Y'all ready to run through these?

Okay.

That's all right.

So we got four items tonight.

First item is a uh it's really just a lot consolidation from what I can see, but it falls under the lot split consolidation part of the code.

This was submitted actually before the May deadline, but the applicant wasn't available to attend the meeting.

Um so it is strangely the first time that the engineering review and then the subsequent revision of that plaid has gotten done before it's gotten to y'all.

So um there's three parcels at the corner of West 117th and Madison.

Um two different property owners.

This uh little tiny parcel right here actually is owned by the same ownership for this one, but they want to basically transfer it and then consolidate it with this parcel here.

Um so there's a representative for the two property owners, they agree to it.

The agreement and everything was in the drop box.

Um, and so it's pretty straightforward consolidation.

Um the engineering review was already done, they got the comments back, they work those comments into back into the revised plat that I put in the drop box.

Um I don't a lot of the times it's just like it's like the nomenclature and like parcel A, parcel B, some things that are missing or like labels and stuff like that that are missing.

It's um so I think they've sent this on to county for their like preliminary review before recording.

So I don't I don't see any issues right now.

Um recommending approval.

Second uh item is a uh it's another expansion of an existing nonconformity.

This is the second time you've seen North Coast Baptist Church.

Um the commission approved an expansion for ADA access to the for the church back in May of 2022.

Falls under Chapter 1149 and nonconformities.

Um you're familiar, it's it's it sits on a R2 underlying zoning there at the intersection of Thrush and Quail.

So this was the area that was enlarged following the approvals in 2002 for um this is like a ramp up for ADA access to get into the uh main part of the church.

What they're proposing is to um this is like a little shed right now, and there's a entryway back here.

They would like to enclose that and I can walk you through the all the reasons for expanding the kitchen or uh what they intend to do.

Um but from a zoning perspective, there you can see the shed from the adjacent street.

I think it's Robin.

From a zoning standpoint, you know, a non-conformity under 114903 can expand up to a maximum of 2,000 square feet or 20% of the existing floor area.

Um, and it's allowed the this kind of the subsequent or the connected uh requirements to that is that the side and rear yards had to be maintained at a minimum of 10 feet.

Um then it's doesn't that shouldn't have a substantial negative impact on the surrounding area.

Those are the main ones that apply.

So I tried to kind of throw it all on one slide.

I know there was discussion or at least a condition that talked about lot coverage for the last one.

Um I will just say from a zoning standpoint, my understanding of the lot coverage is kind of it's it's a lesser included or a it's an included consideration with the requirements under the nonconformity regulations.

So insofar as limiting it to 2,000 square feet of the existing gross floor area or 20%, and then maintaining those setbacks, the 10-foot setback, or that that's how the code interprets limiting lot coverage because what you can see on here is like the the church when it was built, it's already well over like the lot coverage for R2, and it'll never meet it.

It's already well over like the lot coverage for R2, and it'll never meet it.

Um the so the the original nonconformity was 3636 somewhere around there, so it was already a 50%.

The board approved the last expansion, which took it up to 54%.

This proposed expansion would only add two more percent lot coverage to that.

They are maintaining that required 10-foot minimal setback here.

Um this was something that he may talk to it, but I in they presented a couple of options for us to administrative to look at before they submitted the application, and one of them did go for they wanted a bigger kitchen, and I just I gave them the regulations and said you have to maintain a 10-foot setback on that.

They applied and grow and were granted BZA approval for this side yard variance to go down to it's like four and a half feet for that 2002 expansion.

So that side yard variance is not changing.

Um the rear, the rear yard towards Robin is not changing, uh, and they're maintaining that 10-foot setback requirement.

So if you considered this expansion kind of in the same set with the 2002 expansion, uh, they're still within the regulations.

It's it's under 2,000 square feet, it's under 20%.

It maintains the 10% setback.

And so I did not, I didn't see a reason pending discussion and commission's consideration.

I didn't see a reason to not uh move forward with this one.

Parking plan, this is the third request that I think we've seen in the last like year and a half, two years for a garage to be demoed and not replaced.

This is 1606 Woodward, it's R2 zoning.

A little unique, he'll walk you through it.

This garage was built in I think 1913.

It's 216 square feet according to the county records.

Um it also has a massive oak tree that has probably over the last hundred and ten years grown right next to it.

Um he was cited by the building department required to replace it, I think, in kind of discussions all the way up through prosecutors meeting, learned about the exceptions, the minimums, all those types of things, considering it.

And he he'll talk to you through his reasoning, whether it's financial, otherwise, um, on why he can't or does not want to replace this with an actual functional garage as required by the code.

Code requires uh one space per dwelling unit in that one space in a garage.

This is a I just pulled some street view of from 2009 was the earliest one, and then 2019, so you can see kind of how they park, the size of the driveway, the spacing and the lot, stuff that I know that came up in discussion in the Alameda garage case.