[Call to Order] [00:00:09] I'VE GOT 3:30. SO WE'LL CALL OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING TO ORDER AT 3:30. AND SO I UNDERSTAND THAT MR. CHANDLER IS GOING TO FILL IN AS AN ALTERNATE. SO WE HAVE A BOARD OF FOUR. ALL RIGHT. ITEM ONE IS TO DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION ON THE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 21ST. [ITEM 1: Discuss and take appropriate action regarding October 21, 2024, BOA Minutes.] AND BY THE WAY, ALL OF YOU PEOPLE THAT WERE HERE ON OCTOBER 21ST, I SURE APPRECIATE YOU FOR COVERING FOR ME. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING TO CHANGE? THEN I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MOTION FROM MR. CROSS. SECOND. SECOND. ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. ITEM ONE IS APPROVED. ANYONE MAY JOIN THE MEETING VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE AT ZOOM.US/JOIN OR VIA TELEPHONE BY CALLING 1-346-248-7799. MEETING ID 91255952930, AND PASSWORD 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 AND HOLD UP YOUR HAND. WHEN THE CHAIRMAN CALLS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, YOU WILL BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN TO ADDRESS THE BOARD, AND WILL BE ALLOWED A TOTAL OF THREE MINUTES TO PROVIDE COMMENTS REGARDING THE POSTED AGENDA ITEM FOR WHICH THE REQUEST TO SPEAK WAS SUBMITTED, AND YOU MAY SPEAK DURING THIS ITEM OR DURING THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL ITEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE. THE THREE MINUTE TIME PERIOD WILL BE EXTENDED TO SIX 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 SEEFIRST@DECATURTX.ORG BEFORE AND DURING THE MEETING. PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND THE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER. [Items 2 - 4] NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEMS TWO, THREE AND FOUR. WE'LL OF COURSE TAKE ACTION SEPARATELY, BUT I THINK OUR STAFF REPORT IS GOING TO BE ON THE 3D GATHERING. AND THESE HAVE TO DO WITH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. EXCEPT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE THAT IS CURRENTLY ENCROACHING IN THREE DIFFERENT WAYS. SO [INAUDIBLE] FROM YOU. ALL RIGHT. THESE THREE ITEMS ARE IN REFERENCE TO 502 NORTH ARTHUR STREET. THIS IS ANTONIO HUERTA AND MARIA MENDEZ'S REQUEST FOR SETBACK ENCROACHMENT. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR BOA 2024-19. AND THIS IS FOR AN ENCROACHMENT OF 25FT INTO THE FRONT YARD. SETBACK, WHICH HAS A REQUIREMENT OF 25FT. BOA 2024-20. THIS IS AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. ENCROACHING EIGHT FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK ALONG NORTH ARTHUR STREET AND THEN BOA 2024-21, WHICH IS A SHED THAT IS ENCROACHING ONE AND 8/10 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED TEN FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. THE PROPERTY IS IDENTIFIED AS LOT TWO, BLOCK SIX OF THE HALE ADDITION, AND IS MORE COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS 502 NORTH ARTHUR STREET, AND THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THOSE ENCROACHMENTS. THIS IS YOUR AERIAL. FOR EACH OF THE APPLICATIONS SHOWING THE ENCROACHMENTS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. WE DID NOTIFY 17 PROPERTY OWNERS. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES BACK OPPOSED IN FAVOR OR NEUTRAL TO THE REQUEST. NEXT SLIDE. IN TERMS OF THE STAFF'S FINDINGS, THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS DO NOT VIOLATE THE INTENT AND SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND SHED HAVE BEEN IN THEIR CONFIGURATION FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME, ACCORDING TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT. [00:05:03] THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE HAS BEEN THERE SINCE 1940. THE REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK DOES NOT APPEAR TO ADVERSELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. OUR ZONING REGULATIONS WERE AMENDED IN 2015, AND THEY DO REQUIRE THAT ALL APPLICABLE CITY ORDINANCES BE ADHERED TO BEFORE A PERMIT IS ISSUED, WHICH IS WHY YOU'RE SEEING THESE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS BEFORE YOU. THERE ARE SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF RESTRICTED AREAS SHAPE, TOPOGRAPHY, OR PHYSICAL FEATURES THAT EXIST PECULIAR TO THE SUBJECT PARCEL AND NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ENCROACHES WELL BEYOND THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE INTO THE BROWN STREET RIGHT OF WAY. FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THIS LOT IS HINDERED DUE TO THE SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS. THE 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT WILL NEED TO BE REDUCED ALONG BOTH EAST BROWN STREET AND NORTH ARTHUR STREET, AS WELL AS THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. THESE SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS DO NOT APPEAR TO BE UNCOMMON OR CONDITION THAT ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS. THE HARDSHIP IS NOT A RESULT OF THE APPLICANT'S ACTION. WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2011, THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF THE ENCROACHMENT ISSUES. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS IN THIS ORDINANCE COULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER, EXCUSE ME PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT THAT COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS. THE STRUCTURES. AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, HAVE BEEN IN THEIR CONFIGURATION SINCE 1940. APPROXIMATELY 84 YEARS. WITH NO COMPLAINTS BY THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. THE APPLICANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, UNAWARE OF THE ENCROACHMENT ISSUES. NEXT SLIDE. AND THE APPLICANT IS ATTEMPTING TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE WITH OUR REGULATIONS. BUT FOR THE SETBACK, ENCROACHMENT, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS NEEDED TO DEVELOP A GARAGE ON THE SINGLE FAMILY LOT BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED. THESE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WILL NEED TO BE GRANTED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THEN YOU HAVE EARL'S FINDINGS. AND BASICALLY, HE'S LOOKING AT IT FROM A TRAFFIC STANDPOINT. AND THERE ARE NO ISSUES FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. NEXT SLIDE. AND THEN THESE ARE PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY. 2024-19 IS THE VIEW LOOKING WEST ALONG BROWN STREET. 