Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll call the meeting to order for the zoning board of adjustments on November the 6th of 2025. Welcome everyone here. Uh our regular chairperson and our vice chairperson are both absent. I hope they're doing something fine. I have no idea where they are or what they're doing, but I'm the secretary and I'll be filling in tonight. Um, we um did I say the time? I think I did. 601. If I did, Lawrence, you correct me. Okay. Okay. Uh, we do have a quorum tonight. Welcome to everyone. The uh first order of business will be to introduce the agenda and the format of the meeting we'll have tonight. We'll have a uh opportunity for the public to or staff to present their case and the public uh the applicants to present their case tonight and then we'll let anyone in the audience who's filled out a green sheet identification paper, they'll have their opportunity at that point to make a statement as necessary. Okay, that's first thing let's do is approve the minutes of the meeting of October the 2nd of 2002. Do I have a motion to do so?

Make a motion to approve the ZBA meeting minutes from October 2nd, 2025. I'll second. All right, minutes are approved. Well, I guess we ought to have the vote. Yeah, we're not going to have an objection. All those in favor of approving the uh minutes of the

October 2nd meeting, please raise your hand. I think we can call that unanimous. Okay, I'm going to ask uh before we do anything further than that, we have four votes here. I'm going to ask our legal council if they will make a brief statement and explain what the difference is between having four members voting versus five members voting. What does that mean as far as the uh vote count is concerned?

Glad to help with that. So, uh, for tonight, any item will need to be a unanimous vote, um, affirming or approving the situation. All the applicants have been advised that if they wanted to pull an item because they don't have the ability to have any no votes tonight, uh, they are welcome to do so. And all applicants have advised that they would prefer to move forward with tonight's issues.

Thank you, sir. All right, let's go ahead uh and take a look at what we have on tonight's agenda. Uh we have two issues that we'll be voting on. The first one is consideration and possible action of VAZ 2025-0458. This is a special exception to allow the reconstruction of a nonconforming building which has been damaged beyond 50% of its replacement costs. Uh the general location well legal description I'm supposed to say is in lot one block one in the final plat of Green Tea Terrace section 4. Uh the general location is 2138 Country Club Drive in Perland, Texas. Okay. Do we have a staff report?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. Tonight the request is to allow a special for a special exception to allow the reconstruction of a non-conforming building which has been damaged beyond 50% of its replacement cost. This structure was and is proposed to be replaced in the same location of the same footprint within a 25- foot required side setback uh or front setback technically because it is on a secondary frontage. The total area of the accessory structure further exceeds the 5% of the total lot area and 50% of the square footage of the livable area of the residence on the premises. Accessory structures are required to be um on smaller lots in our regular zoning districts are required to either be um less than 5% of the total lot area or 50% of the livable area of the primary structure whichever is greater. We have received one written comment and two phone calls requesting more information. Um this site was posted in accordance with our unified development code. The properties is located here at the corner of Country Club and Golf Crest Golf Crest Drive. Um you can see it circled in red here. Behind the property is the extr territorial extr territorial jurisdiction. Um which also is residential lots. So it is surrounded on all sides within the city limits by R1 and outside of city limits by residential properties as well. You can see the same here. It is identified on our comprehensive plans um future land use map as traditional residential and ETJ behind. I've grayed out a bit that extr territorial jurisdiction properties. Um but as you can see there is an undeveloped lot kind of caddy corner to it and then everything else surrounding it is single family residential. Say it a few more ways. Um this the history of this site it was

