Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

This is a zoning board of appeal.

We'll meet tonight at the City Council Chambers, 155 Deer Hill Avenue, City Hall.

Thursday, March 12, 2026, 7 p.m.

We'll start with the roll call, Mr.

Williamson.

Mr.

William.

Present.

Mr.

Delusia?

Present.

Mr.

Rivis.

Present.

I'm Joe Hanna, Chairman of the Board.

Neither.

Make a motion to accept the minutes from February 26, 2026.

Motion made by Mr.

DeLucia.

I second it.

Seconded by Mr.

William.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

The next regular meeting scheduled for March 26, 2026.

And need a motion to open the public hearing to hear 26-05, 17 Cedar Drive.

And motion I mean application number 26-06, 5 o'clock street.

And the other two motion to be continued.

26-01.

And 26-03 and 73 and a half and 75 Osbourne Street to be continued.

Mr.

Chairman, I'll make the motions to open up the two applications for public hearing.

And then a second motion will be uh need to be made for the continuation of the other two applications.

So for right now, I'll make a motion to open applications 26-05 and 26-06 for public hearing.

Second.

Motion made by Mr.

Rivas, seconded by Mr.

Delushia.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Hi.

Anyone represent 26-0517 Cedar Drive?

Tell us what on your mind.

Hi, my name is Alex Bolina.

I'm with you.

You sign your name?

Yes.

Okay.

I'm a Doyle Coffin Architecture representing Cody and Carrie Gunch.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I guess I'll do this like the project is fairly simple.

Um we're trying to do uh two variances.

One is for setback to the east, uh, and the other is for coverage.

Um currently the house is a single story house, or this portion of it is.

The existing house is on an existing undersize.

Is your microphone on?

Uh yes.

Yeah, it's better.

No.

Sorry.

Try not to yell.

Um the current house is all is already positioned over the property line and comes within 3.6 feet of the of the eastern property line.

What the application is trying to do is do an open porch along the front and create a new entry.

So we are holding the porch back so that it becomes no closer to the property line than the existing house is and then for coverage.

We're we removed some existing uh coverage to take out some of the uh added coverage.

So we've tried to minimize it as much as possible.

Um but you can basically see it's a very small portion along the front to kind of cover where the entry is, and then create a covered entry at the refront door.

That's what's it?

Questions.

On that plan that you had up.

You're saying that the orange is the existing house right now?

Yes.

All right, is oh you're showing it from uh aerial view down.

Correct.

Okay.

So the orange is the existing house over the red line is the property, uh, the setback line.

Orange is the existing house.

The pink is what we are adding as an open porch.

So you you're removing what over the line or no, we're just adding the pink to it.

We are keeping we're keeping the house as is.

We're just adding a front porch to it.

Oh, just one question.

Um I guess the coverage we look at more closely with you know with with the lake and uh um it said 20 from 20 percent to 23 percent, and I believe you said you're going to be tying into the roofing range.

Yeah.

The existing coverage is already at 22.47.

Okay, it's already over, so we're only asking for 165 square feet increase.

The porches are 225 square feet.

We're reducing this by 59 square feet, so that's we're asking for the 165.

Okay.

Any other question from the board?

Is there any plans for further expansion of the the house?

No, it's fairly maxed out at this point.

I think realistically.

Let me say for the record, there's no we've never talked about expansion beyond this.

But is it as if somebody were to ask me how to make this larger?

It would have to be up because they've maxed out the property already in footprint.

Um really, it's just missing that front street view, and or that you know that porch to the front will help the kind of the curb appeal of it for the new owners.

And really, it's their main entry right now.

They don't have a garage, so it does take a lot of foot traffic in off of the uh driveway.

And just for the record, I believe you said it already, but it's just for a roofed porch and a roofed entryway?

Yes.

Okay.

Oh, what they mentioned that the Porsche at the long way.

This one up the up and down, yes.

This that's part of the house.

What they mentioned.

Oh, that's you're not increasing that.

So with the plans that are dem uh the elevations that were submitted, this house exists as is.

We're just adding this porch out, so you can kind of see uh this is the side here of that elevation.

So this is the existing pitch here, and that is this picture here with this cake.

So that all exists, just adding your own porch in front of it and then we go.

Did you make this plan?

Yes.

Why don't you make show the the porch?

What the intention from that porch is to go upstairs with the stairway for second floor or no?

No, no.

To go this this whole section is only one story.

Is the basement in the front?

Everything up here is wallet, which we can see.

