[I. CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL] [00:00:10] AHEAD AND BEGIN THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. NOVEMBER 2ND, 2026, 6:30 P.M. AND 6:36 P.M. AND WE WILL DO A ROLL CALL TO BEGIN STARTING DOWN HERE AT MY LEFT. IF YOU CAN CHECK YOUR MIC, SAY YOUR NAME. TOM MONAHAN, RACHEL GONZALEZ, TODD MASSEY, JAMES PECK, ED TIDWELL, JOE ECHOLS, ROBIN BURKHART. ALL RIGHT. THANKS, EVERYBODY FOR THAT. AND WE ARE JOINED TONIGHT BY MAYOR PRO TEM OWEN AS OUR COUNCIL LIAISON. AND WE HAVE OUR STAFF LIAISON, TAM WITH US, AS WELL AS OUR INTERIM CITY MANAGER, CHIEF JOY. AND I DON'T WANT TO MESS UP YOUR NAME, SIR. WE HAVE GIANCARLO WITH US. JUST JOINING US NOW TO TO HELP WITH STAFF LIAISON WORK AS WELL. FROM A FORMAT STANDPOINT TONIGHT, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE EVERYBODY WHO WISHES TO SPEAK OR WISHES TO GET THEIR INPUT IN ALREADY FILED. I'VE GOT A BUNCH OF COMMENT CARDS UP HERE. IF ANYBODY DIDN'T GET ONE FILLED OUT, YOU STILL HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO GET THAT TURNED IN AS A BOARD. WE HAVE SOME DISCUSSION THAT HAS TO BE HANDLED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO ENTER HERE IN JUST A FEW MINUTES, AND WE WILL BE AS RESPECTFUL OF YOUR TIME AS WE CAN TO GET THAT BUSINESS HANDLED BEFORE WE CAN GET ON TO THE AGENDA ITEMS THAT MOST OF YOU ARE HERE TONIGHT TO, TO SPEAK ON AND HEAR ABOUT. AND. REALLY, I BELIEVE WE ARE WE ARE [II. EXECUTIVE SESSION] RIGHT THERE. THIS BOARD WILL CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:37 P.M. BOARD OF [00:13:57] ADJUSTMENT WILL RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 716. AND THAT WAS [00:14:11] JUST TO READ IT INTO THE RECORD. THAT WAS EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSULT WITH OUR ATTORNEY REGARDING LEGAL QUESTIONS RELATED TO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS GENERALLY, AND AS IT RELATES TO THE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION 26-3001-P-E2007 COOLIDGE LANE PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 LEGAL ADVICE AND TAKES US TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM ACTION ON [III. ACTION ON EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS] EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS. CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING LEGAL QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS, JUST AS IT WAS READ IN THAT PREVIOUS ITEM THERE. FOR AS IT RELATES TO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS IN GENERAL AND SPECIFICALLY TO 2007 COOLIDGE LANE, ANY ACTION, NO ACTION. ALL RIGHT. AND THAT MOVES US TO CITIZEN COMMENTS FOR THE MEETING. I'M LOOKING AT [00:15:03] COMMENT CARDS, AND I HAVE A NUMBER OF COMMENT CARDS RELATED SPECIFICALLY TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TONIGHT. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING RELATED TO CITIZEN COMMENTS IN GENERAL FOR NON AGENDA RELATED ITEMS. IS THAT CORRECT? AM I MISSING ANYBODY OUT HERE FROM THAT? OKAY, SO WE [V.1. 26-3001-SP-E: Open a public hearing to Discuss, Consider, and Take Ac on on a special excep on applica on pursuant to Sec on 11.60 of Chapter 14 of the City of Lago Vista Code of Ordinances to allow an increase in the maximum height allowed by Table A at 2007 Coolidge Lane (Lot 3023 Highland Lake Estates Sec on 3).] WILL MOVE FORWARD TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, WHICH IS HEARINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS. AND ACTION NUMBER ONE IS 26-03001- SP DASH E. WE WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS, CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON SPECIAL EXCEPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 11.60 OF CHAPTER 14 OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED BY TABLE A AT 2007 COOLIDGE LANE, LOT 3023 HIGHLAND LAKE ESTATES, SECTION THREE. YES, MR. TIDWELL, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE SESSION WAS EVER CLOSED, I. I BELIEVE WE ARE REOPENING. SO DID WE. SO WE DIDN'T CLOSE. WE LEFT OPEN, LEFT IT OPEN. SO WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE. YEAH. SO YOU'D HAVE TO CHECK THE MINUTES. BUT I'M PRETTY SURE WE DID NOT CLOSE BECAUSE OF THIS. YEAH. OKAY. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT ONE. I ALSO WAS GOING THROUGH DIGITAL TROUBLES AND ATTENDING THAT MEETING DIGITALLY. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE WILL WE WILL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS BEGUN. THAT WAS ON THE AUGUST 31ST, 2026 MEETING, AND WE WILL CONTINUE THAT. AS OF 718. ALL RIGHT. AND. ARE WE BACK TO A STAFF REPORT FOR THAT ITEM? I BELIEVE WE ARE. BEAR WITH ME WHILE I CATCH UP ON MY PAPERWORK HERE. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST SPOT FOR US TO PICK BACK UP. IF WE'VE OPENED THAT PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE A REFRESHER OF A STAFF SUMMARY FOR THAT ITEM. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS. THIS IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2007 COOLIDGE LANE. THE APPLICANT'S RANDY STEWART AND SARAH ROBBINS ARE REQUESTING APPROVAL TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT PERMITTED IN THE R1S ZONING DISTRICT BY APPROXIMATELY 8.1FT FOR PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATION OF 933.4FT. THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE IS A SINGLE STORY HOME WITH VARYING ROOF HEIGHTS AND MULTIPLE GABLES. THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THE DESIGN IS INTENDED TO COMPLEMENT THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. AT THE AUGUST 31ST MEETING, THE BOARD VOTED TO CONTINUE THIS CASE TO OBTAIN CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A VARIANCE AND A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AS WELL AS REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDUCTING SITE VISITS. