Okay. So, after determining that a quorum is present, I hereby call this meeting of
the city of Denton's Zoning Board of Adjustment in session. The Zoning Board of Adjustment
of the city of Denton, Texas will convene at its regular meeting at 5 45 p.m. Item
number one on our agenda is the U.S. and Texas Pledge of Allegiance. 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. And now for the Texas
flag, I pledge allegiance to the people of Texas, one state under God, one indivisible.
All right. My name is Connor Hall. I am the vice chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment
of the city of Denton. Prior to commencing our hearing, I would like to review our meeting
format for the benefit of those in the audience. The board consists of seven regular members
and three alternates. The members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment are residents of the city
of Denton. We serve voluntarily and have been appointed to our positions by the city council.
It takes six votes to authorize a variance from the city's zoning or sign ordinances.
If there are any members of the public who wish to speak on item, please fill out a blue
card and hand it to Carly. We will now commence with our regularly scheduled agenda. Item
number two A's is for the approval of, what was the date for November?
17.
We're doing two meeting minutes. We're doing 23rd and 17th.
Okay. Thank you. The approval of the June 23rd, 2025 minutes. Do I need to say both?
Since we have it as two items on the agenda, let's do two things.
Okay. That works. Each member of the board has been provided with copies of these minutes.
Are there any corrections, additions, or deletions to these minutes?
Okay. Chair would entertain a motion on item, or at least item two A, on item number two
A. I motion. Okay. Would anyone like to second?
Second.
Thank you. Okay. Having received a motion and a second,
is there further discussion? Okay. There being no further discussion, please vote on the
motion. All in favor of approving the June 23rd, 2025 minutes, say aye.
Aye.
All opposed? Okay. The ayes have it. The results of the vote are six in favor and zero against.
The minutes are approved. Item number two B is to consider the approval of the November
17th, 2025 minutes. Each member of the board has been provided with a copy of these minutes.
Are there any corrections, additions, or deletions to these minutes?
Okay. The chair would like to entertain a motion on item number two B.
I motion.
Okay. Is there a second?
Okay. Thank you. Having received a motion and a second, is there any further discussion?
Okay. There being no further discussion, please vote on the motion. All in favor?
Aye.
All opposed? Okay. The results of the vote are six in favor and zero against. The minutes
are approved. We are having one variance hearing tonight. Items B25-0063. In the interest of
time, I will swear on all witnesses at this time. Will all witnesses who will provide
testimony at tonight's hearing please stand and raise your right hand. Under penalty of
pre-jury, do you swear or affirm that any testimony or information that you provide
or any statement you make before this board is complete, true, and correct to the best
of your knowledge and ability? If so, please answer, I do.
I do.
Okay. Is there any witnesses who are unable or unwilling to take this oath? Great. All
right. So in order to ensure an orderly meeting, the hearing procedure for each variance will
be as follows. No person shall speak unless they are recognized by the chair to speak
and then shall only speak from the podium. First, the city's presentation and questions
from the board. Let's see. City staff will present the requested variance, staff's analysis
of how it does or does not meet the criteria of approval and staff's recommendations. Next,
applicant presentation and questions from the board. The applicant will present any
evidence and arguments to support the requested variance. Consistent with the city council's
rules and procedure, the board shall allow up to 10 minutes per speaker for presentation
with a total of no more than 20 minutes for all speakers from this party. After the parties
have finished their presentations, members of the public may speak on the item. Members
of the public may provide comments with potential questions of speakers from the board. Consistent
with the city council's rules and procedure and board will allow up to four minutes per
speaker. But this may be limited by the board chair to three minutes if numerous speakers
desire to comment on an item to give as many individuals as possible the ability to speak
on the item. Finally, the board may ask any follow-up questions of staff or applicant
that were raised by the public and not previously answered. The city staff and/or the applicant
will answer any further questions of the board. At the conclusion of the evidence, I will
close the public hearing. Upon conclusion of this testimony, evidence, any questions
and answers, and arguments or summary statements, and when the chair has determined the board
has adequate information to the site, the chair will then close the public hearing.
