[00:00:03]
[CALL TO ORDER]
5:30 PM.I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ORDER.
LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND CALL THE RULE.
I'M YOUR CHAIR, JESSICA COHEN.
DARRELL PR HERE AUGUSTINA RODRIGUEZ.
I THINK THERE'S AN ALTERNATE FOR AUGUSTINA.
IS SOMEONE FILLING IN FOR AUGUSTINA? THAT WOULD BE ME.
I REMEMBER, UH, RICHARD SMITH HERE.
NICOLE WADE HERE, AND THEN CARRIE WALLER HERE AND KELLY BLOOM HERE.
JUST A COUPLE QUICK HOUSEKEEPING NOTES FOR THE AUDIENCE, THIS SUPER LARGE AUDIENCE.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES OR PUT THEM ON VIBRATE.
UM, AFTER YOUR CASE IS OVER, PLEASE TAKE YOUR DISCUSSION.
YOU KNOW WHAT? IT DOESN'T MATTER TONIGHT.
UM, IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR KEYS, PLEASE WAIT UNTIL TOMORROW.
CALL OR EMAIL THE BOARD LIAISON, ELAINE RAMIREZ.
WHEN YOU ARE TALKING TO THE BOARD, PLEASE ADDRESS THE BOARD DIRECTLY.
IF THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION, WE'RE NOT GONNA NEED A BREAK TONIGHT.
UH, MAKE SURE YOU GET YOUR PARKING TICKETS VALIDATED.
THERE'S A LITTLE STAMP CLAMSHELL STAMP AND A BOOK OVER THERE BY WHERE YOU WALKED IN.
YOU JUST PUT IT IN THERE, STAMP IT AND WRITE THE NUMBER DOWN.
SO ANYONE WHO'S GOING TO BE GIVING TESTIMONY TONIGHT.
IF I COULD GET YOU TO PLEASE STAND, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO TAKE THE OATH REAL QUICK.
ANYBODY GIVING YOU TESTIMONY TONIGHT.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE TONIGHT WILL BE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, ELAINE? NOPE.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
ONE.THIS WILL BE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, REGULAR MEETING ON AUGUST 8TH, 2022 MOTION PER APPROVAL.
Q UH, BOARD MEMBER AIDS, BOARD MEMBER, WADE, RECUSING AND MYSELF, PLEASE.
UH, WHO WAS THAT? CARRIE WALLER? THAT WAS, YES.
AB ABSTAIN OR RECUSED? ABSTAIN.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA ADD SAY IS THAT ABSTAIN FOR EVERYBODY? YES.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY VICE CHAIR, HAWTHORNE SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BAILEY TOMMY AEN AN ABSTINE STEAM COLD WEIGHT IS STEIN.
I DID SEE THE VIDEO, BUT I'M GONNA ABSTAIN.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, IS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO BE THERE TO, OH.
I MEAN, IF IT BECOMES AN ISSUE THAT WE CAN'T ACTUALLY PASS THE MINUTES OR APPROVE THE MINUTES, THREE, FOUR, WE'VE GOT SIX.
[00:05:09]
SEE, MOVING ON TO ITEM TWO, GO.[2. Discussion of staff and applicant requests for postponement and withdrawal of public hearing cases posted on the agenda.]
UH, FOR POSTPONEMENTS OR WITHDRAWALS.DO WE HAVE ANY POSTPONEMENTS OR WITHDRAWALS? YES, WE HAVE ITEM NINE, C 15 DASH 2022 DASH 0 6 1 14 0 1 EAST THIRD STREET.
THEY ARE REQUESTING A POSTPONE TO OCTOBER 10TH TO OCTOBER 10TH? YES MA'AM.
SO ONE POSTPONEMENT IT'S ITEM 10 OR NO, SORRY.
I HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO OCTOBER 10TH BY BOARD MEMBER.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? UH, YES, BUT I KNOW THAT I DON'T NEED HIM TO COME UP, BUT, UM, JUST AN FYI.
I KNOW THAT PART OF THE POSTPONEMENT IS THEY'RE WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBOR TO PURCHASE THEIR PROPERTY.
UM, THEY NEED TO BE CAREFUL CUZ I DON'T THINK THAT CHANGES OUR ISSUES.
POSTPONE TO OCTOBER 10TH, ITEM
[3. C16-2022-0005 Jaden Rodriguez for Leo Garcia 7712 Elroy Road]
THREE.OH, DO WE HAVE TO DO THAT FOR THAT ONE? OH, OKAY.
UH, WE HAVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM TWO AND THEN MOVE ON TO ITEM THREE, UH, C 16, 20 22 0 0 5.
THIS WILL BE JADE RODRIGUEZ FOR LEO GARCIA.
I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT BEFORE, BEFORE THEY STARTED, UM, THAT OKAY.
I WOULD WAIT BECAUSE SO FAR, NO, ONE'S COME FORWARD CHAIR.
SO ON THE PHONE, GO AHEAD AND ASK.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, THIS TRACK MAY HAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF FRONTAGE ON THE ROADWAY AND THE SIGN FACE AREA IS CALCULATED BY FRONTAGE ON THE ROADWAY.
DID YOU LOOK AT THAT WHEN YOU SUBMITTED YOUR APPLICATION, CUZ YOU MAY NEED TO UPDATE YOUR APPLICATION AND REIFY.
SO WE, WE ARE BASING OUR, OUR CALCULATIONS OFF OUR EXISTING SIGN, WHICH WAS CALCULATED ORIGINALLY, INCLUDING THE EAST MYTHS THAT WERE TAKEN UP BY THE UTILITY COMPANY AND BY THE ROADWAY.
SO I THINK WE'RE COMFORTABLE IN SAYING THAT OUR CALCULATIONS ARE AS CLOSE AS TO WHAT THEY SHOULD BE BASED OFF OUR DESIGN EASEMENT AND UH, ROADWAYS.
JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE BEFORE WE HEARD THE CASE, IF YOU NEEDED TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS, YOU COULD.
IF YOU'D LIKE US TO MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE, JUST GO AHEAD AND SAY NEXT SLIDE.
THERE WILL BE A 32ND DELAY IF YOU'RE WATCHING ON ETX N OR VIA THE WEB.
[00:10:01]
GO AHEAD AND START.WE THANK YOU FIRST AND FOREMOST FOR TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY TO LISTEN TO OUR CASE, AS YOU CONTINUE, OUR PLAN OR REQUEST IS TO HAVE A VARIANCE ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE CURRENT SIGN OR THE SIGN THAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
UH, POINT NUMBER ONE, BASICALLY STATES THAT OUR CURRENT ENTRANCE SIGN IS EASILY LOST FROM THE DISTANCE.
AS YOU CAN SEE FOR SOME OF THE IMAGES THAT WE HAVE AS WE CON CONTINUE TO DEVELOP OUR MAIN ENTRANCE WITH THE FOCUS MOVING TOVO ROAD AWAY FROM MAY 12, FOR THE EXPANSION OF LANES, UH, WE NEED THIS ENTRANCE TO BE CLEAR AND IDENTIFIABLE BY USING THE 40 FOOT TALL, UH, DOUBLE SIDED SIGN, WE FEEL WILL ALLOW OUR GUESTS TO BE ABLE TO FIND OUR INTEREST ENTRANCE WITHOUT ISSUES.
OUR SECOND POINT IS THE 30 FOOT SIGN WOULD FEEL THAT IT'S TOO CLOSE TO PROXIMITY TO THE INTERSECTION.
THE SIGN HAS LARGE VIDEO ELEMENT AND COULD CAUSE DISTRACTIONS OF INSTALLED LOW.
WE FEEL BY INCREASING THE HEIGHT AND ADDITIONAL 10 FEET WILL ALLOW MORE OF A VISUAL HELP RATHER THAN A DETERRENCE.
NEXT SLIDE 0.3, UH, REASON LONG.
IT SAYS WITH THE RECENT LANE EXTENSIONS OF ELROY, AS WE ALL KNOW HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPORTANT PART TO GETTING TO AND FROM CODA WILL BECOME A NEW MAIN ENTRANCE.
UH, AGAIN, TRYING TO MOVE AWAY FROM ELROY.
UH, THIS WILL ALLEVIATE THE TRAFFIC ISSUES WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST.
HAVING THE ENTRANCE BE AS IDENTIFY A POSSIBLE WILL HELP WITH THAT MISSION.
THE ENTRANCE SIGN IS IMPORTANT IDENTIFIER OF OUR PROPERTY AS WELL AS TOOL THAT COMMUNICATES TO OUR NEIGHBORS AND ATTENDEES ABOUT EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES HAPPENING ON THE PROPERTY.
WE FEEL THAT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS SIGN IS A CORRECT SIZE AND SCALE, ESPECIALLY AS IT PERTAINS TO TRAFFIC UPDATES AND TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR THE COMMUNITY AND PEOPLE ATTENDING ANY EVENT.
I WANNA SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
UM, WE DO UNDERSTAND THE RULES AND THE REGULATIONS AND THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WHY WE'RE REQUESTING THE, THE VARIANCE, BUT WE FEEL IT'S A SLIGHT DEVIATION FROM THE CURRENT ALLOWANCE.
SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO A POSITIVE IMPACT.
THIS TIME WILL BRING TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO PEOPLE COMING TO ATTEND OUR EVENTS.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION HEARING NONE.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BOARD MEMBERS QUESTIONS.
I HAVE A QUESTION BOARD MEMBER BAIL.
OH, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A QUESTION OR A STATEMENT.
UM, WHEN PEOPLE ARE COMING OUT DAKOTA, IT'S USUALLY A LOT OF PEOPLE AT ONE TIME AND THERE'S ONE ROAD YOU'RE NOT GONNA MISS IT.
THEY'RE GONNA HAVE PEOPLE OUT THERE DIRECTING TRAFFIC AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT BASICALLY DURING THOSE EVENTS.
SO I AM STRUGGLING WITH THE HARDSHIP ON THIS ONE.
UM, YEAH, BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S GOING, GOING TO BE GOING TO THE SAME PLACE.
AND IF HAVING 20, 30, OR FIVE OR 10,000 PEOPLE, IT'S STILL GONNA BE A LOT OF PEOPLE AND THEY'LL KNOW WHERE THEY'RE GOING.
SO I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE HARDSHIP ON THIS ONE, JUST AN FYI BARBARA, UH, BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR.
UH, I MUST STRUGGLING TOO, CUZ I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY FEET, IF THE SIDE IS 30 FEET TALL, HOW MANY FEET IS THERE BETWEEN THE VIDEO AND THE GROUND? AND IF IT'S 40 FEET TALL, HOW MANY FEET IS THERE BETWEEN THE VIDEO AND THE GROUND? SO I WAS HAVING A REAL TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING WHY THAT 10 MORE FEET IS NECESSARY.
AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY CLEAR VISUAL IN YOUR PRESENTATION THAT SHOWED A COMPARISON OF THE 30 AND 40 FEET.
AND WHAT EXACTLY, OF COURSE YOU CAN SEE A 40 FOOT SIGN FROM MAYBE A BIT FURTHER AWAY, BUT I DIDN'T SEE THE HARDSHIP THE HARD CAN.
SO OUR POINT IS THAT TO TRYING TO MOVE THE SIGN UP HIGHER, THE, THE FOOTPRINT OF THE SIGN, THE DIGITAL SIGN, INSTEAD OF BEING 30 FOOT TO THE BASE OF IT, IT'LL INCREASE IT BY 10 FOOT GIVING IT A BETTER LINE OF SIGHT AS YOU'RE COMING.
I AGREE IN THAT EVERYBODY'S COMING TO THE SAME POINT, BUT THERE'S INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO GIVE OUT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST SET OF IMAGES, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE CURRENT SIGN GETS LOST.
SEE THAT IMAGE, THE CURRENT SIGN IS ON THE, UH, IT SAYS VIEW OF INTER INTERSECTION TOWARDS THE WEST.
OUR SIGN IS BEHIND THAT TREE LINE.
SO YOU CAN'T SEE IT, IT THERE.
AND IF YOU'RE COMING FROM ELROY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE IMAGE ON THE BOTTOM ON SLIDE TWO, YOU'LL SEE THE BOTTOM OF IT.
THAT WOULD BE THE REPRESENTATION OF OUR SIGN.
[00:15:01]
CURRENT SIGN IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THIS DISTANCE.SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCES TO ALLOW US TO PUT THE SIGN UP HIGHER, THAT WILL ALLOW PEOPLE TO SEE OUR SIGNAGE, OUR INFORMATION CLEARLY FOR THE COMMUNITY AND FOR THE PEOPLE COMING TO THE EVENT IN REGARDS TO WHICH PARKING LOTS THEY'RE GOING, UH, WHICH DIRECTION, UM, THEY NEED TO EITHER GO TO THE LEFT OR TO THE RIGHT.
AND, AND THAT IS WHY WE FEEL THE VERY ALLOWING US TO GO TALLER WILL HELP GIVE INFORMATION OUT TO THE PUBLIC.
YES, THEY ARE COMING TO THE SAME PLACE, BUT THERE ARE DIFFERENT PARKING LOTS.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU CONTINUE ON TO THE WEST, WE HAVE PARKING LOT.
L M IF YOU GO TO THE RIGHT ONTO KOTA BOULEVARD, WE HAVE OUR MAIN PROP, UH, PARKING LOTS.
BUT IF YOU GO TO THE LEFT, YOU'LL SEE THAT WE HAVE ADDITIONAL PARKING LOTS.
AND WE FEEL THAT THE SIGN BEING THAT HIGH WILL ALLOW PEOPLE TO SEE IT EARLIER, BOARD MEMBER BLOOM.
UM, IT'S DIFFICULT TO EVALUATE THE PROPER HEIGHT OF THE SIGN WITHOUT KNOWING SOMETHING ABOUT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROADWAY ITSELF.
UM, YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR APPLICATION THAT ELROY ROAD WAS RAISED, BUT HOW MUCH THERE'S NO INFORMATION ABOUT THAT THAT I COULD SEE, UM, AS COMMISSIONER MACARTHUR SAID, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THIS CONCEPT OF THE SIGN, YOU'VE PRESENTED A FAIR AMOUNT OF THE SIGN IS STILL UNDERNEATH, YOU KNOW, BELOW 30 FEET IN, IN HEIGHT.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF SIGN, WHAT IT'S ULTIMATELY GONNA LOOK LIKE WHERE THE DIGITAL ELEMENTS ARE.
AND I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE ARGUMENT ABOUT THE DIGITAL ELEMENTS BEING TOO LOW TO THE GROUND, CAUSING A DISTRACTION, UM, TO DRIVERS THAT MAY VERY WELL BE THE CASE.
BUT, UM, I THINK I NEED SOME MORE EVIDENCE THAT THAT IS AN ACTUAL ISSUE BEFORE I CAN SUPPORT THE VARIANCE.
AND, AND I WOULD SAY TOO, THAT MAYBE YOUR GROUND SIGN IS NOT VISIBLE, BUT YOU'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT A 30 FOOT HIGH SIGN, WHICH WOULD IMPROVE THAT IF THAT'S THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU'RE WORKING FROM.
NICE TRAIL HAWTHORNE, I'M SORRY, BOARD MEMBER BLOOM.
WAS THAT A QUESTION OR? UM, NO, IT WAS A COMMENT.
UM, UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAPPENS TO KNOW OFFHAND, LIKE, LIKE WHAT IS THE POSTED SPEED ON, ON ELROY, BUT, BUT I THINK THEY'RE STILL MISSING INFORMATION.
THEY PROBABLY WON'T BE ABLE TO PROVIDE TODAY ICE.
I MEAN, THEY CANNOT ANSWER THAT WITH THE COMPLETE CERTAINTY, BUT TYPICALLY IN THAT AREA GETS ABOUT 45 MILES PER HOUR ICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
SO I, AND I, SORRY, I'M BLOWING UP MY IMAGES.
SO I, SIR, I, I AM CONCERNED THAT YOU ARE ADDITIONALLY GOING TO NEED A SIGN FACE AREA BECAUSE YOU TAKE THE MEASUREMENT ON THE ROADWAY.
AND WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING ME IS A VERY LITTLE FRONTAGE ACTUALLY ON ELROY IN THE ADVANCED PACKAGE ON SHEET.
SORRY, I BLO IT UP SO, SO BIG.
THERE'S ACTUALLY NOT A NUMBER ON IT.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE ADVANCED PACKAGE.
YOU, YOU DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A LOT OF FRONTAGE ON ELROY FACTORED HER INTO SIGNED CALCULATIONS.
SO YOU PROBABLY WANNA CHECK THAT FIRST.
I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE REQUEST IN GENERAL.
I'M PROBABLY, UH, A LITTLE MORE LIBERAL AS THIS IS A, IS A REALLY BIG PIECE OF LAND.
AND THERE ARE A LOT OF PARKING LOTS AND IT'S, IT IS KIND OF DIFFICULT TO MANEUVER AROUND.
YOU'RE ALL GOING TO THE SAME PLACE AND YOU'RE KIND OF FOLLOWING EACH OTHER, BUT IF YOU NEED TO BE IN ANOTHER LANE TO TAKE A DIFFERENT DIRECTION OR TO GET TO THE RIGHT WAY TO GET TO YOUR ACTUAL LOT OR ENTRANCE, UM, IT IS A LITTLE DIFFICULT, UH, BOARD MEMBER BLOOM IS CORRECT IF THEY'VE RAISED THE ROAD.
AND, AND THAT IS TO YOUR, NOT TO YOUR BENEFIT, YOU MIGHT WANNA POINT THAT OUT AND THE, THE SPEED AT WHAT YOU'RE GOING.
BUT I, I DO THINK THAT I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR A POSTPONEMENT.
SO YOU CAN GATHER A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION AND CHECK THAT SIGN FACE AREA, UH, PERHAPS WITH THE STAFF, BECAUSE IF YOU DO NEED TO REIFIED THAT AND RE REDO YOUR APPLICATION AND INCLUDE THAT SCOPE, UH, YOU'D PROBABLY WANT TO DO THAT NOW.
WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
IS THERE A SECOND, A SECOND? OKAY.
YOU HAVE SOMETHING TODAY SAY, BUT I, I DO BELIEVE, AND I, I DO HAVE QUESTIONS AS WELL.
I THINK SHE WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING, SOMEBODY WITH THE FINGER BOARD MEMBER WALLER, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? IS THE EXISTING
[00:20:01]
SIGN, THE DIGITAL SIGN AS WELL? NO, IT'S A ILLUMINATED SIGN WITH JUST BASICALLY, UH, CIRCULAR AMERICAS WITH THE LOGO ON IT WITH A SMALL BLOCK AND BACK LIT SIGN.YEAH, I THINK, UM, I AGREE WITH THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WHO HAVE STATED THAT THE HARDSHIP IS DIFFICULT TO COME TO, BUT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE EXISTING SIGN IN COMPARISON WITH THE PROPOSAL, LIKE WHAT KIND OF DIFFERENCES WILL BE ADDED WITH THE NEW SIGN VERSUS WHAT'S EXISTING WOULD BE HELPFUL.
