Good morning.

Notice that this meeting has been posted online for at least seventy-two hours.

Staff present today is Trey Calls, Rebecca Reyes, Cynthia.

Along with Denisha London.

Chair, will you please call this meeting to order?

Yes, thank you.

Sorry, 26th of May.

Oh, I was twenty-fifth of May.

I'm sorry.

Today is the twentieth day of May twenty twenty-six.

I've got an old form here, and I didn't recognize it.

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

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

Today we have a quorum with ten members present.

Today's meeting agenda can be found online at Fort Worth, Texas.gov.

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

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

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.

And any applicable laws or regulations it may apply.

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

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

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 that you do not exceed the allotted time.

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

This is their opportunity to express why they believe the variance or special exception should not be approved.

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

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

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

And we do not have any translation cases, so I'll skip this section.

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

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

There's 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 see and city staff to determine whether or not an application meets or does not meet criteria for approval.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uh we are now open for a motion to approve or deny.

Mr.

We'll have we'll go into the work session first.

Okay, sounds good.

Here from City Staff.

Good morning.

Denisha London Planning Manager.

I will be giving the presentation on the zoning ordinance text amendments.

Originally, the zoning land use planning manager was scheduled to be here, but this morning he got called into an important meeting, so he wasn't able to be here.

So please bear with me.

This is my first time seeing the presentation along with you all.

Okay, so zoning law changes from the 89th Texas legislation legislative session.

So the presentation topics today are related to SB 840 and SB 247 along with SB 15.

SB 840 and 2477 is related to multifamily mixed use residential building conversions.

Purpose statement.

We'll start off with SB 840 and 247, multifamily mixed use residential and building conversions.

So these new Texas legislation legislative bills were effective September 1st, 2025.

It applies to cities with populations greater than 150,000 and in counties with populations greater than 300,000.

It allows multifamily new multifamily and mixed use residential in a zoning district where office is permitted, um, is a permitted use by right.

These are things that cannot be within the area.

So 840 would not apply to if a zoning district that allows heavy industrial uses, 1,000 feet of an existing heavy industrial use or development site, 3,000 feet of an airport or military base, an area designated as a clear zone or accidental protection zone, potential zone, I'm sorry.

So parking requirements, SBA 40 and 2477 limits parking to one space per dwelling unit, density units per acre is unlimited based on H district bill requires minimum 36 units per acre or highest allowed in the city, and the H district will be the highest that is allowed in the city.

Height, 45 feet are the height that would apply to an office, commercial, retail, or warehouse development constructed on the site, whichever is greater, setbacks are buffer requirements, a setback or buffer requirement that would apply to an office, commercial, retail, or warehouse development constructed on the site or 25 feet, whichever is lesser.

Proposed development standards correlates to the size of the property and or the intensity of the commercial district, multifamily development permit requirements, land survey required to show compliance with the location proximity restrictions, generally follow MU1, MU2, UR design standards, but will not require pedestrian scale lighting.

Street trees are still required.

Project site size and zoning designation applicable district regulations.

Sites less than one acre zoned E, neighborhood commercial or ER, neighborhood commercial restricted will follow the zoning development standards of R2 townhouse cluster, sites one acre or larger zone, ER or zone E or ER will follow the development standards of UR Urban Residential.

Sites of any size zone Feneral Commercial or FR, general commercial restricted will follow the zoning regulations for MU1, low intensity mixed use, sites of any size zone G, intensive commercial will follow the development standards of MU2, high intensity mixed use.

Here are the proposed development standards, mixed use residential and multifamily district development standards on sites less than one acre zone E, neighborhood commercial or ER, neighborhood commercial restricted, will have open space minimum of 15%, units per acre is a limited front yard non-required, side yard, interior lots, five feet minimum adjacent to site to street, corner lot, 10 feet minimum adjacent to both streets, height 45 feet maximum density unlimited parking, one space per dwelling unit, non-residential uses shall provide off-street parking in accordance with section 6.201 off-street parking requirements.

Notes may be subject to projected front yard up to a maximum of 25 feet, may be subject to other front side and rear yard setbacks requirements up to a maximum of 25 feet, non-residential development adjacent to one or two family districts are subject to buffer yard and supplemental building setback requirements.

However, they may not exceed 25 feet.

All other development standards and regulations within the section 4.709 R2 townhouse cluster applies.

So the maximum front yard setback that applies will be 20 feet, rear yard primary structure minimum 5 feet.

When adjacent to one or two family districts with an existing one or two family structure, the minimum will be 20 feet, rear yard accessory structures, minimum of five feet, side yard maximum 20 feet, minimum zero, side yard common lot line zero feet, subject to building code spacing requirements, height 45 feet maximum, density unlimited, parking, one space per dwelling unit.

Note residential non-residential developments adjacent to one or two family districts are subject to buffer yard and supplemental building setback requirements.

However, may not exceed 25 feet.

All other development standards and regulations in section 4.713 urban residential applies except the pedestrian scale lighting requirement.

Proposed development standards for mixed use residential multifamily developments on sites of any size zone F General Commercial or FR.

Primary street, the minimum setback is zero, the maximum is 20, side yard, same minimum zero side 20, rear yard 5 feet, side yard with common lot line zero.

Subject to building code spacing requirements, height three stories or 45 feet maximum, density unlimited, parking, one space per dwelling unit notes, non-residential development adjacent to one or two family districts are subject to buffer yard and supplemental building setback requirements.

However, may not exceed 25 feet.

All other development standards and regulations in section 4.130 MU1 low intensity mixed use applies except pedestrian scale lighting and proximity test.

Primary street zero maximum 20, side street zero, maximum 20, rear yard, minimum 5 feet, side yard common lot minimum of zero height 12 stories or 120 feet high maximum density unlimited parking, one space per dwelling unit, and the same notes apply.

SB2477 overview.

Uh 1st, 2025 applies to cities with populations that are greater than 150,000 in a com in a county with population greater than 300,000.

Allows multifamily and mixed use residential conversions of existing commercial buildings.

Cannot be within a zoning district that allows heavy industrial use, 1,000 feet of an existing heavy industrial use or development site, 3,000 feet of an airport or military base, 15,000 feet of the boundary of a military base if the area is designated by a municipality or joint airport zoning board as a clear zone or accidental potential potential zone supporting military aviation operations, the proposed development standards, building conversions, mixed use residential and multifamily residential, front yard and side yard, front yard, rear and side yard setbacks limited to existing setbacks of the proposed converted building height limited to the height of the proposed converted building parking limited to existing parking units per acre unlimited SB 15, small lot housing, zoning one space, the parking requires one space per dwelling unit, density unlimited based on age district, bill requires minimum 36 units per acre or highest allowed in the city, height forty-five feet or the height that would apply to office commercial retail or warehouse developments constructed in the on the site, whichever is greater setbacks and um buffer yard requirements, a setback or buffer requirement that would apply to office commercial retail or warehouse development constructed on the site or 25 feet, whichever is lesser.

What is small small lot housing?

Single family residential lots between three thousand and four thousand square feet must be in an area zone for single-family residential, be a tract or tracks of land five acres or more in size and have not does not have a required plat.

Small lot housing cannot be within three thousand feet of an airport or military base, fifteen thousand feet of the boundary of a military base.

If the area is designated by the city or joint airport zoning board as a military airport overlay zone with a clear zone or accidental potential accident potential zone designated or described by the military bases, air installation compatible uses uh zone report, not within an area subject to an agreement with the city that prohibits small lot housing.

Here are the development standards, lot width 30 feet minimum at building line, lot length 75 feet minimum, lot area 3,000 square feet minimum, 4,000 square feet maximum, lot coverage 70 percent, front yard 15 feet minimum, side yard five feet minimum, fire and building code applies, rear yard 10 feet minimum height three stories maximum not exceeding 10 feet in height.

Measured from the interior floor to ceiling, no front yard entry driveways or parking.

Current regulations for lots less than 50 uh feet wide applies.

The development standards in section 6.101 yards do not apply.

Do you have any questions?

Board member freed?

Could you flip back just like the last couple of screens there?

So yeah, um be a track, so to become zoned.

First of all, what is the zoning called?

Do we have a zoning?

So a residential zoning district.

So it would be A5, one family.

If it's a tract of land that has never been platted, five acres um or more, can be platted into lots that meet the um the standards of what was presented.

So how is it different than A5?

So this one is different than A5 because A5 requires a um minimum of 50 uh 5,000 square feet in area and uh um max minimum of 50 feet wide, and these lots can be 30 feet wide and up to 4,000 square feet.

Okay, so what between 4,000 and 5,000 are we eight, five?

It's if you're on if the lot is over 4,000 square feet, but under five, but under five.

What is it?

So whatever the if the lot is already platted and it already has zoning, it follows the same zoning requirements.

So if it's a lot that is five thousand square feet, A5 standards still apply.

Okay, so this is really not going to be in fill.

Is that correct?

So this can be if there is an infield tract of land that is five acres minimum that has never been platted.

This can be do we have do we have those in the city boundaries?

Uh we do have some.

We there was a map created to show um sparses of land throughout the city that have not been platted that this would apply to, um, but we don't have it here on the presentation.

Okay.

All right.

Um and can you go to the next couple of screens?

Just okay.

So here's here's where the differences are.

But again, you cannot it must be within a minimum of a five acre area that is platted specifically for this use yes so a five acre tract or more that has never been platted can observe the um regulations of SB 15 if it's a five acre tract of land that has been platted before they won't be able to observe the regulations of SB 15 they'll have to meet the standards of the seems like it needs a new zoning designation a new district designation that's what I was asking what it would be if it's it's not a five it's something else so a three a I don't know we don't have we don't have a name for it yet right now the city has not um committed to creating a new zoning district for these lots it's just that whenever one comes in we know that we apply these standards and we're required to by state law we're required to buy state law to follow these specific standards but does does it apply to everything from like A 10 all the way up to 843 or just the just the three thousand any zoning district um any property within a single family residential zoning district so would it be possible for us to get that map that was created that shows us where those are yeah we'll I'll track down the map and we'll great provide it to you guys.

We'll also send these slides to you in an email.

What about agriculture ag land that is it talked about?

So ag land if it's it doesn't apply it just seems like this doesn't have a special zoning classification.

It does not 15 years from now we have somebody here with a how many parking spaces do you have case how do we designate that it came in under this special plating feature.

So if it's platted from twenty September first, twenty twenty five until um we'll be able to know that these SBA fifteen districts apply.

So if it is a tract of land that meets these requirements in the future it won't come to board of adjustments as long as they're able to follow these standards.

If they want to propose a lot that's less than um 30 feet wide it doesn't it's not able to follow the SB 15 standards they'll have to come to the board of adjustments for lot width variant I have another question.

So if a developer comes forward and there's like 4.75 acres and I know this is a what if that have does that come to board of adjustments or is it just denied?

So if it's less than five acres it doesn't apply to SB 15 they'll have to plat to the z uh standards of the zoning district that they're in and if they're not able to meet those standards then they will come to the board of adjustments.

Thank you.

Might come for a variance on on plat size.

Yes so the same standard variances you see now for lot width and area I've got a couple questions.

So will this eliminate the um this is kind of getting in the weeds know in some of the commercial districts you're allowed one you speak into the microphone sorry you're allowed one residential unit in a commercial district as long as it's part of a business so will that requirement go away I am not aware of that.

Like maybe warehouses those kind of things a warehouse commercial district allowing single family residential do you mean a security residence?

I'm sorry.

Do you mean a security residence?

What some folks most people call it so yes this this overrides this new house bill would override that and would automatically allow single family residential by right in those commercial districts.

Oh that can be that would probably be eliminated from that um district or is the description I mean no because it would still be an option available for for somebody who has a let's say a a a G or K and they still intend to use the property as commercial um and they still choose to have just a security residence so we would not remove that from the ordinance.

Okay.

The um parking requirement that's uh one per dwelling unit does that only affect the properties that are three to five thousand square foot or three to four I'm sorry.

Yes so only properties that fit within the regulations for SB 15 but if I have a I'm developing a new residential A5 do I have to have just one or two?

So if your tract of land has already been platted and you are developing to A5 standards and you have the A5 zoning district then you'll just follow the the A5 standards so it will require two spaces behind the front wall for um excuse me three or less dwelling units um within the single family home bedrooms.

And if I had a development unplatted I was doing a three to or um yeah three to four thousand square foot and it's not within two hundred and fifty feet of another residential property do I have a parking requirement at all?

Yes so you'll you'll be required one space per um single family residents.

And then the other uh question I had was the height since our most missive height is H which is unlimited height I can use that out in you know up in the Alliance area or uh down south I have a commercial piece of property and I want to build I don't you want to build multifamily yeah then the height is um unlimited or maximum of 45 feet so the there's still some ways where depending on which district you have to follow um we have if you're in E or ER district the height is forty five feet maximum if you are in F or FR district the height is unlimited um the height is three stories or forty five feet maximum it's the density that's unlimited okay so the um right now SB 840 is not applying to the industrial districts only heavy industrial which is usually the K.

Yes so the SBA 40 or 2477 requires the municipality to um apply SB 840 or 2477 to a district that requires um that allows office retail um or warehouse and so the city have identified these commercial districts where we will apply SBA 40 and 2477 and right now the city is not observing these requirements within the IJ or K districts I think you're gonna run in trouble there, but that's just me.

The um because I and J isn't my medium.

Then the law is stating something about heavy industrial areas.

Trey, are you able to speak to yeah I I think it's because there were uses identified in I and J that qualified as heavy industrial uses, even though that's not a heavy industrial district, and they're excluded from districts in which a use that's heavy industrial is allowed.

But I could still build offices in J.

It's an allowed use.

Correct, yeah.

Okay.

You just can't take advantage of 840 and 247.

Sorry?

You just can't take advantage of 840 and 2477 development standards.

Okay.

Thank you.

Do we have any additional questions?

All good.

I'm going to pass it over to Trey.

Hello, Trey Qualls, City Attorney's Office.

There will be a test on all that, so I hope you're taking notes.

Just kidding.

That's, you know, for your purposes, that's mainly informational.

A lot of that stuff is not going to be things that come to this board, but just so you'll know the changes that are being made as a result of the last legislative session.

Okay.

Next is lot size and lot width questions.

This comes up as you know before before you all every now and then.

And sometimes I think there's been questions about it, so we just wanted it at this one time as a reminder of uh what those are about.

And so the example in this presentation, it's been a couple years since we've done this, but this example is an A5, and you all probably know the minimum width has got to be 50 feet, and minimum square footage is is 55,000 in a standard A5 lot.

Um so occasionally what you'll see is a lot will come before you, it's only 45 feet wide, right?

Um supposed to be 50.

Other example here, lot size supposed to be 5,000, as you can see in that little blue box there, that does not match up.

Um it's only 4200 or so.

So the how to how do properties ever get this way to begin with?

There's a couple of different ways.

One is uh a neighbor sells a little strip of their property to their neighbor.

Maybe it doesn't get recorded or ever platted.

Maybe the property has never been platted, or maybe the lot was not just that size.

Um before we even had zoning sometimes in some parts, older parts of the city.

So there's a lot of different ways that lots can wind up not needing the minimum what would normally be our standard zoning of 5,000 square feet or width uh is pretty common.

Um so the way this usually comes before you all is property owner buys it, they're trying to develop, um, and they're told by permitting department you can't get a permit because you need to go uh your lot doesn't meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, you need to go to BOA and get a variance.

And we we'd probably never know about this unless they were trying to develop it, and that's because they're trying to get a building permit and it's permitting that'll put a hold on that.

They can't get sometimes if it hasn't been platted, they they gotta get platted.

They can't get the plat until they've got all the permitting in place.

So it'll come to you, and like I said here, there will be holds put on it if you uh you apply the same standards, you always would to uh it's a variance, so you look at the same standards you would for any variance.

Um, and if the you all find that those standards are met, you grant the variance for the lot size or width, they still have to that that allows the permit hold to be removed, they can get permits and they can get flatted.

So it allows them to develop that property.

Um if you all find that the variance has not been met, typically, you know, this isn't to say you have to approve them all, but what that usually means is the property's not gonna get developed if they can't get variants because then they can't get the permits and then they can't get platted.

So um a lot of times, so you know what that means is a lot of times that it's gonna stay vacant and um you all have to weigh is it is it better better to have a vacant property or one where you've granted the variance for smaller smaller width or lot size.

And again you use the same standards and criteria you would for any variance.

Does it accomplish the overall purpose of the zoning ordinance?

You know there the risk of and again this is not to say that every variance for blot size needs to be granted but obviously the risk is the owner of the property could could say that the denial of the variance prohibits them from developing their property and that's when we get sometimes a takings claim they'll file a suit um and just as a reminder um the takings what they're saying is that uh as a result of our zoning ordinance not allowing them to develop their property they can't get the use of their property and as you know both the state and federal constitution say we have to provide uh just compensation if we're taking property so their claims there would be a taking uh as a result of our zoning ordinance um again this is not to say you need to approve everyone this is just um the result sometimes if you have a property that they say well if I got denied I can't develop I don't have the good use of the property.

Because that I mean that's this that's the whole point of the BOA as you know you're the safety valve to make sure that our zoning ordinance does not constitute a taking of property.

So again yes.

If they also on the lot next door do they have any ground to stand on on a taking suit?

I mean they they yeah they still could say that their denial of the variance prohibits them from developing that property.

They have other options obviously they could reply try and plat them together something like that but um but are there court cases that are court cases to say one way or another is gonna stand up in court.

There I mean I I don't know that that that fact has come up in a specific court case but I don't know that it would be dispositive either on whether they had a takings claim no so for let me ask one more question.

For a takings claim if they bought a scrap piece of property for almost no money like how much how much are they gonna go to court for that?

I've seen people go to court for a lot of silly reasons.

Um yeah I mean they certainly can you know what they what they knew about the property when they bought it really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not our ordinance constitutes a taking it you know that could be a factor in the lawsuit right potentially but um for purposes of what you all do doesn't make any difference in whether the variance requirements are met and whether our ordinance if the variance requirements are met and the taking is or the variance is denied whether that constitutes a taking when was the last time this city had a lawsuit on a taking claim we get them all I mean we have them pending it all all the time as a result of this board I don't know but we have takings claims all the time probably have a half a dozen pending at any given time they're not all valid but on residential property.

Both and maybe this about two or three months ago we had a case where an individual was trying to build a piece of property and the city had designated the road out in front of them would be a different size than what was existing and thus it would have made that lot or make it non conforming and then all the billing setbacks and all that from the proposed right-of-way line so to me that'd be a good example of this is that yeah.

I mean could be the acting of a a government official or a government body designating that as a wider street and requiring more right away.

Now, along that line, do we not require variances when that case happens, particularly on variances, when we expand a street, take right away and reduce some of their parking.

We've I thought we've always gone back to what it was before, and it doesn't make them legal non conforming because of the loss of parking.

Right.

That is correct.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

No, I'm talking the 90% of what we see, not the special, you know, weird ones that we sometimes uh are presented here, but the 90% where we have a lot that's being they wanted to develop, and we have a history of accepting in the Board of Adjustment.

