Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] behind oh my way. Hey, hey, hey. [Music] everybody. Hey

[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]

[Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat.

[Music] [Applause] [Music] Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It is now 5:31 p.m. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission work session of Monday, October 6th, 2025. Did anyone sign up to speak on any item listed on the work session agenda?

No one signed up. Please proceed. Thank you. All right. Uh report on the city council meeting decisions of September 18th, 2025. Is there anything further beyond what was in our packet? No. All right. Um then we'll move on to the review of the public hearing items. Okay. Uh on the consent agenda, uh you have items two, three, and four. And then you should have a memo in front of you now. uh which uh indicates that items number five and number seven uh can be moved from the disapproval and be considered with the approval items. Five and seven or five and six.

Believe it's five and seven. [Music] Okay. The sheet I have says five and six. All right. planners, correct me if I'm wrong. It's uh it's 2025195 PL the Irving ISD and it's also uh the 2025339PL Highland West. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. It looks like the numbering just got changed, but the those are the right ones listed here. Yeah. Okay. and be happy to answer any questions on this.

Any questions on the consent agenda items? No. And I think we can go on to the individual items.

Okay. And first individual item is zoning case 2025-74-Z. All righty. Good evening, commissioners. Haley Rick with planning. Like Ken said, this is zoning case 2574 ZC. This is located at 1629 Glen Valley Drive. They're currently single family residential 7.5. The request is to go to a generalized site plan for R 7.5. Um this is with variances to the side setbacks and then the maximum size of a carport in the rear yard. After review, staff finding uh finds no sorry no unnecessary hardship. Um in terms of public comments, there has been three in support and then none in opposition. So this is the aerial the subject property f uh future land use which is traditional neighborhood and then the zoning. These are property own property owners that were notified and then this is the site plan. Um so this kind of came to us. Uh this all kind of started in October of 24. Um there was a phone call made to code enforcement um about the structure. Um and it turns out it was built without a permit. And then the following month in November of 2024, um they did submit a permit to the inspections department, but it was denied due to the encroaching into the sideyard setback um and also exceeded the maximum size and um it also required like a gutter system because of its size. Um so here they're proposing to basically keep it where it is. So the distance from the side property line for carports we allow 3 ft um but they're requesting zero feet um on that north property line. So, right here. And then for the maximum carport size, um, per our code, it's 400 square feet is the max. Um, but they're requesting 730 ft. So, this is a subject property. This is kind of a little bit better. So, they have a two-car garage. As far as I know, it's not been converted. And then

this is the structure that they're talking about. And this is the neighbors to the north of them, to the south. And then I'm open for any comments or questions. Is this one where the neighbor to the north said they were in favor of it?

Okay. So, they were originally against it, but now they're in favor of it.

Okay. Um, yeah. And then you had a question. Yeah. Would you go back a picture? You're on. You're on. Did you go back to You might move that closer to you. I think one more. All right. Now, you may see where the pickup truck, the red pickup truck is, that was a concrete that's so close to the other property line, but behind when he's talking about that carport, there's two or three vehicles or trailers in that carport behind the house.

Yeah, I know there's at least a trailer. Um, in their letter of intent, they did say they built it to protect the equipment and the vehicles. Um, I believe they I believe it's music. So, I think it's music maybe in the trailer. Not again, the applicant should be here so to be able to verify what is actually used for, but that's what they said in their letter of intent is to Well, what they what he told me was that he's got tools in there. He just wants to protect his tools and stuff. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Um, the complaint that was made, was it just because of being built without permit?

Uh, I would have to refresh my mind on my memory on that. Um, I just know that there was a it was a reactive call. So, it means someone came in and complained. I don't know in terms of how much who it was and why it was. Um, most likely they just saw the structure and how close it was to the fence and probably called. And when was it built? Looks like as early as 2024. Um October 2024 is whenever it was whenever it was um the case was opened or a call was made. So I I think it was early 2024. Again, I'd have to confirm your Ariel.

Any other questions?

All right, let's go on to the next one. Good afternoon, commissioners. Uh item number 10 is sewing case 2025129Z. You saw this one last time. This was the case where uh the applicant was uh seeking uh variance from the uh requirement for section 535 for the basically the neighborhood compatibility ordinance. Excuse me. Uh they're looking to subdivide the existing property into uh three tracks. One would be 55 two of them would be 55 ft wide. One of them will be 65 ft wide. Uh the two smaller the the yellow tract would comply with the minimum lot width and the minimum lot area that's required. Uh track one and track two. The pink tracks uh would require a variance for the uh minimum lot width of about 4 feet per the uh section 535 and of about 3, 3,300 square ft. uh for the again for neighborhood compatibility. All three of these lots exceed the minimum uh R six uh requirements, but again section 535 requires the compatibility with the surrounding property. Uh this is uh the math if you will. Uh I won't go into this but basically uh in detail, but but this is basically how how we came up with it and these are the properties. Um again we have the subject property and property to the east, west and north. And again uh the applicants I think it

was his brother uh came in last time but the applicant was not able to. Uh so um the commission voted to postpone this. Uh the applicant has indicated to me uh that he will be here tonight. So, be happy to answer any questions that you have. Uh, the packet said that one of the buildings is being torn down. Which one is that? Uh, is that one there?

Yeah, this one right here. It'll have to be basically this portion will have to be torn down cuz if they're going to put the property line here, it's going to have to be 5 ft away from any building. So, um, but they know that. And, yeah, the the the house is over here and that's the big deal. They they want to keep the house and some of these other structures back here is my understanding. Uh eventually this they'll probably uh they've indicated they'll probably demolish this house and replace this one as well, but that's not the immediate plan for it. And then one of the questions that had come up last time if I remember correctly was it it looks just from eyeing it like if they did these three lots going the full length of the property north to south rather than having that T-shaped lot that the square footage would work out and that you could also adjust the width on those two side ones to either comply or come even closer to complying. Is there any reason that they couldn't do that or couldn't do part of that?

It certainly would come closer to complying. You're right. I'd have to run the actual numbers to see if um they uh did not submit any new materials from last year. Okay. But that's basically what the property to the to the west did. Sort of it that's the way it divided them up and it was still looked like it was still in compliance, right? Okay. I think we talked about the last time instead of 55 they move them to 57 and then drop the properties all the way to the back which we almost almost there. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We'd be almost there as far as uh making it happen. Any other questions?

