WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:12.140
 Welcome to ZBA Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting December 14th, 2020 at 3.40 p.m.

00:00:12.140 --> 00:00:14.960
 We are calling the meeting to order.

00:00:14.960 --> 00:00:24.900
 Our first order of business is a pledge to the United States and the Texas flags as follows.

00:00:24.900 --> 00:00:32.600
 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for

00:00:32.600 --> 00:00:44.560
 which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

00:00:44.560 --> 00:00:57.320
 I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state under God, one state indivisible.

00:00:57.320 --> 00:01:03.760
 Items for consideration, item number 2A on our agenda is to consider approval of the

00:01:03.760 --> 00:01:08.440
 Zoning Board of Adjustment Commission minutes for November 30th, 2020.

00:01:08.440 --> 00:01:27.260
 I will entertain a motion or discussion for these minutes.

00:01:27.260 --> 00:01:28.500
 Thank you so much.

00:01:28.500 --> 00:01:35.520
 All in favor, if you would please use your participant's button and go to the bottom

00:01:35.520 --> 00:01:46.360
 to click the green "yes" or the red "no" and Ron are you able to see these, I do not.

00:01:46.360 --> 00:01:55.440
 No what we need to do, Jennifer, is if we can go board by board member and ask how they

00:01:55.440 --> 00:01:56.440
 vote.

00:01:56.440 --> 00:01:57.440
 Board member Higgins.

00:01:57.440 --> 00:01:58.440
 Approve.

00:01:58.440 --> 00:01:59.440
 Board member Redwine.

00:01:59.440 --> 00:02:00.440
 Approve.

00:02:00.440 --> 00:02:06.160
 Board member Meisner.

00:02:06.160 --> 00:02:08.040
 Approve.

00:02:08.040 --> 00:02:12.560
 Board member Horton.

00:02:12.560 --> 00:02:14.160
 Approved.

00:02:14.160 --> 00:02:17.040
 Board member Linus.

00:02:17.040 --> 00:02:18.040
 Approved.

00:02:18.040 --> 00:02:23.120
 And I vote approve as well.

00:02:23.120 --> 00:02:24.120
 All right then.

00:02:24.120 --> 00:02:32.240
 The next order of business is the agenda item number 2B on our agenda is to consider two

00:02:32.240 --> 00:02:40.320
 variance requests from the Denton Development Code section 3.2.5 R4 residential related

00:02:40.320 --> 00:02:47.740
 to the minimum front and rear yard setbacks and table 3.7A authorized exceptions to setbacks

00:02:47.740 --> 00:02:50.400
 related to the front porch projection.

00:02:50.400 --> 00:02:55.040
 The variance requested is for the construction of a single family dwelling which would encroach

00:02:55.040 --> 00:03:02.960
 into the minimum setbacks the approximately 0.07 acre subject property is generally located

00:03:02.960 --> 00:03:07.320
 on the southwest corner of East Hickory Street and Crawford Street.

00:03:07.320 --> 00:03:14.200
 It's numbered V20-0004 Holland setback via Julie Wyatt.

00:03:14.200 --> 00:03:19.240
 Is the applicant or representative present?

00:03:19.240 --> 00:03:21.080
 Yes ma'am.

00:03:21.080 --> 00:03:22.080
 Joe Holland.

00:03:22.080 --> 00:03:23.640
 Joe Holland.

00:03:23.640 --> 00:03:29.960
 Could you please turn your camera on and your microphone which you have done and we'll administer

00:03:29.960 --> 00:03:31.360
 the oath.

00:03:31.360 --> 00:03:39.600
 Chair, Vice Chair, Lane if we can have a five second pause we're trying to get audio here

00:03:39.600 --> 00:03:45.960
 in the work session room so that we have the other staff members here present that can

00:03:45.960 --> 00:03:50.960
 hear the presentation as well as present.

00:03:50.960 --> 00:03:52.860
 Give us a couple minutes here before.

00:03:52.860 --> 00:03:58.200
 We also want to include okay now we do now we have him so we also want to make sure we

00:03:58.200 --> 00:04:06.280
 include Julie Wyatt in the swearing in as well.

00:04:06.280 --> 00:04:13.200
 Mr. Reedy are you on this item are you speaking for this item the first item that was introduced

00:04:13.200 --> 00:04:16.300
 by Vice Chair Lane?

00:04:16.300 --> 00:04:20.760
 I believe so I've been involved since the beginning of the project.

00:04:20.760 --> 00:04:26.280
 Okay we just want to make sure that those that are going to be speaking on this item

00:04:26.280 --> 00:04:32.600
 are present and we can then administer the swearing in.

00:04:32.600 --> 00:04:34.120
 So go ahead Jennifer.

00:04:34.120 --> 00:04:39.280
 I do not have the oath in front of me I don't believe it unless it's in these notes.

00:04:39.280 --> 00:04:43.400
 It should be emailed emailed to you just morning if.

00:04:43.400 --> 00:05:00.440
 All right let me take a quick peek I should have it I got notes from you that I don't

00:05:00.440 --> 00:05:14.200
 believe so let me see if you did before you sent me the notes oh yeah we have it all right

00:05:14.200 --> 00:05:20.960
 very good thank you yeah okay yeah all right um if you're appearing before this board as

00:05:20.960 --> 00:05:29.900
 provided under chapter 602 comma 0025 of the Texas Government Code all testimony is sworn.

00:05:29.900 --> 00:05:32.920
 Would you please identify yourself for the record?

00:05:32.920 --> 00:05:40.200
 Please raise your right hand to be sworn my name is Joe Holland thank you and here is

00:05:40.200 --> 00:05:45.720
 the oath under penalty of perjury do you swear or affirm that any testimony or information

00:05:45.720 --> 00:05:50.360
 you provide or any statement you make before this board is complete true and correct to

00:05:50.360 --> 00:05:55.440
 the best of your knowledge and ability I do so swear thank you and please proceed with

00:05:55.440 --> 00:06:02.280
 your statement now Ron do we want to swear in the next speaker at this time or wait yes

00:06:02.280 --> 00:06:10.300
 no we need to swear all them at the same time if we can so Mr. Reedy as well as Ms. Wyatt

00:06:10.300 --> 00:06:15.480
 and Ms. Wyatt will then make the presentation but if we can swear both of them prior to

00:06:15.480 --> 00:06:20.760
 that presentation that would be good terrific okay Mr. Reedy could you please identify yourself

00:06:20.760 --> 00:06:26.680
 for the record my name is Kenneth Lee Reedy and you have your right hand raised thank

00:06:26.680 --> 00:06:31.200
 you under penalty of perjury do you swear or affirm that any testimony or information

00:06:31.200 --> 00:06:35.920
 you provide or any statement you make before this board is complete true and correct to

00:06:35.920 --> 00:06:41.040
 the best of your knowledge and ability I do swear it's correct thank you and please proceed

00:06:41.040 --> 00:06:48.080
 with your statement the third person Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton

00:06:48.080 --> 00:06:54.760
 Julie and you have your hand raised could you please identify yourself for the record

00:06:54.760 --> 00:06:59.800
 Julie Wyatt thank you under penalty of perjury do you swear or affirm that any testimony

00:06:59.800 --> 00:07:04.000
 or information you provide or any statement you make before this board is complete true

00:07:04.000 --> 00:07:09.200
 and correct to the best of your knowledge and ability I do thank you and please proceed

00:07:09.200 --> 00:07:19.640
 with your statement that applies to all three of you thank you and now will we have a presentation

00:07:19.640 --> 00:07:28.120
 Ron yes Ms. Wyatt if you can begin that all right let me pull up my presentation here

00:07:28.120 --> 00:07:41.920
 we'll get started so this is item I recommend that everybody do so so this is item v20-0004

00:07:41.920 --> 00:07:50.960
 Holland setback so the request includes two proposed variances the first one is from section

00:07:50.960 --> 00:07:58.760
 3.2.5 that is the related to the minimum front and rear yard setbacks within the r4 zoning

00:07:58.760 --> 00:08:07.920
 district and also table 3.7 - a and that is related to a front porch projection the subject

00:08:07.920 --> 00:08:12.520
 property is located at the intersection of Hickory and Crawford it's outlined here in

00:08:12.520 --> 00:08:19.360
 yellow as you can see before we go further on the request I wanted to talk a little bit

00:08:19.360 --> 00:08:26.240
 about the history of the site so the property was platted in 1922 as the Solomon Hill addition

00:08:26.240 --> 00:08:35.160
 the dimensions of that lot were 25 feet by 115 feet for a total square footage of 2875

00:08:35.160 --> 00:08:40.960
 as you can see right here this is that original plat and I've blown up the area that is near

00:08:40.960 --> 00:08:47.080
 to the subject property the subject property being outlined in red here we did some research

00:08:47.080 --> 00:08:52.080
 on historical aerials of the site and the surrounding area and as you can see on that

00:08:52.080 --> 00:08:59.880
 1942 aerial there once was a structure on on the property sometime around 1972 that

00:08:59.880 --> 00:09:08.040
 structure was removed and so it has remained vacant since then.

00:09:08.040 --> 00:09:15.240
 Last year or in 2019 the Denton adopted a the 2019 Denton Development Code we updated

00:09:15.240 --> 00:09:20.280
 our development regulations within the city as part of that the subject property transitioned

00:09:20.280 --> 00:09:26.680
 to an R4 district an R4 district includes both minimum lot dimensions and yard setbacks

00:09:26.680 --> 00:09:32.000
 so just want to talk briefly about that so first of all in terms of lot dimensions R4

00:09:32.000 --> 00:09:40.040
 requires typically for a newly platted lot 50 feet wide and 80 feet deep for and a total

00:09:40.040 --> 00:09:46.560
 minimum square footage of 7,000 square feet also there are minimum setbacks associated

00:09:46.560 --> 00:09:53.320
 with R4 first the front yard setback is 20 feet and as you can see here on the diagram

00:09:53.320 --> 00:09:58.080
 that front yard setback actually wraps around in corner lots so that each street frontage

00:09:58.080 --> 00:10:04.080
 for a corner lot actually does have that required 20 foot front yard setback there's a 10 foot

00:10:04.080 --> 00:10:08.880
 rear yard setback and then those side yard setbacks for those interior lot lines are

00:10:08.880 --> 00:10:14.840
 five feet as you can see depicted here so what that means for the subject property since

00:10:14.840 --> 00:10:20.600
 it does have that R4 district designation I've overlaid what those setbacks would have

00:10:20.600 --> 00:10:25.200
 looked like on the subject site now these aren't to scale so this is just my quick drawing

00:10:25.200 --> 00:10:31.040
 but it does give it a sort of a visual of those setbacks as you as you know this is

00:10:31.040 --> 00:10:36.480
 that corner lot so there is that 25 feet of frontage along Hickory and then 115 feet of

00:10:36.480 --> 00:10:42.720
 frontage along Crawford feet Crawford Street when you apply that 20 foot setback along

00:10:42.720 --> 00:10:50.540
 those two frontages it's about in that location of the green area now as this the code does

00:10:50.540 --> 00:10:59.320
 not prescribe what what would be the lot frontage on a corner lot so a lot a structure could

00:10:59.320 --> 00:11:05.520
 be oriented toward either street in this case the applicant is proposing to orient the structure

00:11:05.520 --> 00:11:13.560
 toward Crawford Street and so we've just I've depicted that rear yard setback along that

00:11:13.560 --> 00:11:19.640
 opposite property line in this location so as you can see with that front yard setback

00:11:19.640 --> 00:11:27.520
 and that 10 foot rear yard setback those overlap really taking up the entire 25 feet of width

00:11:27.520 --> 00:11:33.560
 of the subject site now if they were if the proposed structure was oriented toward Hickory

00:11:33.560 --> 00:11:39.200
 Street we would have a similar condition although it would be a five foot side yard setback

00:11:39.200 --> 00:11:44.260
 it wouldn't necessarily overlay overlap like the 10 foot rear yard setback but it would

00:11:44.260 --> 00:11:52.820
 take up the entire 25 feet of width of that lot so before we get into what the applicant's

00:11:52.820 --> 00:11:57.840
 proposing I do want to talk a little bit about lot dimensions so as I've mentioned with the

00:11:57.840 --> 00:12:02.920
 R4 zoning district that applies to the subject property has a minimum lot width depth and

00:12:02.920 --> 00:12:09.720
 size however the subject property does not conform to those minimum lot sizes the Denton

00:12:09.720 --> 00:12:16.360
 Development Code actually addresses that in section 1.5.3 I the adoption of the DDC would

00:12:16.360 --> 00:12:22.320
 not cause any existing legally established single-family lot to become non-conforming

00:12:22.320 --> 00:12:28.760
 in this instance because the lot was plotted in 1922 it is a legal and conforming lot for

00:12:28.760 --> 00:12:33.580
 that section of the Denton Development Code however it doesn't it doesn't mean that those

00:12:33.580 --> 00:12:41.440
 setbacks don't apply to the property so that's why we're here tonight is due to those front

00:12:41.440 --> 00:12:47.840
 and rear yard setbacks so in order to develop the property the property owner the applicant

00:12:47.840 --> 00:12:56.280
 is proposing a five foot front yard setback a two foot six inch rear yard setback and

00:12:56.280 --> 00:13:04.680
 then the side yard setback would conform to the minimum requirements they're also proposing

00:13:04.680 --> 00:13:14.520
 to allow that front porch to to encroach into that front yard setback so that it would be

00:13:14.520 --> 00:13:19.960
 no closer than two feet from that front property line so let's let's take a look and see what

00:13:19.960 --> 00:13:28.760
 that looks like in practice so here's what the applicant is proposing this is that subject

00:13:28.760 --> 00:13:35.160
 property again and they've put a conceptual site plan together so they are proposing a

00:13:35.160 --> 00:13:41.120
 a three-story single-family dwelling and those the elevation of that proposed dwelling is

00:13:41.120 --> 00:13:51.400
 in your backup it is a 20 feet six inches deep and about 41 feet wide so you can see

00:13:51.400 --> 00:14:01.460
 it's sort of a narrow layout of that single-family dwelling it also does have as part of that

00:14:01.460 --> 00:14:09.620
 20 feet a three foot porch outlined here in green they are proposing to provide parking

00:14:09.620 --> 00:14:16.540
 on site in this location in the blue and as I stated it is oriented toward Crawford Street

00:14:16.540 --> 00:14:23.360
 now as it's proposed this would allow for a two foot six inch rear setback in this location

00:14:23.360 --> 00:14:29.600
 a five foot setback in this location however with that three foot front porch encroachment

00:14:29.600 --> 00:14:36.440
 as they've laid out the site as shown it's about 50 feet from Hickory and then about

00:14:36.440 --> 00:14:44.940
 20 feet from that rear property line so the criteria for approval for variances is in

00:14:44.940 --> 00:14:49.960
 sub chapter two of the debt and development code and we'll go by go over those one by

00:14:49.960 --> 00:14:55.960
 one first the special circumstances or conditions apply to the parcel for which the variance

00:14:55.960 --> 00:15:00.940
 is sought which circumstances or conditions are peculiar such parcel and do not generally

00:15:00.940 --> 00:15:06.440
 apply to other parcels in the same district or neighborhood in this instance this is a

00:15:06.440 --> 00:15:12.840
 legal lot so it was plotted in 1922 and the development code does state that it is a legal

00:15:12.840 --> 00:15:19.640
 lot but it is smaller and narrower than a typical r4 lot so that's why those those setbacks

00:15:19.640 --> 00:15:24.280
 are difficult to meet compliance with the front and rear yard setback would prevent