2024-20 IS THE VIEW LOOKING NORTH ALONG ARTHUR STREET. AND THEN 2024-21 IS THE VIEW LOOKING NORTHWEST TOWARDS THE SHED. AND THAT'S IT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:38. AND IF THERE'S ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM, NOW IS YOUR CHANCE. THE PROPERTY OWNER'S DAUGHTER'S HERE, MISS HUERTA. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, SHE'S AVAILABLE. I THINK WE ASK YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. MY NAME IS ADAMARI HUERTA, AND I LIVE AT 502 NORTH ARTHUR STREET, DECATUR, TEXAS. OKAY. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. SO, BROWN STREET, WHICH IS THAT THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. IS THAT CORRECT? NO, IT'S ON THE SIDE. IT'S ARTHUR. YEAH. ARTHUR IS. THE HOUSE FRONTS ARTHUR STREET, AND THEN THE SIDE FRONTS BROWN STREET. OKAY. AND BROWN DOESN'T GO THROUGH RIGHT THERE, DOES IT? NO. IS IT DEAD END STREET? IT JUST RUNS IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE AND THEN STOPS. YES. IT RUNS IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE AS WELL. ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, AS WELL AS A NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE RIGHT THERE AND THEN IT'S JUST DEAD END. OKAY. AND BIG MAMA WILLIS PARK IS WHERE IN RELATION TO YOUR HOUSE, IT'S TO THE SIDE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF BROWN STREET. OKAY. ON THE SOUTH SIDE? YES. YOU CAN SEE. [00:10:04] CHAIRMAN. MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT THE PARK. BIG MAMA WILLIS PARK IS IN THAT MIDDLE PHOTOGRAPH. OKAY. AND IT'S. IT EXTENDS BACK. OKAY. AND ON WEEKENDS, THERE'S PARKING. THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE PARKING THERE. YES. IN FRONT ON THE STREET, WHICH PROHIBITS, AT TIMES, MY CAR BEING ABLE TO LEAVE. OKAY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, THESE SETBACKS HELP THAT MATTER. YES, BECAUSE WE ARE WANTING TO GET THE VARIANCES FOR THIS SO THAT WE ARE ABLE TO BUILD A GARAGE ON THE ARTHUR STREET. SO THAT WAY I WILL NO LONGER HAVE TO PARK ON BROWN STREET AND THEREFORE I CAN GET OUT EASIER. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PEOPLE WORKING ON THAT SIDE. THERE WAS, THIS ONE TIME WHERE THEY PARKED RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY GARAGE, BUT THEY QUICKLY MOVED ONCE I LET THEM KNOW. JUST PROVIDES BETTER ACCESS TO YOUR PROPERTY. YES. OKAY. AND SO IF WE IF WE GRANTED THESE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, THEN THAT WOULD FREE YOU UP TO THEN APPLY FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR A NEW GARAGE. YES, SIR. WHICH WOULD NOT BE AN ENCROACHMENT OR. THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE THAN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, CORRECT? IT WOULD BE A SEPARATE ISSUE, BUT WITH THE SETBACK, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, THEY CAN BUILD WITHIN THAT 20FT OR WHATEVER THE. SO IN THIS CASE USUALLY WE GRANT SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR EXISTING STRUCTURES ONLY, BUT IN THIS CASE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. YES, WE WOULD BE GRANTING THE REDUCED SETBACKS. YES. OKAY. WOULD WE LIMIT THAT TO JUST THIS NEW CONSTRUCTION OR IS THAT. YOU CAN. YES YOU CAN. AND I BELIEVE WE WROTE THE OPTIONS IN THAT WAY. OKAY. THAT THE SETBACK IS TO REMAIN AT 25FT, EXCEPT FOR THE GARAGE, THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THE NEW GARAGE THAT WOULD BE BUILT. OKAY. YEAH. THAT CLEAR TO EVERYBODY? YEP. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE YOUR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? NO. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE, WE APPROVE. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. CHANDLER. OH. I'M SORRY. YES, MA'AM. AND WE'RE STILL IN PUBLIC HEARINGS. I FORGOT TO CLOSE THAT, SO GO AHEAD. MY NAME IS JOYCE BELL, AND I REPRESENT 704 NORTH ARTHUR, WHICH IS DOWN THE STREET FROM 502. AND I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT SHE'S TRYING TO BUILD A GARAGE ON THE FACING ARTHUR STREET. HISTORY, RIGHT? CORRECT. SHE HAS A GARAGE ALREADY ON ARTHUR STREET. REALLY? BUT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE IF THE STORE THE GARAGE POINTED IN THIS PICTURE HERE, IS THAT INTERFERING WITH HER SPACE, WHICH BELONGS TO THE DAVIS FAMILY? WILL THEY HAVE TO MOVE THAT GARAGE? THAT BUILDING, THAT SHELTER THAT'S THERE. DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? ARE YOU SAYING THAT THAT SHED IS NOT. IT DOESN'T BELONG TO THEM. OH, YEAH, I SEE THAT SHED THERE. IT'S ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. ON THAT FENCE. RUNNING. OKAY. THEY'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THEIR PROPERTY. OKAY. AND SO THE GARAGE WOULD BE IN BETWEEN THE SHED AND THE HOUSE. OKAY. OKAY. SO I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF IT WAS GOING TO AFFECT BROWN STREET. WOULD THEY MOVE THE PROPERTY LINE OVER OR NOT? I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD MOVE THE PROPERTY LINE OVER. I THINK THEY'RE JUST ANTICIPATING BUILDING AN ADDITIONAL GARAGE THAT WOULD FRONT ON ARTHUR STREET, AND THE EXISTING GARAGE WOULD STAY IN PLACE. AND THEN THERE'S A COUPLE OF ENCROACHMENTS THAT ARE ACTUALLY THERE. SO BEFORE THEY CAN BUILD THEIR GARAGE, THEY HAVE TO ADDRESS THOSE ENCROACHMENTS. [00:15:01] AND ONE WAY TO DO THAT IS TO SEEK A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THIS BOARD. SO IT'S NOT CHANGING ANY PROPERTY LINES. SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 345. AND WE DO HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. CHANDLER. WE HAVE A SECOND. I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. ECKARD. LET ME KNOW WHAT THE MOTION WAS. WAS IT IN RELATION TO APPLICATION 2024-19? YES. ONLY THAT ONE. ONLY THAT ONE. THANK YOU. WHICH IS FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. OPPOSED. ITEM TWO IS APPROVED. MOVING TO ITEM THREE, WHICH IS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE ENCROACHMENT EIGHT FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK ALONG NORTH ARTHUR STREET. THIS BEING A CORNER LOT, IT'S GOT TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 2024-20 FOR THE EIGHT FOOT SETBACK. I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. FIRST FOR MR. CLINESMITH. A SECOND FROM MR. REICHARD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NONE OPPOSED. ITEM THREE PASSES. ITEM FOUR. AND, PAM, DO I NEED TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CLOSE IT FOR EACH ONE? OR IS. NO. I BELIEVE THE INTENT WAS TO PRESENT AND TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ALL ITEMS RELATED TO THE SAME PROPERTY. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO ITEM FOUR, WHICH IS TO ALLOW THE EXISTING SHED TO ENCROACH 1.8FT INTO THE REQUIRED TEN FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THAT. MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION 2024 DASH 21. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. CROSS. SECOND. SECOND FROM MR. ECKARD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ITEM FOUR IS APPROVED. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO ITEM FIVE. [Items 5 & 6] REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A 3600 SQUARE FOOT INFILL LOT TO BE DEVELOPED OUTSIDE OF THE MINIMUM AREA OF 5000FT² AND THE MINIMUM 100 FOOT WIDTH AND A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 70FT. ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRENT SF-2 RESIDENTIAL LOT DIMENSIONS. AND I WILL OPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING UP AT WELL, WHY DON'T WE HEAR FROM DEDRA FIRST AND THEN WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. ITEMS FIVE AND SIX, ACTUALLY ARE IN RESPECT TO THIS PROPERTY. 601 WEST BRADY. AND AS MARK MENTIONED, BOA 2024-22 HAS TO DO WITH A 3600 SQUARE FOOT INFILL LOT AS IDENTIFIED IN ATTACHMENT FOUR OF THE REPORT, ALLOWING IT TO BE DEVELOPED OUTSIDE THE MINIMUM AREA WHICH WE REQUIRE 5000FT². IN TERMS OF THE AREA 100 FOOT WIDTH AND OR A DEPTH OF 70FT, BOA 2024-23 IS A REDUCTION IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK ALONG WEST BRADY STREET. FROM 25FT TO 20FT. THE PROPOSED LOT IS TO BE DESIGNATED AS LOT EIGHT, R BLOCK, J COLBERT ADDITION, AND MORE COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS 601 WEST BRADY STREET. HOWEVER, BEFORE THEY CAN REPLANT THE PROPERTY, THEY WILL NEED TO HAVE THESE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS GRANTED. THEY ARE WANTING TO PUT A NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON THE LOT. THE ZONING ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO BE GRANTED WITH REGARDS TO THE LOT SIZE. AND AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THESE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ARE THESE ENCROACHMENTS. AND THE LOT SIZE WILL NEED TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE THE PROPERTY CAN BE PLATTED. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN AN SF-2 ZONING DISTRICT. NEXT SLIDE. [00:20:02] THESE ARE YOUR MAP EXHIBITS FOR THE TWO APPLICATIONS. AND WE DID NOTIFY 23 PROPERTY OWNERS. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES BACK. NEXT SLIDE. IN TERMS OF STAFF'S FINDING THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS DO NOT VIOLATE THE INTENT AND SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WAS A HEALTH AND SAFETY RISK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NEEDED TO BE DEMOLISHED. ONCE THEY DEMOLISHED IT, A NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IS BEING PROPOSED ON AN APPROXIMATELY 3600 SQUARE FOOT LOT, AND WE HAD TO DO SOME SERIOUS DIGGING TO SEE THAT THIS COULD BE ALLOWED. AND WE DID FIND THAT INFILL LOT IS ENCOURAGED IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, AND THIS IS A LOT OF RECORD. AND SO IT CAN BE DEVELOPED WITH SPECIAL EXCEPTION. THERE ARE SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF RESTRICTED AREAS SHAPE, TOPOGRAPHY OR PHYSICAL FEATURES THAT EXIST PECULIAR TO THE SUBJECT PARCEL AND NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. AGAIN, THIS IS A VERY SMALL LOT, ABOUT 3600FT². INFILL. THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFILL LOTS IS DESIRABLE AND WILL HELP OUR TAX ROLL. IT WILL HELP INCREASE HOUSING OPTIONS AND AFFORDABILITY, WHILE ALSO HELPING TO END URBAN SPRAWL AND IMPROVING SERVICE DELIVERY. AS WE CONTINUE TO GROW IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS INFILL LOT, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE RESTRICTION MUST BE ADDRESSED AND THE 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT WILL NEED TO BE REDUCED. THE REDUCED FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE AN UNCOMMON PHENOMENON OR CONDITION ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS. THE HARDSHIP IS NOT A RESULT OF THE APPLICANT'S ACTION. THE EXISTING LOT HAS BEEN IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION FOR SOME ALMOST 30 YEARS. 130 YEARS. THE APPLICANT IS ATTEMPTING TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S REGULATIONS. BUT FOR THE LOT SIZE AND REDUCED SETBACK NEEDED TO DEVELOP THE SINGLE FAMILY LOT BEFORE THEY CAN REPLAT THE PROPERTY, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WILL NEED TO BE GRANTED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. NEXT SLIDE. AND THIS IS THE ZONING EXCERPT THAT TALKS ABOUT THE LOT AREA AND THAT IT CAN AN OFFICIAL LOT OF RECORD CAN BE DEVELOPED FOR ONE FAMILY DWELLING BELOW THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH HEREIN, UNLESS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS GRANTED, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION MAY BE GRANTED WHEN AN INFILL LOT IS UNABLE, UNDER REASONABLE MEANS, TO MEET THE AREA WIDTH OR DEATH REQUIREMENTS OF THAT PARTICULAR SECTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE CITY ENGINEER HAS ALSO PROVIDED HIS FINDINGS. AND AGAIN, HE LOOKS AT IT FROM TRANSPORTATION ISSUES, AND HE SAW NO ISSUES WITH WHAT THEY WERE REQUESTING. NEXT SLIDE. AND THEN THESE ARE THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY. THERE'S THE VIEW LOOKING SOUTHWEST AT THE LOT. THE ONLY THING THAT'S ON THE LOT RIGHT NOW IS A CARPORT, BUT IT WILL BE TORN DOWN. AND THEN THE NEW STRUCTURE BUILT. AND THEN THERE'S THE VIEW LOOKING WEST AT THE LOT. THAT'S RIGHT. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. NOW, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 354 AND INVITE ANYONE THAT'S HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. ALL RIGHT. AND WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:54 AND ENTERTAIN COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. ABOUT THESE TWO ITEMS? WELL, JUST FROM LOOKING AT IT, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT WHAT WE'RE REALLY DOING HERE. WE'RE GOING TO PUT A NEW STRUCTURE ON AND WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY IMPROVE THE NOT ONLY THE PROPERTY BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT IS CORRECT. GOOD POINT. ARE WE RESETTING BOUNDARIES ON THIS? ARE WE RESETTING LOT SIZE BOUNDARIES OR. NO. OKAY. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? [00:25:03] I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE. APPROVE. APPROVED THE 2024-22 AND 23. I THINK WE OUGHT TO TAKE THESE ONE AT A TIME. ONE AT A TIME. OKAY, 22, THEN. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. CHANDLER. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. IKERD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. ITEM FIVE. 2024-22 IS APPROVED. AND THEN ITEM SIX, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, WHICH WOULD AGAIN BE JUST FOR THIS STRUCTURE THAT THEY INTEND TO BUILD. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THAT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE BOA 2024-23. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MISS ESTRADA PURDUE. SECOND. SECOND FROM MR. IKERD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED HEARING NONE. ITEM SIX IS APPROVED. [ITEM 7: 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 identified as Lot 1R, Block 1, Eagles Landing Business Park Addition and more commonly referred to as 3100 Thom Lambert Blvd., 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,” to reduce the parking requirements from one hundred and thirty-six (136) to sixty (60) parking spaces, as identified in Attachment 3B of the staff report. (BOA Application 2024-24 – Clint Weaver, on behalf of GT Products)] ITEM SEVEN. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FROM 136 TO 60 PARKING PLACES. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 20 2424. AND AS CHAIRMAN DUNCAN MENTIONED, THIS IS A PARKING VARIANCE REQUEST. THE PROPERTY IS IDENTIFIED AS LOT ONE, R BLOCK ONE, EAGLES LANDING BUSINESS PARK EDITION. AND IT'S MORE COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS 3100 TOM LAMBERT BOULEVARD. THEY ARE PROPOSING A NEW FACILITY, AND THEY ARE SEEKING TO ADDRESS THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. AND THEY'VE TOLD US THAT GIVEN THAT THEIR INDUSTRY IS A SPECIFIC INDUSTRY THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY. THEY DON'T NECESSARILY NEED 136 PARKING SPACES. 60 IS ABOUT THE LIMIT. THEY ARE SAYING THAT THE VARIANCE WILL NEED TO BE GRANTED IN ORDER FOR THEM TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY'RE SEEKING. BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED, WE WILL ALSO NEED THE VARIANCE TO BE GRANTED. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THESE ARE OUR MAP EXHIBITS SHOWING THE ACTUAL PROPERTY THAT'S IN QUESTION. THAT'S THE FIRST AERIAL. THE SECOND MAP IDENTIFIES THE RESPONSES THAT WE'VE RECEIVED. WE DID RECEIVE TWO RESPONSES IN FAVOR FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THE EDC. AND THEN WE ALSO RECEIVED A NEUTRAL RESPONSE. AND AS FAR AS STAFF FINDINGS GO, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE INTENT AND SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. THE NEW COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE, LOCATED AT 3100 TOM LAMBERT BOULEVARD, IS FOR A COMPANY THAT IS RELOCATING FROM GRAPEVINE TO DECATUR. THEY'RE WANTING TO REDUCE THE PARKING. BUT IT WILL NOT IMPACT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. IN FACT, IT WILL BE LESS PARKING. SO ACTUALLY, IT SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM FOR THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. THE ZONING REGULATIONS WERE AMENDED IN 2015 AND REQUIRE THAT ALL APPLICABLE CITY ORDINANCES BE ADHERED TO BEFORE A PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED, AND THAT INCLUDES PARKING. THERE ARE SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF RESTRICTED AREAS, SHAPE, TOPOGRAPHY, OR PHYSICAL FEATURES THAT EXIST PECULIAR TO THE SUBJECT PARCEL AND NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. THE SAME. THE COMPANY THAT IS RELOCATING CURRENTLY OPERATES WITH ONLY 26 EMPLOYEES IN GRAPEVINE, AND THEY DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY MORE EMPLOYEES HERE IN THEIR DECATUR LOCATION. THE HARDSHIP IS A RESULT OF THE APPLICANT'S ACTIONS. THEY DO HAVE ENOUGH LAND TO PUT IN ALL OF THE PARKING SPACES, BUT THEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COVERAGE, YOU KNOW, WITH ASPHALT AND CONCRETE. AND THAT COULD BE A POSSIBLE ISSUE OR CONCERN WITH REGARDS TO DRAINAGE. SO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS IN THIS ORDINANCE COULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING [00:30:06] DISTRICT. THERE ARE SEVERAL FACILITIES OVER IN THAT AREA. THEY HAVE MET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. THERE'S A COUPLE. I THINK THAT DID RECEIVE VARIANCES TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS SEVERAL YEARS BACK. SO YOU'VE GOT A MIXTURE OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MET AND NOT MET IN THIS AREA. THE COMPANY HAS BEEN IN OPERATION PREVIOUSLY WITH MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN GRAPEVINE AND HAS AGREED TO EXPAND PARKING AS NEEDED OR AS THE NEED ARISES. AND STAFF DOES FEEL THAT REQUIRING THEM TO PROVIDE 76 MORE PARKING SPACES AT THIS TIME IS REALLY UNNECESSARY. AND I BELIEVE THE CITY ENGINEER ECHOES THESE FINDINGS AS WELL. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED TO US FOR REVIEW. THAT'S IT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DEDRA. YOU'RE WELCOME. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 402 AND INVITE ANY OF OUR GUESTS TO SPEAK. THE APPLICANT, CLINT WEAVER, IS ONLINE. OKAY. YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? MR. WEAVER, ADJUSTMENT MRS. CLINT WEAVER. I WORK WITH A WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. I'M MEETING WITH THE CIVIL ENGINEERING ON THIS PROJECT. YEAH. SO, WE JUST WANTED TO REACH OUT AND GET A VARIANCE ON THIS PROJECT SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE, AS SHE STATED, THIS IS NOT A SPEC WAREHOUSE OR PRODUCTION FACILITY WHERE WE'RE NOT SURE WHAT THE END USER WILL BE. THIS IS A FACILITY THAT'S BEING SPECIFICALLY BUILT FOR GTX PRODUCTS. THEY CURRENTLY OPERATE IN GRAPEVINE AND ARE RELOCATING WITH THE HELP OF THE EDC, AND AS SHE STATED, THEY ONLY HAVE 26 EMPLOYEES ON A REGULAR BASIS. IT IS IN SHIFT WORK, SO IT'S STAGGERED WITH ABOUT 15. AND THEN ON THE FIRST SHIFT, AND THEN A FEW MORE KIND OF CIRCLE THROUGH LATER IN THE DAY. SO EVEN AT 26, THAT'S USUALLY NOT ALL THERE AT THE SAME TIME. I KNOW IT'S THEIR INTENTIONS, OBVIOUSLY, AS EVERYBODY IS AS BUSINESS GROWS THEY WANT TO DO WELL AND PROSPER. SO, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF THEY WERE TO DOUBLE IN SIZE AT THIS POINT, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH PARKING, AS SHOWN ON THE CURRENT SITE PLAN. AND THEY HAVE AGREED, THE OWNERS HAVE AGREED THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THE