Good morning.

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

Staff present today are Denisha London, Stephan Stacey Jones, Emily Reyes, Scott Bellin, Chris Austria, Trey Qualls, and Rebecca Ray Rebecca Valdez.

Chair, will you please call this meeting to order?

Yes, this is Whit Woolman, and this meeting of the Board of Adjustment will now come to order.

It is the 15th day of April 2026.

Don't forget about your taxes today.

And I welcome everyone to the Board of Adjustment.

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

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

Today we have a quorum with all 11 members present.

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

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

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

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

Each case will be called in the 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.

For case introduction, each case will be introduced by the City of Fort Worth Development Services Department.

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

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

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

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

If more than one person is presenting the case, it is necessary to divide the total seven minutes among all parties.

So you do not exceed the total allotted time.

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

This is their opportunity to express why they believe the variance or special exception 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 variance or special exception, the applicant will have an additional three minutes of rebuttal time.

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

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

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

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

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

There is no time limit during this period.

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

Board members can discuss the case 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 a motion to approve, deny, or continue the case.

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

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

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

The first order of business is the approval of the minutes from March 18th, 2026.

We are open for a motion to approve.

I'd like to make a motion to approve March meet meetings.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Powell makes the motion.

Mr.

Hook seconds.

Staff, could you please call a roll uh make a roll call vote?

Yes.

Board member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Witt Wolman.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Juan Emmanuel Costa.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

The second on a item on our agenda are the announcements concerning pending litigation.

And I'll turn it over to uh to legal for that discussion.

All right.

Good morning, everyone.

Um our office was in discussion just to give you just uh we wanted to give you a heads up on a few cases that have been appealed uh to district court um most recently.

Um and really is just to inform you of these um pending appeals as well as just to uh just emphasize that um uh since they may get remanded from the appeals uh from the district court uh back to you all uh to to refrain from uh discussing the cases in the event that they do get remanded um um to prevent any um recusals and so we have four pending cases uh that have been appealed.

Um the first one, and this was actually before the repurposing of the board of adjustment is BAC 25-024.

It was a zoning interpretation that was made with regards to 5317 Purrington.

Uh if you served on that board, that was with regards to a property that I believe uh was being used for multi-family, but I believe that the zoning was B2.

And so uh there was a determination that uh the property was not had not met its legal non-conforming um uh determination and that that case was appealed.

Uh the next case that uh really quickly, Mr.

Austrian.

What was the address on that one?

537 5317 Purrington.

Thank you.

Uh the next case that was appealed uh was BAC25 uh 125 at 601 Parkdale.

Uh that was heard uh a couple of months ago.

Uh it was with regards to wanting to build a second uh detached garage or portachet.

Uh the next case that was appealed was BAC-25-068.

Uh that was heard most recently.

That was with regards to the telecommunication stealth tower over at the Allerton Heights.

Uh that was appealed.

Um, and then BAC-25-045.

That was uh the address was at 5159 Greenlee Street, and that was with regards to the fence that they were seeking to erect as well as the TARP on the and all four of those are BAC, right?

That is correct.

No residential.

Um you said it's a port de cachet, so I want to make sure that's yeah, that might have been.

I'll I'll have to verify that's probably a B A R or uh according to the petition, it it may just they may have just styled it uh okay, thank you correctly.

So just as a reminder with regards to those cases, please refrain from speaking amongst yourselves in the event that those cases do get remanded by the uh uh district court for uh further consideration by the board.

Chris I confirmed the case on Parkdale is B A Rive.

Yeah, and the rest are BAC as far as we know.

The other three are commercial.

What's the number on the first one?

The Peerington case should also be B A R 25.

What number was that one?

That was the first one.

B I think she's saying B A R 25-024.

I just want to make sure we're in the right, you know, the history of the board being separate.

I have a question.

Go ahead.

Out of the four that are appealed, how many of those had a full quorum?

Oh, I don't know.

I don't have that information off the top of my head.

Okay.

This is just more of a heads up for us.

Obviously, this is just ending.

Yes, to inform you of the pending cases that before the district court as well as just kind of refrain from um discussing the case in the event that they do get remanded.

Yeah.

Thank you very much.

We appreciate it.

All right, staff.

Can we please call the first case?

First case this morning is a translation case, and we do have the interpreter here with us this morning.

The case is B AR-26-010.

The address of the property is 2615 Mount Hormway.

Emily.

One family residential district.

Specifically, the request is a variance to the minimum lot width requirement.

The zoning ordinance requires a minimum lot width of 50 feet at the building line in the A-5 district.

The applicant is requesting a 41-foot wide lot, which is nine feet less than the required standard.

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

The property is currently going through a final short plat, case FS-25-061, which is currently awaiting client response as of April 3rd, 2025, which is pending the outcome of this case.

And if the variance is approved, the applicant will be required to finalize the replot and comply with all other zoning and overlay development standards prior to the issuance of building permits.

Section 4.705 requires a minimum lot width of 50 feet at the building line.

And this concludes staff presentation.

Thank you.

I've got a few questions, but I'll open it up to Ms Duffy, please.

I just have a quick question.

In this picture, we have Altar Drive at the top.

Is there a street there?

That was kind of my question too.

Was if you look at the aerial, it looks like an unimproved alley or yes.

That area is designated for future street.

So that's that's the right-of-way dedication for a future street.

Obviously, that's why he's coming in asking for the nine feet.

Correct.

Is this property already been built?

No, not yet.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Thank you, Miss Reyes.

Sir, if you would please come uh come forward, uh state your name, facts of the case, and you have seven minutes.

Actually, you have 14 minutes, sorry.

Okay.

Ah, I start beating on the parapet.

I'm asking for this area because I'm trying to build a new house there.

If you could yeah, I'm sorry if you make sure to speak in.

Thank you.

Okay.

We need we need both.

Sorry, we need to be able to record.

Thank you.

Okay.

Umily, can you give her the handheld microphone, please?

Okay.

Um creo que I'll problema for construer una casa in un lote de quarantay.

I don't think.

Yeah.

I think you can take it out of that.

Testing.

Thank you.

Repeat them.

Okay.

I'm here because I want to construct a house on a lot that's 41 foot wide.

Um a casa catina sufficient spacious no veo qual se puede ser el problema de start in un hotel de quarantayo.

It's a space that's wide enough.

I don't understand what the problem would be to construct it there on a lot that's 41 feet wide.

That is all that I want, just the variance.

You still have plenty of time.

Anything you want to add?

No.

No.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of this case?

Yes, sir.

Please come forward.

Either one.

Straight ahead's fine.

If you would state your name and address.

Hello, sir.

Uh good morning.

My name is Aaron Ramirez.

We're here uh with him uh for the same lot.

We are requesting so we can build this house.

Um at this point, um, we're thinking that it should affect the character of the uh neighborhood, and we are just doing this for safety purposes to make it look better uh and and everybody will um be satisfied with our construction.

So um if you will uh allow us to make this build, it will it will you know um make us uh continue you know uh working and developing for the City of Fort Worth.

Sure, thank you.

You still have plenty of time.

Is there anything else you'd like to add?

Uh basically no sir.

I think we're we're the two parties involved.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, guys.

Is there anyone here in opposition to this case?

Okay, having seen none, I will close the uh book.

Sorry, excuse me.

We're gonna go to questions from the board for the applicant.

Sir, Mr.

Riley.

I have a cool it might be more of staff.

Uh I noticed, I mean, with the dedication uh on the top of this picture.

Is there not a dedication for uh the other street that the house will be facing?

There was no dedication note um outlined on the plat.

The plat is currently being reviewed, and there wasn't a note for dedication on Mount Hornway.

But the proposed house will align with the houses that are there.

Yes, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant or the staff?

So my understanding at the time he purchased this property, it was 50 feet and be and when he went in the replatting process, they determined that nine feet needed needed to be dedicated to this new street.

Yes, ma'am, that's our understanding.

So he purchased property that was of size that's been taken away from him.

Okay.

And the dedication isn't necessarily gonna is it going to have the actual street on it, or is it just right away is gonna look like his yard?

I'm not sure.

I would assume that it would have the street on it along with um room for a sidewalk.

Any other questions for the applicant or staff?

Yes, sir, Mr.

Riley.

One other question.

So the property, even though it has a legal description of lot uh 6A block for sunrise addition, it would have not been platted before.

Emily, do you know if this property was previously platted or if it was never platted?

The applicant may be able to answer this question if the property was previously platted or if it was purchased with meets and bounds.

It was done after.

Can we have you all speak into the microphone, please?

No, is la primera ser replat, can I unplat in the city?

No, no, it's the first time it was ever re-plat because there wasn't a plat for the city.

Thank you.

Mr.

Garza, do you have anything?

No.

Any other questions?

Or comments, Ms.

Duffy, do you have some?

So I think that what I'm seeing on this is it's already showing that he's built in a 10-yard side yard setback towards the street.

So that's already been included in the in the draft.

Yes, this is uh his proposed plans and um it is consistent with what that corner size setback should be, which would be 10 feet.

And does the city have any information on how soon or when this street might actually be built?

I'm not sure.

It's outside of our area for the board of adjustments.

Any other questions?

Okay.

I'm gonna close the public portion of this hearing and then we will go uh to board discussion regarding the case.

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

He's comply with everything we've asked him to do.

So I'm ready to make a motion.

There's anything else.

Anyone else wants to discuss?

Any other discussion?

I'd like to make a motion to pass BAR-26-010.

Did I say that correct?

We had a uh motion by Mr.

Garza, second by Ms.

Powell.

Staff, if you could please perform a roll call vote.

Board member Jim Witten?

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King?

Yes.

Board member Witt Wolman.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member Kay Duffy?

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Sir, uh, congratulations.

Your your motion had your case has been approved.

If you have any questions uh regarding your next steps, please go talk to staff as early as tomorrow.

Thank you very much.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Staff, if you would please call the next case.

Mr.

Chair, the next case is BAC-25-067.

The applicant of this uh request has requested to withdraw.

Would you like to move this case to the end of the agenda?

Yes, please.

Let's move to the next one.

Which looks like BAR 26-011.

The next case is BAR26-011.

The address is 5806 and 5808 Dallas Avenue.

The owner is Eric Martinez and the applicant is Jose Martinez.

The property is zoned B2 family, and the property is described as lot eight FR Ramsey's edition Fort Worth.

The applicant is requesting a variance to the two-family B district development standard that the required four parking spaces for a duplex with three bedrooms in each unit be located behind the front wall building wall to allow two of the required parking spaces to be located in front of the front building wall.

The subject property is a 13,048 square foot vacant interior lot located in a redeveloping neighborhood.

The property was replatted without alley access in 2025.

The property does not contain regulated floodplain, contains several mature trees, and does not contain any significant environmental constraints.

The five-foot utility uh easement runs along the rear boundary of the property.

There is one residential new building permit that is awaiting the outcome of the decision of the board today.

The development standard requires four parking spaces for two attached dwelling units containing three bedrooms to be located behind the front building wall.

And as you can see from the floor plan, the applicant is providing an attached one-car garage for each unit with the additional required parking spaces being provided in the driveway in front of the front building wall of each unit for a total of two spaces in front of the front building wall.

Here are the uh variance request regulations that pertain to this case.

And this concludes the staff staff report.

If you have any questions, I'm available.

Thank you, sir.

Any questions for staff?

I have a question.

Please.

So they it's a two-family, so they're deciding to build two duplexes.

Which is causing the issue that they can't meet the minimum parking.

So if they park, if they built one on that piece of property, they would be able to meet the specific requirements for parking.

So this is their proposed floor plan.

Um if they were to there might be other options that would be available that they could put two parking spaces behind the front building wall.

Um I but I don't know about the the constraint, other constraints that they that they may have.

Um if you if you imagine the the floor plan, you can see whether or not it would accommodate two parking spaces behind the front building wall.

And then here is the uh the site plan that shows where the two proposed parking spaces are proposed to be located in the driveway.

Thank you.

Scott, it looks like there's not really any room in the back, right?

There's no alley access, nothing.

There is not alley access for this property.

Thanks.

Yes, ma'am, Ms.

Stephanie.

B zoning also allows single family homes.

Uh B2 family allows for both single family dwellings and for duplex for two family.

Any other questions for staff?

Okay.

Thank you, Scott.

Appreciate it.

Is the applicant here?

Is the applicant for this case in attendance?

Yes, sir.

If you would please come forward, state your name, address, and facts about the case.

And you have seven minutes.

Yes.

I'm currently the property owner.

Can I also speak on my on the applicant's behalf?

Okay.

Could you please state your name and address, sir?

Yes.

Uh, my name is Eric Martinez.

I'm currently the property own uh owner of this property that uh is requesting for the variance.

Um the reason why we're requesting this variance is because we um the applicant showed me the plans and we were planning to build a duplex uh that matches the character of this property.

And me personally, uh, if uh if this variance is is accepted and the property is allowed to be built, the goal is I want to be living on one half of this duplex.

And so there was a criteria that was um that was um presented to me that there was supposed to be four required parking spaces behind the building wall, which would technically mean two parking space, uh a two-car garage for each tenant in the duplex.

Um the applicant told me that if we do do it decide to revise the plans, it would be a lot wider than it would be very uh needed to be, and uh it would encroach onto neighboring properties, which is the one thing we're not supposed to want to do.

We're trying to make it at least.

I guess the plan is uh minimize the parking spaces just behind the just uh limited to one car garage for each tenant, and the rest can be parked on the driveway.

Um it's just to preserve the natural character and is on the floor plans.

Uh we're trying to preserve everything that's already there.

For example, um, in the floor plans for the driveway.

Um it curves off a little bit to preserve the uh the trees that are already existing.

We don't want to bulldoze any any of that and keep everything uh relatively untouched, and so the property can fit.

But as of that, um I I personally believe that a one car garage for each tenant uh is more than enough for each tenant, if that makes sense.

Where I can just have one car parked in the garage, and then if I have any additional cars, I would just put it on the driveway.

Uh if I may.

There was also another uh concern that was brought up by another uh member of the community that I would also like to address if that's okay.

Sure, you saw a few more minutes.

Uh there was a concern saying that um there was a person in opposition to this variance because of cars uh spilling out into the driveway, like uh people parking their cars on the side of the street, which is the one thing where we do not want uh for this duplex.

Um I was also complained that people are driving really fast on that avenue, people going 40 miles an hour.

