hearing tonight. Uh, as with any meeting, you know, we're we're grateful that, you know, of your curiosity, your participation, your feedback as we navigate change here together in Nina, specifically regarding the ways in which we like to use our land. We have one public hearing, as I mentioned, we'll get into kind of how to participate in that for those tuning in remotely later. Uh, but with that, we'll just get right into the meeting. Uh, call this meeting to order and then roll call. Commissioner Nelson >> here. >> Commissioner Smith >> here. >> Commissioner Day >> here. >> Commissioner Bournestein >> here. >> Commissioner Felt >> here. >> Chair Bennett >> here. >> Next we have the approval of tonight's meeting agenda. >> Motion to approve the meeting agenda. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> So moved. Next, we have the approval of the prior meetings minutes from July 23rd, including the special work session. >> Motion to approve the prior meeting minutes as well as a special work session. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> So moved. All right. Now, we have the community comment period, which is your chance for anyone who is here in person like to testify about any matter not on tonight's agenda. Do we have anyone here? All right, we'll move along. Okay, we have one public hearing tonight. Uh the way you can participate, we'll we'll hang on for those tuning in remotely once we get to it. But uh staff will provide a presentation here and then we will allow the applicant to provide their own and then both can stand for question and answers and then we'll open it to the public hearing after which we will deliberate as a commission and provide a recommendation for approval or denial. With that Emily take it away. >> It's not my first time. Um, thank you, chair and members of the commission. The property, um, 4630 Edge Brook Place is a two-story single family residential home that's located in the Country Club District and was built in 1935. The applicant is proposing an addition to the basement, first and second floor off of the rear of the existing home to allow for additional garage and living space. The proposed addition off of the rear of the existing house continues off of the existing non-conforming wall, which is not parallel to the property line. The existing non-conforming sideyard setback is 6.6 ft. The proposed addition gets slightly closer to the property line and is proposed to have a setback of 6.5 ft from the sideyard property line. The zoning code allows an alternate setback for an addition to a single dwelling unit building with a non-conforming setback. The addition can't be any closer to the property line and has to be constructed on the same floor as the existing nonconformity and is allowed an equal amount of non-conformity up to 200 square feet, whichever is less. The proposed addition is slightly closer to the property line. Therefore, the project does not comply with the alternate setback rule on the first and second floors. There is currently living space on the first and second floors that is set back 6.6 ft to the property line, and the addition area on the first and second floors gets 1.2 2 in closer to the property line and a setback 6.5 ft due to the existing building wall not being parallel being built parallel to the property line. Um these areas in red here on your screen are the portions of the addition that are within that required setback. The applicant is also adding living space to the basement where there's not currently living space today. The areas in red here are the portions of the addition on the floor plans that require variance. The proposed project also requires a certificate of appropriateness through the city's heritage preservation commission. The commission reviewed the COA application at their meeting last night and approved changes associated with the garage edition and the changes to the street front the street facing facade associated with that but denied changes to the front entry. Specifically, the removal of a fan pediment and the addition of an arched front door. Neither of which are associated with the request tonight, but more of just an FYI for you guys. The subject property is zoned R1 single dwelling unit district and is guided as lowdensity residential in the comprehensive plan. Like I said, the property is also located within the historic country club district and was built within the period of significance and therefore it's unable to be torn down. With the exception of the sideyard setback, the project conforms to the other requirements of the city zoning code. Um, as you're aware, there are certain findings that must be met for a variance to be approved. The first being that the variance is in harmony with the intent and the purpose of the code. Um this in this instance the sideyard setbacks have changed since this house was built in 1935. It's a common assumption that a non-conformity can be continued and in this instance if the original house that was built was not placed so that the building wall was exactly parallel to the property line to allow for the alternate setback standards to apply. The second finding is that the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan. um this project continues the use as a single dwelling unit which is consistent with the comp plan. And the third finding is that there are practical difficulties complying with the ordinance and that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner that the situation is due to circumstances that