Planning Commission - public_hearing

Okay, so it's 7.02. Let's get started. Welcome to the July 22nd meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. For those who have not been to a meeting of the BZA, here is a brief procedural overview. So when a case is called, the city staff will have up to five minutes to present their case, after which their applicant and their representatives will also have a total of up to five minutes to present their position as well. And then finally, the case will be open to public comments with each speaker limited to five minutes. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MUST FILL OUT A SPEAKER FORM FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN FIND THOSE FORMS OUTSIDE THIS ROOM. THE BOARD MAY ASK QUESTIONS DURING ANY OF THESE PRESENTATIONS AND THE RESPONSE TO BOARD QUESTIONS DO NOT COUNT AGAINST YOUR FIVE MINUTES. HOWEVER, SPEAKERS ARE ASKED TO ONLY RESPOND TO THE QUESTION AND REFRAIN FROM ELABORATING, RESTATING THEIR POSITION OR ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE BOARD. Once public comment is closed, the board will deliberate on the case, during which the board may ask additional questions to staff or the applicant. As always, speakers are asked to only respond to the question and refrain from discussion. The Board of Zoning Appeals is a seven-member board with a four-member quorum requirement, and all motions must have four affirmative votes to pass, regardless of the number of board members in attendance. So with that being said, Ms. Christensen, please call the roll.

Mr. Liu?

Here.

Mr. Justice? Here. Ms. Evelyn? Here. Mr. Burke? Here. Mr. Foley? Here. We do have a quorum. The first item on the docket is BZA 20260008, 2500 DeWitt Avenue, public hearing and consideration of a request for a variance of an after-the-fact accessory structure in the required vision clearance area, zoned R25 residential.

Thank you. Staff may begin their presentation whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Board of Zoning Appeals. I'm Sean Killian. I'm a zoning planner at the Department of Planning and Zoning, and I have the pleasure of going over 2500 DeWitt Avenue, the variance request. Next. Technical difficulties, folks. I was wondering why it wasn't full screened. I was like, OK, everyone, that's cool. Yep. So the request for the variance is to allow an after-the-fact pergola to remain within the vision clearance. So some key elements of the discussion is obviously the vision clearance requirements and also for permitted obstructions that are required within required yards. Next. Some background information. This is a single-unit dwelling. It is a zoned R25 residential, and it is surrounded by similar two-story single-unit dwellings. As you can see on the left, that is the photo of the proposed pergola, and on the right is a height diagram. It's a 126.26 square foot pergola, and it measures 9 feet in height. It does comply with the permitted obstruction section, which we'll go over later, to be allowed within any required yard. That's why it can be allowed to be located forward of the front building wall of the house. It just cannot be located within the vision clearance, which we'll get into. So the vision clearance requirement is a 30 by 30 foot triangle that comes out of the curb. So the proposed vision clearance that the applicant is requesting is 23.89 feet. So the relief they're requesting is 6.11 feet. Staff is recommending denial of the variance because it does not meet all of the criteria for a variance. If you have any questions.

Board members have questions for staff at this time?

I understand there was a tree that was in that position previously. That is correct. And did that not have the same sort of obstruction issue that this is purported to have?

Correct, but trees are allowed within the vision clearance, and we believe this structure does not meet the same definition as if a tree or some sort of shrubbery was within the vision clearance. That's why they normally are requested to build outside of the vision clearance.

So the tree that was there was more obstructing, much more obstructing.

Correct. But we're not allowed to have a structure within the vision clearance requirement. That's why that code exists. So shrubberies or any sort of trees that currently exist are allowed to be maintained. But we prefer that no new structures are built within that vision clearance requirement.

Is the vision clearance requirement rule or law that applies across the city or only in certain areas?

You mainly just see it on corner lots. That's the main reason that this property has one. Correct. All corner lots are subject to that vision clearance requirement. Okay.

Is it 30 feet uniform for all intersections? Correct, yes. Other questions for staff? Okay. Hearing none, we can hear the applicant's presentation. And please introduce yourself when you're at the podium. Thank you.

Oh, there's a timer. Tap it when I'm, yeah. You can hear me?

Okay, good.

Oh, there we go, okay.

Good evening, my name is Jeff Jacoby. My wife, Andrea DeFreitas-Kick, is here with me, and together we'd like to address the chairman and the members of the board, and thank you for your flexibility in accommodating us tonight, and to the planning and zoning staff, Sean and Mary, David Sharon, who we've talked with them over the years, and we really appreciate all the assistance they've given us, not just with regards to the pergola, but the fence and some other things that we've dealt with. I think our request is simple. Our pergola would be allowed to remain in place as it is. The question in our minds is not whether the structure stands within the vision clearance zone. Part of it clearly does. The question is more is whether the structure obstructs the vision to a measurable degree and whether conforming it to the strict letter of the rule would make a noticeable improvement. um it is a permitted structure uh as sean mentioned the perga complies with the city of alexandria zoning ordinance 7-202 a5 it is less than 10 feet tall its overhead framing is at least 80 percent open and no automobile is or ever will be parked underneath it Before we began to build the pergola in the fall of last year, we confirmed with Planning and Zoning that adhering to these requirements would allow the pergola to be a permitted structure in a required yard. Usually in my conversations with Planning and Zoning, I take copious notes about who I talk to and what we've discussed. I did not that time, so I can't document that conversation. A minor second point is that a minor portion of the structure sits within the vision clearance zone, and as mentioned, we don't dispute that. We first learned about the vision clearance zone after receiving the February 3rd notice on our door, and then we did some of our own research. And subsequently, we learned more about, sorry, we learned how much of the pergola was within the zone after meeting with Sean, Mary, and David Sharon from Planning and Zoning. And so I'd like to emphasize that before February 3rd, we believe that we were complying with the city's requirements for a pergola, and not until then, and we did our research and talked with them, did we realize we actually had this violation. So third, the city's own ordinance, as Sean mentioned, I think, carves out an express exception for the trunk of a tree. Section 7-801 addresses obstructions within the zone That are more than four feet above the curb and this same city ordinance expressly permits a tree trunk in this zone With understandably no identified with their height limitation because it's tree That's yeah, that's the picture of our old white maple tree so until recently in that same corner of the lot the same place where the The pergola is now this mature white maple, stood for decades. And the maple's base had three, you can't really see it in the picture, but had three large forked lead trunks. That's because one of them was cut down, and one of them, I think, is laying on the ground, which is the reason we had to cut the tree down. So unfortunately, we cut it down. And afterwards, no one said, oh, great, now we can see. People instead mourned the loss of this tree at the corner of DeWitt and Mount Ida and asked what we were going to do with the space. That's when the idea of the pergola was born. So the measurable parts of the pergola that are within the vision clearance zone pale in comparison to the old maple tree, sort of addressing your question. These parts in the zone are the two five and a half by five and a half posts, which are separated by eight feet of open space and therefore clear sight lines between those. And about the pergola's roof, the city's ordinance also expressly allows branches or foliage as long as they are not less than eight feet in height. While the pergola roof is not a branch, it is not foliage, it is around the same height or slightly higher than some of our old maple trees branches which was in the old picture you could see. So we basically replaced a larger solid permitted obstruction with a mostly open and in our view unobtrusive structure. We don't think there's a significant detriment. If you look at the next two photo, the sight lines are open. And it seems that the recurring obstruction that we see is the parked vehicles during the Saturday's farmers markets, the festivals like Art on the Avenue and the Halloween parade, all of which we love and we wouldn't want to give up. But just to point that out, that when SUVs and trucks park in these spots, they're more obstructive than the too slim post and the roof that's above the permitted branch level. Furthermore, there is a conforming fence at the opposite corner, which you can see in the next picture, that is just shy of seven feet. I've spent a lot of time explaining to people why our part of a very open pergola does not conform, while a seven-foot, 100% closed corner fence does conform, and it's because it's not a front yard. So a denial of the variance would require us to tear down the lawful permitted structure to cure a violation, the incremental benefit of which might not be measurable.

