[00:00:01]
ARE OFF.[I. Call to Order]
OKAY.WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
MY NAME IS DAVID NEWMAN, AND I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF ITS PANEL A.
TODAY IS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20TH, 2026 WITH A TIME OF 1:00 PM AND I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A TO ORDER FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING.
A QUORUM OF FIVE OF FIVE OF OUR PANEL MEMBERS IS PRESENT.
THEREFORE, WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE MEETING.
PLEASE ALLOW ME TO MAKE INTRODUCTIONS.
AGAIN, MY NAME IS DAVID NEWMAN.
I'M CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO MY IMMEDIATE LEFT, UH, KATHLEEN DAVIS, UH, MICHAEL DORN, DR.
EMMANUEL GLOVER AND MICHAEL HOVIS.
THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE THE FIVE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A.
TO MY IMMEDIATE RIGHT IS CA CAITLYN BUFFET, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY THERESA CARLISLE, WHAT WE AFFECTIONATELY CALL OUR RETIRED BOARD ATTORNEY.
LOOK AT HER SMILE, OUR RETIRED BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY FILLING IN THIS AFTERNOON FOR OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR IS DIANA BAR.
SHE'S OKAY, SO WE'LL CALL HER OUR ACTING BOARD ADMINISTRATOR TODAY AND LAST, BUT CERTAINLY NEVER LEASE MARY WILLIAMS, OUR BOARD SECRETARY AND MEETING MODERATOR.
BEFORE WE BEGIN, PLEASE ALLOW ME TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE WAY WE CONDUCT OUR HEARING.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THAT'S MYSELF TO THE LEFT, ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE GIVE OUR TIME FREELY AND RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR THAT TIME.
WE OPERATE UNDER THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE CONSISTENT WITH THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
NOTE, ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE SETS A PRECEDENT.
EACH CASE IS DECIDED ON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.
THE APPLICANT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH NECESSARY FACTS TO WARRANT FABLE ACTION OF THE BOARD.
THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THE PROOF TO ESTABLISH NECESSARY FACTS TO WARRANT FAVORABLE ACTION.
WE'VE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED BY OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF THIS MORNING AND REVIEWED THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT, WHICH WAS POSTED SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO TODAY ON OUR WEBSITE.
ANY EVIDENCE THAT YOU WISH TO SUBMIT FOR THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY CASE THAT WE HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY, MS. WILLIAMS, AND WHEN THE CASE IS CALLED, THE EVIDENCE MUST BE RETAINED IN THE BOARD'S OFFICE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THIS CASE.
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE OR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUIRES FOUR OF FIVE VOTES.
STATE LAW REQUIRES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO BUY A 75% MARGIN APPROVE, UH, TO FOR ANY APPROVAL OF VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS.
SO FOUR OF THE FIVE MEMBERS HAVE TO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE IN ORDER FOR A CASE TO BE APPROVED.
ALL OTHER MOTIONS REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY.
A DECISION LETTER OF THE BOARD'S ACTION TODAY WILL BE EMAILED TO EACH APPLICANT BY OUR BOARD SECRETARY WITHIN TWO DAYS AFTER THE MEETING AND BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.
UH, ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK TODAY, MARY, HOLD UP.
THAT BLUE SHEET NEEDS TO FILL OUT A BLUE SHEET.
ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK EITHER DURING PUBLIC SPEAKING OR A CASE NEEDS TO FILL OUT A BLUE SHEET HERE AND GET THAT TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON A MATTER ON THE AGENDA FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES.
IN ADDITION, A SPEAKER MAY SPEAK WHEN A SPECIFIC CASE IS CALLED FOR ITS PUBLIC HEARING FOR A MAXIMUM OF FIVE MINUTES.
ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
NO TELECONFERENCING WILL BE ALLOWED VIA WEBEX.
ALL COMMENTS WILL BE MADE TO MYSELF AS THE CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDING OFFICER WHO MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ORDER.
ALRIGHT, UH, I WANT TO MAKE, I WANT TO CONVEY TO THE, TO THE AUDIENCE AS I DID TO THE BOARD THIS MORNING AT THE BRIEFING, THE ORDER OF OUR, UH, AGENDA TODAY, UH, MOMENTARILY WE'LL ENTERTAIN PUBLIC SPEAKERS, UH, THEN REVIEW OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 15TH.
THEN WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR FEE REIMBURSEMENT, WHICH IS 1338 GALLOWAY.
THEN WE'RE GONNA SHIFT TO THE ZONING CASE AT 1338 GALLOWAY.
THEN WE'RE GONNA GO TO 7 65 I IVY WOOD DRIVE IS THE THIRD ITEM.
THE FOURTH ITEM WILL BE 74 26 CONCORD.
THE FIFTH ITEM WILL BE 1433 WESTMORELAND, AND THE SIXTH ITEM WILL BE 1128 DODGE STREET.
WE'RE CHANGING THE ORDER IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUEST FOR A TRANSLATOR.
QUESTIONS ON THE AGENDA BOARD MEMBERS? OKAY.
FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA ARE PUBLIC SPEAKERS.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS REGISTERED? NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS REGISTER.
SIR, YOU SHOULD BE PROUD OF ME.
[V. Miscellaneous Items]
ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 15TH.[00:05:01]
CHAIRMAN WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.MS. DAVIS, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 15TH.
A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED FOR THE PANEL A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON SEPTEMBER 15TH.
SECONDED BY MR. DORN DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION HEARING.
THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FIVE TO ZERO.
THE MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED ARE APPROVED.
[VI.1. 26-3283A Application of Maria Araceli Obregon for (1) a fee reimbursement of fees paid for a special exception to the single-family use regulations, and for (2) a fee reimbursement of fees paid for a variance to the floor area for structures accessory to single-family use regulations at 1338 GALLOWAY AVENUE. This property is more fully described as Block 3579/19, Lot 10, and is zoned R-5(A).]
OUR AGENDA IS A REQUEST FOR A FEE WAIVER AT 1338 GALLOWAY AVENUE.THIS IS BO OA 2 6 0 0 0 0 6 6 FR ONE.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE COME FORWARD.
UM, WHAT? NO, SHE'S GOT, YEAH, HE'S, YEAH.
UM, THE MS UH, MARIA REES, THE APPLICANT AND JESUS DE LEON, IS THE TRANSLATOR SPEAK THERE TWO CASES AT ONE POINT? NO, HE'S ONLY TRANSLATOR TRANSLATING FOR, FOR HER.
I APOLOGIZE ON MY BREAKING OF YOUR, DESTROYING YOU YOUR LAST NAMES, BUT WE'LL BEAR THROUGH IT.
OKAY? UM, MR, WHAT'S YOUR LAST NAME, SIR? UH, YOU GET CLOSE TO THE MICROPHONE.
CAN YOU BRING IT TO, BRING IT TO YOU? CAN YOU TURN IT OFF PLEASE? AND MAKE SURE THE BUTTON'S ON BOTH, BOTH THE MICROPHONES DE LEON.
I'M GONNA TRY NOT TO SPEAK IN MY BROKEN SPANISH, BUT I'LL DO IT ANYWAY.
UM, SO PREMIER, WE'RE GONNA, UH, SWEAR IN THE SPEAKER MS. WILLIAMS PREMIER, I NEED YOU TO DO IT IN ENGLISH AND THEN SPANISH.
FIRST I'M GONNA, UH, SWEAR YOU IN IN SPANISH, OKAY? MM-HMM
SO WAS THAT FINE? DOES THE TRANSLATOR NEED TO SWORN IT? NO, HE'S JUST REPEATING WHAT'S BEING TOLD.
THAT'S, I'M, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA INTERPRET IT THAT WAY.
UM, ALRIGHT, SO WE'RE READY TO GO HERE.
I'M GONNA, ALRIGHT, CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, YOU NEED TO DO IT THROUGH THE MICROPHONE SO IT'S RECORDED.
AN APPLICANT MAY REQUEST A TRANSLATOR AND IN THAT CASE YOU'RE GIVEN TWICE THE AMOUNT OF TIME TO SPEAK.
OUR RULES ALLOW FOR AN APPLICANT TO GIVE A FIVE MINUTE UP TO A FIVE MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, BUT I WILL ALLOW YOU AS WELL AS ALL OF OUR APPLICANTS TODAY, WHATEVER THE TIME IS NECESSARY TO SPEAK, SO LONG AS YOU'RE NOT BEING REDUNDANT.
SO THAT'S OUR RULES OR PROCEDURES AS IT RELATES TO TRANSLATING.
SHE'S HERE TO REQUEST A VARIANCE ON A CONSTRUC AS-BUILT CONSTRUCTION AT HER HOUSE.
IN ADDITION, THAT WAS DETACHED.
WHAT IS BEFORE US RIGHT NOW? I NEED YOU TO, I'M GONNA DO IT IN SECTION.
SO YOU HAVE WHAT IS BEFORE THE BOARD RIGHT NOW.
IS MS. GANS REQUEST FOR FEE REIMBURSEMENT? WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT, WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE FEE REIMBURSEMENT RIGHT NOW.
WE SEPARATE THE TWO ISSUES? YES.
[00:10:01]
OKAY.SO LET'S SPEAK TO HER REQUEST TO THE BOARD FOR A FEE REIMBURSEMENT.
SHE NEEDS TO DO IT IN SECTION SO YOU CAN PICK UP ON ALL THAT AND THEREFORE WE CAN UNDERSTAND.
SO SHE'S HERE TO REQUEST A REIMBURSEMENT, UH, BASED ON GROUNDS THAT SHE IS A SINGLE MOTHER AND SO WORKER AT HER HOME, UH, SHE SAYS SHE'S REQUESTING THIS BECAUSE, BECAUSE THE PROCESS HAS BEEN VERY DIFFICULT FOR HER, UH, TO WILLINGLY PROVIDE ALL THE INFORMATION AND GO THROUGH ALL THE STEPS TO GET THIS PROCESS GOING, BE FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY DONE.
SEE, UM, THE REASON SHE'S ASKING FOR THE FEE WAIVER IS BECAUSE OF ALL THE EXPENSES SHE HAS INCURRED DURING THIS PROCESS OF THE, OF THE PETITION PERMITTING AND EVERYTHING, AND AS A SOLE CARETAKER AT HER HOME AND THE ONLY PERSON WHO WORKS, IT'S BEEN VERY, UH, DIFFICULT ON HER.
THAT IS ALL THAT SHE HAS TO SAY IN REGARDS TO THE PETITION.
UM, SHE IS AN APPLICANT IS AWARE THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR THIS REQUEST IS ON HER.
DO YOU HAVE ANY, UM, FINANCIAL RECORDS? DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, OTHER INFORMATION THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE US THAT SHOW, THAT WOULD SHOW THAT THIS IS A, THIS REQUEST IS BECAUSE YOU WILL, I'M GOING TO OUR IS THAT BECAUSE YOU WILL SUFFER A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP? SHE SAID RIGHT NOW THAT SHE DOES NOT HAVE HER ACCOUNT STATEMENTS WITH HER OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE.
WHAT QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? I WILL MORE, I'LL REMIND THE BOARD ON THE RECORD YOU NEED TO TRANSLATE SO SHE UNDERSTANDS.
UM, THAT OUR, THAT OUR CRITERIA SAY IT SAYS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY WAIVE THE FILING FEE IF THE, IF THE BOARD FINDS THAT PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT.
THAT IS OUR CRITERIA SOLELY FOR THIS REQUEST THAT'S BEFORE US.
WHAT QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT, MS. DAVIS? UM, HOLD A SECOND.
I, I SAID THAT YOU GUYS WERE GONNA ASK QUESTIONS.
I'M, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE RUDE, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE SURE.
THAT THIS SYSTEM WORKS BECAUSE OTHERWISE RAPID RAP TALK AND I WANT HER TO UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING WE'RE SAYING.
AS CHAIRMAN NEWMAN STATED, WE, WE NEED TO SEE EVIDENCE OF THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
SO IF SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANY RECORDS WITH HER, BASICALLY JUST SAYING THAT YOU'RE THE SOLE EARNER IN THE FAMILY DOESN'T SHOW FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
SO I WOULD NEED, AS THIS ONE PANELIST, I WOULD NEED MORE INFORMATION TO SHOW
[00:15:01]
THAT SHE IN FACT, DOES THAT IT, THAT IT WOULD, THAT IT WOULD BE A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP FOR HER.WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS? SO SHE, SHE, YOU ASKED THE QUESTION WHETHER SHE HAD OTHER DOCUMENTS, SHE SAID SHE DOES NOT.
IF I INTERPRET THAT CORRECTLY.
I, I DID SAY IF YOU DON'T HAVE DOCUMENTS, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
ASIDE FROM BEING A SOLE EARNER IN THE FAMILY, I NEED TO KNOW, I NEED MORE DETAILS OKAY.
IN ORDER FOR ME TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.
UM, SHE SAYS THAT RIGHT NOW, CURRENTLY IN, IN HER BANK ACCOUNT, SHE HAS ABOUT ROUGHLY $500, WHICH SHE DOES NOT SEE THAT IT'S ENOUGH TO COVER THE, THE COSTS.
SHE SAYS THAT WITH THAT SHE HAS TO PAY HER HER BILLS AND PERSONAL THINGS, GAS AND EVERYTHING.
AND, AND THIS HAS BEEN VERY TAXING ON HER.
OTHER QUESTIONS? I'VE GOT MR. HAITZ, THEN DR. GLOVER OR NO, NO, DR. GLOVER.
UM, CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE.
SORRY, MY QUESTION TO HER IS THIS, UH, HOW MANY DEPENDENTS DOES SHE HAVE AND CAN SHE SHOW HOW MUCH SHE EARNS A MONTH? SO WE'RE ABLE TO AT LEAST HAVE SOMETHING TO JUDGE WHETHER THIS IS A FINANCIAL BURDEN TO HER OR NOT, SINCE SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANY DOCUMENTS TO SHOW.
SO SHE, SHE SAYS THAT, UM, BASED ON CURRENT SITUATION, SHE'S BRINGING IN ABOUT A THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH WITH HER WORK.
AND OUT OF THAT SHE HAS TWO CHILDREN, ONE WHO'S, UH, OLDER ABOVE 18, AND THE OTHER ONE WHO IS A DEPENDENT.
AND SO SHE HAS TO PAY, BRING IN FOOD, PAY THE BILLS, AND STILL HAVE ENOUGH FOR INSURANCES, FUEL, AND EVERYTHING THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS? ARE YOU GAINFULLY EMPLOYED? I AM UNCOMFORTABLE.
WE ARE UNCOMFORTABLE ASKING SUCH PROBING QUESTIONS, BUT IN ORDER FOR US TO DETERMINE SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, WE HAVE TO COMPARE AND MEASURE MM-HMM
SHE STATED THAT SHE WORKS, UH, CLEANING HOUSES AND WITH THAT SHE WORKS MAYBE TWO, TWO DAYS A WEEK AT BEST, SOMETIMES THREE, BUT IT'S RANDOM.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
[00:20:04]
OKAY.DOES SHE WANNA SAY ANYTHING IN CONCLUSION? CONCLUSION THAT THAT IS ALL.
UM, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, THE CHAIR TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION MR. OVITZ, I MOVE WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, EXCUSE ME, IN APPEAL NUMBER BO OA TWO SIX DASH 0 0 0 0 6 6 DASH FR ONE ON APPLICATION OF MARIA ELLI OBON DENY THE REQUEST TO THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FILING FEES PAID IN ASSOCIATION WITH A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATIONS AND FOR VARIANCE TO THE FLOOR AREA FOR STRUCTURES ACCESSORY TO SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATIONS AS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS A PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD NOT RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT IN THE MATTER OF BO OA TWO SIX DASH 0 0 0 0 6 6 FR ONE, A MOTION BY MR. HOP WAS MADE TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF FILING FEES WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MS. DAVIS DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. OVITZ, UM, THE APPLICANT, UM, SIMPLY HASN'T PROVIDED ANY DOCUMENTATION TO SHOW A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
UM, SO, UH, I'M SURE, UM, THESE FEES ARE, ARE, ARE A BURDEN TO ALMOST EVERYBODY THAT THAT HAS TO COME AND FILE FOR EXCEPTIONS TO THE CITY.
UM, BUT WE'D LIKE TO SEE, WE, WE NEED TO SEE SOMETHING TANGIBLE IN THE WAY OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM.
DO YOU WANT TO TRANSLATE BACK? ALTHOUGH I KEEP GOING.
YEAH, GO AHEAD AND TRANSLATE, UH, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
I'M A BIT TORN ON THIS ONE, SO I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR THE OPINIONS OF THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS.
I'M TORN BECAUSE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE.
I I AM NOT SEEING ANY DOCUMENTATION.
UH, SHE HAS ONE DEPENDENT WORKS PART-TIME.
SO I GUESS I'M, I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT WITH THAT.
SO RIGHT NOW IT CAN KIND OF GO EITHER WAY.
I'D LOVE TO HEAR SOME OTHER OPINIONS, BUT IF I HAD THAT DOCUMENTATION THAT THIS WOULD BE AN EASY YES, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF US, UNFORTUNATELY.
SO BOARD MEMBERS IN OUR DOCKET, PAGE 38 IS A LETTER SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT THAT WE'VE ALL SEEN.
IT DOES NOT REFERENCE ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY OTHER THAN THE, THE FACT THAT SHE IS CLAIMING THAT, UM, UM, THE ENTIRE, ENTIRE PROCESS HAS BEEN EXCEPTIONALLY CHALLENGING FOR ME AS A SINGLE MOTHER AND SAYS IT'S A GENUINE FINANCIAL CRISIS FOR MY FAMILY.
THOSE ARE THE WORDS FROM THE LETTER YOU NEED TO TELL HER.
IS SHE UNDERSTANDING THIS? YES.
NOW, BOARD MEMBERS, IT IS UP TO THE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHAT IS SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
THAT'S UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD ACCORDING TO THE CODE.
SO, AND THAT IS A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
SO, UH, A MOTION ON THE FLOOR HAS BEEN MADE TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
UH, OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? DR. GLOVER? WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS BASED ON HER, UM, PRESENTATION THAT SHE MAKES A CERTAIN AMOUNT A, A MONTH AND PAYING THAT AMOUNT WILL CONSTITUTE, UH, FINANCIAL BURDENING.
OBVIOUSLY FROM WHAT SHE HAS SAID, IF WE HAVE TO TAKE HER, WE FOR IT, IT WILL CONSTITUTE A FINANCIAL BURDEN.
BUT AS IT STANDS, WE DO NOT HAVE PROOF OF WHAT SHE'S SAYING AND THAT PUTS US IN A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION.
[00:25:01]
QUESTION FOR OUR ACTING TEMPORARY, UH, BOARD ADMINISTRATOR.WHEN AN APPLICANT COMES TO THE CITY AND REQUESTS A FEE WAIVER OR REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT, WHAT DO WE TELL THE APPLICANT? DON'T ANSWER YET.
UH, WE ACTUALLY JUST PROVIDE 'EM THE CODE SECTION WHERE IT TELLS YOU THAT THEY COULD REQUEST A FEE WAIVER AND THEN WE GIVE THEM EXAMPLES OF WHAT THEY COULD SUBMIT.
DID THE APPLICANT GET THE INFORMATION FROM THE STAFF WHEN FILING THE REQUEST? NO.
SO MS. ACTING BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, THE APPLICANT SAYING SHE DID NOT GET ANYTHING, SO I NEED YOU TO STAND YOUR GROUND OR NOT? I, I DID PROVIDE HER THE INFORMATION.
THAT'S WHY SHE REQUESTED THE FEE WAIVER.
OTHERWISE, SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME.
I SAID I DID PROVIDE HER WITH THE INFORMATION.
UM, I BELIEVE IT'S AN EMAIL ALSO.
UM, YOU DON'T NEED TO RETRIEVE IT.
SHE SAYS THAT SHE RECEIVED MANY, MANY EMAILS THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE PROCESS AND MAYBE SHE OVERLOOKED SOMETHING, BUT SHE DOES NOT RECALL EVEN IN PHONE CONVERSATIONS BEING TOLD THAT SHE HAD TO BRING EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIPS SUCH AS PAY STUBS OR, OR BANK STATEMENTS.
THANK YOU MS. KU, MS. DAVIS, THIS IS A DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
THE MOTION ON ON THE FLOOR IS TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR FEE REIMBURSEMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
UH, SO YOU STATED THAT YOU WERE NOT TOLD TO BRING EVIDENCE, BUT I DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE BURDEN WAS ON YOU TO SHOW THAT YOU DID, THAT THIS WOULD RESULT IN A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP? SHE SAYS THAT SHE UNDERSTANDS THE DISCUSSION THAT'S BEING HAD AND THAT HAD SHE UNDERSTOOD VERBATIM WHAT, WHAT SHE WAS TOLD, SHE WOULD'VE BROUGHT UP THE DOCUMENTATION, BANK STATEMENTS OR ANYTHING OF THAT MATTER TO PROVE WHAT SHE'S SAYING.
I'M, I'M GONNA, THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION.
MY QUESTION IS, DID SHE UNDERSTAND THAT SHE NEEDED TO SHOW THAT THE FEES HAVING TO PAY THESE FEES WOULD RESULT IN FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO HER? YES.
SO JUST AS A MATTER OF PROCEDURE, ONCE A MOTION IS MADE, REALLY THE PUBLIC HEARING IS ENDED.
I ALLOWED ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION FOR CLARITY, BUT REALISTICALLY, IF WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, WE NEED TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO OR NOT.
SO IF THE BOARD WANTS TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT, I NEED THE MOTION WITHDRAWN SO THAT WE CAN ASK THAT.
OTHERWISE, AS SOON AS WE DO A MOTION, THE ISSUE IS WITH THE BOARD, NOT WITH THE APPLICANT.
I'M JUST SAYING I'M NOT HECK FIRED.
UH, I JUST AM SAY FOR, FOR CLARITY.
SO IF THERE IS OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, THAT'S FINE SINCE WE'VE ALREADY DOWN THIS ROAD.
BUT IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, DR. GLOVER? NO.
I NEED YOU TO SAY THAT ON THE RECORD PLEASE.
UH, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS SO FAR.
SHE HASN'T PRESENTED ANYTHING TO STRENGTHEN HER, HER CASE.
SO IT, IT JUST PUTS US IN A PRECARIOUS SITUATION NOW, SO.
AND THAT IS APPROPRIATE DISCUSSION TO THE MOTION
[00:30:01]
ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.UM, NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION IN BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 6 6 FR ONE A MOTION BY MR. KOVI TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THIS IS THE REQUEST FOR FEE REIMBURSEMENT.
THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
MOTION TO DENY PASSES FOUR TO ONE IN THE MATTER OF BO OA 2 6 0 0 0 0 6 6 FFR ONE.
THE BOARD ON A VOTE OF FOUR TO ONE DENIES THE REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DID YOU WANT TO TRANSLATE THAT? YES.
[VI.4. 26-3286A Application of Maria Araceli Obregon for (1) a special exception to the single-family use regulations, and for (2) a variance to the floor area for structures accessory to single family use regulations at 1338 GALLOWAY AVENUE. This property is more fully described as Block 3579/19, Lot 10, and is zoned R-5(A), which limits the number of dwelling units to one, and states that an accessory structure may not exceed 25 percent of the floor area of the main structure. The applicant proposes to construct and/or maintain an additional dwelling unit (not for rent), which will require (1) a special exception to the single-family zoning use regulations, to construct and/or maintain a single-family residential accessory structure with 783 square feet of floor area (64 percent of the 1,219 square foot floor area of the main structure), which will require (2) a 479 square foot (39 percent) variance to the floor area for structures accessory to single family use regulations.]
IS BOA 2 6 0 0 0 0 6 6.THIS IS AT 1 3 3 8 GALLOWAY AVENUE, 1 3 3 8 GALLOWAY AVENUE.
UM, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCEDURE.
SO, UM, IS THE APPLICANT HERE, OKAY.
UM, DID WE SWEAR HER IN BEFORE MS. WILLIAMS? YES.
SO WE WILL CONSIDER YOU SWORN IN, UH, PRIOR THE PREVIOUS CASE CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.
YOU AS AN APPLICANT HAVE A BACKUP UP.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS CASE? NO.
SO CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURES, YOU AS AN APPLICANT HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO, UH, SPEAK BECAUSE IT'S A TRANSLATOR.
YOU GET DOUBLE THAT YOU GET 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK AND TOTAL TIME I WILL ALLOW YOU AS MUCH TIME AS AS YOU'D REQUEST SUBJECT TO YOU NOT BEING REDUNDANT.
I'LL SAY THIS ALL DAY LONG 'CAUSE I WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, BUT IT CANNOT GO ON AND ON AND SO FORTH.
IF THERE WAS ANY, ANYONE IN OPPOSITION, THEY WOULD GET THE EQUAL TIME, BUT THERE'S NO ONE ELSE TO SPEAK SO TO SOLELY YOU.
