Board of Adjustment - Special Meeting

e e Ki evening sorry record yeah we haven't we Haven okay so we'll go ahead and call we're going to call to order the board of adjustment special meeting first and um we'll start with a roll call but just to note though Brian svanik is not he's an alternate member but because we're missing a member um we could have Brian sit in as a as a member correct Quorum is four so we have a quorum without Brian being a voting member so Brian can participate in the conversation but we don't need that fourth person to make a quarter for the vote so that it's only if we need a person for a quorum correct gotcha okay so Brian will not be a voting member but he is allowed to take part in the discussion so let's start with a roll call for roll call of the members of the board of adjustment please Margaret BS Katie

Souls Andy Miller okay the consent agenda are the minutes from June 26 and the only thing on the consent agenda actually I'm sorry I need a a motion to approve the agenda so moved second all in favor I I any opposed thank you okay so now under the consent agenda which is just the minutes from June 26 have a motion to approve the consent agenda I move to approve the consent agenda second all in favor uh I any opposed thank you okay open forum for this is for the board of adjustment not for the Planning Commission is there anyone that had an item for the board of adjustment this evening that's not on the agenda he nobody online really okay so we I need a motion to open a public hearing for the appeal of administrative variance denial for the ascent Condominiums I move to open the public hearing second all in favor I any opposed okay thank you Al righty so we'll start with a staff report okay good evening Board of adjustment members um I'll be presenting tonight give me one second here to load up Alan before you start do you mind making sure your microphone is on does it sounds like it's on maybe I just need to hold it extra class

okay all right I'm Alan again good evening Board of adjustment I'm Alan cof assistant Town planner um tonight I'll be presenting the administrative variance appeal for the ascent Condominiums so basic overview about the application um applicant and property owner are skiing board broker LLC and Cornerstone Winter Park Holdings LLC um to two different entities for the two properties uh two two current properties but essentially common ownership in this case so Allan if you could speak up just a little bit that'd be great I appreciate it my apologies yeah just let me know how things are coming through no worries I appreciate it thank you sir kind of awkward with this thing floating here I wonder if it's a setting on here okay uh the location's at 601 South Zer Street um Highway 40 existing zoning is business district the request is an appeal of a staff denial of an administrative um decision and the request was to increase the maximum height um applicable to the property from 45 ft to 49 A5 feet um just to note that appeals of Staff decisions to the board of adjustment are basically considered essentially as a request variance to the board of adjustments so under the same criteria and process here's a map of the general area um the site is located immediately adjacent to the existing exports building to the east of um The Frasier Valley Shopping Center and South of Highway 40 um basic submittal and review timelines um project was initially discussed with Town staff oh am I popping good okay with Town staff in May

of last year um the application was for the variance the administrative variance was part of a larger land use request um land use entitlement request for site plan review major subdivision and the variance that was applied for in late November 2024 and then we've since gone through two review and comment submittals with the applicant as part of the second submittal the applicant indicated their desire to appeal the staff decision um which was made as part of initial review of the the request and the variance criteria and then obviously today's public hearing um the case was noticed as a public hearing like other other regular public hearings um in the local newspaper the Skyhigh Middle Park times mailed notices were provided by the applicant to surrounding property owners and that and proof of publication is provided in the meet packet there we go um just a context shot of the the site so this is the current building the ski broker building now known as exports um this is a Google street view photo from June 2023 um the existing building there obviously on the right and then the proposed Ascent Condominiums project is proposed to be on the left there here's the proposed site plan um this is showing Highway 40 here on the upper right the existing building um is going to be there on the left with the new building footprint here on the on the kind of the bottom right we'll go into more detail on the site plan as part of the land use case with the Planning Commission later but we'll have this available here for

context next couple slides are just renderings provided by the applicant so showing the existing bill here in the foreground here on the right this is the view look of um looking to the Southwest generally from Highway 40 the proposed Ascent condominium building is there on the left you'll see the the um different heights of different segments of the buildings so the four story component is really the subject of the height variant request that's kind of tucked in the middle there and then the larger footprint of the building there um on the south side there is three stories and then here's a a view looking from the other direction so from the uh Southwest looking towards Highway 40 from behind the building uh the zoning map of the surrounding area all zoned business this lot um adjacent Lots there's some other Zone districts kind of in the greater area but um all consistent business Zoning for the immediate vicinity and then I'll just also go back here note that the outlined area here is kind of specific to the proposed lot that'll be covered with the subdivision case but um this will be the new lot three which the building will be on so the variance request is limited to this property of f property um so just pertaining to the height variance uh maximum height in the business district is 45 ft adjacent properties including the Frasier Valley Shopping Center um the Meer Lot 2 which is currently undeveloped then further away the Bank are all phoned uh business um areas across Highway 40 are open space these are the Lions ponds um and then there's other zoning districts

kind of in the general vicinity including plan development districts for Grand Park um further south they include more of a range of Maximum Heights but generally 35 to 45 ft with um a few higher um allowed Heights further south in ground Park the next few slides are kind of detailing the specifics of the height measurement and the specific request here so the definition of height as applies to our general Zone districts are um measured from a a certain referenced uh datum an elevation point and I'll I'll describe that here coming up but the vertical distance from that reference point up to the midpoint of a sloped roof so in this case it's a it's a pretty slightly sloped roof but it is sloped the red line there indicates the midpoint that would be the maximum height so some elements of the roof are allowed to go above that maximum height um as long as the measurement within the midpoint meets the the allowed maximum um the the way that the town code rangs for the maximum height development or maximum height measurement is that it's measured from the lowest of three possible measurements but essentially the preconstruction elevation the finished elevation or the lowest point of an exposed foundation in most cases it's going to be the preconstruction elevation as the lowest point so that sets the the Baseline and it's shown here in the provided elevations at the bottom right it's approximately 1.6 7 ft below the finished floor elevation proposed finished floor elevation of the building so that full measurement is what's being requested for 49 and a half feet um that necess necessitates the um the variance rather than 45

feet um this graphic is a zoomed in of a a different vantage point on the elevations but essentially it's highlighting the Elevator Shaft enclosure I've um shaded that in red that is allowed specifically allowed in the code as um an allowed height extension or allowed to exceed the maximum height if it meets uh several criteria listed out here but essentially it can't be more than 10 feet above the maximum height specifically for things like chimneys ventilation equipment elevation housings so no issue with this this this portion of the or of The Proposal isn't part of the request right here detector excuse the smoke detector sounds um and then just a a final point on Building height is as part of the review um sub midle comments and comment response process comments were provided or concerns raised about you know application of the maximum height in this case compared to the recent rendevu hotel which um which was afforded kind of slightly different height measurements and the reason for that is you know these are two different cases and they're subject to different rules it's it's a little understanding it's a little complicated in in terms of applying different height measurements but for the rendevu hotel that's located in a PD District um PD District specifically there's language in the code that allow um additional flexibility for the max maximum height so section 19410 lifts out or describes the maximum height is determined at um final stage of the fpdp then it LTS out 10 different