The board will have an opportunity to deliberate and vote. Item number 3A is B25-0063. Hold
a public hearing and consider approval of a variance from Chapter 33 signs and advertising
devices of the Code of Ordinances, specifically Section 33.14.2B as it relates to the maximum
effective area of a ground sign to allow for a sign with an effective area of approximately
451 square feet for an existing fuel station and restaurant use. Located on approximately
17.2 acre property on the southwest corner of the intersection of Arthurville Road and
North IH35, B25-0063 loves travel stop sign media minds. The matter before the board is
whether to grant a variance to the city's sign code regulations regarding the effective
area of the sign. I now open the meeting. Will the city please make a presentation of
the requested variance and analysis of criteria for approval?
Thank you, Chair. This is the board, Mia Hines, Senior Planner, here to present the variance
on tonight's agenda. So for a little background, the property is located at the southwest corner
of Bartho and North IH35, just north of where 35W and 35 East merges. The site was developed
in 2017. At that time, there was one ground sign along Bartho, one ground sign along IH35,
and at that point, following the development of this property in 2022, the city or the
city and tech stock came in to acquire additional right-of-way for the expansion of North IH35
and the city also realigned Bartho road adjacent to the subject property. In addition to these
new property lines and this right-of-way acquisition, there is a requirement of 20 foot wide utility
easements along the street frontage of both Bartho road and North IH35. And so the proposed
sign that the applicant now is currently requesting does not meet the sign code ordinances. So
again, there were two signs on this property prior to the acquisition and the expansion
of North IH35. Now there is only one because of some restrictions associated with easements
following that acquisition. The variance being requested this evening is to consider approval
of the variance request to increase the size of the existing ground sign that is there
on the premises to no more than 451 square feet. That maximum effective area per the
sign code is 250 square feet. Again, they are proposing a total sign area of about 451
square feet. I did also add in a code requirement for the maximum monument sign effective area
is that one of the signs that they had on the site that they could not replace because
of easements and utilities. And so they are essentially seeking to allow for the effective
area that would have been permitted on that sign that they can no longer install onto
this additional sign. So with this request, there are four key points of criteria for
approval for your consideration. Again, just to remind you, the applicant is proposing
the sign be in compliance with all other requirements of Chapter 33 except for that effective area.
So it's in the correct location. They do have the correct number of signs on the site, not
asking for a variance there. It is just with regards to that effective sign area. The first
criteria is that due to some unique condition or feature of the property, which is not generally
common to other properties, literal compliance with the sign regulation would cause unnecessary
hardship. In this case, what staff found is that the development of the property did occur
before the additional acquisition of the right of way and the changing of those property
lines and those easements that are on the site. The applicant also had to remove the
second permitted ground sign that was closer to Barthold Road monument sign and was not
able to replace it due to the existing improvements, the parking lot and some other things that
were already on the site and the easement complex that came as a result of that right
of way acquisition and expansion. Deliberal compliance would cause the property owner
to miss out on what would otherwise be a permitted sign area for this property. And other
properties in this area are developing following that right of way expansion. So this design,
they would have to design their site in accordance with our sign code. For this property, the
granting of the variance, one of the other criteria is that the granting of the variance
will not violate the spirit or the intent of the ordinance. Again, the intent of Chapter
33 is to balance the right of free speech and public interest and safety and aesthetics.