00:15:24.280 --> 00:15:29.140
 any development of the lot as depicted in that previous slide and these lot boundaries

00:15:29.140 --> 00:15:37.320
 are fixed so so there is development adjacent to the property as well as a road on the other

00:15:37.320 --> 00:15:43.160
 side so it really is situated between hardened boundaries that would prevent the property

00:15:43.160 --> 00:15:48.160
 owner from obtaining additional property to meet those setbacks second the granting of

00:15:48.160 --> 00:15:52.540
 the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property

00:15:52.540 --> 00:15:56.820
 or improvements in the district or neighborhood other proposed variance if approved would

00:15:56.820 --> 00:16:01.120
 allow the development of a single family dwelling which is consistent with the surrounding residential

00:16:01.120 --> 00:16:06.580
 uses improvements would activate and occupy the site potentially improving the maintenance

00:16:06.580 --> 00:16:13.320
 and reducing the number of potentially reducing the number of future trash and debris or high

00:16:13.320 --> 00:16:21.360
 high grass violations on the site so code violations on the site and then finally a

00:16:21.360 --> 00:16:26.600
 minimum 20 foot setback on east hickory so it would still comply with that side setback

00:16:26.600 --> 00:16:31.960
 on east hickory that 20 foot setback would be required and so it would maintain that

00:16:31.960 --> 00:16:40.820
 visual consistency down that right right away third the variance granted is the minimum

00:16:40.820 --> 00:16:45.280
 variance that would accomplish the purpose i propose the proposed variances are the minimum

00:16:45.280 --> 00:16:51.320
 necessary to locate the intended dwelling on the site for the little and literal enforcement

00:16:51.320 --> 00:16:56.200
 and strict application of the provisions of this ddc will result in an unnecessary hardship

00:16:56.200 --> 00:17:01.440
 inconsistent with the general provisions and intent of the ddc the intent of residential

00:17:01.440 --> 00:17:07.160
 setbacks is to encourage visual consistency along rights of way and within neighborhoods

00:17:07.160 --> 00:17:13.200
 and also provide safe separation reducing the setbacks as proposed would meet the spirit

00:17:13.200 --> 00:17:19.960
 of the requirements while allowing the lot to be utilized as plotted and buildings inspections

00:17:19.960 --> 00:17:26.400
 have also and fire have also reviewed the proposal um for for to meet their safety guidelines

00:17:26.400 --> 00:17:31.640
 uh the granting of the variance is not solely for the purpose of mitigating a financial

00:17:31.640 --> 00:17:37.320
 hardship it is it is not uh proposed for that purpose and then finally the condition or

00:17:37.320 --> 00:17:42.000
 feature that creates the need for the variance did not result from the homeowner or the owner's

00:17:42.000 --> 00:17:47.720
 actions the property boundaries were established in 1922 and remain have remained unchanged

00:17:47.720 --> 00:17:52.520
 and therefore this condition was not created by the property owner um just want to show

00:17:52.520 --> 00:17:58.000
 you a few uh photos of the site so this is um looking at the corner the site is located

00:17:58.000 --> 00:18:03.320
 right here um just to orient you this is hickory street looking toward downtown you can see

00:18:03.320 --> 00:18:11.240
 the wells fargo building in this location um this is along crawford street looking toward

00:18:11.240 --> 00:18:17.240
 the intersection um this is a little different vantage point looking sort of a bird's eye

00:18:17.240 --> 00:18:24.960
 view at the site in that adjacent development um finally although public outreach is not

00:18:24.960 --> 00:18:30.080
 required for a variance staff did request that the um that the applicant reach out to

00:18:30.080 --> 00:18:36.240
 the property owner adjacent uh directly adjacent to the site um they did provide a letter stating

00:18:36.240 --> 00:18:43.080
 that they do not oppose the the proposed housing project um so based upon the criteria for

00:18:43.080 --> 00:18:49.400
 approval staff recommends approval of the variances as written um and uh the applicant

00:18:49.400 --> 00:19:01.920
 is on on the zoom call and i will be happy to answer any questions

00:19:01.920 --> 00:19:14.240
 thank you very much um next up is uh the applicant um who's been sworn in good afternoon um i'm

00:19:14.240 --> 00:19:18.200
 excited about this project and i'd like to just share with you a little bit about how

00:19:18.200 --> 00:19:23.560
 this uh how this comes about if i can keep the shadows off my face uh i own the property

00:19:23.560 --> 00:19:31.960
 across the street across crawford street uh across crawford street i have a very very

00:19:31.960 --> 00:19:42.240
 nice family that lives there and um the the the lot that i am looking to get uh a variance

00:19:42.240 --> 00:19:50.440
 on has been a a source of uh of trash uh beer cans hypodermic needles just all sorts of

00:19:50.440 --> 00:19:56.000
 things that have been there consistently since i've owned the property across the street

00:19:56.000 --> 00:20:04.880
 uh it's it's in my best interest as well as the neighborhood's best interest for something

00:20:04.880 --> 00:20:10.760
 to be done to that corner to prevent it from from being this illegal trash dump that it's

00:20:10.760 --> 00:20:20.680
 become none of the other uh three corners on that lot are are trash dumps um it's a

00:20:20.680 --> 00:20:28.520
 tiny little lot and it's an it's sort of an odd shape uh but uh but my my idea is that

00:20:28.520 --> 00:20:34.320
 we could put a house on there uh while we don't have much uh much to go out we've got

00:20:34.320 --> 00:20:41.960
 a little room to go up and i and i think it'll be a unique structure um and complement the

00:20:41.960 --> 00:20:48.240
 neighborhood i think it's a win-win-win situation uh the owner the owner doesn't know what to

00:20:48.240 --> 00:20:54.240
 do with the property he wants out from under it i'd like to make it make it complement

00:20:54.240 --> 00:21:00.800
 the neighborhood and uh the city is getting about two or the city county and school district

00:21:00.800 --> 00:21:08.520
 are getting about 250 dollars a year in taxes on this otherwise useless piece of property

00:21:08.520 --> 00:21:14.240
 so uh everybody as i see it everybody's a winner i'd love to entertain any questions

00:21:14.240 --> 00:21:20.560
 thank you are there any questions for mr holland

00:21:20.560 --> 00:21:37.780
 uh uh board member miser um i i have a question regarding the height are there any um are there

00:21:37.780 --> 00:21:46.800
 any height restrictions in relation to the property was everyone able to hear um board

00:21:46.800 --> 00:21:52.800
 member miser's question she's asking if there are any restrictions in relation to the property

00:21:52.800 --> 00:21:58.160
 uh if that if that's directed to me and miss wyatt please correct me if i'm mistaken here

00:21:58.160 --> 00:22:04.120
 uh there are height restrictions and we are under those height restrictions correct our

00:22:04.120 --> 00:22:09.700
 four district has a maximum building height of 40 feet and as proposed it it would be

00:22:09.700 --> 00:22:19.840
 under that thank you thank you are there any other questions hi judge holland um um excuse

00:22:19.840 --> 00:22:23.720
 me but i will i will recognize the members of the board thank you by all means please

00:22:23.720 --> 00:22:31.280
 uh board member linus please ask your question thank you uh dr lain um hi judge holland um

00:22:31.280 --> 00:22:42.220
 my my question is the um there was one comment coming back from somebody in the neighborhood

00:22:42.220 --> 00:22:52.440
 was that the the resident just to the west of that property or oh ken is saying yes it

00:22:52.440 --> 00:23:02.160
 is okay okay and uh miss wyatt suggested that that uh i i reach out to them and and they

00:23:02.160 --> 00:23:08.520
 and they they have seen the same problem with that piece of property as far as trash that

00:23:08.520 --> 00:23:15.360
 i have they've uh they've complained i don't know how many times uh many many times to

00:23:15.360 --> 00:23:23.440
 their uh as we spoke they've moated them at their own cost to uh to to make it to make

00:23:23.440 --> 00:23:31.880
 it you know a better part of the neighborhood uh i i i think they'd like to see this developed

00:23:31.880 --> 00:23:40.560
 into a into a uh something that would contribute to the neighborhood okay thank you that that

00:23:40.560 --> 00:23:47.280
 was my main concern because a three-story building overlooking a one-story building

00:23:47.280 --> 00:23:56.560
 could be hard in the neighborhood but that was my concern thank you vice chair lane i

00:23:56.560 --> 00:24:01.280
 just wanted to remind you we're getting word that your volume is low if you can speak up

00:24:01.280 --> 00:24:06.520
 that would be great i'd be happy to is this better is that better it's still low i don't

00:24:06.520 --> 00:24:15.640
 know if your phone can be adjusted i have uh the volume up quite high but um maybe if

00:24:15.640 --> 00:24:21.080
 i'm closer to the microphone i'm using headphones i know i've seen uh that same thing happened

00:24:21.080 --> 00:24:27.280
 with david higgins how's this it's fine soft it's fine it's fine yeah okay i have a question

00:24:27.280 --> 00:24:39.040
 yes uh council member i mean uh board member higgins question for um miss wyatt uh this

00:24:39.040 --> 00:24:48.080
 lot is designated further on or maybe it's an exhibit one of the other exhibits as being

00:24:48.080 --> 00:24:58.360
 an interior this lot one is a lot right and lot two looks like it was a replatted lot two

00:24:58.360 --> 00:25:03.000
 and three or because if you look at one of the old maps it looks like it's the same size

00:25:03.000 --> 00:25:13.800
 as lot one is now but it is it is a wider lot however now lot one is shown as a interior

00:25:13.800 --> 00:25:27.400
 lot and i believe a corner lot on one of your other slides so yes you are correct the adjacent

00:25:27.400 --> 00:25:33.160
 property um there there have been there's been some redevelopment of the area and several

00:25:33.160 --> 00:25:38.240
 homes have been actually built across two lots so the adjacent property while it has

00:25:38.240 --> 00:25:46.820
 not been replatted into one lot um that that house on the adjacent lot uh goes across lot

00:25:46.820 --> 00:25:51.640
 two and three or those those two adjacent lots um so there has been some redevelopment

00:25:51.640 --> 00:26:01.360
 in in the area with um with with um structure spanning two lots or portions of lots yeah

00:26:01.360 --> 00:26:07.160
 okay that's fine i noticed that the lot next to lot two is designated lot four which you

00:26:07.160 --> 00:26:13.840
 know tells me that it's been replatted but my question now relates to lot one as it sits

00:26:13.840 --> 00:26:19.640
 now there's another slide or maybe it's a picture in a different exhibit that shows

00:26:19.640 --> 00:26:26.440
 that lot one seems to be being thought of in two pieces it's called an interior lot

00:26:26.440 --> 00:26:35.120
 and a corner lot right well that has to do with the setbacks so um corner lots are treated

00:26:35.120 --> 00:26:39.960
 a little differently than interior lots within the dent and development code and when i say

00:26:39.960 --> 00:26:46.120
 interior a lot i mean that they they um they they have a a lot on either side of them so

00:26:46.120 --> 00:26:52.000
 there's not a right of way um when when a lot is a corner lot within the 2019 dent and

00:26:52.000 --> 00:26:58.160
 development code so it has it's adjacent to two rights of way it actually has two front

00:26:58.160 --> 00:27:03.640
 yard setbacks you can kind of think of it that way where each of that each of those

00:27:03.640 --> 00:27:09.080
 property lines adjacent to that right of way have to respect that 20 foot front yard setback

00:27:09.080 --> 00:27:15.440
 for instance in r4 so so the the lot lines that are adjacent to the right of way have

00:27:15.440 --> 00:27:23.160
 that um increased setback where is whereas the the lot line adjacent to the um the uh

00:27:23.160 --> 00:27:30.600
 just another residential lot would have um that side yard setback of five feet in this

00:27:30.600 --> 00:27:35.520
 instance the way they're orienting the building it actually would be the rear yacht lot lot

00:27:35.520 --> 00:27:42.520
 or the the rear yard setback so it's a little different um but but yes there there is that

00:27:42.520 --> 00:27:48.720
 variation and the code does treat those two lot side lot types differently okay but it's

00:27:48.720 --> 00:27:57.760
 two it's one lot it is one it's a block seven lot one yes sir yes okay so if you it would

00:27:57.760 --> 00:28:07.880
 then be possible as i understand it to build a second structure possibly three story on

00:28:07.880 --> 00:28:12.720
 the corner lot on the front there are different setbacks but now you can build two on one

00:28:12.720 --> 00:28:21.000
 or when you look at the map it's being built on the back half of that lot thinking of hickory

00:28:21.000 --> 00:28:26.800
 as the front end and you could therefore have the other half available to build another

00:28:26.800 --> 00:28:31.640
 house possibly a three story house as long as it's under 40 feet and you would therefore

00:28:31.640 --> 00:28:37.240
 have two structures and it would seem to me that uh you know without trying to read the

00:28:37.240 --> 00:28:44.600
 mind of the developer that if they were really going to take a building that's 2783 feet

00:28:44.600 --> 00:28:52.360
 i believe is the number they could certainly do that in that lot in a much better configuration

00:28:52.360 --> 00:28:57.720
 and what's that one that would be much more consistent with the neighborhood uh in terms

00:28:57.720 --> 00:29:05.480
 of land area in terms of height then squashing it all down into what's being called the interior

00:29:05.480 --> 00:29:11.240
 half of the lot now i don't know i i'm not i'm not reading his mind but you know i mean

00:29:11.240 --> 00:29:17.440
 what that does come to mind when you look at the drawing of the structure is provided

00:29:17.440 --> 00:29:25.480
 by the architect so the question again is could you under this plan build a second structure

00:29:25.480 --> 00:29:32.400
 on the front end the on the hickory end of that lot with this one already on the other

00:29:32.400 --> 00:29:37.640
 end of the lot i and your i understand your question now actually you could not in this

00:29:37.640 --> 00:29:44.600
 instance so r4 does require um it is a a one of our zoning districts that's a primarily

00:29:44.600 --> 00:29:49.960
 single-family zoning district it does permit town homes and duplexes but those require

00:29:49.960 --> 00:29:56.440
 a specific use permit and approval from council additionally given that lot size the lot could

00:29:56.440 --> 00:30:04.160
 not be further subdivided to be smaller to allow for further development of that of that

00:30:04.160 --> 00:30:08.980
 front portion adjacent to hickory the only way it could be subdivided further would be

00:30:08.980 --> 00:30:14.860
 to get approval of a variance for a smaller lot in that case it wouldn't have that protection

00:30:14.860 --> 00:30:20.640
 of being that legal lot of record that the the 2019 debt and development code affords

00:30:20.640 --> 00:30:26.720
 in this instance okay then i would direct this question to judge holland why did you

00:30:26.720 --> 00:30:35.440
 push it way down to the far end of the lot two reasons sir uh one to uh to minimize the

00:30:35.440 --> 00:30:42.360
 impact on the on the neighbor to the west uh as as that as that person looks out the

00:30:42.360 --> 00:30:47.320
 front of their house they likely will not see anything that looks like a house as they

00:30:47.320 --> 00:30:53.120
 look out toward the toward the uh the north secondly there's a a driveway apron already

00:30:53.120 --> 00:31:00.920
 existing that uh that i'd like to use just just for cost savings yeah okay i'm i i don't

00:31:00.920 --> 00:31:05.920
 understand that makes now i drove the lot and i ended up actually pacing off the front

00:31:05.920 --> 00:31:10.880
 of the lot versus the neighbor next door the neighbor next door driveway actually has no

00:31:10.880 --> 00:31:17.920
 setback it's right on the lot on the lot line um but that is that's a much narrower lot

00:31:17.920 --> 00:31:25.800
 than in some of the depictions we've seen here um gosh maybe you could designate the