All right. Okay. Hi there, Dylan Harvey planning. Uh, this is zoning case 2025 183 ZC. They're request going uh 2620 East Road. They're going from uh CC to SP1 for ML20 detailed site plan for outside storage of trucks, automobiles as a principal use and a variance to the pavement requirements. Staff recommendation is for approval and there's been none in support. Our opposition for public comments. Here's an aerial view uh future land use surrounding notification map. Uh they requesting they're requesting to go uh proposing uh compact mixed gravel in lie of the paving uh requirements of concrete or asphalt and uh no striping requirements of parking spaces. Here's the subject property, west of the property, east, uh, north, so right in front of the property. And then any comments or questions?

Jocelyn, we visited about this one briefly. Is any additional instruction we have need to have on how we handle this? So, please remind me what your that sign that's there in the picture is no longer up. Oh, I'm sorry. This sign um we will have to get with the applicant. We So, when they post their signs, they send pictures to us to confirm the signs are up. They should stay up all the time. They should maintain those. We will remind them they need to put them back up before city council and stay there through city council. Okay. But that doesn't affect what we need to do tonight or how we

No, we'll have proof the sign is posted. Um, you know, ideally it would have been up the whole time, but as long as we had proof it was posted, that's the best we can do for now. All right. Didn't we have a didn't we have a similar type case I don't know how far back where the gravel wasn't going to be acceptable? They had to have paved or concrete.

We get them sometimes. Yes. Um, and the ordinance basically says something about if if it's going to be light use, then the gravel is okay. Um, here they just intend to store. Um, so they don't want to pave the entire lot and they can explain to you how they intend to use the property and whether you consider that a light use or not. I think it said in the packet was their reason for it was that the trucks that they're going to have have gravel and whatnot on them. Well, that's not light use. No, it's truck.

It's heavy duty. So, I don't know why this would even how this could even come close to qualifying. It need to be pavement. That'll be your prerogative to hear what they say. If if it's heavier trucks, it could crush the concrete anyway. Um yeah, let's not start off giving them gravel to speak. Never mind.

Usually when there's uh commissioner, usually when there's heavier equipment, uh a lot of times they will uh will get the request for the gravel uh particularly if it's uh something that's, you know, uh more construction related, uh simply because it would, you know, tear up the the asphalt and the and the concrete more quickly. Um it's not unlike um uh on a somewhat bigger scale, but uh the uh uh for example the whole cat properties um and some of the uh other properties that have those you know big cranes and everything that that technically they're vehicles. They're they move but they're on a uh a gravel surface. They're approved for a gravel surface instead of the asphalt concrete that was variance was granted by council, you know, in years past.

I was just feeling we should stay consistent. Mhm. Because this case this case would come up again down the road with someone else. But I I think the applicant does need to to you know, it's a fair question to ask the applicant what exactly they're going to be storing and and using on the site. Okay. Are you done? And and the use would be just for for that. They're not going to be using anything else like building or or manufacturing anything there.

Uh no, there have been uh no proposed buildings that the applicant has requested at least on their site plan. You made a reference, excuse me, you made a reference towards Caterpillar. Uh Caterpillar just spent a ton of money pouring concrete and taking out the rock and the gravel and stuff like that on their facility on L1 12. Yeah, I was I was actually thinking of the facility. I can't remember who owns it now. The one off 161. That's the one I was thinking of. Yeah, that's it.

I kept wanting to think veneer. I knew that wasn't right. Any other questions? All right. Thank you.

Okay. And item number 12 is a conditional use permit 202518. It's at the 2500 block of West LBJ. Uh say request for a conditional use permit for an automat car wash and the staff recommendation is approval for an indefinite time period. We've not had any comment forms in support or position. So the property is located at the northwest corner of Home Depot drive and the I635 service road. So you have Home Depot over here. You have the HB would be going in uh under construction over here. It's next door uh to building over here. And the way this site is designed, it does not uh it does not have access to um it doesn't have direct access to the uh service road or to Home Depot drive. There's a service drive uh that runs back here that is mutual access easement between all the properties and the access would be actually from the mutual access easement here and this is actually a mutual access easement between these two properties over here. So the the car wash it's about 123 ft long. It would have uh three drives kind of going into it, feeding into it, and then uh single lane kind of going through it. And then these this would be a canopy over over the area right here where everybody kind of takes the order of what kind of car wash you want. Uh and then these are great areas. Here are the vacuum stalls. They look like this. And I'll show you another picture in a moment. Uh there is a queuing plan that they were required to do and that was approved. Uh the uh proposed canopies themselves are about just under 11 ft

tall at their tallest point right where the red dot is. And the cup criteria is that be con the use be consistent with the comprehensive plan compatible with existing and adjacent uses uh compatible with and preserves the character of the neighborhood and any negative impact has been mitigated and not detrimental to the health safety and of of the surrounding area. uh cup limitations you can put on include what's listed here. So uh you have looking on the Home Depot drive side, you you are looking west across the property. It's vacant in the adjacent building with the American Red Cross next door. And then if you're looking north across the property, you have the Home Depot again over uh back behind it. So with that, I'd be uh staff's recommendations for approval because of the um type of uses. We we are not recommending a a time period with that. Uh but be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Any questions? Uh just a question about when when in I think we've talked about this in the past about cups and the time period that might be attached to them. Is is there a particular rationale for recommending an indefinite time period or that ever be subject to review or or what's the idea behind that?

I think from our standpoint we certainly look at the the value of what of the equipment and everything that's going in. Uh it's certainly up to the uh commission ultimately the city council to recommend a time period if you want. Uh from our standpoint we think it was necessary uh at this particular location is very commercial uh area um very highway oriented very autooriented uh when feel like it was necessary. Is not near any residential uses. It's uh the nearest car wash is a little over a half mile away uh down to the east. And then there the the other one that's uh even within about 3/4 mile is on the south side of uh one uh of 635 over towards the belt line side. So that's that's considerably far away um where you actually are driving it as opposed to as the crows flies. Um, so we just our our feeling is especially since the uh access was not being taken directly off 635 or Home Depot drive, but rather this uh internal aisle, that would uh certainly help the traffic situation. It wouldn't be a traffic issue. That was kind of our thinking behind it. But certainly it's up to the commission to recommend uh whatever you choose. Do well do we have any um any comparables to similar developments and if there have been time periods attached or not attached?

We haven't really I don't recall if we've had any car washes approved with the cup yet. Do the c for the car washes are relatively new. The intention was to look at these on a case- by case basis obviously. Um, I don't think we've had any time periods attached. I can I can try to look up, but I don't think we have. Um, I know I believe we've had a bigger one approved in the last year or so since we've done it, but I don't think there was a time period on it.

So, I just So, if if it's indefinite, is there ever an occasion where a cup would be revisited? like if there was a complaint or the city council wanted to take it up or does that mean effectively they've got it it's not subject to review.