SO, UM, YOU HAVE TWO REQUESTS BEFORE US TODAY.
ONE IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATION.
THE OTHER IS A VARIANCE FOR THE FLOOR AREA STRUCTURES FOR SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATIONS.
UM, SHE, UM, SHE, SHE SAYS SHE'S HERE TO APPEAL FOR THE VARIANCE OF THE ADDITION IN THE BACK OF 1338 GALLOWAY AN ADDITION THAT WAS DONE PREVIOUSLY BY HER EX-HUSBAND.
UM, WHEN SHE WAS MARRIED SHE LIVED AT A DIFFERENT ADDRESS AND HER HUSBAND PREVIOUSLY, UM, BOUGHT THIS HOUSE AND WAS WORKING ON IT WITHOUT HER KNOWLEDGE.
AND IT WAS IN FACT UNDER HIS NAME WHICH WE PROVIDED.
SHE PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION TO PROVE THAT HE, HE, HE DID ALL THE WORK BEFOREHAND AND SHE WAS AWARDED THIS HOUSE THROUGH DIVORCE.
SO THIS WAS NOT HER CONSTRUCTION.
UM, SHE WAS PREVIOUSLY LIVING WITH HER HUSBAND AT THE, AT HER PREVIOUS ADDRESS, 1326 EXETER.
THAT IS WHERE THEY WERE LIVING AT THE TIME OF THIS CONSTRUCTION.
UPON DIVORCE, THEY, THEY DIVORCED.
HE WAS AWARDED THE HOUSE AT EXETER, WHICH IS ON THE DIVORCE PAPERS AND SHE WAS AWARDED THE HOUSE AT 1338 GALLOWAY.
AT THAT POINT SHE MOVED INTO THE HOUSE AND THE HOUSE ALREADY HAD THE CONSTRUCTION AT THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, WHICH WAS THE ADDITION, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE.
[00:35:20]
WHEN SHE, WHEN SHE MOVED IN, SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY PERMITTING THAT WAS DONE OR HAD TO BE DONE PREVIOUSLY.AS SHE'S NOT FAMILIAR WITH CONSTRUCTION MATTERS AND SHE JUST MOVED INTO THE HOUSE.
UM, OBVIOUSLY SHE LIVED THERE AND AT, AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST YEAR, SHE HAD INSPECTORS SHOW UP AND ASK HER FOR PERMITS ON THE ADDITION, WHICH IS AT THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS ALL IN THE DOCUMENTATION AND WHICH OBVIOUSLY SHE CAN'T PROVIDE ANY PERMITTING OR ANYTHING BECAUSE IT WASN'T ANYTHING THAT SHE WAS DOING.
HER HUSBAND DID IT WITHOUT HER KNOWLEDGE.
SHE'S HERE IN GOOD FAITH TO TRY TO RESOLVE THIS KNOWING THAT SHE DIDN'T BUILD THE ADDITION AT THE BACK OF HER HOUSE CURRENTLY, AND SHE JUST WANTS TO HAVE THIS RESOLVED.
SO, SO, SO IT DOES NOT CONTINUE TO BE A FINANCIAL BURDEN UPON HER, AS SHE MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, AND ESTA AS OF RIGHT NOW AND THE WHOLE, THE ENTIRE TIME THAT SHE'S BEEN THERE.
UM, THE HOUSE AT THE, AT THE REAR END IS, IS INCOMPLETE NOW IT IS BUILT WITH ROOF AND EXTERIOR, BUT THE INTERIOR HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETELY FINISHED OUT.
SHE USES IT AS STORAGE AND DOES NOT INTEND TO RENT THAT OUT.
SHE WANTS TO MAINTAIN THAT IF ALLOWED FOR HER ELDERLY PARENTS WHO ARE IN MEXICO AND VISIT FREQUENTLY OR HER CHILDREN WHO ARE ADULTS TO VISIT HER.
SO AS SHE STATED, SHE HASN'T DONE ANY, ANY MODIFICATIONS TO IT.
AND WHEN SHE WAS TOLD AND INFORMED THAT SHE NEEDED A PERMIT, SHE OUT OF GOOD FAITH, WENT THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS AND, AND SPENT MUCH OF HER SA SAVINGS AND MONEY TO TRY TO GET THIS RESOLVED AND WHICH IS WHY SHE'S HERE.
SHE, SHE'S HERE TO ASK FOR THE VARIANCE TO BE ALLOWED TO AT LEAST KEEP THAT, THAT STRUCTURE FOR USE WITHIN HER FAMILY AND NOTHING ELSE.
AND THAT SHE, ONCE SHE WAS AWARE OF EVERYTHING SHE WAS EXPLAINED THOROUGHLY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE.
BUT AS YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN TOLD HERE, SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUSLY.
THE, THE ADDITION WAS BUILT IN 2019, WHICH WE PROVIDED EVIDENCE FOR THAT.
AND THE, THE DIVORCE WAS FINALIZED IN 2024, WHICH AFTER THAT SHE MOVED IN.
UH, SO SHE WOULD LIKE TO RETAIN THAT AND NOT HAVE TO INVEST LARGE SUMS OF MONEY INTO IT OR TO, SHE SAYS THAT, THAT SHE DID BRING JUST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION FROM HER DIVORCE PAPERS SHOWING WHEN THAT HAPPENED.
I THINK SHE SUBMITTED THAT PREVIOUSLY, BUT SHE HAS ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AS WELL.
SO SHE'S HERE TO ASK FOR THE VARIANCE
[00:40:15]
AND SHE SAID, SHE SAID THAT SHE UNDERSTANDS THE WHOLE PROCESS AND OUT OF GOOD FAITH CAME HERE FOR THAT TO TRY TO HAVE A VARIANCE TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURE AND, UH, KEEP WHAT'S THERE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SHE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTING IT OR BUILDING IT.SHE SAYS SHE, SHE DID PROVIDE FULL DOCUMENTATION ON THE DIVORCE, THE HOUSE WHEN IT WAS BUILT, UM, ACTUAL SATELLITE IMAGERY WITH HISTORICAL DATA OF WHEN IT WAS BUILT IN 2019 AND THAT, THAT'S ALL SHE HAS TO SAY.
UM, I'M GONNA OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS IN A MINUTE, BUT FIRST I'M GONNA RESTATE THE REQUEST AND THE REQUIRE AND THE CRITERIA.
THE CITY COUNCIL SETS RULES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY.
THEY APPLY TO EVERYONE WHETHER YOU BUILD OR YOU BUY.
THE REASON THE CITY COUNCIL SETS THESE STANDARDS IS SO THAT THERE IS SOME LEVEL OF CONSISTENCY AND PRIVACY ACROSS THE CITY.
WE ARE EMPOWERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS AND VARIANCES, VARIANCES IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND IT'S A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
AND THE CRITERIA IS NUMBER ONE, THAT IT'S NOT FOR RENT.
AND NUMBER TWO, IT, THE EXTRA DWELLING UNIT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AFFECT.
YOUR SECOND REQUEST GOES TO THE SIZE OF YOUR ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT.
THE CITY COUNCIL SET A THRESHOLD OF A SECOND DWELLING UNIT, NO BIGGER THAN 25% OF THE MAIN HOUSE.
YOU'RE REQUESTING 64% SIZE OF THE MAIN HOUSE.
THAT IS A BIG ASK AS THE CRITERIA FOR THE SECOND REQUEST ACCORDING TO THE CODE IS THAT THE REQUEST WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, INTEREST, OR THAT YOU HAVE A LOT THAT IS UNUSUAL IN SHAPE, SLOPE, OR RESTRICTIVE AREA IN PARTICULAR.
I'M REPEATING THIS ALL INTO THE RECORD.
I WANNA MAKE SURE YOU AS A PROPERTY OWNER UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR REQUEST IS AND WHAT OUR CRITERIA IS.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MS. DAVIS.
MY FIRST QUESTION WAS, WAS GOING TO BE WHETHER OR NOT SHE UNDERSTOOD THE CRITERIA, BUT SHE ALREADY AGREED THAT SHE DID.
SO MY SECOND QUESTION IS, KNOWING THAT OUR CRITERIA IS THAT IT WILL NOT, UM, ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, DID SHE REACH OUT TO HER NEIGHBORS TO TRY TO GET WRITTEN SUPPORT?
[00:45:06]
YES, SHE DID.SHE REACHED OUT TO HER NEIGHBORS FOR, FOR SUPPORT AND SHE HAS, SHE HAS THAT CAR, UH, LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THEM HERE.
THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARING.
ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GONNA HOLD FOR A MINUTE.
'CAUSE WE'RE NEED TO READ WHAT YOU'VE JUST NOW PRESENTED.
SO I'M GONNA DO THIS AND WE'RE GONNA TAKE A MOMENT TO READ.
I AM ASKING MS. DAVIS TO GIVE ME THE ADDRESSES FROM THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED.
UM, I DON'T HAVE AN ADDRESS THAT SAYS SINCERELY.
AND THIS ONE IS 13 AVENUE, IT'S OUTSIDE THE DEAL.
AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS, OH NO, 1338.
SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TAKING THE ADDRESSES FROM THE SHEETS OF PAPER AND PUTTING IT ON A MAP.
SO THE PROCESS IS, IS THAT WE GET FEEDBACK, EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT, AND THEN FEEDBACK FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.
AND IT GIVES US AN OPINION THAT DOES NOT CONTROL THE DECISION.
I WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.
I'M GONNA ASK A QUESTION OF OUR ATTORNEYS WHILE MEMBERS ARE READING.
MUST SO THERE ARE TWO REQUESTS IN FRONT OF US.
WHAT IF WE APPROVED ONE AND NOT THE OTHER? IN OTHER WORDS, WE APPROVED THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT BUT NOT THE VARIANCE FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
SO THE TWO OF YOU WANT TO TALK FOR A MINUTE.
[00:50:01]
WHAT, WHAT IF THE BOARD APPROVED ONE BUT DENIED THE OTHER? I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU COULD APPROVE THE VARIANCE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND NOT THE FIRST.IF YOU, IF WE APPROVE THE VARIANCE BUT DENIED THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, THE VARIANCE IS IRRELEVANT.
'CAUSE YOU CAN'T, BECAUSE THE FIRST ALLOWS THE STRUCTURE, THE SECOND ALLOWS THE STRUCTURE LARGER THAN 25%.
AM I CORRECT? I'M JUST ASKING MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. HAITZ? UM, I WOULD, I WOULD SUGGEST IT, IT'S POTENTIALLY POSSIBLE IF THE STRUCTURE HAS NOT YET BEEN FINISHED OUT, THAT MODIFICATIONS COULD BE MADE SUCH THAT IT WOULD MEET THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT BY JUST, FOR EXAMPLE, OPENING UP A WALL SO THAT SOMETHING WAS A PATIO INSTEAD OF A ROOM.
THEY COULD REDUCE THE, WHAT'S CONSIDERED TO BE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOME.
AND THAT'S CERTAINLY AN OPTION.
UM, BUT, BUT SINCE THE, WHAT'S COMING TO THE BOARD IS TWO SEPARATE REQUESTS.
ONE IS TO ALLOW FOR AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT, NOT FOR RENT.
THE OTHER IS FOR SOMETHING TO EXCEED THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHED 25% THRESHOLD.
MY MY POINT WAS SIMPLY TO ADDRESS HOW DO YOU, HOW CAN YOU HAVE ONE AND NOT THE OTHER? WELL, BUT YOU CAN HAVE ONE.
WELL, IF WE APPROVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION BUT NOT THE VARIANCE.
THEN IF WE PROVE THE VARIANCE, BUT NOT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
I DON'T HOW YOU COULD DO THAT.
'CAUSE ONE IS ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE OTHER IS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF YES, NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
UH, DO YOU SEE THE QUANDARY? I GUESS WE COULD APPROVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, NOT VARY, WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO CORRESPOND WITH 25%, WHEREAS WE COULD NOT DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, BUT APPROVE A VARIANCE.
SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THE VARIANCE AND YES, MAYBE IT'S NOT MY PLACE, BUT, UM, INITIALLY AT A 25% VARIANCE, WE DON'T NEED TO COME HERE FOR APPROVAL.
WE CAN JUST GO STRAIGHT TO PERMITTING.
IS IS MY UNDERSTANDING? NO, UH, YOU, WHAT'S, WHAT'S BEFORE US BY THE APPLICANT IS TWO REQUESTS.
ONE IS TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT NOT FOR RENT.
AND THE SECOND IS TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT NOT FOR RENT.
THAT EXCEEDS 25% OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE.
NO, YOU WERE HERE FOR BOTH OF THOSE.
SO IT'S UP TO THE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE APPLICANT MET THE WORK, THE CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO HAVE IT, AND THEN TO EXCEED THE PER THE SQUARE FOOTAGE PERCENTAGE.
BECAUSE BY CODE, ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU GAVE US, YOUR MAIN BUILDING'S 1219.
SO 1219, IT EXCEEDS IT SUBSTANTIALLY.
YOU ASKED, SO NOW I'M GONNA SAY, UH, IT SHOULD ONLY BE 305 FEET OF SQUARE FEET.
SO, SO THERE, THERE'S TWO REQUESTS PENDING.
SO YES, YOU STILL HAVE TO BE HERE.
DO YOU WANT ME TO HAVE THIS ON WHILE I TRANSLATE STILL WHAT I, WHAT YOU JUST SAID? OKAY.
I'M JUST TRANSLATING WHAT YOU SAID.
MY QUESTION AGAIN TO THE ATTORNEYS IS, AM I CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT IF WE DECIDE TO NOT APPROVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, THEN THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IS MOOT? I'M THEN I'M CONFUSED.
UH, NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE, UM, YOU, YOU COULD APPROVE THE VARIANCE.
THE A DU WOULD JUST, UM, YOU'D HAVE TO REMOVE THE, A BED, BATH OR KITCHEN.
BUT THAT'S, THAT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT TO DO THAT.
IS THE, IS THE VARIANCE APPROVING A ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT? NO, IT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT'S IN QUESTION.
'CAUSE IT CAN'T BE MORE THAN 25%.
[00:55:01]
MAKING THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LARGER THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED BY CODE.SO IF YOU ARE TO DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATIONS, YOU'RE SAYING YOU CAN'T HAVE AN A DU.
AND IF YOU ARE APPROVING THE VARIANCE TO THE FLOOR AREA FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, YOU CAN SAY, YOU'RE SAYING YES, YOU CAN HAVE THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THIS BIG, BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE OUT ONE OF THE BEDROOMS, THE KITCHEN OR BATHROOM BECAUSE YOU ARE DENYING THE A DU AND AN A DU, AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT HAS TO MEET ALL THREE COMPONENTS, A BEDROOM, BATHROOM, KITCHEN.
SO WHY DO THEY NEED THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION? WHY NOT JUST DO, JUST DO THE VARIANCE? BECAUSE THEY HAVE THIS, THE, THE, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE DOES HAVE ALL THREE COMPONENTS CURRENTLY.
SO THAT'S WHY THEY CAN, THEY, THEY ARE BEFORE YOU FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT.
BUT IF YOU ARE TO DENY THE A DU AND GRANT THE VARIANCE, THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO REMOVE THE KITCHEN, THE BATHROOM OR THE BEDROOM TO, TO JUST BE, UH, AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE LAND AND NOT, THAT'S NOT AN A DU.
ALRIGHT, SO, SO EXCUSE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
MR. HAITZ HAVE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT WE WERE JUST TOLD.
'CAUSE THERE'S A, THERE'S THAT OTHER BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY TOO.
MR. HOP HAS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO, UM, MS. OBREGON, UH, WHEN YOU SAY YOUR HUSBAND BUILT THE ADDITION, YOUR EX-HUSBAND, EXCUSE ME, BUILT THE ADDITION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, DO YOU MEAN THAT HE LITERALLY BUILT IT HIMSELF OR DO YOU KNOW IF HE HAD A BUILDER INVOLVED IN BUILDING IT? SHE SAYS THAT SHE HAS NO DETAILS ON WHETHER HE HIMSELF BUILT IT OR HE CONTRACTED SOMEBODY.
SHE JUST KNOWS THAT WHEN SHE MOVED IN, IT WAS THERE.
SO SHE HAS NO, NO PAPERWORK AT ALL ON IT? NO, NO.
THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING FROM HIM.
SHE WASN'T EVEN AWARE OF THE PROPERTY WHEN HE BOUGHT IT.
DO YOU HAVE A COURT ORDER OR JUDGMENT THAT TRANSFERS THIS DEED OFFICIALLY TO YOU? YOU ASKED IF SHE HAD COURT DOCUMENTS, RIGHT? YES.
SHE PROVIDED THEM IN THE, IN THE FILES.
AND SHE HAS TWO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR THAT.
GLOVER'S QUESTION TO OUR ACTING BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, I ASSUME THAT THE STAFF WOULD NOT ACCEPT THE CASE WITH HER AS THE APPLICANT UNLESS SHE PROVED TO THE STAFF SHE WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER? CORRECT.
I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M NOT GONNA LOOK AT, I'M GONNA LOOK AT THAT'S PART OF YOUR PROCESS, CORRECT? BECAUSE YOU, 'CAUSE WE ONLY DEAL WITH PROPERTY OWNERS, NOT TENANTS, NOT PROPERTY OWNERS AND, UH, REPRESENTATIVES.
AND THEY'RE DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES.
IN THIS CASE, THE, THE APPLICANT PROVED TO THE STAFF THAT THEY ARE, THAT SHE WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
SHE HAS THE DOCUMENTATION FOR THAT.
ALRIGHT, SO I THINK THIS MAY GO TO YOUR QUESTION, DR.
I THOUGHT SO, MS. K BAR, BUT, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS PART OF YOUR EVERY TIME, BECAUSE I LOOKED DOWN HERE AND IT SAID IT IS ON YOUR THING.
UM, SINCE THIS, UM, SINCE THIS STRUCTURE WAS NOT NEVER PERMITTED, UM, IT'S NEVER BEEN CHECKED FOR SAFETY, IT'S NEVER BEEN, UH, THE ELECTRIC, THE ELECTRICAL, THE PLUMBING, THE, UM, THE OTHER SYSTEMS OF THE HOUSE, THE AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS, ET CETERA, HAVE NEVER BEEN SIGNED OFF ON AS BEING CORRECTLY PUT PUT IN.
UM, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN YOU, IF, IF WE APPROVE THIS
[01:00:02]
AND YOU, YOU WILL HAVE TO GO AND APPLY FOR A PERMIT AND THERE WILL BE INSPECTIONS THAT MAY REQUIRE YOU TO DO EXTENSIVE MODIFICATIONS TO IT.GOING BACK TO THE, OUR CRITERIA OF EVALUATING, UM, SHOWING THAT IT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, HOW MANY HOMES IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS? SHE, SHE SAYS THAT, THAT SHE, SHE THINKS THAT SHE HAS SEEN ADDITIONAL HOUSES THERE THAT MAY HAVE THAT, UH, SHE DOESN'T KNOW THE NUMBER, BUT IT MAY HAVE BEEN TWO, BUT SHE'S NOT AWARE OF.
WHERE WOULD SOMEONE THAT IS LIVING IN THE SUGGESTIONAL DWELLING U UNIT PARK THEIR CAR? SHE, SHE SAYS IN HER, IN HER MAIN DRIVEWAY, WHICH EXTENDS ALL THE WAY TO THE, TO THE UNIT, THAT'S WHERE HER, HER SONS PARK WHEN SHE COME, WHEN THEY VISIT HER.
BECAUSE I WOULD NOT WANT ADDITIONAL CARS ON THE STREET.
NO, SHE SAYS THAT NO, THAT THE DRIVEWAY EXTENDS FROM THE ENTRANCE ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK AND IT, SO IT'S TECHNICALLY TO THE SIDE OF THE UNIT.
SO HER SON'S PARKED THERE WHEN THEY VISIT.
NOW WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DOES THE BOARD HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? YES.
SO FOR OUR ATTORNEY, SO IF WE, IF WE UM, DO NOT PASS THE FIRST MOTION PERMITTING AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT, IS THE APPLICANT ABLE, IF WITH MODIFICATIONS, IS THE APPLICABLE, IS THE APPLICANT ABLE TO TURN THAT INTO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT OR IS THAT SOMETHING THEY'D ALSO HAVE TO COME IN FRONT OF US IN ORDER TO GET APPROVAL? ONE MOMENT.
WE'RE GONNA DEFER TO STAFF, UM, FOR THAT QUESTION.
AND, AND I'M GONNA ASK AGAIN, I'M, THIS IS DOVETAILS MS. DAVIS' QUESTION.
WHEN I LOOK HERE ON OUR CRITERIA FOR STANDARDS FOR VARIANCE REVIEW, IT SAYS THE ONLY THING AS IT RELATES TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IS THE FLOOR AREA FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
IT DOESN'T SAY THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, IT SAYS THE FLOOR AREA, WHICH MEANS IT DOESN'T GRANT THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE ACCESSORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE STRUCTURE.
THIS GOES BACK TO MY QUESTION BEFORE, WHERE IN THE ORDINANCE DOES A VARIANCE AUTHORIZE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE? IT AUTHORIZES CHANGES TO THE FLOOR AREA, NOT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ITSELF.
THE CODE ONLY MENTIONS SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AS THE, THE ENABLING FOR ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE ALLOWED BY, RIGHT? MM-HMM
SO THEY COULD HAVE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, THEIR ISSUE.
LIKE A GARAGE OR EVEN A, A STORAGE, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T HAVE THOSE THREE COMPONENTS, THEY ARE HERE BECAUSE THEY'RE EXCEEDING 25% OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE.
IF THEY WERE AT 24%, THEY COULD HAVE THAT LEGALLY.
AS LONG AS IT'S NOT A DWELLING UNIT.
SO, SO THE ACCESS, I'M REPEAT WHAT YOU SAY SO THAT I UNDERSTAND IT.
SO BY RIGHT IN THE CODE, YOU CAN HAVE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T HAVE THOSE COMPONENTS.
THE BEDROOM, THE BATHROOM, AND THE KITCHEN.
BECAUSE THAT WOULD NOT BE A DWELLING UNIT, THAT WOULD BE JUST AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE CERTAIN GUIDELINES THAT THEY WOULD'VE TO, BUT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, IT STILL CAN'T BE MORE THAN 25% OF THE MAIN.
ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CANNOT BE
[01:05:01]
MORE THAN 25% OF THE MAIN.ACCESSORY STRUCTURE VERSUS DWELLING.
IS THIS CONSIDERED DWELLING OR ACCESSORY? THIS IS THE DWELLING BECAUSE IT HAS THE THREE COMPONENTS FOR OUR DWELLING UNIT.
SO WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS TO KEEP IT AS A ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT AND HAVE IT EXCEED THE 25%.
SO THE VARIANCE LANGUAGE APPLIES TO THE 20 EXCESS OF 25%.
NOT THE, THE, THE PHYSICAL STRUCTURE ITSELF GOES TO BOTH.
IF I MAY, I THINK THIS, THE SECOND REQUEST DEALS TO HOW BIG THE STRUCTURE IS.
AND THE FIRST REQUEST IS THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE STRUCTURE.
WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE KEEPING IT AS AN A DU BECAUSE IT HAS THE THREE COMPONENTS, OR IF YOU WANT IT TO JUST STILL BE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO REMOVE ONE OF THOSE COMPONENTS.
SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE THE KITCHEN TO KEEP IT AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
BUT THAT'S NOT OUR PLACE TO TELL AN APPLICANT WHAT TO, TO TAKE ONE OF THOSE COMPONENTS OUT.
BUT THEY CAN TAKE THE BEDROOM OUT, THEY CAN TAKE THE KITCHEN OUT OR THE BATHROOM OUT.
BUT THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS, CORRECT? NOT OURS.
IF YOU ARE TO DENY THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE STRUCTURE, YES, I'VE GOT MS. DAVIS THEN MR. HOPKINS.
SO I'M JUST, I'M CLARIFYING WHAT YOU JUST SAID, BUT MY QUESTION WAS, WOULD THEY NEED TO COME IN FRONT OF US IF THEY JUST WANNA DO AN ACCESSORY UNIT 25% OR LESS? AND THE ANSWER IS THEY WOULD NOT NEED TO COME IN FRONT OF US.
SO IF THEY ARE DENIED TODAY, THEY COULD MODIFY THAT STRUCTURE.
THEY COULD REMOVE ONE OF THOSE THREE COMPONENTS TO MAKE IT AN ACCESSORY UNIT, NOT AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND ENSURE THAT THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE DOES NOT EXCEED 25% OF THE MAIN HOME.
SO JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION TOO.
UH, MS. BAR, BAR, ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU.
WHAT ARE THE THREE COMPONENTS THAT TRIGGER THIS BATHROOM? WHAT YOU TELL ME? BATHROOM, A KITCHEN AND A BEDROOM.
