No, it's just a question.

I've been watching for a while.

Good morning.

Notice of this meeting has been posted on live for at least seventy-two hours.

Staff present today are Stacy Jones, Emily Reyes, Trey Qualls, Mare Belpina, and Denisha London.

Chair, will you please call this meeting to order?

Yes, thank you.

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

Today we have a quorum with all eleven members present.

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

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

Today's public hearing is being documented by cable television and video conference recording.

To facilitate to facilitate an orderly meeting, I'm asking everyone in the council chamber to turn off the audible alarms on your electronic devices at this time.

So we will not be distracted during our meeting.

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

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

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

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

This portion of the discussion is exclusively between city staff.

Excuse me, between city staff and the board members.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no time limit during this period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The force first order of business on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from June 17th, 2026.

We are open for a motion to approve.

Approve.

Motion.

Okay, we have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Uh we have a motion to approve by Mr.

Hook and a second by Miss Freed.

Staff, could you please perform a roll call vote?

Board Member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board Member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley.

Yes.

Board Member Witt Wolman.

Yes.

Board Member James Hook.

Yes.

Board Member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board Member Janna Herrera?

Yes.

Board Member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member K.

Duffy?

Yes.

Board Member Juan Manuel Costa?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Let's move to the first case for on today's agenda, BAR-26-066.

And this is a translation case, so we will have extra time.

Go ahead, Miss Race.

Good morning, Chair and Board members.

This first case is BAR-26-066, located at 3908 Townsend Drive.

The property owners are Margarito Garvan and Elvira Rodriguez.

And the applicant is Margarito Garvan.

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

The applicant is requesting two variances related to a proposed covered patio.

Variance A is a request to the maximum allowable sites for a non-habitable accessory structure for residential lots between 5,000 to 9,999 square feet.

The zoning ordinance permits a maximum cumulative accessory structure area of 200 square feet.

And the applicant is proposing an 800 square foot covered patio, resulting in a request to exceed the maximum permitted area by 600 square feet.

Variance B is a request to the maximum height requirement for a non-habitable accessory structure.

The ordinance limits these structures to 10 feet in height.

A structure may increase to a maximum of 12 feet if additional setbacks are provided at a ratio of two feet of setback for every additional foot of height.

The applicant is proposing a covered patio with a height of 12 feet, and the structure is shown approximately nine feet from the rear property line and eight feet from the northern side property line.

As proposed, the structure does not meet the additional setback requirement necessary to qualify for the increased height allowance.

The subject property is developed with a single family residence on an approximately 7,100 square foot interior lot within an established neighborhood.

The lot is rectangular in shape, was originally platted with alley access, contains several mature trees, and is not located within a floodplain.

The existing residence was constructed in 1972 and is approximately 1,121 square feet in size.

The home includes an attached garage that provides parking for one vehicle.

The property currently contains a covered patio measuring approximately 1,657 square feet.

And the applicant is proposing modifications to the existing structure that will reduce the overall size of the covered patio.

Staff identified the following lot history for the property.

There's a code compliance case regarding a large structure located at the rear of the property that was issued of January of 2025.

And there's a residential accessory new permit for a cover patio was submitted and is currently awaiting a client reply, which is pending the outcome of this case.

The applicant is proposing to construct an 800 square foot covered patio measuring 20 feet wide, 40 feet long, 12 feet, 12 feet in height to be located towards the northwest portion of the lot.

The applicant is requesting the variance to make construction of a non-habitable covered patio that exceeds the maximum allowed square footage for an accessory structure and approximately 7,100 square foot lot.

The zoning ordinance allows a maximum of 200 square feet of non-habitable accessory structure area area on a lot of the sides.

The proposed cover patio exceeds the permitted area by 600 feet.

And regarding the second variance request, the proposed cover patio would have a height of 12 feet.

While the ordinance allows height up to 12 feet, additional setbacks must be provided when a structure exceeds the 10 feet in height.

And based on the submitted site plan, the structure is located approximately nine feet from the rear property line and eight feet from the northern side of property line.

And as proposed, the structure does not satisfy the additional setback requirements associated with the increased height and therefore requires this variance.

Staff notes that the current lock coverage on the property is approximately 39.13%.

If the proposed accessory structure is approved as submitted, the lock coverage would be reduced to approximately 27.06%, and the maximum lot coverage permitted on the property is 50%, and the proposal will still be required to comply with all other applicable development regulations.

These are the regulations that pertain to this case.

Staff is available for any questions from the board.

Thank you very much.

Let's go to questions for staff.

Ms.

Rero.

I have a question.

So if you go page 10 right there, what am I not connecting here?

Because it says the current lot covers 39.13, but it'll be reduced.

So there's currently a covered patio that is bigger than what is being requested at the time.

However, the applicant is proposing to make it smaller in order to come closer to compliance.

And the other structure in the backyard is the structure of the covered patio.

So that structure is there and they want to make it smaller.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

I have a question.

Please.

In our documentation, it shows that there's a garage back there instead of a covered patio.

My question is, is it a garage?

Because there is alley access.

I believe it's just the covered patio.

Okay.

And the other question.

I'm just noticing that the fence is out of compliance.

Is that already approved from a variance?

No, so we requested the information from the applicant for the fence elevations in order to get more information on it.

However, they didn't provide it until after we did legal notices.

So they would have to come back for the fence.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

I have a quick question.

Please go ahead.

Did I hear you say that the audience allow the 12 feet in your reading?

Correct.

We communicated with the applicant if they moved it nine feet, nine feet that they won't require the variance.

However, they chose to move forward with the variance.

Any other questions for staff?

And it looks like really quickly, it looks like they're gonna keep an existing concrete slab, essentially that that's there now in the center cut it in half, and that's where the new structure is gonna be.

That is correct.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Thank you, Miss Reyes.

Is the applicant here?

And do we also have the staff for translation?

Yeah, if you would please come up.

State your name, address, and the facts about your case.

And you have 14 minutes.

Please pull that microphone close so we can hear you.

Thank you.

Okay.

And my name is Elvira Rodriguez.

Well, I would like for you guys for you to allow us to continue with our structure because it's for personal use.

And I believe we're not causing any damage to any of the neighbors.

This is for personal use for my father, and he is elderly.

And I say he's an elderly person because he's almost 80 years old.

He is 78 years old, and he's taking medication regarding his memory.

And this is why we decided to construct the structure this way so that he would have more space because he doesn't like to be inside.

And I don't know if there's a way that you could help us to allow us to leave the structure the way that it is.

And well, that's all.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

You still have plenty of time if there's anything else you need to add.

Yeah, of course.

Well, that's all.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Is there anyone else here in support of this case?

Okay, having seen none.

Is there anyone here in opposition?

Okay.

Also having seen none, thank you.

Um de apoyo loves this.

Right now, I'm gonna go ahead and open up to questions from the board.

Interpreter uh needs to render something else that she had to say.

Okay.

I also have this petition made by the neighbors.

No, hasta el día de hoy lo no, I did I just brought this today.

Okay.

We're gonna go ahead and project that they'll put it on the screen.

Is there anything you want to add?

Is there anything she wants to add?

Yeah, with regard to this petition or with with this petition.

Uh structuracy me dijeron que si era con los plans que con ellos no había problemas.

Well, uh the day that I decided I wanted to let the neighbors know about the plans that we had, and they said that they didn't have a problem with it.

Okay, thank you.

Questions uh from the board for the applicant.

Uh this is Johnston.

Please go ahead.

Uh the uh as a board of adjustment, uh we are authorized to make uh adjustments to the city ordinances relating to codes.

I already did, sir.

Okay.

Um in order for us as a board to be in favor of that, there has to be a showing that there is something about this property that makes it the compliance with the codes unreasonable, and that that condition was not caused by the property owner.

Can you please tell us what condition there is on the property that you believe requires this uh uh structure that is four times the amount uh of the code requirement?

Well how uh well could you repeat the question?

Sure.

Can you tell us what condition there is on the property that prevents you from complying with the code uh of 200 uh square feet and requires you to build a structure that is 800 square feet?

Um make the bastante spacious excuse me.

Can you speak into the microphone, please?

Um you can pull it closer to your armas.

Well, since the structure is to the right side, that I would have a lot of space towards the left side.

Adelante.

So it'll only cover the half of the right side.

And I believe there's a lot of extra yard.

Anything else?

Um seria to no that would be all.

Okay, and can you tell us who who it was that constructed the existing structure?

Interpreter needs repetition.

Can you repeat the question?

Interpreter needs repetition.

Yeah, can you tell us who it was that that constructed the original uh uh constru the structure that's on the at the back of your property?

Um contratamos uh one soldador y después we hired a welder and then we hired an engineer.

We hired a welder and then we hired an engineer.

Thank you.

Okay.

Ms.

Duffy.

And and just to tag onto that question, how long is the existing structure been on the property?

Um dos años?

Más o menos.

Uh well, it's been about two years, give or take.

And then I have a staff question.

Um what distinguish so um homeowners have a lot more leeway on the size of a garage in a backyard than an accessory structure.

Is that true?

Also for a carport in a backyard.

Um what distinguishes a well, first of all, I guess I want to know the answer to that.

So carports and garages in the backyard does not have to comply with the non-habitable accessory structure uh area that's allowed on a lot.

But they do have to comply with lot coverage setbacks and um can't exceed the height of the primary structure.

So what would distinguish a carport from a covered patio?

This is a driveway to there has to be a driveway that leads to the structure.

Is there currently a driveway that leads to this pad?

I from the image, it looks like the alley is unimproved, however, it looks like it may be used, um, but there does not appear in according to the site plans, there is not a driveway that leads to the structure from the alley.

So if this homeowner built a driveway, could they keep the covered patio as is?

This is Mirabelle.

They would have to obtain approval from TPW to use the alleyway as access.

The existing carport, the existing covered patio that's there has not been reviewed by our team.

They have proposed to shrink it to 800 square feet.

So if they do get the parkway permit and there is a building permit potentially, we'll have to review it to carport uh standards as well as uh the parkway standards.

They will be required to um improve that alley from their property to the street.

You're talking about the whole how many are just in front of them to my understanding, they'll have to improve from the extent of their property to the street to the nearest end of the street.

They'd have to improve the alley for a block are they house?

Duffy, do you have another question about height?

How tall can a car port be it?

Any other questions?

The applicant?

Yes, sir, Mr.

Garza.

Do you guys have access to the carport from the alley?

Is there a gate?

There's no access.

Closed.

No.

No.

Any other questions?

Does anybody have an estimate on how much it costs to improve an alley?

Three three lots up.

No, we don't we don't have that information.

Would it cost more than half the value of this home?

I'm not completely sure.

The applicant can um work with transportation team to further um explore the option of improving the alley and what the requirements are.

Any other questions for the applicant?

So I just have one more question for staff.

This so this case is before us on a code via code violent, code picked us up.

That is correct.

But there were no neighbors complaining.

I'm not sure how Cole was made aware of this structure if it was on one of their um drive-by's or reviews, or if a neighbor had complaint.

I'm not quite sure how co picked it up.

Sure, please go ahead.

Can we uh contact Code and see?

So I just received a message from Emily and it was a result of a complaint from the neighbor.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

I would also like to add the definition of carport for the record.

An open-sided extension of the roof of the principal building or an accessory open-sided detached building structure on the same lot used for the shelter or storage of occupants owned motor vehicle as an accessory use only.

Does it cover size?

It does not cover size.

So as it as its present um size, if she called it a carport and gave access through the rear gate, there's a possibility that she could keep her original size.

Is that correct?

Yes, potentially we would have to have the see the site plan showing that there is a driveway to leading to the structure.

I have a question for the excuse me.

They would not be able to cap keep it in the original size because it's larger than the home.

They would still have to reduce it.

I have a question for the applicant.

Please go ahead.

Honestly, no, I had no idea.

Would you be willing to open up your back uh gate and give access to the alley?

Because it looks like the alley is already well used.

Is that correct?

Uh sila podria ser uh puerta I perhaps costoso.

Well, yes, I I could add a door there, but I imagine it's gonna be more expensive.

More expensive than what?

See me imagino que uh on entrada como a sepoco stovieron construyendo a la calle in frente y to mimoskay um incrementar ahí de enfrente well in order to make an entry, um not too long ago they were doing some work in the front.

Repeat that accommodaran.

And we had to pay for them to adjust the entryway in the front of the driveway.

Yeah, I'm looking at her driveway in the front looks beautiful.

At the this is not, I don't think that you would have to qualify the entry in the rear to look like your front driveway.

Okay, was you mean como se podiera ser?

Okay, well if you would tell me how I need to do it, I'd be willing to cooperate.

I agree.

I have no further questions.

I have a question.

Go ahead is is the structure is it open underneath or is there walls?

No, it's no, it's open.

It's open.

Is it orientated in a way that if you did build a build an opening there, you could drive a car underneath it and use it as a carport?

Um lado.

Uh yes, uh, maybe if we did the entryway on the side.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

I'm I'm just gonna s throw out what if we um continue this case and let the applicant talk to the city more about different options they might have.

Yeah, let's um let me close the public hearing if we're done with questions for the applicant.

We can always bring them back up and or ask questions of the city staff, but no questions for the applicant right now.

Okay.

I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing.

You can go ahead and sit down, stay close in case we bring you back up for questions.

Okay, Ms.

Duffy, please.

Now we're kind of in the um conversation discussion among the board members.

So I'm gonna suggest a continuance, which I usually hate to do, but I think in in this case, um, I mean, we can't decide here the how much things are really gonna cost them and how what's really possible today, but I think it's worth her having the discussion with the city first before we make an a decision.

So that makes me question if we did that, wouldn't we have to have a different variance request?

I mean it sort of would null and void the current request because changing it from a patio to a carport makes it a different variance.

Well, I think if we have a continuance, you know, in it in a perfect world, she's gonna not need any variances.

Um, or she might want to alter her, she might want a different variance request, but instead of us deciding yes or no on something in particular today, maybe there's a better way or an other options.

Well, if we deciding no on a patio would not be influencing or impacting anything about a carport.

Would it create a a cost for her to apply again?

It would either way, is my understanding.

I that's why I'm asking staff if it's if it comes back.

Even if a carport needs a variance, it would be a different variance.

That's I'm asking, I guess, Mary Bell, if um, or legal.

