Dec 14, 2020 Zoning Board of Adjustment on 2020-12-14 3:30 PM (SPECIAL CALLED)

Welcome to ZBA Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting December 14th, 2020 at 3.40 p.m. We are calling the meeting to order. Our first order of business is a pledge to the United States and the Texas flags as follows. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state under God, one state indivisible. Items for consideration, item number 2A on our agenda is to consider approval of the Zoning Board of Adjustment Commission minutes for November 30th, 2020. I will entertain a motion or discussion for these minutes. Thank you so much. All in favor, if you would please use your participant's button and go to the bottom to click the green "yes" or the red "no" and Ron are you able to see these, I do not. No what we need to do, Jennifer, is if we can go board by board member and ask how they vote. Board member Higgins. Approve. Board member Redwine. Approve. Board member Meisner. Approve. Board member Horton. Approved. Board member Linus. Approved. And I vote approve as well. All right then. The next order of business is the agenda item number 2B on our agenda is to consider two variance requests from the Denton Development Code section 3.2.5 R4 residential related to the minimum front and rear yard setbacks and table 3.7A authorized exceptions to setbacks related to the front porch projection. The variance requested is for the construction of a single family dwelling which would encroach into the minimum setbacks the approximately 0.07 acre subject property is generally located on the southwest corner of East Hickory Street and Crawford Street. It's numbered V20-0004 Holland setback via Julie Wyatt. Is the applicant or representative present? Yes ma'am. Joe Holland. Joe Holland. Could you please turn your camera on and your microphone which you have done and we'll administer the oath. Chair, Vice Chair, Lane if we can have a five second pause we're trying to get audio here in the work session room so that we have the other staff members here present that can hear the presentation as well as present. Give us a couple minutes here before. We also want to include okay now we do now we have him so we also want to make sure we include Julie Wyatt in the swearing in as well. Mr. Reedy are you on this item are you speaking for this item the first item that was introduced by Vice Chair Lane? I believe so I've been involved since the beginning of the project. Okay we just want to make sure that those that are going to be speaking on this item are present and we can then administer the swearing in. So go ahead Jennifer. I do not have the oath in front of me I don't believe it unless it's in these notes. It should be emailed emailed to you just morning if. All right let me take a quick peek I should have it I got notes from you that I don't believe so let me see if you did before you sent me the notes oh yeah we have it all right very good thank you yeah okay yeah all right um if you're appearing before this board as provided under chapter 602 comma 0025 of the Texas Government Code all testimony is sworn. Would you please identify yourself for the record? Please raise your right hand to be sworn my name is Joe Holland thank you and here is the oath under penalty of perjury do you swear or affirm that any testimony or information you provide or any statement you make before this board is complete true and correct to the best of your knowledge and ability I do so swear thank you and please proceed with your statement now Ron do we want to swear in the next speaker at this time or wait yes no we need to swear all them at the same time if we can so Mr. Reedy as well as Ms. Wyatt and Ms. Wyatt will then make the presentation but if we can swear both of them prior to that presentation that would be good terrific okay Mr. Reedy could you please identify yourself for the record my name is Kenneth Lee Reedy and you have your right hand raised thank you under penalty of perjury do you swear or affirm that any testimony or information you provide or any statement you make before this board is complete true and correct to the best of your knowledge and ability I do swear it's correct thank you and please proceed with your statement the third person Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton Julie and you have your hand raised could you please identify yourself for the record Julie Wyatt thank you under penalty of perjury do you swear or affirm that any testimony or information you provide or any statement you make before this board is complete true and correct to the best of your knowledge and ability I do thank you and please proceed with your statement that applies to all three of you thank you and now will we have a presentation Ron yes Ms. Wyatt if you can begin that all right let me pull up my presentation here we'll get started so this is item I recommend that everybody do so so this is item v20-0004 Holland setback so the request includes two proposed variances the first one is from section 3.2.5 that is the related to the minimum front and rear yard setbacks within the r4 zoning district and also table 3.7 - a and that is related to a front porch projection the subject property is located at the intersection of Hickory and Crawford it's outlined here in yellow as you can see before we go further on the request I wanted to talk a little bit about the history of the site so the property was platted in 1922 as the Solomon Hill addition the dimensions of that lot were 25 feet by 115 feet for a total square footage of 2875 as you can see right here this is that original plat and I've blown up the area that is near to the subject property the subject property being outlined in red here we did some research on historical aerials of the site and the surrounding area and as you can see on that 1942 aerial there once was a structure on on the property sometime around 1972 that structure was removed and so it has remained vacant since then. Last year or in 2019 the Denton adopted a the 2019 Denton Development Code we updated our development regulations within the city as part of that the subject property transitioned to an R4 district an R4 district includes both minimum lot dimensions and yard setbacks so just want to talk briefly about that so first of all in terms of lot dimensions R4 requires typically for a newly platted lot 50 feet wide and 80 feet deep for and a total minimum square footage of 7,000 square feet also there are minimum setbacks associated with R4 first the front yard setback is 20 feet and as you can see here on the diagram that front yard setback actually wraps around in corner lots so that each street frontage for a corner lot actually does have that required 20 foot front yard setback there's a 10 foot rear yard setback and then those side yard setbacks for those interior lot lines are five feet as you can see depicted here so what that means for the subject property since it does have that R4 district designation I've overlaid what those setbacks would have looked like on the subject site now these aren't to scale so this is just my quick drawing but it does give it a sort of a visual of those setbacks as you as you know this is that corner lot so there is that 25 feet of frontage along Hickory and then 115 feet of frontage along Crawford feet Crawford Street when you apply that 20 foot setback along those two frontages it's about in that location of the green area now as this the code does not prescribe what what would be the lot frontage on a corner lot so a lot a structure could be oriented toward either street in this case the applicant is proposing to orient the structure toward Crawford Street and so we've just I've depicted that rear yard setback along that opposite property line in this location so as you can see with that front yard setback and that 10 foot rear yard setback those overlap really taking up the entire 25 feet of width of the subject site now if they were if the proposed structure was oriented toward Hickory Street we would have a similar condition although it would be a five foot side yard setback it wouldn't necessarily overlay overlap like the 10 foot rear yard setback but it would take up the entire 25 feet of width of that lot so before we get into what the applicant's proposing I do want to talk a little bit about lot dimensions so as I've mentioned with the R4 zoning district that applies to the subject property has a minimum lot width depth and size however the subject property does not conform to those minimum lot sizes the Denton Development Code actually addresses that in section 1.5.3 I the adoption of the DDC would not cause any existing legally established single-family lot to become non-conforming in this instance because the lot was plotted in 1922 it is a legal and conforming lot for that section of the Denton Development Code however it doesn't it doesn't mean that those setbacks don't apply to the property so that's why we're here tonight is due to those front and rear yard setbacks so in order to develop the property the property owner the applicant is proposing a five foot front yard setback a two foot six inch rear yard setback and then the side yard setback would conform to the minimum requirements they're also proposing to allow that front porch to to encroach into that front yard setback so that it would be no closer than two feet from that front property line so let's let's take a look and see what that looks like in practice so here's what the applicant is proposing this is that subject property again and they've put a conceptual site plan together so they are proposing a a three-story single-family dwelling and those the elevation of that proposed dwelling is in your backup it is a 20 feet six inches deep and about 41 feet wide so you can see it's sort of a narrow layout of that single-family dwelling it also does have as part of that 20 feet a three foot porch outlined here in green they are proposing to provide parking on site in this location in the blue and as I stated it is oriented toward Crawford Street now as it's proposed this would allow for a two foot six inch rear setback in this location a five foot setback in this location however with that three foot front porch encroachment as they've laid out the site as shown it's about 50 feet from Hickory and then about 20 feet from that rear property line so the criteria for approval for variances is in sub chapter two of the debt and development code and we'll go by go over those one by one first the special circumstances or conditions apply to the parcel for which the variance is sought which circumstances or conditions are peculiar such parcel and do not generally apply to other parcels in the same district or neighborhood in this instance this is a legal lot so it was plotted in 1922 and the development code does state that it is a legal lot but it is smaller and narrower than a typical r4 lot so that's why those those setbacks are difficult to meet compliance with the front and rear yard setback would prevent any development of the lot as depicted in that previous slide and these lot boundaries are fixed so so there is development adjacent to the property as well as a road on the other side so it really is situated between hardened boundaries that would prevent the property owner from obtaining additional property to meet those setbacks second the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the district or neighborhood other proposed variance if approved would allow the development of a single family dwelling which is consistent with the surrounding residential uses improvements would activate and occupy the site potentially improving the maintenance and reducing the number of potentially reducing the number of future trash and debris or high high grass violations on the site so code violations on the site and then finally a minimum 20 foot setback on east hickory so it would still comply with that side setback on east hickory that 20 foot setback would be required and so it would maintain that visual consistency