Thank you, sir. Your five minutes is up. Thank you. Do board members have any questions for the applicant?

I do. Why did you choose to build the pergola there? I get it if you're replacing a tree, but just why in that specific spot?

Well, again, we didn't know about the vision clearance zone, and we did know when we did some research and learned about the requirements that we did meet, and it just seemed like a great spot for it. Yeah, there's no other reason, really. It just kind of set perfectly in our yard. That's it.

And then just follow up to that, how do you use the space? Are you guys out there every night, every weekend? Or how is it used?

To be honest, we haven't really used it yet. I think we're a little scared to get attached to it because we don't know what's going to happen. We're waiting to see how the board decides, but we intend to use it. Of course, we would abide by any rules with the vision clearance zone, but we really haven't thought about that. Thank you.

Can you describe a little bit the type of construction that this pergola is and how it's anchored in the ground, if at all?

Sure. So we designed it, and it's a trapezoid structure, which presented a lot of mathematical difficulties for me, but designed it and selected the wood and set the four posts in concrete about two feet deep. There really wasn't much to it. Two guys that helped us with our remodel years ago helped with this. Not something I could do on my own, but that's it. It was mostly us and using an AI tool to help design it.

Thank you. And if I might have a follow-up, what, to your understanding, would be involved if you were required to comply with the site line? Would you move it wholesale? Would you deconstruct it? What would have to happen?

yeah thanks um well yeah that certainly is one of the options we could we could you know just take the whole thing down and move it i don't we haven't we thought about where we could move it and we don't really have a spot where we could move it in our yard unless we you know decrease the the footprint of it um we think uh one option probably the option we would lean more towards is to you know cut the the two posts that are in the vision clearance zone down to four feet add two more posts that are not in the vision clearance zone so it's about two feet in from where those posts are, approximately, and then just shorten the top of the pergola, just sort of shift everything more into the yard so that it's outside of the vision clearance zone.

Thank you.

Mr. Foley, do you have? I would say he asked my question for me, so I don't need to ask the question.

Does DeWitt run across? Does it dissect Mount Ida, or does it dead end at Mount Ida?

Mount Ida dead ends right there at DeWitt. That's Charlesville Park is right there. But it then continues. It picks up again on the other side of the park. So it's a T right there. You can't see the end of the T, but it's right there. It's a three-way stop, which is, yeah. I took the pictures this morning because I wanted to make sure there were no trucks there or cars.

Another question. When you were considering building the pergola, did you have to go and get a permit to do that? You said you spoke to someone, but you don't know who it was. What was the context of that conversation?

Yeah, I – well, that's a great question. To my understanding, at least at the time, you can't get a permit for a fence or a pergola. We also had fence issues in the notice that we addressed, so we're not talking about that. But I – yeah that that's uh i think i learned and i don't want to i don't know where i heard it but i think i heard subsequently um that you could get some sort of permit but this was after we got the notice and you know everything was already already done and i don't i don't you know i'd love to ask the question is that possible because we've we've learned a lot and one of the things we've learned is that we will never do anything in the yard again um without going to planning and zoning because they i mean they've really helped us out with a lot of things so it's And it's best to go in person. Because you can pull out the survey and talk about it in person instead of over the phone.

So was there a conversation where there was an opportunity for someone to have possibly brought up this notion of the obstruction or the required viewing setback, vision clearance area?

I guess. I mean, maybe. Maybe.

Thank you.

If you were to use the pergola and if you put furniture, equipment, also a small party with people sort of filling up that space, have you considered how that would obstruct the vision for motorists coming to that intersection?

No. Well, I saw it in the report, so I did think about it then. Not before then. But I would imagine we would have, I mean, so many people have walked by and said, oh, this is going to be the next stage in Del Rey. I'm like, well, hold on. It may be temporary. I'm not sure. But beyond that, I would imagine we would put chairs on there. But again, if it were to stay as is, we wouldn't put anything permanent on there. But if we were to do something, all we would have to do is move it in two feet from that front edge, the edge closest to the corner, and be outside of the vision clearance zone. So we could draw a line and say don't step beyond that line.

Yeah, I just had a quick question for you. When you were talking to staff about building this pergola, did you supply them with a plat of your property and draw kind of like what you were looking to do on it?

No. Well, so we had a remodel and we were building an ADU, which you can see on the survey. Those were on the survey, so I believe, I don't want to say for sure, but I believe they had access to that. So I believe when I was talking to someone, it was in the hands of Planning and Zoning, because we had another variance for the ADU, and we had a remodel where we had to get approvals and all that.

Okay, but you didn't actually draw where you were thinking about putting the pergola?

I did not draw it. No, this, what you see there came later. We got another survey and they showed exactly where the pergola was.

Yeah, I was just bringing that up because I know when you're working with city staff, if you don't draw something like what you're thinking about doing, it's kind of really nebulous and hard for them to really understand the context of what you're talking about to give you all the best advice and and lead you down the right path.

You're exactly right. And when I said if we ever do anything again, we'll definitely go back because that that's one of the things doing that in person was was helpful after the fact. And yeah, we definitely do that, you know, the next time. I think when I first looked at that and read the vision clearance zone rule, I thought our entire pergola was within the zone. And then when we met with Mary and Sean and David Sharon, we felt we breathed some relief because it looked like it was not all in there. Most of it was outside of the zone. So again, that in-person meeting was very helpful.

