City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Board of Adjustment

Council Chambers

Tuesday, June 11, 2024

7:00 PM

Regular Meeting

I. CALL TO ORDER

MR. NORGARD: The June 11, 2024 Board of Adjustment meeting will come to order.

5 - Janet Hammen, Peter Norgard, Paul Sharp, Linda Olsen and Randy Minchew

Present:

2 - Kittie Rogers and Jefferson Crew

Excused:

II. INTRODUCTIONS

MR. NORGARD: Mr. Zenner, would you please call the roll?

MR. ZENNER: Mr. Norgard.

MR. NORGARD: I'm present.

MR. ZENNER: Ms. Hammen?

MS. HAMMEN: I'm here.

MR. ZENNER: Mr. Minchew?

MR. MINCHEW: Present.

MR. ZENNER: Ms. Olsen?

MS. OLSEN: Here.

MR. ZENNER: And Mr. Sharp?

MR. SHARP: Here.

MR. ZENNER: You have five; you have a quorum, sir.

MR. NORGARD: Thank you.

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MR. NORGARD: Is there a motion to approve the agenda?

MR. MINCHEW: I make a motion.

MR. NORGARD: Motion by Minchew. Is there a second?

MR. SHARP: Second, by Paul Sharp.MR. NORGARD: All right. All in favor, say aye.

Anyone against? No. Seeing none. (Unanimous voice vote for approval.)

Motion to approve

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

April 9, 2024 Regular Meeting

MR. NORGARD: The April 19, 2024 minutes were distributed to the members of the

Board. Are there any corrections or additions to the minutes?

MS. HAMMEN: That would be April 9.

MR. NORGARD: Okay. You have to --

MS. HAMMEN: The April 9th meeting minutes, I move we approve them.

MR. MINCHEW: Second, Minchew.

MR. NORGARD: All in favor? Oh, sorry. I said April 19th when I meant April

9th. (Unanimous voice vote for approval.)

MR. NORGARD: All right. Would the court reporter please swear in staff?

(Staff sworn.)

Move to approve

V. PUBLIC HEARINGS

Case # 160-2024

A request of Michael Imhoff (agent), on behalf of Tracy Buesing (owner),

seeking approval of a 5-foot variance to allow the encroachment of a paved

parking space into the required 6-foot side yard on property addressed as

1309 West Worley Street which is not permitted per sec. 29-4.1(c)(2),

Table 4.1-5 and sec. 29-4.3(g) of the Unified Development Code.

MR. NORGARD: All right. Let's see.

MR. NORGARD: Said real estate being Lot 19 in West Worley addition to the

City of Columbia, Boone County, Missouri as shown by the plat thereof recorded in Plat

Book 4, page 7, records of Boone County, Missouri, except part for street as recorded in

Book 3637, page 96. Mr. Liaison -- oh, I guess I should ask, is there anybody on the

Board that has anything to disclose? Seeing none. Mr. Liaison, Mr. Zenner, has the

notice been properly advertised?

MR. ZENNER: Yes, it has.

MR. NORGARD: Has it been posted with a notice of public hearing?

MR. ZENNER: Yes, it has.

MR. NORGARD: Have parties of interest been notified?

MR. ZENNER: Yes, they were.

MR. NORGARD: And have there been any inquiries or comments?

MR. ZENNER: No, there have not.

MR. NORGARD: All right. Would the person making application please come

forward, swear in. State your name and address, and then make your case.

MR. IMHOFF: Michael Imhoff.

(Witness sworn.)

MR. NORGARD: Proceed.

MR. IMHOFF: Okay. I'll say we unknowingly, you know, we put the driveway in

mainly for her father, because if you notice, her father is in a wheelchair. I've had most of

-- a lot of my contractors are working on her house, you know, where we parked out off

the street onto the curb a little bit, and they said the traffic on that street is so horrible

that people just drive and fly by, and it's dangerous for him. I was notified by the City. It

was one of the inspectors, I think, upstairs, that, you know, that this was in -- in the

variance or whatever, and it was not set off right or whatever, but the -- so I got with Doug

upstairs and we went through the whole process of what we needed to do to get to this

point. But I, for his safety, because he will more than likely be living with her there, so he

can access the house, they've got wheelchair ramps that are coming here pretty quick so

he can get into the house with the wheelchair and everything, and we just really don't

want him parking in the street because, as I say, he, more than likely, will start living with

her here eventually and just for his own safety, I would, you know, I hope you all can see

the point, you know, that we're needing here. I can say that all the paperwork that we've

gotten, I'm sure you all have seen that we've had neighbors, you know, write letters about

everything. They're all right with what we did, but just the big thing is just the safety for

him. Right now, it's --

MR. NORGARD: Any questions? What’s to prevent -- I'm not sure of the individual's

name, but what's to prevent him from just parking in the -- in front of the garage?

MR. IMHOFF: She has to park, you know, in there for her in order to --

MR. CRAIG: Mr. Imhoff, would you please speak into the microphone so we can get

MR. IMHOFF: Oh, I’m sorry.

MR. CRAIG: -- can get a record for the court reporter. Thank you, sir.

MR. NORGARD: You can lift it up if you need.

MR. IMHOFF: But, yeah. Just -- it's, you know, she has to have access to get in

and out of the drive -- main driveway, so if he's there, that gives him a place to park where

she can get in and out and go to work every day and, you know, maintain her life,

basically. And then he can get in as he's needed to get -- you know. Because we made

the radius right to where you can get a good car, a van, or whatever, you know, back up

in there where you can -- can get out.

MS. HAMMEN: Did you look at alternative plans for parking?

MR. IMHOFF: For room there, there really isn't. They're just -- they're just not. I

mean, like I say, it was oversight on my part. I mean, just not knowing, because Doug

said -- told me it's like the ordinance was changed back in '17, if I remember right. So --

but for what she -- she's needing for him, really, it's the only alternative, you know, other

than parking in the street, and taking, you know, a chance of getting hit by a car.

MR. NORGARD: So does he drive a car or a vehicle of some sort?

MR. IMHOFF: Yeah. There's -- it's a vehicle with, I think the wheel chair has got a

thing in the back of it, you know, they can move that around.

MR. NORGARD: Does -- do you know if it includes special equipment for

manipulating pedals and things like that, or is it --

MR. IMHOFF: I don't think so.

MR. SHARP: I had a question about how this all came about. When I looked at

Google Map Street View, I think the date was October 24, or no, sorry, 23, there was no

house at that location.

MR. IMHOFF: No. Her house burnt down last April, or the April before, so, I mean,

she notified me to, you know, rebuild here -- rebuild her a house. And like I say, it's

probably been 25 years since I've actually built a house in Columbia. Most of the ones

we do are out in the county. So I just, on my part, didn't check the codes like I should

have and, like, you know, when I got -- pulled a permit and everything, it's not their job,

you know to tell me what I can do and what I can't do.

MR. SHARP: Dr. [sic] Zenner, do you -- do you know what the Code was before the

UDC was passed?

MR. ZENNER: There was not a restriction on the ability to place a driveway on the

property line or within the side yard setback.

MR. SHARP: And a parking lot -- a parking spot included in that?

MR. ZENNER: That would be correct.

MS. HAMMEN: So someone could park on the lot line or up to the lot line?

MR. ZENNER: If my recollection serves me correctly, that is correct, Ms. Hammen.

MR. SHARP: So the --

MS. HAMMEN: Did the -- excuse me. Go ahead.

MR. SHARP: And so the house was built from scratch quite recently. Couldn't have

accommodations been made in the design of the -- of the new house that would have

accommodated this without having to put a spot on the side there?

