* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:08] GOOD EVENING [Zoning Board of Adjustment on July 15, 2026.] WITH A QUORUM PRESENT. I WILL NOW CALL THE MEETING THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ORDER AT 6:31 PM FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS TO CALL ANY A PREAMBLE THAT I NEED, OR DO I GET TO THAT IN A SECOND? OH, YES. UH, OKAY. SORRY. UH, THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS TO CALL ANY VISITORS TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD REGARDING AN ITEM LISTED ON THE AGENDA THAT IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AT THIS TIME? DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE CASE. SO THIS BOARD MEETS TO CONSIDER AN ACT UPON REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RICHARDSON AND APPEALS FROM A DETERMINATION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCES. IT DERIVES ITS AUTHORITY FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS. IN THE EVENT YOU WISH TO APPEAL A 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 CIRCUMVENTS 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. THE BOARD ALSO HEARS AND ACTS UPON REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO DEFENSE REGULATIONS. THE CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERATION OF THESE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS IS DIFFERENT THAN THAT OF VARIANCES. 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 FROM THE PROPONENTS AND THE 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 SO 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 A 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 WILL NOT BE PERMITTED AT ANY TIME DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS. WOULD NOW LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY AND THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. WE HAVE TINA GAN, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, DEREK PETERS, SENIOR PLANNER, CHRISTINE ROSS, PLANNER TWO, AND ANNA CASTANEDA, BOARD SECRETARY, WHO WILL BE THE RECORDING RECORDER OF THESE PROCEEDINGS BOARD MEMBERS INCLUDE JASON LEMONS, CHAIR SCOTT RUCKER, VICE CHAIR PHIL THAMES, MEMBER SABRINA BONAC, MEMBER MUSA MA ALTERNATE, AND MOHAMMAD HAFI ALTERNATE BY LAW. AT LEAST FOUR OF THE FIVE VOTING MEMBERS MUST APPROVE A MOTION BEFORE THEIR REQUEST CAN BE GRANTED. LET'S SEE, AT THIS POINT, UM, MR. MA, WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO VOTE ON ITEMS TWO AND FOUR AND THEN MR. HAFE, UM, YOU, YOU MAY VOTE ON ITEM THREE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. SECOND ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF MAY 20TH, 2026. ARE ANY REVISIONS NEEDED OR IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THESE MINUTES? I'LL APPROVE. ALRIGHT, SO WE, I, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. FROM MR. MAD AND A SECOND FROM MR. HAFE. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 20TH MEETING, SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. THE THIRD ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS, UH, THE CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE 26, UH, ZERO THREE. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE, UH, TO APPENDIX A CONFERENCE OF ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RICHARDSON'S CODE OF ORDINANCES, WHICH IS ARTICLE SEVEN, SECTION FOUR D ONE TO ALLOW MAXIMUM 36.8% LOT COVERAGE IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED MAXIMUM 35% LOT COVERAGE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 400 HIGH BROOK BROOK DRIVE AND IS ZONED R 1100 M RESIDENTIAL. UH, DEREK PETERS SENIOR PLANNER IS REPRESENTING CITY STAFF AND SHE WILL MAKE HER PARTICIPATION AT THIS TIME. MS. PETERS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AS THE CHAIRMAN MENTIONED, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 400 HIGH BROOK DRIVE. THIS IS AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF HIGH BROOK DRIVE AND CANYON BROOK DRIVE. THIS IS IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF TOWN SOUTH, JUST SOUTH OF WINTER RENNER ROAD. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R 1100 M RESIDENTIAL. HERE'S SOME BACKGROUND ON THE PROPERTY. THE LOT IS [00:05:01] APPROXIMATELY A QUARTER ACRE. IT IS DEVELOPED WITH A TWO STORY 5,281 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE. TODAY, THE LOT COVERAGE IS AT 31%. THE LOT IS LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 30% WHEN IN AN R 1100 M RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. HOWEVER, IF THAT LOT WAS PLATTED OR ZONED PRIOR TO 30, PRIOR TO MARCH, 1975, THOSE LOTS ARE ALLOWED. 35% MAXIMUM COVERAGE. IN THIS CASE, THE LOT WAS PLATTED AND ZONED IN 1968. SO THIS PROPERTY IN THE R 1100 M RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT IS ALLOWED 35% MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE. AS I MENTIONED TODAY, THE LOT IS COVERED BY 31%. THAT INCLUDES THE HOUSE SHOWN IN BLUE AND THE SHED SHOWN IN PURPLE IN THE REAR LOT. COVERAGE AS DEFINED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE INCLUDES THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AND CARPORTS, UM, AND EXCLUDES BREEZEWAYS AND COVERED PATIOS. THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW 36.8 LOT COVERAGE, WHICH IS A 1.8 PERCENTAGE POINT INCREASE FROM WHAT IS ALLOWED FOR A NEW 660 SQUARE FOOT CARPORT. THAT CARPORT IS PROPOSED TO GO OVER WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS TODAY LOCATED BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE ALLEY, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING JUSTIFICATION. THEY SAID THE PROPOSED CARPORT IS NOT ONLY INTENDED TO SUPPORT PROTECTING VEHICLES, BUT WILL ALSO SUPPORT A NEW SOLAR PANEL ERASE SYSTEM. THEY'VE CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES ON THEIR PROPERTY AND CONSIDERING AN ALTERNATIVE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THEY WERE LOOKING INTO SIDING PANELS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOUSE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE, UH, ROOF LINE THERE. HOWEVER, THERE'S IMMATURE OAK TREE IN THAT AREA THAT CAS A SHADOW IN THAT AREA, AND YOU SEE THAT IMAGE HERE BELOW. THEY ALSO, THE APPLICANT ALSO PROVIDED JUSTIFICATION PRO RELATED TO ZONING. THEY STATE THAT BECAUSE OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS DO ALLOW UP TO 45% MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, AND THEY ARE LIMITED TO 35%, THEY ARE IN A DISADVANTAGE. UH, THIS COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE BETWEEN 30 TO 45%, AND THAT VARIES BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. AND THAT WILL CHANGE AND VARY DEPENDING ON THE LOT SIZES OF THOSE DISTRICTS, THE DEPTH AND THE WIDTH REQUIREMENTS OF THOSE DISTRICTS. THIS IMAGE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE SHOWS YOU WHERE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF ITS ZONING DISTRICT THAT'S IN THE RED LINE. IT'S ALSO SITTING NEXT TO ANOTHER R 1100 M ZONING DISTRICT TO THE EAST. I ALSO HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW THE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT WOULD ALLOW GREATER LOT COVERAGE THAN WHAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO. SO THERE ARE LOTS, UM, IN THESE YELLOW AREAS THAT ARE ALLOWED UP TO 40 TO 45% LOCK COVERAGE. UM, HOWEVER, THE ZONING CODE IS NOT TYPICALLY CONSIDERED A HARDSHIP IN ITSELF IN EXERCISING ITS AUTHORITY UNDER THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. THE BOARD MAY CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING AS GROUNDS TO DETERMINE WHETHER COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE AS APPLIED TO A STRUCTURE, UH, THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL, WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THE STATE GIVES THE BOARD AUTHORITY TO GRANT VARIANCES THAT ARE NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE RE RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND SO THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE. GOING BACK TO THESE FIVE CRITERIA, I'LL GO THROUGH EACH AND, UH, TELL YOU WHAT STAFF FOUND IN OUR ANALYSIS OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY. FIRST, THE FINANCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE WOULD NOT EXCEED 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE HOUSE. SO THE FIRST CRITERIA IS NOT FOUND TO BE MET. SECOND, WOULD COMPLIANCE RESULT IN A LOSS TO THE LOT ON WHICH THE STRUCTURE IS LOCATED OF AT LEAST 25% OF THE AREA ON WHICH DEVELOPMENT MAY PHYSICALLY OCCUR? UM, IN OTHER WORDS, WOULD MEETING THE REQUIREMENT ELIMINATE AT LEAST A QUARTER OF THE LOT'S BUILDABLE AREA, UH, STAFF DID NOT FIND THAT WOULD RESULT IN A LOSS TO DEVELOPABLE AREA OF THE PROPERTY IF THE APPLICANT WILL WOULD COMPLY WITH THE LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, AS IT RELATES TO ANY PHYSICAL HARDSHIPS ON THE PROPERTY, UH, STAFF FOUND THAT THIS CARPORT COULD STILL BE REDUCED IN SIZE BY 203 SQUARE FEET, BE COMPLIANT WITH THE ZONING CODE, AND COULD STILL PROVIDE A 400 SQUARE FOOT CARPORT COVER OVER THE DRIVEWAY FOR TWO VEHICLES. THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF THE TREE THAT WAS MENTIONED IS NOT TYPICALLY A CONSIDERED A PROPERTY HARDSHIP. AND TO ADD ONTO THAT, THE CITY'S TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO DEVELOP SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES. JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, AS IT RELATES TO THESE LAST THREE CRITERIA, STAFF FOUND THAT COMPLIANCE WOULD NOT RESULT IN THE STRUCTURE NOT BEING IN COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OTHER REQUIREMENT, CODE OR ORDINANCE. COMPLIANCE WOULD NOT IMPACT ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR EASEMENTS, [00:10:01] AND THE STRUCTURE IS CONSIDERED TO BE CONFORMING AS IT IS. AND ADDING A CART IN A SOLAR OR A SOLAR PANEL ARRAY IS NOT NECESSARY TO BRING THE HOUSE INTO COMPLIANCE. AND HERE ARE PHOTOS OF THE HOME FIRST SEEN FROM HIGH BROOK DRIVE, THEN SEEN FROM THE ALLEY, AND THEN SEEN, UH, FROM THE EAST FROM CANYON BROOK DRIVE, AND YOU SEE A PHOTO OF THAT LARGE OAK TREE. AND FINALLY, 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 HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE IN RESPONSE TO THAT NOTICE. THANK YOU. THAT CON CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. JUST TO CLARIFY, SO THE, THE, UH, THE SHED ISN'T, IS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE, WITHIN THE PERCENTAGE? I GUESS WE'LL JUST SAY THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. THAT SHED IS ABOUT 96 SQUARE FEET. 96 SQUARE FEET. OKAY. AND AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, IT WOULD COUNT TOWARDS THAT LOCK COVERAGE REQUIREMENT LIMITATION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. PETERS? ALL RIGHT. OH, MR. THAMES. YEAH, I HAD A QUESTION AROUND THE CARPORT, UM, ORDINANCE IN THE CITY OF RICHARDSON. I DIDN'T NOTICE THAT THAT WAS INCLUDED IN OUR PACKET. SO WHAT IS THE ORDINANCE AROUND CARPORTS? IN GENERAL? IT'S SPREAD OUT BETWEEN DIFFERENT ORDINANCES, BUT UM, IN GENERAL, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO INSTALL A CARPORT IF YOU ALREADY HAVE A FULL SIZE GARAGE THAT'S IN CONFORMANCE WITH OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR ENCLOSED PARKING. YOU CAN ADD A CARPORT IN THAT SCENARIO. AS LONG AS THE CARPORT MEETS THE SETBACKS AND LOCK COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO ADD THAT. UM, IN THIS SCENARIO, SINCE THEY BACK UP TO AN ALLEY, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE, UM, ONLY 18 INCHES FOR REAR YARD SETBACK THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO KEEP THAT CARPORT SEPARATED FROM THE ALLEY. SO OTHER THAN THE LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT, UM, THAT THEY'RE EXCEEDING, THE CARPORT WOULD BE ALLOWED. OKAY, BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE THE GARAGE HIGHLIGHTED IN THE PLAT. THE GARAGE IS, UM, WHERE THE CARPORT MEETS THE HOUSE IN THE REAR. OKAY. AND THAT'S NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE REQUEST, BUT THAT IS WHERE THE GARAGE IS LOCATED HERE. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. UM, FOR THE PROPO WHERE, FOR THE CARPORT WHERE YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT, UH, YOU THEY COULD REDUCE THE CARPORT BY TWO TO THREE SQUARE FOOT, WAS THAT PRESENTED TO THE, UH, APPLICANT? YES, IT WAS. UM, AND THEIR RESPONSE IS THAT IN ORDER TO HAVE THE SOLAR PANEL ARRAY SYSTEM, THEY NEED THE COMPLETE COVERAGE THERE. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT. THANK YOU MS. PETERS. WE APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. OKAY. AT THIS TIME I'LL CALL THE APPLICANT AND ANY OTHER PERSONS, UH, WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. UH, THIS WOULD INCLUDE CONTRACTORS, DESIGNERS, PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS FOR VARIANCE 26 0 3 REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 400 BROOK DRIVE. AND I ASK THAT ANY WITNESS WHO WILL BE TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD TO BE SWORN IN. AND BEFORE I SWEAR YOU IN, WOULD YOU MIND STATING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? YES. MY NAME IS LONG VAN AND MY ADDRESS IS AT 400 HIGH BROOK DRIVE IN RICHARDSON, TEXAS 7 5 0 8 0. OKAY. AND MY ASSUMPTION IS IT'S, IT'S A PRETTY EMPTY HALL TONIGHT, BUT, UM, YOU, YOU'LL BE THE ONLY ONE SPEAKING IN, IN FAVOR OF THIS. IS THAT CORRECT? TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE? , MY WIFE IS TAKING CARE OF THE KIDS. I UNDERSTAND. UM, ALRIGHT. DO YOU MAY, WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND PLEASE? OKAY. DO YOU, UH, DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL GIVE BEFORE THIS BOARD TODAY TO BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO. ALRIGHT. YOU MAY PUT YOUR HAND DOWN AND, UH, PRESENT YOUR, UH, PRESENT YOUR CASE PLEASE. ALRIGHT. UH, GOOD EVENING CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS LONG. UH, I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 400 HIGH BROOK DRIVE. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO REQUEST A MINOR 1.8% VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 36.8% INSTEAD OF THE LOT, MAXIMUM OF 35%. UH, THE REQUEST IS TO BUILD A SOLAR CARPORT DIRECTLY OVER OUR EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY. UM, THE REASON FOR THE SOLAR PANELS, AS EXPLAINED EARLIER, IS DUE TO THE LARGE MATURE OAK TREE THAT SHADES THE ONLY VIABLE ROOFTOP THAT WE CAN PUT SOLAR PANELS ON, UH, MAKING IT INEFFECTIVE. [00:15:02] UM, THE MEN, THE STAFF MENTIONS IN THE REPORT THAT, AND I QUOTE, UH, ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW FOR HIGHER MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE REQUIRES A LARGER MINIMUM LOT SIZE, HOUSE SIZE AND SETBACK. SO THESE DISTRICTS TYPICALLY ALLOW GREATER LOT COVERAGE BECAUSE THEY TEND TO HAVE LARGER SETBACKS SEPARATING THE STRUCTURE FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES. UM, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THE COURT JUSTIFICATION OF THAT PHRASE RIGHT THERE IN THE STAFF REPORT. UM, THE ACTUAL DATA ON OUR STREET KIND OF COMPLETELY DISAPPROVES THIS NARRATIVE. SEVERAL HOUSES DOWN ON THE SAME STREET ON BROOK, ON THE 200 BLOCK OF BROOK DRIVE, UH, PROPERTIES ARE ZONE R 1500 M AND BY RIGHT, THOSE NEIGHBORS ARE ALLOWED 40% COVERAGE. ACCORDING TO THE STAFF LOGIC. THOSE LOTS SHOULD BE MUCH LARGER THAN MINE TO JUSTIFY THE LARGER FOOTPRINT, UH, THE 40%. BUT LET'S LOOK AT THE ACTUAL NUMBERS. THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE ON ALL THOSE HOUSES ON THE 200 BLOCK OF HIGH BROOK DRIVE IS 9,694 SQUARE FOOT. THIS IS DATA TAKEN OFF THE CITY. OUR PROPERTY ON 400 HIGH BROOK DRIVE IS 11,325. OUR PROPERTY IS 17% LARGER THAN MAJORITY OF ALL THOSE PROPERTIES ON THE 200 THAT ARE ALLOWED 40% LOT COVERAGE. AND YET WE HAVE 35%, A SMALLER AMOUNT OF LOT COVERAGE. I BELIEVE THIS ARBITRARY LINE ON THE ZONING MAP, UM, A SMALLER LOT DOWN THE STREET CAN LEGALLY BUILD A LARGER FOOTPRINT. WHILE MY LARGER LOT IS PENALIZED TO A RIGID 35%, I'M NOT LOOKING TO BUILD AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE. I'M BUILDING A CARPORT OVER OUR EXISTING DRIVEWAY. UM, IT IS A SOLAR, A PLAN TO BE A SOLAR, UH, STRUCTURE TO ALLOW US TO EXPLORE CLEAN ENERGY AND POSSIBLY PROVIDE EXCESS ENERGY BACK TO THE GRID, UH, IN THOSE DEMANDING TIMES. UM, ONLY BECAUSE WE'RE UNABLE TO PUT SOLAR PANELS ON OUR CURRENT ROOF. THE CITY, THE STAFF SAYS THAT WE CAN CUT DOWN THE TREE TO ALLOW US TO HAVE THE SOLAR PANELS ON