[00:00:01]
[BRIEFING SESSION - 5:30 PM]
IS FIVE 30.WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
UH, WELCOME TO THE STAFF BRIEFING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 17TH, 2026.
I AM KIMBERLY A. KIM RODIER CHAIRWOMAN OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
THIS STAFF BRIEFING IS HEREBY CALL TO ORDER AT 5:31 PM THIS IS THE PORTION OF THE MEETING WHERE THE STAFF BRIEFS THE BOARD AND PREVIEWS THE CASES ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
BOARD MEMBERS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS THAT MAY FACILITATE THE MEETING AND THE PRESENTATION OF THE CASE.
NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN DURING THE BRIEFING.
I WILL NOW CONDUCT A ROLL CALL TO CONFIRM THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM.
AFTER I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE SAY HERE, KIMBERLY KIM DOYE.
HERE, LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT ALL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT EXCEPT CJ RAMIREZ AND MR. JONATHAN HEAD WAS HERE.
MEETING GUIDELINES, COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE REMEMBER TO TURN ON YOUR MICROPHONE BEFORE YOU SPEAK TO ENSURE THAT EVERYONE CAN HEAR YOU.
WE WILL NOW HAVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION OF CASES.
MY NAME IS, I'M WITH THE PLANNING STAFF HERE AT THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE, AND I'LL BE PRESENTING ITEM NUMBER TWO ON YOUR AGENDA TONIGHT.
THIS IS ZBA DASH 26 0 5 DASH 0 3 3.
THIS IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A SIDE YARD CARPORT AND VARIANCES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1433 NORTHWEST SEVENTH STREET CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE.
SO THIS ITEM WAS TABLED FROM THE LAST HEARING.
UM, THE BOARD HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE VARIANCES THAT WERE BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS, UH, ITEM.
AND SO THEY'VE COME BACK TO THIS MEETING AND THEY'VE MADE SOME REVISIONS TO THEIR REQUESTS.
I'M JUST GONNA RUN THROUGH THE REQUESTS THAT THEY'RE STILL KEEPING AND THEN KIND OF EXPLAIN SOME OF THOSE CHANGES.
SO THE FIRST THING THAT THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY KEEPING IS THAT SIDE YARD CARPORT.
AND WITH THAT THEY'LL NEED THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
UM, THE NEXT EXPERIENCE THAT THEY'RE INTENDING TO KEEP IS THE, UH, INCREASE OF A MAX AREA ALLOWED FOR ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
AND THEN LASTLY, AN INCREASE OF MAX AREA ALLOWED FOR A CARPORT.
SO THIS IS A REVISED SITE PLAN.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE CAR, THE PROPOSED CARDBOARD IS SMALLER THAN WHAT THEY INITIALLY REQUESTED.
THEY'RE NOW REQUESTING FOR 1034 SQUARE FEET OF THAT CARPORT TO BE, UH, INSTALLED.
AND THEN THEIR DIMENSIONS HAVE CHANGED FROM 47 FOOT LONG TO 22 FOOT WIDE AND 13 FEET TALL.
THEY STILL DON'T HAVE AN UH, PERMIT AS THEY HAVE TO GET PERMISSION FROM YOU FIRST TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
AND THE LOCATION HAS NOT CHANGED.
SO THEY'RE STILL PROPOSING TO PUT IT IN THAT EXISTING, UH, REAR YARD DRIVEWAY.
AND JUST A REMINDER FOR THE BOARD, THIS CARPORT IS WITHIN 800 FEET OF ANOTHER LEGALLY PERMITTED CARPORT.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THOSE VARIANCES THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED, THEY CANNOT BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED.
SO THIS IS, UH, A 3D RENDERING OF WHAT THE CARPORT IS PROPOSED TO LOOK LIKE.
AND THIS IS SOME OF THE DETAILS OF WHAT EXACTLY THEY'RE REQUESTING.
SO THEY'RE REQUESTING FOR THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
AND THEN THE MAXIMUM AREA ALLOWED FOR A CARPORT.
UH, THE MAX AREA THAT WE ALLOW IS 500 SQUARE FEET.
AND SO THEY'RE WANTING TO DO, OH, I'M SORRY, I JUMPED ON
SO THE 50% OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE IS THE MAXIMUM AREA ALLOWED FOR ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
AND SO 50% OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR THE HOME IS 900 AND A HALF, UH, SQUARE FEET.
AND SO WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IS 77.32% OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OVER 1,394 SQUARE FEET.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT REQUEST BEFORE I MOVE ON? WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL REQUEST ON THAT SIZE? UM, IT WAS CLOSER TO 99 OR 90 AROUND THAT, YEAH, ALMOST 2000, 2000 SQUARE FEET ON THAT CLOSE TO TO THAT, YES.
[00:05:02]
OKAY.SO THEY ARE ALSO ASKING TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM OF AREA ALLOWED FOR A CARDBOARD.
THE MAX AREA WE ALLOW IS 500 SQUARE FEET, AND THEN THEY'RE REQUESTING 1034 SQUARE FEET.
SO THESE ARE SOME IMAGES OF THAT SITE.
AND AS I MENTIONED LAST TIME, THERE IS A CARPORT RIGHT ACROSS THE ALLEYWAY, AND I CAN POINT THAT OUT TO THE BOARD IF REQUESTED.
AND THEN WE HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL LEGALLY PERMITTED CARPORTS, UM, IN BLUE.
AND THEN THE SITE IN YELLOW, AND I'LL SKIP THIS ONE.
SO 31 NOTICES WORSE THAN TODD ZERO RETURN IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED.
AND THERE IS NOT AN HOA PIT OR A TIFF IN THAT, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THEN STAFF CANNOT SUPPORT THE ITEM AS REQUESTED.
AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE.
THIS MAY BE AN OBVIOUS QUESTION OR AN OBVIOUS ANSWER, BUT YOU SENT OUT AN ADDITIONAL 31, UH, REQUEST FOR COMMENT AND YOU STILL GOT ZERO BACK.
YES, ACTUALLY, I HAVE ONE MORE.
UM, DID THEY WORK WITH THE BOARD REGARDING SHRINKING THIS FROM WHAT THEY REQUESTED LAST MONTH? UH, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
SO THEY DID WORK WITH US TO REDUCE THE SIZE, HOWEVER, THEY'RE STILL NOT MEETING THE MAXIMUM AREA ALLOWED.
IF YOU RECALL THE LAST MEETING, THEY DID TALK ABOUT, UM, REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE SETBACKS.
UM, BUT NOW THEY'VE SHRUNK THE CARPORT ENOUGH THAT THEY DON'T NEED THOSE ANYMORE.
SO THEY HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED THE SIZE, BUT THEY'RE STILL NOT MEETING OUR STANDARDS.
WOULD IT MAKE SOME SENSE TO, SINCE WE HAVE SOME FOLKS THAT WEREN'T HERE LAST TIME, UH, JUST TO KIND OF GIVE A FEEL FOR WHAT CHANGED FROM LAST MONTH, PLEASE? SURE.
SO I MEAN, THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH THE MAJOR CHANGE.
SO THE BIGGEST THING IS THEY REDUCED THE SIZE.
THE INITIAL SIZE THAT THEY WERE REQUESTING, I BELIEVE WAS CLOSER TO 1,300 SQUARE FEET, AND NOW THEY'RE AT 1034 SQUARE FEET.
AND THEN THEY WERE ALSO PROPOSING TO PUT THE CARPORT, UH, PRETTY MUCH THE PROPERTY LINE IN THE REAR WHERE YOU CAN SEE MY MOUSE.
UM, SO IT WAS GONNA BE PRETTY MUCH ALONG THAT PROPERTY LINE THERE AND HAVING A ZERO ZERO FOOT SETBACK AND THEN TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY LINE.
I DON'T REMEMBER, I THINK IT WAS THREE FEET MAYBE THEY WERE PROPOSING, BUT, UH, I DON'T THINK THAT WAS AN ISSUE.
SO I THINK THE, THE BIGGEST ISSUE WAS THAT ZERO FOOT SETBACK THAT THEY WERE REQUESTING.
AND NOW THEY'VE, BECAUSE THEY'VE REDUCED THE SIZE, THEY NO LONGER NEED THAT.
DID THEY HAVE, DID THEY HAVE TWO SETBACKS THAT THEY WERE REQUESTING THAT INITIAL I BELIEVE IT WAS JUST THE REAR SETBACK THAT THEY WERE, YEAH.
UM, THIS STILL IS, IS THIS PRETTY MUCH A, AN ANOMALY OUT THERE BECAUSE THERE'S NOT THAT MANY OUT THERE TO BEGIN WITH, BUT THIS SEEMS QUITE LARGE FOR THAT AREA? YES.
I WOULD SAY THAT COMPARED TO THE OTHER ONES THAT HAVE BEEN LEGALLY PERMITTED WITHIN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THAT I COULD FIND WHEN I DROVE OUT THERE, IT WASN'T COMMON TO SEE THIS TYPE OF SIZE FOR A CARPORT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE ONE RIGHT BEHIND IT, IT'S NOT THAT SIZE AS WELL.
SO PRETTY DIFFERENT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTIC.
UM, DID Y'ALL TALK ABOUT THE USE OF WHAT, WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN AT THIS PLACE? DID, DID Y'ALL BREACH THAT WITH THE, WITH WE DID.
WE REACHED OUT TO THE APPLICANT AND MADE SURE THAT SHE WAS CLEAR ON THE USAGE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
YES, WE DID EXPLAIN THAT TO, TO THE APPLICANT.
AND THEY CAN, THEY'RE GONNA BE HERE TONIGHT TO ANSWER ANY MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
BECAUSE THIS IS A, I'M, I'M, I GREW UP IN THIS AREA AND IT, I WAS CORRECT BECAUSE I, THERE'S NEVER BEEN A, THEY, THEY'VE CHANGED THE ADDRESS ON THIS HOME.
THAT ADDRESS USED TO BE A GREENLAND ADDRESS BECAUSE I GREW UP IN THIS AREA AND THERE'S NEVER WAS A HOUSE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THAT STREET THAT FACED SEVENTH NEVER.
SO BY THEM CHANGING THEIR ADDRESS, IT HAS CHANGED THE WAY THAT THINGS CAN BE IN THERE LEGALLY PERMITTED HERE.
BUT THIS IS A HUGE, HUGE, UM, UM, STRUCTURE.
I MEAN, EVEN FROM MY NEIGHBORHOOD, IT WOULD BE A HUGE STRUCTURE.
SO I'M, I'M TRYING TO TO FIGURE ALL THIS OUT, BUT THEY
[00:10:01]
WERE ASKING FOR ALMOST THREE TIMES THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THE FIRST TIME, AND NOW THEY HAVE REDUCED IT TO DOUBLE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED.IS THAT CORRECT? SO LET ME JUST CLARIFY WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR AND UM, THEN IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, LET ME KNOW.
BUT IT'S, IT'S KIND OF WORDED A LITTLE WEIRD, BUT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM AREA ALLOWED FOR ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
AND I DO WANNA MENTION THAT IN THEIR PREVIOUS REQUESTS OR SEPARATE REQUESTS IN THE LAST MEETING, THERE WAS ANOTHER REQUEST FROM THEM FOR A DIFFERENT VARIANCE FOR A SHED.
NOW, I'M NOT GONNA GO TOO MUCH INTO DETAIL BECAUSE THAT WAS DENIED BY THE BOARD.
UM, BUT BASICALLY IF YOU ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT ARE ON THE LOT TODAY IN INCLUDING THAT SHED, UM, IN THIS PROPOSED CARPORT, IT WOULD BE MORE THAN 50% OF THE FOOTPRINT OF THE MAIN HOME.
AND THAT'S, UH, ORIGINALLY ALLOWED FOR 50% AND NOW THEY'RE INCREASING TO 77%.
SO, DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THERE? IT, IT DOES BECAUSE, UH, UM, FOR ME, I, I'VE KIND OF VOICED WHAT DEBBIE SAID FOR THE SIZE OF THIS HOME, THIS STRUCTURE THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IS JUST REALLY DISPROPORTIONATE IN MY OPINION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE? WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT ITEM.
MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE ON YOUR AGENDA TONIGHT.
THIS IS ZBA DASH 26 DASH OH SEVEN DASH OH OH FOUR TWO SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A GARAGE CONVERSION.
AND THIS IS FOR A PROPERTY AT 26 0 6 STANBURY LANE IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER FOUR, THE PROPERTY'S OWNED PLANT DEVELOPMENT 50 AND IT IS AN EXISTING GARAGE CONVERSION.
UM, SO THEY'RE REQUESTING THAT INITIAL, EXCUSE ME, THAT INITIAL GARAGE CONVERSION SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
AND JUST TO INFORM THE BOARD THE UM, REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE HAS IS THAT HOME MAY, A HOME MUST HAVE A TWO GARAGE PARKING SPACE.
AND SO WHENEVER YOU CONVERT A GARAGE INTO A LIVING SPACE, IT GETS AWAY FROM THAT STANDARD AND THEREFORE THE NEED FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
UM, THIS ONE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE THEY'RE ONLY CONVERTING ONE GARAGE SPACE INTO A LIVING SPACE AS OPPOSED TO THE TYPICAL TWO.
AND I'LL COME BACK TO THIS SO YOU CAN SEE THE FLOOR PLAN.
SO THIS IS THEIR, UM, PREVIOUS FLOOR PLAN AS YOU CAN SEE THAT TWO CAR GARAGE AND THEN THIS IS THEIR CURRENT LAYOUT.
SO THEY'VE CONVERTED ONE OF THOSE BAYS INTO AN OFFICE HOME OFFICE SPACE.
AND THIS IS COMING AFTER THERE WAS SOME FIRE DAMAGE TO THE HOME AND THEY TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET SOME WORK DONE.
AND SO THE APPLICANT WILL BE HERE TONIGHT TO ANSWER ANY MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR INTENT.
BUT AS FAR AS THE DETAILS, THIS IS WHAT THE HOME LOOKED LIKE BEFORE THE WORK WAS DONE.
SO YOU CAN SEE THEY HAVE THE MINIMUM TWO OFF STREET PARKING SPACES.
AND THEN THIS IS KIND OF A SIDE PLAN OF THE, UM, HOME ITSELF.
IT'S ABOUT 1800 SQUARE FOOT HOME AND THEY DO HAVE THAT DRIVEWAY OFF OF DANBURY, LIKE I MENTIONED.
THEY DO HAVE AN ACTIVE BUILDING PERMIT AND THEN THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY.
SO THEY'VE ALREADY DONE SOME MODIFICATION TO THE FACADE OF THE HOME, UM, BY INSTALLING THAT WINDOW AND CLOSING COMPTE GARAGE PAY DOOR.
I DUNNO TO THE EXTENT OF WHAT WORK WAS DONE ALREADY INSIDE THE HOME.
I DIDN'T GO INSIDE BUT FROM THE STREET, THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
AND SO, UM, I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO GIVE YOU GUYS SOME, UM, SURROUNDING GARAGE CONVERSIONS.
SO THE RULE IS THAT IF YOU'RE WITHIN 300 FEET OF A LEGALLY PERMITTED GARAGE CONVERSION, THEN YOU CAN, IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR A GARAGE CONVERSION, YOU CAN BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME TO THE BOARD.
THE CLOSEST GARAGE CONVERSION THAT I FOUND LEGALLY PERMITTED, UM, IT'S DOWN THE STREET AND IT'S AT 26 41 DANBURY LANE AND THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT, THAT'S WHAT IT CURRENTLY LOOKS LIKE TODAY.
SO, UM, THERE IS SOME IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THIS IS THE CLOSEST ONE IN REGARDS TO THIS.
[00:15:01]
WORSENED OUT ZERO RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURN OPPOSED, AND THERE'S NOT AN HOA PAID OR TIFF IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.AND STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE REQUEST.
AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
WAS UM, I SEE THERE WAS ALREADY SOME CONVERSIONS TO THE GARAGE.
UM, IS THAT HOW THIS CAME BEFORE US OR BEFORE YOUR OFFICE? THERE WASN'T A CODE CASE.
UM, I THINK THAT THEY WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND THEN THEY REALIZED, OH, WE HAVE TO GET THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
BUT IF YOU DO GO OUT THERE, YOU WILL SEE THAT SOME OF THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE ALREADY.
AND UM, THE APPLICANT MAY KNOW MORE ABOUT WHAT CAUSED THEM TO COME TO YOU GUYS TONIGHT, BUT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND THEN GETTING IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS TONIGHT AND THEN GETTING THEIR PERMITS.
