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

Staff present today are Trey Qualls, Maribel Pina, Scott Bellin, Karen Moreno, Stacey Jones, Emily Reyes, and Denisha London.

Chair, will you please call this meeting to order?

Hello, this is uh James Hook, and this meeting of the Board of Adjustments will now come to order.

It is the 18th day of March 2025, and I'll 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 alternative or alternative members must be present to provide a quorum in order to conduct business.

Today we have a quorum with 10 members.

I believe.

Yes.

Today's meeting agenda can be found online at Fort Worth Texas.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 recorded recording, uh, which will be available on the city's website.

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

Each case will be called in sequence listed on the agenda unless otherwise 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 uh development services department.

After uh presenting the facts of the case, the board of adjustment board members will have an opportunity to question the city staff about the case and any applicable laws or regulations that may 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 variants or special exception 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 speakers' final point can be made.

In 2019, there was a rule change regarding translation cases.

When speakers require the service of a translator, all speaker times during those cases will be doubled.

After the parties have presented their positions, the board members will then have the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant in 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 among 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 motion to approve, deny, or continue the case.

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

If an applicant is denied, an applicant will have 10 days in which to appeal to a court of appropriate jurisdiction jurisdiction.

For more information on this additional information or any additional information on this case or today's agenda, you may contact the board of adjustment at 817-392-8026 after this meeting.

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

The first order of business is to approve the minutes uh from previous month's meeting.

Um, is there any um uh everybody okay with the minutes from last meeting?

Okay, then we'll move to pass that.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

Okay, thank you.

Motion approved.

We can just go ahead and approve it.

Okay, we'll now open up our our public hearing.

Okay, we'll call the first case.

Actually, let's do this.

Um, we're gonna move all the cases that have uh been requested to withdraw to the end of the agenda.

Uh BAR twenty five zero nine five, uh BAC twenty-five oh six seven.

Um see BAC twenty-six zero one zero and BAR twenty-six zero one one.

Okay, we'll go ahead and call our first case.

Mr.

Chair, our first case, I'm sorry.

Our first case on the agenda today um is moved.

Yeah, I'm I've moved everything to the end of the agenda.

BAC26.

Our first case on agenda is case BAC-25-068.

However, the applicant has requested that we move this case to the last of the continue cases for this morning.

So the first case we'll hear this morning is BAR dash two five-095.

Um we've asked to move that to the end of the agenda.

Okay.

So the applicant is present.

So we'll hear case BAC-25-067.

The applicant for this case has requested a continuance, but he is present, so we'll go ahead and present this case and let him come before the board.

Scott.

So this uh the next case is BAC dash two five-zero six seven.

The address is thirty-eight eighty Hewland Street.

The owner is series thirty-eight eighty Hewland Building series of Fort Worth Investment Group LLC.

The applicant is Barnett Signs.

The property is zoned e neighborhood commercial, and the property is legally described as lot one block one, Hewland Towers edition.

The variance is a request to the requirement that attached on-premise signs shall not exceed the maximum allowable area of exposure based on the facade length to allow an attached sign that exceeds the permitted sign area.

The maximum sign area of exposure is one hundred and fifteen point five square feet.

The maximum sign area of exposure previously approved by BAC-18-087 is one hundred eighty-six square feet, and the requested total sign area of exposure is two hundred and ninety point thirty-six square feet.

The subject property is an approximately two point six one two acre commercial corner lot located along the an established commercial corridor.

The lot has an approximate slope of four point five percent.

The lot has a few mature trees and does not contain any floodplain.

The property was platted without alley access, and an adjacent residential neighborhood to the west is zoned A51 family district.

There have been uh two previous board of adjustment cases, BAC-17-030, which was a variance for a cell tower height, and also BAC-18-087, which is the uh the variance that is uh part of this uh, which was previously approved for this case.

The variance for signed square footage uh allowed 186 square feet.

And it was approved in December of 2018.

As you can see, the uh there are current sign permits.

As you can see, the uh there are current sign permits and two of those signs, E04 and E05 have been issued already.

Those two signs are the signs that have been placed on uh on the uh uh on the facade already, and PS-25-02175 is for E03, and that is the uh the sign permit that is awaiting client reply and outcome of this case.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 186 square foot sign that exceeds the maximum area exposure of the previously approved variants by 104.36 square feet.

The proposed sign is located on the building's southeastern facade of the building, and it is indicated uh uh as E03, uh, which is circled on your uh illustrated illustration.

Again, the maximum sign area of exposure, which was previously approved was 186 square feet.

Um the two signs E04 and EO5 are both 52.18 square feet.

Um so combined, the total is 104.36 square feet.

Um, the remaining that would be left for this facade, the uh the remaining area would be 81.64 square feet.

Um because the uh proposed sign is the exact same area, the request exceeds by 104.36 square feet.

These are the regulations for the for the variance request.

And I'm available for questions.

Any questions from the staff?

Applicant, uh, if you'd like to come up and speak, uh please tell us your name and um your address.

My name is Adam Bailey.

I am at 4250 action drive, mesquite, Texas.

Okay, you have seven minutes.

Go ahead.

So there was a little bit of misunderstanding, I guess.

On the last meeting, I thought that we were allowed 186 square foot for the one sign, but from what I'm understanding now, it's total.

So with that in mind, my my customer had asked to get a continuance one more time so they can work out the details on what they want to propose to meet the what's allowed.

Well, I think it was 81 square foot.

So that so basically I'm just here to get a continuance.

Okay.

All right, one second, please.

Uh is there any opposition?

I see no opposition.

Is there any uh questions uh for the uh applicant from the board?

Okay, would anybody like to make a motion?

I'm sorry, we need to close the public hearing and um discuss among ourselves, I guess.

Anybody have any discussion?

Anybody like to make a motion?

Given that it's continuance.

I move we continue EAC25-067.

Continue until what would work next month.

Yeah, next month is fine.

Continue until next month.

I second okay.

We have a motion by Ms.

Freed.

The second by Sandra King.

Okay, case BAC-25-067.

We have a motion to continue this case to next month by board member freed and a second by board member King Board Member Jim Whedon.

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Eric Artiago?

Yes.

Board member uh James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Lucree.

I'm sorry, she's not here yet.

Board member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Diana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa?

Yes.

The motion passes.

And yes.

Thank you, sir.

Okay, we'll hear our next case.

Uh BAC 25045, and we'll hear from the staff first.

Four record for case BAC-25-067.

We have a yes vote for board member free.

Stacy.

The next case that you will hear will be BAC-25-045.

The address is 5159 and 5151 and 5159 Greenlee Street.

The owner is 5151 Greenley LLC.

The applicant is Julian Armandarez.

The zoning is E, neighborhood commercial district.

The legal district description is lot seven and eight, block one of the Eastland edition.

Where screening fences are normally required to be constructed of wood, brick, stone, or reinforced concrete products.

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

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

And to the east the lot history includes approval of legal nonconforming status to continue auto repair and auto sales uses in January of 2023 and was later reissued in October of 2025 to define the legal nonconforming area within the reinforced within the referenced property and to include additional ordinance language.

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

The opaque TARC screening was added more recently between March of 2022 and January of 2025.

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

The location and height of the fence comply with ordinance requirements.

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

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

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

These are the regulations pertaining to the case.

Any questions from the board?

Okay, would like to bring our applicant up?

If you're an applicant on the case, once the board um uh announces your case, please move to the front row.

Be ready to speak.

Uh please announce your name and uh your address, please.

Uh Craig Davis 2000 East Lamar Arley.

Excuse me.

Can you speak into the mic?

Sorry.

Uh Craig Davis, 2000 East Lamar, Arlington, Texas.

Uh, I represent uh the business owner.

Okay, thank you.

Seven minutes.

Uh counsel, will you we request this variance?

Can you pull a microphone down closer to the case?

Talk right into it, thank you.

I just didn't want to eat it.

Okay, we request this variance.

Uh this uh fence has been here since 2007.

Uh the purpose, I believe, of the of the city code is to uh screen the vehicles so they're not being seen by the residents of a adjoining uh neighborhood.

That is accomplished with the opaque uh screening along the uh barbed wire fence.

Uh uh that barbed bar on top and the chain link fence, so you cannot see the vehicles.

I believe that's the purpose of this.

Um it's been great, I believe is grandfathered in.

Uh the natural wood material that would be required on this wooden fence is not as sturdy as what is out there at this time.

Uh it would require the business owner to have to do make constant maintenance on it.

Uh, if there are high winds, it would blow over this chain link fence with the opaque tarp, allows wind to go back and forth until it would not blow over any fences uh or cause any damage uh as far as that's concerned.

Uh as I said before, this has been here since 2007 uh with no issues as far as that's concerned.

Um it would cause a uh substantial uh burden upon the business owner who's currently conducting business and is a taxpayer.

Uh and uh we believe that the current fence uh is more sturdy than a wooden fence would be and less maintenance.

We also believe with the barbed wire that's across that is the safety issue.

Uh, since uh barbed wire has been there, there hasn't been no break ins in any of the vehicles, uh, which is good for the public and good for the police, uh, not having to wait uh go out and expend valuable resources on that.

Uh there have been cars broken front, but the barbed wire keeps the vehicles from the back from being broken into, and it is a safety issue.

And the owner would like to address.

Good morning.

My name is Julie Armandarius.

I'm the owner of the business located at 5159 Green Lee.

I'm here to address a pattern of targeted harassment that is currently impacting my ability to run my business and is wasting city resources.

Over the last two years, most business has been the subject of complaints filed with the city by a single individual.

In every single instance, city inspectors have visited my site, and every single instance my business was found to be in full compliance, and anything that was not in compliance was fixed on the spot.

Well, I respect the city's role in code enforcement.

What we are seeing here is not a concerned citizen.

It's a coordinated effort to use city department as a tool for personal harassment.

This individual is effectively weaponizing our city's reporting system.

This isn't just a frustration for me, it's a drain on the city and its inspectors.

Every time a buseless complaint is filed, a city inspector is pulled away from a legitimate safety issue to perform a redundant check on my property.

My staff has to stop their work to accommodate these inspections and productivity suffers.

We are a law-abiding tax-paying entity that contributes to the local economy.

We should not be forced to operate under constant threat of retaliation by an individual with a personal grievance.

We want to be good neighbors, but we also deserve the right to operate without being harassed through official city channels.

I thank you for your time and for protecting the integrity of our enforcement systems.

And I ask that the board continue to allow the security first fencing options so we can protect our inventory, our property, and our livelihood.

Thank you for your time.

Is there anybody else here to speak in favor?

Is there any opposition?

Please come forward, state your name and your address, please.

Thanks, guys.

You have a seat.

Uh, we'll hear from the opposition first.

Good morning.

My name is Dan Hayes.

I'm the vice president of the Central Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association.

And just for clarification, I am not the person uh being referred to uh by the applicant.

You should have a letter opposing this variance from our neighborhood association in the file, but I did want to speak in person against this variance.

Plainly stated, there's nothing really unique about this property that should require a variance from the applicant to provide the six-foot screening fence made from the uh approved materials, as other similar businesses do.

The existing arrangement of a TARP over a chain link fence was installed in mid-2022 by the current owner.

I filed a complaint on behalf of the neighborhood association about the TARP only, not long after that.

The TARP rarely covers the fence.

If you'll go to the next slide in the presentation, uh usually one or more sections are flipped over due to wind or are sagging and the vehicles are not hidden from view.

You can clearly see the vehicles through this tarp.

Even if properly in place, which it hasn't been in months, uh go to the next slide.

The TARP is not uh uh I said that already.

To add insult to injury, the applicant now has an advertising banner draped over the fence on the side facing the residences.

This was installed since the hearing uh in uh January.

The residents across the street from the side of the property deserve a better view, which of course is exactly what the zoning requirements provide for.

Could you go to the next slide?

This is the condition uh that the residents see that are across the street on Wilson.

There are a couple of keynotes, uh points to note based on the application.

The applicant says the structure and fence predate the residents across the street on Wilson.

The structure does, but neither the fence nor the tarp uh predates the residences.

The applicant states that the contour of the land would make a proper fence installation almost impossible.

Yeah, that didn't prevent someone in the past from installing a chain link fence.

Although this property has a Greenlee address, it's plainly visible from East Lancaster Avenue where it sits at a slight curve in the roadway.

One of the primary goals of the East Lancaster Public Improvement District is working to improve the appearance of the corridor.

This property is part of the public improvement district, and as such, its owners are encouraged to improve the appearance of their business by conforming to city zoning requirements.

On behalf of our neighborhood association, I ask that you deny the variance.

Thank you.

Thank you, hang tight.

Uh board members may have questions for you.

Uh the applicant, if you'd like to come back up, you have three minutes to rebut.

I would just like to point out that that TARP has uh, since it's been up, it's been up there a couple years.

That actual picture right there was taken during a time um last month I had to ask for a continuance because my mother was in hospice care and she eventually passed away.

That was taken during the time frame when I was not going to work for obviously what I have been there that would have been taken care of.

Once again, um, the one thing that this individual's not discussing is we are also part of the community as a business, and protecting our business should be priority as well.

The main concern I have here is that this fence is removed, especially the barbed wire, it makes it very easily for people to break into our vehicles.

We have a problem with drugs, prostitution, and homelessness in the area.

We have had issues in the past where homeless have taken residence in the back of the building, and it quickly spreads from one or two people to next thing, you know, we got 20 and we got tents back there.

If we make it easy for these individuals to break into our vehicles, where to quickly spread, and I don't see our business lasting if we have a business where they're constantly breaking into our vehicles.

Like Mr.

Davis stated, we have left cars out in the front before.

And they have been broken into very, very quickly.

Thank you.

Okay, is there any questions for the applicant or the opposition?

Um, I do have one question.

You mentioned that the photographs were taken during a time span when um you weren't did not have access to the fence, and every uh we um Google map shows that fence to have holes in it every time every every date that uh I'm looking in the Google maps.

There's always a section where the that material is blown blown away.

It's it's not working for it to cover the view.

Would you be opposed to putting well leave that question for us?

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant?

I do.

Okay.

Is that does this photograph represent the current uh state of the chain link?

No, since my mother passed away, I've been back to work and I've already replaced it and fixed it.

Do we have pictures of that?

I have it with me on my phone, but I did not submit it in time.

We can show um the staff site photos from our site visit.

These pictures were taken in January.

Is that the same area?

Same area as the last photo.

I think this is a different view than the last photo.

And and like I stated before, my mother went into the hospital January 13th and she passed away February 21st.

Um I was not there given this time frame.

I mean, for the most part, I am on top of taking care of this.

I'm a small business owner, so I do wear many hats, and during the time I was gone, this was not something that I obviously wanted to put out the bargain on my staff, so they took care of the business while when I came back, I rectified the situation.

Was there a major wind event?

I'm sorry.

Sorry about your mother.

Thank you.

Was there a major wind event or something that caused that material to fall down?

Like it did so much of it.

Correct, correct.

Obviously, we've had really strong wind.

Um again, the tarp has been there for years, and it has not been an issue.

Every now and then, yes, you know, it'll start flapping, and we just have to strap it back down.

But for the most part, um, I know the issue is here is wanting to conceal the vehicles, but like I stated before in the nighttime.

If someone were to have a concealed area to where they can easily jump over the fence, it just makes it so much easier for them to break in.

And we all know criminals do not like to be exposed.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Um, just a correction for the record staff corrected me.

Our site visit was conducted in December.

Okay.

Any other question for the applicant?

Yeah, he said something just now.

He said that we have to keep the vehicles out of sight, and you want them not to be in sight at nighttime.

Is what you're saying?

Is that what you're saying?

Correct.

Like I said, the tarps still kind of with the light, you're able to see if individuals or somebody's back there versus if we were to, for example, have a wooded fence, people would be easily be able to jump over and nobody will see them breaking into the vehicles.

No, they have cameras with motion detectors now.

You you can probably circumvent the some of that with motion detectors.

Correct, but um, we live in an area.

I'm sorry, um, the business is an area where I want to say the police does not respond as quickly as they should.

We've have had to call police for certain different incidents, and it does take a while for the police to come out.

So my question is if there was no um nothing impeding the site, and someone was in the fence, the police would still take forever to get there, correct?

Pretty much.

But the difference is as of right now, we have never had an incident, at least since I've been there where anybody has actually broken in.

The chain link fence in the Bob wire just deters them from that.

Okay.

Uh we will close this portion of the public hearing and open it up to questions among the staff among the uh board members.

Comments.

We can have a seat, guys, and we'll we'll talk amongst ourselves.

Um this is sometimes it's very complicated to appease the varying interests.

