[CALL TO ORDER]
[1. Minutes: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Minutes from the Regular Meeting Held on April 11, 2023.]
[00:00:17]
>> I'VE A QUESTION BEFORE WE DO THAT.
>> YES SIR. >> DO WE NEED TO INCLUDE -- ABOUT THE HARDSHIP NOT BEING CAUSED BY -- ? DOES NOT APPLY ON THIS ONE?
>> ON THE MINUTES? IF YOU DON'T MIND, I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF IT, I KNOW WE TYPICALLY, YOU KNOW, HOW PEOPLE
PHRASE THE MOTION. >> I DON'T HAVE A COPY.
>> MELISSA FILLS THAT IN. AND IF THE MOTION WHERE IT SAYS, IF BY THE MOTION THE BOARD SAYS FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE STAFF REPORT, EVEN IF THEY DON'T EXPLICITLY STATED IT, AND THE STAFF SAYS THAT THEY HAVE FOUND SOME CONDITION THAT WOULD CAUSE A HARDSHIP OR SOMETHING, THEY'LL PUT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION PART IN THEIR, OR THAT ELEMENT, AND NOT HAVE SOMETHING UNDERNEATH IN THAT ORDER.
AND SO WE DROP THE ORDERS TO FIT, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE -- WE ONLY PUT WHAT WAS EXPLICITLY SAID IN THE MINUTES IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
[INAUDIBLE] >> IT COVERS THAT PART.
>> YES, IF THAT WAS THE SAME. IF IT HAD THE SAME FINDING.
>> MINUTES ARE APPROVED. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS FIVE MEMBERS, FOR WHICH MUST BE PRESENT.
THE APPLICANT HAS 180 DAYS FROM THIS DAY TO OBTAIN A BIRD BUILDING PERMIT IF ONE IS REQUIRED.
OVER A PERIOD OF TIME WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS BOARD IF REQUESTED BY NOT LOOKING AT THIS HEARING.
BUILDING PERMIT MAYBE APPLIED FOR THE DAY OF THE REQUEST IS APPROVED, AFTER THE MEETING HAS ADJOURNED.
IF THE REQUEST IS DENIED, IT MAY NOT BE RECONSIDERED BY THIS BOARD UNTIL 12 MONTHS FROM THE STATE.
APPEALS FROM THE DECISIONS OF THIS BOARD MAYBE MADE TO COURT OF RECORD, IN THIS CASE, WITHIN TEN DAYS, FROM THIS STATE.
THE KNEE TO SWEAR IN ANYONE WHO'S COMING FORWARD AND PRESENTING A CASE TODAY. SO IF YOU PLAN ON COMING TO THE PODIUM, WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND PLEASE.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.
NO NEW BUSINESS TODAY, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA [INAUDIBLE] .
SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO REMOVE THE FIRST ONE FROM THE
>> OKAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. >> I.
>> FIRST ITEM IS BA-2023-01, TABLE FROM THE PREVIOUS
MEETING. >> I THINK HE MAY BE LOOKING AT
THE WRONG AGENDA. >> YES, I BELIEVE IT IS O2.
>> BA-2023-02. OKAY, THANK YOU.
THE AGENDA IS INCORRECT. >> THE AGENDA IS ONE ITEM, AND THERE ARE TWO VARIANTS REQUEST OF THE ITEM.
AND A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, BUT IT'S ALL ON ONE ITEM.
>> OKAY. >> SO IF YOU'RE GONNA TABLE THAT ONE ITEM -- PERCEIVED ALL THREE QUESTIONS.
[2. BA-2023-02: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request for Special Exception to Allow a 3,450 Square Foot Expansion of a Nonconforming Building, a Variance of 6.0 Feet From The Required Front Yard Setback Requirement, And Variance Of Two Parking Spaces. (Clarissa Ivey)]
>> OKAY, I STAND CORRECTED. BA-2023-02, THE REPORT HOLDER THE DISCUSSION -- [INAUDIBLE] FOR SPECIAL ACCEPTANCE TO ALLOW A 3450 FOOT EXPANSION OF A NON BUILDING, -- FROM THE REQUIRED FRONT, SETBACK REQUIREMENT, AND VARIOUS OF TWO PARKING SPACES.
>> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS CLARISSA IV.
I'M WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
TODAY WE'RE LOOKING AT CASE BA-2023-02, THIS IS A REQUEST BY THE OWNER, MR. BOBBY GAL BRITT.
[00:05:02]
HE HAS REQUESTED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO EXPAND A NON CONFORMITY BUILDING. INTO VARIANCE.-- THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND TO PARKING SPACE BARRIER. THIS WILL TAKE PLACE AT 2400 SOUTH 14 STREET. AS YOU CAN SEE, ON THE CORNER OF GRAND AVENUE, ON SOUTH 14 STREET, IT HAS THE UNDERLINED ZONING OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL. AND IT IS RIGHT OFF ONTARIO STREET. HERE ARE SOME IMAGES OF THE SUBJECT AREA WHERE THEY'RE PLANNING TO DO THE EXPANSION.
>> HERE IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF MORE OR LESS WHAT THE EXPANSION MIGHT POSSIBLY LOOK LIKE. HERE YOU HAVE IT MORE DETAILED AS THE PROPOSED EXPANSION IT'S GONNA BE 59 BY 59, THEY'RE ALSO POSING TO DO A ADDITIONAL PARKING ACROSS THE FRONT, AND
ALONG THE ALLEY. DOUG >> SINCE LAST TIME WE PRESENTED THIS, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANYBODY, ANYTHING ELSE,
IN OPPOSITION, OR IN FAVOR. >> WE REVIEWED THIS, -- SPECIAL EXCEPTION. THE PROPOSED EXPANSION IS COMPATIBLE WITH CURRENT USE, HOWEVER, THE WAY THE EXPANSION IS BEING PROPOSED, IT WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. SO THEY DON'T, SLIGHTLY SETBACK, SO THEY'RE PROPOSING TO EXPAND IT TOWARDS THE STREET, AND WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE GRANTING OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION COULD BE POTENTIALLY INJURIOUS AS THE SITE DOES NOT PROVIDE SPECIFIC -- BACK INTO IN ARTERIAL STREET. SO WE ARE PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THE TRAFFIC THAT GOES ALONG SOUTH 14, AND ARE PROPOSING MORE PARKING ALONG THAT AREA, AND THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MANEUVERING SPACE TO BACK INTO, TO PRETTY MUCH MANEUVERING COMPLETELY INSIDE. SO THE LINE DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES IT TO BE ABOUT 24 FEET TO GET OUT OF THE PARKING SPACE, AND SAFELY GET OUT OF THE PROPERTY.
SO WHEN PEACE OFFICIANT SPACE IF THEY WORK TO DO THE EXPANSION. THE PROPOSED EXPANSION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS LIDDELL MAN COULD WOULD ONLY ALLOW FOR THE NONCONFORMING -- TO EXPAND, ONLY IF THIS EXPANSION WOULD NOT INCREASE THE SCOPE OF THE NON CONFORMITY.
AND IF NO OTHER NON-CAN FARMERS ARE CREATED.
SO ALTHOUGH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES ALLOW FOR A NON CONFORMITY BUILDING TO BE EXPANDED, IT REQUIRES THE EXPANSION TO BE CONFORMING, THE WAY HE'S PROPOSING IT ALSO THE EXPANSION WOULD BE NONCONFORMING, THAT IS WHY, WHERE YOU HAVE THE OTHER TWO CASES FOR THE VARIANCES.
AS FAR AS FOR THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL FOR THE VARIANCES, WHICH WOULD BE YOUR SIX FOOT FROM THE FRONT SAID BACK, AND THE ADDITIONAL TWO SPACES FROM THE PARKING SPACES, THERE'S NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE CONDITION THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE EXPANSION OF THE PARKING SPACES, FROM NONCONFORMING, TO THE CURRENT REGULATION SET WITHIN THE ORGANS.
SO THERE'S REALLY NOTHING WITH THE SITE THAT, LIKE IT'S, MAKING HIM NOT BE ABLE TO MEET THE -- DECIDERS WHERE HE CAN -- SPACES WITHIN THE PROPERTY WITHOUT, THERE'S NOTHING ON THE SIDE THAT'S MAKING HIM DO IT THIS WAY. THE GRANTING VARIANTS WILL ALLOW ADD TO AN ALREADY CONGESTED LOCATION, BY ALLOWING THE NONCONFORMING TO EXPANSE. IT WILL INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED, AND MINIMIZE THE AREA THAT THE PARKING SPACES CAN BE LOCATED AT.
