[00:00:07]
OKAY, SO WE'RE READY TO BEGIN.
[Call to Order]
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.MY NAME IS ROGER MARTINEZ AND I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
I HEREBY CALL THIS REGULAR NOTICE MEETING OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND CONCESSION, AND WE PLEASE HAVE OUR INTERPRETERS READ THE INTERPRETATION SERVICES AVAILABLE FOR THIS MEETING.
MR. ORIAN PRESENT AND CHAIR MARTINEZ.
NOW I'M, I'M GETTING, UH, PLENTY OF FEEDBACK WHEN I'M GETTING, WHEN I'M MUTED.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT'S COMING FROM.
WELL, BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS FOR EXPLANATION.
THE BOARD IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW.
WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELEASE SOUGHT.
I DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN FUTURE LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES.
PACIFIC POWER HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL.
THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL.
WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEAL FROM DECISIONS OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATOR OFFICIAL AND ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 35.
THE HERE AND DECIDES SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOW THEM TO CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED TO CHAPTER 35.
WE ARE ALSO SERVED WITH ADVISORY AND REPELLENT CAPACITY TO DIRECTOR OF DEVELOP SERVICES REGARDING REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28.
EVERY DECISION, A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDING A FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDS.
EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY REQUIRED ATTORNEY VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NOT VOTES, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN GRANTING THE RELIEF SAW REST WITH THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE REQUEST RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORT APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BOARD REGARDING THE APPEALS FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT OF LAW BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDS.
APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S DECISION REGARDING CHAPTER 2128 ARE MADE DIRECTLY THE CITY COUNCIL.
PRIOR TO STARTING WITH OUR ITEMS, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER STAFF TO REVIEW OUR MEETING FORMAT AND STAFF.
PLEASE, UH, PROCEED TO PREDICT THE HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC AND LIMIT THE POTENTIAL SPREAD OF COVID 19.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS HOLDING MEETINGS VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE.
THESE MEETING STANDARDS ARE BASED UPON THE VARIOUS SUSPENDED PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT ISSUED BY THE TEXAS GOVERNOR IN RESPONSE TO COVID 19 CRISIS AND ARE IN PLACE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN WATCH AND LISTEN TO THIS MEETING BY VISITING SAN ANTONIO.GOV DASH DSD OR BY CALLING IN FOR AUDIO ONLY AT 2 0 6 5 4 8 3 TO INCORPORATE PUBLIC COMMENT.
PLEASE INCLUDE EMAIL OR MAIL OF COMMENT, DROPPING OFF COMMENTS, LEAVING VOICEMAIL OR ASKING RECALL DURING THE MEETING.
STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT'S STAFF WILL READ INTO THE RECORD ANY EMAILS OR LETTERS RECEIVED.
STAFF WILL ALSO PLAY ANY MESSAGES RECEIVED BY VOICEMAIL.
LASTLY, FOR THOSE THAT SIGNED UP TO RECEIVE A CALLBACK,
[00:05:01]
WE'LL CALL THEM BACK, UH, TO STATE THEIR TWO MINUTE COMMENTS.SPANISH INTERPRETERS ARE ON STANDBY AS NEEDED.
THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL WITH A TWO MINUTE, UH, TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS COMMISSIONING QUESTIONS.
OH, CHAIR, YOU'RE STILL MUTED.
IS THAT ALL THE INFORMATION WE NEED TO PRESENT AT THIS TIME? YES, SIR.
WE'RE READY TO PRESENT THE FIRST CASE.
[2. 20-7122 A request by GFR Development Services, LLC, Michael Knoespel for an appeal of the Historic Preservation Officer’s denial of the demolition of the historic landmark at 4007 S Flores Street and the conceptual approval of a new car wash. Staff recommends Denial.]
GO AHEAD AND BEGIN WITH THE FIRST CASE AGENDA.ITEM NUMBER TWO IS CASE BO O A 21 0 3 0 0 1 0 9.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 4,007 SOUTH DAKOTA STREET.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER THREE.
THE APPLICANT IS G F R DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, L L C.
THE REQUEST IS FOR AN APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DECISION TO ISSUE A DEMOLITION DEMOLITION PERMIT.
THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL NON-ALCOHOLIC SALES, HISTORIC INDIVIDUAL LANDMARKS, UH, WITH OVERLAY.
HERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION TO FOR THEIR PRESENTATION.
THIS IS COREY EDWARDS, DEPUTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER WITH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
UM, I'M ON STAFF AS WELL AS OUR DIRECTOR, SHANNON MILLER.
UM, STEPHANIE PHILLIPS, SENIOR PRESERVATION, UM, SPECIALISTS ARE ALSO ON THE CALL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS CASE.
UM, I FOR, FOR B O A STAFF, DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE AS WELL? YES, WE DO.
UM, SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND START THE PRESENTATION FOR THIS ITEM.
UM, IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
UM, SO AS NOTED IN THE OVERVIEW, THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DENIAL OF THE DEMOLITION OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK AT 40 0 7 SOUTH FLORES STREET, UM, AND CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF A NEW CAR WASH.
UM, HERE'S A FEW SIGNS JUST FOR OVERVIEW.
UM, THIS IS THE SATELLITE IMAGE.
UM, THIS PROPERTY IS SITUATED AT THE CORNER OF, UH, SOUTH FLORES AND SOUTH PLEASANTON.
UM, PHOTOS IF EXTERIOR ON ALL FOUR SIGNS IN THE NEXT SLIDE.
THESE ARE SOME INTERIOR SHOTS.
UM, YOU CAN SEE, UM, THE INTERIOR, EVEN THOUGH IT'S BOARDED UP FROM THE OUTSIDE, IS RELATIVELY INTACT.
UM, THE FIRST FLOOR WAS ADAPTED FOR USE AS A FURNITURE SALES ROOM.
UM, THE UP FLOOR, THE UPSTAIRS, UH, WAS HISTORICALLY USED AS A WALL ROOM, UM, AND STILL APPEARS TO BE INTACT.
UM, HAS A PRESS 10 CEILING, AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, WOOD FLOORS AND AN OPEN PLAN.
UM, THIS IS JUST A TIMELINE OF EVENTS RELATED TO THIS APPEAL.
UM, I DO WANT TO NOTE AT, UH, IN THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT HAS CITED TWO ISSUES.
UM, THE FIRST BEING THAT HE BELIEVES THE DESIGNATION PROCESS WAS NOT CORRECTLY FOLLOWED.
UM, THAT ISSUE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR APPEAL TODAY, AND YOU'RE ONLY BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE TIMELINE, THE DESIGNATION OF THIS PROPERTY OCCURRED IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, UM, FOLLOWING A MONTHS LONG, UH, DESIGNATION PROCESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH U D C AND STATE LAW.
UM, SO FOR BACKGROUND, UM, THE NEXT FEW SLIDES INCLUDE LANGUAGE FROM THE U D C, UM, REGARDING THE DEMOLITION OF THE LANDMARK REVIEW PROCESS.
UM, FOR PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED HISTORIC LANDMARKS, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IS REQUIRED FOR ANY DEMOLITION WORK, UM, TO FULLY DEMOLISH A PROPERTY AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.
U D C GIVES US A VERY THOROUGH REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO GO GO THROUGH NOW.
UM, ONCE AN APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED, UM, AND THE COMPLETENESS REVIEW, UM, IS DONE BY STAFF, WE HOLD IT FOR 60 DAYS WHILE THE APPLICANT WORKS WITH BOTH THE CITY STAFF AND THE H C R C SUBCOMMITTEE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AS NECESSARY.
UM, DUTIES C REQUIRES THAT APPLICANTS DEMONSTRATE AN UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP AND RETAINING OR REUSING THE PROPERTY.
UM, IN ORDER TO PROVE THIS, THE U D C HAS BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIREMENTS, WHICH MUST BE MET IN ORDER FOR THE H T R C TO GRANT APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH.
UM, THE U D C ALSO REQUIRES ALL DEMOLITION REQUESTS TO BE REVIEWED ALONGSIDE REPLACEMENT PLANS FOR THE PROPERTY.
AND SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW FOR A CAR WASH REPLACEMENT, UM, IN THE PACKAGE.
