Sep 25, 2017 Zoning Board of Adjustment on 2017-09-25 4:00 PM

Look around the room, we have a quorum of members. And so the work session is beginning at 4.02 PM on September 25th, 2017. The purpose of the work session is to clarify the agenda and to take up any other issues that may not be subject to the agenda that can be talked about. I wanted to bring up one thing before we started, and that is many of us have not been here for a while. And just so that everyone's clear as to kind of the concept of what we're doing, this is a variance board. And there are four criteria that we are able to look at in order to evaluate a variance. And I wanted to just briefly state what those are just for the record so everybody knew as well as we knew but everybody else knew. First is under Chapter 33, the commission, the board of adjustment must find in order to grant a variance that due to some unique condition or feature of the property, which is not generally common to other properties, literal compliance with the sign regulation would not cause unnecessary hardship. So that's one criteria. The granting of the variance will not violate the spirit or intent of the ordinance. That's criteria number two. The condition or feature which creates the need for the variance did not result from the property owner's acts. And finally, the board shall not grant a variance to any applicant solely for personal convenience, financial hardship, or other reasons unrelated to the property. The board grants a variance, the variance shall be granted only to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to remedy the hardship. The board may impose conditions relating to the use of the sign for which a variance is granted. So that's the four conditions for purposes of a signed ordinance variance. Okay? All right. So now back on, back on. Since we're in the work session, do any of the commission ers want to discuss or talk about any portion of the agenda this evening? Okay. Hearing no discussion points on the agenda, do I have a motion to conclude the work session? >> So moved. >> Motion made by Mr. Higgins, seconded by Mr. House. Any discussion? All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Okay. Everyone is in favor. Now we're going to go ahead and open up the meeting, the regular meeting of the board of adjustment. Again, looking around, we have a quorum. So let's start with the pledge of allegiance. If everyone will stand. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, now we're going to do the Texas flag. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state, under God, one and indivisible. Okay, thank you all. >> All right, we're going to go to agenda item number two, which is consider approval of the Zoning Board of Adjust ment minutes for October 31st, 2016. Yes, ma'am, Ms. Briggle. >> I just have a question, I guess, about voting on this, obviously. New members wouldn't vote on the minutes since they were here, but should we break it up into two parts since you had excused yourself for the Denton ISD? But you're here for half, like how does that work? >> Hold on. >> Pardon. >> Your mic was not on. There's a little button. >> No, it's totally on. >> It's totally on. >> It's green. I can hear myself. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Should I say that again? >> Why don't we say it again? >> Okay. >> Yes, ma'am. >> All right, so obviously newer members wouldn't be voting on the minutes, but since you had excused yourself for the Denton ISD new building, do we need to vote on minutes in two separate parts, because your voice should be heard for the rest of the meeting, don't you think? >> I would go to legal on that. I've never heard of such a thing. I don't know that we can- >> I don't know, how does that work? >> Can do it either, but so I'm going to refer over to legal counsel on that. >> No, you don't need to break it up. You can do it as one. >> Okay. >> All right, great. >> All right, so has everyone had the opportunity to look at the October 31st, 2016 minutes? >> Yes. >> Do I have a motion? >> Aye. Make a motion to approve. >> The chair recognizes Mr. Chirot, who made a motion to approve. >> I'll second. >> I'll second. >> Chair recognizes Ms. Briggle, who seconds it. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, all in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Okay, as well as myself, all has been in favor, and the motion carries. All right, we're going to go to the public hearings. First, I'd like to let everyone know if you have not submitted a comment card or a request to speak card. These are outside, and you may wish to do so in order to be able to speak or talk on the item. Generally speaking though, if a representative is here for an action item, we will recognize you as being here and allow you to speak, I believe. So we should be good. But there are cards if anybody wants to speak. Okay, we're going to take up ZBA 170003. Hold a public hearing and consider approval of a variance from chapter 33, signs and advertising devices of the code of ordinances. Specifically section 33.14.2 as it relates to the maximum allowed effective area and the number of allowed signs in a non-residential district. The variance requested is for a second monument sign with over 60 square feet of effective area on the east side of Mayhill Road, approximately 770 feet south of Colorado Boulevard. That is ZBA action number 17-003, Heart Hospital. And we're going to go ahead and have the staff present. >> Good afternoon, my name is Haley Zagorski, I'm a senior planner. And this, as you mentioned, is case ZBA 17-3 for the Heart Hospital. The request is to hold a public hearing and consider approval of a variance from chapter 33, signs and advertising devices of the code of ordinances. Specifically section 33.14.2 as it relates to the maximum allowed effective area and the number of allowed signs in a non-residential district. The site shown here on the map outlined in yellow is located at 2801 South Mayhill Road. A couple of features on the site I wanted to point out. There are currently two signs located along the frontage of Mayhill Road. Indicated in red is an approximately 59 square foot stone monument sign. It's located at the southwest corner of the property. And then on the northwest side of the property, there's an approximately 32 square foot aluminum sign. And up here where the blue stars is also the approximate location of the proposed sign. This property is zoned regional center commercial downtown. And a little bit of background on the site. The applicant indicated with their request that this new sign is necessary for them to comply with Texas Department of State Health Services requirements. As it relates to emergency entrances onto a property. The site currently has two access points. You can see here one on the north end of the property and then one on the south end. And currently they do have a sign located in close proximity to each of those entrances. This north entrance close to where they intend to put the new sign is closest to their emergency entrance for the facility. In case you haven't been to the property, here are photos of the two existing signs. Here is that stone sign that's located at the south end of the property. And then here is the existing sign that they intend to replace if this variance is granted. And this is located on that northwest corner of the property. To give you a little bit more detail about the sign that they are proposing to put on site. It would be an aluminum sign that's internally illuminated. The current sign in this location is not illuminated. The sign would be 14 feet, 10 inches tall, approximately 6 feet wide. That's for a total effective area of about 89 square feet. It would be double sided, so these graphics that you see here would appear on both sides. And the prominent feature of it is this emergency entry design that's called out at the top. Just to give you a little bit more detail about where the sign is, I passed out a copy of this map before the meeting . Because I forgot to include it in your backup. It does show the exact location of where the sign would be in relation to existing utility easements that run along both frontages of the property here. So it would be nestled in between those two easements. So the variance request before you for this sign is two fold. The first aspect of the variance is for 29 square feet of excess effective area. The code allows for a maximum effective area of 60 square feet for ground signs located along arterial roads, which South Mayhill is a primary arterial. And the proposed sign is 89 square feet, so they're requesting 29 extra square feet above what's allowed by