AND IF IT HAS ALL THREE, IT'S CONSIDERED AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT.
AND THAT DWELLING UNIT, IT HAS TO BE, YOU HAVE TO ASK PERMISSION FOR THAT, CORRECT.
AND IF YOU, THAT'S ONE PERMISSION NUMBER ONE.
PERMISSION NUMBER TWO IN THIS CASE IS BEYOND THE 25%.
IF THEY TOOK AWAY ONE OF THE THREE, THEN IT'S, THEY DON'T HAVE TO ASK ANYTHING IF THEY TOOK THREE, BUT THEY WILL, BECAUSE OF THE 25%, THEY WOULD EXCEED THE 25%.
WE ALSO HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS IS EXISTING.
SO TO, FOR THEM TO TAKE OFF A CERTAIN CORNER OF THE LODGE JUST TO MEET THAT 25 OR THE, THE STRUCTURE THAT'S EXISTING, THAT'S KIND OF A AGREED, YOU KNOW? OKAY.
UM, SHE'S STATING THAT THE, THE UNIT, JUST TO CLARIFY IT, IT'S NOT FINISHED, BUT IT HAS, IT'S COMPLETELY FINISHED ON THE EXTERIOR AND THE INTERIOR IS TILED AND HAS DRYWALL AS IS NOW.
THE ELECTRICAL WAS NEVER COMPLETED BECAUSE THAT'S HOW HE LEFT IT.
WHEN HE, WHEN, WHEN SHE MOVED IN, THAT'S AT THE STEP WHERE HE WAS.
SO WHY WOULDN'T THAT BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY UNIT, NOT A, A DWELLING UNIT? THE FLOOR PLAN THAT THEY PROVIDED HAD THE THREE COMPONENTS IN.
SO THAT'S WHY WE GO OFF OF THE PLANS THAT THEY SUBMITTED.
SO THAT, SO WHAT OUR ACTING BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SAID WAS THE FLOOR PLAN SUBMITTED, HAD THE COMPONENTS THAT TRIGGERED THE HIGHER REQUIREMENTS.
'CAUSE THAT MEANS HER INTENTION AS AN APPLICANT IS TO MAKE IT INTO A DWELLING UNIT.
THAT SHE, SHE'S ASKING TO KEEP IT AS A LIVABLE AREA FOR HER KIDS AND PARENTS.
ALRIGHT, MR. HAITZ, UH, I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF AS WELL, UM, AS RELATES TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ISSUE.
VARIANCE FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, UM, AGAIN, LOOKING AT THE, UM, LOOKING AT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS RELATES TO THAT.
UM, AND, UH, ON PAGE 1 0 5 OF OUR, OF OUR PACKET ITEM C UH, I'LL READ IT NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP NOR FOR FINANCIAL REASONS ONLY
[01:10:01]
NOR TO PERMIT ANY PERSON OF PRIVILEGE IN DEVELOPING A PARCEL OF LAND NOT PERMITTED BY THIS CHAPTER TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN THE SAME ZONING.I, I, I'D LIKE A LITTLE EXPLANATION OF EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS.
'CAUSE IT'S, IT'S NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT CLEAR TO ME.
MR. THOMPSON WILL EXPLAIN HIS, UH, REASONING.
SO COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? REPEAT WHAT I SAID? YES.
UM, IT'S IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION PAGE 105.
ITEM C, UM, NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP, NOR FOR FINANCIAL REASONS ONLY NOR TO PERMIT ANY PERSON A PRIVILEGE IN DEVELOPING A PARCEL OF LAND NOT PERMITTED BY THIS CHAPTER TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND IN THE SAME ZONING
SO I'M NOT REALLY CLEAR ON WHAT, UM, IT'S THAT SAYING THAT, UM, BECAUSE OF, UH, YOU, YOU, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT PERMIT A PERSON A PRIVILEGE NOT, UM, PERMITTED TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND.
I, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT.
SO IF YOU RECALL, UH, DURING THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING, THIS RECOMMENDATION WAS DENIED, UH, WAS CHANGED TO DENIAL.
SO I WILL READ WHAT THE NEW ONE SAYS.
SO THAT IS NOT CORRECT, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF THE STAFF REPORT.
AND WHERE WILL I FIND THAT? I'M ABOUT TO READ IT TO YOU.
YOU'RE GONNA READ WHAT THE ANALYSIS, I'M GONNA READ WHAT I YES.
BECAUSE REMEMBER WE SAID THIS, PROCEED QUICKLY, OTHERWISE WE'RE MOVING ON.
IT JUST TAKES TIME FOR IT TO LOAD BACK UP.
AND I'LL SHARE IT WITH THE SCREEN AS WELL.
IS THAT 80%, 85 GOING, GOING, GOING.
I, I'M GONNA READ BACK TO YOU WHILE HE'S LOOKING THIS UP.
WHAT YOU'VE GIVEN US DOES NOT SAY THAT THE APPLICANT OWNS THE PROPERTY.
CAN LOOK AT IT, SAYS THAT THE APPLICANT CAN LIVE AT THE PROPERTY.
IT DOES NOT SAY THE, THAT, THAT THERE'S A D TRANSFER.
IT SAYS THAT MARIA WILL BE ABLE TO OCCUPY THE PROPERTY AND THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO RENTERS, BUT IT DOES NOT SPEAK TO OWNERSHIP TRANSFER.
SHE SAYS THAT WHEN SHE WAS AWARDED THE HOUSE, UM, SHE BELIEVES THAT, THAT IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO HER, WHICH IT IS IN HER NAME IN THE SYSTEM IN THE DALLAS CAD.
AND SHE PAYS THE TAXES UNDER HER NAME.
SHE WAS, SHE WAS UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SHE HAD
[01:15:01]
TO, UM, IF SHE WANTED TO DO THAT PROCESS FOR THE DEED AT THAT MOMENT, THAT SHE HAD TO PAY ADDITIONAL MONEY FOR THAT.I'M JUST SAYING THE DOCUMENT SHE GAVE US YES.
DOES NOT SAY THE COURT ORDERS THAT THE DEED BE TRANSFERRED FROM PERSON X TO PERSON Y.
IT SAYS THAT PERSON X HAS TO LET PERSON Y LIVE IN THE HOUSE.
THAT'S WHAT, WHAT YOU'VE GAVE US.
I'M JUST GIVING YOU 'CAUSE WE DEAL ON FACTUAL SURE.
SO IF YOU LOOK ON YOUR SCREEN, IT SAYS STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UH, VARIANCE TO THE FLOOR AREA FOR STRUCTURES ACCESSORY TO SINGLE FAMILY USE.
DENIAL BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
STAFF CONCLUDED THAT NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AS LETTERS OF OPPOSITION WERE NOT RECEIVED PRIOR TO CASE REPORT SUBMITTAL.
DEADLINE B THE SUBJECT SITE IS NOT RESTRICTIVE IN AREA, SHAPE OR SLOPE.
SUBJECT SITE IS RELATIVELY FLAT AND RECTANGULAR SHAPE.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS 7,200 SQUARE FEET COMPARED TO A MINIMUM 5,000 SQUARE FEET IN R FIVE ZONING.
THEREFORE IT CANNOT, IT CAN BE DEVELOPED IN A MANNER OF COMMENCEMENT WITH DEVELOPMENT UPON OTHER PARTS OF LAND IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
AND THEN PART PART C TALKS ABOUT THE SELF-CREATED, UH, OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP.
WHAT OUR ACTING BOARD ADMINISTRATOR IS SHOWING THE CHAIRMAN IS A DOCUMENT I GUESS THAT YOU RECEIVED FROM THEM.
A DOCUMENT SAYING THAT IS ORDERED DECREED.
THAT IS THAT THE APPLICANT IS AWARDED THE PROPERTY.
WHAT YOU GAVE US DOES NOT, BUT THIS DOES.
SO YES, WE, WE HAD ALREADY SUBMITTED THAT WE WERE THE UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU ALREADY HAD IT.
ALRIGHT, SO IT'S, IN MY OPINION IS THAT THE APPLICANT ACCORDING TO THE DIVORCE DOCUMENT, DOES HAVE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY.
SO, SO I THINK THAT ISSUE IS CLOSED.
MR. THOMPSON'S, UH, ON BEHALF OF STAFF SAID THAT THE STAFF IS WORKING.
NO OPINION ON SPECIAL EXCEPTION DENIAL ON THE VARIANCE BECAUSE OF THE PROPERTY HAS, IS NO, THERE'S NO ISSUE TO THE, TO THE AREA SHAPE OR SLOPE.
AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH OTHER LOTS IN THE ZONING DISTRICT.
IT'S AN R FIVE, CORRECT? THAT IS A GOOD SUMMARY.
WELL, I'M, I'M NOT STAFFY, SO I'LL I GO MY, ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? HEARING NONE THE BOARD, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
WE HAVE TWO MATTERS BEFORE US.
ONE IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
THE OTHER IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE.
MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REQUEST NUMBER BO OA DASH 26 DASH 4 0 6 6 ON APPLICATION OF MARIA A BERGON, UM, DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT ON A SITE DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE AS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IN THE MANNER OF BOA 2 6 0 0 0 0 6 6, UH, MS. DAVIS HAS MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT NOT FOR RENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DISCUSSION ON THE FIRST MOTION.
MS. DAVIS? I AM SUPPORTING THIS MOTION, UM, BECAUSE I DO BEL MY EVALUATION AND MY OPINION IS THAT GRANTING AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
I APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT THAT SHE RECEIVED FROM HER NEIGHBORS.
I THINK SHE DID A VERY NICE JOB WITH THAT.
ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS ARE SOMETHING THAT CAN TURN INTO, UM, THEY CAN TURN INTO ISSUES IN NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND WHEN I LOOK AT THE, UM, AERIAL FOOTAGE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I'M POSSIBLY SEEING ONLY ONE OTHER UNIT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT OR AN ACCESSORY UNIT OUT OF PROBABLY ABOUT 30 HOMES HERE.
SO I DO BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
THAT'S OUR CRITERIA AND THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
MR. DORN? I AGREE WITH THE SAME ISSUE THAT THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY SHOWS SIMPLY, UM,
[01:20:01]
POSSIBLY ONE.AND THAT ONE ACTUALLY WAS ONE OF THE LETTERS THAT WAS, UM, A PROPONENT.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? UH, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR BO OA 2 6 0 0 0 0 6 6 IS THE MOTION TO DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
MOTION TO DENY PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BO OA 2 6 0 0 0 0 6 6.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ON A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO DENIES THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SECOND MOTION IS RELATING TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BORDER ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BOA DASH 6 4 0 6 6 ON APPLICATION OF MARIA A OBON DENY THE VARIANCE TO THE FLOOR AREA FOR A STRUCTURE ACCESSORY TO THE SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD NOT RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT IN THE MANNER OF BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 6 6, THE BO UH, MS. DAVIS MADE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF THE FLOOR AIR RATIO WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND AMENDMENT.
MR. OVITZ DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION, MS. DAVIS? UM, I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
UM, THERE'S, THERE'S NOT A REGULAR SHAPE OR, OR ANY TYPE OF STRANGE EVOLUTION WITH THIS PROPERTY.
UM, SHE, THE, THE APPLICANT ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE INSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED.
SO IT IS REASONABLE THAT IF THEY MADE THIS INTO AN ACCESSORY UNIT INSTEAD OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, THEY COULD MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO BRING THIS UNDER 25%, WHICH WOULD REALLY ENHANCE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT TOOK AWAY FROM IT.
AGAIN, LOOKING AT THIS AERIAL FOOTAGE, THERE'S VERY LITTLE PROPERTY LEFT ON THAT SPACE BECAUSE THAT CURRENT STRUCTURE, AT LEAST THE SHELL OF THAT STRUCTURE IS SO LARGE.
SO THAT IS WHY I AM SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
CAN I TRANSLATE REAL QUICK? YEAH.
SHE'S, THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION IS CLOSED.
NOW WE'RE DEBATING, UH, MR. DO, OR EXCUSE ME, MR. KOVI DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? YEAH, I AGREE WITH MS. DAVIS.
UM, HER COMMENTS, UM, I THINK THERE'S A, THERE'S A PATH FOR THE APPLICANT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SOMETHING WORK WITH THIS AND, AND, AND BE WITHIN THE, UM, THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE APPLICABLE.
UM, AND I HOPE THAT SHE'S ABLE TO DO THAT.
BUT, BUT, UM, THERE'S NO OBVIOUS REASON TO APPROVE A STRUCTURE OF THIS SIZE AS A, UM, AS IT IS JUST NOW.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MR. EXCUSE ME, DR. GLOVER? I AGREE WITH THE MOTION BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A PART TO REMEDY BECAUSE THE BUILDING IN QUESTION IS INCOMPLETE AT THE MOMENT.
AS TOUGH AS, AS IT IS, THE CITY COUNCIL CREATED A STANDARD FOR DEVELOPMENT OF HOMES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS LIKE HERS AND THAT IT'S A HIGH STANDARD AND IT GENERALLY DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS UNLESS, UH, AND IT LIMITS THE SIZE OF THOSE FOR A REASON.
AND SO IT HAS TO BE A VERY UNIQUE SPECIAL CASE FOR THAT.
SO I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION AS WELL.
I THINK THERE'S WAYS TO MAKE THIS
[01:25:01]
AN ACCESSORY UNIT, WHICH SHE DID HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.I'M NOT GONNA LET THIS D DWELL ON.
AND SO, UH, IT, IT'S IN MY OPINION, I THINK IT'S IN THE BOARD'S OPINION THAT, UH, MAKING AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT IN EXCESS AT 64% OF THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING IS JUST TOO BIG INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER PROPERTIES AND ADVERSELY AFFECTING THEM.
SO I RECORDING MENTION ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS ON THE, ON THE MOTION.
THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR POA 2 6 0 0 0 0 6 6 IS THE MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE FOR THE FLOOR AREA FOR A STRUCTURE ACCESSORY TO THE SINGLE FAMILY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
MR. CHAIRMAN MOTION TO DENY PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 6 6.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY DENIES ON A FIVE TO ZERO VOTE THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF THIS, UH, FLOOR AREA FOR A STRUCTURE ACCESSORY TO SINGLE FAMILY USE WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS, SHE'S AVAILABLE TO TALK TO THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF, EITHER PART OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR BUILDING INSPECTION.
UM, WE REALLY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE HERE.
BUT YOU'RE, UH, TO AVAIL TO THE STAFF? YEAH, SHE'S AWARE OF.
I'M JUST SAYING THIS VERY PUBLICLY, SO YES.
[VI.6. 26-3288A Application of Aureliano Flores for a (1) special exception for the handicapped to the fence height regulations at 765 IVYWOOD DRIVE. This property is more fully described as Block W/7525, Lot 30, and is zoned R-7.5(A), which limits the height of a fence in the front yard to 4-feet. The applicant proposes to construct and/or maintain a 6-foot-high fence in a required front-yard, which will require (1) a 2-foot special exception for the handicapped to the fence height regulations.]
THE AGENDA IS BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 7 3.IVY WOOD DRIVE IS THE APPLICANT HERE PLEASE COME FORWARD, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT AND A TRANSLATOR.
THAT'S IT FOR SPEAKERS ON THIS? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO MS. BOARD SECRETARY, YOU SAID ONLY THE AP APPLICANT IS SPEAKING.
THERE'S NO ONE IN OPPOSITION THAT'S REG, UH, REGISTERED? THAT IS CORRECT.
UH, MS. FLORES, ARE YOU THE APPLICANT? YES.
WOULD YOU PLEASE TAKE YOUR HAT OFF? WE'RE INSIDE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
UM, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN, IN ENGLISH THEN IN SPANISH.
YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? UH, ENGLISH IN SPANISH.
WHAT DID HE SAY? I DID? HE SWEARS TO TELL THE TRUTH, ONLY THE TRUTH.
UM, IN THE MATTER OF BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 7 3, WE HAVE ONE REQUEST BEFORE THE BOARD.
I'M GONNA, YOU READY? GO AHEAD AND THEN, AND I NEED YOU TO PUT THE MICROPHONE CLOSE TO YOU SO WE CAN HEAR EVERY BREATHING WORD.
HE DOESN'T NEED TO RESPOND YET, I'M JUST SPEAKING.
SO THE REQUEST IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE HANDICAP TO DEFENSE HEIGHT REGULATIONS.
HIS MICROPHONE'S NOT ON OR HE NEEDS TO PULL IT CLOSER.
[01:30:01]
IT CLOSER SIR.SO, UH, WE'VE GOTTEN FEEDBACK THAT I SHARED WITH THE BOARD THIS MORNING FROM TWO PROPERTY OWNERS AND I'M GONNA PASS THAT DOWN.
I DON'T WANT TO GET AHEAD OF YOU.
I'VE GOT FEEDBACK, I'M PASSING THIS DOWN, OKAY? MM-HMM
OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE STATE THAT THE APPLICANT GETS FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD AND THEN WE WILL ASK QUESTIONS.
I WILL ALLOW YOU AS OTHER APPLICANTS AS MUCH TIME AS NECESSARY SO LONG AS YOU'RE NOT REDUNDANT, OKAY? ALRIGHT.
UM, MY NAME IS FLORES AND I HAVE A SON WITH AUTISM WITH THE, UM, HANDICAP AND I NEED, UM, HELP.
I NEED YOU TO BE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE SO I CAN HEAR YOU, PLEASE.
MY NAME IS HERRERO FLORES AND I COME HERE FOR, TO ASK FOR AN EXCEPTION, UM, A SPEC SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR MY SON THAT HE HAS AUTISM.
HE HAS UP TO FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT.
OKAY? UH, MY FEAR IS THAT MY SON GETS OUT, UH, OUTSIDE AND MY FEAR IS THAT HE GETS OUT AND HE GETS RAN OVER BY A CAR AND I AM ALSO SICK BECAUSE MY WORRIES, I FEEL LIKE I'M GETTING MORE SICK AND WITH THE FENCE, SLEEP WELL WITH, UM, KNOWING THAT MY SON CANNOT GET OUT BECAUSE OF THE FENCE AND MM-HMM
THAT IS ALL THE HOPE THAT I NEED IS Y'ALL ALLOW ME TO HAVE PERMISSION TO HAVE THE FENCE UP TO SIX, UM, FEET INSTEAD OF FOUR FEET BECAUSE OF FOUR FEET HE CAN GET HER AND JUMP THE FENCE AND GET HURT.
AND THAT IS MY BIGGEST FEAR THAT HE WILL GET HURT.
AND QUE THE ALSO HE HAS, UM, PROBLEMS. DON'T WORRY BECAUSE THERE IS, OKAY.
I, I NEED YOU TO NOT SPEAK UNTIL HE FINISHES.
SO HE NEEDS TO DO IN SMALLER SECTIONS.
UHHUH, UH, AT SOME AT SCHOOL, MY SON HAS ALSO, UM, ISSUES BECAUSE OF HIS AUTISM, BUT THERE IS, UM, TEACHERS AND THE STAFF THERE TO HELP SOLO.
BUT AT HOME IT'S JUST ME AND MY WIFE IS AT WORK.
AND ALSO MY BIGGEST FEAR IS MY SON WILL GET LOST.
THAT IS ALL THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION THAT I'M ASKING FOR.
AND PLEASE THINK OF ME AND MY SON.
UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
[01:35:01]
BOARD, THIS IS THE CRITERIA BY WHICH THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER HIS REQUEST, AND THE CODE SAYS THE FOLLOWING.IF AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING, THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE EXCEPTION IS NECESSARY TO AFFORD A HANDICAPPED PERSON EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO USE AND A ENJOY A DWELLING, THE BOARD MAY SHALL, THE BOARD SHALL GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
OKAY, SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
IN THE DOCUMENTS YOU PRESENTED, IT SHOWED YOU HAD A FENCED BACKYARD.
IS THAT CORRECT? HOW TALL IS THE FENCE IN THE BACKYARD? SIX FEET.
WHY IS IT NOT USABLE? UM, BECAUSE THE WOOD IS ROTTEN.
YET YOU'RE ASKING US TO APPROVE A SIX FOOT FENCE IN YOUR FRONT YARD AND NO ONE ELSE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A FRONT YARD FENCE.
WHY NOT? NONE OF THE CHILDREN HAVE, UM, AUTISM AND, UM, HANDICAPPED.
WHY NOT IMPROVE THE FENCE IN YOUR BACKYARD? BECAUSE HE WILL GET OUT OF THE FENCE AND HE RIDES THE BUS.
WHEN I SEE HIM, HE'S IN THE STREET.
MY QUESTION WAS WHY DON'T YOU USE YOUR BACKYARD IN ORDER FOR YOU TO ENJOY THE DWELLING? BECAUSE THE BUS DOESN'T GO THROUGH THERE.
BECAUSE WHAT? ONLY THROUGH, BECAUSE THE BUS DOESN'T, UM, IT'S NOT IN THE BACK, DOESN'T GO THROUGH THE BACKYARD.
THE BUS GOES TO THE FRONT YARD.
WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH A FENCE IN THE BACKYARD FOR HIM TO BE ABLE TO USE THE BACKYARD? BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE HE PLAYS IN THE BACKYARD? PRECISELY.
WE WANT TO FOLLOW WHAT THE CODE IS AND THE CODE SAYS THAT THE BOARD SHALL ISSUE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO AFFORD A HANDICAPPED PERSON EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO USE AND ENJOY A DWELLING.
SO I'M ASKING WHY YOU'RE NOT UTILIZING THE BACKYARD OF YOUR DWELLING WITH A FENCE.
THE PROBLEM IS BECAUSE THE FENCE IS FOUR FEET AND IT'S NOT SIX FEET.
HIS SON CAN GET OUT AND GET HURT AND GO IN THE STREET.
YOU SAID YOUR FENCE IN THE BACK WAS SIX FEET.
ALL I JUST WANT, ALL I WANT IS THAT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, UM, HAS A FENCE OF SIX FEET.
[01:40:01]
AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, OTHER HOUSES AND THE FACT THAT NO ONE ELSE HAS A FRONT YARD FENCE, WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL, WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL HAS PROHIBITED UNLESS THERE'S A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.I'M BALANCING THAT WITH THE FACT YOU HAVE A BACKYARD THAT COULD BE UTILIZED IN ORDER FOR YOU TO USE AND ENJOY THE DWELLING.
MARY, I CAN'T HAVE YOU SAY THAT IN SPANISH UNLESS YOU TELL US IN ENGLISH BECAUSE IT'S TRANSLATION.
IT'S BOTH TRYING TO GET HIM MICROPHONE SPEAK LOUDER THEN.
UM, HE SAID THAT THE FENCE IN THE BACKYARD, HE WILL USE IT TO, UM, UTILIZE IT TO
MY SON IS 11 YEARS OLD AND HE IS TALL AS ME.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? DR. GLOVER, UH, WHAT ACTIVITIES DOES YOUR SON DO IN THE FRONT YARD? THAT, WHAT WAS THAT MERITS? WHAT ACTIVITIES DOES HE DO IN THE FRONT YARD? HE PLAYS WITH HIS TOYS, UH, AND WITH KIDS WITH, UH, FIVE AND SIX YEARS OLD, WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T WE CAN'T HEAR BOTH.
SO HE NEEDS TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTION THEN LET YOU TRANSLATE, THEN LET US ABSORB.
OKAY, SO BECAUSE HE'S, UH, HE BECAUSE OF HIS AUTISM, HE, UM, PLAYS WITH KIDS OF FIVE, FOUR AND FIVE YEARS OLD.
AND EVEN THOUGH HE'S 11 YEARS OLD AND HE PLACES TOYS WITH HIS TOYS IN THE FRONT YARD, HE WANTS TO PLAY, UM, WITH THE OTHER KIDS THE SAME ACTIVITIES AS OTHERS, AND HE CAN'T.
SO WHY CAN'T THESE ACTIVITIES BE DONE IN THE BACKYARD? THAT'S ONE.
AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION IS WHAT, UM, WHAT RESTRICTIONS DOES HE HAVE AS A PARENT THAT DOESN'T ALLOW HIM TO BE ABLE TO MONITOR HIS SON? UM, WHAT WAS, CAN YOU REPEAT THE FIRST QUESTION? THAT WAS TWO QUESTIONS.
SO DO, DO ONE THEN THE OTHER? YEAH.
SO THE FIRST QUESTION IS, WHY CAN'T HE DO THESE ACTIVITIES IN THE BACKYARD? BECAUSE HE JUST, UM, GOT HURT.
HE SPRAINED THIS ANKLE AND HE DOESN'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO KNOW WHAT TIME TO GO INSIDE THE HOUSE.
DID YOU WANT TO ANSWER, ASK YOUR SECOND QUESTION, DR. GLOVER, CAN I ASK HER TO REPEAT THE QUE THE ANSWER? I DIDN'T HEAR, I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND.
