Jan 05, 2026 Board of Adjustment

[00:00:01]

UP AND DOWN AS NEEDED TO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, FOR YOUR PATIENCE TONIGHT. JUST

[I. CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]

MY NAME IS JAMES PECK, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE CHANGING THOSE ROLES POTENTIALLY AS WELL GOING FORWARD WITH THE FUTURE AGENDA ITEM. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START DOWN HERE ALL THE WAY AT THE VERY END. JOSEPH ECHOLS, GENE HARRIS, JEN GRUNWALD, RACHEL RICH NELSON MINYARD.

LINDA. ALRIGHT, THANKS EVERYBODY. SO WE'LL JUMP RIGHT IN WITH CITIZEN COMMENTS LOOKING THROUGH. I HAVE PLENTY OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TONIGHT. I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE ANY THAT ARE OPEN, BROAD, GENERAL COMMENTS. THEY ALL APPEAR TO BE FOR SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS, SO DON'T WORRY IF WE'RE NOT CALLING YOU UP RIGHT NOW. IF I'VE MISSED ANYBODY WHO DID HAVE GENERAL COMMENTS FOR US, FEEL FREE TO SPEAK UP OR JUMP IN NOW. OR I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYBODY ONLINE THERE EITHER. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER

[III.1. Routine Reports from City Council Liaison.]

CITY COUNCIL MEETING TOMORROW WHERE WE ARE DOING FINAL APPOINTMENTS FOR PLANNING AND ZONING, WHICH WILL AFFECT MEMBERS ON THE B OF A. AND SO WITH THAT, THAT'S WHY WE ARE IN A BIT OF TRANSITION THIS EVENING. AND SO WITH THAT, THAT'S ALL I BELIEVE I HAVE THIS EVENING. AND AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. JUST FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, IF YOU HAVE ANY CURIOSITY ABOUT THAT. OUR CITY COUNCIL HAS BEEN UNDERTAKING A PROCESS FOR VOLUNTEERS BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, TO NOT BE ABLE TO SERVE ON MORE THAN ONE OF THE BOARDS AT THE SAME AT THE SAME TIME. SO IT'S BEEN AN ARDUOUS TASK. WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN VERY GIVING OF THEIR TIME TO SERVE THE CITY, AND MAYBE NOT AS MANY APPLICANTS FOR POSITIONS AS WHAT WE WISHED. SO IT'S TAKEN A LITTLE WHILE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AT THE CITY COUNCIL LEVEL, AND WE STILL HAVE BUSINESS TO HANDLE FOR ALL OF YOU. SO THANK YOU BIG TIME TO A COUPLE OF OUR MEMBERS WHO ARE STILL SERVING IN THEIR PRESENT TERMS, EVEN IF THOSE TERMS MAY

[III.2. Routine Reports from City staff.]

SO WE HAVE OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR, JORDAN WITH US TONIGHT. THANK YOU. CAN HELP US THERE. SO TO START OFF I WANT TO ECHO THE SAME THING. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SWITCHING BOARDS, COMING TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS MEETING HAPPENS AND THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM. IT IT HELPS FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE AGAIN, LIKE YOU SAID, WE HAVE CITY BUSINESS THAT WE HAVE TO DO. IT DOESN'T STOP. AND SO WE APPRECIATE THE TIME AND THE COMMITMENT AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU ALL DO TO HELP US DO OUR JOBS. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I DON'T HAVE A ROUTINE STAFF REPORT PER SE. I HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH OUR ATTORNEY REGARDING AND I KNOW HISTORICALLY SOME MAY BE AWARE, SOME MAY NOT, BUT HISTORICALLY THERE'S BEEN SOME BACK AND FORTH OVER. IF A VARIANCE AND A HEIGHT EXCEPTION ARE THE SAME THING OR ARE NOT

[00:05:02]

I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. AND SO IT MAY BE. LET ME TALK TO OUR ATTORNEY, BUT HAPPY TO HELP WHERE I CAN. SURE. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING. AND I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO THE REST OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WITH SOME QUESTIONS. WE'LL TRY NOT TO THROW TOO MANY OF THEM AT YOU, BUT SINCE THIS IS JUST FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC'S KNOWLEDGE AS WELL, THIS HAS BEEN AN ONGOING PROCESS REALLY, THAT BEGAN BEING UNDERTAKEN MIDDLE OF LAST SUMMER ABOUT TRAINING ACROSS THIS BOARD AND ABOUT DETERMINING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, NOT JUST FOR HEIGHT, BUT OTHER SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE WITHIN OUR CITY'S CODE.

CODE OF ORDINANCES COMPARED TO VARIANCES AND THE NUANCES THERE. MY FIRST QUESTION THAT I HAVE RIGHT OFF THE TOP IS, I KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW, IF WE WERE TO HAVE SOMEONE COME TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR A VARIANCE, WE PRESENTLY HAVE TWO DIFFERENT FORMS. WE HAVE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FORM. WE HAVE A VARIANCE FORM. DO WE SEE PROCEDURAL CHANGES POSSIBLY COMING TO COMBINE THOSE INTO A SINGLE FORM AND A SINGLE STREAMLINED PROCESS. SO THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION. WE ARE LOOKING I DON'T KNOW IF MANY ARE AWARE WE ARE SWITCHING SOFTWARE TO FROM MGO TO CIVICPLUS. AND SO I MY HESITATION TO CONTINUOUSLY CHANGE THINGS OVER THE NEXT SIX MONTHS IS PEOPLE GET CONFUSED AND NOT JUST THE PUBLIC, STAFF, BUILDERS, DEVELOPERS. WHEN YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, SIX DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS OVER A SIX MONTH PERIOD, IT BECOMES TEDIOUS TO TRY TO NAVIGATE OUR WAY THROUGH THIS. AND SO I'M TRYING TO MAKE THE TRANSITION AS EASY AS POSSIBLE ACROSS THE BOARD. AND SO WE'RE REQUIRING PREDEVELOPMENT MEETINGS NOW FOR ANY APPLICATION THAT GOES BEFORE BOARD. AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, THERE IS A DISTINCTION MADE AT THAT PREDEVELOPMENT MEETING AS TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME PROCESS, AND I WOULD EXPECT TO SEE CHANGES ACROSS THE BOARD STREAMLINED WHEN WE SWITCH SOFTWARES, BECAUSE THEY'LL MAKE APPLICATIONS BASED OFF OF WHAT WE HAVE ONLINE. SO IT'S ACROSS THE BOARD, THE SAME THING. IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. I JUST DON'T WANT TO ROCK THE BOAT. YOU KNOW TOO MUCH IN THIS TIME OF CHANGES. I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. AND IF WE IF WE'RE HAVING PREDEVELOPMENT MEETINGS, WHO IS INVOLVED FROM A PERSONAL STANDPOINT IN PREDEVELOPMENT EVERYBODY. I LOVE A GOOD PREDEVELOPMENT MEETING. SO INCLUDED IN THAT WE HAVE ESD ONE, THE FIRE MARSHAL.

SOMETIMES WE HAVE THE CHIEF TWO, DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE REQUEST. WE HAVE PUBLIC WORKS CIP, WE HAVE BUILDING PLANNING. I'M TRYING TO THINK THOSE ARE THE MAJOR ONES. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. WHEN THE THE INSTANCE STANDS AND IT'S NEEDED, WE BRING IN PARKS. WHEN PARKS IS NEEDED. IT'S A HUGE OPPORTUNITY FOR US AS STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TRACKING AND THAT WE'RE GETTING OUR COMMENTS IN ADVANCE OF SOME OF THESE APPLICATIONS COMING BEFORE BOARDS. AND SO IT'S A PRETTY COLLABORATIVE PROCESS. I MEAN, WE'VE TAKEN UP THAT CONFERENCE ROOM, AND THEN WE RECORDED. SO ALL RIGHT, MAYBE THAT DID IT. OKAY. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, IT'S A PRETTY INTENSIVE PROCESS. WE'VE HAD SOME PRETTY PACKED MEETINGS AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO EVERY BODY THAT WE'VE GOTTEN FEEDBACK FROM HAS SAID THAT THEY LOVE IT AND THAT THEY LOVE BEING A PART OF IT, AND THAT IT HELPS THEM WHEN THEY GET TO THE REVIEW STAGE.

AND I FULLY AGREE THAT WAY. WE'RE ALL TRACKING THE SAME PROJECTS ESSENTIALLY. I THINK THAT THAT MAKES GOOD SENSE. AT WHAT POINT AS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, IF WE HAVE AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE COMING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITH THAT NOTIFICATION TO OUR BOARD COME OUT, IS THAT GOING TO BE GOING OUT AT THE SAME TIME AS PUBLIC NOTICE AFTER AN APPLICATION, OR IS THAT GOING TO BE BEFORE OR AFTER ONE OF THOSE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS? CONSIDERING. I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT, BUT IF Y'ALL CAN HEAR ME, I THINK SOMEBODY'S MUTED THE CITY OF LOGO CAMERA BECAUSE I CAN'T HEAR Y'ALL AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S MUTED. GOT IT. THANK YOU, MR. PHILLIPS. WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN GET THAT CORRECTED SO I CAN HEAR YOU NOW.

SOMEBODY UNMUTED IT. THANK YOU. SORRY WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION. THAT QUESTION WAS AT WHAT POINT

[00:10:02]

SOMETIMES WHEN THERE'S AN EXTRA SPEAKER ALONG WITH THE MICROPHONE WE'LL GET A FEEDBACK.