code. The second aspect of the variance is for a second sign on a property that has less than 500 square feet of frontage. Their lot has 477.6 feet of frontage on Mayhill Road. And according to the code, you are only allowed one ground sign on the property if you have less than 500 feet of frontage. So that existing second sign that they're proposing to replace is actually non-conforming to our current code. It was approved under a previous code and didn't need a variance at that time. In 2015 when we adopted the current sign ordinance, that ability to put that second sign back by right went away. I just wanted to point that out because I'm sure you're all wondering, well, how do they have one there now and they can't put one back in its place? So as we went over at the beginning of the meeting, these are the four criteria for approval of variance to the sign ordinance. And I'll go through these one by one as it relates to this request. So the first condition being due to some unique condition or feature of the property that is not generally common to other properties. Rural compliance with sign regulations would cause unnecessary hardship. As it relates to the second sign location, there is a physical limitation based on the length of the property. They only have 477 feet of frontage. Acquiring more would be probably unfeasible given the existing conditions and it being a platted lot. As it relates to the excess area that they've requested, staff did not identify any unique condition of the property that would generate the need for that extra area beyond the 60 square feet allowed. The second consideration is that the granting of the variance will not violate the spirit or intent of the ordinance. The intent of the sign ordinance is to balance the equally important but competing interest of free speech, public safety, and aesthetics of our community. This proposed sign wouldn't necessarily adversely impact any of those criteria. It wouldn't be creating new visual clutter because there's already a sign in approximately the same location. And this sign is intended to increase public safety by more clearly marking the emergency entrance for emergency vehicles coming to the hospital. The third condition is that the condition or feature that creates the need for the variance did not result from the property owners acts. With relation to this, I wanted to point out that the Hart Hospital moved into this property in about 2014. It was already a developed site at that time, so they just moved in and made some alterations to the existing building within the existing platted lot. According to the applicant, the existing sign is needing to be replaced in order for them to comply with state regulations. So it's not necessarily something they've created for themselves. And then our fourth consideration is that the board shall not grant a variance to any applicant solely for personal convenience, financial hardship, or other reasons unrelated to the property. And if the board does grant the variance, it be only to the extent reasonably necessary to remedy the hardship. And the board may impose conditions relating to the use of the sign for which the variance is granted. I just want to reiterate again that the staff identified that the lot dimensions do generate the need for that, or contribute to the need for that second sign because they cannot add more frontage to their property. Variance is the only means to acquire that second sign for their second entrance. And based on the information that was presented, we did not identify any unique aspect of the property generating a need for the excess size that's been requested. Given those considerations, staff is recommending approval of the request for a second sign to be located along the frontage of Mayhill, replacing that existing sign that we saw earlier. Staff is recommending denial of the request for increased effective area from 60 square feet to 89 square feet, because the need for this increased area does not appear to be related to anything unique to the property itself. And we also, in thinking about this, wanted to recommend a condition of our approval of that second sign location. That condition would be that an agreement be drafted and executed by the applicant, stating that the property owner would be responsible for maintenance of the sign in the event that work has to be conducted in those existing utility easements, just bringing large equipment in. Seems like it could pose some risk for the sign if work has to be done in close proximity to it. And with that, I can answer any questions you might have. >> Ms. Bruegel. >> Thank you, Chair. I'd like to talk about the, I guess, the state regulations. So as I understand it, the current sign doesn't adhere to state regulations as far as size of lettering or something, can you explain that to me? >> Yes, and the applicant is here and I think they could better explain that. But my understanding is that state requires at least eight inch red lettering or some opposing red and white background or combination there of. And so to accommodate that size, they're needing a larger sign area. The current sign doesn't meet the requirements. >> So, but that sign was at some point put up that has the emergency lettering on it. Did state regulation change between the time that that sign was put up? And this new request, like how? >> That I'm not aware of. I'll have to let the applicant speak to that when he presents to you in a little bit. I do know the sign was put up in about 2014 when the building first came in. So it could be that the regulations have changed. >> I guess I'm just trying to figure out, if the state is requiring that of them, then why isn't the city granting that? And why isn't our sign ordinance kind of keeping up with that? But if it's, anyway, I'll talk to the applicant about it. >> Okay, and just to point out related to that, our ordinance does allow for experiences for emergency entrances in relation to the height of the sign and the setback from the roadway, but it doesn't for area or for sign location. >> Okay, thank you. >> I've got a question. I'm sorry, Mr. Higgins. >> You ask for questions later on. You ask for comments. I have a comment, not a question. >> Mr. Higgins, you can comment at any time. Yes, sir. >> I have an opinion on whether this should be done or not, but maybe- >> That's probably more when we get to the point of making a motion. That's probably something. Any additional comments? I would say I've got a comment, and that is if, or a question, and maybe I just need to understand this, the eight inch letter ing, that causes the area of the sign to have to be bigger. Is that a correct statement? Or did I miss something? >> I think it could be. I'm not sure exactly how the state regulations are worded. I think it's eight inches in height. I'm not sure what width that would require to comply with that. >> Maybe I'll say it a different way. Is it necessary to go to 89 square feet in order to accommodate the sign so it complies with state law? >> I do not believe so. Let me get back to the example of the sign here. You can see this portion in red is the portion that's needing to comply with the state regulations, is my understanding. So it seems that there could be room for the area of the sign to shrink in this lower portion perhaps, even if this upper part has to be that same size. >> But if you put emergency across it to give the public full knowledge and the ability to see it clearly, and that's gotta be in eight inch block letters. And it takes up the area that comprises that upper part. >> Yes. >> Then it would seem like you've got to have additional square footage. Am I, again, maybe I'm missing something. >> Let me, if I can, Chair, see, if the area that's calculated for the effective area is pretty much the base in all of the sign face. So if the area that you're referring to does remain the same, the areas outside of that could shrink to meet the 60 foot, square foot maximum. So it's not, in my opinion, it's not related to the emergency, the red area, the area in white. >> So you can make it lower? >> It can make it lower. >> Okay. >> And that would shrink the square footage. >> Okay. >> Thanks, Ron. Any additional questions? Thank you, ma'am. Okay, and at this point, does anyone want to speak on behalf of the move in? Yep, come on in, come on up. Go ahead and identify yourself and your address, if you will. And I'll need to go ahead and swear you in as well. >> All right. >> Okay, so go ahead and state your name. >> Brad Morgan. >> Okay, Mr. Morgan, if you'll put your right hand up, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay, you may proceed. >> All right, so