1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:07,180 >> Good afternoon and thank you for joining us today. 2 00:00:07,180 --> 00:00:11,100 It is June 7, 2021, the time is 4.04 p.m. 3 00:00:11,100 --> 00:00:14,480 We do have a quorum for the Zoning Board of Adjustments, so I would like to call this 4 00:00:14,480 --> 00:00:15,860 meeting to order. 5 00:00:15,860 --> 00:00:20,500 The first order of business is the pledge to both the U.S. and Texas flag, so if you 6 00:00:20,500 --> 00:00:24,980 imagine the flag in your brain, do that now. 7 00:00:24,980 --> 00:00:31,440 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for 8 00:00:31,440 --> 00:00:39,120 which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 9 00:00:39,120 --> 00:00:45,200 And the Texas flag, honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state 10 00:00:45,200 --> 00:00:48,840 under God, one and indivisible. 11 00:00:48,840 --> 00:00:49,840 Great. 12 00:00:49,840 --> 00:00:50,840 Thanks. 13 00:00:50,840 --> 00:00:57,960 >> This item is considering the approval of the May 24th, 2021 minutes. 14 00:00:57,960 --> 00:01:02,080 Are there any corrections to the minutes? 15 00:01:02,080 --> 00:01:05,240 Okay. 16 00:01:05,240 --> 00:01:07,280 Then do I have a motion to approve? 17 00:01:07,280 --> 00:01:10,760 >> I'll make a motion. 18 00:01:10,760 --> 00:01:11,760 >> All right. 19 00:01:11,760 --> 00:01:16,040 Ms. Linus makes the motion and a second. 20 00:01:16,040 --> 00:01:19,620 >> I'll second. 21 00:01:19,620 --> 00:01:24,680 >> Mr. Redwine, and now we vote individually. 22 00:01:24,680 --> 00:01:26,840 So I'll call on people as I see them on my screen. 23 00:01:26,840 --> 00:01:28,040 So Mr. Redwine, how do you vote? 24 00:01:28,040 --> 00:01:30,040 >> I think yes. 25 00:01:30,040 --> 00:01:31,040 >> Okay. 26 00:01:31,040 --> 00:01:32,040 Ms. Meisner? 27 00:01:32,040 --> 00:01:40,240 >> This is for the minutes, or for the -- >> Approving the minutes. 28 00:01:40,240 --> 00:01:41,240 >> Okay. 29 00:01:41,240 --> 00:01:42,240 Yes. 30 00:01:42,240 --> 00:01:43,240 >> Great. 31 00:01:43,240 --> 00:01:44,240 Ms. Linus? 32 00:01:44,240 --> 00:01:45,240 >> I vote yes. 33 00:01:45,240 --> 00:01:46,240 >> Ms. Lane? 34 00:01:46,240 --> 00:01:51,240 >> I saw your mouth move but you were muted. 35 00:01:51,240 --> 00:01:55,440 Just for the record, can you say that again, not on mute? 36 00:01:55,440 --> 00:01:56,440 >> Yes. 37 00:01:56,440 --> 00:01:57,440 >> Thank you. 38 00:01:57,440 --> 00:01:58,440 And Mr. Njapu? 39 00:01:58,440 --> 00:01:59,440 >> Yes. 40 00:01:59,440 --> 00:02:00,440 >> Yes. 41 00:02:00,440 --> 00:02:01,440 And I also vote yes. 42 00:02:01,440 --> 00:02:03,680 So the motion passes unanimously. 43 00:02:03,680 --> 00:02:04,680 Okay. 44 00:02:04,680 --> 00:02:13,080 Then the real big reason why we're here is item 2B, consider an appeal of an administrative 45 00:02:13,080 --> 00:02:17,480 decision regarding the interpretation of the use-specific standards for automotive repair 46 00:02:17,480 --> 00:02:22,880 major for property located at 3008 South I-35E. 47 00:02:22,880 --> 00:02:28,600 The subject property is approximately 1.98 acres, located on the west side of I-35E, 48 00:02:28,600 --> 00:02:35,480 approximately 640 feet south of Buckees Boulevard in the city of Denton, Denton County, Texas. 49 00:02:35,480 --> 00:02:41,640 So what happens is it takes six votes, so it's going to have to be a unanimous thing 50 00:02:41,640 --> 00:02:43,300 here one way or the other. 51 00:02:43,300 --> 00:02:48,480 So it takes six votes to reverse or modify any determination of an administrative official 52 00:02:48,480 --> 00:02:49,480 on appeal. 53 00:02:49,480 --> 00:02:54,960 So I now open this item for deliberation and a motion by the board. 54 00:02:54,960 --> 00:02:57,240 So the board can -- we've got four things we could do. 55 00:02:57,240 --> 00:03:01,400 One, we can affirm the administrative official's decision or interpretation. 56 00:03:01,400 --> 00:03:06,520 Two, we can reverse it in whole or in part. 57 00:03:06,520 --> 00:03:11,980 Three, we can amend or modify the administrative official's decision or interpretation and 58 00:03:11,980 --> 00:03:13,640 make the correct decision. 59 00:03:13,640 --> 00:03:18,400 Or four, attach conditions of approval to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of 60 00:03:18,400 --> 00:03:19,400 the city. 61 00:03:19,400 --> 00:03:24,960 So we heard evidence and testimony in our meeting in late May. 62 00:03:24,960 --> 00:03:29,540 Now is the opportunity for us to deliberate what we heard. 63 00:03:29,540 --> 00:03:33,360 And when the deliberation seems like it's kind of wrapping up, we can make a motion 64 00:03:33,360 --> 00:03:36,780 one way or another and vote. 65 00:03:36,780 --> 00:03:38,480 So I guess I'd like to open the floor. 66 00:03:38,480 --> 00:03:42,280 >> Chairperson, I just want to make sure that if there's somebody on the line waiting to 67 00:03:42,280 --> 00:03:46,120 participate or be on the call, I don't see them on the call right now. 68 00:03:46,120 --> 00:03:47,120 >> They are. 69 00:03:47,120 --> 00:03:50,160 We need to make sure we bring them to the meeting. 70 00:03:50,160 --> 00:03:55,240 If we can bring them from the waiting room to the meeting, that would be great. 71 00:03:55,240 --> 00:03:56,560 And there they are. 72 00:03:56,560 --> 00:03:57,560 >> Great. 73 00:03:57,560 --> 00:04:01,680 Now, this isn't a public hearing, so they can't really offer testimony, but they can 74 00:04:01,680 --> 00:04:04,720 be present while we deliberate, correct? 75 00:04:04,720 --> 00:04:06,360 >> Correct, yes. 76 00:04:06,360 --> 00:04:07,360 >> Okay. 77 00:04:07,360 --> 00:04:08,360 Okay. 78 00:04:08,360 --> 00:04:10,760 So welcome to the meeting. 79 00:04:10,760 --> 00:04:15,520 So I guess I'd like to open the floor for deliberation and discussion. 80 00:04:15,520 --> 00:04:20,880 Does anyone have any thoughts on what we heard at our last meeting? 81 00:04:20,880 --> 00:04:32,160 >> Go ahead. 82 00:04:32,160 --> 00:04:41,000 >> If I understand it right, and having gone back through the minutes and listening again, 83 00:04:41,000 --> 00:04:49,360 what we're trying to decide as the CBA is whether or not this business needs to have 84 00:04:49,360 --> 00:04:58,420 it fully enclosed, walls and roof, or if the fence is going to be enough because of what 85 00:04:58,420 --> 00:05:00,960 kind of a company it is? 86 00:05:00,960 --> 00:05:05,040 And that's -- is that correct in that what we're trying to determine? 87 00:05:05,040 --> 00:05:09,600 I know we have four things that we could vote on, but I just want to make sure that I'm 88 00:05:09,600 --> 00:05:14,000 getting to the underlying here. 89 00:05:14,000 --> 00:05:17,920 >> As I understand it, yes, that is -- it looked like, Mack, were you going to jump 90 00:05:17,920 --> 00:05:19,400 in and say something? 