I HAD A QUESTION FOR YOU REAL QUICK.
WOULD, IF I WERE TO SUPPORT THIS VARIANCE, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO A CURFEW FOR THE EMC ALONG WITH THE, UH, A LIMIT IN LUMINOSITY AFTER A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD? ABSOLUTELY.
THERE, THERE'S NO REASON WHY WE, WE HAVE A CARTOON QUEUE FOR OUR MUSIC AND LIGHT.
SO IT WOULD BE, IT WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM FOR US TO, TO FRAME THE ILLUMINATION DOWN OR ADD THAT FEATURE TO, TO THE LIGHT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, BOARD MEMBER SMITH.
SO I'M NOT, I'M NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO A POSTPONEMENT, BUT I'M, UH, I'M EQUALLY TROUBLED BY THE PARENT LACK OF HARDSHIP HERE.
I MEAN, I'M, I'M UNDERSTANDING THE HARDSHIP IS THAT MAKES THE SIGN MORE VISIBLE.
UM, I MEAN, THAT'S SORT OF TRUE OF MAKING ANY SIGN AND MAKING IT BIGGER AND BRIGHTER AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE LIMIT ON THAT.
UM, SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF THE POSTPONEMENT IS NOT GONNA BE FUTILE IF IN FACT THERE'S NO, IF THAT'S THE, IF THAT'S THE HARDSHIP WE'RE DEALING WITH AND YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE DECISION ON THAT ON THE MARRIAGE THERE.
I THINK, I THINK IT GOES BACK TO OUR DISCUSSION OR A POINT ABOUT THE ROAD BEING ELEVATED, AS YOU'RE AWARE, THERE'S A MAJOR PORTION OF, OF ELROY PART OF THE ONION CREEK FLOODWAY AND IS CONSIDERED A FLOOD ZONE.
THE ROAD, THE BRIDGE WAS ELEVATED.
I MEAN, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I COULD SAY THAT IT WAS PROBABLY ELEVATED ABOUT 12 TO 20 FEET.
SO THEN THE ENTIRE LANE AND ROAD CARRIED THAT MOMENTUM ALL THE WAY ACROSS FROM THE INTERSECTION OF ANGUS.
SO AS YOU'RE COMING DOWN THAT ROAD, IT IS INCOMPLETE ELEVATION CHANGE.
AND SO THEN, LIKE I SAID, IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE IMAGES, OUR SIGN ISN'T INVISIBLE ANYMORE.
AND SO THAT WHY WE FEEL ALLOWING THE VARIANT FOR US TO GO IN AN ADDITIONAL 10 FEET WILL ALLOW THAT DISTANCE THAT'S BEING CARRIED OVER FURTHER BACK TO THE DEALER, THE SCREEN, TO BE VIEWED FURTHER BACK AS YOU'RE COMING FROM THE CANUS OR IF YOU'RE COMING FROM THE, WHAT WE, WHAT WE CALL THE CURB THERE AT ELROY AND LOT L AND M IT'S A MASSIVE CURB.
SO WHEN YOU TURN, YOU'RE NOT GONNA SEE A SIGN RIGHT THERE BECAUSE OF THE TREE LINE, BECAUSE IT'S LOWER.
UH, AND SO THAT'S WHY WE FEEL THAT THE, THAT THE VARIANCES, OR IS IMPORTANT TO US.
SO THE VARIANCE, WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAYING IS THE VARIANCE IS COMMENSURATE WITH THE CHANGE IN THE ELEVATION, CORRECT.
LIKE I SAID, THE ENTIRE AREA, MY POINT IS THAT THE ENTIRE AREA.
BUT, UH, THE QUESTION WAS OVER.
WE'VE GOT ANOTHER QUESTION FROM A DIFFERENT BOARD MEMBER.
YOU, YOU COVERED MY, MY CONCERN ABOUT THE DIMMERS AND I'M VERY PARTICULAR ABOUT THE SIGNS.
I, I CAN ECHO MELISSA'S SENTIMENTS ABOUT THE SIGN.
I DON'T SEE A REAL ISSUE WITH IT, BUT I ALSO DON'T SEE A HARDSHIP AS BURKE IS STATED OUT.
I GO TO THE F1 QUITE A BIT FOR QUITE A FEW DIFFERENT, UH, BESIDES THE CONCERTS, THE RACES, THE ROUTE RALLY AND ALL THAT TYPE OF STUFF.
AND I CAN SAY THAT COMING DOWN THAT ROAD, IT WOULD BE MORE BENEFICIAL TO BE ABLE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY INFORMATION FROM A DISTANCE, BECAUSE OTHERWISE I HAVE SEEN IT AND I'VE EXPERIENCED BASICALLY THE BLIND FOLLOWING THE BLIND AND END UP SOMEPLACE.
I DIDN'T WANT TO END UP, BUT I DON'T.
I DON'T AGREE THAT THE, THE LOW SIGN CAN CAUSE DISTRACTION IF IT'S LOW, ACTUALLY IT CAN CAUSE MORE DISTRACTION DUE TO THE BRIGHT L E D LIGHTS COMING OVER THE GRADE ON THE WEST.
WHEN YOU COME PAST THE, UH, TOLL ROAD AND COMING DOWN THE HILL FROM COMING FROM THE LRO AS YOU HIT THAT CURVE.
I, IT, SO THE LUMINOSITY IS GONNA BE A BIG PLAY.
IT'S GONNA BE A BIG CONCERN OF MINE.
I DON'T HAVE HEARTBURN ABOUT YOUR REQUEST, BUT AS THE
[00:25:01]
OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE STATED, AND I THINK YOU CAN PRETTY MUCH PUT YOUR FINGER UP IN THE AIR AND TEST THE WINDS.THE HARDSHIP JUST ISN'T THERE.
THE, THAT ROAD HAS NOT BEEN, IT, IT IS BEEN RAISED ABOUT 12 INCHES, UH, IT'S SIX INCHES OF BASE.
AND THEN, UH, IT'S GOT FOUR INCHES OF ASPHALT.
I REMEMBER WHEN THEY DID THAT JOB.
UH, AND SO I THINK, UH, THE BEST THING TO DO IS TAKE YOUR POSTPONEMENT, LISTEN TO WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS SAY, AND THEN, UH, TRY TO COME BACK WITH A REAL TRUE HARDSHIP BECAUSE I, I'M NOT, I CAN'T GET THERE WITH THE HARDSHIP THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE RIGHT NOW, EITHER AS, AS MUCH AS I SUPPORT YOUR REQUEST AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT, I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR IT, KNOWING THAT, UH, THE HARDSHIPS NOT THERE.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE BASE OUR DECISIONS ON.
I THINK MY COMMENT ABOUT THE HEIGHT WAS BASED OFF THE BRIDGE ITSELF, UH, THAT WAS, THAT WAS BUILT, UH, FOR THE BACK IN BETWEEN THE MECHANIC LOT.
I MEAN, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE SAFETY COMPONENT OF THIS.
IF YOU'RE LOOKING DOWN AT YOUR PHONE TRYING TO FIND A PATH OR A PARKING LOT.
SO FOR US, IT'LL BE EASIER TO SHOW THE SIGN IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE YOUR EYES OFF THE ROAD.
YOU CAN FOCUS ON THE SIGN, WE CAN GIVE DIRECTIONS.
AND, AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR, YOUR POINT OF VIEW OF, OF CONSIDERING IT A HARDSHIP WOULDN'T CONSIDER IT SO MUCH A HARDSHIP FOR OURSELVES, BUT MORE OF A PUBLIC SAFETY, MORE OF INFORMATION, MORE OF TOWARDS THE COMMUNITY.
WE FEEL THAT ON THE SAFETY COMPONENT OF THAT IS INSTEAD OF LOOKING DOWN AT YOUR PHONE, YOU HAVE A VISIBLE SIGN RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU AT A DECENT HEIGHT THAT ALLOWS YOU POINT OF ORDER.
YOU LOOK UP, YOU KEEP YOUR PATH.
SO ORDER, I DID NOT ASK A QUESTION, SIR.
THE, THE MAIN THING IS WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND FOR YOU TO DO IS TO GO BACK ONLINE, CHECK OUR WEBSITE AND SEE HOW WE CAN DECIDE ON THESE.
ON THESE CASES, WE ARE A QUASI GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AND WE HAVE STRICT GUIDELINES THAT WE CAN, THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE IN ORDER TO MAKE A DECISION.
AND IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE HARDSHIP, WHETHER IT BE TOPOGRAPHY SHAPE OF LAW, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, THEN WE CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT LEGALLY VOTE TO SUPPORT THIS ACTION.
SO I, I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE TRYING TO SELL YOUR, YOUR REQUEST, BUT EVERYTHING YOU'RE SAYING IS FALLING.
IT FALLS ON THE DEAF EAR OF THE LAW HERE, AS FAR AS US BEING ABLE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
SO I'D RECOMMEND GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE WEBSITE AGAIN, TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER AND THEN ADDRESS YOUR HARDSHIP TO THOSE CONSIDERATIONS BOARD MEMBER NUMBER.
AND YOU HAVE ANOTHER CLIP, SORRY.
I, I WAS JUST GOING, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, UH, SO THE SIGN SIGN RULES AND THE SIGN BOARD, WHICH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS ACTING FOR A SIGN AS THE SIGN BOARD NOW IS A MAJORITY BOARD, NOT A SUPER MAJORITY BOARD AND THE CRITERIA ARE ACTUALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE HARDSHIP OR A VARIANCE.
AND SO, UH, YOU MIGHT WANNA GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK CUZ YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU'RE TRYING TO GET THE TRAVELING PUBLIC SAFELY TO YOUR SITE.
UM, BUT AT THIS POINT, JUST KIND OF WITH THE, THE FEEDBACK THAT YOU'VE GOTTEN, IT'S PROBABLY BEST TO GO TAKE THE POSTPONE THAT AND GO FINE, FINE TUNE YOUR JEWEL AND COME BACK NEXT MONTH.
UM, BECAUSE THIS IS JUST KIND OF GOING CIRCULAR.
AND I THINK, I THINK THERE, YOU HEARD QUITE A FEW CONCERNS, BUT THERE WERE ALSO THINGS THAT YOU COULD TAKE AND, AND WORK WITH.
BOARD MEMBER PUT, I, UM, WAS LOOKING AT THE, THE MATERIALS IN THE PACKAGE AND ESPECIALLY THE, UM, THE DESIGN DESIGN BY CND DESIGNS.
IT STARTS ON, UH, LOOKS LIKE PAGE NINE, PAGE 10 AND 11 ALL SAY THAT THE MESSAGE CENTER IS GOING TO BE ONE SIDED.
SO THE IDEA THAT THE PHOTOS ON I HAVE PAGES 17 AND 18 COMING FROM ELROY EAST IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO GIVE ANYBODY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND IT'S JUST NOT, NOT CORRECT.
UH, CUZ THERE WON'T BE ANYTHING ON THAT SIDE OF THE, OF THE SIGN, NO MESSAGES ON THE SIDE OF THE SIGN.
UM, AND IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO SEE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE FACILITY IS THERE AT THAT LOCATION.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IS REALLY GOING TO MAKE ANY, ANY BIG OF A DIFFERENCE.
[00:30:02]
UM, I, I, I JUST DON'T SEE.AND, AND I'VE LOOKED AT THE APPLICATION AND I WOULD JUST SUGGEST GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT THE APPLICATION ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE TO FIND OR WHAT WE HAVE TO FIND IN ORDER TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, UH, WHICH IS ON PAGE THREE OF THE, OF THE APPLICATION, SECTION TWO, THE VARIANCE FINDINGS.
CAUSE AS OF RIGHT NOW, I JUST, I, I DON'T SEE THAT.
AND UM, I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR THIS BOARD MEMBER BAILEY AND UM, IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE GOING TOWARDS A POSTPONEMENT.
SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS ALL YOU'RE SHOWING IS THE 40 FOOT TALL SIGN.
YOU SHOW IT AT 30 FEET ALSO BECAUSE IT'S ALSO GONNA HAVE A DIGITAL COMPONENT.
IF YOU DON'T GET THIS HEIGHT INCREASE, IT'S STILL GONNA BE THE SAME SIGN, JUST 10 FEET LOWER.
SO IT'S STILL GONNA HAVE THE SAME INFORMATION AS PEOPLE PULL UP.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON OF WHAT THAT IS SO THAT YOU CAN SHOW US IF IT REALLY DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, AND THEN WE CAN SEE IF IT DOESN'T WORK OR MAYBE WE'LL SEE THAT IT CAN WORK AT THAT.
BUT I THINK THAT WE NEED TO SEE SOME SORT OF COMPARISON, NOT WITH NECESSARILY, I MEAN, WHAT'S, THERE IS A MONUMENT SIGN, I MEAN A 30 FOOT TALL SIGN LIKE THAT YOU HAVE NOW INSTEAD OF A 40 FOOT TALL SIGN.
AND I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT THE COMPARISON OF THOSE AND, AND MAYBE YEAH, DEFINITELY WORK ON THE HARDSHIP PART.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO OCTOBER 10TH, 2022.
THIS IS FOR C 16, 20 22 5 MADE BY VICE CHAIR, HAWTHORNE SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER V OLIN.
THIS IS POSTPONED TO OCTOBER 10TH.
[4. C15-2022-0065 Daniel Strinden 1700 Loreto Drive]
BE C 15 20 22 0 0 6 5 DANIEL.MR. STRINGIN ARE YOU HERE? HE SHOULD.
HE'S ON VIRTUALLY HE'S VIRTUAL.
HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, SIR.
UM, JUST ONE MOMENT, MR. WHILE I GET YOUR PRESENTATION PULLED UP.
JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT FROM BEFORE, THERE WILL BE APPROXIMATELY A 32ND DELAY BETWEEN WHAT WE SEE AND WHAT YOU SEE.
SO IF YOU WERE READY TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, ONCE WE GET THERE, JUST SAY NEXT SLIDE AND WE'LL ADVANCE IT FOR YOU.
UM, AND THANK YOU TO THE BOARD FOR HEARING MY CASE.
UH, I, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS TO ADD AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, UH, TO THE REAR LOT OF MY PROPERTY AT 1700 LA ROAD DRIVE, UH, THE, THE PURPOSE FOR THIS, I GUESS THE REASON I'M TRYING TO BUILD MY IN-LAWS, UH, RETIRED THIS YEAR AND HAD TO MOVE, UH, DUE TO THE COST OF LIVING AND, AND THEIR REDUCED INCOME IN RETIREMENT.
SO I'D LIKE TO BUILD, UH, A PROPERTY ON OUR REAR LOT SO THAT THEY CAN, UH, LIVE WITH US AS, AS WE, UH, YOU KNOW, BEGIN, BEGIN A FAMILY AND, AND THEY, WE CAN HAVE THEM CLOSE BY.
UM, THE CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS FOR TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE, BUT THE LOT, UH, IT, IT, IT'S NOT REALLY FEASIBLE TO PURSUE BUILDING, UNLESS WE CAN GET THIS VARIANCE.
I, I HAVE A PICTURE KIND OF SHOWING THAT ON A LATER SLIDE.
UM, AND THE, THE HARDSHIP HERE THAT I'M CLAIMING IS THAT IT'S A, A THROUGH LOT WITH STREETS AND SETBACKS ON THREE SIDES, WHICH IS FAIRLY UNIQUE, UH, BOTH FOR THE AREA AND AS WELL AS, UM, JU JUST IN GENERAL FOR, FOR AUSTIN.
UH, SO ON SLIDE TWO, I'M SHOWING THE LOT, I, I SHOULD NOTE THE SUBTITLE
[00:35:01]
HERE.THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT IS 25 FEET.
AND WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS A 15 FOOT SETBACK.
UM, YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION AND, AND BASICALLY, UH, THIS IS JUST A, A SHOW, A LITTLE BIT OF THE AREA, AND ALSO, UH, SO THAT YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT IS SITUATED ON THE STREET WHEN I ZOOM OUT.
SO THE SLIDE THREE, I SHOW KIND OF A ZOOMED OUT VIEW AND MORE OF THE EAST AUSTIN, UH, OR THE MARTIN LUTHER KING NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, JUST TO ILLUSTRATE THAT MOST OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE NOT THROUGH LOTS.
UH, I MEAN THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY ARE NOT THROUGH LOTS.
AND THEN EVEN AMONG THROUGH LOTS, UH, HAVING STREETS ON THREE SIDES IS, IS ALSO FAIRLY UNIQUE.
SO IN THIS PICTURE, THE ONLY THROUGH LOTS THAT YOU CAN REALLY SEE ARE THE ONES ON OUR STREET, WHICH ARE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE, IN THE MIDDLE.
AND THEN THE ONLY LOTS WITH, UH, UH, THREE SETBACKS, UH, RELATED TO THE STREETS ARE THOSE ON EITHER END OF THE STREET.
UM, AND THEN, UH, SLIDE FOUR, I'M SHOWING JUST THE CURRENT REAR VIEW OF THE LOT.
UH, THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING BACK THERE RIGHT NOW, EXCEPT FOR A FENCE.
UM, BUT THIS IS THIS, THE FENCE WOULD BE REMOVED AND, AND THIS IS MORE OR LESS WHERE YOU WOULD SEE THE, THE SECOND, UH, DWELLING UNIT SLIDE FIVE, I'M SHOWING THE CURRENT, UH, SURVEY, UH, WITH THE, THE PROPOSED SETBACK CHANGE.
SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE AN OVERLAY OF THAT.
UH, AND THEN I JUST, SO YOU CAN SEE THE, THE SETBACKS, BUT THEN SLIDE SIX.
I ACTUALLY SHOW AN, UH, OVERLAY OF THE, THE DWELLING.
SO WE DON'T HAVE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS RIGHT NOW.
UH, WE HAVEN'T ENGAGED WITH A BUILDER OR AN ARCHITECT YET, UH, BECAUSE IT, IT REALLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR US TO, TO MOVE FORWARD BUILDING, UNLESS WE, WE HAVE THIS SPACE HERE THAT, THAT YOU'RE SEEING US.
THAT'S, UH, THAT'S, WHAT'S BEING SHOWN ON SLIDE SIX, WHERE YOU CAN SEE WITHOUT THE, THE, UM, THE 15 FOOT STEP BACK.
WE, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO, TO ADD CONSTRUCTION ON THE LOT.
I, I, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, UM, TO ADD HERE, BUT I'M, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF, IF THERE ARE ANY, ALL RIGHT.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION SEEING NONE? WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, BOARD MEMBER OF ONE OLAND.
