Good morning.

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

Staff present today are Stacy Jones, Emily Reyes, Denisha London, Trey Calls.

Chair, will you please call this meeting to order?

This is James Hook.

This is the meeting of the Board of Adjustment will now come to order.

It is the uh seventeenth day of June 2026, and I welcome everyone to the Board of Adjustment.

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

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

Today we have a quorum with all doing two.

Eleven.

Of all 11 members here today.

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 the session.

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

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

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

The board of adjustment requests that the following rules of procedures be respected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any translation cases?

Okay.

In 2013, there was a rule change regarding translation cases.

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

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

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

There is no time limit during this period.

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

Board members can discuss the case among themselves and city staff to determine whether or not an application meets or does not meet the criteria for approval.

After this discussion, I will ask for 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 times to enable the board of adjustment to receive advice from legal staff.

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

Are there any objections to the meeting to the minutes?

Okay, then I hereby approve those minutes.

Okay, we're gonna go ahead and call the first case.

It's a translation case.

Uh BAR 26040 and staff will present that.

Good morning, Chair and Board members.

The first item on the agenda is case number BAR-26-040 for the property located at 7325 Mohawk Avenue.

The property is owned by Navimir Ital Rodriguez with Montoya construction serving as the applicant.

The property is zoned A-5, one family district, and the property is also located within the NAS JRB overlay district.

The applicant is requesting two variances related to the residential parking requirements.

Variance A is a request to allow fewer parking spaces than required for a one-family dwelling containing four bedrooms.

The zoning ordinance requires three parking spaces for a four-bedroom home.

The applicant is proposing to provide only two parking spaces.

Variance B is a request to allow all required parking spaces to be located in front of the front building wall.

The zoning ordinance requires that for a four bedroom dwelling, two of the required parking spaces be located behind the front building wall.

The subject property is a rectangular interior lot containing approximately 10,080 square feet and is located within an established residential neighborhood.

The home was originally constructed in 1948 and does not have alley access.

The site is not impacted by significant environmental constraints such as a floodplain or steep slopes.

Several mature trees exist within the rear yard, and the existing residence contains approximately 1,372 square feet of living area and currently consists of three bedrooms.

Staff reviewed the permit history for the property, and there are currently two active permits under review.

One of them is for a 320 square foot residential addition.

The applicant proposes a 320 square foot addition to the rear of the home, which would increase the residence of approximately 1,692 square feet and the result of a total of four bedrooms.

Because the proposed addition increases the dwelling to four bedrooms, the zoning ordinance requires a minimum of three off-street parking spaces.

The property currently does not contain a garage, and the submitted site plan shows the two parking spaces located within the existing driveway and accessible from Mohawk Avenue.

As proposed, the development would provide only two parking spaces, which is one space fewer than the required by ordinance.

Staff also review the ability of the site to accommodate parking behind the front building wall.

The existing residence maintains a side yard setbacks of approximately five feet on both the east and west side of the property.

A standard parking configuration located behind the front building wall would require approximately 10 feet of width to provide a driveway access.

And given the existing placement of the residence and limited side yard area, the built accommodating the parking behind the front building wall will not be possible.

The applicant is also requesting approval of all parking spaces to remain in front of the front building wall.

The submitted site plan indicates that the two proposed parking spaces will be located entirely within the driveway area in front of the residents.

Staff reviewed the driveway coverage requirements of the zoning ordinance.

The front yard area between the structure and the front property line measures approximately 1,878 square feet.

The driveway paving area measures approximately 808 square feet, resulting in driveway coverage of approximately 43.02%, and this complies with the ordinance requirement that driveway coverage not exceed 50% of the front yard area.

The existing driveway approach measures approximately nine feet in width and extends approximately 45 feet in length.

The proposed addition would increase lock coverage from approximately 15.4% to 18.50%, which remains below the maximum permitted lock coverage of 50%.

These are the regulations that pertain to the case.

The applicant will still still be required to comply with all other applicable development standards and obtain all necessary permits.

And this concludes staff presentation.

Okay.

Um, yes.

It looks like from what'm available for any questions the red on the slide is what's currently there.

And it looks like there's a little secondary spot next to it.

Is there not room for three cars in all that space?

So what's highlighted in red was what we were told was the proposed driveway.

Uh the applicant submitted this to building and building is the one who put the holds, and then we confirmed with the applicant the two variances, and the applicant confirmed with us the two variances.

Okay, so adjacent to that red space where we've got the additional rectangle that shows that it's 20 feet long.

That's not another parking pad.

You would have to ask the applicant on that, but we confirmed with them that as right now as of what's in red is the driveway.

And if they did put the secondary in, would we be exceeding the amount of allowable front yard space?

Yeah, we would have to calculate the um front yard coverage because they're already at 43% where 50% is allowed.

Okay, I just don't see how it's at 43.

Maybe I'm slow.

So it looks like it's eleven feet wide, and if I can read this right, forty-five feet long.

Yes.

Yeah, that's what I'm seeing.

That's not.

I think some calculations need to be redone, but I'm maybe we're including that 20 feet.

Yeah, so the driveway the front yard coverage is determined by all the um concrete area within the front yard.

So there's already more concrete than what we're seeing in this drawing, that's a question.

Sorry.

Yes, so the area um to my understanding there is no there isn't based on the um photo here.

I'm just not seeing how that could be that current picture be forty-nine percent.

Any other questions?

Okay.

So you're saying this house never had a garage.

If I'm corrected, it had a single garage, but then it was converted into a bedroom.

But it was prior, it dated back to 2007.

And so at the time it was converted, it never got a um uh variance to let them park in the front yard.

Correct.

Okay.

Anybody else?

Okay, is the applicant here?

Can you come up to the front, please?

You have seven minutes to speak.

And then if there's opposition, please come to the front as well.

If your case is coming up, please come to the front row and be ready to speak.

So we can keep this thing moving.

We have 20 people here, 20 cases today, so we've got to keep moving.

Thank you.

Uh go ahead, you have uh state your name and address, and uh you have seven minutes.

1415.

Mac Brown Street, Dallas, Texas.

Okay, go ahead and um go ahead and uh tell us tell us about the case, tell us about your about your driveway, about your project.

Okay.

Uh uh put pull the mic closer to his mouth so we can hear.

Well the idea was to put the driveway right there in the space that exists.

I showed it in the designs.

I don't know if you saw it.

Or a casa.

Or to do it to the left side, close to the house.

Because the house next to it is exactly the same.

The owner of that house has it the same way.

It would be the second option to do it on the left side, the same way the house next to it has the driveway.

That would be the only other idea is to build it to the left side if there's no other way.

That would be the space for only one car.

And that would be all.

Did you have anything else?

You actually have 14 minutes.

I misspoke earlier.

You have 14 minutes since this translation.

Um, so yes, no, uh, that would be all.

Okay, thank you.

Is there any opposition by here to speak in opposition?

Okay, uh seeing none.

Um, there any uh questions.

I have a question.

Uh the gentleman mentioned that the other option would be to mimic what the uh neighbor to the left, I believe, indicates.

Um do we know that that is in compliance?

No, we we just reviewed this case.

We didn't review the neighboring properties.

Because without that information, how do we know we're just screening to something that may not in fact be in compliance?

So the board's action is based on the case that's in front of us today.

Um if you want to consider what's in the surrounding areas, of course you can consider it, but as far as it relates to today's action is related to the case.

Um that's here.

So I I don't see any need to move it to the left.

We already have a curb cut.

Um we don't want to go through all that again, and I do understand on the second the second variance that we can't get behind the property.

Um but that first variance, I guess I'm I am still mystified why we can't take that driveway and after it comes in, open it out, so that you would have a spot on the left, which would be sort of in front of the front door, and a spot to the right of it, and then a spot behind, and that would give us three parking spaces.

I'm still not seeing that if we added that amount of concrete where we would exceed the 50%.

That's correct.

So I calculated the driveway coverage, they're at twenty-two percent, so they do have more space where they can um extend their driveway.

So they could extend it and not require variance A.

So to my understanding in the communication with the applicant prior to the public hearing is the driveway that they have is what they wish to what they wish to do.

Okay, thank you.

Is that true?

Yeah, he asked a question.

Stephanie, I'm sorry, you had a question before me.

So this is kind of a staff question, but or I don't think we could approve three in the front yard, right?

Based on the dimensions of the driveway, um that's there, the existing driveway, it's only sufficient for two cars.

Right, but even if is it possible to allow three in the front yard?

If the board decides to allow three in the front yard, um they're required to have two spaces behind the front wall, the third space can be behind or in the driveway.

Right.

I just thought we couldn't ever do three in the front yard, but okay.

Um, um, any other questions for the applicant before I close?

My question is uh they do they do plan to expand the driveway if needed, correct?

Yes, they they they will plan to expand that driveway to the left side of the existing driveway exactly as you described.

So that's what they're planning to do if we accept this.

Do we have a copy of the plans?

We do we have a copy here that's showed to the to us uh of that intent.

Uh on the plan, on the new plans it shows how many feet would main would remain there.

I don't know if they brought it.

So on this diagram that's currently being shown, the current plans are only to have the space that is delineated in red as concrete at this time.

Which if it's 45 feet long is long enough for three cars.

No, Mr.

Riley.

Did we get an answer to my question?

Current plan is just for where the red is shown on this picture.

It only fits two cars where the red is.

Right.

And I'm asking what they're doing.

That's what they're asking for, isn't it?

Two cars, yeah.

See, this is the plano existented.

Yes, this plan shows the actual plan, the way it is for two cars, but in the new plan, it shows the additional space needed for three cars.

Commissioners, this is Maribel.

Currently, that plan would only fit two cars.

A standard parking space is nine by eighteen.

So eighteen times three would be fifty-four feet in length.

So the applicant just explained that there's a new plan to place three cars.

Emily, do we have a new plan?

We do not.

Okay.

So I'm close to public hearing and we'll open it up to discussion among the board.

You guys can have a seat.

We'll get back right back to you.

Thank you.

The uh plan that we see up on on the screen now, I don't have a problem with at all.

The only thing is that it would be hard to park a car in that square cube that extends to the left or to the right as we're looking from on top.

Um my question would be: do they plan to soften that angle so you can actually drive into that parking space?

They're not planning on that parking space.

Is that just the red?

I think he said the opposite.

Where's can I have I'd like to have a question?

We don't have another plan.

Staff does not have another plan, right?

Of course, they're just requesting two spots.

That's what one of the variants is, or just requiring two spots, but they don't need the requesting two.

If we grant the variants, they don't need another spot.

Yeah.

I'll also may have missed.

Was there anybody here to speak in favor of this case that I may have missed?

Anyone else?

Okay, thank you.

Um I like to ask the applicant to clarify again what their request is because I'm hearing two different things.

You could come back up, please.

Thank you.

So, board member free um Powell, I'm sorry.

The request is to provide less than the number of parking spaces that are required.

They are required three parking spaces, and they only uh X to provide two, and the two spaces will be provided in that red highlighted area on the screen where the current driveway is sufficient enough to park two vehicles, and they're also asking to allow the required spaces.

So if you approve um variant A, then the number of required spaces will become two.

They're asking to allow those two spaces in front of the front building wall where else um the two spaces will be required behind the front building wall, and the applicant has explained that there's no room or option for them to park the two cars behind the front building wall.

I am clear that there is no space to park behind the building wall or the backyard.

However, we want whatever word choice one wants to use, but however, uh he did state that if need to be uh they're willing to extend uh the driveway.

Did y'all submit a plan?

In regard to the extension that you spoke on.

Was a plan submitted.

Uh see is that the plan, but no, no sé por qué no parece.

Yes, there's a plan.

I just don't know why it's not here.

So you did submit a plan.

See, yes, okay.

That's the discrepancy.

He says they did submit a plan.

Staff says there's no plan.

So until this discrepancy is cleared up, I would recommend a continuance because they're saying it's a sub a plan was submitted, and then staff is saying a plan is not.

Um if I can add board member Powell, the plans that are on the screen before you and included in the docum for the case is the information we received.

If the applicant did submit something, it would have been after our intake deadline.

Um, but according to our records, I don't recall receiving any additional plan for this case.

Um the request before you the board can um alter the variants to approve um three spaces in the front yard, and the applicant can still add that third space if the board so choose, um, because he has more area to um increase the driveway coverage since he's at twenty-two percent.

I'll go ahead and close the public hearing again and please have a seat.

Go back to discussion.

Okay, so um it seems that we really have to approve variance B because he has no.

He has to have two parking spaces in front of the house.

He's got five foot on each side of the house right now.

He can't put a driveway into the backyard.

Um so that's something that should have been done years ago, was just approve his front yard parking.

Um the question is about three spots.

If we don't have a plan for three, this gentleman has the option to add a 320 foot square foot study to the back of his house.

A bedroom would would trigger a new parking spot, but he could put a 320-foot square foot study on the back of his house and uh create some more value.

I assume he's an investor.

Um and wouldn't require additional spots at all.

So my suggestion is that we do that.

We don't need to make him do three spots, um, but we do have to give him the front yard parking for the two spots he has.

But you're talking about he could create a study in the back of his house.

He can make a study doesn't trigger new parking.

Again, do you not know an office?

Can you justify and say that that would not cause him hardship?

Um I think this what I'm suggesting is something to cause him the least amount of hardship.

Not necessarily, you don't know his financial, you don't know we don't know his personal uh business.

He's suggesting a 320 square foot bedroom.

Again, we don't know if that would cause a hardship.

We haven't that that's the reason we're here is because he wants to put an addition on.

Mr.

Riley, I I don't think we need to go into how that's used.

It probably has a bathroom, it probably has a closet, all things call it a bedroom.

But I do think that what we have in front of us is variance A, there is no hardship, variance B, there's a hardship.

So um I would be inclined to deny variance A.

You can add another parking spot and to, and he says he's already planning on doing that, we just don't see the drawing.

So if he's already planning on doing that, then we're fine.

Why do not?

Again, he you said we just don't see the drawings.

He said he submitted to drawing.

Right.

Yeah, I'm saying I'm saying so it's fine to deny it because he's already planning on doing it.

How are we gonna deny something that he said that he submitted and the staff said that they don't they didn't receive?

I I highly respect the staff said that if that's a if.

If he submitted it, it came after.

Again, we don't have no concrete and evidence that it was uh if after the deadline, it could have been before the deadline so to be transparent, fair, and honest, that's the only way I'm gonna move.

If I can just add a point of clarity, the information um we received for the board of adjustments case is the information that has been provided to the board.

Um I think Miss Fried is saying um that the board that from her perspective variance A can be denied because it's something that he can do by right without the board's decision is to add the additional parking space in in the front yard.

So um to add that additional parking space would not require him to come before the board.

Okay, I have a question.

I'll go ahead.

What triggers the need for the third parking spot?

Because he's increasing the number of bedrooms in a house, three bedrooms um require two parking spaces behind the front wall, plus each additional bedroom requires one additional parking space, and that parking space can either be behind the front wall or in the driveway.

So this is a self-created hardship, if he was not doing an addition.

So if he was not doing an addition, he would be required two sparking parking spaces.

Those two parking spaces are required to be behind the front wall.

When did that become an ordinance behind the front building line?

I believe in 2004.

So it happens.

What year was the garage 2000?

We don't know what year the garage was.

We don't have the permits for that garage conversion.

As far as we can see from Google area maps that go back to 2007.

So this is a self-created hardship because of the addition.

If he was not to add anything to the building, remodel it within, then he wouldn't be before this board.

Right, it wouldn't have been triggered.

And next question is, what is the required front yard setback in this for this property?

So for this property according to the zoning district, the front yard setback is 20 feet, however, this um property is within a neighborhood that is established.

So about 45 um feet seems like the average for the established front yard.

So he does not have an option to build all this out in the front yard.

He has to build the parking or build his house further out in the front.

No, he'll have he'll require variants to um project into the established front yard.

So, in summary, is he's creating this hardship by doing an addition, adding a third uh bedroom.

If he was just to maintain it as a two-bedroom home, he wouldn't be before us.

To my understanding, we would not have caught that he didn't have the required spaces.

Thank you.

I would like to say I don't agree that it's a Ceph uh created hardship.

Again, we can't determine how his family has grown, or if he didn't had more children, or what his personal uh reason for adding it could be because he didn't had extra other children.

