WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.440 Y'all ready? 00:00:04.440 --> 00:00:08.520 Good evening, the time is 00:00:08.520 --> 00:00:13.360 5.36. It is February 28th. My name is Amber Briegel. I'm the Chair of the 00:00:13.360 --> 00:00:17.360 Design Board of Adjustments and I'd like to call this meeting to order as we do have a quorum present. 00:00:17.360 --> 00:00:21.160 The first item of business is the pledge to both the U.S. 00:00:21.160 --> 00:00:26.160 and the Texas flag. Who rises, you're able? 00:00:26.160 --> 00:00:30.160 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States 00:00:30.160 --> 00:00:34.160 of America and to the republic for which it stands, 00:00:34.160 --> 00:00:38.160 one nation, under God, indivisible, 00:00:38.160 --> 00:00:42.160 with liberty and justice for all. 00:00:42.160 --> 00:00:46.160 Honored Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the 00:00:46.160 --> 00:00:50.160 Texas one state, under God, one 00:00:50.160 --> 00:00:54.160 indivisible. Thank you. 00:00:56.160 --> 00:01:00.160 The second item on our agenda are 00:01:00.160 --> 00:01:04.160 we'll consider the approval of the June 7th, 2021 00:01:04.160 --> 00:01:08.160 minutes. Do I have a motion? 00:01:08.160 --> 00:01:12.160 So moved. Do I have a second? So moved. 00:01:12.160 --> 00:01:16.160 Great. Is there any discussion on the minutes? Yes, sir. 00:01:16.160 --> 00:01:20.160 Madam Chair, just to clarify, at the last 00:01:20.160 --> 00:01:24.160 CBA meeting, you were asking about the second minutes from 00:01:24.160 --> 00:01:28.160 the meeting that we had back to back. Right. This is 00:01:28.160 --> 00:01:32.160 the January 7th. June 7th is the actual second minute. So just want to clarify 00:01:32.160 --> 00:01:36.160 that's what you all considered. Right. I remember that. Thank you. 00:01:36.160 --> 00:01:40.160 Is there any discussion about the minutes before we move for approval? 00:01:40.160 --> 00:01:44.160 Okay. All those in favor, please raise your hand. 00:01:44.160 --> 00:01:48.160 Any opposed? Any abstentions? 00:01:48.160 --> 00:01:52.160 The minutes are passed. Thank you. 00:01:52.160 --> 00:01:56.160 The second is consideration of the approval of the November 8th, 00:01:56.160 --> 00:02:00.160 2021 minutes. We'll do the same thing. Is there a motion to approve? 00:02:00.160 --> 00:02:04.160 I'll make a motion. Yes, go ahead. Thank you. Is there a second? 00:02:04.160 --> 00:02:08.160 Second. Great. Any conversation, 00:02:08.160 --> 00:02:12.160 discussion, questions about the minutes from November 8th? 00:02:12.160 --> 00:02:16.160 Okay, now we can go ahead. 00:02:16.160 --> 00:02:20.160 Those who move to approve, raise your hand. 00:02:20.160 --> 00:02:24.160 Any opposed? Any abstentions? 00:02:24.160 --> 00:02:28.160 The minutes passed. Thank you. 00:02:28.160 --> 00:02:32.160 The third item, which is why we're all here tonight, is to consider a request 00:02:32.160 --> 00:02:36.160 for a variance from the debt and development code section 3.2.4 00:02:36.160 --> 00:02:40.160 R3S for residential regarding the minimum lot area 00:02:40.160 --> 00:02:44.160 and minimum lot width. 00:02:44.160 --> 00:02:48.160 And Lisa Payne is going to be presenting this. 00:02:48.160 --> 00:02:52.160 Thank you. Go ahead, look up the floor. 00:02:52.160 --> 00:02:56.160 Good evening. I'm Lisa Payne. I'm a principal 00:02:56.160 --> 00:03:00.160 planner for the City of Denton. 00:03:00.160 --> 00:03:04.160 Go ahead and open this up. 00:03:04.160 --> 00:03:08.160 Okay, this is a variance request to allow 00:03:08.160 --> 00:03:12.160 an existing tract of land that does not meet the minimum lot width or 00:03:12.160 --> 00:03:16.160 lot area to be plotted. 