[ CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:05]
THE TIME IS 5:45 PM ON OCTOBER 13TH, 2025.
I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ORDER.
A QUICK CHECK FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS IN PERSON.
HAS EVERYBODY SIGNED THE SIGN IN SHEET? I'LL PICK IT UP FOR ME IN A MINUTE.
AND COREY ARCHER MCCLELLAN HERE.
COREY, WHICH LAST NAME AM I SUPPOSED TO USE AGAIN? MCCLELLAN.
I'LL HAVE IT IN ONE MORE MEETING, I PROMISE.
AND MADAME CHAIR, YOU'RE HERE.
I'M YOUR CHAIR AND I'M, I'M HERE.
A COUPLE OF QUICK HOUSE MEETING NOTES FOR THE AUDIENCE, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES OR PUT THEM ON VIBRATE.
AFTER YOUR CASE IS OVER, PLEASE TAKE ANY DISCUSSION OUT TO THE LOBBY.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN EITHER EMAIL THE BOARD LIAISON OR GIVE HER A CALL TOMORROW WHEN YOU'RE ADDRESSING THE BOARD.
AND THIS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT TONIGHT.
YOU SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD.
IF THERE'S OPPOSITION, YOU GUYS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK.
THE BOARD USUALLY TAKES A BREAK FOR ABOUT, UH, 10 MINUTES AT EIGHT O'CLOCK.
I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA NEED THAT TONIGHT.
SO WHEN YOU DROVE INTO THE PARKING GARAGE DOWN BELOW, YOU SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN A LITTLE PIECE OF PAPER WITH THE QR CODE ON IT.
THERE IS A SECOND PIECE OF PAPER HERE BY THE ENTRANCE WITH ANOTHER QR CODE ON IT.
PLEASE GRAB ONE OF THOSE WHEN YOU LEAVE.
YOU'LL SCAN THE FIRST ONE AND THE SECOND ONE, AND THAT WILL VALIDATE YOUR PARKING.
MOVING ON TO ANYONE WHO IS GOING TO BE SPEAKING BEFORE THE BOARD TONIGHT.
I NEED YOU TO PLEASE RISE SO I CAN GET YOUR OATH FOR TESTIMONY.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE TONIGHT WILL BE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THERE IS NO PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
[ APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
ONE, WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2025.I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
FOR THE MINUTES, THIS IS MOTION TO APPROVE TOMMY YATES.
I TOLD YOU I NEED TO WRITE A MENTION.
[2. C15-2025-0035 Bob Kaler and Carol Journeay (Appellant) Kateryna Luschchenko (Owner) 205 E. 34" Street ]
INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING.SO WE'RE GONNA START WITH ITEM TWO, MADAM CHAIR.
UM, WE NEED TO DO POSTPONEMENTS AND WITHDRAWALS.
POSTPONEMENTS AND WITHDRAWALS.
AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE ONE, UM, ITEM FOUR C 16 DASH 2025 DASH 0 0 0 5 4700 WIMAR LANE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT TO THE NOVEMBER 10TH MEETING.
[00:05:01]
REASON GIVEN HE IS HERE, VIEW ONE.THIS IS A PREVIOUS POSTPONED SIGN CASE.
WHAT WAS THE LAST POSTPONEMENT? DID WE DO THAT OR DID THEY REQUEST IT? WE DID IT.
SO I THINK IN ORDER TO BE FAIR, TREVOR SAID, I'M NOT PARTICIPATING IN THIS CASE.
UM, I'M INCLINED TO MAKE A MOTION TO GRANT POSTPONEMENT TO THE NOVEMBER 10TH, 2025 MEETING.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS OR OPPOSITION? OKAY.
THEN WE WILL POSTPONE ITEM FOUR TO THE NOVEMBER 10TH, 2025 MEETING.
IS THAT THE ONLY ONE FOR POSTPONEMENT OR WITHDRAWAL? YES, MA'AM.
SO WE'RE GOING TO BE BEGINNING WITH ITEM TWO C 15 20 25 0 0 3 5.
BOB KEER AND CAROL JENA, UH, ARE THE APPELLANT AND KATERINA CHENKO IS THE OWNER.
BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, ARE THERE ANY REQUESTS FOR POSTPONEMENTS OR ISSUES OF STANDING THAT ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO RAISE? OKAY.
SEEING NONE WILL BEGIN WITH THE REPORT FROM THE CITY STAFF.
THAT'S JUST SO PEOPLE CAN'T, THERE IS NO THE ANYMORE.
YOU GET TO GET BEHIND THE GIANT BARRICADE.
IT'S KEEP THE CUTE CITIZENS OVER THERE.
I, I GUESS THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME ISSUE.
BRETT LLOYD, DSD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND, UH, APPRECIATE THE BOARD'S ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.
UM, I'M GONNA GIVE A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THE WHAT ARE, I THINK SOME OF THE PRIMARY ISSUES.
I ALSO WANT TO EMPHASIZE AT THE OUTSET THAT WE, UH, DSD RECOGNIZES THAT THERE WERE ERRORS, UM, MADE IN THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR THIS.
AND SO WE WANT TO WORK WITH THE BOARD AND THE AFFECTED CITIZENS TO ENSURE THAT THESE ERRORS ARE FIXED.
AND WE'LL, WE'LL BE AVAILABLE AFTER OUR PRESENTATION AND AFTER YOU HEAR FROM THE INTERESTED PARTIES.
UH, SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I THINK THERE ARE GONNA BE SOME MORE ISSUES OTHER THAN THE ONES THAT I TOUCH ON RIGHT NOW.
SO, UM, THE ITEMS BEFORE THE BOARD IS A THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL IS A THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL USE SUBJECT TO THE 0.4 FLORIDA AREA RATIO ESTABLISHED IN THE NORTH UNIVERSITY, NCCD FOR DUPLEX AND TWO RESIDENTIAL USES WHERE THE SETBACK AVERAGING REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED IN THE NCCD ADHERED TO WAS THE NCCD SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIRING A STRUCTURE TO BE 10 FOOT FROM AN ADJOINING PROPERTY STRUCTURE ADHERED TO.
AND THEN OTHER ISSUES THAT THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED, UM, SINCE THE APPEAL WAS FILED, BUT I THINK ARE PROPERLY, UH, BEFORE THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT YOU UPHOLD THE PLAN APPROVAL WITH RESPECT TO THE FAR, UM, BUT YOU ALSO REQUIRE THAT MODIFICATIONS BE MADE TO ADDRESS THE FRONT YARD AVERAGING AND THE SIDE YARD SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS.
AND AGAIN, BASED ON TESTIMONY THAT YOU'LL HEAR TONIGHT, AND QUESTIONS THAT MYSELF OR THE CITY'S LEAD RESIDENTIAL ZONING REVIEWER, LEAH HILTON, WHO'S ALSO HERE.
UM, BASED ON THAT, THOSE QUESTIONS AND THE ANSWERS WE PROVIDE, YOU MAY WANT TO ADD OTHER ITEMS TO THIS LIST OF MODIFICATIONS AS WELL.
AND WE'RE, WE'RE CERTAINLY OPEN TO THAT.
UM, THE INITIAL APPLICATION WAS FILED JUNE 12TH, UH, APPROVED, AUGUST 14TH.
THE APPEAL WAS FILED AUGUST 27TH, AND THE APPEAL WAS ACCEPTED ON SEPTEMBER 3RD.
THE NORTH UNIVERSITY, UH, NCCD WAS ADOPTED
[00:10:01]
IN 2004.IT WAS UPDATED IN 2007, 2008 AND 2011.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF THE NCCD.
UM, IN GENERAL, REQUIREMENTS OF AN NCCD APPLY TO DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND ARE CONTROLLING OVER LESS RESTRICTIVE PROVISIONS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
HOWEVER, UH, THE NCCD REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY SPECIFICALLY TO DUPLEXES TO FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY USES ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THREE UNIT USES, WHICH ARE REGULATED UNDER THE HOME ORDINANCE.
UH, THAT'S CODIFIED AT 25 2 7 7 3.
UM, SO THE FFR FAR APPLICABILITY, UM, ARE, IT'S OUR POSITION TONIGHT THAT THE, UM, FAR APPROPRIATE FAR IS THE 0.65 LIMIT THAT'S ESTABLISHED FOR THREE UNIT USES UNDER THE HOME ORDINANCE AND NOT THE 0.4 LIMIT THAT'S ESTABLISHED FOR DUPLEX USES AND TWO FAMILY USES UNDER THE NCCD
UM, I'M GONNA BREEZE PAST THAT.
UM, FRONT YARD, UH, AVERAGING FRONT YARD SETBACK AVERAGING.
SO THE NCCD REQUIREMENT, THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK EQUALS THE AVERAGE OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS OF THE PRINCIPAL SINGLE FAMILY BUILDINGS ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET OF A BLOCK.
SO BASED ON THAT, WE WOULD BE LOOKING, WE SHOULD HAVE, DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS, OUR STAFF SHOULD HAVE LOOKED AT THE ADDRESSES THAT ARE LISTED THERE.
UM, AND AGAIN, THAT WAS ONE OF THE DISCREPANCIES THAT OCCURRED, UNFORTUNATELY DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS.
SO THE FRONT SETBACK, UH, IN THE SECOND PLAN REVIEW CYCLE WAS, UM, 15 FEET AND SIX INCHES AS WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER SEVEN, UH, SEVEN THREE B TWO.
HOWEVER, THE NCCD SUPERSEDES THAT REQUIREMENT AND THE SETBACK PLACEMENT WAS REJECTED.
THE FRONT YARD SETBACK SETBACK WAS SET AT 23 FEET AND EIGHT INCHES IN THE APPROVED PLAN SET.
UM, HOWEVER, THE SETBACK DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE AVERAGE SETBACK REQUIRED FOR THIS BLOCK, WHICH IS 24 FEET, UM, AND EIGHT INCHES.
SO ADDITIONALLY, THE ORIGINAL SURVEY SHOWN ABOVE ONLY ACCOUNTED FOR TWO OF THE FOUR SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES IN THE SAME BLOCK.
AND AS I JUST INDICATED, IT'S REQUIRED TO ACCOUNT FOR FOUR.
SO, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT SINCE THE APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A SURVEY PERFORMED BY A REGISTERED SURVEYOR SHOWING ALL THE REQUIRED PROPERTIES AND ESTABLISHING THE AVERAGE SETBACK FOR THE BLOCK IS 24 UH, FEET AND EIGHT INCHES.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDS, UM, MODIFYING THE APPROVAL TO REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT A REVISION TO PLAN REVIEW, TO MOVE THE STRUCTURES TO COMPLY WITH THE SETBACK AVERAGE, UM, THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED.
UM, ADDITIONALLY, THE NCCD REQUIREMENTS, UM, IN ADDITION TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ESTABLISHED IN PART SEVEN OF THE ORDINANCE, NEW PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ARE REQUIRED TO BE AT LEAST 10 FEET FROM A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON AN ADJACENT LOT.
THE APPROVED PLOT PLAN SHOWS, UH, 10 FEET, UM, WHAT IS THAT 6.5 INCHES SEPARATION ALONG ALONG THE, UM, SIDE YARD BETWEEN THE EXISTING HOUSE AT 2 0 7 EAST 34TH STREET, AND BUILDING ONE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UM, SINCE THE APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A SURVEY PERFORMED BY A TEXAS REGISTERED SURVEYOR WITH THE CORRECT LOCATION OF THE ADJACENT STRUCTURE AT 2 0 7 EAST 34TH STREET.
THE ADJACENT STRUCTURE IS AN EXISTING NON-COMPLIANT STRUCTURE LOCATED IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING, UH, THAT THE BOARD REQUIRE MODIFYING STAFF'S APPROVAL SO THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TO SUBMIT A REVISION TO PLAN REVIEW TO MOVE THE STRUCTURE TO AT LEAST 10 FEET FROM THE CITED LOCATION ON THE ADJACENT PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE.
UM, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS FOR NOW AND AGAIN, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR SOME ADDITIONAL ISSUES THAT THE, UM, APP, UH, THE INTERESTED PARTIES HAVE RAISED AND WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTION QUESTIONS OF THE BOARD IN RESPONSE TO THOSE ISSUES.
AND I'M ALSO AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
NOW, MAY I, VICE CHAIR HOR, MR. LLOYD, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER, BUT IN 2021 WE DID A INTERPRETATION CASE ON THIS NCCD AND IT WAS IN RELATION TO PARKING AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THERE IS ADDITIONAL
[00:15:01]
PARKING REQUIRED OVER, UH, SO MANY BEDROOMS. AND WHILE THERE'S, THERE WAS A MODIFICATION TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT THERE ARE NONE ANYMORE, THAT STILL LIES WITHIN THE NCCD.DO YOU FEEL THAT IS APPLICABLE AT THIS TIME? WE DO NOT.
AND I WILL, I WILL DOUBLE CHECK, UM, WHILE THE INTERESTED PARTIES ARE SPEAKING, BUT WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THAT AND I DON'T THINK THE, THERE, IT IS TRUE THAT THERE ARE PLACES WHERE THE NCCD CAN BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND PARKING STILL IS REQUIRED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, WHICH I, I REMEMBER THAT APPEAL.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS TRIGGERED HERE.
I, IT'S JUST A QUESTION IN MY MIND.
I MEAN, IF WE'RE GONNA UNPACK IT, LET'S UNPACK IT.
UH, THANK YOU MR. LA JUST FOR REFERENCE, THAT'S GOING TO BE C 15 20 21 0 0 0 9.
LET US MOVE ON TO A PRESENTATION FROM THE APPEALING PARTY OR THE REPRESENTATIVE.
THERE WILL BE A TIME LIMIT OF 10 MINUTES WITH NO DONATION OF TIME.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
I AM AN ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANT.
AND I THINK I'LL BE GOOD ON TIME 'CAUSE I PLAN FOR FIVE MINUTES.
SO I THINK YOU'RE IN IT FOR A TREAT.
SO I'M REPRESENTING THE APPELLANT IN THIS MATTER.
THEY ARE THE ADJACENT LANDOWNERS.
UM, THIS APPEAL SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AND THE PERMIT RESCINDED PARTIALLY BECAUSE AS CITY STAFF JUST ACKNOWLEDGE, UM, THEY, THE APPEAL HAS, UH, THEY'VE AFFIRMED THE VALIDITY OF THE APPEAL, AT LEAST FOR TWO OF THE ISSUES AND AGREED THAT THE PERMIT WAS INAPPROPRIATELY APPROVED.
WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE BOARD TO DO IS GO AHEAD AND RESCIND THIS 'CAUSE THIS CASE HAS GOT A LOT OF OTHER ISSUES THAT REALLY NEED TO BE RESOLVED.
UM, REALISTICALLY, THIS CASE SHOULDN'T BE BEFORE YOU BECAUSE IT WAS IMPROPERLY SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
UM, THE APPLICATION THAT WAS USED, UM, ACTUALLY HAS TWO DIFFERENT NAMES.
UH, THE BUILDING PLANS WERE SIGNED OFF BY AN ALIAS OF THE OWNER, ANNA HENDRICKS, UM, WHO IS NOT A DESIGNER.
AND SO THIS NEVER, UH, WAS ACTUALLY, UH, APPROVED BY, UH, AN ARCHITECT UNTIL LATER.
YOU GOT THE PLAN SET AND EVEN THEN YOU HAVE, UM, ISSUES WITH THE ARCHITECT SEAL BEING MANIPULATED AND ADDED TO THE, UH, PLAN SET WITHOUT THE ARCHITECT'S KNOWLEDGE OR APPROVAL.
UM, THE ENGINEER THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CASE ALSO HAS SAID THAT, UM, THESE PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED DO NOT REFLECT THE ENGINEER'S, UH, PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED.
YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE DISCREPANCIES IN THE PLAN SET, WHICH WE CAN GET TO A LITTLE BIT LATER.
UM, AND THE PLANS ARE OWNED BY AN ARCHITECTURAL COMPANY THAT HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF THIS.
THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WAS STOLEN FOR THIS PROJECT.
SO WHAT REALLY IS, WAS THE ISSUE HERE IS THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THE PLAN AND HOW IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE THE PROPER PROCESS WAS NOT APPROVED.
UM, AND THAT THE, UM, CERTIFICATE OF, UH, UM, COMPLETENESS SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN APPROVED TO EVEN PROCEED.
UM, AS STAFF HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, UM, THE, UH, PLAN SET THAT YOU'LL SEE ON, UH, PAGE A 1.0, IT'S ALSO PAGE 21.
IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PDF, IT SHOWS A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 15.6 FEET.
UM, AND THAT SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO, UH, 24.4 INCHES AS STAFF, UM, HAS STATED THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
UM, ACTUALLY CAN I GO BACK TO THAT PRESENTATION? I JUST WAS TRYING TO DO A LITTLE INTRODUCTION.
I I GOT ADDED ONTO THIS CASE LATER.
SO I'M ALSO AS NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH THE, UM, APPLICATION, UH, THE, UM, SITE PLAN HERE.
UH, SO THE, UM, THE TWO POINTS HERE ARE THE TWO SIDE YARD SETBACKS.
UH, THESE ARE THE TWO LOCATIONS WHERE THE 10 FEET, UH, RULE FROM THE NCCD.
THE ZONING RULE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE PLANS.
AND JUST TO EMPHASIZE HERE, IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF MOVING THE BUILDING THAT THE BUILDINGS WILL ACTUALLY NEED TO BE REDESIGNED BECAUSE THE, UM, IT WAS ALREADY MAXED OUT ON ITS SETBACK ALLOTMENT.
SO YOU'RE ACTUALLY GONNA HAVE TO BE SHAVING OFF, UH, PARTS OF THE BUILDING AND, AND RESTRUCTURING THE FLOOR PLAN.
UM, THE NEXT ISSUE, UM, THAT I WANT TO GET TO, UH, REALLY SPEAKS TO THE FAR CA CALCULATIONS.
UM, IF YOU NOTICE ON THE APPLICATION, IT WAS NEVER ACTUALLY INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION.
AGAIN, IT WAS NOT PROPERLY SUBMITTED BY AN ARCHITECT.
UM, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS, THIS IS IN THE MIDDLE.
IT'S THE, UM, THE NEW USE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
IT IS A DUPLEX IN THE FRONT AND IT IS THE EXACT SAME PLANS DUPLICATED IN THE BACK.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS, UM, THIS RED, UH, IN THIS WALL HERE, THIS LITTLE LIKE CUTOUT RIGHT HERE ON THAT BACK UNIT,
[00:20:01]
THEY'VE CUT OUT THAT LITTLE SQUARE TO SAY THAT IT'S ONE USE ONE UNIT.SO EVEN THOUGH IT HAS TWO LIVING ROOMS, TWO KITCHENS, TWO WET BARS, UH, YOU KNOW, TWO THE 20 BEDROOMS IN TOTAL THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SITE, UM, THIS BACK UNIT IS SUPPOSED TO BE ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
AND IT'S ALSO NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ENGINEER'S, UM, FOOTPRINTS THAT, THAT THE ENGINEER SUBMITTED, WHICH ARE, UM, ON PAGES, UH, S 4.3 OF THE PLAN SET, S 4.1 AND S UH, S3 0.3.
IF YOU, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, YOU'LL SEE THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY A SOLID WALL THAT THE ENGINEER HAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY.
SO WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS ACTUALLY FOUR UNITS.
THIS IS NOT A THREE UNIT, UH, STRUCTURE.
IT'S ACTUALLY FOUR UNITS IN VIOLATION OF THE ZONING.
UM, THE FAR IS ALSO, UM, UH, SO THE STAFF REFERENCED, UH, THE HOME, UH, ORDINANCE 25 2 7 7 3.
UM, THE FAR WAS MISCALCULATED BECAUSE THE, UM, THE ATTIC SPACE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY, UM, LARGER THAN A SIX FOOT, UH, CEILING, UH, DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR AN ATTIC EXEMPTION.
SO UNDER, UM, 25 2 7 7 3 SUBSECTION, EB GROSS, GROSS GROSS FLOW AREA MEANS THE TOTAL ENCLOSED AREA OF ALL FLOORS IN A BUILDING WITH A CLEAR HEIGHT OF MORE THAN SIX FEET MEASURED TO THE OUTSIDE SURFACE OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE SUBSECTION.
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE SUBSECTION THAT SPEAKS TO HABITABLE SPACE.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THE SUBSECTION THAT SPEAKS TO A LOAD BEARING FLOORS LIKE YOU MIGHT HEAR.
UM, JUST SO YOU KNOW, THOSE LOAD-BEARING FLOORS IS ACTUALLY CHANGED BY THE APPLICANT YESTERDAY TO TRY TO GET AROUND THIS ISSUE.
UM, IT WAS NOT IN THE APPROVED, UH, PLAN SETS THAT WERE APPROVED.
UM, AND THERE'S JUST NO EXCEPTION FOR IT.
NOW, THAT SECTION DID USED TO HAVE AN EXCEPTION FOR ATS.
UM, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE 2008 ORDINANCE BEFORE HOME ONE WAS ADOPTED, THERE WAS A EXCEPTION FOR ATTICS THAT WAS REMOVED UNDER HOME ONE.
SO THAT EXCEPTION NO LONGER APPLIES.
THE GROSS FLOOR AREA CALCULATION IS LITERALLY JUST ALL FLOORS IN A BUILDING WITH A CLEAR HEIGHT OF MORE THAN SIX FEET.
THAT'S IMPORTANT TO BE HERE BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING FROM AN FAR OF, UM, WHAT THEY CLAIM AS 0.65 TO AN FAR CLOSER TO 0.92.
SO THAT'S AGAIN, ANOTHER ZONING VIOLATION.
UM, AND THEN THE LAST IS, UH, WELL ACTUALLY, UM, UH, THERE WAS ALSO A SURVEY ISSUE.
SO STAFF IS GOING OFF, UH, APPROVED, UH, SURVEY FOR THE SITE.
UM, THERE WAS A SURVEY SUBMITTED WITH A DEMOLITION PERMIT THAT WAS AN APPROVED SURVEY THAT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE LOT IS 8,840 SQUARE FEET.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED FOR THIS SITE, THERE'S ANOTHER, THERE'S LIKE A RED, UM, TEXT THAT WERE ADDED TO THE SURVEY THAT INDICATES IT'S CLOSER TO 9,000 SQUARE FEET THAT WAS ADDED AFTER THEIR SURVEYOR.
THAT WAS NOT WHAT THE SURVEYOR PUT ON THE SURVEY AND NOT APPROVED BY THE SURVEYOR.
SO THE LOT SIZE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS ACTUALLY 8,840 SQUARE FEET, WHICH AFFECTS THE FAR CALCULATION.
AND THEN, UM, WE GET TO THE ISSUE OF HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THE, UH, NUNA NCCD.
UM, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE, THE NUNA NCCD WAS NOT OVERRIDDEN BY, UM, HOME STAFF ACKNOWLEDGES THAT.
UM, AND, UH, IT WAS ENACTED TO PRESERVE THE TRADITIONAL SCALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, CAPPED DUPLEXES, UH, TO LIMIT THE MASSING OF REDEVELOPMENT.
UM, AT THE TIME, DUPLEXES WAS THE ONLY LIKE MULTI-FAMILY TYPE USE THAT WAS ALLOWED ON THE SITE.
UM, YOU HAD SINGLE FAMILY OR YOU HAD DUPLEXES, SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED WAS PROHIBITED.
UM, AND SO WHILE THREE FAMILY USE WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED WHEN THE NCCD WAS PASSED, IT'S SIMILAR IN NATURE TO DUPLEXES AND IT SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME LIMITS.
UM, IN FACT, IF YOU EVEN LOOK AT IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET, UM, THE, THE INTENT OF THE, UH, NCCD, IT SAYS UNDER PART SEVEN, NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD RESPECT TRADITIONAL PATTERNS INCLUDING BUILDING, ORIENTATION, SCALE, HEIGHT, SETBACKS, AND PARKING LOCATION.
THAT'S REFLECTING THE CLEAR INTENT OF WHAT THE, UH, ZONING ORDINANCE THE NCCD WAS ADOPTED FOR.
UM, AND YOU HAVE STRUCTURES ACROSS THE STREET OF IT THAT HAVE THREE TO FIVE UNITS THAT ARE ALL UNDER THIS POINT, FOUR FAR.
UM, IF YOU'RE, UH, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT LIKE HOW TO DO A STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ON THIS, WHEN I LOOK AT IS SOMETHING LIKE THE MISCHIEF RULE, LIKE WHAT WAS IT TRYING TO SOLVE FOR? AND I THINK IT WAS TRYING TO CONTROL FOR THE MASSING OF, UH, DEVELOPMENT AND ENSURING THAT THE NEW DEVELOPMENT PA UH, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD RESPECT THOSE TRADITIONAL PATTERNS.
AND SO IF YOU HAVE COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT, UH, A SEPARATE ORDINANCE THAT IS NOT MORE SPECIFIC, IT'S A GENERAL ORDINANCE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT N CCDS AT ALL,
[00:25:01]
UH, TO HAVE A INTERPRETATION THAT YOU CAN ADD A NEW USE THAT WOULD THEN BUST THIS 0.4 UNIT BY TAKING THE 0.4 FAR FOR DUPLEX AND DUPLICATING IT, LIKE DUPLICATING, LITERALLY YOU HAVE A DUPLEX IN THE FRONT, YOU JUST DUPLICATE IT IN THE BACK AND THEN YOU CAN BUST THIS 0.4 FAR LIMIT.I THINK THAT LEADS TO AN ABSURD CONCLUSION.
UM, AND IT'S NOT IN LINE WITH WHAT THE NCCD WAS, UH, ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT.
UM, I ALSO MENTIONED, UH, THE ISSUES WITH THE, WITH THE APPLICANT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CREDENTIALS THAT WERE USED.
I THINK IT'S IN IMPORTANT TO HEAR BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT JUST AS SIMPLE AS MODIFYING THIS PLAN AND JUST TWEAKING IT HERE AND THERE WITH ITS APPROVAL.
IT, THEY ALL HAS DOMINO EFFECTS.
UM, THIS ISSUE WITH THE, UM, MULTIPLE UNITS THAT'S ACTUALLY A ONE FOOT DROP OFF BETWEEN THE STRUCTURES WITHOUT STAIRS, WITHOUT RAILING, IT WOULDN'T BE PERMITTED UNDER THE TECHNICAL CODE.
SO YOU STILL HAVE ESSENTIALLY TWO UNITS IN THAT BACK.
SO YOU'VE GOT FOUR UNITS FOR THE ENTIRE SITE.
AGAIN, THAT IS NOT A THREE FAMILY USE.
UM, AND IT IS NOT, UH, APPROPRIATELY APPROVED.
WHAT WHAT'S LOGICAL HERE IS FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ACCEPT THIS APPEAL, REJECT THE APPLICATION, AND, AND OVERTURN IT AT STAFF'S INTERPRETATION SO THAT WE CAN GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND GET THIS ISSUE RIGHT WITH PROPER, PROPER SUBMITTALS, PROPER ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.
THIS IS A MATTER OF SAFETY OVERALL.
IF THE STRUCTURE, IF YOU'RE CHANGING THE STRUCTURE AFTER IT WAS APPROVED, THEN UM, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT, UH, THE CITY SHOULD BE ON THE REPORT.
WE ARE GOING TO OPEN UP COMMENTS TO THE PUBLIC BY THOSE SUPPORTING THE APPEAL.
SO THESE ARE FOLKS WHO ARE SUPPORTING THE APPEAL.
YOU WILL EACH HAVE THREE MINUTES AND THERE IS A DONATION OF TIME ALLOWED.
SO I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY OF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT, BUT IF I CAN JUST GET YOU TO STAND UP.
THERE ARE THREE MICROPHONES AT THE FRONT HERE.
COME TO THE FRONT, HAVE A SEAT ONCE WE GOT OUR FIRST THREE DOWN.
I THINK I WILL START ON, ON THE RIGHT.
CAN I JUST ASK IF YOU ARE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL? COULD YOU STAND PLEASE? OH BOY.
I JUST WANTED TO GET AN IDEA OF WHO WANTED TO SPEAK, BUT WHO WAS HERE IN SUPPORT WE'RE LIKE 19 ISH.
CAN WE ASK HOW MANY OPPOSED? NOT YET.
SO CAN I GET ONE MORE OVER AT THIS MICROPHONE OVER HERE, OR ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK IF WE COULD QUEUE THEM UP FOR TIME.
SO WE'RE GONNA START ON THE RIGHT HERE.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
BOARD MEMBERS, THANKS FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.
UH, I'M AN ARCHITECT AND A CODE EXPERT.
I'VE WORKED ON THE CITY'S, UH, CODE ADVISOR GROUP CODE NEXT.
I WORKED ON THE CITY'S MCMANSION ORDINANCE.
I'VE BEEN DOING THIS STUFF FOR 20 YEARS.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY THE MOST UNUSUAL SITUATION I'VE EVER SEEN IN A PLAN REVIEW CASE.
UM, YOU'VE HEARD, UH, BOBBY OUTLINE SOME OF THE ISSUES WITH, UH, FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTATION, INADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION APPLICATION AND DRAWINGS, UH, THE BIZARRE CIRCUMSTANCES WITH DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, UH, WHO HAVE DISAVOWED THIS PROJECT.
UM, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT ALL OF THAT.
UM, THE OTHER ISSUES, THE, THERE'S SOME DEBATE RIGHT NOW WITH, UH, STAFF ABOUT WHETHER THE THIRD FLOOR OF THIS BUILDING IS A FLOOR OR NOT, WHETHER IT SHOULD COUNT AGAINST FAR OR NOT.
UH, THE CODE LANGUAGE IS VERY CLEAR.
UH, ANY AREA OF AN ATTIC WITH A CLEAR AREA OR CLEAR HEIGHT OF OVER SIX FEET COUNTS AGAINST FAR.