I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
UH, THEY HAVE A LEGIT, LEGITIMATE HARDSHIP WITH THE, UH, SHAPE OF THE LOT, AS WELL, AS ON ITEM 44, HIS PRESENTATION, HE'S GOT A MASSIVE TREE BACK THERE IN THE BACKYARD THAT IS ALSO GONNA LIMIT I'LL SECOND THAT, BECAUSE I WAS GONNA DO IT, IF YOU DIDN'T, EXCEPT THAT I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS.
BECAUSE I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS
UH, BOARD MEMBER PRO, DID I SEE YOUR HAND UP NEXT? YEAH, GO AHEAD.
YEAH, I HAD A QUESTION I'M LOOKING AT NOT THE PRESENTATION, BUT THE BACKUP MATERIALS ON PAGE SEVEN.
UH, THIS IS A SURVEY PLA IT LOOKS LIKE THIS WAS DONE IN 1966, AND IT SHOWS THAT 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE SETBACK ALONG TILLERY.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS REALLY RELATES TO ANY NEW, UH, ORDINANCE ABOUT THROUGH STREETS OR ANYTHING.
THIS IS A, THIS IS A SETBACK THAT'S ON THE PLAT.
AND I, I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHETHER WE WOULD HAVE ANY KIND OF, UH, POWER TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT BUILDING LINES THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE PLAT, UH, ESPECIALLY FROM 1966.
SO, UM, I, I, I JUST, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT, UH, THAT SHOWS ANY KIND OF HARDSHIP, UM, IN TERMS OF USING THE PROPERTY IN A REASONABLE MANNER BOARD MEMBER, BAILEY.
I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS, CONCERNS.
UM, I KNOW THAT YOU DON'T WANNA DO DRAWINGS, UM, BECAUSE AS IT IS EXPENSIVE, BUT WE ARE LACKING SO MUCH INFORMATION, A NUMBER ONE, HAVE YOU TALKED TO ANY OF YOUR NEIGHBORS OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? WE HAVE NO FEEDBACK THAT BECAUSE IT WILL AFFECT MORE THAN JUST YOU.
SO HAVE YOU TALKED TO ANY OF YOUR NEIGHBORS ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE WANTING TO DO? HAVE YOU GOTTEN FEEDBACK FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? IF THERE IS ONE? UH, I HAVE, UH, SPOKEN TO SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS, UH, ABOUT IT.
I, I HAVEN'T GOTTEN FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
[00:40:01]
A MEETING ACTUALLY THIS EVENING AT SEVEN, UH, WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.WE HAVEN'T HAD ONE, UH, BEFORE, NOW THAT I COULD, UH, THAT I COULD HAVE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT IT WITH THE, WITH THE ASSOCIATION, BUT OKAY.
THE, THE FEEDBACK THAT I'VE GOTTEN FROM MY NEIGHBORS, UH, HAS MOSTLY JUST BEEN INTEREST AND, AND NOBODY HAS, UH, EXPRESSED ANY SORT OF OPPOSITION THAT I'M AWARE OF, BUT, UH, I HAVE HAD SOME INTEREST IN WHY WE'RE WANTING TO BUILD AND, AND KIND OF WHAT, UH, WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING, CUZ YOU KNOW, WE HAD THE NOTICE THAT WENT OUT AND ASSIGN, UH, INDICATING THE, UH, ADJUSTMENT HEARING.
RIGHT? WE DID HAVE TWO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION IN OUR BACKUP.
UM, JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
THE OTHER THING IS YOU HAVE SOME EXTREMELY LARGE TREES IN YOUR BACKYARD, MORE THAN ONE.
AND I THINK BEFORE WE CAN SAY, YES, YOU CAN BUILD BACK THERE.
WE NEED A TREE SURVEY THAT SHOWS CRITICAL ROUTE ZONE, CUZ YOU'RE SHOWING YOUR DRIVEWAY RIGHT WHERE ONE OF THOSE TREES IS AND I'M NOT.
AND I ALSO, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW THIS, BUT THAT STRUCTURE HAS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET FROM YOUR EXISTING STRUCTURE.
I SEE NOTHING THAT SHOWS MEASUREMENTS THAT SHOW THAT IT, IT CAN EVEN BE 10 FEET CUZ YOU HAVE A PRETTY SMALL BUILDING AREA BACK THERE.
HAVE YOU DONE THOSE MEASUREMENTS? HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE ON YOUR TREES? I HAVE, I HAVE DONE THE MEASUREMENTS.
I HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE ON THE TREES.
SO THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD NEED TO DO.
UM, THE, THERE ISN'T A TREE, UH, WHERE THE DRIVEWAY WOULD BE.
UH, THERE, THERE, ALL OF THE TREES ARE ALONG TILLERY AND THEN THERE IS ONE THAT'S THAT'S MUCH, MUCH CLOSER TO, I MEAN WITHIN PROBABLY FOUR FEET, FIVE FEET OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
SO I, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT ANY OF THE TREES WOULD BE IN THE WAY OF THE PLANT CONSTRUCTION, BUT THE ROOT ZONE, AS YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I'D NEED TO LOOK INTO FURTHER.
IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT THE TREE TRUNK, IT'S THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE, WHICH IS QUITE LARGE FOR THE TREES OF THIS SIZE.
SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
WE ALSO HAVE NO MEASUREMENTS SHOWING, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE SHOWING A GENERAL AREA OF A STRUCTURE, BUT WE USUALLY, IF WE ARE GOING TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WE LIKE TO BE PRETTY SPECIFIC, UM, ON A VARIANCE OF A, A SECOND DWELLING UNIT IN THE BACKYARD.
AND I, I GET THAT YOU DON'T WANNA DO FULL BLOWN PLANS, BUT I CAN'T MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT.
I, I COULDN'T SUPPORT IT TONIGHT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION.
UM, AND ALSO THAT I DON'T HAVE INFORMATION FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS YEAH.
OR MEASUREMENTS ON THE, ON THE SITE PLAN OR THE TREE INFORMATION.
SO I, I, IF, IF WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR.
UM, I AM TENDING, UM, TO SAY THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE, UH, THINGS ON THREE SIDES, YOU DO HAVE A HARDSHIP, BUT I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THE RULES AND THE THROUGH LOT, BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT EXCEPTIONS, UH, BASED UPON WHAT IS BEHIND THE THROUGH LOT.
AND SO I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE, UM, IT'S PROBABLY BEST FOR YOU AT THIS POINT TO COME BACK AND HAVE A CLEARER PRESENTATION, UH, CLEAR UP WHAT YOUR, UH, PLAT SAYS, WHETHER THE PLAT IS RESTRICTING YOU.
LIKE IF YOU GET THE VARIANCE, BUT THE PLAT WON'T LET YOU BUILD, THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE, BUT FIND OUT REALLY WHAT EXACTLY THE THROUGH LOT RULES ARE BECAUSE THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS.
IF YOU'RE BUILDING AN AD AND I CHAIR, AND I THINK YOU NEED TO LOOK ALL OF THOSE UP BOARD MEMBER BAILEY AND, AND ALSO LOOK BECAUSE WHERE YOU'RE SHOWING YOUR PARKING IS ON A CURB, IT'S VERY CLOSE TO A CURB AND INTERSECTION.
AND THERE ARE ALSO RULES ON HOW CLOSE TO AN INTERSECTION OR DRIVEWAY CAN BE.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT MAY NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO HAPPEN ON THIS LOT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR, WHETHER YOU GET THE VARIANCE OR NOT, THAT I THINK NEED TO BE EXPLORED.
I THINK YOU NEED TO TALK TO SOMEBODY IN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND FIND OUT WHERE YOUR TREES ARE AND FIND OUT IF YOUR DRIVEWAY'S EVEN ALLOWED THERE, IF YOU HAVE 10 FEET BETWEEN YOUR HOUSES.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, JUST ALL OF THAT INFORMATION BOARD MEMBER 1 0 11, YES.
MADAM CHAIR, NUMBER ONE RULE IN POLITICS IS COUNTRY VOTES.
BEFORE YOU WALK INTO THE ROOM, I CAN SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING RIGHT NOW.
AND I THINK PERSONALLY MYSELF, I THINK HE'S GOT A LEGITIMATE HARDSHIP, BOTH WITH THE TREES AND WITH THE LOT.
BUT I AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT I'M HEARING TONIGHT, THAT HE SHOULD DO A LITTLE BIT MORE INVESTIGATION BECAUSE
[00:45:01]
HE MAY BE PLAYING WHACKA BALL WITH A COUPLE OF THESE ZONING ISSUES.AND SO WHAT I'M GONNA DO IS I'M GONNA WITHDRAW MY MOTION TO APPROVE AND MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE SO THAT HE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AND IT WON'T SET HIM BACK.
UH, YOU KNOW, PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF ALL THE, UM, COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE HERE TONIGHT SO THAT WHEN YOU DO COME BACK, YOU CAN COME BACK PREPARED AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN WORK SOMETHING OUT TO GIVE HIM A LITTLE REDRESS.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE WITHDRAWALS AND I'LL SECOND IT, THE SECOND FOR THE POSTPONE POSTPONEMENT, IS THIS GOING TO BE TO OCTOBER 10TH, MADAME CHAIR, I SUGGEST Y'ALL, UM, MOVE IT TILL THE NOVEMBER 14TH MEETING, ESPECIALLY IF Y'ALL REQUESTING A SURVEY, A TREE SURVEY.
HE WON'T HAVE THAT IN TIME BY THE OCTOBER MEETING.
NOVEMBER AND I, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM NECESSARILY, CUZ I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, THROUGH LOTS, HAVE A HARDSHIP, BUT I JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION THAT HE'S EVEN ABLE TO DO WHAT HE WANTS TO DO.
UH, LENE, COULD YOU GIMME THE DATE ON THAT PLEASE? YES, IT IS NOVEMBER 14TH.
IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU BOARD MEMBER BY NOLAN? SURE IS.
IF, IF THAT, IF THE APPLICANT, UH, THINKS THAT'S GONNA GIVE HIM ENOUGH TIME.
MR. STRINGIN DO YOU THINK THAT WILL BE ENOUGH TIME? I, I, I WILL, UH, AIM FOR THAT AND I, I SUPPOSE, UH, IF I NEED TO REQUEST A FURTHER POST POSTPONEMENT, CAN I WORK WITH ELAINE RAMIREZ IN ORDER TO DO THAT? I, I GUESS, OKAY.
I JUST DON'T KNOW WITHOUT HAVING CONTACTED THE TREE SURVEY, UH, OR SOMEBODY FOR TREE SURVEY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE AVAILABILITY WILL BE LIKE, BUT I, I, I WILL CERTAINLY TRY TO MAKE THAT WORK AND I WOULD START WITH THE CITY ARBORIST, WHO IS AVAILABLE FOR YOU.
UM, AND IT WON'T COST YOU, YOU CAN CALL THEM TO HAVE THEM AT LEAST COME OUT AND LOOK AND THEY CAN GIVE YOU KIND OF A BASIC IDEA BEFORE YOU PAY FOR A TREE SURVEY.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO NOVEMBER 14TH, 2022 MADE BY BOARD MEMBER V OLAND SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BAIL.
YOU LET'S CALL THE VOTE TOMMY EIGHT.
DID YOU HAVE A, I JUST WAS GONNA SAY THAT THAT THROUGH LOT SECTION THAT IS IN 25 DASH TWO DASH FIVE 15, BUT THAT'S ALSO PART OF THE CODE THAT, THAT WAS THERE SINCE THE EIGHTIES IT'S BEEN THAT CODE SECTION'S BEEN UPDATED TWICE.
AND SO I DO THINK IT'S WITHIN THE PURVIEW THAT THE BOARD CAN LOOK AT IT NOW WHILE HE MAY HAVE TO GO AND DO AN AMENDED PLAT OR SUCH ABOUT THAT BUILDING LINE, UH, THAT THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER ISSUE HE MIGHT HAVE ALONG THE WAY.
I JUST WAS LOOKING AT IT FROM A CODE PERSPECTIVE.
AND IT IS INTERESTING THAT ON SOME STREETS, THE CITY VIEWS THROUGH LOTS, BUT THEN YOU LOOK AT, UH, THE STREETS THAT BACK UP TO RIVERSIDE DRIVE WHERE IT HAS THAT HUGE BLUFF AND HOW SELECTIVELY THEY DON'T ACTUALLY APPLY THAT, UH, THROUGH LOT ON RIVERSIDE DRIVE.
I, I AM IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
CARRIE HAS MORE CURLS MOVING ON.
[5. C15-2022-0002 Marek Hnizda for Guadalupe Heights LLC 5413 Guadalupe Street]
FIVE, C 15 20 22 0 0 0 2.RIGHT FOR GUADALUPE HEIGHTS FOR 54 13 GUADALUPE STREET.
WE'LL GET YOUR PRESENTATION PULLED UP.
DID YOU HEAR THE SPIEL ABOUT THE 32ND DELAY? YES.
I'M GOING TO REFERENCE THE SLIDES BY NUMBER.
YOUR PRESENTATION IS PULLED UP.
UH, I APPRECIATE YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND UH, BOARD MEMBERS, UH, FOR HEARING OUR CASE TONIGHT, UH, HOPEFULLY IT'S, UH, A BIT MORE, UH, CONCISE AND APPROPRIATE, UH, FOR Y'ALL.
[00:50:01]
HAVE SEVEN POINTS I'D LIKE TO MAKE, UH, REGARDING THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.UM, FIRST AND FOREMOST IS THE ACTUAL VARIANCE.
UM, THE LOT ITSELF, UM, ALLOWS FOR MS. FOUR ZONING.
UM, AND I WANTED TO USE THIS, UM, PRESENTATION TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS THAT BOTH WE ARE PROPOSING, AS WELL AS, UH, WHAT, UM, SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE SPOKEN UP ABOUT.
UM, UH, IF YOU GO TO SLIDE TWO, THAT MIGHT BE A BETTER PLACE TO START.
UM, IF SLIDE TWO IS UP, UH, THIS SHOWS THE EXISTING BUILDING ON SITE, UH, AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S OVERLAPPING A NUMBER OF DASHED LINES, UM, AND THOSE ARE, UH, SETBACK LINES.
UM, SO YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT THE EXISTING BUILDING IS NONCONFORMING AND, UH, IF IT WERE TO BE REMOVED, WHICH IS OUR PROPOSAL, UM, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD OUT, UM, SUCH A BUILDING EVER AGAIN.
UH, GOOD IN SLIDE THREE, I'M SKIP PURPOSELY SKIPPING ONE BECAUSE THERE WAS A, A MISLABELED, UM, PIECE OF INFORMATION THERE THAT SLIDE THREE INCORPORATES.
SO WE CAN JUST SKIP ONE ALTOGETHER GOING TO SLIDE NUMBER THREE.
UM, WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS A COMPARISON, UM, WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, UH, WE WANNA SHOW YOU THE HARDSHIP OF THE SHAPE OF THE SLOT BEING A VERY, UM, ODD LEFTOVER SPACE.
UH, AND WHAT, UM, YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT SIDE IS A COMPARABLE, UH, LOT SIZE, UM, THE EXACT SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT THE BUILDABLE AREA IS MUCH HIGHER.
UM, THE LEFTOVER SPACE ALLOWING US TO BUILD ON OUR PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY ON THE RIGHT, UH, IS VERY, UH, IS, UH, GREATLY REDUCED.
UM, HOWEVER WE'RE ARE TRYING TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND I'LL GET INTO THAT IN A LITTLE BIT, UM, TO STILL, UH, BE FRIENDLY NEIGHBORS WORK WITH THE PIECE OF PROPERTY, UM, AND OUR ONLY ASKING FOR, UM, A, UH, RELIEF ON THE LEFT SIDE GUADALUPE, UM, WHICH IS A MORE BUSY STREET.
UM, THE, UH, PORTIONS OF THE VARIANCE, WHICH RELATE TO STORY, UH, RELIEF ARE REALLY WITHIN THE SAME ENVELOPE.
AND I'LL GET TO THAT IN A FEW, UM, UH, LATER SLIDES.
UM, IT GOOD TO THE NEXT SLIDE FIRST, WHICH IS SLIDE NUMBER FOUR.
UM, I MENTIONED, UH, AN ENVELOPE WHICH WE'RE STILL WORKING WITHIN.
UM, THE FIRST LEVEL IS AN OPEN AIR PARKING LEVEL.
UM, WE HAVE, UH, WE ARE PROPOSING ONE ENTRY ALONG GUADALUPE BAY.
UM, UH, EVEN BEFORE, UM, RECEIVING SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM NEIGHBORS, WE THOUGHT IT'D BE BETTER TO, UM, UH, KEEP ALL THE TRAFFIC OR, YOU KNOW, THE PARKING ENTRY AND EXITING FROM GUADALUPE RATHER THAN THE, UM, SEC, THE OTHER STREETS, 55TH AND, AND L RAY, UM, SORRY, I THINK WE NEED TO GO BACK ONE SLIDE.
SORRY, I, I'M SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING THE SLIDES.
ARE THERE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE SIDE.
UM, SO AS LONG AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PARKING LEVEL, THAT'S THE ONE I'M TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, UM, THIS, UH, THIS PARKING LEVEL IS OPEN AIR, SO YOU'D BE ABLE TO SEE THROUGH IT, UM, ACROSS, UM, TO NEIGHBORS AND GETTING LIGHT AND AIR THROUGH, UM, AND IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, LAID OUT TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL THE PARKING NEEDED FOR THIS PROPERTY.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, NOT TO CONGEST THE ADJACENT STREETS, UM, WHEREAS, UM, YOU KNOW, A, A, A PROJECT NORTH OF THIS ONE, UM, HAS PARKING ON THE SITE, BUT IS REQUIRING, UM, ITS ADJACENT, UH, 55TH STREET IN THIS CASE, UH, TO ACCESS THAT, UM, THE NEXT SLIDE, UH, SHOWS YOU, UM, THE RESIDENTIAL LEVELS.
UM, AND, UH, THE ONE ON THE RIGHT, WHICH IS LEVEL FOUR REALLY IS AN OPTIONAL, WE'RE NOT NECESS, UH, NEEDING THAT LEVEL.
UM, THE MAIN, UH, THING WE WOULD SEE ON THE ROOFTOP WOULD BE, OR ON THE FOURTH, YOU KNOW, QUOTE LEVEL WOULD BE THE MECHANIC UNITS, WHICH WE TRY TO HIDE BY SCREEN, WHICH IS WHY WE INCLUDE IT HERE, BECAUSE MAINLY WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE CAN SHIELD THOSE FROM VISIBILITY.
UH, BUT IT'S REALLY THE SECOND AND THIRD LEVELS.
THAT WOULD BE THE RESIDENTIAL LEVELS HERE.
AND YOU CAN SEE A PRELIMINARY LAYOUT, HOW WE WOULD LIKE TO FRONT, UM, GUADALUPE STREET, UH, KEEPING, UM, UM, MORE OF A CONSISTENT NATURE TO GUADALUPE, UH, TO BUILD ON WHAT'S HAPPENING IN ONE BLOCK NORTH.
