Good evening. Welcome to the board of zoning appeals, the July 8th meeting. For those of you who have not attended this meeting in the past, I'm going to give a little procedural brief to start. When a case is called, the city staff will have up to five minutes present their case, after which the applicant will and any of the representatives will have a total of five minutes present their position. Finally, the case will be open to public comments with each speaker limited to five minutes. Members of the public must fill out a speaker form before the record. The board may ask questions during any of these presentations. The response to the board, the questions do not count against the five minutes. However, speakers are asked to only respond to the question being asked and refrain from elaborating or restating their position or asking questions of the board. Once the public comment is closed, the board will deliberate on the case during which the board may ask additional questions. And as always, the speakers are asked to only respond to the question and refrain from further discussion. The BZA is a severed member board with a four member quorum. All motions must have for affirmative votes in order to pass regardless of the number of board members and attendance. Ms. Christensen, would you please call roll? Mr. Foley. Here. Mr. Patel. Here. Mr. Christensen, would you please call roll? Mr. Foley? Here. Mr. Patel? Here. Mr. Liu? Here. Ms. Evelyn? Here. Mr. Belmore? Here. And Ms. Bowman is participating remotely. Here. We have a quorum. Thank you. Okay, so, I guess the next on the agenda is any announcements. We don't have any announcements. Okay, and I don't believe we have any unfinished business, so we will go right to the first DACA item. the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I'm sorry. The applicant, you? Yes, you. Well, oh, no, I'm sorry. It's a city staff. I'm sorry. That's my mistake. City staff. That's right. I'm sorry. Good evening. Chair and board members, my name is Rachel Drescher with the Department of Planning and Zoning. Okay. Um. Presentation frozen. I guess I'm going to go. It's board. I did. Let's take that. the are aid and surrounded by residential dwellings. Presentation's not being shown. That all mine. I don't know if it's just unplugged in. Very much apologies. All right. All right. So the subject property of 401 Jackson Street is a corner lot. It contains 9,900 square feet of lot area. It has 132900 square feet of lot area. It has 132 feet of frontage along Woodrow, and Terrace and 75 feet of frontage along Jackson Place. Corner lots within the R8 zone require 80 feet of frontage making this lot substandard regarding lot frontage along Jackson Place. The existing dwelling is currently non-compliant with respect to the side yard setback to the northwest. The height of the existing dwelling facing the northwest property line is 24.96 feet, which requires a setback of 12.48 feet based on the required one to two setback ratio. The dwelling currently sits 10 feet from the northwest property line. The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story addition located to the rear of the existing dwelling and in line with the existing wall of the dwelling. The addition would be 1,216 square feet of floor area and the height of the proposed addition would be 21.38 feet. Based on the one-to-two setback ratio, this proposed height of 21.38 feet requires a minimum setback of 10.69 feet from the northwest side property line. The addition is proposed to be 10 feet from this property line requiring relief of 0.69 feet. The staff is recommending denial of this request because it does not meet all the standards for a special exception. Section 11-1403E requires that the proposal is the only reasonable means to accommodate the proposed addition. In this case, the addition could be reconfigured or reduced to comply with the setback, including reducing the height to comply with the one to two setback ratio, or the addition could be setback another 0.69 feet to comply with the ratio. And I'm happy to answer staff. Is the 0.69 feet the only reason why this was recommended for denial? It was the recommendation for denial is because we've staff feels there are other design or an alternative they could push in the wall, 0.69 feet to comply with the standard. Is 0.69 feet approximately nine inches roughly a little bit? A supplement earlier today with a letter in support. Were there any objections from people who lived close by or neighbors? Nope, we do not hear anything. Were the neighbors notified? Yes. Rachel, I have a question. In the report, the staff report says there are other reasonable means for the addition to be constructed on the property. The applicant references due to the fairly steep slope of the site a couple times in the application was the fairly steep slope of the site considered it all by city staff. So we felt like the 0.69 feet that alteration was small enough that building out into where the slope is of the property, which would have been the front yard of the Linterist was not relevant to our decision. Okay, if there are no further questions, before we go on, Ms. Bauman, I know you're online. Do you have any questions? I'm not sure if that's the question. Okay. If there are no further questions before we go on, Ms. Bowman, I know you're online. Do you have any questions? Thank you, Tim. My follow-up question to the last question is. What information did the city use to make that last determination that that the that it would be reasonable to just make a minor change to the plan and to the structure. So the addition is a rear addition. So it's not an addition that's gonna be constructed on the second story. So they're not building in line with the wall, the current walls upwards. It's rear additions. in the world. So, I think it's a very important story. So, they're