00:03:16.160 --> 00:03:20.160 The whole order applied for assistance with 00:03:20.160 --> 00:03:24.160 structural repairs with the city's community development department 00:03:24.160 --> 00:03:28.160 who then performed an inspection of the structure, which was 00:03:28.160 --> 00:03:32.160 built in the 30s, and determined that the structure was 00:03:32.160 --> 00:03:36.160 not safe and needed to be reconstructed, demoed and reconstructed. 00:03:36.160 --> 00:03:40.160 In order to obtain a permit for construction, 00:03:40.160 --> 00:03:44.160 this unplanned property needs to be plotted and 00:03:44.160 --> 00:03:48.160 the property cannot be plotted without proposed variances 00:03:48.160 --> 00:03:52.160 that we'll talk about tonight. 00:03:52.160 --> 00:03:56.160 The current R3 zoning residential district 00:03:56.160 --> 00:04:00.160 of the subject property was updated in 2019. 00:04:00.160 --> 00:04:04.160 This current zoning has been around 00:04:04.160 --> 00:04:08.160 for not nearly as long as the property has. 00:04:08.160 --> 00:04:12.160 The R3 zoning requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet 00:04:12.160 --> 00:04:16.160 and a minimum lot width of 60 feet. 00:04:16.160 --> 00:04:20.160 This property is only 5,000 square feet in area 00:04:20.160 --> 00:04:24.160 and it's 50 feet wide. 00:04:24.160 --> 00:04:28.160 Thus, the applicant would like a 5,000 square foot variance and a 00:04:28.160 --> 00:04:32.160 10 foot variance for the width. 00:04:32.160 --> 00:04:36.160 The demo plan and site plan shows that 00:04:36.160 --> 00:04:40.160 the structure, the driveway and the walkway will be replaced 00:04:40.160 --> 00:04:44.160 and all will meet city standards. 00:04:44.160 --> 00:04:48.160 So, for the considerations, out of the 00:04:48.160 --> 00:04:52.160 EDC 2.8.1.D, 00:04:52.160 --> 00:04:56.160 I'll try to go through these quickly, just some considerations 00:04:56.160 --> 00:05:00.160 when y'all are making your decision. Special circumstances 00:05:00.160 --> 00:05:04.160 to the property 00:05:04.160 --> 00:05:08.160 that do not apply generally to the other parcels in the district. 00:05:08.160 --> 00:05:12.160 Strict application of the EDC would deprive the homeowner 00:05:12.160 --> 00:05:16.160 of reasonable use of their property, since the structure is no longer 00:05:16.160 --> 00:05:20.160 safe and the homeowner cannot obtain a permit to do 00:05:20.160 --> 00:05:24.160 any repairs or reconstruction without the property 00:05:24.160 --> 00:05:28.160 being flooded. Of course, it can't be flooded without the variances. 00:05:28.160 --> 00:05:32.160 The surrounding properties are of similar size and 00:05:32.160 --> 00:05:36.160 they're already developed, which makes the property downwards fixed. 00:05:36.160 --> 00:05:40.160 The age of the property, the existing dimensions 00:05:40.160 --> 00:05:44.160 and current zoning requirements create a special circumstances for this. 00:05:44.160 --> 00:05:48.160 The second criteria, 00:05:48.160 --> 00:05:52.160 the grantee of this variance is not detrimental to the area 00:05:52.160 --> 00:05:56.160 around it. It's not detrimental because it allows for a new 00:05:56.160 --> 00:06:00.160 habitable home that will contribute to the long-term 00:06:00.160 --> 00:06:04.160 viability of the neighborhood and shows that the new design 00:06:04.160 --> 00:06:08.160 will be consistent with the neighborhood and conform to the city standards. 00:06:08.160 --> 00:06:12.160 The third criteria is that 00:06:12.160 --> 00:06:16.160 variance granted is the minimum variance that will accomplish its purpose. 00:06:16.160 --> 00:06:20.160 And it is, the applicant is just asking 00:06:20.160 --> 00:06:24.160 that they receive a variance simply so that they can buy the property and receive a permit. 00:06:24.160 --> 00:06:28.160 Next, the literal 00:06:28.160 --> 00:06:32.160 enforcement of the EDC will create an unnecessary hardship 00:06:32.160 --> 00:06:36.160 staff believes that it will 00:06:36.160 --> 00:06:40.160 by not allowing the resident to reconstruct the structure for safety reasons. 