The February 10, 2026 Board of Adjustment Meeting will come to order.

Mr.

Liaison, would you please call the roll?

Mr.

Norgaard.

I'm present.

Ms.

Hammond.

Here.

Miss Morion?

Here.

Uh Ms.

Olson?

Here.

And Miss Gaines.

Here.

You have five, sir.

You have a quorum.

All right, thank you.

Um the agenda has been presented.

Is there a motion and a second for approval?

So move.

Moved by Hammond.

I second it.

Second by Olson.

All right.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, I'll take a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any against all right.

So the December nine, twenty twenty-five minutes were distributed to the board.

Are there any corrections or additions to the minutes?

See none.

So is there a motion and a second for approval?

Motion by Hammond.

I'll second it.

Second by Elson.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any against none.

All right.

Would the court reporter swear in staff, please?

All right.

Uh this is a request of David Borglet.

I apologize.

Uh owner seeking relief from the provisions of section 29-4, table four point one-five, and section 29-4.

Of the Unified Development Code relating to the placement and extension of a shared driveway between two ten and three hundred Edgewood Avenue and the location of existing and future vehicle parking in proximity to a property line.

Pat, has the uh notice been properly advertised?

Yes, it has.

Has it been posted with the public uh notice of public hearing?

Yes, it has.

Uh have the parties of interest been notified?

Yes, they were.

And were there any inquiries?

No, there were not.

All right.

Uh with a person making application to the board, please step forward, uh, say your uh say your name, address, and be sworn in, and then make your case.

My name is Dave Borgelt, David Borgelt.

Uh my address is 210 Edgewood Avenue, Columbia, Missouri, 65203, and I think.

So as was already read, um, what I'm here to ask about is for two variances for my property that are joined together by my interest in building a garage.

And the property immediately to the south, 300, is needs the same variances for us to be able to continue to use the driveway the way it was originally constructed, and to build any garage in the backyard.

I have no reason to believe, in fact, they told me they have no interest at present to build a garage.

I would like to build one, and that's what I am here to ask for these two variances about.

So, Mr.

Zenner, could you put up the first page just and this is just a picture of the property survey that I had done.

Give you a feel.

So this house was constructed a hundred years ago, a little over, and since construction, it's had a shared driveway with the property immediately to the south.

It's a 50-foot wide lot, so that's narrower than any normal modern lot would be allowed to be.

That's not uncommon in this neighborhood.

It's in the uh Park Hill neighborhood, old Southwest.

So Edgewood between Stewart and Broadway.

So without these variances, I could build a garage, but I would have no access to it.

And this is all about being allowed to put pavement both in the shared area that has been used since original construction, and you'll I'll show a photograph of the original constructed pavement.

Yeah, this is if that could be rotated.

And this in the way you are seeing it is inverted.

Pat, if you could turn it around.

Yeah.

So north is up.

So an item that matters here in this conversation is in the far at the south property line on the east end, it says stormwater box.

You can see that rectangle.

That's the low point of the neighborhood.

And that is a stormwater inlet that are in some photographs that I brought, if those are needed.

So nothing has been changed in any that I am aware of, and there's no reason to believe that the house has been changed or the driveway has been moved.

Everything appears to be original.

I've owned the place for 18 years, and certainly I have not made any changes, and I have no reason to think any have been made.

So the next slide.

These are some pictures that were taken from the street this summer to give you an idea.

And this is from the original packet, if you have that in front of you that I submitted.

So the one is just shooting straight on.

If you look at the rather grass-filled pavement towards the middle, that's the shared easement that has been in existence in use since the house was constructed.

The owners in 1991 filed and recorded.

And that they made that an express easement that's already with Boone County.

The reason things like that were done later is because title companies frequently wanted formalization of what was said by the owners of properties, so to avoid issues later, easements were often then written up and recorded.

So there's the driveway, and then there's a shot of my house in the lower photograph.

So I've just angled it slightly on that same day.

Now, if you could put up the next graphic.

So this is the same as the first, and this is in the filing.

What's what I'm showing here is the easement that exists today is the blue part.

And the line in the middle of the color bar, that's the property line.

And the green is what I'm asking for a variance to allow either of us to build in that zone pavement.

Now, the reason there are two variances is because it was explained to me that if I build a garage and extend the driveway back jointly some distance before I can get entirely onto my property, then my neighbor would be considered to have a parking area.

So if it's waving the variance to have a driveway up to the property line, and that's allowed, there's also the need to have to wave to the variant to give a variance to allow parking within six feet, because as we do today, we use that as a driveway and a parking area.

And so both would have to, both variances would be required for both owners for me to be allowed to build a garage and have access to it.

So that's what I'm asking for.

One of the significant issues with my lot is it slopes off considerably to the back, and there is a drainage easement for a storm sewer and a sanitary sewer that was built by the city along the back line, and you can see that on the survey where it says drainage easement.

Everything about the garage I'm proposing is code compliant and isn't doesn't need a variance, but I do need variance, two variances for the pavement, both of us do, to be allowed for me to move forward and build a garage.

To give you an idea of what this looks like in plan with the structure, I'm strongly, I mean, this is the idea that I have now is then this graphic, which basically that's the house as it stands today, and then a garage.

So once some point behind the house, somewhere between 10 and 20 feet, I would have enough room to get around the back end of my house, and the pavement would move entirely onto the sloping driveway that goes down.

You'll see that better in the next graphic.

And if you have my submittal, it's there.

All of this is built around this idea of a garage like.

So the next graphic, if you could, the isometric.

This gives you an idea.

It's this the slope is actually worse.

It is sharper than what you can see in this, but this gives you an idea of what I'm looking to build.

So the garage in question, it's set, it's it is not on the easement at the back, it's set back from the property line to the north.

It has a concrete pad in front of it.

This something I needed to take out just to do this drawing, but to give you an idea from the original survey, the stormwater box sits right on the property line, right?

So just off of what you see there in the green where the line is.

That's where the stormwater box is, and that's the low point of the neighborhood.

So all a lot of what has to be done is deal with the water that flows both behind my house and from the west onto my property and down.

So a lot of this is built around that, and there's really, given the topography, I can't see any other reasonable place to put the garage than like this.

So that's the basic framing of the realities.

Now the criteria for approval that are required order.

So garages are common in the neighborhood.

This is not something that's unusual.

Shared driveways are not unusual in the neighborhood.

They're not everywhere, but there are numerous around.

Those that I'm aware of have have just been improved already before the code changed.

Certainly the driveway immediately to the north.

It's not shown on here, but it's two houses over.

That's a paved shared driveway between two houses, and it goes back to a garage and a parking area.

But that was all done prior to the code changes.

There's nothing about a garage that is contrary to the neighborhood.

And it would decrease the need for on-street parking and parking in the shared driveway.

Those are things that I consider to be improvement for the neighborhood, not a detriment.

I'm this is really my presentation.

If there are do questions have to wait until the end, or do you answer questions?

If you are finished, we you can stop there and if are there any board members with questions?

Do you live in the House?

I'm sorry?

Do you live in the US?

Yes, I do.

Yes.

Yes, you note correctly, yes.

So I think your summary would be something like uh.

You need a variance because you would like to have this driveway.

Your neighbor needs a variance because in order to park their vehicle, they would also have to have a variance because it would be too close to the property line.

Yes.

And and once I am in the backyard, I would move entirely on the drive pavement would be entirely on my property.

But with such a narrow lot, also the way it is sloping in multiple directions as you move any direction, staying along the property line is really the only way I can get back there and not have other problems.

You mentioned that you had neighbors uh in uh on the same street, for instance, that have similar situations.

Do you know if they had to go through the variance process or were they did they predate the uh they the ones I'm aware of predated?

2017 you see.

Yeah.

Any further questions?

So I have a question.

If if it the improvements on 210, so will your neighbor have additional parking?

He will not.

Well.

I mean, he is represented by counsel tonight, but I mean, when when I've talked to TAPE, the owner about it, uh, we've both considered the idea of we expect we would pave what is already has an easement back a ways, but he has no present intention to build a garage or anything else.

But this is needed for both of us, and so that's why he's involved.

Any further questions from the board?

All right, thank you, Mr.

Morglint.

Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to speak in favor of this application?

Please come forward now.

Anyone wishing to speak?

Uh if you'd like, you can come speak.

Oh, no, no.

That'll we'll have a separate hearing for that.

Yeah.

Sorry.

Uh, member of the audience was asking if they wanted to present their their case now of the concurrent case.

I think it's 6-2-2026, but we're we'll hold a separate hearing for that in a moment.

Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak against this application?

Please come forward now.

Okay, I see none.

Uh let's see.

Is there any comments from staff?

So as Mr.

Bork let us explain, this is a somewhat unique uh, at least a first for us as a board, uh though it is not uh generally unique uh as it relates to the concept of shared driveways throughout the City of Columbia.

Um we see this uh type of improvement uh in our older uh probably uh Central City as well as our first ring uh neighborhoods that were created uh prior to the uh prior to and around the 1950s.

We see this type of improvement in our older, probably Central City, as well as our first ring neighborhoods that were created prior to the prior to and around the 1950s.

So the challenges that are created here were created as a result of the adoption of our 2017 UDC, our Unified Development Code, where we created provisions that basically prohibited the ability for one to have a new driveway at or within five feet of the property line, and then further restricted parking within six feet of a property line.

So you may all ask yourself, well, why are we dealing with this?