and considerations criteria for allowing determining that maximum height those criteria are wholly different than Prov proving a hardship for a variance um you know those are more related to mitigation of potential impacts of the height rather than proving something specific to the property or the lot at hand so so not not Apples to Apples in this case a little bit apples to oranges in terms of the application of the maximum height for the ascent Condominiums project here and then additionally just one other point to consideration is that um properties within the rendevu PD and then also within the Grand Park PD are subject to a definition of height that is also slightly different different from the town code um per those annexation agreements that definition of height establishes the base elevation as an average grade rather than the lowest grade so that in in a flat site like this isn't going to have a big impact but if they're sites with greater elevation differences the the average elevation is going to be a little bit more beneficial to the applicant in that case it'll raise up that that bottom Baseline so with that kind of the last couple of slides here for my presentation are going through the variance approval criteria um we're only going to I'm only going to summarize the staff review of this um in terms of our initial findings since that's what is being appealed to the board the applicant will of course have the opportunity to um describe their responses and and kind of any concerns with the staff review of that specifically but starting with the first criteria so criteria is that there are unique physical circumstances or other conditions peculiar to the affected property such as exceptional topography

irregularity um narrowness or shallowness of a lot um as applied to this request the the variance request wasn't reasoning wasn't specific to the lot shape or the lot lines necessarily or the lot grading it was kind of a a separate item queued into that particular or peculiar condition statement in the criteria but essentially applicants arguing of um High ground water being reasoning for the variant's request which prevents Garden level or basement um development basement units in order to achieve kind of additional um residential units so staff didn't find that this criteria ultimately met the the intent of that or that this reasoning didn't meet the intent of the criteria um it wasn't argued that the lot shape or topography was the reason for this and ultimately staff we don't consider the inability to do subservice development for additional units in order to achieve a higher density as justification for smaller vertical development um you know it's kind of a larger question on on allowed density but from our perspective density is a cap in the zoning code it's not a end all be all that justifies waving kind of additional development requirements that are also required for any specific case um the second criteria unique physical circumstances or other conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or District which the property is located U staff we didn't find that this criteria was met either um

sorry sorry I'm scrolling down my notes here um ultimately the applicant didn't argue that the the specific uh variant reasoning the high groundwater was specific to this lot um I think it's generally presumed that groundwater elevations in the area extend beyond specific property lines um while specific impacts to this l first crater areas may be argued we weren't provided with specific evidence to that and felt it reasonable to conclude that you know this condition generally exists throughout larger areas of the Frasier River Valley so it wasn't a specific unique physical circumstance to this lot this property um criteria three unique physical circumstances or other conditions or any other hardship complained on complained of if not been created by the applicant we agreed here obviously the applicant had no um no impact on the groundwater conditions criteria for because the because of the unique physical circumstances or other conditions the property cannot be reasonably developed in Conformity with the provisions of this chapter we found that this criteria was not met um as as conceivably there's other designed Solutions in order to achieve the stated intent of additional dwelling units achieving additional density um while the proposed configuration might be a more desirable outcome in terms of design or limiting building coverage ultimately that's somewhat subjective in our opinion and we'll note that additional open space beyond the minimum 35% wasn't provided uh variance criteria five the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or the district in which the property is located or substantially or permanently

impair the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property we found that this criteria was met that building design is generally um generally compatible with the surrounding context and minimal impacts based on kind of the the relatively minimum minimal four and a half foot variance request um it's not impact not expected impact adjacent properties and distances further away it's going to be even less of a um observe difference then finally variance criteria six the variance if granted is the minimum variance that will afford relief and it's not detrimental to the public good or to the purpose intent and spirit of the chapter or the town comp comprehensive plan uh we found that it did meet this criteria the height appears to be the minimal request in order to achieve that fourth floor two additional units but um relatively minor as reference in number five in terms of accommodating the fourth floor design and then I'll just note it's not listed here but there's a seventh criteria that relates to for the purposes of um accommodating an ADA or accessibility need that criteria is not applicable so um it doesn't need to meet that one way or the other this is just the final slide here obviously the recommendation you know staff made the initial findings and deter determination that it did not meet the variance criteria but if the board of adjustment um finds that the the variance should be granted um we would recommend that one condition is is applied that um related to the duration of a per of approval for one year and essentially ties this variants to any

future subsequent land use approval for the larger Ascent case for the major site plan and subdivision and that one-year date would uh begin at Board of Trustees approval should that occur so with that thank you sorry for the distractions and hopefully the uh microphone issues are okay um I'm happy to address any questions now and then the applicant will be um be able to speak on this and we can answer questions kind of following that so to be clear if this piece of property had been in a PD it would have been evaluated under a different the height correct and I don't know if that would have changed our determination we didn't go through that exercise um it would have altered the Baseline elevation potentially slightly and then we would have had to go through those 10 separate lists of the PD height section in order to evaluate whether the gr but that criteria is not nearly as restrictive as this correct not in our opinion no because it's not proving a hardship something specific to the lot um and that process would have just been as part of the land use approval case the site plan case with Planning Commission and Board of Trustees that wouldn't have been eligible for an administrative review at that point we probably would have provided like initial findings on it but would have had time to um consider it and offer suggestions so this is the only way this variance is really the only way that that they can get the additional 5T that they need is because it's Aidan Zone yeah and we don't there isn't another Zone District that allows a higher height there's a specific overlay I believe for St Louis Landing right the overlay potentially affords additional height with additional affordable

housing units but um that would have been a a separate request and the overlay doesn't currently apply to this property okay so we we would actually need to amend the code or change the code or that could be an AV yes okay I have a question please um the existing building which we know is right next to it you showed one one slide that had both lot one and lot three correct um what is the height of that highest part of the roof on um I don't know if we know that uh the applicant could probably speak to that but it's a twostory building it does have the pitched roof so it would be measured to the mid pretty good pitch on that route right not as much of a pitch as on this one I'm just curious you know where the midpoint on that route is it's I think it's safe to assume it's under 45 feet in the elevations provided with the ascent um you know that midpoint being just above the existing fourth floor it's a I think a a pretty big height difference between the proposed building and the existing although the existing does I think the second floor on the existing building is a little bit taller than maybe a normal second floor can't really speculate more than that but it you know it's a relatively recent addition and that would have been under the 45 ft and while we're talking where is lot two lot two is the the greater kind of the larger area I can go back to cuz I can't find lot two yeah it's just basically just the remainder of the Meer lot um so lot three is split off or broken off of lot two so that'll be smaller lot three becomes a lot so right now the current

configuration and you could maybe oh let me reshare it might be a little hard to see the underlying property lines here but the the larger area to the South all the way to County Roads 72 is lot two and then all the way to the east to the bank is lot two lot one is just with the um the existing building on it the case for the Planning Commission later today is going to go through that subdivision where it'll basically carve out an additional lot three out of most of lot one but yeah it is yeah it is confusing I just in going through my preparation I I couldn't find anywhere where I saw the larger lot two that that three is carved out of right so I think just to further further clarify lot two is the existing Meer lot two which would be modified by this proposal staff recommended that this new lot be called lot three but we certainly recognize that it does create some confusion to have lot one and lot three is part of the same development a separate lot two we initially thought that would be less confusing than renaming Meer lot two but I recognize that it does create some confusion so so any other questions back you mentioned this if approved would be valid for one year it's that to get a building permit or Co that's our recommendation that it tracks with the larger site plan should the site plan be approv D and then at that point yes it would be at um building building permit issuance okay I just don't want the site plan to to expire and and this not expire so they're yeah same time period gotcha that makes

sense um I mean I I like the look of this building and I'm I'm I think I don't see a problem with this variant but I am curious of the shade that it'll send will it it's set pretty far back but will it hit the trail will it hit Highway 40 I'm just kind of curious I I you know I don't know how much we can necessarily speculate on that with actual analysis but it's it's a considerable distance from the trail there's the parking spaces which are about 20 feet there's the drive a which is you know 2530 ft and then there's a little additional space between the property line and the trail so you're looking at at what's that 5050 60 feet there taller than the buildings so it would probably only impact the trail at you know real low spots of the Sun at like Sunset maybe sure okay any other questions for staff on the staff report let's move on to so so just to be clear the proposed development or construction new construction that would occur is just south of the existing what do we call it XL Sports or something exports yeah name the business um and there are there are essentially three buildings within that footprint right of the of the current building no no not the current building the proposed uh lot three that's gonna be developed is there three buildings oh it's it's one building with and I I think I described it in the staff report as kind of two separate building Footprints connected by a common hallway stairwell area so but there's different roof yeah and levels exactly the the