UM, THE CODE IS VERY CLEAR THAT A DEMOLITION CANNOT RESULT IN A VACANT LOT, UH, ACTUALLY SAYS THAT A DEMOLITION PERMIT MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL NEW CONSTRUCTION IS READY TO BEGIN.
UM, SO IN ORDER TO, UM, FOR THE H T R C TO FIND ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, THE U D C REQUIRES THAT THE APPLICANT PROVE THREE THINGS.
UM, YOU CAN SEE THEM HERE, IT'S A, THAT THE OWNER CANNOT MAKE REASONABLE, BENEFICIAL USE OF OR REALIZE A REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN.
[00:10:01]
UM, LOST MY SPOT THERE.UM, THAT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THAT RETURN REPRESENTS THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN POSSIBLE, UM, UNLESS THE HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT, UH, LANDMARK IS DEMOLISHED OR REMOVED, UM, B, THE STRUCTURE AND PROPERTY CANNOT BE REASONABLY ADAPTED FOR ANY OTHER FEASIBLE USE, WHETHER BY THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER OR BY A PURCHASER, UM, AND RESULT IN REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN.
AND C UM, THAT THE OWNER HAS FAILED TO FIND A PURCHASER OR A TENANT FOR THE PROPERTY, SOMEBODY ELSE THAT IS ABLE TO, UH, MAKE REASONABLE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS.
UM, THE U D C ALSO LISTS 14 TYPES OF DOCUMENTATION THAT COULD BE SUBMITTED POSSIBLY FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER THE BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORIZES THE H C R C, UM, OR CITY STAFF TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DURING THE 60 DAY REVIEW PERIOD THAT MIGHT BE SPECIFIC TO THE PROPERTY.
IN INSTANCES WHERE AN ECONOMIC HARDSHIP CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED, THE H C R C CAN THEN CONSIDER, UM, WHETHER A LOSS OF SIGNIFICANCE HAS OCCURRED, WHICH WOULD WARRANT THE PROPOSED DEMOLITION.
THIS WOULD USUALLY BE THE CASE WHEN THERE'S BEEN, UH, IRREVERSIBLE ALTERATIONS OR THE LOSS OF, OR DESTRUCTION OF ORIGINAL MATERIALS OR BUILDING COMPONENTS PRIOR TO THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP.
UM, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THIS, THIS IS THE CASE FOR THIS PROPERTY, AND YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PHOTOS THAT THE BUILDING REMAINS VERY MUCH INTACT.
UM, SO FINALLY, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE U D C ALSO REQUIRES THE B O A TO CONSIDER THE SAME FACTORS AS THE H C R C IN ITS CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL.
UM, THEREFORE, UM, IN YOUR PACKETS, WE HAVE PROVIDED THE EXACT SAME EXHIBIT FILE THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE H C R C.
UM, IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES, UM, I'M GOING TO PRESENT O H P STAFF'S ANALYSIS OF THE ORIGINAL REQUEST, WHICH THE H C R C ULTIMATELY CONCURRED WITH.
UM, THIS IS THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL H D R C PACKETS.
UM, SO IN REGARDS TO THE FIRST, UM, CRITERIA ESTABLISHED IN THE U D C, UM, WE'RE GOING TO REVIEW, UH, THE FIRST ONE THAT'S THE OWNER CANNOT MAKE REASONABLE, BENEFICIAL USE OF OR REALIZE REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN UNLESS THE PROPERTY IS DEMOLISHED.
UM, SO FROM THE STAFF REPORT, THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED AN UNDATED DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE THAT INDICATES A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR LOSS FOR THE REHABILITATION BASED ON A TOTAL INVESTMENT COST ESTIMATE OF ABOUT 3.2 MILLION REVENUE OF 344,000 AND A VACANCY RATE OF 62%, AND THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT OF ABOUT 2%, ALMOST 3%.
UM, THE PRO FORMA ALSO ACCOUNTS FOR A LOAN INTEREST RATE OF 5.5%.
