Oct 08, 2024 Board of Adjustment

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:09]

>>> THE CLOCK SHOWS 8:30. WE WILL CALL THIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO ORDER. THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO APPROVE

[MINUTES]

MOTION PASSES. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HAS FIVE MEMBERS, FOUR MITCH MUST BE PRESENT AT EACH MEETING. FOUR FAVORABLE VOTES ARE REQUIRED TO APPROVE ANY REQUEST UNDER CAN ITERATION. IF A SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THIS BOARD, THE APPLICANT HAS 180 DAYS FROM THIS DATE TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT IF ONE IS REQUIRED. ANY LONGER PERIOD OF TIME WILL BE REQUIRED BY THIS WORD IF REQUESTED AT THIS HEARING. A BUILDING PERMIT MAY BE APPLIED FOR THE DAY 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 THIS DATE.

APPEALS FROM THE DECISIONS OF THIS BOARD MAY BE MADE TO A COUNT OF RECORD DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THIS DATE.

IF YOU PLAN ON SPEAKING DURING OUR SESSIONS TODAY, WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND OR RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND FOR ME? DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. FIRST CASE TO LOOK AT THIS

[2. BA-2024-14: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a variance request by Erica Pangburn and John Gallagher. The subject property is located at 2042 South 8 Street, Abilene, Texas. The variance request is to allow for an accessory building to be re-built with a side yard setback of 2 feet, where 3 feet is required. (Mason Teesardin)]

>> GOOD MORNING . MY NAME IS MASON TEEGARDIN. ON THE PLANNER FOR THE VIDEO OF ABILENE. TODAY, I'LL BE PRESENTING CASE BA-2024-14. THE OWNERS ERICA PANGBURN AND JOHN GALLAGHER AND THE REQUEST IS A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A TWO FOOT SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING WERE THREE FEET IS REQUIRED LOCATED AT 2042 SOUTH 8TH STREET. HERE, WE HAVE AN AREA LOCATION MAP. AND WE HAVE A ZONING MAP . THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RS 12 AND DOES HAVE A HISTORIC OVERLAY DESIGNATION. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THE PROPOSED -- OR THE ACCESSORY BUILDING LOCATION THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO BE DEMOLISHING THIS BUILDING AND REBUILDING IT, AND THEY JUST WANT TO BUILD IT BACK IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT. HERE WE HAVE SOME VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATIONS WITHIN A 200 FOOT BUFFER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR AND ZERO OPPOSE. STAFF REVIEWED THIS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1.4.2 V OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND HAVE DETERMINED THAT THERE ARE NO APPARENT PHYSICAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THIS PROPERTY THAT CREATE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP. HOWEVER, THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT CREATES A CONFLICT WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DESIGNATED TO DETERMINE THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTIES.

GRANTING THE REQUEST WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THE ACCESSORY BUILDING WOULD BE FULLY LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE SETBACK WOULD ONLY OBTAIN TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE THAT SHARES AN ALLEY. THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE NONCONFORMITY SECTION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SETBACK CREATES A CONFLICT WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS DESIGNATED TO MAINTAIN HISTORIC PROPERTIES. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE HISTORICAL REQUIREMENTS VERSUS THE LDC. SO -- IT NEEDS TO FOLLOW ONE, BUT THE NEGATIVE

ALSO MESSES WITH THE OTHER ONE. >> THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION, TO SUM IT UP, IT HAS TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF EITHER WHEN THEY GOT HISTORIC OVERLAY OR WHAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION. IT MAINLY PERTAINS TO HOW IT LOOKS

[00:05:09]

>> OKAY . I THINK I UNDERSTOOD. >> IT'S TWO REQUIREMENTS THEY

HAVE TO FOLLOW. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. WILL THE PROPONENT PLEASE COME FORWARD TO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE THEIR NAME AND WHY THEY ARE REQUESTING THE

SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR VARIANCE. >> I AM JOHN GALLAGHER, AND I AM REQUESTING THE VARIANCE TO JUST MAINTAIN THE LOCATION OF THE NEW GARAGE AND TO MAINTAIN THE DRIVEWAY WHERE IT IS AT NOW. FROM WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD, THE GARAGE WAS ORIGINALLY A CARRIAGE HOUSE, SO IT WAS BUILT WITHOUT A FLOOR. THE WAY I SEE IT, IT'S LITERALLY FALLING APART . THE WALLS ARE BUCKLING.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS JUST HAVE IT TORN DOWN AND REBUILT.

SAME LOOK, BASICALLY A MINIATURE VERSION OF THE HOUSE AS IT IS NOW. SAME SIDING. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WOULD BE THE VARIANCE. 13 X 23 FEET. OTHERWISE, IT IS GOING TO LOOK THE SAME. AND I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE IT REBUILT IN THE SAME LOCATION. JUST BECAUSE IF I DON'T, IF I SET IT OFF TO BE CLOSER TO THE HOUSE, THE DRIVEWAY IS GOING TO BE MISALIGNED AND WE HAVE TO PUT IN A NEW DRIVEWAY. I THINK THERE'S A WHOLE OTHER CITY AGENCY TO DEAL WITH WHEN REVIEWING THE ENTRANCE TO THE DRIVEWAY. SO THAT IS WHAT I AM

REQUESTING. >> YOU SAID THE EXISTING SIZE

WAS 13 BY 23. >> YOU WANT TO MAKE A 15 BY 25.

>> CORRECT. >> SO THAT WITH, THAT'S WHY YOU NEED THE 3'2" GO DOWN TO 2?

>> NO, THE TWO FOOT EXTENSION WOULD GO TOWARDS THE HOUSE.