If you were to move the pergola just a couple feet to outside the vision clearance area, how much time and effort and perhaps financial resources might that cost you? I'm wondering, have you sort of staked the post into the ground? Just give us a sense of how much effort would that take?

It'd probably take $100,000 in six years, but I don't think it would be too bad. I'd hire the same guys that helped put it up to come back and make some adjustments. I don't really think it would take a trip to the lumber yard and some adjustments. It might look funny after we did it, but.

I'd like to follow up on that and ask because I know it's a cost to come here. And I've built things a lot myself and I kind of understand that the cost to move something like that really isn't too terribly much. So can you kind of express to me like there's some perhaps emotionally driven reason of why you're here and why you're – why why are why are you fighting this like it just seems to me like if it were me and I had built that pergola and staff had come to me all right I'll just move it I won't deal with all that you know the whole process and everything because it just seems like the process itself would cost more take more time than just to move it the what six feet and it looks like on your property it's kind of reasonable to do what's the what's the moat what are we not seeing

Yeah, first of all, I don't quite, I'll be honest, I don't quite understand the six feet. It's out of 30 feet, I think it said 6.11 feet. I should have asked for an explanation for that. But it's, you know, when you look at it and you can see the red line across the pergola, it looks like it's about 20 to 25% of the, you know, the foot space, floor space of it. Yeah. Part of it is I'm embarrassed that this happened because, like I said, we've worked with Planning and Zoning on our ADU. They were terrific in helping on that. On the remodel, we had an issue with the builder and the architect, and we came to Planning and Zoning, and they helped us figure it out. We redid our driveway and tore up an old concrete driveway that was cracked and not good and put in a permeable driveway. They helped get us through that. You know the one time I went out and hired a builder to do something I wanted to do which was the fence you know the fence was was violated some of those some of the City ordinances so we had to make adjustments there The pergola was all it was all us. It was all me and my planning. So I'm a little You know, I'm embarrassed that I that that got past me That I wasn't aware And the rest of it is just, you know, the aesthetics of it, just figuring out how. Like, I don't think we would move the whole thing, like I was saying earlier. We looked around the yard, and just based on how big it is, you know, how nice it looks where it is, kind of like we would probably just make some slight adjustments. It wouldn't look as nice, wouldn't be quite as aesthetic, but it would be okay.

Thank you. Were you, so when the tree was there, before the tree came down, was that a space in your yard that you used frequently or was it just there because like with the tree being there, was that some, you know, did you gather around there? Were people there a lot? Was that in a very active part of your yard or was it not really utilized because? of how large and how much space the tree took up.

Well, you might have a better memory than I do. Well, you do have a better memory than I do. But we would gather, sit around the tree. We wouldn't put the fire under the tree, of course. It was kind of, I don't know, like I said earlier, when it came down, people talked about the tree, and it was more of a, I don't know, just something people talked about when it was gone more than when it was there, but I think we would sit under the tree. I know the branch fell on Mother's Day of 2023, uh we remember that day very specifically because we were standing under it an hour before it fell and just fortunately we were not when it did fall um but no it's when it when it did come down you know instead of in addition to pergola we thought about putting a deck in that corner you know just something um that because it's it's an angled corner so we thought about something we could just put back there and put plants on it uh things like that do you gather there with like other members of the community neighbors like is it a place where you're meeting other people as well or is it mostly something you guys use alone so that corner is um is i'm going to say this and then i may regret saying it but it is uh it's a heavily traveled path um it is you know you're walking through charles hill park people are going you know walking to school we've got strollers and you know, cars, and again, I know I'm saying this, and you're probably thinking, well, it's, you know, you need to make sure that those people are, you know, are all protected, but it's true. I'm not, I mean, I'm not, you know, I'm not gonna lie. It's a very popular corner. We stand, you know, my wife is out in the garden all the time, and she gets, you know, people stop there. They stopped me while I was building the pergola and asked, again, if we were gonna use it as a stage, what were we gonna use it for, and everybody just commented how cool it was, how they still miss the tree. I mean, I wasn't that attached to the tree. I'd only been there a few years when it came down, but when it came down, I realized how much people remember the tree. I actually wrote a poem about it. She didn't tell me she was going to do it, but she posted it there. So for a few months, people were stopping to read the poem about the tree and the squirrels that helped destroy it. Thank you.

On the topic of moving the pergola, I'm in my assumption maybe in towards the house on a direct line. Are there any underground utilities in that front yard area that you're aware of that might make it difficult?

No, there are not. Yeah, we checked. When we did the remodel, they came out and marked the lines. And I think before we did something else, they came out and marked the lines. I don't think, it might have been, that was the driveway, yeah, yeah.

I have a question for staff clarification. The base of this structure is not the problem. Correct. It's the two posts that are cumulatively like 10 inches.

Yeah, it's the fact that they're over that four foot requirement, like the applicant stated. So if it was four feet or less, above grade. And the roof structure is also not- Well, it's everything that's above grade, in terms of four foot above grade. That's what we're here for. That's within that vision clearance.

Okay. So moving the posts themselves and leaving the overhead is not addressing-

So within that required zone, everything has to be less than four feet above grade. So that's why the fence is all right, because that fence is a four-foot fence. Everything below that is fine. So the whole structure would have to be pushed back outside of that vision clearance.

Except for the floor. Correct. The base is fine.

Yeah. Just as a structure, the whole thing would move. Otherwise, the PERL is not really being used in full function. I mean, the applicant can move the post or anything above the forefoot, but I imagine they'd want the floor, everything to stay the same.

Unless you just expanded it and left the floor there.

Correct. I have one final question. Is that intersection a four-way stop? It's a three-way. A three-way stop?

I think stop is more of a suggestion than anything. It's a pretty bad intersection, I'd say. That's another issue, but yeah, three-way stop.

Okay, thank you. Just a question for staff. The intersection, looking at a diagram, it's not a 90-degree angle, right? It's more of a, I don't know. This is the acute part of it. Yeah, it's like a more acute angle. Mm-hmm. But the 30, can you just sort of help us think through the 30 degree, sorry, 30 foot vision clearance applies to all intersections regardless of what angle?

Correct. It's for all corner lots, yeah. That angle is determined based on that measurement from the curb, the curb line. That's where that point of that triangle.

I will say if you had a more rectangularly shaped lot, it would still be a 30-foot triangle, but it's going to be wider. So it's not going to take up as deep of a, it's not going to be as an acute of a triangle as this is. It would be more of like a right angle. Mr. Chair? If that makes sense.

Are we moving into board deliberations?

