh a home.

And so when we add ADUs to existing dwelling units, uh those ADUs can be registered within the long-term rental program.

They could be used as a short-term rental to augment uh owner income in order to allow them to stay in place.

And the same goes for uh a family that maybe want to age in place, they build the ADU, uh the parents may be aging, they build the ADU to allow them to move into the smaller portion of the dwelling, and their family comes and lives in the original house.

So they get to stay and they get to keep that nuclear family connected, and the neighborhood basically benefits from that because it's long-term residence.

Um I mean, there are a couple of variants to how that can occur.

Uh but again, as I said earlier, the idea of allowing ADUs in an R2 zoning district, which is a buy-right use, provided you meet the zoning requirements, is fully aligned with the concept of keeping our housing stock available for those that can afford it, and an ADU does offer that opportunity either to accommodate uh an expanded family, multi-generational family, or allow somebody to have that rental property, that dwelling unit as rental income that then can allow them to stay in their house.

And that is that's that's really uh a huge component of meeting uh the housing uh studies objectives uh that we had completed in 2024, and it is one of the primary and underlying purposes of why in 2015 we created uh within the zoning ordinance the opportunity for ADUs.

And that's uh this particular request, aside from the fact that it's encroaching into a rear yard on a lot that got chopped in half from what it was originally created, this really would be probably the quintessential example of why we have the standards we have.

So, Mr.

Zinner, um since you are uniquely qualified to answer the following question, I'm gonna ask it.

Uh is there intentionality behind the height differential between ADUs and R2 principal structures.

So an ADU in general is was envisioned as a detached structure.

So a single-story detached uh possibly a single story detached structure.

And so when we talk about accessory structure height, which those standards have existed for uh quite significant period of time, um, when you take a single-story single-family home, your ADU or your accessory structure, which can has never been, to my recollection, allowed to be greater than the principal structure height, you basically cast the mold.

It is either going to be a single story ADU or a single story garage.

But if you have a home that is different that is a two-story structure, you're going to be able to get some variation and therefore, you know, the accessory structure, a standard accessory structure at 24 feet, that's going to give you two basically and heights measured again to the to the midpoint of a pitched roof.

So really the the peak of a roof that is pitched, it is going to allow you to extend above probably 24 feet when you look at it.

But when you think about basically how we measure height, 24 feet is going to allow you two nine-foot floors for living space and then when you measure to the peak of that or the center of the pitched roof, you're going to be able to get to the 24.

And that in a two-story construction is most likely more comparable with what we see in those environments.

So there's we, you know, the uh we don't want accessory structures towering over primary structures on a property.

And that is the reason that there is the difference between the 35 foot height maximum, 35 foot, you know, depending on how you want to slice it or dice it, you could have three floors in a 35-foot height.

You may have a very, very shallow pitched roof, but you could have a three-story structure.

So could I follow up with the question is adding on to an existing structure considered an accessory structure or is it considered an integral part of the original structure?

Is an accessory structure in other words definitionally detached?

Definitionally definitionally no especially as an ADU an ADU by definition can be either an integrated part of an existing dwelling unit or it can be detached.

Now when you think about an accessory garage based on that an accessory structure by just definition accessory means it is subordinate to the primary use.

An ADU though by definition could be integrated into a home meaning you could take an attic space such as the neighbors have done and you can convert that attic space to a completely independent dwelling unit within the confines of the roof structure that is there.

What the Clayborgs would like to build is really it's a cross between an expansion of the house but because it is being integrated into it and it will be a separate dwelling unit when it is done it is it is it is a dwelling unit in and of itself but it is an extension of the house.

Okay.

So here's my penultimate question if this is in an R2 zone district and you have two dwelling units that are separate from each other is that not the definition of a duplex definite definition of a well definition of duplex generally is a is a single structure with a shared common wall again.

Which will exist in this case so we refer to the technically an ADU.

We refer to it as an ADU because it is restricted based on its square footage.