It could be that he's uh raising, not excuse me, not raising, but it could be he and his wife are caretakers of maybe the both parents are uh one parent, a senior citizen.

We have no uh reason.

I mean, we can let me say not we, personally, uh I disagree with self-imposed hardship.

We cannot uh we there's there's no evidence that we can prove that this is self hardship.

Thank you, Miss Riley.

I have one more question and might have to reopen it to ask the uh applicant.

Reopen the public hearing if you guys would come back up again.

My question is, is this a um is it intended this to be a homesteaded property uh or owner occupied or is it going to be a rental property?

Uh, you know, haciendo el trabajo.

Honestly, the house is not mine.

I'm just doing the work.

That's it.

Did they answer that?

Not really, but it doesn't I I don't my question is if it is truly the conditions of an expanding family and stuff of that nature or taking in the elderly elderly person or something like that, that becomes maybe a little bit of a gray area for his hardship, but if it's an investment property, you're just adding square footage to where the house becomes more marketable.

I don't see that.

Did you want to clarify your answer to that question?

See, uh no.

That's all I'm I took from it.

Okay.

He's just a contractor.

Okay, thank you.

Alright, we'll close public hearing again and uh open it back up to more discussion and hopefully emotion soon.

Thank you.

On this particular um case, we all the time see we uh allow for variances where the uh the we shorten the distances, we give more room, we have a growing city.

Um I don't have a problem uh with allowing him to park two cars in front.

If he builds the whatever he wants to do in the back of the house, allow for three cars, and he has to extend the driveway.

So I'm willing to make that compromise for them.

It's a growing city, it's a we're the space is becoming more uh tight, and we will see this over and over.

So he's got the signature of his neighbors.

There's no one in uh against this, so uh that's my opinion.

Um I have no problem letting him park two cars in front, and if he builds this, we will ex demand that he builds a third parking space and expand the driveway.

So you're saying deny variance one and approve variance two or a and b.

That's correct.

I agree with Sergez Will.

A motion.

Uh this Johnston.

I move that uh B AR two six zero four zero be approved as uh written with uh votes on each of the subparts, separate votes on A and separate votes on uh separate vote on B.

Second, okay.

We have a motion to approve variants A and B voting separately as requested by the applicant for case B AR two six zero four zero motion made by board member Michael Johnston and second by board member Juan Manuel Costa.

I'll do a roll call vote.

Board member Jim Whitten.

Oh, just uh uh variant A.

Okay.

Okay, and I want to make sure I understand on the what we are voting on because we're now voting to let him permit fewer than two, excuse me, fewer than three spaces.

In the front yard, in the front yard.

Okay, I'll vote yes.

Board member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

No.

Board member Bob Riley?

No.

Board member Deborah Freed?

No.

Board member James Hook.

No.

Board Member Sandra King.

No.

Board member Jana Herrera?

No.

Board Member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member K.

Duffy.

No.

Board member one Manuel Costa?

Yes.

Board member that's all.

Okay.

Variance A fails for the lack of uh non-affirmative vote.

Now we'll take the vote for variance B.

Board Member Jim Witten.

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board Member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Okay, thank you.

I can speak to city staff tomorrow, if you like.

Alright, next case, B A R 26053.

This okay.

The next case is BAR-26-053 for the property located at 3201 Mitchell Boulevard.

The property is owned by Frank Hernandez Sacido, and the applicant is Yesena Diaz.

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

Applicant is requesting one special exception and one variance.

Special exception A is a request to allow a solid wood fence to be located within the required front yard.

Variance B is a request to reduce the required side yard setback for a non-habitable accessory structure.

The zoning ordinance requires a minimum side area setback of five feet, and the applicant is requesting a setback of two feet six inches along the southern property line.

The subject property is approximately 7,021 square feet in area and is located within the established residential neighborhood.

According to Terran Appraisal District Records, their primary residence was constructed in 1950, a place of worship above the southern property line, and the site contains several mature trees and is not located within a floodplain.

The property does contain a downward slope of approximately 8.4% beginning at the western property boundary and extending toward the eastern property boundary.

Staff reviewed the permit history for the property and code compliance case CC 26-00604 was open and issued on May 6th of 2026 for work occurring without permits related to the storage shed that is the subject of this request.

The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow a solid fence within the required front yard.

According to the submitted site plan, the existing fence is located along both the northern and southern side property line and extends approximately 29 feet beyond the front wall of the primary structure into the required front yard area.

The applicant is requesting approval for a solid wood fence measuring approximately four feet six inches in height.

The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow an existing storage shed to encroach into the required side yard setback along the southern property line.

The storage shed measures approximately 12 feet by 12 feet for a total of approximately 144 square feet and has a height of 10 feet.

The A-5 zoning district requires a minimum side yard setback of five feet, and the applicant is requesting a setback of two feet six inches, resulting in a deficiency of two feet six inches from the ordinance requirement.

Staff also reviewed lock coverage as a part of the analysis, and the existing lot coverage is approximately 26.47%.

With the storage shed included, lock coverage increases to approximately 28.46%, which remains below the maximum permitted lock coverage for 50%.

These are the proposed elevations.

And if the special exception and variants are approved, the applicant will still be required to obtain all necessary permits and comply with all other applicable development standards.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Yes.

Okay, it's free.

Um yeah, I have a question.

Um the special exception for a fence up to four feet, and this fence is four feet six inches.

Staff administratively approved the six inches.

Thank you, because otherwise we'd need another one, right?

Correct.

Perfect.

Okay.

And the drawing that you the image you had up just a second ago.

Um, stop.

So the 12 by 12, that's a storage shed.

Yes.

We know does that have a concrete pad?

Is that what that's demonstrating?

Right there, those poles.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, uh, is the applicant here to speak?

You come on up.

Uh, this is a translation case.

You have 14 minutes.

And then the if there's anybody here to speak in anybody else here uh to speak in favor.

Favorite or opposition, please come to the front.

Thank you.

Uh go ahead.

State your name and your address, and you have 40 minutes.

Good morning, my name is Frankie Hernandez.

I live in 3201 Michelle Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas, 76105.

The reason why we're here as you can see there on the plans, I built a wooden fence in the front of my property.

And since I've only had this house for about a year and I've been there with the neighbors, I didn't think I needed a permit to build a fence for the house.

Yeah, tengo seis meses.

It's been six months since I built it.

Hey apenas fue como un mes que fue el del City A de uh, ya la tengo, somebody from the city went there because I had already built it and I had already started the storage.

And I came here to see it since I've already built the fence.

If I could keep it and you not take it away from me.

And while the storage I haven't finished building it, I just have the interpreter to clarify.

Just the frame and the beams, it's not finished yet.

And as the lady said earlier, the storage floor is not concrete, it is made out of plywood.

I have it sitting on pieces of concrete that are two by one feet.

Anybody else here to speak in favor?

Okay, and then we'll open it up to questions from the board.

Sir, on your drawing, I think to the left side of the drawing we're seeing right now.

Um, was there already a fence there that the church had built?

Yes, it was mesh.

What do you mean by mesh?

Like, chain link?

Chain link.

And is it still there?

See.

Yes.

So your fence is masking that.

See?

Yes.

And according to city code, the church is required to maintain a fence between the church and and residential property.

No.

So that was just a decision on the church's part.

Yes.

I have a question.

Oh, go ahead.

Hi.

Um on your shed, is there a reason why you built it where you did?

Because you look like you would have plenty of space to meet the five foot setback.

Where I put it there, behold, the size.

The two six.

So where you you've already started the shed, and your drawing here does not meet the five foot setback.

So my question is it my comment is it looks like you have plenty of room where you could meet the setback.

Is there a reason why you did not place it five feet from the property line?

Okay, como el garage tiene más o menos thres pies.

Well, because the garage has like give or take three Ps, three feet, that's why I estimated the distance for the shed.

From the lower part, it does have the five feet.

Lower part, but your drawing notes too and I don't know if that's a sixth.

Two feet six inches.

Thank you.

Yes, towards the side of the church.

Okay, it just looks like you have plenty of space to have met the five foot setback.

Correct.

Thank you.

So again back to the fact that there is has been no concrete laid.

My question is, how difficult would it be to move that shed just over a two and a half more feet towards the garage?

Well, it's because I've already the rooms done.

It I can't.

Interpreter to reflect that the applicant is showing a picture of the construction.

If he have a physical copy of the picture, he can give it to staff and we'll project it.

We'll just have to keep that picture.

No.

No.

Emily, are there any pictures that were submitted with this application in a docket?

No.

Okay, I guess since you said it was on some concrete blocks, I assume that they could possibly be moved.

And you're telling me that that is not possible or it's difficult.

It would be difficult to move it.

I would have to take it all apart.

Thank you.

The uh from the church parking lot to his property, is there um a change in altitude or height from the from the church's parking lot to his property?

Is there it's not flat, right?

Is that correct?

See.

No, it goes downhill.

Goes downhill from his property to the church or from the church property to his property.

Yeah, uh, the storage meal the la iglesia tamas alta como those pieces.

From where my storage is, the church is about higher, about two feet.

And what about at the front of the house with the fences?

Um, okay it's the level's the same.

It's it's a downward.

Okay, any other questions?

The applicant.

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

Thank you.

Ms.

Riley.

This is somewhat related to this case.

Um we had discussions probably about nine months ago about having administrative approvals for side yard setbacks.

And was curious uh my recall was that it was gonna be two and a half to three feet where it could be done administratively, is that correct?

Yes, so we are um still working on text amendments to reduce the setback to three feet for accessory structures.

Um currently the detached garages are already allowed to have a reduced setback of three feet.

So I didn't see any um correspondence or anything from the neighbor to the north.

Um for me personally, the the fence adjacent to the church I've got no problems with, but on the other side, it staff did we have anything from that neighbor or any communication?

No, thank you.

Okay.

So we're working on a new administrative rule that if it's that the administration can do it just three feet, or that was originally proposed.

Nine months ago, but no has not been well that's right, it hasn't happened yet, but if it had happened, we'd be talking about a variance of six inches.

Correct.

Because the administration could approve three feet.

So we're now just uh being asked to do two point five feet.

We'll make sure.

I I'll go ahead and say I don't have a problem with this.

Uh either one, the uh fence or the shed, yes.

I you know, we always he'd made it a little farther in, but I if if the city is going to change its administrative code so that the staff can approve to three feet, we'd be he'd be coming here and asking us for another six inches.

So the city we have proposed some revisions, they're currently being reviewed um and discussed internally in order for that text amendment to come to fruition, it'll need to go through zoning commission for uh approval and ultimately um to council for the final approval, and that hadn't happened yet.

Sure, I understand.

I'm just saying if this is if we were here six months from now, we'd be talking about six inches instead of maybe, but either way, if it's approved by city council, but it hadn't been proposed to city council at this time.

Uh, this is Johnston.

I I don't have a problem with the front yard fence on the side where the church is.

I do have a problem with the other side because what happens is these cases are not done in isolation.

If one person had them the next person, then all of a sudden we have uh a neighborhood of fences in the front yard.

Um is there any way that we can basically split that special exception uh to allow the one on the on the church side, but not the other one.

Other side.

Yes, that can be a stipulation made with the variance.

Okay, and and I and I don't have a direction on this chart.

Is the church on the on the north or the south?

To the left.

The churches to the south.

The south.

Okay.

Where the shed is.

Where the shed is, okay.

So that's part of why I don't have a problem with the shed.

I don't have a problem with the shed and I don't have a problem with the fence on the church side, but I'm with you.

I I do have a problem on the the fence by the other neighbor.

Got one other question.

Um parking that's indicated on the aerial photo of the church, is that parking all the way to the property line or is there a setback on that?

Can you repeat your question?

On the aerial photo, which is up here right now, this indicates parking, but in his south uh property line.

Is that parking all the way to the property line or is there a setback of that parking from the property line?

It appears to have a setback.

Um there is some green space that I can see and some mature trees that's parked in that's in that area between parking and the property line.

Okay.

I mean I don't have a problem uh I think approving uh both the special exception, but uh maybe on like uh some of the members have stated the fence in the front yard on the north side of the lot probably needs to be reduced to six uh to four inches, four feet, which is requi I mean that's allowed.

Yes.

So the fence currently is um four feet is just the special exception is to allow the solid wood fence up to four feet because uh by right they'll be allowed an open design fence at four feet in the front yard.

Okay.

Um I have a comment.

But okay, make sure I understand the four foot six really is not an issue.

It's just the material.

Yes, it's a solid wood fence.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, yeah, I'm I'm still struggling with the um shed issue.

Um when I hear the owner indicate that it would be difficult considering the fact that the shed and correct me if I'm wrong is not on a concrete pad, but on smaller um concrete blocks that could in fact lend themselves to have this structure moved so um I is uh property owner even willing to entertain that I because I haven't seen a picture of how far along this building has been erected.

Um I'm just I'm still struggling with it back up ask.

Can we have the applicant come back up to the podium, please?

I have a question.

Yeah, how far how far along is the the structure in its building?

Uh like about 80 percent.

Okay, well, no.

Okay, los those A's is they me fence.

The two six is from my fence.

Okay.

From my fence to the church's fence, there's more than a foot.

But does that address the issue of where the shed is placed?

I mean, uh is there an obstruction or something that doesn't allow you?

Mr.

Chair, can I ask?

To the applicant if you have a photo on your phone.

If you would like to submit it, we will try to project it from the phone.

Okay, thank you.

May require you turning up the brightness on there, not sure.

Can you turn it around?

One more time.

Turn it right, yeah.

Is that the current state?

C.

Okay.

Yes.

And that's a wood frame.

Yes.

Yes, okay, thank you.

We'll close the public hearing again.

Thank you.

I have a staff question.

Do we I can't, it seems like we have a height limit for sheds.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Ten feet is the maximum height.

Was it stated in the application of how tall the shed is?

Yes.

And their elevations, they have it at 10 feet.

That's within allowance.

Yes, okay, thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Do we have a motion?

I have just one more comment.

The uh I don't have a problem with any of this.

The from the back of the the neighbor to the to the to the back of the art there's already like a four foot drop, is that correct?

Uh and so it's not gonna look any nicer if it's three feet further in.

I don't see a problem with the fire control, fire department coming back there, so I don't have a problem with both of these motions.

This is this is Johnston, and I'm gonna uh hope that I'm not complicating everyone's life.

But I would make a motion that special exception A be granted as written, and then also a motion that special exception A be granted only as to the uh south fence.

So one motion um special exception A to be approved um for the solid wood fence along the south side of the property.

I'll tell you what, I'll I'll I'll modify that.

I'll just say to move that the uh special exception A be granted as to the north side of the property, but not the south side of the property.

Okay, I I I promised you I've confused your life.

So the uh motion would be to grant the special exception A as to the south side of the property, but not the north side of the property.

And I'll second that.

Okay, do we have a motion for uh A and B or is this just for A?

Let's just stick with A for now.

Yeah.

Okay, but we're coming back to B.

Uh Ms.

Duffy.

I'd like to um put another motion on top of that one.

I'd just like to motion that we approve it as written.

I think this gentleman's invested some nice money in that fence the way it is, and it's it's made an upgrade to the neighborhood, and I I don't see a reason that we have to reject this one.

I'd like to motion that we approve as written.

Second.

Okay, so we have a motion by board member Michael Johnston and a second by board member free.

However, we have a counter motion by board member freed and second by second board member Duffy and second by board member Powell.

Can we accept the counter or we have to vote on the second?

We have to vote on the second.

Now you can accept an alternate to the alternate, um, and we'll vote on them in reverse order.

Okay, so if there is a third motion, we can hear that.

Well, we got so we have two motions on the table.

We can go to three.

We're gonna vote first on the both fences.

Is that right?

Unless there's an alternate motion in a second.

Ms.

Herrera has a as a mic somewhere.

Hello, there we go.

I have a counter to the two.

So mine is for special exception to approve the four-foot fence on this four-foot four foot fence on the south side that butts up to the church, but the left side know on the solid wood fence that they would need to build a fence four feet that is allowable.

So that's the same motion that board member Johnston made.

Yeah, this I didn't hear him.

So he I thought he agreed to leave the solid wood fence.

No.

He agreed to leave the solid wood fence on the south side and not the north side of the property.

Okay, sorry.

Then I would concur with his.

Okay.