AN UNDATED MARKET ANALYSIS OF NEARBY COMPARABLE PROPERTIES HAS ALSO BEEN PROVIDED, WHICH INDICATES 4,007 SOUTH FLOS STREET PARKING AT 0.607 PER 1000 SQUARE FEET COMPARED TO A NEARBY AVERAGE OF 3.99 MARKET PARKING PER 1000 SQUARE FEET.
THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO PROVIDED A DETAILED APPRAISAL REPORT PRODUCED BY CONSULTANT DATED AUGUST 25TH, 2018, PRIOR TO THE APPLICANT'S PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY, UM, THAT OUTLINES COMPARABLE PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY AND SPEAKS TO THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT, HOWEVER, HAS NOT PROVIDED A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ADAPTATION OPTIONS, UM, INSTEAD CITING ZONING AND BUILDING SIDING IN ADDITION TO PARKING AND SQUARE FOOTAGE AS REASONS TO MAKE THE DETAILED EXPLORATION OF REUSE UNFEASIBLE.
UM, BASED ON THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PURSUED OTHER POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS RELATED TO PARKING AND OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO ZONING, UM, THAT MAY INCLUDE SHARED PARKING VARIANCE, THE ZONING OR PARTIAL DEMOLITION TO CREATE SPACE OR OTHER AVENUES.
UM, B, THE STRUCTURE AND PROPERTY CANNOT BE REASONABLY ADAPTED FOR ANY OTHER FEASIBLE USE.
UM, SO FROM THE STAFF REPORT, IN ADDITION TO THE UNDATED PROFORMA REFERENCED, UM, PREVIOUSLY, THAT INDICATES AN INVESTMENT COST OF 3.2 MILLION.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED ONE PROJECT PROPOSAL FROM A LOCAL GENERAL AND DEMOLITION CONTRACTOR THAT ESTIMATES THE COST OF RE FOR REHABILITATION DATED FROM APRIL 1ST, 2020.
THE PROPOSED USE IS NOT INDICATED.
THE ESTIMATE TOTAL IS $1.4 MILLION FOR NEW ROOFING, LANDSCAPING, STOREFRONT DOORS, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, EXTERIOR REPAIRS, SITE WORK, AND THE DEMOLITION OF A REAR PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE, THE EXISTING STOREFRONT AND PARTS OF THE INTERIOR.
THE ESTIMATE DOES NOT BREAK DOWN LIGHT ITEM COST IN DETAIL.
THE ESTIMATE ALSO INCLUDES 300,000 FOR EXTERIOR STUCCO AND PLASTER REPAIR, ALTHOUGH THE MAJORITY OF EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE IS PAINTED BRICK.
THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION FOR LANDSCAPING, THE TOTAL COST FOR LANDSCAPING AND SITE WORK IS INDICATED AS $475,000, WHICH DOES NOT REFLECT REHABILITATION COSTS FOR THE STRUCTURE.
GENERALLY, THE U D C ENCOURAGED SOLICITING, SOLICITING MULTIPLE DETAILED BIDS, UM, WITH SPECIFIC LINE ITEM BREAKDOWNS THAT REFLECT THE UNIQUE CONDITIONS OF THE STRUCTURE FROM QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS TO DETERMINE AN ACCURATE VALUATION OF THE COST FOR REHABILITATION BASED ON CURRENT LOCAL MARKET STANDARDS.
THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO PROVIDED A T I S SITE REVIEW REPORT THAT OUTLINES INCONSISTENCY WITH ACCESSIBILITY STANDARD GUIDELINES.
UM, THE REPORT INCLUDES MANY ITEMS THAT ARE ROUTINELY ADDRESSED, REHABILITATION PROJECTS ON HISTORIC STRUCTURES.
A ONE PAGE LETTER FROM REGISTER FROM THE REGISTERED ARCHITECT HAS ALSO, UH, BEEN SUBMITTED.
THAT INCLUDES A BULLETED LIST OF SITE CHALLENGES, INCLUDING LIMITED PARKING, THE NEED TO INSTALL AN ELEVATOR, A D A COMPLIANCE CONCERNS, FOUNDATION
[00:15:01]
CONCERNS, OUTDATED MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS, AND SINGLE ENTRANCE.HOWEVER, THIS LETTER DOES NOT OFFER INFORMATION OR DETAILS THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS WHETHER THE STRUCTURE CAN BE REASONABLY ADAPTED FROM ONE, UH, FOR ANOTHER USE, RESULTING IN A REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN.
