Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. Roll call, please. Commissioner Colton Thomas, Commissioner Lon Lions here, Commissioner Ryan Cannon here, Commissioner Mason Rue here, chairman Richard Russo here. Chairman, we have a quorum.

Excellent. Thank you. First item of uh business would be the approval of the minutes from the May 8th, 2025 regular meeting. Any discussion? Any changes? If not, can I have a motion to approve? I move to approve. Motion approved by Commissioner Rue. I'll second. Second by Commissioner Canon. All in favor say I.

I. All same. All right. Approved. Next item are the minutes from the June 11th 2025 special meeting. Same thing. Any discussion? Any changes? Make a motion. Make a motion to approve the special meeting minutes from June 11th. Second. Motion by Commissioner Canon. Second by Commissioner Lions. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. Same sign.

Those have been approved. Before we jump into regular business, just a few housekeeping items. And this goes for all of us, including yours truly. Um, if you have your cell phone, please turn it off or put it on vibrate so as not to disrupt the the session. I just checked before I came in here to make sure mine was on vibrate. So, um, if you do have to take a call or anything, please just step out of the chamber for the call. Uh, if you are going to speak, please, uh, you have to be sworn in in advance to do so, which we'll do here in a minute. Uh, we only take testimony at the podium up there. So, if you are going to speak, please come up to the podium, give us your name and address for the record, and then speak clearly into the microphone. When you are presenting your case or speaking, once we close the hearing for the case and go into deliberations, you will no longer have an opportunity to speak. So, please make sure any information you want us to consider, you get out uh before we go into deliberations. And then, please kindly keep your remarks on point uh addressing the specific issue at hands. Try to avoid being redundant or or argumentative. That That's not gonna happen with this group. I always mention it anyway. So, um, with that swearing of the witnesses, please.

All right. The first item of regular business is ZBA case number 2662025. [Music] And before I turn it over to the staff to read the case in the record, I I do want to mention that I have known the petitioner. They've been family and friends for over a decade. And that will not affect my ability to conduct this hearing or make a decision impartially. Um no conflict there. So we can proceed with me still running this meeting or this this case. So with that, uh the staff would read the case in the record, please. One second. Okay. This is ZBA266-2025 and it's a public hearing on the request of Ash Ashley Bradshaw to obtain a major variance from the city of Poria Unified Development Code section 5.4.6 six fences and walls to increase the height of a front yard fence from 3 feet to 5 feet in a class R3 single family residential district for the property located at 9104 North Windidge Way. Partial identification number 0834376 024 and this is in council district 4. Okay. So, the subject property highlighted in red on the screen is a corner lot containing approximately 3/4 of an acre and is in the class R3 single family residential district. The property has front yards both along Winidgeway and Shalcom Road as recorded on the 2007 Winridge section one subdivision plat. And per note on the recorded plat, this

lot, which is lot one, shall have no direct access to Shalcom Road and therefore the addressing of the subject uh parcel is Winrich. The front yard along Shalcom Road was also established due to the addressing of the parcel directly east of the subject parcel, which is 6121 Shalcom Road. So due to the addressing of this home on Shalcom, as well as listed front yards on the plat, these are both front yards. This parcel was not allowed to access off of Shalakcom Road, only Winridge per uh subdivision rules. Adjacent zoning is class R3 to the north, east, and west, and C2 large scale commercial to the south. There is also a large parcel to the south, zoned A2, which is outside the city of Puri jurisdiction. And those properties in the Winridge subdivision are either developed as single family dwellings or plan to be uh developed as single family dwellings. And this property is currently developed as a new single family home with three still attached a garage. So the requested variance from the applicant is to install a 5-ft tall black openstyle aluminum fence in the front yard along Shalcom Road pursuant to section 5.4. 4.6. The maximum height of fences in front yard shall be no greater than 3 feet. Per the applicant, the increase in height from the 3 foot to 5 ft is to ensure the safety of the applicant's children and dogs as well as to keep wild animals from entering the property. This property again is addressed off of Winridge, not Shalcom, and the applicant was never given the option to address off Shalom Road, which was due to the fact that platting didn't allow for it. So they believe this should not be considered a front yard. The applicant is also uh currently in plans to install an ingground pool and

requires a minimum fence height of 4 feet per building code. The site plan review board uh recommendation is for denial of the requested variance for the height of the front yard fence to increase from 3 feet to 5 feet based on the following criteria for a major variance. One, staff does not find that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in the zoning district. Um, this is because the property can be used uh can continue to serve as a single family dwelling with a three-stall garage as built and the proposed fence and I apologize it's not orange. I think there was misprint Oh no, this is the orange one. Sorry. Uh the proposed fence, which is orange on this site plan, can be reduced to three foot height and remain in the proposed area or can be moved back in line with the facade of the dwelling along shallome. So that would be along this green line. If they moved it back to this line, um this black portion being a deck, it could be of the five foot height. um approximately 4,000 square feet of the subject property permits a fence of the five foot requested height and is within the buildable area unobstructed by the large rear yard easement. Um when we talk about the rear yard easement as you'll see there's um a lot of trees back here. This area is unbuildable per the plat uh due due to the uh stream buffer. Two uh staff finds that the plight of the owner is due is not due to unique circumstances. The property is 136 feet wide and has an area of 30,927 square feet, which exceeds the minimum building envelope standards of 95 ft

wide and 6,000 square foot respectively uh for the R3 zoning district and a corner property. Factoring in the required front and sideyard setbacks as well as a surface drainage easement in the rear yard. Uh, this property still has a buildable width of 100 feet and approximately buildable area of 12,000 square feet which still exceeds those minimum standards set uh with the building envelope. The principal zing and buildable area of the subject property are uniform with the neighborhood and there are no front yard fences within uh the surrounding development. And number three, the variation if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the public or other property or properties. Staff finds this false as well as there are no other offenses placed in a front yard within the neighborhood and installing a fence in the front yard as well as at a height greater than allowed will significantly alter the character. The property owner shall consider installing a fence in the side and rear yard only to match the character established within the neighborhood. So that would be removing that orange portion and moving it back to the green line. Uh this property also has a 10 foot wide utility easement along the southern property line uh noted on the plat. So no permanent buildings or trees shall be placed in there. I made that note just to ensure that should we move forward with allowing any type of fence in the sideyard that we would have to remove it 10 foot back because of the utility easement. So it would not be able to stay where it is. So, I'll go back up just a little bit. Uh, so this is Trigger. And when you come off of Trigger, it's Shalcom, which is one of the front yards listed on the plat. And then Winri, which goes into the subdivision. The home does face and is addressed off of Winrich. Again, all these homes have either been

started or built as single family homes or will be in the future. This was a site plan submitted uh to us for review. So uh driveway would be here to the to Wind Ridge fencing will go along here and does stop before the stream buffer uh area drainage area that's already been approved by public works. So, we're really just looking at the fact that it comes into the into the front yard over here. And again, this open style uh typical uh aluminum fence that you see some pictures submitted um by both the applicant and then I I think I took one extra front of the dwelling. So, this is uh off of Winridge looking at the house. That fence will be over here. This is from Winridge looking at their sideyard. Um, again, any fence over here that's behind the facade of the house is allowed to be up to six feet tall. Uh, this is a better look. So, this is the front of the house over here. So, just a better look at that side area where they're looking to put that additional fencing. And then this is from Shallome looking into their rear yard. Um, just to show you uh the area back there and this was that black uh square. This is their deck. I did also attach the plant just to ensure um you know notes that were noted are on there. Are there any questions for staff? Looking at the the larger plat of just the actual house, do you know if the the site proposal submitted where that orange box goes to? Is it to the 25 ft building setback or all the way up to the utility easement?

This is all the way up to the property line. Okay, this red is the property line. Okay, so it doesn't take in that 35 ft between the utility easement and the building or I guess it's 25 ft total, right? So we'd have to still move in an additional 10 feet. for the utility ement utility ement go along the road. Yep. Okay. And then the building needs to be moved in 10 feet. But then there's also a 25 foot building setback from the if you go to page 32. I think it's just it's with the plat. It's the next page. One more. This one. One more down or two more. There we go.

Oh, okay. Gotcha. Um I'm just talking about that other setback that's above the utility easement. Oh, gotcha. So the 25 foot building setback was just for what? So this was when they were building the house. So this was just to show that they were at least meeting that 25 foot front yard setback. They actually built it further in than what was required. Do you know the distance between the house and that how much how far far in that was? Um like eight feet I think is what it's it was about seven or eight feet.

I was just curious. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Petitioner can now step to the podium. Please you state your name and address for the record.

Ashley Bradshaw, 9104 Windridgeway. Um Edwards. Um I just wanted to say that we didn't have any idea that there was going to be an issue whatsoever. I mean, it's not a front yard because it's the way our house sits. It's our sideyard. I understand how it was plotted. Like, I get that, but I also never had the option of facing my house to Sham because you can't put a driveway on that side. It's like everybody keeps saying it's your front yard, but it really isn't a front yard. Never could be a front yard. I had to face my house to Windridge. And trust me, if I could have done it, I might have just the simple fact that we have this middle center thing right off my driveway and it's a pain in the butt to get in and out of. So, truly like we chose to move it as far as we could um to the north just for the fact of being able to have a driveway that would make sense too. Um coming off the side of the house, if you go back um Julia, if you go back up to where the orange square is. Yes. He the guy that applied for the funds, he put it all the way out. He said, "I don't know if that's where you want." He's like, "I'd rather have as much approved as possible, but I don't if you say I have to go back the 10 feet or whatever, that's not going to bother me. Um, the reason the sideyard we wanted was because that deck, the stairs come off the side like they come down like right with the deck. So, if I had to go right along my deck that every time the dogs would come down, they'd run into the deck or run into the fence. Like there would be no nowhere to go because the way the stairs were put on. Um, and on the top there's going to be a So, it's not like I have like a lot of a yard. We just wanted to make sure that we had enough for the dogs to be able to go down and use it more than anything. Um, and the reason we want five foot is because one, we're putting a pool in. You have to have four feet at minimum. And then two, animals can't jump over it. I can show you video. We have four little raccoons that like to come in our

backyard every single night right now. They're about this big. They come through. If my dog was outside, they'd attack my dogs. I have a puppy. She's 12 weeks old. I know my neighbors are dying for this to be over because they want a fence where my dogs will go and stay when they come out instead of greeting everybody as they walk by because they're so friendly. They love to say hello. So, and we'd love to be able to just let them out and play. Um, but there are animals. There's coyotes, uh, three foot. They could get over that and my dogs would not be safe or my kids. And if we have a pool, I have to have four feet minimum. So, changing it to a five foot would be great because it would look nice. It doesn't nobody else has a front yard to shall come. But on my west side is all their backyards which Julia said they don't have same thing. We don't have access because of the easement. So those are their backyards. And they all have privacy fences. I'm not even asking for a privacy fence. I want the black aluminum. You can see through it. It will not change any aesthetic. We can't wait to start planting more trees back there. Like we want it to look nice. So I guess that's that's all I've got for my fight. Thank you. Questions.

All right. No questions right now. Thank you very much.

Anybody else here wishing to speak on this case? Any other questions for staff? Ready to go into deliberations? All right, we will close the hearing and go into deliberations then. Thoughts? I think uh this, you know, we get corner lots probably one of our largest reasons we have cases here it seems like. But I think what's different about this corner lot a little bit is that is the main road on the side there. And um so I think I I'm supportive of uh a proven variance for that reason. Plus the backyard realistically a lot of that is unusual unusable and uh so I'm supportive of helping on that sideyard because of the depth of the backyard or lack of depth. I I would be the only question I've got is I you know we try not to set precedent with regard to five feet or six feet. I I think I'm more supportive of a 4 foot uh fence. um and letting it be as as wide as you know the 10 foot utility come out as far as a 10 foot utility there. But that's kind of my thoughts on this lines. I guess my thoughts on it would I would I understand the not running it directly off the back of the house and the need to incorporate some of that

that space, but I think from a from a neighborhood aesthetic and feel I think um that 25 foot, you know, so 15 foot closer to the house than the 10 foot utility easement I feel like would fit and make it feel more like a backyard than trying to fence in a sideard. feel like going all the way 10 foot up to the road's gonna really come to the gonna really hit that that side. So you're supportive of of that but modified I guess I don't know the exact measurements. It's hard to say you thought it was 8 foot.