However, and this is my opinion, and we don't always share opinions.

Um, that a variance was made for the business to operate within or adjacent to residential property.

And my opinion is because of that, or even despite that, they should make every effort possible to um make the business appealing to the residential properties just simply by following the ordinance.

This is against the ordinance.

Um I would not like to look at this from my home at all.

Um I would not be able to support this.

I actually think this is almost a poster child for why we have the ordinance.

The appropriate fencing can be also constructed to prevent people breaking in ways that are not necessarily visible to the residents nearby.

But that's my opinion on the case.

I have a comment as well.

I too won't be able to support it.

Um that the city has placed to ensure that it's visibly appealing to the surrounding areas.

And while I understand the homeowner is saying that he fixes the tarps, I still think that you have to meet the various city requirements.

So I'm unfortunately not able to support the request.

Question?

I have a question for staff.

Um the the chain link fence has been there since 2007, is I think what I heard in the testimony.

Um, so is it grandfathered in?

If we had them remove the tarp, could he retain the chain leg fence?

We didn't find any records that the fence was ever legally established, meaning that they came before the board to request a variance for the material.

So in 2007, they would have needed a variance for that chain link fence.

To our understanding, yes, ma'am.

So you're saying it's not grandfathered in?

No, so their legal nonconforming um certification is for the use of the property.

However, the fence, we didn't find record that it was ever legally established to be legally non-conforming.

So the fence would have needed to be one of the materials that's required for screening fence.

So they actually came before the city to get certification of being legally non-conforming in the past as a business for use for use for their auto repair and sales.

And at that time, was the fence discussed at all?

No, I don't have any record of that.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

Okay, we'll open it up for a motion.

I'll move.

I'll move that we uh deny the application for BAC-25-045.

I submitted.

I second.

Okay.

Um that's unright.

We deny, or we just vote for it and then let the votes deny or pass.

Is that correct?

So we can have a motion to deny, or we can have a motion to approve.

And so the motion on the floor right now is a motion to deny the variant.

You got a motion to deny all the first and a second, yeah.

So that's the current motion.

Okay.

So we have case BAC-25-045.

We have a motion to deny the variants requested by the applicant by board member Jim Whitden, and a second by board member King.

Board member Jim Whitden.

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

I'm voting yes to deny, correct?

Yes.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board member Eric Artiaga.

Yes.

Board Member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board member K Duffy.

No.

Board member Jana Herrera.

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Acosta.

No.

The motion to deny the case passes.

Okay, thank you.

Our next case is BAR 2603.

We'll hear from the city staff.

Applicant, please move to the front if you can.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is BAR-26-003.

The property is located at 7712 Pensacola Avenue.

The property owner is Alicia Duran Velaz.

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

The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow a carport within the required front yard setback of a residential dwelling, as well as the variance to the one family A-5 district development standards, requiring two of the three required parking spaces for a four-bedroom dwelling to be located behind the front building wall to allow all required parking spaces to be located in front of the front building wall.

The subject property is approximately 9,940 square feet and is located on an interior street within an established neighborhood.

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

There is no alley access, and the primary structure was built in 1956 and faces Pensacola Avenue with driveway access.

The property has a history of permits for accessory structures and residential remodel work, including windows and a shed construction.

The applicant is requesting a special exception for an existing carport that measures approximately 20 feet wide by 20 feet long and 20 feet in height.

The carport is located within the required front yard setback and encroaches approximately 20 feet into the established front yard with an 18-foot setback from the property line to the carport.

The structure is positioned to cover the existing concrete driveway, which measures approximately 16.7 feet wide by 34 feet long and extends from the garage to the front property line.

There are three other attached carports on the block face, one of which was approved through a reasonable accommodation.

The applicant is requesting a variance to permit the three required parking spaces for a four-bedroom dwelling to be located in front of the front building wall, two spaces located behind the front building wall for dwelling units with three or fewer bedrooms, plus one space located behind the front building wall or in the driveway for each bedroom above three.

The site plan submitted indicates that there will be a total of three parking spaces provided with all parking spaces behind uh being located in the driveway in front of the front building wall.

Regarding lot coverage, the existing lot coverage is 24.86%.

If the carport is approved, coverage would increase to 28.88%, which remains well below the 50% maximum allowed in the A-5 district.

This is a zoning regulations to this case.

I want to outline under the zoning ordinance.

Private carports located within the required front yard are only permitted by special exception from the board of adjustment.

Section 5.301 outlines standards for accessory uses on residential lots, including private carports and front yard setbacks.

When reviewing a front yard carport requests, the board must consider whether there is a functional garage on the lot, two, whether there is a viable access to the side or rear yard.

Three, the size, height, and design of the carport and its impact on adjacent properties, and four, the presence of other car ports on the block face.

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

Any questions from staff?

Okay.

You mentioned there are three other car ports on the street.

Correct.

One of them is for a reasonable accommodation.

Which is for any kind of handicap considerations.

Correct.

Those get approved.

And the two other ones also have an active code case for the others.

They're also not permitted.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, can we get a reminder while we continue this case?

This case was continued because the board wanted staff to do a little research on one when the requirement for two parking spaces behind the front um building wall was established and um because the second variants wasn't identified um prior to legal noticing.

So the applicant wanted we wanted to the board wanted to hear both variants and special exception at the same time.

Okay.

This is uh I couldn't tell from the diagrams, but is there access to the backyard on the side?

I would say no, but you would have to ask the applicant.

Okay.

It looks like a dimension.

On the side.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

Okay.

Uh we'll hear from the uh applicant.

Come on up.

Uh state your name and your address, please.

Seven minutes.

I'm Leslie Gonzalez.

I'm here on behalf of my mom, Alicia Duran.

She's the owner of the property at 7712 Pensacola Avenue.

Um we're here to request the approval of a variance for the installation of a carport on the property as well as an extended parking variance to support the carport appropriately.

I understand that zoning regulations are in place to promote safety, consistency, and preserve the character of the neighborhood, and I fully support those objectives.

However, due to the unique circumstances of this specific property, uh, and specifically that the home was purchased without a garage over uh 15 years ago.

The strict application of the ordinance creates a hardship that limits that limits the reasonable use of the property for us.

The extended parking does not exceed property lines and is there to support the carport.

There is also access to both to the backyard on both ends.

Um the addition of a carport would serve the practical purpose of protecting our vehicles from hail and other weather related damage that would typically be mitigated by a garage.

The proposed carport is modest in size, it's thoughtfully designed, and it will be positioned to minimize any visual or physical impact on neighboring properties, and it will not obstruct site lines, doesn't interfere with traffic safety or never negatively affect drainage.

I I actually believe it enhances the property by providing covered parking, protecting vehicles, and maintaining a neat and orderly appearance.

Um this request does not change the essential character of the neighborhood.

The structure will be consistent with surrounding homes, and it's designed to complement the existing property.

To the best of my knowledge, it does not negatively impact neighboring property values or yeah, just neighboring property values.

This request is not simply for convenience, but for the reasonable use of the property, given its unique condition conditions, again, being that it was purchased with no garage.

Um, and granting this variance would be would provide appropriate relief to my family and I and without compromising the intent of the zoning audience.

Thank you.

Okay, is there anyone else here to speak in favor?

Is there any opposition?

Okay, do we have any questions from the board?

I have a question.

Um was you indicated that the that the property was purchased without a garage.

Yes, ma'am.

Had it ever had a garage, had the garage been converted.

Um I honestly don't know.

We purchased it with without a garage, or my mom purchased it without a garage, existing garage.

You made a comment that there is access to the backyard.

Correct.

From either side.

From yeah.

So you could put a driveway on either side and put this behind.

Um there's no alley.

I don't know what way we could put a full driveway in there, but I think so.

So what is the width on each side of the house?

Um, I don't know.

I wouldn't know.

Okay, so when you said there's access, what were you talking about?

Like that you can go in to the back, like it doesn't, it does it's not covered.

You can go to the backyard through one of the side, like there's fences on the side.

Oh no, a card does not fit on either side.

Sorry.

Thank you.

It's too small.

I think this map is a little deceiving.

Any other questions?

I don't have a question, but can I make a quick comment?

Um, I just want to say that was one of the finest um presentations by a homeowner that we've heard in a long time.

Oh thank you.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

And Johnston will second that.

Okay.

No, my question is I I'm still confused about the distance between the structure and the property.

So it doesn't show, it doesn't show the we already added the extended parking, so that's why I covered the grass because there is concrete on there already.

So there's still a five foot distance from the neighboring property.

Um but that those lines on there, that's because there's already concrete on there too, like that's part of the driveway already to the left of what the what Google Maps shows is the driveway.

We can confirm that the carport meets this uh yard CIPX for the zoning district.

Can we go back to the image of the uh carport?

Maybe that will show us what we need to see.

Yeah, I have a quick question.

Does the property have two front doors?

Um it was purchased like that, but the front door is the one on the the right.

Okay, so more than likely it was a garage back in the day and it got converted from the looks of it.

Okay.

So it does it the carport does not, it's not over the front door that we use to go into the house.

Any other questions?

Okay.

We will close this portion of the public hearing and open this up to the board members to discuss.

Any discussion.

So our task as a board is to bless the carport if we want to.

That's the special exception.

And um and grant the variance on the parking if we see a hardship.

Two separate two separate items.

So if they can't get to the backyard to put an extra parking space back there, does seem to be a hardship to me.

Um the parking, the parking variance is going to be required whether the carport is there or not.

Am I right?

That's correct.

Um, and there's I mean, we have to give them that variance.

There's no way to put a car in the backyard.

So the option is like tear out the thing that never was a garage and make it a garage.

I mean, what do we do?

We have to give them the variance.

Um the question is the carport.

Um, are we gonna grant that special exception or not?

And the zoning code does allow us to do a carport.

So here we go.

This is one of those where this job is difficult because there was a reason for at some point disallowing the future construction of carports, and another thing that makes it difficult is sometimes we're faced with it's sometimes easier to ask for forgiveness than for um yeah, just because obviously the homeowner knows about building permits.

There were many building permits issued for other things, and there was no building permit requested for this prior to it being built.

The other two um carports on the street are also what you would call illegal and could come before us now that they've been identified.

And the this job is difficult because our our role is to um try to protect the ordinances that are in place for a clean look across the neighborhoods, but it's difficult when you see the personal situations, including a beautiful presentation.

Um but I I agree there is no way we can deny the special exception for parking or the variance for parking spaces.

That has to be we have no from I just want to make one quick comment about something you when you said that it is a job of the board to protect the ordinances, this is a release valve from the ordinance.

I understand.

So I just want to make sure I understand, but we uh that is not uh misconstrued and I appreciate that a great deal.

Um and the release valve has to look at the big picture.

The release valve has to be based on whether or not there's a hardship, whether or not it meets the requirements of the variance.

Right.

And if those requirements are met, then the board shall grant the variance.

So I just want to make sure that the board understands again that if the criteria is met, if they've met their burden, the board is not legislative, it has directions as to what it needs to approve.

So I just want to make sure that the board is clarified as to that is the that is the mindset that the board should have.

And I and I do, and I'm looking at the um the criteria that were presented, and one of the criteria is there are others on the street.

So do we take into account the others on the street if they are not legal, if they're not permitted?

Is that for the special exception or is that for the variance itself?

That's for the special exception.

Then I'll let staff indicate to that.

Then wouldn't we be setting ourselves up?

Exactly.

In what way?

If there are existing situations, and we consider this, then what is to stop the existing can you speak into the microphone?

I'm sorry.

Then what is to stop the existing situations coming before and asking for the same thing?

Right.

Because we're instructed in our training to that every case is different, and that nothing sets a precedent.

But then within the guidelines, we're supposed to consider whether or not there are other ones there.

And when there are presentations, it's always brought forward that there are other ones there.

So this is this is where part of the conflict.

Um in my experience here at this board, we've seen other situations where people have of uh a disregard for they just build something without asking anything.

And this particular case, there's if you look at the pictures, uh they especially the ones on Google, there they show a lot of effort, a lot of their thinking about what they're doing, and they are put in a position where there is no garage.

So they did not know about the park invariants, so we brought it to their attention, which is why we requested them to two for one.

Um I know that the carport's gonna be a tough sell, but it's done, it's executed correctly.

They've they've done um of a great effort in in making sure that it's quasi-compliant, so it's up to us to decide what kind of citizens we allow to execute on their property, you know.

So, and and I will agree, I'd like to look at the picture again because one thing that did occur to me from the front is that there this actually it reflects the lines of the house and architecturally, um it's we have seen some really ugly carports, and I would not consider this in that category at all.

And if it comes in the future a second on the same block, we can always say no.

You know, that's that's just it doesn't mean not a man.

Because it is not setting a precedent.

That's as long as we we agree on that, then we can move forward with whatever.

Okay.

But part of what we are to take into consideration is the it presents a hardship, and in the and my response in no way speaks to how I will weigh in on this, but so what is the hardship?

The fact that you know ignorance cannot be a hardship, but the fact that they were cited for a carport that they didn't have uh permission to the build brought to the surface the parking issue, which so the hard the hardship comes into play for the variance itself.

Hardship doesn't come into play for the special for the carport, right?

The blessing on the carport.

Yes, it's definitely there for the parking.

We don't have to find a hardship for the carport.

We don't have to find a hardship.

I mean, the stated hardship um is one that we hear typically with carports, and that is and we're also in previous um, I think instruction from legal, we also whether a permit was there or not is not really something we consider.

So we take this as she came in today with this plan.

Would we let her have it or not?

I would just like to add, I mean, yes, they can't park in back.

There's no way to get parking in the back, so they have to park in front.

Right.

The car port I believe it gives them some protection for their vehicles parking in front.

Uh like I said, these are all different.

Uh you recall a couple of months ago we allowed a big home to go inside the setback requirement because oh well, we we didn't know, and our architects led us astray.

Well, this uh this to me is perhaps they you know didn't know that uh maybe their contractor didn't know he or she should have come down and get a you know a permit.

Well, that's sort of the same excuse we allowed on that one.

Well, our architect didn't kind of let us astray.

Well, like you said, I I think this is an applicant that has tried to do every once they found out okay, we have to get this approved, and they've tried every step of the way to do it the right way, even last month when we suggested you know, you have another issue, and they backed up and came back again.

I can I could support this, but just because I think they have tried to do the right thing.

I'd like to make a motion to approve as written.

Would you excuse me?

Would the motion be for A and B special exception A and variance B?

I think in the interest of time, let's vote on both of them together.

One second.

We need to split that up, please.

Okay.

Is that an amended motion then?

So we have two motions or one.

So if I understand we've got a motion, did we get a second?

Okay, we have a second.

We've asked for a separate vote on each.

So we don't need another motion.

We'll just take the votes one after the other.

Okay.

Do I get all in one?

Karen, can you restart um Ms.

Powell's microphone?

The Ms.

Powell microphone wasn't on, so I'm not sure if the second is on the record.

Can we get clarification on the motion?

So the original motion was to approve both A and B, and then the and then we've been asked to vote on those two separately as written in the agenda.

And Ms.

Powell, just to clarify, your second is to vote is to approve both.

As Ms.

Duffy stated.

All right.

In the beginning, we have no second on to vote on them separate.

We don't need we don't need a second to vote separately.

So we have a motion for to approve for both, a second for both.

We've had a request to take them separately, so we'll take the votes in two votes.

Yes.

Okay.

So we have a motion by board member K Duffy to approve case BAR-26-003.

Um, special exception A and variance B.

We will take the vote separately.

So voting on special exception for the carport.

Board member Jim Witten.

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Eric Artiaga?

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

No.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion to approve special exception A passes.

Now we'll vote on variance B.

Board Member Jim Whitten.

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board member Eric Arciaga?

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board Member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

Variance B is approved.

Congratulations.

You want to tell your mom you did a wonderful job.

Okay.

Next uh case uh B A R 2511.

Uh applicant, please come to the front if you're here.

The next case is B AR-25-111, which is located at 2700 Marlin Street.

The owner is newpad building company as is the applicant.

Um the property is zoned, A51 family district with and it is located within the stop six overlay.

The property is legally described as a portion of lot four, block one Hollis subdivision.

Variance A is to the one family district development standard of the minimum required lot width to allow less than the required 50 foot lot width.

Variance B is to the one family district A5 district development standard of minimum required lot area to allow less than the required 5,000 square foot lot size.

And the requested lot area is 4,050 square feet.

And variance C is to the minimum required projected front yard setback standard to permit construction of a new single family home with a reduced northern projected front yard setback along Sunshine Drive.

The minimum projected front yard setback is 33 feet and the record and the requested projected front yard setback is six feet one inch.