GLOVER'S QUESTION WAS, WHY CAN HE NOT USE THE BACKYARD TO PLAY WITH HIS FRIENDS? OTHERS, I THINK, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY.
THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE QUESTION WE WOULD LIKE ANSWERED.
HE DIDN'T OH, BECAUSE HE SPRAINED HIS ANKLE AND THE, THE TIME, BECAUSE HE IS, HE'S, UM, HIS AUTISM, HE IS NOT ABLE TO KNOW WHAT TIME TO BE INSIDE THE HOUSE AND HE'S NOT ABLE TO PLAY AS THE OTHER KIDS CAN.
BUT THAT DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE QUESTION WE ASKED IS, WHY CAN HE NOT USE
[01:45:01]
A FENCED IN BACKYARD IN ORDER TO ENJOY HIS DWELLING? IT'S BECAUSE HE IS ALLERGIC TO GRASS, EGGS, AND MILK.THAT'S WHY HE CAN'T PLAY OUTSIDE IN THE BACKYARD.
UH, IS THERE NOT GRASS IN THE FRONT YARD? YES.
SO WOULDN'T HE BE ALLERGIC THERE TOO? YES.
YOUR SECOND QUESTION, DR. GLOVER, AND THEN WE'LL GO TO MR. HAITZ.
YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THAT YOU, YOU'RE NOT FEELING VERY WELL.
WHAT CONSTRAINTS DO YOU HAVE AS A PARENT THAT DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO, UM, TO TAKE CARE OF THE KID? THE REST? WHAT CHALLENGES DOES HE HAVE? WHAT SICKNESS DOES HE HAVE THAT RESTRICTS HIM FROM, UM, GOING ABOUT HIS PARENTS OR DUTIES? BECAUSE I'M HANDICAPPED AND I'M NOT ABLE TO RUN, JUMP, OR RUN BECAUSE OF MY, UM, CONDITION.
MY KIDNEYS ARE WRAPPED AND ALSO MY IS AN ORGAN THAT HE HAS THAT IT GOES, IT DROPS AND HE HAS TO HAVE SOMETHING TO LIFT IT UP.
AND ALSO HIS KIDNEYS ARE WRAPPED AROUND SO HE'S NOT ABLE TO DO ANY EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES.
UM, I STILL DON'T THINK I'VE HEARD REALLY AN UNDERSTANDABLE EXPLANATION OF WHY THE FRONT YARD IS BETTER THAN THE BACKYARD.
UM, HE SAYS THAT, UM, HE TRIES NOT TO LET HER SON PLAY IN THE BACKYARD BECAUSE OF HIS CONDITION, HIS SKIN, CONDI CONDITION ECZEMA.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE, MS. DAVID? I'M SORRY, MR. HAVI? I, I GUESS, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE OUR HEARING AIDS AREN'T WORKING TODAY VERY WELL.
NO, BUT I, I DIDN'T UNDER, I CANNOT UNDERSTAND HER ANSWER.
I I JUST DON'T HEAR WHAT SHE SAID.
I'M, DID YOU WANNA REPEAT YOURSELF? BECAUSE OF HIS SKIN CONDITION THAT HE HAS, IT'S ECZEMA, HE HAS A SKIN CONDITION THAT'S ECZEMA, SO IT CAUSES HIM TO HAVE RASHES.
THAT'S WHY HE DOESN'T LET HIS SON PLAY IN THE BACKYARD AS MUCH, JUST THE FRONT YARD.
BUT WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FRONT YARD AND THE BACKYARD THAT CAUSES ONE TO BE OKAY AND ONE NOT, I DON'T LET HIM PLAY IN THE BACKYARD.
I DON'T LET HIM OR I DON'T LIKE HIM TO, BUT HE WON'T, DOESN'T LET HIM OR HE DOESN'T LIKE HIM TO, I DON'T LET HIM.
AND ALSO THE SCHOOL DOESN'T ALLOW HIM TO, DOESN'T LET HIM, THE SCHOOL DOESN'T ALLOW HIM TO LET HIS SON PLAY IN HIS OWN BACKYARD WHENEVER HE'S AT SCHOOL.
NO, THE SCHOOL DOES NOT, THE STAFF DOES NOT ALLOW HIM TO PLAY OUTSIDE DURING RECESS
[01:50:01]
AND WITH OTHER KIDS IN, IN THE, UM, IN THE YARD AS WELL AS HE DOESN'T LET HIS SON PLAY IN THE BACKYARD.OKAY, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY? THAT IS ALL I'M ASKING.
THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR MY SON AND FOR, FOR MYSELF ALSO BECAUSE OF MY, UM, CONDITION BECAUSE I'M ALSO, UM, HANDICAPPED.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER WELCOME QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, THE, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
OKAY, LIKE I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BOA DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 7 3 GO A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE.
ON APPLICATION OF A A I NEED SOME HELP ON THE SPELLING.
DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE HANDICAP TO THE DEFENSE HEIGHT REGULATIONS RE REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT RELIEF IS NOT NECESSARY TO AFFORD A HANDICAP PERSON EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO USE AND ENJOY THE DWELLING.
MR. DORN IN THE MATTER OF BO 8 2 6 0 0 0 0 7 3 HAS MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MS. DAVIS DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
MR. DORN? I JUST BELIEVE THE BOARD HAS GOTTEN ANSWERS THAT JUST ULTIMATELY IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE FACT THERE ARE NO OTHER FENCES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE'S CONFLICTING ANSWERS REGARDING, WELL, HE'S, HE CAN GET A ABOVE A OVER A SIX FOOT FENCE IN THE BACKYARD.
SO I'M NOT SURE HOW A WROUGHT IRON FENCE AND A FRONT YARD WOULD PREVENT THAT EITHER.
SO IT WOULD SEEM, UH, THAT AGAIN, THE, IT JUST, THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE SECONDARY ISSUES AND NOT ANSWERING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS IS, UM, THE REASON I'VE CHOSEN TO PICK DENIAL.
THANK YOU MR. DORN DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
MS. DAVIS? I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION BECAUSE THE APPLICANT DID NOT SHOW, UM, THAT THIS FENCE IS NECESSARY TO AFFORD A HANDICAP PERSON EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO USE AND ENJOY THE DWELLING.
THERE IS OPPORTUNITY TO, UM, USE AND ENJOY THE DWELLING IF THEY SIMPLY REINFORCE OR PUT A NEW FENCE IN THE BACKYARD.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, DR. GLOVER, UH, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS GIVEN US ENOUGH INFORMATION TO WORK WITH, UM, AND A COGENT REASON WHY WE SHOULD APPROVE THIS.
UM, ALL OF THIS IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT HE HAS DENIED HIS SON OPPORTUNITY TO PLAY IN A CERTAIN AREA AND BECAUSE OF THIS, I CANNOT, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
MR. OVITZ, UH, I'M GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, FORGIVE ME FOR BEING ON THIS BOARD FOR SO LONG AND NOT KNOWING THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, BUT WHAT IS, WHAT ARE, WHAT IS SOMEONE ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN THE BACKYARD FENCE HEIGHT? UH, I I BELIEVE BACKYARD FENCE HEIGHTS IS NINE FEET BY RIGHT, SO I THOUGHT IT WAS MORE THAN SIX.
OUR ACTING BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SAID NINE FEET, CORRECT.
MS. BAR? CORRECT? I'M PRACTICING MY KIDS, I'M PRACTICING MY CUES.
IT'S NINE FEET, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I CONFIRMED THAT INFORMATION SO THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION AS WELL IN TERMS OF CREATING A PLAY AREA FOR THEIR, FOR HIS SON.
YES, I AM INTERPRETING, I'M INTERPRETING.
EVERYTHING WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
SO YEAH, I NOPE, WE'RE THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION IS ENDED WHEN WE MADE A MOTION, SO, OKAY.
UM, I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION ALSO.
[01:55:01]
I READ INTO THE RECORD SEVERAL TIMES OUR CRITERIA AND I THINK WE FAIRLY BALANCE THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE PACKET AND ALSO TESTIFYING TODAY.AND SO I'LL SUPPORT THE MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING? NO DISCUSSION.
THE BOARD'S SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
MOTION TO DENY PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 7 3.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ON A FIVE TO ZERO VOTE, DENIED THE REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
WE'RE GONNA TAKE A 10 MINUTE RECESS AND THEN WE WILL CONTINUE ON.
SO IT IS 2:56 PM WE'LL RECONVENE AT 3:05 PM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANELS A WE'LL RECESS AT 2 56 AND COME BACK AT 3:05 PM THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT, UH, Q COME BACK TO THE CHAMBERS.
UH, WE'RE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PENALTY RECONVENES.
[VI.3. 26-3298A Application of Robert Baldwin for (1) a special exception to the sign regulations at 1433 N WESTMORELAND ROAD. This property is more fully described as Block 6160, Tract 1, and is zoned IR, PD-811(Subarea A), which limits the number of detached signs on a premise to one per street frontage. The applicant proposes to construct and/or maintain one additional detached premises sign on a nonresidential premise, which will require (1) a special exception to the sign regulations. ]
UM, THE NEXT CASE I'M CALLING IS GOING TO BE, UM, BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 6 2 6 2.UH, THIS IS AT 1 4 3 3 NORTHWEST MORON ROAD IS THE APPLICANT HERE.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, ROB BALDIN 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SWEEPING DALLAS.
MS. WILLIAMS, WILL YOU SWEAR 'EM IN, PLEASE Q'S BACK.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, I DO.
UM, HOW MANY, WHAT SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE REGISTERED FOR THIS MS. BOARD.
UM, AS IS OUR CUSTOM, OUR BOARD, OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES OF PROCEDURE USE, THE APPLICANT ARE GIVEN FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT.
UH, THERE ARE NO WOMEN IN OPPOSITION OR OTHER SPEAKERS, SO I WILL GIVE YOU WHATEVER TIME'S NECESSARY FOR YOU TO SPEAK.
SO LONG AS YOU'RE NOT REDUNDANT.
I'LL, CAN YOU SEND IT TO YOU, SIR? THANK YOU.
UH, MARY, UH, I HAD A MARY, I HAD A PRESENTATION AND I DON'T SEE BRIAN HERE PUT ON MR. THOMPSON.
UH, Q YOU'VE LOST YOUR MR. THOMPSON, RIGHT? WE'LL, WE'LL WAIT FOR YOU.
I DON'T WANNA WASTE A LOT OF YOUR TIME.
THIS IS, THIS IS Q'S IN CHARGE, SO WE'RE SEEING HOW Q OPERATES
DO YOU HAVE IT ON YOURS? I'M SORRY, I WE CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER TIME.
AND DID YOU SEND IT TO JUST MR. BRIGHT OR DID YOU SEND IT TO MS BAR AS WELL? I THINK I JUST SENT IT TO MR. OH,
SO MY FAULT, I APOLOGIZE FOR, FOR THAT.
UM, I SPOKE TO HIM BEFORE THE HEARING AND HE SAID HE HAD IT.
SO IS HE COMING? OKAY, MR. MILLER, YOU HAVE IT.
OKAY, SO WE'RE GETTING ACCESS, TECHNOLOGY AND ACTION.
HOPE IS NOT DISAPPOINTED BY THE TIME IT GETS UP HERE, IT'S, THERE'S NOT BELLS OR WHISTLES IN IT.
WELL, YOU DON'T NEED BELLS OR WHISTLES.
REMEMBER WHAT, WHAT DAN WEBB, WHAT'S NAME? JUST THE FACTS.
JOE FRIDAY? NO, THAT WAS HIS PARTNER.
HIS WEB GANNON WAS HIS PARTNER.
Q ARE WE READY TO GO? QI SEE IT.
I KEEP, I KEEP REFERRING TO Q AND SHE'S OKAY Q.
ROB BALDWIN, I'M HERE REPRESENTING, UH, METROCARE, WHICH IS DALLAS COUNTY'S MENTAL HEALTH MENTAL RETARDATION, UH, BODY.
THEY HELP, UH, PEOPLE IN DALLAS COUNTY WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES.
OH, DID MS. WILLIAMS, DID YOU SWEAR 'EM IN? YEAH.
SO THIS PROPERTY IS ON, UH, JUST SOUTH OF I 30 ON NORTHWEST MORELAND.
UH, YOU MAY HAVE NOSE OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, THEY BUILT A NEW CAMPUS UP THERE.
THEY USED TO, UH, HAVE ANOTHER FACILITY THERE.
THEY DEMOLISHED THAT AND THEY BUILT A NEW CAMPUS.
[02:00:01]
AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, IN THE AREA WHERE IT SAYS METROCARE CAMPUS.THEY HAVE OFFICES, THEY HAVE CLINICS, UH, THEY HAVE, UH, AREAS FOR, FOR OUT OUTPATIENT TREATMENT TO NORTH.
WE HAVE HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, THE QUICKTRIP GAS STATION WITH A VERY TALL RETAINING WALL.
UH, AND, UH, ACROSS THE STREET IS ANOTHER MEDICAL FACILITY.
THE AREA WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS IN GREEN.
THIS IS VERY INTERESTING THAT, UH, IT'S A LAWS AND SHAPE.
THE AREA IN THE MIDDLE WE DO NOT OWN.
IT IS OWNED BY A GROUP CALLED CROWN TOWER.
THEY HAVE THAT BIG TOWER THERE, BUT THE TOWER IS OPERATED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS STRANGE, BUT AS IN THE UNITED STATES STATE DEPARTMENT.
SO THAT'S WHY, UH, YOU'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN IN, UH, WHEN THE, WHEN METROCARE BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY IN 2022, THEY WERE GONNA REDEVELOP THAT PROPERTY TO FOLDED INTO THEIR CAMPUS.
THERE'S A WAREHOUSE THAT IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE TOWER.
THEY WERE GONNA REDO THAT, THAT WAREHOUSE FOR OFFICES.
AND THEN WE CAME IN FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR LANDSCAPING, UH, AND PARKING ON THAT.
TURNS OUT THAT THERE'S ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WITH THE WAREHOUSE, SO THEY COULDN'T, UH, DO ANYTHING WITH IT.
SO WE LET THAT, THE APPROVAL THAT YOU ALL DID LAPSE.
SO EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE SEEN IT BEFORE AND APPROVED IT, NOTHING'S BECOME OF IT BECAUSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WITH THE WAREHOUSE.
SO THERE IS A BILLBOARD ON THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.
THE BILLBOARD HAS BEEN UP THERE 20, 30 YEARS.
IT IS ON PROPERTY OWNED BY METROCARE, BUT THEY DO NOT OWN THE BILLBOARD.
THEY DO NOT CONTROL THE BILLBOARD.
IT HAS A 99 YEAR LEASE THAT WAS PUT ON BY THE PEOPLE WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY FOR, UH, FROM, IT WAS PUT ON IN 1994.
WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 2022.
METROCARE DOES GET A SMALL RESIDUAL FROM IT, BUT IT'S NOT A BIG MONEY MAKER FOR THEM.
THE PROBLEM IS IT'S ALL IN THE SAME PLATTED PIECE OF PROPERTY.
YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE SIGN ON A PLATTED PIECE OF PROPERTY.
AND THE SIGNS, UH, IF YOU HAVE, UH, PER STREET FRONTAGE, AND IF YOU HAVE, UH, TWO SIGNS, TWO STREET FRONTAGES, THEN YOU CAN HAVE 'EM.
BUT THEY HAVE TO BE 250 FEET APART.
OR IF YOU COME IN FOR A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT LIKE WE'RE DOING TO GET AN ADDITIONAL SIGN, THE BOARD CAN GRANT ADDITIONAL SIGN, BUT IT STILL HAS TO BE 250 FEET APART.
SO WE ARE ASKING TO ALLOW FOR A SECOND SIGN, BUT IT MEETS THE SPACING REQUIREMENT.
SO WE'RE ONLY ASKING FOR, FOR ONE THING, AND THAT IS TO ALLOW A SECOND SIGN ON THE PROPERTY TO BE OUR ADDRESSING.
UH, THIS, THIS KIND OF SHOWS THE, THE LAYOUT AND WHAT I POINTED TO FURTHER, WE HAD, UH, WE'RE SURROUNDED BY NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
THIS IS A SIGN WE WANT ABOUT EIGHT FEET TALL, 16 FEET WIDE.
IT'S TO REPLACE THAT SIGN THAT YOU SAW IN THE BRIEFING THAT ORIGINALLY HAD AN ADDRESS ON IT.
I DO NOT KNOW HOW THAT SIGN, UH, BEFORE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THERE BEFORE THE BILLBOARD OR IT MIGHT JUST BEEN MISSED BY THE CITY.
BUT, UM, SINCE IT HASN'T HAD THAT SIGN FACE IN IT, UH, IT'S LOST ITS NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS.
AND WE WENT AND TRIED TO GET A, A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE SUN AND WE WERE DENIED.
AND SO WE HAD TO COME IN TO SEE YOU.
UM, ALL THIS IS, IS IDENTIFYING THE CAMPUS.
IT DOES LIST THE THREE ADDRESSES ON THE CAMPUS, AND THERE'S A SMALL SPOT THERE, FOUR INCHES TALL THAT IF, UH, A DONOR WOULD, UH, BE WILLING TO, YOU KNOW, HELP US PAY FOR THE SIGN, WE'LL PUT THE LITTLE DONOR'S NAME ON THE PLACE.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE BEEN READING THE PAPER.
METROCARE IS HAVING SOME FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES RIGHT NOW, AND IF WE COULD GET A DONOR TO, UH, HELP WITH THE SIGN, GREAT.
BUT THAT'S, THE SIGN'S GONNA GO UP NO MATTER WHAT, BECAUSE THE SIGN SERVES A A VERY GOOD PURPOSE.
PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW WHERE METROCARE IS.
YOU CAN SEE THE BUILDING, BUT IT'S OFF A STREET CALLED REDMOND.
AND THAT'S NOT A VERY WELL KNOWN STREET.
UH, IT, IT'S INSIDE AND, AND, AND OF A CUL-DE-SAC.
THIS GIVES PEOPLE WHO ARE NEEDING THE SERVICES, UH, DELIVERY DRIVERS AND WHATNOT, AN IDEA OF WHERE TO TURN IN TO GET TO THIS CAMPUS.
YOU CAN SEE IF IT'S NOT INTUITIVE ON HOW TO GET THERE.
SO, UM, THAT IS WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.
UH, I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER DORN BROUGHT UP THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT YOU NEED TO, TO COME IN.
YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU NEED TO DETERMINE IN ORDER TO GRANT THIS.
IT SAYS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FINDING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED THAT STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF SIGN REGULATIONS WILL RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP OR
[02:05:01]
INEQUITY TO THE APPLICANT WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CORRESPONDING BENEFIT TO THE CITY OR ITS CITIZENS.WITHOUT THIS BEING GRANTED, WE CANNOT HAVE ANYTHING THAT WITH OUR ADDRESS ON IT, IDENTIFYING HOW TO GET INTO OUR PROPERTY.
AND THE REASON WE CAN'T GET THAT IS THERE'S A BILLBOARD THAT WE CANNOT CONTROL AND WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CONTROL FOR 85 YEARS, THAT HAS TAKEN OUR RIGHTS TO OUR SIGN.
IT'S NOT, IT'S A HARDSHIP FOR US.
AND IT'S, IT DOESN'T BENEFIT THE MOTORING PUBLIC OR THE CITIZENS OF, UH, DALLAS COUNTY BECAUSE IT'S TAKEN OUR AWAY OUR ABILITY TO ADVERTISE WHERE OUR PROPERTIES OR NOTIFY WHERE THE PROPERTY IS.
WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR MUCH, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR, UH, A SECOND NON-COMMERCIAL SIGN.
WE JUST WANT AN ADDRESS ON THE PROPERTY.
I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE TODAY.
UH, A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
UM, NUMBER ONE, UM, WHEN METROCARE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, THAT BILLBOARD WAS PRESENT, CORRECT? YES SIR.
SO CERTAINLY THEY DID THEIR DUE DILIGENCE.
THEY KNEW THAT THAT SIGN THE BILLBOARD WAS THERE AND AGREED TO THE EXTENDED, UH, LEASE TERMS. SORRY.
SO SAYING, OH, POOR METROCARE CAN'T PUT ANOTHER SIGN UP.
MAKES IT SOUND LIKE YOU WERE UNAWARE OF THE BILLBOARD IN THE FIRST PLACE.
YOU KNOW, THE OLD TERM BY, UH, CAVEAT MTOR, BUYER BEWARE.
CLEARLY THEY KNEW THE BILLBOARD WAS THERE, IT WAS ON PUT ON WITH A, AN EASEMENT THEY COULD NOT GET OUT OF.
AND AT THE TIME THEY, BUT THEY KNEW THAT BEFORE THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY.
THEY DID, BUT THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD KEEP 'EM FROM HAVING TO BE ABLE TO GET, UH, UH, AN ADDRESS SIGN.
WELL, SO YEAH, WELL THEY DIDN'T KNOW.
WHOEVER ADVISED THEM AT THE TIME DID A POOR JOB BECAUSE THAT PROVISION IN THE CODE AND IN PD 8 11 8 11 HAS BEEN THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
YEAH, NO, IT PREDATED THE PROPERTY BEING CONVERTED CONVEYED.
SO YEAH, NUMBER TWO, UM, WE WERE PROVIDED IN OUR DOCKET PACKET, PAGE 1 0 1, AND THIS GOES TO THE HEIGHT AND THE, AND THE SIZE OF THE SIGN AND THEN THE LOCATION OF THE SIGN.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANNA MAKE SURE OF IS IF THE BOARD CONSIDERS APPROVING SOMETHING, WE'RE GIVING CLEAR DIRECTION TO BUILDING, INSPECTION AND PERMIT PERMITTING ON WHAT WE APPROVED.
SO IS THIS SUFFICIENT DIRECTION FOR YOU ALL AS IT RELATES TO THE LOCATION OF THE SIGN? YES SIR.
WE TURNED THAT IN AS PART OF OUR SITE PLAN THAT HAS DIMENSIONS FROM THE STREET, ADJACENTS AND ZEROES IN ON EXACTLY WHERE IT'S GONNA GO ON THE GROUND.
BECAUSE WHEN WE SQUINT OUR EYES, WE CAN'T TELL, I KNOW THIS MORNING WHEN MR. THOMPSON DID THE PRESENTATION, WE EVEN HAD TO GUESS THAT THERE WAS A SIGN, EXISTING SIGN OR SOMETHING STRUCTURE.
BACK IN THE OLD DAYS WE'D PROVIDED 24 X 30 X.
WELL, I KNOW WE COULD ONLY WISH FOR THAT Q AND I WOULD ONLY WISH FOR THOSE, THOSE TYPE OF OLD PLAT THOSE THINGS.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE IN AWARE IN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STAFFS OF INTERPRETATION ON THE LOCATION OF THIS SIGN.
'CAUSE I DON'T, I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE MISUNDERSTANDING GOING FORWARD.
FROM WHERE WE UNDERSTOOD THIS MORNING, IT LOOKED LIKE IT WOULD BE NO HARM, NO FOUL.
SAME THING WITH THE DIMENSIONS OF THE SIGN.
WE GET OUR PACKETS IN EIGHT AND A HALF BY 11 OR ON A COMPUTER SCREEN AND SOMETIMES WE CAN SEE, WE WERE TOLD IT'S A HUNDRED INCHES TALL AND 200 INCHES WIDE.
APPROXIMATELY EIGHT FEET TALL.
I'M, UM, YES, AND AS MR. DORN MENTIONED THIS MORNING, THE CRITERIA FOR US IS THAT, UH, THAT WE HAVE TO FIND, MAKE A SPECIAL FINDING THAT IF WE DON'T ALLOW IT, IT WILL RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP OR INEQUITY TO THE APPLICANT.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ZEROING IN ON.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DR. GLOVER? UH, MY QUESTION IS, UM, SINCE YOU'RE ENTITLED TO ONE BY RIGHT, WHY DON'T YOU MOVE THAT ONE INTO THIS POSITION WHERE YOU WANT TO PUT THIS CURRENT ONE JUST TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM? WE COULD MOVE IT INTO THE SITE, BUT THEN IT WOULDN'T SERVE THE PURPOSE OF BEING ABLE TO, TO GET THE PEOPLE WHO WERE DRIVING ON WESTMORELAND TO BE ABLE TO SEE IT.
BY THE TIME THEY SEE IT, THEY'LL BE NOT IN A POSITION TO MAKE THE TURN TO GET IN.
ARE YOU, DID YOU ASKING WHY WITH THE NEW MONUMENT SIGN WHILE WE DON'T MOVE IT INTO THE, THE PROPERTY MORE? YES.
SO MY QUESTION IS, IS YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT THIS NEW, UM, BILLBOARD IN A MORE FAVORABLE POSITION.
I DON'T THINK THEY'RE MOVING THE BILLBOARD.
