Christopher Austria, Trey Qualls, Haiwan Kim.

At this time, we will do elections for a presiding chair.

Do we have any nominations?

Trey can alternate members serve as presiding chair.

Since since she's here, she can.

Okay.

Just just to make sure it's clear, we're only doing this for this meeting because we don't have a chair or vice chair.

So you're not having to you're not becoming the new chair.

Um I thought you might that might get some more uh interest in.

Okay.

Do we have any other nominations?

Board member free.

Do you accept the nomination?

Um in favor, aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

Ayes have it.

Board member free.

Will you please call this meeting to order?

We have the new announcement.

Yes.

Okay.

And the date of today is the 17th.

18th.

Okay.

Okay.

This is the 18th of February 2026, and this board of adjustment meeting will now come to order.

I welcome everyone to the board of adjustment.

This board is a citizen board appointed by the city council.

By state law, a minimum of nine members or alternate members must be present to provide a quorum in order to conduct business.

Today we have quorum with nine members present.

The meeting agenda can be found online at www.fortworthtex.gov.

Speaker registration form for cases on today's agenda should have been turned in prior to the start of today's session.

Today's public hearing will be documented by cable television and video conference recording, which is available on the city's website.

To facilitate an orderly meeting, I'm asking everyone in council chambers to turn off the audible alarms on your electronic devices at this time.

We will not be distracted during our meeting.

Can I continue from here?

Okay.

Each case will be called in sequence listed on the agenda unless otherwise directed by me, the chair.

The board of adjustment requires the following rules of procedure be respected.

Each case will be introduced by the City of Fort Worth Development Services Department.

After presenting the facts of the case, the Board of Adjustment members will have the opportunity to question city staff about the case and any applicable laws or regulations that might apply.

This portion of the discussion is exclusively between city staff and board members.

As your case is being called, we ask that you move to the front row.

You will have seven minutes to present the facts of your case and why you believe your application meets the criteria for approval.

If more than one person is presenting the case, it is necessary to divide the total time of seven minutes among all parties so that you do not exceed the allotted time.

After the applicant has presented their case, I will call for any opposition to call come forward.

Um in the event that there's the opposition time will also be allocated seven minutes, and if there are multiple people here to present, that will be divided among those speakers.

If the opposition is presented, the applicant will then have a three-minute rebuttal time.

The chair can be allowed a few more minutes on the presentation to ensure that all the speakers' final points are made.

After the parties have presented their positions, the board members will then have the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant and any um opposition.

During this time, all speakers must remember that all the dialogue is directed to the board of adjustment only and not to other parties.

There's no time limit on this portion of the meeting.

After the board members have received answers to the questions, I will close the public portion of the board of the hearing, and board members can discuss the case among ourselves and city staff to determine whether or not an application meets or does not meet the criteria for approval.

After this discussion, I will ask for a motion to approve, deny, or continue.

Um city staff will call for a voice vote from each member.

If an application is denied, the applicant will have 10 days in which to appeal to the court of appropriate jurisdiction for more information on this and additional information on any case on today's agenda.

You may contact the board of adjustment at 817-392-8026 after this meeting.

If necessary, a closed executive session may be held with respect to the posted agenda items to enable the board of adjustment to receive advice from legal staff.

The first order of business is the approval of the minutes from January 2026, and we are open for a motion to approve.

I make a motion to approve the minutes as noted.

Okay.

Do we have a second?

Okay.

We have it.

We have a motion by board member Jana Herrera and a second by board member Garza.

Okay.

Board member Jim Witten.

Aye.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board Member Bob Riley.

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board Member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board Member Juan Manuel Acosta.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Um, so can we call the first case?

Yes, um, board member freed.

I would just like to make one um note to the members of the public and the applicants.

So right now we only have nine members present.

That is a quorum of members in which we are able to conduct the public hearing.

All um decisions by the board, if we'll need an affirmative vote um from every board member here, we'll need an affirmative vote in order for your um case to be approved.

Um, and if anyone does not um agree, then the case will be denied.

So we just want to make that note for members of the public to understand.

If you so choose to, you can ask the board member for consideration of a continuance to the next meeting in which we hope to have 11 members present.

The first case today before us is um case BAC-25-045.

The address of the property is 5151 and 5159 Greenley Street.

I do want to also make a note to the board that we have been asked um to continue this case on behalf of the applicant.

He has a family emergency in which he's not able to attend the public hearing today, and he asked us to ask for a continuance on on his behalf.

Is it possible since he asked for a continued continuance?

Is it possible we can move this to the end of the docket and hear a case that uh applicant this here at this moment versus listening to this case and this applicant has already asked for a continuance and is not here?

Yes, ma'am.

Board member free, would you like um can would you like to make a motion to table this case until the end of the agenda?

Yes.

Okay, I'd like to make a motion for BAC 25045 to be tabled until the end of the meeting.

Okay, do we have a second?

Aye.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion by board member Lucretia Powell to table this case until the end of the hearing, and a second by board member Juan Emmanuel Costa.

Board member Jim Witten.

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

I'm sorry, board member Jim Witten.

That was a yes.

Yes.

Okay.

If you want, you can move your microphone to the tabletop.

If board member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board member Sandra King?

Yes.

Board Member Kay Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera.

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member Deborah Free?

Yes.

The motion passes.

This case will be moved to the end of the agenda.

Okay.

In that case, let's listen to the next one.

Our next case is BAR-25-131.

We have a similar situation, Scott.

Uh yes.

So case BAR25131.

It the address is 4929 FitzU Avenue.

The owner is Minnie Stein, and the applicant is Sharon Douglas.

Uh the property is zoned A5, one family residential district.

Um Scott, can I sorry?

Can we give the message from the property owner that you received this morning?

And the board can decide if they want to table this one too until the end of the agenda.

Okay.

Um, so we had uh numerous emails last night after the late correspondence uh was given to you.

And the I did speak or I reached out to the applicant this morning and received an email requesting that we deny the request without prejudice.

And um the applicant is not present here with us today.

So what you're recommending is we go ahead and table this so that we can move forward people who are okay.

We don't want to waste your time.

Do we have a motion to table?

Do we need a motion or can the chair just call a change in the agenda?

It is within the discretion of the chair to reschedule.

So we'll take a motion, or if the chair so we'll just move this to the end of the agenda so that we don't waste anybody else's time.

That's good.

So case BAR 25-131 has been moved to the end of the agenda as well.

Our next case is um BAC 26-002.

The address of the property is 10901 South Hewland Street and 4885 Cleburne Crawley Road.

Scott.

Yes, and to continue on, the owner is series 3880 Hewland Building Series of Fort Worth Investment Group LLC.

The applicant is Edward Sign Service, the uh and Chris Edwards.

The property is zoned e neighborhood commercial, and the uh the property has a uh pending uh replat of lot 45 block one Longhorn Estates and is a surveyed uh currently a surveyed property.

The applicant is seeking two special exceptions to allow a monument sign with electronic changeable copy in a commercial zoning district located on the northern property line and on the western property line.

The subject property is a vacant 2.9 acre lot located on the southeast corner of Cleburne Crowley Road and South Hewland Street in a newly developing neighborhood.

The site has a slope of 2.1% from the lowest point on the northeastern corner to the southwestern corner of the property.

It does not currently contain mature trees and is not located within a floodplain.

The property is zoned e neighborhood commercial and is proposed to be used as a convenience store and a gas station.

There is a final short plat for convenience store and a uh future development in review, um, and a zoning case that was approved in 2022 from unzoned extra extraterritorial jurisdiction to uh a five and e zoning uh for the entire property, and of course, this particular parcel is again zoned E neighborhood commercial.

There are currently a number of signs that uh have uh permits for signs that have been issued and uh final two that are awaiting the outcome of this case.

The applicant is requesting two special exceptions to allow electronic changeable copy on monument signs in a commercial zoning district.

The city code states that section 6.411A electronic changeable copy signs may be permitted by special exception of the board of adjustment in commercial industrial mixed use and community facility zoning districts, subject to certain conditions.

Those are the presence of other electronic changeable copy signs in the vicinity, the visibility from residential districts, the street classification of the adjacent roadways, and the proximity to scenic areas or corridors.

There are no other electronic changeable copy signs in the vicinity, as the first criteria.

The second criteria there is an adjacent residential neighborhood to the south, um, as you can see from the the photograph on the bottom.

Cleburne Crowley Road and South Hewlin Street are both neighborhood connectors, and the site is not within a scenic area or corridor.

The closest scenic corridor is the Chisholm Trail Parkway to the west.

The special exception request is to allow electronic changeable copy on two monument signs in a commercial zoning district.

The proposed monument signs comply with the maximum allowable area.

The proposed total sign size is uh for both signs, they are each 92 square feet.

The advertised area is 49.92 square feet.

The ECC portion of the sign is seven square feet, so the requested percentage is 14.03, where the maximum allow allowable is 25 percent.

Here are the special looks uh the uh regulations for electronic changeable copy.

And I am available for questions.

Thank you.

Does anybody have questions regarding this?

I've got one.

Um you put up this the list of the sign applications.

So how many total signs are they requesting in addition to these two changeable copy signs?

So these I counted 10 total, and does that include are two of those 10 for changeable copy?

So I uh I'm I'm not I did not do the review of those other signs, so I'm not sure whether the whether each of those permits are separate ones you might be able to uh ask the applicant.

Applicant that question.

Okay, but the last two that are still in the waiting climb reply are for the request for changeable copy.

The other ones has been issued already, and the applicant would be able to respond best to this, um, but I would assume it's their attached signs that they currently have on on the building.

Okay.

No other questions for staff?

Okay, if the applicant will step forward and present your case.

Thank you.

You've got seven minutes.

Are you the only person presenting?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Well, I'm Chris Edwards, Edwards Sign Service.

So he's pretty much laid it all out.

Uh we meet all those uh all the sign criteria.

