WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:10.900 Okay. So, after determining that a quorum is present, I hereby call this meeting of 00:00:10.900 --> 00:00:15.300 the city of Denton's Zoning Board of Adjustment in session. The Zoning Board of Adjustment 00:00:15.300 --> 00:00:23.900 of the city of Denton, Texas will convene at its regular meeting at 5 45 p.m. Item 00:00:23.900 --> 00:00:35.000 number one on our agenda is the U.S. and Texas Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance 00:00:35.000 --> 00:00:41.900 to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one 00:00:41.900 --> 00:00:49.000 nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And now for the Texas 00:00:49.000 --> 00:01:00.100 flag, I pledge allegiance to the people of Texas, one state under God, one indivisible. 00:01:00.100 --> 00:01:07.800 All right. My name is Connor Hall. I am the vice chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment 00:01:07.800 --> 00:01:12.900 of the city of Denton. Prior to commencing our hearing, I would like to review our meeting 00:01:12.900 --> 00:01:18.100 format for the benefit of those in the audience. The board consists of seven regular members 00:01:18.100 --> 00:01:22.700 and three alternates. The members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment are residents of the city 00:01:22.700 --> 00:01:28.500 of Denton. We serve voluntarily and have been appointed to our positions by the city council. 00:01:28.500 --> 00:01:34.800 It takes six votes to authorize a variance from the city's zoning or sign ordinances. 00:01:34.800 --> 00:01:38.900 If there are any members of the public who wish to speak on item, please fill out a blue 00:01:38.900 --> 00:01:46.100 card and hand it to Carly. We will now commence with our regularly scheduled agenda. Item 00:01:46.100 --> 00:01:51.100 number two A's is for the approval of, what was the date for November? 00:01:51.100 --> 00:01:52.100 17. 00:01:52.100 --> 00:01:58.100 We're doing two meeting minutes. We're doing 23rd and 17th. 00:01:58.100 --> 00:02:06.100 Okay. Thank you. The approval of the June 23rd, 2025 minutes. Do I need to say both? 00:02:06.100 --> 00:02:11.100 Since we have it as two items on the agenda, let's do two things. 00:02:11.100 --> 00:02:17.100 Okay. That works. Each member of the board has been provided with copies of these minutes. 00:02:17.100 --> 00:02:22.100 Are there any corrections, additions, or deletions to these minutes? 00:02:22.100 --> 00:02:34.100 Okay. Chair would entertain a motion on item, or at least item two A, on item number two 00:02:34.100 --> 00:02:41.100 A. I motion. Okay. Would anyone like to second? 00:02:41.100 --> 00:02:42.100 Second. 00:02:42.100 --> 00:02:51.100 Thank you. Okay. Having received a motion and a second, 00:02:51.100 --> 00:03:01.100 is there further discussion? Okay. There being no further discussion, please vote on the 00:03:01.100 --> 00:03:08.100 motion. All in favor of approving the June 23rd, 2025 minutes, say aye. 00:03:08.100 --> 00:03:09.100 Aye. 00:03:09.100 --> 00:03:17.100 All opposed? Okay. The ayes have it. The results of the vote are six in favor and zero against. 00:03:17.100 --> 00:03:23.100 The minutes are approved. Item number two B is to consider the approval of the November 00:03:23.100 --> 00:03:29.100 17th, 2025 minutes. Each member of the board has been provided with a copy of these minutes. 00:03:29.100 --> 00:03:35.100 Are there any corrections, additions, or deletions to these minutes? 00:03:35.100 --> 00:03:43.100 Okay. The chair would like to entertain a motion on item number two B. 00:03:43.100 --> 00:03:44.100 I motion. 00:03:44.100 --> 00:03:47.100 Okay. Is there a second? 00:03:47.100 --> 00:04:00.100 Okay. Thank you. Having received a motion and a second, is there any further discussion? 00:04:00.100 --> 00:04:06.100 Okay. There being no further discussion, please vote on the motion. All in favor? 00:04:06.100 --> 00:04:07.100 Aye. 00:04:07.100 --> 00:04:08.100 Aye. 00:04:08.100 --> 00:04:16.100 All opposed? Okay. The results of the vote are six in favor and zero against. The minutes 00:04:16.100 --> 00:04:26.100 are approved. We are having one variance hearing tonight. Items B25-0063. In the interest of 00:04:26.100 --> 00:04:31.100 time, I will swear on all witnesses at this time. Will all witnesses who will provide 00:04:31.100 --> 00:04:39.100 testimony at tonight's hearing please stand and raise your right hand. Under penalty of 00:04:39.100 --> 00:04:45.100 pre-jury, do you swear or affirm that any testimony or information that you provide 00:04:45.100 --> 00:04:49.100 or any statement you make before this board is complete, true, and correct to the best 00:04:49.100 --> 00:04:53.100 of your knowledge and ability? If so, please answer, I do. 00:04:53.100 --> 00:04:54.100 I do. 00:04:54.100 --> 00:05:02.100 Okay. Is there any witnesses who are unable or unwilling to take this oath? Great. All 00:05:02.100 --> 00:05:08.100 right. So in order to ensure an orderly meeting, the hearing procedure for each variance will 00:05:08.100 --> 00:05:16.100 be as follows. No person shall speak unless they are recognized by the chair to speak 00:05:16.100 --> 00:05:24.100 and then shall only speak from the podium. First, the city's presentation and questions 00:05:24.100 --> 00:05:35.100 from the board. Let's see. City staff will present the requested variance, staff's analysis 00:05:35.100 --> 00:05:45.100 of how it does or does not meet the criteria of approval and staff's recommendations. Next, 00:05:45.100 --> 00:05:49.100 applicant presentation and questions from the board. The applicant will present any 00:05:49.100 --> 00:05:53.100 evidence and arguments to support the requested variance. Consistent with the city council's 00:05:53.100 --> 00:05:59.100 rules and procedure, the board shall allow up to 10 minutes per speaker for presentation 00:05:59.100 --> 00:06:04.100 with a total of no more than 20 minutes for all speakers from this party. After the parties 00:06:04.100 --> 00:06:09.100 have finished their presentations, members of the public may speak on the item. Members 00:06:09.100 --> 00:06:14.100 of the public may provide comments with potential questions of speakers from the board. Consistent 00:06:14.100 --> 00:06:19.100 with the city council's rules and procedure and board will allow up to four