NO, WE CANNOT MOVE THE BILLBOARD.
THE BILLBOARD'S THERE FOR LIFE.
[02:10:02]
THE BILLBOARD, UH, IS A NON-PREMISE SIGN, MEANING IT ADVERTISES SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN ON THE PROPERTY.AND BILLBOARDS ARE, ONCE THEY'RE APPROVED, THEY'RE VERY HARD TO GET RID OF.
'CAUSE THE CITY WILL NOT APPROVE ANY MORE OF THEM.
SO WE, WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING TO THE BILLBOARD.
WE'RE TRYING TO GET APPROVAL FOR AN EIGHT FOOT TALL, 16 FOOT WIDE ADDRESS SIGN TO SHOW PEOPLE HOW TO GET INTO THE CAMPUS.
SO IT'LL NOT HAVE A COMMERCIAL MESSAGE ON IT.
SO WHY YOU NOT ABLE TO CONVERT WHAT YOU ALREADY HAVE INTO THAT? BECAUSE WE'VE LOST OUR NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS TO IT SINCE THE SIGN FACE IS NOT THERE ANYMORE.
AND SO, UM, AND IT'S BIGGER THAN WE WANT TO DO.
SO WHEN WE WENT IN AND TRIED TO GET OUR, OUR, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO THIS FOR PROBABLY SIX OR EIGHT MONTHS, AND WE'VE TRIED WORKING WITH, UH, SCOTT ROPER OVER IN THE SIGN DEPARTMENT, AND THIS IS THE, OUR BEST WAY FORWARD BECAUSE WE LOST OUR NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS TO THE SIGN.
SINCE THE SIGN, UH, FACE HAS BEEN GONE FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE OTHER ONE WILL BE TORN DOWN? YES, SIR.
THE FIRST HALF OF THAT, THAT SIGN THAT WE SAW IN THE GRAPHIC, THAT KIND OF WAS THE FRAME.
THE FRAME IS THAT BEING TAKEN OUT? YES, SIR.
I KNOW THAT'S NOT CONTINGENT ON OUR DEAL.
OUR ATTORNEYS WILL SAY, WELL MAYBE WE COULD DO CONDITIONS.
DO WE NEED TO DO CONDITIONS, MR. BALDWIN, OR YOU'RE COMMITTING ON THE RECORD THAT FRAME IS GOING AWAY.
I'M COMMITTING ON THE RECORD, BUT WE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH YOU PUTTING IN THE CONDITIONS.
DO WE NEED TO PUT IN CONDITIONS OR WOULD YOU ATTORNEYS RATHER NOT PUTTING THE CONDITIONS.
IT'S NOT ON THE SITE PLAN, SO WE CAN'T BUILD TO IT.
WELL, I I WILL TRUST YOUR WORD AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT THAT EMPTY FRAME IS DISAPPEARING.
MR. OVITZ, ACTUALLY, MR. BALDWIN, I BELIEVE YOU JUST SAID YOU'RE COMMITTING THAT THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN KEEPING IT, NOT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DEFINITIVELY TAKE IT OUT.
ARE THEY GOING TO DEFINITIVELY TAKE IT OUT? THEY WILL.
THEY, THEY WILL BE TAKING THAT SIGN OUT.
THE THE FRAME THING FRAME THE FRAME THING, YEAH.
THE EXISTING FRAME WILL GO AWAY.
I'M JUST CURIOUS THAT, UM, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE NAMED BY THE CHAIRMAN, UH, SEEMS LIKE PRETTY MUCH THE PRIMARY CONDITION IS THERE, IS THAT IT, UM, IT'S CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP, UH, IN, IN A WORLD OF, OF EVERYBODY USING GPS TO KNOW WHEN TO MAKE A TURN.
IS IT YOUR CONTENTION THAT WITHOUT THIS SIGN EVERYBODY'S GETTING LOST GETTING TO THIS PLACE? I WOULD VENTURE THAT A LOT OF OUR CLIENTS DO NOT USE GPS.
UH, A LOT OF 'EM DO NOT SPEAK ENGLISH.
THEY'RE, UM, WE DEAL WITH THE RESIDENTS OF DALLAS COUNTY THAT, UH, DO NOT HAVE A LOT OF MONEY.
UH, MAYBE NOT HAVE A LOT OF THAT HAVE HEALTH ISSUES AND THEY PROBABLY WILL NOT BE USING GPS TO GET TO THIS, THIS PROPERTY.
BUT, UM, HAVING A SIGN THAT SAYS THIS IS WHERE METROCARE IS, YOU KNOW, THEY RECOGNIZE THE METROCARE LOGO, UH, THAT I THINK THAT'D BE VERY HELPFUL WITHOUT DOING ANY HARM.
SO HAS, HAS METROCARE ACTUALLY RECEIVED COMPLAINTS FROM PEOPLE THAT SAID WE DON'T, CAN'T FIND YOUR PLACE? NOT THAT I KNOW OF, SIR.
IT'S OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
UH, THE CHAIRMAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
OKAY, MS. DAVIS ON A ROLL TODAY I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 26 DASH 4 0 6 2 ON APPLICATION OF ROBERT BALDWIN.
GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN ONE ADDITIONAL DETACHED PREMISES SIGN ON A NON-RESIDENTIAL PREMISE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SIGN REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE SEVEN WILL RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP OR INEQUITY TO THE APPLICANT WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CORRESPONDING BENEFIT TO THE CITY AND ITS CITIZENS.
IN ACCOMPLISHING THE OBJECTIVES OF ARTICLE SEVEN OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED IN THE MATTER BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 6 2.
MS. DAVIS HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF THE SIGN REGULATIONS.
[02:15:01]
THE MOTION.MS. DAVIS, I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION BECAUSE MR. BALDWIN DID A REALLY GOOD JOB OF MEETING THE CRITERIA.
YOU EXPLAINED, UM, WHY YOU COULD NOT TAKE OUT THAT BILLBOARD.
THAT WAS ONE OF OUR QUESTIONS.
YOU EXPLAINED THAT WITHOUT THAT SIGN, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING DIRECTING PEOPLE TO THE FACILITY.
AND EVEN IF YOU DO USE GPSI MIGHT BE OLD FASHIONED, BUT I LIKE TO SEE A SIGN DIRECTING ME TO THE CORRECT PLACE.
SO, UH, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE CRITERIA AND YOU, YOU MET THOSE CRITERIA, WHICH IS WHY I'M, WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
DR. GLOVER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
UH, I SUPPORT THIS MOTION BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT YOU'VE PROVIDED AMPLE UH, EVIDENCE AND HAVE EXPLAINED INTU TOE, UH, WHY IT'S, WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT TO METRO CARE AND ALSO JUST FOR THE FACT THAT IT'S A MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY THAT IS KIND OF STRUGGLING AT THE MOMENT, WHICH WOULD USE OR BE ABLE TO USE THIS TO KEEP THEMSELVES AFLOAT.
THANK YOU DR. GLOVER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION I'LL BE SUPPORTING, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS REQUEST AND GRANTING, UM, IT'S NOT ESSENTIAL WE PUT CONDITIONS ON IT, BUT YOU HAVE GOODWILL TAKING CARE OF THAT OLD SIGN FRAME.
UM, UM, BECAUSE THAT'S BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR TOO.
AND I THINK YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ELEVATED AT THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING AND WE APPRECIATE THAT.
SO, AND I DO, I THINK YOU DO MEET THE CRITERIA STATED IN THE CODE.
SO ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO GRANT MS. DAVIS.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BO OA 2 6 0 0 0 0 6 2.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTS THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SIGN REGULATIONS ON A FIVE TO ZERO VOTE.
[VI.2. 26-3284A Application of Marcos Munoz for (1) a special exception for the handicapped to the single-family use regulations, (2) a special exception for the handicapped to the floor area for structures accessory to single family use regulations, and for (3) a special exception for the handicapped to the total floor area for structures accessory to single family use regulations at 7426 CONCORD AVENUE. This property is more fully described as Block 7/2353, Lot 22, and is zoned R-7.5(A), which limits the number of dwelling units to one, prohibits an accessory structure to exceed 25 percent of the floor area of the main structure, and prohibits the total floor area of all accessory structures on a lot to exceed 50 percent of the floor area of the main building. The applicant proposes to construct and/or maintain an additional dwelling unit (not for rent), which will require (1) a special exception for the handicapped to the single-family use regulations, to construct and/or maintain a single-family residential accessory structure with 1,199 square feet of floor area (48.5 percent of the 2,484 square foot floor area of the main structure), which will require (2) a 578 square foot (23.5 percent) special exception for the handicapped to the floor area for structures accessory to single family use regulations, and to construct and/or maintain single-family residential accessory structures with 1,350 square feet of combined floor area (54.5 percent of the 2,484 square foot floor area of the main structure), which will require (3) a 108 square foot (4.5 percent) special exception for the handicapped to the total floor area for structures accessory to single family use regulations. (Part 1 of 2)]
WE'LL HEAR TODAY IS 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 AT 7 4 2 6 CONCORD AVENUE.IS THE APPLICANT HERE PLEASE COME FORWARD ONE SECOND GENTLEMEN.
UM, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, UH, WHAT SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE REGISTERED FOR? 0 0 0 0 2 0 THE APPLICANT SIR? JUST ONE OR TWO SPEAKERS? JUST ONE.
IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN.
ADDRESS IS 7 4 2 6 CONCORD AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 3 5.
JUST TO PUT ON THE RECORD, THAT IS MY FATHER, BUT SINCE I'M AWARE OF THE WHOLE SITUATION, I'VE BEEN HELPING HIM MANEUVER THIS.
I'LL BE SPEAKING IN ON HIS BEHALF.
SO IS HE THE REGISTERED SPEAKER? CORRECT.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE KNOW WHO'S ON THE RECORD.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH AND YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
ALRIGHT, AS YOU'VE PROBABLY HEARD ALL DAY
TO BE CONSISTENT, OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE ALLOW EACH APPLICANT A MINIMUM FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR CASE THERE AND IT WOULD BE EQUAL TO ANYONE IN FAVOR, EQUAL TO ANYONE IN OPPOSITION.
UM, I WILL GRANT YOU AS MUCH TIME AS NECESSARY FOR YOU TO PRESENT YOUR CASE.
UM, AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT REDUNDANT, I'VE SAID THAT ALL DAY.
SO, UM, AND THEN YOU'LL GET QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AND THEN WE'LL MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE.
SO I'LL GIVE A LITTLE SUMMARY OF WHAT'S GOING ON JUST TO LIKE HOW IT ALL LED US TO THIS POINT.
MY DAD HAS A HOUSE THAT'S A COUPLE YEAR, A COUPLE HUNDRED YEARS OLD.
HE BOUGHT ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO AND AS THE YEARS WENT, FOUNDATION GOT REALLY BAD.
HE WANTED TO REPAIR THE HOUSE ALONE, JUST FOUNDATION, JUST FIX IT BACK UP BECAUSE IT WAS FALLING APART.
WHEN HE HAD PEOPLE GO IN AND CHECK IT OUT, THEY RECOMMENDED HIM TO DEMOLISH THE HOME.
WHEN HE BOUGHT THE HOME, IT CAME WITH A STRUCTURE IN THE BACK THAT WAS JUST A GARAGE AND HE BUILT IT.
ACTUALLY WHEN HE WANTED TO FIX THIS, HE TURNED IT INTO A DWELLING JUST FOR MY FAMILY TO MOVE BACK HERE.
IN THE MEANTIME, WHILE THIS HOUSE WAS COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED AND REBUILT UP.
SO FROM THE CONTRACTOR THAT WE HAD, HE HAD PERMITS FOR EVERYTHING TO DEMOLISH AND THEY WENT AHEAD AND DEMOLISHED THE HOME INSPECTORS CAME BY, THEY CHECKED EVERYTHING RIGHT BEFORE CONCRETE OR CEMENT WAS DROPPED AND THEY TOLD HIM THAT THE DWELLING BACK THERE WAS NOT ON THE PLANS, NOTHING WAS APPROVED.
SO THAT'S WHEN EVERYTHING BASICALLY GOT PAUSED.
SO FOR ABOUT A YEAR NOW, HE HASN'T HAD A MAIN HOME THAT WE'VE BEEN THE DWELLING IN THE BACK.
UM, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY NOW WE'RE MAKING A PETITION TO KEEP THE HOME AFTER
[02:20:01]
THE MAIN HOME IS BUILT IS BECAUSE I HAVE A BROTHER WHO IS SPECIAL NEEDS.HE'S DOWN SYNDROME AND THE REASON WHY WE DIDN'T WANNA MOVE OUT OF THAT AREA IS HE ALREADY HAS A BUS ROUTE THAT GOES AND PICKS HIM UP, TAKES HIM TO SCHOOL AND I BELIEVE HE'S ON HIS LAST YEAR OF HIGH SCHOOL.
MY PARENTS DO HAVE A CASE ONGOING TO GET UM, POWER OF ATTORNEY OVER HIM.
UM, AND JUST TO NOT MOVE HIM AND MESS HIS LIVING UM, STYLE SITUATION JUST 'CAUSE HE HAS SPECIAL NEEDS.
THE MAIN ISSUE WAS YOU HAVE A DWELLING THERE, CAN'T CONTINUE BUILDING HERE.
NOW MY DAD WANTS TO NOT TEAR DOWN THAT EXTRA DWELLING TO LEAVE IT FOR HIM TO KEEP GIVING HIM THAT INDEPENDENCE, THAT ULTIMATELY HE'LL NEVER HAVE THE INDEPENDENCE THAT WE HAVE.
UM, BUT HE WANTS TO KEEP THAT FOR HIM THERE IF POSSIBLE.
AND IF GRANTED BY YOU GUYS, UM, AFTER ALL THIS, THE MAIN GOAL FOR HIM IS ALSO TO FINALLY FINISH THE HOME THAT HE HAS AND REBUILD IT BECAUSE WE JUST HAVE AN EMPTY LOT WITH THAT ONE BACK THE HOUSE IN THE BACK.
AND THAT'S JUST A QUICK LITTLE RECAP ON OUR SITUATION RIGHT NOW.
ANYTHING ELSE? AND THEN I'M GONNA START WITH QUESTIONS SO WE CAN GO BACK AND FORTH.
UM, WE OBVIOUSLY DON'T COME HERE DEMANDING ANYTHING FROM THE BOARD.
WE'RE NOT GONNA, YOU KNOW, PUT OUR FOOT DOWN AND SAY THIS IS WHAT WE WANT.
WE'RE OPEN TO YOUR OPINIONS ON WHAT WE CAN DO.
WE DON'T WANT TO MOVE AROUND MY BROTHER IF WE DON'T HAVE TO.
THE MAIN THING IS WE JUST WANT TO COME TO A, SOME SORT OF SOLUTION WHERE IF WE CAN KEEP IT PERFECT, BUT THE MAIN THING IS WE WANNA MOVE ON TO BUILDING THE MAIN HOME THAT IF WE HAVEN'T HAD FOR OVER A YEAR NOW.
'CAUSE WE'RE ALL LIKE CROWDED OVER HERE.
I KNOW THERE'S GONNA BE A FEW QUESTIONS.
I HEARD A FEW QUESTIONS ON A SIMILAR SITUATION EARLIER.
IF IT COMES DOWN TO KEEPING THAT DWELLING HOME, THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONAL CARS.
ONLY THE ONES THAT ARE MY PARENTS.
SO THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONAL CARS.
THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC IN THE STREETS.
NO, NO OTHER THINGS IN THE WAY I GUESS.
BUT THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I HAVE AND I'LL TAKE SOME QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY MORE IF NEEDED.
DID HE ASK SOMETHING IF HE'D LIKE TO SPEAK? HE'S WELCOME TO.
HE JUST HAS TO SWEAR AND WELL, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO FILL OUT A BLUE SHEET AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO BE SWORN IN.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK SIR? I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
HE'S SO WOULD HE LIKE TO SPEAK? HE JUST WANTED TO REITERATE.
NO, HE JUST WANTED TO REITERATE WHAT I SAID ABOUT MY BROTHER AND HIS SITUATION.
SO HE DOES OR DOES NOT WANNA SPEAK? DOES NOT.
SO, UM, HOLD ON A SECOND HERE.
ALRIGHT, SO, UM, AS I HAVE IN OTHER CASES I WILL THIS IN ALL, IN EACH ONE OF THE CASES I LIKE TO READ OUT LOUD THE CRITERIA THAT THE BOARD TRIES TO OR LOOKS AT CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE.
THE CODE SAYS SPECIFICALLY, UM, THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS SHALL GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ANY REGULATION IN THIS CHAPTER.
IF AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE THE EXCEPTION IS NECESSARY TO AFFORD A HANDICAPPED PERSON EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO USE AND ENJOY A DWELLING.
YOU HAVE THREE REQUESTS IN FRONT OF US TODAY.
ONE IS FOR HANDICAP USE IN A SINGLE FAMILY REGULATIONS.
THE OTHER IS FLOOR AREA RATIO.
AND THE LAST ONE IS FLOOR AREA STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY.
'CAUSE SOMETIMES THESE CASES ALL BLEED TOGETHER AND I WANNA SEPARATE AND DEAL WITH EACH ONE SEPARATELY.
THE MAIN STRUCTURE'S ALREADY BEEN DEMOLISHED, CORRECT? YES, CORRECT.
SO IT'S OH, THAT'S THE ONE THAT IS THE FLOOR, THE FORM BOARDS, RIGHT? YES.
SO, 'CAUSE WE SAW PICTURES THIS MORNING MM-HMM
WAS THE MAIN STRUCTURE PERMITTED? I'M SORRY? WAS THE MAIN STRUCTURE PERMITTED? YES.
WAS THE MAIN, ALRIGHT, SO YOU HAD A MAIN STRUCTURE AND IT WAS DEMOLISHED? MM-HMM
OKAY, BUT THIS, THIS STRUCTURE IN THE BACK WAS EXISTING? YES.
UM, WAS THE MAIN STRUCTURE DEMOLISHED? UM, FOR THE BACK STRUCTURE? NO.
SO YOU HAVE RAW LAND AND THEN A UH, WE'LL CALL IT A BUILDING IN THE BACK.
ALRIGHT, SO THAT'S THE STATE RIGHT NOW? YES.
AND BUILDING INSPECTION HAS STOPPED YOU ON THE CONSTRUCTION MM-HMM
BECAUSE THEY'VE DISCOVERED A STRUCTURE IN THE BACK.
IS THAT CORRECT WAY OF INTERPRETING THIS? YES.
SO WHEN THEY WENT, THE PERSON THAT DID THE BLUEPRINT FOR MY DAD, FOR THE NEW HOME THAT THEY WERE GONNA BUILD, INSPECTORS WENT IN TO CHECK EVERYTHING OUT.
THEY DIDN'T ADD THAT SIX EXISTING STRUCTURE IN THE BACK.
[02:25:01]
CAME UP.AND SO IS THERE TWO STRUCTURES IN THE BACK OR ONE STRUCTURE IN THE BACK? IT'S THE STRUCTURE THAT HE HAS WHERE HE'S LIVING AND THEN HE MADE A LITTLE COTTAGES.
SO WHAT IS THE PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE? 15.
THE REASON WHY I ASKED THIS IS I SEE A BUNCH OF NUMBERS ARE ON AND I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.
SO YOU'RE WANTING, AND WHAT YOU FILED WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTION WAS 1500 SQUARE FOOT FOR A MAIN HOUSE? YES.
OR, OR MAIN STRUCTURE? I THINK THEY, THE CODE CALLS IT THE MAIN.
AND WHAT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT IN THE BACK.
SO I DON'T THINK THE 1500 IS CORRECT 'CAUSE AS I REREAD THIS, IT SAYS 24 84 SQUARE FOOT FLOOR AREA OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE.
SO WE GOTTA DEAL WITH FACTS HERE.
SO YEAH, HE'S NOT FULLY AWARE OF IT.
IF IT IS 24 84, UM, IT COULD BE, YEAH, BUT HE'S NOT AWARE OF THE BACK ONE EITHER.
NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE MAIN STRUCTURE NOW.
'CAUSE WHAT YOU'VE SUBMITTED TO THE STAFF IN OUR RECORDS, IF I READ THIS, IT SAYS 2,484 SQUARE FEET.
BUT I WANT YOU TO VERIFY SPEAKING FOR THE APPLICANT THAT THAT INDEED IS YES, IT IS CORRECT.
IS IT 24 84 OR IS IT A DIFFERENT NUMBER? WHAT I HAVE HERE FOR PROJECTED AREAS IS 2066.
WHERE'D THAT NUMBER COME FROM? 'CAUSE I DON'T SEE THAT ANYWHERE.
UH, WE HAVE IT HERE AS UNDER PROJECT AREAS OR CON YEAH, PROJECT AREAS.
THAT'S THE FIRST FLOOR, SECOND FLOOR FOR THE MAIN HOME THAT THEY WANTED TO BUILD.
UM, COMING TO A TOTAL OF 2066 SQUARE FEET.
AND THE, AND THE EXISTING ONE THAT'S IN THE BACK IS 822 SQUARE FEET.
SO I'M ABOUT TO GO TO STAFF Q AND HAVE YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU ALL SAYING WHAT THE, WHAT THEY SUBMITTED TO YOU.
I HAVE THREE DIFFERENT NUMBERS NOW.
THE NUMBERS THAT WE HAVE ON THE BUILDING OFFICIAL REPORT AND THE PLANS ARE, WERE CONFIRMED WITH THE RESIDENTIAL TEAM WHO'S CURRENTLY DOING THE REVIEW.
SO THOSE ON WHICH ARE WHAT NUMBER? FOR THE MAIN BUILDING? YES, FOR THE MAIN STRUCTURE IT'S 2,484 SQUARE FEET.
WHY ARE YOU GUYS NOT GETTING THAT NUMBER? WE HAVE TO START WITH WHAT, WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE FIRST.
UM, CAN YOU I GUESS TO TO, TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST, I MEAN THIS IS NOT OBVIOUSLY MY AREA OF EXPERTISE.
I UNDERSTAND HE ALSO DIDN'T KNOW EITHER WE'RE GOING BASED OFF OF THE PLAN THAT THE ARCHITECTS GAVE HIM THAT HE HAD GOTTEN.
BUT IF THAT'S THE ONE THAT WE'RE GOING WITH, I MEAN, OKAY, SO Q WHERE IN OUR DOCKET CAN WE RE-LOOK AT THE NUMBER? 24 84.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE IT? I HAVE MY OTHER BECAUSE THE BUILDING OFFICIALS REPORT REFERENCES 24 84 AND THEN IT REFERENCES THE OTHER STRUCTURE IS 1199.
AM I RIGHT, WRONG, OR SOMEONE TELL ME.
SO IF Q YOU WOULD GET US ON THE GROUND FIRST OR MR. THOMPSON, BUT WE'LL GO TO Q FIRST.
[02:30:11]
THERE ARE DIMENSIONS ON THE, THEY'RE SHOWING THE MEASUREMENTS ON THE SITE PLAN HERE.
SO TELL ME WHAT PAGE, PAGE TO LOOK AT.
UH, 64 IS JUST 64 AND FOUR PLAN 65.
AND DOES IT SAY A SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THEN, UM, I'M NOT SURE IF HIS NUMBERS ARE ALSO ADDING THE SECOND STORY.
SO I, IF I HAVE SOME TIME I COULD GO BACK TO MY NOTES.
BUT PART OF WHAT IS BEING ASKED TO US IS, IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION ON A SQUARE FOOTAGE BASIS.
SO WE NEED TO KNOW, MAKE SURE IT'S ACCURATE, A ROUGH CALCULATION BASED ON JUST DIMENSIONS ON THERE.
BUT, BUT MICHAEL WE DON'T WANNA DO ROUGH COUNT.
BUT IT COMES OUT AROUND 2,600.
SO THE 24 JUST TAKING THIS TIME IS THIS AND UH, NOT EXACT.
I MEAN THE 24 84 SOUNDS AWFULLY CLOSE.
I, AS SOON AS SOMEONE FROM THE STAFF SHOWS ME HOW THEY GOT 24 84, THEN I THEN WE CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT ISSUE.
'CAUSE MY NEXT ISSUE IS GONNA BE WHAT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT AND SHOW ME WHERE THAT IS REFERENCED.
THEN WE COMPARE THE TWO ONE INTO THE OTHER TO GET THE PERCENTAGE.
'CAUSE THE STANDARD IS ANYTHING MORE THAN 25% REQUIRES A HEARING AND THEN THE AMOUNT OF THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD ADJUDICATE ALL THIS LING LEGAL TALK.
THE STAFF HAS ASKED FOR A A, A RECESS.
SO IT IS 3:43 PM ON THE 20TH OF OCTOBER.
WE'RE GONNA RECESS TILL, UH, DO YOU NEED FOUR O'CLOCK? THAT MUCH TIME.