are unique to the property and that are not created by the property owner and that if the variance is granted, it will not alter the character of the locality. Staff finds that the sideyard setback variance request is reasonable. Remodeling and adding on to the home is practical and sustainable and certain homes in the country club district are not allowed to be torn down. The addition allows for rehabilitation of the historic home which allows for contemporary use which is the preferred treatment for preservation resources in the country club district. If the original house was placed parallel to the property line, the first and second floor additions would not require a variance tonight. And the proposed basement living space is mostly underground and aligns with the building walls on the first and second floors. The circumstance was not created by the homeowner and the proposed project would not alter the character of the locality. And like I said, the project was reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission last night. Tonight, the recommendation is to I'll show additional um perspectives or renderings. This is kind of the front and the south side. This is the south facade where the addition is located or the addition that requires a variance. So, I'll clarify um the rear. And then this is a street perspective of the existing versus the proposed. Um tonight the recommendation is to approve the 3.5 ft sideyard setback variance to allow a 6.5 ft setback for an addition at 4630 Edgebrook Place based on the findings and conditions that are listed in the staff report. With that I can answer any questions. Um Angie Windgate from Ray Camp Larson is also here on behalf of the property owners to answer any questions as well. >> Thank you Emily. Great presentation. sums up how straightforward this seems. Uh I'd like to offer an opportunity for the applicant or representative to come up and either give your own presentation or just simply stand for questions and answers, whatever you'd like to do, and introduce yourself, full name, address. >> Hi, I'm Angie Wingate from Recamp Laren Architects. Um I don't have anything further to add, but I am available for questions. >> Thank you very much. Any questions? Hi, thank you. Thank you for for representing uh and as an as an architect. Only just one one question. The the new addition, I was trying to look at the pictures and I haven't drove by the property, but I know the majority of the house is made of brick. Um this is more so an architectural uh HPC uh question, but is the addition going to be brick? And what's there today? The material above the garage, >> uh, the material above the garage is is currently shingles. It's painted shingles, I believe. Um, so we're just replacing that in kind. Um, above the garage, like the front or I'm sorry, we're talking about the back or the front? >> The front. The front. Yeah. >> Yep. Um, and maybe I can I go to the presentation. Just toggle. >> Yep. >> Okay. Oops. This way. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, um, essentially we're we're maintaining we'd be replacing that material that's on the front of the on the garage on the top and then below we would be maintaining the or adding back brick. >> Gotcha. >> Removing it. Does that answer your question? >> Yeah. Yep. So, it's it's it's like a shingle material that that it it looks like brick in the picture, but it's really a shingle type material >> that's that's above the garage. And >> Yes. But the rest of the house is a brick material >> except for that section. >> Right. It it does vary. So what you can see in Can you see these images that I have up? Okay. >> Yeah. >> So the the rendering below is the proposed. And so we're showing that we're continuing the existing brick to a point and then we're at steps where you see three windows on the left side of the house at that main level. That's where we're kind of adjusting that brick and we're bringing it more to like a water table height. um and then wrapping it. So, the idea is to maintain as much brick as possible. Um but then finding a way to transition that to the rear where we're we're changing that material. Um and technically, yeah, the rear has quite a bit of brick on that that gabled end. Um but we would be taking that down to a lower height. >> Gotcha. Mhm. >> I was kind of thinking about that as good good response. I just wanted to get some clarity on that. >> Thanks. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Any other questions? Well, thank you very much. This is a public hearing as I mentioned, so it doesn't look like we have anyone in the audience. Uh unless they're hiding. Uh so we will allow people who are tuning in remotely to testify. And to do so, uh, just follow the following instructions. Call the following number, 312-535 8110, and enter access code 2632 559 3077. The password is 5454. And then press star three on your keypad to get in the queue to speak. We will wait about a minute because there's about a minute of lag and then we'll rejoin. If no one else has uh jumped in the queue, then we'll close the public hearing. >> You'll let us know. >> I'm on the timer. >> Thank you. It has been 1 minute since you started the um talk about the phone number and nobody has joined. So I believe it is safe to proceed. >> I welcome a motion to close the public hearing then. >> So moved. Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. So move. All right. Uh thank you very much. We'll take it back to the planning commission to deliberate uh if anyone or even a recommendation. >> It's one inch of additional nonconformity. I'm actually amazed that someone actually figured that out instead of just thinking it was zero in. Um, but for that reason, I think it's an obvious approval. And if but yeah, pass the pass the mic. Yeah, I would I would agree uh a lot with Commissioner Borcena. Just a couple thoughts. Um it might hope it's not too rambly, but I just wanted to kind of share some uh thinking that I had on this one. Um, you know, when we look at the different commissions within the city, right, we're one of nine. HPC, the Heritage Preservation Commission is certainly one of them. And their mandate really is to preserve the homes within these districts like the Country Club District, right? And so what they'll be looking at is going to be a little bit different than us, right? They're they're they're looking more at like the materials, the design. Does it look like that colonial style from that uh period of significance? And so they try to maintain that. And so my questions was was looking at more the materials, right? Because um my my thought originally was that they they will try to get the house to look more like a colonial home, but I'm not going to going to second guess what they've done, but they have all the right people looking at the design of that house. So from a design perspective, I think that makes sense. I think also since this house is in that district, right, um it can be torn down, right? And when you tear a house down, that's when you start looking at floor plan and and and uh uh you know where the house is located on the land essentially. And because it can't be torn torn down, there's not much the homeowner could actually do here, right? It's it's they're strictly limited. The third point is that uh it seems kind of funny but the HPC and the planning commission isn't necessarily in conflict with each other, right? And I say that because their goal is to preserve what it was back then. We know zoning and plans and stuff change over time. So if a developer wants to make an addition, they have to conform to the new codes, but they're trying to preserve the old codes. And so when these variants do come up in my mind, I would always try to think about okay, what is in in this particular region, what does the HPC look for and what are they trying to preserve and let's respect that as as much as we can. And then look at anything else that would fall within our space while respecting their position on preserving those homes. So that's the third thing. And then of course finally um when you look at the amount of variance we've seen grandfathered type designs before right and we try to help homeowners not tear down their whole house just to make an inch that doesn't make sense practically right and in this case it definitely does make sense given where this home is located. So from my perspective, when you look at that uh whole range of of uh of of of what HBC is trying to do and what we're looking at, this is a a clear pass for me. Now, even if this home was not in um the uh a the like the uh country club district, it was just in another part of the city. Even just looking at that one in variance seems like it will also be acceptable to me given what they're trying to do. They're trying to upgrade the home. And so for me, this was a a clear yes. But I just wanted to call out that the HPC, you know, we have to be working in cons in in in in harmony with that commission as well in what they're trying to achieve and what we're trying to achieve. So I just wanted to um share that in case folks were thinking that there might have been a conflict in what they were trying to do and what we're trying to do. Thank you for the commentary. I guess only one thing I didn't hear is like do you have a motion that you like to recommend? Motion to approve 43, no 4630 Edgebrook Place sideback variance. >> Second. All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. All right. The recommendation for approval passes unanimously. Congratulations. Good luck on the project. Okay. So, well, we're done with most of the business and now we're moving to chair and member comments. Do we have any for this evening? Mr. felt. I noticed in the Friday report last week that Enclave pulled a demo permit for the Macy's site. um which means that they'll probably be going ahead with the um underpass for walking and we had talked about bringing it up in the past. But once again, I think it's a good idea whenever we can separate bicyclists and pedestrians from cars, it's a good thing. And that means that Nine Mile Creek Trail gets even longer. >> Great update. Thank you. Anything else from anyone else? >> I think I saw in a report or or a note that our fellow commissioner here, Paul, has been awarded uh what 32 years or so on on the Rotary Club lifetime achievement award. So, congratulations on that. If we said as we were saying before, you got to be done now because it's a lifetime of >> I don't want to talk about a lifetime. It's like I'm not not there yet. >> It's the appreciate it. >> Hey, this isn't the end of my life. Congrats. >> Thanks for sharing. Yeah. also noticed yesterday that um the city awarded Hemple and Jester Concepts the is it 5416 the Eden the old public works site so that'll be fun to watch over the coming months thank you again I guess moving on do we have any staff comments none last order of business adjournment Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> So moved. Meeting has been adjourned. Thank you everyone.