minutes per 00:06:19.100 --> 00:06:24.100 speaker. But this may be limited by the board chair to three minutes if numerous speakers 00:06:24.100 --> 00:06:29.100 desire to comment on an item to give as many individuals as possible the ability to speak 00:06:29.100 --> 00:06:34.100 on the item. Finally, the board may ask any follow-up questions of staff or applicant 00:06:34.100 --> 00:06:40.100 that were raised by the public and not previously answered. The city staff and/or the applicant 00:06:40.100 --> 00:06:46.100 will answer any further questions of the board. At the conclusion of the evidence, I will 00:06:46.100 --> 00:06:52.100 close the public hearing. Upon conclusion of this testimony, evidence, any questions 00:06:52.100 --> 00:06:57.100 and answers, and arguments or summary statements, and when the chair has determined the board 00:06:57.100 --> 00:07:03.100 has adequate information to the site, the chair will then close the public hearing. 00:07:03.100 --> 00:07:14.100 The board will have an opportunity to deliberate and vote. Item number 3A is B25-0063. Hold 00:07:14.100 --> 00:07:19.100 a public hearing and consider approval of a variance from Chapter 33 signs and advertising 00:07:19.100 --> 00:07:27.100 devices of the Code of Ordinances, specifically Section 33.14.2B as it relates to the maximum 00:07:27.100 --> 00:07:34.100 effective area of a ground sign to allow for a sign with an effective area of approximately 00:07:34.100 --> 00:07:41.100 451 square feet for an existing fuel station and restaurant use. Located on approximately 00:07:41.100 --> 00:07:49.100 17.2 acre property on the southwest corner of the intersection of Arthurville Road and 00:07:49.100 --> 00:07:59.100 North IH35, B25-0063 loves travel stop sign media minds. The matter before the board is 00:07:59.100 --> 00:08:04.100 whether to grant a variance to the city's sign code regulations regarding the effective 00:08:04.100 --> 00:08:15.100 area of the sign. I now open the meeting. Will the city please make a presentation of 00:08:15.100 --> 00:08:19.100 the requested variance and analysis of criteria for approval? 00:08:19.100 --> 00:08:29.100 Thank you, Chair. This is the board, Mia Hines, Senior Planner, here to present the variance 00:08:29.100 --> 00:08:35.100 on tonight's agenda. So for a little background, the property is located at the southwest corner 00:08:35.100 --> 00:08:44.100 of Bartho and North IH35, just north of where 35W and 35 East merges. The site was developed 00:08:44.100 --> 00:08:51.100 in 2017. At that time, there was one ground sign along Bartho, one ground sign along IH35, 00:08:51.100 --> 00:08:59.100 and at that point, following the development of this property in 2022, the city or the 00:08:59.100 --> 00:09:07.100 city and tech stock came in to acquire additional right-of-way for the expansion of North IH35 00:09:07.100 --> 00:09:14.100 and the city also realigned Bartho road adjacent to the subject property. In addition to these 00:09:14.100 --> 00:09:20.100 new property lines and this right-of-way acquisition, there is a requirement of 20 foot wide utility 00:09:20.100 --> 00:09:26.100 easements along the street frontage of both Bartho road and North IH35. And so the proposed 00:09:26.100 --> 00:09:35.100 sign that the applicant now is currently requesting does not meet the sign code ordinances. So 00:09:35.100 --> 00:09:40.100 again, there were two signs on this property prior to the acquisition and the expansion 00:09:40.100 --> 00:09:46.100 of North IH35. Now there is only one because of some restrictions associated with easements 00:09:46.100 --> 00:09:53.100 following that acquisition. The variance being requested this evening is to consider approval 00:09:53.100 --> 00:09:57.100 of the variance request to increase the size of the existing ground sign that is there 00:09:57.100 --> 00:10:03.100 on the premises to no more than 451 square feet. That maximum effective area per the 00:10:03.100 --> 00:10:10.100 sign code is 250 square feet. Again, they are proposing a total sign area of about 451 00:10:10.100 --> 00:10:18.100 square feet. I did also add in a code requirement for the maximum monument sign effective area 00:10:18.100 --> 00:10:22.100 is that one of the signs that they had on the site that they could not replace because 00:10:22.100 --> 00:10:29.100 of easements and utilities. And so they are essentially seeking to allow for the effective 00:10:29.100 --> 00:10:34.100 area that would have been permitted on that sign that they can no longer install onto 00:10:34.100 --> 00:10:45.100 this additional sign. So with this request, there are four key points of criteria for 00:10:45.100 --> 00:10:49.100 approval for your consideration. Again, just to remind you, the applicant is proposing 00:10:49.100 --> 00:10:54.100 the sign be in compliance with all other requirements of Chapter 33 except for that effective area. 00:10:54.100 --> 00:10:59.100 So it's in the correct location. They do have the correct number of signs on the site, not 00:10:59.100 --> 00:11:03.100 asking for a variance there. It is just with regards to that effective sign area. The first 00:11:03.100 --> 00:11:08.100 criteria is that due to some unique condition or feature of the property, which is not generally 00:11:08.100 --> 00:11:12.100 common to other properties, literal compliance with the sign regulation would cause unnecessary 00:11:12.100 --> 00:11:17.100 hardship. In this case, what staff found is that the development of the property did occur 00:11:17.100 --> 00:11:21.100 before the additional acquisition of the right of way and the changing of those property 00:11:21.100 --> 00:11:27.100 lines and those easements that are on the site. The applicant also had to remove the 00:11:27.100 --> 00:11:32.100 second permitted ground sign that was closer to Barthold Road monument sign and was not 00:11:32.100 --> 00:11:37.100 able to replace it due to the existing improvements, the parking lot and some other things that 00:11:37.100 --> 00:11:41.100 were already on the site and the easement complex that came as a result of that right 00:11:41.100 --> 00:11:45.100 of way acquisition and expansion. Deliberal compliance would cause the property owner 00:11:45.100 --> 00:11:52.100 to miss out on what would otherwise be a permitted sign area for this property. And other 00:11:52.100 --> 00:11:59.100 properties in this area are developing following that right of way expansion. So this design, 00:11:59.100 --> 00:12:06.100 they would have to design their site in accordance with our sign code. For this property, the 00:12:06.100 --> 00:12:10.100 granting of the variance, one of the other criteria is that the granting of the variance 00:12:10.100 --> 00:12:15.100 will not violate the spirit or the intent of the ordinance. Again, the intent of Chapter 00:12:15.100 --> 00:12:20.100 33 is to balance the right of free speech and public interest and safety and aesthetics. 