So now we'll take the vote for board member uh K.

Duffy to approve special exception A as written.

Can I, Mr.

Riley?

Go ahead.

Before we take action.

If the original motion was approved, I just want to make sure everybody understands.

All he would have to do is remove every other picket.

And then it becomes an open fence, which would be allowed.

Can we go back to the picture?

Yeah, because it's the the code is 50%.

Okay.

You remove every other picket.

You've got an open fence.

You're in compliance.

And why?

Like why would serve the neighborhood?

But I'm just I'm not debating that.

I just wanted to make sure there was to it.

I just want to make sure everybody understood.

What we're voting on is the solid wood fence in the front yard.

And if he had removed every other picket on the one that's adjacent to a neighbor, not to a church.

Then it'd be good.

So I just wanted to make that understood.

So we're gonna vote on Ms.

Duffy's first, which says leave both of them solid.

Board member Duffy, would you like to proceed or withdraw your motion?

No, I like my motion the way it is.

Okay, sounds good.

So we'll take a vote for um case B AR-26-053.

Um a motion made by board member Duffy and second by board member Powell to approve special exception um A as requested by the applicant.

I'll do a world call vote.

Board member Jim Witten?

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board Member Michael Johnston?

No.

Board Member Bob Riley?

No.

Board member Deborah Freed?

No.

Board Member James Hook?

No.

Board Member Sandra King?

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrera.

No.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board Member Juan Manuel Acosta.

No.

The motion to approve special exception A fails.

Can we now proceed with the original motion?

Yes.

Yes.

So the original motion made by board member Michael Johnston and second by board member Deborah Freed was a motion to approve special exception A with stipulations of granting the solid wood fence along the south side of the property and not along the north side of the property.

Is that correct?

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Okay.

I'll do a roll call vote.

Board member Jim Witten.

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board Member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board Member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board Member James Hook?

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King?

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrera.

Yes.

Board Member Lacretia Powell?

No.

Board Member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion passes.

The fence can um remain along the south side of the property, and the fence has to be removed along the northern side of the property, abut in a residential home.

So I'll make a motion now regarding BAR 26-053, the variance.

To approve the um shed in the backyard with a two-foot six inch side yard setback.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion for case BAR-26-053 to approve variance B as requested by the applicant.

Roll call vote.

Board member Jim Witten?

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board Member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board Member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board Member James Hook?

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King?

No.

Board Member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board Member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member K.

Duffy?

Yes.

Board Member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion passes.

So just to restate, special exception A has been granted with stipulations of allowing the solid wood fence along the northern the southern side of the property.

And variance B has been granted.

Okay, thank you.

You can speak to the city staff you like because they're at least tomorrow.

Okay, next case.

BAR 26031.

Staff will present and anybody speaking on in favor or a position, please come to the front.

Thank you.

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

The property owners are D.

Trich and Madison Davis.

And the applicant is Wade G.

Chapel.

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

The case was continued from our last meeting because the board wanted to see different drawings of the carport.

Staff has not viewed these renderings, but the applicant will be presenting them.

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.

Board of adjustment variants approved to permit construction of a garage and guest house within one and a half foot to the rear yard setback and one foot side yard setback.

The applicant is requesting approval to construct a detached carport within the southwest portion of the lot.

The proposed carport measures approximately 13 feet four and one-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.

And if approved, the proposed carport would increase the total lot coverage to approximately 30.8%, which remains compliant with the maximum lot coverage requirement.

These are the regulations that pertain to this case.

And the applicant is required to comply with all applicable building code regulate regulations, including fire resistance rate of construction requirements.

The proposal must also comply with all other applicable development regulations, and this concludes staff's presentation, and I'm available to answer any questions the board may have.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Is the applicant here?

Okay, come on up, please give us your name, address.

Good morning, Mr.

Opposition.

Please come to the front.

Morning, Mr.

Chair.

Board members, my name is Wade Chapel.

I live at 6329 Klamath Road, Fort Worth, Texas.

I'm here again to clear up some concerns, specifically two items, one being rain runoff and the other being the positioning of the columns as they correlate to the existing brick fence, which is five feet high.

Apologize, I missed the deadline for electron submittal, so we'll have to go old school packet.

So as you'll see from the uh first photo.

Is it possible to get this up on the projector?

Thank you very much.

So as a refresher, the Davis has requested a five-foot variance to build a carport in front of the garage.

The garage received a variance.

I guess there's some discrepancy.

Last hearing it was zero.

Uh this week it's it's one foot.

Regardless, with that variance approval, the previous owner decided to build uh the edge of the garage wall one foot six and three quarter inches off of the property line to allow for overlap to make sure that all uh boundaries remain civil and they didn't encroach into the neighbor's property.

Um as such, there's a uh five-foot wall solid brick structure in the back, which you can see from both photos.

Could you go to next slide, please?

As you can see in the photo on the right, the brick wall is starting to fall over towards the Bailey's property.

And on the left, you can see it kind of has a gentle lilt and a beautiful row of trees on the right.

Rebuild it and integrate the columns into it so that it is not only functionally superior, but it also is aesthetically pleasing.

Next slide.

So here's a front elevation, and I'll start at the top right of the carport roof structure, which would be along the property line.

And we would actually be requesting a lesser but still intrusive three inch from the property line variants as opposed to zero inches.

So you can see in the faded sections in the middle, this really pushes the columns to the right out of the way of any vehicular traffic.

And we'll show in some later slides a second rendering where the carport columns are built to match the garage's one foot six and three quarter inch setback.

Next slide.

This is the bird's eye view of the roof structure.

It's a flat roof and it slopes from right to left, one half over 12 inches.

So any rain that's going to hit this thing is going to stay on the Davis's property.

Next slide.

And here's a full site plan showing the columns integrated into the design of the brick wall on the right side.

Next slide.

This is the Davis's side yard.

They have five family members.

They're going to be getting more cars over time.

As I mentioned previously, Mr.

Davis is in livestock sheep specifically.

He's a third generation sheep farmer.

That truck is over 26 feet long.

So navigating in and around that thing is going to be a challenge, and that's really the non-self-imposed hardship.

Next slide.

Is the support letter from the next door neighbor who we already had a support signature from, but he wanted to address concerns from the board specifically about runoff and intended use of the property to stay in the family's possession.

Not to mention that there's an enormous 200 foot tall cottonwood tree next door, which I'll show you some photos of.

Next slide.

Next slide.

No one's gonna ask for that tree to be cut down to build another house anytime soon.

It was here before us and it'll be here long after work on.

Next slide.

First, we went back to the architect and asked for him to downsize the width so they're not as much of an intrusion into the property.

But in the left picture, you can see where the inner edge of the column would basically line up as it comes down the driveway.

And on the right, you can see that little yellow arrow approximately where that location would be.

Next slide.

So here's a similar site plan with the one foot six, three-quarter inches offset from the property line.

Next slide.

It's going to be the roof profile, same metrics, same design.

Next slide.

This is the one that really is missing a little bit.

On the right side, you can see that it will leave from the roof a one foot four inch gap and a one foot six and three quarter inch gap at the bottom.

But what this doesn't show is a nine inch wide brick wall that's going to be between the new brick column and the property line.

So it's going to leave a little over nine inches of space for no reason.

The intent and purpose of the five foot setback is so that you can run a fire hose all the way around the property.

So if you're taking up an area this big and only leaving this tiny little area way it doesn't really serve the uh toner and intent of of the ordinance in my opinion.

Next slide is a comparison of one next to the other so that you can see uh the three inch versus the one foot six and three quarter inch variance options.

Next slide again this is what we're talking about that they're going to have to deal with maneuvering large vehicles around a small space.

Next slide these are not in your packet this is a list that I put together of all approved side yard variances within a three block radius.

The next slide is a screen capture from a cella where we pulled this information from then the last slide is a better map highlighting each case as approved as a star on our property I'm here for any questions.

Thank you.

30 seconds if there's anybody else here to speak in favor.

I would like to add one point of clarity the slab previous to this one is a screen grab of the GIS map the zoning map.

Is there any opposition here?

Okay we'll open up open up for board discussion or actually board questions.

I have one so you're saying all of the all of those cases cited were proved variances.

Correct anything that was not that did not include a side yard setback for instance if it was a rear yard setback I threw that out.

And how many of them total did you see?

I think it was a dozen I don't have a copy of it that was the only one I made Emily can you put the spreadsheet back up there.

10 cases.

I don't have a question but I do want to thank you because we belabored this a long time at the last meeting because we just couldn't see it.

And this was very very helpful thank you.

Thank you.

Happy to be helpful.

And just one point of clarity from the applicant are you requesting a zero foot sawyard setback a three inch side yard setback or a one foot six inch side yard setback.

We would be happy to accept all three options.

We'd prefer to keep zero we would take three don't really want to do the third option of one foot six and three quarter inches.

So three inches.

So my understanding is there is already a one and a half foot setback in place on that property from the garage.

That is correct.

Any other questions for the applicant Mr Chapel the um the new column for the carport is it an integral part of the replacement wall or wall or great point thank you for the question.

In the redesign of the new brick wall the supports will be a structural component and actually reinforce uh the brick wall itself.

How tall is that brick wall on your side?

Five feet.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay, we'll go ahead and close this uh part of the hearing and um open it up for board discussion.

I don't have any problem with this whatsoever.

The gentleman took the effort to make it crystal clear.

We had a lot of questions last time, and thank you for that.

It uh easier to make a decision when you have all the information for you.

I want to make sure I understand there's already in existence a variance that would allow 1.6 inches on a side yard.

Well, it's just the garage or the entire side.

Just can there put six inches?

If they put a one and a half foot setback in a variance preview, see that's it can't be just for one building, can it?

Shown on that application.

Just for whatever was shown on that application.

See that application, so we don't know.

Have we ever uh in the four years I've been here, have we ever approved a setback just for one building?

Garages all the time.

If you in my mind, and I'm not speaking for staff, is that if we approved a side yard setback for a detached garage, that setback does not run the rest of that entire property.

They couldn't expand their existing house primary structure to that same setback.

But staff might correct me if I'm wrong.

That is correct.

The variance was written specifically to the garage.

Okay.

They would I don't think to me, I think it's obvious that they could they could construct the carport with the same uh uh one foot six inch side yard that would be consistent with the garage and would uh would at least have some side yard uh setback.

So that's what and obviously they've they've could they've compli uh contemplated that and have plans to do you know have plans drawn that could that could do that.

The applicant said he would prefer a three-inch setback.

He must have his reasons.

Can we ask him what the reason is?

Uh applicant would you like to come back up?

Invited Trey Harden, who's the builder to uh participate in this answer.

Um the three inches is to allow for the soffit the soft, the overhang of the columns to match up to the to the property line.

Three inches.

If it's over one foot six, three inches, six one foot six and three quarter inches, um, which on staff's documents said it was one foot, not the one foot six and three quarter inches.

So I'm a little confused because last month it was zero, so you can which one is which.

But in terms of structural design, yeah, I I apologize.

So last time we were here, I believe, and and Trey Harden 31 uh 14 West Cliff Road West.

Uh it was specified that there was a zero foot variance uh approved on the garage only, because the soft it actually extends to the property line.

So basically what we're asking for is what is existing.

Um structurally, we would prefer if we could integrate the columns into the existing wall to you know keep it uh from tipping over again if possible, and aesthetically I think it's more pleasing to be honest.

You see any issues with water being trapped in between those two walls if they were separated?

I don't love the idea, yeah.

I think there's a lot of problems that could happen if we separate the columns from the wall.

Right.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Or the neighbor doesn't have a problem with uh with this at all, wrote a letter.

I don't have a problem with this with zero setback, neither do I.

I concur as well.

So do I.

Oh, can you speak into the microphone, please?

Is your green light on now?

It is.

Okay.

Okay.

I think they make a motion for BAR-26-031, except as written.

Second.

The second is from board member Witten.

Okay, we have a motion to approve as requested by the applicant for case BAR-26-013.

I'm sorry, 0 3 1.

Motion made by board member Sergio Garza and second by board member Jim Witten.

Roll call vote.

Board member Jim Witten.

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell.

Yes.

Board member Kay Duffy.

Yes.

Board member one Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Okay, thank you.

Our next case B AR 26033.

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

You get ready to speak, and then staff will present.

Also, we do take a lunch break at around noon.

So if you're towards the end of the agenda, just keep that in mind.

You may not have to sit here all night.

Thank you.

The next case is BAR-26-033 for the property located at 3904 Miller Avenue.

The property is owned by Texas for Land LLC, who is also the applicant.

The property is zoned R2 townhouse slash cluster district.

The can this case is continued from last month's month as it needed to be renoticed, and the site plan had updated.

The applicant is requesting two variances.

Variance A is a request to reduce the required established front yard setback from 44 feet to 16 feet 7 inches.

Variance B is a request to allow a parking within the projected front yard.

The zoning ordinance prohibits parking for one and two family uses within the front yard, and the applicant is requesting approval for two parking spaces within the projected front yard.

The subject property consists of an undeveloped square-shaped lot located within an established residential neighborhood.

According to Terran Appraisal District Records, the property contains approximately 21,562 square feet.

The lot was originally platted without alley access and contains several mature trees.

The site is not located within a floodplain and does not contain significant environmental constraints.

There is an approximate 1.3% downward slope beginning at the rear of the property and extending toward the front property line.

The applicant is currently in the process of replotting the property and proposes to construct a duplex development on the site.

Staff reviewed the development history of the property, and in 2022, the property was rezoned from A-51 Family District to E neighborhood commer and E neighborhood commercial district to R2 townhouse slash cluster district through zoning case Z C slash 22 slash zero three two.

The property is currently undergoing a replot process under the final short plat.

FS-23-161.

Applicant is requesting a variance to construct a two-family dwelling with a front yard setback of 16 feet 7 inches.

The proposed development consists of a duplex containing three bedrooms and two and one-half bathrooms per unit.

The zoning ordinance establishes the required front yard setback as the greatest of the platted building line, the zoning district requirement or the established front yard setback.

In this case, the applicable front yard setback is not determined by the zoning district requirement.

Although the plot establishes a 25-foot platted building line, the subject property is located on a block face where more than 40% of the lots have been developed.

Therefore, the established front-yard setback is used.

The established front yard setback is determined by the nearest building on either side that is closest to the street.

Staff determined that the applicable is uh established setback is based on the property located at 3914 Miller Avenue, which has a front yard setback of approximately 44 feet.

As a result, the required front yard setback for the subject property is 44 feet, and the applicant is proposing a front yard setback of 16 feet 7 inches, resulting in a variance request of approximately 27 feet 5 inches.

The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow parking within the projected front yard.

The site plan submitted indicates that there will be a total of four parking spaces provided with one parking space in each garage and two spaces being located in the driveway in front of the front building wall and within the projected front yard.

The zoning ordinance limits driveway coverage to a maximum of 50% of the front yard area measured between the uh front property line and the closest location of the structure.

The submitted site plan indicates driveway coverage of approximately 45%, which complies with the maximum driveway coverage requirement.

The driveway approach measures approximately 10 feet in width and widens to approximately 20 feet over a length of approximately 61 feet.

These are the regulations that pertain to this case.

And should the board approve the requested variances, applicants will be required to comply with all other applicable development standards and obtain all necessary permits.

This concludes staff presentation.

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

Any questions?

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

Uh please give us your name.

Your address.

Then the uh if there's any opposition, please come to the front.

Hi there, my name is Cooper Conger.

Um, owner of Texas Foreland LLC, uh 251 Sunset Lane, Fort Worth, Texas, 76114.

I have a small exhibit I'm gonna hand over here.

I printed out 13, so there should be enough for it.

Uh so I believe staff did a great job presenting this case.

I'm just gonna run through the five um conditions for a variance or the five things that we are supposed to look at when applying for these variances.

Um, number one is will the literal enforcement of the ordinance result in a hardship or practical difficulty.

Um the literal enforcement results in a 44-foot uh projected front yard setback, which is our side yard.

The ordinary zoning code would typically require us to have a 10 foot setback instead of 44 foot.

So this projected front yard does have a material impact on the usability of this property.

Um is the hardship self-imposed?

We did not impose this hardship upon us.

It was from the rear neighboring property.

Um, there's a commercial building behind us that actually parks in front of their building, um, which is why they have a further setback would be my guess.