Um but of course, with with this in mind, taking everything in mind, that's sort of the variance we are requesting to not have this issue where people are parking their cars on the streets, and so we can move all the cars that they want to have onto the driveway and into the garage.

Uh other than that, I think that should be it for right now.

Okay, you still have a few more minutes if there's anything else you need to add.

No, I personally believe with this floor plan, I think it's more than suitable for uh for building.

And like I said before, if this variance gets accepted and the property gets built, I do plan to live in one of these.

Um basically move to a different part of the zip code.

Uh yes, that should be all the comments I have.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of this case?

Okay, having seen none, is there anyone here in opposition?

Mr.

Chair, we do receive one letter of opposition on this case.

Um it is the letter that the applicant has addressed.

Okay, do we need to show that or is it something in late correspondence?

Well it's in late correspondence.

Stacey, can you pull it up on a screen?

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else here in opposition?

Okay.

I am now gonna open up to board uh to questions of the applicant from the board.

I have a couple questions.

Yes, please go ahead, sir.

If you would please come back up to the mic, thank you.

Hi.

Um, my first question is so you wouldn't need um a variance if you were potentially to build a single family home.

Is there a reason why you've chosen not to make that decision and be able to meet the requirements for parking?

If I'm gonna be honest, I feel like it would be a nice change of pace to build a duplex.

I mean, more people uh more people for housing in this in this aspect.

Uh I feel like single family homes are just a dime a dozen, if that makes sense, where uh it's basically killing two birds with one stone where I'm the owner, I can uh own one half of the property, and then I can rent it out to somebody else for a potential tenant.

Okay, my second question is can we bring staff the picture back up that shows the aerial and then with the trees on the property, please?

So on the rendering, it shows that let me ask.

So are the trees that we see kind of close to the street, are all of those being saved, the two to the left, and then the one that's to the right, because the way the drawing shows is that um there will be trees like the drive would go like this.

So it would seem that one of these or a couple of these trees would go away.

No, ma'am, that is not our intention.

We plan to preserve every single tree that's on this lot.

So your drives are going to be on the right side of the second tree to the right?

Yes.

So if I click on the on the on that photo over there where we we're gonna have it split one direction to the left side of the tree and one to the right side.

So one to the left, two trees, and then a driveway to the standalone tree that has two trunks going up.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any more questions for the applicant?

I have a question for staff.

Please go ahead.

If we were to reduce the bedrooms from three bedroom to two bedroom, would that a uh change the requirement for four cars?

The requirement is for three bedrooms, up to three bedrooms, it requires two parking spaces behind the front wall line.

So there would be no difference if she reduced the case.

There's no there is not any difference by reducing from three bedrooms to two bedrooms.

The reason I ask is where we're not there's not many things that the gentleman can do to change or modify to reduce the requirement from four to say two cars.

The the requirement is for two cars for each half of the duplex, but so your question is That's correct.

The the requirement is for two parking spaces per dwelling unit up to three bedrooms.

I think the biggest change, the biggest change would be going from duplex to single family.

That would be that's what you're asking.

Yeah.

The solution would be to go from duplex to single family.

What is what's the square footage on each side of the duplex?

Uh can you tell us the square footage of each unit?

I'm looking for that on the oh I was asking the applicant.

I'm sorry, he's at the mic.

Oh no, you're fine.

I forgot off the top of my head, but I think the total is about um 4,000 square feet, so 2,000 square feet for each tenant.

1994.

Ms.

Duffy, are you done?

Are you good?

Okay.

Um have you looked at other floor plan ideas to maybe push that third bedroom back to the back of the house or anything like that?

Make it smaller.

We have a wee minute exploring options, but I think this would be just the best one uh to fit the most square footage of these bedrooms.

Uh just is that the only concern was just the garage, having two car garage per tenant.

Trying to be minimalist if that makes sense.

Yes, sir, Mr.

Cosa.

Question for the applicant.

Um, would you be um considering that to a sturdy house?

So you can still comply with the two car crash and the number of bedrooms you want.

Uh at this moment in time, not really.

Um for me, at least what I think if to make it into two stories is that it would stick out like a sore thumb because I've been around in the neighborhood multiple times.

Everything's all just one story, and the only ones that are two stories are just apartment complexes.

So the plan is to build this duplex just trying to blend in with the rest of the neighborhood.

This is this is Johnston.

I I see that on each side there's a little more than nine feet between the uh side of the building or proposed building and the lot line.

Is that sufficient to have access to the back?

Staff is that anybody?

Yeah.

The minimum width to um for the drive out to get to the back would be 10 feet.

So we're talking about five inches on the right side and eight inches on the left side.

Is that a correct understanding?

And you're talking about a drive around the side?

Yeah, I mean, uh, so if it's a minimum of 10 feet for axe a drive access to the back, it looks like we're uh if if the structure was uh narrowed by eight inches on the left and uh five inches on the right, there would be sufficient area for a drive on both sides of the structure.

Yeah, that's that's is that my understanding is correct there.

Yes.

Um but the applicant will still need to um have space.

So a drive out of 10 feet would be sufficient to have on this property and the parking spaces will be required behind the front wall.

Um that would be it would be sufficient if they wanted one drive out on the side for two parking spaces behind the front wall, or if they wanted to make the structure more narrow to have two parking spaces, one on each side behind the front wall.

Okay, thank you.

Scott, do you have something to add?

Uh yes, I did have the answer to the question.

So the uh each unit has will it's proposed to have an area of 1,966 square feet uh for a total of 3,932 square feet under the roof on a single lot.

Okay, thank you.

I have a question.

Go ahead, Ms.

King.

Um is this the only duplex in the area?

To my knowledge, yes.

Okay, but I and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I heard you say in your last statement something to the effect of um your design would blend in with the rest of the lay the neighborhood.

So how do you intend to do that if this is the only duplex in the area?

Well, I guess I suppose what I mean by that is that I'm just trying to make the design as um conducive.

Not to pop out at you, is that you wouldn't even look twice when you drive down the street.

The majority of these houses that are on the street are are single family, and they're usually not even a thousand square feet each on each property.

And then there are two apartment complexes.

One if you drive further east, excuse me, west uh on the street, where it's just a two-story and it's apartment complexes, and on the other side, uh, I believe it's Canton Drive on the other side of Canton Drive.

It's that's two-story with apartment complexes.

Given that information, it appears that um you are creating a whole different look for this community.

Yes, that is our intention, yes.

I would like to just make one note that the zoning district of this property is B2 family, so the use of a duplex is permitted in this zoning district.

Yes, sir, Mr.

Riley.

In the staff report, you um y'all had a aerial photo.

You put that back up of the lot.

Then I have a question of the applicant.

I know you're trying to do the split lot or split driveway to preserve the trees in the front.

How about the trees in the middle of the lot?

Are they going to be preserved or are they being removed?

Other than the uh if any required changes it would require these trees having to come down to accommodate this.

The middle of the lot.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, sir, Mr.

Garza.

Sound like the solution is uh pretty simple.

We have two viable solutions.

Um, so you don't have to request a variance.

Uh you can narrow your house or the design or shift it over to one side where parking is accessible from one side to both.

Would you be willing to consider changing your design to make it easier for us to say yes, so you can build your house on this property?

Wouldn't need a variance at this point.

Um personally, I think this will be our our best bet to accommodate this.

Um I see where you guys are coming from for having to uh either narrow it down so we can park it on the side so we have more uh sort of requirements fits.

Um but I just feel it would ruin the look of the house and the and and the design we were trying to go for.

I I understand that um we're we're trying to to to comply with that with what we're requesting.

Right, of course.

Sometimes we have uh petitioners who don't have the luxury of an option to do things differently.

In this case, there is there is possibility where you can do things differently or can be done differently.

So um we and we want to see uh the willingness uh of you to comply and so we can say yes to because what we don't want is is a no.

Correct.

And then back to square one.

So please consider that, you know.

Yeah, so we went into discuss plans with the applicant to see if we can see if we can bend it a little bit.

So if if you're saying you would consider changing the plans, or you're saying you would not consider change the plans.

We would not consider the changing the plans.

I think this will be our best bet.

It's just uh uh just this variance regarding the parking.

Okay, uh Ms.

Powell.

Uh I just want to say in regard to narrowing the house or the plans, um it may be possible, then it may be not, because we cannot uh dictate the size of the vehicles.

And my other comment, which has already been uh cleared up by staff, is that uh due to the fact that it is a b-zoning uh duplexes are required, but to um to uh ax the applicant to narrow their plans, they can't narrow uh an expedition vehicle.

They can't narrow uh a duly, you know.

So I'm not quite sure if that is an option for them to do we've requested in the past that uh they changed, you know, whatever they have to to comply.

People have gone from from single stories to to two stories, right?

And complied and I'm I'm very familiar with the uh going up to two stores, but at the same time, um I'm not I'm not knocking anything that's being suggested for us even going because she can make up the space um the footage by going two stories that you can do that, but they still have to, even though we make a suggestion, they have the right to not accept the suggestion.

And if they don't accept it, suggest then it's not necessarily that they're not willing to work with us, but um just as uh you know, it like I said, it's a possible, it's possible that you can narrow it, it's possible his uh home or you know, the floor plan to make things work, but then if it's not possible because of their transportation, we're we're still having to take in consideration their floor plans of what they have presented to us, and we you know it's not right for us to deny it because it's our passive because uh they're not willing to narrow it their plans or they're not willing to do a two-story to make up the difference.

So we all have to collaborate and work together with it, give and take on both sides.

So right now we're still in the questions for the applicant phase, and um, we can get to the board discussion in a minute too, Ms.

Powell, if you want to do that.

But did you have any more questions for him at this point?

Or is there any other questions we want to ask the applicant?

Ms.

Powell, are you okay right now?

I'm fine.

Thank you.

Mr.

Whedon, please.

Uh Mr.

Martinez, uh I don't know how the vote's gonna go, but I think you can see it's not guaranteed either way.

I'm aware.

And so I'm just wondering if if you would consider uh we can you know, we could continue your application, you could come back with something that might get, I mean, you may get some votes, but you have to get you can't just six votes won't do it.

You have to get more than six.

So I'm just wondering if you would think about continuing your case, revising your plans, because we you know, we would love to have a house for duplex on that property rather than vacant lot.

And so if you could do it in some way that could fit within the confines of that property, I'm just asking you to think about that.

Okay, I'll consider it.

Well, but you have to, you know, it's you have to do it before we take a vote, is what I'm saying.

Yeah, uh obviously, I mean, if you were to go back and if if we did vote against this, you could always go back and change your plans.

Right at the end of the day.

Our vote doesn't really affect you from getting in in, you know, conforming your your plan to fit what we're we're just asking about parking on the side.

You could you could still do that.

And I would be clear that they're with and without prejudice.

So there's a denial with prejudice and legally you can help me, but that would be a two-year, you couldn't come back for two years.

Without prejudice, you could come back.

However, there would have to be a substantial change from your current application.

Without prejudice, it there wouldn't have to be a change, but obviously it wouldn't serve him much purpose to come back with the exact same.

But yes.

Yep.

You could come back next month with another application.

Yeah.

Thank you.

And then what Mr.

Whitden was talking about is we could also continue your case.

That would give the opportunity to you've kind of heard some of the discussion.

Yes.

So just think about that as well.

It sounds like you want to move forward though with the current current application.

Yes, that is our intention.

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay.

I'm gonna close the public uh hearing, sir.

If you would sit down, um we're gonna have a discussion here among the board.

And Ms.

Powell, did you want to start us off or were you okay?

I'm fine.

I because I probably would just pretty much repeat what I've already said.

Okay.

Uh by right, he has now we've clearly um said to him that he has an option to take a continuance.

It's been clear to him.

Um is been clear to the board as well that and as well as the applicant that it has to be give and take on both sides.

But at the end of the day, uh he has chosen not to take the continuance, and so whatever rolls out that that rolls out.

Yes, ma'am.

Any other discussion?

Questions?

I I think we've given him some good good options, and he can always go back and change his plans.

So that he doesn't have to come back to us.

Mr.

Johnson, did you have something?

My of course I come back to uh the requirement of a variance, and that is that there is an uh something about the property that uh creates an unusual hardship not created by the owner, and these plans, I mean uh the plans create the the the problem.

And uh I can I think in and this is an easily solvable problem.

You know seven inches on one side, five inches on the other, of just narrowing the plans uh would eliminate even the requirement of coming back for a variance.

Yeah.

I mean, I that's that's where I stand.

Stephanie, did you have something?

Because the the redraw options are plentiful.

I think that um there's no need to consider anything like a continuance or anything like that, because we don't know his redraw will require any sort of variance.

Exactly.

He could miss he has the ability to submit a new case if there's a new kind of variance he might need.

Sure.

Mr.

Rara.

Um I'm opposed to this.

He has he's been fully made aware of various options in order to meet the parking requirement.

And um I respect the fact that this is what he wants to do, but I can't support the current application.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Garza, did you have anything?

No, I'd like to make a motion.

Please.

Uh for BAR two six-011.

As written.

To yeah, what was the motion?

To approve, okay.

Uh do we have a second?

I'll second it.

Thank you, Ms.

Duffy.

So we have a motion to approve, a second by Miss Stuffy.

Staff, could we please perform a roll call vote?

Board member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

No.

Board member Michael Johnston.

No.

Board member Bob Riley.

No.

Board member James Hook.

No.

Board member Sandra King.

No.

Board member Witt Wolman.

No.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

No.

Board Member Lucretia Powell?

No.

Board Member K.

Duffy?

No.

Board Member Jana Herrera?

No.

Board member Manuel Acosta?

No.

The motion to approve fails.

Sir, so your application has been denied uh with prejudice.

So at this point, um, with regard to this case and the current situation, set up of your plans, it would be two years before you could bring this back to us.

If you have any questions about this uh in regard to next steps, you can contact staff as early as tomorrow.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Staff, if you would please call a roll call.

Uh, excuse me, please call the next case.

Next case is BAC-26-005.

The address of the property is 4401 Basswood Boulevard.

This case is BAC-26-005 located at 4401 Basswood Boulevard.

The applicant is Signart representing the property owner, Bank OZK.

The property is zone G intensive Commercial.

The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow a monument sign with electronic changeable copy in a commercial zoning district in accordance with section 6.4118 of the zoning ordinance.