down that right right away third the variance granted is the minimum variance that would accomplish the purpose i propose the proposed variances are the minimum necessary to locate the intended dwelling on the site for the little and literal enforcement and strict application of the provisions of this ddc will result in an unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general provisions and intent of the ddc the intent of residential setbacks is to encourage visual consistency along rights of way and within neighborhoods and also provide safe separation reducing the setbacks as proposed would meet the spirit of the requirements while allowing the lot to be utilized as plotted and buildings inspections have also and fire have also reviewed the proposal um for for to meet their safety guidelines uh the granting of the variance is not solely for the purpose of mitigating a financial hardship it is it is not uh proposed for that purpose and then finally the condition or feature that creates the need for the variance did not result from the homeowner or the owner's actions the property boundaries were established in 1922 and remain have remained unchanged and therefore this condition was not created by the property owner um just want to show you a few uh photos of the site so this is um looking at the corner the site is located right here um just to orient you this is hickory street looking toward downtown you can see the wells fargo building in this location um this is along crawford street looking toward the intersection um this is a little different vantage point looking sort of a bird's eye view at the site in that adjacent development um finally although public outreach is not required for a variance staff did request that the um that the applicant reach out to the property owner adjacent uh directly adjacent to the site um they did provide a letter stating that they do not oppose the the proposed housing project um so based upon the criteria for approval staff recommends approval of the variances as written um and uh the applicant is on on the zoom call and i will be happy to answer any questions thank you very much um next up is uh the applicant um who's been sworn in good afternoon um i'm excited about this project and i'd like to just share with you a little bit about how this uh how this comes about if i can keep the shadows off my face uh i own the property across the street across crawford street uh across crawford street i have a very very nice family that lives there and um the the the lot that i am looking to get uh a variance on has been a a source of uh of trash uh beer cans hypodermic needles just all sorts of things that have been there consistently since i've owned the property across the street uh it's it's in my best interest as well as the neighborhood's best interest for something to be done to that corner to prevent it from from being this illegal trash dump that it's become none of the other uh three corners on that lot are are trash dumps um it's a tiny little lot and it's an it's sort of an odd shape uh but uh but my my idea is that we could put a house on there uh while we don't have much uh much to go out we've got a little room to go up and i and i think it'll be a unique structure um and complement the neighborhood i think it's a win-win-win situation uh the owner the owner doesn't know what to do with the property he wants out from under it i'd like to make it make it complement the neighborhood and uh the city is getting about two or the city county and school district are getting about 250 dollars a year in taxes on this otherwise useless piece of property so uh everybody as i see it everybody's a winner i'd love to entertain any questions thank you are there any questions for mr holland uh uh board member miser um i i have a question regarding the height are there any um are there any height restrictions in relation to the property was everyone able to hear um board member miser's question she's asking if there are any restrictions in relation to the property uh if that if that's directed to me and miss wyatt please correct me if i'm mistaken here uh there are height restrictions and we are under those height restrictions correct our four district has a maximum building height of 40 feet and as proposed it it would be under that thank you thank you are there any other questions hi judge holland um um excuse me but i will i will recognize the members of the board thank you by all means please uh board member linus please ask your question thank you uh dr lain um hi judge holland um my my question is the um there was one comment coming back from somebody in the neighborhood was that the the resident just to the west of that property or oh ken is saying yes it is okay okay and uh miss wyatt suggested that that uh i i reach out to them and and they and they they have seen the same problem with that piece of property as far as trash that i have they've uh they've complained i don't know how many times uh many many times to their uh as we spoke they've moated them at their own cost to uh to to make it to make it you know a better part of the neighborhood uh i i i think they'd like to see this developed into a into a uh something that would contribute to the neighborhood okay thank you that that was my main concern because a three-story building overlooking a one-story building could be hard in the neighborhood but that was my concern thank you vice chair lane i just wanted to remind you we're getting word that your volume is low if you can speak up that would be great i'd be happy to is this better is that better it's still low i don't know if your phone can be adjusted i have uh the volume up quite high but um maybe if i'm closer to the microphone i'm using headphones i know i've seen uh that same thing happened with david higgins how's this it's fine soft it's fine it's fine yeah okay i have a question yes uh council member i mean uh board member higgins question for um miss wyatt uh this lot is designated further on or maybe it's an exhibit one of the other exhibits as being an interior this lot one is a lot right and lot two looks like it was a replatted lot two and three or because if you look at one of the old maps it looks like it's the same size as lot one is now but it is it is a wider lot however now lot one is shown as a interior lot and i believe a corner lot on one of your other slides so yes you are correct the adjacent property um there there have been there's been some redevelopment of the area and several homes have been actually built across two lots so the adjacent property while it has not been replatted into one lot um that that house on the adjacent lot uh goes across lot two and three or those those two adjacent lots um so there has been some redevelopment in in the area with um with with um structure spanning two lots or portions of lots yeah okay that's fine i noticed that the lot next to lot two is designated lot four which you know tells me that it's been replatted but my question now relates to lot one as it sits now there's another slide or maybe it's a picture in a different exhibit that shows that lot one seems to be being thought of in two pieces it's called an interior lot and a corner lot right well that has to do with the setbacks so um corner lots are treated a little differently than interior lots within the dent and development code and when i say interior a lot i mean that they they um they they have a a lot on either side of them so there's not a right of way um when when a lot is a corner lot within the 2019 dent and development code so it has it's adjacent to two rights of way it actually has two front yard setbacks you can kind of think of it that way where each of that each of those property lines adjacent to that right of way have to respect that 20 foot front yard setback for instance in r4 so so the the lot lines that are adjacent to the right of way have that um increased setback where is whereas the the lot line adjacent to the um the uh just another residential lot would have um that side yard setback of five feet in this instance the way they're orienting the building it actually would be the rear yacht lot lot or the the rear yard setback so it's a little different um but but yes there there is that variation and the code does treat those two lot side lot types differently okay but it's two it's one lot it is one it's a block seven lot one yes sir yes okay so if you it would then be possible as i understand it to build a second structure possibly three story on the corner lot on the front there are different setbacks but now you can build two on one or when you look at the map it's being built on the back half of that lot thinking of hickory as the front end and you could therefore have the other half available to build another house possibly a three story house as long as it's under 40 feet and you would therefore have two structures and it would seem to me that uh you know without trying to read the mind of the developer that if they were really going to take a building that's 2783 feet i believe is the number they could certainly do that in that lot in a much better configuration and what's that one that would be much more consistent with the neighborhood uh in terms of land area in terms of height then squashing it all down into what's being called the interior half of the lot now i don't know i i'm not i'm not reading his mind but you know i mean what that does come to mind when you look at the drawing of the structure is provided by the architect so the question again is could you under this plan build a second structure on the front end the on the hickory end of that lot with this one already on the other end of the lot i and your i understand your question now actually you could not in this instance so r4 does require um it is a a one of our zoning districts that's a primarily single-family zoning district it does permit town homes and duplexes but those require a specific use permit and approval from council additionally given that lot size the lot could not be further subdivided to be smaller to allow for further development of that of that front portion adjacent to hickory the only way it could be subdivided further would be to get approval of a variance for a smaller lot in that case it wouldn't have that protection of being that legal lot of record that the the 2019 debt and development code affords in this instance okay then i would direct this question to judge holland why did you push it way down to the far end of the lot two reasons sir uh one to uh to minimize the impact on the on the neighbor to the west uh as as that as that person looks out the front of their house they likely will not see anything that looks like a house as they look out toward the toward the uh the north secondly there's a a driveway apron already existing that uh that i'd like to use just just for cost savings yeah okay i'm i i don't understand that makes now i drove the lot and i ended up actually pacing off the front of the lot versus the neighbor next door the neighbor next door driveway actually has no setback it's right on the lot on the lot line um but that is that's a much narrower lot than in some of the depictions we've seen here um gosh maybe you could designate the front end of pocket park or something maybe well it's it's it's still uh i understand what you're saying it's still uh i think that uh i think the three feet is i mean uh three storey if you look uh if you're in a in the front end of the lot which i'll call the hickory and and you look directly across the street there's a large building across the street but it is a two-story building it is not a three-story building and it doesn't approach 40 feet and i think that my opinion would differ from the applicants and i think that it is out of character for the neighborhood and might not be considered an asset by everyone i understand the asset uh advantage of having a home there rather than have it be a place to throw beer bottles and and syringes and something like that but uh i i just think it's out