UM, THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS YOU A VARIOUS SECTIONS, UM, AND THIS WAS IN THE ADVANCED PACKAGE.
SO I HOPE YOU ALL HAD TO GET A CHANCE TO DIGEST SOME OF THIS.
UM, THE MAIN THING I WANNA POINT OUT RIGHT NOW IS A THIN RED LINE, UH, WHICH SHOWS YOU THE, UM, ALLOWABLE BUILD OUT, UH, ON THIS PROPERTY.
UM, AND SO YOU CAN SEE THAT EVEN THOUGH WE ARE REQUESTING RELIEF OF TWO VERSUS, UH, TWO TO THREE STORIES OR THREE TO FOUR STORIES, IT'S STILL WITHIN THE SAME ENVELOPE, UM, IN THE, UH, 25 TO 50 FOOT SETBACK AREA, UM, IT'S ALLOWED TO BE, UM, TWO FEET OR, UH, OR TWO STORIES OR, OR, OR 30 FEET.
AND WE THINK THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT IN PARKING PLUS TWO LEVELS IN THAT SAME HEIGHT.
[00:55:01]
HEIGHT IS BEING REQUESTED.WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CONFORM WITH COMPATIBILITY SETBACK, ESPECIALLY ON THE NEIGHBOR'S SIDE.
SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT YOU ARE FIVE MINUTES ARE UP.
DID YOU JUST WANNA QUICKLY FINISH YOUR LAST SENTENCE JUST TO, YEAH.
UM, WE THINK IT'S VITAL TO TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS.
I THINK WE'VE TRIED TO ADDRESS MANY OF THEM.
WE'RE CONTINUING TO TALK WITH THEM.
UM, THERE'S A LETTER FROM THEM, UH, FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD, UH, WE'RE PRESENTING NEXT MONTH TO THEM ADDITIONALLY, AND THIS IS AN ONGOING EFFORT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? NOPE.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION VIRTUALLY ELAINE, ELAINE.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION VIRTUALLY? NO, THERE'S NOT.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, MOVE TO QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS.
AND WE'LL START WITH, UH, BOARD MEMBER OF RONALD OLIN.
WE'LL DO, UH, SINCE SEEMS EVERYBODY HAS A QUESTION.
I'LL START WITH THE MEMBERS ON THE DIAS AND THEN WE'LL MOVE TO THE VIRTUAL MEMBERS, BUT BOARD MEMBER, RONALD OLIN, I'M GONNA MOVE THIS ALONG REAL QUICK AND I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE.
ONE IS, I THINK HE'S GOT A LEGITIMATE HARDSHIP ON THE, UH, SHAPE OF THE LOT AND EVERYTHING, BUT HE DID EXPRESS SEVERAL TIMES.
HE'S GOT AN, THEY HAVE ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WITH THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GONNA BE IMPACTED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT HERE.
AND SO HAVING HEARD THAT, I THINK IT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAT THOSE THINGS ISSUES GET RESOLVED BEFORE WE START DISCUSSING THIS, AND WE'RE GONNA BE ASKING A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I KNOW THIS BOARD IS NORM DOES NORMALLY IS ASK THEM IF THEY'VE HAD THEIR DISCUSSIONS AND IT'S TAKEN IT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO SEEING THAT, THAT IS STILL A PROCESS THAT IS ACTIVE, I WOULD LIKE TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER HE, HE TAKES IT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND THE, THE IMPACTED PEOPLE AND BRING IT BACK TO US.
AND ALSO I, WHILE I GOT THE FLOOR, I ON PAGE 36 OF 39, ITEM FIVE OF 36, I THINK THAT ENTRY AND ENTRANCE IS PROBABLY GONNA SERVE HIM MUCH BETTER, UH, HAVING AN ENTRANCE ON
I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE A SECOND.
I JUST I'LL SECOND THAT, OKAY.
UH, WAS THAT, WAS THAT VICE CHERYL HAWTHORNE? YEAH.
SO HE'S SHOWING ALL THESE LEVELS, INCLUDING PARKING BEING ONLY 10 FOOT, INCLUDING EVERYTHING, ALL THE MECHANICAL, ALL EVERYTHING.
IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE, ESPECIALLY WITH CARS, TRUCKS, LIKE I KNOW, I THINK YOUR ONE TRUCK IS TALLER THAN 10 FEET.
WELL, I ACTUALLY LET THAT TRUCK GO, BUT MY, MY LITTLE 55 CAN GET UNDER THERE.
UM, YEAH, SOME TRUCKS, UH, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE THOSE BARS ACROSS, LIKE WHAT WE HAVE DOWNSTAIRS HERE, RIGHT? BECAUSE A, A LIFTED TRUCK WITH A HEADACHE RACK PROBABLY WOULDN'T GET IN THERE, BUT IS TIN HAD EVEN ENOUGH FOR ALL THE LEVELS OF THE APARTMENT BUILT OR THE CON WHATEVER THEY'RE GONNA BE? THE LIVING UNITS.
YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SEVEN FOOT CLEAR IN A GARAGE, RIGHT.
THAT INCLUDES ANY STRUCTURAL MEMBERS, SPRINKLER HEADS, SEVEN FOOT CLEAR IS YOUR, AND UNLESS YOU HAVE A VAN SPACE AND THEN THE VAN SPACE NEEDS 14 FOOT.
FOR HANDICAP, MY TRUCK
I THINK I SAW, UH, BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR'S HAND GO UP FIRST.
I REALLY DO SUPPORT A POSTPONEMENT ON THIS BECAUSE, UM, I KNOW THIS AREA WELL, AND I LOOKED AT YOUR PRESENTATION.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS YOU TALK ABOUT IS THE COMPATIBILITY SETBACK FROM GUADALUPE, WHICH YOU'RE ADDRESSING IT ON GUADALUPE, BUT DIRECTLY ACROSS GUADALUPE IS NOT THE ZONING THAT CAUSES COMPATIBILITY.
SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS YOU NEED TO LOOK INTO, ESPECIALLY LIKE THAT COMPATIBILITY ON GUADALUPE.
AND I THINK THAT WE GOT A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM, WE GOT FEEDBACK FROM TWO SOURCES, UH, A GROUP THAT LIKES TO SEE NEW
[01:00:01]
REDEVELOPMENT AND A LOT OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE VERY CLOSE TO THE PROJECT IN MODEST HOMES WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SCALE OF IT.SO IF YOU ARE MEETING, I URGE YOU TO MEET WITH ALL THE PEOPLE AND THEN TO REVISIT THE CITY AND ASK THEM ABOUT THAT COMPATIBILITY SETBACK ON GUADALUPE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT BORDERING RESIDENTIAL.
MAY I RESPOND? UH, WAS THAT A QUESTION BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR? UM, IT'S A SUGGESTION.
YOU CAN YOU, UM, WE HAVE SPOKEN TO THE CITY, UM, THE CITY OF, AS LONG AS WE APPLY, UH, COMPLY WITH UTILITIES IS OKAY WITH THIS PROPOSITION.
UH, THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE GUANG GUADALUPE IS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE THAT ACTUALLY COMPATIBILITY AFFECTS THE BACKSIDE OF THIS PROPERTY.
UH, IT'S NOT THE NEIGHBOR, THE ACROSS THE STREET LOT.
THAT'S AFFECTING GUADALUPE SIDE.
SO IT'S 10 64, UM, THE 25 TO 10 64, WHICH SAYS THAT YOU'RE ADJACENT PROPERTY, THAT, THAT 25 FOOT CARRIES OVER IF YOU'RE ADJACENT.
THAT WHAT YOU'RE IS ELAINE, IS THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE SO.
WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE ASKING RELIEF FROM.
WHAT OTHER, UH, BOARD MEMBER BAILING, AND ALSO, YOU SAID YOUR UNDERGROUND GARAGE IS, IS PARKING IS COMPLETELY OPEN TO THE NEIGHBOR.
IT'S ALSO RIGHT UP AGAINST THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO I WOULD BE VERY CAREFUL ON HOW YOU SCREEN THAT.
UM, BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO AFFECT YOUR NEIGHBORS A LOT BY BEING, YOU KNOW, PARKED RIGHT UP AGAINST THEIR FENCE LINE.
THE OTHER THING IS, YES, YOU HAD A NOTE FROM ONE PERSON THAT'S ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD WHO SAID THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT, BUT THEY HADN'T MET WITH YOU YET.
SO THAT'S NOT REALLY A LETTER OF SUPPORT.
IT'S A, MAYBE ONCE YOU MEET WITH THEM.
SO I WOULD DEFINITELY MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AS A WHOLE, NOT JUST ONE PERSON.
WELL, WE DO HAVE A, A MOTION TO POSTPONE WILL OCTOBER 10TH, WORK FOR EVERYBODY, OR THAT'S A LOT OF, OR WE JUST POSTPONING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I DID HAVE, I DID HAVE ONE COMMENT, UH, FOR THAT APPLICANT, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE BEFORE WE VOTE.
SO WHAT I REALLY THINK THAT YOU ALL TO DO IS YOU COMPATIBILITY COMES IN AND IT SAYS TWO STORIES, 30 FEET AND HEIGHT, THREE STORIES, 40 FEET AND HEIGHT.
AND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS TAKE THE 30 FEET OR THE 40 FEET THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED, I THINK, AND JUST HAVE AN ADDITIONAL STORY WITHIN THAT VOLUME.
AND IF THE AREA THAT YOU'RE REALLY SAYING THAT YOU WANT, THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT THE MECHANICAL ON SCREEN, THE MECHANICAL YOU MIGHT WANNA DO BETTER, UM, SOMEHOW WHERE, WHERE THERE'S THAT LIMITATION IN WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SCREEN AND, AND HOW THAT'S GONNA LOOK.
UM, ODDLY THERE IS A LITTLE, THERE'S A LITTLE BUILDING DOWN, UH, AT THE CORNER OF SIX IN LAMAR, WHERE BY GEORGE AND, AND IT HAS A VERY INTERESTING, UM, CONFIGURATION WHERE IT HAS PARKING AND THEN IT, IT HAS SOME UNITS.
NOW, GRANTED, THEY'RE NOT RESIDENTIAL, BUT IT IS WELL SCREENED FROM THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR NOW IS LIKED, UM, THAT AS A, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU HAVE A SHALLOW SIDE AND YOU HAVE COMPATIBILITY FROM THE BACK THAT YOU, YOU WERE SCREENING AGAINST LIGHTING AND SUCH.
AND IF YOU HAVE AN OPEN GARAGE, YOU'RE GONNA LIGHT THAT FOR SAFETY PURPOSES.
AND IF IT'S ADJACENT TO SOMEBODY'S HOUSE, THAT'S, THAT'S PRETTY SIGNIFICANT.
AND THE ONLY THING THAT THE CODE REQUIRES YOU TO HAVE BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU IS A SIX FOOT CRAPPY WOODEN FENCE, SORRY FOR MY DESCRIPTIVE WORDS, BUT WE COULD DO BETTER THAN THAT.
UM, SO I WOULD SAY IF YOU'RE TRYING TO ADD VOLUME TO AN ENVELOPE THAT YOU'RE ALREADY ALLOWED, AND IF THE FACT THAT YOU'RE MOVING THE RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY SETBACK AROUND, YOU'RE NOT TRIGGERED FROM ACROSS THE STREET, THAT IT'S ACTUALLY FROM THE ADJACENT CUZ YOU HAVE TO CARRY IT FORWARD ON THAT STREET.
THOSE THINGS MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO YOU.
[01:05:01]
I, I WOULD SAY I DO THIS ALL DAY LONG AND YOUR PRESENTATION ISN'T IS, I MEAN, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S PRELIMINARY BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANNA, YOU DON'T WANNA INVEST A LOT UNTIL YOU, YOU GET THERE.IT IS A LITTLE CONFUSING THOUGH.
SO THIS IS A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO OCTOBER 10TH, 2022 MADE BY BOARD MEMBER V OLAND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE.
MAYBE IT'S THIN ONE, BUT I DO SEE IT.
AND I WOULD ARGUE AS ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT LIVES IN A TOWN HOME AND CONDO COMMUNITY THAT WE CAN BE AS EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE, IF NOT MORE SO THAN SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS WHO LIVE IN TRADITIONAL MODEST SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
THAT'S POSTPONED TO OCTOBER 10TH AND JUST QUICKLY.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY SAID THERE WASN'T A HARDSHIP.
THERE'S JUST ISSUES WITH WHAT HE'S PRESENTED.
[6. C15-2022-0043 Lisa Gray for Red Door LLC 509 E. 38th Street]
SIX C 15 20 22 0 0 4 3.AND YOU DO NOT LOOK LIKE LISA GRAY.
UH, YOU IS THIS ROUTINE IF WE COULD GET THE PRESENTATION UP.
UM, MY NAME IS ERIC GOFF AND I'M IN THE PACKET AS THE AGENT FOR LISA GRAY AND RED DOOR.
UM, BUT SHE FILED IT INITIALLY WITHOUT MY NAME ON IT.
UM, SO THIS HAS BEEN POSTPONED A COUPLE TIMES, SO I WANT TO GO THROUGH THE BACKGROUND TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE EVERYTHING YOU NEED.
UM, WE HAVE A CORNER LOT, UH, ON 38TH AND LIBERTY STREET THAT'S JUST OVER 14,000 SQUARE FEET.
IT HAS A HOME THAT WAS BUILT IN 1954.
I'VE GOT PICTURES OF THE EXTERIOR INTERIOR LATER ON.
AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS TO SUBDIVIDE THE LOT BETWEEN, UM, INTO TWO NEW LOTS THAT CAN, UM, BE, UM, PRESERVE THE EXISTING HOME.
UM, SO LOT ONE FACES 38TH STREET, AND LOT TWO WILL FACE LIBERTY STREET.
AND BOTH OF THOSE ALREADY HAVE AN EXISTING CURB.
SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS, UM, A ISSUE WITH THE SETBACK, UH, BETWEEN LOT ONE AND LOT TWO, UM, IN ORDER TO HAVE A 50 FOOT STREET FRONTAGE ON LIBERTY STREET AND, UM, SUBDIVIDE THE HOMES TO KEEP THE EXISTING HOME.
WE NEED A ONE FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE SETBACK FROM THE EXISTING HOME TO THE NEW LOT AND LOT TOO.
THERE'S, UH, IT'S EIGHT INCHES TOO FAR FORWARD, AND WE'RE RUNNING UP TO OUR FOOT TO BE SAFE WHEN WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE, NEXT SLIDE HERE ARE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND HARDSHIP.
UM, A SUBDIVISION WOULD REQUIRE THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 1954 HOUSE WITHOUT THIS.
THAT IS, THIS HOUSE IS REPRESENTED OF THE AREA CHARACTER AND THE SCALE.
UM, THE HARDSHIP IS THAT THE PROPERTY INCLUDES THE 1954 HOME.
THAT IS TYPICAL FOR THE AREA AND WORTH PRESERVING.
UH, THE PLACEMENT THAT HAS BY EIGHT INCHES PRESENTS A CHALLENGE THAT NOT ALL LOTS IN THE AREA SHARE, UM, A ONE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE SETBACK WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF ANY SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
UM, SO IF A VARIANCE IS GRANTED, IT WILL ALLOW THE HOUSE TO STAY AS IS AND, UH, EXIST IN THE FUTURE.
AND IF NOT, THEN IN ORDER TO, TO DO THE SUBDIVISION, UH, IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE EXISTING HOME BE DEMOLISHED.
UM, WE HAVE IN OUR BACKUP, UM, A LETTER FROM THE SUBDIVISION OFFICIAL THAT SAYS THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO SEE THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IN ORDER TO PROVE THE SUBDIVISION.
WE HAVE SOME PICTURES OF THE HOME ON THIS SLIDE, AS WELL AS ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
UM, SO YOU CAN SEE THE EXTERIOR AND
[01:10:01]
INTERIOR OF THE HOME IT'S, UM, MODERN HOME THAT'S, UM, ON THE INTERIOR BUILT, UM, IN THE AREA CHARACTER IN THE EXTERIOR.UH, NEXT SLIDE, WE HAVE A LETTER FROM PRESERVATION AUSTIN.
UM, THIS IS HERE, IT'S ALSO IN YOUR BACK MATERIAL.
IF YOU WANT TO SEE IT IN DETAIL, IF THAT'S NOT BIG ENOUGH FOR YOU.
UM, AND IT WAS THE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF, UM, PRESERVATION AUSTIN OF THE ADVOCACY COMMITTEE.
AND THE NEXT SLIDE IS OUR SUMMARY.
UM, SO WE'RE ASKING TO SUB PROVIDE THIS QUARTER LOT AT A TWO LOTS, THE NEW LOCK MEETS CODE, UM, BUT DUE TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE EXIST, THE EXISTING HOUSE IN LOT ONE, WE'RE REQUESTING A ONE FOOT VARIANCE OF THE REAR SETBACK TO PRESERVE THE HOME.
UM, AND WITHOUT THE VARIANCE, THE SUBDIVISION COULD BE APPROVED.
UM, BUT ONLY AFTER THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING HOME, WE HAD SOME QUESTIONS LAST TIME ABOUT, UH, NEIGHBORS SUPPORT AND OUTREACH.
SO YOU SHOULD HAVE THIS MATERIAL IN YOUR BACKUP THAT WAS LATE FILED.
IF YOU DON'T, I'VE GOT A COPY FOR YOU.
UM, WE SPOKE WITH THE, UH, THE NEIGHBORS THAT WE COULD REACH.
UH, ONE OF THE ONES THAT INITIALLY FILED CONCERNS AT 5 0 2 TEXAS AVENUE IS SUPPORTIVE.
UH, THE ONE, UM, AT THAT'S IN RED THERE CONTINUES TO OPPOSE HER PREFERENCE IS TO NOT HAVE ANY ACCESS ON LIBERTY STREET.
FROM WHAT WE UNDERSTAND, UM, 30 IS A DRIVEWAY ON LIBERTY STREET FOR, FOR THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY.
AND IF WE WERE TO SUBDIVIDE THE, THE LOT IN A WAY THAT WOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS LIBERTY STREET, IT WOULD RESULT IN THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING HOME.
CUZ WE HAVE TO GO DOWN THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THAT EXISTING HOME.
UH, THAT SAID THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
I GOTTA STOP LOOKING RIGHT FIRST, EVERY TIME I SAY THAT BOARD MEMBER OF ONLIN
I THINK IT'S UNREASONABLE TO DEMO THE HOUSE FOR 10 INCHES AND I THINK IT IS, UH, IT IT'LL INCREASE A LITTLE BIT OF HOUSING IN AUSTIN, EVEN THE MINUSCULE AS IT IS, BUT I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
I'LL SECOND THAT PLUS I LIKE THE HOUSE, THE LOOK AT THE OLD HOUSE.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT THE HOUSE ON THE LOT IS NOT DEMOLISHED THAT THERE'S NO DEMOLITION PERMIT FILED FOR IT, EXCEPT IT.