VERY DISTRACTING. YEAH. SOMEBODY WE'D RATHER WE'D RATHER PAUSE FOR EVERYBODY'S SAKE THAN CONTINUE IF WE HAVE ONE GOING ON. AND LET'S SEE IF WE CAN CORRECT IT. OKAY. LET'S TRY THAT ONE OKAY. OKAY. SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS FROM THAT SUBMITTAL CALENDAR THAT CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED, WE HAVE BACKSTOP DATES AND FORWARD STOP DATES. AND SO THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A PREDEVELOPMENT MEETING 60 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE BOARD MEETING THAT THEY'RE INTENDING TO SUBMIT FOR AT THAT POINT, IT GIVES US TIME AS STAFF TO REVIEW IT, MAKE SURE THEIR APPLICATION IS COMPLETE, MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE EVERYTHING THAT THEY NEEDED, THAT THEY MET CRITERIA THAT THEY HAVEN'T. AND FROM THERE WE GO INTO PUBLIC NOTICE AND AGENDA CREATION. THERE'S SOME PORTIONS OF THE AGENDA THAT NEED TO HAVE PUBLIC NOTICE DONE IN ADVANCE, AND SO THEY FOLLOW VERY CLOSELY TOGETHER. YOU MAY NOTICE THAT THIS ROUND, THIS MEETING, THEY WERE PUBLISHED ON THE SAME DAY. SO THE SAME DAY NOTICES WENT OUT AS THE SAME DAY YOUR PACKET WENT OUT. I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THAT AS A TREND ACROSS ALL THREE OF OUR BOARDS. IT GIVES TWO AND A HALF THREE WEEKS TO REVIEW PACKETS IN ADVANCE. WE HAVE DONE STAFF REPORTS, WHICH MY UNDERSTANDING IS WAS NOT TYPICAL. AND SO MY HOPE IS THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IS PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC, IT'S PRESENTED TO THE BOARD, STAFF IS TRACKING, STAFF IS AWARE ALL IN THE SAME TIMELINE. ESSENTIALLY, IT ALSO HAS GIVEN, I FEEL FROM STAFF AND ADMINISTRATIVE STANDPOINT, IT'S GIVEN THE PUBLIC MORE TIME TO BE INFORMED AND ASK QUESTIONS AND COME TO US AND, YOU KNOW, WE HELP THEM OUT AND WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. AND SO OUR INTENT IS TO CONTINUE ON THAT SCHEDULE ACROSS ALL THREE BOARDS. OKAY, THAT SOUNDS GOOD. THAT'D BE GOOD. IT FEELS LIKE AN IMPROVEMENT ALREADY. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. I DON'T WANT TO HOG YOUR TIME. SO I'VE SEEN MR. HARRIS WITH HIS HAND UP HERE FOR A LITTLE BIT. YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO GET A COPY OF THAT EMAIL THAT WAS ON THE DAIS.

I THINK IT SHOULD BE. YEAH. OKAY. THERE IT IS. THANK YOU. NOW, I'M GLAD WE GOT THAT RESPONSE BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GOING TO MAKE THINGS A LOT MORE CUT AND DRY AND CONSISTENT AND LEAVE OUT SOME AMBIGUITY. I THINK ON SOME SITUATIONS, IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT OUR CODE IS RIGHT OR WRONG. I'VE BEEN PRETTY VOCAL ABOUT MY CONCERNS WITH THE CODE AND MY ISSUES ABOUT HOW THINGS ARE WRITTEN. FOR ME, IT'S SOMETHING CLEARLY VARIANCES AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETINGS ARE NOT TYPICAL. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING ON A REGULAR BASIS. THIS IS FOR APPEALS. THIS IS FOR WEIRD CASES THAT, YOU KNOW, COME OUT OF THE WOODWORK. SO IT SHOULDN'T BE A CONSISTENT THING. AND SO TO ME, WHEN YOU START ISSUING VARIANCE AFTER VARIANCE AFTER VARIANCE ON THE SAME TOPIC, YOU NEED TO FIX THE CODE, WHATEVER THE ISSUE IS IN THE CODE, WE NEED TO FIGURE THAT OUT. WE NEED TO GET THAT SITUATED AND LOCKED IN SO THAT WE STOP HAVING TO DO VARIANCE AFTER VARIANCE AFTER VARIANCE.

IT'S ESSENTIALLY SAYING OUR CODE IS NOT WORKING. SO WE'RE WE'RE OF THE SAME MINDSET OKAY OKAY. GOOD. THANK YOU FOR ACKNOWLEDGING ME SIR. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT FOR THE AUDIENCE SOMETIMES IT STILL IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO HEAR, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE WERE EXPERIENCING A MINUTE AGO. SO PLEASE CONSIDER SPEAKING UP PRETTY LOUD AND IN THE MICROPHONE AS BEST AS Y'ALL CAN. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. WHILE WE ARE IN THAT AGENDA ITEM, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YEAH YEAH OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE CAN GO AHEAD AND MOVE ALONG. OUR NEXT ITEM IS CONSENT AGENDA. WE DO NOT HAVE

[V.1. Election of officers (Chair and Vice-Chair) for the coming year.]

ALSO, BECAUSE OF OUR STAFFING CHANGES THAT WE HAVE, I THINK THAT IT'S PROBABLY WISE FOR US TO OPEN THIS UP FOR DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER WE WOULD LIKE TO ELECT OFFICERS NOW, OR IF WE WISH TO HOLD OFF UNTIL WE HAVE THIS BOARD FULLY SET FOR WHAT THE REMAINDER OF 2020 6TH MAY

[00:15:05]

SURE. I WON'T BE HERE TO SUFFER UNDER THEM. AND I WOULD AGREE WITH GENE BECAUSE I'M IN THE SAME POSITION, SO I, I THINK I THINK MAYBE IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO TABLE IT UNTIL YOU HAVE A NEW A NEWLY CONFIGURED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND THEN YOU CAN ELECT OFFICERS CHAIR, MAY I ASK, DO WE KNOW HOW MANY WE ARE LOSING AFTER TONIGHT FOR SURE TO MY TERM EXPIRED AND I DIDN'T RE-UP. I'M STAYING HERE AND I'M DONE WITH PNC. OKAY, OKAY. DO WE HAVE DO WE KNOW WHAT THE APPLICATION POOL LOOKS LIKE? OUR APPLICANT POOL LOOKS LIKE FOR. NOT ENTIRELY. UNTIL PLANNING AND ZONING IS FULLY STAFFED. SO THAT'S BEEN THE HANG UP. SO PROBABLY PROBABLY BEST. DO I NEED A MOTION TO TABLE THEN. DEFINITELY OPEN TO A MOTION TO TABLE I. MOTION TO TABLE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM NUMBER ONE. UNTIL SUCH A TIME THAT A SLATE OF CHAIR BOARD MEMBERS ARE ELECTED OR APPOINTED. OKAY, THAT SOUNDS GOOD. I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. ECCLES, A SECOND FROM MISS GONZALEZ. I WAS GOING TO SAY, TECHNICALLY MY LAST NAME IS GONZALEZ NOW, BUT THERE WE GO. THANK YOU. OKAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. HEARING NONE. MOTION TO TABLE. THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS IS

[VI.1. 25-2904-SP-E]

AND SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, SO FAR, THEY HAVE TWO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED AND ONE IN FAVOR OF FROM THE NEIGHBORS. I'M NOT SURE WHAT PUBLIC ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS WE HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. MAY I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? LOOKING AT PAGE SIX, THERE'S A LOT MAP. I SEE THE CORNER LOT. I SEE THE HOUSE. YOU WOULD SAY TO THE RIGHT IF YOU'RE STANDING IN THE ALONG THE STREET, THERE IS A LOT BEHIND IT THAT LOOKS LIKE

[00:20:05]

JUST JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTOOD WHAT WE JUST SAID THAT LOT THAT MR. ECHOLS REFERRED TO, THAT'S ENDS IN 156. THE OTHER TWO. THE OTHER SECTION WAS TWO LOTS COMBINED.

SO THAT OTHER LOT IS VACANT, I BELIEVE 156. RIGHT. BECAUSE I JUST DROVE BY THERE TODAY. I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM. OKAY. AND SO WHEN AND IF A HOUSE IS EVER BUILT THERE, THEY WOULD BE FACING BISON TRAIL. AND SO THEIR SIDE PROPERTY WOULD BE ABUTTING THIS PROPERTIES, REAR PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE ORIENTATION OF THE HOUSE. OKAY. IT DOES LOOK LIKE THERE ARE SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION THAT CAME IN AS WELL. THE ORIGINAL POSITIONS WE DO, WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC COMMENT AND PEOPLE SIGNED UP FOR THAT THAT WE CAN BRING UP.