00:31:25.800 --> 00:31:36.600
 front end of pocket park or something maybe well it's it's it's still uh i understand

00:31:36.600 --> 00:31:44.000
 what you're saying it's still uh i think that uh i think the three feet is i mean uh three

00:31:44.000 --> 00:31:49.000
 storey if you look uh if you're in a in the front end of the lot which i'll call the hickory

00:31:49.000 --> 00:31:54.040
 and and you look directly across the street there's a large building across the street

00:31:54.040 --> 00:31:58.200
 but it is a two-story building it is not a three-story building and it doesn't approach

00:31:58.200 --> 00:32:03.960
 40 feet and i think that my opinion would differ from the applicants and i think that

00:32:03.960 --> 00:32:10.960
 it is out of character for the neighborhood and might not be considered an asset by everyone

00:32:10.960 --> 00:32:17.160
 i understand the asset uh advantage of having a home there rather than have it be a place

00:32:17.160 --> 00:32:24.140
 to throw beer bottles and and syringes and something like that but uh i i just think it's

00:32:24.140 --> 00:32:30.880
 out of character for the neighborhood now as i understand miss wyatt's presentation

00:32:30.880 --> 00:32:38.000
 uh you know the way we are supposed to work here is whether there is harm whether there

00:32:38.000 --> 00:32:48.240
 is you know whatever i don't see it violating the technical side of those requirements uh

00:32:48.240 --> 00:32:56.800
 so i i you know i i think that using a judicial frame of mind uh which is almost embarrassing

00:32:56.800 --> 00:33:02.800
 to say in front of a judge but using a judicial frame of mind i mean i i can't have to vote

00:33:02.800 --> 00:33:15.360
 in favor of it i don't like it but i have to

00:33:15.360 --> 00:33:25.200
 i'm done jennifer you're you're muted

00:33:25.200 --> 00:33:31.560
 would prefer uh board member higgins you would prefer that the property be developed perhaps

00:33:31.560 --> 00:33:35.720
 you could speak to that a little bit could you say that i was a little i was a little

00:33:35.720 --> 00:33:39.600
 bit i'm so sorry i'm a little shocked um if you would speak to what you would like to

00:33:39.600 --> 00:33:44.080
 see you did a little bit would you like to see two buildings that are two stories as

00:33:44.080 --> 00:33:49.480
 opposed to one that is three well i would sorry i would i would well i would certainly

00:33:49.480 --> 00:33:55.440
 prefer a two-story building now if i had my preference since we discovered from uh miss

00:33:55.440 --> 00:34:02.640
 bryant that only one residence can be built on this lot i'd rather see it be centered

00:34:02.640 --> 00:34:07.840
 and i'd rather if possible have it be a two-story building you could move it forward i think

00:34:07.840 --> 00:34:14.760
 without creating too much of a view or encroachment on the actual home or front yard next to it

00:34:14.760 --> 00:34:19.720
 i think that would be would be much preferable i understand that's pouring a lot more cement

00:34:19.720 --> 00:34:26.000
 in all those kinds of considerations but to answer your question jennifer that's you asked

00:34:26.000 --> 00:34:30.200
 me what i would prefer i think that would be much more appropriate to the neighborhood

00:34:30.200 --> 00:34:40.440
 if i may yes if you're finished um board member higgins i could recognize uh mr reedy and

00:34:40.440 --> 00:34:45.840
 he could speak to the issue thank you would you like would you like that are you finished

00:34:45.840 --> 00:34:52.960
 uh board member higgins sure that's fine let me yes let me okay we're going to mute ourselves

00:34:52.960 --> 00:35:00.880
 and you go for it um mr reedy thank you thank you miss lane um really just um as a builder

00:35:00.880 --> 00:35:08.720
 standpoint and looking at the uh the architectural appeal i understand what david is saying but

00:35:08.720 --> 00:35:15.600
 at the same time we have two properties that are uh caddy corner from this corner the proposed

00:35:15.600 --> 00:35:26.000
 corner both of those structures are multi-story structures i believe it's um 1108 hickory is

00:35:26.000 --> 00:35:32.160
 a two-story as well as the uh the property on the the northwest corner is a two-story

00:35:32.160 --> 00:35:41.320
 however the property that's on the the northwest corner is on an elevated lot it somewhat appears

00:35:41.320 --> 00:35:47.340
 very high and it and we don't have any view of that at this point unless someone could

00:35:47.340 --> 00:35:53.920
 provide that view immediately but it it almost appears as if it is a three-story structure

00:35:53.920 --> 00:36:03.000
 so the with the structure what we're proposing would fit very well on the lot that we have

00:36:03.000 --> 00:36:11.760
 based on what we're trying to do in fact if we did a a two story only it would maximize

00:36:11.760 --> 00:36:17.680
 uh the impact on that lot it would it would just take up more ground so the the three

00:36:17.680 --> 00:36:22.520
 story i think is very fitting for all we're trying to trying to achieve yeah i understand

00:36:22.520 --> 00:36:32.720
 the take up more ground argument are there any more questions or comments

00:36:32.720 --> 00:36:34.000
 we have um prince

00:36:34.000 --> 00:36:42.560
 have a question prince nojoku has come uh prince could you turn on your video because

00:36:42.560 --> 00:36:49.640
 we're having the uh board members visible and then asking the presenters to turn their

00:36:49.640 --> 00:37:00.320
 videos on when uh called on uh who was it who said they had a question it's michael redwin

00:37:00.320 --> 00:37:04.120
 oh yes please i recognize i'm sorry about that guys i'm on my way from work i'm currently

00:37:04.120 --> 00:37:07.800
 in the car oh if you're driving that's okay if it was a distraction don't worry about

00:37:07.800 --> 00:37:15.720
 it okay thank you very much thank you you look great in there okay i did have a question

00:37:15.720 --> 00:37:21.600
 um yes so on the north lot so i guess that's a lot two and three what is the setback of

00:37:21.600 --> 00:37:26.480
 that property it looks like it's pretty close to the property line as well just want to

00:37:26.480 --> 00:37:31.240
 get perspective on how close if we're talking about less than or two and a half feet um

00:37:31.240 --> 00:37:39.680
 are we talking from the north side what how much setback is that sidewalk

00:37:39.680 --> 00:37:44.640
 it's fairly close our our maps were you know the projection can be a little off they're

00:37:44.640 --> 00:37:49.720
 a little more schematic so i don't have the exact um setback for that adjacent property

00:37:49.720 --> 00:37:56.260
 from the subject property but it's it's it's fairly close to that property line just based

00:37:56.260 --> 00:38:06.760
 upon a visual um review of it could we get that at some point i can see what i can measure

00:38:06.760 --> 00:38:11.120
 from our our aerial maps give me give me just a second let me see and if it doesn't have

00:38:11.120 --> 00:38:37.920
 to be right the second i suppose that's all

00:38:37.920 --> 00:39:06.000
 almost there

00:39:06.000 --> 00:39:14.960
 so based upon what are aerial maps and just measuring from that and and sort of those schematic

00:39:14.960 --> 00:39:23.880
 property lines shown there it appears that adjacent property uh maybe about um eight

00:39:23.880 --> 00:39:28.640
 and a half feet the the principal structure eight and a half feet from that property line

00:39:28.640 --> 00:39:32.760
 because it does have that driveway separating that principal structure from the from the

00:39:32.760 --> 00:39:39.200
 property line our aerial maps show they also have an accessory building that is also in

00:39:39.200 --> 00:39:46.440
 that in that gap between the primary structure and that um eastern property line okay okay

00:39:46.440 --> 00:39:58.280
 thank you you bet uh dr lane yes can i interject something here please absolutely the the adjacent

00:39:58.280 --> 00:40:04.280
 building that uh that miss wyatt was speaking of at least from the street appears to be

00:40:04.280 --> 00:40:13.240
 a tent like structure and and it and it it's it's fashioned on the lot as it would be a

00:40:13.240 --> 00:40:18.680
 garage or carport but it's not a it's not a permanent structure it's a tent like structure

00:40:18.680 --> 00:40:37.200
 that's all i have any more questions for mr holland or mr rede can't see hands up so maybe

00:40:37.200 --> 00:40:48.280
 um staff can see no let's i have a question i know there's a concern it made me sad to

00:40:48.280 --> 00:40:56.560
 see the word vagrants in the document um that's just uh not the greatest term for um what

00:40:56.560 --> 00:41:07.720
 we're dealing with but i'd like to know how um i suppose i'd like to know how the presenter

00:41:07.720 --> 00:41:12.920
 has taken in some of the suggestions particularly mr higgins suggestions and if there's any

00:41:12.920 --> 00:41:23.760
 modifications you might make um um do you want me to address the term vagrant no i'm

00:41:23.760 --> 00:41:27.720
 just wanting to point out that that's not the greatest term and okay i didn't like seeing

00:41:27.720 --> 00:41:44.320
 it um the the reason that we chose this uh this architectural design uh was that we don't

00:41:44.320 --> 00:41:51.840
 have a whole lot of of ground to work with if i'm to make this commercially viable and

00:41:51.840 --> 00:41:58.460
 i don't i don't mean that to sound crass or anything but i've got to make the numbers

00:41:58.460 --> 00:42:07.960
 work on this i just have to make that work um the uh the way it's the way it's intended

00:42:07.960 --> 00:42:16.600
 right now is that there will be a kitchen uh eating area on the first floor a bedroom

00:42:16.600 --> 00:42:23.760
 on either side of the of the uh house on the second floor with a laundry room in between

00:42:23.760 --> 00:42:32.200
 and a uh a sitting area on the third floor uh the intention for this is to look like

00:42:32.200 --> 00:42:39.600
 a lighthouse uh and if i don't know if if miss wyatt sent you the elevation of that

00:42:39.600 --> 00:42:47.400
 but but this is this is supposed to look like a lighthouse and um and it looks like a lighthouse

00:42:47.400 --> 00:42:54.700
 that's that's the intent i would like to think that it would be one of those one of those

00:42:54.700 --> 00:43:01.040
 things that uh one of those denton things that people go and say look at that house

00:43:01.040 --> 00:43:09.560
 it looks like a lighthouse that that is certainly my intention so so to answer mr higgins uh

00:43:09.560 --> 00:43:17.360
 the the the zoning as i understand it permits a three-story uh and that's and that's what

00:43:17.360 --> 00:43:22.440
 i wanted that's what i want to build there and then to additionally it sounds like additionally

00:43:22.440 --> 00:43:31.040
 to add uh to make it a point of interest well well yes yes and and uh um i want this to

00:43:31.040 --> 00:43:42.600
 be a fun project thank you yes uh mr reedy in addition um the architectural design we're

00:43:42.600 --> 00:43:49.440
 going to include a metal roof which is a long-term roof so on a three-story structure that's

00:43:49.440 --> 00:43:54.960
 more advantageous to have a metal roof so it's um it's just one thing that we've asked

00:43:54.960 --> 00:43:59.000
 our architecture that we would include in those drawings so we're trying to think ahead

00:43:59.000 --> 00:44:05.920
 on the project at the same time um and to maximize all the the energy concerns it will

00:44:05.920 --> 00:44:13.280
 be um all of the exterior walls will be foam filled so with um and to maximize all the

00:44:13.280 --> 00:44:18.920
 egresses you know for fire safety and so forth we're going to be in compliance with all of

00:44:18.920 --> 00:44:23.960
 those needs so we've done some background and homework we've made in fact the architect

00:44:23.960 --> 00:44:29.680
 is from canada so it's been kind of a little bit fun and interesting project all the way

00:44:29.680 --> 00:44:35.020
 through to make this thing come together and um i'm excited to make a good project out

00:44:35.020 --> 00:44:42.160
 of it so it's do you know about the boston three deckers we're going boston here in denton

00:44:42.160 --> 00:44:46.080
 where the family as the family uh generation new generation comes along they build on top

00:44:46.080 --> 00:44:53.160
 of the first floor and then the um grandparents move down and then each generation moves down

00:44:53.160 --> 00:44:58.160
 so they have fewer steps as the next one comes along so you have these three tree decker

00:44:58.160 --> 00:45:07.800
 tree deckers to use the accent it's it's our hope oh i'm sorry i beg i beg i was just going

00:45:07.800 --> 00:45:15.600
 to compliment what mr rede said it's it's our hope that um that some that some student

00:45:15.600 --> 00:45:20.200
 on a football weekend will say mom and dad you got to come and see this house it looks

00:45:20.200 --> 00:45:25.160
 just like a lighthouse it's from canada where they where they know about lighthouses that's

00:45:25.160 --> 00:45:32.760
 that's the intent mr higgins yeah just just to clarify what i think miss white said let

00:45:32.760 --> 00:45:40.200
 me ask her the height restriction is 40 feet not number of stories it's just 40 feet right

00:45:40.200 --> 00:45:49.360
 yes sir how many feet would each story be 38 feet we're 38 feet i mean like a headroom

00:45:49.360 --> 00:46:00.880
 and all that uh that's it's all eight feet like the standard standard structure

00:46:00.880 --> 00:46:05.280
 and then our uh our maximum height through the build the structure itself is 38 feet

00:46:05.280 --> 00:46:19.720
 do we what let's see do we need are there any more questions do we need to um move on

00:46:19.720 --> 00:46:26.840
 this um perhaps you can help me out ron a little bit yes uh mr higgins uh madam madam

00:46:26.840 --> 00:46:31.520
 chair how many voting members i see a lot of pictures here how many voting members do

00:46:31.520 --> 00:46:37.560
 we have and how many do we need i believe we have seven if we count prince who's driving

00:46:37.560 --> 00:46:52.320
 seven all together including myself but we need six six correct to prove the variance

00:46:52.320 --> 00:47:05.520
 super majority are we looking for a motion say that one more time are we looking for

00:47:05.520 --> 00:47:10.600
 a motion if we're looking for a motion are there any more um any more discussion points

00:47:10.600 --> 00:47:16.000
 that wish to come up before we call the item

00:47:16.000 --> 00:47:20.080
 person line this is mac from the city attorney's office one additional thing that the board

00:47:20.080 --> 00:47:25.160
 needs to be aware of if they make a motion to approve or to deny they need to have findings

00:47:25.160 --> 00:47:31.000
 of fact and conclusions of law so if you do move to approved i would recommend that you

00:47:31.000 --> 00:47:37.840
 use the staffs that you accept and adopt the staff's um findings of fact in their staff

00:47:37.840 --> 00:47:41.760
 report that way at least you have that that work done for you otherwise you'll need to

00:47:41.760 --> 00:47:46.520
 make your own findings of fact and conclusions of law i see yes so the motion would need

00:47:46.520 --> 00:47:53.160
 to be worded as move to accept city of denton staffs finding the facts if it's if it's to

00:47:53.160 --> 00:47:59.400
 approve the variance yes then to all to approve the variance based upon and adopting the the

00:47:59.400 --> 00:48:10.680
 staff's planning staff report as the findings of fact and conclusion of all um dr lane i

00:48:10.680 --> 00:48:18.960
 have a question also please yes um the the item is to consider two variance requests

00:48:18.960 --> 00:48:25.720
 mac would we then need to whatever the motion would be would be to either approve the two

00:48:25.720 --> 00:48:32.160
 variance requests or to deny the two variance requests right and correctly if i'm wrong

00:48:32.160 --> 00:48:35.880
 here julie but i think there's actually three variance requests there's the two there's

00:48:35.880 --> 00:48:40.360
 one setback there's another setback and then there's a porch encroachment as well which

00:48:40.360 --> 00:48:44.520
 is a variance request so i believe it's all three you could do those as one motion to

