It's Monday, July 30th, 2018, and the time is now 4.04.
I'd like to call this meeting to order.
And the first order of business is the pledge to the US
and the Texas Light.
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.
I remember the Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state,
under God, one indivisible.
Thank you.
The next item of business is considering
the approval of the meeting minutes from-- oh, my goodness
--
10 months ago.
If anyone can remember, last year--
if anyone can remember that far back, I looked it over.
I didn't see any major issues.
It was good to kind of reread what we did.
Does anyone have any comments about that?
Is there a motion to approve?
Move approval.
I'll second.
All right, we've got a first, a motion, and a second.
Any discussion, corrections, clarifications?
All those in favor, raise your hand.
Any opposed?
Any abstain?
Motion passes.
Great.
The next item is a public hearing, item ZBA 18-0002.
Hold a public hearing and consider
approval of a variance from the Denton Development Code,
section 35.5.3.3, general regulations relating
to the minimum rear yard setback and minimum lot depth.
This lot is generally located on the south side of Withers
and Bell.
And with that, I call the public hearing to order.
Should we hear from staff first or swear people in,
or how should we do this?
Cindy looks like she's ready.
I'm ready.
So you just want to do your thing?
All right, take it away.
OK, thank you, Madam Chair, commissioners.
ZBA 18-2 is a request to approve a variance from section 35
.5.3.3
of the general regulations for the DR2 district relating
to minimum rear yard setback and minimum lot depth.
The site is located at 821 Vine Street.
You can see the site right here.
It is plotted as lot 10, block 1, the CC Bells edition.
It was plotted in 1882 with an original lot depth of 105.5
feet.
And it currently has a lot depth of 40 feet.
As previously mentioned, the site
is zoned Downtown Residential 2, DR2.
The applicant intends to redevelop the site
with a two-story duplex, as shown on the concept plan.
And it attaches exhibit 7 in your backup.
And I'll be bringing it up shortly in my presentation.
A replat of the southern 65.5 feet of lot 10
was approved in 1992 with this plat right here.
And here you can see the configuration of the plat.
And right here is the remainder, the approximately 40 feet
of the subject site.
The 1992 plat created a non-conforming lot,
which did not comply with lot depth requirements
at the time of replat approval.
At the time of replat approval, the site was zoned MF1.
And the minimum lot depth was 100 feet.
Here you can see the proposed plat.
And I will go into a close-up.
Much easier to see.
OK, the replat of the site is necessary
to make the remainder into a legal lot of record.
In order to replat, the applicant
is being required to dedicate five feet of right
away for Withers Street.
You can see this five feet of right away right here.
This five feet of right away dedication
brings the lot depth down to 34.95 feet and 36.6 feet.
This is on the west side and the east side, respectively.
It should also be noted that a portion of Vine Street
right here is included in this replat
If this variance request is approved,
the applicant intends to request an abandonment of Vine
Street.
While it was platted in 1882, it has never been developed.
And with the abandonment of Vine Street,
that will bring the lot width to 170 feet.
Here you can see the concept plan.
The applicant is proposing two two-story units.
You can see one here and one here.
The problem with having a substandard lot depth
is that it's difficult to meet the rear setback
requirements of the lot.
The applicant is proposing a rear setback
of six feet, 4 and 1/2 inches on the west side
and seven feet, 3 and 1/2 inches on the east side.
Section 33(3)(6)(B) of the Denton Development Code
actually specifies specific criteria for approval
of a variance application.
I will go through these one by one.
And I also went through them in detail in your backup.
The first one is special circumstances or conditions
applied to the parcel with which this variance is sought.
Which circumstances or conditions are such
that the strict application of the provisions of this
ordinance
would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of such
parcel?
Well, specifically, the 1992 replat,
which took 65 and 1/2 feet of lot 10,
is what created this situation.
It was not something that was created by the applicants,
anything the applicant did at the time.
Without the approval of this variance for lot depth
and rear setback, it will not be developable.
The lot will not be developable in its current
configuration.
Second, the granting of the variance
will not be detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to other property or improvements
in the district or neighborhood.