AND JUST QUICKLY, I MEAN, THIS IS JUST MORE OF A COMMENT, CUZ IT'S CURIOUS.
I KNOW THAT IT, IT IT'S KIND OF TAKEN A FLAG LOT CONFIGURATION.
YEAH, I KNOW THAT WAS TO GET THE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO MAKE IT A BUILDABLE LOT, BUT HOW CAN WE MAKE THAT NOT BECOME A DEAD ZONE OR IS THAT GONNA END UP BECOMING PART OF THE FRONT LOT? UM, MEAN AS FAR AS THE FRONT LOT WILL BE THERE, THERE MAY HAVE TO BE AN EASEMENT ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES, BUT UH, IT'S NOT AN OFFICIAL FLAG LOT.
UH THERE'S I KNOW IT'S NOT BECAUSE THERE'S NO ACCESS.
BUT, BUT IT JUST SEEMS TO ME LIKE THAT'S GONNA BE AN UN, EVEN THOUGH IT'S OWNED BY THAT OTHER LOT, WHO'S GONNA MAINTAIN IT.
I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS, BUT THAT'S JUST A VERY AWKWARD SITUATION FOR SOMEBODY THAT MAYBE BUYS IT FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD THAT DOESN'T UNDERSTAND.
UH, I THINK WE HAD TO DO THAT IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING HOME BOARD MEMBER PER I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS JUST SORT OF, AND, AND MAYBE THIS ONE, MAYBE MY SECOND QUESTION'S FOR LEGAL, BUT I WANTED TO GET MR. GOFF'S, UH, VIEWPOINT ON THIS, GIVEN HIS, UH, HIS HISTORY, UH, INVOLVING INVOLVED WITH THESE THINGS, ARE WE REQUIRED TO FIND A HARDSHIP AS TO THIS ENTIRE PIECE OF PROPERTY BEFORE IT'S SUBDIVIDED OR AS TO YOUR PROPOSED LOT ONE OR YOUR PROPOSED LOT TWO OR SOMETHING DIFFERENT? THE QUESTION I I'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL ADVISE YOU, BUT MY PERSPECTIVE ON THAT IS THAT THIS IS A VARIANCE FOR THE, UM, PROPERTY THAT EXISTS BEFORE YOU.
AND SO, UM, THE PROPERTY HAS, IT'S LARGE ENOUGH TO UNDERGO SUBDIVISION.
AND SO IF YOU, YOU HAVE A CHOICE OF WHAT SORT OF SUBDIVISION YOU WANT IT TO WHAT WANT TO OCCUR, UH, BUT IT'S THE HARDSHIP RELATES TO THIS PROPERTY'S EXISTING, RIGHT? FOR SUBDIVISION.
WELL, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE SORT OF MORE, UH, I GUESS ACADEMIC QUESTION FROM MY STANDPOINT WOULD BE YOU, YOU, I'M NOT SURE THERE'S A HARDSHIP IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU WANT TO DO THERE, THERE'S A HARDSHIP.
[01:15:01]
THIS SUBDIVISION, I'M NOT, AND I'M NOT CLEAR WHY YOU NEED OR WANT TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY.I GUESS THAT'S THE OTHER, THE OTHER ISSUE THERE.
UM, THERE'S A, UH, RIGHT TO SUBDIVIDE A PROPERTY OF THIS SIZE, UM, IN THE EXISTING CODE.
AND SO, UM, THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE PURSUING THAT, RIGHT, BUT THEY WOULD PREFER TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING HOME.
AND, AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT, THIS ONE FOOT SETBACK, UH, ON THIS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD BE REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR THE SUBDIVISION OFFICIAL TO APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION.
THEY COULDN'T APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION, BUT FOR THE VARIANCE OR THE DEMOLITION.
I APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THAT.
AND IF I COULD JUST JUMP IN REAL QUICK, UH, YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING? NO.
JUST WANTED TO CHECK WITH LEGAL TO MAKE SURE WHEN YOU NEED TO ADD ANYTHING, UH, OTHER HANDS, NO REASONABLE USE.
UH, SO LET'S HEAR THE FINDINGS.
YOU CAN ALWAYS TELL WHEN A FORMER COMMISSIONER HAS DONE THIS BEFORE, BECAUSE THE FINDINGS ARE EASY TO WORK WITH.
THE LOT SIZE IS LARGE ENOUGH TO ALLOW A SUBDIVISION.
BUT FOR THIS SITE, THE PLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING 1954 HOME WOULD BE 10 INCHES INTO THE NEW REQUIRED SETBACK HARDSHIP.
THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT THE PROPERTY IS TWICE THE SIZE OF MANY OTHER LOTS IN THE AREA AND HAS FRONTAGE ON TWO STREETS.
THE PLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING HOME BUILT IN 1954 IS 10 INCHES FROM THE, FROM A PLACEMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW REASONABLE AND LEGAL USE FOR THE PROPERTY SUBDIVISION.
THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, BECAUSE THIS IS A LARGE LOT, HAS FRONTAGE ON TWO STREETS AND TWO CHARACTERISTICS.
MANY OF THE AREA PROPERTIES DO NOT HAVE THE ORIGINAL PLACEMENT OF THE 54 HOME.
AGAIN IS ONLY EIGHT INCHES AWAY FROM THE PLACEMENT THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE AREA.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE, THE ADJACENT WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE SEVERAL OF THE PROPERTIES WITHIN BLOCKS ARE NOT COM WELL, I'M NOT GONNA GO THERE ONCE THE PROPERTY IS SUBDIVIDED, IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE MORE SIMILAR AND TO THE SIZES AND THE SURROUNDING LOTS IN THE AREA.
AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY A BOARD MEMBER OF LIN SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR, HAWTHORNE, TOMMY.
AND I JUST WANNA ADD REALLY QUICK.
I LOVE THAT YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO PRESERVE THAT ORIGINAL HOME BECAUSE I SAY IT ALL THE TIME.
THE PROBLEM WE HAVE, NOT JUST HERE IN AUSTIN, BUT OTHER PARTS OF TEXAS IS WE DON'T HAVE ANY HISTORY BECAUSE WE KEEP KNOCKING IT DOWN.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT MY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WAS INCLUDED IN I, SORRY, DO I? YES, IT WAS RESTATE THAT.
I'M GONNA NEED TO RESTATE THE MOTION AND START OVER.
SO THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY A BOARD MEMBER V OLAND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR, HAWTHORNE WITH A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, NOT TO DEMOLISH THE CURRENT HOUSE.
AND DOES IT BE DON'T DEMOLISH IT OR NO DEMO PERMIT CAN BE RELEASED.
HOW DOES THAT NEED TO BE WORDED DEMOLITION PERMIT? IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE PHRASED.
NO DEMOLITION PERMIT WILL BE RELEASED ON THE CURRENT HOUSE.
NO NOTE THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT QUITE DO YOU HAVE MAKE WORDING FOR THAT? UM, UM, I, I THINK YOU NEED TO MAKE CLEAR THE INTENT IS THAT THAT THE HOUSE WILL REMAIN.
AND THE PROBLEM IS, IS WHEN YOU DO SOME KIND OF RESIDENTIAL PERMIT, EVEN IF YOU ARE JUST PUTTING A DOOR OR WINDOW IN, IF THEY GO TO REMODEL THAT HOUSE, THEY'LL MAKE 'EM FILE A DEMO APPLICATION TO PUNCH A HOLE AT THE WALL.
SO I, I THINK IT YOU'RE, I THINK IT, YOU NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT
[01:20:01]
THE HOUSE IS TO REMAIN WHILE IT, IT MAY BE ALTERED.IT, IT, IT IS NOT A, UM, MAYBE SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF THE EXTERNAL SKIN, UH, REMAINING RELATIVELY THE SAME OR INTACT.
ACTUALLY, I THINK WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST MELISSA IS WE'VE, WE'VE MADE THE STATEMENT THAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS TO MAINTAIN IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION, IF THEY WANT TO REMODEL INSIDE, BUT THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT TO DO SO.
BUT THAT ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IS TO REMAIN ON THE PROPERTY.
THE, YEAH, THEIR ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IS TO REMAIN AND, YOU KNOW, BY GRADING THIS VARIANCE REALLY YOU'RE THE, YOUR GRADING A VARIANCE BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES.
SO IT, IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY AFFECT AREA CHARACTER AS MUCH AS IT DOES THESE TWO PROPERTIES.
SO WOULD WE WANT TO WORD THIS? UH, NO DEMOLITION PERMIT WILL BE RELEASED ON THE CURRENT HOUSE, UH, THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURES TO REMAIN AND MAINTAIN THE ORIGINAL CHARACTERISTICS.
WELL, CAN CAN'T WE JUST SAY THAT THE SETBACK VARIANCE RELATES TO THIS EXISTING STRUCTURE, THAT IF THAT EXISTING STRUCTURE GOES AWAY, THE SETBACK VARIANCE GOES AWAY.
SO THAT'S WHY HE'S AN ATTORNEY.
SO I'M GONNA, UH, SO BOARD MEMBER MCARTHUR, THAT WAS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
DO YOU WANT TO ACCEPT THE REWORDING? CAN WE JUST DO IT THAT WAY FOR HER TO ACCEPT THE REWORDING ON THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? YES.
SO FROM THAT LATEST, UH, ITERATION, I UNDERSTAND SOMEONE COULD COME IN AND DEMOLISH THE HOME AND BASICALLY REBUILD TO CODE TO CODE.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING THERE? SO THAT'S SORT OF A DIFFERENT IDEA THAT I THOUGHT WAS BEING PROPOSED.
NO, BUT THE IDEA OF BEING PROPOSED WAS THAT THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE WOULD REMAIN.
AND NOW WE'RE SAYING, IF IT, YOU CAN TEAR IT DOWN, YOU JUST HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO, UH, REBUILD OR CODE.
YEAH, I WAS, I WAS, I WAS SUGGESTING SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF MY LANGUAGE, AS IN ADDITION TO THAT, NOT IN LIEU OF I'M SORRY.
I WASN'T REAL CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
SO THEN LET'S, LET'S START BACK OVER ON THIS REAL QUICK.
UM, CERTAINLY ARE MAKING A, A, A INTERESTING MOMENT OF THIS
SO THE INTENT IS NOT TO, TO DEMO THE CURRENT HOUSE.
SO WE WANNA TIE IT TO THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, RIGHT? HOW DO WE PHRASE THAT? AND STILL ALLOW HIM TO MAKE MINOR MODIFICATIONS, LIKE TWO WINDOWS OR DOORS.
SO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE MUST REMAIN FOR THE VARIANCE TO REMAIN IN PLACE.
AND THEN YOU'RE NOT SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT A DEMO PERMIT.
IF THEY WANNA REPLACE A DOOR OR POP OUT A WINDOW, THE VARIANCE IS CONTINGENT ON THE, ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE REMAINING ELAINE, AS WE HAVE TO DO CLARIFICATIONS FROM TIME TO TIME, IS THAT LANGUAGE, DO YOU THINK CLEAR, HE JUST GOT BACK TO HER DESK.
CAN YOU REPEAT THAT FOR HER PLEASE? WE'RE DOING THE AMENDMENT AND WE'RE TRYING TO DO IT WHERE IT WON'T PRECLUDE THEM, YOU KNOW, DOING SOME REPAIR WORK WHERE THERE MIGHT BE A SMALL DEMOLITION PERMIT FOR NEW WINDOWS OR SOMETHING.
SO, UM, HOW IS, UM, THE VARIANCE IS CONTINGENT ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE REMAINING.
AND ACTUALLY BOOK, I THINK THAT'S GONNA BE ACCURATE BECAUSE THEY COULD DEMO THE HOUSE NOW AND BUILD A BUILDING.
BUT THEY'RE THE, THE DESIRE IS TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE, RIGHT.
SO THEY, IF THEY DEMO THE OTHER STRUCTURE, YES.
THE VARIANTS GOES AWAY, GOES AWAY.
THEN THEY CANNOT FIT THE TWO STRUCTURES ON THERE.
SO I THINK THE, THAT LANGUAGE WOULD BE MORE AND IT'S SIMPLE, ACCURATE, AND IT'S SIMPLE.
AND IT, AND IT DOESN'T STOP THEM FROM REMODELING IF THEY WANNA DO SOME, YOU KNOW, SOME WORK ON IT.
BUT THEN I, I DON'T KNOW, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT I'M ASSUMING AS LONG AS THEY CAN ALTER IT, IF THEY'RE ALLOWED TO ALTER IT.
I, I REALLY, I, I DON'T, WELL, THAT'S WHY I, WE WANTED TO TAKE OUT THE WORDING ABOUT A DEMOLITION PERMIT BECAUSE AS MELISSA SAID, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF YOU WANNA DO A SMALL EDITION OR ADD WINDOWS OR
[01:25:01]
SOMETHING, YOU HAVE TO REPLY FOR A DEMOLITION PERMIT AND RIGHT.SO, BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE YOU COULD SAY A TOTAL DEMO, CUZ A TOTAL DEMO WOULD MEAN, YEAH, THEY WOULD TOTALLY DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE, BUT THAT WORD COULD GET LOST.
I THINK IT'S EASIER JUST SAYING THAT, STAY AWAY FROM THAT, THAT STRUCTURE HAS TO REMAIN FOR THE VARIANCE TO STAY IN PLACE.
IF THAT STRUCTURE IS EVER REMOVED THAN THE VARIANCE IS REMOVED.
IS THAT PHRASING DOABLE? I THINK THE VARIOUS UPON STRUCTURE REMAINING.
SO THEN THE MOTION WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE WITH A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, UH, THAT THE VARIANCE IS CONTINGENT ON THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE REMAINING.
IS EVERYONE OKAY WITH THAT? ANY OBJECTION? OKAY.
BY THE WAY, ERIC, YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB OF, OF, OF SETTING AN EXAMPLE OF LESS IS MORE.
I LOVE HOW YOU'RE JUST STANDING THERE.
I ALMOST ASKED HIM FOR HIS ADVICE ON IT.
CARRIE WALLER AND KELLY BLOOM.
THANK YOU SO MUCH GORDON FOR COMING BACK AND BEING PATIENT.
IT'S NICE TO SEE YOUR, YOU TOO.
[7. C15-2022-0046 Ricca Keepers for Leslie Socha 1101 Quaker Ridge Drive]
C 15 20 22 0 0 4 6.UH, RICKA KEEPERS FOR LI SOHA SOHA.
I HOPE 1101 QUAKER RIDGE DRIVE.
UH, GIVE US JUST A SECOND TO GET YOUR PRESENTATION PULLED UP.
UH, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
UM, SO I AM THE AGENT FOR THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
I DO WANNA SAY THIS WAS A POSTPONEMENT FROM LAST MONTH, SO I WILL ANSWER ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS THAT YOU HAD AND RECOMMENDATIONS YOU HAD.
WE TOOK THEM AND WE GOT THEM ALL FINISHED.
SO I WAS REALLY GLAD WE HAD ENOUGH TIME FOR THAT.
UM, SO WE'RE HERE TO REQUEST A VARIANCE FOR QUAKER RICH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
UM, CASE NUMBER AS YOU KNOW, C 15, 2020 2 0 0 46, THE OWNER'S LESLIE, UM, JEFFREY AND LESLIE SOHA AND THEN PRESENTER.
SO I'M NOT GONNA READ ALL OF THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE QUITE A FEW LINES, BUT WE ARE REQUESTING VARIANCE FROM, UM, SECTION 25 DASH TWO DASH 4 92 OF THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
UM, AS IT PERTAINS TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO DECREASE THE MINIMUM STRAIGHT YARD, UH, STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 15 FEET TO 10 FEET, FEET TO 10 FEET.
UM, IN ORDER TO ERECT AN ADDITION ABOVE THE GARAGE TO SINGLE FAMILY TWO, UH, ZONING, THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS THERE ARE, AND WE'LL SHOW YOU A SURVEY IN A MINUTE, BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL LARGE OAK TREES THAT ON MULTIPLE SIDES OF THE HOME, UM, PRETTY MUCH LOCKING IN, IN ADDITIONS, ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE PROPERTY.
UH, THE HOUSE BACKS UP TO A BEAUTIFUL WALKING TRAIL PARK AND PARK.
IT IS BEAUTIFUL AND THE OWNERS ARE HOPING TO NOT TO AVOID OBSCURING THAT OR ADDING TO THE BACKYARD FOR TREE REASONS.
UM, THERE IS CURRENTLY A TWO, A TWO STORY HOME.
UH, CURRENT HOUSE IS TWO STORIES.
PROPOSED ADDITION WILL BE, UM, NO HIGHER THAN THE EXISTING HEIGHT OF THE HOME.
CURRENTLY HOUSE IS ON A CORNER LOT.
UH, SO CORNER LOT SETBACKS ARE SIGNIFICANT, UM, SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM AN INTERIOR LOT, UH, RESULTING IN LESS AREA AND BACK
[01:30:01]
INSIDE YARD TO, TO BUILD ON NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.I'M GONNA SHOW LOTS OF VISUALS.
UM, THIS IS JUST TO GET YOU, UM, ORIENTED WHERE THE GARAGE IS AS, AS IT PERTAINS TO THE STREET.
AND THIS GIVES YOU A BETTER VIEW OF WHERE THE ADDITION WOULD BE, UM, RIGHT ABOVE THE GARAGE AND TO, UM, TO, WELL NEXT SLIDE.
SO THIS SHOWS YOU THE ENTIRE GARAGE, UM, AS WELL AS THE HEIGHT, THE CURRENT HOUSE, NEXT SLIDE.
THIS IS THE BACKYARD SHOWING THE FENCE IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, INCLUDES THE PARK AND THE WALKING TRAIL BEHIND THE HOUSE.
YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE RED, UH, THE 19 INCH RED OAK, UM, THAT PROHIBITS, UM, BUILDING IN THE BACK.
AND THERE WAS IN ADDITION TO ALL OF YOUR BACKUP INFORMATION, UM, A TREE REPORT, UM, SHOWING ALL OF THE TREES AND THAT THEY ARE IN REALLY GOOD HEALTH AND THE OWNERS REALLY WANT TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE ALL OF THOSE TREES.
SO THIS GIVES YOU AN AERIAL OF HOW CLOSE THEY ARE TO THE PARK, UM, TO BOULDER TRAIL PARK.
AND THEN THE, THE, THE WALKING TRAIL NEXT SLIDE.
AND THIS SHOWS YOU THE ROOT ZONES FOR EACH OF THOSE TREES AND WHERE THE HOUSE IS CURRENTLY.
UM, JUST TO GIVE YOU ORIENTATION, NEXT SLIDE YOU CAN SEE FROM THE IMAGE, THE BACKYARD LEAVES LITTLE ROOM FOR AN ADDITION, UM, BECAUSE OF THE PROTECTED TREES, SPECIFICALLY THE TREE IN THE COR BACK CORNER THAT WE'VE ALREADY MENTIONED.