UH, IF THAT AREA IS COUNTED, THERE'S OVER 2000, IF I RECALL RIGHT, 2,200 SQUARE FEET OF ATTIC AREA ON THESE TWO BUILDINGS THAT PUSHES THE FAR TO A 0.92.
SO WAY BEYOND EVEN THE 0.65 FAR ALLOWED UNDER HOME, UH, WITH THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE, UH, LOT SIZE SHOWN ON THE APPLICATION AND, UH, SUPPORTED BY, UH, SOME OF THE STAFF WORK IN THE LAST FEW DAYS.
UH, EVEN JUST RECALCULATING THE FAR BASED ON THE ACTUAL LOT SIZE OF 8,840 SQUARE FEET.
THIS PROJECT IS OVER THE HOME LIMIT OF 0.65 FAR.
ANYWAY, UH, IF ANYBODY IS ARGUING ABOUT THE, WHETHER THE THIRD FLOOR IS A FLOOR OR NOT, YOU CAN CERTAINLY SEE IN THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS THAT THERE'S AN 18 INCH FLOOR STRUCTURE SUPPORTING THIS THIRD FLOOR.
UH, THE WINDOWS ARE NOTED AS EGRESS WINDOWS, WHICH YOU DON'T ORDINARILY, ORDINARILY SEE IN AN ATTIC WHERE YOU MIGHT PUT YOUR, UH, HALLOWEEN LIGHTS.
[00:30:01]
UH, THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF INDICATIONS THAT IS A FULL FLOOR, AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CODE ADDRESSES ANYWAY.RUNNING THROUGH, RUNNING THROUGH A LOT OF NOTES ON A POLICY LEVEL, UH, THE NCCD, THE KPAC NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, THE UNO DISTRICT, THERE'S 20 YEARS OF POLICY WORK THAT SUPPORTED THE EFFORT TO, UH, PROTECT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FROM HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO THE, TO THE UNIVERSITY.
UH, NCC D'S RECOGNIZE THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND CREATE ZONING CODES THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, FOR THAT REASON, THE LATER UNO DISTRICT PUSHED, UH, HIGH INTENSITY HOUSING OVER TO WEST CAMPUS TO TRY TO HELP REINFORCE THE POLICY GUIDELINES OF THE NCCD WHEN HOME CAME ALONG.
UH, OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, NO ONE PUSHING FOR HOME WAS PUSHING FOR THIS SORT OF HIGH INTENSITY HOUSING IN A NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT WASN'T WHAT WE WERE PROMISED.
THAT WASN'T IN ANY OF THE MARKETING MATERIALS.
I'M HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE IT.
JUST PULL THE MICROPHONE OVER TOWARDS YOU.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UH, AND I'M PLEASED TO BE HERE.
UM, I WANTED TO JUST OPEN BY THANKING, UM, ELAINE AND SOME OF THE OTHER CITY STAFF FOR ALL OF THE SUPPORT THEY'VE GIVEN US, UH, DURING THIS PROCESS.
UH, IT'S BEEN REALLY APPRECIATED.
UM, AND I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP AS I'VE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH THE ENGINEER IN PARTICULAR ON THEIR ISSUE AROUND FOUR UNITS AND THIS WHOLE, AND THAT'S SHOWN AS A DISCREPANCY AND THE INTERIOR WALL BETWEEN THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND THE STRUCTURAL PLANS.
UM, I SENT EMAILS TO, UM, THE ENGINEER AND SPOKE WITH HIM ON THE PHONE, UH, ASKING HIM HIS PROFESSIONAL OPINION ON HOW MANY UNITS, UH, THIS PROJECT WAS.
AND HE STATED THAT IT WAS FOUR UNITS.
UM, I ASKED HIM ABOUT THE ISSUE, UH, SHOWING HIM THE DRAWINGS WITH THE WHOLE CUT THROUGH THE INTERIOR WALL AND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT WOULD BE.
AND HE SAID THAT THAT CUT THROUGH IS IN A PLACE, UH, WHERE THERE IS LEFT END BRACING, UH, THAT IS SHOWN IN THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS, BOTH, UH, ON THE SITE PLAN.
AND THEN THE DETAILS THAT MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THAT IS STUDS AND CROSS BRACING THAT WOULD BLOCK ANY ABILITY TO CUT THAT WALL OUT AND THAT ITS REMOVAL, UH, WOULD COMPROMISE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING, UM, AND WOULD HAVE TO BE REDESIGNED, UH, COMPLETELY.
SO, UH, THE ENGINEER WAS DEFINITELY OF THE OPINION.
THIS IS A FOUR UNIT PROJECT, UH, WHICH VIOLATES THE SF THREE ZONING.
UM, AND SORRY, I'M A LITTLE COLD.
I SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT A JACKET.
UH, I ALSO, UH, SPOKE ON THE PHONE, UM, TODAY WITH MR. JOHN KAPLAN.
UM, YOU WILL SEE ON ALMOST ALL PAGES OF THE PLAN THAT, UH, THERE IS A STATEMENT SAYING THAT THIS PROJECT WAS PRODUCED.
IT'S OWNED BY A COMPANY CALLED URBAN SERVICES, UH, TEXAS, UH, THAT IS HIS COMPANY.
UH, AND HE WANTED TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT, UH, HE DID NOT EVER WORK ON THIS PROJECT, UH, AND THAT HE IS OF THE OPINION THAT HIS CREDENTIALS WERE USED, UH, FRAUDULENTLY WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE.
UM, AND WAS, UH, HAPPY TO HAVE ME STATEMENT STATE THAT, UH, TODAY.
SO, UM, YEAH, I STILL HAVE TIME, MICHELLE.
WANTED TO CLOSE WITH, UM, REVIEWING ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN PARTICULARLY CHALLENGING BECAUSE WE'VE NEVER BEEN PROVIDED WITH ANY COMMENTS FROM THE CITY AND HAD TO DO ALL OF THIS BASED OFF JUST THE PLANS WITHOUT ANY UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE INTERPRETATIONS FOR THE APPROVAL WERE, UH, REALLY UNTIL JUST A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING.
SO WE'RE SORRY IF SOME OF THE THINGS JUST BEING BROUGHT UP NOW.
TELL ME YOUR NAME AGAIN, PLEASE.
UH, MY NAME IS PETER PETER KALER.
I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS YOUR LAST NAME? UH, IT'S, IT'S VERY LONG.
IT'S J-O-U-R-N-E-A-Y HYPHEN, K-A-L-E-R.
AND I LOVE, I SAW, I LOVE MY PARENTS VERY MUCH, BUT DON'T GIVE YOUR KID A REALLY LONG THE LAST NAME.
UH, MAKE SURE YOUR MICROPHONE IS TURNED ON.
UH, THE LIGHT SHOULD BE GREEN, THE LITTLE BUTTON THERE.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
[00:35:01]
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.UM, MY NAME IS MICHELLE MACE AND I AM A, UH, UH, PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SUBJECT.
UH, I WOULD LIKE TO START BY SAYING I'M A LONGSTANDING, UM, MEMBER AND LEADER WITH THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE.
I'VE WORKED WITH DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS IN HOUSING AND PLACEMAKING FOR OVER 27 YEARS, AND BEFORE THAT I SPENT A DECADE WITH A NATIONAL PUBLIC HOME BUILDER.
I SHARE THAT BECAUSE I BELIEVE DEEPLY IN RESPONSIBLE COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAT UPLIFTS COMMUNITIES AND RESPECTS PEOPLE PLACE AND PROPERTY VALUE.
UNFORTUNATELY, THIS PROJECT DOES THE OPPOSITE AND THE OWNER'S BEHAVIOR GIVES DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPERS A BAD NAME IF ALLOWED.
THIS PROJECT WILL SET A PRECEDENT ACROSS AUSTIN THAT UNDERMINES COLLABORATIVE AND MULTIDISCIPLINARY PROCESSES THAT US COUNCIL MEMBERS AND US AS PROFESSIONALS DEPEND UPON.
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT A SOLO ACT.
IT IS A PARTNERSHIP AMONG LICENSED ARCHITECTS, PLANNERS, ENGINEERS, AND RESEARCHERS, CITIZENS AND THE CITIES.
AND IT REQUIRES US ALL TO WORK TOGETHER, UM, WHICH THIS OWNER DID NOT DO.
UH, RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT ADDS VALUE, AS YOU KNOW, NOT ONLY TO THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENING, BUT TO THE USES AROUND IT.
IT DOESN'T DEVALUE, DEGRADE AND DISRESPECT THEM AS THIS ONE HAS.
IT DOESN'T PUT BURDEN ON NEIGHBORS, UM, OR ADD EXPENSE TO NEIGHBORS BECAUSE OF OVERLOOKED CODE OR BECAUSE SOMEONE'S CHASING A SHORT-TERM PROFIT.
THIS OWNER HAS HIDDEN BEHIND ALIASES AND BEEN DECEITFUL.
ON THE PHONE, THEY FEIGNED IGNORANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN CONVERSATION WITH ME.
NOW THAT I SEE ALL THE THINGS I SEE TODAY.
UM, ANYWAY, THEY ASSUME NEIGHBORS WOULDN'T TALK, BUT WE DID.
AND THEIR STORIES DON'T LINE UP.
I URGE YOU TO REJECT THIS DEVELOPMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY, NOT BECAUSE WE OPPOSE GROWTH OR DEVELOPMENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT BECAUSE WE DEMAND BETTER DEVELOPMENT.
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS BLESSED WITH LONGTIME RESIDENTS, PEOPLE WHO GREW UP HERE, WHO HOLD THE STORIES.
AND WITHIN 500 FEET OF THIS PROPERTY, THERE'S A GOLD MINE OF ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, AND EXPERIENCED DEVELOPERS AND INCREDIBLE WEALTH AND KNOWLEDGE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN TAPPED INTO HAD THEY DECIDED TO BE TRANSPARENT AND FORTHCOMING.
REJECTING THIS DEVELOPMENT IS NOT ANTI-DEVELOPMENT.
IT IS AN ACT FOR INTEGRITY, FOR BETTER DEVELOPMENT FOR AUSTIN'S FUTURE.
MADAM CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU COUNSEL.
MAKE SURE YOUR MICROPHONE IS TURNED ON.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME, MADAM CHAIRMAN COUNSEL.
UM, I DO NOT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
MY TIES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, OBVIOUSLY THE APPELLANT IS MY SISTER, THAT'S THE LAST NAME.
BUT I'M SPEAKING BECAUSE OF MY HISTORY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
MY GRANDMOTHER AND GRANDFATHER ACTUALLY BUILT THE HOUSE CATTYCORNER TO THIS DEVELOPMENT.
MY MOTHER WAS BORN IN THAT HOUSE.
MY FATHER ACTUALLY, UM, SERVED IN THE WAR, LIVED IN THE GARAGE APARTMENT ACROSS THE STREET.
SO WE HAVE LONG TIES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, NO ONE IN THE FAMILY IS ANTI-GROWTH.
IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE MULTIFAMILY THAT THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT, MY PARENTS NEVER WOULD'VE MET.
SO WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO GROWTH, BUT THE HISTORY HAS A LONG NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT WAS INTERESTING WHEN I CAME INTO THE HEARING, I JUST CAME TO SIT WITH MY SISTER AND THEN I FELT COMPELLED TO TALK BECAUSE ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS CAME UP TO ME AND SAID, OH, I REMEMBER YOU AS A LITTLE GIRL.
I REMEMBER YOU OVER AT YOUR GRANDMOTHER'S HOUSE.
THERE'S A LONG HISTORY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY JUST WANT GROWTH THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT UPHOLDS THE VALUES AND THE INTEGRITY THAT WE FEEL LIKE IS THERE.
AND AS I'M HEARING THESE STORIES, IT JUST, IT MAKES MY HEART HEARTBREAK.
IT MAKES ME SAD TO HEAR ABOUT THIS, AND IT JUST, IT FEELS DIRTY AND WRONG.
AND SO I GUESS I WOULD JUST PLEAD FOR YOU TO HELP HELP THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAINTAIN ITS INTEGRITY.
AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, I SEE ALL THESE PEOPLE, I MEAN, IT'S THEIR HOME.
IT'S WHERE THEY WANT TO RAISE THEIR KIDS AND THEIR FAMILY AND HAVE LONG STORIES AND LONG TRADITIONS.
AND WHAT I'M HEARING ABOUT THIS PLAN THAT'S BEEN APPROVED JUST, JUST REALLY SEEMS WRONG.
[00:40:01]
I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD, UH, MAKE THEM GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND REJECT THIS.OKAY, IF I COULD GET Y'ALL TO GO AHEAD AND HEAD BACK TO YOUR SEATS AND WE WILL HAVE THE NEXT FOUR COME UP.
AND I SAW YOU COME UP ALREADY.
COME ON UP TO THE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO CALL THIS.
THE, THE, UH, LIGHT COLOR DESKS.
ARE THERE GOING TO BE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN FAVOR? I.
AGAIN, WE'LL START ON THE, UH, RIGHT SIDE HERE.
IF YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, MAKE SURE YOUR MICROPHONE'S TURNED ON.
I'M PAMELA BELL AND I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND I DO HOPE THAT YOU WILL REJECT THE STAFF, THE, UM, STAFF'S ZONING OR THEIR, THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THIS PROPERTY.
I WAS APPALLED WHEN I LEARNED OF WHAT WAS GOING ON, AND IT DOES NOT REFLECT THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE HAVE HAD AND THAT OUR PLAN, OUR NCCD REFLECTS, WE BELIEVE THAT THE STAFF HAS RESPONSIBILITY TO WORK WITH US AND DEVELOPERS SO THAT WE HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE WE CAN WELCOME OTHERS WHO WANT TO LIVE WITH US.
WE HAVE A VERY DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOOD IN TERMS OF AGES, UM, PROFESSIONS.
WE HAVE SO MANY UNIVERSITY STUDENTS.
WE LOVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE DO WANT RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT.
WE ALSO HAVE THE ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED EARLIER ABOUT THE PARKING.
WHEN WE HAVE THIS DEVELOPMENT COME INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WE ALSO HEAR THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SAYS NO PARKING IS NEEDED.
SO ON THESE TINY NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS, WHERE WILL THESE CARS GO? WE DO HAVE AN NCCD THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UM, RULED ON.
UM, IN 2021, I WAS TOLD TO TAKE IT OUTTA MY LETTER, UM, THAT REFLECTED THAT THERE SHOULD BE A PARKING SPACE FOR EACH BATHROOM.
SO THERE NEEDS TO BE A COMMON GROUND WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE BECAUSE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE ONE THAT STARTED THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PROGRAM BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT CARS WERE LINING THE STREETS.
BOTH OF MY CHILDREN WERE HIT ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS BY HIT AND RUN DRIVERS WHILE THEY WERE RIDING THEIR BICYCLES.
SO I WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PROGRAM.
SO WE DO HOPE THAT IN THE FUTURE WE CAN WORK WITH THE STAFF WHEN DEVELOPERS WISH TO BUILD PROJECTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THAT WE CAN HELP THE STAFF UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NCCD AND WHAT IT MEANS TO LIVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I LIVE WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
I'M JUST GONNA ECHO SOME CONCERNS OVER THE PARKING.
IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 20 BEDROOMS, THERE'S ALREADY NOT ENOUGH SPACE ON THE STREET FOR TWO MORE CARS.
CAN'T SEE WHERE THEY'RE GONNA GO.
I, I AM FOR INFILL, I'M FOR DEVELOPMENT.
I LOVE THAT WE'RE BUILDING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE.
BUT IF YOU JUST SIMPLY LOOK AT THE DESIGN PLANS, OBVIOUSLY WITH ALL THE OTHER KIND OF TRYING TO PULL THE WOOL OVER OUR EYES, I THINK THAT'S GONNA BE FOUR UNITS OVER THERE.
AND ACCORDING TO THE ERRORS, I'M SURE IF YOU SHAKE THAT TREE A LITTLE BIT MORE, YOU'LL FIND A LITTLE BIT MORE JUST FALSIFYING DOCUMENTS IN GENERAL IN MY LINE OF WORK WOULD NEGATE THIS WHOLE THING FROM THE GET GO.
SO I'M GLAD WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION, BUT IT SEEMS SHADY FROM THE, UH, BEGINNING TO THE END AND I LIKE TO SEED MY TIME TO MY NEIGHBOR.
IF YOU'LL PLEASE MAKE SURE YOUR MICROPHONE IS TURNED ON.
STATE YOUR NAME FROM THE RECORD AND, UH, DID WE SEE HOW MUCH TIME WAS LEFT THERE? I MISSED IT WAS A MINUTE SOMETHING.
I ACTUALLY LIVE NEXT DOOR TO THE PROJECT, SO I'M DEFINITELY WITHIN THE 500 TREE.
UM, I HAD NOT PLANNED TO SPEAK TODAY, BUT, UM, HEARING EVERYONE ELSE SPEAK, I FELT LIKE IT WAS IMPORTANT
[00:45:01]
THAT I DID.I HAVE KNOWN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, MY PARTICULAR STREET FOR MY ENTIRE LIFE, WHICH IS 75 YEARS.
I'VE SEEN LOTS OF CHANGES ON THE STREET.
THE STREET HAS ALWAYS BEEN VERY DIVERSE.
IT HAS HAD ALL TYPES OF HOUSING.
THERE HAVE BEEN, UH, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, GARAGE APARTMENTS, UM, AROUND THE CORNER THERE.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY APARTMENT BUILDINGS.
UM, SO I, I GREW UP WITH KNOWING THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
I CHOSE WHEN MY DAUGHTER WAS A BABY TO MOVE BACK INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I WOULD HAVE MY OWN HOME THERE AND ENJOY THE DIVERSITY, UH, OF AUSTIN BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST DIVERSE, UH, NEIGHBORHOODS AT THAT TIME, IT WAS ACTUALLY A NEIGHBORHOOD.
PEOPLE SAID, WHY ARE YOU MOVING THERE? IT'S LIKE, UH, IT'S SO DIFFERENT.
AND I WAS LIKE, NO, IT'S REALLY GREAT BECAUSE THERE'S ALL KINDS OF AGES.
IT'S JUST A VERY DIVERSE, CARING AND LOVING NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND PART OF THE REASON, UH, PEOPLE MOVE INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD NOW IS BECAUSE OF THE CHARACTER OF THE ARCHITECTURE.
THE YARDS, UH, PEOPLE COME BY AND SAY, OH, I LOVE YOUR GARDEN SO MUCH.
UH, THERE'S JUST A FEEL OF WHEN PEOPLE MOVE INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY FEEL AT HOME.
AND I WAS PARTICULARLY DISTRESSED WHEN OUR NEIGHBORS NEXT DOOR WHO LIVED IN THE COTTAGES THAT WERE DEMOLISHED, WERE SO UPSET WITH LOSING WHAT THEY CALLED THEIR HOMES.
AND NOT ONLY WERE THEY THEIR HOMES, THEY WERE AFFORDABLE HOMES WHICH HAVE NOW BEEN DESTROYED.
AND THEY WERE PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT BE ABLE TO FIND THE TYPE OF HOME THAT THEY HAD THERE ANY PLACE ELSE.
BECAUSE OUR AREA IS VERY UNIQUE AND THAT'S WHY IT DRAWS PEOPLE THERE BECAUSE OF THE, THE CHARACTER, THE ARCHITECTURE, THE GARDENS, THE PEOPLE.
AND THIS PROJECT IS IN VIOLATION OF EVERYTHING THAT OUR STREET STANDS FOR.
AND IT'S BEEN PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT IN DEALING WITH THE SITUATION AND DEALING WITH ALL THE ILL LEGAL NESS, THE IRREGULARITIES, AND HAVING SO LITTLE, UM, SUPPORT, BASICALLY NOT BEING TOLD AT ANY TIME WHAT'S GOING ON.
IT USED TO BE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE SPENT LOTS OF TIME WORKING WITH NUNA.
WE HAD A DEVELOPMENT BOARD WHEN A PERMIT CAME TO THE CITY, THEY WERE TOLD TO TALK WITH NINA'S DEVELOPMENT BOARD TO MAKE SURE WE WERE ALL ON BOARD FOR WHAT WENT ON.
WE HAVE WORKED WITH NUMEROUS DEVELOPERS OVER THE YEARS WITH MAKING SURE THAT DEVELOPMENT THAT WENT ON, AND MOST OF IT WAS DUPLEX OR EVEN SOME MULTI-FAMILY THAT EVERYONE WAS HAPPY WITH WHAT WENT ON THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ALL WORK TOGETHER.
WE'VE MAINTAINED THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE WAS NO, UM, I, I REACHED OUT TO THE OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY AND WAS BASICALLY, I GOT NO RESPONSE.
I ACTUALLY TOOK THE, I TOOK ONE OF THEM AROUND.
WE TOGETHER, MY FAMILY TOOK THEM AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO SHOW THEM WHAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WAS, WHAT KIND OF PROJECT.
IT'S ALL BEEN, I'M DOING THIS PROJECT AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING.
THERE'S NO RESPECT, INTEGRITY, OR ANYTHING CONCERNING THIS PROJECT.
AND THAT'S NOT BEEN THE HISTORY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'VE ALWAYS REACHED OUT AND BEEN OPEN AND CARING AND WE HAVE ACCEPTED PROJECTS THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WERE NOT EXACTLY WHAT WE WANTED, BUT WE WORKED TOGETHER WITH PEOPLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UPHELD THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE LOVED AND WANTED TO KEEP.
AND IF I HAVE ANY MINUTES LEFT, I'LL SHARE THOSE WITH SOMEONE ELSE.
12 SECONDS, SO I THINK WE'RE GOOD.
WE'LL TAKE THE NEXT ROUND LOOKING FOR PEOPLE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL.
[00:50:01]
ONE MORE OPEN MICROPHONE.IS THIS GOING TO BE EVERYONE? OKAY.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
MY NAME IS STEPHANIE STANFORD.
I AM A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSED IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
CAN I GET YOU TO JUST PULL THE MICROPHONE A LITTLE CLOSER TO, THERE YOU GO.
UM, LICENSED ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, UH, 2 0 7 EAST 34TH STREET IS MY CHILDHOOD HOME.
MY PARENTS BOUGHT THAT HOUSE IN 1978 AND I ROAMED THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, LIKE A FERAL GEN X OR WHATEVER I'M SUPPOSED TO BE.
AND, UH, KNEW EVERY SINGLE NEIGHBOR.
IN FACT, MY BROTHER WHO SPOKE EARLIER, UH, HAD SOME FAVORITE NEIGHBORS THAT WOULD BAKE COOKIES.
UH, SO ANYWAY, THE REASON I CAME WAS TO SUPPORT MY FAMILY THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
UM, I HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE TO WORK, UH, FOR ENGINEERING FIRMS IN AUSTIN DOING LAND DEVELOPMENT.
I DON'T KNOW A WHOLE LOT ABOUT VERTICAL.
I DO EVERYTHING BELOW THE ANGLES, BUT I KNOW A WHOLE LOT ABOUT ZONING BECAUSE EVERYTHING I HAVE PROCESSED WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS A ZONING COMPONENT.
AND WHEN YOU DO A PROJECT, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT EVERY PIECE OF WHAT YOU DO IS INTERCONNECTED TO EVERY OTHER PIECE OF THE CODE.
AND BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE BROUGHT UP PARKING.
UM, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS A QUESTION THAT STAFF DECIDES IS AN ISSUE AT THIS SITE, IT IS ALSO A RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPER WHO LOOKS AT WHAT IS THE END USE OF THIS PRODUCT AND IS IT GOING TO BE VIABLE FOR THE PEOPLE USING IT? AND IF THEY CAN'T ANSWER YES WITHOUT DIRE IMPLICATIONS TO THE NEIGHBORS, THAT'S NOT A GOOD NEIGHBOR.
AND THEY SHOULD EXPECT TO HAVE PEOPLE DISLIKE THE PROJECT BECAUSE OF THAT VERY ISSUE OF IT'S NOT CONDUCIVE TO THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCES, OF THE ZONING OF THE LAND USE.
AND SO THE APPEAL IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE REMEDIES OF THE MISTAKES THAT HAVE OCCURRED ARE ADDRESSED.
AND HOPEFULLY THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ABLE TO DISCUSS AND DECIDE ON THIS EVENING.
PUSH IT OVER AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
HELLO, MY NAME IS, OH YEAH, IT'S ON.
UM, I HOPE I CAN BE A VOICE FOR RENTERS IN THE AREA.
UM, SO I'M A PHD STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS.
UM, I SPEND ABOUT HALF MY YEAR IN AUSTIN, THE OTHER HALF IN VIRGINIA AT NASA LANGLEY.
UM, AND THIS PUTS ME IN A UNIQUE SCENARIO WHERE I'M OFTEN FINDING NEW LEASES THAT ARE FOR SHORT PERIODS OF TIME, MAYBE LONGER.
UM, AND THE TESTIMONY I WANTED TO SHARE TODAY IS THAT THE LEASE BEFORE I MOVED TO 2 0 3, WHICH IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO 2 0 5, UM, I HAD A LANDLORD PUT THE WRONG NAME ON THE LEASE AGREEMENT.
I'M LIVING IN ANOTHER STATE TRYING TO FIND HOUSING.
UM, I MOVE IN AND I KNOW THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT HER NAME.
AND IF YOU GOOGLE HER ACTUAL NAME, YOU'LL NEVER RENT FROM HER.
UM, AND SO HEARING THIS TESTIMONY, THERE ARE THESE STORIES TODAY OF LIKE, WRONG NAMES, ALIASES, THIS LACK OF INTEGRITY.
IT SCARES ME, RIGHT? THIS IS CLEARLY A RENTAL PROPERTY.
IF THEY'RE DOING THIS NOW, WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN TO GRAD STUDENTS LIKE ME OR IN PRETTY MUCH VULNERABLE STATES, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU MOVE HERE, YOU DON'T KNOW THE AREA.
UM, AND THE LAST THING I WANT TO EMPHASIZE IS THESE STORIES OF FRIENDSHIP AND COMMUNITY AND KIND OF BELONGING.
UM, AS A GRAD STUDENT ONLY LIVING HERE FOR A YEAR, IT'S, IT'S BEEN AMAZING, RIGHT? LIKE THESE NEIGHBORS ROCK AND THEY WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND THEY'RE LOOKING OUT FOR EACH OTHER RIGHT NOW.
MY WIFE AND I VIRGINIA OWN THE HOME AT 2 0 9 EAST 34TH STREET.
SO OUR HOME IS TWO DOORS DOWN FROM THE EFFECTIVE PROPERTY.
OUR HOME WOULD'VE BEEN ONE OF THE HOMES USED FOR THE AVERAGE SETBACK CALCULATION.
WE'VE ENJOYED THERE, WE'VE ENJOYED BOB AND CARROLL'S NEIGHBORS.
UH, THIS CONCERNS ME, THE, THE PLANS AS RED STEAMROLL OVER THE EXISTING CHARACTER AND THE DESIGN PATTERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IN NO WAY CORRESPONDS TO THE SORT OF EVOLUTION OF DESIGN OR PROCESS, UH, REFLECTIVE OF NCCS DESIRE AND SPIRIT.
UM, ALONG WITH THE IRREGULARITIES
[00:55:01]
YOU'VE CERTAINLY SEEN DISCUSSED BY NUMEROUS PEOPLE.WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION ITSELF AND THE DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING THAT APPLICATION, I SUPPORT THE APPEAL BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS IS BAD DEVELOPMENT FOR AUSTIN AND FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ANY MORE PEOPLE? COME ON UP PLEASE.
HOW MUCH WAS LEFT ON THAT? TWO MINUTES.
UH, RESTATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
UM, I'M GONNA TRY AND COVER SOME SLIGHTLY MORE TECHNICAL ARGUMENTS, BUT IF YOU COULD PLEASE BEAR WITH ME.
SO THIS RELATES BACK TO THE NCCD AND ITS, UH, ESTABLISHED FAR LIMIT.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE SAYING, UM, IT SHOULD OVERRIDE WHAT'S SET BY THE DUPLEX, WHICH WE'VE TRIED TO INDICATE WAS THE HIGHEST INTENSITY USE ALLOWED WHEN THE NCCD WAS WRITTEN AND THEREFORE WE SHOULD BELIEVE SHOULD APPLY TO THE HIGHEST INTENSITY USE NOW IN A SINGLE FAMILY THREE.
UM, THEY'RE ARGUING FOR AN FAR, UH, THAT WOULD ACTUALLY EXCEED THE FAR THAT IS CLEARLY REQUIRED IN THE NCCD FOR MS SIX IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND I WOULD JUST HOPE THAT THAT KIND OF DEMONSTRATES WHAT'S THERE.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT, UM, WE HAVE TESTIMONY FROM COUNCIL MEMBER ZOE QUADRI, WHO WAS GIVEN AT A PUBLIC, UH, HYDE PARK MEETING, CLEARLY STATING THAT HOME, UM, ONE AND TWO DO NOT APPLY TO SINGLE FAMILY.
UM, AND THE WAY THAT THE HOME ORDINANCE WAS WRITTEN AS OPPOSED TO THE EAD, UH, IS VERY CLEAR.
HE DID MENTION THAT EAD DOES APPLY IN THOSE AREAS.
'CAUSE IF YOU LOOK INTO EAD, YOU CAN SEE HOW IT ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH AND CHANGED SPECIFIC ITEMS AROUND THE USE CASE AND THE ZONING.
UH, AND THOSE ITEMS THAT EXIST WITHIN EAD DO NOT EXIST WITHIN THE HOME ORDINANCE.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHY COUNCILMAN QUADRI POINTED OUT THE DIFFERENCE IN HOW THOSE TWO THINGS APPLY TO ZONING.
AND I THINK IT'S ONE MORE ARGUMENT THAT THE NCCD DOES STAND, UH, AS THE MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONING IN THIS CASE.
UM, AND THEN I JUST WANTED TO, UM, NOTE THAT AS WE'VE SAID, WE'VE REALLY BEEN TRYING TO BE COOPERATIVE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO STUDENT HOUSING.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THAT CHARACTER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND MAKE SURE THERE ARE AFFORDABLE SPACES FOR PEOPLE.
