Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

internet. Yeah. No, I'm I'm right there on Harvey's. It's a minute after 6. I can call the meeting to orders. Uh this is the Tuesday, January 6th meeting of the zoning board of appeals. And could we have a roll call, please? Brown present. Marshall present. RCF present. Shawn Nol present. Stein present. Okay. Next on the agenda is the approval of the August 5th, 2025 regularly. There a motion or are there questions?

Uh I move to approve the minutes as written. Thank you. Is there a second? Oh, I sorry. It's been moved by Miss Stein and seconded by Miss Sha to approve the meeting minutes of August 5th, 2025. Roll call. Stein, yes. Shaol, yes. Rush, yes. Marshall, yes. Brown, Stain, I was absent. approved. All right. Uh I just before we move on, I just want to welcome

Yes. our new board member Ernst Russia who's a resident of Lake Street. Thank you for stepping up. Okay. Uh next on the item list is public comment. Anyone in the public wish to speak? Is there anyone online? Uh there is not. Okay. and our attorney. Okay. No. Okay. Um, next is new business.

Question A, your item A. Interpretation request concerning a lot coverage requirements for an accessory accessory structure section 1703. The board is being asked to provide an interpretation of how a required rear yard is intended to be applied in section 17033 of the zoning ordinance which reads building accessory to residential building shall not occupy more than 25% of the required rear yard provided further that no accessory building shall exceed the ground floor area of the main building. You'll see in your agenda memo there are definitions in our ordinance for um rear yard as well as setback and those definitions were provided. However, we do not currently have a definition for required regard. So, that is what is prompting this inquiry or an interpretation by the um sorry Laura.

All right. The power of being unmuted. Sorry. I I just wanted to add to what Lisa said. Although it doesn't say it explicitly on the agenda, these are done as public hearings. So, there should be a, you know, opening a public hearing in time for public input on these as well. I'm sorry. So, she's saying you have to have a public hearing. So, you'll have to open the public hearing. Open the public hearing and close the public hearing.

All right. So, um before we discuss it or after we discuss it? Uh before you need to receive public comment, you can receive staff input and any comments or questions um that you want to solicit from me, but then before deliberating and making a decision, you should open the public hearing for anyone um who is present to speak on each item separately. So do the interpretation first and then the variance requests. Okay. So, um, we're not going to do a public hearing until we discuss it. Right. You're going to start discussion. Yes. On the interpretation of the ordinance.

What are the questions that anyone might have? I have a question. Okay. Um, how often have you run across this required rear yard? Not I I have not encountered language like this. It it Lisa, have you run across it before? I mean, in our ordinance, yes, obviously. Um, most of the structures that we deal with in the city are smaller. They're they're sheds, that sort of thing. They're not larger structures. That's not to say we don't have them, but but typically they're smaller sheds, that sort of thing. Well, have they have they how often has this this been a challenge?

I can't speak to my predecessors. I don't know. I mean, since I've been in this position, um I had one um this last winter, well earlier this winter, I should say, that inquired about putting one in the required reard and and I used my interpretation of of the required the setback multiplied by the width of the so you create this is observation not a good as I inter is width. It's the width of the parcel times the required rear yard setback.

So there's so there's two if I can do you want me to present a little bit Lisa and I'm going to kind of cover what's in your because it is it can be confusing. Um, typically when you have a term like this, it's going to be defined in the zoning ordinance. And the reason um that there's an interpretation request, which was um, frankly at my suggestion rather than having staff interpret it for um, the applicant um, to have the ZBA exercise its power to interpret it because it's not defined in the zoning ordinance. Rear yard is, but not required. Rear yard. And when we add a word like required, we presume it means something otherwise there would be no need to add that word. So the two sort of um competing viewpoints that are before you and I'll let the the applicants will have a chance to speak as well. Um but let's take an example um and not it's not necessarily this property but just for ease of round numbers and you're in R2. In R2 the rear yard setback from the house is 35 ft. So, you got to have 35 ft between your house, right, Lisa? Correct me if I'm wrong. That's how I read it, right? 35 ft from your house to the rear lot line. Let's say your house is actually 40 ft from the rear. So, you've got you're, you know, further back than you need to be. When we talk about lot coverage for an accessory building and we're talking about the required rear yard, the zoning administrator or staff's take would be we're measuring it based on the width of the lot times 35 ft, which is what would be required to be rear yard. you have to have at least that much versus what I perceive the applicant's interpretation to be, which is no, you take the actual rear yard, which is 40 ft from the house to the rear lot line, and multiply that by the width of the lot. The difference

um in interpretation here and the position that um you know, the staff has presented is required rear yard means what is required in the zoning ordinance. You have to have that 35 ft times the width of the lot. If you actually have 40 ft, well, buildings could be anywhere. It could be 50 ft. Then we don't know what required rear yard is. It's going to differ depending on which parcel you're looking at. Required rear yard is always going to be the same in that zoning district. So those are the two different interpretations of rear required rear yard um that you have perhaps the unfortunate duty of deciding what those mean. It's possible in the future the U planning commission and city council could amend the ordinance to clarify it, but we don't have the benefit of that now and we have an application before us that needs to be decided. Um you have the power to interpret. It's one of the powers that the law gives to the zoning board of appeals as well as the zoning ordinance gives you that power. And whatever interpretation you make of this term in this case would be binding um unless and until the language of the ordinance itself is amended, it would be binding on other applicants in a similar situation. So I hope that's a little bit helpful. I'm happy to answer questions. So if a lot is wider or a lot is deeper, then all of a sudden their required rear yard becomes larger

based on that's the way I'm hearing this interpretation. If I have I've got already got setbacks. I already have to meet a the side setbacks. I already have to meet a depth setback. So if my lot is bigger, you're applying a formula that it's like a redundant formula that that's varied. It feels like it's varied dependent on the width. Your your 35 ft is your depth. Your width is your setbacks and then you know your depth or your your width is the width of the lot itself. adapt that's that's established.

You when you buy a house or unless it's a new construction that width is established to build on it, you have setbacks. Yeah.

And you have to stay within those setbacks. Well, all of us the required what are we trying to achieve with this wired rear yard when we already have setbacks and we already have a depth. What's our purpose in adding another layer of interpretation or another layer of requirement when the lot sizes can differ? So, this comes into play with the requirement in the ordinance that the accessory building not take up more than 25% of the required rear yard. So, you're right, the number of square feet that will constitute 25% is going to differ based on the width of your lot. That's how the ordinance is written. Under either of the interpretations before you today, the actual square, you know, amount of coverage allowed in square footage is going to depend, and it should, right? If it's a percentage, a much larger lot can bear a larger accessory building as long as it doesn't exceed the size of the main building, right? Um, so yes, it does vary. But

can I interject one point? As an architect, I understand the point is if my lot is 200 feet deep, then it doesn't change your argument at all. So, are you remain the same more than the lot size because it's everyone's going to be stuck at 35 ft

and the only variable you have on the width. So, a lot but it's really deep, then you're out of luck because you're still stuck with 35 ft. Correct. And that's not that part, you know, the 25% is not before the ZBA today. I mean, that's just in the ordinance. We don't have the ability in the variance part. We can talk about that, but for the interpretation, that's not something I mean, it is what it is. It's 25%. Can can I ask um Lisa or you Laura um given the different interpretations how how does it change the way we would look at it if if we would accept the applicant's interpretation how does that change in a concrete way what we are looking at

then they could have a bigger accessory building they could have a bigger access accessory So you could have the same square footage of yard, but depending if your law is long versus wide is going to make the difference. No, that 35 ft is a fixed dimension. That is, but your width isn't. So if you have a narrow yard, lesser setbacks,

but you have a but let's say you have a, you know, a bigger like 100 feet or something, you still can't count that. You can only count the 35 ft unless but if you were 100 wide by 35 deep then you're good. Yeah. And if you were 25 feet deep and you were 100 wide, right? You wouldn't meet the required. So the question is what what is intended by the required rear yard ordinance. That's what has to be.

I don't see it at all. I see a setback being a reasonable expectation and I see a rear yard being a reasonable expectation. But to determine a required rear yard based on an arbitrary how wide is your lot which is going to differ between everybody. We'd have no consistency. So you can't let me jump in first. I want to make sure we have the public hearing before we deliberate. We can't you can't legally just decide that we're not going to apply the lot coverage requirement because that there is we don't know what it is Laura.

Yeah. You have to interpret whether you are calculating that 25% based on from the um the width of the property by 35 ft or the width of the property by however many feet it is to where their property is. That's the interpretation question. If we want if the ZBA believes the ordinance should be different and I know the ZBA did this I think before in another case. You can petition the the planning commission or ask the planning commission to entertain an amendment. But the interpretation is not should we just not apply the lot coverage requirement at all. I'm bound by it. Lease is bound by it. The ZBA is bound by it and the applicant is bound by it. Our role is to your role is to interpret it. And you can interpret that in either way that you believe is founded on the text of the zoning ordinance because it will apply to everyone, not just these applicants. It might be helpful to to let the applicants uh to open the public hearing and hear from the applicants and any public comment as well.

All right. So, I'd like to open a public hearing to give the applicants an opportunity to speak to this item. State your name. State your name. Yes. Um my name is William Figy. Uh I am an attorney representing the applicant. Uh Jane Schneider. uh who lives at 7 13 um Grove Street.

All right. And I think that the answer to this to this whole thing is is pretty easy. Um and I want to first of all ask you all to rewind where you've been so far because your attorney did not even come close to stating what our theory of this interpretation is. I'm going to make it home easy by giving everybody a picture. And this is Jane's lot. And on her lot, I've ch what I believe should be the definition. You have one more.

I do. I have one more. What should be the definition of the required rear yard? So we so far I I think I think we all understand that the required rear yard is that minimum rear yard that the property has in order to comply with the rear yard setback and that's 35 ft. So, you measure from the the rear side of the house, measure back 35 ft, and you have this green uh hatched area. That is the um required rear yard. So, then you look, okay, and and I think that's pretty straightforward. I doubt that even your attorney or you would disagree with that. That's the required.

That's not the setback, though. No, no, no. The setback is 35 ft which from the property line which you would measure from the property line but I just want to make sure. Right. No, absolutely. I agree with you.

But this is if I if I was looking at this lot and I and was trying to decide, oh my gosh, what's the minimum amount that Jane needs for her rear yard? That would be it. 35 ft. So that's the words required rear yard refers to that area. So now we have to look at the section of the ordinance that we're interpreting and it says buildings accessory to residential buildings shall not occupy more than 25% of a required rear yard. That means you look at that green area and if your proposed accessory building occupies more than 25% of that green area then you you can't do it or you need a variance. So, quick question. Where is the 35 feet from the house back coming from? Where is that measurement identified in the ordinance as other than the setback requirement?