This particular variance request would allow for the installation of a total maximum effective
sign area that again would otherwise be permitted had that acquisition and easements not be
there. The third criteria is that the condition or feature which creates the need for the
variance did not result from the property owner's own acts. Again, the site was developed
prior to the right of way acquisition. What I have here shown on the left is what the
site was prior to that acquisition and sort of the reconfiguration of the site. As you
can see, they have reoriented some parking spaces. The property lines have gotten closer
to the canopy. They actually ended up installing a new fuel pump canopy in order to respect
the distance requirements for those new property lines. So a large chunk of the property's
frontage, of course, has been pushed back and where those signs can now go is significantly
shorter as far as not being encumbered by the access ways and fire lines and things
like that. And then finally, the last piece of consideration is that the board shall not
grant a variance to any applicant solely for the purpose or personal convenience, financial
hardship or other reasons unrelated to the property. Again, the purpose of this variance
request or the intent behind this variance request is related to those improvements made
to I-35 North along the property's frontage that are impacting the subject property's
ability to place additional signs and have that maximum effective area within the subject
property. With that, staff is recommending conditional approval of this request to install
the ground sign with a maximum effective area of 451 square feet as the request does meet
that criteria for approval that we just went through. That condition that staff would like
to add on to this recommendation is that the site shall not be permitted to install or
construct any additional ground signs that might otherwise be permitted by the code of
ordinances. Again, the reason that they are requesting is because they have those existing
encumbrances. Should easements change or should the property recline or whatever, what this
would ensure is that although they have that additional sign effective area for this one
sign, they couldn't then come and request another sign to ultimately have more than
what would otherwise be permitted as far as a maximum effective area. So this is a summary
of the actions. Again, the Board of Adjustments may approve the variance, approve with the
condition, or deny the variance, and those are the criteria for your consideration as
a reminder. So that pretty much concludes staff's presentation. At this time, I will
happily answer any questions I believe if that is in order.
Do any board members have questions for city staff?
I have a question. So basically you're relieving what would be a hardship because they were
normally entitled to two signs and due to traffic flow, if you have a larger sign, it
would seem further away, so instead of having two more favorable locations for a sign, it's
going to be one sign that's larger, but it's to offset a hardship that would have caused
due to circumstances beyond love's control group, the corporation's control.
Correct. And I think it's actually three signs that they would be permitted to have along
I-35 or within the property. In this case, there are those easements that have come because
of the realignment or the widening of the right of way and that additional acquisition,
so it's pushed back the amount of space that they actually have to install those signs.
Sir, you're allowing for a larger signage that can be seen further away so it doesn't
negatively affect the business. Thank you, ma'am.
I guess, so just in my mind, did they lose two signs or just one sign?
They lost one. They lost one, but they're allowed three per the zoning code, and then,
so this is just for, so like say they get this variance, they replat, and then something
happens to that sign, would they still be under this variance or would they be back
under the original code? Can that depart me for the week? Is that a question? Yes, you
can. Replat with the new owner? Or like say, like say like something changes like with
the easements and stuff, like I guess like... They wind again. Yeah. Yeah, something, like
just something changes about the property. So the only thing that you're authorizing
right now is an increase in size for this one sign. That's going to be kind of the
law for this piece of property. As circumstances change and the applicant or the current owner
wants to change the signage situation, they're going to either be in compliance with the
sign code or they're going to come back for another variance. Okay. Are there any other
questions for staff member Rimsky? Basically, what they're doing is combining signs. So
when you put it all together, your square footage doesn't exceed what you're allowed
to do with multiple signs. And the whole reason that they're doing this is they got caught,
so to speak, with eminent domain. They had no choice. And by doing so, the state with
text op and the city are infringing on their ability to have sufficient signage in order
to be used and observed in order to draw their business. Yes, that does sound right. There
are other potential ways that they would have... There are other ways that they could establish
a sign. They would have to sort of tear up some concrete that was already in existence.
So this variance would be the more feasible option for them to be allowed to do that.
Well, it seems like it's a very feasible option that isn't going to impact anything around
it negatively. And again, it's a result of eminent domain. So that's one of the rationales
that, with your comment, that anyone who builds a property, develops it, now that that process
of reorganizing the streets and realigning is going to have to be inside compliance or
else whether or not there would be any type of feasibility for them to also come forward
to have an adjustment. So, member Rimsky, I'm going to remind the group that we are
in the questions for the applicant phase. Because this is a formal quasi-judicial process,
I'm just going to keep us kind of rigidly on track. So we're doing questions for staff
then we're going to hear from the applicant and then we're going to have questions for
the applicant. Could we go back to that first map? Was there an apartment complex? Is that
a hotel or an apartment complex? That is an apartment complex, a newer apartment complex
that came forward following after the acquisition. And what direction will the sign be facing?
It currently faces north and south, so you're viewing the faces as you're traveling along
I-35. And I guess, will there be any difference in the lighting for the people on the north?
