ITEM04 C15-2025-0041 ADV PACKET NEW INFO PERMIT HOLDER — original pdf

Backup

6706 Bridge Hill Cove: Permit Holder Response Board of Adjustment: Interpretation C15-2025-0041 First Hearing: November 10, 2025 (postponed after discussion) Second Hearing: Dec 8, 2025 1. Summary The only administrative decision properly before the Board is the City’s approval of the 2025 permit revision for 6706 Bridge Hill Cove. The 2022 permit remains final, valid, and unappealable, and it establishes the existing noncomplying conditions against which the 2025 revision must be evaluated. The Board’s jurisdiction is confined to whether the 2025 updates comply with Section 25-2-963 of the LDC. For more than a year, the appellant has repeatedly raised these same concerns to Staff that are now before this Board, all of which Staff thoroughly examined during its prolonged, multidivisional review and confirmed were fully addressed prior to approving the 2025 revision. As shown at the prior meeting and reiterated herein, the extension of the external wall of the kitchen, shade structure, and patios are fully permitted under Section 25-2-963(F). Even if Section 25-2-963(B) were somehow applicable to the 2025 revision, the modification of the patio under the 2022 permit does not constitute a “demolition” under the ordinance that would prohibit the modification to such a structure, nor is the degree of noncompliance being increased. 2. Windows and Other Unrelated Changes are Permissible Modifications The 2025 revision includes a range of design updates, most of which do not involve the side-yard setback and are therefore outside the scope of Section 25-2-963 and this Board’s review. These include driveway adjustments, landscape walls, utility areas, interior layout changes, and other routine design revisions. The revision also modifies window placements throughout the house. Along the side of the structure within the setback and facing the neighboring property, the basement gym receives new windows, the first-floor openings are significantly reduced, and the second-floor windows are reconfigured: ITEM04/1-NEW INFO-PERMIT HOLDERThe inclusion of these windows in the 2025 revision are permissible modifications and do not increase the “degree of noncompliance” under 25-2-963. 3. The Shade Structure (Trellis) and Second-Floor Patios Are a Permissible Modification The 2025 revision adds a steel shade structure above the rear patio. The structure contains two components: a small extension of the second-floor patio and a larger first-floor overhead frame that supports the mechanical louvers. Staff evaluated each part separately under their “floor-by-floor” interpretation of 25-2-963(F), and confirmed both components comply. ITEM04/2-NEW INFO-PERMIT HOLDER 3.1 The Second-Floor Patio is a Permissible Modification The first 5.0 feet of the steel assembly create usable second-floor patio area. Section 25-2-963(F) allows a one-time proportional extension equal to 50 percent of the existing noncomplying wall length. The verified length of the original wall is 43.8 feet, yielding a maximum extension of 21.9 feet. The 2022 permit used 16.8 feet at the front, and the 2025 revision adds 5.0 feet at the rear for the second-floor patio. The modifications are evaluated together because this is a continuous project and contiguous extension, and the combined 21.8 feet fall within the one-time 21.9 foot allowance. 3.2 The First-Floor Shade Structure is a Permissible Modification The remainder of the steel frame functions solely as a first-floor overhead structure. It does not create second-floor area, alter the second-floor wall plane, or add vertical mass. As a first-floor element, the City properly evaluated the shade structure under the first-floor 25-2-963(F) allowance, which permits up to 25 feet of horizontal extension along the existing noncomplying wall. The existing first-floor noncomplying wall is 60.8 feet, and the entire shade-structure frame falls within the 25-foot allowance. No portion of the building moves closer to the setback line. ITEM04/3-NEW INFO-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM04/4-NEW INFO-PERMIT HOLDERBased on this clarification, Staff agreed that the steel structure, apart from the 5 foot second-floor patio portion, should be evaluated as a first-floor element under 25-2-963(F) and proceeded on that basis for the rest of the review. 3.5 Final Determination After multiple rounds of comments and several plan revisions addressing minor measurement discrepancies, including the verified original second-floor wall length, the historical “pink line,” and overages of less than an inch, Staff confirmed that the shade structure complies with 25-2-963(F). The 5.0-foot second-floor portion fits within the remaining 25-2-963(F) allowance, and the remainder of the assembly is correctly evaluated as a first-floor element within the permitted 25-foot extension. The structure does not increase noncompliance beyond what the Code allows under 25-2-963(F). The shade structure also qualifies independently under 25-2-513(B) as a passive-energy feature allowed to be in a required yard, and either basis supports Staff’s approval. 