WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.180 >> Good afternoon and thank you for joining us today. 00:00:07.180 --> 00:00:11.100 It is June 7, 2021, the time is 4.04 p.m. 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 00:00:14.480 --> 00:00:15.860 meeting to order. 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 00:00:20.500 --> 00:00:24.980 imagine the flag in your brain, do that now. 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 00:00:31.440 --> 00:00:39.120 which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 00:00:39.120 --> 00:00:45.200 And the Texas flag, honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state 00:00:45.200 --> 00:00:48.840 under God, one and indivisible. 00:00:48.840 --> 00:00:49.840 Great. 00:00:49.840 --> 00:00:50.840 Thanks. 00:00:50.840 --> 00:00:57.960 >> This item is considering the approval of the May 24th, 2021 minutes. 00:00:57.960 --> 00:01:02.080 Are there any corrections to the minutes? 00:01:02.080 --> 00:01:05.240 Okay. 00:01:05.240 --> 00:01:07.280 Then do I have a motion to approve? 00:01:07.280 --> 00:01:10.760 >> I'll make a motion. 00:01:10.760 --> 00:01:11.760 >> All right. 00:01:11.760 --> 00:01:16.040 Ms. Linus makes the motion and a second. 00:01:16.040 --> 00:01:19.620 >> I'll second. 00:01:19.620 --> 00:01:24.680 >> Mr. Redwine, and now we vote individually. 00:01:24.680 --> 00:01:26.840 So I'll call on people as I see them on my screen. 00:01:26.840 --> 00:01:28.040 So Mr. Redwine, how do you vote? 00:01:28.040 --> 00:01:30.040 >> I think yes. 00:01:30.040 --> 00:01:31.040 >> Okay. 00:01:31.040 --> 00:01:32.040 Ms. Meisner? 00:01:32.040 --> 00:01:40.240 >> This is for the minutes, or for the -- >> Approving the minutes. 00:01:40.240 --> 00:01:41.240 >> Okay. 00:01:41.240 --> 00:01:42.240 Yes. 00:01:42.240 --> 00:01:43.240 >> Great. 00:01:43.240 --> 00:01:44.240 Ms. Linus? 00:01:44.240 --> 00:01:45.240 >> I vote yes. 00:01:45.240 --> 00:01:46.240 >> Ms. Lane? 00:01:46.240 --> 00:01:51.240 >> I saw your mouth move but you were muted. 00:01:51.240 --> 00:01:55.440 Just for the record, can you say that again, not on mute? 00:01:55.440 --> 00:01:56.440 >> Yes. 00:01:56.440 --> 00:01:57.440 >> Thank you. 00:01:57.440 --> 00:01:58.440 And Mr. Njapu? 00:01:58.440 --> 00:01:59.440 >> Yes. 00:01:59.440 --> 00:02:00.440 >> Yes. 00:02:00.440 --> 00:02:01.440 And I also vote yes. 00:02:01.440 --> 00:02:03.680 So the motion passes unanimously. 00:02:03.680 --> 00:02:04.680 Okay. 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 00:02:13.080 --> 00:02:17.480 decision regarding the interpretation of the use-specific standards for automotive repair 00:02:17.480 --> 00:02:22.880 major for property located at 3008 South I-35E. 00:02:22.880 --> 00:02:28.600 The subject property is approximately 1.98 acres, located on the west side of I-35E, 00:02:28.600 --> 00:02:35.480 approximately 640 feet south of Buckees Boulevard in the city of Denton, Denton County, Texas. 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 00:02:41.640 --> 00:02:43.300 here one way or the other. 00:02:43.300 --> 00:02:48.480 So it takes six votes to reverse or modify any determination of an administrative official 00:02:48.480 --> 00:02:49.480 on appeal. 00:02:49.480 --> 00:02:54.960 So I now open this item for deliberation and a motion by the board. 00:02:54.960 --> 00:02:57.240 So the board can -- we've got four things we could do. 00:02:57.240 --> 00:03:01.400 One, we can affirm the administrative official's decision or interpretation. 00:03:01.400 --> 00:03:06.520 Two, we can reverse it in whole or in part. 00:03:06.520 --> 00:03:11.980 Three, we can amend or modify the administrative official's decision or interpretation and 00:03:11.980 --> 00:03:13.640 make the correct decision. 00:03:13.640 --> 00:03:18.400 Or four, attach conditions of approval to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of 00:03:18.400 --> 00:03:19.400 the city. 00:03:19.400 --> 00:03:24.960 So we heard evidence and testimony in our meeting in late May. 00:03:24.960 --> 00:03:29.540 Now is the opportunity for us to deliberate what we heard. 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 00:03:33.360 --> 00:03:36.780 one way or another and vote. 00:03:36.780 --> 00:03:38.480 So I guess I'd like to open the floor. 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 00:03:42.280 --> 00:03:46.120 participate or be on the call, I don't see them on the call right now. 00:03:46.120 --> 00:03:47.120 >> They are. 00:03:47.120 --> 00:03:50.160 We need to make sure we bring them to the meeting. 00:03:50.160 --> 00:03:55.240 If we can bring them from the waiting room to the meeting, that would be great. 00:03:55.240 --> 00:03:56.560 And there they are. 00:03:56.560 --> 00:03:57.560 >> Great. 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 00:04:01.680 --> 00:04:04.720 be present while we deliberate, correct? 00:04:04.720 --> 00:04:06.360 >> Correct, yes. 00:04:06.360 --> 00:04:07.360 >> Okay. 00:04:07.360 --> 00:04:08.360 Okay. 00:04:08.360 --> 00:04:10.760 So welcome to the meeting. 00:04:10.760 --> 00:04:15.520 So I guess I'd like to open the floor for deliberation and discussion. 00:04:15.520 --> 00:04:20.880 Does anyone have any thoughts on what we heard at our last meeting? 00:04:20.880 --> 00:04:32.160 >> Go ahead. 