So the the two um factors in a conditional use permit which is what it makes them attractive is is the time period if you want to but it's also the possibility of revocation. So that's why we liked it for car washes because if for some reason they just didn't maintain it or started having issues um you know just for some reason did not you know didn't operate it well anymore. We would still have that revocation option if we needed to. All right. Thanks. Did we do the quick which is the one half a mile east of this also on the 635 access road. Was that a cup? I think that was an SP, wasn't it?

That was that was by SP. So why was that one that way and this one's the cup? Because we didn't have this yet.

Any other questions? There is another um car wash um not quite this kind of a design, but up there at 635 in Macarthur as well. Mhm. Good car. Yeah, that was that was further than a half mile, is it? Mhm. Mhm. And that one is that was pretty busy. Very busy. This one is more for drive-thru, right? Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. So, out of curiosity, what is it um currently zoned as? Say again. I'm sorry. What's the zoning for it at the moment? CC. Oh, so it is. But community commercial does not also have the car wash in it. They have to have the cup, right? All all car washes have to be in a zoning district that would allow the cup and then a cup would also have to be approved. Yeah. Oh, okay.

So, isn't this a little bit more visible? this. I'm not trying to make a value judgment, so forgive the way this sounds, but wouldn't we look for something a little bit more um attractive than a car wash on a very visible part of 635 or do you consider this piece of land acceptable? You know, you can't pull into it from 635 like you could other things. So there's a question there somewhere.

Yeah, sir. Yeah, ultimately it's it's a policy decision of the of the PNZ and council. Uh you're right. The the uh canopies are on the Home Depot side. They are maintaining all of their setbacks. So this is uh more than 50 ft back of the uh frontage road. Um, in terms of weather, uh, you think we had the right to ask about some nice landscaping maybe to make it dress it up a bit instead of having it just, you know, to Terry's point. Um, you don't see this until you're already passed it. You you can

you're going to have to go to belt line and come back around. You can certainly add uh that to your recommendation for additional landscaping. um buffer yards, screening, that can all be part of your recommendation. Some of the newer ones have some of the newer ones look very modern, the newer car washes. So like I mean my office is by Flower Mount and there's like two or three that have popped up and they look very nice, very modern.

Um a lot of the new ones they they're just builders. They build them, they get the subscription going and they sell them. So they want to make it look attractive. Um, but I don't see rendering, so I'm not sure what it's going to look like. It's not that typical traditional car wash that we're used to seeing before, right? Yeah. Yeah. Any other questions?

No. Right. Okay. All right. Good evening, commissioners. The next case is 2025-212-Z. It's located at 512 North Seers Road. Uh the proposal is to reszone the property from community commercial to a detailed site plan for community commercial that includes variances to both the minimum required parking and also the drive valid. The staff recommendation is no unnecessary hardship. Uh we did not receive any uh public comment forms in support or opposition. And this is the aerial of the subject property. The site to the north of it is the family advocacy center and the property to the south uh is vacant and uh actually has a portion in the flood plane so has not been uh developed. This is the future land use plan, the existing zoning, the property notification map and the proposed site plan. Um there are two uh variance requests as stated. Um this is an existing building that has uh fallen into disrepair over the years. It's a very old building. Um the applicant purchased the property last December and initiated um some improvements to the site with uh through the building inspections department. They were making uh interior upgrades. uh started with repairing the roof and then remodeling the interior.

Uh they also wanted to provide uh repaving for the parking lot and it was through that review process that they realized they were not going to be able to meet the minimum required parking spaces. Uh the city does require uh for this particular use a minimum of eight spaces per 1,000 square feet and then uh additional uh space beyond that. So for them it would be a total of 10 spaces. They are asking to provide seven so a variance of three spaces. Um they did reach out to the property owner to the south to inquire about possibly sharing um or having an easement or a shared parking agreement where they could uh park some of the vehicles on that property. However, they were not successful in obtaining any kind of agreement. Um, regarding the drive width, because of the configuration of the property, uh, and how tight the parking lot is, the drive, if they have that 90° parking setup, requires that a, um, that there's a width of 24 ft for maneuvering space. So, whenever you have those 90° parking spaces like you see here, there has to be um according to the zoning code, a 24 foot um drive aisle for for maneuvering in and out for two-way traffic. The applicant is proposing um at the bottom here, it starts out at 16 ft and it's uh variable until it gets to the rear of the property, it's 13, and then at the very back goes uh back up to 15. So those are uh in summary the two variances being requested. This is the subject property.

This is looking to the south and to the north to the east and again resting on the site plan. I am happy to answer any questions that you might have. Do we know anything about why they weren't able to get the agreement from the property owner to the south? I do not, but I do know that the owner's here and that she can address those questions for you in more detail. Okay. And it, if I understood correctly, the the packet, it indicated that they were aware of these restrictions when before they purchased the property. Yes.

Okay. Um, and then it also mentioned that or seemed to indicate that there could have been other options for uses for the for the property that would have not then needed these variances. Correct. Can can you give some examples of what that might be? um if they had possibly uh office uses or retail uses. It um it's possible just depending the ratio for parking spaces is different for each of those. So there are uses that would require uh less parking and not that eight spaces for the first 10,000.

Had it what had it been before back when it was being used previously? I do not know. Does Does anybody remember? On the on the east side of the building at the very end was a beauty salon. It's still got the name on it right now. Okay.

Interesting. They must not have been using the entire building. Is it what it looked like? No.

No. Okay. So, yeah, it looked like maybe part of it had been used in that fashion, but you said that now under the code the any sort of because that's what they're wanting to use it for basically, some sort of beauty salon. Yes. Apologies if I failed to mention that they do want to use it as a beauty salon. Correct. And that just right off the bat under the current code mandates a minimum of eight spaces. Correct. And that's before the employees and the customers, everybody who might be there on that on that picture right there where where it says 13 foot to the left of that is where the beauty salon is and the rest of it's empty. Okay.

That's that's where the current it's painted. It doesn't look like it's being used, but that's that was the sign for the beauty salon in that small area up there. All right. Any other questions? When you say like um they talked to the owner from the property on the south, you're talking about the empty land that is there. Correct. And this hasn't been even started to be built, right? This parking lot? No. No. The permits are on hold.

And the north to the north is the family advocacy center. So, and did they approach the family advocacy center? Although I recognize that that's a closed I believe that building's closed. I think the I think that they can't I think the city's not able to. Is that right? The city can't My understanding is that the city does not enter into private parking agreements for other businesses. Thanks. So, not an option. So, that's Yeah, this is the property to the north and then Whoops. That's the lot to the south. and the parking lot. Correct. Well, the future parking lot. Yeah. But what I mean I presume that had been what was the parking lot before?