It's a driveway that already exists and has for a hundred years.

As Mr.

Borglett pointed out, it's the extension of the driveway which is triggering the full compliance.

And because it is a shared driveway between the two properties, the extension of the driveway for it to be fully functional only works if it is approved concentrically in essence on both sides of the existing property line.

The 1991 easement actually has five feet of an 11 and a half foot wide axis driveway easement on Mr.

Borglett's property to 10 Edgewood.

And the remaining six and a half feet is sitting on 300 Edgewood.

And so, in order to be able to get around the rear south, what I would say southeast corner of Mr.

Borglett's property, you must extend the driveway concentrically.

To extend the driveway all the way to the rear property line to the intersection of where that utility easement is, as Mr.

Borglett pointed out, is a practical extension.

It's basically allowing both property owners to benefit from that at a point in the future.

And as Mr.

Borglett also pointed out, there is no, there's been no conveyance to us at this point that the adjoining property owner who is participating in this under the separate case is seeking to do anything in his rear yard today.

But this will be preemptive.

It would allow him to do that without having to come back through this process again, unless there were some other level of nonconformance that he would have to ask relief for.

But granting this would allow both Mr.

Borglett and the property owner at 300 to expand a driveway to access a detached structure in the rear yard that is otherwise fully compliant.

And again, allowing the driveway to be at the property line is the principal issue, and then allowing parking, which may occur on occasion, to be within six feet of the property line is also an issue.

We, from a staff perspective, believe that the utilization of the existing driving surface that has served as the driveway versus relocating it somewhere else internal to the property on either lot is a much more practical use and it's less disruptive to the existing character of the neighborhood.

Furthermore, as the graphics have illustrated in our own personal site visit, you can never achieve full compliance to the code's standards on Mr.

Borglett's property, given where his home is constructed.

There is insufficient space on his northern boundary between his northern neighbor and his existing house in order to fit a driveway in that would otherwise be compliant.

This is a 50-foot-wide lot that was legally created at a time when our ordinances allowed for that lot frontage to be created.

Our minimum lot frontage now is a minimum of a 60-foot lot in the R1 zoning district.

And so there are changes that have occurred in the code as it evolves, as it evolved over time that obviously were not of the making of Mr.

Borglett or his neighbor to the south that are impacting this site.

Couple that with the topographical related issues, you have some really unique features that affect the site for its practical activation of its rear yard.

The facts presented by Mr.

Borglett are complete.

They are not disputed by staff.

We have evaluated this case.

We have seen the same conditions.

This is a unique situation in that it is the first that it has come to the board.

It is not a unique situation as it relates to the general operational procedures, however, of our community development department and the challenges that this particular provision creates in the effective redevelopment and activation of rear yards.

And it is something that we are presently looking at making a more significant code modification to in order to allow lots created potentially that were created prior to 2017 that may be at the property line to be extended without board consideration, allow them to exist within that five foot of the property line and allow parking.

In most instances, as is in this neighborhood, this is not uncommon, and it is prevalent.

And it is prevalent.

Driveways that share straddle a property line with structures in the rear.

Some that straddle the property line as a shared garage, some that are offset, such as the property two to the north of Mr.

Borglett's.

There are multiple properties across the street on the west side of Edwood that have garages that have been constructed on those properties, and most of which were constructed, if not all, I should say, were constructed prior to the code revisions that we have made, because there has not been another variance brought before this body to seek relief from this particular standard.

This is probably the crest of the wave.

As we see more and more individuals that may want to activate the rear of their lot instead of maybe moving to a different location, they want to optimize and use more effectively their area that they have.

Furthermore, not that that is what is proposed here at this point.

As we try to deal with our issues of housing availability, the ability to build an accessory dwelling unit above this garage would be facilitated by this, because you would be able to put a garage structure in the rear yard.

And that would potentially help to address some of our housing related issues that we have.

But without an amendment or a variance here, that is throughout for certain individuals.

Mr.

Borglet has been very patient.

And due to travel schedules and other related uh previous engagements, we were not able to get this before this body until now.

So it is something that we would prefer to avoid moving forward, and it would require a regulatory change to the UDC.

So one of the questions is, is this the simplest way or the only way of granting relief?

What I would tell you is maybe not.

However, this is the most efficient, uh and it is why the board exists.

It is to review and to give consideration to the unique attributes associated with property, very specific to a particular hardship that is being created by our code.

Given that, staff is not concerned that this is creating a negative impact to the surrounding area.

The points that Mr.

Borglett has raised are points that were identified in our staff report as to the benefits that such granting of relief would afford, and therefore we stand behind the staff report that has been presented.

We also concur with the findings and the testimony that has been offered by the applicant himself.

If you have any questions, I'm more than happy to answer them.

Thanks, Pat.

Any questions from the board?

I have a question that I believe I know the answer to, but I'm going to ask it anyway.

The current lot is uh exists as a legal nonconformity.

Uh the current lot is actually legal conforming.

It was platted legally as a 50-foot-wide lot and exceeds the minimum lot area requirements for the R1 district.

And then the second question I have is will granting this variance create the need for other variances such as buffering requirements.

No.

There are no buffering requirements between like zoned properties, uh, specifically R1 and R2.

Um if this was an RMF zone property being proposed with a different structure, neighborhood protection standards would need to be looked at.

Um, even if it were RMF and it is improved with a single or a two-family structure, there would be no buffering pursuant to the buffering requirements either, and that is uh inclusive of any accessory structure that would be added to the property.

Thanks for putting that on the record.

So on page two, the first paragraph, the last sentence.

Are you talking about the staff report?

Staff report, sorry, yes.

I had an idea that's what she meant.

Yeah.

Um, let's see.

So page two.

Okay.

Are considered legally nonconforming and could remain in perpetuity.

However, no future site improvements would be permitted on either the subject lot or the lot to the south.

Did I am I missing something?

Or uh how can that be?

It starts at it should be noted that the current is the end of the first paragraph on page two.

I just found it as the end of the first paragraph on page two.

This is referring to the existence of the shared driveway.

Yes.

That that that that is that's it's referring specifically not to the not to the dwelling in it that is on the property or the lot itself.

It is referring specifically to the driveway as a legal nonconformity.

The home is legally conforming, because it meets the setback requirements for the R1 district that were in place at that time.

It would even meet the setback requirements if the home were expanded today, if it were linearly expanded to the rear.

If it were expanded to the rear, you probably would not be able to extend to the front because you would be in the front yard setback.

The lot width, based on changes in our regulatory structure that will allow what we refer to as substandard lots, uh and substandard lots by definition could be a lot that is either not the minimum current 60-foot of lot frontage or less than the required area of the zoning district.

The area of this lot is not in question.

It would be then the lot frontage that would be nonconforming, but the home is of itself and the lot is a legal lot.

We would refer to it as a legal lot because it was platted, it has never been modified.

Um it would be if for redevelopment purposes, if you were to redevelop the home, tear it down and rebuild a new home, it would be a legal not it would be a legal substandard lot because it has less than the 50 feet of frontage.

The driveway, however, in a recon reconstruction scenario of the home would have to be brought into compliance.

And at that point, what you would end up getting is a very skinny house to replace the existing one that is there that runs front to rear.

Um and the driveway would have to be offset, which practically, again, given that the driveway has been there for a hundred years, sharing the same property line.

The value added to the neighborhood given the construction that would be introduced would be significantly different.

I think that would be questionable on our end, and we would probably recommend that the applicant seek relief through this action, a similar action, to allow the driveway to be reused.

And what happened prior to 2017 is this just happened organically.

Somebody came in, they wanted to extend a shared driveway because that shared driveway had existed.

Our staff didn't have any rules that said you couldn't do it, and so somebody would build a garage in the backyard like the neighbor to to the north or those that are across the street uh to the west.

We just allow the garage to be built.

Garage would have to be three feet off the property line.

Bing bang boom, permits issued, we move on.

Doesn't matter where the driveway was pre-2017.

Post-2017, now all of this becomes an issue.

And unfortunately, as I stated in the staff report, the ramifications that this particular code provision has uh wrought upon our existing uh more densely and compact urban environment was really not well thought out.

Uh and so we have to come back now and surgically correct that through a text amendment to the code, and that is what we are attempting to evaluate as to what the most appropriate action to do that would be.

Because we need to be able to make sure that people can make improvements to their homes without having to come back through this body on a more regular basis.

So the proposed current current proposed improvements are considered legally nonconforming.

The proposed improvements should the variance be, should the variances be granted, inclusive of the existing driveway, all will be become all will become conforming because the variances that would be granted would correct the existing nonconformity for the length of the existing driveway, and then it would address the expansion or the extension of the future driveway and the parking as it goes beyond where the current drive is, which is if I'm not incorrect, about 105 to 108 feet from the Edgewood Avenue right-of-way today.

So, what's the statement?

However, no future site improvements would be permitted on either the subject lot or the lot to the south.

That is everything to deal with being able to access your rear yard if the driveway encroachment is not if addressed.

You can't get to the backyard of either of these lots if the driveway isn't if the driveway issue and the parking issue are resolved.

So I misread this, I guess.

Yes.

Sorry.

I'll I'll I'll do better next time.

I guess I I have a follow-up question.

In terms of no future site improvements, could you kind of expound on that?

Because you talked about earlier how this isn't the best alternative, but it's the most efficient.

