Anchorage Assembly: Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals - September 10, 2026 - 2026-09-10 18:30:00

Appeals. Will the Secretary please call the roll? Ellen McKay. Here. Brian Bennett.

Here. Craig Bennett. Here. Jason Norris. Here.

Jonathan Lang. Here. John Malatka. Here. Mark Maisley.

Here. Christopher Schuette. Here. Uh, under— Ramadallah is excused. Do you have a quorum?

Thank you. Thank you. Next item on the agenda are minutes. We have minutes for Thursday, July 9th, 2026. May I have a positive motion for their approval, please?

A move to approve. Moved by Mr. Masley.

Is there a second? Second by Mr. Norris. Are there any corrections or additions, changes to the minutes?

Seeing none. So any objection to approval of the minutes? Seeing none, the minutes are approved. Next item is special order of business, executive sessions and disclosures. Are there any disclosures this evening?

Mr. Lang, uh, through the chair, uh, in case 2026-01-08, uh, I have a work product on page 18 and the last page of the packet, and my company is mentioned on page 4. I have no financial interest in the outcome of this case. I would ask to be recused.

Can I, can I have a positive motion for Mr. Lang's participation, please?

So moved. There's nothing coming up on my screen.

Moved by Mr. Masley. I'll second that. Second by Mr. Schuette. Would you speak to your motion, Mr. Masley? Yes.

I'm pretty familiar with the way these things work, and, you know, the, uh, the job of Mr. Lang's company is to provide the survey. He doesn't have any financial interest or anything to gain by the outcome of this hearing, so I think he can proceed as normal.

Mr. Schuette? Nothing to add. I agree.

Is there any objection to Mr. Lang's participation?

Seeing none, you are directed to participate, please.

Next item is the consent agenda. We have resolutions for approval, approval, Resolution 2026-009 and Resolution 2026-010.

May I have a positive motion for approval? Mr. Schuette. Seconded by Mr. Lang. Anyone wish to remove an item for further discussion? Madam Chair, I was absent for the July 9th meeting and will abstain from voting on the, the Consent agenda.

Okay, when it comes—. When it comes to—. Anybody else?

Is there any objection to approval of the consent agenda?

Seeing none, the consent agenda is approved and we move on. Appearance request is the next item. We don't have any requests for appearance.

Next item, unfinished business and action of public hearings. We do have an item of unfinished business. It is not a public hearing. Um, it is case 2026-0076, and the petitioner is Current Planning for the Municipality of Anchorage.

Yes.

So will the staff please present the case?

Uh, yes, thank you, Chair. I'm going to start by just recapping a few points from the last time we discussed this. So we discussed it in June. I took some time to do some research. Uh, ZIBA did not meet in August, uh, so So I'm— I just wanted to follow up with a few, few points that were raised when we last spoke about this code change.

The code change again would increase the threshold for minor modifications, which are dimensional encroachments that the director may approve. And then it would amend 3 of the 8 approval criteria for dimensional variances. Uh, first of all, let's recap the fees. So the minor modification fee is $135, and then the fee for a variance ranges depending on the type of the variance. It's $710 up to $3,965, and it just depends on the type of the variance and also on the use of the property.

Most variances, I would say, tend to fall into that $710 category because it's single-family homes up to— it's either 4 or 5 units of multifamily. Can pay the $710, and then it increases from there if you're like a commercial use. Uh, fences, fence sites have a slightly different fee, etc.

The appeal process for minor modifications that are decided by the director, uh, that comes to this board, so it goes to ZBA. AECs, or alternative equivalent, uh, compliance, were, were mentioned at the last meeting. I was just going to remind everyone that that process does not apply to the dimensional standard requirements of Chapter 6 in Title 21. Those are usually for items in Chapter 7 most often.

And then I'll— those tended to relate to some discussion we had around the minor modification, and then I'll go into a few things that came up around the variant standards at the last meeting. Uh, in the memorandum that, uh, Ari Gupta helped me prepare, uh, he did point out that we reduced the setback requirement within the R-6 zoning districts recently. So we tried to account for that in, in some of the research that we did. Uh, I did double-check with the muni legal department, and, uh, they, they support The, that code requires all 8 standards need to be met in order to grant a variance, and that substantially met means that all 8 standards are found to be met by this board to grant the variance.

