Aug 15, 2022 Zoning Board of Adjustment

[00:00:01]

YOU READY? OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 3:35.

[Call to Order]

AND IT MAY BE HARD FOR THE AUDIENCE TO HEAR US SOMETIMES, TOO.

SO WE WANT TO, AS BEST WE CAN REMEMBER, TO TURN OUR MIKES ON.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM ONE, WHICH IS TO DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION ON THE MINUTES FROM JULY 18TH AND THEY ARE IN YOUR PACKET.

[ITEM 1: Discuss and take appropriate action regarding July 18, 2022, Minutes.]

ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. STONE. WE HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND? I SECOND THAT.

ALRIGHT FROM MR. WOODRUFF. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED.

THE MINUTES FROM JULY 18TH.

THEY'VE BEEN APPROVED.

ALL RIGHT. THESE ARE THE GENERAL AGENDA COMMENTS.

THIS IS AN IN-PERSON AND VIDEOCONFERENCE MEETING.

VIDEOCONFERENCING IS BEING USED TO ALLOW STAFF AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO JOIN THE MEETING IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER.

ANYONE MAY JOIN THE MEETING VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE AT WW ZOOM DOT U.S.

FORWARD JOIN OR VIA TELEPHONE BY CALLING 13462487799 MEETING ID 91255952930 AND PASSWORD AND 976527.

IF YOU JOIN THE MEETING VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING AND WANT TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON AN AGENDA ITEM, YOU'LL NEED TO HAVE YOUR CAMERA ON HOLD UP YOUR HAND.

WHEN THE CHAIRMAN CALLS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND YOU WILL BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AND WILL BE ALLOWED A TOTAL OF 3 MINUTES TO PROVIDE COMMENTS REGARDING THE POSTED AGENDA ITEM FOR WHICH THE REQUEST TO SPEAK WAS SUBMITTED.

AND YOU MAY SPEAK DURING THIS TIME OR DURING THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL ITEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY RULES, CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE.

THE THREE MINUTE TIME PERIOD WILL BE EXTENDED TO 6 MINUTES IF A TRANSLATOR IS REQUIRED FOR A NON-ENGLISH SPEAKER TO COMMUNICATE HIS OR HER COMMENTS REGARDING THE POSTED AGENDA ITEM FOR WHICH THE REQUEST TO SPEAK WAS FILED.

YOU MAY ALSO EMAIL YOUR COMMENTS TO BE READ AT THE MEETING TO DRAGLAND@DECATURTX.ORG OR CFOOS@DECATURTX.ORG.

BEFORE AND DURING THE MEETING ON MONDAY, AUGUST 15TH.

PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND THE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER.

HAVING SAID THAT, WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM TWO.

[ITEM 2: ZBA2022-05—The Board to hold a public hearing, consider and take action on a request for a variance from the City of Decatur’s Zoning Ordinance regarding parking for the property proposed as Lot 1, Block 1, Chisholm Addition and more commonly referred to as 1500 South Deer Park Road, City of Decatur, Wise County, Texas. The request is for a variance to the City of Decatur Code of Ordinances, Appendix B, “Zoning,” Article 7, “Development Standards,” Section 7.3, “Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations,” Subsection 7.3.3, “Parking Requirements Based Upon Use.” The following parking requirements apply to the property located in the MF, Multiple-Family Residential District: Two and one-quarter (2 ¼) spaces for each dwelling unit within the apartment complex, pursuant to section A of subsection 7.3.3. The variance request seeks to reduce the minimum calculated parking space requirement from four hundred and fifty-nine (459) parking spaces to three hundred and fifty-seven (357) parking spaces. Additionally, pursuant to section B of subsection 7.3.3., the property also must comply with the following minimum parking space regulations: Recreational, Private or Commercial area or building (other than listed): Standalone: One (1) space per one hundred (100) square feet. This variance request seeks to reduce the minimum calculated parking space requirement from sixty-two (62) parking spaces to zero (0) parking spaces. (ZBA Application 2022-05 – Josh Jezek, on behalf of Deer Park QOZB, LLC)]

IN THIS ITEM, I RECUSE MYSELF FROM LAST MEETING.

I'M WILLING TO DO THAT AGAIN IF THAT IS THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT.

IT TAKES ME.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. VERY GOOD.

