* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL [Board of Adjustments: Panel C on July 14, 2025.] C. I'M ROBERT AGNI. I AM THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF PANEL C. IT IS MONDAY, JULY 14TH, 2025 AT 1:00 PM WE HAVE A QUORUM. UH, THE MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER. TO MY LEFT ARE MEMBERS, MEREDITH GRIFFIN, RODNEY MILLIKEN, JARED SLADE, AND DR. EMMANUEL GLOVER. TO MY RIGHT IS THERESA CARLISLE, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, DR. CAMIKA MILLER HOMAN, BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF PLANNER MARY WILLIAMS, BOARD SECRETARY AND MEETING MODERATOR. UH, SAY THIS AGAIN. IF YOU NEED TO SUBMIT ANYTHING TO THE BOARD OR TO SUBMIT A CARD TO SPEAK, MS. WILLIAMS IS THE PERSON TO, UH, GRAB HER ATTENTION. UH, BEFORE WE BEGIN, A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS. UH, MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR. WE RECEIVE NO COMPENSATION, UH, NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE SETS A PRECEDENT. EACH CASE IS DECIDED ON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNLESS IT'S OTHERWISE INDICATED. EACH USE IS PRESUMED TO BE A LEGAL USE. WE'VE BEEN BRIEFED THIS MORNING BY STAFF. UM, THE, UH, THE DETAILED DOCKET THAT WE REVIEWED IS POSTED ON THE BOARD'S WEBSITE AND WAS POSTED SEVEN DAYS AHEAD OF TODAY. ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD SHOULD GO THROUGH MS. WILLIAMS WHEN THE CASE IS CALLED. UH, THE, THE BOARD WILL RETAIN THAT EVIDENCE FOR, FOR RECORDS. LETTERS TO THE BOARD'S ACTION WILL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT BY OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY AFTER TODAY'S HEARING AND WILL BECOME A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. UH, IF YOU ARE ON WEBEX AND YOU ARE SPEAKING, YOU NEED TO HAVE YOUR VIDEO AND AUDIO ON AT ALL TIMES IN ORDER TO BE PRESENT. UM, WE, WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PART OF OUR HEARING WHERE EACH PERSON CAN SPEAK FOR THREE MINUTES ON ANYTHING ON OUR AGENDA. WHEN WE CALL A SPECIFIC CASE, UH, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES, OPPOSITION, FIVE MINUTES. THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE A REBUTTAL. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WILL BECOME AN ISSUE, BUT IF WE NEED EXTRA TIME, I WILL DO IT AND WE'LL DO IT EQUITABLY. QUESTIONS COME THROUGH THE PRESIDING OFFICE. UH, WE'LL GO THROUGH. WE HAVE THREE CASES ON CONSENT. IS THERE ANY, ANYTHING THAT WOULD PULL ANY OF THESE CASES OFF CONSENT. HAVE WE HAD OPPOSITION SINCE OUR HEARING? I IS ANYONE HERE TO OPPOSE PLAINVIEW DRIVE? PENELOPE STREET OR AUTOBAHN PLACE? OKAY. SO THOSE STAY ON AND THEN WE HAVE OUR INDIVIDUAL CASE. UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THE MINUTES, MR. VICE CHAIR? I HAVE AN MOTION. MR. MILLER? A MOTION, NOT AN A MOTION. A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE OUR MINUTES FROM OUR PREVIOUS BOARD MEETING DATED JUNE 16TH, 2025. THERE A SECOND. I SECOND AGAIN, MR. MILLIKEN'S. MOTION. DR. GLOVER'S SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? FUTURE VOTES WOULD BE ROLL CALL. UM, OKAY. ARE THERE SPEAKERS FOR THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PART OF OUR HEARING? NO SPEAKERS, REGISTRARS. OKAY. UH, WHEN YOU SPEAK, UH, ON, ON YOUR CASE, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND, AND WE'LL HAVE MS. WILLIAMS SWEAR YOU IN. UM, SO WE NOW MOVE TO OUR UNCONTESTED CASES. UH, I DON'T NEED TO CALL ALL OF THEM INDIVIDUALLY. UH, IS THERE A MOTION OR AN UNCONTESTED DOCUMENT? NO, I'LL SAY THIS BRIEFLY. IF, IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF PLAINVIEW DRIVE, PENELOPE STREET, AUDUBON PLACE, THE BOARD'S INCLINED TO GRANT WHAT YOU'VE ASKED FOR. SO IF YOU DON'T WANT WHAT YOU'VE ASKED FOR, NOW IS THE TIME TO SPEAK UP. OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION FOR THE UNCONTESTED T MR. MILLIKEN, MR. VICE CHAIR I A MO MOTION. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS LISTED ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET BECAUSE IT APPEARS FROM OUR EVALUATION [00:05:01] OF THE PROPERTY IN ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICATIONS SATISFY ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CODE AS APPLICABLE TO W BO OA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 12 APPLICATION OF BRANDON S REPRESENTED BY KEVIN JARA FOR VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATIONS, A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS AND A VARIANCE TO THE LOT COVERAGE REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION. THE APPLICANT MUST DEED RESTRICT THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY TO PREVENT THE USE OF ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT AS RENTAL ACCOMMODATIONS AND COMPLIANCE WITH MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED. A NUMBER TWO FIVE DASH 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 APPLICATION OF BECHARD HUMPHREY FOR A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED. AND BO OA NUMBER TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 1 4 APPLICATION OF JUNIPER KURAMOTO FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION. COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED. SORRY, IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. MS. GRIFFIN. SECOND DISCUSSION. MS. WILLIAMS? MS. GRIFFIN? AYE. MR. SLATE? AYE. MR. MILLIKEN? AYE. DR. GLOVER? AYE. MR. VICE CHAIR, MOTION TO GRANT PASSES. FIVE TO ZERO. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, OUR SOLE INDIVIDUAL CASE IS BO A TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 4 45 0 3 HOLLAND AVENUE. IT IS A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS AND FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION REGULATIONS. IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS CASE FOR OR AGAINST, WOULD YOU STAND UP PLEASE AND BE SWORN IN? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? CAN YOU TURN THE MICROPHONE ON PLEASE? SORRY ABOUT THAT. UH, THERE WE GO. MY NAME IS KENDRA APCI. ADDRESS, 6 1 4 NORTH BISHOP AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 8. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THANK YOU. SO THIS VIDEO DA REQUEST, WE HAVE TWO REQUESTS ON THIS ONE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. LET'S START WITH THE FIRST ONE. IT'S A VARIANCE OF A 10 FOOT FRONT FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK ON PRESCA AVENUE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THANK YOU. AND THIS REQUEST STEMS FROM THE UNIQUE PROPERTY CONSTRAINTS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, SO BASICALLY THIS IS A CORNER LOT WITH DOUBLE FRONTAGE AND IT'S A VERY SMALL LOT SIZE. THEREFORE, IF WE COMPLY WITH BOTH 15 FOOT SETBACKS FOR, FOR THE PRESCOTT AVENUE AND HOLLAND AVENUE, IT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY LIMIT THE BUILDABLE AREA. AND THIS HARDSHIP IS NOT SELF-CREATED OR SELF-IMPOSED. