Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Notice of this meeting has been posted online for at least 72 hours. Staff present today are Denisha London, Emily Reyes, Stacey Jones, Gianna Bridges, Trey Qualls, and Maribel Pena. Chair, will you please call this meeting to order?

Yes, good morning. This is Whit Wollman, and this meeting of the Board of Adjustment will now come to order. It is the 19th of August, 2026, and I welcome everyone to the Board of Adjustment. This board is a citizen board appointed by the City Council. By state law, a minimum of nine members or alternate members must be present to provide a quorum in order to conduct business. Today we have a quorum with all 11 members present. Today's meeting agenda can be found online at www.fortworthtexas.gov. Speaker registration forms for cases on today's agenda should have been turned in prior to the start of this session. Today's public hearing is being documented by cable television and video conference recording, which will be available on the city's website. 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. During 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 members will have the opportunity to question city staff about the case and any applicable laws or regulations that might apply. This portion of the discussion is exclusively between city staff and the board members. During case presentation, as your case is being called, we ask that you move to the front row of the chambers. You will have seven minutes to present the facts of your case and why you believe your application meets the criteria for approval. If more than one person is presenting the case, it is necessary to divide the total seven minutes among all parties so you do not exceed the allotted time. After the applicant has presented their case, I will call for any opposition to come forward. This is their opportunity to express why they believe the 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. After the parties have presented their positions, the board members will then have the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant and any opposition. During this time, all speakers must remember that all dialogue be directed to the Board of Adjustment only. There is no time limit during this period. After the board members have received answers to their questions, I will close the public portion of the hearing. Board members can discuss the case among themselves and city staff to determine whether or not the 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 first order of business is the approval of the minutes from the July 2026 meeting, and we are open for a motion to approve.

Move approval.

Thank you, Mr. Riley. Do we have a second? Second. Mr. Garza? Oh, Mr. Whitten. You both point at each other. All right, Mr. Whitten takes it. Second. Staff, could we please perform a roll call vote?

Yes. Board Member Jim Whitten.

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza.

Yes.

Board Member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board Member Bob Riley.

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King. Yes. Board Member Whit Wollman.

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrera. Yes. Board Member Kay Duffy. Yes. Board Member Madison Gutierrez. Yes. Board Member Eric Ortega.

Yes.

Board Member Juan Manuel Acosta. Yes. The motion passes.

Can y'all make sure that this seat over here has his mic turned on, activated? We wanna make sure he can get his vote as well. Test, yup, yes, thank you. Thanks. Okay, those minutes have been approved, correct?

Yes.

Okay, let's move on to the next case on the agenda. I think it was BAR26-072.

Mr. Chair, may I ask if the applicants of this case is present? Jesus and Teresa Ramirez? Mr. Chair, can we move this case to number four?

Yes, that's great. Let's move to the next agenda item. Continued case BAR26-060.

Mr. Chair, staff would like to request a continuance for this case.

Okay, do we need to make a, do we have a roll call vote on that as well?

Yes.

So let's, it sounds like we need administratively to continue this case. Can we have a motion and a second to move this case, to continue this case, excuse me?

I make a motion to move case BAR 26-72 to... Next month's meeting. Next month's meeting. I think it's... Second.

I just want to be clear. It's BAR-26-060.

I heard it, yes.

I'd like to make a motion to move it to next month, please.

Thank you. Second. Ms. Duffy, second, all right. Motion by Ms. Herrera, second by Ms. Duffy. Staff, could we please perform a roll call vote?

Board Member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza? Yes, for Board Member Sergio Garza. Board Member Michael Johnston.

Yes.

Board Member Bob Riley.

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King.

Yes.

Board Member Whit Wollman.

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrera. Yes. Board Member Kay Duffy. Yes. Board Member Madison Gutierrez.

Yes.

Board Member Eric Ortega.

Yes.

Board Member Juan Manuel Acosta.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Okay, great. Let's move to, looks like our new case, moving on to new cases, BAC-26-021. Is that correct?

Yes.

Staff, we're ready when you are.

Uh-oh, looks like we're having, just moving on to the next one.

Thanks, Ms. Reyes.

The first item on the agenda is BAC-26-021, located at 1081 and 1021 Oak Grove. The property owner is QT South LLC, with the applicant being Ben Williams. The zoning district is G Intensive Commercial. The applicant is requesting a variance to the requirement that a freeway sign may not exceed the maximum height of 25 feet, and the applicant is requesting the sign to be 45 feet. The subject property is a 14,538-acre corner lot located on the northwestern corner of South Freeway and Oak Grove Road. The subject property has a 2% overall slope from the western property line to the eastern property line, and the property does contain mature trees and is not located within a floodplain. In February of this year there was Board of Adjustments approval to allow ECC. The applicant is coming with the same freeway sign, but this time it's for the height. There is a sign permit currently awaiting client reply, which is pending the outcome of this case. The applicant is requesting a variance to the requirement that a freeway sign may not exceed the maximum height of 25 feet. The proposed freeway sign is located 86 feet from the southern property line, located adjacent to the southeast loop 820 frontage road, and the proposed freeway sign will be 45 feet in height, and the proposal is required to meet all other development regulations. These are the regulations that pertain to this case, and these are the board's actions, and this concludes staff's presentation, and I'm available to answer any questions the board may have.

Thank you, it looks like Miss Duffy has a question.

Can you just back up to the picture two slides ago? Yeah, so which one is the service road, the bottom one or the one to the?

Right here. Give me one second. So right down here.

That's south of 20 or north. No, it must be north.

Emily, I think the service road is to the right of the sign. And then the highway is to the right of the service road. Oh, sorry. I misunderstood. The road to the south is Oak Grove Road.

Okay. Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

I have a question.

Yeah, please.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but could this have been handled under an administrative approval?

That's a good question for staff.

No, this one, it exceeds the allowable for administrative approval.

Which is?

It's one foot, the director can approve a one foot. Alternative. Okay.

I have a question.

Please go ahead.

Ms. Reyes, are there any other signs that are at the height that this applicant is requesting in that area?

We don't know.

Is this a newer area or is this an already developed area?

When I did the site visit, it was pretty developed out there. I didn't see any close other gas stations out there.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome. Commissioners, this is Maribel. So yes, the zoning ordinance does allow an administrative approval of up to 50 feet. However, it depends on the location of the sign. What the ordinance says is if the sign is above a traveling, then no, we cannot administratively approve. If the proposed sign is below the traveling thing is, excuse me, we can do an administrative approval. Thank you, Mayor Bell.

Thank you.

Say it again.

Interstate.

So sometimes the freeway, the service road, let's say the service road, a lot of these businesses, their access point is through the service road. So if that service road is below the freeway, then yes, they would need additional height to be seen. But if that service road is at the same level or above the freeway, then no, we would not administratively approve additional height.

So this service road is below the freeway?

It would have to be adjacent or above the freeway.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Maybe this is more of the applicant. How far is the travel lanes? below the elevation of the proposed sign.

You would have to ask the applicant.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Okay, thank you, Ms. Reyes. Is the applicant here? Yes, sir. Please come forward, state your name, address, and the facts about your case, and you have seven minutes.