00:04:32.160 --> 00:04:41.000 >> If I understand it right, and having gone back through the minutes and listening again, 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 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 00:04:58.420 --> 00:05:00.960 kind of a company it is? 00:05:00.960 --> 00:05:05.040 And that's -- is that correct in that what we're trying to determine? 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 00:05:09.600 --> 00:05:14.000 getting to the underlying here. 00:05:14.000 --> 00:05:17.920 >> As I understand it, yes, that is -- it looked like, Mack, were you going to jump 00:05:17.920 --> 00:05:19.400 in and say something? 00:05:19.400 --> 00:05:22.880 >> Only if I needed to, but yeah, that's right. 00:05:22.880 --> 00:05:27.600 Technically, you're reviewing an appeal of a decision. 00:05:27.600 --> 00:05:34.700 So there was several interpretations made of a zoning code provision made by the administrator. 00:05:34.700 --> 00:05:38.280 And those are technically what you're reviewing is those interpretations. 00:05:38.280 --> 00:05:40.760 The bottom line is exactly what you said. 00:05:40.760 --> 00:05:47.840 If you go with the interpretation of the zoning administrator, any open storage of vehicles 00:05:47.840 --> 00:05:53.040 beyond 24 hours would need to be done in an enclosed structure. 00:05:53.040 --> 00:05:58.040 If you reverse or modify the decision, the applicant is contesting that interpretation 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 00:06:04.360 --> 00:06:05.360 to meet the code. 00:06:05.360 --> 00:06:09.920 So that's the bottom line to what your decision -- the ramifications of your decision. 00:06:09.920 --> 00:06:14.440 But technically, you're just reviewing those three interpretations made by the director 00:06:14.440 --> 00:06:17.880 of development services. 00:06:17.880 --> 00:06:20.880 >> Ms. Meisner. 00:06:20.880 --> 00:06:22.560 >> Okay. 00:06:22.560 --> 00:06:24.320 Thank you. 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 00:06:34.000 --> 00:06:41.720 of the zoning administration's interpretation and the requirement for them to have a fully 00:06:41.720 --> 00:06:44.080 enclosed structure. 00:06:44.080 --> 00:06:50.720 Do I need to give -- discuss my reasoning or my thinking about that opinion? 00:06:50.720 --> 00:06:54.960 >> I mean, I'd love to hear what you have to say. 00:06:54.960 --> 00:06:55.960 We're here to deliberate. 00:06:55.960 --> 00:06:56.960 >> Yeah. 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 00:07:08.760 --> 00:07:09.760 last meeting. 00:07:09.760 --> 00:07:23.200 I understand how they could see that and kind of poke holes in the zoning requirements. 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 00:07:28.240 --> 00:07:34.520 point of this new code is to get everybody on the same page. 00:07:34.520 --> 00:07:39.680 And if we keep making allowances and keep grandfathering people into the ways that were 00:07:39.680 --> 00:07:44.800 previously stated, there's going to be no transition to get us where the city wants 00:07:44.800 --> 00:07:45.800 us. 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 00:07:53.320 --> 00:07:57.280 to have to start making decisions that support that. 00:07:57.280 --> 00:08:06.320 And if I was that business, I would look into different ways to -- different companies that 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 00:08:13.040 --> 00:08:20.640 expectations and perhaps get different quotes and go with the least expensive quote. 00:08:20.640 --> 00:08:25.800 But it's not a court case where it's innocent until proven guilty. 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 00:08:33.940 --> 00:08:40.680 within the code, I still feel like the essence of what the city wants is present. 00:08:40.680 --> 00:08:48.680 And so that's my thinking in wanting to vote for affirming the zoning administration code 00:08:48.680 --> 00:08:51.600 as it stands with an enclosed structure. 00:08:51.600 --> 00:08:56.320 >> Thank you. Ms. Ling, go ahead. 00:08:56.320 --> 00:08:57.320 >> Yes. 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 00:09:05.200 --> 00:09:14.160 conform to the 24-hour requirement might be sitting there until insurance removes them. 00:09:14.160 --> 00:09:17.240 And they said it's generally a week. 00:09:17.240 --> 00:09:24.160 So these are inoperable vehicles that are awaiting removal from that site for a week 00:09:24.160 --> 00:09:27.180 and possibly longer. 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 00:09:34.040 --> 00:09:39.560 two that are described in the ordinance. 00:09:39.560 --> 00:09:47.840 >> Are there other thoughts on any of this? 00:09:47.840 --> 00:09:48.840 I have some. 00:09:48.840 --> 00:09:52.560 But as the chair, I feel like I should let you all speak first. 00:09:52.560 --> 00:09:56.320 Mr. Redwine, go ahead. 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 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. 00:10:15.360 --> 00:10:16.360 It changes quite frequently. 00:10:16.360 --> 00:10:17.360 I just don't know. 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 00:10:25.080 --> 00:10:26.080 aspect of it. 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 00:10:31.960 --> 00:10:34.840 the -- how it's determined. 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 00:10:40.640 --> 00:10:41.960 from that standpoint. 