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS SLIDE SHOWS HOW MUCH THE BUILDABLE AREA WILL BE LIMITED. IT WILL BE LIMITED TO 41%, UH, WHICH IS WELL BELOW THE 60% OF LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED IN THE SO IN NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND WITH THE PROPOSED, UH, VARIANCE, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE A 60% BUILDABLE AREA AND THE PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE OF THE PROPOSED DUPLEX. IT'S 54.9%. NEXT, PLEASE. THIS SLIDE ALSO, UH, SORRY. THIS REQUEST ALSO IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR, UH, THE BLOCK. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE THREE BUILDINGS ON THAT SAME BLOCK ALSO HAVE APPROXIMATELY FIVE FOOT SETBACKS ALONG CROSSCUT AVENUE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND AS WELL, YOU COULD SEE THIS ACROSS FROM PRESCOTT AVENUE. ALL THE BUILDINGS ALONG PREFE AVENUE HAVE APPROXIMATELY FIVE, FIVE FOOT [00:10:01] SETBACKS BECAUSE THEY TREAT PRESCOTT AVENUE AS A SIDE YARD. SO IT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO OUR SECOND REQUEST IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION REGULATIONS. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO AS YOU CAN SEE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THANK YOU. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AS YOU CAN SEE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, IT'S A VERY MINOR ENCROACHMENT. IT'S APPROXIMATELY THREE UH, FEET. I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT, UH, STAFF WAS, UH, SHOWING THERE WAS GOING TO BE A FENCE BECAUSE WE SHOWED THAT ON THE EXHIBITS THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A FENCE PROPOSED. THEY JUST THREW THAT ON THE EXHIBIT. BUT, SO THE ONLY ENCROACHMENT THAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE IS THAT SMALL PORTION OF THE BUILDING. SO NO FENCE OVER THERE, IT'S JUST THE BUILDING. UM, SO NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS LIMITED ENCROACHMENT WILL NOT POSSESS ANY TRAFFIC HAZARD BECAUSE, UH, PRESCOTT IS A LOCAL LOW SPEED ROAD, EXCEPT WHEN BRIAN IS DRIVING. NO, I'M JUST KIDDING. BUT IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, , IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, UH, BECAUSE OF THE TWO INTERSECTIONS, WE HAVE A TWO-WAY STOP AND A FOUR-WAY STOP AS YOU CAN SEE THERE. SO IT'S VERY, UH, UNLIKELY TO POST A TRAFFIC HAZARD. WE ALSO CONTACTED THE CITY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND HE HAD NO OBJECTION TO THIS ENCROACHMENT ON THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. FURTHERMORE, ON JUNE 10TH, WE HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ATTENDED BY SIX NEIGHBORS, AND THEN THIS MEETING WE, IT WAS ATTENDED BY THE NEIGHBORS WHO SENT EMAILS IN OPPOSITION. AT THIS MEETING, THE MAIN CONCERN WAS HIDE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO WE RESPECTFULLY TOLD THE NEIGHBORS THAT THERE'S NO HIDE VARIANCE ON THIS REQUEST. IT'S SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE SETBACK. ALSO, WE WANNA CLARIFY THAT THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS ALREADY THERE, ESPECIALLY ON THE INTERSECTION. YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S TWO CORNERS THAT ALREADY HAVE TWO BUILDINGS ARE THREE STORY HOMES. SO IT'S CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING STRUCTURES IN BOTH SCALE AND FORM. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. ANOTHER NEIGHBOR ALSO, UH, SAID THAT BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK THERE WILL BE NO, UH, WALKABILITY OR PEDESTRIAN AREA. I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, MAYBE THAT NEIGHBOR THOUGHT THAT THE SETBACK STARTED FROM THE STREET, BUT IT ACTUALLY STARTS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THEREFORE THERE'S A LOT OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE SIDEWALK AND ALL THE GREEN SCAPE. AND I THINK I WANNA CLARIFY AT THIS RENDERING BESIDES ALREADY SAID THAT THE FENCE IS NOT GOING TO BE THERE. WE DID NOT PUT IN THE LANDSCAPE BECAUSE WE WANTED YOU TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE BUILDING, BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE VERY, A LOT OF LANDSCAPE AND ALL THE TREES IN THERE. THAT'S DEFINITELY GOING TO BE THERE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THIS ISN'T AN ACCURATE DEPICTION. WHAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE? THE, THE WALL TOTALLY GONE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING AND THE LANDSCAPING IS NOT THERE BECAUSE IF THE TREES WOULD'VE BEEN PROVIDED, THEN YOU WOULD'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SEE THE BUILDING. YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU COULD SEE THE TREES ON THE OTHER BUILDINGS. WHERE ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE WILL BE TREES, CORRECT? YES SIR. THAT'S A REQUIREMENT. LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT. THERE WILL DEFINITELY BE TREES. I JUST WANTED CLARIFY. OF COURSE. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, SO WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE MET ALL THE NECESSARY C CRITERIA FOR THIS, FOR THESE TWO REQUESTS TO BE APPROVED. SO WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH WE DO HAVE RECEIVED EMAILS IN OPPOSITION, THE REQUESTS THAT WE'RE ASKING, IT'S VERY CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. SO THERE'S NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY THAT'S BEEN ASKING HERE. THIS, UH, THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK ALONG PRESCOTT AVENUE IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS THERE. AND ALSO WE BELIEVE THAT THE OVERALL DESIGN PROVIDES A VERY MINIMAL ARCHITECTURAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE AREA. FURTHERMORE, WE HAVE PROVEN THAT THE LOT IS RESTRICTIVE AND BUILDABLE AREA, AND THIS IS NOT SELF-CREATED OR SELF-IMPOSED. AND LASTLY, AS A, AS CONFIRMED BY THE CITY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER THERE, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS VISUAL OBSTRUCTION EXCEPTION WILL NOT CONSTITUTE ANY TRAFFIC HAZARD. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. LASTLY, THE INTENT BEHIND THE REQUEST IS TO HAVE A WELL-DESIGNED DUPLEX SO THAT IT INCLUDES SAD ARTICULATION AND HAS THE APPEARANCE OF TWO DISTINCT BUT ATTACHED HOMES, UH, WITHOUT [00:15:01] THE APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SLOT WOULD HAVE TO BE MORE OF A LIKE FLAT KIND OF SHOEBOX MONOPOLY BUILDING BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTIVE AREA. THEREFORE, WE BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED DESIGN ENHANCES THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER FAR MORE THAN WHAT A MORE CONSTRAINED UTILITARIAN STRUCTURE WOULD, WOULD. EXCUSE ME. , NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THAT'S IT. UH, WELL, UH, THERE'S THE RENDERINGS THAT BRIAN SHOWED YOU ALONG PRESCOTT AND HOLLAND AVENUE. AND NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THAT'S LOOKING AT PRESCOTT. THAT'S IT. UM, NEXT SLIDE. THAT'S JUST A THANK