And would be in furtherance of housing, affordable housing, and talked about having the garage and then being able to build on top.

So would that expansion on top now be prohibited by no future site improvements?

So let's go back to the idea that the no future site improvements can include with the existing conditions.

You cannot get to the rear yard.

You can do nothing to expand any of the improvements on the property.

So if we if we fail to approve this variance tonight, then they would not be able to build this structure.

I mean they could build it, but they wouldn't be able to access it.

Well, yeah, that would be that that would be probably what the outcome would be.

I don't know why one would.

Eventually they could build a bicycle driveway, otherwise known as a sidewalk, but I don't know if you have to do that.

Well, the permit I think the bigger issue here is is the permit when you go to seek the permit for the new structure, the nonconformity of the existing driveway, even though you may still continue to park within that same area.

That is a nonconforming site feature that must be the position we are taking, though that existing nonconforming site feature must be resolved in order to be able to authorize the issuance of the permit as impractical as it may be in the backyard because you still, again, um I mean you could walk a bicycle back there, but you are not going to park a car within six feet of the property line on either parcel.

And it it the impact is less on 300 because there is more space between that existing residence and the property line.

And so additional alternative improvements on 300 could potentially be installed such that the parking, potential parking parallel to the property line would not be within six feet of it.

You still, however, would have a driveway that straddles the property line.

And so any expansion of the driveway leading to that parking that may be compliant still wouldn't be permitted.

I mean, it's a catch-22 and it's very circular, because you have to resolve the fact that the driveway does not comport with our current regulations.

We need to resolve that.

I don't care if it's to get access to the back or it's to do an expansion on the existing two homes, that's going to become a problem.

And then to park within the six feet of the property line is that secondary issue.

So the approval of the I think we're getting off track here, though, because we're not talking about new developments or but it does clear up this question that I had.

So thank you.

I'm I'm clear.

Any further questions?

All right, I see none.

So I will give the applicant an opportunity to come back and correct any inaccuracies or make any final statements before we move into the closed section.

If you have none, that's fine.

Okay.

So he indicates none.

So uh with that I will believe I close the public hearing.

Okay.

Uh so can we get some comments from legal?

And so as a housekeeping matter, I'll move to admit the city's exhibits into the record uh as the city's exhibit one, the certified copies of the ordinances that are pertinent to tonight's case.

That includes 29-1.11, 29-4.1c2, and dimensional table 4.1-5, 29-4.3G, 29-6.1C, 29-6.3, and 29-6.4 D2.

So moved.

Thank you.

Exhibit two uh is the locator map, application and supporting documentation and denial letter as included on the agenda.

So moved.

Exhibit three is the public notice inclusive of the public hearing advertisement, the pub parties in interest notice, and the parties in interest list.

So moved.

And exhibit four is the staff report.

So moved.

Thank you.

Um as many of you know, there are five criteria that you have to consider and find to be true before granting a variance.

Tonight, uh we have two variances, and so you'll need to make a finding as to the five criteria for each of these two variances.

Um the criteria are found in 29-6.4 D2.

And at this time, I am happy to read those five criteria out loud to you if you would like.

We have a number of new members.

The first criteria is that the variance is required to address practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships related to the size, shape, terrain, location, or other factors of the applicant sites.

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

Two, the variants will not have the effect of permitting a use of land that is not indicated as a permitted or conditional use in Section 29-3.1 in the zoning district where the property is located, nor shall a variance be granted to modify a standard that operates as a part of the definition of any use.

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

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

And five, 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.

So just in the effort to expedite the next hearing, I'm wondering is it feasible or acceptable to use the testimony or refer to the testimony from this case in the next case?

In other words, I can ask Pat the same questions I just asked for this case in the next case, or I can say No, I I think as long as you make a public statement that you are considering in your deliberations for the next case, the evidence that was given by Mr.

Zenner in case number 339-2025 when you are discussing it.

I think that that's sufficient.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, board.

Now it's uh your turn to have any discussion that you might want to have.

Uh ask questions of us of each other or you have none, we can move forward.

Oh, none.

All right.

Well.

So can we make a motion to approve the variance as written?

So move.

Moved by Hammond.

So you you'll want to do two motions.

You'll want to do one motion for each variance.

So a motion to authorize the variance to 29-4.1C2 table 4.1-5.

Sure.

Um then right.

Okay.

And if you're wanting the if you're if the board's intent is to accept the actions as stated in the staff report, that would then we would read those as two separate motions at that point.

So is that what I am understanding the board would like?

Yes.

And just for the record, so are there any questions on either of these two variances?

So it sounds like there are none to the other.

So we can act on the second variance right now also?

Well, so these are there's two variances needed for each case.

One is um from the five-yard setback or the driveway maintaining a setback of five feet from the side property line, and then the second is to um permit parking within six feet of a adjoining lot containing a single uh or two family house.

Okay.

Okay.

So is there a motion to approve the first variance to permit a lot setback of less than five feet?

How about that?

That's the motion on the table now.

So I will move that.

Motion by Hammond.

Second it.

Second by Olson.

Okay.

Mr.

Zenner, can we get a uh roll call, please?

And I guess a reading.

So a motion has been made and seconded to approve um the first of two variances in relationship to case number 339-2025 210 Edgewood Avenue.

Um that motion is uh to um to allow the approximate 80 feet of the existing shared driveway serving both 210 and 300 Edward Avenue as described by book as described in book 823, page 557 of the Boone County Records shall become regulatorily compliant and any future extension of said driveway along the southern property line of 210 Edgewood may be lawfully located within five feet of the property line.

Mr.

Norgaard.

Aye.

Ms.

Hammond?

Yes.

Ms.

Bryan?

Hold on, her.

Ms.

Olson?

Yes.

And Ms.

Gaines.

Yes.

Motion carries five votes.

So ordered on variance number one.

And then we need a second motion for the second variance.

Is there a motion on the table to approve a variance to permit parking within six feet of a property line?

I'll move.

Second.

Second by Hammond.

All right, Mr.

Zenner, would you please read and call the roll?

Okay.

So a motion has been made and seconded uh in relationship to case number 339-2025, 210 Edgewood Avenue to approve a variance such that uh parking shall be permitted within six feet of the Southern property line of Edgewood Avenue only.

Mr.

Norgaard?

I Ms.

Hammond.

Yes.

Ms.

Bryant?

Ms.

Olson.

Yes.

And Ms.

Gaines.

Yes.

Motion carries.

So ordered.

Both variances have been recommended for approval.

All right.

Congratulations, Mr.

Morgan.

Okay.

So we're going to move on.

The second case of the night.

I'm going to open the well.

So this is case number 62-2026.

A request by Mick Wilson, attorney, on behalf of Tate Henry Cooper, owner, seeking relief from the provisions of Section 29-4, Table 4.1-5, and Section 29-4.3G1 of the Unified Development Code relating to the placement and extension of a shared driveway between 210 and 300 Edgewood Avenue and the location of existing and future vehicle parking in proximity to a property line.

If relief is granted, the existing shared driveway would be considered lawfully compliant in its current location and authorized to be extended approximately 84 feet eastward within five feet of the existing shared property line.

Additionally, if relief is granted, parking within six feet of a lot improved with a single or two-family use would be authorized.

This request is being considered concurrently with case number 339-2025, which seeks similar relief be granted upon property addressed as 210 Edgewood Avenue to the north, so as to allow a building permit to be issued for a future UDC code compliant detached garage.

Mr.

Zenner, has the notice been properly advertised?

Yes, it has.

Has it been posted with a notice of public hearing?

Yes, it has.

Have parties of interest been notified?

Yes, they were.

Were there any inquiries?

One single inquiry, just asking what was going on.

We provided them the staff report.

That was the only inquiry.

All right, thank you.

Would the person making application to the board please step forward, state your name and address, and be sworn in, and then go ahead and present your case.

My name is Mick Wilson.

My address, excuse me, is 305 West Broadway in Ashland.

I've been an attorney down there for 31 years.

Mr.

Wilson, if you could approach the podium so you are captured in the minutes with the mic.

Did I not get allowed a note before?

No.

Oh, that's bad.

I represent a gentleman, young man named Tate Cooper.

Tate Cooper is the owner of 300 Edgewood in Columbia.

Tate got this from his parents who got it from the grandparents.

He does not, he lives there.

He he is a lawyer, graduated in 2023, and he works for a not-for-profit.

I think he's based out of Arlington, Virginia, but he comes back here.

This is his home.

He comes back here when he's not working.

And excuse me.

He there's no one else living there.

He doesn't rent it.

He doesn't want to rent it.

He's been familiar with the property.

And I can't really give you a truthful answer as to how old Tate is, but I know he graduated law school in 2023.

So he's not very old, unless he was old like me when I graduated.

And so he's uh I've talked to him a couple of times over this.

He is uh, first of all, he isn't he was completely in favor of Mr.

Borgelt's request.

He's making basically the exact same request.

We could put up the pictures if you want them.

It's the exact same pictures.

Uh the variance is for distance from the property line and uh and then parking and then the extension for some feet to the back, and that's really what he is asking for.

I um I would suggest to you guys, it has nothing to do with the facts of the case, but the law office that I the building that I bought in Ashland in 1996 was built in 1896.

And if you look around Ashland, all of the old homes are gone.

They just tear them down, combine lots, build.

I think it is important to the City of Columbia to maintain the continuity of these neighborhoods.