THUS CREATING EVEN LESS SPACE FOR VEHICLES TO MANEUVER WITHIN THE PROPERTY SPACE. SO WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THIS PROPERTY IS LACKING IN PARKING, SO BY ALLOWING THE EXPANSION TO
[00:10:03]
ENLARGE, WE'RE CREATING LESS SPACE TO WHERE HE CAN DO THE PARKING, AND GETTING IN A NO THE PARKING SPACES SAFELY.THE PROPOSED EXPANSION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS A LAND EVOLVING CODE WOULD ONLY ALLOW FOR NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXPAND AS LONG AS THE EXPANSION DOES NOT INCREASE THE STRUCTURE OF THE NON CONFORMITY. SO IT KIND OF GOES BACK TO WHAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DOES AND DOESN'T ALLOW.
THE HARDSHIP OF'S WILL BE CREATED BY THE PETITIONER AS THE SIZE OF THE EXPANSION COULD BE REDUCED TO SATISFY ALL APPLICABLE SETBACKS AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
I KNOW I GOT A LITTLE CONFUSING THERE FOR A SECOND.
>> THANK YOU COURSE, A DESIGN HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> YES, REMIND ME AGAIN THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, FOR, 30 EXTRA TEN FEET, THAT TYPE OF THING.
>> FROM THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY ON THE ARTERIAL STREET THE SETBACK IS 30 FEET. AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE MEETING THAT THEY'D BE AT 24 RIGHT NOW THERE ARE 24 FEET
FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. >> I THOUGHT THERE IS AN AND
TEN FEET ADDITIONAL PARKING. >> OF COURSE WE WOULD HAVE TO ADD THE PARK WITH, SO THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL TEN FEET FROM BACK OF CURVE, THAT WOULD MAKE IT A 40 FOOT FROM BACK OF
CURVE. >> OKAY SO THE FUN OF THE EXISTING BUILDING IS ACTUALLY 30 FOR FEEDBACK IS A CORRECT?
>> YES. >> AND YOU CONSIDER HOW MUCH IS NECESSARY FOR TURNING IT AND EXITING PARKING SPOT?
>> IT'S 24 FEET BUT IT HAS TO BE WITHIN THEIR PRIVATE
>> THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD IS THE VARIANT FOR TWO PARKING PLACES. WHAT NUMBER OF PARKING PLACES
ARE -- >> IFFY ADDITION WAS TO GET APPROVED, THEY WOULD NEED A TOTAL OF 20 PARKING SPACES.
RIGHT NOW, NOT ONLY BE PROPOSING 15.
>> THANK YOU MA'AM. WHAT THE PROPONENT PLEASE COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND WHAT YOU ARE REQUESTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
>> I BOBBY -- , WITH TEXAS POOLS, 2400 SOUTH 14 IN ABILENE, TEXAS. WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXCEPTION SO WE CAN BRING THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING OUT TO MATCH OUR EXISTING BUILDING. AND IF THEY CONSTRUCTION GOES AS PLANNED, WE'D END UP WITH A GLASS STORE FRONT.
AND BY HAVING THE CURRENT SETBACK THAT'S GOING TO MAKE IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO ON THE CLASS FRONT.
>> THERE IS NUMEROUS [INAUDIBLE] , WERE SETBACK A 34, WHICH, IS IT LOOKS GOOD AT THAT POINT.
AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE NEW CODE IS.
BUT THERE IS JUST, THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF ON SOUTH 14 THAT'S NOT WITHIN COACHED'S. QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> YEAH WHAT COSTS, WE'VE HAD THESE ONGOING DISCUSSIONS ON VARIOUS POINTS OVER THE PAST MEETINGS, IN MY MIND YOU'RE GONNA COME FORWARD WITH SOME SORT OF COMPROMISES OR CHANGES TO THE ORIGINAL PLAN THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT A COUPLE OF TIMES NOW.
