Good morning, everyone.

Thank you so much for your patience this morning.

Notice of this meeting has been posted online for at least 72 hours.

Staff present today are Melinda Ramos, Trey Qualls, Brendan Utterbeck, Francisco Vega, Karen Moreno, Stacey Jones, and Anisha London.

Chair, will you please call this meeting to order?

Yes, thank you.

This is Witt Walman, and this meeting of the Board of Adjustment will now come to order.

It is the 11th day of March 2026, and 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 a quorum with 10.

Today's meeting agenda can be found online at www.fortworthtexas.gov.

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

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

To facilitate an orderly meeting, I'm asking everyone in the council chamber to turn off their audible alarms on your electronic devices at this time, so we will not be distracted during our meeting.

Each case will be called in the sequence listed on the agenda unless otherwise directed by me, the chair, which we just have won.

The Board of Adjustment requests the following rules of procedure be respected.

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

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 the board members.

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

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 seven minutes among all parties so you do not exceed the allotted time.

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

This is their opportunity to express why they believe the variants are special exception.

In this case, should not be approved.

The opposition is also allotted a total of seven minutes of time to be shared among all speakers.

If opposition is presented to the variants or special exception, the applicant will have an additional three minutes of rebuttal time.

The chair may allow a few more seconds in each presentation to ensure a speaker's final point can be made.

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

During this time, all speakers must remember that all dialogue be directed to the board of adjustment only.

There is no time limit during this period.

After the board members have received answers to their questions, I will close the public portion of the hearing.

Board members can discuss the case amongst themselves 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 the case.

City staff will call for a voice vote from each member.

If an application is denied, an applicant will have 10 days in which to appeal to a 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.

Our first order of business today is to listen from the deputy city attorney, Melinda Ramos.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, board members.

As uh the chair said, my name is Melinda Ramos.

I'm a deputy city attorney here with the city of Fort Worth, and I'm going to be sitting with you today for this appeal.

So this appeal is unlike your regular cases that you hear related to special exceptions or variances, in that this is appeal is coming in up from one of our design review boards for the specific instance from our downtown design review board.

So I'm going to provide you some training and some background on that.

Uh, just by a little way of more background for myself, so you all know for up until um 2022 when I have my current position.

I sat with the land use boards, but uh particularly the board of adjustment, probably for about 17 years.

So uh hopefully I'll be able to provide some helpful information to you all as we go through this training.

So just for a little background on the downtown design review board, uh they are appointed by the city council.

They are a board of seven and they have alternates that serve on their board as well.

They have the duty and the authority to enforce the downtown urban design standards for new construction and renovation signage and hearing applications for certificates of appropriateness is what they issue when they approve a new project or signage or any cases that come before them.

They also hear to a certain extent waivers for from their design standards and guidelines.

So when they approve waivers, though those do not generally come to the board of adjustment.

They also have the duty and responsibility to propose amendments to the downtown design standards to the zoning commission and then ultimately to the city council for approval.

Their membership is typically comprised of architects, urban planners, downtown residents, downtown business owners or managers for downtown and real estate professionals.

The ratio of that can change on the board over the over the course of the years.

So this is just a map to show you the overview of the area that is subject to the downtown design review standards.

It goes all the way from the southern edge of 30 all the way up almost reaching into Panther Island, but not quite Panther Island.

And they have different character zones within that, but the portion that's before you today is more along the freeway.

So this is basically going to go over with you the hearing procedure of how this this hearing will go because as I said, it is different than your normal cases that you hear from the variances and from excuse me, the special exceptions.

So this is not a hearing that you will hear kind of de novo as it comes to you fresh and for you to make a fresh decision.

These appeals are really based on the record that was made at the in this case the DDRB.

So this is kind of an overview of how the chair will call the both the city and the appellant and what is to be presented during that time.

So initially the chair will call the city.

Typically, it's the form-based code administrator for that particular design district, and they will give only a case summary.

There will be no arguments made in this overview.

Part of what they'll include is the certificate of appropriateness or COA is what it's typically called that is requested, the applicable design standards and guidelines that applied to the particular request, the recommendation that was made by the staff, and then the decision that the DDRB board members made at that hearing.

Once that is done, the chair will call the appellant to make their presentation.

Their presentation should be based on the DDRB's record.

It must show a lack of substantial evidence to support the DDRB's decision.

That burden of proof is on the appellant.

No new evidence is allowed to be entered in, and the appellant has seven minutes by which to present their case.

Once those seven minutes are elapsed, then the chair will call the city.

It's called the I need to change the slides so y'all can see it.

The city response, and they will present what evidence is on the record to support the DDRB's decision, and that has to also be based on the existing record.

Once they're, they also have seven minutes.

Once their seven minutes is concluded, each party gets three minutes to present their final arguments to the board.

At the end of those three minutes, the chair will close the public hearing, open the board for a discussion, and then a motion and vote.

Part of your requirements in your motion that is in your rules of procedure that's right before you is the first motion that you have to make and to vote on is whether or not the decision of the DDRB was reasonably supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Depending on how you vote on that, then informs the next motion that you'll you all will make.

Just to go over the standard of review.

So the burden of proof is on the appealing party who has to establish that the record in the record that there is substantial evidence in support of the DDRB's decision.

Kind of, you know, what does that mean?

What does that test mean?

So the test is whether or not it's supported by evidence on which they could have reasonably based their decision.

It's um did the DDRB act arbitrarily without regard to the facts.

The test is not whether the DDRB came to a proper uh fact conclusion on the basis of any conflicting evidence.

Um the Board of Adjustment can't substitute your own judgment for the judgment of the DDRB.

Um it has to be measured on the weight of the evidence of the questions that were committed to the DDRB's discretion.

So what was within their authority to decide on and how they decided on that.

You all are not to stand in the shoes of the DDRB.

So the Board of Adjustment should sustain the decision if it was reasonably supported by substantial evidence.

So there's no firm definition of substantial evidence, but there is um a mere scintilla of evidence doesn't suffice to support their decision.

And so by scintilla, it's uh a minimal or slight amount of evidence.

If the evidence is such that a reasonable mind could have reached the conclusion that the DDRB reached, then the DDRB's decision should be affirmed.

So kind of what constitutes new evidence, and so the board really shouldn't consider any new evidence that is outside of the record that was made before the DDRB.

Part of what you will need to do is determine whether new evidence that may be presented today, if it was available at the time of the DDRB hearing.

As part of considering new evidence, you don't have to consider incredible perjured or unreasonable evidence on the record because that evidence isn't substantial.

I don't think that's really going to be an issue for you all today, that last bullet.

So if you all determine, though, that this new evidence was not available at the time of the DDRB hearing, then it is recommended that the case be remanded back to the DDRB so they can consider that in their decision making.

So possible motions that the board can make once you get past that first motion of whether or not the there is enough the decision was reasonably supported by the substantial evidence, then you can if you decide that there is, then you can move forward to either uphold the DDRB's decision, reverse the decision, or remand the case back to the DDRB for further review, particularly if there's new evidence that's presented.

This is kind of a basic flowchart of how the hearing should go.

So the chair will call again the staff member who will give an overall summary just of the case before the board.

Then you should remand to the DDRB for their further consideration.

If you find that their decision wasn't supported by substantial evidence, then the board can reverse or you can remand.

That is also still an option for you.

If you decide that it is supported by the substantial evidence, you can affirm in whole or in part.

So really that's the summary of all of the training.

And I'm it's uh it's something unusual for the board.

I know you don't hear, and even during my tenure, uh, we didn't hear that many cases from the design review board.

So I know it's something new.

And I what I would encourage you though is to keep separate your usual role for special exceptions and variances because the test that you apply to cases for those does not apply here.

It is strictly based on the record that was made at the at the DDRB's hearing, and what you're deciding is based on that.

I'm if you all have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

We can't talk about the specifics of the case because those will be presented during the during the actual hearing.

These are more rules and procedure questions, right, about the appeal.

Please go ahead, Ms.

Duffy, or your question.

I do have a question.

I'm not sure it meets what the standard you just so the decision being made in this case was about um there were two waivers.

Can you compare and contrast what a waiver is for DDRB and what a variance is to us?

So essentially they are the same thing.

It's it's just a different nomenclature.

So it is requirements.

It is a request.

No, it does not require hardship, but it is a request to vary from what the development standard or design standard is for that district.

So for the design review boards, uh, waivers that they consider are not reliant upon whether or not there is a hardship.

Whether or not if the waiver is going to be impactful to the um intent and purpose of the design standards for that area.

And can you compare and contrast?

So the the number one thing is can they have it or not?

Is it um I can't remember what they called it in the in the nomenclature, but um basically it's to me it appeared kind of like a um a special exception is on our board.

It's a yes or this exists in the zoning code, but you it has to be blessed by the board.

Is that the same in the case of whether so for certain design districts?

Um certain projects can be um and it's written into their design standards and guidelines, can be approved administratively by staff, um, whether that's uh new construction or if they want to put a sign up, or if they want to put landscaping in, and some districts are their design standards are written to give staff administrative authority to do that, other design districts like the downtown design review board, um, there are certain um structures or elements or projects that if you want to do them, you have to go to the the DDRB to get approval to do it.

So if you want to construct a new hotel in the downtown area, you have to take your project to go to the DDRB.

That project may not have any waivers that they're asking for, but their design standards require the hotel to go to the DDRB for to get a certificate of appropriateness to make sure that the design of the building, um the layout conforms to the intents and purposes for the downtown design overlay.

So it it's it's different from it's it's a little bit more expansive than what comes before the board of adjustment.

So what the board of adjustment when you hear with the variance is because the property owner um has some issue and they can't meet the setback, they can't meet the minimum yard requirement, and they need to get a variance from the board to do that.

It's not necessarily anything related to uh the design of the house or the design of the fence necessarily.

Um the DDRB considers more aesthetic kind of concerns, and they have more aesthetic things that they look at in terms of how how does what's being requested fit into the purpose and intent of what the district was created to do.

Ms.

Fried.

Are you okay?

Are you are you satisfied?

That one I have more.

Okay, Ms.

Free.

Um I might have I'm I'm confused about a point, and that is that maybe I misheard, but as you started the presentation, you um said that there's should the presentation should include what was presented before.

So what will begin how how your hearing will begin is the chair will call the staff member to come up and they will provide a case overview of what the DDRB heard at their hearing.

So it'll be what the appellant requested, what their request was.

It'll be if I can go back.

Just the note, we did provide all the information um from the DDRB to you guys in the meeting docket.

So you have the case report that was presented as well as the transcript um that was prepared by district court.

Yeah.

Right.

So it'll it'll the case summary is just a case summary.

So there's not going to be any argument for or against what the DDRB decided.

It'll be just this is what was presented to the DDRB.

This was what was requested from the DDRB, and everything that the DRB decides gets a certificate of appropriateness.

That's just the nomenclature for what they get.

Um, what the applicable standards and guidelines were that the DDRB reviewed as part of their hearing, what the recommendation was from staff was related to that request, and then finally, what was the decision of the DDRB?

And then that really is the sum total of what's being presented at for the case summary.

At that point, the chair will call the appellant up, and the appellant will be provided seven minutes to um present their argument as to why there's a lack of substantial evidence in the DDRB's record to support their decision.

Okay.

And um, particularly with regard to any new evidence presented, that's where kind of really the the board will have to make a dis determination if this new evidence is it new really is it new or was it was it in the record?