MR. IMHOFF: Well, the house like it is set, it's, like, right on the property point of

six foot on the right side of the house, so, I mean, we're right there on that one. So this

one gave us, you know, enough to get her -- you know, big enough to get a car parking in

there, you know. Actually, without looking on what we did originally, it drew it into the

plan for the City, I'm not for sure if it was drawed [sic]. I don't think it was. I think it was,

you know, after the fact, you know, she'd like -- we need a parking spot for dad, and

that's kind of how it came to be. I mean, like I say, I should have probably come and

talked to Doug about it and just, you know, say, hey, what do I need -- what can I do, you

know. We could have maybe tried to do this process before we built or whatever, you

know, to see if we could do it or -- or however. But the house is just so tight on the lot,

you know, it just allowed us enough room to get that drive in there, that parking area.

MS. HAMMEN: Is the house built on the foundation of what burned down?

MR. IMHOFF: No. We -- they tore the whole thing out and we started from scratch

with a whole brand-new crawl space and everything else in it, so --

MR. SHARP: And you followed the setback -- the street setback rules and built --

MR. IMHOFF: Yes.

MR. SHARP: -- it to the -- to what the Code is.

MR. IMHOFF: Yes. What we ended up, I talked to the guys, and it was, like, the

house is actually set back further. It's, like, 40 feet, you know, because we just went

along and -- and went with everybody was there just to make the house look like it

belonged where it needed to be.

MS. OLSEN: So the extension of the new extra parking is on the left of the house?

MR. IMHOFF: Yes, ma'am.

MS. OLSEN: And the driver -- the handicapped driver drives a car or vehicle.

Correct?

MR. IMHOFF: Yes.

MS. OLSEN: So what -- why couldn't the right-hand side be the extension?

Wouldn't that be easier for the driver to get out of the vehicle?

MR. IMHOFF: Well, the right goes right directly into the driveway -- or into the

garage. The way the house is set up, you know, the garage is on the left side of the

house, and it just -- you know, because that's -- we used the existing driveway that was

there, like the approach and everything. So we didn't want to tear all that out and have to

redo all that, extra cost and everything. So we -- we worked with what we had and just,

you know, made it work to where she's got enough room to get, you know, the driveway

would wind it up so they can get the ramps in to where he can go straight into the house

off of that. But like I say, he just needs somewhere it's safe to park.

MS. OLSEN: Thank you.

MR. MINCHEW: Can I ask you, Pat, would it -- would it have been outside the Code

if he had added the -- and I'm not saying he could have, but added the driveway to the

right? Is the -- is the issue that he put it on -- on the -- too close to the property line? Is

that the --

MR. ZENNER: That's the principal issue. And when we're done with the speakers,

I'll provide you the staff's side of that and I'll give you a fuller explanation of how the Code

applies in this instance.

MR. MINCHEW: So you're allowed -- you're allowed, basically, to do -- but you just,

instead of going left, he should have gone right because of where the property line is.

MR. IMHOFF: Correct.

MR. MINCHEW: So you can widen your driveway, you just widened it left instead of

widening it right.

MR. IMHOFF: Yeah.

MR. NORGARD: Where do you intend to put the wheelchair ramp?

MR. IMHOFF: They are going, like, if looking at right beside the garage is the front

door, and they are going to go right from their straight down, because we made -- we

veered the driveway off far enough to where, you know, they can sit there and he can still

get -- you know, she's in the garage, he can get around and get right up them without no

problem, all the way up to the door.

MR. NORGARD: Any further questions?

MR. IMHOFF: Oh. Can I say one more thing?

MR. NORGARD: Oh, yeah. Please.

MR. IMHOFF: I did -- I did have -- I won't say who asked me to do this, but -- told me

to go up and down that street and look and see if there's any other houses that are kind

of like what we've done that are close to the property line, and there are several. Some of

them I know were put in, you know, before the Code change and all that. So I mean, it --

it's kind of like -- I don't know how to say it. You know --

MR. MINCHEW: It wouldn't be the only house --

MR. IMHOFF: New one. There's a new one about a block to the east -- east of

us that, I don't know if it's a remodel or if it's a brand-new house, but they have a driveway

going right beside, you know, the neighbor beside them, too. Same thing, but they go

back to a garage that's sitting behind the house. So it's, like, but actually, it's a -- I don't

know if it's a remodel or if it's -- they built it from the ground up. I don't know.

MR. NORGARD: Okay.

MS. HAMMEN: So backing out on that street will be a hazard.

MR. IMHOFF: Yes, ma'am.

MS. HAMMEN: Do you think --

MR. IMHOFF: You really -- you really have to watch when you're backing out. I

mean, when we were building it, you know, we were in and out dozens and dozens of

times, and you really have to watch both ways and you have to hurry up, basically, to do

it.

MS. HAMMEN: I know some people put in circular drives, so they can pull in and

pull out. Did that enter your equation?

MR. IMHOFF: That probably would have been a hard thing to do just to the fact that,

you know, we didn't have another approach to do it off of, and we were on a budget, you

know, to get this house at a certain budget, and it just would have added --

MR. MINCHEW: Well, then you would have to get a curb cut --

MR. IMHOFF: Yeah.

MR. MINCHEW: -- approval to do a circle. Right?

MR. IMHOFF: Yeah. Curb cut, yeah.

MR. NORGARD: Questions? Seeing none. Is -- thank you. Are there anybody else

in the audience wishing to speak in favor? Seeing none. Is there anybody wishing to

speak against? Oh, come on up. State your name and address and be sworn in.

MR. BUESING: James W. Buesing, and I live at 7900 West Rollingwood Boulevard

out west of town right now out by Midway, between Trails West and Rollingwoods and

that street through there.

(Witness sworn.)

MR. NORGARD: The floor is yours.

MR. BUESING: How are you all doing this evening?

MR. NORGARD: Good.

MR. BUESING: I think I'm about the subject of this conversation quite a bit here.

Yeah. I've listened to you. The street is not a good one to back out on, but if you be

careful and do it, you can do it well. The question on the parking in front of the house is

the way her driveway sits. There's a -- it's got a pretty good steep driveway going into it,

and I've got to be truthful. I ain't worth a tinker's from the waist down. I have no balance

and coordination. So if I get out and try to get my chair out on that ramp, I'm going to be

rolling down into the street. I have parked across the street in that daycare center, but

just to be nosy when they was building it, get in my wheelchair and go across the street

and roll up the driveway and look around a little bit, but I have never been in the house, so

that driveway was put in there for me, so -- that's all I -- if you've got any questions and --

MS. HAMMEN: Do you have plans to move in or mostly just visit?

MR. BUESING: Fifty-fifty, because right now, I can't take care of my place out there

at Midway. I've got my name on Lenoir Home out there, but that's a one- to two-year

waiting list, and I'm looking at selling my place and getting out of it. So if I get out of it, I

need someplace to go, so she's got a spare bedroom. I’m too old to lie. I even bought

bidet to put in the bathroom that I can sit on, so --

MR. NORGARD: Any further questions? Thank you, James.

MR. BUESING: You're welcome. Thank you.

MR. NORGARD: All right. Staff comments?