DO WE KNOW IF THAT WAS AN OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR OR IN-HOUSE WHO DID THE WORK ON THE PROPERTY? I'M NOT TOO SURE ABOUT THAT, BUT I'M SURE THE APPLICANT KNOWS.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY.
THIS IS EBA DASH 26 DASH SEVEN DASH 0 4 3.
A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR FRONT YARD CARPORT AND VARIANCES AT 1841.
CROOKS COURTS CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER THREE.
UM, SO THIS IS ON SINGLE FAMILY THREE AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT TYPO.
UH, IT IS, UH, REQUEST FOR DETACHED FROM YOUR CARPORTS.
UM, THEY'RE ALSO WANTING TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM AREA ALLOWED FOR A CARPORT AND INCREASE THE MAXIMUM WIDTH ALLOWED FOR A CARPORT.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE APPLICANT.
SO TO GO OVER SOME OF THE DETAILS FOR THE REQUESTS, IT'S BEING PROPOSED AS 621 SQUARE FOOT METAL FRAME YARD CARPORT, 27 BY 23 FEET AND 12 FOOT TALL.
UM, THERE'S NOT CURRENTLY A PERMIT, SO THEY'RE COMING THROUGH THE PROCESS CORRECTLY AND IT WILL BE PLACED ON AN EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY.
AND THEN LASTLY, THEY ARE WITHIN AN 800 FOOT BUFFER.
SOMETHING TO PAY ATTENTION TO IS THAT 27 FOOT, UM, WIDTH, UM, REQUEST.
AND THE REASON WHY I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE, UM, IN THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE, WE DO HAVE A RULE IF IT'S 26 FOOT, THE MAXIMUM YOU CAN HAVE, UH, FOR WIDTH FOR A CARPORT IS 26 FEET WIDE.
AND SO ANYTHING ABOVE THAT DOES REQUIRE A VARIANCE.
AND THEN OF COURSE, THE SAME THING FOR THE TOTAL AREA.
SO MAXIMUM WE ALLOW IS 500 SQUARE FEET AND THEY'RE REQUESTING 621 SQUARE FEET.
UM, THESE ARE SOME OF THE IMAGES THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED WHEN WE ASKED WHAT IT WAS GONNA LOOK LIKE.
SO IT'LL BE SIMILAR TO THIS IT, AND AGAIN, WITH CARPORTS, IF IT'S IN WITHIN 800 FEET OF A LEGALLY PERMITTED CARPORT AND THEY MEET ALL OF OUR DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, THEY CAN BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE VARIANCES THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED TONIGHT WITH HIS ITEM, THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THAT.
BUT THERE IS A LEGALLY PERMITTED CARDBOARD RIGHT DOWN THE STREETS, UM, AT 1834 CROOKS COURT.
AND, UH, AFTER LOOKING AT THE REQUEST FOR THAT ITEM, IT IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR ON THIS ITEM.
THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IS THAT THAT 1834 CROOKS COURT CARPORT IS IN THE REAR YARD, BUT THEY ALSO GOT VARIANCES FOR THE MAXIMUM WIDTH AND TOTAL AREA.
AND THAT WA WAS, UM, CASE NUMBER ZBA 25 0 3 0 0 1 6.
IS THAT THE ONLY ONE THAT'S IN THE FRONT? YOU JUST SAID THE OTHER ONE WAS IN THE BACKYARD, SO, OR IN THE REAR OF THE HOUSE.
SO IS THIS THE ONLY ONE IN THE AREA THAT'S IN THE FRONT? UM, I THINK THERE'S OTHERS IN THE AREA THAT ARE WITHIN THE FRONT.
UM, BUT THAT WAS THE CLOSEST ONE THAT I COULD FIND.
YEAH, SO I THINK ON FAMILY CIRCLE OVER HERE, THERE MIGHT BE ONE.
WOULD THAT MATTER TO YOU IN YOUR ASSESSMENT OF APPROVAL OR DENIAL, WHETHER IT WAS FRONT OR BACK? UM, SO WITH THIS ITEM, WE DON'T OBJECT AND IT'S NOT REALLY, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DEFINITELY LOOK AT, RIGHT.
THE DETAILS OF WHERE THE CARPORT IS.
[00:20:01]
AND THE SIMILARITY ATTACHED TO THAT INITIAL REQUEST FOR 1834 CROOKS COURT, IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE MAKING US OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST FOR, FOR THIS ITEM.AND, UM, I APOLOGIZE IF I MISSED SOME DETAILS.
I'M TRYING TO GO A LITTLE BIT FASTER.
WE DO HAVE A LOT OF ITEMS TONIGHT, SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN GET TO ALL OF THEM, HOPEFULLY PROBABLY NOT.
BUT THIS NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
THIS IS ANOTHER SPECIAL, EXCUSE ME, SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR FRONT YARD CARPORTS AT 1410 MILLFORD AVENUE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER THREE.
SO THIS ONE IS STRAIGHTFORWARD.
UM, SINGLE FAMILY FOUR DISTRICT FRONT YARD CARPORTS, UM, 400 SQUARE FEET IN TOTAL, UM, MADE OF METAL IN THE FRONT YARD, UH, 20 BY 29 FOOT TALL.
IT WILL BE PLACED ON AN EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY.
AND THE ONLY REASON WHY THEY'RE HERE TONIGHT IS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT WITHIN 800 FEET OF ILLEGALLY PERMITTED CARDBOARD.
HOWEVER, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE ARE CARPORTS EVERYWHERE.
AND, UM, TO BE MORE SPECIFIC, THERE'S ONE NEXT DOOR.
UM, SO THERE'S TWO MORE DOWN THE BLOCK FROM IT AS WELL.
THOSE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED ARE WHERE I FOUND A CARDBOARD.
UM, NOW IT IS NOT TO SAY THAT THOSE OTHER ONES WERE NOT LEGALLY PERMITTED, I JUST COULDN'T FIND ANY RECORDS.
SO IT MIGHT BE THAT THEY WERE THERE FOR A LONG TIME.
I DID LOOK AT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
SOME OF THESE HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS, SO IT'S HARD TO SAY, UM, WHAT GOT LOST IN TRANSLATION, BUT THESE OTHER CARDBOARDS ARE THERE.
AND SO THIS ONE WOULD BE TECHNICALLY THE FIRST ONE, BUT IT WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST ONE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
UM, THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THAT HOME FROM THE STREET AND THEN 26 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT, ZERO RETURN IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED.
AND THERE'S NOT AN HOA PAID OR TWO AND STAFF TO NOT REJECTED THEIR REQUEST.
AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, JUST REALLY QUICK FOR THE BOARD'S, UH, KNOWING.
SO ITEM NUMBER SIX, UM, STAFF IS ASKING THAT THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO THE SEPTEMBER 21ST MEETING.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, ZBA 2 6 0 7 0 0 4 7 IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1 6 1 7 INDEPENDENCE TRAIL.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SHOWN, HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
IT IS ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 81, AND THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A REAR YARD SHED.
UM, FOR YOUR EDIFICATION SHEDS THAT EXCEED 10 FEET IN HEIGHT ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE SETBACKS FOR THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE IN THIS CASE, THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE SETBACK IS 10 FEET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A FOUR FOOT SETBACK.
SO YOU CAN SEE TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS.
THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED SHED, WHICH WILL BE 160 SQUARE FEET.
IT IS 10 BY 16 AND THE HEIGHT IS 10.8 FEET TO THE PEAK.
THERE IS A BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTED AND UNDER REVIEW THE PROPOSED SHED MEETS ALL OF THE OTHER DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
HERE'S AN ELEVATION SHOWING THE DIMENSIONS, NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS.
UM, SO TYPICALLY IF THERE ARE 10 FEET OR UNDER, THEY CAN BE LOCATED AS CLOSE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK AS THREE FEET.
UH, REAR YARD SETBACKS, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS PICTURE, ARE VERY COMMON IN THIS AREA.
THE PROPOSED SHED AND REQUESTED SETBACK REDUCTION ARE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
STAFF DOES NOT ANTICIPATE THAT, THAT IT WILL CREATE AN ADVERSE IMPACT TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ZERO RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURNED OPPOSED.
AND THERE IS NOT AN HOA PI OR TIFF AND STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO ZBA 2 6 0 7 0 0 4 7 AS REQUESTED.
MADAM CHAIR, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO, MA'AM.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? YES MA'AM.
SO THESE ARE SHEDS AND OBVIOUSLY AND 10 FOOT EIGHT INCHES, RIGHT? 10 FOOT, SEVEN INCHES, 10 FOOT, 10.8.
[00:25:01]
IT BEING ON BLOCKS? CORRECT? THAT WOULD BE ON A FOUNDATION.OH, THAT IS ON A FOUNDATION? YES.
'CAUSE THEY, THEY'RE WOOD FLOOR SHEDS.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF, IF, WHEN YOU GIVE US A CALCULATION, IF THAT COMES IN AS HOW HIGH THAT'S GONNA BE OR IF THAT'S JUST IT DOES NOT INCLUDE BLOCKS, FOUNDATIONS OR, OR BOARDS BOARDING.
THAT'S JUST A GENERAL INFORMATION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AARON? THANK YOU.
UH, ON WHEN YOU WERE GOING THROUGH THIS, YOU LOOKED LIKE MAYBE YOU WORKED ON THIS ONE AND YOU WERE D YOU WERE PUTTING EACH OF THE LOGIC THAT YOU HAD AS YOU WENT THROUGH THAT, IS THAT PRETTY STANDARD THAT WE'LL SEE? THAT KIND OF THING? WHAT THE BOARD W WHAT THE BOARD MEMBER W I'M SORRY, THE STAFF MEMBER WAS THINKING SO THAT WE CAN GET A FEEL FOR WHY YOU'RE SE NOT OBJECTING.
I THINK THAT'S A CORRECT ASSESSMENT, YES.
WHAT DISTRICT WAS THIS IN? LET'S GO BACK AND TAKE A SIX.
AND THAT HAS AN ALLEY IN THE BACK, CORRECT? THERE IS, YEAH.
UH, WHAT WAS THAT? UH, WHAT WAS YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON THAT ONE? INDEPENDENT STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE REQUEST.
OKAY, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ZBA 2 6 0 7 0 0 4 8 IS SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A GARAGE CONVERSION LOCATED AT 1109 JORDAN DRIVE, MADAM CHAIR, THE APPLICANT FOR THIS REQUEST CONTACTED ME LATE TODAY AND ASKED FOR IT TO BE TABLED TO THE NEXT HEARING, UH, WHICH IS SEPTEMBER 21ST.
ITEM NUMBER NINE ZBA 2 6 0 7 0 0 4 9.
THIS IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND IN VARIANCES FOR A FRONT YARD CARPORT LOCATED AT 1710 VIRGINIA DRIVE.
THERE YOU SEE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY THREE DISTRICT.
AS I MENTIONED, THE PROJECT IS A FRONT YARD CARPORT WITH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND TWO VARIANCES, ONE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND ONE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
SO THE PROPOSED, UH, CARPORT IS GOING TO BE 20 FEET BY 20 FEET WITH A TOTAL OF 400 SQUARE FEET AND A HEIGHT OF 10 FEET.
THERE IS A BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTED AND UNDER REVIEW AND THIS PARTICULAR CARPORT IS BEING PLACED OVER AN EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVE.
SO, UH, THIS FRONT YARD CARPORT IS WITHIN 800 FEET OF OTHER LEGALLY PERMITTED CARPORTS.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, THE REQUIREMENT IN THIS CASE IS FIVE FEET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A TWO FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK.
AND AS FAR AS THE SIDE YARD SETBACK GOES, THE REQUIREMENT IS THREE FEET AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING ZERO FEET.
HERE ON THE LEFT YOU CAN SEE A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS INSTALLED THE POSTS FOR THE CARPORT.
UM, IT IS A, A REFERRAL AND SO THEY STOPPED WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
THEY GOT INTO THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS AND ARE NOW TRYING TO MAKE IT RIGHT.
UM, THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT IS A SAMPLE, AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE, UH, FINISHED PRODUCT WILL LOOK LIKE.
UH, SO THERE IS ONE LEGALLY PERMITTED THAT IS WITHIN 460 FEET PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, UH, YOU CAN SEE IT THERE HIGHLIGHTED THERE IN BLUE.
THE ORANGE STARS ARE ADDITIONAL CARPORTS WITHIN THIS AREA THAT MAY PREDATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR CARPORTS.
SO YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SEVERAL, UM, RIGHT AROUND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, MOST OF THESE HOMES WERE BUILT IN THE 1950S.
MANY OF THESE HOMES WERE CONSTRUCTED WITH SINGLE CAR GARAGES OR NO GAR GARAGE AT ALL.
IT IS COMMON TO SEE ADDITIONS, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND CARPORTS STAFF DOES NOT ANTICIPATE, UM, THAT THE PROPOSAL WILL CREATE ADVERSE IMPACTS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE, UM, OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ONE WAS RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURNED OPPOSED, AND THERE IS NOT AN HOA PI OR TIFF AND STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO ZBA 2 6 0 7 0 0 4 9 AS REQUESTED.
MADAM CHAIR, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? YES, AARON.
UH, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE PICTURE WHERE YOU HAD THE EXAMPLE, PLEASE.
UM, I'M JUST LOOKING AT THIS AND I'M THINKING, OKAY, SO HOW DO YOU GET TO THAT SPACE ON THE RIGHT
[00:30:01]
WITHOUT GOING OVER THE CURB? SO I'M, I GUESS THAT'S AN ANSWER A QUESTION FOR THE, THE HOMEOWNER OR THE APPLICANT IF THEY COME.YOU MEAN GOING OVER THE, THE CONCRETE RIGHT HERE.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE, THE, THE STREET, THE CURB RIGHT HERE.
EXIT OVER THE CURB LOOKS LIKE.
SO THE UH, CONCRETE THAT THIS RED TRUCK IS SITTING ON THAT CONCRETE WAS POURED BACK IN 1970.
AND SO IF THERE ARE ALTERATIONS THAT ARE GONNA BE REQUIRED FROM OUR TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, THAT WILL BE HANDLED AS A PRODUCT OF THE BUILDING PERMIT.
JUST, JUST THE HOMEOWNER PAY FOR THAT TO CHANGE, TO CHANGE THIS.
IF, IF THEY DECIDED YES, IF THEY DECIDED THEY HAD TO EXTEND YES THAT, THAT EXIT DRIVE SO THE HOMEOWNER WOULD'VE TO PAY FOR THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, FINALLY, ITEM NUMBER 10, ZBA 2 6 0 6 0 0 3 9.
THIS IS A VARIANCE TO THE INTERSECTION DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR A MASON REESE SCREENING WALL LOCATED AT 1720 SOUTH CARRIER PARKWAY.
THIS IS GONNA BE A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN NORMAL.
THERE'S GONNA BE SOME EDUCATIONAL SLIDES IN HERE FOR YOU.
SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, UM, SHOWN HERE, HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW AND RED AND THE LOTS THAT ARE INTERIOR TO THE SUBDIVISION ARE ZONED MULTIFAMILY ONE DISTRICT.
UM, THE PROJECT IS THE REQUIRED MASON RESCREENING WALL AND THE REQUEST IS TO VARY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A SCREENING WALL PERMITTED UNDER ARTICLE 23 OF THE UDC.
WE'RE GONNA GET INTO THAT SOME MORE.
A LITTLE BACKGROUND AND SITE HISTORY.
SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ADJACENT LOTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION ARE BEING DEVELOPED WITH TOWN HOMES.
UM, CURRENTLY THERE ARE 20 TOWN HOMES THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
YOU CAN SORT OF SEE THE, UM, SEE THEM HERE LOCATED ON THE AERIAL.
THE FINAL PLAT WAS RECORDED IN 2022.
CONSTRUCTION COMMENCED IN 2019 AND THE REQUIRED SUBDIVISION SCREENING WALL HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN TWO PHASES.
THE FIRST PORTION WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2023 AND THE REMAINING PORTION, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST, WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2026.
SO INFORMATION ABOUT REQUIREMENTS FOR SCREENING WALLS REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENTS.
UM, THEY, THEY DO REQUIRE VISUAL SCREENING BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND ADJACENT ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREETS.
REQUIREMENTS FOR MASONRY SUB SCREENING, SUBDIVISION SCREENING WALLS ARE LOCATED IN BOTH ARTICLE EIGHT OF THE UDC, THE LANDSCAPE AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS APPENDIX W OF THE UDC.