Only this portion of the house has a second story part.

So you may do you closing the porch to use it as entrance to the house on the site.

Yes, and the other two porches in the front.

The two yeah, I understand.

Yeah, we're not even closing any existing porches.

We're just the two red one on the bottom.

Yeah.

What are they?

Yes, this one's a stone entry porch.

They open the front door, and then this is the mudden door or the wood porch.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

Nobody have a question, Noah.

Anyone support this application?

Anyone in support this application?

Anyone in our position to this application?

Anyone in opposition for this application?

Look like everybody said motion to close it and open it for discussion and voting.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to close close application 26-05 from public hearing.

Second.

Motion made by Mr.

Rivas, seconded by Mr.

Delusia.

All in favor.

Okay.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to open up application 26-05 for executive session and voting.

Motion made by Mr.

Rivas.

Seconded by Mr.

Delusho.

All in favor.

Okay.

Any discussion?

Let's hear it.

No, let's have a motion.

I make a motion.

I make a motion to accept 26-05, approve 17 Cedar Drive, Gunch Cody and Kerry, Belina, Alex, AIA agent, RA20 zoning Section 483 reduce easterly side yard setback from 15 feet to 3.6 increased maximum building coverage from 20% to 23.7% for construction of a two covered porches.

And I see it pose no harm.

Motion made by Mr.

Delusia.

All in favor.

Second second.

Seconded by Mr.

Williamson.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Application 26-06.

Anyone represent the applicant?

Good evening.

Doesn't matter.

Good evening.

My name is Thomas Nee Jane.

Good evening.

Good evening.

So what we're hoping to do on five Clark Street is three, you know, three three dwellings.

Sorry.

Can you hear?

Hello?

Yeah, that's good.

Oh, sorry.

So we're hoping to do uh three dwellings on five Clark Street.

Um now with this particular lot, it's it's a I don't know if you guys drove by it or are just looking at the map, but it's a very long lot.

Um but what most of the variants is or there's a few variances we're asking for.

Um the the reason is is because it's particularly you know very narrow.

And the history with this um this lot was it was created prior to the R3 zone.

Um R3 zone was you know put in place after the lot was um was um put together.

Now with that being said, um the lot uh it lies in a you know a neighborhood of a lot of multi-family units, really the entire street, um even cottage street, and within a quarter of a mile, everyone has um easily from seven to three to two to four multi-units uh you know around this particular lot.

Now, because of the the width of the lot um and the and the zoning requirements, we're not able to really we're not able to that's why it would be very that's what makes it so difficult to put um multiple dwellings on it.

Um but you know, in reality, before we uh purchase this lot, it was you know used as a dumping ground.

You know, there was couches, debris, um it was really just a mess.

So we cleaned it all up, and I and I think we have the opportunity here to um really make it look nice and also create some housing, which is you know what the city you know really needs, you know, not only the city, you know, the the nation um to to put this to use.

And I just feel that the variance will allow you know reasonable use of the property, you know, and the and basically the demographics around it.

I think it would um look very odd and out of place if we did a single family home.

That's why um I am proposing you know three units.

Um I don't know what is the hardship for that.

I think the the hardship though is you know is is really um the use of the property.

So it's you know, very it's it's very difficult to get anything on the lot with all the zoning requirements um that R3 that the R3 zone requires, which was created before the lot was actually developed.

Mr.

Nijam, you're asking for too much the reduce the size of the lot from eleven thousand two fifty square feet to nine thousand two seventy-five.

And the requirement for three family is hundred feet.

And a side setback from 15 feet to 8.5 feet, and a parking in a front yard, right?

Correct.

But I think that's too much to ask for for we understand the zone is for multi-family and all that, and the houses are there for two or three or four family.

I don't know exactly what they are.

Um we'll see now what the word has to say.

Uh I have a letter here.

I want to read it for the record.

Is uh speak if your uh microphone boxes.

Just make sure you're it's on, but just make sure it's close to you, sir.

Oh uh Robert D.

Butello, three ridgewood drive, Danbury, Connecticut, 06811, March 11, 2026.

Uh dear Mr.

Hannah I'm writing in response to the notice I received regarding application number 26-06 for a property located at 5 o'clock street.

I'm a property owner immediately north of the subject property at two cottage street complex, based on my understanding of the proposed petition and the scope of the work to be completed and the fact that this petition is quite unusual.

I see this as application.

I see this as application that is one that needs to be looked at objectively and fairly for this applicant and for the ones to follow with similar requests.