00:10:41.960 --> 00:10:42.960 >> Sure. 00:10:42.960 --> 00:10:44.480 >> That's the point I would make, too. 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 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 00:10:57.240 --> 00:10:59.640 category as he is. 00:10:59.640 --> 00:11:05.840 So yeah, the clarification of that would help. 00:11:05.840 --> 00:11:12.160 >> Ms. Meissner, go ahead. 00:11:12.160 --> 00:11:19.920 >> So along those same lines, thinking kind of backwards about that, I also wonder, like, 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 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 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 00:11:39.240 --> 00:11:45.820 code, too, and be very, very, very explicit since there's some, you know, hair splitting 00:11:45.820 --> 00:11:50.520 going on between some things, so just wanted to add that. 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 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 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 00:12:08.200 --> 00:12:12.120 have to replace it under the new code, is that right? 00:12:12.120 --> 00:12:15.960 >> Mac or Ron, you want to take this one? 00:12:15.960 --> 00:12:16.960 Or Julie? 00:12:16.960 --> 00:12:25.680 >> I was just going to just respond to Ms. Lane's comment, question, yes, any nonconforming 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, 00:12:34.200 --> 00:12:38.280 now not the entire site, per se, but just the area that they're improving. 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 00:12:43.020 --> 00:12:49.160 kinds of incidents where there was a freak damage because an errant vehicle ran right 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 00:12:56.360 --> 00:13:06.320 conform, even though, you know, there was a lot of sympathy on our side. 00:13:06.320 --> 00:13:13.640 >> Yes, go ahead. 00:13:13.640 --> 00:13:14.640 Yep. 00:13:14.640 --> 00:13:16.920 >> Sorry, I was just going to speak out, and that's not right. 00:13:16.920 --> 00:13:17.920 Thank you. 00:13:17.920 --> 00:13:18.920 >> That's good. 00:13:18.920 --> 00:13:19.920 Yeah, speak out. 00:13:19.920 --> 00:13:20.920 I want to hear it. 00:13:20.920 --> 00:13:29.520 >> So, the zoning is different on there, but I was wondering, too, because of the kind 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 00:13:36.280 --> 00:13:45.120 matters as well, right, in that there may be wrecked cars or other inoperable cars on 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 00:13:50.520 --> 00:13:59.560 to get at in that with car repair versus car junkyards, which are completely, everything's 00:13:59.560 --> 00:14:05.800 inoperable, to car sales, which could have a mixture. 00:14:05.800 --> 00:14:18.120 So is that, is that anywhere in the zoning language already? 00:14:18.120 --> 00:14:19.760 >> I'm waiting for staff to jump in with that one. 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. 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 00:14:27.960 --> 00:14:29.840 I was getting at with the insurance. 00:14:29.840 --> 00:14:30.840 Yeah. 00:14:30.840 --> 00:14:31.840 >> Yeah. 00:14:31.840 --> 00:14:36.840 >> Okay. 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. 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 00:15:34.640 --> 00:15:41.520 automotive repair, I think this is major, it has the, what we're talking about, the 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 00:15:58.760 --> 00:16:06.340 standard, so it is specifically just for the automotive repair. 00:16:06.340 --> 00:16:12.120 Automotive sales does not have any use specific standards per se, but it's only permitted 00:16:12.120 --> 00:16:18.720 in one zoning district, so again, as you mentioned, Board Member Linus, two different uses, two 00:16:18.720 --> 00:16:21.120 different use specific standards. 00:16:21.120 --> 00:16:24.920 And Julie, is that accurate? 00:16:24.920 --> 00:16:30.840 >> Ms. Lane, oh, sorry, sorry, Julie, yes, go ahead. 00:16:30.840 --> 00:16:35.240 >> So automotive sales are zoned in a different area than automotive repairs? 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, 00:16:44.680 --> 00:16:50.200 automotive sales is permitted in a zoning district, so is automotive repair, and I can 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 00:16:57.400 --> 00:17:02.960 specific standard, where that discussion is what we're talking about, however, the automotive 00:17:02.960 --> 00:17:11.240 sales does not, so does not have that use specific standard, where it talks about open 00:17:11.240 --> 00:17:12.240 storage. 00:17:12.240 --> 00:17:21.640 >> Ms. Meisner, go ahead. 00:17:21.640 --> 00:17:27.920 >> I had a question about if there's any possibility we could discuss amendments or modifications 00:17:27.920 --> 00:17:35.720 to different types of enclosed structures, maybe ones that wouldn't be, you know, a million 00:17:35.720 --> 00:17:44.720 dollars, but something that would be more like a compromise between the city's version 00:17:44.720 --> 00:17:50.320 and maybe what they could get at, you know, a fair price. 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 00:17:56.120 --> 00:18:01.400 of the things that, you know, an inside building would need. 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 00:18:07.560 --> 00:18:12.640 thinking about different modifications that might be a compromise to the two. 