Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

On behalf of any petition, you must be signed in at the podium found at the entrance of this meeting room. There are multiple people. I just ask that you guys keep your comments respectful until a minimum of three minutes. All right. At this time, I'll go ahead and open the regular June 10th meeting. Or I'm sorry. Yeah, say June 10th. I've had a... It is.

It is June 10th.

June 10th meeting to order. May we all rise if you can for Pledge of Allegiance. All right, this meeting is called to order. May I roll call, please?

Mike Nichols.

Here.

Scott Highlander.

Here.

Sam Payne. Here. Isaac Chavez.

Here.

Charles Bates.

All right, moving forward, we'll take a look at the minutes from May 13th. Before I open a motion, I don't know if I haven't caught this before, Grace, but I'm referred to as a couple different people here, President Isaac, President Chavez. Could we open the minutes with President Isaac Chavez and just refer to me as President Chavez throughout the minutes just for consistency? Approved. Can I get a second?

Second. Roll call, please.

Mike Nichols?

I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes, is that we need to do that too, right? Yeah.

I don't think you had a motion.

Can I take a motion? Pardon me?

Can I take a motion? Yes. And then... Sam, was your second? Give me a second, Sam. Scott? Was there a second?

Scott's second.

All right, roll call, please.

Mike Nichols?

Aye.

Scott Highlander?

Aye.

Sam Payne?

Aye.

Okay, are we good? Are you good on that?

Yeah, you were here, Sam. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Correct. Okay.

So we should probably table these minutes then.

Do you not have three of you that were present?

Yeah, it would technically just be me and...

I was here. Sam was there. He was mistaken. So you've got three that can vote.

Okay, so that is a mistake then on the minutes as well. It says, members absent, Scott Highlander and Sam Payne. But you were here, correct?

Well, it says right here, upon call of the meeting, Mike Nichols, Charles Bates, and Isaac Chavez, members absent. Scott Hyler and Sam Payne. So you weren't there. I wasn't here. I didn't think I was.

Okay. So can we resend that motion and table these minutes? Yeah. All right. Minutes are tabled. Sorry about that, guys. Rough start. All right. Moving forward, we will take a look at public docket number 2026012. The request is for adult mental standard variants. to allow a six foot tall fence within a 25 foot of a road row in a residential district instead of being restricted to a 42 inch tall fence. Ms. Listitzel, can we please have the report for this?

You can. Do you mind if I go ahead and make an announcement on our advertising error first, just in case there's anyone here mistakenly for that hearing. They don't have to sit through all of this. So, Grace, if you can help me out, do you remember the name of the filing for the meeting on the 22nd?

Yes, it was DACA VCA 2026014 for Javier Solorio.

Okay. So that case is being heard at a special meeting on the 22nd of this month. And the newspaper advertisement does correctly state when it's happening in compliance with state law. But there was a typographical error on the notice to neighbors that lists tonight's meeting. And so we've got to make a correction to that and send it out. It's legally noticed. The BZA, you'll probably have to discuss that at that meeting to make sure that you're aware. And Alicia may have the opinion that I think we're probably going to try to send regular snail mail letters to correct that date so people are informed. But you may still want to kind of... make a note that you're aware of that when we get to that hearing. We don't need to do anything with it now, but I want to make sure that we've announced on the record that anyone who's following that case, whether they're listening online or here in person, it will be discussed on the 22nd at 4 p.m. Yes, and that's the correct time and date, not tonight.

Is this the meeting where we had here? that we had at one time.

That was that the refiling no, no, that's not.

For you to any other comments.

No, I think that was the main thing. I just wanted to make sure in case anyone was listening online or here for that other hearing because of that notice that we caught it at the beginning.

Okay. Before we get into your report, I just want to check that no one's had any conversations with the petitions being heard or any discussions with any other board members. All right. Hearing none, we're ready for staff report.