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, WE'LL BRING THE APPLICANT UP. DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT WITH US TONIGHT? IF WE DO, IF THEY WISH TO SPEAK, WE CAN. GOT IT. OKAY. WE HAVE THE APPLICANT ONLINE HERE WITH US TONIGHT. CAN YOU HEAR US? OKAY. YEAH. SORRY, I HAD TO UNMUTE YOU. SORRY. YES. NO, YOU CAN HEAR YOU. YOU DID GREAT. WE HAVE YOU OVER HERE, TOO. WE'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HEAR FROM YOU GUYS. IF IF YOU HAVE SOME INFORMATION FOR US HERE. PERFECT. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY INFORMATION RIGHT NOW. WE WERE JUST INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT Y'ALL HAD TO SAY, AND THEN MAYBE WE CAN CHIME IN AFTERWARDS. WE DON'T. LET ME PUT IT TO YOU THIS WAY. WE DON'T HAVE ANY NEW INFORMATION TO BRING. SURE. I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU. AND ALSO, YES, SIR. AND ALSO, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR US NOT BEING THERE PERSONALLY. WE JUST FOUND OUT TODAY, AROUND NOON THAT THIS MEETING WAS HAPPENING. AND I AM ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH CHEMO. SO MY ONCOLOGIST SAID IT WOULD PROBABLY BE BETTER IF I STAYED AWAY FROM PEOPLE. SO IT KIND OF WORKED OUT OKAY, I GUESS. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE NOT THERE IN PERSON IN-PERSON LAST TIME. YOU GOT IT. YEAH. NO, NO WORRIES AT ALL. WE STILL THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING DIGITALLY THAT THAT IS A OKAY. AND WE APPRECIATE YOU SPENDING THE TIME AND COMING BACK OUT. AND OUR THOUGHTS ARE WITH YOU THROUGH YOUR JOURNEY THERE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO ALL RIGHT. WE CAN MOVE FORWARD INTO THE CITIZEN COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE FOR THIS. I HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUBMITTED A COMMENT CARD [00:20:06] WHO DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK, AND ALSO SOME WHO DO. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S ALSO BEEN SOME DONATED TIME. SO I'M GOING TO PAGE THROUGH OUR PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS AND TRY TO MAKE SURE I GET THE DONATED TIME OVER TO THE ONES WHO DO WISH TO SPEAK ALSO. I HAVE A. STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION FROM SHERRY COOK WHO DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK. ANOTHER OF OPPOSITION FROM BRITTANY GRIFFIN, WHO DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK. KELSEY GIBSON, WHO DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, WHO'S IN OPPOSITION? I HAVE A DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK FROM SHIRLEY PARK IN OPPOSITION. I HAVE A DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK FROM KRISTA BRUNO IN OPPOSITION. I HAVE A DONATION OF TIME FROM A. ROBERT RUGGIERO DONATING TIME TO ANDREW WHITE. AND I HAVE A SALLY RUGGIERO IN OPPOSITION, BUT NO BOX CHECKED ON WHETHER SALLY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK OR NOT. SALLY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? I WOULD BE WILLING TO GO AHEAD AND CLICK ON TO DALE WINDSOR. OKAY. OR ANY POINT WHERE WE USE THE TIME. I THINK I'VE STATED MY TERM, CERTAINLY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MY MIND IS KIND OF LARYNGITIS. AND IF THERE WERE AN AGREEMENT, THEY'VE RAISED THEIR HAND, BUT THEY SAID THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO DONATE THEIR THOUGHTS, BUT ASKED THEM WOULD THEY BE SURE I NEED A I NEED A COMMENT CARD FILLED OUT FROM YOU IF YOU WISH TO DO THAT. AND YOU HAD ONE FROM LAST TIME. THEY FELT THEY BOTH FILLED THEM ALL. OKAY. GOT IT. EASY ENOUGH. OKAY. WE CAN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD TO THOSE WHO ARE GOING TO SPEAK. THEN I HAVE AN ANDREW WHITE WITH I THINK SO FAR, AT LEAST SIX MINUTES. WE'LL SEE HOW WE'RE DOING THERE. IF WE NEED ADDITIONAL DONATED TIME, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THAT. AND WE HAD A SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION THAT HAS JUST COME ACROSS OVER TO THIS BOARD THROUGH STAFF AS OF TODAY. ALSO, THAT I'M NOT SURE THAT EVERYBODY ON THIS BOARD HAS HAD THE ABILITY TO REVIEW. IT APPEARS TO BE A CONTINUATION OF INFORMATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE PRIOR MEETING THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THAT MEETING. SO I THINK SOME CLARITY ABOUT SOME OF THAT FROM FROM ANDREW WHITE WOULD BE GOOD. AND WE CAN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE ABOUT THE REST OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED HERE. YES, PLEASE. IF YOU CAN STEP TO THE PODIUM AND LET'S MAKE SURE THAT THAT MIC IS WORKING FOR YOU. AND MY POWER, MAYBE A BUTTON ON THERE TO TURN IT ON. THERE YOU GO. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO READ IF THAT'S OKAY. SORRY. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ANDREW WHITE. MY WIFE DON AND I LIVE AT 4101 CROCKETT AVENUE AND OWNED FIVE PROPERTIES FACING OR AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSAL. PROPOSED RESIDENCE AT 2007 COOLIDGE LANE. I SUBMITTED WRITTEN COMMENTS BEFORE TONIGHT'S MEETING, SO I'LL KEEP THE REMARKS FOCUSED. MY CONCERN TONIGHT IS NOT WHETHER I PERSONALLY LIKE OR DISLIKE THE HOUSE, IT'S WHETHER THE BOARD AND THE AFFECTED PUBLIC ARE EVALUATING THE SAME PLANS. ELEVATIONS AND REQUESTED HEIGHT. IN AUGUST, WE ASKED FOR LEGIBLE SOURCE DOCUMENTS BECAUSE THE PLANS REPRODUCED IN THE PUBLIC PACKET COULD NOT BE MEANINGFULLY REVIEWED. I LATER OBTAINED A FULL RESOLUTION SOURCE RECORDS THROUGH PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS 26-419. ONCE THOSE RECORDS BECAME READABLE, SEVERAL QUESTIONS BECAME APPARENT. FIRST, THE CITY STAFF REPORTS A STATE REPORT STATES HAVE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF 908.9 MSL, A SITE PLAN RECORDED OBTAINED FROM CITY APPEARS TO IDENTIFY. THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION IS 909.5, APPROXIMATELY ONE FOOT TWO INCHES. IF YOU'RE. AND MY QUESTION IS WHICH ELEVATION CONTROLS. SECOND, THE STAFF REPORT SAID, IDENTIFIES A MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATION OF 933.4 MSL. THE SOURCE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS CONTAIN SEVERAL DIFFERENT HEIGHT DIMENSIONS AND RIDGE CONFIGURATIONS. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THE APPLICANT OR STAFF TO IDENTIFY THE EXACT RIDGE ON THE PLANS. THAT CORRESPONDS TO 933.4 MSL AND SHOW HOW THE ELEVATION IS CALCULATED. THIRD, USING THE CITY'S PUBLISHED FIGURES. 933.4 RIDGE 9.3910.4 HIGHEST EXISTING GRADE AND THE [00:25:01] 15 FOOT RSR-1S15C BY RIGHT STANDARD. THE ARITHMETIC PRODUCES A EIGHT FOOT DIFFERENCE, WHILE THE APPLICATION DESCRIBES IT AS A APPROXIMATELY 8.1FT. THAT MAY BE SIMPLY. THAT MAY SIMPLY BE ROUNDING, BUT THE CONTROLLING CALCULATION SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED. FOURTH, ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS PROVIDED BY THE CITY CONTINUE TO IDENTIFY A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT FOR RANDY. NO. WHILE THIS APPLICATION IS FOR RANDY STEWART AND SARAH ROBBINS, WE ASK FOR CLARIFICATION OF THAT ISSUE IN AUGUST, AND I HAVE NOT SEEN AN ANSWER IN THE PUBLIC RECORD. FINALLY, SOURCE RECORDS INCLUDE FLOOR AND ROOF PLAN INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT MADE MEANINGFULLY AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC HEARING PACKET. THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS APPROVAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE TIED TO A SPECIFIC ROOF CONFIGURATION. RIDGE ELEVATION PLAN SET. I'M NOT ASKING THE BOARD TO ACCEPT MY INTERPRETATION OF THESE DOCUMENTS. I'M ASKING THE BOARD TO ESTABLISH THE RECORD EXACTLY WHICH PLANS FINISHED. FLOOR ELEVATION, RIDGE ELEVATION. HEIGHT CALCULATION. IT IS APPROVING. IF THOSE QUESTIONS CANNOT BE ANSWERED CLEARLY TONIGHT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THE CASE BE CONTINUED UNTIL THE RECORD CAN BE RECONCILED. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANKS FOR THE MINUTES. ALL. BUT I DON'T NEED THEM. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT. NEXT WE HAVE DALE WINDSOR AND DONATED TIME FOR WINDSOR OLSON. GOOD. I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL A. GETTING OLD. DALE WINDSOR. I LIVE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THAT LOT THAT THAT'S IN QUESTION. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT TO THE. IS THAT THE CORRECT ADDRESS? BECAUSE ALL THE HOUSES ON THAT STREET AND THE ONE RIGHT NEXT TO ME IS 20,003 IS MY ADDRESS, BUT THAT'S 22007. SO IT'S I DON'T KNOW, WHAT IS THAT JUST AN ERROR OR TYPEKIT. BUT ANYWAY, WE LIVE RIGHT THERE AND WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 19 YEARS. WE HAD OUR HOUSE BUILT. IT'S A GREAT PLACE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS WHAT WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT SO MUCH. I DON'T WANT TO COME OUT OF MY HOUSE AND LOOK AT A FENCE 20FT HIGH IN THE AIR, AND YOU CAN'T SEE OVER THE FENCE, JUST LIKE YOU'RE BLOCKING OFF SOMEONE YOU KNOW. AND WE GOT A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND HERE, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY KNOWS EVERYBODY. THEY GOT MY KEYS IN MY HOUSE. YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST THINGS LIKE THAT. SO RANDY AND HIS WIFE, THEY'RE NICE PEOPLE. THEY'VE BEEN GOOD TO TALK TO HIM A COUPLE OF TIMES. BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY THEY JUST DON'T SEEM TO TO GET IT. ALSO, THEY'VE THEY'VE GOT THOSE. A STOP ORDER WORK ON PLUMBING AND STUFF THAT THEY HAD THAT WAS DOING. WE TALKED TO THE TWO OF THEM THE DAY THEY WERE DOING IT, AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE A PERMIT, BUT THEY GOT ONE NOW. SO IS THAT THE WAY WE'RE GOING TO LIVE? YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO DO THINGS THE WAY THEY WANT TO. THEY'RE GOING TO PUT UP A FENCE SO HIGH THAT I CAN'T SEE OVER, YOU KNOW. SO I DON'T HAVE A LOT TO TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS, THESE THEY ANDY HERE, HE'S REALLY PROFESSIONAL AT ALL THIS. BUT AND I'M NOT I'M JUST AN OLD COP. SO WE APPRECIATE YOU, YOU KNOW, THINKING ABOUT ALL THIS STUFF. AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. SO IF I COME OUT MY FRONT DOOR, I WON'T SEE THE NEXT STREET BECAUSE THERE'LL BE A HOUSE OR A OR A OR A FENCE UP THERE. SO MAYBE WE'LL MOVE, I APPRECIATE IT. THANKS A LOT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. WINDSOR. AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO CAN SOME OF US RECLAIM OUR ATOMIC WOULD LIKE IF NOBODY NEEDS TO USE THE EXTRA TIME? CERTAINLY. PLEASE. MISTER CHAIR. YES, SIR. YOUR QUESTION. SURE. WE'LL BE RIGHT WITH YOU. HI, ANDY, I REMEMBER YOU. THIS IS FOR, YOU KNOW, ANDY USED TO BE IN P AND Z YEARS AGO. I HEARD YOUR STUFF, BUT DIGESTING IT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM. SO LET ME TRY TO CUT TO THE