[00:00:02]
[Zoning Board of Adjustment on January 21, 2026.]
ALL RIGHT.SO I WILL NOW CALL THE REGULAR MEETING WITH THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ORDER AT 6:32 PM THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING IS SCHEDULED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGARDING AN ITEM LISTED ON THE AGENDA THAT IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AN ITEM THAT IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING THAT'S NOT ON THE FORTHCOMING AGENDA? DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THAT'S THE CASE.
SO, UM, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION AND THEN, UM, WE'LL SAY THAT BEFORE YOU SPEAK, OR LET'S SEE.
THIS BOARD MEETS TO CONSIDER AN ACT UPON REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RICHARDSON AND APPEALS FROM AN DETERMINATION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCES.
IT DERIVES ITS POWER FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS.
THIS BOARD ALSO HEARS AN ACTS UPON REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO DEFENSE REGULATIONS.
IN THE EVENT THAT YOU WISH TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE BOARD, YOUR RECOURSE IS TO FILE AN ACTION IN THE STATE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 10 DAYS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF THE BOARD'S DECISION.
THE TEST USED TO DETERMINE APPROVAL OR DENIAL IS WHETHER A SITUATION EXISTS THAT IS NOT CREATED BY YOU, WHICH PREVENTS YOU FROM USING YOUR PROPERTY IN THE DESIRED WAY, AND THAT IF THE VARIANCE IS NOT GRANTED WILL RESULT IN A HARDSHIP WHICH THE BOARD CONSIDERS UNNECESSARY.
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PERMISSIBLE FACTORS, WE ARE NOT PERMITTED TO GRANT A VARIANCE THAT THE HARDSHIP IS SELF-IMPOSED OR A FAILURE TO ACHIEVE THE VARIANCE RESULTS ONLY IN AN ECONOMIC HARDSHIP.
ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO RATIFY SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY DONE OR DONE IN A MANNER THAT CIRCUMVENTED THE LAW MIGHT ALSO BE SELF-IMPOSED.
WE ALSO CANNOT GRANT A VARIANCE THAT IS WHIMSICAL OR INTERFERES WITH THE SAFETY AND WELLBEING OF THE COMMUNITY.
EACH CASE IS DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS.
THE FIRST PART IS THE PRESENTATION OF THE CASE BY THE CITY STAFF AND TESTIMONY AND COMMENTS ARE TAKEN FOR THE PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS OF THE REQUEST.
THE SECOND PART OCCURS AND THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DISCUSS AND CONSIDER MOTIONS AS THEY'RE MADE DURING THE SECOND PART.
NO FURTHER DATA OR INFORMATION WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE PARTICIPANTS UNLESS REQUESTED BY A BOARD MEMBER.
THEN THE BOARD VOTES ON THE MOTION A DECISION TO GRANT OR DENY THE MOTION OR TO TAKE OTHER ACTION.
CONCLUDES THE CASE FOR THIS SESSION.
IT IS THE INTENT OF THE BOARD TO GIVE ALL INTERESTED PARTIES CHANCE TO SPEAK.
EACH PARTICIPANT IS CAUTIONED, HOWEVER, TO CONFINE HIS OR HER REMARKS TO THE SPECIFIC ISSUES OF THE CASE.
REPETITIVE COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED, UNRULY OR DISORDERLY CONDUCT IS NOT PERMITTED AT ANY TIME DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS.
I WOULD NOW LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY AND THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
WE HAVE TINA GANS, THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, ANDREW BDA, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING.
CHRISTINE ROSS, PLANNER TWO, AARON ZILLS, PLANNER TWO, AND NORMA MENDOZA, BOARD SECRETARY WHO WILL BE THE RECORDER OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE JASON LEMON'S, CHAIR SCOTT RUCKER, VICE-CHAIR PHIL THAMES, MEMBER SABRINA BON SACK MEMBER MUSA ALTERNATE.
MOHAMMAD HA'S ALTERNATE AND BY LAW, AT LEAST FOR THE FIVE VOTING MEMBERS MUST APPROVE A MOTION BEFORE THE REQUEST CAN BE GRANTED.
SO AT THIS POINT, WE NEED TO DETERMINE, UM, WHICH ITEMS THE ALTERNATES WILL BE VOTING ON.
MR. MATA, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO VOTE ON THE, UH, ON THE MINUTES APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 19TH AND DECEMBER 11TH MEETINGS? AND ALSO, UH, I'M GONNA GO BACK AND FORTH SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, 25 0 2.
AND THEN, UH, UM, MR. HFE, IF YOU DON'T MIND, UH, VOTING ON THE, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION 25 0 1 AND VARIANCE 25 0 9.
SO ITEMS TWO AND THREE ON THE AGENDA.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE, HOW THE AGENDA READS.
ALRIGHT, SO AT THIS TIME, UM, ON, ON OUR AGENDA, WE WILL ACTUALLY CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF OCTOBER 15TH, 2025.
AND I TRUST EVERYONE HAS HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THOSE MINUTES.
AND IF SO, OR WAS THAT NO, THAT WAS NOVEMBER OF, UM, I'M GONNA SAY THAT WAS, THAT WAS NOVEMBER, UH, 19TH OF 2025.
HAS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THOSE MINUTES? AND IF SO, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND SAME WOULD GO FOR AND SAME.
WE CAN KIND OF PIGGYBACK ONE MOTION FOR BOTH MEETING.
AND THEN ALSO FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING THAT WE HAD, THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF DECEMBER 11TH, 2025.
ALL IN FAVOR? UH, PLEASE SAY AYE.
AND THAT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
THE NEXT ITEM WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA IS, SORRY, I'M TRYING TO FIND MY PACKET.
[00:05:04]
25 0 1, UM, SPECIAL EXCEPTION, I GUESS BEFORE, BEFORE THE APPLICANT SPEAKS.I'M A PLANNER TWO HERE IN THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
UM, SO THIS IS SE 2 5 0 1 A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO CHAPTER SIX OF THE CITY OF RICHARDSON.
CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT TALL TUBULAR METAL FENCE TO BE LOCATED IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARDS ALONG BOTH ABRAMS ROAD AND TALL OAKS LANE.
THIS SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ABRAMS ROAD AND TALL OAKS LANE.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED LRM TWO LOCAL RETAIL AND A TWO STORY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION CURRENTLY OCCUPIES THE SPACE.
A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED TO THE NORTH, TO THE WEST IS THE RISD OPERATIONS CENTER.
TO THE EAST IS, UH, THE IMAGE HERE SHOWS AN OFFICE BUILDING, BUT THAT BUILDING WAS DEMOLISHED IN 2023 AFTER IT INCURRED DAMAGE IN A TORNADO.
AND TO THE SOUTH, UM, IS ANOTHER RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND A PRIVATE SCHOOL.
HERE'S AN EXHIBIT SHOWING THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND REQUEST.
UM, SO CURRENTLY THERE IS A EIGHT FOOT TALL ROD IRON FENCE LOCATED, UM, AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AT THE EASTERN EDGE, UM, THAT IS HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN.
UM, THERE'S ALSO A SMALL, UH, SMALLER SIX FOOT TALL STEEL FENCE, UM, AND THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED.
UM, THERE ARE CURRENTLY THREE MOTORIZED GATES.
UM, TWO OF THEM, THE TWO IN THE MIDDLE ARE PROPOSED TO BE, UH, REPLACED AND UPDATED, UM, AND THE BLUE LINE THAT INDICATES THE PROPOSED FENCE.
SO ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE AROUND THE ENTIRE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY, UM, THE REQUEST TONIGHT IS ONLY FOCUSING ON THE FRONTAGES ALONG ABRAMS ROAD AND TALL OAK LANE BECAUSE THOSE ARE CONSIDERED TO BE FRONT YARDS.
UM, THE PHOTO ON THE LEFT, UH, SHOWS THE EASTERN ELEVATION, UH, FROM THAT VACANT OFFICE SITE.
UM, THERE IS A FENCE LOCATED THERE, BUT IT'S HIDDEN BY THE TREES.
UM, THE PICTURE TO THE RIGHT SHOWS, UH, THE NORTH ELEVATION FROM TALL OAKS LANE.
UM, THERE'S A, A FENCE THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED THERE IN FRONT OF THE HEDGEROW.
UM, AND THESE ARE VIEWS, UH, FROM THE STREET, UM, ON THE RIGHT SIDE FROM ABRAMS ROAD AND ON THE LEFT.
UM, THAT'S A VIEW OF THE PARKING LOT, UM, FROM THE ACCESS EASEMENT SOUTH OF THE LOT.
UM, SO THE PROPOSED FENCE IS, UM, PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG THOSE TWO PROPERTY LINES, BUT IT WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE TREES OR THE EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN.
THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED, UH, MULTIPLE BREAK-INS THAT HAVE CAUSED PROPERTY DAMAGE.
THEY'VE ALSO BEEN THE TARGET OF ORGANIZED PROTESTS WHERE DEMONSTRATORS GATHER AT ON THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND DIRECT VERBAL THREATS AND HARASSMENTS TO THE CONGREGANTS.
AFTER THESE INCIDENTS WERE REPORTED, THE RICHARDSON POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDUCTED A RISK ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDED THAT THE APPLICANT INCREASE THEIR SECURITY MEASURES AT THE PROPERTY.
IN 2024, THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH AT 1301 ABRAMS STREET OR ABRAMS ROAD RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR A SIX FOOT TALL TUBULAR METAL FENCE TO BE LOCATED IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD AS PART OF THEIR SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST.
SO, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS DIFFER FROM VARIANCE REQUESTS.
A SPECIAL EXCEPTION COMES FROM THE CODE OF OR ORDINANCES AND VARIANCE REQUESTS COME FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE.
AN APPLICANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE SAME STRICT CRITERIA, UM, THAT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED IF THEY WERE SEEKING A VARIANCE.
INSTEAD, CHAPTER SIX OF THE CITY'S ORDINANCES STATES THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION MUST ENSURE THAT PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED AND THAT THE USE OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED.
THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF ADJUST THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MAY GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, PROVIDED THAT IT WILL PERMIT REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE REGULATIONS WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES.
IT IS IN STAFF'S OPINION THAT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPEAR
[00:10:01]
TO BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.IT WILL BE VERY SIMILAR TO THE FENCE THAT THE, UH, NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH ALREADY HAS JUST A LITTLE BIT TALLER.