00:12:20.100 --> 00:12:25.100 This particular variance request would allow for the installation of a total maximum effective 00:12:25.100 --> 00:12:31.100 sign area that again would otherwise be permitted had that acquisition and easements not be 00:12:31.100 --> 00:12:38.100 there. The third criteria is that the condition or feature which creates the need for the 00:12:38.100 --> 00:12:42.100 variance did not result from the property owner's own acts. Again, the site was developed 00:12:42.100 --> 00:12:48.100 prior to the right of way acquisition. What I have here shown on the left is what the 00:12:48.100 --> 00:12:53.100 site was prior to that acquisition and sort of the reconfiguration of the site. As you 00:12:53.100 --> 00:12:58.100 can see, they have reoriented some parking spaces. The property lines have gotten closer 00:12:58.100 --> 00:13:04.100 to the canopy. They actually ended up installing a new fuel pump canopy in order to respect 00:13:04.100 --> 00:13:10.100 the distance requirements for those new property lines. So a large chunk of the property's 00:13:10.100 --> 00:13:17.100 frontage, of course, has been pushed back and where those signs can now go is significantly 00:13:17.100 --> 00:13:24.100 shorter as far as not being encumbered by the access ways and fire lines and things 00:13:24.100 --> 00:13:30.100 like that. And then finally, the last piece of consideration is that the board shall not 00:13:30.100 --> 00:13:35.100 grant a variance to any applicant solely for the purpose or personal convenience, financial 00:13:35.100 --> 00:13:39.100 hardship or other reasons unrelated to the property. Again, the purpose of this variance 00:13:39.100 --> 00:13:43.100 request or the intent behind this variance request is related to those improvements made 00:13:43.100 --> 00:13:48.100 to I-35 North along the property's frontage that are impacting the subject property's 00:13:48.100 --> 00:13:54.100 ability to place additional signs and have that maximum effective area within the subject 00:13:54.100 --> 00:14:02.100 property. With that, staff is recommending conditional approval of this request to install 00:14:02.100 --> 00:14:08.100 the ground sign with a maximum effective area of 451 square feet as the request does meet 00:14:08.100 --> 00:14:11.100 that criteria for approval that we just went through. That condition that staff would like 00:14:11.100 --> 00:14:16.100 to add on to this recommendation is that the site shall not be permitted to install or 00:14:16.100 --> 00:14:20.100 construct any additional ground signs that might otherwise be permitted by the code of 00:14:20.100 --> 00:14:24.100 ordinances. Again, the reason that they are requesting is because they have those existing 00:14:24.100 --> 00:14:30.100 encumbrances. Should easements change or should the property recline or whatever, what this 00:14:30.100 --> 00:14:35.100 would ensure is that although they have that additional sign effective area for this one 00:14:35.100 --> 00:14:41.100 sign, they couldn't then come and request another sign to ultimately have more than 00:14:41.100 --> 00:14:47.100 what would otherwise be permitted as far as a maximum effective area. So this is a summary 00:14:47.100 --> 00:14:52.100 of the actions. Again, the Board of Adjustments may approve the variance, approve with the 00:14:52.100 --> 00:14:59.100 condition, or deny the variance, and those are the criteria for your consideration as 00:14:59.100 --> 00:15:05.100 a reminder. So that pretty much concludes staff's presentation. At this time, I will 00:15:05.100 --> 00:15:09.100 happily answer any questions I believe if that is in order. 00:15:09.100 --> 00:15:13.100 Do any board members have questions for city staff? 00:15:13.100 --> 00:15:20.100 I have a question. So basically you're relieving what would be a hardship because they were 00:15:20.100 --> 00:15:26.100 normally entitled to two signs and due to traffic flow, if you have a larger sign, it 00:15:26.100 --> 00:15:32.100 would seem further away, so instead of having two more favorable locations for a sign, it's 00:15:32.100 --> 00:15:38.100 going to be one sign that's larger, but it's to offset a hardship that would have caused 00:15:38.100 --> 00:15:44.100 due to circumstances beyond love's control group, the corporation's control. 00:15:44.100 --> 00:15:48.100 Correct. And I think it's actually three signs that they would be permitted to have along 00:15:48.100 --> 00:15:54.100 I-35 or within the property. In this case, there are those easements that have come because 00:15:54.100 --> 00:15:59.100 of the realignment or the widening of the right of way and that additional acquisition, 00:15:59.100 --> 00:16:04.100 so it's pushed back the amount of space that they actually have to install those signs. 00:16:04.100 --> 00:16:09.100 Sir, you're allowing for a larger signage that can be seen further away so it doesn't 00:16:09.100 --> 00:16:14.100 negatively affect the business. Thank you, ma'am. 00:16:14.100 --> 00:16:23.100 I guess, so just in my mind, did they lose two signs or just one sign? 00:16:23.100 --> 00:16:30.100 They lost one. They lost one, but they're allowed three per the zoning code, and then, 00:16:30.100 --> 00:16:39.100 so this is just for, so like say they get this variance, they replat, and then something 00:16:39.100 --> 00:16:46.100 happens to that sign, would they still be under this variance or would they be back 00:16:46.100 --> 00:16:53.100 under the original code? Can that depart me for the week? Is that a question? Yes, you 00:16:53.100 --> 00:17:03.100 can. Replat with the new owner? Or like say, like say like something changes like with 00:17:03.100 --> 00:17:10.100 the easements and stuff, like I guess like... They wind again. Yeah. Yeah, something, like 00:17:10.100 --> 00:17:13.100 