TILL 3 55 OR TILL 3:50 PM UH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL IS IN RECESS TILL 3:50 PM THANK YOU.
UM, THE STAFF, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A IS COMING BACK INTO SESSION AT 3:52 PM WE'RE GONNA RECESS YOUR CASE FOR A MOMENT BECAUSE THE STAFF HAS TO DO ADDIT SOME ADDITIONAL RESEARCH.
SO, UM, I HAVE THE NUMBERS IF YOU WANTED ME TO MENTION.
SO BOA 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 IS GONNA BE RECESS FOR A MOMENT AND WE'RE GONNA TAKE UP ANOTHER CASE UNTIL THEY CAN FIND OUT MORE INFORMATION.
OKAY? SO JUST HAVE A SEAT YONDER JUST FOR A MOMENT.
WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY JUDGMENT OR ANY CALL OF IT, WE JUST WANT ACCURATE INFORMATION.
[VI.5. 26-3299A Application of Aubrey Quarles for (1) a special exception to the front yard setback regulations and for (2) a special exception to the visibility triangle regulations at the driveway approach and adjacent street curb at 1128 DODD STREET. This property is more fully described as Block 47/3028, Lot 8, and is zoned PD-571(Subdistrict 2), which requires a front yard setback of 20 feet when the blockface consists of all vacant lots, and requires a 20-foot visibility triangle at the driveway approach or alley edge and the street curb line. The applicant proposes to construct and/or maintain a single-family residential structure and provide a 6-foot 6-inch front yard setback along Cliff Road, which will require (1) a 13-foot 6-inch special exception to the front yard setback regulations, and to construct and/or maintain a single family residential structure in a required visibility obstruction triangle at the driveway approach along Cliff Road, which will require (2) a special exception to the visibility obstruction regulations at the driveway approach and adjacent street curb.]
UM, BA 2 6 0 0 0 0 7 0.UM, THIS IS AT 1 1 2 8 DODGE STREET IS THE APPLICANT HERE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, GOVERNMENT AND WORK.
UM, IF YOU WOULD, UM, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE REGISTERED FOR? 1128 DODGE STREET? I HAVE TWO IN, UH, SUPPORT AND ONE IN OPPOSITION, TWO IN SUPPORT, ONE IN OPPOSITION.
UM, HAVE, UH, ARE YOU SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION, MA'AM? OKAY.
ARE YOU GENTLEMEN SPEAKING IN SUPPORT IF YOU AT ALL STAND AND YOU'LL BE SWORN IN.
DO YOU ALL SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? OKAY.
ALRIGHT, UH, RULES OF PROCEDURE STATE THAT EACH APPLICANT IS GIVEN A FIVE MINUTE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT.
ANYONE IN FAVOR GIVEN IS GIVEN FIVE MINUTES.
ANYONE IN OPPOSITION IS GIVEN FIVE MINUTES.
THE APPLICANT IS THEN GIVEN AN ADDITIONAL FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
SO, UH, I WILL GIVE YOU THE SAME LEEWAY THAT I'VE GIVEN ALL THEIR APPLICANTS TODAY.
I'LL LET YOU SPEAK AS LONG AS YOU NEED TO, TO PRESENT YOUR CASE AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT REDUNDANT, BUT
[02:35:01]
WHATEVER TIME I GIVE YOU, I HAVE TO GIVE EQUALLY TO EVERYONE ELSE.REMEMBER, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES REBUTTAL ON TOP OF EVERYONE ELSE THAT THEY DON'T GET.
BUT I WANT TO GIVE YOU TIME TO PRESENT.
SO IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN YOU CAN PROCEED NOW.
TURN THE MICROPHONE ON, PLEASE.
HOW ABOUT NOW? MUCH BETTER, THANK YOU.
I'M AT LIVE AT 4 96 RESTORATION ROAD IN WAXAHATCHEE, TEXAS.
A SHORT ONE MINUTE SUMMARY, UH, OF TALKING POINTS I WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO BE AWARE OF REGARDING THIS PROPERTY.
I'M THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER OF 1128 DODGE STREET.
I'M HERE WITH MY DEVELOPER MARK DECO.
FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR TAKING TIME TO REVIEW MY CASE.
UM, FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO, UM, THE PROPERTY LY I WOULD LIKE YOU TO KNOW ABOUT THIS PROPERTY.
THIS PROPERTY LY HAD A HOME ON IT, UH, IN THE PAST AND BASED OFF THE REMNANTS, UH, IT APPEARS THAT THE, UH, EXISTING FOUNDATION EX APPEARS THAT THE HOME THAT I'M PROPOSING FOR CONSTRUCTION IS SIMILAR IN SIZE AND SCALE.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 860 SQUARE FOOT LIVING ONE BEDROOM, SINGLE FAMILY FOR 72-YEAR-OLD FAMILY MEMBER THAT'S LOOKING TO DOWNSIZE.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS LOCATION WILL BE PERFECT FOR THE HOMEOWNER BECAUSE THERE'S A PARK RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.
THERE'S A REC CENTER, UH, MAYBE A BLOCK AWAY, AND THERE'S TWO CHURCHES RIGHT THERE THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR SPIRITUAL WELLBEING.
SO I THINK THIS IS A PERFECT, UH, PROPERTY FOR THE PERSON, THE SIZE, SCALE, AND THE COMMUNITY THINGS AROUND IT.
FOR THOSE REASONS, I FIRST SPOKE WITH THE SENIOR PASTOR MARSHALL OF THE LIVING WATERS CHURCH, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET.
I EXPLAINED TO HIM, UH, WHAT IT WAS, WHAT WE PROPOSED TO DO, AND WHO THE, UH, MEMBER WOULD THE HOME WOULD BE FOR.
HE WAS EXCITED ABOUT HAVING DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO THE IDEA OF POTENTIALLY HAVING A CONGREGANT, UH, THAT CLOSE.
UM, NEXT I SPOKE TO GOLDEN GATE CHURCH.
UM, I SPOKE WITH SENIOR PASTOR PARKER AND HIS DAUGHTER MARIAH PARKER.
UH, AND, UH, WE HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION.
EXPLAINED TO ME SOME OF THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE OVER THERE.
THEY ALSO, UM, KINDA EXPRESS SOME CONCERNS.
THEY'RE NOT SURE WHY SOMEONE WOULD WANT TO BUILD OVER THERE.
AND, UH, THEY LET ME KNOW THEY WERE NOT FULLY ON BOARD, BUT I BELIEVE THEY HAVE SOME REPRESENTATIVE HERE.
I'LL LET THEM GO MORE IN DETAIL ON THEIR, UH, CONCERNS.
LAST, UM, I SPOKE TO MS. PATRICIA CAMPBELL OF THE, UH, LUNDY RECREATIONAL CENTER.
SHE'S THE SENIORS COORDINATOR.
UM, AND I LET HER KNOW ABOUT THE PERSON THAT THE HOME WAS BEING CONSTRUCTED FOR.
SHE LET ME BE AWARE OF MANY OF THE ACTIVITIES SHE HAS FOR THE SENIORS IN THAT COMMUNITY.
UH, SO THOSE ARE THE THREE PEOPLE I LOOKED OUT TO.
UM, AND SO WE ARE EXCITED BY THE PROPERTY, UH, OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP ON THIS PROPERTY THAT PREVIOUSLY HAD A RESIDENCE ON IT.
AND THAT CONCLUDES MY OPENING REMARKS.
I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THE STAFF MAY HAVE.
I THINK WE'RE GONNA HOLD QUESTIONS UNTIL WE HEAR FROM EVERYONE.
OKAY, SIR, YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK? YES.
UH, MARK TELACO, 28 14 MAPLE SPRINGS BOULEVARD.
TELACO TOCO, UH, DALLAS, TEXAS.
COUPLE THINGS REGARDING THE, THE SITE AT, IN THE CONSTRUCTION END OF IT, IT IS ON A CORNER AS YOU ALL HAVE SEEN.
THE SITE PLAN, UH, IT'S IN THE CONSTRUCTION.
WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING A BUILDING UP ON A CORNER, YOU'RE RESTRICTED TO TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS.
AND BECAUSE THIS LOT IS ONLY 35 FEET WIDE, WE HAVE A HARDSHIP ON THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, WHICH WE'RE CALLING THE SIDE, WHICH IS CLIFF STREET, DOD STREET.
WE'RE CALLING THE FRONT, WHICH WE'RE CONTINUING OUR FRONT YARD SETBACK AS THE, THE CODE IS REQUIRING.
SO THERE'S A MAJOR HARDSHIP IN THE, IN THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IF WE WERE RESTRICTED TO THE 20 FEET ON CLIFF AND WE WERE RESTRICTED TO THE 20 FEET ON DOD, THE PROPERTY'S ONLY 35 FEET WIDE.
THERE'S A FIVE FOOT SETBACK ON THE CHURCH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD LEAVE US A 10 FOOT WIDE PIECE OF PROPERTY TO BUILD A HOUSE ON.
AS WE ALL KNOW IT, IT COULD BE DONE, BUT IT'S, IT, IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO MAKE THE PROPERTY A LITTLE WIDER.
ASK FOR A VARIANCE ON CLIFF SO WE CAN MAKE THE PROPERTY A LITTLE BIT WIDER AND SUITABLE FOR THAT LOT.
THERE ARE MANY LOTS IN THAT, AS WE CALL IT.
THE BOTTOM, IT'S A AREA OVER IN, IN DALLAS THAT ARE MANY NEW, NEW BUILDINGS GOING UP.
AND A LOT OF THOSE CORNER LOTS HAVE THAT SAME PROBLEM AND HAVE BEEN BEFORE YOU OR THE OTHER BOARDS FOR ADDITIONAL SETBACKS.
[02:40:01]
SO WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR SOMETHING THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE IN THE AREA, UH, AND WE FEEL THAT, UH, THE BUILDING WE'RE PUTTING ON THERE WOULD BE SUITABLE FOR, FOR THE SITE.UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, AS FAR AS THE, THE BUILDING END OF IT, I'D BE WILLING TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE.
UM, ALL RIGHT, I'M GONNA HOLD MY QUESTIONS FROM NOW.
UH, IF YOU WANT TO COME DOWN AND YOU CAN SPEAK, I'M GIVING THE BOARD, UH, THE ONE COMMUNICATION WE RECEIVED ON THIS CASE.
IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN SWORN IN.
UM, AND MY ADDRESS IS 3 3 6 GLEN OAKS BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS.
HERE ON BEHALF OF GOLDEN GATE AT 11 0 1.
REVEREND CBT SMITH STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 3 OH, PROCEED.
NO, NO, YOU'RE, YOU'RE BEING APPROPRIATE.
MY NAME IS MARIAH PARKER AND I SERVE AS THE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS FOR GOLDEN GATE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH.
I WANT TO BEGIN BY BEING CLEAR THAT GOLDEN GATE IS PRO DEVELOPMENT.
WE SUPPORT HEALTHY AND RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT THAT CONTRIBUTES TO THE LONG TERM WELLBEING OF THIS COMMUNITY.
OUR CONCERN IS NOT WITH SOMEONE DEVELOPING THEIR PROPERTY, BUT WITH GRANTING SIGNIFICANT EXCEPTIONS THAT APPEAR TO CONSIDER A SINGLE PROPERTY WITHOUT ADEQUATELY CONSIDERING THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY AND THE LONG-TERM VISION FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS A SMALL AND UNIQUE PORTION OF THE BOTTOM.
THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED LARGELY BY PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY SERVING USES, INCLUDING ELOISE LUNDY PARK, GOLDEN GATE LIVING WATERS FAMILY CHURCH, AS WELL AS CITY OWNED PROPERTY RESERVED AS A STAGING AREA FOR THE LEVEE.
THEY'RE NOT DIRECT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY IN THE WAY THAT YOU WOULD TYPICALLY SEE IN A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THE ZONING STANDARDS AT ISSUE DID NOT OCCUR ACCIDENTALLY.
PD 5 7 1 ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THIS AREA, AND GOLDEN GATE WAS A PART OF THE BROADER COMMUNITY PROCESS THAT HELPED ESTABLISH THE BOTTOM URBAN STRUCTURE PLAN AND A VISION FOR HOW THIS NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD DEVELOP.
DEVELOPMENT IS PER PERMITTED, BUT THAT DEVELOPMENT WAS ALSO INTENDED TO INCUR WITHIN STANDARDS ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT THE CHARACTER FUNCTION AND SAFETY OF THE BROADER COMMUNITY.
WE ARE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS, THE VISIBILITY AND SAFETY IMPLICATIONS AT THE INTERSECTION OF CLIFF AND DODGE STREET.
LUNDY PARK BRINGS REGULAR ACTIVITY FROM FAMILIES, CHILDREN PARTICIPATING IN BASEBALL, PICKLEBALL PLAYERS, RUNNERS AND GROUPS SUCH AS DALLAS HILL SPRINTS.
THE PARK ALSO HOSTS LARGER COMMUNITY EVENTS, INCLUDING BLUES IN THE BOTTOM, COORDINATED BY AT T PERFORMING ARTS DISTRICT AND 4TH OF JULY ACTIVITIES ORGANIZED BY PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THIS COMMUNITY.
GOLDEN GATE HAS PARTNERED WITH THESE ACTIVITIES BY MAKING OUR PARKING LOT AVAILABLE, WHICH BRINGS ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICLE TRAFFIC THROUGH THIS IMMEDIATE AREA.
I WANT TO PLACE PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON THE CITY OWNED PROPERTY IF THAT LAND HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY MAINTAINED FOR STAGING AND ACCESS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LEVEE.
WE BELIEVE THE BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER NOT ONLY HOW THIS DEVELOPMENT FUNCTIONS TODAY, BUT WHETHER GRANTING SUBSTANTIAL EXCEPTIONS COULD AFFECT FUTURE ACCESS, MOVEMENT VISIBILITY, OR SAFE OPERATION OF THAT PUBLIC PURPOSE PROPERTY WHEN IT IS NEEDED.
I UNDERSTAND FROM THIS MORNING'S BRIEFING THAT THE ACTUAL ENCROACHMENT INTO THE VISIBILITY AREA IS RELATIVELY LIMITED.
I DON'T WANT TO OVERSTATE THAT ISSUE.
HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE ACTIVITY ALREADY OCCURRING HERE AND THE MAGNITUDE OF THE SEPARATE SETBACK EXCEPTION, HAS ANY TRAFFIC OR CIRCULATE CIRCULATION STUDY BEEN CONDUCTED TO EVALUATE THE EFFECT OF THIS PROPOSED CONFIGURATION WITH THE LEVEL OF ACTIVITY ALONG WITH VEHICLES THAT WE HAVE OBSERVED TRAVELING QUICKLY THROUGH THE AREA? WE BELIEVE MAINTAINING APPROPRIATE VISIBILITY AND ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IS IMPORTANT TO PROTECTING THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE WORSHIP, EXERCISE, RECREATE AND GATHER HERE MORE BROADLY, WE BELIEVE THE QUESTION SHOULD BE, IS THIS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE FOR THIS PROPERTY? OR CAN THE PROPERTY REASONABLY BE DEVELOPED IN A WAY THAT MORE CLOSELY COMPLIES WITH THE STANDARDS ALREADY ESTABLISHED FOR IT? GOLDEN GATE HAS INVESTED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR MANY YEARS.
[02:45:01]
BOTTOM, BUT WE ALSO WANT THAT DEVELOPMENT TO BE THOUGHTFUL, SAFE, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE VISION THAT THIS COMMUNITY HELPED ESTABLISH FOR ITS FUTURE.WE THEREFORE RESPECT RESPECTFULLY ASKED THE BOARD TO UPHOLD THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF PD 5 71 AND THE PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE BOTTOM URBAN STRUCTURE PLAN, AND TO CONSIDER WHETHER GRANTING THESE EXCEPTIONS SERVES THE BROADER LONG-TERM INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY RATHER THAN THE NEEDS OF A SINGLE DEVELOPMENT.
ALRIGHT, SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS QUESTIONS AND THEN YOU AS THE APPLICANT ARE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
EVERYONE'S, UH, DID THIS BELOW FIVE MINUTES, SO WE'LL KEEP IT ON FIVE MINUTES OR LESS FOR THE REBUTTAL.
SO QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MS. DAVIS.
SO THE PROPERTY IS INTERESTING BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY HOMES AROUND THE PROPERTY AND IT'S VERY RESTRICTED IN TERMS OF WHERE YOU WERE ABLE TO DEVELOP.
WERE YOU AWARE OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS WHEN YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY? WHERE ARE THE RESTRICTIONS? YES.
WHAT RESTRICTIONS ARE YOU SPEAKING ON, MA'AM? THAT YOU'VE GOT THAT SETBACK THAT IF IF TO TO BY RIGHT.
THAT WHEN YOU'RE, IF YOU WANNA BUILD ON THAT PROPERTY, YOU HAVE A VERY LIMITED SPACE BECAUSE OF THE SETBACKS FROM BOTH ROADS.
WE, WE WERE, WE WERE AWARE OF THE, UH, THE CHALLENGES THAT, THAT IT WOULD TAKE.
UM, BUT THE CHALLENGE ON EVERY CORNER HAS A DOUBLE SETBACK REQUIREMENT, NOT JUST IN THIS PARTICULAR CORNER, BUT TWO BLOCKS DOWN THE STREET, THREE BLOCKS DOWN THE STREET, AND TWO AND THREE BLOCKS DOWN THE STREET.
THEY HAVE COME IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD, FOUR OF VARIANCE, FOUR SETBACKS.
UM, I DON'T THINK THAT, UH, IT'S UNREASONABLE FOR, FOR THE SETBACK BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S, THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS ON A, ON A DOUBLE CORNER.
WITH THIS BEING A 35 FOOT WIDE LOT ON TOP OF IT, IT MAKES IT A LITTLE MORE CHALLENGING.
MY, I WOULD SAY THIS, MY DEVELOPER KNEW MORE ABOUT THE, THE DOUBLE I WAS AWARE OF THE DOT, UM, WHEN I PURCHASED IT, I WAS NOT AS AWARE OF THE CLIFF, UH, WHICH IS, WHICH IS THE CHALLENGE.
WE ARE MEETING THE, THE DOT THE CLIFF ONE WAS A NEW FOR US.
AND SO I THINK THE REALITY TOO, UM, WHEN YOU LOOK AT TRYING TO DEVELOP SOMETHING SIMILAR SCALE, SOMETHING THAT'S COMPLIMENTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL, I CAN DEVELOP SOMETHING AS IS WITH NO ADJUSTMENT AND GO REALLY HIGH AND DO SOMETHING ULTRA MODERN.
SO THAT'S NOT REALLY TRYING TO RESPECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, WE ALSO CAN GO MULTIFAMILY.
SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE CLIFF REQUIREMENT THAT CAUGHT ME.
I MEAN, IT JUST, MY OPINION, IT'S A, IT'S A CHALLENGING PROPERTY TO DEVELOP.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE ASKING QUITE A LOT WITH THAT SETBACK.
I MEAN, 13 FEET, SIX INCHES IS SIGNIFICANT.
AND WHEN I LOOK AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I DON'T SEE OTHER HOMES ON THAT ON, I MEAN, IT'S BASICALLY GONNA BE SITTING OUT THERE BY ITSELF.
SO I'M LOOKING AT HOW IT'S GONNA ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT IS A CONCERN OF MINE.
UM, LOOKING AT THE GENERAL BUILDING PATTERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.
AGAIN, IT'S THIS, THIS SINGLE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE KIND OF SET IN THE MIDDLE OF EVERYTHING.
UM, AND I, I'M NOT SURE IT WILL PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT WE NEED TO BE CONVINCED OF IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THIS WELL.
AND RIGHT NOW I'M NOT CONVINCED, WELL THERE, THERE IS A LOT NEXT DOOR THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS DOES OWN.
SO THERE WILL BE A A, A BUYER GOING TO BUY THAT LOT, WHETHER GOLDEN GATE WOULD LIKE TO SPEND THEIR MONEY TO KEEP IT AS A, A FLAT PIECE OF LAND OR A DEVELOPER.
AND THE, I BOUGHT PLENTY OF PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
THERE'S A DEVELOPER FOR THAT LAND AND THERE'LL BE SOMEBODY COMING IN WITH PROBABLY NO RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE THAT ONE IS NOT AS CHALLENGING AS THIS ONE.
AND THERE'LL BE A HOUSE PUT THERE, THE CORNER WHERE WE ARE NOW.
I GUESS WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS TO KEEP IT ONE STORY.
IT IS CHALLENGING, BUT WE CAN BUILD WITHOUT COMING AT ALL.
THERE WILL BE A HOUSE PUT ON IT.
IT'S JUST WHAT IT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE.
IT'S EITHER GONNA BE ONE STORY OR MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE STORY BECAUSE WE CAN DO IT WITH A ONE AS A MULTI-STORY WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTIONS.
SO EITHER WAY, IT'S GONNA GET DONE.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE OF A ONE STORY TO FIT IN ON THAT PROPERTY AND NOT LOOK SO BIG ON THAT SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY.
SO WHAT YOU JUST SAID WAS THE PROP, THE LAND IS BUILDABLE.
WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO BUILD, WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE BUILDING WE PUT ON THERE MORE PRESENTABLE FOR THAT CORNER.
[02:50:01]
IN ALL DUE RESPECT, OUR JOBAND, AND THE TIMES WE GIVE A VARIANCE, UH, OR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
AND I'LL, I'LL READ OUR CRITERIA, I'LL READ OUR CRITERIA AND I WAS REMISS NOT SAYING THAT 'CAUSE I'VE DONE THAT THROUGHOUT TODAY.
UH, AS IT RELATES TO FRONT YARD SETBACK, SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
AND SO YOUR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ARE YOUR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
IMPROVEMENT IS NOT WITHIN THE GENERAL BUILDING PATTERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ESPECIALLY NOT PRESERVED THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THOSE ARE THE CRITERIA, UM, THAT ARE THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT.
AND SO YOU AS AN APPLICANT REALLY NEED TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES.
UM, AND THEN AS IT RELATES TO THE VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
I'VE NOT HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
AND WE'RE VERY, AND WE DO CASE BY CASE ON VISIBILITY EXCEPTIONS.
I I WILL GET INTO THE VISIBILITY WHEN YOU'RE DONE.
SO WE ARE VERY SENSITIVE THAT, BUT THE NON-AD ADVERSELY EFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
YOU'VE GOT A NEIGHBOR RIGHT OVER THERE,
WELL, ONE OF, ONE OF THE THREE A ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS IS NOT AGREEING WITH US AND EVERYBODY ON DOESN'T AGREE WITH EVERYBODY ON, ON ANYTHING TODAY.
DO YOU HAVE ANYONE WHO DO AGREE WITH YOU? YES.
I, IN MY OPENING STATEMENT, I WOULD, I WOULD REPEAT THE CHURCH RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.
DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING IN WRITING FOR US? NO, BUT BECAUSE AS YOU CAN TELL, BUT RESPECT ME, YOU DON'T HAVE SOMETHING IN WRITING.
WE JOKE TODAY, IT'S THE FACTS.
WE LIKE THINGS IN WRITING SO THAT IT VERIFIES WHAT IS BEING IS, IS WHAT IS BEING SAID IS, I, I THAT'S FAIR, SIR.
BUT I ALSO WOULD SAY WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN OPPOSITION.
I, AND, AND FEEL FREE TO FACT CHECK ME, WE SPOKE WITH PASTOR.
WHAT, WHAT I, AND I RECOGNIZE THAT I WENT AND TALK TO ALL THREE WAS NOT AFRAID OF, I KNOW THAT'S IMPORTANT WHEN YOU GO TO A NEIGHBORHOOD, I'VE DONE MANY DEVELOPMENT IN DALLAS.
WHEN YOU GO IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, THEY SAY, THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
SOMEONE HAS TO HAVE THE VISION.
WE ARE ALSO TALKING ABOUT A PROPERTY THAT HAD A STRUCTURE ON IT.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A PROPERTY THAT DIDN'T HAVE A STRUCTURE ON THERE.
SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS REDEVELOP WHAT WAS ALREADY THERE.
SO I WENT AND TALKED TO GOLDEN GATE.
I WENT AND TALKED TO LIVING WATERS ACROSS THE STREET.
I WENT AND TALKED TO THOSE NEIGHBORS.
I WANNA HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.
AND I PROCESSED WHAT THEY SAID.
I LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY AND I WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP IT.
SO I DO NOT, TO YOUR POINT, SIR, I DO NOT HAVE A LETTER TODAY.
I, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THEM.
THEY WERE, THEY WAS ABLE TO COME AND OBJECT.
THEY KNOW THEY WERE ABLE TO OBJECT.
UM, SO I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T HAVE A LETTER, BUT I DID REACH OUT TO THEM TO TALK ABOUT REDEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY.