So the case before us today is the applicant's request for a patio the size of 800 square feet, 12 foot tall.

Um that is before us today.

If the applicant the board can decide to act on this variance that's before us today, if the applicant does decide to explore options of converting this structure into a patio, they would have to coordinate with the transportation team as well as building permits.

If it is determined that a variance is uh will be required, um, as Mayor Bill mentioned, the size of the structure is larger than the primary structure.

A variance um would need to be required to allow a accessory structure larger than a primary structure.

So there's really no need to continue because it doesn't buy them anything.

The applicant is currently uh proposing to reduce the size of that structure um to 800 square feet, and potentially if they decide to go to route of the carport, they still may decide to reduce the size of their structure to no longer require variants.

So, but uh if I look at the diagram of where they intend to cover the 800 square feet, it looks like a single car carport instead of a two-car carport.

That's what it looks like.

Well, now I would argue too that the carport ideas are idea in terms of yeah, you know, the applicant hasn't been able to kind of go back and get creative with staff.

So I'm just saying Yeah, I I mean I think we just need to focus on what's in front of us, which is an 800 versus a 200 square foot patio.

They you know, for me that personally, the two feet of height doesn't bother me, but eight hundred versus two hundred is pretty huge.

Yeah, Mr.

Garza.

As we um apply, not only as as members of of this uh quorum and as citizens who come, we learn things that uh we didn't know before.

We apply for things.

Sometimes we build things without permission and then we you know we get in trouble.

So it's it's a it's a growing learning experience for all parties.

Uh we came up with the carport idea thanks uh to Ms.

Duffy, and we what I like to do is make sure that the uh applicant doesn't incur any expenses because of her neck lack of knowledge.

We're trying to help them get what they need without violating too many um you know feelings or codes.

So uh I ask that we consider whatever we do, she can come back here without incurring extra costs, and we help her solve this problem.

And that that's all I you know, just keep if we can keep that in mind.

Sure.

And I I feel the same way about variance A.

I think that's that's a hard one for me.

Um variance B, I've got less concern about the height.

So just my two cents.

Anyone else?

I'd like to add that at the beginning of this hearing we indicated that there was a requirement for a variance in the front yard regarding the fence uh that would give us adequate time to add that to this case.

You're saying if we continue if we continue to continue it.

Because otherwise it's a brand new application, which is much more expensive than just adding the variance.

Okay, so thank you for that.

So if we continue this one, they can add on to the same application expense.

I believe that is correct, Bill or second variance, but it's less as part of the first variance than as a brand new case.

Is that true, Steph?

Legal?

Yes, that is true.

They can add additional fees for additional variants or special exception.

Given that, um, if the applicant is fine with the continuance, I have no problem with it.

Do you want to bring the applicant up and ask that question?

Or did how does the board feel about that?

Sure.

Okay.

The applicant would come back up, please.

So you can kind of get a feeling of what the discussion is and and where we're going.

One option you have is to request a variant uh continuance.

Where it would let you go back and work with city staff.

You wouldn't incur additional fees.

We just want to make sure if that's something that you're interested in doing.

See, study of you.

Yes, it would be fine.

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant right now if she's up here?

No?

Okay.

Thank you.

He can go seat.

Open for a motion.

Um second.

I'll make a motion that we continue case BAR 26066 until the next meeting to allow the applicant to work with city staff on alternative ways to deal with this structure.

Second.

Are you sure you want to limit it to 30 days?

Just a question.

Because it might involve quite a bit if they do get with transportation and some of the other to continue this case until city has a chance to meet with her regarding other options.

So you is it six?

Is it 30 or 60 days?

I'm just gonna say until city has a chance to meet with her.

Sounds like no time limit.

That's that leaves it open to staying there forever without so we gotta suggest three months or something like that.

Let's say applicant.

What's reasonable, Denisha?

Potentially um 60 days may be reasonable.

Okay.

So let's rewrite that motion however you'd like.

Please go ahead and restate it.

So that she has uh up to two meetings to come back to us after meeting with city staff.

Uh Bob doesn't like it.

60 days.

60 days.

Okay.

That was a motion by Miss Duffy and I believe a second pal.

Did you miss Powell?

Did you want to second that?

Umended motion.

Okay, thank you.

Second second, amend the motion for the next uh meeting in 60 days.

Okay, but you're just gonna second her motion, the end of the the amended motion.

Yes, okay.

Second, thank you.

Amend the motion for 60 days.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Staff, could you please perform a roll call vote?

Board member Jim Whitden?

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board member Witt Woldman?

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member Kay Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Okay, thank you.

Ma'am, so your the motion has been approved to continue this case.

So we would ask you to work with city staff as early as tomorrow to come up with some options.

Thank you.

Okay, staff, could you please call the next case?

Mr.

Chad, the next case is B AR-26-048.

The applicant has requested a denial without prejudice, and the applicant is not present here.

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

Yes, please.

Let's move to the new cases.

Uh number three, BAC26-018.

Board members and Mr.

Chair, I would like to introduce our summer intern, Hilly.

Um Ellie Sandoval, who will be presenting the next case.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Um there.

This is BAC-26-018.

The address is 1336, Rancho Canyon Way.

The owner is Kroger, Texas LP.

The applicant is Edwards Sign Service.

Soning F General Commercial.

It's for a special exception for a monument sign with electronic changeable copy in commercial zoning district located on the western property line.

Special exception B for a monument signed with electronic changeable copy in commercial zoning district located on the southern property line.

The subject property is a 11.215 acres on the northwestern corner of Sandera Ranch Boulevard and Rancha Canyon Way.

The subject property has a 1.47% overall slope from the western property line to the eastern property line.

The property does not contain mature trees.

The site is sewn F for general commercial and is going to be used as the grocery store with the gas station.

The lot history, it's um waiting client reply.

Districts, subjects to certain conditions.

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

There is residential neighborhoods near the vicinity.

Sandera Ranch Boulevard and Rancho Canyon Way are minor arterial.

The site is not within a scenic area or corridor.

To allow electronic changeable copy, ECC on a monument sign in a commercial zoning district.

The proposed monument sign complies with the maximum allowable area.

The proposed total sign is 72 square feet.

The advertised area is 35.58 square feet.

ECC portion of the sign is 5.5 square feet.

The requested is 15.46%, and the maximum is 25%.

This is the other part.

And here are the board actions.

Thank you very much.

Don't go too far unless we have questions for you.

Staff will take care of the questions.

Okay.

Any questions for staff?

I have a question.

We don't see on this documentation where the location is of those signs and proximity to the adjacent residential.

Do we have some idea of that?

We do.

It's in there.

I missed it.

Go back.

Sorry.

There was one that had the red M's M1M2 on there.

So the rest the residentials located adjacent to the property.

Was there a site plan that you could pull up that had the two sign locations?

I think it was either one before this.

There it is.

And my understanding that M1 and M2 is the location.

Is that right?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

So you have to compare it to that area.

So the M1 location then is directly across the street from residential.

Yes.

That is the M1 is special exception B.

The request for the monument sign on the southern property line.

And M2 is special exception A.

I have a question for staff.

Ms.

Reed Rita.

Yeah.

I think so.

I would just assume that it's the placement would be such that it would be visible from both directions of Rancho Canyon Well.

And not immediately facing the residential.

Is that correct, Miss?

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

So the monument sign labeled M1 is on Rancho Canyon.

That is across the street from the backyards of residential.

And then the other one labeled M2 across the Dera Ranch Boulevard.

That one also would be to the backyards of the residential property to the west.

Thank you.

Okay, Ms.

Arrera, is your question?

That actually answered my question.

Ms.

Tuffy?

Quick question.

Have we did Sandera Ranch Neighborhood Association receive this notification?

And have we heard anything from them?

We did not receive any correspondence on this case.

I have a question.

Yes, sir, please.

Are the signs perpendicular to the the each road or are they parallel to it?

Meaning, are they if you're traveling down the roads, you're gonna see the sign as opposed to they would be perpendicular.

Okay, so they're not they're across the street.

They're facing the backyards of these, they're not really facing them, they're correct.

Perpendicular, which is actually other questions for staff.

Okay.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Reyes.

And for the other presentation.

Uh could we is the applicant here?

Yes, sir.

Could you please come up?

State your name, address, and the facts about your case, and you have seven minutes.

Good morning.

Chris Edwards, Edward Sign Service.

I live at 239 West Davis in Dunkinville, Texas.

Uh well, you know, like she said, we meet all the city requirements as far as square footage and all that.

And uh and and with on the two signs, and it was just mentioned, the way that those signs are faced, those sign faces will be visible from the road.

It's not like the signs would be turned and blaring into the back of the houses.

So there would not be any illumination from there.

It would just be visible from the street.

Um that area is three foot by six foot, the areas that we're doing, it's changeable copy, it's not a reader board, so we'll just be displaying gas prices, uh, just to let the customers know that there's gas available.

You know, it's pretty apparent that it's you know, uh, you know, with gasoline is today, you know, it's uh like the our the customers know that it's there and available.

Uh so with that being said, we meet all the requirements, and we're here today to ask you for special permission to use changeable copy.

Uh I can answer any questions at this time.

Sounds good.

You still have plenty of time if there's anything else you want to add.

Uh nope.

Love the new building.

Thanks.

Wish I could take credit, but I can't.

You did a great job.

Um you still have plenty of time.

Anything else you want to add or no, we just appreciate the opportunity to come here and state our case.

And uh uh, like I said, the the main thing is uh, and we like to follow everything by the rules and do everything, you know.

We'd like to ask for permission, not forgiveness.

Sure.

That's why we're here today to you know to ask for special permission to use LEDs and you know it's uh it's just a great way to advertise and uh you know, and uh we're looking forward to uh adding a service to the the community in uh in Fort Worth here is that it's constantly growing.

That's great.

Yes, we appreciate the spirit of your request.

Thank you.

Uh is there anyone else here to speak in support?

There's still a few minutes left.

Yes, sir.

Please come up.

Please state your name, address, and any facts you'd like to include my name is Ron Ramsey.

I live at 800 San Madrid Trail in Fort Worth, just uh behind this development.

I am a uh I am the real estate construction project manager oversee this construction of the site.

So um we're asking for the electronic or copying our monument signs to show our customers aside.

Can you pull that mic just a little bit closer?

You can pull that mic.

There you go.

Okay, thank you.

The signs do not face any houses they face the 711 to the west and they face the uh stormwater area that's to the east was between us and the and the Lenar uh housing development there to the behind us.

The other sign on Cindera Ranch Road faces 711 and faces uh north.

Uh and the ends with face, there's a development first of all on the other side from the 711 and a small residential area there.

So um we're just uh this is our second Kroger that we have uh built here.

Last year we opened one on Bonds Ranch with electronic changeable copy.

We got approved there as well.

So we just uh appreciate uh the city working with us to allow our changeable signs for our customers and so I thank you for your time, please.

Sure.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate you.

Uh there's still a few more minutes if anybody's here in support, like to speak in support of this case.

Okay, having seen none, I will ask for any opposition.

Is there any opposition here that would like to speak on this case?

Okay.

Having seen no opposition, I am gonna move to uh questions from the board for the applicant.

Uh this is Johnston.

Is the uh sir, if you would come back up, uh which and make sure you're addressing uh which individual you want the applicant?

Sign man.

Is the uh is the portion of the sign that's electronically changeable?

Is that only relating to gas prices?

Is there any possibility that that sign could be converted to anything other than uh gas prices?

No, it can only be used for gas prices.

Okay, it it's not a message center, so it can't uh it won't say you know uh 12-pack Coca-Cola sales, anything like that.

It's not a message center.

The only purpose for the sign is to just uh to display gas prices.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, sir.

And is that is that controlled on site?

Is that or is that it is it's a remote control system that is uh uh that is controlled inside the kiosk of the gasoline station.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the staff or for the applicant?

Excuse me.

This is Trey with the city attorney's office.

Just as a reminder for the board, we don't regulate the messages of signs.

Um so you should not take that into consideration in your decision.

Sure, thank you.

All right, any other questions for the applicant.

You know, while we can't regulate content, we can regulate the size.

I think it's a very small portion of this size of the overall monument sign, which is allowed for that.

I will move approval see uh six zero one eight.

Sure.

Let me uh let me close the public hearing in a second and we'll come back to uh board discussion.

Any other questions for the applicant at this time?

Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing and open up for board discussion of the case.

Mr.

Riley.

There's no discussions uh uh recommend approval of BAC 26018.

Special exception A and B for the two different signs.

Second, second by Ms.

Duffy, is that right?

Read.

Yes, yes.

Uh staff, we have a motion and a second.

Could we please perform a roll call vote?

Yes, we excuse me.

We have a motion to approve case BAC-26-018, special exceptions A and B as requested by the applicant.

Motion made by board member Bob Riley and second by board member Deborah Freed.

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 Wolman.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed?

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.

Sir, congratulations.

Your application's been approved.

If you have any questions or uh anything, anything from city staff, please reach out as early as tomorrow.

Thank you.

Staff, if we could please move to the next case.

B A R26-054.

We're ready when you are.

Good morning, everyone.

The next case is BAC B A R excuse me.

BAR-26-054.

The address of the property is 9720 Stony Bridge Road.

The owners are Matthew and Amanda King.

Applicant is Cooley O2.

The zoning is A51 Family District.

Members of the board, I would like to make one note.

Due to a legal noticing error, your agenda shows two variances being requested.

However, board cannot take action on variance B.

Um variance B is within director's approval and could administrative could potentially be administratively approved following board's action on variance A.

The variance before us is variance A to the maximum non-habitable accessory structure size of 200 square feet for a lot between 5,000 to 9,999 square feet to allow a non-habitable accessory structure, which is a shed to exceed the maximum allowed cumulative square feet of non-habitable accessory structure.

The maximum permitted non-habitable accessory structure is um 200 square feet on a lot this size, and the applicant is requesting a structure of 320 square feet.

The subject property contains a single family home as a primary use and is located on an interior lot in an established neighborhood.

The lot is rectangular in shape and was platted without an alley.

The property is relatively flat and contains an approximate average slope of less than one percent.

The property is approximately 6,575 square feet in area, contains a mature tree, and it's not located within a floodplain.

Variance A.

The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed the maximum allowable cumulative area of non-habitable accessory structures.