They're old, but they can be fixed.

And you know, a lot of times, if they tear them down, they build them, they become apartments, or they become this or they become that.

I'm all in favor of keeping the continuity of the neighborhoods.

And trust me, I know about rehabbing old buildings.

It is a beast of a burden.

So we're asking that you approve this.

It will it will uh allow Mr.

Borgelt to do the improvements that he wants to.

It will be a potential improvement for Tate later.

He has no plans at this time.

I I can't who can speak for the future for the young man.

No plans at this time to build anything in the back of his property.

Um, but he wants to keep it.

Grandma and grandpa live there.

He visited there.

It was their property, and it's important to him.

Thank you, Mr.

Wilson.

Um, is there anybody from the board wishing to ask Mr.

Wilson questions?

All right, thank you.

Is there anybody else in the audience who wishes to speak in favor of this application?

Please come forward and speak now.

Seeing none, is there anybody who wishes to speak against this application?

Please come forward and speak now.

Seeing none, uh you can sit down if you like.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, folks, for listening.

Uh Mr.

Zenner, would you like to give a staff report?

Um the facts to the case are very similar to those that we have just discussed in case number 339 2025.

Uh as indicated in my comments with that case, uh this property is a little bit less impacted, but is nonetheless still needing uh the relief that is being asked for in order to correct uh the existing nonconforming condition uh with the current uh improved driveway.

Uh and then this is a preemptive action uh should it be approved to allow uh Mr.

Cooper, the owner of 300 Edgewood, the ability to make improvements similar to the property to the north without having to come back to uh the Board of Adjustment.

Um it does allow obviously opportunities uh for uh relieving uh particular issues associated with uh parking.

Uh it does facilitate uh Mr.

Borglett's request uh at 210 Edgewood with limited uh impact to the surrounding neighborhood.

Um if at a time that an improvement is proposed uh to be constructed on 300, uh if and when, uh that improvement would be no different than what is generally being proposed to be constructed on 210, therefore the consistency with the neighborhood character is being maintained.

Um we find that the conditions, again, that are similar uh were not the creation of uh the owner.

Uh these are conditions that are uh uh generally a result of regulatory changes that did not think fully through all of the impacts that would create in our older, previously platted neighborhoods.

This lot is exactly the same size.

And therefore the lot itself is a legal nonconforming lot, and it is non-conforming only because it is less than the 60 foot that is required in our R1 zoning district.

The improvements on the property, however, are fully compliant with the exception of the driveway.

And so as we refer to in the staff report, not unlike in our prior.

The nonconformity and the expansion of the nonconformity is relating to the driveway and the parking.

And so that is, it's not related to the structure.

The structure is legal and the lot is deemed legal at this point.

It would be deemed legal substandard should redevelopment of the structure be proposed, but the driveway issue would still at that point need to be resolved in the same manner that we are trying to resolve it here this evening.

I don't have anything further to add since all the facts are generally the same, and as Mr.

Wilson pointed out, if we look at the diagrams, they are identical.

The only difference is I've got a little bit more space between the house and the property line on 300 than I had at 210.

With that, if you have any questions, I'm more than happy to try to answer them.

I don't have any questions that I didn't already ask, so I will just state that I am considering the testimony from case number 339-2025 to be linked to this so that we don't have to rehash everything again.

Are there any further questions from the board?

Okay.

I see none.

Uh the applicant has an opportunity to come back up and restate anything if they thought there was an error made or see.

I hear a no from the audience.

So all right.

Uh with that, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing.

And I will ask uh legal for some comments.

I will go ahead and read the exhibits into the record for this case as well.

Uh for the city's exhibit one certified copies of the ordinances that are relevant for this case.

Those are sections 29-1.11, 29-4.1c2, dimensional table 4.1-5, section 29-4.3G, 29-6.1C, 29-6.3, 29-6.4D2.

So moved.

Uh Cities Exhibit 2, the locator map, application and supporting documentation and denial letter as attached to the agenda.

So moved.

S it is exhibit three, the public notice inclusive of the public hearing advertisement, the parties in interest notice, and the parties in interest list.

So moved.

And as cities exhibit four, the uh staff report.

So moved.

And I will again remind the board that there are five criteria that you have to consider and find true to grant this variance.

Those are the same five criteria that were read to you in the previous case.

I am happy to read those again if anybody would like.

Not required.

Thank you.

All right, with that, um, does the board have any comments or discussion on this case?

All right, great.

So is there a motion uh to be made for the side setback uh variants which would permit driveway within five feet of the side yard?

Motion by Gaines.

Second.

Second by Hammond.

Mr.

Zenner, would you please read the variance and take roll?

Okay.

So a motion has been made and seconded uh in case number 62-2026, 300 Edgewood Avenue to approve that the approximate 80 feet of existing shared driveway serving both 210 and 300 Edward Avenue as described in Book 823, page 557 of the Boone County Records shall become regulatorily compliant, and any future extension of said driveway along the northern property line of 300 Edgewood Avenue may be lawfully within five feet of the property line.

Mr.

Norgard.

Aye.

Ms.

Hammond.

Yes.

Ms.

Bryan.

Yes.

Solson?

Yes.

And Ms.

Gaines.

Yes.

Variance number one associated with this case has been recommended for approval.

That's the question.

Is there any discussion on the second variance request, which is to permit parking within six feet of a lot line?

I see none.

Is there a motion to approve said variants?

Motion by Gaines.

Second by Alexandra.

Oh, Byrne, sorry.

All right.

So Mr.

Zenner, we have a motion and a second.

Okay.

So a motion and a second has been made in relationship to case number 62-2026, 300 Edwood Avenue.

Property line of 300 Edwood Avenue only.

Mr.

Norregard.

Aye.

Ms.

Hammond.

Yes.

Ms.

Bryant?

Yes.

Ms.

Olson.

Yes.

And Ms.

Gaines.

Yes.

Second variance request has been approved in relationship to this case.

Both variances so ordered.

Congratulations, Mr.

Morgelt and Mr.

Wilson.

You are officially our fastest variance applications, I think, maybe in the last eight years.

My only disappointment is I was hoping no one would know me here and they'd want to see my bar card as a lawyer.

Oh I've carried it for 31 years and never used it.

Oh, let's see now.

Thank you, folks, very much.

Okay.

We're going to move on to the last case of the night.

So this is case number 63-2026.

A request by Caleb Colbert, attorney on behalf of Missouri Central Missouri Community Action, a Missouri Nonprofit Corporation, the owner.

Requesting a 16-foot variance in the required 25-foot corner side yard setback applicable to R2 zone property as required by Section 29-4.1A.

Table 4.1-1 of the Unified Development Code.

The variance is sought to permit the construction of 510 a 510 square foot accessory dwelling unit on the property, which would be accessed from Garth Avenue and is considered to be located in the rear yard of 24th Avenue.

The subject lot.

Approval of the requested relief would result in a minimum nine-foot corner side yard setback being established for all future lot improvements on 24th Avenue.

Mr.

Zenner, has the notice been properly advertised?

Yes, it has.

And has it been posted with a notice of public hearing?

Yes, it was.

And were parties of interest notified?

Yes, they were.

And were there any inquiries?

Only by the occupant of the home at 24th Avenue as the property was being posted.

Okay, thank you.

So would the person making application please come forward, state your name and address, get sworn in and make your case, please.

Good evening.

Uh Chair members of the board, Caleb Colbert, attorney at 1203 West Broadway.

I do.

Members of the board, uh, first I'll steal some of Ms.

Thomas' thunder and introduce some exhibits into evidence.

So in your packet, you should have as applicants uh exhibit one, a copy of the staff report.

Uh exhibit two is a copy of the locator map.

Exhibit three is the application denial letter and our supporting documentation.

And exhibit four would be the hearing ad parties and interest letter and parties and interest list.

And at this time I would offer those exhibits and evidence.

Uh so moved.

Thank you.

And with that, I will turn it over to Jay Gabhart to make our presentation.

PowerPoint is good evening.

My name is Jay Gephardt.

Yes, I do.

Uh gonna load up a little simple uh PowerPoint just to kind of give you some visual aids here with this.

Uh this property is at the corner of uh Fourth Avenue and Garth is owned by Central Missouri Community Action.

Um it is a 36 and a half foot wide lot.

It has a single family home on it now.

Um is zoned R2 and it is a uh permitted use to uh put an ADU on this lot.

So we applied for a building permit for this, and the letter of denial was from Doug Kenny and the building site.

Mr.

Kephart, sorry to interrupt.

Could you try to talk into the microphone?

I don't think it's picking it up over here.

Okay.

Is that better?

Thank you.

So again, this is uh just a visual aid of the uh house and the uh lot.

The lot is 36 and a half feet wide, has a single family home on it.

It is zoned R2, and it has an entitlement for an ADU.

Because of the 36-foot width, um, that is not something that we created or or um we just inherited that with the property.

Um we have a six-foot interior side yard setback, and we have a 25-foot uh corner setback.

Total that's 31 feet, so that leaves only five and a half feet of width of building envelope for this lot.

So we're asking for a relief of that in this uh diagram that's sideways, but you can see uh north is to the um to the right, and um the proposed ADU is uh shown on the um on that sketch with a proposed driveway.

Um we're meeting the interior setback of at least six feet, and uh doing that the front porch um would be nine feet from uh as a side yard.

So that's that's the request um of what we're doing.

