1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:00,080
Eight. We appreciate everybody's patience as we make quorum.

2
00:00:06,680 --> 00:00:06,680
good evening. With quorum present. I will now call the meeting of the zoning board of
Adjustment to order at 6:57 p.m..

3
00:00:14,520 --> 00:00:18,240
the first item on our agenda is to call any visitors to speak to the board. Do we have anyone here who would like to address the board?

4
00:00:23,720 --> 00:00:23,720
all right. Am I missing a part of kind of the

5
00:00:33,440 --> 00:00:33,440
preamble here? Because what I've got. So what I've got is just the

6
00:00:44,560 --> 00:00:44,560
this is about the the non you know, anything that's not a public hearing.

7
00:00:50,240 --> 00:00:50,240
but then it goes to I think just. His opening remarks.

8
00:00:59,120 --> 00:00:59,120
a leaked. Well, it sounds like it addresses like the the non public.

9
00:01:07,320 --> 00:01:07,320
okay. Sure. If there are any, then please, before you speak,
I will read a statement.

10
00:01:17,040 --> 00:01:17,040
please come forward. State your name and address. Okay. There's there's nothing with
Regard to like the methodology with the cases and things like that.

11
00:01:35,480 --> 00:01:39,120
this right here, the methodology with respect to the cases. So the opening remarks that he typically reads that have I can look for them on my end,
But I'm sorry.

12
00:02:00,230 --> 00:02:00,230
administration.

13
00:02:39,830 --> 00:02:39,830
all right. Sorry. After all this time, you'd think I would have memorized it.

14
00:02:47,070 --> 00:02:47,070
yeah, that's all right. So here's the written portion.

15
00:02:54,910 --> 00:02:54,910
so we have. Good evening. With the quorum, present the public comment portion scheduled
The beginning before you speak on the statement.

16
00:03:01,590 --> 00:03:01,590
come forward. Say your name and address for the record. As our proceedings are recorded,
Speakers asked for public comment cards.

17
00:03:08,910 --> 00:03:12,430
okay, so we. So that part I skip and that's when. That's the. Yeah. Ordinances.

18
00:03:39,070 --> 00:03:39,070
all right. Good evening. Now that we have a quorum present all over notes,
I will I will now call the meeting of the zoning board of adjustment to order at 7:01

19
00:03:47,650 --> 00:03:47,650
p.m.. Our first item on our agenda is to call any visitors to speak to the board.

20
00:03:52,950 --> 00:03:52,950
do we have anyone who would like to address the board? All right.

21
00:03:57,830 --> 00:03:57,830
so this board meets to consider and act upon request for variances to the zoning
Ordinances,

22
00:04:02,390 --> 00:04:02,390
ordinances of the city of richardson and appeals from a determination by an administrative
Official in the enforcement of zoning ordinances.

23
00:04:09,750 --> 00:04:12,390
it derives its power from the state of texas. The board also hears and acts upon request for special exceptions to defense regulations.

24
00:04:17,030 --> 00:04:17,030
in the event that you wish to appeal a decision of the board,
Your recourse is to file an action in the state district court within ten days following

25
00:04:23,070 --> 00:04:23,070
the date of the board's decision. The test, used to determine approval or denial is
Whether a situation exists that is not created by you,

26
00:04:30,190 --> 00:04:30,190
which prevents you from using your property in the desired way,
And that if the variance is not granted,

27
00:04:34,790 --> 00:04:34,790
will result in a hardship which the board considers unnecessary,
Taking into account permissible factors.

28
00:04:41,030 --> 00:04:41,030
we are not permitted to grant a variance of the hardship is self-imposed,
Or a failure to achieve the variance results only in an economic hardship,

29
00:04:48,310 --> 00:04:48,310
asking for a variance to ratify something that was already done or done in a manner that
Circumvents the law might also be self-imposed.

30
00:04:54,980 --> 00:04:54,980
we also cannot grant a variance that is whimsical or interferes with the safety and
Well-being of the community. Each case is divided into two parts.

31
00:05:02,140 --> 00:05:02,140
the first part is the presentation of the case by the city staff,
And testimony and comments are taken from the proponents and the opponents of the request.

32
00:05:10,180 --> 00:05:10,180
the second part occurs in the members of the board discuss and consider motions as they
Are made during the second part.

33
00:05:15,660 --> 00:05:15,660
no further data or information will be taken from the participants unless so requested by
A board member.

34
00:05:20,860 --> 00:05:20,860
then the board board votes on the motion. A decision to grant or deny the motion or to
Take other action concludes the case for this session.

35
00:05:30,060 --> 00:05:30,060
let's see. It is the intent of the board to give all interested parties a chance to speak.

36
00:05:37,500 --> 00:05:37,500
each participant is cautioned, however, to confine his or her remarks to the specific
Issues of the case.

37
00:05:42,860 --> 00:05:42,860
repetitive comments will be limited and unruly or disorderly conduct will not be permitted
At any time during these proceedings.

38
00:05:50,180 --> 00:05:50,180
I would now like to introduce the representatives of the city and the members of the
Board. Tina fergus,

39
00:05:55,140 --> 00:05:55,140
director of development services. Andrew bogda,
Assistant director of development services planning.

40
00:06:00,220 --> 00:06:03,820
derrick peters, senior planner, and christine ross,
Planner, two. And norma rosa, board secretary, who will be the recorder of the proceedings.

41
00:06:08,860 --> 00:06:12,460
board members are jason lemons, chair. Scott rooker,
Vice chair. Moussa mata, alternate, and mohammad hafeez,
Alternate.

42
00:06:15,900 --> 00:06:15,900
by law, at least four of the five voting members must approve a motion before the request
Can be granted,

43
00:06:20,660 --> 00:06:20,660
and it should be noted that alternates will be voting on both both items tonight.

44
00:06:26,100 --> 00:06:26,100
since we we have a narrow narrow board. First item on the agenda we have is for the
Approval of the minutes of the regular business meeting of march 18th,

45
00:06:35,540 --> 00:06:35,540
2026. Are any revisions needed or is there a motion to approve?

46
00:06:41,300 --> 00:06:41,300
I'll move to approve. All right. So mr. Mata moves to approve the minutes.

47
00:06:45,980 --> 00:06:45,980
I second it and mr. Hafiz moves to second. All in favor of the motion,
Please say aye.

48
00:06:52,140 --> 00:06:52,140
aye aye. All opposed? And that motion carries unanimously.

49
00:06:56,340 --> 00:06:56,340
all right. Second item on the board today is or I guess it would be.

50
00:07:01,980 --> 00:07:01,980
the third item is the public hearing on sc 2601 or.

51
00:07:07,220 --> 00:07:10,220
no, that's that's actually that's the that's the minutes. Sorry. This is actually. No, it is 26. Yeah. It's variance.

52
00:07:15,620 --> 00:07:15,620
2601 v 2601. All right. All right. Thank you,
Mr.

53
00:07:20,460 --> 00:07:20,460
peterson. This is a request for a variance to article four,
Section four of the comprehensive code zoning ordinance to allow seven foot

54
00:07:30,340 --> 00:07:30,340
side yard setback in lieu of the required ten foot side yard setback on the northwest
Property line at 1202 cheyenne place.

55
00:07:38,820 --> 00:07:38,820
the property and neighborhood is zoned r 1500 m residential in the neighborhood has been
Developed with single family residential homes.

56
00:07:51,130 --> 00:07:51,130
the subject site is outlined in yellow. Here's a photo that was captured by google a few
Years ago.

57
00:07:58,330 --> 00:07:58,330
the home was previously developed with the. The property was previously developed with the
House you see in the picture on the top.

58
00:08:04,850 --> 00:08:04,850
in 2025, the house was demolished and today that property sits vacant.

59
00:08:12,890 --> 00:08:12,890
to give you some background, the original house on this property was developed in 1962.

60
00:08:18,490 --> 00:08:18,490
it was developed with a 3200 square foot house that adhered to the required side yard
Setbacks.

61
00:08:25,490 --> 00:08:25,490
at the time, the house was built up to a 7.3ft side yard setback on the south east
Property line and up to 26ft from the side yard setback on

62
00:08:35,530 --> 00:08:35,530
the north west property line. At the time, the minimum side yard setbacks were seven feet,

63
00:08:41,250 --> 00:08:41,250
so the the plane of the wall of the building of the house on the southeast side,
As I mentioned,

64
00:08:48,490 --> 00:08:48,490
is up to 7.3ft on the northwest side. The house could have maximized more of the available
Buildable area at the time.