Section 5.301B1A1 limits the cumulative area of non-habitable accessory structures to 200 square feet on a residential lot between 5,000 and 9,999 square feet in size.

The ordinance further provides that the maximum square footage is cumulative of all non-habitable accessory structures located on the lot, excluding private garages, private carports, and private portico chaise.

According to the submitted site plan, the subject property contains two non-habitable accessory structures, storage sheds.

One storage shed measures 129 28 square feet, and the second store shed measures 192 square feet.

The structures are located four feet apart and measures nine feet in height.

The combined area of the two store sheds is 320 square feet, exceeding the maximum allowed cumulative area by 120 square feet.

Here's the site plan that shows the two sheds and the um setbacks.

The lot coverage that includes the primary structure, which is approximately 200 2,246 square feet in the two sheds with a cumulative square footage of two 320 square feet is 39%, where the ordinance allows a maximum of 50% lot coverage.

If the variance requests are approved, the applicant is required to meet all other development standards and regulations.

And here are the board actions.

Thank you very much.

What's in the backyard back there behind the yard?

Is that storm drain or what is that back there?

The applicant may be able to answer the questions.

Do you know, Ms.

London, if those are next door neighbors, or do you know anything about where those residences are?

Do we have the address we can confirm who the support petitions are from?

We can confirm who the support petitions are from.

Um give us a second to take a look at the map.

Okay.

And obviously we can ask the applicant as well.

This is a letter from the applicant.

Is there another one?

In the in the docket, there was there's a support petition with two names and two addresses.

The addresses are on there.

I think one's 9721 16.

Yeah, 9716 and 9721 Stony Bridge.

We can ask the applicant, but I assume that the 16 is next door and 21 is across the street.

Across the street, right?

That's what it appears to be.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

Okay.

Thank you, Miss London.

Thank you.

Is the applicant here?

Yes, sir.

Please come forward, state your name, the facts about your case.

Uh I'm sorry, state your name, your address, and the facts about your case.

And you have seven minutes.

My name is Cole Leo Tool, Texas Roof Rescue.

Uh address 6370 Lansdale, Fort Worth, Texas.

Um here representing Matthew King, the property owner, and uh, he can answer who the signatures are on that petition.

It's pretty much I think the neighbor to the east and one across the street.

And he can uh address that if you're the questions.

Uh Lee, has everyone read the letter I sent in.

Or I can reread it.

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

So I'll reread the letter.

Um I'm supporting the variance request to a four-foot minimum setback from the West property line at 9720 Stony Bridge Road, Fort Worth, Texas.

When I initially prepared to construct the nine 192 square foot storage shed for my client, I contacted the city of White Settlement for guidance.

I was instructed that the structure under 200 square feet did not require a building permit, and that a four-foot setback from the nearest fence line was sufficient.

However, when I subsequently attempted to pull a permit to run electrical wiring to the shed, allowing my client to utilize the space for storage and charging yard equipment, I discovered that this property was annexed from white settlement by the city of Fort Worth many years ago.

It was at this point I learned that Fort Worth is re regulations require five foot setback from the property line for the type of structure.

Because the shed was built under a good faith understanding and the incorrect municipalities guidelines.

We're respectfully asking for a variance to approve the current four-foot setback.

Appreciate your time for the consideration.

And I know that the there's two sheds on the docket there.

Really, we built the one shed.

We moved the other one over.

And he was going to dispose of the other shed.

So that's why the application did not have a variance for request for a B shed.

That's up to the client if he wants to keep the shed or not.

If you all approve that's all I have at this time.

Sure.

And you still have plenty of time if you or the applicant would like to speak.

It's up to you all.

Uh Mr.

King may want to say something.

Sure.

Sir, if you would please state your name, address, anything you'd like to add.

Matthew King, um, 9720 Stony Bridge Road, Fort Worth Texas, 76108.

Um the two signatures that I have, uh Nathan Hines is the address.

Um I have to think now, like if I'm walking out of my house, I always take a left.

So I guess that would be.

Can you make sure and speaking that mic?

You can pull it close.

It's always uh it's the house to the left and the uh address one across from me, uh is uh Jay Nayung.

It's it's French.

Uh it's uh I would have the other signature on to the right of me, but he's just a renter, so uh he yes, so I feel like I couldn't get him to sign anything if that uh answers any questions about that.

Yep.

And we'll get to questions here in a minute from the from the board, but again, you still have a few more minutes if there's anything else you'd like to add.

I think it's yeah, I think we're good.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate it.

There's still a few more minutes if there's anybody else who would like to speak here in support of this case.

Okay.

Having seen none, I will move to anyone here that would like to speak in opposition to this case.

You would have seven minutes.

Okay.

Also, having seen none.

We are gonna move to uh questions from the board for the applicant.

Yes, sir, Mr.

Riley.

A question of the applicant.

Uh would y'all go ahead and come back up, whichever one you make sure you address it to which one.

But it was stated during your testimony that the um second shed that was existing prior to putting in the new one would be removed.

Is that correct?

Correct.

So I'm gonna ask staff.

If that one is removed, why would you even have to have this variance?

So the application document did not include that that uh second shed would be removed and the site plan also did not label that shed to be removed.

So we can considered it as the cumulative square footage that would require variants, and we also communicated with the applicant.

Um the two sheds being considered um was the reason for the variance.

However, if the applicant does not wish to keep um one of the sheds, then the variance is not required.

So I would ask the question if we were to deny this request, they could only be allowed to put the one shed that has recently been constructed on the site by right.

Yes, if uh the case is denied, they will have to pull building permits, they'll only be allowed 200 square feet maximum.

So whichever shed they decide um one will have to be removed.

And if we approve this, they could add another shed.

If it you approve it, they can have 320 square feet of of non-habitable accessory area, which combined is the two sheds that are currently on the property.

Can I so um so I we haven't actually heard from the homeowner yet about whether he's intending to tear down that 100 feet, but we could approve a variance that lasts for 180 days that he has to get rid of that extra hundred square feet?

All I have to do is revise the SAP plan saying to be removed.

So we don't even have to approve the variance right.

That would be mine.

Could we ask the homeowner?

Yes.

Um is that really your intention?

Yeah, if your intention is to take that down the we I don't think you would might have heard, but because the right now we are not considering the um the second variance for the side setback.

We're only looking us as a board today at the size.

So if your intention is to move your equipment into the new shed, then it's a moot point.

We can you know there's no need for us to approve this variant.

So what is your intention?

Yeah, the old shed, the floor is falling apart.

I uh and it's just it's been around for a bit, so that's why I wanted to build a nice new one.

Okay, but it's still got all my lawn mowing equipment and everything in it.

So I guess your intention.

What are you gonna do?

You're gonna tear down the old one?

Yeah, if that's if yeah, I mean that's pretty much it.

So um help me understand then all it would need to be do done is to put in a new site plan.

That it indicates the old shed would be removed, is that correct?

Yes, the site plan will not have to be submitted to the board of adjustments team.

It would have to be submitted with the building permits for the the new shed.

Okay.

I have a question.

Are you still being held up on the electrical or did you get all that situated?

Oh no, I'm held up until this happens.

Okay, so if we denied variance a no harm, no foul, because you could just put in a new plan, and then the um admin we there could be administrative approval or not, because that's out of our control on the side setback.

Isn't that correct?

It's true, and I think it would be with or what you need to think about with or without prejudice.

So you know, with obviously there would be a time time bound limit to that with out, they could come back and and resubmit.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

If they wanted to come back here.

So when you talk about denial, so a denial without prejudice would thank you.

If he discovers his lawn equipment doesn't all fit and he decides he wants the variance, we could we do without okay.

We could we do without.

Okay.

Correct.

I mean again, that's just that's a proposal, right?

With with is more restrictive.

Okay.

Without is not.

And just as a reminder, you stay a standard denial is considered with prejudice.

So unless you want it to be with, you have to state without prejudice.

Thank you.

Um any other we're still in the questions for the applicant phase.

So any other questions for the applicant at this point on the board.

Uh well, where is is the electrical issue?

Is that a permitting issue, or is that just you just haven't moved it over yet?

Oh, I mean it we just didn't we I didn't want to go to the permit because I can you make sure it's speaking.

I like what you guys are doing here.

So um I I just didn't want to get a permit and do all that work and have him spill more money because I wasn't sure how strict the four to five feet and all that came out to.

So okay.

And just for the record, the variance request or building the variance would not have any dealings with the electrical, it'd just be handled through their building permitting phase.

Can I add so in my variance request, it was 192 square feet.

Um yeah, on the site plan, I did put the other shed on there.

I mean, I could have just removed it off there, but I just put it 192.

And then when I got approval that we were uh going to the board, the numbers changed to 320.

So I think things have switched around and changed a little bit, but really I just wanted to represent that the shed is 192 square feet.

That's what I built.

It's the most beautiful shed in the whole neighborhood.

Promise you.

And uh, but now I think the discussion's moved into two sheds and we appreciate you coming out.

If he wants to take a gamble and and and try to get the approval for 320, so that we don't spend more time trying to wait on the project being finished.

I don't know what what to go in that direction.

How do you go in that direction?

No, I think this has been helpful for us just to understand kind of what the intentions are and what the plan is going forward.

Did you have a question?

No, I was just saying it we appreciate you standing by your customer and helping him out for sure.

Sorry, please may I ask a question?

Sure, go ahead.

Um if you are remove this.

I guess it would be the first shed.

If we make an amendments uh to that based on the amendments uh for approval that you uh had to remove the second, I mean the first shed.

Would you be willing to do that to move forward?

Uh you're talking about the first shed, the one that the new the new one that's just built or the original one.

I'm talking about the the original.

Oh original one can go over the fence.

We can toss that, no problem.

This one is concrete pad, it's built well, and uh he's got collectibles he wants to put in there, run just keep it move stuff out of the garage and all the art equipment.

So that one that one would be a hard one to sell.

So question to staff and legal if we make those put that in the amendment for approval.

Could could we do that so that they can move forward with this project?

I think I I think you could legally do that.

I don't it sounds like their intention is to get rid of that other shed, so I don't think you need to do that because um a denial of this variance would only allow them a certain their their standard 200 square feet that they would be meeting if they got rid of the first shed.

So you you certainly could do that, uh, but then they would have 320 square feet uh among however many sheds um regardless of tearing down that first one versus uh it sounds like they just need the 200 square feet for the one.

So yes, you to answer your question, you could legally do that.

Uh it sounds like that may not be necessary, but that's up to the board.

Thank you.

So I'd like to propose a motion that we deny this um variance without prejudice, giving them a little flexibility since we've caused some grief already, give them flexibility if they had to come back for some reason.

I have uh real quick.

So we're still just uh we're still in the public hearing with uh with the applicant.

No, you're fine.

Questions for the applicant, Mr.

Gardza, go ahead.

Yeah, this question is keep that keep that thought, Ms.

Duffy.

Okay.

Um what do you want?

Um you pull that mic close.

Thanks.

I yeah, I I guess like Coley said, uh I was still under the the thought we were just talking about four to five feet and not one or two sheds.

So I'm trying to get my mind to to follow that.

Um I I just want to be able to like just uh get rid of that shed so we can just get approved for uh for the accidental, like making it just slightly too close to the uh fence so we can we can start the project because right now it's like you said we've not even touched it since we discovered this error, and so it's been sitting there what for two, three months.

Over two months now, and I just would like to get it finished up so I can clear some stuff out.

Thank you for that.

Yep, thank you very much.

And we're just for for background, we're figuring out how we administratively handle this, and so that's why we're asking you a bunch of questions about your intentions and that kind of thing.

So any other questions for the applicant.

Okay.

I'm gonna close the public hearing.

Um can go sit down, hang tight in case we have more questions, but uh I will open this up to uh board discussion.

Ms.

Duffy Discussion, please.

Um, so I'm gonna restate that motion to deny without prejudice, giving them some flexibility in case they make some sort of changes here in their mind in the next two years.

Second.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second staff.

If you would please uh perform a roll call vote.

Motion by Ms.

Duffy.

A denial without prejudice for variance A.

Okay.

I want to be correct.

Is that variance A.

Variance A.

Right.

And a second by Mr.

Hook.

I'll just restate that we have a motion to deny variance A without prejudice for case BAR-26-054.

Motion made by board member Duffy and second by board member hook.

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 Witt Wolman.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed.

Yes.

Board member Jannah Herrera.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member Kay Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion to deny without prejudice passes.

Okay, thank you.

Do we need to go ahead and take action on variance B at this point?

No.

Okay.

That'll be administratively.

Yes.

And there is a legal noticing error with variance B, so the board can't take action on that.

Okay.

But that'll probably be handled at the staff level.

It will.

Okay.

Uh sir.

We appreciate your application, your uh application and then all the facts about your case.

This the staff will be with you as early as tomorrow to kind of explain what the next steps will be for this process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, staff.

Let's move on to the next case.

EAR-26-065.

Can we take a restroom break?

Uh sure.

Let's take five minutes.

We'll come back at 1027 on the dot.

Keep us moving.

Let's go ahead and restart our hearing.

Ms.

Reyes, are you presenting on the next case?

Okay.

It is B A R26-065.

We're ready when you are the next case says B A R 26-065, located at 853 River Road.

The property owner is Texas for land LLC, and the applicant is new pad building company.

The property is zone B, two family district.

The applicant is requesting two variances related to the construction of a new duplex development.

The first request is a variance to the parking location requirements for a duplex development within the B two family district.

The zoning ordinance requires that the four required parking spaces for a duplex containing three bedrooms in each unit be located behind the front building wall.

The applicant is requesting approval to allow two of the required parking spaces to be located in front of the front building wall.

The second request is a variance to the projective front yard setback requirement.

The minimum required projective front yard setback is 31 feet.

And the applicant is requesting a projective front yard setback of 20 feet, resulting in a deficiency of 11 feet.

The subject property is a vacant 5,767 square foot corner lot located within a redeveloping neighborhood.

The property was replotted in 2025 and does not have alley access.

Staff notes the property does not contain floodplain mature trees or significant environmental constraints.

Staff identified the following history for the property.

BAR-25-099 abortive adjustments case involving parking requirements and driveway coverage was approved on October 15, 2025.

However, this case expired and the applicant was required to return to the board of adjustments again.