Okay. So this is the application of Ashley, and I may mispronounce this, Segarra? And this is 459 South 3rd Street. This is a request for a developmental standards variance. It's from UDO 503.13F, which specifically states that if you're within 25 foot of a road right away, you cannot have a fence that's taller than 42 inches in height. In this case, the petitioner would like to have a fence that's six foot tall. This property is zoned B residential. All surrounding property around it is also zoned B residential. The site is on the northeast corner of the intersection of South 3rd and West Boone Streets. It's a residential property with a single-family dwelling and a couple of outbuildings. The dwelling faces 3rd Street, and it's legal nonconforming with respect to its front setbacks on the side of the structure from West Boone Street. Corner lots have two front setbacks. The applicants would like to fence in what to them is their backyard, but since they're on a corner lot, having a privacy fence that comes off the side of the house in line with it to attach to the detached garage will put a six-foot fence in the required 25-foot front setback where you can't go taller than 42 inches without a variance. So that's what brings them to the board today. You can see the zoning map there and the outbuildings on the second page. There's a couple pictures there. You can see where the front of that house that's legal nonconforming is. They're just on the other side of the sidewalk in that second picture and in the first one. And then there's a site plan that shows they're wanting to take that six-foot fence. 38 foot directly in line with coming off the house and then as soon as they get to that garage they're turning and going straight back you know to enclose the rest of the fence in the back is conforming with the ordinance and not part of the requested variance um So there on the third page, per normal, I've gone ahead and listed the ordinance in question in case any of you want to read or refer to it. There are three findings that have to exist in order to grant the variance out of UDO 203.12. And in terms of analyzing those, the first one is the approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community. So there's already a house within this 25-foot setback closest to the right-of-way on the same property. The... Accessory structure also is legal nonconforming with respect to front setback and is within that 25 foot. So connecting the two legal nonconforming structures with a six-foot privacy fence would not increase the legal nonconformity of the setbacks on the lot in terms of where structures are. As long as the new fence would not impinge on the right-of-way or the sidewalk, then the finding would appear to be met. to the use and the value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. So again, there's already a house and a garage here that predates the ordinances. No complaints have ever been received about either the house or the garage devaluing neighborhood properties because of their legal nonconforming setbacks. Visual clearance rules, so that's making sure no fences are too close to an intersection, are met. So there's no concerns about traffic safety for neighbors coming and going if the house and the garage are allowed to have a fence between them. So it doesn't appear that extending that fence between the two structures is going to significantly change how adjacent properties relate with this property or are affected by it. That finding would appear to be met. Three the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property So there are existing buildings here and more importantly This is a corner lot that simply does not have a traditional backyard. There is no way that the applicant can give themselves a normal side lot line situation where they have a spot behind the house to fence as would normally be intended and If the six-foot fence was moved back 25 foot to comply with the ordinance, it would be on the north side of the sidewalk between the house and the outbuilding and on the north side of the back door with no way to enter the backyard from the garage and the house. So it would be a very awkward configuration in terms of using your backyard. So because of the configuration of where those buildings already sit, there is no way to have a usable fenced backyard inside a privacy fence without either granting a variance or substantially remodeling structures to move their doors further from the road. So this finding would appear to be met. Staff recommendation would be to approve the developmental variance requested from UDO 503.13F to allow the six-foot privacy fence to be placed within the 25-foot setback as shown on the site plan. with the following conditions. First, that six-foot fence may only be placed between the house and the west side of the existing garage. If it were to go further over, then we would start needing to talk about maybe what might happen with neighboring properties, how that might affect that. And that is what they've requested on their site plan, and that's where your legal nonconformity exists, is between those two. And then two, the fence must be placed entirely on the applicant's property, not in the road right-of-way, and at least two foot north of the sidewalk. even if that does require it to sit back a little bit on the front of the house to make sure that people using the sidewalk in the right-of-way are not literally right in the edge of a fence. So that would be the staff recommendation.

Thank you, Liz. At this time, we will call on the petitioner to speak and write any additional comments.

You don't have to comment. We just want to make sure.

Okay. All right. At this time, I will take any questions from the public. Hearing none, public discussion is closed. At this time, we'll open discussion for board. You said the west side.

What was you going to do on the west side?

If you look at the second page of the staff report at the site plan, the west side of the garage, the side that faces towards the house, their site plan shows them coming straight back to connect with it. If they were to continue across, they would be fencing that garage in and they would be starting to come across where we would need to look at that next property over and what parking or alleys might be there and if we're in visual clearance triangles or not. So we're just basically binding them to exactly what their site plan shows that they want and need, not leaving it open-ended where they could continue that six-foot fence all the way down to the corner without coming back and examining that.

We're not going clear to the alley.