I would assume so because the drive cut is right here and that is grandfathered at its current width since it's existing.

Any other questions? Mr. Sanguino. So I mean are they I'm trying to figure this out. I mean they do they have any parking spots that are conforming or actually none of the parking spots can be conforming. Well, they need to build a parking lot essentially.

Yeah, they have they don't have any parking right now at all. Um if there was parking in the past, it's washed away or grown over and it's not concrete, which is the city's requirement. Um they worked multiple different layouts over the course of the last few months. Had many meetings with staff to try and squeeze as many parking spaces in and still meet planning departments requirements for zoning and also traffic departments requirements, fire department requirements. And the most they could come up with in the end was the seven spaces. No, maybe for for Cody. I mean, is that enough for parking?

Four cars. Like if you wanted to park like like actually towards the end, are you able to Could you get in there? You mean? Yeah. Yeah. I I mean I assume the 24 foot requirement is because of the challenge of getting into spots like that. Yeah. Backing out. Typically you you need the 24 foot requirement is what the ordinance says. Yep. And it's and it says that cuz well it's not like we tend to have lots of small cars here in Texas. They're they're basically when you pull into that driveway that picture of it's just dirt all the way to the back. I mean there's no paint. There's no painting. There's nothing there.

So I mean whatever they did they would need to build a parking lot. But in terms of they could have other uses for the building that would allow them to need fewer parking spots and they could then build a parking lot that would comply. Is that that a correct, you know, statement? Okay. We have not evaluated what those uses are because none were considered. Yeah. But it was it was brought up as an option. Okay. Any other questions? No. All right. Well, let's go on to the next one.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Ibrahan Sera with a planning department and I'm presenting tonight the Sony case number 2025 216 ZC for the Long John Silver's property located at 400 West Iran Boulevard. The request is to reszone the property from Heritage Crossing District Corridor Mixuse to SP1 detail site plan Heritage Crossing District Corridor Mixuse to allow a drive-thru restaurant with variances from the Heritage Crossing District requirements. The applicant is requesting to reszone the property in order to demolish the existing building and replace it with a new 2,247 square ft singlestory restaurant that includes a drive-thru. Staff finds that there is no unnecessary hardship associated with this request and we did not receive any public comment in support or in opposition for this case. Next, this is the aerial view map of the property. Here you can see that the property is located at the intersection of West Irvin Boulevard and South Okono Road. The properties located at the north, I'm sorry, the property is located to the north, to the south, and to the west are vacant. To the east there's Bank of America and the Starbucks is located at the uh northeast corner of the intersection. This is the future land use map. The property is designated under the main street down downtown future land use category. This is the zoning map. It shows the property is zon as HCD CMU. the notification map.

The goals of the Heritage Cross crossing district are to promote a more functional and attractive community through the use of recognized urban design principles and to allow property owners flexibility in land use while prescribing a higher level of detail in building design and form. This is the site plan of the applicant site plan. The company's uh prototype building is positioned near the center of the property with drive-through lanes along West Irving Boulevard and South Okoner Road. Although a restaurant use is permitted under the current zoning, the complete removal and reconstruction of this the new building to comply with all current signing and commercial design standards. The applicant has not requested any variances from the commercial design standards. However, the applicant is requesting five variances from Heritage Crossing District standards. First, the primary building front is required to face Urban Boulevard, which will be right here. However, the applicant is requesting a variance to orient the building toward the parking lot instead. Second, the primary entrance is required to be located along the street and connect to the public sidewalk. The applicant is requesting a variance to orient the entrance toward the parking lot and the entrance. There are two entrance on this side of the building. Third, drive-thru lanes are not allowed along Irving Boulevard. However, the applicant is requesting a variance to look to locate the drive-thru in that area. So in that in other words, the drive-thru lane is not allowed in this part of the property since it facing Westing Boulevard.

Uh fourth, the standards require a three-foot vegetative screen between the driveway, I'm sorry, the drive-through lanes and the sidewalk. So there is one here on West Even Boulevard and South Okoner Road. The applicant is requesting a variance as no screening is proposed. And finally, no more than 60% of the frontage of the lot frontage may be occupied by a drive-thru lane. The proposal shows 73% meaning almost 3/4 of the frontage is dedicated to the drive-thru on South Okoner Road, which is right here. These are the applicants preliminary elevations. The upper image shows the building frontage along Urban Boulevard and the lower image shows the side facing south of corner road. The applicant is not requesting any variances related to the building materials or transparency requirements. These elevations are not included as part of the zoning case. However, they would not comply with the commercial design standards. The preliminary elevations show fiber cement panels and injured engineered wood sighting. The commercial design standards require minimum 80% menory with at least two different menory materials. Ephesus and similar engineer panels are not considered menory and wood sighting is prohibited in the commercial design standard. Again, the applicant has not requested variances to these standards, but has verbally agreed to comply with the requirements of the commercial design standards. This exhibit from the Heritage Crossing District illustrate the intended design for drive-through restaurants in the area. The building is placed along the street,

I'm sorry, along the street edge. The drive-thru is located behind the building and there is a clear pedestrian connection from the sidewalk to the entrances. This is a photo of the uh subject project from West Irving Boulevard. This is the same picture just a different angle. The current Long John Silver building as you can see and the existing landscaping was uh installed by the city during the street reconstruction project. The existing uh 25 foot pole sign is a legal non-conforming sign that site plant indicates it will remain and there is a stone retaining wall approximately two to three feet in height with terrace landscaping beds and ornamental graces or grasses and again the building will be demolished. This is the so project from South Okono Road. This is an interior of the subject project from uh south of the building. This is another interior subject property from the east. I'm sorry from the west. And looking east at the subject property and property adjacent to the west. The proposed site plan orients the building and entrance toward the parking lot rather than west Irvin Boulevard, reducing pedestrian connectivity and visibility from the street. The drive-thru is located along West Erin Boulevard without the required street screening and it occupies almost 75% of the frontage exceeding the maximum allowed. Together, these variances prioritize auto access over pedestrian activity and conflict with the intent of the heritage crossing district to create a pedestrian oriented corridor. since the existing building will be demolished. Again, staff finds no unnecessary hardship. With that, I conclude my presentation. I'm open for

any questions. And and just to clarify, uh you gave it an example of what the Heritage Crossing District is supposed of of what it's supposed to look like when Yeah, that's what I mean. The exhibit and by saying there's no hardship, y'all don't see any reason why they couldn't follow something like that model. Correct. Okay. Would it be again a London silver? Yes. And what's the issue with the Starbucks? I was reading the paperwork and they said like the Starbucks is having some with it some issues with the drive-thru and traffic and yeah that it did get some of these variances and they didn't work out. Was that

Yeah, the Starbucks got the same variance to be able to have they had to go through the SP process to have the driveway between the building and the street. They did provide a lot of other things that Long John Silvers is not. Um, but part of the design for the Starbucks and I remember working through this with them puts the queueing through their parking lot and that has proven and they kind of knew it from the beginning has proven to be a problem because if people are parking trying to get in and out, you've now got the queuing lane through the middle of the parking lot. So that was the intention by that comment. Any other questions?

