WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:10.960 All right good evening Haley Skirsky assistant planning director after determining the report 00:00:10.960 --> 00:00:14.440 was present I will call this meeting of the city of Denton Zoning Board of Adjustment 00:00:14.440 --> 00:00:15.440 into session. 00:00:15.440 --> 00:00:19.040 The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the city of Denton Texas will convene a regular meeting 00:00:19.040 --> 00:00:21.520 at 5 30 p.m. 00:00:21.520 --> 00:00:26.280 Item number one on our agenda is the Pledge to the United States and Texas Proposal. 00:00:26.280 --> 00:00:34.440 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for 00:00:34.440 --> 00:00:42.480 which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. 00:00:42.480 --> 00:00:56.800 On behalf of the Texas flag I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one indivisible. 00:00:56.800 --> 00:01:00.660 Next I will call item 2A which is to elect an acting chair for the Zoning Board of Adjustments 00:01:00.660 --> 00:01:06.520 July 22nd meeting so we will make a motion to elect Connor Hall. 00:01:06.520 --> 00:01:07.520 I second. 00:01:07.520 --> 00:01:11.960 All right we have a first and a second all in favor say aye. 00:01:11.960 --> 00:01:12.960 Aye. 00:01:12.960 --> 00:01:20.600 Okay my name is Connor Hall I am serving as the chair of zoning of the Zoning Board of 00:01:20.600 --> 00:01:24.000 Adjustment of the city of Denton for this evening's meeting. 00:01:24.000 --> 00:01:28.040 Prior to commencing our hearing I would like to review our meeting format for the benefit 00:01:28.040 --> 00:01:30.560 of those in attendance. 00:01:30.560 --> 00:01:34.360 The board consists of seven regular members and three alternates. 00:01:34.360 --> 00:01:38.620 The members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment are residents of the city of Denton. 00:01:38.620 --> 00:01:42.980 We serve voluntarily and have been appointed to our positions by the city council. 00:01:42.980 --> 00:01:49.140 It takes six votes to authorize a variance from the city zoning or sign ordinances. 00:01:49.140 --> 00:01:53.160 If there are any members of the public who wish to speak on item please fill out a blue 00:01:53.160 --> 00:01:56.760 card and hand it to Lacey. 00:01:56.760 --> 00:02:00.680 We will now commence with our regularly scheduled agenda. 00:02:00.680 --> 00:02:09.520 Item number 2B is ZBA 24-007 consider the approval of the June 24, 2024 minutes. 00:02:09.520 --> 00:02:13.360 Each member of the board has been provided with a copy of these minutes. 00:02:13.360 --> 00:02:16.320 Are there any corrections, additions or deletions to these minutes? 00:02:16.320 --> 00:02:24.240 I think the only question I had was that I didn't see Connor Tain as being the acting 00:02:24.240 --> 00:02:25.240 chair last time. 00:02:25.240 --> 00:02:35.000 You do like a motion to approve with the amendment that Connor be shown as the chair. 00:02:35.000 --> 00:02:36.000 That's awesome. 00:02:36.000 --> 00:02:37.000 Perfect. 00:02:37.000 --> 00:02:42.000 Do you need a second to his motion? 00:02:42.000 --> 00:02:48.080 I need a motion, a motion to approve with the amendment to the name. 00:02:48.080 --> 00:02:51.320 Okay, I'll make the second. 00:02:51.320 --> 00:02:57.280 All in favor of approving the minutes with the amendment made by member Redwood. 00:02:57.280 --> 00:03:03.240 Are you good with that? 00:03:03.240 --> 00:03:04.240 Yes. 00:03:04.240 --> 00:03:05.240 Okay. 00:03:05.240 --> 00:03:06.240 The minutes have been approved. 00:03:06.240 --> 00:03:07.240 Let's see. 00:03:07.240 --> 00:03:08.240 Okay. 00:03:08.240 --> 00:03:09.240 I'm sorry. 00:03:09.240 --> 00:03:16.920 I guess I'm going to need to write that down. 00:03:16.920 --> 00:03:17.920 Lacey's got it. 00:03:17.920 --> 00:03:18.920 Oh, perfect. 00:03:18.920 --> 00:03:19.920 If you want to fill it out, you can, but Lacey's got it. 00:03:19.920 --> 00:03:22.920 Okay. 00:03:22.920 --> 00:03:31.040 We are having two signed variance hearings tonight, items B24-0037 and B24-0038. 00:03:31.040 --> 00:03:38.200 In the interest of time, I will swear in all witnesses at this time, will all witnesses 00:03:38.200 --> 00:03:46.080 who will provide testimony of today's hearing, please stand and raise your right hand. 00:03:46.080 --> 00:03:54.440 Make sure it ... All right, go ahead, if you're able, of course. 00:03:54.440 --> 00:03:59.440 Under penalty of pre-jury, do you swear or affirm that any testimony or information that 00:03:59.440 --> 00:04:04.240 you provide or any statement that you make before this board is complete, true, and correct 00:04:04.240 --> 00:04:06.200 to the best of your knowledge and ability? 00:04:06.200 --> 00:04:09.560 If so, please answer, "I do." 00:04:09.560 --> 00:04:10.560 I do. 00:04:10.560 --> 00:04:11.560 Okay. 00:04:11.560 --> 00:04:16.560 If there are any witnesses who is unable or unwilling to take this oath, no? 00:04:16.560 --> 00:04:17.560 No. 00:04:17.560 --> 00:04:18.560 All right. 