YOU SLIDE. THANK YOU SO MUCH, UM, HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. I GO AHEAD MR. SLATE. UM, THANK YOU VICE CHAIR. DO WE HAVE A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN THAT WE WOULD BE ATTACHING WHILE WAS THE PSYCH PLAN? UM, THE IMAGE THAT WAS PART OF THE BRIEFING THAT HAD BEEN, UH, LEVERAGED CALLERS TO SHOW WHAT WAS IN THAT IS CORRECT? YES, SIR. OKAY. SORRY. THANK YOU. YES. UM, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE, UH, THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STREETS IN THIS AREA THAT DO NOT HAVE FOUR-WAY STOPS. DOES THAT INTERSECTION HAVE A FOUR-WAY STOP? IT DOES. IT HAS A TWO-WAY STOP ON PCO AND HOLLAND AND THEN A FOUR-WAY STOP ON PCO . OKAY. BUT WE HAVE A TWO-WAY STOP AND A FOUR-WAY STOP. OKAY. SO THAT BLOCK PHASE IS SURROUNDED BY STOP. OKAY. YES. THANK YOU. IN ALL, HOW MANY UNITS WILL THERE BE? IT'S A DUPLEX. SO TWO, TWO. AND YES SIR. HOW MANY? UH, BED. I ASSUME THIS IS STILL GOOD. YEAH, WE ALSO, UH, THERE'S THE PROVIDED BY BRIAN, THE FLOOR PLANS. THERE'S LOWER LEVEL, SECOND LEVEL. THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. THOSE ARE STILL, IT'S A THREE BEDROOM. I BELIEVE. SO. SO EACH HAS THREE BEDROOMS, CORRECT? YEAH. AND IF YOU COULD SEE THE DESIGNS OF THE FLOOR PLANS, THEY'RE NOT IDENTICAL. THEY'RE SIMILAR, BUT THEY'RE DIFFERENT EVEN THOUGH THEY BOTH HAVE THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF ROOMS AND EVERYTHING. AND WHERE IS THE PARKING? THE PARKING ON THE FIRST FLOOR ON THE GARAGE, CORRECT. FIRST FLOOR, LOWER LEVEL. AND EACH, EACH UNIT HAS OWN, EACH UNIT HAS ITS OWN GARAGE. UH, THE FIRST UNIT COMES FROM HOLLAND AND THEN THE SECOND UNIT COMES FROM PRESCOTT. AND TOTAL, TOTAL PARKING YOU'LL PROVIDE IS WHAT ONSITE IS WHAT, TWO, TWO SPACES PER UNIT? SO ONE IN THE GARAGE AND ONE NO, BOTH IN THE GARAGE. SO IT'S A TWO CAR GARAGE. AND CODE WISE. NOW IS THIS A CHANGE CODE OR A NOT CHANGE CODE? I ASSUME THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR OR YEAH, NO, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY. YEAH. SO YOU IMAGINE THAT THE GUESTS WOULD PARK ON THE STREET? MM-HMM. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE. UH, JENNIFER OTTO, 1 0 2 3 3 EAST MOTOS HIGHWAY AT DALLAS. UM, PD 1 93 WAS NOT AFFECTED BY THE PARKING BEFORE THAT THIS LEAK PASSED. UM, GUEST PARKING, UM, WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE DRIVEWAYS OR ALONG THE STREET. UM, I THINK WE SAW A LOT OF ON STREET PARKING IN BRYAN'S VIDEO, BUT GUEST PARKING IS NOT REQUIRED FOR A DUPLEX LAND USE. YES, SIR. NO. UM, ONE OF THE OPPOSITION LETTERS, UM, THAT WE'VE RECEIVED IS IN REGARDS TO THE, UH, TRAFFIC SAFETY AND THEY SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE, UM, BLIND SPOTS, UH, AT THE INTERSECTION AND HAVING, UM, THAT IT ONLY HAS STOP SIGNS GOING IN ONE DIRECTION. SO YOU SAY THAT'S A FOUR-WAY STOP AT THAT INTERSECTION OR TWO WAY THE PACO AND THE HOLLAND? IT'S A TWO-WAY STOP. TWO WAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. HAS THERE GIVEN ANY THOUGHT, HAVE YOU GIVEN [00:20:01] ANY THOUGHT TO MAYBE PUTTING ANY MIRRORS OR ANYTHING AS A WAY TO HELP ON THAT, ON THE, I GUESS PRESCOTT SIDE FOR PEDESTRIANS WALKING BY OR FOR THOSE CARS? YOU KNOW, THAT MIGHT BE PARKED THERE, COMING OUT. WE COULD CONSIDER THAT. UM, THE, THE, THE DRIVEWAY ON PRESCOTT IS AT THAT END, UH, AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION. SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, 90 FEET AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION. OKAY. UM, BUT