>> SO IT WILL OFFSET ANYWAYS? >> YES. THERE WOULD BE MORE GARAGE GOING TOWARDS THE HOUSE. BUT SPEAKING WITH THE CONTRACTORS, I WILL BE ABLE TO LEAVE THAT DRIVEWAY WHERE IT'S AT. I JUST WANT TO BUILD THAT WALL ON THE ALLEY SIDE, SO I WOULD PUT THE NEW WALL RIGHT WHERE THE EXISTING WALL IS

RIGHT NOW. >> AND THAT DRIVEWAY IS

CONCRETE, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> IS A SLAB UNDER THERE? I MAY HAVE JUST SEEN THE THRESHOLD OF

THE DOOR. >> IN THE GARAGE?'S

>> YEAH. DID YOU GET PAID BEEN? >> A SLAB WAS POURED IN SEVERAL YEARS LATER, AND IT WAS -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND MUCH ABOUT CONSTRUCTION, BUT USUALLY YOU PUT IT ON TOP OF THAT. AND THEN THEY PUT THE SLAB IN. IT IS LITERALLY --

>> YOU SEE THAT QUITE OFTEN IN SOME STRUCTURES? THE BUILDING WAS FIRST, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU GET.

>> THAT'S I'VE GOT. SO YEAH, I WOULD LOVE TO BUILD IT. THE PLAN IS TO HAVE IT READY MUCH -- IT'S GOING TO LOOK THE SAME AS IT IS NOW. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT BIGGER. AND INSTEAD OF THE BRICKS GOING FROM ROUTE TO ROOF, THE BRICKS GO HALFWAY UP WITH SOME SIDING. OTHERWISE, IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME LOOKING STRUCTURE AS IT IS NOW, EXCEPT BUILT WITH MODERN STANDARDS LIKE BUILDING

METHODS. >> THE TWO QUESTIONS I HAVE ON IT, IT APPEARS THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO GET A BIGGER GARAGE DOOR. IS THAT WE ARE GOING THE TWO FOOT EXTRA?

>> THE GARAGE DOOR IS GOING TO GO A LITTLE BIT EXTRA.

>> THE CARRIAGE IS SMALLER THAN THE CAR?'S

>> YEAH. BEING ABLE TO PULL IN A FULL-SIZED TRUCK WITHOUT HAVING TO WATCH THE MIRRORS WOULD BE NICE.

>> THE SECOND QUESTION, IS IT ON THE SAME EXACT LINE IS THE

ONE BEHIND IT ? >> THE WALLS ON THE ALLEY SIDE, YES. THE BACK BUILDING, THE FRONT BUILDING. SO THAT BACK

BUILDING IS WIDER. >> BUT IT IS STILL ON THE SAME ALIGNMENT WITH THE ALLEY SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

>> YES. >> OKAY. THOSE WERE ALL MY

QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> I DID ASK YOU THE QUESTION

[00:10:06]

ANOTHER? THE ZONING COMMITTEE. >> OKAY. SO THE ELEMENT OF THE VARIANCE -- CAN YOU GO BACK TO TO THE ELEMENTS? YEAH. OKAY. SO THAT FIRST ONE, YOU KNOW, IF SHE NOTES ON HERE THAT THERE IS SORT OF A CONFLICT , BUT REALLY, WHAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT TODAY , IS THERE SOME KIND OF CONDITION ARISING FROM THE PHYSICAL SURROUNDING, TOPOGRAPHY, AND TEACHERS . I THINK THAT THEY JUST HAVE TO APPRISE THE LDC AS BEST THEY CAN. AND SO THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT THE ISSUE WOULD BE. WE ARE LOOKING AT THE DRIVEWAY . HOW IS THE LDC GOING TO BE APPLIED? BECAUSE, I MEAN, THEY ARE EXTENDING IT ANYWAY. WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY , I AM NOT LOOKING AT THE LDC, BUT IF IT IS -- THAT IT COULD FIT WITHIN THE LDC, THEY ARE INTENDING TO MAKE IT BIGGER ANYWAY, SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE EXACT SAME FOOT RENT. BUT IT STILL FIT WITH THE LDC.

>> THE PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING TO BE EXPANDED --

>> I'M SORRY, I CAN'T HEAR YOU. YOUR MICROPHONE MIGHT NOT

BE CLOSE ENOUGH. >> BETTER?

>> BETTER. >> WORKS STANDING ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ALLEY. ON THE HOME SIDE. THE ONLY PART -- THE PART OF THE CARRIAGE HOUSE -- IT WOULD BE A TWO FOOT EXTENSION. 23 FEET IN LENGTH TO 25 FEET IN LENGTH. SO THIS TWO ADDITIONAL FEET. WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE ALLEY. RIGHT AWAY.

YOU DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? HE'S ONLY EXPANDING THE NONCONFORMITY OR ASKING TO BE EXTENDED TWO ADDITIONAL FEET WHEN THE OPPOSITE SIDE ON THE HOME SIDE. SO THERE'S NO CONFLICT WITH THE LDC IN THAT RESPECT.

>> I AM SAYING THE VARIANCE IS FROM THE ALLEY SIDE, OBVIOUS. I AM JUST ASKING THE QUESTION, I HAVE LOOKED AT THE ASPECT FROM THE HISTORIC OVERLAY REQUIREMENT . YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT WOULD CAUSE ANY ISSUE. I'M KIND OF LOOKING AT YOU AS PLANNERS TO KIND OF ANSWER THAT QUESTION. MY POINT IS, THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT THE STANDARDS FOR VARIANCE, AND LDC CAN'T BE THE REASON IT HAS TO BE, YOU KNOW, THE SHAPE AND TOPOGRAPHY AND THE FEATURES AFFECTING THE LAND IS THE SHORT ANSWER.

>> BOTH OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE IN PLAY ARE BOLD LDC REQUIREMENTS. THE LEFT-HAND AND RIGHT-HAND ARE SAYING DIFFERENT

THINGS. >> RIGHT. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, CONNECTS THIS TWO FEET TOWARD THE HOUSE? IS THAT GOING TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH HISTORIC OVERLAY? I GUESS IF THEY GET A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.

>> IF THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED, YOU WILL HAVE TO COMMIT WITH THE BUILDING PLANS THAT DEMONSTRATE THE HISTORICAL INTEGRITY OF THIS BUILDING MATCHES THE EXISTING INTEGRITY OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH HE SAYS HE HAS LICENSED TO DO. IF HE'S NOT ABLE TO DO THAT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE STAFF, THEY WOULD HEAR THAT AND MAKE A

DECISION. >> SO IT SEEMS THE WIND IS NOT MUCH OF A FACT BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GOING TO GO ANY CLOSER TO

THAT. >> WELL, THE VARIANCE IS TO BURY IT A FOOT.A THREE FOOT STEP BACK.