just something changes about the property. So the only thing that you're authorizing 00:17:13.100 --> 00:17:23.100 right now is an increase in size for this one sign. That's going to be kind of the 00:17:23.100 --> 00:17:29.100 law for this piece of property. As circumstances change and the applicant or the current owner 00:17:29.100 --> 00:17:36.100 wants to change the signage situation, they're going to either be in compliance with the 00:17:36.100 --> 00:17:46.100 sign code or they're going to come back for another variance. Okay. Are there any other 00:17:46.100 --> 00:17:56.100 questions for staff member Rimsky? Basically, what they're doing is combining signs. So 00:17:56.100 --> 00:18:02.100 when you put it all together, your square footage doesn't exceed what you're allowed 00:18:02.100 --> 00:18:08.100 to do with multiple signs. And the whole reason that they're doing this is they got caught, 00:18:08.100 --> 00:18:19.100 so to speak, with eminent domain. They had no choice. And by doing so, the state with 00:18:19.100 --> 00:18:31.100 text op and the city are infringing on their ability to have sufficient signage in order 00:18:31.100 --> 00:18:43.100 to be used and observed in order to draw their business. Yes, that does sound right. There 00:18:43.100 --> 00:18:49.100 are other potential ways that they would have... There are other ways that they could establish 00:18:49.100 --> 00:18:53.100 a sign. They would have to sort of tear up some concrete that was already in existence. 00:18:53.100 --> 00:18:59.100 So this variance would be the more feasible option for them to be allowed to do that. 00:18:59.100 --> 00:19:11.100 Well, it seems like it's a very feasible option that isn't going to impact anything around 00:19:11.100 --> 00:19:20.100 it negatively. And again, it's a result of eminent domain. So that's one of the rationales 00:19:20.100 --> 00:19:35.100 that, with your comment, that anyone who builds a property, develops it, now that that process 00:19:35.100 --> 00:19:46.100 of reorganizing the streets and realigning is going to have to be inside compliance or 00:19:46.100 --> 00:19:54.100 else whether or not there would be any type of feasibility for them to also come forward 00:19:54.100 --> 00:20:02.100 to have an adjustment. So, member Rimsky, I'm going to remind the group that we are 00:20:02.100 --> 00:20:07.100 in the questions for the applicant phase. Because this is a formal quasi-judicial process, 00:20:07.100 --> 00:20:13.100 I'm just going to keep us kind of rigidly on track. So we're doing questions for staff 00:20:13.100 --> 00:20:17.100 then we're going to hear from the applicant and then we're going to have questions for 00:20:17.100 --> 00:20:31.100 the applicant. Could we go back to that first map? Was there an apartment complex? Is that 00:20:31.100 --> 00:20:35.100 a hotel or an apartment complex? That is an apartment complex, a newer apartment complex 00:20:35.100 --> 00:20:47.100 that came forward following after the acquisition. And what direction will the sign be facing? 00:20:47.100 --> 00:20:54.100 It currently faces north and south, so you're viewing the faces as you're traveling along 00:20:54.100 --> 00:21:08.100 I-35. And I guess, will there be any difference in the lighting for the people on the north? 00:21:08.100 --> 00:21:17.100 I'm just asking, any difference in the lighting, like the light affecting them from the north? 00:21:17.100 --> 00:21:22.100 That is not a part of this variant, so they would have to adhere to all photometric requirements 00:21:22.100 --> 00:21:34.100 and lighting standards in our code. Are there any other questions for our city staff? Thank 00:21:34.100 --> 00:21:53.100 you for your presentation. Will the applicant please present any evidence or arguments to 00:21:53.100 --> 00:22:04.100 the applicant? Good evening everyone, I'm Chad Brunner, I'm the Senior Director of Real 00:22:04.100 --> 00:22:09.100 Estate at Love's Travel Stops. I'm actually pinch-hitting for somebody who was stuck on 00:22:09.100 --> 00:22:19.100 a cruise when they came here. So, this sign did a great job in kind of going through all 00:22:19.100 --> 00:22:23.100 of this and really, I'm not going to really present any real new information other than 00:22:23.100 --> 00:22:28.100 I just maybe just clarify a few things here as I kind of listened to the discussions. 00:22:28.100 --> 00:22:34.100 So, yes, essentially our old sign that we lost had the Pricer on it and everybody's 00:22:34.100 --> 00:22:37.100 been to our gas station, there's a Pricer, right? Everybody wants to know how much gas 00:22:37.100 --> 00:22:44.100 is. We don't have Pricer anymore. So, we're just trying to find a way to have a Pricer 00:22:44.100 --> 00:22:49.100 on the property so that vehicles traveling through here, you know, will be able to cut 00:22:49.100 --> 00:22:53.100 no gases, right? So, we have a competitor across the way, they have a big high rise 00:22:53.100 --> 00:22:58.100 with a Pricer, so, you know, not different from what's already in the neighborhood there. 00:22:58.100 --> 00:23:04.100 You know, it should be a great job of pointing out the hardships. I mean, you know, we started 00:23:04.100 --> 00:23:07.100 out with a, actually I'll go a little further back in time, we actually had a store close 00:23:07.100 --> 00:23:12.100 to here, remember, I believe further up north, TechStop took that store from us. So, we had 00:23:12.100 --> 00:23:18.100 to move here and they kept taking property from us here too. So, I don't know, I don't 00:23:18.100 --> 00:23:21.100 know if we're just unlucky or they just don't like Oklahoma companies or I don't know what 00:23:21.100 --> 00:23:26.100 the deal is, but. So, I mean, really it was, it wasn't a matter of losing that signage 00:23:26.100 --> 00:23:31.100 out of the hardship of the eminent domain and easements and right of ways and all those 00:23:31.100 --> 00:23:37.100 types of things that were taken. The one thing that I want to kind of put out there and I 00:23:37.100 --> 00:23:44.100 think you guys talked around it is, you know, we are allowed three signs. So, and believe 00:23:44.100 --> 00:23:47.100 it or not, we don't like a ton of signs out there, just like you guys don't, we don't 00:23:47.100 --> 00:23:53.100 like the clutter. So, we are, it's Mr. Rimsky's point, we are trying to combine efforts here. 