JUST FOR CURIOSITY, CAN I ASK A QUESTION BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE. DID THEY BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE THIS ANYWHERE IN THE DOCUMENTS AND I DIDN'T NOTICE IT WHEN I SAW THE PROPERTY, BUT DID THEY IDENTIFY WHAT IS THE UNIQUE ASPECT OF THE PROPERTY THAT MAKES THIS A REQUIREMENT? LIKE WHAT? WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY? IT SEEMED TO ME LIKE THE PROPERTY WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA. SO WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT THIS PROPERTY? I DON'T BELIEVE WE RECEIVED ANY FEEDBACK ON THAT. ESSENTIALLY, FROM LOOKING AT THEIR SITE PLAN, THERE IS ROOM FOR THEM TO BUILD BACK. WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S THE CHOICE WOULD BE ON THEM. BUT RIGHT, OKAY. THAT WAS WHAT I OBSERVED AS WELL. SO THAT'S WHY I WAS WONDERING IF THEY ADDRESSED IT BECAUSE IT IS A REQUIREMENT. AND SO I WOULD THINK THAT THEY WOULD BE ADDRESSING ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN THEIR APPLICATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE A CONCERN OF MY OWN. MORE OF A QUESTION. YEAH. I JUST HAD HIS HAND UP. JUST A QUICK QUESTION. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? OKAY. THAT'S. BEFORE WE BEFORE WE GET TO THAT PORTION OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. THE QUESTION THAT I DIDN'T CATCH UNTIL MAYBE MY THIRD READ THROUGH OUR PACKET TO MAKE SURE I'VE DONE A SITE VISIT AND EVERYTHING. IT APPEARS THAT THIS APPLICATION CAME IN ON A VARIANCE REQUEST FORM, BUT THROUGH OUR PACKET AND THROUGH THE NOTICE, IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. GIVEN THE INFORMATION WE JUST WENT THROUGH AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING ABOUT THOSE TWO THINGS BEING SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT ARE WE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ITEM WITH THAT IN CONFLICT? YES. SO THE. IT FALLS UNDER THE CODE OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

HOWEVER, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FALLS UNDER THE CODE OF THE VARIANCE. AND SO THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME. IT AGAIN IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO CLEAN UP INTERNALLY. BUT THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME. AND THAT'S I SPOKE WITH BRAD JUST THIS AFTERNOON ABOUT IT. GOT IT.

OKAY. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS THERE BEFORE WE GOT ANY FURTHER, BECAUSE IT'S MAYBE NOT THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THAT ONE, BUT THE FIRST WITH THIS NEWER INFORMATION ABOUT JUST BEING SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME. SO WE WILL HAVE CONCERNS LIKE WHAT MISS ERIC BROUGHT UP THAT ARE GENERALLY CONCERNED, SUBJECT TO A VARIANCE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AS CLARIFIED PRIOR REGARDING SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS THAT WE DO NEED TO CONSIDER, LIKE THE PROPERTY BEING SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM FROM OTHERS. ONE TO CLARIFY, THOSE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR US TO APPROVE A VARIANCE. THEY ARE REQUIRED. SO IF THEY'RE NOT MET, LIKE LIKE I SAID AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING, CUT AND DRY. OKAY, SO MAY I, MAY I ADD TO THAT REAL QUICK IT YEAH, THOSE ARE REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET BY THE MET BY THE APPLICANT. IT IS NOT UP TO US TO FIND A WAY TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. RIGHT. AND I'M GOING TO JUMP OVER TO A PAGE I BROUGHT WITH ME JUST TO MAKE SURE FOR EVERYBODY UP. HERE'S CLARITY. SINCE WE DO HAVE SOME NEWER MEMBERS AND ALSO FOR THE PUBLIC'S CLARITY, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS IS IN SECTION 11.20 OF OUR CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES, CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR VARIANCE. THESE ARE THINGS THAT WOULD BE THE BURDEN OF PROOF BASICALLY FALLS TO THE APPLICANT TO PROVE THAT THESE CONDITIONS ARE MET. IN ORDER FOR THIS BOARD TO BE ABLE TO CONSIDER ONE OF THOSE ITEMS, IT STATES NO VARIANCE SHALL BE GRANTED UNLESS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FINDS THAT A THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST

[00:25:02]

JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAD THAT ON THE TOP OF THEIR MIND. BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REST OF THESE ITEMS. SO AND THEN I DID HAVE A QUESTION JUST KIND OF GOING OFF OF WHAT WHAT BRENDA POINTED OUT. SO SINCE THE LOTS ARE CONSOLIDATED, THEY WOULD BE TOTALLY FINE BUILDING TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY AND THEY'D STILL BE FINE ON IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS. THEY WOULD NEED NO OTHER VARIANCES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO I CAN'T SPEAK AS FAR AS IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE GOES, BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF MATH AND FIGURE THAT OUT, BUT THEY HAVE ROOM WITHIN THEIR SETBACKS IN THE SITE OR IN THE PACKET. THERE IS A SITE PLAN. ONE LINE IS A PROPERTY LINE. ONE LINE IS A SETBACK. EVERYTHING WITHIN THAT MIDDLE BOX IS BUILDABLE AS LONG AS YOU MEET YOUR IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS, BUT MY ASSUMPTION WOULD BE THAT THERE IS SOME ROOM TO BUILD CURIOSITY THAT SORT OF TACKS ON TO THAT ONE AS WELL. SINCE WE'RE DEALING WITH AN AMENDED REPLAT OF TWO LOTS. HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, DO THEY BASICALLY BECOME ABSORBED WHEN THOSE TWO PROPERTIES BECOME ONE IN TERMS OF MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED? IF WE'RE GOING FROM THE HEIGHT OF, THE HIGHEST BUILDABLE SPOT ON THE LOT, IS THAT NOW SUBJECT TO INFORMATION FROM THE LOT THAT'S NOT PRESENTLY BUILT ON, EVEN THOUGH THE STRUCTURE IS ON THE ON THE FRONT OF THIS LOT, I MIGHT NOT BE EXACTLY CORRECT WITH MY WORDING, BUT LET ME KNOW IF YOU DON'T GET THE SPIRIT OF WHAT I'M ASKING THERE. SO, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT NOW THAT THERE'S TWO LOTS, IT SHOULD BE THE HIGHEST POINT OF WHATEVER OR WHATEVER THE HIGHEST IS ACROSS THE BOARD. THAT WOULD AFFECT MY DECISION MAKING FOR THIS, FOR SURE. THAT WOULD BE MY ASSUMPTION BASED OFF OF HOW OUR CODE IS WRITTEN, THAT IT'S. SO ESSENTIALLY OUR CODE SAYS IT'S 15FT OFF OF THE MAXIMUM POINT OF YOUR LOT. AND SO REGARDLESS OF IF IT'S A CONSOLIDATED LOT OR FIVE ACRE LOT OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, IT'S YOUR HIGHEST ELEVATION PLUS 15FT. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF LEGALLY THERE'S SOME STIPULATIONS ABOUT IT BEING A CONSOLIDATED LOT, BUT THE WAY OUR CODE READS, IT'S 15FT HIGH ELEVATION. SO IF WE HAD NEW HIGHER ELEVATION FROM THAT AMENDED ADDITIONAL LOT BEING ADDED ON, THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE RAISED THEIR ALLOWABLE BUILD HEIGHT AT FIRST PLACE. I DON'T THINK IN OUR SITE MAP THAT WE HAVE ELEVATION FROM THE THE SECOND LOT THAT'S IN THERE. I THINK WE JUST HAVE A LOT THAT'S PRESENTLY BUILT ON, SO THAT MAY BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. SO YOU'LL SEE ON THE SITE PLAN, THE ELEVATION LINES ARE RUNNING. ESSENTIALLY VERTICAL INSTEAD OF HORIZONTAL. AND SO IT JUMPS ONLY A COUPLE OF FEET. BUT IT'S GOING THE WRONG DIRECTION UP THERE. IT'S IT'S NOT GOING BACK. IT'S GOING SIDEWAYS. YEAH. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. WELL, AND IT DEFINITELY DIDN'T LOOK LIKE IT WOULD COVER THE VARIANCES THEY'RE ASKING FOR. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL IT LOOKS LIKE SOME OF THE ELEVATION LINES ARE CURVING AND THEY MAY COME BACK AND GO UP. I I'M NOT SURE BECAUSE IT DOES CUT OFF ON THE BACK HALF. CLARIFY THIS IS R1 CURRENTLY ZONED RIGHT. WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF R1? I BELIEVE IT'S 15 15FT OKAY. SO THEY'RE LOOKING TO GO WHAT'S THE TOTAL HEIGHT THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT I SEE THEY'RE GOING EIGHT NINE ABOVE THEIR EXISTING STRUCTURE.

SO DO YOU WANT THE FEET OF THE ELEVATION OR THE FEET OF THE BUILD. LOOKING FOR THE FEET ABOVE R1. SO IF THEY GOT 15 FOR R1 HOW FAR ABOVE R1 ARE WE GOING. THAT'S THE REQUEST FOR THE EIGHT. THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S 8.9. PERFECT. THANK YOU. DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. JUST A COMMENT. I BELIEVE WHEN I WENT BY, THE RIDGE POLE WAS ACTUALLY ERECTED ON THE ROOF OF THE EXISTING GARAGE. SO THAT WOULD NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY RISE IN THE ELEVATION. RIGHT.