And after the public comment. Just to follow up on that for staff, this is more of a zoning, general zoning question. Sound right that the 30-foot vision clearance applies to all angles of intersection or it is Is it more doesn't make more sense to have it be variable?

So so we got we updated the vision clearance section of the zoning ordinance in 2019 So that's why the board hasn't seen a lot of these requests because it used to be a hundred feet So it was huge like a huge area. So the board prior to 2019 saw a VISION CLEARANCE REQUESTS SOMEWHAT FREQUENTLY, HOUSES, FRONT PORCHES, ALL THOSE THINGS WERE OFTEN ON CORNER LOTS IN THE VISION CLEARANCE TRIANGLE. WE DID A LOT OF RESEARCH COMPARING TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS. WE WORKED WITH THE TRAFFIC DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. AND BETWEEN, I THINK, I BELIEVE IT WAS BETWEEN LIKE 25 AND I THINK LIKE 45 WAS A TYPICAL vision clearance triangle in this area. We compared to Fairfax, Arlington, I think Falls Church. So we looked at other neighboring jurisdictions to see sort of how they were regulating it. And it was all sort of in the same ballpark of around 30 feet.

Thank you, Ms. Christensen. If the board doesn't have any further questions for the applicant, we can move on to Mr. Altenberg.

You fill out a speaker's form right public comments you have five minutes as well Mr. Chairman and members of the board this is the first time I'm on this side of the dais so forgive me if I'm out of touch with Operations lately, but I rise in support of the applicant the pergola that was created actually provides greater aesthetic value to the community than the tree one of the members did talk about this being a social corner i mean it very much is so it's a heavily traveled corner with families walking their children to mount vernon community school families going to the farmers market on Saturday mornings and often people will stop at the corner and talk with the family. We often gather there and to your point about whether anything that is put there would be obstructing the view, it would be temporary at best. The size of the tree that was in obstruction was much more significant than two six-by-six posts that you can easily see through and around. An issue that I would certainly raise is with this vision clearance requirement and the acute angle corner. The vision clearance is designed primarily for vehicular traffic to be able to see around a corner, and I understand the safety requirements behind that. But if you look at where the stop sign is located at this corner on both of the points of the intersection, it is much easier to see than ever before. And it is super easy to see around the corner if you are stopped at either one of those two locations. As the applicant pointed out, the greater obstruction is on a different property with a seven foot tall solid fence that you cannot see around, which is on the opposing corner. So while that is not in question, I would certainly support, and the community around the applicant has shown a full-throated support of keeping the pergola as is. to have watched Jeff build it in the blood, sweat, and tears as he built it, and there was all of that, to have him have to unfoot the pergola to move it a few feet back to then refoot it, it is a significant burden. I mean, to be honest, I mean, he downplayed it, but it would be significant to take it apart and then refoot it properly. I hate to see that sort of imposition put on something that the community has already started to really come to enjoy and specifically has asked if they can be part of it. So I would ask the board to consider that there is no substantial detriment that is at issue here. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. We can move on to board deliberations. Would anyone like to speak, express an opinion, questions?

I would like to have the staff pull up. I mean, I personally think I would really like to approve this, but what I'd like to do is I'd like to have the staff pull up the criteria and see if we can reasonably turn those nos into yeses and go through the criteria. And if the board would work with me on this, I think that I'd like to go through and do it. Is that agreeable?

Yes, I completely agree with that, especially on the standard of principle considering what was there before.

Yeah. Okay, so... to Mary, could you kind of give us an overview of the definition of the variance just so we have it fresh in our mind and we can talk about it?

So the definition of a variance is that is a reasonable deviation from the provisions regulating the shape size or area of a lot or parcel of land or the size height area bulk or location of a building or structure It's also needs to be an unreasonable restriction on the utilization of the property It's not generally shared by others and it is not contrary to the purpose of the ordinance. I

Well, the lot is not a standard shape lot.

Yeah. And I think the fact that it is such an acute angle and cuts off more of the property is something, I mean, there are many lots within the city that do experience that. And there's also many lots on the other end where if it was an angle that You know, the neighbor's yard hardly has any cutoff, and this would be fine in that yard. So there is, at least in comparison to the immediate community, is a, it is different in that sense.

Ms. Christensen, the last thing you said is contrary to the purpose of the ordinance.

Is that correct? Correct.

Yeah, I think personal opinion is that it's not Yeah, it's not contrary to the purpose I agree with that because I think that there's you can clearly see through and I think it's what we've seen with the some of the Testimony that was given to us and what we've seen ourselves with our own eyes that it is clearly more visible and the sight lines are better for traffic than they were before So I think that we, as a board, I feel like we can, that criteria could be a yes. What do other board members think?

I agree. I think that it meets the standard for a reasonable deviation. Absolutely.

I respect the practical aspect that it is as a percent. the vast majority of it is air and transparent, and that it might be less solid than the tree was, but the zoning board, we can't command a tree to grow or not grow. On the other hand, I don't think the, if we were to hold the zoning code in strict application, that it wouldn't impose a hardship that rises to the level that the applicant can't use the property, which is a residential single-family lot with a house on it, a house and an ADU, as a lot with a house and an ADU on it.

I think you're getting to the second one, the unreasonably restricted utilization of the property. So on the first one, I think we're all agreeing that it's a yes. But on the second one, that's what you're getting at right now, isn't it?

Oh, maybe I am Yeah, I think I would just rest that there's lots of yard available for this thing to go in and It doesn't seem like it's unreasonably high Burden to relocate it before we move on to a second one.

Mr. Coleman Fully in support of voting yes, especially for this criteria because I do feel that I think that if Going back, if instead of a pergola being built, another tree was planted that was more obstructing with this but still allowed, We wouldn't be having this conversation, but at the same time, there are improved sight lines. And I personally think that in this situation, we are in a better situation than what previously existed. And considering that it is a three-way stop for the road, and the only reason this is applied is to help drivers see people park on that road. Like if anything, this is not going to obstruct any of their vision versus another car being there or any other structure they could have put up. This is going to be good for the community. This is going to engage with people that are around and is actually better in terms of the ordinance that we are arguing than what was originally there, whether or not it was approved or not. This is something that, in my eyes, is more in line with, I think, the ordinance itself is impacting this structure, even though it is an improvement. And that is my personal opinion.

Thank you, Mr. Burke. Another thought. Ms. Christensen, do you know what the sort of open fence requirement is for that zone?

Is it 50% open? So it's a 50% four-foot open fence is what's allowed in the front yard. So the fence they have there is complying.

Okay, so if the pergola is not there and there is a fence that is 50% open, 50% closed, that would be at the edge of the property. That is permitted. That would be permissible.