I'm trying I'm trying to help the city out because the city didn't define it. Right. I'm just asking where your 35 ft came from. The 35 ft is the is the rear yard setback. The setback is from the property line inward. Unerstood. Listen to me one more time. If you want to get the minimum rear yard setback for a lot, it would be that 35 ft from the house, that's the required rear yard. The rest of the rear yard is optional. So, you're saying if the property line ended at the end of that green area, that's that would be they've got the required rear yard and everything else is

But it happens that Jane has a lot more than that. Hers is not her rear yard is 79 ft deep and her proposed garage is not going to occupy any of the required rear yard. It's going to be in that back area completely outside of the required required rear yard. And so this section doesn't even apply to her. And we and we shouldn't be talking about a variance for something that doesn't apply to Jane. There's a lot now besides the very clear language that I just explained to you and which this picture demonstrates, there's a lot of reasons why it makes no sense, sorry, to to interpret it the way that that the staff is interpreting. Um, one of the reasons is is that it would set a maximum of 437.5 square feet for garages on 50 foot lots in the R2 district. Even if the backyard was 300 ft deep, wouldn't matter how big your your yard was. If it was 50 ft wide, we're so sorry. All you can do is build this tiny garage and

25% of this green space. No, no. What I'm what I'm what I'm saying is if you have a if your lot went back even farther than James, right? Let's say it goes back another 300 feet, but she still can't build more than because you're basing the 25% on this required rear period. Not setbacks, not

Yeah. Well, see, that's what that's what they're saying. The required rear yard is just this area floating anywhere. not this specific part of the yard which is the required rear yard which is the minimum rear yard for that for any property 35 ft back on the house. So that makes no sense that somebody could have a much larger yard and not be able to build a larger garage than a minuscule honestly 437 square foot garage. The second reason why it makes no sense is that there's another section that deals with lot coverage of lots and that says that um on a and this is section 1 1600 of your ordinance which says that for lots in this district that are 7200 square feet or greater the lot coverage is 33 feet. And it doesn't matter whether it's your main house. It doesn't matter whether it's your accessory uh garage or doesn't matter whether it's extra um sheds. You can't have more than 33%. Right? So interpreting it the way that staff is interpreting it is is like coming out of left field with a whole different um rule for lot coverage which is already covered in 1600. And you don't need another rule for lot coverage if you interpret this sensibly the way that I think is very clear the way that I've shown you on this on this map. Another problem that we have is that depending on how how you read this, you could get a situation where instead of building one garage that does everything that's necessary, you're going to encourage people to have

multiple accessory structures. So, they'll have a garage that's 437.5 ft, but they'll say, "Well, you know, now I need another I need another shed over here. I need another shed over here. I'll put this one in the sideyard." Right. Um, which you can't have one in a sideyard under our ordinance. You can't have it in the sideyard. And it also states under 17033 that buildings accessory to residential buildings. So more than one building cannot occupy more than and that's not clear. It says buildings cannot doesn't say all the buildings together. It just says buildings. That could be

accessory to residential buildings. That could be interpreted to mean each building is looked at separately. An accessory building I think is different than the main building. I agree. And and the language that you're citing is accessory buildings. Yes.

Another reason why this doesn't make sense is that 437.5 ft is a very small garage. I will concede that it could accommodate two medium-sized cars. It's basically a 20 foot 11in square garage. If you wanted to put anything in there besides two cars, you you wouldn't be able to do it. You probably would have some difficulty opening your car doors. hopefully you you'd be skinny enough to be able to get out the door without hitting the other car or hitting the hitting the side of the wall. Doesn't make sense to have your standard be a garage that's undersized by by our by our standards, by all of our standards. And and and to support that, there's only two other garages that access the same um the same alley. And guess what? One of them is 750 ft built just in 2008 and the other one is 1,000 square ft. So to to say with under those circumstances that you should interpret this so you can only have a 437.5T garage does not make any sense. What does make sense is what I've explained to you here. the required um rear yard is that area 35 ft back and that area cannot have more than 25% of it covered by a accessory post. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.

Um I guess it's um to you or Lisa. We still have a problem with the um rear lot line. Correct. And that'll that's going to be in the second public hearing under the variance. Regardless of how the first one goes, there's still Yeah, that's separate. Could I could I ask a question to council?

He'll answer. He doesn't have to answer. I guess my question and maybe it's for the ZBA just to consider because I mean this is an interpretation request. I I'm not advocating for one interpretation over the other. That's your job, not mine. What I what I'm thinking about as I read 1703 where it says buildings accessory to residential buildings shall not occupy more than 25% of a required rear yard. is whether the drafters of that were concerned about the size of accessory buildings that were really far away from the lot line near the house or whether they were concerned about the lot coverage or size of accessory buildings that were within the 35 ft from the lot line where it was closer to the neighbors.

Here here's what I think the answer to that question is. Um, the answer to that question is they we already had a provision for lot coverage, right? That's the 33% number. I think they wanted to have another provision that would keep the size of of the accessory buildings that were close to the house at a minimum. Right? If you're going to have an accessory building, this language to me says it shouldn't be close to your home. It should be set on the back side of your lot, which is exactly what Jane is trying to do. Well, she has that lot.

She has that ability to do that. If you were building within that required rear lot, that would set what I'm hearing you. If you were building within the required rare lot, you would be subject to 25% and now I Thank you for the graphic. Yep. Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. That that would be your limitation is but she's not even building within that required lot.

That's correct. So my other comment on this is just to be clear although we're talking about this property because they applied for it an interpretation applies to anybody um else who comes seeking to build an accessory building. Um so if the interpretation is that required rear yard is not in relation to the lot line but is instead whatever that you know in R2 35 ft from the building. That means you could have a large accessory building 3 feet from a lot line that would not be subject to the 25%. I agree. It would presumably be subject to the 33% of all buildings but would not be subject to that 25% of required rear yard requirement.

Do we have height restrictions? Do we have we have setback restrictions? So we have restrictions elsewhere within the code that limits the size of any any building built within uh R2 or any of the areas. So I I I think the gross square foot we have this this reminds me of that apartment building where he could meet all the setbacks and he could meet everything but he couldn't meet the gross square footage. Um and he he met the height restriction. So it's this this square footage thing and that's a bigger issue. I know it's a planning issue but it is um

there is one other restriction that we haven't talked about but it's in this same section 17033 that is another um another restriction on that accessory is that provided further no accessory building shall exceed the ground floor area of the main building. So that's an absolute maximum if you've got a house. Another Yeah. If you got a house that the grain ground floor is 1,000 square feet, you can you can have an accessory building. So you So we have setbacks. We have height restrictions and we have gross square footage based on two setbacks. Two setback. You have a three and a five foot. You're right. So you have technically three setbacks

with the house being there. So and you have height limitation on the three setback at 14 feet and you have 16 feet at the five feet. So that's a limitation. So if you Yeah. So So it's not open-ended. Exactly. It's not open-ended. There's plenty of other There's not plenty, but there's other restrictions that apply that would affect any kind of other building being built as an accessory building under either interpretation. That's a correct statement.

And then there's this overall 33% max. Well, there's 33% and there's 35%. Am I correct? Because there's because there's two different size lots. So, if you're under 7,200 square f feet, you get 35%. If you're over 30 7200 ft, you get 33.5 33% for for R2. That's correct. Yeah. 7200 square f feet, you get 33% 35 5% and o is that right or is it okay? and over 7200 you get 33 7200 and up you get Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Again, and that's just R2. This again the interpretation would apply to all zoning districts. But yeah,

that includes that includes your accessory building and your main house. So there's a lot coverage period in total. There are some districts that do not have lot coverage requirements. So what about uh y so they would be allowed to build. So along the alley um behind Division Street where Dick Smith lives, they all have double garages. Are they not subject to those coverage issues there?

I'm guessing they predate the ordinance or at least definitely our current ordinance requirements. So they would be considered um non-conforming structures, but they can remain so long as they they meet the requirements of section 17. Do you know when this particular interpretation was adopted um of of this 1703? Um, there was an amendment in 2015, I believe. Otherwise, it was original in I think 1974. 74. I'm confident that this 5 foot setback came in in in the new one. 2017. That's accessory structures. Oh, accessory. I mean, yes, it is for the height, but that Yeah, that would have been a new one.

That would have been Yeah. But I believe number five through seven were the three that were amended in 2015. But are there any more uh comments that the public would like to make on this issue for the public hearing or shall I close it and we will deliberate? Anyone? Let me ask Le is here uh on the first page of your memo. Well, wait to the extent. Yeah, you do have an attorney client privileged memo. You can ask me questions, but I prefer you not read out loud. Not yours. Oh, Lisa's memo. Okay, great.

Um, yes. Section 1703 sub3, the required rear yard. Uh and then in defining the rear yard, you're running the width times uh you're starting with the back lot line. Is that correct? Yes. My interpretation by the required rear yard area would be the required setback times the width of the lot. The required setback from the house

from the house or from the property line. set back is required from the property line inward 35 ft. That is what the required setback is. So when you say required yard, what I have been taught and what I what I have interpreted is that the required rear yard would then be that required area. So 35 ft that required setback and width of the lot. Well, is it from the from the alley or the back property line? The rear property linear property. The rear property line heading towards the house. Correct. 35 ft. So the different So it would be this area.

Yeah. Yeah. Where the dash line is, you'll see like the house from their back and they happen to have that extra space. That's what I the problem with that is if if you just use the back 35 ft is that means there's no restrictions on the part that's right next to the house. Yeah, we we are trying to deliver. Um, so Lisa, the difference in these two approaches, it all has to do with what the size of the building can be, right? That's the question. The 25% the interpretation we're looking for is what the required rear yard area is. I know. So you But the difference is you say you start the measurement from the rear yard line.

Correct. And Mr. my feet to starts it at the back of the house. Correct. And starting where you suggest and moving towards the house, this proposed garage would cover more than that 25%. Correct. Okay. And then there is a variance request. The the I would have two different locations of 35 feet. One is 35 feet from the house to the back of the lot and one is 35 feet from the back of the lot toward the house.

Why I had asked where the 35 ft from the house back came from? Because our ordinance does state that there is a required rear yard setback which is 35 ft. Does it does it say from the back property line? the rear setback does and that's what I put the definition for setback and then as well as um rear yard which rear yard does include from the property line to the structure that is the rear yard. The setback is the distance from the rear property line in 35 ft which per our ordinance is a required setback. So when it says required rear yard and not having a definition obviously that's what that my interpretation has been. So,

the applicant is saying they believe it is or the applicant's attorney is saying he believes it should be from the house out 35 ft, not in from the back property line 35 ft. Just as a a matter of discussion, where does that 35 ft from the back of the lot line hit in their property? If you look at his drawing, there's a dash line that says 35 foot rear setback. That would be across the Yeah, the blue line across. So the blue the blue or Yeah, the blue line which is the 10 foot set back, the 35 setback and the 5 foot setback is but see that line extends toward

it's the 35 foot that goes across the property. From there north it would be just north of the green section. Yeah, it's a dark blue a dark blue line setback.

So from there north would be the required yard setback. Could I could I jump in with two more points from the video abyss here? Um, one, it was just touched on, but I wanted to read the definition of rear yard because rear yard is defined. It's required rear yard as a phrase that's not defined. And rear yard is an open space extending the full width of the lot the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the rear lot line and the nearest point of the main building.

So if the interpretation is to measure it from the house rather than the lot line then rear yard is going to be measured differently and mean something different than required rear yard. And again, that's not specific to this property. That would then apply to all properties. The second thing I wanted to say is even if the interpretation is not what the applicants are asking for, they do have a variance request up that you will consider next. So even if you find that yes, required rear yard is measured from the back lot line, that does not mean they're out of luck. That just means you move on to their variance request

because the other thing measuring from the rear lot line in and defined with generally that leaves you if that house is ever added on to or square footage is added on. Do you want to put an addition onto the house? That space is not you're still within they could add on all the way back to that point. you know, as long as it doesn't exceed the total square footage of both buildings wouldn't exceed the ordinance all the other.

So, so if we measure consistently from the back of the lot line in that gives that ability down the road they want to go and add on to the house or have anything like that, they have that space to to add on do that. So, I think and then I don't know, they do it in the front yard. They talk about impermeable surfaces and all that. We start adding ropes and everything else. You know, that's part of those percentages are an environmental thing. You keep you cover it up. You got water coming down. You know, you don't want to get let allow somebody to build the whole backyard, you know, under roof. So, that's I think I'm just Yeah,

I'm thinking that's what they were trying to do when they did that. But, it does make sense measuring it strictly off the back marker, you know, and then like you say, you do have the option of possibly giving a variance if somebody wanted to give a varian I think that's generally how the setback is measured from that the from the property line um my issue with and I I understand your interpretation Lisa and I think if we were a newer development with you know very similar lot sizes everywhere that would make a lot of sense but there's nothing consistent in the city really I mean everybody's lot is so different that it just it to me it doesn't seem like a bear precedent

and those lots that are are narrower would also have the opportunity for a variance because that would be a right they would I guess yeah a practical difficulty practical yeah they would have that if you have any thoughts

I have no questions on I think uh it makes sense that as she's described, you got to define the the rear yard. It's required and uh because the limitations on what you do in that required rear yard. um running it from the the rear property line uh makes to me inherent sense. U your house and then extending back that is your rear yard. That's your yard and limitations building sizewise percentages of that rear yard. Um, you know, the variance is something different, but that approach to uh the interpretation of what is a required rear yard um makes sense to me.