65
00:08:57,970 --> 00:08:57,970
it could have been developed up to seven feet from that northwest property line.

66
00:09:02,450 --> 00:09:02,450
however, you see in the picture, the house was served by a j swing garage,
And there is that larger gap between the northwest wall of the building and the

67
00:09:12,090 --> 00:09:12,090
northwest property line. The property was demolished in 2025.

68
00:09:20,170 --> 00:09:20,170
last year, as I mentioned, the applicant submitted building plans with the intent of
Building a 4500 square foot new house on the property.

69
00:09:28,730 --> 00:09:28,730
the applicant designed the house, as you see here,
With the yellow footprint on the southeast side,

70
00:09:34,530 --> 00:09:34,530
similar to what was developed before, the new house is going to be up to 7.3ft from the
Southeast property line.

71
00:09:42,370 --> 00:09:42,370
that is allowed by right, because that matches the previous structures set back.

72
00:09:48,730 --> 00:09:48,730
however, on the northwest side, the house is also proposed to be built up to 7.3ft from
The property line.

73
00:09:55,610 --> 00:09:55,610
today, the side yard setbacks are required to be ten feet,
So the applicant is requesting a 2.7ft encroachment into

74
00:10:05,610 --> 00:10:05,610
the northwest property line. Again on the southeast with the green check here.

75
00:10:11,410 --> 00:10:15,370
down here on the right side. We are not considering that side yard setback. That is okay. It's more so the northwest that we are focused on to provide some more
Background and history.

76
00:10:22,010 --> 00:10:22,010
in 1962, when the house was constructed, the required setbacks were seven feet on either
Side.

77
00:10:28,370 --> 00:10:28,370
the house was built up to 7.3ft from the southeast side,
And again 26ft from the northwest side.

78
00:10:34,170 --> 00:10:34,170
in 2004, the comprehensive zoning ordinance amended most of the single family residential
Zoning districts to adjust the allowable allowed side yard

79
00:10:43,570 --> 00:10:43,570
setbacks. Now it is a tiered system with setbacks based on the range of the lot width,
With the intent of allowing the buildable area to be more proportionate to lots

80
00:10:53,480 --> 00:10:53,480
of different and varying widths. So this lot now has this requirement where lots are
Created or combined.

81
00:11:00,240 --> 00:11:04,160
so the resulting lot is 80ft or more in width. I'm sorry 80ft, but less than 120ft in width.

82
00:11:07,400 --> 00:11:10,240
the minimum side yard setback shall be ten feet. And we included the following exception the reconstruction of a single family dwelling on
An existing platted lot of record may utilize the side setback established for the

83
00:11:20,120 --> 00:11:20,120
previous dwelling on that lot. However, in no instance shall the side setback be less than
Seven feet in width,

84
00:11:26,920 --> 00:11:26,920
nor less than the side setback of the previous dwelling.

85
00:11:32,680 --> 00:11:32,680
here's a comparison of the previous footprint shown in blue and then the new footprint
Shown in orange.

86
00:11:42,680 --> 00:11:42,680
here's the applicant's justification. Going back to that reconstruction provision I just
Read,

87
00:11:47,640 --> 00:11:47,640
the applicant interpreted the provision as allowing the new home to match not only the
Previous setback on the southeast side at 7.3,

88
00:11:55,520 --> 00:11:58,920
but also to apply that to the northwest side. The applicant has stated this design is consistent with the historic site condition,
Side yard conditions and aligns with the established character of the property and

89
00:12:06,600 --> 00:12:06,600
neighborhood. The applicant has invested $50,000 in architectural plans based on this
Interpretation.

90
00:12:13,360 --> 00:12:16,920
also, they go on to say there is a physical property hardship. The law is not rectangular shaped, it is irregular,
Has seven sides and it's located within a cul de sac,

91
00:12:23,640 --> 00:12:23,640
which they say creates physical constraints that limit conventional building placement.

92
00:12:28,080 --> 00:12:28,080
also, this house is buffered by two creeks in the rear that encumber the property,
Which the applicant says creates significant floodplain restrictions that reduce the

93
00:12:37,240 --> 00:12:37,240
buildable area. So taking a look at that last comment in the floodplain comment,
Staff took a look at the floodplain

94
00:12:46,960 --> 00:12:50,760
that runs along the east and west side of that creek. So we took a look at the homes that are on the same side of the block on cheyenne drive,
As well as homes on waterview drive,

95
00:12:56,760 --> 00:12:56,760
which are on the east side of the creek, and staff evaluated how much of their each
Respective lot is encumbered by floodplain.

96
00:13:05,400 --> 00:13:05,400
what we found was, of 49 properties, this ranks 18th and most encumbered.

97
00:13:10,440 --> 00:13:10,440
it is encumbered by approximately 3,538% of fema mapped floodplain area,
And that covers both the creeks that converge in the back of the property.

98
00:13:21,480 --> 00:13:21,480
the average encumbrance for all 49 lots was 38%,
And the subject lot is also at 38% encumbrance.

99
00:13:29,640 --> 00:13:29,640
we focused in on similar cul de sac type lots in this development.

100
00:13:33,720 --> 00:13:33,720
so ten of those are highlighted here. Of the ten,
There are six that are more encumbered than the subject lot.

101
00:13:39,480 --> 00:13:39,480
the average encumbrance for these is 48. Again,
The subject law is encumbered by 38% floodplain.

102
00:13:47,760 --> 00:13:50,160
we also took a look at the net buildable area. We applied the side yard, front yard and rear yard setbacks and the floodplain and found
That the calculated buildable area is

103
00:13:59,520 --> 00:13:59,520
11,800ft² of buildable area within the allowed building envelope,
And that's shown in orange here.

104
00:14:10,600 --> 00:14:10,600
to summarize our analysis, the r 1500 m zoning district requires properties to be a
Minimum of 1500ft².

105
00:14:17,520 --> 00:14:17,520
this property has previously been developed with a 3200 square foot house,
And assuming a new single story house,

106
00:14:24,120 --> 00:14:24,120
an attached two car garage is constructed. We found the calculated area of 11,829ft² of
Buildable area is greater than the minimum requirements needed to

107
00:14:33,920 --> 00:14:33,920
construct a 1500 square foot house. As such,
The property can be developed in a manner commensurate with other parcels in the same

108
00:14:40,710 --> 00:14:40,710
zoning district, and staff has determined that the property does not exhibit a hardship
Related to its physical characteristics that would limit its reasonable use.

109
00:14:53,150 --> 00:14:53,150
as a reminder, these are the five criteria issued by the state texas local government code
As grounds to determine whether compliance would result in unnecessary

110
00:15:02,510 --> 00:15:02,510
hardship. The board may authorize a variance if the variance is not contrary to public
Interest and due to special conditions,

111
00:15:09,790 --> 00:15:09,790
a literal enforcement of ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. And so the spirit
Of the ordinance was observed and substantial justice is done.

112
00:15:17,830 --> 00:15:17,830
I'm going to go through each of these five to say what staff found.

113
00:15:22,270 --> 00:15:22,270
and as a reminder, in this case, compliance means the applicant would build up to the ten
Foot side yard setback and no further.

114
00:15:31,790 --> 00:15:31,790
so first we found the financial costs of compliance does not exceed 50% of the value of
The structure compliance would not result in a loss to the developable

115
00:15:41,590 --> 00:15:41,590
area of the property. Compliance would not result in the structure.

116
00:15:45,710 --> 00:15:45,710
being non-compliant with any other code. Compliance would not impact adjacent properties
Or easements,

117
00:15:51,790 --> 00:15:51,790
and the encroachment is not necessary to bring a non-conforming structure into compliance.

118
00:15:59,910 --> 00:15:59,910
and finally, for those reasons I mentioned, based on the information provided by the
Applicant applicant,

119
00:16:05,430 --> 00:16:05,430
applicable codes and ordinances, it is staff's opinion that a physical property hardship
Does not exist and the request should therefore be denied.

120
00:16:13,230 --> 00:16:13,230
and this was a public hearing and we have not received any response from the public in
Response to the request.

121
00:16:19,270 --> 00:16:21,830
and that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any questions for miss peters at this time?

122
00:16:25,510 --> 00:16:25,510
mr. Rucker? So going back to the exception section for f1d reconstruction of a single
Property dwelling on existing platted

123
00:16:35,270 --> 00:16:35,270
lot. Your record may utilize a side setback established for the previous.

124
00:16:40,310 --> 00:16:40,310
dwelling on that lot. However, in no instance shall the side setback be less than seven
Feet in width,

125
00:16:46,150 --> 00:16:46,150
nor less than the side setback of the previous dwelling.

