Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

I wish to speak today. Make sure you guys are signing at the podium. It doesn't look like the house is packed at all, so I'm not too worried about that. But if you do speak, just be respectful, please. Before we get things going, just checking with the board that no one's been contacted on behalf of any petitions, and we're ready to move forward. All right, with that check-in, I'll call this meeting to order for August 12th. If you're able to, please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. All right, we'll get things going here. Can we get a roll call, please?

Mike Nichols. Scott Highlander. Sam Payne. Isaac Chavez. Charles Bates.

Okay, we have more than a couple minutes to approve here, dating back to May 13th, June 22nd. and July 8th. There's a mix of attendance, so I don't think everyone will be able to vote, so just make sure you vote accordingly. I do have a couple of requests, though, for our minutes. I like the formats that we had leading up until May. Formats slightly changed in June and July. If we could just keep the same format that we had in May, if we could, please. Or if that's a staff change, if we could just...

Yeah, so...

I have an update on that.

The reason that I'd asked... That was me, first off, not random.

I like the old one. No, and you're right.

So I wonder if maybe there's a compromise in the middle. The reason that I had asked Grace to change the format a bit is when we're looking at historic minutes... it can be really hard to pick things out, like where you transition from case to case, when you're in the minutes, when you're in something else, because it's all just one text block. So the goal was to start to put some headings and to draw the eye to the beginning of each case so that it was easier looking at the minutes when you needed to find a record to figure out... what part of those minutes you needed to scan to and not spend so much time having to read three pages, if that makes sense, but totally open to a different way of doing that. That was just the goal because the minutes historically have kind of been a paragraph format where you can find stuff, but you're going to read a while because it doesn't really stand out when you're transitioning except for just the words. So that was the goal, open to multiple ways of accomplishing it.

I'm just more of like just breaking it down, for example, like new business, old business. To me, this looks like just like someone turned in their homework assignment, which is fine. I just wanted some explanation.

What if we changed the labels instead of like new and old and we just said hearings and maybe put that in bold and underlined instead of in a box? I mean, totally not married to a specific format, just trying to break it up a bit more so that you can find things when they're historic.

Board, do you guys have any comments on that or didn't even notice? I didn't notice particularly.

I liked the way they did. I liked it myself because the thing it could do would be bold new business. That makes it come out in bold old business.

I was just struggling with the minutes in the old format trying to find anything, you know, even knowing the order of the meeting just because it was all in the same font than the same, you know, indent structure. So it's

We can do some change.

I'm open to, I'm totally open to the consensus. I was just trying to, I was just trying to make it clear what the differences were through and when you went from hearing to hearing.

I like Isaac's theory too. If we just meet a little more in the middle.

Let us try. If you're okay, let us try on this next set of minutes, and then maybe you can let us know. Or even when you get the draft, if you pay attention, if you can give Grace and I feedback when you see the draft, we can try to make some changes based on the conversation, and maybe we can find a happy medium.

Okay. All right. Maybe that was a little too picky of me, but all right. We'll take a look at the May 13th meeting. We have... Okay, so we are able to... past minutes from May 13th. Can I? I'll make a motion. We accept the minutes from May 13th. All right. First, I hear second. Second. All right. First and a second. Can we get roll call, please?

Mike Nichols.

Aye.

Scott Highlander.

Abstain.

Sam Payne. Abstain. Isaac Chavez.

Aye.

Charles Bates. Aye.

All right. Taking a look at minutes from June 22nd.

We make a motion to accept the minutes from June 22nd.

I'll second. All right, we have a first and a second. Roll call, please.

Mike Nichols.

Aye.

Scott Highlander.

I'm trying to see. We're not here. Charles and Scott, we're not here.

Sir. Sempain. Aye. Isaac Chavez.

Aye.

Charles Bates. Aye.

All right, and then minutes from July 8th, only Charles and Sam were absent. We'll now open to the board a motion to approve minutes for July 8th. Do I hear a motion? Yeah, I'll make the motion. We accept July 8th minutes. Second. All right, first and second. Roll call, please.

Mike Nichols.

Aye.

Scott Highlander.

Aye.

Sam Payne.

Abstain.

Charles Bates.

Abstain.

Isaac Chavez. Aye.

Okay, reassuring here before we hear the hearings today that we've had a conflict of interest with any of the persons speaking on any of the petitions today. Hearing none, we'll move forward. We will take a look at... Public hearing docket to 0 to 6 dash 0, 1, 6, the petitioners Jeff quick he's requesting a developmental standard variance to allow a shed on his property that is already over the 30% allowed impervious surface ratio. The variance 3, 0, 4, table be from the unified development ordinance at this time can we please have the South report miss list is full.