South the southerly portion is just the three story portion of it connected with a hallway stairwell to the north portion of the new building which will be four stories and then to the north of that is existing building okay all right thank put the picture back up again so yeah all right and so on that fourth floor of the building next to the XPS are just south of the XPS how many units are in there in the building itself on the fourth level oh on the fourth just two units so each floor of that four floor segment is two units per floor okay and there's so there's eight total in that building there's none on the ground level right units there are oh yeah so there's two units on four floors essentially eight units on the North portion oh misunderstood the south portion of the building is three units on three floors so nine units total eight units in the converted that'll yeah that's part of The Proposal is to conver we get 25 right yeah that's how we get to 25 exactly so eight eight and then nine building correct and then eight that's 16 and then the difference is and then nine inth building correct okay okay are we ready to move to the report from the applicant um chair my intervene we do have a public work staff that can change that better if you want to take a quick moment and allow them to come in okay hear with the yeah just yeah let's take care of that through it yeah we'll take that be

good e e e

e e e e

e e a report from the applicant good evening Lea Rosales with ter design and Clark lips come with Cornerstone [Laughter] Holdings thing is slow there it's just are you connected connected there it goes there it goes so so all this is is a context map again showing you in blue on the far left side of the screen the site that we're talking about along Highway 40 right next to the um Murdo shut Center it goes fast on my I say this every time I'm here is your mic on can you hear me now can you hear me now we got you there you go I feel like I'm loud enough just by myself but I can be louder helps online so no it does help

online because I've listened online and it makes a difference yeah yeah okay so the portion of the building that we're talking about this evening is what you see in brown on this screen so it's only that middle portion of or of the you know two buildings and I think the part reason I bring this up and want to highlight this is you can see that the building is pushed back probably about 30 fet from further back from the other ones from the highway so again that kind of helps with the extra Building height and kind of helps bring it to scale a little bit more because it is it's not a you know blank continuous wall so we really think that that helps with the visuals with this a little bit of additional height so that's why I wanted to share that with you I need to push the button like before I'm done talking um again so again what I want to talk about here is I did add the definition of Building height on this slide and the vertical distance above a reference datam measured from the highest point of a flat roof or deck line of a maned roof or the midpoint of the highest Gable of a pitched or hipped roof the height of a stepped or Terrace building is the maximum height of any segment of the building so you know while we are asking for 49t 6 in as Allan mentioned technically the building itself is really at just under 48 cuz we have about 1.7 ft that you know taking it down to to existing grade and I'll I'll get in this in a minute but one of the criteria that we also brought up as it relates to um hardships for the site is not only is there a groundwater issue but the site is really really flat and while one would think that that's a good thing it really has causes problems when it comes to drainage so you got to lift

the building up in order to make sure you get drainage and then your lowest point ends up a little bit off so you know I think that a combination of the high groundwater and the Really flat site does create a unique circumstance that isn't necessarily found in any other many other sites in in the Fraser Valley so again these are just some additional uh renderings that show this building and these are really more from eye level or street level and so you can kind of see you know I think this kind of pans from from north kind of to South as we go through these views you can kind of see how the so it's the building in the back probably can't see my my mouse but it's it's kind of that building back there is the one that we're talking about and it really again is only the one side of the building because it is a pitched roof so it's kind of the high side of that roof that really is is what's in question here what we're having conversation about so this is a View kind of straight on you kind of see how put pushing that building back it really doesn't seem taller at all than than the other buildings and it actually is a good massing and fits quite well with what it is we're trying to do from an architectural perspective for sure may I ask a question absolutely to my earlier question Clark maybe you can answer it um what's the midpoint on the height of the pitched roof on the ski broker or exports well I can tell you the the peak of the ski broker the the top of the peak yeah uh of the Gable is 40 feet measured from finished floor okay so on the building planes it's a 40 foot tall building to the peak the that roof's big it's probably a 30 foot uh midline uh point if we were to draw the midline on that building approximately on the Gable and Clark

that whole building becomes living units then that's correct we're still working out the interior layouts we have two uh units up there now yeah and uh um we think it's a pretty appropriate fit it's worked pretty well um and The Architects are working on uh layouts uh for that we we would like to uh and we'll propose in the next meeting uh we're going to adjust the site plan very slightly to because it's in a weird fractional area to to accommodate 27 units which would put 10 units in that building which is what the Architects think as in so there's two existing so eight more um and it just seems to be more appropriate with kind of the split storefronts and the layouts and having some access corridors and things that they're they don't have that figured out yet but they're working on it okay yeah thank you again another view South looking a little bit north you kind of see the building in question it's kind of peeking out kind of behind the the front building there at and that's the highest point that we're actually discussing tonight showing there so now we get into words which is not nearly as exciting but you know one thing that we do want to bring up it that does speaks to en code is the board of trust or excuse me the board of adjustments and your ability to Grant variances versus what staff can do and I think that there's actually a great uh section um 191 320 where it talks about appeals and it says that you know whether there are practical difficulties or hardships um in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the regulation contained in this chapter the board of adjustment has the power to varry or modify the application um so that the spirit of the ordinance is observed Public Safety and Welfare secured and substant Justice

done I think the spirit of the ordinance is really important it kind of gives you you as the board a little bit more latitude than staff would have per se I mean staff really has to kind of follow the letter with long criteria and that's their job and so that's fine um but that gives you you as a board a little bit more latitude in this and additionally um I would say that in the staff report you know staff was conceptually in support of our proposal they just didn't have the tools by which to be able to approve it so kind of wanted to throw that out there that you know we feel strongly that that you as a board of adjustment do so um again the criteria for approval there are seven of them six of which are able here and so again the unique physical circumstances or other conditions peculiar to the property you know again it exhibits unique physical circumstances due to the high groundwater table and the flat topography um the elevated groundwater level restrict subsurface construction such as basements or deep foundations which are typically feasible on other sites additionally the flat terrain prid provides no natural elevation or slope to Aid the drainage or spatial design distinguishing from this property from others that actually could be benefited could benefit from a little bit of varied topography so we think that those two combined actually make this unique and not necessarily something that's found kind of throughout throughout the town so you know again we don't think it's something that is this condition um is common across the neighboring zoning districts because of those two combined physical constraints of this site um obviously it's not a pre-existing ition on our end um and you know I would say that you know with the high groundwater and flat topography strict adherence to the building height specifically um is is a hardship for our