of character for the neighborhood now as i understand miss wyatt's presentation uh you know the way we are supposed to work here is whether there is harm whether there is you know whatever i don't see it violating the technical side of those requirements uh so i i you know i i think that using a judicial frame of mind uh which is almost embarrassing to say in front of a judge but using a judicial frame of mind i mean i i can't have to vote in favor of it i don't like it but i have to i'm done jennifer you're you're muted would prefer uh board member higgins you would prefer that the property be developed perhaps you could speak to that a little bit could you say that i was a little i was a little bit i'm so sorry i'm a little shocked um if you would speak to what you would like to see you did a little bit would you like to see two buildings that are two stories as opposed to one that is three well i would sorry i would i would well i would certainly prefer a two-story building now if i had my preference since we discovered from uh miss bryant that only one residence can be built on this lot i'd rather see it be centered and i'd rather if possible have it be a two-story building you could move it forward i think without creating too much of a view or encroachment on the actual home or front yard next to it i think that would be would be much preferable i understand that's pouring a lot more cement in all those kinds of considerations but to answer your question jennifer that's you asked me what i would prefer i think that would be much more appropriate to the neighborhood if i may yes if you're finished um board member higgins i could recognize uh mr reedy and he could speak to the issue thank you would you like would you like that are you finished uh board member higgins sure that's fine let me yes let me okay we're going to mute ourselves and you go for it um mr reedy thank you thank you miss lane um really just um as a builder standpoint and looking at the uh the architectural appeal i understand what david is saying but at the same time we have two properties that are uh caddy corner from this corner the proposed corner both of those structures are multi-story structures i believe it's um 1108 hickory is a two-story as well as the uh the property on the the northwest corner is a two-story however the property that's on the the northwest corner is on an elevated lot it somewhat appears very high and it and we don't have any view of that at this point unless someone could provide that view immediately but it it almost appears as if it is a three-story structure so the with the structure what we're proposing would fit very well on the lot that we have based on what we're trying to do in fact if we did a a two story only it would maximize uh the impact on that lot it would it would just take up more ground so the the three story i think is very fitting for all we're trying to trying to achieve yeah i understand the take up more ground argument are there any more questions or comments we have um prince have a question prince nojoku has come uh prince could you turn on your video because we're having the uh board members visible and then asking the presenters to turn their videos on when uh called on uh who was it who said they had a question it's michael redwin oh yes please i recognize i'm sorry about that guys i'm on my way from work i'm currently in the car oh if you're driving that's okay if it was a distraction don't worry about it okay thank you very much thank you you look great in there okay i did have a question um yes so on the north lot so i guess that's a lot two and three what is the setback of that property it looks like it's pretty close to the property line as well just want to get perspective on how close if we're talking about less than or two and a half feet um are we talking from the north side what how much setback is that sidewalk it's fairly close our our maps were you know the projection can be a little off they're a little more schematic so i don't have the exact um setback for that adjacent property from the subject property but it's it's it's fairly close to that property line just based upon a visual um review of it could we get that at some point i can see what i can measure from our our aerial maps give me give me just a second let me see and if it doesn't have to be right the second i suppose that's all almost there so based upon what are aerial maps and just measuring from that and and sort of those schematic property lines shown there it appears that adjacent property uh maybe about um eight and a half feet the the principal structure eight and a half feet from that property line because it does have that driveway separating that principal structure from the from the property line our aerial maps show they also have an accessory building that is also in that in that gap between the primary structure and that um eastern property line okay okay thank you you bet uh dr lane yes can i interject something here please absolutely the the adjacent building that uh that miss wyatt was speaking of at least from the street appears to be a tent like structure and and it and it it's it's fashioned on the lot as it would be a garage or carport but it's not a it's not a permanent structure it's a tent like structure that's all i have any more questions for mr holland or mr rede can't see hands up so maybe um staff can see no let's i have a question i know there's a concern it made me sad to see the word vagrants in the document um that's just uh not the greatest term for um what we're dealing with but i'd like to know how um i suppose i'd like to know how the presenter has taken in some of the suggestions particularly mr higgins suggestions and if there's any modifications you might make um um do you want me to address the term vagrant no i'm just wanting to point out that that's not the greatest term and okay i didn't like seeing it um the the reason that we chose this uh this architectural design uh was that we don't have a whole lot of of ground to work with if i'm to make this commercially viable and i don't i don't mean that to sound crass or anything but i've got to make the numbers work on this i just have to make that work um the uh the way it's the way it's intended right now is that there will be a kitchen uh eating area on the first floor a bedroom on either side of the of the uh house on the second floor with a laundry room in between and a uh a sitting area on the third floor uh the intention for this is to look like a lighthouse uh and if i don't know if if miss wyatt sent you the elevation of that but but this is this is supposed to look like a lighthouse and um and it looks like a lighthouse that's that's the intent i would like to think that it would be one of those one of those things that uh one of those denton things that people go and say look at that house it looks like a lighthouse that that is certainly my intention so so to answer mr higgins uh the the the zoning as i understand it permits a three-story uh and that's and that's what i wanted that's what i want to build there and then to additionally it sounds like additionally to add uh to make it a point of interest well well yes yes and and uh um i want this to be a fun project thank you yes uh mr reedy in addition um the architectural design we're going to include a metal roof which is a long-term roof so on a three-story structure that's more advantageous to have a metal roof so it's um it's just one thing that we've asked our architecture that we would include in those drawings so we're trying to think ahead on the project at the same time um and to maximize all the the energy concerns it will be um all of the exterior walls will be foam filled so with um and to maximize all the egresses you know for fire safety and so forth we're going to be in compliance with all of those needs so we've done some background and homework we've made in fact the architect is from canada so it's been kind of a little bit fun and interesting project all the way through to make this thing come together and um i'm excited to make a good project out of it so it's do you know about the boston three deckers we're going boston here in denton where the family as the family uh generation new generation comes along they build on top of the first floor and then the um grandparents move down and then each generation moves down so they have fewer steps as the next one comes along so you have these three tree decker tree deckers to use the accent it's it's our hope oh i'm sorry i beg i beg i was just going to compliment what mr rede said it's it's our hope that um that some that some student on a football weekend will say mom and dad you got to come and see this house it looks just like a lighthouse it's from canada where they where they know about lighthouses that's that's the intent mr higgins yeah just just to clarify what i think miss white said let me ask her the height restriction is 40 feet not number of stories it's just 40 feet right yes sir how many feet would each story be 38 feet we're 38 feet i mean like a headroom and all that uh that's it's all eight feet like the standard standard structure and then our uh our maximum height through the build the structure itself is 38 feet do we what let's see do we need are there any more questions do we need to um move on this um perhaps you can help me out ron a little bit yes uh mr higgins uh madam madam chair how many voting members i see a lot of pictures here how many voting members do we have and how many do we need i believe we have seven if we count prince who's driving seven all together including myself but we need six six correct to prove the variance super majority are we looking for a motion say that one more time are we looking for a motion if we're looking for a motion are there any more um any more discussion points that wish to come up before we call the item person line this is mac from the city attorney's office one additional thing that the board needs to be aware of if they make a motion to approve or to deny they need to have findings of fact and conclusions of law so if you do move to approved i would recommend that you use the staffs that you accept and adopt the staff's um findings of fact in their staff report that way at least you have that that work done for you otherwise you'll need to make your own findings of fact and conclusions of law i see yes so the motion would need to be worded as move to accept city of denton staffs finding the facts if it's if it's to approve the variance yes then to all to approve the variance based upon and adopting the the staff's planning staff report as the findings of fact and conclusion of all um dr lane i have a question also please yes um the the item is to consider two variance requests mac would we then need to whatever the motion would be would be to either approve the two variance requests or to deny the two variance requests right and correctly if i'm wrong here julie but i think there's actually three variance requests there's the two there's one setback there's another setback and then there's a porch encroachment as well which is a variance request so i believe it's all three you could do those as one motion to approve all the variance requests or if you wanted to separate them out into different votes you could do that as well i asked julie if staff uh staff findings of facts on these three requests are similar yes they they are thank you okay i'd like to make a motion then to accept the staff findings and to approve the two variance request and the variance request for the construction second just so i'm clear so council or board member lenny um let us that's you want to approve both setbacks for the set the setback variates variations as well as the porch variance as well correct and to accept the staff recommendations perfect thank you motion is to accept the staff findings of facts on these variances and the porch variance and the second is was by whom by eric horton uh board member horton and then do we have the the buttons manner of voting or do i