MR. ZENNER: So included in your packet, you should have had the plot plan that

was approved by the City prior to the issuance of the initial building permit, which did

show that the -- the home was fully compliant with all our required setbacks for the R-1

zoning district or -- yeah -- R-1 zoning district in which the house sits. The left side of the

home, which is where the parking space is located and encroaching into the side yard

setback, the actual exterior wall of the garage was 12 feet away from the property line,

double what the required setback was. Hence, the reason why we have approximately

and eight-foot wide or so space that may -- is sitting in the required side yard. It's pretty

standard for a vehicle parking space. And then the east side of the home, right-hand side

is at the minimum six feet. And as Mr. Buesing has indicated and as probably many of

you are aware, the property is perched, so there is about a four-foot elevation from grade

at Worley up to the front porch and entry of the home, if not a little bit more, making the

driveway grade relatively steep. And obviously, that does create a potential safety

hazard. I think what the bigger issue is here when we start to look at this is, well, how

did this happen and what is the implication or the impact in general. So as noted in the

staff report, flat work does not require a permit, after we have issued a building permit, a

principal building permit. So it is not uncommon, unfortunately, that through the

inspections process, flat work that is installed that is not shown on the original site plan,

so it's a post-construction or a post-permit issuance adjustment, field adjustment, is

often flagged by our enforcement staff when we are doing inspections, and that is, as I

understand it, how this particular scenario was identified. In 2017, we amended the

Unified Development Code, and as part of the overall amendments, parking areas, patios,

and a number of other previously non-regulated improvements to a site became

considered structures. Structures cannot sit within required setbacks, and there is an

exception within the Code which is why there are two provisions that have been noted and

how this project or this request was advertised. We have a yard exception, which allows

a driveway -- allows a driveway to be within six feet of a property line, if I'm -- I'm going to

get these reversed probably. A driveway within six feet of the property line -- or, I'm sorry,

you can have a driveway within five feet of the property lines, you cannot have a parked

vehicle within six. So that's why the two standards are existing here, and they are

somewhat confusing at best. And so as I pointed out in the staff report, we chose to take

the most conservative approach here and sought -- have written this report as though we

are encroaching into the setback by five feet, and we probably could have argued if it was

four feet or five feet, we just decided let's just go ahead and do it at five. You're a foot

from the property line, so any way you slice it or dice it, we've got a vehicle parked in a

parking space that's not supposed to be there, and you have a driveway that's there as

well. We created the standard for the setback, the offset, it was part of a neighborhood

protections provision -- a group of protective standards that were created. And they did

not previously exist in 2017. So as Mr. Imhoff has indicated, it's been 20-plus years

since he built a house inside the city of Columbia. We have contractors that are more

familiar and frequent flyers in our permitting program and still make the same error. So, I

mean, this is not something that is unfortunately an uncommon issue that does come up;

however, it's not nearly as unforgiving as it is in this particular situation, based upon the

property. So it's -- you may be encroaching, or you may have a driveway that leads back

to your garage that's detached in the rear yard, which is a path not traveled here, just

based on probably costs associated with the reconstruction of the home, but if they had

put a driveway that was within five feet of the property line and you weren't parking a

vehicle in it, that would be legally permitted by the definition of a driveway. It takes you

from the front to the rear of the property to an attached or a detached garage. As long as

you don't park in that portion of the driveway that's within six feet of the property line,

you're all good. So there are a couple of different ways that this could have been

considered if there was a better understanding of the actual end needs, and we probably -

- Doug Kenney, our building inspector two upstairs who deals with our over-the-counter

permits, which is what the house would have been, possibly could have advised Mr.

Imhoff as they were looking at the site plan, here's what you have to do. But because

they added parking space was a field change, Doug didn't have the opportunity to do that.

So we would have -- we may never have seen this. We may have ended up having them

put a garage to a rear or to a rear entry garage where you came up the driveway that's

currently in place, and you pulled behind the home. That's not what we're dealing with.

So that's how we got to where we're at. Now I think as the staff report fully points out,

there are a couple of other unique features here that exist that I can't explain because I

wasn't here when Worley got build and how Worley has been built out, but as noted in

the staff report, Worley is actually classified as a major collector. Major collectors are

not supposed to have any on-street parking on them. This street has on-street parking

based upon the historical usage of Worley. It creates a safety issue, and it actually

impedes the ability probably if we were ever looking to do any expansion to the street, if

needed, we would be displacing parking that is currently on-street. So whenever there is

an opportunity, we would look at trying to get that on-street parking off of this particular

street in order to be able to better fulfill its street classification by our Code. So the

parking space, while a violation of the written regulation, is actually in a backhanded way

solving a problem that we have, and we have allowed it to be perpetuated just because of

the developed nature of the corridor. In this particular instance, as Mr. Imhoff pointed

out, and as was contained within the actual packet, you have correspondence from the

adjoining property owner that would be the most aggrieved individual by this, indicating

both the tenant and the owner, if I am not incorrect, saying that they don't have an issue

with this, which is sometimes an odd situation. When we created neighborhood

protection standards, it was to provide that relief, and often those neighborhood protection

standards were designed more with the concept of multi-family development or parking

lots associated with multi-tenanted buildings being pushed away from an adjoining single-

or two-family developed property. The placement of the extra parking space, and I think

both Ms. Olsen, as well as Mr. Minchew, and possibly, Ms. Hammen, you all hit on the

right point, and that was -- that was labeled and listed in the staff report, as well. The

path not chosen here either was you could have gone more towards the center of the

property with the spare parking space. Obviously, that has an impact to the general

appearance of the property, though functional, and depending on how far you were able to

get over the ridge, or the slope area on the driveway coming up where the -- where it

breaks on the property to where the actual foundation and footprint is of the building,

where the parking space is proposed is you're beyond that ridge line. And so the car that

will be parking in that spare space to the left of the garage approach is actually on a

flatter surface than if we were to have moved it more centrally to the property. And so,

again, not probably thought out in that manner, but that is the reality that probably you

would have ended up by having a sloped parking space to the right of the driveway more

central to the building. And while Mr. Imhoff took my advice -- and I asked him to go out

and take a look at the street, and identify and come back to this body with some

conversation as it relates to what exists in the actual built environment, yes, there are

homes that are along Worley that do have wings. We refer to these as driveway wings or

extra parking spaces. They do exist, many of which were probably constructed prior to

the beginning of 2017 when we adopted the UDC. There are almost no properties that

have a driveway parking space sitting central to their home along its roadway frontage.

And I think one has to think about how odd would that look. It may address what the

Code compliant related issue is, but it really diminishes the general appearance of the

residential neighborhood which is where you're trying to focus maybe on your facade,

your front sidewalk, some nice landscaping, and all the parking is off to maybe one side

of the home. The Code is what the Code is, and you'll notice that there is no staff

recommendation here. I wanted this to be a decision that the Board needed to make.

We pointed the facts out. There is no question that when we look at this particular

request, there probably are other alternatives that could be employed in order to remove

and eliminate the violation. One has to ask the question, however, is the remedy or the

cure worth it. There is no harm being caused to the neighbors based upon their

justification or based on their correspondence. We are resolving a significant traffic

management and traffic-related safety issue along Worley by having this parking space in

this location, not that that same safety-related issue couldn't be maybe resolved by

moving it to the right of the driveway, but then given the conditions of the occupant of the

house longer term and the impact that that may cause on the neighborhood, you have to

weigh those. The site is problematic, so you have one of the criterion in the first general

conditional use criteria met. The second is that we have a public safety issue that we are

also resolving by permitting the driveway to stay in the location that it is, which is another

one of those the conditions of the environment. This is not a standard variance request

that we would normally talk about where the architect decided to build three feet bigger

and, you know, knew that they could or they couldn't. I mean, in that respect, maybe

this is very similar to that, but the architect made a choice possibly to design more than

could fit on the lot. Here, we're trying to resolve some other issues. And so

differentiating those from a standard variance request and looking at the five-point criteria

is probably advantageous. With that, I really don't have more to offer. I think that that

probably gives you the idea of where we're at here, where the Code stands, as well. I

mean there's a -- the Code is pretty clear. We've got a driveway; we've got parking within

six feet of the property line. It's within a foot. And then, of course, you have a driveway

and the parking space that's attached to that driveway encroaching an additional four feet

into the side yard. So -- and that is -- that's where the two pieces overlap. If you have

any questions, I'll be more than happy to try to answer them.