So the ADU has other limitations associated with it whereas if this were a duplex unit, a completely separate and not a completely the both are completely separate units.

But if it was considered a duplex, a two-family structure, there would be no limitation on the second structure being built.

So really that it all comes back to how is the applicant wanting to constrain themselves on the secondary dwelling unit and if they are constraining themselves to be within the confines of the ADU requirements it casts itself as an ADU being attached or detached.

It is not a secondary it is not a traditional duplex or secondary dwelling unit on the property in the sense that it doesn't have those limitations.

Hopefully that answers the question It does I was noticing on the applicant's plot plan their 25-foot setback line was substantially in front of the original structure do we know how far the house is I think the the uh the diagramming that is on the actual front setback may be a little bit inaccurate if I'm not incorrect the front corner and because the house is set somewhat kittywompous as uh Mr.

I think that is a total of a 31-foot front yard, approximately 31 feet.

Um it is angled.

So that is that would be, and then it is 34 feet, approximately 34 feet from the back.

The site plan itself has not yet been, it's not a finalized site plan.

It was more idealized with the general setbacks.

Again, when we did our evaluation, we took our measurements off of the Boone County Assessors files.

Um given the dimensions that are shown on the plot plan, uh that is what the variance is being driven off of.

And so you will also probably note within the application that was submitted, uh, there was a reference to a three-foot um setback variance.

And that is actually how the title uh the title was not uh the title on the staff or the title on the staff report and the title on the agenda uh reflects the five feet.

When we did our evaluation and we started looking at the calculations based upon what was on the specific site plan, uh we identified it was just a little bit over four, almost four and a half feet of extension uh into the required rear yard, and therefore, just to give that uh uh um opportunity for just a little bit of wiggle room, it's a maximum of five feet.

So it has been modified slightly, but that was based upon our further detail review of all of the materials submitted.

So what I'm getting at is if this house, if the builder had chosen to put this house at 31 feet, or you know, moved it forward by the 25 foot, then we wouldn't really be here tonight.

Like.

Okay.

So this was all that was all I had to say.

I wanted to clarify that.

That it does actually answer some of the green space part because you've got more front yard, less backyard, but you you you you still end up with the green space because you have it in the front yard.

So maybe not enough for football game, but any further questions.

Okay.

Um Thank you, Mr.

Zenner.

I will at this point offer the applicant an opportunity to come back up if they'd like to make any final comments or correct any misstatements if you want.

You don't have to, you're not obligated.

All right.

I'm gonna go ahead and oh, all I was gonna say is just again, appreciate you all taking the time to be so thorough on this.

Um in the work that we do in the community.

Um these are nuanced dynamics in existing lots.

And one of the things we really love doing and love working with minds like Mr.

Zinners, who've got the ability to navigate all the details.

It's pretty amazing if you ask me.

We love trying to work within existing neighborhoods to try to make them what they have been and what they could be, especially in light of just the growing needs in our communities.

So uh I appreciate you all taking the time on these kinds of matters because I think it matters.

So not just for our family, but for neighborhoods that are growing and for family needs that are growing.

So again, just appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, I'm gonna go ahead and close the hearing.

And I will ask Mr.

Lawyer over there if he would like to make some statements.

Mr.

Lawyer.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um first I would like to uh introduce into the record uh Cities Exhibits 1, 2, and 3.

Uh exhibit 1 being certified copies of Chapter 29 sections 1.11 rule uh definitions and rules of construction 29 uh 3.3 G G, subsection G G through II, accessory land and buildings, uh Section 29 6.3 standard regulatory procedures and 296.4d2 variances.

Uh exhibit two will be uh a staff report, and exhibit three will be the public hearing advertisement parties and interest notice and parties and interest list.

So moved.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Additionally, uh the matter before the board this evening is a request for a variance.

Uh the criteria for that is uh found in Section 296.4 D2.

Pursuant to that section, the Board may approve an application for variance if it determines that all of the following criteria are true and have been met.

First, the variance is required to address practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships related to the shape, size, terrain, location, or other factors of the applicant site.