The subject property is approximately 0.809 acres and is located at the northeast corner of North Beach Street and Basswood Boulevard.

The site has a minimum slope of approximately 2% and does not contain mature trees or lie within a floodplain.

The property is zone G intensive Commercial and is used as a bank.

Surrounding properties are also zone G and are commercial in nature.

There are no adjacent residential uses in the immediate vicinity.

There is currently a monument signed with ECC permit that remains under review.

Currently awaiting a response from the applicant, which is pending the outcome of this case.

The zoning ordinance 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 District, subject to certain conditions.

There are no residential neighborhoods in the vicinity.

And this is not within a scenic area or corridor.

The applicant is proposing a monument sign with electronic changeable copy.

The sign is located 15 feet from the west property line along North Beach Street and 42 feet from the south property line along Basswood Boulevard.

The total sign area is 112 square feet with the ECC portion measuring 18 square feet, which is 24.88% of the sign face complying with the maximum allowed of 25%.

The applicant also meets the minimum non-advertised area requirement by providing 25.67 square feet exceeding the required minimum.

These are the regulations that pertain to this case.

Thank you, Emily.

I've got a couple questions, but I'll open it up to any others.

They have any.

I have some, but you go first.

Oh well, one is with regard to our standards on electoral uh electronic electronic changeable copy signs.

There's no color.

Um we don't take color into account with the ordinance, right?

No, sir.

Okay.

And then second, in the permit history, it looks like they filed for this uh ECC variant or uh permit, but then expired and they went with a resurfacing correct.

And now they're coming back for the ECC.

Yes.

Is there doing any history of that or is that something we have asked the applicant?

Ask the applicant.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Rare, did you have a question?

Yes, I have a question.

Um you notated that there's an electronic changeable sign across the street.

This is on four corners of commercial.

Is that the gas station?

Yes, ma'am.

And is it that's just for the um the only thing that's changeable is the amount of the gas.

Yes.

Okay.

And I'll ask the applicant.

Thank you.

Any other questions.

Okay.

Thank you, Miss Reyes.

Is the applicant here in attendance?

Yes, ma'am.

Please come forward.

Uh state your name, address, and the facts about your case.

Hi, my name is Marie Byron.

I uh reside at 4721 Bryson Lane, Midlothian, Texas.

I'm here on behalf of um Bank OZK and Signart.

Um there is another uh EMC at the urgent care that is um Caddy Corner, like it's right across the street from the um the um gas station, and they do have a an EMC on their monument sign as well.

Thank you.

And you have seven minutes, you probably have six now, but plenty of time to if you have any more facts you'd like to state about the case, and then we'll go into questions from the board, but we want to make sure you have time.

Okay.

There's anything else you need to add.

Someone had a question about the one the bank had initially it was initially submitted for a reface.

And the bank bank OZK is actually doing a rebrand of a lot of locations.

So this honestly went on for like a year with the bank trying to figure out what they wanted to do.

And then they decided they wanted an EMC, but with the existing structure, the MC was coming out too small.

So it took a lot of back and forth with the with the bank and the customer.

That's that's what I've got.

Sure, you still have a few more minutes if there's anything else you need to add.

Okay, thank you.

Um stay close because we'll probably have some questions.

But uh is there anyone else here in support?

Is there anyone else here in opposition?

Mr.

Chair, we did receive one letter of opposition for this case.

Okay, thanks.

Could we put that up, Ms.

Jones?

Thank you.

This was also included in our packet, but if you want to review it quickly.

Okay, I am gonna move forward.

So uh seeing no opposition uh beyond this letter, we are going to go to board questions for the applicant.

I have a question.

Sir, oh sorry, Mr.

Riley.

Then Ms.

Herrera.

The uh proposed sign, is it going to replace be a totally new sign uh as opposed to the attractive sign that you already have?

Um we're gonna modify the existing sign.

Thank you.

Mr.

Rare.

Um on the changeable portion of it.

What exactly does the bank want to have scrolling or flashing up there?

I really don't know.

I think it'll be a variety of messages.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear the answer.

It'll be a variety of messages.

Um I don't have a list of what they want to do.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Mr.

Garza, please.

On the uh image that we see there before us, could you explain to me um the the sign uh I'm comparing the image that I'm that's facing us with the 90 degree angle image from the side.

Um explain to me what those is um change and copy have anything to do with those two dark are those gonna be the some sort of monitor?

Is it a multicolor monitor that's gonna be images?

Uh that's a side view.

Side view and those dark spaces are what?

That is the sign the sign cabinet.

Those are the caps, so that's where the actual um message or the changing um uh messages gonna be in those two cabinets, those four cabinets.

Um actually there, yes.

There I think his question yeah, I'm sorry.

I think his question it looks like there's two different, there's two separate, but on the front facing, there's a full cabinet.

Does that make sense?

So where Bank O ZK is, that's its own cabinet, and then down below where you see Hello Basswood, that will be the changeable copy.

You see uh it doesn't correlate with the um with the height like any other, you know, it just doesn't a lot smaller from the side and a lot bigger from the front.

Well that's that's the side profile of the sign of the structure.

And those dark components, those meet mean nothing.

Those are those are the faces, those are the sign cabinets.

And that's the changing that's where the change is gonna happen.

Bottom one is yes.

So the the what's gonna change is the entire black surface.

The where there's two dark um squares, only the one at the bottom would be the ECC.

But I think what he's getting at is the side profile doesn't match the front image.

So if you look at the side profile, that second block down, it would come further down that side profile to match your front image, and it's not doing that.

Yeah, I mean they've got a space showing there, they're gonna butt up next to each other.

Um you looking at an ex at the existing structure?

I'm looking at the what what's right up there?

It says they're uh 45 inches on the bank OZK, and that's not gonna change.

Is that correct?

Okay, this is the proposed sign.

That's not what the sign currently looks like.

And I that is correct, Mr.

Garth.

The 45 will not change.

And then the only the only thing that's changed is the 24.

The 24 yes.

And then and then the side view doesn't reflect that.

That's what I'm saying.

No.

That's all.

Yes.

So okay.

That's what that well, thank you, Fred.

I'm so sorry.

This is Johnston.

Is there any specifications as to the frequency of changing uh the changeable portion of the sign?

I think it's spelled out.

Yeah, staff.

Do you want to put can we put up the um 6.41?

There's probably six or seven elements to that ordinance.

The message rate shall not change at a rate faster than one message per 20 seconds.

Okay.

Does that comply with any standard that we have for the city?

Yes, that is written in our ordinance.

And um, the sign inspector does go out and inspect these um signs.

So if he observed that the message rate is changing faster, um he would issue a citation or um issue a notice to the applicant to fix it.

Well, will that run for 24 hours?

There is not um I assume the board can't put a limit to the time that the sign is on or lit, um, but there's not in our ordinance where we limit the time for um daylight hours or after.

I'm sure it would be.

I'm sure it would more than likely be on 24 hours.

Any other questions for the applicant?

I do.

Yes, sir.

You'd mentioned that hospital down the street had a changeable sign as well, like this one.

Um it was an urgent care center, and uh it's caddy corner to uh bank OZK.

Exactly across the interface.

Where is this sign at?

It is it is out by the road as well.

I'd like to see a picture if we had it, but staff.

Can we pull up an area where you were showing the corners, four corners of Basswood and So you do you see to the right um as an Exxon?

Well directly across the street from Exxon is the urgent care.

So it's uh just straight diagonal across beach in Basswood.

I think it's 7637 Beach Street.

Okay.

Is it this one?

Oh, it's not uh yes.

But it's it's roughly in the same location, right?

On the corner.

It is, it's all on the same corner.

Okay, which we had a photo, but take your word for it.

I don't have a photo.

Mr.

Riley, Joe, yes, sir.

Since we have that picture up, that's your existing sign.

And the proposed sign seems to be significantly different with the concrete or the uh brick coming up the side.

I thought you were just saying that you're adding another panel.

So um with their rebranding, um they like a lot of other banks and businesses like the MC, and the only way to do that was to remove the existing cabinet and do what the city requires.

Uh they like to see the vertical framing.

Okay, um, so that cabinet will be smaller and the structure will get a little bit bigger.

And personally, I don't like the vertical framing.

It makes for a bigger sign.

Why do you want a bigger sign, City?

Thank you.

I have a question.

You you keep referring to MC.

Could you advise what that means?

An EMC electronic message electronic message center.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Um is there anyone else here?

I think we're moving into support for this uh application.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh anyone else here in opposition.

We do have one letter of opposition.

Right, which we saw.

It has been shown.

Yes.

Yep.

And um, I'm gonna move, I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing and open it up to for discussion among the board.

Ms.

Duffy.

Go ahead, Ms.

Duffy.

So this case is a special exception.

Most of our cases are variances where it's up to the applicant to come up with a really good reason why he can't meet the ordinance.

In this case, electronic messages are allowed by the zoning code.

They just have to have a little look-see by us.

I kind of feel like this isn't expressed in the ordinance, but I kind of feel like it's up to us to come up with a really good excuse why we wouldn't let them meet have this, which is allowed in the zoning code.

Um we have opposition from Scenic Fort Worth.

Love their work, but this is a really busy intersection at Basswood and and and beach.

Um, I don't feel like this particular sign is gonna be too obnoxious for anybody.

And I don't know if we have any good reason not to approve it, but thank you.

Mr.

Riley.

You know, with uh sending Fort Worth's uh position, uh take that in regard, but also I'm very familiar with this intersection.

Go through it probably once every two days at least.

They have just recently added a two left turn lane on both directions on Basswood and on Beach Street.

It's a confusing intersection.

So I'm having a little bit of problem because of the confusion of the um, and then there's another vacant uh immediately to the south.

They uh um drug store that's out of business, and I don't recall if they had electronic changeable copy or not.

I don't think they did.

I am aware of the one that she expressed that was urgent care, but it's also been divided into a donut shop as well.

So it's a Duncan Donuts.

So I'm having a little problem with uh supporting this special exception, mainly due to the confusion of the intersection.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Garza.

The only thing that I see that um they have going for them is the sign is placement is really low.

It's not intrusive.

It's uh it's a very modest uh uh request uh for this.

It's kind of a it is kind of a tempered uh touchy subject, you know, the ever-changing signage.

Um but uh because it's it is smaller, it is not normous.

Uh I had I don't have a problem with this particular sign.

Yes, thank you.

And and from my point of view, I don't have a problem with this approving this as well.

Any other discussion?

So I'm leaning toward no um based on what was just said in terms of that intersection.

I'm very familiar with that intersection, it's very congested.

Um I understand the other electronic changeable signs, but right now I'm leading toward no.

Any other discussion?

I have a question.

Please with regards to the last response.

The issue with the electronic changeable, is that the piece if it were not or would it be much more acceptable?

Yes.

I have a question for the petitioner.

Please.

Ma'am, if you would please come back up.

Thank you.

Would you consider a continuance uh coming back with the it's not looking good?

So um yes, but like I said, I mean, we've it's taken a whole year to get just to this um an agreement with the bank that they want they would be okay with an 18 square foot um um changeable copy sign.

That's not looking, I'm just saying.

Sure.

Make sure that continuance you may talk to them and say, you know, come up with something that's more palatable.

Okay.

And I I think if you would bring some more proof, the image across uh the image of the the structure across the street.

It's very much like yours.

I believe you that it's it's very much like that.

I think we need to see an image of that.

Okay.

Um I think that would help a lot of things.

It would also help if I think if we knew what messages are gonna go up there.

Because usually when we deal with these, they're usually for gas stations, and the only thing that goes up on the changeable is the price.

Yeah, that's not that we're trying to censor because we don't, we just have we don't know what images.

I mean, hopefully interest rates aren't gonna be going up and down so much that you have to have electronic signs.

Stuff you don't want to know.

It's just a general idea.

I mean in the picture that I see from Google Maps, the their neighbor across the street, their sign is not even legible.

Yeah, you can't even see it.

I mean, I'm trying to read what it's I can't see.

I don't even think it's not even working.

Well, I mean, I don't think you're gonna be able to see it on on Google Maps very good, but it's also uh to me it appears to be larger than the sign as well.

But um this is Johnston.

For me, it would be helpful if a bank representative was here to talk with us about what it is that they intended to pass that on.

I think that way, if if you if we go back forward with a continuance, all those all those suggestions I think would be helpful to you.

Ms.

Duffy.

So I think it's still a general principle of zoning code that we can't consider in any sort of way what what is on that sign, correct?

Cannot regulate the content of the messages.

I think it's appropriate to ask what types of messages are is probably fine.

Um, but obviously the content of the messages is not within our ability to control.

No type of restriction.

Mr.

Johnson, Jeff S.

Mills.

Yeah, I mean, I would there be any restriction, for example, the bank said, okay, we're gonna we're gonna sell that movable copy.

So that our you know, our our our promote our customers with that movable copy.

Uh something of that you know, I we don't know, but uh I I don't know whether uh that's not a control of content.

Uh off-premise advertising yeah, yeah, I think that would they would be subject to other rules about signage, but we could not control their ability to sell advertising, for instance, on that side.

Thank you, Ms.

King.

But do we have some say so over how the message is reflected?

Yeah, I'm not sure I understand what what you mean.

Well, uh you know, as opposed to flashing, if it's just a stable message as opposed to, you know, whistles.

Sure, yeah.

I think the sign ordinance does lay or the uh excuse me, the um section 6.411 does lay out some requirements.

Um I think they were up just a second ago and they addressed that some of those concerns.

Did you activate Miss D Ms.

London's microphone.

Testing.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

Yes, the ordinance does outline um the message.

Well, not the actual message, but it does say electronic changeable copy signs should not contain animation rolling or rolling letters or message, flashing lights or display as part of of the display.

And there should not be a change uh more than 20 seconds for every message.

Any other questions or discussion among the board?

Okay, we are looking for a motion.

I have one more question.

Please would you consider continuance?

I just want to make sure that we don't, you know.

Yes, yes.

I'm sure the bank would want to.

I'd like to make a motion for continuance.

Okay.

For is 30 days enough, ma'am.

What information would we expect to get to change to change the vote?

It won't change my vote if it's flashing.

I I think personally is there's been some confusion about where other uh electronic changeable copy is at that intersection.

I also believe that the side view doesn't match what the front view is.

Uh the existing sign cabinet is larger than what they're proposing, I believe.

Um personally, I'd like to see what uh traffic engineering says about it.