00:04:18.560 --> 00:04:19.560 It's not showed today. 00:04:19.560 --> 00:04:20.560 Excellent. 00:04:20.560 --> 00:04:25.400 In order to ensure an orderly meeting, the hearing procedure for each variance will be 00:04:25.400 --> 00:04:28.840 as follows. 00:04:28.840 --> 00:04:33.760 No person shall talk unless they are recognized by the chair to speak and then shall only 00:04:33.760 --> 00:04:36.080 speak from the podium. 00:04:36.080 --> 00:04:41.840 First, the city's presentation and questions from the board. 00:04:41.840 --> 00:04:47.000 Next, applicant presentation and questions from the board. 00:04:47.000 --> 00:04:53.640 After the parties have finished their presentations, members of the public may speak on the item. 00:04:53.640 --> 00:04:59.920 Finally, the board may ask any follow-up questions of staff or applicant that were raised by 00:04:59.920 --> 00:05:03.000 the public and not previously answered. 00:05:03.000 --> 00:05:07.040 After the inclusion of the evidence, I will close the public hearing. 00:05:07.040 --> 00:05:09.200 All right. 00:05:09.200 --> 00:05:20.440 So item number 3A is V24-0037, "Hold a public hearing and consider variance requests from 00:05:20.440 --> 00:05:27.040 Chapter 33 signs and advertising devices of the Code of Ordinances," specifically Section 00:05:27.040 --> 00:05:34.920 33.14.2(b)(1) as it relates to the maximum effective area and maximum height of a ground 00:05:34.920 --> 00:05:43.240 sign permitted along I-35E located on an approximately 0.7 acre property, 555 feet from the intersection 00:05:43.240 --> 00:05:55.600 of William B. Miller Parkway and South I-35E, V24-0037 DME Old West Cafe, map voting. 00:05:55.600 --> 00:06:00.680 The matter before the board is whether to grant the variance to the city's sign ordinance. 00:06:00.680 --> 00:06:02.520 I now open the hearing. 00:06:02.520 --> 00:06:04.240 Good evening, board. 00:06:04.240 --> 00:06:15.840 As mentioned, here to present a sign variance for the Old West Cafe sign and the applicants 00:06:15.840 --> 00:06:16.840 for this. 00:06:16.840 --> 00:06:17.840 All right. 00:06:17.840 --> 00:06:18.840 Yes. 00:06:18.840 --> 00:06:27.480 So here to present a sign variance for Old West Cafe sign, the applicant in this case 00:06:27.480 --> 00:06:28.480 is Denton Municipal Electric. 00:06:28.480 --> 00:06:40.480 As mentioned, this sign is located at a property along the frontage road of I-35 south of the 00:06:40.480 --> 00:06:43.480 intersection of William Parkway. 00:06:43.480 --> 00:06:51.240 The conditions that led to the sign variance in question started with TechStop's lighting 00:06:51.240 --> 00:06:53.240 project of I-35. 00:06:53.240 --> 00:07:02.240 In the process of doing that, they required DME to relocate the utilities following a 00:07:02.240 --> 00:07:10.240 unique process that's not normal for what this kind of work is that would require the 00:07:10.240 --> 00:07:13.240 DME to place overhead power lines. 00:07:13.240 --> 00:07:19.240 In the process of DME planning through the placement of those overhead power lines, they 00:07:19.240 --> 00:07:28.240 did find that this sign was too close to where the power lines would be. 00:07:28.240 --> 00:07:34.240 There is safety and OSHA regulations regarding how close structures and people, non-certified 00:07:34.240 --> 00:07:39.240 electricians can be to those lines, so this sign was deemed too close. 00:07:39.240 --> 00:07:48.240 As such, DME worked with the property owners to relocate that sign of the same height and 00:07:48.240 --> 00:07:54.240 area as it currently exists to a location about 15 feet away from the property on the 00:07:54.240 --> 00:08:01.240 outside, a 10-foot zone that was required by the codes. 00:08:01.240 --> 00:08:10.240 In the process of receiving or submitting for the sign permits for this sign, it had 00:08:10.240 --> 00:08:13.240 to be considered as a new sign permit. 00:08:13.240 --> 00:08:20.240 The sign co-ordinates didn't contemplate what to do in this case when there is a previously 00:08:20.240 --> 00:08:30.240 approved sign that was legal upon installation but has become out of conformity with the 00:08:30.240 --> 00:08:35.240 passage of new co-ordinates after the signs were replaced. 00:08:35.240 --> 00:08:42.240 The sign co-ordinates did not contemplate that situation of legal non-conformity. 00:08:42.240 --> 00:08:49.240 The city, as we reviewed the sign permit, it was rejected for not following the current 00:08:49.240 --> 00:08:51.240 sign regulations. 00:08:51.240 --> 00:08:59.240 DME therefore requested this variance that is before you today. 00:08:59.240 --> 00:09:03.240 There are two variance requests associated with this sign. 00:09:03.240 --> 00:09:06.240 The first one is for maximum effective area. 00:09:06.240 --> 00:09:12.240 I'd like to consider approval of variance requests to increase the maximum effective 00:09:12.240 --> 00:09:17.240 area of a sign by 54 square feet. 00:09:17.240 --> 00:09:24.240 Current regulations allow a sign of 250 square feet along I-35. 