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 00:18:19.200 --> 00:18:21.780 amend or modify it. 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 00:18:27.720 --> 00:18:33.280 this case, my planning and zoning, I've been planning and zoning for five years, something 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 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. 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 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 00:18:52.800 --> 00:18:53.800 about this. 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 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 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 00:19:12.880 --> 00:19:19.360 was presented, you know, by the applicant was that there's, you know, similar businesses 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 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? 00:19:32.040 --> 00:19:38.480 So like these are like, you know, legally nonconforming structures, right? 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 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 00:19:45.880 --> 00:19:50.160 have to say about this, Ms. Meisner, about, like, finding a modification to it, because 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 00:19:56.640 --> 00:20:00.160 law says, so we have to follow the law. 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, 00:20:06.920 --> 00:20:09.560 modifications to this? 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 00:20:13.000 --> 00:20:16.000 tasked to do as the Zoning Board of Adjustments. 00:20:16.000 --> 00:20:20.080 Yes, Chairperson Briegel, you read out at the beginning your four options, and that 00:20:20.080 --> 00:20:25.080 certainly includes interpreting and modifying the code provisions. 00:20:25.080 --> 00:20:27.960 So if it would be helpful, we can go through those. 00:20:27.960 --> 00:20:32.520 There's basically three conditions associated with this use. 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 00:20:37.120 --> 00:20:42.940 of those provisions, you certainly could define that and describe that. 00:20:42.940 --> 00:20:48.800 And that, effectively, would become the interpretation of the city forward for that type of use. 00:20:48.800 --> 00:20:55.960 So your decision becomes, until further change by the council, the actual code, yours is, 00:20:55.960 --> 00:20:58.080 interpretation is the official interpretation of the city. 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 00:21:03.080 --> 00:21:07.840 be, like, it'd be kind of like an amendment to the code, sort of? 00:21:07.840 --> 00:21:10.280 It's how that provision would be interpreted, yes. 00:21:10.280 --> 00:21:11.280 Wow. 00:21:11.280 --> 00:21:12.280 Okay. 00:21:12.280 --> 00:21:13.280 Okay. 00:21:13.280 --> 00:21:14.280 That's great. 00:21:14.280 --> 00:21:15.280 Yeah. 00:21:15.280 --> 00:21:16.440 Ms. Meiser, go ahead. 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 00:21:22.040 --> 00:21:23.520 on from that point. 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 00:21:32.020 --> 00:21:38.920 options to facilitate an enclosed space, just automatically assumed that they could find 00:21:38.920 --> 00:21:45.040 a loophole and, you know, we heard what the lawyer brought to our attention. 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 00:21:50.040 --> 00:21:51.440 the money on it. 00:21:51.440 --> 00:21:54.320 But they saw what the code said. 00:21:54.320 --> 00:21:57.000 So it might be a good idea. 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 00:22:01.200 --> 00:22:06.920 some options are and to see what some modifications were. 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 00:22:12.760 --> 00:22:16.720 that I would hope they had done their research. 00:22:16.720 --> 00:22:18.560 Ms. Lang. 00:22:18.560 --> 00:22:19.560 Yeah. 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 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 00:22:30.840 --> 00:22:36.020 to change anything until we did a modification and sought a permit. 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 00:22:40.880 --> 00:22:49.760 a roof and has encoded that desire and that the other, the photographs of other similar 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 00:22:54.440 --> 00:23:00.240 wish to make improvements or replace what they have would have to put a roof. 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 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, 00:23:13.920 --> 00:23:19.400 this way, perhaps this particular business, if it conforms, you know, if that's the decision 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 00:23:25.120 --> 00:23:41.360 as possible. 00:23:41.360 --> 00:23:42.840 So I'm wondering where we go from here. 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 00:23:48.520 --> 00:23:54.600 help the city further, you know, clarify what an enclosed structure means? 00:23:54.600 --> 00:23:58.560 Go ahead, Ms. Meisner. 00:23:58.560 --> 00:24:01.800 I'd like to hear your thoughts before we move on. 00:24:01.800 --> 00:24:02.800 Me? 00:24:02.800 --> 00:24:03.800 Yeah. 00:24:03.800 --> 00:24:06.520 You said you had some thoughts you were going to hold back but 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 00:24:10.800 --> 00:24:16.760 was proposed, what was shown to us was that these were legally non-conforming structures, 00:24:16.760 --> 00:24:17.760 right? 