Well, the site was previously developed
with a single family home in 1960,
which was recently removed last year.
There was no detrimental effect on the surrounding
properties
when the single family house was on the site.
And staff does not anticipate any detrimental effects
when the site is redeveloped with a duplex.
The granting of the variance is necessary for the
reasonable
use of the parcel, and that the variance is granted
is the minimum variance that will accomplish this purpose.
The lot is approximately 150 feet wide and 35 feet deep.
Even with the abandonment of the right of way of Vine
Street,
which would add 20 feet to the width,
that will not change the depth of the site.
And they will still need a variance for the lot depth
and rear setback.
And last, the literal enforcement
and strict application of the provisions of this ordinance
will result in an unnecessary hardship
inconsistent with the general provisions and intent
of this ordinance.
And in that granting such ordinance,
the spirit of the ordinance will be preserved
and substantial justice done.
Subject site is located in the DR2 district, which
is primarily a residential district.
It's reflected by the development in the area.
In 1992, the city approved a subdivision
which resulted in this non-conforming lot.
By granting this variance, the issues associated
with this lot will be cured and will enable
the redevelopment of the site.
Staff sent public notices.
We sent 10 notices via certified mail and 15 courtesy
notices via regular mail.
We received four responses, which I set out before you
today.
We received one response in opposition,
which represents 6% of the land area within the 200 feet.
And we received three responses in favor.
You can see them on the map here.
The green ones are the responses in favor,
and the red ones are the--
the one is the response that is in opposition.
And the three responses in favor represent 16%
of the land area within the 200-foot area.
Based on the aforementioned findings of fact,
staff recommends approval of the following variances,
specifically a reduction of the minimum lot depth from 80
feet
to 34 feet 11 inches--
11.4 inches and a reduction of the minimum rear setback
from 10 feet to 6 feet 4 inches.
And that concludes my presentation.
Any questions for staff?
Aye.
All right, Mr. Sarra.
I have a few questions.
One, what is the--
I know that we're not the people doing this-- that part,
but what is the zoning currently for that lot?
Downtown residential 2, DR 2.
So that would allow for the two-story.
And the other question is, does this property owner
actually own the right of way of that portion of vine
if it's not developed, or is that something
that the city is giving to them?
The city owns it right now.
If the vine is abandoned, half of it will go to this
property,
and half of it will go to the property
owner on the other side.
How does that work?
Do they pay fair value to the city,
or does the city just say, hey, have this?
Well, I'm not sure if they pay for it or not.
Maybe, Jerry, could you perhaps address that?
I got to admit, that's a new one on me also.
The city can't abandon it.
And the interest would revert back
to the adjacent landowners.
Whether there might be circumstances
under which the city could request compensation for it,
we haven't really looked into it.
Thank you.
Other questions?
I have a few.
OK, you know I do.
OK, so thank you.
I just want to get a timeline of what happened.
So this originally was platted back in the late 1800s.
That's correct.
OK, and at some point--
who knows what happened?
And then in 1960, a house was built.
So that aerial view that we saw on this map,
this is maybe a couple years old.
It is.
OK, so that's right.
Then that was built in 1960.
30-some years later, it was subdivided, that lot was,
which created this weird sliver of land that we have.
The house was demolished in 2017 in the hopes
of creating something more multi-family,
which fit for that area.
The house was not in great shape either.
OK.
But in order to rebuild to make it residential or anything,
really, now we have to--
now the applicant is here today.
How was that subdivision approved in 1992
if it was going to create this weird situation today?
Again, that is something that I looked at.
And apparently, they just looked to see that the--
they didn't check the lot depth or width at all.
From what I can tell, I can't speak truly.
Who was in charge, Cindy?
I just want to understand.
I'm just totally getting--
Well--
So we don't know.
So this was 27 years ago.
And it just was--
I can surmise that they did not take a look
and to see what the resulting lot depth was.
I know that if this application came through for plotting
today, we would not move it forward.
Right.
OK.
And the setbacks for the pre-existing house,
is it known if those setbacks are generally
about the same as what these new proposed setbacks would be
?