00:06:40.160 --> 00:06:44.160 It would also prevent this property from ever 00:06:44.160 --> 00:06:48.160 redeveloping. Nothing else can be built 00:06:48.160 --> 00:06:52.160 on it either because that lot doesn't meet 00:06:52.160 --> 00:06:56.160 the zoning requirements so it wouldn't be able to get a permit. 00:06:56.160 --> 00:07:00.160 The next criteria is 00:07:00.160 --> 00:07:04.160 the grantee of the variance is not for financial 00:07:04.160 --> 00:07:08.160 hardship, then this is not. 00:07:08.160 --> 00:07:12.160 And then lastly, that the owner do not create 00:07:12.160 --> 00:07:16.160 this. This property has been in this 00:07:16.160 --> 00:07:20.160 shape as far as the size of it for nearly a century. 00:07:20.160 --> 00:07:24.160 And so this is not something that was brought on by the property owner. 00:07:24.160 --> 00:07:28.160 So we believe that this is met. 00:07:28.160 --> 00:07:32.160 So that being said, the staff argument's recommendation of this 00:07:32.160 --> 00:07:36.160 as it meets the criteria for approval in the EDC. 00:07:36.160 --> 00:07:40.160 I'm available for questions. The applicant is already 00:07:40.160 --> 00:07:44.160 also here. Bill, any questions? 00:07:44.160 --> 00:07:48.160 I'm sure I have a question. 00:07:48.160 --> 00:07:52.160 The house was built originally 00:07:52.160 --> 00:07:56.160 in the 30s and I understand it's not livable. I don't have any 00:07:56.160 --> 00:08:00.160 questions or any concerns about that. But 00:08:00.160 --> 00:08:04.160 when it's knocked down, is anything 00:08:04.160 --> 00:08:08.160 salvageable from the 1930s construction? 00:08:08.160 --> 00:08:12.160 Is that a part of the variance? I can ask. We don't have to worry about that. 00:08:12.160 --> 00:08:16.160 Either Elmer or Ford have to come up from the Community Development Department because they need to answer that. 00:08:16.160 --> 00:08:20.160 Ron? Madam Chair, before we have Elmer come up, 00:08:20.160 --> 00:08:24.160 I think we need to do the oath. Yeah, I was going to ask you about that. 00:08:24.160 --> 00:08:28.160 Administer oath, but I don't have it. 00:08:28.160 --> 00:08:32.160 One of you have the oath for me. 00:08:32.160 --> 00:08:36.160 We'll get it for you. Thank you. 00:08:36.160 --> 00:08:40.160 And do I need to swear in staff as well? 00:08:40.160 --> 00:08:44.160 I think that would be a good idea. Conversation about that in the past. 00:08:44.160 --> 00:08:48.160 I apologize. I should have mentioned earlier, but before we move on with 00:08:48.160 --> 00:08:52.160 more discussion, probably guest to you. Agreed. 00:08:52.160 --> 00:08:56.160 No, it's okay. 00:08:56.160 --> 00:09:00.160 It says administer oath. 00:09:00.160 --> 00:09:04.160 That's not it. 00:09:04.160 --> 00:09:08.160 What we confident pays doesn't actually have the oath. 00:09:08.160 --> 00:09:12.160 For those in the audience, because we're a semi-judicial 00:09:12.160 --> 00:09:16.160 body, we have to swear you in, including city staff. 00:09:16.160 --> 00:09:20.160 We just have to find the oath. Thanks for your patience. 00:09:20.160 --> 00:09:24.160 We'll Google it. 00:09:50.160 --> 00:09:54.160 I am not able to make it. 00:09:54.160 --> 00:09:58.160 That's okay. 00:09:58.160 --> 00:10:02.160 So, in the interest of time, 00:10:02.160 --> 00:10:06.160 I think I'd like to swear in anyone who would like to speak on this item, 00:10:06.160 --> 00:10:10.160 if you change your mind later and you're like, wait, I do want to speak, then I can swear you in later. 00:10:10.160 --> 00:10:14.160 Sounds good. 00:10:14.160 --> 00:10:18.160 Okay. 00:10:18.160 --> 00:10:22.160 So, hold on one second. We've got to raise your right hand. 00:10:22.160 --> 00:10:26.160 It's a whole thing that we've got to do. 00:10:26.160 --> 00:10:30.160 Okay. So, we'll start with city staff. Can you please identify yourself by the record? 