[00:30:03]

WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE. WE CAN DEFINITELY BRING UP, IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON YOUR ITEM TONIGHT AS WELL. AND WE CAN WE CAN START THERE. I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE A SIGN UP FROM YOU, BUT I DON'T THINK WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ONE. THE APPLICANT. SO IF ANYBODY HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THAT. NO. OKAY, PERFECT. IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO YOUR APPLICATION, WANT TO DISCUSS ANY OF THIS OR PLEASE COME FORWARD TO THE PODIUM FOR US AND WE'LL NEED YOUR YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. MY NAME IS CURTIS ADKINS FOR THE A711 BRIDGE TRAIL. CAN YOU LIFT UP THE MICROPHONE? YEAH. THANK YOU. YES, I GUESS JUST BEND IT HARD.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MAKE SURE IT'S ON FOR YOU. I GUESS FIRST, JUST AS FAR AS MY NEIGHBORS ARE CONCERNED, I DEFINITELY AM NOT HERE TO UPSET ANYBODY. SO I'M HERE TO LISTEN TO YOUR FEEDBACK AND GET YOUR THOUGHTS AS WELL. AND I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS A FEW THINGS THAT I HEARD THE MEMBERS SAY. AS FAR AS I'M NOT GOING TO GET ALL THE TERMINOLOGY RIGHT, BUT WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE LIKE THE HARDSHIPS AND THE A, B, C, D, E, I'LL ADMIT WHEN I DID THE APPLICATION, I DIDN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND KIND OF WHAT ALL THAT WAS ASKING. I THINK WHEN I SUBMITTED MY APPLICATION, I SAID THAT IT WAS A BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS ALSO THINGS IN THERE ABOUT LIKE MARINA ACCESS AND THE WAY YOU KIND OF READ IT IS NOT SUPER CLEAR. SO I APOLOGIZE IF I DIDN'T PROVIDE THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR WITH THAT. THE OTHER THING, THE LOT DOES INCREASE A LITTLE BIT TO THE BACK, BUT IT'S VERY MINOR, AS YOU GUYS KIND OF NOTICED WHEN YOU DROVE BY. IF YOU EYEBALLED IT, I'D SAY MAYBE A FOOT, BUT IT WASN'T ANYTHING THAT I FELT WAS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH THAT WOULD AFFECT MY APPLICATION. SO I DIDN'T BOTHER TO GET A NEW SITE SURVEY TO ADDRESS THAT. AND THEN THE OTHER CONCERN THAT I HEARD WAS THE ROOF AND THE POLES ON THE ROOF. I DID ACTUALLY HAVE MY ARCHITECT CALCULATE THE SLOPE OF THE SUN DECK. SO WHERE THE RIDGE POLES ARE ERECTED, THE STRIPES ARE ACTUALLY SLIGHTLY HIGHER RELATIVE TO THAT POINT THAN WHERE THE WALL WOULD BE BUILT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO IT SHOULD ACCURATELY REFLECT FROM THE STREET WHERE THAT ROOF LINE SHOULD BE RELATIVE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, BUT ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YEAH. IS THERE A SPECIFIC REASON WHY YOU'RE SEEKING A HEIGHT EXCEPTION IN BUILDING ABOVE THE GARAGE VERSUS. YEAH, TO THE PROPERTY, BECAUSE A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE IS A CUSTOM BUILDER AND PUT AN IDEA IN MY EAR. SO WE, MY WIFE AND I HAVE LIVED IN THE AUSTIN AREA FOR OVER 20 YEARS. WE WERE JUST SUPER FORTUNATE TO FIND THIS HOUSE WHEN IT WENT ON THE MARKET. HONESTLY, WE PUT AN OFFER ON IT LIKE THE SECOND DAY AND JUST REALLY LUCKED OUT TO GET WHAT WE CONSIDER OUR DREAM HOME. AND PART OF THAT IS, YOU KNOW, LONG TERM GOALS. SO THE BACK LOT WAS A HUGE BENEFIT FOR US TO I HAVE YOU KNOW, I'M A HOBBYIST WOODWORKER. I LOVE MY WOOD SHOP BEHIND IN MY HOUSE IN ROUND ROCK, SO I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO REPLACE THAT YET. SO MY INITIAL IDEA WAS TO BUILD ON THE BACK LOT AND TO BUILD A WORKSHOP AND BUILD A SOME EXTRA PARKING SPACE BACK THERE, AND REALLY, IT'S JUST KIND OF COME DOWN TO THE HARDSHIPS OF THE LAND THAT WE'RE ON. I'M SITTING ON A HUGE GRANITE SLAB, AND I'D BE LOOKING AT EXPLOSIVE EXCAVATION AND A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL COST TO EVEN GET TO LIKE A LEVEL PAD TO WORK ON, AS WELL AS HAVING TO BUILD AN EASEMENT OVER A CITY DRAINAGE AREA. SO A LOT OF COST ASSOCIATED TO JUST EVEN GET TO THE POINT WHERE I COULD BUILD SOMETHING ON A FLAT SURFACE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I HAD TWO BUILDERS COME AND LOOK AT IT, KIND OF TALK THROUGH DIFFERENT OPTIONS. AND THEY, YOU KNOW, MY MY BACKYARD RIGHT NOW, THEY'VE ALREADY EXCAVATED ALL OF THAT GRANITE. SO WE HAVE A VERY FLAT SURFACE TO WORK FROM. AND SO HE SUGGESTED THAT WE GO THIS ROUTE BASICALLY WHAT MY APPLICATION IS. SO IT WAS HONESTLY, I'M STILL TRYING TO GET TO THE SAME END GAME OF WHAT I'M GAINING FROM THE SPACE, BUT KIND OF MINIMIZING COST ASSOCIATED WITH GETTING SOMETHING FROM THE GROUND UP AND THE BENEFIT OF BUILDING FROM MY HOUSE CURRENTLY, AS OPPOSED TO AN EXTERIOR STRUCTURE, DOESN'T ALLOW ADUS, SO I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO LEVERAGE THAT SPACE FOR THAT.

AND THIS WOULD ALLOW ME TO INCREASE MY SQUARE FOOTAGE ON MY HOUSE SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE IN OUR DREAM. SO IT WAS REALLY JUST KIND OF A MATTER OF

[00:35:03]

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ALL RIGHT. WE CAN MOVE ON TO OTHER CITIZEN COMMENTS AND PARDON ME WHILE I GET A LITTLE MORE ORGANIZED HERE. I HAVE QUITE A FEW FROM THIS ONE. ALL RIGHT.

AND I HAVE ONE WITH A REQUEST TO SPEAK. FIRST NOTE I HAVE A SALLY GRIFFITH. OKAY, I'M SALLY GRIFFITH AND I AM ONE OF THE TWO OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY THAT WAS REFERENCED. THAT'S DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO 8711. I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE A BRIEF, A REAL BRIEF HISTORY KIND OF OVERVIEW OF WHAT OUR CONCERNS ARE. AND THEN WE SUPPORT WE HAVE SUPPLIED SEVERAL PACKETS FOR YOU THAT INCLUDE PHOTOGRAPHS. WE DID TWO WEEKS THROUGH THE HOLIDAYS OF EXTENSIVE RESEARCH GOING THROUGH. THE THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU REFERENCED. AND WE HAVE CAROLYN WILL SPEAK AFTER ME. SHE'S THE OTHER SECOND OWNER IN THE HOME AND SHE HAS A LOT TO TALK. SHE'S REFERENCED TO ALL OF THE ORDINANCES THAT ARE INCLUDED. NOW, THE CONCERN, I GUESS, ABOUT YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT THE APPLICATION WAS, WAS NOT JUST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT DOESN'T MATTER. IT STILL FOLLOWS THE SAME. REQUIREMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU REFERENCED IN 11.20 AND SOME OF THE OTHERS, WHICH THAT'S I GUESS WE'LL HAVE QUESTION IF THAT DOES, THE ONES WE'VE ALSO REFERENCED FOR FOR THAT SO BRIEFLY, WE PURCHASED THE SINGLE STORY HOME IN 2007. AT THE TIME WE HAD NO NEIGHBORS AND SIDE BACK ACROSS BEHIND. THERE WAS NO WATER. WE LIVE ON RAINWATER AND WE HAD NO SEWER.

AND ABOUT 5 OR 6 YEARS AGO THEY INCLUDED THAT. AND THAT'S WHEN THE NEW BUILDS CAME IN. BOTH OF THE PROPERTIES OUR PROPERTY IN 8711 ARE CURRENTLY ZONED IN THE R1. S RESIDENTIAL ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY, WITH THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR 15FT MEASURED AT THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE PROPERTY. AND I CAN TELL YOU BY LOOKING AT THE WHEN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT, EXACTLY WHERE THAT HIGH POINT IS, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WAS DUG DOWN QUITE A WAY, AND IT ACTUALLY WAS A HALF AN INCH OR AN INCH AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. SO WHEN OUR CURRENT FENCE WAS BUILT, WE ACTUALLY HAD TO MOVE IT A HALF AN INCH BACK. SO ACTUALLY IT'S A VERY SMALL PART. AND YOU CAN SEE THE DOT ON THE MAP OF WHERE THE HIGH POINT IS BEING MEASURED, AND IT IS FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY. IT'S NOT FROM BEHIND. SO I GUESS THAT'S ANOTHER CONSIDERATION. SO IN REFERENCE TO THE APPLICATION THAT MR. ATKINS SUBMITTED ON TEN 2325 TO APPROVAL, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FROM 15 TO ALMOST 40, 24FT ON THE EXISTING HOME THAT WAS BUILT IN 2018 AND PURCHASED BY THE OCCUPANT IN DOT, THE OCCUPANT IN 2024. VERY RECENT PURCHASE. THE BASIS OF THE REQUEST INCLUDES THE INTENT TO BUILD A SECOND STORY ON THE EXISTING FLAT GARAGE ROOF, AS WELL AS A GARAGE EXTENSION THAT WILL EXTEND TO THE BACK AND RUN ALONG THE WHOLE FENCE LINE OF OUR WOODEN FENCE PROPERTY. AND IT'S A VERY IT'S GOING TO MAKE A VERY LARGE TWO STORY BUILDING. SO JUST A MOMENT TO CONCLUDE I DIDN'T GET I DON'T HAVE A VISIBLE TIMER GOING FOR YOU BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE STAFF