MR. MINCHEW: I have a question. So would -- would there be any relief if they call

this a driveway with the potential for building a garage in the back in the future?

MR. ZENNER: No, not at this point, because as soon as you start parking a vehicle

on the parking space --

MR. MINCHEW: No, I didn't say they would park a vehicle.

MR. ZENNER: Uh-huh. I think the reality is is the -- the reality is is there's --

MR. MINCHEW: But my question is is if they decided to build a garage in the back -

MR. ZENNER: Uh-huh.

MR. MINCHEW: -- and this was a driveway, would it -- would it, in fact, be the

driveway that led back to that garage?

MR. ZENNER: It would likely have to be the access because you can't get to it from

the right-hand side of the house --

MR. MINCHEW: Right.

MR. ZENNER: -- because it's at its minimum setback.

MR. MINCHEW: Right.

MR. ZENNER: There -- you could. I mean, that's one way of approaching this.

However, you're still four feet encroaching into what's required as a five-foot side yard

setback.

MR. MINCHEW: So even if you were doing a driveway to the back, you couldn't

encroach --

MR. ZENNER: Uh-huh. Yeah. You would still have to be four -- you would have to

have an additional four feet away.

MS. HAMMEN: I thought plat -- so the driveway can't encroach any closer than six

feet of the property line -- or five feet to the property line?

MR. ZENNER: So parking -- so here's how the two -- here's how the two parts work.

The 29-4.1(c)(2) table, 4.1-5, is the yard exceptions table. So the yard exceptions allow

a driveway, which would go from front to rear of the property, leading to an attached or

detached garage, to be within five feet. The provision that's in 24.9 -- or 29-4.3(g), on the

other hand, specifically stipulates that parking cannot be within six feet of an adjoining

residential one- or two-family structure. And so that's where we have this -- we have an

overlap. You can't park in a driveway. So if the driveway were compliant, if it was five feet

away from the property line, and led from the front to the rear, you couldn't park a vehicle

in that portion of the driveway where it's closer than six feet. It would basically be the

access to and from the rear garage. In this particular instance, given the fact that you

have 12 feet, you're still going to be encroaching at least a foot into the side yard if you

put an eight-foot-wide driveway right up along the exterior wall of the garage. So you

would still need a variance at that point. There is no evidence that has been provided to

us at this juncture that there is a garage permit pending; and therefore, I think resolving

the matter at hand is probably a more efficient solution to the problem.

MR. MINCHEW: Sure.

MR. ZENNER: It's a creative -- it's a creative solution, Mr. Minchew, but I still

think that’s a variance --

MR. MINCHEW: I wasn't suggesting that they needed a garage back there, but I

thought, you know, if -- just to see what -- how we -- how the Code looked at that, so --

MS. HAMMEN: So is there anything about backyard parking?

MR. ZENNER: You can park within your rear yard. That is permitted by the Code.

There are particular standards as it relates to screening, the amount of area one can

occupy in the required rear yard and we refer to rear yard in a broader sense, and then we

refer to rear yard in required. It's the same as the front. We talk about front yard being

everything forward of the front wall of your structure out to the curb or to the property line.

The required front yard is the front 25 feet back from the right-of-way line 25 feet in. And

you cannot -- you have a maximum amount of paving that's permitted within that area.

Similarly, we apply the same standards in the rear yard, the required rear yard.

MS. HAMMEN: Is that 25 feet or 10 feet? It’s 25?

MR. ZENNER: It's 25 -- it would be 25, as well, since this is R-1, or 25 or 30 percent

of the depth of the lot, whichever is greater. We have an additional standard as it relates

to structures in the rear yard, as well. You can't cover more than 30 percent of your rear

yard, and we have other standards that deal with accessory structures, too, which, at

that point, you know, I could go down a rabbit hole of regulatory morass, if we would like,

but we have other standards that deal with a lot of different things that would control the

amount of structure, impervious area, and the like in the rear yard. Similarly, where

they've got this particular extra stall, this extra parking space located, they are not in a

restricted area. So the driveway is fully compliant, the house is fully compliant. It

doesn't exceed the maximum amount of paving allowed in the front yard. All of that is in

keeping with the Code. It's simply that the actual extra parking space that is in the

setback is the violation.

MS. HAMMEN: So I'm a little unclear still about a driveway that deviates from the

driveway in front of the garage. And I thought there was something behind that -- that

new driveway that was put in.

MR. ZENNER: There's a fence. There is a -- there is a privacy fence behind the

parking stall.

MS. HAMMEN: Okay. So I'm correct, that there's something there. But what is the

reason that that driveway cannot extend to the back of the house and turn into the back

of the house and have a parking space there?

MR. ZENNER: It is an encroachment into -- so the driveway itself, the house is 12

feet from the property line.

MS. HAMMEN: Uh-huh.

MR. ZENNER: You cannot be closer than five feet. That gives you a

seven-foot-wide driveway. Standard vehicle travel way is going to have to be at least eight

feet, if not more. Standard drive is probably about -- a single car drive is maybe ten feet

wide, in order to be able to get your vehicle safely around the corner of the house. You

don't want to clip the house. And so you're going to have to be out -- if you're more than

-- if you're more than seven feet, you're in the required five-foot side yard, as the driveway

cannot be closer than five feet to the neighboring property. Functionally, a drive --

functionally, you can't -- you can't put in a functional driveway to achieve, I think, what

you all would like to achieve, and that's to slide the parking space back behind the

house, and salvage maybe what's already here without potentially having to give

consideration to just allowing what's there to exist. Again, the issue at hand is one that's

probably a relatively I wouldn't say simple task, but it's -- it's a little bit more clean cut

that we've got an improvement that's nonconforming to give consideration to not trying to

create a greater nonconformity by a driveway extending further back than it already is.

MS. HAMMEN: How wide is a regulation parking space, like, in a parking lot?

MR. ZENNER: A regulation parking space ranges -- it can range from as small as

eight and a half by eighteen upwards to nine. In some instances, we've seen them as

small as eight, and that may have been previous Code. If I'm not incorrect, our current

Code requirement is an 18 by eight and a half is the standard parking space.

MR. MINCHEW: Can I ask you another question? Is there not any relief under the

ADA? Like if you -- if you wanted to improve the property to make it accessible --

handicap accessible, is there not any relief?

MR. ZENNER: In keeping -- in -- specifically as it relates to the UDC, that we do not

have any such mechanism within it, this is the body by which that relief would be

granted.

MR. MINCHEW: Okay.

MR. ZENNER: And that may be another part of the compelling argument here is that

we're trying to make a property ADA accessible for not only this individual, potentially,

future individuals. As I noted in the report as well, we don't often draw parallels between

compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; however, as we pointed out, creating an

environment in where people can enjoy where they live safely is, you know, creating

livable and sustainable neighborhoods. And this house has obviously burnt down once,

it's been reconstructed. Ms. Buesing wants to move back into this property, potentially

have her father move in with her as a result of his situation. They may have a unique

situation at this point, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the next owner of that

property may not have something very similar and would benefit by not having to park out

on Worley, thereby creating it as a more attractive and livable environment for future

residents. And so that is how we draw the conclusion that it is promoting livability and

sustainability within the context of the Comprehensive Plan. It's very rare that we get

these types of unique correlations, but this is one that we believe, from a staff

perspective, is there. The point very well taken, though, Mr. Minchew, the Code just does

not -- you know, we have other provisions that deal with ADA and the building code. You

know, we have requirements. It's more of a requirement. The bathroom turning radii

needs to be X, and you need to have your ramps at particular grades. You know, certain

improvements that have been made on this site have been made with the idea that this --

they needed to be made in order to accommodate an individual with that condition.