property so we you know request kindly request um that you grant us this variance based on those hardships associated with this land and this property and I'm sure Clark will add well I think you know as we gone through this um I I think the Architects did a really nice job of of creating this building and this project and integrating it nicely it's it's going to be a nice compliment the current building's cool you know sad to see it change a little but yeah it's way better than the Taco John's that was there as you all might still remember um and and I made that modification and I asked them when we were looking at this to I want it to just blend seamlessly um and and really fit in not be matching match but you know very complimentary I think they did that I think they did a good job while we were going through this and I don't know if the slides in here Lea um the one with the uh adjusted height what what we found and it gets to the point of asking about midpoints so this is a drawing we we we can modify this building okay and and meet the letter of your code to a this is a steep building and what this depicts is taking the south building that we had lower and raising the gable roof to where the midpoint of the roof is 45t tall and what that does is in a stepped building situation the highest segment of the building which becomes the peak is the controlling line and as you can see if we were to go down this road um all of the building in question is underneath that line and that has to do with the definition of hide in your code going to the midpoint of a gable roof so if you guys prefer this as opposed to doing a variance we can have

the Architects change this um and then it's in strict compliance with your code um I didn't want to go down that road unless y all said you know what we like it the other way or yeah that's good but I think it gets to the heart of what she was talking about with the spirit of the code we can meet The Code by telling the Architects hey go raise the gable roof it's a little awkward um I I don't like necessarily I was trying to create more of a stepping effect by having the three level and the four level and then kind of back down to the ski broker I think it creates some some interesting ulation but we believe this is letter of the law so if if you guys said we don't want to do the board of adjustments do that Clark well I'll have the Architects change it um really I'm kind of giving it to you guys to say what do you prefer um because I I'm happy either way um but I mean it was me being heavily involved in this review and sitting down and going well guys if you raise the South buildings gable roof the highest segments the peak of the roof the whole thing's underneath it so so I think this is a really good example of how we can meet your code with this building I think it affects the architectural character what I was trying to achieve just a little I can live with it either way I think there's so much going on on this building and great Windows lots of sidings and lots of breakes and wall planes there's a lot in and out um that you know it other than me no one else would probably know the difference right so um so I'm kind of punting to you guys and saying we can do this or you can grant the variants that we're asking and proceed with what was submitted um I'm happy either way so just to have to put

you on the spot Alber does that meet the code or yeah I Garrett and I might need to discuss this too because we hadn't seen this proposal or consider this but my my initial take is is potentially not because the segment of the building the height definition still talks about it particular segment of the building so okay well not not to get into yeah I would think this North portion it's a separate segment but so Clark remind us what what's going to be behind this building on the on the big parcel on the rest of my lot too it's going to be more residential no across um what's going to be Twilight what is that Twilight oh the back roow there because we're looking at all the impacts to the to the east kind of but what are the impacts to the West be more it'll be it will be residential it's going to be resal that's all part of the Meer lot too that was part Forest met solar subdivision okay and and go back to that paage please because I just want to I I have your code in here yeah and it you know it very clearly says the height of a stepped or terraced building is the maximum height of any segment of the building guys yeah the the the peak is the highest segment of the building so there's no question I mean think we should just clear this up for your staff now so that they don't get put into an awkward position and we're not delayed further I I can make that determination right now if you just clarify the four-story building that's currently shown here is unmodified from the current proposal correct then no we would still measure from the midpoint of the sloped roof on the four-story side of the building that is the maximum height of one of the the other segment

of the building just because you raise the top point of the gabled roof on the other segment I I mean we we're not measuring height from the top of the gabled roof anyways so you've you've effectively increased the height of the three story segment to 45 feet but the height of the four story segment remains unchanged that's correct and that meets the def of your code to a t it says or and so the tallest part of the building in the scenario becomes the three level building and the peak of that roof and that is the highest segment I mean this is kind of we're here guys yeah Clark we're headed down the road here that you brought up an excellent point we'd like to have some clarity let me just finish and Margaret brought up an excellent point too the other approach to variances is to look at our code to look at zoning to look at ways that these these buildings that make sense like this can conform totally AG so this this is a a point that you brought up Clark with our definition that staff can look at again we've had long discussions lots of rezonings lately yeah Riverwalk district for example lots of uh density bonuses for affordable housing um these are all things that the variance committee would much rather have discussions at the Town board level and the Planning Commission level where everybody's elected or appointed by elected officials we are here too but very is are a a court of last resort and so I I I think we're in the right spot to talk about this because this is a pretty minor variance makes a lot of sense but it's not the not the proper venue totally agree for addressing these issues so but anyway I that your definition here is a good one to discuss outside of this room where we're not so constrained for time and and and all all these things help us fine-tune our code and you've helped us all the way along

to do that so okay anything else with more with the presentation you have anything else I don't believe we have anything else unless anyone has questions any any more questions for the applicant just one for me and that is you mentioned something about if you were to drop the finished floor elevation by 1.7 feet making it equivalent to the lowest elevation free grading correct you said you could do that which would then reduce the variance you're asking for from four and a half feet would reduce it down almost two feet no no you you can't do that but her point is the unique circumstance here is how flat this is Bob and in order for drainage to work around the building we have to build the side up with Earth so the code reads from the lowest existing Point not from the finished floor elevation of the building so we're building the side up 1.7 feet let's just say simple math it was 2 feet if you built It Up 2 feet Now You're Building height to the measured Point can only be 43 feet because they measure from the existing grade existing grade so so you got 2 fet of dirt that counts against you in order to make drainage work on a really flat site yeah you want the drain yeah in a lot of instances some topography and undulation which we have predominantly all over the valley is very helpful because then you're not having to build buildings up to get proper drainage around them it'll you can shut off around them on a slope for instance okay

okay any other questions for the applicant thanks very much thank you okay board just discussion I mean I I think Margaret your point was excellent and and we need to look at ways to prevent these things from happening I think the argument about groundwater it's it's everywhere in Frasier Frasier is pretty pretty flat um I spent my whole career building telling people not to build basements I can't tell you how many owners I talked out of garden level or basements unless they were walk out that you could drain to one side so that's not really a unique circumstance I think it is you it is fairly unique it's flat but that's pretty common we've got a pretty flat town too they've made it work right I like the design I mean I I think you know they could go back to a flat roof and make this work too I don't think any of us really want to see that so yeah I'm really conflicted because Phil I I like the design I like their request but I'm having trouble because I I kind of agree with staff that doesn't quite meet the requirements of a variance I kind of agree with that but yet I want to approve this so he can move forward I think we need to definitely look at whatever the issue is it keeps coming up over and over with height you know with height issues we we need to provide some better flexibility in our code for those developments that are not PD developments to allow things like that with this without going through the variance process which should to me should be just really rare circumstances for for variances it really needs to meet those criteria so we're kind of stretching it here to to Grant this variance based on the

criteria and yet I feel like we need to move forward with this project and move on that's that's kind of my feeling sort of ambivalent Lea's point was was well taken though then that's why staff should be very strict to the Ro yeah but the the planning the variant board should have a little bit more latitude as far as trying to see if it meets the spirit of of of the Zone but again I I do hope that if if we do Grant this I hope the applicant in the town we continue I said it on your Workshop the other day and these height height and density is extremely important um Atlantic magazine this month their cover story was on the huge change in America where we don't move anymore a lot of that's tied to housing costs yeah everybody wants to move to San Francisco where the jobs are but they can't move to San Francisco because there's no housing you know and a lot of it's owning related um a lot of this is is uh is the fact that you can't get the density you need to get get prices down and they their point in the in the application about providing more housing I get that but we don't have any control over the price of this housing of course and that's why a lot of our density bonuses are tied to some kind of mechanism where the housing remains affordable so but I think think I think you're right Margaret I mean I'm I'm conflicted too I I have said in the past we had we had a previous height variance request for the same property right it was in that that overall very wasn't it multiple Lots as I that was yeah the one from September of 2023 it was multiple lots and it was multiple lots and this at least we're looking at a plan we're looking at a particular site right but at that time we did talk about trying to go back to the drawing board for some of our zones and our Heights and and I hope we continue down that road so we're not faced with this sort of decision so okay well I'd like to add that the town like