So basically we're here to ask for special permission for the uh two monument signs, and I'm available for any questions that you may have.

Okay.

All right, we'll get to that.

Um is that all you would like to say at this time?

You've got lots more time.

Uh that's pretty much uh it.

I mean, it's uh um basically we're just asking for the special permission.

Like I said, uh the signs do make uh all of the sign criteria and everything, and so that's we're just going through the motion uh to to ask for the permission for the LED changeable copy.

It's not a reader board, it won't be a constant message, it's just going to be numbers just changing out, you know, the price of fuel.

Okay, awesome.

Thank you.

Um, is there anybody here to speak in opposition to this case?

That being said, um we will now open it up so that if there are any questions from the board members for the applicant.

I've got one.

Um we see obviously this all the time for pricing, and it's uh it is a much more efficient way and safe way to change pricing.

My question is why are two required at this site?

Um this is just for the two different entrances because you've got traffic going this way and this way, and it's just normally as a norm uh 711 likes to have the signs at each entrance into the property.

Okay, so is it possible to show us where those are, where they will be on the site plan?

I believe if you look the so the F2.

You are able to use your finger to draw on the screen in front of you.

Board member frit the locations photo signs are labeled A and B in the green box.

Oh, thank you.

That's very helpful.

So one along Cleburn Crawley Road and one along South Hewland Road.

Okay.

So we're if you were coming down, excuse me.

Can you speak into the microphone?

I'm sorry.

Yes.

So the the reason being is you've got two different entrances, and so if I was coming this way here, this way, uh the buildings there, and so I wouldn't even see the other signs.

So basically that's you know, as a norm, what they like to do is have a sign at each entrance, and it is like I said, it does meet code requirement.

Okay.

So both of these streets are major arterial streets.

Is that correct?

These are neighborhood commercial excuse me.

That was on the it was on there, I'm sorry.

They're neighborhood connectors.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any other questions for the applicant?

All right, if you would just take a seat, stay nearby, and I'll close the public portion.

Are there any discussions among the board members?

I don't have a problem with the with this petition.

Okay.

Any other comments?

If that's the case, does anybody have a motion?

I'd like to make a motion for BAC 2602.

Second.

As requested by the applicant.

It's requested by the applicant.

Thank you.

And second.

Okay, we have a motion by board member Garza to approve this case as requested by the applicant and a second by board member Locretia Powell.

Board member Jim Wheaton?

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board Member Lacretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member Kay Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Acosta.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Um congratulations and uh best wishes to you.

Okay.

Can we call the next case?

Oh.

Yes.

So we take over as chair.

Is that work?

Yes.

Yeah.

So our vice chair or the official vice chair is joined.

Would you like to take over?

Okay, Noki.

Thank you.

All right, Steph.

If you would please uh present the next case to us.

Good morning, Chair and members of the board.

The next case on the agenda is BAC 26-004.

The property is located at 5324 and 532 and 5340 and 5346 and 5334 Trail Lake Drive.

The property owner is Cajeta Corp Incorporated, and the applicant is Stephanie Bar uh Barbiet.

The site is zone PD 978 with the MU-1, low intensity mixed use designation, and it's currently developed and operating as a gas station.

The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow a monument sign with electronic changeable copy in the mixed use zoning district.

The sign is proposed along the northwestern portion of the property adjacent to Wengemont Circle North.

Electronic changeable copy signs are allowed in mixed use districts by special exception, provided that they meet the standards outlined in section 6.41 of the zoning ordinance.

The subject property is a 13,432 square foot corner lot located north of Trail Lake Drive and east of Wedgemont Circle.

It has a minimal slope, no mature trees, and is not located within a floodplain or scenic corridor.

The adjacent zoning includes A-5, one family residential to the south, and PD 978 MU-1 to the east and west.

Trail Lake Drive and Wedgemont Circle are both classified as local roads under the master thoroughplay plant plan.

There have been several prior signed permits on this property that have expired, as well as recent monument sign reface application that is currently awaiting a response from the applicant, which is pending the outcome of this case.

The city code states in section 6.41.

A electronic changeable copy signs may be permitted by special exception of the Board of Adjustments in commercial industrial mixed use and community facilities zoning districts, subject to the following conditions.

One, the presence of other electronic changeable copy signs in the vicinity.

There is no presence of other electronic changeable copies in this vicinity.

Two, the visibility from residential districts.

This property is adjacent to a residential neighborhood to the south.

Three, the street classification of the adjacent roadways roadways.

Trail Lake Drive and Wedgemont Circle is classified as local roads.

And four, the proximity to scenic areas or corridors.

There is no scenic areas or corridors located near the property.

This is the proposed elevations.

The sign has a total area of 67.33 square feet, includes the ECC portion of 3.48 square feet.

And this means approximately 5.9% of the sign space is devoted to electronic changeable copy, which is well below the 25% maximum allowed by ordinance.

The applicant is also required to provide a minimum non-advertised area.

The minimum required is 12.46 square feet, and the applicant is providing 17.51 square feet.

So the standard is met, and staff notes that that proposal will be required to meet all other applicable development regulations.

These are the regulations that pertain to this case.

And this concludes staff's presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Does anyone have questions for staff before we hear from the applicant?

Yeah, I I have yes, Miss Duffy.

Tell me about the minimum non-advertised area.

Why why have we never discussed that before?

We've included it in our past presentation.

It's not something new.

No.

Okay.

Anything else?

All right.

That being the case, I'll call the applicant forward, please, to present your case.

Thank you.

If you've given us your name and address, yeah, just move it to right.

You have to go right into it.

I need a boost of seats.

Good morning.

My name is Mia Johnnazi.

I represent Romy.

Romy is the company that will actually put the sign in.

Um at this location.

I have a question for you guys.

One second.

Can you move the microphone down a little bit further?

If you've been the tip of it, it would you like I printed out packets of what you see?

Do you want them?

Do you have enough for each board member and one to share with the I have seven?

No.

No.

Um if you give Emily one, we can display it on the screen.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um we are not putting in a new monument, and we're not putting in anything that is going to be extended or bigger.

It's and we are reutilizing the same LED that are present right now.

So we are refacing, and it's gonna just look a little bit better and a little bit nicer.

Um there are no drastic changes for the lighting, is going to be basically the same kind of light there is before.

And it does not change constantly.

Okay.

Did you have anything else to add for your seven minutes?

Or is that it?

Um I'm good.

I just need to know if you need if you guys need anything.

Well, we'll get to that point.

Thank you.

Uh, is there any here?

Anybody here to speak in opposition to this case?

Wonderful.

That being the case, then uh we're now to the point where we can ask questions of the applicant if anybody has any.

I have a question, just more for more for clarity.

Um you're lightning up the sign, and is it now electronic where the cost of the per gallon would be?

Does it look like there's a whole lot of change?

The okay.

The change they use is not a lot.

You you are absolutely correct.

They are refacing, I don't know why.

Um Texaco is going from black to gray, and the the black part that is on your left side of the paper, it's a bit bigger and it has manual slots on the top.

It will not have that anymore, and it's just printed out, the self-service, and then it's a little bit smaller.

We are reutilizing the same LED that they're inside, they're just gonna move up a little, and is just the price of the gas, nothing else.

Thank you.

So it looks like there's a logo change, and you're somewhat the colors of the logo facilitating that with the new techron or whatever they're adding to it.

Yes, okay.

All right, any other questions for the applicant?

That being the case, I'll close the public portion.

We may have a seat nearby.

Any discussion or comments.

I don't see any.

If that's the case, then do we have a motion?

I can make a motion.

Make a motion to approve BAC 26-004 as written.

Sound a second.

Ms.

Duffy.

Can you speak into the I said it?

Second.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And could we have a roll call, please?

Yes, we have a motion to approve case BAC-26-004 as requested by the applicant.

The motion was made by board member Jana Herrera and seconded by board member K Duffy.

Board member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member Kay Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Juan Emmanuel Acosta.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Fried?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Congratulations and best wishes to you.

So could we call the next case, please?

B A R 26001.

The next item on the agenda is case B AR-26-001.

The property is located at 2628 Townsend Drive.

The property owner is Kyle Limmerman and the applicant is Brian Lemmerman.

The property is zoned 8-5, one family district within the TCU residential overlay.

The applicant is requesting a variance to the A-5 development standard that requires two parking spaces for a three-bedroom home to be located behind the front building wall.

The request is to allow both required parking spaces to be located in front of the front building wall, specifically within the driveway.

The subject property is a 6,250 square foot rectangular interior lot located in an established neighborhood.

The primary structure was built in 1952 and has alley access.

The property does not contain significant slope, is not located within floodplain and does not have environmental constraints.

There are several mature trees located in the rear yard.

There was a previous council initiated zoning change affecting the area to change the zoning district to 8-5.

The applicant is proposing to provide the required two parking spaces entirely within the driveway in front of the home regarding the driveway coverage.

The driveway paving measures 446 square feet.

However, to meet development standards, the driveway approach must be widened to a minimum of 11 feet, and this correction must be made prior to the issuance of any permits.

The property is also located within the TCU residential overlay district.

The purpose of this overlay is to preserve existing single-family residential uh neighborhoods and regulate uses that may be inconsistent with the area's original character.

No more than three unrelated persons may occupy a single dwelling unit unless registered as a non-conforming use prior to March 31st of 2015.

And the applicant will be required to submit a signed acknowledgement with the permit application, confirming that no more than three unrelated persons will reside at the property at any given time.

Under section 4.705 for the A-5 district, parking standards require two spaces behind the front building wall for homes with three or fewer bedrooms.

If the variance is approved, the applicant will be required to apply for building permits and all other applicable development standards and regulations must be met.

And this concludes staff presentation and I'm available for any uh questions.

Thank you.

Um board members, does anyone have questions for staff before we hear from the applicant?

Is the um alley accessible to the property in this situation?

I believe so, but that's a question for an applicant.