Is it new or was it in the record?

Was it available?

Could it have been available at the time of the hearing that the DDRB held whether they made their decision?

Thank you.

Ms.

Freed, are we coming back to you?

Stephanie, what about you?

I know you still have questions.

So back to the variance thing, just one.

So does does this carry forward if if they get a waiver, does it carry forward with the building?

And I guess did the leasing sign have a waiver already?

So the prior sign uh I think predated the um regulations that were applied to effect in like 2007 or something.

So with the Crown of Building sign, those didn't come effect when the when the district was created, those came after.

So prior to that, um it didn't, there weren't the same limitations on the crown of building as currently exist.

So I believe the prior sign uh was there before.

But once it gets taken down, then any new sign that goes up has to either comply with the requirements or they have to go to the DDRB to seek a um certificate appropriateness and a waiver.

And and the variance carries um how does a change in ownership of the building affect this case?

So the change of ownership wouldn't affect it's my understanding that the appellant is a tenant in the building, but had the permission from the property owner, uh the building owner to bring the case forward, and that would be the same for any any case that's presented.

And would that decision our decision carry forward with a property or with the tenant applicant?

So it because of the nature of the this particular request and this, it would it would it would carry with kind of essentially with the with the tenant because the signage is dependent on who the tenant is.

Okay.

If it was a the name of the building, then that would not necessarily be the case.

And I think you might have covered this, but it's a simple majority.

We have 10, so we'll need six that's correct for any decision.

Any of your motions in the affirmative will uh need a uh six vote.

So it's a simple majority of the members present.

Um the rule your rules of procedure do say that if uh your vote results in a tie that the motion is lost.

I think with that the net result of that would be is that um depending on the motion and it is it's lost, we'd have to look to see what other motions are available to the board and you've kind of covered this, but with regard to how we classify new evidence, that's really up to us, it sounds like in terms of if there's any new evidence presented.

Right.

The real the real question for new evidence is whether or not that evidence would have been available at the time of the hearing before the DDRB.

Okay.

If if it was available at the time, then arguably that is not new evidence and it should not be considered.

Okay.

And then I have a question too, and this might be more case related, but with regard to how the motion carried on the initial case and how it got to us.

So the DDRB, um, kind of much like yourself, they have a set number of votes that are required in order to uh approve a case, and if you don't get that number, then the motion is lost.

So for the DDRB, um their minimum quorum is five, and it results in a requirement for there to be um five votes in favor.

And so um any anything less than that doesn't um will not result in a motion in favor, the motion will fail, and so the case will effectively be denied.

Okay, and I was reading in the background, and again, this might be more case related, but it was just saying on August 7, 2025 at the meeting, a motion a mo uh motion was made to approve.

The motion carried with only three votes in support and two in opposition.

So I thought it was interesting that it carried much like yourselves, if it's motions to approve that have a requisite number of votes that you have to meet or it fails.

Motions to continue, motions to deny only require a simple majority of the of the of the board.

So it carried, but there weren't enough votes at that time for approval.

If it's a motion to approve and it didn't receive five votes, then that would have been a denial.

If the motion was to continue and it was three-two, then the motion to continue would have been approved because it's a simple majority vote.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, ma'am, Ms.

King.

Yeah, with regards to new evidence, there isn't who makes that determination if there is an agreement among the board.

Is this is that an individual determination or collective?

So that's a good question.

And um I think there would need to be some consensus, or maybe perhaps that would fall to the chair to make that determination if there's not clear consensus on the board of whether or not the information is new.

Um the board could decide to continue to hear the case, but each member would then be charged with um how much weight individually you want to give to that evidence uh when making your decision.

If the board does feel that there is new evidence and that it merits um consideration by the the DDRB, the board has you have within your authority at any point in time to remand this case back to the DDRB for further consideration.

All right.

Any other questions?

I know you're still pondering over there.

You're good?

Okay.

Ms.

Powell, did you please?

I just wanted to make sure I heard you clearly uh when it was asked about tell me your name again.

Ms.

King.

Ms.

King.

Well, Miss King asked you about if there wasn't a consensus with the board.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

If there wasn't a consensus in regard to the new evidence, if makes the decision, would you clarify that a little bit more?

Because I heard you mention the chair.

But at the same time, each individual may have a different one, or we may all have one together.

But if we have three different um seven together, where does that lie?

Or is the decision making?

So in terms of that, um, when I mean by consensus, it's just by the majority of the members present.

So it doesn't have to hit a set number.

Um, but really when you're looking at new evidence, uh, to kind of to reiterate the question is is the evidence being presented to you uh as new, would that have been available at the time of the hearing before the DDRB?

Um if the answer is yes, it would have, then that information should not be considered as part of your decision making process.

Um the board decide to consider, go ahead and consider that information.

It is up to the individual members of the board as to how much weight you want to give that decision in determining whether or not initially the first question of there is substantial evidence in the record to support the decision that the DDRB made.

And then if we pass if you pass that hurdle, then whether or not you want to uphold and affirm the decision the DDRB made, if you want to modify the decision that the DDRB made, if you want to remand the case back to the DDRB, so really kind of those are the options for you.

If there is a true kind of uh paralysis of whether or not to consider it, that is when I would defer to the to the chair as the presider of the meeting on how to move forward with the case.

Thank you.

I just want to make sure that was clear on record sure.

Any other questions?

Clarifications.

Okay.

Um thank you very much, Ms.

Ramos.

We are gonna move forward with uh the hearing on this case.

Are we ready to move forward with that?

I think your hearing is scheduled at 10, but I believe I think all interested parties are prepared to move forward.

So yeah, we can move forward.

Let me check with Ms.

London first.

Um you want to let's take a five minute break, make sure we're ready to go and then oh yeah.

So Ms.

Rama.

Ms.

Ramos is complete with her presentation.

We've gotten all our questions answered.

We'll take a five minute break and then be ready to go in five minutes if I'll work.

We can't start until 10.

Okay.

So we'll be 10 o'clock.

And we have coffee and water right back here in the back, and we have light refreshments downstairs.

Okay, 15 minutes.

Good morning.

Notice of this meeting has been posted online for at least 72 hours.

Staff present today are Stephanie Scott Steams, Brendan Otterbeck, Trey Qualls, Melinda Ramos, Stacey Jones, Karen Moreno, Francisco Vega, and Denisha London.

Chair, will you please call this meeting to order?

Yes, thank you.

This is Witt Wallman, and this meeting of the Board of Adjustment will now come to order.

It is the 11th day of March 2026, and 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 a quorum with 10 members.

Today's meeting agenda can be found online at www.fortworthtexas.gov.

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

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

To facilitate an orderly meeting, I'm asking everyone in the council chamber to turn off the audible alarms on your electronic devices at this time, so we will not be distracted during our meeting.

Each case which we have won today will be called in the sequence listed on the agenda unless otherwise directed directed by me, the chair.

The board of adjustment requests that 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, uh board 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 the board members.

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

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 seven minutes among all parties so you do not exceed the allotted time.

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

This is their opportunity to express why they believe the variance or special exception or in this case.

For sure.

Uh, should be should not be approved.

The opposition is also allotted a total of seven minutes of time to be shared among all speakers.

If opposition is presented to this variance or special exception, the applicant will have an additional three minutes of rebuttal time.

The chair may allow a few more seconds in each presentation to ensure a speaker's final point can be made.

During the question and answer period, after the parties have presented their positions, the board members will then have the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant and any opposition.

During this time, all speakers must remember that all dialogue be directed to the board of adjustment only.

There is no time limit during this period.

After the board members have received answers to their questions, I will close the public portion of the hearing.

Board members can discuss the case amongst themselves 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 the case.

City staff will call for a voice vote from each member.

If an application is denied, an applicant will have 10 days in which to appeal to a 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.

So as we read through that, this is a little bit of a different case, a special meeting, and I'm gonna have Melinda Ramos give us just an update based on what we talked about previously.

Please go ahead.

So Melinda Robos, I'm the deputy city attorney, I'll be providing advice to the board.

I did want to clarify that this case before the board of adjustment today is related to an appeal from the downtown design review board, and so it will not follow the same um pre rules of procedure that the board typically follows when they hear special exceptions or variances.

In the instance case, because this is an appeal, the order uh procedure will follow where it is in overview by the staff.

The appellant will have seven minutes uh to present their argument to the board as it relates to the DDRB's decision.

The staff will have seven minutes to present um their evidence in support of the DDRB's decision, and then each party will get three minutes to present their final arguments to the board, at which case the chair will close the public hearing and then discussion will be had amongst the board, and ultimately a motion.

There is no outside testimony that is allowed for this particular appeal hearing.

It is based on the record that was presented and made before the DDRB itself.

Thank you very much.

Staff, would you please call the first case, which is BAC-25-056?

Yes, BAC-25-056 is an appeal from the downtown design review board decision in DDRB case number DG 25-026.

The address of the property is 1612 Summit Avenue, and the applicant is Frank Sellers of uh Sellers Law Firm PC.

Francisco.

Thank you, Mr.

Vega.

Good morning.

Uh my name is Francisco Vega.

Uh, to provide some background about myself, I'm a licensed architect from Mexico with a master's degree in uh urban design planning and research.

I've been working as the senior planner for the downtown urban design district with the city for war for around three years and four months.

Um review all uh private public development, including and not limited to signage, and our role is to coordinate the downtown design review board, something similar to what my teammate Donatia does with the board of adjustment.

And today I will be talking uh about this case that the the board the downtown design review board here uh last year.

I will start with uh background about this case.

Um staff received an application for an installation of a sign back in May 2025.

After staff review, it was determined that some waivers were required and a review by the downtown design review board was needed.

Staff included the case in the next available agenda.

The downtown design review board, DDRB, first her case DG uh 25-006 concerning the installation of a criminal building sign on four requested waivers on April 3rd, 2025.

At that time, the DDRB continued the case.

The case was subsequently heard during the DDRB public hearing on August 7, 2025.

The DDRB made a motion to approve the case.

However, the motion failed, receiving only three votes in favor and two in opposition.

As for uh as for affirmative votes are required to approve a certificate of appropriateness, the case defaulted to denial.

No additional motions were made at that time.

The proposed sign was presented again during the DDRB public hearing on September 4th, 2025 as case DG25-026.

This is the case we are discussing today in this public hearing.

Um the applicant submitted uh modifications to the original proposed ground building sign, um, where it does the number of requested waivers from four to two.

Staff recommended denial, nothing that the proposed sign does not align with the downtown normally signed starting sign guidelines.

During this public hearing, the applicant did not participate in the presentation of the case, as they did not attend the public hearing after staff presented their report.

The board discussed the proposed sign.

This can they considering approving it, nothing that other similar signs have been approved in the past or denying it because it will clutter the Fed side by adding another commercial logo that serves no purpose other than announcing the business.

A motion to approve the case was made and initially seconded.

However, after city attorney's office requested clarification regarding whether the waivers were included in the motion, the second was withdraw.

And no other board members seconded the motion.

Subsequently, another board member made a motion to deny the case, which passed with three votes in favor and two in opposition.

The city attorney's office clarified that pursuant of chapter 2.104 F motions to approve require four affirmative votes to grant a certificate of appropriateness, whereas motions to deny require only a simple majority.

This concluded the last time this case was heard by the DDRB.

Can we show the standards?

So new signage and all signage in general is subject to meeting the downtown urban design standards and guidelines.