Um, and then number three is this is in regards to the exhibit I gave y'all uh is the condition unique to the property or is it common to other properties?

Uh so we have a gold star on our property, and then every red dot shows a typical corner setback in this neighborhood.

Um we didn't capture them all, but I just gave a few examples that typically the uh corner setback is 10 foot or less at when these streets intersect uh in this neighborhood.

Uh so that it would fit in and it would not be anything out of the ordinary uh for this area.

Um will the request it number four is will the requested variance injure the adjacent property?

Uh no, it would not.

I actually have the owner of the adjacent property, uh Jeremy Smith here with me, and the person who sold me the property that I'm developing.

He he sold it to me and uh it does not injure their property, it'll bring them if anything more customers and and help them out and help out the the neighborhood as well.

Um and then number five is kind of redundant.

It says, will the requested variance be contrary to the orderly development of the area?

And as I I believe I've shown on this exhibit, it is not contrary to ordinary development.

It's actually very in line with with ordinary development.

Um, and I'm open to any questions y'all may have.

Thank you.

anybody else here to speak in favor?

Okay, come on up, please.

Give us your name and address, please.

Jeremy Smith 3005 Mount Horn, Fort Worth, Texas 76105.

Okay.

Right.

Yes, I'm in favor.

Um, like Cooper was saying, I own the building of the restaurant that's situated right directly next door.

And just simply put, um, the more homes that we have in the neighborhood, the better for the small businesses, especially a business life or restaurant.

And we don't feel the different negatively impacts um the setback.

We don't feel as if that negatively impacts our business at all.

Okay, thank you.

Here's speaking uh opposition.

Okay, we'll open it up for questions from the from the board.

Is the front of the house on Miller or Baylor?

Baylor.

It fronts on Baylor.

Okay.

But there the setback is being established by properties on Miller.

Yes, sir.

So when it's a corner lot like this, you see this one sits on the intersection of Miller and Baylor.

The uh rear property on Miller, their front yard setback has to be taken into account um as their projected front yard setback, and that's where they're set 44 foot back from Miller, and that makes my side yard setback for Miller uh per code would be 44 feet.

Okay, and is is your in terms of Baylor Street, is the front of the your structure consistent with the fronts of the other structures on Baylor Street?

Yes, sir, it is.

Yes, that's been uh reviewed by by Platting and staff, and our our fronts on Baylor are good.

We didn't want to take off a Miller Avenue, it's a pretty busy road, and so we prefer to take everything off of Baylor.

Thank you.

So go ahead.

I think I heard something in the staff presentation that I want to clarify.

Um, and I know that when we get to front setbacks, there's always the base code for the whatever the areas designated uh in terms of zoning, or the platted, or that that's established by other um properties.

Did I hear that the platted was 25 feet?

That's for staff that is correct.

Okay, and um for the applicant, um is the same development possible if you go with the platted setback of 25 feet.

No, it's not.

That's about the the skinniest plan that we have and with um through plating, we're actually able to remove that platted setback um in the plating process.

So the platted setback will not be 25 feet once we record that plat.

Okay, so but you would still require the very uh variance.

From the projected setback of the uh commercial property.

So what would it be platted at?

Is my my guess it would be platted at what the zoning would be?

So, um, excuse me, as a part of the plat or replat, a platted building line is not required to be shown on the plat.

Um sometimes it's added, but it's not required.

So it would just be his um the setback required by the zoning district or the establish front yard setback.

So what is the zoning district for this?

The zoning district is R2.

Emily, do you recall the setback, the required setback for R2?

Jimmy Lant Maraville, do you on the exterior side it would be 10 feet?

You mean the front side?

Setback off of Miller would require to be 10 feet under the zoning code.

Oh no, for front yard if not required any for our two.

Unless there's an established.

So R2 front yard setback as according to the zoning ordinance does not require a front yard setback.

Um, however, since Miller is the side street, they will be required a 10 foot setback along the side street.

But because there is a projective front yard, their established front yard is at 44 feet.

Right.

I understand the established, but once it's replatted, we're good.

Once it's replatted, they won't have a platted building line of 25 feet.

They'll just um they won't have a a zoning district.

And then we'll be held to once we're platted with no building line, we'll just be held to hopefully if this variance gets approved, the sixteen foot seven inch we have proposed rather than the forty-four projected.

Got it.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am, thank you.

No longer confused.

Good.

Mr.

Riley.

Um try to compare this plan that's on the screen to the zoning map.

And um, they're not oriented the same way, are they?

That's more of a question of staff.

They are not currently the they are oriented towards Miller, so east-west, with his replot, he is changing the orientation and adding uh or creating new lots, and they will be oriented north-south to Baylor.

So we don't have any pictures, trying to figure out on the zoning map, where the A5 is that adjoins this track?

For the what?

I don't know if what you're saying is to the it's to the south.

So the A5 is also oriented east-west.

It's that white building south of the yellow of the lot.

The lot is the yellow lines.

But the white building is a commercial property.

It is, but it's zoned A5.

Okay.

Do we do we have how do we take a projected front yard from something around the corner?

With a parking lot in the front, like.

So according to the zoning ordinance, because this is a corner lot and there is a property that fronts Miller Street, that property creates the projected front yard, and so that is what creates the projected front yard for um the property and the subject property.

It's at 185 lot.

So because the lot is zoned A5, even though the use is commercial, um the A5 residential lot establishes the projected front yard.

If this lot had been zoned commercial, um to the south, there would not be a residential projected front yard.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay, we'll go ahead and close the uh public hearing and open it up for discussion and the motion.

I'll make a motion if there's not any discussion.

I make a motion to approve BAR 2603, both variances.

Um I think it's hardship based on scat the unfortunate rezone or the zoning of the adjacent lot, which created that second.

Okay, we have a motion to approve case BAR-26-033 as requested by the applicant.

The motion made by board member Bob Riley and second by board member Sergio Garza.

Does anyone have any objections to taking this vote together?

Or would you like to take it separately?

Together by motion.

Okay.

Roll call vote for variances A and B.

Board Member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley.

Yes.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Lacretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member K.

Duffy.

Yes.

Board member one Manuel Costa?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Thank you guys for coming.

Alright.

Next case B A R 26036.

Staff will present.

The next case is B A R-26-036 for the property located at 1821 Luxon Street.

The property is owned by Newpad Building Company LLC.

And the applicant is Cooper Conger with Newpad Building Company.

The property is zoned A-5, one family district, and is also located within the stop 6 zoning overlay district.

The applicant is requesting one variance.

The request is to reduce the minimum required lot width in the A-5 1 family district from 50 feet to 38 feet to allow for the development of a single family home.

This represents a division deficiency of 12 feet in lot width.

The subject property is a rectangular undeveloped interior lot containing approximately 12,769 square feet.

The site is located within a redeveloping neighborhood and contains mature trees.

The property is relatively flat and is not located within a floodplain or any other significant environmental constraints in the area.

The applicant proposes to construct a single family home on the site.

Staff review the development history of the property, and the property is currently undergoing a replot process under final plat FS-26-059, which is awaiting client reply, which is pending the outcome of this case.

Applicant is requesting a variance to allow a lot width of 38 feet where the zoning ordinance requires a minimum lot width of 50 feet.

This results in a deficiency of 12 feet in lot width.

Staff notes that the request is associated with the proposed reply of the property, which is intended to accommodate the single family residential development.

The subject property is also located within the stop 6 overlay district, which establishes additional design requirements for new residential construction.

These are the regulations that pertain to the case.

And if the requested variance is approved, the applicant will be required to complete the reply process and comply with all stop six overlay district requirements and all other applicable development standards prior to issuance of building permits.

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

Any questions?

Okay, we'll call the applicant up and uh you again.

Cooper Conger, 251 Sunset Lane, Fort Worth, Texas, 76114.

Uh this one's more straightforward.

Um this lot was deeded over illegally, it wasn't platted a long time ago.

Um we purchased it in this 38 foot um arrangement.

We didn't deed anything over or to make it smaller.

This is how we got it.

Um, and so that's essentially the hardship, and we're just trying to rectify that by platten it and allowing it to be developed.

Um we only have one variance request, you know, on a 38-foot wide lot.

We were able to get the two spaces behind the front building line as well, which is difficult.

Um, and so we're happy with that.

Um but I'm open for any questions, and I appreciate y'all.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in favor or opposition?

Okay, we'll open it up for questions from the board.

I just have a compliment for you.

Uh, as an applicant, it's refreshing to hear you come up and say here are the various hardships, and I think that's important, so thank you.

Okay, we'll go ahead and close this portion of the hearing and and open it up for uh discussion.

It's motion.

This to me is an easy one.

It's definitely a hardship, and that way a home can be built on it.

So I am in support, and if there's no opposition with the board, I would like to make a motion.

Okay, I'd like to make a motion to approve BAR 26-036 as written.

Second.

We have a motion for case BAR-26-036 to approve the request as requested by the applicant, the motion made by board member Jana Herrera and second by board member Bob Riley.

Roll call vote, board member Jim Whitten?

Yes, board member Sergio Garza.

Yes, board member Michael Johnston?

Yes, board member Bob Riley?

Yes, board member Deborah Freed?

Yes, board member James Hook.

Yes, board member Sandra King.

Yes, board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member Kay Duffy.

No.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

Your next case, BAC.

260015.

Staff will present.

The next case is BAC-26-015 for the property located at 251 East McAllister Road.

The property is owned by Davenbusters Incorporated, and the applicant is Scott Duffner and Miranda Yakano.

The property is zone J, medium industrial.

The applicant is requesting one variance.

The request is to allow a monument sign to exceed the maximum permitted height of eight feet.

The applicant is proposing a monument sign with a height of 15 feet, resulting in a variance request of seven feet above the maximum allowed height.

The subject property is a 12.18 acre corner lot located on the northeastern corner of McAllister Road and where ranch trail.

The property is currently undergoing a replat process, and the proposed sign will be located on lot 4R-1, block 1, which will consist of approximately 4.70 acres once finalized.

The site contains a gentle slope of approximately 3.46% from west to east.

The property contains mature trees and is not located within a floodplain or a scenic corridor.

The surrounding properties are also zone J, medium industrial, and there are no adjacent residential uses.

The site is planned for an indoor entertainment use consistent with the proposed development.

Staff reviewed the sign permit history for the property.

A monument sign application is currently under review and is awaiting client response, which is pending the outcome of this case.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a monument sign height of 15 feet where the zoning ordinance limits monument signs to a maximum of height of eight feet.

This results in an increase of seven feet above the permitted and permitted maximum height.

Staff notes that the ordinance allows additional height only when increased setbacks from the right-of-way is provided.

However, the proposed design does not meet the standard formula required to achieve the requested height.

The proposed height is 15 feet.

The proposed width is 6.58 feet, and the advertised area is 36 feet on the ground contact is 76%.

The nearest residential neighborhood is over 2,000 feet west of the subject property.

McAllister Road is designated as a neighborhood connector and where Ranch Trail is designated as a residential road under the Master Thoroughfare Plan.

The site is not within a scenic area or corridor.

These are the regulations that pertain to the case.

Should the board approve the requested variance, the applicant will still be required to comply with all other applicable development standards and obtain all necessary permits.

This concludes staff presentation and I'm available to any questions the board may have.

Did you have a zoning?

Do we have a picture of all the zoning right around there?

Is it all J?

Yes.

For this section is J.

All of that is J.

Yes.

Okay, anybody else?

Yeah.

Ms.

Reyes, um, I believe it was your second slide.

You described a percentage of slope.

Um it seems I read somewhere in the material, but I'm not confident that that was four feet of slope.

What what does that the what is the height variance created by that slope?

Um, I'm gonna refer to Mirabel with this one.

It was one of the plan examiners who did the review of this case.

Okay, so when I reviewed this um sign permit, the location of the sign is lower than some of the property.

Um, I believe it was to the south, but I cannot recall.

It's been a little bit, I'm sorry.

But yes, there is a height variance between the visibility of or where pedestrians would see this sign to the actual grade of where the sign is going to be placed.

And do we know if for example, this is a request for 15 feet?

Um are all 15 of those feet necessary to have visibility.

Um I don't know where I I have it in my brain that there was a four-foot slope.

That I gotta tell you.

Yeah, that's the percentage.

So that's that I couldn't tell you exactly the the feet wise how much difference what the difference is.

Okay.

Um now, whether 15 feet is required, that would be up to you guys to see if if that is I'm not standing there, so I can't see it.

So thanks.

We don't have that answer.

It is to the number of feet of slope.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

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

If you'd like to come up, you have seven minutes.

Opposition, you'll have seven minutes as well if there's anybody here to speak against.

Good morning.

Thanks for having me.

My name is Jason Kyle.

I'm with First in Main Signs.

We are out of Canton, Ohio.

Um speaking to the questions that were asked just a minute ago, there is a degree of slope downward, and so the measurement that we calculated is about three and a half feet of slope.

So I do you have the PDF uh drawings that were submitted.

If not, maybe I could throw something on the screen to share.

It was like our full exhibit package.

This might help me.

All right, if you'll notice at the top of the of the screen there, actually just got there is a relative grade, and that helps to show that the actual slope downward is three and a half feet.

So and if you take into consideration, there was another question posed, so I'm just gonna get to those first about the 15 feet.

The average height of a car is five feet.

If you get trucks, which are pretty prevalent here in Texas, you get into six or seven feet.

So if you take the slope decline of three and a half feet plus the average vehicle of five feet, you're already at an eight and a half you know, foot deficit from the intersection to where the monument sign would be proposed.

It's because of that hardship is why we're proposing the 15 feet to exceed that.

In addition to that hardship, the other questions that we wanted to present was the hardship self-imposed.

Um, this wasn't created by the proposed development.

This was an existing topographical topographical condition uh that's just based on where this is going.

Um I do believe that the condition is unique um because of the topography that was created, and um the site's location relative to the intersection, which is obviously where the main traffic is going to be coming from.

So it's that identification point from the intersection, which is about 340 feet away.

Um, it's important to have the identification to the to the facility in use of the monument sign.

This does have no impact to any surrounding uses I don't think that this creates any type of negative precedent um by allowing the variance to be at this height it's really just because of you know the condition of the site that's warranted it.

That's it okay thank you anybody else here to speak in favor?

Anybody here to speak in opposition okay we'll open it up to questions from the from the board.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um so I this may be a silly question but what makes you want to put a monument sign instead of a pole sign?

We're actually that's more this design is consistent with David Buster's brand same throughout and again we're not really looking to have like a giant pole sign we feel like that sometimes is a little bit more threatening uh to surrounding areas and neighborhoods we feel this is still good taste with the development.

Can I add a point of clarity to Miss Duffy?

Pole signs are prohibited in the city of Fort Worth.

So if you see pole signs out most likely they're legal non farming pole sign.

So even in a J we couldn't have a pole sign.

No.

And he can't place a freeway sign because he's not directly adjacent to the freeway.

So I have a question for the applicant and I think you've answered it but my brain says if the maximum sign height is eight feet and you've got a four feet difference then we should go for a 12 foot height and you're asking for 15 feet.

So you're well but we're also asking to take into consideration that most of the streets aren't bare there's going to be vehicles traveling down them all the time and the average height of a car needs should be calculated into that I do have one more thing that I can show that maybe helps illustrate your point.

Thank you.

Can you zoom in at all on the bottom photo?

Perfect.

Alright so this was kind of a flag test that we had that we had done a few months back.

It's hard to tell because of the coloring of the sign with the contrast of the trees behind it but in the center of that is the actual sign proposed at the 15 foot height.

Or I'm sorry that's at the eight foot height.

So if you can tell from that dealing with the slope that was taken from the intersection which is the 340 feet away but you can also see the vehicles that are there that are present as well and it's because of that that we feel like you know if we were just looking at something close you wouldn't be able to see it.

So it's really just trying to get the sign up high enough to where there is visibility that's adequate.

But that's with there is an actual sign there or you're just saying within that circle that would be the eight feet because you wouldn't have the sharp the trees there.

Well the trees will we're not removing the trees there we we did like a fake sign it's it's it's so it's like a a cutout that we put in place to show what the height what an eight foot sign would look like.

And it's again it admittingly it's a little hard to tell in the photograph but it is it is in there.

So is the 15 foot also intended to grab the attention of the people on the freeway as well no it will not have any freeway visibility.