The applicant the alley does not appear just from group Google areas, it does not appear to be um improved.

The applicant will have to improve the alley um to their property um in order to utilize it for rear access.

So I I guess I had a question, and um you said that they would be required to widen um, I guess it's the driveway approach.

The can the current ones are not wide enough.

Correct, right here.

It shows measuring eight feet.

Where there it goes.

It measures eight feet to meet standards, it has to be eleven feet.

So that would be a widening of the curb cut.

Correct.

Okay.

Yes, Miss Stephanie.

So you're saying it's eight feet at the street.

Correct.

At the curb cut area.

It doesn't increase to the 16 feet until right about here.

But the entrance would have to be widened to 11, not 16.

Okay.

Correct.

Does the city not do the driveway aprons up to the street?

The driveway is um a separate parkway permit that the applicant will have to apply for.

And um, this requirement is from the transportation public works department.

I have a question.

Yes.

And that the applicant would have to, in other words, would the applicant have to improve the alley all the way from the street it intersects with.

Yes.

I believe so.

I believe he will the applicant will have to improve the alley from the street it intersects with up until their property line.

Thank you.

Any other questions before we hear from the applicant?

Okay.

Thank you, Miss Riots.

Um, if the applicant could step forward and provide us the information as to why you think we should approve this variance.

Hi, my name's Brian Lemmerman.

Um, I'm here for Kyle Limerman, who's my son.

Um I can answer some information about the the curb cut and the we'll get there.

Just right now, just tell us.

Um, so yeah, Kyle purchased this uh house in July, and uh Kyle plays football at TCU.

Uh he's a place kicker.

So looking at his schedule, we knew he couldn't do anything until after the new year.

Um so we had planned to get permits in January, February so he could work on this project in spring, hopefully finish by summer, move in by next season.

Um so he wants to be here.

Um we found this property, and uh it's it's a pretty rough property.

We purchased it, we got the permit to get the power reconnected and put a new panel on it.

Um there's some things in it that I felt were somewhat unsafe.

So we want to redo the electrical, add air conditioning, take those wall gas heaters off and basically upgrade the property.

I'd say it's um on the lower end of the neighborhood.

Um so, but once we started getting into looking at the permanent issues, we noticed that this variance we felt like needed to be taken care of ahead of time.

Um I can say it's very much in company with all the other properties.

Um I think this driveway was put in when the house was built 60 or 70 years ago, and this is how it's been used.

So we're not looking to change anything.

We just want to be within the rules um of what is asked as the um ordinances have changed so that we can do the renovation and not be worried that we're somewhat out of compliance.

Um the the driveway is eight feet.

The curb cut is wider than that.

It it has a pretty wide taper.

So I I'd say it's over 11 easily.

Uh we will we have no problem widening it to um whatever they need it to be.

I think 11 and 16 is is not an issue for us.

Um I did a quick kind of survey of the properties on the street.

So there are 28 houses um on our street that face the street and then the the um block just south of the 26 five are new homes, and the new homes are built with the new standard and the you know garages that face the front, and they have the three parking spaces or two parking spaces.

But if you take those five new homes out there's 23 existing homes in the block and 16 are in the exact same situation we're in.

We just want to make sure that we're set I don't know if those all have variances but um only seven of them actually have parking behind we have us and a lot of the other properties only have five feet between the the property line and the side of the house.

So there's really is no way to get back there we did some work for the power lines to get the trees out in the in the um alleyway to get the new lines run in.

I believe it was the power headman pool I think a tree came down on the power line.

So we had that reconnected I was back there um I don't know if the alleys were used for trash before I don't think they've ever been used for drives um they have mature trees in them their gas lines back there the meters are back there.

I don't know that it's possible to develop them for to finish that out for a driveway.

I I think that would be great.

I love alleys um I just don't I don't see that being possible um so we would like to just keep it as is just use it the way it's been for the last 60 years.

But we'll widen the drive we'll relandscape it um but uh we're just looking for variance and then when I look at the the criteria I think this meets all five of the criteria um it wasn't something that we we put in place we didn't change anything um I don't it fix I don't think it affects the neighbors um they all are basically in the same situation um so but um ready for questions okay we'll get there thank you okay is there anybody here to speak in opposition okay and staff I did notice we had a letter of opposition yes we did receive a letter of opposition it was shared with everyone in a late correspondent okay all right since where there's no opposition if you'll just take a seat we're gonna discuss um or wait before you take a seat does anybody have any questions for the applicant I do thank you yes um you mentioned that there are five new properties yes in that neighborhood they look newly built with a newly built the last five years I've and they are used as are they occupied by families or are they occupied given where the property is located by look like family homes to me they I they don't look like homes that would be built for rentals but then again have you two rental I had in college no the type of rental I had in college is way different than what kids have now so but they look like family homes to me.

Okay well looking like family homes doesn't answer my question as to who's actually there.

Yeah I I don't know um they look to me to be four to five bedroom homes um single family homes okay okay any other questions for the app yes hi um so is your son or your family planning on living here or are you going to renovate the home to sell it rent it to TCU students what's what's the end goal so at TCU they they you have to be on campus the first year second year is optional but it's it's growing faster than they have housing so they're gonna want him off campus next year so he has until September.

Now if he needed to stay on campus he could but please stay close to the mic we're having hard sorry his plan is to fix this to live in it and since this this is televised probably shouldn't say but I I think he may end up being married by that point.

So he's really thinking like he needs to get this this done so let's get grabbing yeah so hopefully he's not watching.

So you I didn't hear the end of it so you're saying he would probably rent it out no no he he will be living in it.

Oh he will be yeah so he lives in I can't remember the the housing it's it's I don't know it's on campus off campus it's kind of by the bookstore um so he lives there with one roommate um but he's he bought this to fix it to live in it so he will be in it himself.

Thank you.

I would like to make excuse me one note to the board that there are restrictions within the TCU overlay district and um one of them is no more than three unrelated persons may occupy a single dwelling unit in the TCU residential overlay district.

Yep.

And he we're aware of that, he'll sign something that he can't rent it to somebody and have more than three or three different roommates.

He can't have two roommates with himself, but like I said, I don't I don't think he'll have I think he'll have one roommate personal feeling.

Okay, any other questions?

All right.

If you take a seat but sit close, who knows?

We might have to ask you something else.

But right now I'm gonna close the public portion and it'll open it up for the board to discuss just I've got one question, it might be more of legal.

Um I don't have a problem with this.

I think it's a older neighborhood, still keeps character of the neighborhood.

Um I don't believe the alley was ever intended to be a transport or anything other than for utilities.

But my question is uh if we were to approve this, we're tied to the layout of this house as it is.

It's a site plan that we're working off of.

If for some reason someone in the future comes in and tears the house down, the variance doesn't run with the property in that case.

Great question.

You're saying if they completely remove the the structure, would they still have that variance?

Or or add on to it.

Or add on to it.

Uh I guess it would depend on the addition what that was, but if the house was completely removed, uh that's a good question.

So typically the variances would run with the land, and I understand the applicant is planning to remodel this home, but I'm not sure if the current configuration of the home is what it's intended to be.

Um yeah, that's true.

The variance would normally stay with the property, and I think of the addition as the question that um you know could potentially require another a different variance, I think.

But yeah, traditionally the variance is on the property, not necessarily a structure.

But can we tie it to the roughly um 1200 square feet?

No, I don't think we can limit that.

No.

Uh the variance would, I mean, we're we're giving the variance because of the current structure, you know, doesn't permit the current structure and the size of the lot doesn't permit parking and back.

I mean, there's no way to get there, and since we're not talking about access off the alley.

I mean, I'm you tell me it would seem like if but later if somebody else comes along and tears down the impediment to parking and back, the they'd still have the variance that since but the reason for the variance no longer exists.

I think that's that's a good question.

I I don't know how our our staff would would look at that.

I think at that point if it's completely torn down.

It's a blank slate, they can put the parking wherever at that point.

Yeah, I guess at that point they would be required to get their permits, they would have to meet code at that point.

So yeah, although I guess our our our variances do typically run with a property, I don't know that that contemplates complete leveling of the structure.

Well, that's true.

It does for signs.

You remove a sign.

That's right.

True.

Um there a way that a motion can be made um to expire with the demolition of the existing you could, yeah.

Because they would have to receive a uh a demolition permit in order to you know tear this one down and and reconstruct the a new one.

Yeah, that's true.

We could do that, that would seem to solve no one's concern.

Is it now your intent to demolish this structure at this time?

You you plan to redevelop this current yes structure.

We're not we're not gonna change anything on the property on the building other than just paint upgrade it.

Um but I I have run into this issue before um where we had uh a wall on a property and we were subdividing it, and um the city said, hey, the the wall doesn't meet the setbacks or the the fence, and um when we went back and looked at it, they just said, well, when you go to build or somebody builds in the future, we won't um give the permits until that wall is moved, and then you put uh sidewalk, it didn't have a sidewalk.

So the answer, I guess, would be that you wouldn't approve permits for a new home until it met the standard of the garages and parking spaces for the home, because I assume anybody who built a home would build more than a two-bedroom home, so they're gonna need three plus parking spaces.

So but I've run into that before, and that's that was the answer.

But we're happy to sign something if you need something sign that says it goes away with if the house is demolished or the house is expanded or anything is done to the property.

I wouldn't hold it to the expansion as long as this expansion meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance, but the motion could potentially be tied to um this existing structure um and phrase to where if it's demolished the variance goes away.

Yeah, I think that would work.

All right, thank you.

Great question.

I any other discussion among members.

Yeah, yeah.

I I don't know whether am I allowed to ask the um the owner with regards to the okay.

Let's uh if we want to do that, we'll open up the public hearing again.

Come on forward and okay.

I've heard you mention um upgrades, but I'm not clear what you mean in terms of are they internal, are they external?

I I'm I'm just not clear what you plan to do.