And why don't we take the history of what we've done and apply that to whatever governing body decides, you know, if 50 feet is going to be the minimum, uh 5,000 uh feet square feet is the minimum because every time we come to this by this body and we've decided to say, okay, we'll go ahead and do it or you 500, or change the law to where they don't have to come and spend money on a variance because historically, 90% of the time we say yes.

That that's uh that's a valid question.

I think um, you know, staff may have reasons that they don't want to change those standard uh sizes.

Um and I would also say that every case is is different, even though you may find 90% of the time that the requirements are met.

Um one case doesn't carry precedent to the next case necessarily.

You're looking at each case for the whether it meets the individual requirements.

But um, you know, staff if staff at at some point decided they wanted to propose changing the A5 standards to you know minimum 4500 because we see that they certainly could could present that to sit zoning commission and city council.

Um, there are there may very well may also be reasons they don't want to do that, but that would be a something for staff to take into consideration.

So you guys are the ones who decide that.

I don't decide it.

I don't decide anything.

You say staff, whose staff?

Development services department, yes.

City of Fort Worth, yeah, not the state.

No, no, that we set our own requirements there.

I trade.

Um you know of any cases where a property owner has been successful in suing the city of Fort Worth for a taking based upon a denial of a variance.

I will say we have certainly settled cases that result from appeals uh from the Board of Adjustment for denial of variances, yes.

I don't know if those were specific takings cases uh all the time, but yes, we have we certainly have had cases where we have settled losses.

Those are settlements, not not judgments or verdicts.

I don't know every case because I don't do litigation anymore, so I I couldn't tell you for sure, but uh I could certainly ask the litigators about that in our office and we could see.

Okay, thanks.

Okay.

Um this is a reminder if you when you're looking at those cases again, these are the same things you're always gonna look at.

Um you're granting or denying a variance or or special exception.

Here we're talking about variances.

Um, of course, if the variance is granted that individual is then gonna still have to meet all the same, they're gonna get the hold removed, but they still have to follow zoning, still have to follow um flatting requirements.

Okay, that's all we have questions about that.

Just want to make one statement.

It seemed like the cases that we run into most of the time is it's fifty foot at the building line, not at the uh street street.

It seemed like that's what that pinch point that pie-shaped lot is what has caused us to have to consider setbacks being less than or greater than the minimum.

So I just want to make sure that yeah, I think that's f that's fair.

Lot size is always usually five thousand square feet, but because of lock configuration, uh, they can't get uh, yeah, that may be a reason that you find that they have a hardship.

All right.

I don't know if I don't remember if we have any of those on the agenda today, but um since we're in a work session, I'm asked a couple months ago as we combine these two boards.

There was uh a list of different zoning ordinances that were going to be reconsidered where it could be done administratively, reducing the amount of um questions coming before this board.

I just wondered what that status was.

Yeah, I don't want to get too deep into those just because we didn't notice discussion of those specific things, but I will say that uh those are still in the works.

I think there are some of text amendments like these have taken a little priority over those, and there's there's a lot of text amendments that have been coming through, but yes, those have not been forgotten.

I would like to uh be uh work session related to that at some point in time or in the near future.

Yeah, that's something we can certainly look at.

Thank you.

Okay, you got 15 minutes to grab another cup of coffee before we start the public session.

Okay, the work session is now adjourned.

The public hearing will begin at 10 a.m.

Good morning.

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

Staff present are Trey Qualls, Mayor Belpina, Stacey Jones, Emily Garcia, and Denisha London.

Chair, will you please call this meeting to order?

Yes.

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

It is it is the date, it is day 20 of the month of May, 2026.

And I welcome everyone to the Board of Adjustment.

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

By state law, a minimum of nine members or alternative 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 Fort Worth Texas.gov.

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

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

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

Each case will be called in 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.

Each case will be introduced by the city of Fort Worth Development Service Department.

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

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

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

You will have seven members, 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 totals of seven minutes and among all parties so you do not exceed the allotted time.

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

This is their opportunity to express why they believe the variance or special exception should not be approved.

The opposition is also allotted a total of seven minutes.

The time to be shared among all speakers.

The applicant will have an additional three minutes of rebuttal time.

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

And there are no translation cases today.

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

During this time, all speakers must remember the 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.

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

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

For more information on this additional inform or additional information on any case on today's agenda, you may contact the Board of Adjustment at 817-392-0826 after this meeting.

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

Our first order of business is to approve the minutes from last month's meeting.

Has everyone had a chance to review the meeting?

Uh minutes.

Are there any objections?

Okay, then the board will approve those minutes.

Thank you.

We'll go ahead and get started with our first case.

Uh city staff.

You'll uh present BAR 26034.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair.

BAR-26-034 has been administratively withdrawn.

There would not be a public hearing on this case.

We'll move on to the continued cases.

Okay, then uh BAC 26005.

Emily.

Good morning, Chair and members of the board.

The first item is BAC-26-005, located at 4401 Basewood Boulevard.

The applicant is signart representing the property owner, bank OZK.

The property is zone G, intensive commercial.

The case was continued from the April meeting.

The board requested to know what the bank proposed to show on the ECC sign and ask the applicant to show other ECC signs near the area.

After I present this case, the applicant will present this information to the board.

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 the bank.

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

There are no adjacent residential uses in the immediate vicinity.

There is a current monument sign with ECC permit that remains under review, currently awaiting a response from the applicant, which is pending the outcome of this case.

Applicant is requesting one special exception to allow electronic changeable copy on a monument sign in a commercial zoning district.

The zoning ordinance states in section 6.41A, electronic changeable copy signs may be permitted by special exception of the Board of Adjustments and Commercial Industrial Mixed Use and Community Facility Zoning District subject to certain conditions.

There are other electronic changeable copy signs near the vicinity, specifically right across the street at the gas station.

There are no residential neighborhoods in the vicinity.

Password Boulevard and Beach Street are commercial connectors, and the site 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 sign area is 112 square feet with the ECC portion, measuring 18 square feet, which is 24.88% of the sign fees, complying with the maximum allowed 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, and this concludes staff presentation.

I'm available for any questions the board may ask.

You mentioned the presence of a gas station that has the changeable copy.

Yes, ma'am.

And um this is a continued case, and at the last time the applicant mentioned one another one across the street.

Yes, the applicant will be presenting on that.

Okay, I was just wondering what the status was of that one was from the city.

Can you tell that?

Did that one receive a variant?

Yes.

Okay.

Do we know anything about when that variance was or we would need to check?

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, we'll go ahead and call the applicant up.

And please, um, if you're uh next in line, please come on up to the front row and be ready to speak.

Okay, go ahead and tell us your name and uh your address.

You have seven minutes.

My name is Marie Byron, and my address is 4721 Bryson Lane, Midlothian, Texas.

My address is 131 Popular Springs, Mooresville, North Carolina.

And Josh is also the representative for the bank.

Um could you go back to page uh 12?

Sorry.

The the one with the um sign photo on it.

Not yeah, keep going.

This one um okay, we can we can stay on the one that has um the urgent care that this is the um the east the monument with an ECC on it.

That's caddy corner to the Banco ZK property.

Um also if you could go back to the other page with the sign on it, the proposed sign, uh, that page, not the sign plan, yeah.

That one.

Yes, okay.

So on this one, one of the um board members had a question about um the side view, and Josh had clarified for me that the sign cabinet um as a whole is um flush with the masonry, and the the top um black that you're seeing is um the push through logo that um projects um three inches from the face of the masonry, and then that bottom black that you're seeing are the push-through letters of the bank OZK that extend three inches from the face.

Um also um one of the members had a question about um or expressed um concern about the busyness of that intersection and that the sign may be a distraction, and I disagree because I actually drove past the location on my way um back to my office um after the the other meeting that we had, and what was I could see the sign, which I wasn't distracted by the sign, but what was distracting was that um weird divider lane that's present on Basswood as you approach beach.

Um, and I I would also say that the general public is used to seeing signs advertised um with signage in front of their businesses, and so I don't think that that really adds to the the clutter of the intersection or the confusion of the intersection.

You can add anything you like.

Um a lot of the members weren't here last week, so please just kind of fill us in if you can.

Okay.

So this this EMC is controlled um by corporate the bank marketing company, which we submitted a letter from the um, they control all the EMCs throughout their footprint through seven states.

It's nothing's controlled by um local um branch managers.

Everything's done quarterly from the bank.

Uh, we submitted a sample slideshow of Plano, Texas.

Um, every slideshow they have in their footprint is relatively the same minus um the rates.

The the rates are a little bit different or by the law.

The only thing that will change in their quarterly slides, if something changed in the federal rate, they have to change their rate.

So the only thing that will change on those slides is the percentage.

The board members um in the previous meeting, they were wanting to see examples of the messages.

This electronic message center is ten millimeters, high quality.

Um this is roughly six feet.

So anything past five or six feet is clarity pretty much television quality.

Like I said, this is done in the in their national footprint.

It's not something that we do or location.

Happy birthday Danny, you know, one Friday on the EMC.

It's strictly a marketing tool for the bank to let the public know what the interest rates are and what they're offering when they're open.

I'd attempt.

Sorry, this is taking so long to bring your slide up.

Certainly there'd be a better way.

Are these examples of the messages that would be on the on your marquee or your digital?

Thank you.

Okay, do you have anything else to add?

Okay.

Is there any opposition?

Okay, we have one.

If you guys would have a seat, um you'll have three minutes once she's done, and you'll have seven minutes.

Please uh give us your name and um address.

Hello?

We hear you.

Speaking of the mic, please.

My name is Margaret Jamas.

I live at 2600 West 7th Street.

Um and before I read my uh letter of opposition, I just want to commend the board 100 years ago.

I served uh when Bob Raleigh was on staff as the chair of the zoning commission, and we had looser rules on quorums and meetings, and we were able to meet at lunch and actually drive cars around and look at cases and get informal training.

And I I want to commend you for putting on your agenda and your work session to have a training uh session particularly carved out so you could learn more.

I really commend you for that.

Um to the opposition on this case.

I am representing here today, Scenic Fort Worth, where chapter of Scenic Texas, which is a chapter of uh Scenic America, um the Fort Worth uh chapter of Scenic Scenic Fort Worth urges you to deny this case BCAC 26005.

This request is for an exception that would allow electronic changeable copy on a monument sign, which you've just um seen here by the uh applicant.

Fort Worth's monument sign ordinance allows easily read consistent signage that benefits both businesses and people who use the roads and it enhances safety.

Why does the bank really need this exception?

Do they have a verifiable claim to hardship?

Exceptions are often given to gas stations because the state law requires daily price changes on their signs.

This is a hardship.

However, we're not aware of similar rules affecting banks.

The fact that this bank is located on a major commercial corridor does not justify an exception.

Very few, if any other businesses on this road have had exceptions.

In fact, the density of businesses and current level of visual impacts for the drivers may well be seen as another reason to deny it.

The city of Fort Worth does not allow billboards with electronic changeable copy because they add visual distraction and clutter on our roadways.

Studies have shown they create safety hazards.

They are also reasons our city requires a special exception for these changeable copy signs.

Fort Worth ordinances are tools that re reflect the goals and intentions of the city.

Our city's growing rapidly.

Yes.

Yes, okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Uh uh applicant, you have three minutes uh of rebuttal time if you'd like.

Can you speak into the microphone, please?

Let the people know what uh what the bank is offering so they could see it.

It's not gonna distract anyone from driving.

Um, there's a light out there.

Every every time someone's sitting at the light, they could read the board.

Um, applicant out of the corner, the urgent care, received uh exception for it.

Um, and with the gas stations, the same thing.

Um it don't add clutter.

Um it don't add clutter to the roads.

I don't that's that's a thing just bend the mic and right into your mouth thank you yeah i um I I agree with with what Josh said about um you know it doesn't add clutter that sign is existing there in the sign industry um there are and in the city of Fort Worth there are special exceptions made every day for um CCs and so um you know and that's evident with the um gas station across the street and with the urgent care um as well um so I mean y'all are granting those so I don't know why this one in particular is um have um such opposition to it.

Okay thank you.

Right um is that it okay so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and open this up I'm sorry they may have any questions for the applicant.

Yes can you speak into the microphone Mr.

Johnston?

Yeah Mr.

Johnston it's the green light on on your don't touch it but is the green light on okay the green light is on okay there you go.

Am I okay great?

The slides that you have that came from the other bank location are those changed every day every week every five seconds what is the what is the frequency of the changing of these these slides like on the on a current day you're saying not so the slides themselves are changed quarterly but whatever the code is or that jurisdiction is what we change the slides at so say Denton Texas they're allowed one slide for 24 hours.

Slide would come every day one slide would be on there.

Some municipalities um say you can have as many slides as you want they can only change every 15 seconds so it just whatever the code is is what we obey by we're not trying to ask for anything over and beyond what the code allows okay do you know what the this the change frequency will be for this particular sign.

Um I don't know if I have it on the drawings if there's no code requirements they would change about every thirty seconds thank you.

I think it's actually spelled out somewhere within this um submittal board member Johnston the sign the ordinance says the message rate shall not change at a rate faster than one message every 20 seconds.

Thank you.

And welcome to Texas from North Carolina by the way.

It only took me 12 hours to get here.

Okay.

Are there any more questions for the applicant or I'm could staff uh go ahead and uh I like to see the message typical messages again.

I see this one.

Okay.

I was the member last month that asked about the um configuration of that intersection that has just recently in the last year been or so added two left turn lanes in each direction and I was concerned about the um confusion that additional um electronic changeable copy sites might have and I'd ask about uh I know you gave testimony that you had confusion only because of the two left turn lanes but my question was more in tune with what our own traffic engineering department uh had comments on.

Mr.

Riley, the traffic engineering department didn't comment on the um distractions or busyness of the intersection.

However, they did let us know that um both Beach Street and Basswood Boulevard are built out to their ultimate cross section um according to the MTP, and there's no proposed or scheduled projects for that area.

Okay.

Ms.

Freed, you had a question.

This is Johnson, I have one more, I'm sorry.

Um do we know whether the urgent care sign, even though it's capable of being changed, you know, do we know whether it's changed uh and what frequency that change is?

Um I really don't have the information on on how frequently it changes or not but whenever I went over there it appears that that property on where the urgent care was um possibly not there.

It seemed vacant and that sign seems to be abandoned to me and it's in disrepair as well and it's it appears to be larger than um ZK's I mean it's it's a substantial size.

Can you go would you mind to go back to the slide of the urgent care um I just wanted you to see that again and how ugly that was thank you thank you thank you.

I believe that um business is out of business.

Actually that property used to be a bank building got subdivided into urgent care and then a donut shop.

Donut shops active today urgent care is not I guess that would have a question for city staff does now is this sign now grandfathered in is it yes it is okay.

Okay thank you.

Uh any other questions okay so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and open it up for discussion.

I think there's a discernible difference between the uh gas station signs and this full color uh commercial I'm all about uh you know marketing your business but you're already in a prime location you have uh ample space there with the regular sign um I think CRM you know customer retention customer acquisition are great uh intentions but I think they're I don't see a way of supporting this because of the the nature of the examples that they give us are not they're not like gas price prices, you know changing there.

It's basically little commercial.

So yeah I'd also like to make a clarification we do not allow electronic changeable copy signs in the city of Fort Worth without the special exception and gas stations are again health and safety and since I've been on the board and that's been quite a while we don't do these every day.

The only ones I ever remember doing are schools so that they can announce PTA meetings, informational things or churches.

Never anything for commercial or marketing so they are not done every day.

We have very stringent signage rules which adds to the beauty of Fort Worth and I will not be able to support any kind of electronic changeable marketing signs whatsoever.

Stephanie So in the presentation one of the one of the page one of the slides slide eight has the considerations that the zoning code gives us to look at in granting this special exception.

Are there any residences nearby?

No.

Um, it asks us to look at the streets.

These are two commercial connectors.

These are busy streets.

It's uh site uh number four, we're not in a scenic corridor.

Number one is a very bad piece of zoning quote as far as I'm concerned because we're supposed to consider um whether there are other signs in the area.

It doesn't say whether that's a positive or a negative.

Um, but I would I would guess that if there are other signs, we'd have to have a really good reason why we would rule one sign out when other ones have been allowed.

So I think given the four considerations that zoning code gives us to consider, I don't see a reason we could disapprove the sign.

I see a reason why we could approve it, but I also look at the overall signage in the city of Fort Worth and the intent of that, and electronic changeable, once you've begin to have it, it will proliferate and um but it's not our job to make the zoning code.

No, it's not, and it's we're not making it.

We're just saying us for me, a special exception is because it services the community.

And for me, marketing only services the business, not the community.

So that's where I think the human factor comes in, and your human factor can be different as it usually is than my human factor, which is one of the reasons why it's great, but um I think it's pretty obvious that special exception is um you've got to have some reason to have it, not some reason not to allow it.

So when it's public service, I can do it when it's commercial for me, I can't.

Me, I think it'd be helpful to know how that other sign came to be, what the reason was for that.

Um it wasn't, you know, necessary.

Because we don't see them everywhere, we do not see them.

Um I'm I'm so sensitive every time I drive around for work.

There's one right down the street from me, but it is inactive, it's always black, so there's no distraction with the traffic, etc.

And yes, moving digital copy distracts me.

I could make a motion, just let me just add that I um concur with my colleague to the extreme left here.

I I I can support this variant because I it for me the issue was one of um what the representative presented with regards to hazard, and so the question follow up question to that is has there been any reports of hazardous situations that have come out of having such and to what extent?

Any comments?

Remind it.

So, okay.

Um, first I want to know do the staff have an actual digital uh the actual signal showing what's what they are proposing to uh display.

Before I'm talking about actually, you know, like a video versus just the uh we weren't provided a video of but this is the sign that they propose and the drawings that they brought.

I understand that.

I was looking for a like a slide show through the video so we can actually see the uh I believe you said 20 seconds.

Then the second thing is I I that particular area with the two left lanes, uh I can say that at first it was a little confusion, but the more you travel that area, uh residents are different people, they can uh become more aware of the two uh the left turning lanes, and from my experience personally, it has uh sped up the traffic congestion.

Uh a couple of times I missed that uh left turn lane, I had to go through the light and make the U-turn.

But for my uh perspective, I'm glad that they added those.

It just takes some time to make the adjustment and knowing that particular area that you have, I call it a special uh turning section.

Um and then the other thing is, as far as the sign, I do not see a problem with it, and I can support it, but however, I'm just gonna let you know straight up.

You're just being transparent and honest, you don't have the support of the board.

But um, and each case is different.

I disagree with looking at overall the city sign is usage that has nothing to do with you all's particular sign.

I wish you had brought in another electronic sign within that area that probably could have helped you more, but you know, nevertheless, that's still vacant lot, big ugly blank sign is still gonna be there.

And then another reason why it's not uh it wasn't I didn't see distraction because it's lights, and anybody who's driving is gonna I don't care what sign it is, anybody who's driving is only gonna look at the signs if they're stopped.

If the light is green, just gonna keep going, no matter what side of the intersection you're on.

So uh I don't I didn't see it as being a distraction, but I'm just being transparent, honesty, uh with honesty with you.