However, the applicant updated the site plan and no longer needed the variance related to driveway coverage.

And PB26-01187 is a residential new building permit for construction of a duplex, and it's currently awaiting a client response, which is pending the outcome of this case.

Each unit is proposed to contain approximately 1,513 square feet, resulting in a total building area of approximately 3,026 square feet under roof.

And the applicant is requesting two variances associated with the proposed development.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow two parking spaces to be located in front of the front building wall.

The zoning ordinance requires four parking spaces for a duplex with three bedrooms in each unit.

These spaces are required to be located behind the front building wall, and the applicant proposes to provide an attached one-car garage for each unit, and the remaining two required parking spaces will be located within the driveway area and front of the front building wall.

And as a result, the applicant is requesting a variance to permit two of the required parking space to be located in front of the front building wall.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 20-foot projective front yard setback for a minimum 31 foot setback is required, resulting in a deficiency of 11 feet.

The property is a corner lot and is adjacent to 6204 Big Ben Street along its southern property line.

Under section 6.101 of the zoning ordinance, when a corner lot abuts the side of a lot facing the intersecting street, the side yard becomes a projective front yard and must equal the front yard setback of the adjacent property.

The adjacent property at 6204 Big Bend Street has an established front yard setback of approximately 31 feet.

Therefore, the subject property is required to provide a minimum projective front yard setback of 31 feet along the southern property line.

And the applicant is proposing a projected front yard setback of 20 feet, resulting in a deficiency of 11 feet.

And these are the regulations that pertain to this case.

And staff is available to answer any questions the board may have.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Reyes.

Any questions for staff?

I have a question.

Please go ahead.

So it's zone B to family.

Could they build a single family home there?

Yes.

And if they did, then they wouldn't have some of these potential challenges with the parking, I would presume.

It depends on the size of the one single family house.

Okay, thank you.

How many bedrooms it would have?

True.

Thank you.

Do you have a zoning map of this neighborhood?

Are they the only lot zoned B?

So all the other ones are A5.

No, I think all the dark, darker gold is B.

It looks like I don't see.

So our lot is the gray one.

Yes.

But everything in in the Everything in the B is all over here.

Pretty much all of it's B except the two really light yellows.

Correct.

Okay.

And when was that zoning adapted for that neighborhood?

Because it doesn't look like any B's have been built in the neighborhood yet, right?

They're all they're all existing legacy homes.

I would have to check.

I was not able to locate a zoning change on this properties, so it may be that the B zoning district is the original zoning district for this area.

B wasn't even created until like in the last 10 years, right?

B.

How long has B been around?

It's been here for a long time.

These houses have been around a long time.

Very long.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

We know what the actual setback is of the neighboring property.

Basically, that uh I think that's this house with the circle drive.

Uh it's based off of this one, the setback.

Oh, sorry.

Yes, the next door property is 31 feet.

Uh, this is Johnston.

Is the is the front of the house on Big Ben Street or it's on river.

It's on river, okay.

Any other questions for staff?

Okay.

Thank you, Miss Reyes.

Is the applicant here?

Yes.

Please come up, state your name, address, and facts about the case.

You have seven minutes total.

Hello, uh, my name is Casey Dudley.

My address is 721 The Cottages Drive and Godly.

Um, I'm here on behalf of NewPad.

So, facts about the case.

We were here last year in October.

Um, you guys approved our variances, then our site plan has not changed.

Um, variance expired, not necessarily a little bit of fault.

We should have applied for an extension.

So we'll take that accountability there.

However, um, one thing that's not noted in the report is we were required to do a sewer extension for our taps.

So our building permit was pulled back in January.

It took the water department about four months to design our sewer extension.

Um we have already paid $17,000 into our sewer extension.

And now we once that was approved, we went to complete our building permit, and unfortunately, our variants had expired.

So we're back.

Um to answer Miss Stuffy.

We have built duplexes on Mustang a couple years ago.

We built three duplexes on Mustang.

Um, there are other duplexes in that area.

Um the only thing that's kind of new this time is that projected setback.

Um I spoke with Emily about that.

It seems it was maybe honestly just missed last time.

Um that house that is behind us is not brand new.

That's not a new setback, but it was not brought to our attention last time.

If we build like you asked, a single family home on that lot, we wouldn't have enough room to put a two-car garage.

Even our smallest plan, which I've adjusted and brought to the board before, um, that received approval on Marlin Street a few months ago.

That plan with a two-car garage would still exceed into this projected front yard setback.

Um if we we wouldn't be able to build a duplex at all, but really it wouldn't be much of an option to even build a single family there.

Um another thing, just possibly to consider, not sure.

Um this holds weights, you guys, but we do already have um somebody under contract, a first-time home buyer, actually, to buy this duplex.

Uh he's supposed to move in in November, and so he is being very patient waiting with us, but he is excited to become a resident of Fort Worth.

And so we are just trying to continue on with his expectations as well as ours as we thought this was approved last year.

So that's all I've got.

Um, if y'all have any questions, I'll answer those.

Sure, you still have plenty of time if you have anything else you want to add.

No, it's okay.

Okay, thank you.

Uh is there anyone else here to speak in support of this case still a few minutes left.

Okay.

Is there anyone here that would like to speak in opposition?

Okay.

Having seen none, we will move to questions from the board of the applicant.

Uh this is Johnston.

Please go ahead.

Is the the uh the variance that was granted that then expired, did that have the same setbacks as what you're proposing here?

Yes, sir, it did.

Um however, like I said, the variance was missed for the projected setback last time.

So we were approved with this exact same plan.

However, that wasn't a variance at the time, it was just the driveway coverage and the parking.

So when the site plan was submitted this time, um, maybe systems have updated, you know, there's ways to measure um that staff maybe didn't have before.

Um we believed that house behind us was a 20-foot setback.

That's how it was noted on the previous site plan in October.

And so it was never the projected front yard setback, was never brought to the board.

So like I said, our site plan has not changed.

Um this is a very irregular type of lot um already, the shape of it.

So we haven't changed our plan.

Um we haven't changed the movement like anywhere where this the structure will be situated because we already had to design something that fit there the first time.

And I did observe that the shape of the lot is unusual.

Yes, sir.

I don't even know what you would call it in geometry.

I but uh uh and so is that the basis for your uh contention that you have a uh an unreasonable hardship that was not created by yourself that would support uh a variance.

Yes, sir.

Um the the lots were already platted before we purchased them, so we did not plat these lots.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the out for the applicant?

That's right.

Right next door is 31 foot back, the next house down uh big bin.

Appears to be closer than uh 31 feet.

Is that correct?

I don't know if that's the app staff.

Not sure the opkin would know that, but staff, do you know that question?

Give us one second, we can do an approximate measurement.

It's the house that has a circular drive.

Looks like a new home too because it looks like new concrete.

Just give us a minute while they no problem.

Look that up.

Looks like you've already done some work on the property or some framing been down or someone No, they started just getting dirt out there, trying to build up for the pads.

Okay, trying to get ahead of pads, you know, a little bit if we can just before winter comes.

So they uh took some dirt out there.

I thought I saw foundations somewhere, not foundation, but forms forms.

Yes, but um those forms actually have to be pulled up because they're already been warped by some weather.

I got you, thank you.

Just an approximate measurement.

It appears that home may be set back um 20 feet.

We don't know if that's just from the aerial view.

We don't know if that home has uh a porch or um if those are the eaves that may be projecting uh further from the front wall.

Um we are checking for the building permit on that home to confirm the setbacks.

And we did did the city did the city do away with lot averaging that if you had uh houses along the street face that you did an average percent, like a setback average.

Uh for setback average.

Like that was in the code at one time.

I don't think it is now it really doesn't matter.

So it it does matter because the city has decided that this neighborhood, obviously, a neighborhood with lots of really older houses, is they want it to become duplexes or something more closer to multifamily, which is impossible to do with the zoning code the way it's written currently, unless every single person comes in and gets strange odd variances to try to build a home.

Um in our rules of procedure for this board, um, in the previous version and the version the city adopted in November, we have um we have allowance to suggest to the zoning commission some changes to zoning code.

We have never done that in the five years I've been associated with the board, but I think this projected front yard thing does not help our city in any sort of way.

We have a little case later today where maybe that was the intention of that that particular um piece of code at some point, but most all the time this projected front yard gets us in a lot of trouble, and I think we could make suggestions to the zoning board, and I would like to put that on the agenda for the next meeting that we address that because it's this type of builder wants to build some affordable housing, which everybody in the city wants.

We talk about that all the time, but it doesn't make it more affordable if they have to come to our board to get a variance for something that doesn't even make sense.

Well, I'm I would disagree with you.

I think it makes sense.

And I'm glad that this process exists.

Excuse me.

But in general, if you've got a very established neighborhood and you put in fill development in, I think that um it's good to have that as sort of a uh a provision that um protects those who are already invested in the neighborhood.

And we will see an example of that, I think later in this this particular agenda.

Yeah, but most of the time it we're trying to change this neighborhood over the the idea of rezoning a neighborhood is because you're trying to say what is this going to be in the future when these older homes come down, and and our zoning code is not helping in any sort of way here.

I think the B2 family has been on the books for years, and the original intent of B2 was for mother-in-laws, um servants, those kinds of things that would help support a family.

So there are massive amounts of property inside the city of Fort Worth or zone B2, but we're developed as a one.

So an appropriate action if we were wanting to act on building setbacks, front yard particularly, it'd be something that the zoning commission would need to take care of.

It's not the review of our board to do that.

All we can do is the review of our board to make oh sorry, to make suggestions.

Correct.

We can make a suggestion.

I don't see it as need to be on an agenda.

I think it's a good point.

And If we can pin it and put it either at the end of today's agenda and or at the next agenda, but I think it's a good discussion that we have.

And be on today's agenda because it's it's already been noticed, right?

But I think it's a good point that you bring up.

Yeah.

To answer the question regarding setbacks, our ordinance allows us to um take into account the setbacks of the near the home on either side nearest to the street.

And so with this one, the home that's nearest to the street is um 31 feet, and so that home creates the projected front yard setback, and the applicant also owns the property next door along river, which we'll see in the next case.

Um, so the applicant of this case is setting the setback standards for um the front yard along river.

It's along big bin since there is an existing structure immediately adjacent that home sets the setback standards.

Okay, any other questions for the applicant?

We're still in the question phase.

Can I just say one thing before y'all close me?

Um, whenever I was here last time, one of y'all's biggest concerns was we didn't want to do on-street parking.

So that's why the properties are like the driveways are longer, so that way we can.

Yes, the units each have a one car garage, but it's placed where it is so that we can have those longer driveways to keep cars off of the street for the people who do live there.

I know that's annoying whenever you know your community starts turning into cars everywhere.

So okay, thank you very much.

I'm gonna go ahead and and make sure that I ask for any opposition to this case.

Is there any opposition that's here that would like to speak?

Okay.

Seeing none, we are gonna go uh back to board uh questions for the applicant.

Are there any other questions that we have regarding this case?

We'd like to bring talk talk to the applicant.

Okay, seeing none.

I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing and open it up to discussion among the board.

Yes, sir.

Um, this uh this particular applicant has been working with us really well through an oversight.

Um we ran into they ran into uh having to come before us again, and so I I don't see a problem with what they're requesting on both variances.

We've already said yes, they've got investment in the community.

They're they're trying their best to uh make sure that they you know cross their t's and dot their i's so I don't see a problem with this at all.

I agree.

Any other discussion or a motion?

Like to make a question.

I'll make a motion go ahead for B AR26-065 that we approve both variance A and B as requested.

Is that okay with you, Mr.

Johnson?

You know, I'm Mr.

Separation.

I would love to have separate votes.

Yes.

Okay.

At this point, then with two separate votes approved BAR26-065.

Voting first on variance A.

We have a second.

Second.

Alrighty.

Was that Mr.

Gotcha?

Mr.

Whitten.

All right, Staff, could you please perform roll call vote on the motion for variance A?

Yes, we have a motion to approve case BAR-26-065.

Motion made by board member Deborah Freed, second by board member Jim Witten.

The motion the vote will be taken separately.

Roll call vote for variance A.

Board Member Jim Whitten.

Yes.

Board member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board Member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley.

Yes.

Board member Witt Woman.

Yes.

Board Member James Hook.

Yes.

Board Member Deborah Freed.

Yes.

Board Member Janet Herrera.

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell.

That's a yes from board member Lucretia Powell.

Board Member Kay Duffy.

Yes.

Board Member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

Motion Variance A is approved.

Okay.

Do we have any discussion or a motion on variance B?

I think uh Ms.

Free motion was for both.

Yeah, we're just voting separate.

Okay, so we are gonna go with the same uh motion and second for variance B.

Staff, could you please perform the 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 Witt Woman.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board Member Deborah Freed.

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrera.

Yes.

Board Member Lacretia Powell.

That's a yes from board member Lucretia Powell.

Stacey, can you check her activate her microphone, please?

Board member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The variance A passes.

B.

I'm sorry, variance B.

Yeah, both A and B have passed.

So congratulations.

Both of those variances have passed.

Um, if you have any questions about this case, please reach out to staff as early as tomorrow.

And I think we'll see you here in a second.

Staff, we are ready for the next case.

Uh BAR-26-061.

The next case is BAR-26-061, located at 901 River Road.

The property owner is Texas for land LLC, and the applicant is new pad building company.

The property is zone B, two family district.

The applicant is requesting two variances associated with the construction of a new duplex development.

The first request is a variance to the parking location requirements within the B two family district.

The zoning ordinance requires that the four required parking spaces for a duplex containing a three-bedroom in each unit be located behind the front building wall.

The applicant is requesting approval to allow two of the required parking spaces to be located in front of the front building wall.

The second request is a variance of the driveway coverage requirements for one and two family residential uses.

Zoning ordinance limits driveway coverage to 50% of the front yard area measured between the front property line and the closest location on the structure.

The applicant is requesting approval for 56% driveway coverage within the front yard.

The subject property is a vacant 5,391 square foot lot located within a redeveloping neighborhood.

Staff notes the property does not contain a floodplain, mature trees, or significant environmental constraints.

Staff identified the following history for the property.

BAR-25-100, a board of adjustment case involving parking requirements and driveway coverage was approved on October 15th, 2025.