UH, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD POINT OUT IS IF WE WANNA TALK ABOUT HOME, ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS THAT HOME DID, WHICH I WAS ACTUALLY VERY IN SUPPORTIVE, IS THAT IT SAID, OKAY, WELL IF YOU HAVE TWO UNITS ON YOUR LOT, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO GO AND INSTALL A THIRD UNIT INTO THAT SPACE.
UH, THAT WAS A VIABLE OPTION FOR THIS PROJECT THAT WOULD'VE MAINTAINED THOSE HOMES WITHOUT, UH, DESTROYING THEM AND ADDED ADDITIONAL HOUSING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, CHAIRMAN.
JUST AGAIN, UH, COMMENT FROM THOSE SUPPORTING THE APPEAL.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN THE ROOM THAT WANTS TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.
WE DO HAVE SOMEONE ON THE PHONE WHO IS GOING TO BE SPEAKING VIRTUALLY IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL.
DR. FREDERICK FREDERICK LEWIS ALAMA.
UH, ALAMA, ARE YOU ON THE PHONE? I AM.
UH, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND Y'ALL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
AND YES, I'M A UT PROFESSOR AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL.
I WILL BASICALLY BE, I'M REITERATING WHAT WE'VE ALREADY HEARD.
THIS PROJECT IGNORES AND EVEN BREAKS MULTIPLE NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTIONS.
IT IS TOO CLOSE TO MY PROPERTY.
I'M, I'M IN THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
IT'S, IT, EVEN BY WHAT WE'VE SEEN, IT WOULD TAKE UP 42% MORE SPACE THAN ALLOWED FOUR, THREE UNITS.
BUT IN ACTUALITY, IT'S GOING TO BE A FOUR UNIT BUILDING.
IT VIOLATES SEPARATION AND THERE'S NO DOCUMENTATION FOR SETBACK.
AND AS EVERYONE HAS MENTIONED, AND ANYBODY WHO DRIVES DOWN THE STREET AND WILL SEE VERY, VERY, VERY QUICKLY, OUR BLOCK HAS A VERY CONSISTENT LOOK.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE FRONT PORCHES, THE TRADITIONAL HOME, UM,
[01:00:01]
THIS WOULD, WE, THIS WOULD BREAK THAT PATTERN.THE OTHER IMPORTANT THING TO KEEP IN MIND, AND IT'S JUST BASICALLY REITERATING, NOT ONLY WOULD PARKING BE A NIGHTMARE WITH A 20 BEDROOM PLUS UNIT, IT WOULD ADDING 15 TO 20 CARS MINIMUM.
RIGHT? UM, TO ALREADY, UH, A PARKING A STREET WITH, YOU KNOW, PLENTY OF CARS ON IT ALREADY.
BUT IT WOULD ALSO, THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE SEWAGE AND WATER OR STREETS ALREADY DENTS, ADDING 20 PLUS BEDROOMS WITH STRAIN, SEWAGE AND OTHER PIPES, WATER PRESSURE, ET CETERA.
THERE'S, UM, YOU KNOW, THE PERSONAL IMPACT ADJACENT BUILDINGS, UH, YOU, YOU MET JOSEPH'S THERE JUST NOW, OTHERS THAT ARE LIVING IN OUR PROPERTY, UM, INCLUDING EVENTUALLY OUR DAUGHTER.
UM, THIS BUILDING WOULD BE TOO CLOSE LOOKING DIRECTLY INTO OUR WINDOWS, INTO OUR YARD.
NOT TO MENTION, UM, THE, THE LIGHT ISSUES AND AIR ISSUES, OVERSIZED MATH BLOCKS, NATURAL LIGHT AND VENTILATION.
UM, THE DAILY LIFE STREET WILL BECOME OVERCROWDED AS A PARKING LOT.
THE APPROVAL PROCESS SO FAR, AS I CAN SEE HAS BEEN, UM, FLAWED.
THE, THE ACTUAL, UM, AS I'VE HEARD AND LEARNED TODAY, NOT ONLY ARE THE PLANS INCOMPLETE, BUT THEY ARE FRAUDULENT.
OKAY, SO THAT FINISHES FOR THOSE IN SUPPORT, I'M GONNA TAKE A BRIEF POINT OF PRIVILEGE AND SAY HELLO TO OUR UT STUDENTS WHO DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE GETTING INTO TONIGHT AND ARE GONNA HAVE A LOT TO WRITE ABOUT TOMORROW.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON NOW TO THE PRESENTATION BY THE RESPONDENT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE.
MADAM, THIS WILL BE MADAM, MADAM CHAIR.
WHY DON'T WE TAKE FIVE MINUTES TO PERHAPS POWDER BEFORE WE GO INTO THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS MOMENT? I CAN DO THAT.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A RECESS UNTIL 6 53.
SHOULD I SET MY TIMER? 6 55 RESET STILL.
SORRY, Y'ALL, THE TIME IS 6:59 PM I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE PRESENTATION BY THE RESPONDENT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE THAT CAN BE, UH, THE PERMIT HOLDER OR THE REPRESENTATIVE.
AND WE'RE GONNA SET THE CLOCK TO 10 MINUTES.
PLEASE STATE YOUR, DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? COULD YOU HIT THE GREEN BUTTON ON THE MICROPHONE PLEASE? YEAH, THE BUTTON ON THE FRONT, IT SHOULD TURN GREEN.
INITIAL I PLAN TO MAKE A PRESENTATION.
UH, I WILL JUST, UH, MAKE A STATEMENT.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE 10 MINUTES.
UM, I'M, UH, A DEPARTMENT HOLDER AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, UH, DEAR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY.
INITIALLY, I HAD PREPARED DETAILED PRESENTATION TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS RELATED TO MY PROJECT.
HOWEVER, AFTER REVIEWING THE CITY'S ARGUMENTS, I FULLY TRUST THEIR EXPERTISE AND, UH, AGREE WITH THEIR ASSESSMENT.
THE CITY OFFICIALS ARE VERY SHARP PEOPLE WITH A DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF CODE, AND I BELIEVE THEY HAVE PRESENTED THE MET FULL.
I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE APPEALS IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, UH, SENT A LOT OF MESSAGES TO ME AND THE CITY IN WHICH THEY TRIED TO BLAME.
IN MOST EVERYTHING, NONE OF IT IS TRUE, INCLUDING WHAT THE ATTORNEY SAID.
I'M WORKING WITH LAWYERS ON THE POSSIBLE SLANDER AND THE DEFAMATION LITIGATION, AND THEY ADVISE ME THAT TO TALK STRICTLY ABOUT THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL.
UM, THUS I'M READY TO ANSWER ALL YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT SETBACKS FOR, BUT I'M, I'M NOT ANSWERING.
I, I CANNOT ANSWER ANYTHING ELSE.
UM, THIS WILL BE ADDRESS WILL BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY IN THE FUTURE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
I'M HERE TO SHOW MY RESPECT TO THE BOARD AND TO THE PROCESS.
UH, THE, THE ARCHITECT WAS WORKING WITH THE CITY OF FOTON TO PRODUCE THE PLANS AND, AND WITH MYSELF AND, AND WITH THE, UH, DESIGNERS DRAFTERS, UH, THE ENGINEERS SENT ROUGHLY
[01:05:01]
SIX, UH, UM, UPDATES FOR THE, UH, WITH THE PLANS.UH, THE, THE STRUCTURE IS SAFE AND, UH, I BELIEVE IT IS IN COMPLIANCE.
UM, I, I, I VERY RECENTLY, UH, WE RECEIVED AN OFFER FROM THE APPEALANT TO PURCHASE OUR PROPERTY FOR THE HALF OF THE PRICE WE PAID FOR IT.
I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A ILL INTENTION OF THE APPEARANCE.
UH, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR, FOR YOUR TIME AND UNDERSTANDING.
WE'LL BE MOVING ON TO COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK FOR THE PERMIT HOLDER? THAT WAS IT.
ARE YOU SURE? AS FOR ANYONE THAT MAKES ME HAPPY, SPEAK ON BEHALF.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
THERE AGAIN, COMMENTS BY CITIZENS IN SUPPORT OF, OR SORRY, IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPEAL COMMENTS BY CITIZENS AND OP, OR SORRY, BY THE PUBLIC IN OPPOSITION OF THE APPEAL.
IS THERE ANYONE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? OKAY.
UH, THERE IS AN OPTION FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
UH, MS. LASHENKO, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT OR ARE YOU FINISHED SPEAKING? OKAY.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION AND WE'LL START INTO Q AND A.
WE READ THE REBUTTAL SINCE WE'RE THE
DO YOU DO, I'M SORRY, ONE SECOND.
DID I DO THAT WRONG? YOU'RE RIGHT.
I'M, I'M GONNA WALK THAT BACK.
THAT REBUTTAL WAS FOR THE APPEALING PARTY.
YOU CAN TELL WE DON'T DO THIS VERY OFTEN.
IT ONLY COMES AROUND ONCE EVERY TWO OR THREE YEARS.
UH, SO YES, THERE WILL BE TIME FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL BY THE APPEALING PARTY.
BOBBY LEVI BOBBY LEVINSKY, AGAIN FROM THE, UH, ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANT.
UM, UH, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN OFTEN.
I THINK ACTUALLY I WAS THE ONE THAT WAS ARGUING THE, UM, CASE THAT WAS REFERENCED EARLIER ABOUT THE OTHER NCCD ISSUE FOR THE PARKING ISSUE.
UM, UH, ONE THING I WANT TO REALLY EMPHASIZE HERE, UM, IS THAT THE FAR FOR THE OTHER USES THAT ARE ALLOWED WITH THE NCCD, I WANNA READ THEM OUT TO YOU 'CAUSE I THINK IT'S REALLY ILLUSTRATIVE.
UM, FOR SF TWO, SF THREE, IT'S LISTED AS THE 0.4 FAR THAT HAS THAT LITTLE NOTATION.
FOR DUPLEX, FOR THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
FOR MF ONE, IT'S 0.5 FAR, MF 2.5 FAR, MF THREE THROUGH MF 6.5 FAR, AND FORNO IT'S 0.35 FAR.
SO IF YOU WERE TO TAKE THE INTERPRETATION THAT THIS THREE FAMILY USE WOULD ALLOW YOU TO GO UP TO 0.65, YOU'RE ACTUALLY EXCEEDING THE FER FOR EVERY SINGLE ZONING CATEGORY ALLOWED WITHIN THIS RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT UNDER THE NCCD.
UM, UH, THERE'S ALSO AN OUTSTANDING ISSUE WITH HEIGHT THAT I'VE NEGLECTED TO MENTION.
UM, SO, UH, THE, UH, HEIGHT OF THE, OF THE STRUCTURE, UM, IF YOU ARE MEASURING TO THE TOP OF THE DORMER THAT GOES FROM THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING TO THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, IT'S ACTUALLY AT ABOUT 31 FEET, WHICH WOULD EXCEED THE 30 FEET HEIGHT LIMIT UNDER THE EXHIBIT D OF THE NCCD.
AND THEN, UM, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE ON THE LOT DISCREPANCY ISSUE, WHICH WHERE THERE WAS THE, UM, THE CHANGE OF THE TOTAL LOT SIZE FROM THE SURVEYOR'S DRAWING, UM, THAT ACTUALLY BUSTED OVER THAT 0.65 FAR AS WELL.
SO THAT'S WHY I WAS EMPHASIZING IT EARLIER, UM, THAT THE, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SURVEYOR DRAWING DOES NOT MATCH WHAT WAS SUBMITTED THERE.
ANYTHING ELSE? I THINK, I THINK THAT'S IT.
UH, WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
NOW THIS TIME, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I ALREADY SAW A HAND VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
UH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO START, I MEAN, THERE'S, UH, THERE IS QUITE A BIT HERE AND I WOULD LIKE TO START TO SAY THAT THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE YES IN MY BACKYARD NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS ACTUALLY A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE UNO PLAN.
AND I MEAN, YOU CAN, ADOBE WAS THE TALLEST THING IN THE UNO AREA FOR THE LONGEST TIME.
[01:10:01]
THAT HAS BEEN BUILT IN THE CAMPUS AREA WAS A RESULT OF THESE NEIGHBORS SUPPORTING THAT.AND THAT WHAT THEY ASKED OF IN RETURN WAS THEIR LITTLE SECTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO REMAIN AND, AND HAVE THE CHARACTER IN CHARM AND DIVERSITY.
AND THEY HAVE MY RESPECT, JUST LITERALLY BECAUSE THEY WERE THE FIRST NEIGHBORHOOD THAT SAID YES IN MY BACKYARD.
AND I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT HIGH RISES THERE.
YOU, I MEAN, UNO HAS HAD AT LEAST TWO HEIGHT INCREASES IN THE LAST THREE YEARS.
AND SO I FIND IT VERY INTERESTING THAT THE NCCD IS INTACT.
SO, I MEAN, ONE OF MY FIRST QUESTIONS IS, DOES HOME EVEN IMPACT THE NCCD? BECAUSE THE NCCD IS ALMOST LIKE ITS OWN CONTAIN BUBBLE.
AND WHILE IT DIDN'T CONTAIN A THOUGHT FOR THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, UH, THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WASN'T PERMITTED WITHIN THOSE ZONES.
AND THEN ALSO, UH, PARTICULARLY AFTER THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INTERPRETATION IN 2021 ABOUT, UH, PROVIDING A PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY BATHROOM OVER FIVE, UM, WHICH IS AN INDICATOR OF HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU WOULD HAVE IN THE BUILDING IS OVER FIVE.
UM, I, I THINK THAT TO ME THERE ARE MORE THINGS.
SO THE PERMIT WAS APPEALED WITH THIS SCOPE, AND I ACTUALLY THINK THERE'S MORE SCOPE THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN APPEALED ON.
AND SO I AM, I AM LIKELY NOT IN SUPPORT OF, UH, SUPPORTING THE PERMIT REGARDLESS OF CORRECTIONS.
IN LOOKING AT THE PLANS, THERE ARE CLEARLY FOUR UNITS HERE.
YOU DON'T HAVE A BACK BUILDING THAT HAS TWO SETS OF STAIRS NEXT TO IT THAT CONVENIENTLY HAS A WET BAR INSTEAD OF A KITCHEN, BUT IT LOOKS JUST LIKE THE KITCHEN.
UM, AND I'VE SEEN THIS, UH, QUITE A FEW TIMES.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF STEALTH DORM TYPE THINGS HAPPEN, WHICH IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN ONE BUILT, UM, IT'S RATHER INTERESTING IN BEING UP HERE FOR SOME TIME.
THE, UH, WE HAD ONE WHERE THEY HAD LIKE A GAME ROOM WITH STUDIES OFF OF IT, BUT IT HAD LIKE A BATHROOM WITH LIKE SIX SINKS.
AND THEN CONVENIENTLY THERE WAS A CLOSET, JUST THE SHAPE OF THE, OF A SHOWER, YOU KNOW, AND, AND YOU'VE SEEN SOME OF THEM BUILT IN HYDE PARK.
AND SO ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT REALLY SURROUND THE UNIVERSITY WHEN THERE WAS NO OTHER STRUCTURES WHERE, WHERE COLLEGE STUDENTS CAN GO.
BUT NOW THERE'S, UH, THERE'S A TON IN THE WEST CAMPUS AREA.
AND SO I AM, I AM LIKELY ON THE, UH, REVOKE THE PERMIT END OF THE SPECTRUM.
SO I HEARD THREE QUESTIONS IN THERE THAT SOUND LIKE THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED TO EITHER LEGAL OR STAFF.
UH, I THINK THE BIG ONE THERE WAS THE 2021 DECISION BY THE BO OA AND HOW THAT, UH, RIGHT, BECAUSE, UH, SUBSECTION J ON PAGE 22 OF 46 INCLUDES THE ADDITIONAL PARKING IN THE ORDINANCE.
AND I'M READING THE ORDINANCE, NOT THE CODIFIED VERSION.
'CAUSE I FOUND THIS EASIER TO FOLLOW.
AND I KNOW THERE WAS ONE AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE, BUT IT DIDN'T SEEM TO BE IN RELATION.
SO WE HAD THE 2021, UH, INTERPRETATION CASE ON THE PARKING.
UM, I THINK THAT YOU EITHER NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT WAS ONE, YOU SAID THREE.
THE SECOND ONE IS, DOES HOME EVEN APPLY? 'CAUSE THIS IS KIND OF LIKE ONE OF THOSE, YOU CAN'T EAT YOUR, HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO.
SO HOME SAYS YOU COUNT THAT ATTIC SPACE'S MORE THAN SIX FEET, PERIOD.
SO YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE EXCEEDING IT IF YOU AREN'T COUNTING IT.
AND THEN THE FOUR UNITS AS OPPOSED TO THREE AS WELL AS, I MEAN, THIS IS KIND
[01:15:01]
OF LIKE ITS OWN LITTLE BUBBLE AND IT, AND NO DUPLEX ISN'T CALLED OUT IN THE TABLE, BUT THE 0.4, THE 0.5, YOU KNOW, IT, IT REALLY DOES CARRY ON.UM, I, I BELIEVE THAT THE INTENT IS FOR THE 0.4 FLORIDA AREA RATIO, UH, ON A SINGLE FAMILY LOT, REGARDLESS WHETHER YOU HAVE TWO UNITS OR THREE.
UM, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE THIRD QUESTION I HEARD PARKING FROM THE 2021 APPEAL.
DOES HOME APPLY TO AN NCD AND A QUESTION ABOUT HABITABLE ATTICS? WELL, THE HABITABLE ATTIC, IT'S, OR YOU JUST, IF IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, THAT IS A HABITABLE AVENUE, IT'S LIKE ONE OR THE OTHER, YOU KNOW? SO IF HOME DOES APPLY, THEN IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THAT COUNTS.
SO THEN THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY OVER UHHUH.
I MEAN, THERE'S JUST A LOT TO UNPACK HERE.
THIS IS, UH, THIS IS UNFORTUNATE.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE FOR THE APPLICANT.
IT'S A FOR UNFORTUNATE FOR THE APPELLANT.
UM, AND IT'S A DIFFICULT POSITION TO BE IN, TO BE JOINTLY THE DECIDERS OF, OF THIS SITUATION.
AND, UH, SO I GUESS LET'S, LET'S START, UH, EITHER LEGAL OR STAFF.
IS THIS A QUESTION OR ARE THESE QUESTIONS YOU WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS EVENING? YES, YOU CAN ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS,
UH, COME ON UP TO THE MIC AGAIN.
WE HAVE TWO, TWO OF YOU TWO ATTORNEYS TOO.
SO ON THE, ON THE FIRST, I'M JUST HERE IN MY CAPACITY AS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND WITH ME IS, UH, STEVE MADDOX FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
SO ON THE, THERE'S SEVERAL GREAT QUESTIONS WERE RAISED.
AND, UH, I GUESS THE FIRST ONE IS WHETHER, UM, HOME APPLIES TO THE CCDS AND, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE ANSWER MUST NECESSARILY BE YES, IT DOES.
UM, AND IT DOESN'T APPLY THE SAME WAY IN ALL CONTEXTS.
AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE ARE NCCD REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN HOME.
AND IN THERE ARE CASES WHERE THE NCCD WILL OVERRIDE HOME.
BUT THE, IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT PROVISION, UH, WHICH IS IN PART FIVE, SECTION ONE, IT SAYS ACCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE SECTION, THE PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR THE RESIDENTIAL BASED ZONING DISTRICTS APPLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE.
THERE ARE OTHER PARTS OF THE NCCD WHERE IT SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT ONLY THE USES SPECIFIED FOR A PARTICULAR DISTRICT ARE ALLOWED, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
SO WE BELIEVE THAT THREE UNIT USES ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THE NCCD ADDITIONALLY, UM, WE DO NOT RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD START DOWN THE ROAD OF SAYING THAT A FAR LIMIT THAT IS SPECIFICALLY APPLIED TO DUPLEX AND TWO FAMILY USES IS SOMEHOW APPLICABLE TO THREE UNIT USES.
WE DON'T THINK THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH BASIC RULES OF HOW WE READ THE CODE.
AND AGAIN, THE NCCD ITSELF ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THERE WILL BE USES ALLOWED UNDER THE CODE THAT ARE NOT CALLED OUT IN THE NCCD.
ALL OF THAT BEING SAID, UM, WE BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE MISTAKES IN THE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS, AND THOSE MISTAKES PERHAPS GO FURTHER THAN WHAT WAS JUST INITIALLY IDENTIFIED IN MY PRESENTATION, WHICH WAS DRAFTED BEFORE SOME OF THE MORE RECENT ISSUES CAME TO LIGHT.
SO WHETHER THE BOARD CHOOSES TO GIVE A MODIFICATION TO THE PERMIT WITH A PUNCH LIST OF ITEMS TO ADDRESS, OR WHETHER YOU CHOOSE JUST TO REVERSE THE PERMIT, EITHER WAY, THERE'S GONNA BE SUBSTANTIAL REDESIGN THAT IS REQUIRED.
I AGREE WITH MR. LEWINSKY'S COMMENTS THAT THERE'S A DOMINO EFFECT.
AND SO ADDRESSING THE SETBACK ISSUES IS GONNA REQUIRE SOME REDESIGN.
IT'S NOT JUST GONNA BE PULLING THE BUILDINGS BACK.
UM, SO WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PREPARED TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE PROBLEMS ARE ADDRESSED.
UM, I THINK THERE'S SOME CHALLENGES THAT HAVE ARISEN IN THIS CASE WITH REGARD TO THE TECHNICAL CODE REVIEW AND THE ZONING REVIEW, WHICH ARE NECESSARILY ON SEPARATE TRACKS, BUT THEY DO OVERLAP.
AND I THINK WE'RE VERY COGNIZANT OF THE NEED TO ENSURE THAT THERE TRULY IS OUR ONLY THREE UNITS AND THERE'S NOT FOUR UNITS.
ONE ISSUE OF CODE INTERPRETATION THAT I THINK IS RAISED IN THIS CASE, AND I,
[01:20:01]
AND I, I THINK A LOT OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH IMPLEMENTATION AND, AND THE PROCESS AS OPPOSED TO JUST THE PURE INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT OF THE CODE.BUT I THINK ONE INTERPRETATION, WHICH MR. ALLEN TOUCHED UPON, HAS TO DO WITH WHETHER ATTIC SPACE, UM, IS EXCLUDED FROM FAR AND UNDER THE NEW, THE NEW APPROACH TO FAR CALCULATION THAT HOME CALLS FOR, IT REALLY IS FOCUSED ON ENCLOSED SPACE WITHOUT THE SORT OF COMPLICATED DEDUCTIONS THAT ARE PROVIDED FOR UNDER SUB CHAPTER F.
HOWEVER, THE CODE DOES SAY THAT IT HAS TO BE A FLOOR, THAT IT'S THE TOTAL SPACE OF ALL FLOORS THAT COUNT TOWARDS, UM, GROSS FLOOR AREA.
SO WE, IT IS OUR PERSPECTIVE THAT, UM, AND WE'LL FOLLOW THE BOARD'S GUIDANCE ON THIS POINT, BUT WE, UM, IT IS OUR PERSPECTIVE THAT IF YOU HAVE AN UNINHABITABLE UNCONDITIONED SPACE AND IT'S AN ATTIC AND THE FLOOR IS NOT LOAD BEARING, UM, IT IS NOT, IT DOES NOT, IT IS NOT REINFORCED TO WHERE IT WOULD CARRY A, A LIVE LOAD, THEN THAT WOULD NOT COUNT AS A FLOOR.
I THINK THE APPELLANTS HAVE RAISED, UM, QUESTIONS, AGAIN, GOING TO THE ISSUE OF THE TECHNICAL CODE REVIEW, NOT ALWAYS LINING UP WITH THE ZONING CODE REVIEW ABOUT WHETHER, WHETHER THAT FLOOR IS INDEED PERHAPS LOAD BEARING.
AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WILL WORK ON, UM, WITH THE APPLICANT.
UM, SHOULD THE BOARD REMAND THIS TO US TO, TO, FOR FURTHER REVIEW, I THINK THAT IS A FAIR ISSUE.
BUT FUNDAMENTALLY, FROM A CODE INTERPRETATION STANDPOINT, IT IS OUR VIEW THAT AN ATTIC THAT HAS NO LOAD BEARING FLOOR, UM, THAT IS UNCONDITIONED, THAT THAT WOULD, WOULD NOT COUNT AS A FLOOR FOR PURPOSES OF FAR.
UM, I THINK THE LAST ISSUE THAT MS. UM, BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE TOUCHED ON WAS THE PARKING AND SPECIFICALLY THE APPEAL FROM 2021 AND HOW IT WOULD AFFECT THIS.
AND THE PARKING, THE, THE APPEAL HAD TO DO WITH WHETHER THE, I CAN'T BELIEVE I REMEMBER THIS, BUT I DO, UM, WHETHER THE FIVE BATHROOM TRIGGER FOR PARKING IS COUNTED PER ONE BUILDING OR PER THE AGGREGATE OF BUILDINGS.
BUT THE ISSUE HERE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN THAT.
AND THAT IS THAT THE PROVISION SAYS THAT THIS SECTION APPLIES TO A DUPLEX OR TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE IF THERE ARE AT LEAST FIVE BATHROOMS IN ALL BUILDINGS.
SO THIS PROVISION IS NOT TRIGGERED BECAUSE THIS IS A, NOT A DU UH, A DUPLEX OR A, OR A TWO, TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE.
UM, THAT IS THE PLAIN READING OF THE ORDINANCE.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S DISAGREEMENT ABOUT WHETHER THAT WAS TRULY INTENDED OR NOT.
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S A FAIR POINT, BUT THIS IS THE, THE PLAIN READING OF THE ORDINANCE.
UM, AGAIN, THE NCCD ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THERE WILL BE USES ALLOWED UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT ARE NOT CALLED OUT IN THE NCCD AND THREE UNIT IS ONE OF THOSE USES.
UM, AND IT'S NOT, IT JUST DOESN'T FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS PROVISION JUST AS IT DOESN'T FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE 0.4 FAR LIMIT.
UM, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE'S QUESTIONS.
UH, BOARD MEMBER ABDULLAH AND THEN BOARD MEMBER TON.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON THE QUESTION ABOUT THE ATTIC.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THE STAFF'S POSITION, YOUR POSITION IS THAT IF THE FLOOR IS NOT LOAD BEARING ACCORDING TO THE TECHNICAL, UM, REQUIREMENTS, YOU DO NOT COUNT THAT AGAINST THE FAR AND ALSO THE, THE DESIGN AS IS THE FLOOR IS NOT LOAD BEARING IN YOUR INTERPRETATION.
OUR INITIAL REVIEW OF THE TECHNICAL CODE SUBMITTALS INCLUDED NOTES INDICATING THAT THE FLOOR IS NOT LOAD BEARING.
UM, MR. ALLEN, TO HIS CREDIT, POINTED OUT SOME EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS THAT MORE RECENTLY THAT WAS PERHAPS CHANGED.
SO AGAIN, IF THIS IS REMANDED TO STAFF TO WORK ON A REDESIGN, WE WILL TAKE EXTRA CARE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS INDEED THE CASE, THAT THE FLOOR IS NOT LOAD BEARING.
UM, WE'RE ALSO OPEN TO THE BOARD'S GUIDANCE AS TO WHETHER OUR APPROACH TO THE FLOOR ISSUE IS JUST INCORRECT.
WE THINK IT IS LOGICAL AND IT MAKES SENSE AND IT FLOWS FROM THE WAY
[01:25:01]
THE PROVISION IS WRITTEN.BUT I THINK THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT IS, YOU KNOW, SQUARELY BEFORE THE BOARD, AND IT IS AN ISSUE OF CODE INTERPRETATION AND WE'LL RESPECT THE BOARD'S GUIDANCE ON THAT.
CAN YOU LOOK AT ATTIC EXEMPTIONS FOR ME SO I CAN KEEP RUNNING THE MAINING AND SEE WHAT THOSE MEASUREMENTS ARE? I'M JUST, I THOUGHT THERE WAS MORE TO IT THAN JUST THE, THE SUB ON THE FLOOR.
WELL, IN MCMANSION THERE'S A LOT MORE TO IT, AND WE HAVE HEARD MORE INTERPRETATION CASES ON HABITABLE ATTIC THAN MOST PEOPLE.
UM, I THINK I'VE BEEN HERE FOR ALL OF THEM.
UM, SO, BUT MCMANSION DOES NOT APPLY IF YOU ARE DOING MORE, MORE THAN ONE UNIT WITH THE HOME AMENDMENTS.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT THAT PART'S APPLICABLE, BUT THE, BUT IN MY OPINION, IF IT IS LOAD BEARING THOUGH IT'S UNCONDITIONED, IT'S VERY EASY TO CONDITION A SMALL SPACE.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT THE LOAD BEARING WOULD PROBABLY BE THE THRESHOLD AS OPPOSED TO IT'S NOT CONDITIONED BECAUSE I COULD GO TO HOME DEPOT AND BUY A LITTLE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT AND POP IT IN THERE AND JUST BE JUST FINE.
UH, ACTUALLY, OH, WERE YOU FINISHED? I WAS JUST GONNA ANSWER THAT.
UM, YEAH, SO SOMEONE, AND THEN WE CAN GET TO THIS WHEN WE, WHEN WE ASK QUESTIONS OF THE, UM, THE APPELLANTS AS WELL.
WE CAN DO THAT NOW IF YOU'D LIKE.
UM, CAN I ASK THE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANTS TO COME UP, PLEASE? Y'ALL CAN SHARE.
Y'ALL MIGHT AS WELL STAY HOP OVER ONE TABLE.
I THINK, I THINK MR. LAVINSKY WON'T BITE AND, UH, NOT RIGHT NOW.