Yeah. So you're just saying you would want you would say it's okay to go to that 25 foot setback whatever that distance. because I feel like when they when they develop subdivisions that aesthetically that that's the line and it makes sense that something could still be there. But I think when you go past that, it starts to feel like it's really like peninsuling out into that sideyard. So my thought on the M would be to stay within the the buildable space that the subdivision originally intended. Okay. Still at the the foot height is probably there's not a line of the on that picture where I'm I'm thinking you're saying go up to just here. Correct.

So that's like 8 ft out. You think 8 ft instead of So it' be 15 ft closer to the house than the 10. What's your thoughts on the height?

I'm fine with five feet. I mean, especially if you're going to do it. The height doesn't if we were going to go to the full 10 feet, I'd probably change my answer to that question. Again, it's going to feel like a lot of fence on that side if it comes that close to the roof. Well, if we do the 8T, I would be supported over 5T. And I think it solves it would solve the problem that the petitioner has of putting the dogs out and having, you know, still eight feet away from the house for them to

Yeah. No, I I agree with that. I agree with what uh Commissioner Lion stated before uh regarding the uniqueness of this um property and it's not your typical like within a subdivision um sideyard where it's got that main road there on child. Uh, so I'd be supportive of what the commissioner can proposed.

All right. Well, let's see the findings of fact. We can figure out what if the variances the requirements have been met, we can figure out what what a motion look like. So, all right. So, for this, this is a request for major variance. So, that means the following three criteria must be true in order for a variance to be granted. Number one, the property in question not yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in that zoning district. Commissioner Lions, true or false? True. Commissioner Rue, true. Commissioner Canon, true. I also find it true.

Number two, the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Commissioner Lions, true. Commissioner R. True. True. I also find it to be true. Number three, the variation if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the public or other property or properties. Mr. Lions, true or false? True. Commissioner R. True. Mr. Canon, true.

I also find it to be true. So the three requirements for a variance from the findings effect have been found to be true. So we can grant a variance. What is the thoughts on a motion in terms of granting the variance? Um do you know for sure if it's 8t? I don't. But you could maybe use wording that talks about not to go outside the build. W line or buildable setback line.

I would make a motion to approve a variance that would allow a 5-ft fence that would um be able to be built out on the front/ sideyard on telecom uh to the building setback line shown in the original plat.

Second. All right. So we have a motion to the variance five foot variance up to the building setback line made by Commissioner Canon seconded by Commissioner Lions. Any further discussion before we roll call please.

Commissioner Thomas. Oh sorry. Commissioner Lions. Yes. Commissioner Canon. Yes. Commissioner R. Yes. Chairman Russo. Yes.

Okay. The variance has been approved as specified. Uh good luck with everything. Thank you for coming for us today. Oh, please. Thank you. All right. Next item on the on the regular business agenda is case number 294-2025. Turn it over to no one to read the case of the record. Uh ZBA 294 2025 public hearing on the request of Jiggth uh Jonetta uh to obtain a major variance for the city of Pure Unified Development Code section 5.4.6 fences and walls to increase the height of a fence in the front yard from 3 feet to 5t in a class R3 single family residential residential district for the property located at 3018 West Saddle Creek Drive. Partial identification number 0930152012 Dunlap, Illinois. Uh the subject property is a corner lot uh containing.36 acres and is zoned R3. Adjacent zoning is R3 in all directions. In 2023, the property was developed with a single

family dwell dwelling with frontages along West Saddle Creek Drive right along here and North Onyx Lane right along here. The subject property has two front yards due to the established front yard along onx lane by the neighboring property to the south. This home right here and the established front yard along saddle creek by the subject property. In November 2024, the petitioner applied for a city of pure events verification and was approved for a 5ft tall rot iron fence to be installed in the rear yard of the subject property. This was the certification and this was the submitted uh site plan in 2024. Uh in May of 2025, the community development department received a complaint through PIA Cares of a non-compliant fence at the property. Upon inspection, staff found that the petitioner had installed a 5-ft rot iron fence in the front yard along North Onyx Lane. This portion of the fence did not did not match the details of the fence. certified in November 2024 and was not in compliance with fence regulations. On May 5th, 2025, a notice letter was sent to the petitioner to inform them of the violation and request removal of the non-compliant portion of the fence. A second notice letter was sent on June 30th, 2025 requesting compliance or a citation would be issued. Compliance was not met by the July 7th, 2025 deadline and a citation was issued. The petitioner applied for variance requests after citation was issued. Um, so these were the photos that staff take uh took at the notice of the complaint through Pure Cares. As we can see, the fence uh does extend or did extend into uh the the front yard on Onyx

off the side of the house. Looking back at what was approved, it was to be flush with the siding of the house. The petition is requesting to construct a 5 foot tall aluminum raw iron fence in the front yard. Per section 5.4.6 of the unified development code. Front yard fences are limited to 3 ft in height. The petitioner states their concern for safety for their family as the property sits adjacent to a bus busy intersection. The petitioner has expressed concerns for losing a portion of their rear yard for air for future amenities to be built on the property by installing a fence as previously approved. Um the second letter that was sent uh this is the results. Um uh staff asked for the posts to be removed to meet compliance. Uh the posts uh still stand today to my knowledge. And so this is what the site looks like as existing with the variance request. This is what the petitioner is requesting. Staff recommends denial of the requested variance based on the following criteria for a major variance. One, the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in the zoning district. False. The property can continue to serve as a single family residence with a three-ft tall fence in the front yard. Alternatively, a fence can be 5t tall if relocated to the rear yard as originally designed. Both options would provide safety for the petitioner and their family. Two, the ply to the owner is due to unique circumstances. False. The property has a width of 106 feet. The property has a width of 106 ft and has an area of uh 15,582 ft exceeding the minimum building envelope standards of 95 ft and 6,000

square feet in the class R3 single family residential district for a corner property. The property width, depth, and area are uniform for the subdivision. In addition, the property owner obtained a fence verification certificate to install a compliant 5-ft tall fence in November 2024. Three, the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the public or other property or properties. False. The proposal would alter the essential character of the neighborhood as there are no existing front yard fences within the neighborhood. Corner lot properties within the subdivision have fences uh comply with fencing regulations for the respective yard. Um there is a corner lot property uh just to the north be this property here. Um as we can see there is a fence that comes out but it meets the three-foot height requirements. So this would be adjacent to the northeast. and if there's any questions for staff.

Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much. If the petitioner, please step up to the podium and uh good afternoon. If you could please state your name and address for the record. Yeah, I'm Jagat Donagetta. Address is 3018 West Saddle Creek, Dunlop 61525. Thank you. Please proceed.

I'm sorry. So I guess apologies for the installation before prior approval. So I didn't know I mean when we asked the installer what is the rule. He said as long as it's 10 ft away from the road we could install it. So we went installed it. So apologies for that. Then we got the citation. So we uh we applied where variance and the reason is again as you can see this is a four-way street with two stops on the on the along the onyx line. So for my six-year-old you know who's running away you know in in the backyard we thought you know fancy the requirement but to push to the three where it is allowed to five is almost cutting the yard into like half a size. So and even for a future if you install anything you know it's almost like half the other side of the fence usually don't becomes unusable. So that's why we are kind of requesting to increase the height of the fence where it is right now. And also we spoke to all our neighbors and they don't have any problem in installing you know 5T and and the neighbor behi behind me he has a 5T fence as well. So when I spoke to him he said he rather uh you know instead of you know going 5t and then going down 3 ft he rather have a 5t instead. So I guess just for the safety of my kids and you know for for even across the neighborhood you know where we have I would request you know I guess approve the variance any questions I don't know to I don't know that I was at the November 24th meeting. I don't I don't remember it anyways. Um but with that 5 foot tall fence um and that I guess discussion during that meeting and approving uh the variance to

have it be 5T but come out directly off of the house. Um that was at a a ZBA meeting, right? No, I think that was that would be city staff and that would be approval for a 5ft fence for a rear yard which would be compliant with the rear yard requirements. So there was not a variance granted there maybe was some confusion about what where what a re rear yard was when getting that certificate but that that did not come before this board. Our first time dealing with this property am I correct?

Yes, that would be correct. and the uh the drawing uh I guess on page I think it's 43 that would have been like presented right with that outline. Oh not that one. Um yeah that one right there.

Yes. So this is the site plan that was submitted for the initial uh fence installation and this was the certificate that was sent um uh November 18th of 2024. And here you can see that 5 foot 5 foot tall fence is hereby approved for the rear yard of the subject property. Um so with it coming off the side of the house it was not uh interjecting into the front yard. Um, and what was installed was different than what was proposed.

Okay. Okay. I mean, that that was my question was just the the awareness of it and what was what was sent, what was looked over, what was initially approved. So, I'm good. Thank you. I'm not speaking for the other commissioners here, but historically on these two front yards where the one is what would normally be called a sideyard um or referred to as a sideyard, we try not to set a precedent of fence heights. Uh occasionally we'll have historically approved, you know, a modest increase like a 4ft fence. a five foot fence or six foot fence. Um, you know, I am sympathetic to that being kind of a sideyard. Uh, if we were able to do a 4 foot, and again, I'm not speaking for my other commissioners, would that be something that would work for you on that side or 4 foot fence basically all the way around?

I mean, if that comes to the case, I guess we could with it. But ideally, you know, we would like a 5T. Like I said, you know, especially the yards behind me has a 5T. So, ideally, if it goes, you know, the same, but he's got his rear yard, you know, different than your situation. I mean, it's within what's allowed there.

You're trying to push it out to the side yard. Sam is I'm just uh just just trying to for discussion sake if that was something that would be uh I mean I'm not going to be supportive of a 5 foot sideyard fence that unless it's going to be back within what your original plat was. So, I'm just talking in advance if if we're able to the other commissioners come to an agreement. Would a 4 foot high fence be workable for you on that sideard? I would basically be all the way around. Okay. Sure. Okay. I have no further comments or questions. Right. I suppose you could do a five foot in the rear and a 4 foot in the second front yard. Theoretically you could I mean that's aesthetically. Anything else for the petitioner?

Anything else you like to add, sir? Anything else you want? Is there anything else you want to say? No. Okay. All right. We We appreciate it. Thank you very much. Anybody else here to want to speak on this case? Seeing none. Any any further questions for staff before we go into deliberations? Was it just a the complaint? Was it neighbor driven? I mean, do you have any is there like a actual letter that came with the complaint about it? Uh yes. The initial complaint uh came through PIA Cares. So, it's just like a photo and comment.

Um I believe the initial was uh like a written uh complaint. Uh and then uh myself went out to the the site to uh to confirm what the complaint was. Um and the first photographs I I shown you were what I found. Um, and then the second photographs with the panels missing was uh after my initial notice or letter was sent to the residents or the or the petitioner. Thank you.

Any other questions? Um I do want to say that uh uh before you start your deliberations um if if uh you decide to uh reduce the height of the fence to 4 feet um it would be a minor variation at that point and the finance of fact would change. So if that does happen I have a form uh for you to do that. Thank you. Appreciate that.

All right. So um I guess the question we have we'll go we'll go and close and go into deliberations here. I guess the question we have is do we want to go through the findings of fact for both major and minor to give ourselves flexibility and coming up with a motion. How do you how do you guys want to handle that kind of putting the cart before the horse we say we're going to improve the variance on the findings affected. So I'm kind of inclined to say please go through both. Are three of the findings of fact for major the same as minor for the most part? Yes. Well, anyway, I think we ought to do that.

If you can bring up the minor variance sheet, that'd be great, too. Um, we we should probably go over the major because that's what his request is. But then, yeah, we're going to do both major and minor. We're going to do the major first and the minor.

Um, obviously depending how the major goes, that'll dictate some things. If it's even if the major's approve, you know, the fin Thank you very much. All right. So the the request that has been made is for a major variance to go from three to five feet. So let let's do the findings of fact on the major variance request and then we'll take it from there. So for a major variance, the following three criteria must be found to be true. Number one, the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in that zoning district. Commissioner Lions,

true. Mr. R, false. Mr. Canon, false. I will also say false. Number two, the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Commissioner Lions, true or false? True. Commissioner Rue, false. Commissioner Canon, false. Also find it to be false. Number three, the variation of granted will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the public or other property or properties. True or false, Commissioner Lions? True. Commissioner R.