need to go around the room all right um board member red wine how do you vote i uh i approve based on staff's recommendation uh board member we have let's see go to some work board member meisner how do you vote i also approve based on staff recommendation board member higgins how do you vote approve the motion is stated uh board member nijoku are you there approve them yeah approve the motion is stated do you mind coming on video just long enough to vote yes give me one more moment yes i approve the motion thank you very much be safe thank you board member linus i approve the motion uh board member horton i approve the motion have i left anyone out besides myself i will vote to approve the motion as stated thank you congratulations thank you thank you i'm very excited and uh we'll we'll we'll make you proud and and uh and invite you over make you make it cute it'll be cute make it a three-decker all right um miss wyatt we we had and and thank you so much for your help uh miss wyatt's been been tremendously helpful in this project do we need to deal with anything else right now as far as uh sidewalks and trees and um uh clips sidewalk clips it would now go through the regular development process those submittals and i can um i can contact you first thing in the morning and we can we can i can walk you through it how's that sound that's that's perfect that's perfect if i may say our trees here in denton have been decimated of late so if you have anything nice please save it well we're gonna we're gonna do everything we can to save to save what we can save uh unfortunately somebody upstream hasn't respected the trees that uh like like they should have but uh but we're gonna i'm gonna get frenchie on the case and and uh and we'll do what we can if you have coast oaks and live oaks those are the most important to them right now but all of them matter i don't know i don't know what these are there are can't help me four four good size trees on the property that we intend to keep there's two that uh that that have just been butchered and um and they're just not they're just not very good looking so so we're gonna see if we can if we can maintain those or or excuse me i'm beg your pardon uh what we can do with those but but my intention is to keep as many trees as as we can we do have um trees that are listed on our site plan and those trees uh i believe are salvageable um however i do believe that one of the trees would be uh compromised because of the slab foundation and it's it's actually the one tree that is less desirable but at the same time we would try to to salvage that tree um i'm all for trying to make good use of what's there trim it up get it better and and keep moving forward with it but uh at the same time possibly add some ornamental trees you know for landscape purposes and it's it's just it's just not in it's just not a good not a good looking tree yeah there's a gentleman who used to work for the city i think or works with the city sometimes named brand richter um he might be able to give you some feedback on the trees he's been doing a lot of that lately you know the city knows him and this lane if i can interject um or i think we're out of posting if we can continue with the agenda we do have two more items thank you everyone and aloha aloha thank you judge holland and miss lane again if you can speak up again we're having issues um trying to hear you you're currently muted as well is that way better or anything i turned it super high yeah i think if you can just speak a little bit louder that would be helpful even even that would help all right thank you thank you and um all right let's see the next item on the agenda is do we have the uh screen share for that or without uh receiving envelopes anymore is a little more difficult all right here we go all right then is it possible to show the agenda on uh screen share jennifer you don't have the yes i do but i don't have it on paper and i have about 10 windows open here let's see i'm gonna open another one it's time all right here we go okay doki here we go next this is item item two two c i believe is that right correct yeah consider approval of a variance from the 1991 zoning ordinance section 3593 accessory buildings related to the minimum rear yard setback on approximately 0.22 acre the variance requested is for an outdoor kitchen which encroaches into the minimum three foot rear setback the subject property is located on the northwest corner of echo hill lane and falcon ridge road and it's listed as v 20 dash 0005 outdoor pavilion and julie wyatt will present thank you so before we begin um vice chair lane if we can have the applicant on this if we have the person on the zoom call to turn on his or her camera for the oath okay and then i'll have to pull that off my camera will y'all y'all disable the camera so jason sanford adam is there a way we can get mr there we go all right let me pull up the oath for you jason is there anybody else on your side that we need a no sir okay all right so um if you are appearing before this board as provide as provided under chapter 602 0025 of the texas government code all testimony is sworn could you please identify yourself for the record yes jason sanford thank you please raise your right hand you have it up um under penalty of perjury do you swear or affirm that any testimony or information you provide or any statement you make before this board is complete true and correct to the best of your knowledge and ability i swear to you thank you and please proceed with your statement it was julie representing me or not yes um i believe we sworn in julie already mac do we need to do it again for this item or is it for the whole meeting oh she was sworn in for the meeting okay so julie if you can go ahead and get started all right i'll go ahead and share my screen give me just one moment to pull up the presentation okay so this item is v 20 0005 outdoor pavilion so the request is to consider a variance from the 1991 zoning ordinance section 35-93 accessory buildings related to the minimum rear yard setback and just to kind of give you some background this um this uh variance and this request came to the city's attention um after construction he's moved forward with a building permit and that's kind of how um this came to the city's attention so some background on the property and and the um and the subdivision before we get into the specific request it is located in a planned development it's the preserve at pecan creek it's pd 132 in the city of denton um with the implementation of the 2019 denton development code the proposed uh process the variance process has to follow the current um processes within the 2019 denton development code so it's following that section 2.8.1 that outlines the zba processes and criteria for approval for a variance however the development standards including the setbacks remain consistent with those that were established by the pd and this is one of our legacy pds it's one of our older pds in town and so it was um the most recent general concept plan was approved in 1998 so those development standards would be governed by that 91 code so that's why we're looking at it with we're using current um processes but the 1991 development standard so it's it's a little different we're spanning two codes here um so that said we'll just go over briefly about what the what the setbacks are in this instance so um so we we talked about setbacks for a primary structure in the previous case and this case is related to an accessory building so so that 91 code had specific setbacks for for accessory buildings it required a three foot rear setback so kind of shown here in red and then the side setback was a little different so um so at the midpoint of the lot so if you take from the front of the lot to the rear of the lot um that midpoint anything forward of that so between that midpoint and the front street would require a 10 foot side yard setback in this instance because it is behind that midpoint it requires a three foot side setback so um so just to kind of let you know what those setbacks are that they're required to meet um so now we'll look at what they're proposing so this this is an accessory building it is um there is this is a single-family residential lot and as you can see by the concept plan that they provided to us their um their sort of home their property is kind of shown here in purple uh the proposed accessory building is an 11 by 18 covered outdoor pavilion um as it's as it's constructed it's about two feet from that rear property line and seven and a half feet from the side property line so it meets the side the side setbacks it's that rear setback that they're requesting a variance from um just to give you a little more information about what the um the pavilion um how it's constructed it has a concrete foundation on a stain wood pergola structure with a pitch singled roof um they did seek and get approval from the homeowners association for that um that structure and so it did put a limit of the maximum roof height of 14 feet um it has wiring for electricity um there's a they show a bar with a seating area um as well as cooking appliances including a smoker um a griddle um some ice areas so so it has um um cooking areas and it is situated um in this this uh rear corner of the lot so the 91 ordinance really had three parts to that accessory building um first of all it couldn't be within the front yard um because this doesn't meet that rear yard setback it doesn't it doesn't comply with that regulation um it also has to meet the side yard setbacks it does meet that as i as i mentioned it is seven and a half feet from that side property line um and then the the real issue is that rear yard setback it is situated two feet from the rear property line whereas a three foot setback is required um just to show you some pictures that the applicant provided of that um of that accessory building so now we'll go over the criteria for approval um so the first once again this is in sub chapter two of the debt and development code um the first one sets the special circumstances or conditions which apply to the parcel which the variance is sought these conditions or circumstances should be peculiar to the parcel and not generally apply to other parcels in this instance the physical conditions related to the property including lot size shape and topography are consistent with the surrounding platted lots within the preservative concrete pd subdivision um and second the dwelling is positioned centrally on the lot so that and that improvements to the rear yard do reduce the space however this circumstance does not deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of the property he still can use his backyard it's just it is limited given the given the improvements to the backyard so um staff's analysis is it doesn't meet the the first criteria um the second granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the district or neighborhood in which the parcel is located um the proposed outdoor pavilion is not anticipated to be a detrimental to the public um welfare insofar as these sorts of outdoor kitchens are typical in in suburban residential subdivisions it's not a use that is that is out of the norm for for a residential area however we do need to look at what the setbacks and the intent of setbacks and they are intended to reduce visual impacts of buildings by increasing the distance between the structure and the property line um and the the proposed variance to encroach into the rear yard setback could increase the visibility of the structure reducing the efficacy of the setback um third the variance is granted is the minimum variance that would accomplish the purpose the proposed variance for that two foot rear setback would allow the accessory building to remain as as it's been constructed um for the literal enforcement and strict application of the provisions of the ddc would result in an unnecessary hardship and consistent with the provisions of the ddc on the strict act the strict application of the 91 ordinance