UM, YOU SEE THAT WHERE IT IS, I DON'T NEED TO GO INTO FURTHER DETAIL THERE, NEXT SLIDE.
UM, BUT IT, IT REALLY DOES SHOW HOW ALL OF THE TREES ARE IN GOOD CONDITION AND, AND WE DON'T REALLY WANT TO ENCROACH ON THEIR CRITICAL ROOT ZONES AT ALL.
SO THESE ARE THE PROPOSED PLANS YOU GUYS DID RECOMMEND AND REQUEST.
UM, SO THIS TELLS YOU EXACTLY WHERE THEY'RE TRYING TO ADD ON NEXT SLIDE.
AND THIS SHOWS THE, WHAT, WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOME.
NOW, IF THEY WERE, THEY LOOKED AT DOING THIS FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND THEY THOUGHT ABOUT ADDING ON, BUT CUTTING OFF WHERE THE GARAGE, THE SET THE SETBACK LINE IS, BUT IT WOULD NOT LOOK RIGHT FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, THESE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE BEAUTIFUL.
THESE HOMES ARE BEAUTIFUL IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE IT FITS IN WELL WITH THE ACTUAL NEIGHBORHOOD AS, AS WELL.
AND SO THIS GIVES YOU ANOTHER ORIENTATION OF THE VIEW, NEXT SLIDE.
UM, I KNOW YOU GUYS HAD ALSO ASKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WAS AN ANNEXED AND, AND WHY, OH, WHY DID THE BUILDER FINISH? WHY DID THE BUILDER NOT, UM, ACTUALLY BUILD INSIDE THE SETBACK? SO REAL QUICK? YEAH.
UM, SO IT WAS ACTUALLY INSIDE THE ETJ AND NOT INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS WHEN THE HOME WAS ACTUALLY BUILT, BUT I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
OH, WHAT IF I WANNA BEAT YOU TO THIS ONE? THAT'S OKAY.
CAUSE I WAS SUPPORTED THIS LAST TIME.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
BASED ON YOUR FINDINGS AND WHAT I'VE SEEN HERE.
UH, THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THE, YEAH.
THE YEAR BUILT IN THE ANNEXATION.
SO THAT'S MOTION TO APPROVE MOTION TO APPROVE BY BOARD MEMBER OF VA OLAND.
I'LL SECOND, BUT LET'S DO QUESTIONS.
UH, COULD YOU BRING UP THE VIRTUAL BOARD? MEMBERS' FORMULA.
I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU CUZ IT SHOWED VERY CLEARLY THAT YOU'RE NOT CHANGING THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE.
AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT YOU BROUGHT BACK BOARD MEMBER THEM.
SO I WASN'T AT THE LAST MONTH'S MEETING, BUT I'M ACTUALLY STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT WITH THE HARDSHIP HERE BECAUSE IS THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPERTY PROHIBITING LIKE A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY? UM, THAT THAT'S WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH AND I'M ACTUALLY NOT SURE THAT I'VE REALLY COME TO A DECISION AT THIS POINT.
I MEAN, I KNOW I WASN'T PART OF THE DISCUSSION LAST TIME, BUT I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT EXACTLY IS THE HARDSHIP? I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S NOT THE
[01:35:01]
SHAPE OF THE, WELL, IT COULD BE THE SHAPE OF THE LOT, THE TREES, BUT I'M LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY AND I SEE, I SEE SPACE, I SEE THAT THE BUILDING IS ALREADY BUILT FURTHER AWAY OR FURTHER BACK FROM THE STREET THAN THE HOUSES TO THE SOUTH.SO THERE, THERE IS SQUARE FOOTAGE AVAILABLE HERE THAT THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE BUILDABLE.
I MEAN, AND, AND THE APPLICANT, YOU'RE WELCOME TO WEIGH IN ON THAT.
SO IF YOU'RE FACING THE HOME, THERE'S THIS REALLY BIG, BEAUTIFUL TREE THAT WOULD REALLY STOP THEM.
CUZ I THOUGHT THE SAME THING I THOUGHT, WELL, WOULDN'T BE GREAT IF YOU COULD JUST, YOU KNOW, ADD ON TO THE FRONT OF THE HOME SINCE THEY'RE REALLY, YOU KNOW, REALLY THEY'RE NOT LANDLOCKED, BUT THEY'RE HOUSE LOCKED, UM, SO TO SPEAK AND THEY JUST DON'T WANNA TOUCH THOSE TREES.
THEY'RE BIG, THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL.
I THINK IT WOULD, UM, POTENTIALLY DAMAGE THE TREES.
UM, AND SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO REALLY AVOID AND JUST GET THE, THE SETBACK FOR.
UM, AND AGAIN, THEY WERE TRYING TO ALSO, UH, LOOK AT BUILDING ON TOP OF THE GARAGE UNTIL THAT SETBACK ENDS UNTIL THAT SETBACK BEGINS, EXCUSE ME.
BUT IT WOULD JUST LOOK OFF PUTTING FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND SO WE WERE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE IT WOULD BLEND WELL WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO USE THEIR SPACE WITHOUT THAT HARDSHIP OF THE SETBACK.
SO, SO YOU COULD SAY THAT PART OF THE HARDSHIP IS THE FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL BUILDER DIDN'T BUILD WITHIN THE SETBACK.
SO YES MA'AM AT THAT'S A CORRECT STATEMENT.
WELL WE DO HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE OFF ON THE TABLE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER OF JUAN OLAND.
GO AHEAD AND READ THE FINDINGS PLEASE.
REASONABLE USE IS ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY, DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE THERE'S NOWHERE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO EXPAND IN THE FRONT OR THE BACK DUE TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND TREES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY.
HARDSHIP, THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT THIS IS A CORNER LOT AND THE SHAPING OF THE LOT, WHICH HAS DIFFERENT SETBACKS THAN AN INTERIOR LOT.
AND THIS LOT ALSO HAS MULTIPLE TREES THAT WILL NOT ALLOW THEM TO EXPAND ANYWHERE ELSE.
THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS LOT IS ON THE END OF A CUL-DE-SAC AND ALSO BACKS UP TO A PUB PUBLIC PARK AREA CHARACTER.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE BY BUILDING ON TOP OF THE GARAGES, IN ADDITION TO THE SECOND STORY, IT WILL ALLOW NEIGHBORS AND PROPERTY OWNERS TO CONTINUE TO USE, USE THEIR LAND IN EXACT WAY IT WAS USED BEFORE.
YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED.
THANKS FOR BRINGING BACK ALL THAT INFORMATION.
MY FAVORITE PEOPLE C 15 20 22 0 6.
[8. C15-2022-0060 Victoria Haase for CMCBH2 Company, LLC 1609 Matthews Lane]
THIS IS GOING TO BE VICTORIA EY FOR CM C BH TWO COMPANY 1 16 0 9 MATTHEWS LANE.BOARD MEMBERS, VICTORIA HASSI WITH THROWER DESIGN ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER.
UM, SO THIS, THIS FIRST MAP IN FRONT OF YOU GIVES YOU A BIRD BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF THE ESTABLISHED USES.
THERE'S A RAILROAD TO THE WEST.
THAT'S AT LEAST A HUNDRED FEET WIDE.
UM, THERE'S INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES TO THE SOUTH AND EAST.
THOSE ARE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CAUSING FOR US TO BE HERE TODAY.
AND THEN THERE'S A CHURCH WITH A CIVIC USE TO THE NORTH SIDE OF MATTHEW'S LANE.
SO THIS PICTURE IS TAKEN STANDING ON THE CHURCH PROPERTY, LOOKING SOUTH TOWARDS MATTHEW'S LANE.
THE SUBJECT TRACT IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE COLOR CODED ARROWS ABOVE.
SO VARIANCES, THE, THE VARIANCES WE'VE REQUESTED ARE NECESSARY TO BE ABLE TO REASONABLY USE THE PROPERTY, UH, AND DEVELOP IT WITH 10 UNITS AS WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL OVER A YEAR AGO.
UM, OUR ORIGINAL REQUEST WITH THE ZONING CASE WAS FOR MF THREE, WHICH WOULD'VE
[01:40:01]
ALLOWED 26 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH EQUATED TO ABOUT 15 UNITS FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE.HOWEVER, IN THE REZONING PROCESS, THERE WERE CONCESSIONS MADE AND COUNCIL ULTIMATELY APPROVED MF TWO, BUT THEY APPROVED MF TWO WITH A CONDITION THAT THE PROPERTY BE LIMITED TO 10 DWELLING UNITS, UM, AS THEY FELT WAS REASONABLY NECESSARY OR REASONABLY, UM, POSSIBLE AT THAT TIME.
AND THESE ARE A FEW EXAMPLES OF SITES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED MF TWO SITES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE, UH, SIMILAR TO THE DENSITY THAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE IF NOT GREATER.
AND SO THE SITE IS CHALLENGED WITH ACHIEVING REASONABLE USE DUE TO COMPATIBILITY, UH, IN SUMMARY COMPATIBILITY IS INTENDED TO PROTECT AND BUFFER SINGLE FAMILY USES FROM GREATER INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE.
HOWEVER TRIGGERING PROPERTIES HAVE LONGSTANDING COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE NOT IN NEED OF PROTECTIONS AND BUFFERS, UH, FROM A MULTI-FAMILY USE.
UM, SO IN ESSENCE, IT'S CREATING A SCENARIO, UH, WHERE WE'RE HERE ASKING FOR YOUR HELP AND THE IMPACT, UH, IN ADDITION TO HARDSHIPS, INCLUDING FOR HERITAGE TREES, CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE, PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS.
THE IMPACT IS THAT THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF BUILDABLE AREA LOST.
AND SPEAKING FURTHER ABOUT THE MATTER AT HEART, WHICH IS THE APPLICABILITY OF COMPATIBILITY FOR THIS SITE.
THE SUBJECT TRACT WAS INCLUDED ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHER PROPERTIES, INCLUDING THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES TO THE EAST AND SOUTH WHEN IT WAS ANNEXED IN NOVEMBER OF 1984.
AND JUST SIX WEEKS LATER, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED A CODE AMENDMENT THAT SAID THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE ZONING TO BE ASSIGNED TO PROPERTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR USE AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION.
SO HAD HAD THIS PROPERTY BEEN ANNEXED JUST SIX WEEKS LATER.
IT WOULD'VE BEEN ZONED COMMERCIAL AND WE WOULDN'T BE HERE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE.
UM, THE PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED.
UM, THIS IS A 1984 AERIAL AND THE PROPERTY YOU CAN SEE TO THE SOUTH AND THE EAST HAD THE, UM, STORAGE FACILITIES IN PLACE.
UM, PRIOR TO 1984, I THINK THE DATES EVEN GO BACK INTO THE SEVENTIES WHEN SOME OF THOSE BUILDINGS WERE DEVELOPED.
UM, SO IF APPROPRIATELY APPLIED, UM, IF COMPATIBILITY WAS APPROPRIATELY APPLIED, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE ASKING YOU FOR THESE VARIANCES.
UH, THE DEVELOPMENT, AS IT STANDS IS MORE THAN A 150 OR 130 FEET FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY USE TO THE EAST, WHICH IS THE CLOSEST AND IT'S WELL WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF ACHIEVING, UH, WHAT WELL WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF A COMPLYING WITH COMPATIBILITY IN TERMS OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HU TO THE EAST.
UM, YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS IMAGE SHOWS THE RED AREA WHERE THERE SHOULD BE NO BUILDING.
UH, THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING IS WITHIN THAT SETBACK, BUT IT WAS DEVELOPED BEFORE COMPATIBILITY APPLIED.
AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THE TWO STORY AREA IN YELLOW WHERE 30 FEET IS ALLOWED.
AND THEN THE GREEN AREA WHERE 30, 33 STORIES AND 40 FEET IS ALLOWED.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, OUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS BEYOND THAT IF COMPATIBILITY WERE APPLIED APPROPRIATELY.
SO JUST TO GIVE YOU A VERY QUICK SUMMARY, UH, THE EASIEST SUMMARY, THE AREA IN WHITE IS THE AREA THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENTS.
YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE VARIOUS SITE CONSTRAINTS ON THIS TRACT AND THE BREAKDOWN IN THE DEVELOPMENT AR IN THE DEVELOPABLE AREA MAKES IT SUCH THAT SIX, NEARLY 60% OF THIS SITE IS LOST, UM, TO DEVELOPMENT.
AND THAT IS WHAT IS, UM, KEEPING US FROM BEING ABLE TO REASONABLY USE THIS PROPERTY, UH, FOR 10 DWELLING UNITS, AS PROMISED AT THE LAST HEARING, UH, THE ARCHITECT, WE WORKED THE PLAN AND HE WAS ABLE TO FIND A WAY TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SETBACK.
AND IF I CAN JUST QUICKLY SHOW YOU SOME 3D RENDERINGS AND THERE'S ALSO A SIX FEET, UH, CHANGE IN TO SIX FEET OF TOPOGRAPHIC CHANGE BETWEEN THE NEAREST SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND THE SUBJECT TRACT AND LET'S STOP THERE.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? THERE'S ONE VIRTUALLY ONE VIRTUAL.
SO SPEAKER'S NAME IS KAREN FERNANDEZ.
ALL RIGHT, MS. FERNANDEZ, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE, SORRY, ONE SECOND.
LET ME DOUBLE CHECK MY TIME LIMITS FIVE MINUTES.
SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND START THE CLOCK WHEN YOU'RE READY.
[01:45:01]
OF THE MATH USUALLY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.AND I'D LIKE YOU TO NOTE THAT I'M SPEAKING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS EUGENE SUTTON, RUTH LAWYER AND DEREK CRANE.
EUGENE WAS THE PAST PRESIDENT OF ASSOCIATION AND HE CONTINUES TO SERVE ON THE OUTREACH COMMITTEE.
RUTH IS ALSO AN OFFICER AND OWNS A HOME ACROSS THE STREET ON MATTHEWS LANE, UM, ACROSS FROM THIS PROPERTY.
IN QUESTION, MR. CRANE IS THE LONG TIME OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, RIGHT NEXT DOOR THAT, UM, MS. HOKEY WAS JUST REFERENCING.
THEY SPOKE AT THE INITIAL HEARING IN JULY AND WE'RE PREPARED TO SPEAK AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT THEN THE POSTPONEMENT WAS REQUESTED FOR MISS EY AND THEY'RE ALL ON MUCH NEEDED VACATIONS.
WHEN THIS INITIAL ZONING REQUEST WAS SUBMITTED, I WAS SERVING AS THE SECRETARY WITH THE OUTREACH COMMITTEE, WE MET WITH MISS EY TO SHARE OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE AREA AND ITS LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE, AS WELL AS DRAINAGE AND FLOODING ISSUES AND THE HERITAGE TREES ON THE PROPERTY.
NUMEROUS EMAILS AND DISCUSSIONS WERE HELD AND CITY STAFF AND MS. HOI RELATED TO DENSITY, DRAINAGE, INFRASTRUCTURE AND LOCATION.
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A CONDITION OF OVERLAY OF 10 UNITS AND DRAINAGE CONCERNS WERE NOTED.
THE PROPERTY WAS QUICKLY ADVERTISED ONLINE WITH THE 10 UNIT DESIGN MATTHEW'S LANE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SUPPORT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY IF A AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAS ACTUALLY INCLUDED IN THIS PROJECT.
UNFORTUNATELY, OUR EXPERIENCE IS THAT INVESTORS BUY THE LOT, CHANGE THE ZONING, GET A VARIANCE AND OR SUBDIVIDE WHILE TELLING US ABOUT THE GREAT HOUSING THEY PLAN TO BUILD AND THEN TURN AROUND AND RESELL THE LOT AT A PROFIT.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS VIEWED AS A CONCERN FOR MR. CRANE'S ADJACENT PROPERTY FOR ANY PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
HE SEEKS IN THE FUTURE, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL.
IT DOES NOT OFFER A REASONABLE USE FOR HIS PLANT AND COULD IMPACT THE NEIGHBORS DOWN THE LINE.
MANY OF US HAVE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ON OUR LOT.
THAT'S ACTUALLY THE ONLY WAY THAT THEY DEAL WITH DRAINAGE IN THIS AREA.
THE HARDSHIPS NOTED AT 16 OR NINE ARE NOT UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY AND GRABBING THE VARIANCES COULD CREATE A HARDSHIP FOR MR. CRANE.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE, KIND OF CLARIFY THE CONFUSION BECAUSE THOSE OF US LONG TERM NEIGHBORS, WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT'S ABOUT.
HE'S NOT OUTTA COMPLIANCE SINCE THEY'RE NOT SOME MYSTERY.
THESE WERE ALL ZONED RESIDENTIAL, NOT COMMERCIAL LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY'RE LARGER LOTS THAT YOU WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE CERTAIN BUSINESSES IF THE DEEDS ALLOWED FOR THEM, DEPENDING ON THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION, MR. CRANE IS NOT ONLY THE, AS THE OWNER ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE A BUSINESS AFTER THE CITY AD AS A 19 EIGHT OR FOUR, THE STORE AND LOCK HAS A LOW PROFILE, WHICH LENDS IN WELL WITH THE SURROUNDING ONE STORY, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH LOTS OF TREES BUFFERING HIS PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING HOMES.
AND HE'S ALWAYS BEEN A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND THE TRAFFIC AND NOISE HAS BEEN KEPT TO A MINIMUM.
IT'S NOT REALLY, IN OUR OPINION, A COMMERCIAL USE.
HE IS NOT THE ONLY NEIGHBOR THAT HAS CONTINUED TO HAVE HIS BUSINESS WITH HIS HOME AS OWNERS BEFORE THE 1984, UM, ANNEXATION FROM THE CITY, THE CONDITIONS THAT THE OWNER IS CALLING A HARDSHIP ALL EXISTED.
WHEN HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY LAST YEAR, THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE WAS THERE.
THE HERITAGE TREES WERE THERE.
WE CONSIDERED THEM AN ASSET ACTUALLY, AND NOT A HARDSHIP.
THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS WERE THERE AND ARE NOT UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY ARE COMMON TO MANY OF THE LOTS.
THE OWNER HAS REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
WITHOUT THESE VARIANCES, THE OWNER HAS SPECULATED ON A PROPERTY THAT REALLY SHOULD NOT BE DEVELOPED AT THIS DENSITY.
ONE OF THE ZAP COMMISSIONERS EVEN DESCRIBED THE PLANS AS IFFY.
THE INITIAL MS. THREE ZONING REQUEST WAS REDUCED BY THE ZONING AND PLANNING AND CITY STAFF, BOTH.