False. Commissioner can false. I will also find it to be false. So the criteria for major variance has not been met. We will go ahead and do findings of fact for a minor variance. Doesn't require you to actually make a motion approving one, but we'll go ahead and do the findings of fact so you at least have that for consideration. So for a minor variance, this would be going from three to four would be the minor variance. The following five criteria must be true in order for a minor variance to be granted. Number one, the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Commissioner Lions, true. Commissioner R.

True. Commissioner can false. I will find it to be true. Number two, the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the public or other property or properties. Commissioner Lions, true. Commissioner R. True. Mr. Canon, true. I find it to be true. Number three, the proposed variance represents the minimum deviation from the standards necessary to accomplish the desired improvement. True or false? Commissioner Lions. True. Commissioner Rue,

true. Commissioner Cannon, true. I find it true. Number four, the conditions of the variances requested are not self-created. True or false? Commissioner Lions, true. Commissioner Rue, true. Commissioner Canon,

true. I also find it true. Number five, the granting of the variation will result in a public benefit to the surrounding neighborhood and the city as a whole. The public benefit may include but is not limited to preservation or enhancement of desirable site characteristics or natural features or historic resources. Design that enhances the surrounding area. economic development which may enhance the local economy or efficient use of land as it relates to surrounding structures and services. Commissioner Lions true. Commissioner R. True. Commissioner can true.

I also find it true. So the requirements, the criteria for potentially granting a minor variance have been met. as it relates to a request to go a move from three to four feet. Does anybody want to make a motion for a minor variance? Do we have to do anything with the request requested variance first? Well, I mean, we can vote it down. There's no we don't have the criteria met. So, um

I guess we should do that just to be consistent with the record. So, let's let's do a motion on the Major variance request first from three to three feet to five feet. Can I get a motion? And remember this one. Yes. Make a motion to approve the requested major variance from 3T to 5T. Motion to approve by Commissioner Canon. I have a second. Second. Second by Commissioner Lions. Roll call, please. Commissioner Lions. No Commissioner Canon. No Commissioner Rue. No

Chairman Russo. No. So the request to approve a major variance has been denied. Not did not pass. So we now are looking at we want to do anything else in terms of granting a minor variance. I would move that we approve a variance to four feet second. I guess be specific because you can switch at some point totard.

So we have a motion just clear a motion to approve the variance of toted by commissioner. Okay. Okay. Roll call, please. Commissioner Lions. Yes. Commissioner Canon. Yes. Commissioner Rue. Yes. Chairman Russo. Yes.

Okay. Uh we've we've granted a minor variance to allow for a 4ft fence in the in the front yard. So, thank you very much. Next item on the docket is case number 366205. Read the case in the record, please. Case number ZBA 366 366205. It's a public hearing on the request of Andrew and Haley Miller to obtain a minor variance from the city of Poria Unified Development Code section 4.2.4 four building envelope standards to reduce the required front yard setback from 25 ft to 15 feet along Crestwood Drive and 25 ft to 20 ft along Hawthorne Place for a covered front porch edition in a class R3 single family residential district for the property located at 416 West Crestwood Drive. the partial identification number 1425176001 in council district 3. Uh so here we have a a corner property. It's in a single family zoning district. Uh the nullles uh subdivision

um surrounding zoning is the same. Um and it's a residential uh subdivision. Uh the house here on this block with Crestwood and Hawthorne uh Hawthorne is here. Crestwood to the top of the page. The house faces Crestwood. Um the or the request this afternoon is uh to have a a front a covered front porch along Crestwood at the front of the home. Uh so we have the aerial here showing you know the general footprint of the home. The setback on on Hawthorne of the home is is 20 feet. And then on um oops, wrong property. Here we go. On Hawthorne here is 20 ft. And then to Crestwood, the house is set back at 25 ft. The required setback is 25. So on Crestwood, the house is at that line. Um and then on um Hawthorne, that setback of 20 ft was probably what um the subdivision required at the time when the house was built. Um all right. And then the proposal here, um in your packet, hopefully you were able to review their um explanation of uh of the of the um site improvements that they're trying to accomplish. um some of the the findings um that they have arguments for on the porch. This is their site plan uh found in your packet. Uh so the porch uh the covered porch is about 10 ft deep, 10 ft wide out. Um and then 46 I believe we have it here. 46 in length. Um they're they're looking to um you know have it along the the front of the main portion of the home. The garage is set back a little

bit. So the encroachment um is 10 feet into Crestwood. Um it's the same encroachment on Hawthorne as the home is not really going into the Hawthorne set back anymore than that than the house does. Uh so we do have some of their information of their posts that they have. So you get an idea of the design of the porch. Um, as well as, uh, they did have that rendering. I'll get back to, uh, here's a schematic of the porch. Um, so you can get a sense of the depth and the the length and the design they're um, aiming for. And I'll go back to the schematic that I I think is helpful. Um, kind of a general idea there. Uh, right now they have this smaller um, you know, more of like a stoop uh, covered here. um assessments has it at about four feet wide or or deep out from the home. Um so they're looking to u make something larger. Uh so the request this afternoon is to vary from section 4.2.4 building envelope standards in the unified development code. Uh that code requires a 25 foot setback as was mentioned. Uh the proposal would be to encroach 10t into Crestwood. So that would reduce the front yard setback to 15 feet. And then um along Hawthorne in place it would uh be 20 feet. Those are minor variances um which which are reviewed by the development review board in their application. And I'm just I have just have a brief summary of of their um of their uh points. Uh but uh they recognize the uh shallow front yards uh that they have here and uh need to resolve a drainage issue and they um those two things really coupled together as their identified hardship

and then the intent of this covered porch would be to improve drainage, enhance the residential appearance and create a space for more interaction with neighbors. A review of the petition um is a recommendation to to deny uh mainly we're not seeing a unique hardship uh different between this property and others in the in the immediate vicinity. Uh so the the first standard for a minor variance is the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. We don't we don't uh agree with that statement. uh we find that there's not a unique physical characteristic different uh the grading setbacks home designs in this area are are are relatively similar. Uh finding three is if granted it will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the public or other property or properties. Uh we do find this one to be true. uh we don't think it will negatively impact the residential character that that essential and main component was will would not be changed. Um and the placement doesn't interfere with with traffic safety being a a request to vary from a front yard setback. Number three, the proposed variance represents the minimum deviation from the standards necessary to accomplish the desired improvement. here. Uh we would um argue that the 10- foot encroachment is not a minimum deviation. Uh perhaps they could accomplish their goal with a lesser depth. However, we do recognize any encroachment in the front yard for a porch, a covered porch does need a variance because the house is set back at the setback. um uh uncovered porches that are within a reasonable size for just accessing the house don't need to meet a setback like

uh steps into your home when they're smaller size. Uh but some certainly something covered uh would need to meet the setback requirement. So again, we're arguing that the 10-ft encroachment might not be a minimum deviation. Four, the conditions of the variance are not self-created. Um this we we do find false uh someone designed and put this house right at that setback um intentional for whatever reason. Um and so we have a situation where for having a front porch you're inconvenience because the setback is already where the house is um and it would limit their their um desired front porch depth. Uh number five, the granting of the variance will result in public benefit to the surrounding neighborhood and the city as a whole. The public benefit may include but is not limited to preservation or enhancement of desirable site characteristics or natural features or historic resources. Design that enhances the surrounding area, economic development which may enhance local economy or economy or efficient use of land as it relates to surrounding structures and services. Uh staff's going to recognize this one as false. Uh the proposal would not preserve the open front yards that you find um here. Um we'll note that front yards in the immediate area range between as much as 35 ft to 20 ft. And the largest encroachment here would be to 15 ft. So that's our summary of our findings. Uh can answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Questions? I think it's I think it was on page 58, but like currently it's against the current code with the 25 foot setback because of that picture on the left. Like it's currently out of compliance, right?

Um so yeah, the covered porch, I don't know if that was part of the original design. So uh maybe something that's not covered like this um could encroach with the size that it is now. it's considered a minimum to get into the house. Um, and that can encroach in the front yard. Um, it probably depends on how deep this is. Um, because we do allow like eaves to encroach over. Um, so that's not something I looked into is how how large that is. Um, uh, and then, you know, this is definitely shallower than the proposal. questions.

Do you know um was this house built by the current homeowners? No, it is um uh built in 1940. Perfect. Thank you. And then um the question on the front yard range for the for the surrounding properties says 30 35 to 20 ft. Are there no there's no properties with a setback that's less than 20 feet to your knowledge?

The only you know stickler thing since we've had a lot of cases with uh fences and front yards. Um this property um their front yard is here. This is a corner sidey yard. Um they're probably about 15 feet. Um but this these are not front yards here. So the homes don't face that direction. Um but that one would be the closest. Uh this one is where I identified 35 ft. Um along here we have the the 20 foot I think is here or or here. Um but this one would be technically a corner sideyard.

Thank you very much. Anything else? Thank you. Appreciate it. Like to step to the podium, please. Good afternoon. Please state your name and address for the record. Haley Miller, 416 West Crosswood Drive. Thank you. Please proceed.

Um, I'm trying not to be obnoxious. I'm super passionate about this porch, so just bear with me. Um, I just wanted to make some comments regarding the staff comments. Um, specifically regarding unique circumstances, the majority of homes in the NLES that are twostory do have elevation stoops that are at least three steps up. So, um, if you zoom out of this, for example, the house across the street from us has three steps up into their home in addition to a stoop. Our neighbor Miss Connie to the right has steps up into her stoop and then the Walls have about five steps into their stoop. So although not blatantly unique, our circumstances are much different. Although we're along the same lines of elevation, it's that their homes are built higher up into it. So we bought this house in 2020 as a fixer upper and we've been slowly but surely making improvements. Um drainage is a significant issue for us because we're level with the street. We're having trouble with grading and things like that. Not to mention the current front porch. It's just not attractive. That's subjective. Um, we did want to talk about the medium deviation. I think that some of these things I don't envy this committee for having to even talk about like is it minimum, is it unique? I I mean that's so hard to be able to arbitrarily set. Um, the existing front porch does encroach already by 5t. I think we established that. And it is not preventing the water and it is not allowing us to utilize the front porch. Can't open the storm door and stand on it. Um, for what it's worth, we have a very large family who live in most of those houses that surround us. We spend a lot of time in our front yard. We are very friendly neighborhood. We're out with people's dogs, people's kids. Um, we babysit the kids across the street from us. We socialize quite a bit in this neighborhood and we feel that adding this front porch would be a great assistance to the spirit of the code. Um, but no, I did not build the home. I

would not have built the home with those ugly columns to block the cool porch lights or things like that. So, um I did not self-create it. Me wanting a porch. Does that make me self-create it? I don't know. Um it would benefit the neighborhood greatly in my opinion. Again, we spend a lot of time socializing here and it allows for a gathering place if it were that deep. we could get away from the window wells. Not pictured are some obnoxious pictures I attempted to attach but had to restrain. So underneath each of the front windows there's they're giant window wells that come out about 3 feet from the house. Um so being able to concrete around those and provide some access area. So you can kind of see the metal underneath there. Um would allow us to still enjoy the porch at the depth of 10 feet. Um that was also the design. the architecture design came and said 10 feet is probably the minimum they would do just based off the proportions of the home because we are trying to respect the architecture that was there. I think I addressed everything but if you have any questions I'm happy to take

Thank you. Questions? Are there any of your um I mean I'm familiar with the nullles but are you don't see a lot of like large wraparound porches in that neighborhood. Is there any that come to mind to you that you can think of? And then also that have a big, you know, this

that's a fair question. Not that are twotory. So, um, the majority of the two stories in the neighborhood, I would have to honestly agree, do just kind of have covered stoops. Somebody attached this covered stoop with angles such that the rain water just goes straight into it rather than actually draining out. Um, however, there are some examples of porches that might due like to the span of those larger windows rather than the entire length of it. Not pictured here, our garage is set back and there's an access entry point in between the garage and the house. Um, and we're looking to fix the pad. So, that's part of the reason we want the span of the porch as well.

So, that that wraps around then to the let me get back to the picture to the garage. Yeah. So, the overhang portion of the porch would just end at the the main house and then we're bringing that pad over to meet that other doorway. Um, again, not pictured, but so it won't it again, it doesn't go past the home on Hawthorne. We just already the home itself is in violation of Hawthorne. So, that's where we're at.

