Board continues decision on after‑the‑fact additions at 3210 Twentieth Street after neighbor objections

The Board of Zoning Adjustments voted to continue a request for setback variances tied to after‑the‑fact additions at 3210 Twentieth Street and asked the applicant to return within 90 days with more information about how the proposal meets specific variance criteria.

City staff described docket BOZ2025‑00003 as a rear‑yard setback variance for three attached elements: a replaced carport/garage and two covered patio awnings. Robbie Wyler, the city staff liaison, told the board the closest point of the additions is about 20.2 feet from the east (rear) property line where the code requires 25 feet. Wyler noted the house is on a corner lot with three 25‑foot setbacks and said the house’s angle relative to the rear property line produces a wedge‑shaped yard that complicates straightforward, right‑by‑right additions.

Wyler reviewed the property history — the principal house was permitted circa 1958 and a permitted awning/carport was recorded circa 1963 — and said an enforcement case was opened in April 2024 after work occurred without a permit. Staff described how most of the three new elements are outside the rear yard setback but that portions encroach at the southeast corner. Wyler summarized the staff analysis of variance criteria and explained the application could qualify for an administrative variance if the applicant obtained written support from all impacted adjacent owners; staff noted that written neighbor support had not been provided.

Neighbors who live at 2020 Grape Avenue and others submitted written comments and spoke at the hearing in opposition. A neighbor representative said noise and acoustic impacts had grown markedly after the new roofed structures were installed and asked the board to consider that effect on the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjacent property. “The noise is significantly more disruptive now than it ever was previously,” Amina Simon said, citing conversations and amplified outdoor sound when doors are open.

The applicant’s architect and contractor representatives framed the work as a modest replacement and improvement. They said the design had been developed over time, that they would have pursued permit review if they had realized a setback issue earlier, and that they were willing to return with additional documentation. “We don't have any objection to the continuance,” architect Jeff Van Sandeek said; he added the team could aim to return at the next available hearing.

After public comment and board discussion, Board member Ben Doyle moved to continue the matter and asked the applicant to return within 90 days with additional information addressing: (a) the criterion about whether the property can reasonably be developed in conformity with the code (H‑1‑c); (b) whether the proposal would substantially or permanently impair reasonable use and enjoyment of adjacent property (H‑5‑b); and (c) whether the requested relief is the minimum necessary (H‑5‑c). Katie seconded. Recorded votes were Sean Haney — yes; Ben Doyle — yes; Drew Eisenberg — yes; Katie — yes; Nikki McCord, chair — yes. The motion passed unanimously.

Staff and the applicant also discussed the administrative‑variance pathway, which would require written support from adjacent owners before staff could use the administrative review process. The board did not make a final determination on the variances; the continuance preserves the enforcement and building‑permit review paths while the applicant prepares the requested materials and attempts neighbor outreach.

Next steps: the board set a 90‑day window for the applicant to return; staff said it will continue permit review and provide schedule information for the next available meeting.