THE PROPOSED FENCE WILL MEET THE 50% THROUGH VISION REQUIREMENT FOR MOTORISTS AT STREET INTERSECTIONS AND DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES, AND THE REQUEST WILL ALLOW FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, SO THEREFORE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, MS. ROSS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HER AT THIS TIME? I GUESS I JUST HAVE ONE.
UM, HAS THERE BEEN ANY SPECIFIC FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH WITH REGARD TO THIS? NO, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY FEEDBACK, UM, AT ALL FROM ANY OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
AT THIS TIME, THIS, THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND I'M NOW GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE, THE REQUEST? UM, HOPEFULLY THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND CAN PROVIDE US WITH A LITTLE BIT OF INSIGHT.
HERE, UH, SO WE HAVE A NEW PROCEDURE, NEW YEAR, NEW PROCEDURE.
WE ACTUALLY DO SWEAR IN OUR, OUR APPLICANTS, WE SWEAR IN ANYONE WHO IS TESTIFYING, UH, BEFORE THE BOARD AT THIS POINT.
THIS, THIS ITEM IS SPECIAL EXCEPTION 25 0 1.
UM, SO, AND THIS IS WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY AT 1201 ABRAMS ROAD.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.
AND, UM, SO I HAVE YOU HERE TO BE SWORN IN.
UH, PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND JUST STATE WHO YOU'LL BE TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF.
I'LL BE TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF GUA SING ABOVE NORTH TEXAS.
ALRIGHT, RICHARDSON, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
SO AT THIS TIME I ASK YOU TO RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE BEFORE THIS COMMISSION TODAY TO BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO.
SO, UH, THANK YOU, UH, FOR YOUR TIME AND I KNOW YOU'VE PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO THIS.
I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR WORKING WITH US.
WE'VE HAD AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE IN THAT WE'VE BEEN IN RICHARDSON QUITE SOME TIME AS A COMMUNITY AND WE HAVE NOT HAD A REASON TO HAVE ANY KIND OF DEFENSE DEFENSIVE MEASURES ALONG THE ROAD TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM ENCROACHING ON THE PROPERTY AND CAUSING DAMAGE.
IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, UH, WE'VE SEEN A SUCCESSION OF ISSUES ARISING AT THE PREMISES AND ESPECIALLY FOLLOWING THE TORNADO.
WHEN WE WERE HOPING, UH, WE WERE HOLDING OPEN CEREMONIES, UH, THE PUBLIC, WE BECAME VERY VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.
AND CONSEQUENTLY SINCE THEN, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF TRESPASS BREAK-INS, VANDALISM, UH, THE RICHARDSON POLICE HAS BEEN CALLED IN NUMEROUS TIMES.
UH, YOUTH MAINLY AND SOME NOT YOUTH HAVE BEEN APPREHENDED BY THE POLICE.
WE DID NOT PRESS CHARGES BECAUSE WE WANT TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY FOR A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHO OUR NEIGHBORS AND WHO WE ARE IN RICHARDSON 'CAUSE WE'VE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME.
AND IN THAT REGARD, UH, WE'VE TRIED TO MAINTAIN AN OPEN AND OPEN CONCEPT AT THE GU.
UNFORTUNATELY, THIS HAS LED TO SOME CONCERN, ESPECIALLY SINCE OUR CHILDREN'S SCHOOL, WHEN IT LEAVES, HAS NOW BEEN THE TARGET OF PROTESTORS AT THE GATES.
AND THERE'VE BEEN THREATS, THEIR THREATS MADE.
THOSE THREATS SUBSEQUENTLY HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED UP BY VIOLENCE, UH, VIOLENT ACTS WITHIN THE GUA.
LUCKILY NOBODY HAS WAS HURT JUST PROPERTY DAMAGE AND ARTIFACTS.
BUT THE CHILDREN AND THE COMMUNITY IS VERY, VERY CONCERNED.
SO, UH, WE APPROACHED THE RICHARDSON POLICE, THEY GAVE US A RISK ASSESSMENT, AND WE ALSO THEN APPROACHED THE,
[00:15:01]
UH, SECURITY, UM, AND SAFETY FEMA, UH, TASK FORCE.UH, BASICALLY, UH, AFTER SEEING A LOT OF RELIGIOUS PLACES BEING ATTACKED AND, AND, AND INCIDENTS OCCURRING, ALL FAITHS, ALL RELIGIONS, NOBODY'S SPECIFIC, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE COMMUNITY'S SAFE FOR EVERYBODY.
SO WE'RE ASKING TO BUILD THIS FENCE TO DETER PEOPLE FROM JUST BEING ABLE TO WALK ONTO OUR PARKING LOT AND GOING ACROSS AND UTILIZING THAT FAIRWAY.
THIS WAS THE ASSESSMENT BY THE POLICE.
IT'S ALSO TO REINFORCE SOME OTHER THINGS AROUND THE BUILDING TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, WHEN WE ARE PRACTICING, UH, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH PEOPLE COMING THERE AND HAVING TO SET UP VOLUNTEERS AT THE PERIMETER.
UM, WE'VE ALSO HAD TO ENLIST THE RICHARDSON POLICE, UM, FOR SECURITY WHEN WE'VE HAD LARGE GATHERINGS BECAUSE OUR VOLUNTEERS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO HELP WITH SUR SURVEILLANCE AROUND THE PROPERTY AND TO, AND TO, TO DETER ANYBODY WHO MAY WANT TO CAUSE MISCHIEF.
AND THEREFORE, UH, WITH THE FEMA GRANT ALSO BEING GRANTED TO US FOR THIS PURPOSE, WE'VE REQUESTED THIS, UH, BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOW FENCE AT THE BACK ALREADY, WHICH PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO JUMP ACROSS.
THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE SLIGHTLY HIGHER FENCE.
JUST AS A DETERRENT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
WE HAVE VERY GOOD RELATIONS WITH THE, UH, NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH WHO ARE OUR APARTMENT IN THE APARTMENT.
VERY FREQUENTLY THE CHILDREN COME OVER TO PLAY BASKETBALL.
UH, AND, AND WE HAVE COMMUNITY EVENTS TOGETHER.
UNFORTUNATELY, SOME ELEMENTS HAVE NOW STARTED VANDALIZING THOSE AREAS AND WE'VE HAD TO EVEN, YOU KNOW, EXERCISE SOME PRECAUTION THERE AS WELL.
CAN I ALSO, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY OTHER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, BUT, UH, I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU CONSIDER THIS, UH, AS A, UH, AS A ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE OF THE OVERALL COMMUNITY EFFECT AND THE, AND, AND, AND, AND, AND ITS, UH, ABILITY TO PROVIDE MORE SAFETY FOR ALL THE ENVIRONMENT WITHIN THE RICHARDSON AREA.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? MR. THAMES? UH, JUST QUICKLY, THE, THE 50%, UH, VISIBILITY THROUGH VISIBILITY FOR THE FENCE, ANY ISSUES, UH, MAINTAINING THAT AROUND THE ENTIRETY OF THE FENCE AND OF THE PARAMETER AND UM, ANY ISSUES AT ALL? NONE.
AND THEN YOU SAID THE VEGETATION IS NOT, IS GONNA BE, UH, YOU'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE SAME, WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE VEGETATION, THE TREES, EXACTLY THE WAY THEY ARE.
'CAUSE THEY'RE IN EXISTENCE RIGHT NOW.
UH, IT'S NOT GONNA CREATE ANY DENSITY.
IT JUST PREVENTS PEOPLE FROM BEING ABLE TO WALK STRAIGHT ACROSS AND HAVE DIRECT ACCESS WITHOUT ANY KIND OF, WITHOUT ANY KIND OF A BARRIER.
IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR REASON WHY YOU GUYS ARE GOING WITH AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE VERSUS A SIX FOOT FENCE LIKE YOUR NEIGHBORS CORAM? THE, THERE'S A SIX FOOT FENCE ALREADY, WHICH EXISTS TO THE NORTH OF OUR, UH, BUILDING.
AND UH, THE BASKETBALL COURT IS JUST INSIDE THAT FENCE.
PEOPLE VERY FREQUENTLY JUST JUMP OVER THAT.
IT'S VERY, VERY EASY ACCESS AND IT'S PREVENTED NO, NO BARRIER AT ALL FOR ANYBODY.
IN FACT, WE'VE GOT, UH, NUMEROUS POLICE REPORTS TO THAT EFFECT JUST TO DOCUMENT IT.
WE ACTUALLY INVITE PEOPLE TO COME IN PLACE JUST TO CHOOSE NOT TO DO IT.
WHEN, WHEN, WHEN THEY'RE BEING SUPERVISED AND WE'RE CONCERNED FOR THEIR SAFETY, SHOULD THEY COME IN AND SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THEM, THEN THE COMMUNITY WOULD SUFFER BECAUSE OF THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, WELL WE THANK YOU FOR COMING UP.
WE THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING YOUR CASE.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO TAKE A SEAT.
WE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU LATER, BUT, UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
AND I WANT TO THANK THE DEPARTMENT FOR WORKING WITH US.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE HERE? I DON'T BELIEVE WE DO, BUT DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST? DO WE HAVE, HAVE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST? ALRIGHT, SEEING NO FURTHER FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS, I AM NOW GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND AT THIS TIME, UH, THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BOARD TO, UH, PRESENT MOTIONS AND TO ASK ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OF OF CITY STAFF, UM, REGARDING THIS CASE.
[00:20:01]
ACK, I'LL MAKE A MOTION.UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, I DO FIND THAT THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED AND THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED.
I THEREFORE MOVE TO GRANT THE REQUEST IN SPECIAL EXCEPTION CASE SE 25 0 1 AND THAT THIS REQUEST BE LIMITED TO THOSE SPECIFICS WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED AS HIS OR HER, UM, AS HIS APPLICATION.
SO MS. BONAC HAS MADE A MOTION.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? UH, I SECOND.
AND YOU'RE VOTING ON, YOU'RE VOTING ON THIS ONE, CORRECT? MR. HFI? OKAY, JUST MAKING SURE
UM, ALRIGHT, SO ALL IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THIS MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ALL OPPOSED? AND THAT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING IN.
WE, WE APPRECIATE, WE APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY.
ALRIGHT, SO SECOND ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS, UH, SPEC SPECIAL EXCEPTION 25 0 2.