annexed into the city in 1970. It was platted as a portion of the Green Tea Terrace section 4 subdivision in 1987. The residential structure and that detached garage were constructed in 1992 and then in 2008 the pool was constructed. Um the the garage was burned down earlier this year. So you can see from the site plan, this is the location of that primary structure. It's the L-shaped building here and there is the pool deck and pool directly behind it which um precludes it from being able to be moved back in its same footprint but behind um and the foundation would would need to be relocated as well. The red line shows approximately that 25 ft setback. The house is sitting 27 feet from the side property line here and then the garage is sitting at 19t 7 in. So, the footprint of that garage in its current location, um they're proposing to rebuild on the same footprint with the same structure just um without [clears throat] the the fire. So you can see here that this would be approximately 62% of the primary structure or 9% of the total lot area with the way that it's currently proposed at 891 square ft which that would be if they were to build it in alignment with the code for the size it would need to be um 717 square feet which would be that 50% of the primary structure because that would be the greater greater dimension. The picture on the left is from Google Maps is a view from 2022 because that is the image that Google Maps has available for us. And obviously um following the picture on the right, it does not look the same. Here are some additional photos of that structure following the fire showing that this structure has been um destroyed for greater than 50% of the value of replacement of the structure.

This first one you can see they're standing actually in the primary residence looking towards the garage just to to provide clarification. Um and then this is the structure here you can see from both sides. The criteria for granting a special exception are found in section 2737 of our unified development code. And this aligns with the fourth criteria of section B, which is to allow the reconstruction of a non-conforming building which has been damaged to the extent of more than 50% of its replacement cost. The special exception request meets that criteria for um to allow it to be re rebuilt in its current configuration. Um and it is being proposed to be rebuilt without expanding the nonconformity. it would be in the same location and is located at the end of a dead-end road which only provides access to this garage and the garage access for one other residential structure. So you can kind of see that here on the um aerial image where there's the access to the garage here and then this is the access to the garage across the street and it deadends here. So this is closed off with Ballards and it is outside of this developments this development's boundary. So it is unlikely that that road is to be opened um at least at this time. With that staff recommends approval of this requested special exception to allow for the reconstruction of the non-conforming structure. Um, just to get ahead of the questions that we may have tonight, um, there were questions that were provided from public comment in the written public comment related to the codes which would need to be addressed. Those are not something that the zoning board of adjustment looks at. However, our building code official does and any new construction does need to be rebuilt to current code. So, the electric that's put back into any structure that would be put in the space

would need to be in compliance with the current ordinance requirements and current um building code standards, not those of the original structures date. So, no structure that is rebuilt will be built to old code. It would all need to be up to current standards. Um, and that in staff report. Thank you very much. Is there an applicant presentation tonight? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Have you filled out a uh little yellow sheet of paper? As the applicant, your name, sir. As the applicant, he doesn't need to fill out the form, but he will need to come to the podium to speak.

Okay. Yes, sir. If you have a presentation, would like to speak about what you're asking, go to the podium where there's a microphone, please. You don't have to. You're not required to. If Okay. Okay. No, no applicant presentation, right? Okay. Uh, anyone else would like to speak for or against the applicants application.

Sir, if you s if you wanted to make a statement, we'll need to go to the podium, please. U and if we could be sure to get your name and address when you get up there. You got it. Okay. And what was your name, sir? My name is Ralph Anderson. I live at 2131 Country Club Drive. And the last name is Anderson. Is that correct? Yes. Is that correct? Anderson was Yes. Thank you. Right ahead, sir. if you would please uh let's limit uh your conversation tonight up to three minutes.

Oh, it's just a question. Um you address the uh electrical codes uh or the wind uh codes for structures going to be current codes as well. Okay, that's really good. And uh I I understand now from what you just said about the uh out of compliance, has it been that way since 92? Somebody address that for me. Why is it a problem now? If I could just uh interject and say that while anybody is welcome to ask questions and anybody is welcome to provide testimony at this point to the proceeding all the ZBA is able to do is receive questions. If a member of the ZBA wants to carry that question forward during their discussion item they could ask additional questions of staff or the applicant. In other words, we're not allowed to have a dialogue the way that the Open Meetings Act is set up and the way that Robert rules work. You can't have a dialogue with members of the public. All right. Anything else, Mr. Anderson? All right. Thank you very much. Anyone else would like to ask questions or make a presentation or comments? All right. We'll move into our staff and well I guess uh our board the members of our our uh land today. Uh anyone have any questions or comments or questions to present? All right. Well, I have one I wanted to ask staff if I could. I think I heard you say that the footprint will be identical to what the new construction will be, right? We're not increasing the size.