Sue, do you have anything? No, I thought Ern's really clear. Clear. You cleared it up. Do we need to have um some kind of vote or how would you like us to proceed? So yes, you need to have a vote um on which interpretation you are going to adopt. Um Lisa, I can't recall if there was a if there was motion language or a decision form for this part. There was not. Um,

so I think what you could do is make I'm just trying trying to pull up the There we go. Um, the staff agenda or memo, excuse me. I think you can make a motion that is essentially either going to be, you know, we interpret required rear uh required rear yard to be the setback measured from the rear lot line or alternatively we interpret required rear yard to be the setback distance measured from the back of the house.

Okay. Thank you. Is there someone who would like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion that um that the definition of required year rear yard would be determined by measuring the vacant space between the back of the house to the property line by the property width. So, you're going to back to back of the house. That's how I I didn't follow what I'm so sorry. I'm trying to write it down. Can you restate that? I heard from back of the house to the lot line and I think that combines the two.

Yeah. To to me that the required rear yard should basically be the definition of a rear yard. So the the distance between the back of the home to the property line by the width of the vacant space of the property. No, you need a there's a line in there. The 35 set foot set back. It's whether you're measuring the setback because there's not always going to be exactly set back.

So sorry. It's it's not always going to be right exactly the setback from the house to the line. So I think the motion needs to be clear that we're measuring that setback from the rear lot line or we're measuring that setback from the house. Do we not have that defined under like definitions of setbacks already? Setback. Yeah. Setback definition is sorry. Go ahead. minimum horizontal distance measured at right angles from the front side or rear lot line to the vertical plane of the building. Okay. So, yeah, it's already defined as being from the property line then. Correct. That's the definition of a setback.

We're looking for so that's why I didn't understand why we have to bring in where the setback's measured from. Well, there's a second setback that we're talking about and that's the 35 foot. So what Laura was saying is you can the buildings will still have to be have to follow the code of the foot of the setbacks but we're just defining what is required rear yard

we're using we need we have a measure the number of feet we have to measure is coming from what that setback is in R2 it happens to be 35 ft do in determining required rear yard are we measuring from the lot line or are we measuring from the house? Well, measuring from the house to the rear block line is what I'm measuring. The whole thing requires rear yard. Well, yeah. I mean, I'm thinking the definition of rear yard is rear yard is should be required rear yard and we have a separate definition for setback. Um, maybe someone else should do it.

Is that a building? You're saying that because it's a building setback, but we're saying I mean, you're still going to have to keep setbacks in mind. Yeah, but we're creating square footage to Right. 25% of your give us a percentage. Where did you get um if I can ask you said rear yard? The definition of rear yard is that it's in your zoning ordinance. It is uh the definition section 2011. So it's the third prime paragraph. So we already have that definition. It's this word required which is what's kind of monkey. Yes. Correct.

So it would be my my opinion that we say rear yard measured from the back property line as per our definition. Yeah. Of rear yard. That sounds and then we have building. I mean that's I have to clarify this. You said something different. You your motion, Jessica, was different. Okay. Correct. Well, I don't know. It sounded I mean I think they sound like they're saying it was exactly what you said, but and then you have a building setback that's and and we're trying to define a it's the word required that is screwing us up.

I think the definition of rear yard should be the same as required rear yard. So with that, you're saying it's the space between the lot line and the the building primary home. Yeah. But what if you build further? Yeah. Then you have to meet the setbacks of the 35 and the side. Yeah. So it's like a dup. It's getting rid of a duplication and it's getting rid of a definition of square footage lot coverage to the 25 square ft. You still have your setback limitations. You still have all that. I agree. I'm really confused.

Okay. So, Jessica Jessica, hi. I think the impact of your motion would have been that it's just whatever the actual yard is, even if that's Yeah. And that's that's a different that's what I originally thought the applicant's interpretation was. I was soundly corrected that that's not their their position. So, that's not the position they're advocating for and that's not the position staff took. You could interpret it that way. That would greatly, you know, even though that's the definition of rear yard already.

No, no, no, it's not exactly. So, rear yard is an open space extending the full width of the lot, the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the rear lot line and the nearest point of the main building. But that's unrelated to setback. So the required to give the word required meaning that's why kind of both positions here are talking about the 35 ft or the setback because there's a certain amount of rear yard you have to have and that's what the rear yard setback does. You can't have a rear yard that's you know 10 feet in R2 right there's a required minimum rear yard. that required minimum rear yard is determined based on the setback in that district. So we can't just say it's the rear yard because that makes the word required meaningless.

So if we have an empty lot, we have to go 35 ft from the lot line before we could build. Correct. In R2 in R2, yes. The rear it would be a 35 foot setback. Can you say like the rear yard, you know, minimum 35 ft?

Yeah, I'm going to word smith this. Give me 30 seconds here. I And we didn't prepare it in advance partly because it is up to this ZBA's interpretation and I didn't want to put words um in your mouth. Now I'm kind of wishing I had put a few words down in advance. Um so what what I'm hearing the the mo the motion on was it Bill on the right hand side? Is that that your motion you started to make? Um, is that required? I'm so sorry.

Required rear yard is the minimum rear yard required based on the setback in the zoning district measured from the rear property line. I'll read that again. You guys can change this, but this is what I'm trying to put words to what I'm hearing. That required rear yard is the minimum rear yard required based on the setback for the zoning district measured from the rear property line. Yes.

To me, that's not clear if it takes in account if you have more than the minimum. It does. So give more ability to build anything else if you have more yard. Right. Right. And I I don't know. I just feel like there might need be some language to clarify what if you have more than the minimum.

So that's kind of the thrust of this is the zoning ordinance says for these accessory buildings that it can't take up more than 25% of the required rear yard. It doesn't say 25% of the rear yard. In which case, I would agree if it were written that way, however big your yard is, you know, 25% of that can be accessory building up to the, you know, 33% total lot coverage cap. But the question before the ZBA is that where the zoning ordinance says the required rear yard where are you me that means there's a required amount of yard you have to have based on the setback and where are we measuring that from or are you making it the actual yard in which case you know I think that's kind of eliminating the word required then from the zoning ordinance.

Can we do that? We can't you will you can make a record to explain how rear yard means the same thing as required rear yard. Um just be cognizant of you know that this is not just for this property. Is there a standard lot size in R2 like 35 ft from the rear? I mean they vary for a reason as it relates to normal lot sizes like hers lot size is very large.

So our current standards for R2 is 60 feet in width 7200 square feet in area. Some are narrower some are wider. Some are below 7200 feet. Some are well above. I mean we do have a broad range from what I've seen. So um yeah it just depends. Most are deeper than 35 feet. No, that's it's the the lot area itself has to be 60 feet wide. So, I know, but I'm saying we have a lot of deep deep lots. Yeah. 35 ft is a required rear yard. So, you can't build like the primary structure can't be built any closer than 35 ft to the rear property line.

Right. And now we're putting another restriction on that 35 ft that it's defining what the required rear yard is to determine the square footage that can be put into that area. We're not changing the require what's allowed. I mean, it would change based on what the required yard area is defined as. The the setback that's there is for the primary structure, the 35 ft. Accessory structures can be 3 to 5 ft. I I I know they have to be in the rear system requirement. Another it's another restriction another restriction that

but we have to define what or you guys have to define what required rear means in our ordinance because that's what we need to move forward. Yes, I know. So there was a Is there any more discussion? Well, is it open? Is it back open? No, not not for you. Yeah. Well, you said, "Is there any more?" Is it It's with the board. Nice try. Is there something that's a problem? No, I was just asking. Um, so you started to make a motion. Do you still wish to make a motion?

Uh, someone else can give it a try. Again, a motion. Would you with Laura's help like to fresh up? I think what could you read back what she Yeah. Uh, it would be a motion to interpret that the required rear yard is the minimum rear yard required based on the setback for the zoning district measured from the rear property line.

That's your motion. That's my motion. Okay. Is there a second for that motion? I'll second that. It's been moved and seconded. Would you read the motion again, please? Yep. Motion to interpret required rear yard to be the minimum rear yard required based on the setback for the zoning district measured from the rear property line. Thank you. Would you call the role please? Rush. Yes. Brown. Yes. Marshall,

yes. Shaolov, yes. Stein. Yes.

Moving right along. We can now go to the second sheet. Okay. Now we're going to talk about case number 880. Is there a request for a side and rear yard setback variances and a lot coverage variance for an accessory structure at 713 Grow Street to allow for the construction of a TA garage and the existing roof. The property is a 7,433.5T parcel at 713 Grove Street between Lockwood Avenue and Harvey Street. The house fronts Grove Street and is adjacent to an alley to the west that runs north and south between Grove and State Streets. The property is zoned R2 single family residential and the existing structure on the property includes a single family dwelling and a non-conforming garage which is located at the northwest corner of the property. The garage is non-conforming due to its side and reard setbacks from the west and north property lines. The language of section 17024 non-conforming structures is included in your amendment and identifies the provisions for lawful non-conforming structures to remain. The property owner applicant is looking to remove the existing non-conforming garage and expand its existing foundation to the south and east to allow for construction of a 630 square foot twocar garage. The applicant or for the applicant to construct a new structure and expand the existing foundation as requested. The following variances would be required. A sideyard setback variance of 1t 8 and 1/4 in from the sideyard setback um with making the sideyard setback 1T 3 and 3/4 in. The required setback is 3 ft. Um so that difference is 1T 8 and 1/4 in. That is the same as the existing setback

on the west side. Um the rear yard setback which is to the north is would be for a variance of 6 in. Currently, um, it is 2 feet 8 and 3/4 inches and they're looking to reduce that to 2 feet 6 inches, which again would be a six foot six inch variance from the three-foot setback required. And the third one would be lot coverage variance for 7.7% of 7.7% to allow a 32.7% block coverage of the required rear yard. Just a notation on the advent memo, there was an um there should have been a correction. I apologize. On your variance request table one, um the uh calculation was 35 ft for the setback, 50 ft for the parcel width. Because this does have an alley to the west, it does get an extra 5 ft of that alley width. So it should have been 55 ft, which um makes it u the 32.7% instead of 36% as noted in that table. Um and then the resulting variance is the 7.7 instead of the 11. The current structure um has 18.7%.

So it eliminates the sideyards that could you get extra five feet. Um no that's for lot area not for set not for setbacks. It's for the area itself. So they get to add five feet into the width of the lot, right? Or area, not for the same because otherwise they could build out in this into the alleyway and that wouldn't be allowed. So it is from the property line uh for the setback, but they get the extra five feet for lot area when calculating lot coverage. Lisa, did the resulting variance request amount change from 11%. Um yes it would go down to 7.7

and the causation for that reduction again was what? So the um section 18 I don't quote it wrong. Um the ordinance basically allows any property that is adjacent to an alley they get credit for half of the width of the alley which our alleyways are 10 feet. So they would get five feet plus in this case it's the length of the lot not the width because it's on the side. So that increases that area. Now, one thing I don't understand about that, um, they don't just get credit for it. If the alley is abandoned, no, the the alley to the north was abandoned and that was then absorbed into the the property and the property to the north, right?

That's not into question. It's the alley that runs north and uh north and south to the west of this property. They get credit for that alley. Oh, so the alley Okay. There used to be two, which is not right. So the alley that goes from Grove Street to State Street is now at the abandoned alley. Correct. It's the one that went east and west was abandoned. All right. So the city still maintains the alley. Next few.

Yes. So, um, anyone from the public wish to speak about the variance request open a public hearing? Yeah, we will we open a public hearing. Yeah,

we have a public hearing on the varian on this property and others. William Fehey again um I am representing Jane Schneider who's the applicant. Would you like me to address all of the variances at once or do you want to take the side and rear yard first and then the um and then the area the rear yard um coverage areas however you're comfortable. I I would be it would be helpful to just do one at a time.

Okay, that's fine. Do you want to talk about the rear yard coverage first or do you want to talk about just show right? All right. Very fine. I just want to I want to make sure that we're all comfortable.