The specific chapter that talks about signage starts on page 49.

And it's this chapter is divided in some sections.

As uh Melinda Ramos mentioned in the beginning, the intent and principles are something very important for uh the review of these projects within the downtown district.

And specifically uh after that, we uh have a specific sections for different types of signs.

Uh sign edge located at the top of buildings is what we classify as crown of building signs.

So this sign qualifies as a crown of building sign.

Uh, what you're seeing uh on the screen, page 68 regulates that a specific type of signage.

Um I don't think that I have to read all the applicable standards, but I will focus on uh some of them that are important for this specific case.

Um is uh the first paragraph that talks about the intent and uh for this crown of building signage, it says that um it just mentions that commercial logos and messages and and the majority of taller buildings uh the absence, sorry, uh the absence of commercial logos and messages on the majority of taller buildings, leaves a clean sophisticated skyline.

Uh and it says that it this is a desire of the downtown community not to have commercial logos on all single uh buildings.

Then for this specific case, uh some of the standards it's uh more than two signs are prohibited.

Uh signs shall have identical messages, and no more than one criminal building sign per facade is allowed, and a maximum of one horizontal or vertical line of letters or symbols are allowed.

Um we have other regulations, but as you can see, we're very strict about current building science regulations, and the intention is that coronavirus science should seek to become an architectural future, an artistic representations of some sort instead of just commercial logos.

And uh, so that's what these standards talk about.

Um part of this background is the staff recommendation during the presentation of this case.

I will read it.

The DDRB staff recommends denial of the proposed sign in reviewing the application, staff fund that the overall scale and size of the sign may not be well suited for its location, and that the design does not appear to be compatible with the existing building.

Staff also noted that the placement of the sign could draw attention away from elements of the facade, which the standards are intended to preserve.

Um based on this uh staff recommendation.

As I mentioned, the DDRB made an initial motion.

Uh Ms.

Dunn initially made a motion to approve the case, which was seconded by Mr.

Blake.

After trade claws with the city attorney's office asked for clarification regarding whether the waivers were included in the motion for approval.

Mr.

Blake uh withdraw his second, and no other board members seconded the motion.

Subsequently, Mr.

Burns made a motion, a new motion.

Um trade calls with the city attorney's office clarified that pursuant to chapter 2.104 section F motions to approve require four affirmative votes to approve a certificate of appropriateness, whereas motions to deny require only a simple majority to pass.

Accordingly, the motion to deny the case passed by a vote of three in favor and two in opposition.

So just to returate the motion, it was to deny the case, and it passed because three four members supported it and two were not in support, but we just needed simple majority to pass a motion to for denial.

Um so that's the background about this case.

Are there any questions about this background for the stuff?

I've got some questions, but we'll start with the stuffy.

I think it might be this is meant to be so it might be appropriate to ask Mr.

Vegas questions when he comes up during his portion of the presentation.

Okay.

No.

So typically we're doing we can ask questions of the staff.

So this is this is because this isn't appeal, this is just a case overview, which Mr.

Vega has provided.

So the next point in the hearing is to call up Mr.

Sellers as the appellant to present his case, and then Mr.

Vega will come back to present the city's portion at any point during the appellant and Mr.

Vegas testimony, the board can ask questions.

Sure.

Sounds good.

Thank you, Mr.

Vega.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Mr.

Sellers, if you're here, please.

You have seven minutes to present the facts of your case.

Uh if you would state your name, address.

And again, we'll seven minutes.

Uh which one is better, left or right?

It doesn't matter.

Either one.

Yeah.

Thank you.

If you'll answer Miss Moreno or Miss, there you go.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Please go ahead.

Mr.

Chairman and distinguished members of the Board of Adjustment.

Uh, my name is Frank Sellers.

I am the tenant at 1612 Summit Avenue Suite 200.

Uh, and if it's okay with the board, uh, the property owner uh Nick Martin is here, so I'll do this seven-minute portion and he'll do the the three-minute close if that's permissible.

Sure, if that's what you like to do.

Sure.

Um, I I put together just a little presentation uh for you.

And I now that I've heard uh Francisco, I notice there's one mistake.

Uh this is the building that we're talking about here.

Um DNM leasing uh sign up there is is really a ghost sign.

It has DNM leasing has not been in this building since at least 2017.

Um so when before Mr.

Martin bought the building, um, we signed the lease, and and I don't intend to start a new evidence fight, but this is just a visual to represent what was uh uh presented to the board.

And and as the board um was made aware, this was the least term that you know was attractive to us when we moved into the building uh that we could replace the DNM leasing sign.

So uh in May of last year, uh it really started before that.

This has been a very long and and winding road.

Um, but I want to talk about why we're here.

DNM leasing has not been there since 2017.

Um we have presented this.

Our sign company, I think, is quit on us at this point.

Uh we were just talking about that, but um, they went to an initial hearing and did a presentation, and that's where we were asking for the four variances.

We at that point, I think Mr.

Martin started to buy the building, uh, and he offered to jump in and help us out.

And he convinced us all that the sign needed to go down to two variances.

So we were asking for you know, more than two lines of text, a variation to allow for a bigger than uh you know what the the building size would allow.

Took those out, made two lines of text, and the only other variants besides one to two lines of text that we were seeking was uh to be able to have two different crown of building signs uh on the same building.

Now I put up here three, two both times in favor of sellers law firm.

I want to I want to point something out for five years before the second hearing, which is the appeal that brought us here.

Um these hearings were conducted on Zoom.

So we were at the second to last hearing, but then they moved them off of Zoom and you had to be there in person, and it was in the fine print, and we both of us missed it.

And so that's why we were not able to present.

But all of this has been presented to the board prior to.

Um so we came back.

We tried to to we tried to comply.

We tried to to to find a compromise, find a common ground that would appease the city and get rid of the ghost sign to help achieve what the downtown design review board is designed to do, remove visual clutter.

And when we have oh, this is the the hearing that we came back to master sign plan we provided, they say we didn't have one.

We chopped down our variances request.

This is the building from the other side.

As you'll note, you know, the purpose, if the purpose is to reduce clutter, you cannot see this both signs from the same side uh of the building.

You have to be on one side or the other because of the unusual shape of the building being kind of I don't want to call it a triangle.

I mean, there's a lot of different sides.

I don't even know what what kind of um gone we would be here, but uh and I want to note that the first picture in the presentation also shows that there was a lone star ag credit sign that was in the middle on the silver part.

That's gone.

So we're down to two signs.

One is a Merit Prize Financial that is on the west side of the building, and the other is the DNM leasing sign on the east side of the building.

Here is what we propose.

Remove the DNM leasing sign, replace it with this a crisp, clean, brand new lit sign that will look like the white part, like the facade in the picture in the middle there during the daytime, and like the black uh one at night.

That is what we're proposing to do.

And as you'll note, you you cannot see any other sign on the building.

As it stands, DNM leasing's sign is doing exactly what they're complaining about, exactly violating the purpose for why they wouldn't grant this waiver.

If the purpose is to reduce clutter, we need to remove the relics.

So hearing three, uh, I put still three, two in favor.

That's my mistake.

I thought it was three, two in our favor still.

Uh, as I noted earlier, we were not present at this, but still we had two people voting in favor.

We had a majority the first time at hearing two, three to two in our favor.

The second time it was three to two against us.

We're simply asking, and and it requires four votes, which was news to us.

I I'd never been anywhere where you get three two vote and you lose.

Uh, and so we're simply asking you to do what a substantial portion of the first downtown design review board was willing to do by a majority vote here.

Um, and the kind of the bait and switch that I wanted to highlight from this transcript.

Uh, this is Leah Dunn, and she's one of the members, and she she basically lays out look, we told these guys change your proposal, get us a master sign plan, come back to us.

We did that.

And then when we got back, we were met with arguments about emergency services.

This would affect emergency services issues.

This would uh this is like a a staircase in an old uh um historic building.

A staircase in an old historic building has nothing to do with a sign on the outside.

And I want to point out something that she said.

So I made myself okay with the seller sign that it had come back.

I felt badly I was going to say no, but then they put the work in it.

I adamantly said no to C and D, which was the four lines and the and the big sign.

If I remember correctly, I made the motion to approve, and that's where I still am.

That's where Miss Dunn was.

About one minute left.

Yes, sir.

The skyline.

I want to talk.

This is not a skyline issue.

This is a west facing sign as you're leaving downtown.

If I may finish my last uh emergency services will be improved.

This was what they brought up.

But I want to point out DNM leasing at seventh and summit has two signs up.

So if they if someone calls 911 and says I'm at the DNM leasing on summit, there's two places this could send them.

So this is not an emergency services issue.

The last thing we're willing to pay for removal.

This could help the city achieve its long-term goal.

And I believe you as a board have the power when you approve it to make that stipulation.

So we're trying to help the board achieve what its goals are.

And thank you for your time.

Yes, sir.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Is uh believe we moved to opposition at this point, correct?

Okay.

Unless the board has any questions for Mr.

Sellers.

Can we come back to questions or is this our only time?

I have a question.

Can I ask questions if you'd like?

Go ahead, Miss Duffy.

Mr.

Sellers, um, I I did watch the September meeting online.

The the August meeting and the April meeting were not available online.

So my question is, were you representing the case at those two meetings?

Or um who represented your case at those two meetings?

I was at the August meeting um along with Mr.

Martin.

Uh the September meeting, nobody represented us because it was online, and I guess that's how you that's one, yeah.

And then before that, the signed company April one sign company was there.

Caltown was there, but we've we've included them on all the emails for all this, and no response anymore.

So we may have to find a new company if we get uh what we're asking for.

Okay, thank you.

I had a couple questions too.

Yes, sir.

I've seen two different logos or two different proposals, and I guess I probably need clarification on which one is in our application, which one was in the business uh downtown design review board, but there was there is this one, correct?

Which it sounds like which from what you said, this is kind of the current ask, or this is what came to the downtown design review board.

The reason why I ask is because there's another one in our packet or in the docket somewhere that has trial lawyers underneath it.

What what was the change there?

Which one again?

We were trying to just work with find some compromise, and so we took that out.

Okay, um that's get to two lines, okay.

And that was a third line basically underneath, right?

That's what their issue.

I can't remember.

I'm trying to remember what the design looked like, but that's out of that's out of the question now.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Unless you say otherwise.

Sure, of course.

Any other questions?

The option?

Yes, sir.

Please.

Mr.

Sellers, on the picture that we have.

Ms.

Mr.

Johnson, we make sure that we can hear you, just make sure it's hear me.

No, is your green light on?

I'll speak up.

Okay, here it is.

Okay.

Uh on the pit on the photograph to the right where it says seller's law firm.

There's a uh there's a red thing on the left of the seller's law firm.

Is that a logo?

It is, you're uh it is, sir.

You could call me your excellency or your highness.

Your high there you go.

Yes, sir.

Okay, that's my question.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Yes.

Go ahead, Ms.

Powell.

Could you clarify again?

Because I'm gonna keep those thoughts to myself.

What is the issue between you and the city with this sign?

Your logo versus DM leasing and your current logo that you want to put up.

Are you asking for my opinion?

No, I'm not.

Okay.

Um because you shared not.

I read it in the late correspondence as well as she shared uh about Miss Dunn.

Yes.

Okay.

The issue I think is that um they believe that replacing the sign would cause more clutter.

That's how I understand it.

So they believe that replacing the sign will cause more clutter, but D and M leasing is no longer attended, correct?