I'm Brad Morgan, the VP of Operations at the Heart Hospital. We're going to thank you for your time. I can answer some of your questions, specifically the first question that you had about the sign regulations, the sign regulation that we're not compliant with right now with the Texas Department of State Health Services is the sign should be illuminated. And the current sign is not illuminated. Unfortunately, when we put the sign in, we did not realize that that was a code compliance. And it was pointed out when we did our chest pain accred itation that in order to stay accredited as a chest pain center, we must get an illuminated sign. And so this started the process of now we've got to get an illuminated sign so that we can stay a chest pain center and as the largest open heart surgery program in Denton County, probably a good thing for us to be a chest pain center. >> So to interrupt then, so you've had this sign, as long as you need to have an illuminated sign, that may be prompted maybe a brainstorming session about designing this sign. >> We did. >> We loved this big, beautiful 89 foot sign, but oops, that's too big. And so now we're here. >> So we brought in a sign vendor to do the architectural design. It's the same sign vendor that's used at all of the Baylor Scott and White health hospitals. And they basically just gave us the same sign that they put at all the rest of the Baylor Scott and White health campuses. And so this is standardized as to what we put at our other campuses. They also took into consideration the signage at the other two hospitals that are in the area. The sign that is directly across the street at Medical City Denton is a 90 square foot sign. And the one that was proposed is an 89 square foot sign. I think the sign vendor was taking into consideration what is normal. They were also taking into consideration the traffic patterns there and being able to read the sign and being at a height that was good for the location. If you've come down that location, if you come up the hill coming from the west side, you have to be able to see. So the sign needs to be a certain height. And so they were going for a certain height so that you could see the sign from down near the stop sign. In the corner of Colorado and May Hill. >> So are you able to adhere to the state regulations with a smaller sign, with a 60 foot sign? Can you still at least maintain your regulation? >> We could. We could shrink it down to a 60 square foot sign. And we do have an alternative plan for that 60 square foot sign. It does cause us to shrink the sign down in size. I have a rendering for that. And we're able to do that and capable of doing that. >> And then you said that there's a sign directly across the street? >> Directly across the street. >> On May Hill. >> Yes. >> Or Denton Regional that's 90 square feet. >> Yes, it's a 90 square foot sign, exact same purpose. It's their emergency entrance sign. >> And it's illuminated and it's on. >> Illuminated, the whole thing. And so we were trying to find a comparable sign to the one that's right across the street. But we can go with a 60 square foot sign if that's the way that the commission finds. >> And I understand that again, part of what I'm thinking about is the fact that it's an emergency. It's to direct traffic to the emergency room. >> That's exactly what the sign is for. Unfortunately, part of the problem with our current signage is that it doesn't illuminate night so you can't see it at night. And we've also had complaints from multiple patients and multiple EMS drivers that say they can't find our emergency entrance. And so we really need to, this is a patient safety issue to be able to find our emergency entrance. >> So in that same regard, does the placement of the sign in the location that it's being placed, does that obstruct any view traffic wise or any other view? >> Not to my knowledge, no. I have not seen anything that suggests that. >> Commissioners, any questions? Chair recognizes Mr. House. >> Thank you. I just have a question. You mentioned the sign at the hospital across from you. >> Yes. >> Do you happen to know when that sign went in? If it was under the current ordinances with its own variance? >> I asked that same question because I was wondering how a 90 square foot sign, and unfortunately I haven't received an answer to that, so I'm not exactly sure. I'm assuming it probably came in under a previous sign ordinance. I do know that that sign has recently been updated though because the hospital did change their name. >> Right. >> To Medical City Denton, and so I'm assuming they received approval to be able to replace the sign that was there before. >> And if you use the 60 square foot sign instead of the 89 one that you're requesting with the variance, you mentioned patient safety. Do you think that patient safety would be reduced with a smaller sign, or would it make no difference? >> I think the visibility would not be as good. I think it would be better than what we have today. >> Right. >> But it's not going to be as good because the sign will not be as tall. So the sign height would have to be shrunk down approximately two feet, two and a half feet, and then the sign width would have to be shr unk down approximately a foot. So the current sign that's being proposed is 14 feet, 10 inches by 6 feet wide. The new sign would be 12 feet by 5 feet, so that it would fit in. And so it would change its sound, but it would not be a huge hindrance. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Chair recognizes Mr. Cole. >> Does the hospital across the street offer the exact same services, Open Heart, Cath Lab? >> They do. >> Okay. >> Any additional questions? Thank you very much for your time. >> Sure. >> So the public part of the, oh, back up. Are there any cards that? Okay. All right, so we've got a speaker card on this particular item. It's from, looks like Jennifer Lane. >> Yes. >> At 1526 Willowwood Street, Denton. >> Yes. >> And she is speaking in opposition. So Ms. Lane, if you'll approach the podium and I'll need to go ahead and swear you in. >> Sure. >> Ms. Lane, if you'll put your right hand up. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so that you got? >> I do, yes. >> Okay, you may proceed. >> Yesterday I drove by the facility and on the opposite direction there's a great deal of signage that's painted on the buildings itself. There's also a sign the same size as the one that's currently there coming from the direction that's under concern. There is no painted sign identifying the building on that side. There's less traffic, but there's still some coming that way. The actual square footage is rather small there. There's an entrance there that one can get to by seeing the sign, but there's also an entrance immediately after where all the painted buildings are. And the second sign is from the standpoint of someone trying to get there, you miss it, you still can get in. The height issue strikes me as a possible concern, but the size, if you see it, is very drastic. And if there's other competing signs, it might actually, in my opinion, defeat the purpose of the presenter in terms of confusing the eye, is my thought. >> Okay. >> A new sign is needed, but it may be fine with matching the other sign. >> All right, don't run off yet. >> Okay, okay. >> There may be questions for you. >> Sure, sure, sure, thanks. >> Any questions of Miss Lane? Miss Lane, are you someone that frequents that area or works in the area or? >> I don't work in the area, but as often as any person in Denton, I would go there, no more and a less. >> Do you think that an emergency room sign would be helpful in that area? >> Well, there's already, but it's more visible coming from the highway direction than the opposite side. The building itself is painted with signs, and there's two signs exactly the same. One, it will stay, I suppose, because it's not being requested to be changed. And the paintings on the buildings themselves, the painting in the concrete is already there. On the side in question, there is not painting on the concrete. There's the sign that they desire to replace. I'm suspecting that having it illuminated will be attention grabbing in and of itself. >> How about? >> I didn't notice a great incline or anything driving either way. So I suppose there is a hill, but it's not something that, with all this other detail, I didn't think, there's a big hill there, I can't see anything. >> Yeah, I was really kind of focusing on you had said, well, you've been in the area and then you've gone past, or you've seen that there's two entr ances. >> Right. >> So the concern I had was, well, is it easy to miss then? >> No, I don't think so. Possibly from the direction in question, if the highway's behind you, you can't miss it. If you're going towards the highway, perhaps, but then immediately there's, imagine an illuminated sign there, let's say you still somehow missed an illuminated sign. There's immediately all that other signage right there. >> Is your opposition mostly the size? >> Just the size. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you very much. >> I think there should be a new sign and it should comply. >> Okay, thank you very much. >> Thanks. >> Actually, sorry, any additional questions for Ms. Lane? Okay, hearing none. Are there any other folks that wish to speak on this particular topic? Okay, looks like we are closing for public comment and we can take a motion if there is any. I'm sorry, we can open it for discussion, pardon me. >> I'd like to speak. >> The floor recognizes Mr. Higgins. >> Chair. >> I'd like to use, can I approach the screen? We'll have to speak from here. >> You can approach the screen. >> Could you, Mr. Gershwin, could you put that first slide you had that's the aerial view? >> Thank you. >> This one or this one? >> Yeah. >> That's the bigger one. >> Is that one better? >> Mr. Higgins, be sure to use the mic too. >> No, I don't believe there's a pointer. Point with the arrows here. >> Mr. Higgins, you have to use the mic though. >> Yeah, okay. My premise is that if you are having a heart attack, you want to get there fast. And if someone's taking you, they want to be able to find it fast. And I would argue that this is a unique, the way this building is organized, it is unique. And it does deserve an exception, and I'll explain it this way. If you drive it and you come in, and you come in here, you see this sign, the left third of the sign says emergency, and there's an arrow. If you come down, come on, if you come down this way, and you turn, or if you come down this way and you turn left in here, that sign's facing 45 degrees to the road. You don't know whether that sign says go this way or this way. But even so, if somebody's in a hurry and they go down this way, this doesn't really, it's not really big enough to show you, but it is absolutely almost labyrinthine what you have to do to find that emergency room that's in the back of the hospital. Then the lady mentioned that there's a lot of big red signs on the walls where there has to be, to drive you through all this stuff. Then you have to go around, you have to end up coming down along, go through here, wind down and go behind this thing, and then up in to find the emergency room. I mean, I don't know why it's located that way, but it is. And so, good directions are essential in this case, because we're talking about emergency services. When you look at this area over here, it doesn't show up very well, but this is actually a big green space. There's road, there's large green space, then there's parking, and then you get to the hospital. So the sign in that sense is not out of scale for the space that it's in. And you really need, I think, to bring people in this way. If you bring people in this way, okay, this is the proposed location. If you bring people in this way, it's easy to direct them right down here and behind the hospital. It will be much, much more efficient, I think. And I think that a 14 foot sign, we're talking about a variance of 29 feet. Imagine a sign five by six feet. I mean, it doesn't really add all that much. I think the 14 feet in height is essential. People have to be able to see that. Now, I don't know what's going to go on across the road over here, but just like Mayhill, this is actually a divided road. There's a lot of space between here and there. And I can't see where putting the larger sign in here would in any way be obtrusive to view from any other angle. And so consequently, I would just speak in favor of the applicant. Let them have their 14 foot larger sign. >> Thank you. Any additional comments? Chair recognizes Ms. Bruegel. >> Thank you, Chair. Mr. Higgins, I am prone to agree with you, actually. My mom's been a patient at this hospital. And even in clear daylight, when I'm thinking clearly, it is challenging to find, and you're right, seconds count. And I think, especially, I was unaware that across the street, regional, sorry, medical city has an even larger sign. And so I think this request, though it does not conform to our current sign ordinances, I think it does conform to the area out there. It's going to be well lit, it's going to be big enough so that no matter what direction you're coming from, you can see it. And it kind of matches the sign across the street. So I'm also in favor of the applicant's request. >> Yeah, I would also mention that- >> Chair recognizes Mr. Higgins. >> Thank you. I would also mention, I don't know if the sign's going to be lit in the daylight. But at night when it's lit, it's easy to see. In daylight, if it's not lit, or even if it is, it's probably not that easy to see. And I think size helps. >> You know, when I read the material, the first thing I thought of, it's an emergency area, we need to give due deference for the minimal square footage change. And, you know, God forbid something happens and you can't see the place. It is a little bit difficult to see, but out there a lot. So I am personally in favor of granting the variance as requested. >> Chair recognizes Mr. Cole. >> This is also two competing hospitals. They're competing for CathLab and they're competing for Open Hearts. And, you know, one side, one business has a bigger sign than the sign of the other business. If you look at it business to business. So I'm where you guys are. >> Any additional comments? >> I'm sorry, go ahead. >> Mr. Trott. >> I'm in favor of what y'all have been speaking of. I would love to reduce some of the clutter of signs in Dent on as we have the opportunities. But this is not a neighborhood that has a lot of clutter in it. And while I don't, fortunately, have not had a need for this hospital, I do have doctors in that vicinity. And the signs are all well thought out in that area. >> Any additional comments? Would anyone like to make the chair recognize Ms. Prigle? >> Thank you, Chair. Yes, I would like to make a motion. I would move to approve the applicant's request. But I also really like the staff friendly amendment there, since it is in an easement that any damage to the sign that the property owner be responsible for that and not any maintenance workers. So. >> Is there a second? >> Seconded by Mr. Cole. Discussion? The only comment I've got is, is it really in an easement? >> Isn't that, did I, I understood that correctly? >> It's close to an easement. Sorry. >> It's like squeezed right in there or something. >> I just hate to put a higher burden on the property owner if. >> I, no, I agree. >> If it's not in an easement. But if it's in an easement, then. >> It is squeezed in between two easements. It is not located in either, there's a 16 foot utility eas ement to the east of it and a 20 foot utility easement on the south side, but it is outside of both easements. >> That's what I thought. >> I see. >> I guess. >> Then I'm going to withdraw, I'm sorry, I thought it was just creeping over into the easement, so I'm going to withdraw that. Do I need to restate my motion then? >> I would restate it for the record if you don't mind. >> Yeah, so I'm going to move for approval of the applicant 's request as requested. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Mr. Cole. Any discussion about the motion? Hearing no discussion. >> I'm sorry. >> No, I'm sorry. Yep, the, I recognize Mr. House, pardon me. >> Thank you. I would just like to say that I'm in agreement with all of you, but only strictly because it is a hospital, and I would like to kind of note it that this shouldn't be a regular occurrence for each and every business. Well, the guy across the highway has the same size sign. It's a hospital, it's for the health and well-being of the citizens of our city. And I think that's why, and probably one of the main reasons why this variance should be allowed. And not just because the guy across the street has the sign , not digging at Mr. Cole at all. I just wanted to make that point clear so that if it comes up at a later time with two regular commercial businesses, it's less of an issue. I thought that might be important to note. >> I think it's a great comment, and I fully agree with you . I think the exigent, the emergency nature of this is really the reason I'm voting in favor of it, so. Okay, any additional comments? All those in favor, say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Hearing none opposed, the motion carries unanimously. Thank you again. All right. Okay, we're going to go to item number ZBA 17-003. Hold a public hearing and consider approval of a variance from chapter, hold on. I'm wrong. ZBA 17-004, hold a public hearing and consider approval of a variance from section 35.4. I mean 14.4. Spaces required of the debt and development code relating to the minimum number of required parking spaces for mixed density dwellings on approximately 0.91 acre. The variance requested is for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces. The subject property is generally located on the west side of the Industrial Street and South Bell Avenue intersection, approximately 100 feet north of East Prairie Street. This is again ZBA 17-0004, Industrial Street Apartments. And staff. Ms. White. >> Hi, I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton. And I'm presenting ZBA 17-004, Industrial Street Apartments to you today. As was stated, the request is to consider approval of a variance regarding the required parking spaces for a mixed density dwelling, otherwise known as multi-family development on approximately 0.91 acre. The request is actually to reduce the number of parking spaces, so we'll get into that in just a minute. Just to orient you, the subject property is located on the west side of Bell and Industrial, right here in the yellow. The property's undeveloped, but if you've driven past the site, you may have noticed that there are some clearing and grading activities that have begun on the site. It is also situated in the southeast part of the city's central business district and within a mixed use area. So just taking a look at what's around the site. It has some single family homes to the north and also to the west. There's a business to the south. There's some self storage here to the east. And generally just a mix of uses in the area. It has a DCG zoning designation, Downtown Commercial General. Multi-family is a permitted use within the zoning district. Something funny to this slide, but we'll go. Okay, so generally the background. So when a building is built within the city of Denton or a development comes in, they are required to provide parking in accordance with sub -chapter 14 of the Denton Development Code to ensure that all developments provide adequate and reasonable parking to serve that development. So chapter 14 also states that where literal application of the parking requirements would not achieve the purpose and intent of the requirement, the applicant may seek a variance from the Board of Adjust ment. Okay, so anyway, now more specific to the request. So in sub-chapter 14, specifically section 35.14.14.A, the parking requirements for multi-family are as follows. For studio and efficiency apartments under 600 square feet, it's 1.25 spaces. For one bedroom apartments, it's 1.5 spaces. And for two bedroom apartments, it's 1.75 parking spaces. The applicant has sought approval of the site plan of the development from development services. The original proposal was a 36 unit multi-family development that included 16 studio apartments, 8 one bedroom apartments, and 12 two bedroom apartments. The parking that was calculated for this mix of dwelling units was 53 parking spaces. And let's look at the site plan associated with that. So, you bet. Sure. All right, so here's the site plan. You can see Industrial Street here. Here's Bell Avenue. Access to the site is off of industrial. The parking sort of wraps the building. The building, proposed building is here in this location, and then 53 spaces are proposed to be around it. So the applicant at this time would like to modify his proposal and change that 36 unit development into 48 units, but all studios. So to remove the one bedroom and the two bedroom units and just have that studio, those studio units. This would require 60 parking spaces because when you multiply 1.25 times the 48, you have 60. Which is seven more than what was approved with that 36 unit development. The applicant, however, would like to maintain that existing site plan. He's actually proposing to develop the site with the same building footprint and same orientation and parking layout, but just modify the interior of the building. And he would like to maintain that 53 parking spaces in accordance with the original proposal. So as such, he's requesting a variance from sub-chapter 14, and that is for that minimum parking of 1.25 spaces per efficiency unit. Which would reduce that parking by seven. So the variance is to reduce the parking by seven to maintain that 53 spaces. So the considerations that staff looked at when we analyzed this request was to look at the criteria for approval in sub-chapter three. In section 35.3.6.B.2 of the Denton Development Code outlines the criteria for approval. And we'll just talk about those briefly. The part in the italics is the criteria and then the bold is kind of some of our analysis. So first, special circumstances or conditions that apply to a parcel which are peculiar, unique to that parcel and do not generally apply to other parcels in the same district or neighborhood. And that would prevent the applicant from developing the site if there was a strict application of the code. So staff looked at the area, looked at the nearby parcels. And due to the size and the shape and the topography of this existing site, it doesn't have any special circumstance or unique condition that would prevent it from being developed with that multi-family use or any use similar to other parc els in the same district. The parking requirements would not prevent that him from developing the site as he could develop it with a different mix of apartments. Within the same district and still be able to develop the site. Second, the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property improvements in the district or neighborhood. Per the applicant's submittal, they are stating that most units or all of the units would be occupied by a single tenant, but there's no guarantee for that. Some of those units could have dual occupancy, which would increase the number of parking or cars that would be needed to be parked on the site. As such, if there were fewer spaces, then they would typically probably park on the street, which could potentially impact adjacent properties. The granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the parcel, and the variance granted is the minimum variance that would accomplish the purpose. As I stated before, the parking requirements are preventing him from developing a multifamily use on the site. The number or types of units could be altered in order to develop the site with that multifamily use. So the parking requirements aren't preventing him from using this site. And finally, the literal enforcement and strict application of the provisions will result in an unnecessarily hardship inconsistent with the general provisions and intent of the ordinance. Because he could develop the site with a different mix of uses or bedroom types, the literal enforcement of those parking requirements wouldn't prevent him from develop the site with a multifamily development. So as such, it would not pose a hardship on the site. So here are some pictures of the property. This is on industrial looking toward Bell. This is the site right here, as you can see, they've got the silt fencing up. Here's the site as well. There's some silt fencing in the site. And then here's the street. So this is the street looking north. Public notification was sent out. We have received seven responses in opposition, and I did pass those out to you today. That does reach that over 20% threshold, which requires a super majority. However, because this board requires a super majority to approve anyway, it really doesn't change things necessarily in the voting. Since six out of seven has to vote to approve. So based upon the criteria for approval and staff's analysis, we do recommend approval of the request. The applicant is here, and I'll stand for any questions. >> You mean denial. >> I'm sorry, did I say approval? Denial, yes. Denial. >> Ms. White, can we go back to the site plan? I don't know what happened in my presentation. It's- >> You did just fine. >> There, okay. >> Where's the handicap parking? >> They are right here. >> And I'm assuming that's not included in the 53 spaces. >> Our handicap parking spaces are actually included within our parking totals. So that is- >> And there's two or three? >> It appears to be two. >> So that means there's 51 available non-handicapped? >> Yes, sir. >> And there's 48 residents potentially? >> Yes, sir. 48 units. >> Yeah, units potential 48, 100% occupancy. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. We are open for questions of Ms. Wyatt. >> I have just one question. >> Chair recognizes Mr. Sarath. >> I'm sorry, thank you. >> I've gotta do it, they tell me I have to. >> I'm sorry, no, no. >> Sorry. >> I need to be told. >> Each of those units has how many bedrooms? >> Just one. >> Just one bedroom? >> It's an efficiency, a studio. Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> So if the variance is granted and there's overflow parking, where would that overflow parking go? >> They are proposing 53 spaces. So they're proposing to park the development one space per unit plus five guest parking, I guess. If there was additional overflow beyond that, then it would park in the right of way. They would have to park in the right of way. >> You mean on the street? >> Yes, sir. >> Right. Chair recognizes Mr. Higgins. >> Just curious, does the city have any growth plan or formal policy regarding degree of residential density in over in a particular area? >> This is in the DCG zoning district, which permits 150 dwelling units per acre. And in the zoning district in this use, each bedroom is considered half a dwelling unit. >> Chair recognizes Mr. Surratt. >> I was gonna ask if- >> You didn't put your hand up again . >> I thought you were gonna call on me after Mr. Higgins. >> Sorry. >> If each- >> I'll get you next. >> Continue that question for, if each has one bedroom, what are our residential requirements in Ditten per dwelling unit? >> For multifamily or for single? >> Well for this, would it be two occupants per unit if they each have one bedroom? Or what would be the requirement? >> I'm not sure I understand. >> Is there a limit to residents in these units? >> Well, our sub chapter 12 of the Ditten Development Code has a maximum of non-related persons per dwelling unit is four. I don't know if you put four in one of these, but that- >> So they could have four sleeping on the couch or something. That's what you're saying. I'm not saying they want to. I'm just wondering if that's the legal- >> I don't know of any other requirement besides that one that I just stated. Ron may know otherwise. >> No, Julie's correct. For each unit, rental unit or whatnot, it's four unrelated persons. Now do they have four in one? We don't know, but that's our maximum. >> That's all I want to know. Thank you. >> The chair recognizes Ms. Briggle. >> Thank you, Chair. >> And I apologize for not- >> It's all right. >> Did this. >> You know I don't yield. I'll get my voice heard eventually. >> Absolutely. >> So you know from my time on PNZ, I'm a big picture person. So my question for Ron and Julie is how, tell me about the Denton 2030 plan, right? I'm looking at walkability. I'm looking at a dense urban core. I'm looking at, these are the goals that we're trying to accomplish through our comprehensive plan, maybe rewriting the code hasn't caught up to that yet. So how does fewer parking spaces and more units in the dense downtown area, how does that further our goals for the 2030 plan? >> Can we consider that? >> Sure, the way we look at the Dent plan 2030, and we've identified the core area to be more dense. And the downtown implementation or the downtown plan also addresses more residential development in the downtown area. Now, there are incentives that entice or create multifamily , but it's typically related to mixed use development. So if there's another use that's associated with this, that would be more of a preference than just multifamily. Now, we also have the code in place that we have to follow. And we certainly are looking at ways to increase more residential. But right now, that is what we have to work with. And I know our goal is to get more density, but we have to also be cognizant of providing enough parking that it does not impact adjacent properties as well. >> Sure, but so you're saying if this particular development were considered mixed use, like retail on the ground floor and then residential, but the whole area is pretty much mixed use. I mean, we've got, gosh, the A train across the street. We've got a tech startup across the street. We've got dining and shopping and residential all right in there. So the whole area is mixed use, though this development itself isn't mixed use. It's part of that bigger picture. >> No, you bring up a good point. The A train, there is an area within walking distance of the A train that again, all we have to work with is mixed use. But if in the future we decide to incorporate transit oriented development, that could also provide incentives to lessen the parking requirements. We did go through a parking code update to allow for within the central business district no parking requirements for ten units or less. So again, to generate more housing in the downtown. But of course, this is much more than ten units. And unfortunately, that's again, going back to the code, that's what we would require. >> But we are looking at the parking requirements as part of the debt and development code rewrite as part of the debt plan 2030, so. >> Okay, because I'm also thinking to like walkability and bikeability. These are, I mean, this is what kind of got me into this civic service, was volunteering with the bike plan. So I'm just kind of looking at the bigger picture. So thanks for kind of, thank you for eliminating that. >> Any additional questions for Ms. Wyatt? I do have one comment as I started to think about what you just said. And that is- >> Aren't you glad you gave me the mic? >> I would have given you the mic anyways. >> Sorry. >> But it's going from 48, which is all efficiency units. >> I'm sorry, from 48 with 8 one bedrooms, 12 two bedrooms and 16 efficiencies, which is 48. >> No, it's 36 to 48. >> Did I miss, hold on. >> They are maintaining the same number of bedrooms. >> Yeah, same number of bedrooms though. >> Mm-hm. >> Does that make sense? So 48 to 48, but the parking spaces are changed. >> Which I understand why, but I just wanted to clarify that the number of bedrooms is actually staying the same. Did I get that right? >> Yes sir. >> Okay. Any additional questions? Thank you very much. >> Thank you, and the applicant is yours. >> Okay. All right, we'll go ahead and have the applicant come up. Not by me, you can't. >> No. >> Mostly because I probably couldn't figure out how to do it in time. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Is that you? >> I hope so. >> It's the middle one. >> Is that you, presentation? >> Middle one, yeah, presentation. >> There you go. And with that? >> Yes. >> Awesome, all right. >> Okay, before you start, I need to go ahead and give you the oath. So could you please identify yourself for the record? >> Lee Allison. >> Mr. Allison, will you please raise your right hand to be sworn in? Under penalty of perjury, do you swear or affirm that any testimony or information you provide or any statement you make before this board is complete, true, and correct to the best of your knowledge and ability ? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you very much, you may proceed. >> Last time I did that, I was in a lot of trouble. But my name's Lee Allison with Allison Engineering Group. With me this evening are Flamora Meddy, the owner developer , and Lance Holdorf, our project manager. Let me see if I can figure out how to, there we go. As it's already been mentioned, we have an approved site plan. You can see the red lettering approval in the bottom right hand corner. This is a great site for this location. This project's under construction. The apartments are going there. We don't deny in any way that this hardship prevents apartments or multifamily from going there. It's happening right now. This particular site, I'll get into more details later. But each bedroom has its own bathroom with it. It is intended for individual occupancy, similar to most. But it's geared more towards the single professional. Not geared towards students, so some may be there, and it's not really geared towards family. Additionally, though not well shown on here, we do have spaces for bike racks. And we've discussed the possibility in the future, if biking becomes more and more popular, we could take a parking space and convert it to additional bike racks. Some information on the site, that is an approved building permit. It's under construction. It has 36 apartments consisting of 48 bedrooms and 53 parking spaces. And that does meet the DDC requirements. The DDC parking criteria is based on occupancy of apartments, primarily for families. It's an old historical basis for determining parking space requirements. The proposed occupancy is expected to be primarily young professionals, students, etc., singles. And the city, as Julie mentioned earlier, is