You don't have the full support, and I don't see it passing.

Thank you, Ms.

Palm.

Uh this is this is Johnston.

I I I can tell you from my standpoint, uh had that electronical uh changing sign on the urgent care not been there, I would oppose this.

But I think the fact that there is that other sign that was previously approved by somebody is there.

Uh all of the other requirements of the special exception have been met, and so I feel compelled to approve it.

Uh but again, had had there not been that urgent care sign, I I would not do that.

And you are just now reinforcing what I said, once they go in, it's easier to do it, and throughout most of Fort Worth, you don't find any of them.

Um, I just think digital marketing, we get enough of it.

We get more than enough of it.

And I don't like any of it in your face.

Um, so that's if it was serving the public, which is why it's only allowed by special exception, then I would approve it.

I've approved every single one, I believe, for church and um for school and gas stations.

And I and I'm with you, and but uh anyway, I I I feel compelled based upon the standards that are set for us that we had nothing to do with setting.

I I have a question.

Um the statement that you just made with regards to if it were serving the public, explain I mean, why do you think it is not serving the public?

It's marketing.

It's I mean, each one of those messages is pure marketing.

Come in, this is our percentage rate, um open an account, whatever.

Um, it's marketing.

And um if you think that it's okay, then think about that at every corner, and then you get one here, and well then I should have one too.

And if you have that multiple times throughout the block, it it does proliferate, and we have um been given the opportunity within the provisions of the special exception to keep the visibility to keep the visual cleanness.

Um I totally support the efforts of scenic USA, Scenic Texas, Scenic Fort Worth.

Um, if you drive through Fort Worth and you look at how clean the city is um in terms of billboards, and then just drive right to the to the city line, you immediately get billboards.

You get billboards with electronic changeable copy.

We have been referred cases that have come from design districts about signage, and that's because we have as a city implemented guidelines to keep the city line, the city site lines clean to minimize um marketing perpetu perpetuation of signage, so that Fort Worth has a unique look and feel, and that's within our zoning code, and that comes to us so that when there is a need for electronic changeable copy sign when it serves the public, we can make an exception.

But to me that's what an exception is.

That's my interpretation.

And I appreciate that, and I guess I could um I could buy that if this were a residential area, but it is a commercial area, and so that is, you know, part of my support for this.

There's um, I'm gonna paint you a picture if this signage was at the back of the bank in the drive-through.

Then it makes a little more sense because it serves the customers that are uh it's the bank's because this only benefits the bank.

Doesn't benefit anyone else but the bank.

If the sign was inside the bank, it benefits the bank.

That makes sense.

Outside it, you know, I completely agree that it it's it's it's advertising, which they're allowed to do.

I just don't I don't I can't support the way they're doing this with the colored sign that lights up and uh and we don't have those different than prices on a gas station, different than a school.

Um, you know, it's it's just a it's different.

So um I I just don't I cannot support this particular sign at the front and the main intersection of this.

I'd like to say also I I can't support it either.

I mean, just because the the business across the street has that has a electronic changeable copy sign doesn't mean that you get to have it as well.

I don't know the background on where that sign came from.

If there's a hardship or anything like that, we don't have information on that.

So I've just got to go based off of what you know what they're here for today to get into special exception.

They haven't shown any hardship to me other than the guy next door does it, so I would have to go against it.

You know, I'm not gonna be able to support the uh special exception request, and while I know certain members have feelings about certain businesses, we cannot regulate content, whether it's a gas station, a school, or a bank, and I believe the one that we keep referring to across County Corner to cross the street, I believe that was a bank at one time and it went out of business and then it became uh urgent care center, it wasn't doing as well and opened up half of it to be a donut shop, so um I'm still concerned about the um confusion that additional electronic changeable copies are gonna have on maneuvering that intersection.

For that reason, I won't be able to support it.

Any other discussion or motion?

I'd like to make a motion.

Okay.

To approve BAC-26-05 as written.

Second.

Who was a second?

Was that name?

One.

I'll second it.

Oh we got a second down here already.

Acosta.

Mr.

Costa.

Okay.

Okay.

So we have a motion to approve case BAC-26-005 as requested by the applicant.

The motion made by board member Sergio Garza and second by board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Roll call.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Deny.

Board member Sergio Garza.

No.

Board member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley?

No.

Board Member James Hook.

No.

Board Member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board Member Eric Artiaga.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell.

Yes.

Board member Kay Duffy.

Yes.

Board Member Juan Manuel Costa.

No.

The motion to approve fails for a lack of non-affirmative folks.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Board member Jarrett Wilson.

No.

The motion to approve fails.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, our next case, BAR 26009.

Uh staff, would you present?

Mr.

Chair, the um applicant of this case has requested to deny without prejudice.

I am not sure if Mr.

Gary is here.

I don't think he is.

Um, but he has asked staff to make that request on his behalf.

Emily will present the case.

The next item on the agenda is BAR-26-009, located at 3900 Birchman Avenue.

The property owners are Jameer N and Ariar K.

And the applicant is Gary Shaston on behalf of Cresmont Custom Homes.

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

Please note the applicant has requested to deny this case without prejudice.

The applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum side yard setback requirement adjacent to a side street.

The ordinance requires a minimum 10-foot side yard setback along the side street.

The applicant is proposing a setback of 5 feet 7 inches, which is also an encroachment of approximately 4 feet 5 inches into the required setback.

The subject property is approximately 6,000 square feet and is flat, rectangular corner lot, located within an established neighborhood.

The property was originally plotted in 1907 and includes alley access.

There is no floodplain present, however, there are several mature trees on the site.

The property currently contain the property does has a demolished single family home that was constructed originally in 1939.

The property previously had a residential raising permit issued for demolition of the existing structure, which has since expired, and a new building permit application has been submitted and is currently awaiting client response.

The applicant is proposing to construct a new single-family residence.

The proposed home is approximately 2,107 square feet, consisting of six bedrooms, six full bathrooms, and two half bathrooms.

The variance is requested to allow the structure to encroach in through the required side-year setback along the eastern property line.

The proposed development will result in approximately 41.3% lock coverage, which is an increase from the existing 28.28%, but remains below the maximum 50% lock coverage permitted in the A-5 district.

In addition, the zoning ordinance requires five parking spaces for a residence of this size, and the applicant has indicated that the requirement will be met.

If the variance is approved, the applicant will still be required to comply with all other applicable building codes and remaining development standards.

These are the regulations that pertain to the case.

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

The applicant is not here, correct?

Correct.

So why did this case then get moved to the end?

We have uh individuals who are here.

It was our understanding that the applicant would be present.

Um, but just looking out into the ordinance, uh I don't see that he's here, but I've if the chair would like to move the case to the end, because I've asked, could we do this like about three months ago?

So we won't waste time for people who's here.

Is that we've already heard the staff?

We've already heard the staff report.

I think we can probably move towards uh questions and make a quick vote.

That was a question to the staff as well as the board because this is coming we will So Ms.

Free, one thing is we see a lot of people every time Miss Powell, my apologies.

We see a lot of customers every day, so us remembering who is who and who's out in the ordinance, we are sometimes not able to recognize each applicant for a specific case.

I did share with the chair that the request of the applicant prior to the meeting, but it was our understanding from the applicant that he would be present here um for the meeting today.

That's why we I didn't ask the chair to you.

He shared the individual, sir, that they were gonna be here at the meeting, even though that they request was to deny it.

You mean to tell him I'm I'm just being transparent again.

If I'm on the opposite side, if I'm asking you to go ahead and deny it, it's not there's no need for me to even be at the meeting because uh uh nine times out of ten, the request is gonna be answered, honored.

So it's no need for me to be here.

So my question is did the applicant express that they were going to be in attendance at this meeting?

The applicant did express that he would attend the meeting.

He also did ask staff to request a denial without prejudice on his behalf.

Yes, Miss Duffy.

So my question is about why without prejudice, what is their intention to change?

The applicant decided to follow the zoning ordinance, but just in case that something come up during permitting that he's allowed to come back to the board of adjustments.

So if we deny so if we deny with prejudice, then all we're denying is variance on the side setback.

So if something else came comes up in zoning, then he'd still have to do another variance request.

Is that not the case?

Yes, but he just wanted to make sure that the setbacks were right and nothing comes up.

He just wanted to cover all his bases.

Yeah.

So if something does come up related to the side yard setback, if you deny with prejudice, he can't come back for two years.

If you deny without prejudice, he can come back next month.

Yeah, I I don't I'm not even sure why it was continued.

Um so the case was continued because the board wanted the applicant to explore more options to let the board know whether there was a possibility for him to meet the zoning ordinance or um with a redesign or um if not, then to come improve his hardship.

Right, but there was no hardship at all.

Um there's um quite easy to move it over.

There's nothing to the left.

The driveway has already been removed.

Um, so we just as happy to deny with prejudice.

I think the applicant is doing exactly what we asked him to do to reconsider to redesign the house, it needs more time.

So if we go ahead and do as our uh people who live in our city ask us to do, he's asking respectfully, go ahead and deny without prejudice.

I think that is just a reasonable request.

So we've found out that there is no applicant here to present on his seven minutes.

Have we found out if there's any opposition?

There was one letter of opposition, which was provided in the late correspondence.

Is there anybody here in person?

Okay, so one question for staff is: could the applicant have withdrawn their application?

No.

So the case had been legally noticed and it had been presented to the board before, and because the board made the decision to continue the case, it has to appear back before the board.

Understood, thank you.

Are we at discussion yet or not?

We're in discussion.

So I just feel like it's not gonna hurt us to to give him the uh without prejudice, and that we don't want to leave that lot empty for two years.

We need development to move forward.

If he comes up with another um variance that he needs, now he has the rights, you know.

He's got it all clear to come back to us.

And also he went in a different direction based off of our um comments last session.

So he he does seem to be trying to work out a different deal.

I would I would honor that.

We would like to make a motion, please do so.

Before we make a motion, are we okay with this?

Everyone, thank you for asking.

Just want to make sure that we are okay.

Like to make a motion.

B AR26-Double odd nine.

To um, his request was to deny without prejudice.

That's correct.

Deny without prejudice.

I'm sorry about that.

Deny without prejudice.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion to deny without prejudice for case BAR-26-009.

Motion made by board member Sergio Garza and second by board member Bob Riley.

Roll call board member Deborah Free.

Deny.

Well, you forward the denial, right?

So yes, you want to deny denial.

Okay.

Without prejudice.

Okay.

Board member Sergio Garza.

I'm saying yes.

Deny without prejudice.

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Eric Artiaga?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member Kate Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Jared Wilson?

Yes.

Board member one Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion passes to deny this case without prejudice.

Thank you.

Our next case B A R 26014.

Is that please?

The next case is BAR-26-014 located at 1533 Western Willows Drive.

The property owners are Philip LV and Rebecca A.

Pickett on the and the applicant is Mary Nell Poole on behalf of town site.

The property is zoned A-43, one family residential.

The applicant is requesting a variance to the one-family A-43 district development standards requiring a minimum 25-foot side yard setback in order to allow an addition of a non-habitable space, specifically a storage and a carport to encroach into the required side yard setback along the western property line.

The subject property is a one-acre lot located within an established residential residential neighborhood.

The site is relatively flat, was platted without alley access and contains several mature trees in both the front and rear yard.

Staff notes that the property is not located within a regulated floodplain, and there are no other known environmental constraints.

According to Terrant Aperisal District Records, the primary resident was constructed in 2005.

An aerial indicates that the existing non-habitable accessory structure identified as a shop attached to the garage was constructed between 2024 and 2025.

Stock notes that a permit was not issued for the shop edition.

A city initiated limited purpose annexation approved in 2002 established an A-5 one-family zoning regulations for the property.

At the time, the minimum side yard setback requirement was five feet.

Aerial imagery from 2007 indicates that the garage was constructed with a 20-foot side yard setback, which complied with the A-5 zoning standards in effect at that time.

The property was later rezoned A-5, one family residential to A-43, one family through zoning case Z Z 09101, which became effective on October 29th, 2009.

The rezoning increased the minimum required side yard setback from 5 feet to 25 feet.

PB 26-00634 is a residential accessory addition permit for a carport attached to a mother-in-law suite, and the permit is currently awaiting client response as of January 22, 2026.

An existing garage measuring approximately 25 feet by 25 feet, totaling 625 square feet is located in the southwest corner of the lot.

Attached to the garage as a non-habitable accessory structure or shop measuring approximately 30 feet by 15 feet, totaling 450 square feet.

The shop also connects to an attached cover porch measuring approximately 125 square feet.

All three structures remain located within the southwest portion of the property.

The garage and attached shop are positioned 20 feet from the western property line, resulting in an existing side yard setback deficiency of 5 feet under the current A-43 zoning standards.

The applicant is proposing to install a carport that would align with the existing garage and shop.

The proposed carport would also maintain a 20-foot side yard setback rather than the required 25 feet, resulting in a continued setback deficiency of 5 feet.

Additionally, the applicant is proposing to construct a 350 square foot storage shed.

The proposed storage structure would be built on top of an existing concrete slab, currently located 10 feet from the western side property line.

This would result in a setback deficiency of 15 feet from the required 25 foot side yard setback.

These are the regulations that pertain to the case, and this concludes staff presentation.

I'm available to answer any questions.

I also want to note that this was a continued case from our last meeting.

The board asked the applicant to provide if they could move the structures over, but the applicant decided to keep it as is and they'll present on that.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Yes.

So the main structure is five feet in violation of the setback, correct?

Correct.

And there was no permit for that structure.

No.

So the one thing with this case is that this property was annexed into the city.

So a portion at that time, I don't know the county's uh zoning regulations, but um when the garage and shop was constructed, um, they the garage was constructed before it was annexed into the city, so um it is a non-conforming garage.

The addition, however, was added to the um garage without permit, so that's why you see the um variants to allow the 10-foot um side yard setback.

Wait, say the garage was built after 2010.

When'd you say it was built?

The shop was after 2010.

So just the front part of the garage.

So the portion that is labeled garage original was um built before the annexation.

So, we have just one request for variants, but that request covers both the carport and the storage shed.

Is that correct?

Yes, so because the 10 foot side yard setback is the most restrictive.

Um, we shared this with the board when we heard the case less.

Your motion could be to approve the storage at 10 feet and the carport at 20 feet.

Um, and this just alleviates the request for two variances on the same side yard setback.

So the board can make the motion to approve the storage at 10 feet, the carport at 20 feet.

Okay, let's open the public hearing.

And applicant, if you please come up and uh please go back over your case for anybody that was not here last month.

Please give us your name and address again, and then please just go back over the case.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

Good morning.

They're pulling up my presentation.

I had a presentation for you, so we go.

It's not moving.

There we go.

All right.

I'm sorry.

Good morning, Mary Nell Pool Townside 2918 wind gate here in Fort Worth.

As a quick reminder, I was here in March requesting a 10-foot side yard setback along the western border.

This neighborhood was part of an annexation by the city of Fort Worth in 2009.

As you can see on this 2009 zoning map aerial, almost this entire uh neighborhood was already built out under A5 zoning.

With the annexation due to the size of the lots, the city rezoned the neighborhood to A43, which required 25 side yards 25 foot side yard setback where the five-foot uh setback had been required in A5.

This doesn't want to move.

Thank you.

When this the house was built in 2005, the builder used a 20-foot side yard setback for the secondary detached garage following the existing driveway.

The existing building is grandfathered, even though this building was built legally.

If this building was destroyed by a tornado or a fire, they would need to get a variance to rebuild the garage in the same location.

I believe this is probably an unintended consequence of the rezoning.

There was a shop that was added to this building prior to the current owner, my client, purchasing the property.

They are in the process of having that permitted at this point.

As so as they go through with any new permits, that will be taken care of.

Next slide.

Thank you.

What we're requesting today is to add a carport to the existing garage, which would line up with the existing structure, which under the news zoning category encroaches five feet into the 25 required setback.

We are also asking to add a storage garage to the room to the garage on an existing concrete pad that would leave a 10-foot side yard setback.

Next photo.

There we go.

This is the photo of the current condition.

The proposed storage of 350 feet would be uh constructed on the existing concrete pad, leaving a 10-foot side yard setback, just as you see here right now.

When I was last year, you asked me if we could move the storage to the other side of the building.

If you would change the next slide.

At the time, I wasn't aware that all of the properties in this hastlit uh neighborhood utilize well water and septic systems.

This photo shows you the septic field, which has a sewer line running straight down the side of the building.

Building over the sewer line is not allowed.

Also, there are irrigation lines connected to the well that run throughout most of the backyard.

Moving any of those lines would be extremely costly.

Next slide.

I have also uh provided uh another petition with additional signatures from the neighbors on both sides, the two neighbors to the rear and the one directly across the street.

Three of these neighbors also had to get a variance to build or add to their garage.

Here you can see the garage of the neighbor who is most affected by this variance.

He received a variance to build this garage, which includes what looks like two-story roll-up doors.

You also ask if there was an HOA or neighborhood association over this area.

There is not uh had the zoning not changed with the annex station, none of these properties would have had to request a variance for their garages.

Almost every home in this neighborhood has this detached garage shop configuration on their property.

I would ask for your approval and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else here to speak in favor?

And is there anyone here to speak in opposition?

Okay.

See none, we will uh open up the open up for questions.

On the board, well I'm not sure if this is a question, but um so this is my stomping ground, my neck of the woods for a long time, and I know all everybody does have giant buildings out there.

Um the septic system um is in the backyard, but I think what we had discussed last time was moving the storage part of your building to the back of the garage.

No, you ask us to make it L-shaped because we have we couldn't put it to the back because of the setback requirement in the back.

Um you ask us to make it an L shape.

So in the back, you're looking at a something like if I remember right, like 350 square foot storage?

Yes.

And that's your garage is already wasn't it 30 feet wide?

30 feet wide.

So this makes it 40 feet wide.

Right.

So there's still plenty of room to put 350 square feet of storage in the back part of the garage and still meet the setback.

Um, I'm just I just want to point out that the septic system is not behind the garage.

It's not if the there is a line that runs through there.

When we discussed before, because we have a deep, we have a 20-foot setback in the rear.

Um they were we are I believe it's 20 or 25 foot is what our rear setback is.

We we talked about you asked us to make this an L shape to do take the building and bring it out to the side of that rather than because in the back we didn't have room to put that in the back because of the rear side yard setback.

This IR setback in the rear required by the zoning district is 25 feet, and so we wouldn't have room to put again.

You and it's we would only have five feet to be able to put it because there we we're 30 are the building is 30 feet from the property line in the rear.

So I remember the discussion we did talk about talk about putting the um structure on the uh on the inside wall of that.

It was gonna be on the you asked us to try to do it on the L shape.

Right, so your septic is that all are those lateral lines or they run back that way?

It runs straight back.

There is there's sewer lines that run straight back down alongside the building.

Alongside the building on the inside of that building.

Right, matter of fact, the owner told me that one was um when they were doing the construction, he he understood that somebody had had even pierced one of the lines at one point.

You know, is is that a rotary system or is it like a leaching system?

Do you know that part I don't know?

I just know it's just so could you go back a couple of slides?

I can't control it.

I'm sorry.