>> THE WAY THAT I UNDERSTOOD IT AND READ IT IN SEVERAL DOCUMENTS THAT WERE TURNED IN WAS THE BUILDING ALREADY EXISTED, OBVIOUSLY, BEFORE THE POWER CAME IN AND THOSE OTHER THINGS. BASICALLY WHERE IT WAS WAS WHERE IT WAS. YOU WILL BE ADDING TWO FEET TO THE NONCONFORMITY OF THE VARIANCE , BECAUSE HE'S ADDING TWO FEET . INSTEAD OF 23 FOUGHT, IT WILL

BE 25 FOOT. >> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS,

COMMENTS ? THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

[00:15:04]

>> AT THIS POINT, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING . IS THERE ANYONE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION OF THIS CASE? SEEING NONE , WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING .

OKAY. DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD . THOUGHTS?

>> I GOT ALL MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED. WE ALREADY HAVE A VARIANCE THERE . AGAIN, TO PRESERVE THE HISTORICAL VALUE

OF THE PROPERTY. >> BACK TO YOUR QUESTION EARLIER OF, DOES THAT ALIGN WITH THE BUILDING IN THE BACK.

DOES IT? >> IT LOOK LIKE THAT IN THE PICTURE, BUT YOU CAN'T REALLY TELL.

>> YEAH, I THINK SO, TOO. YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS. YOU KNOW, IT STATES HOWEVER THE STRICT APPLICATION, THE ACCESSORY SETBACK REQUIREMENT CREATES CONFLICT WITH OTHER FIREMEN. YOU KNOW, I THINK WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING WITH AIR, IT'S A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY.

IT'S NOT LIKE IT IS GRAVEL OR ROAD BASED. YOU KNOW, THE DRIVEWAY HAS BEEN THERE FOR YEARS AND YEARS AS WELL. SOME COMING FROM THE SIDE, YOU HAVE A CONCRETE SIDEWALL THAT EXTENDS TO THAT BUILDING. YOU KNOW, SO IF THE BUILDING WERE TO FALL DOWN OR BE DEMOLISHED, IT IS THE STRUCTURE AND THE LEVITATION OF THE BUILDING. YOU KNOW, YOU ARE LEFT WITH A DRIVEWAY THAT GOES UP TO THE SIDEWALK. BUT STILL, THE FACT THAT THERE ARE EXISTING HISTORICAL SECTIONS THAT ARE ALSO CREATED WITHIN THIS SCENARIO, IT'S NOT JUST

DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS. >> FOR US TO -- SAY YES AND LET THE VARIANCE PASS, WE WOULD HAVE TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN ANSWER ALL OF THEM. DO THEY FEEL THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER ALL OF THEM WITHIN THE MOTION IF THAT IS THE MOTION WE

ARE WANTING TO GO INTO? >> IT'S HARD, BECAUSE IT IS THE PHYSICAL LAND.

>> WELL, I WONDER IF THAT HAS THE FEATURES.

>> AND WITH IT HAVING TO GO THROUGH TO BE APPROVED, THAT MAKES ME FEEL BETTER, TOO, BECAUSE THERE WERE WIRED TO MAKE SURE IT MAINTAINS THE HISTORICAL VALUE.

>> RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S MY POINT THERE. WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT PHYSICAL CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERING THE HISTORICAL OVERLAY OF THE PROPERTY , WHETHER THE BUILDING WAS TORN DOWN IN AN ACT OF GOD KNOCKED IT DOWN, WHATEVER THE SITUATION IS, THEY ARE REBUILDING THAT SORT OF ACCESSORY BUILDING .

AND I HAVE BEEN BY THAT PROPERTY. THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER SPOT THAT YOU CAN PUT THERE THAT WOULD MAINTAIN THE HISTORICAL INTEGRITY. OF THE OTHER. AS LONG AS THEY DESIGNED THE BUILDING IN ACCORDANCE , I THINK WE ARE PERFECTLY FINE. BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE EXISTING AREAS THAT ARE RUNNING INTO THOSE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.

>> FEEL FREE TO MAKE A MOTION AT ANY POINT.

[00:20:01]

>> ARE WE READY FOR A VOTE? >> WE NEED A MOTION AND A

SECOND. >> YOU ALL SEE -- OKAY. WE DISCUSSED ONE TO GREAT LENGTH, AND TWO, IT WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THE EXCESSIVELY WOULD BE FULLY LOCATED IN THE PROPERTY, AND THE SETBACK WOULD PRTAIN TO THE PROPERTY SIGN, WHICH IS A SHARED ALLEY. SO WE HAVE CAUSE THERE. THREE, THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE NONCONFORMITY SECTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT. SO OBVIOUSLY WITH THE PLANS THAT THEY WOULD TURN INTO REBUILD, AND THEN THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS CREATES A CONFLICT WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS DESIGNED TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE HISTORIC PROPERTIES. AND SO THE HARDSHIP IN THEIR IS , YOU KNOW, MOVING THAT TO CONFORM WITH THE LDC WOULD CAUSE SOME

CONFLICT . >> THE MOTION STILL NEEDS TO HAVE ALL THAT IN THERE SINCE WE DISCUSSED IT.

>> NOT NECESSARILY. JUST BASED ON STAFF FINDING --

>> I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE IT.

>> WE WILL DRAFT THE ORDER. AS CLEARLY AS YOU CAN VOICE IT IN THE MEETING, BECAUSE WE WILL PUT THAT TOGETHER IN ORDER TO REFLECT WHAT YOUR MOTION WAS. I GUESS IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT A MOTION, YOU CAN. ARE YOU SAYING THAT -- YEAH.

>> A MOTION AFTER ALL THE DISCUSSIONS THAT TOOK PLACE.

>> COULD YOU SUMMARIZE THE FIRST ONE? THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL, IF YOU COULD SUMMARIZE IT ONE MORE TIME. JUST THE FIRST ONE. JUST THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE HELPFUL.

>> YOU WANT ME TO SUMMARIZE THAT?

>> WELL, WHO MADE THE MOTION? YOU MADE THE MOTION? EITHER WAY, YOU CAN SUMMARIZE AND HE CAN SAY YES, THAT'S CORRECT, OR THAT'S NOT CORRECT, OR YOU CAN RESTATED.