I made a few notes on some other questions that were brought up around some other criteria, but essentially we We felt we wanted the language to remain. I think maybe I won't go over those explicitly unless it comes up again.

Uh, let's see here. I noted that there's no property line setbacks in downtown except, uh, the side yard reads that it can be 0 or 10, so you either have to be at the property line or at least 10 feet away. Otherwise, there's, there's no Property line setback requirement in downtown. And dimensional variances mostly apply to the dimensional standards, so most often setbacks, but could also be lot coverage. It could be requirements for stream setbacks.

So the process for this is I would like a recommendation formally from ZBA tonight on the code change that would go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission is meeting On November 21st, that will be a public hearing. This, this meeting tonight is not a public hearing, so there's not an opportunity for any member of the public to speak, but there will be at Planning and Zoning Commission. And then from there, it would— if assuming PCC makes their decision that night, then I'm expecting this code change would be introduced in October in a public hearing, approximately sometime in November at the assembly. Uh, and just to recap, our recommendation is changes to Standards A, B, and G. So A and B have, uh, deal with extraordinary circumstances, and we'd like what counts as extraordinary— an extraordinary circumstance to be a bit broader than it is now, so we could account for things such as survey error or perhaps a unique lot shape.

And then G, it tries to make it, um, Because all standards have to be met, it words it so you just have to follow the ADA where it's applicable because we know it doesn't always apply. I'll note the AO I sent, it does still have the 10% wording, and I did have it that way because that reflects what was routed to reviewing agencies. But the department's recommendation has changed to make that 15%. So I'm hoping if— this board agrees with that, that your recommendation would support the minor modification threshold change to 15%. That's all that I had to, to recap, and then, um, I'll just throw it to Ari in case he wanted to, to say anything about some of the statistical analysis he had in the memorandum.

Otherwise, we're both available for questions tonight.

Through the Chair, I went through all of the variance applications and requests over the last 10, 11 years done to the— or applied to the Planning Department. I looked at the average encroachment percentage, that is the total amount of encroachment within, let's say, X amount of setback, and pulled an average per year, realized that it was more than— significantly more than the proposed threshold of 15%. And which sort of makes— does not make the variance process redundant, but it also captures a lot of variance requests that, in my opinion, or in the department's opinion, could have been minor modifications if the threshold had been increased by just a little bit. Thank you.

Are there any questions of staff?

Mr. Schuette. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the overview. I really appreciated the statistical analysis that helps quantify what can be somewhat nebulous when you use percentages. That was very appreciated.

Thank you, Ari. I actually had a question on an item that you, you didn't touch on in the opening, and that's in the actual draft ordinance that's included in our packet. So on page 6 of 8, this would be page 2 of the draft ordinance, in the line 27 starts the procedure for minor modifications approved by director, and there is new language appended at the end of existing code. I was trying to pull up the section of code so I could see it, read it within the broader context, but what stands out to me here, or I guess the question I have for you here is the new language seems to imply that if there's a minor modification that goes to the director and that he or she does not approve, the director then has to— has to request that it go through the normal public variance process, not automatically goes back through the process. Is that correct?

Commissioner Schuette, through the chair, I was actually thinking about that while I was puttering in my kitchen, and I, I kind of regret that I added that, actually. I, I would, if the board supports this, I would— I think we could strike that because I was thinking about it, and if the director would deny a minor modification, it already says your appeal avenues to come to Ziva, so it I guess I was thinking like if there is some sort of controversial request because we're increasing the threshold and the director really wanted to make it a public hearing, that it would provide some kind of avenue. But, but really the director could just deny it and then the normal appeal process is to take it to Ziva anyway. So I appreciate you pointing that out because I was just thinking about that like earlier today that I think that doesn't need to be there.

And just a second comment on that question. Thank you. I think about a lot of things when puttering around my kitchen too. That would help make it clearer. I understand the intent, and it is an awkward position to be in as a director if you know that something is going to be controversial and you think it would benefit from more public discourse.