UM, I JUST, I REMEMBERED FROM YOUR PRESENTATION, MR. LAVINSKY, YOU HAD BROUGHT UP THAT YOUR CONTENTION WAS THAT IF IT'S A SIX FOOT ROOM, LIKE A SIX, IF IT'S SIX FEET TALL YEAH, IT SHOULD BE COUNTING AGAINST THE FAR, CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE THE, THE REFERENCE FOR THAT? YES.
SO, UM, UNDER, IT'S, UM, THE SAME CODE THAT WAS CODIFIED FOR HOME ONE, IT'S SECTION 25, 2 7, 7 3, AND THEN YOU GO TO SUBSECTION E AS IN ELEPHANT, B AS IN BOY.
AND IT, THE ONLY DEFINITION INCLUDED HERE IS GROSS FLOOR AREA MEANS THE TOTAL ENCLOSED AREA OF ALL FLOORS IN A BUILDING WITH A CLEAR HEIGHT OF MORE THAN SIX FEET.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT SPEAKS TO LOAD FLOORS THAT ARE LOAD BEARING OR FLOORS THAT ARE NOT LOAD BEARING.
UM, ALSO, UH, I BELIEVE THIS WAS HANDED TO ME, SO IN THE EXHIBITS IT DOES SAY THAT THESE FLOORS ARE, UH, REINFORCED ON, UM, PAGE SIX, UH, S3 0.1.
NOTES, YEAH, NOTES IT NOTES IT AS A THIRD LEVEL.
SO I MEAN, IT SAYS IT'S A THIRD LEVEL.
I MEAN, IT'S A FLOOR IS A FLOOR.
IT'S KIND OF A DUCK AS THE DOCK.
I'M, I'M DONE WITH THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING.
UM, MR. LLOYD, IS THAT CORRECT? UM, YES.
I HAD A, UH, QUESTION, A PRACTICAL QUESTION.
UH, SO YOUR STAFF OR YOU, OR DID ERRONEOUSLY GIVE A PORTION OF THIS PERMIT? IS THAT CORRECT? AND WHAT SPECIFIC PORTION IS THAT A COMMON THING? AND DID THE, DID THE PERMITEE INCUR ANY COST? UH, BASED ON THAT PERMIT? I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOW THE QUESTION, BUT WE, THE, THE REVIEW STAFF APPROVED A PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT AND THAT THE, OUR DECISION, THE, THE COLLECTIVE DEPARTMENT'S DECISION TO APPROVE THAT PERMIT IS BEFORE YOU ON APPEAL FOLLOWING THE FILING OF THE APPEAL, WE, UM, STUDIED IT MORE CLOSELY AND IDENTIFIED MANY OF THE HEIRS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.
UM, BUT THE, THE PERMIT AS SUBMITTED WAS APPROVED IN FULL.
AND, UM, I GUESS, UM, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS JUST PRACTICALLY, DOES THAT HAPPEN OFTEN WHERE YOU, I GUESS, UH, A STAFF MEMBER GIVES THE PERMIT AND THEN THE DEPARTMENT LOOKS AT IT AND MAYBE REJECTS IT OR EVEN AFTER? UH, WE HAVE HAD, EVEN AFTER, UH, YOU KNOW, THE PERMITEE HAS TAKEN MAYBE EVEN TAKEN STEPS TO, UM, BASED ON THAT APPROVAL, WE HAVE HAD SITUATIONS WHERE EVEN ABSENT AN APPEAL, UM, THERE IS AN APPROVAL THAT IS GRANTED AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUES ARE PRESENTED TO STAFF THAT WHERE WE REALIZED THAT THERE WERE ERRORS MADE.
[01:30:01]
I DON'T THINK THAT HAPPENS A LOT, BUT IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE, FOR SURE.VIRTUAL MEMBERS LOOKING TO YOU FOR QUESTIONS.
UH, I HAD, UH, TWO QUESTIONS, BUT I WASN'T QUITE SURE, UM, WHO TO SEND IT OUT TO.
UM, I WAS TRYING TO FIND THE STATEMENT OF THE ARCHITECT, I GUESS MR. KAPLAN, UM, STATING THE APPROVED STRUCTURE PLAN WAS NOT HIS WORK.
IS THERE AN OFFICIAL LETTER FROM THE ARCHITECT REPORTING THIS INFORMATION IN THE CASE BACKUP PAINTER? COULD YOU COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY, UM, THE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH HIM WAS TODAY, UM, BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED TIME THAT WE WERE GIVEN, UH, THE, THE, THE DEADLINE FOR US TO SUBMIT THE PRESENTATION WAS OVER TWO WEEKS AGO.
UM, AND THE DEADLINE FOR US TO ADD ANYTHING ADDITIONAL HAS ALREADY PASSED.
SO I, WE DID HAVE UNTIL TODAY TO SUBMIT OUR LETTERS, WHICH I WORKED ON, UM, AS MUCH AS I COULD, BUT I UNFORTUNATELY WAS NOT ABLE TO INCLUDE THIS INFORMATION.
UM, UH, YEAH, BUT I CAN, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE READING AN EMAIL, PLEASE STATE WHO IT'S FROM, WHO IT WAS SENT TO TIME AND DATE.
SO JUST WE CAN READ IT INTO THE RECORD.
UM, THIS IS AN EMAIL TO ME, UM, AT 2:11 PM TODAY, UM, FROM JOHN, UM, HE HAD SENT SOME LAST NAME, UH, UH, JOHN KAPLAN.
AND THAT'S HIS EMAIL, WHICH ACTUALLY, UH, THERE, THERE WE GO.
IT ACTUALLY WAS SENT, UM, AT, UH, 10:12 AM UM, PETER, I AM PROVIDING A STATEMENT TO CLARIFY MY LIMITED INVOLVEMENT AND KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING MS. KATE KO AND CERTAIN PROJECTS ASSOCIATED, UM, APOLOGIES.
THE, THE JOHN SENT SOMETHING WHERE IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT THE, THE PERSON MENTIONED IN THIS PART OF THE EMAIL'S NOT INVOLVED AND, UH, I'VE GOT THE WRONG EMAIL.
UM, THE, THE IMPORTANT PART OF HIS LEGAL STATEMENT, WHICH I WROTE BACK TO HIM CONFIRMING THAT HE WAS COMFORTABLE HAVING THIS STATED IN FRONT OF THE BOARD, AND I CALLED HIM ON THE PHONE TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT HE WAS OKAY WITH THIS, IS, UM, I'M SUBMITTING THIS INFORMATION SOLELY TO CLARIFY MY LACK OF INVOLVEMENT AND MS. KO'S CURRENT PROJECT, AND TO ENSURE THAT ANY DOCUMENTATION OR CREDENTIALS ASSOCIATED WITH MY FIRM USED ASSOCIATED WITH MY FIRM ARE USED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION.
SHOULD REVIEWING AUTHORITIES REQUIRE VERIFICATION OF MY FIRM'S ROLE OR NEED SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, I CAN PROVIDE RELEVANT CORRESPONDENCE, PRIOR SUBMISSIONS UPON REQUEST BOARD MEMBER A.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? UH, YES.
UM, IT JUST DOES GIVE CLARITY.
I HAD A LARGER QUESTION, AND MAYBE IT'S A QUESTION FOR, UH, THAT'S A GENERAL QUESTION.
I JUST AM WONDERING, YOU KNOW, CAN WE, AS THE BOARD, CAN WE EVEN APPROVE, UM, A, UM, UH, AND YOU KNOW, CAN WE ACTUALLY SIGN OFF ON A SITE PLAN IF, IF THERE'S QUESTIONS OVER ITS AUTHORIZATION? I, I, I FIND THAT, YOU KNOW, VERY PROBLEMATIC.
SO THAT, SO THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL, BUT I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE ANSWER IS GOING TO BE.
THE, THE WHAT'S UNDER DISCUSSION IS A DECISION, A PERMIT THAT'S BEEN ISSUED ALREADY, AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT PERMIT WAS ISSUED VALIDLY ON WHETHER WE NEED TO CORRECT IT OR NOT.
SO I THINK I'M CORRECT IN SAYING THAT, AREN'T I, MR. MADDOX? UH, GOOD EVENING, UH, CHAIR, UH, VICE CHAIR BOARD MEMBER STEVE MADDOX, CITY ATTORNEY, UH, HERE, UH, REPRESENTING, UH, FOR STAFF, BUT, UH, THE CHAIR IS, CHAIR IS CORRECT THAT THE, THE SCOPE OF WHAT THE APPEAL IS IS UNDER CHAPTER 25 2.
UM, I THINK THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED REGARDING, UM, LACK OR
SO I, I AGREE WITH THE CHAIR THAT WHAT'S BEFORE THE BOARD DENIES THE, IS THE QUESTIONS FOR THE INTERPRETATION, UH, UNDER, UH, CHAPTER 25 2 OF THE ZONING CHAPTER.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? BOARD MEMBER A YES.
[01:35:01]
NO PROBLEM.OTHER VIRTUAL MEMBERS QUESTIONS? BOARD MEMBER KIM? YES.
UM, MAYBE THIS WAS ALREADY MENTIONED, BUT I JUST NEED SOME CLARITY.
UM, WHEN THE CITY STAFF WAS REVIEWING TO PROVIDE, APPROVE THE PERMIT AND ALL THE DISCREPANCIES THAT WERE RAISED BY THE PELLETS, UM, HAVING GONE THROUGH A PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS MYSELF BEFORE, I KNOW IT'S, YOU SUBMIT DRAWINGS, IT SEEMS LIKE, WHAT AM I TRYING TO UNDER? I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IS NOT WHAT WAS REPRESENTED IN THE DRAWINGS OR ARE WE SAYING THAT WHAT'S CONSTRUCTED IS WHAT WAS IN THE DRAWINGS, BUT IT WAS MISSED BY THE STAFF DURING THE REVIEW OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS? NOT CONSTRUCTED.
IT'S, YEAH, IT'S NOT YET NOT CONSTRUCTED.
SO WHAT THE STAFF REVIEWED IS THE DRAWING IS WHAT THE STAFF REVIEWED, BUT FINDING THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL PROPERTY IS NOT ALIGNED WITH WHAT WAS APPROVED IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
IS THAT RIGHT? UH, MR. LLOYD, GO AHEAD.
I THINK A BOARD MEMBER, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I THINK THE DISCREPANCY HERE, NOTHING HAS BEEN BUILT.
THIS APPEAL IS OCCURRING EARLY IN THE PROCESS.
UM, BUT I THINK THE DISCREPANCIES ARE BETWEEN THE ZONING REVIEW AND THE TECHNICAL CODE REVIEW THAT, UM, THERE'S ISSUES REGARDING THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED REGARDING WHETHER THE, THE TECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO A SEPARATE PARALLEL REVIEW PROCESS ACCURATELY REFLECT THE NUMBER OF UNITS, UM, THE, THE LOAD BEARING ISSUE WITH THE ATTIC, WHETHER THEY ACCURATELY REFLECT WHAT IS IN THE ZONING PLAN.
UM, AGAIN, THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
AND IN THE EVENT THE BOARD IN WHATEVER FORM OR FASHION DOES REMAN THIS FOR TO STAFF, THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT WE WILL VERY MUCH TAKE SERIOUSLY AND WORK ON TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT THIS IS A THREE UNIT PROJECT.
AND TO THE EXTENT THAT DEPENDING ON HOW THE BOARD COMES DOWN ON THE ATTIC ISSUE, THAT THE UM, FLOOR, FLOOR IS NOT LOAD BEARING.
BUT THOSE ARE THE DISCREPANCIES THAT HAVE OCCURRED.
BOARD MEMBERS BETWEEN THE TECHNICAL CODE REVIEW PLANS AND THE ZONING REVIEW PLANS THAT ARE ARCHITECT DESIGNED.
I GUESS I HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION.
SO I THOUGHT BASED ON THE LAWYER REPRESENTING THE APPELLATE SAID THAT THERE'S NOTHING RELATED TO THE SUBFLOORING IT ASSOCIATED WITH THE, WELL, I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY, THE CODE DOESN'T SAY IT'S WHAT DEFINES THAT OCCUPIABLE SPACE IS NOT RELATED TO A SUB, LIKE THE STRUCTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE FLOORING.
IT'S REALLY AT THE HEIGHT OF THE CEILING.
UH, DID I MISSSHE THAT OR THE APPELLANT WHO, AND THE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL WILL, WILL WEIGH IN IF I MISSTATE HIS POSITION.
BUT THE APPELLANT'S POSITION IS JUST THAT THIS IS A SIMPLE MATTER OF THE ENCLOSED SPACE.
IT IS A MATTER WHETHER IT'S CON IT'S CONDITIONED, WHETHER IT'S LOAD BEARING, IF IT'S THE, THE ATTIC COUNTS AS ENCLOSED SPACE, THEREFORE IT COUNTS TOWARDS FAR.
UM, OUR POSITION IS THAT WHAT COUNTS TOWARDS GROSS FLOOR AREA IS HAS TO BE A FLOOR.
AND SO IF THE ATTIC IS IN FACT NOT LOAD BEARING, IF THE FLOOR OF THE ATTIC IS NOT LOAD BEARING, IT DOESN'T CONSTITUTE A FLOOR AND THEREFORE BY THE VERY TERMS OF THE CODE, IT WOULDN'T COUNT TOWARDS FAR.
UM, THAT IS BASICALLY THE ISSUE OF CODE INTERPRETATION.
THAT IS BEFORE YOU, WE FEEL OUR POSITION IS WELL FOUNDED IN THE CODE AND, AND MAKES LOGICAL SENSE, BUT AGAIN, WE WILL DEFER TO THE BOARD'S JUDGMENT SHOULD YOU PROVIDE, UM, CONTRARY DIRECTION.
UH, CHAIR, MAY I CLARIFY? I'M SORRY, MAY I CLARIFY OUR POSITION? UH, YES, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WAS KIND OF BEAMED AT YOU ANYWAYS.
SO, UM, JUST TO, FOR, TO CLARIFY, UM, ON THE PLANS, UM, IF YOU GO TO S3 0.1, UM, YOU'LL SEE THAT IT'S ACTUALLY THE ELEVATIONS LABELED THE THIRD FLOOR AS A FINISHED FLOOR.
UM, AND THAT THE PLANS HAVE THE THIRD FLOOR AS BEING A DRYWALL FINISH.
SO YES, I WOULD AGREE THAT IT'S LITERALLY JUST A DEFINITION.
UM, IN THE CODE HERE, GROSS FLOOR AREA MEANS A TOTAL ENCLOSED AREA OF ALL FLOORS IN A BUILDING WITH A CLEAR HEIGHT OF MORE THAN SIX FEET.
UM, THE ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION ABOUT HABITABLE OR NOT IS ALMOST A NON ECUADOR BECAUSE IT'S CLEARLY HABITABLE IN THESE PLANS, BUT THERE IS A HABITABLE HABITABLE EXEMPTION IN THE MCMANSION ORDINANCE THAT DOES NOT APPLY HERE.
I BELIEVE STAFF IS TRYING TO APPLY A VERSION OF THAT HABITABLE EXEMPTION THAT DOES
[01:40:01]
NOT EXIST IN THE CURRENT.UM, JUST READ THE, THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE TEXT, UH, STATUTE HERE, WHICH IS JUST ALL FLOORS.
DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? BOARD MEMBER KIM? I THINK SO.
I'M GONNA PROCESS THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
LOOKING BACK AT THE DI UH, BOARD MEMBER PETITE QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SO IF WE WERE TO REMAND THE PERMIT TODAY OR AT A FUTURE MEETING, DO WE NEED TO RULE ON ALL OF THE ITEMS SUCH AS FAR, ATTIC EXEMPTION, ET CETERA? OR CAN WE JUST REMAND IT AND SEE HOW IT PLAYS OUT? THINKING I'M GOING TO DEFER TO THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
I'LL JUST SAY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, UM, AND LAW CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, YOU NEED TO MAKE SOME KIND OF A FINDING.
YOU NEED TO MAKE SOME KIND OF A FINDING THAT THERE WERE ERRORS MADE WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN TOPICS.
DO YOU NEED TO PROVIDE DETAILED GUIDANCE ADDRESSING ALL THE NUANCES? I DON'T BELIEVE YOU DO.
UM, THERE ARE TIMES IN PAST APPEALS WHERE THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN CLEAR ENOUGH THAT YOU HAVE PROVIDED VALUABLE GUIDANCE TO STAFF.
WE KEEP TRACK OF YOUR DECISIONS, WE FOLLOW THEM.
BUT IF, IF THERE'S JUST TOO MANY ISSUES HERE TO ADDRESS TOO MUCH GOING ON.
I THINK IF YOU MAKE A GENERAL FINDING THAT THIS DOES NOT COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, UM, WE WOULD WORK WITH THE APPLICANT SHOULD SHE CHOOSE TO REDESIGN.
UM, AND AGAIN, IF YOU WERE TO MAKE A MORE TARGETED DECISION THAT JUST SORT OF REQUIRES PARTICULAR MODIFICATIONS, I THINK THAT WOULD LEAD TO SOME REDESIGN AS WELL.
SO IT'S PROBABLY, UM, THEY'RE PROBABLY GONNA BE VERY SIMILAR PROCESSES EITHER WAY.
UH, IF I MAY REAL QUICK, UH, MR. MEDICS, I KNOW AT LEAST NINE OF THE MEMBERS ON THE BOARD HAVEN'T BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE.
COULD YOU PRESENT THE THREE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD OR, OR SOPHIA? UH, UH, AGAIN, UH, STEVE MADDOX, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, UM, I'LL PROBABLY DEFER TO THE BOARD'S ATTORNEY.
UH, GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR AND, UH, BOARD SORA, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE BOARD.
UM, AS FAR AS WHAT YOU ALL WOULD BE LOOKING AT TO FOR A FINDING? UM, SO YOU WOULD EITHER BE LOOKING AT UPHOLDING STAFF'S DECISION, UM, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.
YOU WOULD BE LOOKING TO POSSIBLY MODIFY STAFF'S DECISION.
UM, AND THEN OF COURSE YOU CAN ALSO GRANT THE APPEAL, WHICH WOULD BE, UM, ESSENTIALLY HAVING STAFF GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD WITH THE APPLICANT.
AND IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, BOTH MODIFICATION AND, UH, GRANTING THE APPEAL REQUIRES SUPER MAJORITY.
UH, SO TO GRANT THE APPEAL OR TO MODIFY THE STAFF'S DECISION, UM, IT HAS TO BE BY MAJORITY VOTE.
UM, THE DECISION MUST ALSO INCLUDE CERTAIN FINDINGS.
SO A FINDING THAT STAFF'S INTERPRETATION WAS INCORRECT, A STATEMENT THAT SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT STAFF'S INTERPRETATION WAS INCORRECT.
UM, AS WELL AS A STATEMENT THAT ASSERTS WHAT THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION IS.
AND YOU ARE GOING TO ALSO DECIDE TO NOT GRANT THE APPEAL.
BELIEVE IT WOULD ALSO BE BY SUPER MAJORITY VOTE.
UM, I KEEP GOING BACK TO ONE THING THAT'S IN THE CODE, BUT I ALSO GO BACK TO ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WAS MADE EARLIER, UH, BY MR. LLOYD THAT SAID, UH, HOME VERSUS NCCD AND WHICH ONE ACTUALLY HAS, UH, I GUESS PREFERENCE IN THIS CASE.
SO I'D LIKE TO, IF I CAN GET A LEGAL INTERPRETATION AS TO, WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE FOR THE NCCD THAT'S BEEN AROUND, IT WAS NEGOTIATED THROUGH NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, ALL OF THAT PROCESS SINCE 2004.
AND NOW WE HAVE HOME, AND I'M HEARING THAT THERE'S A CONFLICT YET WE ARE HERE WITH WHAT WE ARE HERE WITH.
AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION AS TO WHICH ONE IS REALLY THE ORDINANCE THAT IS FOR THIS AREA, AND IF THE OTHER ONE IS ALSO BECAUSE THAT MEANS THAT WE HAVE A CONFLICT.
SO WHICH ONE, WHICH ONE SUPERSEDES WHICH ONE ARE THEY EQUAL? THE NCCD OR HOME, UH, BOARD MEMBER, UH, STEVE MADDOX, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
I BELIEVE THE QUESTION COMES DOWN TO, UH, EACH NCCD IS IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT AS TO WHAT IT, WHAT IT INVOLVES.
[01:45:01]
AND AS YOU HEARD FROM, UH, MR. LLOYD, THIS NCCD AS IT COMES TO RESIDENTIAL USES, IT SAYS, IT BASICALLY SAYS THAT, UM, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED HEREIN, UH, FOLLOW THE CODE.AND SO THE CODE NOW ALLOWS FOR HOME, IT ALLOWS FOR THE THREE UNIT USE AS DESCRIBED IN CODE.
SO THIS IS DIFFERING THAN FROM, LET'S SAY THE NCCD FOR COMMERCIAL USES, WHICH SAYS A LITTLE FARTHER DOWN THE NCCD, WHICH SAYS EXPLICITLY, THESE ARE THE ONLY COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE ALLOWED.
SO FOR THIS ONE, WE BELIEVE THAT, UM, THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL IS ALLOWED WITHIN THIS NCCD.
BUT THE NCCD FOR THIS ONE, WHICH IS RIGHT HERE, UH, ORDINANCE NUMBER 0 4 0 8 2 6 DASH FIVE EIGHT, THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD.
CONS, UH, CONSERVATION COMBINED DISTRICT PART SEVEN, IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
IS THIS NOT A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, YES OR NO? WELL, WHAT I'M, I'M LOOKING AT BOARD MEMBERS IS PART FIVE THAT SAYS PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL BASED DISTRICTS.
I I GOT YOU, SIR, BUT I'M JUST LOOKING AT THIS.
IT SAYS, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IS INTENDED TO PROTECT THE ORIGINAL BUILDINGS AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS OF A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WERE ESTABLISHED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.
IT ALSO GOES ON TO SAY ANOTHER SENTENCE DOWN, NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD RESPECT TRADITIONAL PATTERNS INCLUDING BUILDING ORIENTATIONS, SCALE HEIGHT, SETBACKS, AND PARKING LOCATIONS.
SO I'M HAVING AN ISSUE NOT ONLY WITH THE AMOUNT OF MISTAKES OVERLOOKS, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL 'EM, BUT I'M ALSO HAVING AN, I I'M ALSO HAVING AN ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT NEIGHBORHOODS DID IN GOOD FAITH TRY TO NEGOTIATE AND DID THIS.
AND THIS ORDINANCE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE, AND YET NOW WE'RE CHANGING THAT WITHOUT DOING THE PROPER CHANGES TO AN ORDINANCE THAT AFFECTS THIS AREA.
SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I'LL LET YOU ANSWER YOUR, I'LL LET YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION, BUT I'M, I'M HAVING SOME SEVERE ISSUES AND BASED UPON WHAT THE STAFF ATTORNEY JUST GOT TO TALKING ABOUT, UM, UPHOLDING, UM, MODIFYING, I DON'T THINK IT'S MY CALL TO BE UP HERE TRYING TO MODIFY SOMEBODY ELSE'S PLANS AND TRYING TO GO BACK WHERE SOMEBODY ELSE HAS MISSED THEM.
AND, UM, I'M DEFINITELY LOOKING AT THE THIRD POSSIBILITY.
A, A BOARD MEMBER, I'LL JUST SAY THAT THE, THE NCCD AND AND STAFFS APPROACH AS YOU STEP INTO THE SHOES OF THE DIRECTOR IN REVIEWING THIS CASE ON APPEAL WAS THAT, IS THAT THE NCC DID ALLOW FOR THE NEW USE FOR THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL USE.
BUT AGAIN, UH, THE INTERPRETATION THAT BEFORE THE BOARD THIS EVENING IS, IS FOR Y'ALL TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THAT APPROACH, UM, YOU AGREE WITH IT AND IF THAT INTERPRETATION CAN THEN MOVE FORWARD FOR THIS NCCD.
THAT'S TRUE, BUT THE WAY I LOOK AT THESE PLANS AND LOOK AT THE RESIDENT, IT SURE DON'T LOOK RESIDENTIAL FOR ME AFTER 45 YEARS OF BUILDING THINGS.
SO BOARD MEMBER BOWEN, I WILL SAY, UM, I'M SURE MOST FOLKS HAVE FIGURED NOT MY, NOW PART OF MY JOB IS TO READ THE ROOM AND WHERE THE BOARD IS AT, AND RIGHT NOW I'M SEEING AT LEAST A MODIFICATION, IF NOT A REVERSAL.
UM, SO WE I THINK NEED TO START TALKING ABOUT A SPECIAL CALL MEETING BECAUSE WE HAVE A 60 DAY LIMIT ON, UH, GIVING A DETERMINATION OF FINDINGS.
UH, AND THAT IS BASED ON THE, UH, APPELLANT'S, UH, APPLICATION SUBMITTAL, WHICH WAS SEPTEMBER 3RD.
UM, I'VE NEVER HAD TO DO A SPECIAL CALL MEETING ON THIS SHORT OF NOTICE BEFORE, SO THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING.
BUT I'M, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE AND I'M ALSO GOING TO REQUEST THAT WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION DURING THE SPECIAL CALL MEETING SO WE CAN DISCUSS SOME OF THE LANGUAGE FOR EITHER MODIFICATION OR REVERSAL.
THE ONE THING I WILL TELL YOU IS I'M GOING TO TRY TO WRITE IN THERE, UM, TO HAVE MORE RESTRICTIVE CCDS SUPERSEDE HOME IF I CAN.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S EVEN POSSIBLE, BUT I THINK THIS MIGHT BE ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE IT'S REQUIRED.
SO BEFORE WE GET TO SPECIAL CALL MEETING, CAN WE ASK ELAINE, WHAT IS THE POSSIBILITY OF A LOCATION FOR A SPECIAL CALL MEETING? 'CAUSE IF NOT, WE HAVE NOTICE ISSUES.
WE, WE CAN'T DO EXECUTIVE SESSION TONIGHT.
WE CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL.
I'M JUST SAYING THE SPECIAL CALL MEETING, WE HAVE TO HAVE A ROOM
[01:50:01]
IF THERE'S NO ROOM AVAILABLE AND WE CAN'T YEAH.ANNOUNCE IT DURING THIS MEETING THAT WE'RE MOVING IT TO A TIME CERTAIN AT A LOCATION THAT WE THEN CAN'T DO IT ON A SPECIAL CALL MEETING.
AND YOU MIGHT WANNA REVISE YOUR TACTIC AND SEE IF SOMEONE CAN GET ON THE PHONE TONIGHT.
WELL, I MEAN, IF WE CAN'T HAVE A, WE HAVE TO HAVE A MEETING, IT HAS TO BE TELEVISED TAPED, SO WE'RE LIMITED TO LOCATION AND IT MIGHT BE YOUR POSTPONEMENT THOUGHTS MIGHT BE VERY INTERESTING, BUT IT MIGHT BE ASKING THE CASES AFTER THE APPEAL IF THEY WANT TO CONSIDER A POSTPONEMENT.
ELAINE, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT KIND OF, UH, TIME DO YOU NEED TO LOOK FOR A ROOM TONIGHT? BECAUSE EITHER WAY, WE'RE GONNA EITHER HAVE TO RECESS FOR HER TO LOOK FOR A ROOM, OR WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO RECESS OFFICE.
I, I OBVIOUSLY CAN'T DO IT TONIGHT 'CAUSE THERE'S NO CITY STAFF AVAILABLE FOR ME TO REACH OUT TO THEM AND SEE WHAT ROOMS ARE AVAILABLE.
SO IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE TOMORROW AND WEDNESDAY THAT I'M GONNA HAVE TO BE LOOKING AND IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE, NO, IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE BEFORE NOVEMBER 3RD BECAUSE THERE'S A 60 DAY WINDOW THAT Y'ALL HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION AND IT CANNOT BE PAST NOVEMBER 3RD.
SO MADAM CHAIR, RESPECTFULLY, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN POSTPONE THIS ITEM.
'CAUSE THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT WITHOUT NOTIFICATION IS TO DO IT.
CAN I SHARE SOME THOUGHTS? YES.
I HAVE A LOT OF NOTES, BUT I THINK JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING, IT'S POSSIBLE TO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, READING THE ROOM, IT'S POSSIBLE TO GRANT THE APPEAL WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE FAR ISSUE.
UM, I ACTUALLY HAVE A PRETTY STRONG TAKE ON THE FAR ISSUE, BUT IF WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID THAT, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE HAVE BEEN ENOUGH ERRORS IN THE APPLICATION THAT WE COULD JUST SAY, LOOK, IT WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUSLY GRANTED, YOU GUYS NEED TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD ON THIS.
UM, I'D ALSO JUST LIKE TO SHARE SOME OTHER THOUGHTS IF THAT'S OKAY WITH THE REST OF THE BOARD.
ALL MEANS, SO MY TAKE KIND OF SO FAR IS I UNDERSTAND THE RESIDENTS THEMSELVES ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CHANGING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, THEY'RE UNHAPPY WITH HOW THIS, UM, PERMIT HOLDER HAS INTERACTED WITH THEM, PERHAPS EVEN BEEN DISHONEST WITH THEM.
UM, THIS IS A TIGHT-KNIT COMMUNITY AND I COULD SEE HOW THAT WOULD BE FRUSTRATING.
UM, I WILL SAY THAT I DON'T THINK THAT KIND OF BEHAVIOR, WHILE IT, IT'LL ADVISE, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S ILLEGAL.
IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO LIE TO YOUR NEIGHBORS.
IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO BUILD A BUILDING YOUR NEIGHBORS DON'T LIKE OR MAKE YOUR NEIGHBORS MAD, SO LONG AS THAT BUILDING IS ACTUALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAW.
I ALSO BELIEVE THAT IF A BUILDING REALLY IS A THREE UNIT BUILDING BY DESIGN, MY INTERPRETATION, AND I THINK A JUDGE'S INTERPRETATION HONESTLY, WOULD BE THAT THE HOME STANDARD APPLIES BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THREE UNIT BUILDINGS.
IT IS SILENT ON THAT ISSUE AS THE STAFF AND ATTORNEY HAVE TALKED ABOUT.