00:23:53.100 --> 00:23:59.100 Now, we can put up another sign that just has a Pricer on it, by right, we can just 00:23:59.100 --> 00:24:04.100 do that. But we don't want to do that because then we're like, here's an existing sign, 00:24:04.100 --> 00:24:08.100 then we're adding another sign and then you're, you know, again, you get this line, sign 00:24:08.100 --> 00:24:13.100 card that nobody wants. So, really what we are trying to do is just combine those efforts 00:24:13.100 --> 00:24:19.100 into one sign as opposed to having multiple signs up there. So, again, I think most of 00:24:19.100 --> 00:24:25.100 the arguments were kind of hit there. So, if you have any questions, I'm free to answer 00:24:25.100 --> 00:24:32.100 those. So, do any board members have questions for the applicant? I do have, where the yellow 00:24:32.100 --> 00:24:37.100 dot is, that's where the intention of the sign is going to go in. So, it's basically 00:24:37.100 --> 00:24:44.100 in the middle of the property for the Pricer and. Yeah, so this is the existing sign. I 00:24:44.100 --> 00:24:53.100 think there was a, am I able to go back and forth on that? So, this sign exists. Right. 00:24:53.100 --> 00:24:59.100 So, yeah, we're just adding this to this sign. So, I think that goes back to your point about 00:24:59.100 --> 00:25:06.100 our neighbors, right? So, yeah, it's an existing sign here. One of the things we talked about 00:25:06.100 --> 00:25:11.100 was, I believe if we're 83 feet away from this sign, we can put another sign up. So, 00:25:11.100 --> 00:25:16.100 we looked at possibly doing something back here, but again, going back to, you know, 00:25:16.100 --> 00:25:21.100 that goes closer to these guys, that's not good, right? So, we thought we'll just, if 00:25:21.100 --> 00:25:26.100 we can make this happen, then that meets the intent that everybody's looking for here. 00:25:26.100 --> 00:25:37.100 That was my only question. I'm just wondering. Member Rich, can you point out where the original 00:25:37.100 --> 00:25:43.100 sign was before the acquisition? Yeah, we had a sign out here on the corner. We called 00:25:43.100 --> 00:25:47.100 it our street sign. So, our street sign would have the Pricer and all that stuff on it, 00:25:47.100 --> 00:25:51.100 but it was right here in this corner. So, was that Pricer only visible, well, was it 00:25:51.100 --> 00:25:57.100 visible from the highway? I'm trying to remember. I believe it was one of the signs where we 00:25:57.100 --> 00:26:03.100 have a, it's a 25-foot kind of goalpost-type sign. Yeah, and I think I remember being able 00:26:03.100 --> 00:26:14.100 to see it driving from the south before it got removed. Yeah. Are there any other questions 00:26:14.100 --> 00:26:25.100 for our applicant? Thank you for presenting. Now that the applicant and the city have presented 00:26:25.100 --> 00:26:30.100 their testimony, evidence and arguments, is there anyone who wishes to speak regarding 00:26:30.100 --> 00:26:35.100 this variance? If so, please come forward and state your name and mailing address. You 00:26:35.100 --> 00:26:46.100 have four minutes to address the board. After hearing all the testimony, evidence and arguments 00:26:46.100 --> 00:26:51.100 and questions and answers, as well as hearing from all those desiring to speak in support 00:26:51.100 --> 00:26:56.100 and in opposition to the variance, I will entertain further questions from the board 00:26:56.100 --> 00:27:05.100 for any of the parties or the speakers. Okay, I just want to note that this ends the testimony 00:27:05.100 --> 00:27:18.100 part of the meeting, so questions are over. Okay. Okay. Hearing none, I now close the public 00:27:18.100 --> 00:27:24.100 hearing. The board will now deliberate and decide on the variance request. Upon the completion 00:27:24.100 --> 00:27:29.100 of the board's deliberation, the board shall render an unbiased decision based on the record 00:27:29.100 --> 00:27:35.100 and supported by reasons and findings of fact. In considering the variance, this board shall 00:27:35.100 --> 00:27:40.100 consider the facts and information in the agenda backup, including staff's written analysis 00:27:40.100 --> 00:27:46.100 of the variance, the applicant's narrative and testimony presented in the public hearing, 00:27:46.100 --> 00:27:50.100 and the board's consideration and evaluation of the requirements of the applicable standards 00:27:50.100 --> 00:27:59.100 from the Denton Development Code and Denton Sign Code. The board may grant the variance 00:27:59.100 --> 00:28:05.100 as presented or with conditions. The board shall not grant a variance to any applicant 00:28:05.100 --> 00:28:11.100 solely for personal convenience, financial hardship, or other reasons unrelated to the 00:28:11.100 --> 00:28:17.100 property. If the board grants a variance, the variance shall be granted only to the 00:28:17.100 --> 00:28:24.100 extent that is reasonably necessary to remedy the hardship. The board may impose conditions 00:28:24.100 --> 00:28:29.100 relating to the request of variance. If the board grants a variance, the decision shall 00:28:29.100 --> 00:28:35.100 state that all conditions for a variance were met, specify the degree to which the regulations 00:28:35.100 --> 00:28:44.100 are being varied, and be signed by chairperson. The other option is to deny the variance. 00:28:44.100 --> 00:28:49.100 If a variance is denied, the decision shall state the conditions for the variance which 00:28:49.100 --> 00:28:55.100 were not met. All decisions of the board granting or refusing a variance shall be reduced 00:28:55.100 --> 00:29:01.100 to writing and signed by the chairperson. 