No. All right. Thank you. All righty. So, this next case is 2025 232 DVP. This is located at 2150 Kimbro Drive. Um they're going to go from uh PUD 1 DP46 second revision for single family 7.5 uses to now the third revision for 7.5 uses. Um you might have or this might seem a little familiar to you. There was a development plan for the same property that was approved last year. I'll go into that in a minute, but just so you know. Um the variances is to the minimum sideyard setback on the east side of the lot and to the maximum lot coverage. Um after review staff finding says finds no unnecessary hardship in terms of public comment. There was one in support and in opposition. So this is the subject property feature land use which is that traditional neighborhood and surrounded by like the pud but 7.5 uses. These are the property owners that were notified. And this is the site plan. Um so this has a little bit of history. So, I'm just going to try to do it succinctly, but um excuse me if I I wander a bit, but basically the original development plan was 46. This was um approved in 2003. The kind of variances or what was different from the regular 7.5 standards was that the minimum front yard was uh 20 feet instead of 25 ft and then for the sideyard, which is why we're here today, it was 7 feet. This is 2 feet greater than our 7.5. Usually it's 5 ft. Um but they had it as seven. So last year when this case came um they were keeping all the variances besides for the sideyard they wanted to do 5 ft which is the R 7.5 standard. Um it got approved when they went to um LCA to get

their v variance granted as well. Um it was ultimately denied. Um it seemed that after a lot of conversation it came to that if they can do what they're proposing now which is 7 foot on between the house and then the neighbor and then 3 ft on the side on the other side that they would be feel more comfortable with that. So that's kind of why they are here today. So on the this side it would be like I said seven feet and this is where the existing neighbor is and then on the reason it's three feet on this other side is because ultimately this is where a existing kind of drainage easement it's a big kind of covert thing. Um there's nothing that can be developed in this section. Um so it always it'll always be vacant. Um so they're carrying over the other variances but just modifying the um the the sideyard setbacks. So this is where the proposed house would be. And like I said, this is this neighbor. So this is where the seven feet would be. So the neighbor and this is the other side of them. So that's where that 3T side yard set back would be. And then this is north. And then just on the other side of here is another is where it kind of cuts through that that drainage. And I'm open to any comments or questions.

Any questions? Yeah. Is this LCA or Cottonwood Valley um HOA? I know we we worked with Phil Aer initially. It's HOA drainage. Yeah. I just didn't know who who who gets final say here. Um LCA or I think LCA Cottonwood Valley HOA. Yeah. LCA should get final say on the setback, but the drainage the property next door is actually the HOA. The Cottonwood. Yeah.

Do they have to go to Cottonwood Valley to get approval as well? there's a process for Cottonwood Valley. Yes, they would need to get that approval. That would be independent of course of the city. Um but if there is a process, they would need to complete that process. But LCA is who we've been working with and LCA's given approval for this already.

I think they they basically when they did permit initially in 2024, they kind of went back and forth on it and they were proposing, okay, try this. And so they have talked with LCA and this is what they've kind of come to. In terms of formal agreements, I'm not sure. I think they're waiting for this to go through and then they'll have to resubmit their building plans and stuff, but they have spoken and have been in contact with LCA about what can be done to to work, you know, for this house to work. So, [Music]

any other questions? No. Thank you. All right. This is zoning case 2025 243 ZC located at 20 713 Douglas Avenue. They're requesting from R six to SP24 R six to a variance uh from the side and rear yard setbacks for an accessory structure. Staff finding is there no unnecessary hardship and there's been uh none in support or opposition for public comment. The aerial view future land use surrounding zoning notification map. Uh here's a brief overview of the what they're proposing. Due to the height of the building at 11 foot five, I believe they're required to go from the traditional uh five foot setback increases to 6 and 1/2. Uh they're proposing uh three three foot 3T 5 in on the sideyard, then 3'6 off the rear yard. Here's a uh picture of the structure um from the showing the rear yard. the subject property uh south east of the subject property north and then yeah uh the comes from in September of last year there was investigation by the um I believe code enforcement uh that they could see the accessory structure from the yard uh it was construct constructed without a permit a permit was then applied for by the applicant in June and then they were formed of the uh setback requirements uh the and

the uh accessory building does sit in a drainage and utility easement. They have reached out to Encore and have discussed and encore has approved of the encroachment and for the drainage utility they will have to uh in get in contact with CIP for an encroachment license agreement um for the drainage utility easement. And then any comments or questions? That structure that they have there, would it have been able to fit in the yard moved over? Like is there enough space there for it to fit? I mean, it's a relatively small structure. It looks like I mean, it's tall but pretty small. But is there It looks like it's a very small backyard.

Um I mean definitely that's a a good question for the applicant on whether or not there's enough space back there. Um be up to them. Wouldn't we run into uh the issue of the structure being too close to the house if you moved it over? That's there's a c there's a certain distance that's allowed by building inspections and not allowed by building inspections. But I think any way you move the structure, if you moved it over to the left, you're going to be in violation. If you move it over to the right, you're going to be in violation. Yeah, that's that's kind of what I was Yeah. How how far away from the bit from the from the house would it need to be? 10 ft. 10 feet.

Yeah. 10 feet. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? This one's mine as well.

Oh, missed typo there. The 2025 270s uh special defense plan located at 715 West Tanglewood Drive. Uh they're requesting a variance from chapter 1512 fence height on a reverse frontage lot to allow an 8 foot tall board on board fence within the required 15 yard setback along Ryan Street. Staff finding uh does not meet the criteria for variance uh for public comments. There have been five responses in the port and none in opposition. Here's an aerial view uh a closer area view of where the proposed fence would be. uh surrounding zoning notification map. Uh when staff is looking at the condition for a approved fence plan, they're looking at uh does it violate the intent of the chapter? Will not adversely affect the surrounding properties, will not adversely affect any of the public safety and if there's any special conditions that might exist or that could be unique to this property. Uh brief overview of what they're requesting. The requirement is a minimum 15T back from the side property line. They are proposing a maximum foot of 8 ft. Again, board on board about 17 uh 17 inches or foot and a half from the side property line. And then here's the subject property. The subject property from Ryan Street. So you can see where the fence is currently located. Uh this is east of the property. Uh just south of it. So they're neighbors then north of the subject property looking at from Ryan Street and then the uh south don't of the uh so on Ryan Street they're essentially backdoor neighbors and then yeah uh any questions how close to the sidewalk then is it would it be with the the new fence?