I APPRECIATE YOUR OUTREACH, BUT AS YOU'VE NOTICED TODAY, WE DEAL IN, IN FACTS IN WRITING, WHETHER IT'S EMAILED OR PRESENTED IN THE HEARING AS PART OF THE RECORD.
SO THAT IT'S NOT MEANT TO SAY THAT THE BOARD BELIEVES OR DOESN'T BELIEVE IN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
IT'S JUST THAT DAYS, YEARS, MONTHS, UH, OF EXPERIENCE SAYS WE NEED THE THINGS IN WRITING FROM, FROM THOSE 'CAUSE NEIGHBORS ALL CROSS THE CITY WILL SAY ONE THING AND THEN ASK HIM, PUT IT IN WRITING.
WELL, THEY MAY CHANGE THEIR MIND, SO, OKAY.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, DR. GLOVER? UH, NOT A QUESTION PER SE, BUT A CORRECTION.
I THINK YOU HAD MENTIONED EARLIER THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN THE OPPOSITION, BUT THAT'S NOT CORRECT.
WE HAVE A LETTER OF OPPOSITION RIGHT HERE.
WE HAVE ONE, ONE IN OPPOSITION.
IN MY MY OPENING STATEMENT, I SAID THEY'RE GONNA COME HERE AND SPEAK.
I, I'M SAYING THE OTHER TWO THAT I WENT OUT TO SPEAK OF, I WAS SAYING DON'T HAVE ANY OPPOSITION ON THOSE TWO.
YOU ASKED ME WHO DID, LEMME GO BACK TO.
THE QUESTION WAS I ASKED WHO DID I REACH OUT TO? I REACHED OUT TO THREE PEOPLE IN MY OPENING STATEMENT.
THE FIRST WAS LIVING WATER, WHICH THEY WERE IN AGREEMENT WITH.
I SPOKE ABOUT GOLDEN GATE AND I SAID THEY HAD SOME OPPOSITION AND THEIR STAFF WOULD COME AND SPEAK OF I NEXT SAID THE RECREATION CENTER THAT'S RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.
THEY WERE IN SUPPORT OF, THAT'S THE STATEMENT I MADE.
AND SO THEM COMING HERE IS NOT SURPRISED.
I WENT AND TALKED TO 'EM ON THE FRONT SIDE.
OTHER QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT? MR. HAITZ? THE, UM, QUESTION I'M GONNA ASK IS NOT, UH, DISPOSITIVE THAT YOU SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO? THE HOUSE THAT WAS THERE YES, SIR.
UH, DEMOLISHED RECENTLY OR A LONG TIME AGO OR FROM MY, NOT RECENTLY.
FROM, FROM MY, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, I BELIEVE IT'S BEEN AT LEAST 20
[02:55:01]
YEARS PRIOR.UM, BUT NOTHING RECENT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING.
DO DO, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF THE NATURE OF THAT, OF THAT HOME? ONLY BY THE REMNANTS OF THE, UH, REMAINING PIECES OF THE FOUNDATION IS THE ONLY WAY I CAN SURMISE.
BUT I DON'T, I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING CONCRETE OF SIZE OR PICTURES OF ANYTHING.
BUT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, TALKING TO NEIGHBORS, IT IS BEEN AT LEAST 20 YEARS PLUS.
DO YOU KNOW IF THAT PROPERTY WAS FACING DOD OR FACING CLIFF? I, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IT WAS ADDRESS.
I, I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT, BUT I WOULD TELL YOU THE ADDRESS WAS 1128 DODGES.
IF I WENT, IF I WERE TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION, I WOULD SAY DOD FOR THAT REASON ONLY.
THAT WAS WHEN WE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE, THE ADDRESS OF THE PREVIOUS PROPERTY, IT WAS 1128 DODGE.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE INDIVIDUAL IN OPPOSITION? OKAY, DR. GLOVER, UH, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS, UH, THE STRONGEST, UH, RESERVATION THAT YOUR NEIGHBORS HAVE WITH, UH, BUILDING THIS PROPERTY? AND DO YOU THINK THEY HAVE ALTERNATE, UH, IDEAS FOR YOU TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY SO YOU CAN FIT INTO THE COMMUNITY AS A STAND? YEAH, SO AS IT, AS IT PERTAINS, THE ONLY OPPOSITION I GOT OUT OF THE NEIGHBORS BASED OFF CONVERSATIONS WAS, UM, GOLDEN GATE.
AND THEY SAID THEY WHAT? I, I DON'T REALLY WANNA SPEAK FOR THEM.
YOU CAN ASK THEM THEIR, THEIR MAJOR OPPOSITION.
I TOLD THEM, THEY, THEY SAID THAT, I DON'T WANNA GO INTO THAT.
THERE'S NO NEED FOR ME TO SPECULATE.
UM, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THE OTHER TWO PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING.
WHAT DO YOU LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE? UM, LIKE I SAID IN MY LETTER, UH, IT IS MAINLY, UH, UH, IT'S A ISLAND IN THE MIDDLE OF OPEN SPACE.
YOU HAVE OUR PARKING LOT, WHICH IS HUGE.
YOU HAVE LIVING WATERS PARKING LOT, AND THEN YOU HAVE ELOISE LUNDY AS WELL.
SO THE, ALL OF THESE SPACES ARE NOT, WE'RE NOT GOING ANYWHERE.
UM, THE CITY, UH, IT'S TECH, UH, DALLAS WATER UTILITIES, I BELIEVE OWNS THAT.
AND THERE'S USING THAT AS A STAGING LEVEE, UH, FOR THE LEVEE.
UM, THEY HAVE NO PLANS OF SELLING THAT PROPERTY EITHER.
UM, SO OUR CONCERN IS REALLY IS THIS CONDUCIVE TO THE FUTURE THAT WE HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, TRIED TO PUT IN PLACE FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
LIKE I SAID, GOLDEN GATE, ALONG WITH OUR, UM, NONPROFIT GOLDEN SEEDS, UM, HAVE BUILT HOMES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND REGULATION WITH PD 5 71.
UM, SO WE JUST WANNA UPHOLD THOSE STANDARDS THAT, UM, PASTOR PARKER, VINCENT PARKER HAS WORKED ALONGSIDE WITH THE CITY TO ESTABLISH PROBABLY STARTING ROUTE LIKE 15 YEARS AGO.
CAN I RESPOND TO THAT BRIEFLY? SO HOLD, HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, DR. GLOVER, OR DID YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP? OKAY.
MR. DORN, I DO HAVE A FOLLOW UP TO THAT QUESTION.
UM, I GUESS THE QUESTION THEN IS, IS THERE ANY TYPE OF UNIT, DWELLING UNIT ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOUR, UM, YEAH, WHATEVER IS WITHIN THE PD 5 7 1 GUIDELINES? ABSOLUTELY.
WE, IT'S, YOU KNOW, I, I DIDN'T WANT TO SPEAK ON IF WE WANT A PROPERTY THERE OR NOT.
'CAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR TODAY.
BUT WE JUST WANTED AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, FIGHT AND STILL UPHOLD THOSE STANDARDS THAT WE CREATED ALONGSIDE THE CITY OF DALLAS.
TO, FOR, TO TO COMMENT ON THAT.
WE ARE WITHIN THE PD 5 71 STANDARDS.
WE ARE ASKING FOR A SETBACK THAT'S CITYWIDE HAS ZERO TO DO WITH THE PD 5 71 STANDARDS.
SO WHEN SHE SAYS SHE'S NOT AGAINST ANYTHING THAT'S WITHIN THE PD 5 71 STANDARDS, WE'RE RIGHT THERE.
MY PERSONAL OPINION, IT'S ONLY ME.
THEY WOULD JUST RATHER HAVE NOTHING THERE AT ALL.
WELL, YOU'RE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE THAT OPINION.
I AS AN APPLICANT, I'M GONNA BRING IT UP AND A AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN OPINION TOO.
AND WE'RE GONNA FORMULATE OPINION MOMENTARILY.
UH, BUT IT IS, IT RESONATES WITH ME THAT TWICE YOU ALL NOW HAVE SAID, OH, WE CAN BUILD ON THIS PROPERTY, BUT WE'RE CHOOSING TO BUILD THIS WAY VERSUS THAT WAY.
AND WHEN WE LOOK AT SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES, WE'RE LOOKING FOR PROPERTY HARDSHIPS THAT PEOPLE CAN'T BUILD ON.
THIS IS THE HARDSHIP YOU JUST TOLD US A MINUTE AGO.
YOU SAID WE CAN LIVE WITHIN PD 5 71.
YOU'VE SAID THAT SEVERAL TIMES.
SO I'M CONFUSED AS TO WHETHER YOU CAN LIVE WITHIN PD 5 71 OR IF YOU FEEL THE PROPERTY DOES IS UNDERCUTS YOUR
[03:00:01]
ABILITY TO BUILD IN 5 71.YES, WE CAN BUILD ON THIS PROPERTY WITH A 10 FOOT WIDE PIECE OF, OF A 10 FOOT WIDE BUILDING.
IS THAT A HARDSHIP? VERY MUCH SO.
UH, TO GIVE US AN EX, AN EXTENSION FOR A SETBACK WOULD RELIEVE OUR HARDSHIP AND GIVE US A WIDER PIECE OF PROPERTY, A WIDER BUILDING, EXCUSE ME, TO BUILD ON.
BUT YOU SAID YOU DON'T NEED THAT.
YOU SAID YOU COULD BUILD JUST, YOU'D BUILD UP, BUT HE JUST SAID IT 10 FOOT WIDE.
I DID, BUT IT'S, THE HARDSHIP IS ONLY BEING ABLE TO BUILD 10 FEET WIDE.
THAT'S MY HARDSHIP TO, TO GIVE ME THAT EXTRA, UH, WHAT ARE WE WE ASKING FOR? I CAN'T, 13, 13, 13 FEET.
WE'RE ASKING FOR 13 FEET, 13 AND A HALF, 13 AND A HALF FEET TO, TO GIVE US THAT EXTRA, WOULD GIVE US A WIDER PIECE OF PROPERTY TO PUT A SINGLE STORY BUILDING ON THAT WOULD FIT MORE CONDUCIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, BUT WHEN I SAY WE CAN BUILD ON IT, YES, WE CAN BUILD A 10 FOOT WIDE BUILDING ON IT, BUT IT'S JUST, IT'S A HARDSHIP TO DO IT THAT WAY.
AND THAT THAT'S OUR HARDSHIP ISSUE AND ISSUE.
AND MY, MY BOARD ATTORNEY JUST LEANED OVER ELBOWED ME AND SAID, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS NOT A VARIANCE.
AND, UH, AND VARIANCE ARE WHAT CARRY HARDSHIP CONDITIONS, EXCEPTIONS.
THIS IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND IT DOESN'T RELATE TO HARDSHIP.
SO, SO, UH, AGAIN, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION GOES TO THOSE TWO CRITERIA.
THE ONE AS IT RELATES TO NOT CONSTANT TRAFFIC HAZARD.
AND I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING ON THAT YET.
SO I'M WAITING, I AM ANXIOUS FOR THAT.
AND THE OTHER IS THE SPECIAL NOT ADVERSE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IMPROVEMENTS ARE, UH, CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL BUILDING PATTERNS AND WILL PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THOSE ARE THE CRITERIA THAT PD 5 71 SETS OUT.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GUIDED BY.
IF I COULD SPEAK TO THAT 5 71 GOLDEN GATE HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN GETTING 5 71 IN THE BOTTOM.
UM, AND SO I THINK WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THEIR CURRENT PARKING LOT, THOSE USED TO BE HOMES.
SO WHAT DID WE GO BY? BECAUSE THEY TOOK LOCATION THAT COULD BE TODAY, CONVERTED BACK TO HOMES, BUT THEY MADE A PARKING LOT.
SO WE HAVE EXISTING PARCEL THAT WAS MEANT FOR RESIDENTIAL.
GOLDEN GATE IS ACTUALLY BEEN INSTRUMENTAL, ALL THE DEVELOPMENT ALL AROUND IT.
BUT WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING RIGHT BY US.
DOES THAT SEEM LIKE, DOES THAT SEEM EQUITABLE? BUT ALL THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT WE'VE EVEN HELPED WITH DEVELOPMENT IS OKAY, SO THE WHOLE WHERE WE PUTTING HAD HOMES THERE THE WHOLE TIME.
SO NOW THEY COME RIGHT NOW AND NOW I GUESS I CAN'T PUT A HOME BACK THERE.
YEAH, BECAUSE YOU HAVE 10 FEET, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA BUILD IN WITH A 10 FEET LOT? SAY AGAIN, SIR.
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO BUILD ON A 10 FEET LOT? IF WE HAD THE 10 FEET, THE, YOU HAVE 10 FEET AT THE MOMENT, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO BUILD ON 10 FEET? WE'D HAVE TO GO UP.
WE WE'D GO UP, WE'D HAVE TO GO UP AND WE ARE TRYING TO, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT'S THE VISION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ONCE THE THING IS, I COULD COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT'S NOT A, WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS COME TO THE BOARD, GET A RELIEF FROM NOT HAVING TO 10 FOOT PUT SOMETHING NICE AS YOU SAW, THAT'S AN EQUITABLE FOR A FAMILY MEMBER TO BE ABLE TO BE THERE.
THAT'S ONE STORY SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE.
UM, THAT'S WHAT, THAT WAS THE GOAL.
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VISION OF THE, THE, THE BOTTOM IN THAT WHOLE 5 71, WE MET ALL THE CRITERIA.
WHEN WE GOT TO THAT CORNER ON THAT BLOCK FACE, WE REALIZED WE HAD A DOUBLE, UM, SETBACK.
AND SO THAT'S THE CHALLENGE THERE.
IT'S, IT'S DOABLE, BUT IT'S NOT IDEAL BY NO STRETCH OF MATH.
NOR DO I THINK IT HELPS THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT IF THAT'S WHAT THEY, THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT.
MAYBE A THREE STORY, I THINK, I THINK THAT WOULD NOT BE THE NECESSARILY INTENT CHANGE THE BUYER, CHANGE THE THING.
BUT MR. HOPKINS, CAN I, UM, WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT, AND IT'D BE, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE HAD PHOTOS, BUT WE DON'T.
UH, WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE HOMES THAT ARE ON THESE SIMILAR CORNER LOTS THAT ARE TWO, THREE BLOCKS AWAY? WHAT'S THE NATURE OF THE HOMES THAT, THAT SIT THERE? WHEN YOU MEAN THE NATURE OR ARE YOU, ARE THEY, THEY'RE SINGLE SAME ISSUES.
SO ARE THEY MULTI-STORY HOMES? MULTI-STORY? BECAUSE MOST DEVELOPERS TODAY ARE TRYING TO GET THE MAXIMUM THEY CAN GET ON THE PIECE OF PROPERTY BECAUSE PROPERTY IS VERY EXPENSIVE TODAY.
SO THERE, THERE'S, THERE'S A, I I WISH WE HAD SOMETHING I COULD SHOW YOU ACTUALLY.
BUT, UH, THEY HAVE GOTTEN RELIEF TO FIVE FEET, TO SIX FEET TO EIGHT FEET.
[03:05:01]
ALL DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT AMOUNTS TO GET RELIEF TO BE ABLE TO MAXIMIZE THE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT, THAT THEY'RE BUILDING ON.UH, WE'RE TRYING TO GET SOME RELIEF TO MAKE IT A ONE STORY TO BE MORE CONDUCIVE AND NOT BE GAUDY AND TALL.
UH, AND THEN AGAIN, I'LL GET INTO THE, THE, THE, THE, UH, WHATEVER YOU CALL VISIBIL, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE WHERE THERE, THERE, IT'S NOT A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ON THE CORNER.
SO THE, THE THE, THE TRAFFIC COMING DOWN, DOD HAS PL PLENTY OF VISIBILITY TO LOOK AT OVER TO CLIFF, WHICH IT'S NOT BLOCKING.
THE VISIBILITY ISSUE IS COMING BACKING OUT OF THE BUILDING ITSELF.
THE OPENING OF THE, UH, WHERE THE, WHERE THE GARAGE OPENING AREA IS TO PULL IN IS NINE FEET WIDE.
IF WE WENT 10 FEET WIDE, THAT WOULDN'T EVEN BE AGAIN HERE AT THE BOARD BECAUSE THE VISIBILITY WOULDN'T BE EVEN AN ISSUE.
BUT WE WANTED TO KEEP IT DOWN TO A NINE FOOT WIDE OPENING VERSUS A 10 FOOT WIDE OPENING.
BUT AGAIN, IF I, IF WE MOVE IT TO A 10 FOOT WIDE OPENING, THE VISIBILITY IS NOT AN ISSUE.
AND, AND I'LL ALSO TALK ABOUT THE TRAFFIC GOING THERE.
YOU HAVE A PARK HERE, YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE HERE.
THIS IS NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINING A, A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE OF TRAFFIC COMING.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE, THE PARK INTERSECTS IT RIGHT THERE.
THERE'S NO TRAFFIC, SORRY, MINIMUM TRAFFIC.
IT IS BY NO WAY A FOUR WAY INTERSECTION.
AND THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC GOING THERE IS MINIMAL.
WE ARE DOING THIS FOR A FAMILY MEMBER.
AGAIN, YOU SEE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, A ONE STORY, I BELIEVE A RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN DALLAS TRYING TO DO THIS FOR A FAMILY MEMBER.
TO HAVE THOSE THINGS, EASIEST THINGS FOR ME TO DO IS PUT UP A THREE STORY AND DO SOMETHING CRAZY.
WHEN YOU PIONEER AND YOU GO TO DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS, YOU GOTTA RESPECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS THERE, UNDERSTAND OTHER THINGS AROUND YOU.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE TRY TO DO WITH THIS PLAN.
MAKE ME, YOU WANNA MAKE A THREE STORY.
THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE TO TALK TO YOU GUYS.
IT'S NOT WITHIN THE PREROGATIVE OF THE BOARD TO DICTATE ONE STORY, TWO STORY, THREE STORY.
YOUR, THE ELEVATIONS ARE YOUR BUSINESS, UH, CONSISTENT WITH WHAT PD 5 71 SAYS FOR HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE THERE.
AND WE'RE NOT GONNA CHASE THAT 'CAUSE THAT'S NOT IN FRONT OF US.
UH, SO, UM, MS. DAVIS, I, I'D LOVE TO DIG A LITTLE DEEPER WHY THERE, THERE'S OPPOSITION BECAUSE IT, IT IS, THIS IS ZONED, YOU'RE, YOU ARE, HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD ON IT.
UM, DID THE CHURCH EVER LOOK TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY? YES.
UH, WE WERE, UM, ABOUT TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY LITERALLY A DAY BEFORE THEY, UM, PURCHASE A PROPERTY.
UM, AND YEAH, OUR, OUR BIGGEST OPPOSITION IS JUST THE VISIBILITY FOR PEDESTRIANS USING OUR PARKING LOT TO GET TO THE PARK.
SO MY, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS THEY'RE, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT POSSIBLY CHANGING THE DESIGN OF THE HOUSE YES MA'AM.
TO BE COMPLIANT, WHICH IS GONNA LOOK VERY DIFFERENT THAN A RANCH.
IT'S GOING TO BE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'LL BE TWO STORIES, THREE STORIES.
AND IN MY OPINION, THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE IN, UM, CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHAT DOES A CHURCH THINK ABOUT THAT? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY PLAN ON DOING IF THEY'RE NOT GETTING SUPPORT OR IF THIS ISN'T PASSED THROUGH.
UM, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE CHURCH, UM, PASTOR PARKER AND I KNOW THAT TODAY HE WOULD SAY IF IT'S ALONG WITH PD 5 71, THEN GO AHEAD AND DO IT.
AND, AND, AND I, I APPRECIATE THAT.
AND JUST AS A DEVELOPER, IT'S GOOD, BAD AND DIFFERENT.
I, I FEEL A COMMITMENT TO NEIGHBORHOODS AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT I LEAVE THEM BETTER THAN I THAN I I GOT 'EM IN.
BUT NEVERTHELESS, I'M DONE SPEAKING ON THAT.
WE WOULD, AND THERE WILL BE A PROPERTY NEXT DOOR BECAUSE THE CHURCH DOES NOT OWN THAT PIECE AT ALL.
IT WILL BE UP AT THE CITY AUCTION WITHIN THE YEAR.
IT IS GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS.
NOW WE HAVE ALREADY CONTACTED THE CITY.
SO IT WILL BE GOING UP FOR SALE.
THERE WILL BE A DEVELOPER BUILDING IT.
THERE WILL BE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, THE PROPERTY THAT'S DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO YOU, DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH, CORRECT? YES.
IT'S, IT'S 90 DEGREE DIFFERENT DIRECT DIRECTION.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE GOING NORTH, NORTH, SOUTH AND THAT PROPERTY'S EAST WEST.
SO THAT THERE WILL BE ANOTHER BUILDING ON THAT PROPERTY.
SO THE VIEW AS SHE MAY BE SAYING SHE'S GONNA BE RESTRICTED TWICE, WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS FOR THE, THE APPLICANT? THE APPLICANT STILL HAS A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL COMING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I I, I'LL EDITORIALIZE
[03:10:01]
BUT OUR BOARD ATTORNEYS WOULD SAY DON'T EDITORIALIZE ASK QUESTIONS.'CAUSE OUR TIME TO EDITORIALIZE IS WHEN WE MAKE A MOTION.
SO I'LL EDITORIALIZE WITH A QUESTION.
I INTENTLY HEARD AND LISTENED TO MS. DAVIS'S CONVERSATION WITH YOU ABOUT, IT'S A PLATTED BUILDABLE LOT.
WHAT REALLY THREW ME WAS WHEN YOU GUYS SAID, OH, WE CAN BUILD ON IT.
AND I'M THINKING, OKAY, THEN WHY ARE YOU GUYS HERE? AND THEN YOU KIND OF BACKTRACK SAID THAT THE LOT HAS LIMITATIONS BECAUSE OF THE, OF THE CORNERS AND THE SETBACK.
BUT I, I AM, I GUESS I'M, I'M TAKEN BY THE OPPOSITION THAT I VERY MUCH RESPECT.
BUT AS I HAVE SAID FOR YEARS, OPPOSITION ALONE DOESN'T KILL A, A REQUEST.
THAT'S JUST INFORMATION AND IT'S INFORMATION FOR US TO WEIGH.
SO I'M WEIGHING THE, A, A LARGE PROPERTY OWNER IN THE AREAS WANTING TO PROTECT NATURE AND CHARACTER WITH THE RIGHT OF A PROPERTY OWNER TO DEVELOP ON THEIR LAND.
SPEAK TO THAT AND THEN I'LL LET HER SPEAK TO THAT.
OBVIOUSLY I'M SAYING THIS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHERE I'M GONNA LAND YET, BUT YOU NEED FOUR VOTES.
WELL, OKAY, SO FIRST OF ALL, I I, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT YES, THE PROPERTY IS A PLATTED LOT TODAY.
IT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BE A PLATTED LOT BECAUSE IT'S UNDER THE SQUARE FOOTAGE SIZE REQUIRED.
THE PD 5 71, WHAT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOT? THE LOT IS 35 BY 85.
IT'S AN R FIVE ZONING BASED ZONING.
SO IT SHOULD BE 5,000, CORRECT? YEAH.
AND, BUT THE ACTUAL LOT IS 35, BUT IT'S IT'S 35 BY 85 BY 85 5.
SO LET ME YOU MAKE 29 75 ACTUAL SCHOOL, BUT ALSO IN 5 71 BECAUSE THEY WANT DEVELOPMENT DOWN THERE.
SO WHAT I ASKED THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF YOUR LOT? AND YOU'RE SAYING IT IS 20 29 75 SIR? 29 75 ON AN R FIVE LOT.
THIS YES, IT IS THE BASE ZONING.
AND SO BECAUSE IT WAS, UH, GRANDFATHER AND THEY ALLOW, UH, EXCEPTIONS IN 5 71 FOR PREVIOUS HOMES THAT ACTUALLY ARE SM ARE SMALLER FOOTPRINT.
UM, CURRENTLY NOW THEY, THEY ALLOW EXCEPTION.
THEY ALLOW IT STILL BE DEVELOPED.
YOU SEE THAT'S GOOD INFORMATION.
BECAUSE I DIDN'T REALIZE THE LOT WAS THAT SMALL.
I'M STEWING IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE LAST, I'M STING ON 29 71 COMPARED TO 5,000.
IF, IF IT WAS 5,000, IT ODDS IT WOULD BE WIDER.
WE WOULDN'T BE COMING FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK OR, OR A DOUBLE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
BUT A DOUBLE FRONT YARD SETBACK IS THE SAME EVERYWHERE IN THE CITY.
AND IT'S, IT'S JUST NOT THIS PARTICULAR LOT, BUT THIS LOT IS SMALLER.
SO IT, IT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT, MORE RESTRICTIVE.