Staff, could you wait?

Slow, yeah.

Nope.

Yeah, no, one more try one stay.

Okay.

What is that great building?

That is neighbor's um garage.

Is that a neighbor on the same street or on the opposite?

That's on the opposite street.

We got the two neighbors who are adjacent.

If you notice, and that one and his is more than 40 feet wide.

If you'll go back one more, can you go back one more?

Oh, to the very first picture.

Second one then, I'm sorry.

If you look over to the right where you see the uh that is the neighbor, the second neighbor, that's his garage, and you can you can hardly see his roll-up door from the back, but you see the awning over where he has a little patio area, just like this one over there.

That's his uh garage right there.

So can you go back to the slide that I requested?

One more.

That's up one there.

Okay.

Do you know how far that gray storage or he just said he need I do not know?

He just said he had to have a variance to put his in.

So that one did have a variance.

Yes.

Three of the neighbors said that they had variances because again, all of these properties built to A5 standards originally, which gave them five foot setbacks.

Right.

Some of them chose 15 feet from the things.

My clients' builder chose 20 feet for their driveway, and that's where they kind of set was lining up with what the drive where the driveway had been put.

So that's why they're varying setbacks back there.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Um other questions?

Close the public hearing.

Open it up for discussion.

I have a staff question really quick.

Um, so they had a limited annexation in 2002 and a full annexation in 2009, right?

Yes.

So under limited annexation, that didn't apply to site setbacks.

Setbacks applied?

A five setbacks applied.

Five.

Five feet five feet.

The A5 if the limited annexation if the designated zoning district at the time was A5, then those standards would have applied for the development.

How many letters did we get?

Um we have not received any um letters of support or opposition on this case.

I presented petition with five signatures, the two neighbors to the back on either side, and the one directly across the street who can look into it.

Okay, we're um more discussion.

Discussion.

Well, yeah, public hearings closed and any discussion.

And I think it's easy to grant a variance for 20 feet, um, a 20 foot setback because the garage was built with that and we'll let that carport be in front.

But I think the little side storage has to go in the back, just to the or wherever they want to put it or they can not install it, but I don't see any hardship why it has to be right there.

I actually um given that the side setbacks are so generous in A45 and the whole neighborhood already has.

When I look at infill, I look at what's there.

To me, that's that is uh a real defining thing.

You want things to fit into the neighborhood, and if you're asking for a variance with no hardship that just sort of is not in character, I would not support it, but I don't think I have any trouble supporting this one.

I don't either based on the aerials, looks like some of the some of the properties, especially behind those properties seem those buildings seem to be pretty pretty good.

The gray one on that photo seems very close.

And um, and given that, you know, she'd have to come back for a rear setback to put the storage shed in back.

I don't I don't think that's I don't think that's necessary to true.

I mean, no, if we can we've got the measurements on one of these slides, the measurement of the backyard.

It's on one of these here.

31 feet.

So if they extend beyond there, so they have six feet, they have six feet times thirty feet behind that backyard, right?

Behind the garage to put a story, some storage back there if they wanted to.

They could put a shed in the opposite corner of the of the yard.

Okay, you can come up.

You're changing the structure also of the of the uh building.

I mean, the the building goes down like this, and we we're changing completely to add to try to add five feet depth on there.

The other, you know, again, and there and there are irrigation lines back behind there as well.

So irrigation lines would have to be pulled, would be have to be taken up.

Because this um already had uh parking on the side over there, and I think I mentioned before an RV with the previous owner had been what was parked there.

We're just trying to use an existing um foundation that you're not having to tear up and put more and then not having to restructure the whole whole frame of the building to to try to add five feet to the side, adding it uh I mean to the back.

It's it it's just much more intense to do that.

Thank you.

That's a question.

I was uh at first I was kind of uh against this uh building, but the photograph with the neighbor's garage that is second's two stories, um, and what they're adding is just uh adding to an existing structure.

I don't have a problem with this particular um, you know, uh going to the setback of uh what they're requesting.

So I would be able to support this um for both the uh awning and the uh structure.

Ms.

Riley.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I recall the annexation period of time that uh it started in 1999 when the state legislature limited cities on what they could annex and there was a push and they actually to annex also they allowed limited purpose annexation, which the city elected to do.

Basically, the property owners would still have to comply with zoning and building permits, but they would not uh tax until the time they were fully annexed.

That was kind of a compromise at that time.

Um I don't have a problem with the case as long as it's tied to the site plan that's before us today.

Uh I do not want to empower them to do a 10 foot building setback along that line or other other lines in the neighborhood.

I think it should be tied to this plan.

I'll be able to support that.

Any more discussion?

Or are we open for a motion?

I don't want to make a motion.

I'd like to make a motion if we're not if there's no other discussion.

Okay, I'd like to make a motion uh to BAR 26014 as written.

So I have a question for legal.

Um if it's if the motion is expressed as written, does that um encompass what Bob was saying that the design would have to be here or yes, because he said tied to the plan that is promoted before us.

So this is the plan that is before us.

So that would be uh tied to uh Mr.

O'Reilly has it stated, and that is my motion tied to the plan that is before us.

With that, uh miss uh uh Miss Powell, could you restate your motion?

Yes, and maybe tie that to the site plan.

That would clearly.

Yes, I would like to make a motion uh based on this site plan that is before us, BAR 26014 to the plans that have been submitted to approve to approve second.

We have a motion to approve case BAR-26-014, tying the approval to the site plan presented to the board today.

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

Roll call board member Deborah Freed approved.

Board member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

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

No.

Board member Eric Artiaga?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes, board member K Duffy?

No.

Board Member Jarrett Wilson?

Yes.

Board Member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Our next case BAC 26013.

Staff would present that, please.

Uh Chair, can we uh identify that this applicant is here before the staff present his case for this particular uh case?

Yes, we have him in the building.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, yes, please come up to the front row if you are um if you're next.

That way we know you're here and ready to present.

Otherwise, we may move you to the back of the line and let some of the folks here uh present first.

Thank you.

Same thing for opposition.

If you're in opposition, please come up to the front.

Good morning.

BAC26-013.

The address of the property is 5900 Retail Way, also known as 9607 O Grandbrary Road.

The owner of the property is Target Corporation.

Applicant is UCD Chisholm Trail LP.

Zoning District is G Intensive Commercial District.

The legal description is lot one block seven Chisholm Trail Ranch.

Before you today are three variants requests.

Variance A to the requirement that pylon signs shall not exceed the maximum width of 12 feet to allow a poly and sign that exceeds the permitted sign width, the maximum width allowed by ordinance is 12 feet.

Requested sign width is 20 feet seven inches.

Variance B, to the requirement that pylon sign shall not exceed the maximum advertised message area to allow Pylow and sign that exceeds the permitted advertised message sign area, the maximum advertised area message area by ordinance 2200 square feet.

Requested total advertised message area is 258.81 square feet.

The subject property is approximately 13.67 acre commercial pass site located within a Chisholm Trail development within the city, which is situated northwest of the intersection of McPherson Boulevard and Chisholm Trail Parkway.

The lot slopes approximately 5.6% from the lowest point on the northeastern corner of the lot to the southwestern corner of the lot, with the highest point occurring near the middle of the lot.

The lot is not within the FEMA floodplain.

Surrounding land uses include multifamily residential development immediately to the north of the north and west, zone PD 1298 for CR low intensity multifamily and C, medium density multifamily.

The subject property and properties to the south located within a Chisholm Trail development are zone G, intensive commercial.

The applicant proposes to install a pylon sign in the northeastern corner of the lot along the Chisholm Trail Parkway Access Road.

So here's the lot history.

Um was executed in February of this year, and PB 2501871 fornamental iron fencing text.

BAC26-013 proposed elevations, variance A.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow Pylon sign that exceeds the permitted sign width.

The zoning ordinance section 6.409 C2 limits pylon signs to a maximum width of 12 feet.

The proposed sign has a width of 20 feet 7 inches, exceeding the maximum by 8 feet 7 inches.

Variance B.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a pylon sign that exceeds the maximum permitted advertised message area.

The variance ordinance section 6.49 409 C3 limits the advertised message area to 200 square feet.

The proposed sign provides 258.81 square feet, exceeding the permitted maximum by 58.81 square feet.

Variant C.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a poline sign that provides less than the required minimum non-avertised message area.

The zoning ordinance section 6.409G requires that a minimum of 25% of the sign phase, excluding the base, consists of non-avertised message area.

The minimum non-advertised message area for the proposed sign is 64.70 square feet.

The applicant proposes 30.1 square feet, resulting in a deficiency of 34.69 square feet.

Um pylon sign section, and here are the board actions.

Okay, we'll open up the public hearing.

Morning, good afternoon.

Doug Howellum 14201 Sovereign Road, Fort Worth, Texas.

Can I have a slide for variance C by chance?

We have submitted exhibits.

Again, we're looking at this through the lens of the unified sign agreement that was executed in February of this year.

Um we have submitted an exhibit and calculations to show that uh we are uh within the uh guidelines specified for the non-messaging area.

Uh the sign area calculation is actually two hundred and thirty-four point seven five square feet uh using the formulations that were adopted for the unified sign agreement.

So I just wanted to point that out.

That's just something that I think a record will show uh once you compare the uh USA exhibit uh to the sign elevation.

Um we do and have prepared a photo rendering here showing the uh sign that was adopted with the unified sign agreement in February, and then have made a combinations and staffs requests to create a lower profile sign that will uh service the pad sites, um, who obviously had Chisholm Trail Parkway as a focus uh under the USA U Unified Sign Agreement Um or tenant exposure for the pad sites uh along Chisholm Trail Parkway.

Um we have basically done a conducted a study um in consideration of the setback, uh the requirement code required setback for the sign is 12 feet.

Uh we're presently due to the um I believe it's the water uh the floodplain um utility easements and um just the topographical placement of the retaining wall uh roughly between 55 and 60 square feet off of the uh property line at the northwest corner in order to service the tenants because of the uh setback.

Um any panels installed below what's shown here would not be um useful, and so it was really uh just a consideration of what do we do with those pad users and the um team elected to add the pad um panels to the right of the sign, and that kind of basically forced you into a situation where both the area and the width uh became a factor and um you know again we've tried to take a balanced approach.

We understand the um you know the Chisholm Trail uh guidelines, beautification guidelines.

Uh we've studied the area we understand and uh appreciate the maintaining of the uh the topography with the plantings and surroundings and so forth, and we tried to balance that by uh in this rendering uh lowering the site height to the code allowable uh 20 feet, trying to show it in a subordinate role to uh the building profile and so forth, um, which has become more the predominant placement for any kind of a freeway oriented sign along the parkway, and we can demonstrate that um by citing various examples.

Um again the I think I have my basic notes covered and would welcome uh any comments or criticisms.

I think you is there anybody else here to speak in favor?

Is there anybody to speak in opposition?

No.

Oh, we had one in favor.

Oh, one more in favor, yeah.

Yeah, come on up.

Please your name and address, please.

Good morning, Dorothy Parks, seven zero zero one Preston Road, suite 410, Dallas, Texas.

We've been working on this signage for uh well over a year.

Um, and through partnerships with staff, we did sign a unified sign agreement in February.

In that USA, we reduced the overall number of site signs from 14 to 7.

More specifically, we reduced the number of signs along Chisholm Trail Parkway from three to one.

The USA also allowed the sign that's a long Chism Trail at 35 feet since our signage of the USA, we've been told that we needed to come before the Board of Adjustments.

And so we've reduced that height of that sign from 35 feet to 20.

In doing so, between the time of the USA and now, we've made commitments to those pad users that they would have signage along Chisholm Trail Parkway.

In order to keep those commitments, we need to make the sign width wider so that we can keep signage for all of those pad users along McPherson.

We respectfully ask for support of this variance, and if there's any questions, please let us know.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And there's some opposition if you'd like to come up.

Thank you.

Again, I'm Margaret DeMoss.

I live at 2600 West 7th Street.

I am representing Scenic Fort Worth, an organization which since 1995 has worked with the City of Fort Worth to implement ordinances that improve the visual character of our community, those that encourage landscaping, urban forestry, no new billboards, more attractive on premise signs, stealth stealth cell towers, and other context sensitive designs.

We believe those standards provide a more economically attractive and more desirable city for both current residents and future investors.

The CTP, the Chisholm Trail Parkway, which I will continue to refer to as the CTP, has a long history in Fort Worth.

I attended my first public meeting about the Southwest Parkway in 1980.

Over the following decades, that road has undergone change in route and design.

Present today is Elaine Petris in the audience.

She chaired the final citizens advisory group for the City Council.

Louise Appleman, also a board member of Scenic Fort Worth, chaired that previous advisory committee.

You all have received a letter of opposition from former Mayor Kenneth Barr, who served as mayor during the final planning process when council adopted the corridor goals.

And I can waive those if you'd like to look at those later.

After his tenure as mayor, he continued to work as a member of the North Texas tollway authority board to ensure the design and final construction of the CTP met those goals.

The CTP or SH 121 is not only listed at as one of the 38 named scenic corridors or areas in our zoning code 6.402.

And I will note that the staff report did not include that.

Is this property in a floodplain or is this property in a scenic corridor?

Indeed, this property is in a scenic corridor.

It is also singled out in zoning code 6.409 to prohibit freeway signage, limiting the signs along the CTP to 20 feet tall and 12 feet wide.

Elaine reminded us that parkways by definition are not highways or freeways.

Parkways emphasize aesthetics.

Fulfill the hardship requirement.

There's a BJ wholesale warehouse club, a huge facility just north of here.

That project has signage on its building and it also has a 20-foot pie line sign that meets the code.

If you'll refer to the letter you receive from our president, Judy Harmon, although we do commend the applicant for adhering to the height limit of 20 feet, we um would like to oppose the variance, which would result in the sign being 20, excuse me, 75% wider with a message area of 34% greater than the ordinance allows.

Not only do we believe this variance does not demonstrate hardship, we believe allowing larger signs sets a dangerous precedent that goes against the years of planning and public consensus about this very special road.

Thank you.

And I do have copies of Mayor Barr's letter and Judy's letter.

If you did not get those electronically, we have those, thank you.

Okay, um applicant.

If you you have three minutes uh to rebut that if you like, either either one, yes, please come on up.

And again, we're in full support of your effort and uh please speak into the microphone unless you're speaking.

We're in full support of the effort cited by the uh prior speaker, so it it's a it's more a matter of practicality on this particular site.

We looked at we can add multiple sign structures by code uh along the parkway, as long as we can demonstrate that reduction in clutter from twice that number to half that number.

And in this case, the developer has approached us on several occasions about adding additional structures.

Uh there is a uh utilities that run the entire length of the property from north to south.

If we could get sign uh variance sign C back up, please.

I interrupt for half a second.

You both represent Target or um or the sign company?

I'm with this uh Patison ID where the sign company uh represents representing Chisholm Trail and uh Target in this instance.

Both of you sign company?

No, hi, I'm with Chisholm Trail, the developer.

While we're waiting for that, I just would like to.

Okay, go ahead.

Just to note the practicality of adding the multiple structures, the uh code allow would allow that, but you can notice the perimeter wall and the uh utilities running the entire length of the property north-south, which is why we picked this particular corner to just to satisfy the pad user um requirement.

So that you know it there's a there's a topo element here uh as well as the setback driven uh by the by those easements and then just the practicality of adding those additional structures.

So we felt this would satisfy the concern about reducing the clutter in uh consideration of the corridor requirements.

I just want to state that for the record.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I just would like to add to that that this is not an auto-oriented development.

Um, this is also obviously anchored by Target, and then we do have 12 pad sites up front.

Um some of them are fast casual restaurants, some of them are banks, some of them are medical users, um, and then we do have the right to we have you can finish.

Okay, thanks.

So it so it's not just an auto-oriented use here, and then additionally, just the 35 foot sign that we had originally proposed that does match what's across the street uh across Chisholm Trail and that development over there.

Okay, thank you.

Um do we have any questions for the applicants?

Uh one we wait on staff to pull up their request.

Al you have a question.

I was asking they asked staff to pull up uh particular uh slide.

It's on the screen already, okay.

So we're not waiting on that.

Any other questions?

Thanks, Mr.

Jones.

I have a question for the applicant.

Is this sign intended to be lighted?

Uh you can come up to the microphone, please.

Yes, sir.

Are there any particular hours of lighting or is it lit 24 hours a day?

Speak to store operations.

Uh it's a retail operation, so I would guess that they would be uh turned off at some point, but this is it's a multi-tenant sign, so there's a number of factors that may dictate that.

Do you have the do you know what angle that sign is?

Is it facing that residential or what is the angle of that sign?

Uh it's actually oriented uh toward if you kind of see the pitch of the line, it's it's pushing uh the site line is out to the uh north and east, which would be Chisholm Trail Parkway, Chisholm Trail Parkway.

Okay.

So you had some diagrams version one version two.

Can you explain the difference between those?

I'm sorry, I got I got confused.

I understand.

So what what is what are you showing us on the version one versus the version two?

The photo inlays were more or the renderings were more just to support talking points relative to the studies that we conducted.

This is option two, and not just on our behalf, but obviously target is uh so this is option two, and this is the op I'm asking.

Does this option incorporate all three of these variances?

Uh it does.

Um, matter of fact, just again for the record, there's only really two variances, the uh non-messaging area um mathematically, we will abide by that through the presentation of the USA exhibit that we've submitted to staff and along with this board of adjustment application.

When we do any sort of motion, we would just focus on A and B and deny C.

That would be fine.

Okay, very well.

If that was the case, okay, so um this picture option two incorporates incorporates variants A and B.

Go back to option one and what is the difference?

Uh the lower rendering.

Uh is they're both option.

Oh, okay.

So yeah, I'm sorry.

Yeah.

You're you're right.

The option one, uh, that's the sign that's currently represented uh in the Eden Flight sign agreement that was executed in February of this year.

So what we're representing here is the accommodation we're making by lowering the profile to bring it more into a subordinate context with the the building and this particular uh photo rendering was conducted from the service road as opposed to the next slide that was from the uh Chisholm Trail Parkway, the toll way itself.

Okay, I think Denisha's gonna help me understand this.

Also, it's saying not to scale.

Um it's to relative scale.

Yeah, okay.

Yes, ma'am.

I can explain the option one is a freeway sign, which is a part of the executed sign agreement um where there was an error in our map GIS mapping system of the scenic corridor to accommodate to meet the ordinance.

Um the freeway sign is not allowed is prohibited within a scenic corridor, however, the pylon sign is permitted within um this area as a part of the unified sign agreement.

So option one is what the applicant initially proposed.

Option two is what is before you today, um, a pylon sign that compli the pylon sign is permitted by ordinance and they're requesting the three variances.

Okay, so the issue, then you're as you go back and you look at these from the freeway.

Um you had it from the north and south view on I guess the next screen, the option two I don't know if I can control that.

No she's trying I think she's trying to get it.

Thank you.

Okay so is this what we would see if all three of these were approved.

Uh that's correct and the on the upper slide the profile of the building is kind of enlarging that uh image which is why we opted for the uh previous slide just to put that in proper context so you see the sign now and then building behind it.