CHASE. ARE YOU QUESTIONING WHETHER, AS YOU KNOW, THIS ORDINANCE WORKS? IT'S FROM THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE LOT, RIGHT TO THE HEIGHT, RIGHT. HEIGHTS. SO IN WHAT YOU SAID, ARE YOU QUESTIONING WHETHER THAT THE THE DIAGRAMS ADEQUATELY REPRESENT WHAT THE TRUE HEIGHT IS FROM THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE LOT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE DIAGRAMS THAT WE HAD AS A PUBLIC REVIEW WERE INCONCLUSIVE, WERE NOT LEGIBLE. IT DID NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION. THE PACKET HAD TWO DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS. THE THE PACKET HAD TWO DIFFERENT RIDGE. AND I CAN GIVE YOU THE [00:30:12] COPY OF WHAT I JUST SAID. IF YOU WANT TO REFER TO THAT. WOULD THAT HELP YOU? SURE. AND THERE'S IN YOUR PACKET ALSO THERE SHOULD BE. A DOCUMENT THAT ALL OF YOU RECEIVED KIND OF GOING OVER THE THINGS. AND AGAIN, IT'S NOT THAT I'M AGAINST THE HOUSE BEING BUILT. I JUST THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE FAIR FOR ALL WHO ARE REVIEWING IT, INCLUDING THE CITY, THAT THEY HAVE THE CORRECT INFORMATION. SO FOR WHATEVER REASON, IT DID NOT MAKE IT INTO THE PACKET. A LOT OF THESE SHEETS THAT WERE INCLUDED WITH THE PLAN. SO IT WAS REALLY DIFFICULT, AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO TRY TO DISCERN WHAT THE TRUE HEIGHT SHOULD BE. OKAY. BUT AT THE SAME TIME. THE THEY'RE ASKING FOR A SPECIFIC HEIGHT, WHICH IF WE WERE TO APPROVE IT, THAT'S WHAT THEIR LIMIT WILL BE. WHETHER THEY CAN'T GO ABOVE IT AND THEY SHOULD BE. THE BUILDING OFFICIALS SHOULD BE INSPECTING IT AT SOME POINT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT. YEAH. AND I ACTUALLY, I WOULD SAY I'M TRYING TO HELP THE NEW NEIGHBORS A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE LAST THING, I WANT THEM TO HAVE TO TEAR DOWN A ROOF OR WHATEVER THEY BUILT BECAUSE THERE WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION OR NOT CLARITY ON IT. AND I'VE SEEN THAT HAPPEN. IT DOES HAPPEN STILL IN LAGO VISTA. SO. IN THE NAME OF FAVORING THE NEW NEIGHBORS AS WELL AS THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE AROUND ME THAT WANT TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT THIS, I THINK YOU HAD TO HAVE FACTS. SO MY POINT IS, I WOULD SAY IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THIS, CONTINUE THAT, BUT RELEASE THE FULL PACKET OF PLANS WITH CLEAR AND CONCISE WHAT THEIR PLAN TO BUILD. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANKS. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT FROM ANYBODY NOT I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. NOT AT THE PUBLIC, BUT FOR STAFF WHEN WE GET THERE. GOT IT. PERFECT. I'LL NOTE THAT. DID YOU HAVE SOME THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? MA'AM, PLEASE COME FORWARD IF YOU CAN GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOU'LL HAVE YOUR THREE MINUTES. HI, I'M SALLY RUGGIERO AND WE LIVE AT 2002 ZERO. OKAY, 20117 HIGHLAND LAKE DRIVE. I'VE HAD THE QUESTION ALL ALONG ABOUT THE 2007. IT'S NEVER ANSWERED. IT'S PROBABLY MOOT AT THIS POINT, BUT I'D LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION AS TO HOW THE MEETING WAS EITHER ADJOURNED OR KEPT OPEN. LAST TIME. I THINK IT WAS TO HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION FROM THE LAWYER AS TO IF Y'ALL COULD GO DO A SITE VISIT. IF YOU COULDN'T, IF YOU COULD LOOK AT IT OR NOT LOOK AT IT, HOW IS THIS BOARD GOING TO VOTE IF THAT STUFF ISN'T CLARIFIED? BECAUSE AS FAR AS I UNDERSTOOD AND REMEMBERED, IT WAS, YOU KNOW, LOCAL JURISDICTION, STATE, FEDERAL. AND, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING OF OF WHERE Y'ALL SIT WITH THAT. AND IF Y'ALL WERE EVEN ABLE TO AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION BASED ON SOMETHING I KNOW PERSONALLY THAT, WELL, ACTUALLY EVERYONE THAT IS HERE FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS MEETING WITHIN THE LAST DAY OR TWO, SIMPLY BECAUSE ONE PERSON HAPPENED TO GO OUT AND SEE IT ON THE SITE ON THE WEBSITE. AND I WAS TOLD THAT WE'D BE RE NOTICED WHEN WE HAD A DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TIME, WE WOULD GET A NOTICE IN THE MAIL, WE WOULD ALL BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, RE ADDRESS THE ISSUE IF THAT'S NECESSARY. MAYBE IT ISN'T. BUT I AS YOU CAN SEE, EVERYONE HERE WITHIN THE 200FT AND I THINK THAT'S MOST OF THE PEOPLE THE OTHERS HAVE SENT IN. AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, EVERYONE IS OPPOSED, EXCEPT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ONE TRUST WHERE THEY WERE FOR IT. AND WE'RE A NEIGHBORHOOD AND NEIGHBORS. WE ALL HAVE 15FT ELEVATION. WE GO BY THE RULES. WE LIVE BY THE LAW. MR. WINDSOR AND HIS HIS BEAUTIFUL WIFE, BEATRICE, HAVE BEEN HERE 19 YEARS. WE'VE BEEN HERE 25. WE HAVE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE THREE AND FOUR GENERATIONS GOOD, HONEST, DECENT, HARD WORKING, CONTRIBUTING MEMBERS OF LAGOS SOCIETY. WE ALL ARE INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY, IN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS. AND WE ARE THE GLUE, NOT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HOLD THIS THIS COMMUNITY TOGETHER. AND WE'RE ALL VERY PROUD OF OUR SERVICE, OUR MILITARY, OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND ALL I'M SAYING ABOUT THE 15FT IS I'VE STOOD ON A NEIGHBOR'S PORCH ACROSS THE STREET, AND I CAN SEE THAT I'D BE LOOKING. I WOULD HAVE NO VIEW OF THE TREES AT 20, THE [00:35:04] 2220 FOOT TREES. YES, WE HAVE VIEWS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO US. NO, WE DON'T HAVE LAKE VIEWS, BUT WE HAVE THE TREES, WE HAVE THE BIRDS AND THE TREES. WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SEE THE SLOPING TERRAIN WHERE THERE MIGHT BE A FIRE OFF IN THE DISTANCE OR WHATEVER. WE CAN SURVEY OUR REALM AND OUR WORLD. AND WE ALL HAD DREAMS AND CAME HERE AND PUT EVERYTHING INTO OUR HOMES, OUR COMMUNITY, OUR CHILDREN, THEIR EDUCATION COMING AND GOING. AND LIKE I SAID, THERE ARE MANY THAT ARE THREE GENERATIONS. I DON'T PERSONALLY SEE HOW AN EIGHT FOOT ADDITION FOR A BIG PITCHED ROOF LINE, WHEN, YOU KNOW, WE COULD MANY OF US NOT ONLY HAVE EIGHT FOOT CEILINGS, WE HAVE TEN FOOT CEILINGS, SOME HAVE 14 JUST TO PITCH AND A 15 FOOT ROOF ELEVATION. THAT HOME IS AS PLANNED. WHILE THEY'RE VERY NICE PEOPLE AND WE'VE WE'VE HAD NO CONTACT OTHER THAN IN THIS ROOM. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD LIKE EVERYBODY CAN REALIZE THEIR DREAM, BUT THIS IS NOT THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE PUTTING, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF AN ELEVATION BECAUSE WE'RE MOSTLY BUILT OUT. YES, THERE ARE LOTS, BUT THE WHITES HAVE FIVE LOTS. THEY MAY HAVE FAMILY PLANS. WE HAVE FIVE LOTS. AND WE HAVE PLANS FOR THE FAMILY, FOR THE FUTURE GENERATIONS. AND LIKE I SAID, MOST OF THE LOTS ARE BUILT OUT AND THOSE THAT MAYBE HAVE A LOT AND THEY HAVE A YOUNG FAMILY, THEY'RE ELSEWHERE. THEIR INTENTION IS TO COME OUT HERE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS. SO I'M JUST APPEALING TO THE BOARD TO CONSIDER WHERE I THINK MOST OF US ARE COMING FROM FOR VARIOUS REASONS. THERE ARE VARIOUS REASONS FOR OUR WANTING TO NOT BE OCCLUDED BY THAT HEIGHT OF A BARRIER. I'D SAY DUE DILIGENCE. AND THIS IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS AS MANY 15 OR 18FT AND 23FT IS, IN MY WORLD, VERY EXCESSIVE. SO THANK YOU. I WISH I WISH THEM TO BE YOUR NEIGHBORS AND, AND BE ABLE TO ABIDE BY THE RULES OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THAT IS ALL WE HAVE WHO WERE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK THAT DID GENERATE A QUESTION ABOUT INFORMATION THAT CAME FROM OUR COUNCIL. YES. MR. TEBOW, I WOULD SAY IT'S APPROPRIATE TO READ WHAT OUR CITY ORDINANCE SAYS THAT WE ARE GOING TO GO BY. AND I KNOW TOM HAS THAT PRINTED OUT. SO, TOM, IF YOU'D BE SO KIND TO. WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THAT SECTION IF YOU WOULD READ THAT SECTION AND STATE FOR THE RECORD, WHICH SECTION THAT IS SPECIFICALLY TO WHERE WE CAN FIND IT. READING FROM. LET OF CHAPTER 14, SECTION 11-60. SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVALS. AND THIS IS PARAGRAPH THREE. SUBPARAGRAPH TWO. SUBPARAGRAPH C. IT SAYS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBER SHOULD ADEQUATELY PREPARED TO MAKE THE REQUIRED DETERMINATIONS, INCLUDING STUDYING THE APPLICATION MATERIAL AND VISITING THE SITE, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S ETHICS POLICY AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A DISABILITY, BOARD MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT ADEQUATELY PREPARED MAY NOT VOTE ON THE CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION. THANKS FOR THAT, DON. SO HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS. OUR LEGAL STAFF HAS POINTED US BACK TO WHAT IS WRITTEN IN OUR CODE TO MAKE SURE WE FOLLOW FOR THIS, AND THAT CAN ALL BE FOUND ON THE CITY WEBSITE RIGHT NOW, CURRENTLY AS WELL. THAT TAKES US OVER INTO SOME OTHER QUESTIONS THAT I HEARD RAISED THAT WE MAY HAVE FOR STAFF. YES, STAFF. WE HAD QUESTIONS ARISE FROM THE PUBLIC, SPECIFICALLY AROUND AN ADDRESS AS PUBLISHED, AND THEN SOME DISCREPANCIES THEY FELT WERE IN SOME OF THE DOCUMENTATION. THESE COMMENTS WERE RAISED A MONTH AGO. CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT OUR PACKET, AS PRESENTED TO US, IS ACCURATE? BOTH IN THE SUBJECT, PROPERTY, SUBJECT, SUBJECT, PROPERTY ADDRESS AND ALSO THE THE VARIOUS SCHEMATICS AND ELEVATIONS AS PRESENTED. THE ADDRESS IS CORRECT. I JUST I WENT ON OUR GIS MAP AND I DID LOOK UP THAT ADDRESS, AND IT WAS ALSO ON OUR. I THINK WE ALSO CHECKED IT ON TCAD TO VERIFY. AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER QUESTION? THANK YOU FOR [00:40:07] CLARIFYING THAT. THE SECOND QUESTION WAS JUST. THEY FELT THERE WAS DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN SOME OF THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED WITH THE PACKET RELATED TO PROPERTY HEIGHT, THE ELEVATION, HEIGHT AND RIDGE POLE HEIGHT OR RIDGELINE. AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS A RECONCILIATION THAT ENSURED THAT THE PACKET SUBMITTED WAS ACCURATE WITH THE MOST RECENT INFORMATION. SO WE THE ELEVATION, THE THE FINAL ELEVATION AND ALL THAT IS COMES FROM THE APPLICATION ITSELF THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED TO US. SO WE USE THOSE NUMBERS. AND SO WHATEVER THE FINAL DETERMINATION IS AT THE END OF A CONSTRUCTION BILL, WE WILL REQUIRE A HEIGHT CERTIFICATION TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DO COMPLY WITH THE HEIGHT THAT'S BEING GRANTED. PERFECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR ANYBODY ELSE? NO. I WOULD JUST MAKE A COMMENT THAT WE OUR EVALUATION INCLUDES EVALUATING THE DISRUPTION OF THE VIEW AS IT'S DEFINED IN THE DEFINITION SECTION OF OF THE ORDINANCE. THAT'S A GOOD CLARIFICATION. ALSO ALSO FOUND IN OUR CODE'S VIEW IS VERY SPECIFICALLY DEFINED THERE FOR WHAT WHAT WOULD BE PROTECTED. OKAY. I THINK WE'RE WHERE WE CAN CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS POINT. YEAH. THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD. SO JUST TO CONFIRM, AND THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF, EVERYTHING YOU HAVE IS PROPOSED. CORRECT? IT IS. AND THEN AS FAR AS OPPOSITIONS OR APPROVALS, HOW MANY DO YOU GUYS HAVE. BECAUSE SOMETIMES THOSE ARE NOT CAPTURING THE PACKET OR THEY COME IN LATER OR I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL AWARE OF HOW MANY OPPOSITIONS AND HOW MANY ARE IN FAVOR. WELL, IT'S A CONTINUATION FROM THE LAST ONE AND THERE'S A PRETTY GOOD TURNOUT FOR THE LAST ONE AS WELL. YEAH. SO MY QUESTION IS, DID ANY MORE COME IN NOW THAT WERE OPPOSED OR IN FAVOR OF THE FINAL COUNT FOR TODAY? AS OF TODAY WE RECEIVED 1211 WAS OPPOSED AND ONE IN FAVOR. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION? OKAY. WITH THAT? I THINK WE CAN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT DOUBLE CHECKING MY TIME SINCE OUR CLOCKS OFF OVER HERE AT 7:42 P.M. AND I AM OPEN FOR A MOTION ON THIS ITEM. ANY DISCUSSION, ANY, ANY, ANY OTHER, YEAH. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AMONGST US BEFORE WE BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD. YES. MR. ALL RIGHT. SO THE WAY I LOOK AT THIS, YOU'VE GOT THE MAXIMUM OR THE HEIGHT, THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE LAND, 610, ROUGHLY RIGHT. THE WAY OUR ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN, THEN GO SIX, THEN GO 15FT. SO THAT'S UP TO 625. THEY'RE ASKING FOR 633. IF THE FOUNDATION IS GOING TO BE AT 608, THAT GIVES THEM 17FT TO BUILD. OKAY? SO THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT WHEN I GO TO DO MY SITE VISIT. I JOG. SO I WALK PAST THE SITE. SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DETERMINE, LOOKING AT THE RIDGE POLE IS WHETHER OR NOT A 17 FOOT HOUSE IS GOING TO BLOCK THE VIEW. BECAUSE IN MY MIND, IF A 17 FOOT HOUSE BLOCKS YOUR VIEW, THEN YOUR VIEW IS ALREADY BLOCKED. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER THE HOUSE IS 23FT OR 25FT BECAUSE YOUR YOUR VIEW IS ALREADY BLOCKED. NOW. WHEN I WAS OUT THERE LOOKING AT IT, I DID NOT DETERMINE THAT A 17 FOOT HOUSE WAS GOING TO BLOCK A VIEW THAT WAS. THAT'S MY OPINION THAT THE 17 FOOT HOUSE WOULD NOT BLOCK A VIEW, BUT IF I ADDED ANOTHER 6 OR 8FT ON THERE, IT WOULD BLOCK A VIEW. SO THAT'S MY OPINION. THANKS FOR THAT. ANY OTHER COMMENTARY [00:45:05] OR QUESTIONS? YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK. IF THERE'S ANY, I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE VIEW TOO MUCH BECAUSE I DO THINK ANYTHING ABOVE WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE NEIGHBORS ARE EXPECTING IS NOT APPROPRIATE. AND THEN ANY HARDSHIP THAT'S BEEN. THAT HAS ARISEN IS SELF-IMPOSED BECAUSE THEY'RE DECIDING TO BUILD SOMETHING. I'M GOING TO CLARIFY ON THAT. THIS IS NOT A VARIANCE. THIS IS SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO HARDSHIP. THOSE FACTORS ARE NOT PART OF THIS EVALUATION. IT'S UNDER YOU WOULD LOOK AT YOUR SPECIAL EXEMPTION EXCEPTION TO HEIGHT STANDARDS. AND THOSE APPROVAL STANDARDS ARE WHAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND. SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO UNDER THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THOSE FINDINGS THAT ARE SET OUT IN 11-20. THOSE ARE SPECIFICALLY FOR A VARIANCE. AND I'M PURPOSEFULLY BRINGING THIS UP BECAUSE I WANT THAT TO BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION. SO THE AUDIENCE UNDERSTANDS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND A VARIANCE, BECAUSE WE WENT BACK AND FORTH ON DIFFERENT PROPERTIES, AND WHETHER THIS IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR VARIANCE. SO I WANTED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION A LITTLE BIT FURTHER SO THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT. I'LL JUST SAY THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, A VARIANCE IS, IS THE TYPE OF EITHER ONE IS A, A ASK FOR REGULATORY RELIEF. A VARIANCE IS ALLOWED WHEN THERE IS NO SPECIFIC REGULATION. THAT SETS A PROCESS FOR GETTING RELIEF, THEN YOU HAVE TO ASK FOR THE VARIANCE AND A HARDSHIP COMES INTO PLAY. A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS WHERE YOU DO HAVE A RULE, OR IN THIS CASE, AN ORDINANCE THAT OUTLINES A PROCESS SO THAT YOU COMPLY WITH THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION RULE. SO THAT THAT REALLY IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT DIFFERENTIATES, IN GENERAL, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM A VARIANCE. SO BEYOND JUST THE VIEW, WHAT ELSE ARE WE CONSIDERING AS A COMMISSION THEN WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS. WELL, THERE'S ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT. YOUR ORDINANCE IN 1160. SEE. SETS OUT YOUR APPROVAL STANDARDS. THE ONE. AND FOR THIS IT IS IF THEY ARE NOT ASKING FOR A HEIGHT GREATER THAN 35FT FROM THE GEOMETRIC CENTER OF THE LOWEST PROPOSED. BASICALLY RIGHT NOW THIS WOULD BE A NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE VIEW IF THEY WERE ASKING FOR A HEIGHT GREATER THAN 35FT FROM THE GEOMETRIC CENTER, THEN YOU COULD CONSIDER A NECESSARY HARDSHIP, AS IT'S DEFINED IN 1120. BUT IF THEY'RE UNDER THAT 35FT ABOVE GEOMETRIC CENTER, THEN NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT IS YOUR STANDARD. ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. YEAH, I JUST I JUST WANTED THE AUDIENCE TO BE CLEAR BECAUSE SOMEONE ALSO BROUGHT THAT UP. I THINK THAT THAT'S, THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT THING TO BE ABLE TO CLARIFY THIS CODE AND BE ABLE TO GET THAT INFORMATION DISSEMINATED BACK TO THE PUBLIC. SO I APPRECIATE THAT. YEAH. AND FOR ME, I STILL I'M STILL NOT GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF BUILDING. NOR DO I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHEN SOMEONE BUYS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WE'RE OBLIGATED TO CONTINUE TO MAKE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, THEY KNEW WHAT THEY BOUGHT. IF THEY DIDN'T DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, THAT SHOULDN'T FALL ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. IF THEY'RE ABLE TO COMPLY. THEY HAVE HOUSES THAT ARE WITHIN THE BUILDING STANDARDS. I DON'T SEE WHY THIS NEEDS TO BE DIFFERENT. SURE. I HAVE A COMMENT THERE. IT'S ON PAGE EIGHT OF OUR PACKET. IT'S IN THE APPLICABLE CODE FRAMEWORK TALKS ABOUT SECTION. SO THIS IS THE BOTTOM OF PAGE EIGHT. SECTION 11-60 HEIGHT APPROVAL STANDARDS. THE BOARD MAY APPROVE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IF THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE PROTECTED VIEW OF ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER OR THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD OUTSIDE THE FLOODPLAIN, THE APPROVAL MAY NOT EXCEED 35FT ABOVE THE GEOMETRIC CENTER OF THE LOWEST PROPOSED FOUNDATION, OR MORE THAN TWO STORIES, AND THEN OVER IN THE APPLICATION TO REQUEST IT SPECIFIES, THE BOARD MUST EVALUATE PROTECTED VIEW IMPACTS AND ARCHITECTURAL [00:50:06] COMPATIBILITY. THE PLANS DEPICT A ONE STORY RESIDENCE AS REPRESENTED AS REMAINING BELOW THE 35 FOOT ABSOLUTE HEIGHT LIMITATION. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFICATION FOR WHAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER AS A BOARD. MY OWN OPINION FROM MY OBSERVATION IS I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS A VIEW TO BE PROTECTED AS THE DEFINITION OF VIEW IS WRITTEN. I DIDN'T SEE ANY. THE TREE LINE. I DON'T THINK HOUSES THERE CAN SEE ABOVE THE TREE LINE ON THE OPPOSITE THE LOT. WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT ARCHITECTURE TO WRITE, YEAH, I. WELL, IF EVERYONE ELSE IS STAYING WITHIN WHAT THE LIMITS ARE, THEN HOW IS THIS CONSISTENT WITH EVERYONE ELSE? WELL, OUR ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT IS KIND OF DOES THE HOUSE FIT? AND THAT'S A JUDGMENTAL. AND IT WAS PURPOSELY PUT INTO THAT ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT WAS MY IDEA TO PUT THAT IN THE ORDINANCE. AND WE DID IT AS A WE AMENDED THE ORDINANCE A FEW YEARS AGO. SO SO IT IS A IT'S KIND OF PURPOSELY AS A JUDGMENT CALL. SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT TO. TO THAT POINT. PAGE 19 OF YOUR PACKET. PAGE 20 OF YOUR PACKET, PAGE 21 AS WELL, GIVE YOU A VIEW INTO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD PAST THE RIDGE POLE. IT WILL LET YOU SEE ONE NEIGHBORING HOUSE BEYOND THE PROPERTY. IT ALSO LETS YOU SEE THE. THE MAIN STREET OFF TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THOSE PICTURES, AND THEN THE HOUSES THAT WOULD BE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT. WHAT I CAN TELL FROM THIS, IT. IT LOOKS TO ME AS THOUGH WE HAVE TOPOGRAPHY DESCENDING FROM THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY TOWARDS THE BACK. SAME THING IF WE CROSS THE STREET, IT CONTINUES UPHILL AS WE CROSS THE STREET THERE. SO FROM AN ARCHITECTURAL STANDPOINT, THE HOUSES THAT ARE ACROSS THE STREET WILL APPEAR HIGHER BECAUSE THERE ARE LOTS SLOPE UPWARD AND ARE HIGHER AT THE BACK, LOWER AT THE FRONT, THE HOUSES ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET AS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE GOING TO HAVE THE OPPOSITE SCENARIO, WHERE THEY'LL BE HIGHER UP FRONT, LOWER AT THE BACK. SO THEY'RE GOING TO BY, BY THE NATURE OF THAT TOPOGRAPHY, HAVE A TALL FOUNDATION AT THE BACK OF THEIR HOME AS WHERE THE HOUSES ACROSS THE STREET FROM THEM, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A TALL FOUNDATION AT THE FRONT OF THEIR HOME. SO FROM AN ARCHITECTURAL STANDPOINT, IT COMES BACK INTO SOME SUBJECTIVITY, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT WE ALL HAVE TO THINK THROUGH WITH THIS AS WELL. IF YOU WERE STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT STREET AND YOU LOOK TO ONE SIDE, YOU'RE LOOKING UP A HILL AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT HOUSES WITH A TALL FOUNDATION AT THE FRONT, AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT'S GOING TO HAVE A SHORT FOUNDATION AT THE FRONT. DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES ANY IMPACT ON YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS ON ANY OF THIS. JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO IT DOES INTRODUCE A LITTLE BIT OF VARIABILITY THERE TO, TO WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT FIT. SO IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT AT THAT POINT TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OTHER HOMES THAT ARE ALREADY BUILT OR THAT COULD BE BUILT THAT ARE ON SIMILAR PROPERTIES TO THIS ONE, NOT JUST WHAT'S DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, BUT WHAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. I GUESS WE COULD ALSO ASK MAYBE IF I MEAN, WAS THERE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS MADE? I MEAN, DOES IT HAVE TO BE THAT HIGH? WAS THERE IF NOTHING ELSE, IS THAT HIGH IN THE AREA WHERE THERE CONSIDERATIONS TO HAVE SOMETHING MORE IN LINE, OR WOULD THAT WORK? I DON'T I DON'T KNOW. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION ANYBODY ELSE. JUST POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR EVERYBODY'S. APPROVAL. STANDARD IS 75% OF THE BOARD HAVE TO APPROVE ANY ISSUE BEFORE US. AND SO THAT WOULD MEAN IT WOULD TAKE SIX VOTES TO APPROVE THE HEIGHT EXCEPTION. ALL RIGHT. THAT BEING SAID, I THINK IF WE IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION OPEN FOR A MOTION. TO RECOMMEND. YEAH. PERFECT. I'M TWO PAGES AWAY SUGGESTING MOTION. APPROVAL. ALL RIGHT. I MOVE TO DENY CASE NUMBER 26. THANK YOU. [00:55:07] I MOVE TO DENY CASE NUMBER 26-3001-P-E BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDING OR FINDINGS. AND MINE IS THAT IT DOES BLOCK THE VIEW, THE PROTECTED VIEW OF THE SURROUNDING HOUSES. AND THAT'S IT. IT JUST SAYS STATE TO STATE THE REASON. OKAY. MOTION FROM MR. TIDBALL. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND AND A SECOND FROM MR. ECCLES. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? OKAY. HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION, SAY AYE. I YOU MAY NEED TO DO A ROLL CALL. OKAY. WE HAVE MAYBE ALL BUT ONE, SEVEN, SEVEN, SEVEN IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION. AND ALL OPPOSED NAY AND ONE NAY FOR MR. MONAHAN. SO WITH THAT, THIS APPLICATION IS AS SUBMITTED IS DENIED. AS A STOP GAP. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL BUSINESS MOVING ON FROM THIS [VI. CONSENT AGENDA] AGENDA ITEM. WE HAVE CONSENT AGENDA. AND IN OUR CONSENT AGENDA, ALL MATTERS LISTED IN THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE BOARD AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION WITHOUT DISCUSSION. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. AND THAT IS ONE ITEM WHICH IS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 31ST, 2026 MEETING. IS THERE A LANGUAGE FOR THAT ONE? NO, BUT I'LL BE HONEST, GIVEN HOW CHALLENGING THAT LAST MEETING WAS, HAVING NOT SEEN THOSE MINUTES, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE APPROVING AS A CONSENT AGENDA ITEM. I AGREE, I AGREE, I THINK THERE'S THERE'S GOOD CONSENSUS THERE. SO WE WILL WE WILL PULL THAT ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. THAT IS THE ONLY ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL DELAY THAT TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR FURTHER REVIEW. AND MOVING ON [VII.1. Routine Reports from City Council Liaison.] TO SECTION SEVEN, WE HAVE STAFF AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS. DO WE HAVE ANY ROUTINE REPORTS FROM OUR CITY COUNCIL LIAISON? THANK YOU. THERE REALLY ISN'T ANYTHING SPECIFIC TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THERE ARE FOUR SEATS. I BELIEVE FOUR INDIVIDUALS UP HERE THAT ARE SLATED TO END THEIR TERM. IF YOU ARE RENEWING YOUR TERM, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND PUT IN YOUR APPLICATIONS. THE APPLICATIONS ARE DUE, I BELIEVE, NOVEMBER 5TH FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THE NEXT TERMS. AND IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO JOIN ANOTHER BOARD OR COMMISSION, THAT, THAT WOULD ALSO BE THE PLACE TO GO AHEAD AND PUT IN YOUR APPLICATION ON THE WEBSITE. I'VE DEFINITELY HEARD SOME INFORMATION TONIGHT THAT I WILL BE TAKING BACK AND CONSIDERING HOW THAT IS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR BETWEEN STAFF AND COUNCIL IN ORDER TO ADJUST THE ORDINANCES SO THAT THERE IS A MORE CLARITY, AS IS COMMISSION HAS REQUESTED, I BELIEVE, COMING UP ON THE COUNCIL MEETING THIS THURSDAY IS A CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSION ABOUT RESUMING THE WORK OF THE UDC AND UPDATING OUR CODE. SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT Y'ALL HAVE OF INTEREST THERE, YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO, OF COURSE, ATTEND A MEETING AND AND PLACE A COMMENT IN REGARD TO THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MAYOR PRO TEM. AND NUMBER TWO [VII.2. Routine Reports from City staff.] IS REPORT ROUTINE REPORTS FROM CITY STAFF. DO WE HAVE ANY REPORTS FOR THIS BOARD FROM CITY STAFF AT THIS POINT? WE DO HAVE A NEW DIRECTOR. YOU ALREADY MET, MR. PATINO. WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO GET TO HAVE HIM AS OUR LEADER. AND ALSO WE ARE CONTINUING TO UPGRADE MGO, MY GOVERNMENT ONLINE TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE RESIDENTS OUT THERE AND ALSO CONTRACTORS. SO WE WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. THAT'S IT. PERFECT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT. 7:59 P.M. THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. QUICK QUESTION. YES, SIR. MR. DO WE KNOW WHEN OUR NEXT MEETING IS? IS THERE ANY OTHER FURTHER CASES COMING UP? DO WE HAVE DO WE HAVE ANY CASES PENDING WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DECEMBER MEETING PRESENTLY. CURRENTLY, I HAVE TWO. I STILL. ONE IS, DO I NEED TO DO YOU NEED DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT [01:00:05] THEY ARE OR. WELL, NOT SO MUCH AS. JUST KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE SCHEDULED FOR NEXT MONTH. TWO DOES IT LOOK LIKE THEY'LL COME TOGETHER IN TIME FOR NOTICES AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THEM ON A DECEMBER MEETING? OR DOES THAT LOOK MORE LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE A JANUARY MEETING FROM A NOTICE STANDPOINT? WE CAN HAVE IT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT. WE WOULD NEED TO WORK ON IT SOON. I JUST WANT TO KNOW THE TIMING. IS IT ANYTHING? OKAY, SO THANKS FOR THAT. SO YEAH, WE'LL WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT OFFLINE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BEING RESPONSIVE TO THE SCHEDULES FOR THAT. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT. PERFECT. WE'LL BUMP THAT F * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.