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 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 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 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. 00:24:33.200 --> 00:24:36.440 So I'm kind of like torn right here. 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 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. 00:24:46.440 --> 00:24:48.360 So Ms. Linus, did I see your hand up? 00:24:48.360 --> 00:24:49.360 Go ahead. 00:24:49.360 --> 00:24:50.360 Yeah, I don't have any of those. 00:24:50.360 --> 00:24:51.360 I have a question. 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 00:25:05.080 --> 00:25:09.880 there an intent for aesthetics as you're driving down the highway? 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. 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 00:25:20.640 --> 00:25:27.360 that for the 50 years I've been coming into Denton, that it would be nice. 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 00:25:33.560 --> 00:25:35.600 uphold? 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? 00:25:43.920 --> 00:25:52.680 Is it aesthetic concern, is it a move towards certain kinds of businesses on our corridors? 00:25:52.680 --> 00:25:56.160 Is there any knowledge about what that intent? 00:25:56.160 --> 00:26:06.520 Because if we, as the CBA, interpret this, modify it, provide anything else, we're really 00:26:06.520 --> 00:26:14.240 establishing something more than upholding what's already been done or saying, no, we're 00:26:14.240 --> 00:26:16.120 not going to. 00:26:16.120 --> 00:26:19.240 This isn't just, hey, we're making an exception. 00:26:19.240 --> 00:26:21.800 We're making the exception. 00:26:21.800 --> 00:26:26.800 If we don't, you know, depending on which of the four choices we choose. 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 00:26:33.900 --> 00:26:38.040 of the entire new coding for it all? 00:26:38.040 --> 00:26:43.160 Let me jump in before you answer, Ron, just to be procedural matter. 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? 00:26:47.400 --> 00:26:48.920 What did city council think? 00:26:48.920 --> 00:26:52.960 Several different people had probably different reasons that they did on the code and what 00:26:52.960 --> 00:26:57.500 their rationale was, it's hard to kind of decipher the total intent. 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 00:27:02.040 --> 00:27:06.600 are intent both during the public hearing and in their application letters to the zoning 00:27:06.600 --> 00:27:08.800 board that you may be able to look at and rely on. 00:27:08.800 --> 00:27:13.020 My only concern with someone from the staff answering this question, it probably opens 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 00:27:16.960 --> 00:27:19.440 attend, just to the sense it's kind of ambiguous. 00:27:19.440 --> 00:27:22.000 So the intent is hard to define. 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 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 00:27:33.680 --> 00:27:37.920 that both to the city and the applicant to give that answer. 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, 00:27:48.520 --> 00:27:53.840 I definitely don't want to open up a whole nother can of worms. 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 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 00:28:09.000 --> 00:28:13.040 2030 plan, and then with the future plan and all of that. 00:28:13.040 --> 00:28:17.720 And I want to make sure that we as the board are also supporting that. 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 00:28:23.920 --> 00:28:28.920 difficult and sometimes maybe not the best thing to do. 00:28:28.920 --> 00:28:30.360 Yeah. 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 00:28:36.760 --> 00:28:37.760 yeah. 00:28:37.760 --> 00:28:38.760 Okay. 00:28:38.760 --> 00:28:41.960 So good idea, but we're going to move on from that question. 00:28:41.960 --> 00:28:42.960 Yeah. 00:28:42.960 --> 00:28:43.960 Yeah. 00:28:43.960 --> 00:28:44.960 Go ahead, Ms. Lane. 00:28:44.960 --> 00:28:45.960 Yes. 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 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 00:28:58.400 --> 00:28:59.400 be there. 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 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, 00:29:09.840 --> 00:29:16.060 depending on the burden on various insurance companies and what has to be done to move 00:29:16.060 --> 00:29:17.440 them. 00:29:17.440 --> 00:29:25.000 So although presenting as a different kind of business, it really will be rather similar 00:29:25.000 --> 00:29:36.160 to the auto body shops that we already know in effect. 00:29:36.160 --> 00:29:38.760 Mr. Redline. 00:29:38.760 --> 00:29:44.880 So I guess maybe for Ms. Meisner's point on are there addendums, amendments, whatever 00:29:44.880 --> 00:29:52.120 we could entrust, would it thought be, you know, if it's a fully enclosed structure, 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 00:29:57.240 --> 00:30:03.040 building, which I don't think is, you know, aesthetically pleasing as maybe a 10 foot 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 00:30:11.000 --> 00:30:12.000 you will. 