NEXT SLIDE, AND SEE THAT THE OWNER HAS FAILED TO FIND A PURCHASER OR TENANT FOR THE PROPERTY, UM, DURING A TWO YEAR PERIOD.
UM, BASED ON BEXAR COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORDS, THE APPLICANT WAS DEEDED THE PROPERTY ON SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2018, UM, A LITTLE OVER TWO YEARS AGO.
UM, SINCE THAT TIME, THE PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN ACTIVELY LISTED, UM, AND THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PROVIDED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF MARKETING THE PROPERTY TO POTENTIAL TENANTS.
THE EVIDENCE OF REPAIRS OR IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE PROPERTY IN THE LAST PERMIT, APPLICATION ON RECORD DATES TO 2014 FOR SIGNAGE.
AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED AN UNDATED DEVELOPMENT PERFORMA, UM, THE UNDATED MARKET ANALYSIS, A LETTER FROM A LOCAL REGISTERED ARCHITECT, ONE REHABILITATION COST ESTIMATED FROM A COST ESTIMATE DATED APRIL 1ST, AN APPRAISAL REPORT DATED APRIL 25TH, 2018, PRIOR TO THE DEED OF THE PROPERTY THAT ESTIMATES THE TOTAL VALUE OF BOTH TRACKS AT $920,000.
AND A PRELIMINARY T A SS SITE REVIEW REPORT IN AN EFFORT TO SUBSTANTIATE AN ARGUMENT THAT THERE IS AN UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP CREATED BY THE STRUCTURE DUE TO ITS LARGE SQUARE FOOTAGE, LIMITED PARKING ZONING EXISTING CONDITION IN CITING AMONG OTHER ARGUMENTS, UM, IN SOME STAFF FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED AN UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE U D C DUE TO THE LACK OF FINANCIAL BURDEN OF PROOF DOCUMENTATION, THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF GOOD FAITH, EXPLORATIONS OF REUSE OPTIONS, AS WELL AS LACK OF ACTIVE MARKETING OF THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY IS ALSO SUB STRUCTURALLY SOUND BASED ON THE SIGN VISIT AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED.
UM, IN THE NEXT SLIDE, THIS IS ACTUALLY A GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE FROM I BELIEVE, MARCH OF 2019.
UM, SO YOU CAN SEE DURING THAT TIME THERE IS ADVERTISING FOR THE PROPOSED CAR WASH FOR THE SITE, BUT NOT THAT THE PROPERTY IS FOR SALE OR LEASE AND TO THE LAST LINE.
UM, SO STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE APPEAL.
UM, STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE OWNER AND THE APPLICANT HAS NOT MET THE CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING AN UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, UM, PER THE U D C AND FAILING THAT A LOSS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
AND THE H C R C HAS CONCURRED WITH THAT, UH, THAT FINDING.
AND SO THE DENIAL LETTER HAS BEEN ISSUED.
AND THAT'S IT FOR MY PRESENTATION.
UM, HOW ARE WE GONNA GO ABOUT THIS? WE GONNA WAIT TILL THE END OF THE, UH, ALL THE, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT ONLINE, SIR.
SO RIGHT NOW IT'S, IT'LL BE THE APPLICANT, UH, FOLLOWED BY ANY PUBLIC COMMENT OR WE HAVE ONE LETTER TO BE READ INTO RECORD.
I'M AN ATTORNEY IN SAN ANTONIO WITH THE FIRM OF FORD MURRAY.
I REPRESENT HIGH K L L C, THE APPLICANT IN THIS MATTER.
I'D LIKE TO GO BACK FOR JUST A MOMENT OVER THE TIMELINE, UH, TO, UM, FILL IN SOME OF THE GAPS THAT I THINK WERE LEFT BY, BY STAFF.
MY CLIENT ACQUIRED THIS PROPERTY AND, UH, ON THE 18TH OF SEPTEMBER OF 2018, AND IT HAD BEEN SITTING FOR NINE YEARS FOR SALE WITHOUT A SINGLE OFFER.