00:09:24.240 --> 00:09:48.240 The second variance request associated with this sign is a request of an increase in the 00:09:48.240 --> 00:09:52.240 maximum effective height by 2 feet. 00:09:52.240 --> 00:09:57.240 So for current regulations allow a max height of 40 feet. 00:09:57.240 --> 00:10:04.240 Now this height can be measured from either ground level, the elevation of the frontage 00:10:04.240 --> 00:10:10.240 road, or the elevation of the principal lane of I-35, whichever grants the highest height. 00:10:10.240 --> 00:10:18.240 When measured from the elevation of a highway, this sign has a height of 42 feet, which is 00:10:18.240 --> 00:10:23.240 an additional 2 feet greater than what is currently allowed, hence the request for an 00:10:23.240 --> 00:10:28.240 additional 2 feet greater. 00:10:28.240 --> 00:10:33.240 Some considerations going into this sign request. 00:10:33.240 --> 00:10:38.240 So outside of this variance request for an increase in the effective area, an increase 00:10:38.240 --> 00:10:44.240 in the maximum height, applicant is proposing for this sign to be in compliance with all 00:10:44.240 --> 00:10:50.240 other requirements of Chapter 33 of the sign code. 00:10:50.240 --> 00:10:58.240 Regarding the criteria that we assess this variance against, one being due to some unique 00:10:58.240 --> 00:11:03.240 condition or feature of the property, which is generally not common to other properties, 00:11:03.240 --> 00:11:08.240 literal compliance with the sign regulation would cause unnecessary hardship. 00:11:08.240 --> 00:11:15.240 So in this case, the overhead power lines are creating a unique condition for this property. 00:11:15.240 --> 00:11:21.240 This is not the normal process for relocating utilities for this kind of project. 00:11:21.240 --> 00:11:28.240 This has been placed on the property by outside forces. 00:11:28.240 --> 00:11:35.240 Had the normal process been followed for utility relocations, the existing sign could have 00:11:35.240 --> 00:11:42.240 stayed as the utility was replaced on the ground. 00:11:42.240 --> 00:11:53.240 Given that the sign could have stayed, also considered in fact that the sign was approved 00:11:53.240 --> 00:12:02.240 at the time it was installed prior to the new sign code ordinances being approved. 00:12:02.240 --> 00:12:09.240 So that gives it a legal nonconforming status, generally for all these developments, seeking 00:12:09.240 --> 00:12:18.240 to not have the nonconformity increase, or not have it increase its nonconformity. 00:12:18.240 --> 00:12:22.240 In this case, it's just relocating it. 00:12:22.240 --> 00:12:31.240 Also, literal compliance would require the existing sign to be replaced with a smaller, 00:12:31.240 --> 00:12:41.240 shorter sign than what the owner has had for several years now. 00:12:41.240 --> 00:12:47.240 Second consideration, the granting of the variance will not violate the spirit or intent 00:12:47.240 --> 00:12:48.240 of the ordinance. 00:12:48.240 --> 00:12:56.240 The intent of Chapter 33 is to balance the right to free speech in public interests and 00:12:56.240 --> 00:12:59.240 safety and aesthetics. 00:12:59.240 --> 00:13:07.240 So this variance would not change the aesthetic along on 35 to maintain the existing aesthetic 00:13:07.240 --> 00:13:09.240 as it is now. 00:13:09.240 --> 00:13:16.240 So if we needed sufficient balances by allowing the owner to continue the right to speech 00:13:16.240 --> 00:13:20.240 of the sign while maintaining the existing aesthetic. 00:13:20.240 --> 00:13:25.240 Third point, the conditioner feature, which created the need for the variance, did not 00:13:25.240 --> 00:13:29.240 result from the Propounder's Act. 00:13:29.240 --> 00:13:34.240 As mentioned earlier, what brought about the requirement for this variance was actions 00:13:34.240 --> 00:13:41.240 by the state and local government, specifically TechStop and D&E, which created the need for 00:13:41.240 --> 00:13:50.240 this variance through their interstate widening project and utility of the location. 00:13:50.240 --> 00:13:55.240 Finally, the Board should not grant a variance to any applicant solely for personal convenience, 00:13:55.240 --> 00:13:59.240 financial hardship, or other reasons unrelated to the property. 00:13:59.240 --> 00:14:05.240 This variance is directly related to improvements made along the frontage of the property which 00:14:05.240 --> 00:14:12.240 are impacting the property itself, such as this sign. 00:14:12.240 --> 00:14:18.240 So it's not solely for personal convenience or unrelated. 00:14:18.240 --> 00:14:23.240 As such, staff recommends approval of the request for two variances associated with 00:14:23.240 --> 00:14:29.240 the sign to allow for the relocation of the existing sign that is 50 feet over the maximum 00:14:29.240 --> 00:14:35.240 allowed effective area and 2 feet over the maximum height because it meets all the criteria 00:14:35.240 --> 00:14:38.240 for approval. 