Do you have I mean, is is it 10 foot or nothing for you? Is this recorded? Uh, it can take a minute. I would love 10 feet. I would have loved 12 feet, but I I'll take what I can get. Um, 10 feet. Even at 10 feet deep, we're still 25 feet from the street. It just is not from I don't know what you call it, the rightway. What whatever that line is that's in from the middle of the that provides a setback. So physically even 10 feet is 25 ft away from the street if you measured it.

Um oh you have it up there already. So the green is actually a true representation of how far out that would be and no that is my representation. So scale is numbers are hard. Um, so I apologize. We did have I do have a full rendering from the architect. However, we had to adjust it to include the property lines and setbacks. And this is just my beautiful job in Word. So, do you know in comparison to your like your sidewalk up to the house, how far the 10 feet goes? like in this picture.

Well, that's a good question. So, this sidewalk is what standard five feet. So, from the edge of the sidewalk, meaning if I had grass, like where the grass would start, the grass to there would be to the 10 foot depth would be 20 feet. If you measured from the end of the sidewalk, meaning the street, to the 10 foot depth, it would be 25 feet. I meant for your path up to the house. Sorry. Okay. I'm sorry. Can you ask again? No. Like Do you think that you drew your box on there where the 10 foot would hit your sidewalk coming up to your that path? That's I mean, probably that sidewalk's going to go. Okay.

Because it doesn't actually reach this. This is part of the project like there's no straight shot from the sidewalk. So, poor mail guy and delivery services, things like that. So, part of it is that we're going to be attaching to the sidewalk as a straight shot from the front door. Okay. But I I would think it's fairly accurate. I It's hard to see from these GIS images how far out the currently goes. I tried to like shadow it and say, "Okay, if current is five, then this is 10." But I can't say that for No, that's fair. That's fine. I mean, it's hard to tell even from the street because I did drive by, but I didn't want to get out of my car and measure your house. There's no dogs. You'd be safe.

Thank you. Thank you. Anything for you? Not yet. All right. Do you um as far as the, you know, the uh covered patio or covered porch coming, you know, off the house, is there given that we're, you know, already at the the setback with the house and then you'd be going 10 feet from that um and you're on a corner. So, as far as visibility for traffic, is there any intent to ever close it in, hang anything from the sides that would

I genuinely don't need anything else to clean. I'm uh No, we're very happy with the house. We're looking for more outdoor living space in the front. As I mentioned, we spend a lot of time as a family out on the front. Um, we interact often with our neighbors. It just would provide a nice place for us to physically be rather than over in their yards. Thank you. Thank you. Not yet. Make sure. We appreciate it. Thank you very much. Anybody else here wish to speak on this case? Questions for for staff? Any questions for staff? I mean, I don't know how hard or easy it would be for you to show us 10 feet on the GIS with the measure tool.

Yeah, I could I'll pull it up. Um, and then just because you um asked about wraparound porches, I just wanted to make sure this I don't think would be a wraparound porch. It is going to stop at the corner. I was talking.

Oh, okay. Gotcha. Over here. Okay, very good. Uh, yeah, just uh bear with me as I pull up the tool. No, we normally have it up, so no problem. So you want me to go 10 ft out and then measure It's going to make Good enough.

And this can be off a little bit there. They probably have some overhang where this might actually be a little bit shallower. Your drawing was pretty accurate. It is.

Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Ready to go into deliberations here? Okay, we'll we'll close the hearing and go into deliberations. Thoughts? Um I mean, if you look at um all of the other houses around, especially to the left of this house, um the west. Um, you've got that house, even though, you know, mentioned that it's a sideyard, but for purposes of what we talk about all the time, that's two front yards. Um, and then the house just to the left of that, um, like the corner of what their garage that looks like it's incredibly close. Um, so my opinion is they're, you know, improving their residence and it's not going to alter the, you know, the ne the look of the neighborhood or get any closer than, uh, houses that are already there. I understand that, you know, code has changed since 1940. Um, but I will be voting to approve this.

Thank you. Comments.

I, uh, when we're looking variances. One of the things that I key in on is either commercially or residentially, are they improving the property value and that benefits the rest of the neighborhood and benefits the city of Poria? Uh, and I clearly see this as an improvement of the property value. I really like the aesthetic of it. Um, I think from the homes built in the 40s and the of the lots back then. Um, we're gonna we're going to run into this, but I find this very welcoming. Uh, it's not injurious to the public. Uh, and, uh, I do think there are some unique with regard to the grading being the ground there. Uh, some benefit for building forge in that regard. And I'm going to be willing to support this. Uh, I think this is good example of a variance that we want to benefits.

Commissioner L. Anything else you want to add? Let's go into the findings of fact then this is a request for a minor variance. So that following five criteria must be true. Number one, the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Commissioner Lions. True. R Canon false. I find it true. Number two, the variation of granted will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the public or other property or properties. Commissioner Lions,

true. Commissioner Rue, true. Commissioner Canon, false. I find it true. Number three, the proposed variance represents the minimum deviation from the standards necessary to accomplish the desired improvement. Commissioner Lions, true. Commissioner Rue, true. Commissioner Canon, false. And I find it true. Number four, the conditions of the variances requested are not self-created. Commissioner Lions, true. Commissioner R. True. can

I find it true. Number five, the granting of the variation will result in a public benefit to the surrounding neighborhood and the city as a whole. And you discuss the other factors that are part of that. So I won't reread all that, but the granting of the variance will result in a public benefit to the surrounding neighborhood and the city as a whole. True or false? Commissioner Lions. True. Commissioner R. True. Commissioner Canon.

True. I find it true. So all five criteria have been met for the granting of a minor variance. Do I have a motion or do I have further discussion before we take a motion? Anyone make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the requested minor varian motion to approve. Second by Commissioner Canon, seconded by Commissioner Lions. Roll call, please. Commissioner Lions, yes. Commissioner Canon, yes. Commissioner Rue, yes.

Chairman Russa, yes.

Congratulations. Your request has been approved. Good luck to you. Thank you. Okay, the next item on the agenda is ZBA case number 3812025. We'll turn over to Julio to read the case in the record.

Okay. And uh chairman, your findings, I've kind of like listed which one because there'll be three findings of fact since there's three variances. So just so you're aware when you get to that part. and I I just saw that and I appreciate that. So,

yeah, no problem. Okay, let me go back. All right. So this is ZBA 381-2025 and it's a public hearing on the request of Tony Lees on behalf of Noales to obtain major varances from the city of Peoria Unified Development Code section 8.1.7 parking of vehicles and residential districts to allow class one vehicle parking in the front yard and to allow for the existing gravel driveway surface to remain unpaved. and from section 8.1.5 to increase the width of the driveway from 20 ft to 33 feet at its widest point in a class R2 single family residential district for the property located at 3221 West Greenwood Place partial identification number 1324 4261 and this is in council district 4 and before I start describing it just to get your bearings uh target up here war memorial we call a road all over here. Okay, so this property is just over one and a half acres and developed with a single family dwelling. It's currently zoned class R2 single family residential and is surrounded by single family residential and the R2 class to the west, north, and east and R3 single family residential to the south. In 2019, the petitioner laid gravel in the front yard to construct a circle driveway as an addition to the existing gravel driveway. And let me pull up. Give me

Okay. Sorry. We got there. Okay. So, we're speaking to this was the driveway existing, a straight gravel driveway. The one that I was just speaking to was this in red. So, this additional driveway. Okay. So, it was constructed uh in 2019 as an addition to the existing gravel driveway. The petitioner was notified after the city received an anonymous complaint regarding a gravel driveway and requested uh the variance the following variances in order to maintain the driveway as it exists today. So maintaining the original gravel driveway which is the straight portion of the driveway is allowed. However, the addition of the circle driveway violated the unified development code. uh the maintenance of gravel driveways in the city of Peoria is allowed so long as it's maintained, grass doesn't overgrow it, things of that nature. So, uh the the ways in which it violated was the location. Uh parking is prohibited in a front yard area. And when we speak to class one vehicles, that's talking about trailers less than 23 feet long, um cars that you drive every single day, those those types of vehicles. So, parking in a front yard is not allowed. This driveway as it is constructed is in front of the 25 foot rear yard setback, sorry, front yard setback. Um, and therefore allows for parking in a front yard. The materials, so gravel parking surface uh was prohibited in the city of Peoria back in 1972. And so all parking surfaces, including uh the rideway access, which is that piece that transitions from the driveway to the road, must be paved with asphalt, porcelain, Portland cement, interlocking concrete pavers or bricks or uh buminous cement binder pavement. And then lastly,

the third violation was that the driveway with cannot exceed 20 ft. on here you'll see that where the existing driveway starts. So we're only taking this existing driveway with because it connects with the semicircle from here over to the widest point connecting with the semicircle it's 33 ft. So that's where we get the variance for the 20 ft to 33 ft. And so that is why we have the three variances. one for parking in the front yard, one for the parking surface to remain as gravel, and one for the driveway width to be allowed to be 33 feet from 20 feet. The petitioner states, "The existing straight part of the driveway is a lower grade, which requires an awkward diagonal path from the driveway to the front door, and the house is set near the front of the lot, preventing the ability to meet setbacks. The circle drive facilitates superior access to the front door, is more aesthetically pleasing, reduces the risks of trip hazards, especially for elderly family, elderly family guests and visitors, and enhances the safety of the Poria Public Schools stop uh located near the driveway. The petitioner also states the driveway complements the neighboring circle drives and that the property is wellmaintained. The development review board recommends denial of all three requested variances based on the following criteria for major variances. One, we do not find that the property in question uh cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations and zoning code. Uh this property can continue to be used as a single family dwelling with driveway access and parking in the required side and rear yards. the required side in your rear yard would be behind the front facade of the house and straight part of that driveway. The non-conforming gravel driveway running along the western side of the dwelling is considered non-conforming um and is able to be used and maintained until a repair, change in use, expansion in use, or change in a building or

structure occurs. The Circle Drive addition, which was completed in 2019 by the current property owners, further the non-conformity as it was not constructed to meet codes such as setbacks with material. A hard pave surface circle driveway with a 25- ft rear yard setback width with approximately 10 ft uh could be constructed on the property and meet all required codes. So that would be the inner circle doesn't start until behind the 25 foot property line uh 25 foot front yard setback line could be about 10 ft wide and would still uh fit between the deck portion that comes up from the house um and meet our coat. Additionally um public works has made the following comment related to the newly created circle drive. Um so it was revised and approach was added without a permit from uh public works for work in the ride ofway and the city code requires the drive approach to be concrete and conform to standards. There's widths, slopes, etc. Um so failure to have site work inspected prior to the construction of the rideway will be subject to removal and replacement upon notification from the city at no cost to the city. Um so further on you'll see as we're making our decisions um that there will be a condition regardless of which way this goes that a right-of-way permit is uh uh acquired. There we go. Acquired from public works and for those accesses to um be done properly with the right surface um material, the right widths, the right slopes. Number two, the credit of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Staff finds this false. The subject property dwelling is set back 35 ft from the property line, which exceeds the required 25 ft front yard setback. The neighboring property directly west of the subject property is also built with

a concrete circle driveway, which is set back at 25 ft as measured from GIS um from the inner edge of the circle. I'll go back up and show that in a minute. and three, the variation if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the public or their property or properties. Staff finds this false. Granting of these variances may be injurious to the public or other property or properties because while other driveways currently exist within the neighborhood, this property expanded a non-conforming gravel driveway that encroaches the front yard setback and created an unimproved second street access that allows for great erosion of gravel onto the public right ofway. Okay, give me one minute. Um, the petitioner has put together a detailed uh presentation. But again, so um R2 zoning just across the street is R3 single family homes on all lots um with some of them being uh duplexes more out into the neighborhood. The rear yards are unimproved um mostly uh wooded. And what I'll do is I'll have uh if there's any questions from the commission to me, I'm happy to answer them. And then after the petitioner goes through their presentation, I do have a couple remarks. Any any questions? Thank you very much. Can you please step to the podium?