Uh yeah, so the roof looks viable, doesn't look good, so we will reshingle the roof.

Um the siding, we'll get a permit for the siding, because it doesn't look it's a metal siding, it just looks dated.

So we'll go to a a uh uh lating inside when we we put a new panel on because it it literally had um two screw in uh fuses and that was it in the whole home.

To me, it looked like a fire hazard.

Um, and then the heating system was those wall gas ones that you hear about where people fall asleep and then they never wake up.

So we wanted to pull that out and put an HVA system and then the rest it had nice wood floors.

We're just gonna stain them and paint them and um clean it up.

So more safety issues, but outside um we weren't gonna do much other than probably cut the grass and you know plant some flowers.

Uh but we will widen the concrete as much as needed the driveway.

Okay.

Just while we have the applicant up, are there any other questions for the applicant?

I will close the public portion as I said, sit tight.

Okay.

Board members discussion.

I like what was discussed where we tie this variance to this house.

So that was an excellent point brought up.

And I think that motion has should be made in that manner.

Are you ready to do so?

I'll give it a shot.

Uh recommend approval of AR 2001.

Uh for this variance conditioned on non-demolition.

No demolition of the existing site, uh existing structure.

So that the or you could say just the the variance is approved as to this structure only.

Well, I mean, if I want to add on a playroom, because it might be something in the future.

Well, yeah, yeah, yeah.

That's a good point.

I mean, it's so I think that's why the entire structure.

I think that's why the recommendation was that we tie it to the application of a demolition permit.

Right.

So that the this variance would expire upon the demolition of the property.

Is that my motion?

Should we check with our council to see what the proper wording might be?

Just I think I think you can make it um expiring upon a demolition.

If that works.

tie it to the application of a demolition permit correct so that the this variance would expire upon the demolition of the property is that my motion should we make your motion should we check with our council to see what the proper wording might be just I think I think you can make it um expiring upon a demolition if that works you want to just restate it all for uh approve uh BAR uh 2001 for approval 26 or 26 uh 001 um or uh approval until such time a demolition permit requested all right do we have a second second thank you may we have a roll call please yes i have a motion excuse me a motion to approve case bar 26 001 as requested by the applicant tattoo conditions on this variance expiring upon demolition of the current structure the motion made by board member bob riley and second by board member jim witten board member jim witten yes board member serioza yes board member bob riley yes board member james hook yes board member sandra king yes board member sandra king yes board member lacretia powell yes board member k duffy yes board member janorera yes board member one manuel costa yes board member debra free yes the motion passes congratulations and um we won't tell anybody about the upcoming engagement I promise our child thank you very much for any of that thank you so much for coming in appreciate your time okay the next case please our next case is BAR 26-003 the address of the property is 7712 Pensacola Avenue the property owner is Alicia Duran Velas and the property is zoned A5 one family district the applicant is requesting a special exception to allow a carport within the required front yard setback of a residential dwelling the subject property is approximately 9,940 square feet and is located on an interior street within an established neighborhood the lot is relatively flat and it contains several mature trees and is not located within a floodplain there is no alley access and the primary structure was built in 1956 and faces Pensacola Avenue with driveway access there is an active code enforcement case issued in January of 2026 for an illegal carport the property has a history of permits for accessory structures and residential remodel work including windows and a shed construction the applicant is requesting approval for an existing carport that measures approximately 20 feet wide by 20 feet long and 20 feet in height the carport is located within the required front yard setback and encroaches approximately 20 feet into the established front yard with an 18 foot setback from the front property line to the carport.

The structure is positioned to cover the existing concrete driveway which measure measures approximately 16.7 feet wide by 34 feet long and extends from the garage to the front property line there are three other attached car ports on the block face one of which was approved through a reasonable accommodation and regarding lot coverage the existing lot coverage is 24.86% if the carport is approved coverage would increase to 28.88 percent which remains well below the 50% maximum allowed in the A-5 district the applicant will be required to return to the board of adjustments to seek approval for the two parking spaces located behind the front building wall for dwelling units with three or fewer bedrooms the applicant proposes that both required spaces be permitted in front of the front building wall specifically the driveway this is the zoning regulations for this case I want to uh outline under the zoning ordinance private car ports located within the required front yard are only permitted by special exception from the board of adjustments section 5.301 outline standards for the accessory uses on residential lots including private carports when reviewing the front yard carport request the board considers one whether there's a functional garage on the lot to whether there is a viable access to the side or rear yards three the size height and design of the carport and its impact on adjacent properties and four the presence of other carports on the block face if the special exception is approved the applicant will be required to obtain the appropriate permits and comply with all other applicable development standards and this concludes staff's presentation and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you do we have we have questions for staff just hang in there.

Is that generally the case?

On the aerial map.

And there I think they're more towards the end of the street.

But there it when we did conducted our site visits, there are three other carports besides this one.

And were those they're unpermitted.

Unpermitted.

One of them does have a reasonable accommodation, so it is allowed to be there.

So they're unpermitted.

Are they were they existing prior to the introduction of the code?

No.

I believe those have code cases, and they'll more than likely come before you guys as well.

Okay.

So they were also unpermitted when they were constructed.

Correct.

Do you say one of them are permitted?

Yes, one of them has a reasonable accommodation, so it's allowed to be there.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh can you tell us what the reasonable accommodation was?

Can I get an idea?

No, you can't.

No.

Okay, got it.

No other questions for staff before we hear from the applicant.

Okay.

Thank you.

And if the applicant would come forward, please speak into the microphone, give us your name, your address, and why you think this should be approved.

You have seven minutes.

Hi, good morning.

I'm Leslie Gonzalez.

I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Alicia Duran, which is my mother.

She's the owner of the 7712 Pensacola property.

Um, and I'm requesting approval for the variance of a carport.

The purpose of zoning regulations is to promote safety, consistency, and neighborhood character, and I fully support these goals.

However, due to the unique characteristics of the property, specifically the house not including a garage when it was purchased.

Um I see it best to add a carper for the sole purpose of protecting our own vehicles from things like hail and other natural weather and other natural wear inter that would usually be protected by a garage.

Strict application of the audience creates a difficulty that limits the ability to do um to use the property in this way.

The carport we are proposing is modest in size, it's appropriately designed and positioned to minimize any visual or physical impact in the neighborhood or and it doesn't interfere with traffic safety or never negatively affect drainage.

In fact, it actually improves the property by providing covered parking, protecting vehicles from weather, and maintaining a clean and orderly appearance.

This request does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and the structure will be consistent with surrounding homes.

We have made sure it complements the existing design, and to my knowledge, it will not reduce neighboring property values or create a negative impact in the neighborhood.

This request is not about our convenience, but more um of a reasonable use of the property under the circumstances that are unique to our unique to our law, being again um it not having a garage at the time of purchase and not having an alley to park in the back or at the carper in the back.

Um granting the variants would be a big relief to my family and I, and that's really all I have today.

Thank you.

Okay.

Is there anybody here to speak in opposition?

No, staff, we didn't have any opposition letters on this one, did we?

I don't think I saw any okay.

We don't have any.

All right.

So that being the case, um now if you'd just be willing to answer questions from the board.

Yes, ma'am.

Is the carport already built?

It is, yes.

So I want to clarify the the garage was enclosed when you purchased the house.

Yes, it didn't not have a garage, it was demolished before we purchased it.

Okay, other questions.

I do what would be the setback from the property line to the front of the uh carboard that exists today.

I want to say about it, I think it's 16 feet 16 feet.

That was in the staff presentation, wasn't it?

Yes.

Yes, Emily, can you confirm?

It's 18 feet.

18 feet okay.

The normal setback is 20 feet.

Is that correct?

Or structure.

Staff or.

So the typical step setbacks for the residential structure for the A5 zoning district is 20 feet.

However, um it comes into play for if there's a platted building line or an established front yard.

But typical for the zoning district is 20 feet from the the street to the front building wall.

From the property line.

I believe.

Yes, the established front yard would be from the um properties on either side closest to the street.

Yeah.

So it it doesn't fit within that.

But as it relates to the special exception for the carport, um, the special exception is to allow carport in the front yard.

So the factors of the platted build line or uh front yard require setbacks are established setbacks did not come into play with this special exception.

Okay.

Questions for the applicant.

None.

Okay.

If you'd have a seat nearby.

I'm gonna close the public session and um open it up to conversation among the board.

Yes, Ms.

Duffy.

I have a question for staff.

If we approve the carport today, does that negate their need to get the parking?

No, board member Duffy.

So the carport was all requested by the property owner for the carport, and we did not at the time of the legal noticing um know that they didn't have the required parking.

So we have notified the property owners that they will require variants to get the required parking spaces in front of the front building wall.

Our site visits were a bit delayed this month due to the winter storm.

So um we we weren't aware until we were out on the site that they didn't have their required parking behind the front building wall.

So a carport doesn't count as parking.

It doesn't count for their um required parking behind the front building wall.

So therefore it's not the front building wall, Bob.

Okay.

So because we weren't made aware or we didn't know, can we allow the applicant to somehow maybe um delay this uh to where they don't have to pay again?

Um is there a way that we can allow them to catch up or allow your staff to catch up and allow them to make a two for one where they don't have to do so the case can be continued if it's the board's request staff will have to um charge for an additional variance, but it wouldn't be a brand new application fee.

Um and we'll have to legal notice the variance for the required parking spaces.

I have a question for the applicant.

Okay, if I'm going to open the public session back up.

That sounds like something you want us to do for you.

Um, I'm honestly a little bit confused.

Because we've been using the driveway as the parking spaces for as long as we've had the home because there was no garage.

Everybody else and and I mean everyone else on the street also uses the driveway as their parking spaces.

The only difference is that we don't have a garage, most of the houses there do.

So I really wouldn't uh I don't understand why we need to get the parking variance, but we are willing to do so if it means that the carport can stay in place.

