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