Yes, so as you stated, the applicant's Jeff Quick, and the request is for a developmental standard variance. Instead of the permitted 30% coverage, they'd be requesting 49% so that they can add a shed, although I would note Regardless of what they added, the impervious surface would be a problem unless it was grass. So the zoning in this area is A residential, and this is a duplex use in the zoning district, as is the adjacent property to the east and the west. The property to the north is also A residential with a duplex, and then to the south is a mix of A residential, which is undeveloped, just a field, and then some C residential that has multifamily apartments. The sites on the south side of McKenna West, between McKenna Circle and Redbud Boulevard, There's roughly 3,500 square foot in the half of the duplex plus the driveway and the sidewalk that's on this lot, and it was built in 2014. In 2014, just by way of history, there were no impervious surface rules in the city of Frankfurt. That was something that was added in the 2023 ordinance to attempt to avoid east side drainage type problems again in the future. So we're just paying attention when we look at these variances to make sure that we're not creating runoff. So in 2023, the rule was adopted that a residential cannot be more than 30%. And this property already had 46% covered when the city adopted that. So that made it what's called legal nonconforming. It's allowed to continue that way as long as it sits that way. If for some reason the duplex was torn down, then they'd have to come to the BZA to reestablish or they'd have to fit within the 30%. So no matter what they do, whether it was a sidewalk, a stepping stone or a shed, they would need to come for an impervious surface variance. In this particular case, the applicant would like to add a 12 by 16 storage shed behind the house, and there is no way to do that without coming to the board. So there's a map there at the bottom that shows the zoning districts. On the second page, there's a site plan that shows they would like to place this storage shed on the back of their property. It will meet setbacks behind their duplex. And what I kind of did on the picture there on the second page is I pulled the 3D imagery that the county has and kind of showed you where the shed is because it just shows the backyard a little bit better than the normal flat image. There at the bottom of the page is just the reference to the Unified Development Ordinance Standard. And then we get into the request analysis. UDO 203.12 specifies three findings that must exist in order to grant a developmental standard variance. First, the approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. So Dan Sheets, county surveyor, looked at this, and he stated there is no drainage concerns created by granting the requested variance and placing the shed. So nothing injurious would appear to be involved, and this finding is met. to the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially diverse manner. So again, given this was reviewed by the county surveyor and this standard has entirely to do with making sure that flooding is not being created on neighboring properties. There is not a water runoff concern here, and the finding would appear to be met. Three, the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. So just because of how this was built, the house on the lot is very large. It has a significant driveway. It's already over the impervious surface. There's no way to add anything without getting the variance. And the request is very small. Even though the variance looks large, the house is already sitting legal nonconforming. So they're only adding about 200 square foot of additional coverage in a single storage shed. There's no other outbuildings on the property now. So the finding would appear to be met. Consequently, staff would recommend to approve the variance from UDO 304 to allow up to 49% of the lot to be covered with impervious surface so that the applicant can place the 12 by 16 shed.

Thank you. At this time, we'll call the petitioner to speak today. You guys would like to add anything? If you have any additional comments, none, okay. Hearing none, we'll open discussion for the public. Hearing none, we'll close discussion for the public. At this time, we'll open discussion for the board. Any questions or comments?

I got a couple questions. Looking at the picture that she gave us, where will the shed sit? How close to the house is that or the garage?

It's three foot on the site plan from the rear property line.

And don't tell me what I'll ask. How close is the building? This is your garage.

The garage is on the front of the house. The shed is in the back.

The shed's in the back, so there's nothing back there. It says existing. That's the reason why I asked. That's the house.

Yes.

How far away from the house will the structure be?

21 foot, according to the site plan.

That's all I needed. Make sure he's within park. That's all I was doing.

And then if you want to go back and look, Sam, it's on page two. Yeah, I got it.

Let's see what I was looking at. Oh, okay.

They kind of drew the garage as it looks like its own thing, but it's actually all in one building.

I know where that is. I went down by there because I knew the place and I just wanted to make sure.

So your aerial photo, or whatever you want to refer to that, is looking a certain direction, possibly looking west, right?

No, the aerial photo would be looking north. You would be hovering in mid-air to the south.

So the site plan is looking south. That is correct. So it's flipped around.

Correct. And in hindsight, perhaps I should have turned the site plan around to help you out.

That's okay. I figured it out. But I don't have any questions for you. All right.

Good looking. Good looking. Anybody else? Hearing no further comments. I'll close for discussion at this time. I'll call for a motion.