91 00:05:19,400 --> 00:05:22,880 >> Only if I needed to, but yeah, that's right. 92 00:05:22,880 --> 00:05:27,600 Technically, you're reviewing an appeal of a decision. 93 00:05:27,600 --> 00:05:34,700 So there was several interpretations made of a zoning code provision made by the administrator. 94 00:05:34,700 --> 00:05:38,280 And those are technically what you're reviewing is those interpretations. 95 00:05:38,280 --> 00:05:40,760 The bottom line is exactly what you said. 96 00:05:40,760 --> 00:05:47,840 If you go with the interpretation of the zoning administrator, any open storage of vehicles 97 00:05:47,840 --> 00:05:53,040 beyond 24 hours would need to be done in an enclosed structure. 98 00:05:53,040 --> 00:05:58,040 If you reverse or modify the decision, the applicant is contesting that interpretation 99 00:05:58,040 --> 00:06:04,360 to say if it's within a four-walled structure or four-fence structure, that would be sufficient 100 00:06:04,360 --> 00:06:05,360 to meet the code. 101 00:06:05,360 --> 00:06:09,920 So that's the bottom line to what your decision -- the ramifications of your decision. 102 00:06:09,920 --> 00:06:14,440 But technically, you're just reviewing those three interpretations made by the director 103 00:06:14,440 --> 00:06:17,880 of development services. 104 00:06:17,880 --> 00:06:20,880 >> Ms. Meisner. 105 00:06:20,880 --> 00:06:22,560 >> Okay. 106 00:06:22,560 --> 00:06:24,320 Thank you. 107 00:06:24,320 --> 00:06:34,000 So I'd like to discuss the portion where he says, well, I'd like to express my support 108 00:06:34,000 --> 00:06:41,720 of the zoning administration's interpretation and the requirement for them to have a fully 109 00:06:41,720 --> 00:06:44,080 enclosed structure. 110 00:06:44,080 --> 00:06:50,720 Do I need to give -- discuss my reasoning or my thinking about that opinion? 111 00:06:50,720 --> 00:06:54,960 >> I mean, I'd love to hear what you have to say. 112 00:06:54,960 --> 00:06:55,960 We're here to deliberate. 113 00:06:55,960 --> 00:06:56,960 >> Yeah. 114 00:06:56,960 --> 00:07:08,760 So my opinion is that this is not -- I understand the ambiguity that he presented to us at the 115 00:07:08,760 --> 00:07:09,760 last meeting. 116 00:07:09,760 --> 00:07:23,200 I understand how they could see that and kind of poke holes in the zoning requirements. 117 00:07:23,200 --> 00:07:28,240 But authentically, what's at the root is that that's what the city wants, and the whole 118 00:07:28,240 --> 00:07:34,520 point of this new code is to get everybody on the same page. 119 00:07:34,520 --> 00:07:39,680 And if we keep making allowances and keep grandfathering people into the ways that were 120 00:07:39,680 --> 00:07:44,800 previously stated, there's going to be no transition to get us where the city wants 121 00:07:44,800 --> 00:07:45,800 us. 122 00:07:45,800 --> 00:07:53,320 So I want to support what the zoning code is that the city wants to see, and we're going 123 00:07:53,320 --> 00:07:57,280 to have to start making decisions that support that. 124 00:07:57,280 --> 00:08:06,320 And if I was that business, I would look into different ways to -- different companies that 125 00:08:06,320 --> 00:08:13,040 could help me save money to make sure that enclosed structure was up to par with city 126 00:08:13,040 --> 00:08:20,640 expectations and perhaps get different quotes and go with the least expensive quote. 127 00:08:20,640 --> 00:08:25,800 But it's not a court case where it's innocent until proven guilty. 128 00:08:25,800 --> 00:08:33,940 So there's -- despite all of the great attempts at showing how there might be some loopholes 129 00:08:33,940 --> 00:08:40,680 within the code, I still feel like the essence of what the city wants is present. 130 00:08:40,680 --> 00:08:48,680 And so that's my thinking in wanting to vote for affirming the zoning administration code 131 00:08:48,680 --> 00:08:51,600 as it stands with an enclosed structure. 132 00:08:51,600 --> 00:08:56,320 >> Thank you. Ms. Ling, go ahead. 133 00:08:56,320 --> 00:08:57,320 >> Yes. 134 00:08:57,320 --> 00:09:05,200 I remember from the previous meeting asking how long it might be that vehicles that don't 135 00:09:05,200 --> 00:09:14,160 conform to the 24-hour requirement might be sitting there until insurance removes them. 136 00:09:14,160 --> 00:09:17,240 And they said it's generally a week. 137 00:09:17,240 --> 00:09:24,160 So these are inoperable vehicles that are awaiting removal from that site for a week 138 00:09:24,160 --> 00:09:27,180 and possibly longer. 139 00:09:27,180 --> 00:09:34,040 So that they would not be able to have a sort of different category of vehicles than the 140 00:09:34,040 --> 00:09:39,560 two that are described in the ordinance. 141 00:09:39,560 --> 00:09:47,840 >> Are there other thoughts on any of this? 142 00:09:47,840 --> 00:09:48,840 I have some. 143 00:09:48,840 --> 00:09:52,560 But as the chair, I feel like I should let you all speak first. 144 00:09:52,560 --> 00:09:56,320 Mr. Redwine, go ahead. 145 00:09:56,320 --> 00:10:06,800 >> I guess my only concern is I guess what's our -- I mean, what's the determination of 146 00:10:06,800 --> 00:10:15,360 what that zoning is across -- I mean, across 35, it seems like from -- we saw the map. 147 00:10:15,360 --> 00:10:16,360 It changes quite frequently. 148 00:10:16,360 --> 00:10:17,360 I just don't know. 149 00:10:17,360 --> 00:10:25,080 I don't know if I have a grasp of what that determination was from the city on the zoning 150 00:10:25,080 --> 00:10:26,080 aspect of it. 151 00:10:26,080 --> 00:10:31,960 So, you know, I think it's pretty disparate, you know, today, so I'm not sure what's driving 152 00:10:31,960 --> 00:10:34,840 the -- how it's determined. 153 00:10:34,840 --> 00:10:40,640 That would be the only counter, I guess, to -- or not counter, but just point I would make 154 00:10:40,640 --> 00:10:41,960 from that standpoint. 155 00:10:41,960 --> 00:10:42,960 >> Sure. 156 00:10:42,960 --> 00:10:44,480 >> That's the point I would make, too. 157 00:10:44,480 --> 00:10:51,480 I'm kind of unclear as to how it's zoned because like in the -- when he was presenting his 158 00:10:51,480 --> 00:10:57,240 case down the street, there are a couple of car dealerships that are kind of in the same 159 00:10:57,240 --> 00:10:59,640 category as he is. 160 00:10:59,640 --> 00:11:05,840 So yeah, the clarification of that would help. 161 00:11:05,840 --> 00:11:12,160 >> Ms. Meissner, go ahead. 