FUTURE THEIR IDEA IS NOT TO PARK IN THE GRASS OR PROVIDE A TEMPORARY GRAVEL LOT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IF THEY WERE TO, YOU KNOW, QUADRUPLE IN SIZE, THEN BY ALL MEANS THEY WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THAT PROBLEM AND PAVE ANY TYPE OF PARKING THEY NEED. IF THAT WAS TO ARISE. BUT THAT'S WAY OFF IN THE FUTURE. AND LIKE I SAID, EVEN IF THEY WERE TO DOUBLE IN SIZE WITH THE CURRENT DEMAND, THEY WOULD STILL BE OVER PARKED, I THINK, WITH THE SHIFTWORK ASPECT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT THERE. I THINK THAT SOMETIMES WITH THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS YOU HAVE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL IS A CONCERN. YOU DON'T WANT YOUR WORKERS OVERFLOWING INTO THEIR LOTS YOU KNOW, OR IN FRONT OF THEIR DRIVEWAYS AND STUFF. BUT THIS IS AN INDUSTRIAL PARK. YOU DON'T HAVE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT. SO I THINK WE GET BY ON THAT ONE AS WELL. SO THAT'S KIND OF OUR PLAN. ONE THING I DID WANT TO MENTION, I SAW THAT DEDRA HAD 60 SPACES WRITTEN DOWN AS OUR PROPOSED. WE HAVE ON OUR CURRENT SITE PLAN AND THE VARIANCE. WE SUBMITTED ITS 50 SPACES. SO, I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE BEFORE THERE WAS AN APPROVAL. GIVEN THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR APPROVAL FROM 134 DOWN TO 50 PROPOSED, NOT 60. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. WEAVER. I GUESS WE NEED SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT BEFORE WE PROCEED. SURE. WELL, AND WHILE THEY'RE DISCUSSING THIS, MR. WEAVER LET ME ASK YOU, HOW BIG IS YOUR FACILITY IN GRAPEVINE OR THAT FACILITY IN COMPARISON TO THE PROPOSED FACILITY HERE? SQUARE FOOTAGE WISE, I CAN FIND OUT. I'M JUST. I WASN'T THE ENGINEER ON THAT ORIGINAL BUILDING, BUT I. JAKE, IF YOU'RE ON RIGHT NOW OR MICHAEL, IF Y'ALL WOULD LIKE TO CHIME IN AND GIVE THAT INFORMATION. I SAW Y'ALL WERE ONLINE EARLIER. I'M NOT ASKING FOR EXACT SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT I AM ASKING. BUT GENERALLY, THE SAME SIZE, THEY'RE NOT DOUBLING IN SIZE OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. IT'S ABOUT THE SAME SIZE FACILITY. OKAY. SO IT'S REASONABLE TO EXPECT THE EMPLOYEE COUNT TO REMAIN SIMILAR. [00:35:05] THEY'RE NOT EXPECTING ANY INCREASE ON DAY ONE AS FAR AS EMPLOYEES GO. AND YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, IF THAT OBVIOUSLY EVERYBODY WANTS TO DO GOOD IN BUSINESS. IF BUSINESS BOOMS AND THEY WERE TO SOMEHOW DOUBLE IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, YOU KNOW, THEY STILL HAVE PLENTIFUL PARKING FOR EVEN THAT SCENARIO. BUT DAY ONE, THEY'RE EXPECTING NO INCREASE OR DECREASE IN EMPLOYEES. OKAY. YEAH. THAT'S CORRECT. CLINT. SORRY, THIS IS JAKE STEWART. I WAS TRYING TO UNMUTE, BUT, YEAH, EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS CORRECT. AND THEN IS THERE A FORMAL AGREEMENT IN PLACE WITH THE CITY IN THE EVENT THAT YOU DO OUTGROW YOUR PARKING? WELL, THERE'S NOT CURRENTLY ONE DRAFTED AT THIS MOMENT. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF WE NEEDED TO HAVE ONE DRAWN UP, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM. DO WE? WOULD WE NEED ONE BETTER? WE COULD DO IT IF YOU GUYS WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH SOMETHING IN PLACE. I THINK OUR THOUGHT WAS THAT ANY EXPANSIONS WOULD COME WITH A FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT IF WE NEEDED TO GROW IN SIZE, BUILDING WISE. BUT AND OBVIOUSLY, THIS WOULD GET HUNG AT BUILDING PERMIT AGAIN. BUT YEAH, IF YOU DON'T WANT A, YOU KNOW, SOME TYPE OF FORMAL THING DONE, NOW WE CAN GO WITH THAT AND DRAW SOMETHING UP. YEAH. YOU'VE DONE IT BEFORE. OKAY. SO THERE'S NOT A WAY TO GO FROM 26 TO 100 EMPLOYEES IN THE PROPOSED FACILITY? NO, THERE WOULD BE EXPANSIONS REQUIRED. OKAY. WHICH WOULD BE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL HAVE IT AVAILABLE IN FRONT OF YOU. THE NORTH AREA IS UNDEVELOPED IN OUR SITE. PLAN PAST THE FIRE LANE, AND THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY LOCATION WE COULD EXPAND IN. WHICH, AS YOU CAN SEE, IS ONLY ABOUT MAYBE A THIRD OF WHAT THE CURRENT PROPOSED BUILDING IS. SO YOU'RE NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THAT MASSIVE OF AN INCREASE IN BUILDING FACILITY SIZE. SO, I DON'T THINK WE COULD EVER GET TO THE REQUIRED 134 PROPOSED SPACES ON THIS SITE ANYWAYS, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY PLACE WE COULD EXPAND INTO. DOES THE FIRE LINE CURRENTLY GO ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING? YES, SIR. OKAY. AND THEN IN YOUR DRAINAGE STUDY, DID YOU ACCOUNT FOR DRAINAGE? IF YOU DID HAVE THE 130, 136, I BELIEVE, PARKING SPOTS. OUR CURRENT DRAINAGE STUDY BASED OFF THE CURRENT SITE PLAN SHOWN. SO THERE'S A DETENTION POND ON THE SOUTH AND ON THE PLAN NORTHEAST SIDES. THOSE PONDS WOULD HAVE TO BE INCREASED IN SIZE TO ACCOMMODATE MORE IMPERVIOUS AREA. OKAY? SO? SO THE PONDS THAT ARE THERE. IF THIS BUILDING WERE SOLD, THE FUTURE OWNER WANTS TO ADD IN UP TO WHAT'S REQUIRED. THE DETENTION PONDS WOULD NOT HANDLE THAT CAPACITY. IS THAT RIGHT? WELL, I GUESS WITHOUT ME DOING SOME ENGINEERING, I COULDN'T FOR SURE SAY THAT. BUT IN THEORY, THAT'S CORRECT. BUT AGAIN, IF THEY WERE GOING TO EXPAND, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME IN FOR A BUILDING PERMIT AND HOPEFULLY THEY WOULD BE CAUGHT FOR, YOU KNOW WHAT? YOUR DRAINAGE STUDY WOULD HAVE TO PROVE UP IF THE PONDS AT CURRENT CAPACITY COULD HANDLE THEIR INCREASE OR NOT. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT. SO LET ME KICK IT BACK TO THE CITY STAFF FOR A MINUTE. IF THERE'S A TRIGGER OUT THERE, WHICH WOULD BE ANOTHER BUILDING PERMIT SOMEDAY, IS THAT ENOUGH TO GIVE US THE ABILITY TO EXPAND THE PARKING LATER, OR WOULD YOUR PREFERENCE BE TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE NOW? I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PREFERENCE. WHOEVER WHATEVER STAFF IS HERE, THEY WOULD NEED TO GO BACK AND REVIEW THE FILES TO KNOW THAT THERE WAS A PARKING VARIANCE GRANTED. HOWEVER, NOW THAT THE BUILDING IS PROPOSING PROPOSED TO BE EXPANDED, THEN THEY WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT THE PARKING AGAIN. SO THAT INFORMATION CAN BE IN THE MINUTES AND IN THE NOTES. SO OKAY. SO WE COULD USE A FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO TRIGGER OUR MEANS TO TRIGGER THAT. AND THIS ALSO WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT EXPANSION. THE PROPERTY WOULD BE ENOUGH TO ALLOW FOR THAT EXPANSION. WELL, IT WOULD DEPEND ON HOW MUCH THEY'RE PROPOSING TO EXPAND. YEAH. BUT I MEAN IF SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO EXPAND BACK UP TO THE 126 PARKING PLACES. THERE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT ROOM TO DO THAT IF THEY WERE GOING TO GO UP TO WHAT WAS INITIALLY. YES, SIR. THAT'S CORRECT. THERE WOULD BE SPACE ON THE BACK SIDE TO PUT THE PARKING, BUT ONCE YOU ADDED THAT MUCH PARKING, YOU WOULD PROBABLY NO LONGER HAVE THE ABILITY TO EXPAND YOUR BUILDING. [00:40:02] IN THEORY, IF YOU WERE TO ADD ANOTHER 80 SPACES, YOU WOULD PROBABLY RUN OUT OF THE ABILITY TO ADD A BUILDING AT THAT POINT. OKAY. AND SO THEY MAY BE SEEKING ANOTHER PARKING VARIANCE. HEY, MARK. YES, SIR. THIS IS EARL. THIS IS EARL. MAYBE I CAN HELP WITH DOCTOR WILL'S QUESTION ABOUT DRAINAGE. SO GENERALLY, THE SOUTH HALF OF THIS LOT DRAINS TO THE SOUTH. AND WHEN WE DESIGNED AND BUILT THE EAGLES LANDING BUSINESS PARK. WE ACCOUNTED FOR THE BUILDOUT SITUATION FOR THE BUSINESS PARK, AND THERE'S A DRAINAGE DETENTION AT THE INTERSECTION OF 2264 AND TOM LAMBERT THAT THAT'S TO ACCOMMODATE ALL THE BUSINESS PARK. NOW THE NORTH HALF OF GT PRODUCTS, THAT WAS, THAT DID NOT DRAIN TO THAT POND. AND THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE A DETENTION POND. OKAY. WHEN I EXAMINED WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PLANS, THE APPROVED CIVIL PLANS FOR GT PRODUCTS, THEIR PARKING LOT IS AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. AND I WOULD EXPECT THAT ANY EXPANSION OF PARKING LOT WOULD PROBABLY OCCUR ADJACENT TO THAT. AND, BUT AND THEN THAT WOULD DRAIN TO THE SOUTH TO THE EXISTING DRAINAGE BASINS. OKAY. HOPE THAT HELPS. HOPE THAT HELPS. THANKS. THANK YOU, EARL. AND SO HAVE WE DISCUSSED WHETHER THIS APPLICATION IS FOR 50 OR 60? THEY'RE SAYING 50. WE JUST MISCOUNTED. OKAY. AND I'D ASK DEDRA OR EARL. IS 50 STILL ENOUGH FOR US? I THINK SO, BUT I THINK I WILL DEFER TO EARL. WELL, I THINK I THINK THAT CLINT PRESENTED A VALID ARGUMENT FOR REDUCING THE PARKING NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES BECAUSE IT'S TWO SHIFTS OF WORK. IT WOULD SEEM TO ME LIKE. AND I PRESUME THAT THOSE SHIFTS ARE 50/50. I MEAN, YOU KNOW SO I TO ME IT WOULD BE ADEQUATE. SO THERE COULD BE A COUPLE OF MINUTES WHEN THERE'S A SHIFT CHANGE OR SOMETHING WHERE YOU COULD HAVE A LITTLE A LITTLE ISSUE. BUT I THINK APPARENTLY THEIR EXISTING BUSINESS KNOWS HOW TO HANDLE THAT, SO I THINK IT'S ADEQUATE. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. EARL. YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE ONE. GO RIGHT AHEAD. DEDRA. IF THE BUILDING WAS TO CHANGE USES FOR ANY REASON, WOULD THE VARIANCE GO WITH IT? NO, NO. IF A CHANGE OF USE, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. GOTCHA. OR SEEK ANOTHER VARIANCE. GOOD QUESTION. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO, THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF US IS FOR 50 PARKING SPACES AS OPPOSED TO 136. AND I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM THE BOARD TO APPROVE APPLICATION 2024-24. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. CROSS. I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. CHANDLER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION PASSES. 2024 DASH 24 IS APPROVED. AND, CHAIRMAN, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DID YOU DO THAT? I DON'T THINK I DID. SO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AT 4:13. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALWAYS KEEPING ME STRAIGHT. [ITEM 8: The Board to hold a public hearing, consider and take action on a request for a setback encroachment special exception from the City of Decatur’s Zoning Ordinance regarding side yards for the property identified as Lot 8, Block 1, Eagle Addition and more commonly referred to as 1206 West Hawk Circle, City of Decatur, Wise County, Texas. The request is for a special exception to the City of Decatur Code of Ordinances, Appendix B., “Zoning,” Article 7, “Development Standards,” Section 7.6, “Accessory Structure Regulations,” Subsection 7.6.1 “Accessory Structures in Residential Districts,” Item B. “Side Yard,” to allow a new detached accessory structure, as identified in Attachment 3B of the staff report, to encroach nine feet (9.0’) into the required fifteen foot (15’) side yard setback along the eastern property line. (BOA Application 2024-07 – Donald and Mary J. Mathre)] ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO ITEM EIGHT. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A NEW DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH NINE FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SIDE YARD ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE ON WEST HAWK CIRCLE. AND DEDRA WILL HEAR YOUR REPORT. THESE ARE THREE SEPARATE APPLICATIONS. IT'S DONALD AND MARY MATHER. THEIR REQUEST FOR SETBACK ENCROACHMENT. [00:45:03] SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO ALLOW BOA 2024-07A NEW DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH NINE FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. BOA 2024-08A NEW DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH FIVE FEET INTO THE REQUIRED TEN FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND THEN BOA 2024-09, THE EXISTING DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH SIX AND ONE TENTH FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE. THE PROPERTY IS IDENTIFIED AS LOT EIGHT, BLOCK ONE OF THE EAGLE EDITION, AND IS MORE COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS 1206 WEST HAWK CIRCLE. APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO REMEDY THE REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS. THEY WILL NEED TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE WE CAN ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN A SINGLE FAMILY TWO RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT. THESE ARE THE SETBACK ENCROACHMENT AERIALS FOR EACH OF THE APPLICATIONS. NEXT SLIDE. WE NOTIFIED 14 PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES BACK. NEXT SLIDE. AS FAR AS OUR STAFF FINDINGS, THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS DO NOT VIOLATE THE INTENT AND SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. THERE IS AN EXISTING METAL SHOP BUILDING AND A GAZEBO THAT HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE 1998. AND THEN THERE'S A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE CARPORT SINCE 2016. AND THIS IS ACCORDING TO THE WISE COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT. THE REDUCED SETBACKS FOR THESE EXISTING STRUCTURES DO NOT APPEAR TO ADVERSELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. AGAIN, THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS WERE AMENDED IN 2015, AND IT REQUIRES THAT ALL APPLICABLE CITY ORDINANCES BE ADHERED TO BEFORE A NEW PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED. AND THAT DOES INCLUDE SETBACK ENCROACHMENT ISSUES. THERE ARE SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF RESTRICTED AREAS SHAPE, TOPOGRAPHY, OR PHYSICAL FEATURES THAT EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE SUBJECT PARCEL AND NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. THE METAL SHOP BUILDING, THE RV CARPORT, AND THE GAZEBO STRUCTURES HAVE ALL BEEN IN THEIR CONFIGURATION AND LOCATION FOR NEARLY EIGHT YEARS. AND PRIOR TO THE MATTHEWS PURCHASING THE PROPERTY IN JUNE OF 2024. WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THESE ENCROACHMENTS, AND THEY CERTAINLY WERE NOT AWARE THAT THESE ENCROACHMENTS WOULD BE AN ISSUE FOR ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY. THE HARDSHIP AGAIN, IS NOT A RESULT OF THEIR ACTION AS PREVIOUSLY STATED. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS IN THIS ORDINANCE COULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT THAT COMPLY WITH THESE PROVISIONS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THE APPLICANT IS ATTEMPTING TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S REGULATIONS. BUT FOR THESE ENCROACHMENTS BY THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR PROPOSED NEW DECK, BEFORE BUILDING PERMIT CAN BE APPROVED, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WILL NEED TO BE GRANTED. NEXT SLIDE. CITY ENGINEERS. DOES NOT HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. NEXT SLIDE. THESE ARE YOUR VIEWS. LOOKING WEST AND LOOKING NORTH. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DEDRA. YOU'RE WELCOME. AND OF COURSE, SHE SPOKE TO ALL THREE OF THESE ITEMS. I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED THAT FIRST. SO WE'LL DISCUSS THEM TOGETHER, AND THEN WE'LL TAKE ACTION SEPARATELY. AND WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 420 AND INVITE ANYONE IN ATTENDANCE TO SPEAK TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE HERE. GREAT. MR. MACRI. HELLO. SO I CAN ANSWER IF YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. DONALD MACRI AND THE ADDRESS IS 1206 WEST HAWK CIRCLE HERE IN DECATUR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [00:50:03] SO LET ME START WITH A QUESTION FOR YOU. SO WE HAVE THREE STRUCTURES RIGHT NOW THAT ARE ENCROACHING BUT CORRECT. FROM THE STAFF REPORT, IT APPEARS THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING DEMOLISHING TWO OF THOSE STRUCTURES. SO, THE GAZEBO WE THAT'S ON THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. WE DON'T INTEND TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE RV CARPORT THAT'S THERE AND THE EXISTING SHOP BUILDING, OR WE'RE PLANNING TO TAKE THAT DOWN AND REPLACE WITH SOMETHING THAT BETTER SUITS OUR NEEDS. OKAY. AND WILL YOU BE GOING BACK INTO THE SAME LOCATION? ESSENTIALLY THE SAME. WE'RE GOING TO BE FURTHER OFF THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE, BUT SLIGHTLY CLOSER TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE. OKAY. SO DID TO THIS QUESTION IS FOR YOU. SO DO WE NEED TO GIVE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO CLEAN IT UP SO THAT HE CAN GET A DEMO PERMIT OR, OR ARE WE STILL ARE WE PROVIDING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION IN ANTICIPATION OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I THINK IT SAID THAT THERE WERE SOME TOPOGRAPHICAL PROBLEMS WITH THE PROPERTY, SO THAT THE BUILDING HAD TO GO IN THAT LOCATION. IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR THE STRUCTURE ANYWHERE ELSE, THE WAY THE HOUSE IS SITED ON THE LOT. SO. YOU REALLY CAN'T ACCESS, IF ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE LOT WOULD BE IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. AND THE TWO BACK CORNERS OF THE LOT ARE PRETTY MUCH BLOCKED ACCESS TO THOSE BY THE HOUSE. SO. SO THERE REALLY ISN'T ANY OTHER OPTION BUT THIS ONE CORNER. WE'RE HAVING TO GO TO A. NO, I WON'T SAY IT'S DIFFICULT, BUT IT'S WE HAVE TO STRUCTURE THE BUILDING TO TRY TO FIT EVEN INTO THAT CORNER OF THE LOT. WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID HAVING TO DEMOLISH ANYTHING MORE THAN WE NEED TO AND, YOU KNOW, TRY TO FIT BACK IN. WHERE THE SPACE BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAY AND THE AND THE EDGE OF THE LOT WITH AND THE BUILDING YOU'RE GOING BACK WITH IS RELATIVELY THE SAME SIZE. IT'S SIMILAR SIZE, YES. WE DO HAVE A SITE PLAN. I'VE ACTUALLY GOT ELEVATIONS AND THINGS TOO, THAT I COULD SHARE WITH YOU IF YOU WANT TO SEE. THAT'D BE NICE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO THESE ARE ALL THE BUILDING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING, CORRECT? THE EXISTING GARAGE THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE IS TOO SMALL TO ACCOMMODATE THE. WHICH IS A CREW CAB PICKUP THAT I HAVE RIGHT NOW. SO STANDARD 20 BY 20 STANDARD SIZE LIKE A 20 BY 20. GOTCHA. WE PUT THE ELEVATION AND THE SITE PLAN ON THE SCREEN. OKAY. SO IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THE REAR SETBACK LINE IS STILL GOING TO ENCROACH. IT SHOULD BE TEN FEET. I'M ASKING FOR FIVE FEET. SO THIS WILL BE IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, ESSENTIALLY. YEAH, IT'S THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS ACTUALLY ONLY ABOUT JUST OVER A FOOT OFF THE PROPERTY LINE. [00:55:07] THE RV CARPORT THAT'S THERE IS ALMOST RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. SO ENCROACHES FURTHER. IT DOES. GOTCHA. SO IS THERE IS A UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG THAT SIDE OF THE LOT. BUT I AND I WILL GET INTO THAT EASEMENT, BUT NOT AS BADLY AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. SO WHAT WOULD THE UTILITY EASEMENT BE? WHERE WOULD THAT PUT IT? I THINK IT WAS TEN FEET ON THAT. SO CURRENTLY THE UTILITY EASEMENT AT THE AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS TEN FEET, AND HE'S PROPOSING TO ENCROACH FIVE FEET INTO THAT WHERE CURRENTLY IT ENCROACHES NINE FEET. RIGHT. NOW, THE UNDERSTANDING WITH THESE UTILITY EASEMENTS IS THAT IF SOMETHING DOES COME UP AND WE ARE OVER THAT EASEMENT, EVEN IF WE ALLOW THE VARIANCE, THAT STRUCTURE WILL HAVE TO GO. I'M GOING TO LET OUR CITY ENGINEER SPEAK TO THAT. THAT'S THAT'S HIS AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE PERIMETER EASEMENTS ARE TYPICALLY REQUIRED FOR FRANCHISE UTILITIES, THAT BEING GAS, ELECTRIC PHONE, FIBER, THAT SORT OF STUFF. VERY RARELY DOES THE CITY EVER USE THOSE PERIMETER EASEMENTS. AND THIS IS ALREADY A BUILT OUT NEIGHBORHOOD. AND ALL THE CITY UTILITIES ARE IN THE STREET. OKAY. IT'S AND I DON'T I CAN'T READ THE THING ON THE SCREEN VERY WELL. I THINK THE WHAT I WOULD CALL THE EAST PROPERTY LINE HAD A GAS LINE IN IT, I THINK, AS I RECALL, AND THAT THE ENCROACHMENT DID NOT GET ON THAT ON THAT UTILITY. I CAN'T READ THAT MY MEMO NOTE THERE. EARL, THIS IS CHERYL. IT SAYS AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT WILL BE EXECUTED FOR ANY ENCROACHMENTS INTO EASEMENTS. OTHERWISE NO OBJECTIONS. OKAY. WELL, IF MODIFICATIONS TO THE ENCROACHMENTS WERE MADE, THEN THEN WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO DO AGREEMENTS. SO THAT WOULD BE A MOOT POINT AT THAT POINT IN TIME. SO MY GENERAL COMMENT, THOUGH WAS NO OBJECTIONS. SO ANYWAY. EARL, THIS IS LISA. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. IF WE APPROVE A VARIANCE, WE APPROVE A VARIANCE TO THE CITY ORDINANCE. BUT THAT DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT WHAT COMPANIES HAVE EASEMENTS RUNNING THROUGH THERE OR OTHER LINES. IF IT ENCROACHED IN THEIR EASEMENT, THAT WOULD BE BETWEEN THE HOMEOWNER AND THAT COMPANY. CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE MY UNDERSTANDING, YES. LISA. SO WE CAN ONLY GIVE YOU A VARIANCE PER THE CITY ORDINANCE, NOT ANYBODY ELSE THAT MAY HAVE A LINE. RIGHT. AS A POINT OF REFERENCE, I ATTEMPTED TO WELL, I CONTACTED ATMOS ABOUT POSSIBILITY OF GETTING GAS SERVICE TO THE SITE, AND THEY SAID IT WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND COULD NOT BE MADE AVAILABLE. SO, I'M NOT SURE HOW CLOSE THEY ARE. YOU WOULD THINK THEY WERE RUNNING DOWN THE EAST SIDE. I COULD TIE INTO IT, BUT. HEY, MARK. NEIGHBORHOOD. WHAT'S THAT? DO YOU ALL HAVE GAS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD? I HAVEN'T SEEN IT. NO, I DID THE, I GUESS THE REASON THAT I CALLED AND ASKED IS THAT IT LOOKED LIKE THERE HAD BEEN SOME UTILITY LOCATES DONE, AND THERE WAS AN ATMOS FLAG ALONG MY FRONT PROPERTY LINE THAT SAID IT WAS CLEAR SO THAT THAT I DIDN'T KNOW IF THEY'D BEEN OUT THERE BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY HAD SOMETHING THERE BUT WOULD, YOU KNOW, WOULDN'T BE AFFECTED BY WHAT WAS BEING DONE OR. OKAY. HEY, MARK, I WOULD JUST REMIND US TO THE SUBDIVISIONS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DATE OF THE PLAT ON THE SUBDIVISION IS, BUT IT'S PROBABLY WELL OVER TEN YEARS OLD. I WOULD THINK ALL THE UTILITIES ARE GOING TO SERVE THAT SUBDIVISION ARE IN PLACE. [01:00:03] OKAY. SO, ANY UTILITY RENEWALS I THINK WILL GO BACK ESSENTIALLY IN THE PLACE WHERE THEY CURRENTLY EXIST. SO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 431. AND THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN ANY MORE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. THIS WOULD BE JUST FOR 2024-07. ITEM EIGHT MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION 2024-07. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. CROSS. I SECOND. WE HAVE THE SECOND FROM MRS. ESTRADA-PURDUE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES FOR ITEM 8 2024-07. MOVING TO ITEM 9 2024-08, WHICH WOULD BE THE FIVE FOOT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK. [ITEM 9: The Board to hold a public hearing, consider and take action on a request for a setback encroachment special exception from the City of Decatur’s Zoning Ordinance regarding rear yards for the property identified as Lot 8, Block 1, Eagle Addition and more commonly referred to as 1206 West Hawk Circle, City of Decatur, Wise County, Texas. The request is for a special exception to the City of Decatur Code of Ordinances, Appendix B., “Zoning,” Article 7, “Development Standards,” Section 7.6, “Accessory Structure Regulations,” Subsection 7.6.1 “Accessory Structures in Residential Districts,” Item C. “Rear Yard,” to allow a new detached accessory structure, as identified in Attachment 3C of the staff report, to encroach five feet (5.0’) into the required ten foot (10’) rear yard setback along the northern property line. (BOA Application 2024-08 – Donald and Mary J. Mathre)] BOTH OF THESE ARE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THAT. I MOVE, WE APPROVE. BILL 2024-08. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. CHANDLER. SECOND. THE SECOND FROM MR. CLINESMITH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. ITEM NINE. 2024-08 IS APPROVED. [ITEM 10: The Board to hold a public hearing, consider and take action on a request for a setback encroachment special exception from the City of Decatur’s Zoning Ordinance regarding side yards for the property identified as Lot 8, Block 1, Eagle Addition and more commonly referred to as 1206 West Hawk Circle, City of Decatur, Wise County, Texas. The request is for a special exception to the City of Decatur Code of Ordinances, Appendix B., “Zoning,” Article 7, “Development Standards,” Section 7.6, “Accessory Structure Regulations,” Subsection 7.6.1 “Accessory Structures in Residential Districts,” Item B. “Side Yard,” to allow the existing detached accessory structure, as identified in Attachment 3D of the staff report, to encroach six and one tenth feet (6.1’) into the required fifteen-foot (15’) side yard setback along the southern property line. (BOA Application 2024-09 – Donald and Mary J. Mathre)] ITEM TEN, WHICH IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE 15 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. AN ENCROACHMENT WITHIN THAT OF 6.1FT FOR THE GAZEBO. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THAT. MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION 2024-09. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. CROSS. SECOND. SECOND FROM MR. CHANDLER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. ITEM TEN. APPLICATION 2024-09 IS APPROVED AS WELL. [ITEM 11: Discuss and approve 2025 Meeting Schedule.] ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO ITEM 11. TO TALK ABOUT OUR 2025 MEETING SCHEDULE. IF YOU NOTICE, THERE'S A FEW MEETINGS THAT CANNOT OCCUR ON MONDAY BECAUSE THEY ARE A HOLIDAY FOR THE CITY. SO WE'VE MOVED THEM TO WEDNESDAY. THAT'S IN JANUARY, FEBRUARY AND APRIL AND OCTOBER. SO HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THOSE WEDNESDAYS FOR OUR MEETINGS. ALL RIGHT. LONG WAY OUT. IT IS A LONG WAY OUT, BUT IT'LL BE HERE BEFORE YOU KNOW IT. THAT'S TRUE. AND OF COURSE, THIS ALL DEPENDS ON THE AGENDA AND IF WE GET ANY APPLICATIONS. YEAH. AND WE'LL KEEP YOU GUYS POSTED IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A MEETING. VERY GOOD. OKAY. ANY OTHER BUSINESS? THEN WE STAND ADJOURNED AT 4:34. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.