It our our carport also doesn't block the main entrance because it's not right under the main entrance, the main entrance is to the right, so it'll be like I don't it'll be right.

That's oh wait, the second one is the main entrance.

Okay.

So yeah.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Um board member.

Yes, I know.

Board member member Duffy has a question.

I think we're being a bit premature here, if you don't mind.

Um there's a there's a process of education that we may have to execute for for the applicant.

Uh correct.

I want to make sure that you request the correct regardless of how you've been using it.

Right.

There's there's it has to be has to be legal.

Right.

So we don't want to make you allow you to walk into something that's gonna hurt you in the future, hurt your family if you so um you have something to say.

So I just if I can answer the question to the applicant, one second.

Um the reason why the required parking space is allowed is for the zoning ordinance um for A5 residential for any structure, three bedrooms are or feel require two parking spaces behind the front wall of the residential structure.

Any additional bedroom will require an additional parking space, but the additional parking space over two would allow be allowed in the driveway.

Um you mentioned that other homes on your street uses the driveway, but they have a functional garage, so they are providing their required number of parking spaces behind the front building wall.

Staff um did check to see if there was a previous variance granted for this structure um not having their required parking spaces in front of the front building wall, and we weren't able to find that in our system.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, Miss Steffi.

I don't remember at any other time sitting on this board that we required two separate variances within a carport situation.

So typically what we see is they also have a functional garage.

Double jeopardy kind of.

I mean, that seems like it seems like we've if we've let them have a carport, that is a parking space.

But it's not behind the front wall of the there is a garage.

So yeah, a garage typically it's it's aligned and you pull into it.

So the pay the spaces are behind the front wall of the house.

Yeah, if I could interject, it's it's not two variances, one is a special exception for the carport, and the other is the variance for the parking and building can correct or staff can correct me, but the carport itself does not change the building front wall.

Am I am I right?

That is correct.

So the thing is in the past, to my knowledge, um, when they are requesting a carport in the front yard, there are times where they have a functional garage as well, or they may have parking behind the rear wall.

And in some instances, there may have been a staff error.

Um, but we noticed this and we will continue to follow the ordinance correctly to our knowledge moving forward.

I've got a question of staff.

When did the two parking spaces behind the front building line become part of the A5?

I can't say when, but I can look to see when the last um update was to the A5 section.

I would feel like that that's probably something that has uh came about since it was built in 90s in 56, 1956.

It really feels I mean, as as as our applicant points out, there are so many people who have a garage, but it's so full of stuff they never once put a car in it.

Um but unless storage, it's a storage room with a garage door on the front, and I don't I just feel like we need to update this piece of zoning code lay back.

Unless they receive a permit to enclose that garage, it's still considered that they are providing their required number of parking spaces.

It's just an and um from what I can tell in the ordinance, the last time the A5 section was uh revised was in 2014.

I'm not sure about if those changes were to the parking standard that of the requirement, but the last time the ordinance was updated um for the A5 section was 2014.

The intent of my question to the applicant for the parking is to make sure that we don't surprise her with oh, yeah, you have we may or may not allow this carport, but you're not allowed to park anything under.

So we want to make you aware that we have to address this or what two parking.

So but i if we allow the carport, I mean or not, it is totally unrelated to the need for two parking spaces behind the front building line.

And I feel that's correct.

Yeah.

Sorry, what so we noticed like we've added we've added complexity today.

I don't remember us doing that in in any case.

It would be simpler if the encourage the applicant to and we continue the application, and then the application is amended to both request the uh parking spots and the exception for the carport.

So I think my colleague is saying it'd be kind of ridiculous.

Okay, we're gonna permit the carport within later, but you can't park two cars under it.

You can park two cars, but you still have to get that other hurdle.

Yeah, so it may be the chance.

There is no garage to be used.

Uh so you would I mean, tell me if I'm I may be wrong, but it's like if if this is just it can be the board's decision to continue this case to the March hearing, and at that time we can bring both the special exception and the variants before the board at once.

I would make that motion.

But doing it first of all, um, is that something that the applicant would be willing to do?

So you're gonna have to do both, right?

And what they're suggesting is that you do them both at the same time, so that you don't think there are some fees from benefits in the fees structure that might save you money to do them at the same time rather than having them viewed separately.

And yes, it's been acknowledged that this was an oversight, but human error, you know, stuff happens.

So just trying to make the best of the situation, is what they're trying to do.

So if that's the case, I mean we still have to take a vote to approve that.

But if that's the case, is that something that you would be willing to consider?

Because yes, I I think we'd rather wait for both of them to be seen at the same time, so we don't like you know, not be able to park under it, like you said.

You could still park under it.

That's not the issue.

But I yeah, I think you you still have to you still have to jump both hurdles, right?

So okay.

Yes, that's I think we'll wait if that's okay.

But go ahead and park.

I'll second the um motion has been made, but also hopefully the staff can research when the required two spaces behind the building was added to a five.

It might not even be did we have a formal um nomination?

I said I would make it, but I will make it.

How are you doing it for 30 days or 60?

Sorry, what can you are you doing the continuance for 30 days or 60?

Next one.

Well, what's the staff's 30?

Staff supports a continuance to the next public hearing, the March 18th public hearing.

We're still good with notifications and all of that.

Yes, move.

I move then that this that uh BAC dash 26-003 be continued to the March 18 meeting to allow the applicant to amend the application to include both the special exception and the variance.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second.

Could we have a vote, please?

Yes, we have a motion for case B AR-26-003 to continue this case to the March 18th um Board of Adjustments public hearing.

The motion made by board member Jim Whitden, and second by board member Bob Riley.

Board member Jim Whitten?

Yes, board member Sergio Garza.

Yes, board member Bob Riley, yes, board member James Hook.

Yes, board member Sandra King.

Yes, board member Lucretia Powell, yes, board member Kay Duffy, yes, board member Jana Herrera?

Yes, board member Juan Manuel Acosta, yes, board member Deborah Free.

Yes, the motion passes.

Okay, so kind of congratulations, kind of sort of.

Um, but we'll see you next month.

Thank you very much for your patience.

I appreciate it.

All right, could we call the next case, please?

The next item on the agenda is BAR-26-004.

The property is located at 2511 Fifth Avenue.

The property owners are Joseph Joseph and Pamela Wright, and the applicant is Joseph Wright.

The property is zoned A-5, one family district.

The applicant is requesting two variances related to the construction of a detached non-habitable garage.

Variance A is a request to reduce the required five-foot side yard setback along the Southern property line to one foot.

And variance B is a request to reduce the required five-foot rear yard setback along the west western property line to zero feet.

The subject property is an interior lot located in an established neighborhood.

It is rectangular in shape and was originally platted with alley access.

The lot contains several mature trees and is not located within a floodplain.

Their primary residence is approximately 2,066 square feet.

There is currently a detached garage and a carport, each measuring 18 feet by 12 feet wide with a height of 14 feet, totaling approximately 432 square feet combined.

Both the existing garage and carport will be demolished.

There's an active accessory structure permit application submitted in January of 2026 that is currently awaiting a response from the applicant pending the outcome of this case.

The applicant is proposing to construct a new detached garage measuring 28 feet wide, 21 feet deep, and 17 feet in height.

This results in approximately 588 square feet of accessory structure, and the car lift in the garage will not be used for home occupational use.

Under section 4.705 of the zoning ordinance, the A-5 district requires a minimum five-foot side yard setback and a minimum minimum five foot rear yard setback.

There is a provision that allows detached garages located behind the rear wall of the house to reduce setbacks to three feet, but the applicant is requesting setbacks that are less than that allowance, which is why the variances are required.

According to the submitted site plan, the proposed garage will include a concrete driveway providing access from Fifth Avenue, which is a shared with the neighboring property at 2515 Fifth Avenue.

The applicant has submitted a shared access agreement for this driveway, and access will also be provided by from the alley.

The applicant will be required to improve the alley frontage along their property and obtain a parkway permit and any other necessary approvals prior to the issuance of a building permit.

The applicant is requesting a one-foot side yard setback, which is four feet less than the required five feet, and a zero foot rear setback, which is five feet less than the required five feet.

And with the proposed garage, total lot coverage would increase from approximately 35.68% to 36.75%, which remains below the 50% maximum lock coverage allowed in the A-5 district.

These are the regulations that pertain to the case.

And if the variance requests are approved, the applicant will still be required to meet all other applicable development standards and obtain the necessary permits.

And this concludes staff presentation, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Um before we move forward, does anybody have any questions of staff regarding this case?

And the presentation you've heard.

Any questions?

Okay.

All right.

Thank you so much.

And would the applicant come forward, please, and tell us why we should approve these two variances.

Good morning.

Um we're requesting this approval to replace an existing structure as on the lot that is currently in the construction of that structure, but not meet today's code.

There are no vertical two by fours supporting the structure at all.

You can see in the picture it's leaning.

And access to that structure is limited if we move it forward and to the left, and it also would encroach into our yard, another 300 square feet of our backyard to go to the current guidelines of the count of the city.

Yeah, it's and it's kind of sorry, so can you speak closer into the microphone?

It seems to cut in out.

I don't know why.

Okay.

Is that better?

That's better.

Okay, sorry.

Uh so we'd like to see approval on this just to be able to replace an existing structure and allow us to park in the garage.

Okay.

Cool.

You have time if you want to speak some more.

That's not necessary.

I don't know.

I got it.

Okay.

All right.

Do we have anybody in opposition to this?

Okay, I see none.

Thank you.

All right.

So wait.

Hang on.

We're gonna have questions, I bet.

Okay.

Anyone have any questions for the applicant?

Yes.

Will you provide your name and address, please?

Oh, I'm sorry, it's Joseph Wright.

I live at 2511 uh Fifth Avenue, and I am the applicant.

Thank you.

Yes.

I have a I have a question.

Sure.

So I just went off my one sec.

I can look at it here.

Um there's a car right now.

There's the existing garage, and then there's a carport to the left based on this drawing.