162 00:11:12,160 --> 00:11:19,920 >> So along those same lines, thinking kind of backwards about that, I also wonder, like, 163 00:11:19,920 --> 00:11:25,360 what's the time frame if they were allowed under the old code and now they're trying 164 00:11:25,360 --> 00:11:33,320 to establish the new code and set a new precedent, and, you know, either way, whatever way we 165 00:11:33,320 --> 00:11:39,240 decide today, I think it's an opportunity for the city to be even more clear in the 166 00:11:39,240 --> 00:11:45,820 code, too, and be very, very, very explicit since there's some, you know, hair splitting 167 00:11:45,820 --> 00:11:50,520 going on between some things, so just wanted to add that. 168 00:11:50,520 --> 00:11:57,480 >> I have a question, so the older businesses that wouldn't be conforming to the new code 169 00:11:57,480 --> 00:12:03,420 like this one is being asked to do, when they have to make a repair, we've seen that sort 170 00:12:03,420 --> 00:12:08,200 of thing come up before ZBA that if they have to replace the item that they have, they would 171 00:12:08,200 --> 00:12:12,120 have to replace it under the new code, is that right? 172 00:12:12,120 --> 00:12:15,960 >> Mac or Ron, you want to take this one? 173 00:12:15,960 --> 00:12:16,960 Or Julie? 174 00:12:16,960 --> 00:12:25,680 >> I was just going to just respond to Ms. Lane's comment, question, yes, any nonconforming 175 00:12:25,680 --> 00:12:34,200 use that plans to expand or alter other side now, that would need to comply with the code, 176 00:12:34,200 --> 00:12:38,280 now not the entire site, per se, but just the area that they're improving. 177 00:12:38,280 --> 00:12:43,020 >> Yeah, and they would have to, for example, if some freak damage, we've looked at those 178 00:12:43,020 --> 00:12:49,160 kinds of incidents where there was a freak damage because an errant vehicle ran right 179 00:12:49,160 --> 00:12:56,360 into the building, and the owner had to, I think in that case, the owner did have to 180 00:12:56,360 --> 00:13:06,320 conform, even though, you know, there was a lot of sympathy on our side. 181 00:13:06,320 --> 00:13:13,640 >> Yes, go ahead. 182 00:13:13,640 --> 00:13:14,640 Yep. 183 00:13:14,640 --> 00:13:16,920 >> Sorry, I was just going to speak out, and that's not right. 184 00:13:16,920 --> 00:13:17,920 Thank you. 185 00:13:17,920 --> 00:13:18,920 >> That's good. 186 00:13:18,920 --> 00:13:19,920 Yeah, speak out. 187 00:13:19,920 --> 00:13:20,920 I want to hear it. 188 00:13:20,920 --> 00:13:29,520 >> So, the zoning is different on there, but I was wondering, too, because of the kind 189 00:13:29,520 --> 00:13:36,280 of business this is, where it's going to be the car repair versus the car sales, that 190 00:13:36,280 --> 00:13:45,120 matters as well, right, in that there may be wrecked cars or other inoperable cars on 191 00:13:45,120 --> 00:13:50,520 a car lot, but that's a different kind of business, and that's what the city is trying 192 00:13:50,520 --> 00:13:59,560 to get at in that with car repair versus car junkyards, which are completely, everything's 193 00:13:59,560 --> 00:14:05,800 inoperable, to car sales, which could have a mixture. 194 00:14:05,800 --> 00:14:18,120 So is that, is that anywhere in the zoning language already? 195 00:14:18,120 --> 00:14:19,760 >> I'm waiting for staff to jump in with that one. 196 00:14:19,760 --> 00:14:23,720 >> Chair, if you give us a few minutes, we're going to pull that up real quick. 197 00:14:23,720 --> 00:14:27,960 >> While she does, could I just mention that, just to point out, that was the point that 198 00:14:27,960 --> 00:14:29,840 I was getting at with the insurance. 199 00:14:29,840 --> 00:14:30,840 Yeah. 200 00:14:30,840 --> 00:14:31,840 >> Yeah. 201 00:14:31,840 --> 00:14:36,840 >> Okay. 202 00:14:36,840 --> 00:15:06,520 I don't know if Julie's looking for it as well, and see who will get there first. 203 00:15:06,520 --> 00:15:34,640 So, I'm looking at the use specific standards that's in the Gen Development Code, and under 204 00:15:34,640 --> 00:15:41,520 automotive repair, I think this is major, it has the, what we're talking about, the 205 00:15:41,520 --> 00:15:58,760 open storage, as far as the sales, car dealership per se, they do not have that use specific 206 00:15:58,760 --> 00:16:06,340 standard, so it is specifically just for the automotive repair. 207 00:16:06,340 --> 00:16:12,120 Automotive sales does not have any use specific standards per se, but it's only permitted 208 00:16:12,120 --> 00:16:18,720 in one zoning district, so again, as you mentioned, Board Member Linus, two different uses, two 209 00:16:18,720 --> 00:16:21,120 different use specific standards. 210 00:16:21,120 --> 00:16:24,920 And Julie, is that accurate? 211 00:16:24,920 --> 00:16:30,840 >> Ms. Lane, oh, sorry, sorry, Julie, yes, go ahead. 212 00:16:30,840 --> 00:16:35,240 >> So automotive sales are zoned in a different area than automotive repairs? 213 00:16:35,240 --> 00:16:44,680 >> Well, the zoning is, you know, is on whatever's on the map per se, but you're right, you know, 214 00:16:44,680 --> 00:16:50,200 automotive sales is permitted in a zoning district, so is automotive repair, and I can 215 00:16:50,200 --> 00:16:57,400 tell you that under the HC, they are both permitted, but obviously one use has a use 216 00:16:57,400 --> 00:17:02,960 specific standard, where that discussion is what we're talking about, however, the automotive 217 00:17:02,960 --> 00:17:11,240 sales does not, so does not have that use specific standard, where it talks about open 218 00:17:11,240 --> 00:17:12,240 storage. 219 00:17:12,240 --> 00:17:21,640 >> Ms. Meisner, go ahead. 220 00:17:21,640 --> 00:17:27,920 >> I had a question about if there's any possibility we could discuss amendments or modifications 221 00:17:27,920 --> 00:17:35,720 to different types of enclosed structures, maybe ones that wouldn't be, you know, a million 222 00:17:35,720 --> 00:17:44,720 dollars, but something that would be more like a compromise between the city's version 223 00:17:44,720 --> 00:17:50,320 and maybe what they could get at, you know, a fair price. 224 00:17:50,320 --> 00:17:56,120 Maybe we had talked about out there, it wouldn't need air conditioning, it wouldn't need some 225 00:17:56,120 --> 00:18:01,400 of the things that, you know, an inside building would need. 226 00:18:01,400 --> 00:18:07,560 Maybe it doesn't have to have the -- I don't know, I'm not a structural engineer, but just 227 00:18:07,560 --> 00:18:12,640 thinking about different modifications that might be a compromise to the two. 228 00:18:12,640 --> 00:18:19,200 >> Yeah, I mean, that's one of the options, you know, we can -- it sounds like we can 229 00:18:19,200 --> 00:18:21,780 amend or modify it. 230 00:18:21,780 --> 00:18:27,720 Can we -- so I'm going to have to ask staff, you know, staff on this, so I'm looking at 231 00:18:27,720 --> 00:18:33,280 this case, my planning and zoning, I've been planning and zoning for five years, something 232 00:18:33,280 --> 00:18:38,240 like that, and like my P&Z hat would be like -- I'd be like super excited about this, thinking 233 00:18:38,240 --> 00:18:43,160 of all the modifications we can make to make this fit, because it seems like it's reasonable. 