I'M A PLANNER TWO IN THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
I WILL BE PRESENTING, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION 25 DASH ZERO TWO.
UH, ALSO A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST TO CHAPTER SIX TO ALLOW FOR A EIGHT FOOT TALL WOODEN FENCE WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD ALONG CHAPEL CREEK COURT.
HERE WE HAVE THE AERIAL LOCATION MAP.
PLEASE NOTE THAT AERIAL IS TURNED TO THE, TO THE LEFT.
SO NORTH IS PLANNED, LEFT FOR YOU.
UH, THIS IS IN THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD OF CANYON CREEK ON THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN.
UH, THERE AT THE INTERSECTION OF CANYON CREEK DRIVE AND CHAPEL CREEK COURT.
HERE WE HAVE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS.
UH, WE HAVE A EXISTING TWO STORY, UH, RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON THE, ON THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THERE IS AN EXISTING EIGHT FOOT TALL WOODEN FENCE THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE, UH, AS WELL AS A 35 FOOT, UH, PLATTED BUILD LINE, UH, THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED.
THERE WERE BLACK, UH, THAT BUILD LINE, UH, WAS PLATTED IN 1972 WITH THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION AND IS UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE, UH, UH, SUBDIVISION.
SO THE REQUEST TONIGHT IS FOR AN EIGHT FOOT WOODEN FENCE TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE FRONT YARD ALONG CHAPEL CREEK.
SO THE REQUEST IS BEING MADE BECAUSE THE THE CODE READS AS FOLLOWS, NO, NO FENCE SHALL BE PERMITTED BETWEEN THE FRONT PROPER LINE AND THE FRONT WALL OF THE BUILDING FACE, UNLESS THIS IS PART OF A LANDSCAPE OR A DECORATIVE SCREEN.
AT THAT POINT, IT'S LIMITED TO THREE FEET TALL, HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN AS THE FRONT BUILDING FACES, UH, OF, OF EACH SIDE, UH, ALONG CANYON CREEK DRIVE, AS WELL AS, UH, CHAPEL CREEK COURT.
UH, WITH THAT, THAT LIMITS ALL FENCES BEYOND THAT GREEN LINE TOWARDS EACH SIDE OF THE STREET.
TO THAT THREE FOOT, UH, THRESHOLD THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE, UH, HIGHLIGHTED IN RED IS THE REQUESTED EIGHT FOOT, UH, TALL, UM, WOODEN FENCE.
UH, IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF THIS, UH, EXHIBIT, THERE'S ALSO THE, UH, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE THAT IS REQUIRED WIRE.
UH, HERE WE HAVE SOME SITE PHOTOS OF THE, UH, OF THE PROPERTY, UH, LOOKING, UH, WEST FACADE ALONG CANYON CREEK DRIVE AND THEN THE SOUTH FACADE ON CHAPEL CREEK COURT.
AND THEN ALSO FACING THE ALLEY LOOKING NORTH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE RIGHT, ON THE, UH, LEFT PICTURE AND THEN FACING EAST TOWARDS, UH, CANYON CREEK DRIVE, UH, ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE THERE.
SO THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION THIS EVENING, UH, THE APPLICANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY ASSUMING THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO IN FACT, UH, ENCLOSE A GREATER PORTION OF THEIR, THEIR YARD.
UH, THERE IS AN EXISTING FENCE TODAY, AND LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE, UH, THAT GOES BEYOND THAT PLATTED BUILDING LINE.
UH, IN ADDITION, UH, SEVERAL HOMES THROUGHOUT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, LISTED THERE HAVE A SIMILAR FENCING CONDITION, UH, THAT, THAT THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING TONIGHT.
UH, THESE AREN'T, UH, JUST RANDOM ONES.
THEY'RE ALL QUARTER LOTS WITH THAT 35 FOOT PLATTED BUILD LINE, UH, UH, AROUND THE CORNERS AND FENCES THAT GO BEYOND THOSE TWO, THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO LIKE, UH, CHRISTINE MENTIONED IN THE LAST CASE, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS DIFFER FROM VARIANCE REQUESTS.
UH, THEY DO NOT NEED TO MAKE THIS MEET THE SAME STRICT CRITERIA THAT OF ZONING OR ZONING VARIANCES.
UH, THERE, THE APPEALS PROCESS COMES FROM CHAPTER SIX, LIKE I SHE MENTIONED BEFORE AS WELL.
UH, THE BOARD USES THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT, UH, FOR THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY, UH, SERVED AS WELL AS NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED.
UH, THEREFORE THE, THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MAY AUTHORIZE, UH, UH, PERMITABLE, UH, PERMISSIBLE AND REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT, UH, OF THE PROPERTY WHERE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE REGULATIONS,
[00:25:01]
UH, WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.SO OUR TECHNICAL, UH, RECOMMENDATION THIS EVENING, BASED OFF THE INFORMATION THE APPLICANT PROVIDED AND THE APPLICABLE CODES, UH, STAFF MADE, THE, THE, UH, DETERMINATION THAT IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC SAFETY, UH, DOES NOT APPEAR TO, UH, NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE NEIGHBORS AS THERE ARE, UH, SURROUNDING PROPERTIES THAT ARE A SIMILAR CONDITION, MAINTAINS THE SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ALONG THE ALLEYWAY AND ALLOWS FOR A REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, WITH THAT, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS PRESENTED.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, FOR MR. ZILLS AT THIS TIME? MR. HAFE? NO.
SO, UH, JUST A QUICK CLARIFICATION ON THE MAP.
SO THE TWO FRONT YARDS, THE ISSUE IS THAT THEY HAVE TWO FRONT YARDS.
THE SECOND FRONT YARD, WELL OBVI, THE OBVIOUS FIRST FRONT YARD FACES CANYON CREEK DRIVE, THE SECOND FRONT YARD FACES CHAPEL CREEK COURT.
I HAVE THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
OKAY, SO THE LINE, THE BLACK DOTTED LINE WOULD BE WHERE THE BUILDING LINE WOULD BE? THAT'S CORRECT, BUT THERE'S ALREADY THE ENCROACHMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
ALRIGHT, SO JUST LIKE IN THE LAST CASE, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, UM, JUST IN THE INTEREST OF EFFICIENCY, IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION OF THIS REQUEST, UM, I GUESS WE CAN JUST SWEAR EVERYONE IN TOGETHER.
SO, SO YOU ONLY NEED TO SWEAR IN THE APPLICANT, ANYONE THAT'S SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
SO NO ONE'S SPEAKING IN OPPOSITE.
SO DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT? ALRIGHT.
AND DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN, IN FAVOR OF THIS, THIS REQUEST? UM, WE JUST FOR EFFICIENCY SAKE, IF YOU DON'T MIND COMING UP.
UH, WE'LL, WE'LL SWEAR IN BOTH OF YOU.
AND I WILL OFFICIALLY SAY THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND I'M NOW OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO WE'VE ALREADY BROUGHT IN OUR, OUR TWO GENTLEMEN WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST.
SO, UM, AT THIS TIME I AM CALLING SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, 25 0 2, UH, RELATED TO THE PROPERTY AT 31 0 5 CANYON CREEK DRIVE.
UM, AND I'M ASKING ANY WITNESS WHO WILL BE TESTIFYING TO COME FORWARD TO BE SWORN IN.
SO AT THIS POINT, I WOULD ASK BOTH OF YOU TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF, UH, PROVIDE YOUR ADDRESS AND, UM, I I GUESS IT'S OBVIOUS YOU'RE BOTH SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.
SO YEAH, MY NAME IS NASH RU, UH, I'M THE HOMEOWNER, THE APPLICANT'S, UH, 31 0 5 CANYON CREEK.
I'M HOMEOWNER AT 32 0 1 CANYON CREEK DRIVE, TWO DOORS UP.
ALRIGHT, SO I'M GOING TO ADMINISTER THE OATH.
UM, I ASK BOTH OF YOU TO RAISE YOUR RIGHT HANDS.
DO EACH OF YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE BEFORE THIS COMMISSION TODAY TO BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO.
UM, MR. RUSK, IF YOU WANNA START, UM, PLEASE DO.
UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.
UM, AND THANK YOU FOR THE STAFF.
I'M PUTTING ON THE, CAN, CAN YOU SPEAK IN A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THE, TO THE MICROPHONE? YES.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? THAT'S PERFECT.
YEAH, SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU FOR PUTTING ON THE PRESENT PRESENTATION.
YEAH, JUST, UH, OBVIOUSLY TO TRYING TO GET THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
UM, THE REASON WHY WE BOUGHT THE HOME WAS FOR THE BACKYARD, UH, PURPOSES.
DIDN'T CLEARLY KNOW THIS, UH, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN, UM, OBVIOUSLY A DIFFERENT OUTCOME, BUT IT'S, UH, BEEN A LONG PROJECT WE'LL SAY, UH, THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
AND WE'RE EXCITED TO UTILIZE, UH, AS MUCH BACKYARD SPACE FOR THE KIDS, HAVE TWO KIDS.
UM, THE, THE GOAL WAS TO HAVE THAT BACKYARD SPACE POTENTIALLY LATER DOWN THE ROAD, DO MAYBE A POOL EVEN BACK THERE AS WELL.
IT'S JUST, UM, SOMETHING THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IN THE FUTURE.
BUT YEAH, I WOULD JUST LOVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO GET THE EXCEPTION IN ORDER JUST TO UTILIZE THAT SPACE FOR OUR FAMILY.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? ALRIGHT, WELL WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING UP HERE AND, AND PRESENTING YOUR CASE.
UM, MR. UM, MR. HAMILTON, IF YOU DON'T MIND COMING UP FOR A SECOND, I'D LIKE TO HEAR YOUR TESTIMONY AS WELL.
I'M JEFF HAMILTON, I, AS I MENTIONED, 32 0 1 CANYON CREEK
[00:30:01]
DRIVE.UH, ANYTHING THAT ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS WANT TO DO TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY ECONOMICALLY, I'M IN FAVOR OF ANYTHING THAT MAKES THE APPEARANCE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOK BETTER.
ANYTHING THAT INCREASES OUR PROPERTY VALUES MAKES IT BETTER FOR RESALE 100% SUPPORT.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE THINGS THAT YOU CAN TALK ABOUT WITH PUBLIC SAFETY, THERE'S ALL THE OTHER FOUR OR FIVE OTHER CORNER LOTS THROUGHOUT THAT STREET FROM LOOKOUT TO POINT NORTH THAT HAVE HAD THEIR FENCES BROUGHT OUT TO THE SAME DISTANCE.