You know, I didn't check that, to be honest with you.
So I don't know.
I'm assuming if it was built in 1960,
it was built to the 1960 standards.
Right.
But then it was subdivided 30 years later.
And so as I'm looking at this, it
looks like it's just kind of squeezed in there.
So I'm assuming that the setbacks are
going to be relatively the same.
It was just kind of curious to know
if we're building something new, are the setbacks
going to be about the same?
Or do they vary significantly?
It looks like it might be just looking at the aerial.
But I did not measure them.
OK.
That's good.
Thank you.
Sure.
Mr. Saka.
I'm assuming that you would have to assume that these set
backs
are going to be consistent with what occurred back in 1992.
I would think so, that rear setback would have to be.
In fact, it might be even closer because
of the five feet of right of way dedication
that is being required.
As well as there's possibly possible
that they could have got some variance at that point as
well.
I couldn't find one.
OK.
Thank you.
Mr. Serra, did you have a question?
I remember those houses, and they were about 1,000
square foot.
So they might have had a little bit more setback,
because they were smaller than what's intended.
Mr. Higgins.
Just curious.
On the back of the lawn, there's a wooden fence.
And then there's an apartment.
That's right.
But that wooden fence looks to me
like it can't be more than five feet from that building.
Do you have any idea what that is?
I mean, that doesn't look like there's more than five foot
setback there.
Which building are we talking?
Well, if you're on withers facing the lawn,
there's a wooden fence, and then there's apartments.
Right.
And that fence is so close to those apartments,
it's always more than five feet.
Yeah.
I did not look to see the setbacks for the adjacent lot,
to be honest with you.
Well, I realize that's not what's
being under consideration.
I was just wondering about safety.
And you've got these two buildings
that are really close to that fence.
Well, I know that there are building code requirements
for firewalls if the walls are closer than 10 feet, five
feet,
closer than five feet.
So that would address the safety issue.
Well, I'm just thinking that this request would not
be inconsistent with what's going on right now.
Well, and that's how they built that back in the '90s
when after it was subdivided.
It was subdivided for the purpose
of building that multifamily.
Do you have a question?
Yeah, well, I know it sounds funny.
I know where that street is, and it's kind of narrow.
Where's everybody going to park?
Well, if you look at the--
That street's narrow.
There is four parking spaces provided on the west side
of the proposed duplex.
See, here's where the Vine Street would be,
and then this is where the parking would be.
Any other questions for staff?
Is there any reason to believe that they would not
abandon the Vine Street piece of property?
I can't second guess, but in similar situations,
I haven't seen any problem with that.
I have checked with one of the other attorneys in our
office,
and we could get compensation for the abandonment
of Vine Street.
So that's definitely a possibility,
and that may enter into the decision somewhat as well.
But I'm assuming that's usually pretty unusual.
It's really abandoned because the city no longer
has a use for value of the property,
and it's not intended development.
It's not developing because its intended use has changed.
Right now, it's just a green grassy area.
In fact, it goes back on the tax rules at that point as
well.
That's true.
And there's really-- there's no way it would be a dead end,
because it dead ends into the multifamily.
I have another question.
Now, are we deciding on the plat?
So is there any more supervision after our decision to dead
end?
Oh, yes.
What you're doing is you're giving approval
for the lot dimensions and the setbacks.
Once this is-- once you've approved the variance,
if you approve the variance, then the plat has to be
approved.
Well, first, the right of way has to be abandoned.
Then the plat has to be approved in the site plan.
And the building permit has to be approved for the duplex.
Here's my concern.
I guess part of my question, too,
is does this even come into our decision making?
If they're saying they're going to have four--
well, quadplexes and four units.
And they don't--
They're only having two.
Oh, they're only having two.
Oh, so it's two story, but it's just two.
That's right.
But then I know that the way that things ran around here
and to afford them, if those are, say, TW students,
they're going to have to have two or three people.
I'm just wondering if--
Well, each one has--
I believe each one has one bedroom.
But the applicant can come up and address that.
I'm just wondering about the car spaces
if that was going to be sufficient
and if that's even something we should consider.