So is that from the access road?

It is more where that SUV is currently headed and again the tenant panels and the size were kind of driven by studies that were conducted where we deem that you know with a 22 inch panel you have a logo element or uh text that could be interpreted or readable at a set distance so these weren't arbitrary uh calculations by any means um it's just deemed impractical any smaller panel would be uh useful thank you have a question go ahead I know this is a toll facility is there existence of um logo boards on the freeway announcing what uh services are available at the next exit what would we refer to as like a highway sign the logo boards that you know next stop and these restaurants perhaps those uses are normally restricted to the emergency services fast food some extended travel lodging when I go down a freeway and it has the crown sign I guess or a green sign it's not a regulatory sign.

I thought they were called logo signs.

It says next exit here are the food fuel and retail that is aren't those signs administered by text up.

They are this not and maybe the opposition knows if those are allowed on Chisholm Trail Parkway.

I am listening in I said I haven't seen any of those signs.

And what you're speaking of all over the country.

No no I'm talking about this stays out there.

The oldest out of nine of us I know we went into those a lot with interstate yeah this is uh unique state the other question I had and if the staff could flip back to the site plan showed um the location of this sign USA's are established to for two reasons one to reduce yeah this one right here or establish to uh reduce the number of overall signage also is to allow off premise advertising that you cannot put a sign on another parcel of land that doesn't have that business on it.

That is correct and in your discussion you said by right you could have put up 14 signs.

So each lot is allowed a monument sign by right.

Okay.

Now they would not be able to advertise for each other.

They would only be able to advertise for any commercial business on that same lot.

So in this case, if they were not underneath the USA, there would be could be two pylon signs along that uh eastern boundary.

Not pylons, only monuments.

Hylons only in USA.

By right, they could have multiple monument signs dependent on their street frontage, and obviously dependent on how many tenants they have on that lot.

Okay.

So monument signs 12 foot max, right?

Eight foot.

Eight foot, twelve foot wide.

Kinda.

Whatever.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, I would like to make a correction.

As the applicant stated that variance C is not required.

We have reviewed the plans and adjusted the calculations and variance C is not required.

So the applicant only requires variance A and variance B.

Steffi.

So I have some questions about this unified sign agreement.

So we're in G intensive.

We're zone Z G.

So the unifying sign agreement is signed between the developer and our economic development department.

It's signed.

Tell tell me about this unified sign agreement.

Who are the parties?

I know that uh contracts management development services is the development and development services department are a part of the Unify Sign Agreement.

I'm not sure if any other.

So can they make a unified sign agreement outside of the zoning code without our approval first?

Can they sign that agreement without getting a so if all signage and everything within the unified sign agreement um is consistent with the ordinance?

Yes, this USA can be executed without the Board of Adjustments approval.

It's just that this sign um does not meet all the standards of the zoning of the sign ordinance, so um it's before you.

I think it does meet the signed the USA, the signed agreement.

So pylon signs are allowed um to advertise multi-tenant, but this pylon sign in question um does not meet all the standards of the zoning ordinance, so um variants A and B would need to be if the board decides to approve variance A and B, this sign will be added to the unified sign agreement, and if I may, when we were before the board uh prior to the execution of the unified sign agreement, we had to uh have a variance approved for the sign separation uh for the sign that's shown in the lower right-hand corner because of uh a culvert or some kind of instruct obstruction.

So we already have one sign variance.

Uh we had to have that variance approved for a placement of that sign.

So the variance process kind of drives the USA process.

So there is a board action that was taken in that case, but in this case it was deemed that a board action would be needed because of the two different elements.

Square footage and the width of the sign.

But underneath the USA, which is pretty much administrative task, each sign is still required to have a building permit, correct?

Correct.

That is correct.

That's where these things kind of get hung up in.

They're not in compliance with the ordinance, even though there might be a USA already signed and agreed to.

Okay, any other questions for the applicant?

Go ahead.

It's my understanding that there's uh a modicum of compromise you've already made uh in coming before us, you say that you you can have more signs by right.

Is that correct?

Am I understanding that right?

They could potentially, yes, have more signs by right, um, basically, a minimum of one monument sign per lot.

And you're not executing that?

No, they reduce their signage.

Alright, and you see how that's beneficial.

I want to ask the question to the young lady who the opposition.

There is a compromise unless signage.

So this um compromise and we extending the width, is is kind of um I think it's a fair ask.

Uh what they're asking us to do.

Otherwise, by right, they can have much more signs.

It's not more beautiful, it's more signs.

So I have a question.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Would you like to speak?

Um you can use that microphone over there or you can share the mic.

Just a brief response.

The the signs they would be allowed would be much smaller than the signs that they have proposed.

The signs that they would be allowed by right would only be eight feet tall and twelve feet wide, so they would end up with a bunch of tiny signs that would have much less visibility than the pylon sign.

I I I don't have a pointer, but there's a pylon sign.

I think it's the second one from the left that's actually um quite large and has multiple users on it, so it's much more visible.

They would much prefer to have these multi signs that are larger in a unified sign agreement than a whole bunch of tiny signs.

So I I think it's to their advantage they use the USA.

You know, I am in favor of the USA.

It's it's fewer signs than the little tiny ones, and I think they're more effective for the for the um commercial development.

Eight by twelve, I wouldn't consider that tiny at all.

So they're actually allowed eight by sixteen.

But but the they've got taller ones that are currently proposed that are more visible.

But but you see what the there's there's a compromise here that they're trying to make.

I think USA's are standard for all shopping centers.

That's what you're gonna see.

You're not gonna see anybody with a big shopping center adopt tiny signs.

So I would not call it a compromise.

Um, we can defer on that.

Yes.

Any other questions?

Let me let me just make a quick announcement.

We're gonna have a break at around noon, little afternoon.

We'll go on a lunch break for about an hour.

So if you guys are further down the line, just know that we won't get to you before lunch.

Thank you.

I just want to make what's that?

30-minute break.

30 minute break.

Okay.

So we don't know exactly when that's gonna happen, but it's gonna happen after this case, so keep that in mind.

I just wanted to make sure it's clear on record.

Uh USA is saying eight by twelve staff said is by right they have eight by is eight by sixteen.

Well, the signage.

So in regard to um, in regard to uh what Mr.

I'm trying to think of your name.

Riley.

It's right.

Mr.

Riley and uh, yes, it's saying I I think um the compromising and the all the consideration um that has been taken in, taken in benefits uh what uh the applicant is trying to do and uh work with the community as a whole.

I can support this.

Okay, are we we need to close the public hearing and open up for let's go ahead and we have to have any more questions for the applicant?

Okay, we'll close the uh public hearing and open this up for discussion.

So I have a question.

I I guess it's for legal, I'm not sure.

Um if this was approved, and I think I understood that yeah, if it was approved, does the applicant still have the right to put the other signs up that they're allowed by right?

So they have a the sign agreement.

These would become part of the sign agreement.

I'm sorry you I'm sorry.

Who's on?

These would can you hear me?

Yeah, so they they would these would become part of the sign agreement that they already have.

So no other signs would be allowed facing Chisholm Trail Parkway?

No.

Not that's not part of the sign agreement currently.

So and signs that are not that are on McPherson.

We're not looking at those at all, but I'm assuming that there's some signage there and that it totally fits within requirements.

They do not need any variances for those, correct?

Okay.

I'd like to ask the staff.

Uh you go back to that site plan again.

Is there another pylon sign on this site?

No, there is not.

These signs that are shown to the bottom, those are all monuments.

Thank you.

Wait, I'm sorry.

There may be one.

There may be one along McPherson.

I thought the opposition testimony indicated that there was one.

Yes, I believe there's one more.

That second one from the left.

Is a pylon sign?

There would not be another pylon sign on this lot.

But on the development there is.

Yes, one more.

I will not be able to support this.

Um since it is a scenic corridor, they can uh they can put up their sign 20 foot tall.

Um the width becomes uh an issue that's self-imposed in my mind.

Um also the uh maximum advertised um they could do that at 200 feet, 200 square feet, and the separate businesses that they're gonna put up there on that sign would be uh smaller, but uh I will not be able to support it, even though there was a uh USA and USA still require that you get building permits.

All the work that's been done.

Just a bit of clarification the two variances on your screen are the variances requested by the applicant at this time, that but they can do this with the maximum width being 12 foot and a maximum advertised uh message of 200 square feet.

So again, for staff was did you guys look at a sign that meets the requirements to see what it looked like?

Was that presented to you at all?

I guess I guess it would be squishy and everything.

So as it relates to the Board of Adjustments case, we review the sign that the applicant requested and the two variances are what we have.

Yeah, because it I mean I like the idea of decreasing the height, so the height complies with the the zoning ordinance.

Oh the two variances are related to the sign exceeding the permitted sign width, um, and the sign exceeding the permitted advertised message area, we've seen some of these signs are sometimes 60% bigger.

What we're talking about here is 26% bigger.

Have you driven down Chisholm Trail Parkway?

It's really pretty, it's really relaxing, and I think some of that is so.

Is that a yes, oh yes, yes, please.

So um this is this is a rough case because I do think Chisholm Trail Parkway is a special spot in Fort Worth, and I do think an awful lot of planning has gone into keeping it that way.

And I think most people find a target on Google Maps, but um so um and in the four years I've been on this board so far, we haven't got Bill Barr has never written in on a case before.

So that's an interesting designation.

Um the other hand, I really am not understanding how we've signed our economic development departments to sign an agreement for something that's not a zoning court.

I feel like I feel like that needs to be remedied.

How can we how can we make an agreement with someone and then say your agreement doesn't work?

The development services department signed the agreement with the developer.

The you executed USA has to be amended, and the pending board's decision um that amendment will be submitted in review.

I just I just I just think that um somebody needs somebody needs to decide what overrules what like does an economic development agreement can it go over zoning court in that case why doesn't it meet the zoning ordinance?

This isn't an economic development agreement, it's a unified sign agreement under the zoning ordinance, and so yeah, it it doesn't have anything to do with economic development or incentives.

So we understand if we say no, they would they can by right build the sign that still qualifies, and if we extend this, there's really no compromise that I see happening.

So um if that is the case, I'd like to make a motion.

Wait, wait, wait.

I don't understand what you just said at all, but I'd like to hear what Mr.

Harrels asked.

I'd like to hear what Mr.

Harold's saying.

Hi, I'm DJ Harrell, director of development services, and I think there was a lot of talk about the unified sign agreement.

Uh the unified you're right in that the unified sign agreement and the zoning ordinance review with the sign permit are two different actions.

However, as was suggested, we're looking at ways to streamline to better have the two groups that which are both in development services work together so when a unified sign agreement comes in, we make sure that we apply the sign development standards to it before we sign the contract.

But either way, each time, whether it's in the contract or not, the sign ordinance prevails.

So you would still have to do that second step.

One other thing that I'd like to add that no matter what action you take today, um the unified sign agreement would need to be amended to match whatever decision this body makes.

Thank you.

Yeah, and one clarification, Mr.

Garza, you mentioned that it could be built by right if it's not approved just as to remember the pilot sign is only part of the unified sign agreement.

So you could not build a pylon sign by right.

If we say no, we just reduce the size of their sign.

The size of their pylon sign, right?

They're still gonna have a sign, it's gonna be smaller.

Twenty-six percent smaller, and right, and just I'll just add on while I'm talking.

I'm not sure if we've seen what the hardship is today, um, so for me, that's 26% less light pollution bleeding over into the apartments that are right behind it.

So that's kind of a concern for me, you know.

So with that, I'd like to make a motion is made, Mr.

Separation here.

See if we can have uh considered separately.

Hey, like to make a motion for BAC-26-013 to be voted on separately.

Variance A and variance B.

As written.

To approve our deny.

You would like to approve or approve.

Okay.

That's written.

Separately.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Read.

Okay.

Okay.

We have a motion for case BAC-26-013 to approve the request to approve the uh variants A and B as requested by the applicant.

We will vote on them separately.

Variant A.

Roll call.

Board member Deborah Freed.

Deny.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston.

Oh.

Board Member Bob Riley.

No.

Board Member James Hook.

No.

Board Member Sandra King.

No.

Board member Eric Artiaga.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member K.

Duffy?

No.

Board Member Jarrett Wilson?

No.

Board Member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion to approve variance A fails.

Motion for roll call for variance B.

Board member Deborah Freed to approve.

Deny.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston.

No.

Board member Bob Riley.

No.

That's a no from board member Barbara.

No.

Board member James Hook?

No.

Board Member Sandra King.

No.

Board Member Eric Artiaga.

Yes.

Board Member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member K.

Duffy?

No.

Board Member Jarrett Wilson?

No.

Board Member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion to approve variance A.

Variance B fails.

Variant C has been administratively withdrawn.

Okay, thank you.

Um we are going to take a 30-minute lunch break.

We'll be back here at 1245.

So we'll see you back soon.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you for your patience.

Welcome back to the Board of Adjustment Meeting for May the 20th, 2026.

Our next case will be BAC 26014, and staff will present that.

The next case is BAC-26-014 located at 5400 Brentwood Steer Road.

The property owner is NMP Trading Incorporated.

And the applicant is Shameen Mohammed Naeem.

And the property is zoned E, neighborhood commercial district.

The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow a freeway sign with electronic changeable copy in a commercial zoning district near the northwest corner of the property.

The subject property is a 16,886 square foot corner lot located south of Brentwood Stair Road, south of Interstate 30, and east of Wheeler Boulevard.

The site slopes approximately 3% from the northwest portion of the property toward the southwest.

Staff notes that the property does not contain mature trees and is not located within a regulated floodplain.

The site is zoned E, neighborhood commercial, and is currently developed as a gas station.

Staff notes the following lot history.

ES 26-0030 sign permit awaiting client response as of March 13, 2026, which is pending the outcome of this case.

The applicant is requesting approval for an electronic changeable copy freeway site located near the northwest corner of the property.

Section 6.4118 allows ECC signs to be special exception within commercial zoning districts, provided the property is not located within the Chisholm Trail Parkway scenic corridor.

When considering the request, the board is directed to evaluate the presence of other ECC signs in the vicinity.

Visibility from residential district, the classification of adjacent roadways, and proximity to the scenic corridors or scenic areas.

Staff notes that there is no other electronic changeable copy signs located in the immediate vicinity.

Adjacent properties to the east are zoned E, neighborhood commercial and DR, neighborhood commercial restricted, and residential uses are located southeast of the property.

Brentwoodstair Road is classified that by the master thoroughfare plan as a neighborhood connector.

The property is located within the I-30 East Freeway Scenic Corridor.

The proposed sign is located approximately seven feet from the northern property line along Brentwoodstair Road and approximately 15.3 feet from the western property line along Wheeler Boulevard.

The proposed freeway sign contains approximately 76.43 square feet of total sign area.

The ECC portion of the sign measures approximately 7.21 square feet, resulting in approximately 19.81% of the sign phase being devoted to electronic changeable copy, where a maximum of 25% is permitted.

The minimum required non-advertised message area for the sign is approximately 9.10 square feet.

The applicant is proposing approximately 42.29 square feet of non-advertised message area, which complies with the ordinance requirements.

These are the regulations that pertain to this case.

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

Questions?

Okay, we will uh move to the public hearing.

Open up the public hearing.

Uh if you'll come to the front before your name is called, please.

Um so if you know your case is coming up, please come to the front row.

Uh but uh yeah, if you'll come on up and introduce yourself.

Yes, come to this microphone here.

Any opposition, please come on up.

My name is Shimmi Mohammed I just should.

Turn the mic into your right into your face.

There you go.

Yeah.

My name is Shemi Mohammed.

I'm 5400 from representing this owner of this property.

Uh requesting to uh to get a digital sign and changes from this old traditional sign.

Uh I guess as the prices changes all the time, so requesting to put a digital one.

Make it more easier and convenient.

Sounds good.

Anything else you want to add?

No, sir.

Okay.

Is there anybody else here to speak in favor?

Any opposition?

Okay.

Well, we will uh uh may have some questions for you, so just hang tight.

Uh we'll open it up for questions.

Any questions?

Okay, we will close the public portion of this hearing and and then open it up for board discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think this one's pretty straightforward for us.

I agree.

Somebody wants to make a motion, we can do it.

I'll move to approve BAC 260014.

Second.

Second.

Everyone, the race.

Just by here.

Thank you.

We have a motion to approve case BAC-26-014 as requested by the applicant.

The motion made by board member Jarrett Wilson and second by board member Deborah Freet.

Roll call board member Deborah Freet approved.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member um sorry.

James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Eric Artiaga?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member Kay Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Jarrett Wilson.

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

Next uh case is B AR 26031.

And staff will present that.

The next case is BAR-26-031 located at 1406 Thomas Place.

The property owners are Dietrich and Madison Davis, and the applicant is Way G Chapel.

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

The applicant is requesting a variance to the one family A-5 district development standards, requiring a minimum five-foot side yard setback in order to allow a non-habitable accessory structure, specifically a detached carport to encroach into the required side yard setback along the southern property line.

The required minimum side yard setback is five feet, and the applicant has requested a side yard setback of zero feet.

The subject property is a 15,625 square foot lot located within an established residential neighborhood.

The property is relatively flat and was platted with alley access.

Several mature trees are located within both the front and rear yards, and staff notes that the property is not located within a regulated floodplain.

There are no additional environmental constraints associated with the property, and according to Terran appraisal district records, the primary structure was constructed in 1932.

An existing garage is currently located approximately one foot within the required side yard setback and approximately one foot six inches within the required rear yard setback.

Staff notes the following lot history.

BA 1993 026 port of adjustments variants approved to permit construction of a garage and guest house within a 1.5 foot rear yard setback and a one-foot side yard setback.

The applicant is requesting approval to construct a detached carport with the southwest portion of the lot.

The proposed carport measures approximately 13 feet 4 and 1 half inches wide by 24 feet in length and approximately 11 feet in height.

The applicant is requesting a zero-foot side yard setback along the southern property line, resulting in a setback deficiency of five feet from the required minimum side yard setback.

Staff notes that the current lot coverage on the property is approximately 28.8%, where a maximum lot coverage of 50% is permitted.

If approved, the proposed car put it carport would increase the total lot coverage to approximately 30.8%, which remains compliant with the maximum lock coverage requirement.

These are the regulations that pertain to this case.

The applicant is required to comply with all applicable building code regulations, including fire resistance rated construction requirements.

The proposal must comply with all other applicable development regulations, and this concludes staff presentation.

I'm available to any to answer any questions the board may have.

Any questions?

Okay.

If the applicant would please come on up and uh also if you are BAR 26031, come on up to the front so we know we're here.

Reside at 6329 Klamath Road in Fort Worth, Texas.

I'm here representing Dedric and Madison Davis, who reside at 1406 Thomas Place.

As presented by staff, we're requesting uh variants to build a carport in front of an existing garage.

Uh the home was originally built in 1932, and the literal enforcement of the code would place the pylons or the corner columns in front of the open drawer access to the garage, uh thereby imposing a self-imposed, non-self-imposed hardship due to the nature of the pre-existing uh variants, and this would be in alignment with uh that original concept.

Uh, the Davises have a young family.