126
00:16:51,110 --> 00:16:51,110
so is it. The second half of that underline is what the issue is.

127
00:16:55,830 --> 00:16:55,830
because they built the the side was 26ft. That's right.

128
00:17:00,950 --> 00:17:00,950
that's how we would interpret that part of the code. So they could either they could still
Go up to ten feet though that is still allowed,

129
00:17:11,270 --> 00:17:11,270
but they would not be able to go any more than less than seven is what that's saying.

130
00:17:26,630 --> 00:17:26,630
so where it is now is with the proposed setback 7.3.

131
00:17:35,620 --> 00:17:35,620
yes. So you're saying they'd still be? If that was a seven foot setback on the northwest,
They'd still be not in compliance.

132
00:17:45,180 --> 00:17:45,180
am I getting these numbers correct or no? I'm not sure I understand the question.

133
00:17:52,300 --> 00:17:52,300
so this property, they're allowed to go to exhibit two here,
But they can't.

134
00:17:58,100 --> 00:18:01,500
they can only go ten foot, but previously they go seven. Yeah. Previously. Correct. So the the ordinance was acknowledging that previously they
Could have built to seven

135
00:18:11,480 --> 00:18:15,100
feet when the setbacks were seven feet at that time. But since the zoning changed, the setbacks are now ten feet.

136
00:18:19,980 --> 00:18:19,980
and but there was the exception that was allowed to be able to go less than ten feet,
But not less than what was previously built.

137
00:18:28,540 --> 00:18:28,540
so in this case, from that northwest property line,
The.

138
00:18:33,580 --> 00:18:33,580
the prior house was actually 26ft off of the property line.

139
00:18:39,580 --> 00:18:43,300
they're allowed to now go up to the ten foot setback line. If that northwest side of the house was originally constructed where it was something less
Than ten feet,

140
00:18:49,820 --> 00:18:49,820
let's say it was maybe built at five feet. The ordinances acknowledge that will.

141
00:18:54,300 --> 00:18:54,300
now, today you can only go to seven. So it's if.

142
00:18:59,020 --> 00:18:59,020
and correct me if I'm wrong. But it's my understanding in our application of the
Ordinance,

143
00:19:04,860 --> 00:19:08,740
there was acknowledgment of where the prior house used to sit. If the prior house was non-compliant with the zoning requirements that exist today,
That prior house on that northwest property line,

144
00:19:17,620 --> 00:19:21,100
it complied because it was 26ft off the property line. But now that that house has been torn down, the new owner is trying to maximize their
Buildable area,

145
00:19:26,620 --> 00:19:26,620
which is understandable. But because the zoning setback is today,
Now ten feet, that's what they're having to comply with.

146
00:19:33,340 --> 00:19:33,340
so they're they're asking for similar relief on that northwest property line to be 7.3ft
Off to match what they had on the other.

147
00:19:41,500 --> 00:19:41,500
because it's as I understand it, their understanding was because they had a seven foot
Three setback established on one side that that applied to all of the property lines.

148
00:19:51,140 --> 00:19:51,140
but but that's not the case. So if the previous house was not built to 7.3 on that south
East side,

149
00:20:02,260 --> 00:20:02,260
the southeast side is compliant the way it's designed because it's seven feet,
Right?

150
00:20:08,500 --> 00:20:08,500
because would it be ten if it was less the the prior house was built at that reduced
Setback.

151
00:20:16,020 --> 00:20:16,020
and so it was that house could have been set back at seven feet originally when it was
Constructed back in the day,

152
00:20:23,860 --> 00:20:23,860
it was actually set at 7.3ft. So the property owner today is holding that 7.3ft setback
That was allowed for because

153
00:20:33,770 --> 00:20:33,770
they're reconstructing the house. But that 7.3 setback only applies to that southeast
Property line.

154
00:20:39,930 --> 00:20:39,930
but would it now be ten feet? It would normally be ten feet if if there was no house on
The property previously,

155
00:20:48,970 --> 00:20:48,970
and it was just a vacant tract of land and somebody created this lot,
They would have a ten foot side yard setback on the southwest side and or excuse me,

156
00:20:56,250 --> 00:20:56,250
on the southeast side and the northwest side. That's what it is today. That's what I'm
Getting. So because the previous house was built up to the side,

157
00:21:04,450 --> 00:21:04,450
you utilize the 7.3. They are allowed to go to 7.3 from that property line only.

158
00:21:11,650 --> 00:21:11,650
and because the dwelling did not extend to 7.3 on the northwest side.

159
00:21:17,130 --> 00:21:17,130
you're saying they get ten feet today just because of the dwelling.

160
00:21:22,530 --> 00:21:22,530
correct. So. Yes. Because the the previous house did not maximize their buildable area
That was.

161
00:21:31,890 --> 00:21:31,890
that they could have potentially when that house was originally constructed. So now that
That house has been torn down.

162
00:21:38,770 --> 00:21:42,290
the setback that they have to comply with is ten feet. So they could they can still maximize their building area up to ten feet.

163
00:21:45,490 --> 00:21:45,490
previously, the old house was at 26ft. But now they can go up to ten feet because that's
The setback that is required today.

164
00:21:53,130 --> 00:21:53,130
I know it's confusing. Yeah. I mean just the last portion that says no less than the side
Setback of the previous dwelling.

165
00:22:02,130 --> 00:22:02,130
I mean, the side setback of the previous dwelling was seven feet.

166
00:22:06,530 --> 00:22:06,530
it was seven feet on the southeast side, but not the northwest side.

167
00:22:11,490 --> 00:22:14,050
it wasn't seven feet, not on the northwest side. What was it? It was 26ft. That was the. Okay.

168
00:22:18,090 --> 00:22:18,090
hold on. I'm trying to establish 26ft. Was the required setback in 1962.

169
00:22:23,450 --> 00:22:27,130
no, it was seven feet. Right. That's what I'm getting at. But because the house, but because the house wasn't built to that seven foot side yard
Setback,

170
00:22:33,170 --> 00:22:33,170
it was actually built 26ft. So the ordinance is not a not allowing them to go back and use
An old setback that is no longer available today.

171
00:22:43,690 --> 00:22:43,690
I guess the question that I would have, because I think this is the same question I would
Have,

172
00:22:47,850 --> 00:22:47,850
is the way it reads. It says platted lot of record may utilize a side setback established
For the previous dwelling on that lot.

173
00:22:55,410 --> 00:22:55,410
and to me, not a lawyer. It reads to me that that side setback would have been seven feet
Back then.

174
00:23:03,530 --> 00:23:03,530
but I guess I don't understand what the the legal term established means here.

175
00:23:08,570 --> 00:23:11,130
are you guys saying that established would mean anything? That is that the house was presently constructed,
Constructed at that.

176
00:23:15,890 --> 00:23:19,450
that would be what the what is established for that. Yeah. The setback was established with the dwelling is essentially what that what the
Ordinance is trying to say.

177
00:23:25,330 --> 00:23:25,330
well, I mean, the side setback was established for the city ordinance.

178
00:23:29,480 --> 00:23:29,480
that's not the dwelling. And I agree with scott on that.

179
00:23:33,720 --> 00:23:33,720
that's that's why I'm just trying to make sure I understand what established means. You
Have two phrases setback established for the previous dwelling on that lot.

180
00:23:42,320 --> 00:23:42,320
and then you say side setback of the previous dwelling.

181
00:23:46,920 --> 00:23:46,920
use the same phrase twice. But you're saying the first phrase.

182
00:23:51,680 --> 00:23:51,680
well, you know, it's just it's not that I don't think this is poorly written.

183
00:23:58,920 --> 00:23:58,920
it's a I think you have conflicting meanings.

184
00:24:03,960 --> 00:24:03,960
is there a way to pull the full language of that portion,
Just to see if there's any additional context that we can glean?

185
00:24:12,960 --> 00:24:12,960
that's, that's really it from, I guess I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that a
Dwelling can dictate a side setback.

186
00:24:24,320 --> 00:24:24,320
that's where I can't. I can't wrap my head around that.

187
00:24:29,400 --> 00:24:29,400
I believe so. The intent was that because you had homes that were built in the
Neighborhood and the existing homes that are there set the

188
00:24:39,960 --> 00:24:39,960
the character of the neighborhood, and they were compliant with the setbacks that were in
Place at that time.

189
00:24:46,240 --> 00:24:46,240
when we changed the rules, there was probably some concern that the ten foot setback
Requirement might make some structures non-conforming.