I DON'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, WHAT'S PRESENTING, NOW AND WHAT YOU PRESENTED A MONTH AGO STANCE TWO MONTHS AGO.
>> THERE IS NOT AN ADDITIONAL PLANNED, WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE INSIDE THERE LEAD AT THE STORE FRONT, OR WE CAN'T MAKE THE
EXPANSION WORK. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.
SOME >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >>'S ROBERT?
[00:15:11]
THEY WOULD SAY WE COULD DO THE GLASS FRONT ON THE INTUITION, AND NOT A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE, JUST SQUAREFOOTAGE. >> I'M SORRY, SAY THAT AGAIN
ROBERT. >> IF THE PROPOSED ADDITION WAS SET BACK SIX FEET TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT, IT WOULD SEEM, IT SEEMS THAT YOU COULD STILL DO THE GLASS FRONT AND IT WOULD HAVE A MINIMAL IMPACT, EXCEPT FOR SQUARE FOOTAGE.
>> SQUARE FOOTAGE WOULD NOT MAKE THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE.
BUT THE FACT THAT THE WAY WE'VE GOT IT LAID OUT, TO PUT GLASS ALONG THE FRONT, THAT OFFSET IN THEIR KILLS THE ABILITY TO PUT
OUR DOORS IN THE RIGHT PLACE. >> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT, THE OTHER QUESTION IS, WHAT TYPES OF PROBLEMS HAVE YOU SEEN OR HAVE YOU SEEN PROBLEMS WITH BACKING OUT OF PARKING SPACES IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING?
>> WE'VE BEEN THERE SINCE 1984, WE'VE NEVER HAD A WRECK.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAVE 22 CARS THERE ONE TIME.
YOU KNOW WE DO OF PARKING, WE HAVE OLDER CLIENTELE, THEY NORMALLY TRY AND PARK ON THE GREEN STREET SIDE.
WHAT I KNOW HOW 14TH AS A FAST TREAT, A LOT OF TIMES WILL HAVE AN ELDERLY PERSON PULLED IN ON THE FRONT, WILL GO OUT AND DIRECT THEM OUT INTO TRAFFIC. BUT THERE'S VERY FEW TIMES AT ALL THE PARKING SPACES, ALMOST, NEVER THAT THEY'RE ALL FILLED IT ONE TIME. SO PARKING IS NOT OVER BIDEN
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. GILBERT?
>> ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST? ANYONE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? WILL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I THINK THE NUMBER OF PARKING PLACES DOESN'T, IT'S NOT CRITICAL BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF BUSINESS.
>> I'LL POINT OUT AGAIN THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEXT BUSINESS IS, AND IF PARKING WILL BE NECESSARY.
AND WE SHOULD NOT BE LOOKING AT JUST THIS TIMEFRAME, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE WHOLE THING. THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS, THE NEXT BUSINESS MIGHT NEED EATEN MORE.
I I BELIEVE IT'S A FACTOR. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
>> I THINK WE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING.
AND THIS TABLING, IT WAS TO GIVE THE GENTLEMAN A CHANCE TO BIDEN OPTION THAT HE COULD MEET. [INAUDIBLE]
>> I'M NOT EXCITED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT SAID ABOUT INCREASING NONCONFORMING BUILDING SIZE. BUT I COULD BE PERSUADED EITHER WAY BASED ON ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
THERE SEEMS TO BE A BUSINESS PREFERENCE AT THIS POINT.
>> YES, I THINK THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT WAYS TO LOOK AT IT.
THEY ALREADY HAVE CURRENTLY ADAMS OUT THERE FOR SALE, THEY JUST WANT TO COVER AND MAKE IT LOOK NICE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THAT'S GONNA CHANGE THE FOOTPRINT OF WHAT'S ALREADY BEING USED. JUST VERY MINIMALLY ON THAT OVERLAY HOW IT CHANGES THAT FOOTPRINT.
ALL ARE GOING TO DO IS HEAT AND COOL IT.
>> THAT'S A DIFFICULTY I'M HAVING WITH IT AS WELL.
BECAUSE WE'RE REALLY NOT CHANGING ANYTHING OTHER THAN PUTTING A -- ON WHAT'S THERE.