They purchased the home in 2022 from Rainey Steves, um, following the replant in 1993, which is consistent with the zoning case, shows the it's been quite a while since this as a as a concept would have been fought by the previous owners who owned it for 40 years, but um the design, if we could go to the forward-facing renderings, although the garage is only one foot, forget how you described it.

It either has one foot left in the easement or if it's one foot into the easement, because of the aesthetic design, the client wants uh to wrap around with brick to be inconsistent not only with the home but with the neighborhood, pushes us all the way into the full five-foot side yard variants.

There's no real wiggle room unless we just went with bare metal, which would not be in keeping with the home or the neighborhood.

Um so they they do have a young family, they've got three kids, they're gonna be expecting more cars in the future.

Plus, as we experienced yesterday, it does hail in Texas.

He works in livestock, he has large vehicles.

Um, so we'd love to be able to provide them with more coverage for their kids to play in, but also protect their vehicles anytime that they need it.

I'm here to answer any questions.

The builder as well as the property owner are here for questions as well.

Thank you.

Anyone here in support?

You may have anybody here uh in opposition, okay.

We will open it up to questions from the board.

Questions from the board?

Uh Mr.

Johnson.

Yes.

Thank you.

From this uh this elevation, it appears that there's a structure on the garage that's outside of the garage door.

See what I'm talking about?

It has a light on it, yes.

At the very front or uh on the garage.

Can you speak into the microphone, please?

I'm sorry.

And uh it appears that the the supporting structure for the car port is to the right or outside of the supporting structure for the garage.

And my question is why couldn't they just line up?

This was asked for by staff late in the application process, and I'm gonna defer to the builder, but I do not believe this is a scaled drawing from right to left.

It doesn't show necessarily how the columns line up with the edge of the building.

So I I believe that there is some overlap, it's not complete.

Well, it looks like from this drawing that they do the structure of the garage port, garage uh the the car port could light up with the garage.

That's the intent that we're going for, yes, sir.

Is this I'm not doing a very good job describing it, but the intent is that the new columns will overlap with the front, excuse me, the side edge of the garage, so it would be a straight line.

Staff, the staff have him draw that on the monitor.

Or is there is there a top-down view that shows where the garage structure is and where the columns are?

Yes, in the previous.

If you can go, how do I clear?

That's right.

Go to the previous slide, the overhead site plan.

So this is the corner in question where the light fixture is on the garage, and the intent is the columns will be slightly offset outside the garage, but not overlapping in front of the garage door.

So the appearance that they're much further to the right is inaccurate.

They're gonna be in line with with the garage.

Well, I'm not seeing it.

It looks it looks to me like the car the the right side of the carport could line up with the garage and not be a zero set uh side set back.

I see your point, sir.

And because they're gonna wrap it in brick to match the aesthetics of the home and the garage, that's where we get in the pushed out width.

If it was just like a four by four steel beam, we could do that.

But because they want to wrap it in brick, it needs to move over a little bit to the right, still not seeing it, but I appreciate your response.

Trey Harden, 31 uh 3114 West Cliff Road West, Fort Worth, Texas.

I believe uh the overhang is maybe subject to the uh setback as well.

So I don't remember the exact dimensions, but once we move that column over, it would actually interfere with the door.

I think there's like 13 inches on the side of the garage and maybe 20 something inches of actual column.

So it would impede the garage door.

I'm trying to pull up the drawings right now.

I think to his point though, is if it lines up, does that then take the setback to zero feet?

If those columns are, and I don't uh don't know the width of those columns.

I I don't see it.

Um it may be in there though.

Um or how you know what is to make it minimally minimally invasive on the setback.

I think is is really the point that I think he's trying to get to.

Right, and I think we're right at it right now.

I think it's gonna require that entire foot in order to not have a column in the middle of the garage door.

So I guess this questioning is is I go to the next step, is that if the garage roof goes all the way to the lot, then what is being in place put in place to avoid rain getting off into going off into the neighbor's lot?

Um I imagine we'll have to have a gutter on that side, yeah.

So what is what is the setback of the side setback right now of the existing garage?

Wasn't it one foot something?

I believe it's one-six.

I have a couple of questions.

Um one question might be staff, I don't know, but maybe you guys know it.

What the existing um variants was granted when?

2011.

Okay, and that's for a foot and a half on that side, yes, for the garage.

Um, and then what is on the other side of that white wall?

It appears to me to be an empty property, an empty lot.

Yes, ma'am, it's an empty lot owned by the um adjacent neighbor, um, Mr.

Bailey on the other side.

I guess it'd be the north side of the lot.

So, um, we have their full support.

I think they signed the petition.

They signed your petition?

Yes, ma'am.

I so, so their intention is not to sell that lot.

Uh, that's correct.

Anything else you want to tell us about that lot?

No.

Um, no, ma'am.

Have any idea how long he's been the owner of it?

Probably most of his life.

He's a fixture in the neighborhood.

The lot itself has a lot of um generational trees.

Um the actually the original application was for an overall height of 13 and a half feet with a pitch, and the client decided to go with a flat roof, which lowered the overall profile to 11 feet, so it would be less intrusive on the neighborhood.

We don't believe that it'll pose a uh sort of a sight line embarrassment for the neighborhoods.

Nobody's concerned about it being uh a detriment to their property values.

We have full support from all affected neighbors, uh most affected and also up and down the street.

Quick question.

The the white brick wall fence, is that that is the the uh divider between the two properties?

Yes, sir.

And it it does already have columns in it at certain intervals.

Uh yes, that's correct.

Okay.

Okay.

Do those uh the the the columns you're proposing, do they exceed those columns that are on that existing fence?

Yes, sir, they'll they'll be taller.

But do they push out further on the other side of the fence?

No, sir.

Okay, so that tells me that it's at least on the inside of the fence.

Yes, yes, sir.

The drawing is a little misrepresentative.

I'd like to see more of a uh aerial, you know, top view, but uh I get where you're going.

Any other questions?

I I have a question.

Um is it correct in my assumption that you are removing the entire side yard?

Um yes, yes, ma'am.

Currently we're the columns uh are proposed as a that brick wall that are currently in that space.

And is there the potential or the existence of an encroachment issue?

Nothing over the property line, no, ma'am.

Since it's a flat roof design, there won't be an overhang.

It'll be a gutter system either pitched to the front or the rear.

I'm not sure how it's oriented.

Well, I can also mention I believe that the architect, since we've we've since received drawings from the architect full set of drawings, um the pitch is going to actually pitch towards the Davis' property, so it won't be carried over to the neighbor.

Right?

Would you be willing to change your design to make your uh right support beam flush with the outside wall of the garage?

It's not looking good.

Um I think that would, in order to do a structural brick column, that would put us in the garage door in front of the garage door uh to where they wouldn't be able to pass with a car.

I think we have a problem with the graphic.

The the the drawing looks off.

It looks like uh the the pillar is not aligned with that column, and um it's very hard to hard to imagine what you're saying based off what we're seeing.

So I think and this is a question.

I think the columns for the carport are of the same dimensions in length and width, not talking height, length and width, as the other columns in the brick barrier already.

Is that true or not?

I don't believe that's true.

I believe they would actually project further in towards the garage door.

Again, I agree this isn't probably the best representation.

We were kind of a nice scramble to get this provided for you guys.

Yeah.

So but in terms of projection towards the neighbor, is it of similar design on that side?

Yes, sir.

Are the columns tied into the fence?

It looks in this drawing.

If they're tied into the fence, or are they set on the inside of the fence?

They will be tied into the fence structure.

Um, however, again, I think because of the perspective of this rendering, it's not showing that this column actually protrudes into the yard.

Well, six or eight inches of these columns will be on top, basically, of the wall, correct?

Of the masonry fence, I assume.

Uh yes, sir.

So it'll stay on the outside on the neighboring property, it'll stay the same as it is now.

On the Davis's property, it'll actually project closer into where it shows the garage side right there next to the door, that little portion where it's got the light that Mr.

Johnston was referring to.

So again, this rendering is not really showing that line that pulls the column in closer towards that garage door.

Okay.

I let me let my I guess discomfort is while the current owner is okay, and this is all speculative.

What then could arise from this particular design if approved with a new owner?

On the neighboring property?

Yeah, and maybe that's the question for us.

Just keep in mind they already have a variance for the zero foot on the garage already established.

The notes in our record show that they have a variance in March 16, 2011 for a zero-foot side yard setback and a zero foot rear yard setback.

Well, this is that variance was specific to the garage, and this is for the carport.

Another another 20 feet variance, I would assume along that fence line.

I have a question.

So they have they have a variance of uh of zero feet, but the shows that they have one point six on the north wall and one point.

It shows not the go zero.

Yes.

So their variance is for zero foot, but I guess they decided to build their their garage not exactly at the zero foot.

Did they replace the preexisting building there at the time?

I don't.

The 2011?

Yeah.

Okay.

I believe probably the issue was with the overhang of the old garage.

I imagine the overhang actually extends to the uh property line where the building is one foot six off of the property line.

Um in the drawing, there's a dotted black black line.

What what is that?

Is that the rooftop?

It's drawing.

Go back one page.

Uh there's only one drawing from the from the from the top from the the top view forward one page.

Top, yeah, that one there.

There is a dotted black line.

What is that?

I think that's just showing the area of work.

Maybe he's got the dimension there of zero foot showing the lot line.

I'm not sure what the the remainder of that line indicates.

I'm sorry.

No, sir.

I could also possibly answer Mrs.

King's question.

I I know I'm 48 years old and I know that the owner of that property next door has lived there for as long as I know.

I would imagine that that would be a generational home for his children as well.

So I don't I don't know that the possibility of that lot transacting is probably high.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Just looking for clarification.

If y'all can go back to the rendering, please.

Okay, so the columns on the right, those are gonna be, are those already built in place with the fence or uh no, sir.

We we would have to uh reconstruct part of the fence to put in the foundation.

But the footing of the columns would be exactly where the fence is correct.

On the neighboring property, yes sir.

Okay.

So you wouldn't be encroaching the neighboring property.

Yes sir.

Okay.

There's no overhang.

No sir it would basically be in line with the existing structure of the garage.

Gotcha.

Okay we'll close the public portion of this hearing and we'll open it up to questions among ourselves or conversation.

Thank you.

As long as the um what they wanted to build is in line with what's already there I have no trouble supporting this.

If it it looks like it's moving over um and I we would like clarification.

I mean the designs that they're providing us show that it's moving the uh roof line out not the roof line but the where the columns are maybe we just give them give them the benefit of the doubt to see if they give us better drawings or Emily can you turn Mr.

Johnston's mic.

Okay.

Okay.

Can you hear me?

Oh good okay there's a lot of people in the world who would love to have your power to turn me and turn my voice off.

I would I would uh inquire as to whether the applicant would like to come back and see us to do this as a continuance come back with with drawings that are accurate so that we could uh because apparently from what I understand that the these drawings are either they're misleading or not accurate or something that because it seems to me like that it's certainly this carport certainly extends out to the right of the column on the garage.

The way it appears to me is it if it goes to zero then my sole concern is drainage that that's I mean I'm just know of situations where carports built right on the line and it causes an issue for the neighbors and once it's approved it becomes a civil issue and it becomes messy um very messy.

There's one more variable um there's only 10 of us.

Yes not eleven understood so two no's is a no understood um in answering the questions from staff um we didn't have the drawings in the actual final drawings uh submitted to us yet so when we were asked to provide a rendering showing the total height that's where this came from within 12 hours so I understand that it's it's may feel misleading um while we don't want to wait 30 days we will be happy to supply plans and come back for continuance.

Do we have openings next month?

If it doesn't seem like the request would change so if it's just them submitting drawings then yes we'll we'll accept it to bring them back next month.

You'll be open to a continuance.

Yes sir we want this to be done right we want y'all to be happy that we're doing the right things and maybe please address the water issues to how you're gonna deal with water happy to get you so I mean I don't know if we could keep things from stopping if we approved it to half a foot or something like that.

I'm just looking at if you're okay with coming back, fine, but there's a way to keep from you having to come back and us having to do it again.

Are you okay with the water issue?

If it's six six inches drainage issue.

That's I'm saying if you change the setback to six inches instead of zero.

What I don't mean to interrupt you, but I think if they were if we were to grant that, let's for say a foot or six inches, you know.

Right now, based on this rendering, what I'm understanding is that the columns the footings will be integrated into the current fence, if I'm not mistaken.

And if we were to grant a six inch or a foot or whatever, then the footings would be inside the property line, correct?

And they wouldn't be integrated into the fence, how y'all are proposing.

Okay, so pretty much.

I mean, I I think from an aesthetic standpoint, you do want it integrated into the fence.

I mean, I I think otherwise it kind of looks weird.

You have these I mean, maybe not, I don't know.

That's not not my house also.

Um I can be in support either way, but you know, I hate wasting time of our citizens.

And then we could uh make amendments on the put in a gutter, a gutter to uh suffice the water and issue.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, I think to your point, we gotta make sure it's non-injurious to the neighbor, regardless of whether the neighbor is a you know a good friend today or not, right?

It's our responsibility to protect them.

I just want clarity.

What I'm hearing right now amongst the boy, is that uh because Ms.

Freeman, your concern was uh one about the water to uh seeing possibly what we can do for uh versus having them to come back.

Is that correct?

The problem is that it's not looking good.

So what we don't want to do is set them back two years.

Yeah.

There's only ten of us today.

But Mr.

Riley goes, he's he's out for the day.

This is Josh's beginning.

It seems to me like the brick wall could be incorporated with the the uh carport columns by just having the uh if you move the columns in according to this elevation, uh the brick could be on the uh the right side of the carport column instead of on the left side.

But again, I I you know I uh we're we're dealing with apparently with drawings that don't accurately reflect what the proposal is.

I would feel a lot more comfortable in having accurate mean drawings that are are that that fairly depict what it is that you're attending.

Still zero inches is zero inches.

That's correct.

No matter and if the roof line is aligned to the pillars, which of course it will be.

Um I I mean I think it's once we give a zero setback, it's we you know, he can't encroach into the neighbor, right?

So that's off the table whether that is happening or not.

Yeah, you d it is encroaching from a water standpoint.

It is right, from a water standpoint.

We gotta make sure that that is not injurious.

You know, and and maybe did I understand that this there's already a variance for a zero side set back on this property?

Yes, for the garage.

No, that's also whatever plan is.

I'm confident enough to make them.

It's not gonna be detrimental to the and I'll make a motion, but if any structural alterations are made if gutter system is added, it wouldn't be allowed to encroach into the neighbor's property.

So whatever they do will have to be on their property, and if they're asking for zero, whatever it is has to be at zero on their side and not extending to the neighbor's property.

Good thing, Mr.

Johnson.

No.

I think we've got to continue.

Sorry.

They've got the the way it's at least the way the drawing is, yeah, they've got a a uh a slope going away from the the neighbor's property of four inches over however many feet that is uh in a huge rainstorm.

I don't know.

I'm not a water expert, but I don't know whether that's enough slope to not have water uh go back onto the neighbor's property.

If we can get this on next month's uh agenda, I'd I'd prefer to go come back to it.

That's just me.

I think it's up to you.

I mean, we can we can try to push this to next month.

Or we want the project to go forward.

Um, so we'd we'd prefer to get a yes, even if it's 30 days from now, right?

You've heard the comment, so I think it's a guarantee, yes.

I think time to satisfy the the doubts.

I I served for six years on the board of adjustment residential, so I I understand everything that you guys are going through, and thoroughness needs to be done correctly, but drawings are I don't believe a requirement for the application.

We we submitted all the information that was required.

Apologies for the bad drawing, but we'll be happy to get you accurate information.

So I can be in support of this because I understand what you are wanting to do, but I think for the rest of the board, a continuance might be your best option as of now, and I think for in 30 days, just to bring a couple more drawings.

If you know how the columns would be where they would be placed just for better understanding, I think that would be the best option that way the project can proceed forward.

Okay, okay, is it maybe open for a motion?

Uh yeah, this is Johnston.

I move that uh BR 26 031 be continued from this month's uh uh meeting and be replaced on the agenda for the uh next month's meeting in June.

I second that's a second, okay.

We have a motion to continue case BAR-26-031 to next month's meeting.

Motion made by board member Michael Johnston and second by board member Eric Artiaga.

Roll call, board member Deborah Freed?

Yes, board member Sergio Garza, yes, board member Michael Johnston, yes, board member James Hook, yes, board member Sandra King, yes, board member Eric Artiaga, yes, board member Lucretia Powell, yes, board member Kay Duffy, yes, board member Jarrett Wilson, yes, board member Juan Manuel Costa?

Yes, the motion passes.

Thank you.

We'll see you next month.

Can I say something real quick?

To the applicant.

I think the biggest thing if y'all can provide just where the footings actually gonna go with where the boundary line is of the property, I think that's what's gonna ultimately, you know, help us out understand better exactly where it's how it's gonna play out, which would align with the roof line, yes.

Okay, is the applicant for BAR26032 here?

Okay, please come on up.

Staff will give us the report and then you can speak.

The next case is B AR-26-027 located at 2103 North Houston Street.

The property owners are Victor and Anita Guerreri, and the applicant is Anita Guerrero.

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

The applicant is requesting a variance to the one family A-5 district development standards requesting a minimum five-foot side yard setback in order to allow a non-habitable accessory structure, specifically a detached carport to encroach into the required side yard setback along the southern property line.

The required minimum side yard setback is five feet, and the applicant has requested a side yard setback of eight inches.

The subject property is a seven thousand square foot lot located within an established residential neighborhood.

The property is relatively flat and was platted with alley with alley access.

Several mature trees are located within both the front and rear yard, and staff notes that the property is not located within a regulated floodplain.

There are no additional environmental constraints associated with the property.

And according to Terrant Appraisal District Records, the primary structure was constructed in 1922.

Staff notes the following lot history.

And PB 26-04157 residential accessory, new permit for a carport awaiting client response as of April 3rd, 2026, which is pending the outcome of this case.

The applicant is requesting approval for an existing detached carport located along the southern portion of the property.

The carport measures approximately 13 feet six inches wide by 32 feet in length and approximately 8 feet 3 inches in height.

The structure contains approximately 432 square feet in area.

Applicant is requesting an eight-inch side yard setback along the property line, resulting in a setback deficiency of approximately four feet four inches from the required minimum five-yard side yard setback.

Staff notes that the current law coverage on the property is approximately 34.85%, where a maximum lot coverage of 50% is permitted.

These other regulations that pertains to the case.

Okay, the applicant, you can come on up if you'd like.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

My name's Anita Garay, and uh I live at 2103 North Houston.

And uh I'm just asking, I'm just asking.

Um, the reason I want the carport, well, wanted the carport was because on my driveway, it used to be a gravel driveway.

Well, I fell down on that gravel driveway and I broke my wrist and had to carry the big old thing, so I got kind of scared.

And um, so then I was recuperating from all of this, and um I asked for um a man came by and asked if I wanted a driveway, I needed a driveway.

Well, sure I did, you know, because I had fallen and I was scared.

So when I told him, yes, that I wanted the driveway.

So he told me he was going to do me the whole driveway.

And I said, okay.