As far as the confusion of the intersection.

Second you want to add, or we're moving to the second.

Okay.

Okay, so we have a motion for uh continuance from Mr.

Garza, second by Mr.

Hook.

30 days.

I have a question.

Yes, ma'am.

So I just want to be clear whenever I go back to the bank.

Um, so the side view needs to match.

Um I need a picture of the other EMCs that are in the area, which is just really one other one besides the the the main problem is that the the there's board members here who have a problem with the with where local your location can't change that.

You're at a busy intersection, and we don't want to aggravate the situation by adding uh more distraction.

It sounds a little unfair, but I also want to be fair to you.

We want to make sure that you we get whatever it is you need done with your sign.

So other what other what we have no problem with is something that doesn't move you.

Change it whenever you want to.

Um, but there seems to be some problem with the continuing every 20 second changing, it may contribute to a distraction.

That's what we're fighting.

Okay.

All right.

So there's there's 11 of us, and some may be or some may be against.

I just want to make sure that at the end of the day we serve your your customer correctly.

And I would just say, depending on how this vote goes, you you could work with the city staff.

You obviously heard the discussion in the staffs taking notes, and you can kind of see what we're gonna give you the if this continuance gets approved.

It would give you time to work with city staff, work with your client to make sure that based on the discussion.

Do you want to ask the 30-day question again?

Or do you think that's 30 day enough or 30 days?

I think is fine.

I'd like to make that for 30 days.

All right, that's pretty quick.

I just want to make sure you feel good about that in terms of talking to your client.

Okay.

I I do.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

So we have a motion for 30 day continuance.

Uh by Mr.

Garza, a second by Mr.

Hook.

Is that right?

Yes.

Staff, if you would please perform a roll call vote.

Board member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Witt Woman.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member K Duffy?

Yes.

Board member Jan Herrero.

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

And for the record, there was a motion to continue by board member Garza and a second by board member Hook.

Correct.

For 30 days.

Ma'am, so your the case has been continued.

If you would please work with city staff as early as tomorrow.

You heard the discussion.

Some of the questions staff has also taken notes.

So thank you.

All right, staff, could you please uh call the next case?

This case is BAC-26-006 located at 5700 East Lancaster Avenue.

The applicant and property owner is Javier Bedrasa, and the property is zoned E and neighborhood commercial.

The applicant is requesting two variances.

Variance A is to allow an accessory structure, specifically a seven-foot tall metal fence on a lot without a primary use.

And variance B is to allow a seven-foot metal fence within the projected front yard.

The subject property is approximately 19,106 square feet and it's currently vacant.

It is an interior lot that was platted in 1971 and does not have alley access.

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

The property has gradual 1.9% slope from the northwest to the southeast.

The property is zoned E, neighborhood commercial, and is located in an area with a mix of residential and commercial uses.

Properties to the east and south are zoned A-5, one family residential, and properties to the west are zoned E, neighborhood commercial.

There is a recent code enforcement case that was issued in January of 2026 for the existing seven-foot metal fence.

Thank you.

Zoning ordinance section 5.30 D requires that accessory structures may not be constructed on a lot without a primary use.

Since the property is currently vacant, the fence is not permitted under the ordinance without this variance.

Variance B is to request to allow the six existing seven-foot metal fence within the projected front yard.

The projected front yard is determined based on the adjacent properties to the east, which are zoned A-5, one family residential, requiring a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet.

The property to the east, zoned A-5 has an established established front yard setback of approximately 85 feet with the property to the west, zone E has an established front yard setback of approximately 84 feet.

The applicant has installed the metal fence along the northern and western property lines, which places portions of the fence within project within the projected front yard.

These are the regulations that pertain to the case.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is the applicant for this case here in attendance?

Yes, sir.

Please come forward.

State your name, address, and you have seven minutes uh to state the facts of your case.

Good morning.

My name is Javier Petraza.

Um my address is 7200 crack streak, Fort Ward, Texas.

Um to be honest with you, uh I had no idea that uh to build uh fence.

Uh I have to get a permit, and so I apologize for that.

And the reason I put up a fence, it's because I'm sure the city has a record uh that we had a lot of issues in that whole area because uh the uh homeless people, a lot of people are going into my property.

Uh they do drugs, they do leave a bunch of trash around.

And uh the city of Fort War always uh send me uh letters or notice that I have to keep my property clean, and I also have several um problems with uh people trying to get them out of my property, even called the police to get them out of the property, and uh uh that's the reason that uh close that uh or put the fence around the property.

Uh I just the reason I put the fence is because I have another neighbor on the back side of my property, has exactly the same uh uh fence like what I did there.

So that's the reason that I put up.

Um other than that, uh I have no idea what else to do.

I mean, if the that's it.

Sorry about that.

Yes, sir.

You still have a few more minutes if there's anything you'd like to add.

No, I'm good.

Okay.

Uh is there anyone here uh in attendance to speak in support of this case?

Okay, having seen none, is there anyone here in opposition?

Mr.

Chair, we do excuse me, we did receive six letters of opposition for this application.

And I think I noticed one in the application that had a signature of support, and the rest were opposition.

So these were included in our uh packet as well.

Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and move to uh questions for the applicant from the board.

Sir, if you would please just stay there.

Stay sorry, yeah, please tell how long has this fence been in place?

When did you build it?

The fence, it's been I don't know, maybe a few months by now.

Okay.

Did you have a contractor help you with this?

No, I did it myself.

Yes, sir.

And um, after you build the fence, um calling the city, dealing with homeless and cleaning has been improved.

Uh I guess the city the city should have some letters that I normally send me at least, I don't know, twice a year.

That uh because it's uh I travel a lot for my work, and uh they send me a letter at home and saying that I gotta keep or I gotta get all the trash and all that stuff, and uh you know how to I mean uh homeless people leave a bunch of trash in there.

They used to do drug all the way in there.

There's somebody else, like uh, I guess he loves uh animals, especially birds or uh dogs.

They built uh small little wood houses and put food in there and put like I had like four of those on my whole property, so animals go all the way all the time there.

It used to go all the time there, so that's the main reason not.

Yeah, so my question was like right now you don't have to clean the property anymore.

The property is secure, you don't have to deal with any of the things that they used to happen in the past, correct?

That is correct.

Thank you, sir.

I I have a question.

Uh go ahead, Ms.

King, Mr.

Hook, and then we'll go to Mr.

Wooden.

I I I couldn't tell from the letter of opposition whether it was in opposition of the fence in general or the type of type of fence.

It was the type of no, I was asking you.

Were you saying the type of fence?

Type of fence, the fact that it's metal as opposed to some other material.

I couldn't, I couldn't tell from the letter.

Yeah, and I would say there's there's two really variances they're asking for.

One is height and one is type.

Okay.

Okay.

If that helps.

Yeah.

The letters seem to some of them, they don't like the look of the fence and they don't like the placement of the fence.

Um, so I would say that the material may be a factor.

Um, my question is is the fence temporary?

Do you have plans for this property?

Do you have something in development?

Or what would you just state?

Will it just remain vacant?

Uh as right now, um, I'm have the property.

I'm trying to use it for like my business in the future.

Uh uh have uh vehicles and stuff that I might store or maybe product at some point, but obviously in the future I'm thinking about it building something in there.

Don't know, yeah.

Currently storing property by the right.

Right now, yes.

Just store.

Mr.

Wood, that was my question.

Okay.

Yeah, the uh I think the the main problem is not gonna be the I'm just assuming the back side and the sides are kind of a non-issue, it's just the front, looks like a prison.

So uh I guess um it would there be some sort of um uh consideration to change the the front of it, um uh appease the six or seven letters that uh we have that up oppose your fence.

Because it is a very striking idea.

We understand security 100%.

And uh we understand sometimes the materials that you choose are because of the security.

If you make it out of wood, they'll break the wood, they'll burn the wood, you know, winter time.

So we understand that, but the problem here is that uh it's an empty lot and it's looks like um like a prison.

So would you consider changing the front facade of the fence and maybe talking to some people who are in opposition, see what they would want to see on your property?

Yeah, I'll I would I mean uh I'm I'm okay if I need to change the front and put uh something visible that you can see through from the street to the lot.

I have no problem with that.

There's there's two, there's the reason for the visibility is it's also a benefit to your property.

Someone drives by police officer, he can see.

And then the safety for the police officer, if they're looking for someone, they can see if someone's been hiding behind a fence.

So there's there's um though that to consider.

So um that's all I have.

I would like to make one note for the rec record for the applicant, outdoor storage of any kind of automotive vehicles are not permitted in this zoning district.

So, whatever your future plans for your lot, just make sure you check in with our zoning land use team to make sure to use this permitted.

Okay.

Any more questions?

I have one.

Go ahead, Miss Powell.

Yes.

Um the opening where it's clear that that gate or in regard to uh opening the uh front up, that possibly can be extended uh is an option.

And then I mean, going back and checking, uh speaking with the community as well.

Um I think that wall, that wall would be a good wall to uh be a mirror of art and bring art to that community of life in some kind of way, would be visible.

I can see that it being workable.

So are you willing to do that?

I'm sorry, I didn't understand that one really open the front, like he was suggesting that you can see through the fence.

Yes, I was opening the front up more.

I was opening the front up more.

If you wanted to open it up all the way, great, good, fine.

If you wanted to extend it to a certain spot, uh a certain point, good, but also at the same time taking consideration of putting up art drawing.

I would also like to make another note for the board for your reference.

Um one of the variances is because this fence is within a projected front yard, the established projective front yard, I believe.

Emily, you can correct me if I'm wrong, is at 84 feet.

So if the front fence that faces the street, if that is open, that is great, but they'll still need the variance for the fence on the side on each side of the building uh on each side of the lot because it's still within the projected front yard.

So if you want to make a motion on this one to um stipulate the front being open and allow the sides to still be solid metal um at seven feet, that's fine, or because there is still a projected front yard.

That's the thing is we don't want to make a promise uh to the petitioner that if he does this and we'll do that.

He has to comply.

That's why if if he works with the city staff as to what the best option would be to help us say yes, uh, because right now we we have to consider this is an ISO.

You know, that's what it is.

He's property secure, but we want to also comply.

So we want to find the happy medium.

Sounds like today's gonna be just a party of continuances.

I would say working with city staff, we would encourage the applicant to comply.

So that would be either removing the fence or you know, putting the material that is allowed or setting it back.

Um they won't be able to have the fence because there's not a primary use.

So working with city staff on this case, we would encourage them to comply with the ordinance, so that would be removing the fence.

That uh that helps tremendously.

So basically, I have I don't have a problem with the seven foot fence in the back and on the sides, and you guys can agree or disagree with me.

It's the front that I think that we need to work on.

So if we can come up with solution for the petitioner on the front where we don't have to go through city staff where he can he has to move back to comply with the whatever boundary he has to, and then also maybe make it visible, maybe make it five feet instead of seven feet, then we can probably do that for him if he's willing to to work with us.

So I think we're still on the board questions for the applicant.

You you guys tell me if I'm wrong.

Mr.

Riley, you're okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Garza.

Mr.

Riley, you're okay.

Yeah, I just need to know what the projected front yard was.

Mr.

Witten, yes, sir.

If the fence is moved back to the projected fronts front yard line, and since this property is not used for storage, it's just vacant.

Would a chain link fence be, or is it just I mean, I realize the very the uh ordinance says no fences, no vacant land, no fence.

But obviously, we're dealing with the real world issue that maybe the ordinance didn't contemplate.

So the thing with that is because there's not a primary use, the ordinance does not establish what type or material fence is allowed.

If there was an established use, then maybe a screening fence would be required um where we would monitor the the type of material um and chain link wouldn't be one of those material for a require screening fence.

Um if there was a commercial use that was permitted on this lot, a um a fence open design would be um allowed, but since there isn't a primary use, we can't really distinguish what type of fence would be allowed on this property at this time.

So we do recognize he has to secure his property, you know.

Also, I see heavy opposition for the neighborhood, heavy opposition for in the neighborhood association.

Um I would not be able to support this, you know.

So basically what you're saying is that he needs to decide what he's gonna do with this property in order to get a sense of what kind of things that would be.

I think I think it's if he decides to do something, then we could uh decide the city right now.

There's really nothing for them to volunteer.

But no matter what is decided um to do with his property, it still wouldn't be allowed in the projected front yard, even the structure that um without our blessing without the variance, correct?

Without the variance, correct.

Yes, without the variants.

Any other questions down here for the applicant?

Any other questions?

I got one.

All right, sir.

Um your address is Lancaster, but it looks like you're kind of on that Dallas street, right?

So going down Dallas, there are other fences along that street.

Am I right?

Yes.

Tell me what those fences are like.

They're the same height as my neighbor next to it, which is his uh uh, I guess he helped him also because they're homeless people went through his property all the time, also.

But he has the uh fans that you can see through her his house all the way.

And his and they have fences in their front yards all the way down Dallas Street, correct?

Yes, and he's uh I guess he's more to the line of the street, and I'm um about 25 feet back from the street to my my uh fans.

It's not just your next door neighbors, it's all the way down.

Yes, all the way.

I have a question.

Those fences that are on that street, do they have homes?

They do.

Thank you.

Yes.

And I'm familiar with that street as well.

Those are chain lake fence down that street, and they're about four, four to five feet tall at max.

Okay, any other questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Uh, you have seat.

Please stay close.

We might ask you some questions.

So I'm gonna close the public portion of this hearing and go to a uh board discussion regarding this case.

So I do feel like he has a right to protect his property.

I think the suggestion that we open the front fence up to something that police can look through um is a good one.

But I I'm okay with it with the change of materials on the in the in the front yard.

Yeah, I would say the same thing, except there was maybe one letter, and I want to say it was the next door neighbor, the church's chicken saying something about the side, the side of it.

He also it was in late correspondence was not in support of her or did not like.

So just I understand what you're saying, Miss Steffi.

I just want to call that out.

Any other discussion?

I wouldn't be able to support either one of the variances.

There's no structure on the property.

So at this time, that fence wouldn't be allowed.

And then with the front yard set back, it kind of negates it to me in my mind because there's not a structure.

So the fence by right is not allowed because it's just an empty lot.

I empathize with him.

I understand I know that area um is challenging, but I follow the guidelines of the city.

Yeah, this is difficult, right?

Because he's trying to take care of his property, but not within the the compliance of our ordinances.