However, this variance request has expired, and the applicant is required to go before the board again.

PB26-01188.

A residential new building permit for construction of a duplex is currently awaiting client response.

The applicant is proposing to construct two attached three-bedroom dwelling units on a single lot.

Each unit is proposed to contain approximately 1,513 square feet, resulting in a total building area of approximately 3,026 square feet under roof.

And the applicant is requesting two variances associated with the proposed duplex development.

Variance request A is to permit two parking spaces to be located in front of the front building wall.

So zoning ordinance requires four parking spaces for a duplex containing three bedrooms in each unit.

And those required parking spaces must be located behind the front building wall.

The applicant proposes to provide an attached one-car garage for each dwelling unit, and the remaining two required parking spaces will be provided within the driveway area located in front of the front building wall.

As a result, the applicant is requesting a variance to permit two of the required parking spaces to be located in front of the front building wall.

Variance request B is to allow 971 square feet of paved surface, resulting in 56% driveway coverage in the front yard as measured between the front of the structure and the front property line.

The area between the front of the structure and the front property line is 1,285 square feet, and the maximum driveway coverage permitted by right is 50% or 642.50 square feet.

If the requested variances are approved, the applicant would still be required to comply with all other applicable development standards, zoning regulations and building permit requirements.

And this concludes staff's presentation for BAR-26-061.

And staff is available to answer any questions the board may have.

Thank you, Miss Reyes.

Any questions for staff.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I know the applicant's here.

So please would you uh please come forward, state your name, address, and fax much case, and you have seven minutes.

My name is Casey Dudley.

I'm here for New Pad Building Company.

My address is 721 the Cottages Drive and Godley.

Um situation here.

Um thing I would just note is again, nothing has changed about this plan.

Um, but we really can't get out of the driveway coverage to meet the setbacks, right?

I mean, those houses have garages, so they need a driveway to get to them, and we're meeting the neighboring setback on River Road as well as what we build at 853.

Um I don't think coming for a variance to try to be closer to the road would I wouldn't even want to do that.

You know, it messes with the visuals.

So I will just answer any questions that you may have on this project, but our stance is the same.

Sure, and you still have plenty of time, just want to leave that open for you.

It's okay.

Okay.

Uh, is there anyone else here that would like to speak in support of this case?

Okay, having seen none, any that are here to speak in opposition.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, I'm gonna go ahead and open it up to questions from the board for the applicant.

Yeah, yeah, it looks as though it might be possible.

If you would bring up the drawing again that shows yes, that one.

It looks as the way that because these parking driveways are significantly wide, it might be feasible to park a car there and still be able to get another one in and out of the garage.

Is that you mean width wise or length with width?

Right, width of the driveway.

From the width and the length, because you can have it, especially the one on the right, you could have the car in the driveway pretty forward.

I don't know.

Let me check the width really quick if that's okay.

Sure.

Of the driveway.

I don't think it is a full okay.

Um, like two-car driveway by any means.

It may be 11 feet wide.

Um, I was just I was hoping.

There was a surveyor site plan in the docket, yeah, that said 11.

And then we do, you know, with this plan we have before when we have enough room, ran the a driveway on one side.

Right.

I've seen those.

Yeah, but we don't have enough room if you see it's it's 10 and 10, 10 on that that setback, which the driveway could go in the setback, but it still wouldn't be 11 feet wide.

So then they're not only they're getting their car over there, but you really can't even walk, you know.

So okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Uh, this is Johnston is the again.

We have an unusually shaped lot.

Is the shape of the lot, the uh the condition under which you are needing uh the variance for uh the driveway coverage.

Yes, sir.

Thanks.

Any other questions?

Okay.

I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing.

We can uh uh have a discussion among the board.

Maybe for you would just sit right there in case we have more questions for you.

I'll open it up to discussion and/or motions.

I'll move that it would be approved as submitted uh probably with two votes head off, Mr.

Johnson.

Okay.

Second.

So we have a motion to approve A and B and a second by Ms.

Powell.

We are gonna separate the votes.

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

Yes, we have a motion to approve case BAR-26-061 as requested by the applicant.

Motion made by board member Jim Whitten and second by board member Lucretia Powell.

The vote will be taken second uh separately.

Variant A.

Board Member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley.

Yes.

Board member Witt Woman.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrero?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa?

Yes.

Variant A passes.

Variant B.

Board Member Jim Witten?

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board Member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board member Witt Wolman.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrero.

Yes.

Board Member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Acosta.

Yes.

Variance B passes.

Okay.

Congratulations, ma'am.

Both variances have passed for this case.

So if you have any questions or need anything else from staff, please reach out as early as tomorrow.

Thank you.

All right, staff.

Let's move on to the next case.

B A R26-056.

We're ready when you are, Miss Reyes.

The next case is BAR-26-056 located at 429 Virginia Place.

The property owner is Johnny Tell Parker and the applicant is Burgati PLLC.

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

The applicant is requesting a variance to the projected front yard setback requirement for a corner lot.

The minimum required projected front yard setback is 35 feet, and the applicant is requesting a projective front yard setback of approximately 30 feet two inches, resulting in a deficiency of approximately 4 feet 10 inches.

The subject property is located on a corner lot within an established residential neighborhood and was originally plotted without alley access.

According to the Tarrant County appraisal district, the property contains approximately 7,275 square feet and is currently developed with a single family residence.

The property contains several mature trees and does not contain a floodplain or other significant environmental constraints.

Staff notes there's an approximate 2.75% downward slope across the property, beginning near the northeastern property boundary and extending toward the southwestern property boundary.

The applicant is proposing an addition to the existing single family residence and is requesting a variance related to the required projected front yard setback.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 30-foot two inches projected front yard setback where a minimum 35 foot setback is required, resulting in a deficiency of four feet ten inches.

The southern side yard of the subject property is considered a projective front yard because it abuts a property facing the intersecting street.

The adjacent property located at 3920 West 4th Street has an established front yard setback of approximately 35 feet.

And section 6.101 of the zoning ordinance states that when a corner lot abuts the side of a lot facing the intersecting street, the side yard becomes a projected front yard and must be equal to the front yard setback of the adjacent property.

As a result, the subject property is required to maintain a projected front yard setback of approximately 35 feet along the southern property line, and the applicant is proposing a setback of approximately 30 feet two inches, resulting in a deficiency of approximately four feet ten inches.

And if the requested variance is approved, the applicant will still be required to comply with all other applicable development standards, zoning regulations and permitting requirements.

These are the regulations that pertain to this case.

And this concludes staff's presentation for BAR-26-05 sticks.

And staff is available to answer any questions from the board.

Thank you very much.

Let's uh start with questions from the from the board for staff.

So the entire edition is going up.

So this is actually an addition.

I'm sorry, I'm close to lunch time.

So this is an addition on the first floor over there for that pink.

Or that's a second story edition.

Let me move to elevations.

So everything highlighted in red is what is being proposed as the addition.

And how many feet is that sticking out from the house as it sits now?

The drawings does not indicate, but if you give us a second, we can do an approximate measurement.

Are there any other questions?

And then I'm just confirming from the from what I'm looking at here.

This is a porch now.

Looks like there's like an existing structure on the property line, but they're taking and again I'm projecting on this, but it looks like they're taking that in.

And we'll have to ask the applicant.

The late correspondence has some drawings.

They're more detailed.

Any other questions while we pull these up?

There is a mature tree located in front of that home along 4th Street, so we are not able to confirm the approximate measurements of the existing home.

Any other questions for staff?

Okay.

Thank you very much, Miss Reyes.

Uh is the applicant here.

Yes, please.

Please come forward, state your name, address, and the facts about your case, and you will have seven minutes.

Thank you guys for being here today.

I'm Lindsay Boren of Brigatti PLC, a local Fort Work architect and agent on the case.

I would like you to introduce you to my homeowners, Sarah and John Parker.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you all for seeing us.

I've lived in Fort Worth my my whole life, born and raised.

Looking forward to continuing to raise my family here.

So today we're looking at one variance.

The status of the project, it is in design.

No construction, no permits, no nothing pulled.

House is as is.

Next slide.

So this is the original plat from 1928.

The property is shown in yellow.

The irregular situation about this is the Y-shaped site or the Y-shaped road, as well as the platted building lines.

So the building lines of adjacent site are further back, and ours are closer in.

Next slide.

So this is a survey.

The survey is dated 2026, so everything is current.

The house, original house was built in 1955.

It's a single story.

So they just bought the house.

So everything is existing.

Next slide.

So setbacks for zoning.

So in green, we have the projected front yard setback, which is 31.8 based on the house above it.

The projected side yard setback dashed in red is 30 feet, 30 35 feet based on the neighbor's house on the right.

The rear and side are both five feet.

If you look, we colored the house in yellow, so you can see portions of the existing house are encroaching.

That is acceptable to renovate.

The only difference is if you want to enclose anything or do an addition, you have to get a variance.

Next slide.

The hardships on the site are the 14 mature trees.

They're in red.

Looks like chicken pox.

Um, they are around seven to 48 inches in diameter per the survey and located all over the site and very close to the house.

You can see we have views from different angles.

You can see how big the trees are and what it looks like and how you can barely see the house.

Next slide.

This is the existing front of the house, just so you kind of know what it looks like.

Next slide.

This is the side view.

Please note the blue arrow.

So the blue arrow in the top right picture is showing that side porch.

This is what so you know what it looks like.

And you can see the wall next to the side porch is what we're gonna be talking about.

So this side porch and wall next to it already go over the front yard projected front yard setback.

We can't do anything about it.

It just happens to be there, right?

Next slide.

So the goals for this project, right?

After we analyze the site, we're save all the trees.

The neighborhood really, really, really likes their trees.

Um, we are not gonna add any more impervious yards, so no more driveway to the front yard, too much driveway already.

We're gonna provide very minimal ground floor additions or none at all.

That way we can save the trees and just you know, be nice to the neighbors.

We're gonna do a second floor addition because they needed more space, but we want to match the neighborhood with the design.

Um, and we studied many, many options to try to come up with the best solution for the neighborhood and the clients.

The owners were willing, and this is unusual to change all of their desires to make this house work for the neighborhood.

Next slide.

So this is the comparison.

The lower image is what we have today, and the upper image in red shows the only areas of the house that require a variance.

So on the ground floor, we're gonna enclose that porch, and I will tell you why.

And the second floor, we just kept the variance going vertical.

So the reason why we want to keep things vertical is number one to modify the foundation.

We really have to dig, and we we're trying not to dig to preserve the tree's roots.

Number two is water.

You want water to come vertically down and shed away from the house.

So we're trying to keep good waterproofing and just keep within the box and be nice to our neighbors.

Next slide.

So ground floor, the reason why we are taking in this porch, because I promise I don't just take in porches lightly.

This is a forever home.

To create a forever home, if something happens within the next 60 years to them, they want to be able to have a shower to take a shower.

If you can see in the lower image, it will be a very small shower.

And if they need they need to do this, let's just go ahead and do it.

Because you never know, you might just trip off the curb.

Next slide.

So this is the first floor on the left and the second floor on the right.

You can see the only areas that need a variance are colored in red.

We're not building any sheds, we're not gonna come back to you guys.

We're making enough space in the house to keep them within the house.

Next slide.

The design meets all other city ordinances and exceeds them.

Side setback, rear setback, lot coverage, impervious, number of parking spaces, and height of house.

Next slide.

In summary, we have one hardship trees, 14 of them.

There's no harm caused to adjacent properties.

The design meets all other ordnance requirements and codes, and the homeowners did knock on every single door, which was a lot, um, within the 300 radius.

They talked to everybody.

Anybody who answered the door, signed.

Anybody who didn't answer the door, they went around again and tried to get more signatures.

Any comments any of the neighbors had, they addressed.

Nobody had any comments.

Everybody was really positive.

That's all.

Thank you guys for your time today.

Thank you.

You still have about a minute and a little over a minute if you have anything else to add.

Or if the homeowners want to add anything.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Uh, is there anyone else here to speak in support of this case?

Okay, having seen none.

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

Not necessarily speaking at all.

Sure, go ahead, come forward, please.

Would you state your name and your address and uh facts watch case?

My name's Blaine Smith, and I live at 428 Virginia Place, right across the street.

And I apologize, I'm sure you all did knock on my door, but um, I'm not there a lot.

So um my concern and Becky Delon, who lives across the street on Fourth Street, is the trees.

And I appreciate your, you know, your uh interest in keeping the trees because really Monticello neighborhood is about the trees.

Um, but I'm concerned how with the like the big burr oak in the front yard and the ones in the backyard.

How are you gonna add on a second story with the proximity of the oak to the existing roof now?

Yeah, let us let me, yeah.

If you'll have a seat for a second.

So right now we're we're just wanting to hear not necessarily questions from you.

We're wanting to hear any kind of questions or concerns that you have for us.

We're gonna go into a question period where we we'll answer, we'll ask questions from the board, and we can kind of address those as well.

Okay, but is there anything else you'd like to bring up beyond beyond the trees?

No, I mean I'm I don't have any opposition to the you know to enclosing the porch and encroaching on the existing property line.

Is my concern is solely about the trees on that property, which are just spectacular.

Okay.

Anything else you want to do?

They really impact the entire, I mean, you know, I live on the corner lot across the street, and the trees on on at 429 really impact that entire part of the Monticello neighborhood.

Sure.

So that that's my main concern.

Okay, anything else you want to add?

You still have time.

Uh no, thank you.

Very much.

Yeah, thank you, appreciate it.

And we'll come back to those questions too.

I promise the board will ask.

So if you'll hang tight and listen, listen to that.

Anyone else who would like to speak in opposition?

Okay.

Oh, sure, ma'am, please.

Sure, come forward, state your name, address, and anything else you'd like to add.

I'm uh Becky Delon, and I live across the street on fourth street, and I love hearing how much you love your neighborhood.

And uh I believe that.

Um, and thank you.

I have the same concerns about the trees.

Uh, I look out on seven of them in the backyard.

It's like it's like Central Park looking out my front door.

Uh it's beautiful.

And that's all.

And I wasn't clear if any of them were going to be impacted.

That's okay.

Thank you very much.

Uh, there's still a few more minutes if anybody wants to speak in opposition or ask questions.

Okay.

Having seen no other speakers, uh, I am gonna go to questions from the board.