00:29:01.100 --> 00:29:16.100 I was just going to motion to accept the variance as presented. I do. I do have fancy verbiage 00:29:16.100 --> 00:29:25.100 requests. That's what we were getting at. Because there was condition. Also true. May 00:29:25.100 --> 00:29:42.100 we see the slide with the-- That's right. That's actually a great motion test. I did 00:29:42.100 --> 00:29:50.100 say as presented. When it says as presented, it includes that condition, right? Or not 00:29:50.100 --> 00:29:57.100 necessarily enough. If you can throw me another motion, I'd be much obliged. I would like 00:29:57.100 --> 00:30:07.100 to-- I misunderstood. I guess point of order question. Since I have made the motion, do 00:30:07.100 --> 00:30:13.100 we need to go through the-- It wasn't seconded. I would say before we go to motioning, we 00:30:13.100 --> 00:30:18.100 should probably at least have a little bit of deliberation discussion before we do. Do 00:30:18.100 --> 00:30:23.100 we need the motion before we can have the discussion? Roberts allows us to do either 00:30:23.100 --> 00:30:30.100 way. We can discuss. If there's a vibe that we want to recommend approval, we can propose 00:30:30.100 --> 00:30:39.100 that and discuss any reservations or suggestions or what have you about the proposal. Did you 00:30:39.100 --> 00:30:47.100 want to-- I have a question as to why the staff's recommendation is putting a condition 00:30:47.100 --> 00:30:55.100 that they would not be permitted to install or construct any additional ground sites that 00:30:55.100 --> 00:31:04.100 might otherwise be permitted. Because if they originally had three signs or they're allowed 00:31:04.100 --> 00:31:13.100 three signs, they're working at combining two of them. And yes, that process does give 00:31:13.100 --> 00:31:24.100 them greater size than it was approved for the one. But you still have a third. And looking 00:31:24.100 --> 00:31:34.100 back at that property, there may be some point in time, and I'm not sure what specific restrictions 00:31:34.100 --> 00:31:43.100 on signage. But if they are having to put in some signs that direct traffic for parking 00:31:43.100 --> 00:31:51.100 or what is there, there is presently a Wendy's there. I'm not sure whether or not they have 00:31:51.100 --> 00:32:01.100 any thoughts to expand anything else on the property. To put in, in addition to a Wendy's, 00:32:01.100 --> 00:32:10.100 I'm just going to throw out a pizza place or something. That would necessitate and require 00:32:10.100 --> 00:32:18.100 a signage. And here, you're constricting them from having that potential. Granted, in order 00:32:18.100 --> 00:32:23.100 to put in a pizza place, they'd have to go through the zoning request and everything 00:32:23.100 --> 00:32:32.100 else on that. But you'd still want the feasibility of them having a sign. Sure, Member Remske. 00:32:32.100 --> 00:32:39.100 So in that instance, something that the board can consider is whether or not to accept staff's 00:32:39.100 --> 00:32:47.100 recommended condition. So you have a couple of options. You can motion to approve with 00:32:47.100 --> 00:32:52.100 the listed condition. You can motion to approve without conditions. You can, of course, motion 00:32:52.100 --> 00:33:00.100 to deny. Okay, so we can pull out, as part of our condition, being that that condition 00:33:00.100 --> 00:33:04.100 is removed. Well, I'd recommend phrasing it differently, but yes, we'd get there, we'd 00:33:04.100 --> 00:33:10.100 get to the same place. Yeah. My phraseology may not, but it's okay. I'm picking up what 00:33:10.100 --> 00:33:18.100 you're putting down, yes ma'am. I see, Member Winkle, I see my fellow board members point 00:33:18.100 --> 00:33:26.100 because there may be a point where they want or need to put a sign on their north road, 00:33:26.100 --> 00:33:33.100 like east, west road. Yeah, I don't want to do your job here, but I do want to note that 00:33:33.100 --> 00:33:39.100 there's a gross effective area of all of the signs that would be allowed. So there's kind 00:33:39.100 --> 00:33:44.100 of two issues. There's the count of signs and then there's the signs of the signs. What 00:33:44.100 --> 00:33:50.100 we're doing here is basically combining two signs into one, and I don't know that we have 00:33:50.100 --> 00:34:04.100 the numbers for what that third sign would be. So what do you have? Yeah, probably. For 00:34:04.100 --> 00:34:14.100 recording purposes, because it's been picking up on the podium, it is probably easier on 00:34:14.100 --> 00:34:19.100 the side. Yeah, so we do have that requirement that Henry was mentioning as far as the gross 00:34:19.100 --> 00:34:24.100 effective sign area. I did want to make one point of clarification on the like way finding 00:34:24.100 --> 00:34:28.100 and directional signs, the smaller signs that are on the property. Those are counted as 00:34:28.100 --> 00:34:34.100 different types of signs, so they would not be in the ground, covered in the ground sign 00:34:34.100 --> 00:34:39.100 description. So if there was an additional drive through a business or in that event, 00:34:39.100 --> 00:34:45.100 they would be able to install those additional minor signs. And I think the purpose behind 00:34:45.100 --> 00:34:49.100 staff's condition to this recommendation was the applicant stated that part of their purpose 00:34:49.100 --> 00:34:54.100 for requesting this variance is to, like he said, decrease the clutter on the property 00:34:54.100 --> 00:35:01.100 as far as sign space goes and having multiple monument signs. This condition would ensure 00:35:01.100 --> 00:35:09.100 that that clutter or that the number of signs does not increase, ground signs does not increase. 00:35:09.100 --> 00:35:20.100 But again, like Henry said, you can choose to accept or not accept that condition. My 00:35:20.100 --> 00:35:28.100 only thing was 451 square feet came out of one of your other slides where you had showed 00:35:28.100 --> 00:35:35.100 one up on the 250 feet and 300 square feet, or there was something, those conditions. 00:35:35.100 --> 00:35:42.100 Is that one of your slides? Do you mind going backwards? No, that's fine. That one here? 00:35:42.100 --> 00:35:47.100 Yeah. Yes, so the green, the area highlighted in green here is the existing sign square 00:35:47.100 --> 00:35:54.100 footage. That's about just under 250 square feet. The proposed addition is another about 00:35:54.100 --> 00:36:01.100 203 square feet. So total they would be just under 450 square feet or 51 square feet. The 00:36:01.100 --> 00:36:08.100 reason that we took it to 451 is because that would be the max. So they would have to stay 00:36:08.100 --> 00:36:20.100 under that. I think it's like 450.44. I'd like to know, why did you, what was the logic 00:36:20.100 --> 00:36:27.100 in, I can understand combining two signs into one sign, but why did you all of a sudden, 00:36:27.100 --> 00:36:32.100 or why did you come up with, oh, but we're not going to let you use the third sign that 00:36:32.100 --> 00:36:37.100 you were allowed to use unless you come