OUR ROOF AND TO COMPLY WITH THE, UH, THE LOCK COVERAGE. BUT THAT WOULD BE A COUNTERPRODUCTIVE EXERCISE AND CUTTING DOWN A MATURE HEALTHY TREE JUST TO SERVE ANOTHER GREEN APPROACH. UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT ALREADY PROVED THAT THE DENSITY FUNCTIONED PERFECTLY ON OUR STREET. A MINOR 1.8% VARIANCE ON OUR LARGER LOT WOULD CAUSE ZERO NEGATIVE VISUAL IMPACT. AND IT JUST SIMPLY CURES A TEXT DRIVEN INEQUALITY SO WE CAN PROTECT OUR MATURE TREE AND ACCESS CLEAN. I RESPECTFULLY, UH, REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? I, I GUESS I HAVE ONE QUESTION. SO YOU WERE MENTIONING THE, IT'S THE 200 BLOCK OF BROOK DRIVE 19 HOUSES TO THE EAST. OH, I, I WAS ABOUT TO ASK, WAS THAT TO THE EAST OR THE WEST? IT'S HIGHLIGHTED YELLOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO OPERATE . IT'S IN THE MAP THAT THE STAFF REPORT RIGHT THERE IN YELLOW. MY HOUSE IS THE STAR, AND IF YOU JUST DRAW A LINE STRAIGHT ALL THE WAY TO THE RIGHT, THAT'S ALSO HIGH. MM-HMM . THEY DON'T KNOW. IT'S A DIFFERENT ZONE WHEN YOU DRIVE PAST THAT STREET. OKAY. BUT THE STAFF MENTIONED THAT THOSE LOTS AND THEY SAID THEY QUOTE, BECAUSE THOSE LARGER LOTS ARE AFFORDED LARGER LOT COVERAGE BECAUSE THEY HAVE LARGER SETBACKS AND LARGER THINGS. BUT I DIG INTO THE CITY DATA AND LOOKED UP HOW BIG THESE LOTS ARE AND THEY'RE 17% SMALLER THAN MINE. SO MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT YOU'RE SEEKING THE CARPORT, IT'S KIND OF A CHICKEN OR THE EGG TYPE QUESTION, BUT YOU'RE SEEKING THE CARPORT NOT BECAUSE YOU WANT COVERAGE FOR YOUR CARS BEYOND THE GARAGE. WE PARK OUR CAR, WE, WE PARK OUR CAR AT THE GARAGE. OKAY. SO IT'S FOR THE SOLAR PANELS. IT'S FOR THE SOLAR PANELS. UM, WE EXPERIENCE A LOT OF POWER FLUCTUATIONS WITH THE WEATHER. MM-HMM . AND MY WIFE, WE, WE STORE, WE HAVE TWO NEW, NEW BABIES. SO WE STORE OUR MILK IN A FREEZER. AND DURING ONE OF THE STORMS, THE LATEST STORM, THE POWER WENT OUT AND WE LOST ALL OF IT. SO, OKAY. IT WAS VERY DISHEARTENING. SO WE DECIDED TO EXPLORE SOLAR OPTIONS. UM, AND SO THEY, THEY SAID, OH YEAH, THIS IS A GREAT SPOT ON YOUR ROOF. IT'S NICE AND FLAT. [00:20:01] 'CAUSE OUR ROOF, IF I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S A PICTURE SHOWING OUR ROOF, IT HAPPENS TO HAVE A LOT OF TRIANGLES AND SOLAR PANELS ARE SQUARE. UM, I'M NOT SURE IF IT SHOWS OFF ROOF TOP. YES. SEE ALL THE TRIANGLES. UH, SO THE ONLY PART THAT WE CAN'T PUT SOLAR PANELS IS BY WHERE THE TREES IS. AND IT WOULD REQUIRE CUTTING DOWN A TREE. AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S THE ONLY TREE WE HAVE LEFT. WE HAD ONE REALLY BIG OAK TREE IN FRONT. IT'S UNFORTUNATELY DIED BY DISEASE AND HAD TO BE CUT DOWN. UM, SO THIS IS REALLY OUR ONLY BIG TREE LEFT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S AGED WELL WITH LARGE BIG TREES. AND IT'S JUST SOMETHING I DON'T WANT TO CUT DOWN JUST FOR THE SAKE OF BEING ABLE TO COMPLY. AND THIS, THIS PICTURE IS ACTUALLY VERY HELPFUL. UM, BECAUSE, UM, I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION IS, AND I I THINK YOU CAN JUST CLARIFY ON THIS A LITTLE BIT. THE, THE SIZE OF THE SOLAR ARRAY MM-HMM . THAT YOU'RE GONNA NEED IS SUCH THAT IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERHANG TO THE, TO THE EAST ON THE CARPORT. IS THAT RIGHT OR NO? IT WILL FIT WITH EXACTLY WITHIN, IT'S WITHIN THE DIMENSIONS. IT'S, YEAH. WELL, I, I, I DIDN'T WANT TO BUY A BIGGER SOLAR PANEL. I COULD, I GUESS, BUT IT'S DESIGNED TO FIT WITHIN THE, THE, THE DRIVEWAY. I HAVE A THREE CAR, DR, UH, DRIVEWAY OVER THERE. CONCRETE DRIVEWAY. MM-HMM . SO THE EXACT DIMENSION IS 30 FEET BY 22 FEET. OKAY. IT COMPLIES WITH ALL SETBACK RULES, UH, DOES AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS EVERYTHING. AND THE ONLY, ONLY THING THAT IT DOESN'T IS THE 1.8% LOT COVERAGE. OKAY. AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE DONE THIS, THE MATH, THIS MAY BE A BETTER QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF, BUT, UM, ONE, I WOULD GUESS THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE SHED IS PROBABLY NON-NEGOTIABLE. YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, YOU USE IT FOR LAWN EQUIPMENT OR WHATEVER. WE, WE USE IT FOR LAWN EQUIPMENT. YEAH. UM, UM, I, I GUESS MY QUESTION FOR THE STAFF WOULD BE, UM, WE'RE AT ONE PERC 1.8% OVER OVER THE ALLOWABLE COVERAGE. WOULD REMOVAL OF THE SHED, WOULD THAT, WOULD THAT BRING IT THEN COM INTO COMPLIANCE OR NOT QUITE? NOT QUITE. THEY STILL NEED ANOTHER A HUNDRED OR SO. OKAY. OKAY. AND EVEN AT 36.8, IT'S STILL LESS THAN HALF OF WHAT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES HAVE AT 40%. WE'RE NOT EVEN APPROACHING WHAT THEIR LIMIT IS. MM-HMM . ALRIGHT. THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. RUCKER? ON THE SOLAR PANEL ISSUE, I SEE THAT YOUR BACKYARD OR DRIVEWAY FACES NORTH. YES, IT DOES. SO THE TREE IS EAST FACE, UH, IS ON THE EAST SIDE WHERE THE SUN RISES UP AND WOULD COVER UP THE ENTIRE, FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE DAY, IN FACT. AND OUR, AND THEN WHEN THE SUN GETS TO THE OTHER SIDE, THE HOUSE COVERS UP THAT SIDE OF THE ROOF. I, I GUESS, I MEAN, IN EVERY PICTURE I'VE SEEN YOUR BACKYARD, IT'S SHADED. OH, I, I HAVE CAMERAS TO, TO SHOW THAT THE SUN IS VERY THERE. IT'S, IT ONLY NEEDS FIVE DAY HOURS A DAY OF SUN OR TO MAKE SOLAR EVEN VIABLE. AND THERE'S NO POSSIBILITY ON THE WEST SIDE, THE WEST SIDE. SO TO THE RIGHT, TO THE RIGHT SIDE. MM-HMM . ON THAT SIDE, MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE MM-HMM . UM, IT'S JUST A LITTLE SIDE YARD AND YOU CAN'T PUT SOLAR PANELS ON THAT ROOF. OH NO. UM, THE REASON WHY I CAN'T PUT SOLAR PANELS ON ANY PART OF THE ROOF IS ALL THE ROOF IS, THERE'S SO MANY TRIANGLES ON THERE. UM, IF ANY OF THE PART OF THE SOLAR PANELS WERE TO JUT OUT, THEN THE WIND WOULD KIND OF PROBABLY LIFT IT UP. SO I, I COULD PROBABLY FIT ONE SOLAR PANEL ON EACH OF THE TRIANGLES, WHICH IS LIKE THREE SILVER PANELS. SO I CHOSE THE CARPORT BECAUSE THE ONLY OTHER SUNNY SPOT IS OUR FRONT YARD. YEAH. I MEAN, JUST AGAIN, FACING NORTH YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET A LOT OF SUN. BUT I MEAN, I HAVE CAMERAS THAT I HAVE RECORDINGS OF OUR, OUR THE SUN ON. IT'S PLENTY OF SUN. IT'S, IT'S ON THE ROUNDING ON THE ROOF OF THE, OF THE, THE CARPORT. SO JUST, I'M SURE YOU'VE LOOKED INTO THIS, IF YOU LOOKED INTO A GENERATOR, THERE'S NO RULES AGAINST A GENERATOR. BUT I, I MEAN IF THE, IF THE GOAL IS TO GET BACKUP ENERGY, YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOLAR PANELS OR A GENERATOR? WELL, I MEAN, CLEAN ENERGY. OKAY. I MEAN, AGAIN, WE'RE GETTING KIND OF OUTSIDE OF OUR YEAH. SCOPE. AND AS FAR AS MY HOUSE IS ZONED AT 1100, THIS ONE'S ZONED AT 1500. THIS ONE'S ZONED AT, I MEAN, THAT'S ALSO OUTSIDE OUR PURVIEW. I MEAN, THAT'S A QUESTION FOR, YOU KNOW, CITY COUNCIL TO REROUTE IZE EACH DISTRICT, UM, [00:25:02] TO SAY IT'S A HARDSHIP. IT'S A BIT OF A STRETCH SINCE IT WAS THERE PRIOR TO YOU, YOU KNOW, TAKING TITLE TO THE HOUSE. IT WAS THERE. UM, I, I SEE YOUR POINT. IT'S MM-HMM . MAKE GOOD ARGUMENTS. IT JUST FITTING WITHIN OUR CRITERIA, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. IT'S HARD TO LOOK OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE TASKED TO LOOK AT. BUT I, I APPRECIATE YOUR POINTS THOUGH, TR MM-HMM . I DO. NO, DID. AND I JUST ELABORATING ON WHAT, WHAT MR. BROOKER'S SAYING IS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, HAVING, HAVING SUSTAINABLE GREEN ENG ENERGY AND BEING ABLE TO ACTUALLY SUPPLY THE GRID, NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST FOR YOURSELF, BUT ALSO TO, TO HELP ALLEVIATE STRAIN ON THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. THAT'S, UH, THAT'S A GREAT GOAL. UM, BUT KINDA LIKE RICKER, MR. BROOKER WAS SAYING, UM, WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT SUBSTITUTING OUR JUDGMENT IN, IN A LOT OF THESE CASES. AND CERTAINLY, LIKE, I DON'T KNOW ALL OF THE REASONING AS TO WHY SOME OF IT IS ZONED R 1500 AND SOME OF IT IS ZONED R 1100. I CAN CERTAINLY SPECULATE ON THINGS. IT SEEMS LIKE YOU HAVE KIND OF, YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD FITS MORE OF JUST KIND OF A, A GRID OF, OF SQUARES, WHEREAS, YOU KNOW, YOU SEE MORE CORNER LOTS AND OBVIOUSLY, WELL APPARENTLY NOT BASED ON SOME OF THE RESEARCH THAT YOU'VE DONE, BUT SOME OF THE LOT SIZES ARE SUCH THAT THAT CALLS FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR A DIFFERENT, UM, DIFFERENT STANDARD. BUT THE REASON I BRING THAT UP IS THAT, UM, AS, AS, UH, MR. BROOKER SAID, IT'S NOT REALLY WITHIN OUR PURVIEW OR WITHIN OUR CHARGE TO, UM, YOU KNOW, SUBSTITUTE OUR JUDGMENT. WE HAVE TO BE REALLY CAREFUL ABOUT DOING IT ON A CASE, CASE BY CASE BASIS. OF COURSE. SO I UNDERSTAND. YEAH. UM, I ALSO LOOKED INTO PREVIOUS LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE THAT YOU GUYS HAVE DONE IN THE PAST AS WELL. AND I DON'T BELIEVE MINE FALL OUT OF WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED IN THE PAST. UM, AND IS IS ON THE LOW END OF WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE HAVE REQUESTED. YEP. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, MR. MATA? YEAH. THE, UH, THE SMALLER CARPORT THAT THE CITY HAD PROPOSED TO YOU, DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PANELS SHORT YOU WOULD BE IF YOU, IF YOU HAD EXACTLY. IT WOULD BE EXACTLY ONE CAR SPOT SMALLER. RIGHT. THIS, YOU HAVE A THREE CAR GARAGE SPOT, RIGHT? SO, OH, IT'S A TWO CAR GARAGE, BUT THE DRIVEWAY IS THREE CAR. RIGHT. SO THAT WOULD INVOLVE, UM, A PUTTING THE POST RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR DRIVEWAY MM-HMM . FOR A TWO CAR, OR B CANTILEVERING THE WHOLE PORT, WHICH IS A VERY BIG STRUCTURAL NIGHTMARE. IF I'M TRYING TO PUT 2000 POUNDS WORTH OF SOLAR PANELS ON, I WOULDN'T BE VERY, VERY SAFE PUTTING ON JUST TWO POSTS AND JUST LEAVING IT KIND OF OPEN ON THE DRIVEWAY. OKAY. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT, I'M TRYING TO PUT IT ON FOUR POSTS, UH, SURROUNDING THE THREE CAR DRIVEWAY. OKAY. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE, THE PROPOSED ONE JUST WOULDN'T WORK WITH, UH, 'CAUSE YOU'RE NOT REALLY USING IT FOR A CARPORT, YOU'RE USING IT JUST THE SOLAR PANELS SOLAR PANEL. I MEAN, IT'S A DUAL PURPOSE. RIGHT. THE FACT THAT I CAN DRIVE UNDER IT IS A, IS ALSO A BENEFIT. IT'S A BENEFIT, BUT IT'S NOT THE MAIN PURPOSE. THE DRIVING PURPOSE IS THE SOLAR PANELS WHEN YOU'RE SAYING IF IT WAS, BUT IT, IT IS SMALLER PURPOSE. IT'S A SOLAR CARPORT. SO, UM, I CAN PARK UNDER IF NEEDED. OKAY. IS A SOLAR PANEL A COMPANY THAT DOES THE STRUCTURE? NO, I'LL BE DOING THE INSTALL. UM, YEAH, I'M, I HAVE AN ARCHITECT, STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, UM, DESIGNING THE CARPORT AND I INTEND TO INSTALL THE SOLAR PANELS MYSELF. SO WITH THE, FROM MY CURSORY MATH, IF YOU TOOK SUBTRACTED 203 SQUARE FEET AND YOU'RE LEFT AT 460, YOU'RE SAYING YOU CAN'T GET ENOUGH SOLAR PANELS ON THERE? IT WILL BE FOR THE AMOUNT OF MONEY PUT INTO TO SUPPORT THIS, THERE'LL BE EVEN ONE A THIRD OF LESS SOLAR PANELS. SO THE STRUCTURE I HAVE PROPOSED IS FOR 30 SOLAR PANELS, THREE ROWS OF 10 SOLAR PANELS. OKAY. I MEAN, AGAIN, WE'RE GETTING INTO SOLUTIONING, BUT IS THIS THE ONLY MANUFACTURER, MA, MANUFACTURER OF SOLAR PANELS? I MEAN, AREN'T THERE IT MULTIPLE MANUFACTURERS? UM, I DON'T THINK THE MANUFACTURER SOLAR PANELS REALLY MATTERS. IT COULD BE ANY MANUFACTURER. SO SOLAR PANELS, IT'S THE STRUCTURE THAT IT SITS ON. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S STRONG ENOUGH. YOU, YOU, YOU RIGHT. I DIDN'T SAY THAT YOU DID, YOU TIED YOUR EQUATION TO A SPECIFIC SIZE OF A SOLAR PANEL AND AN ARRAY OF SOLAR PANELS THAT YOU WANT TO INSTALL THAT IS MADE BY A MANUFACTURER. IS THERE [00:30:01] NOT ANOTHER MANUFACTURER THAT HAS A DIFFERENT ARRAY OR A DIFFERENT SIZE OF SOLAR PANELS THAT WOULD FIT IN A SMALLER SIZED CARPORT? THE SOLAR PANELS CAN FIT BECAUSE YOU IN INSTALL THEM INDIVIDUALLY. SO IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE A SMALLER FOOTPRINT, YOU INSTALL WHATEVER OVER THAT FOOTPRINT. IT'S NOT A ONE, IT'S NOT A ONE SIZE THING. SO YOU JUST INSTALLED IN A BUNCH OF SMALL GRIDS OF SQUARES AND JUST PUT THE SOLAR PANEL ON TOP OF IT SO IT CAN ADAPT TO WHATEVER. BUT I'M, I'M NOT SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION. UM, PHIL, IT'S, IT, THE SOLAR PANEL MANUFACTURE DOESN'T MATTER. IT'S LIKE EVERY INDIVIDUAL PANEL CREATES A DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF ENERGY. AND SO THE, THE BIGGER THE, THE FOOTPRINT, THE LARGER THE, THE AMOUNT OF, UH, ENERGY OUTPUT THAT HE'S ALLOWED TO, OR HE'LL BE ABLE TO, UM, CREATE. AND SO THE MANUFACTURER DOESN'T MATTER 'CAUSE THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH ALL THE SAME. IT'S JUST THE MORE FOOT, THE LARGER FOOTPRINT HE HAS, THE MORE HE CAN CREATE. SO WHAT HE'S SAYING, THAT'S WHY MY QUESTION WAS BASED ON WHAT THOUGH? BASED ON, BASED ON THE SOLAR PANEL MANUFACTURER THAT HE'S CHOSEN? NO, NO, NO. THE SOLAR PANEL MANUFACTURE, IT DOESN'T, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. IT'S LIKE, SO EVERY SOLAR PANEL IS THE EXACT SAME SIZE AND THEY HAVE THE EXACT SAME ENERGY INPUT AND OUTPUT FROM LIKE MODERN TECHNOLOGY? YES. OKAY. WE'RE WAY OUTSIDE OUR TECHNICAL DEPTH THERE. I I DISAGREE WITH THAT. THAT'S FINE. I THINK THERE ARE MULTIPLE MANUFACTURERS AND I THINK THERE ARE MULTIPLE SIZES AND I THINK THERE ARE MULTIPLE, THERE ARE MULTIPLE SIZES. YEAH. THEY, THEY DO RANGE. THEY'RE ALL HOWEVER RECTANGULAR SIZE AND THEY CAN BE ADJUSTED AND ARRANGE HOWEVER YOU WANT TO FIT WHATEVER SIZE YOUR SUPPORTING STRUCTURE IS ON. SO IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, TIE THAT ANSWER TO WHAT HE JUST ASKED YOU AND YOU CAN'T REDUCE IT BY 200 SQUARE FEET AND FIND A MANUFACTURER THAT FITS YOUR REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT THE POWER USAGE THAT YOU WANT THAT ALSO FIT WITHIN CODE. IT, IT'LL FIT A DIFFERENT FOOTPRINT, BUT IT'LL BE THE, IT'LL BE LIKE THE, THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT IT CAN CREATE AS BY SQUARE FOOT. SO YEAH, YOU CAN, YOU CAN PUT A CIRCLE OR SQUARE IF THE SAME SQUARE FOOT IS STILL CREATING THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY. SO IT'S LIKE, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN IT, UH, IN A DIFFERENT WAY. IT'S LIKE, UM, YOU CAN CUSTOMIZE IT TO FIT ANY SHAPE, BUT YOU STILL ONLY GET THE SAME AMOUNT OF POWER BY SQUARE FOOT. UM, SO IT COULD LOOK LIKE AN OCTAGON. IF IT'S THE SAME SQUARE FOOT FOOTPRINT AS A SQUARE, IT'S STILL GONNA PRODUCE THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY. SO WHAT TO HIS POINT IS HE'S SAYING IS IF HE REDUCES IT BY A THIRD, HE LOSES A THIRD OF HIS ENERGY. THAT'S WHY HE'S NOT WILLING TO DO THAT REGARDLESS OF MANUFACTURER. YOU ASKED IF I CAN REDUCE THE CARPORT SIZE. YEAH. UM, I HAVE IT ORIGINALLY PLANNED TO HAVE IT OVER FOUR POSTS SO THAT WHEN YOU DRIVE THROUGH, YOU'RE NOT HITTING A POST IN THE MIDDLE. UM, IF WE REDUCE THE SIZE, THE POST WILL BE IN THE MIDDLE. OR THE OTHER OPTION IS JUST HAVE TWO POSTS AND HAVE THE WHOLE STRUCTURE CANTILEVER. UH, I HAVEN'T LOOKED INTO THE FEASIBILITY OF THAT OR IF THAT, OR IF THAT'S EVEN SAFE. UM, I'M SURE IT'S PROBABLY POSSIBLE WITH ENOUGH MONEY TO BUILD A STRUCTURE THAT CANTILEVER IS ON TWO POSTS THAT CAN GO OVER THE TWO CAR WAY, BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW WITH 2000 POUNDS OF, WELL PROBABLY A THIRD LESS IF IT'S TWO CAR, 1600 OR 1400, UH, POUNDS OF SOLAR PANELS WOULD DUE TO THAT WEIGHT OF THAT, OF WHETHER IT WOULD BE SAFE OR NOT. I'M JUST TRYING TO DO IT OVER THE EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY. LET'S, LET'S GO BACK TO THE ELEVATIONS, UH, FOR A SECOND. AT LEAST WITH REGARD TO THE ROOF. UM, I, I I THINK THAT'S FINE ACTUALLY. THAT, THAT PICTURE BACK THERE WAS, WELL ACTUALLY EITHER ONE OF THOSE WOULD WORK, BUT, SO JUST TO KIND OF REITERATE, UM, THE EAST FACING ELEVATION IS NOT IDEAL BECAUSE OF THE MATURE TREE. MM-HMM . UM, THE WEST FACING ELEVATION IS JUST RIGHT THERE ON THE TOP RIGHT. IT'S JUST A TRIANGLE. I CAN FIT MAYBE ONE, I CAN PROBABLY SQUEEZE IF I TRY TO SQUEEZE ANY MORE INTO THOSE TOP OF THE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ROOF, RIGHT? YEAH. YES, YES. UM, IT WOULD JUT OUT OF THE ANGLES OF THE ROOF AND I DON'T THINK THEY WANT TO DO THAT SAFETY WISE 'CAUSE IT CAN CATCH THE WIND MM-HMM . AND FLY OFF THE ROOF. SO A LOT OF SOLAR STRUCTURES, THEY TRY TO KEEP IT WITHIN THE TRIANGLES, THE RECTANGLE SOLAR PANELS WITHIN THE TRIANGLE SO THAT THE WIND DOESN'T CATCH IT AND LIFT IT OFF. SO IT WOULDN'T BE FEASIBLE AT ALL ON THE WEST FACING ELEVATION THAT IS FURTHER NORTH THAT THAT