UM, THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE HOME ORDINANCE SHOULD OVERRIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, UH, BUT WHERE IT SETS A STANDARD FOR SOMETHING ON WHICH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IS SILENT, HOME APPLIES.
NOW, MR. LEVINSKY, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANTS, HAS TALKED ABOUT THE MISCHIEF RULE, WHICH IS A RULE OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION THAT SAYS, LOOK AT WHAT THE LAW EXISTS TO PREVENT AND MAKE SURE YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.
HOWEVER, THOSE RULES OF INTERPRETATION ARE USED WHERE LANGUAGE IS AMBIGUOUS.
UM, WHERE JUDGES ARE HAVING TROUBLE FIGURING OUT WHAT, WHAT IT SAYS RIGHT HERE, THE TEXT IS PRETTY CLEAR.
UM, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DOES NOT ADDRESS THREE UNIT, UH, USES, BUT IT SIMPLY DOES NOT.
HOWEVER, TO ME THE QUESTION IS REALLY ABOUT THE CONFLICT IN THE PLANS.
AND IS THIS ACTUALLY DESIGNED AS A THREE UNIT BUILDING? IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE, I THINK THERE'S KIND OF AGREEMENT ON THE DIOCESE AS WELL THAT THIS LOOKS LIKE A FOUR UNIT BUILDING THAT POSSIBLY WAS ALTERED BY AN AMATEUR AFTER THE DESIGNS WERE HANDED TO THEM AND THEN SUBMITTED TO STAFF.
I THINK THAT ITSELF, UH, IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT.
UM, THE ENTIRE REASON FOR THIS PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS IS TO ENSURE THAT A BUILDING IS SAFE, LEGAL, AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMUNITY.
SO IF WHAT WE ARE REVIEWING IS ACTUALLY A FOUR UNIT BUILDING, THE DESIGNS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN ALTERED BY A NON-PROFESSIONAL AND WHICH ALLEGEDLY HAVE BEEN CALLED UNSAFE BY THE ENGINEERS WHO CREATED THE ORIGINAL DESIGN, UM, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE, THAT'S, THAT I THINK IS HONESTLY A BASIS FOR, UM, UPHOLDING
[01:55:01]
OR, UM, GRANTING THE APPEAL.UM, THERE ARE ALSO SOME OTHER ERRORS IN THE APPLICATION ITSELF THAT CONCERN ME.
UM, THE QUESTION ABOUT THE ATTIC, UM, IT'S CLEAR THERE ARE COUNTLESS ERRORS WITH THIS APPLICATION THAT STAFF IS NOW CHASING DOWN AND TRYING TO CORRECT.
AND I HAVE ZERO CONFIDENCE THAT THE OWNER WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE THESE CORRECTIONS WITHOUT A FULL REDESIGN.
AND IN FACT, AFTER I WROTE THAT, THE STAFF CAME UP AND ACTUALLY SAID THEY'RE GOING TO NEED TO DO QUITE A BIT OF REDESIGN.
UM, SO I'M INCLINED TO THINK THAT THERE'S GONNA, THERE ARE MORE ERRORS THAT A SUBSTANTIAL REDESIGN IS GOING TO HAVE TO HAPPEN.
AND TO ME, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO UPHOLD THE, THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF ALL OF THOSE ERRORS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT.
OTHER QUESTIONS? DISCUSSION? 'CAUSE WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION.
I THINK WHAT'S GONNA MAYBE HAPPEN IS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CALL A RECESS FOR LIKE AN HOUR BECAUSE TH THIS IS WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT AN APPEAL.
WE CAN'T JUST TAKE A VOTE ON IT AND GRANT IT.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO HAVE FINDINGS THAT WE GIVE WITH SOLUTIONS.
LIKE WHAT DO WE WANT TO SEE CHANGE? WE HAVE TO GIVE STAFF GUIDANCE.
WHICH PARTS DO WE THINK ARE WRONG? WE CAN'T JUST SAY, OH, WE'RE REVERSING YOUR DECISION.
SO IT MAKES IT A LITTLE HARDER.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WRITE SOMETHING UP.
SO IF YOU HAVE THINGS THAT YOU THINK SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, WE CAN COMPILE THEM AND THEN DISCUSS THEM ONCE WE CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.
I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE EASIEST WAY.
'CAUSE I DON'T, I DON'T SEE IT HAPPENING QUICKLY, BUT I MEAN, TO ME IT FEELS LIKE THE ATTIC ISSUE IS THE, THE LOWEST HANGING FRUIT TO ADDRESS.
LIKE, IF, IF WE CAN MAKE A JUDGMENT CALL ON THAT, WE CAN I AGREE.
WELL AND MORE ALSO, IS IT FOUR UNITS OR IS IT THREE? RIGHT.
UM, BUT I'M GOOD, I'M GOOD WITH THE SHORT VISA CD WINS, BUT IF IT'S THREE, THEN IT'S OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DECIDE HERE.
I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, YOU KNOW, THE FAR IS A CONCERN TO ME IN THAT IT WOULDN'T BE ADDRESSED IN THE NCCD BECAUSE THREE UNITS WASN'T PERMITTED.
AND SO YOU GET TO WHERE SF TWO, SF THREE WAS ALLOWED 0.4, AND THEN YOUR NEXT JUMP IS TO MF ONE THAT WAS TO 0.5.
AND SO HONESTLY, TO GO TO 0.65 IS TOO MUCH FOR ME.
I I CAN'T, IF THERE WAS SOME MIDDLE GROUND OF 0.5, I COULD PROBABLY ENTERTAIN THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE.
BUT WHY, IF IT WASN'T ALLOWED WHEN THEY WROTE THIS MASTERPIECE AND BASICALLY SAID WEST CAMPUS, GO, I CAN'T IN IN, IT'S JUST NOT WITHIN MY BEING TO, TO BE, UM, TO INTERPRET IT THAT WAY.
I COULD COMPROMISE, BUT I CAN'T, I, I CAN'T 0.65 JUST SO THAT EVERYBODY FRANKLY KNOWS BEFORE WE GO START WRITING THINGS.
UM, AND I DO THINK THAT HOME IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE SIX SPEED AND THE FLOOR.
IT DOESN'T, DOESN'T SAY THAT IT'S AIR CONDITION, THIS OR THAT.
'CAUSE I MEAN, HOW MUCH WORK DO PEOPLE DO IN BUILDINGS AFTER THEY'RE BUILT? UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S A LITTLE PLYWOOD BETWEEN FRIENDS? MANY SPLITS.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, I DO THINK THAT BEFORE WE BREAK TO WRITE AND THINK AND DO WHATEVER WE'RE GONNA DO, WE OUGHT TO OFFER THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THE AGENDA THE OPPORTUNITY TO POSTPONE.
BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A SHORT EXPERIENCE.
AND IF WE CAN GET A SPECIAL CALL MEETING AND KNOCK YOU OUT BEFORE, UH, NOVEMBER 3RD, WHICH IS THIS DEADLINE, WE WILL DO IT IF WE, IF WE HAVE A ROOM AVAILABLE.
I JUST DON'T WANT YOU TO BE TORTURED MORE THAN YOU HAVE TO.
AND I'M VERY SORRY THAT THIS ALL HAPPENED THIS WAY AND THAT YOUR CASE, YOUR CASES ARE BEHIND THIS, UH, QUESTION FOR LEGAL, IF WE WERE TO POSTPONE AND A ROOM WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND WE COULDN'T MEET FOR SOME REASON, TIME SERVED AND WE MISSED THE DEADLINE, WHAT HAPPENS THEN? YEAH.
IF, IF WE MISS THE DEADLINE, THEN THE APPEAL ESSENTIALLY IS, IS NULLIFIED.
[02:00:01]
MADAM CHAIR.THE OTHER ISSUE WE HAVE IS THE NOTICE IT HAS TO BE 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
AND THIS IF, UNLESS I FIND SOMETHING TOMORROW OR WEDNESDAY, MAYBE THAT THAT IS REALLY CUTTING IT SHORT LEGAL.
WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS HERE? BECAUSE WE JUST HAVE THIS CASE FOR THE FIRST TIME, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE ALREADY WELL INTO THE, UH, INTO THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE 60 DAYS.
THAT'S A STATE REQUIREMENT IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
RIGHT? IT IT IS A STATE LAW REQUIREMENT.
AND I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY FLEXIBILITY TO THAT REQUIREMENT.
I, JESSICA, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION IF YOU DON'T MIND.
SO, UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL.
SO CAN I ADD TO THE APPELLANT LIST? UH, THEY, THEY APPEALED FOR THINGS.
I, I WANNA KNOW, CAN I ADD, UH, THE PARKING AS FAR AS ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU WOULD WANT STAFF TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE? YEAH.
I CAN ADD YES, THEN THAT WOULD BE A PART OF THE, THE MODIFICATION.
I THINK MR. LEVINSKY IS ABOUT TO FALL DOWN ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING, BUT CAN YOU NO, BUT CAN SHE, CAN WE ADD ERRORS AS A BASIS ON WHICH TO UPHOLD TO A GRANT THE APPEAL IF THEY'RE APPEALING LIKE FOUR SPECIFIC ERRORS AND BOARD MEMBER HOR IS SAYING, I FOUND 5, 6, 7, 8 MORE ERRORS.
CAN THOSE BE THE BASIS FOR UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OR FOR GRANTING THE APPEAL? SO PART OF, PART OF EITHER IF YOU'RE CHOOSING, IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO MODIFY OR TO REVERSE THE APPEAL, UM, OR SIMPLY MODIFY, THEN ESSENTIALLY YOU WOULD HAVE TO INCLUDE A STATEMENT MM-HMM
THAT WOULD SUPPORT THAT CONCLUSION.
SO THAT CAN BE PART OF YOUR STATEMENT SUPPORTING YOUR CONCLUSION.
BUT CAN THE STATEMENT, CAN OUR BASIS FOR GRANTING THE APPEAL DIFFER FROM THE BASIS OFFERED BY THE APPELLANTS? YES.
AND JUST A REMINDER, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
I KNOW, BUT WE ARE KIND OF, WE'RE KIND OF FIGURING THIS OUT.
UM, THIS IS, I'VE BEEN HERE, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME, SO IT'S, WELL, I'M REALLY DEEP INTO THIS.
UM, MS. CHENKO EVEN SAID SHE WAS OKAY WITH MAYBE, I MEAN, LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION FOR STAFF, UM, LEGAL STAFF, UH, IF EVEN THE, UH, PERMITEE PULLS THEIR PERMIT, CAN THEY DO THAT? AND DO WE STILL HAVE TO, UM, GO THROUGH THE, YOU KNOW, UH, THE, THE DETAIL OF, UH, SETTING OUT OUR REASON FOR GRANTING THAT APPEAL? IF MS. CHENKO EVEN PULLS HER OWN PERMIT, DOES SHE HAVE THAT? IF SHE WITHDRAWS WITHDRAWS, THANK YOU.
WITHDRAWS WITHDRAWAL AT THIS MOMENT IT IS NOT WITHDRAWN.
YEAH, I WAS GONNA SAY WE IT NO, I'M JUST SAYING IS THAT EVEN A, DO WE, I DUNNO.
MS. CHENKO EVEN SHE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT IF I HEARD HER CORRECTLY, SHE SAID SHE'S OKAY WITH, UH, I'M, I'M NOT GONNA PUT HER WORDS IN HER MOUTH, BUT YOU CAN CALL HER UP TO ASK HER QUESTIONS.
MS. CHENKO, I DO HAVE THAT QUESTION.
CAN YOU ANSWER THAT? ARE YOU OKAY WITH WITHDRAWING YOUR PERMIT? IF YOU COULD JUST COME OVER HERE TO THE RIGHT AND PULL THE MICROPHONE CLOSE.
IS IT, UH, TURNED ON GREEN LIGHT? I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE REASONS TO WITHDRAW.
OKAY, SO YOU DIDN'T OFFER THAT.
I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO, YOU'RE OKAY WITH MAYBE I HEARD YOU WRONG.
I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU WERE OKAY WITH ACTUALLY, UM, HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN WITH ROBERT.
UH, I, I, I DON'T THINK THERE IS A REASON TO WITHDRAW.
THE ENGINEER NEVER SAID TO ANYONE THAT IT ISN'T SAFE.
UH, THE, UH, MR. KAPLAN THAT SENT A MESSAGE TO EVERYONE SAYING THAT OUR DRAFTERS WORKED FOR HIM AND ACCIDENTALLY PLACED, UM, THE, LIKE, THE STAMP ON THE, ON THE, UM, ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND WE JUST DIDN'T SEE THAT THERE IS NO PRO THERE.
THE, THE, WE HAVE, UH, TWO UNITS IN THE FRONT AND THE, UH, ONE UNIT IN THE BACK.
SO THE REASON FOR THIS ONE UNIT IS BECAUSE WE, UH, WANTED TO SAVE, UH, MONEY IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.
IT IS MUCH EASIER TO BUILD AND UH, UM, IT'S, UH, IT COSTS LESS IN FOR, FOR THE ENGINEERING AND FOR FOR ARCHITECTURE, FOR EVERYTHING.
AND, UH, I'D LIKE ALSO TO NOTE THAT, UM, THE, UH, IF YOU THINK OF THE ATTIC,
[02:05:01]
THERE IS NO SUBFLOW IN THE ATTIC.SO EVERYTHING YOU HAVE IS A DRYWALL OF THE CEILING OF THE SECOND FLOOR.
I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO WITHDRAW THIS BECAUSE THANK YOU MR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I, I HEARD I HEARD INCORRECTLY.
VIRTUAL MEMBERS LOOKING TO YOU.
OKAY, SO I'M, I'M SEEING THREE OPTIONS FOR HOW TO MOVE FORWARD.
ONE, WE CAN SAY THAT HOME APPLIES THAT THE THIRD FLOOR PUTS IT OVER THAT, THAT THAT THIRD FLOOR EXISTS AND IT PUTS IT OVER THE 0.65 FAR AND LEAVE IT THERE.
I KNOW YOU HAVE OBJECTIONS TO THAT OR MEMBER HAWTHORNE, I'M SURE OTHERS DO AS WELL.
UM, THE OTHER, THE SECOND ROUTE WOULD BE TO SAY THAT, AND THIS IS THE PART, AND I'M HAVING TROUBLE GETTING BEHIND THIS, BUT YOU'D HAVE TO SAY THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN REQUIRES THREE UNIT BUILDINGS TO HAVE A FAR OF WHAT THE ONE THAT APPLIES TO DUPLEXES.
AND THE REASONING WOULD BE THAT THIS IS AS CLOSE TO A DUPLEX AS THEY COULD THINK OF BACK THEN WHEN THEY MADE THE LAW.
BUT THAT'S, I MEAN, WELL, I MEAN, ARE YOU, NO JUDGE WILL ACCEPT THAT.
OR YOU COULD GO TO MF ONE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD NEED.
YOU WOULD NEED TO BE SF FIVE, SF SIX, OR MF ONE TO HAVE MORE THAN TWO UNITS.
SO YOU COULD SAY, OKAY, IT'S MF WHAT WOULD IT BE? MF ONE AS A FOUR UNIT.
WE'D SAY IT'S, IT'S, THIS IS ACTUALLY A FOUR UNIT.
YOU GUYS SHOULD HAVE FLAGGED THAT THIS WAS A FOUR UNIT, NOT A THREE UNIT.
THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE AN APPROACH TOO, RIGHT? AND MF MF ONE IS 0.5, BUT THIS LOT IS NOT ZONED MF ONE.
YEAH, IT'S ZONED MSF TWO AND SF THREE.
I WAS JUST OFFERING A MIDDLE GROUND FOR YEAH, BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S GOTTA BE, IT'S GOTTA BE SUPPORTED BY THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE LAW.
WE CAN'T JUST MAKE THE LAW HERE ACTUALLY.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING.
BUT IT HAS TO BE, IT HAS TO ACTUALLY MATCH WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES US TO DO THEN.
OR IT'S GONNA GET OVERTURNED ON APPEAL, THEN I WOULD UM, STICK WITH 0.4.
THAT'S, SO YOU THINK 0.4 THE DUPLEX STANDARD SHOULD APPLY TO A THREE UNIT BUILDING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I, I THINK THAT, OKAY, SO THAT WOULD BE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN REQUIRES THAT A THREE UNIT BUILDING, THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, THE DUPLEX BAR OF, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD, YOU MIGHT TAG ME INTO IT TO 0.4, BUT THE ATTIC OKAY, I, BUT I'VE BEEN AROUND THE BLOCK A FEW TIMES.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M EASY TO TALK INTO THAT.
YOU'RE NOT GETTING ME ABOVE 0.5 FOR SURE.
I I DO THINK WE NEED TO CONTEMPLATE LANGUAGE 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT GONNA GO FAR WITH THIS 'CAUSE WE CAN ALL SIT HERE AND KIND OF STARE AT EACH OTHER FOR A WHILE, BUT WE ACTUALLY NEED TO CONTEMPLATE LANGUAGE.
UH, I'M SUGGESTING AT LEAST A 30 MINUTE RECESS.
YEAH, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT, AT LEAST 30 MINUTES.
UH, BOARD MEMBER LIN, UH, THIS IS MORE OF JUST THINKING OUT LOUD WITH ALL OF YOU, BUT I'M, I'M NERVOUS ABOUT THE, THE PRECEDENT OF, UM, SAYING THAT THAT HOME DOES OR DOESN'T SUPERSEDE, UH, A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
I, I LIVE IN A, IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH, UH, WITH A OVERLAY PLAN AND I GET REZONING CASES THAT, THAT WORRY ME.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT ALL OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS WITH NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS KNOW THAT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS ARE POTENTIALLY NOT IN ALIGNMENT NOW THAT THE HOME ACT IS OUT AND, UM, UNLESS THE CITY IS POTENTIALLY IN A PLACE TO GO OUT AND HELP ALL SIX NEIGHBORHOODS UPDATE THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS.
UM, I I I, THERE'S A PROBLEM HERE.
I ADMIT I AM HESITANT, UH, TO WANNA DIG INTO THIS, BUT THIS IS, THIS IS, THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE HARDEST APPEALS WE'VE HAD IN A WHILE.
AND IT, I I THINK IF WE ARE CAREFUL IN OUR CRAFTING OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WE CAN AVOID INTERFERING WITH ANY OTHER PARTS OF THE LDC AND JUST FIX STUFF SPECIFIC TO THIS LOT, THIS IS WHY WE'RE GONNA NEED TIME VICE CHAIR.
I, I JUST THINK THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU WRITE CODE IN A PART ONE AND A PART TWO AND I SENT THAT ON TO THE MICROPHONE RIGHT THERE
[02:10:01]
WHEN HOME ONE WAS CODE FITS TOGETHER AND WHEN YOU START IT, YOU'RE GONNA MISS SOMEWHERE.YOU'RE GONNA MISS NOBODY'S THAT GOOD THOUGH, MR. LLOYD.
I KNOW YOU'RE THAT GOOD, BUT IN THIS CASE YOU DIDN'T WRITE EVERYTHING.
YOU HAD THOSE OTHER PEOPLE OVER IN THE ZONING DEPARTMENT.
SO I THINK THE THINGS WE NEED TO FOCUS ON ARE GONNA BE THE FAR, UH, WHAT'S GOING TO APPLY THERE, WHETHER OR NOT THE ATTIC IS GONNA BE PART OF THAT FAR, WHETHER THIS IS A THREE OR FOUR UNIT CONSTRUCTION, UM, HEIGHT, PARKING AND PARKING.
SO HOW LONG ARE WE BREAKING FOR? OKAY, THE TIME IS 8:08 PM WE ARE GOING TO RECESS UNTIL EIGHT 40.
AND WE CANNOT BE TOGETHER MORE FOUR PEOPLE TO WRITE OR IS THREE? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
PLEASE CLARIFY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT OFFICIALLY WORKING GROUPS, SO WE HAVE TO KEEP UNDER A QUORUM IN ORDER TO, CAN, CAN WE INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER WHILE WORKING IN LANGUAGE A QUORUM WITHOUT A WORKING GROUP? WELL, IF WE'RE IN RECESS, WE WANT TO AVOID THE QUORUM, RIGHT? SO THE QUORUM WOULD BE SIX MEMBERS.
UM, BUT CONSERVATIVELY WE SHOULD PROBABLY LIMIT TO AT LEAST NO MORE THAN FOUR.
SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY BEFORE WE WENT TO TRY TO CRAFT THAT WE WOULD NOT BE, UM, CAN WE IN TROUBLE, WILL WE BE ABLE TO MUTE THE AUDIO FOR THE FOUR OF OUR VIRTUAL MEMBERS SO THEY CAN DISCUSS AMONGST THEMSELVES AND THEN IT DOESN'T COME INTO THE CHAMBERS.
AND THEN WE CAN SPLIT IT HERE.
LIKE WE CAN SPEAK HALF AND HALF.
WE WILL RECONVENE AT EIGHT 40.
WELL HE MIGHT BE ASKING FOR A POSTPONEMENT BECAUSE HE'S BEEN SITTING THERE ALL TIME.
THE NEXT ITEM, THE TIME THAT WE'RE RECONVENING, I KNOW IT'S JUST HAPPENED, BUT, UH, UH, IT'S EIGHT 10.
UH, IT, SO OBVIOUSLY FOR THE FOLKS THAT ARE HERE TONIGHT, THERE ARE FOUR OTHER CASES IF YOU WOULD LIKE A POSTPONEMENT.
'CAUSE THIS IS GONNA TAKE A HOT MINUTE.
UH, COME ON UP AND TALK TO ME AND WE'LL, WE WILL GET YOU WORKED OUT.
THIS IS, UH, I DON'T KNOW THE ITEM NUMBER, BUT IT'S, UM, CASES OH OH TWO
[Item 5 & 6]
SIX AND OH OH TWO SEVEN.WHEN'S THAT VARIANCE ABOUT SOME BOAT DOCKS? UH, RIGHT.
DO YOU WANNA POST THOSE TO NOVEMBER? YES.
THANK YOU, THERE'S TWO PARTIES HERE.
ARE YOU OKAY WITH? WE'RE FINE WITH IT.
THANK YOU FOR COMING IN PERSON THIS TIME.
AND THANK YOU FOR COMING IN PERSON THIS TIME.
I'M REALLY SORRY THAT THIS HAPPENED THIS WAY.
I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AND YOUR KINDNESS TO EACH OTHER AND TO US.
FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS, IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO POSTPONING C 15, 20 25 0, 0 2, 6, AND C 15, 20, 25, 27 TO NOVEMBER 10TH, 2025? NO OBJECTION.
WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND POSTPONE THAT ONE.
DOES ANYONE ELSE WANNA POSTPONE IT FOR THEIR CASE? MADAM CHAIR? UM, WE MIGHT HAVE ONE MORE POSTPONEMENT, BUT HE HASN'T RESPONDED.
HE WAS ASKING IF HE CAN REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT, WHICH IS THE SPLIT RAIL, UM, ITEM THREE.
SO I GUESS MAYBE HE'LL LET ME KNOW AFTER THE RECESS.
SO HE WAS GONNA PHONE IN? YES, HE'S VIRTUAL.
HOW SHOULD THE VIRTUAL MEMBERS, UM, COORDINATE, OR ARE WE NOT INVOLVED? BECAUSE OUR AUDIO NEEDS TO BE SET? WE'RE ABSOLUTELY INVOLVED.
SO WHEN WE ACTUALLY CALL THE RECESS, UH, CTM WILL MUTE Y'ALL WITHIN THE CHAMBERS SO THAT Y'ALL WILL BE ABLE TO DISCUSS AMONGST YOURSELVES.
AND THEN WHEN WE COME BACK INTO SESSION, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO PRESENT YOUR FINDINGS OR REQUESTS, PRESENT YOUR
[02:15:01]
LANGUAGE, AND THEN WE CAN ALL GROUP WORK IT TOGETHER FROM THERE.[3. C15-2025-0036 Joshua Myers 12302 Split Rail Parkway (postponned)]
SPLIT RAIL.UM, HE'S ON VIRTUAL AND THAT'S GOING TO BE JOSHUA MEYERS, RIGHT? YES.
JOSH MEYERS GONNA HAVE TO ASK HIM.
JOSH, CAN YOU HEAR US GUYS? IF I COULD GET TODD TO JUST KEEP IT DOWN FOR JUST A FEW MORE SECONDS TILL WE OFFICIALLY GO TO RECESS.
JOSH, ARE YOU ON? CAN YOU HEAR US, JOSH? SOMETIMES THERE'S A DELAY THAT'S, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE CAN, WE CAN LOOK AT IT AFTER THE RECESS.
AND IF YOU GET HIM ONLINE AND HE WANTS TO REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT, I THINK WE CAN GRANT THAT.
THE TIME IS 8:13 PM WE ARE GOING INTO RECESS UNTIL 8:45 PM 1:00 PM HEREBY CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.
UM, WHY DON'T WE START WITH JUST AN OPEN DISCUSSION ON, ON, ON HOW WE'RE FEELING AND WHAT THE BIG STICKING PARTS ARE FOR ANYBODY.
SO WHY DON'T WE START, UH, UM, BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF STONEY, DO YOU WANNA GO FIRST OR TELL US WHERE YOU'RE AT AND WE CAN JUST HEAD DOWN THE LINE HERE AND TALK ABOUT WHAT WE DISCUSSED AND, YEAH.
UM, I MEAN, I THINK, I THINK IT'S CLEAR, UM, IF ANYTHING IS CLEAR, UM, I THINK I, I AM NOT COMFORTABLE SORT OF JUST MODIFYING THIS PERMIT AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, IT'S, WE HAVE TO MODIFY THE APPROVAL TO BE CONTINGENT ON MEETING THIS FIVE, THESE FIVE OR SIX THINGS.
BECAUSE FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN, I HAVE, LIKE, I HAVE NO CONFIDENCE THAT THERE AREN'T ADDITIONAL ERRORS THAT WERE MADE IN THE PROCESS.
AND SO I AM LEANING TOWARD, YOU KNOW, UM, GRANTING THE APPEAL AND KIND OF LIKE TAKING THE PROCESS BACK TO SQUARE ONE.
UM, IN TERMS OF HOW WE DO THAT IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T MESS WITH THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN NCC D, NCC, DS, AND HOME, THE BEST WAY TO KIND OF SKIN THAT CAT.
IT'S KINDA A TERRIBLE EXPRESSION, BUT, UM, I THINK THAT'S WHERE I'M SORT OF STUCK IS WHAT IS THE BREAST APPROACH HERE? I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT SHOULD WE ACTUALLY VIEW THIS AS A THREE UNIT BUILDING OR SHOULD WE BE SAYING NO, IT'S CLEARLY A TWO UNIT OR A FOUR UNIT.
UM, I THINK THERE ARE ROUTES TO TAKE THERE.
SO WE, WE COULD SAY LIKE, BECAUSE THIS HOLE WAS CUT IN THE WALL, THAT HAS CHANGED THE DESIGN.
IT'S ACTUALLY A TWO UNIT BUILDING, AND SO THE DUPLEX STANDARD APPLIES.
UM, ANOTHER APPROACH THAT'S SLIGHTLY MORE AGGRESSIVE.
I THINK, UH, MY, MY CONCERN THERE IS THAT I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT HAPPENED PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PERMIT.
SO THAT WAS NOT ACTUALLY, THAT POTENTIALLY IS NOT AN ERROR IN THE APPROVAL OF THE PERMIT.
SO THAT'S KIND OF A SIDE NOTE.
UM, I ALSO THINK WE COULD TAKE THE APPROACH THAT WE ACTUALLY THINK THIS IS A FOUR UNIT DESIGN, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A REZONING FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND.
UM, I THINK IF WE ACCEPT THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY A THREE UNIT BUILDING, UM, I THINK THAT IS LIKE THE MOST AGGRESSIVE ONE BECAUSE I THINK AT THAT POINT WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHAT FAR APPLIES TO A THREE UNIT ON SF TWO IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
DO WE SORT OF EXPAND THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLAIN LANGUAGE BASED ON WHAT WE THINK THE INTENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS AND APPLY THAT SF TWO FAR OF 0.4, WHICH IS CLEARLY MARKED WITH THE WORD DUPLEX.
UM, OR DO WE APPLY THE DEFAULT HOME, UH, FAR, WHICH I THINK WOULD PUT AT THE 0.65? UM, AT WHICH POINT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE STILL PROBLEMS WITH THE APPLICATION.
I THINK WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, STILL UPHOLD THE APPEAL, BUT IT'S A LESS AGGRESSIVE, UH, RULING.
SO I'M, I'M SORT OF STUCK THERE.
I THINK I'M, I'M WANTING TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND I'M NOT QUITE MARRIED TO A PARTICULAR APPROACH YET ON HOW TO DO THAT.
LET'S JUMP TO, UH, BOARD MEMBER MCCLELLAN.
UM, I AM ALSO, UH, AT, AT A HIGH LEVEL FOR, UM, TAKING THIS ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE BEGINNING.
UH, THERE'S NOT, AND AND GRANTING THE APPEAL, UH, I DON'T SEE REALLY ANY SITUATION IN WHICH, UH, I'M GONNA BE ABLE TO JUST SORT OF MAKE A LINE ITEM REVISIONS TO, UH, THE PERMIT AS IT WAS GRANTED.
[02:20:02]
I, IN TERMS OF THE FLOOR AREA RATIO, UM, I THINK WE SHOULD RESPECT WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, AND WAS TRYING TO DO WITH THEIR, UH, 0.4 FAR.UM, I, THE FACT THAT THERE'S NOT A, A A, A DEFINITION BEYOND DUPLEX, UM, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S FAULT DATING BACK TO, YOU KNOW, 2011 OR, OR WHENEVER KNOWING HOW OLD SOME OF THESE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS ARE.
UM, BUT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT.
UH, I WOULD STILL LIKE TO SEE, UH, YOU'RE RIGHT, THE, THE, THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THIS IS THREE OR FOUR UNITS REALLY SORT OF IMPACTS THE, UH, THE, THE CORRECT COURSE OF ACTION HERE.