So I think what we're doing--
pardon me.
Go ahead.
Oh, no.
I was just going to say if it's two or more bedrooms,
they're required one space for each bedroom.
And so what I was going to say, too, is right now we're
looking at whether or not to approve this plat
and reducing the setbacks.
And then all that other stuff would come into play
through the planning department.
But they can't move forward with any of this
until we've decided what to do with this.
That was part of my question.
Thank you.
Mr. Saka.
And I don't know if I want to be a little more specific,
but aren't we really only determining
whether they meet the requirements for us
to grant a variance for the setback only?
Right.
So the plat itself could change?
Correct.
The plat itself comes--
goes before P&Z.
Yeah, so that whole thing can change.
It's just whether we feel like we're
willing to grant a variance based
on those four or five conditions.
Thank you very much.
And as the rear setback also--
Correct.
As far as-- I don't know, Cindy, is there
an issue on the side yard setback
depending on whether or not there is an abandonment of fine
?
I'm sorry, I missed your question.
Is there an issue on the side setback there,
either way with the--
No, there is not.
There is not.
What we're looking at is the lot depth,
and we're looking at the rear setbacks, and that's all.
[INAUDIBLE]
Sure.
All of the other-- everything else
will go through the normal process.
This is only for these two variances
that they've requested.
Sure.
Thank you.
Well, pursuant to what Mr. Sacco said,
the setback gets approved.
The next plan that comes up could be a sixplex.
They can't fit a sixplex on that.
And all of that--
that's outside our purview.
So all of that will go through the planning department
or planning and zoning if they want it.
We just made clear that this could change.
It could, but that's not something
that we would look at.
That would go through the proper--
either, again, through the planning department
or planning and zoning to look at, well, OK,
this is an interesting new proposal.
Does this fit here?
And then there would be another set of eyes on that.
Does that make sense?
What we're looking at is a site that met requirements
when it was platted, and through no fault of their own,
most of it was replatted into another lot,
and we're left with this sliver of land
that, unless the variances are approved,
they can't do anything with it.
And as I understand, I mean, there was a structure there
until just like a year ago.
Yes.
Now we want to put another structure there.
That's correct.
So it seems to be a conforming use.
And there are other multifamily units in the area.
So I just want us to just stay focused on,
let's not-- don't look at the beautiful design
plan and the parking spaces.
Let's just look at the lot and the setbacks.
And I do want to note that a duplex is not multifamily.
A duplex is considered single family.
Thank you for that clarification.
And that complies with DR2 district zoning,
and staff approves it.
Exactly.
OK.
Thank you.
Any other questions for staff at this time,
or should we hear from the applicants?
Thank you.
So this is a public hearing, and you are welcome to speak.
Do they need to fill out cards, or how does-- no?
OK.
All right.
So typically what we need to do at a ZBA meeting
is we need to swear in anyone who would like to speak.
So if anyone knows that they'd like to speak now,
we can just kind of do it all at once.
And if you change your mind later
and decide you don't want to speak,
or you didn't stand up and you want to speak,
we can figure that out at the end.
Yeah?
So is there anyone who would like to speak about this issue
?
No?
Would you like to speak?
Yeah?
[INAUDIBLE]
Oh, sorry.
Just one moment.
Is there anyone-- I just want to make sure,
because we have to swear people in,
so I just want to expedite this.
Is there anyone else who would like to speak?
OK.
Then please go ahead and approach the podium.
And then we'll swear you in, and you'll
have some time to give us your pitch, yeah?
So go ahead, if you'd like to approach the podium.
Yeah?
So if you could please raise your right hand
and step towards the microphone, because it's
all in the public record.
Thank you.
So could you please identify yourself, your name and
address?
My name is [INAUDIBLE]
I live on 2221 Bowling Green in Texas.
And 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 completely true and correct to the best of your
knowledge
and ability?
I do.
Thank you.
OK, please proceed.
Well, I just wanted to thank you for being here.
And I just plan to do this for the best of my abilities.
And I plan to live there and to make a home
and just run the other part.