00:48:44.520 --> 00:48:48.360
 approve all the variance requests or if you wanted to separate them out into different

00:48:48.360 --> 00:48:57.320
 votes you could do that as well i asked julie if staff uh staff findings of facts on these

00:48:57.320 --> 00:49:10.600
 three requests are similar yes they they are thank you

00:49:10.600 --> 00:49:27.560
 okay i'd like to make a motion then to accept the staff findings and to approve the two variance

00:49:27.560 --> 00:49:32.760
 request and the variance request for the construction second

00:49:36.120 --> 00:49:41.960
 just so i'm clear so council or board member lenny um let us that's you want to approve

00:49:41.960 --> 00:49:47.640
 both setbacks for the set the setback variates variations as well as the porch variance as well

00:49:47.640 --> 00:49:55.240
 correct and to accept the staff recommendations perfect thank you motion is to accept the staff

00:49:55.240 --> 00:50:02.200
 findings of facts on these variances and the porch variance and the second is was by whom

00:50:03.480 --> 00:50:12.760
 by eric horton uh board member horton and then do we have the the buttons manner of voting or do

00:50:12.760 --> 00:50:19.640
 i need to go around the room all right um board member red wine how do you vote i uh i approve

00:50:19.640 --> 00:50:27.720
 based on staff's recommendation uh board member we have let's see go to some work board member

00:50:27.720 --> 00:50:38.520
 meisner how do you vote i also approve based on staff recommendation board member higgins how do

00:50:38.520 --> 00:50:47.400
 you vote approve the motion is stated uh board member nijoku are you there approve them yeah

00:50:47.400 --> 00:50:53.160
 approve the motion is stated do you mind coming on video just long enough to vote yes give me one

00:50:53.160 --> 00:51:03.880
 more moment yes i approve the motion thank you very much be safe thank you board member linus

00:51:03.880 --> 00:51:08.040
 i approve the motion uh board member horton

00:51:08.040 --> 00:51:16.600
 i approve the motion have i left anyone out besides myself i will vote to approve

00:51:16.600 --> 00:51:21.000
 the motion as stated thank you

00:51:23.160 --> 00:51:28.840
 congratulations thank you thank you i'm very excited and uh we'll we'll we'll make you proud

00:51:28.840 --> 00:51:35.080
 and and uh and invite you over make you make it cute it'll be cute make it a three-decker

00:51:35.080 --> 00:51:49.560
 all right um miss wyatt we we had and and thank you so much for your help uh miss wyatt's been

00:51:49.560 --> 00:51:55.880
 been tremendously helpful in this project do we need to deal with anything else right now as far

00:51:55.880 --> 00:52:04.920
 as uh sidewalks and trees and um uh clips sidewalk clips it would now go through the

00:52:04.920 --> 00:52:09.320
 regular development process those submittals and i can um i can contact you first thing in the

00:52:09.320 --> 00:52:13.560
 morning and we can we can i can walk you through it how's that sound that's that's perfect that's

00:52:13.560 --> 00:52:19.480
 perfect if i may say our trees here in denton have been decimated of late so if you have anything

00:52:19.480 --> 00:52:25.240
 nice please save it well we're gonna we're gonna do everything we can to save to save what we can

00:52:25.240 --> 00:52:32.520
 save uh unfortunately somebody upstream hasn't respected the trees that uh like like they should

00:52:32.520 --> 00:52:39.000
 have but uh but we're gonna i'm gonna get frenchie on the case and and uh and we'll do what we can

00:52:39.000 --> 00:52:44.040
 if you have coast oaks and live oaks those are the most important to them right now but all of them

00:52:44.040 --> 00:52:50.760
 matter i don't know i don't know what these are there are can't help me four four good size

00:52:50.760 --> 00:52:57.720
 trees on the property that we intend to keep there's two that uh that that have just been

00:52:57.720 --> 00:53:04.600
 butchered and um and they're just not they're just not very good looking so so we're gonna see if we

00:53:04.600 --> 00:53:11.720
 can if we can maintain those or or excuse me i'm beg your pardon uh what we can do with those but

00:53:11.720 --> 00:53:19.400
 but my intention is to keep as many trees as as we can we do have um trees that are listed on our

00:53:19.400 --> 00:53:27.640
 site plan and those trees uh i believe are salvageable um however i do believe that one

00:53:27.640 --> 00:53:36.440
 of the trees would be uh compromised because of the slab foundation and it's it's actually the

00:53:36.440 --> 00:53:43.240
 one tree that is less desirable but at the same time we would try to to salvage that tree um i'm

00:53:43.240 --> 00:53:48.920
 all for trying to make good use of what's there trim it up get it better and and keep moving

00:53:48.920 --> 00:53:54.280
 forward with it but uh at the same time possibly add some ornamental trees you know for landscape

00:53:54.280 --> 00:54:01.720
 purposes and it's it's just it's just not in it's just not a good not a good looking tree yeah

00:54:01.720 --> 00:54:05.480
 there's a gentleman who used to work for the city i think or works with the city sometimes

00:54:05.480 --> 00:54:11.400
 named brand richter um he might be able to give you some feedback on the trees he's been doing a

00:54:11.400 --> 00:54:18.520
 lot of that lately you know the city knows him and this lane if i can interject um or i think we're

00:54:18.520 --> 00:54:24.280
 out of posting if we can continue with the agenda we do have two more items thank you everyone

00:54:24.280 --> 00:54:37.880
 and aloha aloha thank you judge holland and miss lane again if you can speak up again we're

00:54:37.880 --> 00:54:49.880
 having issues um trying to hear you you're currently muted as well is that way better

00:54:49.880 --> 00:54:54.120
 or anything i turned it super high yeah i think if you can just speak a little bit louder that

00:54:54.120 --> 00:55:00.120
 would be helpful even even that would help all right thank you thank you and um all right let's

00:55:00.120 --> 00:55:08.360
 see the next item on the agenda is do we have the uh screen share for that or without uh receiving

00:55:08.360 --> 00:55:35.240
 envelopes anymore is a little more difficult all right here we go all right then is it possible

00:55:35.240 --> 00:55:40.520
 to show the agenda on uh screen share

00:55:40.520 --> 00:55:49.720
 jennifer you don't have the yes i do but i don't have it on paper and i have about 10 windows open

00:55:49.720 --> 00:56:06.200
 here let's see i'm gonna open another one it's time all right here we go

00:56:17.000 --> 00:56:25.880
 okay doki here we go next this is item item two

00:56:25.880 --> 00:56:33.640
 two c i believe is that right correct yeah consider approval of a variance from the 1991

00:56:33.640 --> 00:56:39.400
 zoning ordinance section 3593 accessory buildings related to the minimum rear yard setback on

00:56:39.400 --> 00:56:45.480
 approximately 0.22 acre the variance requested is for an outdoor kitchen which encroaches into the

00:56:45.480 --> 00:56:50.520
 minimum three foot rear setback the subject property is located on the northwest corner of

00:56:50.520 --> 00:56:57.560
 echo hill lane and falcon ridge road and it's listed as v 20 dash 0005 outdoor pavilion and

00:56:57.560 --> 00:57:09.960
 julie wyatt will present thank you so before we begin um vice chair lane if we can have the

00:57:10.840 --> 00:57:17.160
 applicant on this if we have the person on the zoom call to turn on his or her camera

00:57:17.160 --> 00:57:26.600
 for the oath okay and then i'll have to pull that off my camera will y'all y'all disable the camera

00:57:26.600 --> 00:57:37.480
 so jason sanford adam is there a way we can get mr there we go all right let me pull up the oath

00:57:37.480 --> 00:57:44.280
 for you jason is there anybody else on your side that we need a no sir okay

00:57:44.280 --> 00:57:54.200
 all right so um if you are appearing before this board as provide as provided under chapter 602

00:57:54.200 --> 00:58:00.120
 0025 of the texas government code all testimony is sworn could you please identify yourself for

00:58:00.120 --> 00:58:08.520
 the record yes jason sanford thank you please raise your right hand you have it up um under

00:58:08.520 --> 00:58:12.840
 penalty of perjury do you swear or affirm that any testimony or information you provide or any

00:58:12.840 --> 00:58:17.480
 statement you make before this board is complete true and correct to the best of your knowledge

00:58:17.480 --> 00:58:22.840
 and ability i swear to you thank you and please proceed with your statement

00:58:26.280 --> 00:58:33.400
 it was julie representing me or not yes um i believe we sworn in julie already

00:58:33.400 --> 00:58:38.280
 mac do we need to do it again for this item or is it for the whole meeting

00:58:38.280 --> 00:58:43.960
 oh she was sworn in for the meeting okay so julie if you can go ahead and get started all right i'll

00:58:43.960 --> 00:58:57.240
 go ahead and share my screen give me just one moment to pull up the presentation okay

00:58:57.240 --> 00:59:08.440
 so this item is v 20 0005 outdoor pavilion so the request is to consider a variance from the 1991

00:59:08.440 --> 00:59:15.720
 zoning ordinance section 35-93 accessory buildings related to the minimum rear yard setback

00:59:15.720 --> 00:59:22.600
 and just to kind of give you some background this um this uh variance and this request came to the

00:59:22.600 --> 00:59:29.560
 city's attention um after construction he's moved forward with a building permit and that's kind of

00:59:29.560 --> 00:59:36.840
 how um this came to the city's attention so some background on the property and and the um and the

00:59:36.840 --> 00:59:43.000
 subdivision before we get into the specific request it is located in a planned development

00:59:43.000 --> 00:59:50.040
 it's the preserve at pecan creek it's pd 132 in the city of denton um with the implementation of

00:59:50.040 --> 00:59:59.080
 the 2019 denton development code the proposed uh process the variance process has to follow the

00:59:59.080 --> 01:00:05.320
 current um processes within the 2019 denton development code so it's following that section

01:00:05.320 --> 01:00:12.120
 2.8.1 that outlines the zba processes and criteria for approval for a variance however the

01:00:12.120 --> 01:00:17.640
 development standards including the setbacks remain consistent with those that were established by the

01:00:17.640 --> 01:00:23.800
 pd and this is one of our legacy pds it's one of our older pds in town and so it was um the most

01:00:23.800 --> 01:00:29.320
 recent general concept plan was approved in 1998 so those development standards would be governed

01:00:29.320 --> 01:00:35.720
 by that 91 code so that's why we're looking at it with we're using current um processes but the

01:00:35.720 --> 01:00:43.080
 1991 development standard so it's it's a little different we're spanning two codes here um so that

01:00:43.080 --> 01:00:49.320
 said we'll just go over briefly about what the what the setbacks are in this instance so um so we

01:00:49.320 --> 01:00:54.520
 we talked about setbacks for a primary structure in the previous case and this case is related

01:00:54.520 --> 01:01:02.360
 to an accessory building so so that 91 code had specific setbacks for for accessory buildings

01:01:02.360 --> 01:01:09.000
 it required a three foot rear setback so kind of shown here in red and then the side setback was a

01:01:09.000 --> 01:01:16.040
 little different so um so at the midpoint of the lot so if you take from the front of the lot to

01:01:16.040 --> 01:01:22.600
 the rear of the lot um that midpoint anything forward of that so between that midpoint and the

01:01:22.600 --> 01:01:29.720
 front street would require a 10 foot side yard setback in this instance because it is behind

01:01:29.720 --> 01:01:36.840
 that midpoint it requires a three foot side setback so um so just to kind of let you know what those

01:01:36.840 --> 01:01:42.200
 setbacks are that they're required to meet um so now we'll look at what they're proposing

01:01:42.200 --> 01:01:49.240
 so this this is an accessory building it is um there is this is a single-family residential lot

01:01:50.200 --> 01:01:57.000
 and as you can see by the concept plan that they provided to us their um their sort of home their

01:01:57.000 --> 01:02:04.680
 property is kind of shown here in purple uh the proposed accessory building is an 11 by 18 covered

01:02:04.680 --> 01:02:11.960
 outdoor pavilion um as it's as it's constructed it's about two feet from that rear property line

01:02:11.960 --> 01:02:17.720
 and seven and a half feet from the side property line so it meets the side the side setbacks it's

01:02:17.720 --> 01:02:21.960
 that rear setback that they're requesting a variance from um just to give you a little

01:02:21.960 --> 01:02:27.960
 more information about what the um the pavilion um how it's constructed it has a concrete foundation

01:02:27.960 --> 01:02:34.200
 on a stain wood pergola structure with a pitch singled roof um they did seek and get approval

01:02:34.200 --> 01:02:41.080
 from the homeowners association for that um that structure and so it did put a limit of the maximum

01:02:41.080 --> 01:02:48.600
 roof height of 14 feet um it has wiring for electricity um there's a they show a bar with a

01:02:48.600 --> 01:02:57.480
 seating area um as well as cooking appliances including a smoker um a griddle um some ice

01:02:57.480 --> 01:03:09.480
 areas so so it has um um cooking areas and it is situated um in this this uh rear corner of the lot

01:03:11.640 --> 01:03:17.640
 so the 91 ordinance really had three parts to that accessory building um first of all it couldn't

01:03:17.640 --> 01:03:23.560
 be within the front yard um because this doesn't meet that rear yard setback it doesn't it doesn't

01:03:23.560 --> 01:03:31.720
 comply with that regulation um it also has to meet the side yard setbacks it does meet that as i as

01:03:31.720 --> 01:03:37.640
 i mentioned it is seven and a half feet from that side property line um and then the the real issue

01:03:37.640 --> 01:03:44.520
 is that rear yard setback it is situated two feet from the rear property line whereas a three foot

01:03:44.520 --> 01:03:52.360
 setback is required um just to show you some pictures that the applicant provided of that

01:03:52.360 --> 01:04:00.680
 um of that accessory building so now we'll go over the criteria for approval um so the first once

01:04:00.680 --> 01:04:05.720
 again this is in sub chapter two of the debt and development code um the first one sets the special

01:04:05.720 --> 01:04:11.000
 circumstances or conditions which apply to the parcel which the variance is sought these

01:04:11.000 --> 01:04:15.960
 conditions or circumstances should be peculiar to the parcel and not generally apply to other

01:04:15.960 --> 01:04:22.360
 parcels in this instance the physical conditions related to the property including lot size shape

01:04:22.360 --> 01:04:28.840
 and topography are consistent with the surrounding platted lots within the preservative concrete pd

01:04:29.480 --> 01:04:36.760
 subdivision um and second the dwelling is positioned centrally on the lot so that and that

01:04:36.760 --> 01:04:43.880
 improvements to the rear yard do reduce the space however this circumstance does not deprive the

01:04:43.880 --> 01:04:49.800
 applicant of a reasonable use of the property he still can use his backyard it's just it is limited

01:04:49.800 --> 01:04:56.440
 given the given the improvements to the backyard so um staff's analysis is it doesn't meet the the

01:04:56.440 --> 01:05:02.920
 first criteria um the second granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public

01:05:02.920 --> 01:05:06.840
 welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the district or neighborhood

01:05:06.840 --> 01:05:12.440
 in which the parcel is located um the proposed outdoor pavilion is not anticipated to be a

01:05:12.440 --> 01:05:19.320
 detrimental to the public um welfare insofar as these sorts of outdoor kitchens are typical in

01:05:19.320 --> 01:05:26.760
 in suburban residential subdivisions it's not a use that is that is out of the norm for for a residential

01:05:26.760 --> 01:05:32.440
 area however we do need to look at what the setbacks and the intent of setbacks and they

01:05:32.440 --> 01:05:36.920
 are intended to reduce visual impacts of buildings by increasing the distance between the structure