That is correct. It would be rebuilt in the same location but to all current code. Okay. Including electrical and wind. Sneak it in. Okay. The to the staff, the gentleman's question was, "Why is that a concern?" Now, I think I could answer that question, but I'm going to stay out of that. So I'll ask you all the question.

I would be happy to answer. So the reason that it is a um challenge at this time, it has been in the same configuration since 1992 when it was originally constructed. Um once a structure is destroyed beyond 50% of the replacement value, that structure must come into compliance with our ordinance unless a special exception is granted to allow it to be rebuilt in its current configuration. Um as is the request of tonight's application. So, while the structure, if for example, um the wind blew off half the shingles, that would not be 50% of the replacement cost. And so, that repair work could be done on the non-conforming structure to bring it back. And that work would still need to be compliant with current code. Anything you touch needs to be built to current code, but it would not need to be in compliance with our um standards for a new structure because it would be repairing the current structure. So, it would meet building code, wind code, electric code, all of those, but it would not need to shrink the size of the building. I would add to that uh Commissioner Aayoka that um as staff has said it was a nonconforming use which means that when it was built non-conforming structure when it was built it conformed it complied with the code in 1992 since 1992. The code changed and that's what makes it a nonconformity. So, we're holding them to the standard that was applicable when it was originally built. Well, through the ZBA's action, if you grant this, you're actually holding them to the standard that was built then saying that it's okay.

Yeah. And the footprint it's built in, but this building is brought up to current building standards. Just for clarification for the audience. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions, comments? uh from the All right. If none if there are no more questions or comments or discussion, we'll move into the vote. Um and let's see. Done. I'll go ahead. Okay. I make a motion to approve VAZ 2025 0458 as presented. Is there a second? I'll second it.

Have a motion. And seconded. So we'll vote now. All those in favor to approve VAZ2025458 as presented, please raise your right hand. All right, the motion is passed by vote of four to zero. And that concludes our uh hearing on that particular motion. We have one more to consider tonight and that's uh let's see VAZ 2022 0337. Oh, I remember this one. Okay.

All right. Good evening, commissioners again or board members again. If you introduced the case, I'm so sorry.

It's okay. All right. Let me let me we'll read this for the record anyway. Uh this is an extension request for ZBA application number EAZ 2025-0337. Uh it's a request by the applicant on behalf of uh 2011 Property Inc.'s owner for approval of an extension of an already approved variance as permitted by the UN United UNI unified development code. Easy for me to say. Um, ordinance number 2000-T to reduce the required 30foot setback for parking and maneuvering areas within the port corridor door overlay district section 2.51 C2. And that's the general location is the northwest corner of Broadway Street in Yast Boulevard. And if you walked out in the street here and went one mile east, that's where we're talking about. We probably some of us drove past that on the way way here to the meeting tonight. So we'll have u staff's presentation, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tonight's request is, as was read into the record, an extension of an approved variance. So the request tonight is just for the extension of that. The original request was for the reduction of a third required 30-foot setback for parking and maneuvering areas within the corridor overlay district. It was approved September 4th of this year. I've included for your reference the aerial and zoning map as well as the notification map, the future land use map which is labeled as notification map here. I apologize. A variance shall expire 90 days from the date that the variance was approved unless a building permit has been submitted for the city within that period. The challenge with that is that um in this case, well, the variance is set to expire on December 4th of 2025. The challenge with this site is that the variance is required in order to um make their site function with the use that they're proposing. Um but in addition to that, a conditionally use permit is required which has to be reviewed by the planning and zoning commission and then approved by city council. And then the site will need to be replplatted since there was a um right-of-way change that um they acquired some property that needs to be replplatted into their current lot. So that is a set timeline that we have which will put them very close to that timeline. Um the applicant has submitted that conditional use permit. It was recommended by staff for approval and then the planning commission recommended approval as well with a vote of five to zero and it is on the agenda for the November 10th or slated to be agenda for city council. So um they are moving forward with their conditional use permit if that is approved. The site will need to be replplatted due dyance of right ofway and then um a building permit cannot be issued until after that replplot has taken place. So there's an order of operations in place that um is pushing them very close to that December