That is um less or is greater setback than the existing house has now.

So we're if you were to read the code and the um the special use specific standards uh for ADUs, it it has language in there, it doesn't say 25 feet, it's a setback the same as required for the primary structure.

Um that has been interpreted by staff to mean that it's a 25 foot setback, and so that's why we're here tonight.

We are I think honoring the intent of the code by setting the ADU back further than the primary structure is already.

And so um at that, it's and I think this is a pretty straightforward uh request.

So if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.

Um better with questions than I do just talking.

So questions.

What's the dimensions of the ADU?

Um it's a pretty small building.

Um the total square foot is only 510 square feet.

And so I think you know, I don't have those dimensions on here, but it 29 minus 14 is uh roughly 15 feet wide.

Don't have anything that shows the depth of it, but 510 feet divided by 29.

And I believe the staff can support that the ADU does meet the requirements of the use specific by size and and all except for the setback issue.

I would like to say that while I have your all's attention on this, that um if we if we want to have ADUs and we want to promote this, um corner lots are the ideal location for them because it has another street frontage uh for that uh second unit in the back.

And um this 25 foot seems to be kind of an onerous uh requirement unless we're doing greenfield.

If we're doing new lots and we're creating the lot, we can adjust the for the 25 feet because we're creating that lot.

But when we're doing infill um in the older part of town, is it's just it's making um very difficult to do ADUs on a corner lots, which to me seems like the the easy uh and logical place uh to have an ADU.

So are you suggesting that every um core inner city uh or central neighborhood uh corner lot that wants a uh an ADU is gonna come and ask for uh variance on the uh 25 foot?

When you have one that's narrow as ours, yeah.

I think you're gonna see that.

How do you justify the the uh driveway onto Garth Avenue?

The um so Garth is a collector street and is um for single family uh it's it's not allowed to have driveways except at the discretion of the uh director of um uh community development.

It's not a council or uh a board decision.

And my argument for that is is that if you go up and down Carth, every single lot has a driveway onto Garth.

Yeah.

I guess questions I have about Garth, how many cars go down Garth a day?

Maybe that's worth it.

I wouldn't know.

So what is your take on practical difficulties?

You know, this is uh the idea that you're building a new structure in and of itself is not necessarily required in order to use this lot currently, so any new construction on it is self-inflicted, so to speak.

So I know I read in the rebuttal to the staff decision that this was a it was a practical hardship that they couldn't build this, but technically from one perspective it's not.

So how do you address that?

Well, I do think it's a practical difficulty if the uh a building envelope is only five and a half feet in width.

I I I don't think that's uh certainly not self-created and in the sense that we didn't create this the slot and this size and dimension.

Um I think Peter, you could make that argument that you you don't have to build anything, right?

So um, but if if we want to um promote this type of uh housing and infill, then we need to look at this in a way that is um permissive of uh this five foot building envelope just is not, you know.

If it was 12 feet, then maybe we could say, okay, we could figure out a way to make that work.

But a five-foot wide room house is just it's just not even in the realm of uh something that's practical.

Thank you.

And so does this still meet the 30 percent requirement of the uh rear yard green space?

Yes, it does.

So does the unopened alley to the south of the lot have any bearing and could it uh alleviate the driveway onto Garth?

Um I think staff addressed um it talked about the alley in their report a little bit.

Um did mention it.

But um I did it's an unbuilt alley, so and it's it doesn't comply with the standards for uh in the UDC four alleys, it's too narrow.

Um so that may in and of itself be an issue.

It's uh how wide do you I think it's either 15 or it's 12?

It's one or the other, and I um isn't doesn't that meet the requirement for an alley?

New alleys are 18, I believe, right away and 16 feet of pavement.

Also, I believe um recollection is that there is a building built in the alley further down that would prohibit its uh further construction.

Are there any further questions from the board?

So again, you're saying that the um because the city is promoting more housing, and because the staff report reported that the 2017 ordinances would not have precluded this, or the prior to 2017, this should be allowed uh to uh to have a uh how much of a I I think Janet, that's uh supporting um thing, but I think it should be allowed because I think it meets the requirements for the variants.

Um it's it's not a self-created hardship.

You know, we're not it is a hardship.

So what about this doesn't meet the requirements of the variants is I think the question.

And I I think it personally, I think it does meet those requirements.

I I think the whole what the community is wanting and and what the UDC permits and R2 zoning by uh by right of use is an ADU.

You know, and uh as long as there's not more than two units on that lot already, um you can add that ADU.

So we just meet those requirements.

I think staff supports us in that uh mindset of that we have met the burden of of that variance and the other issues about whether this is uh housing study and the um people that are are considering that there's a housing crisis and that we need to figure out how to make these things happen.

I just think that's background supporting uh that there is support in the community for this type of thing.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to speak in favor of this application?

Please come forward.

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition, please come forward.

I see none.

So, Mr.

Zenner, would you please give staff report?

So just a little bit of background as it relates to this particular property, so we can unpack a little bit about why we have a 36 and a half foot wide lot here.

Um the original lot uh that uh two Fourth Avenue uh is carved out from was originally platted in 1904 as a 73-foot wide lot.

Uh it was consistent with every lot along Fourth Avenue.

Uh the property then was re-platted into the current configuration as two 36 and a half foot wide lots.

Um this particular orientation of the property is a long deep narrow lot at this point.

Um, and as Mr.

Gebhardt has pointed out, the UDC does permit uh an accessory dwelling unit on an R2 lot as small as 3,000 square feet.

Again, when in 2017 the code was readopted, um a 25-foot corner side yard setback was being looked at, not necessarily from a future perspective of allowing a 3,000 square foot lot to even be permissible for development.

And when you get to a lot that is that narrow uh or that size and allowed to be 30 feet in width, you basically make an unbuildable lot for any additional improvements.

It just is not practical.

That was not a consideration in 2017.

And pre-2017, furthermore, uh the corner side yard setback that was applied to most of our inner city and again first ring subdivisions, um, as well as all subdivisions up until 2017.

That corner side yard was 12 and a half feet.

And so for the purposes of trying to create uniformity on a corner from the required, because a corner lot theoretically could be addressed from either of its street frontages.

And therefore, when you come around to the secondary street, you are the front yard of those homes that are to either the north or to the south of that lot or to either side.

And so that 25-foot front yard setback would ensure that there was uniformity on the side street, as well as there would be uniformity on the primary street to which maybe the dwelling unit is addressed off of.

In this particular instance, when you look at the other improved lots along Garth, uh a 25-foot front yard is not necessarily maintained in full continuity from Sexton northward.

Uh it is probably more uh it is more common as you move further to the north, maybe as development gets a little bit more sporadic.

Um, the lot in question is really the odd lot out.

It has been divided in half from what was originally platted.

It does not look anything similar to any other lot that is uh really along Fourth Avenue.

It doesn't, it doesn't repeat itself until you are two blocks to the north of this particular lot with another corner lot that was actually subdivided.

Um that's a unique characteristic associated with this property.

When we think about what is it, how is this uncharacteristic of anything else in the neighborhood or in the vicinity that this can't be applied?

There aren't any other lots as we did our analysis that really are comparable to this.

And so therefore that is part of what the first criterion is all about.

Is this lot unique when you look at it in relationship to other lots, maybe not across the entire community, but more focused in the neighborhood that it is situated in.

And so we would conclude that yes, the lot is unique in that respect.

It's half of what the normal sized lot was when it was platted in 1904, and most of the development along Fourth Avenue has retained that lot width.

Two lots over from this is a vacant lot that is 73 feet wide, that is waiting to receive development.

However, that lot, should it decide that it wants to be divided into two 30-foot wide lots, which is now permitted as a part of our R2 zoning district and a single family attached dwelling unit were to be placed on it, we would allow that legally to occur today.

We could do two single family homes attached on two 36 and a half foot wide lots.

It wouldn't be on the corner, so you'd have a more traditional front to rear configuration, six feet off of the side lot lines, but you still could put the same ADU behind that dwelling unit.

This is unique in that it is a corner lot and it requires the extra extra 19 feet of setback in essence because it's on a corner.

And that is from a 6 to 6 plus 19, or 6 plus 19 is the 25.

So it's 19 additional feet of setback because this lot happens to be on a corner, but it is half the size, or it is approximately the same size as a lot if it were interior that would never be impacted by this.

As it relates to the driveway issue, that is not a board of adjustment matter.

The driveway is not within the purview of the board.

The driveway has been evaluated by both our director of community development and our city's traffic engineer.

I do not have the exact numbers associated with the traffic flow on Garth Avenue.

That was not something that we were prepared for to have a question asked of that nature.

But the city's traffic engineer has indicated, given that there is a four-way intersection at Garth and Sexton that will be improved in the future with a roundabout, the travel speeds leaving that intersection, exiting the roundabout heading north were not a consideration and not a concern from a public safety perspective.

To be quite honest, a parking space is not required for an ADU.

This is a 510 square foot ADU.

It is probably less, it will be less than three bedrooms.

The way that our ADU standards are structured, there is no parking required.

So the establishment of a driveway here has everything to do with that the frontage on fourth and the access and parking available to the subject site doesn't have any available parking.

There is no additional parking to be had on Fourth Avenue that could support the occupant of this dwelling unit.

Therefore, placing a driveway along and accessible from Garth Avenue was what the applicant was asking us to do via separate action.

That action has been considered subject to the approval of this request, it would be potentially it would be authorized.