No, and actually, to be honest, when I drove this, they may be able to speak for themselves, but it appears to me that the reason they've drawn it this way is because they're actually parking off the alley behind the garage, and they don't want to have to go through a fence. That's what I've seen when I've been there, too. But variances run with the land as long as the fence is there. So if there's not a restriction on it, even if they have no intention... another owner down the road, you know, you wouldn't want them to be like, oh, yeah, we're just going to keep extending that. They should really come back and discuss that with the BZA if they want to fence the whole thing to the alley, and they would be in the visual clearance triangle at some point if they kept going down that way. So, yeah, that west side of the garage is the side that faces the house, so the condition's just saying... The fence between the house and the garage is fine, but if you want to go beyond the west side of the garage at that point, you need to be 42 inches or shorter in compliance with the ordinance.

What about, as I look at this drawing, you've got land here and you've got a fence on the north side of the house.

Yes, that complies with all ordinances. There's no issue with that part of the fence going in.

That's not going throughout to 3rd Street then?

No, that is coming off the back corner of the house there. So it meets the 25-foot setback off third, and then it's on the side property line.

So the only place we're talking about putting up a fence, the six-foot fence is in what's marked on yellow.

Yes, that you're doing a variance for. The rest is also a six-foot fence. It's just they can do it either way. If you deny the variance, then this front part in yellow would have to move back 25 foot and attach between the garage and the house on the north side of the sidewalk on the property that the homeowner uses.

I can go with a 46-inch fence.

Oh, yeah, they could also lower it to 42 inches or below and keep it there if you didn't grant the variance. That's also an option. But if they want the six foot without the variance, they'd have to move it back. Or they could, yes, they could shorten it. 42 inches or below does not require a variance in a front yard.

Can I ask the petitioner why they want a six foot fence?

Can you come to the microphone? Why is it you're needing a six foot fence instead of a 42 inch fence, if you can?

Yeah, I'll just have to ask him. He's official.

Oh, okay. I'll just repeat it for you.

So the reason is they just had a newborn baby this Monday. They have a dog, a big dog, and then they also want to do a swimming pool in their backyard. So they feel that that would give them a little bit more privacy.

The pool will have to have 30 or 40 minutes.

A pool has to have a six, well, I think in the city it's four foot or more, but there is a height. Rob, would you know, is that four foot for you guys or is that five foot?

I believe it's four foot, Liz.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that APC it's five and city it's four, but either way there has to be a fence around a pool. And a pool will need a permit, but I get why they might not want to have somebody looking at them while they're swimming.

Okay, I was just curious.

Yeah, that's a fair question.

Any other comments or questions?

All right, hearing none, I'll close discussion for the board. At this time, I'll open a motion.

I'll make a motion that we approve the request stated here on this paperwork along with the recommendations of the Two conditions. Two conditions. Thank you. Along with the two conditions. As stated in the staff report. As stated in staff report. Thank you, Liz.

First, I hear second. First and second. Roll call, please.

Mike Nichols.

Aye.

Scott Highlander.

Aye.

Sam Payne. Aye. Isaac Chavez. Aye.

right so you don't have to stay for the whole meeting if you don't want it's up to you you can contact building services to get that fence permit and then just be aware if you put a pool in the future you need to come in and talk to them as well for that at that time moving forward we'll continue with new business taking a look at public hearing for docket two zero two six dash zero one three

The petitioner is Ryan Pugsley, requesting a developmental standard variance for the following. The variance is to allow the placement of a six-foot fence within the required 25-foot of right-of-way in a B residential district. I'm soliciting, so can we please have the staff report?