Um are you using your site line you're starting at the service road of the freeway right is that where you're no we're at the main intersection there.

At where ranch trail correct so you so you're saying there's a three-foot drop from where ranch to where your sign is going to be?

Correct.

And that okay, I'm looking at a line that starts all the way over here at the freeway, three hundred and forty-one feet.

So what is the distance from where ranch road to your sign?

About 340 feet.

Can we go back to the slide that shows the red line with 341 feet starting at South Freeway?

Um it's in the presentation.

Yeah, there we okay.

So the dot starts here at South Freeway.

It says 341 feet to your proposed site, right?

That's correct.

That's to those to the sign location that's proposed.

Actually, it's 340 feet.

Okay, so how far from where ranch trail in that intersect from that intersection to your to your sign?

Um, I'm looking at it.

Well, actually, I guess it's actually labeled the same road on both on both intersections.

I'm not okay.

That's McAllister.

Yeah.

And then where ranch trail goes north and south on my map.

Correct.

Right.

So how far from there to your site?

That's you're on it, right?

You're on the sign?

That is 10 feet.

Yes.

There's no drop there.

From the corner of the property, right?

Minimal.

So your goal is to have your sign be seen from the service road.

Correct.

That is the main intersection.

Yes.

Okay, thanks.

Yeah.

I've got a question.

How tall will a building be that you're placing on this property?

If I have that.

I have elevations.

I don't have dimensions on them though.

But uh typically, I don't know, maybe 35 feet.

Will there be signage attached to the building?

There will be.

Oh it'll be much higher than what your monument sign is.

That's correct.

The building itself is taller than the sign.

Thank you.

There are elevations in the site plan that shows where the signs are affiliated to that, and so it's still having the some corner presence we feel is valid.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Uh okay, we'll close the public hearing and move it to discussion.

I will not be able to support this.

Uh I think it's an effort to change a monument sign into a O sign, which is not even allowed.

And my thought of on monument signs is basically if I'm driving public and I'm close to it, I know where to turn into the parking lot.

It's not a advertisement of whatever it is.

It's not giving me any more information that I can't get from a 30 to 35-foot building with signage on it.

So I will not be able to support this.

I believe it warrants a hardship for topography.

I'm at the same belief.

Uh also they had the opportunity to move the sign back so that it could incrementally grow and they chose not to do that, so I cannot support this.

The only compromise I would make is the three feet that they're saying that they would uh need because of the the drop in uh topography.

So it would go from um 15 feet to 12, I mean to uh I mean from eight feet to eleven feet, and that's the best I can do.

The closest intersection for me also is where a ranch trail in McAllister, not the freeway.

That's um service road.

So I would not be able to support this.

Is there any other discussion?

Oh, um, what can he applicant?

You'd be willing to uh go down on the hike.

We have a question for you, sir.

The question would be would would they accept a shorter sign?

Yes.

Would you be willing?

I I can't speak for them.

I could always bring that to them, though.

That could be uh an an option.

Uh what would be the the suitable height if if we're proposing?

What missed the um?

Let me say for the I I do think staff may be able to help me.

I don't think we had their room to move the sign to to get to where we could raise it to the additional percentage.

11 feet?

Yes.

Oh Stacey, can you reset um board member guards' microphone?

Is your green light on?

It is.

Okay.

Okay.

Um go ahead, Mr.

Carthage.

Eleven feet is the best we can do, and and that's not everybody at this council table.

So even if I run with the motion with eleven feet, it's it's not a it's gonna go through.

You know, there's eleven of us, not at I understand.

Yeah, you're you're not guaranteeing anything.

And and like I said, I I can't speak for for Dave and Busters, but I could only if that was what was proposed, we would we would look into that and and and go back to the drawing board.

So we're happy for the want to go back to the white board before we make a motion that way we don't slow down your whatever it is you because it if we say no today, it may put a hold for two years, is that correct?

If the denial is um with prejudice, it will place a hold, they won't be able to to submit another variance request of like kind.

It has to be something substantially different.

Um if it's a denial without prejudice, they can resubmit um, by right.

You have eight feet.

Um I guess if you want to talk to the people, the powers that be to 11 feet if that would work.

And again, that is not a an automatic yes here.

It's just that's the compromise that as one council members or board members willing to make.

Yeah, no, I appreciate that.

Is that a call you could make today?

Could you could you find that out and we can push you to the back of the agenda?

Um or would you like for us to vote on this now?

I think let's just go ahead and vote and vote if we can get that taken care of.

I mean, if if we can get it at 11 feet, then I mean.

We could ask for continuance.

We're willing to vote for it.

You you could ask for continuance as well.

You could come back.

Okay.

Possibly.

Yeah.

What do you want to do?

Oh, let's go ahead and vote.

I'd like to make a motion BAC-26- uh zero one five to amend it uh to a total.

I'm sorry.

I just have I want to pose a question.

So if we pick eleven feet out of the air, what what I mean are we resetting zoning code here?

Are we like where do we get eleven feet from?

It's a three-foot drop in uh in topography that that's eight foot.

That's eleven foot.

That's that's the only that's the only uh hardship that I see that it's you know, all right.

I didn't get the logic before.

If I could just make one point, uh I just want to make sure everyone remembers that a motion that fails for lack of receiving nine votes is a motion is is a denial with prejudice.

Still build it at any point.

Correct.

I'd like to make a motion BAC-26-015, with the only variance uh that the t tallest is eleven foot on this side.

Second, okay.

We have a motion for case BAC-26-015.

Motion made by board member Sergio Garza and second by board member Lucretia Powell.

The motion is to approve the variance with stipulations of the re the height being limited to twelve eleven feet.

That's correct.

Okay.

Roll call vote, board member Jim Whitten.

No.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board Member Michael Johnston.

No.

Board member Bob Riley.

No.

Board member Deborah Freed?

No.

Board Member James Hook.

No.

Board Member Sandra King?

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

No.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member K.

Duffy?

No.

Board member one Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion to approve fails.

Thank you.

Okay, our next uh case, BAC 26017.

Staff will present this.

Applicant and any opposition, please come to the front.

The next case is BAC-26-017 for the property located at 9301 Blue Mound Road.

The property is owned by Darwood Blue Partners LP, and the applicant is Edward Sign Service.

The property is zoned E, neighborhood commercial.

The applicant is requesting two special exceptions.

Special exception A is to allow electronic changeable copy on a monument sign located along the northern property line.

And special exception B is to allow electronic changeable copy on a monument sign located along the eastern property line.

The subject property is a 2.67 acre corner lot located at the southwest corner of Blue Mound Road and Heritage Trace Parkway.

The site contains a gentle slope of approximately 2.53% from the northwest to the southeast and includes mature trees.

A portion of the property is located within a designated floodplain, and the property is zoned E, neighborhood commercial, and is proposed for development as a gas station.

Staff reviewed the permit history for the property.

Two monument signs permits are currently awaiting under review, which is pending client response, which is pending the outcome of this case.

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

The city code states in section 6.411A, electronic changeable copy signs may be permitted by special exception of the Board of Adjustment and Commercial Industrial Mixed Use and Community Facility Zoning District, subject to the following conditions.

Provided, however, electronic changeable copy signs shall not be allowed within the Chisholm Trail Parkway, three-way scenic corridor.

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

Two, the visibility from residential districts.

Three, the street classification of the adjacent roadways, and four the proximity to scenic areas or corridors.

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

Surrounding properties to the west are developed with residential uses and are zoned A-5 single family residential.

Blue Mount Road and Heritage Trace Parkway are classified as neighborhood connected roads under the Master Thoroughfare Plan.

And the site is not located within a scenic corridor.

The applicant is requesting two special exceptions to allow electronic changeable copy on a monument sign located approximately five feet from the northern property line adjacent to Heritage Trace Parkway and the other one located approximately 60.33 feet from the eastern property line adjacent to Bluemond Road.

The proposed monument signs each have a total area of approximately 92 square feet.

The electronic changeable copy portion measures approximately 12.47 square feet, which represents 24.91% of the total sign face.

This complies with the ordinance requirement limiting electronic changeable copy to a maximum of 25% of the signed face.

And the applicant also meets the requirement for non-advertising area, but providing approximately 19.13 square feet exceeding the minimum requirement amount.

These are the regulations that pertain to this case.

And if the special exceptions are approved, the applicant will still be required to comply with all other applicable development standards and obtain all necessary permits prior to the installation.

This concludes staff's presentation, and I'm available for any questions the board may have a question.

So even though can we go back to the map where it shows the residential area please so even though residential so there you have a north monument sign that would be very close to the residential that is still allowed I can see where the other one the west the east one might be but is it because of how it's zoned the various information you have on the left side I just think that's kind of close to a residential area.

Yeah that's something the board has to consider when they take into effect it's up to the board to decide whether it should be that close to residential.

So we could deny one sign and have can we deny one sign that and not be electronic changeable and then allow another on the same property yes we separated them into two special exceptions so you could approve one deny the other okay thank you.

Mrs Johnson are they asking for two changeable signs on this property?

Yes sir.

Okay did I also understand you to say that the the proposed sign itself exceeded uh maximum square footage or something of that nature?

No so they comply with all other regulations they exceed the minimum they are they have to have a minimum of non-advertised and they exceed that minimum so they're good on the aspect okay and which which one of these is closest to blue mound and heritage trace?

East.

Uh let me go to the site plan real quick so there's one sign right here off of Blue Mound and then the other sign right here off of Heritage Trace.

Which which would be the one furthest away from the residential areas east.

Exception B.

Thank you.

Stephanie did you have a question yeah I this is a crazy question but where does Blue Mound cross heritage trace exactly the address you have listed for this property shows me south of 287.

I used to live up in this neighborhood and heritage didn't cross blue mound when I was there and it doesn't according to Google maps.

I have it displayed on the screen as well.

Blue mount is I think I'm reading this correctly the state highway whereas one fifty yeah one fifty six right where is heritage trace is um arterial or whatever.

Any other questions it doesn't go that far most of the traffic I would assume would be well on 156 or blue mount.

Right but what heritage trace doesn't go west that far west I'm just confused about where this is the applicant's gonna help me out.

So we'll get to answer that okay we'll go ahead and hear from the applicant you have seven minutes please state your name and address and then uh if there's any opposition please be ready.

Good morning Chris Edwards uh Edward Science Service 239 Works Davis, Duncanville, Texas, is my home address.

So pretty much, we do meet all of the uh city requirements as far as uh the sign, the height, square footage, and what we're here today is to ask for special permission for the use of LEDs.

These LEDs are white.

Normally uh they they can be red or regular, green for diesel, but these in this particular case will be white.

And um, so it's part of the uh requirement through the city is uh no flashing LEDs.

We've uh we we get that, uh no scrolling LEDs.

It does have an automatic dimmer switch, so it will dim at night, and it does have the ability to adjust that to even go dimmer if possible.

Uh so if brightness is uh issue, there is uh things set in place for it to to be adjusted.

Um, so we uh we meet all the requirements as far as that.

Um, and uh we've cleared saw with the city uh with the planning and zoning development, and and once again we'd like to ask for special permission for the LEDs, and I'm here to answer any questions if you have any.

Thank you.

Anybody else here to speak in favor?

Okay, come on.

Come on up.

They're not here.

Oh, you can you can come up as opposition, yep.

You have seven minutes, just give us your name and address, please.

Greeting board.

Uh, my name is Brian Ketchum, 629 or Ricochet Drive.

To answer the Heritage Trace question, heritage trace, it is weird, right?

Uh, it is divided by 287.

Um, that project was slated to be done in 2027 to connect the two sides underneath 287, however, they haven't started.

So it'll probably be 2037 before they go underneath 287 to connect heritage trace, and then actually heritage trace dead ends at a train track at the end of the next subdivision, and they're just got a grant to put a track uh bridge over it.

It'll be a full corridor down through, but we're looking at decades from that.

Um so, anyways, that's that.

Uh, my name's Brian Ketchum.

Like I said, I live in the neighborhood directly there.

Um, I understand I'm not here to oppose the 7 Eleven itself.

I don't have any control over that.

And I understand that growth is coming to this area, and I understand that businesses are going to continue to develop along Blue Mound Road.

My concern is specifically with the requests for the special exemption for the electronic changeable signs, both of them.

The proposed signs will face directly towards my neighborhood and towards my home.

The one that's on the Blue Mound side will also shine brightly into the people directly behind them, um, which will be another source of light shining in the area that's primarily residential.

Well, this may seem like a minor issue on paper when you're drawing up plans for those of us who live nearby.

This becomes part of our daily life and affects the character of our neighborhood.

I reached out to the project manager in March before this hearing, and I simply asked, would they be willing to work with the community on signage, lights, and maybe some trees or fencing to block some of the lights?

And his response was, well, I'm sorry you feel that way.

I found that response disappointing because it suggested there's very little interest in working collaboratively with the people who live next door to this development and will be there long after this construction is complete.

I'm also very concerned about the precedent this would set.

There are already businesses down Blue Mound Road all the way to 287, and none of them have special electronic signs given to them, and they'll have to operate within the rules.

There's a quick trip on the next exit up, and they have to change theirs manually because they comply by the same rules as everybody else, and they're actually further away from homes than the 711 will be.

As traffic and commercial developments continue to increase in this corridor, we cannot afford to establish a precedent that every new business can seek larger, brighter, and more attention-grabbing electronic signs simply because it'd be beneficial to the marketing efforts.

The purpose of development standards is to create consistency for and protect nearby neighborhoods.

Once exceptions become the norm rather than the exception, those standards lose their value.

Most importantly, I don't believe a hardship has been demonstrated here.

The property can operate as a successful convenience store and gas station without the exception.

This appears to be a business preference and not a necessity created by the property itself.

I respectfully ask you to re deny the request on both signs and uphold the standards that are already in place for all businesses along this corridor.

Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

Did you have something to say?

You have a few minutes left.

Sir.

State your name and address real quickly.

My name's Kyle Flugel.

I live at 633, Ricochet Drive in the Liberty Crossing subdivision, which I think you can see my house in that picture.

Uh I also oppose this simply from the simple standpoint of as regards precedence.9 miles on Blue Mound Road.

They've got two under construction, and an exception here is going to lead to other exceptions.

So I would request that we not change the standard.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

We'll open it up to questions from the board.

Anybody?

I have a question of the applicant, Riley.

Applicant, please come up.

There's another uh number of facade signs that are shown out there by the uh tanks are any of those have uh electronic changeable pricing on those.

Uh can you repeat the question?

Does on the general side uh layout it appears that you've got some facade signs above on the canopy?

F one, F2s, F3s.

Maybe staff can put that site plan back up.

There we go.

I believe the uh on the canopy itself, uh there will be a 7-Eleven sign, which will be illuminated channel letters.

Okay.

And and the and their signature striping.

There will not be any changeable uh LED gas signs on the canopy.

No pricing signs, but I guess would they be allowed to put that up there on that canopy?

It would require a special exception.

Okay, because it's easy.

Yes, so uh electronic changeable copy requires the special exception from the board.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Any other questions?

I I'm I'm assuming, which is the most dangerous word in English language, that the only thing being changed is the gasoline prices.

Yes, it's uh this isn't like a message center that would, you know, or show pictures or any uh animation or your uh advertised product like a big gulp or a uh a hot dog or anything like that.

It would just strictly display the prices of gasoline, uh manual uh signs that they've used in the past.

The problem with those is the plastic uh um that holds those uh those fonts in, they get weathered, uh, they don't last very well in the elements and so they end up blowing out most of the time.

Uh then those fonts chip, they hit the concrete and then now you got a sign that's displaying half of the gasoline price sign, and it's not really uh, you know, moving forward with technology now with LEDs, LED is the preferred way to display price.

Thank you.

In in this map that's up right now, is that your property that backs up to those those um property owners uh fence fence line there?

That triangular area?

And I believe, isn't can you go back to the picture please?

Uh that uh it shows yeah now doesn't because as far as like the brightness isn't it in where the neighborhood is, I believe there is a brick wall that goes all the way around there before the neighborhood.

These are monument signs that are only eight foot tall.

Uh and so however how tall those brick retainers are, uh I don't think that the brightness of the sign being there would be that big a deal.

Well, let me ask you again.

Um, that property, uh, that triangular section of that property, do you own that?