Good morning. Good morning. Corey Vaughn, 8700 Freeport Parkway, Irving, Texas 75063. We're here today to ask for variance for an additional 10 feet and staff was correct. The limit is 25 feet max height due to the grade, but you are allowed one foot for in height for every one foot of setback up to 35 feet if you're not below grade of the adjacent highway or travel lane. And so technically, the sign sets back 20 feet. We would be allowed up to 35 feet. And so what we do is called a sign ride to place our high-rise signage for a highway. And great question on how far back is the exits, and I'll get to that. This is a particular case for this site is the curvature of the way I-20 sits. So as you come off the exit, you're above our site at approximately 15 to 20 feet coming down the ramp. And then as you come down the ramp on that 14 acre property, now you're going back up the site. And so if you, thank you. If you look at the curvature this way, the way the site sits, this is a travel center as well. So you have trucks and you want to get the trucks before the Gore point. So if you see on the westbound, the Gore point of the exit is approximately a half a mile or 2,520 feet from the QT site. And as you are approaching the exit, you're essentially sitting on top of the hill and you can't really see the site. And we want our customers to be able to see, especially 18 wheelers or truckers that have enough visibility and time to make a safe, Maneuver to get over to the exit which requires approximately we like six to seven seconds a visibility of the sign before they actually make a maneuver to say hey I can get off and at this site particularly if you missed that exit at 438 We are in the convenience business. They're typically not going to turn around and come back You have to go through a lot to come back to that site to get to get off and so the constraint or the The difficulty with this site is where the placement of that sign is so what we did was a sign ride which is we put a crane on site and we put it in multiple areas and we raise it at different heights and we ride back and forth on the highway to see where we can see it at at seven traveling at 70 miles an hour is what the the traffic is and at 25 feet you can barely see the top of the button and when you're approaching the exit, hitting westbound. Eastbound side is okay. It's a third of a mile from the exit. But the westbound side, when you're coming off, it doesn't have visibility to the pricer. And because of those constraints, we moved the sign several different places. At first, we wanted 65 feet at the rear of the property because it has a 2% slope and it drops off about 20 feet at the rear. And so we decided that... didn't match anything else in the area. So the 45 feet at the front, if we go to the next slide. OK, this gives you a good idea of this is the eastbound headed eastbound. The red bubble is where the actual crane is that we took a picture of. And I apologize. We were moving when we took this picture right in the vehicle. And the sign next to it is for the retail or the pawn shop that's slightly across the street. And the position of the sign is in the manner where it doesn't block their sign or it doesn't cover their sign. And it's in around the same height as their sign. And it's visible before you get to the exit. Okay, this is where it sits on the site or that was the old position of the 65 foot sign at the back. And so instead of making it, trying to ask for 65 feet, we lowered it to 45 feet. because you can see it. Next slide. There we go. This is what we lowered the sign to. We have an eight foot brick base on the bottom. Next slide, please. Old position. Next slide, please. This is the new position of this slide with a 25 foot setback from the right of way. Next slide, please.

I think I missed one.

Can you go back like three, four? One more. One more. It's the one with the picture of the exit. Go back one more. One more. One more. Right here. So this is the westbound side. And you see the billboard over on the side. And on the east side, I believe that is. Excuse me, the south side of the site. You see the exit as you're approaching and coming off. The bubble, that's where you can see that sign before with six to eight seconds before you have to get off at the goal point. At this time, thank you for your time, and at this time I'll answer any questions that you have.

Sure, and you still have a minute and a half if you want to add anything else.

I'm available for questions.

Okay, yeah, we'll get to the questions in a second. No more, you're good right now? Okay. Is there anyone else here to speak in support? Got about another minute and a half. Anyone here to speak in opposition? Okay, having seen none, I'm gonna move to board questions for the applicant. Yes, sir, Mr. Garza.

I just wanna thank you.

A lot of times- If you would, sir, please come back up. You can speak in the mic, thank you.

You know, they come at us with elevation and access. And with your photographs, explain it all real clearly for us to understand your intent and your effort. And I want to thank you for that. I have no other questions.

Thank you. I have one quick question. Mr. Riley, do you have one?

Go ahead.

I was going to ask. It looks like from this picture, the westbound exit is what you're really shooting for in terms of this. You're trying to exit 438 to get to this. This is the actual image, right, of what you're trying to reach? Right. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Riley?

Previously, I'd asked the question, how much higher is the pad side or whatever from the through lanes, the suppressed. I understand you have some unique topography in there. Yes.

So when you actually get to the hard corner, it's approximately 15 to 17 feet in height. Below. Yeah, the highway dips down below. And then it rises back up on the other side to where you have the flyovers going to the other highways.

And could you go back to the eastbound exit, which is the one that you're trying to address?

The westbound is the one you're most worried about, right?

Yes, this is the eastbound.

Eastbound's the one that he's worried about.

Visibility, right? It's the westbound. The eastbound I was just showing, depicting that you can see it under the bridge as it goes under, but then the westbound, you lose it before you get to the top of the hill.

So the request is mainly to increase the visibility from east or west? From west, that's correct. And okay, go back to the west.

Yep, there you go. Now keep in mind, this is sitting on top of the hill as you exit that goal point. Probably should have took a picture going further back east. couple of hundred feet, you're below, and you can't see the top of that exit as you approach.

So at this point in this picture, we've already missed the exit, right? Because the exit's right there on the right?

Pretty much. It's sitting on, yes, right on top of the hill. So you're behind the Gore Point.

Question, did you, since you had the crane out there, did y'all do photos of a 35-foot sign and what is allowed by right, 25-foot?

Yes, 25 was not visible. The 35 was barely visible, but you wouldn't have been, by our calculations, you wouldn't have been able to see one of the pricers.

Do you know how tall the retail sign across Oak Grove is, its height?

We shot it with a range finder, and it's approximately 30 feet.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant? Stafford, could you go back to the overhead view? It looks like there was a curve on I-20. Keep going back, please. I just wanted to ask the applicant, based on, it looks like you have elevation issues with regard to where the site sits up and down also on the freeway, but you also have the curve issue as well. It looks like, is that going westbound, it looks like.

It's westbound.

Yeah. And so it looks like you're also trying to, you're trying to get higher to be able to see the visibility much further back with the curve as well of the highway.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Could you go back to the slide from the Highland Hills Neighborhood Association?

Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Having seen none, I'm going to close the public portion of the hearing. Sir, you can have a seat. We might call you back up for some more questions, but I'll open it up to a discussion among the board and or a motion.

I'm just gonna say that we don't want trucks making last minute decisions to exit. This is a safety issue and I don't think we're gonna be cluttering up the skyline any more than it already is.

I have one other question of the applicant, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Sir, if you would come back up, sorry. Does this stretch of Interstate 20 have logo signs? Highway logo signs?

Trailblazers? Yeah. They do at certain portions of the highway.

Is there one that would address your all's concern for westbound traffic?

There's one eastbound. I'm not 100% sure that there's one westbound.

Thank you.

Yes, sir. Mr. Wooden. I have no problem with this one. I think it does enhance safety. I'll add on to Mr. Garza's comment. The applicant's done his homework. answered most of our questions before we got here. I think this is kind of the way the process is supposed to work. So I have no problem with this variance.

Thank you. Any other discussion or a motion?