Good afternoon. If you could please state your name and address for the record. My name is Angel Chatterton Lees. I live about eight houses from there at 308 West uh Silvin and we walk there not daily but almost daily, but we're definitely there regularly to maintain the property. Um I I do like to be well prepared for these types of situations and I've heard that I have a very um voluminous um documentation package. So, I apologize for it being so voluminous, but I thought it showed the unique character and beauty of our community that it does have gravel driveways on my latest block, over 35 of them, and I stopped counting. But let me get into my request here. As to count one, maybe I shouldn't say count one, but as to item one, the property in question cannot yield a reasonable term, a return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in the zoning district. Um, let me give you just a little backdrop. In 2019, this property was acquired. We were under the impression it was beautifully remodeled inside, not so beautiful on the outside. Shortly after that time, we were shocked to find we had two major basement walls that were hidden by drywall. We had to bring an excavator in there to shore those up. That is the start of why the driveway occurred. Had those two walls not occurred that needed to be shored up and excavating equipment bought in, I doubt the semicircle would exist. Once the semicircle was there, what we realized is that it really greatly aided um biasly my 90-year-old um mother-in-law who um really greatly benefits. She recently came up for a uh celebration and stayed there. We our youngest just

got married. And also that we have a school bus stop which Julia if you don't mind going to the last one I've contacted I'm a gene with a bus barn with Poria District Schools and um it's all the way towards the end and so we have a um Poria bus stop that's been there even prior to the acquisition of this property so I know it's been there at least probably 10 12 years. There's three separate bus stops in the morning there and three separate in the afternoon. That is our driveway there. And that is the pole. Um Julia, can you go now to um the picture of the driveway in 2019 prior to us, the GIS version of it, and then we'll go to what it looked like after the addition. There's the after edition. That's a very recent picture. And that is how we basically maintain our property. Now, go back to the GIS picture, please. um where we have an actual view of it of um

uh the one with the with the slanted old driveway. Keep going back. Okay, that's a good picture. That's the condition of the outside of the property when it was acquired in 2019. It's been six years since the acquisition and to our knowledge this is the first and only anonymous complaint that we're aware of. Had we been aware of one sooner we would have been here before then. Um as regarding to the uh cannot yield a questionable return now go to the current version please of what the house looks like. We've estimated a cost to remove the semicircle between 3500 and $4,000. And if you look at the prior to the gravel driveway, we believe that removing it may result in a reduction of value of the properties surrounding our neighborhood. Um because we think that if it's removed, it could possibly decrease the value of the property between 50 um 5,000 and $10,000. We do have estimates on how much it would cost to pave it and that is um pretty egregious at this time under the uh unique circumstances applied to the owner due to unique circumstances. This is a great picture. Um Joe who lives to the left of this property. You can see he regularly parks and I have a uh in the front of his yard and I have a picture of it from yesterday as well of the adjacent property where Steve lives and he's pro propert uh parking in his front yard as well. Um what's different between this property and the Greenwood property is there is a slope and there's a retaining wall holding up the grass whereas Joe's property is flat. Julia did acknowledge we do have a deck in front.

So, we believe that it's unique and different than our neighbors, but fills in well with the neighborhood in just the the six semicircle properties within the ones that I documented, not the additional ones I did not document in our neighborhood. Um, we do not believe that it will um alter the essential character of the locality or be injurous to the public. We believe that it fits in well with our neighborhood. We believe fact since we've purchased the property over six years ago. We believe it's beautified the pro uh the neighborhood and lifted up the values. We also think that having a semicircle driveway more protects the children that are getting off the bus stop by providing a forward view rather than just relying on backup or backup cameras. Not everybody is affluent enough to purchase a car with a backup camera. So, let's go through the rest of the um property there and um what I have here.

Oh, sorry.

But that's okay. Just keep going down. I just want to show you the comparison of the other properties. I only provided six that are near there. Um this is our property what it looks like. You can see the setbacks. Um we're requesting that as it existed six years ago when we um put in the semicircle driveway that it remains as is. Um keep going please. Here's the documentation to support it. Here's some semicircle driveways near us. Um, there is one, two, three, four, five, six within a reasonable space. Um, I did not document others in the neighborhood, but we do have others in our surrounding neighborhood. Um, keep going down, please. Uh, keep going down. Uh this property right here is uh behind my neighbor's house. So it's uh within walking distance of my house. Very quick walking distance. This is an existing gravel semicircle driveway. It's across from a I don't know if you'd classify a church as a commercial building or not, but that is also in our neighborhood. It has um paved parking for a church congregation. It's within you could actually throw a rock from our house at Greenwood on that. U please go to the next one. This is um Steve's property. This caddy cornered. It is a semicircle property. It does have better setbacks than ours. Um the asphalt's deteriorating, but they do park regularly as you can see in the front of the house. Go to the next one, please. This is Joe who is immediately next door. He parks regularly in the front of his house. He has um some mobility issues and I think him parking the front of his house greatly aids his safety. Uh go to the next one. This is one that's about two to three houses down. You can't hardly see the grass part of this created semicircle

driveway. Um that gentleman's been a great neighbor and um again it fits well within our neighborhood. Keep going please. Uh the next one is across from the house that Tony and I uh live in. Um that is Crystal and uh Daryl used to be there. Unfortunately, he's passed away. It's a large U-shaped type of driveway, but they've been great neighbors as well. I think it fits well in our neighborhood. Um keep going, please. And then um caddy cornered from the house we live at at 30008 which is very close and walking distance to the Greenwood property is another semicircle partially grass partially asphalt and um these neighbors have been good neighbors as well. Um keep going please in the presentation. Um again this is just highlighting the immediate six neighbor uh neighbor driveways which includes we'll see the non U-shaped ones. Uh keep going down. Let's highlight those. Um, we've we've looked at um Steve's already, so keep going. Uh, that's Joe's. Keep going. Right here, this is we have two Joe's on either side. This is Joe to the right of the property. If you're looking at it, he has a gravel driveway. Um, really nice neighbor, fruit trees. Really enjoy his company when we talk to him. Um, keep going. Uh this driveway is across uh kind of caddyy quartered from Joe's house which is not that far away. They have a gravel kind of I don't know pit area to park in. Uh keep going. Uh this right here is 310. This is Mary's house. It is a mixture of concrete and grass and a little bit of gravel in the front. You can throw a stone from Greenwood House to that property and then keep going to the next one. Um, this is Arthur and Ethan's

house. There are immediately across the way. They have an awesome driveway. They just recently surfaced it. Um, we admire that quite a bit. And let's keep going. And then I wanted to again highlight the documentation of the bus stop. I do believe that the spa stop being so near the property, having a circle driveway reduces the risk to the children. I can't guarantee that, but I feel that when you forward face children, especially when they're shorter, I just think it's more visibility. And then that's my correspondence with the bus barn. Anything else that I should add? Okay. So, those are the three reasons why I think um we're petitioning for these um granting of these variances. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Any questions? I have a question. Um how much would it cost to pay? Come on back up. Sorry. Um between 30 and $40,000, which is a significant portion of the whole thing, which includes the existing. The property was purchased for $97,000 if you want to get comparison of that.

Any other questions? Are you open to making what is what what's there now? Are you open to I can't remember the measurement back in the presentation, but the 10 foot wide part is is that something you'd be open to changing if the Rest of the commissioners said it was still guess why narrowing the width of the I'll have to swear him in. My name is Tony Leaves. I live at 3008 Silvin Lane. I mean I think you could swear. He needs to be sworn in. I don't believe you were sworn in at the beginning. Were you? Yes, I was.

Okay. I thought I thought I saw him standing at the first initial thing. So please proceed. So, I mean, I think you could potentially make it somewhat a little bit narrower, but I mean, honestly, a 10- foot I I I think that I think it would honestly look worse and and certainly be less functional. Um, you know, I mean, you can see from from the pictures and, you know, and and our neighborhood is eclectic. We like it, but um you know, it just the way that it is, we really truly believe that um you know, it it actually enhances the property and and it certainly does fit in our neighborhood.

Oh, and then uh and I think Angel did point it out, but not really stress it. You know, it is it is the the gravel is blocked in by pavers on on either side. So, I know one of the things was a potential risk of the the gravel getting into the public right away. I mean, that simply doesn't happen. The driveway has been there since 2019. And I mean, it just, you know, it's it's all it's packed down and it doesn't, you know, it does not migrate. Questions? You have I just you have the lot size itself is is quite large, right? To the Would that be the east?

Do you have It's two lots combined into one. Yes, we did. Okay. Yeah. The house is was virtually built like on the property line, right? So, and and it just didn't make sense to have two tax bills anyway.

Any other questions? Okay. Thank you both. Appreciate it. Anybody else wish to speak on this matter?

Good afternoon. Please state your name and address.

My name is Arthur Coleman. I live directly across the street from the house that you are talking about. And um in the time that I' I've lived in the neighborhood for over 30 years and um I lived I started out living three houses above where I am now. I bought a lot that extend for uh an acre. I bought three three lots that in that area to build on. Now in that area we was allowed to um it not allowed we was or we had to um go along with what the um everybody said that uh the city said that had to be done. In that case, it was um everything had to be e either grandfathered in or redone. In the in the home that I lived in before, I had a area that I needed for a driveway and I was I had to put in a a new um area of asphalt and for me to park in. and um in this area being there with these homes already grandfathered in with the neighborhood with the gravel driveways and the driveways that that's already broken that people had concrete driveway but now they are broking up.

I feel that um it it would be in in their in my um case that this area be concreted like it should be because that area is not grandfathered in. It is a a area where you take out a the yard to put in. Then now the straight driveway was grandfathered in. My next door neighbors were grandfathered in. My backdoor neighbors was grandfathered in. So there's there's a lot of homes there that is not grandfathered in that is grandfathered in. So, we would like, you know, I would like to see that this area be taken care as it should be and um see where it goes from there because um I think it it should have been um a regular driveway in there in the first place. And I thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you very much. Anybody else wish to speak on this? Anything else you like to add?

Yeah. So, I just wanted to go through a few of the comments uh about this presentation. Um so, I did a fairly deep dive of one, what was non-conforming existing being that this area um was most likely very much so developed prior to being brought into the city. Um, and you know what's changed over what we can see from aerials from time periods. Um, with decent views, I can see back to 1997. Um, and no other property has changed the format of their driveways or what looks to be um their material. Oftentimes you can kind of tell like what looks more dusty is probably a gravel driveway versus concrete. Um, so I did just want to go through a couple um that we look through. So specifically the neighboring property um 3301. So just to the west of the subject property, it is a semicircle shape. Um there is a car parked in what looks to be the front yard because it's ahead of the house. However, the inside, so center circle does meet the 25 ft setback um and does meet our definition of what we would allow for a semicircle driveway built in a new house today to park there. Um it's also a concrete surface um and the legs coming off are 13 ft and 25 ft. Now again, that actual structure of the driveway has not changed. So, while the 25 ft is non-conforming leading to a two-stall driveway um has not changed, um they also have both improved accesses. Uh 311 here,

what was that last sentence that you said?

Both of their accesses, so the accesses to the rightway, the transition from the road to the driveway are improved, meaning that they're uh hard surface. They may not be up to code um as far as slopes or widths, but they are improved. Uh so this driveway um a little wonky. Um the semicircle driveway is not prominent. It doesn't look permanent. Um based on the images that I've seen, it looks like people just drove the grass very often, which may have been to loop around uh from the garage and get onto the neighbor's driveway. Um, it is about a 10-ft width. So, meeting the width requirement for uh what I believe is maybe a two-stall garage back there. 10 foot is allowed for even a single stall. Um, but it is gravel surface. Unchanged though since 1997. Uh, this property uh a semicircle shape. It's about a 25ft front yard setback to the center. Um, so meeting that setback that we would allow today. It is a hard paved surface. Um, though I think many of the driveways around here uh have some maintenance work to do, whether it be weeds and grass coming through um generally broken up in old driveways. Um, I wouldn't call it an improved access, but it's not necessarily gravel meeting at the road. And the legs are both 11 and 12 feet wide approximately. uh 2927 here is a semicircle shape. Um this circle portion is uh mostly grass and you'll see here. Um so something like that if we saw cars parked on it and received a complaint or had code in the area uh code enforcement would most likely enforce on that because it would

be parking on an unimproved surface. Um and would potentially lead to, you know, either no parking on that get the gravel out as best as possible, let the grass grow up and that never existed. um or improving it. However, if they were to improve it, obviously it would have to be hard surface and meet the setbacks. Um the straight portion is paved. It's 22 feet at its greatest width, so slightly over. However, I'm measuring from GIS, so that could give or take a few feet. Um and does have unimproved access. It looks like gravel may be meeting the road. See here, uh 4615 Dale. This one also a semicircle. It's meeting the 25 foot setback. Its legs are 10 and 20 feet. Um asphalt surface again probably could use a little bit of maintenance. Um and we'll call it lightly improved axises. And then finally, uh, 3208 um, was specifically brought up. Their parking pad in the front yard is definitely not within code. However, it's always been, uh, visible on aerials. Um something that we would look at certainly as you're seeing uh weeds and grass go through there uh and we see cars parked on it just as the other one was we could look at code enforcement enforcing on hey you're not maintaining it. Um this one we'd most likely have removed completely. Um but they could go through the variance uh process of getting a front yard driveway. This would not be one where we could just allow it to be paved as is uh because it's not meeting in any way. And then 3213, I think I skipped it somewhere.