Yes, sir.

I understand that uh he has to qualify for a fence, but in this particular situation, I would be for changing the front facade of the fence.

Maybe talking to churches and see what they want, maybe drop it the four feet there.

It's still better than nothing.

There's gonna have to be some compromise.

So if the petitioner's willing to come up with an alpha a plan that appeases us, not the city, then maybe we can work with the petitioner.

Did you want to ask and bring him back up?

Or you you feel good enough that Sir, if you would please come forward.

Just want to make sure he he knows what you're asking when we put forward a motion.

Yeah, so what we're we're we're thinking about there, we're trying to find a way to say yes, but the there's so many things that we have to overlook, and we're not willing.

Some of us are not willing, and and understandably so.

But if the fence is there, your right to protect your property is real.

Um, if we were to you would come to us with a plan where you you change the front of the facade, and you talk to your neighbors, see what what would make them happy.

We would see compromise, and maybe you would get you allowed to keep your property.

And there may be a time limit because you can't have that forever.

You can't have outside storage, there's gonna be other things you're gonna run into, but um would you be willing to have a continuance for 60 days to come up with a plan for us to look at maybe 30 days.

Yeah, I'm open to that.

I mean, uh I don't want to bother anybody.

Um I'm open to whatever uh I need to do.

Um I know you guys understand that it's my property and not trying to keep it safe and uh try to be out of trouble with the city, especially the city and the police.

Um I know you guys understand that it's my property and not trying to keep us safe and uh try to be out of trouble with the city, especially the city and the police, like I say that I have a bunch of calls for me to go out there and trying to get them out of my property, and you know how people are and they don't want to go out.

They I have some people that I try to fight with me in there, and I say no, I'm gonna go, so I'll call the police and get them out of the property.

They didn't I mean those people they don't listen to you or they don't listen to anybody.

I've been put signs before saying that it's private property and you can't get in there, but they don't they don't care about that.

So I'm willing to whatever you guys tell me to do.

I mean, uh I'm open to suggestion.

Um if I need a fence that you can see through, then I will do that, whatever it takes to do that.

Okay, thank you, sir.

One thing, Mr.

Garz, I want to be careful is the city staff has already said that if if we continue this for them to work with them on this, they will encourage compliance.

So I don't necessarily don't necessarily want to want to motion and approve a continuance as much as if we're gonna approve this maybe with some conditionality.

That's just my thoughts, but I'm sorry, go ahead.

If um you guys want to, if you choose the continuance, I would encourage a 60-day continuance.

We're already in the review process for our May meeting, and we have received 23 applications.

Um if this would require a redesign, staff would have to review it thoroughly again.

So if a continuance is on the table, I would encourage a 60-day continuance, or if an approval is on a table with stipulations, um, we also support that.

I just want to make sure if we're continuing, you heard from staff they're gonna encourage compliance already.

So yeah.

I wouldn't, I wouldn't, I wouldn't uh support a continuance.

I think this needs to be denied, and uh he needs to follow the rules and next time pull a permit, then you we wouldn't be here today.

The other discussion, yes, sir.

Yeah, um I truly believe that he's solving the problem for the city, and he's protecting his property, and maybe we can get to a happy median where the front is see through, the property's protected, and the RDA is getting better.

But it's just gonna be discussion between us.

Yes, sir, Mr.

Rod.

Breaking it down, I I really don't have a problem with the first variant since he's having difficulty protecting his property if we remove the wording to allow to remove the wording seven foot metal, just leaving it as we're allowing a fence.

And but I'm not in support of uh the second variant.

I think they need to honor the uh building setback.

Mr.

Riley, we try to be specific with the variances in case um there is change.

Uh if the fence comes down, they could potentially put up another seven-foot tall metal fence.

That's why I would oppose if I was to make the motion of variance to require this uh requirement of accessory structures shall not be allowed to construct our place on a lot without primary use, a fence on a lot without a primary use.

Totally throwing out the seven.

Okay.

Good, Ms.

Okay, so now I do have questions that maybe I should have asked earlier, but um so the second variance is for the projected front yard setback.

What is set back in an E with no projected front yard?

I bet the projected is probably from the side.

Right, but what is an E the zoning district setback requires uh 20 feet minimum?

And you said it's already 25 feet back, and so the residential structure to the east of this property, since it is a residential property, it has an established uh projected front yard of um 84 feet, Emily.

Can you confirm?

85.

85 feet.

That's the front, that's the front yard.

The building line of the house.

Yes, ma'am.

But it also has a fence that goes to the street.

Um the house next door does have an open design fence that is look appears to be on the property line.

So the your thinking is that the ordinance says he doesn't have a building, the fence would have to meet the projected front yard front building line.

Because he doesn't have a building, the fence isn't allowed.

But if you have the first variance, and but if you guys approve the first variance, the second variance is because the fence is in the projected front yard, and the projected front yard is established by the residential structure at 85 feet.

And also the church's chicken is at 84 feet.

But for this case, the residential setback establishes um the projected front yard for this subject property.

This is Johnston.

I uh I come back again to the requirements of an adjustment, and that is that the situation causing the hardship or difficulty is unique to the affected property, and that the situation or hardship is not self-imposed.

Uh I I'm I have a hard time getting over those two requirements in this situation.

I'm I'm certainly sympathetic.

Uh uh to Mr.

Pendraza concerning this.

I think that we could make a case that that the code enforcement actions because of the homeless activity in the neighborhood are more than a home bearer should have to put up with without the ability to put in a fence.

I I I could call that a hardship.

I understand.

And uh but the again the question is whether it's unique to this affected property.

Uh we have homeless issues all over the city.

Can't just start putting up fences.

You know, I have them in my area.

They hide in the trees.

You know, so any other discussion or a motion?

Like to make a motion.

BAC26-006 with the stipulation that he uh moves the fence back to the 84 feet line and makes it uh 50-50.

Um that's the best we can do.

And is your motion for approval as role?

Approval with you with that one condition.

Okay.

And what is 5050?

Uh 5050 is um open design.

Open air.

Yeah, open design.

So we have a motion.

So before let me make sure.

Sorry, please go ahead.

Yeah.

If if your motion is that he moved it back to the projected front line, then the second variance is not necessary.

Is that am I correct, Miss London?

Or is it 85 feet?

Um so it have to be moved back 85 feet, and it would be excuse me, it would be outside of the projected front yard.

So I'm gonna make sure Mr.

Garzai understood your motion.

Yes, yes.

So in that case, he should just deny the second.

Right.

That's what I was getting at.

Right.

We we're gonna do these separate, right?

One and two.

Oh fine.

So first one.

Make a motion for BAC26 that double out six uh A as written.

Well, I think you if I understood your motion, it was A with an open and 50-50 open design.

Is that what I understood?

That's correct.

Yes.

And do the 50-50 open design is just on the front facing the street, the sides can and the rear can continue to be.

Yes.

And that has to comply with the the line, um, 84-foot line set back.

Set back.

Okay.

So I think as as he has stated it.

I think we're good on if A gets approved, we will not be B.

Is that correct?

Legal.

Yeah.

Correct.

Do you want to restate it or we do we feel good about that?

Okay.

Do we need to draw?

No, I I guess out of the person who's making the motion.

Do we need to draw up out of that first variance any mention of how high the fence is?

I don't have a problem with the seven foot.

Sounds like no.

Sounds like his motion keeps a seven foot.

Okay.

Okay.

So I have a motion by Mr.

I have a question.

I'm still struggling with the 50-50.

It's um because that's subject to interpretation.

I mean, are we talking about opening along the frontage of the street?

Are we talking about opening along the front of the street?

Well, okay, then I think we need to specify that because 50-50 can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Uh it may not be, I mean, to me, 50-50 is half and half.

Well, half of that fence probably isn't on the frontage.

I think the motion, if I understood, was clarified that the 50-50 open design was on the front, but we'll let Ms.

London completely restate what we think the motion is, then we'll have Mr.

Garza confirm, then we'll get a second.

Okay, sounds good.

We have a motion by board member Garza to approve variance A, and that would be to allow a seven-foot metal fence on a lot without primary, the seven-foot metal fence would be surrounding the property with a open design fence fronting um Lancaster on the frontage of the property to move the fence back eighty-five feet outside of the projected front yard.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

So we're allowing this fence without a primary use.

That's correct.

Okay.

Um can we take the 85 feet out of that first one?

Do you have to ask the the motioner?

That's the compromise that we're we have a motion on the floor.

So really you have a chance to vote on that in the second variance.

It's like a variance being removed completely.

Right.

So if we move back behind the 85 feet, we don't need the second variance because that's purely the projected framework.

That's what I'm saying.

I want to vote on them separately.

And we are.

This is just on A.

No, but I don't want to vote on the 85 feet in the first variance.

Yeah, that that part would be necessary if we're voting separately on B because B is not approved, then A would require the fence to be at the projected lot.

So basically I want to.

What she's saying is she wants to include that in the second vote.

So I'd like to change my motion.

Separately.

And that's fine, but I think with what she's saying, she wants to you want to do the projected front yard in B, not include that in the A vote.

Is that right?

With the conditions.

So I think she's saying with A, if you would remove the 85 foot setback.

I will remove the 85 foot setback.

Okay.

That condition.

Does that satisfy you, Ms.

Duffy?

It does.

Where's the appropriate place for the open design on the front for B or A or B?

So that's already in A, so I think I think we're okay with as Ms.

London stated, minus the restriction on the projected front yard for A.

If Mr.

Garza, do you agree with that?

I agree with that.

Thanks.

All right.

Now is there a second?

Second.

The second, which removed the 85-foot setback to be can to be discussed and voted on for B.

Okay.

Making sure we got it.

Okay.

We have a first by Mr.

Garza, second by Mr.

Riley.

Miss London, will you please perform a roll call vote?

Yes.

Motion by board member Garza, second by board member Riley.

We are voting separately.

Um to approve variance A and B.

Variance A has the stipulation of open design along the frontage of the street.

Right, but I think right now we're just doing a A.

Correct.

Separate.

Okay.

Variance A.

Board Member Jim Witten.

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board Member Michael Johnston.

No.

Board Member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board member James Hook?

No.

Board Member Sandra King?

No.

Board Member Witt Woman?

No.

Board Member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member K.

Duffy?

Yes.

Board Member Janet Herrera?

No.

Board Member Juan Manuel Acosta.

Yes.

The motion to approve variance A fails.

Correct.

Sorry, good.

Now the motion floor is open for a motion on B.

Right.

There's no need to the variance for A was to allow the fence on a lot without a primary structure.

So I don't be.

Do we still vote on B?

But there's I think we need to just because it's been it's been noticed.

Yes.

And that's why the Yes.

I'd recommend going ahead and open the floor for a motion on B, even though, yes, as Ms.

London has indicated, the fence can't be there because of A.

So but yes, I'd I still recommend taking the vote on B.

So we need a motion for B.

Mr.

Garza, your motion was for A and B or just for A?

It's for A and B.

Okay.

So now we'll vote um the motion to approve variance B.

Okay, and B as written, right?

Okay.

So we need uh first and we already have a second and recall on the second.

We have Mr.

Riley Oh second.

Mr.

Riley, thank you.

Board member Jim Witten.

No.

Board Member Sergio Garza.

That's a yes from board member sir.

Board member Michael Johnston.

No.

Board member Bob Riley?

No.

Board member James Hook.

No.

Board Member Sandra King?

No.

Board Member Wit Woman?

No.

Board Member Lucretia Powell?

No.

Board Member K.

Duffy.

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrera?

No.

Board Member One Manuel Costa?

Yes.

The motion to approve variance B fails.

Okay, sir.

Both of these variances have been denied.

Should you have any questions about moving forward and next steps?

You can contact city staff as early as tomorrow.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

We are looking at probably a just for the chambers and for our schedule.

We're probably looking at a break, a lunch break around 12 30.

But I wanted to ask if anybody wanted a five minute break before then.

Okay.

We'll take a five minute break.

We'll come back at actually a six minute break.

We'll come back at 11 10.

Thank you.

And staff, uh Scott, it looks like we're bringing up BAC 26-011.

We're ready when you are.

The next case is BAC26-01.

The address is 5101 Camp Bowie Boulevard, and the owner is 5101 Camp Bowie JVLLC.

The applicant is Richie Charez, uh professional engineer with Baird Hampton and Brown Incorporated.

The property is zoned F General Commercial, and the property is legally described as lot 34, the south part of lots 34 through 40 block 75 of the Chamberlain Arlington Heights first edition.

The applicant is requesting a variance to the General Commercial F district development standards that requires a minimum 10 foot side yard setback for a corner through lot to allow construction of a non-habitable accessory structure, which is a uh dumpster or trash enclosure to encroach into the required side yard setback along the eastern property line on Neville Street.

The required side yard setback is 10 feet, and the requested side yard setback is 1.4 feet.

The subject property is a 17,396 square foot commercial parcel bounded by Camp Bowie Boulevard on the north, Neville Street on the east, and Pershing Avenue on the south.

The property does not contain a regular regulated floodplain, and no utility easements were identified.

The applicant is proposing to renovate the existing 1433 square foot building that had been used for a liquor store into a two-story restaurant with a drive-through, uh which is a bagel shop with outdoor patio dining.

The proposed location of a dumpster enclosure is within the required side yard setback.

The applicant is requesting to allow construction of a non-habitable accessory structure, which is the dumpster enclosure to encroach into the required side yard setback along the eastern property line facing Nettle Street, which is uh the and the location is indicated highlighted in yellow and outlined uh in green.

The proposed trash enclosure will be located 1.4 feet from the side yard property line, which is deficient from the standard by 8.6 feet.

Here are the variants uh request regulations uh for a corner lot.

There would be uh not there would not be a side yard setback, however, because this is a through lot, then a 10-foot minimum is required.

That concludes the staff presentation, and I'm available for questions.

Okay, thank you, Scott.

I just want to make a note for the record that Miss Freed is is uh our alternate for this case um or Ms.

Powell.

You at the very end of that, you mentioned the corner lot does not need a side yard setback, but because of the is it the unique shape?

Is it the through lot?

Is that what's causing this?

So because this uh this property is the entire block, and it is also each face of the block uh is is facing a street.

Um it does uh it the it functions as a through lot because it has access on Camp Bowie.

So I guess it sounds like the the unique shape and through lot of this particular parcel is what's creating the hardship for this side yard setback?