The subject property is a vacant corner lot located in a redeveloping neighborhood there are a few mature trees on the property no presence of a floodplain but there is a 3.9% downward slope from the northwestern corner and ending at the northeastern corner.

The applicant is proposing to construct a single family dwelling with an attached garage.

The history uh there was a zoning uh zoning change to add the stop six overlay district that was approved in 2005 and there's currently a replat that is uh awaiting the outcome of this case as you'll recall this is this case has been continued from January there were uh concerns that the uh the uh site plan that was submitted at that time um because there is a right of way dedication of 12 feet six inches there were concerns that if uh if that right of if the city were to widen the street that the front yard would have been significantly reduced to seven feet uh seven and a half feet so the since our last meeting the applicant has submitted a uh a new site plan and a new floor plan um that and the the front wall of the new proposed uh structure is located 42 and a half feet uh which leaves 30 feet uh remaining in the front yard if the right of uh if the street were to be widened so again variance a and the the first two variances are related to the minimum development standards and therefore have not changed the property was informally uh informally subdivided by meets and bounds in the past and is required to be replatted the applicant's request in variance A is to allow a 40 foot wide lot where a minimum 50 foot lot width is required and the lot width variance request is deficient from the minimum standard by 10 feet the applicant's request in variance B is to allow a 4,050 square foot lot area where a minimum 5,000 square foot lot area is required.

The lot size variance request is deficient from the minimum standard by 950 square feet um whereas the first two variances there was not a change from the meeting in January variance uh the applicant's request invariant C is to allow a reduced northern projected front yard setback along Sunshine Drive the required projected front yard variance request is deficient by 26 feet 11 inches and as we discussed the last time the projected front yard is created from a uh neighboring property um and as you can see it creates a 33 foot projected front yard for this corner lot and here are the again the the standards that are being considered and I am available for any questions any questions for city staff we can hear from yeah go ahead didn't you did you say what did you say about the replant is it on hold or what is so it is awaiting client uh client reply and what that means is they the client has been requested to obtain uh obtain the variances that are before you so the plat is pending the outcome of this board's decision okay and so they redesigned the house and the redesign is that what you say is triggering the variance I've got wait we've got two we've got a A and B on here um the the uh the variances that uh that were brought before this board in January um variance A and B were identical because they were for the lot configuration for the lot width and the lot area those have not changed um what has changed um is variance C because of the new floor plan it is actually uh instead of being five feet away from the side property line the new floor plan is six feet one inch so the the request is slightly less than when they came before you in January an inch and a half I'm sorry an inch and a half um no by uh a foot and an inch foot and an inch okay

Um what has changed um is variance C because of the new floor plan, it is actually uh uh instead of being five feet away from the side property line, the new floor plan is six feet one inch.

So the the request is slightly less than when they came before you in January.

An inch and a half I'm sorry, an inch and a half.

Um no by uh a foot and an inch.

Foot and an inch.

Okay.

Math head, okay.

Thanks.

Any other questions?

I'm I'm I'm confused as to C.

So the property, the address of the property is Marlin Street.

So are you saying that the applicant is requesting a uh six feet one inch set back from Marlin Street?

Sunshine No, the so the projected front yard is created um from a property that is located on Sunshine Drive.

Um because there because there is an existing house, um, it creates a projected front yard for the 42700 Marlin.

Um it is that this is the case uh for uh for any corner lot in the in the same situation, we would use the the neighboring property uh the distance from the front wall to the property line of the of that neighboring property is what is creating the projected front yard for the corner lot.

So essentially, board member Johnston, this would typically be a side yard.

However, since there is a house um neighboring that fronts sunshine, it's a projected front yard.

Um so corner lots mostly have two front yards, especially when there is another home on the um street that on each street front that faces the street.

Okay, I've learned something new.

Um Mr.

Wooden or okay, so pretty much for variant C, if that gets denied or approved, whatever whatever side it goes, if it gets denied, they will not be able to build on the property, correct?

Just based on the projected front yard?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh Ms.

Duffy.

So do we know that the house on Sunshine that's 33 feet back?

Do we know what year that was built?

And are there other houses on Sunshine that are that far back?

Um I do not, I do not know when it was uh when that house was constructed.

Do we know if the house directly across the street on Sunshine has um a variance for a projected front yard?

I guess it's its address is probably Marlin.

It I did not look at the house across the street for this case, so I I do not have the answer to that question.

Um the the other lots, 5140 and 5144, those are those are those are individual lots for homes to come in the future, possibly.

Or is this all one big property?

Yes, so so those lines that are green on the map in front of you indicate the property boundaries.

Um there is uh the that orange orange line that's going through the 5134 represent lot represents lot boundaries.

Um since we're not seeing the the uh the property uh boundaries in this uh in this map um are on top of the of the lot lines.

So we I would have to I'm not able to remove those so you can see the the lot lines, but those are potential addresses for future homes, right?

Those are addressed properties.

Okay.

So those are are the green lines the platted properties?

No, those are those can be um sold by meets and bounds, uh, which is the which was the case for 2700.

So the green lines indicate um lots where um the parcel by the parcel ownership.

So not necessarily by the legal lot of record.

Um that layer does not appear on this image to show each legal lot of record.

However, um, for this case in question, they are trying to create a legal lot of record.

Um, and those results would be dependent on this um the decision of the board today.

So what do we know about 2702?

So from my recollection, this uh 2700 and 2702 and 2704 and were all part of the same uh all part of the same lot, which is why our applicant has requested uh a replat so that the so that 2700 uh so that their legal lot matches their property boundaries.

So does the applicant own the entire all of those or just the 2700?

You would have to confirm with the applicant, but I believe the ownership was different the last time I checked, but the ownership could change.

Would this decision establish a new front yard setback for Marlin Street?

Or is there already a established setback there?

So the there's a as far as the front yard setback.

There's the zoning district has a required front yard setback, but when we determine the front yard requirements, we have to look at three things.

We look at the the platted building line.

We also look at the district uh regulation, and then we also look at the neighboring properties for the projected front yard and the uh and so those three things have to go into the the decision of what is their actual uh front yard setback requirement.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

Okay, uh we'll go ahead and uh hear from the applicant.

Uh please uh tell us your name and your address.

You have seven minutes.

Uh my name is Casey Dudley.

I'm here representing Newpad Building Company.

Uh my residence address is 721, the Cottages Drive in Godley, Texas.

Um, so I can actually answer every single one of those questions that you just asked.

Um I have went out yesterday to the property.

Let me kind of start from the beginning.

So we've been here a couple times with you guys for Marlin.

Um, we are trying to build a three-bedroom, two and a half bath house.

Um, stop six overlay requires that we have a two-car garage.

Um last time we came here, we had a detached garage in the rear of the property, but it put our lot coverage at about 44%.

I know a couple of concerns that you guys had with me then was that we weren't gonna have much yard space.

Uh, we talked about fencing.

I didn't really have a fencing plan at that time.

So we actually went back with our architect.

I remember board member Acosta had asked if we could explore a two-story option, and that is actually exactly what we did.

So we have a plan now that without a two-car garage, it would be 17 feet wide, right?

Um, we're never gonna meet that projected front yard setback.

We would only have seven feet.

It does the hardship is that the lot would be unbuildable completely at that point.

We do not own 2702 Marlin Street.

It is empty.

Um, it looks like the guy who owns 2704 is using it to park extra vehicles at this time.

Um lots 514 and 5140 sunshine.

We do not own those either.

However, there are some mounds of dirt.

It looks like somebody may be starting development there pretty soon.

Um I door knocked, I talked to the owner, his name is Clements at 2608, which is just the other corner of Sunshine and Marlin.

Um, I don't know that his house has a variance for that um front yard either.

He's about 15 feet, his side yard, he faces Marlin, but his side yard is about 15 feet from the road.

The house is pretty old, like built.

Um, I actually saw on the brick, the brick to his house was 1924.

So um his house is pretty old, and uh I doubt that that was an issue then.

So the houses that front sunshine, there is nine, I believe, total.

I door knocked that entire street.

Um like I said, I I door knocked nine houses, four people answered, and four people signed in letter of support for me, so we could build.

There is a new construction house.

So Marlin Sunshine runs to Walker.

There is two new construction houses on Walker.

They face Walker, they have maybe a five foot side yard.

So they're absolutely not meeting the 30 feet, but it is on the other side of sunshine.

So, you know, not I don't know if this would be north or south on sunshine, but basically they're on the other side of sunshine, and that one is brand new.

It's listed um on the market right now.

So we did really as much as we could.

Um, we did change the plan.

It is a two-story now, it's got an attached garage coming from the front driveway, and that is to meet the stop six overlay.

So, like I said, we could at least do less on that side yard.

Um, if we didn't have to have a two-car garage, but to meet that stop six requirement, that puts our width.

Um sorry 17, and then we added nine more.

So it would be right under 18 feet wide without that second spot in the garage.

So, and this time we kind of feel like we have made every accommodation as before.

This will give more backyard as well.

We took the lot coverage from 44% with that detached garage down to now 24%.

Um, so we are giving somebody a very nice backyard, two-story house, attached garage, and we're really just at this point, but we've done everything we can to meet what you guys requested while also meeting stop six overlay requirements, and then the only variances that are actually needed for my plat is on lot width and lot size, but I would be coming back here for my building permit.

Um, so we're just knocking out that third one now.

Any questions?

Um, not right now.

Um, is there any anybody else here to speak in favor?

Okay, is there any opposition?

Okay, here and none.

Does anybody have any questions for the applicant?

I do.

Again, I want to uh confirm that this this new uh house, the address will be on Marlin, the front door will be facing Marlin.

So yes, that's correct.

It will be 270 Marlin Street.

And I I think I saw a diagram somewhere that showed from Marlin Street a setback.

So I last time we had quite a bit of discussion about that right-of-way, which isn't why we're here.

Um, I actually I got with my architect and had her make us a site plan.

Um, I didn't get it submitted in time, but I brought you all copies.

I know we used to be able to like put it under a projector so I could show you, but even still if we can't do that now, um we can okay, because we took it's a lot easier to see basically the 4,050 square feet is after we gift the ride away.

Um, so that 12 and a half feet really makes it confusing to see on here.

Oh, you want the big one.

Oh, I just thought if I show you under there, you have to have a copy.

So yeah, so without the ride away, essentially, like if you take that out of the discussion, we meet our setback for front yard on Marlin.

Um, we are 20 feet.

There is no houses on Marlin.

There is new construction farther down Marlin.

Um, and none of them encroach that setback.

So, like the street on either side of Marlin sits at least 20 feet front setback, and we meet that as well.

Looks like to me, even if the right-of-way was taken, your your setback is about 30 feet.

Yes, yes, it is.

So, with with the right of way, it's 42.6, and then if you take that 12 and a half feet off, yeah.

We're we are plenty far back because we got rid of that detached garage, we had plenty of space.

So it's sorry.

So it's the two-car garage that is making that setback so small on the side, yes.

And it's it is confusing because it's our side yard, it will be our side yard, but it is the front yard on sunshine, but we don't we don't face sunshine, and like I said, they just the garage.

Yes, it's just the garage.

That helps, thank you.

Can you show me where the backyard is?

Am I seeing is that the garage on the far end of the house there?

So this is this is the garage, like where this stops.

This is the rest of the house, right?

Back door comes out here.

So this would be essentially your your backyard would Scott.

Can you help her draw on a screen, please?

Oh, I'm drawing and y'all can't see it.

Sorry.

Um we're not able to project the drawings uh from the dais right now.

Um, but if they they're welcome to come up here and point at it.

Oh, there we go.

Oh, okay.

Okay, so that is the backyard, that large area.

Yes.

Okay, grass.

Thanks.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Yes.

So where the um previous location of the garage was um there is no way to build a house similar, so you will have more on Marlin and more or sunshine just for people who stay in the corner and they can't see through the sites.

They should still be able to see through the side.

If we, I mean, there's no way if we cut the building here where because we build this plan on a duplex, right?

And and it's joined.

We actually got creative and cut a duplex in half, had our architect add a garage so we can meet that stop six.

But we build this plan, it's 17 17 and some change feet wide, right?

But we can't meet stop six overlay requirements without a two-car.

And if we say that I let me change colors, say that I make this my garage, the whole bottom floor right here, then I don't have a front door.

No, I was referring where the garage previously was in the back, it's like on top of the the square.

Is that not a possibility?

So you have uh bigger side, I mean yard on sunshine.

So you're saying kind of like the house plan here and add the garage to the back?

Pretty much you have in the previous presentation, you have the garage in the back.

Yes, right.

So you have more uh yard on the sunshine, it would be like a rectangle house when you have a lot of yard on Marlin and a lot of yard on sunshine because the property is kind of like a rectangle on the garage would be like where the detached garage used to be.

We still have yard on sunshine right now.

He's asking if you if it was a possibility or an option to create in uh driveway from sunshine to the garage at the rear of the home without having the garage having to extend into the projected front yard with the minimum um setback of six feet one inch.

Thank you.

I wouldn't say that's not I would have to explore it, but it we would still be in the projected front yard, it would still be in that 33 feet.

It might be, you know, eight feet less, but then it's kind of like a shotgun house, and so I'm not saying no that it couldn't.

Um we don't have a plan for that at this moment, and we would still be here for the same variants.

I think more than anything, I mean, whenever it comes to visibility, I think the house is pretty far back to you know, obscure the the view from Marlin to Sunshine.

So I think in regards to visibility, I mean just my point of view, it's gonna be a problem.

Just one thing I didn't really mention before, but it's on the sheets that um Scott has for y'all.

The garage roof line is dropped.

So the house roof line is here, the garage is dropped for visibility.

Okay.

You had also mentioned that you spoke well that there's dirt work happening at the property on the next on sunshine next door, right?

Yeah, I noticed that yes today.

Did you happen to speak to that owner of that property?

Nobody was there, yeah.

Okay.

Um the house that is basically so there's two empty lots behind us on sunshine, and then a house.

He had some hostile dogs.

I was not knocking on his door, but the house itself was pretty old.

Um, but yeah, I just didn't want to like go through his front gate and go on to his property.

Understood.

Okay, any other questions?

Okay, we'll close this portion of the public hearing and open this up to board discussion.

Thank you.

I was just gonna state that I don't have an issue with what's being asked.

Um, the fact that the stop six areas um seeing a rejuvenation with homes being built.

I think this is a positive step.

If there's no other comments, I could make a motion.

I I do have a comment.

I'm I'm a little concerned about the neighboring property.

Um, I assume he's been notified.

He's not here to speak against it, so we just have to take that as it is.

But um, if you build this next to that property, it does kind of set that property pretty far back, you know, uh, behind this property's wall.

Um which neighboring property?

Uh well, I I don't see the number now, but the the neighboring property on Sunshine, right?

So if his uh projected front yard um, you know, the house would be sitting pretty far back.

It does look like there's quite a bit of open space in the backyard though that would would probably open that up and not feel so so tight, but uh that would be my only concern.

But if he's been notified, then that um then that is not as big of a concern.

This particular uh went back our suggestion redesign the whole house.

Hello?

Okay, that this um they went ahead and redesigned on our suggestion the whole house.

Not only did they do that, they saw they had the foresight to see that there's a possible, they're gonna lose some of their front yard.

They built the house to accommodate that.

They're doing everything that to see what's the foresight.

I wish every builder was like them, where they would uh uh have that take our you know take everything that they have and and build to that.

So I have no problems with with this property.

Anyone like to make a motion?

I'll go back and make the motion B A R 25-11 approve A B C Variances as written.

A B and Cond.

Uh Johnson would second that with the provision that we vote on each of them separately.

All right, we have a motion to approve all and a second, and we'll vote on them separate.

Okay, we have a motion to approve variances A B and C for case B A R 25-111 as requested by the applicant.

The motion to approve made by board member Jana Herrera and seconded by board member Michael Johnston.

We will take each vote separately, starting with variant A.

Board member Jim Whitten?

Yes, board member Sergio Garza.

Yes, board member Michael Johnston?

Yes, board member Eric Artiaga?

Yes, board member James Hook.

Yes, board member Sandra King.

Yes, board member Deborah Freed.

Yes, board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member one Manuel Costa?

Yes.

Variance A passes.

We'll vote on variance B.

Board member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Eric Artiaga?

Yes.

Board member James Hook?

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell.

Yes.

Board member Kay Duffy.

Yes.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member one Manuel Costa.

Yes.

Variance B passes.

Vote on variant C.

Board member Jim Whitden.

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board member Eric Artiaga.

Yes.

Board Member James Hook.

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member K.

Duffy.