Correct.

And hasn't been for a decade almost.

The tenant is seller.

Is that how you pronounce it?

Yes, ma'am.

Log firm.

Correct.

That is the operation business of that building.

One of them, yes, ma'am.

Prior it was D and M lease.

As I understand it, they had almost all of I'm just asking.

Sure.

Prior it was D and M leasing.

That's correct.

And they had a signage on the building.

That's right.

It's no longer D and M leasing.

Correct.

It's cellular law firm.

Yes, ma'am.

And you you're stating the city said, or the city, the issue is that they want to reduce cluttering.

So what I'm hearing is there is a problem with you having your business logo on the building.

But there wasn't a problem with DM leasing logo on the building prior.

I appreciate your presentation.

But I'm not seeing why there is an issue.

Any business down, whether it's downtown or the city has a logo.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Any other questions, Ms.

Powell?

Comments?

No.

No.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

Stay close, because I'm sure we're gonna have more questions.

Um, at this point, we're gonna bring back up the city.

Uh Mr.

Vega.

If you would please come up.

And this is gonna be our opportunity from the board to ask questions of the original case or more about the appeal.

From I just want to make sure we're clear on what we're able to ask or what we're able to.

Right.

What Mr.

Vegas should be presenting is as it relates to the record and the evidence.

Um, whether there is a substantial evidence to support the decision of the DDRB that is based on the record that was made before the DDRB.

You can ask him questions to clarify that record that was made before the DDRB as it relates to what the DDRB reviewed.

So I do have a question very similar to my first question about the logos.

Do you want Mr.

Bang to do any type of thing?

Did you have more presentation?

Did you have more to show some evidence?

Please, yeah, yeah, please.

Um before showing this evidence, I will just focus on the transcript and the standards.

Uh I just want to clarify.

I was told to clarify about the uh new evidence to make it easier for everyone.

Uh Mr.

Sellers presented contracts.

We do not present contracts to the DDRB.

That's not necessary documentation because we focus on design and not really on the legality of the contracts or leasings or anything like that.

We in fact try not to judge projects uh using the financial standpoint.

Uh so that way we keep our decisions very objective at what we think uh based on the design aesthetics and intended principles of the standards.

Um we didn't show images about the uh building uh the uh the traffic living uh downtown.

We focus we show context images uh so the board understands the the where this building is located and all that, but the idea is to focus again on the building and not really how it's gonna be seen for every single angle.

Um just to clarify it as well.

We always email notices to applicants where we let them know how they are gonna attend them, uh how they can attend these meetings, but time, the locations, I will provide emails, phone numbers, et cetera, so they can preferly call us to say, hey, I I don't know where this meeting is happening, so we can address that.

And uh just uh last thing, just uh to clarify previous decisions, uh do not set precedence on design districts.

We evaluate each case individually based on what we are seeing and the evidence that we have for that specific case.

Now going back to uh the evidence to show uh to support this uh the denial of the case, as we can see um I would like to go to page uh six of the transcript and page six.

Uh staff reads the following to start uh at the end of their presentation, and it's quoting page 68 of the standards with downtown revitalization and architectural person only has emerged distinguishing it from other cities.

The absence of commercial logos and messages on the majority of taller buildings leaves a clean sophisticated skyline, preventing further instruction of commercial messages on the skyline is a desire of the downtown community to avoid this visual clutter, signs shall not be allowed to dominate the skyline.

Then I would like to uh go to page uh 11.

As you can see, um Mr.

Burns uh is saying that uh he understands that the existing signage is not in compliance with the design regulations, and just as a side note, he's referring to the DNM leasing sign that uh Mr.

Solf presented.

So we knew that that sign was not in compliance, and essentially what Mr.

Burns is saying is not because other signs are not in compliance, we should be approving new signers that is also not in compliance.

So he's suggesting that we should stick to the standards and just follow the regulations because that's the intention of having standards.

That is also supported by Mr.

Pham, who uh also says that uh he recommends sticking to the design guidelines and othering to that's uh well for him, and he's he thinks that his responsibility is to respect and honor the downtown residents and the downtown standards that is put in place, and just uh the recommendation that uh staff has made it's uh what they what he is in support of.

So he's essentially saying that he's in support of the denial because the standards should be uh follow.

And waivers are exemptions, not a rule.

We presented uh standard, um I'm sorry, waivers or variances to the DDRV.

When we presented uh standard, um I'm sorry, waivers or variances to the DDRV, we always uh explain to the board that we already try to work with the applicant to either reduce uh things that need to be reduced so they are in compliance with the standards.

Uh that typically takes it depends on the project, but it could go from five days to a month, and there are other cases that are more complex that we have worked for several months.

So uh then the uh final evidence is just to show you the standards.

As you can see, it starts with the paragraph that I already quoted saying that uh commercial logos should not dominate the skyline.

That's something that has been discussed heavily by the board and other cases that we have presented crown of building signs.

Uh they are not really fully on board of approving new crown of building signs.

And if you take a look at downtown, you can see that we don't really have a lot of crown of building signs.

And some of the ones that have been approved, uh they try to accomplish either become becoming part of the architecture of the building or try to be more like an artistic representation or or or something like that, but not really having every single business to be announced in every single building.

About two minutes left.

Thank you.

And then that is uh reaffirmed with all the standards.

If you if you read them, you see that they are very restrictive.

They do not allow more, they actually prohibit more than two signs.

And uh just for clarification, when an item is not allowed, that means that the board, the downtown design review board can still review it because it's just not allowed, so they can decide what to do with that thing.

But when an item is prohibited, we do not even present it to the DDRB because a prohibited means prohibited.

So no waivers should be granted for for prohibited um items.

And you can see that all the other standards follow saying that signs shall have identical messages, no more than one crown of building sign per facade is allowed, a maximum of one horizontal or vertical line of letters or symbols, and then we prohibit raceways, cabinet signs, or animated signs.

Lighting is limited to internally illuminated channel letters and or Halo Lead channel letters or logos.

Um allowed, and they uh require a waiver that needs approval by the DDRB by default.

We have reviewed several of those, and typically um uh the most recent one has been unhauled because the applicant knows that there's gonna be you know some sort of concerns about the location and all that.

30 seconds.

That concludes my presentation.

That's the evidence.

Um does the board has any questions for staff?

We have lost questions at this point, or do we need to go to rebuttal or to the up?

Similar to asking Mr.

Sellers questions, you can ask Mr.

Vega questions.

Okay.

I think we probably are gonna have some questions for you if you just hang tight for a second.

Ms.

Powell, I think you were first.

Just a reminder for the for the board is that you were hearing this based on the record that was made before the DDRB.

This is not a case where it is of uh first impression for this board.

So you are not being asked to uh substitute your own judgment for the DDRBs.

You're looking at the record that was made to the DDRB.

Yes, Mr.

Vegan, correct.

Uh you generalize uh the statement on Mr.

FAM, age 11.

Uh there are numbers next to each statement.

So could you go back and point in the record?

What Mr.

FAM said that you generalize.

I say page 11.

Page 11.

Yeah.

Because he so in page 11, Mr.

Pham second, he's just saying I got the well, I'll start with with Brandon, but could you?

I know Paul, you weren't here last month, but if you could explain and just summarize in a minute or maybe 30 seconds of why you voted against the part that I was uh speaking in general, is it's more like on page 13.

It says um, and for me, it's it's really for me sticking to the design guidelines and othering two.

Um sorry, I mentioned uh I'm I'm reading line 10 on page 13.

Um, for me, my responsibility is to respect and honor the downtown residents and the standards that is put in place, and just the recommendation that DFWI and staff has recommended.

I do appreciate that input, and I take that into consideration the same time as from a design standpoint.

I do agree at the top of building the crown in the building, it does need to have one message, and the design of the sign needs to be integrated with the facade, right?

The facade of the building, and I do agree to just have one message.

Um that's that's what I kind of was trying to read about what Mr.

FAM said.

So I was trying to say that based on these lines of text.

What I think he's trying to say is that we have to stick to the standards because he's saying that we should have only one message.

He's saying that the design of the design needs to be integrated with the facade.

And uh what we don't have it in this on the screen, that's what the standards call to be an architectural feature to be integrated with the with the building, and that's what I was generalizing about, Mr.

FAM.

Does that respond to the question?

You said what you have on the screen.

Generalize what?

No, it doesn't answer my question.

Yes, I'm not understanding the question.

What you have on the screen, I understand what Mr.

FAM is saying, but the question I'm I'm trying to get also clarification of the rebuttal to that of what you stated.

Ms.

Free, Miss Um Powell, I'm sorry.

I think what Francisco is saying when he gave his uh presentation, he was just giving a generalized overview of um the dialogue between Mr.

Pham and Mr.

Burns, and that Mr.

Pham wanted to stick to the design standards.

And when Mr.

Vega came up before, we had on the screen what those design standards are.

Um so he was just referring back to the design standards outlined in the um yeah, here and that Mr.

Pham was confirming that we should stick to those design standards that are on your screen now.

Yeah, that's correct.

And um, so he's saying that no more than one crown of building facade uh is allowed.

So I think that that's why Mr.

FAM is saying not to have uh one.

No, I believe Mr.

FAM is saying it does need to have one message, sorry, one message, and the standard says sign shall have identical messages.

So Mr.

Seller sign is different from the another sign that is located in another facade, and essentially the standards want to have identical messages.

So he needs a waiver because this message, the Mr.

Seller's law firm message differs from the other uh corner building sign.

So Mr.

FAM is saying we should stick to have identical messages and make those signs uh part of the architecture of the building.

Um I'm pretty sure that's what uh we're saying here with the transcript and based on the standards that you have on the screen.

And that is a layout, correct?

That is what sorry that is a layout the same, yeah.

Well, I'm asking that is allowed to have the same standard signs on both sides.

So he's talking about having identical messages, so not having identical messages is not allowed and requires a waiver, and that was one of the waivers that it was requested to the downtown design review board.

Francisco, with this question, I think Ms.

Powell wants to know if the message that's currently on the um on the other facade of the building, if that message was placed on the side of the building where Mr.

Sellers is proposing his sign, would that message be allowed on this facade?

Would it meet all the design standards or would they also require waiver?

It will be allowed uh because it will be identical.

So we have the same design on both.

Um and I believe the Americ price financial is only one line of text of letters, so it also meets the standards.

I do not know this exact square footage, but as you can see here in the standards, we have different maximums.

So from 18 to 100, the maximum is a hundred square feet.

So if they have less than a hundred square feet, then they will be allowed and they meet the standards.

Um yeah.

So if that same message was presented on its facade staff, we'll have to review to make sure the square footage and the location is compliant.

Yeah, essentially.

Thank you, Ms.

Powell.

Ms.

Bree, were you next?

Did you have a question?

Nope.

Ms.

Duffy.

Please.

Um so Francisco, um, again, I don't I don't have the video available or the transcript available from the August meeting.

However, you start in the transcript that we do have from the September meeting.

Um the meeting starts on and I think it says page three in this transcript, where um you start the meeting by stating that there was a technical issue with the vote at the August meeting.

Um, and that's why the case is being reheard.

So my question is when you left the August meeting and the vote was three to two.

Was the applicant told they had gotten the waiver at that point?

Did the did the board think the waiver had been approved at that point?

What brought up the at what point did it get put back on the September?

Okay.

So yeah, after the case default into denial because we didn't meet the minimum votes to approve it.