MR. MINCHEW: So if we had an individual that owned a home and became

handicapped, they need to make their property work for them, they would have to come in

front of this group if it was outside the Code like this is? They would have to come in

front of this group and ask for that variance?

MR. ZENNER: Correct. I think -- all things being considered equal, if a situation like

this posed itself again, and again, I point out the flatwork does not require a permit. We

have no mechanism by which somebody couldn’t hire a contractor, a concrete contractor

to go out and pave an extra parking stall on their lot. I can point to a number of properties

that I drive by regularly that that's happened. And we don't -- we can't -- we have very

limited ability to be able to enforce by requiring them to pull it out.

MS. HAMMEN: Unless it infringes on the setbacks.

MR. ZENNER: That, or the neighbors then -- and the neighbors would complain. I

think that that's the only time you're going to get that. So I think if somebody wanted to

do it right, and understood, and it's not that Mr. Imhoff or Ms. Buesing did not want to do

this right. They were doing what they felt necessary unaware of the regulation. An

ignorance of the law isn't forgiveness to it. So, I mean, I think they understand that, we

understand that, hopefully. If they had come and consulted with us, we probably would

have recommended that here's how you solve this problem. Now if that still wasn't

tenable, they would still be before this body, asking for this relief for the exact same

reasons that they're here tonight.

MR. SHARP: I've got a couple of questions. You referred to the slope there as being

relatively steep. What does the ADA have to say about sloped --

MR. ZENNER: That, I did not look into, Mr. Sharp. I apologize. That's not normally

something that I go through in my -- my actual process of what I do because I'm looking

at land use normally, not ADA. That's our building staff. But, I mean, you've got at least,

based on the topographic maps that are in your packet, and based on my analysis,

you're looking at least a four-foot grade change between street level of Worley and the

foundation level of the existing home. And given you're only dealing with probably 40 feet

of driveway space between the street and the house, that puts you at a fairly significant

grade. We won't allow a driveway -- we won't allow a public street -- let me put it this

way. We won't allow a public street greater than 10 percent for fire apparatus related

issues. Driveways that generally are greater than, if I'm not incorrect, four to five percent

are normally not recommended just because -- I mean, you can go up to some of the

homes in Vanderveen, and you'll see driveways that are basically a cliff. You drive up

and, you know, you have an ice storm, you would be lucky if your car is still in your drive

the following morning. And that's the type of thing that when you deal with, in this

particular instance, an individual that may be wheelchair bound, we have to be cognizant

of that as we consider what the facts are with the case. And that's part of what I think

this body is intended to try to balance those issues out.

MR. SHARP: And I have one other question. The -- if we do grant this variance, it

would be in perpetuity. Right?

MR. ZENNER: To this particular property, the parking space could not be expanded.

It could be maintained, it could be -- if there's maintenance needing on it, it's allowed to

be maintained. It would be -- but we would deem it as a legal nonconformity by the

variance. So the extension of the northern end of the driveway for -- you know, the

northern end of the parking space to the rear yard, to maybe access a future detached

garage or some other structure to the rear if a future owner would want to do that, that

would require another trip to the Board because you're going to be building an extension

onto to that parking area right now that is going to encroach into what the current side

yard setback requirement is that can't be impeded upon by a drive. So they would be

back here and -- to be able to get that approval. If they don't do anything but maintain it,

it will be there in perpetuity. If it comes out, that is something that if it's removed by

choice, if I'm not incorrect, and I'll let Mr. Craig respond to this if I say this wrong, I believe

that that variance at that point, because you're removing -- you're removing a

nonconformity and now that I'm saying this, I'm incorrect. If the -- if the nonconformity, if

it was a nonconformity with no relief being granted, once it was removed, it could not go

back. Because the variance is being granted, if they needed to pull it out, let's, for

instance say it collapsed or it settled and they needed to pull it out and be able to come

back and reinstall the parking space, the variance would allow for that because it's

granting the relief to be within a foot of the existing property line. You could not expand it

at that time, though. It would have to be constructed -- reconstructed in the exact

configuration that it is today. You would not be able -- also, let me further go on. You

would not be able to build a structure over this driveway, so let's for instance say you

want to put a car and a half garage on the house, because right now it's a single car

garage, you could not put the structure out there. We've got six extra feet to do a

structure. That's where you would reach your westernmost side yard lot line, but that's

still not going to get you a garage space big enough for a conforming two-car garage.

You would have a garage and a half.

MS. HAMMEN: And this variance is asking for a paved space?

MR. ZENNER: Yes. We will not allow unpaved spaces to be created. And dust-free

parking surfaces are a requirement of the Code. There are many locations within the

community that are replete with examples of where we have gravel parking lots, and

they've been allowed to exist and continue to exist to be maintained, but anything that

gets constructed new is concrete or asphalt.

MS. HAMMEN: So I have several that pertain to this case, but not exactly what

we've been talking about. This is zoned R-1. Is a site plan required?

MR. ZENNER: A site plan is required for any building permit that is issued. So --

and the purpose of the site plan, as I denoted within the staff report, is to ensure that

we're -- that the features that are being constructed and are envisioned at the time that

the permit is being pulled are all compliant. And when you make a field change, it's

called a field change for a reason. And it's something that either gets made and we find

out about it when we go out to do a footing and a foundation inspection or a framing or

some other inspection, and we say, come back, update your plot plan or we'll update

your plot plan for you, so when our inspector goes back out, we know what's going on

here. And you have a document that was highlighted in color in your packet that

identified where that additional was actually identified and we quantified what existed. It's

at that point then, if it conforms, great. If it doesn't, you've got a problem probably getting

your CO until that's resolved, or you come in and you take effective action to remove the

error.

MS. HAMMEN: So the site plan just shows that there's a building there?

MR. ZENNER: Yeah.

MS. HAMMEN: Okay.

MR. ZENNER: Well, it would have shown the driveway, and it would have shown how

that driveway was connecting and compliant with the limitations established by the

development code. And so that's a consistent -- that's a consistent element of all zoning

districts and all building permits. Single and two-family construction within the city of

Columbia do not require specific plan review for architectural purposes, unlike multi-family

and then anything that is considered commercial or office.

MS. HAMMEN: So if we grant this variance, can we put a stipulation that a ramp is

required?

MR. ZENNER: I'll let Mr. Craig respond to that. That would be a conditional use

normally, and that's not what we're doing here in my -- in our world, but I'll let Mr. Craig

respond.

MR. CRAIG: Generally, the sort of conditions precedent are not favored. It would be

-- you can -- conditions of the dimensions and how it would be built, but a tit for tat, or

quid pro quo, I don't know that that would be an acceptable consideration for the Board to

have a ramp built that's not part of the subject matter of the variance.

MS. HAMMEN: But it's -- okay. It's been stated they're going to put a ramp in, and I

know sometimes we put requirements on our variance that something does happen that's

been stated.