01:05:36.920 --> 01:05:43.480
 and the property line um and the the proposed variance to encroach into the rear yard setback

01:05:43.480 --> 01:05:47.960
 could increase the visibility of the structure reducing the efficacy of the setback

01:05:49.960 --> 01:05:55.400
 um third the variance is granted is the minimum variance that would accomplish the purpose

01:05:55.400 --> 01:06:00.040
 the proposed variance for that two foot rear setback would allow the accessory building to

01:06:00.040 --> 01:06:06.200
 remain as as it's been constructed um for the literal enforcement and strict application of

01:06:06.200 --> 01:06:11.240
 the provisions of the ddc would result in an unnecessary hardship and consistent with the

01:06:11.240 --> 01:06:17.800
 provisions of the ddc on the strict act the strict application of the 91 ordinance does not

01:06:17.800 --> 01:06:22.840
 deprive the the owner of the reasonable use of the rear yard or prohibit an accessory building

01:06:22.840 --> 01:06:29.800
 outside of the required three foot setback five the granting of the variance is not solely for

01:06:29.800 --> 01:06:35.800
 the purpose of mitigating a financial hardship the proposed variance is not for the purpose of

01:06:35.800 --> 01:06:40.840
 mitigating the financial hardship and then finally the condition or feature that creates the need for

01:06:40.840 --> 01:06:48.040
 the variance did not result from the the owner's actions um the need for the variance is a result

01:06:48.040 --> 01:06:52.840
 of the construction of the accessory building within two feet of the rear property line

01:06:52.840 --> 01:07:00.600
 um so well we're gonna look at pictures of the site this is sort of when the the property was

01:07:00.600 --> 01:07:05.640
 under construction but these um these sort of give you that bird's eye view so the the accessory

01:07:05.640 --> 01:07:11.800
 building is located in this kind of general area right here uh two feet from this this fence line

01:07:11.800 --> 01:07:19.640
 and once again it's located in this general area staff was concerned because it is um in in an

01:07:19.640 --> 01:07:27.400
 area where it's kind of out out of the front door of the adjacent property um thus potentially um

01:07:27.400 --> 01:07:34.920
 increasing those visual impacts of that reduced setback for the um that accessory building

01:07:36.600 --> 01:07:44.600
 um as we did with the previous um the uh previous request we did ask the property owner to reach out

01:07:44.600 --> 01:07:51.000
 to the adjacent um property owner to get their feedback regarding the request um and they did

01:07:51.000 --> 01:07:57.880
 provide a um a a letter in support provided that the property owner does put rain gutters on the

01:07:57.880 --> 01:08:08.120
 structure to prevent runoff um staff recommends denial of the request um from that that um that

01:08:08.120 --> 01:08:14.360
 variance from that uh to uh locate that extra the accessory building two feet from the rear property

01:08:14.360 --> 01:08:21.720
 line as it does not meet all the criteria for approval in section 2.8.1 d of the dentin development

01:08:21.720 --> 01:08:28.920
 code um and i'll be happy to answer any questions and the applicant is on um on the meeting

01:08:28.920 --> 01:08:35.720
 thank you very much is why are there any questions for the applicant or for miss wyatt

01:08:35.720 --> 01:08:43.480
 yes uh board member higgins

01:08:43.480 --> 01:08:50.600
 uh the adjacent property owner is that the one that's on echo hill lane

01:08:52.520 --> 01:08:59.480
 yes sir it is okay and that and that how is that that i know in the picture it's under construction

01:08:59.480 --> 01:09:04.840
 is that house actually contracted to build by an individual who will occupy that home

01:09:04.840 --> 01:09:13.480
 uh the home's already already uh that home was was here before this home was built so

01:09:13.480 --> 01:09:19.160
 he was one of the first homeowners in the area so okay well let me let me ask miss miss wyatt

01:09:19.160 --> 01:09:27.640
 miss miss wyatt again is that the the person that home next to it on echo hill lane is that the

01:09:27.640 --> 01:09:32.280
 person that responded with the commentary about the drainage that you talked about

01:09:32.280 --> 01:09:39.560
 or is it the one on the other side it is it is the property owner that is immediately

01:09:39.560 --> 01:09:43.960
 adjacent to the accessory building so it sort of backs up to his driveway

01:09:47.480 --> 01:09:51.400
 would you like i could pull up the map again would would you would that be yeah

01:09:51.400 --> 01:09:54.520
 let me pull up the presentation

01:09:54.520 --> 01:10:00.120
 actually the aerial photograph of where the thing will go would suit me

01:10:00.120 --> 01:10:14.440
 so mr sanford can um can uh correct me but that that letter is from this property owner

01:10:14.440 --> 01:10:22.280
 adjacent to the subject site that is correct yes sir yes ma'am so the structure actually

01:10:22.280 --> 01:10:30.040
 um just goes inside of his kind of driveway that little area there and he was talking about

01:10:30.040 --> 01:10:36.040
 possibly doing some landscaping up there uh to kind of beautify his area so he had asked about

01:10:36.040 --> 01:10:41.560
 the rain gutters being put there so that it doesn't directly run off onto his and i said no problem

01:10:41.560 --> 01:10:51.000
 with that at all yeah okay well this is this is um uh well i don't know i'm just i mean this is

01:10:51.000 --> 01:10:56.920
 party party party i mean you got four bar stools you got all kinds of cooking deals you can imagine

01:10:56.920 --> 01:11:06.200
 large gatherings there and uh and the in the hoa approved it so you know i guess i haven't it just

01:11:06.200 --> 01:11:12.280
 seems odd to me but that's it uh miss bar you didn't have any response from any other property

01:11:12.280 --> 01:11:21.080
 owner than this one um variants did variances don't require under the current code uh regulations

01:11:21.080 --> 01:11:27.240
 um public notification so we haven't heard from any other adjacent property owners okay

01:11:29.560 --> 01:11:36.280
 i did get four uh four sign-offs whenever i got the hoa approval and all the neighbors on echo

01:11:36.280 --> 01:11:43.320
 hill are are fine with it the ones that are directly across from it uh and then we've got a

01:11:43.320 --> 01:11:49.160
 pool in the backyard also uh so when you walk out the back towards the left towards the actual

01:11:49.160 --> 01:11:55.240
 pavilion and kitchen structure we were trying to center it to where it actually flows in with all

01:11:55.240 --> 01:12:03.720
 that when this thing is up and running get me invited okay don't put don't put that in the

01:12:03.720 --> 01:12:13.720
 minutes all right uh yes are there any other questions oh yes um board member linus um yeah

01:12:13.720 --> 01:12:22.600
 my my question is since the variance requires three feet and the current the structure as

01:12:22.600 --> 01:12:30.840
 presented is two feet why not just make it a little bit narrower and longer so that you don't have to

01:12:30.840 --> 01:12:40.840
 request the variance uh i was unaware of the three foot setback initially so the structure the uh the

01:12:40.840 --> 01:12:47.320
 post actually go underground two foot underground and they're in two foot of concrete and then

01:12:47.320 --> 01:12:55.080
 there's a slab foundation for on top of okay but you can't change the way that's done

01:12:55.080 --> 01:13:02.920
 uh it would be a complete uh tear down of the whole structure bust the slab concrete up

01:13:02.920 --> 01:13:10.840
 uh it would be a complete start over yet oh i'm sorry i completely misunderstood the photographs

01:13:10.840 --> 01:13:17.880
 we saw that's it's actually in place yeah

01:13:17.880 --> 01:13:35.080
 are there any other questions yes um board member red wine so uh that's why so is the

01:13:35.080 --> 01:13:43.560
 recommendation what is is the recommendation that remediation um the recommendation is that

01:13:43.560 --> 01:13:48.760
 you know staff cannot support it doesn't meet the criteria for approval for the variance

01:13:48.760 --> 01:13:57.400
 to locate this structure within three feet of of that rear property line there are potential

01:13:57.400 --> 01:14:04.520
 options that he could do that 91 code does not prevent those horizontal improvements so he could

01:14:04.520 --> 01:14:11.560
 put in he could keep the um maintain that patio as it is um currently constructed and there are a

01:14:11.560 --> 01:14:19.800
 potential for him to to leave the um uh to to leave the uh that sort of bar area you know that

01:14:19.800 --> 01:14:31.400
 the countertops um as constructed um but but that that roof area um does not meet the criteria for

01:14:31.400 --> 01:14:36.680
 approval for that variance thank you

01:14:36.680 --> 01:14:48.600
 do we have any more questions comments from any of the board members uh yes board member meisner

01:14:48.600 --> 01:14:59.160
 quick question if we can see the visuals of the structures again please

01:15:01.400 --> 01:15:31.320
 uh so this left side picture is the one that's illustrating the completed

01:15:31.320 --> 01:15:39.080
 structure and the close proximity to the neighbor's fence right there is that correct

01:15:39.080 --> 01:15:48.120
 correct the property line of the fence okay thank you

01:15:55.000 --> 01:16:04.760
 yes uh board member higgins uh uh mr sanford would you have any suggestions uh you know you

01:16:04.760 --> 01:16:08.520
 do know the construction would you have any suggestions as to what you might do

01:16:08.520 --> 01:16:18.920
 to mitigate the concern uh on the part of staff that could could alter what might possibly be a

01:16:18.920 --> 01:16:33.960
 negative vote on your application um not really i mean move it moving those holes one foot over

01:16:33.960 --> 01:16:42.840
 i guess is possible but uh the structure of the integrity of the structure would be different

01:16:42.840 --> 01:16:50.600
 if i move the poles so uh i'm a homeowner that did a lot of this myself with friends

01:16:50.600 --> 01:16:56.520
 and i was unaware that it needed to be through the permit section so

01:16:56.520 --> 01:17:04.840
 with the homeowner doing it themselves i didn't actually contract it out

01:17:11.560 --> 01:17:20.840
 are there any more questions or comments

01:17:20.840 --> 01:17:35.000
 um no yes board member higgins levin speaking i you know i do not consider failure

01:17:36.040 --> 01:17:41.960
 to investigate what you're doing before you do it a very good reason for doing it

01:17:41.960 --> 01:17:51.320
 or being allowed to do it correct i understand that and you know like i said to try to center

01:17:51.320 --> 01:17:56.360
 the structure that's why we did it that direction with the appliances that i was putting in

01:17:56.360 --> 01:18:04.840
 and trying to center it with the pool area as well so is primarily why we situated it where we

01:18:04.840 --> 01:18:11.960
 situated it um and then i ended up being a foot off from what it what it should have been by code

01:18:11.960 --> 01:18:19.400
 board member meisman

01:18:23.800 --> 01:18:39.560
 uh i have a follow-up question about the mitigation with any

01:18:39.560 --> 01:18:53.000
 would adding any landscape or foliage or trees constitute that mitigation or is it just purely

01:18:53.560 --> 01:19:03.000
 how close the structure is to the fence and there's nothing minus moving that that would

01:19:03.000 --> 01:19:14.680
 mitigate the situation or to fall into compliance is that question clear or you were breaking up

01:19:14.680 --> 01:19:19.560
 quite a bit but i think we got it i believe you were asking if there were landscaping that could

01:19:19.560 --> 01:19:23.640
 be done that would mitigate or is it simply distance that's needed and perhaps that's a

01:19:23.640 --> 01:19:33.480
 question for um miss white wet so the criteria for approval doesn't give doesn't have that

01:19:33.480 --> 01:19:40.680
 latitude within the criteria it's it's it's does it does it meet these specific does it

01:19:40.680 --> 01:19:45.960
 meet all of these specific criteria or not and really that's that's what we look at in terms of

01:19:45.960 --> 01:19:57.720
 of um of a variant

01:20:12.120 --> 01:20:17.240
 you're on mute uh question are we uh ready to call the question or are there's more discussion

01:20:17.240 --> 01:20:21.800
 yes i did have a question for mac from an attorney's standpoint what are i guess what

01:20:21.800 --> 01:20:32.600
 are our options here how do we um well yeah you have discretion to a certain degree that the

01:20:32.600 --> 01:20:39.160
 staff has given their recommendations and kind of their findings of fact um just like last time if

01:20:39.160 --> 01:20:45.480
 you're going to make a motion to deny which is staff's recommendation you could adopt their

01:20:45.480 --> 01:20:49.400
 their recommendations as far as the findings of fact and their conclusions

01:20:49.400 --> 01:20:55.160
 if you make a motion to approve you're going to need to state specifically why it meets the

01:20:55.160 --> 01:21:01.560
 criteria that are listed in the staff report so the the same criteria would apply um it can't

01:21:01.560 --> 01:21:07.400
 just be can't result from the owner's action so there would need to be a at least a determination

01:21:07.400 --> 01:21:11.480
 by the person making the motion to approve the variance as to why they meet those standards

01:21:11.480 --> 01:21:17.320
 because staffs does not include any justification for those thank you

01:21:17.320 --> 01:21:31.240
 in in working with applicants staff i know does reach out to the applicant

01:21:31.240 --> 01:21:44.120
 to help them prepare is that correct yes thank you that is correct

01:21:44.120 --> 01:21:53.720
 dr lane would you like to call the question or call the vote

01:21:53.720 --> 01:21:59.320
 i don't have to call it in order for a motion to be made but that's fine okay um i'd like to

01:22:00.680 --> 01:22:06.200
 make a motion to deny the variance due to staff recommendation

01:22:06.200 --> 01:22:17.800
 so if i want to make a motion to approve how would that do that motion has to go forward first

01:22:17.800 --> 01:22:26.520
 okay i'll second it thank you um uh you have a motion from uh board member linus and a second

01:22:26.520 --> 01:22:33.640
 from board member higgins i'll third the motion to approve there's no motion to approve no

01:22:33.640 --> 01:22:37.960
 i'm sorry the way it works is this uh if you follow robert's rules

01:22:37.960 --> 01:22:44.280
 there is a motion and a second on the floor we take a vote if that vote fails for any reason and

01:22:44.280 --> 01:22:48.920
 perhaps mr ryan when you could explain to us what the distribution of the vote needs to be

01:22:51.320 --> 01:22:57.720
 all right and just so i'm clear on this um board member linus has made a motion to deny

01:22:57.720 --> 01:23:04.920
 and there was a second in the staff report seconded by mr higgins so that is now current so

01:23:04.920 --> 01:23:11.960
 that it would take in order to approve that uh motion to deny it's just a a majority vote if

01:23:11.960 --> 01:23:16.680
 you're going to approve it if the motion was to that would be a new motion we don't need that yet

01:23:16.680 --> 01:23:24.840
 right this fails so it's a simple majority to deny correct all right let's take the vote

01:23:24.840 --> 01:23:30.840
 um council member uh i mean excuse me board member red wine how do you vote

01:23:30.840 --> 01:23:40.040
 so if i want to go to the motion on the motion to deny right right um a or nay i guess the question

01:23:40.040 --> 01:23:47.640
 i have is nay does nay mean i don't agree with the denial correct yes so nay board member lysmore

01:23:47.640 --> 01:23:57.480
 do you vote to approve the motion to deny or to or do you vote nay i approve the motion to deny

01:23:57.480 --> 01:24:06.120
 uh board member higgins approved to deny a board member linus approved to deny

01:24:06.680 --> 01:24:15.000
 board member njoku uh i know the motion uh but there's one more i believe is is do we still have

01:24:15.000 --> 01:24:25.480
 um board member i don't see him here

01:24:25.480 --> 01:24:33.400
 ron do you remember who the last board member is horton board member horton is he still here

01:24:34.520 --> 01:24:42.280
 yes one two there are six of us here

01:24:42.280 --> 01:24:56.280
 okay if there are not seven we have six we can still vote

