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.
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