I'm just asking, any difference in the lighting, like the light affecting them from the north?
That is not a part of this variant, so they would have to adhere to all photometric requirements
and lighting standards in our code. Are there any other questions for our city staff? Thank
you for your presentation. Will the applicant please present any evidence or arguments to
the applicant? Good evening everyone, I'm Chad Brunner, I'm the Senior Director of Real
Estate at Love's Travel Stops. I'm actually pinch-hitting for somebody who was stuck on
a cruise when they came here. So, this sign did a great job in kind of going through all
of this and really, I'm not going to really present any real new information other than
I just maybe just clarify a few things here as I kind of listened to the discussions.
So, yes, essentially our old sign that we lost had the Pricer on it and everybody's
been to our gas station, there's a Pricer, right? Everybody wants to know how much gas
is. We don't have Pricer anymore. So, we're just trying to find a way to have a Pricer
on the property so that vehicles traveling through here, you know, will be able to cut
no gases, right? So, we have a competitor across the way, they have a big high rise
with a Pricer, so, you know, not different from what's already in the neighborhood there.
You know, it should be a great job of pointing out the hardships. I mean, you know, we started
out with a, actually I'll go a little further back in time, we actually had a store close
to here, remember, I believe further up north, TechStop took that store from us. So, we had
to move here and they kept taking property from us here too. So, I don't know, I don't
know if we're just unlucky or they just don't like Oklahoma companies or I don't know what
the deal is, but. So, I mean, really it was, it wasn't a matter of losing that signage
out of the hardship of the eminent domain and easements and right of ways and all those
types of things that were taken. The one thing that I want to kind of put out there and I
think you guys talked around it is, you know, we are allowed three signs. So, and believe
it or not, we don't like a ton of signs out there, just like you guys don't, we don't
like the clutter. So, we are, it's Mr. Rimsky's point, we are trying to combine efforts here.
Now, we can put up another sign that just has a Pricer on it, by right, we can just
do that. But we don't want to do that because then we're like, here's an existing sign,
then we're adding another sign and then you're, you know, again, you get this line, sign
card that nobody wants. So, really what we are trying to do is just combine those efforts
into one sign as opposed to having multiple signs up there. So, again, I think most of
the arguments were kind of hit there. So, if you have any questions, I'm free to answer
those. So, do any board members have questions for the applicant? I do have, where the yellow
dot is, that's where the intention of the sign is going to go in. So, it's basically
in the middle of the property for the Pricer and. Yeah, so this is the existing sign. I
think there was a, am I able to go back and forth on that? So, this sign exists. Right.
So, yeah, we're just adding this to this sign. So, I think that goes back to your point about
our neighbors, right? So, yeah, it's an existing sign here. One of the things we talked about
was, I believe if we're 83 feet away from this sign, we can put another sign up. So,
we looked at possibly doing something back here, but again, going back to, you know,
that goes closer to these guys, that's not good, right? So, we thought we'll just, if
we can make this happen, then that meets the intent that everybody's looking for here.
That was my only question. I'm just wondering. Member Rich, can you point out where the original
sign was before the acquisition? Yeah, we had a sign out here on the corner. We called
it our street sign. So, our street sign would have the Pricer and all that stuff on it,
but it was right here in this corner. So, was that Pricer only visible, well, was it
visible from the highway? I'm trying to remember. I believe it was one of the signs where we
have a, it's a 25-foot kind of goalpost-type sign. Yeah, and I think I remember being able
to see it driving from the south before it got removed. Yeah. Are there any other questions
for our applicant? Thank you for presenting. Now that the applicant and the city have presented
their testimony, evidence and arguments, is there anyone who wishes to speak regarding
this variance? If so, please come forward and state your name and mailing address. You
have four minutes to address the board. After hearing all the testimony, evidence and arguments
and questions and answers, as well as hearing from all those desiring to speak in support
and in opposition to the variance, I will entertain further questions from the board
for any of the parties or the speakers. Okay, I just want to note that this ends the testimony
part of the meeting, so questions are over. Okay. Okay. Hearing none, I now close the public
hearing. The board will now deliberate and decide on the variance request. Upon the completion
of the board's deliberation, the board shall render an unbiased decision based on the record
and supported by reasons and findings of fact. In considering the variance, this board shall
consider the facts and information in the agenda backup, including staff's written analysis
of the variance, the applicant's narrative and testimony presented in the public hearing,
and the board's consideration and evaluation of the requirements of the applicable standards
from the Denton Development Code and Denton Sign Code. The board may grant the variance
as presented or with conditions. The board shall not grant a variance to any applicant
solely for personal convenience, financial hardship, or other reasons unrelated to the
property. If the board grants a variance, the variance shall be granted only to the
extent that is reasonably necessary to remedy the hardship. The board may impose conditions
relating to the request of variance. If the board grants a variance, the decision shall
state that all conditions for a variance were met, specify the degree to which the regulations
are being varied, and be signed by chairperson. The other option is to deny the variance.