Um let's talk about the the sideyard and the rear yard setback variances. First then um so I understand that the zoning board of appeals applies a fivepoint rubric when it is um examining variances. And uh I understand the first uh the first point of that rubric is that the applicant Jane needs to demonstrate that strict compliance with the three-foot side and rear yard setbacks would cause her practical physical. Um there are a number of points that I would like to make um about this particular lot and the and the circumstances of it that I think show uh very clearly why there is practical difficulty here. Um and as I go through these just kind of let let me first give you an overview of what the practical difficulty issues are. Um they include the steep slope of the lot and the alley. uh there's a grade change between the lot and the alleys. There is a need for lateral support for the uh for the lot itself, the northwestern portion of the lot. Um and to put that in context, um welcome to Paskki. We decided uh decades and decades ago to build a um to build a city basically um on a sand dune and we all if we go up this beautiful sand dune everybody's homes has really nice views of the bay. Um, but we're all on a sand dune and that sand dune is constantly wanting to go back into the bay and the only thing that's keeping it from doing that are um a very very extensive series

um of of um of retaining walls on various people's property that together act to keep the sand dune from going down into the bay. And we're going to talk a lot about that. I'm going to talk a lot about that as I as I look at Jane's property and why there's a practical difficulty for her because she is very much affected by that issue. Um and then the last point besides Natalie supported from the lot is I want to talk about the need for the subjacent support of the garage walls, the concrete pad, uh and the driveway. Those are all things that are all u at work at play in on Jane's lot. So, the retaining walls that are there right now were uh were engineered uh back in 2020. Um, even though they were originally built 75 years ago, the retaining walls on the at the northwest corner of this lot, which support the garage, also support the lot. And uh, they were um, even though they were built 75 years ago, in 2020, Richie's Construction went in. They were going to pour they poured a new um pad for the garage. They took they basically went down next to the existing um the existing retaining walls and they poured in behind them. They poured in a substantial amount of new concrete and put in rebar. So that that now is engineered not just to support the garage but also to support the lot and to prevent the lot from going down into the alley. Um

and garage

the retaining walls uh are actually quite a bit above the alley. So, if you go to the the northwest corner of the garage, they're about 42 uh inches above the alley. Substantial drop there. Come back to the um to the um the front side of the garage, that's about 24 in above the alley at that point. So, there's a there's a very substantial drop off that was designed to support the garage and also to support the lot as a retaining wall. in order to have adequate support for the new garage that's proposed. We can't I mean those retaining walls are are are made and are and are needed to remain in the spot where they are right now. And the garage walls have to be right over the top of them or you're going to have you're going to have problems with the uh with forces that are going to push basically are going to be pushing in the direction of the south and um and the uh and the west. In order to avoid that, you need to locate the um the the new garage walls in the same place where the old garage walls were because this was engineered to support walls at that location. If you did say require the applicant to move the garage walls further east and and further south, the problem with that is that now that would compromise the subjace support for those new walls

because the existing um the existing foundation which is also the existing retaining wall would no longer be right underneath the walls to support them in a proper way. So that also would would not only would you be um would you be having some issues with lack of of of lateral support for the lot, you would end up with issues for um subjacent support of the walls themselves. Another um there also are some very practical issues. Um if you look at the um at the uh diagram that I gave you earlier.

Yep. I got it.

Um you will you will see that there is if you if you relocated the the garage to the east, it is going to make it more difficult for Jane to get in and out of her garage. She has looked at a number of different places here on this part of of her lot, the back part of her lot where she could put a garage. And the problem because of the steepness of her lot and because of the um of this drop off here that exists on the northwest side, it's it would be extremely difficult for her to get in and out of the garage. In addition, It would require if she moved the garage further to the east, it would require that a substantial amount of additional driveway hardscape be put on the property in order for her to be able to get her car into the garage. Um, and she's looked at it from a number of different points of view and and she doesn't want to have additional hardscape and I don't think the neighbors would want to have more heartscape and more runoff from her property. Um, and therefore it would um it would behoove us I think to keep that garage in the position where it currently is above the existing retaining walls. One last point I want to make is that those retaining walls are a part of a larger uh system of retaining walls including uh there are eight retaining walls actually on Jane's property. There are additional retaining walls of course on other people's properties. All of those retaining walls act together to

support the lots and to support the the parts of the lots. When you start to mess with one retaining wall, you're going to have an impact on the other retaining walls and that could cause damage to other people downstream from from Jane. Um the last thing I want to say about um the first rubric is I would like to pass out um a president from the zoning board of appeals that was about decided about five years ago. Pass that up with this This was at 621 East East Mitchell Street. Um, and I also have some pictures of the garage as it was reconstructed so you get an idea about this garage closed in. There's a side view and a front view of this garage. Lodge on East Mitchell Street that back um uh on April 6, 2021, zoning board of appeals granted this piece of property a um a um variance to reconstruct the garage and to reconstruct it on the existing um retaining walls that that were on that property. Um, and as you can see from this piece of property, um, if you look at the discussion of the zoning board of appeals back, uh, in April of

2021, they were concerned that if you move this garage off of the retaining walls, that that could provide some, as I was saying earlier, it could provide some issues with um, with safety and um, with the integrity of the of the retaining wall system. Um I I know none of you were here five years ago. Um well certain Well, but not not this particular night. Oh, no. I'm on here. Oh, you are on there. Okay. Okay. Do you remember this one? No. Oh, okay.

This is this is um this is what this is what was allowed to be rebuilt. It it um I don't see very many differences between this and the situation we have here. I think the ZBA looked at the same issues then as I'm describing to you now. They were reconstructing an existing garage. Correct. And this is creating a new garage. This is no they were reconstructing and but they needed a variance in order to reconstruct. Right. Yes. Because make any change more than 60% and you have to you have to get a variance. I appreciate that. Right.

And that true that is that is a difference. But what I'm saying is the is the issues of practical difficulty in this case are the identical issues that Jane faces on her lines except for on this one they use the existing foundation. Yes. And that's what to do too. A percentage of the existing foundation because she's going to a larger structure. She's going to use the entire foundation that she has right now but she's going to extend it. That's correct. That's what I understand. So it's it's it's it's changing. This was built on the same footprint. True. This is not the same footprint. She's using partial of it. I agree with

that. She's using what she's got now. But the reason why the variance was granted back here was based on those same practical difficulty issues that I that I just recited to you. And so that's why I'm citing this as a as a precedent. So, but you're right. There's always every every piece of property is unique, right? But there are there are some similarities that I that I would ask for you to consider. So she's going to use the existing foundation, but she's going to increase the footprint is what she's requesting. That's correct. Just on the east side. Well, both your depth is your depth is more also along the alleyway. It's

that's the way this little package came. But I could have the I'd be fine with having the the builder not bring it out two I think it's two more feet in front. Okay. But I do want to be able to have two cars to go in there rather than one. So you have to tie a new foundation into that existing foundation. Have to extend it. Right. You're going to pour a new concrete foundation going east uh and then also heading to the south. Correct. And then heading back uh to the west.

Correct. That's a new foundation. Those pieces are new. That's right. But but those but the pieces besides the west and the east, there's no issue with nonconform. There's no issue there with with violating a setback. Well, you would acknowledge that you're uh extending a non-conforming use. Correct.

And you think that that's can't do it without a variance. That's why we're here. Well, I know. I know. Right. Well, you you go on. I'm looking for the u a justification for um expanding something that is already been accepted as a nonconforming use. I mean, I would like to have a bigger garage.

Sure. Sure. But the ordinances won't allow it. Uh but I I I leave it to you now to this address that kind of an issue. All right. So the second rubric that you all look at is um is whether or not there's a practical way to accomplish the same purpose without a variance or with a lesser variance. Um and on on that particular point um again going back to the reason why this variant is being requested is so that the engineered foundation can be used to support the the new the new garage which is this is going to be in the same location as the old garage. Really there isn't a lesser variance that could be required to do that. That's in order to use the existing um um retaining walls. This variance is necessary. If you say that that the that she can't use the existing retaining walls, then um she's not going to be able to build the expanded garage. Period. She needs the she needs the variance in order to do this. That's what your second rubric is. I believe the third rubric is that the need for the variance is due to a situation that is unique to the property and would not generally be found elsewhere in the same zoning district. And here the issues that that are on her property are the extreme slope rate change between the alley and the lot and this complex system of retaining walls that I mentioned. Those are all things that are not every lot in the in the city faces those issues. There are a few very uh this is one of those and

that makes this a unique situation that would satisfy that third rubric. The fourth um the fourth element of your rubric is that the variance would uphold the spirit and intent of the ordinance and be fair to neighboring properties. Um here um the location of the west and the north walls um would would be in the same place. They wouldn't be changing. Although they would be extended, they wouldn't be changing. The new garage would be um Jane believes a substantial uh improvement and would add to the attractiveness of the neighborhood. Um, it would allow for the indoor storage of an additional vehicle and the indoor storage of items that are currently being stored outdoors. Um, which which is a plus I think to to the neighbor. Uh, it would not impair the use of the alley. And again, if you look at my if you look at the drawing I gave you earlier, the alleys pinch points, if you will, are really um on the Grove Street entrance and the State Street entrance. And basically at the Grove Street entrance, you've got uh you got an existing 750 square foot garage that was built one foot from the alley on one side and you have a stone retaining wall on the other side of the alley that's right up sheet to ja with the that is that is a pinch point at at that alley compared to that the area that is available where garage would need as much weight. There hasn't been an issue with the width as it currently exists there. And so that's not going to make that situation any worse. And certainly the pinch point at the at Grove Street

and the pinch point, well, I didn't mention the pinch point at State Street. Basically, what exists there is the existing residence um uh there on State Street is built right up to the line, right? not even any any setback whatsoever from the alley. So, um those are the points where there really is an existing um narrowness if you will and the situation those situations aren't going to change. They're going to continue to be the way that they are non-conforming,

right? They're non-conforming. And so from the from the perspective of the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it would not be unreasonable to allow Jane to maintain the same setback that she currently has with her existing garage. Uh your the last point of your rubric is that the need for the variances was not created by um the applicant's actions. And in this particular case, these um these retaining walls and and the present location of the garage predate the zoning ordinance and Jane's ownership and she has no part whatsoever in creating that situation. Um so that's that is is what I would say um for the for the for the setbacks. If I could continue, um, I will talk about the rear yard coverage variance.

I'm sorry. Could we take a little break? Sure.

Yeah, sounds like a great idea. I suspect that longer than me. We could That was the physical Looks like we

Do you want to vote on that issue first or do you know? Okay. All right. All right. Let me

I don't I mean I'm speaking for everyone, but yeah, we usually do it all. We we liberate the whole package and we have That's fine. Okay. So, so all I have left to talk about is the section 1703 uh sub3 rear yard covered variance. Um and again using a rubric uh the practical difficulty uh under section 17033 is is that um the maximum um what was that maximum number again? 400 and So what was that number? So 43750 would be for a 50 foot lot. However,

43750 hers would be different because of the alleyway. Hers would be say 45. Oh, it's on. Okay. So because it's 55 ft now, she would be able to do how big? Um, I don't know what Sorry, I got I got my notes on for you.

Did I say what it was? I just I wrote down 455, but 7.7 481.25.

That's what I get, too. Okay. All right. So, so we're talking now because it's a it's considered to be a 55 foot lot with that she could build a maximum of 481 um.25 square ft. Um let's do a quick calculation. that again. 4

481.25 Okay, that would mean that the garage could be uh 21 ft and 11 in square. So, it's about giving about one additional foot to what we were talking about before. Um the practical difficulty by that is that it really gives Jane insufficient indoor storage for for items that um that would typically be used and needed for a for a residence. Um uh things like bicycles and small watercraft um in addition to trying to put two cars into the garage. There's no way for under your the second point of of your rubric, there's no way to accomplish that purpose without a variance since section 1703 would not allow a larger garage even if she went out even if she had a deeper left. She's she's limited by the interpretation that you've made to a um you know to to the size that that that results. uh if granted um excuse me, under your third rubric, uh the need for the variance is um due to the situation of of Jean's property, um she is she's got a 55 foot watt. She's got a lot of depth, but the way that you've interpreted the ordinance,

she's not going to be able to build anything bigger than than um than than that number. um and she needs more um she needs more area than that. If uh if granted, the variance would uphold the spirit and intent of the ordinance. It'd be fair to the neighboring properties. That's your fourth point. Um and um I would point out that there are only two other garages that uh that access the same alley. And those other two garages, one of them um is at 714 State Street uh and it is um 1,00 square ft. The other one is at 623 Harvey uh and that is 750 ft. So there in terms of the use being made of other garages on that same lot in that same alley that really that's not that's not going to harm the spirit and antenna of the ordinance. Um and the need for the um variance wasn't created through Jane's previous action. The existing onecar garage preceded her ownership. Um, and she's attempting to use her uh property uh consistent with the topography and the architectural site arrangements of the lot that she had no part in creating. You have any questions? I'd be happy to try to answer them.

