Eight. We appreciate everybody's patience as we make quorum.
good evening. With quorum present. I will now call the meeting of the zoning board of Adjustment to order at 6:57 p.m..
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?
all right. Am I missing a part of kind of the
preamble here? Because what I've got. So what I've got is just the
this is about the the non you know, anything that's not a public hearing.
but then it goes to I think just. His opening remarks.
a leaked. Well, it sounds like it addresses like the the non public.
okay. Sure. If there are any, then please, before you speak, I will read a statement.
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.
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.
administration.
all right. Sorry. After all this time, you'd think I would have memorized it.
yeah, that's all right. So here's the written portion.
so we have. Good evening. With the quorum, present the public comment portion scheduled The beginning before you speak on the statement.
come forward. Say your name and address for the record. As our proceedings are recorded, Speakers asked for public comment cards.
okay, so we. So that part I skip and that's when. That's the. Yeah. Ordinances.
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
p.m.. Our first item on our agenda is to call any visitors to speak to the board.
do we have anyone who would like to address the board? All right.
so this board meets to consider and act upon request for variances to the zoning Ordinances,
ordinances of the city of richardson and appeals from a determination by an administrative Official in the enforcement of zoning ordinances.
it derives its power from the state of texas. The board also hears and acts upon request for special exceptions to defense regulations.
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
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,
which prevents you from using your property in the desired way, And that if the variance is not granted,
will result in a hardship which the board considers unnecessary, Taking into account permissible factors.
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,
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.
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.
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.
the second part occurs in the members of the board discuss and consider motions as they Are made during the second part.
no further data or information will be taken from the participants unless so requested by A board member.
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.
let's see. It is the intent of the board to give all interested parties a chance to speak.
each participant is cautioned, however, to confine his or her remarks to the specific Issues of the case.
repetitive comments will be limited and unruly or disorderly conduct will not be permitted At any time during these proceedings.
I would now like to introduce the representatives of the city and the members of the Board. Tina fergus,
director of development services. Andrew bogda, Assistant director of development services planning.
derrick peters, senior planner, and christine ross, Planner, two. And norma rosa, board secretary, who will be the recorder of the proceedings.
board members are jason lemons, chair. Scott rooker, Vice chair. Moussa mata, alternate, and mohammad hafeez, Alternate.
by law, at least four of the five voting members must approve a motion before the request Can be granted,
and it should be noted that alternates will be voting on both both items tonight.
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,
2026. Are any revisions needed or is there a motion to approve?
I'll move to approve. All right. So mr. Mata moves to approve the minutes.
I second it and mr. Hafiz moves to second. All in favor of the motion, Please say aye.
aye aye. All opposed? And that motion carries unanimously.
all right. Second item on the board today is or I guess it would be.
the third item is the public hearing on sc 2601 or.
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.
2601 v 2601. All right. All right. Thank you, Mr.
peterson. This is a request for a variance to article four, Section four of the comprehensive code zoning ordinance to allow seven foot
side yard setback in lieu of the required ten foot side yard setback on the northwest Property line at 1202 cheyenne place.
the property and neighborhood is zoned r 1500 m residential in the neighborhood has been Developed with single family residential homes.
the subject site is outlined in yellow. Here's a photo that was captured by google a few Years ago.
the home was previously developed with the. The property was previously developed with the House you see in the picture on the top.
in 2025, the house was demolished and today that property sits vacant.
to give you some background, the original house on this property was developed in 1962.
it was developed with a 3200 square foot house that adhered to the required side yard Setbacks.
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
the north west property line. At the time, the minimum side yard setbacks were seven feet,
so the the plane of the wall of the building of the house on the southeast side, As I mentioned,
is up to 7.3ft on the northwest side. The house could have maximized more of the available Buildable area at the time.
it could have been developed up to seven feet from that northwest property line.