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 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 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. 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 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 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, 00:30:47.840 --> 00:30:52.200 you know, because then you're just looking at like one particular structure, like I guess 00:30:52.200 --> 00:31:01.160 I hesitate like defining, you know, all enclosed buildings means, you know, 25 foot high masonry 00:31:01.160 --> 00:31:05.860 fence because that may not fit in the next place where these are built. 00:31:05.860 --> 00:31:06.860 You know what I mean? 00:31:06.860 --> 00:31:14.040 So like, I hesitate changing the code. 00:31:14.040 --> 00:31:15.040 I don't know. 00:31:15.040 --> 00:31:16.520 I mean, but I hear your question. 00:31:16.520 --> 00:31:17.520 I'm just not sure. 00:31:17.520 --> 00:31:18.520 I don't see hands up. 00:31:18.520 --> 00:31:19.520 So I'll stop talking. 00:31:19.520 --> 00:31:20.520 Okay, Ms. Lane, go ahead. 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 00:31:25.940 --> 00:31:31.080 or seeing the staff presentation that there was any specifics other than the description 00:31:31.080 --> 00:31:32.540 of coverage. 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 00:31:39.840 --> 00:31:40.840 as they like. 00:31:40.840 --> 00:31:41.840 Am I right? 00:31:41.840 --> 00:31:50.280 Or are there specific materials outlined? 00:31:50.280 --> 00:31:54.320 That's a question to staff. 00:31:54.320 --> 00:32:03.760 So to address the question, as far as materials per state law, we cannot dictate materials. 00:32:03.760 --> 00:32:08.200 So that's probably the quickest answer as to your questions. 00:32:08.200 --> 00:32:10.600 Yeah, that's what I remembered. 00:32:10.600 --> 00:32:13.800 Ms. Meisner, go ahead. 00:32:13.800 --> 00:32:19.960 Sorry, finding that unmute button is hard sometimes. 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 00:32:28.520 --> 00:32:34.140 how I perceive these interpretations or modifications, and I certainly don't want to do that. 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 00:32:43.500 --> 00:32:48.960 them require a full enclosed structure. 00:32:48.960 --> 00:32:54.480 And if that is procedurally out of order, just let me know. 00:32:54.480 --> 00:32:55.480 No, it's great. 00:32:55.480 --> 00:32:56.720 We have a motion on the floor. 00:32:56.720 --> 00:32:59.600 Is there anyone who has a second, Ms. Meisner? 00:32:59.600 --> 00:33:04.560 Just to clarify, Chairperson Meisner, I want to be clear on this. 00:33:04.560 --> 00:33:11.440 Is this a motion to affirm the director's determinations or his interpretations? 00:33:11.440 --> 00:33:12.440 Who's the director? 00:33:12.440 --> 00:33:19.200 Yes, it was Scott MacDonald is the director that made this interpretation. 00:33:19.200 --> 00:33:21.240 So the other one is the city. 00:33:21.240 --> 00:33:24.520 The city's interpretation, yes. 00:33:24.520 --> 00:33:27.280 Okay, let's back up then. 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 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 00:33:38.600 --> 00:33:40.320 with this type of use. 00:33:40.320 --> 00:33:45.640 One is all repair services and storage shall be conducted within an entirely enclosed structure. 00:33:45.640 --> 00:33:51.000 The second is open storage of wrecked or inoperable cars, discarded tires, audible parts or similar 00:33:51.000 --> 00:33:53.000 materials shall be prohibited. 00:33:53.000 --> 00:33:56.480 The third condition is sale of vehicles shall be prohibited. 00:33:56.480 --> 00:34:00.720 So those have been interpreted by the director of the development services department to 00:34:00.720 --> 00:34:06.840 mean one, the automobiles awaiting repairs for less than 24 hours do not constitute storage. 00:34:06.840 --> 00:34:10.800 Two, any vehicles intended for service and stored outside of the structure for more than 00:34:10.800 --> 00:34:16.280 24 hours are classified as open storage and must be contained within an entirely enclosed 00:34:16.280 --> 00:34:19.760 structure in accordance with the use specific standards. 00:34:19.760 --> 00:34:22.960 And the third one is while outdoor storage may be generally permitted as an accessory 00:34:22.960 --> 00:34:26.960 use under the provisions of the zoning district, the use specific standards for the primary 00:34:26.960 --> 00:34:34.560 use of automobile repair major prohibit outdoor storage of any elements related to the use. 00:34:34.560 --> 00:34:38.880 So those are the interpretations that are being appealed from. 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. 00:34:42.400 --> 00:34:48.240 Did you intend to approve or affirm all three of those interpretations by the director of 00:34:48.240 --> 00:34:49.240 development services? 00:34:49.240 --> 00:34:51.840 Well, I'm going to need a moment. 00:34:51.840 --> 00:34:52.840 Yes. 00:34:52.840 --> 00:34:59.360 I'm going to mute myself. 00:34:59.360 --> 00:35:18.760 Okay. 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 00:35:26.920 --> 00:35:31.280 a time and stop there? 00:35:31.280 --> 00:35:32.280 You're on mute. 00:35:32.280 --> 00:35:33.280 Yes. 00:35:33.280 --> 00:35:35.120 Yes, you can. 00:35:35.120 --> 00:35:36.120 Okay. 