00:10:30.160 --> 00:10:34.160 Lisa Payne. Alma Izzino. 00:10:34.160 --> 00:10:38.160 Thank you. 00:10:38.160 --> 00:10:42.160 Under penalty of perjury, do you swear or affirm that any testimony or information you provide 00:10:42.160 --> 00:10:46.160 or any statement you make before this board is complete, true, 00:10:46.160 --> 00:10:50.160 and correct to the best of your knowledge and ability? 00:10:50.160 --> 00:10:54.160 Thank you. Okay. So, we can continue. Thank you for this. 00:10:54.160 --> 00:10:58.160 No, it's okay. It's been a minute. 00:10:58.160 --> 00:11:02.160 Okay. 00:11:02.160 --> 00:11:06.160 So, to your question, and then you wanted to call, can you repeat your question? 00:11:06.160 --> 00:11:10.160 It was something about what can be salvageable? 00:11:10.160 --> 00:11:14.160 I understand that for the intentions 00:11:14.160 --> 00:11:18.160 here, all we're voting on is to 00:11:18.160 --> 00:11:22.160 either approve or not approve or ask for a variance 00:11:22.160 --> 00:11:26.160 or everything. Because the house was built in the '30s, I was just curious 00:11:26.160 --> 00:11:30.160 as to whether or not there's anything that's salvageable from that house. 00:11:30.160 --> 00:11:34.160 It might be no. 00:11:34.160 --> 00:11:38.160 Go ahead. Hi. I'm Alma Izzino. I'm with Community Development. 00:11:38.160 --> 00:11:42.160 We always take a look at the house to see if it's salvageable. 00:11:42.160 --> 00:11:46.160 If anything is salvageable. We also submit the house to the Texas State 00:11:46.160 --> 00:11:50.160 Historical to see if it's eligible or they want us to 00:11:50.160 --> 00:11:54.160 make repairs per their requirements. This house was not eligible. 00:11:54.160 --> 00:11:58.160 And the only thing we're keeping, 00:11:58.160 --> 00:12:02.160 there's this picture here. These two stone 00:12:02.160 --> 00:12:06.160 pillars were there for some time. We are keeping those two 00:12:06.160 --> 00:12:10.160 stone pillars. The house is not in condition. It's been 00:12:10.160 --> 00:12:14.160 sited. There's really not a lot of the original anymore left. 00:12:14.160 --> 00:12:18.160 So the only thing we're keeping are those two pillars that are right in front of the house. 00:12:18.160 --> 00:12:22.160 I can pass this around if you want to. Thank you. Alma, 00:12:22.160 --> 00:12:26.160 the house was resided in about 1990. 00:12:26.160 --> 00:12:30.160 Gordon, you have to be up there. 00:12:30.160 --> 00:12:34.160 Thank you. 00:12:34.160 --> 00:12:38.160 This is Gordon Meredith with Community Development. 00:12:38.160 --> 00:12:42.160 Yes, the house was resided in about 1990 00:12:42.160 --> 00:12:46.160 and all architectural features, or at least most architectural 00:12:46.160 --> 00:12:50.160 features were removed then. That's very typical of 00:12:50.160 --> 00:12:54.160 the way a vinyl siding job does to a house. 00:12:54.160 --> 00:12:58.160 Thank you. 00:12:58.160 --> 00:13:02.160 I had a question more for staff. 00:13:02.160 --> 00:13:06.160 I guess from a zoning perspective. 00:13:06.160 --> 00:13:10.160 So, I mean, as I'm looking at the backup, 00:13:10.160 --> 00:13:14.160 I mean, this lot is pretty much the same size as all the other 00:13:14.160 --> 00:13:18.160 lots. Just, I'm going to plant the seed as we're looking at 00:13:18.160 --> 00:13:22.160 the 2030 and the 2024 plans. I think we are 00:13:22.160 --> 00:13:26.160 or went through a zoning revamp. I guess what I'm leading 00:13:26.160 --> 00:13:30.160 up to is, is there a way that we could, for 00:13:30.160 --> 00:13:34.160 existing neighborhoods like this, it just seems like it takes up an awful 00:13:34.160 --> 00:13:38.160 lot of staff time and the property owner 00:13:38.160 --> 00:13:42.160 to have to go through this lengthy process? Is there anything that we can do from a zoning perspective 00:13:42.160 --> 00:13:46.160 to kind of expedite this and look at, like, this lot fits with all the other lots. 00:13:46.160 --> 00:13:50.160 Does that question make sense? 