does not deprive the the owner of the reasonable use of the rear yard or prohibit an accessory building outside of the required three foot setback five the granting of the variance is not solely for the purpose of mitigating a financial hardship the proposed variance is not for the purpose of mitigating the financial hardship and then finally the condition or feature that creates the need for the variance did not result from the the owner's actions um the need for the variance is a result of the construction of the accessory building within two feet of the rear property line um so well we're gonna look at pictures of the site this is sort of when the the property was under construction but these um these sort of give you that bird's eye view so the the accessory building is located in this kind of general area right here uh two feet from this this fence line and once again it's located in this general area staff was concerned because it is um in in an area where it's kind of out out of the front door of the adjacent property um thus potentially um increasing those visual impacts of that reduced setback for the um that accessory building um as we did with the previous um the uh previous request we did ask the property owner to reach out to the adjacent um property owner to get their feedback regarding the request um and they did provide a um a a letter in support provided that the property owner does put rain gutters on the structure to prevent runoff um staff recommends denial of the request um from that that um that variance from that uh to uh locate that extra the accessory building two feet from the rear property line as it does not meet all the criteria for approval in section 2.8.1 d of the dentin development code um and i'll be happy to answer any questions and the applicant is on um on the meeting thank you very much is why are there any questions for the applicant or for miss wyatt yes uh board member higgins uh the adjacent property owner is that the one that's on echo hill lane yes sir it is okay and that and that how is that that i know in the picture it's under construction is that house actually contracted to build by an individual who will occupy that home uh the home's already already uh that home was was here before this home was built so he was one of the first homeowners in the area so okay well let me let me ask miss miss wyatt miss miss wyatt again is that the the person that home next to it on echo hill lane is that the person that responded with the commentary about the drainage that you talked about or is it the one on the other side it is it is the property owner that is immediately adjacent to the accessory building so it sort of backs up to his driveway would you like i could pull up the map again would would you would that be yeah let me pull up the presentation actually the aerial photograph of where the thing will go would suit me so mr sanford can um can uh correct me but that that letter is from this property owner adjacent to the subject site that is correct yes sir yes ma'am so the structure actually um just goes inside of his kind of driveway that little area there and he was talking about possibly doing some landscaping up there uh to kind of beautify his area so he had asked about the rain gutters being put there so that it doesn't directly run off onto his and i said no problem with that at all yeah okay well this is this is um uh well i don't know i'm just i mean this is party party party i mean you got four bar stools you got all kinds of cooking deals you can imagine large gatherings there and uh and the in the hoa approved it so you know i guess i haven't it just seems odd to me but that's it uh miss bar you didn't have any response from any other property owner than this one um variants did variances don't require under the current code uh regulations um public notification so we haven't heard from any other adjacent property owners okay i did get four uh four sign-offs whenever i got the hoa approval and all the neighbors on echo hill are are fine with it the ones that are directly across from it uh and then we've got a pool in the backyard also uh so when you walk out the back towards the left towards the actual pavilion and kitchen structure we were trying to center it to where it actually flows in with all that when this thing is up and running get me invited okay don't put don't put that in the minutes all right uh yes are there any other questions oh yes um board member linus um yeah my my question is since the variance requires three feet and the current the structure as presented is two feet why not just make it a little bit narrower and longer so that you don't have to request the variance uh i was unaware of the three foot setback initially so the structure the uh the post actually go underground two foot underground and they're in two foot of concrete and then there's a slab foundation for on top of okay but you can't change the way that's done uh it would be a complete uh tear down of the whole structure bust the slab concrete up uh it would be a complete start over yet oh i'm sorry i completely misunderstood the photographs we saw that's it's actually in place yeah are there any other questions yes um board member red wine so uh that's why so is the recommendation what is is the recommendation that remediation um the recommendation is that you know staff cannot support it doesn't meet the criteria for approval for the variance to locate this structure within three feet of of that rear property line there are potential options that he could do that 91 code does not prevent those horizontal improvements so he could put in he could keep the um maintain that patio as it is um currently constructed and there are a potential for him to to leave the um uh to to leave the uh that sort of bar area you know that the countertops um as constructed um but but that that roof area um does not meet the criteria for approval for that variance thank you do we have any more questions comments from any of the board members uh yes board member meisner quick question if we can see the visuals of the structures again please uh so this left side picture is the one that's illustrating the completed structure and the close proximity to the neighbor's fence right there is that correct correct the property line of the fence okay thank you yes uh board member higgins uh uh mr sanford would you have any suggestions uh you know you do know the construction would you have any suggestions as to what you might do to mitigate the concern uh on the part of staff that could could alter what might possibly be a negative vote on your application um not really i mean move it moving those holes one foot over i guess is possible but uh the structure of the integrity of the structure would be different if i move the poles so uh i'm a homeowner that did a lot of this myself with friends and i was unaware that it needed to be through the permit section so with the homeowner doing it themselves i didn't actually contract it out are there any more questions or comments um no yes board member higgins levin speaking i you know i do not consider failure to investigate what you're doing before you do it a very good reason for doing it or being allowed to do it correct i understand that and you know like i said to try to center the structure that's why we did it that direction with the appliances that i was putting in and trying to center it with the pool area as well so is primarily why we situated it where we situated it um and then i ended up being a foot off from what it what it should have been by code board member meisman uh i have a follow-up question about the mitigation with any would adding any landscape or foliage or trees constitute that mitigation or is it just purely how close the structure is to the fence and there's nothing minus moving that that would mitigate the situation or to fall into compliance is that question clear or you were breaking up quite a bit but i think we got it i believe you were asking if there were landscaping that could be done that would mitigate or is it simply distance that's needed and perhaps that's a question for um miss white wet so the criteria for approval doesn't give doesn't have that latitude within the criteria it's it's it's does it does it meet these specific does it meet all of these specific criteria or not and really that's that's what we look at in terms of of um of a variant you're on mute uh question are we uh ready to call the question or are there's more discussion yes i did have a question for mac from an attorney's standpoint what are i guess what are our options here how do we um well yeah you have discretion to a certain degree that the staff has given their recommendations and kind of their findings of fact um just like last time if you're going to make a motion to deny which is staff's recommendation you could adopt their their recommendations as far as the findings of fact and their conclusions if you make a motion to approve you're going to need to state specifically why it meets the criteria that are listed in the staff report so the the same criteria would apply um it can't just be can't result from the owner's action so there would need to be a at least a determination by the person making the motion to approve the variance as to why they meet those standards because staffs does not include any justification for those thank you in in working with applicants staff i know does reach out to the applicant to help them prepare is that correct yes thank you that is correct dr lane would you like to call the question or call the vote i don't have to call it in order for a motion to be made but that's fine okay um i'd like to make a motion to deny the variance due to staff recommendation so if i want to make a motion to approve how would that do that motion has to go forward first okay i'll second it thank you um uh you have a motion from uh board member linus and a second from board member higgins i'll third the motion to approve there's no motion to approve no i'm sorry the way it works is this uh if you follow robert's rules there is a motion and a second on the floor we take a vote if that vote fails for any reason and perhaps mr ryan when you could explain to us what the distribution of the vote needs to be all right and just so i'm clear on this um board member linus has made a motion to deny and there was a second in the staff report seconded by mr higgins so that is now current so that it would take in order to approve that uh motion to deny it's just a a majority vote if you're going to approve it if the motion was to that would be a new motion we don't need that yet right this fails so it's a simple majority to deny correct all right let's take the vote um council member uh i mean excuse me board member red wine how do you vote so if i want to go to the motion on the motion to deny right right um a or nay i guess the question i have is nay does nay mean i don't agree with the denial correct yes so nay board member lysmore do you vote to approve the motion to deny or to or do you vote nay i approve the motion to deny uh board member higgins approved to deny a board member linus approved to deny board member njoku uh i know the motion uh but there's one more i believe is is do we still have um board member i don't see him here ron do you remember who the last board member is horton board member horton is he still here yes one two there are six of us here okay if there are not seven we have six we can still vote we lost eric i was just trying to remember all right eric are you on the meeting so we lost eric i i think he left the meeting okay so we have six all right and we have three um in favor of the motion to deny and two against the motion to deny um i will jennifer it's really hard to if we have three in favor of the motion to deny and two opposed to the motion to deny we have the majority do we not still need to vote all right all right in that case i will vote in favor of the majority motion to deny okay that's a winning motion so is a four two chair should