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 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 00:35:51.120 --> 00:35:58.120 these points one at a time and take up our time. 00:35:58.120 --> 00:35:59.800 What say you? 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. 00:36:03.960 --> 00:36:04.960 You've got the floor. 00:36:04.960 --> 00:36:05.960 So that's, yeah. 00:36:05.960 --> 00:36:06.960 So take your time with it. 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 00:36:09.680 --> 00:36:13.480 not, you can withdraw it and see where it happens next. 00:36:13.480 --> 00:36:14.480 Okay. 00:36:14.480 --> 00:36:15.480 Okay. 00:36:15.480 --> 00:36:16.480 Thanks for your patience. 00:36:16.480 --> 00:36:17.480 Yeah, no worries. 00:36:17.480 --> 00:36:18.480 This is an important decision. 00:36:18.480 --> 00:36:19.480 All right. 00:36:19.480 --> 00:36:24.960 Matt, can you unmute yourself and I'm ready? 00:36:24.960 --> 00:36:27.960 Okay. 00:36:27.960 --> 00:36:33.800 So this is a number one, right? 00:36:33.800 --> 00:36:38.280 The first interpretation is that we were referring to, which is the automobiles awaiting repairs 00:36:38.280 --> 00:36:43.080 for less than four hours do not constitute storage. 00:36:43.080 --> 00:36:49.000 So this would allow them to have automobiles sitting outside the enclosed space. 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, 00:36:58.800 --> 00:37:03.920 that number one means that automobiles can sit outside that enclosed structure for up 00:37:03.920 --> 00:37:08.760 to 24 hours, but then have to go inside after 24 hours. 00:37:08.760 --> 00:37:11.560 Is that correct? 00:37:11.560 --> 00:37:12.560 That is my understanding. 00:37:12.560 --> 00:37:13.560 Yes, that's correct. 00:37:13.560 --> 00:37:14.560 Okay. 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 00:37:19.240 --> 00:37:20.240 structure. 00:37:20.240 --> 00:37:21.240 Okay. 00:37:21.240 --> 00:37:24.680 However, if they have an enclosed structure, why not just park them in there during the 00:37:24.680 --> 00:37:31.120 24 hours if there's room, but okay, I'd affirm that. 00:37:31.120 --> 00:37:33.280 Okay. 00:37:33.280 --> 00:37:37.520 The second one would be any vehicles intended for service and stored outside of a structure 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 00:37:41.840 --> 00:37:46.800 enclosed structure with the specific standards. 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 00:37:53.400 --> 00:37:56.880 my interpretation I'm seeking to clarify here. 00:37:56.880 --> 00:38:01.560 I want to make sure that I am affirming the right thing. 00:38:01.560 --> 00:38:05.720 That's affirming the city's recommendation of the zoning with the enclosed structure. 00:38:05.720 --> 00:38:07.960 Is that correct? 00:38:07.960 --> 00:38:13.540 So yeah, that is the interpretation of the director of development services that anything 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 00:38:18.680 --> 00:38:21.720 enclosed structure, including a roof. 00:38:21.720 --> 00:38:22.760 Okay. 00:38:22.760 --> 00:38:25.600 So yes, I want to affirm that. 00:38:25.600 --> 00:38:32.200 The third interpretation was while outside storage may be generally permitted as an accessory 00:38:32.200 --> 00:38:36.600 use under the provisions of the zoning district, the use specific standards for the primary 00:38:36.600 --> 00:38:41.920 use of automobile repair measure prohibit outside outdoor storage of any elements related 00:38:41.920 --> 00:38:46.440 to the use. 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 00:38:53.560 --> 00:39:05.240 the, the city requiring those tools or materials to be stored inside in the enclosed space. 00:39:05.240 --> 00:39:07.920 Is that the correct interpretation? 00:39:07.920 --> 00:39:08.920 Yes. 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 00:39:12.920 --> 00:39:13.920 25. 00:39:13.920 --> 00:39:14.920 Okay. 00:39:14.920 --> 00:39:19.080 So far I have a yes, an affirmative on all three of those. 00:39:19.080 --> 00:39:30.680 And is that consistent in the city's, the zoning, the city's code? 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 00:39:34.520 --> 00:39:39.640 city's code, which says that all repair service and storage shall be conducted with entire 00:39:39.640 --> 00:39:42.040 within an entirely enclosed structure. 00:39:42.040 --> 00:39:47.680 And that open storage of retro inoperable cars, automobile parts or similar materials 00:39:47.680 --> 00:39:50.360 shall be prohibited. 00:39:50.360 --> 00:39:51.360 That is what the code says. 00:39:51.360 --> 00:39:56.200 And that was the interpretation of the zoning administrator, the director of development 00:39:56.200 --> 00:39:59.080 services of those provisions. 00:39:59.080 --> 00:40:05.200 The applicant has taken or at least presented a contrary interpretation, which is what you're 00:40:05.200 --> 00:40:09.800 also considering is whether you want to adopt that interpretation, adopt the city director's 00:40:09.800 --> 00:40:15.120 interpretation or whether you interpret that requirement differently from both of them. 00:40:15.120 --> 00:40:16.120 Got it. 00:40:16.120 --> 00:40:20.240 So I would like to adopt the city's director's interpretation. 00:40:20.240 --> 00:40:24.080 That is my proposed motion. 00:40:24.080 --> 00:40:26.080 Great. 