Um what we typically do is we send to the applicant a decision letter, and the decision letter mentions in simple board saying that on this date, the downtown design review board will be your application for the following, and the text is exactly the same as it was posted on the agenda, so they know what has been reviewed, and we mentioned that the decision was made too, and then we decided we mentioned what was the decision, and we explained uh essentially that on the decision letter.

Umce the applicant received the decision letter, um, they started, I believe, the appeal process, and before following the appeal process, um with we with staff discussion internally, we thought that they could have the opportunity to just present it one more time, because since the motion defaulted into denial, we felt that the board could have the opportunity to review the case one more time and reaffirm either if they were in support or not of the case.

So that's how we ended up presenting it again in September.

Obviously, that simplifies the process and the applicant agreed on presenting it again.

Um that's how uh we heard this case one more time.

And uh I just when you walked out of that meeting that day, you everybody knew it was denied, and the decision, the original decision letter said you don't get the waiver.

It was clarified that uh a simple majority was needed, it was uh just enough to denial uh a case.

Now, since the applicant did not attend the public hearing, we won't really were able to tell him what happened typically when the applicant is there uh at the end of the public hearing once it's is uh talking about the September one now.

Yes.

Uh uh so typically in any other board uh public hearing, I'm sorry.

But yeah, I I guess my question just to clarify was on the August meeting.

Um three to two sounds like good news.

Like at what point did the applicant was the applicant told that's not good news?

When that happened um Francisco, at the August meeting, once the vote was concluded, did we put on say on a record that the motion to approve this case fails, um, which results in a denial?

I will need to review the minutes, but typically I read what would happen and with the motion, if it was either to approve denied.

Um the reason for that is because we are focusing on the September one and and we provided all the information related to the September one.

We did not provide anything before that.

We just provided context about the other uh hearings.

Wouldn't it support your case if you had the minutes?

So um for this case that's before the board today, we are um reviewing the final decision of the board, which was to deny the case.

So the September meeting is the one we provided the minutes for from that meeting along with the case report and um any information that was provided by the applicant during that September DDRB meeting?

But how evidence that would support this case should have been provided?

So staff is correct.

This appeal is based on the September DDRB meeting and the record that was made at that meeting, and that is what this board should take into consideration.

Sir Costa, yes, uh Francisco.

So if the um objective of the cities to declutter and design is also is staying there for multiple years.

What would be the difference between approving something new and maybe making sure they compromise to take it up when they move out or leaving this sign there forever?

What would be what is the city approach?

So if I'm understanding correctly, is um whenever we approve a sign, what happened when that business moves to somewhere else?

Well, at this point, the DNM leasing has been there for multiple years, and it's gonna stay there unless something changed.

So it's not removed, is it still a clutter?

Yes.

So it's doing the same purpose as the new sign.

Two different companies, but at the end of the day it's the same.

It's showing something that the city wants to look clean, right?

So what would be the approach if this is denied, how is there one helping the city somehow?

Yeah, that's a good question.

Um our role is very limited to the review of design of cases.

We don't really enforce, we are not enforcers.

Um I think that we do not have uh the downtown design review board and staff uh on the zoning section, we do have the ability to you know try to remove signs that once they are not you know in compliance or whenever the businesses move or anything happen.

Um probably uh there's some mechanisms through building code con compliance or something like that, but we don't keep track of businesses, for example.

We just review the design of uh what is presented to us, and we just make sure that those designs meet this design standards and guidelines, the intended intent and principles, and that's uh the end of our uh process.

Now all signage requires a permit that's a uh uh following step.

So I'm not sure if in the permitting process they have the ability and they track down all these businesses and all that, but from our role, we don't we don't do that essentially.

Thank you.

I've got a question real quick too, and and sorry, Ms.

King, if you don't mind if I jump ahead.

So it sounds like from the August to September meeting, you the staff made an administrative decision to put them back on the September meeting.

And could you describe what what led y'all to do that?

Was it an internal discussion?

Yeah, absolutely.

Uh it was an internal discussion with all the uh the teams with the BOA team and the DDRB team and the salting team, and essentially uh we um determined to offer that alternative to the applicant just to present the case one more time before uh proceeding with the appeal.

And uh they they agree on doing that, and that's how we uh included the case in the agenda.

It was not my decision, it was a a decision made with the with the team.

Is that to is that typical?

Does that happen where you can review with an applicant or um to be honest?

This is uh probably one of those first times that we are doing uh when the denial happened and it was continued again.

Typically the applicants work with the staff on the design and trying to reduce all waivers and and uh try to meet the standards as much as possible, and only if there is a reason why they really need a waiver or a variance, or because the standards specifically said that that specific thing needs to be reviewed by the DDRB, we include those on the agenda.

So uh in this case, um they presented several options to staff, but they still needed those waivers.

So that's the reason why it was not something that the staff could approve administratively.

So we offer it again to the applicant to present it one more time to the DDRB to hear their case.

And can I ask the same question about the logo?

So in our docket, there was um seller's law firm, I believe, with trial lawyers underneath it.

And then it looks like in their application, or what we've seen here is they just want sellers law firm with the logo.

Is is that is that new to this case, or was that something that you reviewed before, or you've worked with the seller or with the applicant prior to this?

Does that make sense?

I'm trying to understand it.

I just saw two different logos that we've been that we've seen, and I want to make sure nothing changed in the course of the way we've seen this or the course of the process.

Yes.

Um yeah, what what you see now on the screen, this is what we presented to the DDRB in September.

So if we use the as reference, like what it was first presented back in uh April, the design changed, but still they needed the waivers.

You can see they have different uh more than one line of text and letters of symbols, and um, and that was one of the waivers, and the second waiver is the message is still different from the other one that is existing on the other facade.

Can we go back to and so even though they even though they changed the design, and it sounds like they changed it with with you guys talking to the design review board, they still needed those waivers at uh over the process of of working with you?

Yeah, as you can see in the in the standards is mentioned, science shall have identical messages.

So this it was for sellers' law firm here, and on the other facet on the other uh side of the building, there is an existing side.

I think the business is a mere price financial, so there are two different messages, and also no more than one uh I'm sorry, a maximum of one horizontal or vertical line of letters or symbols is allowed.

So they are they have two with the letters, sellers, and then law firm, the bottom, and then even uh vertically, they have the log on one side and the name of the business on the other side.

So they need that that very still need, yeah.

So but the but the trial lawyers edition, that was kind of the initial application to you all, and then they worked with you to drop that and change that.

Okay.

Uh initially it was four waivers because they were also, I think, exceeding square footage, the maximum of square footage, and something else I can remember at this moment, but then they revised that design and made it a little bit smaller.

Okay.

Yep.

Because of the nature of this, because it's a new business they cannot meet this identical messages, and also because their design has those lines of text and and and logos, they needed the waivers.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

King.

Um yeah, I'm um I guess I'm kind of confused because why don't you and let me know if uh if my uh question is appropriate at this time.

The purpose of a crown signage is to identify the building or the tenant um I'm trying to read if it's it already on the standards uh and that was my next question.

And it and is it in the standard in terms of what the signage or who the signage should identify, and if that information was considered anywhere in any of the initial uh hearings, yeah.

Um I'm gonna show you the intent.

So for all signage as I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, the sign a chapter starts with the intent and principles of signage, and then it has different divisions for the type of signs.

So technically, all signs, no matter which one, which type, it's subject to this intent.

And the intent is to establish a specific uh to encourage creativity and innovative approaches to regulating sites.

Sorry, that's the intent of the standards, but to encourage excellence in signage, both as communication tool and as an art form to enhance the economy value of the build environment by avoiding visual clutter, which is potentially harmful to property values and business opportunities to allow and encourage creativity and unique sign designs while preventing clutter and an attractive streetscapes to ensure signs reinforce the existing and ambition character and are complementary to the architectural design of the downtown.

So they don't really have the objective of you know, like naming buildings or something is but that's the broad term signage, but we're talking about crown side signage, and is there a distinction with that kind of signage?

Crown of building signage is also subject to this principles.

All signage in downtown is subject to this principles.

There is uh and the trial building signs.

We have a paragraph at the beginning of the standards, and it says with downtown revitalization and architectural personality has emerged, distinguishing it from other cities.

The absence of commercial logos and messages, and the majority of taller buildings leave a clean, sophisticated skyline, preventing further instruction of commercial messages on this guideline is a desire of the downtown community to avoid visual clutter, signs shall not be allowed to dominate this guideline.

So if we are talking about a specific intent for criminal building signs, I think is this paragraph, and it's not really saying that we want to identify buildings or anything like that.

It it more it talks more about how signs should be you know an artistic expression or something that is part of the architecture and not really just a commercial logo and and just that.

Okay.

Well, I'll just say for the record that we're not agreeing on that at this point, because I'm seeing the distinction of the crown signage being that different than uh then just the broad term signage that that you're pointing to, but nonetheless, um you've answered my question.

Okay.

Because in reading um the information that was provided before the meeting, I think that that issue in and of itself was one of the reasons why there was a disagreement uh among the panel that the standard pointed to um uh uh the standard the standard pointed to not having um lost my thought.

Never mind.

We'll come back to you.

Okay, yeah, Mr.

Riley.

I think I know the answer to this, but was the um applicant or their representative present during the September hearing?

No, they were not present.

Did the rule change for no video conferencing change during this during this process from the first application to the last or to other first consideration to the last consideration?

I can I can respond to you, Mr.

Riley.

The the answer is yes, the city manager's office made a determination that um the all the cities boards and commissions would begin to meet in person, and that applied to both the uh not only the board members but the applicants um and anybody wanting to speak as well.

I know it impacted the board of adjustment because we used to have individuals that would video in, and we had a right now.

That that was that was a decision made by the city manager's office that was then applied to all of the city's boards and commissions, not just exclusively the board of adjustment or the DDRB, it was across the board.

The last question is probably staff also is did the downtown design guidelines change from what is what we're seeing here from when we this process started till the end.

Are you referring to when the uh these are you referring to when Mr.

Sellers made the application or are you referring to when the DNM leasing sign was erected on the building?

I'm talking about the application.

Okay, the application was made.

Was there any changes to the downtown design guidelines?

From April to September.

Correct.

That affected no changes were made to the standards.

Yeah.

So the downtown design review board was acting on the same rules on the time in which it was initially applied for in April, and when the final decision was made in September.

That is correct.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Same standards.

Yes, ma'am, Ms.

King.

Okay.

The reference was um at the prior meeting that the building sign does not meet the zoning intent.

So if you modify a non-compliant condition, shouldn't you bring it into compliance?

So are you asking in order to bring it in compliance?

What would have been required for the signage at the crown of the building?

Right.

Do you under do you understand the question, Mr.

Vega?

So what is what the applicant needed to do in order to make the sign compliance with the standards?

Right.

Yeah.

Um that's that's a complicated one because the sign differs from other signs on the in the building.

And those that sign is already existing.

So if this is this sign is different, completely different, just it's a different business.

It it's impossible to make it in compliance fully with the standards because this is this message, this business ours law firm is different from America Prize Financial.

So there's no easy way.

Now, when staff cannot make decisions and cases vary from the standards, that's the reason why we present those cases to the downtown design review board.

So the board can make those determinations, and it's not it's not staff based only on what we have.

So they this they hear the application, they discuss the application, they hear staff's recommendation, and then they decide between the board what to do with the application, if it's appropriate or not.