Those difficulties or hardships are not generally applicable to the property in the area, and the difficulties or hardships were not created by the actions of the applicant.

Second, the variance will not have the effect of permitting a use of land that is not indicated as a permitted or conditional use in the permitted use table in the zone district where the property is located, nor shall a variance be granted to modify a standard that operates as part of the diff definition of any use.

Third, the variance will not permit a development that is inconsistent with the adopted comprehensive plan.

Fourth, the variance is the least change from the requirements of this chapter necessary to relieve the difficulty or hardship.

And finally, the variance will not harm the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to other property or improvements in the area where the property is located.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Any additional questions?

The matter of the tree of any concern to the board?

That's not the purview of this board.

If that's a concern, that is a private matter for private council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, board, do you have any comments or discussion before we make any motions?

So if the variance is not approved, there still could be built an ADU or an addition, it would just be 300 square feet smaller.

Is that I'm sorry?

And cost per prohibit no attached still.

Comment from board members.

What specifically is the concern that well if the you know concern of uh approving a variance?

I guess you have to ask, do you see any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that were not created by the actions of the applicant?

I don't I don't know.

Okay.

I'm not asking that.

So what is what are you asking them?

I was asking.

The question I'd have, I think, in response to you would be is it even useful to build that small you know what I mean?

Could you accomplish it?

How small would it be?

Well, it'd be the small would it be?

Five feet by it'd be another well, I don't so the question would be it's not necessarily how small it would be, what would the dimensions of the rooms be?

Because you could make a hundred square foot room five foot by twenty foot, but it wouldn't be right.

So it's really the dimension in my mind.

Um so it's not a question of could you build it smaller, it's just why would you build it smaller if you're gonna make you know accommodating bedroom or accommodating bathroom.

So in my that's that's where my mind goes.

And then the second thing is if you moved it out to the yard and you made it 458 square feet, it it's yeah.

I mean, I'm just saying it to me, the the usefulness of that, you you've really have kind of messed the yard up now with putting this thing right in the middle or even off to the side of it, um, along with walkways and more hard surfaces for you know um surface water problems and all of that.

So it's uh but anyway, I I do th I do uh to your point.

I think the the dimensions would be more of or how useful would the dimensions be if you reduced it by that if it's if it's a hundred square feet, you know, how useful are the rooms?

Um how useful would they be if you had to accommodate uh uh square footage requirement?

So the other thing that to me, just personally, is I think he's got other options.

I think this is um in in you know in my mind, we you can you can create the need for urban sprawl by not allowing people to upgrade you know existing neighborhoods like this because then you've got to move out to other neighborhoods to get it all it just becomes always starter homes, which then just turns into renter homes and then a neighborhood kind of can kind of fall apart.

This particular neighborhood has made sort of a renaissance because I owned a home on Donley that we fixed up.

And so it's really kind of on the rebound.

Um but part of that is because people are willing to make investments in those existing homes instead of moving out to to their new four-bedroom someplace else and then letting this one turn into a rental.

So that's part of my motivation when you see something like this, is like somebody is resisting the need to move out to a subdivision staying and improving an area like this, like the house we had on Donley that we improved and sold.

So that's what motivates me about it is the investment in the neighborhood, because it is a significant investment on a on a small house like that.

So I think the reason I asked the specific question about uh site location or the location of the structure on the site was because the site could potentially take this entire development, including the ADU, with no action on our part had it simply been built a little closer to the street, which you know.

I think the reason it was built at that back there was because it was a really long lot to begin with, and there wouldn't there was no backyard issue.

If if someone could have forecasted the future, they would have built it closer to the street, and like you say, we wouldn't even be meeting with Mr.

Claybrook.

So I would question the useful the utility of an eight and a half foot wide room, um, which would be the maximum he could build if you were to chop, I mean, if you were to chop it off at the 25-foot yard rear setback.

So I think that I mean I'm personally finding that there are certain difficulties associated with this particular site.

I am inclined to support it because of that.