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
northwest property line. The property was demolished in 2025.
last year, as I mentioned, the applicant submitted building plans with the intent of Building a 4500 square foot new house on the property.
the applicant designed the house, as you see here, With the yellow footprint on the southeast side,
similar to what was developed before, the new house is going to be up to 7.3ft from the Southeast property line.
that is allowed by right, because that matches the previous structures set back.
however, on the northwest side, the house is also proposed to be built up to 7.3ft from The property line.
today, the side yard setbacks are required to be ten feet, So the applicant is requesting a 2.7ft encroachment into
the northwest property line. Again on the southeast with the green check here.
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.
in 1962, when the house was constructed, the required setbacks were seven feet on either Side.
the house was built up to 7.3ft from the southeast side, And again 26ft from the northwest side.
in 2004, the comprehensive zoning ordinance amended most of the single family residential Zoning districts to adjust the allowable allowed side yard
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
of different and varying widths. So this lot now has this requirement where lots are Created or combined.
so the resulting lot is 80ft or more in width. I'm sorry 80ft, but less than 120ft in width.
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
previous dwelling on that lot. However, in no instance shall the side setback be less than Seven feet in width,
nor less than the side setback of the previous dwelling.
here's a comparison of the previous footprint shown in blue and then the new footprint Shown in orange.
here's the applicant's justification. Going back to that reconstruction provision I just Read,
the applicant interpreted the provision as allowing the new home to match not only the Previous setback on the southeast side at 7.3,
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
neighborhood. The applicant has invested $50,000 in architectural plans based on this Interpretation.
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,
which they say creates physical constraints that limit conventional building placement.
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
buildable area. So taking a look at that last comment in the floodplain comment, Staff took a look at the floodplain
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,
which are on the east side of the creek, and staff evaluated how much of their each Respective lot is encumbered by floodplain.
what we found was, of 49 properties, this ranks 18th and most encumbered.
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.
the average encumbrance for all 49 lots was 38%, And the subject lot is also at 38% encumbrance.
we focused in on similar cul de sac type lots in this development.
so ten of those are highlighted here. Of the ten, There are six that are more encumbered than the subject lot.
the average encumbrance for these is 48. Again, The subject law is encumbered by 38% floodplain.
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
11,800ft² of buildable area within the allowed building envelope, And that's shown in orange here.
to summarize our analysis, the r 1500 m zoning district requires properties to be a Minimum of 1500ft².
this property has previously been developed with a 3200 square foot house, And assuming a new single story house,
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
construct a 1500 square foot house. As such, The property can be developed in a manner commensurate with other parcels in the same
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.
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
hardship. The board may authorize a variance if the variance is not contrary to public Interest and due to special conditions,
a literal enforcement of ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. And so the spirit Of the ordinance was observed and substantial justice is done.
I'm going to go through each of these five to say what staff found.
and as a reminder, in this case, compliance means the applicant would build up to the ten Foot side yard setback and no further.
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
area of the property. Compliance would not result in the structure.
being non-compliant with any other code. Compliance would not impact adjacent properties Or easements,
and the encroachment is not necessary to bring a non-conforming structure into compliance.
and finally, for those reasons I mentioned, based on the information provided by the Applicant applicant,
applicable codes and ordinances, it is staff's opinion that a physical property hardship Does not exist and the request should therefore be denied.
and this was a public hearing and we have not received any response from the public in Response to the request.
and that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any questions for miss peters at this time?
mr. Rucker? So going back to the exception section for f1d reconstruction of a single Property dwelling on existing platted
lot. Your record may utilize a side setback established for the previous.
dwelling on that lot. However, in no instance shall the side setback be less than seven Feet in width,
nor less than the side setback of the previous dwelling.
so is it. The second half of that underline is what the issue is.
because they built the the side was 26ft. That's right.
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,
but they would not be able to go any more than less than seven is what that's saying.
so where it is now is with the proposed setback 7.3.
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.
am I getting these numbers correct or no? I'm not sure I understand the question.
so this property, they're allowed to go to exhibit two here, But they can't.