01:25:02.520 --> 01:25:07.960
 we lost eric i was just trying to remember all right eric are you on the meeting

01:25:07.960 --> 01:25:21.880
 so we lost eric i i think he left the meeting okay so we have six all right and we have three

01:25:21.880 --> 01:25:29.400
 um in favor of the motion to deny and two against the motion to deny um i will

01:25:31.000 --> 01:25:35.640
 jennifer it's really hard to if we have three in favor of the motion to deny

01:25:35.640 --> 01:25:39.800
 and two opposed to the motion to deny we have the majority do we not

01:25:39.800 --> 01:25:46.040
 still need to vote all right all right in that case i will vote in favor of the majority motion to deny

01:25:46.040 --> 01:25:53.720
 okay that's a winning motion so is a four two

01:26:01.000 --> 01:26:02.840
 chair should never vote to create a tie

01:26:02.840 --> 01:26:13.160
 okay um shall we move on to the next item

01:26:13.160 --> 01:26:20.680
 is that okay with everyone

01:26:20.680 --> 01:26:30.120
 back to the agenda here we are all right

01:26:31.480 --> 01:26:42.600
 um two d v20-0003 consider a special exception request from chapter 33 signs and advertising

01:26:42.600 --> 01:26:49.240
 devices of the code of ordinances specifically section 33.14.2e2 as it relates to the minimum

01:26:49.240 --> 01:26:55.960
 required setback for internally illuminated wall signs in non-residential districts when such signs

01:26:55.960 --> 01:27:01.560
 face a single-family residence or property zoned for single-family use the subject approximately

01:27:01.560 --> 01:27:07.080
 3.382 acre property is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of lillian miller

01:27:07.080 --> 01:27:15.160
 parkway and teesley lane v20-0003 total care er wall sign uh the presenter is hailey azegursky

01:27:15.160 --> 01:27:21.400
 thank you very much i need to swear you in if she is here

01:27:26.840 --> 01:27:35.320
 okay commission um board member uh charlayne we just need to make sure that we have prince

01:27:35.320 --> 01:27:44.120
 on in the meeting because we need six for this meeting to conclude or to continue prince are you

01:27:44.120 --> 01:27:51.080
 there we're going to need you to come on just momentarily to make sure that we have the quorum

01:27:54.280 --> 01:27:57.880
 do you have his phone number and we also

01:27:57.880 --> 01:28:07.000
 so we currently have five board members oh there he is okay okay wonderful thank you

01:28:07.000 --> 01:28:13.880
 thank you so much prince okay thank you board member joku all righty um we just need to know

01:28:13.880 --> 01:28:21.080
 that you're here and we will do you want me to swear in yes um chair if you can call all three

01:28:21.720 --> 01:28:30.520
 matt wilson rudy uh demore as well as hailey's azurki zersk zersky sorry it's been a long

01:28:30.520 --> 01:28:36.520
 afternoon uh all at one time and and swear them at the same time that will be okay okay i'm going

01:28:36.520 --> 01:28:42.040
 to swear in um matt and i'm just looking to find their last names

01:28:47.960 --> 01:28:52.360
 can people name themselves so that they're mr demore and mr wilson and miss

01:28:52.360 --> 01:29:00.360
 um i don't see a name for a mr guruski can someone rename hailey

01:29:00.360 --> 01:29:07.240
 the host can rename a person so if you're the host ron you can do it

01:29:07.240 --> 01:29:13.880
 and madam chair i'm sorry to interrupt this is frank sidey with total care i'm also president

01:29:14.920 --> 01:29:20.360
 okay very good so we'll square you all in at the same time if you could turn your video on please

01:29:20.360 --> 01:29:27.080
 thank you so much and could um hailey put her name on her screen

01:29:27.080 --> 01:29:35.560
 adam is there a way to add hailey's name if you know how to do it you go to the three dots

01:29:35.560 --> 01:29:39.880
 if you're the host i don't know if you are the virtual host and it says rename and you can

01:29:39.880 --> 01:29:53.800
 rename the person thank you so much very good now we i don't still don't see

01:29:53.800 --> 01:30:04.520
 we also have a tyler smith but that may have been old so that i believe that there we go there we go

01:30:04.520 --> 01:30:12.920
 okay um so i will swear everyone in at once if that's all right um mr sidey mr wilson mr demore

01:30:12.920 --> 01:30:19.400
 and mr guruski could you please all raise your hand and identify yourselves by name i'll read

01:30:19.400 --> 01:30:24.600
 this first statement and then if you would go out in the order that i call you to identify yourselves

01:30:24.600 --> 01:30:30.280
 if you're appearing before this board is provided under chapter 602 0025 of the texas government

01:30:30.280 --> 01:30:35.640
 code all testimony is sworn could you please identify yourself for the record mr sidey

01:30:35.640 --> 01:30:43.800
 frank sobby um this is a guruski hailey's guruski senior planner mr demore

01:30:43.800 --> 01:30:51.080
 pretty demore and mr wilson matt wilson thank you very much um thank you for raising your

01:30:51.080 --> 01:30:56.440
 right hands to be sworn please raise them under penalty of perjury do you swear or affirm that

01:30:56.440 --> 01:31:00.680
 any testimony or information you provide or any statement you make before this board is

01:31:00.680 --> 01:31:07.880
 complete true and correct to the best of your knowledge and ability i do i swear very much i

01:31:07.880 --> 01:31:15.640
 heard you all and you may all proceed in order of aid thank you um so in that case um i believe

01:31:15.640 --> 01:31:22.520
 it's mr guruski who will present is that right he presented yes the item thank you

01:31:26.440 --> 01:31:33.240
 um all right good evening this is case v20-0003 the total care er wall sign

01:31:33.240 --> 01:31:39.720
 the request before you is for a special exception from the ordinances chapter 33 signs and

01:31:39.720 --> 01:31:47.320
 advertising devices specifically section 33.14.2 e2 as it relates to the minimum required setback

01:31:47.320 --> 01:31:51.720
 for internally illuminated wall signs in non-residential districts when such fine

01:31:51.720 --> 01:31:56.840
 signs face people family residents or zone the image you see here is the proposed sign

01:31:56.840 --> 01:32:01.400
 um the the top portion here on the the brick part of the building with the logo and the total care

01:32:01.400 --> 01:32:07.480
 er text is the sign that's being considered this evening so a little more background to

01:32:07.480 --> 01:32:12.120
 orient you to the site uh the subject property is located at the corner of teasley and lily and

01:32:12.120 --> 01:32:17.960
 miller as you can see here there the building is existing um this this is currently or was

01:32:17.960 --> 01:32:22.680
 currently operating as an emergency room um the the tenant of the building is changing so they're

01:32:22.680 --> 01:32:27.080
 replacing the signs that are on the building this again is the proposed sign that we're considering

01:32:27.080 --> 01:32:32.120
 this evening and then the site plan shows you the existing setback between the building and the

01:32:32.120 --> 01:32:37.400
 property line so there's 160 feet between the the north elevation of the building where the sign

01:32:37.400 --> 01:32:42.120
 would go and this property line where they abut a single-family residential subdivision to the north

01:32:45.080 --> 01:32:50.680
 um so the sign code requires um that the minimum setback for an illuminated wall sign that is over

01:32:50.680 --> 01:32:56.040
 15 feet in height and height is measured to the top portion of the sign um that that setback be 200

01:32:56.040 --> 01:33:00.920
 feet from a property that is either used or zoned for single-family residential so the property to

01:33:00.920 --> 01:33:05.960
 the north of this site um does have single-family zoning and is used for single-family um the

01:33:05.960 --> 01:33:11.240
 existing setback as we just saw is 160 feet so they're looking for a a 40-foot difference there

01:33:11.880 --> 01:33:16.680
 a 40-foot difference there between what is required and what's existing on site

01:33:16.680 --> 01:33:25.160
 there the uh kind of counterpart to that is that if the illuminated sign is less than 200 feet

01:33:25.160 --> 01:33:30.920
 it has a maximum height of 15 feet the sign as they proposed it measured to the the very top of

01:33:30.920 --> 01:33:36.440
 that logo that you saw would be approximately 24 feet 8 inches so it's 9 feet 8 inches more

01:33:36.440 --> 01:33:43.240
 than what is required since they do not have that 200 feet so some more details about the proposed

01:33:43.240 --> 01:33:47.560
 sign this would be considered a wall mounted sign and it is it is internally illuminated

01:33:47.560 --> 01:33:53.480
 the overall height as i just mentioned is 24 feet 8 inches from the ground level to the top portion

01:33:53.480 --> 01:34:00.520
 of the sign at this point the total effective area of the sign is at 96 square feet this would be

01:34:00.520 --> 01:34:05.480
 located on the north elevation of the existing building and it would feature the company logo

01:34:05.480 --> 01:34:11.640
 and then verbiage related to the emergency room some of the considerations that were outlined in

01:34:11.640 --> 01:34:16.920
 exhibit 2 of your backup the proposed sign would be in compliance with all other non-setback related

01:34:16.920 --> 01:34:23.160
 requirements of chapter 33 the emergency care clinic is required by state statute to have a

01:34:23.160 --> 01:34:27.240
 patient drop-off point that is protected against inclement weather so that's the reason for the

01:34:27.240 --> 01:34:32.680
 existing canopy that's on the building to cover that area for patient loading and unloading

01:34:32.680 --> 01:34:37.640
 that canopy is currently 12 feet in height at the bottom so 12 feet of height clearance

01:34:37.640 --> 01:34:42.920
 it's about 14 feet to the top of that so that would leave one feet of space above the existing

01:34:42.920 --> 01:34:48.600
 canopy to be within that 15 foot limitation due to the setback being less than 200 feet

01:34:48.600 --> 01:34:55.640
 on the existing building section 33.6 of the code of ordinances does allow the board of adjustment

01:34:55.640 --> 01:35:01.000
 to grant special exceptions from height and set height sorry setback and height requirements

01:35:01.000 --> 01:35:04.600
 under two circumstances we'll look at each of these in a little more detail

01:35:04.600 --> 01:35:09.560
 the deviation allowed shall not be more than what would be deemed minimally necessary to remedy the

01:35:09.560 --> 01:35:14.920
 situation so we'll look first at the visibility obstruction special exception and then we'll look

01:35:14.920 --> 01:35:21.000
 at the emergency and medical sign at special exception so with regards to a visibility

01:35:21.000 --> 01:35:25.800
 obstruction the code allows that when 50 percent or more of the effective area of a sign would be

01:35:25.800 --> 01:35:30.040
 located in accordance with the setback or height requirements of this article and it would not be

01:35:30.040 --> 01:35:34.920
 visible from at least one visibility point because of existing building structures or natural ground

01:35:34.920 --> 01:35:41.000
 that the zba may grant the special exception so to clarify a few points there the code of ordinances

01:35:41.000 --> 01:35:46.440
 defines and depicts what a visibility point is so you can see this illustration from the code here

01:35:46.440 --> 01:35:51.720
 so it requires that at your setback line you extend that line out to the curb and then measure 100

01:35:51.720 --> 01:35:58.040
 feet in any direction to determine what a visibility point would be in this case because the there is

01:35:58.040 --> 01:36:02.520
 no setback in the zoning district so that you would measure at the property line extended to the curb

01:36:02.520 --> 01:36:09.880
 and then back 100 feet or out in any direction so staff did look at this by site visits and by

01:36:09.880 --> 01:36:15.400
 doing street views on the property to gather some images to show you all at the visibility point

01:36:15.400 --> 01:36:20.920
 from the south here along lily and miller parkway you can see this this is that vantage point

01:36:20.920 --> 01:36:25.400
 looking at google street view there is existing vegetation that would block the front portion of

01:36:25.400 --> 01:36:31.000
 the building however by the letter of the code that would not meet the criteria of either an

01:36:31.000 --> 01:36:36.440
 existing building structure or natural ground causing that visibility obstruction and then

01:36:36.440 --> 01:36:40.280
 just to show you what it looks like from the property line where that like i said there is

01:36:40.280 --> 01:36:43.960
 no setback there so we'd be looking from the property line you can see that the front of

01:36:43.960 --> 01:36:49.400
 the building where the sign would go would be visible so staff did not find that it meets

01:36:49.400 --> 01:36:55.960
 this criteria but this is within the zoning board of adjustments ability to grant this special

01:36:55.960 --> 01:37:03.320
 exception if you feel that it meets this criteria the second ability for special exceptions with

01:37:03.320 --> 01:37:07.880
 specifically with regard to medical emergency signs so the code reads that when a sign

01:37:07.880 --> 01:37:12.760
 located on the property of an emergency medical treatment facility would not because of setback

01:37:12.760 --> 01:37:18.120
 or height requirements of this article be readily visible from adjacent public streets for purposes

01:37:18.120 --> 01:37:22.840
 of this provision it does define emergency emergency medical treatment facilities to be any

01:37:22.840 --> 01:37:27.320
 hospital clinic or other facility where medical aid is offered to a person or animal which suffers

01:37:27.320 --> 01:37:32.680
 injury or illness which requires immediate medical attention so that is a very fairly broad definition

01:37:32.680 --> 01:37:37.480
 and this facility would fall within that based on the type of treatment that they described

01:37:37.480 --> 01:37:45.080
 so again just to show you from the property line as the code requires this screenshot is a bit

01:37:45.080 --> 01:37:49.160
 older it shows the sign that was previously on the building with the prior tenant but you could see

01:37:49.160 --> 01:37:54.120
 that face of the building is visible and not obstructed by the canopy so again staff did not

01:37:54.120 --> 01:37:58.760
 feel that that this meets the letter of the code with regard to this requirement this image here

01:37:58.760 --> 01:38:03.640
 just shows you the all of the proposed sign locations for this building the sign in question

01:38:03.640 --> 01:38:09.880
 is the one labeled a on this diagram the others are all signs that would be on there is a ground

01:38:09.880 --> 01:38:14.120
 sign here this is that patient drop-off sign and then there are signs on the other three sides of

01:38:14.120 --> 01:38:19.400
 the building that are proposed and were found to meet the sign code so those as far as i could

01:38:19.400 --> 01:38:23.480
 tell in our system have all been approved at this point it's just sign a that would be in question

01:38:23.480 --> 01:38:29.880
 and with that staff is recommending denial of the special exception request as we found it to not

01:38:29.880 --> 01:38:35.160
 meet the criteria for special exceptions in section 33.6 c of the code of ordinances

01:38:35.160 --> 01:38:40.120
 and i will stop sharing the screen so that you all can have question and discussion

01:38:44.280 --> 01:38:49.960
 okay thank you hayley thank you very much thank you i'm sorry

01:38:49.960 --> 01:38:57.320
 thank you so much are there questions for the presenter or does the presenter wish to speak

01:38:57.320 --> 01:39:03.400
 yeah i'd like to just speak on behalf of total care yard my name is matt wilson i'm with chandler

01:39:03.400 --> 01:39:09.720
 signs we thank you for consideration of the case today what we're asking for today is simply a

01:39:09.720 --> 01:39:16.280
 like-for-like replacement of the existing sign that was there for the previous er user there

01:39:16.280 --> 01:39:22.760
 was an existing lighted sign in place and the user has moved out we have a new user total care er

01:39:22.760 --> 01:39:30.360
 that has taken the place and is opening actually open for business today and so what we're requesting

01:39:30.360 --> 01:39:37.320
 today is a like-for-like in the same location we're not proposing a bright white sign with

01:39:37.320 --> 01:39:43.320
 white faces where there's going to be a high output of illumination they're blue and red faces which

01:39:43.320 --> 01:39:49.800
 will provide a muted overall appearance there is ancillary lighting at the property through