And he quoted me, you know, price for about $16,000.

That's what he said.

That's what he said.

So I don't know any of this stuff about concrete or anything that I need to know that I was supposed to know.

I was just kind of scared to walk out on my driveway.

So at that time, I also asked him if he could put me a carport because the sun is the sun is so brutal, and it just lays like right on top of my driveway.

So my every time I would get in my car, it would be so hot, so hot.

So those were the reasons why I was asking for this.

Well, I had been going to the doctor all this time, and I was in therapy, and I would go to therapy two times a day, two times a week because that's what the doctor wanted.

But he wanted three, but I could only do two.

And um, so in between going to the doctor and going through this, I told him to go ahead.

You know, he he said that, and he says, Well, I need at least three thousand dollars so I can get permits.

This is what he this is what he told me, the man that was gonna do the driveway.

So I gave him the money, not still not knowing what went into going through all of this.

I gave him the money thinking that he was gonna get me the permits.

Well, he waited a month and I would ask him, I said, I did the permits count.

He says, Oh yes, they keep telling me that you know that it it'll take a little while, but I'll I'll get it.

And uh so finally, about a month after that, he came back and he said that they had approved him.

Yeah, y'all had approved him apparently.

You know, I I don't have the knowledge of going here and there.

All I did was because I went to the old city hall, I went to get permits for the roof, um, how can I I say the roof and mainly to get my roof done and some windows and I was given those permits myself.

That but that was long time ago.

So here in this new building, I'll just figured that they were everything was done right because he had experienced what he told me.

This is what he told me.

So going back and forth to the doctor, uh at one point he poured the driveway and he put the polls up for the carport, cement in the driveway.

So that is why um when I came back from the therapist, and then you know, the uh at that d that particular day I came back from the I went to the doctor and the therapist at the same time.

Um he uh I was not aware of how the polls were supposed to look, and he put me four new ones and then he put me four old ones, but they were still the steel beams, but they were already cemented, they were already cemented in the driveway, you know, in the driveway.

So that is why um and then I just told him I wasn't gonna help, you know, I didn't want his help anymore.

So it stayed like that for about a two years.

So my nephew said that he had some corrugated, you know, sheets that if he could if he wanted me, he could put it on top.

Well, I thought the polls are there, why not?

And um thinking all along because I didn't find out that I didn't have the permits until this came up.

Um, and that's really and my nephew put that corrugated um roof and I told him slope it and be sure you put the beams quite a bit of beams under the under there because I was also afraid of the rain water and everything and the storm that we had had just about two years back.

So that was that was my deal.

So I don't know what else the Well, you're right there at your time anyway, so thank you.

Okay, that's fine.

So that's it.

That's really what my problem is.

Really?

So I was just wanting if I could just keep it that way.

It's not crouching into the neighbor's yard at all, as you can see.

Okay, and some of the board members may have questions for you in a bit.

Okay, that'd be fine.

Is there anybody else here to speak?

Well, sorry, we've a lot of the time.

So, so is there anybody here to speak in opposition?

Okay, we'll open it up for questions from the board then.

I have a questions.

Okay.

Maybe staff has measured this as well, but um, so we're looking for a side yard setback for those two polls that are nearest the fence.

Um can you tell me where they line up in terms of the garage?

It's already back there.

Is the garage already encroaching into the side yard setback there?

It's even with the garage.

Polls are even with garage?

Even they may.

Yeah, they're even.

If you can look on the well, yeah, you can you can still see that they're even on the garage.

From this front picture that I can see, but um so we're looking at an existing setback that's been there since this house has been built in the 20s.

Yeah, 20 uh 22, 92, 1922, because understand I still had a gravel driveway before this driveway was put in there.

I think that's my only question.

Okay, the others.

Okay.

Um, I have one.

How tall is the garage now?

Is that actually 10 feet tall?

I'm I'm sorry, the carport.

That is, I'm not sure.

Requested in the structure.

It's requested height of 12 feet, right?

Nine feet.

It doesn't look 12 feet as well.

That's not 12 feet.

No, is that a request?

Are you requesting the height?

My bad.

Yep.

Yeah, it's eight feet three inches.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, any other questions?

Okay, we'll go ahead and uh close the public hearing and we'll discuss this amongst ourselves.

Thank you.

So the carport itself we don't have to approve because it's behind the front build line.

Yes.

We're only looking at the setback of those two poles.

Yes, okay.

Uh um, I liked your confirmation that it's in line with an established setback in an established neighborhood.

So I won't have a problem with this.

I won't have a problem with uh this one the way it's went down either.

Neither.

I was looking at the next case.

Sorry.

I'd like to make a motion that we approve this this carport and give her the permit for this, or give her the variance.

Second.

I don't know who to say, okay.

Who made the second?

He's going this way.

Okay, we'll go with Mr.

Garza.

Uh it was it was either me or who was not sure.

Wilson?

It was me.

Mr.

Garza, but it's fine.

It's fine.

Mr.

Wilson won.

He isn't.

You look alike.

Yeah.

Give it to Mr.

Wilson.

Okay.

We have a motion to approve the variance request as requested by the applicant for case BAR 26-03 uh 027.

Motion made by board member K Duffy, second by board member Jarrett Wilson.

Roll call board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board member uh James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Eric Artiaga?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member K.

Duffy?

Yes.

Board member Jarrett Wilson?

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Acosta.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

Okay, next.

Next case, uh BAR 26032.

Staff will present.

The next case is BAR-26-032 located at 6021 Park Drive.

The property owners are Steven and Jenna Cortez, and the applicant is Steven Cortez.

The property is zoned A-43, one family district.

The applicant is requesting two variances related to the construction of a pergola pavilion.

The first variance is to the one family A-43 district development standard, requiring a minimum 25-foot rear yard setback to allow a non-habitable accessory structure, a pergola pavilion to encroach into the required rear yard setback along the southern property line.

The required rear yard setback is 25 feet and the requested setback is 16 feet.

Variance B is to allow in a non-habitable accessory structure to exceed the maximum permitted height.

The maximum allowed height is 10 feet, and the requested height is 15 feet two inches.

The subject property is a single family residential lot, approximately one acre in size, located within an established neighborhood.

The lot is rectangular in shape, was platted without alley access and has a slight slope.

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

The primary residence is approximately 2,800 and thirty hundred and thirty five square feet and includes an attached two-car garage.

The home was constructed in 2023.

Staff notes the following lot history.

PB 26-02880.

Residential accessory new permit for a pergola and pavilion, awaiting client response as of March 11th, 2026, which is pending the outcome of this case.

The applicant is proposing construction of a 392 square foot pergola pavilion located toward the southern portion of the property.

The structure measures approximately 28 feet by 14 feet with a height of 15 feet two inches.

Applicant is requesting to locate the pergola pavilion 16 feet from the rear property line.

This results in a reduction of 9 feet from the required 25-foot rear yard setback under the A-43 district standards.

Applicant is requesting approval to construct a non-habitable accessory structure at a height of 15 feet 2 inches.

The ordinance limits accessory structures to 10 feet in height with a potential administrative increase to 12 feet if additional setback requirements are met.

The proposed structure exceeds both the base limit and the allowable adjusted height threshold.

The current lot coverage is approximately 7.73%, and if approved, the proposed percola pavilion would increase lock coverage to approximately 8.63%, which remains below the maximum allowable lock coverage at 30%.

These are the regulations that pertain to this case, and this concludes staff presentation.

I'm available to answer any questions the board may have.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Okay, we'll bring the applicant up.

Please give us your name, your address, and you'll have seven minutes.

Good afternoon.

Uh board and staff.

My name is Stephen Cortez, homeowner for this property.

Is it possible to get the presentation pulled up by chance?

While it's getting pulled up of note, I did have three neighbor signatures to homeowners to the left of my property as well as the right and as well as the property behind me directly.

Uh who I later found out was a rental occupant.

Um just kind of clear things up as far as from the drawn site plan looking at this plot.

I would like to call out just kind of the dimensions right there from the back offset, requesting the 16 build line uh from the already established 20 foot foot, 25 foot build line.

The main reason for that is we have two existing peach trees in front of that.

If we were to build a pergola within that front section, it would be about a one foot or so offset from those peach trees and looking for the growth of them.

It would uh, you know, the roots and everything would have to probably displace those if it's staying within the current 25 foot build line, and then beside that moving it back to the requested 16 foot, just looking to get more offset for that.

The actual placement of the pergola from the left and right sides of the property is based on just making sure that it's not visible from the street as you drive by the uh actual home in front.

Uh roof line would block the actual backyard pergola from view of the front.

So that's kind of talking through the placement of it in itself.

And I'm open for any questions.

Okay.

Give us one second.

Anybody here uh else to speak in favor or opposition?

I don't see anybody, so we will open it up for questions from the board.

Yes, when was the house bill?

Uh 2023, ma'am.

The trees at that time?

No, they were planted after, so the life of the trees, right at right now, about four years old.

Uh we bought them when they're a year old, planted them when we first moved into the property a few months after and had those set in place.

And then from my understanding when we purchased the pergola, I believe that was a five-foot uh setback from the yard, then realized when we went through the zoning process for permitting uh that it was required the 25-foot offset.

So that was kind of the ignorance on my part from understanding our lot and where it sits.

I thought it was only having to be five feet from that, as well as the height.

Okay, we will uh go ahead and close the public hearing and open it up for uh board discussion.

Thank you.

You know, the the requirements in order to obtain uh an adjustment is that there is a hardship caused by the uh topography of the land or some other factor that is not caused or contributed to uh the property owner.

Uh I'm having a you know, I see the existing peach trees, but other than that, I I don't I don't see any anything that could be considered a hardship caused by the configuration of the property, and not contributed to by the homeowner.

I'm all in that in terms of the placement of the pagoda as well as the height of the pagoda.

I'm not seeing where there's a hardship presented.

Maybe that can be addressed.

Anyone else?

Is that a question?

Anybody can answer that.

I mean, the applicant can answer if you do you feel there's a hardship here?

Um so the main the main component for it would be the height, just because whenever I purchased this pergola, it was a display for a Home Depot, so it was just kind of on sale, looked into the basic information as far as the setback and everything that would need to purchase it and build on the property, and then once you know, purchase that from Home Depot, start going through this process, realize the height was over for the actual uh scale of it.

So the hardship from that would just be mainly uh having to pay to cut it in size, and then as far as the uh placement of it, it was just for really just seeing the trees kind of grow and things of that nature.

Those were not mature existing trees.

I acknowledge that.

Thank you.

Uh any other questions.

Okay, uh, we're open for a motion.

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr.

Garcia.

Would you be willing to modify the height and move it, move the trees, replant them?

Say again.

Would you be willing to modify the height and move the pergola to where you're within right?

Trees can be replanted.

Yes, uh, obviously that's why I'm applying for this variance is to uh get around moving the trees just because I'm not a tree expert, so no one to do that, have to either pay someone to do it or run the risk of killing off those trees after they've been planted there for the past three years, and then as far as the height, I would have to talk to the actual company that would be installing it and building it, and I don't know if because this is just already set this was a display.

I don't know about the uh financial cost to redesign that top portion and of note that top portion, it is open from the front and the back, and then from the bottom slope to the top peak.

Uh there is separation in between that as well.

Okay, thank you.

For a motion.

Or discussion.

Or more discussion.

This is just me, but I think honestly, I mean, relocating those trees are more than likely it's gonna kill the kill them if he tries to relocate them.

So I mean I don't think that would be a good option.

I mean I I think the trees probably can be relocated I've seen big oaks.

Now whether it's cost prohibitive is is you know an issue on it.

But also placement of I think the pavilion could be potentially moved as well.

This is an acre lot um why does why are you wanting to push this so far to the back side of the lot?

Uh it's mainly really for the placement of trees and then existing trees that we have in front of it and as well as just kind of a garden section in front of the trees towards the south portion uh towards the house within the site plan.

So that's kind of where we came about with the actual local location placement of it.

I am opening I am open to maybe moving it within that 16 foot requested or anything like that.

Just mainly looking for a little offset from those existing trees so I don't run the risk of killing them.

What about moving the percolate to the inside of the trees kind of more to the center of the yard closer that you know closer to the house you have plans for that part as far as in between the house and the trees right uh so the main thing is it's really just the footprint of it within that section and uh we also have you know trees in front of these as well as uh some garden uh garden beds as well in front of those trees so that's just kind of the consideration of placement and where we chose to do it.

It might be able to help you with one of the two that's not that's not me talking for everyone here.

If we see um you know a modification I'm willing to adjust the height willing to move the move it um it can be moved so I'm with you on both those the height he bought it that size it's gonna be awkward to adjust the height but he's got plenty of space to to put that some I'm willing to make that compromise that's exactly what I'm saying so we can do at least one of them.

So are you saying for discussion I I have a question.

You have a question for the applicant.

Yes.

So is this structure already assembled?

No it's not assembled.

Uh they deassembled it from the home depot put in the backyard so it's in pieces waiting on uh the decision from this um I guess I did have a follow-on question if there's any room to have it uh instead of sixteen foot twenty foot back just to give some clearance between the trees and that if we're looking at different solutions for this yeah because that's that was my thought if it's not assembled then there is an opportunity to sort of lower this the height of the structure or any any other adaptations.

So as far as the height goes that's the the build height in which uh the actual timber and everything is cut as far as the pieces to be assembled so it wouldn't necessarily be so much uh if looking to maintain that roof section would be able to maintain that look without uh removing it.

This is an acre lot similar to the the garage we saw a couple hours ago.

Oh I'm sorry.

No go ahead uh this year and I'm sure that garage we saw earlier was at least fifteen feet tall the yellow garage we were looking at a lot of those buildings out there on this acre lots are yeah our code is different for habitable and not inhabitable that's the difference which we can have a good discussion about what sense that makes but that is that's why but I'm I'm I'm hearing a willingness to go to a 20 foot setback but because the structure is is already purchased that would be a hardship.

And given the open construction of that, I don't have a problem with the height, but I would like to see it brought forward and 20 feet would be fine by me.

That's are you um speaking to the required SIBEX for the site is twenty-five.

Oh, I say the required is twenty-five.

Okay, but you would make the adjustment to twin and I got I got the sense that there was some ability to move somewhat forward towards those trees and still not jeopardize them.

So I I think I saw a site plan of the of the lot in the neighborhood.

Is is that something we could pull up?

Or houses, I believe.

I think I saw something that's not it.

It's on our uh presentation.

There uh yeah, there we go.

So the uh yellow yellow box, the backyard would be there's several at least look like residential houses right behind your backyard.

Is that am I looking at that correctly or okay?

I I can see from your property itself one, two, three, four properties directly.

Uh looking into your backyard.

Uh and you said you you you talked to some you you got you talked to one person that was a a tenant in one of those houses.

Yes, sir.

I I spoke to the uh direct gosh, if you're looking at it uh from the backyard yellow line, um the second home from the left side of that bottom left corner.

I spoke with them.

I reached out to the others, wasn't able to contact with them.

Uh and then is directly behind those house on my fence line, we have some trees that are existing there.

There they're not anything like Great Oaks or anything like that, but there is actual visible coverage from our two properties.

So in fact, I mean from a from a visual site.

There I guess there's a possibility one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, maybe nine properties that would be looking into your backyard.

Or being able to see at least the top of this pagoda.

Am I correct in that?

Uh I would say probably about four, four or five, just depending on the angle as well as different tree coverage and everything of that nature.

Okay.

Thank you.

So looking at this area, all uh is it a fair assumption to say that all of the trees are pretty immature because they've been newly planted?

Yes.

Okay.

And of note just from my side, whenever I purchase this, like I said, I thought it was a five foot setback.

That's kind of where the idea of purchasing and placing it goes, and you can see from the satellite image is kind of a little bit of uh the shed placement as well for my backyard neighbors.

That's where we haven't had a property this large, so assumed it would be in the same accordance with it.

What is the green space behind you?

Uh the green space behind me.

Can you uh within the yellow box?

No.

Can you speak into the microphone, please, miss?

What is behind you between you and the houses behind you?

Uh that's my backyard.

Within the yellow box.

Okay, we're gonna close the public hearing again.

Yeah, we open it back up for you.

So we'll close it back up and then we'll we'll finish our discussion.

I think that the challenge here is that it's over height and it's uh, you know, not within the setback.

So now you're in from a visual encroaching on your neighbors and I think there's probably some compromise to be had here.

Um I think Mr.

Garza had alluded to some of that and um Mr.

Garza, I'd like to hear some of your further thoughts.

Okay.

The uh height will have to can stay at that at that height.

Uh but the distance is gonna come to 20 feet from sixteen to twenty feet.

And if if I if I feel that our this council can that's okay, I'd like to make a motion.

I I personally feel like the guy has a lot of land.

He could move this burglar anywhere on that property.

Um he doesn't he's not constrained with with you know the fact that he can't put this somewhere he could.

25 feet though.

That's within right.

Oh yeah, 25 feet.

I would I would 25 feet back that the height I think we could we could work at work with that, especially if you moved it further away from the fence, then the height doesn't become as big of an issue with that large of a property.

So I brought the fact of moving it to the center of the property, then the height really becomes it doesn't become an issue at all.

But uh when you're closer to those houses it does.

So again on the height I can I can deal with that.

Part of it's because he owns it, and the other part is that it's very open and design.

But that would be variance um variance B.

So we could separate.

We could vote on these separately.

Well, yeah.

I know that pleases some of us.

I could I'm all for voting separately.

Um I'm more inclined to be lenient on the setback but not on the height.

So I'm gonna have crisscrossings of people, but that's my choice.

This happens.

It's a large setback.

Well, and the compromise on just look at the guy he's looking for guidance from us.

But at this stage, we're moving the trees, uh, it's highly likely that they would uh there are uh at the stage if this is a correct photo stage.

Uh yeah, of the growth.

Mm-hmm.

Is highly liking more prone to for them to go backwards instead of forward.

I'm gonna make a motion to uh vote on these separately.

Um the distance has to be 25 feet and the height we'll we'll see if we can make that happen for them.

So that's the best we can do.

Second it.

So that would be a motion to deny the first variance and to grant variance B.

I like to make a motion, yeah, for separately and then uh on them separately.

Right.

So what is the first approval?

Did I hear you say make the motion to deny the first variant?

I have to deny the first one.

Okay, so you're making a motion to approve both variances.

I'm making a motion to approve understood, got it.

Oh, how is it then making the motion to approve both both variants?

And um there's not an agreement for the approval.

We know that, but we're probably not gonna.

I understand that.

So that the one that we know we're not gonna that is not gonna approve, why not why is it not being made the motion made to be denied with or without prejudice?

If we're gonna make a motion, we're gonna make a motion to approve something.

Um, let's let's let him restate his motion to clarify it.

Well, um let me finish my statement.

If it's gonna be a motion is going to be made to approve something all along, we know it's gonna be it's not gonna pass.

It should be made to be.

We have the option of uh approval or denial.

So we already know that one of these out of ALB is not gonna pass, so that's not let's not make a motion to approve something that you already know it's not gonna pass.

There's reasons that we do that.

I know that is that that blocks the substitute motion if somebody wants to make a substitute motion because with the substitute motion, all you need is a supermajority to pass.