00:13:50.160 --> 00:13:54.160 Gordon, I have to throw you in. 00:13:54.160 --> 00:13:58.160 Yeah, you might as well. Let's do it. 00:13:58.160 --> 00:14:02.160 Can you raise your right hand? Your name for the record? 00:14:02.160 --> 00:14:06.160 I don't have the exact words, but do you promise to tell the truth in what you're going to tell us? 00:14:06.160 --> 00:14:10.160 I do. Okay, thanks. Go ahead. 00:14:10.160 --> 00:14:14.160 What I can tell you is that, obviously, with the development code being updated, 00:14:14.160 --> 00:14:18.160 there were some changes to the setbacks in 00:14:18.160 --> 00:14:22.160 lot dimensional standards. There are a number of properties 00:14:22.160 --> 00:14:26.160 that gained some advantages, but then 00:14:26.160 --> 00:14:30.160 there were other properties that did not. And so, we're going to have 00:14:30.160 --> 00:14:34.160 those properties that are considered legal, non-conforming, 00:14:34.160 --> 00:14:38.160 but they were legal, right? So, those homes that were in place 00:14:38.160 --> 00:14:42.160 and they were platted and they were built with permits and this and that, 00:14:42.160 --> 00:14:46.160 nothing would affect them. They would continue as is and if they were to rebuild, 00:14:46.160 --> 00:14:50.160 there were some requirements, but again, not going to be an issue. 00:14:50.160 --> 00:14:54.160 It wouldn't require them coming to the CDA? Correct. The only reason why this property 00:14:54.160 --> 00:14:58.160 is being brought forward to the CDA is that 00:14:58.160 --> 00:15:02.160 and Alma worked very hard to establish the platting 00:15:02.160 --> 00:15:06.160 of the property, but was not able to determine that 00:15:06.160 --> 00:15:10.160 it was platted. So, why we're here is that we're going to 00:15:10.160 --> 00:15:14.160 have to plot this property. But in order to plot the property, you have to need 00:15:14.160 --> 00:15:18.160 the lot dimensions and the lot width. And so, that's 00:15:18.160 --> 00:15:22.160 the reason why you're here. This is being brought to you all today. 00:15:22.160 --> 00:15:26.160 But for the other neighborhood, in 00:15:26.160 --> 00:15:30.160 typical circumstances, they would not likely need to come to the CDA 00:15:30.160 --> 00:15:34.160 because they were either platted and legally, you know, developed 00:15:34.160 --> 00:15:38.160 and so, again, no need for a better. 00:15:38.160 --> 00:15:42.160 And to add on to what Ron said, if Canadian Community Development 00:15:42.160 --> 00:15:46.160 had determined that there was only some repairs that were needed 00:15:46.160 --> 00:15:50.160 and it was less than 50% of the value of the property, then 00:15:50.160 --> 00:15:54.160 they would be able to go ahead and get a permit as is, but since 00:15:54.160 --> 00:15:58.160 they are more than 50% of the property is, you know, 00:15:58.160 --> 00:16:02.160 being demolished, then that takes away your illegal 00:16:02.160 --> 00:16:06.160 non-conforming status. And so, now everything has to come up to code. 00:16:06.160 --> 00:16:10.160 Right. Yeah. And I understand that. And I'm thinking about this neighborhood in general. There's going to be 00:16:10.160 --> 00:16:14.160 other properties that fall under that. They are just going to have to be 00:16:14.160 --> 00:16:18.160 raised in order to be rebuilt. I just want to make sure that there's a speedier 00:16:18.160 --> 00:16:22.160 process for that applicant that we can move on to more quickly. 00:16:22.160 --> 00:16:26.160 I have a question. Being that it's a somewhat 00:16:26.160 --> 00:16:30.160 historic property in a historic neighborhood, we 00:16:30.160 --> 00:16:34.160 saw in Pilot Point that sort of at the eleventh hour, there was discovery 00:16:34.160 --> 00:16:38.160 as to what the property had been at one time, that it was 00:16:38.160 --> 00:16:42.160 a rather important school and all that sort of thing. Have those kinds of investigations been made and satisfied 00:16:42.160 --> 00:16:46.160 in your minds? 