You may. As you stated, the applicant is Ryan Pugsley. This is at 308 West Barner Street. And this, identically to the last one in terms of the variance being requested, is also a request to place a six-foot tall fence within the 25-foot setback off the road right-of-way instead of being restricted to that 42 inches. So this property is Zone B residential. Everything immediately surrounding it is also Zone B residential, but there is a little bit of C residential in the next block over to the east. This site's on the west side of North Gentry Street, but it's in common ownership with a parcel on Barner Street, which is where the address is coming from, that it functions as a yard for, resulting in an irregular L-shaped building lot. The garage on the petition parcel is behind the house on the other parcel where the address is. And there's a... I think... Yes, there's a... An aerial and zoning map here at the bottom of page one that you can kind of see this on where Barner Street is on the south side and the house sits on the parcel that's the bottom of the L. And then the parcel your variance request is on is the one that would be the top of the L going towards Gentry. And you can see there's a garage there. And then there's yard towards Gentry Street where the request is coming from to place the fence. There is currently a shorter chain-link fence that meets the ordinance requirements on that property now that the petitioner is wanting to replace with a six-foot-tall privacy fence. The area that the petitioner is functionally using as their backyard is, by definition and regulation, the front yard of the parcel-fronting Gentry Street and thus subject to the 25-foot setback from the Gentry Street road right-of-way. On the second page, you can see a picture that this kind of helps visualize because the chain link fence is sitting there. So you can see where this privacy fence would sit, and you can see how it's the front yard for the other houses. But for the applicant, it's the only yard space he has. It's just that he's got this weird configuration that makes that his backyard. So it's a little bit... atypical in that way. And then there's a site plan there showing you what it is that he's requesting. Also, it'll be relevant as I go through the staff report, I've drawn a yellow line off the top of his site plan and made a note that that is the front setback of the neighboring house, which when you look at the picture at the top of the page is the house on the right side of the chain link fence. So you can see where other things are set back at as you look along Gentry Street that would be subject to setbacks if we were talking about a fence on the same property as an existing house where we would orient things. So with that in mind, you've got there same thing. The ordinance is quoted in case you want to refer to it. And then we get into looking at the three findings that must exist in order to grant a variance in UDO 203.12. The first one is that the approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. So the neighboring house to the north is legal nonconforming. It sits between 10 and 12 foot from the right-of-way of North Gentry Street. While it is the backyard of the applicant's property, it's the front yard for the street, and it is in the middle of a block. It's not a corner lot where there's no backyard area at all in existence for a structure. There's no other legal non-conforming buildings sitting at a zero lot line setback on this property the existing fences see-through and shorter per the ordinance So having a privacy fence in line with the existing houses setbacks, which is still in the 25-foot The same as what would be placed if there was a house here or if the house to the north wanted to put a privacy fence in that we might consider Examining would not seem to be an issue. It wouldn't limit what that front yard would look at. But if we bring that six foot tall fence all the way to the road right of way, it will then be 10 foot in front of the neighboring houses and we'll box them in in terms of what their views are and what the street's view is for safety, which would not seem to be good for the feel of the neighborhood or for the security of open views to and from front doors of houses, which is something that in zoning is important in terms of safety of a neighborhood. So this finding would appear to be met for a variance no closer to the road than the house to the north but the finding does not appear to be met for going all the way to the edge of the road right away in front of the houses that are existing on the street. The second finding is that the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. So, again, similar concern here. A privacy fence at a zero lot line setback without any existing nonconforming structure would be increasing the way things impinge on the street and would not be a desirable front yard look along the street for neighbors and for that street in general for people who may be walking or driving it. The front views of houses should remain visible. for safety and neighborhood appearance. The house to the north would end up behind the front plane of the fence and its view obstructed, particularly when coming from the south. That said, a six-foot fence in line with the house to the north, which would also require a variance, would be at the same setback as neighbors would be permitted to place privacy fences and would not detract from the neighborhood. So the finding on this also would be met to have a variance to put a fence six foot tall in line with the neighbor's house, but would not appear to be met to take it that additional 10 to 12 foot all the way to the right of way. And three, the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. So like the previous two findings, this one is partially met as well. There does not appear to be any practical difficulty that would require a six-foot fence all the way to the front property line. So the finding would not appear to be met to grant the full requested variance. The existing fence does meet the ordinance, other than needing repair. does appear to have been there working for some time to define the boundary of the property. That said, there is an odd lot configuration here. Nearly all the applicant's usable yard is east of the garage within his fenced area, which is a practical difficulty. So if no variance at all is granted, by the time they come halfway up their lot to have a privacy fence, they're not going to have very much usable yard at all. So in terms of granting a variance to be in line with the house to the north, there would be a practical difficulty that would appear to be met. Consequently, staff would recommend to partially approve the developmental variance requested from UDO 503.13F to allow a six-foot-tall privacy fence to be placed within the 25-foot required front yard setback closer to the right-of-way with the condition that no section of fence taller than 42 inches may be placed any closer to the road right-of-way than the northern neighboring house's front setback. So that would leave him with two options, either sometimes... I've seen people before where they'll keep it six foot and then they'll just drop it down. I've seen people before where they drop it down but they put an intermediate privacy fence with a gate so they kind of have two yards. And I've seen people that just put some landscaping in the front, you know, a few feet and they'd bring their fence across. That would be up to him. But staff... That would be staff's concern in terms of that recommendation. Like all staff reports, if the board, as they have their discussion, if your opinion and your findings differ, then you just need to make sure you specify what findings you base your motion on, and I can help with that if you get there.