Yes.

Board Member Janet Herrera.

Yes.

Board member one Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion passes for variances.

A B and C.

Okay, our next case, BAC26001.

The next case is located at 9300 Silver Creek Road.

The owner is Stockyard South LLC and the applicant is Ben Williams.

The property is zoned I light industrial, and it is within the NASJRB airport overlay.

The property is legally described as lot three, block three, majestic Silver Creek addition.

There are two special exceptions being requested today.

Special exception A is to allow a monument sign with electronic changeable copy in an industrial zoning district located on the southern property line.

And special exception B is to allow a freeway sign with electronic changeable copy in industrial zoning district located on the eastern property line.

The subject property is a 3.3 acre corner lot located at the northwestern corner of the intersection of West Loop 820 north and Silver Creek Road.

The subject property has an overall slope of 2.9%.

The slope arising from the northeastern corner of the property line to the southwestern corner of the property line.

The property does not contain mature trees and is not located within a floodplain.

The subject property is not located in any scenic corridor.

There are sign permits which have been alled.

And the the two the last two sign permits on your list are the are what is before you today.

The applicant is requesting two special exceptions to allow electronic changeable copy on a monument sign and a freeway sign in an industrial zoning district.

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

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

And as you can see from the aerial, the there is a residential uh neighborhood to the east.

It is on the other side of the loop 820.

Silver Creek Road is a neighborhood connector, and loop 820 is an interstate highway.

And the site is not within a scenic area or corridor.

The closest scenic corridor is loop 820 west scenic corridor to the northeast of the subject property.

Can you point out north on that map, please?

North is straight up on this map.

Again, special exception request A is to allow electronic changeable copy on a monument sign in an industrial zoning district.

The proposed monument sign complies with a maximum allowable area.

The proposed total sign area is 77.06 square feet.

The advertised area is 38.05 square feet.

The ECC portion of the sign is 9.36 square feet.

The requested ECC area is 24.6, where the maximum is 25.

Special exception B is to allow an ECC sign on a freeway sign in an industrial zoning district.

The proposed the proposed freeway sign complies with the maximum allowable area.

The proposed total sign area is 250.28 square feet.

The advertised area is one point 171.35 square feet.

The ECC portion of the sign is 41.89 square feet.45, where the maximum is 25.

Here are the regulations for ECC signs, and I'm available for questions.

Okay, any questions?

I have a I have a quick question.

What's the difference in industrial and commercial?

So industrial use, we the city has three industrial districts, I light industrial, J medium industrial, and K heavy industrial.

Industrial uses are generally manufacturing type uses.

Whereas commercial, we have ERE FR G and H.

Those are intended for commercial uses, including mostly retail, depending on the zoning district.

Great, thank you.

So go ahead.

Mine is educational on the I think it was the last page, it was 87.

The sign itself that's being proposed.

The freeway sign.

So dual populated LED.

So that what it appears to me is that that will change.

Is that what that means?

The dual populated.

So I I would guess that.

I do not know the ask the applicant because I'm not going to be able to do that.

I would refer to either the applicant or other staff for to answer that question.

The applicant can answer that question.

However, I think in this case it would be a change from credit or debit, but the applicant can provide more.

That's the logic.

And the only thing there is the there are guidelines for frequency of changing.

So the applicant would be required to follow all of those.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we're from applicants now.

Um if you'd like to come up and uh state your name and your address, please.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Um Ben Williams at 4217 Foxboro Trail in Arlington.

Um I did have a presentation.

Can we pull that up, please?

The main two factors that are driving this request for us is this is the the current standard for QuickTrip is to uh do the electronic signs.

Um there's there's two main reasons.

It's safety-based for our employees as well as drivers.

Uh the current scroll style, the where you have to put in the actual panels, uh, requires an employee to go out there during the shift, and that maybe multiple times per day to go out there, change them.

Um, and depending on the the height of it.

Oh, that's that's a different presentation.

Uh but this would require our employees to go out there during their shift and um and change these manually where they would have to fight with traffic, carry a ladder out to the to the site, um, whereas the electronic, it does it all itself.

Um the employees inside have no idea when it changes.

The system just says that it started and it's finished, so they don't have to actually go out to the site and uh or I'm sorry to the sign and change the actual um numbers.

Um but also is uh for driver safety as well.

This is along a um uh highway corridor at high speeds, um, and our westbound exit is about 0.6 miles away, and our uh eastbound exit is about half a mile away from the side.

So uh we want to promote visibility for drivers so they can make that exit safely ahead of time.

Um if you can go to the next slide, please.

Um actually skip two more.

Um this is just depicting where our site is in relativity to the exits themselves.

Oh this just shows where those signs are.

And to be clear, these are existing signs today.

They were permitted through the process with the store at that time.

Um all we're asking for is to swap the uh the pricers out to the LED style.

So this is just showing existing and proposed.

And to answer your question about the dual population, the um that is exactly what it is.

Uh it's not creditor debit.

We do show that, but we don't function uh utilize that function as of right now.

In this scenario, what it would be doing is changing from the regular unleaded to the diesel price.

Um that timing and uh or the frequency of that change can be uh modified, but I believe the standard is set to 30 seconds.

Anybody have any questions?

I have one.

Uh will you be accommodating 18 wheelers at this location?

Uh yes, sir.

This is uh what we consider a fuel stop, so it does have a diesel base.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay, any other anybody else here to speak in favor?

Is there any opposition?

Okay.

Any questions for the applicant?

All right, we'll uh close the public hearing and open it up for discussion.

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

I'd like to make a motion.

Let's do it.

I'd like to make a motion to pass a BAC-26-001 as written.

I second that.

You choose John seconds with the provision that they be voted on separately.

Johnston.

Mr.

Gardza.

Okay.

We have a motion to approve case BAC-26-001.

Motion made by board member Sergio Garza, second by board member Michael Johnston.

The votes will be taken separately.

Now we'll take a vote on a special exception A.

Board member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board Member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board member Eric Artiaga?

Yes.

Board Member James Hook.

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Board Member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrera.

Yes.

Board Member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

Special exception A passes.

And we'll vote on special exception B.

Board Member Jim Whitten.

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board Member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board Member Eric Artiaga.

Yes.

Board Member James Hook.

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board Member Deborah Freed.

Yes.

Board Member Lucretia Powell.

Yes.

Board Member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board Member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrera.

Yes.

Special exception B passes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next case.

Uh, we're gonna go back uh to the beginning.

BAC 25068 is a continued case.

Do you mean six seven?

It's uh BSE 25068.

Uh Mr.

Chair, I'm going to recuse myself from this one.

Over here.

Six seven on the adjustment.

Uh first page.

Second page.

Six eight.

Six eight.

Yeah.

So um board member Jim Whitden has asked to recuse himself, so we'll have a staff member escort you downstairs.

This is this is uh high school.

So you like so the case before you right now is a continued case from the January public hearing.

Um the case is BAC-25-068.

The address of the property is 3095 Hewland Street, as well as 4501 West Freeway.

The owner of the property is Fort Worth ISD.

The applicant is SBA 2012, T C Set L L C the zoning district of this property is CF community facilities.

It is within the NASJB JRB airport height review zone overlay.

And the legal description is lot one block one, Arlington Heights High School edition.

So before you today is variance request for um to the maximum height allowed by special exception to this uh stealth telecommunications tower in a community facilities zoning district to permit.

I'm sorry, this isn't the latest the request is to permit a 120-foot tall stealth telecommunications tower.

Um the zoning ordinance section is 4.201c community facilities district property development standards.

So approved in January were um special exceptions and variances.

So special exception to allow the stealth tail with communications tower in a community facilities zoning district um was previously approved by the board, as well as special exception to allow a stealth telecommunications tower design plan that does not meet the design and appearance requirement was approved by the board in January, as well as special exception to allow a 50-foot-tall stealth telecommunications tower in the community facilities zoning district and variants to the requirement that all stealth telecommunications towers shall be shall have screening shrubs installed around a fence and screen from view of the stealth telecommunications tower to allow the required screening shrubs.

These all were special exceptions and variants previously heard by the board and approved.

Um before you is the variance D to allow the 120 foot telecommunications stealth tower.

Um in January, the request for the telecommunications tower was 130 feet.

However, the board and the applicant request the continuance to go back to review the height, and they came back with a proposal of 120 feet.

The subject property is a 29.041 acre property located in the southeast of the Hewland Street and Interstate 30 West Intersection and to the southwest of the Ashland Avenue and Interstate 30 West Intersection.

The subject property is commonly identified as 4501 West Freeway, and the use of the Arlington Heights, the use is Arlington Heights High School.

The property contains several buildings and sports fields and facilities, several mature trees, no presence of floodplain and the project specific area is relatively flat.

Live history on this one.

Um there was a previous Board of Adjustment Case BA03417, um, which was a special exception to allow the existing telecommunications tower.

And as mentioned back in January, the board heard um several variances in special exceptions, and the board approved special exceptions A, B, and C, as well as they continued variants D to this um public hearing.

Here's the proposed site plan.

There is currently an 87-foot monopole telecommunications tower that the applicant has indicated will be removed.

The zoning ordinance section 9.101 defines a stealth telecommunications tower as a facility that is designed in such a way that the facility is not readily recognizable as a telecommunications tower or telecommunications equipment.

The adjacent residential district have a height maximum of 35 feet.

Telecommunications tower in the CF and CF zoning district are permitted to by special exception to a maximum height of the most restrictive adjacent district plus 15 feet.

In this case, the telecommunications tower would be permitted by special exception for a total of 50 feet.

So the stealth telecommunications tower that's being proposed before you today is 120 feet, and the regulations that govern this section.

The stealth telecommunication tower is allowed within the zoning district by special exception with a maximum height of 50 feet.

And the board actions.

Okay, seeing then we'll uh hear from the applicant.

Okay, please tell us your name and uh your address, please.

Welcome.

Absolutely.

Good morning.

I'm Beb Francis, 112 B.

Antonio, representing SBA communications and its uh subsidiary SBA 2012 assets LOC.

As you're appearing before you again, and appreciate the opportunity to come back with this continuance to bring you the modified uh telecommunication tower height.

I want to echo what uh Denisha just said.

We really appreciate the approval of the various special exceptions in the January meeting that address the confirmed the applacement of the new replacement uh telecommunication stealth tower, the fencing, and most importantly, approving the design and the color of this stealth telecommunication facility.

We provided you at the meeting some coverage analysis explaining for you why this replacement telecommunication tower is so important.

That is because, as we provided you, the location of the existing tower, uh Monopole Tower, is immediately adjacent to the newly constructed uh Fort Worth Independent School District building, a 52-foot height building.

And the result of that is that ATT's antennas, which are currently at the following RADs.

Those are the center lines that we discussed at the last meeting at 35 feet, 47, excuse me, 37 feet, 45 feet, and 54 feet.

But the result is they are experiencing coverage blockage because the height of the new school building, 52-foot school building.

ATT has come back and we provided you their exact statements why the 90-foot is necessary to resolve that coverage gap.

And if it's left where it is below, and this is not approved, there'll be continuing disruption of service and coverage gap.

We also provide you the ATT RF maps.

The one on the left shows you the existing coverage with the blockage.

You see significant coverage, blockage in green to the west.

That's a commercial area that you are familiar with and uh very active.

You'll also see importantly along Donley Avenue, the residential area certain with the black box, uh, the coverage gap area.

If you approve this uh variance request, then you will see the coverage dramatically increase on the right.

Now, ATT has come back and asked that they could be able to provide you with a letter of support.

They echo in great detail for you why this is so necessary.

Be able to place their antennas at 90 feet and therefore allow the ability to remove the blockage and maintain and improve the coverage area.

Now, the updated tele uh telecommunication stealth tower uh elevations we are providing you are taken in multiple considerations.

The questions that were raised at the last meeting regarding the requested 130 foot.

They have redesigned working very closely with ATT and T-Mobile and the engineering teams to be able to reduce down the height 10 feet, which is not insignificant in the tower industry.

The tower on the left just is a depiction of the existing monopole, which with your approval and the building permit issued will be decommissioned and removed, and the equipment on that existing monopole tower will be moved over and co-located on the new uh stealth telecommunication tower.

I wanted to point out how this will stack up.

ATT will have uh the uh excuse me, let me start with the bottom for With Independent School District, student information services, which is critical for their campus and their system, will be located at the 80 to 90 foot area.

That's the first block on the bottom.

ATT will then have the 92 uh 100 uh block, and then uh the A T Mobile will have the nine uh excuse me, the 110 to 120 block.

So ATT at 90 foot, and also 100, and uh T Mobile at the 110 to 120.

We provide you updated photo simulations.

We have four views.

This is from the north parking lot, looking back, and you see the existing tower, and this is the new 120-foot design.

I think you from the last meeting.

I hope you'll appreciate the reduction in the height, and uh we'll approve this recommendation.

This is looking from the east, and there's the 120 foot.

This is from the west on the commercial, and you'll see the new stealth telecommunication tower.

And importantly, this is from Donley Avenue, and this is the existing tower, and this shows you the depiction clearly how the blockage is occurring with the height of the building.

And this is the new uh telecommunication stealth tower with the approved design and colors that you approved in the special exception.

Fourth independent school district also asked to be able to update their letter to you again, emphasizing their request that this tower height be approved, not only meets the needs of the neighborhood, but as I mentioned before, it will improve and allow the continuation of the student information system.

And then finally, just kind of I want this to be kind of the milestone.

This is showing the coverage gap that's currently existing.

With your approval and the construction of this new exciting design of a telecommunication facility, you can see how it'll be dramatically increased to the right.

Finally, there were some questions regarding uh FAA coverage studies at the last meeting.

We've included in your package the FAA summary report, which goes through and shows that this tower does not exceed any of the height requirements.

But importantly, there was a question.

These are showing at the bottom of this page the eight hospitals in the area.

And will they be affected?

The answer is no.

They show on each of these studies conducted by the FAA that there is no impact to private landing facilities.

And this will study be happy to discuss those with you during the questions.

I really appreciate the opportunity to come back and I respectfully request your approval of this variance to allow the 120-foot tower.

Thank you very much.

Is there any opposition?

Okay, come on up, please state your name and your address, please.

Hello, my name is Sediment Hall.

My address is 440 Geddes Avenue in Fort Worth.

Okay.

I'm one block back from our south of Arlexon Heights High School.

Okay, you have seven minutes.

Thank you.

Um the uh we were here um back in January.

My um my concerns are still with the height of the um, it's not very stealth, but the stealth telecommunications tower.

Um the original tower was single, um, was a single pole.

This uh new tower, um, you all have made um or given variances and approvals for um different things, but the new one requires three different poles to create these space.

Uh the current height is around 80 some feet.

Umright I thought it was too high.

120 feet has been um suggested and proposed for the new height, which I still believe is too high for the area.

This is a residential area.

This is a community.

This is a place where people walk their dogs, walk, you know, walk their children, walk around the school and whatnot.

Um, a commercial um for-profit company is coming in and trying to put something that is not uh within the uh spirit of our um of our uh rules.

Um they have not shown where they have um tried to put other uh towers in the area.

I don't see why the burden is on Alamo and Arlington Heights to accept this extensive height um variance.

Uh, the 50 feet, uh I'm sorry, the 89, I believe that it is now feed is already well above what is required for this area, um, and now they're asking for 120 feet.

Um, the uh with regard to the aircraft going back and forth, the FAA has made whatever um looks and they've provided that information.

I still have concerns about the care flight um helicopters that go back and forth in that area and the uh helicopters that go back and forth to uh Navy.

Uh they would have to offset from anything that is at a certain height.

There's a certain amount of uh space that they need between this is going well above um what was originally there.

Um, and I ask that this not be approved because there is no hardship.

Uh, we pay taxes in the area that do fund the school.

Um, in the last meeting in January, one of the board members asked if there was anything that was being provided for the high schools.

We are providing that with our tax monies, and if they are providing anything for the high school, um the for-profit business, then that should be a donation if they want to do on their own.

Uh, previously you denied the uh height uh variance, and then it was turned over after the fact, um, and you all agreed um to revote for something, and then it was turned into a cons uh a uh continuance.

You've already denied this.

Please don't allow something this large that I will be able to see from my dining room, and we all will be able to see um from our homes to be um added.

They can put more towers around to get that mesh to get that uh coverage.

This is a money-saving um venture for them, and it puts blight in our uh visual.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any other opposition?

Okay, sir.

You have three minutes to uh for your rebuttal.

Thank you, and thank you to the lady that just spoke.

If we can go back to the presentation, please.

The importance of this height is to be able to provide neighborhoods the coverage that they need and deserve.