within Grand Park within rendevu it's a four corners um average and I think that makes a lot more sense for the entire town totally of course it's not our code now so that's why we're here looking at this variance but I think that is something that the town should move towards um looking at the corners and I mean if you look at this property the majority of it is well under 45 feet it's just the the very top of the sloped roof that's not and it's set back so it doesn't even give the feeling that it's over 45 fet so I think they've done a good job with it yeah I like the design what do you think Bob well I'm I'm sorry Joey came in yeah so Joey sorry uh Joey McCoy has joined the meeting sorry thank you Andy yeah I did look at all the the notes on the um agenda sheet and in general the height variance is minimal and this is the board of adjustment right yeah I do yeah okay and I know that we discussed before about the appropriateness of a board of adjustment for height variances like this that are going to be more frequent so yep okay thanks for having me everyone yeah sorry and um i' just like to add that I agree with Margaret I think uh this is a minimum request for a variance and I will say that although there's been a lot said about groundwater being kind of all over the valley um there is something I noticed about this site that going back and looking at their geotechnical report the uh site has fill on it several feet

up to six feet in some places and it also has a lot of clay material mixed in with sand so Sandy Clays clay Sands we all know that in this area it's possible to have very clay material and that clay material can create what's called a perched groundwater table the actual groundwater table can be lower than where the water collects in these clayy Sandy soils and it's trapped and held there so I would argue that a perched groundwater table which i s seem to think might be the case here I can't tell you for sure but you had two test pits that had no water in it you had one test pit that the water was within six feet of the ground surface two test pits no groundwater down to eight or n fet whatever the depth was what that's saying to me plus looking at the logs the boring logs and the clayin of the materials near the surface and particularly The Fill material I think you may be looking at a trapped groundwater condition that doesn't mean it will go away it may stay there because if you get wet conditions that material will trap the water and create some drainage issues for you so I'm kind of of the opinion that I might be inclined to say maybe this is a unique condition groundwater on this site and because I like the site plan I like the look of the buildings we're asking for a minimal variation to make the original plan work without monkeying around with roof levels I'm inclined to say this might be a case where we Grant the

exception thanks B any other thoughts so I like the plan I like the way you set it back with that extra height um and I want to appeal to the philanthropic side of you that you consider adding some Workforce housing into these units indeed restricting several of them it's not part of how I'm going to vote but I will ask you to look at doing that okay any other thoughts we have a list of conditions Andy I would just uh yeahor like to point out the wordage in the code so you are aware from the staff report that there's seven criteria you have to meet and the one that we're all focusing on is is this a unique condition to this property so um you need to find if you're going to Grant this that there's a unique condition attributable to this property if you can't find that there's a unique condition that justifies the variance you could rely on the provision that Lila pointed out but you would have to point you would have to find that there's a practical difficulty or an unnecessary hardship here and that's why you're going above and beyond and outside the code requirement in the variance okay yeah I I agree with Kent and you've given us another unique uh a reason for it being unique that Bob your groundwater analysis that we can maybe hang our hats on if we're looking for some way to justify that we agree that it's a unique piece of property so Kent it also talks about not violating the spirit of the of the uh of the Restriction too doesn't it

or well it's basically that provision that Lea pointed us to in 191 320 it says where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations contained in this chapter the board of justment has the power in passing upon an appeal to vary or modify the application of such regulations relating to the construction or alteration of buildings or structure so so that the spirit of the ordinance is observed so that the spirit of the ordinance so that we have the seven seven um so what what is the spirit of the oras what is that Spirit feel the spirit what does it say what what I'm searching for Kent is to to my way of thinking the spirit of the ordinance is that the height that the height um the extra height doesn't have adversely affect the neighborhood doesn't adversely affect the the zoning um you know it becomes a well the spirit of the ordinance is the the variance ordinance right so the spirit of the ordinance is um having some framework to follow consistently so that you you don't willy-nilly Grant variances for different reasons every time you have some standards that you weigh against a variance request every time and you that's Spirit right so it doesn't really the um the seven seven reasons don't address that the extra two and a half feet is not going to adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or there's really nothing that speaks to that because that it does because if we went through each one of these like the staff did and said we agree with this one the staff only disagreed with two of them

right or or three three so then what we need to do is overrule specifically yeah the St valid reason three reasons why they Den not it we're disagreeing with that and saying no we agree that the um that it's Unique that it's not a self-imposed heart that we go through each of these and find make our own conclusion as to each one of these correct is what you're saying it has to meet all seven of them or just six well what I'm saying is that's the criteria for a variance right and if you want toy from that criteria then you need to find some practical difficulty or a necessary hardship to justify that variance so and it's six out of seven but since seven doesn't apply you could five out of six Katie you you could find that there's like Bob is suggesting that there there's a unique circumstance here to just this property and I guess just to clarify on the number of criteria to be met here's this seventh variance criteria which is not which is not applicable in this case and in general it's not applicable um but the the text of the code says that the board of adjustment make Grant a variance only to the extent it finds that the following conditions are present so the staff's interpretation is that to Grant the variance all six uh or if the seventh is applicable the seventh as well must be met uh but again just to reemphasize Kent uh uh statement uh with regards to the appeal specifically it speaks to that practical difficulty or unne unnecessary hardship H and that's really hard to argue I'm sorry I understand your your groundwater point but this whole town is under Lane

with groundwater so yeah were there any public comments from the neighbors surrounding um I did not uh staff did not receive any um public comment ahead of this uh meeting or calls or anything like that okay is there anybody here from the public that needs to speak it's a public hearing we can open for public comment if you like yeah we hadn't opened this for public comments any members of the public and wanted to speak to this variance um I represent the Murdoch Center um they're fine with it it doesn't affect anything that going on at the Murdo Center and I don't think it'll shade the road any more than the bank lot does or vious like does so that's your question so we're for it we think it's a good plan so just curious parel with the Murdoch Center there were discussion of changing the B Zone to allow higher Heights or more latitude for roof lines would that be something you think the owners there would be interested in I mean that site's developed already but obviously it's they're thinking about the future and possible changes there and yeah they had talked about doing some apartments or condos above the buildings at some point but the height was so limited that it didn't make sense so yeah I would think that they would be for it yeah and it would be a great place to have some extra employee housing yeah I mean and in many ways this whole area screams for higher Heights um and a lot more so than in my neighborhood does for instance right um so I I think that's definitely a discussion that the town ought to ought to start pointing towards so and it's actually the Fraser Valley Center sorry I said murd yeah yeah no worries thanks Parell how quickly how say this to for one second how quickly could you could we get some

sort of change to the code that would allow for um some you know flexibility that we're talking about versus how how long would that take right years months it it could be a matter of months um staff is already planning to bring a series of proposed ordinances uh amendments to chapter 19 to the Planning Commission in March uh on the 26th um if the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of those ordinances they would then advance to the board um they could advance to the board as soon as the first week in April that first Wednesday um if we need more time to uh incorporate any changes or proposals that the Planning Commission would like to see before they advance to the board uh we may schedule it in the second meeting of April uh but and then if the board approves those ordinances they uh are actually they actually take effect or in are enforceable 30 days after publication that the ordinance is passed um so we're talking about May early June at the fastest so faster maybe route would be looking at so we have our existing density bonuses in exchange for deed restricted housing if we work with that to also include a height bonus into deed restricted housing x amount 10 15 20% that would be move forward a little bit faster and I think it would meet the needs of the community I I'm not sure how we could advance that any faster than any other amendment to chapter 19 okay um I I think to implement a height bonus program as you described would require