>> IS THAT I'M TRYING TO DO. I WAS ASKING HER.

>> OKAY. SO -- SO BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE STAFF AND BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND SITE VISITS , THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS ARISING FROM THE PHYSICAL SURROUNDINGS OF THE PROPERTY. SO WITH THAT, BEING ABLE TO ANSWER ALL THAT, WE ARE ABLE TO VERIFY THE OTHER THREE . CRITERIA IN ORDER TO PASS THIS MOTION.

>> I WILL SECOND THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE.

>> I VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE EXEMPTION.

AND THE MOTION CARRIES. >> THANK YOU.

[3. BA-2024-15: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on the following variance requests by Austin Butler for a garage addition located at 1273 Canterbury Drive, Abilene. (Mason Teesardin) • 4-foot 9-inch side yard setback, where 10 feet is required. • 14-foot 9-inch rear yard setback, where 30 feet is required. • Maximum lot coverage of 56.7%, where 40% is required.]

>> OKAY. MOVING ON. OUR NEXT CASE PRESENTED IS VA BA-2024-15

. >> GOOD MORNING. MASON TEEGARDIN, PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF ABILENE. TODAY, I'LL BE PRESENTING CASE NUMBER BA-2024-15. THE OWNERS MEGAN AND AUSTIN BUTLER, AND THE REQUEST IS THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES FOR A GARAGE ADDITION, AND THEN THEY ARE A FOUR FOOT NINE INCH SETBACK WERE 10 FEET IS REQUIRED. 14 FOOT NINE INCH REAR YARD SETBACK WERE 30 FEET IS REQUIRED, AND THEN A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 56.7% OR 40% IS THE ROOT WIRED MAXIMUM. AND IT IS LOCATED AT 1273 CANTERBURY DRIVE. HERE WE HAVE THE AREA LOCATION MAP. WE HAVE A ZONING MAP THAT IS ZONED RS 12. AND WE HAVE THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY

[00:25:08]

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> QUESTIONS FOR MASON? THANK YOU, MASON. WILL THE PROPONENT PLEASE COME FORWARD? YOU GOT THREE MINUTES OVER THERE. WE WILL STOP THAT IF WE ASK YOU ANY QUESTIONS. PLEASE STATE

YOUR NAME. >> MY NAME IS AUSTIN BUTLER AND I AM REQUESTING THIS VARIANCE. AS YOU CAN SEE, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, WE DID A BACKYARD LANDSCAPE REDESIGN, SO THE ORIGINAL GARAGE WAS A POLL AROUND PAST THE POOL, WHERE THE POOL IS NOW, INTO THE GARAGE SPACE. PUTTING THE POOL IN THROWS THAT OFF, SO WE ARE LOOKING TO ADD THIS GARAGE ON THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT IS THERE SO THAT WE HAVE A PLACE TO PARK INDOORS. THAT IS REALLY THE REASON WE ARE PUSHING OR APPLYING FOR THIS VARIANCE. THE CURRENT SETBACK WOULD LIMIT US FROM BEING ABLE TO DO AN ADEQUATE TWO CAR GARAGE, AND IT HAS A CRAWLSPACE. WE NEED A LITTLE BIT EXTRA'S BASE TO CREATE STEPS UP TO GET INTO THE HOUSE, AND SO WE WILL BE ASKING FOR VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE SIDE AND THE SETBACK AS WELL AS WE ARE LOOKING OUT OVER THE PATIO.

>> WHAT DOES THE GRAY HATCH REPRESENT?

>> THE GRAY HATCH IS CURRENTLY WHAT IS GOING TO BE IN THE

VARIANCE. >> GOT IT.

>> WE DON'T NORMALLY DO THE VARIANCE VERSUS WHAT IS IN

COMPLIANCE. >> YOU SAID SOMETHING INTERESTING A SECOND AGO. EXPLAIN THE HOUSE IN THE

CRAWLSPACE. >> SO WITH THE CRAWLSPACE, IT ALREADY ABOVE GROUND. SO WE HAVE TO HAVE TWO STEPS TO GET INTO THE HOUSE, WHICH MOVES WHERE WE NEED TO STEP OUT, SO WE NEED AN ADDITIONAL 36 PREFER STEP IN. AND SO TO GET THAT INTO THE GARAGE OBVIOUS TO MOVE THE GARAGE A LITTLE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE HOUSE TO CREATE THOSE STEPS UP INTO THE HOUSE.

ONE THING THAT I WANT TO POINT OUT ON HERE, YES, WE ARE LOOKING FOR 40% LOT COVERAGE. THE CURRENT COVERAGE IS 53%. SO WE ARE TRYING TO INCREASE THIS BY 3.5%.

>> SO THE GARAGE WILL BE ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE?'S THE

MAC YES. >> OKAY. WHAT WERE THOSE STEPS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ? I THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING YOU NEEDED TO MOVE THE GARAGE AWAY FROM THE HOUSE TO INCLUDE

THOSE. >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPOSAL, THE GARAGE HAS A LEG ON THE DOWN SIDE. SO THAT IS ESSENTIALLY MOVING IT OVER TO CREATE STEPS BESIDES THE CAR , TO BE ABLE TO GO ON THE PARKING SIDE AND STEP OUT SAFELY THIS.

>> I JUST WANT YOU ALL TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE -- HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE STAIRS INSIDE THE GARAGE. AND SO MOVING THAT OVER TO ALLOW FOR THE CAR TO COME IN THE GARAGE SO THAT THIS CAN EXIST INSIDE THE NEW PROPOSED GARAGE.

>> DID YOU MENTIONED EARLIER HOW WIDE THE STEP ARE?

>> A GOOD STEP IS 12 INCHES DEEP. SO THAT'S THREE STEPS, IT 36 INCHES. THAT'S NOT CURED YET. WE ARE STILL WORKING THROUGH THIS BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THOSE PLANS.

[00:30:05]

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PROPONENT? OKAY. THANK YOU.

OKAY, SO AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANYONE IN ATTENDANCE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST THIS CASE. EVERYBODY AT ONCE. OKAY, SEEING NONE , WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DISCUSSION.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY WOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS, BUT I NOTICED THE HOUSE IS ALSO -- LIKE, ON THE LEFT SIDE OF IT, IT'S WITHIN THAT SETBACK. THAT MAY NOT HELP, IT'S JUST SOMETHING I NOTICED.