Well, it sounds like you've thrown it back on us and I understand, but it's not in compliance with the DM.

I think that's what's up there.

You take that down and then you put it up, put something up that also is not in compliance with the standard.

So I I that's where I'm confused.

That's what it was denied.

That was the waiver to the DDRB was whether to allow another sign that they voted not to is not the same.

That's correct.

And that and that's okay.

Exactly.

So the they differ from the standards as well as the existing DNM signage.

All right.

So the board heard the case and made the determination that we shouldn't be allowing more signage that is not in compliance.

And that's the reason why they the motion was to deny the application.

Yeah.

Can I ask what what point of the process are we in right now?

Are we still in a rebuttal?

So this is not you have not entered the rebuttal.

The rebuttal so the applicant still has time.

Right.

On his rebuttal.

Correct.

Three minutes, and then we can then continue to ask questions after that, right?

So well, I would recommend that you you can't ask questions, but each each side will after uh Mr.

Vega you is done, will have three minutes of rebuttal each.

So Mr.

Sellers will be able to Mr.

Sellers, or I believe he deferred to the pro the building owner, uh, will be able to come and um offer a rebuttal, and then once he is done, Mr.

Vega can come back to the um podium and offer the rebuttal on the part of the city and the for the DDRB.

And then as I understand it, we can do we have a discussion period before the vote then so once once the rebuttal periods are over, um the chair will close the public hearing and then open the floor for discussion.

There's the matters of discussion are related to whether there was substantial evidence in the record to support the decision of the DDRB, and then once you all make that determination, then other remaining motions to follow as to whether to uphold the decision, reverse the decision, and modify, or to remand the decision to the DDRB.

And as I understand it during that discussion, we can also ask questions.

We can still if if it is necessary to your discussion, you may ask questions to both parties.

Right to our board discussion.

Any other questions for city staff right now on their presentation?

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Vega.

Appreciate it.

The applicant or the parties associated with the applicant, you have three minutes.

If you would please come forward, state your name, address.

Thank you.

Good morning, board.

My name is Nick Martin, uh 6467 Crestmore Road.

Uh, and I am the owner of the building.

Uh we purchased it last year in June.

Uh, and through the due diligence process, uh, speaking with prior ownership, I know that this uh sign issue has been going on for I would almost say two, maybe even three years with uh conversations with the DDRB to try and get this right.

Um when I first came in, so I I I understood that in April uh it was first proposed.

So Cowtown Signs uh created a presentation, proposed it, and there were four variances at that time.

Uh so when I came in, I took a look at that and before going back to the board and representing something, I wanted to understand where we were.

Uh so actually during the summer months, uh we actually worked, Francisco and I worked fairly close closely with the sign company with Mr.

Sellers to uh reduce the number of variances meeting requested, and basically get it more into compliance for what the DDRB would really would like to see.

We went back and forth multiple times, multiple iterations, finally came up with something that there were still were two variances that were needed, which would be two separate signs on different sides of the building, and we found that relatively acceptable because of the shape of the building.

Uh it's it's atypical, it's got kind of two different angles, a couple of different angles there.

And the other one was we reduced it, uh, we took two of those out, and the last one was on two different layers.

So you have sellers law firm.

Just because of the side that it's on, we couldn't really get rid of that that variance.

So through the rest of the process, and I really want to take it back to for me, it really kind of comes comes down to fairness.

So we worked with the city, we got something.

Actually, Francisco and I thought, hey, this is great, this is going to pass.

Um, and one clarification with the downtown uh downtown review board, there's actually supposed to be seven seats with an alternate that should fill that in.

So in the in the August presentation, only five people showed up, which actually was detrimental to us because that means that four out of the five people that were present would have to vote for our variants.

And that was one of the reasons why we got three out of two.

It we thought it passed, we were celebrating.

And then Francisco clarified, no, no, no, you need four.

So I said, Oh, well, that's not fair.

We discussed, and at and we were online during that time, we discussed and say, well, let's present again next month in September.

Maybe more people will show up.

Well, the same thing happened, and unfortunately, this was a mistake on our end.

On September 1, you know, they cut off all access.

30 seconds.

Uh, and so we were not even present at all.

We were ready on our computers to to be there to talk.

No one was real uh was there on our side.

Um, and then during that September meeting, again, five people there, three for two against.

And there was an email that Francisco sent afterwards that clarified uh the DDRB initially made a motion to approve the case, but the motion did not carry with three votes in support and two in opposition.

Some of the board members opposed the motion because they believe crown ability signs shouldn't include commercial measures.

Go ahead and finish your thought.

Yeah.

Anyways, they someone decided that well, if they're not here, let's vote again against it and we can pass against the variances if we only have three.

So one individual, we weren't there to represent our re represent ourselves, and they excuse me, they flipped and we lost.

That's okay.

Yep, thank you.

Any other questions?

Uh let me can I open up to the uh board for questions at this point, staff?

Is that okay?

Yeah, please.

Any questions for I have a question.

If if this case is denied, if the signage is denied, what do you plan to do with the current signage on the building?

That's a good question.

Um I'll have to consult with uh with my tenant first because we did sign a legal document, an amendment that states that he can put something up there.

We heard safety concerns, service issues and things like that.

So it seems like it would be something that would be I know I know he wouldn't pay to have it come down.

Um at some point, I would probably have to pay to have it come down uh if there's any other future options.

Um I know in the discussion with uh Mr.

Sellers, you know, if he got his sign up at this point, you know, he says, Well, if I ever leave, I'll take it down.

And that's an that that is an issue, ongoing issue with most you know commercial buildings is once that tenant leaves, they're out.

They don't want to have to pay to have that sign come down unless it's written into a document that uh says that they have to.

Typically, isn't the main tenant of the building what's represented at on the top of the building?

American, yeah, on the far side.

Right.

Yes, and they're still there.

Okay, yeah.

Thanks.

Any other questions?

Yeah, please.

I have a question that I don't believe is for the applicant, but it's um on this particular board is seven members, correct?

On the downtown design review board, there are seven appointed positions to the DDRB.

Their quorum is five.

And five was there.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay, thank you, sir.

I think we now bring up the um city staff.

Yes, correct.

For three minutes.

Um just to clarify when the um when we uh post the agenda, and after that, we create the staff reports and presentation and prepare all documents.

We sent uh what we call courtesy notices to all applicants, and in this case we explained to them that there was a change and how they could attend the meeting.

So we told them that uh they need to be in in person here uh on the in the uh work session room.

So we certainly provided that information, just a clarification.

Um, and also, yeah, as the uh Nick mentioned, we worked together, and when they bought the building, we uh he he collaborated with us and tried to adjust it, the the design of the sign and all that.

And um we found that the waivers that they needed were reasonably, and that's the reason why we listed the case again on the on the uh agenda.

Um again, because one of those is just impossible to me.

Like if you are gonna have a different business, you cannot have the same name of a another business and the other uh elevation.

And for the uh line of text of uh the maximum number uh of uh lines of text of or or loggers, uh it's also reasonable because their uh name of the business just is that they evaluated other options where it was just like a line of text and all that, but uh I think that it was uh really small.

There were some issues with that sign that at the end of the day they they decided to go with this one that it was smaller and all that, but it still required those two waivers.

Um as uh Maureen mentioned uh during that meeting we have uh we had a quorum with five members.

Two board members were uh uh absence, they they had excuse absences, meaning that they they reach out to us and let us know why they couldn't attend.

Um so we had the enough quorum uh to make the the votes, it's just that uh the decision was uh not uh unanimously.

So that's the reason why at the end of the day was not really uh not received the the four votes that they needed to approve.

Um I think that's all the information that I want to clarify.

Every single information about the standards and all that, I think it would just be uh repetitive.

But if you have any questions about that, I can I can share it.

Okay, thank you.

You still have a few more seconds if you have anything to add.

No, it was good.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Uh yeah, we hang on, Mr.

Vega, stay up there for a second, we have some questions for you.

I'm just still trying to get get my head straight about when these votes happened.

So that vote that he mentioned um was a three-two vote in favor of the signage right, and then we came back and I see a vote now, three-two vote in favor to deny.

So which is it?

I mean, is it both?

Do we have both votes?

Uh in half so in the August meeting, the DDRB made a motion to approve.

And it didn't pass because the minimum votes to pass a motion for approval requires four affirmative votes, and it was three in favor and two in opposition.

So we didn't meet the minimum of four.

When we presented this case back in September, um, as you see on the screen, Ms.

Dunn initially made a motion to approve the case, and it was and there was a second to approve the case.

However, once uh the attorney staff clarify as is this approval, including all waivers, then Mr.

Blake withdraw his second.

So without a second, the motion couldn't carry so that we couldn't vote on it.

Subsequently, uh another board member, Mr.

Burns made a motion to deny the case.

And the motion passed with three votes in favor and two in opposition, because for deny denying cases, you just need simple majority.

You don't need a minimum uh number of votes.

And this was the most recent vote.

This is the most recent three in favor of denial, two in in opposition of denial.

Thank you.

And just to clarify the question again, the board has five total members with seven as alternative.

So the board has seven members that are appointed, five members.

The is necessary to create a quorum in order to do business, and in order to approve a and a certificate of appropriateness, it requires four affirmative votes.

And in attendance at the September meeting, there were only five.

Correct.

So we they were essentially missing two, as I understand.

Um two regular members, two regular.

And just because the numbers probably are not gonna uh the demand place four was vacant at that time.

So we had five board members present, two absents, and one vacancy.

So that gives the total number of seven board members and one alternate.

So in total, it's technically eight members, it's just that one of them is an alternate and not a regular member.

But at the vote in September, five were present.

Five were present.

That's correct.

And could you describe after September?

It was denied, and then it came to us.

So from that five-person vote, they've then worked with you to come to the board of adjustment.

They have been working with the board of adjustment to be staff today.

Yes, in September.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Yes, I have a question.

Uh actually too.

But when was the notice provided?

Because when was the notice of uh that they can no longer they had to come in a person provided to them?

Um so we typically send out notices 10 days prior to the project.

I'm sorry, you'll have to let Francisco respond because this is in relation to the hearing for September.

I mean last September.

Sorry.

So just to clarify, we do not follow that rule of notices being sent 10 business days prior cases.

We work differently.

We just sent courtesy notices.

That's something that I mentioned for uh at the beginning, and essentially it's just an email to the applicant.

It includes the agenda, and it includes uh all the steps to be uh how to be prepared to present the case during the hearing.

It mentions the location, uh, the room, the time, etc.

And in that specific uh time, we included a paragraph saying that we were changing the way uh board members and the general public could attend, and we were switching from online to in-person only, and it was provided on September the second at 8 30 9 a.m.

So uh we provided the the notification for the applicant.

You say it was provided when September 2nd.

Uh and when was the mean?

September 4th.

September the fourth, but the rule says a 10-day notice.

No, that is not the rule for the DDR.

I'm sorry, that's the rule for Board of Adjustments.

What is the rule overall?

Well, we don't really have a rule about the notices.

So we send courtesy notices.

It's literally we are just letting them know that the case is on the agenda, but we don't have a rule.

The only rule we have is to post the agenda at least 72 hours before the meeting, and I believe then later that was changed to three business days, and we met that requirement.

Sounds like they differ from us, but my regulation as a whole from the city secretary, and um the training we've had, uh, I believe is a 72-hour notice.

That's what we did.