I would like to make a comment too in you made the sort of saying, "Oh, well, I'd like to have a bigger garage, too." Yeah.

Uh the east wall of this garage is rotting now. And it is not even straight up and down. This is an I'm not sure exactly how old this garage is, but I know there was a barn on the exact same spot starting about 1903, which is when the house was built. Um, and I know that that owner bought his first his first car and and then he had uh two horses for a carriage before he was a a minister who had to go around to five counties and set up Sunday schools. And so he put a lot of miles on it. And he uh bought a car though in I think it was 1934. I know this because uh I corresponded with his grandson who wrote a book about him.

And so uh uh and anyway, I have a photo that where he was uh it showed the barn in the winter and it's exactly the spot that the uh where the garage is. So, it's very old and so and it needs it needs to be either I put a whole bunch of money into it shoring it up. And I thought, well, if I could, I could, you know, add eight more feet and then have room for two cars and also have, you know, and I I want I feel very responsible for this lot and this home. Uh, I've, you know, when I have had made improvements, I made sure that the windows, although they were updated, they were the same size and shape and, uh, you know, type of of thing that was done before, I've I've really tried to honor what has what was originally. You know, it's a very historical building. And uh so what I was trying to do is to repair the garage and but I could see the the need for a little more space just going one way. the the the you know, you kind of have to get the uh the the the contractor had a uh uh sort of like, you know, let me choose from a whole bunch of things, but it's just a little bit more, you know, coming forward. It's it's like I said, 8 ft one way and then I think two feet coming forward. That's the only difference. But it would make a huge difference uh in the total appearance and the in in the you know the value of the whole uh thing if it was you know just the the onecar garage. You know some people would just

say no that's not going to work for me. So that's all I was trying to do. But clearly there is no reason to remove the the walls that are holding up. You know, it it's you know, it's really it's quite a bit uh of a downhill going from from the Lee's and the hunter's home or properties on on our east going down to that alley. So to me that it would be foolish to remove that. And I would like to add something too. Jane is a great steward to this home. You state your name and address.

Oh, sorry. My name is Tadu 721 Grove. Thank you. Jane has been a great steward to this home and this neighborhood and she deserves a twocar garage and be able to put her garbage can inside the garage. Thank you.

Yes, it got blown away when I came back from a a little vacation. I don't know who found it and stuffed it under one of my uh uh um lawn furniture. Uh so, yes, I I do need some space. Um I have a question about the setbacks. Um, I know you said there's the retaining walls and those are the ones you said are indicated here on the site plan on the east side, but um, is it I mean, since you're rebuilding and you're expanding that foundation, can't it just all move over a couple feet to um, meet the current setbacks

and you'd still be able to leave those retaining walls? Well, I don't the retaining walls are going to if you leave the retaining walls there. I don't know how you would because it's it's if there's a wall and then, as he mentioned, they when they uh before they poured the the new flooring in the garage,

which I'd hoped to keep, you know, I was just going to add on to it that last eight in eight feet. But uh they dug on all the way down to the bottom of this foundation. I'm I'm obviously it goes below the ground. They dug all the way down there and p and it was you know quite wide and they dug it out poured in concrete put in rewide re rer rod and had that connect with the thing. I don't think that I don't know how you would get all that out. I mean you would have to take away a good part of the probably about 10 feet in altogether from the from and I'd be I don't

so you couldn't just start the building you know a couple feet over from where the existing one is has to have right to have a foundation to have the footings that's why I didn't know since you're adding on I mean if that's something that could be factored into the addition it wouldn't make any difference for the clearance for the alley if the if that from the existing but I was talking about to bring it into compliance if we had the opportunity well the building what you mean just to take out all that retaining wall and

well it's hard for me to visualize the retaining walls because we don't have photos but um looking at just looking at the site plan and the size of the proposed and where the um setback acts where they they should be by today's zoning. Um, you know, it's like and you're adding on, you know, more a new concrete pad, you know, on to the south and to the east. Anyway, is it possible to start the building a couple feet over? I don't believe that that would be sufficient. We it would have to be all that concrete would have to be torn out because that has to have foundation wall too under it and it's quite high, you know. It's it's about four Yeah, it's about 4 foot high.

I don't know if this is a ZBA question or not. Have you checked with EMTT County that that foundation if the variance was approved? Okay. Yeah. It's would they approve that foundation? Uh I don't know if that's a requirement, but I'm no one has I mean the contractor has looked at it. Uh

I just appreciate that. I'm just Emtt County because if they we did issue this and then Emtt County comes in and says that's not an acceptable foundation. You have to bring it, you know, you have to put it. I don't know. I'm not builder. I'm not looking at it. I'm just wondering if maybe even looked into that a little bit. Yeah, I would to address that same question on the um legacy home plans on the garage drawings. They're not showing the retaining wall. You are actually building using the retaining wall and the footings of the of that retaining wall and building on top of that retaining wall. I can't

The current garage is that way, right? But it on the on the elevations I'm not seeing any retaining wall and and it's an observation. I just I get is the front elevation faces the house. Right? So you're coming in from the alley and you're driving straight through. So the left elevation and the rear elevation would have that retaining would have the you're building on top of that retaining wall is what I hear, but I'm not seeing reflected in these drawings.

Reason for that is that I believe that uh that the builder just uses stock. He just used his stock um plan, right? because he wasn't we're just looking at the at the at the setback issue. We aren't looking for the okay for the construction code compliance here. So he just he just gave you his his stock plans, but so and but I'm sorry

because when I look at both of these both the um survey and your adapt or your I'm I'm I can't figure out what's the retaining law is that there's but there's something here and then there's something here. Okay. So the the retaining wall is what is this? That is uh the setback right now. So So this here's the retaining wall. This wall. Yes. This wall actually starts at the corner of the lot,

goes all the way back and actually goes a a few feet beyond where that little line right there. Yes. beyond where the garage is. So, it already extends all the way out fully here. Okay. It's supporting the the driveway as well as the concrete pad. Okay. So, the second foundation shown of the existing garage is not currently on the retaining wall or is considered to be part of the retaining wall. It's it's kind of it's it would be I'm Jonathan Lee, the neighbor to the to the to the east and I'm 715 Grove Street, blah blah blah.

Um, so up the hill, we're the we're the side up the hill directly right there and the distance between that corner that you're talking about. So the thing the thing you're talking about is this corner right here and I'm I'm right here on this property. This this space from here level of ground. I drink too much coffee. That's why I shake

is 10 feet of fall at a minimum from here. If I do the calculations and the numbers I just did them. Um, and so the the the real key problem that we're going to have here if you move the building. Oh, I get the problems. I just didn't I couldn't see I couldn't interpret the drawings.

You know, she she you know, I've sat with her and I said, "Hey, what if I'm going to be devil's advocate in her in her living room with her and I'm going to say, why can't you just move the building here?" And I and I'm saying I'm saying to her this is why you can't because what happens is this is this was created of some sort of barnyard a long time ago. I'm not telling you when or when but there's a there's a retaining wall here that separates you from the building from the north, right? And there's a trough in there. So once we start disturbing that, we're going to have a cascading effect from 616 effect here. And this this is a real steep slope that's going to wash right down into here. And anything you do here, if we disturb like make it we have to be very careful and do it as least as possible. Okay. So the the point being is this wall is really key to supporting. It's kind of like the keystone in an arch. When you're going to pull that out, then the keystone kind of like, oh crap, now where we're going to support the arch because this is just it's literally sloping steeply downhill right to that corner. Right? So now if we disturb that, so let's just talk about the corner of the building. So if we disturb that then then in other words to answer your question let's just move it over two feet then we got it it's no problem which which I would totally say you know less less headache let's go around let's not do a variance right well I I'm suggesting to Jane I don't we don't really want to disturb that you really don't unless you you want to you you want to have a cascading effect and she's coming over here, let's

say, right to this crease line. And so what allows you to do that is less impact to this hillside condition which is already retained and all of that will have to be redone. So that's really the hardship. It's really becoming an unraveling of this retaining wall. This retain this this isn't retained behind this building um on Gary's property and it's eroding underneath it. Mhm.

So we have So this is the only thing holding him back literally. And then on Gary's northern land, there's a there's another painting wall that is significantly taller that is to the north of him. It's like probably six feet taller, 8 feet tall.

And so this whole corner was built up from the lots on Lake Street. that that that whole corner where the engineer used to live and where he built his garage on a retaining wall back there on that would be on the corner of Lake and Lockwood that that garage there creates a retaining wall for 16 616. So there's this sort of jumble of retaining walls that have evolved over a hundred years literally. And I'm not making it up just to scare everybody. I'm just I'm trying to paint the picture so that you see what

we get to live with. today like I've created we on our property we created a retaining wall here three feet three that created the corner here at the three you know another retaining wall basically because we had no yard it washed into her yard and everything all our water basically dumped into their their property so when you move this keystone water I worry that that what's going to happen is erosion will happen here. I I'm I may be painting. I'm not trying to paint a bad picture, but what happens in my retaining wall is is the soil erodess it underneath and I have to continue hope that her soil doesn't go any farther away. But it does. Over 25 years, I've I've lost um 6 in of elevation in in the in in the in the retaining wall. it's it's gone downhill and it wasn't an insignificant retaining wall that we built. So that's the that's the that's the sort of you know the sand in this in in the hourglass that that this little point as weird as it is I feel strongly that she's doing the right thing by just leaving that corner alone.

I think Dr. Jessica was saying is can they leave the retaining wall but move the building in moving the building wall just to start our end. Yeah. But the trough Yeah. So the problem is is to creating a trough and that's where water would love to live

and that's what happens and that points out the condition that happens in my retaining wall. I don't have a building on it because it's it's at the edge of the property because you can't build a building on it. So what happens is is it undermines it and undermines it over 27 years and and it's not a lot. I can live with it and but I will have to lift it and then re put dirt and stone back into it. And so that's the condition that I'm just saying can be avoided if we leave that corner alone. Just ju just just that sweet corner right there is what is is if if you could build the building on top of that retaining wall. What it does is it ultimately protects that retaining wall from now till as it has been for a hundred years. It it it it keeps the water out of the the the the area behind that retaining wall. So that pneumatic pressure, which means water, ice, freezing, thawing, freezing, thawing, doesn't allow it to explode. And that's what that's what has stabilized that for so long is the fact that the roof has been there. That's what I would that's why I strongly from my professional point is that whether you're going to have a retaining wall there or a garage there, it doesn't really matter. What really matters is to secure that corner.

Okay. That that doesn't allow. As you know, we have lots of ice, lots of water. It's climate we live in. I don't if it rains, there's sand on all the sidewalks. I mean, it's just, you know, right. So they So I'm just I'm as as from a professional, as an architect, I would like to protect that corner I as a as an allowance to to to um basically support the rest of us uphill from from the condition that I'm not saying that it'll erode down into your yard, but eventually he's to talk because I'm the next one. Yeah.

So that that corner is and I'm kitty corner on on Harvey Street, but mine is the part where I park is on the alley. So Linda, just real quick. Oh, I'm sorry, Lind. Yeah, you know, you know me. I do. Your address, please. Linda Linda Guthrie, 611 Harvey. Thank you.

Okay. So, um, so I've been there for 50 years and my original parking spot was a carriage house and I've discovered horseshoes and nails and everything. So, there was a a stone wall and that's the stone wall that's on the one side up on Grove Street. The other stone wall is down on State Street. And those have been there for hundreds of years and that's why they're close.

They were predated to bures. So, um, every time it rains, the water comes down the hill and with sand with it. And, um, the the city came in and paved the alley and put a lift on it so that it runs down to State Street and into the sewer system. So, before they did that, it would run all down into life. And it happen the same thing happens on Harvey Street downhill from Grow my neighbors. It comes down the sidewalk into my yard.