I'm sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry, it's that's correct.

You do have three minutes to rebut rebuttal, if you'd like to add anything.

Um thank you guys, and and thank you for your concerns.

The main reason for not just tearing down and then digging down to get all of the Pure and Bean Foundation is really to do the best thing for the trees.

These people are somewhat insane.

They're keeping every tree uh regardless of whether it is bad for what a standard person would do.

Most people would just tear up every tree within 20 feet of their house.

They're like, we're just gonna keep them.

And I'm like, okay, great.

Um, what if?

And they're like, we're willing to make that sacrifice for the neighborhood to deal with the what if if it does happen.

Because you we see in the pictures, can you go back to the front inside of the house?

The trees are like coming over, which is gorgeous, and that's what they really love about the property.

So we are going to not new build, we are going to make this work.

They are going to keep all of the trees, just trim them up where we need to trim up so they stay off the roof.

That's I don't know what I don't have a client that would do this other than them, to be honest.

They would just let's start over.

So they're doing this for you guys.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You still have three minutes if you'd like to come up asking other questions because they had time to for rebuttal.

You also are given time.

Okay, thank you.

All right, I'm gonna open it up to questions from the board of the opkin.

I don't have any questions, but um I'm really appreciate we see a lot of infill development and not a lot of people take into consideration the impact of what they're doing on their neighbors.

Um and so I I greatly respect that.

I would just like to say that thank you so much for being so very thorough in your presentation.

Uh and if there's not any more discussions on this uh particular case, I'd like to move to make a motion to approve excuse me.

To approve BAR 26056 as written.

Yes, ma'am, hold that thought for one more minute while we uh ask for any more questions of the applicant.

Anybody else would like to add anything or ask questions?

Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing.

Ms.

Powell, would you like to restate your yes?

I'd like to make a motion to move to approve as written uh B A R 26056.

I'll second.

We have a second from Ms.

Freed.

And a second from Ms.

Freed.

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

Thank you.

Case B AR-26-056.

Motion made by board member Lucretia Powell and second by board member Deborah Fried to approve the as requested by the applicant.

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 Woman.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board Member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board member Kay Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Okay.

Congratulations.

Your application has been approved.

Should you have any questions or uh anything needing from staff, please reach out as early as tomorrow.

Thank you.

All right, staff.

Let's move to the next case.

We are moving to BAR-26-067.

The next case is BAR-26-067, located at 3633 Washburn Avenue.

The property owner is Washburn 3633 LLC, and the applicant is Cattleman Homes.

The property is zone C, medium density multifamily district.

And the applicant is proposing a residential development design to meet the standards of the B2 family district.

The applicant is requesting three variances associated with the construction of a new duplex development.

The first request is a variance to the parking location requirements of the B2 family district.

The zoning ordinance requires six parking spaces for a duplex containing four bedrooms in each unit.

These required parking spaces must be located behind the front building wall, and the applicant is requesting approval to allow two of the six required parking spaces to be located in front of the front building wall.

The second request is a variance to the maximum lock coverage requirements of the B2 family district.

The maximum lock coverage permitted is 50%, and the applicant is proposing a lot coverage of 52.7%, resulting in an excess of 2.7% over the maximum allowed.

The third variance request is a variance to the driveway coverage requirements for a one and two family residential uses.

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

And the applicant is requesting approval for 68% driveway coverage within the front yard.

The subject property is a 6,000 square foot interior lot located within a redeveloping neighborhood.

The property was originally platted with alley access in 1910, and staff notes the property is not located within a floodplain and it's not uh no subject to any significant environmental constraints, and the site does not contain mature trees.

This is the history of the property.

The applicant is requesting three variances to allow the construction of a two-family dwelling duplex.

The property is currently developed with a single family residence.

However, the applicant is proposing to replace it with a duplex with three stories.

The subject property is located within the C multifamily zoning district.

The zoning ordinance defines multifamily districts as collectively, including the CRC, DHR1 and DHR2 districts, as well as any planned development districts that permit multifamily uses.

The applicant is proposing a residential development that is designed to meet the standards of the B2 family district rather than C multifamily district.

Therefore, the request has been evaluated based on the applicable development standards of the B2 family district.

Variance request A is to allow two parking spaces to be located in front of the front building wall rather than development standards stating that there are six required parking spaces for two attached dwelling units.

Each unit containing four bedrooms are located behind the front building wall, and the applicant is providing an attached two-car garage for each unit with the additional required two parking spaces being provided in the driveway in front of the front building wall.

Variance request B is to allow 850 square feet of paid service, resulting in 68% driveway coverage in the front yard as measured between the front of the structure and the front property line.

The area between the front of the structure and the prop uh front property line is 1,250 and the maximum driveway coverage permitted by right if is 50% or 625 square feet.

The third variance, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the duplex to exceed the maximum lock coverage of 50%.

The proposed duplex would result in a total lock coverage of 52.7%, which exceeds the maximum allowable lock coverage by 2.70%.

And if the variance requests are approved, the applicant would be required to meet all other development standards and regulations and obtained building permits.

These are the regulations that pertain to the case.

And this concludes staff's presentation for BAR-26-067.

And staff is available to answer any questions from the board.

Thank you, Miss Reyes.

Any questions for staff?

Yes, Mr.

Rare, please.

Is this I didn't see that this is a TC over TCU overlay?

Is it I don't believe so?

No.

And then by ride, they can build three stories.

Yes.

As long as they don't exceed the height limit.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Okay.

Thank you, Miss Reyes.

Is the applicant here?

Yes.

Please come forward, state your name, address, and the facts about your case.

And you have seven minutes.

My name is Casey Dudley.

I'm here for Cattleman Homes.

Um my address is 721 The Cottages Drive and Godly.

You guys are probably gonna have that memorized later today.

But uh already on Saturday.

Um I am here proposing.

So you'll notice a little bit in the slide.

I want to just point it out there's already like a discrepancy.

This does have a plated alley.

It says in the slide there's no alley.

It's not that there's no alley, it's just unimproved.

Um the alley is completely grass.

Um so I'm not saying that nobody uses it, it's just not improved, right?

Um so what we are proposing here, that first floor is the two-car garage.

So there will still be four spots behind the front building wall.

Um then do I have to tell you next slide, or am I able to oh, okay.

So this is the site plan mocked up of what we're building.

Um, if we go in from the alley and build two more spots back there, the concern is as you see, we don't have very much room, right?

We've got 10 feet in the back from the alley.

Uh with the patio, it's about 16 feet, actually.

Um, but I have a couple concerns being it's not improved back there for somebody to really drive well, or you know, I don't know if they would have any damage to their vehicles, anything like that driving back there, um, and then having enough room to fit two more spots back there.

And then of course, and this is kind of a question for staff too, but if we did put concrete back there, aren't we going to exceed our lot coverage quite a bit more?

And we would you know still be coming for a variance for more lot coverage on that um at the back.

Uh next slide.

Oh, you can skip this one.

You guys are pretty aware of everything.

She's already been over this.

Um, next slide.

We just went over that.

The lot width being 50 feet wide, we can't really run anything from the front back.

Um, we want whoever occupies this property to be able to take access off the front just because that alley is unimproved.

Um next slide.

And then this is kind of the most important piece for my for Cattleman homes is so as you can see.

This is just a couple.

There's more if you drive that neighborhood, but I didn't want to just bombard you guys with a bunch of examples.

But some of the best ones, one being directly across the street, 3626 Washburn, as you can see.

Now they do have an improved alley, so they may have taken some parking from their alley, but nobody is parking back there.

They're parking in the front, and they're just right in front of there's really not even room for two cars there, you know, just one for each unit.

And then 3628 Harley Avenue is similar to kind of what we're proposing, where yes, most of your front, other than those setbacks and the small portion of the yard that would be left after the concrete coverage, those are gonna give them two car garage parking and then as well as two in the front if they needed it.

Um that was mostly it.

Uh, I think we're fitting in with the neighborhood with what we're proposing.

We're not really trying to change anything or bring anything that's an eye sore there.

We are still under the height regulation.

Um there is I believe 3707 crestline, at least one of those sides is a three-story as well, but we are still under the high minimum um or maximum.

So that is I'll just take any questions if you all have any.

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

Uh no, it's okay.

Okay.

Is there anyone else here to speak in support of this application?

Still a few more minutes.

Okay.

Having seen none.

Is there anyone here in opposition?

Anyone here would like to speak in opposition?

Okay, having seen none, uh, we will move to questions from the board.

Mr.

Chair, would you receive two letters of opposition on this case that is provided in a late correspondence?

Thank you for noting those.

This is Mirabelle.

I was just gonna respond to her question that she had earlier.

Paving is only counted for front yard coverage, it is not counted towards total lot coverage.

Thank you.

Okay, questions from the board for the applicant.

I have a trying to think how to pose it.

I don't see a hardship at all as it relates to this lot.

To me, it's a self-imposed hardship by wanting to have a four-bedroom when that could be cut down, and that would help with the parking situation.

And I have trouble with variant C with the amount of excess driveway coverage.

So could you provide some insight as to why you'll want to build such a large duplex place?

Personally, I can't really speak to the plan.

I didn't design the plan or have any um input in the plan.

This is the plan that they gave.

Um, I know they would still want that additional driveway coverage in the front.

Even if we take it to a three-bedroom, they would be seeking that variance for the driveway to match the garage.

And so, due to the lot size and you know, the building sitting back where it does, the the front yard coverage would stay the same, even if we make the plan smaller and take away a bedroom.

Ms.

Duffy.

So I have a question, I think um, for staff.

So this property is um about a half block west of Dicky's Arena.

Um, I notice it's zoned C, which we don't see very often, medium density multifamily home.

Um so can staff give us a little overview of what the difference between B and C is.

I'm I'm seeing it as zone C, but they're developing it to a B.

But can you give us a little um overview on what's the difference between B and C?

So this is Mirabel.

Um the city or the zoning ordinance allows us to have partially cumulative zoning, which means that um, for example, if they have a multifamily district, they can build to a less dense district, meaning either B two family or a single family.

B is two family zoning only.

C would be multifamily, meaning if their lot um size can accommodate, they would be able to build three units or more.

Of course, they would still have to be able to comply with um parking spaces, open space, and other regulations under the C zoning.

So you're saying instead of if they want to take away some of those four bedrooms, they could have squeezed three in here and it would have met zoning code.

If they can meet other regulations, yes, they they do have the option of building multi-family, yes.

With regard to the parking situation, you know, west of Dicky's arena.

I know that I believe you have to have a residential permit, or could you talk about the parking street parking situation?

And is that still in residential districts um on street parking is not um taken into as the required parking?

All of the parking, the all of the required parking must be within the development or private property.

But in this district, I believe there are parking restrictions, or you need it, you have to have a permit to park on the street, and I think it has to do with Dickey's arena.

Is that correct?

That I do not know.

That sounds probably by if it is in place, it's a regulation by TPW.

Okay.

Any other questions for the op cam?

Um who did our opposition come from on this one?

Homeowners association.

I believe the neighborhood association was one, and the other might be an actual neighbor.

Yeah.

I I can tell you, University West, this is not part of University West neighborhood association.

So that letter.

No, this had a neighborhood from their neighborhood association.

Okay.

Right there.

One of the letters come from the neighbor immediately west of this property adjacent to that this.

Derek Castro, yes.

The immediate neighbor next door.

Problem here is it's already been rezoned to multifamily.

The other letter comes from the Arlington Heights Neighborhood Association.

Is this property within Arnton Hodge neighborhood?

This property is within Queensborough Heights.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant right now?

It is within the Arlington Heights neighborhood.

Thank you, Miss Pinier.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh we might have questions for you again.

And I will open this up to a discussion among the board.

So I will not be able to support this.

There are no the criteria that we are supposed to look at.

Um in terms of hardship, this doesn't meet any of those.

And it appears as though they're just they are maximizing the financial benefit, which is something that we are not supposed to look at.

Um that's my primary reason.

The secondary reason is that it is in field development.

And um actually the zoning is very generous compared to what's established in that neighborhood.

Um which are much smaller homes.

This will be there, they have the right to build something much larger than what is there.

And so granting three variances to let them do something that's even bigger than what they're allowed is something I can't support.

I agree as well.

Uh my questions kind of tip my hat to the applicant that I will not be able to support these in a correctional.

I thought Washburn was near TCU, so obviously it's not, but I can't support any of the three variances.

Any other discussion or a motion?

I'm I'll make ready to make a motion if nobody else has any discussion, but I don't want to do it too soon.

Um I ask do you want to can I ask something?

I'm just gonna throw out here in our discussion later about what we might recommend to zoning.

If we want this property to be C, we got to be able to let them develop it as a C They still could, but they and as long as they stay with the zoning.

So the size of this lot they they mentioned size as the reason for the need of the variance, and that is not a legitimate reason for a variance.

So they could do something that's the correct size for zoning.

They could do three small um much smaller, you know, two bedrooms, and they could do that, and then we wouldn't have to do any variances as long as they stayed within lot coverage, driveway coverage, parking, as long as they stayed within those, they have the right to do that.

So it doesn't really matter if they're what they're building to in this one.

So right now we're in the uh the board discussion with the close of the public hearing.

I would note that the applicant is stood up.

If anybody, I could reopen the public hearing if there's anybody that has a question of the applicant or would like to make any miss Arrera, would you like me to open reopen the public hearing?

Yes, you can did you have a question or a comment you wanted to make?

Um, kind of what I would really ask is that we maybe continue it and let me get with them and revise the side plan, use that unimproved alley.

I know that they didn't want to initially, but if we can get the parking behind the front wall, I just really would hate for them to get denied on like the coverage portion.

Um because we kind of need to see what we can do with the side plan because I know they were doing it to um B standard because it is mostly residential houses there, so not to make multi-family and then you know, potentially like more in and out.

Um, but if we could just continue, we may not need all of these variances.

Um, but at least instead of them being denied on their project, they could re-evaluate the site plan and see what else we can come up with.

Gotcha.

I think that's appropriate.

You know, uh I I have a hard time approving all three.

Uh the only one that I would be interested in, concerned favorably would be the B.

So if uh the continuance is granted, would you need 30 days or 60 days?

30 days is fine.

So staff is gonna X for 60 days because we have already passed the um intake the application intake cycle for the next meeting.