00:16:46.160 --> 00:16:50.160 I'm going to go back to the experts on this. 00:16:50.160 --> 00:16:56.160 Gordon there again. 00:16:56.160 --> 00:17:00.160 To answer specifically the question of 00:17:00.160 --> 00:17:04.160 prior use of this property, 00:17:04.160 --> 00:17:08.160 we do not believe it was used for any other purpose other than residential 00:17:08.160 --> 00:17:12.160 until approximately, well, since 1938, 00:17:12.160 --> 00:17:16.160 I think, has been that home. Before that, 00:17:16.160 --> 00:17:20.160 we had some, we looked at 00:17:20.160 --> 00:17:24.160 some aerial views of the neighborhood and it was the only house on that block 00:17:24.160 --> 00:17:28.160 in 1940. So it's believed that there was 00:17:28.160 --> 00:17:32.160 nothing, there are no cultural artifacts 00:17:32.160 --> 00:17:36.160 there at that site 00:17:36.160 --> 00:17:40.160 besides the house. It's interesting because just to kind of give some context, this 00:17:40.160 --> 00:17:44.160 house in Pilot Point was in a similar situation. It was 00:17:44.160 --> 00:17:48.160 dilapidated. It was on the verge of being determined that it had to be destroyed 00:17:48.160 --> 00:17:52.160 and then it was discovered that it had been an important school 00:17:52.160 --> 00:17:56.160 that had been moved from one place to another. This probably is not 00:17:56.160 --> 00:18:00.160 comparable. It's something to always think about. 00:18:00.160 --> 00:18:04.160 We found no evidence that this was anything other 00:18:04.160 --> 00:18:08.160 than a residence at any time. Do we know whose residence 00:18:08.160 --> 00:18:12.160 it was in 1940? Yes, it was 00:18:12.160 --> 00:18:16.160 in 1940. I did the 00:18:16.160 --> 00:18:20.160 title work on that. I believe it 00:18:20.160 --> 00:18:24.160 was in the Ransom family, which is a 00:18:24.160 --> 00:18:28.160 related to the applicant, her 00:18:28.160 --> 00:18:32.160 uncle's family. So it's been in one 00:18:32.160 --> 00:18:36.160 family for 80 years. That is 00:18:36.160 --> 00:18:40.160 very similar to the Battle Point scenario. They did not know that 00:18:40.160 --> 00:18:44.160 it was at one time not a home. Well, I do want to point out that 00:18:44.160 --> 00:18:48.160 the determination we received from the 00:18:48.160 --> 00:18:52.160 Texas Historical Commission says that this 00:18:52.160 --> 00:18:56.160 is a surface determination only. Should 00:18:56.160 --> 00:19:00.160 subsurface cultural artifacts be uncovered, 00:19:00.160 --> 00:19:04.160 we're supposed to stop and consult with 00:19:04.160 --> 00:19:08.160 Texas Historical Commission. That's always 00:19:08.160 --> 00:19:12.160 a subject of our determinations, condition 00:19:12.160 --> 00:19:16.160 of our determinations from them. 00:19:16.160 --> 00:19:20.160 Thank you. Are there other questions at this time? 00:19:20.160 --> 00:19:24.160 You're good. Thank you. 00:19:24.160 --> 00:19:28.160 So are you the applicant? Yes. Would you like to address 00:19:28.160 --> 00:19:32.160 the board this evening? You're not required to. I just want to give you 00:19:32.160 --> 00:19:36.160 that opportunity if you'd like to speak. No, she doesn't. 00:19:36.160 --> 00:19:40.160 That is totally fine. Absolutely. No worries. 00:19:40.160 --> 00:19:44.160 Okay. So I guess we make a 00:19:44.160 --> 00:19:48.160 motion in a second if you'd like to continue conversation 00:19:48.160 --> 00:19:52.160 on this. So do we have a motion from the board for 00:19:52.160 --> 00:19:56.160 approval or denial or a motion with... Go ahead. I would move to approve. 