AND THAT IS, UH, A, A DOCUMENT THAT HELPS WITH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS WITH REQUIRED SCREENING FENCES REQUIRE A COMMON LOT.
WE CALL THAT AN X LOT FOR THE PLACEMENT OF SCREENING FENCES X LOTS ARE DEDICATED AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLATTING.
SO ON YOUR RIGHT YOU CAN SEE A PICTURE OF THE FINAL PLAT PLATTING PROCESS.
UM, IT ESTABLISHES SUBDIVISION LOT BOUNDARY, PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY, LOCATION OF REQUIRED EASEMENTS INCLUDING UTILITY DRAINAGE, ACCESS AND VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENTS.
THE PLATTING PROCESS ENSURES THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT PROVIDES AS REQUIRED BY CITY REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE AT THE TIME INFRASTRUCTURE ACCESS AND PUBLIC SAFETY MEASURES, UTILITY DRAINAGE AND VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENTS.
OKAY, SO I'M GONNA READ THE WORDS AND I'M GONNA DESCRIBE VIA THIS ILLUSTRATION HERE.
SO UTILITY EASEMENTS PROVIDE A LOCATION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS WATER WASTEWATER AND FRANCHISE UTILITIES.
LIGHT GAS AND ELECTRIC DRAINAGE EASEMENTS TYPICALLY INVOLVE INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, INSPECTION AND REPAIR OF STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND OR PROVIDE AREAS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SURFACE WATER, STORM WATER OR RUNOFF AND VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENTS PRESERVE ADEQUATE SITE DISTANCE AT INTERSECTIONS, DRIVEWAYS AND OTHER ACCESS POINTS.
UM, THEY ARE INTENDED TO PROTECT MOTORISTS, PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS BY MAINTAINING CLEAR VISIBILITY OF APPROACHING TRAFFIC AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PICTURE, THIS AGAIN IS A COPY OF THE FINAL PLAT.
THE X LOTS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER ARE SHOWN IN GREEN.
YOU OFTENTIMES SEE THINGS LIKE AMENITIES PROVIDED IN THESE AREAS.
THINGS THAT THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, UM, ULTIMATELY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING
[00:35:01]
IN THIS CASE.THE X LOT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS SHOWN HERE IN ORANGE.
YOU CAN SEE IT GOES ALL THE WAY AROUND AND STOPS RIGHT THERE.
THE BIG EASEMENT IN ORANGE IS SHOWING YOU THE LOCATION OF THE UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
OKAY, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENT IS SHOWN HERE IN RED.
IT'S THIS LITTLE RED TRIANGLE RIGHT HERE.
UM, WE DO NOT TYPICALLY ALLOW STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPING THAT EXCEED TWO FEET IN HEIGHT TO BE LOCATED WITHIN A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENT.
AND HERE IT IS, ARTICLE 23 OF THE UDC, WHICH IS THE MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROHIBITS WALLS, FENCES OR LANDSCAPE OVER TWO FEET AND IN HEIGHT IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENT.
SO THIS IS A SECTION DIRECTLY OUT OF THE CODE WITH THE LANGUAGE HIGHLIGHTED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE.
I'M SORRY, IS THAT WHERE TRAFFIC IS EXITING THE COMPLEX? IT IS AN ACCESS POINT.
SO REMEMBER THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE WALL, THE SECOND PHASE, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE REQUEST TONIGHT.
SO THE PERMIT FOR THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE WALL, IT WAS SUBMITTED IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR.
IT WAS ISSUED IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR.
UM, STAFF DOES REVIEW THESE PERMITS.
IT INCLUDES SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS.
AND YOU CAN SEE THE ILLUSTRATION SHOWN HERE ON THE LEFT IS WHAT WAS SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT AND WAS APPROVED BY STAFF.
THE RED LINE SHOWN HERE THAT WAS DRAWN BY THE APPLICANT DOES SHOW THAT THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE MASONRY RESCREENING WALL IS DEFINITIVELY OUT, UH, OUTSIDE OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, WHICH IS, IT'S AGAIN, IT'S TINY, BUT IT'S RIGHT HERE IN BLUE.
A RE-REVIEW OF THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS INITIATED BY BUILDING INSPECTION OF JUNE OF THIS YEAR.
AND AS PART OF THAT RE-REVIEW, THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT A AS-BUILT SURVEY, WHICH YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE RIGHT, SHOWING THAT THE WALL WAS IN FACT CONSTRUCTED OVER THE 15 FOOT UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND THE PLATTED VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENT.
OKAY, TO GET YOU A LITTLE CLOSER, 'CAUSE I REALIZE THAT IT'S TALL, UH, TINY ON Y'ALL SCREEN.
SO HERE IS JUST A CLIP OF THE APPLICANT'S AS-BUILT SURVEY.
YOU CAN SEE THE DASH LINE CUTTING ACROSS HERE.
THAT'S THE INTERNAL SIDE OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENT.
UM, YOU CAN SEE THE WALL OUTLINED HERE IN RED.
IT BEGINS ENCROACHING RIGHT HERE.
SO A TOTAL LENGTH OF ENCROACHMENT OF ALMOST 50 FEET.
AND FROM THE INTERIOR SIDE OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, THE WALL DOES, UM, ENCROACH TOWARDS THE EAST ALMOST FIVE FEET.
UM, ON THE RIGHT SIDE YOU CAN SEE THIS PICTURE.
THIS WAS, UH, PROVIDED FROM THE APPLICANT OF THE SECTION OF WALL THAT IS IN QUESTION.
SO THE APPLICANT, UH, DID SUBMIT SOME EVIDENCE, UM, THAT THEY FELT WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THEIR REQUEST TO LEAVE THE WALL IN PLACE.
UM, ALL OF OUR DEPARTMENTS REVIEWED IT, ENGINEERING PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY SERVICES.
AND, UM, OUR TRANSPORTATION PLANNER DID DETERMINE THAT THE SUBMITTED VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ANALYSIS, WHICH IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET, DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EXISTING WALL MAINTAINS ADEQUATE SITE DISTANCE OR OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIATE THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE SUBMITTED ANALYSIS WAS NOT PREPARED USING THE APPLICABLE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS METHODOLOGY.
STAFF EVALUATED, UH, THE REQUEST BASED ON THE VARIANCE STANDARDS.
YOU ALL ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THOSE.
THEY SHOW UP IN EVERY SINGLE STAFF REPORT.
UM, AND THEY ARE ALSO CONTAINED IN THE UDC.
THE EVALUATION INCLUDED A REVIEW OF THE SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PLANS, THE AS-BUILT SURVEY APPLICABLE UDC REQUIREMENTS, THE SUBMITTED VISIBILITY ANALYSIS AND THE PURPOSES OF THE PLATTED VISIBILITY.
TRIANGLE EASEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON SEVERAL FACTORS.
ONE, THE SUBMITTED INFORMATION DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD AVOID ADVERSE IMPACTS TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.
TWO, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THREE, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
[00:40:01]
PURPOSE OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENT, WHICH AS YOU MAY RECALL, IS TO PRESERVE ADEQUATE SITE DISTANCE FOR PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS.NUMBER FOUR, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NOT DUE TO A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE AREA SHAPE OR SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY.
NUMBER FIVE, THE HARDSHIP RESULTED FOR THE, FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL IN A LOCATION DIFFERENT FROM THAT SHOWN ON THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT PLANS AND THEREFORE IS SELF-CREATED.
NUMBER SIX, THE MASONRY SCREENING WALL WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED AGAIN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ISSUED BUILDING PERMIT.
AND FINALLY, NUMBER SEVEN, THE MASONRY SCREENING WALL ENCROACHES ONTO THE PLATTED VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENT, REDUCING THE AREA INTENDED TO PRESERVE ADEQUATE SITE DISTANCE.
WE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
AND OUR RECOMMENDATION AGAIN, BASED ON THE APPLICABLE VARIANCE STANDARDS, THE LOCATION OF THE WALL RELATIVE TO THE PLATTED VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, THE ABSENCE OF DEMONSTRATED HARDSHIP UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY AND THE SUBMITTED EVIDENCE STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL OF ZBA 2 6 0 6 0 0 3 9.
WE APPRECIATE YOU TAKING US THROUGH THAT, UH, AND GIVING US ALL THAT BACKGROUND.
UM, DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, SURPRISE? I DO.
NOW I NOTICE HERE ON, AND I'M LOOKING AT THE RECOMMENDATION IN WHICH IS THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING, WE DENY IT.
IF WE DENY IT, WHAT HAPPENS? OKAY.
THERE IS A REMEDY AND IF THIS IS DENIED, THEN UM, OUR STAFF WILL COLLECTIVELY REQUEST THAT THE PORTION THAT ENCROACHES INTO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE BE DEMOLISHED AND REBUILT AT AN ANGLE.
SO IT WILL STILL BE, UM, ADJACENT TO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
UM, BUT IT WILL NEED TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY'RE HERE.
DOES THAT NOT PUT THEM AT A MASSIVE LIABILITY, UM, FOR ANYTHING THAT MIGHT OCCUR AT THAT LOCATION? THE APPLICANT IS HERE, MR. WHITE, AND HE HAS HIS PRESENTATION AND SOME ADDITIONAL FINDINGS THAT I THINK HE WILL BE INTERESTED IN PRESENTING TO YOU DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THAT CONCLUDES OUR STAFF BRIEFING.
WE WILL ADJOURN AND MOVE TO THE REGULAR MEETING I
MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION? OH, DO I NEED TO GO BACK TO THE PRESENTATION? NO.
I WANT TO, UM, SHE, UM, ASK FOR, UM, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
I WANT MAKE A CHANGE AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I DO THAT RIGHT.
SO CAN YOU TELL ME AGAIN HOW TO WALK THROUGH THAT SO I PROPERLY DO IT OR MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION OR NAMELY MY NAME? OH, INCORRECTLY SPELLED.
OH, AND THEN I HAVE ANOTHER SAYING I WANTED TO ADD ON THAT SEVENTH STREET.
UM, UH, THOSE MINUTES DIDN'T REFLECT THAT WE DISCUSSED USES IN THAT AND I WANTED TO ADD THAT TO IT.
SO I WANT TO, I WANT THAT TO BE REFLECTIVE IN THOSE MINUTES IN CASE WE EVER HAVE TO GO BACK TO THAT.
I THINK THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
AND IN FACT, I'M GONNA DEFER TO MY STAFF ATTORNEY, UH, UH, HILLARY IN THIS CASE.
YEAH, YOU WOULD JUST MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND AND WHICH PORTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THOSE MINUTES TO.
UM, BUT I'M SURE THEY'LL HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
[Call to Order]
WE ARE MOVING INTO THE REGULAR MEETING.WELCOME TO THE CITY OF GREEN PRAIRIE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 17TH, 2026.
I'M KIMBERLY AKIM DOYE CHAIRWOMAN OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
THIS MEETING IS HEREBY CALL TO ORDER AT 6:15 PM THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS USUALLY MEETS ON THE THIRD MONDAY OF EACH MONTH.
ALL MEETINGS ARE VIDEO RECORDED.
NO OFFICIAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN UNLESS PROPER APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER VARIANCES, EXCEPTIONS AND APPEALS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND FOLLOWS A PRINTED AGENDA THAT IS AVAILABLE ONLINE
[00:45:01]
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION TWO 11.009 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.THE CONCURRING VOTE OF SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE BOARD IS NECESSARY TO DECIDE IN FAVOR OF ANY APPLICANT ON ANY MATTER ON WHICH THE BOARD HAS JURISDICTION.
THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE BOARD ON ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA UNDER PUBLIC HEARING.
I WILL NOW CONDUCT A ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS TO CONFIRM THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM.
AFTER I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE SAY, HERE KIMBERLY AKIM.
HERE, LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT ALL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT EXCEPT CJ RAMIREZ AND JONATHAN HEAD.
I WILL NOW HAVE, UH, AN INVOCATION.
WOULD ANYBODY FROM THE BOARD LIKE TO DO THE INVOCATION TONIGHT? I WILL.
HEAVENLY FATHER, WE COME BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING SAYING THANK YOU FOR THIS DAY.
WE THANK YOU FOR BRINGING FORTH THESE MEMBERS TO CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF THE CITY.
WE ASK THAT YOU BLESS EACH AND EVERY MEMBER AND THAT YOU BESTOW UPON US YOUR GRACE AND YOUR MERCY.
SO MEETING GUIDELINES IN AN EFFORT TO MINIMIZE DISRUPTIONS, THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES WILL APPLY.
THE STAFF WILL PRESENT FIRST ON ANY AGENDA ITEM.
APPLICANTS WILL HAVE 30 MIN UH, 30 MINUTES TO PRESENT.
ONCE THE APPLICANT HAS SPOKEN, EACH MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO FILLS OUT A SPEAKER CARD WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK WITH ADDITIONAL TIME ALLOWED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN.
SPEAKERS SHOULD GIVE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD ALONG WITH WHOM YOU REPRESENT.
STAFF WILL BE AVAILABLE TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION OF EACH ITEM.
AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON A TOPIC NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA SHOULD SPEAK UNDER THE HEADING OF CITIZEN COMMENTS.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
ITEM FOR TONIGHT IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES, UM, ON JULY 20TH, 2026.IS THERE ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THOSE MINUTES? I DO.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, UM, AN AMENDMENT TO THOSE.
I'D LIKE TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES WITH AN AMENDMENT, UM, REFLECTING ZBA 26 DASH OH 5 0 0 3 3 TO REFLECT THAT STAFF HAS DISCUSSED, USES, UM, NON-COMMERCIAL USES WITH THAT APPLICANT OF, OF, OF THE RESIDENTS AT SEVEN SEVENTH STREET ON THAT CASE.
AND ALSO IF, UM, UH, IT'S, IT'S VERY, IT'S JUST YOU.
'CAUSE Y'ALL SAY THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IT'S ACCURATE.
I DON'T HAVE AN E ON THE END OF MY NAME.
I'LL NOW ACCEPT A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 20TH, 2026 MEETING, UH, WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT MS. JOHNSON LISTED.
WOULD ANYBODY FROM THE BOARD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? THIS IS CHRIS.
AND, UH, I WAS WONDERING IF I COULD ASK A QUESTION TO CLARIFY.
YOU SAID THIS FOR THE NON-COMMERCIAL USE, I THOUGHT THE PROBLEM WAS THE COMMERCIAL USE.
THAT THEY CANNOT USE THAT HOME FOR A COMMERCIAL USE IN STORAGE.
THAT STAFF IS, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY? YES, SIR.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO SECOND THE, UH, MOTION THAT DEBBIE PRESENTED WITH THE AMENDMENT STATED.
UH, ANY DISCUSSION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IF THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION.
ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND.
MOTION PASSES BY VOTE OF 9 2 0.
[2. ZBA-26-05-0033 (Council District 1) – Special Exception for a side yard carport and variances to the maximum area of all accessory structures, the maximum area of a carport, permitted under the Unified Development Code, located at 1433 NW 7th St., legally described as Lot 12, Block 4, Internation Estates Addition No. 2, City of Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas, zoned Single Family-One (SF-1) District]
THAT BRINGS US TO OUR PUBLIC HEARING.FOR THE CASES LISTED, UH, IN THE AGENDA, WE WILL HAVE STAFF PRESENT AND, UM, LINE ITEM NUMBER TWO, THANK YOU CHAIR AND BOARD.
TONIGHT I'LL BE PRESENTING ITEM NUMBER TWO ON YOUR AGENDA.
ZBA 26 0 5 0 0 3 3 SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR ASSIGNED YARD, CARDBOARD AND VARIANCES FOR PROPERTY OF 1433 NORTHWEST SEVENTH STREET CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE.
[00:50:01]
IS FOR A SIDE YARD CARDBOARDS AND TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM AREA ALLOWED FOR ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND ANOTHER VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE MAX AREA ALLOWED FOR A CARDBOARD.THE PROPOSED CARDBOARD WILL MEASURE 1034 SQUARE FEET MADE OF METAL.
UM, THE DIMENSIONS WOULD BE 47 FEET BY 22 FEET AND BY 13 FEET TALL.
UM, THERE'S NOT CURRENTLY A PERMIT.
AND ON SCREEN YOU'LL SEE AN ELEVATION PLAN OF THAT PROPOSED CARPORT.