00:14:38.240 --> 00:14:43.240 I just want to summarize the actions this Board can take so the Board may approve the 00:14:43.240 --> 00:14:48.240 variance as presented, and may approve the variance of conditions, or it may deny the 00:14:48.240 --> 00:14:49.240 variance. 00:14:49.240 --> 00:14:56.240 The action should be based on whether the applicant has or has not met that criterion 00:14:56.240 --> 00:15:02.240 on the right side of the screen that we have found to be appropriate. 00:15:02.240 --> 00:15:05.240 Any questions? 00:15:05.240 --> 00:15:13.240 Do any Board members have questions for City staff? 00:15:13.240 --> 00:15:14.240 Okay. 00:15:14.240 --> 00:15:17.240 Thank you for your presentation. 00:15:17.240 --> 00:15:20.240 Will the applicant please present? 00:15:20.240 --> 00:15:21.240 I think we're not doing that. 00:15:21.240 --> 00:15:22.240 Which aren't. 00:15:22.240 --> 00:15:23.240 Haley is incorrect. 00:15:23.240 --> 00:15:26.240 Did an applicant and staff happen at the same time? 00:15:26.240 --> 00:15:28.240 Yeah, I would say so. 00:15:28.240 --> 00:15:29.240 Okay. 00:15:29.240 --> 00:15:30.240 In this case. 00:15:30.240 --> 00:15:31.240 Okay. 00:15:31.240 --> 00:15:37.240 Now that the applicant and City have presented their testimony, evidence, and arguments, 00:15:37.240 --> 00:15:41.240 is there anyone who wishes to speak regarding this variance? 00:15:41.240 --> 00:15:45.240 If so, please come forward and state your name and mailing address. 00:15:45.240 --> 00:15:50.240 You have four minutes to address the Board. 00:15:50.240 --> 00:15:51.240 Okay. 00:15:51.240 --> 00:15:56.240 After hearing all the testimony, evidence, and arguments, and questions and answers, 00:15:56.240 --> 00:16:01.240 as well as hearing from all those desiring to speak in support and in opposition to the 00:16:01.240 --> 00:16:06.240 variance, I will entertain further questions from the Board for any of the parties or the 00:16:06.240 --> 00:16:11.240 speakers. 00:16:11.240 --> 00:16:13.240 Okay. 00:16:13.240 --> 00:16:17.240 Hearing none, I now close the public hearing. 00:16:17.240 --> 00:16:21.240 The Board will now deliberate and decide on the variance request. 00:16:21.240 --> 00:16:25.240 Upon the completion of the Board's deliberation, the Board shall render an unbiased decision 00:16:25.240 --> 00:16:30.240 based on the record and is supported by reasons in finding a fact. 00:16:30.240 --> 00:16:35.240 In considering the variance, this Board shall consider the facts and information in the 00:16:35.240 --> 00:16:40.240 agenda backup, including staff's written analysis of the variance, the applicant's narrative, 00:16:40.240 --> 00:16:45.240 and testimony presented in the public hearing, and the Board's consideration and evaluation 00:16:45.240 --> 00:16:50.240 of the requirements of the applicable standards from the code of ordinances. 00:16:50.240 --> 00:16:55.240 The Board may grant the variance as presented or with conditions. 00:16:55.240 --> 00:17:01.240 The Board shall not grant a variance to any applicant solely for personal convenience, 00:17:01.240 --> 00:17:05.240 financial hardship, or other reasons unrelated to the property. 00:17:05.240 --> 00:17:10.240 If the Board grants a variance, the variance shall be granted only to the extent that it's 00:17:10.240 --> 00:17:13.240 reasonably necessary to remedy the hardship. 00:17:13.240 --> 00:17:18.240 The Board may impose conditions relating to the use of the sign for which a variance is 00:17:18.240 --> 00:17:20.240 granted. 00:17:20.240 --> 00:17:24.240 If the Board grants a variance, the decision shall state that all conditions for a variance 00:17:24.240 --> 00:17:29.240 were met, specify the degree to which the regulations are being varied, and be signed 00:17:29.240 --> 00:17:33.240 by the members voting in favor of the variance. 00:17:33.240 --> 00:17:36.240 The other option is to deny the variance. 00:17:36.240 --> 00:17:40.240 If a variance is denied, the decision shall state the conditions for the variance which 00:17:40.240 --> 00:17:42.240 were not met. 00:17:42.240 --> 00:17:47.240 All decisions of the Board granting or refusing a variance shall be reduced to writing and 00:17:47.240 --> 00:17:50.240 signed by the Chairperson. 00:17:50.240 --> 00:17:51.240 Okay. 00:17:51.240 --> 00:17:58.240 So, is there a, let me see here. 00:17:58.240 --> 00:18:01.240 Okay. 00:18:01.240 --> 00:18:05.240 Are there any comments or discussion points from the Board? 00:18:05.240 --> 00:18:07.240 Yes, Member Ray. 00:18:07.240 --> 00:18:10.240 I would say this seems fairly straightforward to me. 00:18:10.240 --> 00:18:14.240 This is a sign that exists that was legal to build, and TechStock came in and told them 00:18:14.240 --> 00:18:15.240 to move it. 00:18:15.240 --> 00:18:24.240 So, it doesn't seem to cause any problems by allowing it to be moved. 00:18:24.240 --> 00:18:25.240 I agree with that. 00:18:25.240 --> 00:18:32.240 It's just the TechStock D&E had an issue that needed to be resolved, and everybody's happy 00:18:32.240 --> 00:18:42.240 with the solution that came up with, and I think it's a good settlement, a good solution. 