[00:00:01]
ALL RIGHT, GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.
[Zoning Board of Adjustments on January 4, 2023.]
I'D LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYONE HERE TODAY, AND AT THIS TIME, I'LL CALL THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING TO ORDER.I GUESS WE'LL START OFF WITH A ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
NEXT ITEM IS CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES, MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7TH.
EVERYONE BEEN ABLE TO LOOK AT THEM? IS THERE ANY? MOVE TO APPROVE CLEMENT.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND.
LET'S VOTE ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES.
ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. THANK YOU.
DID YOU RECEIVE ANY OR ANYTHING? PUBLIC COMMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED.
ALL RIGHT, NEW BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARINGS.
WOULD YOU CALL THE CASE, PLEASE? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL IMPROVISE 22-Z-013.
THIS WILL BE AT 1416 29TH ST., AND THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR MINIMUM LOT AREA.
THERE WERE 28 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, ONE RETURNED; THAT ONE WAS IN OPPOSITION.
THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE THREE ADDENDUM IN ORDER TO REDUCE A REQUIRED MINIMUM URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING LOT AREA FROM 2500 SQUARE FOOT TO 2322 SQUARE FOOT. THE LOT CURRENTLY CONTAINS AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE WITH AN.
WELL, ACTUALLY THE LOT TO THE NORTH CONTAINS AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE WITH AN ENCROACHMENT OF APPROXIMATELY FIVE FOOT NINE FOOT ONTO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AT 1416 29TH, THE APPLICANT WISHES TO MOVE THE PROPERTY LINE ACCORDINGLY TO RESOLVE THIS ENCROACHMENT.
HOWEVER, THIS WILL RESULT IN THE SOUTHERNMOST LOT BEING SLIGHTLY LESS THAN 2500 SQUARE FOOT.
SEE THE EXISTING SURVEY AND PROPOSED REPLAT IN EXHIBIT A OF THE STAFF REPORT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 258 SQUARE FOOT IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THIS ENCROACHMENT, WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE SOUTHERNMOST LOT AT 1416 BEING 2322 SQUARE FOOT. PLEASE NOTE THE APPROVAL STANDARDS FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
PLEASE ALSO NOTE THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND WE DO HAVE SOME PHOTOS.
HERE IS THE EXISTING SURVEY, AND YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THERE WHERE THE LITTLE BIT HANGS OVER INTO THE SOUTHERNMOST PROPERTY LINE.
YEAH, AND THEN ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL TO MOVE THAT PROPERTY LINE TO ALIGN KIND OF WITH THAT ENCROACHMENT AND RESOLVE IT, BUT OF COURSE, THAT MEANS THAT THE TRACT TO THE SOUTH WILL BE SLIGHTLY SMALLER THAN 2500 SQUARE FOOT.
CATHERINE, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE FIRST SLIDE, PLEASE? SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE ROOF LINES, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE NORTHERNMOST HOUSE IS SQUARE.
THE ENCROACHMENT IS ACTUALLY UNDERNEATH THAT ROOF.
THAT ALSO INCLUDES A LITTLE CARPORT.
SO THAT'S WHY IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE'S AN ENCROACHMENT THERE ON THAT AERIAL, BUT THERE ACTUALLY IS, AND WE CAN ALSO NOTE THAT THE PARCEL MAPS THAT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT SHOWS ARE NOT EXACTLY ACCURATE.
SO I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME?
[00:05:03]
I HAVE A QUESTION, [INAUDIBLE] OPPOSITION.YES. WHAT'S THE NATURE OF THAT? THERE WERE NO COMMENTS PROVIDED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, AT THIS TIME, THEN I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE APPLICANT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD, PLEASE? SIGN YOUR NAME, PLEASE.
STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL US ALL ABOUT IT.
MICHAEL CORDRAY I OWN 1414, SO THE LOT THAT WOULD THEORETICALLY GET BIGGER BY THIS REQUEST.
THE HOUSE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND I THINK 1980 AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT THE CAD SHOWS.
SO IT'S NOT OLD IN MY WORLD, BUT IT'S STILL REASONABLY OLD, AND HOW LONG IT'S BEEN THERE.
CONSTRUCTION LOOKS THE SAME, SO ALL THE JOISTS UNDER THE HOUSE ARE LIKE KIND, AND IF YOU LOOK LIKE ON GOOGLE MAPS, YOU CAN SEE THE LEGACY ROOF IS 40 YEARS OLD.
SO IT WAS CONSTRUCTED OVER THIS PROPERTY LINE.