Is that uh uh so the what yes you you could interpret it that way.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Okay, thank you, Scott.

Uh is the applicant here?

Yes.

If you would please come forward, uh state your name, address, and the facts about the case.

Uh good morning.

My name is Miguel Segovia.

I'm with uh the engineer with Bairdhampton and Brown, located at six uh six thousand three hundred Ridgley Place here in Fort Worth.

Um so I mean as mentioned, um just want to talk about uh you know getting this variance approved given the unique size and shape of this land.

Um we felt like that's the most efficient place to place the dumpster, right?

It's uh it improves our traffic queuing and highs of the visibility from uh Camp Bowie.

Um that's what we came about, and that's that's pretty much it.

Okay, thank you.

You still probably have six and a half minutes if there's anything else you need to add or no, nothing else.

Okay.

Is there anyone else here in support of this case that would like to speak?

Okay.

Um else here in opposition.

Okay, having seen none, we are gonna go to uh questions from the board.

Sir, would you just hang tight right there and might get some questions?

Any questions for the applicant?

Yes, please, Miss Tuppy.

So the the site plan that we see, um we're showing a minimum number of parking spaces required by the city.

Don't like you don't have parking spaces to give up to a dumpster, is what you're saying.

Um, that's correct.

And um I'm I'm seeing what 23 feet on the south side of the building and 25 foot driveway on the where's where's the actual drive-thru to pick up my bagel.

Um it's um it's actually off of Camp Bowie.

There's two on Cambuoey and one off of Pershing.

There's two what?

Two, I mean two drive drive, uh well, actually, you're saying two driveways drive-throughs on Cambuoe, but to get your bagel, there's would be on the you know, northwestern corner.

With your finger so I can see what that's at.

Okay, yeah.

So pretty much straight through right here, and through here, through here, and those two.

Um then our Scott, can you help?

Yeah, can you all help him?

Uh is it oh it's not it's showing that it's drawing on my screen, it's not.

Yeah, let's see if we can get a projected up.

It's being set.

Uh I think we're working to get it so that it shows the markings.

Thank you.

Yeah, so there's two two drive-throughs, right?

And then one off the person.

So two on Cambue and one off of Pershing.

Um, so that answer your question.

Can you extend the line to show the full route of the drive-through?

Yes.

A little windows there, and then they go around.

So if we made you move that dumpster in closer to the building, nobody can get out with their bagel.

Yes.

And do the doors open to the north towards Camp Bowie?

Yes.

Open towards the drive-thru.

No, not towards the drive-thru.

So pretty much the dumpster truck was gonna come here.

And this is pretty much the route.

Yeah, it's pretty easy.

Okay.

Thanks.

Yeah, this is Johnston.

It there's a portion on the plan that says existing for 1433 square feet in addition, 755 square feet.

Uh is there something that shows where the uh addition, the additional structure would would be constructed?

It's it's this uh portion highlighted in kind of gray.

Okay.

So it and that's the point six.

That represented I wonder if it's nine feet.

Okay.

Okay, you know, upside down.

Oh okay.

So you're uh so you're extending the existing building by nine feet toward the toward where the proposed dumpster would be.

Yeah, that's the width uh it's nine feet.

Okay.

Thank you.

The card.

Mr.

Garge, I'm sorry, go ahead.

One second.

Can is your green light on?

Stacy, can you reset Mr.

Garza's mic?

Should we go to um I mean the picture I see uh where the dumpster is going to be?

Are you gonna cut any of those trees down that are on the sidewalk?

No.

No, we're gonna cut those trees.

Uh they're gonna remain.

Oh or which trees are referring to?

Can you show the photograph of the uh I think it's there's no document number here?

It's like two that one.

Oh, these like those little branches.

I mean, I don't is that really good?

Is it you're talking about this right here, right?

Yes.

Yeah, they're gonna get removed, yes.

It's it's pretty much a dead tree.

Uh you're gonna remove those trees.

Mr.

Garza, if you would look if you look up here.

Oh, yeah, no, no, okay.

The large trees are within a public right of way.

So they're they're not on the subject property.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, this is John.

Is there any what any way to put that nine foot extension on the other side of the existing building?

Um this is pretty much the the most you know best efficient design we came up with.

Uh, we looked at various different alternative methods, and you know, this pretty much fits everything as as mentioned, traffic queuing and just placement of the dumpster overall.

Okay, thanks.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay.

I'm gonna go ahead and close the public uh portion of this hearing and open up to uh discussion from the board.

So you're free to sit down, but stay close.

They might have more questions for you.

I don't have a problem with the proposed plan, and I can support it.

So I'm familiar with this.

It it is a very unique in that that triangle is the entire block, and where the dumpster is being located is probably the least visible place on the lot if you look at which streets have the most traffic.

So I think it's a good design.

I agree.

That's that was my comment.

Is I think they think they found the most appropriate place given the shape of the lot where the front edge to Cambuoy is.

So and I love to see this this property re being redeveloped as well.

So question um what is I guess since the photo's not up to the right of that structure?

So you need a site plan or yeah, is it residential?

There's a there's I think you're talking about on the right-hand side of yes, across the gallery.

I believe there's an art gallery, Scott, and you're talking about the white off Neville and Pershing.

Right, yeah.

It's two commercial.

But those others, like where it says Pershing, is that there is um one art gallery that's right across Neville.

And there are um across um on Pershing.

Looks like there is a commercial development there.

Yes.

I I guess my concern is multifamily as well.

What goes in the dumpsters and then how that then translates to the effects on the community beyond that area.

So the applicant may be able to speak to there is a dumpster enclosure, but they may be able to speak to um the trash pickup, how the daily schedule or how often they would collect that.

There are also additional uh drawings and renderings in the docket uh that are not included in the presentation.

Did you want to ask the outcome, Ms.

King?

Yes.

Good morning.

My name is Ty Thompson.

I'm also with Bairdhampton Brown.

Um the uh pickup schedule is weekly, and as far as um I think you're probably referring to site visibility of the dumpster.

We're gonna have a screening roll screening wall around the contents, the contents.

Well, that would just that garbage, it's that what it would be garbage, yes, but it would not it's not like it's meat or anything that would have something that would be really odorous.

It's gonna be bagels uh bread.

So and it will be picked up weekly.

And it looks like from this rendering, there's a there's also a roof on it or some type of canopy structure.

That is probably it it shows that, but uh that's probably not gonna be built.

Uh the the difficulty with when you put a structure on a um dumpster is the truck can't function.

Yeah.

That's why I was curious about that.

The the art the architect took some artistic liberties, liberties, yeah.

Any other questions or uh discussion among the staff?

I mean among the board, excuse me.

I I have just since you mentioned that, is it gonna be the brick nice box there, and then I guess some sort of a fence gate.

Well, it'll have a yeah, it'll have a like a it'll typically those are like wooden gates that can be easily opened and the truck can move in and grab it and and then close them.

And then there is a side gate for uh staff to actually because they'll be wheeling their garbage out every evening and dumping it.

Another discussion among the board.

Yeah, it it shows uh it appears to show some landscaping.

Is that is that new landscaping on the side?

Again, that's an artistic liberty that was taken.

Uh all the trees that you saw, the the mature trees, those are in the right of way, and we're not touching those.

Thank you.

Just for point of clarification.

I mean, you said that the contents would be bagels, but in order to make bagels, you gotta have stuff to make them yeast, eggs, that kind of stuff, but uh it won't be it'll be so egg shells, yeah, uh anything baggages that are uh the packaging for the yeast.

And I'm not a chef, so I don't really know.

Um, but uh it's not going to be like at a steakhouse or uh something like that.

From the steakhouse.

I like those too.

In fact, if you want to go out later, we can.

Um but uh in all honesty, it's not going to be something that is going to produce an odor that isn't controlled.

Plus, there are steps that you can take to make sure that doesn't happen.

So this should have zero impact on any residence around us or business for that fact uh for that issue.

Well, I I just disagree, but that's okay.

I'm just to be fair, there's other businesses, and I guarantee you those businesses have dumpsters also a lot closer to the residential.

Yeah, but we we don't know where they're located relative to I mean you can't see that from this photograph, so um I'm just raising that.

That's a concern for me.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

Um sorry, you can sit down.

We'll we'll call you up if you have more questions.

I don't want to make you stand there.

Uh we're open for more uh discussion or a motion.

I'll make a motion.

Please, Mr.

Wynn.

I move the BAC-26-011 be approved as submitted.

Thank you, sir.

Do we have a second?

Johnston.

Second, Mr.

Johnston.

Staff, if you could please perform a roll call vote.

Yes, we have a motion to approve case BAC-26-011 as requested by the applicant.

Motion made by board member Jim Whitden and second by board member Michael Johnston.

Board member Jim Witten.

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board member Bob Wahartley.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

No.

Board member Wolman.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell.

Um I'm sorry.

Board member K uh Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Uh gentlemen, your uh case has been approved, and uh we look forward to working with you.

If you have any questions about the city with regarding your uh your uh application of the approval, just work with city staff as early as tomorrow.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Staff, if you would bring up the next case.

Mr.

Chair, members of the board, case BAC-26-012, um, address 1009 Mayfield Street has been administratively withdrawn and would not require a public hearing.

Okay, thank you.

We will move on to our next case, which is BAC-26-021.

The address of the property is 1921 patent court.

Emily.

The applicant is Seth Fowler representing the property owner, Jason Lawson.

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

And the site is also located within the TCU overlay district.

The applicant is requesting two variances.

Variance A is to allow a detached garage to encroach into the side yard setback, reducing the required setback from three feet to two feet.

And variance B is to allow both a detached garage and a covered patio to encroach into their rear yard setback, reducing the required setback from three feet to two feet.

The subject property is developed with a single family home and is located on an interior lot within an established neighborhood.

The lot is rectangular, was plotted with that with an alley, contains mature trees, and is not located within a floodplain.

The existing primary structure is approximately 2,967 square feet and does not include a garage.

Staff review the permit history for the property, and there was a prior board of adjustment case in 2020 for similar setback variances, but it was withdrawn.

Under the A-5 district standard, side and rear yard setbacks are five feet.

However, for detached garages located behind the primary structure, setbacks may be reduced to three feet.

The applicant is requesting further reduction from three feet to two feet for both side and rear yard setbacks.

The first variance is to allow the proposed detached garage to be located two feet from the side property line, which is one foot less than the minimum required three foot setback.

And the garage is proposed to be located at the rear of the property, and we'll measure approximately 19 feet wide, 30 feet in length and 15 feet in height, approximately 570 square feet in area.

And a driveway is proposed to access the garage from patent court.

The second variance is to allow both the detached garage and a covered patio to encroach into the rear yard setback, also reducing it from three feet to two feet.

The covered patio is proposed to measure approximately 11 feet, 10 inches in width, 16 feet 3 inches in length, and 15 feet in height, approximately 192 square feet in area.

With the addition of the proposed garage and covered patio, the total lot coverage will increase from approximately 29.97% to 37.7%.

This remains below the maximum allowed 50% lock coverage in the A-5 district.

And if approved, the applicant will still be required to comply with all other applicable development standards.

These are the regulations that pertain to the case.

Thank you, Miss Reyes.

Any questions for staff.

Okay.

Having seen none, thank you very much.

Is the applicant here?

Yes, sir.

Please come forward, state your name, address, and you have seven minutes.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

My name is Carrie Seth Fowler.

I live at 2412 Westbrook in Fort Worth, Texas.

I'm here representing the Lawson family at 1921 patent to build a detached garage for a home that does not have an existing garage and then have a uh patio um attached with that.

We will, it does require coming into the rear and side setback, and that's what we are asking a variance for.

As was noted by staff, we uh did ask for a variance and received a variance back in 2020.

COVID economy family, um, that all kind of took precedent, and so uh the permit and the variance lapsed on that.

Um, as the family continues to grow.

Young children, lots of toys, lots of items.

Uh they need some storage space.

Also, there's been um you know some burglary burglary with vehicles in in the past.

Currently, they have to park two vehicles in eight on a tandem uh garage.

They'd like to have a little protection.

Of course, we also know that Fort Worth has inclement weather and hail from time to time.

So they'd like to protect their car from there.

Uh, neighbors have been uh notified of this, and if you look at the the site plan um and the photos that I think of I've given on 1971, which is street facing left.

Looks to have a garage uh detached structure approximately one foot from the fence, which may or may not be the property line.

Um again, it's a uh legal non-conforming, and then the property at 1925 patent court, their detached non-conforming legal structure is actually part of the fence in our regard.

So um it would not be unusual for a property or a garage like this.

We'll benefit the home, put the cars in the garage, put the children's toys in the in the storage, plus it'll allow the family to benefit from their backyard to use that, uh have a nice shaded patio where they can grill out and enjoy that.

Um similar cases have have happened in the past.

Again, we're just asking for uh a little bit uh on the side and the rear uh setbacks from three feet to two feet.

I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thanks, sir.

You probably still have a few more minutes if there's anything you need to add.

I'm good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Okay, is there anyone else here in support of this case?

Yes, please.

Uh please come forward, state your name, address, and uh any facts about the case.

You probably have three or four minutes left.

Hi, my name is Ashlyn Lawson.

I am actually part owner with my husband, 1921 Patent Court.

Um, and I just wanted to kind of reiterate what Seth said.

Um, we are actually the only house on our court that doesn't have a garage.

I wish we would have you know gone through with our plans back during COVID because I had two babies after that.

So it was a little difficult not having a garage with car seats and strollers and all the things.

Um but now as our kids get older and we've had bikes stolen.

Um we've had people physically go into our backyard and steal items.

Um so this is really just for our family.

But I also um, as you can see, we have support from that neighbor who owns that um house next to us and their property line or their garages really set kind of right on our property line.

So they would be the only ones directly impacted by our project.

Um, and we have their full support, and she emailed that over.

So I just wanted to say that.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Mr.

Chair, we do receive three letters of support for this case.

Thank you.

Those were included.

They were included in the lake correspondence.

Thank you.

Uh is there anyone else here that would like to speak in support?

Probably have two minutes left.

Okay.

Having seen none, I'm gonna move to opposition.

Is there anyone here uh in opposition to this case?

Okay.

Having seen none, we are gonna move to uh questions from the board for the applicant.

I have a question.

Please go ahead.

And whoever's gonna speak, Mr.