back to the board. What is the purpose of that? 00:36:37.100 --> 00:36:42.100 And just the larger sign, part of the, the applicant's stated purpose was decreasing 00:36:42.100 --> 00:36:48.100 cuttering, cluttering. That condition would just decrease the clutter. If the board so 00:36:48.100 --> 00:36:54.100 choose to amend that condition, I believe that is within your willpower as well. 00:36:54.100 --> 00:37:02.100 Okay. This, may I direct a question to the petitioner? We're actually really on the 00:37:02.100 --> 00:37:09.100 bubble. We're kind of accepting more testimony from the applicant and it's sort of getting 00:37:09.100 --> 00:37:17.100 a little off. It's, we're getting a little bicep. So I'd like us to circle back to just 00:37:17.100 --> 00:37:28.100 asking questions about maybe procedure or legality. I guess I'm confused in regarding 00:37:28.100 --> 00:37:37.100 that because if I'm going to be making a decision and I'm looking at, you know, I understand 00:37:37.100 --> 00:37:44.100 procedure. I understand Robert's rules, but one of the questions that I have, and that 00:37:44.100 --> 00:37:56.100 was, whereas looking, you know, specifically because of that codicil that says they could 00:37:56.100 --> 00:38:07.100 not put up another sign. What I'm curious about that is who owns the entire property? 00:38:07.100 --> 00:38:23.100 Does Wendy's rent from the loves corporation? And if Wendy's is renting from the corporation, 00:38:23.100 --> 00:38:32.100 then to put a restriction on an additional sign to the corporation because then basically 00:38:32.100 --> 00:38:43.100 what you have is the corporation and you have Wendy's. So they're not, you know, the 00:38:43.100 --> 00:38:51.100 corporation is being kind and considerate in making one big sign. They're looking at 00:38:51.100 --> 00:39:00.100 it aesthetically. They're looking at it business-wise and, you know, being noticed 00:39:00.100 --> 00:39:11.100 for both entities. So was any of that taken into consideration? Because then, you know, 00:39:11.100 --> 00:39:19.100 as I say, the codicil that says they can't put another sign up kind of puts an extra 00:39:19.100 --> 00:39:29.100 restriction in my estimation to the blamed owner. Okay. So I'm going to answer the legal 00:39:29.100 --> 00:39:36.100 question and then I'm going to make a procedural recommendation to the chair. This is a quasi-judicial 00:39:36.100 --> 00:39:42.100 matter, which means that we have to follow a very specific procedure in the interest 00:39:42.100 --> 00:39:50.100 of procedural due process. We had a point in the process where chair asked for questions 00:39:50.100 --> 00:40:02.100 and that process was finished. And so that's where we are. Chair, I have a recommendation 00:40:02.100 --> 00:40:09.100 for two different ways that you can perceive. The first is to take a motion whether to reopen 00:40:09.100 --> 00:40:19.100 the public hearing and complete further discussion. The second is to ask for a motion on the 00:40:19.100 --> 00:40:27.100 variance, whether to approve it with staff's recommended condition, whether to approve 00:40:27.100 --> 00:40:39.100 it without condition, or whether to deny it. Do we have more questions perhaps for the 00:40:39.100 --> 00:40:51.100 applicant or for our city staff? All right. In that case, we should either -- remember 00:40:51.100 --> 00:41:04.100 where it feels at. It is -- I definitely see Board Member Rimsky's point of -- I don't 00:41:04.100 --> 00:41:12.100 see the point of keeping -- putting the restriction in because they're already doing that voluntarily 00:41:12.100 --> 00:41:19.100 and I'm guessing if these two signs are combined, even if they add the third, they would still 00:41:19.100 --> 00:41:25.100 have to follow the amount of signage in the -- because this is the only variance being 00:41:25.100 --> 00:41:30.100 allowed and as stated, this is the only variance being allowed. So they still have to follow 00:41:30.100 --> 00:41:43.100 the code for everything else. So I feel like people are saying like if they want a third 00:41:43.100 --> 00:41:49.100 sign, but we're not -- these aren't two different signs. This is one single sign, so they would 00:41:49.100 --> 00:41:56.100 still be allowed two additional signs. Not if we accepted the -- the condition, of course. 00:41:56.100 --> 00:42:05.100 Right. But if we approve the variance as presented -- Okay. I would offer more -- Guys, I'm going 00:42:05.100 --> 00:42:13.100 to have to sorry ocean of some kind. Okay. I'm going to make a motion to -- do I need 00:42:13.100 --> 00:42:21.100 the full wording? Yes. Otherwise, you'll do what I did. Yes. Approval of the variance. 00:42:21.100 --> 00:42:27.100 So if you want to just approve it without condition, I would just say staff recommends 00:42:27.100 --> 00:42:38.100 conditional approval and then skip this sentence. Yes. Okay. Okay. So my motion is to approve 00:42:38.100 --> 00:42:46.100 the variance, staff recommends with conditional approval, is that correct, of the request 00:42:46.100 --> 00:42:52.100 to install a ground sign with maximum effective area of 451 square feet as the request meets 00:42:52.100 --> 00:43:02.100 the criteria for approval in section 33.63 of the code of ordinances. So member Lennett. 00:43:02.100 --> 00:43:08.100 Actually, I should not have said conditional, just -- So your intent is to motion for unconditional 00:43:08.100 --> 00:43:14.100 approval? Unconditional. Per the -- Per the -- The fact-finding of the -- The fact-finding 00:43:14.100 --> 00:43:26.100 of the -- Okay. Yes. That's my motion. Thank you. Second. Having received a motion and a 00:43:26.100 --> 00:43:34.100 second, is there further discussion on this variance? Okay. The board may ask clarifying 00:43:34.100 --> 00:43:40.100 questions of the staff liaison and city attorney's office liaison. Prior to calling for a vote, 00:43:40.100 --> 00:43:46.100 the board chair must state the grounds in support of or in opposition to its finding 00:43:46.100 --> 00:43:55.100 and determination. So we've kind of already done that in that we've had a motion and a 00:43:55.100 --> 00:44:03.100 second to adopt staff's findings and analysis that the request meets the criteria for approval. 00:44:03.100 --> 00:44:08.100 All right. There being no further discussion on this variance, please vote on the motion 00:44:08.100 --> 00:44:17.100 by show of hands. All in favor of produce -- of approving of the variance unconditionally? 