190
00:24:55,120 --> 00:24:55,120
and so the ordinance was trying to acknowledge then that it's that the existing house was,

191
00:25:05,560 --> 00:25:07,880
if remaining, was allowed to have that encroachment. So on the the southwest, excuse me, the southeast side the fact that it was built at
7.3ft,

192
00:25:16,080 --> 00:25:16,080
you know, it complied the day it was built. But the city came by later on and changed the
Rules and made it a more restrictive setback.

193
00:25:22,880 --> 00:25:22,880
and so you have a non-compliant, a non-conforming situation there.

194
00:25:26,960 --> 00:25:26,960
but I think what the writers of the code were trying to achieve was,
Okay, we will allow for a home to be replaced on this property,

195
00:25:35,040 --> 00:25:35,040
understanding that that prior residence was built at a lesser setback.

196
00:25:39,760 --> 00:25:39,760
so they weren't going to penalize the property owner for tearing down their prior home and
Being able to build new utilizing a setback that was

197
00:25:49,640 --> 00:25:49,640
less than ten feet. So if we had that same situation prior to the home being torn down on
That northwest property line,

198
00:25:59,360 --> 00:26:01,920
they could have taken advantage of a reduced setback. But because that prior dwelling was constructed at a 26 foot setback off of there,
It was compliant at the time,

199
00:26:09,360 --> 00:26:12,240
and it was compliant even after the rules changed. So hence why now they have to follow the building setback that is in place in accordance
With the zoning being the ten feet.

200
00:26:30,870 --> 00:26:30,870
and I wanted to also point out to you that we did check with with some more tenured staff
That have been here longer and confirmed that we

201
00:26:40,790 --> 00:26:40,790
have historically applied this provision to the non-conforming side.

202
00:26:48,310 --> 00:26:48,310
we have, you know, not granted, we have not extended that relief to the conforming side of
The house.

203
00:26:55,870 --> 00:26:55,870
so basically, a setback line is tied in to whatever direction,
You know, whatever side it is,

204
00:27:00,830 --> 00:27:00,830
you can't pull it over to the other side. Well,
Now that would make sense if it was now legally non-conforming because it was at the

205
00:27:09,110 --> 00:27:09,110
dwelling was at seven. They're not going to penalize you if it's now over.

206
00:27:14,110 --> 00:27:14,110
but I guess I don't understand the the opposite of that.

207
00:27:21,990 --> 00:27:21,990
if the intent was to allow for a non-conforming structure,
I don't know how you can move

208
00:27:32,510 --> 00:27:32,510
a setback line. I just I'm having a hard time.

209
00:27:38,030 --> 00:27:38,030
yeah. Because it recognized the nonconformity on the southeast side.

210
00:27:44,030 --> 00:27:44,030
and so it was allowing for the house to be rebuilt.

211
00:27:50,910 --> 00:27:50,910
especially so for example, if like the structure was damaged,
Had to, you know you know, it had a fire got struck by lightning,

212
00:27:59,070 --> 00:27:59,070
whatever the case might be, it was allowing,
Recognizing, allowing the structure to be built back to.

213
00:28:04,590 --> 00:28:07,790
yeah. That compliance. So that's why that side is still allowed. And I think also trying to be respectful of the existing character within the
Neighborhood.

214
00:28:14,310 --> 00:28:14,310
if the northwest side of the house was non-conforming,
Where it was built at something less than a ten foot setback.

215
00:28:23,830 --> 00:28:23,830
then they would be able to take advantage of that,
As long as it wasn't anything less than seven feet because of the language that's in the

216
00:28:30,750 --> 00:28:30,750
ordinance on the reconstruction provision. The challenge is that northwest side of the
House was more than satisfactorily compliant with the

217
00:28:40,350 --> 00:28:40,350
setbacks that were in place. And so that's why we're saying the ordinance allows you now
To go up to the ten foot setback if you wanted to maximize that.

218
00:28:49,470 --> 00:28:49,470
but you can't encroach anymore into that. Like what?

219
00:28:55,350 --> 00:28:55,350
because what was happening on the northwest side of the house is a different condition
Than what was happening on the southeast side of the house. And,

220
00:29:02,390 --> 00:29:02,390
and if I understand correctly, I think what he's getting at is hindsight being 2020,
Is that at any time before 2004,

221
00:29:10,390 --> 00:29:10,390
when the, when the co was changed, they could have you know,
They could have added on, on that side of the property up to seven feet,

222
00:29:18,500 --> 00:29:18,500
and then we probably wouldn't be here today. But because that never happened.

223
00:29:23,700 --> 00:29:27,140
and it is it's a little it's a little hard to swallow. I understand that part. Chair lemons. You are correct.

224
00:29:30,100 --> 00:29:30,100
thank you. You have side setback? No. Nor less than the side setback.

225
00:29:42,780 --> 00:29:42,780
the side setback of the previous dwelling was seven feet.

226
00:29:49,540 --> 00:29:49,540
wasn't 26. The side setback for that previous dwelling was seven feet on either side.

227
00:30:00,540 --> 00:30:00,540
pre 2004. Yeah yeah yeah. I think it says no less than seven feet or less than the side
Setback of the previous dwelling.

228
00:30:09,980 --> 00:30:09,980
the side setback as defined for the previous dwelling was seven feet.

229
00:30:19,780 --> 00:30:23,380
again, that's the way it reads to me, is the side setback was established. And to me, when I read it the first time, it sounded like the side setback was seven foot.

230
00:30:29,220 --> 00:30:29,220
and I understanding that when you're defining established as what the previous home was
On.

231
00:30:34,260 --> 00:30:34,260
but then I think to scott's point, the side setback wasn't 26ft,
It was seven feet at the time.

232
00:30:40,780 --> 00:30:40,780
and so I'm just trying to I guess I'm trying to understand it too,
Because if I was reading it just like this,

233
00:30:45,380 --> 00:30:45,380
I think I would have fell into the same trap for seven foot on both sides again,
As a non-lawyer.

234
00:30:59,740 --> 00:30:59,740
could I understand your point that if establishes is defined as what the construction was,

235
00:31:04,340 --> 00:31:04,340
then yes, but how would they know that? By just reading this.

236
00:31:08,380 --> 00:31:08,380
I guess my question, I don't know if that's in the purview of our what we're supposed to
Be doing here,

237
00:31:12,820 --> 00:31:12,820
but it just sounds like that's where the confusion would be.

238
00:31:18,540 --> 00:31:18,540
well, but I think the other thing that we have to keep in mind is that the ceo was changed
In 2004,

239
00:31:25,060 --> 00:31:27,980
and that kind of reconfigured everything. I agree. But the way it is written is not nor less than the side setback of the previous dwelling.

240
00:31:37,820 --> 00:31:37,820
the side setback of the previous dwelling was seven feet.

241
00:31:44,340 --> 00:31:44,340
yeah. This was changed in 2004, but that was four f one.

242
00:31:49,500 --> 00:31:49,500
d was part of the co right to to to give relief to anybody who had a home that was seven
Foot setback.

243
00:31:56,700 --> 00:31:56,700
and maybe their purpose was that just existing properties would be at seven feet and
People weren't going to like if someone had to rebuild their home,

244
00:32:05,100 --> 00:32:05,100
they would just build on the same footprint of their,
The home that was there before.

245
00:32:09,940 --> 00:32:09,940
but I don't know, the way that it reads to me is seven foot would be the setback.

246
00:32:18,260 --> 00:32:18,260
but in order to exercise that, it made it contingent on actually building out to that,
To that area.

247
00:32:23,820 --> 00:32:23,820
you know, prior to 2004. Yeah. And I just don't see that in the in what's written there.

248
00:32:29,660 --> 00:32:32,180
I'll tell you what, just to keep things moving. If we don't have any other questions for, for city staff,
This would be a good point for us to allow the applicant to speak on this as well.

249
00:32:40,100 --> 00:32:43,860
so do you have any other questions? No. Just digest this. Okay. All right. Thank you, miss peters. Thank you.

250
00:32:47,540 --> 00:32:50,340
all right. At this time. So this is a public hearing. And at this time I would invite the applicant to come forward to present their case. Just
Remember,

251
00:32:54,540 --> 00:32:54,540
before you speak, provide your name and address for the record and then tell us about your
Case.

252
00:33:03,220 --> 00:33:03,220
thank you for having me. Tim cahill 1202. Cheyenne place or aspiring to that location
Currently?

253
00:33:12,010 --> 00:33:15,490
oh. Oh, yeah. Sorry. We actually have something else that we do. We. We swear in our witnesses now. I wing it.