Thank you, Liz. At this time, we'll call the petitioner to speak. Any additional comments?

Honestly, I don't understand most of the verbiage, so just tell me where we're going. Okay.

Thank you.

I guess I do want to make sure, not that you understand all the verbiage, but I do want to make sure you understand like the crux of the conversation that we're talking about, letting you take a six foot tall fence up to in line with the neighboring house, but any closer to the road within that. And that's the one to the north, not the one to the south, the closer one to the road. I can show you in a picture.

Yeah.

Yeah, let me show you in a picture. Sorry, I just want to make sure he understands what we're discussing so we don't make a ruling or he doesn't not say something that he would want to say.

I'm trying to imagine it.

It's just... No, you're okay.

Not everyone can visualize it. I'd say most people can't. So here's where your existing fence is. Here's that house to the north. And here, like looking from above, here's where that house is aligned with. So what we're discussing is if they were allowed to put an incentive fence, we would only allow it to align with something that's too tall. So we're talking about granting a variance to let you bring that six foot, because otherwise you're way back here, you know, to bring that six foot fence up to in line with this house. But then this part up here, either you would need to drop that fence right down or leave it out of a fence, you know, whatever approach you wanted to take. But anything six foot tall wouldn't go any further than the front of his houses.

So that doesn't lose anything. Eight to ten.

It's an estimate. There's going to be a few that, in terms of having it in a six-foot house. Now, I've seen people before where they dropped the fence down. Or I can think of one in Colfax where they brought across a privacy fence here, but then they left a gate and they put a 42-inch on the exit. So you have, I mean, that's up to you. But that's the recommendation. I just want to make sure you understand. And if you want to say something, that you have that opportunity to present to the board.

Sure. Whatever your viewpoint is. Sure.

Does that make sense? I'm not telling you what you have to do. I just want to make sure you understand.

I guess I understand what we're wanting in terms of feasibility.

Probably not online, but that's not your guest's problem.

which is why the original plan was also not able to be drawn back three feet like you guys wanted because there is a tree also directly in that line.

So I'm just going to repeat for anyone listening online and correct me if I summarize you incorrectly. But the applicant stated that he accepts whatever the board's decision is, but he feels that because of tree locations, it would be difficult for him to change the plan in terms of the alignment on the property. And it may, for him, be a feasibility challenge, although he recognizes that our viewpoint may be different in how we're looking at it. Did I summarize that? Okay. Did I miss anything important?

Okay. You don't think you're touching any of those trees with putting a fence in anyways?

I'm sorry, how do you mean?

So you think there's going to be a problem with changing the plan because of the tree line? Does it already affect your plan if you were just to carry on how you wished?

sorry can you come up yeah it's i don't want to be a pain but i also don't want to be standing up here in front of everybody i get it we we don't bite i just don't have to repeat and then get it wrong yeah so my original site plan actually extended further um and i was requested to draw back three feet but i also couldn't do that because of the trees so i've already made like modifications, so I'm just trying. I don't really know that I'm answering your question very well.

I forgot halfway up there. That line that Liz showed you, I'm assuming this yellow line is where that setback would be.

That's in line with the front of the porch of the house to the north.

That's what you're saying would affect your point. Yeah, because there's a second tree right there.

You can actually see on that top picture. Now, I'm not saying he couldn't go just behind the tree or just in front of it, but you can see the tree he's referring to on the photograph. that obviously his choices there would be cut it down, go just behind it, or I suppose if we were concerned about the tree but we still wanted to maintenance, we could say the variance is he can bring a six-foot fence to just in front of the tree, which might be a foot or two in front of the house but still wouldn't box the house in.

So is the fence in front of the tree coming up to the side here?

It comes up along the side of the tree.

Yeah. The existing fence comes up right along the side of the tree on the side property line.

The existing fence is exactly where I'm requesting the new fence to be placed.