I'll make a motion. Please. Move that we approve BAC-26-021 as submitted.

Thank you. I second. Mr. King, Mr. Garza? Who's taking it? You're taking it, Ms. King. Ms. King's second. Staff, could we please form a roll call vote?

Yes, we have a motion to approve case BAC-26-021, motion made by Board Member Jim Whitten and seconded by Board Member Sandra King to approve. Roll call vote. Board Member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board Member Michael Johnson?

Yes.

Board Member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King? Yes. Board Member Whit Wollman? Yes. Board Member Jana Herrera? Yes. Board Member Kay Duffy? Yes. Board Member Madison Gutierrez? Yes. Board Member Eric Ortega? Yes. Board Member Juan Manuel Costa?

Yes.

Motion passes.

All right. Thank you, sir. Congratulations. Your application has been approved. Should you have any questions, please reach out to staff as early as tomorrow. Thank you. All right, staff, are we moving on to the next case?

Mr. Chair, first may I ask if the applicants of case BAR-26-072 present? That is Jesus and Teresa Ramirez.

Seven.

Okay.

Chair, can we move on to- Yes, I don't see them here, so let's move on to the next case.

The next case is BAC-26-019. Ms. Reyes, we're ready when you are.

The property is located at 6013 Retail Way. The property owner is Chisholm Trail Center with the applicant being Sandra Pauline Wright. The zoning district is G Intensive Commercial. The applicant is requesting a special exception for a monument sign with electronic changeable copy in a commercial zoning district located on the southern property line. The subject property is a .9947 acre lot and is located at the southwest lot line adjacent to McPherson Boulevard. The subject property has a .58% overall slope from the southern property line to the northern property line, and the property does not contain mature trees and is not located within a floodplain. There is a sign permit currently awaiting client reply, which is pending the outcome of this case. The applicant is requesting one special exception to allow electronic changeable copy on a monument sign in a commercial zoning district. The zoning ordinance states in section 6.411A, electronic changeable copy signs may be permitted by special exception of the Board of Adjustment and Commercial, Industrial, Mixed Use, and Commercial Facility Zoning District subject to certain conditions. One, the presence of other electronic changeable copy signs in the vicinity. Two, the visibility from residential districts. Three, the street classification of the adjacent roadways. And four, the proximity to scenic areas or corridors. There is one other electronic changeable copy sign near the vicinity. There is multifamily use near the vicinity. McPherson is classified as a commercial connector, and the site is not within a scenic area or corridor. Applicant is requesting a special exception to allow electronic changeable copy on a monument sign in a commercial zoning district. The proposed monument sign that complies with the maximum allowable area. The proposed total sign area is 90 square feet. The advertised area is 52.17 square feet with the ECC portion of the sign at 4.53 square feet and they are requesting 8.68% where a maximum of 25% is allowed. These are the regulations that pertain to this case. These are the board's actions and this concludes staff's presentation and I'm available to answer any questions the board may have.

Thank you very much.

Questions for staff? Is this a vacant piece of property right now?

Yes, sir.

It looks like from the photograph of the proposed sign that it's a Murphy USA, which I understand is a gasoline, retail gasoline facility.

Yes.

But it hasn't been built yet?

No.

You know of any building permit application or anything like that showing an intent to build a gasoline station here?

Board Member Johnston, the gas station is built on the lot next to this one. This site is within the USA Unified Sign Agreement, so this sign is off-site. However, the gas station is currently under construction. Okay.

Okay.

Is there something that shows us where the gasoline station is being constructed?

It should be in the aerial photo. Yep, there. So where you see the gas awning there to the right side of the screen?

No, we don't see anything.

Can you circle that or? On the right-hand picture.

Yes, Rock Rose and McPherson. So the gas station will be on the corner of Rock Rose and McPherson, and the sign will be to the left of that, to the west of the gas station.

The proposed sign would be across the street from the gas station?

Not across the street, but right to the left of it. Emily, can you?

I'm not seeing anything underneath.

Can you draw a line to separate the two lots down the middle of this yellow block? And can you draw a circle where the gas station is? And can you draw a triangle where the sign will be? Thank you.

And then maybe on the right-hand side, kind of the elevation, could you also do the same? So as you're looking straight on, if that's possible, just approximate locations.

Can you draw a circle around the, yeah, and a triangle where the sign will be? Won't be quite that far, but.

Yeah, that's the idea. Thank you.

I have a question.

Please.

This is a Murphy gas station. Is this a, they're building a Walmart here?

I do not believe there will be a Walmart here. Just a standalone gas station.

One of the criteria talks about residential, in a residential district, is this Obviously, there's residential behind. Is this close to a residential district? How is that defined, meeting one of those criteria? Does that make sense with regard to how close we are to a residential district? Does it have to be out of a residential district? Does that make sense?

Language just reads, is it within a vicinity of a residential district? And you can make your consideration based on that.

So it's vicinity?

Yes.

And do you know if there's other residential across the street?

There is not. It's a commercial development being built right across the street.

Okay.

And only the multifamily that's behind.

Okay. Thank you. I just want to make one note. It's visibility of a residential district. Oh, visibility. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff?

I had a question. Please. The four criteria that were met is, that were mentioned, is it correct that you stated those were met? The only thing that's outside is the percentage of the size of the sign?

No, they're not here for the percentage of the sign. They're here for the ECC portion of it.

The electronic? Correct. Electronic, okay.

Emily, can you go to the slide with the criteria?

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Okay. Thank you, Ms. Reyes. Is the applicant here?

Excuse me.

Yes, please come up. Please come forward. Please state your name, address, and the facts about your case. And you have seven minutes. I haven't started it yet.

Hi, I'm Sandra Pauling Wright, 809 Greenboro Road, Faith, Texas, 75132. I'm here on behalf of the applicant requesting that we have a price sign on that corner. So this is actually a large development going in and this will be considered one of the multi-tenant signs. And adjacent to our price sign, just to the right of it, we've left a blank for the retailer that's going to be there on that corner next to our lot. We're requesting staff allows us to do scrolling gas price signs. In this case, we're getting away from or Murphy is getting away from using scrolling gas price signs and going to the new upgraded LED price signs. So price signs are considered to be electronic changeable message centers. The only thing that would be changing on this is the actual prices. They don't display any other characters or fast moving, any kind of motion other than just changing their gas prices. Open to any questions you might have.

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

I do not care. No, I'm open to any questions.

Okay. Yeah. We'll get to questions in a minute. Is there anyone else here to speak in support of this case? Is there anyone else? I'm sorry. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition to this case? Okay. Having seen none, I will open it up to questions from the board. Ma'am, I'm sorry to make you walk back up. We might have some questions for you. If you would, please come to the mic. Any questions for the applicant?

I've got one.

Yes, sir, please.

Will the sign face east and west on McPherson? In other words, that's where it's going to be visible.

Yes, sir.

This is Johnston. Is there a reason why the sign is not closer to the actual gasoline station?

Well, it's because it's a larger developed area. This is just one of the signs that was approved by the developer and also making it a multi-tenant.

When you say multi-tenant, what do you mean?

So the scene that they showed where they divided the lot, we're on the right. The people on the left will also be on this, excuse me, on this sign. See the blank area, the white area? That will be for them to display their business.