254
00:33:22,490 --> 00:33:22,490
oh. Is it? Let me see. I don't know that I have that.

255
00:33:27,970 --> 00:33:27,970
thank you. All right, so at this time, we are we are calling the applicant to speak for
The property located at,

256
00:33:36,850 --> 00:33:36,850
what is it? 12021202 cheyenne. Thank you, thank you.

257
00:33:43,130 --> 00:33:43,130
so we're actually we ask any witness who wishes to speak on this to,
To testify before, but who will be testifying to be sworn in beforehand.

258
00:33:51,290 --> 00:33:54,610
so you've already introduced yourself and at this time. Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this commission today to be the
Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do.

259
00:34:00,610 --> 00:34:00,610
all right. You may get started. Thank you. Thank you so much.

260
00:34:05,170 --> 00:34:05,170
I have some points that I'd like to get to, but I think the debate that ensued is exactly
The primary point that that we struggled with was the interpretation of a

261
00:34:14,650 --> 00:34:14,650
previous precedent, setting a setback that would apply to the lot.

262
00:34:18,730 --> 00:34:18,730
and so architect presumably not presumably did move forward accordingly.

263
00:34:23,090 --> 00:34:23,090
and there's a couple other exhibits where it shows additional complexities to the lot.

264
00:34:28,330 --> 00:34:28,330
sure. I think looking at each of these in a silo,
For example, the floodway cover or the the flood plain coverage a cul de sac.

265
00:34:37,930 --> 00:34:37,930
any of those elements individually are understandable if you compare them in a silo.

266
00:34:42,930 --> 00:34:42,930
you know, there's not as much of an anomaly. But if you look at them in concert,
There are unique anomalies.

267
00:34:48,850 --> 00:34:48,850
for example, the back corner of the lot has kind of an l shape that pushes the rear build
Line up.

268
00:34:54,890 --> 00:34:54,890
yeah, there you go. So the rear build line with the blue arrow is moves that up.

269
00:35:00,610 --> 00:35:00,610
additionally, you can see the unique orientation of the lot relative to the cul de sac is
Not square,

270
00:35:05,410 --> 00:35:09,130
as in most of the other sites that were presented. All had more of a true wedge shape off of those angles.

271
00:35:12,010 --> 00:35:14,450
and so that creates an additional complexity. And as with regard to the historical setbacks in the orientation of the home,
I think there are conditions today that are different than were

272
00:35:24,170 --> 00:35:24,170
then. And so I'm going to appeal to you on the basis of the beauty of our city.

273
00:35:28,410 --> 00:35:28,410
there are several giant live oak trees in the front yard that we desperately want to
Preserve as many.

274
00:35:34,890 --> 00:35:34,890
there's five in total, and there are over 65 years old,
According to the original owner who planted them at the time of the home being built.

275
00:35:43,130 --> 00:35:43,130
and so they come along the driveway on the left side. I don't know if this exhibit shows
It, but we're that little j.

276
00:35:48,450 --> 00:35:48,450
can I, can I approach that to show? Okay, so here's a picture if you can go back.

277
00:35:56,610 --> 00:35:56,610
so from the driveway up through this area, it's about right in that shape.

278
00:36:01,890 --> 00:36:01,890
there are giant trees along that. And then the two others right here.

279
00:36:06,130 --> 00:36:06,130
and so it basically runs along here. There's additional complexity because of the power
Pole right here as in the picture.

280
00:36:16,520 --> 00:36:16,520
if you go back to that yes, there's a power pole here.

281
00:36:21,760 --> 00:36:21,760
so while you presumably could put a drive in there as complexity,
These systems and so forth.

282
00:36:28,440 --> 00:36:28,440
so I think the options thank you. Since we're recording.

283
00:36:37,200 --> 00:36:37,200
I'm sorry. Oh, great. Okay. Thank you. So the options for where the driveway is located is
Complex.

284
00:36:46,280 --> 00:36:46,280
and then even once you are inside the lot. Let's see if I can do some of this.

285
00:36:51,520 --> 00:36:51,520
oh, maybe the wrong way. Sorry. First time presentation here at the variance meeting.

286
00:36:56,000 --> 00:36:56,000
so thank you for having me. Great. But even we lived there for ten years.

287
00:37:01,440 --> 00:37:01,440
this is our home. We tore it down with the intent we bought with this long term vision by
Experience,

288
00:37:06,160 --> 00:37:06,160
driving up that driveway and turning into the house 26ft may feel like a lot,
But it really is a very tight squeeze for an 87 point turn to get back out of that.

289
00:37:15,120 --> 00:37:15,120
and so in an effort to have a more true pull in and pull out scenario,
Preserving the trees complexity of the angles of the lot with the rear setbacks pushing

290
00:37:25,120 --> 00:37:25,120
the house up, all these things came into effect for just the practical use of it.

291
00:37:30,120 --> 00:37:30,120
so again, the original presentation with in a silo,
These unique variables in and of themselves when compared,

292
00:37:37,120 --> 00:37:37,120
there's a basis for all of those. I think having having validity.

293
00:37:41,800 --> 00:37:41,800
the one other thing that I'd like to call attention to here.

294
00:37:46,400 --> 00:37:46,400
so this 40 foot setback from the front yard,
One of the things we did, we did inquire on the setback situation in the beginning,

295
00:37:54,680 --> 00:37:54,680
and it says if it's an 80 foot lot or less measured at the setback,
It qualifies as 80 foot

296
00:38:04,520 --> 00:38:04,520
life beyond the setback. It clearly, if you have a ruler clearly goes beyond that.

297
00:38:09,760 --> 00:38:09,760
but at the setback line, if you measure exactly from that point to this point,
It is under 80ft.

298
00:38:18,880 --> 00:38:18,880
they declined. They didn't decline. We were not told that that is measured based on the
Arch.

299
00:38:24,120 --> 00:38:24,120
so it's actually the radius that's measured for that distance to qualify 80 foot versus
The 120 foot kind of window.

300
00:38:33,240 --> 00:38:33,240
so again, with the interpretation of the rule,
The setback we designed accordingly with the interpretation of that not being made clear,

301
00:38:39,800 --> 00:38:39,800
the complexity of all these variables collectively is the basis for my primary appeal.

302
00:38:46,720 --> 00:38:46,720
and so I'd like to take those things into account,
But really the practical preservation of the beauty and the access and egress of the

303
00:38:55,640 --> 00:38:58,400
vehicles is really what we took into account. And so why not just shift the house or twist the house?

304
00:39:01,040 --> 00:39:03,950
well, it doesn't allow it for the all the complexity. It's not a square lot. We can't just pivot the house the way that it's now been designed.

305
00:39:08,230 --> 00:39:08,230
we'd have to go back and redesign it after significant investment.

306
00:39:14,150 --> 00:39:14,150
and so what we're left with is a garage that truly won't house two vehicles.

307
00:39:18,790 --> 00:39:18,790
now it's a two car garage. And so I don't have a presentation here that I can present to
You.

308
00:39:26,430 --> 00:39:26,430
but if I can find maybe the. Plan, you can see where the red and the blue line are
Basically between that is

309
00:39:35,950 --> 00:39:35,950
approximately ten feet. So we're basically just going to have to dog ear our garage,
Which prohibits two vehicles from being able to pull in to the garage.

310
00:39:44,350 --> 00:39:44,350
the left vehicle or the one closest to the property line would basically hit the wall.

311
00:39:48,830 --> 00:39:48,830
and so in order to avoid redesigning the whole house,
Which has, if you've done that before,

312
00:39:54,030 --> 00:39:57,190
significant implications, we're required to cut that. And so it limits our garage space. Again, I don't know that there's one thing that's like,

313
00:40:02,750 --> 00:40:02,750
hey, this is the thing other than maybe the complexity of how the rule was interpreted by
Our architect,

314
00:40:07,270 --> 00:40:07,270
which is similar to to the debate earlier, but the complexity of the trees,
The angle of the lot,

315
00:40:12,550 --> 00:40:12,550
the uniqueness of the l shape in the back that pushes the 40 foot setback up,
The confusion around the width of the lot and where that starts,

316
00:40:19,750 --> 00:40:19,750
and how that's truly measured, and the historical setback being 7.3ft,
Which we accommodated,

317
00:40:26,670 --> 00:40:26,670
obviously, by based on that interpretation, there's a collective appeal to that to request
Your approval.

318
00:40:35,590 --> 00:40:35,590
and so maybe I rest my case, I don't know. Questions.

319
00:40:40,070 --> 00:40:40,070
well done. Do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? I guess I'll ask one.