working on updates to the parking criteria. So we're not sure that what's in the books now is necessarily appropriate. I can envision different places for family-oriented apartments, for student-oriented apartments, and for young professionals, downtown walking, biking-type oriented districts. On other projects, we found studies that show that students within walking distance of a campus only require 70% of the parking. If they're within mass transit, 80 to 85%, this site is in the proximity to and nature of downtown area. People are not gonna necessarily throw parties in their houses or in their apartments. We're not providing party space or recreational space. Those are in outdoor, the 8% required, but more for relaxation, having coffee, playing horseshoes. We expect the students will walk to the A train, take it to Dallas or Fort Worth or wherever they need to go. They'll go to the square, they'll go to the coffee shops and the jazz places and different venues that are in that immediate area. They're not really gonna gather in their place. They'll socialize outside of the place. Right now, the number of units existing or what's under construction is 36 units with a mixture of bedrooms. We're proposing 48 units, all studio. The current number of bedrooms is 48. The proposed number of bedrooms will be 48. The number of parking spaces required is 53 and we're proposing 53. The same number of bedrooms for the same occupancy, but within the understanding some of the conundrums on the site are existing as we're building it today. If you're concerned about how many people can be in a one bedroom, well those same people could be in the one bedrooms on the 36 unit site or even in the two bedrooms on the 36 unit site. Again, this is a four story building. By going to the younger professional types, we think the one bedrooms are better. The DDC parking required is for the place we have right now , 53 spaces. Under the current code, whether you use the one and a quarter or one and a half number per unit range, it could be anywhere from 60 to as many as 72 required depending on the size. The occupancy, we're marketing to single professionals and students and that'll be the same regardless. And the site plan building footprint, it's already permitted, it's under construction. In fact, the owner will incur additional cost for this to make the change, because he's got to get into some structural and floor plan changes. But his rough plumbing will come up where it is now on the bottom units and it'll go straight up into the upper units. So he's not really, it's something he can do in midstream, but at the same time, it's still additional expense to him to get it done. He's not coming here to save, he's coming here to provide a product that he thinks better fits into that neighborhood. >> You've seen the Dinton Dell Development Code requirements that Julie presented earlier. I say questions. Actually, I think I've answered all the things I wanted to respond to up front, that Julie mentioned. Is there anything I can address at this moment? >> Are there any questions for Mr. Allison? >> Can I make a point of clarity? >> Yes. >> Lee, can you go back to that chart real quick, just to clarify with the board? >> I can lose the whole thing. >> Uh-oh. >> This chart? >> Yeah, that chart right there. You said the very last column, site plan slash building footprint, the 48 all studio is not currently permitted, right? It's just the first column. >> Yes, yeah, to help clarify, the building is permitted under construction. Now, it has not been permitted with all studios. It has been permitted with the mix in the- >> Okay, just to clarify that. >> Yeah. >> We don't have a permitted permit for- >> Well, and I was trying to, didn't accentuate it very well, but that's the reason I put site plan building footprint. I didn't put the floor plans are permitted to help. >> Site plan includes- >> Acknowledge your- >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, hold on a minute, let me make sure I'm clarifying your clarification. >> Okay. >> The first column, we have a site plan for, right, and that's all permitted. >> Yes. >> As well as the building footprints and floor plans. >> For the 16 studio, the 8 one bedrooms, and the 12? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> That's under construction. >> What you want to do is you really want to change your plan to- >> Not the site plan. >> But the construction plan. >> Yeah, the room configuration. >> Okay. Thank you. >> It's even hard for me to keep up with, and I've been working on the project for a while, so. >> Yes, anything else? All right, thank you. >> You're welcome. Anyone speaking for the applicant? Any additional folks for the applicant? Okay, no additional speakers for the applicant. We do have, I think it was stated seven, I'm sorry, back up . There is a speaker that is requested in opposition, Miss Jennifer Lane of 1526 Willowwood Street. Miss Lane, would you like to speak? Okay, now Miss Lane, you were previously sworn in, and you understand you're still under oath. >> Sure, yes, and whereas in the previous application, my opposition was not based on disagreeing with the principle of wanting the sign to be visible, it was based on confusion of signs, perhaps, in that site just from what I looked at. This is really much more of a strong opposition to the idea . Again, I took a look at the site personally, and there are homes around there, very, very close. It's a congested area with private homes all around. Also, under the current plan, one person driving may come to visit two or more people in a couple situation, whereas you may have many more visiting automobiles around, visiting the single occupancy idea. People don't know each other in the 48 bedroom plan, whereas they may be in relationships in this 36 bedroom plan, the two bedroom units and so forth . Also, some couples may have one car. The parking may accommodate them much more easily than many , many individuals. And finally, the issue around parking with the new plan is simply congestion. Strikes me as a heavy congestion of parking. Visitors not really entirely accommodated having to spill out onto the street. Young people either currently or just out of school, possibly doubling up, or having frequent visitors more than might be on the lease . And that this would spill over into the neighborhood and even into the, to making it an unsafe situation even for the congested urban idea. That's it. >> Okay. >> Thanks. >> Any questions of Ms. Lane? Thank you. Thank you again, Ms. Lane. >> Okay, in addition to Ms. Lane, we have two, three, four individuals that are speaking by, they sent in an opposition notice. I'm sorry, looks like three. Although I believe staff commented that there were seven. >> One of them had owned several properties within that boundary. What I'd like to do is go ahead and circulate these to the commissioners for their review. Let me go ahead for the record. >> I've provided one to everyone. >> For the record, let me go ahead and state who the opposing party was. Arthur V King at 315 South Locust Street. And looks like Mr. King has about a two page opposition. I'd ask the commissioners to review that. Then we have an email from Mr. Leary Culvert with the Bell Avenue Self Storage at PO Box 687 Denton, Texas 76202. And he supplied an email again, if he would review that in consideration. The third one is Sandra Marsh at 5513 Woodland Hills Drive, Denton, Texas 76208. And Ms. Marsh says there is plenty of parking issues already without creating any more. I read hers only because it was short. I would ask, and we're going to go ahead and incorporate those into the record for consideration by the commission ers. At this point, if there is any other folks speaking in favor or in opposition of the variant request. Okay, hearing no folks speaking in favor or in opposition, I'm going to open the floor to the commissioners to discuss the particular item. I'm sorry, I need to go ahead and close the public meeting. Okay, at this point, the floor recognizes Mr. House. >> Thank you. I used to live in that area, and I think we can all agree that parking is at a premium downtown. Even a stone's throw from the square. And I would say that the original plans for the apartment building, listing two bedroom and one bedroom apartments, even though they're advertising to a certain group that isn't changing, is still going to draw families. And I lived there, I met a family of four that were living in a two bedroom apartment because they preferred it. And they did only have one car because the husband traveled by train to Dallas. But for me, after ten years in law enforcement and having lived