MR. ZENNER: I think when we've done that in the past, Ms. Hammen, that has been

as it relates to seller communication where we're requiring particular elements of

screening and things of that nature. We're not -- we're normally -- you have a little bit

more latitude in certain actions. In this, this is a -- this is a straightforward dimensional

variance request unlike a conditional-use permit. So cellular communication towers and

solar facilities -- or not solar -- wind facilities are actually conditional uses that are

assigned to the Board by City Council. All other conditional uses are handled by the

Planning Commission. Conditional uses is where we get into the conditions that you

have previously said I am unaware in the years that I've represented the City on this --

with this body, that we've ever taken a variance and we've applied conditions to the

variance.

MS. HAMMEN: And I'm thinking of the next owner and the next owner.

MR. ZENNER: Uh-huh.

MS. HAMMEN: You know, this was granted for a specific -- if it's granted for a

specific ADA situation, and having ramp then would encourage someone to buy it for that

purpose, and that's what I'm thinking about.

MR. ZENNER: And I would -- if I may, I'd view it from the perspective that if the owner

is going to make that investment, that's going to appeal to a future buyer. And so

realizing that the owner who is seeking the waiver -- the relief has a family member that

this would be needed for, I -- the expense associated with putting the ramp in and making

sure that it meets ADA is probably far more significant than putting it in and then ripping

it out before they sell the home.

MR. CRAIG: And I would add to that. I don't think making that a condition for

granting of the variance appropriate, that they -- it would be a condition present or a

condition of -- of your approval, so --

MS. HAMMEN: Thank you.

MR. MINCHEW: And I don't know how we would specify where the ramp would go or

what the slope -- I don't know, just a ramp.

MS. HAMMEN: Right. Right.

MR. MINCHEW: Yeah.

MS. HAMMEN: Right. So, thank you. One more thing that's -- so the parties of

interest, and this could be a question -- well -- so this is the first time I've noticed parties

of interest, and the list says resident or tenant.

MR. ZENNER: And we have -- we are in the process of refining our mailing lists.

Due to the fact that the particular area in which this structure is located is a --

significantly dominated by rental property. So we have the owner of record that owns the

underlying land, and they have a tenant within the property. Tenant address is the actual

physical street address within the 185-foot radius. Property owner address is where the

actual tax bill goes to for the individual that owns that property. Both are as equally

entitled to having notice provided to them as it relates to the impact of an action being

brought on a property within the notification radius. And that is why you have seen -- you

see what you see. It was something that we have been working on in order to try to

address a deficiency that exists, so that is the difference. It is something that you

should continue to be observant to because we are trying to ensure that the Code's

requirements for notification are adequately met.

MS. HAMMEN: And many times, it's been addressed to the owner at the property

address where they obviously do not live. But my concern is now it does not even go to

the owner, it goes to the resident or tenant at the property address. And, you know,

when I get something that's addressed to resident, I might not open it. Now coming from

the City, someone might open it, but my concern is that the property owner in this

situation is not getting notice of this. So are two notices going to be sent out?

MR. ZENNER: Yes. Two notices were -- two notices were sent out. I specifically

culled every single address that you see in the list --

MS. HAMMEN: Uh-huh.

MR. ZENNER: -- because the system that we have right now does not do an

effective job of ensuring that the tenant of a rental property and its owner of that property

receive mailed notice as is required by our notification procedures within the Unified

Development Code. This was a -- this was a very significant finding of mine when I

started to verify who was receiving what in the way of notice. When we -- if we would

have done this in the prior process, we would have utilized the mailing address of the tax

bill, not necessarily the mailing address of the actual structure on the property.

MS. HAMMEN: So maybe at our comments at the end, we can seek to further refine

that process, which I applaud, that, you know, two, and that's more expense and so on,

that everybody who could be concerned is getting notified. But the way I see it now is

you don't know what owner owns what property.

MR. ZENNER: No, we do.

MS. HAMMEN: Well, not in -- not in that letter of interest-- parties of interest.

MR. ZENNER: The parties of interest list that was provided, if I'm -- unless I left that

column out, we have actual names of every single owner, be it an LLC or --

MR. MINCHEW: I'm looking them now because one of them is my neighbor --

MS. HAMMEN: Right.

MR. MINCHEW: -- and there's a bunch of street addresses here that are not on

Worley.

MS. HAMMEN: Right.

MR. MINCHEW: There's Worley, of course, Pershing, and Pennant, those are

the ones around it, but Bluff Point, McNabb, those are --

MS. HAMMEN: Yeah. Right.

MR. ZENNER: And so we have notified every single configuration of how the

properties are either actively being used, and if they're -- if we sent an address to 1311

West Worley --

MS. HAMMEN: Right.

MR. ZENNER: -- and it wasn't the owner of record that lived there, it was sent to

-- the envelope that was addressed was sent to the resident of 1311 West Worley. If

they own property in Pennsylvania, or if the owner who receives the tax bill on that lived in

Pennsylvania, you'll see the corresponding Pennsylvania address. It's not tied -- I think

it's clearly to the property that that owner is associated with, and I think that may be

what's confusing you, Ms. Hammen.

MS. HAMMEN: Well, I'm -- yeah. I'm wanting to know the owner of 1311, which we

found because of that letter of support.

MR. ZENNER: Yes.

MS. HAMMEN: But all of those on Pennant, who owns those?

MR. ZENNER: And that -- and so what we do not do at this point is we are not

actually -- because we use the assessor's records information --

MS. HAMMEN: Uh-huh.

MR. ZENNER: -- we are not -- we -- if a parcel has an address -- so as many of

you are aware if you've ever gone to the parcel records, you will see the owner of record

and where that tax bill is being sent to.

MS. HAMMEN: Right.

MR. ZENNER: That is the first item that you will see in the assessor's records for

any parcel within the city of Columbia. If you drop down and go into the detailed property

record, you will find the actual street address of the structure that is on that property. If

that owner's billing address for tax purposes does not match the address in the detail,

you know that that property generally will be in a rental. And that is -- so we send to the

general Worley address the actually -- send a letter to tenant, or it will be -- the envelope

will be addressed tenant or resident, and then we will send the property owner the actual

-- an envelope with their name on it to wherever their tax -- wherever the tax bill would go.

MR. NORGARD: Would it be possible to continue this after this hearing?

MR. ZENNER: And we can --

MS. HAMMEN: Yeah. Let’s do that.

MR. ZENNER: So that's how the -- that's how the mailing list is pulled. And I

understand what you're getting at, and I think I fully understand how you would like it

correlated.

MR. NORGARD: Are there any other comments or questions for staff? Seeing

none. Would the applicant like to come up and make any closing statements or correct

any incorrections -- or incorrect statements? You don't have to if you don't want to.

MR. IMHOFF: I said all I needed to.

MR. NORGARD: Okay. All right. Well, if there's no further questions for the

applicant, then I'm going to go ahead and close the hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MR. NORGARD: Okay. Would legal like to make any comments?

MR. CRAIG: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Two matters. As a preliminary matter, I'd

like to introduce into evidence City's Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, Exhibit 1 being a certified

copies of Chapter 9 -- or Chapter 29-1.11, Definitions of Rules of Construction of the City

Code, Chapter 29, Section 4.1(c)(2), and accompanying Table 29-4.15, as well as

Chapter 29-4.3(g) and Chapter 29, Section 6.4, as amended, and it appears that Chapter

29-1.11 and 29-6.4 were amended recently effective as of June 1st of this year. Exhibit --

I'm sorry. Exhibit 2 being the staff report, and Exhibit 3 being the public hearing

advertisement, parties in interest noticed, and parties in interest list.

MR. NORGARD We'll go ahead and admit those.