AND THEN JUST.. ITEM 2, ZBA2022-05, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH THE PARKING.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE RECORD REFLECTED THAT WE TABLED IT LAST TIME AND WE'RE CONTINUING THE ITEM THIS TIME.

THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. AND THAT WE CONTINUE IN PUBLIC HEARING.

RIGHT. AND WE WILL HEAR THE STAFF REPORT FROM THE CITY.

SO JUST A QUICK REFRESHER ON THIS.

THIS IS AN APPLICATION REQUEST ON BEHALF OF DECATUR QOZB FOR A VARIANCE TO THE PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS.

THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIPLE MULTIFAMILY FROM 459 SPACES TO 357.

SO THAT WOULD BE DROPPING IT FROM THE TWO AND A QUARTER THAT'S REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE TO 1.75.

AND THEN TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECREATIONAL, PRIVATE OR COMMERCIAL AREA FROM 62 SPACES TO ZERO PARKING SPACES.

THE APPLICANT WOULD PROVIDE A TOTAL OF 357 PARKING SPACES, A TOTAL OF 521 SPACES AS REQUIRED A DIFFERENCE OF 164

[00:05:07]

AND RIGHT UP HERE IS THE CALCULATION THAT WE DECIDED ON BETWEEN THE BOTH PARTIES ON THAT THIS WAS A CALCULATION BASED ON ANOTHER CITY'S USE OF THAT REFLECTED BEDROOM COUNTS AND THEN PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL FOR GUESTS AND VISITOR PARKING AS WELL AS PARKING AT THE CLUBHOUSE.

AND THAT CALCULATION CAME OUT TO 1.5 SPACES PER ONE BEDROOM, TWO SPACES PER TWO BEDROOM AND TWO AND A HALF SPACES PER THREE BEDROOM.

IT ALSO ADDED AN ADDITIONAL 10% OF THAT TOTAL TO THE PARKING COUNT TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT VISITOR PARKING.

TOTAL PARKING COUNT WITH THAT CALCULATION IS 406 SPACES.

THE VARIANCE, AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED, DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AN ADJUSTED NUMBER OF THE UNITS THAT WERE IN THERE OR THE BEDROOM COUNTS.

IF THEY WERE TO ADD MORE TWO OR THREE BEDROOMS IN THERE OR GO TO MORE ONE BEDROOMS OR HOWEVER THAT WORKED, THIS NEW CALCULATION TAKES THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND MORE ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS THAT ARE ON THAT.

THERE IS THE THE PLAN THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROVIDED.

AND IF YOU'LL SWITCH THE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED, IT'S BEEN REVISED TO REFLECT THIS.

AND YOU CAN SEE UP THERE IN THE UPPER LEFT HAND CORNER THAT THEY'VE DONE A PARKING TABULATION UP THERE BASED ON A CERTAIN NUMBER OF BEDROOMS, ONE, TWO AND THREE BEDROOMS. AND THEN AT 10%, THAT NUMBER CAME OUT TO 406.

THE PARKING AS PROPOSED BY THIS SITE PLAN IS 420.

AND SO IN SPEAKING WITH VARIOUS STAFF MEMBERS, THAT NUMBER WE FEEL LIKE WOULD WOULD MORE ACCOMMODATE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE AT THAT LOCATION AND HELP TO ALLEVIATE ANY PROBLEMS THAT WE MIGHT SEE WITH THAT.

ARE YOU GOOD? ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE CITY.

ALL RIGHT. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PROJECT? I'M CHARLIE MUSSA.

I'M ACTUALLY. I LIVE IN FLOWER MOUND, BUT GROW UP HERE OVER MY WHOLE LIFE, AND WE'RE JUST THANKFUL FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND SEEING US LAST MONTH AND HAVING US WORK WITH YOU GUYS TOGETHER TO COME TO SOMETHING THAT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE FOR BOTH PARTIES.

WE'RE EXCITED. WE WANT THE PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD AND WE'RE GOING TO GET GOING.

SO IF ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, LET US KNOW.

BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO BE HERE.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. VERY GOOD.

I WAS GOING TO ASK. YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS CALCULATION CAME FROM ANOTHER CITY.

WHICH CITY? GRANBURY.

THERE'S A SIMILAR CALCULATION OUT OF WEATHERFORD.