Um, as we discuss, I think that's your presentation.

I'm sorry, I'm using up my time here.

No problem.

That's a previous we're counting for that.

My PowerPoint that I did.

No, it's I'm sorry, it's not the current PowerPoint.

There we go.

This that'll be fine.

I can advance from there.

Important point I wanted to again reiterate is the increased coverage versus the blockage that they're experiencing.

In fact, directly to the east, to the adjacent to the ballpark where I believe the the lady lives, you'll see also an additional expanded amount of coverage to that way to the east.

Additionally, looking at the photo simulations.

This is from the east.

Oops, I'm sorry.

Central market.

I'm sorry, I'm not gifted at this.

This is from the north, east.

You will see the a lot of the highlights of the ballpark.

Yeah, the extended lighting, and the fact that this is going to be providing the critical infrastructure.

Additionally, regarding the FAA, this is the report from the FAA.

That it does not exceed the required heights.

That's after a study, coordinates are given by the regulatory departments of these companies.

They have a spool step that's sole job is to comply with and meet the requirements of the FAA.

And in all the 30 years I've been practicing, I've never had a client build a tower in violation to the FAA requirements.

It's a very serious consideration.

So regarding the health lights in each one of those, they say it will not create an issue, and it's in the reports that are in their package.

So, Chair and members of the board again, respectfully request the approval of the variance to allow the 120-foot height.

It meets the criteria.

The hardship is that this height requirement is not self-imposed on SBA or ATT or T-Mobile.

It's a direct result of a building being constructed that is causing a significant coverage gap.

So thank you, and I appreciate your consideration.

Look for any questions that you have.

Thank you.

Does the board have any questions for the applicant or the person in opposition?

Okay.

I have a question for the applicant.

Um has there ever been any consider there's a considerable slope between I-30 in the backyard there at Arlington Heights High School?

Um, has there ever been any consideration of putting the big mascot stealth tower in the front yard of Arlington Heights High School?

What are the ramifications of that?

Actually, the site is a replacement of an existing tower.

As we discussed at the last meetings, there is not a lot of flexibility in being able to move towers around because of the grid.

If you remember we talked about the honeycomb and being able to move, even a slight move.

As I recall from high school.

So that plus, this is seems to be the suitable location because of the athletic facilities.

Already you have the the lights.

And this will not be a lit tower.

It's beyond below the required height for the flashing lights or the white lights that you see out on the roadway.

So I I think my question here is for staff, but perhaps you know the answer.

How tall are those lights?

I don't have that answer for you.

No, no.

Okay.

Maybe they'll look into that and uh get back to us.

Do you have a picture of the uh old cell tower that you can compare to the light?

Maybe we can get a reference off of that.

I think it's a little shorter than the uh the old cell tower.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Uh I have a one for you.

Um I notice your your tower accommodates two carriers, ATT and T-Mobile, I believe.

Is it expandable to Verizon or any other carriers in the future?

See, that's one of the detrimental, so losing that 10 feet.

We lose the ability to bring in the next carrier or T Net Mobile needs to add their second array.

Because of the design of cell towers, it's a limited space to place the antenna rays.

And so therefore ATT is not only going from three rads, three sets of antennas to two because of the importance of this location in this site.

So the opportunity in the future, um, that would depend on engineering, the availability and so forth to be able to add another carrier, but right now it's uh currently designed, it won't be an available rad.

So that's like I said, that's a detrimental side of losing the 10th.

Well, we certainly appreciated your your ability to allow me to come back, your opportunity to come back and present this, even though it's less than we feel like is necessary.

But this is such an important not only to the school, but to the neighborhoods and the businesses.

So did you say yes, it is expandable?

Is that what you're saying?

Yes, it will be, but then again, it'll take design requirements and so forth into consideration.

Okay, so it's not being built to accommodate.

It hadn't even designed yet, but certainly that'd be optimum to be able to do that.

But um it because of the negotiations of just trying to figure out where to put the antennas that hadn't been determined yet.

And real quick, what is the blue material made out of?

It's fiberglass.

The shields that allow that don't affect the radio frequency waves going out into the signal areas.

Painted fiberglass or solid cut colored fiberglass or yes, it would be a blue, it would be as depicted on this PowerPoint.

Thank you.

Uh yes, sir.

Does ATT charge for other companies to put their uh equipment on these towers?

No, sir.

The way tower companies work, SBA owns a tower.

ATT is a tenant.

Just like think about a strip center.

You have a landlord that owns the strip center, and then they lease and so storefronts, but they lease locations on the tower uh to the carriers.

So as I understand it, if you if another telecommunication, for example, Verizon would then pay ATT lease amounts to have its equipment on this tower.

No, they would pay the tower company, they did the strip center.

You have a Chinese buffet going to strip center, they would pay the landlord, not the sewing machine company next door.

And the tower and the and the tower owner is I understand it is SBA or an SBA company.

SB I'm sorry, who you represent here today.

I represent SBA, uh the tower company.

So if there were other uh telecommunications companies that wanted to lease space on this tower, uh if it was uh feasible for them to do that, then uh then uh uh SBA would then again charge for that money for that.

Absolutely, because it's an investment just like any other business that providing the critical infrastructure for these carriers.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, one other um who who maintains the uh the paint and the color if it fades?

Absolutely, that's on SBA.

They're relate uh that's under the lease agreement, and it's also a responsibility of our co-partner on this forward independent school district that SBA takes on that responsibility.

Okay.

Other questions?

I think last time that uh we were here, Ms.

Duffy it stated the importance of uh they pay the school district.

Is that correct, Ms.

Tuffy?

It's an income for our school district.

Yes, sir.

That is correct.

We have a lease agreement and it'll be payments into the uh with independent school district.

We have a letter from the district too that he brought today, so we could yes, that was gonna be my I don't see a problem with this.

I'm kind of sorry that we took away their ability to to uh future um futurize their the 10 feet loss.

Uh we lost the ability to um set this up for future growth.

Uh the weight's currently designed that is correct.

Um we need to go ahead and close the public hearing and we can open it up to the board discussion.

Thank you, sir.

Excuse me.

I wanted to see that Fort Worth Independent School District letter we pull that back up.

We we have it, sir.

Thank you.

No, I'm sorry.

No, we we have it in our in our slides.

Thank you.

It's fine.

Could you uh scroll down.

Okay, any other discussion?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, maybe I like to just Mr.

Johnson.

Yes.

Uh you know, I I think for me, uh going back to our role as a board of adjustment.

And this it in situations where the strict enforcement of the zoning laws uh would create an unreasonable hardship not caused by the property owner.

In this case, the property owner is the Fort Worth ISD.

It was the Fort Worth ISD who built the building that is apparently causing some partial blockage.

Uh the other thing is is that I don't see this as a request for a variance.

I mean, we're talking about a wholesale drastic deviation from the zoning requirements from 50 to 120 feet.

That's twice the uh amount of the requirement.

And uh I think the proper uh disposition of this would be for uh SBA to go seek a zoning change for this property.

Uh that way the elected officials for the city would then have the final say as to whether this was appropriate, and if the elected officials of the city said it was, and they would have a zoning change.

It would not, but I think this is beyond our mandate.

Uh I don't think it meets the requirements of a variance.

Um and then if you go and you look, and I believe it was uh page 15.

Um, that's not it, but uh the the project, the the structure itself uh is way higher than what would be needed to get their signal over that building that was put there by the Fort Worth ISD.

Uh I was hopeful that uh the uh the continuance would cause a significant change.

That I mean I acknowledge that there's 10 feet, but when you look at a requirement of 50 feet and we have now 120 instead of 130, to me, that is that's not significant.

And and also when you look at the fact you look at the photograph uh itself uh of the structure, maybe we could find that uh it is it's next, it's the one that's next to the building itself.

That's well, that's right, right here.

That's good.

This page 18.

As you can see, the structure itself is much higher than what is need needed to exceed the top of that building that is causing the blockage for the last uh piece of equipment on the on the bottom there of the existing tower.

Uh so uh as a result, I I can't I cannot support this.

Thank you.

We have we have a statement from legal.

Uh yes.

So, with regards to whether or not this needs an appropriate money change, that is probably the incorrect way of looking at it.

Simply because it's a school itself, and so CF is the appropriate district.

Uh it's an institutional zoning base, and so the facilities are on there are sub are sub intended to support the school itself as well as the neighboring property.

Now, with regards to the rule as to the height, the reason why it's just 50 feet is because it's to the most restrictive um district.

And so I'm not a hundred percent sure whether or not even just a rezoning of the property, they would still probably need a variance to the requested height or whatever the allowed height would be.

And so the only reason why it's established as to 50 percent 50 is because of just the adjacency or the most restrictive district that's around there, and since there's residential, that's why it's 50 feet.

If it was near industrial, maybe that has height would be a little bit higher, but it would still require some type of variance, probably.

And so it is appropriate for a variance simply because for some reason the city has established as this is the rule for when a telecommunications tower is requested in CF.

And think about it.

Because again, it would probably be 50 feet as to the allowable height because it's adjacent to residential.

So I would caution the board to take that position that this is inappropriate for a variance.

That rule is just there simply because of the residential adjacency to this CF property.

So a zoning dish rezoning would not be appropriate for this property itself.

I think before the board on determining this is whether or not the applicant has met its burden in terms of the variance request.

And if it has, then again, I've I've indicated this before today.

We're very close.

We're already at 89 feet at the tower that we have now.

Is that correct?

The existing tower we have today is 89 feet.

Yes.

And we take the two lower uh arrays of antenna and put them on top of that 89 feet.

We're gonna be at 98 feet.

We're 11, 12 feet from or uh 22 feet from where it's not that big a difference.

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

This is Johnston again.

Uh I've I'm I'm an attorney, I practiced zone and had cases involving zoning and adjustment for probably close to 40 years.

And lawyers I know you'd be surprised at this lawyers disagree on things, and I absolutely disagree with what was stated by the uh city uh attorney.

So with that, I'll I'll uh continue with the discussion, Miss Duffy.

We're in discussion, right?

Yes, okay.

So um so I feel like um we all want our cell phones to work.

I'm I'm a central market shopper.

I'd like to be able to use my cell phone while I'm there.

Um all the neighborhood I'm sure would like to use their cell phone.

We need that to work.

We need that to function as a city.

Um when is enough enough?

Is a good question, Mr.

Johnson.

When do we stop?

Do we approve every single one?

No matter how high it is, how do we know when to stop?

That's a good question.

Um I feel like um in the future we could use some direction from city development staff on what's appropriate and what's not appropriate, because I do feel like we we keep approving higher ones, perhaps.

Um, I also feel like someone in this room knows how tall those light fixtures are there on the field.

They had to have a variance.

Um from the homeowner's perspective, I don't want to make any Arlington Heights alum mad, but you know, maybe if we made the stealth tower look like a light fixture, it's more stealth than the than the bright yellow um paint.

Um so there's some some ideas that have popped into my head that ties into what I was gonna ask.

Can we go back to the picture where we're seeing I guess that's the baseball field?

The other one.

Well, we could see the top tower.

That's not the one right, yes.

The light tower by the tree.

Is it is uh Miss Maribel in perhaps she could uh give us some measurements on how tall that one is.

We're looking into the data to see how tall those stadium lights are.

Um typically it's stadium lights are between 60 feet and 80 feet tall.

Um, but the stadium lights for Arlington Heights High School, we're trying to determine the the height of that.

Oh, one picture before this.

Uh the stadium lighting tower looks taller than um what the applicant is proposing.

Itself from this view from this picture.

Let's wait for the number that could be prospective.

Right.

Um that's why I say it looks like but that's that's that's a that's like a uh simulation.

Go to the one picture before this compared to the old antenna, that's a real photograph.

See the the the antenna looks in that photograph is shorter.

So those those lights are taller than I need to do.

That's my point.

It kind of depends on which light you're wearing.

It's uh the stadium uh tower lights still are taller.

Okay, let's uh uh have some other questions, Mr.

Costa.

There's uh comment.

I believe that as a city we are growing, we need the infrastructure, we can go against technology, things are gonna change over time and rules have to be re-evaluated.

So just a comment.

So I am normally a huge neighborhood advocate, and I really appreciate Ms.

Hall taking the time to come in and express her views.

Um sometimes we we've got to look at at what is the need for the city as well.

And I am not an engineer.

I don't profess to be.

I have to look at those coverage maps and rely on what's been presented to us.

And as we have increasing need for not just our cell phones, but for within the school and um emergency support and things, I I feel we're gonna we are faced with this all the time.

Um having served on commercial for quite a while, um we did cell phone towers all the time, and it's true they do almost always get approved.

Um so there's I just I just think it's a it's an infrastructure requirement that we're looking at, and I regret that there's some visibility issues with the issue, but it's it's the way it is.

Mr.

Cossack.

So yeah, so I think more than anything, I mean, they're trying to make this work.

I instead of them going in there and trying to implement, you know, just the regular old tower, they do they design something that you know kind of emphasizes the school spirit with the colors and everything.

The height, I mean, more than anything, I think at the end of the day, like you had to mention it's about the infrastructure need.

I mean the data shows it supports it, and not only that, but fourth ISD is also behind it.

They support it, they're gonna be occupying a portion of it.

So I think overall, I mean, it's a need.

So I support it.

I can be in support of this.

Um I was last time normally I might lean to the side of follow not approving, but the design that was implemented, I think is very mindful of where this is going.

Technology is advancing, and I'm sure all of us have had times where you're somewhere and you can't get cell service.

So it's just the fact that everything is becoming so technology driven that we do have to support something, or at least I will support something like this, and I empathize with you, ma'am, that's come out.

I'm appreciative that you come and smoke and spoken.

Um, but I think the benefit overall is gonna help many many more people, and uh I would be able to approve this.

And the fact even that they came down 10 feet, so they're trying to, I think, be a good steward.

If there's go ahead, I was just gonna say if there's no more discussion, I like to make a motion.

Um, we're waiting for some information on the height of the lights.

So we're trying to find that information, but there's over 300 permits for Arlington Heights high schools, so I'm not sure if we'll we'll have that readily available for you guys, but we are trying to look into.

I feel like we might be uh ready to vote today, but I do think in the future, some direction from development staff about how high things are on an average around the city and and what they're thinking um is just too much.

Also um development staff, we rely on the zoning ordinance.

Um so the ordinance for a special exception would allow the structure at 50 feet.

That'll be the guidance we'll be able to give you as it relates to the structures in the surrounding area.

This one is not a special exception, or for special exceptions, we do um take into account um to present the things that are in the surrounding area.

However, for a variant, the bear of proof is on the applicant or the property owner to provide more context into those things.

But we would have a person on development staff that does these particular cases, these uh tower cases as it relates to the permit review, yeah.

Yes, the zoning um plan review team would do the permit review for this case.

I'm just interested in what they think is the future and where we want to go with them.

I mean, is is it better to have a really tall one so that we have fewer, or is it I don't know what's in the zoning, or is it better to I don't know.

I'm just interested.

Are we still talking lights?

Are we talking about I'm talking about the the cell phone towers?

Oh, that's gonna take it.

I'm interested in technologically, what do we think as a city fits in with our zoning ordinance?

And yeah, when went how long ago was the 50 foot established?

Is it still a reasonable height in today's environment?

But I like Sassard on the commercial board as well, and see I've seen a lot of these cases, and uh we both have.

And um, these cell phone towers are everywhere, they're part of our infrastructure, they're every or one mile apart all over the city, everywhere you go.

Um the issue I have with this one is the height and the lack of accommodation for other carriers, and um that's that's that's a big concern of mine when you're making it that tall.

It seems like you should be able to accommodate just about everybody at that point.

But uh, but yeah, we're we're used to seeing these.

This is not uncommon.

This height is so well.

Any more discussion?

I'm gonna like to make a motion or I'd like to make a motion for BAC 25068, as written for approval.

Second.

Okay, so for case BAC-25-068, we have a motion to approve as requested by the applicant.

The motion made by board member Powell and second by board member Garza.

We'll take the vote.

Board member Deborah Freed approved.

Board Member Sergio Garza.

Yes, board member Michael Johnston.

No board member Eric Artiaga?

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

No.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell.

Yes.

Board Member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

Um did I get everybody?

Yeah.

No prejudice on this motion.

The motion to approve did not pass.

Um, this denial would be with prejudice.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Our next case, BAC26007.

Uh, we hear from the city staff.

If we can pause for one minute, we'll just uh get board member Jim Whitney so he can join us for the next case.

Sure.

I would also like to note um that there will be a 30-minute break um starting at 12 30 or after whichever case aligns with with that time.