But I do think that the way it's drafted now where it has the automatic process that kicks it back to ZBA is adequate. So I would suggest that we recommend removal of that addition. Thank you.

Any other questions of staff? Anybody else? Mr. Norris. Thank you, Chair. So first, I would support removal.

So I think that that is a good idea. You, Ms. Appleby, you reached out earlier about some comments I had provided. Could you speak a little bit on what it is that you propose? Yes, through the chair, Commissioner Norris sent some comments. Speak up if I don't summarize everything you want, but in summary, it says that we should take a look at some of our other requirements.

So a lot coverage or setbacks or things like that, because if If we're looking at what types of cases come for public hearing variances, it's not just the code we're looking at now, it's really the actual requirement in the first place.

And so we, I know there is some work being done to look at it. I haven't worked directly on that, But it would, similar to how we spent some time looking at the R-6 setbacks, we're looking at other things. I believe lot coverage might be what we're analyzing now. But in summary, that was the memorandum that was sent to us. I had asked Member Norris if he wanted his memorandum to be included as part of public comments that go to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

So it wouldn't be— if those are sent, it would be your comments as an individual. However, you could, if the board wanted to say like, hey, I think the planning department should take a closer look at other dimensional requirements, then you could add that to your recommendation tonight if you want to say that formally as a board together. All right, thank you. Yeah, the, the bottom line was if we're looking at exempting from the standards, then maybe the standards themselves need to, need to go through. And, uh, in looking at things— and, and I'd send it to everyone, so this shouldn't be shocking anyone— but some, some of the standards have been around since before unification, and a lot changes in, you know, over decades.

So those were my individual comments, and I'm happy with this resolution. But if the board so chose, then obviously I would, you know, I'd be up for that too. Thanks.

Anybody else?

Hi, Mr. Lang. Uh, through the chair, Ms. Appleby, in, uh, the approval criteria, criteria A, it says, uh, physical circumstances such as uniquely lot geometry, surveying errors, and those other circumstances. Um, would staff be willing to accept an amendment to say surveying and construction errors? As a surveyor, I find errors that the builders make all the time, like not following the stakes that I set or building without getting a survey, and then the survey discovers the errors, but it, uh, Maybe this is me professionally shaming my peers, but yeah, I think adding in surveying or construction errors would give us a little more flexibility also in understanding the nature of the situation.

Member Lang, through the chair, yes, I agree with that, and I could see where then it's saying it's not always surveyors who are making the errors at all. I think it would be appropriate to say surveying or construction errors, and that meets the intent of what we wanted with this change. I'll request because we might be— I'm hearing there might be some amendments to the motion, just so we think of the easiest way to make it clear for Lori, is all. Thanks.

I'm looking at the other people down there. Anybody else? Alrighty.

Um, could I do, uh, just a, uh, not a point of information, but just for, for clarity, um, the— to include the, the comments, I, I guess, do we need a motion If, if it seems like the board does want to make those changes, I guess, um, maybe just clarify the process or what it means with the, the comments at the end.

Through the chair, do you want to just put them as findings then and not in the motion? Actually, yes, that works perfectly. Yeah, because, um, this is a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. So if you could state, uh, state as finding some of the things we've talked about, I can still incorporate that, um, because basically the Planning and Zoning Commission is going to get the same memorandum that has the same information, but I wanted to include, uh, what the record— basically what resulted from the discussion tonight. So I think that works for me.

Mr. Schuette, thank you. I wanted to ask a clarification then. So, uh, if we follow that process, we make a motion and approve as, as drafted, but you— we capture that, uh, there is intent for a couple of at least amendments. The memo that Planning and Zoning gets will reflect that as well, not the draft that we got. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. I'd have to show the the changes I made from what was sent out, um, because it would be different than, than what was publicly posted for the public hearing, of course. But, but yes, that is correct.

Okay, so can I have a positive motion for recommending approval? Mr. Schuette.