never vote to create a tie okay um shall we move on to the next item is that okay with everyone back to the agenda here we are all right um two d v20-0003 consider a special exception request from chapter 33 signs and advertising devices of the code of ordinances specifically section 33.14.2e2 as it relates to the minimum required setback for internally illuminated wall signs in non-residential districts when such signs face a single-family residence or property zoned for single-family use the subject approximately 3.382 acre property is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of lillian miller parkway and teesley lane v20-0003 total care er wall sign uh the presenter is hailey azegursky thank you very much i need to swear you in if she is here okay commission um board member uh charlayne we just need to make sure that we have prince on in the meeting because we need six for this meeting to conclude or to continue prince are you there we're going to need you to come on just momentarily to make sure that we have the quorum do you have his phone number and we also so we currently have five board members oh there he is okay okay wonderful thank you thank you so much prince okay thank you board member joku all righty um we just need to know that you're here and we will do you want me to swear in yes um chair if you can call all three matt wilson rudy uh demore as well as hailey's azurki zersk zersky sorry it's been a long afternoon uh all at one time and and swear them at the same time that will be okay okay i'm going to swear in um matt and i'm just looking to find their last names can people name themselves so that they're mr demore and mr wilson and miss um i don't see a name for a mr guruski can someone rename hailey the host can rename a person so if you're the host ron you can do it and madam chair i'm sorry to interrupt this is frank sidey with total care i'm also president okay very good so we'll square you all in at the same time if you could turn your video on please thank you so much and could um hailey put her name on her screen adam is there a way to add hailey's name if you know how to do it you go to the three dots if you're the host i don't know if you are the virtual host and it says rename and you can rename the person thank you so much very good now we i don't still don't see we also have a tyler smith but that may have been old so that i believe that there we go there we go okay um so i will swear everyone in at once if that's all right um mr sidey mr wilson mr demore and mr guruski could you please all raise your hand and identify yourselves by name i'll read this first statement and then if you would go out in the order that i call you to identify yourselves if you're appearing before this board is provided under chapter 602 0025 of the texas government code all testimony is sworn could you please identify yourself for the record mr sidey frank sobby um this is a guruski hailey's guruski senior planner mr demore pretty demore and mr wilson matt wilson thank you very much um thank you for raising your right hands to be sworn please raise them under penalty of perjury do you swear or affirm that any testimony or information you provide or any statement you make before this board is complete true and correct to the best of your knowledge and ability i do i swear very much i heard you all and you may all proceed in order of aid thank you um so in that case um i believe it's mr guruski who will present is that right he presented yes the item thank you um all right good evening this is case v20-0003 the total care er wall sign the request before you is for a special exception from the ordinances chapter 33 signs and advertising devices specifically section 33.14.2 e2 as it relates to the minimum required setback for internally illuminated wall signs in non-residential districts when such fine signs face people family residents or zone the image you see here is the proposed sign um the the top portion here on the the brick part of the building with the logo and the total care er text is the sign that's being considered this evening so a little more background to orient you to the site uh the subject property is located at the corner of teasley and lily and miller as you can see here there the building is existing um this this is currently or was currently operating as an emergency room um the the tenant of the building is changing so they're replacing the signs that are on the building this again is the proposed sign that we're considering this evening and then the site plan shows you the existing setback between the building and the property line so there's 160 feet between the the north elevation of the building where the sign would go and this property line where they abut a single-family residential subdivision to the north um so the sign code requires um that the minimum setback for an illuminated wall sign that is over 15 feet in height and height is measured to the top portion of the sign um that that setback be 200 feet from a property that is either used or zoned for single-family residential so the property to the north of this site um does have single-family zoning and is used for single-family um the existing setback as we just saw is 160 feet so they're looking for a a 40-foot difference there a 40-foot difference there between what is required and what's existing on site there the uh kind of counterpart to that is that if the illuminated sign is less than 200 feet it has a maximum height of 15 feet the sign as they proposed it measured to the the very top of that logo that you saw would be approximately 24 feet 8 inches so it's 9 feet 8 inches more than what is required since they do not have that 200 feet so some more details about the proposed sign this would be considered a wall mounted sign and it is it is internally illuminated the overall height as i just mentioned is 24 feet 8 inches from the ground level to the top portion of the sign at this point the total effective area of the sign is at 96 square feet this would be located on the north elevation of the existing building and it would feature the company logo and then verbiage related to the emergency room some of the considerations that were outlined in exhibit 2 of your backup the proposed sign would be in compliance with all other non-setback related requirements of chapter 33 the emergency care clinic is required by state statute to have a patient drop-off point that is protected against inclement weather so that's the reason for the existing canopy that's on the building to cover that area for patient loading and unloading that canopy is currently 12 feet in height at the bottom so 12 feet of height clearance it's about 14 feet to the top of that so that would leave one feet of space above the existing canopy to be within that 15 foot limitation due to the setback being less than 200 feet on the existing building section 33.6 of the code of ordinances does allow the board of adjustment to grant special exceptions from height and set height sorry setback and height requirements under two circumstances we'll look at each of these in a little more detail the deviation allowed shall not be more than what would be deemed minimally necessary to remedy the situation so we'll look first at the visibility obstruction special exception and then we'll look at the emergency and medical sign at special exception so with regards to a visibility obstruction the code allows that when 50 percent or more of the effective area of a sign would be located in accordance with the setback or height requirements of this article and it would not be visible from at least one visibility point because of existing building structures or natural ground that the zba may grant the special exception so to clarify a few points there the code of ordinances defines and depicts what a visibility point is so you can see this illustration from the code here so it requires that at your setback line you extend that line out to the curb and then measure 100 feet in any direction to determine what a visibility point would be in this case because the there is no setback in the zoning district so that you would measure at the property line extended to the curb and then back 100 feet or out in any direction so staff did look at this by site visits and by doing street views on the property to gather some images to show you all at the visibility point from the south here along lily and miller parkway you can see this this is that vantage point looking at google street view there is existing vegetation that would block the front portion of the building however by the letter of the code that would not meet the criteria of either an existing building structure or natural ground causing that visibility obstruction and then just to show you what it looks like from the property line where that like i said there is no setback there so we'd be looking from the property line you can see that the front of the building where the sign would go would be visible so staff did not find that it meets this criteria but this is within the zoning board of adjustments ability to grant this special exception if you feel that it meets this criteria the second ability for special exceptions with specifically with regard to medical emergency signs so the code reads that when a sign located on the property of an emergency medical treatment facility would not because of setback or height requirements of this article be readily visible from adjacent public streets for purposes of this provision it does define emergency emergency medical treatment facilities to be any hospital clinic or other facility where medical aid is offered to a person or animal which suffers injury or illness which requires immediate medical attention so that is a very fairly broad definition and this facility would fall within that based on the type of treatment that they described so again just to show you from the property line as the code requires this screenshot is a bit older it shows the sign that was previously on the building with the prior tenant but you could see that face of the building is visible and not obstructed by the canopy so again staff did not feel that that this meets the letter of the code with regard to this requirement this image here just shows you the all of the proposed sign locations for this building the sign in question is the one labeled a on this diagram the others are all signs that would be on there is a ground sign here this is that patient drop-off sign and then there are signs on the other three sides of the building that are proposed and were found to meet the sign code so those as far as i could tell in our system have all been approved at this point it's just sign a that would be in question and with that staff is recommending denial of the special exception request as we found it to not meet the criteria for special exceptions in section 33.6 c of the code of ordinances and i will stop sharing the screen so that you all can have question and discussion okay thank you hayley thank you very much thank you i'm sorry thank you so much are there questions for the presenter or does the presenter wish to speak yeah i'd like to just speak on behalf of total care yard my name is matt wilson i'm with chandler signs we thank you for consideration of the case today what we're asking for today is simply a like-for-like replacement of the existing sign that was there for the previous er user there was an existing lighted sign in place and the user has moved out we have a new user total care er that has taken the place and is opening actually open for business today and so what we're requesting today is a like-for-like in the same location we're not proposing a bright white sign with white faces where there's going to be a high output of illumination they're blue and red faces which will provide a muted overall appearance there is ancillary lighting at the property through can lights at the port of cashier parking lights overhead street lights the combination of that will effectively dim down the overall brightness