Well, regardless, they're a semicircle. They have a 20 foot front yard center um setback, so slightly less than what's allowed. Their legs are about 20 ft. It's a gravel material and unimproved access. Um however, again, all the ones that I just described, whether gravel or paved, um whether meeting the setback or not, and whether the legs and accesses are there have not changed. Um so I just wanted to note all those. Um, and then I did look back to 1997, which is what our aerials allow for a decent picture. Um, I do want to also add that in our criteria from planning um, we don't have a financial feasibility or accessibility um, condition, review or standard. So, we cannot take those into account when doing our review. Um, and bus stops are also not within our planning code. So, I can't speak to like the safety or nature of those bus stops.

Thank you.

Any questions? Anything that the petitioners like to add in response to the latest information? It's up to you. No. Okay. There's nothing further close the hearing go into deliberations. So we'll go and do that thoughts. I mean, personally, I would like to seen the the revision follow, you know, the development code, even if that's asphalt coming off of of gravel, it just it looks like a lot of gravel even when driving by. And I I do understand that the neighborhood is, you know, is nuanced or, you know, unique in that it was acquired or absorbed into the city annex way before it was developed. after it was developed. Um, you know, the aerial shots of all the other half circles or dual access driveways everywhere around there, you know, do have that wider grass, you know, the proper proper dimensions for a half circle. I don't think I'm supporting it the way it is. comments. I uh I guess I'm not um I'm disappointed with the the width and uh you know we're having to discuss it after the fact. Um but having said

that I think that the finished result with the pavers is an improvement to the to the neighborhood and to the property value. I think the circle driveway, there's half a dozen circle driveways in that area. Uh I don't find an issue with that and I think the parking spot, you know, is an advantage with regard to the fact that a bus stop is there. Um, you know, if if this had been brought to me, you know, earlier, we probably would have pushed have it either be asphold or concrete. But but given that the finished product is as good as it as it is with those papers, uh I reluctantly supportive of this.

Thank you. Any else? Yeah, this um It's It's helpful knowing that the rest of the circle drives are grandfathered in. Uh that's a helpful piece. Um it's Yeah, I struggle with this one a little bit. Um I I can see the all sides of this one. Um yeah, I don't know if any of that was helpful, but those are my my thoughts. Well, I have three separate findings of fact to go through because there's three separate requests. There's the request for um allow for vehicle parking in the front yard. There's a request to allow the existing gravel driveway service remain unpaved. And there's the request for to increase the width from 20 to 33 feet. So, we'll do each one of those in in turn. Um, and once we've done all three findings, in fact, we can have a discussion about what kind of motions we're looking at.

That fair and chairman, the gravel is just for the semicircle. That's the only portion that we're talking about. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for clarifying. Yeah. The ex the original straight 20 foot gravel driveway is not not an issue here. We're talking about the c the circular issue. connect to the the new part to that it can stay. So the way I was explained it so an improvement is this new driveway. So when you're taking into consideration the findings of facts the circle driveway is the one that you're looking at. If we go with paving it, the entire thing needs to be paved.

And I guess can I get a clarification? So, if there were an adjustment to the to the circle part, um, that would allow for them to park a vehicle in the front yard and not have any issues. So, so have to be moved back. The 25 foot setback line that's kind of dotted through there is where that inner circle would have to start. So, pushed way back. As it stands today, it's in front of it, if that makes sense. The circle part of it. Yep. So the inner circle, that point would have to go up to the 25 foot setback in order. Can you use your mouse on there? Yes. Sorry.

Um, so this is the 25 foot setback approximately. And I know it looks really squished. There's like 10 ft I believe here if I'm remembering right. Um, this middle point here of this driveway would have to go all the way up to here and then you could have the driveway back. That would be legal parking in the front yard. Okay. For yeah, for what it's worth, I that's that's the way I'm leaning with uh uh making an adjustment to the driveway so that it's you know, not not having an adjustment to the gravel, but with that new portion meeting um the uh the setback requirements for that inner circle. think is where I'm going to land.

Thank you. Any other questions of staff before we go into findings of fact or Yeah. All right. So, the first findings of fact is for the requested variance, major variance request for front yard parking. So we're just talking about front yard parking right now for this finding effect. So again, there's three criteria that have to be met in order to grant a variance. So I'll go and start with the first one being that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in that zoning district. Commissioner Lions,

true. Commissioner Rue, false. Can false. I will find it to be false. Number two, the play of the owner is due to unique circumstances. True or false? Commissioner Lions. True. Commissioner R. False. Commissioner can true. I also find it to be true. The variance of granted will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the public or other property or properties. True or false? Commissioner Lions.

True. R false. Commissioner can false. I find it to be true. Um we only have one true for the last one. So we have not met the criteria for the first move on now. Let's move on now.

So I have a motion. I make a motion to approve first request for parking in the front. Motion to approve by Commissioner Canon. I have a second. Second. Second. Commissioner Lions. Roll call. Commissioner Lions. No. Commissioner Cannon. No. Commissioner Rue. No. Chairman Russo.

No. Now we have the request for um to maintain the gravel material for the circular. Yes. Any discussion before we go back on this one? No. All right. Same same three criteria. You have to meet three of them. Number one, the property in question Y a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in that zoning district. True or false? Commissioner Lions. True.

True. False. I'll find it to be true. Plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. True or false? Commissioner L. True. Commissioner R. True. Commissioner can true. find it true. Number three, the variation if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the public or other property or properties. Commissioner Lions. True. Ran false.

I find it to be true. So, um all three criteria found to be true for this request. Can I A motion on this one. I'll make a motion to approve the second variance request for parking surface and access. It's a motion to approve requested variance to maintain it as gravel. Second by Commissioner Canon, second by Commissioner R. Oh, please. We want to have gravel with papers. requirement certainly amend the the motion.

Yeah, I mean they're there but yeah, I would amend my motion to the addition of papers with the gravel chairman. We can't have a variance from the approach. Those have to be improved no matter what. to hard surface the approach. We're talking about the border of the gravel, not the Okay. Okay. I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page because I heard access but public works. Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page. Yeah. We don't want to mess with public works. Yes. Okay. I just wanted to make sure.

So, you could repeat the amendment. Yes. Uh make an amendment to approve the parking service and access constructed of gravel. without any public works I'm sorry without ordering or retention papers around the not including the entries and exits retention papers not include the entry or exit a do you second the amended second Okay. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Lions, yes. Commissioner Canon, no. Commissioner Rue, yes. Chairman Russo, yes.

And then last request is for the extension of the width of the driveway. to go from 20 feet to 33 feet. In other words, encompassing the the current driveway driveway now is 33 ft. Um, again, this is a major variance request. So, all three criteria must be true. Number one, the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in that zoning district. True or false? Commissioner Lions. True. Ran false. I'll find it true. Number two, the ploy of the owner is due to unique circumstances. True or false? True. Commissioner. True. Commissioner can. I find it true. Number three. The variance of granted will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the public or other property or properties. Mr. Lions true. I find it true. So all three criteria have been met. Anybody wish to make a motion? I move to approve the drive driveway width of 33 feet at its widest part.

Motion to approve the request of variance by R. Second by Commissioner Lions. Roll call, please. Commissioner Lions, yes. Commissioner Canon, no. Commissioner Rue, yes. Chairman Russo,

yes. Okay. So, we have circling back, we have denied the request for the front yard parking and approved the other two variance requests with the the condition for the the gravel. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Okay. Next item on the agenda on the docket is ZBA 3982025.

Yeah. Case number ZBA 398-2025. Public hearing on the request of Adam al-Sharai of Aldar Coffee to obtain a major variance from the city of Puri Unified Development Code section 8.3.10.8 temporary and permanent signs to increase the area of window signs from 20% to 94%. And to obtain a minor variance from section 4.3.4.1 4 I.1 Windows and doors to reduce the transparent window and door area on the facade fronting Mccclure Avenue from 40% to 21% in a class CG general commercial district for property located at 1229 West Mccclure Avenue. The parcel identification number is 143254016. Uh so this property is in uh CG general commercial zoning district. Um the surrounding zoning or uh and it's located at the corner of University. It's running north south and the mcclur east west. It's right at the corner there. Um the other zoning south of mccclur uh but along University Street we have uh different commercial zoning and commercial uses, gas station with a convenience store, uh retail and office services. uh in immediate vicinity. Um we also have uh residential zoning. So across university is a school use in R3 residential zoning district. Um along Mccclure after this corner property we have single family residential zoning uh shown in the R4 orange color. Uh the property is developed with a commercial building. Um and it's two stories tall. Uh two tenant spaces on the bottom right now. uh up upper level

um non-commercial uses and then we have um there's a secondary building in the back um and then we have a parking lot with access for mccclur and university the CG district um so again here with the pink hatch uh these properties um have in addition to sign code requirement uh that's the same throughout the city about how large your your signs can be on a window. In the CG district, there's also a transparency requirement for windows and doors. There's a minimum percentage of your store of the of the ground story of a building that needs to have windows and doors. Um, and then windows and doors that meet that requirement are supposed to be transparent. Um and the you know the intent behind that is the CG district is a little bit more in the the um little bit more neighborhood smaller commercial districts. Um so to kind of promote the mix of uses and the pedestrian um aspect of where they are located and the type of services that might be found in these districts. U but those are uh relevant to the variance petition. Uh so this site plan shows um the tenant with the signs that we're talking about. Um coffee shop Alar Coffee is here and their windows are on the Mccclure side of the building that uh we're talking about this afternoon. Okay. So they're they're asking for uh two two variations from the code. The first is uh a variation from our sign from the our sign regulations. So that's section 8.3.10.8 temporary and permanent signs. They're

asking to cover um uh what I've estimated at 94% of the coverage. Um and then this is the uncovered area. The sign code allows you to cover 20% of your windows. And then the uh other section of the code is about the transparency. So with their proposal, they've really reduced the transparency um from the building, the entire uh facade. And so that part of the code is from a section specific to the CG zoning district. And uh that is section 4.3.4. 4.1 called windows and doors. And so they would be as a result of the window signs is to reduce the transparent window and door area from the pre-existing 46% that that they had um down to 21%. Um so primarily just relying on these uh windows to meet that transparency requirement. Um, and that transparency requirement is accounting just for the doors and windows that are between two and 10 feet above the public sidewalk. Uh, so that's just what the code asks for is between two and 10 ft above the sidewalk. We have transparency of at least 40% of the of the building of the wall area. Um, and so that they're asking again to reduce it from 40% that's required to 21%. Um the building as existing uh kind of has about 46% opening right now minus the uh these signs. So the signs the

signs are in um relatively new business. Um uh we do have a permit for the wall signs that they have installed but uh we were not approached about these window signs uh to be able to advise on what the code uh requirement is. Um and so because the signs the window signs are um you know all parts of it are are related to to the business. Um it's considered a wall sign or window sign when it's adhered to a window. um if they are not on the window uh there's potential that they don't get to be called a sign and don't have that uh 20% coverage. Uh certainly um because also the transparency, he would not be able to just put a blanket um you know solid color uh vinyls on the window or stickers on the windows if it was non-transparent due to the CG regulation. Um so that that option wouldn't be there. But if you did want to cover parts of the window, curtains, blinds, those are things that we usually recommend when business owners um want to cover some of the windows and have these two regulations uh that that would apply. Um uh his application does note that um in the nighttime you can see through. Um I I didn't witness that um but I'm sure he can testify to that. Um but in the daytime, this is the the image that you get from the outside. you can't see in when you're inside the shop. You can see out um daytime or night time. Um but uh Mr. Alai uh would like to have these window signs um as they are as they are installed now. Um he's um identified that um he feels that it increases the customer sense of safety