00:18:42.240 --> 00:18:48.240 I'm in full agreement with both of those comments. 00:18:48.240 --> 00:18:49.240 Yes. 00:18:49.240 --> 00:18:57.240 I would move that we approve the variance for both the height and size of the sign. 00:18:57.240 --> 00:19:00.240 Can I beat pedantic for a second? 00:19:00.240 --> 00:19:05.240 It would be very helpful if the motion included a finding of fact that the three criteria 00:19:05.240 --> 00:19:11.240 and the finding of fact were shown, like that the applicant has demonstrated those. 00:19:11.240 --> 00:19:17.240 I would motion that we approve the variance for the size and height of the sign due to 00:19:17.240 --> 00:19:22.240 the fact that this is a unique situation with TechStock forcing them to move that sign, 00:19:22.240 --> 00:19:31.240 that this does not violate the intent of protecting aesthetics or free speech under the sign ordinance, 00:19:31.240 --> 00:19:37.240 and that it is not the applicant's fault that TechStock came in and needed these movements 00:19:37.240 --> 00:19:39.240 of utilities to be done. 00:19:39.240 --> 00:19:41.240 Thank you. 00:19:41.240 --> 00:19:43.240 Would anyone like to second that motion? 00:19:43.240 --> 00:19:45.240 I'll second. 00:19:45.240 --> 00:19:46.240 Thank you. 00:19:46.240 --> 00:19:47.240 All right. 00:19:47.240 --> 00:19:50.240 All in favor of approving the variance as presented? 00:19:50.240 --> 00:19:52.240 Go ahead and raise your hands. 00:19:52.240 --> 00:19:53.240 Aye. 00:19:53.240 --> 00:19:54.240 Aye. 00:19:54.240 --> 00:19:55.240 Aye. 00:19:55.240 --> 00:19:56.240 Okay. 00:19:56.240 --> 00:19:58.240 The ayes have it. 00:19:58.240 --> 00:20:06.240 Chair, at your discretion, could we have a moment to sign the decision letter? 00:20:06.240 --> 00:20:08.240 Was it printed? 00:20:08.240 --> 00:20:09.240 Okay. 00:20:09.240 --> 00:20:10.240 Can it be printed? 00:20:10.240 --> 00:20:11.240 It will be printed. 00:20:11.240 --> 00:20:12.240 Can we print both of them? 00:20:12.240 --> 00:20:13.240 Absolutely. 00:20:13.240 --> 00:20:14.240 Outstanding. 00:20:14.240 --> 00:20:17.240 Because the code is weird, we all get to sign it. 00:20:17.240 --> 00:20:18.240 Okay. 00:20:18.240 --> 00:20:21.240 So I want to make sure that we accomplish that before we splinter off. 00:20:21.240 --> 00:20:22.240 Okay. 00:20:22.240 --> 00:20:24.240 That sounds like a good idea. 00:20:24.240 --> 00:20:25.240 Excellent. 00:20:25.240 --> 00:20:27.240 Thank you, Chair. 00:20:27.240 --> 00:20:29.240 Of course. 00:20:29.240 --> 00:20:38.240 All right. 00:20:38.240 --> 00:20:43.240 So item number 4A is B24-0038. 00:20:43.240 --> 00:20:49.240 Hold a public hearing and consider a variance request from Chapter 33 Science and Advertising 00:20:49.240 --> 00:20:57.240 Devices of the Code of Ordinances, specifically Section 33.14.2(d)(2) as it relates to the 00:20:57.240 --> 00:21:04.240 maximum number of on-premises ground signs permitted based on street frontage on a freeway 00:21:04.240 --> 00:21:13.240 located on an approximately 10.78-acre premises, 725 feet southwest, or southeast, I apologize, 00:21:13.240 --> 00:21:22.240 of the intersection of Lillian B. Miller Parkway and South I-35E, B24-0038 DME, South Ridge 00:21:22.240 --> 00:21:24.240 Village, McLean. 00:21:24.240 --> 00:21:29.240 Since the witnesses have already been sworn in, I now open the hearing. 00:21:29.240 --> 00:21:30.240 All right. 00:21:30.240 --> 00:21:31.240 Thank you. 00:21:31.240 --> 00:21:32.240 Good evening. 00:21:32.240 --> 00:21:40.240 The signed variance for some signs at South Ridge Village Shopping Center. 00:21:40.240 --> 00:21:45.240 The background is very similar to what we heard for the last variance. 00:21:45.240 --> 00:21:48.240 So happy to roll it again. 00:21:48.240 --> 00:21:59.240 Just very quickly, text-out widening item 5 is causing existing signs to be relocated. 00:21:59.240 --> 00:22:07.240 In the process of doing so, the relocated signs were found to be out of compliance with 00:22:07.240 --> 00:22:14.240 the current code, even though they were approved prior to the current sign ordinance being 00:22:14.240 --> 00:22:20.240 adopted, and as such, they were seeking the variance requested. 00:22:20.240 --> 00:22:26.240 So to get into more of that variance, so the variance is to consider a request to install 00:22:26.240 --> 00:22:29.240 a third ground sign on the premise. 00:22:29.240 --> 00:22:37.240 And so the premise is the subject area that was highlighted where this shopping center 00:22:37.240 --> 00:22:39.240 is considered one. 00:22:39.240 --> 00:22:46.240 And so the current regulations allow one sign per premise plus an additional sign for each 00:22:46.240 --> 00:22:50.240 500 feet of street frontage, a fraction thereof. 00:22:50.240 --> 00:22:59.240 So according to the current code, this will allow two signs along this premises frontage. 00:22:59.240 --> 00:23:06.240 Tests are as DME, and the process of relocating identified three signs, but there are three 00:23:06.240 --> 00:23:10.240 signs along this frontage that need to be moved. 