[00:40:01]

I'M SORRY. WHEN OUR POWER WENT OUT TODAY, I HAD TO WRITE RIGHT IN THE YES, SO EXCUSE THE MISSPELLED WORDS. PROBABLY IN THE HANDWRITING. SLOPPY. OKAY. AND OKAY. GOING ON TO. SO THIS DOCUMENTATION INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO CONCERNS AS FOLLOWS. HEIGHT VARIANCE OF THE NEW BUILD WILL IMPACT VIEWS FROM AREAS OF OUR HOME FROM FRONT, SIDE, REAR PORCH AND BACKYARD, AS WELL AS SIDE AND REAR INDOOR WINDOWS. WITHIN THE HOME. IT'S GOING TO BE A LARGE TWO STORY ADDITION SCREENING TO PROVIDE PRIVACY AND LOWER THE IMPACT OF THE TWO STORY ADDITION THAT INVADES OUR VIEW IS NOT A VIABLE SOLUTION, AS THE DOCUMENTATION INDICATES IN OUR PACKET. THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD INCLUDES MOSTLY ONE STORY HOMES THAT MEET THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ZONING ORDINANCE. MULTIPLE STORY HOMES ARE BUILT ON STEEP DOWNSLOPES AND ALLOWING FOR COMPLIANCE TO THE 15 FOOT ORDINANCE, SO YOU CAN HAVE A TWO STORY HOUSE, BUT NOT ON A FLAT SITE, AS THE ORDINANCE READS. SO THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO INCREASE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CURRENT ZONED AREAS POTENTIALLY SETS PRECEDENTS FOR FUTURE BUILDS, AS WELL AS EXISTING STRUCTURES THAT ARE IN THIS ZONED AREA WHO MAY EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS TO THIS EXCEPTION TO BUILD OR MODIFY THEIR HOMES, EFFECTIVELY IMPACTING ALL RESIDENTS IN THE R-1 ZONED AREA IMPACTED BY THIS REQUEST. AND I INCLUDED THE ZONING MAP, THE WE LIVE UP BY THE AIRPORT, AND ALL OF THOSE HOMES ARE ZONED FOR THE R-1. S AREA, SO I'M GOING TO LEAVE THE REST TO CAROLYN, AND I ENCOURAGE YOU IF YOU CAN, IF FOLLOW THROUGH WITH SOME OF THE PICTURES THAT WE TRIED TO ORGANIZE TO OUR TALKING POINTS.

AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE OPPOSITION DETERMINING THE OUTCOME IN THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST. THANK Y'ALL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND BEFORE WE BRING ANYBODY ELSE UP, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UP HERE HAS HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTATION. WE HAVE FOUR SEPARATE PACKETS THAT WERE PROVIDED. SO SORRY I DON'T KNOW.

WE DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE TO READ THEM ALL THROUGH TONIGHT. ALRIGHT. YES.

ALL RIGHT. WE CAN GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. AND THAT IS CAROLYN.

I DON'T WANT TO MESS UP CAROLYN'S LAST NAME HERE. LEVESQUE. LEVESQUE. MISS LEVESQUE, IF WE CAN HAVE YOU COME FORWARD. FULL NAME AND ADDRESS AT THE MICROPHONE FOR US, AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. CAROLYN LEVESQUE, WHAT ELSE DID YOU NEED? YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE. OH 8709 BLUFF RIDGE TRAIL. PERFECT. OKAY. GO RIGHT AHEAD. SO THERE'S FOUR DIFFERENT SECTIONS TO OUR PACKET. WELL, WITH SALLY'S RESPONSE. AND THEN WE HAVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHMENTS THAT ARE IN THERE. WE HAVE A SUMMARY I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THIS.

IT'S JUST KIND OF LIKE WE'RE ADDRESSING IT IN THIS MAIN THIS FIRST ONE. BUT THIS IS ALSO SUMMARY FOR YOU. IT'S A LITTLE SIMPLER WAY. YEAH. IT'S A SIMPLER WAY TO REVIEW THINGS.

[00:45:06]

AND SO IT'S NOT A VIABLE OPTION. I CAN'T THINK OF A VIABLE OPTION THAT I COULD INCORPORATE TO SCREEN ANY OF THAT, OR TO RESECURE MY OWN PRIVACY TO BE ABLE TO ENJOY THAT WITHOUT FEAR OF SOMETHING LOOMING OVER LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW ME. SO LET ME START. I KNOW THAT I'M RUNNING OUT OF TIME ALREADY. SO WE LOOKED INTO 1120. THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR THE VARIANCE. WE CITED THAT CONDITION IN OUR ONE OF OUR DISAGREEMENTS ON THAT ON ON OPPOSITION WAS THAT. A STATE THAT WE FEEL IN IN IN NO WAY. THAT IT WILL IMPACT THE VIEW OF OUR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS. AND SO THE REASON I DISAGREE WITH THAT IS, IS BECAUSE FEEL IS NOT MEASURABLE. IT IS A SUBJECTIVE TERM. SO I COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED. THAT WOULD SUPPORT THAT. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S TIME UNFORTUNATELY. OH SOMEBODY SOMEBODY'S GOING TO DONATE ME THREE MORE MINUTES. GOT IT. I THINK WE WE HAD ABOUT A MINUTE OF THAT THREE LEFT THAT IT LOOKED LIKE RHONDA TREASTER HAD DONATED. SO DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER. YEAH, WE HAVE SOMEONE ELSE SIGNED UP TO DONATE. I DIDN'T HAVE INFORMATION FOR THAT. I HAD. I'LL GIVE MY TIME TO CAROLYN. JANET, DO WE NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THAT SIGN UP FORM? IF BEFORE. BEFORE YOU GO TONIGHT, WE'LL HAVE YOU FILL OUT A CARD. JUST SO WE HAVE IT FOR OUR RECORDS THAT YOU'VE DONATED YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.

OKAY, SO THERE IS NO WAY I CAN GET THROUGH ALL THESE DOCUMENTS WITH YOU TONIGHT. I'M JUST GOING TO. I'M JUST GOING TO BE SERIOUS. BUT I WANT TO BE REST ASSURED THAT YOU WILL READ EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE SUBMITTED, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A SUMMARY THAT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF MODIFIES WHAT WE SAY. THIS WAS ENDLESS NIGHTS OF RESEARCH. WHILE THE CITY WAS CLOSED, WE WERE STILL WORKING. SO ALL WE GET ARE TEN DAYS. THERE'S NO EXCEPTION. IF YOU'RE OPEN OR YOU'RE CLOSED. I MEAN, FOR YOU BEING CLOSED. SO I COULD TALK TO ANYONE AT THAT TIME. SO WE HAD TO DO ALL THE LEGWORK I DID HAVE WITH. DON'T TELL ME. YOU BETTER TELL ME WHAT TIME.

JORDAN. YEAH. JORDAN. SHE'S VERY HELPFUL TO THIS WHOLE SITUATION. SHE WAS VERY SUPPORTIVE. AND I DO APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE FOR SALINA. SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH ALL THIS EXCEPT THAT WE OPPOSE IT. AND WE HAVE CITED THE REASONS WHY WE OPPOSE IT AND WE HAVE TRIED TO ENTER. WE HAVE INTERTWINED IT WITH THE ORDINANCES THAT THE ORDINANCES ARE CITED. AND THEN OUR RESPONSE, WE PROVIDE A REPLY.