234 00:18:43,160 --> 00:18:47,600 It's next to buckies, it's next to a highway, it's not, you know, like -- it's not really 235 00:18:47,600 --> 00:18:52,800 a new structure that they're building, you know, like, so my P&Z mind is like super excited 236 00:18:52,800 --> 00:18:53,800 about this. 237 00:18:53,800 --> 00:19:02,440 My PBA mind is like, well, we're tasked to, you know, uphold the zoning regulations, and 238 00:19:02,440 --> 00:19:06,720 as you said, Ms. Meisner, it's like, you know, if we keep, you know, making exceptions for 239 00:19:06,720 --> 00:19:12,880 people, then we're not really getting everyone on board, and my issue with the evidence that 240 00:19:12,880 --> 00:19:19,360 was presented, you know, by the applicant was that there's, you know, similar businesses 241 00:19:19,360 --> 00:19:23,840 that he showed that had, like, look at this nice, you know, fence, you can't really see 242 00:19:23,840 --> 00:19:32,040 on the other side, but those weren't built after the new, you know, zoning update, right? 243 00:19:32,040 --> 00:19:38,480 So like these are like, you know, legally nonconforming structures, right? 244 00:19:38,480 --> 00:19:41,680 And so I didn't see anything that was like, oh, yeah, well, that exists somewhere else 245 00:19:41,680 --> 00:19:45,880 with this new zoning, and so therefore -- so anyway, so I'm very interested in what you 246 00:19:45,880 --> 00:19:50,160 have to say about this, Ms. Meisner, about, like, finding a modification to it, because 247 00:19:50,160 --> 00:19:56,640 I, you know, it seems reasonable, and at ZBA, it's like, you know, like, here's what the 248 00:19:56,640 --> 00:20:00,160 law says, so we have to follow the law. 249 00:20:00,160 --> 00:20:06,920 So Ron and Julie and Mack, is this a thing that, I mean, can we make recommendations, 250 00:20:06,920 --> 00:20:09,560 modifications to this? 251 00:20:09,560 --> 00:20:13,000 I just want to make sure that we're, like, upholding the letter of the law with what we're 252 00:20:13,000 --> 00:20:16,000 tasked to do as the Zoning Board of Adjustments. 253 00:20:16,000 --> 00:20:20,080 Yes, Chairperson Briegel, you read out at the beginning your four options, and that 254 00:20:20,080 --> 00:20:25,080 certainly includes interpreting and modifying the code provisions. 255 00:20:25,080 --> 00:20:27,960 So if it would be helpful, we can go through those. 256 00:20:27,960 --> 00:20:32,520 There's basically three conditions associated with this use. 257 00:20:32,520 --> 00:20:37,120 Those are what are being interpreted, and so to the extent that the board has an interpretation 258 00:20:37,120 --> 00:20:42,940 of those provisions, you certainly could define that and describe that. 259 00:20:42,940 --> 00:20:48,800 And that, effectively, would become the interpretation of the city forward for that type of use. 260 00:20:48,800 --> 00:20:55,960 So your decision becomes, until further change by the council, the actual code, yours is, 261 00:20:55,960 --> 00:20:58,080 interpretation is the official interpretation of the city. 262 00:20:58,080 --> 00:21:03,080 So oh, so it wouldn't just be, it wouldn't just be unique to this structure, it would 263 00:21:03,080 --> 00:21:07,840 be, like, it'd be kind of like an amendment to the code, sort of? 264 00:21:07,840 --> 00:21:10,280 It's how that provision would be interpreted, yes. 265 00:21:10,280 --> 00:21:11,280 Wow. 266 00:21:11,280 --> 00:21:12,280 Okay. 267 00:21:12,280 --> 00:21:13,280 Okay. 268 00:21:13,280 --> 00:21:14,280 That's great. 269 00:21:14,280 --> 00:21:15,280 Yeah. 270 00:21:15,280 --> 00:21:16,440 Ms. Meiser, go ahead. 271 00:21:16,440 --> 00:21:22,040 I just wanted to follow up on that thought and express one more thing before we move 272 00:21:22,040 --> 00:21:23,520 on from that point. 273 00:21:23,520 --> 00:21:32,020 I just, I find it interesting that the applicant saw the code but didn't really research the 274 00:21:32,020 --> 00:21:38,920 options to facilitate an enclosed space, just automatically assumed that they could find 275 00:21:38,920 --> 00:21:45,040 a loophole and, you know, we heard what the lawyer brought to our attention. 276 00:21:45,040 --> 00:21:50,040 And I appreciate that the business doesn't want to do this and doesn't want to spend 277 00:21:50,040 --> 00:21:51,440 the money on it. 278 00:21:51,440 --> 00:21:54,320 But they saw what the code said. 279 00:21:54,320 --> 00:21:57,000 So it might be a good idea. 280 00:21:57,000 --> 00:22:01,200 And I hope that maybe during these past few weeks, they've done some research to see what 281 00:22:01,200 --> 00:22:06,920 some options are and to see what some modifications were. 282 00:22:06,920 --> 00:22:12,760 You know, I'm not a business person, but that's just logical thinking from my point of view 283 00:22:12,760 --> 00:22:16,720 that I would hope they had done their research. 284 00:22:16,720 --> 00:22:18,560 Ms. Lang. 285 00:22:18,560 --> 00:22:19,560 Yeah. 286 00:22:19,560 --> 00:22:25,840 If we had a four foot, you know, distance or something that the city changed to a three 287 00:22:25,840 --> 00:22:30,840 foot or a five foot, if we were built before that, we would have to, we would not have 288 00:22:30,840 --> 00:22:36,020 to change anything until we did a modification and sought a permit. 289 00:22:36,020 --> 00:22:40,880 So I think it's something that anyone can understand that the city has moved to desiring 290 00:22:40,880 --> 00:22:49,760 a roof and has encoded that desire and that the other, the photographs of other similar 291 00:22:49,760 --> 00:22:54,440 businesses that do not have this were anything to happen to their property or were they to 292 00:22:54,440 --> 00:23:00,240 wish to make improvements or replace what they have would have to put a roof. 293 00:23:00,240 --> 00:23:06,520 I do wish I agree with this, I do wish that some research had been brought to us as to 294 00:23:06,520 --> 00:23:13,920 cost and some varying possibilities as to cost that if we did it this way, this way, 295 00:23:13,920 --> 00:23:19,400 this way, perhaps this particular business, if it conforms, you know, if that's the decision 296 00:23:19,400 --> 00:23:25,120 and it conforms, it might pave the way for future businesses to be able to do it as economically 297 00:23:25,120 --> 00:23:41,360 as possible. 298 00:23:41,360 --> 00:23:42,840 So I'm wondering where we go from here. 299 00:23:42,840 --> 00:23:48,520 I mean, does someone want to propose an amendment, I guess, essentially to the code or maybe 300 00:23:48,520 --> 00:23:54,600 help the city further, you know, clarify what an enclosed structure means? 301 00:23:54,600 --> 00:23:58,560 Go ahead, Ms. Meisner. 