Thank you. I move in Case 2026-0076 to recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the amendment to AMC 21.03.120, the minor modifications, and Chapter 21.03.240, variances, to update the review criteria for dimensional variances and increase the threshold for director approval of minor modifications.

Seconded by Mr. Craig Bennett. Would you speak to your motion, please, Mr. Schuette? Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the staff for the time and energy that you have put into these changes and for walking us through them over the course of two meetings. I think based on the discussion that we have all had and looking at the existing code and process that these changes are going to be positive for the process and for the community.

As long as they reflect our two amendments and Planning and Zoning agrees with them. Thank you.

Mr. Bennett. Mr. Craig Bennett. I will just add that I agree and thank staff for all the work that they put into this.

Any other discussion?

If not, then I will call the roll.

We'll vote.

Okay, it's unanimous.

Please forward our thoughts and To Planning and Zoning. There we go.

All right. Oh, sorry, was there, um, was there a question for staff? Okay, just making sure.

So nothing on the regular agenda, and we're on to public hearings. We have one case this this evening. Um, it is a variance case, and the procedure to be followed for a variance case— the procedure by which the public may speak to the board at its meeting is: after staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the chair will ask for the applicant to state their case. The applicant, including all of his or her Representatives has 10 minutes for the presentation and may reserve time for rebuttal at the end of the public hearing. Throughout the proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the applicant who must convince the Board by a preponderance of evidence that the variance should be granted.

A concurring vote of a majority of the fully constituted membership of the Board, minus those excused by conflicts of interest, shall be required to grant a variance. For a variance to be granted, all 8 standards must be substantially met. On the conclusion of the applicant's presentation, the board members and the staff may then direct questions to the applicant through the chair. The chair will then open the public hearing to public— will then open the hearing to public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify follow the time limits established by the rules of procedure.

Representatives of groups including Things like community councils, PTAs have 5 minutes, and individuals have 3 minutes. When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the board. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the board. Time is kept by the secretary. The display at the front will be green to within 1 minute of the time allowed and then turn yellow.

At this time, you should begin to sum up your testimony. At the end of the allowed time, the light will turn red and a tone will sound. Then you have to stop. An individual may have appeal rights. Any individual may have appeal rights relating to any action of the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals.

The parties have 30 days after the date of mailing or other distribution of the decision to file an appeal to Superior Court. So, first case, case number 2026-0108.

The petitioner is Patrick Waringuez. Hopefully I said that right.

Um, will the staff please describe notice given in this case? Thank you, Madam Chair. On August 17th, 2026, a total of 213 public hearing notices were mailed in accordance with the procedures of AMC 2103020H.

There was one public comment received in opposition to this variance. The Northeast Community Council did not provide comments on this case.

Is there any objection to the sufficiency of notice in this case?

Seeing none, will the staff please present the case? Thank you, Madam Chair. The applicant is requesting a dimensional variance from AMC 2106020 Table 2106-1, Table of Dimensional Standards, Residential Districts, to allow a single-family residence to encroach 1.3 feet into the required 5-foot side setback. The property at 2301 Chandelier Drive requires a dimensional variance for the existing structure that was constructed under building permit 98-0558. During the building process and inspections of the house, the side setback was never addressed or touched upon.

In 2020, the owner was required to close out the original building permit from 1998. The required as-built from August 2020 shows the new addition along the south side of the structure encroaching 1.3 feet into the 5-foot side setback shown on page 33 of the staff report. In order for the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals to approve the variance, the application must state with particularity the relief sought and must specify the facts or circumstances that are alleged to show that the application substantially meets all 8 standards. Standard A is met. According to the Municipality of Anchorage mapping data, the subject parcel has an approximate slope of 24%, rising uphill from Chandelier Drive.

This steep slope constitutes an extraordinary physical circumstance affecting the property. While some nearby parcels exhibit similar topography, there are only 4 comparable parcels along Chandelier Drive with slopes of this magnitude. These parcels are outliers and are not representative of typical conditions within the R-2A zoning district in the Chester Heights subdivision. Therefore, the slope on the subject property represents an exceptional physical circumstance. Standard B, again, the 24% slope creates an exceptional and undue hardship for the property owner under strict application of this section of code.