DURING THAT TIME, IT WAS NOT AT THAT TIME DESIGNATED AS A HISTORIC SITE, SO THE ABILITY TO, UH, THE PROPERTY WOULD'VE BEEN UNENCUMBERED UP TO THAT POINT.
AND YET, NOBODY OTHER THAN MY CLIENT HAD MADE AN OFFER TO LEASE OR PURCHASE THE PROPERTY UNTIL HE DID IN SEPTEMBER OF 2018.
UM, HE, IN NOVEMBER OF THAT SAME YEAR THAT IS 2018, FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE.
UH, IT WAS ZONED APPROPRIATELY FOR A CAR WASH AT THE TIME.
UH, AND, BUT HE HAD ACQUIRED THIS AND SOME OTHER PROPERTIES, AND IN ORDER TO BRING THEM ALL INTO UNIFORMITY, HE WAS, UH, IT WAS ZONED C TWO DURING THAT SAME MONTH, THAT IS NOVEMBER OF 2018, A MEETING WAS HELD AT THE DISTRICT FREE OFFICE TO DISCUSS THE, THE LOCATE PROPERTY REZONED AND PLANS FOR THE IK PROP, UH, PARCEL WERE MENTIONED ON, UH, IN DECEMBER OF 2018, THE ZONING COMMISSION, UH, CONDUCTED HEARINGS WITH PARCELS OWNED BY LOCATE AND, AND ATTACHED TO IT A NO ALCOHOL, UM, UH, PROVISION TO THE, UH, ZONING.
SO IT WAS IN FACT REZONED C TWO N A NO NON-ALCOHOL OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE OWNER.
THE, UM, ENROLLING INTO 2 20 19, UH, UH, AND, UM, UH, BY THAT'S WHEN THE ACTUAL ZONING WAS PASSED ON J JANUARY 31ST, 2019, THEY CITY COUNCIL PASSED THE ZONING TO C TWO NA IN MAY
[00:20:01]
OF THAT SAME YEAR.THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE ENACTED HOUSE BILL 24 96.
THIS LAW REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE BY THE CITY COUNCIL ZONING COMMISSION AND A C R C TO APPROVE HISTORIC DESIGNATION OVER THE OBJECTION AND WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OWNER STAFF TAKES A POSITION THAT IT'S, THIS IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THIS BOARD, BUT I THINK IT IS BECAUSE HAD THE LAW BEEN FOLLOWED, THIS PROPERTY WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN, UH, PROPERLY DESIGNATED AS A HISTORIC, UH, SITE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THAT IS, THEY DID NOT OBTAIN THE REQUISITE SUPER MAJORITY AS, UH, SET OUT, UH, IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
SO IN JULY OF 2019, HIGH K, HAVING NOW OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR JUST SHY OF A YEAR, APPLIED FOR A DEMOLITION PERMIT.
AND THE IN RESPONSE, THE CITY IN JU IN, UH, SEPTEMBER OF THAT SAME YEAR, SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO INSTIGATE HISTORIC DESIGNATION.
THEY SAT AROUND FOR 10 YEARS WITH THIS PROPERTY, NOT DESIGNATED AS SUCH.
AND SUDDENLY WHEN MY CLIENT, AFTER HAVING PAID FOR THE PROPERTY UNENCUMBERED, UM, SEEKS A DEMOLITION PERMIT, THAT'S WHEN THEY COME IN AND SEEK TO HAVE IT DESIGNATED.
UM, THEY, THEY, THEY DID SUBMIT THAT.
AND, UH, AT THAT POINT, BECAUSE THE O H P HAD FILED THE APPLICATION UNDER THE U D C, MY CLIENT WAS PROHIBITED FROM MAKING ANY DEMOLITION OR OTHER CHANGES TO THE BUILDING WITHOUT H D R C APPROVAL.
FUNCTIONALLY, IT MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO SEEK A TENANT OR PRACTICAL FOR HIM TO SELL THE BUILDING.