SO AM I OUT OF TIME? DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER MINUTE? OKAY. I'M TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT IT I MEAN, IT'S NOT FOR US. IT'S NOT ANYTHING PERSONALLY ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS AT ALL. IT'S THAT WHEN WE CAME UP HERE, THAT WAS IT FOR US. EVERYBODY SAYS, OH, THIS IS IT. BUT THERE WAS. WE

[00:50:06]

I HEARD SOMETHING FROM NEIGHBORS ABOUT A DANCE STUDIO. AND I HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT THE OWNER SAYING A WORKSHOP. I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THE FUNCTION OR PURPOSE OF THIS IS GOING TO BE. AND NOW I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S GOING TO GO UP AND GO OUT, AND I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S EXTRA PARKING INVOLVED IN THAT, I DO APOLOGIZE, I JUST LEARNED THIS LAST NIGHT. I DON'T REALLY HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF BACKGROUND, BUT AS FAR AS THE TOPOGRAPHY AND THE NEIGHBORS, WHAT I BELIEVE THAT IS LOWER TOPOGRAPHY, AND I NOTICED THAT THE SLOPE OF THAT ROOF IS GOING THAT WAY. HOW WILL THAT IMPACT, YOU KNOW, THE DRAINAGE, WHICH IS ALWAYS AN ISSUE IN OUR AREA AND THE IMPERVIOUS COVER. AND I GUESS WHAT I'M NOW UNDERSTANDING, TOO, IS THAT THE HOME WAS BUILT IN 2007, AND THERE WAS A VARIANCE FROM 15FT TO 24. AND NOW THIS IS, YOU KNOW, COMING BACK AND WANTING TO MAKE IT ALMOST NINE FEET TALLER, YOU KNOW, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE PROMISE OR THE VISION OF LAGO VISTA. AND, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE FOUNDERS, LIKE MR. LA VISTA AND HOLLIS BOWDEN AND, YOU KNOW, THE JUST THE ORIGINAL LAYING OUT PEOPLE LIKE US THAT HAVE BEEN HERE, WE'VE JUST BEEN HERE 25 YEARS. I CONSIDER THOSE NEWCOMERS. BUT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WEREN'T REALLY PIONEERS AND THEY FOLLOWED AND WE FOLLOWED EVERY BIT OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE LAW. AND WE'RE WE'RE FINDING THAT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE IS BEING CHANGED BY AN EXPLOSION OF PEOPLE WANTING TO HAVE WHAT THEY WANT, HAVE WHAT THEY DREAM. BUT WE'VE GIVEN OUR LIVES EVERYTHING WE EVER WORKED FOR, EVERYTHING WE EVER HAVE TO DEVELOP PROPERTY, HAVE PROPERTY, KEEP IT IN OUR FAMILIES. WE HAVE FUTURE PLANS FOR OUR CHILDREN TO COME OUT HERE. WE HAVE NEIGHBORS WHO ARE THREE GENERATIONS, I BELIEVE, THE NEXT NEAREST NEIGHBOR TO THIS COUPLE. THEY'VE BEEN OUT HERE FOR MANY YEARS AND ACTUALLY HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING WITH THE THE GRANDSON AT THE LAW. I WAS PRODUCTION MANAGER OF THE LAW. SO, I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT THAT TRANSPIRES OVER TIME, AND I THINK THAT WE JUST NEED TO REALLY SEE THAT THERE'S HARDSHIP IN THE COMMUNITY AND THERE'S HARDSHIP, ESPECIALLY DEPENDING UPON WHERE AN AREA IS, HOW IT'S GOING TO IMPACT TRAFFIC, HOW IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE DRAINAGE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE DEALT WITH. THE WATER DOES TRAVEL DOWN THE HILL ANYWAY. I GUESS. I GUESS THE

[00:55:03]

I'M SEEING ART DIAZ AND KRISTI WILLIAMS SIGNED UP ON LINE. SO IT SAYS DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK.

AND THEN OPPOSITION FOR BOTH. AND I BELIEVE, JORDAN, YOU SAID YOU HAD SOMEBODY IN FAVOR OF.

BUT I DON'T THINK I HAVE A COPY OF THAT. IS THAT ACCURATE? YES. WE RECEIVED A LETTER, BUT THERE WASN'T ANY COMMENTARY. IT WAS JUST JUST A LETTER IN SUPPORT IN FAVOR OF. AND THEN TWO OPPOSITIONS, CORRECT. TWO OPPOSITIONS IN ADDITION TO WHAT WAS RECEIVED TONIGHT. I BELIEVE IT'S IN ADDITION IT WOULD I WOULD HAVE TO MATCH EVERYTHING UP AND MARRY EVERYTHING UP WITH COMMENTS. SURE. I THINK DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO DID NOT SIGN UP WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM EITHER IN PUBLIC? I THINK WE CAN CLOSE OUR PUBLIC HEARING. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT. JUST FOR A QUICK MINUTE. SURE. IF YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR US, PLEASE, AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES, SIR. SURE. HANG ON JUST A SECOND. WE NEED TO SEE HIS PICTURE. YEAH. THERE WE GO. SORRY, I'M IN MY TRUCK AT THE MOMENT. I GOT CALLED ON LAST MINUTE MEETING OR I'D. I'D BE THERE. I WAS IN SAN ANTONIO. SORRY. SO THE REASON THE REASON I WANT TO SPEAK REAL QUICK ON IT IS OBVIOUSLY I HAVEN'T COME UP AS WELL. AND I WANT CLARIFICATION THAT I'M JUDGED THE SAME AS THAT. WE SHOULD BE JUDGED ON THE SPECIAL HEIGHT EXCEPTION BECAUSE I DISAGREE. I HAD A MEETING BACK IN JULY WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON ANOTHER TASK, AND THIS IS WHERE ALL THIS KIND OF STARTED, IN MY OPINION, BECAUSE I RAISED A ITEM, A QUESTION ABOUT BEING JUDGED ON A VARIANCE BECAUSE Y'ALL HAD A TRAINING COURSE AT THAT MEETING BASED ON WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPECIAL AND VARIANCE. AND I STRONGLY DISAGREE THAT THOSE ARE NOT THE SAME. AND WE'RE IN THE SAME POSITION NOW AS WE WERE IN BACK THEN. AND WHAT I WANTED TO BE SEEN AGAIN IS BECAUSE THE ONLY PERSON SAYING THAT THEY ARE THE SAME IS THE ATTORNEY. AND I'M NOT SAYING I MEAN THE THE ISSUE HERE, IN MY OPINION, IS THAT I UNDERSTAND AN ATTORNEY HAS SO MANY CODES, SO MANY THINGS TO FOLLOW ALONG. JUST LIKE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, HE CAN'T KNOW EVERYTHING FROM A CODE, FROM A CITY CODE FROM THIS AND THAT. SO I THINK HE MADE A MISTAKE IN MAKING THAT ADJUSTMENT. AND THEN Y'ALL HAD ANOTHER TRAINING COURSE THE FOLLOWING MEETING ALONG THESE LINES TO TRAIN THIS. AND Y'ALL WENT BACK TO IT ONLY HAS TO HAVE A VIEW ISSUE. THEN Y'ALL HAD ANOTHER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING THAT I DIDN'T GET PUT ON IN SEPTEMBER. AND THE REASON I'M SAYING ALL THIS FOR THIS, THIS MOTION IS BECAUSE I WANT UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE BEING JUDGED ON A VIEW AND A SPECIAL EXCEPTION CASE, BECAUSE THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, BECAUSE Y'ALL HAD ANOTHER MEETING ON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON THE AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER, WHERE IT SHOWED THAT Y'ALL WERE NOW JUDGING SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. Y'ALL WENT BACK TO THE VIEW AND THOSE YOU CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE AGENDAS AND THE VIDEOS. AND THAT'S WHAT Y'ALL JUDGED ON. IF YOU GO BACK THERE'S TWO SECTIONS. THERE'S A VARIANCE UNDER 1160 OR 1120 OF YOUR SECTION. AND THEN THERE'S A SPECIAL EXCEPTION UNDER 1160. THEY'RE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS IN THE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION AT THE VERY BOTTOM, IF YOU LOOK AT APPROVAL STANDARDS, IT SAYS APPROVALS FOR HEIGHT GREATER THAN 35FT FROM THE GEOMETRIC CENTER OF THE LOWEST PROPOSED FOUNDATION SHALL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND DEFINED IN SECTION 1120 1130, THE ONLY TIME YOU HAVE TO SHOW A HARDSHIP IS WHEN IT IS OVER 35FT, BASED ON THE APPLICATION, BASED ON THE SECTIONS IN THE CODE FROM 1122 1160, I STRONGLY DISAGREE. AND AN APPLICATION, OBVIOUSLY WE'VE ALREADY STATED THAT THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS. IF YOU DECIDE TO CHANGE THE CODE IN THE FUTURE AND HAVE THAT VOTED, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS IS OF THAT. BUT CURRENTLY WHEN I SUBMIT MY APPLICATION AND CURRENTLY MY ASSUMPTION IS WHEN THIS GENTLEMAN SUBMITTED HIS APPLICATION, WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE BEING JUDGED ON A VARIANCE THAT IS SHOWN IN THE APPLICATION THAT IS SHOWN IN THE SECTIONS. THEY ARE BEING BLURRED. THE ONLY STATEMENT THAT I AM HEARING RIGHT NOW IS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS SAYING THAT THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME, SO WE'RE GOING BY ONE PERSON THAT IS SAYING THAT IT'S ONE AND THE SAME. WHEN THE SECTION IN THE CODE AND THE APPLICATION ALL SAY SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. SO I STRONGLY DISAGREE AND IT'S EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING. THE ONLY REASON I SAY THIS AND I'M EXTREMELY FRUSTRATED, I'M

[01:00:01]