And I tend to agree with what Mr.

Minchew said about promoting affordable options, promoting families to re-establish in our inner city neighborhoods, something we haven't seen in a long time.

So I've been thinking I have relatives with accessory dwelling units on their properties in other states.

One is 450 square feet, one is 650 square feet, and they're quite lovely.

Of course, one of them, it's warmer weather, and there's lots of outdoor use also uh associated with it.

And I guess what moved me, and and I see that if you take away the five feet, it becomes an eight-foot room, which an eight-foot addition first and second floor, which does make a difference.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the variance?

I make a motion to approve the variance.

By Minshew, second by Rogers.

Okay, Mr.

Zenner, would you please read the uh variants for us and take the roll?

Um a motion has been made and seconded uh in the matter of case number 21-2026, a request to grant a maximum five-foot rear yard setback variants to Scott and Angela Claybrook at 602 Florence Avenue to allow for the construction of a compliant accessory dwelling unit that would be an integral structure to the principal dwelling on the property.

Mr.

Norgaard?

Yes.

Ms.

Hammond.

Hip me.

Come back.

Mr.

Minshew.

Yes.

Ms.

Rogers.

Yes.

Olson?

Yes.

Ms.

Hammond.

Yes.

Motion carries with five votes.

So ordered.

Thank you, Mr.

Claybrook.

All right.

Um is there anybody from the public wishing to speak?

Seeing none, are there any other items that need to be discussed, Mr.

Zenner?

Yes.

We actually opened up public comment ahead of where we needed to be.

So we're under special items on the agenda right now.

And after conferring with our legal counsel earlier today and after review of our board rules, as well as an apparent oversight on our part of not having elections for quite some time.

And what that will allow us to do then is to reset the election cycle of the chair and the vice chair to the proper period of time, which is supposed to be annually.

And so 2021 is we held an election.

And that was in May of that year.

And then following that election, there were three meetings in 2022.

We did not provide a re-election at that period because we did not meet in the month of May.

And then apparently I must have had an epiphany, and we held elections in September of 2023.

And in 2023, we had five meetings.

In 2024, we should have held re-elections in September of that year when we had four meetings.

However, we did not.

So we are now in an extended session at this point.

This year we are closing out 2025 with a total of five meetings.

We will do better coming in 2026.

So we will go ahead and we are going to keep the status quo for what it is right now, and then we will reset the clock for elections moving forward.

So this particular item, while we didn't adjust the agenda at the very beginning, is not needed to be taken action on this evening for the explanation that I have given you.

The second item that is here under special items is the 2026 calendar.

And based on our adjustments that we need to make annually for certain holidays, as Ms.

Hammond pointed out at the beginning of this evening's meeting, the Labor Day holiday will occur on September 7th, which is the first Monday of every of the month.

That requires then that the board adjustment uh the board meeting, which would be the second Tuesday of every month, uh, needs to be moved to September 15th.

So the first Tuesday, September 1st is a Tuesday.

Uh and so the plan or the City Council's meeting that would normally occur on the first Monday of the month, uh which would be the holiday is being moved from the 7th to the 8th.

That requires that, of course, the Board of Adjustments meeting uh by standard city practices uh to be moved uh to uh the September 15th meeting.

And that is that's the only adjustment to this year's calendar that would be made, and it is similar to the adjustment that we had to make this past year uh with our meeting uh uh or our I apologize, this year that we had to make with Veterans Day, which occurred on a Tuesday.

And that is why that meeting was shifted uh one week further out.

There may have to be one more amendment to the calendar.

Our intrepid uh reporter has uh noticed uh that February 19th, 2027 is in fact a Friday.

Ah, okay.

Well, I will make that adjustment then.

It's what?

Friday.

Friday.

Oh, well, you know, we have to do that.

February 19th, 2027 will be a Friday.

So why don't we just meet on that day?

I don't know.

Uh let me confuse everybody and let me get the right date.

I think it would be I think it was meant to be the 9th.

Um I just added an extra uh digit in there.