UM, SO IT'S PART OF ME WANTS TO JUST KICK IT BACK TO THE CITY AND SAY, START OVER.
WE'LL, WE'LL, IF IT COMES BACK TO US AT THAT POINT, THEN IT COMES BACK TO US AT THAT POINT.
UM, I, ANY, ANY, UH, ANY ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS BEYOND THAT? UM, I, I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, I, I THINK THE CITY IS SETTING ITSELF UP FOR, UH, SOME POTENTIALLY UNCOMFORTABLE, UH, SITUATIONS JUST GIVEN, UM, BOTH THE HOME ACT AND THESE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, CODES.
UM, NOT SUPER HAPPY THAT, UM, IT'S SORT OF FALLING ON US TO MUDDLE THROUGH IT.
UM, BUT CURIOUS TO HEAR WHAT THE REST OF YOU ALL HAVE.
BOARD MEMBER POTI, KEEP IT SHORT.
I THINK WE SHOULD GRANT THE APPEAL, BUT IF WE ARE GOING TO, UH, WEIGH IN ON THE FAR DISCUSSION, I DO THINK THAT FAR 0.65 IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS NCCD.
I'M GOING TO JUMP TO VIRTUAL FOR A MINUTE AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND FINISH OUT THIS WAY.
UM, HOW ABOUT WE START WITH BOARD MEMBER MEDINA LAY, SINCE YOU'RE TOP LEFT FOR ME, WHAT DID YOU GUYS TALK ABOUT? DO YOU HAVE IDEAS OF WHERE YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THIS GO, OR, YES.
UM, WE DISCUSSED THAT WOULD ALL IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THE APPEAL.
UM, YES, WE, WE DISCUSSED, UM, THAT WE WOULD BE LIKELY GRANTING THE APPEAL.
UM, PRIMARILY, I THINK FOR US IT WAS THE ISSUES AROUND, UM, THE ERRORS THAT WERE MENTIONED IN THE PERMIT, IN THE REVIEW.
UM, AND WE DISCUSSED BEING OPEN TO, YOU KNOW, AN APPROACH THAT LOOKED AT BOTH THE NCCD AND HOME.
I THINK THERE WAS MAYBE SOME CONFUSION, AT LEAST ON MY END, IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPEAL, DO WE, TO WHAT EXTENT DO WE NEED TO KIND OF GIVE GUIDANCE ON HOW IT SHOULD BE REVIEWED MOVING FORWARD? OR, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE RESUBMISSION PROCESS GOES THROUGH BOARD MEMBER EIGHT? YES.
UH, BASICALLY, UH, UM, UM, I KIND OF WENT ON, WELL, UM, I AGREED A LOT WITH WHAT BIANCA, YOU KNOW, HAS STATED, UH, WHEN TALKING ABOUT THAT.
UM, I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, UM, THE LAST, BEFORE WE BROKE, UM, THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT TRYING TO FIND THE COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE NCCD AND A HOME.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I, I REMEMBER, YOU KNOW, TELLING THE, THE GROUP ON VIRTUAL GROUP THAT, YOU KNOW, I, I WAS KIND OF HOPING, WELL, YOU KNOW, I'M HOPING THAT, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER GROUP CAN FIND A, A GOOD COMPROMISE AND, YOU KNOW, IN ORDER FOR TO PUSH IT ALONG, UM, I MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, I WOULD BE WILLING TO, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, VOTE IN AGREEMENT, UM, OF THAT ITEM.
AND, UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, AT THE SAME TIME, UM, YOU KNOW, IN PRINCIPLE, IF THERE, IF IT COULDN'T BE A COMPROMISE, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THE, UM, THE HOME ORDINANCE, UH, TAKING PRECEDENTS OVER THE NCCD, UH, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE EACH NCCD
[02:25:01]
IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.AND I COULD SEE A, A SCENARIO WHERE, YOU KNOW, IN, IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE AND MAKE PRECEDENT, THEN THIS COULD POSSIBLY, WE HAVE TO REVISIT THIS OVER AND OVER AND OVER IN OTHER MCCD, UH, CASES WHERE THIS COULD POSSIBLY OCCUR.
UM, SO IT IS A DIFFICULT DECISION.
UM, I, I, I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN WORK THROUGH IT.
UM, UH, BUT IN, UM, IN PRINCIPLE, I, I AM IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL.
UH, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE ACTUAL CHANGES, UM, IN TERMS OF HOW THE, THAT APPEAL WOULD BE STRUCTURED, PARTICULARLY MOVING FORWARD, UM, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF ACTUALLY THE HOME OR SOME SORT OF COMPROMISE.
SO I, IT SEEMS TO BE THAT I, I THINK MOST OF US DO WANT TO, UM, GRANT THE APPEAL, BUT NOT ENTIRELY AGREE, NOT ENTIRELY FOR THE SAME REASONS.
UM, AND, AND THIS IS A QUESTION THAT I'M NOT SURE WHO IT WOULD BE BEST DIRECTED TO, BUT A QUESTION I HAVE IS, WHAT IS, WHAT ARE THE NARROWEST GROUNDS UPON WHICH WE COULD GRANT THE APPEAL SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO GET INTO ALL THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WE, UM, DON'T AGREE ON, SUCH AS, DOES THE FAR, UH, IS, IS IT 0.65 OR IS IT 0.4 OR POTENTIALLY SOMETHING ELSE? IS THERE A WAY WE CAN GRANT THE APPEAL WITHOUT DELVING INTO MORE THAN WE REALLY NEED TO, TO SAY THIS IS A PERMIT THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
AND I, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DIGGING AT HERE TOO, A LITTLE BIT.
UM, AND MAYBE THIS IS JUST MY NEWNESS TO THE BOARD THAT I, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME, NO, NO, NO.
AT LEAST FOR ME, THAT I'VE DEALT WITH ONE OF THESE CASES.
THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN JUST A COMPLICATED, COMPLICATED CASE, RIGHT? IT'S NOT OUR, OUR TYPICAL VARIANCE REQUEST.
SO WHAT, WHAT, HOW MUCH MUCH DO WE NEED OR HOW LITTLE CAN WE FIND AND STILL GRANT THE PERMIT? GRANT THE APPEAL? YEAH, I'M SORRY, GRANT.
GRANT THE APPEAL, SORRY ABOUT THAT.
SAYING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT, WHAT I MEANT TO INTENDED TO SAY.
AND I, I THINK MAYBE WE WERE, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IF WE DETERMINE THAT THIS IS FOUR UNITS INSTEAD OF TWO, THAT MIGHT BE THE EASIEST WAY.
'CAUSE THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO EITHER GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD OR GET REZONED.
AND ON THAT, ARE WE CORRECT? LIKE SO THERE'S THREE BUILDINGS, RIGHT? AND IT'S THE BACK BUILDING, THE THIRD BUILDING THAT HAS THE SORT OF BREAK IN THE WALL CUT FIREWALL CONNECTING.
SO IT, IT IS THREE ACTUAL SEPARATE BUILDINGS THOUGH.
THE FRONT BUILDING IS A DUPLEX.
THE BACK BUILDING MIRRORS THE FRONT BUILDING EXCEPT FOR IT HAS A HOLE IN THE WALL AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STEPS.
AND THERE ARE TWO STEPS THAT RUN NEXT TO EACH OTHER.
AND THERE'S A HOLE AT THE BOTTOM, BUT THERE'S ALSO A GRADE CHANGE THERE OF A FOOT THAT YOU'RE GOING IN BETWEEN THE TWO.
SO IF WE FOUND THAT IT'S FOUR UNITS AND THAT'S A REASON TO GRANT THE APPEAL, DO WE NEED TO EVEN MAKE ANY OTHER FINDINGS? NO, I THINK BY, BY GRANTING THE APPEAL, IT WOULD JUST, IT WOULD, UH, AUTOMATICALLY GRANT THE, THE THE FOUR FINDINGS.
FOUR FINDINGS IN THE APPEAL LISTED.
LET, LET'S MOVE ON TO BOARD MEMBER KIM.
YEAH, I THINK, UM, UM, AND SHARING THE SAME SENTIMENT AS THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, UM, WE'VE, I FEEL COMFORTABLE GRANTING THE APPEAL BASED ON ALL THE HEARING, EVERYTHING ON BOTH SIDES.
UM, READING THE FLOOR PLAN AS WAS SENT, IT'S AN EXACT, THE BACK UNIT THAT READS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE ONE SINGLE UNIT, WHICH JUST LIKE A DUPLEX, EXCEPT THAT OPENING AT THE BASE LEVEL, WHICH COULD BE VERY EASILY INFILLED.
UM, EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT IT READ AS A DUPLEX, SO IT'S REALLY HARD TO IGNORE THAT.
IT'S KIND OF, IT'S WRITTEN IN PLAIN LANGUAGE.
SO, UM, I FEEL COMFORTABLE, UM, WITH GRANTING THE APPEAL BECAUSE WE CAN'T HELP BUT READ THAT DESIGN AS FOUR SEPARATE FOUR, NOT SEPARATE FOUR UNITS.
[02:30:03]
OKAY.LET'S
BUT YEAH, SUPER, UH, LEGAL HAS APPROACHED ME WITH A QUESTIONING LOOK IN HER EYE, THEREFORE, LEGAL.
DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO TELL US? YES.
THANK YOU FOR THE RECOGNITION CHAIR.
UM, CHAIR, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, UM, BECAUSE I BELIEVE I HEARD THAT, UM, IN ORDER TO GRANT THE APPEAL, UH, I BELIEVE TO REVERSE, I HEARD IT SAID THAT YOU ALL HAVE TO ACCEPT ALL OF THE FINDINGS THAT WERE MADE ON THE, UM, APPLICATION FOR THE APPEAL.
UM, BUT REALLY IT IS, IT IS MORE UP TO YOUR DETERMINATION.
YOU ALL MAY UTILIZE SOME OF THE FINDINGS IF YOU THINK THAT THEY ARE APPROPRIATE TO YOUR DETERMINATION.
UM, BUT YOU ALL REALLY CAN BASE ON WHATEVER, BASED ON WHATEVER TESTIMONY YOU ALL HEARD, WHATEVER EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, YOU CAN MAKE A FINDING BASED ON THAT.
SO IT'S NOT JUST THAT YOU'RE LIMITED TO WHATEVER FINDINGS WERE PRESENTED IN THE APPLICATION, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
WE HAD DISCUSSED ADDING IN PARKING TO, BECAUSE OF THE, UH, APPEAL FROM 2021, BUT YEAH, THANK YOU.
I I SHOULD NOT HAVE LIMITED IT SO NARROWLY.
IT'S JUST I HEARD THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL THINGS THAT YOU ALL WERE DISCUSSING, SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU ALL KNEW KIND OF WHAT SCOPE YOU ALL HAD.
SO WE GOTTA BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL.
UH, BOARD, OR ACTUALLY, SO DANG IT.
UM, I AM ALSO IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THE APPEAL ACTUALLY TO OUR LEGAL COUNSEL.
THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS, WHAT IS THE NARROWEST, I MEAN, WHAT IS THE LEAST? JUST FROM MY, I'M NOT SAYING, YOU KNOW, I MAY BE THE ONLY PERSON HERE AS A ROOKIE, BUT WHAT'S THE LEAST WE CAN ACTUALLY WRITE IN THAT GRANTING OF THE PO? LIKE WHAT, AND MAYBE, I MEAN, STAFF WANTS IT, BUT I MEAN, LEGAL, I ACTUALLY, I WOULD, I WANT TO HEAR FROM LEGAL WHAT YOU, WHAT? IS THERE EVEN LANGUAGE THAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND IF I WAS JUST ME? ONE OF 11 PEOPLE? UH, YEAH.
BOTH ATTORNEYS, THEN BOTH ATTORNEYS CAN GIMME WHAT THEY, SORRY, MR. LLOYD, COULD YOU COME UP TOO? 'CAUSE I THINK WE'RE GONNA WANT YEAH.
BOTH YOUR INPUT ON THIS AS WELL, PLEASE.
SO I GUESS, UH, UH, ALL YOU CAN GIMME INPUT AS A ROOKIE.
SO CERTAINLY I CAN, AND I CAN OFFER MY INPUT FROM A, A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE AND MR. LLOYD CAN OFFER HIS INPUT, UM, FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE AS WELL.
SO, UM, AGAIN, I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER IMPORTANT THINGS TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT MAKING THESE FINDINGS IS YOU WANT TO MAKE, IF YOU'RE STEPPING ESSENTIALLY INTO THE SHOES OF THE DIRECTOR, SO THAT WOULD BE THE CITY OFFICIAL WHO WOULD BE THE ONE MAKING THE DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER TO GRANT THE PERMIT OR DENY THE PERMIT.
AND SO, UM, WHATEVER DETERMINATION OR FINDING YOU MAKE, YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO EXCEED THE SCOPE OF, OF THE DIRECTOR'S AUTHORITY.
UM, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH ZONING REGULATIONS, BECAUSE A LOT OF THAT FALLS WITHIN COUNCIL'S PURVIEW.
UM, LOOKING AT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE TAKEN NOTE OF THAT YOU ALL HAVE ADDRESSED, THE FOUR OR THE THREE UNITS, THE FAR, UM, YOU KNOW, WHICH REGULATIONS APPLY NCCD OR HOME, UM, I'LL CERTAINLY ALLOW MR. MR. LLOYD TO GIVE HIS THOUGHTS ON THIS, BUT IT SEEMS THAT PERHAPS A FINDING ON THE THREE OR THE FOUR UNITS MIGHT BE FROM A CONSERVATIVE PERSPECTIVE, ONE OF THE, THE SAFER WAYS TO GO, UM, ABOUT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT REALLY, YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT, OKAY, FROM THE PICTURES THAT I'VE SEEN OR FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT I'VE GATHERED, IT EITHER APPEARS TO BE THREE UNITS OR IT APPEARS THAT IT IS IN FACT FOUR UNITS.
AND SO YOU'RE NOT GETTING INTO SOME OF THE, THE DEEPER ISSUES, MAYBE SOME OF THE MORE COMPLICATED ISSUES.
SO, UM, THAT WOULD BE PERHAPS ONE WAY THAT YOU GUYS COULD GO IS THREE OR FOUR UNITS AND MAKE A DETERMINATION BASED OFF OF THAT.
UH, MR. LLOYD, YOU WANNA JUMP IN ON THAT LEVEL VERY BRIEFLY.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ACKNOWLEDGED IN OUR PRESENTATION THAT THERE WERE ERRORS MADE WITH THE SETBACKS.
SO WE'RE REQUESTING THAT YOU OVERTURN THE APPROVAL WITH RESPECT TO THE SIDE YARD SEPARATION REQUIREMENT IN THE FRONT YARD AVERAGING.
UM, REGARDING, I THINK THE HARDEST ISSUE FOR EVERYONE IS THE 0.4 FAR VERSUS THE 0.65.
AND I WILL SAY THAT WE DO NOT FEEL THAT THERE'S A WAY TO READ THE ORDINANCE THAT SUPPORTS THE 0.4.
AND SO IF IT'S THE BOARD'S EXPECTATION THAT THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU SAY IT SPECIFICALLY AND NOT EXPECT THAT WE FOLLOW THAT JUST BY A GENERIC FINDING OF GRANTING THE APPEAL.
UM, WITH RESPECT TO FAR, ANOTHER WAY TO ADDRESS IT OTHER THAN RULING THAT 0.4 APPLIES
[02:35:01]
WOULD BE TO OVERRULE STAFF'S POSITION THAT THE LOAD BEARING THE NON, THAT A NON LOAD BEARING FLOOR HAS THE EFFECT OF EXCLUDING THAT ATTIC SPACE FROM FAR.SO IF YOU WERE TO OVERTURN OUR, UM, POSITION ON THAT, IT WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF LOWERING FAR SOMEWHAT IN HOW WE CALCULATE FROM HOW WE CALCULATE IT TO THE TODAY.
SO THAT IS A WAY TO POTENTIALLY INFLUENCE THE FAR ANALYSIS WITHOUT HAVING TO TAKE A POSITION THAT THE 0.4 APPLIES WITH RESPECT TO THE THREE OR FOUR UNITS.
WE A HUNDRED PERCENT AGREE THAT, THAT IF THIS IS FOUR UNITS, IT IS NOT ALLOWED.
UM, AND SO, UM, I I THINK AGAIN, SUBJECT TO YOUR, UM, LEGAL COUNSEL'S, UM, GUIDANCE, I FEEL LIKE YOU COULD FIND THAT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THIS APPEARS TO BE FOUR UNITS AND I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO GIVE EXACTING DESIGN LEVEL DETAIL AS TO WHY THAT'S THE CASE.
THERE'S THE FAMOUS SUPREME COURT DECISION WHERE THEY SAY, I CAN'T DEFINE OBSCENITY, BUT I KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT.
AND SO I DON'T THINK YOU WANT TO, WE DON'T WANT YOU TO TAKE THAT STANCE WITH EVERY ISSUE THAT COMES BEFORE YOU, BUT ON THE THREE OR FOUR UNITS, I THINK IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A GENERAL FINDING THAT BASED ON THE HOLISTICS OF THIS PROJECT, THIS APPEARS TO BE FOUR UNITS, THERE IS A STRUCTURAL PLAN THAT SHOWS IT TO BE THE BACK TO BE TWO UNITS.
SO THAT WOULD MAKE IT FOUR TOTAL.
SO I THINK THERE'S A BASIS FOR THAT FINDING.
UM, SO I THINK THOSE ARE IDEAS FOR KIND OF A NARROWER APPROACH.
UH, VICE CHAIR, I THINK I WAS PRETTY VOCAL IN MY DISCUSSIONS EARLIER ABOUT WHAT I THOUGHT.
SO I AM, I THINK I'M GONNA PASS MR. BOWEN, REMEMBER WE'RE ALSO LOOKING FOR, YOU KNOW, SUGGESTIONS ON, ON WHAT YOU THINK MIGHT BE, WELL, I, I THINK, THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S FOUR UNITS.
I THINK THE NCCV IS PRETTY CLEAR ON THE FRONT YARD AVERAGING AND THE SIDE SETBACKS, AND THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED AND THAT SHOULD BE CORRECTED.
UM, I AM MORE OF THE MIND OF THE 0.4 FAR.
I DO THINK THAT IF YOU GET MORE THAN FIVE BATHROOMS, THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE A PARKING SPACE.
THIS IS IN THE CAMPUS AREA AND AS THIS WAS DESIGNED, UH, ORIGINALLY IT'S 20 BEDROOMS AND THAT DIDN'T COUNT THE ATTIC SPACE AND EIGHT BATHROOMS. AND YOU TALK ABOUT PUTTING TO SAY, AS A COLLEGE STUDENT, YOU DO OR DON'T NEED A CAR, BUT SOME PEOPLE HAVE THEM THAT YOU WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT AT LEAST OUTTA 20 BEDROOMS. AT LEAST FOUR CARS AT LEAST.
THAT'S A VERY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, I, I DO THINK THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PARKING.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT INCLUDED.
I'D BE WILLING TO COMPROMISE ON THAT, UM, IF THAT WERE NOT IN THE GENERAL WILL OF THE BOARD.
UM, BUT I DO THINK IT WAS INTENDED FOR, UH, THE MORE THE DENSER, AND I, I REALLY SEE THIS AS THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND THAT UNO GAVE A LOT TO THE COLLEGE STUDENTS.
AND THIS IS A VERY MIXED NEIGHBORHOOD, A VERY WELCOMING NEIGHBORHOOD, AND PEOPLE ARE VERY CONNECTED TO EACH OTHER AND COMMUNICATE.
AND I, I PROBABLY WOULD GUESS THAT THERE AREN'T MANY FRONT YARD FENCES OVER THERE.
AND I'M REALLY NOT A FAN OF A FRONT YARD FENCE BECAUSE I THINK THAT KEEPS US FROM ALL KNOWING EACH OTHER.
SO THAT'S SOME OF WHAT I THINK.
AND I MS. MICHAEL 'CAUSE MICHAEL WOULD'VE SAID SOMETHING BY NOW, NOW THAT WOULD'VE BEEN REALLY AWESOME.
LIKE LET'S SIZE LIVING AND HIS AS, HAVEN'T YOU? THAT WOULD'VE BEEN MICHAEL.
OH, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN MICHAEL.
UH, WELL I'VE SEEN ISSUES WITH JUST THE FACT THAT OF ALL OF THE MISSED ITEMS, I AGREE WITH BOARD MEMBER MCCLELLAN, I AM SENDING THIS THING BACK.
UM, THERE SHOULD BE NO REASON IN MY MIND THAT SOME OF THESE MISTAKES SHOULD HAVE BEEN MISSED.
I AM NOT WILLING TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY NEED TO GO BACK AND FIX.
[02:40:01]
I'M NOT GONNA GO OUT ON THAT LIMB.UH, I AM FOR GRANTING THE APPEAL.
UM, I THINK THAT THERE, THAT THERE IS A LOT OF CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO ORDINANCES THAT I EVEN SPOKE ABOUT AT ONE POINT AND SAID, THERE ARE GOING TO BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM THAT HAS NOW COME BACK TO BITE US IN THE BUTT.
UM, AND, UM, THESE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED AND IT SHOULDN'T BE RESOLVED BY US AT THIS POINT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ON THAT RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE HAS FAILED TO TAKE ON THEIR THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITIES.
UM, I AM FOR GRANTING THE APPEAL, SENDING IT BACK TO BE REDESIGNED, REDONE AND UH, TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PEOPLE THAT WERE NOT REALLY CONSULTED ON THIS FOR IN THEIR AREA.
THAT SHOULD MEAN SOMETHING BECAUSE WE WORK FOR THOSE PEOPLE.
WE ALL WORK FOR THOSE PEOPLE SITTING RIGHT OVER THERE, EVEN FOR THE YOUNG LADY THAT'S IN THE BACK.
AND WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT, THAT IT'S NOT ABOUT US, IT'S ABOUT THEM.
AND, UH, THINK I'VE SAID ENOUGH.
I I I WOULD HOPE THAT WHEN I BRING THIS TO PLANNING COMMISSION TOMORROW, AND I I, I TELL THEM HOW CLOSE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAME OR MAY STILL COME, UH, TO POTENTIALLY INTERFERING WITH WHAT IS CONSIDERED ONE OF THE GREAT WORKS OF THIS COUNCIL THAT MAYBE WE CAN START WORKING ON CLEANING UP SOME OF THESE LITTLE ITEMS THAT GOT MISSED DURING THE FIRST TIME AROUND.
UM, WE HAVE TWO THINGS WE HAVE TO DO.
UM, NUMBER ONE, WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO STATE WHY WE FIND STAFF'S DETERMINATION ERRONEOUS.
UH, MR. LLOYD AND, AND, UH, GAVE US A COUPLE OF OPTIONS.
UM, THE CONSERVATIVE SAFE BET, I THINK, AND, AND WITHOUT TRYING TO INFLUENCE OR GUIDE ANYONE, I THINK MIGHT BE UTILIZING THE, THE FOUR UNIT DETERMINATION THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY FOREIGN UNITS.
I THINK THAT KEEPS US FROM WRITING CODE, WHICH I WAS NOT APPOINTED TO DO.
AND BY NOT MAKING ANY NOTABLE SPECIFICATIONS, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE OUR EASIEST WAY OUT.
UM, THE SECOND THING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IS STATE WHAT OUR CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE SITE ISSUE IS.
SO IN THE EXAMPLE, LIKE GIVEN BY MR. LLOYD, THIS WOULD BE STATING WE THE BOARD FIND THIS DECISION WAS MADE ERRONEOUSLY THAT THIS IS NOT THREE UNITS, AND INSTEAD WE HAVE DETERMINED THIS IS FOUR UNITS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVIEWED UNDER RESIDENTIAL.
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MULTI-FAMILY.
I THINK THAT MIGHT BE AN EASY, THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS.
WE CAN WORK IN ANY OF THE FOUR FINDINGS THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT.
UM, I THINK I I WOULD ADVISE THAT WE'D BE VERY CAUTIOUS IF WE'RE GOING TO TOUCH ON ANY OF THOSE, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE WE COULD INADVERTENTLY MODIFY AN NCCD OR, OR, OR CREATE A PRECEDENCE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED UNTIL THEY CHANGED THEIR NCCD OR UNTIL HOME WAS CHANGED.
UM, WE COULD ALSO TALK ABOUT WHETHER THE ATTICUS HABITABLE OR NOT.
UH, LIKE THAT'S CURRENTLY UNDER MCMANSION SUB CHAPTER F DOES SIX FEET WITH WINDOWS QUALIFY AS A LIVABLE EVEN IF THE, THE, THE, THE FLOORING IS ISN'T PUT IN YET? BECAUSE I MEAN, WHY WOULD YOU PUT AN ATTIC WINDOW AND IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO USE IT.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD DISCUSS OR BIG DORMERS OR DO WHAT? OR BIG DORMERS SHED ROOFS WITH WINDOWS.
YEAH, I MEAN, SO STUFF THAT HAS COME BACK BEFORE.
WHEN WAS THAT 2011 WHEN, WHEN, UH, THE HABIT ATTICS CAME UP THE FIRST TIME.
UH, YOU KNOW, WE DID AN INTERPRETATION ON HABITABLE ATTIC AND I THINK WE WERE ACTUALLY KINDER THAN THE SIX FEET.
I THINK WE ACTUALLY GAVE SEVEN.
AND IT WAS ONLY THE AREA THAT WAS FROM SEVEN IN, NOT THE LITTLE BUT TINY CORNERS, BUT THEN THAT
[02:45:01]
GAVE US LITTLE POINTY, I LIKE TO CALL THEM DUN HAT BUILDINGS BECAUSE IT BECAME A STYLE JUST TO TAKE THAT EXTRA SPACE.I MEAN, AND ALLS IT WAS MEANT WAS FOR A BONUS ROOM FOR THE KIDS.
AND THEN EVERYBODY JUST STARTED PULLING EVERYTHING UP AND LOOKING LIKE, UM, MR. ALLEN WAS VERY INVOLVED IN MCMANSION AND, AND IS
UH, WE COULD TIE IN THE PARKING OR THE SETBACKS BECAUSE, UH, YEAH.
UH, BOARD MEMBER, CHAIR STEIN, I KIND OF WANNA GET THE TEMPERATURE OF THE ROOM A LITTLE BIT.
LIKE IN TERMS OF APPROACH, ARE YOU ALL WANTING TO TRY AND BE AS NARROW AS POSSIBLE OR ARE WE WANTING TO WADE INTO THE DEEPER STUFF? NARROW.
I'M JUST, I WANT TO KIND OF GET NARROW, NARROW, NARROW, NARROW, NARROW.
HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT, 'CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE DON'T NEED TO ADDRESS THE ATTIC ISSUE.
DO WE WANT TO ADDRESS THE ATTIC ISSUE? BECAUSE IF WE COULD GO WITH THE FOUR UNIT THING AND SAY IT JUST NEEDS TO BE REZONED, I, WE COULD ALSO INCORPORATE, LIKE YOU WERE SAYING, MADAM CHAIR, SOME OF THE OTHER FINDINGS.
I CAN TELL YOU THIS BASED ON MY INTERACTIONS BOTH ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND WITH COUNSEL, THAT THERE IS AN INTENT TO, AND CURRENTLY A FORWARD MOTION TO REMOVE THAT PORTION OF SUBCHAPTER ACT AND GET RID OF THAT HABITABLE, HABITABLE ATTIC RESTRICTIONS.
UM, SO I THINK MAYBE WE SHOULD BE A LITTLE CAUTIOUS ABOUT THAT ONE.
UH, OR I MEAN, OR WE COULD DO IT AND IT MIGHT JUST END UP BEING OVER MOVED BY WHATEVER NEW ORDINANCE GETS PUT INTO PLAY SIX OR MONTHS OR A YEAR FROM NOW.
UH, IF IT'S DESIGNED TO BE OCCUPIED, SUCH AS THE OBVIOUS WINDOWS, THE OBVIOUS HEIGHT.
I, I MEAN THAT IS, I MEAN, MY ATTIC, YOU CAN'T EVEN STAND UP IN AND IT'S FULL OF BLOWN INSULATION.
I MEAN, YOU'RE TALKING, THIS IS THE CAMPUS AREA AND THEY'D PROBABLY PUT PEOPLE IN A CLOSET, BUT AT LEAST IT HAS THE WINDOW NATURAL LIGHT AS REQUIRED BY THE TECHNICAL CODE NOW BECAUSE OF, UH, ORDINANCE IS YOU HAVE TO HAVE NATURAL LIFE.
SO, AND IT SCARES THE WAY FIGHTERS AND BUG BOARD MEMBER
SO, UH, BOARD MEMBER HAWTHORNE, YOU KNOW, ARE, ARE LIKE, I I UNDERSTAND YOU MADE YOUR OPINION CLEAR.
ARE YOU WANTING TO OPINE ON THAT TONIGHT OFFICIALLY, OR ARE YOU COMFORTABLE STICKING TO, YOU KNOW, THE NEED TO REZONE BY SEEING THIS AS A FOUR UNIT PROPERTY? I, I COULD SEE THAT, I WOULD WISH THAT THAT WOULD BE AN INTERPRETATION CASE ON FLORIDA AREA RATIO AND THE ATTIC.
UM, I THINK SIX FEET IN THE CODE IS VERY CLEAR REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT HAS A PIECE OF PLYWOOD ON IT OR NOT.
IF THE, IF, IF THE TRUSSES AND THE FLOOR ARE DESIGNED TO BE STRUCTURALLY SOUND, IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM OUR ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION THAT THE BOARD WOULD PREFER TO BE NARROW AND REJECTED ON THE BASIS OF FOUR UNITS.
I WOULD GO FARTHER, BUT I THINK I'M PROBABLY IN THE MINORITY.