Okay. Will the white area be electronically changeable?

No, sir. No, sir. It'll be whatever establishment that goes in that building will go on that base.

I've got one question. Yes, sir. Mr. Rowland. When you cross, this will be the only entrance into this pad site from McPherson, correct?

That's correct. Thank you.

and the property is subject to a unified sign agreement.

That's correct.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

I have a question. You indicated that there would be multi-tenants, is that correct?

That's correct, yes, ma'am.

Can you say how many?

Well, on this particular one, there's only going to be one, and that's Murphy USA on the left, and then the other tenant would be on the right. Being a larger developed area, I think Target is the main staple of this, and they will have additional signs of their own around the perimeter of the property. I think there is other establishments on there. I know that Murphy will be on one of those multi-tenants, but it's quite some distance away and will not have gas prices on it.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Yes, sir. Was there a site plan submitted or available?

Commissioners, this is Maribel. So currently, this is the Target Retail Center along Chisholm Trail McPherson. They are developing about 13 lots, the majority of them facing McPherson. I am the one reviewing their unified sign agreement at this moment. However, electronic changeable copy, again, is not allowed by right, so they have to come before you for that approval. If they wish to move forward without the ECC, they would be allowed by right. All of these signs contain shared signage, so they do not have to be on the same premise as the business.

Yes, thank you. Looking at the site plan, so this specific location, is this like an entrance point to the site development, given that it's a split parcel that's gonna be multi-tenant developed? Is that the reason for placing it here? Yes, sir, that's it. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you, ma'am. I'm going to close the public portion of this hearing, and we will move to board discussion regarding this case and or a motion. Yes, sir, please.

I've got a question for our panel here. What about this sign doesn't make it a slam dunk? They qualify for everything else. And by right, they can put the sign where they want to put the sign. They just want us to approve the digital, you know, to make it whether they can change gas prices. To me, this is a slam dunk. And I'm just curious. I'd like to learn your perspective on that.

Well, I think it's also a slam dunk because, I mean, it's the gas prices. Like, we love those. But it is unique in that it's on a multi-tenant sign. So if something happens to the gas station, it could easily say, you know, the target's selling Coca-Cola for $2 a pack today or something, right? I mean, we approve the sign. We don't get to say what it says on it.

And I would...

But they're not going to dig up a gas station and make it go away, right? Gas stations are hard to install. It's going to be there a while.

And maybe Maribel or someone can explain what a unified sign agreement is.

So unified sign agreement is, excuse me, it could be a multi-lot, multi-tenant. It could be one lot multi-tenant, but it allows the tenants to be able to advertise on other lots. Normally this is considered off-premise signage and we would not allow it by right. The only way they can advertise off-premise is through a unified sign agreement. So all of these signs have to come in through plan review, and they must meet all the required sign regulations, otherwise they would come before you. So currently, if they came in and they wanted more ECC than what is approved today, they would have to come back before you.

And the unified sign agreement purpose only, I mean, it's also for multi-tenants, but also it's a reduction of overall signage?

That is correct. So normally a lot would be allowed by right, one monument sign per lot. Typically in the USA, they will place a larger sign, such as a pylon sign, every other lot or every third lot. But the point of it is multi-tenant, off-premise signage, and a 50% reduction in sign clutter.

And we would be, this would be for us anyway, because it's electronic, changeable copy, but without a unified sign agreement, this sign would, could be on their lot, and the lot next to it that's not being developed yet, where the sign is proposed, could have its own monument sign.

Correct.

Ms. Pena, do you know that if we are approving, are we approving this monument sign as a package? Meaning, are we approving just the left-hand side of this as ECC, or are we approving the entire also right-hand side as ECC?

You are only approving the electronic changeable copy portion.

Got it. Thank you.

I'm in agreement with Mr. Garza's initial statement that this really is a slam dunk.

Open for a motion or more discussion? Move approval. Motion by Mr. Riley to approve. Second?

Second.

Mr. Garza? Second. Staff, could we please perform a roll call vote?

Yes, we have a motion to approve case BAC-26-019 as requested by the applicant. Motion made by Board Member Bob Riley and seconded by Board Member Sergio Garza. 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 Sandra King. Yes. Board Member Whit Woldman. Yes. Board Member Janet Herrera. That's a yes for Board Member Janet Herrera. Stacy, can you reset Board Member Herrera's mic? Board Member Kay Duffy? Yes. Board Member Madison Gutierrez?

Yes.

Board Member Eric Ortega? Yes. Board Member Juan Manuel Costa?

Yes.

The motion passes.

We need to get Ms. Herrera on the mic. Affirmative.

I have it for the record. Yes, for Board Member Jennifer Herrera.

Okay. Ma'am, congratulations. Your application has been approved. Should you have any questions for staff, please reach out as early as tomorrow. Thank you. The reason why we keep coming back to be the first case on the agenda is it's a translation case. Are the applicants here? Is it Jesus and Teresa Ramirez? Okay, so board, we're gonna ask, the translator can only be here for another 10 minutes. So we wanna take action on this board, on this particular case. We can continue to next meeting. We can take other action on this, but we kinda need to move it along on the agenda.

Is there any discussion?

Can you reset Ms. Herrera's mic? She's in seat 12.

There we go. I suggest we move it to next month.

Mr. Qualls, do we need to call it? Can we go ahead and continue it? Okay. There's a motion by Ms. Herrera. I'll let you make the motion.

I'd like to make a motion to move BAR26-072, correct? Yes, correct. To next month's meeting.

Second. Second.

Second by Mr. Riley, a motion made by Ms. Herrera. Staff, if you would please perform a roll call vote on the continuance for that case.

Yes, 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 Sandra King? Yes. Board Member Whit Wollman?

Yes.

Board Member Jana Herrera?

Yes.

Board Member Kay Duffy? Yes. Board Member Madison Gutierrez?

Yes.

Board Member Eric Ortega?

Yes.

Board Member Juan Manuel Acosta?

Yes.

The motion passes. This case is continued to the September meeting.

Thank you very much for being here. We appreciate you. Okay, we are moving on to BAC-26-022. Is that correct?

No. Which one we just got through doing?

That is correct.

Yeah, BAC-26-022. Lydia? Yeah. We're ready, and you are. Thank you, Ms. Reyes.