AND TO GO INTO DETAIL ABOUT THOSE REQUESTS, THE FIRST VARIANCE IS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM AREA ALLOWED FOR ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
THE MAXIMUM AREA ALLOWED FOR ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IS 50% OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, OR IN THIS CASE 901 AND A HALF SQUARE FEET.
THEY'RE REQUESTING 77.32% OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR 1,394 SQUARE FEET.
THE SECOND VARIANCE THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM AREA LOT FOR A CARPORT.
THE MAXIMUM AREA ALLOWED FOR A CARPORT IS 500 SQUARE FEET AND THEY'RE REQUESTING 1034 SQUARE FEET.
SO WITH THIS ITEM, 31 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT, ZERO, TURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURN OPPOSED.
AND THERE'S NOT AN HOA PAID OR TIFF IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND STAFF CANNOT SUPPORT ZBA DASH 26 DASH FIVE DASH ZERO THREE AS A REQUESTED.
AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
THIS MAY BE PROCEDURAL, BUT, UM, ASKING ABOUT THE NUMBERING ON THIS, THIS IS A ZERO FIVE, WHERE THE REST OF 'EM ARE ZERO SEVENS.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE CASE ITEM NUMBER? CASE NUMBER, YEAH.
IT'S BECAUSE THIS WAS FROM A PREVIOUS CYCLE AND SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT JUST NUMBERED FROM THAT ORIGINAL S SCHEDULING.
SO, UM, YEAH, IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST FROM THE PREVIOUS CYCLE.
SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO REAPPLY, THEY JUST HAD TO ADJUST THE APPLICATION.
AND THAT'S WHY IT SAYS, KEEPS THE SAME NUMBER.
I DO NOT HAVE A SPEAKER CARD FOR THIS ITEM.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? OKAY.
I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR MOTIONS.
UH, THIS CASE IS COMING FROM DISTRICT ONE.
I MAKE THE, A MOTION THAT WE CLOSE AND APPROVE KCBA 2 6 0 5 0 0 3 3 AS REQUESTED.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. STACEY WHITE AND A SECOND FROM MR. LANGSTON.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD ON THE MOTION QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION? SURE.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU'RE APPROVING THAT WE PASS IT? WE'RE ABOUT TO VOTE.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? OKAY, I'LL NOW TAKE A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND.
THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 9 2 0.
[3. ZBA-26-07-0042 (Council District 4) – Special Exception for garage conversion into a living space permitted under the Unified Development Code, located at 2606 Danberry Ln., legally described as Lot 33, Block H, Oak Hollow Addition, City of Grand Prairie, Tarrant County, Texas, zoned Planned Development-50]
YOU.THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND BOARD.
ITEM NUMBER THREE IS ZBA DASH 26 DASH ZERO SEVEN DASH 0 0 4 2.
A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR A GARAGE CONVERSION LOCATED AT 26 0 6 DANBURY LANE, CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER FOUR.
AND THEY'RE REQUESTING TO CONVERT A GARAGE INTO A LIVING SPACE.
THE REQUIREMENT IS TWO GARAGE SPA PARKING SPACES AND THEY'RE REQUESTING TO PROVIDE ONLY ONE.
THE PRINCIPAL HOME IS ABOUT 1800 SQUARE FEET AND THEY'RE INTENDING TO RESTORE THEIR HOME AFTER A FIRE.
AND THEN THE DAMAGE DONE TO THAT HOME FROM THE FIRE.
UM, THE DRIVEWAY FOR, UH, THIS HOME IS LOCATED OFF OF DANBURY LANE AND THEY DO HAVE AN ACTIVE BUILDING PERMITS.
SO THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE FRONT OF THE HOME BEFORE IT WAS CONVERTED.
ONE BEFORE THE CONVERSION, AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE TWO CAR GARAGE, UM, LABELED THERE.
AND THEN AFTER, UM, WHERE THEY HAVE CONVERTED ONE OF THOSE PARKING, UH, SPACES INTO A HOME OFFICE.
THIS IS WHAT IT CURRENTLY LOOKS LIKE TODAY.
[00:55:04]
AND THERE FOR THE BOARD'S, UH, KNOWLEDGE, THERE IS A LEGALLY PERMITTED, UM, GARAGE CONVERSION, UH, RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD.IT'S NOT WITHIN 300 FEET, BUT IT IS LOCATED AT 26 4 41 DANBURY LANE.
AND THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY.
RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURN OPPOSED.
AND THERE'S NOT AN HOA PAID OR TIFF AND STAFF DOES NOT OBJECTED TO ZBA DASH 26 DASH 0 7 0 0 4 2 HAS REQUESTED.
AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE.
I THOUGHT YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE ABOUT TO SAY SOMETHING.
MR. WELL,
AND IF I MISPRONOUNCED YOUR NAME, I DO APOLOGIZE IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? YES, MA'AM.
HANK ONG, UH, ADDRESS YOU SAID? YES.
UH, 2325 TIAGO DRIVE, GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS.
MR.
UH, THE WIFE WORKS FROM HOME NOW, I THINK SHE SAID FOR LIKE A YEAR AND A HALF.
SHE WANTED TO, UH, CONVERT THE SPACE INTO OFFICE SPACE SINCE SHE'S A HUNDRED PERCENT REMOTE.
AND WITH THE KIDS, I GUESS SHARING ROOMS, SHE WANTED TO, UH, KIND OF FREE UP A LITTLE BIT OF SPACE SO THEY COULD HAVE, HAVE THEIR OWN ROOM.
SO SHE WAS USING ONE OF THE BEDROOMS AS HER OFFICE.
SO, UH, AFTER THE FIRE I MET THE CLIENT, I GUESS DURING, IN THE PROCESS OF THE CONSTRUCTION.
SO I WASN'T QUITE SURE THE WHOLE STORY ABOUT HOW THIS KIND OF, UH, HOW, HOW IT STARTED OR HOW IT BECAME THIS WAY.
BUT WHEN I CAME TO THE PROJECT, IT WAS ALREADY KIND OF, IT WAS ALREADY, UH, DEMOED.
EVERYTHING WAS DEMOED, IT WAS ALL SHELL, IT WAS JUST FRAME AND THE, THE CONVERSIONAL WAS ALREADY FRAMED OUT.
AND THEN THEY HAD ME APPLY FOR THE PERMIT AND, AND REQUEST FOR THE, THE CHANGE.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BO? I DO.
SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE THE, UH, CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THAT'S WORKING ON IT AT THIS POINT? NO, MA'AM.
I'M, I, I JUST PROVIDED THE PLANS.
I'M NOT, WELL I'M THE PROJECT MANAGER, BUT HOWEVER, THE, THE TRADES, ALL THE SUBCONTRACTORS WAS, WAS HIRED THROUGH THE THE HOMEOWNER.
'CAUSE LIKE I SAID, IT WAS ALREADY, IT WAS IN PROCESS WHEN I CAME ON BOARD.
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT.
IF THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR A MOTION.
UH, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN, I ASK THAT THE, UH, BOARD CLOSE DISCUSSION ON ZBA 2 6 0 7 0 4 2 AND APPROVE AS REQUESTED.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. CHRISTOPHER D. WOLF.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD ON THE MOTION? OKAY, I'LL NOW TAKE A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
MOTION PASSES BY VOTE OF NINE ZERO.
[4. ZBA-26-07-0043 (Council District 3) – Special Exception for a front yard carport and variances to the maximum area of a carport, and the maximum width allowed for a carport permitted under the Unified Development Code, located at 1841 Crooks Ct., legally described as Lot 11, Block 3, Phillips Park Addition, City of Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas, zoned Single Family-Three (SF-3) District]
CHAIR.AND BOARD, JUST TO CLARIFY AT ITEM NUMBER FOUR, I'M SORRY.
SO THIS IS ITEM NUMBER FOUR, YOUR AGENDA NINE CPA DASH 26 DASH SEVEN DASH 0 4 3.
A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR REFERRING YARD TO CARPORT AND ADDITIONAL APPEARANCES LOCATED AT 1841 CROOKS COURTS CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE.
UM, THEY ARE WANTING TO PROPOSE A DETACHED FRONT YARD CARPORTS.
UM, WITH THAT COMES THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND THEN TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM AREA ALLOWED FOR A CARPORT AND INCREASE THE MAXIMUM WIDTH ALLOWED FOR A CARPORT AS WELL.
SO THE PROJECT IS A PROPOSED 621 SQUARE FOOT METAL FRONT YARD CARPORT, 27 FEET BY 23 FEET BY 12 FEET TALL.
UM, THERE'S NOT CURRENTLY AN ACTIVE BUILDING PERMIT YET.
AND THE, THE CARPORT WILL BE PLACED ON AN EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY.
THIS IS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANTS.
[01:00:01]
SHOW, UM, WHAT THE END RESULT WILL LOOK LIKE OR BE SIMILAR TO ONCE IT'S CONSTRUCTED.AND THEY WANT TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM AREA ALLOWED FOR THAT CARD PORTS.
THE MAX THAT WE ALLOW IS 500 SQUARE FEET.
OF COURSE, THEY WANNA PROVIDE 621 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS A INCREASE.
AND THEY ALSO WOULD INCREASE THE MAXIMUM WIDTH.
SO THE MAX THAT WE ALLOW IS 27 FOOT WIDE.
AND THEY'RE PROPO, OH, EXCUSE ME, 26 FOOT WIDE.
AND THEY'RE PROPOSING THAT 27 FOOT WIDE, UH, MEASUREMENT, SO IS A SIMILARLY, UM, APPROVED CARPORTS AT 1834 CROOKS COURT WITH, UH, SIMILAR VARIANCES FOR THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FEET AND THEN THE MAXIMUM WIDTH.
AND THAT IS CASE NUMBER ZBA DASH 25 DASH THREE DASH 0 0 1 6.
AND THAT'S RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD FROM THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
SO THIS IS THE IMAGE OF THE PROPERTY.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE, AND I'LL GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN, JUST TO CLARIFY FOR THE BOARD, UH, IT'S KIND HARD TO TELL FROM THE SITE PLAN, BUT THE CARDBOARD ITSELF, EXCUSE ME, IS GOING TO BE, UH, IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE AND IT'S GONNA BE FLUSH WITH THAT GARAGE.
UM, AND IF YOU GO, IF YOU LOOK AT THE IMAGE HERE, IT'LL BE PRETTY MUCH COVERING THE, UH, FRONT AREA OF THAT, UH, DRIVEWAY.
SO THEY WILL STILL HAVE OPEN DRIVEWAY AVAILABLE AS WELL.
SO IN REGARDS TO THIS ITEM 55 NOTICES WERE SENT HOW ZERO RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURN DE OPPOSED.
AND THERE'S NOT AN HOA PAID OR TIP IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO ZBA DASH 26 DASH ZERO SEVEN DASH 0 0 4 3 AS REQUESTED.
AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE.
I WAS THIS, I WAS TRYING TO GET THE NUMBER ON THIS THING.
IT'S IT'S ONE FOOT WIDER THAN WE'RE ALLOWED
AND BUT WHEN I DO THE MATH ON THIS THING, IT, EVEN IF YOU SHRUNK IT THAT ONE FOOT, IT WOULD STILL BE OUTSIDE OF THE 500, IT'D STILL BE 598 SQUARE FEET.
SO IT'S ACTUALLY LONGER THAN WE WOULD NORMALLY HAVE.
UM, SO WE DO HAVE A MAXIMUM WIDTH.
WE DON'T HAVE A MAXIMUM LENGTH.
SO IF THEY WERE TO REDUCE THE WIDTH TO 26 FEET, THEY STILL WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE MAX AREA ALLOWED, HOWEVER, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO REQUEST THE ADDITIONAL VARIANCE.
SO THAT MAKES TWO VARIANCES INSTEAD OF ONE.
AND THE APPLICANT KIND OF CAN CLARIFY WHY THEY WISH TO STAY AT THESE MEASUREMENTS, UM, IF THE BOARD WISHES TO ASK THEM.
I'M SORRY, THIS, THIS IS A RENDERING, NOT A STRUCTURE THAT'S BUILT, CORRECT? THIS IS, UH, THESE ARE IMAGES OF A SIMILAR PRODUCT, CORRECT.
SO IT HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED YET.
I DO HAVE HER SPEAKER CARD, HOWEVER THEY ONLY WISH TO SPEAK IF NEEDED.
SO DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
MR. RAMOS, IF YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
THANKS FOR COMING UP MR. RAMOS.
UM, OKAY, SO YOU'VE GOT, YOU HAD 500 SQUARE FEET AND YOU'VE GOT THIS LONGER AND WIDER MAKING IT, UH, 621 SQUARE FEET.
UH, IS THERE A NECESSITY TO HAVE IT THAT BIG? IT, IT WILL COVER MY THREE CARS.
IT WILL COVER THREE CARS, UH, AT THE 500 SQUARE FEET.
IT WOULD BARELY, IT WOULD COVER TWO.
AND I GUESS IN THE PROCESS IT WOULD LOOK NICER IF I, THIS IS MY FRONT NEIGHBOR'S ON THE PHOTO TWO HOUSES DOWN.
AND AS YOU SEE IN THE RIGHT PHOTO, IT'S GONNA BE RIGHT AT THE EDGE OF THE ROOF LINE AND IT WOULD BE THE SAME IN THE CORNER ON THE CENTER PICTURE AT THE CORNER OF THE GARAGE.
SO IT'S KIND OF DO A ALMOST A SQUARE TO EDGE TO EDGE INSTEAD OF BEING OFF SIDED.
[01:05:01]
I MEAN, IT'S JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT LOOK NICER.AND ALL, AND ALL OF THE UH, CARS WOULD BE ON CONCRETE, RIGHT? YES.
THE CONCRETE'S ALREADY LAID OUT.
IT, IT'S JUST GONNA BE COVERED.
IF HE'S OVER 26 FEET, DOES HE HAVE TO HAVE ENGINEERED DRAWINGS? UM, DOES HE KNOW THAT? OR IF THAT'S TRUE, I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S THE 26 FEET THAT MATTERS.
I THINK IT'S HIS TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT, UH, YEAH, I THINK DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS WE CAN VERIFY THAT.
'CAUSE THAT'S A, A HUGE EXPENSE TO SOMEBODY IF THEY DON'T KNOW THAT'S COMING.
MR. RAMOS HAS TALKED TO THE BILLING DEPARTMENT.
WHICH IS KIND OF HOW HE GOT THE INFORMATION ABOUT COMING TO YOU GUYS FIRST.
I JUST DIDN'T WANT YOU TO BE SURPRISED WITH OH, OH, I GOT THE TOLDS.
I DON'T HAVE TO, I DON'T KNOW.
I JUST GOTTA DO IT THE RIGHT WAY.
WELL, WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN TONIGHT.
UH, OPEN THE FLOOR FOR MOTION.
THAT'S WHY I CALL YOU PRESIDENT.
I WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE AND CLOSE DISCUSSION ON ZBA ITEM 2 6 0 7 0 0 4 3.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM MS. SHE HACKETT AND A SECOND FROM DR.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD ON THE MOTION? OKAY.
I'LL NOW TAKE A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
THE MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF NINE ZERO.
[5. ZBA-26-07-0044 (Council District 3) – Special Exception for a front yard carport permitted under the Unified Development Code, located at 1410 Milford Ave., legally described as Lot 26, Block 1, Edgemere Addition, City of Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas, zoned Single Family Four (SF-4) District]
FIVE.THIS IS ITEM NUMBER FIVE ON YOUR AGENDA.
ZBA DASH 26 DASH SEVEN DASH 0 0 4 4.
A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR FRONT YARD CARPORT AT 1410 MILLFORD AVENUE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER THREE.
THIS IS A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD REQUEST.
THEY'RE WANTING TO CONSTRUCT A 400 SQUARE SQUARE FOOT METAL CARPORT IN THEIR FRONT DRIVEWAY, MEASURING 20 BY 20 AND NINE FEET TALL.
UH, JUST TO CLARIFY, 20 FEET BY 20 FEET AND THEY DO HAVE AN ACTIVE PERMIT AT THE MOMENT, AND IT WILL BE PLACED OVER A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY.
THE ONLY REASON WHY THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED IS BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ONE, THERE'S NOT A LEGALLY PERMITTED CARPORT LOCATED WITHIN 800 FEET OF THE, HOWEVER, THAT BEING SAID, THERE IS, UH, SEVERAL CARPORTS WITHIN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, SOME OF SIMILAR SIZE, AND THERE'S ONE RIGHT NEXT DOOR.
UM, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I COULDN'T VERIFY ANY RECORDS FOR THOSE CARPORTS, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY NOT, MAY NOT BE PERMITTED.