He just wants to take it to six foot. Yeah. And back behind, there's no issue. It's just that front part.

If you bring the side fence to six feet, you're still going to have to trim some of this tree, correct?

A branch or two, if that. It's not that close in terms of the sides.

What about the one on the south side of the fence, right there next to the house where you go back west?

He shows a little indent there. I assume that's for the tree.

Yeah, the roots of that tree extend in such a way that we can't just go over.

That's why there's like a bay window look on the south side of the... Although that is, like, if you were to grant a variance even to the front plane of the house, that's behind the point we're discussing.

You're figuring on the way I'm looking at this now. You just take the chain-link fence out and follow the same pattern the chain-link fence is set. Correct. And leaving everything south of that towards Barnard Street would be yard.

Well, that's not his property.

Well, that's not yours?

No. These two houses on the other side belong to other people. His house is on the other side of that yellow house. He's got this very odd L-shaped property.

The yellow house is not yours. No. No, sir. Right.

No, if the yellow house was his, we would still be discussing in line, but then he would be a corner a lot, so we would have a little bit more similar conversation.

This would be his house right here? Correct, Liz. This is what we're looking at, his house.

Your house on the west side of that yellow house, Sam?

His house is right here. Sam, the back end of his house is right here. This is the yellow house. This is his garage. This is the house to the north that, like, if he comes all the way out with six foot, then he's going to be in front of substantially this view.

I know where you're at.

Yeah, so it's just a weird...

I was down there today looking at that, and I was thinking the yellow house was the one we were looking at.

No, when I did the staff report, it took me a hot minute to figure out what was going on. No, it's not. You buy what you buy.

That garage and that building on the west side of the yellow house, between the yellow house and yours, is that your garage then?

Which one, Sam? This one is his. He owns this and he owns this house. He does not own any of this. This is on the corner lot here. In the picture, it's this right here.

There's a garage on the west side of this building.

This little one here? That goes with this house. His outbuilding is actually a really nice big... You've got a nice outbuilding for all your awkward yard. Right.

There's still that trees in your way. More or less. Yeah.

I would note, though, even if the BZA wanted to not affect the tree and come in front of it, you still would be back from the road from where that is now with the six.

That's just our problem here is we're affecting the front roadway. Right. And that is the point of why we have these residential districts and these ordinances for these kind of reasons to not really affect the appearance of the way our neighborhoods look.

Yeah, they'd be shortened. You're going to shorten your fence there about... 25 feet.

I don't think 25.

No, it's that house to the north sits, I don't have a legal survey, but the house to the north sits right around 10 foot from the right of way. So if his fence was in line with it, his yard, assuming he didn't drop it to 42 inches, but if he would just stopped his privacy fence, he'd lose about 10 feet there. Yeah, that's about what it would be. He estimated eight. I estimated closer to 10, but either way, the house to the north is the

It's got all that stuff piled up on the front porch and stuff. Yes.

Do we have any other comments or questions for Roy?

You don't have to keep standing here if you don't want. You're welcome to if you like.

My final question, I guess, would be with Harry. I don't want you to lose your yard. And for you to not lose your yard, we're going to ask you to drop down to 42 feet in that area.

42 inches. I'm sorry.

So the way my contractor was talking to me is they wouldn't do 42 inches. They would do 36 instead. And I have a rather jumpy dog. I have a Siberian Husky, and they can scale upwards of 10 feet if they feel like it. Which is the reason I want it so tall. She has escaped multiple times this year. Just from the chain length. I always catch her.

A friend of mine lives in that neighborhood.

Any other comments?

We are next.

Okay. I just would like to speak on behalf.

Okay. Any other... Okay. Thank you, Ron. We will now take any questions from the public. Any comments?

And this is coming from having to deal with fences and zoning setbacks, different things like that. Okay. Yes. If he goes to out where he wants to with the six-foot fence, yes, it's going to block the vision on the people beside him. OK. My thing is, and this is again, I'm just this is how my brain works. Everybody around him within 100 feet got a notice, right? To come and state their complaint. Where are they at? They've seen this plan, correct, Liz?

Well, if they came and asked to see it, they would have seen it. Although I would note a variance runs with the land, so as people buy and sell, it's going to be there.

But that's my question. The public had a right, the neighbors had a right to come and see.

Yes, if they wanted to come in and see it.