of of uh kind of preventing loitering on the outside um or interrupting their customers on the inside. And then uh he's also asking to have it in order to continue to establish the character of the business that he's um trying to uh promote. Um the last page of this cases packet I did provide the dimensions. So it's through these dimensions that I'm identifying the percentages and coverage um that uh the variations are from uh but this would be the the storefront of the corner store um that's needed in order for me to assess um the overall transparency. And then these are the coverage of his doors and windows on his particular coffee shop tenant space. All right. And so um the review of this application um staff uh we we cannot support the requests. Um and I'll go over the the findings. uh the the request for the size of the sign on this particular tenant space is a major variance because we're covering nearly all of the windows. Um so I'll go over the major variance standards. So the first is the property cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed in that zoning district. Uh we we don't support that. the business could use other window treatments that I mentioned to get that sense of security. Um without these signs, we do feel a restaurant business could um could occupy the space. Uh number two, the standard is the plight of the owners due to unique circumstances. We're looking at physical conditions here when it comes to unique

circumstance and we did not identify any in this in this space. Uh number three, the variation if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurous to the public. Um we find that to be false. Um when it comes to window signs like this, we are particularly worried about precedent setting um for other businesses that employ this particular type of of window sign. Um especially if there's no unique circumstance here and we really want to um support our window regulations. um they're intended to prevent undue concentration of signs and preserve the character of the city. Um so those are the three findings for the overall size of the sign. Um reasoning for um not supporting the coverage that he's asking for. uh request number B or letter B that's for the overall transparency of the facade looking at both tenant spaces and how much transparency is result um that is a minor variance so there's there's still more than half of the requirement um and uh even with that uh we are not supporting the requests I'll go over each finding one the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances similarly ly we don't find a physical condition in on the building or the right of way to warrant the variance. Number two, the variation if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the public or the property or properties. Um we find that to be false. Um the fenistration and transparency is supposed to be a design measurement to encourage and and and make the space walkable and friendly on the outside of

the building as well as the inside. Um and then uh number three standard is that this represents the minimum deviation necessary. Uh staff would um not support that this is the minimum deviation. We would um we would point out that other window treatments are available and if the window size was reduced to 20% the window sign was reduced to 20% which is allowed um they would have the necessary um transparency um they would meet the minor variance they would not need the minor variance if the window was down if the window sign was down to 20%. I hope that's clear. Number four, the conditions of the variance are not self-created. Um because uh they they didn't reach out to us, they put up the signs uh without seeking the code, um number standard number four is not met. Number five, the granting the variance will result in a public benefit to the surrounding neighborhood and the city as a whole. The public benefit may include, but is not limited to, preservation or enhancement of desirable site characteristics and natural features or historic resources, design that enhances the surrounding area, economic development, which may enhance the local economy or efficient use of land as it relates to surrounding structures and services. Uh, you know, we we recognize it's a new established business here. Um but the uh the other options for signage that are more consistent with our um desirable site characteristics for any business um outweighs, you know, a a singular benefit to this business with the sign. Um and so we think the business could still be

could still yield a reasonable return um without this specific variance. So those are our uh review of the findings. Thank you very much questions. When we when we talk about the window dimensions and is it the overall glass of the front that we look at or each individual pane of glass?

Sure. Good good question. Uh so because he's covered kind of all of it. Um the the overall coverage that I'm presenting with the 94% is the all the glass. Um the code um you know if he were to come with with a different proposal the code would give him 20% of this window area could be assigned. That's 20% of all of this because it's only separated by these mullions. We would basically look at this as one big window um and have that 20% coverage. And then this could kind of have different coverage since it's a separate it's a door instead of the window.

Okay. Other questions? Just so I'm clear on the, you know, if all of the signage was removed from the windows and the lines were put up to achieve, you know, a sense of security and safety, that's okay. Yes. All right. Well, thank you very much. Please step to the podium. Good afternoon. If you please take your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon. My name is Adam and uh I live in 7150 North Terra Vista Drive. Please proceed.

Yeah. Um, I been, well, I'm thankful and grateful for you guys for making me open the coffee shop and uh, I've been contact to the city was my first go to through the permits and everything. And, um, the tenant before me, he had all of the windows covered. So I thought it was a city code that it was uh approved and um and I thought it plays a big role just because um to match the theme from the inside and outside and u we were the first one to have Arabic coffee shop. So, I wanted to have a little bit of culture from the outside just to try to attract people in. And I feel like um it does play a big role in the business and uh just because the area is not the safest and there's a lot of people there's a gas station in front of us. A lot of people be littering and kind of sometimes follow my customers to their car, ask them for money and stuff. Just kind of make them when they come in, they at least don't don't the people outside don't see who's inside. Makes them a little safe and maybe um feel secure and might want to come back if that was a issue. Thank you. Um, there questions. Have you have you

looked into what the cost would be to get blinds or some sort of interior window shading to again I totally first I appreciate you opening a business and respect your concerns for your customer safety. Have you looked at alternatives like getting blinds or something on the interior so you can shut the blinds and give them that sense of security of not having to look outside to see who's out there? There's actually students that come sit out outside those windows or behind the windows. Uhhuh.

So they uh that curtain would be in the way when the tables under it and it would affect the light. the this the the sunlight is makes uh the whole uh coffee shop kind of right now with these signs that the light they're opaque the light's able to come in. Yeah, they're see-through. Yeah.

But on the since on a summer day, a hot day, you can't see inside because the sun is like But you once you're inside the coffee shop, you see clear as day outside. They're um they're not tent windows. They're the new vinyl. They come in like bubbles. So there's a bubble in each little pixel kind of. Okay. And it did cost a lot to put them on and it did cost a lot to print them and just uh you know hate for it to just go for waste.

Understand. Thank you for answering my question. Um, other question. Would you be open to u a reduction of how many there are or I mean are you open to the idea of pairing it down some or?

Yeah, I I was thinking I'll take out the right side maybe if if if you guys are willing to work with me like one whole big window from top and bottom if that makes it any better. Um, so part of the question that I had before regarding if it's like one single pane or the entire thing was to come to some sort of an agreement of, you know, maybe uh with the the whole top row and taking out the the top row, the smaller ones. Um, if that would get us down to a percentage that was that would work. I don't know if it gets to a percentage that wouldn't require a variance though. I think because what you have is is that 19% written from the uh I guess it would be the very last page of the packet. Is that how I would interpret that? My understanding is that you can have 20% covered. Um, and he's looking to for variance to have 90% covered,

right? So, I I

my sense is I'm not I went to law school to avoid doing math, but my sense is that that just the top two pains wouldn't probably wouldn't get us to uh wouldn't get us to the 20%. I don't know if it would get us into minor variance territory. My sense is probably not, but I don't I don't know. Well, I might be wrong, but it seems to me the reason for the transparency is for police and fire to be able to see in when they're approaching this building. So, to me, what he offered to do by taking out that right side kind of accomplishes that versus opening up the top ones, that doesn't really from a security from the outside coming in angle. uh help as much. So I I would be leaning. It sounds like petitioner would work with us if we just take out those right side ones that that maybe you know for everybody but trying to find a way to modify this. Caroline, do you have a sense for if the if that the right side panel the whole side was taken down is is being discussed right now. What that would put us at in terms of is that still a major variance? Are we in minor territory? What's what's the percentage difference between major or minor?

Uh so 20% is what he's allowed. So it would become a major by just going to 30 more than 30%. So less than a third. So when I talked to him, it was sort of like a 20% would really be just about this. Um certainly removing this portion, you know, opens up the security. I think it it would give some flexibility in looking at the standards from first versus staff's review. Um opens up some of those options for minimum deviation and not injurious to the public. Um uh but to get to the code between this and then this I you you'd still be in the major variance uh findings. Um as far as the transparency um I'd have to think about that for a minute what that would Oh, that's a minor variance now. So I would um if you're reducing making that more even more it would let me think about that for a moment.

And and my other question was you're you're kind of crunching the numbers would be if we do if we were going to eliminate the right side there that those those two panels right there do we need for like a motion purposes for the variance do we need to put a percentage you know right now it's a it's 90%. So, do do we say that we're just removing the right side or or do we need to have a percentage and what would that percentage be if you could correct? Yeah, I don't know if I'd be able to get to that percentage. So, I think we could write it as a condition. Okay. Uh like you mentioned to just physically describe what can be covered. Okay.

Um and then I think that would be that would be more helpful in the future if you were to say swap out the vinyls. uh we would be able to that' be a lot easier to say what can and can't be covered. Okay. Thank you. Do we have do we have other questions for the petitioner while he's standing there? No, I do want to comment. I appreciate

we appreciate Thank you very much. Thank you so much, guys. While they're doing some number crunching, does anybody else wish to speak on on this case? No. Okay. So, we'll just pause for a second.

We can do the findings of facts. I think we're willing to do we can do the findings. Yeah, we can do the findings of fact on the major variance right now. I think what we're waiting for is whether we still have to vote on a minor variance or not. Yeah, my sense is we probably will still need to vote on this. request is already minor. So my sense is it's still going to be a minor variance. Yeah. Uh so I wanted to double check it. Um well, we could do the minor

the uh with the removal of this panel. He'd still be at well No, hold on. Let me go back. effect whatever she calcul right yeah originally we're looking for now that now that I think we're walking through this I think originally she was looking for whether we still hit the criteria for the minor variance and the answer is going to be yes I think we're still going to hit the minor variance percentage is going to drop for how much we're looking for but it's still still a variance

so that's what I was waiting for I think we're gonna have to vote on it either Yeah. Uh because I thought maybe he would still be at the 40 which is what you need. Um but he'd he would still not meet the minimum required. Okay. So there's still a minor variance on the transucent. Yeah. The request B.

Okay. So we we know our direction. So any anything else before we So we haven't closed the proceedings. Any other questions for anybody before we close the thing we obviously talk about in deliberations if we need to talk about percentages or or guidance on how to craft a motion but in terms of any other questions petitioner anything else before we close okay so we will close and go into deliberations um I think we've already couple you guys have already commented a little about where you're what you're thinking um in terms of possibly uh coming to a compromise here and having remove a portion of the covering keep the and basically create a variance as to the requ as to the rest but uh we can talk about the specifics of that after we do the findings of fact. So let's go to the findings of fact first. So the first request deals with the request to increase the area of the window signs um from 20% to something above 30% which would be which would make it a major. He's requested 94%. Um so we'll take it we'll take his request right now of to go from 20 to 94% and if we ultimately think we put a need to put a condition like you have to remove one whole side we can put that as a condition for our granting the variance. So that's the request. Um so it's a major variance and so the following three criteria have to be met. Number one, the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in the zoning district. Commissioner Lions.

True. Commissioner R. True. Commissioner can true. I find it true. Number two, the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. True or false? Commissioner Lions. True. Commissioner R. True. Commissioner Canon. True.

I find it true. Number three. The variation if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the public or other property or properties. Commissioner Lions. True M. True measure can true I find it true. So let's let's take this let's before we do the fin fact on the minor let's talk about the major now. So we have met the criteria on the major which is the the area that can be covered by signage. Does anybody want to make a motion regarding that or do we want do we want to talk to staff? to get some clarification from staff as to what that motion would look like.

I guess a struggle I have with the the actual math is that there's already are obviously compartmentalized. So I don't want to say blanket you know we can increase it from 20 to 40%. If that I guess I want to incorporate what we're all thinking and discussing without being overly complex in our map, right? We could talk about a full top and bottom panel being left open. There's there's three three full basically four. Is the door is the door an issue with this one or is just the window?

Uh it it's all of it because he has um that the coverage is is more than what is either exempt or allowed by the 20% allowance. Like this is all covered. Okay, we're all factory. Okay, so there's four panels. So um be as simple as saying it needs to be removed as you said top and bottom panel the same one obviously. Can we do something like not to exceed 70%. Maybe that's what I was trying to get at is whether

I mean a top remove a top and bottom panel to exceed 70%. You may want to change initially. Not to exceed 70% of the area. As long as as long as we're comfortable that covers the whole top and bottom panel not to exceed 70%. Does that make does that make sense from the city's perspective? Is that saying not to exceed 70%. So just blanket and not instead of the ask of 94% you're just saying he can do whatever but it needs to be 77 or 70 70

or you're saying specifically I think we're saying both. What we're saying is not to exceed 70%. Removal of a of a top and bottom panel, but the overall area not to exceed 70%. I don't want to speak. Okay. So, remove these and then what's left still needs to be 70%. Or less or less. Okay. Yeah. I I don't have a Yeah, I don't know what that 70% looks like. Um but I understand that condition we're saying

just these actually his total request to go to closer 50% well that's about a quarter of the deal it looks like to me so that's 75 plus but I think what you were saying was that it was going to be removal of that 70% Yeah, the way I understood it was that we were going to dictate that he can cover 70% of his window of the of the window of the whole service area, but as a condition of the 70% that we want a top and bottom panel removed.