And that's all I want to do.
That's great.
And thank you.
Thank you.
Are there any questions for the applicant?
Thank you very much.
This is a public hearing, so if there's
anyone else who would like to speak for or against this
issue,
you're welcome to.
Going once, going twice?
OK, thank you.
Do I close the public hearing?
Do we wait until--
You close it.
I believe we close it.
All right, the public hearing is now closed.
And so now we have conversation, a motion.
I would make a motion to approve the variance of the set
back
requirements as noted by staff.
We've got a first for Mr. Sucker.
There's a lot depth also.
It's not just setback as the lot depth.
As well as the lot depth variance.
First for Mr. Sucker to approve as staff recommended.
This is a request right here.
I would make a motion to approve the reduction
in the minimum lot depth from 80 feet to 34 feet, 11.4
inches,
and a reduction of the minimum rear setback from 10 feet
to 6 foot 4 inches.
Very clear.
Thank you, Mr. Sucker.
Is there a second?
Mr. Cole seconds.
Is there any discussion about this before we vote?
No?
Just for the public record, I would
like to say that my kids have been very well behaved.
Thank you, Max and Lulu.
All right, so now we could--
I guess we can vote.
So all those in favor, raise your hand.
Any opposed?
And any abstain?
Great.
The motion passes.
Thank you and congratulations.
Thank you for giving us.
Thank you.
The last item is any concluding items.
I had just a couple of things, but I
wanted to hear from you all first before we move you out of
here.
Does anyone have anything they want to bring up?
I have one thing.
Yes, please, Mr. Sarath.
I did not reapply to the board for next year.
Not because it takes too much out of my schedule.
Obviously, it doesn't.
I have observed many people waiting and being
faithful for a long time as alternate delegates.
And with all deference to anyone who might elsewise be
on the board now, being kind of jumped over.
And I just want to give opportunities to more people,
particularly those who have been faithfully coming
and trying to be educated in this to have an opportunity,
whether-- I don't even know who got selected this year,
but whether someone else did, or maybe next year,
the council might consider them.
So that's what I wanted to say.
And thank you for the opportunities to serve.
Thank you for your service.
It was such a crunch on my schedule.
Well, I found you've always asked
very insightful and thoughtful and considerate questions.
And I really appreciate your service.
Thank you.
I had just a couple of things I wanted to bring up, please,
before we conclude.
First, there was apparently an ethics training
that PNZ members and ZBA members are supposed to partake in
.
Is this correct, staff?
Yes, that was, I believe, on the 16th.
So I'm a mom in the summer, so I missed that.
And I don't know if anyone-- did anyone else make it?
Or did you-- you made it?
There's a--
Oh, man.
I did the video.
There's a video, too.
Yes, I say--
You should have received a link to look at it.
OK.
Will you send me that link, please?
OK.
And if anyone else needs that, please do.
I'm going to need that as well as out of town.
OK.
Thank you.
I can completely--
It's two hours of riveting.
Yes.
It may not happen then until after the kids go back to
school.
But I will take care of it.
Sorry.
That was the first thing I wanted to mention.
Just make sure you take care of that.
I can't get the video.
I can only get the audio.
OK.
In a sense, it's my fiction problem.
If you have any further issues, please reach out,
and we'll make sure we address it.
And then the second thing, kind of a bit of a segue
of what Marshall was saying is we
do meet pretty infrequently.
The last meeting was September of 2017,
maybe when that house was still standing.
Who knows?
It was a while ago.
And so I just would--
I know that we are all very busy people,
but I just would like to maybe mention perhaps we could
help
with some of the rewrites of the debt and development code,
or as we're looking at some of the rezoning in the city.
I feel like because we meet so infrequently, sometimes
maybe
we're not up to speed on what it is exactly
that we should be studying or looking at.
Staff has asked before, do we want
to maybe schedule a training?
Well, we could, but then we're not
going to use it for eight months,
so we're going to forget about it.
And do we want to have a training
before every single meeting?
I'm not sure that's really the best use of our time either.
And so I'm just going to bring it up.