MR. CRAIG: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, secondly, additionally, as the -- as the

Board may know, the matter before it is a variance request, and so the applicable five

criteria for granting such variance requests are found in Chapter 29, Second 6.4,

subsection (d)(2) of UDC, which I'll read both to the Board and into the record at this time

in its entirety. The Board may approve an application for a variance from the terms and

provisions of this Chapter if it determines that all of the following are true:

A. The variance is required to address practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships

related to the shape, size, terrain, location or other factors at the applicant's site. Those

difficulties or hardships are not generally applicable to the property in the area, and the

difficulties and hardships were not created by the actions of the applicant.

B. The variance will not have the effect of permitting a use of land that is not

indicated as permitted or conditional use in Section 29-3.1, Permitted Use Table, in the

zoned district where the property is located, nor shall a variance be granted to modify a

standard that operates as part of the definition of any use.

C. The variance will not permit a development that is inconsistent with the adopted

Comprehensive Plan.

D. The variance is the least change from the requirements of this Chapter necessary

to relieve the difficulty or hardship.

E. The variance will not harm the public health, safety or welfare or be injurious to

other property or improvements in the area in which the property is located.

MR. NORGARD: Thank you. All right. Are there any comments from the Board

members?

MR. MINCHEW: Well, I think, you know, if this had been reversed, and I think Mr.

Zenner said it, that if -- if they had come in front of us to ask for relief because of the

slope of the property and the way that, you know, because the property falls the way it

does on the right side, the only relief for putting the -- what would be handicapped parking

on the property, I think if we were looking at that, my view would almost be exactly the

same way it is now. It is after the fact. I've been in the construction business for 30

years, so I have a little bit of empathy for Mr. Imhoff on doing something and then going,

oh, wow, I didn't realize Mr. Zenner had a rule against that. So just kidding. So I think,

to me, I mean, it seems like it makes sense. It seems like this is what this family

needs. I think it also makes in the future, if and when you ever sell the house, it makes

an accessible house for someone going forward. So it's not just their use, but, you know,

there's plenty of folks looking for accessible living for -- for handicapped folks. So I'm --

I'm -- my vote would be that we approve this.

MS. OLSEN: I -- public safety is a big issue for me, and that street as that -- as we

grow in Columbia, when there's so much traffic on that street now, without granting this

variance, I think we're just increasing that, and that kind of scares me, so I kind of agree

with Randy.

MR. NORGARD: Sure. I think that we are -- we can build by the Code, cut off the

nose to spite the face, and put a driveway up the middle of the lot. That seems absurd.

It does seem like the least change required to achieve the desired outcome, given Mr.

Buesing's balance issues, trying to disembark from a vehicle on a grade seems like a

bad idea. I have to support this.

MR. MINCHEW: Can I make a motion that we --

MS. HAMMEN: Just -- yeah. The -- yeah, the issue of green space and setbacks

has been hard fought, and yet exceptions do apply. It's too bad it wasn't known ahead of

time and could put parking behind, but that's water under the bridge, as it were.

MR. MINCHEW: I'd like to make a motion to approve. You can fill in all the blanks

on exactly what it is I'm --

MR. NORGARD: We have a motion on the table. Actually, I -- I should be the one to

make the motion. Do you want to -- well, I guess anybody can make a motion. I'll

second the motion. There, we've got a motion on the table. So we have a motion to

approve the variance. Mr. Zenner -- is there any conversation on this motion? Seeing

none. Mr. Zenner, would you like to formalize the motion?

MR. ZENNER: I will. A motion has been made and seconded to approve a variance

authorizing a driveway with an attached parking stall to encroach into the required side

yard setback or 13 -- the western side yard setback of 1309 West Worley Street such

that the driveway extension and parking space shall be no closer than one foot to the

western property line of said lot. Mr. Norgard?

MR. NORGARD: Yes.

MR. ZENNER: Ms. Hammen?

MS. HAMMEN: Yes.

MR. ZENNER: Mr. Minchew?

MR. MINCHEW: Yes.

MR. ZENNER: Ms. Olsen?

MS. OLSEN: Yes.

MR. ZENNER: Mr. Sharp?

MR. SHARP: Yes.

MR. ZENNER: The motion carries, five votes, so ordered by the Board.

MR. MINCHEW: Thank you, all.

MR. NORGARD: Thank you, guys.

MR. MINCHEW: Good job.

MR. NORGARD: All right. That's the end of our meeting.

A motion has been made to approve a variance authorizing a driveway with an

attached parking stall to encroach into the required western side yard setback of

1309 West Worley Street such that the driveway extension and parking space

shall be no closer than one foot to the western property line of said lot.

5 - Hammen, Norgard, Sharp, Olsen and Minchew

2 - Rogers and Crew

Yes:

Excused:

VI. GENERAL COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, MEMBERS AND STAFF

MR. NORGARD: So is there anybody from the public who would like to speak?

Seeing none. Is there any other items the Board would like to discuss?

MS. HAMMEN: So, Mr. Zenner, can you and I come to an understanding of what --

how this parties of interest letter might look next meeting?

MR. ZENNER: The parties of interest letter, Ms. Hammen, will not change. We do a

generic parties of interest letter for a reason.

MS. HAMMEN: Well, the list.

MR. ZENNER: The list can be modified, and I'd like to just express, I don't know if

you understand the effort that it takes to be able to produce your parties in interest list,

and to further have to refine that list to address who is the property owner when that is

available to you as Board members if you are interested in that, is something that I would

appreciate it if you understand what the task is. This was a relatively small request of

notice. As the notice increases, and I understand what you would like, and I believe if the

Board believes that this is essential that the owner of the property is identified and an

address associated with that owner for that property is needed, that's fine. But as the

issues and the notice requirements that we are required to comply with grow, so too does

the amount of staff time that we have to devote to something that really, to be quite

honest, is not relevant as it relates to the decisions that are made here. Who owns a

property is really not relevant to the issue of the relief that is being sought by that

applicant. They are noticed. The tenants are noticed, the owner is noticed, and we have

the ability to receive written or in-person public comment. And I'm -- I just --

MS. HAMMEN: As you know, I'm very interested in transparency. And so in two

years, when this house goes back on the market, and someone wants to know what

happened in the past, they can look and find out exactly, and not have to go after the fact

and try to look everything up. And I think that could be worth the effort.

MS. OLSEN: My understanding that it -- the differences in notification, because on

the tax record, it's --

MR. MINCHEW: Talk into your microphone.

MS. OLSEN: Sorry. It's who -- you can find who owns the structure. But you're not

going -- you know -- you're sending the owner notification by -- through the address of

resident or tenant?

MR. ZENNER: No. We are -- we are sending notification to the owner, to the

address that the assessor's record has on file for the tax bill. The tenant or resident of

the structure, if it is not the same address as the owner, is receiving specific notice at

that address as the most affected party. If we have an absentee owner of land, it's in St.