GOES OVER YOUR GARAGE. IS THAT CORRECT? JUST BECAUSE THAT'S, IT'S JUST AS PURE TRIANGLE THERE, RIGHT? YEAH. IT'S NOT WORTH THE EFFORT. OKAY. POWER COUPLE LIGHTS I GUESS. AND THEN WHEN WE THEN WHEN WE GO TO, TO THE SOUTH ELEVATION, THERE'S PROBABLY QUITE A BIT OF [00:35:01] COVERAGE THERE. AND ACTUALLY ONE OF THE OTHER, YOU CAN LOOK AT THE SOUTH ELEVATION, IT'S JUST, IT'S THE FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE. AND, AND HONESTLY, I MEAN YOU'VE GOT THE, UM, IT'S A VERY FLAT, I CAN FIT ONE IN EACH. I'M NOT SURE THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOLAR PANELS ALL OVER THE FRONT OF MY PROPERTY. WELL, I I CAN, I CAN UNDERSTAND. YEAH, NO, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. AND MY WIFE PROBABLY DOES NOT LIKE THAT EITHER. SO, AND I GUESS THE REASON I BRING THAT UP IS THAT PART OF THE PROBLEM WE HAVE HERE IS WE HAVE THIS LOT COVERAGE PROBLEM, BUT WE DO HAVE OPTIONS. THEY'RE NOT GREAT OPTIONS, BUT THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS. AND THAT I, IN MY OPINION, I THINK THAT HAMSTRINGS US A LITTLE BIT INTO WHAT WE CAN DO. AND, AND KINDA LIKE THE DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD HERE, OUR JOB HERE IS NOT TO INSERT OUR JUDGMENT WITH REGARD TO WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. WE'RE, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE, WE'RE JUST A QUASI QUASI JUDICIAL REGULATORY BOARD. I UNDERSTAND. YOU KNOW, CONSIDERING THAT, AND, AND, AND HONESTLY YOU DON'T WANT US MAKING THOSE DECISIONS FOR YOU. IT'S NOT FAIR. ALSO, THERE'S ONLY ONE OPTION WHERE I CAN PUT A CARPORT. IT HAS TO BE ADJACENT TO A GARAGE. MM-HMM . YES. NO, THAT'S TRUE. THAT'S TRUE. THAT'S, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO COMBINE TWO SOLUTIONS INTO ONE. WELL, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, I, I CAN UNDERSTAND THE DESIRABILITY OF THIS, BUT IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S MAKING THE MATH MATH IN THIS CASE AND, AND, AND IT'S A TOUGH ONE. AND YOU KNOW, KIND OF LIKE I WAS SAYING BEFORE AS A QUASI, IT'S HARD TO SAY QUASI-JUDICIAL, BUT AS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD, WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT SUBSTITUTING, UM, OUR JUDGMENT AND OUR OPINIONS FOR, YOU KNOW, ON, ON THE THINGS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE CONFERENCE OF ZONING ORDINANCE. BECAUSE WE REALLY DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES. THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY THAT HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT IS THE CITY COUNCIL AND MM-HMM . I'M NOT NECESSARILY PROPOSING ANYTHING, BUT IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE IF THERE WERE, WERE MORE ALLOWANCES AVAILABLE IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, YOU KNOW, FOR GREEN ENERGY SOLUTIONS. BUT, YOU KNOW, AND I, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE REASON WHY I'M HERE. YEAH. 'CAUSE THERE'S SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND TO MEET WITH, I IMAGINE MY NEIGHBORS. YEAH. BUT UNFORTUNATELY IN THE CRITERIA THAT WE CONSIDER IN THE, IN THESE KIND OF THINGS THAT THAT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT DOESN'T GET US THERE. SO I'M TALKING TOO MUCH. ARE, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, UM, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? NO, I JUST THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. WE APPRECIATE IT. NO, THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UM, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, IF YOU, IF YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE A SEAT, THAT'D BE GREAT. WE'RE GONNA DELIBERATE ON THIS AT THIS POINT. UM, UH, WE MAY HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, WE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AS WELL. SO, UH, WE APPRECIATE YOU, UM, SHARING THIS WITH US AND, AND, UM, WE'LL KEEP YOU POSTED AT LEAST FOR NOW. THANK YOU. THANKS. UH, WELL, I TOOK THE OATH, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I FORMALLY OPENED, OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT'S IN THE, IN THE SCRIPT HERE. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST AS BEING THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AFTER THE FACT? UM, IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST? THAT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE CASE. SO AT THIS TIME, I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, I'M GONNA OPEN THE FLOOR TO OUR BOARD MEMBERS. UH, THEY MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF. THIS IS ALSO A POINT WHERE WE CONSIDER MOTIONS. I GUESS MY QUESTION, A QUESTION I HAVE FOR CITY STAFF IS JUST, UM, AS I WAS CONSIDERING THE DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENT LOT ALLOWANCES BASED ON THE, THE DIFFERENT CRITERIA. CAN YOU AT LEAST BRIEFLY KIND OF GO INTO THE, UH, INTO THE RATIONALE AS TO WHY A, A CERTAIN AREA WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, UH, ZONED R 1500 AS OPPOSED TO R 1100? I, I'M NOT ASKING FOR SPECIFICS, BUT JUST KIND OF WHAT GOES INTO THE THINKING BEHIND THAT. SO THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION. UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ZONING COULD HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED IN, IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS. ONE, IT COULD HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED WITH OBVIOUSLY THE ORIGINAL ADOPTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. AND SO, UM, THE DECISIONS IN THAT WENT INTO PLAY PROBABLY FIRST AND FOREMOST EVALUATED WHETHER OR NOT, UM, CONSISTENCY WITH THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN, RIGHT? BECAUSE STATE LAW SAYS IF YOU'RE GOING TO, UM, ZONE PROPERTY, THEN IT SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOUR CONFERENCE PLAN SAYS. SO, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES THE CONS CONFERENCE OF PLAN WILL RECOGNIZE WHETHER OR NOT, UM, INTERESTED IN, UM, HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL VERSUS LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. SO THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A FACTOR, UM, AS, AS THE ZONING WAS APPLIED. UM, THE ZONING COULD HAVE ALSO BEEN, UM, A REQUEST OF THE DEVELOPER AT THAT TIME, UM, SEEKING TO HAVE THE ZONING PUT IN PLACE BECAUSE THEY WERE PROPOSING [00:40:01] TO DEVELOP THE SUBDIVISION IN A CERTAIN MANNER AND WAS PURSUING A CERTAIN MINIMUM LOT SIZES TO BE PROVIDED FOR THE AREA. SO, UM, I'M NOT SURE IF, IF THAT FULLY ADDRESSES YOUR QUESTION, BUT THOSE ARE SOME OF THE, TYPICALLY THE, THE FACTORS THAT THAT COME INTO PLAY. UM, I GUESS TECHNICALLY, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER OPTION COULD HAVE BEEN A CITY INITIATED ZONING OPTION AT THAT TIME, BUT I, I DON'T, IT PROBABLY WASN'T NECESSARILY THE CASE, UM, ESPECIALLY IF THE ZONING WAS ESTABLISHED MAYBE WITH THE ORIGINAL ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT, SORRY, I'M GETTING A LITTLE LONG-WINDED. BUT USUALLY IT COMES ABOUT IN ONE OF TWO WAYS. ONE IS THE INITIAL ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING, UM, WHEN THE CITY ESTABLISHED ITS ZONING ORDINANCE. UM, AND THEN THE OTHER IS TYPICALLY COMES INTO PLAY WITH THE, UM, THE DEVELOPER REQUESTING A PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT BECAUSE OF THE LOT SIZES THAT THEY WERE WANTING TO DEVELOP. I GUESS THE THIRD THING I'LL ADD IS, YOU KNOW, MANY TIMES WHEN CITIES HAVE AREAS THAT, UM, WE'RE DEVELOPING IN THEIR COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, WE ENCOURAGE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZES. SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS THAT WE DO. UM, IN OUR CASE, OUR ZONING ORDINANCES, OR EXCUSE ME, OUR ZONING DISTRICTS HAVE MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZES. SO HENCE THE 1100, THE 1500, THE 12, THE 1250, AND DEREK, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ON THAT. AND SO THAT, THAT IS HOW, YOU KNOW, RICHARDSON'S ORDINANCE WAS ESTABLISHED, THAT THAT TIME AND END ZONING WAS APPLIED. SO AGAIN, PROVIDING FOR A VARIETY OF LOT SIZES, BUT ALSO MORE SPECIFICALLY A VARIETY OF HOUSE SIZES. GREAT EXPLANATION. THANK YOU MS. ACK. UH, I WAS JUST GOING TO, UM, JUST MAYBE REITERATE THAT I ALWAYS APPRECIATE THE NOTION THAT YOU SHARE THAT CITIZENS CAN ALWAYS GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL IF THEY WANNA TALK ABOUT QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT ORDINANCES AND, UM, ZONING CODES. MM-HMM . THANKS. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? WELL, THIS IS A TOUGH ONE. THIS IS . THIS IS ONE WHERE, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO BE VERY CAREFUL IN, IN, UM, SHOWING PROPER DEFERENCE FOR THE CONFERENCE OF ZONING ORDINANCES AND THE THINGS THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THE BOOKS. UM, BUT SOMETIMES THERE, THERE'S CONSTRICTIONS AS TO AS TO WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO. MS. ACK, UM, AND MR. CHAIRMAN, I DO NOT FIND THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND GRANTING THE REQUEST WILL BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. I THEREFORE MOVE TO DENY THE REQUEST IN VARIANCE CASE V 26 0 3. ALRIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY THE, THE VARIANCE REQUEST. SECOND, WE HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SIR. ALRIGHT. AT THIS TIME WE HAVE, UM, OUR, LET'S SEE, OUR FOURTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO APPENDIX A CONFERENCE, COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, UH, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE TO THE CITY OF RICHARDSON'S CODE OF ORDINANCES. THIS IS ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION FOUR E, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR A 30 FOOT FRONT BUILDING LINE IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 35 FOOT FRONT BUILDING LINE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 20 SHADY CO COVE DRIVE AND IS ZONED R 1500 M RESIDENTIAL. AND CHRISTINE ROSS PLANNER TWO REPRESENTING THE CITY STAFF WILL NOW MAKE A PRESENT PRESENTATION REGARDING THE REQUEST. MS. ROSS? YES, GOOD EVENING. MY NAME'S CHRISTINE ROSS. I'M A PLANNER TWO HERE IN THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. THIS IS VARIANCE 2 6 0 2 OR REQUEST TO ALLOW A 30 FOOT FRONT BUILDING LINE IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 35 FOOT FRONT BUILDING LINE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 20 SHADY COVE DRIVE AND IS ZONED R 1500 M RESIDENTIAL. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE, UM, NORTH SIDE OF SHADY COVE DRIVE AND, UM, IS IN THE CANYON CREEK COUNTRY CLUB NUMBER FOUR SUBDIVISION. IT WAS DEVELOPED IN 1972 WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ON ALL SIDES. HERE'S A SITE PHOTO OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. THIS IS THE SOUTHERN ELEVATION. UM, SO THE GARAGE IS KIND OF HIDDEN. UM, IT'S A SWING GARAGE, SO IT IS, OH, I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE A LASER POINTER ON HERE, MAYBE NOT. BUT, UM, ESSENTIALLY IT'S ON THE, UM, LEFT SIDE [00:45:01] OF THE IMAGE WHERE THOSE TWO BOXES ARE. AND THEN HERE'S A CLOSER UP IMAGE OF THE, UM, DRIVEWAY AND THE GARAGE. SO, UM, IT JUST PROVIDES MORE DETAIL INTO THAT, UM, JSW SHAPE AND, UM, SHOWS THE PERIMETER FENCE AS WELL AS THE GRADING DIFFERENCES AS YOU GO DOWN INTO THE DRIVEWAY. THIS IS THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT OF THE STRUCTURE AND THE, UM, CONFIGURATION OF THE DRIVEWAY. SO THE HOUSE IS IN PURPLE AND THE DRIVEWAY IS IN ORANGE. UM, SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS PLATTED IN 1963 WITH A UNIFORMED 35 FOOT PLATTED FRONT BUILDING LINE, WHICH IS THAT, UM, THE RED LINE, THE RED DASH LINE SHOWN THERE. UM, OR ACTUALLY NO, SORRY, IT'S THE BLUE LINE. UM, SO THERE IS ALSO A, UM, A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT FLOODWAY EASEMENT AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. OKAY, THANKS. UM, SO AS YOU CAN SEE, IT ENCUMBERS THE ENTIRE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. THERE'S ALSO A 15 FOOT AERIAL EASEMENT, UM, THAT IS ALSO FULLY WITHIN THAT FLOODPLAIN EASEMENT. UM, SO THIS EXISTING STRUCTURE IS APPROXIMATELY 3,885 SQUARE FEET, UM, AGAIN, WITH THAT JSW GARAGE. AND HERE IS THE PROPOSED FOOTPRINT AND DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION. SO THE, UM, ADDITION OF THE HOUSE IS SHOWN IN YELLOW. UM, SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CONSTRUCT A FRONT FACING GARAGE THAT WOULD, WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET WIDE. UM, THAT ALLOWS ENOUGH ROOM FOR TWO LARGE VEHICLES AND, UM, ADDITIONAL HOUSEHOLD HOLD STORAGE. UM, THE ADDITION WILL EXTEND THE STRUCTURE 17 FEET TO THE WEST AND FIVE FEET TO THE SOUTH, WHICH EX EXTENDS FIVE FEET OVER THAT. UM, PLATTED 35 FRONT BUILDING LINE, A PORTION OF THE EXISTING GARAGE WILL BE CONVERTED INTO PART OF THE NEW GARAGE WHILE THE REST WILL BE CONVERTED INTO A MUD ROOM, A LAUNDRY ROOM, AND A HALF BATHROOM. AND ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SECOND STORY, UM, ABOVE THE GARAGE. AND THE HOUSE IS CURRENTLY TWO STORIES, SO THAT WOULDN'T CHANGE ANY HEIGHT, UM, ELEMENTS. THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THE PRESENCE OF THE EASEMENT AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY ELIMINATES THE ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT ANYTHING IN THE BACKYARD AND REDUCES THE BUILDABLE AREA OF THE LOT. THE FRONT YARD IS SHALLOWER DUE TO THE POSITION OF THE POSITION OF THE HOUSE ON THE CURVATURE OF THE STREET. UM, THE J SWING GARAGE MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO MANEUVER IN AND OUT OF, ESPECIALLY DUE TO THAT PERIMETER SPACE. THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THERE'S, THAT, THAT BACKING UP SPACE IS NOT FULLY FUNCTIONAL DUE TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE FENCE AND DUE TO THE SLOPE OF THE DRIVEWAY WATER POOLS, WHICH COULD, WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE FOUNDATION. AND LASTLY, THE, THE GARAGE WAS BUILT IN 1967 WHEN VEHICLES WERE SMALLER AND IT CAN'T FIT MODERN SIZED VEHICLES. SO STAFF CONDUCTED AN ANALYSIS OF THE NET BUILDABLE AREA ON, ON THE SIX LOTS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SHADY COVE DRIVE, NOT IN THE CUL-DE-SAC. SO STAFF TOOK THE LOT THE SIZE OF THE LOT, SUBTRACTED THE SIDE SETBACK AREAS, THE 35 FOOT PLATTED FRONT BUILDING LINE AREA, AND THE FLOODWAY EASEMENT IN THE REAR AND CAME UP WITH A NET BUILDABLE AREA, UM, ANALYSIS AS SHOWN HERE IN THE TABLE. UM, AND THIS EXHIBIT HERE ALSO SHOWS OUR ANALYSIS. SO THE UM, BLUE SHADED SECTION IS THE FLOODWAY EASEMENT. THE GREEN IS THE NET BUILDABLE AREA, AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SHADED IN THAT LIGHT YELLOW COLOR. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SUBJECT LOT HAS THE SMALLEST AMOUNT OF NET BUILDABLE AREA. 57% OF THEIR LOT IS ENCUMBERED BY THE FLOODWAY EASEMENT, WHICH IS HIGHER THAN THE AVERAGE OF THE OTHER SIX LOTS THAT STAFF ANALYZED. UM, AND THE, THE LAW ALSO HAS THE SECOND TO SMALLEST PERCENT OF NET BUILDABLE AREA, BUT THEY'RE ONLY 0.17% BEHIND THE FIRST PLACE. LOT STAFF ALSO CONDUCTED AN ANALYSIS OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPE, UM, OF THE SAME SIX LOTS. SO STAFF TOOK THE TOTAL AREA OF THE LOT, SUBTRACTED THE SIDE SETBACK AREAS, THE 35 FOOT PLATTED FRONT BUILDING LINE, AND THE 25 FOOT REAR, UM, REAR YARD SETBACK, BUT DID NOT APPLY THE FLOODWAY EASEMENT AREA. UM, ESSENTIALLY THIS IS WHERE YOU COULD BUILD THE HOUSE IF THE FLOODWAY EASEMENT DID NOT EXIST. AND THIS ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF ITS BUILDING ENVELOPE ENC ENCUMBERED BY THE FLOODWAY EASEMENT AT APPROXIMATELY 64%. AND THE AVERAGE ON THE LOT WAS, AND THE AVERAGE ON THE BLOCK WAS 54%. AGAIN, THE BLUE, UM, SHOWN ON THIS [00:50:01] GRAPHIC IS THE FLOODWAY EASEMENT AND THE YELLOW IS THE BUILDING ENVELOPE AND THE HATCH AREA IS THE AREA THAT IS ENCUMBERED BY THE FLOODPLAIN OR FLOODWAY EASEMENT. SO TO SUMMARIZE, UM, THE PRESENCE OF THE FLOODWAY EASEMENT SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITS THE BILLABLE AREA ON THE PROPERTY, MEANING THAT THE, THE APPLICANT CAN ONLY ADD ON TO THE FRONT AND THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. ONLY 36% OF THE PROPERTY CAN BE DEVELOPED AND THAT PERCENTAGE INCLUDES THE STRUCTURE. UM, DUE TO ALL OF THOSE ANALYSIS STAFF HAS, HAS DETERMINED THAT A PROPERTY HARDSHIP DOES EXIST. SO THE STATE OF TEXAS OUTLINES FIVE CRITERIA