not building in line with the wall, the current walls upwards. It's rear additions. There's a little bit more flexibility to being able to design that rear addition, how they would like. So, our thought process is that the wall could be moved in, I'm just gonna... Similar to how part of the addition here is pushed in in order to meet the comply with the standard. Thank you. So the non-conforming lot is something that existed that allowed the original house to be built that exceeds the setback or was this a setback if I read correctly, came about in 1951. So the current setback would be for the 1990 or 1951 ordnance and then the 1992 ordinance carried over that same setback. This dwelling was constructed prior to those regulations. Okay. Were there any meetings with staff prior to this evening to discuss what your issue would and is? Among staff know among the yes. Yes I guess to the extent of board recommends approval. Would there be any conditions staff may be willing to entertain or would want as part of that approval? I would recommend any further conditions. Clear. Fire. Where is the exact where exactly on the diagram is the side to set back. This set back from here to here. That's what word. How many? Oh, so this would be the side set back that is all along the neighboring property. Woodland is here and then down here is Jackson. Thank you. I have one more question Rachel. May not last the same of the applicant when they come up, but has 403 Jackson Place been in touch with the city at all? Yeah. Okay, with no further questions, let's move on to the applicants and their presentation. Hi, good evening. I'm Andy Lynch. One of the 200s of the house with my wife Stephanie. And thanks for considering our request. I have a few points that I can make, but really available to answer questions at any point in time. So interrupt me. We have spoken to all of the neighbors who had to be notified and spoken to several other neighbors as well, and all of them are supportive. Several have seen the plans and we sat down with them. And they're supportive of the addition. They think it'll be a nice addition for the corner lot. And a addition that isn't keeping with the neighborhood, it's going to be a nice brick addition that will match very well with the existing house. Rachel mentioned moving it, nine inches towards Woodland and that there's already a little bump in the air in the plan. And I just wanted to point out that there's already a little bump in there in the plant. And I just wanted to point out that those bumpings were the architect's idea in order to create so that we didn't have to have a seam in the brick work between the old house and the new house. And so there's just a little indentation that's two feet wide. That's going to be non-bric. And then the rest of it will be brick. So think of it as a connecting piece that we thought would be good for the plan to have a little difference between the old brick and the new brick. So we spoke into the neighbors, they're supportive. We've spoken to Northridge Community Association. I described it to him. He was asked a few questions that no issue as far as as far as they're concerned at all. I do think we're asking for a very small exception. And it's due to the fact that there's only 10 feet between the house that was built in 1933 and what we're trying to add to now. So we don't think it's a big, I mean it's a small exception if you view it that way. What we're asking for is to just go straight back on that line. And again, we feel like that is architecturally appropriate and simple and would continue the lines of the house and that and this by the way popped up late in the process. We didn't recognize until we went in and applied for the permits that we had this issue. And it popped up because of the slope of the yard and those measurements. So when it popped up, we looked at, well, should we change something? And we just came to the conclusion that it was better to come ask for an exception because we thought moving things away from that setback line would throw off the architecture from the outside and even more importantly from the inside because as you can see from the front door, straight back through the hallway because as you can see from the front door, straight back through the hallway and the proposed addition is, it's a fairly narrow space and to move it over, we think, would interfere with the flow of that in a fashion that just isn't reasonable or necessary. So those are the highlights and happy to answer any questions. If I remember correctly, there's a wall of either brick wall or wooden fence or something that runs, if will down the property line is that correct? There's a yes, there's a brick wall at the 10 foot line that we're talking about and is that will extend All the way to the end of the proposed Edition it it extends the whole length of the property it sends back to the garage. Okay, which is The very rear of the property. Eight sends back to the garage. Okay. Which is the very rear of the property. Right. So, if I'm looking at this correctly, then the variance is actually not visible to anyone. not visible to anyone. Because of the wall, the neighbors adjacent to you on the left there wouldn't see. It's a very low wall. The wall that I think is coming in. I'm not talking about the height. I'm talking about the fact that it's nine inches over what the regulation says that it should be. And not sure I'm understanding. Just that the vertical wall between yourself and the other neighbor, obviously they'll see the height of it. But the fact that it is nine inches wider is not really anything that is visibly detected because they can't see where the old wall is and where the new wall is supposed to be. Well, again, I'm not sure. I 100% follow you, but I think that the neighbors on that side at 403, they will be able to... They can see the wall of our existing house and they will be able to see the wall of this addition. They're not opposed to what we're doing. They think it's going to be pretty. My answer would be, it's going to make zero difference to them, whether that wall is nine inches further away from them, then if it's flush. Right. It's just going to make no difference. In fact, I think it's going to look, it if it's flush. Right. Which is going to make no difference. In fact, I think it's going to look, it would look worse. OK. Thank you. How long have you lived at this property? 