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
feet when the setbacks were seven feet at that time. But since the zoning changed, the setbacks are now ten feet.
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.
so in this case, from that northwest property line, The.
the prior house was actually 26ft off of the property line.
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,
let's say it was maybe built at five feet. The ordinances acknowledge that will.
now, today you can only go to seven. So it's if.
and correct me if I'm wrong. But it's my understanding in our application of the Ordinance,
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,
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,
which is understandable. But because the zoning setback is today, Now ten feet, that's what they're having to comply with.
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.
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.
but but that's not the case. So if the previous house was not built to 7.3 on that south East side,
the southeast side is compliant the way it's designed because it's seven feet, Right?
because would it be ten if it was less the the prior house was built at that reduced Setback.
and so it was that house could have been set back at seven feet originally when it was Constructed back in the day,
it was actually set at 7.3ft. So the property owner today is holding that 7.3ft setback That was allowed for because
they're reconstructing the house. But that 7.3 setback only applies to that southeast Property line.
but would it now be ten feet? It would normally be ten feet if if there was no house on The property previously,
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,
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,
you utilize the 7.3. They are allowed to go to 7.3 from that property line only.
and because the dwelling did not extend to 7.3 on the northwest side.
you're saying they get ten feet today just because of the dwelling.
correct. So. Yes. Because the the previous house did not maximize their buildable area That was.
that they could have potentially when that house was originally constructed. So now that That house has been torn down.
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.
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.
I know it's confusing. Yeah. I mean just the last portion that says no less than the side Setback of the previous dwelling.
I mean, the side setback of the previous dwelling was seven feet.
it was seven feet on the southeast side, but not the northwest side.
it wasn't seven feet, not on the northwest side. What was it? It was 26ft. That was the. Okay.
hold on. I'm trying to establish 26ft. Was the required setback in 1962.
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,
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.
I guess the question that I would have, because I think this is the same question I would Have,
is the way it reads. It says platted lot of record may utilize a side setback established For the previous dwelling on that lot.
and to me, not a lawyer. It reads to me that that side setback would have been seven feet Back then.
but I guess I don't understand what the the legal term established means here.
are you guys saying that established would mean anything? That is that the house was presently constructed, Constructed at that.
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.
well, I mean, the side setback was established for the city ordinance.
that's not the dwelling. And I agree with scott on that.
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.
and then you say side setback of the previous dwelling.
use the same phrase twice. But you're saying the first phrase.
well, you know, it's just it's not that I don't think this is poorly written.
it's a I think you have conflicting meanings.
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?
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.
that's where I can't. I can't wrap my head around that.
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
the character of the neighborhood, and they were compliant with the setbacks that were in Place at that time.
when we changed the rules, there was probably some concern that the ten foot setback Requirement might make some structures non-conforming.
and so the ordinance was trying to acknowledge then that it's that the existing house was,
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,
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.
and so you have a non-compliant, a non-conforming situation there.
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,
understanding that that prior residence was built at a lesser setback.
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
less than ten feet. So if we had that same situation prior to the home being torn down on That northwest property line,
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,
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.
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
have historically applied this provision to the non-conforming side.
we have, you know, not granted, we have not extended that relief to the conforming side of The house.
so basically, a setback line is tied in to whatever direction, You know, whatever side it is,
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
dwelling was at seven. They're not going to penalize you if it's now over.
but I guess I don't understand the the opposite of that.
if the intent was to allow for a non-conforming structure, I don't know how you can move
a setback line. I just I'm having a hard time.
yeah. Because it recognized the nonconformity on the southeast side.
and so it was allowing for the house to be rebuilt.
especially so for example, if like the structure was damaged, Had to, you know you know, it had a fire got struck by lightning,
whatever the case might be, it was allowing, Recognizing, allowing the structure to be built back to.
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.
if the northwest side of the house was non-conforming, Where it was built at something less than a ten foot setback.