THAT THE BOARD MUST CONSIDER WHEN HEARING A VARIANCE CASE. THE FIRST IS THE FINANCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND STAFF FOUND THAT, UM, THE COST OF COMPLIANCE WOULD NOT EXCEED THAT 50%. UM, AND ITEM NUMBER TWO IS, UM, THAT COMPLIANCE WOULD RESULT IN A LOSS TO THE LAW ON WHICH THE STRUCTURE IS LOCATED OF AT LEAST 35 PER OR 25% OF THE AREA ON WHICH DEVELOPMENT MAY PHYSICALLY OCCUR. SO IN OTHER WORDS, WOULD MEETING THE REQUIREMENT ELIMINATE AT LEAST A QUARTER OF THE LOTS BILLABLE AREA AND STAFF FOUND THAT COMPLIANCE WOULD RESULT IN A LOSS TO THE DEVELOPABLE AREA OF THE PROPERTY. UM, AND APPROXIMATELY 64% OF THAT BUILDING ENVELOPE IS ENCUMBERED BY THE FLOODWAY EASEMENT. THE THIRD CRITERIA, UM, IS IN REGARDS TO UM, COMPLIANCE, UM, WOULD RESULT IN THE STRUCTURE NOT BEING IN COMPLIANCE WITH ANOTHER CODE OR ORDINANCE SECTION. AND, UM, COMPLIANCE WOULD NOT RESULT IN THE STRUCTURE BEING OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH A DIFFERENT REGULATION. AND IN FACT, UM, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE ACTUALLY REQUIRES A 30 FOOT FRONT SETBACK LINE, UM, IN THE R 1500 M ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH THE, UM, PROPOSED ADDITION WOULD COMPLY WITH. UM, CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR RELATES TO THE, UM, COMPLIANCE IMPACTING ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND EASEMENTS AND STAFF FOUND THAT COMPLIANCE WOULD NOT IMPACT ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR EASEMENTS. AND FINALLY THE FIFTH, UM, IS WHETHER THE MUNICIPALITY CONSIDERS THE STRUCTURE TO BE A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. AND, UM, SO THE STRUCTURE ACTUALLY DOES HAVE A LEGAL NONCONFORMING ELEMENT, UM, ON THE EASTERN SIDE RELATING TO THE SIDE SETBACK. UM, SO WHEN THIS, THE STRUCTURE WAS BUILT, UM, IT WAS BUILT WITH A 8.3 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE, UH, 10 FOOT YARD SETBACK. UM, BUT THE REQUEST TONIGHT, UH, WOULD NOT IMPACT THAT EASTERN SETBACK LINE AT ALL. SO THAT CRITERIA WOULD NOT, UM, WOULD NOT APPLY. SO BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT THE APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES, UM, IT IS STAFF'S OPINION THAT A PHYSICAL PROPERTY HARDSHIP DOES EXIST AND THE REQUEST SHOULD THEREFORE BE APPROVED. UM, THIS WAS A PUBLIC HEARING AND STAFF RECEIVED TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT AND TWO IN OPPOSITION. AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MS. ROSS. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR, FOR MS. ROSS AT THIS TIME? ALL RIGHT. WE APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR PRESENTATION. AND I HAVE A QUESTION. OH, I'M SORRY. SO THE, THE, THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TIED TO A HARDSHIP DEFINITION IS ONLY TIED TO THE FLOODWAY EASEMENT AREAS SPECIFIC TO THIS LOT? YES. YEAH. DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE FLOODWAY EASEMENT RELATIVE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. WELL IT WAS A FALSE ALARM THE FIRST TIME, BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE, WE MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR YOU. YES, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, SO THIS IS A PUBLIC, THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC PUBLIC HEARING AND I'M NOW GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, UM, OR I GUESS I WON'T DO THAT UNTIL WE TAKE THE OATH OF THE, THE APPLICANT. BUT AT THIS TIME I WOULD CALL THE APPLICANT AND ANY PERSON'S WISHING TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, THAT WOULD INCLUDE CONTRACTORS, DESIGNERS, PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS FOR VARIANCE 26 0 2 REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT SHADY COVE DRIVE. AND ASK THAT ANY WITNESS WHO WILL BE TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD TO BE SWORN IN. AND IF YOU DON'T MIND, JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. UH, FIRST OFF. SURE. HI, I'M ANGIE FLEENER. I LIVE AT 20 SHADY COVE, RICHARDSON, TEXAS 7 5 0 8. GREAT. AND THEN, UM, I'M ALSO GOING TO SWEAR YOU IN. OKAY. SO, UH, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE BEFORE THIS BOARD TODAY TO BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. ALRIGHT. UM, OKAY. UH, YOU MAY, YOU MAY MAKE YOUR REMARKS NOW. WELL, I DON'T WANNA LIKE REPEAT [00:55:01] EVERYTHING THAT SHE SAID OBVIOUSLY, BUT WE WERE LOOKING FOR, UM, OUR, OUR GARAGE JUST REALLY ISN'T USABLE. WE, UH, BOUGHT THE HOUSE IN JANUARY. WE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WHENEVER WE MOVED IN. FINALLY IN MAY WE REALIZED WE COULDN'T EVEN GET DOWN THE DRIVEWAY AT ALL. ONLY ONE CAR CAN GO AT ONE TIME AND WE CAN'T BOTH PARK, NEITHER OF US CAN EVEN PARK IN THE, IN THE GARAGE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. UM, BECAUSE OTHERWISE I'LL BACK UP AND THEN HIT THE, UH, THE GATE AND THE FENCE IN THE BACK. AND THEN THERE'S A LOT OF POOL IN THE FRONT. AND WHEN WE GOT THE HOUSE ACTUALLY INSPECTED, THEY DID SAY, HEY, YOU NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR THIS BECAUSE YOU, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE A POINTER EITHER HOW IT GOES DOWN, BUT HOW IT'S UM, THE GRADING. AND WE JUST EVEN NOTICED IT EVEN MORE THIS PAST, UM, WHEN IT RAINS, BUT IT'S STARTING TO PULL AND MAKE STAINS AND OUR INSPECTOR WAS JUST SAID, HEY, YOU NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR THIS. THIS COULD CAUSE FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES. UH, AND SO, YOU KNOW, AFTER BUYING A BRAND NEW HOUSE, WELL NOT BRAND NEW, BUT TO US, UM, WE ARE, WE'RE OF COURSE WORRIED ABOUT THE FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES. AND SO, UM, YOU ALSO SEE JUST HOW SMALL THE DRIVEWAY IS. AND SO JUST HAVING SOMETHING THAT'S A LOT MORE FUNCTIONAL WHERE WE CAN JUST GO STRAIGHT OUT BACK, UM, IT'S A LOT SAFER. 'CAUSE I KEEP ON TRYING TO, WHEN WE GO OUT THE DRIVEWAY, I ALMOST HIT OUR NEIGHBOR'S YARD. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN EVEN SEE, BUT IT'S ALMOST CONNECTED. OUR, UM, DRIVEWAYS ARE ALMOST CONNECTED HOW THEY'RE SET SET UP AND UH, WE OBVIOUSLY CAN'T BUILD IN THE BACK. WE HAVE A CREEK RUNNING THROUGH IT, RUN A CREEK LOT AS WELL. AND THERE'S A FLOODWAY AND THIS IS REALLY THE ONLY WAY. AND SO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE SETBACK ON THE LEFT SIDE, WE SAID, WHY DON'T WE USE HALF OF THE CURRENT GARAGE AND MAKE A FRONT FACING GARAGE? UM, BUT WE NEED THAT, IN ORDER TO DO THAT, TO GET A NORMAL SIZED GARAGE, WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT EXTRA SQUARE FOOTAGE, RIGHT. THE FOOTAGE TO COME IN THE FRONT, UM, TO MAKE A NORMAL SIZED GARAGE. THE 24 BY 30 I THINK. IS THAT, IS THAT GOOD? THAT'S IT, . YEAH. YEAH. NO, THAT'S FINE. THAT'S FINE. SORRY GUYS. I'M KIND OF NERVOUS AND MY KIDS ARE HERE 'CAUSE MY HUSBAND WAS OUT, LIKE, SO IT MAKES ME NERVOUS WHEN THEY WATCH ME TOO. SO ALL GOOD ALL GOOD. THANK YOU . UM, SO IF THAT, IF THAT'S YOUR GENERAL PRESENTATION, THAT'S GREAT. UH, BUT AS, AS YOU KNOW, WE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU. OF COURSE. YEAH. JUST TO CLARIFY, I WAS GONNA SAY THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE POOLING THAT'S OCCURRING RIGHT NOW, WOULD, IS IT IN THE CO SO ON THE PICTURE TO THE LEFT, IS IT IN THE CORNER NEXT TO THE GARAGE DOOR AND THAT, THAT ADJACENT WALL? YES. SO DO YOU SEE THAT STAIN LIKE YES, SO RIGHT THERE. OKAY, SO, AND ACTUALLY EVEN WHEN WE CAME BACK HOME, UM, AFTER JULY 4TH, THE NEIGHBORS, UM, WHEN THEY, THEIR SPRINKLER SYSTEM ACTUALLY GOES ON, IT ACTUALLY DRAINS ALL THE WAY INTO THAT AREA AS WELL. AND IT'S JUST FULL OF MUD AND FULL OF, UM, OF WATER. SO IT, IT HAPPENS EVEN WHEN WE'RE, IT'S NOT RAINING, IT HAPPENS WITH THEIR SPRINKLER SYSTEM TOO. IT'S FREE WATER, BUT YOU CAN'T USE IT. RIGHT? YEAH. YEAH. AND THEY TRIED TO, BEFORE WE BOUGHT IT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE THE TRENCH, THEY WERE, THEY, WE ASKED THEM, HEY, THERE'S A WAY THAT WE CAN GET IT OUT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE WATER. AND THEY ACTUALLY TRIED TO TRENCH IT OUT, BUT IT, IT HASN'T WORKED. YEAH. FRENCH DRAINS ARE COOL, BUT THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT EASY. YEAH, THEY'RE NOT EASY TO MAKE. SO, YEAH. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MS? DO YOU HAVE, UM, LIKE DESIGN PHOTOS OR ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN SHARE OF, OF WHAT THE PLAN WOULD LOOK LIKE? WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I GOT THE VARIANCE FIRST, JUST BECAUSE IT'S REALLY EXPENSIVE FOR ARCHITECTURAL THING. SO BEFORE I DID THAT, UM, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU GUYS WERE EVEN OKAY WITH A VARIANCE TO, TO SHOW YOU GUYS JUST THE VISION THAT WE SAID THIS IS HOW BIG THE GARAGE WOULD BE. THIS IS WHAT MY VISION IS IN MY HEAD, BUT I DIDN'T WANNA SPEND $2,500 FOR AN ARCHITECT WHEN YOU GUYS WERE, YOU KNOW, MIGHT MIGHT SAY NO. AND I WAS GONNA SAY IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S WHAT SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS MIGHT BE CONCERNED ABOUT. YEAH, WELL, THE LITTLE, HOW IT WOULD LOOK, I, I ACTUALLY THINK IT'S MORE CONSTRUCTION JUST IN GENERAL BECAUSE A LOT OF, UH, CONSTRUCTION'S ON OUR STREET, YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN CANYON CREEK, THERE'S A LOT OF OLDER HOMES AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY TEARING STUFF DOWN ON OUR OWN STREET. NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET ARE ALSO DOING CONSTRUCTION, ANOTHER ONE AND SHE'S 94. UM, SO I, I THINK THAT'S IT. UM, BUT I HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO HER. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, WELL AT THIS TIME, UM, YOU'RE WELCOME TO HAVE A SEAT. OKAY. AND, UM, WE MAY HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR YOU LATER. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YEAH, WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING UP HERE AND PRESENTING YOUR CASE. ALRIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF, OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST? ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THE REQUEST? OKAY, SO I SEE NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT, SO I'M NOW GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO AGAIN, THIS IS A TIME FOR THE BOARD [01:00:01] TO DELIBERATE AND UH, WE MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF AS WELL. ANYONE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? LET'S SEE. AND TO CLARIFY, MR. MATA, YOU'RE VOTING ON THIS ONE, IS IT, IS THAT CORRECT? OH, OKAY. ALRIGHT, SO THIS IS MR. HUFFIES. OKAY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF. SO, SO LET'S SAY, UM, AND YOU'RE SAYING, YOU KNOW, THAT IT'S, WE'RE PERFECTLY WITHIN THE, UM, BASED ON THE INFORMATION, I MEAN THIS, THIS WOULD BE OKAY TO APPROVE, BUT MOVING FORWARD, LET'S SAY THAT WE DO APPROVE THIS. IS THERE ANY, UM, I GUESS CONCERN ABOUT WHAT SOMEONE COULD ACTUALLY CREATE OR BUILD? IS THERE A REQUIREMENT FOR WHAT THEY WOULD BUILD, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD, SORRY, IF I'M NOT MAKING SENSE, WOULD THEY HAVE TO BUILD WHAT THEIR STATED PURPOSE IS OR WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING ELSE? NOT THAT I'M SAYING THAT THEY WOULD, BUT IT'S JUST A QUESTION. I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS IF WE GRANT A VARIANCE FOR THAT. IS IT FOR THE STATED PURPOSE OR COULD THEY JUST SUDDENLY SAY, OH HEY, WE'RE GONNA DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT? YEAH, SO THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. SO THE WAY THE, UM, THE REQUEST IS WRITTEN, UM, IN REGARDS TO, UM, WHAT THE APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE WOULD BE, IT'S JUST THAT, UM, FRONT BUILDING LINE. SO WE DON'T TIE A SPECIFIC DESIGN OR UM, YOU KNOW, STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENT TO IT. IT'S JUST APPROVAL OF THE, UH, DIFFERENT BUILDING LINE IF I COULD ADD TO THAT. BUT WE WOULD LIMIT IT BASED UPON THE INFORMATION THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET. SO THE, THE FOOTPRINT THAT WAS PROVIDED WOULD, IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO? YES. OKAY. OKAY. SO THEY COULD BUILD A, A GARAGE OR THEY COULD DO SOMETHING ELSE WITH THE, THE STRUCTURE. THEY COULD JUST EXPAND IT AND IT WOULD JUST BE A WALL OR I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT HOW THAT, HOW THAT WORKS WITHOUT AN ACTUAL PLAN. YEAH, SO IF YOU GRANTED THE EXCEPTION, OR EXCUSE ME, THE VARIANCE, LET ME MAKE SURE I USE THE CORRECT TERM HERE. IF YOU GRANTED THE VARIANCE, UM, TO ALLOW FOR THE, THE 30 FOOT FRONT BUILDING LINE OR FRONT SETBACK, THEN WE WOULD'VE, IT'S BASED UPON THE AREA OF THEIR PLANS. SO AS LONG AS THE REST OF THE STRUCTURE MEETS THE, UM, DOES NOT GO BEYOND OR, UM, WIDER THAN WHAT THEY SHOWED ON THE PLAN. SO BASICALLY IF THEY STAY WITHIN THE YELLOW BOX, THEY CAN DO SINGLE STORY, THEY CAN DO TWO STORY. UM, IT, AS LONG AS IT'S DESIGNED TO MEET BUILDING CODE, THERE'S, THERE'S NO ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. SO, UM, IN MY OPINION, YOUR APPROVAL WOULD BE LIMITED TO BASICALLY WHAT IS SHOWN ON THIS GRAPHIC HERE. AND UM, IN THIS CASE IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE THE YELLOW BOX. UM, AND, AND, AND, AND THE REASON WHY AND I EXPECT JUST ADD OUT BECAUSE THE REASON WHY I ASK THAT IS 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'VE EVALUATED. WE HAVEN'T EVALUATED IF, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY TRIED TO EXPAND THE WHOLE HOUSE FORWARD ALSO. UM, SO AGAIN, OUR EVALUATION IS LIMITED TO THE AREA THAT WAS PROVIDED TO STAFF I'D, I'D ADD THAT WE DON'T SEE IT OFTEN, BUT OCCASIONALLY THERE ARE CASES WHERE I THINK THERE'S AN EXPECTATION THAT WE'RE LIKE AN ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE AND IT'S NOT REALLY WHAT WE DO. WE'RE JUST, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE HAVE ALLOWABLE SPACES. MR. YEAH, I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION. SO OF THE FIVE CRITERIA THAT ARE OUTLINED, IS IT STAFF'S OPINION, UM, THAT ONLY CRITERIA TWO HAS BEEN MET? 'CAUSE THERE ARE NOTES ACROSS ALL FIVE AND I'M GETTING LOST IN WHAT STAFF'S OPINION IS. 'CAUSE THERE LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOME LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR ALL FIVE. YEAH, SO STAFF'S, UM, MAIN ANALYSIS WAS, WAS BASED OFF OF CRITERIA NUMBER TWO. AND THE WAY THE STATE STATUTE WRITES IT IS THAT UM, NOT ALL FIVE NEED TO BE MET, JUST AT LEAST ONE. UM, SO YEAH, ESSENTIALLY STAFF FOUND THAT, UM, COMPLIANCE WOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE OTHER FOUR. UM, BUT IT WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT, UM, NUMBER FIVE OR NUMBER TWO. I'M SORRY, NUMBER TWO . THANK YOU MR. RICKER. I WAS JUST MAKING NOTE THAT, UM, THE AREA OF THE FLOODPLAIN ZONE AE IS DATED 2001. IT'S BEEN REVALIDATED UH, IN 2014. SO IT'S STILL IN THE FLOODPLAIN, JUST IN CASE YOU WERE OH, GOING OFF THAT 2001 'CAUSE IT'S BEEN REDONE. OKAY. SO IT'S [01:05:01] STILL THE SAME. I WAS JUST DOUBLE CHECKING. GLAD YOU DID IT. YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE WISH TO MAKE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION. MR. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I DO FIND THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND GRANTING THE REQUEST WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO PUB PUBLIC INTEREST. I THEREFORE MOVE TO GRANT THE REQUEST VARIANCE CASE NUMBER V TWO SIX DASH ZERO TWO AND IF THE REQUEST BE LIMITED TO THE, THOSE SPECIFICS WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED IN HER APPLICATION. SO MR. MR. RUCKER HAS MADE THE MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. I SECOND. ALRIGHT, UM, I'M GONNA GIVE THAT ONE IN. MS. BONES SACK, , SHE WAS SLIGHTLY QUICKER. UM, ON THE SECOND. ALRIGHT, ALL IN FAVOR, UM, OF, UH, OF, UH, GRANTING THIS MOTION OR ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION PLEASE, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? AYE. OPPOSED TO MOTION? MM-HMM . OKAY. SO MOTION DOES NOT CARRY YOUE WITH FOUR ONE VOTE. UM, SO THE MOTION IS APPROVED? CORRECT. ALRIGHT, SO LET'S SEE. THAT APPEARS TO BE THE LAST ITEM OF BUSINESS, UH, WITH NO FURTHER BUSINESS MEETING BEFORE THE BOARD. I CALLED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT, LET'S SEE, 7:37 PM ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANKS. THANKS EVERYONE FOR COMING. THANK. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.