MAY I INTERJECT REAL QUICK? YOU, YOU DID SAY YOU WERE OPEN TO, UH, DISCUSSION ON THE, THE ACTUAL NUMBER ATTACHED TO THE FAR IF WE WERE TO DISCUSS IT, CORRECT? I AM, I AM OPEN TO THAT, BUT I ALSO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE JUST WENT AROUND THE ROOM AND I MEAN 0.4 5.5, I JUST THINK THAT MF ONE WOULD BE IN, WHEN THE NCCD WAS WRITTEN IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE FIRST OPPORTUNITIES IN THIS RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO HAVE MORE THAN TWO UNITS UNLESS YOU COUNTED AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT, WHICH WAS LIMITED TO 850 SQUARE FEET.
AND SO I THINK, I MEAN, THAT'S A GOOD THING THAT WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT IS THAT WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT MAKES A DECISION BETTER, IS THAT WE ALL WEIGH IN AND NO MATTER BLACK, WHITE, GRAY, IT ALL COMES OUT
[02:50:01]
AND, AND I THINK WHEN EVERYBODY WALKS AWAY, IF NOBODY'S HAPPY, THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST DECISION.WELL, I THINK THIS PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN ERROR.
I THINK THAT IT MISSED THE SETBACK.
I THINK THAT THE FAR SHOULD BE LOWER.
I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE PARKING FOR EVERY ADDITIONAL BATHROOM OVER FIVE.
AND, UH, I THINK THE ATTIC SPACE SHOULD COUNT.
AND I'M PROBABLY THE LIBERAL, CONSERVATIVE LIBERAL, WHICH I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THOSE.
LIKE, AND, AND I I DO AGREE WITH EVERY SINGLE ONE.
THE PROBLEM IS, IS IF WE, IF WE FIND THESE THINGS TO BE ERRONEOUS, WE HAVE TO PROVIDE WHAT WE BELIEVE THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION IS.
I THINK THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION IS WRITTEN IN THAT NCCD, BUT THAT'S, AND I THINK IT'S BLACK AND WHITE BECAUSE AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS WRITTEN, YOU WEREN'T ALLOWED TO HAVE THREE UNITS ON A SINGLE FAMILY LOT PERIOD.
SO THEY GET THE THIRD UNIT, YOU STILL HAVE THE SAME IMPERVIOUS COVER, THE BUILDING COVERAGE IS 40%, AND THAT'S CLEAR IN THE TABLE.
SO I MEAN, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THOUGHT NOT TO PUT THE WORD DUPLEX IN IT IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE MORE THAN A DUPLEX ON IT.
SO, UH, I MEAN, THE BUILDER BUILDING COVERAGE STILL STANDS AT 40% REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU PUT THE 0.6 6, 6 5 FAR ON IT.
WHAT ARE Y'ALL THINKING? NARROW OR, OR WIDER? FOR MYSELF, UH, NARROW.
I I JUST THINK THAT, UM, WE NEED TO JUST, UH, UM, LET THE OTHER, UM, ZONING BODIES, YOU KNOW, DO THEIR, UM, YOU KNOW, DO THEIR DUTIES AND LET'S, UH, GENTLY, UM, APPROACH, YOU KNOW, THIS CASE AND UH, AND THEN MOVE ON FROM THERE.
KIM, I'M TORN BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE, THE POINT OF VIEW OF BO YS AND
I, I AGREE WITH ALL THE POINTS SHE MADE, UM, HOW THOSE ARE THE IMPORTANT THINGS THAT NEEDS TO BE APPLIED.
AND WE, WE TALK ABOUT EACH CASE IS UNIQUE, BUT IF WE APPLY THE HOME RULE, THEN IT'S NOT, WE'RE NOT REALLY APPLYING IT SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE.
WE HAVE TO, IF WE'RE SAYING WE'RE APPLYING, MAKING EVERY CASE UNIQUE, THEN FOR THIS CASE IT'S RELATED TO THE NCCD OF THIS COMMUNITY.
I THAT'S, I, THAT'S MY DIRECTION.
I UNDERSTAND GOING, ADDING ALL THESE FACTORS INTO OUR, UM, FINDINGS MAY ADD COMPLEXITIES AND IT MAY COME BY US LATER, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
I, I SUPPORT VICE'S HAWTHORN'S POINT OF VIEW THAT THAT'S WHERE MY POSITION IS.
BOARD MEMBER BARING, I THINK WE, UH, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO, TO, UM, DECIDE THIS ONE ON THE NARROWEST GROUNDS.
WE CAN, UM, I'M REMINDED OF LIKE, I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT IT'S CALLED, THE CERTAIN LEGAL PRINCIPLES, YOU KNOW, WHERE JUDGES, IF THEY HAVE, IF THEY CAN AVOID LIKE A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, AVOID IT OR IF YOU CAN DECIDE ON THE NARROWEST ISSUES THAT EVERYBODY AGREES ON, DO THAT.
BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE OTHER ISSUES WHERE, UM, SUCH AS THE SUPREMACY OF THE FAR, THE AND, AND OTHER PARTS OF HOME VERSUS THE N-C-C-D-I, I WOULD PREFER IF WE DON'T NEED TO DECIDE THAT TODAY, LET'S NOT.
UM, BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE NOT, I MEAN, THAT, THAT IS A BIGGER QUESTION.
UM, I LIKE THE FOUR VERSUS THREE UNIT, UH, BEING THE ONLY REASON BECAUSE I MEAN, I THINK IT'S JUST A FACTUAL, UM, I SAY IT'S OBVIOUS, BUT, BUT I KNOW WE NEED TO MAKE, WE WOULD NEED TO SAY WHY, BUT IT, I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR TO ALL OF US, BUT WE CAN DECIDE IT BASED ON THAT FACTUAL, UM, ERROR YOU COULD SAY WITH THE, WITH THE GRANTING OF THE PERMIT, UM, WITHOUT DELVING INTO
[02:55:01]
THESE QUESTIONS OF, UM, SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT, UH, INTERPRETATION ISSUES.AND, AND, YOU KNOW, IF THAT WAS THE ONLY ISSUE I WOULD SAY WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT HEAD ON, BUT I, I THINK IN THIS CASE, IF WE DON'T NEED TO ADDRESS IT HEAD ON, I'D MUCH PREFER TO STICK WITH THE, SOMETHING THAT IS, HAS THE AGREEMENT OF MOST OR ALL OF US.
UM, WHICH IS I THINK THE FOUR VERSUS THREE IS THE EASIEST WAY TO GO ABOUT IT.
BUT IF WE CAN DO THIS ON ONE GROUND VERSUS TRYING TO HASH OUT FOUR DIFFERENT ONES, UM, I WOULD PREFER THAT.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BETTER APPROACH TO TAKE.
MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL.
SO WE HAVE AN APPEAL OF A PERMIT.
IF WE GRANT THE APPEAL BASED ON THE FOUR UNITS VERSUS THE THREE UNITS, CAN THE APPELLANT APPEAL THE APPEAL? SO UNDER OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE, MADAM VICE CHAIR, UH, FINAL DECISIONS OF THE BOARD MAY BE APPEALED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 10 DAYS AS PROVIDED BY STATE LAW OR IN OTHER APPLICABLE LAW.
SO TECHNICALLY A, A BOARD DECISION COULD BE APPEALED.
SO, BUT DO THEY HAVE TO APPEAL THE APPEAL HERE FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE THEY CAN TAKE IT TO DISTRICT COURT? BECAUSE ON A VARIANCE CASE, IF WE APPROVE OR DENY SOMETHING, IT CAN BE A, IT CAN BE ASKED FOR RECONSIDERATION TO RECEIVE ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY AND THEN IT CAN GO TO DISTRICT COURT.
SO MY READING OF, OF OUR CURRENT RULES AND REGULATIONS IS THAT IT STATES UNDER FOUR B, A REQUEST TO RECONSIDER MAY BE FILED BY ANY PERSON HAVING ORIGINAL STANDING IN THE MATTER.
BUT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT STATES THAT THERE MUST BE OKAY, A RECONSIDERATION.
I'M JUST CURIOUS AS IF, AS IF WE MAKE A NARROW DECISION, IF THE APPEAL CAN BE APPEALED.
UM, AS, AS WE CAN SEE, THE NARROW IS THE PREVAILING VIEWPOINT OF THE BOARD AT THIS POINT.
UM, AND SO, AND MY COHORT, UH, BOARD MEMBER BON OLIN IS IN HERE AND, YOU KNOW, HE'S SO SHY AND DEMURE, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITHOUT HIM.
AND SO, UH, I WAS JUST CURIOUS TO THAT ANSWER AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH OUR CONVERSATION.
UH, BOARD MEMBER MCCLELLAN, IF WE'RE LOOKING TO STAY NARROW, BUT PERHAPS BEEF THINGS UP A BIT MORE BEYOND JUST FOUR UNITS, WE CAN ALSO TOUCH ON ALL OF THE UNADDRESSED IRREGULARITIES ALONG THE WAY.
WE CAN POINT TO THE FOUR UNITS AND THE ISSUE OF THE ENGINEER SEAL AND THE ARCHITECTURAL SEAL AND EVERYTHING ELSE, AND LET THE PROCESS PLAY OUT FROM THERE.
SO IS THAT JUST SIMPLY A STATEMENT OF THE VALID VALIDITY OF THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AS OPPOSED TO THE ENGINEERS SEAL THE, YOU KNOW, JUST YEAH.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED GOING FOR SOMETHING, SOMETHING SUCCINCT AND I CAN AGREE WITH THAT.
UH, I THINK I NEED TO ASK MR. LAVINSKY A QUESTION.
MR. LAVINSKY, YOU LOOK LIKE YOU JUST NEED, I REALLY DO.
UM, SO MR. UH, MR. UM, BOBBY LAVINSKY WITH THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF REACHING A RESOLUTION HERE, 'CAUSE I THINK STAFF NEEDS GUIDANCE AS WELL.
'CAUSE THIS IS JUST GONNA COME BACK IN SOME, SOME FORM OF PERMIT OR SOME FORM OF LAWSUIT OR WHO KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THERE'S A LAWSUIT, I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT'S A POSSIBILITY.
IT MIGHT BE, UM, IN THE INTEREST OF EVERYBODY TO COMPROMISE ON THAT 0.5 FAR.
UM, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK I COULD THROW OUT AS A REASONABLE SOLUTION.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE CHART, THE MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL FAR ON THE CD IS 0.5.
IF THAT WERE THE CASE, I DO NOT BELIEVE WE WOULD BE APPEALING ANYTHING OR, UM, WOULD HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT COMING BACK.
BOARD MEMBER POTE, SORRY, HANG ON ONE SEC.
[03:00:01]
I SEE LEGAL HAS WALKED UP.DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? YES, MADAM CHAIR AND I, I DON'T MEAN TO FURTHER COMPLICATE THINGS, BUT SOMETHING THAT I DO WANT.
UM, THE ONLY CONCERN THAT I HAVE WITH TRYING TO REACH A COMPROMISE OR AN IN BETWEEN OF THE 0.4 AND THE 0.65 IS WHETHER THAT THEN PUSHES THE BOARD INTO, ARE WE NOW CREATING A NEW ZONING REGULATION, A NEW FAR? AND AGAIN, I DO WANT TO CAUTION YOU ALL THAT YOU'RE JUST STEPPING INTO THE SHOES OF THE DIRECTOR OF THAT CITY OFFICIAL WHO MAKES THIS DECISION, UM, AND NOT INTO THE SHOES OF CITY COUNCIL.
SO JUST A, A WORD OF CAUTION IF WE'RE LOOKING TO TRY TO COMPROMISE ON WHAT THE NUMBER SHOULD BE AS OPPOSED TO WHAT NUMBERS ARE ALREADY PROVIDED.
MAY I
I, I THINK COMPROMISING IS THE WORST POSSIBLE SOLUTION.
I THINK WE NEED TO PICK 0.4 0.65 OR NOT WEIGH IN ON IT, BUT, UM, COMPROMISING SOUNDS LIKE LEGISLATING AND WE'RE NOT REALLY, THAT'S NOT REALLY INTERPRETING, WHICH WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO TONIGHT.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO FIND WHAT FITS THE BEST BASED ON THE ORDINANCES WE READ THEM AND IT'S JUST NOT VERY CLEAR.
SO WE'RE, I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO PICK THE ROUND PEG AND TRY TO FIT IT INTO A SQUARE HOLE.
BUT, WHICH TO BE CLEAR, I THINK WE SHOULD JUST NOT WEIGH IN ON IT TONIGHT AND SEE THAT THAT'S NORMALLY I WOULD, I WOULD AGREE.
BUT MR. LEBINSKI BRINGS A VERY VALID POINT.
IF WE DON'T GIVE SOME GUIDANCE TO STAFF, THIS WILL HAPPEN AGAIN.
UH, UNLESS COUNCIL CHANGES THE LAW OR THE NCCD HAS CHANGED, UH, AND IT COULD, IT MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE THIS NCCD, IT MAY BE A DIFFERENT ONE.
UM, I THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST ATTEMPT TO TRY TO GIVE OUR BEST GUIDANCE.
AND IF WE JUST CAN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT, THEN WE CAN DISCUSS THEN WHETHER OR NOT WE WANNA LEAVE IT AT A VERY NARROW, UH, WITH VERY NARROW FINDINGS.
BUT I WOULD, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU AT LEAST KEEP AN OPEN MIND AS WE ATTEMPT TO EXPLORE FINDING A SOLUTION THAT WILL OFFER GUIDANCE NOT JUST TO STAFF, BUT THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL.
I MEAN, SHOULD WE, I SHOULD WE JUST VOTE ON IT?
WE WILL MAKE SURE EVERYBODY AGREES ON IT AND THEN WE'LL VOTE ON IT.
UH, BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF ANI, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. LEBINSKI.
SO IF I, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT AS A, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, LOOKING BEYOND SORT OF THE LETTER OF THE LAW, A LOT OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE BOARD ARE UNCOMFORTABLE, YOU KNOW, IMPOSING A 0.65 FAR ON A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS CLEARLY EXPRESSED DESIRE TO KEEP THAT LOWER.
UM, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY LAID OUT IN THE PLAN FOR, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.
UM, HOW WOULD YOU JUSTIFY? BECAUSE I THINK, I THINK WHERE I GET STUCK IS YES, WHEN I LOOK AT THE TABLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, THERE IS A 0.4 FAR ASSIGNED TO SF TO AN SF THREE ZONING, BUT THEN THERE'S A WORK, THE SPECIFICALLY DUPLEX IS LISTED THERE, AND IT, IF, IF WE'RE GOING TO INTERPRET THAT TO APPLY TO A THREE UNIT, HOW DOES IT NOT, HOW DO WE NOT THEN ALSO OPEN IT UP TO BE APPLYING TO A LIKE SINGLE UNIT? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? LIKE IT DUPLEX IS IN THERE TO CLEARLY, TO ME IT JUST CLEARLY IS INDICATING, WE MEAN THIS TO APPLY TO TWO UNIT BUILDINGS.
HOW WOULD YOU KIND OF PROVE THAT UP? WELL, THAT'S ACTUALLY, I WAS KIND OF CONVINCED BY YOUR ARGUMENT ABOUT THE THREE UNITS BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK, YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE NCCD WOULD'VE ALLOWED FOR FOR THREE UNITS, IT THE ONLY POSSIBLE USE YOU COULD, OR THE ONLY CATEGORY YOU COULD HAVE DONE UNDER THE NCCD WOULD'VE BEEN THE, UH, MF ONE, AND THAT WOULD BE THAT 0.5 FAR.
SO I WAS ACTUALLY JUST HEARING ALL'S DEBATE AND SAYING, YEAH, ACTUALLY THAT ACTUALLY DOES, THAT COULD MAKE SENSE HERE IS SINCE YOU HAVE A RESIDENTIAL ZONING, UH, DISTRICT ESTABLISHED HERE AND THE MAXIMUM WAS 0.5, AND THAT'S THE CLEAR INTENT.
I MEAN, ALL USES FOR THAT ARE ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE 0.5.
UM, THAT WOULD BE LIKE THE SAFEST BET TO JUST SAY, OKAY, THAT THAT WAS A MAX FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL USES IN THAT CATEGORY.
SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A COMPROMISE.
I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS A REASONABLE CODE INTERPRETATION.
AND I'M ALWAYS OPEN TO DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS AS FAR AS THE
[03:05:01]
0.4 FAR, UM, THAT THERE ARE, I I WANNA ALSO EMPHASIZE THERE ARE THREE, THERE'S UNITS ACROSS THE STREET THAT ARE THREE UNITS AND FIVE UNITS, AND ALL OF THEM ARE UNDER 0.4 FAR.SO, UM, TO HAVE THAT APPLY, I THINK IT'S JUST CONSISTENT WITH THE, THE LANGUAGE OF TALKING ABOUT THE TRADITIONAL MM-HMM
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, IT IS ALL UNDER 0.4 FAR.
SO YOU'D USE, YOU'D USE THE BROADER LANGUAGE OF THE INTENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
BOARD MEMBER MCCLELLAN, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF.
UM, WHAT IS THE CITY'S, UM, PROCESS FOR KEEPING THESE PLANS UPDATED OR FOR LETTING NEIGHBORHOODS KNOW THAT THESE PLANS MAY BE, UM, BECOMING OUTDATED OR MAYBE OUT OF ALIGNMENT WITH OTHER INITIATIVES THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS ADOPTED? UH, AND THEN WHAT'S THE COST TO ACTUALLY UPDATE THESE PLANS? LIKE IF THIS, IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED TO, UH, CHANGE THE NAME FROM DUPLEX TO SOMETHING ELSE, UH, WHAT'S THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AND WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT COST CHANGE? THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WOULD START WITH CODES AND ORDINANCES OF THE PLAN.
I KNOW THE ANSWER, I WANNA HEAR IT THOUGH.
OH, THOSE ARE MY FAVORITE KIND OF QUESTIONS.
UM, BRENT LLOYD, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, I'M, I'M SORRY, BOARD MEMBER, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT I, I KNOW WHAT OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOES A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF OUTREACH TO NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, CONTACT TEAMS AND ASSOCIATIONS, BUT I'M NOT SURE SPECIFICALLY HOW DETAILED THOSE COMMUNICATIONS ARE WHEN COUNSEL ADOPTS OTHER ORDINANCES.
AND, UM, AS FAR AS THIS IS, I MEAN THIS IS TECHNICALLY, I MEAN, NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PER SE, IT'S A REGULATORY ORDINANCE.
IT'S A-N-C-C-C-D AND THAT WOULD DEFINITELY HAVE TO BE IN A CHANGE, WOULD'VE TO BE INITIATED EITHER BY PLANNING COMMISSION, WHICH CAN INITIATE CODE AMENDMENTS OR BY COUNCIL.
AND CITIZENS CAN OF COURSE ASK THOSE BODIES TO TAKE THAT ACTION.
BUT THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY HAVE TO COME EITHER FROM, UH, COMMISSION OR FROM COUNSEL.
SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS WE'RE HOLDING A NEIGHBORHOOD POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING OR NOT HAVING WORDING IN THEIR PLAN, BUT THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T EVEN HAVE THE AUTONOMY TO GO ABOUT UPDATING THAT PLAN THEMSELF, WHICH IS, UM, A BIT INSANE TO ME.
UM, I GUESS THAT'S IT FOR NOW.
UM, VICE CHAIR, WHAT, WHAT YEAR? LIKE DIDN'T, WHEN THESE WERE ORIGINALLY WRITTEN, THEY HAD CONTACT TEAMS THAT WORKED ON THEM, RIGHT? THE N-C-C-D-I BELIEVE, WAS IT? I DIDN'T WRITE IT DOWN.
YEAH, I MEAN, SO THE THING ABOUT THIS NCCD IS THIS IS A CONSEQUENCE OF UNO AND THE EXPANSION OF ALLOWED DEVELOPMENT IN UNO AND, AND KIND OF AS THEIR BONUS EXTRA, THEY GOT THEIR LITTLE WORLD IN THIS NCCD.
AND TO ME, DUPLEX, THE REST OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE NCCD IS, IS CONSISTENT.
WHAT WITH WHAT USED TO BE IN THE CODE IS THAT A DUPLEX HAD TO BE 7,000 SQUARE FEET.
YOUR REGULAR STANDARD RESIDENTIAL LOT WAS 57 50.
AND THEN YOU HAD SOME WIDTH REQUIREMENTS.
AND SO THE 0.4, WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT DUPLEX APPLIED TO THE DUPLEX AS WELL AS THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WHICH IS THE SAME, THAT WAS CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE CODE BEFORE HOME WHERE YOU HAD SF TWO AND SF THREE, THEY WERE ALLOWED THE SAME THINGS OF 45%, 40%, MM-HMM
BUILDING COVERAGE AND 0.4 TO ONE FAR.
BUT THEY WERE ALSO SUBJECT TO ALL THE MCMANSION ORDINANCES.
AND I WOULD AGREE THAT OUR MCMANSION ORDINANCE IS, IS PRETTY COMPLICATED AND YOU COULD GO LOOK IN LIKE OTHER CITIES OF THAT ARE SIMILAR, NOT, YOU KNOW, THE FUTURISTIC CITY THAT WE MIGHT LOOK LIKE IN 30 YEARS, BUT IF YOU LOOKED AT, YOU KNOW, VIRGINIA, YOU KNOW, THEIR MCMANSION ORDINANCE IS LIKE THREE PAGES.
[03:10:01]
I MEAN, I THINK EVERYBODY WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.GO JESSICA, UH, BOARD MEMBER STAN.
UM, I REMEMBER SOMEONE FROM THE APPELLANTS BROUGHT UP, UH, E TODD AND HOW E TODD TREATS THINGS DIFFERENTLY THAN THE HOME ORDINANCE.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT? UM, I THINK I CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
UH, SO THE E THIS IS BOBBY LAVINSKY, UH, THE EAD ORDINANCE.
UM, AND THERE'S ACTUALLY ANOTHER ORDINANCE WITH THE PARKING ELIMINATION ORDINANCE ALSO SPECIFICALLY CALLS OUT CCDS IN ITS LANGUAGE.
AND SO THERE WAS A CLEAR COUNCIL INTENT TO, UM, HAVE WHATEVER THE PROVISIONS THAT WERE BEING APPLIED UNDER UTAH OR UH, PARKING ELIMINATION ORDINANCE TO APPLY TO THE CCDS.
AND YOU'RE SAYING, AND THE HOME ORDINANCE DOES NOT, HOME ORDINANCE DOES NOT ACTUALLY, WHEN UM, WHEN YOU HAVE THE COUNCIL UH, DIALOGUE DURING THE HOME DISCUSSIONS, THEY WERE CLEARLY SAYING THAT IT DOES NOT APPLY TO CCDS.
SO, AND UM, IN EAD AND THE OTHER EXAMPLE, WHEN THEY WERE CALLING OUT THE CCDS, WERE THEY SPECIFICALLY CALLING OUT PIECES OF THE CCDS THAT WERE EXPLICITLY IN CONFLICT WITH EAD OR WERE THEY JUST SAYING IT DEFINITELY APPLIES IN THESE AREAS? ARE YOU FAMILIAR? YEAH.
DO YOU HAVE THE EAD ORDINANCE TOO TECHNICAL.
YEAH, I THINK IT WAS FOR THE EAD ORDINANCE IS CALLING OUT SPECIFICS.
AND THEN, UM, ON THE PARKING ELIMINATION ORDINANCE, WHICH THE ONE I LOOKED UP, UM, IT CALLED OUT, UH, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, IT CALLED OUT CCDS AND SAID TO THE EXTENT OF CONFLICT, THIS ORDINANCE
THE EXTENT OF CONFLICT THAT, SO, SO JUST TO KIND OF LIKE OPEN MY BRAIN UP TO THE NON-LAWYERS IN THE ROOM, WHAT THIS, IT, THE ANALOGY FOR ME IS LIKE IN A CONTRACT PROCESS, IF YOU HAVE TWO CONTRACTS THAT APPLY TO THE SAME TRANSACTION AND ONE ADDRESSES AN ISSUE AND ONE DOESN'T, AND ONE CONTRACT SAYS, UH, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT OF CONFLICT THIS ONE PREVAILS.
IF THERE'S NO CONFLICT, ALL OF IT IS STILL INCORPORATED.
RIGHT? SO IF THERE'S NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE, THE UH, NCCD AND HOME BOTH SHOULD APPLY.
THEY SHOULD BE READ TO BOTH APPLY.
LIKE THAT IS WHERE I KEEP GETTING STUCK.
SO THAT'S JUST MY OWN LITTLE NEUROTIC WORLD OVER HERE THAT YOU'RE, UH, SO THAT YES, MR. LLOYD, COME ON UP.
'CAUSE I, I WOULD LIKE YOUR OPINION ON THAT.
UH, IF, IF THERE'S NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO, 'CAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS STAFF INTERPRETATION IS THAT HOME SHOULD APPLY OVER THE NCCD.
IS THAT CORRECT? I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT CLEAR THAT THERE'S A BRIGHT LINE STANDARD LIKE THAT.
I THINK WE GENERALLY TRY TO, THERE ARE CERTAIN PRINCIPLES WE FOLLOW, WE TRY TO HARMONIZE THINGS AND APPLY THINGS IN A MANNER WHERE THEY ALL KIND OF GET ALONG.
IF THERE IS AN OUT AND OUT CONFLICT, ONE THING SAYS 10, ANOTHER SAYS 20, THEN THERE ARE RULES THAT WE LOOK TO IS, IS ONE MORE RESTRICTIVE WE APPLY, THE MORE RESTRICTIVE IS ONE MORE SPECIFIC TO AN AREA WHEREAS ONE IS MORE GENERAL.
SO THOSE ARE THE KIND OF PRINCIPLES WE LOOK AT.
WE ALSO LOOK AT THE TEXT OF HOW THE INDIVIDUAL ORDINANCES ARE WRITTEN AND ON THIS ONE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, IT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT USES, UM, IT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THERE CAN BE USES AUTHORIZED BY THE CODE THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT IN THE NCCD.
AND SO WE FEEL THAT THAT IS CONTROLLING WITH RESPECT TO THE QUESTION OF THREE UNIT USES BEING ALLOWED.
AND THAT THAT THEN LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE 0.4 THAT IS CORDONED OFF TO DUPLEXES CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THREE UNITS.
COUNSEL COULD HAVE AMENDED THE NCC D AS THEY DIDN'T.
AND I THINK ON THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS IN THIS CASE THAT ARE VERY FACT SPECIFIC.
THEY'RE VERY IN THE WEEDS OF THE REVIEW THAT OCCURRED FOR THIS CASE.
BUT THIS ONE IS A BROAD QUESTION AND IT'S ONE THAT WOULD HAVE IMPACTS ACROSS DIFFERENT CCDS POTENTIALLY THAT HAVE VERY SIMILAR LANGUAGE AND IT WOULD POTENTIALLY LIMIT THE AVAILABILITY TO DO THREE UNIT USES IN LARGE AREAS.
AND I'M JUST NOT SURE THAT THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT COUNCIL'S INTENT WAS.
UM, AGAIN, UM, I KNOW YOU DIDN'T EXPECT ME TO SAY ALL THIS AND BOBBY CAN SPEAK, SHOULD BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO IF HE HAS THINGS TO SAY, BUT ELIMINATING THE WHOLE STANDARD OF ALLOWING NON LOAD BEARING FLOOR ATS TO BE EXEMPT FROM FAR OVERRULING STAFF ON THAT ISSUE WOULD CONSTRAIN HOW WE APPLY FAR.
SO IT WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT OF LOWERING THE REAL WORLD FAR FOR THESE PROJECTS.
UM, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE TWO SETBACKS WHICH WE'RE ASKING YOU TO OVERRULE US ON AND YOU COULD ALSO CONCEIVABLY FIND THAT HOLISTICALLY BASED
[03:15:01]
ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE YOU, THAT THIS APPEARS TO BE FOUR UNITS AND WITHOUT GETTING INTO AN EXACT ENUMERATION AS TO WHY, AND WE WOULD THEN WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO TRY TO REMEDY SOME ALL OF SOME OF THOSE ISSUES.THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I THOUGHT WE WERE HEADING, BUT NOW IT SEEMS LIKE MADAM CHAIR IS REALLY WANTING TO WEIGH INTO ON THE, ON THE FAR ISSUE.
SO THAT'S WHY WE KIND OF REINVIGORATED THIS CONVERSATION.
DON'T, I REALLY, REALLY DON'T MADAM CHAIR, BUT I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO, I THINK I AM GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING BY ONE HOUR.
UH, LET'S BE SPECIFIC, UH, CAN WE DO TILL 11:00 PM PLEASE? TILL 11:00 PM AND I WILL NOT ENTERTAIN ANOTHER EXTENSION.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION? OKAY, THE MEETING HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO 11:00 PM UH, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE THIS LATE.
UH, MR. LLOYD, SORRY, I KNOW YOU JUST LEFT.
UM, WAS MR. LEVINSKY CORRECT IN SAYING THAT STAFF IS LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE ON THIS OR OR DO WE, DO WE NEED TO BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC OR, I MEAN, I THINK THERE ARE SOME ISSUES BEFORE YOU THAT YOU CAN BE SPECIFIC ON.
THERE'S THE, AGAIN, THE SETBACK ISSUES AND I KNOW THOSE ARE NOT THE ONES THAT ARE THE MOST, UM, THE JUICIEST OR THE DRAWING THE MOST ATTENTION, BUT THEY'RE IMPORTANT.
UM, AND WE CERTAINLY PREFER WHERE POSSIBLE THAT THE BOARD BE SPECIFIC.
UM, BUT I THINK THERE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE OTHER WAY THAT YOU CAN ALSO, I I THINK SUBJECT TO YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL'S ADVICE, MAKE A MORE GENERAL FINDING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATE EXACTLY HOW THIS PROVISION SHOULD BE APPLIED, BUT BASED ON ALL OF THE FACTORS BEFORE US, THIS SEEMS TO BE, UM, IN EXCESS OF THREE UNITS.