With that being said, if your case is further down the line, you may want to consider that.

Go ahead and go to lunch.

There is coffee and water right in the back.

Okay, uh, we're ready to hear BAC twenty six zero zero seven.

Okay.

The next case is BAC-26-007, located at 1081 Oak Grove Road.

The property owner is Quick Trip South LLC, and the applicant is Ben Williams.

The property is Zone G Intensive Commercial District.

The applicant is requesting two special exceptions related to electronic changeable copy signs.

Special exception A is to allow a monument sign with electronic changeable copy located along the southern property line.

And special exception B is to allow a freeway sign with electronic changeable copy located along the eastern property line.

The subject property is a 14.5 acre corner lot located at the northeastern intersection of Southeast Loop 820 and Oak Grove Road, north of Interstate 20.

The property has an overall slope of approximately 3.5% from the northeast to the southwest.

The site contains mature trees.

It's not located within a floodplain and is not located within a scenic corridor.

The property is zone G Intensive Commercial and is planned to be developed as a gas station.

Surrounding zoning includes C medium density multifamily on an adjacent parcel, E neighborhood commercial west of Oak Grove Road, and PD 878 plan development, which allows E uses and MU1 uh using it uses including pawn shops.

There has been recent permits for a monument sign and a freeway sign that was submitted and are currently awaiting client response, which is pending the outcome of this case.

The applicant is requesting electronic changeable copy on two signs.

When considering the request, the board must evaluate the presence of other electronic changeable copy signs in the vicinity, visibility from residential districts, the street classification of adjacent roadways and proximity to scenic corridors.

There are other electronic changeable copy signs across the highway.

Staff also notes that there are no other electronic changeable copy signs in the immediate vicinity.

There are no existing residential uses immediately surrounding the property.

And according to the Master Thoroughfare Plan, Oak Grove Road is classified as a neighborhood connector, and Southeast Loop A20 is classified as a freeway.

The property is not located within the Chisholm Trail Parkway Scenic Corridor.

Special exception A is for a freeway sign.

The proposed freeway sign is located 86 feet from the southern property line adjacent to the southeast loop A20 frontage road.

The sign has a total area of 362.52 square feet with the electronic changeable copy portion measuring 56.83 square feet.

This results in approximately 17.96% of the sign face devoted to electronic changeable copy, which is below the maximum allowed 25%.

The ordinance also requires a minimum non-advertised area calculated at approximately 48.8 square feet.

And the applicant has provided 121.33 square feet of non-advertised area, which exceeds the requirement.

The applicable regulations permit signage up to a maximum of 25 feet.

The submitted plans indicate a proposed freeway sign height of 65 feet, which exceeds the allowable limit.

Therefore, the applicant will be required to submit a separate variance request to address the height discrepancy.

Special section exception B is for a monument sign.

The proposed monument sign is located 14.5 feet from the western property line adjacent to Oak Grove Road.

The sign has a total area of 124.22 square feet with 12.42 square feet of electronic changeable copy.

This results to 20.13% of the sign face devoted to electronic changeable copy, which is also below the 25% maximum allowed.

The minimum required non-advertised area is approximately 15.43 square feet, and the applicant has provided 35.13 square feet, exceeding the requirement.

And this concludes staff presentation.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Okay, applicant, if you'd like to come up.

Sorry.

One question.

Real quickly, you're saying that there will be a variance required for the height, but we're not entertaining that today at all.

Correct.

Thank you.

Okay.

Applicant, if you'd like to come up.

Seven minutes.

Maybe you don't need it.

Good morning, board members and staff.

My name is Corey Vaughn.

Our address is 8700 feet Port Parkway, Irving, Texas, 75063.

I'd like to thank staff for their help, and they did a great job presenting, and they've been uh really great to work with on this project.

This is a uh new quick trip in construction.

Uh we're currently in construction, and um today we're just like uh board members said, we're just asking for the changeable um digital sign face uh on the monument sign and the high rise sign, and we will have to come back for um the variances for setback and height.

And in the interest of time, I have a small presentation, but I'll try to be as brief as possible.

This northeast corner again of Oak Grove.

Uh, this is kind of the layout on uh aerial.

You see the adjacent uh residences where we did go talk to the property owners as well as the neighbors, and we have uh a couple of letters of support that I'll be presenting at the next uh variance hearing.

Again, this is just for the uh electronic face of the signs.

This is the sign that meets the requirement, the monument sign staff has uh said uh my counterpart been he kind of told you uh quick trips new standard of why we want the changeable sign faces for visibility and employee safety as well.

Um this is where the monument sign will be located on the site.

This is the distance from each exit of Oak Grove, uh exit 438.

Um, I'd like to take a brief minute to talk to you about and I let me back up.

I wanted to give you this presentation so you can see um where the sign uh high rise sign or the freeway sign will be located and how we came up with uh needing the variance for the sign.

So basically we do what we call a sign ride, and we take a crane, we put it on site, and we raise it to different levels in different locations on the actual site.

Then we ride back and forth and we take pictures to see where we can get visibility of where just the button and then just the pricer.

Again, this is a travel center, which will have diesel trucks, so it's very important that they see it before the gore point of the exits to make a safe uh maneuver to get to the exit.

And so right here you see that, and I switched to east and westbound, but uh headed eastbound, we're about approximately a half a mile away from uh the sign or the site, and headed westbound, we're actually um almost a half a mile, but a little less than that.

Um this picture right here, this is where you see the the crane and the the uh unique uniqueness of this site is the curvature of the highway and how we sit.

And so this is the you see the exit, the little red is the sign that I have in a bubble, and the sign behind it is uh a retail just across the street of Oak Grove.

You can also see the billboard uh in this photo.

Um I'll have some other renderings when we come back for the variants.

So originally when we did the sign ride, we did three sign rides on this site.

Originally it was 65 feet, and working with staff, we looked at it and was like, well, I didn't do the sign ride myself, so we did one on last Thursday where we got these photos, and we found another position when the site got under construction.

We were able to park the crane on the actual site itself instead of on the side road on the frontage.

The initial side ride was done on the frontage where the crane was like positioned weirdly, and so that's how they came up with the 65 feet at the back of the site.

So what we will be asking for is uh 45 feet.

This is headed eastbound, and you can see where it is shown right under the bridge, so it doesn't block it.

That 65 foot sign actually gets blocked by that bridge.

This is the newly proposed sign that we'll come back with, and you have the old.

And so here, um, if we put it closer on to uh the corner next to the parks, we don't have a lot of space because there's easements and other utilities in the area, but we were able to move it from the rear of the truck yard to the front uh next to the canopy, um, which would need a setback from the 20 feet uh required, and it would also need a variance uh for 20 feet in addition to the 25 allowed.

Um, and the other photo you can see where the sign across the street, it like kind of matches uh this position also allows so it does not block uh the neighboring signs, and uh it doesn't impact the uh neighborhoods next to us.

This is one letter that we got from Highland Hills.

We have another one from Oakmont uh in support of our project and the signage.

So today we're not asking for the variance of the height or setback, excuse me.

We're just asking for the electronic changeable copy signs uh for monument and freeway sign.

Thank you.

I appreciate you guys taking the time to listen.

And at this time, I'll uh address any questions you may have.

Uh just one second, we need to see if there's any anybody else here to speak in favor.

Any uh any opposition any any opposition?

Okay, now we'll open it up for questions from the board.

So you were just giving us a pre-class session for when you come back.

Yes, I wanted to get your feedback and your opinion on what I will be presenting.

So if you have suggestions or you have input, then I can take that back to my engineers and uh to quick trip and see if there's something that you if you guys want to see something different.

Well, I can say that personally, I haven't spoken with you or any of the individuals in the neighborhood, but my daughter be 40 in May.

So it was probably about 30 years ago.

Uh I used to live in Highland Hill.

Okay.

Across the bridge where that uh gas station is.

First Street Hensley.

So, and just on Sunday when I was passing through, I saw coming some quick trip.

I said, Oh, that's nice for the community.

Uh bringing jobs and so forth.

My concern, I said, I wonder if they would uh they're going to have to have uh stock in the back because I see them running out quickly everything because you have adjacent to your property, you have an apartment, a large apartment complex, uh adjacent to that, but higher.

Um what you propose digital.

I don't see that it's not gonna pass that part, but I'm going to stop right there and just if my colleagues have anything else to say because I don't see this to be a drawn out case of discussion.

But thank you for bringing uh jobs to the community.

Thank you.

I would like to make one note.

Yeah, um, as it relates to this case BAC-26-006, the request before the board today are for two special exceptions of tool allow ECC, um, one on a freeway sign and one on a monument sign.

The case variant um for the height that the applicant mentioned will come at a later time, but before you today to be considered are the special exceptions for electronic changeable copy.

But the case is 2600 seven.

Thank you.

Okay, Miss Duffy.

So I think what I heard you say is you're changing the location of the signs as well as the height of the signs, right?

Correct.

So do can we vote on the electronic copy today if he's gonna change the location of the signs?

Yes, all that your special exceptions today would grant is the ability to have electronic changeable copy signs.

Anywhere on his property, don't we usually have a place for them?

Anywhere that they would be allowed without requiring without going into setbacks or or height.

Yes, and we haven't been informed about new locations, but if the signs still are on the southern property line or eastern property line, uh don't see an issue with any other questions for the applicant.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay.

It's coming back anyway.

Should we continue these?

We can go ahead and close the public hearing and we'll open it up to the book.

So it's the board's decision.

However, they can find ways to comply with the ordinance to where they won't have to come back for the height.

Um the monument sign already meets the other requirements.

It's just the ECC that's being requested.

Okay.

So then we should vote today.

Correct.

And he also said 45 feet, I believe.

And we have this uh, I guess we would say somewhat dated 50 feet height.

Yes, so we haven't received this sign permit um and conducted a review for the height at 45 feet.

So I'm not sure whether the 45 complies or not at this moment.

It's focused on the uh the changeable copy at this point.

Correct.

So I would like to make a motion for BAC 2607.

Um as written, it is a common seem like uh to vote on these separate.

So if there's no request to vote on them separate, I'm gonna make the motion to vote on together.

I second that.

Okay.

Um it's the motion is to have them considered together.

I I prefer these things to be done separately, obviously.

But it's up to the chair, I guess.

Yeah, the chair can decide to take them separately if there's interest from the board.

Motions to approve both.

There's a second to approve both.

Since the motion was put out there and seconded, it'll just agree with the first motion uh to vote on them together.

Next time let's listen to it.

Well, a motion, a motion can't be necessarily to vote on all of them together or not.

It's up to the chair to decide if there's interest from a member of the board, I'd recommend that you vote on them separately.

Let's do that.

Let's vote on the on the item separately then.

Okay, we have a motion to approve case BAC-2607 as requested by the applicant.

The motion made by board member Powell and second by board member Artiaga.

We will vote on um special exception A first.

Board member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Eric Artiaga?

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King?

Yes.

Board Member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board member one Manuel Costa?

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Special exception A passes.

Now we'll take the vote for special exception B.

Board Member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Eric Artiaga?

Yes.

Board member James Hook?

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King?

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Jannah Herrera.

Yes.

Board member one Manuel Costa?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

Our next case, BAC26009.

We'll hear from staff.

Okay.

No.

Sure.

Would you guys like to take a lunch now or would you like to wait until this case is over?

Let's do this one and then take.

But can we tell the rest of the people we'll be taking lunch right after?

Taking a lunch after this case, so if you're if you're not up, just so you know.

What 30 minutes?

And then may I also say quickly, if we know that if you if we know that you're gonna vote yes on special exceptions, uh is it possible that we could just go ahead and vote on them together to save time versus uh voting on them separate?

Yeah.

Well, so here's here's the issue with it.

Uh well, first of all, I don't I don't think we know that anyone how anyone's gonna vote until they do vote.

And and really it's to the benefit of the applicant if there are multiple items, because if there is someone who votes no, or two people in this case, that could sync a vote on everything if really they only wanted to vote no on one of the items.

So it really is to the benefit of the applicant.

If there's been any interest expressed that there may not be a unanimous vote to just take the items separately.

No, my question was if you know that was to the board members.

If you know already that just like the last case we just had, it was two special exceptions, A and B.

If you already know, you're gonna vote yes on both of them.

Already everybody know what they're gonna vote individually.

So even if you know that you're gonna vote yes on for the sake of time, let us consider and go ahead and voting on them together.

And I'll just say again, you if the board is unanimous that they would like to take them all together, they certainly can.

If there's ever interest from a board member, it's up to the chair to decide whether or not to take them separately or together.

And our recommendation is if there's been an ask to do it separately.

Um, but that's always in the discretion of the chair.

Right.

Okay, let's hear this next case.

BAC 26009.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, the next case is located at 4536 and 4550 Heritage Trace Parkway.

The owner is Walmart Real Estate Business Trust.

The applicant is Amanda Conway, and the site is zoned e-neighborhood commercial.

The applicant is requesting two special exceptions to allow to allow electronic changeable copy or ECC on two existing pylon signs.

One sign is located along the northern property line, and the other is located along the western property line.

This request is evaluated under section 6.411 of the zoning ordinance.

This slide shows the aerial map uh and site photos.

The property was developed in 2015 and includes a retail building with an adjacent pad site for gasoline sales.

The site is located at the intersection of two principal arterial roadways.

The lot is irregularly shaped, it contains mature trees and is partially located within a floodplain.

Some of the surrounding area is developed.

This slide summarizes the lot history associated with the property, including prior permits and approvals.

In 2015, a previous board of adjustment case was filed for a similar request to allow ECC signage on the site.

That request was considered by the board and was denied.

A unified sign agreement uh for the overall development was approved on October 28th of 2014.

The agreement applies to six lots to allow uh for two pylon signs with a maximum height of 25 feet.

There are two other signs associated with this unified sign agreement, uh, but they are monument signs and they're not part of this uh amendment.

This slide shows the proposed site plan.

Uh the request does not include changes to the site's layout.

The proposal is limited to adding ECC to the two existing pylon signs.

This slide outlines the applicable applicable special exception criteria.

Those include the presence of other ECC signs in the vicinity, and no ECC signs were identified in the immediate vicinity.

Visibility from residential districts.

There is an adjacent neighborhood uh to the south and partially to the west.

Existing six single family subdivisions are located approximately 500 feet to the northeast, west, and northwest.

In addition, single family zoning is directly adjacent to the south at less than 150 feet from the estimated sign location along North Beach Street.

The proposed electronic changeable copy uh components are located approximately 20 feet above ground and may be visible from adjacent residential properties.

The street classification of adjacent roadways, the subject property is located along North Beach Street and Heritage Trace Parkway, both of which are classified as principal arterial roadways.

And lastly, the proximity to Seatnik corridors.

The site is not located within a designated scenic area or corridor.

This slide shows the existing pylon sign along Heritage Trace Parkway with a proposed ECC.

The sign is 224 square feet in area with a proposed ECC portion of 20 square feet, which is approximately 8.9% of the sign face.

The sign meets the minimum non-advertised area requirements.

This slide shows the existing pylon sign along North Beach Street with the proposed ECC.

This sign is also 224 square feet with a 20 square foot ECC portion representing approximately 8.9% of the sign face.

The sign meets the minimum non-advertised area requirement.

These are the special exception uh regulations related to electronic changeable copy signs in section 6.411 of the zoning ordinance.

These are the evaluation criteria considered by the Board of Adjustment when reviewing special exception request.

And this slide outlines the Board of Adjustment Action for Special Exception Request.

And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Okay.

Is there anybody anybody here?

What let's hear from the applicant.

Wouldn't come on up.

Thank you.

My name's Kevin Cooksey, and the address is 1302 Avenue R, Grand Prairie, Texas.

And I'm here on behalf of SGA Design Group and Walmart.

We're the sign manufacturer and the installer.

And so these two signs that we're looking to get a special exception for are already existing.

We just want to change out the old uh outdated flippable sign to the new LED layout.

That way it can be maintained from Bentonville, Arkansas, and they can make those changes on a daily without the stores having to stop their processes and go out and make those changes themselves.

So therefore we're going smaller, and the frequency will only be when the gas price changes.

It won't change colors or flick around or any kind of, it'll be constant at all times.

We are going to three layouts so that we could have if you're a Walmart Plus member, you have your price, and if you're unlettered or diesel, it's a different price.

So that's all we're asking for today, is just to be able to change out those two digital price readers.

Okay, thank you.

Anybody else here to speak in favor?

The opposition.

Chair, we did receive one letter of opposition.

It was provided to you guys with your late correspondence document.

Okay.

Can we pull that up on screen?

Would it be okay?

I think there's two.