FROM MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY SAFETY ISSUES OR CONCERNS.
NOBODY SEEMS TO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH ANYTHING IN TERMS OF, UH, SITE LIMITATION.
UH, SO I DO NOT SEE ANY ISSUES WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED.
I WOULD BE IN FULL SUPPORT OF HIM DOING THAT, ESPECIALLY TO BENEFIT HIS CHILDREN AND TO GET THE FULL ECONOMIC, UH, AND FULL ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF WHY HE BOUGHT THAT YARD.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY WHEN YOU BUY THESE PROPERTIES, UH, SOMETIMES THINGS AREN'T DISCLOSED.
AND I HAD A SIMILAR ISSUE WHEN I BOUGHT MINE.
I WAS TOLD THERE WAS NO HOAS OR ISSUES.
AND THEN SUDDENLY THIS THING CAME UP IN THE TITLE PAPERS FROM 30, UH, FROM CANYON CREEK COUNTRY CLUB NUMBER 21, WHICH WAS FROM 1971 AND HAD A WHOLE LIST OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.
AND I WAS LIKE, WAIT A MINUTE, THE CITY OF RICHARDSON DOES NOT LIST THAT AS AN HOA AND THERE'S TOLD, I'VE BEEN TOLD THERE'S NO CANYON CREEK COUNTRY CLUB RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, BUT YET HERE WAS THIS PLAT WHICH SHOWED DIFFERENT BUILDING SITES AND DIFFERENT LINES FOR SOME LOTS VERSUS THE OTHER ON THE STREET.
AND IT JUST SEEMED A LITTLE ARBITRARY.
SO ANYTHING THAT WOULD ALLOW HIM TO GET THE FULL BENEFIT OF HIS PROPERTY LINES THE SAME AS OTHER PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE, I'M IN FAVOR OF.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. HAMILTON? WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING OUT TO SPEAK AND IN SUPPORT AS WELL, SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST? ALRIGHT, PLEASE COME UP HERE.
UM, REMEMBER TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE, FOR THE RECORD.
I, UH, MY MOTHER LIVES, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS MAP, YOU'VE GOT CHAPEL CREEK TO THE RIGHT.
MY MOTHER LIVES RIGHT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET.
SHE LIVES RIGHT IN THAT CORNER LOT.
THE, UH, SHE ASKED ME TO, UH, WE'RE REALLY NOT CLEAR ON EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING AND I'LL GO INTO MORE, UH, DETAIL IN A MINUTE, BUT THAT'S WHY SHE, SHE ASKED ME IF I WOULD COME UP AND TO TRY TO CLARIFY JUST EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO TAKE PLACE.
UM, SO CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD BEFORE ADDRESSING THE MERITS OF SE 25 0 2, I NEED TO RAISE A PROCEDURAL CONCERN.
THE AGENDA IN APPLICATION DESCRIBE THIS REQUEST IS ALLOWING AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD.
HOWEVER, THERE APPEAR APPEARS TO BE UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHETHER THE FENCE IS ACTUALLY PROPOSED FOR THE REAR YARD.
IF THE RELIEF BEING SOUGHT DEFERS FROM WHAT IS DESCRIBED IN THE NOTICE, THEN THE PUBLIC, INCLUDING AFFECTED NEIGHBORS, HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY NOTIFIED IN THAT CASE.
I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THE BOARD CANNOT LAWFULLY CONSIDER OR APPROVE A REQUEST THAT IS MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS NOTICED.
I ASK THAT THE BOARD EITHER DENY THE REQUEST IS SUBMITTED OR TABLE IT TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO REAPPLY WITH ACCURATE INFORMATION AND PROPER NOTICE.
CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THE, ON THE DEFECT A LITTLE BIT? IN THE, IN THE APPLICATION, AT FIRST WHEN WE FIRST READ THE, UH, THE, UH, NOTICE OF REQUEST, WE, WE THOUGHT THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS WOULD INVOLVE THE FRONT YARD.
UH, AND AFTER SPEAKING TO MR. RUSS, IT'S UH, BECAME, UH, I UNDERSTAND IT AS IT INVOLVING THE BACKYARD.
AND HE'S ALSO TALKING ABOUT MOVING THE EXISTING FENCE CLOSER TO THE SIDEWALK ON CHAPEL CREEK.
[00:35:01]
I'M NOT SURE.IS THAT A FOOT FROM THE SIDEWALK? IS IT THREE FEET FROM THE SIDEWALK? WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR CLARIFICATION ON EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE HAVE THAT AT THIS TIME.
I, I WOULD INVITE CITY STAFF, I THINK AT THIS POINT TO, TO SPEAK AS TO, AS TO THESE ISSUES.
AARON, WHY DON'T YOU ADDRESS IT AND THEN, UM, BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE COLORS THAT ARE ON THE MAP SO THAT MR. WEEKS CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT'S EXISTING AND THEN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR SURE.
SO IF YOU'LL SEE, SEE IN BLUE, THAT'S THE EXISTING FENCE THAT'S THERE TODAY, THE EIGHT FOOT WOODEN FENCE, UH, THE APPLICANT TONIGHT IS REQUESTING THE RED LINE, UH, THAT'S THE EIGHT.
IT'LL ALSO BE AN EIGHT FOOT PROPOSED FENCE.
UH, WHEN THE APPLICANT, IF, IF THE BOARD WERE TO APPROVE THIS THIS EVENING, UH, THE APPLICANT WOULD GO TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THEY WOULD BY RIGHT, BE ABLE TO PUT THAT ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE.
UH, IT'LL PROBABLY BE OFFSET FROM THE ACTUAL SIDEWALK ITSELF BY ABOUT A FOOT AND A HALF, MAYBE TWO FEET.
UH, THE, THE FENCE CONTRACTOR WILL BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT.
SO EVERYTHING, EXCUSE ME, ALONG CHAPEL CREEK, THAT'S TECHNICALLY THE FRONT YARD, IT IS TRUE THAT THE APPLICANT IS ALSO EXTENDING THE FENCE TOWARDS HIS REAR YARD, BUT THAT IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT.
DOES THAT CLARIFY YOUR QUESTION? THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
HOWEVER, A REAR YARD FENCE AND A FRONT YARD FENCE ARE GOVERNED BY DIFFERENT ORDINANCE STANDARDS AND HAVE DIFFERENT IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES CHANGING THE LOCATION BEING REQUESTED.
IT IS NOT A CLARIFICATION, IT IS A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE.
RESPECTFULLY, THAT CHANGE WOULD REQUIRE A NEW APPLICATION, A NEW PUBLIC NOTICE BEFORE THE BOARD CAN TAKE ACTION.
I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOW, LET ME TRY.
ON, ON THE GRAPHIC THAT'S SHOWN THERE, UM, YES.
YOU SEE WHERE THERE'S THE GREEN LINE THAT'S BASICALLY, UM, IF, IF NORTH WAS UP ON THAT DRAWING, IT'S RUNNING UP AND DOWN.
BUT ACTUALLY IN THIS CASE, NORTH IS TO THE LEFT.
SO IT'S THE ONE THAT'S RUNNING THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THAT, THAT, UM, GRAPHIC.
AND YOU'LL SEE IT'S LABELED AS FRONT BUILDING FACE.
AND THEN JUST TO THE RIGHT OF THAT YOU'LL SEE UM, A BLACK LINE THAT'S LABELED 35 FOOT BUILDING LINE.
SO FROM THAT POINT ALL THE WAY OUT TOWARDS CHAPEL CREEK COURT FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE AND GIVEN THE PLATTED SETBACK THAT EXISTS TODAY, THAT'S CONSIDERED THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD.
SO THAT, BECAUSE THIS IS A CORNER LOT, IT ESSENTIALLY HAS TWO REQUIRED FRONT YARDS.
SO WHAT THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO DO IS TO ALLOW FENCING EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN THAT AREA THAT WE REFER TO AS THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD WITHIN THAT WHOLE AREA THERE.
SO THAT'S WHY THE APPLICANT IS NEEDING RELIEF, UM, FROM OUR ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW THE FENCE WHERE IT'S SHOWN IN THE RED LOCATION.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN ABOUT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, 'CAUSE NATURALLY ONE MIGHT THINK THAT, WELL, IT'S THE BACKYARD OF THE PROPERTY OR IT'S, OR IT'S BEHIND THE HOUSE.
BUT FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT, FOR OUR ORDINANCE, BECAUSE OF THAT PLATTED 35 FOOT BUILDING LINE, IT'S ESTABLISHING A FRONT BUILDING LINE THERE.
SO TO ALLOW THE FENCE ANYWHERE TO THE RIGHT OF THAT 35 FOOT BUILDING LINE ON THAT GRAPHIC, HENCE WHY THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF.
SO IF THE BOARD WERE TO GRANT THE RELIEF TO ALLOW THE EIGHT FOOT TALL WOODEN FENCE, THEN IT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE PLACED IN THE LOCATIONS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THIS GRAPHIC EVERYWHERE IN RED THAT IS TO THE RIGHT OF THAT 35 FOOT BUILDING LINE.
SO FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT, THAT'S WHY WE NOTICE IT AS IT'S A FRONT YARD IN THAT THEY'RE SEEKING FOR RELIEF ON THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE, EVERYTHING TO THE LEFT OF THAT 35 FOOT BUILDING LINE ON THAT GRAPHIC, SUCH AS LIKE WHERE IT'S DRAWN IN RED, WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NEW FENCE AND EVEN AROUND THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HOUSE ON THAT GRAPHIC, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE THE EIGHT
[00:40:01]
FOOT TALL FENCE UNDER THE CURRENT FENCE CODE REQUIREMENTS.SO THEY DON'T NEED RELIEF FROM THE CODE FOR ANYTHING TO THE LEFT OF THAT 35 FOOT BUILDING LINE THAT'S SHOWN ON THAT GRAPHIC ONLY THAT AREA TO THE RIGHT BECAUSE WE CONSIDER THAT AREA TO THE RIGHT A REQUIRED FRONT YARD.
I, UH, IF THE BOARD CHOOSES TO PROCEED, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THE RECORD CLEARLY REFLECT THAT THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS LIMITED STRICTLY TO WHAT WAS NOTICED, AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN THEIR REQUIRED FRONT YARD AND NOT ANY OTHER LOCATION.