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
ordinance on the reconstruction provision. The challenge is that northwest side of the House was more than satisfactorily compliant with the
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.
but you can't encroach anymore into that. Like what?
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,
and if I understand correctly, I think what he's getting at is hindsight being 2020, Is that at any time before 2004,
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,
and then we probably wouldn't be here today. But because that never happened.
and it is it's a little it's a little hard to swallow. I understand that part. Chair lemons. You are correct.
thank you. You have side setback? No. Nor less than the side setback.
the side setback of the previous dwelling was seven feet.
wasn't 26. The side setback for that previous dwelling was seven feet on either side.
pre 2004. Yeah yeah yeah. I think it says no less than seven feet or less than the side Setback of the previous dwelling.
the side setback as defined for the previous dwelling was seven feet.
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.
and I understanding that when you're defining established as what the previous home was On.
but then I think to scott's point, the side setback wasn't 26ft, It was seven feet at the time.
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,
I think I would have fell into the same trap for seven foot on both sides again, As a non-lawyer.
could I understand your point that if establishes is defined as what the construction was,
then yes, but how would they know that? By just reading this.
I guess my question, I don't know if that's in the purview of our what we're supposed to Be doing here,
but it just sounds like that's where the confusion would be.
well, but I think the other thing that we have to keep in mind is that the ceo was changed In 2004,
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.
the side setback of the previous dwelling was seven feet.
yeah. This was changed in 2004, but that was four f one.
d was part of the co right to to to give relief to anybody who had a home that was seven Foot setback.
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,
they would just build on the same footprint of their, The home that was there before.
but I don't know, the way that it reads to me is seven foot would be the setback.
but in order to exercise that, it made it contingent on actually building out to that, To that area.
you know, prior to 2004. Yeah. And I just don't see that in the in what's written there.
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.
so do you have any other questions? No. Just digest this. Okay. All right. Thank you, miss peters. Thank you.
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,
before you speak, provide your name and address for the record and then tell us about your Case.
thank you for having me. Tim cahill 1202. Cheyenne place or aspiring to that location Currently?
oh. Oh, yeah. Sorry. We actually have something else that we do. We. We swear in our witnesses now. I wing it.
oh. Is it? Let me see. I don't know that I have that.
thank you. All right, so at this time, we are we are calling the applicant to speak for The property located at,
what is it? 12021202 cheyenne. Thank you, thank you.
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.
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.
all right. You may get started. Thank you. Thank you so much.
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
previous precedent, setting a setback that would apply to the lot.
and so architect presumably not presumably did move forward accordingly.
and there's a couple other exhibits where it shows additional complexities to the lot.
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.
any of those elements individually are understandable if you compare them in a silo.
you know, there's not as much of an anomaly. But if you look at them in concert, There are unique anomalies.
for example, the back corner of the lot has kind of an l shape that pushes the rear build Line up.
yeah, there you go. So the rear build line with the blue arrow is moves that up.
additionally, you can see the unique orientation of the lot relative to the cul de sac is Not square,
as in most of the other sites that were presented. All had more of a true wedge shape off of those angles.
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
then. And so I'm going to appeal to you on the basis of the beauty of our city.
there are several giant live oak trees in the front yard that we desperately want to Preserve as many.
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.
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.
can I, can I approach that to show? Okay, so here's a picture if you can go back.
so from the driveway up through this area, it's about right in that shape.
there are giant trees along that. And then the two others right here.
and so it basically runs along here. There's additional complexity because of the power Pole right here as in the picture.
if you go back to that yes, there's a power pole here.
so while you presumably could put a drive in there as complexity, These systems and so forth.
so I think the options thank you. Since we're recording.
I'm sorry. Oh, great. Okay. Thank you. So the options for where the driveway is located is Complex.
and then even once you are inside the lot. Let's see if I can do some of this.
oh, maybe the wrong way. Sorry. First time presentation here at the variance meeting.
so thank you for having me. Great. But even we lived there for ten years.
this is our home. We tore it down with the intent we bought with this long term vision by Experience,
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.