UM, I JUST COULDN'T FIND THE RECORDS.
SO THIS IS AN IMAGE OF WHAT IT WILL, UH, WHERE THE CAR WILL BE LOCATED.
AND THEN IN REGARDS TO THE SIGN, 26 NOTICES OF WORSE SINCE HOW ZERO RETURN IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURN OPPOSED, AND THERE'S NOT AN HOA PAID OR TO IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THEN STATUS, I OBJECT TO ZBA DASH 26 DASH ZERO SEVEN DASH 0 0 4 4 AS REQUESTED, AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME.
AND I DO NOT HAVE A SPEAKER CARD, UM, FOR THIS CASE.
SO I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR MOTION DISTRICT.
UH, MADAM CHAIR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE AND APPROVE CASE CBA 2 6 0 7 0 0 4 4 AS REQUESTED.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. STACEY WHITE AND A SECOND FROM MS. JOHNSTON.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD ON THE MOTION? I'LL NOW TAKE A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND.
MOTION PASSES BY A VOTE OF NINE ZERO.
WE WILL GO TO CASE NUMBER SEVEN.
UH, MADAM CHAIR, BEFORE WE DO THAT, CAN WE TABLE ITEM NUMBER SIX? YES.
TO THE SEPTEMBER 21ST MEETING AS IT REQUESTED BY STAFF, PLEASE.
I I WAS HEAD OF THE GAME, BUT WE WILL SOMETIMES THAT, UM, LET'S JUST WAIT TILL WE GET TO EIGHT TO THAT.
SO WE'RE GONNA TABLE, UH, CASE, UH, ITEM NUMBER SIX ZBA 26 DASH SEVEN DASH
[01:10:01]
0 4 5 UNTIL NEXT MONTH, REQUESTED BY STAFF.[7. ZBA-26-07-0047 (Council District 6) – Variance to the rear yard setback for an accessory structure, located at 1617 Independence Trl., legally described as Lot 10, Block GG, Trailwood Addition No.2, City of Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas, zoned Planned Development-81 District]
NUMBER SEVEN ZBA 2 6 0 7 0 0 4 7 IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1617.INDEPENDENCE TRAIL SHOWN, HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ON THE RIGHT.
THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 81.
THE PROJECT IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A REAR YARD SHED, AND FOR THE RECORD, SHEDS THAT EXCEED 10 FEET IN HEIGHT ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE SETBACK.
AND IN THIS DISTRICT, THAT REAR SETBACK IS 10 FEET, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A FOUR FOOT SETBACK.
AS I MENTIONED, THE PROJECT IS A HUNDRED AND, UH, 60 SQUARE FOOT SHED.
10 FOOT BY 16 FEET BY 10.8 FEET TO THE PEAK.
MS. JOHNSTON, I DID HAVE A MOMENT TO ASK THE APPLICANT.
IT WILL NOT BE ON A FOUNDATION.
SO THIS MEASUREMENT IS FROM THE BASE OF THE SHED TO THE PEAK OF THE SHED.
THERE IS A PERMIT UNDER REVIEW WITH BUILDING INSPECTION, AND THE PROPOSED SHED MEETS THE OTHER DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
HERE IS AN ELEVATION OF THE PROPOSED SHED.
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS, UM, NORMALLY SHEDS THAT ARE 10 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT CAN BE PLACED UP TO THREE FEET, UH, FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK.
SO IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL SHEDS IN THE REAR YARDS, MANY OF THEM AS CLOSE AS THREE FEET TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
UM, THERE ARE, AS I MENTIONED, SHEDS IN THE REAR YARDS VARY IN SIZES.
IT'S VERY COMMON IN THIS AREA.
UM, WE BELIEVE STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE PROPOSED SHED AND REQUESTED SETBACK REDUCTION IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, NOT ANTICIPATED TO CREATE ADVERSE IMPACT TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NOT EXPECTED TO ALTER THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
THERE IS NO HOA TIFF R PI AND STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO CBA 2 6 0 7 0 0 4 7 AS REQUESTED.
MADAM CHAIR, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO.
AARON, WOULD YOU KINDLY GO BACK TO THE RENDERING OF THE PICTURE OF IT? SO IT'S 10.8 FEET TO THE PEAK? YES.
OF COURSE, MADAM CHAIR, THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING.
UH, DO YOU HAVE A CARD? AND THE APPLICANT ONLY WISHES TO SPEAK IF NEEDED.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
THIS IS DISTRICT SIX, WHICH IS MY DISTRICT, BUT DEBBIE, I'LL DEFER TO YOU OR ANY MEMBER AT LARGE, YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
I'D LIKE TO, UH, CLOSE THE DISCUSSION AND, UM, APPROVE ZBA 26 DASH OH SEVEN DASH 0 4 7.
SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION FROM MS. DEBBIE JOHNSTON AND A SECOND FROM MR. STACEY WHITE.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD ON THE MOTION? I'LL NOW TAKE A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
THE MOTION PASSES BY VOTE OF NINE ZERO.
[Items 6 & 8]
CASE, UH, MINE.WE WILL, UM, WE'RE GONNA TABLE THAT ONE UNTIL NEXT MONTH.
CAN WE DO, UH, WE NEED TO DO MOTIONS TO TABLE FOR BOTH OF THOSE? THANK YOU.
THAT WE TABLED FOR SEPTEMBER 21ST.
I'LL SAY MADAM CHAIRWOMAN, I, UH, RECOMMEND THAT WE TABLE, UH, ZBA 2 6 0 7 0 0 4 5 AND ZBA 2 6 0 7 0 0 4 8 TO A FUTURE MEETING.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR, CAN YOU SAY A DATE? CERTAIN? YOU HAVE TO SAY THE DATE.
CAN YOU SAY SEPTEMBER 21ST? YES.
SEPTEMBER 21ST AMEND THE MOTION TO SAY TO FROM FUTURE DATE TO SEPTEMBER 21ST.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. DAY WOLF AND A SECOND FROM MR. STACEY WHITE.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? OKAY.
I'LL NOW TAKE A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
MOTION PASSES BY VOTE OF NINE ZERO.
[9. ZBA-26-07-0049 (Council District 3) – Special Exception for a front yard carport and variance to the front yard setback, and side yard setback permitted under the Unified Development Code, located at 1710 Virginia Dr., legally described as Lot 30, Block 7, Inglewood Park Addition No.1, City of Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas, zoned Single Family-Three (SF-3) District]
ZBA 2 6 0 7 0 0 4 9 IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND VARIANCES REQUEST FOR FRONT YARD CARPORT[01:15:01]
LOCATED AT 1710 FOR VIRGINIA DRIVE.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY THREE DISTRICT, AS I MENTIONED, FRONT YARD CARPORT REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
SO THE PROPOSED CARPORT IS GONNA BE 20 BY 20, WHICH IS 400 SQUARE FEET AND A HEIGHT OF 10 FEET TO THE PEAK.
THERE IS A BUILDING PERMIT IN REVIEW WITH BUILDING INSPECTION, AND THE REQUESTED CARPORT WILL BE PLACED ON AN EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY.
UM, YOU'LL SEE IN A FUTURE PICTURE THAT DRIVEWAY WAS EXPANDED IN THE 1970S.
SO THIS PARTICULAR CARPORT IS WITHIN THE 800 FOOT BUFFER OF OTHER LEGALLY PERMITTED CARPORTS.
THE FIRST VARIANCE THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING IS TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
IN THIS CASE, THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK IS FIVE FEET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO FEET AND A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD, SIDE YARD SETBACK IS THREE FEET, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING ZERO FEET.
THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT SHOWS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE SOME EXISTING POSTS.
THAT'S WHERE THE CARPORT'S GONNA GO.
THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT IS A SAMPLE OF WHAT THE FINISHED PRODUCT WILL LOOK LIKE, OTHER CARPORTS IN THE AREA.
SO YOU CAN SEE THE OTHER LEGALLY PERMITTED CARPORT SHOWN BOUNDED IN BLUE.
IT IS ABOUT 460 FEET PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE AWAY FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE ORANGE STARS INDICATE PROPERTIES THAT DO HAVE FRONT YARD CARPORTS.
UM, MANY OF THESE MOST LIKELY PREDATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
CHARACTERISTICS, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BY AND LARGE CONSTRUCTED IN THE 1950S.
MANY OF THE HOMES WERE CONSTRUCTED WITH SINGLE CAR GARAGES OR NO GARAGE AT ALL.
THESE PROPERTIES DO COMMONLY INCLUDE ADDITIONS, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND CARPORTS.
STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE REQUEST IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO CREATE ADVERSE IMPACTS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR ALTER THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE SENT 59 NOTICES TO, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS.
WE RECEIVED ONE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO RETURNED IN OPPOSITION.
THERE IS NOT A HOA PID OR TIFF AND STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO ZBA 2 6 0 7 0 0 4 9 AS REQUESTED.
MADAM CHAIR, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I DO NOT.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING.
UM, THEY NOTED THAT HE, THEY DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK, HAVE A QUESTION? OKAY.
DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION? I GOT ONE QUESTION.
MR. FRANKS, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
MARK FRANKS 1710 VIRGINIA DRIVE.
UH, MY QUESTION IS, UH, WHY THE ZERO SETBACK THAT IS IT, UH, 'CAUSE OF THE DRIVEWAY IN ORDER TO FIT TWO TRUCKS? THERE'S ALREADY AN EXISTING, EXISTING DRIVEWAY THERE.
SO JUST, UM, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE DRIVEWAY SITTING ON, ON THE PROPERTY LINE PERIOD, I MEAN RIGHT.
THE, THAT, THAT'S SITTING AT THE ZERO LOT LINE IS WHAT HE'S SAYING.
I THINK NOT ZERO LOT LINE, BUT THE ZERO SETBACK.
HI, MR. FRANKS, THANKS FOR COMING.
UM, I CAN SEE HOW WITHOUT THE POLES THERE, IT'D BE EASY TO GET IN FROM THE STREET AND NOT RUN OVER YOUR GRASS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
BUT, UM, JUST WONDERING IF ONCE THAT'S THERE, WOULDN'T YOU HAVE PROBLEMS MANEUVERING THERE OR HAVING TO DRIVE OVER THE CURB AND STUFF LIKE THAT TO GET INTO THAT SPACE? UM, WHICH SHOWS ON THE PICTURE? ON THE RIGHT? RIGHT.
AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, WE'VE BEEN DRIVING IN AND OUT WITH THE POST THERE AND HAVEN'T HAD ANY PROBLEMS. THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT IS IT WOULD BE A ROOF IF YOU FOLLOW, I'M SAYING.
JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I KNOW YOU SAID YOU'VE BEEN DRIVING IN AND OUT WITH NO PROBLEMS, BUT ARE YOU HAVING TO LIKE, GO OVER THE CURB TO COME OUT? OR ARE YOU ABLE TO MANEUVER WHERE YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO GO OVER THE CURB TO COME OUT? WE MIGHT HIT THE GRASS A LITTLE BIT.
UH, IT MANEUVERS IN THERE FAIRLY WELL.
HAS THE CITY DISCUSSED WITH YOU POURING A WIDER DRIVEWAY, UM, TO THE LEFT, UH, OR
[01:20:01]
NO TO THE RIGHT SO THAT YOU'RE NOT DRIVING OVER THE CURB WHERE YOU COULD SEE THE, WHERE THE OH, RIGHT THERE.UHHUH
ARE YOU OPEN? I WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO IT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING OUT.
IS THAT A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE A PULL IN? WE ARE SO FORTUNATE THIS EVENING TO HAVE OUR TRANSPORTATION PLANNER HERE IN ATTENTION.
SO IN THIS CASE, I'M GONNA DEFER TO BRETT HUNTSMAN FROM OUR TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.
BRETT HUNTSMAN TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.
I HANDLE PERMIT REVIEW FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.
UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT IN THIS, AND ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE WITH SITUATIONS LIKE THIS IS OUR CODE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THAT DRIVEWAY APPROACH TO CROSS IN FRONT OF THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
SO IF YOU HAVE A DRIVEWAY APPROACH ON YOUR HOUSE, IT'S GOTTA BE FULLY CONTAINED ON YOUR PROPERTY LINE.
CAN'T CROSS OVER AND, AND INTERFERE WITH THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY IN ANY WAY.
SO IN CASES LIKE THIS, WE WOULD TAKE A LOOK AND SEE IF THERE IS DAMAGE DONE TO THE CURB.
THAT'S MORE OF A CODE COMPLIANCE ISSUE IF THEY ARE CAUSING DAMAGE.
BUT IF YOU WERE TO GO TO TRY TO PERMIT THAT, THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE AT THAT RADII, WHICH IS THE CURVE THERE ON THE END OF THE APPROACH, STAY COMPLETELY IN HIS PROPERTY LINES.
BUT WE CAN HAVE HIM INCREASE THAT.
IS THAT CORRECT? AND, AND, AND CONCRETE THAT, BECAUSE I, I THINK THAT JUST JUMPING CURBS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS PROBABLY NOT A GOOD LOOK.
UM, SO WE TYPICALLY DON'T RESTRICT THE PAVEMENT THAT GOES ON THE PROPERTY.
YOU KNOW, WE SEE THAT AS YOUR PROPERTY.
IF YOU WANNA PUT SOME ADDITIONAL MENT, YOU, YOU CAN DO THAT.
THE APPROACH, HOWEVER, IS CITY RIGHT OF WAY.
WE WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S BUILT OUR STANDARDS.
UM, SO IN THIS CASE, IF YOU WERE TO WIDEN THE APPROACH A LITTLE BIT, UM, I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD HAVE MUCH ROOM BEFORE IT CROSSES OVER IN FRONT OF THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
SO IT MAY HAVE A VERY MINIMAL EFFECT ON PREVENTING THAT.
UM, I MEAN, I DO SHARE THE CONCERN.
UM, IT JUST IS A MATTER, IT WOULD BE TRADING THIS FOR ANOTHER REQUIREMENT IN THE CODE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WANNA DO WITH THAT INFORMATION.
PERSONALLY, I WOULDN'T WANNA SEE, YOU KNOW, IF I WAS LIVING NEXT DOOR, I WOULDN'T WENT TO SEE A COUPLE OF TIRE TRACKS, YOU KNOW, ON THE NEIGHBORING GRASS.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'M JUST, I'M, I'M LIKE YOU GUYS, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO, TO DO WITH THAT INFORMATION.
WELL, I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR A MOTIONS FOR A MOTION.
MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO CLOSE AND APPROVE ZBA DASH 26 7 4 9.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? I HAVE A SECOND.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD ON THE MOTION? OKAY.
CAN WE MAKE, CAN WE MAKE A A, AN AMENDMENT TO, YOU CAN MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.
CAN WE MAKE AN AMENDMENT THAT, THAT, UH, DRIVEWAY BE EXPANDED TO AS LARGE AS LEGALLY POSSIBLE SO THAT WE'RE NOT JUMPING CURBS.
DO WE WANT MOTION? DO WE WANT TO MAKE THE, A MOTION THAT THEY WORK WITH THE YES.
I, I DON'T, I DON'T WISH TO CAUSE YOU ANY HARDSHIPS.
I JUST WISH TO US NOT TO BE JUMPING CURBS IN NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO PERHAPS, UH, AMEND IT TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY WORK WITH THE TRANSPORTATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE AMENDMENT THAT THEY WORK WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT FOR THE, TO THE LEGAL LIMIT OF MAKING THAT, UM, CONCRETED AND DRIVABLE.
I THINK THAT'S GOOD CONDITION IF REQUIRED BY THE CITY.
YEAH, I THINK MY ONLY CONCERN ON THE MOTION WOULD BE IF THE ONLY WAY TO WIDEN IT WOULD BE TO GO AGAINST THE UDC IN SOME OTHER WAY, DO NOT WANT THE C SO THEN IT WOULD REQUIRED ANOTHER VARIANT.
SO WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT IT.
YOU KNOW, I WOULD ONLY OFFER, YOU KNOW, JUST THAT PAVEMENT HAS BEEN THERE QUITE SOME TIME AND I'M NOT SURE IF THERE HAS BEEN ANY DAMAGE TO THAT CURB SO FAR.
UM, SO MAYBE WE COULD TAKE A LOOK AT, HAD THERE BEEN ANY ISSUES FROM A CO COMPLIANCE PERSPECTIVE OR, UM, WHAT WOULD, WHAT WOULD BE THE CODE COMPLIANCE PROBLEM? JUMPING THE CURB IF DAMAGE TO THE CURB OR TO THE GRASS RUING.