The topography significantly limits the ability to expand the existing structure in a manner consistent with permitted development patterns in the R-2A zoning district. Adding square footage to the rear or side of a dwelling is a common right enjoyed by other properties in this district. However, the steep slope on this parcel prevents comparable use of the property without relief. As a result, strict application of the code would deprive the applicant of right commonly available to other R-2A properties. Standard C is met.

This hardship is not self-imposed. The property owner obtained Building Permit 98-0558 and completed the required inspections at the time. However, the permit was never closed out in 1998 or 1999. And an as-built survey was not submitted. If the property owner had submitted the required as-built survey, the encroachment of the structure into the site's septic would have been identified and a variance could have been obtained at that time.

The request for a variance for the existing structure does not merely represent an inconvenience. Removal of the 1.3 feet of the structure that has existed since 1998 would result in significant financial cost and logistical difficulty, representing a true hardship rather than a minor inconvenience. Standard D is met. This structure has existed in this location since it was permitted in 1998. To date, there have been no complaints from surrounding properties regarding the structure.

Standard E is met. The variance does not change the character of the zoning district and does not permit a use not otherwise permitted in the R-2A zoning district. Standard F is met. The structure has existed, existed in this location since it was permitted in 1998. To date, there have been no documented adverse effects to the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the municipality.

Standard G is not applicable. ADA accommodations do not apply to single-family residential development. Standard H is met. The requested variance represents the minimum relief necessary to allow continued reasonable use of the property. The structure has existed in its current location since 1998, and allowing the small encroachment to remain avoids imposing significant, significant financial and logistical hardship on the property owner, and any lesser variance would not resolve the existing condition, and any greater relief is not required.

This request therefore constitutes the minimum variance needed to enable reasonable use of the land. The department received, as stated before, one public comment from an anonymous neighbor. The department did not receive any reviewing agency comments in opposition. The Northeast Community Council received notice and did not comment. Therefore, the department finds that Standards A through H are met and Standard G is not applicable.

Therefore, the department recommends approval of the variance request subject to Conditions 1 and 2 found on page 4 of your staff packet. I can answer any questions that the board may have, and the petitioner is in attendance.

Of staff, by the board, Mr. Norris. Yeah, thank you. Through the chair, um, I just wanted to quickly ask about the public comment you did receive. Is there any merit to what was received there other than we just don't like the way it looks? Through the chair, Commissioner, uh, Board Member Norris, no, that's unfortunately— and I couldn't figure out where this neighbor— they are on Chandelier Drive.

I didn't— just didn't know if they were next-door neighbors or across the street or just within the area, but it, it, it appears that like you said, they just had a— they had a concern with the size in relation to all the other neighbor— you know, all the other structures in the neighborhood and some other things that, that the, that the owner does on his property that is within his right. And so, yeah.

Mr. Schuette. Thank you. Um, I don't know that we should spend a lot of time on anonymous, uh, comments, but something that stood out to me is the point they raise about the concrete driveway cutout. I noticed in the packet that we were given of historic information— it's unclear who wrote this, but somebody wrote that the driveway width exceeds the maximum. Am I right in assuming that this mysterious cutout is to reduce the driveway width to make it fit code?

Through the chair, Mr. Schuette, that is correct. So, uh, prior to Prior to this, the owner had a full driveway, basically the full width of his lot, and to meet current code, he cut his driveway back to meet minimum— or maximum, sorry, maximum driveway width.

Anyone else? Mr. Masley.

Thank you. One of the things that occurred to me when I was reading the public comments was that they said that it was a, uh, too big of a house for the neighborhood. Are there lot coverage ratios that are needed to be met in those zoning regulations? Through the chair, Board Member Maisley, that's a perfect question, and that's actually on page number 18. Not to point out Mr. Lang, but that was one of our concerns, was whether or not the lot coverage was over 40%, and it is.