amending something in chapter 19 okay uh which which means has to go to the Planning Commission and then the board what's What's the timing on your project realistically What's the timing the AR they're very close to finish drawings we we kind of raised this flag during that previous variance request so we do have to we have we have infrastructure relocation and and that's already approved the construction plans are done that's a part of a separate project that needs to be done first because this building is sitting over where there's actually a current sewer line that's already planned to be relocated so so that work has to be done first then the building would drop right behind the infrastructure relocation h sometime in some I sure prefer the regulatory route um I you know what Ken's point is is excellent we really I'm sorry but geology aside I I don't tell anybody but I've got an old surface well in the back of my 100y old house and I look at the water level and it's typically during the summer it's at 4 feet and right now it's around 4 feet so we've got we've got surface water we're sitting on top of the movial lane so and there's a lot of fill there you're right Bob I mean we basically built the whole town on fill so um basements just really aren't basements even Garden levels are are really problematic they do it in TIY ride for instance but boy it takes a lot of pumping and and ground ground uh ground drainage and and we're not to the point where our real estate's quite worth that much we'll probably get there but not really unique so Kent have you ever seen a reason for variance that the project aligns with

the town's overall goals is that something that exists well I think what I'm sensing is you all want to approve this we just don't have a code that's in line with the approval right now yeah and to be in line with the code which I think is what you want want to maintain at your at these meetings you probably either need to table it or and then amend the code or find one of these reasons and state it on the record that it's a unique circumstance or if it's not a unique circumstance that there's a practical difficulty or an unnecessary hardship that you want to address to be in line with the spirit of the code and that's kind of that's probably the best to answer your along the lines of what you're asking Brian um I think what you're asking is is there flexibility is there discretion here okay that provision that Lea pointed out is probably your best discretionary provision that you have but you have to find those things to use it practical difficulties unnecessary hardship just another thought um they're putting an elevator in this are the does that make all the building um all ADA Compliant so so why is number seven like being crossed out I guess I would say the applicant first identified criteria 7 is not applicable and staff agreed with that assessment the height itself I would argue is not really related to Ada accessibility I I recognize that elevators have to be provided for uh building four stories in height or greater but I I I don't think you can still Des design a four-story height

within a the 45 ft height limit for example um I I don't think accessibility and height necessarily relate in that way that's another excellent code revision is we want to encourage this type of roof line right so we don't want to flat roof building just to get to 45 ft but that's what we're driving the applicant to do here right and uh but unfortunately this isn't the venue for that the venue for that is the town board and the Planning Commission to change the code so and I would say let's my suggestion is we deny this and send and let's head right down the Cod route quickly as we can I understand that there time constraints with the applicant but again we discussed this several months ago and we looked at at a blanket height variance so but when we discussed it Andy I thought the idea was that we were going to wrap this whole thing up in the current you know plan the next 10-year plan and we were going to come back with our 10-year plan and all of the changes that we thought we ought to make problem is you know while we're waiting to do the 10year plan and take care of all these changes to the codes and stuff like that you know progress needs to happen we need housing and in the spirit of the code and in the spirit of what the town would like to see happen here I think that we would like this project project to go forward so whatever we could do to either find that the spirit of the code could be twak a little bit in this case so that we can proceed uh versus uh do we need to take some swifter action to change our code we need to take swifter action so and if we denied it it's dead in the

water versus tbling it then it can come back well it won't need it it only could come back under the variance board again okay and once the code's changed it goes to the regular process so right yeah right once the code is Chang do we do we want to take comment from the AI there is a practical difficulty with that just because of the time restraint so yeah that could be considered practical difficulty um I don't know C maybe I mean I mean there's a lot of latitude in those words practical right practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships I mean it's a subjective call essentially on your part yeah that I would just recommend if you're gonna go that way enumerate the Practical difficulties that you've found or the unnecessary hardships okay I'm going to make a proposal to approve the variance based upon the Practical difficulties of waiting this is I'm trying to get the wording correctly of the applicant having to wait an unknown period of time to begin construction and also um that that I that the physical circumstances are unique um because of the groundwater and potentially the the groundwater situation drainage drainage that's what I'm I'm going to propose you need to modify that to make it more you know sustainable but that's kind of the gist

of it is this a motion it is a motion okay you took some notes there you want to sure I'll go ahead and yeah give me one moment so we did provide this draft resolution in the packet um and it's written in a way so that it could either be an approval or a denial resolution for the appeal um I started to type out this highlighted whereas statement um because and suggestion there if if this appeal is granted there should be some sort of determination that a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship exists um pursuant to section 191 320 um so I can continue drafting that based on uh what commissioner BS was saying I can I've got that resolution somewh my miles p in that case would we be removing the criteria then from the resolution the six criteria statements that are following in this just standing on that one appeal section I think it'd be more of a notwithstanding that that uh specific criteria was not met or could be met if that's the motion on the table um wait me say that again well I mean I guess commissioner BS you're finding that there is a unique

circumstance right yeah my question to you is what if we don't find that or you're saying notwithstanding we're not agreeing that it's Unique but what we're saying is that the Practical difficulties overrides yep the fact that we didn't find unique circumstances y so and that would be sufficient legally sufficient yep so notwithstanding the requirements in the I withdraw the uniqueness because I I all we're doing is finding a practical difficulty yeah okay so that's for number four yeah okay cannot be reasonably developed because of the um time constraints yes and then the other two are subject to the and he's got some language up here P oh good so I guess for the board of adjustment and for Kent the highlighted text there says whereas the board of adjustment finds that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict regulations of the Frasier Land Development code pursuant to that code reference notwithstanding that not all of the applicable variance criteria have met um and continuing down we would remove uh we would um for each of the criteria we would say met or not met um but still approve the appeal does that meet kind of so can you so we're saying we believe that they have been met no no no say but nevertheless we're saying nevertheless maybe they are some met but not all met but nevertheless in the spirit of what we believe is good for the town and and our community we're granting the variance that's what I'm

saying correct and I I will second Margaret's whatever that motion hang on a second we got to close the public hearing first okay's working on a motion okay okay we had one other member of the public that wanted to say something or we have one other member of the public that wanted to say something back I was going to say a similar thing to Joy that just you could say the unique circumstances are the building next to it and creating a attractive product or undo hardship of time for waiting for something to happen when we all know the building season so short I do think that's a hardship so I was just going to Echo same what she said okay now do I have a motion to close the public hearing so moved second all all all in favor I I any opposed thank you okay so Garrett's working on something here let's while he's doing that I just want to clarify that the so it's the Elevator Shaft that is kind of the 51 it does count into this it doesn't count into that okay allowed to have that all right so it's just like 4.5 feet of height Varian on the slope on the sled roof okay are we all in general consensus of thinking that this is in general fits the neighborhood and isn't obstructive and the various committees is is strictly tied to certain only certain reasons to give variances very unique circumstance is that why I know he's spelling isn't review by even the town board so so it's a pretty strict set of criteria to how this various committee can act

so practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships and unique conditions are very subjective terms so I really just wanted to get the general idea if everyone was leaning one way or another well we're trying to trying to make it work more but that's more subjective decision it should be more of objective decision in this case so well Bob had two valid points about the drainage and this the mix and the clay and one ground level was at 9 foot and one was at 4 fo or whatever and that's unusual versus the other thing is you don't it's not showing a homogeneous flat groundwater table because different test pitch yeah groundwater tables can rise and fall with Seasons oh yeah just because we measured at six feet today doesn't mean that well when whenever they did the report Within last month or two doesn't mean that during the wet Seasons when we get all the snow melt and all the runoff that groundw Taber could be up closer to two or three feet yeah well you just said Andy that your ground water in your well gets within two or three feet yeah so so I'm saying that that I get you why can't we just say if that's the case and you're talking about the different levels which does make it a little more unusual to some degree why can't we just make that as the qualifier for number one and number two and say that they meet that we can we could so that's perfect that's kind of what I would like to do

is say that it meets it because of this study that they did that you were referring to um and those different anyway to me that kind of validates that yeah I mean and a perched groundwater condition is an unusual condition from a general area yeah if you have the right soil deposits that trap and hold water if you were make a cut you might get water coming into the excavation the reason the reason the code leans so heavy on unique though is that we could everybody in town could say I got to go higher because I can't get a basement yeah yeah that's that that's a general condition and in a town that's built than a former Wetland so I just hate passing this as a resolution and leaving not met on there seems like we should be able to come up with a valid reason to justify him those three things being met that's where I'm yeah but I do want to prove it I like it it opens the door that's the trouble to that same discussion happening on numerous other lots and that's that's why the size of the lot all right let's see what he's come up with okay so I again I the highlighted text here is what's been added the first whereas statement speaks to the board of adjustment finding practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships and the second whereas statement uh comes from that same section of the code 191 320e uh stating that the board of adjustment has the authority when granting an appeal to vary or modify the application of these regulations I I do think based on what Kent said um this

approval resolution could still note that certain variance criteria are not met but that the appeal is granted anyways because of this text because the board of adjustment has found that there practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships agree with I agree yes okay could they be sufficiently met so then how I can't see it well enough to tell how you're delineating what was met and what was not so I think the board of adjustment would need to make that determination okay be right now and then you can yeah cross it out yes okay so Missy you have the um so we've got well I think one and two uh we we're we're saying three four one two and four are the ones that were not met not met I don't think that's changed okay physical condition so one two and four are not met okay right but we're gonna Grant yeah those were the ones identified in the staff report yeah and we're agreeing with that okay what weide about seven is it in or out if it is it's still because it can do a disable building that doesn't have just table building doesn't have to have 9 foot ceilings for instance so so it's out but both both the applicant agreed that's out also so okay yeah so just to read through this uh resolution again as it's changed from what was Pro provided in the packet this

resolution would approve the appeal to staff's uh denial of the administrative variants um because the board of adjustment has found that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships and that the board has the authority in passing uh an appeal to vary or modify the application of such regulations uh the board of adjustment find that the variance criteria have either been met or not met uh in a way consistent with staff's evaluation of the criteria um but nonetheless the appeal is granted yeah okay all right just so move and that would work so moved I'll second any further discussion all in favor I hi any oppos okay thank you no worries but let's go back to the code and let's yeah let's let's not wait on the the next round of planning get change agreed okay so um we the second variance is to the um we'll move on to the variance to the Riverwalk District commercial Frontage requirement Central start with the staff rep we need to reopen a public hearing on this uh we do yes yes I move to open the public hearing second all in favor I I I any opposed thank you okay so we'll start with the staff report uh thank you chair Miller uh Garrett Scott Town planner uh this item before the board of adjustment is a variance uh for the proposed Centrum development related to the ground floor commercial Frontage requirement in the Riverwalk Zone uh the outwest Investments is the applicant Frasier downtown LLC is the

property owner uh this property is located at 150 Clayton Court it's the southernmost lot on Clayton Court in between Highway 40 and Clayton Court uh the zoning is Riverwalk and again the request is to uh modify the minimum depth requirement of ground floor commercial uses on Clayton Court um the applicant specifically requested that be modified from 20 F feet to as low as 0er feet in the portions of the lot with less than 90t in depth uh here's a look at the property location um so speaking to some of the recent planning efforts uh 2017 is when the downtown Frasier strategic plan uh was uh approved uh late in 2023 is when uh we Chang from the Riverwalk overlay into the new Riverwalk Zone district and rezoned area within the Riverwalk overlay to the new Standalone Riverwalk Zone uh as far as this application specifically um there have been two submittals of a sketch plan um that the Planning Commission reviewed in October of last year and last month in January uh and then late January the applicant submitted this variance request which has led us to today's public hearing public notice was provided in Sky High news Middle Park times two weeks ago on February 12th the applicant did mail notices to nearby Property Owners as well and proof of publication in that Affidavit of uh mailed notices are pro provided in the packet here's a look at the existing conditions of the site uh kind of looking towards the Northwest uh from the intersection of Clayton Court and Clayton Avenue all Heavy Equipment if that's yeah existing conditions as of u a year and a half so

yeah here's a look at their proposed uh site plan this is the sketch plan that you all uh as the Planning Commission reviewed back in January uh the image on the left includes the kind of overall vision for the property with phase two on the south and phase one in Blue uh to the north uh and then the image on the right just Zooms in on that phase one portion which is the subject of this variance request um showing the kind of conceptual building footprint uh and floor playay and layout demonstrating the extent to which the 20 ft commercial depth requirements uh can be met in some areas but not others um the applicant has provided this updated rendering which varies uh slightly from what the Planning Commission saw in January uh with um pitched roofs however it's largely consistent otherwise it includes first floor commercial uses through the majority of the frontage um and five residential units on the second and third stories of the building here's a look at the zoning map of the area again the property is zoned Riverwalk largely surrounded by other property Zone Riverwalk um property Zone business on the other side of highway 40 as well as uh open space Parcels uh across across Clayton Avenue so um speaking of the zonian and land use uh again the Riverwalk District includes this ground floor commercial requirement for any uses along Clayton Court um you know the existing uses in the area include a mix of residences and businesses that mostly predate the areas rezoning uh as was mentioned Clayton Court is currently under construction to install uh new utility lines and future Street Paving and streetcape improvements are planned here's the intent of the Riverwalk Zone District I won't read that all off but just two things to emphasize in this intense statement are

the creation of a highdensity walk able mixed use neighborhood and ground floor commercial uh uses positioned closely to the street so here's the text of the specific portion of the Riverwalk District zone uh that a variance is being sought from um specifically this language here that properties on Clayton Court shall have ground floor commercial uses and they should be required for a minimum of the first 20 ft in depth of the structure so diving into how that 20 ft uh depth requirement relates to this site and specifically phase one uh for the image on the left the red dash line shows that 20 ft depth line as measured from the property Frontage with Clayton Court um you can see that it uh does include most of this area um kind of on the southern part of the building is within that 20 ft depth depth uh commercial uses but it's just this Northern portion of the building where it's only 15 ft in depth and within that 20 ft line there are these two residential parking garages for the proposed condo town home units um the image on the right shows several different measurements of lot depth again measured perpendicularly from the Clayton Court Frontage uh staff just wanted to note that where the applicants 90 ft in depth request lies is roughly right here um and per their sketch plan they were showing you know within that within areas of the property that are less than 90 feet in depth they were able to accommodate at least 20 feet of commercial Frontage um whereas comparatively the point of the property that is approximately 70 feet in depth