And then they would be allowed to go through the development process to acquire the appropriate right-of-way encroachment permit to put the driveway in.

That is supported by both our traffic engineer and the community development director.

Speaking to the fact that we are holding and honoring the intent of the regulations by maximizing the side yard setback, while we possibly, if we wanted to roll this back to pre-2017 and say, well, a 12 and a half foot side yard, corner side, should be what is applied.

Well, what does that mean?

That means we end up with three and a half additional feet being applied to the nine feet, which makes a 15-foot building basically become 12.

And so at some point we have to draw a distinction between what makes a sufficient space to be occupiable for a dwelling unit, a 510 square foot dwelling unit, maybe in contemporary living terms for many of us that live in much larger homes, is hard to come by.

I could tell you from my own personal experience.

My 43-foot recreation vehicle that I tow has close to 500 square feet.

It's 43 feet long.

That house is not nearly that long.

It is a box.

My RV is only 12 feet wide, though, when I have all of my extensions out.

So it's it's a sizable area for somebody if you're creative in the architectural world to make that a very, very livable space.

It is single story because it is restricted by other aspects associated with the primary structure on the property, and therefore you can't shrink that footprint down and go vertically, because we have other impediments and other restrictions in the code that an ADU can't be taller than the principal structure on the lot.

Therefore, what we have to give consideration to is the current home is five and a half feet from the right-of-way line.

So we are four and a half feet further back.

The staff report clearly indicates that if this variance is approved any future construction on this property, that's inclusive of the existing house if it is not torn down by an act of God, i.e., a tornado, a flood, or something else, or taken out by a fire.

Um, any reconstruction voluntarily would require that house to be moved back the additional four and a half feet to align with the front of the ADU.

So we would be correcting what the existing nonconformity is of the house.

And so there that's a positive associated with this as well.

We do establish a more conforming setback, even though it is not in full conformance.

Again, this is not dissimilar to what we just discussed with our two Edgewood variants requests.

The impact of creating a 25-foot corner side yard on our existing platted, older central city and first ring suburban lots did not take into account what happens when we create other supplemental standards that try to promote additional housing.

This is an area that has throughout, uh, Mr.

Gebhart and many other design professionals in being able to create housing to address the current condition we are in, and therefore there are probably more requests that sit on the cutting room floor in our building and site development department than ever make it to this body.

People just basically say, forget it.

I'm not interested in even trying to go through the process.

That is a concern of ours from a staff perspective.

I believe that is a concern that would be shared by many of our council members.

Therefore, we are looking at addressing this issue first as it relates to ADU construction.

Secondarily, as it relates to general corner lot discussion in lots platted prior to 2017.

It would be a special exception that would apply to those corner lots.

Many of the corner lots that are very negatively impacted by the current standards were platted prior to, probably 1964.

And so we would be capturing some newer lots, but those newer lots that may have had an existing nonconforming structure on them that have never been redeveloped don't have the ability to potentially put an ADU on that lot today because of the current standards.

So if we do roll back the regulatory requirements for all lots that are corner that were platted prior to 2017 to the 12 and a half foot side yard setback, you will probably never see a variance like this again.

However, not wanting to be too presumptive that we would be able to achieve getting that much broader amendment through, we want to look at this more narrowly at ADU specific related proposals.

The ADU construction trend within the community is very low at this point.

However, it may be accelerated if there are impediments removed.

One of the impediments is that you were required to get a conditional use in the R1 zoning district.

The other impediment is this corner side yard setback.

And so what we are looking at eliminating are both of those impediments through the amendments that we are presently discussing with the Commission.

But it would only go to a 12 and a half foot corner side yard.

We would not go to what the applicant is requesting here.

So what the Board has to determine is is granting the nine feet that is sought appropriate when there may be an option to do a 12 and a half, which would be consistent with what previously existed for corner side yards.

You should have to keep in mind, though, that this lot was legally created, probably 50 60 years prior to 2017.

And therefore it has existed as this size with this, not this exact home.

There has been a home on this lot.

This is a newer house, as many of you are probably aware.

So there was a home here previously that was just as close to this right-of-way.

So the continuation of this use has been something that is there.

2015 is when we created the ADU standards and adopted them as part of our zoning code.

And so it's 2015 we created ADUs, 2017 we created this provision.

The connection between how you get a two how you get an ADU on a backyard if it doesn't meet a 25-foot corner side yard, and we would tend to generally agree with the applicant's position that a corner lot is a good location for this because it does afford an opportunity to have a secondary access that doesn't impact the primary roadway frontage, possibly of a residential neighborhood.

This is a unique situation that Garth is a collector.

And it creates, when we have collector and arterial streets in our infrastructure, we have to take a moment of pause.

Do we potentially impact the future expansion of a road right-of-way if we allow a structure to be built closer than 25 feet?

Do we thrott our ability to potentially do utility upgrades or easements that we may need?

Do we thrott our ability to potentially put a sidewalk in?

The utility easement and the sidewalk are already there, and there are no roadway improvements planned for Garth other than to the south of this project site at Kinney Point, which is the newest development across from Oak Towers that was just recently constructed and opened by the Columbia Housing Authority.

There is no other improvements within this particular area.

So Garth, as it exists, is going to be the same today and probably for the coming decades.

We don't anticipate it expanding.

The setback does allow us an opportunity to do more, at least where the ADU will be constructed, but when we get to the house, the sidewalk is already in place, so we don't have to worry about that.

But if we have to do anything from a utility perspective, we as a city have to make a decision: are we going to push those utilities potentially out underneath the existing pavement?

Which is typically what we attempt not to do.

But in some instances we are left there.

So it is probably one of my shorter staff reports in written form, but not verbally.

And so what I would like to go ahead, and I just want to go in and reiterate is as a part of the community development director and traffic engineers' assessment of the driveway location, just so we put this item in and put a pin in it.

The improvement on the unopened 15-foot alley to the south is not possible given there is an existing structure in the alley.

How it got constructed there, we do not know, but it is in the alley at Grand Avenue.

And unless we want to go ahead and put a port core share through that house so we can connect the alley from Garth to Grand, we are probably never going to open that alley.

And I do know personally when we discussed the Kinney Point project, the activation of that alley in this particular location was discussed, discarded, and left the way that it was.

In a standard resident, a standard alley within the City of Columbia, if you were to plat one today, actually requires a minimum of a 20-foot right-of-way, 18-foot of pavement.

It's not an 18-foot of right-of-way.

So that is it's a 20-foot-wide alley.

This is a substandard legally platted alley, but it's just never been opened.

And we have a number of them in the central city that some have been opened, some have not been.

Again, the anticipated traffic existing as well as anticipated traffic in that speed was not viewed as being a concern.

The roadway widening along Garth is only anticipated to occur to the south, as I have said.

And then the other residential driveways to the north, which I think Mr.

Norgaard was referring to, as well as Ms.

Hammond, those are, you know, their existing conditions that have not created public safety-related issues.

While we do dissuade that type of improvement, there are sometimes no other alternatives.

And we have many arterial, not arterials, but we have many collectors in the City of Columbia that when not left with another option to have driveway, either coming off of a frontage road that maybe parallels the primary roadway, we end up with driveways coming out to it.

And what we attempt to do in those instances, we attempt to consolidate driveway access points.

And so to the idea, can we use the alley?

That was a question I asked of our traffic engineer.

And I think the concern that is expressed there is the driveway approach into the parking lot that serves Kinney Point and its proximity to the existing alley would have resulted in two driveway approaches being too close to one another, and therefore, where the proposed driveway approach is to reach the ADU on Garth Avenue is more consistent with our driveway spacing standards from center to center, therefore creating more opportunity to be able to have visual access in both directions versus placing them potentially on top of each other, which would be what would happen if the ADU were to access the alley.

Furthermore, it gets very complicated when you try to put a private driveway within a publicly platted alley.

We have to go through about five extra gyrations in order to make that happen.

It's a right-of-use permitting process and all of the other things that go along with that.

And so to have a private driveway coming out to this street where we are not seeing any other redevelopment at this point was not again seen as an issue.

We go through the criteria, and I think compliance with the variance criteria really comes back down to the fact that in 1904, when this lot was created, it was created legally as a 73-foot-wide lot.

It got divided at a later date.

And the area is really devoid of any other lot this lot with.

And so that is a unique nature.

Couple that with the requirements of the code, not being at the making of the applicant, I would tell you that there are other factors that are impacting this lot's developability.

That is not to diminish Mr.

Norgard's point that it is somewhat self-inflicted.

You're trying to build on something that you need relief for.

However, had there been more thought associated with corner lots of this nature, the impact may have been able to have been mitigated.

And the mitigation that you have available at your discretion, given what historically existed prior to 2017, is to say, fine, we'll go back and we'll say 12 and a half feet, which was what the setback on the corner side would be.

Figure out with your architect how to make that a livable unit.

Maybe it needs to extend a little bit and still be 10 feet behind the primary dwelling unit.

So it becomes a little bit longer.

Again, I use my own personal recreation vehicle, which is only 12 feet when I extend out five slides.

I don't feel claustrophobic.

So a 12-foot-wide, longer structure is possible.

Think of what you normally see when you have a container, a storage container being hauled by a tractor trailer.

Those are eight feet wide.

We convert those nowadays into very, very nice livable spaces.

So there's opportunities here potentially to be able to do something that would comport with what the former setback requirement was, not necessarily what the applicant is seeking.