Uh I believe they're proposing a foot and a half. Okay. So, it's putting 5 in right up on the sidewalk now, whereas it's a good what, 10 ft from the sidewalk right now, I believe. Yeah, it uh the current fence where it's been located has been uh it seems like it's always been within that 15t setback and that's 15 ft from from the street from the property line. property line. Okay. And this the way they did this is a little confusing because north is on the right side. So they kind of rotated it. So I just wanted to point that out.

Did Did you say that we received uh notices in opposition? No, we've received five in support and none in opposition. Thank you. And it looked like there were properties that had the 8ft fences down along Pioneer. I didn't see any up in north of Pioneer, but it looked like down on Pioneer there were a fair number that did. Are they similarly right up on the road? It seemed like they were um I not quite sure. Okay. Okay. And the difference could be if they're rear to rear then they can be on the property line. It's just when you're rear to front that it this kicks in.

And did did we get a letter in support from the neighbor there to the west? Um, go back to the one that's number most directly affected by this. The one number five. Uh, no, I don't believe so. We did receive a letter of support from uh property number 23 from 23 and then I believe one uh 12 or 27, one of those in the general area.

This me this is for Cody. Um, is there any issue with traffic with that fence moving out to um behind the sidewalk? I think what helps them in this case is the curvature of the road. If they were on the inside of the curve, it would be a much bigger issue. Mhm. But being on the outside of a curve actually helps them sight line wise. Okay. Um, and they're far enough from the intersection and things where the intersection will not be impacted because it's only going halfway down the property or halfway across. Correct. Is that Yeah. Yeah. It's it's pretty far from the from the intersection itself. The intersection. Yeah.

Just to answer the commissioner's question, can you go back to the Yeah. Uh so I am so uh property owners number 16 and 23 wrote in support. Five did not. Uh property number five did not. We just don't have anything from five. Right.

Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Let's go on to the next one. This is a case. Uh I stop over there 25279 SS SFP. Um the applicant has requested for postponement. Um they were able unable to attend tonight's meeting and they would like to postpone to the November 3rd meeting. Okay. I'm so happy to go through it.

Then let's skip on to the next one. All righty. For this next case, this is 2025282Z. This is located at 922 East Fifth Street. Currently is that single family residential six and they're wanting to do a generalized site plan for R six. Um the variance is to allow a covered patio to encroach into the front yard setback. Um after review staff finding is that there's no unnecessary hardship in terms of public comment for there was none in support or in opposition. So this is the aerial the subto property then the compact neighborhood for the future land use and then the zoning is mostly surrounded by R six besides to the south there's CN property owners that were notified and this is their site plan. Um this also has some little bit of history. Um it looks like in July basically end of July of this year there was a proactive notice of violation. Um it looks like there was partial construction um and they did not have a permit. And then um August 11th of um this year um the applicant did submit a request for variance for the encroachment um and then it looks like a day later the inspections department um investigated and it looks like the patio covered um ended up being completed. So the structure itself is 13 and 1/2 ft tall and it's framed into the roof line. Um and then it measures 11 ft long and 8 by ft wide. So this is the 8 by feet 8 by.5 feet here and 11 feet here. Um the their letter of intent was very brief. Um they just said that they wanted to protect things from the elements. Um but it is to note that there is an existing carport that is here. Um it's been there a long time. It was got a permit in 1996.

So this is subject property. Um so initially before what was found I guess before it was completed basically this here was removed and then there was kind of a support beam. Um but then they completed it as in they put this wood wooden piece on the front and then this is where that kind of carport is existing. Um this is their neighbors to the east, their neighbors to the west and then their neighbors across the street. And I am open to any comments or questions. It it looked like up and down that street there were a fair number of properties that had these kind of front porches that extended out in front of the rest of the house. I I saw at least maybe six, seven, eight, something like that.

So, a lot of them had So, there's like a patio here, but that's flush with the build line. Yeah. No, not that kind. Ones that were more like this one. Yeah. I looked because I because I noticed that, too. I noticed I noticed there were ones like that and then ones like where you have the pointer just there where they were clearly flush as well, but there were half a dozen or so that that did extend in front of the rest of the house um along that street. Uh do you know anything about the history of that? Not that I No. Okay. Um at least in terms of the zoning, there was no site plans in terms of the surrounding zoning. So, um, I mean, they looked like they'd been there a long time. Yeah.

Would that not then go into the the issues in terms of the compatibility? The compatibility. Yeah. I mean, it wouldn't make it legal non-conforming. Um, I mean, it's it's kind of like the the carport case, you know, just because your neighbor builds a carport illegally doesn't mean you get to do it illegally. Um, but I also understand kind of what you're saying like, yeah, if my neighbors have carports and it's not a, you know, it hasn't become an issue, you know, I can see that as well. But, um, Commissioner Pritchard,

u, I'm just check under staff findings, you suggesting postponing to November the 3. No, that was the last case. Um, we for the the fence plan. This is for no unnecessary hardship. Just making sure you're ready. Just making Yeah. Commissioner Ahmed, show that image again of the current the Sorry, the current image that you had up to get a better idea. Yeah. There. So, this is the new structure. Yeah.

Yeah. So, this is the new one. So you can see back here, this is where the initial um patio was, but they've extended it now to come closer. So they technically did have that and then a carport, but they wanted a bigger one. So is that is that going up until their front porch like cuz I see Yeah. Yeah. So it's like it comes out kind of here and then there's an existing covered porch kind of like where this beam is that and then going towards the sorry the front door is what's been existing that's been covered probably since the house was built. So they just extended the roof. Yeah they extended the porch covering. So instead of it being is it overhanging or is there post

see this little X? This is what was built initially with the house. This was initially the covered thing, the covered patio, and then this is outside of it. So, it's coming outside the house. So, it's not flush with the house anymore. Okay. Thank you. Typically, this is Oh, you're off.