that's roughly the kind of dividing line to where the applicant proposal no longer provided that 20 ft depth of commercial is that making sense yeah so the request was only for the anything below 70 feet in depth 90 the applicant's request was 90 feet in lot width any portion of the lot uh narrower than 90 feet would be exempt um and then the unique circumstance do we have any other the Lots down here Nar narrower than 90 ft or I I don't believe so and I'll I'll speak to some of the criteria um momentarily that that number could relate to thato sure um so so again just to emphasize the the 90 feet lot depth that was requested um in this variant appears to apply to a greater area than was considered during the planning commission's review of the sketch plan staff determined that um granting a variance that considers portions of thew that are 70 ft or less in depth would be consistent with the sketch plan um so if the board of of adjustment approves this variance it's recommended that um that just be clarified as a condition of approval um and uh we we also provide some suggestions as far as what can be um considered you know street level Activation so just running through the various uh variance CR uh criteria approval the unique physical circumstance ances in this case are you know the shape of the lot um it's also bounded by streets on three sides being Highway 40 Clayton Avenue and Clayton Court um and again the lot shape itself it uh it it it Narrows considerably as uh the lot goes to the north um the lot

shape is unique as most surrounding lots are more rect rectal linear in shape and do not narrow in depth to the degree of this lot uh this is an existing condition to the site uh the shape of this lot evolved from previous subdivisions over the past decades um whereas the the ground floor commercial depth requirement is a relatively recent zoning requirement that was implemented uh in late [Music] 2023 um criteria for staff did find that uh the property could not be reasonably developed in conformance with that ground floor depth requirement given the unique physical circumstances of the lot shape uh the property is also encumbered by a Water Production well um and several different easements which further in addition to the narrow lot width create um difficulties with meeting the exact letter of that 20 foot depth requirement um if this variance is granted it won't alter the character of the neighborhood um it's uh it won't substantially impair uh adjacent properties uh the proposal is still consistent with the overall vision for Clayton cord as a you know mixed use downtown walkable area with uh Commercial Street Frontage um and then criteria six staff simp simply didn't find that this criteria was met because of that 90 ft in depth request uh but staff believes that this criteria can be considered met if the variance request is modified slightly to just exempt portions of the lot that are 70 ft um in depth or less so included on this slide are the two recommended um conditions of approval for the variants again the main

point of uh condition of approval number one is just to specify that 70 feet in depth uh Town staff is certainly open to modifying that further um if if requested or if the board of adjustment finds appropriate to allow greater flexibility in terms of site design as the applicant um finalizes their site plan and land use application uh the second condition of approval simply ties the variance approval to the applicant's uh forthcoming you know site plan and uh subdivision PL application uh by by giving it a uh one-year duration of approval and again we don't we have any idea of other Lots in N of lots or um subvision I can pull that up right now um so we can look at it okay so any other questions for staff we'll take a look at that and then so just to be clear the really what we're what you're recommending is that the only the variance will apply only to those that those buildings that are 70 feet in depth lotar the lot the lot right okay it would apply to any building built on portions of the lot that are 70 feet in depth or narrower okay yeah and then also Garrett when they when we first discussed the sketch plan you talked about having to have Frontage on Highway 40 we dropped that completely right I that that is still part of the Riverwalk Zone commercial Frontage requirement so properties that have Frontage on Highway 40 also have to have so is he going to be met with that requirement still or so this is so unique it just doesn't seem I mean that Frontage Highway 40 is at steep Hillside dropping off sure so it's not currently proposed for buildings so it's not like they're proposing a non-residential use

there right the the highway 40 Frontage on this site is not necessarily part of phase one it doesn't need to be we're not going to require that no okay that's just trying to make sure yeah um so any I'm sorry any other questions staff I we'll move to the applicant okay can we have the applicant presentation please uh good evening Board of adjustments Kevin riffkin out west Investments um I'll our presentation will be really quick we're fine with 70 feet um I think 90 feet was a mistake honestly uh I think it was a typo so we're just looking to do the 70 ft um over in that area just so we we can get the circulation of the cars uh we still want to build retail we still want to hit the intent uh but this lot is very very weird um one thing to note is this is probably the only lot uh that has 70 foot depth um and with the new uh Riverwalk zoning it's just any lot was 70 feet or less on depth is going to be impossible to build anything on with the current zoning so that's why we came here worked with Garrett for the variance um hopefully this one's a little more straightforward but if you have any questions we're uh we're happy to answer so what's going to go in the Clayton Court Frontage in the 70 feet or less that's a great question um so we can't we can't commit uh because we haven't signed any agreement and because we don't have final plat but we're looking at a restaurant user to take the whole Space um and the way it functions is the more depth space is where the kitchen ADA Bathroom bathroom

are um and then front of house and then as you go might be north um that's where seaing into the patio is so you you're plan is still to use it as retail or commercial yeah so what's the reason for the variant is it just because it's the 15 20t and then gotcha yeah so as soon as we have to go to 15 feet to fit those uh the road back there we had to go through the variance request process and get the garages in the back part of the building yeah yeah that all makes sense I'm wondering if you guys would be willing to just adjust it so it says 15 feet for 70 or less I would be a little hesitant to say 15 just because it might be 14 and a half and we don't want to be back here um but I mean our our goal now we can let gr the numbers guy the only reason I wouldn't say to do 15 is I believe your guys' lot is less than 70t and the lot to the south of them less than 70 feet and then you're creating another box like 20 was the intent of 20 was you know workable but it's arbitrary and 15 I think would just recreate that issue I think a percentage of depth or something makes sense but I wouldn't do another box because it'll come up and then we'll need to change the Box again yeah right right that would be my suggestion gotcha and here again a cach revision I mean we could Grant this variance because it meets code but a code revision to make it a percentage at the depth of the lot might just an idea so might address future plans yeah I I think that's a valid point I would say maybe in addition to the lot in question um the three separate lots that are on the highway 40 side that are all kind of small and not very deep you know this line shows approximately 70 ft roughly measured perpendicularly from the

highway 40 rideway so you can see that you know again it kind of depends on how you measure things but I think certainly this 240 um Highway 40 lot is probably entirely less than 70 just eyeballing it um so I I I think that's something to consider that you know in granting this variance and kind of using 70 feet as a standard it it could potentially include these Lots I think these lots have um one consideration with the the property in question was the fact that it has Frontage on both Clayton Court and Highway 40 and therefore it has to provide commercial uses on both sides um but you know recognizing that these other Lots here on the highway 40 side are quite narrow in depth and it would be challenging to provide that um 20 feet in depth I think uh what would be you know it could be considered in future requests you know the the variance if granted today um but I think I would just maybe reference back to one of the conditions of approval related to still requiring commercial activation um so just reading through that condition of approval number one the applicant shall still be required to accommodate the intent of the ground floor commercial depth requirement um so it doesn't exempt it completely it just allows it to not to be less than 20 feet in depth mentioned even mentioned a display window as a possibility ahead can motion actually no let's let's keep the process anything more from the app no we're good with all your suggestions Garrett so any members of the public that wanted to

comment okay so we'll have a motion to close the public hearing so move second all in favor I I I any opposed thank you okay any any more board discussion or motion make motion okay there's no more discussion to approve resolution number 20 25022 approving the request 7 and change the 90 to 70 right right it's in it's in this resolution yeah okay I'll second any further discussion all in favor I I any opposed thank you another invitation for a few code revisions second on that someone I'll second all in favor I I hi all right thank you take a real quick quick bre