Variance Application APP2003-00816, Lopsang Tenpa Mr. Tenpa presented his request for a six-foot variance from the front setback requirements for a covered porch at 605 Grandin Avenue. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Mr. Tenpa explained that his front door is situated three steps above the grade. The reason for a covered porch is to protect his family from inclement weather. In response to Mr. Sternstein, Mr. Tenpa stated that he discussed with the neighbors about his proposal and there were no objections. Mr. Deitchman inquired about the two driveway cuts on the property. Mr. Tenpa replied that one driveway cut is not used. In response to the Board, Mr. Tenpa stated that he would have a licensed contractor build his covered porch. He stated that he agrees with the conditions stated in the staff report. Ms. Hall explained that she informs most people today that the Board has recommended that this type of construction be a permitted encroachment. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. DECISIONS Variance Application APP2003-00416, Lopsang Tenpa Mr. Hill moved, seconded by Mr. Sternstein to approve Variance Application APP2003-00816, Lopsang Tenpa per staff recommendations and subject to one additional condition that the covered porch must remain an open structure and not to be enclosed at any time in the future. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Time Extension Request for Variance Application APP2002-00779, DANAC, 2 Choke Cherry Road Mr. Schwartzman acknowledged for the record that this variance involves the JBG Companies and JBG Companies is a client of his, but not on this particular project. Mr. Sternstein recused himself from this application because his firm works with JBG Companies. The Board accepted the information and agreed that Mr. Schwartzman should not recuse himself from this matter. Ms. Hall presented the applicant’s request. The applicant is requesting a second time extension of Variance APP2002-00779, originally approved by the Board of Appeals on July 16, 2002. The Board granted a six-month time extension on July 17, 2003, which expires on January 13, 2004. This request for a second six-month extension is being made pursuant to Section 25-54. Ms. Hall explained the Sondra Block, Assistant City Attorney, explained to her that there is an agreement between the City and the applicant. She noted that the City wants the Choke Cherry Road extension and because it would eventually become a public street. There is also an issue that there are cost cutting measures in the City and the City agreed to pay for certain portions of the abutting properties’ attorneys’ fees. So, not only is there the matter of the City’s attorneys’ costs, but the costs of the applicant’s attorneys’ costs as well. She noted that the City is the co-applicant. The City is joining in this request for a second time extension for the implementation of the variance. This is because it is in the interest of the City and its citizens that the extension of Choke Cherry Road be constructed without further delay and that without the variance the owners of 2 Choke Cherry Road cannot grant the City the easement it needs for the roadway. Mr. Deitchman disclosed that he lives in King Farm near Choke Cherry Road, but that he is not involved in any way. The Board discussed the time extension request and the issues involved. Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Hill to grant a six-month time extension for Variance Application APP2002-00779. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0. MINUTES Mr. Hill moved, seconded by Mr. Sternstein to approve the minutes of Meeting Nos. 9-03 and 10-03 as amended. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Hall reported on future applications scheduled to go before the Board. She noted that there is an appeals application scheduled for the March meeting. She explained that the property owner was issued a building permit to build an addition on Mannakee Street. This building permit was issued to the applicant in error. The addition exceeds the size allowed for an accessory building and the property owner was issued a Stop Work Order to stop construction of the building. Ms. Hall stated that after she explained the situation to the property owner, he still wants to change the application to a variance application because he wants to keep the building. Mr. Sternstein requested that legal staff be present at the meeting to give the Board some guidance on the matter. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:05 a.m. NOTE: Should further details of this hearing be required, a tape recording of the meeting is available. The Planning Division maintains a tape of the meeting for a period not less than one year from the date of each meeting. | 