00:23:10.240 --> 00:23:21.240 And so hence the variance request to install a third ground sign. 00:23:21.240 --> 00:23:29.240 The considerations are fairly similar to what we've heard before, except for the variance 00:23:29.240 --> 00:23:36.240 that I expect these signs are expected to be in compliance with other aspects of the 00:23:36.240 --> 00:23:37.240 sign code. 00:23:37.240 --> 00:23:42.240 I did find it wasn't all that blind, creating this unique condition. 00:23:42.240 --> 00:23:45.240 These are sometimes going to stay. 00:23:45.240 --> 00:23:51.240 Literal compliance would require one of the property owners to give up their sign if this 00:23:51.240 --> 00:23:56.240 variance was denied. 00:23:56.240 --> 00:24:03.240 Again, did not find found that this variance does not violate the spirit or intent of the 00:24:03.240 --> 00:24:04.240 ordinance. 00:24:04.240 --> 00:24:06.240 They're not adding any new signs. 00:24:06.240 --> 00:24:12.240 And so the existing aesthetic along I-35 is expected to remain the same as the variance 00:24:12.240 --> 00:24:14.240 is granted. 00:24:14.240 --> 00:24:20.240 As a reminder, it is outside forces. 00:24:20.240 --> 00:24:28.240 Text on DME, creating a new for this variance, providing utility relocation, and it is that 00:24:28.240 --> 00:24:38.240 liability that is impacting this property, and thus creating the new for this ordinance. 00:24:38.240 --> 00:24:43.240 As such, staff recommends approval of the request to install third on-premises ground 00:24:43.240 --> 00:24:49.240 sign because it meets all the original code. 00:24:49.240 --> 00:24:54.240 This is a summary of what the court can do and the criteria we found. 00:24:54.240 --> 00:24:58.240 I'll dig through things a little quickly just because it was very similar, but happy to 00:24:58.240 --> 00:25:04.240 explain further if needed. 00:25:04.240 --> 00:25:09.240 Do any board members have questions for state staff? 00:25:09.240 --> 00:25:10.240 Go ahead. 00:25:10.240 --> 00:25:15.240 You said that one of the property owners would have to remove their sign. 00:25:15.240 --> 00:25:20.240 Are these signs identical to each other and simply spaced apart on the property, or do 00:25:20.240 --> 00:25:25.240 the signs display different shops on each sign or more so forth? 00:25:25.240 --> 00:25:32.240 So they do display different shops. 00:25:32.240 --> 00:25:40.240 So the premise is made of three different lots that make up the shopping center. 00:25:40.240 --> 00:25:45.240 So there are three different signs with one sign appearing on each property, and they 00:25:45.240 --> 00:25:53.240 display different shops associated with their property. 00:25:53.240 --> 00:25:55.240 Yes, go ahead. 00:25:55.240 --> 00:25:59.240 If I remember correctly, one of these signs doesn't have any active retail on it. 00:25:59.240 --> 00:26:04.240 Is that the sign in question? 00:26:04.240 --> 00:26:05.240 I believe it was blank. 00:26:05.240 --> 00:26:06.240 It was blank? 00:26:06.240 --> 00:26:11.240 Am I thinking of the same sign that's on the property? 00:26:11.240 --> 00:26:15.240 Yes. 00:26:15.240 --> 00:26:21.240 Just to elaborate on Matt's point, since it is three owners but one premise and only 00:26:21.240 --> 00:26:28.240 two signs are allowed, if the board decides that the variance should not be granted, it 00:26:28.240 --> 00:26:32.240 would ultimately be arbitrary as to which sign has to be removed, but one of the three 00:26:32.240 --> 00:26:34.240 would have to go out. 00:26:34.240 --> 00:26:37.240 It's not any particular sign that's in question. 00:26:37.240 --> 00:26:43.240 It's the fact that there's more than is allowed on the premise, if that makes sense. 00:26:43.240 --> 00:26:44.240 Chair, if there may. 00:26:44.240 --> 00:26:45.240 Yes, of course. 00:26:45.240 --> 00:26:46.240 Thank you. 00:26:46.240 --> 00:26:52.240 And the effect of having to decide which sign might go would include the city having to 00:26:52.240 --> 00:27:06.240 functionally condemn a sign, which was a longer process, and I can't say more without accidentally 00:27:06.240 --> 00:27:09.240 being influential, but that would be the next step. 00:27:09.240 --> 00:27:10.240 Thanks. 00:27:10.240 --> 00:27:12.240 Yes, go ahead. 00:27:12.240 --> 00:27:20.240 My only concern is that the sign does not seem to be actively being used, with it being 00:27:20.240 --> 00:27:22.240 blank. 00:27:22.240 --> 00:27:28.240 I know there's one of three signs in question, but I would hope that they would, if the sign 00:27:28.240 --> 00:27:33.240 was remaining, that it would be beautified, for lack of a better word. 00:27:33.240 --> 00:27:39.240 That's just my thoughts. 00:27:39.240 --> 00:27:49.240 The only other question I have is, so this is our second request for a variance, because 00:27:49.240 --> 00:27:58.240 TxDOT and DME have made this because TxDOT is widening the area. 00:27:58.240 --> 00:28:05.240 Do we know or should we even contemplate whether or not there will be additional variance requests 00:28:05.240 --> 00:28:12.240 as widening continues, or is that something we should not consider at this point? 