When we talk about is this the least amount of relief necessary to resolve the problem, there are other options, yes, and we often talk about these.

We could go to a plan district, you could ask for waivers to the side yard or the required setbacks, but you are going through an entire approval process that is cumbersome, wrought with uncertainties, and probably just completely over the top to build an ADU on a lot that otherwise would be permissible with the granting of this variance.

Again, when I refer to something as being practical and efficient, is because any other option that exists will take months with no certainty that it may be granted.

An action by this board is final.

And therefore, the Board is set up to establish these unique situations and take note of them.

What we are looking at because of this, and we believe that it will be more of a prevalent action, as a matter of fact, Mr.

Gebhardt has another project that we are in the process of reviewing, which I am surprised we haven't seen yet as a board action, very similarly situated.

And so, you know, it's just the tip of the iceberg.

Not unlike what we may have with our shared driveway issue, we need to get ahead of that from a regulatory perspective, and it's these first that start the crescendo of more to come.

And we want to resolve not having to bring these back before the board because it is nothing but a occupation of your time.

It slows down our ability to address other important issues within the community.

So when we talk about could we rezone the property, rezoning is only possible to go to a plan zone, which would require a site plan, planning and zoning commission review, a public hearing, council review, council approval.

Whereas a rezoning action, there is no rezoning action that could even be dealt with here because this is a dimensional standard requirement, that rezoning doesn't change the dimensional standards in any zoning district, you have a 25-foot corner side yard.

So really the Board of Adjustment is the only avenue of relief that is practical and efficient, or we deny the request and we don't facilitate something that would be for the betterment of the whole, at least from a staff perspective, maybe not necessarily from this bodies.

Is this detrimental to the public?

We have a multifamily development immediately to the south of this.

We have long deep lots that are basically to the east of this particular property.

We have lots that are long and deep to the west.

I would tell you that this is probably not detrimental.

This is adding an additional unit to a lot that is otherwise legally capable of accommodating it with the grant of relief.

Is it something that we want to continue to promote moving forward?

That's a different question for a different day, and that has to deal with the regulatory standards applicable to ADUs in general.

What I can tell you is is prior to the creation of our lot substandard provisions that we have in the code, which were designed specifically to reduce the preponderance of people consolidating parcels in order to meet minimum lot size in area as well as lot width standards prior to that action occurring at the City Council level, to where we allowed a 3,000 square foot lot to be able to be created or to be legalized and to have a minimum of a 30-foot wide frontage.

ADUs would not have been permitted on a lot this size.

This is a less than 5,000 square foot lot.

Prior to that amendment occurring, ADUs were only permitted on 5,000 square foot lots.

Post the amendment to eliminate consolidation plating concerns, it was reduced to 3,000 feet.

And so the concern and the discussion now that is occurring as we are also looking at our ADU standards, and we have other regulatory changes that we are proposing, is to bring that minimum lot area back up to a minimum of 5,000 square feet.

And that would then at that point eliminate this lot because of its size as being available, which could potentially alleviate some of the concerns that you as a body may be having at this point as this creating a trend.

While I cannot pull out my crystal ball and shake it and tell you that our Council or our Planning Commission will approve an amendment to increase the lot size minimum for an ADU moving forward.

There is a strong basis for why that probably should be reconsidered.

And this may be an instance in where you have a lot that would comply with the minimum of 3,000 square feet, is this the type of development we want on lots that size more commonly throughout our community?

Because it does create these scaled type of accessory dwelling units.

And that is part of the other issue.

Are we creating spaces that are actually habitable?

They are probably for some.

If it's a single individual, they need a good place to live.

This is going to fulfill that need.

If it is somebody that has probably more than two people, this may be a little bit tight.

But many of us have probably, as college students, lived in just a small space, if not smaller, with your roommates, and therefore probably made it work.

So with that, I will stop presenting.

We find that there is no harm being provided or created within the community.

We feel that there is a broader objective being built here, and we do believe that it is consistent with our city's comprehensive plan.

We do believe this property is impacted by hardships that are not only related to the property itself because of how it was able to be subdivided, completely out of the control of the owner, but also by other relevant factors that affect redevelopment of this property, which are buyer development code.

And as a result of that, we believe the criterion in point one or point A of the variance criterion has been met as well.

If you have any further questions, I am more than happy to try to answer them.

Thanks, Pitt.

Sounds like you support this.

Are there any questions from the board for Mr.

Zinner?

I have two questions.

Hopefully they are brief.

So it sounds like this is a substandard legal lot.

Is that true?

That is a correct statement.

Okay.

So what on that lot is conforming with current standards, aside from the fact that it is a legal substandard lot?

What I would tell you probably nothing.

Maybe the rear, and maybe the side, the inside side yard, which is six feet from the property line.

Possibly we may be compliant with the front yard setback.

I did not measure the front yard off of fourth.

In the rear yard, definitely, because the rear yard is probably over 25 feet, it is well over 25 feet.

I mean, this is by all stretches of the imagination, not an ideal lot, but it is a lot and it is a legal nonconforming lot.

Substandard.

But it is sort of getting at my concern here about stacking nonconformities, so to speak.

I heard you say that prior to 20, prior to a couple months back, whenever it was that substandard lots were permitted, this would not have been permissible development.

Did you hear that correctly?

At the time, at the time we amended the development code, which if I am not incorrect was in 2024 to address the issue of substandard lots, R1R2 and RMF, we then concurrently, if I am not incorrect or shortly thereafter that amendment being approved, the ADU standards were amended for the first time, one of the first time in a while, to then conform to the new substandard lot requirement or the ability to create a 3,000 square foot lot.

So prior to that, so the intention was to support this type of development.

Development on lots that were existing substandard and met the definition of lot substandard.

That was the intent.

And I think that the realization, now that we are working on what we refer to as a lot integration project, where we would be looking at integrating by right, subject to plat approval, 3,000 square foot lots into all of our zoning districts.

The concern that has been expressed by our planning commission is we may need to go back to the 5,000 square foot minimum for two dwelling units on a lot.

Because at a 3,000 square foot lot, there is concern at the commission level that that may be too much house, too much housing on a lot potentially incapable of being able to support that, especially if those lots fall into this sweet spot, because what we have done from the analysis to create the integration project, the sweet spot of a small lot uh is going to fall roughly between probably about 35 feet in width, up to probably about 42 to maybe 45, which is still 15 feet smaller than a standard 60-foot wide lot.

That is where your lot yields in a in a replatted environment or a green field are yielding results.

But that doesn't negate the fact that the way that the current regulations are written is that a 30-foot wide lot today can be considered legal.

So this 36 and a half foot wide lot, it's 4,900 square feet roughly, if I recall correctly.

It allows this by right, provided you can meet the setback standard.

So you resolve the setback issue through the amendment in just the ADU ordinance, you still have the issue is there is too much house on a 3,000 too much housing on a 3,000 square foot lot.

And I think the Commission is very concerned about that.

They're concerned about that because today, as the Board has the authority to approve cottage lots, which are our 3,000 square foot lot, 3,000 to 5,000 square feet is what the cottage lot would fit into, because once you hit 5,000 square feet in the R2, you are to a single family, a conforming single-family lot at that point.

And so when we start to look at the idea what that what the purpose of the amendment, the zoning amendment, the broader zoning amendment is, it does not necessarily match up with what the current code says about ADU construction.

And since we are going through, we have been asked to look at the ADU regulations again to create to remove some impediments.

And as I said, the impediments presently are the R1 zoning district requires a conditional use, which is dissuading a lot of people in the R1 district, which has lots of sufficient area to accommodate an ADU to not come forward.

And then you, of course, on these corner lots potentially in the R1, you may end up further throtting the ability because you have the increased side yard.

And so the Commission is looking at not only those two deals, those two address those two issues, we are looking at several others as well.

And right now, I can't tell you what the outcome of that amendment may be.

Again, that furthers the idea that if that amendment were approved, the applicant could probably figure out how to make this work without coming to the board.

But that amendment doesn't exist, and we don't know when it may be completed because it will be left to Council to make that final decision.

And so we have somebody that is interested in building today.

They are interested in taking a bite out of the housing shortage.

They come before this body asking for that relief.

And we believe that while this is maybe on the lower end of what we possibly could support from a staff perspective moving forward if it was on a grander scale, we believe that this is not inconsistent with the environment in which it is in.

You have multifamily development, you have a high-rise senior housing development.

This area is a clectic.

And adding in this particular single-family detached type of dwelling unit on this lot when it is otherwise compliant, to us is not a concern.

We have other mitigating factors that we can mitigate this in other similar situations, and we will attempt to apply those where we can to avoid coming back should we get another one here in the short term.

But sometimes we just cannot mitigate what our code mandates that we apply.

And that is why we have to come here.

Thank you.

Any further questions?

Those are my questions.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Zinner.

So this would be allowed prior to 2017.

So the same if we had left, if we had left the site, the corner side yard in 2017 unchanged from 12 and a half feet.

Well, it wouldn't have met it.

No, well, it knew it what Mr.

Gebhardt and CMCA would have done is they would have said we have to comply with what the setback is for the principal structure.

Even though the principal structure on this lot is nonconforming, it is legally nonconforming.

They would have figured out a way to have met the 12 and a half foot side yard setback that would have then been in place.

I guarantee you.