AND I UNDERSTAND IT CAN GET COMPLICATED, BUT I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS FOR EIGHT MONTHS ON THIS ONE PROJECT, AND WE'LL GET TO MINE IN A MINUTE. SO I'M NOT GOING TO THROW ON THAT. BUT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT JUST THIS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD SPEAK WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS IN THE BEGINNING OR NOW. SO I APOLOGIZE IF I'M MISSPEAKING AT THE WRONG TIME, BUT I DO NOT AGREE THAT WE ARE JUDGING THIS CORRECTLY ON THE VARIANCE. WE NEED TO BE JUDGING ON VIEW ONLY UNDER SPECIAL EXCEPTION UNDER 1160 SECTION CODE. GOT IT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. PHILLIPS. THAT'S THAT'S TIME. AND FOR US, WE DIDN'T GET QUITE AT THE BEGINNING BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE YOU ON CAMERA YET. SO HAVE YOU ON SCREEN JARED PHILLIPS YES I'M SORRY. JARED PHILLIPS YES, SIR. YOUR ADDRESS ALSO FOR THE RECORD FOR FOR SPEAKING THERE, SIR. 3500. MY 3500 BOONE DRIVE, LAGO VISTA, TEXAS. 78645. I KNOW WE HAVE THAT FOR YOUR AGENDA ITEM, BUT JUST FOR THE RECORD, TO MAKE SURE WE HAD IT HERE, TOO. ALL RIGHT. NO. YEAH. NO. IT'S FINE. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. SO WE SHOULD HAVE ALL OF OUR PUBLIC COMMENTARY. NOW, I'M READY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ONE. BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION. SO AT 737, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR. PARDON ME HERE. ITEM 252904-SP-E. AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY DISCUSSION OR POSSIBLE MOTION. I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT. THAT COULD CHANGE BASED ON WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS. IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, I WOULD BE READY TO MAKE A MOTION IF THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION, I NO OTHER DISCUSSION, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION. MY MOTION IS THAT. FOR FOR ITEM NUMBER 20 5-2904- SP DASH E ASKING FOR A SPECIAL HEIGHT EXCEPTION. MY MOTION IS THAT WE DENY THE REQUEST BASED ON IT IS FROM WHAT THE APPLICANT SAID. SIGNIFICANTLY BASED ON FINANCIAL REASONS. AND IT'S ALSO NOT RELATED TO A UNIQUE ASPECT OF THE PROPERTY. SO SPECIFICALLY FOR THOSE TWO REASONS, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE DENY THE APPLICATION. SECOND, IF I MAY, THERE'S A PROVISION IN OUR CODE THAT ESSENTIALLY SAYS DENIAL FROM THIS BOARD OR DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION THAT GOES BEFORE A BOARD TAKES 12 MONTHS OF A COOLING OFF PERIOD BEFORE THEY CAN COME BACK. IT'S IN THE WRONG SECTION OF OUR CODE FOR IT TO APPLY TO THIS. AND SO TO COVER BASES, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT IN THE MOTION, THERE'S ALSO A STATEMENT MADE THAT UNTIL THE FACTS CHANGE WITHIN THE CASE, THAT 12 YEAR OR THAT 12 MONTH PERIOD APPLIES. AND THAT'S JUST IT GIVES STAFF SOME BUFFER BECAUSE OF HOW THE CODE IS SITUATED. OKAY. SO SO MAY I AMEND MY MOTION CHAIR TO TO SAY THAT THE DENIAL, IF APPROVED, WOULD BE FOR A MINIMUM PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS WHERE THE APPLICANT COULD NOT RETURN UNLESS THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE APPLICATION OTHER THAN. SO THAT'S MY AMENDMENT. SECOND, OKAY, SO I HAVE A MOTION FROM THIS AREA TO SECOND FROM MISS GONZALEZ. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. AND WE'LL BRING THAT FORWARD FOR A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION I, I ALL OPPOSED NAY. ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, DID WE HAVE A VOTE FROM MR. VINEYARD? YEAH. OKAY. SO HEARING NONE THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUS. AND SO THE MOTION ARE THE THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MOVE FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU GUYS. SO WE'LL MOVE FORWARD TO THE NEXT CASE THAT IS PUBLIC HEARING. 232788 DASH SP E CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 11.60 OF CHAPTER 14 OF THE CITY OF VISTA. CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED BY TABLE A AT 21601 SANTA CARLO AVENUE. LOT 26153 HIGHLAND LAKE ESTATES, SECTION 26 AMENDED SO BOARD MEMBERS. THIS CASE, AS MR. PHILLIPS HAD MENTIONED IN HIS PREVIOUS STATEMENT UNDER THE PREVIOUS ITEM, HAS COME BEFORE THE BOARD PREVIOUSLY. AND SO WHAT WE HAVE WITHIN OUR CASE HISTORY FOR THIS IS THAT ON SEVEN SEVEN, IT CAME BEFORE THE APPLICATION WAS DENIED. AT THE TIME IT HAD FOUR IN FAVOR OF

[01:05:05]

TREMENDOUSLY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS. I THINK I'M HEARING YOU SAY THAT BECAUSE THIS IS IN A DIFFERENT SECTION. IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THE PREVIOUS DECISION. IS THAT CORRECT? THE WORDING OF THE CODE SAYS IT APPLIES TO EVERY SECTION, RIGHT. THE LOCATION OF THE CODE IS WHERE THERE'S SOME BACK AND FORTH. IT IS STILL ENFORCEABLE ADMINISTRATIVELY.

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. I DON'T LIKE STAFF TO BE THE ONE DETERMINING WHAT APPLICATIONS GO BEFORE BOARDS. I FEEL LIKE WE GET INTO SOME TRICKY SITUATIONS, AND SO IF IT'S A COMPLETE APPLICATION AND THERE'S NO OTHER PROVISION, WE WILL BRING IT BEFORE YOU REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY TIMES YOU'VE HEARD IT. AND SO SETTING THAT PROVISION LOCK STAFF IN, IT GIVES US SOME BUFFER SO THAT ESSENTIALLY IT CAN'T BE SAID THAT THERE'S PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OR THAT THERE'S BIAS TREATMENT OR ANYTHING TO THAT EFFECT. AND I KNOW THERE WERE SOME BACK AND FORTH WITH THE ATTORNEY ABOUT THE 12 MONTH BUFFER AND WHERE IT WAS LOCATED, AND IT'S A CLEANUP THING THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS IN THE CODE REWRITE. AND SO IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU CHOOSE TO TAKE, MY REQUEST FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE IS THAT WE PUT IT IN THE MOTION. SO IT'S JUST CLEAN. OKAY. I JUST I WANT YOU DIDN'T REALLY ANSWER MY QUESTION. DOES THIS 15.10 APPLY TO TONIGHT. YES OR NO? SHE SAID YES. I JUST WANT TO HEAR YES. NOT A LONG EXPLANATION. IT DOES APPLY OKAY. THAT'S PERFECT. THANK YOU MISS I, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT I KNOW THAT THERE'S NEW STAFF AS YOURSELF, BUT AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS BEEN ON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR SEVEN, 8 OR 9 YEARS, I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT ALTHOUGH IT MAY NOT BE CLEAR NOW, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE THE APPLICABLE CODE. SO IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ENFORCED THAT ONCE SOMETHING HAS BEEN DENIED OR NOT APPROVED, IT CANNOT COME BACK FOR 12 MONTHS. SO WE WILL BE CHANGING. HISTORICALLY, WHAT THIS BOARD HAS DONE BY REHEARING SOMETHING THAT'S COMING BACK WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD. AND I AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH DOING THAT. WE NEED TO BE CONSISTENT AND FAIR, AND WE NEED TO DO WHAT WE'VE DONE. IT'S COMPLETELY AT YOUR DISCRETION AS A BOARD FROM A STAFFING PERSPECTIVE. AGAIN, WITH THAT LITTLE CAVEAT IN THE CODE LOCATION, IT'S NOT UP TO ME TO DENY APPLICATIONS COMING BEFORE BOARDS WITHOUT PROPER JUSTIFICATION. IT WAS COMPLETE APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED.

ALL REQUIREMENTS WERE MET. THERE WAS SOME DISCREPANCY IN THE CODE. AND SO FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE, IT'S IT'S A BOARD DECISION. IT'S NOT A STAFF DECISION. AND SO THERE'S MULTIPLE WAYS TO HANDLE IT. IT CAN BE TABLED. IT CAN BE NOT HEARD. IT CAN BE I MEAN YOU HAVE SOME OPTIONS HERE. IT'S JUST NOT UP TO STAFF TO MAKE THAT DECISION. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, IT WAS PREVIOUS PREVIOUSLY DENIED. AND THERE'S BEEN NO FACTS THAT HAVE CHANGED.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED. THE APPLICANT IS OBVIOUSLY ON THE PHONE AS WELL. AND SO IF THERE IS SOMETHING I'M MISSING. SO I WILL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, NO, NOTHING IS CHANGED EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT I WAS THE REASON I BROUGHT THIS UP. AND I WILL TELL YOU, YOUR CITY MANAGER, MR. WEST, TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS NO HOLD. THAT'S WHY I SUBMITTED ANOTHER APPLICATION TO BE REHEARD. BUT BECAUSE I HAVE IN WRITING IN AN EMAIL HE SAID THERE WAS NO HOLD. AND I ALSO AGAIN AM NOT BEING JUDGED BASED ON A VIEW AND NOBODY STILL HAS YET. AFTER MY COMMENT, I WOULD LIKE EVEN JORDAN TO ANSWER ME IF SHE CAN, THAT OTHER THAN JUST THE ATTORNEY DECIDING THAT THIS IS ALL ONE THING SPECIAL HEIGHT AND VARIANCE. THERE'S NOTHING WRITTEN DOWN. THERE'S NOTHING BEEN CHANGED THAT SHOWS THAT THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

[01:10:05]

YOU'RE A OKAY. THAT'S IT'S VALID INFORMATION THAT WE WERE GOING TO NEED AT SOME POINT ANYWAY. SO IF WE CAN TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, I THINK WE HAVE A COUPLE OF A COUPLE OF CHOICES IN FRONT OF US. ONE IS WHETHER WE FEEL THAT WE CAN HEAR THIS OR NOT. I BELIEVE IF WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK SIGNED UP ON IT, WHETHER WE'RE ABLE TO HEAR THIS AGAIN OR NOT, WE NEED TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MORE FOR THE REST OF HIS COMMENTARY, ESSENTIALLY. ANYHOW, ANYBODY HAVE ANY OPINION ON IF IF THIS STATUTE IS SUCH THAT IT STATES IT CAN'T BE HEARD WITHIN 12 MONTHS, THERE'S NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT. RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I'M HAVING THE TROUBLE RIGHT NOW. AND I AGREE, IF WE'RE IF WE'RE UNABLE TO HEAR IT AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING. WHY WHY WOULD WE OPEN HEARING IF WE CAN'T? WE WOULDN'T OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURALLY. IT SHOULDN'T BE BACK IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD. IF THAT'S THE CHOICE OF THE PRIOR MEETING. SO STICKY, STICKY SITUATION THERE.