But if you turn to the very last page that had the little highlighted driveway and look at number 7, if you can read it, it's kind of small. Lot coverage can be increased by an additional 10% for unenclosed decks and carports open on a minimum of 2 sides. And so originally I thought that the porch, the carport to the north and the deck would be included in the lot coverage, but they are not. They're, they're the exception to the rule. So they get that, that little extra.

If you included it, yes, they'd be over, but they are not. And so that's why there's the totals with carport, 44.96% lot coverage. Are you seeing that one on page 18? So that's the 10%. He's, he's only at 5, just under 5%.

So he got 5% there, but the total without the carport is at 36.14%. So he's just He's 4% under the 40% lot coverage. Thank you. You're welcome.

Mr. Brian Bennett.

I have a question about the— so, yeah, on as-built surveys that are shown, the page 31 listed as a one-stage, one-story building that meets compliance with the codes. On page 33, it's listed as a uh, two-story building, and on page 18 it's listed as a one-story building again.

Through the chair, Mr. Brian Bennett, page 31 is the original as-built prior to permitting, permit number 98-0 Right. And then page 33 was the as-built done in 2020, and he calls it a two-story, whereas the— out the, uh, on page 18, it's a one-story with a walkout basement.

Also, there's more detail on page 18 showing that part of the addition to the rear and a little bit on the south side is not on a foundation. It's actually on sonotubes, and I'm assuming that's because of the slope of the lot and getting access during construction. They were not able to do an actual full foundation on that very back, so they had to do sonotubes instead. That, that's not shown on 33. It's—.

He's just showing it as one solid structure, like it's foundation under all of that in a box. But the, the 18, the one on 18 calls out the variable— what's foundation, what's full concrete foundation underneath, and then what's on sonotubes, the addition that's on sonotubes. So there's no basement underneath part of that rear addition, it appears. Okay, thank you. You bet.

Anyone else? Any other questions for staff?

Not— would the petitioner please come forward, state and spell your name for the record, please.

You need to turn your mic on, Patrick. There's a little green— there's a button on the—. There you go. Okay.

State and spell your name for the record, please. My name is Patrick Waringuez. Spell your last name, please. W-A-R-I-N-G-U-E-Z. Thank you.

Do you have any questions of staff? No. Okay, then would you please present your case? Excuse me? Please present your case.

Yeah, I did the addition, but I didn't know after the survey was done, I was too much for the addition.

And we did not do this one on purpose. It was maybe accident, or maybe the general contractor didn't see that.

Anything else? Excuse me? Anything else? No, we are sorry for this inconvenience. Thank you.

Are there any questions of the applicant by board members?

Thank you.

Are there any questions of the applicant by the staff? No, Madam Chair. Okay, then is there anyone in the public wishing to testify in this case? Anyone at all?

We have a phone.

We have, we have one phone testimony, Madam Chair.

Hello, good evening. This is the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals calling for public testimony in case 2026-0108. Are you testifying as an individual? Yes. You will have—.

You'll have 3 minutes to testify. Please state your full name for the record and begin your testimony. Yes, Nyle Williams. Yes, thank you. Through the chair, I'd first like to say that whoever owns the soil, it is theirs to the heavens and to the depths.

And what I mean by that is each individual private property owner deserves the right to be able to develop that land as they see fit.

Um, I am a neighbor of the applicant, and, uh, granting the variance will be no inconvenience to myself or any members of my household.

I see no issues with granting the applicant his needed accommodation, as denying the applicant his accommodation would create a significant impact to not just the applicant but the entire neighborhood.

I do understand the need and the desire for side setbacks.

Um, but in this case, there is quite a distance in between both properties on either side. I'm actually looking at it right now, and, uh, like I said, to require the applicant to change his property now after over a quarter of a century, it would be a great shame. To force that on this applicant. Um, it would create a hardship for him and for the neighborhood and a bad precedent to not grant his exemption or application. Um, he's already spent a lot of money to even apply, and as you can see, he spent time on his day to come down there in person.

I thank you for the time and allowing me to speak today. And through the chair to Ms. Appleby, thank you for following up and being courteous with me over the telephone when I phoned you. Thank you so much. Please have a blessed evening. Thank you.