we're not in a dark sky where the sign is going to be a beacon so we do not feel that it'll be a hindrance to the homes on the northern side in addition the adjacent street as shown by miss sagursky shows that there is a little small window of visibility as you're coming south on libyan miller so it is important obviously situation that someone would be able to easily find the clinic for emergency care this is a 24/7 emergency facility so it is important for illumination whereas other businesses that close during the day it's not as important for an illuminated sign this is a special exception that we're requesting due to the nature of the user being a 24/7 medical emergency facility and we've got frank and rudy on as well that adding additional comments from the ownership side of the property as well at total care er and i'll let i'll turn it over to them thank you thank you very much uh would you like to speak uh yes i am next yes uh madam chair board members thank you for your time in hearing our variance request uh my name is frank sade i'm one of the managing partners of total care um total care has seven medical facilities in the dfw area um hello oh can you still hear me yes okay yes so total care has uh seven medical facilities in the dfw area and we have one uh non-profit in in kenya um we are excited to be in denton today was our first day we opened at seven o'clock um we are a freestanding er and a freestanding er treats any conditions a hospital-based er could um most patients arrive at a hospital they come by ambulances where in a freestanding er most of patients are walk-ins basically people driving down the street if there is a good signage they either drive in or they have a mental note so when they have an emergency they can come back to the facility as matt stated we are open 24/7 360 days a year in addition to providing medical emergency services in the dentin facility we have made the decision to invest heavily in covid testing we are one of the few facilities that offer three tests an antibody test antigen test and pcr for the benefit of the residents of denton um we feel that the proper signage will benefit our neighbors and the residents residents of denton and we want to be good neighbors thank you very much thank you sir and uh we heard from mr wilson and mr sade is there anyone else among mr demora did you want to add anything um no i'm here for feeling any questions from the owner is should there be any questions but i do support the not that that really matters but i just wanted to throw that out there i don't think it's uh we're definitely not hinder any any neighbors so are you on the city no i represent the uh the landlord okay thank you i see okay all right then board member questions concerns comments uh yes board member red wine um i don't know if this is the staff or um anybody else did have we have we had any feedback from i guess the residents on i think i guess that's 100 ridge based on the the map any feedback from them um as julie mentioned on the previous case notification isn't uh is not required for for variance and special exception cases before the board of adjustment so the city did not notify i'm not aware if the property owner did any outreach um on their own and then the second question if i may um so i think on the couple pictures that we do see um i mean it sounds like or it looks like there's quite a bit of signage around the building and um in a number of areas um what i guess what's the value of adding that one sign above the pavilion um as opposed to at least on this it looks like there's five or six other spots there's pictures or i mean there's a sign is going to be i guess what would be the additional value for that one's additional sign go ahead frank yes um so so come in well the the the monument sign it looks um extremely well and it has very good content unfortunately because of the setback the monument sign is kind of pushed i want to i want to say approximately 20 feet uh into the property um so coming coming from lillian miller from from 35 although the monument sign looks nice when you get close to it but driving from far away it's not very visible i would say that's the first point second point we feel that the the signage that we're proposing has a cross which designate medical services the red cross and then also has the word emergency room uh that's also going to add to the to the presentation for for emergency services maybe useful to the cba to since we haven't been meeting for almost a year until very recently just to review the change just a brief comment from staff on the change in the sign signage ordinances why like for like isn't just an automatic approval so to my knowledge there have not been any changes to the sign ordinance at least since 2015 when i started with the city um ron may able to speak to when it was originally adopted i'm not clear on that date off the top of my head the the issue with replacing like for like in this instance there are some provisions of the code that would allow for like refacing an existing sign if it was a sign cabinet being left in place or something of that nature in this instance the existing sign was approved in error and did not meet the standard as it was on the building for a couple of years and that sign has been removed in its entirety so it's no longer considered a replacement of that sign because in 2015 there the code changed are there any questions from other zoning board members not seeing oh there we are uh board member meisner and then board member higgins yeah i have a question about the removal of the previous sign was uh it was taken down by the previous owner is that what happened now this this one is going up at this point with the new owner is that correct is that clear one she was asking if the sign that was taken down was put up by the previous owner can you hear me and the new sign is being put up by yes a new owner um does that answer your question board member meisner yes and a follow-up question to that is there anything that you could do to um reach a compromise to allow it to be conforming before the new sign goes up so could entertain oh yeah i was just speak to that uh you know there are dimmers on signs we could uh put a dimmer on the sign if that would uh help with the approval um again the the light output uh from the blue face is going to be fairly minimal so um but but a dimmer switch is certainly an option um as frank said that you know the users trying to be good neighbors so obviously they wanted to work for the existing uh homeowners on the northern side that have had a sign facing them for the past few years thank you i think the dimmer is a good consideration and i i do love the lower lighting levels to to avoid light pollution board member higgins uh yes um uh for mr gursky can you tell us the height of the the highest height of the lit portion of the sign from the ground or at least make an estimate of that yes the proposed sign um i believe let me confirm is a 24 feet eight inches to the top from from ground level from ground okay and that would therefore shine pretty much over the fence separating the structure from the neighbor's backyard or so right i mean the fence would not afford blockage of that sign it would seem to me if it did it you wouldn't be serving its purpose i'm just saying if that's probably the case if it's if it's 24 feet but i understand you to say earlier that those neighbors immediately affected by that sign have not been uh questioned or how do you know surveyed by the city in this particular instance is that correct that is correct i mean i wonder if they know what's coming uh mr wilson you say the sign the sign is there now or not no sir the okay the sign in in the previous user was removed by total care as they took over so the current sign is not there that's why we're to the board today to request the variance yeah i know i'm i'm really right it's the back that we're asking for i'm sorry i missed that yeah i was just saying that there the ordinance does allow for a sign to be at that height it is the setback of the 200 feet to 160 requesting to achieve elimination yeah yeah i'm actually quite familiar with that intersection and when you're coming south on on uh lily and miller uh you come up the rise and then you sort of come down and you go up another rise it's a large building the building is on a very elevated piece of land um it it just seems to me that it would you know be hard to miss now i admit that there could be a situation if somebody wasn't was was in an immediate need and had never been there before but somehow knew that that was there that you know it they might have to kind of get directly in front of it before they'd see it but once you got to that point it's it's big it's right there uh i'm concerned i'm just concerned about the neighbors and you know is there a way for you to articulate what lower illumination might mean to somebody who has this shining in their bedroom window at night yeah so we could talk about lumens and we might get real technical but um you know the light has to transmit through the acrylic face and then it gets knocked down by the 3m vinyl that creates that color for the logo the overall illumination for the led module and the actual cone of illumination um is actually not um you can put a light meter on it and um it would not cross the parking lot as far as a hindrance of brightness um you know you could you could uh put a light meter on the overall street light and the amount of cone lighting that is intended for the street it's about 10 times greater uh just the surface area of each individual led module inside the channel letters themselves is just intended to light that only and it's a very confined area so um you know the it's not intended to light a an entire area it's actually got about 150 degree viewing angle um that that shoots out in its you know directly in front of the sign let me let me approach it this way uh many years ago when my wife and i were younger we had an apartment then there was a street light right outside our apartment and you could have the venetian blind in our bedroom window which you could close but boy i'll tell you i mean it's still got a lot of light in there at night yeah i mean i mean you you would you be in that sort of a situation or is that not even close we're not we're not looking to make this vegas we're uh uh okay typical channel letters for a retail uh medical use um you know that that would probably be one-tenth of the of the light output of a standard 400 watt metal halide which is what is intended for a street light so it's uh and those have a clear acrylic lens on so there's nothing knocking down the light so it's nowhere near the comparison of a street light which there's actually one at the turn-in drive that's very close to the neighbors as you turn in just past that tree that was shown in the presentation there is an overhead street light so that will actually swallow the light of the actual sign itself okay thank you are there any other questions from the other board members yes um yes i'm i understand about the light and that is always a concern with the neighborhood but is the request for the variance because of how high it's going to be over what the right what the um the code says yes thank you dr ling um hayley if you might address that part sure so the code um the the sign code allows the sign to be over 15 feet but if it is it has to be at least 200 feet from those residential uses in this case we have an existing building that is 160 feet um so so they're not able to meet um both the the 15 foot height limit and the the setback they could if this under 200 feet of setback the sign could be under 15 feet so it's kind of a two-part requirement um unfortunately based on the combination of existing building location and uh setback there they're not able to meet those those two-part requirements i did did want to note if the sign were not illuminated that setback would be 100 feet but of course they they are requesting that illuminated sign so that's the 200 foot