So I've had to put plants and stuff and stuff to slow things down. So um but yeah, so if if that retaining wall Yeah. that's going to affect me. Okay. The retaining wall is functional now. Correct. It needs to stay. Yeah, it needs to stay It's functional. And I would add on to it that it has the wall on top of it protecting it. Protecting it. I mean, whether there's a whether there would be a garage there or not, if it were a house there, you wouldn't move it either because even if it was non-conforming, because of that, because of protecting that corner, it's so crucial.

Yeah. And the the other thing is the the stone wall that was the carriage house. I replaced that in 1980 and it was um uh Bryce Dennis came in and built the big retaining wall with a big cement blocks and and put a a a cement pad there to park on, not just dirt. So, but that has been there since 1980. Right. So, that's Yeah.

Okay. uh question. You had a you were doing some calculations that uh I guess it was the maximum permissible size. Um well I mentioned 21 ft 11 in remember yeah and I just did the square root of 4 481.25 25 is two 21.937 and that's approximately is that the um

20 essentially 22 feet close to 22 ft rather than 25 by 25. Correct. Is that acceptable? Is that could you live with that? I'm just asking the 22 by 22 instead of 2 using that same corner building on that corner

the the the 22 from you know taking off from the front of the garage. I would say yes. But as far as using the plans that that this contractor have cuz this is, you know, this, you know, it's dependent, you know, on the width. Uh, so, you know, that would be all different trusses and all that sort of thing. So, I I don't know about that. It could be made a little shorter where your garage doors are 16 feet together. Yeah. Haven't looked at that for a while. And as you said, this is just a stock plan,

right? So it changes your clearances on the sides of the garage. It changes the workspaces, storage space behind.

So yeah. So this is Yeah, that's what I just said. I could do I don't Well, it's right now it's more than 20 foot deep. I think it's 20 and a half, but it's um but certainly it doesn't need to be any deeper than what it is right now. I think I could live with your existing garage. Pardon? doesn't need to be any deeper than your existing garage. You believe it has to be wider. It would. Yeah.

So, are there any questions board members have people? Shall we discuss this then? To close the public hearing or we're going to close the public hearing. Thank you very much.

Take it back to the board to discuss and make some determinations. Anyone have a thought to share? I I can start because I really do want I understand that he wants a bigger garage. There's nothing in our zoning ordinance which entitles anybody to a garage or a bigger garage. Some people don't have any garage. Um, so we're being asked to, and this is where I struggle, despite the fact I think it would be lovely to have a bigger grass, to increase the nonconformity of a non-conforming uh structure by making it wider, by um extending the uh the coverage and um and the and the uh the lot the side yard and the rear yard and that's my struggling point. So I don't know if anyone else has that. Um I know that the case you citled cited with um the former garage that was done that was reconstructing on the site. So Jane, you said that you're you have a wall that's rotting, right? If you came and you said, "I want to rebuild the garage and I've been told that I have to have a variance." That would directly apply and correlate with this past case. But you're asking for increased um nonconformity, which is slightly different.

That's what I have a problem with, too. It would be I understand the the logic is the the desire to have a more comfortable accessory. We have these guidelines, these restrictions uh that we must comply with in assessing whether a variance should be granted. U we know you didn't create the existing uh structure. Uh

but beyond moving uh the the nonconforming permitted use to further expand the nonconformity if a variance were to be granted. Um that's a problem that uh my training on these things indicates we have to proceed very cautiously uh because there's fidelity to the zoning ordinance that only in frankly rare and compelling cases. Um would a variance be appropriate? And maybe folks have u the board have different feelings of th this is such a compelling case of expanding the the size of a garage in order to accommodate the u I think it calculated that you could squeeze two cars in there but even if you couldn't u the idea of I want a bigger garage to Well, they're whether they're watercraft or toys or bicycles or what that of course is a compelling reason for the granting of a variance. Uh it's like the wooden granarian because the homeowner wants to put up a fence so his dog has more room to run around. You have you do have unique topography.

rebuilding is a viable thing on your existing foundation and utilizing some u I don't know if they're mobile storage units uh to place elsewhere on the property

is uh just something that comes to mind at a practical level have new build. This is your existing garage. Um to preserve to preserve and make use of it. It wouldn't give you the additional space that obviously you're seeking here. But um I am uh I'm struggling with the what are what is the uh actual practical difficulty that you're that you're experiencing that compels the variance. uh having that bigger garage would be very functional. I I acknowledge that. But that's just my initial thoughts.

Is that one of our questions though? Yeah. When we But there's like four or five or six other questions that we have. Well, we you know, we've got the hardship. She didn't create it. It's not going to It's in the spirit of the neighborhood and it's So what what I'm hearing is don't build a bigger garage. Everything else you can pass, but don't build. Well, she can build a bigger garage, but it's not going to be as big as she's asking. She can build up to 481

feet, which is bigger. what's there by 20 with the variance with the var with the side yard. Yeah, we would you'd have to we'd have to do all the other variances

is a hindrance and and something that you know I think may does require the variance is to build you know keep those setbacks due to as you explained the retaining walls that to me that that is you know something that you know we have to look at respecting that but as far as like you brought up this the square footage or the lot the size for the building. Um that I don't know if that's necessarily justifiable. I know I have maybe 400 square foot twocar garage. I feel lucky to have a twocar garage in the city, but um and yeah, what I would I mean and you you know your plan you have the limited attic space which gives you storage which is really good planning that you would still be able to have that even if you didn't have a full size garage. But I I know it's it's not easy to have a small double garage. We buy cars with what will actually fit in the garage in mind.

Um it's just part of living in town. So it seems as though we're talking about the size, which is really the the third part of the question is the lot coverage,

right? can talk about all three basically, but I think they retain walls that kind of has to be on these retaining walls because otherwise it's also going to affect neighboring properties. So to me, the more debatable part is is the is it justifiable to allow this much more size? I I guess I'd have to say to me the the root question is What justifies expanding a non-combonding structure and creating further non-compliance and I think that you have to for me despite you know sympathy and understanding I can't answer that question maybe somebody can but We if we reduce it, if it's reduced in size to bring it in,

it eliminates the rear yard variance. I know doesn't eliminate because just our zoning ordinances I mean it says a nonconformant structure no such structure may be enlarged altered in a way which increases its nonconformity. Right. Yeah. You know, I because I think you got with what you talk about the foundation in the corner and holding everything back there. I agree. You've got a you know, you got a practical difficulty that you need for the neighborhood. You know, those foundations shouldn't come out of there. Definitely can see that portion of it where I start to have it as a non-conforming structure. That's

we keep running into this square footage. We keep running into this lot coverage, this square footage, and we've got a large yard and we still can't need this the lot coverage, but she would still be able to go. I mean, the existing one is at 360 square ft and um you said, you know, with the 48125 is what she's allowed. So, she can still

build larger. And if there's a way to because currently I believe the I guess it's only a couple of inches that it decrease or decreases that rear yard set back to the north. Um if the rear yard set back that's existing could be maintained and not reduced. We have a six inch. No, it would be less. It would be more than that. The variance would be excuse me six feet. Why isn't that being reduced? Just two and 3/4 in. It's the angle of the existing wall guessing as you follow it out. Okay. But it increases it because then as it follows that wall, it's pushing it out of that set.

Okay. It's not It's a couple inches, but it's exactly square, but it is. So, it's reducing it from 2 feet 8 and 3/4 in to 26 in. So it still needs a barrier, but it's just int within the existing setback

2 ft 8 and 3/4 in those area variance would not be required because it's maintaining the existing setback. It's because that wall goes in closer to the property line that it reduces that set back. That's where the nonconformity or that's where the in increase in the non-conformity comes from. So if they can maintain the existing setback along the property line where it currently is the rear of the garage and not go over it's existing but I don't know how that happens with that wall that retaining wall and how that affects that. Well and is that a graphic error or is that a true um is that truly said there? That's

if you turn that now you're taking the valley side and you're moving it farther. It's a red pencil. So is that is that an angle that's made by the red pencil or is it just somebody didn't draw it correctly? Well, I mean this book was submitted so that's what I have to go off of. So yeah, I can't say for certain, right? We will they have to come back and see there there's another line there and another line there. So it's they have to read if they needed a different variance. Yes. If it if it was outside of Yeah. So reducing the size if they um yeah if they reduce the size because you need to know what that square footage is. I mean unless unless the um

allowance is to allow what the maximum allow 25% area that's there's no variance for exercise. They wouldn't have to they would just have to visual information. What are the setbacks? Yes, that back would be um we're still Can can I just say one thing about a a little information about that back wall since you're talking about it the north

and then I won't say anything else. I just want know any that there is a retaining wall in there because I've gone back in there with my dog and it's and it's it's aligned back there with that with that rock. I'm saying they're connected. That that retaining wall that you see here on this corner, this corner, this and this are connected as if they're holding back the earth from this. Yeah. And that's so that's all I that's the information. So, right. So, so what?

So, part of this variance is the set the setbacks on the building on the lot size perimeter. Yes. And if we accept the if we accept the retaining walls, that's part of the request for the variance that the retaining walls are nonconforming to begin with, right? The structure itself has to be conforming. So, and he in what Jonathan's saying, if I'm understanding correctly, is he's saying that the building needs to be on the retaining wall to preserve its integrity. Right? If that's a however they're looking to add on to that retaining walls separate that's but that's where the increase and the non-conformity. I get that. So

I get that. I'm trying to break it down so that we're saying that the retaining walls can remain and it's really the east and the south walls that are creating the nonconformity because of the square footage. Well, it would actually be the north because that encroaches on that north property setback because that wall when it gets extended out to the east, it's now going out further into that setback and reducing that setback. Wait, but that's that blue that's that line that right? That's the wall. But to add the structure to the wall, you're now making the structure non-conforming.

So, if there's a way to keep it inside and not change it, I don't know if that's possible. if the survey has been done because I'm looking at a pencil line, right? And so there was a survey done but on this the even and on this I can't it doesn't it doesn't and I don't mean to that's all right it doesn't mean it's all right there there is this these couple lines here he didn't give an exact on it because it's a mess right

to be there's like there's like there's like fencing stuck in there. If if all I'm saying is when when you this this wall and this wall are are joined at the hip. They're not show this drawing does not show this wall exactly. Okay. So then the next thing is what is the width of the existing garage? It's I think it's 18 ft at most 16th. I know that should be on scale. 360= 10 ft scale.

Wait 110. Yeah. 8 n ft wide. Yeah. So this is to read this. This is 17 feet to here. 16, excuse me, 16 feet to here. 16 feet. So that's 16 ft. Okay. How did I measure and how deep it is? 20. Okay. So again, it's not square, right? So to be at the based on this, we're not seeing. Yeah.

His he's pretty good with his survey. So when he gets to that um 22 and 1/2 ft, I'll say I I don't have inches on here. And 20 Okay, it's 22 and 1/2 ft. Yeah, it's exactly. It's square, but it's cockeyed in there. In other words, it's closer here than it is here by probably not sitting on this lot line into this lot. Okay. So, we have a 16 by 22 and a half and a half. 226.

Yeah. So, and you you were saying your number came in his number came in at 226. So, she's saying if you did eight feet that way, that's beautiful. I shouldn't draw anymore. See, that's the thing. If it was on if it was on this setback, don't have to worry about a rear setback. Correct. If we knew that foundation if we knew that foundation that you're going to build on was on that rear setback line, you don't need a variance for that. Yeah, it's it is kind of a mess because obviously when these were originally built and they're right

a long time ago, they didn't have lasers that could, you know, do it as exactly as possible. 16 garage just to the north of me. That garage sits on my property. It's way for the property line. So all over town, and it's not a problem for any of us. I was like, "Yeah, okay. We're not going to change that. I'm just trying to eliminate all the variances they got here. If you if you can get another one in the works, it's okay. We don't need to be here." But if you could and then the other part, again, I don't know if that's the ZBA, but wouldn't the county let you build on that retaining? That's not I guess that's not our business. It's not our business. So,

for review, good question. You know, could that be something that you'd have to face? for some reason it was deemed not structural to build on, would they then have to come back because then we might say, "Well, if you can't build on it, we want you to be within." Yeah. So, that would be something that you could put as a condition if you were to allow it and then it comes back that the county says they can't and they have to replace it and then I got my That's correct. Laura, correct me if I'm wrong. Did she hear that? That's right. That would be good. Yeah, that would be good to have some clothes on. Reduce the size of the garage so eliminates.