WE SAW THIS TYPE OF CALCULATION OFF OF BEDROOMS IN A LOT OF CITIES AND THEY HANDLE THE CLUBHOUSE VISITOR PARKING IN DIFFERENT MANNERS PERCENTAGE OR WHETHER IT'S A HARD NUMBER BASED OFF OF THE SIZE OF ANOTHER STRUCTURE.

BUT WE FELT LIKE THAT WAS A BETTER FIT WITH THE 10%.

AND GRANBURY USES THE 10%?

[00:10:02]

THEY TAKE THE THE ADDITIONAL USE THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY AND YOU PROVIDE PARKING BASED ON THAT USE.

SO THE OTHER USE IS A PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILITY, WHICH IS AT 100 OR ONE PARKING SPOT FOR EVERY HUNDRED SQUARE FEET.

THANKS. SO TO BE CLEAR, THE REVISED CALCULATION BY THE CITY STAFF TOTALS 406 SPACES FOR THE PROJECT, AND THE APPLICANT IS NOW SUBMITTED A PLAN THAT'S GOT 420 SPACES.

AND ALSO YOU SAID HERE WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS ESTABLISHING 406 AS THE MINIMUM.

EVEN IF THEY CHANGE UNIT CONFIGURATIONS LATER, IT WOULD RECALCULATE BASED ON THAT CALCULATION.

OKAY. THEY CHANGE BEDROOM COUNTS.

MM HMM. CHANGE THAT RATIO OF 1, 2, THREE BEDROOMS. WE WOULD USE THIS EQUATION.

YOU WOULD USE THAT TO DETERMINE THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.

YEAH. YOU'RE USING A FORMULA BASED ON THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS AND IN A PERCENTAGE FOR THE FOR THE EXTRA, NOT A FIXED THING.

SO IF THEY'RE DESIGN CHANGES, SOME REASON BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME THEY'RE READY TO ACTUALLY BUILD AND CONSTRUCT, AS LONG AS THEY'RE GOING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS FORMULA, THEN THERE'S NO OTHER ACTION THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN HERE.

RIGHT. RIGHT.

AS LONG AS THEY PROVIDE THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF SPACES BASED ON THAT CALCULATION, BASICALLY THE VARIANCE ON THIS IS GOING TO BE BASED ON THAT CALCULATION UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO PROPOSE THAT IN ANOTHER WAY.

WELL, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT POINT.

SO WE'RE REALLY TALKING DOING THE CALCULATION, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 406.

IF YOU BASE IT OFF THE CALCULATION, IT'S 406 AT THIS POINT AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME UNTIL WE GET A PRELIMINARY PLAT ACTUALLY BUILDING PLANS IN HERE TO DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND WHAT THOSE CONFIGURATIONS WILL BE ON THOSE UNITS.

WE WON'T KNOW UNTIL THAT TIME IN ORDER WE DON'T KNOW ON ON MULTIFAMILY UNTIL WE RECEIVE THOSE BUILDING PLANS, THE NUMBER OF ONE, TWO AND THREE ROOMS OTHER THAN WHAT THEY, THEY TELL US. YEAH, RIGHT, RIGHT.

THIS HAVING THIS, THIS APPROACH THEN IF WE, IF WE WERE TO USE THAT GOING FORWARD IN OTHER CASES, THEN THAT WOULD ALLOW A DEVELOPER TO HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA OF WHAT HE NEEDS TO PROVIDE BEFORE HE GOES TO THE EXPENSE OF PREPARING A PLAT.

PRELIMINARY PLAT, RIGHT? YEAH. I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU ALL HAVE DONE ON THIS SINCE THAT LAST MEETING.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS HOPING YOU GUYS WOULD DO, AND I THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR PATIENCE IN DOING THIS AND COMING BACK THE APPLICANT THERE AND YOU GUYS TO WORK WITH THEM.

JUMPED RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.

AND SO IT WAS A GOOD PROCESS.

GOOD. VERY GOOD.

OVER HERE. YEAH, PLEASE.

ARCHITECT SAID, OF COURSE, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE BASED ON SPACES PER BEDROOMS. SO HE WAS ON BOARD. IT DOES SAY 420 RIGHT NOW, BUT THERE COULD BE SOME PLUS OR MINUS.