And the reason you don't see a lot of activity, we don't meet every month to month, is because our staff does one fantastic job of making sure that we get our applicants to comply with our code.

We don't want to be here any more than the applicant does.

That's not that I don't love you all, but we try to keep our applicants moving through the process.

And so we find we look for every opportunity to get them to compliance.

So if we didn't change the code in 2017, they would have potentially been able to have gotten this dwelling unit on the property.

In a different configure.

In a different configuration or a narrower building is what I think would have ended up happening.

You would have had three and a half feet narrower.

So this would have been a 12, it would have been about a 12-foot building, if not longer, meaning longer, most likely longer to make up for the loss.

Any further questions?

Seeing none, uh, the applicant, if you would like to come back up and make any final comments or address anything you heard, please feel free.

Thank you.

Just a couple of comments.

So I want to piggyback on uh a point that Mr.

Zinner made, and that is it is true that maybe the UDC will change in the future, uh, but we don't know if that will happen, when that will happen, or what uh a text change might look like in the future.

So we as a property owner, we have to deal with the code as it is written right now.

And right now, uh 3,000 square foot lot is entitled in the R2 district to add an ADU as a matter by right.

By right, we should be permitted to build an ADU on this property.

But for the setback requirement, we could build an ADU.

So when we look at is there uh practical difficulty, is that self-imposed?

It's not, because we have the setback requirement that is preventing this property from having an ADU.

Ultimately, again, the ADU is a buy right in the R2 district for a lot of this size, as the code is written today.

Um again, Mr.

Zinner hit on it in his staff report.

This is a unique property.

It sets it apart from other properties.

This is not setting a precedent for other lots.

In this particular situation, you have sort of a unicorn.

It is not a lot that is going to be replicated in other situations.

With that, we would be happy to answer any questions.

If you have design questions, uh Mr.

Gaphard would be happy to come back up.

Thank you, Mr.

Cope.

All right, thank you.

And for the record, we don't set precedent here.

But you know that.

All right.

Uh with that, I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for comments from legal.

Thank you.

And I will not uh duplicate any of the exhibits that have already been entered, but I would like to enter as the city's exhibit one certified copies of the ordinances that are relevant to this case before you.

And those are sections 29-1.11, 29-3.3 G, 29-4.1, 29-6.1C, 29-6.3, and 29-6.4 D2.

So moved.

Then I will again remind you that you must find and consider um true the five criteria for granting a variant, and I am happy to read those criteria to you again if you would like.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yep.

Happy to answer any questions if you have them.

All right.

Any questions?

Any discussion?

I I think thank you, Mr.

Cobert, for your final comment because that clarified something in my mind that was not clear, entirely clear anyway.

Um, is there a motion to approve the variance?

So move.

Motion by Hammond.

I second.

Second by Keynes.

Mr.

Zenner, would you please read the variance and take roll?

Motion has been made and seconded in case number 63-2026 24th Avenue as it relates to the granting of relief from a corner side yard setback.

And the recommended.

The motion contains three parts.

And so the first being the applicant shall be granted a 16-foot variance and the required corner side yard setback as applied to the property addressed to Fourth Avenue, such that a minimum nine-foot corner side yard setback shall be applied to any new construction from the Garth Avenue frontage, and any reconstruction of the existing principal dwelling located upon 24th Avenue following a voluntary demolition shall adhere to the minimum nine-foot corner side yard setback from Garth from the Garth Avenue frontage.

And future construction of the proposed ADU shall be in substantial compliance with the location shown on the second fourth avenue exhibit as prepared by a civil group and attached to this request.

Mr.

Hamm, uh Mr.

Norgaard.

Aye.

Ms.

Hammond?

No.

Ms.

Bryan.

Yes.

Ms.

Olson?

Yes.

Ms.

Gaines.

Yes.

Motion carries 4 to 1, so ordered.

Congratulations.

All right.

This is the opportunity for the public to speak to us.

If anybody wishes to speak, please come forward now.

I don't see anybody, so is there any items on the board that we need to discuss?

There is no meeting in March.

The item that was originally scheduled for our March 10th meeting has been withdrawn.

So we will notify you when our applications for the April meeting have been received if we will have a meeting in April.

Any further conversation.

Delicate.

Membership and requirements.

I believe we are speaking about the board member not present.

Yes.

I uh in in uh it will it will be marked as an unexcused absence.

Um unfortunately it was not on uh the Mr.

Minshew's calendar.

He did, however, receive notice.

I did have that confirmed for me this evening.

So I appreciate Ms.

Bryant being present.

I also appreciate Ms.

Olson attending this evening.

We can provide a summary of the absences report uh for the rolling 12-month calendar uh of so this would go take us back to basically February of 2025.

Uh what I could tell you is is last year you had a grand total of four meetings.

So uh I'll have to go back and I'll have to look at excused and unexcused absences as it relates to every member, but it is a rolling 12-month uh calendar.

And so uh that is something that we have recently experienced with some uh concerns expressed by attendance by our planning commission as well.

So that's why I know that response so well.

But we could provide we could provide that to the chair uh as well as if the board is interested as a whole, uh that could be distributed as a separate correspondence from me.

It will not be provided publicly.

Um another thing is I'm wondering we have uh one new board member and a new alternate, and I'm wondering if the rules of procedure could be provided to them.

Uh they they were as a part of their introductory email uh that we send.

Okay.

Um the same five with the five criteria that we are to uh act on.

Was that provided also?

Uh so the five criteria that are related to, and we have different criteria for different actions that the board takes.

Those are provided as a part of the handouts that you receive in front of you each evening you are here.

They're not here tonight.

They're not.

Okay.

And I apologize for that.

I did not set the room up.

I will uh correct that with my administrative assistant to make sure that that is out in the future.

All of the criteria as it relates to any item that is on the board's agenda is contained within uh Article 6, uh our standard regulatory procedure section of the UDC.

Uh a link to that document has been provided to all of our members.

Um we typically do not reproduce uh a paper copy of that.

That is one reason why we have them laminated and they should be in front of you.

So my apologies again.

Um if this becomes a concern and you want them provided, um i i it's not challenging.

We can consolidate all of them and send them to you again via separate correspondence, uh, just so you have them and you can print them and keep them with your board uh packet uh materials that you may uh uh uh prepare with for each meeting that you may be required to attend.

We have experienced a new board members seeming not to be aware in the past.

And so I would like to try to help alleviate that.

Completely understood, Ms.

Hammond.

Thank you very much.

I will I will make every effort to get that out to all of our board members.

Uh again, just as a reminder for those that are seasoned as well as those that are new, uh so you have that in front of you and you know what you are looking at.

Uh since we summarize what that criteria is generally in the staff report, we don't regurgitate uh the actual standard.

Um it is my pleasure, of course, to introduce Carlissa Gaines.

If I got that right, I hopefully didn't butcher your first name, Ms.

Gaines.

Um Ms.

Bryant and it is a Lisa Bryan, is that correct?

Alexandra.

Alexandra uh Bryant is our newest alternate.

Uh horrible tonight, I'm sorry.

So Ms.

Brian is our newest alternate uh that has been appointed.

Ms.

Gaines is our newest permanent member.

She replaces uh Ms.

Newen.

Uh Linda's term as a uh as a uh uh an alternate member uh is uh expiring in 2026.

Uh so reappointment may be in her cards if she so desires.

I know Ms.

Hammond, your term is expiring in May of this year.

Mr.

Norgaard is if I'm not incorrect, at 2028.

Um then recently we had uh Miss uh Rogers reappointed uh for her first full term.

Uh she will expire in 2020 in 2030.

Um her term will expire.

Yeah.

Yes.

Her term will expire.

Not and so she probably is wondering if her term will expire sooner than that.

Uh unfortunately, she could not attend this evening's meeting due to a medical condition.

So again, we try to keep you all informed the best we can.

I mean, it it seems like it's scattershot with the amount of time we meet together annually.

Um it is a pleasure to have a full board again.

Uh hopefully we can retain that for a while.

Uh and we do appreciate our alternates being here just in case we do need to have a uh a last minute fill-in.

Uh so you are welcome to continue to attend, uh continue to increase your understanding and education.

Uh it is a great assistance for us, obviously.

Uh so with that I appreciate your attention this evening.

Thank you very much.

Is there a meeting scheduled for April?

Uh at this point we do not have the application deadline has not come and gone.

Uh I am unaware uh of any items other than the one that I alluded to here that Mr.

Gephardt is uh we have in review at this point, and I think he is waiting for a more formal response from our staff before they may be could be.

Could be.

And I would suggest that being emboldened by this evening's uh outcome, uh I would expect that it probably will be submitted.

And so I will keep you informed uh should that happen.

Well, and in case there isn't one, I this might be my last meeting, right?

I mean, may I Yes, it would be, ma'am.

I'm sorry, that would be your last meeting.

If we don't have March and we don't have April, this is my last meeting.

I want to say I have loved my 13 years on this, much as I'm a thorn in pet side.

But uh we spar uh good naturedly usually.

There have only been a couple of episodes where we've where we've sparred not professionally.

Um I appreciate your diligence, Ms.

Hammond.

It is it has been a pleasure, and hopefully this is not our last time we get to see you.

Thanks.

Thank you all.

All right.

One formality.

Do we have a motion to close the meeting?

So moved.

Moved by Hammond.

I'll be seconded by everybody else.

Uh how about Olson?

So moved.

Meeting closed.