The next case is BAC-26-022, located at 197 Barnwood Drive, also known as 150 Wood Barnwood slash 14100 John D. Road. The property owner is SBA Towers XLLC, and the applicant is Sterling Macy, and the property is zoned I, light industrial. The applicant is requesting a variance to the maximum height allowed for telecommunications tower in a light industrial zoning district to permit a 106-foot tall telecommution tower that exceeds the maximum allowed. The maximum allowed height by the zoning district is 75 feet. They have prior Board of Adjustments approval, which allowed 95 feet, and they are coming back to the board to allow 106 feet. The subject property is a 10,119 square foot property located in the north of Barnwood Road and east of John Day Road. The property contains several mature trees, no presence of floodplain, and the project specific area is relatively flat. There is currently a 94 foot tall telecommunications tower located in the proposed project area. As stated earlier, there was prior Board of Adjustments approval to allow a telecommunication tower to exceed to the maximum height allowed in 2020. The zoning ordinance section 9.101 defines a telecommunication tower as a facility including self-supporting latest towers, guide towers or monopole towers, but not including stealth telecommunication towers designed to support one or more antennas and to contain ancillary facilities designed and used for the purpose of transmitting, receiving and relaying voice data and other similar signals to or form various wireless communication devices. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a telecommunication tower to exceed the maximum permitted height. The subject property is zoned I, Light Industrial District, which permits telecommunication towers with a maximum height of 75 feet. The Board of Adjustment previously approved a variance for a 95 foot telecommunication tower in 2020, and that tower is proposed to have a height of 106 feet, which exceeds the previously approved Board of Adjustments by 11 feet. The proposed tower would be located approximately 1,000 feet from the adjacent residential district to the southwest across John Day Road, and the proposed location complies with the applicable setback requirements. And if the variance request is approved, the applicant will be required to meet all other development standards and regulations. These are the regulations that pertain to this case, and these are the board's actions, and this concludes staff's presentations, and I'm available to answer any questions the board may have.

Thank you very much. Questions for staff? I have one, Ms. Reyes. Do you know, are they gonna take down the current tower and rebuild an entirely new tower, or will they extend?

I'm gonna refer to the applicant on that because they reached out on Friday with a different design, but from my understanding, they're gonna build on it.

So probably take down, I will ask, but take down the current and rebuild new, okay. Any other questions for staff?

Okay. I have a question. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. In the picture, where it's the barn wood picture with the satellite, there's power lines about the same height as the tower, correct? Pretty close to that tower?

Pretty close, yes.

Any other questions for staff? Okay, thank you very much. Is the applicant here? Yes, ma'am, thank you. Please come forward, state your name, address, and facts about the case, and you have seven minutes.

Hi, I'm Janice Manley. 303 Traveler Street, Hickory Creek, Texas, 75065. On behalf of SBA Towers, we are actually just going to extend the present tower. We're not going to take it down. We're just going to add another 10-foot section to put Verizon on it. Right now, we have AT&T and T-Mobile on the tower, and Verizon is looking to add their antennas so that they can serve their customers in the area. The only change that was made over that she mentioned that was made on Friday was just different antennas that are going on the tower. Instead of six larger antennas, they're going to go with six smaller antennas and three large antennas. It's basically upgrading their technology.

That's great. And you still have six minutes, so you have plenty of time if there's anything else you need to add.

No, that's pretty much it.

Okay. Is there anyone else here to speak in support of this case? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? Okay, having seen none, I'm going to close the public portion of the hearing. Actually, let me open it up to questions from staff, or from the board, excuse me. Ms. Herrera, please go ahead.

Hi, I have a question. So when this company came originally, was there not the anticipation of other suppliers coming? So now it's Verizon, and then are you going to come back in a couple years for T-Mobile or something else and just keep growing it?

No, T-Mobile's already there.

So is there anybody else to add to the tower?

No, there aren't any other major carriers. It's Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile. That's it.

Okay, thank you. I have a question.

Please. I didn't see it in the information that we were given, but are you able to say from a technological standpoint, like why this is necessary?

Because Verizon doesn't have any, they don't have a presence here, so they can't service their customers. So if you have Verizon service on your phone, and you're right here at this tower, you're not gonna have service. Your phone, you may have like one line or one dot because if Verizon doesn't have antennas on this tower and you have a Verizon phone, then you don't have service.

So this is the only tower in this area?

It's the only tower, yeah, this area is pretty big. There's not a lot around it right now. I think it's still being developed, the whole area. But there's not another tower close to this one that Verizon is on. Question.

Have you submitted a rendering of the updated? Do we have that? We can see what it's going to look like.

Yes, we'll pull it in just a second.

And I have a question about the construction side of it too. Is it, is it just, I'm sure crane adding 10 feet, 15 feet, whatever to, to make those two on top of that pole. Okay. Do we know if this is the latest updated from Friday? Yeah. Okay. This is. You confirm that.

Okay, thanks.

I have a question for the applicant.

Let me, Mr. Whitten, did this answer your question? Is this what you're?

Well, there seemed like a recall last night looking, there was a picture or, you know, rendering of what it will actually look like, not a diagram, but what the.

More of an elevation, like a.

Tower would look like with the extension on it.

Staff, do we have anything?

No, I don't think we have a photo sim showing what the tower will look like after the, we just have the drawing.

This is the closest, okay.

Yeah.

I thought I saw one because it actually looked better than the existing tower.

Yeah, okay. I have a question of staff. Let me, oh sorry, let me go to Ms. Rivera real quick.

Ma'am, could you tell us what's around in this vicinity of where the tower is? Is there a residential nearby?

There is, but it's not really close. I don't know exactly how far away it is.

I think in the packet, I'm reading now my notes, about a thousand square feet. Does that sound right?

so can i tag on to your question so what is really close to that on songbird lane there is manufactured housing that's been there at least 30 or 40 years so how is that zoned that manufactured housing neighborhood right there staff you know or miss pena because that's that's really close

Just give us one second to confirm.

Thank you. Can I ask another question while you're looking things up? Sure. So this is pretty close to the runway at Alliance. Did we have to clear this through that or is it not tall enough to worry about that?

No, we get clearance for FAA. That's one of the first things we do.

It seems to be on the industrial side of the railroad tracks, between two railroad tracks.

Yeah, that's what I'm wondering. I'm guessing that manufactured housing has been rezoned to something. It might be light industrial when those houses go away. I don't know.

It's just taking my map a little minute to load but manufacture housing is outside of the typical zoning for has its own zoning district image in this case. i'm not showing i'm not sure what the zoning district of the manufacturer housing is but it's not in a category with residential districts. I think we're having some difficulties with our GIS map at the moment.

Okay. Yes, sir, please. Yeah, this is Johnston. First of all, from looking at the photographs of the existing tower, it does not look like there's any obstruction to these antennas.

Am I looking at that correctly?

Yes.

Is there a reason why the Verizon antennas could not be put below the other two existing ones?

They couldn't get the amount of coverage if it was lower as they can when it's higher.

Well, but as I understand what you're saying, they certainly could put the Verizon antennas below. It would be less coverage than the other two on top.

It would be less coverage for Verizon.

For Verizon. That's what I'm trying to say.

Yes, yes.

But at least there would be coverage to some extent. Has there been any testing of that that you know of?

Yeah, we went to RF, the RF engineer at Verizon, and gave them the opportunity to choose the lower rad, the rad center, which is below, I don't know who's, I can't remember, T-Mobile's at the bottom so far. They would have to be at like a 65 foot, center line, and they couldn't, they couldn't cover what they needed to cover. They would have had to, if they went to 65, they would have to look, either look for or build another tower closer to where they need more coverage.

As I understand it, and I might be wrong, there's been sort of a, either a, a formal or informal policy in the city of Fort Worth to try to place these antennas on existing structures. I've seen them on top of power lines, other towers and so forth. Are there any other towers close to this height in the vicinity that you know of? Not that I know of, no. We do know that there's electric lines close. We saw those in the photographs.

Yes, there are electric lines, yes.

Thank you. I'm going to come back to Mr. Riley one second. Ms. Duffy, did you have any other questions about zoning or anything?