320
00:40:46,590 --> 00:40:46,590
I think you've already kind of addressed this,
But I mean, have you considered other layouts that maybe go a little further back into the

321
00:40:53,790 --> 00:40:53,790
lot or. I mean, I know garage space and correct me if I'm wrong,
But the garage will be kind of front facing at this point,

322
00:41:00,910 --> 00:41:04,430
is that correct? I mean, you tell me. But yes,
More or less. Yeah. Yeah. I would say one of the issues here is not only this setback,
But there's also additionally a flood plain.

323
00:41:12,790 --> 00:41:15,630
I'm still struggling to get floodway floodplain correct. But there is also a flood plain situation in there that that also impacts just like just
Shift the house back or pivot it.

324
00:41:23,590 --> 00:41:23,590
we've legitimately vetted those options. Otherwise we would not have we would not be here.

325
00:41:27,830 --> 00:41:27,830
okay. And then can you use the pointer just to pinpoint where those where those mature
Trees are?

326
00:41:34,190 --> 00:41:34,190
yes. They start literally kind of in that little,
That pocket right there.

327
00:41:42,030 --> 00:41:45,390
and they run along this driveway up to the front of the road. And then there are two more over over on this side,
But there's three and they're almost four feet trunks that run along this,

328
00:41:53,470 --> 00:41:53,470
this line here. And so there would be access maybe be there to go into the lot,
But

329
00:42:03,420 --> 00:42:03,420
it creates just challenges within that with being able to build an efficient house.

330
00:42:09,020 --> 00:42:09,020
you've got all these wings, and the h shape of the previous house was horribly
Inefficient.

331
00:42:14,580 --> 00:42:14,580
and we it was it was really tough. So that's kind of maybe the alternative is doing that,
But then you're building an inefficient house and then you debate on beauty.

332
00:42:23,860 --> 00:42:23,860
but I guess all those are matters of opinion.

333
00:42:29,300 --> 00:42:33,060
sure, sure. Is that kind of answer your. No,
No, it's a good answer. Yeah. Okay. No, I understand. So we're trying to maintain the existing driveway that's
There. Obviously, the roots have grown around it, and we can put something back there that

334
00:42:40,860 --> 00:42:40,860
won't negatively affect those trees. Otherwise,
We're going to be getting the root systems and we just want to preserve them, frankly. Any

335
00:42:49,260 --> 00:42:49,260
other questions? All right. Well you're welcome to to have a seat.

336
00:42:54,140 --> 00:42:54,140
sit tight. We may have additional questions as we as we consider things.

337
00:42:58,220 --> 00:42:58,220
is there anyone else who wishes to speak here in favor of this request?

338
00:43:03,180 --> 00:43:03,180
don't think so. Does anybody wish to speak? If so,
I probably should have sworn yet.

339
00:43:07,300 --> 00:43:07,300
but is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this request?

340
00:43:11,740 --> 00:43:11,740
all right. Well, go ahead and have a seat. And we are going to deliberate on this a little
Bit.

341
00:43:19,100 --> 00:43:19,100
we may have additional questions for you. So thank you.

342
00:43:23,140 --> 00:43:26,220
all right. So it does not appear that there are any any. There is anyone else who wishes to speak in favor or against this request.

343
00:43:29,500 --> 00:43:29,500
so I'm going to close the public hearing now,
Open this up to deliberations and possible motion.

344
00:43:36,580 --> 00:43:36,580
mr. Rooker. So if the house in 1962 or whatever was built like this.

345
00:43:45,580 --> 00:43:49,580
yes, it could go back to their side yard setbacks,
Correct. To the seven. Correct. 7.3 but because it was built to a 26 foot.

346
00:43:58,980 --> 00:43:58,980
yeah. It now needs to go to ten, right? That's only because the way it was built.

347
00:44:07,620 --> 00:44:07,620
right. So the interpretation of that last part is no less than the side setback of the
Previous dwelling.

348
00:44:16,700 --> 00:44:16,700
so that'd be 26ft.

349
00:44:27,020 --> 00:44:27,020
so why is it not just 26ft? Why can they build the ten?

350
00:44:36,300 --> 00:44:36,300
if we're establishing that the side setback is now 26,
They're allowed to go up to ten feet based on provision

351
00:44:45,340 --> 00:44:45,340
f1b the provision d provides that relief valve for the

352
00:44:54,930 --> 00:44:54,930
non-conforming side of the house. Does a provision f1b establish the setback currently as
Ten foot?

353
00:45:05,090 --> 00:45:05,090
yes. So I guess the question becomes what provision established a seven foot before and
What.

354
00:45:11,970 --> 00:45:11,970
because that established would mean that that ten foot that that f14f1b establishes that
Ten foot.

355
00:45:21,530 --> 00:45:21,530
then the way that it reads is the setback was established before at seven feet.

356
00:45:27,610 --> 00:45:27,610
now that I guess it doesn't really make it clear.

357
00:45:32,770 --> 00:45:32,770
and again, I don't know if we're talking about something that doesn't really matter on
What we're voting on, but I feel like it doesn't really make it clear that that new

358
00:45:41,850 --> 00:45:45,610
setback was established at ten feet because there was no building there. It just says the side side setback established because the setback is there,
Regardless of whether you have a building there.

359
00:45:52,890 --> 00:45:52,890
am I correct in that? Because like, if my house is 20ft away from my side setback,
My side setback would still be ten foot.

360
00:46:00,210 --> 00:46:00,210
is that correct in my understanding? Yeah. No,
That's typically how setbacks are.

361
00:46:04,850 --> 00:46:04,850
they're they're the requirements that are built in and allow you to go up to certain
Distance on,

362
00:46:11,090 --> 00:46:11,090
on either side. But I think in provision d how it's worded,
It says the side setback established for the

363
00:46:20,970 --> 00:46:20,970
previous dwelling on that lot. So that's where it gets into the dwelling,
Establishing

364
00:46:30,730 --> 00:46:30,730
a setback that may have been less than what was than what would have than what is required
Today.

365
00:46:39,010 --> 00:46:39,010
yeah. I was just kind of your question about the 26 foot got me thinking.

366
00:46:44,770 --> 00:46:44,770
I think probably when this code was crafted,
The authors were not thinking of houses that had

367
00:46:55,570 --> 00:46:55,570
larger setbacks, right? Where like in this case,
Where the original house was built 26ft off the property line,

368
00:47:01,890 --> 00:47:01,890
you usually you don't have that situation. And so they were probably trying to make sure
They were protecting

369
00:47:11,690 --> 00:47:11,690
the non-conforming houses because the code changed,
But then allowing for the non-conforming houses to be reconstructed,

370
00:47:22,290 --> 00:47:22,290
acknowledging not allowing for less than seven feet in width,
Nor less than the side setback,

371
00:47:28,090 --> 00:47:28,090
provision of the previous dwelling. So if the previous dwelling was at eight feet,
They would still be able to build at that eight feet because

372
00:47:37,770 --> 00:47:40,210
otherwise the zoning is what establishes the setback. And the zoning is now saying it's ten. So the concern was probably most likely,
And this is totally presumptuous on my part,

373
00:47:47,970 --> 00:47:47,970
but it was probably most concerned with making properties non-conforming and probably did
Not contemplate this situation that we have

374
00:47:57,720 --> 00:47:57,720
with a house that was overly compliant from their northwest setback.

375
00:48:06,160 --> 00:48:06,160
if it's okay, I'm going to shift gears for a second. But this is a question for city staff
As well is how much of a consideration can we give to like existing trees and

376
00:48:16,120 --> 00:48:16,120
things like that. When I know for the most part,
You know, when we're looking for exceptions to the setback rules,

377
00:48:22,000 --> 00:48:22,000
we're, we're looking at anomalies and unusual characteristics of the lot.

378
00:48:27,160 --> 00:48:27,160
and a tree by itself is not unusual. But and I don't know that there's anything about
Preservation.

379
00:48:33,640 --> 00:48:33,640
so maybe I'm answering my own question. But you're welcome to you're welcome to step in
And,

380
00:48:39,600 --> 00:48:39,600
and provide any additional insight you can. That's a great question.

381
00:48:45,440 --> 00:48:45,440
I think. It. You have the ability to acknowledge existing conditions associated with the
Lot.

382
00:48:54,280 --> 00:48:54,280
let me know if y'all disagree on this. But usually when we're dealing with property
Hardships,

383
00:48:59,000 --> 00:48:59,000
it's what existing conditions are there that is precluding somebody from complying with
The ordinance.