WILL THE UNIT, THE BEDROOM COUNT, STAY THE SAME WILL BE 406 OR ABOVE.

THERE WAS A DOG PARK.

IT'S NOT THERE. WE GOT TO DO SOME CHANGES WHERE WE STAY ABOVE 406 OR THAT.

BUT I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW RIGHT NOW IT'S 420.

WE TRY TO STICK TO THAT.

BUT FOR SURE, ABOVE 406.

I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. OKAY.

VERY GOOD. DO WE NEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW.

OKAY. WE'LL DO THAT.

AND THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BY THE BOARD.

WAS ANYBODY ONLINE? OH, YEAH.

JUST EARL. NEVER SAY JUST EARL.

HE'S NOT. EARL, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? NO I SUPPORT THIS TOTALLY.

WE ALL WORK TOGETHER WITH FIRE POLICE, WAYNE AND THE APPLICANT, AND I'LL WORK OUT REAL GOOD.

OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF THERE ARE NONE.

I HAD JUST A FEW OBSERVATIONS PREVIOUSLY WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THIS.

THE CITIES WE LOOKED AT WERE A LOT BIGGER THAT WE WERE COMPARING TO, I DON'T KNOW, THE SIZE OF GRAND PRAIRIE, BUT SOME OF THE OTHER ONES WE TALKED ABOUT WERE DENTON AND SHERMAN IN THE LAST MEETING, WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER, YOU KNOW, SHERMAN'S SEVEN TIMES THE SIZE OF DECATUR AND

[00:15:04]

OKAY, SO ABOUT DOUBLE.

ONE, SOME OF THE POINTS WE BROUGHT UP IN THE LAST MEETING WERE ALSO THE VEHICLES, I BELIEVE THE FIRE CHIEF POINTED OUT, AND MR. WOODRUFF ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED ARE NOT COMPACT VEHICLES.

AND I DON'T BELIEVE I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS.

THE POLICE CHIEF ALSO WAS POINTING OUT THAT HE'S SEEING MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE PEOPLE IN SINGLE UNIT APARTMENTS.

AND THAT TREND IS GROWING FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE.

AND THEY'VE HAD A LOT OF CHALLENGES WITH PARKING AT THE OTHER APARTMENT COMPLEX ON THOMPSON.

MY QUESTION ORIGINALLY WAS WE'RE BASING A LOT OF THESE EQUATIONS ON HISTORIC DATA, AND I THINK A LOT HAS CHANGED IN THE LAST TWO YEARS.

AND I ALSO THINK THERE'S UNIQUE PARTS ABOUT DECATUR THAT ARE DIFFERENT.

I THINK IF YOU ENTER A RECESSION, YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE, COUPLES STAYING IN ONE UNIT, APARTMENTS THAT HAVE TWO VEHICLES.

I THINK IT IS COMMON TO EXPECT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT MORE TWO VEHICLE UNITS, EVEN IF THEY'RE ONE BEDROOM.

I THINK THAT'S JUST A REALITY.

I CAN'T GIVE YOU DATA FOR IT, BUT IT HADN'T BEEN PRESENTED TO ME WHY THIS IS NOT YOU KNOW, THAT THIS IS NOT IN FACT HAPPENING.

AND IT'S NOT A GOOD PRECEDENT TO LOOK AT ALL THESE OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE THEIR EQUATIONS BASED ON HISTORIC DATA.

WHEN WE'VE HAD SOME UNIQUE EVENTS, WHAT I MENTIONED LAST TIME IS THE TREND FOR REMOTE WORK HAS BEEN ADVANCED BY ABOUT A DECADE. FROM SOME OF THE STUDIES I'VE READ, MORE PEOPLE ARE WORKING REMOTE FROM HOME AND IT WAS POINTED OUT LAST MEETING THAT A LOT OF THE PARKING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SEEING THESE TRENDS THAT WE DON'T NEED AS MUCH PARKING IN RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL.

WHERE ARE THOSE CARS THAT THE RESIDENTS WORKING FROM HOME AND ALSO IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE COMPANY VEHICLES AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THEIR PRIVATE VEHICLE.

SO I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH DATA TO FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE 1.5 PER ONE BEDROOM IN THE EQUATION.

NOR DO I HAVE ENOUGH DATA TO SAY IT'S NOT LEGITIMATE WHERE I'M AT RIGHT NOW.