4. The External Wall of the Outdoor Kitchen is Within the Allowable Extension and is a Permissible Modification The 2025 revision includes an outdoor kitchen located on the main-level patio within the side-yard setback. Because the kitchen is entirely at the first-floor level, it is evaluated under the first-floor extension allowance in 25-2-963(F). As established in the shade-structure analysis above, the existing first-floor noncomplying wall extends 60.8 feet along the setback, which authorizes the full 25-foot horizontal extension. The shade structure and outdoor kitchen together occupy the same linear zone and therefore constitute a single first-floor 25-2-963(F) extension. ITEM04/5-NEW INFO-PERMIT HOLDER The kitchen sits entirely within the permitted 25-foot extension. It adds no height, creates no new second-floor mass, does not move any portion of the structure closer to the property line, and does not alter the first-floor wall plane. Because it conforms with the provisions of 25-2-963(F), Staff correctly determined that the outdoor kitchen complies with the Code. 5. The 2025 Revisions to the Pool, Spa, and Patio Comply With All Setback and Impervious Cover Restrictions The 2025 revision modifies the pool, spa, and adjacent patios. The spa is incorporated into the pool, the pool is extended so that the former lower patio becomes pool surface, and the middle and lower patios are adjusted slightly in elevation so the two levels align. These changes alter the configuration but do not expand the building footprint or add mass within the setback. ITEM04/6-NEW INFO-PERMIT HOLDER 5.1 Setback Compliance Under 25-2-513(E), a pool may be located within a required yard. Under the 2022 permit, this area already included pool surface within the side-yard setback, which is permissible under this provision. In the 2025 revision, the portion formerly occupied by the spa becomes patio surface, which is not exempt under 513(E). However, that patio lies along the same rear building wall that is being extended under the first-floor 25-2-963(F) allowance. As established in the section above, the existing first-floor noncomplying wall length authorizes the full 25-foot horizontal extension, which already covers the shade structure and outdoor kitchen. The modified patio falls within this same 25-foot zone and is therefore permitted. The revisions do not add height, do not shift any portion of the principal structure closer to the property line, and do not increase mass within the required yard. The pool surface is raised slightly and the middle patio is lowered slightly so the two levels align, resulting in a net decrease in visible mass. Nothing governed by 25-2-963(F) exceeds the limits applicable to first-floor extensions. 5.2 Impervious Cover Total IC in this area actually decreases under the 2025 revision. By incorporating the spa into the pool and extending the pool across what was previously the lower patio, almost the entire lower patio becomes pool surface, which is not counted as IC. The combined IC attributable to the middle and lower patio areas is therefore lower than under the 2022 permit, resulting in a net IC reduction in this portion of the site. Although the LDC does not expressly address relocating IC within a property, Staff has long allowed IC to be shifted on a noncomplying site so long as the total amount of IC on the property does not increase and the IC is not moved into a steeper slope category, which would both increase the degree of noncompliance. The 2025 revision satisfies both conditions. 5.3 Final Determination Staff has correctly determined that the 2025 modifications to the pool, spa, and patios comply with all applicable provisions of the Land Development Code. Pools are permitted within the required yard under 25-2-513(E), and the modified patio surfaces lie entirely within the same first-floor 25-2-963(F) extension already established for the shade structure. The revisions do not move any portion of the structure closer to the property line and reduce both vertical mass and impervious cover in these lower patio areas. For these reasons, Staff correctly determined that the 2025 pool and spa modifications are authorized under the applicable provisions of the LDC. 6. Forty Years of Code and BOA Variances Confirm Right to Expand Under 25-2-963(F) City Code has authorized modification of noncomplying structures since 1984. Section 5860 of the 1984 Code governs permitted increases in noncompliance. That section authorized a ITEM04/7-NEW INFO-PERMIT HOLDERnoncomplying structure to extend its setback encroachment by up to 25 feet parallel to the lot line, creating a clear right to lengthen a noncomplying structure so long as it did not move closer to the property line. When the City recodified its land development regulations in 1999, this framework was carried forward into 25-2-963 to preserve the ability to maintain, modify, and extend lawfully noncomplying structures. Later refinements in 2006 and 2010 adjusted proportionality and clarified the distinction between remodels and new construction, but none of these amendments narrowed the underlying expansion entitlement. Over the last fifteen years, the Board of Adjustment has repeatedly acknowledged and applied this same expansion right in practice. The Board has approved numerous variances exceeding the 25-foot and 50-percent caps when warranted and has denied only those where increased massing or encroachment created impacts beyond what relief could justify. Representative cases include: 1. 808 Wayside Dr (C15-2010-0043) - The applicant sought to extend a noncomplying garage wall by 19 feet, exceeding the 50-percent limit by approximately 4 feet. The Board approved the request 6–0 with a condition preserving the space as a garage, finding the added length acceptable with controlled impacts. 2. 1717 Briar Street (C15-2010-0050) - The applicant requested a 19-foot carport addition extending a noncomplying wall to roughly 65 percent of its original length. The Board approved the variance 6–0 with a condition that the carport remain unenclosed, concluding the increased extension was low-impact and appropriate. 3. 