If they have no issues, nobody had a problem with it.

They should be right here.

That's my thinking. Everybody's got the same right to complain and to do what they, and there's nobody here that says, you know what, sir, you can't put your fence up six feet like you want it. Nobody's got an objection or they would be here to see what's going on. That's kind of my feeling on it, okay? You guys have to do what you do because you also have to follow the ordinances set before you. That's just my way of thinking.

I understand your way because I think the same way, but I also think if we would go ahead and approve this or do a variance for this, the next person that comes along and we deny it, he's going to come back and say, then why did you give him a variance?

Well, I will note to that point, if the House to the North came in next month and went, we want to put a six-foot privacy fence on our front yard, which normally would be a flat, no, we wouldn't. But if this is sitting there next to it, I don't know. Now I'm going to be like, well, we have a structure already at the street. So if the whole street long is a privacy fence, which by planning would be a terrible look and process to go block after block. But once you start it, where do you stop it?

Sam, you've said in my position. Yep. absolutely you know exactly where i'm coming i know where you're coming from and i know where you're coming from too i think yeah that's just me on the building services side that would be my recommendation nobody's here and if you don't want him to go all the way and 10 foot's not enough maybe there's a compromise in there somewhere well that's why i kind of said i think if the desire is that the tree is the concern

I think if he were to be allowed to come another, you know, if we said two foot in front of the tree, which is going to maybe be two to three foot in front of that house, practically speaking, we probably still aren't obstructing the house and we save the tree. Like there might be a compromise somewhere between my general recommendation and being to the right right away. But I would make it a measurement off the tree, not a measurement because we don't have that. We haven't been out there to measure from the tree to the road right of way, and we don't know for sure. We can see the picture, but it's at an angle. So to try to guesstimate where that tree sits precisely as opposed to the front porch of the house, they're very close. You know, you obviously can't come across right at the trunk, so you're going to have to give them a few feet in front of it if you did that. But that would be, I mean, to me, that would be the compromise between the two positions. And I don't know that practically speaking, having it go two foot beyond the house boxes it in. You know, but we're in gray areas, right? Like, you have to figure that out. But the tree is, I mean, I don't think the tree is irrelevant.

Is the root system of that tree going to bother you any there? Which tree are you referring to? The one next to the house to the north. The one next to the house that we're talking about?

Not the one you're bumping out around, the other one.

I don't think so. The roots aren't protruding at all, so it's hard to say, but it should.

You're planning to go right next to it on the north side, right?

It's so...

Sorry, the site plan doesn't really show you very well, but it's fence, and then you've got probably about five feet in, tree, and then five feet from there to the road, second tree.

Okay. So, so there's actually two trees there, but the one that's in line with that house is the one that obviously you can't go in line without hitting, which is the rear tree of the two. Okay. So he could go, you could just say he can take a fence between the two existing trees and then he has a few foot to work around roots.

Any other comments or questions for public? All right, public discussion is closed. We'll have an open discussion from the board. Any further comments or questions?

I understand the gentleman's predicament. I wish there was something we could do within the ordinance, but what would it do for you to get with your contractor and see what he would say about coming up to the tree and then come across. I know it's going to cut off about 10 feet of your yard there where you would not have a fence. Just shorten the length of your fence.

I'm not trying to lose 10 feet of yard. I want to be very upfront about it.

I'm trying to figure a way of getting you a six foot fence for your dog is what I was trying to do. Is to work around those stupid trees. Now them trees may be your pets. I don't know. You may not want to take them down.

Just one.

Yeah. I was just thinking, you know, we could do something like that and you could come up with six foot all the way to that tree. And then 46 inches.