Are there any questions of Mr. Williams by the board? Yes, Madam Chair. Mr. Bennett, I've been asked to, uh, ask where you are located in the neighborhood in relation to this structure. If I look out my front window, I can see his driveway and house, the front face of his house. I'm very close, very close neighbor.

Thank you. Yes, anyone else?

Thank you, Mr. Williams. And thank you again. Have a blessed evening and good luck to the applicants.

Okay, missed two of them. He hung up, so never mind. Um, so Staff, does staff have any rebuttal? I do not, Madam Chair. Does the applicant have any rebuttal?

Anything else you want to say?

Is there anything else you would like to say? Okay, thank you. Then we'll close the public hearing and the matter rests with the board.

Um, may I have a positive motion, please?

Mr. Schuette.

Thank you, Chair. I move in case 2026-0108 to approve a variance from AMC 21.06.020, Table 21.06-1, and the Table of Dimensional Standards for Residential Districts to allow a single-family residence to encroach 1. 3 Feet into the required 5-foot side setback, subject to the conditions shown on page 4 of our staff report. Thank you. Seconded by Mr. Masley.

Mr. Schuette, would you please speak to your motion? Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the applicant coming down and the staff in preparing the report for this application. Even though it is a very unique property, it's clear that all of the standards have been met for approval. And I'm— I recommend that we do.

Thank you, Mr. Masley.

Yes, I agree with Mr. Schuette. And I also think that cases like this are difficult because it's extremely difficult to go back and put that building in compliance with the setbacks. And I believe that that would cause more of a hardship on the applicant than it would a detriment to the neighborhood. So, um, I, I will be, uh, in favor of the motion. So is there any further discussion?

Anyone else?

Seeing none, then if we're ready for the question, the question is on the adoption of, of a motion To grant a variance to allow single-family residents to encroach 1.3 feet into the side to the 5 required 5-foot side setback.

A yes vote will grant the variance. A no vote will deny the variance. Please vote.

And again, it is unanimous and the The variance is granted.

All right, that was the only case in public hearings. Next item is reports. I don't have a report. Secretary indicates she doesn't have a report. Are we having a meeting next month?

Yes, we will have a meeting. No committees. Board member comments, anybody? Mr. Lang, uh, through the chair to the board, uh, kind of a question to staff, uh, and I know, Mr. Hatcher, your obligations here are done for the evening, but, uh, there is that, uh, setback requirement in industrial zones and in the downtown district of 0 or 5 feet or 0 or 10 feet And I'm wondering, uh, what the necessity of that is. Uh, the municipality got rid of the minimum building separations, and I'm wondering if that is a holdover to, to those, uh, those days.

Uh, and that's something that I, uh, will follow up with Ms. Appleby about, uh, in the future. Through the chair, Board Member Lang, the only reason I can think of that the maintaining of those setbacks is due to fire code. Um, I do know— I still know today that 10 feet is the minimum separation in a residential scenario. I would assume it's the same in commercial unless you are using a fire-resistant type of exterior concrete block, fire-resistant plywood, which they do make, or some other fiber cement or something like that, tile. I know that can be reduced, but I'm assuming it still has to do with fire code.

And I know, especially in the downtown area, it's a height thing and fire code, because I know the fire department's probably limited on— even with their ladder system, I think they're limited as how high they can actually go. But I would assume it's fire, and you might want to check with fire to see what their fire code is. I, I do realize they got rid of some of the fire code requirements for multiple staircases in certain structures to where you can have one exit staircase instead of— before it was like two or more or something in certain applications, which aligned, if I remember correctly, with International Fire Code. But I think it's a fire code issue still.

Okay, anybody else? Uh, I guess I have a comment. Um, just so you have a heads up, I won't be able to attend a meeting either next month or in October because I'll be out of country for a month, so I just wanted to give heads up to the board.

Yeah, I'll be, I'll be here in spirit, but yeah, I'm going on my honeymoon, so yeah, be out of country.

Okay, then can I have a motion to adjourn, please? Move to adjourn, Chair. I'll second that, Chair. Seconded by Mr. Schuette. We are adjourned.