302 00:23:58,560 --> 00:24:01,800 I'd like to hear your thoughts before we move on. 303 00:24:01,800 --> 00:24:02,800 Me? 304 00:24:02,800 --> 00:24:03,800 Yeah. 305 00:24:03,800 --> 00:24:06,520 You said you had some thoughts you were going to hold back but 306 00:24:06,520 --> 00:24:10,800 Well, that I shared them, I shared them and my concern was that my concern was that what 307 00:24:10,800 --> 00:24:16,760 was proposed, what was shown to us was that these were legally non-conforming structures, 308 00:24:16,760 --> 00:24:17,760 right? 309 00:24:17,760 --> 00:24:22,360 And like this, this zoning classification doesn't really fit with what it is they're trying 310 00:24:22,360 --> 00:24:26,520 to do and that's, that's, it's really, you know, as a business woman and a former Planning 311 00:24:26,520 --> 00:24:29,400 and Zoning Commissioner, I want to be like, sure, like that makes a lot of sense, but 312 00:24:29,400 --> 00:24:33,200 as the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustments, I'm like, it doesn't really fit the code. 313 00:24:33,200 --> 00:24:36,440 So I'm kind of like torn right here. 314 00:24:36,440 --> 00:24:39,640 So I'm just wondering if anyone has like any amendments or definitions they would like to 315 00:24:39,640 --> 00:24:46,440 offer to the code or if we would like to make a motion to approve or, or reverse. 316 00:24:46,440 --> 00:24:48,360 So Ms. Linus, did I see your hand up? 317 00:24:48,360 --> 00:24:49,360 Go ahead. 318 00:24:49,360 --> 00:24:50,360 Yeah, I don't have any of those. 319 00:24:50,360 --> 00:24:51,360 I have a question. 320 00:24:51,360 --> 00:25:05,080 Do we know what the intent behind the change in what the city is asking for was, was, is 321 00:25:05,080 --> 00:25:09,880 there an intent for aesthetics as you're driving down the highway? 322 00:25:09,880 --> 00:25:16,240 I don't know about everybody else, but I'm driving down the highway, you see everything. 323 00:25:16,240 --> 00:25:20,640 And I would like to see something better as we come into Denton, but then again, I thought 324 00:25:20,640 --> 00:25:27,360 that for the 50 years I've been coming into Denton, that it would be nice. 325 00:25:27,360 --> 00:25:33,560 Is the intent behind what the code was and what the administrator has said we need to 326 00:25:33,560 --> 00:25:35,600 uphold? 327 00:25:35,600 --> 00:25:43,920 Is it a health concern that we need to have all of this behind walls and a roof? 328 00:25:43,920 --> 00:25:52,680 Is it aesthetic concern, is it a move towards certain kinds of businesses on our corridors? 329 00:25:52,680 --> 00:25:56,160 Is there any knowledge about what that intent? 330 00:25:56,160 --> 00:26:06,520 Because if we, as the CBA, interpret this, modify it, provide anything else, we're really 331 00:26:06,520 --> 00:26:14,240 establishing something more than upholding what's already been done or saying, no, we're 332 00:26:14,240 --> 00:26:16,120 not going to. 333 00:26:16,120 --> 00:26:19,240 This isn't just, hey, we're making an exception. 334 00:26:19,240 --> 00:26:21,800 We're making the exception. 335 00:26:21,800 --> 00:26:26,800 If we don't, you know, depending on which of the four choices we choose. 336 00:26:26,800 --> 00:26:33,900 So back to the city, do we know of what was intended with any of this or is it just part 337 00:26:33,900 --> 00:26:38,040 of the entire new coding for it all? 338 00:26:38,040 --> 00:26:43,160 Let me jump in before you answer, Ron, just to be procedural matter. 339 00:26:43,160 --> 00:26:47,400 So when you speak to intent of the city, it's kind of like how was the sauce made, right? 340 00:26:47,400 --> 00:26:48,920 What did city council think? 341 00:26:48,920 --> 00:26:52,960 Several different people had probably different reasons that they did on the code and what 342 00:26:52,960 --> 00:26:57,500 their rationale was, it's hard to kind of decipher the total intent. 343 00:26:57,500 --> 00:27:02,040 That said, I think that the city and the applicant have both stated some reasons what they think 344 00:27:02,040 --> 00:27:06,600 are intent both during the public hearing and in their application letters to the zoning 345 00:27:06,600 --> 00:27:08,800 board that you may be able to look at and rely on. 346 00:27:08,800 --> 00:27:13,020 My only concern with someone from the staff answering this question, it probably opens 347 00:27:13,020 --> 00:27:16,960 up the opportunity at least for the applicant as well to respond as to what they think they 348 00:27:16,960 --> 00:27:19,440 attend, just to the sense it's kind of ambiguous. 349 00:27:19,440 --> 00:27:22,000 So the intent is hard to define. 350 00:27:22,000 --> 00:27:27,240 I would say rely on the information that was provided to you already, but if you're going 351 00:27:27,240 --> 00:27:33,680 to allow us this answer to be given, Chairperson Brighill, I think you probably want to offer 352 00:27:33,680 --> 00:27:37,920 that both to the city and the applicant to give that answer. 353 00:27:37,920 --> 00:27:48,520 And I would like to say, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I guess what I'm trying to do in my own mind, 354 00:27:48,520 --> 00:27:53,840 I definitely don't want to open up a whole nother can of worms. 355 00:27:53,840 --> 00:28:00,760 I just wasn't sure if within that our big package of information, because what I've 356 00:28:00,760 --> 00:28:09,000 looked at, you know, we're trying to move forward and we do that with the plan, the 357 00:28:09,000 --> 00:28:13,040 2030 plan, and then with the future plan and all of that. 358 00:28:13,040 --> 00:28:17,720 And I want to make sure that we as the board are also supporting that. 359 00:28:17,720 --> 00:28:23,920 So I completely understand too that to try and find out what intent was, that could be 360 00:28:23,920 --> 00:28:28,920 difficult and sometimes maybe not the best thing to do. 361 00:28:28,920 --> 00:28:30,360 Yeah. 362 00:28:30,360 --> 00:28:36,760 So I'd like to, going off of what Mack was saying, I mean, I'm not sure that that's really 363 00:28:36,760 --> 00:28:37,760 yeah. 364 00:28:37,760 --> 00:28:38,760 Okay. 365 00:28:38,760 --> 00:28:41,960 So good idea, but we're going to move on from that question. 366 00:28:41,960 --> 00:28:42,960 Yeah. 367 00:28:42,960 --> 00:28:43,960 Yeah. 368 00:28:43,960 --> 00:28:44,960 Go ahead, Ms. Lane. 369 00:28:44,960 --> 00:28:45,960 Yes. 370 00:28:45,960 --> 00:28:50,400 Well, I was remembering one of the things that stuck in my mind was actually this issue 371 00:28:50,400 --> 00:28:58,400 of how long vehicles that were not going to be addressable within the 24 hour period could 372 00:28:58,400 --> 00:28:59,400 be there. 