UM, I THINK THERE'S WAYS THAT YOU CAN MAKE YOUR FINDINGS AT A HIGHER LEVEL OF GENERALITY AND WE WOULD AGAIN, GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER UM, PROJECT GETS APPROVED ULTIMATELY IS MORE IN CONFORMANCE WITH WHAT WE THINK THE INTENT IS OF THE BOARD AND, AND IS IN BETTER HARMONY WITH THE APPLICABLE CODES.
IF WE WERE TO FIND THE SETBACKS AND THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN ERROR, WOULD THAT BE ENOUGH? SO I THINK WHAT THAT GETS US IS A RESET OF THE PERMIT.
UM, IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON WHAT PERMIT APPLICATION GETS SUBMITTED AFTER THAT.
AND I DO THINK THIS IS GOING, IT'S, IT'S A RAISED LOT.
I MEAN, THEY'VE REMOVED THE HOME SO IT'S A COMPLETELY FLAT LOT.
SOMETHING'S GONNA BE BUILT IN ITS PLACE.
WHAT'S SUBMITTED? I DON'T KNOW WHAT, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SPECULATE WHAT'S SUBMITTED.
IF IT'S HIGHER THAN THAT POINT FOR FAR AND IT'S THREE UNITS, I COULD SEE AN APPEAL AGAIN.
UM, I THINK THAT THAT ISSUE IS GOING TO REMAIN AN ISSUE.
UM, AND I, I BELIEVE BY SAYING, NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT IT, THE DEFAULT IS THE, A CONTINUED CONFLICT, BUT IT IS ENOUGH IN THE SENSE OF RESETTING THE PROCESS.
HOW NARROWLY CAN WE TAILOR THIS CAN IN OUR DETERMINATION OF WHAT SHOULD BE CORRECT IF WE WERE TO INCLUDE FAR? COULD WE SAY ONLY FOR THIS SPECIFIC NCCD SO THAT IT DOESN'T COVER ANY OTHER NCCD? BECAUSE THIS ONE MAY OR MAY NOT BE MORE OR LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN OTHERS.
I'M JUST GOING TO QUICKLY CHECK.
UM, MADAM CHAIR, I AM TRYING TO FIND A MIDDLE OF THE ROAD PLACE WHERE WE AREN'T GONNA END UP BACK HERE AGAIN WITH THEM APPEALING THE SAME THING ON THE NEXT PERMIT.
[03:20:02]
UH, SO THE WAY THAT I READ YOUR, YOUR DECISION AND AS FAR AS THE WAY THAT YOU ALL MAKE YOUR FINDINGS, IT DOES APPEAR THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO, TO TRY TO LIMIT TO JUST THIS PARTICULAR NCCD WITHOUT IT HAVING GREATER REPERCUSSIONS.UM, IF YOU'LL GIVE ME A MOMENT, MADAM CHAIR, I'M JUST GOING TO, TO QUICKLY DOUBLE CHECK AND VERIFY THAT AND THEN I WILL CERTAINLY BE BACK.
AND BOARD MEMBER MCCLELLAND, I HEAR YOU.
OUR JOB IS TO TRY TO PREVENT THESE FOLKS FROM HAVING TO SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND HOURS OF THEIR TIME TO COME IN AND, AND ARGUE ABOUT A STAFF DECISION.
BUT WE'RE DEALING WITH A CASE WHERE EVERY SINGLE PARTY, INCLUDING US, HAS RECOGNIZED THAT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE ALL THE FACTS.
AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO, WE'RE TRYING TO CRAFT THIS, THIS APPROACH WHEN WE'VE ACCEPTED THAT THERE COULD STILL BE ISSUES THAT WE HAVEN'T EVEN IDENTIFIED.
SO WHY HASH OUT ALL OF THESE THINGS WHEN WE MAY FIND OUT, HEY, THIS WASN'T RIGHT.
AND THE LAST FOUR HOURS WAS A MO POINT.
ANYWAY, LET'S JUST RULE ON THE MOST NARROW ISSUE.
AND IF IT COMES BACK, IT COMES BACK.
IT'S THE NATURE OF WHAT WE DO.
YOU HAVEN'T COVERED, OH, I'M SO SORRY.
IT'S REALLY HARD BEING, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT'S, IT'S 10 O'CLOCK.
WELL, SPEAKING ABOUT IT'S 10 O'CLOCK.
DO YOU HAVE TO REALLY INDULGE THE ROOKIE CHAIR YOUR, THIS IS YOUR CHAIRSHIP? NO, ABSOLUTELY.
WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO THE, THE VERY NARROW, THE FOUR, THE FOUR UNIT THING AND JUST, UH, UH, AGREEING TO THE, UH, OR THE GRANTING OF THE APPEAL.
WOULD YOU AGREE TO AT LEAST HAVE A VOTE OF THAT AND SEE IF WE HAVE THE SIX VOTES TO EVEN DO THAT? AND IF WE DO, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.
I MEAN, WE CAN, IT WOULD ACTUALLY PASS, I GUESS, RIGHT? WE ONLY NEED A MAJORITY.
WOULD YOU INDULGE THAT? AND IF YOU WOULD, I MEAN, YOU ALREADY ALREADY SAID THE LANGUAGE.
I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, UH, COUNCIL HAS LANGUAGE, MOTION LANGUAGE.
OR MAYBE SOMEONE MORE SENIOR, WHICH IS EVERYBODY CAN SAY THAT VERY NARROW TOPIC.
WE CAN GET, SEE, GO UP AND DOWN THE VOTES, SEE IF WE CAN MAYBE SEE IF THAT'S, UH, UH, THIS, THE MAJORITY IS OKAY WITH THAT.
I KNOW THERE'S SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO ARE SENIOR WHO WON'T BE OKAY WITH THAT.
BUT WE MAY HAVE THE SIX VOTES IF NOTS, SENIORITY, THERE'S NO SENIORITY.
CAN WE DO THAT THEN? BOARD MEMBER? CAN I, OR SHOULD I SAY IT OR IS SOMEONE ELSE BOARD IF YOU HAVE LANGUAGE? I'M, I, I, I'M WILLING TO LISTEN.
UM, I, I MAY NOT BE DOING THIS RIGHT, BUT, UM, MOTION TO UH, ACCEPT, UH, MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPEAL ON, UH, ON THE GROUNDS OF, UH, THE, THE, THE SUBMITTED PLAN BEING, UH, NRV FOUR UNITS, THE SIDE SETBACKS, THE FRONT SETBACK CALCULATION AND THE ERRORS IN THE SUBMITTAL.
WE HAVE TO ALSO PROVIDE WHAT WE THINK IS CORRECT.
THESE, THESE ARE THE TWO THINGS.
THIS ISN'T OUR RULE TO PROCEED.
BUT, BUT EVEN JUST TO PROCEED ON, IF WE HAVE THE VOTES FOR THAT, WE CAN'T EVEN TAKE A VOTE COUNT WITHOUT HAVING ALL OF THAT HASHED OUT.
LIKE IF, IF SO, IF A MOTION IS MADE AND WE VOTE ON IT MIGHT HAVE HELPED.
THAT MIGHT HAVE HELPED SUPPLEMENT YOUR AND THAT THE FRONT SETBACK IS IN ORDINANCE.
UM, ACTUALLY JUST A, MY APOLOGIES.
VICE CHAIR, JUST A QUICK POINT OF ORDER.
UM, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO HIS MOTION, IF WE COULD ACTUALLY GET A SECOND TO THAT MOTION SO THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE AND THEN YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THAT SECOND.
IS THAT AN ACCEPTABLE MOTION THOUGH? IF IT DOESN'T MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FINDINGS, WE HAVE TO PROVIDE PER OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.
SO YOU MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR TO GRANT THE APPEAL TO SO APPROVE, UH, BASED ON THE SUBMITTED PLAN, THE SITE AND FRONT SETBACK CALCULATIONS, THE ERRORS IN THE SUBMITTAL AND THE, OH, OKAY.
SO WE NEED THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE UNDERSTOOD, LIKE A VARIANCE IN ORDINANCE OH 4 0 8 2 6 DASH FIVE A PART SIX THREE A AND PART SEVEN SECTION ONE COVER THE SIDE SETBACK AND THE FRONT SETBACK AVERAGING.
SO IN ADDING THOSE TO THE THOUGHTS OF THE SUBMITTED PLANS, THE FOUR UNITS AND THE SIDE AND FRONT YARD SETBACK, DOES THAT MEET THE CRITERIA?
[03:25:02]
OKAY.SO WHAT YOU'VE OUTLINED, IF I MAY VICE CHAIR, IS THAT IT WAS THAT THE SUBMITTED PLAN DEMONSTRATED FOUR UNITS AS OPPOSED TO THE THREE.
AND THEN YOU PROVIDED A CALCULATION FOR THE SET, THE SIDE AND FRONT SETBACKS.
IS THAT CORRECT? THE, THE SUBMITTED, THE APPROVED PLANS DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA SET OUT IN ORDINANCE OH 4 0 8 2 6 DASH FIVE EIGHT PART SIX THREE A AND PART SEVEN SECTION ONE FOR THE FRONT YARD AVERAGING AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
I THINK IT'S GENERAL, BUT I THINK IT COMPORTS WITH, WITH WHAT STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING.
I WOULD ALSO, I'M GONNA SECOND HIS MOTION THAT I WAS JUST ADDING TO, AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ADD UNDER THE GROSS FLOOR AREA DEFINITION IN 25, 2 7, 7 3.
I HAD TO SCROLL TO GET THE NUMBER AND NOW I LOST MY PLACE IN THE GROSS FLOOR AREA.
YOU WANNA HELP ME A LITTLE? I THINK SUBSECTION E.
OKAY, NOW I WAS TALKING ABOUT WITH THE LANGUAGE SILLY.
IT IS IN, IN E ONE B THAT THE GROSS FLOOR AREA MEANS THE TOTAL ENCLOSED AREA OF ALL FLOORS IN A BUILDING WITH A CLEAR HEIGHT OF MORE THAN SIX FEET MEASURED TO THE OUTSIDE SURFACE OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE SUBSECTION.
AND THAT IT WOULD BE, IF IT HAS A FLOOR, IT IS GROSS FLOOR AREA.
AND THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU DIDN'T PUT A PIECE OF PLYWOOD ON IT IF IT CAN UPHOLD IT.
SO, SO WHETHER, UH, ESSENTIALLY IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A LOAD BEARING FLOOR, CORRECT? OBJECT.
SO THAT WAS FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND WE'RE GONNA NEED TO REPEAT ALL THAT 'CAUSE I ONLY CAUGHT LIKE HALF OF IT.
UH, DID YOU CATCH ENOUGH OF THAT TO SAY YOU ACCEPTED AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? I ACCEPT IT.
ALRIGHT, SO WE'RE FINDING THAT THE PLAN SET DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE STAFF DETERMINATION FOR THE NUMBER OF UNITS OF THREE, WITH THAT BEING INCORRECT.
AND INSTEAD SHOULD BE FOUR, THE NUMBER OF UNITS SHOWN ON THE DESIGN IS FOUR.
STOP MEET THE CRITERIA FOR FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE GLOVES.
UNDER, UNDER ORDINANCE OH 4 0 8 2 6 DASH FIVE EIGHT.
DO YOU HAVE THAT WRITTEN DOWN? YEAH, BUT UN UNFORTUNATELY I HAVE IT WRITTEN DOWN ON TWO DIFFERENT PIECES OF PAPER.
I THINK OUR ATTORNEY, I THINK COUNSEL WAS WRITING IT DOWN, CORRECT? YES.
I'M, I'M, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE IT CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD.
SO VICE CHAIR, IF YOU HAVE LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN, IF YOU COULD READ THAT, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
IT'D PROBABLY HAVE BEEN BETTER IF I HAD A STARTED ON A BLANK TABLET.
SORRY, I I THINK TO KEEP IT BROAD, WEREN'T WE DOING GREATER THAN THREE? WASN'T THAT THE RECOMMENDATION INSTEAD OF PUTTING A NUMBER FOUR? I'M SORRY, SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME.
WASN'T IT GREATER THAN THREE? STAFF SAID TO KEEP IT AS BROAD AS POSSIBLE.
WASN'T THAT THE GREATER THAN? OKAY.
UH, SO THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
GREATER THAN THREE INSTEAD OF FOUR ACCEPTED.
SORRY, I, IF I DIDN'T JUST WRITE ON EVERY PIECE OF PAPER RANDOMLY, I'D BE ABLE TO FIND IT EASIER.
I'M SORRY, SAY IT ONE MORE TIME PLEASE.
UH, GREATER THAN FOUR, GREATER THAN THREE I THINK THAN GIVES US THE MOST THAN MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY.
SO THE NUMBER OF UNITS SHOWN DESIGN IS GREATER THAN THREE.
[03:30:01]
WE'LL TAKE A VOTE ON IT WHILE YOU FIND THAT.MELISSA, LET ME, WHAT ELSE DO I HAVE? WE POSTPONE.
SORRY, I JUST GRABBED A RANDOM BLANK PAGE IN THE MIDDLE AND IT WAS KIND OF SILLY OF ME.
OH, UH, WHILE YOU LOOK FOR THAT, UM, DINNER WOULD'VE BEEN GOOD.
WE DID RECEIVE A REQUEST REAL QUICK.
SO, UH, I'M GONNA MOTION TO TABLE THAT FOR THREE MINUTES.
CAN I GET A SECOND PLEASE? SECOND.
ITEM THREE C 15 C 15, 20 25 0 0 3 6.
SPLIT RAIL PARKWAY HAS REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT TO THE NOVEMBER 10TH, 10TH, 10TH MEETING.
THAT WAS 10TH, RIGHT? YEAH, IT'S 10TH NOVEMBER.
OKAY, SO IT'S A MOTION TO POSTPONE NOVEMBER 10TH.
WHO, WHO MADE THAT? I MAKE IT.
WHO SECONDED YOU? I'LL SECOND IT.
SECOND? YEAH, YOU'RE INTO MOVING IT ALONG.
GREAT JOB BOARD NUMBER DILLA SECONDS.
AND UH, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? OKAY, THAT ONE'S POSTPONED TO NOVEMBER 10TH, 2025.
SO THAT LEAVES US WITH JUST THE DISCUSSIONS.
SO WE JUST NEED TO CRAFT THE LANGUAGE ON THIS AND THEN WE CAN WRAP IT UP.
UH, SO FAR WHAT I'VE GOT IS THE APPROVED PLANS DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS UNDER AS REQUIRED IN ORDINANCE OH 4 0 8 2 6 5 8 PART SIX THREE A AND PART SEVEN, SECTION ONE.
AND TO CLARIFY IN, AND I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN DO THIS OR NOT, IN 25, 2 7 7 3, E ONE B ONE B IS FINITE.
IT IS NOT STRUCTURAL OR NON-STRUCTURAL.
IT COUNTS IN FAR I'M SURE THAT COULD BE LANGUAGE, NO LOAD BEARING.
YEAH, I'M SURE THAT COULD BE LANGUAGE TO BETTER, BUT THAT IT, IT MEANS SIX FEET, PERIOD.
SO WITHOUT ACTUALLY VOTING, IS EVERYBODY COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT WE'RE HEARING SO FAR? AND IF I MAY, VICE CHAIR, JUST BASED ON WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
SO ARE YOU TRYING TO STATE THAT THE DEFINITION FOR GROSS FLOOR AREA WOULD INCLUDE NON LOAD BEARING FLOORS? AND PERHAPS IS THAT I'M SAYING IT, IT SAYS FLOORS PERIOD.
AND, AND THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF NON-STRUCTURAL OR UNFINISHED IS, IS NOT APPLICABLE.
AND CHAIR, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO GET CLARIFICATION.
SO WHEN WE'RE FINDING THE ERROR, THE APPROVED PLANS DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR EVERY HOUR REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE GROSS FLOOR AREA.
DEFINITION OF ATTIC IN 25 2 7 7 3 E ONE B.
AND THEN THE APPROVED PLANS SHOULD MEET THE CRITERIA FOR FRONT YARD OR SORRY, FOR, UH, FAR REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE GROSS FLOOR AREA.
DEFINITION OF ATTIC IN 2 5 2 7 7 3 E ONE B AND THE LITTLE ADDITION OF LOAD BEARING.
WHAT, HOW DID WE WANNA PHRASE THAT? I, I IT'S JUST THE, THERE IS NO, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WANNA PHRASE IT.
YOU CAN'T SAY THE DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK.
[03:35:01]
IT'S A FLOOR.IF THE STRUCTURE IS LOAD BEARING, NO, NO, NO, NOT ABSOLUTELY NOT.
IT, IT COUNTS IN YOUR FLORIDA AREA, YOU GOT SIX FEET AND IT HAS A, IT HAS THE ABILITY TO HAVE A FLOOR IN IT AND SOMEONE CAN HAVE IT IN.
SORRY, I HAVE NOW NOT EATEN FOR TOO LONG.
CAN WE JUST SAY, CAN WE JUST SAY THE DEFINITION OF FLOOR IN THAT SECTION IS NOT LIMITED BY CRITERIA SUCH AS THE, WHETHER OR NOT THE FLOOR IS LOAD BEARING.
HOWEVER YOU WANNA LAWYER WORD IT.
I'M GOOD WITH THAT, BUT I'M JUST SAYING IT COUNTS ONE MORE TIME.
I GIVE THE SECTION THE DEFINITION OF FLOOR IN THAT SUBSECTION IS NOT LIMITED BY CRITERIA SUCH AS WHETHER OR NOT THE FLOOR IS LOAD PAIRING.
WE COULD ACTUALLY NARROW IT MORE BY GETTING RID OF THE SUCH AS AND JUST BEING SPECIFIC THAT IT'S NOT NARROWED BY WHETHER THE FLOOR IS LOAD BEARING.
NO STAFF ACTUALLY MIGHT LIKE THAT BETTER.
THE APPROVED PLAN SHOULD MEET THE CRITERIA FOR FAR REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE GROSS FLOOR AREA.
DEFINITION OF ATTIC IN 2 5 2 7 7 3 E ONE B.
THE DEFINITION, THE DEFINITION OF FLOOR IN THAT SUBSECTION IS NOT LIMITED BY WHETHER THE FLOOR IS LOAD BEARING.
UH, THAT SUBSECTION WE NEED TO INSERT THE ACTUAL APPROPRIATE SUBSECTION.
ARE WE THERE? I I THINK WE ARE, WE GET TO THE UNITS I THINK STILL, RIGHT? NO, NO, WE'VE GOT THAT ONE.
SO THE STAFF DETERMINATION FOR THE NUMBER OF UNITS OF THREE IS INCORRECT.
THE NUMBER OF UNITS SHOWN IN THE, THE NUMBER OF UNITS SHOULD BE CORRECTLY INTERPRETED, OR SORRY, THE NUMBER OF UNITS SHOWN IN THE DESIGN SHOULD BE CORRECTLY INTERPRETED AS GREATER THAN THREE.
AND YOU KNOW, MICHAEL'S GONNA WATCH THIS VIDEO AND BE LAUGHING AT ME.
SO THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, UH, CAN WE, HE'S GONNA HAVE A SOLUTION FOR THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS APPROVED PLANS DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
0 4 0 8 2 6 DASH FIVE EIGHT PART SIX THREE E AND PART SEVEN SECTION ONE.
DID I GET THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE SO.
AND THEN I THINK EVERYBODY WOULD'VE CORRECTED US BY NOW.
THE DETERMINATION WE'RE GOING, OUR CORRECT INTERPRETATION IS GOING TO BE WE'RE, WE'RE REMANDING THE PLANS BACK.
LIKE FOR, FOR THAT, FOR THE SPECIFIC SETBACK.
WHAT DID FOR, FOR ADJACENT THE AVERAGE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF FOUR ADJACENT PROPERTIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALCULATED ON THE PLANS SURVEYED THE SURVEY, THE, THE FOUR FOUR ON THE SAME BLOCK SHOULD HAVE BEEN SURVEYED AND AVERAGED.
RIGHT? THAT'S FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
AND THEN THE, WHEN YOU'RE READY WE CAN TACKLE THE SIDE.
UH, THE AVERAGE FRONT YARD SETBACK SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALCULATED FROM THE CRAP I LOST IT.
FOUR ADJACENT PROPERTIES ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET.
I THINK FROM THE AVERAGE OF THE FOUR ADJACENT PROPERTIES ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET, THE AVERAGE SIDE YARD SETBACK SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALCULATED.
HIS NAILS ARE TOO LONG FOR TYPING.
[03:40:11]
OKAY.THE AVERAGE SIDE YARD SETBACK SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALCULATED.
SO I'M, I'M LOOKING AT STAFF'S MEMO ON THIS.
UM, 'CAUSE YOU CAN PROBABLY JUST USE THEIR LANGUAGE.
UM, MR. LLOYD, WOULD YOU READ THAT FOR ME? SETBACK? FOR THE SETBACK ISSUES YOU COULD POTENTIALLY SUBJECT TO LEGAL COUNSEL SAY THAT THEY SHOULD BE CALCULATED PER THE STAFF PRESENTATION.
'CAUSE IN OUR PRESENTATION WE LAID OUT I THINK EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE SAYING.
BUT LET ME OPEN THAT UP AND UM, GIVE ME ONE SECOND HERE.
UM, I'M ALSO WISHING I HAD EATEN DINNER.
YES, IT'S GETTING DO WE, DO WE NEED TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTES? NO, I THINK WE'RE REALLY CLOSE.
LIKE I, WE HERE WE NEED TO FINISH THIS 30.
WE NEED FINISH AND WE NEED TO GO HOME.
YES, I SUPPORT THIS AND I'M REALLY HOPING MY PUPPY HAS SOME PEED ON THE CARPET.
I HAVE A GRANOLA BAR IF Y'ALL WANT TO CUT IT INTO 10 PIECES.
IT WASN'T ENOUGH, BUT THANK YOU.
THEY CAN JUST REFER TO THE LINE.
I, I'M HAVING TROUBLE OPENING MY PRESENTATION 'CAUSE OF INTERNET ISSUES.
BUT YOU COULD JUST SAY MR. ALLEN SUGGESTED, UM, I THINK VERY ASTUTELY THAT YOU COULD SIMPLY SAY THE SIDE YARD SETBACK SH OR THE SIDE YARD SEPARATION REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE CALCULATED PER THE TERMS OF THE NCCD AND, AND LEAVE IT AT THAT.
IS THERE ANY OTHER LANGUAGE RECOMMENDATIONS MR. LLOYD THAT YOU WOULD'VE
MR. LLOYD, IS THERE ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS? I THINK Y'ALL ARE DOING GREAT.
I'M SORRY YOU GOT AN APPEAL CASE ON YOUR FIRST DAY? I AM TOO AND I'M SO SORRY.
I LIKE THE, THE HARDEST PART FOR ME ARE THE, THE TWO EDGES, THOSE, THE POINTS I MISSED.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU BEING NEW WHEN SHE'S NOT HERE.
I SIT ON ONE SIDE AND THEN THE TV PEOPLE GET MAD BECAUSE THE TV FOCUSES ON THE MIDDLE FOR THE CHAIR.
BUT IF YOU SIT SOMEWHERE ELSE, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO WORK REALLY HARD TO DO IT.
'CAUSE I DIDN'T SIT IN THE MIDDLE AND I HAD NO IDEA.
I WAS LIKE, ALL SHE HAD TO DO WAS TELL ME AND I'D HAVE MOVED ONE MORE
IT'S A GOOD THING SHE'S HERE ALL THE TIME.
SHE'S ONLY MISSED LIKE ONE MEETING THOUGH.
I'VE NEVER MISSED A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING.
YOU WERE ON VACATION AND DIDN'T HAVE VACATION AND WIFI AND WE TOLD YOU TO GO HAVE FUN WIFI SUCKED ON THE SHIP RIGHT THERE.
FOR YOUR MOTION, MR. MCCLELLAN THE LANGUAGE, BUT DID YOU JUST BOARD ADJUSTMENT FINDS THAT THE PLAN SET FOR PERMIT NUMBER 2 0 2 5 0 7 2 9 3 0 PR DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL RELEVANT REGULATIONS.
SPECIFICALLY THE STAFF DETERMINATION FOR THE NUMBER OF UNITS OF THREE IS INCORRECT.
THE APPROVED PLANS DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
0 4 0 8 2 6 DASH FIVE E PART SIX THREE E AND PART SEVEN SECTION ONE.
THE APPROVED PLANS DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR FAR REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE GROSS FLOOR AREA DEFINITION OF ATTIC AND 25.2 0.7 0.7 0.3 E ONE B.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DETERMINES THAT THE NUMBER OF UNITS SHOWN IN THE DESIGN SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS GREATER THAN THREE.
THE AVERAGE FRONT YARD SETBACK SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALCULATED FROM THE FOUR ADJACENT PROPERTIES ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET.
THE AVERAGE SIDE YARD SEPARATION SHOULD BE CALCULATED PER THE NCCD.
THE APPROVED PLAN SHOULD MEET THE CRITERIA FOR FAR REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE GROSS FLOOR AREA.
DEFINITION OF ATTIC IN 25.2773 E ONE B.
THE DEFINITION OF FLOOR IN 25.7 7.3 E ONE B IS NOT LIMITED TO WHETHER THE FLOOR IS LOAD
[03:45:01]
BEARING OR NOT.IT'S 25 DASH TWO DASH 7 7 3 AND I THINK THAT YOU'RE RIGHT.
I PUT DOTS I WAS RUSHING 25 2 DASH 7 7 3 IS THE SUBSECTION.
AND THEN TWO WHERE WE REFERENCE THE ORDINANCE FOR THE N-C-C-D-I WOULD, I WOULD PROBABLY SUBSTITUTE THE NCCD LANGUAGE.
YEAH, I LIKE THAT BETTER BEFORE, 'CAUSE IF I GOT IT WRONG OR IF IT'S 2000 4 0 8 OH YEAH, YEAH, THEN I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE CLEANER.
SO THE FOOD PLANS NOT MEET THE CRITERIA WITH THE NCCD LANGUAGE AS SUGGESTED BY SOMEONE.
UH, THE APPROVED PLANS DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIRE THE APPROVED PLANS DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS PER THE NCCD PERFECTO.
OKAY, DO I NEED TO READ IT AGAIN? OKAY, SO CALL THE QUESTION FIRE AWAY.
SO, UH, BOARD MEMBER MCCLELLAN MADE THE MOTION.
AND I'M GONNA READ IT ONE MORE TIME JUST FOR THE TAPE AND I WILL ALSO EMAIL THIS TO YOU, ELAINE.
SO THIS IS A MOTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
FINDING THAT THE PLAN SET FOR PERMIT NUMBER 2025 DASH 0 7 2 9 3 0 PR DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL RELEVANT REGULATIONS.
SPECIFICALLY ONE, THE STAFF DETERMINATION FOR THE NUMBER OF UNITS OF THREE IS INCORRECT.
TWO, THE APPROVED PLANS DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS PER THE NCCD THREE.
THE APPROVED PLANS DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR FAR REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE GROSS FLOOR AREA.
DEFINITION OF ATTIC IN 25 DASH TWO, UH, DASH 7.7 0.3 E ONE B.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DETERMINES THAT ONE, THE NUMBER OF UNITS SHOWN IN THE DESIGN SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS GREATER THAN THREE.
THE AVERAGE FRONT YARD SETBACK SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALCULATED FROM THE FOUR ADJACENT PROPERTIES ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET.
THE AVERAGE SIDE YARD SEPARATION SHOULD BE CALCULATED PER THE NCCD THREE.
THE APPROVED PLANS SHOULD MEET THE CRITERIA FOR FAR REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE GROSS FLOOR AREA DEFINITION OF ATTIC AND 25 DASH 27 73 E ONE B.
THE DEFINITION OF FLOOR AND 25 DASH 2 7 7 3 E ONE B IS NOT LIMITED TO WHETHER THE FLOOR IS LOAD BEARING OR NOT.
THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND THANK YOU BOARD MEMBERS, ESPECIALLY OUR NEWER BOARD MEMBERS WHO, UH,
WE'VE GOT TWO QUICK THINGS TO FINISH OFF AND THEN WE'RE OUTTA HERE.
IS THAT THE MOST BEAUTIFUL STAFF REPORT YOU'VE EVER SEEN? YOU, YOU, YOU CLEARLY KNOW WHERE WE'RE HEADED.
OUR STAFF PERSON MAKES THESE REPORTS.
LET US KNOW THE STATUS, GOD OF WHERE WE ARE DURING THE YEAR AND GETS US FOR US EVERY MONTH.
[7. Discussion of the September 8, 2025, Board of Adjustment activity report ]
SEVEN.'CAUSE THEY ARE AWESOME DISCUSSION OF THE SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2025 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT.
[8. Discussion and possible action for adopting meeting dates for Jan. 2026-Dec. 2026 ]
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION FOR ADOPTING MEETING DEEDS[03:50:01]
FOR JANUARY, 2026.I'D LIKE TO POSTPONE THIS, THIS ITEM THROUGH DECEMBER 20, 26.
I'M SORRY, I'D LIKE TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM SECOND TO THE, TO THE NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER 10TH AGENDA.
UH, CAN WE WAIT THAT LONG? ELAINE? DO WE HAVE TO HAVE IT SUBMITTED TO RESERVE ROOMS BEFORE THEN OR, I ACTUALLY THOUGHT WE HAD TO HAVE IT DONE NOW.
IT NEEDED TO BE DONE BY THE END OF OCTOBER.
SHE YEAH, THAT'S WHAT CITY CLERK.
I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS CALENDAR THAT ELAINE GRACIOUSLY PUT IN THE PUT TOGETHER IN THE BACKUP.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MCCLELLAN.
ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE ANYBODY WHO'S GONNA HAVE A CONFLICT WITH DATES? WE'RE PLANNING THESE A YEAR IN ADVANCE.
AND I'M SURE THAT'S WHY WE WILL HAVE AT LEAST TWO OR THREE ALTERNATES BY THE TIME WE GET THERE.
OH, FROM YOUR MOUTH TO GOD'S EARS.
THAT PASSES THE TIME IS 10:26 PM I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING ADJOURNED.