I'm also familiar with Nijem Development, which was completed projects on Sheridan Street and Cottage Street.

Those projects were completed in a professional manner and appear to have been well managed.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you and the other commissioner members for your dedication to the city of Denver, your willingness to attend these meetings and make the personal sacrifices required to serve the community is a greatly appreciated since sincerely Robert Butello.

I don't know if he really opposing or he really supporting or he's in the middle or he need more information and anyway that's for the record now it's open for the board to ask any question you have I have a question.

Oh yes why why three and not one or a different number I mean to get to the minimum possible variance.

I mean I just think one totally for the neighborhood looks out of sorts because every adjacent property this one has seven, three, two to the east for to the west three, three, three, two I really just think it looks at the sorts and again just the opportunity of you know we don't the the city really needs housing um that's that's city the government everyone everyone wants housing so we have that opportunity with this particular law it just it's very long to so it's able to fit three but it just doesn't allow us because of the width because of that the the the zone the the width the width of it I have I have a couple of concerns um not crazy about you know front yard parking but I understand and I do agree with you that the city needs more more housing and so I can understand but really my main concern is emergency vehicles they have to come on their property.

Now we you're gonna it's a narrow strip as it is so you're gonna go long how are they going to access in case of a fire without you know unless you have some kind of a ramp or easement to be able to go through your neighbor's yard or whatever you know as long as that's satisfied because that's very good very good question.

I think there would be plenty of room because the driveway is all the way to the west side and that's you know the minimum requirement requirement is 12 right Johnny 12 and then it goes to I think 24 or yeah we have it at 25.

So you have parking to the parking to the right so the um ambulance or fire truck would be able to fit right to the you know within 10 feet of the first unit within the within 10 feet of the first unit.

Correct.

And that's as far as they can go that would be as far as they could go.

Okay.

Without going on the neighbors because that driveway goes all the way up to about the 30 yeah I mean I would hate to see him put a fence up and then to cause even though you know that that's my concern.

I mean that's an area that's you know say health safety and welfare of the public is just you know understand we're all in it yeah absolutely anyone else yeah I I have a few questions.

You you had mentioned that your hardship was because of the uh property the the zoning regulations being put in prior to the um to the existence of the the property itself some uh the conditions in section eleven state that if the property does not differ from the overview of the residents or the resemblance of the residents within the neighborhood uh it cannot be used as a hardship and looking at the site plan that you have up there or the GIS mapping I it looks like most of these uh plots are similar in size and shape unfortunately it looks like you got the one that's thinner out of most of them so you know I can see where you're you know trying to say that that's a reason but for me I just don't see it.

If you can state another hardship that can you know persuade me that there is a hardship here like Mr.

Hannah said where you're asking for eight variances in total and um I am concerned with uh Mr.

Delush's concerns of public safety and health work uh welfare.

Um and to Mr.

Williams's comment earlier, why not uh a two-family uh where we can it may be a bigger two family, but we're not stretching it then.

You know, we're we we are here to give relief to the applicants that come here, but when we see this with eight variances on a sliver plot like that you have, and then trying to squeeze a three family, it's difficult to see the the relief and the in the granting of these variances.

You know, with with trying to do it too, being mindful that we want to make things, although it's non conforming in the size, because you're a little bit undersized to to the the zoning regulations.

We also try to do our best to make things less non conforming.

We don't want to make it more nonconforming than it is.

Um I don't know if that's a possibility for you.

If you want to, you know, if that's something that you be open to.

I get that the neighborhood is multifamily for the most part, but um I think that the eight variances that are being requested here, it's is trying to squeeze something big into a plot that uh you know may not work.

Thank you, Juan.

I mean, I I'm definitely you know open to doing you know two dwellings instead of three.

I to I I totally understand um where you guys are coming from.

I just you know maybe two family be reasonable.

Yeah.

More than a three three is too much for this particular lot.

That's my position, but the rest of the board can decide what they want to do.

But you know, it's uh it's hard to put single family in the middle of multifamily.

We understand that, but in the meantime, I don't want to make it too much over totally understand.

I am more than open to doing two.

I just felt we had the opportunity with the housing crisis that the city is going through that we could fit three.

But I am more than open to doing two.

I mean, in a perfect world, if we could put the parking lot in the back and and have enough room for emergency vehicle, that would make me completely happy.

I mean, I think that would be a safe a safe situation, you know.

But I mean uh somehow if you could design it so that we can get through.

Peter, uh thank you for that.