01:39:49.800 --> 01:39:56.520
 can lights at the port of cashier parking lights overhead street lights the combination of that will

01:39:56.520 --> 01:40:03.400
 effectively dim down the overall brightness we're not in a dark sky where the sign is going to be a

01:40:03.400 --> 01:40:11.560
 beacon so we do not feel that it'll be a hindrance to the homes on the northern side in addition the

01:40:11.560 --> 01:40:20.120
 adjacent street as shown by miss sagursky shows that there is a little small window of visibility

01:40:20.120 --> 01:40:27.160
 as you're coming south on libyan miller so it is important obviously situation that

01:40:28.920 --> 01:40:35.720
 someone would be able to easily find the clinic for emergency care this is a 24/7 emergency

01:40:35.720 --> 01:40:40.680
 facility so it is important for illumination whereas other businesses that close during the day

01:40:40.680 --> 01:40:47.320
 it's not as important for an illuminated sign this is a special exception that we're requesting

01:40:47.320 --> 01:40:54.280
 due to the nature of the user being a 24/7 medical emergency facility and we've got frank

01:40:54.280 --> 01:41:00.760
 and rudy on as well that adding additional comments from the ownership side of the property as well

01:41:00.760 --> 01:41:10.360
 at total care er and i'll let i'll turn it over to them thank you thank you very much

01:41:10.360 --> 01:41:17.400
 uh would you like to speak uh yes i am next yes uh madam chair board members thank you for your

01:41:17.400 --> 01:41:23.720
 time in hearing our variance request uh my name is frank sade i'm one of the managing partners

01:41:23.720 --> 01:41:35.240
 of total care um total care has seven medical facilities in the dfw area um hello

01:41:35.240 --> 01:41:48.200
 oh can you still hear me yes okay yes so total care has uh seven medical facilities in the dfw

01:41:48.200 --> 01:41:57.160
 area and we have one uh non-profit in in kenya um we are excited to be in denton today was our

01:41:57.160 --> 01:42:07.880
 first day we opened at seven o'clock um we are a freestanding er and a freestanding er treats any

01:42:07.880 --> 01:42:17.160
 conditions a hospital-based er could um most patients arrive at a hospital

01:42:18.840 --> 01:42:26.040
 they come by ambulances where in a freestanding er most of patients are walk-ins

01:42:26.040 --> 01:42:34.440
 basically people driving down the street if there is a good signage they either drive in or they

01:42:34.440 --> 01:42:39.560
 have a mental note so when they have an emergency they can come back to the facility

01:42:41.640 --> 01:42:50.920
 as matt stated we are open 24/7 360 days a year in addition to providing medical

01:42:50.920 --> 01:42:57.560
 emergency services in the dentin facility we have made the decision to invest heavily in

01:42:57.560 --> 01:43:06.200
 covid testing we are one of the few facilities that offer three tests an antibody test antigen

01:43:06.200 --> 01:43:14.840
 test and pcr for the benefit of the residents of denton um we feel that the proper signage

01:43:14.840 --> 01:43:20.120
 will benefit our neighbors and the residents residents of denton and we want to be good

01:43:20.120 --> 01:43:31.000
 neighbors thank you very much thank you sir and uh we heard from mr wilson and mr sade

01:43:31.000 --> 01:43:34.680
 is there anyone else among mr demora did you want to add anything

01:43:36.760 --> 01:43:42.280
 um no i'm here for feeling any questions from the owner is should there be any questions

01:43:42.280 --> 01:43:48.200
 but i do support the not that that really matters but i just wanted to throw that out there i don't

01:43:48.200 --> 01:43:56.360
 think it's uh we're definitely not hinder any any neighbors so are you on the city no i represent

01:43:56.360 --> 01:44:05.720
 the uh the landlord okay thank you i see okay all right then board member questions concerns

01:44:05.720 --> 01:44:15.480
 comments uh yes board member red wine um i don't know if this is the staff or um anybody else did

01:44:15.480 --> 01:44:21.240
 have we have we had any feedback from i guess the residents on i think i guess that's 100 ridge

01:44:21.240 --> 01:44:32.040
 based on the the map any feedback from them um as julie mentioned on the previous case notification

01:44:32.040 --> 01:44:36.520
 isn't uh is not required for for variance and special exception cases before the board of

01:44:36.520 --> 01:44:41.720
 adjustment so the city did not notify i'm not aware if the property owner did any outreach

01:44:41.720 --> 01:44:49.320
 um on their own and then the second question if i may um so i think on the couple pictures that we

01:44:49.320 --> 01:44:56.840
 do see um i mean it sounds like or it looks like there's quite a bit of signage around the building

01:44:56.840 --> 01:45:03.080
 and um in a number of areas um what i guess what's the value of adding that one sign above

01:45:03.080 --> 01:45:09.880
 the pavilion um as opposed to at least on this it looks like there's five or six other spots

01:45:09.880 --> 01:45:16.680
 there's pictures or i mean there's a sign is going to be i guess what would be the additional value

01:45:16.680 --> 01:45:30.120
 for that one's additional sign go ahead frank yes um so so come in well the the the monument sign

01:45:30.120 --> 01:45:37.480
 it looks um extremely well and it has very good content unfortunately because of the setback

01:45:37.480 --> 01:45:44.280
 the monument sign is kind of pushed i want to i want to say approximately 20 feet uh into the

01:45:44.280 --> 01:45:53.960
 property um so coming coming from lillian miller from from 35 although the monument sign looks

01:45:53.960 --> 01:46:01.160
 nice when you get close to it but driving from far away it's not very visible i would say that's the

01:46:01.160 --> 01:46:11.480
 first point second point we feel that the the signage that we're proposing has a cross which

01:46:11.480 --> 01:46:18.520
 designate medical services the red cross and then also has the word emergency room uh that's also

01:46:18.520 --> 01:46:33.960
 going to add to the to the presentation for for emergency services maybe useful to the cba to

01:46:33.960 --> 01:46:39.480
 since we haven't been meeting for almost a year until very recently just to review the change

01:46:40.440 --> 01:46:44.840
 just a brief comment from staff on the change in the sign signage ordinances

01:46:44.840 --> 01:46:49.480
 why like for like isn't just an automatic approval

01:46:49.480 --> 01:46:59.400
 so to my knowledge there have not been any changes to the sign ordinance at least since

01:46:59.400 --> 01:47:04.760
 2015 when i started with the city um ron may able to speak to when it was originally adopted i'm

01:47:04.760 --> 01:47:11.960
 not clear on that date off the top of my head the the issue with replacing like for like in this

01:47:11.960 --> 01:47:15.560
 instance there are some provisions of the code that would allow for like refacing an existing

01:47:15.560 --> 01:47:21.160
 sign if it was a sign cabinet being left in place or something of that nature in this instance the

01:47:21.160 --> 01:47:26.680
 existing sign was approved in error and did not meet the standard as it was on the building

01:47:26.680 --> 01:47:33.960
 for a couple of years and that sign has been removed in its entirety so it's no longer

01:47:33.960 --> 01:47:42.200
 considered a replacement of that sign because in 2015 there the

01:47:42.200 --> 01:47:56.120
 code changed are there any questions from other zoning board members not seeing oh there we are

01:47:56.120 --> 01:47:59.160
 uh board member meisner and then board member higgins

01:48:01.960 --> 01:48:13.400
 yeah i have a question about the removal of the previous sign was uh it was taken down by the

01:48:13.400 --> 01:48:27.800
 previous owner is that what happened now this this one is going up at this point with the new

01:48:27.800 --> 01:48:36.920
 owner is that correct is that clear one she was asking if the sign that was taken down was put

01:48:36.920 --> 01:48:42.680
 up by the previous owner can you hear me and the new sign is being put up by yes

01:48:42.680 --> 01:48:49.640
 a new owner um does that answer your question board member meisner

01:48:51.800 --> 01:49:01.400
 yes and a follow-up question to that is there anything that you could do to um

01:49:01.400 --> 01:49:10.120
 reach a compromise to allow it to be conforming before the new sign goes up

01:49:10.120 --> 01:49:19.880
 so could entertain oh yeah i was just speak to that uh you know there are dimmers on signs we

01:49:19.880 --> 01:49:28.920
 could uh put a dimmer on the sign if that would uh help with the approval um again the the light

01:49:28.920 --> 01:49:35.880
 output uh from the blue face is going to be fairly minimal so um but but a dimmer switch

01:49:35.880 --> 01:49:43.000
 is certainly an option um as frank said that you know the users trying to be good neighbors so

01:49:43.000 --> 01:49:47.560
 obviously they wanted to work for the existing uh homeowners on the northern side that have had a

01:49:47.560 --> 01:49:57.640
 sign facing them for the past few years thank you i think the dimmer is a good consideration

01:49:57.640 --> 01:50:07.320
 and i i do love the lower lighting levels to to avoid light pollution

01:50:10.760 --> 01:50:22.760
 board member higgins uh yes um uh for mr gursky can you tell us the height of the

01:50:22.760 --> 01:50:29.800
 the highest height of the lit portion of the sign from the ground

01:50:29.800 --> 01:50:38.600
 or at least make an estimate of that yes the proposed sign um i believe

01:50:39.880 --> 01:50:46.520
 let me confirm is a 24 feet eight inches to the top from from ground level from ground okay

01:50:46.520 --> 01:50:57.240
 and that would therefore shine pretty much over the fence separating the structure from the

01:50:57.240 --> 01:51:04.920
 neighbor's backyard or so right i mean the fence would not afford blockage of that sign it would

01:51:04.920 --> 01:51:09.560
 seem to me if it did it you wouldn't be serving its purpose i'm just saying if that's probably

01:51:09.560 --> 01:51:16.760
 the case if it's if it's 24 feet but i understand you to say earlier that those neighbors immediately

01:51:16.760 --> 01:51:26.680
 affected by that sign have not been uh questioned or how do you know surveyed

01:51:26.680 --> 01:51:36.680
 by the city in this particular instance is that correct that is correct i mean i wonder if they

01:51:36.680 --> 01:51:48.040
 know what's coming uh mr wilson you say the sign the sign is there now or not no sir the okay the

01:51:48.040 --> 01:51:56.840
 sign in in the previous user was removed by total care as they took over so the current sign is not

01:51:56.840 --> 01:52:02.520
 there that's why we're to the board today to request the variance yeah i know i'm i'm really

01:52:02.520 --> 01:52:10.920
 right it's the back that we're asking for i'm sorry i missed that yeah i was just saying that

01:52:10.920 --> 01:52:18.760
 there the ordinance does allow for a sign to be at that height it is the setback of the 200 feet to

01:52:18.760 --> 01:52:26.200
 160 requesting to achieve elimination yeah yeah i'm actually quite familiar with that intersection

01:52:26.200 --> 01:52:35.400
 and when you're coming south on on uh lily and miller uh you come up the rise and then you sort

01:52:35.400 --> 01:52:40.760
 of come down and you go up another rise it's a large building the building is on a very elevated

01:52:40.760 --> 01:52:49.960
 piece of land um it it just seems to me that it would you know be hard to miss now i admit that

01:52:49.960 --> 01:52:57.160
 there could be a situation if somebody wasn't was was in an immediate need and had never been

01:52:57.160 --> 01:53:03.720
 there before but somehow knew that that was there that you know it they might have to kind of get

01:53:03.720 --> 01:53:08.440
 directly in front of it before they'd see it but once you got to that point it's it's big it's

01:53:08.440 --> 01:53:15.240
 right there uh i'm concerned i'm just concerned about the neighbors and you know is there a way

01:53:15.240 --> 01:53:22.360
 for you to articulate what lower illumination might mean to somebody who has this shining in

01:53:22.360 --> 01:53:33.000
 their bedroom window at night yeah so we could talk about lumens and we might get real technical

01:53:33.000 --> 01:53:39.400
 but um you know the light has to transmit through the acrylic face and then it gets knocked down by

01:53:39.400 --> 01:53:48.040
 the 3m vinyl that creates that color for the logo the overall illumination for the led module and

01:53:48.040 --> 01:53:57.320
 the actual cone of illumination um is actually not um you can put a light meter on it and um it

01:53:57.320 --> 01:54:04.040
 would not cross the parking lot as far as a hindrance of brightness um you know you could

01:54:04.040 --> 01:54:10.360
 you could uh put a light meter on the overall street light and the amount of cone lighting

01:54:10.360 --> 01:54:16.680
 that is intended for the street it's about 10 times greater uh just the surface area of each

01:54:16.680 --> 01:54:23.000
 individual led module inside the channel letters themselves is just intended to light that only and

01:54:23.000 --> 01:54:31.400
 it's a very confined area so um you know the it's not intended to light a an entire area it's actually

01:54:31.400 --> 01:54:38.760
 got about 150 degree viewing angle um that that shoots out in its you know directly in front of

01:54:38.760 --> 01:54:44.840
 the sign let me let me approach it this way uh many years ago when my wife and i were younger

01:54:44.840 --> 01:54:49.320
 we had an apartment then there was a street light right outside our apartment and you could have the

01:54:49.320 --> 01:54:55.320
 venetian blind in our bedroom window which you could close but boy i'll tell you i mean it's

01:54:55.320 --> 01:55:01.000
 still got a lot of light in there at night yeah i mean i mean you you would you be in that sort of

01:55:01.000 --> 01:55:05.960
 a situation or is that not even close we're not we're not looking to make this vegas we're uh

01:55:05.960 --> 01:55:14.600
 uh okay typical channel letters for a retail uh medical use um you know that that would probably

01:55:14.600 --> 01:55:20.200
 be one-tenth of the of the light output of a standard 400 watt metal halide which is what is

01:55:20.200 --> 01:55:26.600
 intended for a street light so it's uh and those have a clear acrylic lens on so there's nothing

01:55:26.600 --> 01:55:32.120
 knocking down the light so it's nowhere near the comparison of a street light which there's actually

01:55:32.120 --> 01:55:38.120
 one at the turn-in drive that's very close to the neighbors as you turn in just past that tree that

01:55:38.120 --> 01:55:44.600
 was shown in the presentation there is an overhead street light so that will actually swallow the

01:55:44.600 --> 01:55:55.320
 light of the actual sign itself okay thank you are there any other questions from the other board

01:55:55.320 --> 01:56:02.600
 members yes um yes i'm i understand about the light and that is always a concern with the

01:56:02.600 --> 01:56:12.600
 neighborhood but is the request for the variance because of how high it's going to be over what the

01:56:12.600 --> 01:56:23.160
 right what the um the code says yes thank you dr ling um hayley if you might address that part

01:56:24.840 --> 01:56:32.120
 sure so the code um the the sign code allows the sign to be over 15 feet but if it is it has to be

01:56:32.120 --> 01:56:37.800
 at least 200 feet from those residential uses in this case we have an existing building that is 160

01:56:37.800 --> 01:56:44.440
 feet um so so they're not able to meet um both the the 15 foot height limit and the the setback

01:56:44.440 --> 01:56:50.600
 they could if this under 200 feet of setback the sign could be under 15 feet so it's kind of a

01:56:50.600 --> 01:56:57.320
 two-part requirement um unfortunately based on the combination of existing building location and uh

01:56:57.320 --> 01:57:02.200
 setback there they're not able to meet those those two-part requirements i did did want to

01:57:02.200 --> 01:57:07.000
 note if the sign were not illuminated that setback would be 100 feet but of course they

01:57:07.000 --> 01:57:09.960
 they are requesting that illuminated sign so that's the 200 foot setback

01:57:15.160 --> 01:57:23.000
 of course does that answer your question is there anyone else with a question on the board