Correct.

Thank you. So I I feel like that that that first line we we have reasonably come to a yes on that first line. Let's I I would like to go to the second line. Where I think this is much tougher one to get to a yes than the first one. Unreasonably restrict the utilization of property where the applicant clearly kind of went through the the idea of moving it would be a cost of you know. you know, the labor for probably two days and probably some material costs and things, but it's not terribly unreasonable to move it. What are some of the thoughts on the second line?

I think what's influential there is it talks about it unreasonably restricts the utilization of the property. And for the specific homeowners in this case, they, yes, have expressed interest where they could potentially be willing to move it, but I think it speaks broader to the fact that this is also something that the community has already expressed interest in wanting to utilize. And so from a homeowner's perspective, it might be something that they're OK with. But from a greater community perspective, especially an area that seems to be heavily trafficked, and there are a lot of people there, and that it could be a community benefit Is something that we should not necessarily look beyond in my opinion because I think that is something that is very important Even if it does exist on private property the community benefit can also Happen with the pergola a couple of feet and a couple feet moved.

That's true. You're right.

I

Weird is what if they just left the tree there in its decrepit fallen vision blocking state They could have planted another tree too. I don't that would it I thought I understood if it's an existing shrubbery or something like that it could stay so I don't think that the Existing tree actually complied because the branches have to be limbed up to eight feet.

Is it eight feet? I

Yes.

Floors is 8 feet in height. So the bottom branches of the tree would have to have been 8 feet above the grade. So it doesn't look like it probably complied.

But I guess my point is that even if they cut off all of the top of the tree to have that in compliance, the trunk itself could have stayed. And it was at the homeowner's cost to address what the city found to be a visual problem. at the obstruction. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that perhaps they've alleviated a hardship of this tree trunk remaining there by taking it down and putting in something else that was less obstructing.

I kind of like where you're going with that. It's not the first. But I like it that you're talking about the reasonableness and doing this would be unreasonable versus reasonable. And it seems like it was reasonable to do it. And it was less obstructive and is less obstructive than what was there before.

Does the presence of the tree really matter in our consideration if the tree was not there and they still decided to build a pergola? I don't really see how that should factor into the decision.

I think for the fact that it was a gathering place while the tree was there is what adds into that decision, that it was a place where they were already enjoying and spent considerable amounts of time at. The pergola is, in a sense, adding to that and improving that space, but at the same time, it was already somewhere that they were utilizing. While it's a new structure, it's not a new activity that they're engaging in.

A question for staff. I can't recall, what sort of weight or analysis are we supposed to give the structure if it already exists versus if it doesn't yet exist?

It shouldn't really make any difference in your analysis. The only criteria that you should be using are the criteria that are spelled out before you, whether or not it meets those criteria or not. You can't take into account financial hardships or the difficulty of moving something. Those are not criteria that are before the board.

So like going down to the 3rd line. I feel like that this is really should be a yes pretty clearly because the property I mean they bought the property good faith they're working with this staff city staff on number of other structures in the property um it's very reasonable to think that they did talk to the city about this and they thought that they were doing the right things so i feel like this was you know that they weren't creating this this need for the variance this variance was just something that came about that they didn't understand and that it was it was done in good faith i think i feel like that should easily be a yes

I can, did you have something for that one?

Okay. I think I'm going to have to disagree with Mr. Foley that in the literal sense the hardship was created by the applicant and that they built the structure in the spot where it ended up being where it wasn't supposed to be. So it seems harsh to say that, but in this case the hardship was literally built by the applicant.

I think the difference is, your point is about the, I think Mr. Foley is talking about the intent of building the protocol for the purpose of applying for a variance, right? And you're sort of, yeah, you know what I'm talking about.

Yeah, I certainly wouldn't deny the applicant that it's an honest mistake and that they probably thought and thought that they'd looked at the zoning code and saw it, checked all the boxes, and then some other chapter threw a curveball for them. I certainly wouldn't doubt that they entered that in good faith, no.

CLIFFORD R. Clarification for staff. So that second clause, any hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance, does that have to do with intent?

So staff's analysis came off of what Mr. Justice mentioned, is that the fact that since the structure did not exist, that the applicant then created the hardship by building the structure within the vision clearance.

Okay, so intent doesn't matter. It's more of a broader interpretation.

Right. The criteria is sort of two-part. It's and. We don't doubt that it was purchased in good faith and that they were intending to do the right thing, but it's in good faith and was not created by, the hardship was not created by the applicant.

If the applicant was asking city staff about this and had gone through the process you know to to you to to build the accessory dwelling that they had on their their property and and other improvements, including the fence. It's it's reasonable to think that that as they were going through this that the the the applicant did not That the the variance or the the ordinance was not clear in the language in the. Where they were going through the process to understand that this was. Like something that need to be considered. For their particular property. And I mean, I I think that there's there's a reasonable way of looking at this that. You know, even though they yes, they physically built something there that they physically created something it doesn't mean that the hardship of the need for variance was created by them there's there's two parts to this there's there's the there's the the you know the there's the city that just went through the process if the city had decided that it should be 25 feet and not 30 feet well know maybe they wouldn't need a variance at all so maybe the city created this by making it 30 feet of course it was 100 feet before so well that would have been much worse you know so you know it's like where is that where's the fault here and i think that as we go through here just like what was said before you can't look at this in the sense that that This has to be looked at in a way that the structure is not built there at all. So we can't look at it as intent to move. We have to only look at it as they're applying for it as if they hadn't built it at all. They want it there. And I think the way I heard it being expressed is they want it close to the property line for community and social reasons. So it's kind of like and I like I remember when I used to live on Alfred Street and I had a front porch and I just loved it because I sat in the front porch and literally people would walk by. My neighbors would walk by and it was like they were two feet away and the conversations were just. wonderful. We made all kinds of friends. Some friends that still come, even though I moved like 10 years ago. So, you know, some of these friends still come over to our house. You know, they walk an extra mile to come by. I just saw one of the guys the other day when I would ride my bike to work, you know, and he's like, he's like waving his hand and stuff. And those are the friendships we made. So being close to the sidewalk matters, you know? And I think I got the impression that they built this close to that property line because they thought that they could, they thought it was within the, the, the setbacks and everything else like that. they were doing it for a reason that's the impression i got over thank you mr foley other opinions on criteria three we can move we can come back to two yeah the fourth one down granted the branch would be not a detriment to the adjacent i don't i don't know how this is a detriment I don't know how this would, I don't even know how, let me ask, can I ask city staff, how did you find this to be a no?

