Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays decision on three‑unit Forest Avenue project after debate over new 'mid‑floor' code
Summary
A developer seeking variances to allow a third floor on three new houses at 143–147 Forest Avenue was asked to revise plans and consult neighbors after commissioners flagged changes in the city’s 'mid‑floor' definition; the commission postponed the case to the additional meeting on Sept. 30.
The Board of Adjustment postponed action on a request to allow three three‑story homes on 143–147 Forest Avenue after lengthy debate over whether the proposed third floor qualifies as a permitted "half‑floor" under recent Unified Development Code revisions.
Staff said the applicant’s project was initiated in 2022 under earlier interpretations but that the UDC’s updated definition of a "mid‑floor" (which limits habitable space on a top level) now affects how the third level is counted. Applicant Antonia (or Anthony) Almaraz said initial zoning petitions and community outreach began in 2022 and that the design was presented to the commission; she argued parts of the project could rely on rights acquired under earlier approvals.
Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant to clarify whether the top level met the current numerical test (the floor area cap that distinguishes a half‑floor from a full floor) and whether required setbacks and separation under IDZ rules remain satisfied. Several commissioners suggested design changes — moving the third level forward or reducing enclosed area — to increase light for neighbors and reduce perceived bulk.
Rather than approve or deny, the commission voted to postpone the matter so the applicant could consult with neighbors and revise plans for clearer compliance with the revised UDC. The item was continued to the extra meeting scheduled for Sept. 30.
Why this matters: the case raises questions about how code amendments adopted after an applicant initiates a project affect vested rights and how the board reconciles prior council actions with current technical definitions. Postponement leaves the developer’s timeline uncertain and shows the board using its agenda schedule to allow design revisions and further outreach before a final vote.
Next steps: Applicant and staff will work to produce clarified drawings and calculations demonstrating whether the third level meets the "mid‑floor" thresholds or whether variances remain necessary; the board will revisit the item at its Sept. 30 meeting.