4708 Avenue H (C15-2013-0057) - An addition was constructed with a noncomplying wall extended to approximately 25.8 feet. When it was later determined that only 18 feet was allowed under 25-2-963(F), the applicant sought a variance for the overage, along with a related variance addressing a slight shift toward the property line and increased roof massing. The Board denied the request 7–2, finding that the additional mass and encroachment exceeded what was appropriate for variance relief. 4. 1016 Avondale Rd (C15-2018-0033 and C15-2020-0002) - The applicant sought variances to add a second story over a noncomplying structure and extend the noncomplying wall by 32 feet, about 7 feet beyond the 25-foot cap. The Board approved the package unanimously in 2018 (and again in 2020), citing hardship from an unusually shaped lot, shallow depth, and protected trees, with IC-reduction conditions attached. 5. 1607 Kenwood Ave (C15-2024-0023) - On a constrained 3,150-square-foot lot, the applicant requested multiple variances, including extensions of two noncomplying walls beyond allowable limits. The Board approved the request 10–0–1 with conditions capping IC at 60 percent and requiring stormwater mitigation. ITEM04/8-NEW INFO-PERMIT HOLDER7. The Patio Modifications Made Under the 2022 Permit Are Permitted As shown above, the external wall of the kitchen, the shade structure, and the patio modifications are fully permitted under 25-2-963(F), regardless of whether the patio work performed under the 2022 permit qualifies as “demolition” under 25-2-963(B)(4). A careful review of Section 963(B), its structure, and its legislative history confirms, however, that while aging construction materials were removed as part of the remodel, the 2022 patio work did not constitute “demolition” within the meaning of 25-2-963(B). 7.1 The Patio Modifications Reduced the Degree of Noncompliance The 2022 permit made lawful modifications that significantly reduced the degree of noncompliance associated with the back patios when measured by the actual mass of improvements within the required yard. All patio area located within the 0-5 foot setback was permanently removed. Although the upper patio was raised slightly relative to its original condition, the middle and lower patios were lowered, resulting in a net reduction in mass within the required yard and a corresponding reduction in overall noncompliance. ITEM04/9-NEW INFO-PERMIT HOLDER 7.2 The Pool and Patio Were “Modified” Rather Than “Demolished” While the 2022 patio and pool work involved removal and replacement of aging construction materials, that work did not constitute “demolition” under 25-2-963(B)(4). In 2007, Council adopted Resolution 20071206-050 directing the City Manager to create “new standards for defining residential remodels,” explicitly proposing quantitative thresholds such as limiting removal of 50% of exterior walls and structural elements. The 2010 amendment to 25-2-963(B) was enacted to eliminate the “one-wall-and-a-foundation” remodel loophole per the 2007 Resolution. Ordinance 20100624-149 added Subsection (B) to 25-2-963, establishing a framework governing specific aspects of what constituted a permissible modification under the context of a remodel: ● ● ● ● (B)(1) caps removal of exterior walls and supporting structural elements at 50% of the structure, measured in linear feet. (B)(2) allows complete foundation replacement if the finished floor elevation shifts no more than one foot. (B)(3) adds limits for specific multi-unit situations. (B)(4) then states the consequence if those requirements are not met: if a noncomplying portion “is demolished,” it loses its status. Within that framework, “demolished” cannot possibly refer to a component-level assessment based on the fact that any material has been removed from any one area. Instead it must be understood to refer only to portions of the structure that are removed and not replaced and only when a project exceeds the measurable limits in (B)(1–3). This reading is compelled by the text itself: the Code expressly permits actions that would be “demolition” in ordinary speech, such as total foundation replacement. If “demolished” simply and solely meant the physical removal of ITEM04/10-NEW INFO-PERMIT HOLDER any materials, Subsection (B) would self-destruct because every modification or maintenance of a portion of a structure requires the removal of materials to some degree. It would render 25-2-963 meaningless to interpret “demolish” to apply to a situation where, as here, the City has permitted a modification to a part of a structure, which necessarily requires the removal of some materials. If the Board adopts the applicants’ position on these issues, it would render the right to conduct remodels as specifically allowed in Section (B)(1-3) and Section 963 generally, entirely meaningless. Even if Section 963(F-G) did not control the acceptance of the 2025 revisions, the modification of the pool and patio would not cause it to lose its permissible noncomplying status. 8. Conclusion The 2025 revision was approved after an extensive and intensive dialogue with Staff to address all of the issues raised herein. Staff properly permitted the external wall of the kitchen, shade structure, and patios under Section 25-2-963(F) and Section 25-2-513(B). If the Board were to find that Section 25-2-963(B)(4) applies and controls over these other code provisions, it would be ignoring a plain reading of the ordinance and years of precedent. ITEM04/11-NEW INFO-PERMIT HOLDER Exhibit A ITEM04/12-NEW INFO-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM04/13-NEW INFO-PERMIT HOLDERITEM04/14-NEW INFO-PERMIT HOLDERITEM04/15-NEW INFO-PERMIT HOLDER