25 years. It was built in 33, and we're only the third owners, which is kind of amazing. And I would just reinforce that I think this nine inches is the only issue that the staff has identified as being questionable for compliance and the reason that we're here. Just to clarify, in turn nine inches is taken up by the staircase. Is that correct? I'm sorry. The nine inches that's going over is taken up by the stairwell. Like going beyond that red line. That's. No, I can't answer that question. The stairs are below a grade going to the basement. And those are actually a permitted obstruction in a required yard. It's actually the wall in the dark black line, the wall there that is in line with the existing front building wall or side of the front building wall. That's in question. this one. Mr. Lynch, I don't believe we've been timing you, however, or maybe Mr. Christensen has. Do you have any further comments or presentation like you'd like to give? I don't, I mean my final comment would be that it doesn't seem reasonable to us to move that wall one foot or two feet or five feet, be met because it's reasonable to have it go straight back from the existing house, and it affects both the outside appearance and very importantly, the inside flow of the hallways of the downstairs, the first floor and the second floor. I guess we were timing. Yeah. There we go. Mr. Williams, thank you for your presentation. Thank you. To the board members, do we have any further questions to the applicant? Did the architect wish to speak. I guess I have one for you, Mr. Lynch. If this variance wasn't approved, walk us through, would you, was the project scrapped, or would you make the changes to fit within the requirements? We haven't made that decision, frankly. We've been working on these plans for a long time, and I think there's a commitment to having a modern great room and a modern master bedroom, but whether we would go back to square one or move the house of foot or two, the addition of foot or II, we don't know. Thank you. And this is John. Can I ask a follow-up question to that? Go ahead, Mr. Bowman. And this is to the applicant and maybe to the architect. What is the financial implication if this special exception was denied? What are the financial implications of changing the plans and accommodating the, accommodating the requirements that would require a special exception. Okay. Anyone able to put a dollar amount on that? I'm Karen Becker, Becker Architects. I don't think I could put a dollar amount on it. I mean, obviously it's my fees to change the drawings at this point that are 100% complete as well as the structural engineers. So there's that expense, but I couldn't give you an exact number in terms of the actual construction cost. I don't know that there would be a change necessarily in that. But again, you know, that's something we'd have to talk to the contractor about. Is there an expense related to the sloping as well? I mean, maybe a minor expense if we have to move the house closer to Woodland Terrace, just because the slope, it drops off fairly quickly from the northwest side to the north, or to the southeast side. So maybe a little bit more in foundation work on that side of the house. I'm talking to a box. Um. Does that help? Thank you. I do have some other points if I can. Uh, no, you're, um, you're part of the applicants. So, um, you'd have to be asked the question at this point. Okay. In order to to be asked the question at this point in order to give further presentation. Oh, okay. I'll ask the question. What was it that you wanted the point? What point were you going to make? Thank you. Well, I think the fact that the the lot does slope fairly, it has a fairly steep slope. And when you're forced to use that requirement of average pre-construction grade to measure the height of the building, you are in this particular case because of that slope, we are penalized for that. We're not measuring the height of the building at that side of the building. We're measuring the average all the way around the building. And because the slope is so drastic on the woodland terrace side, it's much lower. So the further we push the house towards woodland terrace, the worse that condition gets. The lower the average pre-construction grade gets, the higher the step back, the one to two ratio. So we keep going down the slope, it means it's gotta even push further over. So I think that's a unique condition to the site. Some of the other unique conditions are the fact that there is a very large magnolia tree on the woodland terrace side that we would really like to protect, which is one of the reasons we didn't push that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's gonna be gone. So that was one of the issues. Miss Becker, I- Am I over? Well, you weren't really given the time and I feel like you're starting to go down the path of missing the word right now. But, okay. She asked. Do you have particular questions from Ms. Becker? I was just curious to understand what the architects point of view was with regard to making some of the changes that we were potentially suggesting. Well, I can answer that too. Go ahead. If I can. If I may. Some of the suggestions were to rotate the roof to calculate the height to the eve instead of the gable. I don't even think