If a variance is denied, the decision shall state the conditions for the variance which
were not met. All decisions of the board granting or refusing a variance shall be reduced
to writing and signed by the chairperson.
I was just going to motion to accept the variance as presented. I do. I do have fancy verbiage
requests. That's what we were getting at. Because there was condition. Also true. May
we see the slide with the-- That's right. That's actually a great motion test. I did
say as presented. When it says as presented, it includes that condition, right? Or not
necessarily enough. If you can throw me another motion, I'd be much obliged. I would like
to-- I misunderstood. I guess point of order question. Since I have made the motion, do
we need to go through the-- It wasn't seconded. I would say before we go to motioning, we
should probably at least have a little bit of deliberation discussion before we do. Do
we need the motion before we can have the discussion? Roberts allows us to do either
way. We can discuss. If there's a vibe that we want to recommend approval, we can propose
that and discuss any reservations or suggestions or what have you about the proposal. Did you
want to-- I have a question as to why the staff's recommendation is putting a condition
that they would not be permitted to install or construct any additional ground sites that
might otherwise be permitted. Because if they originally had three signs or they're allowed
three signs, they're working at combining two of them. And yes, that process does give
them greater size than it was approved for the one. But you still have a third. And looking
back at that property, there may be some point in time, and I'm not sure what specific restrictions
on signage. But if they are having to put in some signs that direct traffic for parking
or what is there, there is presently a Wendy's there. I'm not sure whether or not they have
any thoughts to expand anything else on the property. To put in, in addition to a Wendy's,
I'm just going to throw out a pizza place or something. That would necessitate and require
a signage. And here, you're constricting them from having that potential. Granted, in order
to put in a pizza place, they'd have to go through the zoning request and everything
else on that. But you'd still want the feasibility of them having a sign. Sure, Member Remske.
So in that instance, something that the board can consider is whether or not to accept staff's
recommended condition. So you have a couple of options. You can motion to approve with
the listed condition. You can motion to approve without conditions. You can, of course, motion
to deny. Okay, so we can pull out, as part of our condition, being that that condition
is removed. Well, I'd recommend phrasing it differently, but yes, we'd get there, we'd
get to the same place. Yeah. My phraseology may not, but it's okay. I'm picking up what
you're putting down, yes ma'am. I see, Member Winkle, I see my fellow board members point
because there may be a point where they want or need to put a sign on their north road,
like east, west road. Yeah, I don't want to do your job here, but I do want to note that
there's a gross effective area of all of the signs that would be allowed. So there's kind
of two issues. There's the count of signs and then there's the signs of the signs. What
we're doing here is basically combining two signs into one, and I don't know that we have
the numbers for what that third sign would be. So what do you have? Yeah, probably. For
recording purposes, because it's been picking up on the podium, it is probably easier on
the side. Yeah, so we do have that requirement that Henry was mentioning as far as the gross
effective sign area. I did want to make one point of clarification on the like way finding
and directional signs, the smaller signs that are on the property. Those are counted as
different types of signs, so they would not be in the ground, covered in the ground sign
description. So if there was an additional drive through a business or in that event,
they would be able to install those additional minor signs. And I think the purpose behind
staff's condition to this recommendation was the applicant stated that part of their purpose
for requesting this variance is to, like he said, decrease the clutter on the property
as far as sign space goes and having multiple monument signs. This condition would ensure
that that clutter or that the number of signs does not increase, ground signs does not increase.