So, um that would mean that if he's removing top and bottom panel that would get him with I mean he'd be If our math is correct, he would be within the 70%. He'd be okay. So you wouldn't like if he wants to change it later, we could take out the whole center section. That would be 30% transparent. He wouldn't be able to do that in the future. Yeah. Yeah. What we're see, again, we haven't made a motion. What was being discussed was 70% total. You take one top, one bottom. Um if he didn't do that, I mean, theoretically, he could take the tops off the three and maybe I don't know.

Yeah, I just did some more number crunching and I'm fairly confident this and this would get him below 70. Close but below 70 with these two removed. He's got at least 6% there in that window. He should beow

the bottom line is he can cover up up to 70%. And so that's the overall that can be covered. But we're saying is it is a condition of that that a top bottom panel have to be covered. So I think we're saying the same thing you guys will be making. I'll let you say I understand it. So any other Are we good? Do we think we do we think we know what we need to say for a motion? We we'll let the staff jump in if we think that our motion's unclear for implementation. So why don't we give it the old college try? Any want to make a motion on this one?

This is the major variance. Yes. The old This is This is the request for u page. This is the request to go to increase the area of window signs from 20% to 94%. I would make a motion to approve that request, but lowering the 90% to 70%.

70% or less window signs in inclusive of a top and bottom panel. That doesn't matter to me. So your motion right now is just just pure percentage to go from 20% to 70%. Correct. Okay. We have a second on that one.

I'll second that. Motion to approve an increase from 20% to 70%. Made by Commissioner Canon, seconded by Commissioner Rue. Any further discussion before we go to vote? Okay. Roll call, please. Commissioner Lions, yes. Commissioner Canon, yes. Commissioner Rue, yes. Chairman Russo, yes. Motion passes.

All right. So then the second request is a minor variance and this is the one that would reduce the transparent window and door area on the facade fronting Mccclure Avenue from 40% to 21%. I think it's currently actually 46% but the requirement is 40%. So down to 21%. Does that make sense everybody? Any questions before we go to findings of fact on this one? Okay. So, this is a minor variance and the following five criteria must be true. Number one, the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Commissioner Lions, true. Commissioner R.

True. Commissioner Canon, true. I find it to be true. Number two, the var variation if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the public or other property or properties. Uh, Commissioner Lions. True. Commissioner R. True. Commissioner Canon. True. I also find it true. Number three, the proposed variance represents the minimum deviation from the standards necessary to accomplish the desired improvement. Commissioner Lions. True. Commissioner R.

True. Canon true I find it true number four the conditions of the variances requested are not selfcreated lions true true canon false I will find it to be true number five the granting of the variation will result in a public benefit to the surrounding neighborhood and the city as a I won't I won't go back through what a public benefit is defined as. True. True. Thank you. True. True.

And I will find it to be true. So all five criteria have been met. Anybody wish to make a motion or do we need clarification on percentages for this one too? Yeah, I think this one needs to be like at least 25%. Uh I did some more rough calculating and with without this we're looking at 28.7%. Would be transparent still.

So I'll go with 20 not to be less than 25%. Reduced to 25%. So if he's at 28 he's in compliance. Yeah. 25. I would I would say uh we could get the size of the window be reduced to 25% of the coffee shop. Motion to approve reduction to 25% transparency made by Commissioner Lions. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Canon. Roll call, please. Commissioner Lions, yes. Commissioner Canon,

yes. Commissioner Rue, yes. Commissioner Russo, yes. Motion passes. The motion passes. All right. Congratulations. Um, if you have any questions about what exactly we've approved today, please talk to to the staff. But again, thank you for bringing the business to Poria and good luck to you. quick recess. Uh we are going to take a quick uh fivem minute recess returning here at 353.

Okay, we will go ahead and resume the zoning board of appeals hearing with our last case in the regular business and that is ZBA 401-2025 and Um that will be Julia reading the case in the record. Thank you.

Okay. ZBA 401-2025 is a public hearing on the request of Alicia Karns to obtain a major variance from the city of Poria Unified Development Code section 5.4.6 fences and walls to increase the height of a fence in the front yard from 3 feet to 6 feet in a class R3 single family residential district for the property located at 4217 West Richard's Way. partial identification number 1313159016 and this is in council district 4. So subject property which is highlighted here in red is just a little over a quarter acre and is in a class R3 single family residential district. It's currently developed as a single family dwelling and has a two stall attached garage. Richard's way follows uh the curve around this property which creates two front yards along the southern and western portions of the property as noted on the recorded Brierale subdivision plat. This property is in the Berdale Homers Association and surrounding properties are developed with uh single family homes and uh zoned R3. The petitioner is requesting to install a 6-ft tall vinyl privacy fence in the northern front yard along Richard's Way and pursuant to 5.4.6, the maximum height of fences in front yard shall be no greater than 3 ft. For the petitioner, the curve of Richard's way creates one continuous front yard and lack of a sideyard. The lot is essentially all front yard since the curve does not create a true corner. And the petitioner also states that the requested bearance is similar to corner lots on Siler and Brierale uh being set back from the property line which are down to the east of this property. The staff uh recommends denial of the requested variance for the height of the front yard fence to increase from 3 feet to six feet based on the following criteria for a major variance. One, the

property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations. Uh staff finds this false. The property can continue to serve as a single family dwelling and the proposed fence can be reduced to either three foot height and remain in the proposed area or can be moved back in line with the facade of the dwelling along Richard's Way and be installed at the proposed 6ft height. Approximately 3,700 square foot of the subject property permits a fence height that's greater than three feet. Uh which is not much less than surrounding properties also allow. Number two, the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Staff finds this false because while the curve of Richard's way creates one large front yard and no uh sideyard that is unique, the property still allows an area similar in size to neighboring properties for a fence height greater than 3 ft. And three, the variation if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the public or other property or properties. Staff finds this false as there are no other fences placed in the front yard within the neighborhood. And so installing a front yard fence uh at a height greater than what is allowed will significantly alter the essential character of the neighborhood. And the property owner may consider installing a fence in the rear yard only to match the established character within the neighborhood. Uh so again this is Brierdale subdivision all zoned R3 all single family homes. So the proposal um so again Richard's way follows the curve which means that everything in front of the facade here which is technically the garage and the facade here is considered a front yard. Um the petitioner is wanting to extend it 8 feet into the front yard. uh still set back 27 feet from the property line. That's what that measurement is. And go

back to fence in this portion of the yard. As I was stating, um the petitioner could just move it back in line with the house. That would be a compliant fence. And this area um that is compliant is about 3,700 ft square feet. This neighbor over here allows for about 3500. um and other surrounding neighbors are somewhere between 38 and 42. So there isn't um a grand difference in what is uh allowed on other properties versus this property. Are there any questions for staff? Questions?

So if she does the blue line, the second picture you just had there, she can put a foot Yep. She moves it out. I prefac.

Yep. Other questions for staff. Thank you very much. If the petitioner would please come to the podium.

Good afternoon. If you could please state your name and address for the record. Alicia Karns, 4217 West Richard Way. Thank you. Please proceed.

Um, who knew that getting a fence would cause this much trouble? Um, I had no idea that what I would consider a sideyard would be considered a front yard. And um just you know to make it aesthetically pleasing maybe just to me um I wanted to extend it out to the 8 ft which would not cause a blockage of any view or anything like that. But if that's not going to happen I guess I just have to bring it back in. That's my plea.

We appreciate that. Anybody have any questions? Uh, as Commissioner Lions uh mentioned, uh would you be okay with um 4 foot on that uh section that comes out from the house and go going to the to meet the neighbor's yard there, having that be four feet and then go up to six feet for the rest of it. Or would if that wouldn't line a privacy. Say that again. Sorry sir. Then it's not really to me a privacy.

Thank you.

The issue we run into these lot then we're set precedent for anybody else that height kind of set precedent for that kind of gone you're allowed three feet there and part of that is because for traffic for police as they're coming around the corner of their ability to be able to see That's why you call your second historically try to keep approvals. We'll try to help you a little bit because it is kind of a sideyard. That's kind of our

Well, there's like the two houses when you enter into this subdivision are well past 8 ft both both uh properties. And um I don't know if there's a a picture of that. Well, again, if you ran just along your property line, you could do extended out maybe what's happened with these other people. I personally doesn't bother me the 8T because you're leaving 27 almost 30 feet still to the street. Um I think that what we do is is nuance when it comes to you know having lived on a corner lot myself I know it can be challenging to figure it out. So the fact that you're not trying to go all the way up to the street and I'm supportive of that.

Other questions for petitioner Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thank you. Anything else from staff? I don't see anybody else in the I'll say anybody else want to speak on this, but there's nobody else here. So, the record. Um, okay. Well, then we will go ahead and go into deliberations. I know that um some of you guys have already kind of shared your thoughts. I mean, my two cents are we keep seeing these corner these second front yard situations. I think it's something that probably the city council should at least take a look at because they're coming up almost every single such a rigid rule.

So, you know, but here we are right now. Right now, it's three feet. So, we're here to to deal with that situation. And, you know, my take is I don't feel like I don't feel like we're setting we're not precedent centers in in the true legal sense. We we have to take each case, you know, case by case fact based on the facts. And so I'm not overly concerned about in one circumstance granting a 4 foot one, in a different circumstance granting a six foot if if this facts warranted. And I I Commissioner Canon's kind of spot on with your comment here, but we're talking about we're talking about 8 feet intruding 8 feet uh into the second front yard or the sideyard, however you respect it, the second front yard, legally speaking. Um so to me, that's different than if if we're talking about trying to get all the way up, you know, within the

the setback lines. I think I think that's, you know, there's the issue I always have concerns about is there an issue of of obstructing traffic or something else and this one here doesn't doesn't seem to have that effect. That's a third consideration I think to the fact that not a rectangle rounded corner. So from a traffic point of view, there's less consideration there. They pointed out that literally a couple blocks, there's a neighbor who's gotten pointed out for the Let's why don't we go and do the findings of fact then we can figure out what a motion would look like. So this is a major variance. The following three criteria have to be true. Number one, the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in that zoning district. True or false? Means true.

Mer true canon. True. I find it true. Number two, the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. I heard two I heard two trs from this side. I heard a true from over there and I'm saying true. So we have four truths. Number three, the variation if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the public or other property or properties. Mr. Lions, true. Mer true. Mr. Can true. I also find it true. So all three criteria have been met. Do I have a motion?

I make a motion to approve approve the variance as requested. Second motion approve variance as requested made by Commissioner Canon. Seconded by Commissioner Rue. Roll call, please. Commissioner Lions. Yes. Commissioner Canon. Yes. Commissioner Rue. Yes, Chairman Russo. Yes. Motion has passed. Congratulations. Thank you very much.

All right. So, that is the end of the Don't forget to sign this last one. That is the end of the cases on the docket. We have a couple more items here real quick. Uh first is the the election of officers both a a chairperson and a vice chairperson. Um I'm happy to do it again if somebody else really wants the chairperson thing. I'm willing to step aside too. Separate each position separately. Yeah, we'll do it separate. We'll start with the chair person.

Chairman Russo for another chairman our chairman. So motion to approve uh Chairman Russo as the chairman again and by by Commissioner Canon, seconded by Commissioner Lions. All in favor say I. I. I'll say it's myself, but it's carried with with three. Um Okay. Well, thanks guys. All right. So, we have that something you're good with that. Yeah, we talked about it. I'm just putting on the record.

Yeah. No, I think I think Commissioner Lions, thank you for your service as the vice chairperson. You obviously were very helpful and so appreciate that and Commissioner K. Thank you for being willing to step up unless Commissioner R wants to challenge you. We're going to have we have a motion by Commissioner Lion, second by Commissioner Rue for Commissioner Cannon to be the vice chair. Uh all in favor say I. I carries three to zero. So congratulations Commissioner Canon. Congratulations chair members. Thank you, sir. All right. What' you say? Go update my resume. Yeah, there you go.

Uh, citizens opportunity to address the commission. I think the only citizens are us at this juncture. Um, so without further ado, I will ask for a motion to adjourn. Move to motion by Commissioner R. Second by Commissioner Lions. All in favor say I. We are journ. Thank you very much.