>> RIGHT, I ALSO FEEL LIKE THERE COULD BE SOME COMPROMISE ON THEIR PART, WHERE IF WE, IF WE DID REQUIRE THE CONFORMITY
[00:20:04]
IT MAY BE THAT YOU HAVE TO MOVE AN ENTRY DOOR.YOU HAVE TO ADJUST WHAT THAT PLAN LOOKS LIKE BUT IT WOULD STILL GIVE YOU WHAT YOU NEED. THAT'S WHY I STRUGGLE WITH IT.
IF YOU'RE JUST MOVING THAT FRONT PARK BACK SIX FEET, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAD TO USE, OR MOVE ADORE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER TO MAKE IT WORK, THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT WE DO WITH THE RESIDENTIAL REQUEST. MOVE THINGS AROUND, TO MAKE IT WORK, AND ADJUST. BUT ON THE FLIPSIDE, I SEE THE POINT OF, WE'RE NOT REALLY INCREASING, WE'RE JUST HEATING AND COOLING IT FROM THIS POINT FORWARD.
INSTEAD OF LETTING IT ALL SIT OUT IN THE SUN.
WHICH I UNDERSTAND THAT HE, I WANT MY STUFF SITTING ON THE SUN EITHER. SO I GET THE Y.
WE'RE REALLY NOT INCREASING THE SAFETY.
>> IT IS WHAT IT IS. >> IT'LL BE SIMILAR.
>> THAT'S WHY I FEEL ABOUT IT. LIKE THE SITUATION IS UP AND DOWN THE STREET. IT MATCHES THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> THE WAY THE CURRENT CRITERIA IS REQUIRED OF US TO ACT ON IT DOESN'T GIVE US MUCH LIGHTED.
>> WE GET A VIEW OF THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING? DEFENSE THAT'S OUT THERE NOW, IT COMES FURTHER OUT THAN THE
FRONT OF THE BUILDING NOW. >> RIGHT.
>> SO IT ENCROACHES EVEN FURTHER INTO THE SETBACK.
>> RIGHT. >> THAT WOULD ALL GO AWAY I WOULD ASSUME, RIGHT BOBBY? ALL THAT FENCES GOING AWAY, AND
CREATING -- >> ACTUALLY, WE GET MORE PARKING THEN WHAT'S CURRENTLY --
IT'S LIKE STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF A SEESAW.
YOU GET A BIT OF WHAT'S BETTER THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, RULES AND REGULATIONS DON'T ALLOW FOR THAT. THAT, IT'S JUST NOT A WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT THAN ALL THE OTHER BUSINESSES AROUND THERE EITHER.
THIS IS NOT EASY, IT'S JUST NOT EASY TO GET ON THAT STREET.
>> HOWEVER, IT WON'T GET ANY BETTER IF WE JUST AGREED IT
I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT WE WOULD BE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE ONLY THING I THINK WE'D BE INCREASING IS MORE PARKING SPACES ALONG THE FRONT. THAT IS ALL THAT WE WOULD BE, BECAUSE ONCE THAT FENCE GOES AWAY, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO REPLACE SOME OF THAT AREA WITH PARKING.
SO IT IS JUST THE PROPOSED SECTION THAT IS GOING TO BE AN INCREASE OF POTENTIALLY MORE CUSTOMERS HAVING TO BACK OUT.
ON TO THE ROAD COSTS. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
>> JUST ONE POINT. THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING IS WHERE IT IS, BUT THERE WASN'T A CODE BEFORE THAT.
YOU KNOW, IT DIDN'T REALLY, IT'S NONCONFORMING NOW, BUT I'M
NOT SURE WAS THEN. >> IF SOMEBODY BUBBLE DOES DO THIS IN THE FUTURE, LIKE WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
AS A, THEY'D BE WANTING TO MAKE A BETTER AS WELL.
SO WOULD PROBABLY BE DOING THIS, YOU'VE BEEN HERE 40 YEARS.