But again, like Henry said, you can choose to accept or not accept that condition. My
only thing was 451 square feet came out of one of your other slides where you had showed
one up on the 250 feet and 300 square feet, or there was something, those conditions.
Is that one of your slides? Do you mind going backwards? No, that's fine. That one here?
Yeah. Yes, so the green, the area highlighted in green here is the existing sign square
footage. That's about just under 250 square feet. The proposed addition is another about
203 square feet. So total they would be just under 450 square feet or 51 square feet. The
reason that we took it to 451 is because that would be the max. So they would have to stay
under that. I think it's like 450.44. I'd like to know, why did you, what was the logic
in, I can understand combining two signs into one sign, but why did you all of a sudden,
or why did you come up with, oh, but we're not going to let you use the third sign that
you were allowed to use unless you come back to the board. What is the purpose of that?
And just the larger sign, part of the, the applicant's stated purpose was decreasing
cuttering, cluttering. That condition would just decrease the clutter. If the board so
choose to amend that condition, I believe that is within your willpower as well.
Okay. This, may I direct a question to the petitioner? We're actually really on the
bubble. We're kind of accepting more testimony from the applicant and it's sort of getting
a little off. It's, we're getting a little bicep. So I'd like us to circle back to just
asking questions about maybe procedure or legality. I guess I'm confused in regarding
that because if I'm going to be making a decision and I'm looking at, you know, I understand
procedure. I understand Robert's rules, but one of the questions that I have, and that
was, whereas looking, you know, specifically because of that codicil that says they could
not put up another sign. What I'm curious about that is who owns the entire property?
Does Wendy's rent from the loves corporation? And if Wendy's is renting from the corporation,
then to put a restriction on an additional sign to the corporation because then basically
what you have is the corporation and you have Wendy's. So they're not, you know, the
corporation is being kind and considerate in making one big sign. They're looking at
it aesthetically. They're looking at it business-wise and, you know, being noticed
for both entities. So was any of that taken into consideration? Because then, you know,
as I say, the codicil that says they can't put another sign up kind of puts an extra
restriction in my estimation to the blamed owner. Okay. So I'm going to answer the legal
question and then I'm going to make a procedural recommendation to the chair. This is a quasi-judicial
matter, which means that we have to follow a very specific procedure in the interest
of procedural due process. We had a point in the process where chair asked for questions
and that process was finished. And so that's where we are. Chair, I have a recommendation
for two different ways that you can perceive. The first is to take a motion whether to reopen
the public hearing and complete further discussion. The second is to ask for a motion on the
variance, whether to approve it with staff's recommended condition, whether to approve
it without condition, or whether to deny it. Do we have more questions perhaps for the
applicant or for our city staff? All right. In that case, we should either -- remember
where it feels at. It is -- I definitely see Board Member Rimsky's point of -- I don't
see the point of keeping -- putting the restriction in because they're already doing that voluntarily
and I'm guessing if these two signs are combined, even if they add the third, they would still
have to follow the amount of signage in the -- because this is the only variance being
allowed and as stated, this is the only variance being allowed. So they still have to follow
the code for everything else. So I feel like people are saying like if they want a third
sign, but we're not -- these aren't two different signs. This is one single sign, so they would
still be allowed two additional signs. Not if we accepted the -- the condition, of course.
Right. But if we approve the variance as presented -- Okay. I would offer more -- Guys, I'm going
to have to sorry ocean of some kind. Okay. I'm going to make a motion to -- do I need
the full wording? Yes. Otherwise, you'll do what I did. Yes. Approval of the variance.
So if you want to just approve it without condition, I would just say staff recommends
conditional approval and then skip this sentence. Yes. Okay. Okay. So my motion is to approve
the variance, staff recommends with conditional approval, is that correct, of the request
to install a ground sign with maximum effective area of 451 square feet as the request meets
the criteria for approval in section 33.63 of the code of ordinances. So member Lennett.