EVEN THEN THE APPLICANT HAS NOT MET THE BURDEN REQUIRED FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
MY MOM IS VERY OPPOSED TO THIS AND SHE FEELS LIKE IF, IF THEY COME IN WITH AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, ONE FOOT OFF THE SIDEWALK IS GONNA BASICALLY LOOK LIKE A FORTRESS ACROSS THE STREET.
AND I IN SOME RESPECTS WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH THAT.
I, UH, HOWEVER, FOR THOSE REASONS I CONTINUE TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST DENIAL OF SC 25 0 2.
JUST ONE ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
ARE YOU REFERRING TO THIS NOTICE TO PUBLIC HEARING? THAT WAS MS, PLEASE.
SO THE REQUEST IS AN EIGHT FOOT TALL WOODEN FENCE BE LOCATED IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD ALONG CHAPEL CREEK IN COURT.
SO I JUST FOR THE RECORD, I THINK IT'S FAIRLY CLEAR WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FRONT YARD OF CHAPEL CREEK COURT.
SO NO, AND I AND I RECOGNIZE THAT NO, THERE'S NO, UH, MISUNDERSTANDING THERE.
IT'S, IT'S, I THINK IT HAS MORE TO DO WITH THE OFFSET FROM THE SIDEWALK AND THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST? ALRIGHT, AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS CASE AND I WILL INVITE THE, UH, THE BOARD TO CONSIDER MOTIONS.
UM, ALSO IF WE NEED ANY ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION FROM CITY STAFF, THIS IS A GOOD TIME TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS AS WELL.
UM, AS FAR AS THE OFFSET FROM THE SIDEWALK GOES, IS A FOOT AND A HALF TO TWO FOOT, UM, CONSIDERED NORMAL FOR THIS AREA? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
IT, IT WILL NOT EXTEND AND BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DOES ANYONE WISH TO MAKE A MOTION IN THIS? IN THIS CASE, MR. THAMES? MR. MR. CHAIRMAN, I DO FIND THAT THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED AND THAT THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE NEIGHBORING UH, NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTY PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED.
I THEREFORE MOVE TO GRANT THE REQUEST SPECIAL EXCEPTION CASE NUMBER SE 25 DASH OH TWO AND THAT THE REQUEST BE LIMITED TO THOSE SPECIFICS WHICH THE APPLICANT, UH, HAS PRESENTED IN THEIR APPLICATION.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. THAMES.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
ALRIGHT MR. MATA SECONDS AND IT'S A GOOD REMINDER MR. MATA, I BELIEVE YOU'RE VOTING ON THIS CASE AS WELL.
SO WHILE IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THE MOTION AS IT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, UH, PLEASE SAY AYE.
A ALL OPPOSED, THAT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
WE THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING IN, UM, APPRECIATE THE TESTIMONY AND WISH YOU THE BEST OF LUCK ON THIS.
ALRIGHT, NOW WE ARE AT AGENDA ITEM FIVE.
THIS IS VARIANCE, THIS VARIANCE REQUEST 25 0 9.
WE HAVEN'T DONE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS IN A WHILE, SO I SEE A VARIANCE AND I GET A LITTLE THROWN.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 26 72 POINSETTIA DRIVE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE CITY.
THE HOUSE FRONTS ONTO POINSETTIA DRIVE TO THE NORTH AND THEN BACKS UP TO LOOKOUT DRIVE TO THE SOUTH.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS SEPARATED FROM LOOKOUT DRIVE BY A MASONRY SCREENING WALL AND AN ALLEY.
SO THE PROPERTY IS ALLEY SERVED IN IT'S REAR.
YOU'LL NOTICE HERE THAT THE, UH, FRONT OF THE PROPERTY FRONTS ONTO
[00:45:01]
A BULB OF PO DRIVE WHERE THE BULB DIPS DOWN TO THE SOUTH AND THE CARRIES ONTO THE WEST.SO THIS BULB SHAPE IS VERY SIMILAR TO A CUL-DE-SAC, BUT IT'S NOT A TRUE CUL-DE-SAC.
SO WHAT WE CALL THIS TYPE OF STREET LIKE THIS, WITH THESE, THESE BULB OUTS, WE ARE GONNA CALL THESE AN EYEBROW STREET
THE PROPERTY IS 0.2 ACRES AND IT WAS CONSTRUCT DEVELOPED WITH A 3,500 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY HOME WITH A TWO CAR GARAGE.
IT HAS A BUILDING FOOTPRINT OF 2,500 SQUARE FEET FOR ITS FIRST STORY.
THE HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED WITH AN INTEGRATED 102 SQUARE FOOT COVERED PATIO IN ITS REAR.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A REQUEST TO ALLOW A 14 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK.
IN ORDER TO EXPAND THAT PATIO COVER.
ON THE GRAPHIC HERE, YOU'LL SEE ON THE RED LINE IS THE PROPOSED SETBACK.
THE BLUE IS THE ALLOWED SETBACK AND THEN THE GREEN IS THE PERMISSIBLE AND ALLOWED ALLOWED BUILDING ENVELOPE.
SO THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE IN ITS REAR WHERE THE GARAGE IS LOCATED AGAINST THE DRIVEWAY, WAS BUILT TO THE 25 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK, UH, AS WAS THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE WHERE THAT EXISTING PATIO MEETS THAT EXISTING REAR YARD SETBACK.
AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE BUILDING ENVELOPE ALSO, UH, PERMITS SOME ROOM AROUND THE SIDES OF THE HOME AND THEN THERE'S SOME ROOM REMAINING HERE BETWEEN THE GARAGE AND THE EXISTING PATIO DIRECTLY IN THE REAR.
HERE ARE PHOTOS OF THE HOME SEEN FROM THE FRONT AND THEN AS SEEN FROM THE REAR IN THE ALLEY.
UH, YOU SEE THAT THE, UH, RESIDENCE HAS AN EIGHT FOOT TALL WOODEN FENCE AND THE PATIO WOULD BE LOCATED BEHIND THAT.
HERE ARE RENDERINGS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THE EXTENSION OF THE PATIO.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE ROOF WILL BE INTEGRATED WITH THE EXISTING ROOF.
ALSO IN THIS ANGLE YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE EXISTING BACK DOOR IS LOCATED ON THEIR RESIDENCE.
UH, FROM THIS ANGLE YOU GET A BETTER LOOK AT THE UH, SIZE OF THAT PATIO AND AS YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY CAN, UH, WITH THE SIZE OF THIS PATIO, THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN.
THE APPLICANT PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING JUSTIFICATION.
THEY'VE SAID THE EXISTING PATIO COVER IS NOT A PRACTICAL SIZE OR SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE AN OUTDOOR GRILL AND A STANDARD DINING SET.
THEY ALSO HAVE ALREADY INSTALLED THE CONCRETE FLAT WORK IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE PATIO.
HOWEVER, WHEN THEY CAME TO THE CITY TO GET THEIR BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE UH, VERTICAL IMPROVEMENTS, THEY WERE DENIED AS THAT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT AND AN ENCROACHMENT IN THE 25 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK.
THAT CON CONCRETE FLAT WORK IS ALLOWED IN THAT AREA.
UH, THEY'VE STATED THE LAW IS UNIQUE BECAUSE IT IS ON A CUL-DE-SAC TYPE LOT, BUT THE LOT IS NOT SHAPED LIKE A TRADITIONAL PIE SHAPED CUL-DE-SAC LOT.
UM, THEY'VE STATED THAT IT IS IRREGULAR IN THAT THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE IS 116 FEET DEEP.
THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE IS 140 FEET DEEP, SO THEY BEING, UH, DIFFERENTIAL, UH, LENGTHS AND DEPTHS CREATES AN UNEVEN PROPERTY LINE IN THE REAR.
UM, THEY'VE ALSO STATED THE BACKYARD SLOPES FROM THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH TOWARDS THE ALLEY PRESENTING, UH, CHALLENGES WITH A TOPOGRAPHY AND THEY'VE ALSO GONE ON TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES, UH, TO THE DESIGN.
THOSE WERE INCLUDED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
UH, HOWEVER, THEY SAY THAT THESE DO NOT MEET THEIR DESIRED, UH, NEEDS FOR THEIR SPACE OR FUNCTIONALITY, PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THAT BACK DOOR THAT, UH, EXITS ONTO THE EXISTING PATIO TODAY.
AND, UH, DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF WINDOWS ON THE REAR OF THE HOME.
AND HERE'S A LOOK AT THE, UH, SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE CONTEXT WITH THE SURROUNDING SUBDIVISION.
SO TO CONTRAST THIS REQUEST TO THE LAST TWO YOU HEARD, THOSE ARE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS.
UH, HOWEVER, THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST.
SO THE BOARD, UH, WOULD LOOK TO THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
SO THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AUTHORIZES IN SPECIFIC CASES OF VARIANCE.
IF THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND SO THAT THE SPIRITS OF THE ORDINANCE IS OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE.
UH, ALSO TO CONTRAST WITH THE PREVIOUS CASES AND TO REMIND YOU THAT VARIANCES DO HAVE A HIGHER THRESHOLD FOR THE PROPERTY TO DEMONSTRATE A PROPERTY HARDSHIP.
AND THE STATE PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING FIVE CRITERIA AS A GOWN, AS A GROUNDS FOR THE BOARD TO DECIDE WHETHER COMPLIANCE WOULD RESULT IN A HARDSHIP.
I'M GONNA GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE FIVE AS THEY RELATE TO THE STAFF'S ANALYSIS.
THE CITY DOES NOT EXPECT THE FINANCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE.
COMPLIANCE MEANING CONSTRUCTING THE PATIO
[00:50:01]
IN A PERMISSIBLE AREA OR NOT EXPANDING THE PATIO.THE FINANCIAL COSTS OF COMPLIANCE WOULD NOT EXCEED 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE HOME.
NUMBER TWO, COMPLIANCE WOULD NOT RESULT IN A LOSS TO DEVELOPABLE AREA OF THE PROPERTY.
THERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE PROPERTY HARDSHIPS OR ANYTHING UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY PREVENTING THE APPLICANT FROM IMPROVING OR FROM BUILDING A REASONABLE HOME IN PATIO.
THE OTHER LOTS THAT FRONT ON CUL-DE-SACS OR EYEBROWS HAVE SIMILAR, SIMILAR LOT AND SHAPES.