UM, WE DO HAVE PROVISIONS IF, IF, UH, HOMEOWNERS RUING, UM, THEIR YARD OR THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT WE TRY TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE.
I, I THINK THERE'S GONNA BE DAMAGE TO THE GRASS REGARDLESS IF THEY KEEP WORKING OVER IT.
SO YEAH, I WOULD GO WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY WORK WITH US ON.
[01:25:01]
A POTENTIAL SOLUTION AND INSTEAD OF A STRICT REQUIREMENT THAT IT BE WIDENED.I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE FOR THAT AMENDMENT TO, UH, THAT THEY WORK WITH STAFF.
I HAVE A AMENDED A MOTION FROM MS. JOHNSTON AND A SECOND FROM MR. DEWOLF.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD ON THE MOTION, ON THE AMENDED MOTION? OKAY.
UM, I THINK, SORRY, I I'M GONNA KEEP US, I'M DEFER TO YOUR ATTORNEY, BUT I BELIEVE Y'ALL HAVE TO VOTE ON THE, UNLESS THE PERSON MAKING THE MOTION AND THE SECOND ACCEPT IT, I BELIEVE Y'ALL WOULD BE REQUIRED TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FIRST BEFORE IT GETS ADDED TO THE MOTION.
JUST VOTE ON THE AMENDED THE AMENDMENT AND THEN VOTE ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED.
SO SHE WOULD NEED A SECOND TO THE AMENDMENT WE ADDED.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD ON THE MOTION, ON THE AMENDED MOTION? AND THIS IS, THIS IS AS REQUESTED, NOT AMENDED, CORRECT? THIS IS JUST FOR THE AMENDMENT.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT.
I'LL TAKE A VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL OPPOSE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
THE AMENDED MOTION PASSED BY VOTE OF 9 2 0.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND MOTION THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE? YEAH.
SO NOW YOU'LL MAKE AN, A MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED.
DID MS. LUCKY ALREADY MAKE THAT OH, AS AMENDED? I'M SORRY.
THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL MY MOTION.
YEAH, SHE CAN JUST MAKE IT AGAIN, JUST, WELL, NO, IT'S, IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE.
AND I BELIEVE SOMEBODY ALREADY SECONDED IT, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO NOW THAT CAN BE RIGHT UP AND THEN Y'ALL JUST VOTED TO AMEND IT.
SO NOW YOU'RE, YOU VOTED TO ADD IT TO HER MOTION.
SO NOW YOU'RE VOTING ON THE AMENDED MOTION.
THE ENTIRE AMENDED MOTION? YES.
SO YOU'RE VOTING ON HER MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE WITH THE ADDED CONDITION.
I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR A MOTION.
OR WE JUST VOTING, WE JUST, CAN WE GO STRAIGHT TO THE VOTE? JUST VOTING? YEAH.
I'LL NOW TAKE A, UM, A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
THE MOTION PASSES BY A VOTE OF EIGHT TO ONE.
THANK YOU ATTORNEYS FOR KEEPING US IN GOOD GRACES.
[10. ZBA-26-06-0039 (Council District 1) – Variance to the Intersection Design Requirements for a masonry screening wall permitted under Article 23 of the Unified Development Code, located at 1720 S. Carrier Pkwy., legally described as Lot 7X, Block A, Carrier Parkway Townhomes Addition, City of Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas, zoned Multi Family-One (MF-1) District]
NUMBER 10.CBA 2 6 0 6 0 0 3 9 IS A VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE INTERSECTION DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR A MASON RE SCREENING WALL LOCATED AT 1720 SOUTH CARRIER PARKWAY.
A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWN IN YELLOW AND RED, AS WELL AS THE LOTS ON THE INTERIOR IN THE SUBDIVISION ARE ZONED MULTIFAMILY.
THIS PROJECT DOES REQUIRE A MASON RE SCREENING WALL, AND AS I MENTIONED, THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO THE INTERSECTION DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR A MASON RE SCREENING WALL PERMITTED UNDER ARTICLE 23 OF THE UDC.
A LITTLE BACKGROUND AND SITE HISTORY.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ADJACENT LOTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION ARE CURRENTLY BEING DEVELOPED AS TOWN HOMES.
UH, THERE ARE 20 DEVELOPED OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION TOWN HOMES EXISTING.
THE REMAINING LOTS ARE, UH, STILL VACANT.
THE FINAL PLAT WAS RECORDED IN 2022.
CONSTRUCTION COMMENCED IN 2019.
THE REQUIRED SUBDIVISION SCREENING WALL HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN TWO PORTIONS.
THE FIRST PORTION WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2023, AND THE REMAINING PORTION, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST, WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2026.
A LITTLE INFORMATION ABOUT SUBDIVISION WALLS.
UM, THEY ARE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE VISUAL SCREENING BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND ADJACENT ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREETS.
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MASONRY SUBDIVISION SCREENING WALLS ARE LOCATED IN ARTICLE EIGHT OF THE UDC, THE LANDSCAPE AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS APPENDIX W,
[01:30:01]
ALSO IN THE UDC, UH, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.A QUICK NOTE, NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS WITH REQUIRED SCREENING FENCES DO ALSO REQUIRE A COMMON LOT, UH, THAT WE REFER TO AS AN XLO FOR THE PLACEMENT OF THE SCREENING FENCES X LOTS ARE DEDICATED AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLATTING.
A LITTLE ABOUT THE PLATTING PROCESS.
SO THE IMAGE HERE IS, UH, A CLIP OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PLATING.
THE PLATTING PROCESS ESTABLISHED ESTABLISHES SUBDIVISION LOT BOUNDARIES, PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY, LOCATION OF REQUIRED EASEMENTS, INCLUDING UTILITY DRAINAGE, ACCESS AND VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENTS.
THE PLATTING PROCESS ALSO ENSURES THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT PROVIDES AS REQUIRED BY CITY REGULATIONS IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT.
INFRASTRUCTURE ACCESS AND PUBLIC SAFETY MEASURES, UTILITY DRAINAGE AND VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENTS.
SO, UH, BEFORE I GET TO THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT, WHICH IS ANOTHER VERSION, IT'S THE SAME FINAL PLAT.
YOU CAN SEE THE, THE LOTS IN GREEN.
UM, AND THEN WE'LL GET TO SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT IMAGE.
SO, UTILITY EASEMENTS, THEY PROVIDE A LOCATION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS WATER WASTEWATER AND FRANCHISE UTILITIES.
LIKE GAS AND ELECTRIC AG EASEMENTS TYPICALLY INVOLVE INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, INSPECTION, AND REPAIR OF STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND OR PROVIDE AREAS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SURFACE WATER, STORM WATER OR RUNOFF VISIBILITY.
TRIANGLE EASEMENTS PRESERVE ADEQUATE SITE DISTANCE AT INTERSECTIONS, DRIVEWAYS AND OTHER ACCESS POINTS.
THEY ARE INTENDED TO PROTECT MOTORISTS, PEDESTRIANS, AND CYCLISTS BY MAINTAINING CLEAR VISIBILITY OF APPROACHING TRAFFIC AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS.
SO BEFORE I LEAVE THIS, THIS PICTURE, UM, AS I MENTIONED, X LOTS SHOWN IN GREEN.
UNDERNEATH THIS ORANGE IS ALSO AN XLO.
OKAY? SO I'M TRYING TO SHOW YOU THE XLO IN QUESTION.
AND THEN IN RED IS THE LOCATION OF THE PLATTED VISIBILITY TRIANGLE RIGHT HERE.
VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENTS.
ARTICLE 23 OF OUR UDC IS THE MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
UM, IT IS WHERE WE PROHIBIT WALLS, FENCES, OR LANDSCAPE OVER TWO FEET TALL WITHIN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
EASEMENT HERE IS A CLIP DIRECTLY FROM THE CODE WITH THE LANGUAGE HIGHLIGHTED.
SO THE HISTORY IS SPECIFIC TO THE PORTION OF THE WALL THAT YOU WERE CONSIDERING THE VARIANCE REQUEST ON THIS EVENING.
SO THE PERMIT FOR THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE WALL WAS SUBMITTED IN FEBRUARY OF 2026.
IT WAS ISSUED IN APRIL OF 2026.
THE IMAGE ON YOUR, ON THE LEFT TITLED APPROVED IS THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT.
THE APPLICANT DID DRAW THIS RED LINE SHOWING THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE SCREENING WALL.
IT WAS REVIEWED BY VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AND BECAUSE IT IS SHOWN OUTSIDE OF THE PLATTED VISIBILITY EASEMENT ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY THE CITY AND THE WALL WAS CONSTRUCTED, A RE-REVIEW WAS INITIATED BY BUILDING INSPECTION IN JUNE OF 2026.
PART OF THE RE-REVIEW, THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT A AS-BUILT SURVEY, WHICH IS SHOWN HERE ON THE RIGHT, UM, SHOWING THAT THE WALL WAS IN FACT CONSTRUCTED OVER THE 15 FOOT UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT, AS WELL AS THE PLATTED VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENT.
THE, UM, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE IS SHOWN HERE IN THE YELLOW CIRCLE.
AND HERE IS A NICE DETAILED PICTURE TO HELP YOU SEE IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
SO IT IS A CLIPPED DIRECTLY FROM THE AS-BUILT SURVEY.
THE BLACK DASH LINE HERE IS THE INTERIOR EXTENT OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
YOU CAN SEE THE WALL, UM, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE REQUEST THIS EVENING, SHOWN HERE IN RED.
IT DOES BEGIN ENCROACHING AT THIS LOCATION.
IT ENCROACHES A LENGTH OF ABOUT 50 FEET.
AND THEN FROM THAT INTERIOR, UM, SIDE OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, IT ENCROACHES SORT OF EASTWARD ABOUT FIVE FEET.
THIS PICTURE ON THE RIGHT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT OUT RIGHT OUT THIS WINDOW, YOU CAN SEE THE PORTION OF THE WALL THAT IS IN QUESTION THIS EVENING.
THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT TO STAFF DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW, RE-REVIEW, UM, EVIDENCE THAT THEY FELT WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE
[01:35:01]
REQUEST FOR THE WALL TO STAY WITHIN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.UM, AFTER REVIEWS FROM MANY DEPARTMENTS, OUR TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DID DETERMINE THAT THE SUBMITTED VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ANALYSIS DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EXISTING WALL MAINTAINS ADEQUATE SITE DISTANCE OR OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIATE THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE SUBMITTED ANALYSIS WAS NOT PREPARED USING THE APPLICABLE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS METHODOLOGY.
STAFF EVALUATED THE REQUEST BASED UPON THE VARIANCE STANDARDS CONTAINED IN THE UDC.
YOU ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
THOSE ARE, UH, AVAILABLE IN EVERY STAFF REPORT THAT WE PROVIDE.
THE EVALUATION INCLUDED A REVIEW OF THE SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PLANS, THE AS-BUILT SURVEY APPLICABLE UDC REQUIREMENTS.
THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED VISIBILITY ANALYSIS AND THE PURPOSES OF THE PLATTED VISIBILITY.
TRIANGLE EASEMENT STAFF DOES HAVE FINDINGS.
WE DO RECOMMEND THE DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE REQUESTS BASED ON SEVERAL FACTORS.
ONE, THE SUBMITTED INFORMATION DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD AVOID ADVERSE IMPACTS TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE.
NUMBER TWO, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
NUMBER THREE, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENT, WHICH AS A REMINDER IS TO PRESERVE ADEQUATE SITE DISTANCE FOR MOTORIST, PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS.
NUMBER FOUR, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NOT DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO AREA, SHAPE OR SLOPE OF THE
NUMBER FIVE, THE HARDSHIP RESULTED FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL IN A LOCATION DIFFERENT FROM THAT SHOWN ON THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT PLANS AND THEREFORE IS SELF-CREATED.
NUMBER SIX, THE MASON RE SCREENING WALL WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ISSUED BUILDING PERMIT.
AND FINALLY, NUMBER SEVEN, THE MASONRY SCREENING WALL ENCROACHES ON THE PLATTED VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENT REDUCING THE AREA INTENDED TO PRESERVE ADEQUATE SITE DISTANCE.
WE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND OUR RECOMME RECOMMENDATION.
SO BASED UPON THE APPLICABLE, APPLICABLE VARIANCE STANDARDS, THE LOCATION OF THE WALL RELATIVE TO THE PLATTED VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENT, THE ABSENCE OF A DEMONSTRATED HARDSHIP UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY AND THE SUBMITTED EVIDENCE, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF ZBA 2 6 0 6 0 0 3 9 AS REQUESTED.
HOWEVER, IF THE BOARD CHOOSES TO GRANT THE REQUEST, THE APPLICANT MUST ABIDE BY THE FOLLOWING, ONE THAT THE APPLICANT MUST APPLY FOR AND RECEIVE APPROVAL OF AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THE WALL TO REMAIN OVER THE 15 FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY AND SURFACE DRAIN EASEMENT AND THE PLATTED VISIBILITY TRIANGLE NUMBER TWO IS OUR STANDARD CONDITION.
IT READS, ANY CONSTRUCTION OR BUILDING ALLOWED BY THIS VARIANCE MUST CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH BY THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, THE GRAND PRAIRIE MUNICIPAL CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY ADOPTED FIRE CODES, AND WITH OTHER APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ADMINISTERED AND OR ENFORCED BY THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
IF A BUILDING PERMIT HAS NOT BEEN APPLIED FOR OR ISSUED WITHIN 90 DAY, WITHIN A 90 DAY PERIOD, OR AS THE BOARD MAY SPECIFICALLY GRANT, THE VARI SHALL BE DEEMED WAIVED IN ALL RIGHTS UNDER, UH, THERE UNDER TERMINATED.
MADAM CHAIR, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THIS EVENING? YEAH.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, ERIN, FOR GOING THROUGH, UM, THROUGH THAT.
UM, WELL, I MAY HAVE ONE FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD QUESTIONS? YES SIR.
UH, THANK YOU FOR THE SECOND TIME GOING THROUGH THIS BECAUSE IT HELPS CLARIFY FOR ME.
COULD WE GO BACK TO THE, UH, EXPANDED VIEW THAT YOU HAD? LET'S, THIS ONE.
UM, WE'VE GOT A PICTURE OF THE WALL.
UM, HAD THAT WALL EXTENDED AS FAR OUT AS IT DOES NOW, I MEAN, TOWARD THIS STREET WHERE THIS CAR IS, WHERE WOULD IT HAVE TO BE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE? WELL, OR OR IS IT COMPLETELY OUTTA COMPLIANCE ONCE IT HIT THAT LINE? UM, AT THE 48 FEET.
IT DOES, IT BECOMES AN ENCROACHMENT IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENT RIGHT HERE.
SO IT'S THAT, THAT PART OF IT, IF THAT PART WASN'T THERE, THEY'D BE IN COMPLIANCE RELATIVELY SO.
IT WOULD NOT BE ENCROACHING IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE
[01:40:01]
EASEMENT.SO THE REMEDY IS TO TAKE DOWN, SAY, 15 FEET OF, OF FENCING THE NOT WITH THE WALL 50.
THE REMEDY, IF IT IS DENIED, WOULD BE TO REMOVE THE PORTION THAT ENCROACHES IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, RECONSTRUCT IT AT AN ANGLE SO THAT IT DOES NOT RE ENCROACH INTO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AND STILL PROVIDES, UM, THE WALL WITH THE, UH, INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE UDC REQUIREMENT.
AND THAT'S THAT 48.87 FEET, CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
JUST TAKING THAT PORTION DOWN WOULD MAKE IT COMPLIANT WITH THE VISIBILITY REQUIREMENT.
BUT YOU COULDN'T LEAVE IT THAT WAY BECAUSE THEN IT WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WHICH IS WHY THEY WOULD HAVE TO THEN RECONSTRUCT IT, IT AT AN ANGLE OUTSIDE OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
I, YOU ANTICIPATED MY NEXT QUESTION, SO THANK YOU.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, THEY DIDN'T DO WHAT, THEY GOT SOMETHING APPROVED AND THEN DID SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
SO IF THEY REBUILT THIS WALL TO FIT INTO OUR COMPLIANCE AT THE ANGLE, IS IT GONNA REMAIN THE SAME HEIGHT OR IS IT GONNA TAPER? IT IS REQUIRED TO BE THE SAME HEIGHT.
MADAM CHAIR, THE, THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING.
UM, HE DOES HAVE HIS OWN PRESENTATION AND IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND GEAR THAT UP FOR HIM.