Fowler, you will you speak and answer questions, and we might have uh the up the homeowner as well.

So go ahead and stand up.

Yeah, thank you.

Go ahead, Miss Rare.

My question is um, what is the reason that you can't meet the three foot setback and you're asking for the two feet since there's not currently a garage there now?

Right.

If you look at the site plan, you'll see that uh for one, we're trying to get some storage.

So the typical garage um, you know, is gonna be roughly 21 by 21.

We're asking for for about 30 feet on here so we can get additional storage, not just for the large vehicles, but for the uh just for their items.

There was a photo there that shows kind of a storage building and a lot of things around there.

So um mainly it is um just they need that space.

I mean, it's a hardship with three children.

So is the storage building being removed because that's where the garage would go.

Yes, ma'am.

That's exactly where all of that I saw is out of here.

Yeah, it will it's gonna have to be.

Go ahead, go ahead and come forward.

So we're recording everything, and we use the mics for that.

Thank you.

So there is an existing storage building where we will build the garage, and that will be removed.

And we're just asking to put a garage where that is.

So it's not gonna go any closer to the fence.

It's actually probably gonna go further from the fence than that storage building already is.

And as you can see, our neighbor on the opposite side, their garage is actually directly on our property line.

So we really don't have a very large backyard.

Um, and with this garage, we are gonna eat into most of our backyards.

So we're just trying to save as much space as we can.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Uh, this is this is Johnston.

Uh, when you purchased the house, was the house already existing in the way in which it is now?

Yes, we've not done any updates to the house.

Um there it was remodeled, you know, I think maybe 10 years prior to us moving in.

Okay, and is there an existing driveway?

We do have a driveway, but it currently cannot support the garage.

So they will have to just replace the concrete, but we're not gonna make the driveway any bigger.

It's just gonna go on top of it.

Okay, if you if you put back up the site plan.

Yes, it's that driveway right there.

Oh okay.

The the driveway would be on the site plan, the driveway would be on the right-hand side as we're looking from above.

Is that where the existing driveway is?

Yes, it's the existing driveway.

We won't do anything to the driveway other than have to replace it based off of what the permitting will require.

I know it's not working.

Okay.

Okay.

Um the driveway is already located in the space that it needs to be.

So okay.

Thank you.

And I had some questions regarding just the the turning radius as you're kind of coming around.

It looks like the corner if you're looking on here, the corner of the building.

Obviously, have being close to the fence would let you get into that garage easier than trying to make a turn that was pushed out further.

Does that make sense?

Absolutely.

Yeah, you can it's it's a little tight, and with large vehicles, we'll let them worry about that.

It might nick the nick the corner.

Well, it would be much worse if we didn't get this variance.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

This patio we're talking about is a covered patio, I assume.

Correct, yes.

There was a rendering.

I don't know if you can pull that up.

It's to the side into the yard, this the yard side of the garage.

Correct.

And there's a there's a there's a rendering off.

You saw that, Miss Duffy.

What's the height of the patio part?

Uh it's not 15 feet.

Uh the garage is 15 feet.

The patio um is gonna go along the same ridge line.

Any other questions?

The applicant.

I'll ask one.

Okay.

Um do we have any particular hardships on this pro on this property well?

I think for one, the hardship is it it doesn't have a garage, and so it's it's nice to have you know it's a nice neighbor.

There you go.

So yeah, kind of see how that's just gonna fall off there.

So that's less.

Um, you know, there were for for one safety and security.

I mean, that's that's the biggest thing.

It's nice to have a garage, it's gonna improve the the property.

It's already in a fantastic neighborhood, as you know.

Um get some get some cars off the street, keep them safe.

It's also gonna allow the family to you know be able to utilize their backyard as uh as much as possible.

And I think also uh like the chairman woman was saying, it it's a it's a tight fit to get uh it it needs to be pushed back as where it is just logistically get the car in and out without disturbing the house.

It would be really hard for us to fit cars and a bike without you know having this extra space.

So that's really the whole point of it is to be able to use it as much as we can any other questions for the app I'm gonna ask one more time for any uh any uh anyone here in opposition to speak, just to make sure we cover that.

Okay, thank you.

I'm gonna close the public portion of the hearing.

Y'all can go ahead and sit down, but stay close.

We're gonna have some questions after we uh opened up for discussion among the board.

Any discussion about this case or a motion?

So the doesn't as I remember the zoning rules just changed within the last year to take A5 down to three feet instead of five feet as a setback on both those sides and back.

So as it relates to detached garages, the zoning ordinance allows a reduction to three feet for detached garages, but the standard sites for rear inside your foot of zoning district are still five feet.

But but the change to three feet was recent, right?

I'm not completely sure.

Okay, maybe I made that right up.

You've been here a lot longer than I have.

Any other discussion or a motion?

If there's no further discussion, I'd like to make a motion to approve BAR 26-021.

Um is anyone opposed to voting variants A and B together?

This is Johnson.

I would prefer that they be separate.

Okay.

So B A R 26-021.

Like to approve variance A as written.

Okay, thank you.

Second.

Mr.

Acosta, second.

Thank you.

Okay, just on variance A.

We have a motion and a second.

Could you please perform a roll call vote?

Yes.

Board Member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board Member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King?

Yes.

Board Member Witt Wolman.

Yes.

Board Member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member K Duffy?

No.

Board Member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board Member Juan Manuel Acosta.

Yes.

The uh variance A passes.

Okay.

We are now open for a motion on variance B.

I'd like to make a motion on BAR 26-021 variance B to approve variance B as written.

Second.

Thank you.

Motion by Miss Herrera and a second by Mr.

Acosto.

Staff, could you please perform a roll call vote?

Board member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston.

No.

Board member Bob Riley.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board Member Witt Woman.

Yes.

Board Member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member Kay Duffy?

No.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member one Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion to approve variance B passes.

Yes.

So congratulations.

Both have passed, both variance A and variance B for your case.

Should you have any questions?

Uh please contact staff as early as tomorrow.

Thank you all.

All right.

Let's move to the next case.

BAR-26-016.

Staff are ready when you are.

The property is located at 837 Edgefield Road.

The applicant and property owner is Tisha Celine Marnella and the property is zone A-7.5, one family residential.

The applicant is requesting a variance to the required 20-foot front yard setback for a through lot where the rear yard is subject to front yard requirements in order to allow a non-habitable accessory structure, specifically a detached garage and a swimming pool to encroach.

The required setback is 20 feet, and the applicant is requesting a zero foot setback.

The subject property is a 7,172 square foot vacant through lot located in an established neighborhood.

The lot is rectangular with double frontage along Edgeville Road and Rockwood Park Drive.

The site contains mature trees and is located within a floodplain.

Due to its configuration as a through lot, the property effectively has two front yards and no rear yard.

Staff has reviewed the permit for the permit history for the property and a zoning change was approved in 2007 from A5 to A-7.5.

And there's a residential raising permit that was finalized in November of 2025 and a street use permit for a driveway approach that was issued in March of 2026.

Under section 6.101, front yard setbacks in the residential districts are determined by the greatest of the platted building line.

Zoning requirement or adjacent development pattern for through lots.

If the rear frontage is along a collector street, the front yard setback standards apply to both frontages.

Rockwood Park Drive is classified as a collector street.

Therefore the property is subject to front yard setbacks on both sides, resulting in no traditional backyard.

The applicant is requesting to construct a detached garage with a front yard setback of zero feet.

The minimum front yard setback by the applicable zoning district is 20 feet and a garage is to bind in our city ordinance as a space or a principal bill building or an accessory building on the same lot used for the shelter or storage of occupant-owned mortar vehicles as an accessory use only.

The proposed detached garage is 25 feet four inches wide, 25 feet long four inches, and 12 feet in height, which comes out to approximately 642 square feet.

And according to the site plan submitted, the proposed garage will have a driveway leading up to the garage to be located off of Rockwood Park Drive.

Additionally, the applicant is proposing an in-ground swimming pool to be located five feet from the front property line, and the addition of the proposed garage will result in an overall lot coverage of 45.65%, increased by it from approximately 36.70%.

The A-7.5 district lot has a 45% maximum lot coverage.

If the variance request is approved, the applicant will be required to comply with all applicable development standards and regulations, as well as obtain an encroachment agreement for the utility line and secure a floodplain permit.

These are the regulations that pertain to the case.

The board may have.

Thank you.

I'll have one real quick on the slide before you said it increases to 45.6 lot coverage, 45.65.

But we don't need a variance because that's administrative approval, or is that we have administratively approved the point six five.

We don't need to look at that one.

Okay.

Any other questions?

I've got one more too.

We're here just for the detached garage, the swimming pool.

In the swimming pool.

Okay, yes.

Because um, this lot doesn't have a traditional backyard.

Both um, since it fronts the street on both sides, the front and the back, it is within what would be a front yard setback.

All right, so we're looking at both detached garage and the swimming pool.

Yes.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Are there any houses facing the other direction?

Are they all facing the same way?

I believe all houses are facing Edgefield Road, and so the rear of all the houses along this street would be to Rockwood.

Okay.

Correct.

There's an open field off of Rockwood.

It's all the houses are on Edgefield.

The Trinity River is on the other side of the um the levee.

Any other questions for staff?

I've got Rockwood Park Drive.

Is that a dedicated road or is it a park drive?

The method thoroughfare um classifies it as a collector road.

Thank you.

That into the neighborhood, it can't be collected, but about three vehicles a day.

Stacey, could you add reactivate her mic?

Miss London.

Most of these fronts, Edgefield Road, they seem to have their driveway approaches from Edgefield.

So not many of them have rear access.

The applicant may be able to speak to this more, but I do believe that there are um some homes that may um have rear access from Rockwood.

A other questions for staff.

Okay.

Thank you, Miss Reyes.

Is the applicant here?

Yes, please please come forward, state your name, address, and you have seven minutes uh to talk about the facts of your case.

Hello, my name is Maribel Hill.

I am here on behalf of Miss Tisha Marinera.

She's right here at 837 Edgefield Road, Fort Worth, Texas, 76107.

Okay.

Just a little something about this property.

It was purchased by Miss Marinella.

It was basically an uninhabitable property.

And uh she purchased the property.

It does have, if you look on the picture, it has a driveway that goes up.

Except the house never really had a garage, it actually had a lien to.

Anyway, she has purchased the property, would like to build this new home.

And on this property, if you look in the picture, right next door, there is a cemented driveway.

Um there are several properties along Edgefield that are on Edgefield that back up to Rockwood Park that do have cemented driveways.

And a couple of them, including the property right next to it.

If you look at 841 Edgefield, it has a detached building actually to the property line with a cement poured foundation.

So right next door to the left, there's a building, and then to the right, there's a poured driveway.

And then if you continue down Edgefield, there are a few other properties that do have, and I did, I did believe they're included in the packet.

Um, where the garage is literally abutting the property line and entryway through Rockwood.

So what Miss Marinella is asking for has been done in Crestwood, and it really suits the property, considering she doesn't have a way to access her backyard.

So one other thing I did want to just mention.

Um if you look at the original uh photograph, the first one, you all show the flood line right there.

If you notice her property is it's partly the little front part of it is in the flood line, but right now as it stands, I just wanted the uh board to know this.

The property does not carry flood insurance currently.

So that's another reason why it would be nice to put the garage in the back.

It keeps it away from that, and that would be an undue hardship for her to have to carry flood insurance at this point, because at this time the property has not carried one.

So I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much.

You still have a few minutes if there's anything else you need to add, or if anybody else would like to speak.

Hi, I'm Tisha.

Um I'm new to Fort Worth, and I'm building um what I hope to be a family home.

My daughter came to TCU staying here, is getting married, and I just like to build a space that my future grandchildren can come and when I'm gone, they can move in too.

So that's really my goal for building this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Still have a couple minutes if you need anything else.

Okay.

Um I'm gonna go ahead and move to uh anyone here else in in uh opposition to this case.

If so, please come forward.

Okay, Mr.

Chair, we do receive six letters of opposition for this case.

That's great.

Yeah, that's that's right.

Could we please put those up?

Ms.

Jones, if you could.

And they were also included in our packet.

Um at this point, we will move towards board questions for the applicant on this case.

I have a question.

Go ahead, Ms.

Rare.

I did the back end.

If the garage is not approved of where it's being requested, would it be built?

It could be built like as a traditional garage, but then it would have to carry flood insurance.

Is would that be the all alternative to this?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

I did want to mention we did, I did knock on neighbors' doors, and we one second real quick.

I'm sorry.

That's okay.

So right now we're in a question from the board.

I'm so sorry.

Oh, you're fine.

But Miss Rare, if you'd like for her to finish.

Oh, sure.

Yeah, can you go ahead and expand upon what you were starting to say, please?

Certainly.

So I we went to the neighborhood and I knocked on our neighbors' doors, and I got I think five or six signatures that approved.

One has since sent in a letter of objection.

I'm not sure why.

Um, and that's in the packet as well.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Yes, sir.

This property is it um Rockwood Park Drive goes all the way to White Settlement?

Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

And back to the north or east.

Where does it terminate?

I think it's at Bailey.

I don't it used to go all the way through to university, but but they've staff you can probably correct me if it stops at Bailey, I believe.

That's why I asked earlier if it was a park drive, because really it's not a collector between major arterials.

I think many years ago it connected to university, but yes, I believe that's the case now.

I can't remember if it was a park drive and it just was closed without council action, or if it was a closer closure of the street, but it still function as a kind of a pathway there behind Greenwood Cemetery.

Excuse me.

Looking at aerial maps, may not be the most accurate looks like it the street terminates at Bailey Avenue.

Okay.

I think that's correct.

Any other questions?

Okay.

I'm gonna close this uh public portion of the hearing.

Go ahead and have a seat, stay close because we might bring you back up.

But I will open it up to uh discussion of this case among the board.

And or a motion.

Sorry, go ahead, Miss Duffy.

So if the street really weren't a collector's street, we wouldn't require this variance.

We would it still would.

So the impact of it being a collector street is how does that actually impact this variant?

My thought is that it's a through lot, but it serves more as an alley than a collector street.

There's probably very few traffic other than local uh right in that area.

And I'm somewhat familiar with that area, and used to get off at university and go all the way to White Settlement and avoid all that stuff on white settlement.

Now you can't do it, and it hasn't been that way for about 20 years, that I recall.

That's why I questioned if it was a public road or um a park road.