THERE IS SOME BUILDABLE ENVELOPE THAT REMAINS ON THE SITE.
UH, IN REGARDS TO THE TOPOGRAPHY OR THE SLOPE OF THE SITE.
IN THE PERMISSIBLE AREA, THE SLOPE IS ONLY ESTIMATED AT 1.5 TO 3%, WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO POSE SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES AND THE PATIO PAVEMENT COULD BE ENGINEERED TO OFFSET OR ABSORB THAT GRADE DIFFERENCE IF NEEDED.
NUMBER THREE, THE COMPLIANCE WOULD NOT RESULT IN THE STRUCTURE NOT BEING COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER CODES AND ORDINANCES.
COMPLIANCE WOULD NOT IMPACT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THE EXISTING HOUSE CONFORMS TO THE CODE.
SO THE EXP PATIO EXPANSION IS NOT NECESSARY TO BRING THE HOUSE TO CODE.
AND GOING BACK TO A LOOK AT THE SIMILAR PROPERTIES IN THE SUBDIVISION, THOSE THAT ARE ON EYEBROW LOTS STAFF TOOK A LOOK AT THE SUBDIVISION PLAT.
WE TOOK A LOOK AT THE DEPTHS OF THESE LOTS AND THE SIZE OF THESE LOTS.
SO AS FAR AS SIZE RANKS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS COMPARED TO 14 OTHER EYEBROW LOTS IN THIS SUBDIVISION, THIS SITE RANKS EIGHTH.
IN REGARDS TO THE DEPTH OF THE LOT, IT RANKS FIFTH, SO IT RANKS EIGHTH IN UM, SMALLEST AND IT RANKS FIFTH AND SHORTEST.
BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES, IT IS STAFF'S OPINION THAT A PHYSICAL PROPERTY HARDSHIP DOES NOT EXIST AND THE REQUEST SHOULD THEREFORE BE DENIED.
AND THIS WAS A PUBLIC HEARING AND WE RECEIVED THREE LETTERS IN SUPPORT AND THOSE ARE SITTING IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY AND THE APPLICANT HAS A SHORT PRESENTATION AS WELL.
ALRIGHT, AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. PETERS AT THIS TIME? CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE WHERE YOU HAVE THE FIVE ELEMENTS? YES, THAT ONE.
UM, CAN YOU CLARIFY ITEM NUMBER TWO A LITTLE BIT MORE? SOME PERMISSIBLE BILLABLE AREA REMAINS PERMISSIBLE.
I'M GONNA GO BACK TO THE CRITERIA NUMBER TWO AND READ THAT FIRST.
THE CRITERIA IS WOULD COMPLIANCE RESULT IN A LOSS TO THE PROPERTY ON WHICH YOU COULD DEVELOP? UH, OR IS THERE SOMETHING OR IS THERE A PHYSICAL PROPERTY HARDSHIP PREVENTING OR PRECLUDING DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY? AND THERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY PROPERTY HARDSHIPS PREVENTING DEVELOPMENT AND THERE IS STILL SOME REMAINING AREA TO DEVELOP.
AND THEN THAT IS THIS WEDGE RIGHT HERE, THE CORNER AND THIS AS WELL, WHICH IS REALLY NEXT TO THE GARAGE.
THIS IS THEIR DEVELOPABLE AREA.
OH, AND YELLOW IS THE EXISTING PATIO.
I DON'T THINK I POINTED THIS OUT.
YELLOW IS THE EXISTING PATIO AND ORANGE IS THE PROPOSED EXPANSION.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THEY COULD BUILD TO THE, WOULD THAT BE THE WEST IF NORTH IS NORTH IS DOWN THERE, IS THAT RIGHT? EAST BE THE EAST, EAST OF THE PATIO.
THERE'S SOME ROOM OVER HERE? YES.
WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MS. PETERS.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION.
AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO, UM, I KNOW WE HAVE THE APPLICANT'S HERE.
UH, WOULD YOU GUYS MIND COMING UP AND THEN ARE, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST AS WELL? YES.
IF YOU GUYS DON'T MIND ALL, ALL COMING UP FOR A SECOND.
UH, JUST AS WE DID BEFORE, WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO EFFICIENTLY GET YOU GUYS SWORN IN.
SO AT THIS TIME I AM CALLING, OH, LET'S SEE.
THIS IS, UM, VARIANCE REQUEST 25 0 9 REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 26 72 PO SETTA DRIVE.
AND I'M ASKING THAT ANY WITNESS WHO WILL BE TESTIFYING, UH, TO COME FORWARD TO BE SWORN IN.
SO WOULD EACH OF YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND JUST UH, UH, STATE YOUR ADDRESS AND UM, THAT YOU'LL BE SPEAKING, UM, IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
[00:55:01]
I'M STEPHANIE GRIFFIN.I'M A HOMEOWNER OF 26 72
ALRIGHT, OBVIOUSLY IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST, OBVIOUSLY, UH, FRANK GRIFFIN, 26, UH, 72 POA, ALSO HOMEOWNER AND IN FAVOR.
ALRIGHT, I'M LAUREN VALENTINE.
I'M AT 2 6 7 4 POA JUST TO THE EAST OF THEM ALSO IN FAVOR.
OKAY, SO I WILL ASK EACH OF YOU TO PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO EACH OF YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE BEFORE THIS COMMISSION TODAY TO BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO.
ALRIGHT, SO YOU GUYS ARE WELCOME TO PRESENT YOUR TESTIMONY AT THIS TIME OR YOUR PRESENTATION AT THIS TIME.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU GUYS VERY MUCH.
I APPRECIATE, UM, ALL YOUR HELP GETTING THIS KIND OF SET UP EXCEPT FOR THAT LAST PART AT THE END, BUT THAT'S FINE.
UM, WE HAD, UH, SOME OTHER PICTURES I GUESS WE DIDN'T SEND IN THAT WE JUST WANTED TO KIND OF WALK THROUGH JUST TO SHOW WHAT THE BACKYARD LOOKS LIKE RATHER THAN JUST THAT PLANNED VIEW.
AND SO THIS IS A VIEW OF THE, UH, EXISTING PATIO, WHICH IS ONLY SIX FEET IN DEPTH AND YOU CAN SEE WITH, UH, WITH OUR TABLE AND CHAIRS AND GRILL ON THERE.
IT'S NOT VERY USABLE AS IT WAS.
UM, NOW WITH THE EXTRA CONCRETE THAT WE PUT IN PLACE THERE, WE BRING THAT TABLE OUT, OBVIOUSLY CAN'T ENJOY IT IN THE HEAT OF THE SUMMER OR IN THE RAIN.
OH, UH, THE BACK DOOR ALSO IS KIND OF PART OF THIS BECAUSE THAT ON THE RIGHT THERE IS THE ACCESS OUT.
SO IF WE CAME OUT AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT COVER RIGHT THERE, WE'D BE, WE'D BE TURNING THE CORNER BASICALLY.
UH, AND THIS IS, THIS IS THE BACK FENCE LINE, UH, WHICH IS REALLY THE MAIN PART OF THE HARDSHIP ON THIS PROPERTY IS HOW SHARPLY IT CUTS ACROSS THE BACKYARD.
UH, AND THERE IS A, THERE IS A GREAT DROP, UH, AND ALSO, UH, UH, A LITTLE MINIATURE GOLDEN DOODLE THERE.
UH, BUT THE, THE FENCE LINE IS NOT PARALLEL TO THE REAR WALL OF THE HOUSE.
UH, LIKEWISE THE, UM, THE SIDE LOT IS PRETTY NARROW.
DOESN'T LEAVE A LOT OF ROOM TO TRY TO EXTEND THAT PATIO, UH, ESPECIALLY IN LIEU OF THE SEVEN FOOT DIMENSION, UH, AND THE SLOPE AS WELL.
AND THAT, THAT SIDE OF THE HA IT'S THE BOUNDARY'S ALSO NOT PARALLEL WITH NONE OF THE BOUNDARIES ON THAT PROPERTY ARE PARALLEL WITH THE, THE ADJACENT WALLS OF THE, OF THE RESIDENCE.
AND THIS KIND OF OVERVIEW OF, OF THAT WHOLE BACK AREA.
UH, SO BASICALLY THE, THE, THE TOP LEFT CORNER OF THE PATIO AT THE EVE IS 25 FEET FROM THE BACK FENCE COMING STRAIGHT OUT.
AND THEN AT THE GARAGE, AT THE GARAGE CORNER RIGHT THERE, THAT'S ALSO 25 FEET DUE TO THE ANGLE OF THE, THE PROPERTY.
AND SO WE JUST LAID OUT A TAPE THAT BASICALLY GOES FROM CORNER TO CORNER TO SHOW THAT 25 FOOT LINE FROM, UH, FROM THE BACK, FROM THE BACK FENCE.
UH, SO YOU CAN SEE THE ANGLE, UH, AND THAT 25 FOOT DIMENSION.
UM, SO AS DEREK HAD MENTIONED, THAT USABLE SPACE, THAT 200 SQUARE FEET IS BASICALLY THIS TRIANGLE HERE.
UH, WHICH IS, I DON'T BELIEVE REALLY VERY REASONABLE, UH, OR FEASIBLY BUILDABLE.
UM, YOU KNOW, FOR ONE, FOR ONE ISSUE WOULD BE THAT AT THIS CORNER RIGHT HERE, THERE WOULD BE NOWHERE TO PLACE A COLUMN TO SUPPORT THAT END OF THE, UH, OF THE, THE ROOF STRUCTURE.
UM, AND THEN SO WE STILL HAVE A ODDLY SHAPED UNUSABLE SPACE, NON SYMMETRIC, UM, NOT PARALLEL WITH THE, THE BACK WALL OF THE RESIDENCE AND IT, THAT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.
AND THEN, SO THIS IS JUST KIND OF THAT CONTINUATION OF THAT TRIANGULAR SPOT.
UH, SO THAT, UH, THESE ARE THE, UH, THE TWO WINDOWS ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE WOULD BASICALLY GET COVERED UP IF WE ADDED THAT, UH, PATIO COVER IN THAT AREA.
AND THE LITTLE WINDOW IS THE LAUNDRY ROOM.
UH, BUT THE BIGGER WINDOWS ARE KITCHEN, DINING AREA.
UM, AND AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW THAT REAR LOT LINE IS NOT, UH, PARALLEL AND IT'S JUST AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROPERTY FROM, UH, FROM THE EAST.