I mean, not necessarily, I feel like the people in those manufactured houses aren't necessarily gonna notice a big difference in 11 feet, but if it is zoned A5 or something, it might be something we would take into account. Right now, last time I drove through that neighborhood, it's like manufactured housing on a couple acres, maybe even as much as five acres each, and they've been there a long time, so I'm guessing they might be zoned in as light industrial at this point.

We can wait for that map if it's still coming up. Mr. Riley.

I have a question of staff, probably Mayor Bell. The I industrial zoning, which is the underlying zoning, allows 55-foot maximum, but it also allows up to a 75-foot cell tower. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct.

And right next to it is K heavy industrial. Okay. which I believe has a building height of 120 feet?

That is correct.

How tall could a cell tower be in that district?

In K?

Yes.

120.

And if it was J, 120 same?

120. So there's K zoning to the north of the cell tower? to the west across John Day Road, there is some A5, but it is about, probably about 1,200, 1,300 feet away from property line to property line.

So you're saying there's a parcel in between that zoning you just told us and the one we're looking at?

There is.

Yes, sir, Mr. Garza.

Okay, so this cell tower is part of a cell system. We were told last time it can't be moved. It has to be where it's at now. So they want 11 feet. It's pretty much in a railroad yard. It's not near residences. The last one was in the middle of a high school. Remember? And this one, technology changes in about 10 years. This whole cell system may be obsolete, but between now and then for the next 10 years, if someone makes a 911 call and they're on Verizon, I mean, we have to consider what they're doing is definitely for profit, but it's also for safety. And it's kind of where we're going to. You know, the technology, it's getting a lot more people there in Haslett, it's growing, and we want to give them the option to have that cell tower coverage. For me, this is pretty simple. You know, 11 feet is, I have no problems with giving them what they need at this time. And if they come back in about five years and need another 11 feet, I'll probably give them that too. Because technology is, that's what they need. There's no other reason they would want to build something in the middle of nowhere. They have their reasons, and I consider it a safety issue.

Yeah, and I would just remind, I appreciate what you said, but we're in the portion of the meeting where we're questioning the applicant. We will have more discussion, and I'm glad you said what you did.

No, the reason that I say the cell tower cannot be moved is why, because it's part of the cell system.

That's true.

That's all. Thank you. Sorry about that.

No, you're fine. You're great. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Stay close because we might have more questions for your discussion. I'm going to close the public portion of the hearing and let's open it up to questions from the board, or excuse me, discussion from the board, please.

I tend to agree. I mean, the alternative to adding 11 feet to this tower is another tower, which I think is far less objectionable to add 11 feet to this tower at this location than to go find another tower somewhere else. So it

This is Johnston. I understand that, and I understand the practicalities. But when you go back to the standard of what we can do in terms of a variance, the standard is whether there is some unique feature of the property not caused by the landowner that requires a variance of the zoning ordinance. So right now... The zoning ordinance is 75 feet, but there's been an agreement to extend that to 95 feet. So we're looking at 95 feet. My question is, what is there about this property that caused a hardship? And there's no obstruction around the tower. The Verizon antennas could be located below the existing antennas. Yes, there would be less than optimal coverage. but is that a unique feature of the property not caused by the landowner? I'm having a hard time seeing it.

I think it might not be a unique feature of the property. It's a unique feature of what we're talking about, cell tower coverage. It's a unique feature of the property. We're talking about a structure here. We're talking about the service that's offered from this tower. I mean, the way I look at it, you know, you can't just go around dropping a cell tower wherever you want to. That's a whole different process. And again, from my perspective, I'd rather have something else hanging on the cell, another antenna hanging on the cell tower, even if it has to go up at 10 feet. In this particular location, I mean, it's been pointed out, the high-voltage transmission lines nearby, railroad line, to me, this is kind of where we want them, as opposed to... one that Mr. Garza mentioned, the one that I had to recuse myself from because it was in the middle of a school campus. And this, to me, is far preferable than, say, one in the middle of some school campus, say, at Eagle Mountain Saginaw or whatever, Northwest ISD, whatever district that's in. So that's why I would support this one.

And I understand my friend... Brother Whitten. And if we were the city council, I'd be voting for this thing instantly. But we don't have the power to change the ordinance, except when there is a finding of a unique circumstance on the property not caused by the landowner that creates a hardship. That's our standard. That's what we can work under. So anyway.

I think what you're calling for is a needed change to the zoning code, which I think that as a body, we have several suggestions, and that would be definitely one of them. If technology has evolved, the zoning code needs to as well.

I'll be personally, Ms. Riley, I'll be personally supportive of this. I see the other alternative is put another 95-foot pole next to this one. and now I have two poles instead of one. And it's in the middle of an industrial area. It could be rezoned to K or J and they'd be allowed by right. We wouldn't even be needing this special exception. So I know that's a lot of ifs, but I think this is a perfect location for it.

Please go ahead.

I don't have a problem with the tower. I'm stuck at Verizon being the company saying this is what we want and this is what we're going to get. There are other communications companies that are using this tower. How did Verizon get to say we want the top tier? Could not other companies, T-Mobile or whomever say, or AT&T say, we want the top tier. So I'm seeing it more of an issue of having a larger segment of the population more than anything else. That's just where I'm stuck.

I have a question.

Please go ahead. Ma'am, if you would, please come back up. Thank you.

My question is how often do you find yourself wanting to expand any cell provider into any part of the country? Is that quite common nowadays?

How often? I'm sorry.

Let's say that we expand between here and Oklahoma.

I'm currently working in the Texas and Oklahoma market. I have Verizon. I have 48. So 48 separate sites that they want to go on our tower.

And it's not just Verizon. It's maybe AT&T.

For me, I work for SBA, and I'm working on a Verizon project for SBA. So if Verizon wants to go on an SBA tower in a certain location like this one, they come to me.

It's quite a common operation then.

Yeah. Okay, thank you. And the reason, it's not that Verizon wants to have the top tier, it's the fact that the only way they can service their customers is if they're at a higher RAD. They would have taken the... 75 feet if it had been available. They would have taken the 85 feet if it were available. But neither one of those are available because T-Mobile and AT&T are there. So they have to go to the next level up in order to put their antennas there to service their customers.

Thank you. Ms. Herrera, please. Did you have a question for the applicant?

I have a question, ma'am. So do the cellular companies pay for their spot on a rad on a tower? Yes. So what happens with the other two that are already there? Can they come back and be disgruntled because now Verizon has the top rad? Does they... So if someone goes above them, do they have more of a radius versus the others?

No, they all get 10 feet of vertical space. AT&T gets 10 feet, T-Mobile gets 10 feet, Verizon gets 10 feet. And whatever antennas or radios they want to put inside that 10 feet, as long as they're within that 10 feet, they're fine. They can't go above or below that 10 feet because then they would interfere with the other carrier and we won't let them do that.

Are you asking about position and just efficiency in terms of, would AT&T or T-Mobile come back and say, well, I want to be on top?

That's what I'm asking. No. If AT&T or T-Mobile want to improve their service, they'll just change out their antennas.

So why couldn't Verizon be that bottom rad? I mean, they're claiming to you that they need to be the top.