>> I'M SURE THAT WAS ADDRESSED WHEN THEY BUILT THE HOUSE.

>> YEAH. ACTUALLY, I WONDER IF THE SHAPE ON THE RIGHT SIDE -- IF YOU OFFSET IT , WE SEE THE OFFSET OF 10 FEET, BUT THAT KIND OF CREATES A PROBLEM FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO USE IT AS A TWO CAR GARAGE. LIKE, IF THEY DIDN'T NEED THOSE STAIRS, THEY WOULD PROBABLY BE FINE. AND THEN IT KIND OF NARROWS TOWARDS

THE BACK. >> RANDY, ARE THE SETBACKS ON RS 12, IS A 10 FEET ON BOTH SIDES? MARK

>> YES. THAT'S WHERE THE REQUIREMENTS ARE.

SO, YEAH. I CAN DEFINITELY SEE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THEIR. THAT PROPERTY LINE. IT COMES IN AND KIND OF SPLITS BACK OUT. AND THAT EDGE, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN THE PRE-EXISTING GARAGE , WHICH -- THIS IS A GREAT DIAGRAM FOR US TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT, BY THE WAY. THAT, I THINK , WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PRE-EXISTING ONE WHERE THEY HAD TO TURN IN.

>> AND THEN THE POOL. >> YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY

ABOUT IT. IT WOULD HAVE FIT. >> ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY.

>> SO THERE'S ACTUALLY THREE ITEMS HERE. BUT I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER AS A WHOLE, AS ONE WHOLE THING. OR WOULD WE BE ABLE TO SEPARATE IT?

>> YOU WOULD NEED TO DEFINE THE ELEMENTS FOR EACH SETBACK. YOU CAN HAVE A MOTION, IF YOUR RATIONALE COVERS A COUPLE OF SETBACKS, YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO INCLUDE ONE, TWO, OR THREE SETBACKS. BUT I THINK YOU KIND OF HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT YOU KIND OF HAVE TO LOOK AT EACH ONE.

I ACTUALLY THINK I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR MASON.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> OKAY. THE LOT COVERAGE. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE. SO IT'S ALREADY 16.7% OVER, RIGHT? WHAT IS -- CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US THE INTENT OF KEEPING THE LOT COVERAGE AT ONLY 40%, AND IS THAT FOR EVERY

BUILDING? >> EVERY ZONING DISTRICT HAS A OWN ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE, RIGHT? AND THEN KIND OF THE HIGHER YOU GO UP, THE LESS PERCENTAGE. BECAUSE I THINK -- AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE INTENT FOR THE ROLE LOTS ARE BIGGER LOTS WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE LAND ON THEM, IN A LESS COMPACTED AREA. THAT WOULD BE WHERE THE LOT COVERAGE COMES IN INTERPLAY WITH THE BIGGER LOTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> AND THAT REQUIREMENT DOES COVER ALL SERVICES. NO

[00:35:03]

>> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION WHEN YOU ASKED ME A MINUTE AGO --

DID THAT MAKE SENSE? >> YEAH.

>> OKAY.

>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE REQUIREMENTS ? THANK YOU. OKAY.

SO WE DO. WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT. THERE'S A 4'9" SETBACK. WERE 10 FEET IS REQUIRED. I THINK THAT ONE IS PROBABLY THE EASIER OF THE

THREE TO LOOK AT. >> I WONDER IF WE SHOULD START AT THE BOTTOM AGAIN, BECAUSE IF WE ARE NOT GOING TO LET HIM HAVE EVEN MORE COVERAGE, THEN EVERYTHING ELSE ABOVE IT IS

KIND OF MOOT, OR WHATEVER. >> IS KIND OF THE POINT WE WERE GETTING TO. OR 30 FEET IS REQUIRED, THAT ONE WAS DIFFICULT TO LOOK AT. AND THEN THE MINIMUM LOT COVERAGE I THINK IS A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT TO LOOK AT. SO LET'S DO THAT IF WE CAN, AS A GROUP. FOCUS ON LOT COVERAGE. LET'S DISCUSS THAT. THERE ARE NO -- THERE ARE NO EXISTING BUILDINGS CURRENTLY WITH THIS PROPOSED THING IS GOING TO GO, CORRECT? BUT JUST CASES BEFORE THAT WE HAVE ALL BEEN PRESENTED WITH, DO YOU KNOW WHAT YEAR -- SORRY, IF YOU KNOW WHAT YEAR THAT HOUSE WAS BUILT? THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WAS THINKING. 70S OR 80S. WERE , YOU KNOW, STANDARDS AND THINGS ARE DIFFERENT NOW THAN IT WAS BACK WHEN -- YOU KNOW, THE DRIVEWAY WAS FULLY ALL THE WAY THERE IN THE BACK, WHICH I ASSUME THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THE BATHROOM OR THE NEXT ROOM, FULLY CLOSED IT IN.

WHEREAS EVEN, IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THAT HOUSE, YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE TO DRIVE THROUGH YOUR BACKYARD TO GET IN THE GARAGE. SO CHANGING THAT , OBVIOUSLY, IS A COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO MAKING IMPROVEMENTS . BUT THE COVERAGE AREA , WE ARE ALREADY OVER THAT. BUT HOW CAN WE CREATE A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE FOR A HOMEOWNER THAT WAS JUST TRYING TO IMPROVE THEIR LIVING CIRCUMSTANCES INSTEAD OF HAVING TO DRIVE YOUR BACKYARD AND TRYING TO CREATE A NEW COVERED AREA? SO THAT'S WHERE I FEEL LIKE AS FAR AS THE COVERAGE , I FEEL LIKE THAT COMES INTO PLAY . BUT THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO CREATE ANY SORT OF COVERAGE FOR

THEIR VEHICLES. >> WHEN IT WAS BUILT, ALL THOSE HOUSES HAVE THEIR GARAGES IN THE BACK. THAT'S HOW

CANTERBURY IS. >> IT'S ALL FRONT ENTRY?

>> THEIRS IS HIT IN ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET. THAT'S HOW THEY WERE ALL DESIGNED BACK THEN.