I'D PROBABLY ABSTAINED FROM VOTING, BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THOSE WERE THE POINTS WE HAVEN'T REALLY ADDRESSED FROM THE LAST MEETING. SURE. AND SOME OF THOSE THINGS ARE NOT REALLY READILY AVAILABLE.

RIGHT. SOME OF THESE SOME OF THESE PHENOMENONS WE'RE GOING THROUGH ARE TOO RECENT TO BE EXACTLY A STUDY.

THE BEST WE CAN DO IS TRY TO MAKE A REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WE HAVE AND EXISTING UNITS. AND TO THAT POINT WHERE I'M AT IS IF WE DID APPROVE THIS HERE, I'D LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I DON'T WANT TO SET THIS AS POLICY, NOR DO I WANT TO ESTABLISH THIS FOR EVERY OTHER.

I DON'T THINK THE SPECIFIC VALUES IN THIS PARTICULAR FORMULA OR WHAT WE'RE NAILING DOWN FOR THE FUTURE, IT'S IT'S USING A FORMULA.

SURE. THE FORMULA IS GOOD.

AND WE SEE THERE THERE MAY BE DISTINGUISHING SITUATIONS FOR THIS.

MY MY COMMENT ABOUT GOING BACK TO THE POINTS IN THE LAST MEETING IS I DON'T WANT TO SET ANY PRECEDENTS WITH THE COEFFICIENTS IN THIS FORMULA.

I AGREE AT TWO AND A QUARTER PER DWELLING UNIT AND 100 PER OR ONE PER 100 ON THE ON THE ADDITIONAL USE.

SO THOSE NUMBERS WOULD STAY THE SAME IF WE CHOOSE TO DIG INTO THIS DEEPER.

SOMEONE POINTED OUT DURING THE LAST MEETING THAT THERE'S CURRENTLY A NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL GOVERNMENT STUDY GOING ON FOR PARKING.

YOU KNOW, AS THAT DATA BECOMES MORE AVAILABLE, WE CAN LOOK AT DOING A CHANGE TO OUR ORDINANCE TO REFLECT THOSE NUMBERS.

BUT THIS WOULD BE A SPECIFIC INSTANCE IN THIS.

IT COULD BE USED FOR A GUIDE AT A FUTURE TIME IF IT FITS.

BUT IT IS IN NO WAY WOULD CHANGE WHAT'S REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE.

AND ARE ANY OF THE PROPOSED SPACES WOULD BE CONSIDERED COMPACT? NOT THAT NONE OF THEM HAVE BEEN HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED AS THAT.

ORDINANCE DOES NOT IDENTIFY THAT.

MATTER OF FACT, ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO, WE WE INCREASED THE SIZE OF OUR SPACE JUST BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE LARGER VEHICLES ARE MORE PREVALENT IN WISE COUNTY.

[00:20:06]

I DON'T HAVE THOSE DIMENSIONS IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW, BUT THEY WERE THEY WERE INCREASED IN LENGTH AND WIDTH.

IT WENT FROM 18 TO 19 FEET IN LENGTH AND STILL NINE FEET WIDE.

OR I BELIEVE IT STILL IS.

YEAH, BUT THOSE NUMBERS WERE INCREASED BECAUSE WE DID SEE THAT LARGER VEHICLES MORE PREVALENT.

SO THOSE STAY THE SAME.

NOTHING IN THE VARIANCE IS VARYING FROM THE THE WIDTH OR THE LENGTH OF THOSE PARKING SPACES.

THEY WOULD ALL BE PROVIDED AT WHAT'S REQUIRED BY THE DESIGN STANDARDS.

AND THOSE ARE ALL THINGS TO BE ADDRESSING, ESPECIALLY BY THE TIME YOU GET THAT STUDY FROM THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS.

BECAUSE BY THAT TIME I WOULD SURE HOPE THAT WE HAVE A PROJECT ON TO UNDERWAY TO REVISE OUR ZONING REGULATIONS.

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THESE THINGS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED HERE TODAY AND THE POINT THAT WILL IS BROUGHT UP AND THAT YOU HAVE MADE THERE, WAYNE, THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A PRETTY BIG REVAMP ON THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS RIGHT NOW.