But there's nothing. 65 feet is just, it's not going to cover the coverage area that they need to cover. And like we said, they would have to either build another tower or find another tower close by to go on. And it's, to me or to us, it's just smarter just to add another 10 feet so they can go there instead of going out and trying to find a space to build another tower.

And you've not provided in any of the documents to show us a radius of what Verizon could be.

No, I don't have their propagation maps. I didn't know I needed those. I'm sorry. Thank you.

I have a question. So it sounds like what you're saying is whether it's T-Mobile, AT&T, or Verizon, below 75 feet, no one would build their tower. So it's not about this under 75 feet. It's more about none of this technology would go in, and if they can't go up above this 95 feet, in essence, the solution would be another tower, and it would probably be at 75 feet.

At least, if not higher. Right.

Yeah. This is Johnston. Are there engineering studies from Verizon or anyone else in the telecommunications industry that shows what the coverage would be at, let's say, the bottom tier versus what it would be at the top tier?

I can request a propagation map to show what it would be at 65 feet instead of the 95 feet.

And what you have told us is I believe what you believe, and that is that you believe there would be less coverage if Verizon put their antennas below. But you don't know of any studies or engineering reports that support that. Am I correct in that?

No, I just know that when we went to the RF engineer and told him that they could go at 65, they said no, that wouldn't work for their coverage area, for what they needed to cover.

And I appreciate you letting me know that. Thank you.

We're still in the board discussion phase. We can obviously ask questions to the applicant, but... Board discussion? We're still under board discussion, sure. Maybe you can sit down. We might call you back up again, but you can sit down. Thank you. So discussion or motion, still on the board, discussion or motion phase?

I have something to say. So Mr. Johnson is exactly right, the way the zoning ordinance is written, there's no hardship necessarily here. However, lots of people are moving into this area, lots of businesses are moving into this area, and it's, and we would be hard pressed to say how this is gonna hurt any individuals, and a lot more people would be hurt by not having cell phone service. Also, the issue of a cell phone tower recently came back to bite us as a board, and I'm the number one don't let corporations, you know, scare you to death person, but the reality is technology has changed. So I think we need to appeal to whoever it is, the zoning board or whoever, to get this ordinance changed as soon as possible so we don't have this question again. But that's just my, that has nothing to do on today's vote, but.

I would totally agree with you on that.

And I've been thinking about this, I'm trying to address Mr. Johnston's concern. Perhaps the unique feature of this property is that we've now heard that below whatever it is, 75 feet, there's no service and because there are already carriers at the next two levels, this is the only place to go if you're going to get service or if they're going to be able to broadcast as far as, that's probably wrong term. So that may be the unique feature of this tower is that everything without extending its height is taken. So it's either extend the height 11 feet, or they go somewhere else and build it. I don't know if that's satisfying. That's a good try. That's all I got.

The other thing is whoever owns the service, they buy each other all the time. AT&T buys out T-Mobile. It may happen, but what they're doing is they're increasing the number of antennas. Whoever owns it really doesn't matter. And with the position where they're at, it doesn't really matter. It has to be above 75 feet. So they might have an agreement where the Verizon comes in at 75 and they move the other two up. We don't know that. All I know is they're trying to increase the amount of antennas to give better service. And it's in Italian. Haslet is growing. We all know Haslet. We know it's growing. And we're going to run into this again. So this is the second antenna. We're going to see more of this, and hopefully they'll be able to change some. But between now and then, I don't want to slow down progress. And I don't think it affects us either way. And there's no one else complaining at all about the aesthetics of it. No one said, I don't like the way it looks. I think this is another pretty simple decision to make for us.

And we're still open for a motion or more discussion.

I just want to voice my opinion. I can most especially approve this. I know technology is changing. My biggest support of this is because of the location of it, industrial. So if there's any kind of tower where it has to go up, then this would be it. So I can support this.

I'd like to make a motion.

Yes, sir, please.

To approve BAC-26-022 as written. Second.

Thank you. First, a motion by Mr. Garza, second by Mr. Acosta. Thank you. Staff, could we please perform a roll call vote?

Yes, we have a motion to approve case BAC-26-022 as requested by the applicant. Motion made by Board Member Garza and seconded by Board Member Acosta. Roll call vote. Board Member Jim Whitten?

Yes.

Board Member Sergio Garza?

Yes.

Board Member Michael Johnston?

No.

Board Member Bob Riley?

Yes.

Board Member Sandra King? No. Do you want me to come back to you? Board member Whit Wollman? Yes. Board member Jana Herrera? Yes. Board member Kay Duffy? Yes. Board member Madison Gutierrez? No. Board member Eric Ortega?

Yes.

Board member Juan Manuel Acosta?

Yes.

Board member Sandra King?

Yes.

The motion passes.

It was nine to two, correct? Nine to two.

Yes.

Ma'am, congratulations. Your motion has been approved. If you have any questions, please reach out to staff as early as tomorrow. Thank you. I believe we're going to change out. Okay, good.

Ms. Powell.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Ortega, appreciate it. Mr. Whitten, do you need a minute? Okay.

Okay.

So we're going to move on to the next case, DAR-26-073.

I might give a minute for them to get the... Good morning, Chair and members of the board. I would like to introduce our senior planner who joined our team this month. Her name is Gianna Bridges.

Welcome.

When you're ready, Gianna.

Yeah, let's give them one minute. Okay, please go ahead.

This is BAR-26-073, and this is the application. For a variance to the two-family B district development standard of minimum required lot area to allow less than the required 5,000 square feet, the minimum required lot area is 5,000 square feet. The requested lot area is 3,562.5 square feet. The address is 1311 North Jones Street, and the owner is Heck, Inc., and the applicant is Victor Cortez. VARIANCE B IS TO THE TWO FAMILY B DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT WIDTH TO ALLOW LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 50-FOOT LOT WIDTH TO THE TWO FAMILY B DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT WIDTH IS 50 FEET. THE REQUESTED LOT WIDTH IS 37.5 FEET. The subject property is 3,562.5 square feet, rectangular vacant interior lot located in a redeveloping neighborhood. There are mature trees on the property. No presence of floodplain and is relatively flat. The applicant is requesting two variances in order to construct a single family home. This is the lot history. This is the proposed site plan. These are the elevations. And these are the regulations. And this is the Board of Adjustment action.

Thank you. We're available for any questions you may have.

Thank you. Any questions for staff regarding this case? Please, Ms. Duffy.

Tell me if you need me to ask the applicant instead, but I believe the parcel next door, this is a vacant lot and the parcel next door is also a vacant lot.

I didn't conduct the site visit. Emily, is the parcel next door vacant? If she doesn't remember, you may want to ask the applicant.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

I have one. Please. What year was this plotted?

Do you know the year where this was plotted? We'll have to get back with you on that. Okay. Give me just a moment. Yeah.

There was potentially a plat for this property long ago and it has since been illegally subdivided. And so today the applicant is coming to request a variance, well two variances to allow the lot to size 37 feet wide and 3,562.5 square feet in area so they can proceed with getting plats.

And what year was it legally subdivided?

We don't have that information, but we'll look in the file to see the original plat for the property.

Yes, thank you. Any other questions for staff?

Is the adjacent property owned by the same property owner?

There may be a question for the applicant.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, thank you very much. Is the applicant here? Yes, sir. Please come forward, state your name, address, and the facts about your case, and you have seven minutes.