Typically, this is done to keep the water and everything off the front of the house. They extend them out. Normally, that's what most people attempt to do to keep the water in the elements so it's not getting into the house if they had an issue with water or whatever. By extending it out, it'll keep it from uh drenching the entryway when you're getting in and out. So, that's the reason why people normally do this. Um, well, I guess the issue I have is that they were issued notice of violation and they built it anyway. Is that correct? It was basically in the process of being built. Um, and then after they got notice of violation, they ended up completing it. So,

yeah. So, at least this is what current I mean, I wouldn't consider this necessarily finished, but they did they did more work on to it after they were they kept working on it after they were told there's a notice of violation. Correct. So, yeah. I mean, I won't be able to support this at at this time. From a construction standpoint, if they started it and like she was saying earlier in her comments, they had beams coming down and beams coming down, etc., you would almost have to at least get it to a point where it's secured and you don't have these beams coming down for safety issues, etc. So, the it's definitely not finished like this right now. Yeah, it's it's not finished, but it is where it's supporting itself and you don't have,

you know, beams coming down or structures. So, I can't really uh from that standpoint, I mean, I can understand why they continued on to get it to that point. Yeah. But they do seem to have waited in terms of as far as actual finish up. Yeah. The finish up. It's not been finished up. Yeah. Yeah. And I don't know. I mean, at least from the picture, it doesn't look even. I don't know if it's just me from here, but but at least from the picture, it doesn't doesn't look like it was well designed.

Have we ever seen any cases where they end up doing a similar thing with the carport itself and pulling the carport roof line out further to match with the roof line of the new covered patio? M you mean Oh, so you're meaning like the the top of it the same as the roof? Yes. Yeah. In terms of Yeah. So, in other words, making the carport deeper by bringing the front of it out further towards the street. You mean it's like if it's already existing, the carport's already existing. Um, most of Yeah. like not in my the cases I've had, but

but if what their concern is is the water hitting the front porch, that wouldn't really do anything for that. Tying into the roof line. Yeah. Covered new covered patio to make it look better. If you brought the carport forward and tried to go into the roof line, you got to keep in mind that now you got a hip roof on the front for the porch coming out and then you got your roof line on the other side. It would I don't know. It It would have to be pretty good size. And to make it look right, it'd have to be another probably two and a half foot taller on Yeah. in height. And so that's going to really add to the area.

And also if they were to do that anyway, they would still need a variance for the Yeah. Yeah. Any other questions? M Re, uh as far as like the safetyness of the structure, do we as like the city touch on that? like um as far I know the inspections get done, but what are the procedures in term of like the safety and ensuring that they're structured properly? That's what the building code is for. That's that's why we get permits. Gotcha. So, that would be done regardless. I mean, if we approved this that it would still would have to be compliant with the building code and be structurally sound.

Yeah. So they'll they'll get their inspections cuz it will now be a legal uh structure and so they'll get on their inspections and whatever they need to do to ensure it doesn't fall over. Procedurally speaking, is this the first step before they can go to code? Okay. Thanks. Any other questions? No.

All right, let's go on to the next one. zoning cage 2025309 CC located at 412 Elaine Drive. They're requesting from R six to SP24R6 to allow a variance for a carport to encroach into the front yard setback. Staff finding uh no unnecessary hardship and there have been none in support. Our opposition for public comment. Here's an aerial view. future land use, surrounding zoning, notification map, uh carport map. As you can see here up on the top right here, there's two uh SP2 cases that have gone been approved previously on HIM Street.

You mean carports that go into the into the front yard setback? Yes. Okay. Yeah. An overview of the uh request. the the requirement the house is built at a about a 30 35 ft line. It's kind of hard to tell from the measurement of aerials. Um but they're essentially asking for a 15t variance into the front yard. Here's the subject property. Uh south of the subject property, north, east, and then yeah. Uh any questions?

Subject property. And from your your chart earlier, there are no other car ports that encroach on the front yard set back on this street. No, they're not. I didn't see any, but your records don't show any. Uh I believe there's within a half mile radius, there's uh 11 additional carports that didn't seem like they've gone through the, you know, zoning variance process. Um, but I don't believe there were any on the street. Yeah, they were all like back on the side or in the in the backyard. Yeah, I didn't see any driving. I didn't see any in the area.

No, I didn't see anything like this proposal on that street. Were there any letters in support opposition? There were not. Okay. Any other questions? So, they're going to be 15 ft from their property line in the front, correct? Yes. Okay.

Did they explain why they're I mean I see a car garage. They have not said why they um they just are requesting a carport. Um they've not in addition to the garage they already have. That was the request. Well, in their I just want to add in their letter of intent in case you didn't see it. They wanted to protect their vehicles from hail and sun damage. Historically, we've passed almost carports here as long as they're not encroaching within 10 ft of the property line is pretty much what we have done and what council has approved.

I think we've also taken into account what what the rest of the neighborhood looks like.

Well, that's true. Compatibility, but I'm just saying typically that's where we've been. It's got to start somewhere. Any other questions? All right, let's go on to the next one. Number 21. Good evening again, commissioners. Gina Castanza Grant with the planning department. The next case is 2025 357 DVP located at 660 Walnut Ridge Drive. Uh the applicant is requesting to change the property from PUD number two with development plan number 12 uh 21st revision for community commercial uses to um reallocate those community commercial uses for a uh an RAB which is a restaurant with the uh sale of alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption. Uh the staff recommendation is for approval and we did not receive any uh comments and support. We did receive one in opposition. This is a aerial of the subject property and the future land use map. The zoning map notification map. uh the indication of the property in red that sent a letter in opposition and this is the development plan. Uh we don't need to discuss the variances right now. We'll discuss that uh in the next case. There's a companion case that

follows. The development plan is simply to reallocate those acreage uses in PUD 2 um from commercial to SP1 RAB. So, uh the staff um did not have any issue with this. The property actually had the same zoning uh years ago. In 2006, the property was reszoned to SP1 RAB. Um, I believe the original restaurant in that location was a Benigans. It uh then changed hands several times uh and went out of business. The owner in 2019 actually requested to repeal the RAB. So, um, at that time the RAB was repealed. it went back to CC or community commercial zoning and now they have a new structure on site and would like to reallocate that SP1 RAB acreage back for use of a restaurant. Um, we'll go ahead and go to the

Just before you do, Gina, I'm just confused because the the PUD um RAB is not Valley Ranch. It's LCA. Correct. Correct. Okay. So, just make a note on page 186. It says within the Pud Valley Ranch. So, I got a little confused as to Apologies. Yeah, it's all right. Just It took me a minute until I realized where it was. Yeah, that's a typo. No problem. The property owner that protested or objected, is that the Hampton? The high the high place. The high place. Okay. Yes.