HE HAD JUST BOUGHT THE BUILDING A YEAR BEFORE PAID, UH, THE PRICE FOR AN UNENCUMBERED USE OF PROPERTY THAT IS UNENCUMBERED BY THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION TO TURN AROUND AND TRY TO SELL IT WITH NOW BEING ENCUMBERED WITH THAT CONTEMPLATED DESIGNATION, UH, WOULD'VE RESULTED IN A SUBSTANTIAL LOSS TO MY CLIENT.
HAD HE TRIED TO DO THAT, HE ALSO COULDN'T UNDERTAKE TO MAKE THE, UH, CHANGES NECESSARY IN ORDER TO BRING IT INTO CONFORMITY WITH CITY CODE FOR BOTH PARKING A D A AND OTHER MATTERS.
SO THE, IT'S A RED HERRING TO SAY THAT HE DIDN'T TRY TO FIND A TENANT, UH, OR TRY TO SELL THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN FOR SALE FOR NINE YEARS, AND HE DID IN FACT TRY TO.
BUT, UH, OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU TAKE AWAY SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF THE PROPERTY RIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, IT'S NOT GONNA SELL.
AND THE ABILITY TO LEASE IT WAS FORECLOSED BECAUSE IT DIDN'T COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE CITY CODE.
UM, IN OCTOBER OF THAT YEAR, THE HEARING WAS SCHEDULED FOR THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION, WHICH WAS POSTPONED UNTIL NOVEMBER OF 2019.
UM, ON THE, IN 2020, THE ZONING COMMISSION HAD A BRIEFING ON THE 4TH OF FEBRUARY ON THE FIFTH, THE H D R C HEARING WAS HELD.
UH, THE ZONING COMMISSION HEARING WAS HELD ON THE 18TH OF FEBRUARY, AND IT APPROVED THE APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION BY A VOTE OF SEVEN TO THREE FALLING SHORT OF THE RECORDS THAT SUPER MAJORITY THAT IS REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR THAT TO, UH, BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
THAT IS SECTION 2 1 1 0.0165 A TWO B, UH, HE APPLIED FOR HARDSHIP APPLICATION THAT WAS DENIED.
UH, AND THAT IS THE WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY, UM, UNDER THE, UM, STAFF POINTED OUT TO YOU THE CORRECT PORTIONS OF THE U D C THAT ARE COMING TO PLAY HERE, SECTION 35 DASH 4 55 E ONE.
UH, AND IT SAYS, SHOULD THE APPLICANT OR FOR A CERTIFICATE REGARDING DEMOLITION OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK, SATISFY THE HISTORIC DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION THAT HE WILL SUFFER AN UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP IF A DEMOLITION PERMIT IS NOT ISSUED.
THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION SHALL, AND WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT WORD AGAIN, IN MY WORLD, AS LAWYER, THE WORD SHALL MEANS YOU HAVE TO, AS OPPOSED TO MAY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CERTIFICATE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT IN ORDER TO, UH, PUT ON PROOF OF HARDSHIP, THE OWNER, UH, YOU HAVE TO PROVE, AS STAFF SAID, THE OWNER CANNOT MAKE REASONABLE, BENEFICIAL USE OR REALIZE A REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN ON A STRUCTURE OR SITE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THAT RETURN REPRESENTS THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN, UNLESS THE
[00:25:01]
HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT ENDANGERED, HISTORIC AND CULTURAL LANDMARK, HISTORIC AND CULTURAL LANDMARKS DISTRICT OR DEMOLITION DELAYED DESIGNATION AS APPLICABLE IS REMOVED OR POSTPONED OR PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF THE RE RELOCATION OR RELOCATION IS ALLOWED.AND WITHIN THE PACKAGE THAT IS SUBMITTED TO YOU, AND WHICH WAS BEFORE THE H T R C IS THEY POINTED OUT, IS, UH, A STUDY THAT WAS AN 11 PAGE STUDY.
IT'S FOUND AT PAGE 40 OF THE PACKET THAT WAS SUBMITTED.
IT, IT'S, IT'S AN 11 PAGE STUDY FOR THE TEXAS ACCESSIBILITY STANDARD AND A REVIEW OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING THE DEFICIENCIES THAT EXIST IN THE PROPERTY.