UH, I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT AFTER THE DISCUSSION WE JUST HAD BACK AND FORTH.
I FORGOT YOUR EXACT DIRECT QUESTION.
WELL WHAT I, WHAT I CONVEYED TO YOU IS I LISTENED TO MS. DAVIS AND HER COMMON ABOUT THE CHURCH'S BASIS OF AN OPINION OF THE LOT VERSUS YOU AS A PROPERTY OWNER'S RIGHT.
AND I I WENT BACK TO GUYS, YOU BOUGHT IT, YOU KNEW YOU HAD THAT LIMITATIONS IN THE CORNER.
A LOT OF TIMES IN REAL ESTATE, I'M NOT A REAL ESTATE GUY, IS YOU BUY A CONTINGENT ON ZONING.
BUT IS REALLY THE SMART THING.
SO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU REALLY CAN USE OUT OF IT.
YOU OWN THE PROPERTY, SO THEREFORE YOU'RE ASKING TO YOU TO BUILD ON IT.
SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS BALANCE TO WHAT A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER VIEWS AS WHAT IS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH YOUR RIGHT TO DEVELOP ON YOUR PROPERTY.
NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU THREW ME A CURVE BALL SAYING THAT YOUR PROPERTY REALLY IS ONLY 29 75.
WELL, WHAT I, WHAT I WOULD LIKE, WHICH WOULD BE THE BASE TO BE FIVE, 5,000, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT MOST OF, THERE'S, MOST OF THOSE LOTS OVER THERE ARE THAT CONFIGURATION.
THAT IS IF IN THE BOTTOM CONFIGURATION, THAT IS, THAT'S NOT UNUSUAL.
BUT THE BOARD HAS TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THAT.
WHAT WE MAKE A DECISION ON ONE, WE CANNOT CORRELATE TO THE NEXT NO, I'M JUST GIVING INFORMATION.
I'M JUST SAYING WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THIS GUY'S LOT VERSUS THAT GUY'S AND HOW THEY'RE THIS IS USED VERSUS THAT.
I I WAS JUST SAYING WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE R FIVE THOU, THE R FIVE, THE 5,000, I GOT THE R SEVEN FIVE
[03:15:01]
IN THE, THE LOT THAT WE HAVE IS UNIFORM WITH THE LOTS OVER THERE.WELL, GOOD, BAD OR INDIFFERENT.
THAT'LL BE FUTURE PROBLEMS. WE HAVE
YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THAT.
I HEAR YOU FOR THIS PROPERTY THAT WE BOUGHT AND I BOUGHT IT AGAIN WHEN, BY THE TIME I BROUGHT THE DEVELOPMENT, I, I'VE GIVEN YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO MINE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DID OR DID NOT, BUT OKAY, NOW I'M GONNA ASK YOUR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TO RESPOND.
DO YOU SEE MY QUANDARY LISTENING TO MS. DAVIS IS SAYING, WELL THIS PERSON, THIS PROPERTY OWNER VERSUS THIS PROPERTY, HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT? BUT CERTAINLY YOU WANNA RETAIN YOUR RIGHTS TO DEVELOP YOUR PROPERTY.
SO WHY COULDN'T THEY? I DON'T, I DON'T, I'M NOT, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THEM DEVELOPING PROPERTY AT ALL.
I KNOW THAT MAY SEEM AS IF WE ARE NOT, HOWEVER, WE JUST WANT IT WITHIN THE REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED ALREADY.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE? OKAY, SO, UM, MR. QUARLES.
YOU HAVE A RIGHT AS THE APPLICANT TO HAVE UP TO A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL PROCEED.
UM, I'M JUST GONNA GO WITH A CLOSING STAND.
I THINK WE SOME GREAT QUESTIONS.
GREAT QUESTIONS, GREAT CONVERSATION.
ALSO, I SEE THIS PROJECT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESTORE RESIDENTIAL USE TO A VACANT PARCEL, MAKING A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION TO THE SURROUNDED NEIGHBORHOODS THAT MEETS THE BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND PROVIDES A FAMILY MEMBER WITH A HOME THAT MEETS HER NEEDS DURING THIS STAGE OF HER LIFE.
THAT'S WHY I PRESENTED TO THE DESIGN.
THAT'S WHY I'M FIGHTING FOR THE DESIGN, UH, AND FIGHTING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND UNDERSTANDING.
UM, AND LAST PIECE I WOULD ADD, I HAVE ABILITY TO DO MULTIFAMILY THERE, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M LOOKING TO DO.
MOST BUILDERS, WHENEVER THEY SEE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MULTIFAMILY JUMP ON IT, I'M LOOKING TO DO A SINGLE FAMILY.
AND THAT'S MY REASON WHY I'M HERE TODAY.
I'LL GIVE YOU ONE MORE, UH, CHANCE TO SPEAK TO THE VISIBLY TRIANGLE ISSUE.
NOW WE, WE ALWAYS DEAL WITH THINGS INDIVIDUALLY, BUT I WILL TELL YOU HISTORICALLY WE ARE VERY HESITANT TO GIVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO VISIBLY TRIANGLES BECAUSE IT'S DEALING WITH TRAFFIC AND SAFETY.
DO, DO YOU ALL HAVE A SITE PLAN? YES.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING ON CLIFF STREET.
ON CLIFF STREET, WHERE THE, WHERE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE IS, IS WHERE, WHERE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE IS.
IT DOES NOT TALK ABOUT DOD AND CLIFF ON THAT CORNER.
SO WHEN YOU, IN YOUR MIND BACK OUT OF THAT AREA, THE ONLY SPACE THAT'S CAUGHT IN THAT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE IS AT RIGHT AT THE CORNER OF THE, WHERE YOU COME OUT OF THE, OF THE, THE STRUCTURE.
WHEN YOU PASS THE STRUCTURE, MOST PEOPLE ARE LOOKING BEHIND THEM OR LOOKING THROUGH THE REAR VIEW MIRROR.
WHEN YOU'RE IN THE, IN THE STRUCTURE, YOU HAVE A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE OF, I THINK IT'S EIGHT TO 10 INCHES.
ONCE YOU COME OUT OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE FOR SAFETY ON THE STREET.
THE, IT, IT'S, THERE'S NO PROBLEMS THERE AT ALL.
IT'S JUST ALONG THE FRONT OF THE HOW THE BUILDING, AND AGAIN, IF THAT OPENING WAS OPEN TO 10 FEET, THIS VISIBILITY TRIANGLE WOULD NOT EVEN BE HERE AT THE, AT THE, AT THE COMMISSION.
IT'S ONLY THERE BECAUSE IT'S A NINE FOOT OPENING, NOT A 10 FOOT OPENING.
MOST DEVELOPERS TRY TO AVOID THIS PRICKLY ISSUE BY DESIGNING AROUND IT.
I I, MS. DAVIS HAS ANOTHER QUESTION.
MY QUESTION IS, COULD YOU CHANGE THE DESIGN SO THAT YOU ARE NOT IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT ALL? YES.
AND WE'RE WILLING TO, WE'RE WILLING TO MAKE IT 10 FEET.
THAT'S, THAT'S THAT WE DO THAT.
OKAY, SO QUESTION FOUR Q, IF THE BOARD CHOSE TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE SETBACK, BUT DENY THIS VISIBLY TRIANGLE, DO THEY HAVE TO RESUBMIT PLANS? UH, 'CAUSE THEY'D HAVE TO, THEY'D THE, THAT MEANS THAT CORNER THAT WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT.
BUT YOU KNOW, I, YES, THEY WOULD HAVE TO, WE HAVE IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE APPROVED TO, UM, CONDITION TO THE SITE PLANNER.
IS THE SITE PLAN NOT SHOWING THAT? THAT'S RIGHT.
AND THE SITE PLAN HAS THE VISIBILITY TRYING, I'M, I GET VERY NERVOUS ABOUT US TAKING ACTION AND SAYING VERBALLY SOMETHING AND NOT HAVING SITE PLANS.
THAT BUILDING INSPECTION CAN IMPLEMENT.
'CAUSE THERE SHOULD BE A CONNECTION.
THERE SHOULDN'T BE A DISCONNECT.
SO IF WE DID THAT, THEY'D ADMIRALS HAVE TO COME BACK WITH
[03:20:01]
REVISED PLANS OR WOULD THEY JUST RESUBMIT VIS REVISED PLANS? I WOULD, IT WOULD, IT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT.I CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE KEY.
IT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE, THE LATEST SITE PLANS.
SO IF THEY WERE TO, IF YOU WERE TO APPROVE OR DENY, UM, AND WE NEEDED NEW PLANS, WE COULD JUST REDLINE THOSE AND UM, OR THEY COULD SUBMIT 'EM TO US AND WE COULD APPROVE THOSE BASED ON THE CLEAR INTENTION OF THE BOARD.
OTHERWISE WE HAVE TO POSTPONE ANOTHER MONTH.
BUT, UM, IF THEY PROVIDE US WITH CURRENT PLANS AND WE REVIEW THEM AND THEY'RE REFLECTING WHAT YOU'VE APPROVED, THEN WE WOULD BE GOOD WITH THAT.
AGAIN, I DON'T WANNA DISCONNECT BETWEEN WHAT WE DO AND WHAT BUILDING INSPECTION.
SO, UM, I'M JUST CARRYING THE BALL FORWARD IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD DID.
I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THE VISIBLY TRIANGLE IS THAT BIG A DEAL HERE.
I THINK IT'S MINOR TO THE TOTAL.
AGAIN, IT'S NOT, IT'S FARTHER ENOUGH AWAY FAR THE INTERSECTION OF WHERE TRAFFIC WOULD BE AND A VEHICLE WOULD BE.
BUT THAT'S IN THE OPINION OF THE BOARD.
DID YOU FINISH YOUR REBUTTAL? UH, I DID, SIR.
AND WE'RE FOR ANY CONDITIONS YOU HAVE AND IF THEY WANT TO PROVE IT, I'M FOR IT, SIR.
WE'RE ABOUT, WE'RE ABOUT TO SEE.
NO, THE, OUR RULES SAY THAT THE APPLICANT GETS A REBUTTAL.
SORRY, THAT'S JUST, YEAH, THAT'S FINE.
YOU WERE ARTICULATE YOUR LETTER'S, ARTICULATE YOU, YOU'RE WELL REPRESENTED TODAY, I PROMISE YOU.
YOU'VE CREATED A, A, A, A VERY GOOD, UH, POSITIVE CONFLICT.
IT GIVES US SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.
THE CHAIRMAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 26 DASH 4 0 70 ON APPLICATION OF AUBREY QUARLES GRANT, THE 13 FOOT SIX INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
THE IMPROVEMENT IS WITHIN THE GENERAL BUILDING PATTERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED IN THE MATTER IN THE MATTER OF BO OA 2 6 0 0 0 0 7 0.
MS. DAVIS HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY MR. KOVI DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
THIS IS JUST THE SETBACK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO THIS HAS BEEN AN INTERESTING CASE.
UM, I, I STRUGGLED A LITTLE BIT WITH THIS 'CAUSE HONESTLY, WHEN I SAW, UM, EVERYTHING I, I QUESTIONED WHY SOMEBODY WOULD WANNA BUILD ON THAT PROPERTY.
BUT WHAT IT, THAT'S NOT THE CRITERIA.
I MEAN, WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS IT IS OWNED RESIDENTIAL.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD ON THAT PROPERTY.
UM, YOU KNOW, ALSO HEARING THAT THE CHURCH WANTED TO BUY THAT PROPERTY RIGHT BEFORE YOU DID THAT JUST CREATES AN INTERESTING DYNAMIC THERE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING OUT FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND I DON'T THINK IT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
I'D MUCH RATHER SEE A, A RANCH HOME THAN SOMETHING REALLY TALL.
I DON'T HAVE HOMES RIGHT NEXT TO YOU.
SO I, I HAVE NOTHING TO COMPARE THE SETBACK WITH, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE, UM, YOU KNOW, IN MY OPINION, JUST THIS ONE BOARD MEMBER, I DO NOT BELIEVE IT WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
AND I THINK THIS HOME WILL PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS OPPOSED TO BUILDING A TWO OR THREE STORY STRUCTURE, WHICH WOULD LOOK REALLY OUT OF PLACE.
THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
MR. HOKO? UH, I AGREE WITH MS. DAVIS.
UM, UH, WE DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH BLOCK FACE 'CAUSE THERE'S NO OTHER HOMES THERE.
UM, AND I, I THINK, UH, CLEARLY IN MY, IN MY VIEW, A ONE STORY HOME IS GOING TO BE MUCH MORE FRIENDLY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAN A, THAN A NARROW MULTI-STORY, UH, HOME.
SO, UH, FOR THOSE REASONS, UM, UH, I THINK THEY SHOULD GO AHEAD AND BE ALLOWED TO BUILD IT.
OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION IS TO GRANT DR. GLOVER.
I, I THINK THE LOT SIZE IS VERY SMALL TO BUILD AND I'M LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE AND LOOKING AT PROBLEMS THAT MAY ARISE WHERE INHABITANTS OR UM, PEOPLE THAT WILL LIVE IN THIS BUILDING WILL START COMPLAINING ABOUT NOISE.
UM, BECAUSE OF THIS, I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT.
OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
I VERBALLY EXPRESSED AND, AND AGAIN, I TURNED MY EXPRESSION INTO A QUESTION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT OUR ATTORNEYS SAY AT
[03:25:01]
THAT STAGE OF THE GAME.WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO REALLY TELL US, TELL YOU OUR OPINION, BUT YOU COULD DO IT IN A QUESTION.
SO THAT'S WHAT I ALWAYS ENCOURAGE BOARD MEMBERS DO IT WITH A CRITERIA OR A QUESTION.
UH, I'M GONNA SUPPORT IT BECAUSE IN IN THE BOUNDS, I SUPPORT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.
AND I DO NOT BELIEVE, AND I'M SQUINTING, I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
NOW, A LOT, A LOT SIDE OF 2,971 SQUARE FEET ON A TYPICAL BASE ZONING FOR THIS AREA OF 5,000.
IT BEGS THE QUESTION, WHY WOULD YOU BUY THE LOT? WHY WOULD YOU BUILD ON IT? BUT THAT'S NOT OUR BUSINESS.
I AM NOT INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH THE BOTTOMS. WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OTHER CASES IN THIS AREA AND THEY'RE SMALLER LOTS.
BUT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH CASE BY CASE.
SO I CAN'T TAKE THAT FLAVOR AND APPLY IT HERE.
UM, WE VERY MUCH RESPECT THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WORKED WITH THE CITY IN DEVELOPING, UH, 5 71.
THERE'S A REASON THE CITY EMBRACES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS.
IT'S TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.
UM, WE HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THIS WOULD VIOLATE THAT CHARACTER, BUT IN THE END, WE CAN'T CONTROL WHAT FINISH, WHAT COLOR, ALL THOSE SORT OF THINGS YOU PUT IN IT.
WE JUST, WE HAVE TO SIZE YOU UP AS YOU COME BEFORE US.
AND YOU HAVE TO BE A SMART ENOUGH PLAYER TO SAY, DO YOU REALLY WANNA DO SOMETHING OUT OF THE CHARACTER? UM, IT IS A STRANGE PLACE TO HAVE A RESIDENTIAL LOT, BUT THAT'S NOT OUR PLACE.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES PLANNING THAT IS NOT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS PLACE.
SO I SOMETIMES HAVE TO SAY THAT OUT LOUD TO TELL MYSELF, DON'T GO THERE 'CAUSE THAT'S NOT OUR PLACE.
THE PD IS SET BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO THEY DECIDE IN THE END WHAT THE RULES ARE IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY.
I HOPE AND PRAY THAT IF THE BOARD APPROVES THIS TODAY, THAT YOU WILL BE A CONTRIBUTORY PROPERTY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M READING ALL THE NEGATIVES THAT YOU WILL, THAT YOU WILL PRESERVE THE CHARACTER, THAT YOU WILL BE PART OF THE GENERAL BUILDING PATTERN AND THAT IT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT.
'CAUSE THOSE ARE THE THREE TRIP WIRES THAT WE LOOK AT.
SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION 'CAUSE IN THE, AS I SQUINT MY EYES ON BALANCE, I THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION REQUIRES FOUR VOTES.
THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO GRANT MS. DAVIS.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FOUR TO ONE IN THE MATTER BO OA 2 6 0 0 0 0 7 0.
UH, THE BOARD ON A VOTE OF FOUR TO ONE GRANTS, THE REQUEST FOR A 13 FOOT SIX SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
OKAY, YOU'LL GET A EMAIL FROM OUR CITY STAFF.
MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BOA DASH 26 DASH 4 0 7 ON APPLICATION OF AUBREY QUARLES GRANT THE REQUEST TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE 20 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE DRIVEWAY APPROACH ALONG CLIFF ROAD AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION REGULATION CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS IN REGARD TO THE PORTION IN VIOLATION OF THE VIS VISIBLE OBSTRUCTION TRIANGLE ARE REQUIRED IN THE MATTER OF BOA 2 6 0 0 0 0 7 0.
MS. DAVIS HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITHIN THE 20 FOOT VISIBLY TRIANGLE.
MS. DAVIS DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO GRANT? I AM SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
ALTHOUGH I'M NEUROTIC ABOUT SAFETY, IT APPEARS THAT IT'S SO TINY THAT IT WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
AND FOR ME IT'S ALL ABOUT SAFETY.
SO I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS IF I REALLY THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE.
I'M, I'M REALLY NOT SEEING ANY TRAFFIC HAZARD FROM THIS.
UM, IT'S VERY INCIDENTAL AND, UH, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD CAUSE ANY ISSUES AT ALL.
OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO GRANT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR ITEMS WITHIN THE 20 FOOT VISIBLY TRIANGLE CONSISTENT WITH THE DRAWINGS.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL A VOTE.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BO OA
[03:30:01]
2 6 0 0 0 0 7 0.THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTS THE REQUEST FOR, UH, TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE 20 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
YOU'LL GET A, A NOTIFICATION FROM BOARD SECRETARY IN THE NEXT COUPLE DAYS.
UH, WHAT I JUST SAW THERE WARMS MY HEART.
I I KNOW IT WARMS MY HEART BECAUSE YOU'RE GONNA BE NEIGHBORS AND THERE'S SOMETIMES THERE'S NOT MUCH KUMBAYA WHEN ONE WINS AND THE OTHER LOSES.
SO I HAVE TO SAY THAT ON THE RECORD.
THERE ARE NOT ALL A LOT OF WARM, WARM FUZZIES HERE SOMETIMES
[VI.2. 26-3284A Application of Marcos Munoz for (1) a special exception for the handicapped to the single-family use regulations, (2) a special exception for the handicapped to the floor area for structures accessory to single family use regulations, and for (3) a special exception for the handicapped to the total floor area for structures accessory to single family use regulations at 7426 CONCORD AVENUE. This property is more fully described as Block 7/2353, Lot 22, and is zoned R-7.5(A), which limits the number of dwelling units to one, prohibits an accessory structure to exceed 25 percent of the floor area of the main structure, and prohibits the total floor area of all accessory structures on a lot to exceed 50 percent of the floor area of the main building. The applicant proposes to construct and/or maintain an additional dwelling unit (not for rent), which will require (1) a special exception for the handicapped to the single-family use regulations, to construct and/or maintain a single-family residential accessory structure with 1,199 square feet of floor area (48.5 percent of the 2,484 square foot floor area of the main structure), which will require (2) a 578 square foot (23.5 percent) special exception for the handicapped to the floor area for structures accessory to single family use regulations, and to construct and/or maintain single-family residential accessory structures with 1,350 square feet of combined floor area (54.5 percent of the 2,484 square foot floor area of the main structure), which will require (3) a 108 square foot (4.5 percent) special exception for the handicapped to the total floor area for structures accessory to single family use regulations. (Part 2 of 2)]
MS. Q, ARE WE READY FOR 2 6 0 0 0 0.TAKE IT AWAY MS. Q GENTLEMEN, COME BACK DOWN.
SO I DON'T KNOW, WE'RE GONNA FIND OUT.
WE DID SOME, WE DID SOME CALCULATIONS HERE AND UH, WE'RE NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT COMFORTABLE WITH UM, THE NUMBERS THAT WERE SUBMITTED THAT WE'RE YEAH.
SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND APPROVED ALONG WITH OUR NUMBERS.
SO WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS TO BE POSTPONED.
IS THAT, THAT'S THE STAFF ASKING.
IS THE APPLICANT AGREEING WITH YOU? THE APPLICANT DID AGREE.
ALTHOUGH THIS IS THE NUMBERS THAT WE CAME UP WITH, MAYBE LESS THAN WHAT WAS ADVERTISED, BUT JUST TO BE COMFORTABLE TO HAVE THE CORRECT NUMBERS ON PLANS AND ALL THAT.
SO, UH, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, BECAUSE IF IT CHANGES THE NUMBERS, YOU HAVE TO CHANGE THE ADVERTISEMENT, RIGHT? THAT'S A TRIP WIRE AND I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE CUTOFF ON THAT IS.
I'M TALKING ABOUT CAN THIS MOVE TO NOVEMBER OR IS THIS GONNA HAVE TO JUMP TO DECEMBER, NOVEMBER? IT COULD BE NOVEMBER.
YOU THINK YOU THEY CAN MAKE IT IN TIME? YES.
BECAUSE IT'S JUST ADJUSTING SOME NUMBERS AND IT'S MORE OF THE BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND DOCUMENT ALL THAT.
SO I THINK WE ARE GOOD WITH NOVEMBER.
SO YOU'RE COMFORTABLE? YES SIR.
SO WHAT'S OUR NOVEMBER DATE FOR PANEL? A NOVEMBER 17TH.
ALRIGHT, SO THERE'S ENOUGH TIME AHEAD OF NOVEMBER 17TH IN YOUR OPINION? YES.
WHAT'S THAT BE? I BELIEVE THE DEADLINE WOULD BE NOVEMBER 5TH FOR, WELL YOU GUYS CAN MAKE YOUR OWN DEADLINES JUST SO YOU MAKE IT
UH, MR. MARCOS, THE, UH, STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD THAT WE POSTPONE, UH, IN ORDER TO CONFIRM WHAT IS THE STRUCTURE THAT YOU'RE PLANNING ON BUILDING OR WANTING TO BUILD, AS WELL AS MAINTAINING THE STRUCTURE IN THE BACK SO THAT WE CAN LOOK AT A FAIR EVALUATION OF WHAT IS THE, THE NATURE OF, OF WHAT'S PENDING.
ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT? YES.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION OR I'LL JUST READ IT.
UM, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL NOVEMBER 17TH, 2026 AT THE REQUEST OF STAFF AND THE APPLICANT.
IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MR. KOVI? UH, I'M, UM, I'M REQUESTING THE STAFF TO, I'M, I'M GLAD THE STAFF IS WANTING TO CONFIRM OUR Q NUMBERS.
THIS IS A GOOD THING AND I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT DOING THAT.
PLEASE COME WITH YOUR NUMBER SOLID.
YOU DON'T WANT TO TELL ME ONE NUMBER AND IT'D BE A DIFFERENT NUMBER OVER A YEAR.
'CAUSE THEN I START WONDERING WHAT ELSE DO I HAVE TO QUESTION AND I DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, DRAG IT.
UM, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE ROLE, UM, MS. DAVIS.
MOTION TO HOLD PASSES 5 2 0 IN THE MATTER BO 8 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 0.
BOTH THE, ALL THREE OF THE REQUESTS GET HELD OVER UNTIL NOVEMBER 17TH, 2026.
BY A MAJORITY, BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH GENTLEMEN.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME BACK HERE IN NOVEMBER.
OKAY? UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THAT CONCLUDES OUR BUSINESS FOR THE DAY.
THE NEXT MEETING OF, UH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3RD HERE IN THE CHAMBER.
REFRESHMENTS WILL BE AT EIGHT 30, COFFEE AND SO FORTH.
YOU'LL GET THE AGENDA THAT WE'RE FINALIZING TODAY, TOMORROW, AND THE NEXT DAY.
UM, UH, YOU'VE GOTTEN A COUPLE EMAILS FROM US ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE BOARD MEETING.
THERE'LL BE SOME TRAINING AND OTHER THINGS, WHICH IS ALL GOOD.
UH, THAT'S TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3RD, EIGHT 30 IN THE MORNING HERE.
[03:35:01]
I DON'T THINK IT'LL LAST TILL FOUR O'CLOCK BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY CONTROVERSIAL THINGS, BUT IT'S UP TO THE BOARD AND WHEN YOU HAVE 20 PEOPLE IN THE ROOM AND I WANT EVERYONE TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK.SO THE NEXT MEETING OF PANEL A IS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17TH.
OKAY, THAT BEING SAID, IT'S 4:54 PM THE CHAIRMAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AT 4:54 PM PANEL A ADJOURNED OCTOBER 20TH, 2026.