It should have been February 9, 2027.

And that will be the second Tuesday of the month.

Is there any objection?

And this is one reason why we are belaboring this point on the calendar for 2026.

Is there an objection to having your meeting in September on the third Tuesday of the month?

Publishing the calendar a year in advance, so I need to know now, in order to ensure that if we are not going to have a meeting, we have to redo all of our uh application deadlines to ensure that if you are going to apply for that meeting, you actually will still apply on the eight the 3rd of August, but you will not go until the 13th of October.

Sure.

But thank you for pointing it out, which I don't think we did last year.

We did not, and that is part of, again, why I am making such an issue out of this.

We only we have this problem with both the boards and commissions I operate, and therefore I oversee, and therefore I wanted to make clear.

And thank you very much, Janet, for pointing out that February 2027 date.

It is that your calendar should be amended to 2-9 2027 as the last board meeting that is on the calendar in front of you.

We have updated all of our application forms with this schedule.

We will make the change for the February meeting.

With that, that is all I have.

We do not have a meeting in January.

There were no applications received.

And at this point, we had a tabled item from our November 18th meeting.

That item is subject to an adjoining property owner making application in order to have a complete variance package.

Since the application that we tabled is requesting to have a half of a driveway at the property line.

But the property owner immediately adjoining the existing share driveway will need to participate in the variance request.

And so that property owner has been communicated to by the original applicant.

We have sent out the appropriate documentation.

We are waiting for those applications to come back revised.

It is possible that those applications may not make it to our offices before the end of this month.

Unfortunately, we have tabled to a date certain.

And so we will need to meet at a minimum if an additional tabling request is needed.

It could be a very short meeting.

So we may have other applications that do come in that may require us to conduct business if we are not conducting business on the tabled matter.

Without the adjoining property owner submitting the requested variance that was supposed to be discussed on November 18th actually has no value because you need to have both property owners sharing that share the same driveway participating in getting a relief to have the drive expanded and addressed so it is fully code compliant.

It is, as I think Mr.

Claybert pointed out today, there is a lot of technical requirement here that is needing to be met, and it is unfortunately something that was not identified initially when our building and site development staff issued the denial letter, and it is something that we are now picking up and collecting at the very end, which is an entirely reversed process that we should not be using moving forward.

So we are working with both applicants and trying to get them to make their submissions as needed.

I have a really quick question.

Is there a statutory requirement that we table to a date certain, or can we table to a date uncertain?

The applicant had asked that question at the time that he just wanted it tabled.

And the historic practice that we have had, and I'd have to ask Mr.

Craig to look into this.

The historic practice, however, has been we table to a date certain because if the public is following our actions, they need to know when this matter will be brought back up.

That is not to say that we would not have re-notified and reposted property, but we want to make sure that we are not getting an item that would have come before the board more than two months out from its original public hearing date without going through a series of re-advertising processes.

So again, in the years that I have been engaged with the city, that the standard practice with the Planning and Zoning Commission and not as frequently with the Board is we table to a date certain in order to provide a pin in the public hearing process.

And if we have to withdraw or we have to extend again, unfortunately it is an inconvenience, but that is the best practice.

The applicant may choose to withdraw the application before we have our February meeting, and Mr.

Craig, correct me if I'm wrong, if the application is withdrawn, would the board need to take action to receive that withdrawal?

Because the applicant is removing their item from further consideration, and all we would do would be to notify the neighbors that the item has been withdrawn.

I don't believe that would require an action of the board.

Okay.

But as to tabling to a date, certain State statute does require action by certain applicants.

I would have to revisit the statutes and look if that applies to variances.

But a lot of applications before Planning and Zoning Commission by state law as a bulwark against commissions just sitting on and burying applications, there must be action on them unless the applicant themselves ask for a continuance on those.

So that's a layer of reason why we do a date certainly.

Makes perfect sense.

I don't know if this is a appropriate question, but couldn't the applicant both neighbors put in an irrevocable easement that negates the need for a variance?