373 00:28:59,400 --> 00:29:05,280 I know the company intends to get them off as quickly as possible, but that's not, you 374 00:29:05,280 --> 00:29:09,840 know, the length of time that they could be there is long, could be a week, could be more, 375 00:29:09,840 --> 00:29:16,060 depending on the burden on various insurance companies and what has to be done to move 376 00:29:16,060 --> 00:29:17,440 them. 377 00:29:17,440 --> 00:29:25,000 So although presenting as a different kind of business, it really will be rather similar 378 00:29:25,000 --> 00:29:36,160 to the auto body shops that we already know in effect. 379 00:29:36,160 --> 00:29:38,760 Mr. Redline. 380 00:29:38,760 --> 00:29:44,880 So I guess maybe for Ms. Meisner's point on are there addendums, amendments, whatever 381 00:29:44,880 --> 00:29:52,120 we could entrust, would it thought be, you know, if it's a fully enclosed structure, 382 00:29:52,120 --> 00:29:57,240 obviously that's, I mean, does it have to be a certain, I mean, could it be a metal 383 00:29:57,240 --> 00:30:03,040 building, which I don't think is, you know, aesthetically pleasing as maybe a 10 foot 384 00:30:03,040 --> 00:30:11,000 high, you know, brick, you know, brick fencing to me looks nicer than a metal building, if 385 00:30:11,000 --> 00:30:12,000 you will. 386 00:30:12,000 --> 00:30:16,840 So, I mean, is that something we could even discuss is it's got to be so many feet high 387 00:30:16,840 --> 00:30:24,780 of brick structure, you know, that conforms to something or are we kind of set to a, it's 388 00:30:24,780 --> 00:30:30,680 got to be an enclosed structure, even if it's a metal building that maybe isn't as aesthetic. 389 00:30:30,680 --> 00:30:36,200 So I'm not sure because we're making changes, we would be amending or, I guess, further 390 00:30:36,200 --> 00:30:41,840 defining the code, like not just the building, like this just seems to me like this would 391 00:30:41,840 --> 00:30:47,840 be just a great P and Z case if they could like just rezone it and then talk about what, 392 00:30:47,840 --> 00:30:52,200 you know, because then you're just looking at like one particular structure, like I guess 393 00:30:52,200 --> 00:31:01,160 I hesitate like defining, you know, all enclosed buildings means, you know, 25 foot high masonry 394 00:31:01,160 --> 00:31:05,860 fence because that may not fit in the next place where these are built. 395 00:31:05,860 --> 00:31:06,860 You know what I mean? 396 00:31:06,860 --> 00:31:14,040 So like, I hesitate changing the code. 397 00:31:14,040 --> 00:31:15,040 I don't know. 398 00:31:15,040 --> 00:31:16,520 I mean, but I hear your question. 399 00:31:16,520 --> 00:31:17,520 I'm just not sure. 400 00:31:17,520 --> 00:31:18,520 I don't see hands up. 401 00:31:18,520 --> 00:31:19,520 So I'll stop talking. 402 00:31:19,520 --> 00:31:20,520 Okay, Ms. Lane, go ahead. 403 00:31:20,520 --> 00:31:25,940 So I was just going to say, and this was for staff, but I don't recall seeing in the code 404 00:31:25,940 --> 00:31:31,080 or seeing the staff presentation that there was any specifics other than the description 405 00:31:31,080 --> 00:31:32,540 of coverage. 406 00:31:32,540 --> 00:31:39,840 So as far as I understood it, a company is free to accomplish the code as economically 407 00:31:39,840 --> 00:31:40,840 as they like. 408 00:31:40,840 --> 00:31:41,840 Am I right? 409 00:31:41,840 --> 00:31:50,280 Or are there specific materials outlined? 410 00:31:50,280 --> 00:31:54,320 That's a question to staff. 411 00:31:54,320 --> 00:32:03,760 So to address the question, as far as materials per state law, we cannot dictate materials. 412 00:32:03,760 --> 00:32:08,200 So that's probably the quickest answer as to your questions. 413 00:32:08,200 --> 00:32:10,600 Yeah, that's what I remembered. 414 00:32:10,600 --> 00:32:13,800 Ms. Meisner, go ahead. 415 00:32:13,800 --> 00:32:19,960 Sorry, finding that unmute button is hard sometimes. 416 00:32:19,960 --> 00:32:28,520 So I feel like at this point, maybe my hopes for compassion are clouding my judgment on 417 00:32:28,520 --> 00:32:34,140 how I perceive these interpretations or modifications, and I certainly don't want to do that. 418 00:32:34,140 --> 00:32:43,500 So I'm going to go ahead and move to affirm the zoning administration definition of having 419 00:32:43,500 --> 00:32:48,960 them require a full enclosed structure. 420 00:32:48,960 --> 00:32:54,480 And if that is procedurally out of order, just let me know. 421 00:32:54,480 --> 00:32:55,480 No, it's great. 422 00:32:55,480 --> 00:32:56,720 We have a motion on the floor. 423 00:32:56,720 --> 00:32:59,600 Is there anyone who has a second, Ms. Meisner? 424 00:32:59,600 --> 00:33:04,560 Just to clarify, Chairperson Meisner, I want to be clear on this. 425 00:33:04,560 --> 00:33:11,440 Is this a motion to affirm the director's determinations or his interpretations? 426 00:33:11,440 --> 00:33:12,440 Who's the director? 427 00:33:12,440 --> 00:33:19,200 Yes, it was Scott MacDonald is the director that made this interpretation. 428 00:33:19,200 --> 00:33:21,240 So the other one is the city. 429 00:33:21,240 --> 00:33:24,520 The city's interpretation, yes. 430 00:33:24,520 --> 00:33:27,280 Okay, let's back up then. 431 00:33:27,280 --> 00:33:33,560 Yeah, I think you hit the bottom line, like we said, the ramifications, but the real decision 432 00:33:33,560 --> 00:33:38,600 that's before the board is there's a code provision that says has three conditions associated 433 00:33:38,600 --> 00:33:40,320 with this type of use. 434 00:33:40,320 --> 00:33:45,640 One is all repair services and storage shall be conducted within an entirely enclosed structure. 435 00:33:45,640 --> 00:33:51,000 The second is open storage of wrecked or inoperable cars, discarded tires, audible parts or similar 436 00:33:51,000 --> 00:33:53,000 materials shall be prohibited. 437 00:33:53,000 --> 00:33:56,480 The third condition is sale of vehicles shall be prohibited. 438 00:33:56,480 --> 00:34:00,720 So those have been interpreted by the director of the development services department to 439 00:34:00,720 --> 00:34:06,840 mean one, the automobiles awaiting repairs for less than 24 hours do not constitute storage. 440 00:34:06,840 --> 00:34:10,800 Two, any vehicles intended for service and stored outside of the structure for more than 441 00:34:10,800 --> 00:34:16,280 24 hours are classified as open storage and must be contained within an entirely enclosed 442 00:34:16,280 --> 00:34:19,760 structure in accordance with the use specific standards. 443 00:34:19,760 --> 00:34:22,960 And the third one is while outdoor storage may be generally permitted as an accessory 444 00:34:22,960 --> 00:34:26,960 use under the provisions of the zoning district, the use specific standards for the primary 445 00:34:26,960 --> 00:34:34,560 use of automobile repair major prohibit outdoor storage of any elements related to the use. 446 00:34:34,560 --> 00:34:38,880 So those are the interpretations that are being appealed from. 447 00:34:38,880 --> 00:34:42,400 And so I just wanted to clarify on the motion, there's kind of three parts to it. 448 00:34:42,400 --> 00:34:48,240 Did you intend to approve or affirm all three of those interpretations by the director of 449 00:34:48,240 --> 00:34:49,240 development services? 