that's an option. I think if you look at the code at the zoning ordinance 2-154, the height is measured to the midpoint between the eaves and the ridge from average pre-construction grade regardless of orientation of Gable to Street. So I don't think that's an option. Lower the roof was a suggestion. Lowering the roof would render the second floor unusable. We wouldn't have the head height that they need. I mean, we're already lowering the roof from the existing house. So, and there are parts of this second floor now that are below, well below seven feet. I would say six and a half feet. But to lower the roof to the point where this one to two step back is going to work, they're not going to have head height on the second floor. So that's not an option Aligning with the indented portion on the northwest side as Andy pointed out the whole point of that Indent was to create a kind of a separation between the existing house and the addition I called it a hyphen. I mean it's a well-used design idea in this industry. It's a way to respect the existing house while we want the addition to not match, but to be in keeping with the existing house. But we know it's not going to be exactly the same. The bricks aren't going to be exactly the same. The bricks aren't going to be exactly the same. The windows aren't going to be exactly the same. That house was built in 1933. So we're trying to create a little bit of a relief between the existing house and the addition. And that's what the idea of those indents were supposed to be to just take the wall and move it over to that. It's architecturally just not, it wouldn't be pleasing, I don't think. And then, I mean, reducing the size of the addition, yeah, I guess that's an option, but it's, I mean, it's not a very large addition in today's standards. It's, you know, we're doing a family room kitchen and a master bedroom, I'm sorry, a primary bedroom and bathroom. That's it. It's not like trying to do some huge addition here. I guess that's it. Do you think the question was answered? Try to, thank you. Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Go ahead, question. Karen, I have a quick question. Can you walk us through the design process or perhaps the process with city staff of any changes that you have made to fit within the zoning ordinance? Anything that you've done while designing this that may have changed it to fit within? Well, as Andy mentioned, we didn't even find out about this until we submitted for permit. So, no, we didn't meet with staff until after this was caught. So, no, I mean, we've looked at probably six or seven iterations of this design going out closer to Whitlam Terrace, you know, going further back. of this design going out closer to Whitland Terrace, you know, going further back, and we just felt, I mean, we've been working on this for what, three years now. So we just feel like this was the solution that met all of, you know, my clients' requirements. It was aesthetically pleasing. It was within their budget. All the neighbors seemed to agree that it's not going to be a blight on their neighborhood. So no, we didn't make any changes with staff, so. Okay. Do we have any further questions? Ms. Bowman, do you have any questions? I have a question for staff. Is this the appropriate time? Or should I wait? You can ask a question to staff if you'd like. Right, thank you. So this is for staff. So in, I understand the house at 401 Jackson Place is higher than the proposed addition place is higher than the proposed addition at this location. Can you tell me why that's the case? How that happened? Just to make sure I understand. You're asking where the existing dwelling is taller than the proposed addition? No, there's an adjacent house and this was in Miss Becker, the architect, her testament, her testimony letter saying that they're because of the gradient of the neighborhood, there's an adjacent house at 401 Jackson Place. That's much higher than the proposed addition of this house. And I was just curious to know how that happened. Was that a special exception? So I believe because 403 is on, the 401 Jackson Place is on the lower part of the hill. And 403, the street slopes. So it slopes down towards Woodland, Harris. So 401 is sitting at the base of the hill. And 403, it was gonna be taller. I guess based on the slope of the hill, cause it's sitting top taller on the hill. I think. Okay, thank you. Thanks. Okay, with no further questions, we will move to speakers, public speakers, but I believe the only two speaker forms I have are Mr. Andy Lynch and Ms. Caram Becker who are applicants or in the applicant category. So with that, we will close the speaker and move to board deliberations. So, members of the board, whenever you'd like to deliberate? Yes, kind of going off with Don said earlier, I think, you know, the fact that the extension is lower than the existing structure, lower than the adjacent property, you know, the neighbors have complained. You know, we've heard about the slope issue kind of being unfair metric where they have to abide by this side regulation. I would generally support approval, especially it's also nine inches. I'm not sure if it's kind of a strict liability type of standard from the city or if there's discretion in this but 0.69 feet without any objections or anybody around, it doesn't seem fair to the landowners to have to spend any extra money or have their project timeline kind of extended to the extent, you know, they may have to do that. Yeah, just... I just can't put my finger on any reasons... for denial, you know, in this case. I... Chipotle, can I add to that? Sure, go ahead, Ms. Bowman. Thank you. So, you know, when we're looking at the... I'm sure it's going to be a lot of work. So when we're looking at the criteria number five, which is reasonable means and location on the lot to accommodate the proposed