WE KNOW HOW BUILDERS ARE. >> YES, WE DO.

>> CAN WE GO TO THE SITE PLAN, PLEASE?

[00:40:11]

-- >> I BELIEVE IT IS ATTACHED AREA. WAS ALL THE OTHER CONCRETE STILL THERE FROM THE

OLD DRIVEWAY? DARK GRAY AREA. >> YEAH, WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOT , OR A GUESS, ADDITIONAL LOT COVERAGE PERCENTAGE? OKAY, I THOUGHT YOU MENTIONED THAT EARLIER.

>> JUST IN THE GRIDDED AREA IS THE ADDITIONAL COVERAGE.

>> I JUST WANTED TO KNOW. >> IF YOU WANT TO HAVE HIM STEP UP TO THE MICRO. WE WILL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL YOU

HAVE TO DO IS SAY IT. >> REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SO THE GRID IS JUST WHAT IS IN THE VARIANCE. THE DRIVE -- WHEN THEY DID THE DRIVE BACK IN 1980, THEY DID IN THE EYE FOR VARIANCE, SO IT GOES FURTHER BACK IN THE GRID CURRENTLY SHOWS. SO THE DRIVE IS -- AGAIN, 3.5% OF THE LOT. THE DRIVE TAKES UP MOST OF WHAT WE ARE GOING OVER. WHAT WE ARE COVERING IS BASICALLY TESTING COVERAGE. WE WILL PULL IT OUT,

THE NEW STRUCTURE OF CONCRETE. >> DID YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SIMILAR DISCUSSION WHEN YOU WERE TRYING TO GET THE WILL IN

? >> NO, WE DID NOT. AND I THINK WHAT I HAVE HEARD WAS THAT THE POOL DOESN'T COUNT AS SURFACE

AREA. >> IT WAS ALREADY THERE WHEN YOU PURCHASED A QUESTION MARKS THE MAC NO, WE PUT IT IN THREE

YEARS AGO. >> LIKE JOHN SAID, IT'S PULLING AROUND THE BACK. IT WAS KIND OF BECOMING A SAFETY PROBLEM.

>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD? THANK YOU.

>> JUST FOR SOME HISTORICAL CONTEXT, THE FIRST MODERN ZONING ORDINANCE IN ABILENE WAS ADOPTED IN 1974. THAT'S WHERE YOU FIRST START SEEING THE 40%, 60% NUMBERS START TO APPEAR.

AND THOSE NUMBERS, IF YOU LOOK AT THEM, EACH TIME THE ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED -- AND '84, 1990, 2000 WAS A LAST ONE BEFORE WE HAD THE LDC -- THOSE NUMBERS OF ALWAYS REMAIN LISTED. OTHER THINGS IN THE ORDINANCE HAVE CHANGED, BUT AS FAR AS THE DESIGNER WIRE MEANT FOR SETBACKS AND PRODUCE COVER, THIS HAS STAYED FAIRLY CONSISTENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH FROM '74 TO NOW . THAT IS 50 YEARS OF THAT REQUIREMENT. I DON'T KNOW HOW THE NUMBER GOT TO BE WHAT IT IS. IF THE GARAGE -- IF THE ORIGINAL GARAGE WAS SEPARATED FROM THE HOUSE, AND THE HOUSE WAS A LOT AND TO CONNECT TO IT TO MAKE IT ONE BUILDING, OR IF IT WAS BUILT JUST LIKE THIS IN ERROR BACK IN THE DAY IN 1980 , IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHAT ALL THE HISTORY IS OF HOME IMPROVEMENTS FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME, 40 YEARS. YOU ARE RIGHT ON THE POOL. WE DON'T COUNT THE WATER SURFACE.

IF THERE SIDEWALK AND DECKING AROUND THE POOL, IF IT IS IMPERVIOUS, WE WILL COUNT THAT. WE DON'T COUNT THE WOODEN DECK BECAUSE THE WATER GOES UNDER THE DECK. SO THAT IS -- THAT IS HOW THE COVERAGE REGULATIONS HAVE EVOLVED. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING BEFORE 19 70 OR AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU HAD THAT NUMBER APPEAR AND IT IS ALWAYS REMAIN CONSISTENT OVER

THE YEARS. >> THANK YOU, RANDY. FURTHER

DISCUSSION? >> WHAT KIND OF STRUCTURE IS THE PATIO? THE COVER. AS THE GARAGE?

>> WHAT ABOUT THE BASE?

[00:45:09]

>> IN THIS SITUATION, THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION AS FAR AS PUTTING A TWO CAR GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY. IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO

GO OVER THE VARIANCE. >> YEAH, AND I THINK WITH THAT DISCUSSION THAT THE SITE VARIANCE OF THE 4'9" -- AND I THINK THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE ON THE STEPS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF -- YOU CAN'T JUST GO PARK A CAR NEXT TO YOUR HOUSE. YOU KNOW, TO BE ABLE TO STEP UP IN THEIR. SO I DEFINITELY THINK THAT THAT DOES COME INTO PLAY. AND THEN BEING THAT THE COVERAGE ON THE REAR SETBACK, THE 4'9" ON THE REAR SETBACK FOR THE COVERED PATIO AREA -- AND THE PROPONENT DID EXPLAIN THAT THAT CONCRETE DOES EXTEND FURTHER THAN WHAT IS INDICATED.

>> I AM THINKING , WHATEVER YOUR RATIONALE IS FOR EACH SETBACK IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE APPLICABLE RATIONALE FOR THE OVERALL OVERAGE , IF YOU LOOK AT RATIONALE FOR EACH SETBACK.

WHATEVER THAT RATIONALE IS , IT WOULD PROBABLY BE RATIONALE FOR -- YET.

>> I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD GET NUMBER 1 FOR THE REAR SETBACK.

>> IF IT DIDN'T HAVE THE PATIO, IT WOULD DO THAT. THE KITCHEN AREA AND ALL THAT, EATING UP THAT SPACE. THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO PUT BACK THERE, RIGHT? THAT'S THE WAY I READ IT.

>> THAT WAS A GOOD QUESTION. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

>> WE HAVE TO APPLY THESE CRITERIA, AND I COULD DEFINITELY SEE WHERE WE CAN APPLY THE SITE SETBACK. BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW WE WOULD APPLY IT TO THE BACK.