Awesome, thank you, guys. Yes, sir. All right. Good morning, members of the board. My name is Victor Cortez, and I am representing Iraq Inc. for 1311 North Jones. We're here today to request approval for the two variances that have been presented to the board. The property is located in a two-family zoning district, has a total area of approximately 3,500 square feet. We are requesting a variance to allow us to develop a single-family home on this property. The second variance concerns the lot width. The property is 37 and a half feet wide, while the minimum required lot width is 50 feet wide. We are therefore requesting relief from that requirement so that we can develop the property as proposed. The documents and plans provided to the board represent what we are proposing to build and what we intend to use as basis for the future building permit application. And I did submit a couple of documents recently that I believe we may be able to show you guys. So if the variances are approved, we will proceed through the city's permitting process and construct the home in accordance with all applicable city of Fort Worth and state building codes and requirements. I was also asked to provide clarification regarding the driveway widths at the driveway approach. The width is approximately 14 feet and the proposed driveway itself is 16 feet wide. Additionally, the neighboring home to the right has a setback of 20 feet and the property to our left is a vacant lot. Our goal is to develop the property in the way that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood while complying with all applicable requirements to the greatest extent possible. We believe the requested variance will allow us to make reasonable use of this property while maintaining a safe and appropriate development. We respectfully ask the board to approve the two variances so that we can move forward with the proposed single-family development. And congratulations, Ms. Bridges, on joining the team. Thank you guys for your time. If you have any questions, I am

Yeah, we'll get to questions in a minute. Your documents are up on the screen if you want to address anything or reference those.

Yes, so this shows the driveway widths. They're highlighted.

Can we zoom in on those, Ms. Reyes?

And then this is the floor plan as well. And on another sheet, I have the elevations.

Thank you. And you mentioned that you were asked to address the driveway widths? Yes, when I submitted the application.

they were asking me to clarify those.

Staff was, okay.

Not 100% sure the reasoning or whatnot, but.

Yeah, do you know why we did that?

There's a requirement that driveways cannot exceed 50% of the front yard coverage, so just getting the dimensions of the driveway allowed us to verify that they didn't need another variance for drive rate coverage.

Okay, you still have plenty of time, too, if there's anything else you wanna address on the elevations or.

Okay, and yeah, we could show the board the elevations. should be on the following pages. And this is what we're proposing to build, what we will be doing, and we meet the setback requirements as well.

Yes, sir, you still have plenty of time. If there's anything else you'd add.

I think that's it.

Okay, thank you guys. Is there anyone else here to speak in support of this application? All right, having seen none, is there anyone here to speak in opposition? Okay, having seen none, we will now move to board questions for the applicant. Ms. Duffy, sir, if you would please, please come back up.

So help me out with the ownership. It appears to me that this address in TAD actually is composed of three parcels, two of them you purchased in May. The total of the three is gonna be a little more than half an acre. The two that you purchased is more than a third of an acre. Why are you choosing to develop separately? They're all addressed as the same address, 1311.

So I was requested to submit the application for the lot 21, track two, and that's what I'm looking at now, and that's the application that I submitted for this property. My understanding was that the properties, the two properties weren't wide enough for the original plan was to put two duplexes on each lot. But according to the sizes, we can't do that. So that's why I'm requesting the variance for this property, this one lot that we're working on right now.

You could put a duplex on .36 of an acre, right? He owns .36. Does the staff question? Is there a reason you don't wanna do that?

I would have to ask, go back to the owners on this, but I believe they just wanna have more side yard, more property, not really 100% sure.

Any other questions for the applicant? Ms. Duffy, your trepidation is you don't want them to build two separate buildings?

So the zoning code says they gotta have a 50-foot build line out front. 37 feet is quite a bit smaller. He's an investor. A duplex is about as good an investment as two single-family homes. I mean, it's different, but he knew what this property was when he bought it.

We do this all the time, though.

What?

We do this all the time. We have a shorter property and we come in here and we, you know, we make it. You're saying he doesn't have a hardship because he owns both properties. Is that a hardship?

He knew what the zoning code was when he bought the property.

I'll weigh in a little bit. So... A lot of these lots, they're smaller, originally platted, some zoned B, formerly some A5. I've personally purchased some throughout the city myself for single family development and B duplex development. The thing I've run into is if I'm subdividing a lot myself, I've created my own hardship. Now, if it is previously platted at a smaller size, I think that's what we've seen here dozens of times that it's already been smaller to begin with. We don't want to reduce someone's abilities to develop to the max on that specific property. So that was what led some of my questions earlier as to when was the property subdivided, because that will kind of shine light to was the hardship self-imposed or was it just inherited?

See, that's my question, is the will to subdivide, is that a hardship or is that a choice? Like if he wants to build two separate properties, are we okay with that or are we just going to, when he falls into the, you know, buying a property that only has 37 1⁄2 feet, as opposed to him creating that 37 and a half feet, what is the difference? I know it's he, the owners decide to build it, but it's still the same situation. Do we decide to not endorse that because he created that situation? That's my question on this council.

And my feeling, and I know that it's not always, but my feeling is the zoning code says it's supposed to be a certain size. And if he's, I do think he's, he knew what he bought. And it's not like there's another house on that other property and this is all he's got. He actually owns both of them. He's an investor that wanted to put something there.

Commissioners, this is Mirabelle. Based on my GIS map, the lot is platted 50 feet wide. The parcel is smaller than what is right now platted. So he would either have to go through platting or obtain a legal lot of record from platting.

So you're saying whatever plat is there now is null and void and he has to replat it anyway? Correct.

Correct.

And I'm gonna ask some clarifying questions again. So I'm looking at this existing survey. It shows track two labeled lot 21. There's a smaller strip for lot 21. And then track one labeled lot 22. Another thing I've seen consistently is a lot of these smaller strips, it would be two 15 foot wide platted lots, and you would build a duplex right on that lot. Right here, if he owns lot 21 and 22, in essence, the subdivision of it though is an attempt to utilize lot 22 So creating two 30-foot wide lots is much more useful than a individual 50-foot wide lot and then a non-useful, I cannot see what the, is it 37 and a half feet? What is the width of lot 22 by itself?

I'm not 100% sure on here. I don't think we have those measurements.

Okay, yeah, it looks like you're splitting 60 feet. Oh, I also see 75 feet. So lot 22 looks like it's 25 feet wide. Yes, that's right on par. So lot 21 looks like it's 50 foot wide. Lot 22 is 25 feet wide. So you have 75 feet total and you're attempting to split so that you can fit two duplexes in this B zoning. Who owns the other half of lot 22?

I believe it may be the same owners. Same owner, okay. But on this, I know that we don't meet the requirements to build a duplex under the B zoning or that. Right, it's the 5,000, yeah. So they wouldn't be allowed to build a duplex here.

But you would be able to if you planted the two parcels you own.

It still would not be enough. I think the minimum square footage is 7,000 square feet.

Is it 7,500 or is it 5,000 for B? 5,000. That's what I thought. So I'm under that for the duplex.

So I went to zoning to request information on this and they basically let me know that this was a course that I should take for this property, to build on this property.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Do we know when the informal subdivision of this property took place?

No, sir. I have no idea.