VERY CLOSE TO THE TWO WAY SPOT. CORRECT. A WHITE TURN OUT PERFECT. A RIGHT TURN OUT OF THE LOT EDGE INTO THE TWO-WAY STOP. RIGHT. I, I TURNED NEXT TO THE FOUR-WAY, FOUR-WAY. THE TWO-WAY IS UP. THE TWO WAY IS UP THE OTHER. SO WE WERE LOOKING AT IT, THE TWO WAY IS ON THE RIGHT, FOUR-WAY IS ON THE WAY. YES, CORRECT. AND HOW FAR IS THAT? FOUR WAY FROM THE EXIT. OKAY. AND WE CAN FILL THE, CAN YOU FILL OUR SLIDE AND HAVE THE FOUR WAKE UP WITH TWO WEEKS OF IT? YEAH. YES. WE'D JUST HAVE TO GUESS THREE QUARTERS OF THE WAY DOWN OR 80% OF THE WAY DOWN IS AN EXIT. THAT'S THE FOUR WAY STOP OVER THERE. THAT'S BEEN STOP . AND THIS IS AN ALLEY IN BETWEEN THAT. YES. SO YOU TURN RIGHT. PRESUMABLY THIS CORNER LOT HAS ACCESS AND EGRESS, I GUESS. YEAH, BUT THAT CORNER LOT IS NOT WHERE THE VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION IS AT. IT'S AT THAT. YEAH, IT'S AT THE PRESCOTT DRIVEWAY. YEAH, NO, I'M, YES SIR. I FIGURE OUT WHERE MIGHT TURN OR HAPPENING. UM, YEAH. SO A RIGHT TURN OVER THERE WILL LEAD THEM TO THE FOUR-WAY STOP. OKAY. FOUR-WAY STOP IS BASICALLY WHERE, WHERE THE DOTTED CIRCLE ENDS. UHHUH. . YES, SIR. CORRECT. THANK YOU. THESE OPPONENTS ARE TENANTS OWNERS CONDOS? THAT IS CORRECT. YEAH. WHICH, UH, IT'S A CONDO, IT'S A APARTMENT COMPLEX RIGHT THERE. MM-HMM . UH, SPECIFICALLY ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS, SHE ATTENDED THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. MM-HMM . SAID THAT SHE DIDN'T WANT THIS DUPLEX TO BE CONSTRUCTED BECAUSE THEN THE LIGHT WOULD NOT COME FROM HER WINDOW. MM-HMM . AND THAT'S WHEN I RESPECTIVELY TOLD HER THAT THE REQUEST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HEIGHT, SO THAT THAT BUILDING COULD BE BILLED WITH THAT SAME HIDE WITH, WITH OR WITHOUT THIS REQUEST. BUT THAT WAS HER MAIN CONCERN AND OPPOSITION. THEN WHY MAKE THE REQUEST BE IT'S BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK SO WE CAN HAVE MORE BUILDABLE AREA BECAUSE OF THE YOU CAN'T BUILD IT. EXCUSE ME. YOU COULD BUILD IT. YEAH, OF COURSE , A DUPLEX COULD BE BUILT IN THAT LOT. IT'S JUST, IT WOULD JUST BE MORE RESTRICTIVE IN THE AREA AND IT WON'T HAVE THE LIBERTY TO BE ABLE TO, UH, HAVE A MORE WELL DESIGNED FACADE. IT'LL BE MORE OF A FLAT FACADE IN FRONT OF PASCO. YES, SIR. JUST SO I'M, BECAUSE THIS HAS CHANGED, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE IS ENCROACHED UPON, NOT BY A FENCE NO, BUT BY THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING THAT IS CORRECT. ALL THE WAY UP AND DOWN. YES. AND HOW MUCH, WHAT WE IS ENCROACHED THOUGHT WAS A FENCE THAT WAS SIGNIFICANTLY FORWARD FROM THE BUILDING. YEAH, NO, IT'S THE BUILDING AND IT'S APPROXIMATELY THREE FEET OF ENCROACHMENT. MEANING I DO MY TRIANGLE THIS TIME THAT IT'S THAT CORNER THAT YOU COULD SEE THE RED PART. YES. THAT, THAT TINY CORNER. BUT THEN THE, THE, THE, THE MAJORITY OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, IT'S, IT'S NOT OBSTRUCTED AT ALL. THAT'S A 20 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY. IS THAT INTENDED TO HAVE TWO CARS IN AND OUT? IS THAT WHAT THAT IS? YES, SIR. AND THERE'S REALLY ONLY ONE DIRECTION YOU TURN TO. YOU CAN'T GO LEFT OUT OF THIS. CORRECT. YOU HAVE TO GO RIGHT. DR. GLOVER, DO YOU THINK THIS [00:25:01] WOULD RESULT IN ANY UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO YOU OR THE APPLICANT? YES, A HUNDRED PERCENT. IT'S JUST, IT SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITS THE BUILDABLE AREA. SO IF WE WOULD'VE BUILT A DUPLEX RIGHT NOW WITHOUT THIS REQUEST BEING APPROVED, IT