>> WELL, I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST BEING HONEST. WITH THE GARAGE, YOU WANT A COVERED PLACE. YOU'VE GOT YOUNG CHILDREN GETTING IN AND OUT OF THE CAR AND ALL THE THINGS. THE WAY THAT I LOOK AT REAR SETBACK -- WHICH DOES MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT -- IS SORT OF A , YOU KNOW, ACCESSORY ITEM TO THE HOUSE.

NOT NECESSARILY A NECESSITY, RIGHT? WILL YOU DO HAVE ON THE OTHER HAND, WHAT YOU DO HAVE IS YOU ALREADY HAVE EXISTING CONCRETE THAT IS COUNTED INTO THE COVERAGE. SO IF WE AS A GROUP DECIDED THAT THAT WOULD NOT CONFORM , OR THAT WE COULD NOT ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS FOR THE REAR PATIO AREA, THEN THE PROPONENT WOULD HAVE CONCRETE AND DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK THERE AND TAKE OUT AND LANDSCAPE, WHICH WOULD GIVE HIM BACK THE COVERAGE AREA, RIGHT? SO THAT

[00:50:08]

>> I DON'T REMEMBER THE ACTUAL TERMINOLOGY AT THIS MOMENT, BUT HAVE THEM REDESIGN IT AND COME BACK. AND CONSIDERING WHAT MELISSA AND YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT, THAT IS AN IDEA THAT I THINK WE COULD THINK ABOUT , OR EVEN REQUIRE.

>> I THINK YOU DO HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THIS AREA WE ARE DISCUSSING IS -- GOING BACK TO THOSE CRITERIA, IN NO WAY IS THAT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. IT IS LITERALLY BEHIND THE GARAGE , ENCLOSED IN THE BACKYARD. IT'S A CORNER AREA OF THE HOUSE ON THE BACK FACE THAT IS COMPLETELY ENCLOSED ON PERSONAL PROPERTY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU ALL? THAT TO ME IS WHERE I'M CONFLICT , IS THAT, YES, THERE ARE SOME CRITERIA THAT WE CAN LOOK LEFT THAT WILL HELP US NOT EITHER SAY HEY, WE NEED TO REDESIGN THIS. BUT THERE'S ALSO SOME CRITERIA THAT I LOOK AT WHERE I GO, NO, THIS IS ACTUALLY -- IT SHOULD BE OKAY. YOU KNOW? AS YOU ALREADY GOTTEN -- IF WE CAN JUSTIFY THE COVERAGE -- WHICH WE CAN AS A GROUP -- WE ALREADY HAVE THAT COVERED SITTING BACK THERE.

>> WE ARE NOT MAKING THE COVERAGE WORK.

>> WE ARE NOT EXTENDING THAT MUCH COVERAGE WHEN YOU DO THAT.

>> THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT THE GARAGE. THERE'S NO PLACE ON THAT PROPERTY TO PUT IT.

>> THE TWO CAR GARAGE. >> A PROPERLY DESIGNED TWO OUR COURAGE IS GREAT, BUT I CAN'T USE IT. IT IS TOO SHORT.

>> IS THERE ANY SUGGESTIONS OR MOTIONS ?

>> I WILL SAY, I BELIEVE WE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE. YOU CAN ALWAYS ASK THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE WHAT THEY BELIEVE WOULD FIT THE CRITERIA IF YOU ARE STRUGGLING.

IF THERE IS ANY RATIONALE THEY HAVE THAT , YOU KNOW, I GUESS -- YOU KNOW, SUPPORTS WHAT THEY ARE WANTING TO DO.

>> YOU ALL NEED TO HEAR FROM HIM?

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYTHING WOULD CHANGE.

>> THE ONLY CHANGE I COULD FORESEE WAS IF YOU WENT BACK AND MADE THE PLAN SMALLER . A LARGER GARAGE, NOT ADDING TO

THE LOT COVERAGE. >> AND IT REALLY IS UP TO THIS BOARD TO APPROVE A VARIANCE OR NOT. YOU KNOW, IF THE APPLICANT GOES BACK AND DESIGNS A PLAN WITHOUT THE -- SAY, IF YOU APPROVE ONE VARIANCE AND NOT THE OTHER. IF IT IS APPROVED, IT IS APPROVED. IF HE STILL NEEDS A VARIANCE, HE CAN REAPPLY FOR A VARIANCE. IT'S NOT LIKE WE WILL VIEW ANOTHER PLAN, NECESSARILY. FOR WHATEVER THE APPLICANT IS WANTING TO DO.

>> THE SIDE YARD VARIANCE IS FINE. BUT HE COULD ONLY BUILD

UP TO THAT. >> I ONLY SAY THAT BECAUSE I FOR DISCUSS RATIONALE FOR THE GARAGE AND KIND OF AGREE ON THAT, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION. AND I

[00:55:01]

YOU SAY. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS VARIANCE BASED ON THE HARDSHIPS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE , THE INCONSISTENCY WITH THE PROPERTY LINES , AND BEING THAT THERE IS NO OTHER SPACE TO PUT A TWO CAR GARAGE AND THE EXISTING HEIGHT OF THE HOUSE CAUSES THEM TO HAVE A STAIRCASE THAT LEADS UP TO THE PROPERTY AND PUSHES THAT OVER .

>> OVER THE REGULAR LOT SIZE. >> RIGHT. THE REGULAR SHAPE OF

THE LOT. >> IS THIS MOTION ON THE SIDE

YARD ONLY? >> IT IS GOING TO ENCOMPASS ALL THREE. ANY MOTION WILL ENCOMPASS ALL THREE.

>> I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY IF YOU WENT TO THE DOT TO BE FOR ONE, TWO, OR THREE OF THOSE VARIANCES. YOU WANTED TO ENCOMPASS ALL THREE? THAT'S OKAY, I JUST -- THAT WAS MY QUESTION, TO , AND IF YOU ARE INCLUDING IT.

>> IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO -- IF YOU ARE GOING TO APPROVE ONE, YOU APPROVE THEM ALL , BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK .

>> THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK. THEY CAN BUILD THE GARAGE.