structure given the natural constraints of the lot or the existing development on the lot. So the existing development on the lot. So the existing development already has, already has height that is over the requirements, I believe, and the natural slope of the lot. I think the accommodations that would need to be made to deal with the natural constraints and the existing development on the lot. I think the change, the scheme, is unreasonable. So I believe that this does represent the only reasonable approach to accommodating what the applicant is looking for, given the proposed structure and natural constraints of this lot. Thank you, Ms. Bowman. Yes, I agree with the comments that have been made previously. I think it's unfortunate that the architectural firm did not investigate that a little bit further. So the homeowner wouldn't be going through this, so we wouldn't be going through this. I do think that Ms. Baumann's comments with regard to the existing typography that we're dealing with, the fact that it's already the term, the substandard lot, the fact that it is not extruding beyond the existing wall of the house that has been there since, would you say the 30s or something like that, I don't see where nine inches on a side wall that, you know, visually is going to make any sort of impact that should lead to a denial of this. Are you coming this way? I'm going to go ahead and get a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a hear more of a plan that they did try to find a way or present or work with the city to fit within the means. I do not believe that if it was denied, that it would affect the quality of the life of the applicants, that's just a couple of quick thoughts that I think it is possible to be within the means of zone ordinances. I think the architect has made a fairly strong case for sort of sort of like a special perhaps like a hardship if this application would be denied. neighbors at all, nor the character of the neighborhood, so it's just from sort of like a consequentialist perspective. I don't think it would be like a good grounds to deny. In terms of the others, you know, special exceptions that we've seen in the past, I feel like this application seems fairly reasonable. And from my perspective, I think we should approve it. I think I've heard from every board member. And I guess now, if there's no one that would like to return to any particular points of discussion, then I would be looking for a motion. Chair. I'll make a motion that we approve the variance. Okay, before I accept that motion, we go to second. Because approval would mean we're going against staff's recommendation. I'd like to, for the record, make it clear why we are going against the staff's recommendation on its on item number five of the criteria. And, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, or we go with the vote, I want to hear from you why you want to make the motion to what the rationale is behind going against staff. And I would just ask for further clarification. This is a special exception, not a variance, just for the record. Thanks. Thank you. How does special exception and variance I'm not sure if that's the question. How does special exception and variance? What's the difference there? They have a completely different set of standards. These standards in the staff report are for a special exception. Ferryances have a much higher threshold for approval. Okay, so for this one, what I heard was that the board believes that one for the amount of space that they would have to move, that the costs would be unreasonable. I also heard that the moving the wall and keeping it out of line with the rest of the house would be unreasonable to change and it would be, it would need to be in line with the rest of the architecture to look correctly. The third thing I heard was that the, that the architects case about moving it with, in relation to the slope and how no matter where you moved it it would be It would have to be Continuously moved and there would be a If we moved it a little bit then it would have to be moved even more and that that was unreasonable or lowering the roof was reasonable because the way the architecture would be and how that would be impacted from a functionality and from a aesthetic standpoint. So did I miss anything else? Impact to the tree I think was one of the other issues that came up with why it couldn't just be removed but definitely a functionality. It's just not reasonable to make it any shorter or you don't have the room to stand up or to essentially use the space. And while we have just one official letter from a neighbor, we had no neighbors in objection. OK. So I think we've captured the rationale behind that motion for going against staff's recommendation. So do I hear a second to the motion for approval? I'll second the motion. John. Thank you. We have two seconds. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. That. Aye. That's six eyes. All opposed, same sign. None opposed. So we have six affirmative. So the request from the applicant passes. And we will move on to the next DAC. The next item is consideration of the minutes from the June 10th, 2024, Board of Zoning Appeals hearing. Okay, forgive me. I forget who is now the secretary yet. Okay, Mr. Patel. Did you review the minutes? Yes. And do you recommend that we accept the minutes? I do. Okay, with that recommendation, all in favor of that recommendation to approve the minutes, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And all opposed, same side. We actually actually need emotion to put the minutes Okay, I'll move to prove the minutes. Do we have a second to prove the minutes? I will second approval of the minutes. Okay, and we are evoted on it. So we're good There's no other additional business great so the board of zoning appeals is now adjourned. Thank you all for coming.