RIGHT. I THINK, OF COURSE, WE'VE GOT SEVERAL OTHER ORDINANCES THAT ARE UNDER REVIEW.

EVERYBODY'S REALIZED THAT THAT THERE'S SOME SOME OUTDATED MATERIAL THERE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.

AND SO WE'RE WORKING OUR WAY THROUGH THOSE.

OH, GOOD. WELL, Y'ALL SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF FUN.

THAT'S GREAT BEDTIME READING.

YES. I THINK ANOTHER ONE THAT'S PARTICULAR ABOUT THIS IS IT'S GATED.

IT'S GATED. THAT'S ANOTHER DISTINGUISHING PART ABOUT THIS ONE THAT I BELIEVE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE 950 THOMPSON THAT WAS REFERRED TO LAST TIME. SO THAT'S ANOTHER DISTINCTION, ONE ABOUT THIS THAT MAKES THIS ONE MORE LOGICAL.

SO IT IS A NINE FEET WIDE.

YEAH. DEPENDING ON THE ANGLE OF PARKING. BUT THERE'S YOUR THERE'S YOUR STALL AND.

I CAN'T READ THAT, WAYNE. IS THAT 19 FEET FOR A STRAIGHT END PARKING SPACE? YES. OKAY, CHARLIE, THAT'S WHAT YOU ALL HAVE ON HERE IS 19 FEET.

OKAY. I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS, WILL.

ANYTHING ELSE? YOU READY FOR A MOTION? AND BY THE WAY, SO LET'S FLIP RIGHT QUICK IN OUR PACKAGE TO THE OPTIONS.

THIS IS GOING TO BE.

YEAH. STAGE FOUR.

SO THESE ARE THE OPTIONS BEFORE US TODAY.

ONE IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON THE BEDROOMS. AND AS WE SAID, THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BE FOR THIS CALCULATION, NOT FOR THE NUMBER OF TOTAL NUMBER WE COULD RECOMMEND WITH CONDITIONS. WE CAN RECOMMEND TO DENY OR WE COULD RECOMMEND POSTPONING.

I THINK WE'VE COVERED A LOT OF GROUND TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WHERE WE'RE AT NOW.

AND I BELIEVE WE CAN.

MAKE A FINAL DECISION ON THIS.

MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU'RE READY, I WOULD.

I WOULD OFFER A MOTION.

I'M READY. I WOULD.

I'M GOING TO READ THROUGH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR OFFERING A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM THE EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY AND PLANS PRESENTED.

I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GRANT THE REQUEST.

CVA2022-05 TO ALLOW A VARIANCE FROM THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING PARKING TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM CALCULATED PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS FROM 521 PARKING SPACES TO A CALCULATION AS FOLLOWS, 1.5 SPACES PER ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT 2.0 SPACES PER TWO BEDROOM APARTMENT 2.5 SPACES PER THREE BEDROOM APARTMENT PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 10% ADDED TO THE TOTAL FOR CLUBHOUSE GUEST AND VISITOR PARKING.

SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PROPOSED IS ONE BLOCK ONE CHISHOLM ADDITION MORE COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS 1500 SOUTH DEER PARK ROAD, CITY OF DECATUR, WISE COUNTY, TEXAS.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. WOODRUFF. DO I HEAR A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

A SECOND FROM MR. CROSS?

[00:25:02]

AYE.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. ALL RIGHT.

ITEM TWO PASSES.

[ITEM 3: New and/or future business items]

AND I THANK Y'ALL.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS AT THIS TIME? AND RIGHT NOW, AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, WE DO HAVE ONE APPLICATION THAT WE HAVE TAKEN IN AND IS BEING PROCESSED FOR SEPTEMBER 19TH MEETING.

WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE THAT MAY BE IN TOMORROW.

SO WE HAVE A POSSIBILITY OF TWO AND THERE'S A THIRD ONE THAT MAY MATERIALIZE OUT OF THAT, TOO.

BUT WE WILL HAVE A MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 19TH.

OKAY. VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, WAYNE. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. LOOKS LIKE WE PARTY AGAIN NEXT MONTH, HUH? THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS.

WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 4:00.

SUPPOSED TO HAVE A GAVEL, THEN THEY GIVE YOU A GAVEL.

I KNOW THEY DON'T TRUST ME WITH A GAVEL.

THANK Y'ALL.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.