And it sounds like this site will be redesigned, so it would trigger a brand new review.

Okay, thank you.

And are there any more questions for the applicant before I close the public hearing or anything else we before we discuss amongst the board?

And then I just want to make sure, like if you guys kind of tell me exactly what you would like to see.

That would be super helpful.

This is their first project in Fort Worth, so they are not trying to, you know, um come in on the wrong foot.

They plan to develop here more.

So if there's a way that obviously personally, I work with you guys' suggestions, so I could definitely recommend that to them as well.

Yeah, and I think it's hard for us to kind of give kind of wide open, you know, blanket recommendations without responding to something or seeing something submitted that's difficult for us to do.

And so what I would say is probably work with the staff, you know, if they're gonna redo something or or that that's really the first place to start.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant before I close the public hearing?

Okay, thank you, ma'am.

So I'm gonna close the public portion of the hearing again.

Go back to a board discussion.

We obviously heard from the applicant.

So open to more discussion or a motion, or we could separate you know, variances and and have motions on that as well.

Yes, sir, Mr.

Wood.

I move that we uh continue BAR 26067 uh for uh 60 days.

I'll second.

Second by Miss Fried.

Is that right?

Ms.

Breed, second.

Yes, okay.

Motion by Mr.

Witten, second by Mr.

Free to continue BAR-26-067 for 60 uh for 60 days, excuse me.

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

Yes, board member Jim Whitten?

Yes, board member Sergio Garza.

Yes, board member Michael Johnston?

Yes, board member Bob Riley, yes.

Excuse me.

Board member Witt Wolman.

Yes, board member James Hook.

Yes, board member Deborah Freed.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Lucrisia Powell?

Yes.

Board member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Okay, ma'am.

So your the motion to continue was approved.

So I would reach out to staff as early as tomorrow to work on uh all the facts about the case.

Thank you.

Okay, we are gonna go to one more uh case and then we're probably gonna break for lunch after this case.

We'll take a 30-minute lunch break, but we're gonna go through this one probably in between 12 and 1, some 30-minute interval, but just wanted everybody to be aware of that logistically.

Ms.

Reyes, please go ahead.

The next case says BAR-26-064, located at 1917 Carlton.

The property owner is Mark and Jeanette Graf, and the applicant is Jeanette Graf.

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

The applicant is requesting three variances.

Variance A is to the one family A-5 district development standard, requiring a minimum side yard setback of five feet to allow construction of a detached garage with habitable space to encroach into the side dress setback along the southern property line.

The required side yard setback is five feet, and the applicant is requesting one foot.

The second variance is to the one family A-5 district development standard requiring a minimum rear yard setback of five feet to allow construction of a detached garage with habitable space to encroach into the rear yard setback along the eastern property line.

The required rear yard setback is five feet, and the applicant is requesting one foot.

The third variance is to the one family A-5 district development standard requiring a minimum side yard setback of five feet to allow construction of an addition to a single family dwelling along with a non-habitable accessory structure and uncovered wood deck to encroach into the required side yard setback along the northern property line.

The required side yard setback is five feet, and the applicant is requesting two feet.

The subject property contains a single family home as a primary use and is located on an interior lot in an established neighborhood.

The subject property is rectangular in shape and was platted with an alley.

The lot contains several mature trees and it's not located within a floodplain.

The primary structure is approximately 1,803 square feet in size and contains a detached garage.

The applicant is requesting three variances to allow the construction of an addition and a garage with habitable space.

The existing detached garage on the property is proposed to be demolished and replaced with a new detached garage containing habitable space, contingent upon approval of the requested variances.

The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage measuring approximately 23 feet wide by 25 feet long, resulting in a footprint of approximately 575 square feet.

The proposed structure, including the habitable space above the garage, will have an overall height of 21 feet and eight and one-fourth inches.

The second story habitable space will also contain approximately 575 square feet, resulting in a total building area of approximately 1,150 square feet.

And according to the site plan submitted, the proposed garage will have a driveway leading up to the garage to be located located off of Carleton Avenue.

Variance request A is to allow a detached garage with habitable space to be located one foot from the southern side property line, resulting in an encroachment into the required side yard setback.

The proposed garage will be located at the rear of the property, and a garage is defined in our sitting ordinance as a space in a principal building or an accessory building on the same lot used for the shelter or storage of owner-occupied motor vehicles as an accessory use only.

The applicant is requesting a variance to the rear setback, proposing a setback of one foot from the rear property line to allow construction of a detached garage with habitable space to encroach into the rear yard setback along the eastern property line.

The existing primary structure is approximately 1,803 square feet in area and is a three-bedroom, two-bath home.

The proposed structure features a gabble roof design, which means the roof height of is of 14 feet and overall height of 22 feet.

The proposed addition is approximately 428 square feet and will add more living space.

Upon completion of the primary structure, we'll have a total area of approximately 2,231 square feet, consisting of three bedrooms and two bathrooms.

The applicant is requesting an additional variance associated with the proposed addition to the primary structure and a wooden deck.

The variance request is to the minimum side yard setback along the northern property line in order to construct an addition to the primary structure that will encroach into the side yard setback by two feet.

The addition of the proposed garage with habitable space and the addition of the wood deck to the primary structure will result in an overall lot coverage of 35% increase from approximately 30.75%.

The A-5 district lot has a 50% maximum lot coverage, and if the variance requests are approved, the applicant will be required to meet all other development standards and regulations.

These are the regulations that pertain to the case.

Staff is available to answer any questions from the board.

Thank you, Miss Reyes.

Any questions for staff?

Could I ask a couple?

So it looks like it looks like they're doing an addition on the back of the house.

And then they're also is there an existing shed or something that's on within that property line or sorry within that setback as well.

Right now, there's an existing garage, but it's proposed to be demolished if the variance requests are approved.

And it looks like it's already sitting within the five foot set side yard setback on the that's correct.

Okay.

And so they're they want to stay within that or they want to they want that variance, but then they also want a bigger detached garage that goes into the rear yard setback as well.

And to add the habitable space on top.

Okay.

And then the the addition on the back of the house, it'll follow the building line that's already existing, and that's why they're asking for that side yards because they're following the existing that is correct.

Setback okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Thank you, Ms.

Race.

Is the applicant here?

Yes.

Please come forward, state your name, address, and the facts about your case.

And you have seven minutes.

Thank you.

My name is Jeanette Graff.

I live at 1917 Carlton Avenue.

We recently purchased the home in March of 2025.

We're requesting to do the re uh addition to the home and remodel.

When we purchased the home, uh there was an addition done in 2004 that's in the same setback variants.

That was done with a pier and pad foundation.

And due to the way that the water runs off on the property, it eroded the foundation under the pier and pad underneath of that foundation.

When they went in May of 2025 to repair that, they noted that we needed to do a stem wall foundation to completely resolve the four-foot uh four-inch drop that happened in that.

So at the same time, we are proposing to do an addition to add handicap accessible hall variances within the home and the existing bedrooms.

We have a 35-year-old daughter with down syndrome, and my 83-year-old mother also is with us, and we wanted to make sure that they had their own spaces.

Currently, um, the way our home sits now, there are only two bedrooms.

They converted one of the bedrooms into a dining room, taking out the closet and adding access to a side porch.

Uh, and then this the other bedroom is more like a closet, it's like an eight by eight space, eight foot by eight foot space, which really doesn't allow for a bed or a nightstand.

So we're wanting to try and keep the charm and appeal of the home as it is within the neighborhood with side approach driveways to the back and maintain the same visual character of the front of our home that's consistent with the homes in our neighborhood.

Thank you.

You still have plenty of time if there's anything else you want to add.

I think I've spoken enough.

Okay.

Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this case?

If you'd like to, sure, you have plenty of time.

Please state your name, address, and the facts.

Mark Graf, 1917 Carlton Avenue.

Um, one of the things also to mention is with the garage.

Currently, it's basically it's really a shed, and we're looking to put in the garage at the back of the property and put the habitable space above.

Okay.

Um, and uh other than that, the property right now doesn't have a true garage on it, so we don't have any place to put the cars.

Okay.

Thank you.

You still have plenty of time.

So if there's anything else you need to add, either of you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, is there anyone else here to speak in support of this case?

All right.

Anyone else?

Uh sorry, anyone here to speak in opposition.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I will open it up to questions from the board.

Yes, sir, please.

Well, make sure it's green and then they'll turn your mic back on.

Give us one second.

Is the light green on your mic on your okay?

They have to turn you back on over there.

One two.

There is uh the the back of the property has an alley between a year property and the property behind you.

Okay.

It's an yes, it's an unincorporated alley or unimproved alley.

It's mostly overgrown.

Uh currently, uh, if you walk the alley, there are a few garages that have alley access, but um the most recent neighbor in our neighborhood who is on Ashland, his garage backs up to I think it's 1904 Ashland.

You'll have to I'll have to look at our um notifications from the neighbors.

They had a lot variance, but to uh incorporate an alley access, it would have cost them a hundred thousand dollars to improve the alley, and we are one house further in from that.

Um, so we could not do a an alley access for our garage.

There seems to be other properties that have uh structures that are close to the property line also neighbors.

Yes, in our neighborhood, it's within the neighborhood.

Uh, there was a uh, in fact, most of the garages are on the lot lines.

Um, so our neighbor just to the north of us who did sign in an agreement with the variants that we asked.

His garage is actually on our property line, and our neighbor just to the south of us, 1921.

His garage is within one foot of the property line.

And then the rest um our other neighbors along the alley, their garages are on the property lines as well.

This is Johnston.

Is the is the concrete driveway back to the garage, is that existing today?

Um it's uh concrete to the fence, and then it's pavers from the fence back to the carriage house that's currently there.

You can draw on that screen if you want to, if you want to show us on this, if you just approximate.

Is it Emily?

Is it she able to draw on that?

Oh, there we go.

Okay, so so where your red line, so where your red line is, that's all hard surface, whether it be concrete or pavers.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

And that was existing.

The way we purchased the home.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Oh, sorry, Mr.

Mr.

Johnson.

No, I'm finished.

Okay.

Ms.

Duffy.

I just want to clarify um something I got a little confused on.

So the the addition that you had when the you bought the house where the foundation has eroded.

You're putting your addition there, or your addition is an addition to that addition?

Our addition is an addition to the addition.

Okay, but it's also a repair to the addition that is existing that um we had uh site work come in and we had it permitted in May of 25 to come in and repair the foundation.

Their recommendation to us was that we do a stem wall foundation which will prevent erosion, future erosion underneath that previously existing addition.

So the 428 square feet is all brand new, plus we have how many square feet of of so it would be 428 square feet of addition to the addition, and then how much of the addition are you are you just re-reformatting?

So um the current the previous addition from 2000 and four is 34 feet wide by 12 feet deep, and that needs a new foundation under it.

And then we're proposing an additional 15 feet by 34 feet off of that existing addition.

Add some bedrooms.

And then the um the porch is a deck.

So yes, it it's an uncoverable porch.

So but you're calling it an accessory structure.

No cover.

Well, it's a uncovered wood deck, um, which also encroaches into the side yard setback.

So it's not added into any square footage um for cover area.

So yeah, but if they had a a paved patio, we wouldn't care if that encroached into the to the side yard setback.

Yes, but this is a structure.

It it is a wooden dick, it is a structure.

So it it is encroaching.

But if it was just pavement just cement, then no, it wouldn't be considered um a setback encroachment.

So it doesn't count towards accessory structure.

But it does count in in whether it can go into this setback if you're a wood deck.

Where is that laid out in the zoning code?

The different the You've got to have a billing permit for the wooden deck.

You don't have to have a building permit for the concrete pavement.

If I recall correctly, yeah.

So it is a structure.

Um give me one second, um confirming an ordinance.

Um probably doesn't matter for this case because they're building the addition anyway.

We got to give them the side yard setback, but um, yeah, the addition interesting piece of zoning code.

Yeah, there's an addition as well, right?

To the porch.

Yeah.

Any other questions?

Yeah, I have two questions.

Yes, sir, please.

Uh one, the existing building, the house exists today with a two-foot side yard setback.

Yes, sir.

Um, understanding is that the house was built before the zoning or property lines were established.

So uh the house as it sits today is exactly how the house sat in 1921.

And the proposed detached garage is replacing an existing carriage house.

Yes, sir.

And does it have the one foot side yard setback to the ki the carriage house is within two feet of the current fence or property line, and we are asking it to be one foot.

Thank you.

But in the rear yard, it's it's much closer now than it's gonna be in your plans.

The carriage house currently is about 16 feet from the back fence.

I haven't gone out and measured it perfectly.

Um so it currently sits closer, it sets further away from the back fence.

We are wanting to push it back closer to the back fence within a foot of the back property line.

What what's the square footage of the existing uh carriage house?

It is 12 by 18.

Thank you.

I have a question.

Sir Costa, yes.

On the diagram that is uh two kitchens, one's for the first floor, one's for the second floor.

Uh we uh are you talking about two different structures?

Okay.

So we only have one kitchen in the primary house in the middle of the house that will stay exactly where it's at.

In the secondary structure, the garage with the living space above it.

We wouldn't have a kitchen per se.

We would have a little kitchenette with a hot plate.

We intend on living there while we're doing the remodel of our house.

Our house won't be habitable while we're adding on.

Any more questions for the applicant?

Yeah, I gotta ask one more.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

Um so the drawing that we're looking at right now between the uncovered porch and the front of the garage is I don't see if I see a measurement there.

And then and then what is the depth of the garage?

The proposed depth of the new garage or the depth of the existing carriage house.

It's the same as the carriage houses, it's just pushed back further.

So do you know what it is?

Is it more than 20 feet?

Could you restate the question, please?

Yep.

So if I were gonna go in the front door of the garage to the to the back wall, is how how many feet is that?

20.

Okay.

And the proposed between this porch and the front of the garage.

The proposed garage is going to be 24 feet deep, 20 feet deep by 24 feet wide, and it will from the deck, the end of the deck to the garage is 16 feet.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay.

If you would, yeah, please sit down.

Stay close in case we have questions for you, though.

Um let's go ahead and open up to questions, or I'm sorry, discussion among the board.

So I'll just throw out there, I'm okay with the side yard setbacks, but the rear yard setback seems like we that's a lot.

I'm okay with all of them.