We went off of the comments section of the departmental comments. We went off of the comments that were made by traffic and environmental services. They were not supportive of the request to allow a pergola to remain beyond the vision clearance triangle as it will create a sight distance challenges for drivers along the two narrow and intersecting streets. So they recommend relocating the structure behind the vision clearance to maintain adequate sight distance. So it was just that one comment? Correct. OK.

Are you through mr. Fuller? Oh Yeah, I think I would agree with you on this one in that the nearby properties I guess not even adjacent properties They don't really seem to be impacted at all in a negative way by this and the departmental comment really speaks to like motorists who may be passing through maybe from an entirely different area and Like, that is a valid concern, but it certainly doesn't sound in, like, nearby properties. So I think I would be a yes on this one. Yeah, absolutely agree.

Next one, condition or situation of a property concerned is not of so general nature.

MR. CHAIR, I THINK THE STAFF MADE THE ARGUMENT FOR US ON THIS ONE EARLIER WHEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW THEY LOOKED AT THIS IN 2019 AND CHANGED IT FROM 100 FEET DOWN TO 30 FEET. AND THERE WAS SOME, I GUESS, SOME VARIATIONS IN THE SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS WHERE IT COULD BE 25 FEET OR WHERE SHOULD IT FALL. SO I PERSONALLY THINK THAT THIS COULD BE A YES. JUST BASED UPON WHAT STAFF SAID EARLIER.

Are we looking at the last one here?

No, the second to the last one. No, we're at the third to the last one.

I agree with that and I think it also could be pointed out like within that analysis there are variations and on top of that it seems like there's a possibility to create so that it's not just a uniform 30 feet everywhere that it could apply based on the actual intersection as well if Other intersections allow you to have less space taken up on your property to have a visual sight line. I understand that this is an acute intersection. There are narrow roads. But at the same time, I also think that every driver, by law, is supposed to come to a stop at this intersection. And also, by law, required to look at every other part of the intersection before proceeding. So having sight lines there, I can understand the point behind it. But for anyone that is following the law, they are required to look anyways, which is why it doesn't fully make sense to me why a sight line here is so detrimental to the property.

Thank you, Mr. Burke. And I would like to add that as a potential amendment to the ordinance, the four feet above grade requirement doesn't account for the open space in the structure. So the roof could be 10 feet, but if it is completely open, then it really defeats the spirit of the ordinance. pergolas as a category could be maybe considered as something that might not detrimentally affect the vision clearance area.

As a matter of policy, I think I see where you're going. You could imagine, say this pergola was made with metal fence tubes, three-inch diameter. You'd hardly notice it, but it would still run afoul of the rule, which just seems even less reasonable.

Well, in this case, the rules are looking as if it's a building that's there with four walls and a roof and not a completely open space.

Another question for staff. In the 2019 review of other jurisdictions' site triangles, did any other jurisdictions make allowance for the angle of the intersection?

Not that I'm aware of. But also just maybe for some clarification, for the questions you're asking about potentially changing the regulation, is that what you're... Oh, I'm just curious. No, no, I was saying that pergolas could be a permitted obstruction within the vision clearance. Is that... Because that sort of goes against your argument for meeting that criteria. If that was what... So that condition that standard is that Is not so general or reoccurring of nature to make To make it practically the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance So basically it's saying that criteria is saying that this is so common that that we should amend the zoning ordinance to address this issue.

I wasn't necessarily advocating one way or the other. I was just curious if it was common across other places or in the industry to have basically different categories of sight line based on intersection angle.

Not that I'm aware of. We have actually talked internally about trying to amend this section again and work with the Transportation and Environmental Services Traffic Division to potentially move it to the city code to go to the Traffic and Parking Board, since they are more the experts on travel and parking and safety.

I was surprised to find this here. But I don't think it's site triangles. DC does another thing where you would think it's traffic, but it's in zoning.

It's in the zoning ordinance, yeah.

All right, maybe the last one.

Oh, I guess while I'm just still going stream of conscious here, I'm probably a no on this because while every property is unique and the exact angle of this intersection might be a one of one, like if you get to the 10th of a degree or something, but it's probably very common that there are acute angle intersections, which If the site triangles are all the same, I'm losing my geometry words here, but all the same distance, this can be unfavorable for an acute angle lot like this one. But I'm going to guess that if we were to grant just as a class every acute angle lot a few feet off of their site triangle, that would be a very big swing for us.

I don't believe that's what we're advocating for. I'm not under the impression that we're saying we should...

But if we were to allow this one, wouldn't we then put everyone else similarly situated in a position where they could ask for a few feet?

Well, I think perhaps if somebody else were presenting, they may have a full, as somebody mentioned, a four-sided structure, which would preclude a lot of yeses on there, most likely.

So for the third to last one, are we in agreement? I'm moving that to a yes, or do you?

I think the argument's been made for a yes. I think the only one, I mean, I've read the last one, I've been thinking about it, and I think the only one that I'm still having a hard time with is the second one from the top, which I don't know how we can justify a yes to that one.

Can we scroll back up to the second one? Sorry to cut you off, just so we can read it again.

Yeah, so with all the deliberation and stuff like that, I don't see an argument how to make this one into a yes.

If we don't. consider the fact that this pergola was built after the fact, right? Assume that it has not been built and the applicant came to us with a variance request. Would you approve that request specifically regarding this second criteria? Other members of the board?

I think the key word in there is the strict application of the terms. I mean, how strict is strict?

Maybe that's a good point because if you think about the pergola itself, the discussion we've been going on earlier that you know, maybe the intent was like, if you if the pergola was actually a shed and had solid walls, well, that would be obviously a visual obstruction. And that would, you know, that you could really clearly see that would need to move because you wouldn't want something like that. But a pergola. I mean, we we've seen the pictures. could pretty clearly see it doesn't seem like it obstructs the vision at all so maybe that's right maybe it's we want to look at that and maybe it's the strict application strict is that is the key word there i i kind of agree with that and looking at the department comments specifically from transportation planning of that this will create site distance challenges for drivers um

Going along with the logic that, you know, if this hasn't been built yet, that's what we're looking at. Knowing what a pergola is and knowing that it would be four posts high off the ground and a roof that's 80% open built in compliance, the pergola would be built in compliance. I don't see how that is causing any challenges for drivers at all. It's open. People can see. It would be no different than potentially having a tree that was built within the actual lines that has a few branches that go over. Or it would be no different than if you had a singular person standing on the corner or just standing there. I think that's more restrictive and challenging than what is actually there or what would be there.

OK, so I'm kind of thinking with this that maybe we have gotten to all yeses.

Do we get to a yes on 3? Hardship was not created by the applicant.

In my opinion, we did.