Louis, California, wherever, they're getting notice they're not going to most likely show up,

and they're most likely not going to care because they aren't living there. The owner and

the way that our Code is set up is that -- and this is a notification issue that we have

known -- that we have been trying to resolve for many years based upon how we collect

information and how the information is provided. We cannot be assured that the

addresses on properties are actually accurate in the assessor's records, but I can

guarantee you that the tax bill address is very accurate because they get their money

every year. So we have to go through a lot of extra steps by which to ensure that the

address of the property and the structure that is on it that is within 185 feet actually is

correct, and we do that to ensure all affected occupants or owners are aware of what is

occurring around their property. We are obligated by the Code to do that. And so what

you have in the list for this particular case, which is, yes, the first time that you have ever

seen a list like this, it's because when I looked at that list and I looked at what was being

mailed produced on the envelopes that would have gone out, we would have sent out

probably about 13 or 14 notices, and that was it. There were a whole heck of a lot more

people that lived in that neighborhood that would be affected by this potentially that could

have come out and supported it or could have opposed it because they want the same

thing on their lot, or they didn't want what was allowed to occur on the lot. We do that in

order to ensure that not only they're notified, the owner is notified. In a small mailing list,

this is not that big an issue. In a larger mailing list, it becomes a very significant issue,

and I will tell you that rezoning actions where we have condominium associations and

apartment buildings, that is a massive undertaking, and at this point, we have not yet

experienced that scenario through a Planning Commission action to where we would have

to do what you see on your mailing list, but we don't product mailing lists for the Planning

and Zoning Commission. They rely on the fact that we're doing our notice the way that

the Code says we do our notice. I will be quite honest with you, property owner interest -

- property owner notification lists and a copy of a property owner letter I believe is a

process that we, the City of Columbia, has created. It is not a regulatory requirement.

And so we've created a lot of extra work for the staff that mans this body and has to

produce the paperwork to go along with it. And that is why I am just a little bit concerned

that we are -- we're asking for more time potentially to be invested in a list that's really --

it shouldn't be influencing the Board's decision as to who owns the property or doesn't

when we're looking at the facts of the case.

MR. MINCHEW: I think, if I understand this correctly, what -- and I could be wrong,

Janet. But on the list that we're looking at here and we see the Gauses Houses, or Two

Brothers Investment Group at 2204 -- 2205 Bluff Point Drive, which are my neighbors,

around the corner from me, I don't know which house on Worley that they own.

Technically, I don't care. As long as you say that you're sending the -- the people on

Worley the notice, the people in the area the notice, and then you've gone out here and

sent the owners of record -- that are on record, sent them a notice, I don't personally

need proof that Two Brothers Investment Group at 2205 Bluff Point Drive owns the house

at 1401 Worley Street. I don't need that proof. If you tell us that you've sent that, I don't -

- I don't know why it becomes our -- our issue. So I -- I don't know --

MS. HAMMEN: I'm just -- yeah. I -- I -- well, like -- so 1311 went to tenant, but we

also know from that letter that came in that Lucille Jacobs Trust owns that house from

the --

MR. MINCHEW: Okay.

MS. HAMMEN: So that way we do know. And I don't know -- I agree. why do we --

and I applaud that the tenants are now getting letters because they -- I've often wondered

why only the owner does. But -- so I'm just wondering if sometime in the future, someone

going back -- you know, as someone who has gone back and looked at past City things,

making it easy for someone to figure out what went on in a situation --

MR. NORGARD: But how does this help you figure out what went on? I mean, aside

from the court recorder's written testimony or --

MS. HAMMEN: Yes.

MR. NORGARD: -- you know, transcribed testimony, what more -- and the

evidence that's been submitted, how does this help you build a case?

MR. MINCHEW: I mean, the only thing it would be is if you went and said, well, I

don't think the people at 1310 West Worley actually got a chance to say whether or not

they liked this or not or did all of the -- I'm going to buy that house, did all of the

neighbors around there approve it? I mean, I don't know. I kind of see what you're

saying, but I don't know that it's Planning -- I don't know that it's Planning and Zoning's

duty to us to provide anything like that or for a scenario sort of, you know, that might be.

I just don't -- I mean, I don't disagree with you that it's possible, but I don't think we, as a

Board, have any right to ask Planning and Zoning to prove out something like that, so --

MR. NORGARD: And I would -- I would just add, you know, this notice of -- this

notice includes ways for the individual to contact the City, contact Mr. Zenner, and make

comments if they want, whether they can show up or not. So by not making a comment,

they have tacitly commented.

MR. MINCHEW: And I have rental properties and I've had the City send -- we had a --

I have a house on Clinkscales, and there's a project going on over there, and I got an

interested parties notice at my house, and so did the tenant there because the tenant

gave it to me and said, hey, I don't know if this -- what this means, but, you know, here

you go. So --

MS. HAMMEN: So, good. I appreciate this discussion and I don't -- I always hate to

upset you, Pat. But --

MR. ZENNER: I just -- I'm going to stand my ground on this one. I'm sorry.

MR. MINCHEW: Oh, just add a little to your day, Pat.

MR. ZENNER: That's all right, you know.

MS. HAMMEN: That's right. But -- but I think -- you know, I think it does behoove us

as a -- as a body to be able to discuss these things and decide this makes sense.

Okay. So --

MR. ZENNER: And what I can -- what I can -- see what can be done, because I

understand where the disconnect is, and I appreciate your understanding in that. I

understand where the disconnect is, and the technology that's utilized, here's what the

challenge is. If I had the technology that could say that Two Brothers Investments are

tied to 1310 or whatever the address is, if I had the way to be able to do that in an

automated fashion, I'd have no problem giving you what you're wanting. We just don't

have that solution identified at this point. And as the technologies advance, it is very

possible that we would be able to say this property is tied to this physical address, or

this owner is tied to this physical address even though they don't live there. The system

is not smart enough. It's like what everybody says with computer technology, good

information in -- bad information, garbage in-garbage out. And so -- and we've got great

meaningful information in the systems that we utilize, but they're -- they weren't set up for

the same purposes, and that's hence the problem. If they were set up for the same

purposes to where that tax parcel owner and their address were matched for that

purpose, that's what we would be pulling, and we could then say, well, their tax address,

their tax parcel ID and their tax bill doesn't match. The parcel -- the physical mailing -- or

the physical street address, at that point, it would flag it. It doesn't right now, and so

what we are doing in order to compile the list that you see, there's two separate lists

running. We're running a list of all addresses and where the address matches with the

tax parcel, because we have to compare the two, then we don't send the tenant letter.

But when we know we don't have an address covered, then we send the tenant resident

letter, plus the owner letter. I mean, we're -- we're doing both and we're trying. I can -- I

will continue to work with my IT staff and my in-house GIS staff to find out if they've got a

better way to do a merge to where we can do what you're asking for so you can say you

have a tenant plus the owner of this address got that, but I can't -- I'm not going to be able

to get there easily.

MS. HAMMEN. Thank you.

MR. MINCHEW: Thank you.

MR. NORGARD: Chat GPT.

MR. ZENNER: No. We've seen how that works in other -- in other venues that the

Planning staff utilized.

MR. NORGARD: So it looks like we don't have any further discussion.

VII. NEXT MEETING DATE - August 13, 2024 @ 7 pm (tentative)

MR. MINCHEW: Move to adjourn.

MR. NORGARD: Wait. We have --

MR. ZENNER: You do not have a meeting in July, so take a vacation, and I won't be

as mean as I was with the Planning Commission and retracted their ability to leave. You

don't have a meeting in July because we have no applications. We had none in June.

And then -- or I'm sorry, we had none in May. And then we did not have any applications

submitted on Monday of this week, so you do not have an August meeting either. So

take a very long vacation.

MR. NORGARD: There you go.

MR. ZENNER: And we'll do all this all over again in hopefully September. We're

following the pattern we followed last year where we only had about four meetings. So

maybe within that period of time, we'll solve the dilemma on addresses.

MR. NORGARD: You said no just the right number of times.

MR. ZENNER: With that, that is all I have to offer.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

MR. MINCHEW: Motion to adjourn.

MR. NORGARD: Second.

MS. HAMMEN: Yeah. Second.

MR. NORGARD: Closed.

(The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m.)

(Off the record.)

Move to Adjourn