450 00:34:49,240 --> 00:34:51,840 Well, I'm going to need a moment. 451 00:34:51,840 --> 00:34:52,840 Yes. 452 00:34:52,840 --> 00:34:59,360 I'm going to mute myself. 453 00:34:59,360 --> 00:35:18,760 Okay. 454 00:35:18,760 --> 00:35:26,920 So just to clarify, I want to start with, can we just walk through one, each one at 455 00:35:26,920 --> 00:35:31,280 a time and stop there? 456 00:35:31,280 --> 00:35:32,280 You're on mute. 457 00:35:32,280 --> 00:35:33,280 Yes. 458 00:35:33,280 --> 00:35:35,120 Yes, you can. 459 00:35:35,120 --> 00:35:36,120 Okay. 460 00:35:36,120 --> 00:35:42,880 And if someone else has, has a motion otherwise that they'd like to make, if you have your 461 00:35:42,880 --> 00:35:51,120 thinking more clearly set, I'm willing to let someone else speak first before I go through 462 00:35:51,120 --> 00:35:58,120 these points one at a time and take up our time. 463 00:35:58,120 --> 00:35:59,800 What say you? 464 00:35:59,800 --> 00:36:03,960 I think let's just go, you, you started with the motion or let's go line by line. 465 00:36:03,960 --> 00:36:04,960 You've got the floor. 466 00:36:04,960 --> 00:36:05,960 So that's, yeah. 467 00:36:05,960 --> 00:36:06,960 So take your time with it. 468 00:36:06,960 --> 00:36:09,680 And if you still, if you're still good with this motion, then we have a motion and if 469 00:36:09,680 --> 00:36:13,480 not, you can withdraw it and see where it happens next. 470 00:36:13,480 --> 00:36:14,480 Okay. 471 00:36:14,480 --> 00:36:15,480 Okay. 472 00:36:15,480 --> 00:36:16,480 Thanks for your patience. 473 00:36:16,480 --> 00:36:17,480 Yeah, no worries. 474 00:36:17,480 --> 00:36:18,480 This is an important decision. 475 00:36:18,480 --> 00:36:19,480 All right. 476 00:36:19,480 --> 00:36:24,960 Matt, can you unmute yourself and I'm ready? 477 00:36:24,960 --> 00:36:27,960 Okay. 478 00:36:27,960 --> 00:36:33,800 So this is a number one, right? 479 00:36:33,800 --> 00:36:38,280 The first interpretation is that we were referring to, which is the automobiles awaiting repairs 480 00:36:38,280 --> 00:36:43,080 for less than four hours do not constitute storage. 481 00:36:43,080 --> 00:36:49,000 So this would allow them to have automobiles sitting outside the enclosed space. 482 00:36:49,000 --> 00:36:58,800 If we, if we want to uphold and affirm the city's zoning of having an enclosed structure, 483 00:36:58,800 --> 00:37:03,920 that number one means that automobiles can sit outside that enclosed structure for up 484 00:37:03,920 --> 00:37:08,760 to 24 hours, but then have to go inside after 24 hours. 485 00:37:08,760 --> 00:37:11,560 Is that correct? 486 00:37:11,560 --> 00:37:12,560 That is my understanding. 487 00:37:12,560 --> 00:37:13,560 Yes, that's correct. 488 00:37:13,560 --> 00:37:14,560 Okay. 489 00:37:14,560 --> 00:37:19,240 If it's after 24 hours, it's not considered storage that's required to be within an enclosed 490 00:37:19,240 --> 00:37:20,240 structure. 491 00:37:20,240 --> 00:37:21,240 Okay. 492 00:37:21,240 --> 00:37:24,680 However, if they have an enclosed structure, why not just park them in there during the 493 00:37:24,680 --> 00:37:31,120 24 hours if there's room, but okay, I'd affirm that. 494 00:37:31,120 --> 00:37:33,280 Okay. 495 00:37:33,280 --> 00:37:37,520 The second one would be any vehicles intended for service and stored outside of a structure 496 00:37:37,520 --> 00:37:41,840 for more than 24 hours are classified as open storage and must be contained within an entirely 497 00:37:41,840 --> 00:37:46,800 enclosed structure with the specific standards. 498 00:37:46,800 --> 00:37:53,400 And that would be affirming also, because that is what we're saying that, that I guess 499 00:37:53,400 --> 00:37:56,880 my interpretation I'm seeking to clarify here. 500 00:37:56,880 --> 00:38:01,560 I want to make sure that I am affirming the right thing. 501 00:38:01,560 --> 00:38:05,720 That's affirming the city's recommendation of the zoning with the enclosed structure. 502 00:38:05,720 --> 00:38:07,960 Is that correct? 503 00:38:07,960 --> 00:38:13,540 So yeah, that is the interpretation of the director of development services that anything 504 00:38:13,540 --> 00:38:18,680 stored more than 24 hours on the site is open storage and would need to be within entirely 505 00:38:18,680 --> 00:38:21,720 enclosed structure, including a roof. 506 00:38:21,720 --> 00:38:22,760 Okay. 507 00:38:22,760 --> 00:38:25,600 So yes, I want to affirm that. 508 00:38:25,600 --> 00:38:32,200 The third interpretation was while outside storage may be generally permitted as an accessory 509 00:38:32,200 --> 00:38:36,600 use under the provisions of the zoning district, the use specific standards for the primary 510 00:38:36,600 --> 00:38:41,920 use of automobile repair measure prohibit outside outdoor storage of any elements related 511 00:38:41,920 --> 00:38:46,440 to the use. 512 00:38:46,440 --> 00:38:53,560 And I would, I think, and I think I'd affirm that also, that seems to be consistent with 513 00:38:53,560 --> 00:39:05,240 the, the city requiring those tools or materials to be stored inside in the enclosed space. 514 00:39:05,240 --> 00:39:07,920 Is that the correct interpretation? 515 00:39:07,920 --> 00:39:08,920 Yes. 516 00:39:08,920 --> 00:39:12,920 It goes with the first two in the sense that storage would have to be indoors if it's over 517 00:39:12,920 --> 00:39:13,920 25. 518 00:39:13,920 --> 00:39:14,920 Okay. 519 00:39:14,920 --> 00:39:19,080 So far I have a yes, an affirmative on all three of those. 520 00:39:19,080 --> 00:39:30,680 And is that consistent in the city's, the zoning, the city's code? 521 00:39:30,680 --> 00:39:34,520 Well that's yeah, that's really the question is that that is the interpretation of the 522 00:39:34,520 --> 00:39:39,640 city's code, which says that all repair service and storage shall be conducted with entire 523 00:39:39,640 --> 00:39:42,040 within an entirely enclosed structure. 524 00:39:42,040 --> 00:39:47,680 And that open storage of retro inoperable cars, automobile parts or similar materials 525 00:39:47,680 --> 00:39:50,360 shall be prohibited. 526 00:39:50,360 --> 00:39:51,360 That is what the code says. 527 00:39:51,360 --> 00:39:56,200 And that was the interpretation of the zoning administrator, the director of development 528 00:39:56,200 --> 00:39:59,080 services of those provisions. 529 00:39:59,080 --> 00:40:05,200 The applicant has taken or at least presented a contrary interpretation, which is what you're 530 00:40:05,200 --> 00:40:09,800 also considering is whether you want to adopt that interpretation, adopt the city director's 531 00:40:09,800 --> 00:40:15,120 interpretation or whether you interpret that requirement differently from both of them. 532 00:40:15,120 --> 00:40:16,120 Got it. 533 00:40:16,120 --> 00:40:20,240 So I would like to adopt the city's director's interpretation. 