I'll make the motion mix Request as presented till you got a first for your second second Charles would that be according to the findings in the staff report?

Yes Thank you Liz first in a second get roll call please I

Mike Nichols. Aye. Scott Highlander.

Aye.

Sam Payne. Aye. Isaac Chavez. Aye. Charles Bates. Aye.

All right. Application passes. Moving forward, do we... Let me check my agenda here. Can't seem to find it. We got anything else? Any other old business? Anything we should be aware of, Liz?

Yeah, I'll just give you one quick, brief update. Even though it doesn't directly involve this board, you are involved with planning in the city as a child board of the plan commission, so I think it's important for you to be aware. If you haven't heard already, some of you may have, the city is beginning a comprehensive plan update process, and a steering committee has been selected. The plan commission appointed two representatives that are on that steering committee, and of course, and there's some other governing entities and members of the public that will be part of that. There's a website that's helping guide that process, so if you want to kind of give your own feedback or kind of follow what's happening, there's going to be subcommittees and different things that are going to happen throughout that. But ultimately, a comprehensive plan is a document that is designed to be a goal document for a community. It kind of talks about where you want your next 10 to 25 years to take you in a perfect ideal world based upon what you know about your current situation. And your zoning ordinance is supposed to be reflective of those values but also when you apply for grants. within the community a comprehensive plan that's complete is very important because if it doesn't reference the thing you're asking for funding on you may not be able to obtain that funding from the state so it's kind of a big deal it's important it's exciting I just want to make sure that you guys are aware that it's happening and if you You know, if you want to pay attention to it or you have questions, Kim Black with the city is helping head that up as well. And then there's a consultant that's providing planners. And I'll be involved in that process and Rob will be too. So just want to make sure that you know and you don't hear it from someone else and wonder why staff didn't say something.

Thank you, it was quick question on that I know there's like certain Criteria for recommended people to have to be a part of that I know at the City Council level we were starting to shift toward that Do we have any representation from the BZA?

No a board of zoning appeals does not and the reason is pretty simple It's because you are a quasi judicial board. So you are like a court You're not allowed to talk about your cases or your hearings or any of that outside of your board meetings and You don't have a legal function in state law beyond hearing. cases that come before you that then get channeled directly into the courts if somebody disagrees with your ruling and then your findings get examined. Now that said, as city citizens and as people that are clearly concerned about the planning process, I would encourage all of you to get on the website, to follow that, to ask questions. There's gonna be opportunities to give feedback and to be involved when that comprehensive plan draft starts to come out and those drafts are floated. Certainly as individuals take a look at it, give feedback, like those are all important things. But as a board, there's not a role within state law that you would take to act. The plan commission as your parent board has that duty.

All right. Thank you.

this will be a new one this one will be completely new it will not be an update and so there's a lot of items in the existing one that it's somewhat silent on that as the state is shifting the regulations for what has to exist in order to get funding are becoming a challenge because the state wants things to refer back to the comprehensive plan and that's kind of been a new change in the last maybe two or three years and so increasingly that document just doesn't include breadth way beyond planning about all kinds of other things I mean it is planning but it's not zoning ordinance planning you know it's broader concepts so the city needs to have a document that they can base those funding requests off of and then with the annexation out to 65 the current comprehensive plan doesn't even reference that very understandably because it wasn't something that was being discussed in 2012 or so and you know we were working I think, yeah, I think it was 14 when it was adopted. Yeah, because it was the 2035 plan, but I always struggle with the math backwards. But at any rate, it wasn't something that was being discussed. It would be very difficult to update something that doesn't exist. So the city shape is different. We've got more annexations on the south side. So there's multiple reasons why it's going to be a new plan versus an update. There's just too many things that have changed to reasonably say it's being updated and then add two, three times its length. I hope that answered the question.

Rob, you got something for us? Yeah, just a couple things. I spoke to Liz about this Monday.

If these are the two we talked about, we can mention, but we need to be very careful not to discuss because there's been no advertisement.

Yeah, we're not going to do anything at the moment, but we have had interest in two properties that is set empty in Frankfort for quite a while. They are zoned central business, and because of what is wanting or proposed to go into those buildings, they will have to come before you, and that could possibly be as early as your September meeting.

Should be special exception requests.

Yeah. Just to give you a heads up that we will probably have to have a meeting in September. So that is hopefully both of those will be filed before the deadline.

On that note, if any of you anticipate you will not be able to attend that meeting, if you can let Grace know sooner. So if we need to shift to a special meeting, we know that as soon as possible.

All right. Anything else for the board? Hearing none, take a motion to adjourn. I'll second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All right. Have a good night, everyone. Be safe.