That's the reason.

All right, we have a motion on the floor.

Um and Commissioner Garza, if I understand right, it's a motion to approve A and B to be voted on separately.

Thank you.

Did we get a second on that?

Yes.

Thank you.

Who's the second?

No.

Mr.

A.

To approve both as written.

Separately.

Separately.

Okay, we have a motion to approve case BAR-26-032 to approve as requested by the applicant.

Motion made by board member Sergio Garza, second by board member K Duffy.

The vote will be separate.

Vote roll call for variance A.

Board member Deborah Freed.

Deny.

No.

Okay.

Board member Sergio Garza?

No.

Board member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

No.

Board Member Sandra King?

No.

Board Member Eric Artiaga?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member K.

Duffy?

No.

That's a no from board member K.

Duffy.

Board Member Jarrett Wilson?

No.

Board member one Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion to approve variance A fails.

Roll call vote for variance B.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board Member Michael Johnston?

No.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

No.

Board Member Eric Artiaga?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member K Duffy?

Yes.

Board member Jarrett Wilson?

Yes.

Board Member Juan Manuel Acosta.

Yes.

The motion to approve variance B fails.

Sorry.

But um both variants, both both requests failed.

Okay.

Our next case B A R 26035.

Uh staff will um give us the report.

Next case is BAR-26-035 located at 6214 Greenfield Road.

The property owners are Jordan Cole and Hillary Ann Stringer and the applicant is Cole Stringer.

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

The applicant is requesting two variances related to the construction of a detached storage structure.

Variance A is to the maximum allowable non-habitable accessory structure size for the lot.

The maximum permitted non-habitable accessory structure is 400 square feet.

And the applicant has requested non-habitable accessory structure of 500 square feet.

Variance B is to allow a non-habitable accessory structure to exceed the maximum permitted height.

Maximum allowed height is 10 feet, and the applicant has requested a height of 12 feet.

The subject property is an approximately 17,000 17,163 square foot lot located in an established residential neighborhood.

The law is rectangular in shape, was plotted without alley access and has a gentle slope of approximately 1.2% from north to south.

The property contains several mature trees and it's not located within a floodplain.

The primary structure is a single family home constructed in 1976 and is approximately 2,097 square feet.

The home includes an attached two car garage.

This is the lot history for the property.

The applicant is proposing to construct a detached storage structure located in the northwest portion of the lot.

The structure measures approximately 20 feet by 25 feet, resulting in a total area of 500 square feet, and has a proposed height of 12 feet.

The applicant is requesting approval for a non-habitable accessory structure totaling 500 square feet.

The ordinance allows a maximum of 400 square feet for lots within the size range, resulting in an excess of 100 square feet over the permitted maximum.

The applicant is also requesting approval for a 12-foot tall store structure.

The ordinance limits accessory structures to 10 feet in height with the potential to increase up to 12 feet only if additional setback requirements are met.

Based on the submitted proposal, the height exceeds the base standard by two feet and remains subject to variance approval.

The current lock coverage is approximately 11.46%.

If approved, the proposed accessory structure would increase lock coverage to approximately 14.20%, which remains below the maximum allowable lot coverage of 50%.

These are the regulations that pertain to this case.

Any questions?

Yeah.

Could you go right wait?

Right back to the what are the guidelines?

Forward stop.

So my question here is that we are applying it.

It's zoned A5.

But it's over 10,000 square feet.

So do we apply the 10,000 square foot or the actual zoning?

Or are they the same?

We go by the square footage.

Interesting.

Let me confirm.

No, I'm I'm I was gonna ask what the square footage would be for a lot that size.

So you've answered that, but that just brought that other question to mind.

Because I always thought we went by what it was owned, not how big it was.

So for non-habitable accessory structures, there's a chart and ordinance that distinguishes the amount of non-habitable area they can have based on their lot size.

I love learning every time I come.

Thank you.

Okay, so that is the 400 square feet is for that size lot.

Yes, not for an A5 lot.

That's correct.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

Which makes it okay.

Any other questions for uh staff?

I have one other.

Okay, Deborah.

I'm good with questions.

Answers, not so much.

Um, so do I also understand then the height?

They could get more height if it was if they did further setbacks.

Yes, but they're requesting um their setbacks do not meet the requested height of 12 feet.

Because of where they want to put it or because they don't have the room to do it.

You'd have to ask the applicant that about the placement.

And how does that work?

That you get a foot for every how many feet for setback, you know.

So the max the maximum height, excuse me, for an accessory non-habitable accessory structure they can have is 12 feet high.

Um, but to get the 12 feet, because the standard is 10 feet, to get the 12 feet, you have to step back two feet for every um you get an additional two feet for every one feet um step back from the rear or side yard setback.

Rear and side would have to be four feet in one so um one the the rear and side yard setback required for the zoning district is five feet, so to step it back two additional feet, they would have been able to do the twelve foot high structure by right that last part once again if that instead of five feet it would have to be how many feet in seven feet from the side and the rear of the the two feet yes seven or nine one second let me double check it would be nine yes set back additional two feet so nine feet from both sides two yes okay anybody else okay let's go ahead and open up the public hearing and applicant if you'd like to come up give us your name address seven minutes first of all thank y'all for putting all this together I uh my name is Kevin Simpson on two low uh I am representing Mr.

Stringer and uh he's filled out the form and everything I'm not sure I'm not on the docket but I'm the contractor that's going to be working on this six two one four greenfield road we uh along with Miss Reed I'm learning today too the nine foot setback was never brought to our attention that that was a possibility so Emily did we to my understanding we did export an option of this setbacks with the applicant okay we we always try to see how you guys can meet the ordinance without bringing the case forward to the board of adjustments so to my understanding we did discuss that with the applicant that is correct we informed the applicant of that option but they told us to move forward as is so Mr.

Stringer did have to apply for this online I was the one that came up here to put in for a permit and we learned that we were not going to be able to do what we wanted without coming through this process um so as far as the hardship here this property has got a very large pecan tree on the right hand side you can see it from the street um we're not able to put the building on that side we'd be able to count it as a garage possibly at that point but a garage is required to have a driveway there in the future with budgetary restraints doing only one process at a time we're getting rid of this small um wooden shed that's back there at the moment and we're gonna be putting in this a uh concrete slab building pre-manufactured metal building back there and in the future they're wanting to look at having a driveway put in from the opening up the back of the garage that's at the house and being able to travel back there and use this structure as a secondary garage.

For now they're just looking at having it as storage and they have multiple businesses that they do and they need the more they need more storage for that.

That's why they're doing this larger building and they want to be able to use their garage as a garage and not as a storage shed.

Um but other than that I um there's multiple houses in this neighborhood that have very large 1200 square foot sixteen hundred square foot shops that are there.

So they were just trying to get you know more than we came to realize that we're restrained by the lot size that they're not able to get a bigger shed.

We're just looking at getting that extra five feet on this building getting raising it up to five hundred square feet versus four hundred and the ten the going up to twelve feet is something that we're wanting so we could put a 10 foot door on the front of this building uh you require two foot over the door size to get that in there that would be all okay thank you anybody else here to speak in favor or opposition okay see and then we will open it up for uh discussion uh or for questions from the board stuffy so our zoning ordinance requires a driveway paved, a driveway made of gravel to make it a garage.

Excuse me, the ordinance will allow compact the gravel uh a dust-free surface.

And a garage could be how tall?

A garage um can't be taller than a primary structure.

Can we what?

Cannot be taller than a primary structure.

So but it could easily be 12 feet.

Yes.

500 square feet.

How big can a garage be?

If the intent of the garage is to be used for storage of motor vehicles or uh lawnmower equipment, then the garage just can't exceed 1,200 square feet.

So if he made this building a garage now.

Sorry, ma'am.

We can't because on the we would have to move it to the right hand side of the property, and there's a large country there.

Otherwise, we can't have roadway access.

Hold on, letter finish your thought.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, I'm wondering.

Is roadway access required to be a garage?

So the applicant presented for um apply for the non-habitable accessory structure.

Um, but to be considered a garage, it would need access to the road um or from the existing driveway to be extended um to the proposed structure.

It would need it would need some sort of access um and cannot exceed the front yard driveway coverage as well, or that would be a separate variance request.

You said lawnmower.

So a lawnmower doesn't need uh access.

So to be considered as a garage, it just it has to have a a driveway to be able to um store motor vehicles in aside from the material, what is the stipulation on width of that driveway?

The driveway um just between the home and a side yard setback requires a minimum of ten foot to get down the side.

Um the maximum driveway coverage for an A5 property is fifty percent.

So, yes, okay.

Thank you.

The applicant mentioned opening up the back side of that garage and creating a second door.

Does that work?

Does that create a access to the back?

Um almost like a pergola.

Just give me one second.

I'm not sure if this site has alley access or it does not.

So a rear door on the garage would put a rear door on the back side of that garage.

We get more cars in there eventually.

Could that be considered extended driveway, although you're going through a garage to get there?

If there's a driveway to go to the garage with the intent of storing motor vehicles, it would be a garage.

My uh the whole request for the variance is right.

We're looking we're looking to get the 500 square foot building back there in the future.

They're wanting to do some more renovations to the home and and make that more accessible.

But um, I I talked to everybody upstairs for a good while trying to figure out how we can get this accomplished, and it looks like we're just requesting the variances and getting it approved for what it is at the moment is our best situation.

But it is much smaller than a lot of it other, I versus garages and accessory buildings, um, semantics.

This neighborhood has a lot of twelve hundred plus square foot um shops in it, and they're tall, and that's what I do for a living is I build these metal buildings, and um this one is you know, it's it's not very large.

We're just hoping to get it put in that backyard so these people can enjoy it, use it for what it is.

Thanks.

We'll go ahead and close the public portion of this and uh discussion.

Any other discussion?

Discussion, no motion.

I mean, I I think everyone is I think maybe at the same point I am of trying to understand reasonable accommodations to make this work.

Um I haven't gotten there yet, so I wouldn't be able to make a motion.

Sir.

What they're suggesting they're trying to help you help yourself.

If they're coming up, they've done this before.

I know you've done your you know your business better than we do, but we know what we have to do to say yes.

If they're saying you can blow a hole to the back of that garage just so you can nomenclature your building and qualify, then that's what they're trying to do here.

I understand.

I'm sorry if I uh come on.

That's not what I'm saying.

It's a learning process for all of us.

Sometimes we try to do right and it g it doesn't take but two or three to and we only have ten people here, so it takes just takes two to shoot it down, and then you're stuck for two years.

We don't want to do that.

We want to convey we want to communicate to you, we want to say yes, but help us.

I uh the as far as I understand the homeowner at the time at the moment isn't ready financially to proceed with doing that in the garage.

I can speak with them.

I'm not and don't understand if the two year mark is that I'm not allowed to bring this back up here for two years.

That's what you're saying.

Now if this was denied and we came back and we did blow the back wall out of that garage and we turned it into a a secondary garage, um we wouldn't need a variance at all.

I and I believe I'm not sure.

So it seems like we're running into troubles here.

So I I just wanted to would would you consider continuance?

Maybe bring the homeowner back with you and maybe give us some more thought.

I can't I can.

Absolutely.

My um Yes sir.

I I don't want to bother y'all with the bombardment.

Well, we just we don't want to have a ruling here that sticks with you, um, that where you can't proceed and do what you want to do.

There could be some ways around this that could work in you guys' favor.

Um, but it does require you guys to do a little bit more legwork with the city to try to make that happen.

Right.

I would like to add one note is um we have correspondence with the property owner who wish to continue with the two variances um as requested.

If they the representative have expressed that the property owner is not ready financially to continue with that process.

If the board if he does continue and the board decides to approve the request as requested now, um that's what the applicant wants.

If the board decides and he comes back and wants to do the garage, um the board decision does expire within one hundred and eighty days, there is a one-time extension for an additional one hundred and eighty days, but just to consider that a permit has to be issued um within that time frame.

Is there a denial denial without prejudice?

I think that it's up to you guys, the continuance may be reasonable to allow him to come back, but just also know that he's expressed that the financials are not there's they're not requesting it as a garage right now.

So sticking to what the request is and what's before us today.

Do we have another case?

Do we have another case after this one?

Yes.

You want you maybe make a phone call and talk to the owners, see what they want.

You want to do that?

I can do that.

I just um I mean, to be a garage, he wants a five hundred square foot, twelve foot tall building, and I think you're even talking about a little roll up door on it.

Right.

This is not a very large structure, so it all what would he would he have to blow out the back of the garage right now?

Would he have to put the gravel in today?

What would he have to add to what he's already thinking he's doing to so we could call it a garage?

So he's explained that there's not another option for another driveway.

So him altering the primary structure will have to be considered on the building permitting plans.

We'd have to blow out the background to make the driveway streets.

Whatever they decide um they want to do, it just has to be shown on the building permit um to be considered as a garage.

There needs to be a driveway to access it.

We're um we're only requesting five more foot a shop than what's allowed without the variance.

Uh, we're only about 50 feet bigger than the lady who just had the carport done and got an approval through that.

Um we're not asking for a lot at all.

I mean, I would understand a lot of hesitation if we were looking for a 1200 square foot shop, which is also in this neighborhood, but we're just looking for a little bit bigger than what the zoning is calling for.

I can call him right now.

Yeah, why don't why don't you do that?

Take a minute, go call him.

We're not we're not saying no, but you don't know how the vote's gonna go.

Absolutely, I understand.

Yeah, yeah.

One two no's and we're done.

I don't know.

I don't want to.

When you when you came in and there was nothing but silence, it's not a good sign.

I I completely understand.

Yeah, I was feeling optimistic before I stood up.

And one other thing that staff has to consider is um if there is already a garage, can they have another garage?

Um they'll I was gonna say that the property does have a garage, so the property owner will need to come back for a variance since the property is less than one half acre.

So that's what I haven't we haven't gone through everything on the garage side of things because this was the path we were gonna take.

I can call him and ask him to go ahead and continue and come in.

A little guidance from the guy that filed the application that's got the money at stake.

Yes, sir.

So we need to make a motion to uh table this.

So he can make a motion to to table this until the end of the uh hearing.

Are there any objections to tabling this?

Seeing none none, this case has been tabled to the end of the agenda.

Thank you, sir.

Okay, so uh B A R 2630.

You're here, sir, right?

Okay, come on up.

We'll go ahead and have you next and then we'll postpone uh 2633 till the end.

Yes.

There's a legal three.

So um just making a note.

Case B A R-26-033 has an additional variance to be requested.

Um that was not legal notice, so this case is um will be on the agenda for next month.

The applicant is still working through some um site design, so we will administratively uh continue this case to next month.

Staff please.

The next case is B AR-26-024, located at 5120 Crestline Road.

The property owner is the DSC Living Trust with David and Suzanne Edcock as settlers.

The applicant is Wheel Holmes LLC, represented by Brent Holt, and the property is zoned A-5, one family district.

The applicant is requesting multiple special exceptions and variances related to fencing along the front and side yard areas of the property.

Staff, please, we need to take a break.

Um, we need to wait for the store taken.

Uh five minute break, please.

Yeah, we need a five minute break, please.

Thank you.

Okay, we're uh we're back.

Um staff please present.

Um you'll put it on the AR twenty six zero three zero.

Okay.

The applicant is requesting multiple special exceptions.

I'm like can you start over?

I'm sorry.

The next case is BAR-26-024 located at fifty-one twenty Crestline Road.

The property owner is the DSE Living Trust with David and Suzanne Edcott as settlers.

The applicant is Whole Homes LLC represented by Brent Hole.

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

The applicant is requesting multiple special exceptions and variances related to fencing along the front and side yard setbacks of the property.

Special exception A is to allow an open fence up to five feet in height within the required front yard along the southern property line.

Variance B is to allow an open design fence exceeding the maximum five foot height allowance.

Maximum height is five feet.

The requested height is seven feet.

Special exception C is to allow a solid fence up to four feet in height within the required front yard along the western property line.

Variance D is to allow a solid masonry fence exceeding the four foot maximum allowed under special exception provisions.

The maximum allowed is four feet, and the requested height is seven feet two inches.

Variance E is to allow a fence columns exceeding the maximum permitted height.

The maximum allowed column height is five feet six inches, and the requested column height is eight feet.

The subject property is a thirteen thousand four hundred and seven square foot vacant interior lot located along Crestline Road in an established residential neighborhood.

The lot was platted in nineteen fifty without alley access.

The site slopes approximately four point six percent from the front, the southeast corner along Crestline Road towards the rear of the property.

Staff notes the following lot history.

The applicant is requesting a special exception to install a five-foot open design fence along Crestline Road using raw iron materials consistent with ordinance standards.

The fence will be located on the front property boundary along Crestline Road.

The proposed fence is assigned to match an existing open design fence with brick columns at the neighboring property located at five one zero zero crestline road.

An approval of the special exception would allow for an open design fence up to five feet in height only, unless additional variances B and C described below are also approved.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow up to a seven-foot open design fence consisting of raw iron, which would be allowed by special exception up to a maximum of five feet in the required front yard.

Whereas the zoning ordinance section five point three zero five B2C does allow for an open design fence up to five feet in height and as noted previously.

The proposed seven foot open design fence would require a variance for the additional height not allowed by the special express special exception.

The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow a solid masonry fence within a projected front yard where only a four foot fence, which is at least 50% open is allowed without obtaining the requested special exception.

The zoning ordinance specifies that the board of adjustment may grant a special exception to allow a solid fence or wall up to four feet in height in the front yard, plotted front yard or projected front yard in accordance with the requirements set forth for special exceptions.

The fence will be located on the interior southwestern property boundary.

The proposed fence is designed to match an existing fence with brick columns at the neighboring property located at 5100 Crestline Road.

An approval of the special exception would allow for a solid fence up to four feet in height only, unless additional variance E and F described uh later will also be approved.

Applicant is requesting a variance to allow a seven foot two inch solid masonry fence, which would be allowed by special exception up to a maximum of four feet within the required front yard, whereas the zoning ordinance section 5.305 B2B does allow for a solid fence up to four feet in height as noted above.

The zoning ordinance section 5.305B2C goes on to say that a taller fence could also allow up to five feet open design fencing consisting of raw is iron, tubular steel, picket or similar type material designed for fencing, excluding chain link.

That does not obscure visibility and is not greater than 50% in density as a special exception by the board of adjustment because the applicant is requesting a solid fence that exceeds the height allowed by special exception and does not meet the specifications for a maximum five foot open design fence as noted in zoning ordinance.

The applicant is requesting a variance for a solid masonry fence that is seven feet two inches in height.

The applicant is also requesting a variance to the maximum column height of five feet six inches to allow fence columns, which is brick up to eight feet in height within the projected front yard along the interior southwestern property boundary and on the front property line along Crest Line.

The zoning ordinance section 5.305 B2B specifies that the fence designs may include columns to a maximum height of five feet six inches.

The applicant is requesting to allow a fence design that excludes columns up to eight feet in height, which exceeds the maximum allowed by two feet six inches.

These are the regulations that pertain to this case, and this concludes staff presentation and available to answer any questions the board may have.

Okay.