00:28:12.240 --> 00:28:19.240 As you know, with these particular signs, it was part of a specific project related to 00:28:19.240 --> 00:28:24.240 this intersection in which they expanded the scope, or TxDOT expanded the scope of their 00:28:24.240 --> 00:28:32.240 project last minute to include this area of these signs, and so that's for a far long 00:28:32.240 --> 00:28:38.240 TxDOT saying, "Hey, because this is a late edition, we're under a short timeline, hence 00:28:38.240 --> 00:28:43.240 we're not able to follow the process we're looking at." 00:28:43.240 --> 00:28:52.240 To answer the second half of your question, if you feel like that fact, whether there 00:28:52.240 --> 00:28:57.240 might be more sign requests, factors into whether or not one of the criteria are met, 00:28:57.240 --> 00:29:06.240 it may be appropriate to consider, but absent being able to put it under one of those criteria. 00:29:06.240 --> 00:29:13.240 But actually, the short timeframe also is part of that consideration, because that was 00:29:13.240 --> 00:29:21.240 somewhere within one of the criteria, wasn't it, about the... 00:29:21.240 --> 00:29:22.240 The conditions? 00:29:22.240 --> 00:29:30.240 Yeah, under the conditions, because it is. 00:29:30.240 --> 00:29:36.240 Yeah, the sign could have stayed under the normal process, but because of the short timeframe 00:29:36.240 --> 00:29:40.240 within this process, it couldn't even be considered. 00:29:40.240 --> 00:29:43.240 Okay, that's fine. 00:29:43.240 --> 00:29:47.240 I just wanted to add, we are not anticipating any additional signs that would come about 00:29:47.240 --> 00:29:53.240 with this, just for this little bit. 00:29:53.240 --> 00:30:00.240 Are there any other questions the board would like to ask? 00:30:00.240 --> 00:30:07.240 Okay, thank you for once again presenting for this specific variance. 00:30:07.240 --> 00:30:11.240 Now that the applicant and the city have presented their testimony, evidence, and arguments, 00:30:11.240 --> 00:30:15.240 is there anyone who wishes to speak regarding the variance? 00:30:15.240 --> 00:30:18.240 If so, please come forward and state your name and mailing address. 00:30:18.240 --> 00:30:23.240 You have four minutes to get to the board. 00:30:23.240 --> 00:30:24.240 Okay. 00:30:24.240 --> 00:30:29.240 After hearing all of the testimony, evidence, and arguments, and questions, and answers, 00:30:29.240 --> 00:30:35.240 as well as hearing from all of those desiring to speak in support and in opposition to the variance, 00:30:35.240 --> 00:30:44.240 I will entertain further questions from the board for any of the parties and speakers. 00:30:44.240 --> 00:30:48.240 Hearing none, I now close the public hearing. 00:30:48.240 --> 00:30:51.240 The board will now deliberate and decide on the variance request. 00:30:51.240 --> 00:30:56.240 Upon the completion of the board's deliberation, the board shall render an unbiased decision 00:30:56.240 --> 00:31:02.240 based on the record and supported by the reasons and findings in fact. 00:31:02.240 --> 00:31:07.240 In considering the variance, this board shall consider facts and information in the agenda backup, 00:31:07.240 --> 00:31:12.240 including the staff's written analysis of the variance, the applicant's narrative, 00:31:12.240 --> 00:31:18.240 and testimony presented in the public hearing, and the board's consideration and evaluation 00:31:18.240 --> 00:31:22.240 of the requirements of the applicable standards from the code of ordinances. 00:31:22.240 --> 00:31:27.240 The board may, one, grant the variance as presented or with conditions. 00:31:27.240 --> 00:31:31.240 The board shall not grant a variance to any applicant solely for personal convenience, 00:31:31.240 --> 00:31:35.240 financial hardship, or other reasons unrelated to the property. 00:31:35.240 --> 00:31:39.240 If the board grants a variance, the variance shall be granted only to the extent 00:31:39.240 --> 00:31:42.240 that is necessary to remedy the hardship. 00:31:42.240 --> 00:31:47.240 The board may impose conditions relating to the use of the sign for which a variance is granted. 00:31:47.240 --> 00:31:54.240 If the board grants a variance, the decision shall state that all conditions for a variance were met, 00:31:54.240 --> 00:31:58.240 specify the degree to which the regulations are being varied, 00:31:58.240 --> 00:32:03.240 and be signed by the members voting in favor for the variance. 00:32:03.240 --> 00:32:06.240 The other option is to deny the variance. 00:32:06.240 --> 00:32:13.240 If a variance is denied, the decision shall state the conditions for the variance which were not met. 00:32:13.240 --> 00:32:20.240 All decisions of the board granting or refusing a variance shall be reduced to writing and signed by the chairperson. 00:32:20.240 --> 00:32:25.240 So I go ahead and open the board for deliberation for this variance. 00:32:25.240 --> 00:32:29.240 Oh, would you like to go first? 