I know that we're all very busy, but we have made a
commitment
to the city that perhaps that might be something
we could help with so that we could meet a little more
frequently and just stay a little more
on top of the goings on of the city.
And I don't know, how do people feel about maybe
having a training before our next meeting?
Is there maybe a video link that we could just
review on our own?
Or what do you all think?
Would that be helpful or not necessary?
Yeah?
I think that's a decent idea.
I also think with coffee and cookies,
because we don't really know each other.
So the party's at your place?
Is that what you're saying?
That'd be wonderful.
The more we get to know each other, the better.
If you have a quorum, you have to post it.
Yes.
Right.
No, I mean, maybe not--
Accept the puppet?
Yeah.
Can we accept coffees?
[INAUDIBLE]
Sure, absolutely.
Yeah, go ahead.
Madam Chair, I'd like to offer the fact
that we certainly could come back.
If you want to pick a date, whether it's two months
from now or 30 days, and we could have a work session,
we could just go ahead and post a meeting,
have a work session, talk about where we're at,
where we're going, and gather some feedback.
We've got a lot of things going on.
So we could create an agenda that
would talk about several items.
We could even change the time if it's easier to move this
up
a little bit and have maybe a 3 o'clock work session,
spend 30, 40 minutes on maybe downtown standards,
where we're going with the development code,
maybe just a general update.
And I guess while I have the stage,
I might say another piece to that
is maybe there's some value in having quarterly meetings,
knowing that this board meets tirelessly.
Just if I can offer a little bit more up,
that maybe we could do some updates,
and/or we should do some training.
And again, I know the importance of serving,
and I thank you all very much for your service.
It makes it very challenging when it is that you
don't meet very frequently.
So if I can help--
Athenia loves ordering cookies and drinks.
So she'll be happy to do that, certainly, for the next
meeting.
And we can kind of go from there.
I like this idea, because I mean,
perhaps as we're getting an update,
we may be able to recognize as a board
that that might play on our strengths, something
that we'd like to learn more about,
that we could assist the city with.
I also, again, know that people are very time strapped.
And maybe one of the reasons you chose this board
is because we don't meet very often.
But I think that it would be helpful to me as a board
member
just to meet a little more frequently.
And I spent three years on P&Z, so I kind of
know my way around this stuff.
And I still feel a little out of touch with some of this.
And I'm here to tell you probably
are a little touch on.
Yeah.
But it would be good.
It would be good.
And things have changed quite a bit, too,
since I was on P&Z.
Ron's got a great presentation on the proposed zoning map.
So there are a lot of topics that we
can talk about, which kind of helps even with the case
today
and kind of bring it into light as to where we're going
and what the thought process is.
And again, most importantly, garner that feedback.
This is the most powerful board in the city.
So only appeals to the court.
So it's important.
And I think we had a conversation about this, too.
I think to the city's credit, the reason
we meet so infrequently is because we have things
in place to move things along so they don't have to come
see us.
So it's good that we meet so infrequently.
But it's also-- I feel a little out of touch.
So did you have something you wanted to say?
I saw you raise your hand.
So maybe let's continue this--
I guess if no one has anything to say,
maybe we could just continue this conversation over email
or something and just maybe pick a date a month or two out.
Sure.
Sign on that.
Sure.
We can float some dates.
We can do it as zoom ring or something.
Is that OK with you all?
Sure.
Great.
We've got-- sorry, just real quick.
We've got an approved calendar.
So we just have to pick a month.
And whatever is the last Monday of every month
is when we have the ZBA meeting.
So I know maybe you already programmed that
into your schedule.
If we just pick a month away or maybe two months away,
we can certainly make that happen.
Sure.
And that would be easiest.
Certainly, we can call a special meeting if we need to.
But again, this board convenes on a regular basis
monthly as needed.
Right.
Of course, it hasn't been needed.
Or every 10 months.
We want you to feel--
we want you to feel needed.
OK, good.
Anything else?
Thank you.
OK, I guess with that, I will close the meeting.
The time now is 4.37.
And the meeting is adjourned.
Thanks, y'all.
[SIDE CONVERSATION]