Um this might be a question uh for Sean, I don't know later or after, but I don't think we're able to do that.

And I because and I have experience with the units that we just did on Cottage Street, the next street over because when you do two families, you need to have so you need to start off with 12 feet and then you need to have 24 feet from the dwelling asphalt.

So of you know the la the law only being 44 feet, we won't be able to get the 24 feet.

Okay the home would be very very very narrow, very uh very hard to live in.

That's why we're requesting the front.

I if I could if the if the code was different, and if it was just 12, I would love to just go 12 all the way up a lot and put the parking in the rear, but it doesn't allow us to do that.

Yeah.

Well it's good to see somebody asking for the front and just doing it.

I see a lot of that.

So I you know I understand.

No, because we originally when we were designed it with you know New England, that was one of the first things we wanted to do.

Unfortunately, we can't.

Okay.

Any other question from the board?

This have one more uh.

But what size uh units were you planning on on building?

Is it two bedrooms, three bedrooms, one bedrooms?

Uh yeah, good question square footage.

So I I didn't um settle on like a square footage yet, but we're thinking about two to two to three bedrooms, two stories, and then the you know the or no, I'm sorry, I I could do three stories um no higher than the 35 feet um to to the racks.

So I haven't you know figured if I'm gonna go two or three yet.

All right, but definitely no higher than the uh 35 regulations.

All right.

And then my my next question then to follow up from what uh uh his answer was uh Sean.

If he's uncertain as to how big he wants to make these units.

And my question to you is just to make sure that I'm reading this correctly out of the regulation book, minimum law area per dwelling unit square footage for a three family would be thirty-seven hundred and fifty square feet.

And that's for the actual unit itself.

Okay.

So to then bring it back to you, you would have to then come up with a unit that would stay within that square footage.

If not, then you would have to have an add another variance to the application.

Correct.

So I just want to make sure that um just quick clarification.

So we're talking about the lot area though, oh lot area.

Lot area, not not unit size.

Okay, okay.

Strictly odd area.

All right.

But it is you're that's why I asked, I because I wanted to make sure that I I was reading it right.

Regs are designed for your intensity of use would dictate your lot width because you have more use in there.

And also the square footage a lot for the size, um, and that's where the variances are coming from.

So we've had a bunch of these come in front of you guys for lot widths.

And that's the idea why we increase the width is because the intensity of the use would require a wider lot.

And that's why it's coming around.

Okay.

I just wanted to make sure I was not misinterpreting.

Good question.

Yeah, good question.

And to help kind of clarify that one.

Yeah.

If we stuck with the same footprint footprint and we got rid of one and just two, it would be under the coverage.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Anyone in favor of this application?

There's nobody there.

Anyone in favor of this application?

Anyone in sub anyone in opposition to this application?

Anyone in opposition?

Uh nobody in opposition, nobody in favor.

So can we close it and open it?

I'm gonna say this, Mr.

Chairman.

Um Mr.

Nee James can you know uh opine on it uh whether you know he agrees with me or not.

I don't know what the rest of the board is feeling like and thinking.

I just personally don't feel comfortable approving something like this.

I'm willing to work with you as an applicant if you want to come back with something.

I I prefer that and I can then refer to Melissa and Sean on whether what the recourse would be.

But if Mr.

Nee James was willing to come back, and I again I don't know what the board is thinking.

Um I wouldn't be able or feel comfortable to pass this tonight.

But if Mr.

Knee James is willing to work with the the board and the city.

I don't know if it's prudent that we close the application.

Um through the chair.

If it's the board's intent to close this hearing and to deny it, um you can deny it without prejudice, which will keep the door open.

It wouldn't, since the change of use was what came in through the advertisement and the application, um, it cannot come back in as a two.

It would have to be a straight denial, and your options of the board is to you can prove it, you can deny it, or you can diet with prejudice.

Um and those are your options there.

I think it's it's it's we can't we have to we can't change the use on an application and we can't modify uses that are generated because of the use change.

Um sorry uh circumstances because of the use change, i.e.

square footage, frontage, front yard parking.

So it all is a big mixed bag here.

So but if the if the use of a three is not, it would be either you prove it, deny it, or deny it with deny it without prejudice, or just do a straight denial.

You can't we cannot continue it to come back for the throat to what end.

You can't come back as a two or a one.

You would have to be denied as a three and then have to come back in as a one and then reapply for a variance.

So you'd have to either if that's your intent.

Those are three options.

I'm not speaking for no one else here on the other.

Yeah, continuing it to one ed.

That's always asked.