Actually, I should not have said conditional, just -- So your intent is to motion for unconditional
approval? Unconditional. Per the -- Per the -- The fact-finding of the -- The fact-finding
of the -- Okay. Yes. That's my motion. Thank you. Second. Having received a motion and a
second, is there further discussion on this variance? Okay. The board may ask clarifying
questions of the staff liaison and city attorney's office liaison. Prior to calling for a vote,
the board chair must state the grounds in support of or in opposition to its finding
and determination. So we've kind of already done that in that we've had a motion and a
second to adopt staff's findings and analysis that the request meets the criteria for approval.
All right. There being no further discussion on this variance, please vote on the motion
by show of hands. All in favor of produce -- of approving of the variance unconditionally?
That's the director. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Okay. The ayes have it.
Just for minute-keeping purposes, that was everybody, right? Okay. All right. The results
of the vote are six in favor of the ordinance of the variance and zero against. So the motion
passes. The request variance is approved? Yes. Okay. Next item on the agenda is concluding
items. Are there any concluding items? Yes. I have just an FYI interesting thing. This
whole site requirement and going through the process is a result of eminent domain in that.
How much staff time is involved with researching all of this? I'm just looking at city budget
staff usage. Whether or not there would be any other way without having to spend how
many hours doing the research on it, putting together a PowerPoint presentation, et cetera.
Because I know you have to -- you know, you turn your staff hours in as fillable hours.
And so if you're working on this project and it took you five hours, you work on something
else and it takes you two. I'm just curious as to how much some of this takes. I believe
it's question time for staff. So we're off of whether to grant the variance or not. This
board doesn't actually have a matrix for bringing future discussions back. So that's why you
see staff kind of going, hmm, where now do we address this? But it's a fine question
to ask. Well, member Remsky, the very short answer is that the not insignificant staff
time to bring you a ZBA case or a sign variance is far less expensive than the outside council
fees that we would need to incur to rewrite the sign code.
Well, I was just, you know, curious or even if you say the sourcing it out to somebody
else, I was just thinking that for something -- to me, this one just seemed a little bit
more cut and dry and if there was some way to facilitate it going through.
But that's kind of the point of the ZBA is that when it's not a cut and dry, the ZBA
is that final.
Oh, I appreciate that.
So I think that when it does -- when it is more cut and dry and there doesn't need to
be a request in that way, I understand where you're coming from and I totally -- I appreciate
that considering cost is very important in the number of hours. I just wonder if it's
worth it. I think that the fact that we do need to have that final community group, I
think that's helpful.
And we actually made a change. Staff recommended a condition and we as a board said we recommend
no condition. So in that way, having the staff having done the research for a condition helped
us make a decision. I guess that's the way I think of it.
It's a good check to have on like so that the city doesn't act unilaterally without --
But I do agree, too, that we need to think about costs.
Right.
Absolutely. And from a logistical standpoint, if we were bringing you monthly signed code
variances that were functionally the same, absolutely would be a signal of like, hey,
maybe there's something here that doesn't need to come to y'all because there really
isn't, you know, something that is not really --
I mean, this is my first sign and I've been here a year.
Yeah, they don't come all that frequently. Chair, I just want to note that everyone needs
to sign this letter tonight before they leave. That's my concluding item. But if there are
others, that's completely cool.
Okay. Besides signing this letter here, are there any other additional concluding items?
I will go ahead and ask. And this is just if we end up having a January ZBA meeting because
you know how it goes, being in the first ZBA, we're never 100% sure unless there's a base.
However, there is currently one on the calendar. Let me double check the dates. We just approved
y'all's calendar in January. I believe it is the --
So if you could let me know your availability for January 26th, right now, that would be
great.
As far as I know, I'm good.
Okay. Any conflicts for that?
Perfect. If things change, obviously you all have my contact information. I just thought
I would get a general idea for you. Thank you all.
Okay. Any additional concluding items?
Merry Christmas.
Happy holidays to all.
Happy New Year. May the worst day that you have in 2026 be a far better day than the
best day you have in 2025.
I don't think there can be a better day.
So with the hearing no other items, and lovely speech by the way, I adjourn this meeting
at 6.36.
Okay.