We'll have to double check to confirm.

Board member Riley.

So I mean it seems pretty straightforward to me that the um the garage can't be built in the front due to floodplain.

It's a hardship of the property.

Likewise, I feel the same way.

Any other discussion or a motion?

Is there any opposing before I make a motion?

Okay.

Or I'd like to make a motion.

Please go ahead.

I make a motion to approve BAR 26-016 as written.

Thank you, Ms.

Rero.

I'll second it.

Is that Ms.

Duffy?

Uh Ms.

Duffy second.

Staff, could we please perform a roll call vote?

Yes, board member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board member Sergio Gartha?

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

No.

Board Member Witt Wilman.

Yes.

Board Member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member Kay Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Okay.

Congratulations.

Your motion is carried.

It's been approved.

Uh, should you have any uh I'm sorry, your case has been approved.

Should you have any questions?

Uh please reach out to city staff as early as tomorrow.

Thank you.

Staff, if you would please call up B A R26-025.

We're yes.

Just for scheduling within the chambers and for the board.

We're still looking at lunch, probably after this case.

Right around 12 30.

Please go ahead.

The next case is BAR-26-025.

The property is located at 3845 Arundel Avenue.

The owner is Jeremy Slay.

The applicant is Grant Engineering Incorporated.

The property is zoned, A51 Family District, and it is within the TCU overlay.

The property is legally described as lot two, block 12 of the West Cliff addition.

The applicant is requesting a variance to the front yard setback requirement to allow an addition to an existing single family dwelling that would result in an encroachment into the platted building line of the front yard.

The minimum front yard setback is 40 feet, and the requested front yard setback is 36 feet.

The subject property is a 19,3335 square foot interior lot located in an established neighborhood.

The property is not within a regulated floodplain, contains several mature trees, and does not contain any significant environmental constraints.

An eight-foot utility easement runs along the western and southern boundary in the rear of the property.

One was for a remodel permit in 2021 and uh for a pool in 2008.

The applicant is requesting a variance to the front yard setback requirement to allow an addition to the front of an existing single-family resident that would result in an encroachment into the front platted building line.

The applicant is requesting a front yard setback of 36 feet, which is deficient from the required front yard setback by four feet.

The front yard setback in residential districts, according to the zoning ordinance, shall be the greatest of the platted building line, the setback for the applicable zoning district, or the setback of the nearest building on either side that is closest to the street.

As you can see from the illustration on the right, the neighboring uh properties.

Uh the closest the neighbor that is closest to the street is 28.8 feet.

So the uh the greatest setback in this case is the platted uh building setback of 40 feet, which as is shown on the site plan.

Um the platted building line is shown uh in the green line, and the requested setback uh here north is the front of the property.

These are the variance request regulations pertinent to this case.

And this concludes staff report.

I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, Scott.

Any questions for stab, Miss Duffy, please?

Um we have any clues of why the building line was platted at 40 feet, and why did they choose to get a variance instead of a replat?

Um you would need to ask the applicant why they would not get a replat.

Um the these properties were were I'm not sure the uh the year that it was uh that it was platted, but it is quite common that there is a building uh that there is a platted building line on uh on plates that are uh older.

And our zoning ordinance takes the platted line over the zoning line.

So the front yard is the uh the three uh the three illustrations or the the three regulations, it has to be the greatest of either the uh the zoning ordinance regulations, the district regulations, the platted building line or the the neighboring.

And in this case, the greatest was the platted building line.

So it's not a chronological thing, it's just the size.

Yeah.

But just to clarify, in A5, 20 feet would be the normal front yard setback, right?

That's correct.

Any other questions for staff?

Okay.

Thank you, Scott.

Appreciate it.

Is the applicant here?

Sir, if you could please come forward.

State your name, address, and the facts about the case.

And you have seven minutes.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and fellow board members.

Uh, my name's David Reeves with Grant Engineering Incorporated, 2751 Park Hill Drive in the Great City of Fort Worth, Texas.

Uh, I'm here to represent Mr.

Jeremy Slay, the owner of the property.

And uh, as was described by staff, we are seeking a uh variance to the 40-foot building line, so that our client may be able to build an addition to the property.

Uh this is a uh based on a survey that our firm did showing the adjacent properties.

Uh interestingly, the one to the west, which would be the left-hand portion of this drawing, that platted uh lot side lot line is 30 feet.

So we're already uh behind that particular one, so we don't feel this will interfere with that lot.

Now, the one to the right, of course, is back at approximately the 40 foot uh setback.

I think it's 39.5, it looks like is the closest.

Um I think what hopefully will make it more palatable to the board is uh that we're on a convex portion of this of this curved street, so that even though we are seeking to violate this by four feet, we're still sort of nested in in the convex portion as opposed to being on excuse me, concave portion as opposed to being on a convex portion, which could push us out a little further.

Uh our clients did receive permission from the three lots directly across the street to which this would be most visible.

We have their signatures.

I think Ms.

Reyes posted earlier the uh the uh petition with their signatures.

And uh the main reason for this request is there's a a mature picantry that the site plan shows.

We're hoping to stay out of the root system of that as much as possible.

That's why we're wishing to move forward uh in violation of the 40 foot uh building line.

And as uh as board member Duffy questioned, it is twice what is zoned, but we do understand it was platted at 40.

So we understand that's what we're dealing with.

Uh we do think that the addition will be in character in both materials and size of the of the other lot of the other homes in the uh neighborhood, and we do uh respectfully ask your approval.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

You probably still have a few minutes, a few more minutes.

If there's anything else you need to add, um I think we're fine.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anyone else here that would like to speak in support of this application?

Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition?

Okay.

Having seen none, uh, we will move to questions from the board for the applicant.

Anyone else?

Mr.

Riley.

The uh existing home that you're being at uh the additions are going to do does it have a garage?

Yes, sir, it does.

Basically the same location, same exact location.

Vehicles are bigger nowadays.

I'm sorry.

Vehicles are bigger nowadays.

Yes, they are.

And I actually have uh an elevation if the board would like to see that.

I'm fine.

And the pecan tree kind of keeps from moving everything that way.

I'm sorry, I didn't catch it.

The con tree keeps from all the additions being pushed back that way.

Uh oh, the pecan tree, yes, sir.

I'm so sorry.

Thank you.

The pecan tree is what we're hoping to move as far away from as possible.

Where's the bad pecan tree?

Uh on the site plan.

If Miss Reyes, oh, sorry.

Yes.

Uh you see uh backyard problem.

I think it's in the backyard.

There we go.

Uh where I've there's there's the uh Pecan tree in this area right here.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Mr.

Garza, do you have anything?

Okay.

I'm gonna close the public hearing, sir.

If you would just hang tight, we're gonna have a discussion among the board.

They might ask you to come back up.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

I'll open up to the board for discussion.

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

I have to there's no discussion.

I'd like to make a motion.

Uh motion for BAR-26-025 as written.

Second.

Who was a second, Ms.

Powell?

Or thank you.

So we have a motion by Mr.

Gars, uh second by Ms.

Powell as written uh for approval, right?

Yes, sir.

Uh staff, could you please perform a roll call though?

Yes, board member Jim Whitden.

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Witt Woman.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell.

Yes.

Board member Kay Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Jam Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Juan Emmanuel Costa.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Okay, sir.

Congratulations.

Your case has been approved.

Should you have any questions for staff?

Please reach out as early as tomorrow.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Sledge.

Oh.

Do you think we can get through one more case?

Okay.

Mr.

Riley, thank you very much.

Just for the record, Mr.

Riley's departing, and Miss Freed is coming back up as an alternate.

We are going to move to the next case.

We're going to try, I promise 1230 for lunch, but I want to try to get through these cases as well because I can see a lot of faces out there looking at me.

So staff, you would please call BAR-26-018.

Yes, the property is located at 321 Chateau Drive.

The applicant and property owner is Eric Danser.

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

The applicant is requesting two variances.

Variance A is to allow the construction of a second detached garage on a residential lot less than one half acre, which is not permitted under section 5.301 B2B.

Variance B is to allow lot coverage to exceed the maximum 50%, increasing it to 51.52%.

The subject property is approximately 8,489 square feet and is developed with a single family home.

The lot is square in shape, relatively flat with a 1% slope, contains several mature trees, and it's not located within a floodplain.

There are no significant environmental constraints.

The lot was platted without alley access, and the existing primary structure is approximately 1,950 square feet, including an attached garage.

Staff reviewed the permit history for the property, and there's a code compliant case that was issued in February of 2026 for construction of a mother-in-law suite without permits and a residential accessory structure permit for a shed is currently awaiting a response from the applicant.

The applicant is requesting to construct a second detached garage on a lot that is less than one half acre.

The subject lot is 8,489 square feet, which is approximately 13,291 square feet less than the required half acre minimum.

The existing residence already includes an attached two-car garage.

The proposed detached garage will be located at the rear of the property and will measure 20 feet by 20 feet and 13 feet in height, approximately 400 square feet.

The garage will be accessed by a concrete drive driveway extending approximately 90 feet in length and 14 feet in width from Shadow Drive.

The applicant is also requesting a variance to exceed the maximum lock coverage of 50%.

The proposed lock coverage is 51.52%, and this exceeds the allowable limit by 1.52%.

And the proposed garage location meets the minimum side and read setbacks, and it's not located within any easements.

These are the regulations that pertain to the case.

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

Thank you, Miss Reyes.

Do we have any questions for staff?

I have a question.

The lot size itself appears to um actually be more of an A75.

What would the requested what would for variance A?

What is the maximum size for that non-habitable accessory structure in 7.5?

For non-habitable, I have to look because they're proposing a garage.

So it's based off of the second garage.

Okay.

Okay, I'm just looking at variance A.

Never mind.

Any other questions for staff?

Just look.

Go ahead.

It doesn't appear to me that it covers more than you speak into the microphone with the lot coverage.

I'm trying to figure out how this is two percent.

Because we're not counting the driveways, right?

Only cover area.

So they have the existing um residence along with the existing cover patio and the proposed garage.

No.

Just an observation.

Any other questions for staff?

Okay.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Reyes.

Is the applicant here?

Oh, yes, sir.

Please come up.

Or both of you are gonna speak.

Please come up.

State your name, address.

And you have seven minutes to uh present the facts of your case.

Hello.

Hello, my name is Sean McLean.

And I'm actually the contractor.

Uh speaking in behalf of Mr.

Dancer in regards to the uh variance request.

Um for this is for address 321 Chateau Drive, Fort Worth Texas, 76134.

Uh, we're requesting permits um a variance for to pull a permit for a two-car garage behind the house in the backyard.

And because the uh lot because of the lot size, the maximum allotted space would be 50.

Um is it 51.

Um 52%, which is 1.52% over less than 2% of the difference.

Um the reason we're needing these two-car garages is because uh we we provided uh illustrations of these uh of this presentation as well as in PDF.

Um the reason we are asking for this is because uh Mr.

Dancer has two very high valued uh classic vehicles that he's completely restored to original condition, and this would increase the security and protection of his property.

Uh and it would also um reduce the possible him having to get any outside storage, and it would increase the value of his home.

Um as you see, these are the illustrations.

It's a 1955 Chevy stepside, and as a 1960 uh Camaro, all original and all completely restored.

And he's just trying to make sure that his property doesn't get stolen, damaged, or vandalized, and he needs to try and keep the process kind of close to him and not you know too far away.

Um we've also submitted uh the um petition and received eight signatures from neighbors.

Uh we uh two neighbors in particular were at 319 Chateau Drive.

She lives directly beside Mr.

Dancer, and she had absolutely no problem with it at all.

As a matter of fact, she understood the reason why he needed this uh garage, is because of his trying to protect his assets, and also the property directly behind him at 320.

Um Cotillion, uh Cotillion Road.

That they also signed as well.

And then we we also did get six other signatures from people within the neighborhood as well.

I believe there was one person that opposed of it that we know of.

Um, and the only reason why we know that is because she expressed it and and approached us about it.

Um you'll see some illustrations of these are properties in this exact same neighborhood that have structures this same as what we're trying to build, or even bigger.

On this first illustration is a two different lots, 100 and then 101.

Both of them have uh two car garages detached, and the 100, that one is way bigger than the one we're trying to build.

Um, then you have the next illustration in the middle.

That one is a two-car garage with two sheds beside it as well.

So, I mean, it's they have a lot going on in that backyard.

And if you look on the end, this is on Tremble.

Uh, that's uh 7733.

They also have a built structure in the back of their uh yard that's I would say conducive to the size we're building.

And there's one more slide at the bottom.

And the reason why I'm we're we have all these Skyview images is so that we can show that it doesn't, you know, go against any changes or that it doesn't change the character of the neighborhood.

Um, and here are some more just illustrations of houses on Rockdale.

Here's one that was a two-car garage as well in its backyard detached with a couple of sheds along the side of it.

There is one with a two-car garage and a carport, a two-car carport on the side of the house.

And then there's another structure that's actually uh 225 Chateau Drive that has a structure in its backyard as well.

And so as we said before, it's just the reason that we're building a two-car garage.

He's trying to protect his assets.

He wants to keep his home, he wants to keep his pro his uh his vintage vehicles secured.

And of course, if you do a storage outside of, you know, where he can't get to it, um, it's a remote location.

It could potentially get stolen or even vandalized.

And both of these cars, because he's kept them in its original condition, they can value anywhere from 60 to 100,000, depending on the buyer, you know, and how much they value these particular vehicles, which are rare.

You still got a couple minutes, yeah, a couple minutes if you have anything else to add.

I would also uh like to give would you like to tell him about you?

Well, he he also was represented in uh a trucker's truckers magazine, a truckers magazine for the 55 Chevy, and he made the cover of the magazine, and they also gave him a plague, a lot of rewards in regards to this.

So it this kind of just feeds onto the reason why it's kind of uh important for him to protect his assets.

And that's pretty much all we have.

So thank y'all for your time.

Of course, still got about a minute and a half or so if there's anything else you need to add, or anybody else would like to speak in support.

I don't think we have anything at all.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Is there anyone here in opposition to this case?

Yes, ma'am.

Could you please come forward?

State your name, address, and facts about the case, and you also have seven minutes uh in total.

I'd like to go ahead and read my opposition.

Yes, ma'am.

Could you pull that microphone closer to your mouth if we can hear it?

I'd like to go ahead and read my opposition.

A little nervous.

So you got it, you got time.