>> THAT IS TRUE. >> I THINK YOU NEED TO CLARIFY IF THAT INCLUDES A PATIO COVER. YOU TALKING ABOUT THE GARAGE AND THE ISSUES ABOUT THE GARAGE RELATIVE TO THE HOUSE, LOT SHAPE, ET CETERA. THAT IS GREAT, BUT THE PATIO DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME KIND OF ISSUES THAT YOU MENTIONED. YES, WITH THE COVERAGE, IT FOR SURE DOES. WITH THE SETBACKS AND EVERYTHING ELSE PERTAINING TO THAT COVER, YOU MIGHT NEED TO JUST CLARIFY THAT. IF YOU WANT THAT RATIONALE THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT TOOL BOTH STRUCTURES JUST BEING ONE OR

THE OTHER. >> I WOULD PREFER TO BE BY SETBACK. BECAUSE WE HAVE THREE VARIANCES. ONE IS FOR THE SIDE SETBACK, ONE IS FOR THE LOT COVERAGE. AND YOU MAY HAVE THE SAME RATIONALE THAT YOU WANT TO APPLY TO ALL THREE. YOU MAY HAVE THE SAME RATIONALE FOR 2 OF THE THREE AND THE DIFFERENT RATIONALE FOR ONE. BUT THAT'S WHAT I NEED TO KNOW. I THINK ESSENTIALLY WHAT HE IS SAYING PATIO, HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE REAR. BUT I PREFER IT TO JUST BE VOICED -- DO YOU ME ALL THREE SETBACKS? IF YOU INTEND ALL THREE SETBACKS, THAT IS FINE. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. AND NOT TO DERAIL YOU. YOU HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FIRST -- YOU MENTIONED THE FIRST ITEM THERE, SO --

>> SO BASED ON OUR DISCUSSION -- BEFORE I DO THIS, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCUSSION ON THE REAR SETBACK.

BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE CAN LOOK AT -- WE COULD LOOK AT IT FROM A STANDPOINT WERE -- NUMBER ONE, THE COVERAGE , THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE A WHOLE LOT DEPENDING ON WHETHER OR NOT HE PUTS A ROOF OVER THE TOP OF IT. SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DECIDE HERE TODAY , EVEN IF HE BUILDS THE GARAGE OVER THE PATIO , HE DOESN'T TEAR UP THE EXISTING CONCRETE BACK THERE. HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT. HE COULD JUST LEAVE

[01:00:03]

SO I THINK THAT IS MY POINT. REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DECIDE ON THAT REAR SETBACK, IT DOESN'T CHANGE WHAT EXISTS THERE

CURRENTLY. >> RIGHT.

>> DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO I THINK THAT'S WHY IN MY INITIAL MOTION, I WAS MORE -- I WAS MORE APT TO INCLUDE ALL THREE INTO THAT. BECAUSE ONCE WE SAY, OKAY, WE ARE FINE WITH THE 4'9" AND WE ARE FINE WITH THE COVERAGE, THAT STILL DOESN'T CHANGE WHAT THE PROPONENT WHO DUE TO HIS PROPERTY. HE CAN BUILD THE GARAGE AND WE CAN BE OKAY WITH THAT. AS FAR AS THE

PATIO GOES, HE -- >> I THINK THE ISSUE IS, YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BUILD A STRUCTURE IN A SETBACK.

>> CORRECT. BUT WE ALREADY HAVE THAT SITUATION ON THAT LOT AS

IT IS. >> VERSUS THE STRUCTURE.

>> IT IS OF THE SAME THING, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THAT'S WHERE WE EITHER HAVE TO -- ON THAT 14 FOOT NINE INCHES.

>> I THINK THE OTHER TWO -- >> I THINK THE DISTINCTION YOU CAN MAKE IS THAT IT IS AN OPEN-AIR STRUCTURE. HE'S NOT ASKING TO ENCLOSE IT. IF HE'S GOT FOR POST AND A TOP ON IT, IT IS A STRUCTURE. SPLITTING HAIRS, THAT IS SOMETHING YOU

ARE ENTITLED TO DO. >> I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD GO

THAT FAR. >> HUMAN BUILD. THAT'S MY POINT. I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU GUYS WERE STRUGGLING, BUT LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S AN OPEN STRUCTURE. WE ALREADY HAVE

EXISTING COVERAGE THERE. >> MY POINT WAS, YOU DIDN'T MAKE A FINDING . I JUST THINK YOU NEED TO INCLUDE ONE MORE THING , WHERE THERE IS A LEGAL DEFENSE IF YOU HAVE TO MAKE ONE.

>> YOU ALL WANT ME TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS?

>> THAT WOULD BE GREAT. >> YOU HAVE MORE FINDINGS THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE BACK SETBACK VARIANCE?

>> THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION , FINDING ANY SORT OF REASONABLE -- CRITERIA. SO BASED OFF OF THAT AND BASED OFF OF OUR DISCUSSIONS THAT WE APPROVE THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE WERE 40% IS REQUIRED .

NOW, IT WOULD BE LESS THAN THE 56.7%. THAT IS PRESENTED, BUT THAT WE APPROVED , AND THE FOUR FOOT NINE INCH SIDE YARD SETBACK WOULD BE APPROVED BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE

[01:05:05]

HAVE A NEED FOR THAT STRUCTURE. >> AND YOU MENTIONED THE

STAIRS. >> YES, MA'AM. THE STAIRS THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE HOUSE DOES ALLOW THEM TO --

CORRECT. >> AND YOUR FINDING WITH THE NUMBER TWO IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE STAFF ARE. DO YOU BELIEVE THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ?

>> YES, MA'AM. GRANTING THIS VARIANT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE HARDSHIPS SUFFERED BY THE PETITIONER IS NOT CAUSED HOLY BY THE PETITIONER, BUT THE LOT IN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE.

>> OKAY, SO THAT WAS SAYING YES TO TWO OUT OF THE THREE. I SECOND THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIES. >> THANK YOU ALL .

IT IS NOW 9:37. I DO NOT SEE ANY OTHER BUSINESS LISTED ON OUR AGENDA. ANYTHING ELSE? IF NOT, I MAKE A MOTION TO

ADJOURN. >> I SECOND THE MOTION.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.