IT MIGHT BE ANOTHER 40 YEARS. [LAUGHTER] GREAT. WE'RE PROBABLY, IT'S GONNA HAPPEN NO MATTER WHAT. CAROLINA, VENTRAL EVEN IF, FOR
[00:25:01]
THE NEXT GENERATION. >> PHILOSOPHICAL SO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE OTHER BUSINESSES ALONG THAT BLOCK? OR WITHIN A COUPLE BLOCKS EAST OR WEST? THAT ACTUALLY EXTEND INTO THE RIGHT AWAY FURTHER THAN THE CURRENT STORE FRONT DOES?
>> YES SIR, THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER SEVERAL OTHER BUILDINGS THAT DO STAND PAST THE STAND BACKLINE.
JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE BUILT BEFORE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TOOK EFFECT, THE BUILDING WAS BUILT BEFORE 1970.
MORE OR LESS AROUND THE TIME THE LAND OF ALTMAN CODE WAS
ADOPTED. >> PART OF ME FEELS THAT, I UNDERSTAND THE LAND OF ELEMENT CODE, IT'S THERE FOR A GOOD REASON. AND MY PERSONAL OPINION IS, IT APPLIES TO MORE TO AREAS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPING A NEW AREA, THOSE ARE THE STANDARDS THAT AREA NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED WITH. WHAT WOULD WARRANT OLD PART OF TOWN, AND IT WAS DEVELOPED ALONG AGO, AND IT WON'T EVER CHANGE, THIS IS, IN MY OPINION, TRYING TO FIT A SQUARE PEG IN A
ROUND HOLE RIGHT HERE. >> IT COMES RIGHT DOWN TO IT
ACTUALLY REMOVING THE FENCE. >> WE'RE IMPROVING THE SITUATION. FROM WHAT'S PROPOSED.
>> I UNDERSTAND THE DANGERS OF PRESIDENTS I UNDERSTAND HOW EACH ITEM, EACH ACTION IS -- INDIVIDUAL.
IT SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE BUSINESS, A REASONABLE RESPONSE, OR REQUEST. THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT DON'T FIT, LIKE IF I HAD THE BUSINESS, I WOULD WANT TO COVER THAT AREA, SO I COULD PUT THINGS INSIDE INSTEAD OF OUTSIDE. THAT TYPE OF THING TO.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> I'LL ENTERTAIN THE MOTION.
>> I'LL FOR PURPOSES OF DRAFTING AND ORDER, WHATEVER YOUR MOTION MAYBE, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE EASIER FOR US, AND MORE CLEAR, IF YOU SEPARATE, WITHIN YOUR MOTION, YOU SEPARATE OUT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND THE VARIANCES.
OR SPECIFY YOUR MOTION AS TO EACH ONE OF THOSE.
OKAY, LET'S ENTERTAIN THE MOTION TO, OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING BUILDING.
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO EXPAND UPON THE NONCONFORMING BUILDING.
I THINK THE, IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH, AS THE STAFF REPORT, IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH CURRENT USE. AND IT'S ACTUALLY CONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA, THAT DO EXTEND THIS FAR INTO SETBACK. AND IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST FOR THE EXPANSION. I THINK THE MANEUVERING PART, WITH IMPACT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES IS IS, IT'S NOT A LARGE PROBLEM. IT ALLOWS SUFFICIENT SPACE TO BE CAREFULLY TO ACCESS, THE SOUTH 14.
I THINK IT'S IN HARMONY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THAT THE NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IS AN EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. FROM A BUSINESS STANDPOINT,
[00:30:05]
THAT'S A PRUDENT DECISION. AND I THINK THAT, THERE'S ACTUALLY MORE PARKING WITH THE EXPANSION AND THERE ISCURRENTLY. >> IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND TO MOTION. [INAUDIBLE]
>> IN THE MOTION OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION CARRIES.
>> I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION -- FROM THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD
SETBACK. >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SIX FOOT VARIANTS FROM THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK BASED ON THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD, AND OUR DISCUSSION, PROVING THAT IMPROVEMENTS WILL INCREASE THE SPACE.
THE SPACE FOR PARKING. AND IT WILL ALSO NOT ENCROACH ANYMORE ON THE FOOTPRINT THAT THE STRUCTURE IS ALREADY SET.
>> I SECOND THAT. >> FOR CLARIFICATION, LET ME JUST ASK, IS THAT MOTION THAT YOU FIND THAT THERE IS A
HARDSHIP THAT FIRST ELEMENT? >> I THINK THE HARDSHIP IS CREATED BECAUSE OF WHAT IS EXISTING IN THE SECTION.