Uh is that part of your just uh applicant?

I'd I'd well what my my question goes a little further than that.

I mean, I can answer that.

It shows as one parcel.

Okay.

What I'm wondering is is there any screening that you you'd be open to uh to protect those homes from that bleed overlighting?

Uh I'm open.

I'm open for anything because that would be a question.

You're just a sign guy, gotcha.

Okay.

And then a question I have the uh the lighting, it would be compatible with the street lighting.

And then the uh the they won't with street lights are or are yellow, blue, and I mean yellow, green, and red.

Uh these LEDs would be white.

Right.

I'm not talking about the traffic lighting, the uh the street lighting, the uh what you call them.

Talk about like the the overhead lights, yes.

That'd be all compatible uh with that, but at the same time, you brought up something just significant.

Um you said there's a brick wall behind the residential, correct?

The only thing you don't know if that brick wall is eight feet high, twelve feet high.

That I don't know.

And because if if your sign is gonna be eight feet and the wall is twelve feet, well then that there's no um discrepancy there because your sign is lower than the wall itself.

So it's not beaming into any resident, and that uh and that is eight foot overall height, there's actually brick and a cap above there, and so the sign actually I think the height of the readable copy would be more than about six and a half feet.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Ask the the opposition about the wall, so we can have accurate information about the wall.

Yeah, I'm happy to clarify a lot of it.

So across across heritage trace for that empty lot is there's no fence there.

So those signs will be shining brightly into those people's houses and the people on the end of Ricochet and Cattlemans.

The brick wall that they're speaking of starts about where the word the E inheritage is and goes backwards that way.

Oh, I can draw.

Oh man, okay.

I'm a teacher, I got this.

All right.

So the brick wall runs down here on both sides, and then there's a wood fence that the homeowners have here, but there is no fence here.

So all of these neighbors are gonna get blasted by the sign.

And then if you put the sign here, same thing, it's gonna hit the there's no wall here.

The fence on this one stops right there, so it's gonna hit them right in their backyard.

There's just and also the thing I'd like to bring up too is they keep saying it's just the prices are gonna be illuminated.

No, half that sign is a giant 7-Eleven logo that will be illuminated with bright 5,000 Calvin LED lights.

That's that's that's half the sign is the logo, and that'll be illuminated versus what they're saying, oh, it's just the prices.

It's not the price is a very small part of the sign, it's the giant logo, too.

So it'll be shining into all these people's houses and then illuminating that whole area.

I've got a question.

Thank you.

Do you understand that they have the right to put up the sign?

The only thing that's before us today is electronic.

I understand that.

You can put up a monument sign that they change them manually.

Correct, and the red red and letters and all that, backlit and all that is fine.

I understand they can put up a sign, yeah.

So all we're talking about is 25% or whatever percentage of the sign that has electronic changeable copy.

That's all we're talking about.

Talking about the whole sign, yeah.

Okay, just want to make sure.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

We'll close the public hearing again and go back to discussion.

So uh Mr.

Riley was saying the light is gonna be there.

The sign is gonna be there.

The only thing changing is gonna be the numbers manually or electronically.

But there is no way to restrict the sign, and it's so far away from the houses.

So I don't see how that really affecting the community.

Let me add to that discussion.

You know, I'm I'm a mixed because you look at the zoning map and apps, and anything that's west of Blue Mountain or 156, it's more of a residential area.

Everything to the east and north-south is really a commercial industry.

So I don't have any problem on the uh variance.

Um B, I believe it is, yeah.

The uh that's along the state Iowa designated property.

The only one I'm having trouble with is I understand the sign.

I mean, they gotta put up I don't think the neighborhoods understands that they can still put up the sign, it's gonna have the lighting associated with it.

The only difference is is gonna be electronic changeable copy.

So I'm good on B.

I don't know where I'm at on A.

I'm I'm right there with you.

Um, just in general, we're very the only part that we deal with is just what changes electronically, the pricing.

That's all that we're talking about today.

And um, while we're pretty strict in the city of Fort Worth in general on electronic changeable signs, as a general rule uh or general trend, we have been approving signs that are just the pricing, just health and safety because many times these signs are very tall, um and it's you know, I wish we could do something about something more about the signage and the lighting.

That's way out of our control.

Um so I'm I'm with you, I'm ambivalent on the first one.

And I guess I've got a question of staff or legal on electronic changeable copy.

I know we can't regulate the content of the message.

Can we regulate the color?

And the reason I say that is personally when I drive by a pricing sign that is red with a black background, it's not as intrusive to me as a white lettered on black backdrop of uh black.

So the zoning ordinance only mentions mentions color when it's within um an airport overlay, but I guess legally can we dictate the color of the letters in the exchangeable copy.

I would recommend not.

Okay, thank you.

Any other discussion or a motion?

Can I just make a general comment?

So, um we did receive a large number of letters from the Liberty Crossing people, um, which I applaud you for getting your neighborshood together, um, and for making that huge drive from North Fort Worth to come down and see us.

However, I will tell you, um, we the special exception for gas station science comes to our to our board frequently, and we always approve them because that's what's expected.

I think in society today is that you'll see the updated gas price without having to have a guy go stand out there in traffic to change it.

Um so I'm guessing this is probably gonna get approved, but I would um I look I we respect your ability to our um your organization of your neighborhood and look forward to you looking after your neighborhood in the future.

I personally don't think the light pollution from the changeable copy is gonna be any more than the light pollution that's already coming off their sign and their building like seven elevenths are very bright usually.

So um, yeah, I would have to go with it.

I do think that's the most number of letters we ever got from a neighborhood association on one single issue, so great work there.

Yep.

Wish we could regulate the amount of light a building puts off in general, but we can't do that.

Your motion.

This is Johnston.

I I make a motion to approve uh BAC 26017.

A and B with them voted on separately.

Second.

A second.

We have a motion for case BAC-26-017 to approve as requested by the applicant.

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

The vote will be taken separately.

Roll call vote for variants A.

Special exception A.

Board Member Jim Whitten.

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston.

No.

Board Member Bob Riley.

No.

Board Member Deborah Freed?

No.

Board Member James Hook.

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrera.

No.

Board Member Lucretia Powell.

Yes.

Board Member Kate Duffy?

Yes.

Excuse me.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion to approve special exception A fails.

Roll call vote for special exception B.

Board Member Jim Witten.

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board Member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board Member Bob Riley.

Yes.

Board Member Deborah Freed.

Yes.

Board Member James Hook.

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrera?

No.

Board Member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board Member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The special exception B passes.

Thank you.

All right.

Next case BAC 26016.

Keep in mind, folks.

We take a lunch break coming up in about 10 minutes.

So this may be our last case before we hit lunch.

The next case is BAC-26-016 for the property located at 3300 East Barrie Street.

The property is owned by Xavian Venture LLC, and the applicant is Hina Bahamina, representing Xavine Venture LLC.

The property is zoned E, neighborhood commercial.

The applicant is requesting one special exception.

The request is to allow electronic changeable copy on a freeway monument sign located on the northwestern portion of the property.

The subject property is approximately 0.47 acres and is located at the northeast corner of U.S.

Highway 287 and East Barry Street.

The site has an approximate 2.85% slope from north to south and does not contain mature trees or floodplain.

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

Staff reviewed the permit history for the property.

One freeway sign permit is currently awaiting client response, which is pending the outcome of this case.

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

The city code states in section 6.411A, electronic changeable copy signs may be permitted by special exception of the Board of Adjustment and Commercial Industrial Mixed Use and Community Facility Zoning District, subject to the following conditions, provided, however, electronic changeable copy signs not be allowed within the Chisholm Trail Parkway, freeway scenic corridor.

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

Staff notes that there are existing electronic changeable copy signs in this vicinity.

Surrounding properties are zoned A-5 single family residential with residential uses located immediately to the Master Thoroughfare Plan.

The property is not located within a scenic corridor, however, it is adjacent to a high volume transportation corridor, including US Highway 287.

The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow electronic changeable copy signage on a monument sign located at the northwest portion of the property near U.S.

Highway 287 and East Sperry Street.

The proposed monument sign has a total area of approximately 200 square feet.

The electronic changeable copy portion measures approximately 11.35 square feet resulting in approximately 18.97% of the sign face devoted to changeable copy.

This complies with the ordinance maximum of 25% the applicant also exceeds the minimum non-advertising area requirement for providing approximately 140.17 square feet of non-advertising area and the proposed sign is located approximately 3.16 feet from the north property line and approximately 2.55 feet from the west property line.

These are the regulations that pertain to this case and if the special exception is approved the applicant will still be required to comply with all other applicable development standards and obtain all necessary permits prior to installation this concludes staff's presentation and I'm available for any questions of board may have I have one question.

In your presentation you talk about this as being a monument sign but in our case it says it's a freeway sign.

This request is for a freeway sign.

Yes so the agenda is stated correctly good thank you.

This is Johnson I also had a question I think in your bullet your bullet points you said this was within the 287 scenic corridor or did I misunderstand you?

Uh it is within let me see it's a adjacent to a high volume transportation corridor which includes the highway two eighty seven it's not it's not within a scenic corridor no okay all right any other questions okay we'll go ahead and uh hear from the applicant if you're here um applicant not present anybody here to speak in um opposition okay we'll open it up to the two questions and comments from the board I don't have an issue with this one it's already a sign that's there and by what's in the packet it looks like it's going to be improved so I'm good with this one yeah I'm the same it looks like there's actually less space of changeable copy on the new one than there was on the old one so I can support this.

Additionally this is Bob Riley I can support it from a safety standpoint to get up there and put up a change letter and things of that nature as long as it is the freeway sign and not a new monument sign.

I'll make a motion for BAC26-016 that we approve a second or microphones Ted.

Or microphones Ted I'm hearing you okay thank you.

Okay we have a motion for case BAC-26-016 to approve as requested by the applicant motion made by board member Deborah Freed and second by board member Sandra King.

Roll call vote board member Jim Witten yes board member Sergio Garza yes board member Michael Johnston yes board member Bob Riley yes board member Deborah Freed yes board member James Hook yes board member Sandra King yes board member Jana Herrera yes board member Lucretia Powell yes board member K Duffy yes board member one manual costa yes the motion passes okay is going to do one more or do you want to go to lunch this the next one is okay we're gonna mix it at any sort of break yet go ahead and take a break okay we're gonna take a 30 minute lunch break we'll go ahead and say be back here at uh at uh 12 30 three.

Oh.

I do.

Okay.

Okay.

I can put one on my right.

Okay.

Okay.

That's like what I can do.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, guys.

Welcome back.

Um, we're gonna move on to our next case.

BAC 26016.

Is that correct?

Oh, we did.

Sorry.

I'm sorry, BAR twenty six zero four two.

Thank you.

The next case is BAR dash twenty six dash zero four two for the property located at three nine zero zero Potamic Avenue.

The property is owned by Douglas and Maria Mills, and the applicant is Douglas Mills.

The property is zoned A-7.5, one family district.

The applicant is requesting one variance.

The court the request has to exceed the maximum permitted fence height of eight feet in a residential zoning district by allowing a fence height of twelve feet along the eastern property line, located behind the front building setback line.

This represents an increase of four feet above the maximum allowable fence height.

The subject property is located within an established residential neighborhood and contains a newly constructed single family home built in twenty twenty-three.

The lot is approximately ten thousand seventy-five square feet in size and contains mature trees.

The site is not located within a floodplain and has a slight slope across the property.

Staff review of the development history of the property.

A code compliance case was opened in January of twenty twenty-six regarding a twelve-foot fence constructed without permits.

The applicant is seeking approval for an existing twelve-foot solid wood fence located along a portion of the eastern property line.

The fence is located behind the front building line and does not encroach into the front yard.

The fence material is permitted.

However, the height exceeds the maximum allowed eight feet for residential properties.

This results in a four-foot increase above the maximum permitted height.

These are the elevations of the fence.

These are the regulations that pertain to this case.

And if the variance is approved, the applicant will still be required to comply with all other applicable development standards and obtain any required permits or inspections.

This concludes staff's presentation and available for any questions the board may have.

Any questions?

Okay.

Um could you tell us how long that fence is?

Because it's not the entire length of the property line.

So is it like 12 feet long, 15 feet long?

Do we know?

Let me pull up the docket.

The applicant did provide elevations of that person.

Just give me one second.

Thank you.

I should know it.

I'm sorry.

I know the words are small, but it's 25 feet wide.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, we'll hear from the applicant, please.

Uh state your name, address.

My name is Douglas Mills, uh, address is thirty-nine hundred controlled cabinet forward Texas.

Speaking of the mic, please, political.

I apologize.

Uh my name is Douglas Mills.

Uh the address is thirty-nine hundred Potomac Avenue forward, Texas, seven six one oh seven.

So we um my family is applying for an exemption for what we had intended to be trellises on the side of our fence.

You can see that these trellises are in front of the existing fence, uh, and they have been called fences by the city of Fort Worth.

Uh there are two structures, one is ten feet wide, the other is is uh fifteen feet wide, so a total of twenty-five feet.

They're 12 feet high.

Um, we had these installed in January of 2026 by MBL landscaping, which is a reputable landscaping company in the area, and neither ourselves nor MBL was aware that these were going to be considered trellises by the or sorry, fences by the city.

Uh, and therefore we did not apply for any kind of uh um variants ahead of time.

Um the um after we were cited by the code compliance department, I clarified with them that that these were intended to be used as trellises, but they said that they were still going to consider them fences from their perspective.

Our um today I'm gonna describe uh a complicated story that I'll try to keep as brief as I can uh to clarify that that the intention of these trellises is to uh mitigate a um a hardship that is not self-imposed, it's imposed by our neighbor.

Uh um, and I believe it's intentional, um, although um I've never had him actually say that to me, but I'll explain why I believe that.

We originally built our house in uh uh between 2022 and 2024, and there were a number of concerns that our neighbor brought up uh uh regarding the builders, and we did our best to mitigate those concerns whenever they were brought up.

But at the end of the build, one of the painters left an outside faucet running, water faucet running, and the water seeped through a retaining wall that is behind that fence that you see up there onto our neighbor's side yard and kind of muddied his side yard.

So he he was very upset about that.

He he without calling, he came onto the property and shut off the water, and I simply asked him not to do that again.

I asked him to call me and I would go shut it off myself.

But without realizing it, that very much upset him to the point where I don't know that he has forgiven me for that yet.

Also during the build, you can see the trees behind the fence there.

Those trees are actually growing from underneath my neighbor's fence.

And so I offered to remove the trees during the build initially, but he cited privacy concerns, and so we decided to leave those trees, which I later was thankful for.

But over the course of the summer of 2025, he started to trim one of the trees in a very awkward fashion.

I have a picture of this on my application, where basically he trimmed a gap in the tree to allow uh floodlighting and a camera that he had installed kind of to be able to be viewed directly into our back porch.

This was concerning because we had previously had discussions regarding his cameras and his lightings, and he had refused to point his floodlights downward or his cameras downward towards his property, even though I was concerned about the cameras facing my child's bedroom.

This trimming the tree kind of felt very intentional because I couldn't think of any other explanation for trimming a tree in that fashion.

And therefore, we started discussing with MBL what we could do from our side of the yard with regards to landscaping because code compliance was very clear with us that there really is nothing that they can do to stop him from having cameras or lighting in his yard.

There's no code violation there.

So we discussed with MBL a combination of hedge trees and some hedges in front for some cameras that were in front of our yard.

The one area where they could not do vegetation was the area where we installed these trellises, and that's because we had when we did the original landscaping.

And as far as I know, there have been no concerns about flooding since we did that.

Um but um but that does prevent us from being able to put vegetation in that area, and so I asked what other options they could come up with, and they brought up trellises.

The concern that that we have is that these lights are 24-7 and the cameras are I assume on 24-7.

Um they're very bright, they're fine, they shine right into our home.

We do have curtains, however, we can't walk out onto our porch and actually see in our backyard because of the lights shining in the trellises have actually mitigated that for us.

Uh it's been a big stress reliever.

Um obviously there's more to be done here, but um, and this situation has been very stressful.

But uh, with regards to the lighting and the video cameras, I I think that allowing us to keep the trellises will um at least in part help us um deal with an unfortunate situation.

Um, there has been a concern that I guess the obvious question is how do I know that this is clearly directed at me?