IN ADDITION TO HIS PRESENTATION, HE HAS SOME, UH, DOCUMENTS THAT IS A REVISED REPORT, UM, THAT WAS GIVEN TO US AFTER THE AGENDA PACKET HAD BEEN POSTED.
MR. JACOB MADEWELL, IF YOU WOULD JUST, UM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
VISIBILITY IS ALWAYS FUN BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THE CONCERN IS SAFETY.
WE DO UNDERSTAND SAFETY IS THE TOP CONCERN HERE AND WE ARE AWARE OF THAT AND DOING OUR BEST TO MAKE SURE WE DO MEET ALL THE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.
SO ULTIMATELY WE HAVE ABOUT FIVE FEET OF THE WALL THAT EXTENDS INTO AN EIGHT FOOT VISIBILITY EASEMENT FROM THE ACTUAL SITE.
WE HAVE MEASURED THAT YOU CAN SEE ONCOMING TRAFFIC FROM ABOUT 515 FEET AWAY.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF AASHTO REQUIREMENTS IS FOR A DESIGN SPEED OF 45 MILES AN HOUR, THE REQUIREMENT IS 500 FEET.
THE SPEED LIMIT IS 40 MILES AN HOUR.
BRETT, CAN YOU VERIFY THAT? SO WE GO ON THE DESIGN SPEED AND THE POSTED SPEED'S.
40, UH, SPEED STUDIES SHOW THAT TRAFFIC IS COMING DOWN AT ABOUT 45.
UH, THAT'S THE 85TH PERCENTILE, WHICH WE USE FOR THE AVERAGE SPEED.
WE HAVE HAD CASES WHERE WE'VE HAD DRIVERS GOING DOWN IN ABOUT 80 MILES AN HOUR.
SO WE DO GET SOME HIGH SPEEDS OUT THERE.
UM, AASHTO REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT IS ACTUALLY 545 FEET.
UM, AND WHAT THAT INVOLVES IS CROSSING TWO LANES OF TRAFFIC AND THE MEDIAN WITH THAT SPEED.
SO THAT'S, YOU'RE SEEING A VEHICLE, YOU'RE MAKING A DECISION, THEN YOU'RE ENTERING THE ROADWAY, CROSSING TRAFFIC, CROSSING THE MEDIAN, AND THEN MAKING A LEFT TURN THERE TO GO NORTH ON CARRIER.
UH, SO ULTIMATELY I WAS WORKING OFF 500 AND FEET FLAT BASED OFF OF MY ENGINEER'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE GREEN BOOK.
UH, I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE INITIAL REPORT UNTIL THE ZBA PACKET WAS SUBMITTED.
UH, UPLOADED THE REPORT TO THE PERMIT, RECEIVED COMMENTS ON UDC 23 POINT 10, WHICH PROHIBITS THE SCREEN WALL AND THE EASEMENT.
THEN A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON IT.
THE, YOU CAN SEE THIS IS AN AERIAL OVERVIEW OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTED WALL, WHICH YOU SEE AND ROUGHLY HERE.
I WAS APPROACHED IN FEBRUARY BY CITY STAFF NOTIFYING ME THAT I NEEDED TO CONSTRUCT THE REMAINING PORTION AND THAT PERMIT DRAWING WAS SUBMITTED BY US.
AND THEN THE WALL DOES STOP 21 FEET SHORT OF THE INTERSECTION.
SO IT IS A 70 FOOT VISIBILITY EASEMENT 50 FEET ROUGHLY, OR, UH, HAVE THE WALL CONSTRUCTED 21 FEET UNTIL THE RIGHT OF WAY.
UH, THIS KIND OF JUST OUTLIERS THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE HAD WITH THIS WALL.
UH, WALL WAS INSPECTED BY THE CITY.
AGAIN, MY UNDERSTANDING IS BUILDING INSPECTIONS DOES NOT LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC LOCATION.
THE INSPECTIONS WERE PASSED AND THEN I RECEIVED A NOTIFICATION THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE LOCATION.
[01:45:01]
MADE A REPORT, UH, WITH THE ENGINEER.THAT WAS THE VISIBILITY REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ON JUNE 12TH.
AND ON JUNE 25TH, I HAD NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE AND REQUESTED A ZBA CASE AND SLASH ORAL ALTERNATIVES.
AND ON JUNE 26TH, ASKED TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT TO CLARIFY IF AASHTO SAFETY VERSUS THE WALL LOCATION ITSELF WAS THE ISSUE.
DID NOT RECEIVE AN ANSWER UNTIL AUGUST 6TH, WHERE THE FORMAL RESPONSE FROM THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT VIA EMAIL WAS, IT WAS NOT BUILT PER THE APPROVED PLAN.
AND IT'S LOCATED WITHIN A PLATTED VISIBILITY EASEMENT.
AND THEN ON THE ZBA PACKET I RECEIVED, I WAS NOTIFIED THAT I WAS NOT PREPARED USING ASTO METHODOLOGY.
CHECKED WITH THE ENGINEER WHO SAID THAT THE DESIGN SPEED WAS LIKELY THE ISSUE, THE DESIGN SPEED WAS THEN RAISED TO 45 MILES AN HOUR.
THEN YOU WILL SEE ON THE NEXT SLIDES THAT THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE DOES TAKE INTO ACCOUNT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY.
UH, CARRIER PARKWAY DOES HAVE AN EXPANDED RIGHT OF WAY WHERE YOU DO HAVE A LARGE BUFFER BETWEEN THE ACTUAL STREET AND THE SCREEN WALL LOCATION AND SLASH AURA PROPERTY LINE.
SO HERE'S A PICTURE FROM THE TOP OF THE HILL ON CARRIER PARKWAY WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE CAR VISIBLE FROM 513 FEET AWAY AS MEASURED HERE.
AND A CLEAR PICTURE IS IN THE PACKET GIVEN TO YOU GUYS.
THEN HERE IS A PICTURE FROM THE ACTUAL STOP SIGN SHOWING THAT THAT WALL REALLY DOES NOT AFFECT VISIBILITY FROM THAT STOP SIGN.
HERE'S THE ASTO TRIANGLE PERFORMED BY MY ENGINEER SHOWING THE GAP BETWEEN THE WALL AND THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THE SCREEN WALL AND THE SIDEWALK TO THE ACTUAL INTERSECTION OF CARRIER PARKWAY.
AGAIN, CASE B ONE OF THE AASHTO REQUIREMENTS AT 500 FEET PER MY ENGINEER, UH, 514 FEET IS THE MEASURED VISIBILITY.
THE COMMENTS THAT I RECEIVED WAS THAT THE WALL WAS BUILT WITHOUT AN IMPROVED SITE PLAN, ENGINEERING PLAN OR PERMIT.
DRAWING WAS RELATIVELY UNCLEAR.
IT WAS JUST A HAND DRAWN LINE, UH, THAT DID NOT SHOW THE PREEXISTING WALL.
SO THAT PREEXISTING WALL, WE JUST CONNECTED TO THAT LINE AND THEN MADE SURE WE STAYED CLEAR OF THE EXISTING UTILITY LINES.
UH, AND THEN THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SUGGESTED THAT A DRAINAGE GAP AT THE BASE OF THE WALL WOULD HANDLE BUILDING ACROSS THAT UTILITY EASEMENT.
SO THE EXISTING PORTION IS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT, WHICH IS 15 FEET ACROSS.
IF WE DID CONSTRUCT THE WALL GOING ALONG THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, WE WOULD BE CROSSING ACROSS THAT DRAINAGE EASEMENT, WHICH WOULD REDIRECT WATER TOWARDS THE HOMES TOWARDS WHERE THE HOMES THAT ARE BUILT ALONG, UH, PREMIER PARKWAY.
AND THEN STAFF HAD SAID THAT, UH, THIS WILL NOT INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
WE AGREE PUBLIC SAFETY, WE DISAGREE WITH THEM.
WE THANK THIS WALL DOESN'T AFFECT VISIBILITY MEANINGFULLY.
AND THE ACTUAL PURPOSE OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE IS TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S SAFE.
WE BELIEVE THAT IS MET AS WELL.
AND THE HARDSHIP IS UNIQUE TO THE SITE DUE TO THE FACT THAT THAT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE IS LOCATED IN THE UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
UH, SO ULTIMATELY WE HAVE TO EITHER BUILD ACROSS THE UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED PER CODE.
UH, THE UTILITY COMPANIES HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THEIR LINES.
IF WE BUILD A CROSS, THERE'S A PROPERTY LINE WITH THE HOMES RIGHT THERE THAT ARE FENCED.
UH, SO ANY UTILITY REPAIRS WILL NEED TO TEAR DOWN THE WALL IN ORDER TO ACCESS THEIR LINES.
UH, IF WE MOVE IT TO CLEAR THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, WE'RE GOING TO FULLY CROSS THAT 15 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT, VIOLATING THOSE CODE SECTIONS THERE.
IF WE KEEP THE WALL AS IS IT ENCROACHES INTO THE VISIBILITY EASEMENT, BUT DOES NOT AFFECT THE VISIBILITY MEANINGFULLY, THIS IS KIND OF A PICTURE OF THE BASE OF THE WALL.
SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT WITH THE DRAINAGE.
THERE IS A GAP BETWEEN THE CONCRETE AND THE ACTUAL WALL.
IF WE BUILD IT ACROSS, IT IS ON A TIERED FOUNDATION WITH PIERS.
SO WATER IS STILL GOING TO HIT THAT CONCRETE AND BE REDIRECTED TOWARDS THE HOMES.
IF WE CANNOT ACCESS THAT AREA TO MAINTAIN IT AND KEEP IT CLEAR VEGETATION, IT'S GOING TO GET OVERGROWN AND LEAD TO PEST ISSUES AND OR INCH ISSUES.
SO I'M JUST ASKING YOU GUYS THAT WE CAN EITHER HAVE THE WALL APPROVED AS BUILT OR I CAN TEAR DOWN THE SECTION THAT VIOLATES THE UDC AND APPROVE A WAIVER OF ALLOWING THE EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN IN PLACE.
JUST NOT BUILD PAST THAT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
SO WE'RE NOT VIOLATING ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS.
AND DO YOU HAVE THE VIDEO? YEAH,
[01:50:11]
JUST PUSH PLANE.SO HERE'S A VIDEO OF DRIVING FROM THE LEFT HAND LANE NORTHBOUND ON SOUTH CARRIER.
THE SUBDIVISION IS GOING TO BE ON YOUR LEFT.
SO YOU'LL SEE HERE AS YOU COME INTO VIEW OF THE INTERSECTION ITSELF, THAT CAR IS IMMEDIATELY VISIBLE, IS NOT BLOCKED BY THAT WALL AS YOU'RE COMING DOWN.
SO IF SOMEBODY'S PULLING OUT, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THEM AS THEY'RE COMING ACROSS.
AND I'M ASSUMING Y'ALL ARE GONNA HAVE LOTS OF QUESTIONS, SO MM-HMM.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.
UM, I DRIVE DOWN THIS AREA QUITE A BIT.
UH, MY CONCERN WOULD BE WHEN YOU'RE EXITING THE PROPERTY TO MAKE A LEFT TURN TO CONTINUE NORTH.
I WOULD BELIEVE THAT'S WHERE THE VISIBILITY IS IMPAIRED.
ESPECIALLY IF SOMEONE IS GOING MORE THAN 50 MILES AN HOUR, WHICH THEY DO ALL THE TIME.
IF YOU'RE GOING MORE THAN 50 MILES AN HOUR DOWN, AND I AGREE, IT'S GOING TO BE TOUGH TO SEE THEM PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE HILL AND THE TREES HERE.
SO IF THAT WAS THE CASE THEN DURING THE SUBDIVISION PLATING AND PLANNING TIME, I'M NOT SURE IF A TIA WAS PERFORMED FOR THE SITE.
I'M NOT SURE IF TI WAS PERFORMED.
THIS WAS MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS AGO WHEN WE ORIGINALLY LOOKED AT THIS PROPERTY AND THAT'S WHEN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES WERE ESTABLISHED BEFORE I STARTED WITH THE CITY.
SO ULTIMATELY THE WALL DOES NOT AFFECT THE VISIBILITY.
IT'S THE TREES AND THE HILL HERE.
SO I DON'T THINK ANYTHING IS CHANGING WITH THE WALL THERE.
AS SOON AS THAT INTERSECTION COMES INTO VIEW, YOU CAN SEE THE TRUCK STICKING OUT RIGHT THERE.
UH, SO IF THE CITY WANTS TO SAY THIS IS TOO UNSAFE TO MAKE A LEFT HAND TURN, WANTS US TO PUT A NO LEFT TURN SIGN, I'M FINE WITH THAT TOO.
THEN HOW DO THEY GO NORTH? YOU CAN MAKE A U-TURN AT DICKIE.
BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S MY OPINION THAT THE WALL DOESN'T AFFECT VISIBILITY.
I ENTER AND EXIT THAT SITE THREE TO FOUR TIMES A WEEK.
NONE OF MY CONTRACTORS HAVE HAD AN ISSUE WITH IT.
I DO APPRECIATE YOU COMING AND THANK YOU FOR THIS VERY, UH, EXTENSIVE ANALYSIS.
I HAVE A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION.
YOU, YOU HAVE A APPROVED PLAN AND YOU DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
WHAT'S THE EXPLANATION? YEAH, SO IF YOU GO OVER TO THIS APPROVED PLAN THAT WAS SHOWN HERE.
I'M JUST GONNA START IT BECAUSE I NEED TO GET BIGGER.
SO THE SUBMITTED DRAWING WAS HERE ON THE LEFT.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THE EXISTING WALL WAS NOT IDENTIFIED LOCATION PER THE SURVEY THAT IS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT EASEMENT.
SO THE DRAWING, AGAIN, HAND DRAWN LINE ON HERE, NOT THE MOST IDEAL DRAWING.
I'M THE FIRST TO ADMIT THAT UH, CONTRACTORS IN THE FIELD WORK ON THESE RETAINING WALLS ALL THE TIME.
THEY SEE THIS, THEY SAY, OKAY, WE CAN'T GO ACROSS THE UTILITY LINES BECAUSE WE DON'T WANNA HIT 'EM AND RUPTURE A GAS LINE.
SO THEY JUST BUILT IT CONTINUING ALONG THE VISIBILITY EASEMENT 48 FEET WITH A MAXIMUM VIOLATION OF 4.78 FEET.
THE DRAWINGS WEREN'T SPECIFICALLY CLEAR ENOUGH FOR THE CONTRACTOR.
THEY WERE FOCUSED PRIMARILY ON THE WALL DESIGN AND AVOIDING THE UTILITY LENS.
MY QUESTION IS MORE DIRECTED AT STAFF, BUT BASED ON WHAT HE HAS SAID, OH, I'M SORRY.
BASED ON WHAT HE HAS SAID, UM, IF THAT IS DENIED, IN OTHER WORDS, HE HAS TO TAKE THAT DOWN.
IT'S GONNA BE ON Y'ALL ANYWAY BECAUSE IF HE CAN'T BUILD OVER THAT EASEMENT OR UH, THE DRAINAGE AREA, SOMEBODY'S GOTTA COME UP WITH A SOLUTION SOMEHOW.
SO, SO I HAVE MET EXTENSIVELY WITH OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THEY ARE NOT HERE FOR A REASON.
AND THAT IS THAT THEY ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THE WALL BEING LOCATED
[01:55:01]
WHERE IT IS.THEY'RE ALSO NOT OPPOSED TO THE WALL BEING RECONSTRUCTED OUT OF VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
WHETHER IT IS WITHIN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE OR ANGLED.
THE DRAINAGE HOLES, UM, THAT MR. MADEWELL IS TALKING ABOUT ARE STILL GOING TO BE REQUIRED PROVIDING THE DRAINAGE ACROSS THAT, UM, SURFACE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
SURFACE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT AND THE DRAINAGE IS A SECONDARY CONCERN.
THE PRIMARY CONCERN IS ACCESS.
IF WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO MAINTAIN IT, IT'S GOING TO GET CLOGGED UP AND LEAD TO DRAINAGE ISSUES.
UH, AGAIN WITH, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE, EVEN IF THE CASES IS NOT DENIED, WE, WE WILL NEED AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE UTILITIES, WHICH THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THEY WILL GRANT THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT IF WE'RE SAYING WE'RE BUILDING ACROSS THE EASEMENT.
UH, TO WHICH CASE I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO STAFF ON WHAT NEXT STEPS WOULD BE.