00:19:56.160 --> 00:20:00.160 I would move to approve this. You got a 00:20:00.160 --> 00:20:04.160 second? Sure. Okay. Great. Is there any discussion on this 00:20:04.160 --> 00:20:08.160 before we move for approval? Yes. Just that I think, apart from the historical 00:20:08.160 --> 00:20:12.160 questions and concerns which have been addressed in that, if there's anything found, 00:20:12.160 --> 00:20:16.160 there's a process to deal with it. This strikes me as the exactly 00:20:16.160 --> 00:20:20.160 right use of the variance that the code is written for 00:20:20.160 --> 00:20:24.160 in a situation like this. It should be used as a 00:20:24.160 --> 00:20:28.160 model for the future of exactly when 00:20:28.160 --> 00:20:32.160 the variances should be used. Yeah. I just want to make a comment. 00:20:32.160 --> 00:20:36.160 I'm in full support of this. I mean, it's going to bring more value to the neighborhood. 00:20:36.160 --> 00:20:40.160 It's going to provide sustainable housing for the applicant. 00:20:40.160 --> 00:20:44.160 I'm glad that we're all 00:20:44.160 --> 00:20:48.160 in agreement. It seems like we're all in agreement on this. And I'm glad the city staff 00:20:48.160 --> 00:20:52.160 is working to make this easier for future applicants so that you don't have to go through this lengthy process. 00:20:52.160 --> 00:20:56.160 Any other comments? Okay. 00:20:56.160 --> 00:21:00.160 So the motion is to approve. All those in favor? 00:21:00.160 --> 00:21:04.160 Any opposed? 00:21:04.160 --> 00:21:08.160 Any abstentions? So the motion passes unanimously. Congratulations. 00:21:08.160 --> 00:21:12.160 Thank you. I have a, Madam Chair, I have a quick question. Since we are 00:21:12.160 --> 00:21:16.160 recorded but not video recorded, do we need a voice affirmation vote? 00:21:16.160 --> 00:21:20.160 Where we're heard to say aye or any of that? 00:21:20.160 --> 00:21:24.160 I would recommend that if we just go around the table really quickly and just 00:21:24.160 --> 00:21:28.160 [ inaudible ] 00:21:28.160 --> 00:21:32.160 I did say that it was approved unanimously. 00:21:32.160 --> 00:21:36.160 Does that count? And the microphones are up here. 00:21:36.160 --> 00:21:40.160 Would you like us to say? I just heard that we are 00:21:40.160 --> 00:21:44.160 being videoed, so we're good. 00:21:44.160 --> 00:21:48.160 Are there any other concluding items before we wrap up 00:21:48.160 --> 00:21:52.160 for this evening? I just want to remind everyone that tomorrow 00:21:52.160 --> 00:21:56.160 is primary day, so you can go vote right over here 00:21:56.160 --> 00:22:00.160 at City Hall. Or Civic Center is what I meant to say. 00:22:00.160 --> 00:22:04.160 That's the only thing I had to say. Alright, with that we will... 00:22:04.160 --> 00:22:08.160 Yes, sir. Sorry, I know you want to close out here. As far as 00:22:08.160 --> 00:22:12.160 concluding items, I know that we don't meet often, and obviously this is one that we needed 00:22:12.160 --> 00:22:16.160 to meet. We really appreciate your flexibility in 00:22:16.160 --> 00:22:20.160 meeting. Meeting quorum is something that we need to make sure we do. 00:22:20.160 --> 00:22:24.160 We are planning, hopefully, another meeting soon. 00:22:24.160 --> 00:22:28.160 We don't have any items, at least a variance, in your 00:22:28.160 --> 00:22:32.160 teacher. However, most likely when we meet again, it will probably 00:22:32.160 --> 00:22:36.160 be another training opportunity. And maybe if the 00:22:36.160 --> 00:22:40.160 DIN 2040 plan gets approved, we can present you all on 00:22:40.160 --> 00:22:44.160 what's included and what's next as far as implementation of that plan. 00:22:44.160 --> 00:22:48.160 I think that would be great. Thank you. 00:22:48.160 --> 00:22:52.160 With that, I'd like to adjourn the meeting. The time is now 00:22:52.160 --> 00:22:56.160 559, and thank you for your participation. 00:22:56.160 --> 00:23:00.160 Thank you. Have a good night.