AND SO YOU CAN SEE BASICALLY ONCE YOU GET TO THE GARAGE WALL, NOTHING TO THAT SIDE OF IT'S REALLY GONNA BE FEASIBLY BUILDABLE FOR US TO HAVE A, YOU KNOW, ANY USE AS A PATIO.
UH, AND AGAIN, THIS SIDE FENCE YOU CAN SEE IF YOU HAD A, UH, YOU WERE CLOSER TO IT, THAT'S NOT PARALLEL TO THE, THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE EITHER.
[01:00:02]
UH, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS WE WEREN'T REALLY SURE ABOUT AND COULDN'T GET AN ANSWER TO IS, UM, WHAT THE REASON WAS FOR THE 25 FOOT REAR SETBACK.UM, YOU KNOW, THE SIDE YARD'S ONLY SEVEN FEET.
AND THEN FOR DETACHED STRUCTURES, IT, YOU KNOW, ALLOWS MUCH CLOSER TO THE, UH, TO THE BACK, UH, PROPERTY LINE.
ALTHOUGH IN OUR CASE WE DO HAVE AN EASEMENT, SO WE'D BE LIMITED TO FIVE FEET.
UH, I DID WANNA GO BACK, OH YEAH, AND THEN YOU RAISED THE QUESTION ABOUT THIS SLIDE AND UM, I THINK IT'S, UM, AS A PART AS, UH, NOTE NUMBER TWO BEING THAT THIS PERMISSIBLE BUILDABLE AREA REMAINS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT VERY FEASIBLE, UM, TO ADD ANYTHING AROUND THE HOUSE WITH THE, WITH THE SHAPE OF THE HOUSE, THE SHAPE OF THE LOT.
UM, AND AGAIN, HERE'S KIND OF THAT TRIANGULAR SHAPE, UH, CAN'T GET ON WOULD BE THE, A LITTLE BIT OF BUILDABLE AREA.
UM, SO STEPHANIE HAS A FEW OTHER THINGS TO ADD AS WELL, I THINK.
THINK YOU COVERED IT VERY WELL.
WE WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
WE, WE JUST, WE DO FEEL LIKE THE OR OR WE BELIEVE THE 25 FOOT SETBACK DOES CREATE A HARDSHIP BECAUSE OF THE HARD CORNERS OF THE ROOF LINE OF OUR HOUSE ALREADY.
WE CAN'T EXTEND THE EXISTING SIX FOOT DEEP PATIO.
MR. ER, A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
UM, WHAT'S, WHAT'S TRIGGERING, UM, THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE? IS IT 'CAUSE IT'S COVERED OR IS IT BECAUSE IT'S ATTACHED OR IT IS BECAUSE IT IS COVERED AND ATTACHED? YES.
AND THERE'S NOT, I DON'T THINK THERE IS, BUT I'LL ASK, IS THERE A, I KNOW FOR FRONT YARDS THERE'S A FIVE FOOT USUALLY, UH, EXCEPTION GOING INTO A BUILDING LINE.
UM, THAT FRONT FOR CLIFF FOR STOOPS, I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE STOOPS AND THOSE KIND OF LOCKUPS.
THERE'S NOTHING LIKE THAT FOR THE REAR? NO, FOR AN UN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE, I THINK IT'S FIVE FEET.
THAT MAY BE THE CASE FOR THE FRONT YARD.
BUT THERE'S NO, SO IT'S EXCEPTION FOR THE BAT? NO.
UH, WITH REGARD TO THE 25 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK, IS THERE LARGER SETBACKS AND ON THE NEW BRIDGE THAT'S PRETTY STANDARD IN THIS DISTRICT AND ACROSS MANY RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE CITY.
UM, IT SAYS EXISTING PATIO, UH, HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
SO TO THE RIGHT OF THAT WHERE YOU GOT THE BLUE AND THEN THE GREEN.
IS THAT, IS THAT NOT, I KNOW IT'S NOT IDEAL, BUT IS THAT NOT WORKABLE? YEAH, I MEAN YOU CAN, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THAT THAT 25 FOOT LINE CONTINUES, UM, PAST THE PATIO.
SO BECAUSE OF THAT, UH, THE LINE OF THE, UH, THE BACK BOUNDARY THERE, SO EVEN FROM THAT CORNER THERE, WE COULDN'T TAKE THAT PATIO STRAIGHT OUT BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE RIGHT IN THE 25 FEET.
SO IT'S BASICALLY LIMITED ON BOTH SIDES.
I GUESS MY POINT IS, UM, I GUESS AGAIN TO THE RIGHT WHERE IT SAYS EXISTING PATIO, IF YOU GO DOWN THE LINE AND THEN YOU HAVE A LITTLE JUT OUT AND YOU TOOK THAT JUT OUT TO THE GREEN LINE AND YOU HAD THAT AREA, IS THAT NOT ENOUGH OR, UH, I MEAN, AGAIN, IF, IF WE CAME STRAIGHT OUT AT THE, SO IDEALLY YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD BE SYMMETRIC, RIGHT? YOU WOULD KICK OFF FROM OKAY, IT'S NOT GOING, THERE WE GO, YOU WOULD COME STRAIGHT OUT.
BUT IT'S ALREADY, THAT'S THE 25 FOOT MARK.
AND AS SOON AS YOU GO OUT, IT'S CONTINUING TO, TO MOVE TOWARD THE, UH, FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
I WAS JUST ASKING IF A DESIGN OF GO AHEAD.
FOLLOWING THE BLUE LINE AND GREEN LINE TO THAT JUD OUT WOULD SATISFY.
SO THE, THE CHALLENGE IS THAT THE DEPTH OF THE PATIO IS ONLY SIX FEET AND THE FOUR FOOT TABLE AND THE FOUR CHAIRS THAT GO AROUND IT DON'T FIT ON THE SIX FOOT.
OH, I, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU.
SO, SO MAKING A WIDER WOULDN'T ADDRESS THAT SITUATION.
IT WOULD BE A BIT OF A STRUCTURAL CHALLENGE AT THE ROOF AS WELL.
UH, LET'S SEE IF WE GOT THE, YEAH.
[01:05:01]
NOW I UNDERSTAND IT'D BE AN ANGLE 'CAUSE YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING LINE THERE, BASICALLY.I MEAN, YOU GOT SEVEN FEET THERE.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S EXACTLY, I THINK THAT'S LESS THAN SEVEN FEET.
IT'S SEVEN FEET FROM THE FENCE.
BUT YEAH, COMING OUT FROM THE, UH, RIGHT FROM THE PATIO WOULDN'T BE THAT FAR.
IT WOULD STILL BE, STILL BE NO MORE THAN SIX FEET, PROBABLY A LITTLE LESS COMING AROUND THE CORNER.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE DROP IN THE GRADE IS GREATER ACTUALLY ON THE SIDE YARD.
WOULD YOU SAY THAT'S ACCURATE? CORRECT.
UM, SO GOING BACK TO THE RECOMMENDED BUILD BUILDABLE SPACE, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT THE CITY HAS PROVIDED TO KEEP IT WITHIN THAT 25 YARD SETBACK, IS THERE ANYTHING, IS THERE A GRADE TO, TO THAT PORTION? IS THERE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THAT SECTION OF THE, OF THE YARD? UH, THE GRADE THERE, I, I GUESS FROM A TOP, SORRY, I'M, I'M INTERRUPTING, BUT FROM LIKE A TOPOGRAPHICAL OR OR GRADE STANDPOINT? YEAH, THE GRADE THERE IS RELATIVELY FLAT UNTIL YOU GET, UM, GET KIND OF THE CORNER OF THE GARAGE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THIS IS, THIS IS, I I I WILL SAY THIS ISN'T REALLY A QUESTION.
IT'S A TRICKY CASE AND I, I'M, I'M SURE YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN HERE AND YOU'VE BEEN LISTENING, UM, WHEN YOU HAVE TWO SPECIAL EXCEPTION CASES IN THERE WHERE, WHERE IT'S NOT A WALK IN THE PARK, BUT THE STANDARD OF REVIEW IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN THEY ARE YEAH.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THE QUESTIONS ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE UNUSUAL, UH, WITH THESE AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE, UM, ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTANDING ON THAT.
UH, MR. THA, OH, SORRY, SORRY,
WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS QUESTION'S FOR Y'ALL OR THE STAFF.
UH, PAGE SEVEN OF THE PACKET, DID, DID STAFF PROVIDE THIS VIEW THE ALTERNATIVES? YEAH.
OR IS THIS THE HOMEOWNER WE PROVIDED THE ALTERNATIVES IS, YEAH, THOSE ARE PROVIDED BY THE, BY THE APPLICANT.
PAGE SEVEN IS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
YEAH, THEY, THEY THAT WE, LEMME SEE.
YEAH, THOSE ARE ALL FROM THE APPLICANT.
JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT.
UM, IS IT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE REVIEWED ANY OF THESE, HAS THE STAFF REVIEWED ANY OF THESE? WOULD THIS YES.
IN NUMBER PAGE SEVEN, THERE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ATTACH THE ROOF TO, IF THEY BUILT WHERE THOSE WINDOWS ARE, IF THEY ADDED THE PATIO THERE, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ATTACH THE ROOF TO GO KIND OF AROUND THAT SIDE OR CORNER THERE BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO TELL FROM THE DIAGRAM.
IT SAYS IT WOULD BE ATTACHED TO THE REAR ELEVATION, BUT SEPARATE FROM THE EXISTING PATIO SO THEY COULD ATTACH IT TO THE HOUSE.
THEY COULD NOT ATTACH IT TO THE PATIO.
IF THEY ATTACH IT TO THE PATIO.
SO IT'S DISJOINTED FROM THE, IT'S DISJOINTED FROM THE PATIO THAT WAY.
SO IF THEY ATTACH IT TO THE PATIO, IT WOULD VIOLATE THE CODE.
IS THAT DIRECTLY WELL WOULD BE THAT STR IT WOULD FORCE THAT STRUCTURE TO BE YEAH.
IF IT CONTINUED THAT LINE AND ATTACHED.
WE MAY HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, BUT AT LEAST OKAY.
JUST REMEMBER TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD BEFORE YOU GET STARTED.
I'M LAUREN VALENTINE ADDRESS IS 2 6 7 4 PO SETTA DRIVE.
I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT'S WHAT IT WAS CALLED.
UM, BUT WE SHARE THAT, UH, CUL-DE-SAC.