384
00:49:05,160 --> 00:49:05,160
in this case, given that the applicant has presented that they have,
I believe, five large live oak trees that they're trying to preserve,

385
00:49:13,000 --> 00:49:13,000
and that's causing implications on them from complying.

386
00:49:17,440 --> 00:49:17,440
I think you could take that into consideration,
Just like you take into consideration other improvements on the property,

387
00:49:24,160 --> 00:49:24,160
such as floodplain, because I know that that was also a concern that was cited.

388
00:49:28,440 --> 00:49:28,440
and obviously we did a series of analyzes associated with it.

389
00:49:32,920 --> 00:49:32,920
you can also take into consideration the property lines themselves.

390
00:49:37,720 --> 00:49:37,720
is there something unique associated with this property that maybe is not that other
Properties are not experiencing that

391
00:49:47,600 --> 00:49:47,600
are on, on, on the cul de sac bulb, right. So it's you have the ability to take into
Consideration what you believe may be unique features that are

392
00:49:57,160 --> 00:49:57,160
resulting in a hardship situation. Okay. Thank you.

393
00:50:04,880 --> 00:50:04,880
and just to be clear, the the applicant had mentioned that if he was to comply,
He'd have to cut off part of his garage where he would have less than two car garage

394
00:50:14,280 --> 00:50:14,280
space. In doing so, that would be non-conforming and then he'd have to redesign anyways.

395
00:50:18,800 --> 00:50:18,800
is that correct? Yes. They would have to redesign the house in order to be compliant from
The garage standpoint.

396
00:50:31,800 --> 00:50:31,800
I think one of the challenges you have is and it's not derek,
Do you have the clicker where you can advance to.

397
00:50:41,600 --> 00:50:41,600
keep going. The lot that has all the floodplain,
You know, the challenge we have is we have a lot and we do this analysis on all

398
00:50:50,910 --> 00:50:50,910
properties. Is you apply the setbacks and then what's remaining is the buildable area,
Right?

399
00:50:58,190 --> 00:50:58,190
so is there insufficient buildable area that that causes the applicant otherwise not to be
Able to comply.

400
00:51:05,470 --> 00:51:05,470
sorry that came out rough. Is there when you look at this graphic in this particular case
You're looking at the buildable area.

401
00:51:10,950 --> 00:51:10,950
so is the buildable area significantly being impacted where the property is not being able
To be used or where the the new residence is not being able to

402
00:51:20,910 --> 00:51:20,910
be constructed on the property. Obviously we evaluated the floodplain because there was a
Concern cited that the floodplain encroaches on our on the property.

403
00:51:30,910 --> 00:51:30,910
we have a unique consideration with the confluence of two creeks contributing to the
Floodplain.

404
00:51:36,350 --> 00:51:36,350
so as you've seen on some requests that we've had here lately when the floodplain has been
Brought up,

405
00:51:41,950 --> 00:51:44,950
we look to see, okay, what are the floodplain applied implications. Is the floodplain creating such a hardship where they're not able to utilize the buildable
Area on the lot?

406
00:51:54,830 --> 00:51:54,830
so if you go back to your question about the trees,
You know, if the trees are impacting the buildable area where the applicant is not able to

407
00:52:03,070 --> 00:52:03,070
design a house that takes advantage of the buildable area because of where the trees are
Placed,

408
00:52:10,790 --> 00:52:13,990
then it's a reasonable consideration. I would agree. Yeah. Well. And I guess I would just say this for the benefit of the record more than
Anything.

409
00:52:23,870 --> 00:52:23,870
but one of the one of the considerations that we have here is that the city council
Approved the comprehensive zoning ordinance in 2004.

410
00:52:32,750 --> 00:52:32,750
and whether we agree with the ten the ten foot setbacks that were established there and
The calculations that they made in establishing those setbacks,

411
00:52:41,590 --> 00:52:45,310
the fact of the matter is that we are a quasi judicial board. If you don't like a decision we make. I mean,
You can complain.

412
00:52:48,870 --> 00:52:48,870
you can complain to the city or some, you know,
The mayor or the council about the decision that we make made,

413
00:52:54,030 --> 00:52:54,030
but we're just appointed. We're not you know,
The idea is, is this is kind of democracy.

414
00:53:00,870 --> 00:53:00,870
101 is, is the idea that we want to be respectful of the changes that have been made in
The comprehensive zoning ordinance.

415
00:53:09,030 --> 00:53:09,030
so ordinances. So we try to be very careful making sure that we we consider the criteria
Very carefully of,

416
00:53:16,070 --> 00:53:16,070
you know, uniqueness with the lot or other other factors and other considerations here.

417
00:53:22,390 --> 00:53:22,390
because ultimately, you know, the 2004 changes are still the law of the land.

418
00:53:28,030 --> 00:53:28,030
but you know, it's a tough case. Sorry, I don't think that shed any additional light,
But yeah.

419
00:53:35,910 --> 00:53:35,910
well, again, I mean, I'll go back to the really,
I think it's ambiguous is the way it's written or the intent of it.

420
00:53:43,220 --> 00:53:43,220
I understand the intent was to provide for a legally nonconforming structure to happen.

421
00:53:51,860 --> 00:53:51,860
but just because a previous homeowner took a dwelling to the 7.3,
It's not even over.

422
00:54:01,460 --> 00:54:01,460
right? I don't, I'm not squaring up the fact that because they didn't utilize

423
00:54:11,580 --> 00:54:11,580
the full extent of it, like you said, the drafters didn't contemplate something less than
What was the 26.

424
00:54:20,380 --> 00:54:20,380
I didn't contemplate that it was for other homes that used the seven foot.

425
00:54:25,940 --> 00:54:25,940
now, again, the setbacks, the setback setback,
Side setback, side setback.

426
00:54:30,900 --> 00:54:30,900
there's no other definition of a different side setback.

427
00:54:35,580 --> 00:54:35,580
so the way this is, is honestly is poorly drafted.

428
00:54:40,420 --> 00:54:40,420
so I'll make a motion. Mr. Chairman, I do find that literal enforcement of the ordinance
Will result in an unnecessary hardship,

429
00:54:48,340 --> 00:54:52,180
and granting the request will not be contrary to public interest. I therefore move to grant variance, grant the request and variance case 26.01,
And that the request be limited to those specifics which the applicant has

430
00:55:02,140 --> 00:55:02,140
presented in his application. All right, so we have a motion on the floor.

431
00:55:07,220 --> 00:55:10,500
do we have someone who wishes to second that motion. All right mr. Huffy. Seconds, seconds that motion.

432
00:55:13,300 --> 00:55:13,300
all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye.

433
00:55:17,340 --> 00:55:17,340
that motion carries unanimously. All right. We thank you very much for coming in.

434
00:55:22,060 --> 00:55:22,060
we wish you the very best of luck with your with your project here.

435
00:55:27,420 --> 00:55:27,420
thank you, thank you. I know. All right, so we have we have one more case in our packet
Tonight.

436
00:55:33,420 --> 00:55:33,420
and this is agenda item four. This is special exception 2602 at 3201 canyon creek drive.

437
00:55:42,180 --> 00:55:42,180
and miss ross is going to make her presentation now. All right. Good evening everyone. My
Name is christine ross. I'm a planner two here in the development services department. So

438
00:55:49,580 --> 00:55:49,580
this is se2602. A request for a special exception to chapter six of the city's code of
Ordinances to allow a wooden fence up to eight feet tall

439
00:55:59,500 --> 00:56:02,860
and the required front yard along glenfield court. The address is 3201 canyon creek drive and is zoned r 1500 m.

440
00:56:08,820 --> 00:56:08,820
the subject property is located at the northwest corner of canyon creek drive and
Glenfield court in the canyon creek country club number 21 subdivision.

441
00:56:17,420 --> 00:56:17,420
it was developed in 1972 with a single family residence and is surrounded by residential
On all sides.

442
00:56:26,700 --> 00:56:26,700
here are the existing conditions. It is approximately 0.36 acres.

443
00:56:31,780 --> 00:56:31,780
there is a existing approximately six foot tall wooden fence and that is shown in the
Orange dashed line,

444
00:56:39,300 --> 00:56:39,300
while the request is to allow an eight foot tall wooden fence for flexibility.

445
00:56:43,900 --> 00:56:43,900
the applicant is proposing to construct a seven foot tall wooden fence and that is
Outlined in green.

446
00:56:49,940 --> 00:56:49,940
in the yellow shaded area is the area of the request tonight,
So that is outside the 30 foot platted building line which is shown in that black line.

447
00:56:59,700 --> 00:56:59,700
and all the areas of the fence in green that border,
That yellow area are the subject of tonight's request.