IT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAME FROM MS. HOEY AND THE OWNER, A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WAS ADDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN'S OFFICE SHORTLY AFTER THE JULY 21ST COUNCIL MEETING THE OWNER, PUT THE PROPERTY WITH ITS NEW ZONING BACK ON THE MARKET.
AS THE LAST ADJUSTMENT MEETING, IT'S STILL ON THE MARKET.
NOW THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD FEELS THAT THEY'RE JUST ASKING TO GET WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR WHICH STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL WERE NICE ENOUGH AND WELL INFORMED WORKING WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION TO CRY, TRY AND GUARD AGAINST THE OWNER CAN MAKE REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT THESE VARIANCES.
THE GREEN SPACE REQUIRED BY THE SPEC FACTS AS AN ASSET TO THE HOMES, NOT A WASTED PART OF THE SITE AS DESCRIBED BY THE OWNER AT THE JULY MEETING, THE HERITAGE TREES ARE ALSO ASSETS, NOT HARDSHIP, THE CRITICAL QUALITY ZONE, PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT, AND COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.
WE'RE ALL EVIDENT TO THE BUYER AND THEY ARE THE SAME FOR THE SURROUNDING LOT.
WE ALL ABIDE BY THE SAME EASEMENT AND SETBACKS.
FIRE'S REMORSE IS A SELF-IMPOSED HARDSHIP.
THE OWNER CAN MAKE MONEY WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE.
PLEASE DECLINE THIS REQUEST AND SUPPORT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT THAT RESPECTS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.
I WILL BE ONLINE IF YOU NEED ANY QUESTIONS ANSWERED BY ME.
ALL RIGHT, MS. HUSSEY, YOU WILL HAVE A TWO MINUTE
[01:50:01]
REBUTTAL.UM, SO I JUST, ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO SAY IS I'M GLAD THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS HAD REALLY GOOD RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER AND THAT HE'S BEEN A GOOD NEIGHBOR IN THE AREA.
IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY THE FACT THAT IT IS A COMMERCIAL COMMERCIALLY DEVELOPED PROPERTY AND IS LIKELY TO CONTINUE TO BE THAT WAY.
I THINK THE REALITY OF THAT PROPERTY EVER BEING REDEVELOPED AS NOT COMMERCIAL IS PROBABLY NOT, NOT VERY REALISTIC.
UM, SO KNOWING THAT THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED AS COMMERCIAL AND KNOWING THAT COMPATIBILITY WAS INTENDED TO PROTECT SINGLE FAMILY FROM COMMERCIAL USES, WE STILL STAND BY THAT THIS PROPERTY IS THE, THE COMPATIBILITY TRIGGERING PROPERTIES ARE INAPPROPRIATELY CAUSING FOR COMPATIBILITY ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE.
THIS IS A SITE WITH RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE COMING FORWARD.
UM, THE, THE ZONING THAT WE'VE ASKED FOR ALLOWS FOR, OR THE ZONING THAT WE ACHIEVED ALLOWS FOR THREE STORIES AND 40 FEET.
AND OUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ACTUALLY AT 31 FEET.
AND THE ONLY REASON WHY WE'RE HERE ASKING IS BECAUSE THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TO THE EAST AND THE SOUTH ARE TRIGGERING COMPATIBILITY ON THIS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH SHOULDN'T BE THE CASE.
SO ALL OF COMPATIBILITY, UH, APPLIED APPROPRIATELY, THIS PROJECT AS PROPOSED WOULD BE FAR BELOW THE HEIGHT THAT IS ALLOWED IN AN MF TWO PROJECT.
UM, SO WE, WE RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
UM, WE NEVER MADE ANY, UM, SORT OF CLAIMS THAT THIS WOULDN'T BE ANY MORE THAN TWO STORIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
MF THREE AND MF TWO DOES ALLOW FOR THREE STORY DEVELOPMENT.
AND, UM, I HOPE YOU, EVERYONE WAS ABLE TO READ OUR BACKUP AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, OR ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WHERE I DID REFERENCE THAT THIS ACTUALLY WOULD BE A CASE WHERE A BOA VARIANCE WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN OUR OPINION.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE ON TO QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.
WHO'D LIKE TO START, I'M LOOKING LEFT FIRST THIS TIME AND RIGHT.
VIRTUAL MEMBERS, BOARD MEMBER PUT, I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
UM, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE ONLY REASONABLE USE OF THIS PROPERTY IS TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF UNITS THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVED AS AN ABSOLUTE, UH, TOP LIMIT? IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU WERE TO PUT NINE UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY, THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE A REASONABLE USE, IF WE'RE NOT ABLE TO ACHIEVE THESE VARIANCES, THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY COMPROMISED.
UM, AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
AND IT ALSO WOULDN'T INCLUDE UNITS THAT ARE LIKELY TO BE BIG ENOUGH FOR FAMILIES.
UM, SO WE REALLY, WE REALLY WOULD LIKE, UM, TO ACHIEVE THESE VARIANCES.
BUT MY, MY QUESTION WAS, MY QUESTION WAS ABSENT.
THIS VARIANCE, YOU CAN STILL HAVE A REASONABLE USE OF THIS PROPERTY, CAN'T YOU? IT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY COMPROMISED.
MY QUESTION IS, WOULD IT BE REASONABLE? NO, IT WOULD NOT BE REASONABLE TO PUT NINE UNITS ON THERE INSTEAD OF 10, I WOULD SAY IN, IN THE SITUATION WE'RE IN WITH THE HOUSING CRISIS? NO.
I, I DUNNO IF I ASKED THIS LAST TIME OR NOT, BUT ARE THESE GOING TO BE MARKET RATE UNITS OR YES, THEY ARE GONNA BE MARKET RATE, UH, BOARD MEMBER MACARTHUR.
DID YOU BRING A ZONING MAP OF THE AREA MS. HOSS OR JUST THE USE MAP? I DON'T RECALL IF MY MAP INCLUDED A ZONING OR NOT.
NO, IT'S, IT'S NOT A ZONING MAP.
SO MY TECHNIC QUESTION IS YOU SAID YOU'RE SURE THAT THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES WHERE YOU'RE REDUCING THE SETBACKS A LOT WILL NEVER BE DEVELOPED AS RESIDENTIAL, BUT YET THIS PROPERTY IS PROPOSED.
[01:55:08]
I, I BELIEVE WHAT I STATED WAS THAT IT'S UNLIKELY THAT THIS PROPERTY WOULD REDEVELOP TO SF TWO, NOT IMPOSSIBLE, BUT UNLIKELY.AND I JUST WANNA MAKE A COMMENT THAT WE CAN ONLY RULE ON WHAT'S THERE.
NOW WE CAN'T SPECULATE, SPECULATE WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE WHEN WE'RE MAKING OUR DECISIONS.
THANK YOU, BOARD MEMBER BLOOM.
UM, SO FOR THE APPLICANT IN YOUR REBUTTAL, DID YOU SAY THAT YOU INTENDED IT TO BE A TWO STORY STRUCTURE? DID I MISHEAR YOU? UM, I, I BELIEVE YOU MISHEARD I, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO STATE IS THAT WE NEVER SAID, AND WE NEVER TOLD THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COUNCIL OR ANYONE THAT THIS WOULD BE A DEVELOPMENT OF ONLY TWO STORIES.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED AT MOST, BUT WE NEVER SAID THAT.
THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD, UM, DO WE, WE WERE WANTING THREE STORIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
MM-HMM
UM, ONE IS A SINGLE, WELL, THREE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, AND ONE IS A GARAGE.
AND WHAT YOU'D HAVE TO DO THEN IS, IS DEMO THOSE IN ORDER TO BUILD YOUR CORRECT YOUR DESIRED, UH, PROJECT.
AND SO WHEN YOU DEMO THOSE, YOU'RE BASICALLY YOU'RE GONNA HAVE PRETTY MUCH A BLANK SLOT BLANK SLATE.
CORRECT? I WOULD NOT SAY A BLANK SLATE.
WE'VE GOT A LOT OF, OF CONSTRAINTS TO WORK AROUND.
AND I, AND I AGREE WITH YOU AND I, AND I DO, HERE'S WHERE I'M AT.
I'M, I'M, I'M AT A CROSSROADS BECAUSE I PERSONALLY THINK THAT YOU HAVE SOME LEGITIMATE, UM, HARDSHIPS, BUT THE OTHER SIDE OF ME ALSO SAYS THAT ONCE EVERYTHING'S DEMOED OUT AND THE LOT'S CLEARED, YOU CAN BUILD ON THE LOT.
YOU JUST CAN'T QUITE BUILD WHAT YOU WANT WITHIN ZONING IT WITHOUT A VARIANCE.
AND ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE IS YOU SAID, IT'S GONNA BE, UH, YOUR DEVELOPMENT AND YOUR PROJECT WILL BE COMPROMISED.
AND WHICH IS BASICALLY ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING, UH, THE NUMBERS AREN'T GONNA ADD UP, RIGHT? I MEAN, THIS, THAT WOULD CONTRACTOR THAT'LL BE REAL ABOUT IT.
UM, AND SO THAT SORT OF PUSHES ME ALSO INTO THE REALM OF, WE CAN MAKE A DECISION BASED ON A FISCAL IMPACT AS WELL.
UH, IF THE, IF THE FINANCES CAN'T, IF THE LOT TRULY CANNOT BE BUILT IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE, OR FORM, NOTHING CAN BE BUILT ON IT BECAUSE OF THESE CONSTRAINTS THEN VARIANCE.
AND WE, WE CAN GO WITH OUR VARIANCES IN WITH THE HARDSHIPS THAT WE HAVE, IF THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT YOU WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING MORE THAN WHAT THE LOT CAN HANDLE OR THE PROPERTY CAN HANDLE, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY WAY FINANCIALLY MAKES IT REASONABLE.
THEN WE CAN'T REALLY PASS A VARIANCE BASED ON THAT.
AND SO THIS IS, UH, IT'S A HARD CASE.
UH, I'M JUST TRYING TO EXPRESS TO YOU THAT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WOULD BE SOMETHING ELSE I SEE MELISSA'S GOT HER HAND UP.
SO SHE'LL PROBABLY CORRECT ME ON SOMETHING, BUT I DON'T SEE IF, IF, UH, THERE'S SOME, A, A MODIFICATION TO THE PROJECT THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS OR NOT, I'LL YIELD THE FLOOR MET CHAIR, BUT I'M, I'M JUST, I SEE WHERE YOUR HARDSHIPS ARE.
BUT THEN I ALSO SEE WHAT THE CONSTRAINTS THAT WE HAVE IN ORDER TO PASS A VARIANCE.
AND WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT IF EVERYTHING ELSE IS KNOCKED OFF THAT LOT, AND IT'S, IT'S SCRAPED CLEAN, YES.
SOMETHING CAN BE REASONABLY BUILT THERE.
IT JUST WON'T BE MAKE THE FINANCIAL NUMBERS.
IT WON'T BE TO WHAT YOU REALLY WANT.
DO YOU, AM I, AM I, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I ALSO WOULD, IF, IF THE BOARD IS TO CONSIDER WHAT IS ON THE GROUND NOW, AND THERE'S A COMMERCIAL SITE NEXT DOOR TRIGGERING COMPATIBILITY.
MIGHT I ONE SECOND JUMP? WELL, I, I'M CURIOUS TO WHAT MELISSA HAS TO SAY, CAUSE I'M SURE SHE'S GONNA CORRECT ME ABOUT SOMETHING.
BOARD MEMBER OR SORRY, VICE TRACK.
SO IF I'M GONNA BUILD A HOUSE, MY HOUSE CAN BE 30 FEET TALL.
AND I, I GET ALL THE EXEMPTIONS, THE ATTIC EXEMPTIONS, ET CETERA, BUT, BUT THE, THE BUILDING CAN BE 30 FEET TALL.
SO FROM THE STREET SIDE, THE UNITS,
[02:00:01]
UH, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH COMPATIBILITY ON THE STREET SIDE.AND THAT WHAT'S ACTUALLY PROPOSED IS 31 FEET TALL, RIGHT? SO YOU HAVE THESE LARGE HERITAGE, BEAUTIFUL HERITAGE TREES COMING THROUGH THE SIGN AND YOU HAVE AN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AND A RAILROAD ON EACH SIDE THAT IS NOT RESIDENTIAL.
SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A HOUSE COULD BE 30 FEET TALL.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR 31 FEET TALL, AND THESE TREES ARE MOVING DURING THROUGH.
AND THIS AF IS AFTER A LOCK ZONING CASE, WHICH GAVE THEM THE LIMITATION OF 10 UNITS.
SO I KIND OF VIEW IT MAYBE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY, CUZ THIS IS ACTUALLY PUTTING IT.
IT IS ACTUALLY COMPLYING WITH THE RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY.
AND IT'S, IT'S ASKING, GIVING YOU A REAR YARD SETBACK FROM A HOUSE, UH, IS 10 FEET.
AND SO YOU HAVE 10 FEET ALONG THAT SIDE UNTIL YOU GET TO THAT PROTECTED TREE.
AND THEN, THEN ACTUALLY JUTS IN EVEN MORE.
IF I CAN JUST MAKE A CORRECTION REAL QUICK, ACTUALLY THE SF TWO PROPERTIES ARE ALLOWED 35 FEET AND HEIGHT.
NOT 30, LEARN SOMETHING NEW EVERY DAY.
WELL DIDN'T MEAN INTERRUPT YOU.
I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO, THAT'S FINE.
I, I WAS, I WAS GETTING GOING THERE SO 31 FEET, HIGH 35 FEET.
I I'M JUST, UH, I'LL STOP NOW.
WELL, MELISSA, WHERE, WHERE I'M LOOKING AT IT AND I'M LOOKING AT ON SHEET, UM, EIGHT OR 48.
AND LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THE, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I SEE THAT I SEE THEIR HARDSHIPS AND I SEE THE COMMERCIAL USE, THE INDUSTRIAL USE AND ESPECIALLY HAVING THE RAIL LINE ON THE OTHER SIDE.
UH, I'M JUST, I'M JUST HAVING A HARD TIME GETTING THERE TO THE POINT OF WHERE, OKAY, WE'RE GONNA DEMO EVERYTHING OUT AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE A CLEAN SLATE.
SO NOW WE'RE GONNA BUILD SOMETHING, BUT WE, WE CAN'T, IT'S GONNA SEVERELY IMPACT OR BE DETRIMENTAL TO MY PROJECT.
AND SO, UH, I'M STILL TORN BETWEEN THE TWO I'LL I'LL LET SOMEBODY ELSE TALK, BUT I'M STILL, AND MICHAEL, I WANTED TO ADD ON TO THAT.
YOU KNOW, WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS THAT'S WHY CAN YOU HANG ON ONE JUST A SECOND FOR ME DARRELL.
CAUSE I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS TOO.
UH, I WATCHED THE ZAP MEETING, BUT I DIDN'T GET TO WATCH THE COUNCIL MEETING, UH, WHEN THEY WERE DISCUSSING THE CO WAS THERE ANY TALK ABOUT LIKE LIMITING HEIGHT OR SETBACK OR ANYTHING? IT WAS, IT WAS JUST THE 10, UH, 10 UNITS AS IF WHAT I, I READ.
UM, AS, AS I SAID BEFORE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD REALLY WANTED TO LIMIT THE DENSITY EVEN MORE.
UM, AND THEY WANTED TO LIMIT THE PROPERTY TO TWO STORIES AND THAT'S NEVER SOMETHING WE AGREED TO.
AND THE, UM, THE CONCESSIONS THAT WE MET WITH THE COUNCIL OFFICE INCLUDED WERE, UM, AND FOR MF TWO, LIMITING THE PROPERTY TO 10 UNITS.
UM, BUT NOTHING ABOUT, UH, LIMITING HEIGHT AS WELL AFTER DARRELL.
I, I I'D SORRY, GO, UH, GO AHEAD.
WELL, I WAS JUST GONNA MAKE A COMMENT THAT, THAT, THAT I, I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS A RATIONAL POSITION TO TAKE THAT THE ONLY POSSIBLE REASONABLE USE OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY IS TO DEVELOP IT TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT THAT THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS, HAS PLACED, UH, THE LIMIT, UH, ON, UH, BUT IN ADDITION, YOU KNOW, THE, THE IDEA THAT, WELL, WE DIDN'T EVER AGREE TO LIMIT OUR, OUR BUILDINGS TO TWO STORY RATHER THAN THREE STORY.
MAYBE THE REASON IT WASN'T BROUGHT UP WAS BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE ZONING OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WAS GONNA TRIGGER THIS COMPATIBILITY.
AND, AND THAT'S WHY THE, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T BROUGHT UP.
UM, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE, THERE ISN'T A HARDSHIP HERE.
YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT IS REASONABLE, EVEN IF YOU DON'T GET 10 UNITS, WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF UNITS THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS SAID YOU COULD PUT ON HERE.
[02:05:01]
SO I JUST, I, I JUST DON'T SEE THAT THAT'S GONNA BE SOMETHING I'D BE IN FAVOR OF BOARD MEMBER BLOOM.I THINK COMMISSIONER BAILEY HAD A COMMENT FIRST.
NO, I WAS ACTUALLY GONNA SAY THAT I'M ACTUALLY, UM, LEANING TOWARDS BEING IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE BECAUSE I DO THINK THE TREES ARE PRESENTING A HARDSHIP.
UM, AND I'M ALSO SWAYED TO THAT OPINION BY THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT'S NOT ASKING FOR THREE STORIES AND FOUR FEET, WHICH THEY COULD ASK FOR ACCORDING TO THE CODE, BUT THEY ARE LIMITING IT TO 31.
UM, I WAS A BIT MORE ON THE FENCE ABOUT THE HEIGHT, UM, VARIANCE UNTIL I DOUBLE CHECKED FOR THAT.
UM, SO YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO WEIGH IN WITH THAT COMMENT, ADAM CHAIR, THAT IF THAT'S MOTION I'LL SECOND.
IT THAT'S THE ONLY WAY I CAN GET KELLY TO MAKE MOTIONS.
BUT IF, IF THAT'S AMO
I, I TRUST HER BOARD MEMBER BAILEY.
I JUST, I ALSO WANTED TO COMMENT THAT WE HAD GIVEN COMMENTS LAST MONTH AND THEY WENT BACK AND DID REDESIGN TO DO A LITTLE MORE OF A BUFFER ON THAT COMMERCIAL SIDE.
UM, AND THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO BRING UP IS SOME OF THESE ARE THREE BEDROOM HOME HOMES AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS, WHICH IS SO HARD TO GET.
YEAH, THEY CAN DEVELOP 10 AND THEY'D ALL BE ONE IN TWO BEDROOMS, WHICH DOESN'T REALLY HELP.
UM, A LOT OF OUR HOUSING ISSUES WHERE WE NEED FAMILIES, BUT IN A TOWNHOUSE OR A LITTLE MORE DENSE MIGHT MAKE COULD MAYBE, OR MAYBE NOT MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE AFFORDABLE, IT WOULD BE NICE IF THERE WAS AT LEAST ONE AFFORDABLE UNIT IN THERE.