534 00:40:20,240 --> 00:40:24,080 That is my proposed motion. 535 00:40:24,080 --> 00:40:26,080 Great. 536 00:40:26,080 --> 00:40:33,120 So we have a motion from Ms. Meisner to affirm the administrative officials decision and 537 00:40:33,120 --> 00:40:34,360 interpretation on this. 538 00:40:34,360 --> 00:40:36,880 Don't want to put words in your mouth. 539 00:40:36,880 --> 00:40:37,880 That's correct. 540 00:40:37,880 --> 00:40:44,560 Ms. Meisner, the decision, the city's zoning administrator, this is decision. 541 00:40:44,560 --> 00:40:45,560 Okay. 542 00:40:45,560 --> 00:40:46,560 Did I get that all out? 543 00:40:46,560 --> 00:40:47,560 Yeah. 544 00:40:47,560 --> 00:40:48,560 Yeah. 545 00:40:48,560 --> 00:40:49,560 Sounds good. 546 00:40:49,560 --> 00:40:50,560 So we have a motion. 547 00:40:50,560 --> 00:40:57,320 Ms. Lane, are you seconding the motion? 548 00:40:57,320 --> 00:41:02,520 Yes, I'll second the motion to affirm the city administrator's interpretation of the 549 00:41:02,520 --> 00:41:03,520 code. 550 00:41:03,520 --> 00:41:04,520 Great. 551 00:41:04,520 --> 00:41:05,520 Thank you. 552 00:41:05,520 --> 00:41:11,560 So we have a first by Ms. Meisner, a second by Ms. Lane. 553 00:41:11,560 --> 00:41:17,600 Is there any further discussion on this appeal before we take a vote? 554 00:41:17,600 --> 00:41:24,040 Just one point to be clear on and I just want to be clear that this is a part of the motion 555 00:41:24,040 --> 00:41:29,060 is there's a part of our code that requires and it's unusual in this case, but that the 556 00:41:29,060 --> 00:41:34,960 board make findings of fact, not a lot of facts here per se, but if this is the motion 557 00:41:34,960 --> 00:41:41,500 that the board moves forward with on approving, I don't know how you'll vote, but if you could 558 00:41:41,500 --> 00:41:46,500 make it clear at least that the findings of facts as determined by the city administrator 559 00:41:46,500 --> 00:41:51,840 are adopted by the board, that you're adopting those same findings of fact in his letter, 560 00:41:51,840 --> 00:41:57,720 that'll at least meet our minimum requirement as a board to have findings of fact. 561 00:41:57,720 --> 00:41:58,720 Sorry. 562 00:41:58,720 --> 00:42:04,640 As the second, I can add that as a friendly amendment to the motion if you like. 563 00:42:04,640 --> 00:42:05,640 That'd be great. 564 00:42:05,640 --> 00:42:06,640 Yeah. 565 00:42:06,640 --> 00:42:07,640 Okay. 566 00:42:07,640 --> 00:42:19,520 A motion, which is to affirm the city's staff interpretation of the code to include findings 567 00:42:19,520 --> 00:42:24,080 of fact that conform with the code. 568 00:42:24,080 --> 00:42:29,180 And I further, this wouldn't be part of the motion, but I would like the city to help 569 00:42:29,180 --> 00:42:36,800 the applicant if they can determine the most economical way to meet the requirement. 570 00:42:36,800 --> 00:42:41,720 If the city staff is available to do that. 571 00:42:41,720 --> 00:42:45,840 So Ms. Meisner, the first part of what Ms. Lane said, including the findings of fact, 572 00:42:45,840 --> 00:42:46,840 that was a friendly amendment. 573 00:42:46,840 --> 00:42:48,900 Do you accept that to your motion? 574 00:42:48,900 --> 00:42:49,900 I accept. 575 00:42:49,900 --> 00:42:50,900 Great. 576 00:42:50,900 --> 00:42:51,900 Okay. 577 00:42:51,900 --> 00:42:54,520 And then I heard a little bit of discussion at the end from Ms. Lane requesting that the 578 00:42:54,520 --> 00:43:02,200 city work with this applicant because, I mean, small businesses are the heartbeat of our economy. 579 00:43:02,200 --> 00:43:06,600 So I totally affirm that for sure as a small business owner myself. 580 00:43:06,600 --> 00:43:07,600 But Ms. Lane. 581 00:43:07,600 --> 00:43:11,840 I did hear that the company has a hundred, they stated that they have a hundred or so 582 00:43:11,840 --> 00:43:14,720 such facilities that they own. 583 00:43:14,720 --> 00:43:18,720 So they may be a big business, but even so, everybody's bottom line is important to them, 584 00:43:18,720 --> 00:43:20,600 whether they're small or large. 585 00:43:20,600 --> 00:43:29,240 And I strongly support the city working with this applicant to find that meeting the code 586 00:43:29,240 --> 00:43:33,760 is a satisfactory experience in the end and a good model for others that follow. 587 00:43:33,760 --> 00:43:37,000 Is there any other discussion on this? 588 00:43:37,000 --> 00:43:43,560 We've got a first and a second to affirm the administrative officials decision or interpretation 589 00:43:43,560 --> 00:43:47,840 and include the findings of fact that we've already heard on this case. 590 00:43:47,840 --> 00:43:52,920 Is there any further discussion on this or are we ready for a vote? 591 00:43:52,920 --> 00:43:55,040 Okay. 592 00:43:55,040 --> 00:43:58,320 So I'll start what I can see left to right from my screen. 593 00:43:58,320 --> 00:44:02,680 So Ms. Meisner, how do you vote? 594 00:44:02,680 --> 00:44:05,000 I vote yes. 595 00:44:05,000 --> 00:44:07,400 Ms. Linus. 596 00:44:07,400 --> 00:44:09,280 I vote yes. 597 00:44:09,280 --> 00:44:10,680 Ms. Lane. 598 00:44:10,680 --> 00:44:12,440 I vote yes. 599 00:44:12,440 --> 00:44:13,440 Mr. Redwine. 600 00:44:13,440 --> 00:44:16,440 I vote yes. 601 00:44:16,440 --> 00:44:18,480 Mr. Njapu. 602 00:44:18,480 --> 00:44:20,960 I vote yes. 603 00:44:20,960 --> 00:44:23,080 And I also vote yes. 604 00:44:23,080 --> 00:44:31,200 So the motion carries 6-0. 605 00:44:31,200 --> 00:44:37,160 And I say on the script, the decision of the administrative official is affirmed. 606 00:44:37,160 --> 00:44:42,080 And I believe that's it. 607 00:44:42,080 --> 00:44:46,800 So then I guess item number 3, any concluding items, anything that needs to be brought up 608 00:44:46,800 --> 00:44:48,840 quickly before we adjourn? 609 00:44:48,840 --> 00:44:50,160 Okay. 610 00:44:50,160 --> 00:44:52,040 All right. 611 00:44:52,040 --> 00:44:54,120 Thanks, everyone. 612 00:44:54,120 --> 00:44:57,200 The time now is 4.49. 613 00:44:57,200 --> 00:45:00,080 And I would like to close today's meeting. 614 00:45:00,080 --> 00:45:02,240 Thank you for your time. 615 00:45:02,240 --> 00:45:03,760 We do wish the applicant the best of luck. 616 00:45:03,760 --> 00:45:06,360 I'm a business owner myself and it's rough out there. 617 00:45:06,360 --> 00:45:09,200 So I really hope you can work with the city to find a solution. 618 00:45:09,200 --> 00:45:11,840 I sincerely do. 619 00:45:11,840 --> 00:45:12,840 Thank you all for your service. 620 00:45:12,840 --> 00:45:13,840 Appreciate you. 621 00:45:13,840 --> 00:45:14,840 Thank you. 622 00:45:14,840 --> 00:45:14,840 Thank you.