So, if we go ahead and consider um or discuss the next uh case that's companion to this, it is 2025 311 ZC. Um also located at 660 Walnut Ridge Drive. Um again the zoning is PUD 2. The applicant is requesting on this particular case um the SP1 RAB which is uh a detailed site plan for a restaurant with the sale of alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption. Uh the staff is recommending approval of the RAB but not the related variances uh for parking. And again uh the same uh none in support and one in opposition uh letters were received. We'll go ahead and skip to the site plan. So this is the more detailed site plan that was submitted for uh the restaurant and the parking lot. The building has been expanded slightly from its original footprint. Um we also have um I did another slide that just kind of shows in relation to the parking variance. The parking spaces in yellow are all 9 by6 parking spaces. Those total 26. It appears those were approved um again many years ago with the original uh site plan for the the property and it is likely that those may have been approved as compact spaces. not positive because the compact spaces would have also been um a little bit or a little less wide but nonetheless they were 9

by6. The spaces in green were approved at uh standard size. So uh 20 uh 9 by8 full spaces uh there are 24 of those. And regarding the variances, um the applicant is requesting a variance uh for those spaces that already exist to remain as 8 by6. And uh they are also requesting a variance of um for restaurant seating. Normally it would be one space per 2.5 seats. They were originally requesting one per three seats. I understand from talking with the applicant today um they are considering actually just asking for the variance that they had with the previous restaurant zoning case which was one space per 2.85 seats. Um they do have 50 parking spaces that would give them a capacity of 146 seats. So basically, they're capped at 50 parking spaces no matter what. That parking ratio just allows them to have more seats or less seats. So this is um the rendering that they gave us for the uh exterior of the building. This is the subject property.

No, this is what it looks like. Uh this is the hotel that's just south of the subject property. And this is to the east to the north and again resting on the site plan. I am happy to take any questions you have. So the 50 seats is what they had when it was the Benigans. It was actually 50 50 parking spots. Slightly more. They eliminated um a row of parking right here when they expanded the building. Okay. So since since it was a Benigans, they expanded the building. Yes. Correct.

Okay. It it had um uh burned and was very damaged due to fire and to my understanding it was completely demoed at one time so there was nothing on the site. Um, this is the reconstruction and yes, it did expand slightly beyond that original footprint. Okay. If they take the 9 by16s and 9 by 18s and make them deeper to comply with current parking standards, ain't that going to get in the middle of the fire lane

on the Yeah, we had this discussion last week on the western side of the property with um these spaces. They should be okay because this fire lane is 28 ft. Mhm.

So he would easily be able to restripe those. This fire lane is only 24T deep. So he would have to go um pave or stripe and pave additional on the north side of these spaces which may get him into that uh utility easement. So, I don't I don't know that he could stripe these to be any longer without encroaching into the fire lane and making it 2 ft shorter. What is the required depth uh for the parking space? Mhm.

18 unless they're compact, but there's a 10% cap on compact parking. Um would this be just one restaurant as a whole or would it be divided into? He has mentioned that he is not sure what the concept is going to be but he has considered placing multiple concepts within the single space. I know he was prepared to address that tonight.

Okay. Gina, uh, would you mind touching a little bit on the, um, the opposition in terms of the hotel that said that they share the parking spaces? Where exactly is the shared? I don't know that they actually share parking spaces. They would have to have some type of an agreement in place, which they can do. You can share parking spaces as long as you're within 300 ft. And the other site has an overflow of parking. They do.

So, um, but from what I understand, uh, the owner of this parcel, I don't believe, has a shared parking agreement with the property owner that owns the hotel. Okay. I think they can clarify that for you. Or or did they mean that the hotel is currently making use of some of the parking that's technically part of the restaurant or would be part of the restaurant? that I'm not sure. We did not investigate that because they are not part of the request. So, we're assuming that all their parking can be accommodated on their site.

You have any questions? Any other questions? No. Thank you. All right, this is our final case for the evening. This is zoning case 2025 312Z located at 2828 Winslow Street. Um they are currently R six and they're going to do a general site plan for I6. This is for a variance to the sideyard building setback. Um after review staff finding uh that a hardship does exist. In terms of public comment, there was one letter in support and then none in opposition. This is the location and then future land use that traditional neighborhood surrounded by R six property owners that were notified. And then this is the site plan. So why they um had to submit for zoning changes. Initially, this house was built and platted in the 1960s. So, where the house was originally built was 15 ft building set back on this corner lot. Well, a fire happened. They had to knock it down. So, their like legal non-conforming status was mute. Um, so they want to now rebuild the house, but to this basically the same layout on the same foundation that it was initially done in the '60s. Um, so now that they're doing that and our standards have been updated, um, since it's a corner lot, it would be 20 feet. Um, but they're just now asking for the 15t that was, you know, where the house pres, you know, previously was and was legal. So, this is the subject property before the fire and this is after. So, you can kind of see that there's even fire damage to the neighbor. This is kind of from the corner street to look at the lot. And then this is east of the subject

property north. So there neighbors across the street and then I'm open to any comments or questions. Question I got is for Joselyn. We had that fire on the comfort in on 114 and they could build back to their existing non-conforming status of the current rules. What stops them from doing the exact same thing? So the comfort in has a site plan. It was an SP case. So it had the permanent zoning district in order to build back to what they were. Whereas this one,

it was legal. It was it was legal at the time it was built but once you lose that non-conforming once the house burned down over 50% so obviously it burned almost 100% um foundation supposed left then the rules that apply at the time would kick in. So the comfort in for instance if it had been legal in the CC district and then burned it would have to build back to whatever the C CC district would have been at the time. So the difference is that had its own SP zoning district that applied specifically to the hotel. Okay. Any other questions?

Um don't know if you actually know the answer to this, but if they were to build on top of that slab, what year would it be the new house? The 1960s or 2025? You mean the if they built to the foundation over over that foundation? Yeah. If they if because that was kind of one of the only things that was left was the foundation. Um so yeah, if they were to build to it, it would be that 15 foot setback. So basically there would be foundation left over if they had to build to the current standards since it'd have to be 20 ft instead of 15. But what year would it be that house that is built on? The appraisal district. The appraisal district I'm sure would make it new. Is that your question? what how they would tag it at the appraisal district. Yeah. Oh, sorry.

Yeah, I guess everything's going to be new about it. Mhm. Yeah, there's nothing left. So,

I would uh you know, the house has been there since 1950. That's 70 years. Um 70 75 years whenever it was built in the 50s. But it's not been an issue in the last 70 75 years. So, uh, I would I would I would support this. Any other questions? No. Well, that's the last of our individual items. Are there any future agenda items anybody wants to bring up for putting on the agenda some point down the road? No. In that case, the work session is adjourned at 700 p.m. and we will start up at about 10 minutes in the other room. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music]