00:40:26.080 --> 00:40:33.120 So we have a motion from Ms. Meisner to affirm the administrative officials decision and 00:40:33.120 --> 00:40:34.360 interpretation on this. 00:40:34.360 --> 00:40:36.880 Don't want to put words in your mouth. 00:40:36.880 --> 00:40:37.880 That's correct. 00:40:37.880 --> 00:40:44.560 Ms. Meisner, the decision, the city's zoning administrator, this is decision. 00:40:44.560 --> 00:40:45.560 Okay. 00:40:45.560 --> 00:40:46.560 Did I get that all out? 00:40:46.560 --> 00:40:47.560 Yeah. 00:40:47.560 --> 00:40:48.560 Yeah. 00:40:48.560 --> 00:40:49.560 Sounds good. 00:40:49.560 --> 00:40:50.560 So we have a motion. 00:40:50.560 --> 00:40:57.320 Ms. Lane, are you seconding the motion? 00:40:57.320 --> 00:41:02.520 Yes, I'll second the motion to affirm the city administrator's interpretation of the 00:41:02.520 --> 00:41:03.520 code. 00:41:03.520 --> 00:41:04.520 Great. 00:41:04.520 --> 00:41:05.520 Thank you. 00:41:05.520 --> 00:41:11.560 So we have a first by Ms. Meisner, a second by Ms. Lane. 00:41:11.560 --> 00:41:17.600 Is there any further discussion on this appeal before we take a vote? 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 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 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 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 00:41:41.500 --> 00:41:46.500 make it clear at least that the findings of facts as determined by the city administrator 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, 00:41:51.840 --> 00:41:57.720 that'll at least meet our minimum requirement as a board to have findings of fact. 00:41:57.720 --> 00:41:58.720 Sorry. 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. 00:42:04.640 --> 00:42:05.640 That'd be great. 00:42:05.640 --> 00:42:06.640 Yeah. 00:42:06.640 --> 00:42:07.640 Okay. 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 00:42:19.520 --> 00:42:24.080 of fact that conform with the code. 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 00:42:29.180 --> 00:42:36.800 the applicant if they can determine the most economical way to meet the requirement. 00:42:36.800 --> 00:42:41.720 If the city staff is available to do that. 00:42:41.720 --> 00:42:45.840 So Ms. Meisner, the first part of what Ms. Lane said, including the findings of fact, 00:42:45.840 --> 00:42:46.840 that was a friendly amendment. 00:42:46.840 --> 00:42:48.900 Do you accept that to your motion? 00:42:48.900 --> 00:42:49.900 I accept. 00:42:49.900 --> 00:42:50.900 Great. 00:42:50.900 --> 00:42:51.900 Okay. 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 00:42:54.520 --> 00:43:02.200 city work with this applicant because, I mean, small businesses are the heartbeat of our economy. 00:43:02.200 --> 00:43:06.600 So I totally affirm that for sure as a small business owner myself. 00:43:06.600 --> 00:43:07.600 But Ms. Lane. 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 00:43:11.840 --> 00:43:14.720 such facilities that they own. 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, 00:43:18.720 --> 00:43:20.600 whether they're small or large. 00:43:20.600 --> 00:43:29.240 And I strongly support the city working with this applicant to find that meeting the code 00:43:29.240 --> 00:43:33.760 is a satisfactory experience in the end and a good model for others that follow. 00:43:33.760 --> 00:43:37.000 Is there any other discussion on this? 00:43:37.000 --> 00:43:43.560 We've got a first and a second to affirm the administrative officials decision or interpretation 00:43:43.560 --> 00:43:47.840 and include the findings of fact that we've already heard on this case. 00:43:47.840 --> 00:43:52.920 Is there any further discussion on this or are we ready for a vote? 00:43:52.920 --> 00:43:55.040 Okay. 00:43:55.040 --> 00:43:58.320 So I'll start what I can see left to right from my screen. 00:43:58.320 --> 00:44:02.680 So Ms. Meisner, how do you vote? 00:44:02.680 --> 00:44:05.000 I vote yes. 00:44:05.000 --> 00:44:07.400 Ms. Linus. 00:44:07.400 --> 00:44:09.280 I vote yes. 00:44:09.280 --> 00:44:10.680 Ms. Lane. 00:44:10.680 --> 00:44:12.440 I vote yes. 00:44:12.440 --> 00:44:13.440 Mr. Redwine. 00:44:13.440 --> 00:44:16.440 I vote yes. 00:44:16.440 --> 00:44:18.480 Mr. Njapu. 00:44:18.480 --> 00:44:20.960 I vote yes. 00:44:20.960 --> 00:44:23.080 And I also vote yes. 00:44:23.080 --> 00:44:31.200 So the motion carries 6-0. 00:44:31.200 --> 00:44:37.160 And I say on the script, the decision of the administrative official is affirmed. 00:44:37.160 --> 00:44:42.080 And I believe that's it. 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 00:44:46.800 --> 00:44:48.840 quickly before we adjourn? 00:44:48.840 --> 00:44:50.160 Okay. 00:44:50.160 --> 00:44:52.040 All right. 00:44:52.040 --> 00:44:54.120 Thanks, everyone. 00:44:54.120 --> 00:44:57.200 The time now is 4.49. 00:44:57.200 --> 00:45:00.080 And I would like to close today's meeting. 00:45:00.080 --> 00:45:02.240 Thank you for your time. 00:45:02.240 --> 00:45:03.760 We do wish the applicant the best of luck. 00:45:03.760 --> 00:45:06.360 I'm a business owner myself and it's rough out there. 00:45:06.360 --> 00:45:09.200 So I really hope you can work with the city to find a solution. 00:45:09.200 --> 00:45:11.840 I sincerely do. 00:45:11.840 --> 00:45:12.840 Thank you all for your service. 00:45:12.840 --> 00:45:13.840 Appreciate you. 00:45:13.840 --> 00:45:14.840 Thank you. 00:45:14.840 --> 00:45:14.840 Thank you.