I THINK THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING BUILDING SECTION.
WHERE THE SIX FOOT VARIANCE IS NOT, TO ME THE HARDSHIP IS OF WHAT'S ALREADY EXISTING THERE. DOES THAT --
I KNOW IT'S BACKWARDS. >> WELL I'M JUST NOT, I'M JUST
TRYING TO MAKE SURE -- >> THIS WHOLE THING IS A LITTLE
BACKWARDS SO. >> THAT WE PROPERLY DRAFT OUR BOARDS ORDER WHEN WE GET TO THAT.
>> THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES.
>> ALL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE VARIANCE FOR TWO FOOT PARKING, OR FOR TWO PARKING SPACES.
BEFORE WE DO THAT, THOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY, YOU MENTIONED THERE 20 REQUIRED? UNLESS I MISSED IT, IT SHOWED 20 SPACES. COULD YOU GO BACK TO THAT?
>> ONE, TWO, THREE. >> -- ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PARKING ALONG THE ALLEY?
TOWARDS THE CORNER? >> THERE IS A SIGN POLL.
SO THERE'S OFFENSE. >> THE SIGN PAUL IS DRAFTED IN THERE. OKAY, I FOLLOW IT NOW.
>> COUNT THE ONES BETWEEN THE LINES.
AND THEN THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE THERE TO, IS THAT A,
-- >> THERE'S A LINE THAT'S ALONG THE EXISTING BUILDING, RIGHT ALONG WHERE IT SAYS IN THE FOOT WIDE SPACES. I BELIEVE THAT IS WHERE THEY'RE
LOADING DOCK IS. >> THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. I ENTERTAIN THAT MOTION.
[00:35:07]
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE VARIANCE OF TWO PARKING SPACES.
PRIMARILY DUE TO THE THINGS THAT WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED.
AND TO THE FACT THAT THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS, IT WILL PROBABLY, IT'S UNACCEPTABLE NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS, FOR THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. AND LET'S SEE.
I THINK THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING, BETWEEN THE ALLEY IN THE STREETS AND EVERYTHING, IT'S A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, I DON'T THINK THE TWO PARKING PLACES ARE GOING TO MAKE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE, BASED ON THE REQUIREMENT.
AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE SITUATION, AND THE HARDSHIP NOW CREATED BY PETITIONER.
EXCEPT THAT HE WANTS TO EXTEND HIS BUILDING, THAT SHOULD BE
ALLOWED IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES.
>> MISTER CHAIRMAN? >> BEFORE YOU ADJOURN, [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE]
>> SECRETARY, YOU CAN SEND HIM OR MYSELF, WILL MAKE SURE IT GETS TO THE PEOPLE WHO NEED TO KNOW.
BUT, BEING A EXPERT IN THE FIELD OF ARCHITECTURE, ENGINEERING. ANYBODY WHO HAS AN OPEN MIND, WILLINGNESS TO LISTEN, AND YOU SUBMITTED THE JUDGMENT, AND WORKING WITH THE TEAM. IT IS CAPABLE OF SERVING ON THIS BOARD. SO IF YOU KNOW ABOUT, IT PLEASE
LET US KNOW. >> BE THE BUSH ON THAT, I THINK OF A COUPLE -- FOR YOU.
ME >> I APPRECIATE IT. >> MODIFY CAN FORWARD THAT TO HOMEOWNERS MEMBERSHIP. , FORWARD THAT TO EVERYBODY.
>> I THINK IT'S GOOD TO HAVE A WIDE CROSS ACTION OF PEOPLE WHO ARE IN, MAYBE REAL ESTATE, CONSTRUCTION, THE DESIGN TRADES, ENSURING ARCHITECTURE. SO BY ALL MEANS.
YES. >> I'M ALSO TRYING TO FOCUS ON SOME FOLKS HERE, LESS ALONG THE TOOTH AND SOME CONSIDER.
SO, HOPEFULLY WE WILL -- >> WHO IS HE REFERRING TO?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? >> I MOVE.
>> SECOND. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> I. >> THANK YOU, WE STAND ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.