What what's your goal by continuing it?

It can't mysteriously go up to a two because we got to re-advertise, so we'd have to.

So it would be either be a denial, deny without prejudice, um or an approval.

Uh well, I'm fine with then closing it.

Uh anyone else.

No, only I basically agree on that.

Okay, and we're we're still on a public hearing.

We're not in executive session, so just letting you note.

Okay.

Okay.

You want to close it?

I don't know if Mr.

Nijan wants to say anything.

I'm pretty thank you.

Oh no, I'm not sure.

You know, you are asking them if you want to come back with anything.

I spoke.

I just want to make it.

Okay.

So the I'm sorry, but the deny if they choose to deny without prejudice, Sean, do I come back?

The next meeting?

You'll come back at the next schedule meeting and come in, but the idea is to take the mindset from the board and come back appropriately.

So yes, you can come back in right away if it is denied without prejudice.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Mr.

Chairman, I'll uh I'll make a motion to close application 26-05.

Uh five clerk uh street from public hearing.

Second.

Motion made by Mr.

Rivas, seconded by Mr.

Delucia.

All in favor?

Aye.

Mr.

Chairman, I like to make a motion to open application 26-06 for uh for executive session and voting.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

Any discussion or making a motion or what?

I mean the board heard it in the public portion of the meeting.

My thoughts and feelings.

I'll let the rest of the board decide.

If anyone else thinks differently, you know, or more free to I just want to make sure basically we have three choices.

We approve one, two, deny with prejudice, or deny without prejudice.

Just straight up denial.

Just to clarify again.

So he he if he comes in with the same application, denying without prejudice aids him.

He's actually going to be coming in.

He could choose to come in with the same application.

So but denying it without prejudice will allow him to do that.

Just saying or denying would be a flat deny that he can't come in with the same app.

Yeah.

And then you can actually approve.

I don't know.

There's two people in the same line now.

It's not going to pass to you know.

Go ahead.

Anyone want to make a motion?

Go ahead.

Mr.

Chairman, I like uh like to make a motion to deny without prejudice application 26-06 5 Colour Street, N James Development R8 uh R3 zone, section uh four C three, reduce require a lot from eleven thousand two hundred square feet to nine thousand two hundred and seventy-five square feet, reduce minimum lot yard width uh from 100 feet to 45 feet, reduce yeah, westerly side yard setback from 15 feet to 8.5 feet, reduce easterly side yard setback from 15 feet to 4.7 feet and reduce minimum usable open space from 1,500 feet to square uh zero square feet, section 4G3A 2, eliminate required screening for parking, Section 4G3B1, and Section 8 C1C2, allow parking in required front yard, Section 8A2C four, allow grading within five feet of property line for the construction of a new three family dwelling.

Again, um the denials without prejudice.

Motion made by Mr.

Rivas.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

Delusia.

Take a roll call for vote and Mr.

Williamson.

Are you in favor or a motion?

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

William.

Mr.

Delucia.

Through the through the chair real quick.

Um, could you please give the reason for that you want to deny without prejudice?

Oh, okay.

So my reasoning is the hardship is not a result of particular circumstances of the site and was not created by the applicant or predecessor.

Excuse me, no.

Strike that for the record.

The hardship does not differ in kind from hardships imposed by these regulations or on other properties within the district, being that the property uh lot is similar to the other lots within the district.

I am concerned for the safety, health, and welfare of the community as well.

Um that's my reasoning is why.

We have to vote again or no?

No.

Just to put the denial on the record, you can say deny without prejudice, but the reason that Wanda stated fills the the the you'd have to state uh for the record, and that fills it.

If you want to recall the vote again, that that'd be fine.

Yeah.

Okay, Mr.

Williamson.

In favor?

Yes.

Yes.

I'm in favor of the motion.

Mr.

Delucia, Mr.

Rivas.

Um I'm in favor of the motion.

Okay.

Motion pass.

Denial with uh you can come back next week, whatever next meeting.

Okay.

You want Mr.

Chair.

Um so the applicant we will come in at the next legally able meeting.

We're gonna have to resubmit and re-advertise.

Please contact me on Monday, we'll go through it.

You want to make your motion to the continuation?

We have to make a motion for them.

Yes.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to continue applications 26-01 and 26-03.

Motion made by Mr.

Rivas.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

Delucia.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Motion to adjourn, or do you want to stay over?

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to adjourn.

Motion made by Mr.

Rivas.

Nobody?

Second by Mr.

Williams.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Good work.