448
00:57:07,940 --> 00:57:07,940
everything north of that black platted building line is in conformance with the ordinance.

449
00:57:14,340 --> 00:57:14,340
and the applicant is proposing to include a 15 by 25 foot visibility triangle at the
Southwest portion of the property to comply with the ordinance.

450
00:57:25,020 --> 00:57:25,020
here's some site photos. So the north photo is taken from the.

451
00:57:29,340 --> 00:57:29,340
the top photo is taken from the east elevation taken from canyon creek drive and the
Bottom picture is the south elevation taken from

452
00:57:38,770 --> 00:57:38,770
glenfield court that shows the existing fence.

453
00:57:44,090 --> 00:57:44,090
so the applicant states that they desire to increase the the area of their backyard for
Their grandchildren to play in,

454
00:57:50,050 --> 00:57:50,050
and the current fenced in area is too small. When they purchased the house,
They assumed they would be able to construct a fence due to numerous corner lots along

455
00:57:57,730 --> 00:57:57,730
canyon creek drive having existing fences. And here I've listed a couple of the lots.

456
00:58:03,810 --> 00:58:03,810
and then recently, at the january 21st meeting,
The zoning board of adjustment approved a special exception request for an eight foot tall

457
00:58:11,170 --> 00:58:11,170
fence on a corner lot. So there is precedent in the neighborhood.

458
00:58:18,770 --> 00:58:21,610
special exceptions differ from variance requests. A special exception comes from the code of ordinances,
And variance requests come from the comprehensive zoning ordinance,

459
00:58:27,930 --> 00:58:31,410
and an applicant is not required to meet the same strict criteria. Instead, chapter six of the city's code of ordinances states that the special exception
Must ensure that public safety and welfare will be substantially served,

460
00:58:40,410 --> 00:58:43,690
and that the use of neighboring properties will not be injured. Therefore, the board of adjustment may grant a special exception,
Provided that it will permit reasonable development of the property where the literal

461
00:58:50,850 --> 00:58:50,850
enforcement of the regulations would result in an unnecessary hardship.

462
00:58:56,530 --> 00:58:56,530
and based on the information provided by the applicant and the applicable codes,
It's in staff's opinion that the applicant's request tonight does not appear to be

463
00:59:05,090 --> 00:59:05,090
contrary to public safety, and does not appear to negatively impact neighboring
Properties,

464
00:59:10,370 --> 00:59:14,010
and it allows for reasonable development of the property. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested special exception.

465
00:59:18,170 --> 00:59:18,170
this was a public hearing and staff has not received any correspondence for or against
This proposal.

466
00:59:24,410 --> 00:59:24,410
and that concludes my presentation. The applicant is here tonight and or the applicants
Are here tonight.

467
00:59:29,570 --> 00:59:32,610
and I'm happy to answer any questions. All right. Do we have any questions for miss ross at this time? I don't believe so.

468
00:59:36,930 --> 00:59:36,930
thank you. So we would invite the applicant applicants at this time if they both wish to
Speak to.

469
00:59:44,330 --> 00:59:44,330
he drew the short straw. Drew the short straw.

470
00:59:49,810 --> 00:59:49,810
alright. And so I am going to have to swear you in since this is a public hearing and I am
Going to just wing it.

471
00:59:58,850 --> 00:59:58,850
do you want my laptop? I got it right here. If you don't mind,
At least at first, just stating your name and address for the record.

472
01:00:05,050 --> 01:00:05,050
my name is jeff hamilton. I reside at 3201 canyon creek drive,
Richardson, texas, 75080.

473
01:00:12,370 --> 01:00:16,330
all right. So at this time we are calling variance. Let's see, this is 2602. Or special exception.

474
01:00:20,570 --> 01:00:20,570
2602 for the property located at 3201 canyon creek drive.

475
01:00:25,290 --> 01:00:28,890
and we are because you are going to be testifying,
We're going to have you swear in. So at this time, would you please raise your right hand? And do you.

476
01:00:32,040 --> 01:00:32,040
do you swear that the testimony you will give before this commission today would be the
Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. Thank you. All right.

477
01:00:39,200 --> 01:00:42,000
you may begin. Okay. So thank you for your time tonight. Thank you, miss ross, for your efforts in preparing the packet.

478
01:00:45,680 --> 01:00:45,680
we moved recently and this past august from ohio to richardson,
Texas to be close to our children and our grandchildren.

479
01:00:53,080 --> 01:00:53,080
they live in the canyon creek area. So we narrowed our search to this neighborhood,
This subdivision,

480
01:00:58,000 --> 01:00:58,000
and we appreciated looking around, seeing the larger lots and also the proximity to the
Family and work.

481
01:01:05,160 --> 01:01:05,160
when considering the purchase of this property,
We noted that many of the corner lots on our street and the rest of the canyon creek

482
01:01:11,360 --> 01:01:11,360
subdivision had extended the side yard fences to the sidewalk,
Making the side yard then contiguous with their backyard for total enjoyment.

483
01:01:22,280 --> 01:01:22,280
just prior to closing, we received documents from the title agency,
Noting we had a two front yard your designation in canyon creek country club number

484
01:01:32,280 --> 01:01:32,280
21 plat. Since so many of the corner lots on the street had already placed fencing to the
Sidewalk in that side yard,

485
01:01:41,000 --> 01:01:43,920
we thought that we would be able to do the same. So we're requesting this special exception, as has been granted to other corner lot
Properties in our plat.

486
01:01:51,600 --> 01:01:51,600
we believe this will increase the property value as well as add to a better look.

487
01:01:57,400 --> 01:02:00,960
as you can see, the fence is quite deteriorated. Add significant enjoyment and safety to our family for our grandchildren to play in a much
Larger area away from the street.

488
01:02:09,440 --> 01:02:09,440
all right. Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicant at this time?

489
01:02:14,960 --> 01:02:18,440
all right. We appreciate you coming up and stating your case. Hold tight. We may have additional questions for you. You may have a seat.

490
01:02:23,720 --> 01:02:27,520
is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of this request? All right. I should have sworn you in. An expert or just a neighbor?

491
01:02:33,720 --> 01:02:37,200
are you. Are you a neighbor or a subject matter expert? I'm. I'm a neighbor. I'm actually 3105 canyon creek drive.

492
01:02:40,760 --> 01:02:44,240
okay. Yeah. So no, no, no swearing in required. Okay. All right. My name is nash rusk, but 3105 canyon creek drive.

493
01:02:48,160 --> 01:02:48,160
I'm the owner of that one. And I was here a couple of months ago for the special
Exception.

494
01:02:52,280 --> 01:02:52,280
so appreciate seeing you guys again. Yeah. I mean,
On behalf of him, I just yeah, for value purposes for the neighborhood,

495
01:02:59,360 --> 01:03:03,080
get a new fence. Obviously being a neighbor,
I'm all for that. And obviously to increase the side yard for the kids to be able to play in as my kids with
That one last time.

496
01:03:09,680 --> 01:03:13,280
I'm all for that as well. So yeah, don't see any issues with it. We'd love for him to have that ability to be able to do that with his family. Very good,
Very good. Do we have any questions for the witness? All right.

497
01:03:19,560 --> 01:03:19,560
thank you. All right. Does not appear that anyone else wishes to speak with regard to
This.

498
01:03:25,360 --> 01:03:25,360
so I'm going to close the public hearing and open the floor to us to deliberation or
Motions.

499
01:03:31,350 --> 01:03:31,350
I'd like to make a motion, mr. Chairman. I do find that the public convenience and welfare
Will be substantially served,

500
01:03:37,110 --> 01:03:37,110
and that the appropriate use of the neighboring property will not be substantially
Injured. I therefore move to grant the request and special exception case 2602 and that

501
01:03:45,190 --> 01:03:45,190
the request be limited to those specifics which the applicant has presented as his his her
Application.

502
01:03:52,590 --> 01:03:52,590
all right. So mr. Matta has made a motion. Do we have a second?

503
01:03:57,550 --> 01:03:57,550
second. All right, mr. Brooker, seconds. All in favor of granting this special exception
In case 2602,

504
01:04:03,310 --> 01:04:03,310
please say aye. Aye. All opposed? That motion carries unanimously.

505
01:04:08,150 --> 01:04:08,150
all right. Thank you very much. We appreciate you guys coming in tonight.

506
01:04:12,270 --> 01:04:15,550
all right. That is the that appears to be the last item on our agenda. So I'm going to close our meeting. Oh and the time is 8:01 p.m..

507
01:04:23,110 --> 01:04:23,110
thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.