Yeah. Then we get rid of that variance and then and build on the property line on the back line. Build on the only variance then you would have would be this one along the alley. Yeah. If there's a way to and I don't know once you straighten one wall your other feasible or not. So to build a structure that's not I think that the the what we're looking at is a square structure drawn. It's not placed on the property line square

and that's still there. We can we allow for human air

is there a percentage of human air that exists in this world? I mean I've built a lot of buildings and you know you can be off by three inches and in 10 feet long that becomes a lot bigger. So, you know, we don't know if that if it's 2 in, 1 in, or 6 in in terms of how unsquare it is on the lot line. And we're arguing over, we could be arguing over an inch and a half. We could be arguing over 6 in. We don't have all that precise of dimensions on a plat and you would probably never get that off of a survey engineer. So I think to me it seems that if they they if we have to keep and they have to build on the retaining wall, we if we accept that premise that they have to build on the retaining wall,

then we go back to the percentage of the size of the building. Well, but then you're also building and taking a non non-conforming structure and changing it's existing. It's historic, but they're removing it. They're not removing the retaining wall. No, building the structure. They're not moving the the the um Right. But the structure itself is what we're talking about. So, building the structure to they're removing it and then rebuilding it. And they want to rebuild it where it was and add on to it, right? Which is creating is would be increasing the nonconformity that's existing currently. But once they're according to the ordinance, once the building's removed,

it has to meet the requirements. So if they're removing it, it has to meet the requirements per the ordinance. You have to meet the setback requirements and the and the coverage. Yes. Correct. They're here. The 3 ft which is not met by the current location and that's what the variance requests are for. Correct. but

doesn't sound like it actually could physic the physics of it. If you remove the garage, you must comply with the uh existing uh zoning requirements on the setbacks. And if it moved it off of the retaining wall, this is we got a disaster. Right. Yeah. Right. So, what are the options? I just uh

I continue to think that um it's original point um of Let's uh go down further the road of nonconformance uh non-compliance of uh personally I don't think that that is the wise thing for us to do expand a nonconforming use to be a bigger nonconforming use and So, you know, for that reason, that would be why I was not approved to report.

But are you basic I'm sorry. Go ahead. It it's are we back to this required rear yard? Or are we just talking about seems to me there's two different issues. there's the setback and we're being asked to approve a variance of the setbacks because of the retaining wall which has all of those reasons behind it which makes sense to keep the retaining walls and build on those retaining walls. The other question is the gross square the square footage of the building

right and that's based on the re that required rear yard which there's two variants to the definition we agreed to and then there's a variance that could be applied if over that over that definition. Yes. So there's are we breaking can we break this into two different can lead vote or the setbacks but not the size two separate motions. Yeah. So it' have to be two separate motions or Yes.

And in the second motion which is the size is there a way to um put a qualifier that it could if the garage is reduced in size that it she can come back or isn't didn't we talk about that that there's a way we can delay the decision on the second variance and give a give an applicant an opportunity to come back to us with reduction in size? Well, sure.

Yeah, you could invite the applicant to modify their request if you like and have that, you know, considered and adjourn this without further special hearing because it wouldn't increase the impact on anybody. But if she reduces, she'd have to build it to the same size that it exists now, non-conforming to begin with. So there's no way she can rebuild that garage or she she could just not to be conforming. Yeah. Like the other variants that he showed they they rebuilt the garage on the same footing on the same foundation. This is the case that we have here.

That's the case that was presented. That was the same. But we still have to do the we could do the two different motions or two different meanings whichever they prefer. I guess

put in I I think that the two different motions make sense. I mean vote first on whether we can do the can and have the setback area so that she can the issue there is can she build the new garage on the existing retaining walls. That's the issue there. And then the second motion would be and um would would you approve an increase above the um 481.2 25 square feet that's allowed by by your rear the rear yard.

So there you're saying anything over 60, right? Yeah. I I guess I if you can build it on the retaining wall then then the 480 is allowed. That's what I thought. But then I thought you had anything over the existing non-conforming because of where it's located. No, what I was saying is the expansion of it increases the non-conformity for the rear yard setback. So it reduces that rear setback. So that's where the increase in non-conformity comes into play. Okay.

If there's a way to to orient the the building where it's not encroaching in that setback more than it already is, then that would be compliant. But any yeah they could go up to the 481.25 square feet is what would be allowed at as long as they maintain the setback that unless you grant a variance for the rear yard setback to be built on the existing retaining well which would increase or decrease the setback. So you'd give a variance of whatever that is and then that would then

so that section we approve be built on the existing retaining wall then we can go to a larger square footage. No the square footage is based off of the than the 380 existing garage. No no it's it 481.25 25. So it would allow him to go up for a lot, right? Well, the existing garage is 360 square ft. So if we're basing it on this case study, she can only build a 360 square foot. But if you're basing it on that, but yeah, if you're doing a complete We're not basing it, but that's not bas.

Yeah. Yeah. So no, they can go up to the 481.25. That would not require a variance. That would be allowed based on your interpretation. It's built on the on the existing retaining walls. If the variances are granted, then staff could yes process the application in the subject varian. So that then if if they didn't find 480 ft sufficient, they could come back here and ask for a variance for a larger building. Correct. Which would be an increase in nonconformity. Either way, it's an increase. Yeah. Either way, it's an increase because we're not eliminating the setback. We have to give No, we we are eliminating the we are giving a variance on the setback.

She's saying it would increase the non-conformity in the sense that if they if a variance were granted for more than 481.25 square the first one is saying if you were granting I'm not saying that this is that this is the motion. We're granting the variance to reuse the existing retaining walls which would and by taking away that setback requirement or by allowing that as a setback then they can go up to 480 1.25 1 2.5 square ft and and that's what we're granting and then if that isn't sufficient they would come back for a second variance but that doesn't change the retaining variance.

Yes. Yeah. Okay.

Um, so does the board wish to do this on two different motions? What's the reason? That was a little muffled, but yes, you should do two different motions. Okay. The first one being the addressing the variance issue. Should we go through the checklist? They're both variances. So, it's the

um you're going to be the reader or shall I?

No, you go ahead and find the Whoa. I don't know if I'm loose. All right. Um so final decision at the committee zoning board of appeals for an appeal by right of this decision to be timely it must be made to the 57th circuit court in EMTT County if the property is located within 30 days of the order. Case number 880, hearing date, January 6th, Jane Schneider, 713 Grove Street. Phone number 5173036H28. Type of request to the ZBA is non-use settings.

Nonus variance. Okay, just so you know, on the last um page of your agenda memo, there is the list of things. Yeah, I mean it's it's not the form that it used to be listed there. It's on the um sorry it's on I know I kept looking for that you can that little grid which I know I can still give you that future reference if you thought Yeah, I I uh that's the finding of facts, right?

Yes. six criterian. Though the need for the variance is due to unique circumstances or physical conditions of the property involved such as exceptional narrowness, shallowess, shape of the area, exceptional topography conditions or other extraordinary exceptional conditions of the specific piece of property and is not shared by neighboring properties. Well, we would scratch the exceptional narrowness, shadow, shape and area and keep exceptional topography conditions or other extraordinary.

Yeah, I would say yes. And it is although it is affected and does affect the neighborhood properties. It is shared by neighboring properties also. It is shared. Yeah. So, how does that temper that statement? Then we're rewriting it, right? No, it's just you would say help us make our decision to make sure that our decision fits within the requirements due to something unique. Yeah. Which is not and physical condition. Yes. Of the property. The retaining wall is unique

and is not shared by handling properties but the topography is shared by neighboring grounds as Jonathan pointed out. So um so that the the exceptional topography affects neighboring properties. Yeah, that's true. Also affects the safety of the neighboring affects the safety of the neighborhood unique circumstances and physical conditions. I would say that this is a yes. Yeah. Yes, that's a yes. doesn't qualifies.

You need to have um that. Is that enough elaboration? Okay. The request is not due to the applicant's personal or economic situation. Correct. Correct. The practical difficulty was not created by an act action of the applicant. Correct. Correct. The request requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to grant substantial relief to the applicant while at the same time minimizing any adverse impacts to other property owners in general and the neighborhood in general for the zoning district. I say yes.

I'd say yes. It can't be moved. The request, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or substantially impair the intent and purpose of the ordinance. Yes. The strict application of the regulations would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties. Yes. Yes. I'm not sure. What was that one again? Number six. Well, we talked about The regulations would result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties.

On the retaining to not build on the retaining walls and to build inside the retaining walls would create an um peculiar and acceptable practical difficulties because of water run off create like a cross.

Yeah. The water's just going to go back go right around it and then get stuck at the retaining wall. Um, so we need to have a motion. The board states that the findings of fact upon which it justifies the granting of a variance may place and attach any conditions regarding the location to character and features of list. Further the purposes of the ordinance that well this is the um this is we just went through through this only on the

only on this is for the setbacks. Right. So, so this is allowing we're granting the variance granting the variance for the sideyard setback. Correct. And a rear rear yard setback. But there is a condition on the rear yard setback. No, that's a separate one on the rear separate getting confusing. There's a rear setback and then a rear yard setback. Okay. So, this is for the rear set setback. All right. What we need to put on there must be must build upon the existing retaining wall. That's the condition. That's the condition.

Right. That's what I was saying. Align with Can I say one thing? Align with the existing retaining wall. Yeah. Meaning the addition meaning you want it to align directly above so that you know not this way or not that way. Right. So it can't overhang directly perpendicular. Yeah. That is that the appropriate

we are talking about the the size of the structure. Am I correct? Not yet. We're just whether the side the back lot the rear and the side. I don't like that word line. Whether I I want to take the word align out. Well, but see that's just me putting my And why is that? Well, because you wouldn't want the the current, you know, a new structure to be perpendicular,

we want it to overhang that. So, we shouldn't have that judgment. We're just saying that the use of the retaining wall for as a foundation for the garage for the new the new building. We're approving the retaining wall. Okay. Where we're the retaining wall as it as it affects the setbacks. We're not talking about how the garage is going to be built. Yeah. We can't talk about that. That's not

the the idea of having the superructure, the building setting even even further off of the retaining wall itself so that water won't penetrate directly into the retaining wall if it was directly on top. uh the builders and the physics and the hydraologist uh know this kind of stuff I think better than certainly I do.

Well, that's why I didn't like the word align. But uh you know uh superructure sits right on the retaining wall does not protrude uh further in a nonconforming direction. And if there's a need to seal the the seam, I'm sure they'll figure out a way. But I sure as heck don't think that well let's we'll put our superructure on the retaining wall and it needs to overhang uh you know two three inches more in a nonconformity direction

flashing there's also on the building but we're not going to get into that it's um so so what so I think we have to take away any language that suggests that we are telling them how to build on this retaining wall. We are merely approving this the change of setback. Yeah, we're approving the setback, but we do need to have the retaining wall is deemed unstructural that they need to reapply for a variance if they still want the the size thing is the Yeah. I mean, aren't we sending the precise u feet in inches?

No, because we we aren't out there with a zoning with a whatever that machine is. So, we're approving the the transit amounts. Yeah. So as long as they're within that and they're building on the existing retaining wall pending that it is structural. So should a condition be that the structure is built on the existing retaining wall provided it is sound? Yeah, I think that sounds good. And it must or it must be sound or it must be I mean is that what you do we put that zoning but do we put that into the zoning uh a variance?

Well we can apply conditions and this is one of the conditions. Yeah I think I think it's important because then if it's not structural it has to come out we don't want them to still build out of conformity if it can then be put in. Right. The whole point is to get them in conformity and build the appropriate size so that they don't have to come back here. Yeah. Even though it's fun. Yes. We're all having such a good time. Cocktails at 9:30. Okay. So it has to be structurally

sound and built on the existing retaining wall to the requested side and rear yard setbacks. Did you get that Lisa? You guys have a form. I hope figured you were going to make us do that. So the condition is structurally sound. setback setback variances are approved. You should be specific as to what they are. So the requested amount is 15 and 3/4 sideyard and 30 inch rear.