So that is the Texas Open Meetings Act that the city secretary is referring to, and um there was a change in law in September that requires agenda postings to be done three business days before the meeting.

And I believe Mr.

Vega has indicated that they met the Texas Open Meetings Act.

What I think you were asking about is the uh communications that staff had with the with the applicant regarding the hearing and whether or not you could still video conference.

He said they sent a notice on the second, and the meeting was on the fourth.

That's correct, and that's for notice that's not the agenda.

He's not referring to the agenda.

Is that correct, Mr.

Correct?

The agenda was posted on August 28th.

My question wasn't in regard to the agenda, my question was in regard to the changing from Zoom to in person.

Yes, that's correct.

So that he can meet though so that they would have had an opportunity to be in person if that was required because of the change.

That's correct.

It was uh so you didn't provide a notice where he where this company could have had the ample amount of time to be there in person.

I'm not talking about the agenda, I'm talking about the opportunity to represent themselves if that's what they had to do, or send a lawyer, whichever the case it's saying is is maybe the Zoom change was too quick, two days too quick for them to plan to be there.

Am I right, Ms.

Powell?

Or is that Monroe?

Right, and they didn't meet the standard.

Just to clarify the standard about the notices, it's C rule.

We don't have a standard about notices.

If we want to meet the standard, make it make sense to me why this particular department don't have a standard about meeting criteria for someone to come and present their case.

Yeah, the when when everybody else has a criteria, a standard, make it make sense to me, somebody, and show it to me according to the law.

Um I can or do you need trade explain the difference?

Show it to me according to the law, where you cannot have a standard to notify applicant of a change.

So Ms.

Mell, if if if I could address so um the DDRB does not have any notification requirements.

Um so what Mr.

Vega has testified to is that the the staff provides a courtesy notice to the applicants regarding the date, time, agenda, and um in this instance, Mr.

Vega said uh the change to the ability to appear in person or by video.

They have legal rights to that only I'm sorry if I can finish, please.

Uh that is not something that is codified for the DDRB.

So the notice that he is referring to is strictly um the courtesy reach out that they do.

So that is different than um this board experiences with the board of with your regular board of adjustment cases where that notice is codified in the zoning ordinance.

Again, my question is not being answered.

Uh I feel like it's being uh ran around a Marbury bush.

There is a standard across the board, whether it's uh this design, let's just say it's a someone is trying to get a patio.

There is a quarter standard that they have to know when they have to be at what time that meeting's gonna be, and there is a quieter standard of notification, right?

And that is I'll keep talking about what excuse me, what I keep hearing is about agenda.

I'm talking about yes, I'm talking about the notice provision.

Okay, so you said they have no codified city attorney, please show me according to the law that they are not required by right to give them a fair shot to come before the board with proper notice because every other department, if I'm correct, has to abide by that, no matter what, even if you go to court, you got to every applicant in that suit has to have notification.

So if I can address your question, this is strictly what is written codified in our zoning ordinance.

The DDRB does not have noticing requirements in their um in either in their enabling act or in the um body of the zoning that talks about the district itself.

You provide it, however, um if this board it is within the discretion of this board to remand this case back to the downtown design review board to allow the appellant to have to appear on a date certain um with the DDRB to appear in person to present their position to the DDRB.

I thank you for that, but can you provide that zone and ordinance?

So their enabling act um I believe it's 2.102, but I'll have to look that up.

So if you give me a moment, I'll look up their enabling.

So the um, I'm sorry, the DDRB, their enabling act is 2.104, and the downtown urban design district is in chapter four.

It is an overlay district that is in 4.402.

But just a reminder for this board this is an appeal uh of the DDRB's decision um to deny the case for the signage with the two waivers, and you all have to make your decision based on the record before you have discretion to remand the case back if you think it needs further review by the DDRB.

And right now we're still in the question and answer.

So Mr.

Vega is in his rebuttal period, so we still have question and answer opportunity here.

At that point, we will close the public portion of the hearing and have a discussion among the board.

So right now understand your issue, but let's make sure we get all the questions from Mr.

Vega or the city and then again.

Uh that uh knowing the zoning ordinance and different requirements is still part of the review, uh which is before us.

Sure.

Because this is the part of what they have presented is in both uh was in the applicant's application.

Uh Mr.

Vega got up, shared his rebuttal against it.

So all of this is part of it.

Any other questions from Mr.

Vega?

This point.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

Okay, so now we will close uh the public hearing portion of this hearing, and then I think legal is going to remind us as we have our discussion about this appeal.

There are two steps.

So I'll let her right.

There are two steps that should be the focus of the board's discussion.

Um the first is a determination of whether the decision of the DDRB was reasonably supported by substantial evidence.

And then you all will need to make a motion and to vote to that effect.

Um, and then um once you do, then I'll inform you about what your what your available motions are in that instance.

Um I will I will say if in the course of your initial discussion, if the board determines that remanding the case is the proper course of action, you can go ahead and make that that motion if you would like.

Okay, so at this point, you know, we're at the discussion and or motion phase.

Um like she said, the first step is whether the decision of the design review commission or board is reasonably supported by substantial evidence.

I've two things, just an and my quick response to that is I'm not sure if I know the evidence of why the board turned it down necessarily.

However, I there is one thing.

Oh, we got page 68 up.

Um I wanted to point out um halfway through that first paragraph, it says uh preventing further intrusion of commercial messages on the skyline is a desire of the downtown community to avoid visual clutter.

Signs shall not be allowed to dominate the skyline.

Um I looked in the the definitions in this same document that we've been provided, and there is no definition for visual clutter.

I know that that Mr.

Vega depended on that quite a bit, but there's no definition for visual clutter, but I did find the definition for commercial message, and I want to read it real quick.

Uh, a message displayed on a sign which relates solely to the economic interests of the advertiser and its audience, a message pertaining to price and product advertising, goods and services.

Um so I just wanted to point that out.

Right, and just a reminder for the board that um you are not asking me to be um to hear this case.

You're you're making your uh determination of whether or not there was substantial evidence based on the record that has been provided to you all from the board DDRB's hearing in September, and whether or not there is enough evidence provided at that hearing to support the board's decision of a denial.

But I believe what Ms.

Duffy just said um part of what we need to make a decision on rather they presented enough evidence again, as I said before, that's included in part of it.

Yeah, I think there's um it's it's difficult to um to stop ourselves from wanting to re-evaluate this as if we are considering it.

Um if I look at what was discussed that day um in September, just objectively look at what was discussed, um all the different issues were brought forward.

Um there was a lot of consideration as well to the efforts that were made um to come closer to compliance, but in all of the votes that had happened, um it came out that it just didn't, they just didn't meet the numbers with the um design review board wanting to um stay within the standards, and I think what really gets us, and I know that we have issues with this when we're hearing cases.

If we could go back to page 50, if somebody could put page 50 back, is that on the guidelines or on the on the signage guidelines because this is this was discussed within um within that within the meeting, and if you look at non-conforming signs, we have the same thing as we're looking at things.

If if something is non-conforming, it's because those guidelines weren't in place.

It's that's essentially grandfathered in, just to use colloquial terms.

So DNM leasing would grandfathered in.

And um, if you're looking at trying to build as this design group is trying to do, to build um on, and yes, they are new guidelines, but to build an image of the city to do something that is that makes Fort Worth unique.

Um this is where what was discussed at and I don't know about the August meeting, but in September, um this was brought forward that once the non-conforming sign is restored to the original condition, and there's where we have sort of a got you because it hasn't been restored yet, um it reverts to where you you evaluate it as if that wasn't there before.

And I didn't hear any new evidence today.

So if I'm looking at very crisply and cleanly at what we've been asked to do today, I don't see an effort, uh, a reason to remand it back.

There's been the issue discussed of fairness, and I don't really understand was there is does the notice of public meeting act apply at all?

That's a question.

No, it does not.

No, it does not.

Not not to the purposes of what this appeal is and what the board's to consider.

Yeah.

So I'm I'm sort of at a I I really hear the issue of fairness.

I really do.

I really understand that you know you get a long email in and you're like, oh yeah, yeah, we've got this, we've got this.

We're we know what we're gonna do, we've got our plan.

And so there was a miscommunication.

So I I have conflict.

I'm just sort of babbling out loud here.

But my conflict is if I'm just asked to do what we've been told our guidelines are.

I I didn't see any new evidence, but if the issue is the fairness, and there's some concern that another shot at presenting the same material again, is that gonna change things?

No, I'm I could be swayed.

So it sounds like you believe that it was reasonably supported by substantial evidence.

Yeah, I don't I didn't see any new evidence today.

Um it's the board came came back to we have an opportunity here to bring this building into compliance, and they decided that they wanted to stick to the standards.

That's that's all I I heard.

I didn't hear anything new.

Okay.

Mr.

Acosta.

Well excuse me.

Um I truly believe like they have the five members for quorum, but they didn't have I don't want to say six or seven.

Seven members where more people have the opinion, and also the fact that they were not present that will give the impression to some board members they don't care.

They're not here.

So when you talk about really the facts and presenting everything, we have the same information, but there wasn't only five people who were able to make the decision instead of the true true seven members when four has to be approving the decision.

That is what I wanted to say.

And that's exactly where I guess the fairness comes in because I know I have voiced many times on this board a concern when we only have quorum.

Because when we have quorum, just one voice can change it versus having 11 people, you know what and it's I know it's difficult sometimes to get those people, but I think every effort should be made, and that it is better to have more voices.

But besides besides my conflict comes back to yes, but it's been multiple votes that came to the same conclusion, and if it goes back, is there any new evidence being presented?

Mr.

Riley or Mr.

Whitden, sure.

Uh this is Johnston.

Uh sorry, Johnson, excuse me.

The uh if I was on the design review board, I may have voted for the waiver, but that's not the issue before us.

Uh if I was a city council, I might put some more some better rules of notice.

But this is not the city council.

The only evidence the only issue before us is where whether this board had before it sufficient evidence to justify its decision, and it to me it's absolutely clear, just you take the fact that you've got two different messages on this building.

That's a clear, that's a clear violation, and the board was within its right, in my view, to deny the waiver.

The other things about the logo and so forth.

Uh again, uh understand it.

Our our purpose here is just to simply determine whether that design board had in front of it sufficient evidence to support its decision.

And for me, it's clear that it did.

And again, I uh if I was on the city council, I might introduce an ordinance to say in these things we will have more notice uh or better notice, or uh and if I was on the design review board, I may have voted for these waivers, but that's not our function.

So that's where I am.

Mr.

Riley, Jeff Some.

I I'm I'm along with uh Mr.

Johnson, you know, what's been presented today.

I don't believe that the uh design review board uh did anything in error, they based their decision on the evidence.

And in fact, what really supports it is that legal staff was there and told them exactly what they were gonna do, how their voting would impact this outcome.

So it wasn't, and I might uh and I'm I get this idea, but I don't verify it at the August meeting, that confusion was what led to staff saying, let's hear it again, and probably I would say anticipate that the staff communicated that to the applicant.

So I'm with Mr.

Johnson, I believe that they had sufficient evidence to make the ruling, whether I'd make the same ruling or not, it's not mine.

Uh sure.

My question to both of you gentlemen is what is that evidence?

They've been presenting it for the last hour and a half.

I mean there's nothing that was wrong that we didn't change the rules during the process.

That's one reason I asked the question.

Did the guidelines change?

No.

Now if they had changed from the time that they made the first application in April to when they made the decision.