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
the house up, all these things came into effect for just the practical use of it.
so again, the original presentation with in a silo, These unique variables in and of themselves when compared,
there's a basis for all of those. I think having having validity.
the one other thing that I'd like to call attention to here.
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,
and it says if it's an 80 foot lot or less measured at the setback, It qualifies as 80 foot
life beyond the setback. It clearly, if you have a ruler clearly goes beyond that.
but at the setback line, if you measure exactly from that point to this point, It is under 80ft.
they declined. They didn't decline. We were not told that that is measured based on the Arch.
so it's actually the radius that's measured for that distance to qualify 80 foot versus The 120 foot kind of window.
so again, with the interpretation of the rule, The setback we designed accordingly with the interpretation of that not being made clear,
the complexity of all these variables collectively is the basis for my primary appeal.
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
vehicles is really what we took into account. And so why not just shift the house or twist the house?
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.
we'd have to go back and redesign it after significant investment.
and so what we're left with is a garage that truly won't house two vehicles.
now it's a two car garage. And so I don't have a presentation here that I can present to You.
but if I can find maybe the. Plan, you can see where the red and the blue line are Basically between that is
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.
the left vehicle or the one closest to the property line would basically hit the wall.
and so in order to avoid redesigning the whole house, Which has, if you've done that before,
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,
hey, this is the thing other than maybe the complexity of how the rule was interpreted by Our architect,
which is similar to to the debate earlier, but the complexity of the trees, The angle of the lot,
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,
and how that's truly measured, and the historical setback being 7.3ft, Which we accommodated,
obviously, by based on that interpretation, there's a collective appeal to that to request Your approval.
and so maybe I rest my case, I don't know. Questions.
well done. Do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? I guess I'll ask one.
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
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,
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.
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.
we've legitimately vetted those options. Otherwise we would not have we would not be here.
okay. And then can you use the pointer just to pinpoint where those where those mature Trees are?
yes. They start literally kind of in that little, That pocket right there.
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,
this line here. And so there would be access maybe be there to go into the lot, But
it creates just challenges within that with being able to build an efficient house.
you've got all these wings, and the h shape of the previous house was horribly Inefficient.
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.
but I guess all those are matters of opinion.
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
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
other questions? All right. Well you're welcome to to have a seat.
sit tight. We may have additional questions as we as we consider things.
is there anyone else who wishes to speak here in favor of this request?
don't think so. Does anybody wish to speak? If so, I probably should have sworn yet.
but is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this request?
all right. Well, go ahead and have a seat. And we are going to deliberate on this a little Bit.
we may have additional questions for you. So thank you.
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.
so I'm going to close the public hearing now, Open this up to deliberations and possible motion.
mr. Rooker. So if the house in 1962 or whatever was built like this.
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.
yeah. It now needs to go to ten, right? That's only because the way it was built.
right. So the interpretation of that last part is no less than the side setback of the Previous dwelling.
so that'd be 26ft.
so why is it not just 26ft? Why can they build the ten?
if we're establishing that the side setback is now 26, They're allowed to go up to ten feet based on provision
f1b the provision d provides that relief valve for the
non-conforming side of the house. Does a provision f1b establish the setback currently as Ten foot?
yes. So I guess the question becomes what provision established a seven foot before and What.
because that established would mean that that ten foot that that f14f1b establishes that Ten foot.
then the way that it reads is the setback was established before at seven feet.
now that I guess it doesn't really make it clear.
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
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.
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.
is that correct in my understanding? Yeah. No, That's typically how setbacks are.
they're they're the requirements that are built in and allow you to go up to certain Distance on,
on either side. But I think in provision d how it's worded, It says the side setback established for the
previous dwelling on that lot. So that's where it gets into the dwelling, Establishing
a setback that may have been less than what was than what would have than what is required Today.
yeah. I was just kind of your question about the 26 foot got me thinking.