Is that correct?

Correct.

So how and there's structure there.

So you're going to widen that garage.

We're increasing the size of the garage.

I believe it's two feet to the left and one feet to the front of the footprint of the current garage just to bring it up to more of a standard size garage that is currently built in today's world.

So what are the reasons why you can't meet the minimum setback?

If we move the garage to the left five feet and three feet and five feet to the front, that will uh encroach into our current backyard over 300 square feet, making the perimeter unusable around the garage on the south and to the east.

Also moving the garage forward because it's a shared driveway.

Accessibility will be impeding to the neighbor's garage to the right.

So you could technically move it to the side and meet and again it would encroach into our yard 200 and some square feet of a small yard we already have.

So the line where there's a line that runs down the on the back side of the house.

That that pro there's a line there rather.

I'll get it out.

The one that runs front to back?

Runs has 21 feet on the side.

Yes, thank you for helping me.

That's in the that's the center of the house approximately.

And then the other side of that is still your yard, correct?

To the left is our garage.

So there's 21 feet to the left.

And if we would move it five feet, we would be down to 16 feet wide in the backyard around the garage.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Question.

Any other qu yes?

Is the existing garage already on the sideline and already on the it's currently on zero slot lines?

It's uh zero on the back and it's one foot to the south.

Okay, so the existing garage is already there.

You're just asking to demolish it and replace it with a new structure, basically.

So the existing garage is already at the zero line on your neighbor and the zero line.

Right.

On the alley.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Your neighbor also uses that uh driveway, so any movement away towards will shorten the maneuverability of getting vehicles back there.

Yes, I that's what I tried to state earlier.

Bringing it forward would impede encroachment to their garage and our garage because we'd be closer to the side of our house trying to wiggle into that garage.

Behind your yard, there's an alley.

There's an alley, a 15 feet wide alley.

We're still going to try to use our driveway as our major ingress to the garage.

Any other questions?

Okay.

That being the case, we're going to close the public portion, stay close, as you see.

We frequently open it back up.

So do we have comments?

No, I don't have a problem with this at all.

It's pre-existing building, and he's at a girl issue with his neighbor.

There's no line or fence that uh we have to navigate with uh on the uh west side of the property.

I'm um this neighborhood is really it's an it's an older neighborhood.

It predates the zoning, and this is absolutely consistent with the current neighborhood.

So moving it is just would not really create any benefit at all to the neighborhood.

I just I have no problem with it as it is.

This is a unique situation, it's a shared driveway.

You don't see those very often.

This is the best way they could come up with to get the parking in there to begin with.

So I would support it.

Yeah, Ms.

Duffy, did you have something?

So are do we have any photos of what it looks like now, the existing garage and carport?

There it is back there.

I don't see the carport part.

Oh, you can't.

So I do have some concerns about that because um, you know, we're never now we're doubling the side of the garage.

It's going to look like a significantly bigger structure back there.

But depending on how the carport looks now.

I mean, if the carport looks mostly like I don't know, I'd like to see a photo of that carport.

Somebody somebody guide me.

So the vehicle to the right, that's your neighbor's structure to the right.

I told you.

So if you take a look at the closest you can see to the carport is the middle pitcher on the right, it says existing garage.

You'll see a roof line off of the pitch, the left-hand pitch, which is the pitch of a carport cover.

And then the structure with the car underneath it, that's your neighbor's.

That's our neighbor's garage, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant, Wally said?

Any other questions for the applicant, while he said once again close the public hearing?

So you do want do you have another question for the applicant?

I didn't so are you expanding the driveway then to to go to make it a two-car garage, or are you just still parking on that right hand side of it?

No, that would be a two-car garage with one access from the rear through the alley.

So I can one of the cars comes in from the front, but there's another garage entry from the rear.

Yes.

Yes.

And so Ellie, you're doing a two-car garage door or two one car garage doors on different front of the building would have a single car garage because it aligns with the driveway.

In the rear, there would be a second exit for that bay, and then next to that would be a bay entrance.

Let's see, let me get my reoriented.

Okay.

So the top west picture is the front facing driveway picture.

The east side is what would the be to the alley facing.

And the existing carport exists today.

Yes, it does.

Along with the enclosed garage.

Yes, it does.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay, once again, I'm gonna close the public portion.

And discussion.

What are the reservations, Ms.

Duffy?

Yeah, what is the res what the reservation?

Is there something that's bothering you?

So zoning code is hard on these old houses where their backyard structure was built on the lot line, and the only way to get a reno or a remodel is to get a variant.

So that's hard.

So I usually have sympathy for that.

But in this case, I feel like we're getting a major upgrade from what we had before.

And I feel like it's a lot to ask of the neighbors to have that big a structure on the lot line.

So all right, it is within code.

So if I can just clear up one thing, if the property owner was proposing to remodel the existing garage, it would not require variants as long as whatever um expansion or um renovation they are planning to does not further impede into the existing um property line, the encroachment.

But the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and build a new structure that is larger than the existing structure.

So it requires a variance, but to remodel the existing structure would not require variance.

But as he said, this the existing structure is architecturally unsafe because it was built at a time, either it didn't require the code, or it's just it's unsafe as it is.

So it's it's an improvement that also improves safety.

This uh this particular uh applicant has uh taken it upon himself with his neighbor to uh solve some issues of parking uh with creative uh you know ways of parking in their in their backyard, sharing a driveway is is uh take sacrifice and a lot of communication, but they made it happen.

So I I see that they're you know I'm sure they have uh they have no one here that says that they wouldn't uh they don't like the idea.

I don't have a problem with this at all.

But I I I appreciate what what you're what you're saying, Ms.

Duffy, is that they're the structure that's gonna be here uh to replace what exists is gonna be a little bigger, two feet longer and uh a little taller.

Is that correct?

And to clarify those the setbacks, we are using exactly the same setbacks as the existing structure, or we'll push it back a little further.

Exactly.

Um to my knowledge, we are the zero foot is existing in the zero foot, is what they're requesting for their their new structure for the rear and the the one foot for the side is exactly the same as it is now zero and one, and we're exactly exactly the uh the applicant is shaking his head, yes.

Zero and one, and we're exactly exactly the uh the applicant is shaking his head.

Yes.

If you look on the arrow area, you can see that the existing garage is in the corner of the lot.

And if you drive through the neighborhood, that's the way it is.

It's not inconsistent with the neighborhood.

I'll make a motion if you're ready.

I move that B AR-26-004 be approved as submitted by the applicant.

Second okay.

Okay.

We have a motion for case BAR-26-004 to approve as requested by the applicant.

The motion was made by board member Jim Whitten and second by board member Lucretia Powell.

Board member Jim Witten.

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member Kay Duffy.

I'm going to say no.

Board member Jana Herrera.

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Free?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Congratulations.

And hope you have a wonderful new garage.

Dodge that one.

Thanks so much for your time.

And yes, Ms.

Reyes, if you would call the next case.

The next item on the agenda is BAR-26-005.

The property is located at 2821 Donnelly Street.

The property owner is Mario Garil, and the applicant is Grant Engineering Incorporated.

The property is zoned A-10, one family residential district.

The applicant is requesting two variances related to the minimum lot development standards to the in the A-10 district.

Variance A is a request to reduce the required minimum lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet, which is a deficiency of 10 feet.

And variance B is a request to reduce the required minimum lot area from 10,000 square feet to 6,750 square feet, which is a deficiency of 3,250 square feet.

The subject property is currently a vacant interior lot located within a developed neighborhood.

The lot contains a few mature trees, has a slight slope, and is not located within a floodplain.

In 2017, a residential structure on the property was demolished under a raising permit.

And there is currently a final short plot application under review, which is awaiting client response from the applicant.

The property owners are currently in the process of replotting the property.

While the southern five feet of lot two was deeded to the adjoining property owners to the south, identified as lot three.

As a result of that division, the remaining lot does not meet the minimum lot width or lot area requirements of the A-10 district.

For variance A, the applicant is requesting approval of a 50-foot lot width.

And for variance uh where 60 feet is required.

And variance B is the applicant is requesting approval of a 6,750 square foot lot, uh, which is required at 10,000 square feet under section 4.703 for the A-10 district, the minimum development standards require 10,000 square feet minimum and lot area and 60 feet uh minimum lot width at the building line.

If the variance requests are approved, the replot will need to be finalized, and the applicant will be required to comply with all other applicable development standards prior to the issuance of building permits.

And this concludes staff presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Do we have any questions for staff?

Okay.

Thanks so much.

Is the applicant is here?

If you'd come forward, provide us with your name, address, and why we should approve these two variances.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, commissioners.

I'm David Reeves with Grant Engineering, and our office is at 2751 Park Hill Drive in beautiful Fort Worth, Texas.

Uh, we respectfully request that you grant our variance uh request as to both lot width and uh lot area due to the fact that this is the extent of the tract that our client was able to purchase anything else.

And uh we uh we uh just can't add any more land, unfortunately.

All right, thank you.

Is there anybody here in opposition?

Okay.

That being the case, does anybody have questions for the applicant?

No questions for the applicant going once, going twice.

Okay.

I'm gonna close the public portion.

Stay close.

And do we have a discussion among the board members regarding this application?

Yes, sir.

I have to do this.

I'm gonna reopen the public portion.

The house that was demolished off of this property, was it on the same general lot layout that you are showing here?

I believe so.

I mean, the lot to the north or on the right in this photo uh is a platted lot, and the lot to the left is a full lot plus a five feet portion of the north portion of a former lot too.

Um I'm not sure who demolished the earlier lot, or excuse me, the earlier home, but uh I believe it's set approximately on this tract.

Okay.

And uh does staff have when the zoning was changed from the A5 to A 10.

I have a feeling this might be one of the council initiated rezonings for a whole area.

Looks like it.

Um do you guys have that information when it was zoned from A5 to A10?

Oh, I assume.