Yeah.

I mean, but what I think there's legal.

I'm not an attorney, I think there's legal standing out there.

You change the rules in the middle of the process, you're vested back to the rules and uh that when you made your application.

But there was no change in the rules of the guidelines.

That's my point.

Well, I mean, I I'll add in to that specifically.

You're gonna have the you have two different messages on the same parabet.

But that's the waiver they were asking for.

They were asking for a waiver to that.

Exactly.

And and the board denied that waiver.

And then the second one is it was one line.

Again, we got we've uh we've got more than one line.

Uh the other is the logo.

So yeah, those are uh in in my view, that was evidence presented that was evidence violation of the parapet sign ordinance, and they would need a waiver, the design board decided not to give the waiver, but they had they had in my view a specific basis for not providing that waiver.

But if they had a initial messages and and visual what do they clutter?

Do we have evidence of that?

So you all are not the determiner of evidence.

No, but was there evidence that that would have been the the DDRB and the the question for the substantial evidence test is whether there's enough evidence in the record, and this is because the um uh appellant was not present.

Is there enough evidence in the record based on the board's discussion to support their decision to deny the the case?

That is that is the question that is before the board of adjustment, and the only question that is before the board of adjustment.

Is there enough so the the first the first question to the board and it it should be in the form of a motion is is there enough substantial evidence to support the decision of the DDRB?

So there's a motion either that in support that there is enough substantial evidence, or there's a motion to say that there is not substantial evidence.

That is that is the motion that is I understand that I'm just not seeing I'm and part of it is the way the design standards are written, there's nothing in here that says this is your evidence of whether you can or can't do this.

So we don't have a let's go on.

But um, if we're trying to meet intent, I'm seeing the words visual clutter certainly Francisco used that a lot, visual clutter.

Um it's not defined, commercial messages defined, and I can find a definition for that, but I don't I didn't see any right evidence that we've reminder you you should be basing your um determination and discussion based on the record that was provided to you, not any um kind of really independent um review at this at this dias.

It's based on the record that's before you, right?

Which is which we were provided the um transcript from the that's September meeting.

That's correct, right?

So if anybody sees any evidence in there, I would love to hear what it what you're seeing because I don't see it.

Right.

Like we do sometimes.

We will we will let the applicant know that they could postpone and maybe continuance or something along those lines.

So based on the record that's before you, because the applicant was not present, then the answer is no, the applicant wouldn't have been afforded that because they weren't present at the hearing.

And the applicant wasn't given the opportunity to be present.

So we don't have enough evidence.

Speaking the um the only reason it came to the September board, it had already been denied.

So they were they've already gotten another chance, if you will.

And what I see in the September meeting is that because of the legal advice, um they you know, I look the way that the um that the motion was made the legal advised, you know, you're it's gotta be oh, you know, you you've got to have uh everybody on board except for one, you know.

It's it just legal was helped them refine the way they they did the motion to give them the most opportunity for approval.

So I the thing is if I've got to think, you know, if they'd been there, was there anything new provided?

Was there any new evidence?

And if I didn't hear any new evidence today that's not discussed in the in the meeting notes from September, I don't know what we've changed if they'd been there.

Uh thank you, Miss Deborah, but you're not persuading me.

One, two, uh they have a right to be at the meeting, and they should have been notified.

Uh three the uh motion was approved, they was motion to approve until leader legal uh share it what they shared in regard to the um what was it the variance?

I believe I'm trying to find it where I made a note.

Um, and once that was made, um one of them withdrew the end of the board member who made the second withdrew, and so that because of that, that brought about a change.

Had they had notice to be at the September meeting, there could have been something that they could have presented, and it went back to the original motion for approval because they didn't have notice, proper notice to be there, they wasn't able to present again.

So therefore, with that being said, there's not in my perspective, there is not enough evidence because they was not even able to present in September, Mr.

Chair.

If I can make a note, please.

So we are receiving notes from IT.

Can everyone tell me or make sure that the green light is on on your microphone?

Yes.

Yes, okay, yes.

If the microphone, if we can't hear you, as soon as you start speaking, just give it a moment, they'll resolve the issue.

Please do not touch the microphone to turn it off and then back on again, or just make sure your green light is always on.

Thank you.

And I'd like to say, I mean, to Miss Powell's point, you know, a no-show could be taken wrong, you know, and we did see the vote change from a three-two to the opposite.

We know we went to to deny.

So that could have been taken wrong, you know.

So I kind of see her point as far as that person not or the applicant not making it to that meeting.

Could it could have been a factor?

Mr.

Costum.

I agree because even if I denial, you got the majority, you got three two, and then in the final decision, you don't have a way to speak to the board, you don't have a way to present the facts.

So they denied the case, but you're not present, there is really nothing you can do.

So I think that is evidence.

Um to our attorney.

I I guess I'm concerned that there is confusion about there is still confusion about what the test is.

I'll try.

Uh so the test that is applied to the board of adjustments review of this appeal is whether based on the hearing uh and what was presented to the DDRB, that there was enough evidence there that they could have reasonably that they could have made their decision and that their decision that a reasonable person could understand why their decision was made.

And that's based on the the hearing and the record that was presented to them in any discussion that that board had in relation to their decision.

And that's all we should be.

That is that is the limit of this this board's review.

I'm there, I'll just like to say I'm very clear on the task, and within uh reviewing the task, there's not enough evidence presented because the applicant wasn't uh able to be present.

So based off again, as me and Mr.

Hicks agree based off of that.

I'm not in agreement with this, and I believe it should be uh remanded.

So just as clarification, if we're done with discussion, we need a motion first on the reason the board's decision was reasonably supported by substantial evidence, then second based on that, we need to do that first, then have a second motion.

Right, right.

That's correct.

So the first motion would be um if a motion to say that there is substantial evidence to support the the decision of the board or a motion to say there is not substantial evidence to support the decision of the board.

So right now we need a motion.

Simple majority, that's correct, simple majority.

Mr.

Johnson.

Uh make a motion that the board uh determined that there was substantial evidence to support the decision of the uh downtown review board.

Okay, can I get a second?

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second staff.

If you would please call uh perform a roll call vote.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

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

No.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Witt Wolman.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

No.

Board member Kay Duffy.

No.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

No.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board member Eric Ortega.

No.

I believe it's 5-5.

So five-five, right?

Yep.

Right.

So if I so based on a five-five vote, then the motion to say that there was substantial evidence uh fails where the board is according to your rules of procedure, then it it would uh since that motion is lost, then there's a finding that there was not substantial evidence to support the decision of the DDRB.

So the motion now before the there's two possible motions before that are available to the board of adjustment is to reverse the decision of the downtown design review board or to remand the decision of the downtown design review board to them for further review.

Right.

So it sounds like because it was tied, we go now to what I'm calling C under 2AC because it was not reasonably supported by substantial evidence, right?

That motion right because you're because you had a tie vote, then it defaults that the motion that says that there was substantial evidence is not does not pass.

So you are out where the there is not substantial evidence for the board's decision.

So I mean, I'm sorry, the DDRB's decision, and so there are two possible motions available to the board of adjustment.

The first possible motion is to reverse the decision of the DDRB, which be would be to approve the sign and the two waivers.

The second option available to the board is to reverse, I mean to remand the case to the DDRB for their further review.

I have a quick question before I make my motion.

Please um, can we make a motion?

The motion that's gonna be made, can it be um with stipulation that they have the required board board members present?

I because I board has no seem like they can do things free will.

Well, I think this board is subject to the same kind of um issues that the board of adjustment is is that while you have a full complement of uh 11 or in that case seven, um staff doesn't have the ability to have the full complement always appear.

And the threshold is quorum, and the the threshold is quorum.

So if they have quorum, that's what we go by.

Okay, the same as ours.

Right.

I mean it it would be at the uh the caveat to that is is for any particular meeting similar to the board of adjustment, it would be at the um applicant's discretion is seeing the number of members on the board and what's required to get an approval to ask for a continuance.

So also may I add notice in there stipulation of 14 working day notice because again, this board from what I've heard has free will.

So you would you if I understand you correctly, you would require that the staff for the DDRB send written notice to the applicant?

A written notice to the applicant as well as phone call within a certain time period, 14-day notice.

14 day notice.

That could be a stipulation of a remand.

But I would caution that setting a set number of members present should not be a part of that.

My opinion is that we are not the downtown review board.

And I don't really want to take something out of their hands.

So I would like to make a motion that we were mandus back for further review by the case.

Excuse me, Miss Steffi.

I already said I was going to make the motion, that was going to be the motion I made.

That's the reason why I asked in regard to the stipulations.

I don't know if that was a full motion though, Ms.

Powell.

I think you asked.

I was waiting.

We were still in discussion.

I understand.

That was my question.

I understand.

Okay.

But Ms.

Would you like to make an alternate motion?

Because then we'll vote on that first, and that will go.

Ms.

Freed, are you pulling back your motion at this point?

I'm offering to make an alternate motion.

I'm I would like to make a motion to remand this back to the DDRV, but with the stipulation guidelines of a 14-day business notice follow with a phone call to the applicant for the hearing.

Second.

So we have two motions on the floor.

We have a primary and an alternate.

Right.

So the alternate motion will be voted on first.

And if I could ask for one clarification with regard to the phone call, is when the motion maker would like the phone call to the applicant to occur.

Excuse me.

When would you like the phone call to the applicant to occur?

Do you want it to occur?

Um a day before the meeting, a week before the meeting.

When would you like that phone call to occur?

To provide some clarity to stop the phone call to occur seven to two hours before the meeting.

Okay.

I have another question about the motion.

And I believe real quickly, Mr.

Riley, were you seconding Ms.

Powell's motion?

Okay.

Mr.

Riley.

In her motion, she stated a 14-day business announcement or notice.

So basically that's uh all it'd be a three-week notice if you're stating business.

That's correct.

Instead of a county.

Do you want calendar days or business days?

Business days.

Okay.

Okay.

Just want to make sure that that's clear to the applicant.

And to everybody.

And by business days, you're referring to Monday through Friday.

Correct.

Correct.

Mr.

Hook, you're okay with that?

Yes.

Could we restate your motion, Ms.

Powell, just to make sure we're all clear on what you're okay?

What you're asking.

I'd like to make a motion to remand this case back to the DDRB board with the stipulation guidelines of a 14-day business day notification, a 72-hour phone call notification to the applicant.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Hook.

Second.

Still seconding.

Okay.

Staff, we have a motion and a second.

Could you please perform a roll call vote for us?

Yes, we have a motion by board member Lucretia Powell to remand the um decision, remand the case back to the DDRB board with the stipulation of a 14 business day written notification and a phone call to the applicant 72 hours before the meeting.

The motion was seconded by board member hook.

Board member Michael Johnston?

No.

Board member Bob Riley.

Approve.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

No.

Board member Whitwoman?

No.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member Kay Duffy.

This is the end of the line vote, right?

There's not another vote after this.

Yes.

Board member one Manuel Costa.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board member Eric Artiaga?

Yes.

The motion passes to remand the case back to DDRB board.

Okay.

The applicant, you have been this case has been decided, so it will now go back to the DDRB or DDRB, excuse me.

Um I would work with staff as early as tomorrow.

Um I would work with staff as early as tomorrow, um, either be in contact with the board of adjustment staff, Denisha, or Francisco, and they can kind of point you in the right direction.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you everybody for everybody's time today.