So the well the v well so the variance so sideyard setback variance of 1t 8 and 1/4 in. Yeah. You say 1 1 foot 8 and 1/4 in sideyard. That's the sideyard setback variance for a So basically that's the variance that's the difference between what's well it's existing what's existing what's allowed and then the rear yard setback variance of six inches. Right. So this is what we're approving because this is for the setbacks. This is what Yeah. This is what the motion is is kind of being drafted up to be condition on uh structural

to allow foundation to allow for the new structure to be built on the existing retaining wall. Does that cover it with the under with the condition that that wall is structural and yeah and you can say that and then you can say with the following condition or conditions if you have with the following conditions. So we have that separate from that the sideyard setback we improve the your rear yard setback with the following condition or conditions. Sorry. Or this or we're not but this does not

qualify the structural integrity of the retaining wall this variance. We're not saying anything about the structural integrity of this. It's not then they need to go to we shouldn't put in the our language that we should put in our language that this does not constitute any approval of the structural integrity of that of that we're taking your program that's what I that's what I'm saying is saying it has to be structurally sound we don't even need

saying if it turns out it's Not. But that's not we wouldn't even know that. But exactly. But if that happens, we want them to come back. Otherwise, they'll have this variance and they can still build out of conformity because we've passed the variance if we don't add that. Well, they wouldn't get a building permit if they if the building component fines. So, the retaining wall is not structurally. They still want to build. We pour all that out. saying that it has to be built on the existing retaining wall. If we give them this variance, it will be right. So beyond that, it's not

we risk them still building out a conformity and for some reason that has to come up. The retaining wall has to get torn out. They'll still have permission to build in the setback that we approved. I mean, do you want to just say in the location of the existing Does that cover it? Well, I think the question is about whether we should mention the retaining wall. Right. And I'm saying if you want to identify the location of it, whether the retaining wall is there, it would be the location of the existing retaining wall.

Right. Right. But we should still mention if for some reason they cannot build us in that location or on that retaining wall, we want them to be able to come back for a new variance or come back and build in compliance. You understand? Is that clear? Well, I'm I'm sure that if we find there's some weak spots in that wall, you know, uh that those can be repaired and shoring up before we put a wall on top of it.

Oh, that would that would be the hope that this is like right now. Yeah, we've had bad experience before with people saying things something in the but we're not clear enough and we roll. So that's why we're just dotting eyes and crossing te. I think it's very likely that the same thing that happened um before when the new pad was put in is going to happen again, which is they'll come in and they'll pour a lot of concrete behind that pad behind the um behind the retaining wall and put rebar in to make sure that it's going to be it's going to support that garage because we can't build a garage on on a retaining wall that doesn't have that.

Exactly. That's what we're saying. If for some reason you have to articulate well so the setbacks are based on the existing retaining and the location of that approve the setback variance we approve that building location. I'm just saying you know because of our past circumstances if things don't work out as planned we want to make sure that it's not still going to be built in that location. Do we need to specify that? Exactly. So if you do need to bring up the retaining wall because of that think it should be in there. Yeah. At the location. There you go. That makes sense.

It's at the location of the existing right based the setbacks are based on the location of the existing retaining wall. That's all we're talking about is the setbacks. We're not talking about the rest of right. But I'm talking about the condition. The condition. Yeah. Variances are approved with this condition that it the building is built. Bill, take it away. At the location of the existing retaining wall. I agree. All right. Good job, Bill. Moving right along. Now we have to do a variance for the So, hold on.

Wait. You got to vote. You got to vote on this one. easy part. Do you want to put something in there with a condition that should the retaining wall be found non Yeah, that was my non structurally not viable. They're not going to be able to build it if it's not viable. They're going to have to propose a different location. I'm not sure you need to go to say if it is going to fall down, they can't build it in a variance. Okay. Okay. So, do we have that whole motion? Can somebody put that together? You got it. I don't have it. Bill, you have it. You were writing. I do.

No, I don't. Do we have to do the finding of facts? We did. You have We're approving the motion is to approve the setbacks of one foot 8.25 in on the sideyard and 6 in on the rear yard setback to for the new building. I'm going to get Max mixed up to the new building to be erected on the location of the existing retaining wall. I think you I think that was I think you the variance and then you say with a condition

with a condition. Okay. Make a motion to approve the setbacks of 1 foot8.25 25 on the sideyard and 6 in on the rear yard with the condition that the new building be erected in the location of the existing retaining wall. I would say plural walls because one this way and one this way, right? Okay. Does that sound good, Laura?

Yes. All right. So, now Lisa, you're going to read it because we're gonna vote. Okay. Okay. So, Susan just Are you rereading his motion or is this your motion? I'm I've lost track of who's I think it's okay. So, that's I don't care. Okay. Okay. So, the approval is for a sideyard setback variance of 1T 8 and 1/4 in, rear yard setback variance of six inches with the condition that the new building be erected at the location of the existing retaining walls. Much better than what I said. Okay. All right. And then roll call. Dine.

Yes. Brown. Yes. Marshall. Yes. Ra. Yes. Shaol. Yes. That was easy.

Okay. So, so now do we need to go through our six questions again regarding the size? Yes,

you have that set of questions. Yeah, you want to read those or do you want me to read them or I have a question about this? This is the varian and we're not approving that variance. That's what we're talking about now. Right. Okay. So, all right. So what is so this is read the questions we need to know what we're talking well because they're requesting 630 ft. So isn't that what we're talking about?

Okay. No, we're deciding whether to approve or not approve their request. Right. That's their request. That's my point. Well, we're not approving that. We're sending But that's what we have to vote because we're sending them back to That's what we've discussed, but we haven't voted on that or done anything. So, we have to do that now. It's getting really late. Yeah. Um and and based based on the the correction that brought us up to 481.25, we would withdraw the request. Okay. Withdraw the request for the original

above. We would Yeah. for the 6:30. We if we can go to 481.5. Yeah. We're not getting sh Are you okay with that, Laura? Yes. We're so okay with that. Do we have to like do any We can just kind of dance our way around that one. You got something? All right. We're not done yet. We're not done yet. I wasn't expecting. We're not done. They're done.

They're done. Thank you all very challenging questions. See what we know. It's really sticky with the It is and that that site is very crucial to our little tiny neighborhood. have lived here. Well, I love the garage next to your house. I mean, we have How did that one pass? Well, the one long time ago

with the with the um twostory garage door was he was granted that if it he could build it on the sanding, but see that's he he had no problems because that's the back of his lot, which is only one foot there uh set back. The side lot is three feet. So yeah, the ordinance says that if if your lot backs up to an alley, then you can build your garage one foot away from the alley. That was height that I have no idea how the height. We have We have other businesses. Sorry. Proud of you. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thanks very much. Thanks guys. Okay. Glad you

Do you guys need me to stay on for the rest of your business or should I sign off and stop my clock? You can stop your clock. Comments and questions. Should be good. Hopefully. All right. Thanks, guys. Have a great night. How' we do? Can we do better on this? Yeah. Very thorough. Yes. Great time. Okay. Board members questions and comments. Anything from anyone? I have I have an update for you. Yeah, that's that was your question. Okay. Um, Kate had asked me if I could give an update on previous variances that have been granted over the last December 2nd. I did speak with the architect and he said they will be coming back and requesting the

one that had the rear people way above were protesting it because it would wreck their view. No, protesting their view. They didn't want to look it down and see. Oh, yes. They didn't want to see it. Correct. Okay. Yes. So, that is the one. So, they will be coming back. What was the address on that one? 706 Winter Park Lane. It's a vacant parcel. Yeah. Um second parcel in on the right, right? Um that's very It's opposite of what we have normal configuration. It's instead of being narrow and deep, it's wide and shallow. Yeah.

Um and then 709 Michigan Street was a variance to lift the house essentially and and the foundation. I have not received any updates on that. I have not received any applications. That is due to expire on February 3rd. Okay. Um, thank you Kate. That was a good idea to do that.

Trying to be responsible. Um, my other comment is given the work that we had to do trying to define this rear yard setback required rear yard. Would we as a board like to send something to the planning commission and ask for clarification and explain how this was so confusing? I mean, I personally think that if they chose to go to court because of this definition, it could we could not be supportive. Well, I think as an if I was an applicant, I would probably have defined it the same way they did. Right. Right.

Yeah. So, I I I don't it seems that the yes, my answer would be yes. So, basically, you can't make any you can't take any action now, right? Because it's not on the agenda for for discussion and that sort of thing. Okay. Um, to answer your question, yes, you can make a recommendation as Laura stated, just like you did with the ordinance language. Um, I will be notifying the planning commission of this as well. So, um, they will be notified of of this request for an interpretation and what that ended up being. Um, and then, you know, certainly if you guys want to, you know, next time we meet, if you want to add that to the agenda as something

Yeah. to discuss um as far as potential changes to that ordinance language that could then be proposed. It would obviously then have to go through planning commission and city. I also have I've told you this um you know when you read that little thing in the zoning thing no building can be altered blah blah blah blah blah you know which uh it has to be brought into conformity and I think you and I have talked about this a little bit. There are buildings all over town that if they are not allowed to maintain them because they are out of conformity. What is the goal? Let them fall into disrepair. They're allowed to maintain. It's in there.

Well, but they can't rebuild it, you know, on that site, right? Have a variance. And I know that is discussion that has occurred as proposed changes to the new ordinance and once that comes to

and I I did listen to the council meeting last night and one of the uh council people well war three Joe Noctra was talking about getting together with old W three real WI three um people and who are low income and saying shouldn't we as a council create some kind of program which would incentify repairing substandard homes I would be willing to bet that a lot of those homes are out of compliance. So, if we have this strict rule that doesn't allow, you know, for upgrading or whatever, I I think it's just a it's a problem for me. So, I don't know if you want to discuss it. And this this this whole yard, this whole square footage of coverage to me is based on, you know, big yards and nobody can build on a yard and you can't expand on a yard and you um and and it it feels like it's based on old uh old ways of thinking. But yeah, I

and I think that's the planning commission is is talking about changing incentivizing also looking at if they're lower income properties, are they rentals? Are they owned? Because who do we need to be directing it to? Because you can't home ownership. can't I mean as far as like I guess you you have to direct it to the owner regardless if it's a landlord or or some homeowner but also what is it considered because I know if like how much work has to be done for it to be considered a rebuild versus just so the way the ordinance states it is if there is and I'm really clarifying the actual because I I never get it straight 60%

so basically if the cost of repairs is more than 60% of the cost okay of the structure the value of the structure then has to be what's the value based on um that's that's actually a a requirement that has to be or information has to be provided by the applicant so the value of the structure itself so they have to get an appraisal so so if you would be my guess but I don't know for certain if you have a garage that's a hundred years old and it cost probably $50 to build it. It's I believe it's on today replacement cost to replace it. Okay. Yeah. So it's way this side you could Okay.

Yeah. We can't go there. Sorry. That discussion is over. But that's I mean those are questions I have about the future. Right. And those are things that they have talked about changing so that these carriage houses that we do have that do exist on some of these, you know, these historic um structures that there's some way to try and preserve them versus eliminate them or even like Ted Paul couldn't rebuild his garage because it's a small garage and it's probably a small lot on a small lot and you know there's no backyard. I mean, it's

because we want people to maintain, be proud of their old homes and their old mall garages or whatever they are. Nice. Yes. Thanks. Every year they're less old as we get older. We need Oh, a motion to other question. Oh, yeah. We just do public hearing the public hearing thing when we are doing things differently. Mhm. Was this under stage relief? Maybe. Could that be in the agenda like as I didn't? Yes, this was new to me as well. So, yes. Well, okay. So, I'll make a note to add Yeah, add it to the

What's the procedurally thing that we're doing differently? Opening a public hearing people. Okay. They were actually very very helpful. They were as we walk through and talk through what we were think trying to say any other question. Well, yeah. Do I have a motion to adjourn? I will move to ajourn. Let me understand that uh what are we putting off to our next hearing the uh review of the second aspect of their variance?

No, they're going to try and meet it. Yeah, they're going to try to meet with that for a Nice. They're going to try to do it.