UM, BUT, BUT I DO LIKE THE FACT THAT THESE, UH, THE MAJORITY OF THESE ARE THREE BEDROOM HOMES AND WE JUST DON'T GET THAT FROM DEVELOPERS AND YEAH, THEY CAN SCRAPE IT AND THEY CAN GET 10 UNITS AND THEY'RE GONNA BE ONE TO TWO BEDROOMS. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANT.
THEY AREN'T GOING AS HIGH AS THEY COULD GO.
THEY, THEY DID REDESIGN AND MOVED THEM BACK.
AND I DO THINK THEY HAVE HARDSHIPS WITH THE TREES AND THE DRAINAGE AND THE RAILROAD AND THE COMMERCIAL THAT HAS NE NEVER BEEN RESIDENTIAL.
AND MAYBE IT CAN, AND MAYBE IT CAN'T, BUT IT'S NOT AT THIS TIME.
AND WE CAN'T SPECULATE ON WHAT THAT PROPERTY MIGHT BE IN THE FUTURE.
SO I THINK THAT THEY'VE DONE A LOT TO TRY AND WORK WITHIN THE, THE PARAMETERS THAT THEY HAVE.
AND SURE, IF WE CAN SAY NO TO THIS AND SOMETHING WILL GET BUILT HERE, BUT IT MIGHT NOT BE SOMETHING THAT'S THAT I CONSIDER.
THAT IS ACTUALLY TRUE HOUSING AND NOT JUST TEMPORARY TILL SOMEBODY HAS A FAMILY MOVES ON MADAM CHAIR, SORRY, JUST A SECOND, UH, BOARD MEMBER SMITH.
DO I SEE YOUR HAND? YEAH, I, I WAS, UH, BEEN SORT OF HUNG UP ON, UH, BOARD MEMBER PRUITT'S COMMENT IN QUESTION ABOUT NINE UNITS VERSUS 10, UM, AND NINE NOT BEING REASONABLE.
AND, UM, I THINK I'VE GOTTEN SOME CLARIFICATION AROUND THAT.
I I'LL JUST SINCE EVERYONE'S COUNTY VOTES, PROBABLY I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THIS FOR THAT REASON.
WELL, I USED TO BE A PARATROOPER IN ANOTHER LIFE AND WE WERE ALWAYS TOLD NO GUTS, NO GLORY.
SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
IT, I DO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE AFTER LOOKING AT THIS OTHER PAGE OVER HERE, AND I WAS LOOKING AT PAGE SPECIFICALLY ITEM 8 48.
UM, I CAN'T GET PAST THE FACT THAT THEY, THEY DO HAVE BONAFIDE HARDSHIPS AND, AND OUR JOB UP HERE ON THIS BOARD IS TO TAKE THOSE HARDSHIP INTO CONSIDERATIONS.
I THINK WE'RE DIGGING TOO DEEP INTO THIS ONE.
I THINK IF THAT, THAT ILLUSTRATION ON ITEM EIGHT OF 48 GAVE ME SOME CLARITY AND ALSO I, I CAN HELP, BUT BE SWAYED BY SOME OF THE, THE COMMENTS THAT HAD BEEN MADE HERE.
SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
AND WILL YOU TIE IT TO SITE PLAN? I AM COUNTING THE VOTES, BUT I'M THROWING IT OUT THERE.
WELL, AND, AND I'D LIKE TO TIE IT TO SITE PLAN BECAUSE THE NEIGHBOR'S CONCERN WAS THAT THEY WOULD GET THE VARIANCE AND BUILD SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
SO I'D LIKE TO TIE IT TO THE SITE PLAN AND THE PLANS THAT WE'VE BEEN TO ON THE PRESENTATION, WE THAT'S AN, UH, ACCEPTABLE, FRIENDLY, FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
WITH THE HEIGHT OF 31 FEE CAN Y'ALL CLARIFY EXACTLY WHICH PAGE Y'ALL ARE SPEAKING OF, PLEASE.
I'M GONNA LOOK, IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA BE MORE THAN ONE PAGE BECAUSE, BUT I WOULD GO TO, UM, IN THE PRESENTATION, I DUNNO IF IT'S A PRESENTATION OR THE BACKUP ITEM EIGHT, THREE THAT SHOWS THE SITE PLAN, BUT THEN IT WOULD ALSO BE TIED TO THE HEIGHT, THIS, THAT, AND SOME OF THE OTHER PAGES THAT SHOW THE MASSING.
SO IT WOULD BE ALSO EIGHT, FIVE
[02:10:02]
AND SIX, BUT ANYTHING THAT ALSO SHOWS THE HEIGHT OR LIMIT IT TO 31 FEET, AS MELISSA SAID, YOU SAID IN THE PRESENTATION, I THINK THAT'S IN THE BACKUP.I SAID, I THINK AT FIRST IT'S AT PRESENTATION, THEN I SAID, NO, IT'S THE BACKUP.
IT'S REALLY INTERESTING THAT THE, ALL THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IT LOOKS LIKE ARE ZONED MF TWO.
AND THE TRIGGERING ONES THAT ARE ZONED SF TWO ARE ACTUALLY THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
BUT THE ACTUAL RESIDENTIAL USE IS ON THE MF TWO ACROSS THE STREET.
SINCE BARBARA SAID ABOUT THE ZONING MAP, I HAD TO GO LOOK AT THE ZONING MAP.
P SHOULD YOU SAY THAT WAS ON THE BACKUP? WELL, THE SITE PLAN IS ON, UM, THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS ON EIGHT THREE, AND THAT SHOWS THE SETBACKS AND THE, AND THE CRITICAL ROUTE ZONES.
AND HAS THE DETAIL ON THAT IN THE PRESENTATION, IN THE BACKUP? OH, BOTH YEAH.
EIGHT THREE IN THE PRESENTATION AND THEN NO EIGHT THREE IN THE BACKUP OR SORRY.
AND EIGHT, THREE IN THE BACKUP.
AND I IT'S IN THE PRESENTATION ALSO, BUT, AND ON EIGHT THREE AS WELL, PROBABLY.
IS THERE SOMETHING WE CAN TIE THE HEIGHT TO OUR, DO WE JUST WANNA, I THOUGHT THE HEIGHT WAS IN THE VARIANCE REQUEST, IS IT NOT? OR WE CAN STATE IT.
SO THIS WOULD BE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TIED TO THE SITE PLAN AS SHOW SHOWN.
IT'S ALSO IN THE VARIANCE REQUEST IN THE LEGAL LANGUAGE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
AS SHOWN IN THE BACKUP ON P EIGHT, THREE LIMITED 2 31 FEET.
DOES THAT SOUND GOOD? THE POST IT'S THE POSTING LANGUAGE, THE POSTING LANGUAGE ITEM B NUMBER TWO, POSTING LANGUAGE ITEM B.
AND I THINK THAT THE, WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING, SORRY, MICHAEL, I'LL MAKE THIS TRY TO BE BRIEF IS THAT IT IS 10 B, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO CHANGE IN THE POSTING LANGUAGE.
IT'S IT'S GONNA BE LIMITED TO 10 FEET ON THE EAST, THEY MOVED THE, THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN, MOVED IT BACK.
IT WAS SEVEN FEET AND THEY ADJUST YOU ADJUSTED IT TO 10.
SO I WOULD CHANGE THAT, UM, WHICH IS IN A TO 10 FEET, 25 FEET TO 10 FEET.
AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS TO 14 FEET.
WASN'T THAT THE ORIGINAL ASK ON THAT ONE? NO, 13 FEET.
SO 10 FOOT SETBACK ON THAT'S THE EAST SIDE, RIGHT, RIGHT.
AND 10 ON THE EAST AND 14 ON THE SOUTHERN.
AND THAT'S AT ITS MOST EXTREME ON THE SOUTHERN MM-HMM
SO THIS WOULD BE, UH, A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TIED TO THE SITE PLAN.
THAT'S SHOW IN THE BACKUP ON PAGE EIGHT, 13, UH, EIGHT, NO EIGHT THREE, OR SORRY, EIGHT, THREE.
IT'S ALSO ON THE PRESENTATION ON EIGHT, THREE, SAME DRAWING, LIMITED TO THE POSTING LANGUAGE AND ITEM B WITH A 10 FOOT SETBACK ON THE EAST SIDE IN A 14 FOOT SETBACK ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE.
MADAM CHAIR, CAN YOU PLEASE JUST SEND THAT TO US TOMORROW? WE'RE GETTING SO CONFUSED WITH EVERYONE.
WAS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THAT? SO IT'S ONE MORE TIME.
UH, THIS IS A MOTION TO IT'S ACTUALLY, IT'S ACTUALLY REALLY CLEAR IF YOU LOOK AT EIGHT THREE.
MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, WITH AN AMENDMENT THAT TIES IT TO THE SITE PLAN SHOWN IN THE BACKUP ON PAGE EIGHT, THREE, ALSO IN THE PRESENTATION, UH, LIMITED TO HEIGHT, LIMITED TO POSTING LANGUAGE IN ITEM B AND A 10 FOOT SETBACK ON THE EAST SIDE WITH A 14 FOOT SETBACK ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE.
CORRECT? ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? NOPE.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND LET'S DO THE NUMBERS.
LET'S LET'S CALL THE VOTE AND SEE HOW IT GOES.
REASONABLE USE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DID NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE COMPATIBILITY REGULATIONS WERE INTENDED TO BUFFER.
SINGLE FAMILY USES FROM COMMERCIAL USES TRIGGERING PROPERTIES TO
[02:15:01]
THE EAST AND SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT TRACT HAVE LONGSTANDING COMMERCIAL USES AND ARE NOT IN NEED OF THE PROTECTIONS OF THAT COMPATIBILITY.THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH VARIANCES REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT THE SITE HAS FOUR HERITAGE PROTECTED TREES, A CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS THAT PUSH DEVELOPABLE DEVELOPABLE AREA TOWARDS THE TRIGGERING PROPERTIES.
THE LOCATION OF THE TREES CREATES A CHALLENGE FOR BUILDING PLACEMENT WHILE ALSO ADHERING TO THE COMPATIBILITY, SETBACKS AND HEIGHT LIMITATIONS.
THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY IS UNIQUELY UNIQUELY SITUATED ALONG A RAILROAD TRACK ADJACENT TO TWO PROPERTIES THAT HAVE COMPATIBILITY TRIGGER ZONING, BUT HAVE LONG ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE USES THE AREA CHARACTER.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATION OF IT.
OWNING DISTRICTS IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE ADJACENT COMPATIBILITY TRIGGERING PROPERTIES HAVE LONGSTANDING COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE USES.
THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE IN BUFFERED BY COMPATIBILITY REGULATIONS.
I THINK BASED ON BOTH THE COMPATIBILITY THAT'S BEING TRIGGERED BY THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
UH, AND, AND JUST ON THE FACT THAT BOTH COUNCIL AND ZAP HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THIS AND STILL KICKED IT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, KNOWING IT WAS GONNA COME HERE.
THAT PROBABLY EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE.
THANK YOU FOR TRYING TO BUILD MORE HOUSING.
LET'S SKIP PRICES IN AUSTIN DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
NO, BROOKE BAILEY SKIP BROOKE.
IS EIGHT THREE, RIGHT? 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
AND THANKS FOR COMING BACK AND SHOWING US THE EXTRA INFO.
MOVING ON INTO DISCUSSION, UH, ITEMS, UH, WE'VE GOT ITEM 10,
[10. Discussion of the August 8, 2022 BOA activity report]
WHICH IS GOING TO BE THE, UH, DISCUSSION OF THE AUGUST 8TH, 2022 BELA ACTIVITY REPORT.EVERYBODY PUT THEIR HANDS TOGETHER FOR OUR AWESOME STAFF.
LOOKS GREAT AS USUAL KEEPING TRACK OF IT.
ANY COMMENTS? QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.
[11. Discussion and possible action regarding an update on the resolution sent to council for the BOA Applicant Assistance Program (BAAP).]
ACTION ITEMS. THIS IS GOING TO BE DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AN UPDATE ON THE RESOLUTION SENT TO COUNCIL, UH, FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.I TALKED WITH, UH, JOHN TODAY.
UH, WE NOT SEEN IT ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA YET, AND WE ARE KEEPING AN EYE OUT FOR IT.
SO THERE'S NO UPDATE AT THIS TIME.
I'M HOPING TO GET AN UPDATED TOMORROW.
I'M GOING TO TRY TO PUT THIS BACK ON COUNCIL'S RADAR.
UM, I KNOW THAT IT WAS BUDGETED FOR, BUT THAT'S ALL I KNOW.
SO HOPEFULLY I'LL HAVE AN UPDATE FOR Y'ALL NEXT MONTH OR AT LEAST, YOU KNOW? OH, WHICH REMINDS ME IF I DO GET AN UPDATE SOONER, I WILL SEND IT TO YOU VIA CITY EMAIL.
PLEASE CHECK YOUR EMAIL BECAUSE I DO SEND STUFF THERE.
SO DOES THE LANE MOVING ON ITEM 12,
[12. Discussion and possible action by the Board based on the Working Group update on proposed changes to BOA Appeals. (Working group: Barbara Mcarthur, Darryl Pruett and Kelly Blume)]
DISCUSSION OF POP, LITTLE LOVE, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION BY THE BOARD BASED ON THE WORKING GROUP UPDATE AND PROPOSE CHANGES TO THE BOA APPEALS.BOARD MEMBER OF MACARTHUR P OR, UH, BLOOM, ANY UPDATE ON THAT Y'ALL HAD A CHANCE TO MEET YET? UM, NO, WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY IS THERE OR AT LEAST I, I WASN'T INVITED DID I WON'T SPEAK FOR THE OTHERS? NO, WE HAVE NOT.
[02:20:03]
IS WHAT'S THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO SET UP A MEETING TOGETHER, ELAINE, TO DO IT? YES.ELAINE, COULD YOU SET UP A MEETING FOR US? I, I MEAN, ARE YOU, YOU JUST NEEDING LIKE A WEBEX OR, OR ZOOM SCHEDULE PROTOCOL FOR BOA SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS? OH, YOU COULD SEND AN EMAIL TO EACH OTHER AND SAY, HEY, WHAT TIME DO YOU WANNA MEET UP? OR YOU COULD CALL AND BE LIKE, DO YOU WANNA MEET HERE AT THIS PLACE? GET SOME FOOD WHILE WE'RE AT IT.
IT, IT HAS TO DO WITH HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE, ARE ON THE GROUP BECAUSE THAT'S ONLY THREE AND MAYBE LEGAL CLARIFYING.
I'D LIKE TO GET A READING ON THAT BEFORE I DO SOMETHING.
THIS IS FOR OUR WORKING GROUP.
I, I CAN'T TELL YOU FROM THE PAST, INCLUDING THE, UH, THE, WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON CODE NEXT AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, THAT THERE WERE FIVE OF US.
AND AS LONG AS WE DIDN'T REACH A QUORUM, WHICH IS THE DESIGN BEHIND A WORKING GROUP IT'S SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A QUORUM, YOU CAN DISCUSS AND MEET IN PERSON.
WE MET AT FORMER CHAIR, DON LAYTON BURWELL'S HOUSE ON A PRETTY REGULAR BASIS.
AND, AND ANYONE I'VE EVER BEEN ON, WE'VE JUST ALL EMAILED EACH OTHER AND ARRANGED IT SEPARATELY.
SO THE STAFF DOESN'T HAVE TO DO THAT.
AND BY THE WAY, I, I HAVE TO GO.
UH, GOOD EVENING, STEVE MADDOX ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, UH, WITH THE, WITH THE CHAIR WAS JUST STATED IS CORRECT.
IF, IF IT'S WORKING GROUPS OR LESS THAN A QUORUM, UM, THEN THEY CAN, UH, COORDINATE TO ESTABLISH THE MEETINGS.
DO WE NEED A, A WORKING GROUP CHAIR, PETER ORGANIZER FOR, FOR ACCORDING TO OUR BYLAWS, IT'S ENTIRELY UP TO YOU.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO APPOINT A CHAIR, THE CHAIR WOULD BE APPOINTED, APPOINTED TO ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDERS, WHICH IS FROM WITHIN THE WORK GROUP.
UM, IF YOU WANT SOMEONE TO DRIVE IT, FEEL FREE TO PICK SOMEONE FROM AMONGST YOURSELVES.
UH, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO VOLUNTEER ALSO 100%, OKAY.
HINT, HINT, HINT, HINT, CALL EACH OTHER.
UM, THERE'S THROUGH THE CITY EMAIL ADDRESSES, I SUPPOSE.
AND THEN WE'LL FIGURE OUT CONTACT INFORMATION AND ORGANIZATION BEYOND THAT.
[13. Discussion and possible action regarding the Board’s Annual Internal Review Report (July 1, 2021-June 30, 2022) to Council]
DISCUSS AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE BOARD'S ANNUAL INTERNAL REVIEW REPORT.WELL, YOUR CHAIR, UH, DROP THE BALL ON THIS ONE AND DOES NOT HAVE THAT DONE YET, EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO, AND WE'LL HAVE THAT TO A ELAINE TOMORROW.
SO THERE WILL BE NO ACTION ON IT.
[16. Discussion of future agenda items, staff requests and potential special called meeting and/or workshop requests]
AGENDA ITEMS. ANYTHING, ANYONE? ANYONE? NO.AND, UH, QUICK POINT OF ORDER, ELAINE, IF, OR MAYBE POINT OF CLARIFICATION MIGHT BE BETTER.
WHAT HAPPENED TO ANNOUNCEMENTS, WHICH WAS ON THE AGENDA OR MAYBE THAT MIGHT BE BETTER FOR DIANA.
WE USED TO HAVE THE ANNOUNCEMENTS WAS THE LIKE, USUALLY LIKE SECTION EACH OR IT MAY HAVE LEFT WITH THE REFORMAT FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
WELL, I SEE WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.
THEY'RE TRYING TO STANDARDIZE ALL THE AGENDAS.
COULD WE LINK INTO THAT? BECAUSE ANNOUNCEMENTS WERE ALWAYS NICE.
IT'S TIME CONSUMING, BUT CAN WE, I, WE DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN ADD IT BACK BECAUSE OF THE NEW TEMPLATE WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THIS SWAR ACT.
I WILL PERSONALLY EMAIL THE CLERK'S OFFICE MYSELF AND FIND OUT AND MAYBE GET OUR LEGAL COUNSEL INVOLVED.
AND, AND I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW TRUMAN LOCK HIMSELF IN THE CLOSET THIS WHOLE TIME.
[02:25:02]
I TRIED TO LOVE WITH BROKEN HARD.I TRIED TO HOLD YOU WITH BROKEN EVERYTHING THAT ONLY GOT A PART OF YOU YEARS, DAY, CHANCE THAT YOU MADE TO, WHAT ARE YOU.