UM, IF YOU'D BUILT IT WHERE THE RED LINE IS, WOULD WE BE HERE IF I BUILT IT WHERE THE RED LINE IS? MM-HMM
YOU WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE HERE AND I WOULD NOT BE HERE.
I WOULD JUST BE IN A FIGHT WITH UTILITY COMPANIES BECAUSE, AND THEN TEAR HAVE TO TEAR IT DOWN BECAUSE WE'RE BUILT ACROSS EASEMENT WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION.
SO WHERE WILL HE PUT HIS FENCE? SO WE'RE REVIEWING THIS BASED ON THE PERMIT THAT HE SUBMITTED? YEAH.
OH, JUST FOR THE TRANSPORTATION PORTION OF IT.
THAT'S THAT WHEN TRANSPORTATION REVIEWS THIS PERMIT, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR, WE VERIFIED THAT IT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE PLATTED VISIBILITY EASEMENT.
AND IT WAS ON THAT ALONE THAT WE, SO THAT'S ALL WE'RE LOOKING AT.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS, IT WILL BE THE PURPOSE.
ALL WE'RE LOOKING AT TRIANGLE IS THE SAFETY OF THE PURPOSE OF WHERE THAT WALL IS FOR.
AM I MAKE SURE I'M BEING CORRECT HERE IS THE SAFETY OF WHERE THAT WALL IS FOR CARS.
WE DON'T REALLY THE VISIBILITY.
BECAUSE THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS FOR THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE TO BE ENCROACHING ON THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
SO THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY THE CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND HAS ALREADY BEEN SENT OFF TO THE UTILITY COMPANIES FOR THE WALL AS CONSTRUCTED.
I HAVE HEARD BACK FROM THREE FRANCHISE UTILITY COMPANIES, IT'S CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW WITH TWO OF THEM.
UH, CHARTER SLASH SPECTRUM HAS ALREADY APPROVED THAT ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT.
UH, I'M SORRY, IT'S HARD TO HEAR.
UH, THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN SENT OFF TO THE FRANCHISE UTILITY COMPANIES FOR THE WALL AS CONSTRUCTED, UH, PREPARED BY THE CITY STAFF.
BUT EVEN IF THAT WAS MOVED BACK, THEY WOULD STILL BE OKAY WITH THAT.
IF THEY'RE GONNA APPROVE IT UP THERE, THEY'RE GOING TO BE APPROVED BACK THERE.
IF I, IF I DEMOED THE WALL, IT, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S LESS OF AN ENCROACHMENT.
IF I MOVED THE WALL TO BE ACROSS THE UTILITY EASEMENT, THEN IT COULD BE A POTENTIAL ISSUE.
I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE FRANCHISE UTILITY COMPANIES, BUT IT COULD BE AN ISSUE WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR LINES.
I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.
I USED TO PLAY A LITTLE SOFTBALL DOWN THERE ON THAT FIELD BEFORE YOU BUILT THIS.
UM, BUT I'M ALSO NOTICING WHEN I JUST DRIVE BY THERE, EVERY, I DRIVE BY, JUST LIKE YOU, SHE WROTE, UM, YOU HAVE A WOODEN FENCE THAT'S FOUR FEET OR FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THIS METAL.
AND I'M JUST, YOU'LL HAVE TO MOVE THAT AS WELL.
THAT FENCE MY CONTRACTOR OVERBUILT ON, UH, HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING FROM CODE COMPLIANCE YET.
BUT I AM MOVING THAT BACK WHENEVER MY FENCE GUY GOES OUT THERE TO WORK ON THE NEXT SET.
'CAUSE I THOUGHT HAS ANYTHING, SO THE FENCE IS, SO I WAS ACTUALLY BEFORE THE ZBA CASE, WHENEVER THEY POURED THE FOUNDATION FOR THIS BUILDING HERE, THEY MIS ANGLED IT AND IT WAS NOT CAUGHT ON THE FORM BOARD SURVEY.
SO THAT PROPERTY LINE IS CLOSER THAN AS SHOWN ON HERE.
TO THE UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
WHENEVER THEY BUILT THE FENCE, THEY WERE WORKING OFF THE ORIGINAL PLAN AND NOT THE REVISED ONE THAT THE ZBA CASE WAS APPROVED FOR.
SO THAT FENCE DOES NEED MOVE BACK BY ABOUT THREE OR FOUR FEET.
MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, HAVE WE LOOKED AT, UM, SPEAKING WITH PUBLIC SAFETY TO FIND OUT HOW MANY ACCIDENTS HAVE OCCURRED IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA? WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THAT PARTICULAR.
JUST THE REASON THAT WE'RE BRINGING THIS CONCERN UP IS THAT THIS IS A NEW SUBDIVISION AND SO THERE ARE LOTS THAT ARE NOT BUILT, UH, TOWN HOMES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN OCCUPIED YET.
SO WE WERE TRYING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE BEFORE IT BECAME A SAFETY ISSUE.
WE HAVE THE SAFETY DATA, WE COULD TAKE A LOOK AND SEE, BUT THERE WEREN'T, I DON'T THINK RESIDENTS OCCUPYING THESE HOMES UNTIL A COUPLE YEARS AGO OR, OR, OR SOONER.
UH, SO THERE MAY NOT BE MANY RECORDED ACCIDENTS THERE UNLESS IT'S FOR THE, THE STREET ACROSS THE WAY FROM CARRIER.
THERE'S NO RESIDENCE CURRENTLY INSIDE THE SUBDIVISION.
UH, I BELIEVE THE FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION WAS PASSED ON THE FIRST ONES ABOUT A MONTH AND A HALF AGO.
UH, SO NO FULL-TIME RESIDENCE YET.
[02:00:05]
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.THANK YOU SIR FOR COMING DOWN TONIGHT.
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.
WHAT KIND OF PRECEDENT ARE WE SETTING FOR FUTURE BUILDING IF WE APPROVE THIS AS PRESENTED? IT'S A CONCERN FOR TRANSPORTATION.
UM, BECAUSE WE TRY TO EVALUATE ALL VISIBILITY CONCERNS BEFORE PROPERTIES ARE EVER BUILT, MAKING SURE THAT IF THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR A VISIBILITY ISSUE, THAT WE PLA AN EASEMENT, UM, ON THE PLAT TO ENSURE THAT NOTHING'S BUILT WITH THE PROPERTY AND NOTHING'S BUILT AFTER, UM, THE PROPERTIES ALREADY BEEN BUILT.
UM, SO BECAUSE THIS IS A SAFETY RELATED ISSUE, UM, IF WE'RE TAKING A LOOK AT THIS AFTER THE FACT, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WANT A THIRD PARTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER TO VERIFY, UM, IF THERE IS A SAFETY CONCERN OR NOT.
UM, SO WITH THE PLATTED VISIBILITY EASEMENTS, THAT'S JUST A WAY FOR STAFF TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE.
UM, AND THERE WON'T BE A SAFETY ISSUE IN THE FUTURE.
UM, SO THERE IS A CONCERN FOR A PRECEDENT AND I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO HAVE A THIRD PARTY.
SO I'M NOT SURE, MR. MAYWELL, IF YOU WERE HERE AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE MEETING WHERE WE WENT OVER LIKE THE MEETING GUIDELINES AND SO FORTH.
SO, BUT I JUST WANTED TO, UM, REITERATE THAT THE CONCURRING VOTE OF SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE BOARD IS NECESSARY TO DECIDE IN FAVOR OF AN APPLICANT ON ANY MATTER IN WHICH THE BOARD HAS JURISDICTION.
SO, UM, WE DO HAVE NINE BOARD MEMBERS HERE TONIGHT.
UM, AND, BUT IT WILL TAKE A CONCURRING VOTE OF SEVEN MEMBERS TO, TO GET THIS MOTION PASSED ONCE WE GET A MOTION.
I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR MOTIONS.
UH, MADAM CHAIR, I MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE CLOSE AND APPROVE.
CAN YOU GO BACK AND GIMME THE NUMBER? YES.
I, UH, ZBA 2 6 0 6 0 0 3 9 AS REQUESTED.
I HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. STACEY WHITE.
I HAVE A SECOND FOR MR. DEWOLF.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD ON THE MOTION? OKAY.
I'LL NOW TAKE A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
MOTION FAILS BY A VOTE OF NINE TO ZERO.
THAT WILL MOVE US INTO THE CITIZEN COMMENTS PORTION OF THE MEETING.
MADAM CHAIR, DO WE WANNA DO CITIZEN COMMENTS FIRST OR DO WE WANT TO GO TO THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS? OH GOODNESS, IT'S YOUR CALL.
SO I MOVE TO GO TO THE CITIZEN COMMENTS.
THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS CITIZEN COMMENTS.
CITIZENS MAY SPEAK FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES ON ANY ITEM, NOT ON THE AGENDA.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? I DO KNOW THAT WE HAVE A BOARD MEMBER THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK UNDER CITIZEN COMMENTS.
UM, MY QUESTION FOR HILLARY IS, UM, THIS IS REGARDING, UM, MEMBERSHIP.
SO WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO HANDLE THIS UNDER CITIZEN COMMENTS OR UNDER THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS? IF IT'S RELATED TO THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS? I WOULD SAY UNDER THAT, IF IT'S AS A CITIZEN A COMMENT ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS IN THE COMMUNITY, THEN UNDER CITIZEN COMMENT.
SO, UM, SEEING NO, I DON'T, DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY CITIZENS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK UNDER CITIZEN COMMENTS.
[ELECTION OF OFFICERS]
CONCLUDE OUR AGENDA FOR TONIGHT.WE ARE ADJOURNED FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING MEETING.
I WOULD ASK THE BOARD, UH, TO STAY BEHIND AS WE WILL MOVE TO ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
UH, DAVID BAKER AND HIS BROTHER GARY LOST THEIR OTHER BROTHER A COUPLE OF NIGHTS AGO.
SO IF Y'ALL SEE HIM OUT THERE HUG ON HIM, IT'S A TOUGH TIME FOR THEIR FAMILY.
THANK YOU FOR LETTING US KNOW.
UM, MS. ROGERS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? THANK YOU FOR LETTING TALK FOR JUST A MINUTE.
UM, I'M GONNA RESIGN, UH, ZBA AS OF THIS EVENING.
[02:05:01]
TELL YOU, I HAVE HAD A WONDERFUL RIDE.UH, RUTHIE JACKSON APPOINTED ME YEARS AGO.
I'VE SERVED IN ALL THE POSITIONS,
AND, UH, I LAID OUT FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND THEN I CAME BACK AS AN ALTERNATE.
AND I'VE JUST REALLY LOVED THAT BECAUSE I CAME BACK ABOUT THE SAME TIME I RETIRED.
AND, UM, MY HUSBAND CONSTANTLY ASKED ME, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO RETIRE? SO I'M INVOLVED IN QUITE A BIT IN THE CITY, UM, ORGANIZATIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND I'VE GOT TO, I'VE GOTTA REDUCE BECAUSE, UM, HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE ME ON A DAILY BASIS.
AND, UM, SO I HAVE DECIDED TO ELIMINATE THIS SINCE I'VE DONE IT FOR SO MANY YEARS.
AND, UH, I KNOW THERE'S OTHERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SERVE.
AND I, I THINK THAT'S MY DECISION AND I WILL MISS SEEING Y'ALL.
UM, WE, I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE OVER THE YEARS.
YOU'VE ALWAYS BEEN SUCH A WONDERFUL, UM, MEMBER TO HAVE.
SO WE WILL CERTAINLY MISS YOU HERE, EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW WE'LL SEE YOU OUT IN THE COMMUNITY.
WE'LL DEFINITELY MISS YOU HERE.
BUT, UM, I APPRECIATE YOU LETTING US KNOW TONIGHT.
SO DOES THIS MEAN WE CAN'T ELECT YOU? CHAIRWOMAN
SO, SO NO
SO WE'LL MOVE, UM, TO THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
DO WE HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS? I PUT, UH, THE NAME OF, UH, KIMBERLY AKIRA DOYE AS OUR, UH, CHAIRWOMAN.
I WILL ACCEPT YOUR NOMINATION.
SECOND THAT IF IT NEEDS A SECOND.
SO WE, I'LL MAKE A, UH, WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A FORMAL MOTION? THAT WAS A NOMINATION.
DO WE NEED A MOTION? TAKE THE VOTE.
IF THAT WAS THE INTENT THAT IT WAS A MOTION, THEN I THINK IT'S OKAY.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. DEWOLF, UH, TO NOMINATE ME TO REMAIN AS CHAIRWOMAN OVER THE BOARD.
WE HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. STACEY WHITE.
UM, I'LL NOW, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? OKAY.
I'LL NOW TAKE A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL OPPOSE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
VOTE PASSES BY A, THE MOTION PASSES BY VOTE OF EIGHT ZERO.
IT HAS BEEN, UM, I JUST WANNA SAY A FEW WORDS.
IF I CAN, I'LL TAKE A POINT OF PRIVILEGE.
BUT IT HAS BEEN AN ABSOLUTE PLEASURE, UH, TO SERVE IN THIS ROLE, TO SERVE THE CITIZENS OF GRAND PRAIRIE, UH, TO SERVE WITH YOU ALL AS A BOARD.
UH, I WANNA WELCOME OUR TWO NEW BOARD MEMBERS, DR.
UH, WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU GUYS.
AND, UM, JUST WANTED TO JUST POINT OUT A FEW THINGS.
ONE, I WOULD SAY, UM, DURING MY TENURE, I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT, UH, WE USED TO REALLY STRUGGLE TRYING TO GET A QUORUM
UM, MOST MONTHS NOW, WE HAVE TO UNFORTUNATELY, UH, DISMISS ALTERNATES.
UM, BUT, UH, THAT IS ONE THING.
ANOTHER THING IS, FOR ME PERSONALLY, I AM, I FEEL LIKE ALL OF OUR TIME IS VALUABLE.
AND SO I'VE, I'VE BEEN VERY INTENT ON TRYING TO, TO BE AS EQUITABLE AS POSSIBLE TO, FOR EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCESS.
SO FOR ME, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I, I DID WAS, UM, WE USED TO VOTE BY JUST WHOEVER COULD GET TO THE MIC FIRST.
UM, NOW, UH, UNDER MY LEADERSHIP, I IMPLEMENTED, UM, YOU KNOW, LET'S MAKE MOTIONS BY DISTRICT TO ME, THAT THAT GIVES EVERYBODY AN OPPORTUNITY, YOU KNOW, TO PARTICIPATE, UM, IN THAT PROCESS.
SO THOSE ARE JUST A COUPLE THINGS, UM, THAT I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT.
UM, I JUST, I REALLY APPRECIATE, UM, THE NOMINATION AND I'D LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO SERVE AS YOUR CHAIRWOMAN.
OKAY, SO NEXT WE HAVE, AND IF I CAN, I CAN SHARE.
THOSE WERE THE TWO REASONS THAT I THOUGHT OF
WE HAVE COUNCIL PEOPLE THAT HAVE PUT US INTO THESE POSITIONS.
AND THEY WOULD EXPECT US TO TAKE THE LEAD ON ANYTHING IN THEIR DISTRICT.
SO THAT MADE PERFECTLY GOOD SENSE.
AND YOU HAVE BEEN EQUITABLE AND IN, IN THE WAY THAT YOU'VE HANDLED THINGS.
SO THOSE WOULD, IF I HAD TO AN I, IF I, YOU HAD ASKED ME WHY DID I
[02:10:01]
NOMINATE YOU, I WOULD'VE HAD TO SAY THE SAME TWO THINGS.SO WE WILL MOVE TO, UM, NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR.
DO WE HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR? MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, NOMINATE DEBBIE JOHNSONS FOR VICE CHAIR AND A SECOND HERE.
ANGELA LUCKY VONNE TO NOMINATE, UH, MS. DEBBIE JOHNSTON AS VICE CHAIR.
I HAVE A SECOND FOR MR. DAY WOLF.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO ACCEPT THE NOMINATION? I ACCEPT THAT NOMINATION.
UH, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE, UH, FROM THE BOARD ON THE MOTION? OKAY.
I WILL NOW TAKE A VOTE ON THE MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND.
MOTION PASSES BY A VOTE OF NINE ZERO.
AND I JUST WANNA SAY I DIDN'T WANNA MAKE A MOTION THE NOMINATION 'CAUSE I DIDN'T WANT SAY IMPARTIAL, BUT I SO THANKFUL TO HAVE YOU AS A VICE CHAIR.
IS THAT IT? ALRIGHT, WELL, WE'LL ADJOURN.