Well, so the the issue at hand, not to get too deep into the application itself, the applicant, the applicant that was to be before you on the 18th is seeking to build a detached garage in his rear yard, as you probably recall from the staff report.

That requires the extension of an existing easement that if that easement didn't need to be extended and he was getting on to his own property, you would not probably have had the item.

We would have figured out how to get his driveway on his property to be otherwise compliant.

The problem is, in order for him to be able to get far enough beyond where the driveway ends today, that is a new driveway extension, which is prohibited to be within five feet of a property line, and then he has to build a driveway on his property to access the detached garage that would be within five feet of the property line, which is again not permitted by the code.

And that is why recording an ingress-egress easement would not resolve the matter.

Have to go through the board in order to grant permanent authorization to allow the driveway to be in that location.

Furthermore, the driveway is an interesting interesting situation.

Five feet of an 11.5 foot wide driveway is on the applicant's property, the other six and a half feet is on the adjoining property owner's property.

And so really what would be being accomplished by taking both property owners through the process for both variances, the driveway placement within five feet, and then parking within six feet, it will assure that moving forward should either property owner do any adjustments to their driveway or to their properties specifically, they will be covered.

The variance would be granted to them for those expansions, and we would never see them back unless they were doing something else.

Completely convoluted way to get to building a detached structure, and this is part of what my staff looks at, and we look at these things from the perspective of when we start seeing amendments or requests of this nature more frequently, it's an indication that the code needs to be recalibrated.

And so we are currently looking at certain things that may need to be adjusted.

This could be one of them moving forward as it relates to our small lot integration project that we are currently working on.

The provision did not exist before 2017, and I don't think it presented a massive problem in the community prior to 2017.

So why we created it, I really don't recall, but it has created this type of angst amongst individual property owners that share a driveway or want to do an expansion.

And it just it's a convoluted way to get to really we want we don't want to pave over lots, but we're forcing lots to be paved over because you got to separate the driveway.

And so guidance by the board when this does come back forward or a preference as a part of the discussion of how we may want to look at this would be welcomed at that point, because we can take that back to our planning and zoning commission and say, hey, look, the board's identified this as something that just doesn't seem to work.

So we don't continue to clog the board of adjustments queue.

Or we throttle property owners desire to make improvements to their own land.

So moving forward, we'll we'll take this as it uh as it comes out.

Um Mr.

Borglat, who is the actual original applicant, is still trying to weigh his options, and if the adjoining property owner does not participate, uh Mr.

Borgolette would basically re uh retract his request for the variance.

Uh and we do not have any other applications for February, we may not have a February meeting either.

But I will keep you abreast of that uh as it occurs.

Um last item, uh as many of you are aware, uh, as we discussed before this evening's meeting.

Um Ms.

Nigwin has uh tendered her resignation.

Uh we congratulate her on her acceptance to medical school.

Uh it was a pleasure working with her.

Uh we will forward that resignation uh to uh our city clerk so we can have an advertised uh an advertisement for uh the vacancy.

And then as many of you are aware, and I may not have mentioned this during our last meeting, um our alternate uh uh board member uh Terry Old had also resigned his position.

He has relocated out of state.

Uh and we are in the process, I believe, a second round advertising to fill that alternates position.

Uh so Ms.

Olson is filling in this evening for Ms.

Nigwin.

Uh and I believe we will have Mr.

Sharp has been reappointed uh as an alternate, and we will have Mr.

Sharp and uh Ms.

Olson alternating uh until we have the permanent board member uh position filled.

So um again I appreciate your attendance this evening, uh Ms.

Olson, and that is now all I have to offer.

Do you think this board is single-handedly decreasing the citizenship in Columbia?

Because we've lost we've lost two people that have moved out of town that were on this board.

I don't know.

I uh that's that's tough to say.

All right.

Um so we're getting cheeky.

Let's go ahead and see if there's a motion to close this meeting.

So we have a motion from Hammond, a second from the information.

All in favor, say aye.

We're closed.