00:44:17.100 --> 00:44:24.100 That's the director. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Okay. The ayes have it. 00:44:24.100 --> 00:44:29.100 Just for minute-keeping purposes, that was everybody, right? Okay. All right. The results 00:44:29.100 --> 00:44:35.100 of the vote are six in favor of the ordinance of the variance and zero against. So the motion 00:44:35.100 --> 00:44:47.100 passes. The request variance is approved? Yes. Okay. Next item on the agenda is concluding 00:44:47.100 --> 00:45:01.100 items. Are there any concluding items? Yes. I have just an FYI interesting thing. This 00:45:01.100 --> 00:45:10.100 whole site requirement and going through the process is a result of eminent domain in that. 00:45:10.100 --> 00:45:20.100 How much staff time is involved with researching all of this? I'm just looking at city budget 00:45:20.100 --> 00:45:32.100 staff usage. Whether or not there would be any other way without having to spend how 00:45:32.100 --> 00:45:41.100 many hours doing the research on it, putting together a PowerPoint presentation, et cetera. 00:45:41.100 --> 00:45:47.100 Because I know you have to -- you know, you turn your staff hours in as fillable hours. 00:45:47.100 --> 00:45:52.100 And so if you're working on this project and it took you five hours, you work on something 00:45:52.100 --> 00:46:00.100 else and it takes you two. I'm just curious as to how much some of this takes. I believe 00:46:00.100 --> 00:46:08.100 it's question time for staff. So we're off of whether to grant the variance or not. This 00:46:08.100 --> 00:46:14.100 board doesn't actually have a matrix for bringing future discussions back. So that's why you 00:46:14.100 --> 00:46:19.100 see staff kind of going, hmm, where now do we address this? But it's a fine question 00:46:19.100 --> 00:46:29.100 to ask. Well, member Remsky, the very short answer is that the not insignificant staff 00:46:29.100 --> 00:46:37.100 time to bring you a ZBA case or a sign variance is far less expensive than the outside council 00:46:37.100 --> 00:46:42.100 fees that we would need to incur to rewrite the sign code. 00:46:42.100 --> 00:46:50.100 Well, I was just, you know, curious or even if you say the sourcing it out to somebody 00:46:50.100 --> 00:46:56.100 else, I was just thinking that for something -- to me, this one just seemed a little bit 00:46:56.100 --> 00:47:02.100 more cut and dry and if there was some way to facilitate it going through. 00:47:02.100 --> 00:47:09.100 But that's kind of the point of the ZBA is that when it's not a cut and dry, the ZBA 00:47:09.100 --> 00:47:12.100 is that final. 00:47:12.100 --> 00:47:13.100 Oh, I appreciate that. 00:47:13.100 --> 00:47:19.100 So I think that when it does -- when it is more cut and dry and there doesn't need to 00:47:19.100 --> 00:47:28.100 be a request in that way, I understand where you're coming from and I totally -- I appreciate 00:47:28.100 --> 00:47:36.100 that considering cost is very important in the number of hours. I just wonder if it's 00:47:36.100 --> 00:47:43.100 worth it. I think that the fact that we do need to have that final community group, I 00:47:43.100 --> 00:47:46.100 think that's helpful. 00:47:46.100 --> 00:47:54.100 And we actually made a change. Staff recommended a condition and we as a board said we recommend 00:47:54.100 --> 00:48:02.100 no condition. So in that way, having the staff having done the research for a condition helped 00:48:02.100 --> 00:48:08.100 us make a decision. I guess that's the way I think of it. 00:48:08.100 --> 00:48:14.100 It's a good check to have on like so that the city doesn't act unilaterally without -- 00:48:14.100 --> 00:48:19.100 But I do agree, too, that we need to think about costs. 00:48:19.100 --> 00:48:20.100 Right. 00:48:20.100 --> 00:48:25.100 Absolutely. And from a logistical standpoint, if we were bringing you monthly signed code 00:48:25.100 --> 00:48:32.100 variances that were functionally the same, absolutely would be a signal of like, hey, 00:48:32.100 --> 00:48:37.100 maybe there's something here that doesn't need to come to y'all because there really 00:48:37.100 --> 00:48:41.100 isn't, you know, something that is not really -- 00:48:41.100 --> 00:48:46.100 I mean, this is my first sign and I've been here a year. 00:48:46.100 --> 00:48:56.100 Yeah, they don't come all that frequently. Chair, I just want to note that everyone needs 00:48:56.100 --> 00:49:00.100 to sign this letter tonight before they leave. That's my concluding item. But if there are 00:49:00.100 --> 00:49:02.100 others, that's completely cool. 00:49:02.100 --> 00:49:08.100 Okay. Besides signing this letter here, are there any other additional concluding items? 00:49:08.100 --> 00:49:16.100 I will go ahead and ask. And this is just if we end up having a January ZBA meeting because 00:49:16.100 --> 00:49:20.100 you know how it goes, being in the first ZBA, we're never 100% sure unless there's a base. 00:49:20.100 --> 00:49:24.100 However, there is currently one on the calendar. Let me double check the dates. We just approved 00:49:24.100 --> 00:49:29.100 y'all's calendar in January. I believe it is the -- 00:49:29.100 --> 00:49:35.100 So if you could let me know your availability for January 26th, right now, that would be 00:49:35.100 --> 00:49:36.100 great. 00:49:36.100 --> 00:49:38.100 As far as I know, I'm good. 00:49:38.100 --> 00:49:44.100 Okay. Any conflicts for that? 00:49:44.100 --> 00:49:47.100 Perfect. If things change, obviously you all have my contact information. I just thought 00:49:47.100 --> 00:49:53.100 I would get a general idea for you. Thank you all. 00:49:53.100 --> 00:50:02.100 Okay. Any additional concluding items? 00:50:02.100 --> 00:50:06.100 Merry Christmas. 00:50:06.100 --> 00:50:08.100 Merry Christmas. 00:50:08.100 --> 00:50:11.100 Happy holidays to all. 00:50:11.100 --> 00:50:21.100 Happy New Year. May the worst day that you have in 2026 be a far better day than the 00:50:21.100 --> 00:50:26.100 best day you have in 2025. 00:50:26.100 --> 00:50:28.100 I don't think there can be a better day. 00:50:28.100 --> 00:50:36.100 So with the hearing no other items, and lovely speech by the way, I adjourn this meeting 00:50:36.100 --> 00:50:38.100 at 6.36. 00:50:38.100 --> 00:50:39.100 Okay.