IT WASN'T AN ADDITION THAT WAS PUT ON OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT ALONG THE WAY.
SO I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW THE EXACT TERMS OF WHY IT WAS CONSTRUCTED OVER THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY BEEN THERE FOR 50 PLUS YEARS, 42 YEARS NOW THAT I'M DOING MATH WHILE I'M TALKING.
ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO WRITE MY NAME.
[CHUCKLING] WELL, YEAH SO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT MAY EXIST AS A RESULT OF THIS REQUEST.
ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. SO YOU OWN THE HOUSE THAT IS ENCROACHED UPON AND THEN SOMEBODY ELSE OWNS THE OTHER ONE? I OWN THE ENCROACH-EE, SO I OWN THE HOUSE THAT'S ON MY NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY LINE.
NOT A WORD I'VE USED BEFORE, I THINK, BUT YES.
BILL. SO THE CITY'S IN RECEIPT OF THE PAPERWORK FROM BOTH HOMEOWNERS, DANIEL? THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT BOTH PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE ENJOINED ON THIS REQUEST, I BELIEVE, THAT MR. CORDRAY IS BASICALLY ACTING AS THE APPLE, AS THE REPRESENTATIVE.
SO JUST TO CONFIRM, WHAT IT APPEARS TO ME AS YOU'RE NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES TO THE FOOTPRINT OR THE ROOFLINE, YOU'RE MERELY ASKING TO MOVE THAT LINE IN ORDER FOR EACH OF YOU TO OWN YOUR OWN PROPERTY AND CLEAR THE WHAT WOULD BE A CLOUD ON THE TITLE IF YOU TRIED-- TYPICALLY, YOU DO TRY--TO SELL A PIECE OF PROPERTY ONCE YOU FIX IT UP, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY AND THE PROPERTY LINE TO WHERE THERE IS NO LONGER AN ENCROACHMENT AND THAT WON'T CAUSE ANY VARIANCE PROBLEMS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, DANIEL ? OTHER THAN THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE ITSELF AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT HAVE ANY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
THANK YOU FOR INTERPRETING IT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THE OWNER OF 1416 LIVES IN COLORADO, WHICH IS WHY SHE'S NOT HERE, JUST FOR CLARITY.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN THIS PUBLIC HEARING? MY NAME IS BRENDA JOHNSON.
WE WERE ONE OF THE RECIPIENTS OF THE NOTICE, AND I'M PROBABLY THE ONE OPPOSED BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE A DECISION NOW THAT WE KNOW WHAT THE SITUATION IS.
WE STILL STAND AS OPPOSED, BUT I HAVE MORE INFORMATION TO TAKE BACK TO MY BOARD.
[00:10:11]
ARE WE ALLOWED TO ASK WHY? TELL US MORE ABOUT YOUR OPPOSITION.WELL, I UNDERSTAND FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD, THAT THERE IS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 2500 SQUARE FEET, AND SO THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THAT, AND WITH THIS CHANGING THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME WILL BE FOR OTHERS WHO WANT TO DO THE SAME THING AND HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT THE PROPERTY WHERE OUR BUILDING IS LOCATED.
THAT'S THE ONLY COMMENT THAT I HAVE.
ALL RIGHT, AT THIS TIME, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.
I MOVE WE APPROVE THE REQUEST BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SPECIAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROPERTY AND THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO WITH THE ENCROACHMENT, AND THAT DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.
EACH OF THE THIS LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD CREATE A HARDSHIP BECAUSE IT BASICALLY PRECLUDES EITHER OWNER FROM TRANSFERRING OR SELLING THE PROPERTY UNTIL THAT ENCROACHMENTS CLEARED UP IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT.
THE ENCROACHMENT WILL ALLOW A CLEAN TITLE FOR FOR EACH PROPERTY OWNER IN THE EVENT OF SALE OR PROPERTY TRANSFER.
THIS WILL NOT AFFECT OTHER PROPERTIES IN ANY WAY NEGATIVE AND WOULD NOT BE A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE PROPERTIES, AND THIS IS THE REMEDY THAT CAUSES THE LEAST DISRUPTION TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS , AND STRICT ENFORCEMENT WOULD CAUSE A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP ON ONE OR BOTH PROPERTY OWNERS.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION.
WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL RIGHT, THEN, ALL IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THIS VARIANCE? RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL OPPOSED, AND THE REQUEST IS GRANTED.
ANYTHING ELSE? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
ALL RIGHT, AT THIS TIME, WE'LL STAND ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.