deadline, which is why they are requesting the extension. The ZBA may extend a variance for up to one year from the original approval date. Staff believes that the applicant has shown good cause and demonstrated their intent to pursue that building permit through their submittal of this conditional use permit. They'll be on the Monday agenda. and staff recommends approval of the extension from the expiration date of the variant from the approval date of the variance which would be September 4th of 2026 and I will put that just as a so it does not move anything that's in staff's report

thank you and Mike I'm reading uh top line of your screen that's shown on the computer here it says um you recommend it Am I correct? The city recommends approval of this. Getting head nods. Okay. Well, that that's that's really what I wanted to find out. Um, out of curiosity, legal, can I ask you a question? Should I wait?

I think it would be best to see if there's an applicant presentation. And even though we all can look out in the lobby and see that there may not be anybody from the public to do it, the recording does not reflect that. So ask for that first and then ask questions. Do we have anyone wishing to speak on our behalf? Okay, there's our answer there. All right, we're going to our staff and commission discussion. Mr. Chair, did you request for the applicant presentation as well as public comment?

Well, you're right. Applicant is not here. Correct. Applicant is here. Did you and you didn't want to have a no presentation? Applicant says no presentation today. All right. Then ask for public comment. Ask for public comment. I think he already covered the public comment part. We're good. Yeah. Is there anyone in the public who wishes to make a comment? Thank you. All right. There being none, now we'll move into our our board and uh staff conversations or questions if we have any. Anyone have a question comments?

We've done this before for other so I don't see any reason. Yeah, I don't have any problem with it personally. Okay. All right. Uh, I'm going to ask, do we just get as an applicant, do they just get one bite of the apple where they get to extend it one time? Is that it? Up to one year. Up to one year.

Well, you can what? Do that four times, three times. 90 days would be four times. So the initial approval is for 90 days and then there's one extension to get it to the full year. After that typically we see people make their application for building permits. I believe the code would let you resubmit after the initial one year. Just a comment. I noticed of the possible motions to make the variance. The third one says make a motion. Excuse me. Sorry. Uh the first one just says extension as presented. Uh didn't I see one of the slides? Yes, I didn't. Had a slide in one of those things that it said will start the uh Here it is. Extend the application variance to September the 4th of 2026. That's when we heard the first that's when we heard the first uh applicants.

Yes, Mr. Chair. It's from the the original approval date. The original. Okay. Well, personally, my opinion is we ought to use that date of September 4th instead of November the 6th. But what do y'all think? I think whatever staff says it should be is what it should be. I mean, I don't know you the the ordinance language is from the original approval date, the original application date. So, it's October.

Well, I've just I've thankfully been corrected. It's not November the 6. This is October the 6th, not November the 6th. So anyway, that be that would be my suggestion or at least that's my thinking on whether how we approve if we approve this motion. All right, being no more questions or conversations.

I apologize if I got confused on that one. Uh, I I think that if you use the top motion by operation of law and in compliance with the UDC deadlines, that's going to allow the application to move forward a full one-year period from when it was approved. So, if you use today's date, you would be giving the applicant more time because it would include the original approval to today plus another year, which would be contrary to the authority that you're authorized to allow inside the UDC. Okay. Well, that that accomplishes what I'd like to accomplish.

Okay. Uh D, you're going to make a motion. I'll second it.

Any comments or discussion? Anything else? All right. All those in favor of the application as presented, raise your right hand, please. All right. Motion has passed four to zero. The applicant is extension is approved. I don't think we've got any other business here. That's it for tonight. So, the time is uh if my clock is right, is 6:27 p.m. And that ends the zoning board of adjustments meeting on nove uh October the 6th. November 6th, November 6, but we're with you. It is November. Yeah.

I can't get away from October. That's it. You're trying to get