Just one second.

I assume which made it legal non-conforming.

Oh, I get it.

I believe the staff report.

If I may, the property was rezoned in 2010.

2010, correct.

Okay.

So what the staff report said?

Or is the list of do we have when the demolition was in 2017?

Okay, you're right.

It was a legal non-conforming, and then when it took the structure down.

Yeah.

It became you start all over again.

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

I'm gonna, unless anybody else has any questions for the applicant.

No, we're gonna close the public portion again.

Any other c any comments, board members thoughts?

Well, uh in the absence of that, I'll just speak up.

Um this is an opportunity to develop a lot.

Um there was a house there.

It just uh doesn't make sense to leave it empty to me.

So I'm in full support of this free.

Does anybody have a motion?

I'd like to make a motion for B A R 2605 as written.

And do we have a second?

Second.

Thank you.

A vote.

Sorry.

Yes, we have a motion to approve case BAR-26-005 as requested by the applicant.

The motion was made by board member Lucretia Powell and second by board member Bob Riley.

Board member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell.

Yes.

Board Member K.

Duffy.

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa?

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board Member James, did I get you a?

Yes.

Okay.

The motion passes.

Congratulations.

We'll move forward and appreciate your time here today.

All right.

So, staff, if you would please introduce us to BAR2606.

Thank you, Chair.

The next case is addressed to 4617 Washburn Avenue.

The owner is Grayson Pulson.

The applicant is Michael Dewey with restoration homes.

The zoning is A5, one family district.

They're seeking a variance to the lot coverage where 50% is required or allowed by the ordinance.

The property was platted with alley access, and it does not have any floodplain.

It does have mature trees and it has no significant environmental constraints.

The existing residential structure is built across two lots and it totals 3,107 square feet.

This is the lot history.

And that's just awaiting the decision of the board today.

This is the proposed site plan.

The applicant is asking for 52% lot coverage, where the ordinance requirement is a maximum of 50%.

The addition is to extend an existing bedroom.

These are the proposed elevations.

And I'm open for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, Ms.

Duffy.

I have a question of staff.

What is the lot coverage now before?

Yes.

Um the lot coverage is currently.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes.

Okay.

Other questions?

Yes.

Seems that um go ahead, Stephanie.

Can I just ask you to go back?

Yeah, that picture you have right now.

Can you just do a little finger drawing and give me some pointers?

What I'm looking at here.

This is a little busy.

So the green area is landscaping, at least the larger rectangle is landscaping.

The red is the addition to the home.

And the smaller green rectangle is a like a tiny covered patio that they're adding.

The big green spot is not covered.

Correct.

So the little green spot is the two percent that we're that we were giving you.

It's less than that.

That is only 18 square feet.

The 2% includes the red square.

The red square is a covered patio, not not a notch.

The red square is an habitable or addition to the single family residence.

So does that mean that on that red section it's pushing the house forward towards the street an additional nine feet?

Yes, correct.

So does it that nine feet does it still align with neighboring properties?

Yes, it'll still meet the front yard setback.

Okay.

If I'm looking at your chart, it says a front yard setback.

You have an arrow drawn up to where the existing structure is.

So it's more than um is required.

So right now to the front wall, the existing front wall, the front yard setback is 29.96.

The um proposed front yard setback.

The property owner provided us that it just be nine point um nine feet closer to the um front yard property line, but they did provide the um blue rectangle for their neighboring property who is uh closer to the front property line than their structure will be existing and proposed.

Okay.

So it meets the front setback.

Okay.

It meets established and required.

Thank you.

Looks like every house on that block is kissing or playing with that 50% number.

Pretty much the way they're it's a an area that's going through or has been going through a lot of remodeling.

Yeah.

Everyone has massive driveways and front and back.

Yes.

You can go back to that previous slide, please.

Where is the garage?

The garage is um access to the rear via alley.

Existing.

So it's I don't give me one second and I'll show you on the screen.

So it's not um we're not doing anything that changes the parking or the garage.

Right.

I just it's really a lot of concrete on the front.

I just want to see.

I can't make it.

So if you look behind you, um, she circled on the screen where the existing garage is.

Yes, that's the entrance from the alley to the garage.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

So does this meet the concrete requirements for the front yard, or is that why we're putting in the green spot?

But that is why we're putting I'm sorry, Karen.

Oh, that's okay.

Um that's yes, that is why we're including that.

Um they are using pavers, and so it is not included in the lock coverage calculation.

It's a permeable surface.

So currently they are exceeding the front yard driveway coverage, but their proposed is to reduce the front yard driveway coverage by adding in that landscaped area.

Okay.

That is a good thing.

Okay.

Anything else?

Okay, thank you.

And looks like the applicant is up there and ready to present his case.

Come on forward, give us your name and address.

Uh, my name's Kyle Poulson.

I live at 4132 Idlewild Drive.

Uh, my daughter and I are buying this house.

I may potentially move into it.

And the plan is to uh yep, y'all got most of it right.

The the green outlined will be more of a courtyard, and it's actually a little bit bigger than that.

Right now it's just a C of P gravel and it's it's ugly.

The house is not great.

Um, and you see the challenges we've got if you see all those ja those jagged lines back by the garage, it's hard to expand the house a little bit.

More importantly, for a master bedroom downstairs.

Um the pink area, we just want to pull the master bedroom out so that you don't have to go upstairs for the master bedroom.

But the goal is to can we go back one uh one slide to show the photo of the yeah, so we'll get rid of half that um that peeve gravel in that driveway.

We've gone to all the neighbors, four neighbors to the left, four neighbors to the right, everyone across the street in the street behind it, showed them the plan, sat down with them and talked to them.

I don't believe there's any opposition and more importantly, the seven or eight houses directly surrounding this were all in favor of it because this was just too much concrete and not aesthetically not uh not the best looking house.

So we've sat down and talked to everyone, and I think we have everyone's support.

Um it is an issue just because the master bedroom's small, so we just want to pull that out to have a little bit nicer uh bedroom and bathroom downstairs.

Okay, anything else?

Uh I know you're gonna close this.

I'd like to say one thing.

Y'all's discuss this is I've been in the commercial real estate business for 32 years, and I appreciate the lady that came and it didn't make sense, and I feel like your whole panel common sense you helped her, and I would love to.

I do a lot of this on commercial, is I'm not sure who's in charge.

It's how do y'all go make 15 changes a year, 20 changes a year?

Because I thought y'all's discussion was really great, and I think DJ and Danelle and the development team, how y'all did that was very refreshing.

And so I think it's lots of common sense, and you probably helped that lady.

So anyway, as a citizen of Fort Worth and always up here working with P and Z and Board of Adjustments.

So anyway, as the citizen of Fort Worth and always up here working with PZ and Board of Adjustments, I thought you guys did a great job on trying to lots of common sense.

So I appreciate that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Do we have any opposition to this case?

That being said, we're now open to questions for the applicant.

Yes, ma'am.

I have a question.

So it was stated that green big uh block area is just gonna be pavers, or you're actually doing something that enhances like with flowers.

We plan to build uh like a hedge wall or wall with landscaping, almost like a courtyard that will not be pavers.

The light light green with the little specks in it would be a paver, and it's actually smaller than that.

It would just be one car for a guest to come in, two car garage in the back.

So we oh sorry, we would expand that courtyard just a little bit.

And if you you can't see right across the street, there's two or three examples of what they've done.

And so we kind of want to follow that that lead.

Okay, thank you.

Yes.

I don't have a problem with this at all.

Okay, any question more questions for the applicant?

That being the case, I'll close the public portion and we're ready to discuss.

I don't have a problem with this.

You don't have a problem with this.

Let me see.

Other comments?

Input.

I don't have a problem with this.

Like to make a motion.

That's we're ready.

That's where we are.

Uh motion for B AR-26-double odd six as requested by the applicant.

And a second.

Second.

Thank you.

And a vote.

Okay, we have a motion for case BAR-26-006 to approve as requested by the applicant.

The motion made by board member Sergio Garza and second by board member um James Hook.

Board member Jim Whitten.

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell.

Yes.

Board Member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Janet Herrera.

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

Board Member Deborah Freed.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Congratulations.

Best of luck to you.

It looks like it'll be a lovely property.

So yeah, first of all, I would like to really thank Ms.

Powell for having the insight to move our dead time with no people waiting to the end.

Um that's really respectful of the time of the community members.

I'm I greatly appreciate that.

Um second, we've got those two cases that should move pretty quickly.

So I'm of the mind that we just move, keep on moving forward.

And so we go back to the first.

And as I understand this, um we are doing continuances, or we've been requested continuances for both of these continued cases.

Um was the denial about yes, sorry.

The first case, um, BAC-25-045.

The applicant has requested a continuance to the March 18th public hearing.

And case um BAR-25-um 131 has requested denial without prejudice.

Ah, okay.

All right.

So let's look at the request for a continuance for 25-045.

The case before you is BAC-25-045 located at 5151 and 5159 Green Leaf Street.

The property owner is 5151 Greenlee LLC, and the applicant is Julian Onmendis.

The property is zoned E, neighborhood commercial district.

The applicant is requesting a variance to the screening fence material requirements.

Specifically, the request is to allow an existing chainling fence with attached opaque tarp screening and three strands of barbed wire to remain where the zoning ordinance requires screening fences to be constructed of wood, brick, stone, or reinforced concrete products.

The requested variance is limited to the boundary of the area occupied by the legal non-conforming automotive repair and sales use on lot eight and the automotive repair use on lot seven as shown on the submitted site plan.

The subject property consists of two lots totaling approximately 62,116 square feet with frontage along Greenleaf Street, which is designated as a local road.

Lot 7 is currently used for automotive repair, and lot eight is used for automotive repair and auto sales.

Both uses operate under legal nonconforming status, which was approved in October 2023.

The property is relatively flat with an approximate 4% slope.