Um if you look at his house, there's only lighting, or there is lighting on both sides, but the lights on his other side of the house are directly pointed downwards.

There's no video camera pointing that I can tell pointed towards the other side of his house, but he has 11 cameras, one in every window facing my house.

In January, he installed a can't two cameras that point towards our bedroom window.

You can actually see the picture posted up here where there's a camera down below.

This picture was taken from our bedroom window, and um, and it says if you see a camera, it also sees you.

Um, so that's feels very intentional.

Um, got about 20 seconds.

Okay.

Um, the uh we did get an engineering report that shows the safety of this fence.

Um we also have our westernmost neighbors who have written a letter in support of our application as well.

Uh, and we would just ask that you allow us to passively block these fences from our side of the yard.

Thank you.

Is there any opposition?

I believe we have something we wanted we need to put up on the screen.

Yes, we have received some opposition that's located in the lake correspondence packet that you all received.

There's also um one member who was present and had to leave who um opposition is on the screen.

One member of the public.

Let's move it over just a little bit.

Do we know where Hamilton is located?

I believe he is the next door neighbor.

Living uh confirm with the maps.

I'm I'm not aware that he lives behind me.

Um, Hamilton is the street behind Potomac.

And where is your house on there?

Um the yellow.

Yellow, uh, I.

Yeah, that's I think that's right.

I can't I can't really read the number, but if it's 3900, that's my house.

Okay.

Did your neighbors start putting up lights after you guys you said after you guys had a little bit of disagreement?

Um so the the lights and the some of the cameras went up during the build.

Um some of the lights were up before the build, but the one there was one light specifically that was in that was fixed.

It was in it was in disrepair, it was fixed and pointed at our house and as the build was ending.

Okay.

So um the neighbor at Hamilton stays behind four houses down to the east.

Okay, I have a question.

Um did I understand you to say that uh you put in you went with the trellis because you couldn't use vegetation because of the French drain that you put in at your neighbor's request?

Is that I understand that correctly?

Uh well the French train was not placed at his request.

Um I was concerned about his repeated uh worries about the flooding from the property, so I asked for a French train to be used to myself.

Okay, his concerns, but so that's why you can't use vegetation.

That that's what I was told by the landscaping company is that it wouldn't be able to be installed based because of the drains that were there.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Um, yes.

Can we go back to the slide?

Is there a green light on?

Wait, Madison is speaking.

Green light is on.

There we go.

All right.

On the trellis, did I see trellis wires on it as well?

Correct.

Or the trellis wires on both sides.

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your question.

Uh there no, there's a backing on the trellis that was performed in in order to kind of expedite the screening process and the trellis wires are only on the side of the property.

And what have you have you already planted vegetation to go up the trellis wires?

Uh no, the intention was to do it this spring, but once we were cited by the city, um they they didn't stain it or plant the vegetation.

Uh uh, we're waiting until we get approval.

Right, okay, but there is intentions for vegetation too.

Okay.

Absolutely.

Yes, can we go back to slide uh I believe it's paper one?

No, it's not a it's uh shells uh yeah, is it's favorite one 3820.

It's fever one thirty eight twenty side the back of the house.

Isn't worry, it's kind of keep going.

Here, right here.

Right here.

So is this his house?

Um the picture is taken from my neighbor's yard by my neighbors, my westmost neighbors across my yard into his that is his house, yes.

And the uh the red circle, in the window that that's a camera, right?

I believe both circles are cameras.

Right.

But I'm I'm talking specifically about the one that's in the window.

Correct.

Is that pointing into your backyard?

Yes.

I believe it also sees his yard too.

I I don't know for sure what it can see.

Well, okay.

One thing I wanted to say, uh also in the beginning, by right, you don't I don't believe you have uh you owe him an apology for simply asking him to uh call you about the faucet being accidentally left on because he could have walked over there and fail or anything, and then that would have been another issue.

So if he does not figure you for sharing it, you know, that's on him.

But at the same time, from what I'm seeing, this is harassment and inappropriate.

I know about the unknown neighbors personally experienced I know about um but I do not see issue with supporting this uh because there's no need for him to have to be harassing you and just have overkill on uh cameras and all of them are uh pointing your house and then the one member of the community lives four houses down and across the uh four houses down, but on a another street, is that correct?

Um that what I see in that that probably be his friend and they collaborated, uh, to have that done.

But however, at the same time, I I could support it.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Go ahead.

I have a question for staff.

Is it uh uh can we rule on on a temporary like an expiration date on the twelfth say 12 months to cool off both neighbors?

It's really hard to legislate um behavior, but if we give that's already built if we give this neighbor a twelve-month uh kind of s leave it, leave it be in the neighbor will see that there's consequences to actions, they might be able to the best thing would be for them to talk to each other, stop doing that, you know.

I believe the board can't stipulate a time frame.

Trace shaking his head, so yes, the board can't stipulate a time frame.

Sorry, I'm sorry.

You can't put a time limit on a variance, yes.

I don't think there's any cooling off.

I think there's a neighbor that has a grievance for whatever reason.

So, what would be the goal to having to take the lights down and take cameras down?

Yeah, the thing about we have to we have to kind of inspire uh uh uh it's not uh trying to influence we're trying to listen.

You this is ridiculous what you're doing to your neighbor.

And the whole world sees this.

The the Board of Adjustment agreed with him on this, you know, uh for twelve months.

You know, let's let's cool off and let's, you know, maybe they'll find uh room for um some sort of compromise.

It just gives us it's it's this is a really tense situation that could escalate.

And so we've already taken steps that are that have already affronted the neighbor.

He's got this 12 foot ridiculous wall, you know, and but the reasoning for it, I understand, you know, especially when you have kids, I understand that you cannot stop cameras and lighting from, you know, we just have to be civil neighbors.

And if we kind of give it a a cooling off period, he's made the investment.

And at that time, it's his job to make sure they find some sort of happy medium.

Do you think there could be a uh tit for tat?

Let's say you put we do allow the fence.

Is your neighbor gonna now create a pole with a light on top of the pole shining down into your backyard?

I mean, I but where does it end?

I think I think that you're you're correct.

There's a very good chance that if you approve this that he will do something else.

I I don't really know um what to do about that.

It continues to happen with really regardless of what we do.

Um we already have cameras shining in all of our bedroom or in our our bedroom windows that are on the east side.

I have reached out to our neighborhood officer who tried to mediate a conversation, but that was refused.

Um currently uh the detective uh the police department has this with the detective, but they don't feel like this is a criminal matter, so they've not done anything uh with regards to that yet.

Um I I would uh from a financial perspective, I would say that that if uh I just don't know that there's a good situation where having to take the trellis down in a year would really be w help good for us because we do have to invest additional cost into uh continuing the staining process and the planting process, and I wouldn't want to do that with the um plan for it to come down a year later.

Um I will say that we we do fully intend to take the trellis down.

Um if a new neighbor ever moves in or um if um things do cool off to the point where we feel like the offenses have stopped, we would be happy to remove that trellis despite the extra cost that we're about to put in it.

Um but but just I just it's been two years um and I just don't see another year doing much.

It's just gonna be really hard to say yes to this.

I understand it's just 12 feet is insane.

Okay, Mr.

Casa.

Yeah.

So on the neighbor's side that is uh trees looking that correct?

He's not having a direct view because the trees there were trees until he cut the limbs to allow for a direct view.

Thank you.

I just was questioning where we are in the process.

We still have opposition to listen to in this hearing, right?

We've already seen the opposition.

Yeah, they're not here, they're just submitted.

Yeah, they're not here.

They're not in attendance.

Any other questions for the applicant before I close the public hearing?

Okay, we'll go and close the public hearing and we'll discuss this.

Thank you.

I actually I I understand the trellis is not in accordance, but this is a tenuous situation, and it's been going on, and I don't have any issue in supporting the 12-foot, it doesn't run the entire length of the fence.

I don't think there is a cooling-off period, unfortunately.

Um, so I can support this.

Um also I mean disrupting your sleep is a huge thing.

Um, and to do it to the whole family, and apparently the next neighbors as well, you know, it's it's this is quite an unfortunate thing.

Um I would obviously support this.

Um I would want to specify um that we put within um the motion that this width of 25 feet maybe be limited to there.

And as I said it out loud, I realized that they could just move another camera.

I don't know, but I I will support this either way.

Well, if they end up having to put another trellis, then they would come before us and ask for the variance.

Now knowing that code inf that they would be called on by code enforcement.

So I don't feel like we should limit it to just this one.

I mean, the ask is for this, and I think that's what we should vote on is this that's in place now.

Okay, correct.

And then he also you also share the applicant also shared that he tried to have the MPO mediate uh some kind of minimal.

There's um the police um involvement.

Uh this neighbor is not finna, he's not gonna change.

And I know personally, this one is not gonna change.

What all these cameras would bother me was the sign, the guy put up in the backyard.

I see you.

Yeah, it just harassment.

Yeah, it's harassment for sure.

So I would I'll go ahead and make a motion for BAR26-042 that we approve as written.

Second, we have a motion for case bar-26-042 to approve the request as um written.

Motion made by board member Deborah Freed and second by board member Lucretia Powell, roll call vote.

Board member James Whitten?

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes, board member Michael Johnston.

Yes, board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell.

Yes.

Board member Kay Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

Board member Madison Guerres.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Thank you, sir.

Maybe this will give you some negotiation power with your neighbor.

Thank you.

Okay, next case.

Um BAR 26041.

We're from the staff.

The next case is BAR-26-041 for the property located at 4137 Anita Avenue.

The subject property is owned by Megan Renee Wills, who is also the applicant.

The property is owned A-5, one family residential, and it's located within the TCU Overlay District.

The applicant is requesting a variance to section 6.101 D1C of the zoning ordinance to allow a reduced front yard setback.

The required established front yard setback is 36 feet, and the applicant is proposing a front yard setback of 30 feet one inch in order to construct a new single-family residence.

This results in a variance request of approximately 5 feet 11 inches.

The subject property is approximately 12,000 square feet in area and is currently undeveloped following the demolition of a previous single family residence.

The property is located within an established residential neighborhood.

I was originally plotted without alley access.

The site contains several mature trees, a 10-foot utility easement along the rear property line, and a slight downward slope from the front of the property toward the rear.

Staff review the development history of the property, and in 2025, a residential raising permit was issued for the demolition and removal of the existing single family residence and was finalized in October.

Most recently, a residential new building permit was issued on April 14, 2026 for construction of a newsly single family home, which is the subject of the current variance request.

The applicant is proposing to construct a new single family residence with a front yard setback of approximately 30 feet one inch, while the underlying A-5 zoning district requires a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet, and the recorded plot establishes a 30-foot building line, those standards do not control in this case because more than 40% of the block face has been developed.

As a result, the property is a subject to the established front yard setback requirement, and staff determined that the adjacent resident located at 4133 Anita Avenue establishes the applicable front-yard setback of 36 feet.

Therefore, the required front-yard setback for the pro subject property is 36 feet, and the proposed residence would be located approximately 30 feet one inch from the front property line, which is six feet less than the established front yard setback requirement.

These are the proposed elevations.

These are the regulations that pertain to this case.

And if the variance is approved, the applicant will be required to comply with all other applicable TCU overlay district regulations, including occupancy limitations for unrelated persons and any other applicable development standards.

And if approved, the applicant will be required to comply with all remaining zoning regulations and obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.

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

Any questions?

Okay, well, open up the public hearing.

Will the applicant please come up?

Please give us your name and your address.

That's a presentation.

Gotcha.

Okay.

My name is Megan Wills, and this is my husband Robert Wills.

Those 50 pages of pictures weren't mine.

We won't go through those, I promise.

We have the property at 4137 Anita Avenue.

I've owned this property since 2000.

This is a picture of the demo plot plan, which shows the original house which was built in 1950, and it is at that 30-foot front setback.

I'm going to go over this and say this probably too many times, but I'm not requesting a change from how the original home was placed within the lot size.

The original construction obviously had similar challenges with this unique lot shape, which is why they brought it forward to that build line, which you see there at the 30 feet.

Even if we would have demolished this house and put the same house back on, we would be here today.

This was shown earlier, but this is the uh plot plan for a proposed home.

Again, we're requesting the same front setback that was existing.

Um, we are within the build line and the zone ordinance as the staff reviewed earlier.

Um, and then the challenge is the adjacent property, um, which is triggering this, which is why we're here today.

Um, the variance was identified at inspection.

When we designed our home, we really did it in good faith.

Our goalpost the entire time was at 30 foot line, just like the existing home was at.

So that's what we were going forward with.

Um, as you can see on this lot, I'll continue on in this and um explain further, but you see how it narrows quickly, and it is a pie-shaped lot.

Um, we'll be living here with our family.

Um, my husband and I, our two children.

We look at this as an upgrade to the neighborhood.

The home that was there was aging.

It was obviously not within code anymore, and we want to put something there that is an improvement.

My husband is an only child with aging parents who will likely be moving in with us soon.

So we're looking at this as a long-term situation.

This is the uh subdivision plat they uh showed earlier.

It's not highlighted here in my screen, it was highlighted.

Um, we have um a pie-shaped lot, um, when all of the others almost are rectangular shaped, and that's our hardship here is that it narrows quickly towards the back, and most of the other ones are rectangular shaped, and it's also on the curve of the street.

Um, as you can see here, we can't simply take the home back.

Um, we're already within the side setbacks, and don't want to go in any further, and obviously that creates another challenge to cut into the side um setbacks.

We've we've narrowed the home where we could, um, we've made nooks in.

You can see how we've cut the sides in.

Um, but because it narrows so quickly, it was hard for designing the home on a lot, just like the original home that you saw where they had it right up to that front line to make it make sense so that it was livable.

Um, the garage has to be up in front.

There is no rear access, and obviously that takes a significant amount of space as well.

Uh this is a visual of just the adjacent property front setbacks.

Um, there's ours, the red dot.

Um, to the north is the one that's at um almost 36.

But as you come around that curve, you see that the next few 4153 and 4157 are approximately those 30-foot setbacks.

So we're not trying to be significantly different.

Um, it is really just the hardship of the shape of our lot.

This is our proposed front home elevation.

Um, you know, we're we're trying to make it traditional looking.

Um, it will be new, so we'll be meeting uh current building codes and standards, unlike our the home that was existing.

And again, because we're not changing that setback, we don't believe we're injuring or affecting adjacent properties.

I want to go through the five criteria that I know y'all are looking at.

The literal enforcement creates the hardship, and that's where we are here.

Um we're within the build line, we're within the zoning.

Um, it really is that adjacent property.

The hardship is due to the shape of the lot.

Almost all the other lots on the subdivision are rectangular.

Um, ours narrows quickly towards towards the rear and it's on the curve.

Hardship is not self-imposed, it's due to the shape of the lot.

It was set at the subdivision creation in 1949.

Um, and we really aren't able to push the house back.

If I could, I would.

Um, and I can't even put that same house exactly back where it was standing.

Um we would be here today for the same reason.

We don't believe because we're not changing the front setback that it's injuring adjacent properties.

The previous house was built in 1950, it stood there for 75 years in existence.

And like I said earlier, we're looking to improve.

Um, we're looking to enhance, um, and we believe it's in line with the orderly development, and the home will be in compliance with current building standards.

Just in summary here, we're not moving the front setback from where the original one was, and we really believe our hardship is due to the shape of the lot.

Thank you.

Your time.

Thank you.

Uh, anybody else here to speak in favor if there's any time left?

Anybody here to speak in opposition?

Okay, come on up, please.

Your name and address.

Just a note, we do receive several letters of opposition in your late correspondent.

I have Jim Styled, 4133 and Nita Avenue.

I'm their neighbor.

I'll be standing, they're very good people.

Uh hang on a second.

In the microphone, please.

Sorry.

You saw the plat, you saw how it was laid out.

I don't disagree that the house as it stands per plan, per plan wouldn't uh allow them to move it back, but they chose a house that was sideways large.

It's rectangular in the wrong direction.

Um there are other houses in the neighborhood who have been upgraded.

They fit within the lot.

They didn't ask for variances.

There's one around the corner on Mandarin, it was just recently upgraded.

It fits very well, it fits with the nature of the neighborhood.

It doesn't look uh out of place in the neighborhood.

The neighborhood's old, you can see the other houses in that neighborhood there.