BUT THAT BEING SAID, I THAT THAT LEAVES IT HERE WITH THE STAFF PRESENTATION AND THE BOARD DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD, UNLESS WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AT THAT, I'M OPEN TO HEARING A MOTION FOR THIS ONE. OR DO WE DO WE NEED A MOTION IF WE HAVE SOMETHING? I THINK SO, I WOULDN'T THINK SO. WE DO IT AGAIN. IT'S COMPLETELY UP TO YOU AS A BOARD. I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON PARLIAMENTARIAN PROCEDURES, BUT IF WE HAVE A CODE, A CITY CODE THAT SAYS IT CAN'T BE BROUGHT BACK WITHIN 12 MONTHS, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY HAS NOT BEEN OUTSIDE OF 12 MONTHS.

RIGHT. IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A DONE DEAL. IT LEAVES. IT LEAVES OUR HANDS TIED. IT SEEMS THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT AT A STAFF LEVEL BEFORE IT WOULD GET BACK TO THIS BOARD. YEAH, I DO DO HAVE A FORMER COUNCILMAN WITH US. WHO? PUBLIC PUBLIC COMMENT. MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.

PUBLIC COMMENT. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WASN'T PLANNING ON SPEAKING TONIGHT, BUT I JUST OFFER YOU A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE. MAYBE IT CAN BE OF HELP TO YOU. IN THE PAST, I'VE ONLY SEEN ONE APPLICATION, AND IT WAS ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO WHERE THERE WAS AN APPLICATION.

IT WAS ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING SIDE OF THINGS, AND I HAVEN'T READ THE ORDINANCE THAT PERTAINS TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, BUT IN CHAPTER 11. BUT THE LANGUAGE, AS I RECALL, IS THAT AN APPLICATION CANNOT BE HEARD AGAIN WITHIN A 12 MONTH TIME FRAME UNLESS IT'S BEEN DEEMED SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT. THAT'S THE TERMINOLOGY IN CHAPTER 14.

THAT'S I'M ASSUMING THAT'S THE SAME OVER HERE. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THAT INSTANCE. QUITE FRANKLY, THE TIME, TO MY CHAGRIN, BEFORE I WAS ON COUNCIL STAFF HAD MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE APPLICATION WAS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT. I STILL, FRANKLY, THAT'S WHY I THAT DETERMINATION. BUT AS TO PARLIAMENTARIAN PROCEDURE, THE MATTERS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT AND IN THE ROSENBERG RULES OF PROCEDURE, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE THE AGENDA ITEM FROM THE AGENDA. YOU HAVE LAMINATED CARDS UP THERE. I THINK THERE'S 2 OR 3, AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THEM. BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, I WOULD I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONSIDER IS THE APPLICATION SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT? THAT'S THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU, IF YOU'RE NOT SURE IF YOU THINK THERE'S MERIT TO THE APPLICANT'S POINTS THAT HE'S MADE THIS EVENING OUT OF ORDER, THEN YOUR OTHER OPTION COULD BE TO TABLE UNTIL YOU GET A PROPER LEGAL OPINION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THAT. IF IT IF YOU

[01:15:03]

[VII.1. 25-2852-VAR]

SECTION TWO TWO LAGO VISTA, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS. OPEN THIS ONE UP FOR STAFF PRESENTATION FIRST AND SO SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS ITEM, THIS HAS BEEN HEARD BEFORE. HOWEVER, THIS ONE WAS TABLED. IT WAS NOT ACTUALLY DENIED. AND SO OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE ESSENTIALLY SAY THAT WHEN SOMETHING IS TABLED, IT HAS TO BE HEARD AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING, WHICH IS TECHNICALLY THIS MEETING. WASN'T THERE A VOTE TAKEN ON IT BEFORE THERE WAS A VOTE TAKEN BEFORE ANYTHING WAS MENTIONED ABOUT TABLING? THERE WAS A VOTE AND IT WAS DENIED. YES. SO AND IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY EVEN VERIFIED THAT THIS WAS DENIED. OKAY. YES.

SO THAT THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION AS WELL. THERE WAS THERE WAS A MOTION THAT WAS MADE. THERE WERE TWO MOTIONS ON THE ITEM. AND EFFECTIVELY, SINCE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THIS DID NOT PASS WITH A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE OF THIS BOARD, EVEN IN SPITE OF WHAT HAD BEEN MUCH DISCUSSION, THE MOTION THEN DID FAIL, WHICH IS GOING TO REMOVE THE ABILITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT AND TO BRING IT BACK AND TABLE IT EFFECTIVELY. IT WAS TABLED IN ERROR. OKAY. MAY I ASK ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION? YES, SIR. WAS THERE SOMETHING IN YOUR DOCUMENTATION THAT FLAGGED THE TABLE VERSUS THE MOTION TO DENY? ARE WE MISSING SOMETHING IS THE SHORTHAND OF WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASK. NO, I DON'T THINK SO. SO ESSENTIALLY, WHEN I CAME ON BOARD, THERE WAS A STACK OF STUFF THAT NEEDED TO GET DONE. THIS WAS LABELED AS A TABLED ITEM, AND I HAD IT ON THE BURNER TO BRING IT FORWARD AT OUR NEXT REGULARLY CALLED MEETING. AS YOU GUYS KNOW, WE'RE BEHIND ON MINUTES, AND SO THAT DOES AFFECT SOME OF THIS STUFF IN THE TRANSITION OF STAFF. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THIS CASE OR WHAT HAD HAPPENED AT THE MEETING TO MAKE ANY DETERMINATIONS. AND THE EMAIL CHAINS ABOUT THESE ARE VERY EXTENSIVE. AND SO IF

[01:20:05]

AND SO IT FAILED. CORRECT. AND THEN TO SAY AFTER THAT IT FAILED THAT IT WAS TABLED. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. RIGHT. SO I THINK IF I CAN BRING OUR FORMER COUNCIL LIAISON, WHO WE HAVE HERE AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, BACK UP FOR THIS ONE, USE ALL THE MEMORY. AND TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, THANK YOU. MR. IT'S THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION. AS JEAN JUST STATED, THE ACTIONS ON THE DAIS, AS HE STATED, IT IS CORRECT. AS I RECALL, THERE WAS A VOTE TO APPROVE. IT FAILED. A VOTE TO TABLE DID PASS, BUT THAT WAS PROCEDURALLY INCORRECT AND NOT.

AND IT'S MOOT. DOESN'T MATTER. IT FAILED. IT'S DEAD. AND IT SHOULDN'T BE BEFORE YOU, RIGHT? UNLESS THIS APPLICATION CAME BACK SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT, IT DID COME BACK WITH AND UNFORTUNATELY RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT IT DOESN'T MEAN THERE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE RECOURSE IN THAT REGARD IF IT WERE TO CHANGE. BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE UP AGAINST THAT SAME.

THAT'S MY THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION. FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I ASKED A QUESTION. IT'S THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO WAS SITTING HERE ON THIS TABLE AND MOVED OUT FOR GOOD. SURE. WE CAN BRING YOU BRING YOU FORWARD TO THE PODIUM FOR THAT. DO WE PROCEDURALLY, DO WE NEED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC? DO EITHER OF OUR COUNCIL PEOPLE? NO, I THINK WE EFFECTIVELY WE DO, IF WE'RE WILLING TO DO THAT. BUT IF WE'RE NOT HEARING THE I JUST ERRING ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION. RIGHT. SO PROCEDURALLY, YEAH, WE'LL BANG THE GAVEL. SEVEN YOU HAVE A COMMENT. DO WE HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT BEFORE WE BRING THE THE APPLICANT BACK UP FOR THIS ONE. YEAH. OR MAKE IT. YEAH. I ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE THIS FROM THE AGENDA. YES I SECOND THAT FOR THE SAME, SAME RATIONALE AS THE LAST ITEM.

IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME. WE CAN'T BE INCONSISTENT. YES. I HAVE A MOTION FROM MISS GONZALEZ.

SECOND I SECOND. OKAY. YEAH. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? OKAY. WE'LL BRING THAT FORWARD FOR A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION I, I ALL OPPOSED NAY HEARING NONE MOTION TO REMOVE THIS FROM THE AGENDA PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY. SO THAT IS OUR LAST AGENDA ITEM FOR THE NIGHT. WE WILL ADJOURN THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AT

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.