There's two.

North Fort Worth Alliance and the actual heritage board.

Both in opposition.

Here to speak on that.

Okay.

Okay.

Um questions for the applicant.

Say he's gonna just change the sign every time the price of fuel changes.

Yes, so whenever like every day have we all noticed that the gas prices changes, that will be the only time that the sign will change.

Any other questions?

Okay, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and open it up for more discussion.

So I'm very familiar with this area.

Um, I know this has nothing to do with why this gentleman's here.

Um the sign is quite large and was approved many years ago.

The board of directors is in opposition of changing this to electronic.

There is no electronic in the heritage corridor.

Um, can you put page 114 back up, please?

So Heritage Trace runs east and west, and there are homes all along the corridor.

If you look where it says subject property, and to the right, that 9801, which is behind that Walmart neighborhood store.

There are roughly 800 homes that are going to be going in there.

And there's the board of directors in this area is opposed to it, and the North Fort Worth Alliance.

Um I would be opposed to this as well.

And this is a business, there's other businesses that run up and down that corridor, and once we set it could be a precedent where the 711 that is right on another corner could request to have this as electronic changeable.

So I would ask that we if you haven't read over the two letters that come before the board, the com before the board wanting to deny this.

I I would ask that you take a moment and read this.

So there are lots of homes in this area.

But the signs are already there.

Right.

The signs are already there.

But although they're asking to change it to a digital price change.

Correct.

But they're what's what's the trepidation with changing just the digital price the signs are already?

The concern is what's already an eye sight that is not favorable, but that's not what we're here for.

Um it's been like this for many years, and there are homes that we're gonna, as I mentioned, they're gonna be able to see this, and then across the street, and then the likelihood that another applicant could come before the board requesting electronic changeable.

That's my view.

But if I'm not mistaken, isn't there electronic signs on Basswood and 35?

Yes, I I think the next exit is North Terrent.

Um there's a quick trip.

Uh those are electronics.

I'm familiar with my daughters, I have another daughter who stays in that area.

So that quick trip have electronic signs as well.

Then you pointed out there are homes that are going to be that built, they are not there.

So let's say if they are already there, those individuals might not have a problem with that.

They it's possible that they could, but the electronic signs uh is compatible with that area.

So I disagree with there are electronic signs.

Basswood and North Terrent are not in this community.

The heritage is the master plan community, and there's no it don't matter that they it does not in that community.

Yes, it does it with that particular area of the city.

Electronic signs are compatible.

That is not a Allen.

This is not an Allen within North Terrent uh area.

So it is compatible.

I mean go ahead.

It is compatible, and then on top of that, is we've been speaking.

Uh Mr.

Cosa spoke uh earlier about how technology and things are changing.

It's changing.

Time is changing.

I hear it.

It's compatible.

So to say it's not compatible or not compatible in that in the heritage massive heritage is not an owl.

The way in the context you are putting it as putting them seclusive to themselves.

All down 35 is the electronic signs.

I hear what you're saying, and yes, there are electronic signs.

Thank you.

They are not in this community.

Thank you.

Again, they are not in the heritage again.

Okay, I'm not here to see is not an Allen.

Even over there by Fossil Ridge High.

We may have to just uh agree to disagree on this, but uh, we are here to to vote on this, so we do have to make a decision.

So let's go ahead and see if there's any other questions or comments from the uh the the my only comment is yeah, I agree with you.

It's it's a sign, that's that's a huge sign.

It's it's it's horrible, but it's already there, and we're just they're requesting to change it to what everyone else is changing it to to electronic EEC, which is uh kind of par for the course.

I don't have a problem with this.

I I'm I understand that it's the sign is just it's enormous.

I'm looking at it, it's enormous, it's enormous sign.

But uh the change that's just that portion I don't have a problem with that.

And I understand light pollution and all that stuff and living across the street from a from a gas station that has blinky flashy lights and all that could be a problem.

Um is is this sign?

Is this Walmart sign?

Is there any lighting on there at this time?

No.

There's no backlight, anything like that.

There's no lighting at all.

So it is no, no lighting.

Should be because the applicant wants to speak.

You can tell I'll go ahead and open the public hearing back up and let the applicant that the Walmart phase should be backlit because there's no exterior lights on that that shine up.

The Walmart phase should be backlit because there's no exterior lights on that that shine up.

So it's either one of the two.

It's either an exterior light shining up or that face is uh show through lighting.

I think there is a back light.

Okay.

Yeah, so because that's an uh an acrylic sign, so it's gonna be backlit with LEDs from the inside.

Thank you.

That's that's in lining.

So it's already lit.

Yeah, that's that's that's my point.

If it's already lit, a dimmable changeable copy sign shouldn't be much of a problem.

Anybody else?

I'll make a motion.

Okay.

I move the BAC dash 26-009 be approved as submitted.

I'll suck in that.

I just want clarification how we approving both of them A and B together or not.

How are we doing it, Mr.

Chair?

That's all I want.

If we have a member that wants to do it, uh this is a separate vote guy.

Uh okay.

On this one, they're identical signs, so I I don't have a problem.

Okay.

If that's okay, we'll we'll vote on to vote on them together.

Okay, so case BAC dash 26-009.

We have a motion to approve the applicant's request for ANB special exceptions.

Motion made by board member Jim Whitden, second by board member Powell.

We will approve these.

We will vote on these cases together.

Board member Jim Whitten.

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board member Eric Artiago?

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member Kay Duffy.

Yes.

Board Member Janel Herrera.

No.

Board member Juan Manuel Acosta?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Okay, we're gonna go ahead and break for lunch.

Um we'll go ahead and uh uh reconvene at one o'clock.

Thank you.

Yeah, I think that's a good idea.

Thank you, City Staff for putting that together for us.

Um next case, uh BAC26008.

So this case is located at 2401 Eagle Parkway.

The owner is uh PR Roman numeral three, Crow 3001 Eagle Parkway Land LP.

The applicant is Bella firma.

The property is zoned K Heavy Industrial, and the property is legally described as lot one R3, block one, trammel crow 35 Eagle.

In variance A.

The variance request is to the landscaping requirement that requires landscaping areas to be planted with either one shrub for 50 square feet or a cluster of native shrubs and or grasses per 75 square feet of the of the required front yard landscape area to allow fewer than the minimum required shrubs or plant groupings to be installed.

The minimum required landscaping shrubs in the front yard would be 1,955 shrubs in five gallon uh containers.

The requested landscaping shrubs in the front yard is 758 shrubs in five gallon containers.

Variance B is a variance to the landscaping requirement that a minimum of 75% of the required landscape area be located in the front yard between the building line and the front property line to allow less landscape area than the required to be located within the front yard.

The minimum required landscaping in the front yard is 75%, and the requested landscaping in the front yard is 42.5%.

The subject property is an 88.92 acre vacant land located north of Eagle Parkway and to the west of North Freeway.

The subject property extends over a large area with varying topography, a significant portion of which is heavily wooded and is located within a floodplain.

The subject property is adjacent to the Fort Worth Alliance Airport Overlay Zone.

Eagle Parkway is designated in the Master Thoroughfare Plan as a commercial connector.

There are two permits that uh for two buildings that are warehouse buildings.

Um since the time I created these slides, they are now awaiting uh client reply based on the determination of the board today.

So the proposed site plan uh the the site is zoned K in heavy industrial and is currently being developed with two warehouse buildings.

The first building, building one, will be 507,930 square feet, and the second building, building two, will be 106,400 square feet.

The area that is considered the front yard for the entire site is located between Eagle Parkway and building two.

So uh to understand the landscaping uh requirements.

This is not one that comes before the board very often.

So uh if you can bear with me just a moment while I explain the how the landscaping uh requirements are calculated.

So if you look at the uh dotted blue line, this is the total area uh of the property, and that's uh three roughly 3.8 million uh square feet.

So from that we subtract building one area and building two area, which their combined area is uh 614,330 square feet, and then we take four percent of that amount to give us the required total landscaping area.

75% of that must be located uh in the front yard, but the front yard area is not adequate to provide that uh that amount.

So that's why they are seeking this that variance uh for the front uh for 75 percent.

So variance A, in variance A, the applicant is requesting to allow fewer than the minimum required shrubs or plant groupings to be installed.

They are uh the requirement is for 1,955 shrubs, and they are uh providing 758.

So the deficiency is 1,197.

In variance B, the applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum landscaping requirements, which specifically which specify that a minimum of 75% of all required landscape area shall be located in the front yard between the building line and the front property line.

So the required landscaping area is uh 75 percent of uh which is 97,749 square feet, and they are providing uh 55,393 square feet, and the deficiency is 42,356 square feet.

Again, here are the landscaping requirements, and I am available for any questions.

Any questions?

Can you go to uh page 127 of your slide presentation?

So I'm not sure which page that is we're gonna refer to prior to that one.

One more there.

On the bottom of that page where it says a building number two, there's a building number three.

That building number three seems to have the same signature yard in the front.

Am I seeing that correct?

So the property, the the request that's uh that's before you today is for the the property that is outlined in in blue here.

I understand that, but they're kind of doing mirroring what the neighbors doing.

Is that correct?

Um my understanding is that this is the same ownership.

So if you have questions about the other property, the applicant may be able to answer those questions.

Okay.

So on the you mentioned that it was there are parts of it that are heavily wooded.

So, but those are not visible from that's not visible from the street.

Is that remaining or will that be taken down for the construction?

So the there's a floodplain that's identified here in the aerial photograph uh with the the hashed area.

Um so that that's the northwestern part.

It it divides uh this property from the residential neighborhood to the north.

Did I I'm sorry, did I answer your question?

Um is that where the woods are?

Yes.

Okay.

And so where the woods are, there's there's there that's not being taken down for construction of these buildings.

Not to my knowledge.

Um you would need to ask the applicant that question.

I have a question on the page that we're looking at.

So and then going back to the page 127 that we just spoke about.

Can you point to where building one and two are?

So this one here, and then going back to that previous page that we were just on.

Can you point out the building one and two?

On the aerial, yes.

So those uh building one and building two are have not been constructed yet.

Uh the so the uh the two permits uh are for those speculative uh industrial warehouse buildings.

So they have not been constructed yet.

Um, but they will be so they are situated on Scott on the screen.

Can you draw the approximate location of building one and two so they would be approximately here and here thank you, Scott?

So um I I look at the requirements with zoning, and because of the shape um of this lot and the placement of the buildings, it looks like I'm not seeing it here, but building building two, the front area of building two is the only part that actually faces things visible from outside of the property.

That's correct.

So uh immediately in front of the yellow area is Eagle Parkway.

Um, and it is the it it has the only uh access to this property to my knowledge.

So I know this is hard to say, and I I'm just trying to figure out if there wasn't the rest of that land behind there that is not being utilized, would what's being proposed sort of qualify because we're using a really big number because of the size of the lot, right?

Yes, that that's correct.

The as I noted, uh the portion of this lot that's in the floodplain would would mean that they would not be able to uh to build on that portion of the property.

Does that answer your question?

So the requirement for their landscaping is uh four percent of the 75% of the lot, and so the variances before us is for the 75% landscaping requirement for the front yard.

If they were possible pushing the um the buildings back, potentially they could meet um they'll still have to provide the landscaping, but potentially they could meet the 75% requirement in a front yard.

Um, but the applicant will be able to answer, speak more to because of of where the building is right now, it appears that they're probably meeting the spirit of the the code in terms of density.

That's I mean that's an opinion, I know.

So it's entirely possible we'll find that floodplain as part of their hardship, right?

The applicant would be able to explain.

Okay, thank you.

Um the trees in the floodplain don't count towards their tree count or their shrub count.

So the requirement is for that um the landscaping to be in a front yard.

So the portion from the property line to the front building wall, so that portion has to meet the 75% landscaping.

Okay, understood.

Any other questions?

Okay, uh, let's go ahead and hear from the applicant then.

Please uh tell us your name, address, and you'll have seven minutes.

Yes.

My name is Corey Howe.

My name is Corey Hag with Belferma.

I'm the landscape architect.

My address is 12801 North Central Expressway, suite 1760 in Dallas.

And I'm happy to answer all your questions.

Y'all have great questions.

So to start out with is that this is the same developer who has developed the existing 10 buildings on this corner and that are developing the last three buildings, including building three that that's adjacent.

And this is uh in the Alliance Industrial Corridor, so we know that we also have additional landscape requirements for the buffer in for these buildings.

Um a few things that I wanted to address that you've already asked is the um there's some topography changes that it that are limiting our uh development in the very rear north of the property, the elevation is 610, and at the street it's 65.

And so we're that's one of the reasons we're developing in the front of the property.

Also, we have already received urban forestry approval, and uh we're preserving over 12 acres of trees on this site, and so that the whole entire site is based on the four percent is is what's being calculated in the four percent.

So all the trees that we're preserving, all that landscape area that we're not developing, um, all the area in the back that has a lot of easement.

Um, that's all part of our 4% of the then we're having to take 75% off of.

So this is why we have a little unusual site configuration.

In fact, in that very top corner that runs east to west at the very top of the property, just for some context, that's about 12 or 13 acres up there alone that that is you know turns up to the up to the north and right that's part of our overall square footage for the property that's built into our landscape requirements.

Um the floodplain, all that area is again part of the overall lot, which again calculates to our four percent, it gets to our 75%.

When you look at the property from Eagle Prop uh Parkway, you can see that it kind of our building's perpendicular or parallel with the with the road, and then it kind of turns up and then it turns again.

So we have a very unusual lot configuration.

We only have about um 764 lineal feet of street frontage, but the property extends back about 3,500 lineal feet deep into the site, and then that that north um that east-west portion at the at the very top is 2500 lineal feet as well.

Um we also have about set over seven and a half acres of um of easements on this site that are undevelopable, so that's again uh portions that we're not um putting buildings on or landscape landscape in.

And so is that what you said?

Acres?

Ma'am.

Seven and a half acres?

Yes, ma'am.

Seven and a half acres of easements on the site.

And then, like I mentioned, we we're saving over um 12 acres of um existing trees on the site as well.

It includes areas that are in the floodway.

Um we do feel like we are meeting the spirit of of the of the um of the landscape ordinance in the fact that um the purpose of the landscape ordinance, you know, is obviously to create a buffer, landscape buffer planting and shrubs in front of the building, and each building has that, except for that you won't see those buildings, those shrubs in front of building one.

In fact, um I wanted to point out for for the overall site, if we were to count the permeable area that there's 80 percent if we look at um of the lot, we are we have 80 percent of net site area is landscape for the whole site.

Um we also have over a thousand shrubs extra for the overall shrub requirement for the site.

Our burden is that the area uh between the property line and building two, and part of that burden also is how the lot turns and is configured.

Um I'm happy to answer any questions you all have, um, but we we just want to let you know that we do feel like we're trying to go above and beyond the requirements, and that if we were to um put the put the shrubs that are in front of building one and the shrubs of building two together and the landscape area in front of building one and building two together, we would be compliant.

Um the the burden is again that it's all required to be in front of building two, and then the shrub count or landscape area in front of building one is able to be counted towards our requirements.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here to speak in favor?

Is there any opposition?

Okay, are there any questions that for the applicant?

Okay, go ahead.

Uh this uh this is Johnston on on building one on this diagram.

Uh as I understand what you said, there are some elevation issues where you cannot, and this is a Fort Worth term scooch, building one back to be like even with the existing building.

Um you visit with us about that.

So we I wanted to share with you the finished floor that we have for building building one, which is 647.

And again, so as soon as we go behind building one all the way back towards the rear of the property, um, at the very north, top left uh northwest corner of the site, the elevation goes down to 610.

So it starts dropping tremendously.

Plus, if we were to look at the aerial on and that's where all the existing trees are in that area as well.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Garden.

Just one second, um, Karen.

Can you adjust?

One, two, it's on.

There we go.

If you took the calculator and and took all the wetland and the what you can't use and the easements and the building, uh, would you come up with a number that would help us help you qualify for what you're asking us to do here?

And well, what we have have shown um.

We we know there's a there's a photograph that has the wetlands, correct?

So you know approximately what square footage of that is wetlands.

What's what square footage is easements?

What's square footage is not usable, and subtract that from the re from what the requirement, and then we do the math on four percent of that, 75%, and come up with a number that's more palatable for you guys to live with and also based on reality, not the whole property.

You have that number for us.

Um I have I I could calculate that number.

I just have have worked out that we have um commissioners.

This is Mary Bell.

Um, does not have that information is because we don't allow it in our zoning ordinance landscaping.

Um, regardless, we they cannot uh subtract easements from their net site area.

The reason being is you can plant grass and shrubs over easements.