The site is adjacent to neighborhood commercial zoning to the west and residential zoning along the rear property line and to the east.

The law in history includes approval of legal nonconforming status to continue auto repair and auto sales uses in January of 2023 and was later reissued in October of 2025 to divine to sorry to define the legal non-conforming area within the reference property and to include additional ordinance language.

There is also an open code enforcement case related to screening fence materials initiated in January of 2025, which initiated the this review to the board.

The applicant is seeking a variance to allow an existing screening fence constructed of non-prohibited materials.

The fence is a seven-foot four-inch tall chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire enclosing the northern, southern, eastern, and western boundaries of the automotive uses based on available Google Street View imagery.

The fence has been in place since at least October of 2007.

And the opaque TARP screening was added most more recently between March 2022 and January 2025.

Under the current zoning ordinance, a screening uh screening fence is required between non-residential uses and adjacent residential districts.

In this case, the location and height of the fence comply with the ordinance requirements.

However, the materials do not comply with section 5.305 C1.

Additionally, automotive repair uses adjacent to residential districts are required to screen vehicles from view, either by storing them within a building or by providing a six-foot solid screening fence or hedge along the shared property line.

A screening fence is also required along Wilson Road to screen vehicles stored within 200 feet of a one and two family residence.

These are the regulations pertaining to the case.

And this concludes staff presentation, and I'm available to answer any questions the board may have.

Thank you.

So at this point, um our options are to make a motion for continuance, or are there other options?

It's the board's decision.

If you want to ask staff questions and make a decision outside of the continuance, it's up to you guys.

I'm open to continuous was requested because the applicant is sick.

Is that the applicant have a family emergency?

This was continued from last month.

Right.

This was continued from last month.

Last month, the legal representation was not able to attend due to a last-minute hearing schedule for the morning of the meeting.

Can we make a continuance based?

You know, this is the last one.

Um could in that case I would just say just make a continuance and next time you can deny it if it comes.

Okay.

Like to make a motion.

Okay.

Continuance BAC-25-045.

For continuance till uh our March 18th meeting.

I second.

Thank you.

Okay.

We have a motion by board member Sergio Garza and a second by board member Sandra King to continue case BAC-25-045 to the March 18th public hearing.

Board member Jim Witten.

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Lacretia Powell.

Yes.

Board member Kay Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera.

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Acosta.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Fried.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And so our final one, B AR25131.

We have a request to hear that and to deny it without prejudice.

Is that correct?

Yes.

So the applicant request Scott did call and explain to her she wanted she wished to withdraw and is explained that a withdrawal will serve the same as a denial without prejudice.

So she would like the request a denial without prejudice.

Okay.

May we hear the case, please?

The next case is BAR25-131.

The address is 4929 at FitzU Avenue.

The owner is Mini Stein.

The applicant is Sharon Douglas.

The property is zoned A5 one family residential district.

It and it is within the stop six overlay district.

The property is described as lot 24, block one and double of the Douglas Park edition.

The variance request is to the stop six overlay district development standards requiring a two-car garage be constructed for all new development to allow construction of a new single-family home without a two-car garage.

Um and as has been explained, this was a previously continued case.

This was the site plan that had been uh given to us, and this did not include uh a one car garage.

The stop six overlay district regulations are here, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you.

So do we have a motion to deny without present prejudice?

Yes.

I'd like to make a motion BAR 25131 to deny without prejudice.

Okay, second.

Second.

Thank you.

Okay, we have a motion to deny without prejudice case BAR-25-131.

The motion made by board member Lucretia Powell and second by board member Jim Witten.

Board member Jim Witten?

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

No.

Board member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell.

Yes.

Board Member Kay Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa?

Yes.

Board Member Deborah Fried?

Yes.

The motion passes.

All right.

Thank you all for your time today.

Are there any other questions, announcements?

I have something that I'd like to address.

Um the um we're getting to the point where we're we being requested to accept the smaller and smaller pieces of property for new construction.

And I'd like some guidance from people who have done this before.

I'm we're willing to do a house on a 1,000 square foot lot.

Where do we draw the line?

Today we do a really big slash in that 36% smaller than what is required.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

And that was an in A10 zoning.

So and actually it's sort of the the guidelines sort of fit more like an A5 in an A10 neighborhood.

So yes, I just want to make sure that we um do what's right, not only for today's uh population, but what you know what's good for Fort Worth in the future.

And you know, we are very um I'm I'm I'm for um you know l allowing people to live uh but at some point we may need some legal guidance or or advice into where we as a council draw a line.

Yeah, I'll get a second that I I guess.

Yeah, I think there's yeah, it's it's lot coverage and parking and a lot of those issues that um we're right.

And I would say that that was actually rezoned not not too long ago for a reason.

So they looked at it and said, let's make this A10.

You know, so they up zone that a lot of neighborhoods are doing that, they're trying to protect their land, a lot of the trees as well.

You start downzoning things, you can't protect that stuff as well.

So, but having been through that process, I will say that if you're if you are doing the rezoning, they take it lot face, I mean block at a time.

And so if all of the block is consistent with A10 zoning, and there's one or two lots that are not, they'll go ahead and do that entire block.

So that I know you're looking for probably a lot better advice than I have.

I'll just tell you do it when I when I process it and look, is this a reasonable request?

I look at the actual lot size, and what does that do being an empty lot that's not taxed, that's not popular.

That makes a lot of the only thing what I'm looking for is to this is the consequence of our decision and and use another city as an example.

Let's say this is what Dallas did, and this is the consequences of those decisions.

I want to make sure that we understand the consequences of our decisions.

And we don't have to we can use someone else's, you know, uh uh lessons learned in our city.

That that's all I'm requesting.

Now it may be a class that we take, it may be uh information from our staff, but it's something that I want to make sure that we we're guiding uh our city in the direction that we all want our children to live in.

That's all.

That's cool.

So what do you recommend staff legal?

So um November work session, legal did address the um item about lot area and lot width, and we've shared that presentation with you.

If further consideration or discussion is required, we can ask legal to um to do another training um at a at a future work session.

Yeah, it's it's it's just more about um this is what this city did, and this is not what what they're living with now.

Like this last one, the gentleman here.

Uh if you look on a Google map of their lot sizes, it's it's a that's like 50% of every single property on that zero trees, you know, and and I understand that we have to live somewhere, but is that what we want?

And is that what we're shooting for?

That's all just make a conscientious uh choice that we we know that's also not gonna hurt our you know our our applicants, but is also not gonna cost the rest of us to live in a city with with no trees or you know, one on top of another, just a concept just as long as we're aware of what we're doing.

That's all.

I understand, and we can discuss this further with legal and see if there's another work session to be scheduled.

I would like to make a few announcements.

Um I would like to give kudos to Karen Moreno who presented um a case today.

Karen is our planning assistant, and today she presented her first case and she reviewed this case um thoroughly with the assistance of Emily Reyes.

So shout out to Emily Reyes as well.

Um, you guys may notice we are down one planner.

Um, so Karen has taken initiative to step up and and help review cases.

So this is great for whatever she decides to transition to in the future.

And you may not see her because she's hidden over here, but Rebecca uh Valdez is here.

She is usually you'll see Mirabel Pinha, who is the supervisor of the zoning plan review team.

Rebecca is our senior um zoning plans examiner.

So she's here um in the absence of of uh Maribel today.

So thank you for being here, um, Rebecca.

I would also like to let you guys know that we did order lunch, however, we finished before um our scheduled lunch break, but lunch is coming.

So if you guys would like to hang around for a little while, I have another question.

What happened to our all of our um uh you know we're supposed to have uh backup, yes.

What what what what what happened with that?

So we have extended um board member Fried is here.

Thank you for that.

Uh she is one of our alternates.

We have reached out to the alternates who were unable to join us today.

Um that's the whole purpose of having an alternate.

I understand we did make efforts.

Um you guys receive the polls, we send it out several times.

If we don't hear from you, we start calling and sending you separate emails.

So, and also when um we found out late yesterday evening that another board member wasn't able to join, we did reinitiate that correspondence um after 5 p.m.

yesterday with the phone call and an email, and um they weren't able to join due to other obligations.

So we are we are trying to make sure we have 11 members present in this month, it just didn't work out that way.

Also, you guys have been receiving polls for a special call meeting.

Um we are still trying to work through dates for that that case is an appeal case from the um downtown development review board.

Um, and it is a hope to get that scheduled soon.

We sent out a poll for um March 4th, but that date didn't work out, so we sent out another poll for March 11th.

Right now we have not secured a quorum for the March 11th date.

So if you guys have not responded to that poll, if you could let us know today after we are offline, um, if you guys are available to attend March 11, we would love to go ahead and get that scheduled.

Legal notices for that case if scheduled on March 11 would need to go out by next Friday.

So we're trying to get that scheduled.

If that date doesn't work for us to secure 11 members, um, we will send out another poll with another date upon the availability of the council chambers, legal staff, the communication staff, and the applicant, as well as the board members.

What's the status on getting some zoning changes in so that we have fewer cases?

Um we are still working on that.

We have drafted and we've had to meet with various boards and go back to the drawing board.

So it's still in the works.

Um staff is still working on those proposed changes.

Are gas station signs included in that list?

No, it's not.

Why not?

I can't code we're getting a little far past our.

I want to make sure we don't for open meeting purposes, talk about things, um, get any kind of briefings that haven't been noticed so that the public doesn't have an opportunity to come talk about it.

That's something we can do.

Certainly good feedback for staff, and if we need, we can always bring back a uh a work session item.

But just for open meeting purposes, I want to make sure we finished our work today.

Yeah, that might close the meeting and then you all can feel free to discuss.

I would add to that maybe it's a subject to a future uh work session that the status of all the changes that they were uh talking about back in September, October.

Yeah, that's what the status of those are.

That's fair for a future work session, I think.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, well, it sounds like it's time to close this meeting.

Meeting is adjourned.

Thank you, Deborah.