I think probably when this code was crafted, The authors were not thinking of houses that had
larger setbacks, right? Where like in this case, Where the original house was built 26ft off the property line,
you usually you don't have that situation. And so they were probably trying to make sure They were protecting
the non-conforming houses because the code changed, But then allowing for the non-conforming houses to be reconstructed,
acknowledging not allowing for less than seven feet in width, Nor less than the side setback,
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
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,
but it was probably most concerned with making properties non-conforming and probably did Not contemplate this situation that we have
with a house that was overly compliant from their northwest setback.
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
things like that. When I know for the most part, You know, when we're looking for exceptions to the setback rules,
we're, we're looking at anomalies and unusual characteristics of the lot.
and a tree by itself is not unusual. But and I don't know that there's anything about Preservation.
so maybe I'm answering my own question. But you're welcome to you're welcome to step in And,
and provide any additional insight you can. That's a great question.
I think. It. You have the ability to acknowledge existing conditions associated with the Lot.
let me know if y'all disagree on this. But usually when we're dealing with property Hardships,
it's what existing conditions are there that is precluding somebody from complying with The ordinance.
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,
and that's causing implications on them from complying.
I think you could take that into consideration, Just like you take into consideration other improvements on the property,
such as floodplain, because I know that that was also a concern that was cited.
and obviously we did a series of analyzes associated with it.
you can also take into consideration the property lines themselves.
is there something unique associated with this property that maybe is not that other Properties are not experiencing that
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
resulting in a hardship situation. Okay. Thank you.
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
space. In doing so, that would be non-conforming and then he'd have to redesign anyways.
is that correct? Yes. They would have to redesign the house in order to be compliant from The garage standpoint.
I think one of the challenges you have is and it's not derek, Do you have the clicker where you can advance to.
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
properties. Is you apply the setbacks and then what's remaining is the buildable area, Right?
so is there insufficient buildable area that that causes the applicant otherwise not to be Able to comply.
sorry that came out rough. Is there when you look at this graphic in this particular case You're looking at the buildable area.
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
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.
we have a unique consideration with the confluence of two creeks contributing to the Floodplain.
so as you've seen on some requests that we've had here lately when the floodplain has been Brought up,
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?
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
design a house that takes advantage of the buildable area because of where the trees are Placed,
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.
but one of the one of the considerations that we have here is that the city council Approved the comprehensive zoning ordinance in 2004.
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,
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.
you can complain to the city or some, you know, The mayor or the council about the decision that we make made,
but we're just appointed. We're not you know, The idea is, is this is kind of democracy.
101 is, is the idea that we want to be respectful of the changes that have been made in The comprehensive zoning ordinance.
so ordinances. So we try to be very careful making sure that we we consider the criteria Very carefully of,
you know, uniqueness with the lot or other other factors and other considerations here.
because ultimately, you know, the 2004 changes are still the law of the land.
but you know, it's a tough case. Sorry, I don't think that shed any additional light, But yeah.
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.
I understand the intent was to provide for a legally nonconforming structure to happen.
but just because a previous homeowner took a dwelling to the 7.3, It's not even over.
right? I don't, I'm not squaring up the fact that because they didn't utilize
the full extent of it, like you said, the drafters didn't contemplate something less than What was the 26.
I didn't contemplate that it was for other homes that used the seven foot.
now, again, the setbacks, the setback setback, Side setback, side setback.
there's no other definition of a different side setback.
so the way this is, is honestly is poorly drafted.
so I'll make a motion. Mr. Chairman, I do find that literal enforcement of the ordinance Will result in an unnecessary hardship,
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
presented in his application. All right, so we have a motion on the floor.
do we have someone who wishes to second that motion. All right mr. Huffy. Seconds, seconds that motion.
all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye.
that motion carries unanimously. All right. We thank you very much for coming in.
we wish you the very best of luck with your with your project here.
thank you, thank you. I know. All right, so we have we have one more case in our packet Tonight.
and this is agenda item four. This is special exception 2602 at 3201 canyon creek drive.