setback of course does that answer your question is there anyone else with a question on the board so if you could summarize uh if you wouldn't mind mr gurusky could you summarize the violation sure chair lane i think board member meisner has a question okay yes board member meisner thank you uh i just wanted to clarify the fact that there is a special person where we we could um allow this because of it being a medical facility how about how that would play into um just the technical language like connections unstable sorry i hope you heard me let me see if i can summarize that since there's an exception for medical facilities how does that um comply with the technical language technical language of the zoning code if you wouldn't mind thank you sure so the the sign code does allow for that special exception for any medical emergency facility that meets that definition that we went over earlier it allows that exception to either height or setback requirements in this instance because the requirement is that for for that special exception the sign would have to not be visible from the property line and that's where staff found that based on our visits to the site and then the street views that we showed you all that that it did not meet that criteria but that is within the board's purview if you feel that there is a visibility concern there that you could grant that special exception to the height and setback requirements i have a question which links to the question that board member higgins raised regarding those living nearby is there a means whereby although the city doesn't seek it is there a means whereby the the owner or the facility could seek some input from them to be more reassuring to grant waivers and variances if we know that those nearby are okay with it rudy's got some go ahead rudy um so from the landlord perspective the sign's been up there for a few years and we have had zero complaints from the neighbors so i don't know if that helps that the the previous light was red and white so the white would actually be a little bit more give a little bit more illumination than what is being proposed so i feel that this signage would really cause zero issues with anybody just because it's they're used to having a sign there and now as as matt mentioned the street light will give a lot more illumination than what this sign will even do so it's just literally a swap out is how i see it how long is the sign that used to be there removed i believe it was maybe i would have to get matt i haven't necessarily been up there as much lately so i'll leave that for existing sign uh has been removed in the last once nothing's acting so is there any preparation for this should be recent yeah and then um oftentimes this board will grant uh when there's an attempt to modify the proposal somewhat towards um what the surrounding community was living with in the past and you mentioned that it would be a slightly softer light and i believe you did as well mr wilson that there was an adjustment that could be made for that right there could be a dimmer switch added um to dim down the overall brightness of the sign and is there a way to um uh include that in the agreement with the city i believe so frank agrees yes i do all right thank you uh do we want to move towards is any a motion or is there more questions are there more questions from the board look it around looks like we have arrived um do i have a motion one way or another yes um board member meisner a motion to approve the exemption with the special lights added on to the um the language all right i'll read i'll summarize that if you don't mind um the motion is to approve the new sign with an adjustment or added thank you added um uh added changes in the lighting that reduced the glare and utilizing the special circumstance of the medical facility special exemption utilizing the medical exemption motion to approve the variance with um an adjustment in the lighting with the dimmer switch and chair in addition there's a requirement in the code that you specify the height that would be allowed okay and the height requested uh could i get a staff opinion on that it's in there yes the height as shown is 24 feet eight inches with a 160 foot setback and the uh the the code height is the code was 15 feet and 200 feet setback any questions or thoughts about that from the board i guess as your attorney i have just concerns with enforcement i know that we're trying to impose a standard here for lighting and and what that looks like i don't hear an enforceable standard though as far as the the reduction in light or brightness or the glare i don't know ron or hayley what the best process would be here but i would feel like we need a more objective standard than that to actually enforce out there we're going to say what the brightness of light is actually going to be i don't know if that's something that can be done now or that may be a subsequent meeting but i just feel like that's an impossible standard for anybody to go out and actually enforce to be honest i wouldn't mind if we had this as a subsequent meeting so that the we do have the landlord's impression that no one was bothered previously um it would be good to know what the difference is that people are going to experience and how they feel about it i'm not sure we can get that same time we do need perhaps can city work out an agreement regarding the lighting and the in the dimmer switches is that something that city can ultimately it's going to be the the board's decision on what that standard is so i think that the staff and the applicant can come back to you with something that both sides feel like meets the board is requesting but ultimately it's the board's determination on what any conditions would look like on that approval well mr wilson what would be the way to express it just in terms of lumens or some other way yeah and to be very frank with you it's it's these dimmer switches are very similar to what you have in your own houses so it has you know rheostat on there a switch that goes up and down so it goes from zero to 100 so if we want to set you know 50 as the benchmark with frank's approval i think that that would be reasonable and then if we want to talk about enforcement as far as from the sign inspector level we'd be happy to set up a meeting with him and go over that as far as expectations because we prefer to have a ruling tonight this business just opened today and obviously there you know the the success of a business usually happens in the first 60 to 90 days as they try to acclimate into the community so we'd appreciate a a decision tonight if possible well we i mean it made me i really i guess if we set please go ahead the max if we set the maximum at 50 lumens to be observed uh after you know 90 or 120 days or something like that maybe that would work would that be acceptable to the applicant hey matt yes what's so at 100 how what do you estimate the lumens to out of out of this whole sign so the the led models are 105 lumens per foot and so that that is per foot of led illumination that obviously the lighting is inside of a can but at 50 percent that would be roughly 52 and a half lumens so as you dial it back on the the dimmer switch itself you know it'd be 50 percent of that and that gives you your your 90 days of just sort of blasting out your presence to the community after which presumably the community knows you're there and 50 lumens at dusk you would see 50 lumens okay at dusk correct okay be a lot dimmer but um yeah the sign would still illuminate but telling someone traveling south on t on uh lillian miller would be able to see it at dusk at 50 lumens correct all right yeah dusk it it would be visible just be a little bit dim um this this kind of approach is very welcome in the cba we're here are there any more questions that work for everyone yes we have um i'm sorry um thank you thank you um if there are no more questions or concerns um i would entertain a motion one way or the other sorry uh chair there's already been a motion i just was wanting to get clarification but there's been a motion in a second on to allow for the special exception yes and and who moved and who seconded may ask uh board member meissner and second was i'm not sure who did but i'll second all right board member red wine okay thank you and some clarification you're seeking i think i have it we just want to make sure it's the members have intended that there is a 50 lumens restriction a maximum 50 lumens restriction on the brightness of the sign effective after so many effect uh after 90 days okay before the 90 days you're saying allow for i guess well i'm just i'm trying to be responsive to their concern that the word get out by passage by clearly in the initial days of the business um and can i make a modification a friendly amendment are you seeking a friendly amendment i'm seeking um with the emotion yes i don't know if this is uh to my motion but just more of a question actually i guess i know we're past discussion but if this is possible within those nine days to pay close attention to if there are any complaints from the neighbors during that time and the adjustments might be made thereafter um so it moved to allow the variance as requested for 90 days after which the lumens would be at 50 percent and in the 90 day period to pay attention to uh local residents complaints yes thank you for summarizing um probably the complaints would be mitigated by assuring the complainant that this situation will last for only 90 days is my guess but this is a little bit iffy so um mr rinwon do you have any thoughts about this legally no i think i have it so it's approving the request for 90 days and then after that the maximum lumens will be 50 at night time is the applicant able to return to the zba if that somehow becomes insufficient for them they could they could ask for it's another special exception yes all right um applicant uh are you amenable yes we are thank you all right um we'll call the question we have a motion in a second um let me go around the room uh board member higgins okay we're we're not voting on the uh staff's recommendation that we're making our own okay we're making our own i vote in i vote in favor of the motion okay yes and just to remind everyone the motion is 90 days at request uh after that point 50 percent and um the height is 24 feet eight inches as well as 24 feet eight inches we're approving the variance in height and um staff and legal will draft the agreement correct we'll draft an order of the board yes thank you an order of the board and um all right then uh council member um excuse me a board member nijoku how do you vote i'm in favor i'm in favor of the motion thank you board member redwine i'm in favor board member meisner favor board member linus i'm in favor of the motion and i will vote in favor as well so it's a unanimous six zero thank you so much thank you for your patience and thank you for your willingness to to uh bend it makes a difference thank you thank you all appreciate it thank you merry christmas have a wonderful evening same to you and then there are a few just as the closing is i know it's getting late um we're all getting interrupted so we have here just uh after that um comments for the good of the order i believe uh something like this so many pages open here do we just have the concluding items which items yes are there any concluding items from staff or from the board um i will just i will just give one if no one else has i will um just note for any new members of the board that what we saw this evening was a really good example of how uh the kinds of situations that arise and when the um applicant comes ready with adjustment and prepared by staff they are much more likely to find some manner of success even if not 100 what they request thank you super important and with that i guess we will adjourn is there anything to prevent us from adjourning it's been a long day for everyone nope there's no other items okay everybody have a wonderful evening thank you so much thank you everyone