The only item not allowed to be planted in easements are trees.

So that is one of the main reasons uh we still request easements included in their net site area.

Right, but you can't build a building over easements, correct?

Correct.

Yeah, so that would uh I what we're trying to do is kind of reduce the amount of liability of shrubs that is that we qualify for easement.

You can't build on top of that.

So um it would just help us kind of see you know that makes sense.

That's all.

Right, and I understand.

One thing that I would just like to express is that we're happy to plant the amount of shrubs required and the amount of landscape required.

It's just that we're not able to put it all in front of building two, and so some of that area and some of those additional shrubs that are required are in front of building one, which is which is the uh variance that we're requesting, is that it not all be planted in in place in front of building two, that it also be allowed to be placed in front of building one.

And then we and with that we would be compliant.

It doesn't show it in this picture.

Why?

Because the definition in the ordinance of a front yard is is the first the first building and facing the street and taking that building line, projecting it to the property lines.

It doesn't account for any other buildings behind it, it's only the building closest to the street.

Could you possibly show us where on building one you're putting landscaping?

Yes, ma'am.

If you see that cyan color line in front of um front of building one, Scott, can you help her draw on the screen, please?

Yeah.

Sorry.

In that line forward, and we have we have shrubs in all these parking islands along the building facade, um, along the drives along the streets and any open landscape area there.

So from from building one forward, um, we have the additional remaining shrubs in square footage that are where we're not compliant in front of building two.

So do I understand you have the right number?

It's just not all in the right location.

Yes, ma'am, exactly.

All right, got it.

Thank you.

Was this lot fairly flat and untreed before you guys started your project?

It it's not there's 45 uh there's 45 uh feet and change of elevation.

I mean just like in the area where you're building, was that all pretty pretty much flat, uh green grass type, or was it were there trees there?

What was there before?

There's still been trees there.

We we have removed some trees, but majority of trees in this area we've preserved.

I don't know what's going on with the screen.

I'm not touching it.

You have a percentage of what you're adding versus what you took away as far as your tree preservation goes.

Um I I can have that for you.

Um I know that we are um we are in excess, and in fact, we are preserving over 45 specimen trees on the site.

So there's a lot of large trees on the property as well that we're preserving.

Good.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Scott.

I was just saying we are trying to locate what within the docket.

I believe we have the landscaping, uh, the landscaping in front of building two.

Oh, okay.

I was like, I'm not changing the screen.

I didn't know what's happening.

Very large docket, so we're it's gonna take a moment to find whether any other questions in the meantime.

I I have a question, and sorry, I'm trying to find follow the bouncing ball.

The requested landscaping that is below what is required.

That's because of what you've stated with the easements and the floodplain, correct?

And the lot configuration.

And lock configuration.

So and you might have said this, so pardon me if you did.

Is so there's the landscape.

This requirement is because it needs to be in front of the building one.

Yes, ma'am.

And has nothing to do with building two.

No, but it the the requirement, I'm sorry, is in front of building two.

Building two is adjacent to the street.

Hang on, maybe I got the wrong number.

I'm sorry, I said the wrong number.

So this landscaping is all for building two.

The landscape required for the site is for the entire lot.

And um, regardless if there was one building or two building or three buildings or four buildings on the site.

But the require okay, I follow, thank you.

Um but it needs to be at the the front yard of that building number two.

Correct.

You're requesting it to be lower because of the lot size and what all is encompassed.

Yes, ma'am, correct.

And and um in just letting you all know that our intent is that we are providing the quantities and the requirements, as we mentioned, just not in the required location because of the hardships that we have for the site.

And I think that um, yeah, they they're getting close to getting our sheets pulled up for the correct page that may be helpful.

The statement you just made, I think you made it earlier.

You're saying you're meeting the requested requirements.

Is that the requested lower?

Because the minimum is 1955 shrubs.

We were meet we're meeting the quantities required, just not located in front of building two.

If we are allowed to count in front of building one and two, we're meeting the requirements, but because the requirement from the zoning ordinances to all be in front of building two, um, we're not able to meet those in those specific locations.

And here's a perfect um here's here's our plans, and in fact, that second sheet that um you're going you we were on the drawings, yeah, right there.

In fact, on the site overall, we have over uh three thousand seven hundred shrubs on the site overall, which I as I mentioned is over a thousand more shrubs than it's required for zone or zoning square.

I I have just a curiosity.

That's a very strange shape for the western portion of your property.

Is that a creek?

There is floodplain over there.

Yes.

It's just it's not necessarily a creek that makes it all squiggly on the west side.

Yes, there's creek there.

There's a creek in existing trees.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Go ahead and close the public hearing and uh open it up for discussion among the board.

Thank you.

I don't have a problem with this.

I I agree.

I I agree.

I think they're trying to make the best out of a bad situation.

Yeah, I I don't see how they could meet the requirement based on the lot configuration.

I mean, I'm sitting here saying, Well, how else are you gonna do it?

I'm sorry.

We're seeing the hardship from the lot, and I'm just actually very pleased that despite that out that they might have on landscaping, they're still putting the whole volume of landscaping in.

So I am very supportive of this.

Yeah, same here.

It seems like they've by default with the floodplain, they preserved a heck of a lot of trees, so greenery is not my issue.

So I too.

I think um your proposed plan based on what the land is giving you.

I think this is works well, so I can approve as well.

Anyone like to make a motion?

If there's no more discussion, I'll make a motion.

Make sure I have the right one.

BAC.

I'd like to approve BAC 2608.

Um based on how things have been going, uh, separate as written, variants A and B to be voted separately, unless we want to vote on those together.

Johnston seconds your motion to vote on them together as one or two separate.

Uh we'll do two separate.

So let me restate.

Like to approve BAC 26-008, but uh variants A and B, but voting on those separately.

Johnston seconds that okay, we have a motion to approve case BAC-26-008 as requested by the applicant for variances A and B.

And a sec um the motion made by board member Herrera and second and by board member Johnston.

We'll vote on them separately.

Variants A.

Board member Jim Witten.

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Eric Artiaga?

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member Kay Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

Variant B.

Board Member Jim Whitden?

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Eric Arciaga?

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board Member Dober Fried.

Yes.

Board Member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member K.

Duffy.

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board Member Juan Manuel Costa?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Our next case.

It's uh BAR 26012.

So our next case is located at 204 West Central Avenue.

The property owner is 204 West Central Avenue LLC.

And the applicant is the law office of Brian Fagan PLLC.

The property is zoned E slash D D, which is neighborhood commercial, and there is a demolition delay overlay.

The property is legally described as lot one R, block 79, North Fort Worth.

The applicant is requesting a variance to the off-street parking requirements to permit fewer than the minimum required number of parking spaces in a commercial district within 250 feet of one or two family zoning districts.

The minimum required parking space is 10 parking spaces, and they are requesting six.

Subject property is an approximately 7,150 square foot commercial corner located lot located at the intersection of West Central Avenue and Houston Street.

The lot is relatively flat, has a few ornamental trees, and does not contain any floodplain or significant environmental constraint.

Property was replatted without alley access in 1984.

There has uh is a recent permit for foundation repair.

It is currently in plan review.

And the uh the occupancy change of use request is currently waiting the outcome of the board decision today.

The applicant is requesting a variance to permit fewer than the minimum required number of parking spaces in a commercial district within 250 feet of one or two family zoning district.

The applicant is requesting six parking spaces where 10 are required.

And the uh the illustration to the right is the site plan on which uh the yellow uh yellow spaces outlined in dotted green represent the the six parking spaces that are being provided.

Here are the regulations for off-street parking requirements.

Uh an office or professional building requires two and a half spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor floor area, and the uh floor area in in this commercial building is slightly less than 4,000, which is so it's rounded up to 4,000.

And I'm available for any questions.

I have a question.

So this is a change in occupancy.

Prior to this, this was commercial.

I'm trying to understand what it was before versus now and needing more spaces, right?

So the current change of occupancy is is calculated on uh a certain number of square footage for the the current use.

Um, and our staff were not able to locate uh previously a previous certificate of occupancy that had this the square footage that would have been uh in included in that CO.

So there was not that information to go on that they are required to meet the current standards, which is deficient from the parking regulations by four.

This is probably something for the applicant, but back on the proposed side plan, they have identified six different parking spots across from the two in the back.

Is there any room back there, or is that more of an entry?

I appears it would be an entry into the back portion.

That's correct.

In order to access those those spaces, you would not be able to park in there.

Okay, thank you.

Um, and actually, we did have a uh as was noted, um, there is a demolition delay um this property, and we had a request to for some explanation of that.

Um, however, I I would note that this request is not necessarily it is not influenced by demolition delay, but there are uh there are three categories of protection for historically, culturally, architecturally, and uh significant properties in Fort Worth.

So, and they are highly significant and endangered, historic and cultural landmark and demolition delay.

A demolition delay except as may otherwise be permitted in this historic preservation ordinance.

Any historic property designated or pending designation as DD requires a submission or and or an application for uh COA, which is a certificate of appropriateness.

Um addition where an applicant other than the city of Forth requests a COA for demolition or relocation of historic property designated or pending designation as DD, then the HCLC, the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission may not deny approval of the COA.

However, the HCLC may delay the issuance of a demolition or relocation permit for up to 180 calendar days from the date of the HCLC's original hearing on the application.

So this is an opportunity for the HCLC to instruct the owner to work with the community to identify other means other than demolition.

I have a question.

Did staff as staff evaluates the plan as it is?

Again, I'm not an engineer, and I don't know the required sizing for parking spaces.

But is there any alternative for that front area of the property to perhaps realign the parking spaces vertically?

Would that allow more cars or would that not allow for the turning radius, et cetera?

Um so and Mirabel can correct me if I'm wrong, but generally when we receive uh plans for review, they're only going to be reviewing the plans that are submitted.

That excuse me, that is correct.

However, even if they did um suggest or propose parking where it was um at a certain degree, we probably would not allow it because that means they would have to, when they're backing out, they would have to back out into the street.

And they have to have maneuverability within their own parking lot without using public right of way.

Thank you, Mayor Beldett.

That to me defines a little bit of an obstacle for them.

I appreciate that.

Okay.

I have a question.

So this is Jim Lane's old office.

Yes.

Pretty historical.

So if we decide to not allow this parking situation that has existed to continue, there's a probability it's gonna be torn down.

Is that what I'm hearing?

No.

They it would not be able to be torn down without the city's permission because of the DD designation.

Um, they would just probably have to come up with a plan B.

I couldn't tell you what that is, but they would have to propose something else.

Okay, let's let's project.

What are they gonna propose that's gonna change anything?

Other like build a garage into it.

Um we don't have we only have limited parking space on this.

They could share parking with the business next door, find an auxiliary parking lot.

Um, those are the two instances that come to mind quickly.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, let's go ahead and bring up the applicant.

Um please tell us your name, address, and you have seven minutes.

All right, my name is Brian Bubis.

I'm here on behalf of 204 West Central Avenue LLC, the owner of the property located at 204 West Central Avenue, Fort Worth, Texas, 76164.

I just want to make um state, I believe y'all said the wrong number at the start.

You all had it BAR26012.

I just wanted to make sure we're on the right one.

Right.

Um, and also clarify there actually is a seventh spot on the when you first enter the back part of the property, there's a little space um that that is a seventh spot as well.

Um you're right there.

Or y'all can't see that.

It would be right where the the yeah, there it goes.

So we're requesting approval of the variants to allow the continued use of the existing off-street parking based on legally established grandfather condition.

There's a law firm here before it's been in use for you know many years.

Umperty was located in the North Fort Worth edition, consists of 7,100 150 square feet, developed long before the current parking standards were adopted.

The structure was originally built in 1914 and was later restored and used as a functioning law office, like I said, um for many years.

The professional office used uh office use continued without interruption until the prior owner passed away a few years ago.

During that time, the property operated successfully as a law firm with the same parking configuration that exists today, and without any documented parking safety or neighborhood impacts.

No expansion of the building, no intensive intensification of use, and no alteration to the site laid out is being proposed as part of this request.

The hardship in this case is not self-created.

The limited parking is a direct result of the historic nature of the structure, the age of the development, and the physical constraints of the lot, not any action taken by the current owner.

Strict enforcement of modern parking requirements would impose a practical difficult difficulty as compliance would require removal or substantial alteration to the historical structure.

The property also presents unique circumstances due to its age, lot size configuration, and the historical development pattern, which are not common to newer properties within the zoning district.

Granting the variance would be in harmony with the intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance, allowing the continued productive use of a historical structure while preserving the established character of the area.

The requested variants will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, nor will it substantially or permanently injure adjacent properties.

The site has long history of safe, compatible use under the existing layout.

And this request is you know limited in scope and seeks only to formally recognize an existing lawful um non-conforming parking condition tied to a historic property that is already demonstrated long-term compatibility.

For these reasons, we respectfully request the board's approval.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else here to speak in favor?

Is there any opposition?

Okay, seeing none.

Uh the board, do you have any questions for the applicant?

Um I'm just this is I guess more of a comment than a question, but it appears that you could feasibly do tandem parking in the back.

I mean, if you're for employees, are you talking about the back the back line?

You could between the two behind the two yellow spots.

You could feasibly say somebody gets there early, they could park.

Somebody could park behind them.

Park behind them?

They would be parked, yeah.

I mean somebody would they wouldn't be able to get out.

Yeah.

But I mean, for employees, that's that would be feasible.

Correct.

Anyone else?

I have a question.

Sir, um this parking variance you're asking for is based upon this building staying in place.

Is that correct?

Correct.

It was something mentioned about seeking demolition for this building or no.

So Scott's explanation on demolition is just to explain the the zoning district and overlay on it.

So the zoning district is um it's neighborhood commercial with demolition delay overlay.

So Scott just wanted to explain what that demolition delay overlay means.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, no, no changes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

He also mentioned one more thing.

You said something about in your in your uh when you're what you presented to us, there is no plan change in scope or in or increased use.

Because if you open up a second, you rent a part of the building to a second partner.

That person will need parking, and that would expand the scope of utility for this huge facility.

But you say you have no plans for that.

Well, to expand the well, the the building is occupied is going to be occupied by the owner.

Of course.

Um based on the you know, there's been no changes that would you know from the past that would you know change the number of parking spots.

They they use the same number of parking spots 10, 15, 20 years ago that we would be using today.

My question would be that you're saying that you don't plan to increase that.

Well, uh, don't think there's a way to increase the number of space.

Occupants, not parking spaces.

Well, we don't I would imagine some some occupants will be coming in, you know, staff come and go.

Um, but the building can only hold a certain amount of people.

I would imagine that the current layout would would cover that, you know, cover the parking necessary.

Any other questions for the applicant?

I I have a question to my colleague here.

When you say occupants, are you talking about individuals that will be running businesses out of there or people who are coming in to Patriot?

For example, if he has uh um one uh attorney, two attorneys, and two admin, and then it increases to four attorneys and eight admin, then all of a sudden we have a dramatic increase in parking.

Um that's my question.

Is this do they plan to increase the utility, the scope uh of what they're doing presently?

They qualify presently, but as a business grows, are they gonna have room to grow?

That's my question.

I don't think that there would be enough growth.

You know, not enough offices to have that concern.

Yeah, but I'm talking about customers or clientele talking about people who work there.

So you the current amount of office space in there, you know, if if the office was entirely full, we would still have enough parking.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions?

Okay, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and open it up for board discussion.

Thank you.

I've uh got here 91 with the Air Force.

I've known that building since I got here.

It's uh it's a great building.

There's a building next to it burned down, and they had to rebuild it.

Uh I think it's a great asset to the community, and it's it's a great it's on central.

It's it's a growing uh the whole place is gonna transform.

And I hope that this building is there a hundred years from now.

I agree that um having served on HCLC and seeing some beautiful buildings lost.

Um I think that we have to give a little bit of leniency in the interest of preserving the historical architecture, and I can support this.

As Ms.

Freed said, there's uh you you could do tandem parking back there.

Um you could add a couple spaces if you needed to, if you had to.

I think they're really close that we just put them two off at that point.

So I could definitely support this.

If no one else would like to make a motion for B AR-26-010, BAC, sorry.

Keep the same BAR.

Oh, the presentation.

The B A B A C 26-010.

Is that correct?

Yes.

As written.

I'll second.

I think we have a second from Ms.

Powell.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear it.

Okay.

So for case BAC-26-010, we have a motion to approve the case as requested by the applicant.

The motion made by board member Garza and second by board member Powell.

Board member Jim Witten.

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board member Eric Artiaga.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell.

Yes.

Board Member K Duffy.

Yes.