THEY ARE THE MOST CONSIDERATE, THOUGHTFUL NEIGHBORS.
WE'VE GOT A WHOLE HOCKEY TEAM OF KIDS IN MY HOUSE THAT PLAY OUT FRONT AND THEY MOVE THEIR CARS.
UM, SO THEY HAVE MOVED IN, UH, AND SPENT TIME AROUND OUR FAMILY AND WE'VE SPENT TIME IN THEIR BACKYARD.
THEY, UM, FROM THEIR PREVIOUS NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE LOVED HOSTING AND HAVING THAT SPACE ON THEIR PATIO WOULD ALLOW THEM TO, UH, JUST CONTINUE TO BUILD THE COMMUNITY THAT'S ALREADY BEING BUILT AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, SO FROM OUR YARD.
UM, AND THEN ALSO THERE'S A LETTER FROM, UH, THE FRIS FAMILY THAT LIVES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THEM.
WE'RE THE ONLY TWO YARDS THAT ARE LOOKING STRAIGHT INTO THERE AND IT WOULD NOT CAUSE ANY PROBLEM TO HAVE SOMETHING IN THE SPACE THAT THEY'RE DESCRIBING.
SO THEY'VE TAKEN GOOD CARE OF THE HOME.
I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT ONCE THEY HAVE THAT BACKYARD, UH, SET UP THE WAY THEY WANT, THAT IT'LL JUST BE WELL MAINTAINED AND WONDERFUL TO HAVE IN OUR LITTLE CUL-DE-SAC.
[01:10:01]
I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS AND SUPPORT THEIR REQUEST.IS THERE ANYONE WHO, ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST? DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST? I DON'T, I DON'T RECOMMEND YOU GUYS, UH,
CHIME IN ON THIS ONE, BUT, ALRIGHT.
UM, AT THIS POINT I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'M GONNA OPEN THE FLOOR TO MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS TO PRESENT MOTIONS AND ALSO JUST TO ASK FOR ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION FROM CITY STAFF AS NEEDED.
SO QUESTION FOR STAFF, THE SLAB IS FINE.
COULD THEY BUILD A FENCE, SOMETHING THAT'S UN ENCLOSED? I MEAN, WHAT I CAN THEY BUILD AROUND IT? I GUESS, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE GONNA BLOCK THE SUN FACING WEST, COULD THEY DO A MASON WALL? COULD THEY DO A RETAINING TYPE WALL THAT'S SEVEN FEET TALL? I DON'T KNOW.
SO PART OF OUR EVALUATION IS NOT TO DETERMINE ALL OF THE POSSIBLE OPTIONS OF WHAT THEY COULD BUILD.
IT'S TO EVALUATE THE AREA TO SEE IF THERE'S AN AREA TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.
IN THIS CASE, OTHER OPTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED COULD EVEN BE A TEMPORARY SOLUTION WHERE IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR SHADE FROM THE SUN, THERE'S NOTHING THAT PREVENTS THEM FROM PUTTING LIKE A PATIO UMBRELLA ON, ON THE PROPERTY.
HOW ABOUT, HOW ABOUT THE RETRACTABLE AWNING?
UM, SO THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST AS LONG AS IT'S NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD BASICALLY RENDER IT PERMANENT.
JUST IN THE DELIBERATION OF YES, BY THE LETTER, WHAT THEY'RE DOING DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE CODE, BUT JUST EXPLORING DIFFERENT OPTIONS MIGHT HELP WHEN WE DELIBERATE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF? ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, AND I GUESS I'M JUST ADDING AN EDITORIAL COMMENT HERE, BUT I KIND OF ECHO WHAT I SAID PREVIOUSLY, THAT THIS IS A TOUGHER CASE.
THE, THE STANDARD REVIEW IS, IS A LOT MORE STRINGENT ON THIS.
UM, AND, UM, WHAT DOESN'T APPEAR TO HELP IS THAT WHILE YOU DO HAVE, UH, AN UNUSUAL SIZE OR SIZE, NOT SIZE BUT SHAPE OF LOT, THERE ARE ARE OTHER LOTS, UH, IT APPEARS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE NOT THAT FAR OFF FROM THIS.
SO, SO MUCH OF THE TIME WE'RE LOOKING FOR UNIQUENESS, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THE PROPERTY THAT REALLY DOES RENDER HARDSHIP AND, AND THIS ONE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO SQUINT A LOT TO, TO, TO FIND IT AT LEAST ACCORDING TO THE, TO THE STANDARDS THAT WE, WE ADHERE TO.
AND THAT'S THE TRICKY PART THERE AS WELL IS THAT WITH THIS, WE'RE GOING OFF THE CONFERENCE OF ZONING ORDINANCE AND UM, YOU PROBABLY HEAR THE PHRASE LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH.
I MEAN, WE'RE KIND OF A QUASI QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD AND WE WANNA BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT NOT LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH HERE.
SO, YOU KNOW, GRANTING THESE TYPES, TYPES OF VARIANCES WE RUN KIND OF DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO SUBSTITUTING OUR OPINION FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR WHAT WAS, UH, DELIBERATED ON BY THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN THEY CAME UP WITH THESE, UH, WITH THESE ORDINANCES WITHIN THE, WITHIN THIS CONFERENCE OF ZONING ORDINANCE.
SO I'M TIRED OF HEARING MYSELF TALK, BUT I I JUST KIND OF FELT THE NEED TO ADD THAT AS WELL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT THE 20, THEY WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RULE WAS FOR THE 25, UH, FOOT SETBACK.
WAS THERE AN OFFICIAL ANSWER FOR WHAT THE, THE 25 FOOT SETBACK IS FOR? SO KEEP IN MIND THE PREMISE BEHIND BUILDING SETBACKS IS TO PROTECT, BASICALLY ACCESS TO LIFE OR, UM, UH, LIGHT AND AIR, YOU KNOW, SETBACKS ROUTE BACK INTO CASE LAW FROM DECADES AGO.
AND, AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE BUILDING SETBACKS, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF WHY THE DEVELOPER WHO DEVELOPED THIS SUBDIVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AT THAT TIME, UM, ESTABLISHED A 25 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK.
UNFORTUNATELY, I CAN'T CAN'T SPEAK TO THE HISTORY OF THAT, YOU KNOW, IN, IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR THE, THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT APPLIES ESTABLISHED THAT 25 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK.
AND SO THAT'S HOW THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS DEVELOPED.
I KNOW THAT'S DIFFERENT COMPARED TO, UM, SOME ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ARE, UM, BROUGHT FORTH IN OTHER AREAS OF THE COMMUNITY WHERE THEY MIGHT HAVE
[01:15:01]
A REDUCED BUILDING SETBACK, BUT IT'S CONSIDERED AT THE TIME OF ZONING WHY THE NEED WAS FOR A REDUCED SETBACK FOR THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN, THAN WHAT'S HERE.SO, UM, UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, THAT PROBABLY DOESN'T PROVIDE YOU MUCH INSIGHT OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, AT THE TIME THE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WAS ESTABLISHED.
YOU KNOW, KEEP IN MIND OUR ORDINANCE DATES BACK TO 1956 AND SO, UM, AT THAT TIME WHEN THESE ZONING DISTRICTS WERE ESTABLISHED, THAT WAS DEEMED THE APPROPRIATE SETBACK WITHIN THE COMMUNITY FOR REAR YARDS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SO ALSO THE POINT WHERE WE, WE CONSIDER MOTIONS, UH, WE'RE A LITTLE, WE'RE A LITTLE SHY ON THAT RIGHT NOW AND I, I THINK THERE'S A REASON BEHIND THAT.
BUT, AND I GUESS JUST TO KIND OF EXPAND ON, ON WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, MS. FERGUS, UM, IT'S PART OF IT RIGHT THERE IS THAT IF, IF THIS IS A PORTION OF THE CONFERENCES COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCES THAT HAS NOT REALLY BEEN REVISITED IN 75 YEARS, 70 YEARS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, IT MAY NOT BE THE DESIRED RECOURSE, BUT IT MAY BE TALKING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF, UH, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY ON THE CITY COUNCIL JUST TO SAY WE THINK THIS IS OUTDATED.
WE THINK THAT THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERING THE WAY PROPERTY IS USED NOW.
I GUESS I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF, AT LEAST WITH REGARD TO CLARIFICATION, WITH REGARD TO THE ALTERNATIVES THAT THEY PRESENTED, THAT ULTIMATELY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS, SO I, I THINK MR. THA WAS TALKING ABOUT ALTERNATIVE NUMBER THREE THAT WAS ON PAGE SEVEN, AND THAT IS, THAT APPEARS TO ME TO BE THE ONLY ONE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY COMPLY WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH THE SPACING REQUIREMENTS HERE, WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS HERE, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING ELSE IS GONNA CAUSE THE SAME ENCROACHMENT OR NOT, NOT THE SAME ENCROACHMENT, BUT AN ENCROACHMENT ON THAT SETBACK LINE, IT'S GONNA PUT US BACK BEFORE US IS, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
ALL RIGHT MR. THAMES, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
UM, FOR CITY STAFF ON THE UTIL EASEMENT, IT'S MARKED THAT FIVE FOOT UTIL EASEMENT IS MARKED.
IS THERE ANY KIND OF REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE EASEMENT OR DOES THAT, UM, THE TOTALITY OF THE, UH, ACCESS OR THAT EASEMENT? YEAH, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING, UH, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL CLEARANCE REQUIRED ON THE SIDES OF THE EASEMENT.
IT WOULD JUST BE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE EASEMENT ITSELF.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
UM, I DO NOT FIND THAT THE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND GRANTING THE REQUEST WILL BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
I MOVE THEREFORE TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE CASE NUMBER V 25 DASH ZERO NINE.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. THAMES.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? A SECOND.
ALRIGHT, SO MS. SACK SECONDS, UM, ALL IN FAVOR OF DENYING THE REQUEST AND MR. HUFFIES, I BELIEVE YOU'RE VOTING ON THIS ONE AS WELL.
ALL OPPOSED? AND THAT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
WE THANK YOU GUYS FOR COMING IN.
[01:20:01]
A TOUGH CASE.ALRIGHT, THAT APPEARS TO BE THE LAST ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA UNLESS I AM MISREADING IT.
SO I THINK AT THIS POINT WE CAN CLOSE THE, UH, THE HEARING WITHOUT A MOTION.
SO WE THANK EVERYONE OUT FOR COMING OUT TONIGHT.