I agree with that. I think that we know for a fact that we all agree that it's in good faith. The hardship could have been and would be that really this site distance could be any number. It could be 100 feet. It could be five feet. It could be clearly anything. And this is being placed on the applicant as a hardship, that this is space on their property being taken from them for this.

So I would like to ask Ms. Christensen what she thinks about that.

I mean, from a zoning perspective, all of our regulations have, you know, there's a setback requirement where you can't put certain things. There's vision clearance areas where you can't put things. There's open space requirements. All those things I don't think constitute taking of a property. The property is clearly being used with a house and an ADU. there's other places on the lot where this could be placed. Um, so I, I don't, I, I disagree, but that's, um, those are new perspective.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate your opinion. I also appreciate your facial expressions.

I, I feel like we have addressed all of these in good faith and that, uh, based on our expressed Rationals and opinions. I feel that we have changed this these criteria to become acceptable and and defendable yeses and if it's I'm prepared to make a motion Before you do that.

Can we just formally check off the last one? I don't I don't think we give that a formal consideration. I okay so it's just it is not it is not available through a special exception correct i would request if you are making a motion um if you could uh give the rationale for the uh for the motion okay um so before we make a motion kilman we can i just get an indication from each board member on what direction they're leaning, and then perhaps a quick rationale. Starting with Mr. Burke.

I am going to vote to approve this request on the basis that I don't think it impedes any sight lines for driving any more than a person would by standing there. And I think that it was built in good faith and is utilized not just by the owners of the property, but will be a community gathering space, which I think is something that is important for the space as a whole.

I would intend to vote no. However, while I find the pergola in this spot and its application to be inoffensive and practically invisible, I understand that a variance is a high bar and that there's a potential that we would be creating an avenue for more things to go into the site triangle, things that may not be quite so innocent as this one.

And I'm reluctant to do that I'm inclined to vote yes on this I just feel that the issue is the visibility and The visibility is if you look at the facts and the situation is not an issue And if at some point You know we we have to defend the decisions and the rationale behind However the vote may turn out I feel that we could do it mr. Foley

So I'm inclined to vote yes on this and it's largely because of the board deliberations and how we have gone through and picked apart all of the criteria and I believe that all the criteria are should should have been yeses and I understand the where staff got their nose from and at least on some of them but I believe that that through logical and reasonable rationale we can come to a yes on those or largely because of the pergola not being an obstruction to the sight line. So there's my rationale.

If I could add. One thing, I do just want to express appreciation for Mr. Foley in this and previous variance cases, structuring our internal deliberations to go through this point by point. I think it's very helpful and definitely helps us stay organized as we wrestle with these more complicated cases.

And I think that if another case like this does come up as a result of what this case is going through and doing that process really allows us to look at each individual property and how that is affected and it doesn't create that precedent. As something that I've brought up before in other cases, we've had the risk of that. I don't think that is what we are doing here.

Thank you. I think this is best practice going forward for all BZA, for all, you know, You'll define cases or potentially contentious cases going forward. And to your point about presidents, Mr. Burke, honestly, I am conflicted on what to do. which direction to lean because I'm very concerned about setting a precedent for future cases, especially when safety is involved. And knowing that we need four board members to vote yes in order for a case to be approved, I don't know, I want to hear your thoughts again on why we should vote, why I should vote yes or no.

So being in urban planning school and going through and knowing the intent behind this, I'm going to assume here, but was most likely centered around Vision Zero, which is ensuring that any traffic accident doesn't result in a fatality. There are no traffic fatalities within a city. and so the intent behind it very much focused towards safety. I don't believe that the 6.11 feet that this pergola is extruding onto these sight lines is having an impact and is actually increasing how safe this intersection is. I think that by the post being there, it is... open, you can see through it. And it is increasing that safety already, based upon, I know we're not supposed to look at what was there before, having those versus what was a blank piece of grass is not impeding safety. And so from that perspective alone, I think that this is, that is what gets me to a yes there is the sole reason that this doesn't fit and doesn't, isn't allowed is to increase safety, but there is no hindrance towards safety by this structure.

Mr. Foley, do you have anything to add to support the yes argument?

I would add that we do look at these on a case-by-case basis, and because we do, we have the ability to again go through these particular criteria and dissect what is before us to ensure that it doesn't present a potential safety issue that I believe is what your concern is and I appreciate that and I respect that but I think that as a board we are entrusted to be mindful and intelligent with our decisions about how things could potentially be dangerous to the citizens of our city and others

Mr. Chair, I just like what Ms. Evelyn said earlier, is that what we went through and the deliberation that we had, I think that turning those to a yes, that I think that what we did was defensible. It was not whimsical in any way. And I feel that, you know, if... In most times when staff comes through and turns everything green and it's all yeses, we don't even look at it. We just go with it and deal with it. And I think that if you have a specific question about one of these where you feel like the deliberations did not turn it to a yes, I would appreciate it if you would. Point that out. But otherwise, I think that you've heard all the arguments and I think you need to make your decision and I think we need to get a get a Motion here and see where it goes I think the the top line top line reasoning especially for number

Number two is that the primary use of this property is not impeded in any real way by us not granting the variance. The applicant not only still has the benefit of being able to live on the property and have an ADU, they could locate the pergola in it seems like several alternative locations. For some of the other ones, while I think it's not in dispute that the applicant had good faith and made an honest mistake, they did still, in the literal sense, make the, what is the word I'm searching for here? Hardship. Make the hardship. I knew it wasn't hazard, because it's, in a practical sense, probably not a hazard to navigation. But they did make the hardship that they are then seeking relief for. And my understanding is that's kind of a strict liability standard that even though in our minds we can assess the whole totality of the circumstance, my understanding is that we're not supposed to actually consider that. We're just kind of binary. Did they do it or did the terrain do it for them or some other natural or force beyond their control?

I understand.

Mr. Chair, I would just, before you make any motions, suggest that maybe you consider a deferral for the applicant. They've heard all the conversation. Maybe they might want to explore other options or talk with our transportation and traffic staff. Also, we potentially will have two other board members here in September. But just as a note to the applicants if you're denied tonight, you can't come back for another year if you defer Then you could come back in September Just as an option since the vote appears to be close Mr.

Chair May I comment on the staff recommendation for deferral? I We just debated for an hour and 20 minutes on this. I just feel like if we were going to defer this for those reasons or any reasons, it should have been done like an hour ago. I'd like to see a vote on this just because we've debated this. I don't want to debate this again.

Mr. Foley, I believe the option for deferral is given to the applicant.

The option for deferral I think is given by the chair at the chair's discretion to the applicant and I'm just expressing my opinion.