They're all peak heights of less than 25 feet.

The structure as I draw on those red lines, that's literally how tall it will be.

Um so it'll be 38 feet tall.

It's raising up an extra foot because they've approved the property uh footprint right there where you see all the dirt.

They've raised it up another foot.

So it's the fact that they chose the structure and the pattern they did, that house plan is what's causing the difficulty.

There are other house plans that would fit naturally into the area and give them all the space they needed.

So it's a in my mind as a matter of choice of the house plan they chose, it's preventing them from moving it backwards.

And I agree they had to slice off one corner of that large house.

That house, first floor, is over 3200 square feet without considering the garage.

So that puts it up to around 3,800, 3600, 3800 square feet footprint only.

That's three times the size of any other house in the neighborhood, just about the ground floor.

The total square footage would be somewhere around less than, they can clarify a 4,000 square feet.

That doesn't fit the neighborhood at all.

This is this is an obelisk in our neighborhood.

So every house in that neighborhood, if you saw the floor plan they showed you, every house has a garage on the northern side, and they purposely did that so the exposure for each house as you cascade down through the neighborhood, have a nice eye sight, and there's a line for the sun to shine your windows.

That will completely block all light from my house or three months out of the year.

So I can't see the sky anymore out of my windows.

That will be in the way.

The previous house, and despite the commentary about the location of the front line, if you see where the neighbor's pickup truck is parked there, you see the protrusion of their garage, that is as far as the previous house, as far as their garage protruded.

The entrance to that house, the legacy house that was torn down, went out another three feet.

So it was nothing compared to this.

So what you've got is a house that was staggered in size, the original house, and it curved with the natural curve of the road.

The new house is completely rectangular and it does take up more space.

There are additional safety concerns.

Another resident will express to you.

But again, the nature of the neighborhood is not large houses, and that it's already happening in our community.

It's happening in a big way because of approvals that were made to allow this to occur.

So that street has always been a nice walkway for people.

They take their dogs out there and walk kids play because it's a nice open street.

And the original planned sight lines did not allow for structures like that to block our view, to block the proper site line, the safety protocols.

There's an elementary school right down the road, West Cliff Elementary.

They go in early, they leave early, but they zoom down our road because it's a parallel path to Trail Lake.

So it's a very busy road.

So there's a safety issue also.

We don't want it out there for the safety issue.

So two primary reasons.

So I'm just gonna go through the list real quick of the checkpoints, which they described a second ago.

So the question is will will literal enforcement of the ordinance result in a hardship practical difficulty only because of the plan that they chose.

They could easily move a house in that was narrower and profile to the front and longer profile to the sides, which is very normal in our community.

Uh is the hardship self-imposed.

Yes, they they chose the plan and they had to try and make it fit the lot.

And they've had that lot, as she mentioned, since 2000, which means she knew the size of the lot when they started to choose their plan.

It's not a surprise.

They knew it the whole time.

Uh what when uh you have three minutes left.

You have another speaker as well.

Oh, thank you.

And I will be cut short, thank you.

Uh so again, I believe it's self-imposed.

And I do believe it'll set a negative precedent to the community if that was approved.

I'll let the other person speak.

Just come on up and say your name and address.

That'll work.

Hi, I'm Barbara Maloney.

I live at 4125 Anita Avenue, Fort Worth 76109.

I've been there for 38 years.

I walked to Rhonda and Harry's house that she rented to for many many years and never had to walk out to the front ever.

It was always that there was like a planter box out there, but their door was back.

Um anyway, I'm here to speak about the safety and about how this house does not fit our neighborhood at all.

It's like trying to put a McMansion in a very old ranch-style one-story neighborhood.

We pick this neighborhood for the aesthetic of having the big trees, the wide front yard, the gracious spacing, and this house has nothing.

You can take and look at the photos around here, this curve that they talk about.

They are getting ready to blind, it's a kind of a long blind curve that sweeps.

If you look at the next photo as well, and then even photo four, and you can see all the houses here.

They're wanting to put in a house that is taller than the highway signs that you all were voting on earlier.

And everybody in this neighborhood is going to be in shadow from it across the street and to the side.

Um also it's going to block that.

Um, can you turn that up so that they can see?

We have a lot of young families.

There's a man on a scooter with a child in the backpack.

When they build their house out, it is going to make the long curve even more difficult to see around, both for drivers coming from the south to the north, as well as for people who are pushing strollers with babies, children learning to ride bicycles, and people on scooters and skateboards going that way.

And I don't want blood on my hands for not trying to block them blocking that line of sight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, um, would you like to respond?

Three minutes.

Thank you.

I'm Robert Wills.

And we also will be introduced reintroducing our young family to this neighborhood.

Um, I don't understand the curve of the street.

Uh it should be noted that our house at this new mark is still 40 feet off of the curb.

So hopefully we can drive our cars without looking up 20 feet at the house and still be safe and there's no blood on anybody's hands in the neighborhood.

Uh I don't think this will impose anybody riding their bicycles or walking uh since the house is in no different position on the lot as the previous home was.

And we built this house in consideration of the other houses going up around us in Canto, um, all around us, uh, Carolyn Street in hopes of bringing some new life to the neighborhood versus addition upon addition upon addition to existing homes, and uh where the structures are basically inhabitable and and looking uh terrible.

Our neighbor has three or four additions on his and it looks like a flea market.

So we're trying to bring a balanced look to this lot, and we're in compliance with all building standards.

So I don't think the height or where it sits on the lot has any change from the previous uh home that we had.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks.

Is there any questions for the applicant?

I had a question.

All right.

Um thank you all for the presentation and the details so far.

Um, what what things have y'all done to either minimize the footprint already or alter the shape of the footprint thus far to get to this point?

Well, for one, our our architect had to work with the you know the build line that was established within the plat because we didn't really realize our neighbor was set back six feet, everybody else on the right hand side of him or at that 30 foot lot, so he's actually imposed this shorter um or set back this longer setback for us, it's just his house.

Um so we have cut in the kitchen a little bit, and of course, we wanted to keep the backyard.

Our kids have a huge backyard now, and we didn't want that to go away.

We wanted it to still be a uh a place to have a garden, you know, and so up was the only way.

That bell wasn't for you, sorry.

Oh, okay earlier.

But uh so we we consider, you know, what are we gonna need for uh four family members plus maybe a fifth uh in the future?

So uh this is it.

Yeah, that was it for right now.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, I just have a question, and and maybe staff has a quick answer to this.

Perhaps you cover it already, and I slept through it, I'm sorry.

Um, but this the square footage of the home in total and the square footage on the first floor.

I know that uh the opposition cited it, but do we have a number on that?

Emily, do you have a number for the floor area?

The number used for 2700 on the bottom and 1400 on top approximately.

I did have a question for staff.

On the building permit, it says 4,002 square feet of living area and 993 of garage porch and patio area.

I had a question for staff.

Is that now?

So the set setback for this neighborhood is at 25 feet, but the build line is what's pushing them further back.

The build line is uh the setback um part of zoning district is 20 feet.

Build line is established at 30 feet.

The established front yard due to their neighbor home being set back 35 36 feet is what establishes their front yard setback, so they have to meet the setback of their neighbor's home, or they can push back further, but they can't go closer to the street.

Right.

Okay.

And then I'm sure it was stated multiple times, but the former house was 30 feet and this one's 30 feet.

Any other questions?

Okay, we'll go ahead.

You have a question.

Okay, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and uh we'll open it for discussion.

Start.

So um the shape of the lot is textbook hardship.

Um, I mean, in general, we would approve this sort of case.

Um we don't have any control over the fact that the zoning has not precluded it a two-story house.

Um I mean I really feel for the neighbors because you do have a beautiful looking neighborhood, and it will be a different house than what you have in the neighborhood.

But I don't think we have any jurisdiction over, I mean, we have nothing we can do about the second story or even the size of the house.

Um the 30 I mean that other than that is a textbook case we would approve.

So, yeah, I'm I have great empathy um for the neighbors because I live in an adjacent neighborhood where deed restrictions when the neighborhood was developed, um, not only defined one story ranch style homes, they also had 10 feet setbacks on each side, and the current houses that are being built, squeeze right to that five foot, and they do currently instead of nine foot ceilings, 10 and twelve feet ceilings going up, and the new homes overshadow the old homes.

And when there get to be a lot of them, the reality is that the value of the older homes goes down.

So it's very difficult.

I would encourage you to look into something called a conservation district.

Um I tried that in my neighborhood.

I was unsuccessful, but it allows you to there are things you cannot control.

You cannot control height, you cannot control height.

There is a limit by the code to the maximum height, and it allows for three stories, not necessarily three stories of 15 feet ceilings, but um in the code for Fort Worth, you cannot preclude a third story.

Um I can talk to you afterwards if you like.

Uh there.

With the exception of um the setback, because setback in an established neighborhood is the greater of those three elements.

So we're here today specifically for that one variance, that one variance because that is the only thing that is outside of code.

Um this meets the justification for a variance.

So as much as I'm with you, I mean I just had one of these built right next to my ranch house.

So um I'm I'm gonna have to support it because that's what we do.

We have to look at code and we have to look at the justifications for a variance.

Can I ask one more quick question?

Um, one of the this is a question for legal, um, one of the letters that we received last night mentioned a deed restriction in the neighborhood.

They have any input on that.

Does that mean they expire after 50 years?

The city doesn't enforce deed restrictions, that would be a civil matter for someone else, you could enforce that.

And once once they expire, you can't even do civil.

So uh if they close the house today, you probably would not get those deed restrictions.

When I bought my house, we had the deed restrictions, but they were not enforceable.

Uh Mrs.

Johnson, I want to say this.

Uh we've we've heard many, many, many cases, and I want to compliment everyone who presented in favor and in opposition because you stuck to the standards involved in the variance ordinances, and your your presentations were clear, and I just want to compliment both of you for that.

Um, so uh and and and echo other things that were said here, but but I want to just emphasize how much we appreciate the uh presentation that both of you made.

Any other discussion or motion?

I'll make a motion that we approve um the variants presented today as written, second.

We have a motion to approve the variance request as requested by the applicant for case BAR-26-041.

Motion made by board member K Duffy and second by board member Jim Whitten.

Roll call vote, board member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Yes, board member Sergio Gartha?

Yes, board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board member James Hook?

No.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member K.

Duffy?

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa?

Yes.

Board member Madison Gatsui Race?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Okay, thank you.

The next case, BAR 26.

048.

Staff, would you please present?

The next case is BAR-26-048, located at 10401 Kings Point Boulevard.

The applicant is SHIELD Engineering Group, and the property owner is the development corporation of Terran County.

The subject property is owned A-5, one family district.

The request before you is for a variance to the minimum required projected front yard setback.

Specifically, the applicant is requesting to reduce the required 50-foot projective front yard setback to five feet along the southern property line, fronting McPherson Road, resulting in a 45-foot variance request.

This variance is to allow construction of a new single-family home.

The subject property is a vacant corner lot located in a redeveloping residential area.

The site contains no mature trees and no floodplain.

There is a minor grade change of approximately 1% slope from the northwest corner down to the southwest corner.

There are two related applications associated with this property.

An urban forestry review for a five single-family lots awaiting client response as of April and a preliminary plat for a replot of lot 25X block 9 of Kings Point, also awaiting client replay.

The applicant is proposing construction of a new single-family residence as a part of a larger subdivision redevelopment.

The property is currently being replatted from two lots into six lots with five proposed single family residential lots.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a five-foot projective front yard setback along the southern property line where a 50 foot minimum setback is required.

The requirement is because the southern property line abutzed McPherson Road and under Section 6.101 F1.

That side yard is treated as a projected front yard due to the orientation of the adjacent property at 1301 McPherson Road.

The adjacent property has an established front yard setback of approximately 114 feet, which results in the required 50-foot projected front yard setback for this site.

Section 6.101 requires that corner lots maintain a projective front yard setback consistent with the adjacent street facing development pattern up to a maximum of up to 50 feet.

In this case, the ordinance results in a 50 foot minimum setback requirement along McPherson Road.

These are the regulations that pertain to this case.

And if approved, the variance would apply only to the requested setback reduction.

The applicant would still be required to complete the final plat and meet all other applicable development standards prior to the issuance of building permits.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

I do want to note I do believe the applicant will be uh asking for a continuance.

The applicant is here present, but they submitted a new site plan on Monday that staff has not reviewed.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions?

I have a question.

Just for clarification.

So they want to build five lots, and is it only one that's asking for the five foot setback?

Correct.

And it's because of the picture.

We go back to the actual um picture where it shows the yellow box and the I guess that's a home with a large driveway.

So that's what's causing that setback.

Yes, this house right here.

It's uh it's a church.

Oh church, okay.

A maximum uh front yard setback that we can enforce is 50 feet.

That was a large driveway.

Well, it is it is a driveway.

And then like a standard driveway for home.

Good.

Okay.

We will hear from the applicant.

One up, stage name.

Address, uh Landon Geary, 2236 Scenic Bluff Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas, 76111.

Seven minutes, please.

Absolutely.

So uh appreciate staff uh giving that overview.

Uh the intent today is to file a continuance with board approval.

Um we've worked diligently with the city to try to come up with a little less aggressive uh setback uh reduction ask, um try to be respectful of neighbors.

That is a church to the east, it is setting the standard.

Um if you follow that block face all the way down, there's already two homes in violation of the 50 foot.

Um so what we are asking is a continuation today to come back and represent uh in July with uh with a different setback reduction request.

It will be substantially uh less aggressive than the five-foot as shown today.

Thank you.

Can we get them on the June docket?

Or would it have to be July?

June line.

Um July 15th hearing.

Okay, any opposition here to speak?

Okay, we'll move to uh uh board discussion.

I make a motion to brand a continuance to next month's meeting.

If there's no opposition, second, staff say it'd be July for or June or August will be July.

I mean, will they get here in time?

Is what I'm saying.

I mean, will they have a but uh then the applicant needs 30 days, 60 days extension?

So the applicant is requesting a continuance um to the next public hearing July 15th.

He has already submitted a revised plan on Monday.

Um staff we haven't reviewed it for this um, okay.

I'll second the motion.

Let me let me state the it's BAR 26-048 move for a continuance until July's meeting.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion to continue case BAR-26-048 to the July public hearing.

Motion made by board member Jana Herrera and second by board member Jim Witten.

Roll call vote.

Board member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrera.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member Kay Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

Board member Madden Madison Guatures.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Uh next case will be uh B A R 26047.

If you're uh if you're to speak on that one, please move to the front.

Staff will present before you speak.

Good afternoon.

Case B A R-26-047.

The address of the property is 3800 Bryce Avenue.

The applicant is Kyle McDaniels.

The owner is Kyle McDaniels, and the applicant is Eddie Cervantes.

The zoning of the property is a B2 family.

The applicant is requesting two variances.

Um variance A is to the requirement that front yard setbacks in the residential district shall be the setback of the nearest building on either side that is closest to the street to a reduced front yard setback where a 29-foot front yard setback applies.

The applicant is requesting a 20-foot front yard setback.

Variance B is to the two family district development standards requiring a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet adjacent to the size street to allow a one-family dwelling to encroach into the required side yard setback along the eastern property line.

The applicant is requesting a eight feet three inch setback.

The subject property is a vacant 6,500 16.79 square foot lot located within an established neighborhood.

The site contains an approximate 8.6% downward slope from the rear to the front of the property and several mature trees.

The property is not located within the FEMA 100-year floodplain.

However, a small area near the southern property boundary is located within a city designated non-FEMA flood risk area.

No other environmental constraints were identified.

The lot history that we have on this property was a raising permit that was approved for demolition of the single family home, which was finaled in July of 2025.

Here's the proposed site plan.

Variance B.

The proposed request uh the applicant request a variance to reduce the required side yard setback adjacent to the side street from 10 feet to 8 feet 3 inches.

The property is a corner lot, and the proposed residence includes a fireplace bump out that projects into the fire the required side yard setback along the eastern property line.

The request would reduce the would reduce um the required setback by one foot nine inches.

Here are the regulations for the front yard setback.

Here are the regulations for the um B two family side yard um setback requirement.

And here are the board actions.

I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

I have a question.

Do we know before it looks like it's an empty lot now?

Did the did it meet the minimum required yard setback for the previous home?

I'm not sure.

Okay, thank you.