42. But I would note just between you, me, and a fence post, because I've always had large dogs. German Shepherds are my weakness. 36 inches versus 42 inches is not going to make any difference to a Husky or a German Shepherd. I don't think that in this case the concern—I understand why he wants a tall fence on that. I think the concern is— how this affects the street side not so much like i i think if if i'm in his shoes if we go you can only this go this far forward i'm probably going to put my six foot fence as far forward as i'm allowed to put it i'm not going to drop the fence and then keep chasing my dog goes clear out to the street he wouldn't be able to have a six foot fence anymore Not unless you grant the full variance and you would need to figure out your findings for how you're gonna do that for that last 10 feet. I think you could, like when we talk about practical difficulties like this conversation about the tree, if instead of going in line with the House of the North, exactly if you said, okay, you can be, I'm just making it up, two foot in front of the tree because we don't want to destroy, trees do have a positive effect on neighborhoods. They also have some importance. You know, I think you could maybe get a little bit further, but that doesn't get you to, you know... What can the visual of the house... And then how do you... It is that same thing. Are you going to then just... Everybody who wants to do that throughout the city, are you going to start going, well, we're just... Because if you had a normal house on a normal lot and you wanted a privacy fence all the way to the road right-of-way, I mean, pretty universally, staff would go, no, that's a terrible idea, in line with the house. Or if you're a corner lot, one side, whatever your side yard is, is where, you know, you look at... Was this ever once a lot? Otherwise. I didn't look into the history of how it got there. Okay, perfect.

That's been there for 50 years.

Yeah, so my family has owned both lots. I recently combined them. I did the paperwork five or six years ago to combine them. So they used to be two separate.

Two separate owners, but family.

Used to be two separate pods. Two separate pods.

But was either lot ever in common ownership with the house on the corner?

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay. Okay. Yeah, so this is just...

It's been a long time.

I mean, at some point since Frankfort was platted, obviously something got transferred in an odd way, but...

It's been... God, I lived on that street for 20 years, and it's been... It's been a long time ago.

Well, the first ordinances the city had that regulated land use was 1967. The majority of structures in the city predate that, so it, you know... And before that point, land could just move any whichever way, so it... You know, it's just an odd situation.

Any other comments, questions? All right, we'll close discussion for the board. We'll now call for a motion.

We'll make a motion. We deny the variance.

Now, I want to be clear. If you deny it completely, then he cannot put anything six foot tall within 25 foot of the road. So that's going to affect more than just that 10 foot. I mean, I'm fine with you denying it. I just want to make sure you understand that. Would what I recommended was the partially approve it to approve the fair variance for the six-foot tall fence in my staff report up to the front plane of the the house to the north or if we're talking about the tree up to However many feet you want to say in front of that tree to give a little room to go around it I would recommend maybe a you know, two or three feet, you know, so he can get that turn gives him the option of building a Then he can still put the six-foot fence partway into that 25-foot setback, and then you're just saying, no, we're going to deny a complete variance. We're not letting you all the way to the right-of-way, but we're going to grant a partial. You can always grant less than what's asked for. You can't grant more than.

Then I'll make a motion that we approve a partial variance from the fence.

And then you would need to specify, are you wanting to take the tree into consideration or go with the staff report?

Go with the staff report.

Okay, so then you would be recommending that no it would be the condition that no section of fence taller than the ordinances 42 can be placed closer to the right away than the North neighboring houses front setback or you can just say with the condition of the staff report conditions that.

First one here second. All right first and second roll call please.

Mike Nichols.

Aye.

Scott Highlander.

Aye.

Sam Payne. Aye. Isaac Chavez. Aye.

Okay, so you can figure out what to do with that front section, whether you lower it or whether you just bring a privacy fence across, but that's valid too.

All right, do we have any other old business?

Not that I know of. Grace, do you have anything?

Just a special meeting next week. Not the 22nd. Sorry, not next week.

Let's not further confuse it. No, it's not this coming Monday, but the Monday after. The 22nd. It is, isn't it, Grace? Yes. Yep, the 22nd at 4 p.m. That's a special meeting for one case.

What was the date of that? Monday, 22nd.

What's the... I think it's before the... What's the case, or are we supposed to know about it yet?

You announced it, but I forget the... Oh, no, is it the...

The house choir.

Yes, that's right. So we've... Well, we need to be careful. We can't hear it before... the advertised date, but somebody had a house burned down. It's legal non-conforming in its existence, and the ordinance says if you have damage more than a certain percentage, you can't reestablish that without the Board of Zoning Appeals making sure that it's not going to have a negative effect going forward. So you're considering the situation and whether or not they should be allowed to...

Restore the house. It was non-conforming.

Yeah, so you would be considering whether or not to allow them to continue the legal non-conformity or re-establish it. To be conformist. But because of it being a fire, that's why we called the special meeting, because we don't want to hold somebody up who has an extenuating circumstance unnecessarily.

Sure. Any other comments? Take a motion to adjourn. We'll make that motion. I'll say it. All in favor say aye. Aye.