So there does need to be a vote on the deferral. So the applicant can request a deferral if the chair offers it to him and then there is a vote. I would just say that the applicant has had the benefit of hearing your deliberations. and may be able to come back with additional information that would potentially support their request, in addition to there being potentially two other members with opinions.

I would offer the applicant a chance to defer if you would like. All applicants, in my opinion, deserve the privilege to defer their case if they so wish. So that is an option. Five minutes. OK, Ms. Christensen, can you stop the timer, please? Applicant is at the podium with their decision.

Can I go? Yes. We appreciate everything that planning and zoning has done to prepare for this and the board and the deliberations. We walked in and it was all no's and a lot of those were turned to yes's. The conversation has been, you know, terrific. I think we don't want to put anybody else through this, having to go through this again. Planning and zoning would have to go through it again. We would have to go through it again. You would. I think we'd rather just hear a decision, you know, whichever way it goes. We'd like to just, you know, decide tonight and let everybody go.

Thank you, Mr. Colby.

Thank you.

OK. Would anyone like to make a motion?

Maybe you should make a motion to deny.

I cannot make a motion as the chair.

Maybe somebody else should. See where that goes.

Please explain your reasoning.

Well, if the motion to deny fails, what are Robert's rules?

You have to have four affirmative votes to pass a variance.

We can't backdoor our way into a yes by Mr. Foley, pulling one over on me?

All right, I'll make the motion to approve. Do we have a second?

I'll second that motion.

All those in favor of approving the variance, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All those against, same sign. Aye. Aye. So the motion, the variance is denied by a vote of 3 to 2. Thank you. Next case, Ms. Christensen.

The next item on the docket is BZA 2026-0009, 414 Duke Street. Public hearing and consideration of a request for a special exception to construct an addition in the required rear yard, zoned RM residential.

Staff can begin their presentation.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Right before you is 414 Duke Street, which is for a special exception.

Next, please.

We're asking for a special exception for a rear yard setback for a proposed addition that will be connecting to an existing rear wall. The applicants are proposed proposing to expand one non-complying wall and the Issue in this case is that because it's a rear yard and there's an alley the zoning ordinance actually allows homes to apply half the distance of the alley towards the setback. So currently, the proposed addition that's highlighted in yellow sits 2.1 feet from the property line, but they get to take an additional nine feet to add to that as a part of their rear yard setback. Next slide, please. The location of the house is in the old and historic district. It is zoned RM. It is a three-story house. It is surrounded by residential properties as well as religious places of worship in the neighborhood.

Next slide.

So what you see is, to my left, is that the existing house, as you can see, has a three-story, a two-story, and a one-story. The applicants are actually proposing to do a two-story and a one-story addition. However, the two-story addition will be in compliance with the ordinance. So what's before you is the one-story addition that has the flat top that will be tying into the existing structure that has the flounder roof, and it will be to expand an existing mudroom. Next slide, please. So before you, you'll see what's existing. And as you can see that the portion with the flounder-style roof is actually projecting further out towards the rear than the adjacent neighbor. So the required rear yard requirement for the RM zone is 16 feet. So the requested rear yard is 11.10, and so the relief is 4.90 feet.

Next slide, please.

In looking at the criteria, this application meets all the criteria of a special exception, and staff recommends approval. I am available for any comments, questions, or concerns. Thank you very much.

Any questions for staff? Yes, sir.

So this property and it looks like some of the other ones near it are built very close to the rear lot line. Did this property in particular need relief maybe in the past to build as far back as they did?

So this is one of the 1800-year homes. And so most of this existed prior to the 1992 amendments. They are still required to go before the Board of Architecture review. They were actually supposed to go in July, but it got deferred. And then they actually had a subsequent meeting. What we do know at this point in time that the architect has been asked to look at the piece that has the two-story addition piece, but it will not affect that one-story piece that's in the back. But if you look at it, you can see the existing brick wall next to the adjacent property as well. But behind that, if you notice, what looks like green space is really part of the alley. And then what's behind that is the parking for St. Mary's Church.

Any other questions?

Yes. So the variance, there would actually be nothing that is protruding onto that alley.

Correct. They're not protruding into the alley. What they're doing is tying into that existing flounder roof brick piece to expand the mud room, and it'll be a flat roof piece. So they're expanding that portion. But because that actually sits 2.1 feet from the rear property line and the RM zone requires 16 feet, Then they need to come forward for special exception because they're tying into one existing non-complying wall But in this case they get to apply another nine feet because of that alley the width of that alley to that setback So therefore the relief is only on four point four point nine feet Thank you, you're welcome.

I have a question about the portico is that yes, there was a Application I think the portico is also part of the special exception request. I

No, you're talking about the existing one. You're talking about the pergola that's already there, that's covered, that they use for parking, that is actually counted in FAR. So they're doing a two-story addition and the one-story addition. Now, there is a pergola. You cannot see it where they parked on the car. So in the FAR, we actually counted it because they're using it for parking. And so we actually counted the space underneath their pergola as an FAR.

Okay. Never mind.

I'm sorry. Did I miss something? No, no. Oh, okay.

No, I was probably misunderstood what I read. I'm sorry. In the case. No, it's not your fault. Any remaining questions for staff? Okay. If not, then we can hear the presentation by the applicant. Please introduce yourself.

I actually have nothing to add to the presentation that the staff made but I'm happy to answer any questions that you have Thank you, sir.

Any questions for the applicant? I do you have just one quick question the the reason for for this addition is to Add an elevator correct. So the so is there like a DIA? Or is there is a user of the property?

disabled or Not currently but just in anticipation of the future need Thank you

We can move on to board deliberations. Any board members would like to express an opinion or have additional questions?

Mr. Foley? If there are no other questions, I'm happy to make a motion. Yes, please feel free. Based on the staff's recommendations. I'd like to make a motion to approve the special exemption. I second that motion.

A motion and a seconded motion. All those in favor of approving the special exception, please say aye. Aye. All those against, same sign. Okay. Hearing none, the motion is passed 5-0. Thank you.

Thank you and have a good evening.

The next item on the docket is the consideration of the minutes from the June 8th, 2026 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.

Ms. Evelyn? I have reviewed the minutes, as brief as they were, and find them to be correct and accurate.

Okay. Can I get a motion to approve the minutes?

I will make a motion to approve the minutes from the last board meeting.

I second that motion. Okay. All those in favor of approving the minutes, say aye. Aye. Against? Same sign. Hearing none, the motion is passed. Thank you. Other items?

We don't have any other items. Obviously, there's a break in August, and we do have some cases already submitted for the September hearing. So there will be a September 14th BZA meeting.

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Christensen. This meeting is adjourned.