downtown as well, to think that a 48 occupancy, even if they are only one young adult at a time, won't have people come over to entertain, to stay the weekend, stay the night, stay a week. Is and say that five spare parking spots is enough, I just don't see it. I think that an increase of units requires an increase in parking as well. Because there are going to be couples moving into some of these apartments. They are going to have guests over. And being at that intersection, they're not going to be able to park on bill. Because it's a main thoroughfare. They're not, police department, I cannot see them allowing anybody to park on bill. That just leaves industrial in the neighborhood around. Which is going to be, I think, an increased burden upon the residents that own homes or rent homes in that neighborhood . Who now have to deal with young people parking from their homes and cutting across their yards and so on and so forth . Okay, so in my opinion, I think that I would have to agree with staff on this one and deny the variance. If they want to increase the number of units, I think they need to find a way to increase the amount of parking. Or to stick with their original floor plan for the apartment building. Thank you. >> Chair recognizes Ms. Bruegel. >> Thank you, Chair. Mr. House, I disagree with you. I see the number of bedrooms is essentially staying the same. And I think that generally speaking, someone who's going to move into an efficiency or studio downtown, though it may be a couple, is more likely than not going to be a single person. That said, my husband and I have been married for 16 years and just last year we finally got a second car. And we only did that because we have kids who have things on opposite ends of town. So when I use my imagination and think about who's going to be moving into these apartments, I'm thinking young professionals, singles, students who, the younger generation, a lot of them don't have cars, aren 't interested in getting a car. We're working on, we've got the bikes for rent downtown now . We've got the A train across the street. It's walkable. And again, I'm seeing this more as a big picture sort of thing. We're getting more units in a dense part of town and also encouraging people to use alternative modes of transportation. So for that reason, I'm in favor of this, especially because the number of units is increasing, the number of bedrooms is staying the same, so therefore the number of occupants is probably going to be also the same. And I would think probably less of a chance of there being more cars because there's probably more singles moving into this than if you had a two bedroom, you might have a couple in one and then a roommate over here. And so I'm actually in favor of this. >> Chair recognizes Mr. Sarratt. >> I agree with Mr. House. I live near downtown. I chose my house because it is walkable, but I have a car. And I've had friends who had apartments, maybe where you had an apartment or where you lived near downtown. And it was a couple and they both had cars. And whenever I would visit their place, their apartment, there was no parking place department, so I had to park on the street. I just feel that since this is a neighborhood, we need to be considered the neighbors. And I wish there were, and I do not want cars. I would love to be without a car. But I don't want to be disingenuous about it either, that there will be cars and that we will be impacting the neighbors. >> Okay. >> Chair recognizes Mr. Higgins. >> In reading through the application and listening to Lee Allison, my overall reaction was that the argument in favor of keeping the number of parking spaces at 53 were facile at best. The applicant wants to increase in the same footprint occup ancy of 36 units up to 48 units. That's going to be more people, although they say it may not be. I think that it will be. In my opinion, speaking maybe more plainly than I should, the owner wants to get as much value out of that piece of property as possible. And this is the case of Rackham and Stackham, generate traffic, generate more parking problems. And I'm all in favor of somebody building a useful building that's advantageous to the community. But I think this is too far to one side. I think there is really no consideration given to traffic and quality of life in our community, especially close to downtown. So I oppose it. >> Any additional comments? Mr. Baker. >> I got one. I know one of the business owners in the area, so I don't know if that would affect me on this board or not. But I do have my opinions of what my opinion is. But I just want to let, I don't want to get in trouble, don 't want anybody to get in trouble. But I do know one of the owners, so, or pretty close. >> That shouldn't prevent you from voting on it or giving your opinion. >> Okay. >> Now you don't have a financial reason for- >> No. >> Okay, you're probably okay. >> Well, I guess probably, I'll probably tell my age. But anyway, I grew up here. Those streets and all over in there were kind of narrow and all that when I was growing up here. So the parking would be kindly bad, but if you could, on that street. But I have seen, when they have festivals and stuff in that area, I've seen cars plumb over to Belle Avenue and everywhere else. So I don't know about what I'm trying to say. But the parking would be a little rough, it really would. But like you're talking about, with their bicycles and all this, and I'm glad to see them doing that too. And it is closed if people wanted to walk. I mean, you got all these restaurants and like they say, but the parking is really the problem in this town, really. Downtown, if it had more parking, it would be great for downtown. And I'd love to see the downtown come back, because when I grew up here, like I say, this square was downtown. Thank you. >> Any additional comments? Well, I guess I'm going to weigh in myself. In some respects, I agree with Ms. Brighill, but to be honest with you, I don't think they've met the requirement for a variance by any means. And the reason I say that is they still have a site plan that's been approved that they can build on, there's no uniqueness of the property. There's nothing really unique about it, it's really just more of a personal, I'd rather have this versus that. So because of that, I have to, if there is a motion, I've got a vote not in favor with agreement with Mr. House. So saying all that, does anyone want to make a motion? There's a motion by Mr. House. Is there a second to the motion? >> Second to the motion. >> I'm sorry, you need to say what the motion is. >> I'm sorry. >> Wait, I was getting there, I promise you. When you have a meeting once every six months, you got that . >> Yes. >> Mr. House, would you like to make a motion? >> I would, thank you. I would like to make a motion to deny the variance. >> Okay, do we have a second? >> Second that motion. >> Mr. Schrotz seconds it. Any additional discussion on the motion? Hearing no discussion, all in favor of denying the variance ? Let's have a hand raise, I guess. Okay, there's all in favor except for Ms. Briegel. Any against? Ms. Briegel, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So agenda item C3 has been withdrawn. And that was ZBA 17-002, which was the solar panel structure. Okay, future agenda items. At this point in time, if any of the commissioners want to hear anything specific from city staff or bring to the commission anything that may not be brought by other means, this is the time to be able to go ahead and voice your thoughts. And since we only have met once in the last six months, if you want to give it some thought, you probably have several months to give it some thought. And you can let Ron know if there are some additional items . >> Floor recognizes Mr. Strout. >> I was only going to ask if you do have any upcoming items that might call for us meeting. >> We do, and I just wanted to mention the item that was withdrawn will be coming forward next month. There was a notice issue that we need to address, and therefore we will have a meeting in October. We also put on the agenda the selection of a chair and vice chair. So there will be that as well. But I am welcoming any other items that you think you need or want to see on next month's agenda. >> Okay. >> And you can email me that if you don't have it at this time. >> Any additional items for consideration for today's meeting? Okay, is there a motion to adjourn? >> I make a motion. >> We adjourn. >> Motion made by Mr. Baker. Is there a second? >> Second. >> By Mr. Cole. All in favor? All right, unanimous, I think. Mr. Higgins? Thank you all again. We appreciate the opportunity to serve the community.