WOULD LIMIT THE BUILDABLE AREA TO 41% WHEN THE ZONING ALLOWS UP TO 60% OF BLOOD COVERAGE, WHICH IS WELL BELOW 60%, 41%. AND OUR, OUR, OUR SLIDE SHOWS HOW MUCH THAT, UM, IF YOU WANNA SEE IT, OUR SLIDE SHOWS HOW MUCH IT LIMITED, BUT YES, IT'S, IT'S, UH, A SIGNIFICANT LIMITATION AND IT'S A NOT, IT'S NOT A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP. WHERE'S THE NEAREST, UH, BUS STOP SLASH PUBLIC TRANSIT? ISN'T THERE A BUS STOP RIGHT THERE? I'M GONNA MAKE AN EDUCATED GUESS THAT IT'S ON LEMON AVENUE, JUST A COUPLE BLOCKS TO THE SOUTHWEST. YOU THINK IT'S THAT FAR? THAT'S WHERE I WOULD PUT A BUS STOP ON THE THIRD VIEW. PEOPLE PUT BUS STOP AND WE YEAH, YOU DON'T KNOW, BUT YOU THINK IT'S IT'S ON THE CORNER. THAT WOULD BE MY GUESS IS THAT, THAT THERE'S, UM, BUS LINE ON, ON THAT AVENUE. YEAH, I I'M JUST WONDERING WHERE THE NEAREST STOP IS, BUT IF IT, IF YOU THINK IT'S AT THE CORNER YEAH. THAT SOMEBODY COULD ANSWER THAT. OTHER QUESTIONS? I NONE. THANK YOU. I'M PRESUMING THERE'S NO OPPOSITION HERE. IF THERE IS OPPOSITION, PLEASE BE HEARD. OKAY. OKAY. YOU HAVE A CLOSE. UM, I THINK WE'VE HEARD IT, BUT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY, JUST TO BE SURE, ARE THERE QUESTIONS YOU ASK THE APPLICANT? OKAY, THERE A MOTION. MR. SLATON, VICE CHAIR, CHAIR, HAVE A MOTION. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 0 4 ON APPLICATION LIEUTENANT BURHAM MOO RAMP, THE 10 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT 'CAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOULD VISIBLE CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SETS THE LIBERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIPS APPLICANT. I FURTHER MOVE THE FOLLOW CONDITION BEING IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED. BEAR A SECOND. I'LL SECOND MR. SLADE'S. MOTION SECONDED BY DR. GLOVER. MR. SLATE. I THANK YOU VICE CHAIR AG. UH, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT MET HER BURDEN BECAUSE HERE WITH THE TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS AND SEEING HOW THIS PLAYS OUT, IT'S VERY APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW, UM, A BIT OF A MOVEMENT THERE. AND AS WE SAW FROM THE OTHER PROPERTIES NEARBY, IT WOULDN'T CREATE ANYTHING EXTRAORDINARY OR UNUSUAL OR HAVE ANY SORT OF NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THAT PROPERTY. I BELIEVE THEY'VE DONE A VERY GOOD JOB AND PRESENTING TO US, UH, THE REASONS WHY WE SHOULD APPROVE THIS APPLICATION. UM, LOOKING AT WHAT THEY SUBMITTED, IT'S VERY CONSISTENT IN BOTH SCALE AND FORM. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH, WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY'RE ALSO INTRODUCING TREES AND NOT, UM, UH, THE WALL THAT WAS IN HERE PRESENTED TO US. UM, I FEEL THIS AND OTHER EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED PROVIDES THEM STRONG CREDENCE AS TO PURPOSE. THANK YOU. I THINK THIS IS THE EASIER I'LL SUPPORT IT. THIS IS, THIS IS THE EASIER THE TWO. UM, I ALWAYS NOTE THAT ANYTIME YOU'RE DEALING WITH SETBACKS, YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY DEALING WITH PARKING THAT COULD EXIST. THIS MEETS THE PD WITHOUT, FRANKLY, THE PD ISN'T ENHANCED WITH THE NEW CODE. SO WHATEVER I THINK ABOUT IT, I, I I IT MEETS ALL THE OTHER STANDARDS AND I, I DON'T SEE THAT IN, IN THE CASE OF, OF, OF THE SETBACK. CAN'T SEE WHY IT WOULDN'T APPLY. I JUST, IF ONE OF THEM HERE I'M GONNA NOTE FOR, UM, BUT I'LL SUPPORT IT. MS. WILLIAMS. MS. GRIFFIN? AYE. DR. GLOVER? AYE. [00:30:01] MR. SLAVE? AYE. MR. MILLIKEN? AYE. MR. VICE CHAIR AYE. MOTION TO GRANT PASSES. FIVE ZERO. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE SECOND REQUEST. MR. SLAVE VICE CHAIR, I HAVE A MOTION. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 0 0 4 ON APPLICATION JENNIFER OTTO GRANT THE REQUEST TO MAINTAIN ITEMS FROM 20 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE DRIVE APPROACH ALONG PRESCOTT AVENUE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE VISUAL VISUAL OBSTRUCTION REGULATION CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS AMENDED AS OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD. I FURTHER MOVE THE FOLLOW CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE OF AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS IN REGARDS TO THE PORTION IN VIOLATION OF THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION TRIANGLE ARE REQUIRED. IS THERE A SECOND? THAT'S OKAY. OKAY, MR. SLATE MOTION, UH, DR. GLOVER'S? SECOND. MR. SLATE. UM, AS WE WERE LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN THAT HAD THIS, IT APPEARED TO BE A VERY SMALL OBSTRUCTION CLOSEST TO THE BROOK. UM, THE DRIVEWAY WAS 20 FEET ACROSS, SO I TEND TO BE MORE CONCERNED WHEN THE OBSTRUCTION IS CLOSER TO THE STREET. UM, HERE THE OBSTRUCTION WOULD BE A PROBLEM IF A CAR GUNNED ITSELF OUT OF THE GARAGE ALL THE WAY DOWN THE DRIVEWAY INTO THE STREET. AND SO GIVEN THE INABILITY TO SEE, I'M GENERALLY PRESUMING THAT THE DRIVER IS NOT GOING THAT AND ALSO THE VISUAL NATURE FROM THE FARTHER. UM, SO I GUESS THE, THE WESTERN GARAGE BOT WOULD NOT HAVE THAT SAME OBSTRUCTION. IN LIGHT OF THOSE THINGS, I'M NOT REALLY CONCERNED THAT THIS COULD CONSTITUTE THE TRAFFIC HAZARD BECAUSE OF THE BUILDING BEING THERE. UM, AND I'M WORKING OFF THE, THE GENERAL BELIEF THAT A DRIVER WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR YES. UM, WHAT I'D LIKE TO ADD TO WHAT, UH, MY COLLEAGUE HERE SAID, IT'S, UM, THE OBSTRUCTION IS TO THE BUILDING FACADE. AND ALSO THE ADVANTAGE THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS IS THAT IT'S CLOSE TO A FOUR-WAY STOP, WHICH ACTUALLY SLOWS TRAFFIC DOWN. UM, THE RECOMMENDATION MADE TO THEM WAS TO CONSIDER PUTTING A MIRROR THERE SO IT CAN FURTHER REDUCE ACCIDENTS. AND BECAUSE OF THESE REASONS, I THINK THAT SUPPORT US. I, I THINK THE, THE 20 FOOT WIDE, UM, UH, ENTRANCE EXIT MEANS THAT IN REALITY THE VISUAL TRIANGLE IS ACTUALLY SHIFTED FARTHER OVER AND, AND SO IT CREATES MORE VISIBILITY FOR THE DRIVER. UM, I ASKED ABOUT BUS STOPS AND I'LL, I'LL TAKE THE APPLICANT'S WORD THAT THERE ISN'T, YOU WOULD, YOU COULD WORRY ABOUT PEDESTRIANS IF YOU HAD A BIG BUTTON, BUT NOT ENOUGH TO THINK THAT THIS IS A TRAFFIC HAPPEN. SO, I, I LOOK WHAT? MR. SLATE. THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR. I, I FORGOT SOMETHING. AND THAT WAS, UH, THE TESTIMONY THAT, UM, THE CITY DID NOT VOICE AN OBJECTION. I THINK BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE, IF THE CITY HAD A STRONG OBJECTION THAT PARTICULAR, WE WOULD'VE SEEN SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. OTHER COMMENTS? MS. WAVES. MS. GRIFFIN? AYE. DR. GLOVER? AYE. MR. MILLIKEN? AYE. MR. SLATE? AYE. MR. VICE CHAIR AYE. MOTION TO GRANT PASSES? FIVE TO ZERO. OKAY. OUR NEXT MEETING IS WHAT DAY? DO YOU KNOW OFFHAND? OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. NEXT MEETING IS AUGUST 18TH. THANK YOU ESPECIALLY TO OUR ALTERNATES FOR BEING HERE. IT IS, UH, 1:35 PM UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. PANEL C IS ADJOURNED. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.