01:57:23.000 --> 01:57:34.440
 so if you could summarize uh if you wouldn't mind mr gurusky could you summarize the violation

01:57:34.440 --> 01:57:40.600
 sure chair lane i think board member meisner has a question okay yes board member meisner thank you

01:57:42.360 --> 01:57:53.880
 uh i just wanted to clarify the fact that there is a special person where we we could

01:57:53.880 --> 01:58:05.720
 um allow this because of it being a medical facility how about how that would play into

01:58:06.840 --> 01:58:13.880
 um just the technical language like connections unstable

01:58:13.880 --> 01:58:20.760
 sorry i hope you heard me let me see if i can summarize that since there's an exception for

01:58:20.760 --> 01:58:26.520
 medical facilities how does that um comply with the technical language technical language of the

01:58:26.520 --> 01:58:33.800
 zoning code if you wouldn't mind thank you sure so the the sign code does allow for that special

01:58:33.800 --> 01:58:39.240
 exception for any medical emergency facility that meets that definition that we went over earlier

01:58:39.240 --> 01:58:46.520
 it allows that exception to either height or setback requirements in this instance because the

01:58:46.520 --> 01:58:51.720
 requirement is that for for that special exception the sign would have to not be visible from the

01:58:51.720 --> 01:58:56.840
 property line and that's where staff found that based on our visits to the site and then the

01:58:56.840 --> 01:59:02.040
 street views that we showed you all that that it did not meet that criteria but that is within

01:59:02.040 --> 01:59:07.640
 the board's purview if you feel that there is a visibility concern there that you could grant that

01:59:07.640 --> 01:59:11.560
 special exception to the height and setback requirements

01:59:11.560 --> 01:59:23.160
 i have a question which links to the question that board member higgins raised regarding

01:59:23.160 --> 01:59:31.400
 those living nearby is there a means whereby although the city doesn't seek it is there a

01:59:31.400 --> 01:59:41.160
 means whereby the the owner or the facility could seek some input from them to be more reassuring to

01:59:41.160 --> 01:59:46.600
 grant waivers and variances if we know that those nearby are okay with it

01:59:57.400 --> 02:00:04.200
 rudy's got some go ahead rudy um so from the landlord perspective the sign's been up there

02:00:04.200 --> 02:00:08.920
 for a few years and we have had zero complaints from the neighbors so i don't know if that helps

02:00:08.920 --> 02:00:14.360
 that the the previous light was red and white so the white would actually be a little bit more

02:00:14.360 --> 02:00:20.680
 give a little bit more illumination than what is being proposed so i feel that this signage would

02:00:20.680 --> 02:00:25.960
 really cause zero issues with anybody just because it's they're used to having a sign there and now

02:00:25.960 --> 02:00:31.880
 as as matt mentioned the street light will give a lot more illumination than what this sign will

02:00:31.880 --> 02:00:38.120
 even do so it's just literally a swap out is how i see it how long is the sign that used to be there

02:00:38.120 --> 02:00:46.360
 removed i believe it was maybe i would have to get matt i haven't necessarily been up there as

02:00:46.360 --> 02:00:53.800
 much lately so i'll leave that for existing sign uh has been removed in the last once nothing's

02:00:53.800 --> 02:01:01.960
 acting so is there any preparation for this should be recent yeah and then um oftentimes this board

02:01:01.960 --> 02:01:10.840
 will grant uh when there's an attempt to modify the proposal somewhat towards um what the surrounding

02:01:10.840 --> 02:01:15.000
 community was living with in the past and you mentioned that it would be a slightly softer

02:01:15.000 --> 02:01:20.680
 light and i believe you did as well mr wilson that there was an adjustment that could be made

02:01:22.360 --> 02:01:28.440
 for that right there could be a dimmer switch added um to dim down the overall brightness of the

02:01:28.440 --> 02:01:37.320
 sign and is there a way to um uh include that in the agreement with the city i believe so frank

02:01:37.320 --> 02:01:48.680
 agrees yes i do all right thank you uh do we want to move towards is any a motion or is there more

02:01:48.680 --> 02:01:55.480
 questions are there more questions from the board look it around looks like we have arrived um do

02:01:55.480 --> 02:02:09.000
 i have a motion one way or another yes um board member meisner a motion to approve the exemption

02:02:09.720 --> 02:02:25.960
 with the special lights added on to the um the language all right i'll read i'll summarize that

02:02:25.960 --> 02:02:34.440
 if you don't mind um the motion is to approve the new sign with an adjustment or added thank you added

02:02:34.440 --> 02:02:42.680
 um uh added changes in the lighting that reduced the glare

02:02:42.680 --> 02:02:52.920
 and utilizing the special circumstance of the medical facility

02:02:52.920 --> 02:03:01.400
 special exemption utilizing the medical exemption motion to approve the variance

02:03:01.400 --> 02:03:08.200
 with um an adjustment in the lighting with the dimmer switch and chair in addition there's a

02:03:08.200 --> 02:03:15.800
 requirement in the code that you specify the height that would be allowed okay and the height

02:03:15.800 --> 02:03:23.480
 requested uh could i get a staff opinion on that it's in there yes the height as shown is 24 feet

02:03:23.480 --> 02:03:32.040
 eight inches with a 160 foot setback and the uh the the code height is the code was 15 feet and 200

02:03:32.040 --> 02:03:43.400
 feet setback any questions or thoughts about that from the board i guess as your attorney i have

02:03:43.400 --> 02:03:48.680
 just concerns with enforcement i know that we're trying to impose a standard here for lighting and

02:03:48.680 --> 02:03:52.600
 and what that looks like i don't hear an enforceable standard though as far as the

02:03:52.600 --> 02:03:59.880
 the reduction in light or brightness or the glare i don't know ron or hayley what the best process

02:03:59.880 --> 02:04:05.400
 would be here but i would feel like we need a more objective standard than that to actually

02:04:05.400 --> 02:04:09.400
 enforce out there we're going to say what the brightness of light is actually going to be

02:04:09.400 --> 02:04:15.640
 i don't know if that's something that can be done now or that may be a subsequent meeting but i just

02:04:15.640 --> 02:04:21.320
 feel like that's an impossible standard for anybody to go out and actually enforce to be honest i

02:04:21.320 --> 02:04:26.840
 wouldn't mind if we had this as a subsequent meeting so that the we do have the landlord's

02:04:26.840 --> 02:04:36.840
 impression that no one was bothered previously um it would be good to know what the difference is

02:04:36.840 --> 02:04:42.360
 that people are going to experience and how they feel about it i'm not sure we can get that same

02:04:42.360 --> 02:04:49.080
 time we do need perhaps can city work out an agreement regarding the lighting and the in the

02:04:49.080 --> 02:04:57.960
 dimmer switches is that something that city can ultimately it's going to be the the board's

02:04:57.960 --> 02:05:04.120
 decision on what that standard is so i think that the staff and the applicant can come back to you

02:05:04.120 --> 02:05:09.560
 with something that both sides feel like meets the board is requesting but ultimately it's the

02:05:09.560 --> 02:05:16.280
 board's determination on what any conditions would look like on that approval well mr wilson what

02:05:16.280 --> 02:05:23.560
 would be the way to express it just in terms of lumens or some other way yeah and to be very frank

02:05:23.560 --> 02:05:28.200
 with you it's it's these dimmer switches are very similar to what you have in your own houses

02:05:28.200 --> 02:05:34.680
 so it has you know rheostat on there a switch that goes up and down so it goes from zero to

02:05:34.680 --> 02:05:43.720
 100 so if we want to set you know 50 as the benchmark with frank's approval i think that

02:05:43.720 --> 02:05:50.760
 that would be reasonable and then if we want to talk about enforcement as far as from the

02:05:50.760 --> 02:05:57.320
 sign inspector level we'd be happy to set up a meeting with him and go over that as far as

02:05:57.320 --> 02:06:02.280
 expectations because we prefer to have a ruling tonight this business just opened today and

02:06:02.280 --> 02:06:06.920
 obviously there you know the the success of a business usually happens in the first 60 to 90

02:06:06.920 --> 02:06:13.320
 days as they try to acclimate into the community so we'd appreciate a a decision tonight if possible

02:06:14.440 --> 02:06:17.720
 well we i mean it made me i really i guess

02:06:17.720 --> 02:06:27.480
 if we set please go ahead the max if we set the maximum at 50 lumens to be observed

02:06:27.480 --> 02:06:37.800
 uh after you know 90 or 120 days or something like that maybe that would work

02:06:40.200 --> 02:06:45.240
 would that be acceptable to the applicant

02:06:45.240 --> 02:06:56.840
 hey matt yes what's so at 100 how what do you estimate the lumens to out of out of this whole

02:06:56.840 --> 02:07:06.920
 sign so the the led models are 105 lumens per foot and so that that is per foot of led illumination

02:07:06.920 --> 02:07:15.560
 that obviously the lighting is inside of a can but at 50 percent that would be roughly 52 and a half

02:07:15.560 --> 02:07:20.760
 lumens so as you dial it back on the the dimmer switch itself

02:07:20.760 --> 02:07:27.160
 you know it'd be 50 percent of that and that gives you your your 90 days of just sort of blasting

02:07:27.160 --> 02:07:31.720
 out your presence to the community after which presumably the community knows you're there

02:07:33.000 --> 02:07:36.840
 and 50 lumens at dusk you would see 50 lumens okay at dusk

02:07:36.840 --> 02:07:45.000
 correct okay be a lot dimmer but um yeah the sign would still illuminate

02:07:45.000 --> 02:07:49.960
 but telling someone traveling south on t on uh

02:07:49.960 --> 02:07:57.320
 lillian miller would be able to see it at dusk at 50 lumens correct all right yeah dusk it

02:07:57.320 --> 02:08:01.000
 it would be visible just be a little bit dim

02:08:03.480 --> 02:08:03.960
 um

02:08:03.960 --> 02:08:13.240
 this this kind of approach is very welcome in the cba

02:08:13.240 --> 02:08:18.360
 we're here are there any more questions that work for everyone yes

02:08:18.360 --> 02:08:24.680
 we have um i'm sorry

02:08:33.000 --> 02:08:36.680
 um

02:08:36.680 --> 02:08:53.880
 thank you thank you um if there are no more questions or concerns

02:08:53.880 --> 02:09:00.520
 um i would entertain a motion one way or the other sorry uh chair there's already been a motion i

02:09:00.520 --> 02:09:05.320
 just was wanting to get clarification but there's been a motion in a second on to allow for the

02:09:05.320 --> 02:09:15.560
 special exception yes and and who moved and who seconded may ask uh board member meissner and

02:09:15.560 --> 02:09:23.560
 second was i'm not sure who did but i'll second all right board member red wine okay thank you

02:09:23.560 --> 02:09:28.280
 and some clarification you're seeking i think i have it we just want to make sure it's

02:09:28.920 --> 02:09:34.280
 the members have intended that there is a 50 lumens restriction a maximum 50 lumens restriction

02:09:34.280 --> 02:09:40.440
 on the brightness of the sign effective after so many effect uh after 90 days

02:09:40.440 --> 02:09:48.120
 okay before the 90 days you're saying allow for i guess well i'm just i'm trying to be responsive

02:09:48.120 --> 02:09:56.440
 to their concern that the word get out by passage by clearly in the initial days of the business

02:09:59.400 --> 02:10:07.320
 um and can i make a modification a friendly amendment are you seeking

02:10:07.320 --> 02:10:17.800
 a friendly amendment i'm seeking um with the emotion yes i don't know if this is uh

02:10:17.800 --> 02:10:28.360
 to my motion but just more of a question actually i guess i know we're past discussion

02:10:29.400 --> 02:10:44.200
 but if this is possible within those nine days to pay close attention to if there are any complaints

02:10:44.200 --> 02:10:51.560
 from the neighbors during that time and the adjustments might be made thereafter

02:10:56.440 --> 02:11:07.400
 um so it moved to allow the variance as requested for 90 days

02:11:07.400 --> 02:11:15.400
 after which the lumens would be at 50 percent and in the 90 day period to

02:11:21.000 --> 02:11:31.880
 pay attention to uh local residents complaints yes thank you for summarizing um

02:11:31.880 --> 02:11:46.440
 probably the complaints would be mitigated by assuring the complainant that this situation

02:11:46.440 --> 02:11:54.760
 will last for only 90 days is my guess but this is a little bit iffy so um

02:11:54.760 --> 02:12:03.480
 mr rinwon do you have any thoughts about this legally no i think i have it so it's

02:12:03.480 --> 02:12:11.160
 approving the request for 90 days and then after that the maximum lumens will be 50

02:12:12.280 --> 02:12:19.160
 at night time is the applicant able to return to the zba if that somehow becomes insufficient for

02:12:19.160 --> 02:12:28.680
 them they could they could ask for it's another special exception yes all right um applicant uh

02:12:28.680 --> 02:12:34.680
 are you amenable yes we are thank you all right um we'll call the question we have a motion in a

02:12:34.680 --> 02:12:44.680
 second um let me go around the room uh board member higgins okay we're we're not voting on the uh

02:12:44.680 --> 02:12:50.280
 staff's recommendation that we're making our own okay we're making our own i vote in i vote in

02:12:50.280 --> 02:12:57.400
 favor of the motion okay yes and just to remind everyone the motion is 90 days at request uh after

02:12:57.400 --> 02:13:06.600
 that point 50 percent and um the height is 24 feet eight inches as well as 24 feet eight inches

02:13:06.600 --> 02:13:17.960
 we're approving the variance in height and um staff and legal will draft the agreement correct

02:13:17.960 --> 02:13:25.160
 we'll draft an order of the board yes thank you an order of the board and um all right then uh

02:13:25.160 --> 02:13:33.320
 council member um excuse me a board member nijoku how do you vote i'm in favor i'm in favor of the

02:13:33.320 --> 02:13:43.160
 motion thank you board member redwine i'm in favor board member meisner favor board member linus

02:13:43.160 --> 02:13:49.160
 i'm in favor of the motion and i will vote in favor as well so it's a unanimous six zero

02:13:51.960 --> 02:13:56.920
 thank you so much thank you for your patience and thank you for your willingness to to uh bend

02:13:56.920 --> 02:14:05.080
 it makes a difference thank you thank you all appreciate it thank you merry christmas have a

02:14:05.080 --> 02:14:12.760
 wonderful evening same to you and then there are a few just as the closing is i know it's getting

02:14:12.760 --> 02:14:22.040
 late um we're all getting interrupted so we have here just uh after that um

02:14:22.040 --> 02:14:27.960
 comments for the good of the order i believe uh something like this

02:14:27.960 --> 02:14:34.440
 so many pages open here do we just have the concluding items which items yes

02:14:34.440 --> 02:14:39.560
 are there any concluding items from staff or from the board

02:14:43.320 --> 02:14:51.960
 um i will just i will just give one if no one else has i will um just note for any new members

02:14:51.960 --> 02:14:59.400
 of the board that what we saw this evening was a really good example of how uh the kinds of

02:14:59.400 --> 02:15:08.680
 situations that arise and when the um applicant comes ready with adjustment and prepared by staff

02:15:09.800 --> 02:15:15.160
 they are much more likely to find some manner of success even if not 100 what they request

02:15:15.160 --> 02:15:17.400
 thank you

02:15:17.400 --> 02:15:25.400
 super important and with that i guess we will adjourn is there anything to prevent us from

02:15:25.400 --> 02:15:30.600
 adjourning it's been a long day for everyone nope there's no other items okay everybody have

02:15:30.600 --> 02:15:40.760
 a wonderful evening thank you so much thank you everyone