00:32:29.240 --> 00:32:36.240 I would say that, I think, similar to the last thing we talked about, 00:32:36.240 --> 00:32:41.240 I mean, I think the intent, to me, makes sense since there's no change. 00:32:41.240 --> 00:32:45.240 Effectively, it's just that there's no fault of the property owners. 00:32:45.240 --> 00:32:49.240 I mean, I do understand kind of your point, Blair. 00:32:49.240 --> 00:32:54.240 But just the fact that it's just moving in, I think if I remember correctly, 00:32:54.240 --> 00:32:58.240 I think that area of the shopping center doesn't have any mini tenants right now, 00:32:58.240 --> 00:33:04.240 which is why it's black, but the goodwill there closed down for some reason. 00:33:04.240 --> 00:33:07.240 You can add your handrails first. 00:33:07.240 --> 00:33:12.240 Yeah, I would say with respect to Criterion 1 and 3, those seem fairly self-evident to me. 00:33:12.240 --> 00:33:16.240 It is a unique feature that they're having to deal with this last minute text.change, 00:33:16.240 --> 00:33:21.240 and it is not the owners' fault that they're having to deal with this last minute text.change. 00:33:21.240 --> 00:33:27.240 I would also say on Level 22, again, like you, I understand the concern with the fact that the sign is empty, 00:33:27.240 --> 00:33:31.240 but I think it's just kind of their big anchor tenant there at the end of the building, 00:33:31.240 --> 00:33:37.240 which I would assume if you're renting for square footage, you likely get that space on the sign. 00:33:37.240 --> 00:33:39.240 It is not rented at the moment. 00:33:39.240 --> 00:33:43.240 So I certainly don't want to make a decision against this on the basis of, 00:33:43.240 --> 00:33:49.240 oh, it just happens not to be rented right now when this particular issue came up. 00:33:49.240 --> 00:33:51.240 And Member Bray? 00:33:51.240 --> 00:33:57.240 I concur with both Member Redwine and Member Bray that it seems like it's a separate issue. 00:33:57.240 --> 00:34:01.240 This is just to approve the movement of it. 00:34:01.240 --> 00:34:06.240 I am curious about, I believe one or two of these signs were in a median, 00:34:06.240 --> 00:34:10.240 and I don't know if there's other things to be considered for when they move it. 00:34:10.240 --> 00:34:17.240 Is it going into a parking spot, and is it going to be addressed in the same manner as the median? 00:34:17.240 --> 00:34:24.240 Yes, come on. 00:34:24.240 --> 00:34:28.240 Looking at Google Maps, for all that's worth, the data is 2023, 00:34:28.240 --> 00:34:33.240 it appears that the existing condition of these signs is that they are in the parking lot, 00:34:33.240 --> 00:34:37.240 and I believe that's what we saw on the display as well. 00:34:37.240 --> 00:35:02.240 I guess whoever is running the clicker, will they run it back to the Google Maps view? 00:35:02.240 --> 00:35:23.240 Is there any further discussion or deliberation regarding this particular variant? 00:35:23.240 --> 00:35:25.240 I apologize, I'm not sure where to pick up. 00:35:25.240 --> 00:35:27.240 No, you're good. 00:35:27.240 --> 00:35:33.240 You can probably say, I would probably start here with because. 00:35:33.240 --> 00:35:35.240 Okay. 00:35:35.240 --> 00:35:43.240 Because there are three criteria and a required finding of fact for approval of a variance, 00:35:43.240 --> 00:35:45.240 and the applicant must meet each criterion, 00:35:45.240 --> 00:35:49.240 ZBA needs to make a finding of fact for each criterion. 00:35:49.240 --> 00:35:55.240 Because of this, I am asking for a motion as follows. 00:35:55.240 --> 00:36:00.240 So I move that a variance be denied/approved as presented by the staff, 00:36:00.240 --> 00:36:05.240 because the applicant has/has not met the following criteria. 00:36:05.240 --> 00:36:10.240 Which are what was on the slide. 00:36:10.240 --> 00:36:15.240 I would make a motion to approve the variance for the additional sign for this property, 00:36:15.240 --> 00:36:21.240 due to the fact that the text doc relocation is not the applicant's fault, 00:36:21.240 --> 00:36:29.240 and in accordance with criterion three, this is a unique problem condition for this property, 00:36:29.240 --> 00:36:32.240 that it is adjacent to this text doc road that is being expanded, 00:36:32.240 --> 00:36:40.240 and in accordance with criterion two, that allowing the retention of this third sign 00:36:40.240 --> 00:36:46.240 does not violate the spirit or intent of the sign ordinance with regards to aesthetics or free speech. 00:36:46.240 --> 00:36:54.240 Second. Okay. All in favor of the variance as presented by the staff? 00:36:54.240 --> 00:36:56.240 Aye. 00:36:56.240 --> 00:36:59.240 Okay. Do you guys have it? 00:36:59.240 --> 00:37:01.240 Excellent. 00:37:01.240 --> 00:37:02.240 Let's see. 00:37:02.240 --> 00:37:06.240 All right. So the next item on the agenda is concluding items. 00:37:06.240 --> 00:37:16.240 Are there any concluding items that board or the staff wish to bring forward? 00:37:16.240 --> 00:37:22.240 Okay. Hearing no items, I adjourn a meeting at 6.08 p.m.