The rear yard setback is consistent with the neighborhood, which is what I look for on any in-field development.

And also given that they're going back with the addition, it's probably gonna be just as far from the house as it is now, because if they kept it where it is, it'd be right up against yeah, I'm okay.

The um yeah, I'm okay with all three.

Yes, sir, Mr.

Groza.

Uh a lot on these uh situations.

I look a lot to our our um our members who have a little more experience in these properties and and what the kind of the the the character of the property is so because it has a rear alley and and there's room uh for you know fire uh situation where they're not so close.

I don't have a problem with it, but I'd really look to guidance from from our members here who have more experience in these types of properties.

Yes, ma'am.

I don't find any issues with what's been proposed, so I could support all three variances.

Uh likewise I feel the same.

Okay, if there's no other questions or comments, I'd like to make a motion.

Please go ahead.

I'd like to make a motion for B A R B A R 64 for variants A and B and C unless Mr.

Separation oppose I I I would like separ I would like separate votes on these three.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh so I would like to make the motion uh for B A R 26064 for A B and C or separately but as written.

And is that to approve as written?

To approve as written.

Okay, thank you.

We have a second.

I'll second.

Okay, Miss Freed.

So a motion by Miss Powell, a second by Miss Freed to approve A, B, and C, but vote separately.

Staff, could we please perform a roll call vote?

Yes, board member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board Member Michael Johnston.

Okay, we're talking about A.

We are um taking a vote for a variance A.

Johnston's yes on variance A.

I'll I'll start over.

Board Member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board member Witt Wolman.

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed.

Yes.

Board member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member K Duffy.

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Costa.

Yes.

Variance A passes.

Variance B.

Board Member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board Member Michael Johnston.

No.

Board Member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board Member Wit Wolman.

Yes.

Board Member James Hook?

Yes.

Board Member Deborah Freed?

Yes.

Board Member Jana Horero.

Yes.

Board Member Lucretia Powell?

Yes.

Board Member K Duffy.

I'm going to say yes.

I've had a change of heart on that.

That alley's never going to be an alley.

I'm going to let it go.

Board member one Manuel Costa.

Yes.

The motion passes for variance B.

Variant C.

Board Member Jim Witten.

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board Member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board Member Witt Woldman.

Yes.

Board Member James Hook.

Yes.

Board Member Deborah Freed?

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.

Congratulations.

Your application has been approved for all three variances.

Thank you for being here.

If you have any questions for staff, please reach out as early as tomorrow.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we are going to go into a 30-minute recess for lunch.

I'm going to put us, I'm going to put us back at 1245.

I'm going to give you more than 30 minutes.

Okay, we are gonna reconvene at twelve forty-six.

Board of adjustment is back.

We are moving on to case B A R two six dash zero six two.

And I would make a note that Mr.

Riley had to do had to depart.

So we have we're down to ten board members for this afternoon.

Miss Reyes, we're ready when you are.

The next case is B A R 26-062, located at 2123 Renner Avenue.

The property owner is Rockwell Holdings LLC and NUK Hopkins LLC, and the applicant is Casa Blueprints LLC.

The property is zone B, two family district.

The applicant is requesting a variance, the two family B district development standard requiring a minimum side yard setback of ten feet minimum adjacent to a side street to allow the construction of a one family zero lot line attached twin home dwelling to encroach into the required side yard along the southern property line.

The minimum required side yard setback is ten feet minimum adjacent to a side street, and the applicant is requesting five feet.

The subject property is a flat rectangular corner lot located in an established neighborhood and was plotted in 1914 with alley access.

The lot is approximately six thousand seven hundred and fifty square feet in area, and the applicant is proposing a one family zero lot line attached twin home located on the property.

The applicant is requesting a variance of the minimum side yard setback of five feet along the southern property line to construct a one family zero lot line attached twin home that will encroach into the side yard setback by five feet.

The proposed two family dwelling would result in approximately thirty-five point thirty-one percent lock coverage, which complies with the maximum lock coverage requirement of 50% permitted within the zoning district.

The applicant is required to meet all building code regulations and replot the property.

And if the variance request is approved, all other development standards would be required to be met.

And this concludes staff's presentation for BAR dash 26-062, and staff is available to answer any questions the board may have.

Thank you very much.

Questions for staff.

I have one.

I've never seen the phrase.

Um twin home.

Yes.

What is can you tell me what that means?

I'm gonna let Denisha speak on that one.

So the twin home is essentially like a duplex or what you'll call a town home.

It's just that each unit is built on its own separate lot, however, they are attached.

So um two units attached, each on its own separate lot.

So it's the lot is plated as two separate lot the lot is plated as two separate lots, and so they're building to the um twin home attached zero lot line standards.

Okay, thank you.

It's zero.

Any other questions for staff?

Okay.

Thank you, Miss Ress.

Is the applicant here?

Yes, sir.

Please come forward, state your name, uh, address, facts about the case, and you have seven minutes.

Nick Rockwell, 1200, Nolan Ryan Expressway, Arlington, Texas.

Um, I just want to add that we do own the own another five lots to the left of this subject property, and we're currently going through the CFA process.

So the mature trees, uh, once approved, we will actually be removing those.

So I just wanted to add that.

Okay.

Is there you have seven, you have about six minutes uh six and a half minutes?

Is there anything else you'd like to add or state?

Okay.

Uh is there anyone here that would like to speak in support of this case?

Uh anyone else that is here to speak in opposition to this case for this application.

Okay.

If you'll hang tight, we're gonna um go to questions from the board.

Yes, ma'am, it's definitely so so your other five lots.

You're you're developing twin homes all the way down um East Arlington then?

Uh well, no, it'll be on renter.

Oh, on renter.

You're you're doing twin homes all the way for all of your five lots.

For yes, for it'll be six lots total, twelve twelve uh doors total.

Twelve doors, but you you just need this one because it's it's sides up to the street.

Okay.

And remember, we're here just for this case, just the application, Ms.

Duffy.

Right.

I'm just trying to get a picture of the whole yeah, makes more sense.

Sure, please.

Go ahead.

I would just like to make a note for the applicant.

If you own contiguous lots that equal one acre or larger, just make sure you comply with the urban forestry requirements prior to repro removal of those trees.

Yes.

Correct.

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Sir, if you have the neighborhood, this this is a side lot, is that right?

This is a corner lot.

Corner lot, okay.

Umly, can you go to the aerial?

Okay.

Okay, thanks.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Oh, yes, sir.

Please.

I'll move that we approve BAR 26062 as requested.

Sure.

Hold that thought for a second, then we'll come, we'll close the public hearing in a second.

Did you have a question for the applicant?

No, I did not.

We just wasn't ready for discussion.

Or motion.

Okay.

Let me go ahead and close the public hearing, sir.

We'll just yeah, hang tight.

We're gonna have a discussion here in a second.

Uh let's move to uh discussion or motion.

Yeah.

Um I'm not so hasty to approve because the when the side setback is so small, um, there's a visibility issue to a certain extent.

Um I'm trying to understand the nature of this neighborhood, which is confusing to me.

I don't know what's across the Arlington Street.

Um, across from Renner, it appears to be apartments.

Um it's a motel.

I guess that's a question for staff.

Did you hear me?

Sorry, I'll s with the applicant.

Um what's across renter street?

Is that apartments?

It's houses.

Um renter across renters and oh wait, sorry.

There is a motel right across renter, and then across Arlington are single family houses.

Single family houses, okay at the intersection of Arlington and Riverside, there is um a commercial development.

Okay.

So I'm not gonna make you stand back up here unless you disagree with me, but I'm assuming that all of the all of the properties you're building, you're building the same floor plan for all of them, they're all gonna look the same.

And therefore, if we did not grant your variance, that one on the end's got to look different.

You could yeah, go ahead and come up, yeah.

Sorry, we're trying to get on the record.

Yes, so they're all gonna be the same except the elevation.

The city is requiring me to do a different elevation for each base on it.

Yes, but as far as square footage, things of that nature, it's all the same.

They're all the same units except for the one on the street.

The city requires an extra setback, so you're here for it.

Correct.

Okay.

And I have a question.

Have you have you approached the neighbors across the street from this property?

I've spoken to two, but outside of that, I haven't had any sort of a you're talking about renter, are you talking about Arlington?

Oh, across from Arlington on Arlington where the homeowners are.

So I've spoken with two on Arlington, but outside of that, I have not.

Did you get any sort of petition or anything like that from those folks signed?

I did not.

Okay.

What was their feedback?

Um, it wasn't anything native.

It was just they are ready for me to proceed because it's a lot of foot traffic over there.

Oh, gotcha.

Okay.

Thanks.

Yeah, we didn't get any opposition.

Right.

I'm I'm just I'm I always wrestle with decreasing the corner setback.

Um but I don't want to hold.

I mean, that looks like it's some good development on residential property that's needed.

So there's no sidewalk right on Arlington, it looks like.

Yeah.

On that side.

With can I add something?

Sure.

With the CFA process that I'm going through, they're actually making me put one in.

Oh, they are.

Okay.

Correct.

All the way down that street, that that Arlington, that block of your just from yes, the beginning of the front to the to the um back property line.

Okay.

On Arlington.

Oh, on Arletin, correct.

Okay.

Okay.

Which makes sense because there appears to be one on Ash present.

Yeah.

I would like to note for the record that these lots are not our standard 50 foot wide lots.

They are approximately 20 to 25 feet wide.

The property owner can confirm the lot with.

Going down renter.

Yes.

So how I purchase the lots is bought as one, however, they're half they each have their own address already.

Yeah, the plaque confirms they are 20 feet, 25 feet wide.

Okay.

So without that, it's pretty much impossible to proceed.

I mean, I'm I looked at the floor plans.

Um other discussion or a motion?

Yes, sir.

This is uh the part of town that's needs needs uh this this type of something done.

Okay, you know how long they've been uh the lots been empty, sorry.

But to see uh this gentleman trying to do something on this property is it's uh it's not a bad thing.

No, no, I I don't disagree with you.

I'm I'm I have resolved my conflict.

So if you would like to proceed with that motion, I'm happy with it.

I just like to yeah, I just want to make sure please take what urban forests.

I want to reiterate, please take what urban forests before you cut them trees down.

For sure.

It's actually uh part of the CFA process, they have it built into that.

Okay, thank you.

Sir, you're good to sit down.

Okay, thank you.

Uh any more discussion or motion?

Make a motion for BAR-26-062.

Yes, sir.

Does that to approve?

To approve as written.

Is um one separate or uh just one variance?

One second.

Uh is there a second?

I'm sorry, Mr.

Witten.

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

Yes, we have a motion to approve case B A R 26-062.

Motion made by board member Sergio Garza and second by board member Jim Whitten to approve the request as written.

The um roll call vote, please.

Board member Jim Whitten?

Yes, board member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board member Michael Johnston?

Yes.

Board member Whit Woman?

Yes.

Board member James Hook.

Yes.

Board member Deborah Freed?

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, sir.

Congratulations.

Your application has been approved.

Uh please reach out to city staff as early as tomorrow.

Thank you.

All right, we are ready for the next case.

B AR-26-055.

Uh, with uh sir.

I'm I would have to recuse myself from this case.

The applicants are my neighborhood friends.

The property in question is close to my house.

So uh I'm I'm gonna recuse.

I'll I guess I'll park myself outside.

So okay, thank you.

And I would make a note to the board that that takes us down to nine of eleven.

So right, and and we would need nine affirmatives with the recusal.

So you're you're good.

You're you're gonna mean we're gonna have four now.

No, we do.

It's just that we'll in order for it to, and I'm gonna make a note to the applicant as well.

In order for it to be approved, we'll need a full nine votes.

Um what I would do to I would give you the option.

We can we can hear the case now.

Um but I could also give you the the up the option of continuing at some point if you'd like to when we had full 11.

Okay.

Sounds like you're good to keep going.

Okay, that's great.

Ms.

Rayce, if you can go ahead and start, please.

The next case is BAER-26-055, located at 2512 Rogers Avenue.

The property owner and applicant is John Ford and Brian Story.

The property is zone 8-5, two family district, and is located within the TCU overlay district.

The applicant is requesting a variance to the one family A-5 district development standard, requiring a minimum five-foot side yard setback to allow an addition to an existing one-family dwelling to encroach into the required side yard along the northern property line.

The minimum required side yard setback is five feet, and the applicant is requesting one foot nine inches.

There is no presence of blood plate on the property, and there are several mature trees.

The lot is approximately 8,750 square feet in area, and there is an existing one-family dwelling located on the property that was constructed in approximately 1975, according to Terran County appraisal district.

This is the lot history for the property.

The existing primary structure is approximately 1,958 square feet in area and is a three-bedroom, two-bath home.

The proposed addition is approximately 1,759 square feet, and will result in the primary structure having a total area of approximately 3,550 square feet and four bedrooms and three bathrooms with an added closet.

The property is required to provide a minimum of three parking spaces with at least two located behind the front building wall, and the applicant complies with these standards.

The applicant is requesting a variance of the minimum side yard setback along the northern property line to construct an addition to the primary structure that will encroach into the side yard setback, leaving one foot nine inches.

The proposed addition will result in approximately 39.1% lock coverage, an increase from their current lock coverage of 22.37%, but while under the 50% lock coverage maximum allowed within the zoning district, and the applicant is required to meet all building code regulations, specifically those related to fire resistance and rated construction.

But the variance requests are approved.

All other development standards would be required to be met.

These are the regulations that pertain to this case.

And this concludes staff's presentation for BAR-26-055.

And staff is available to answer any questions from the board.

Thank you very much.

Any questions for the board?

Yes, yes, sir.

Is there a pre-existing structure there where they're gonna build this new addition?

No, there is not do you think that they're gonna keep is the intention to keep the current footprint and extend off?

Is that what the yellow is on that site plan?

Yes.

The yellow area on the site plan should represent the addition.

Do you have that, Emily?

It's like a survey with yep, there you go.

So they're gonna keep are they gonna keep the existing footprint of how it is now along that yes that side.

Wait, so they're just coming off of that.

The addition is coming off of that building line.

Yes.

Didn't I see that the addition was 1700 square feet on the previous slide?

I mean for the elevations, it looks like it might be a second story too.

Yeah, it's 1759.

Any other questions for staff on this picture right here?