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
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
and the required front yard along glenfield court. The address is 3201 canyon creek drive and is zoned r 1500 m.
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.
it was developed in 1972 with a single family residence and is surrounded by residential On all sides.
here are the existing conditions. It is approximately 0.36 acres.
there is a existing approximately six foot tall wooden fence and that is shown in the Orange dashed line,
while the request is to allow an eight foot tall wooden fence for flexibility.
the applicant is proposing to construct a seven foot tall wooden fence and that is Outlined in green.
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.
and all the areas of the fence in green that border, That yellow area are the subject of tonight's request.
everything north of that black platted building line is in conformance with the ordinance.
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.
here's some site photos. So the north photo is taken from the.
the top photo is taken from the east elevation taken from canyon creek drive and the Bottom picture is the south elevation taken from
glenfield court that shows the existing fence.
so the applicant states that they desire to increase the the area of their backyard for Their grandchildren to play in,
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
canyon creek drive having existing fences. And here I've listed a couple of the lots.
and then recently, at the january 21st meeting, The zoning board of adjustment approved a special exception request for an eight foot tall
fence on a corner lot. So there is precedent in the neighborhood.
special exceptions differ from variance requests. A special exception comes from the code of ordinances, And variance requests come from the comprehensive zoning ordinance,
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,
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
enforcement of the regulations would result in an unnecessary hardship.
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
contrary to public safety, and does not appear to negatively impact neighboring Properties,
and it allows for reasonable development of the property. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested special exception.
this was a public hearing and staff has not received any correspondence for or against This proposal.
and that concludes my presentation. The applicant is here tonight and or the applicants Are here tonight.
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.
thank you. So we would invite the applicant applicants at this time if they both wish to Speak to.
he drew the short straw. Drew the short straw.
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.
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.
my name is jeff hamilton. I reside at 3201 canyon creek drive, Richardson, texas, 75080.
all right. So at this time we are calling variance. Let's see, this is 2602. Or special exception.
2602 for the property located at 3201 canyon creek drive.
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.
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.
you may begin. Okay. So thank you for your time tonight. Thank you, miss ross, for your efforts in preparing the packet.
we moved recently and this past august from ohio to richardson, Texas to be close to our children and our grandchildren.
they live in the canyon creek area. So we narrowed our search to this neighborhood, This subdivision,
and we appreciated looking around, seeing the larger lots and also the proximity to the Family and work.
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
subdivision had extended the side yard fences to the sidewalk, Making the side yard then contiguous with their backyard for total enjoyment.
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
21 plat. Since so many of the corner lots on the street had already placed fencing to the Sidewalk in that side yard,
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.
we believe this will increase the property value as well as add to a better look.
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.
all right. Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicant at this time?
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.
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?
are you. Are you a neighbor or a subject matter expert? I'm. I'm a neighbor. I'm actually 3105 canyon creek drive.
okay. Yeah. So no, no, no swearing in required. Okay. All right. My name is nash rusk, but 3105 canyon creek drive.
I'm the owner of that one. And I was here a couple of months ago for the special Exception.
so appreciate seeing you guys again. Yeah. I mean, On behalf of him, I just yeah, for value purposes for the neighborhood,
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.
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.
thank you. All right. Does not appear that anyone else wishes to speak with regard to This.
so I'm going to close the public hearing and open the floor to us to deliberation or Motions.
I'd like to make a motion, mr. Chairman. I do find that the public convenience and welfare Will be substantially served,
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
the request be limited to those specifics which the applicant has presented as his his her Application.
all right. So mr. Matta has made a motion. Do we have a second?
second. All right, mr. Brooker, seconds. All in favor of granting this special exception In case 2602,
please say aye. Aye. All opposed? That motion carries unanimously.
all right. Thank you very much. We appreciate you guys coming in tonight.
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..
thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.