THIS PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT IN THE 1920S, AND IT WAS REHABBED, UH, TO SOME EXTENT IN 1940S LONG BEFORE THE T A S WENT INTO EFFECT.
AND WHAT THAT STUDY THAT'S PRESENTED TO YOU AND WAS PRESENTED TO H D R C SHOWS IS THAT THE BUILDING WAS, UH, THAT NO PART OF THE BUILDING CURRENTLY COMPLIES WITH THE 2012 TA S SS REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING PARKING AREAS, RESTROOMS, ET CETERA.
THE BUILDING WILL BE REQUIRED TO FULLY COMPLY WITH THE 2012 T A S REQUIREMENTS.
SO WHAT STAFF IS SUGGESTING IS THAT MY CLIENT SHOULD HAVE, I GUESS, GOTTEN PERMISSION AFTER HE GOT PERMISSION FROM H D R C, TRIED TO RETROFIT THIS PROPERTY FOR T A S ON THE OFF CHANCE THAT MAYBE HE COULD FIND A BUYER OR A TENANT, UH, WITHOUT PROVI, WITHOUT APPLYING FOR HARDSHIP.
AS IS INDICATED, THE TOTAL INVESTMENT AS IS THE O AND BY THE WAY, THIS IS THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO H T R C, THAT IS HT UH, THE HISTORIC, UH, PRESERVATION OFFICER DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE OF ITS OWN TO THE HT R C, NOT WITH REGARD TO THEY'RE CRITICAL OF THE PROFORMA.
THEY PREVENT PRESENTED NO PROFORMA OF THEIR OWN.
THEY'RE CRITICAL OF A CONSTRUCTION COST ANALYSIS.
THEY PRESENTED NONE OF THEIR OWN, UM, WHICH WE'LL GET TO IN JUST A MINUTE.
UM, BUT ALSO INCLUDED WITHIN THE PACKAGE, YOU'LL FIND A REPORT FROM ILLA PARK ARCHITECTURAL PLANNING AND INTERIORS.
AND IT SAYS THAT REPURPOSING THE BUILDING PRESENTS CHALLENGES BECAUSE OF LIMITED PARKING.
UNLIMITED IS, IS A VERY POLITE WORD TO USE 'CAUSE THERE'S ALMOST NO PARKING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS BUILDING.
UH, IT IS NOT, IT'S NON A D A COMPLIANCE LIMITATION ON MULTI-TENANT USE, WHICH MAY NECESSITATE THE ENTIRE BUILDING AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FOUNDATION SLAB.
UH, IT HAS A SINGLE ENTRANCE, UH, AND ALL OF THE MECHANICAL AND ELECTRIC COMPONENTS ARE OUTDATED.
UM, THE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT, UH, THE OWNER, THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO SHOW AS A STRUCTURING PROPERTY CANNOT REASONABLY BE ADAPTED FOR ANY OTHER FEASIBLE USE, WHETHER BY THE CURRENT OWNER OR A PART PURCHASER, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN A REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN AS STAFF INDICATED, THE TOTAL INVESTMENT TO DO THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AS, UH, PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT WITH WITHOUT ANY OPPOSITE OPPOSING EVIDENCE BEING SUBMITTED WAS $1.4 MILLION.
THAT'S IN ADDITION TO THE ACQUISITION COST OF THE PROPERTY.
NOW, THE, UH, THE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UH, WELL, I'LL GO TO THE THIRD ELEMENT.
THE OWNER HAS OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR A MINIMUM OF TWO YEARS, WHICH MY CLIENT HAS JUST BARELY SIX MONTHS OF, WHICH, BY THE WAY, WAS, UH, WHEN THEY, HE WAS STAYED FROM DOING ANYTHING WITHOUT GETTING PERMISSION FROM THE H D R C BECAUSE OF THEIR FILING OF THE DESIGNATION OR PROPOSED DESIGNATION AS A HISTORIC SITE.
HE HAS OWNED IT, IT WAS OWNED BY SOMEBODY ELSE FOR NINE YEARS BEFORE THAT, WITHOUT THEM BEING SUCCESSFULLY ABLE TO SELL OR LEASE IT.
UM, THE, UM, AND THERE'S EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD WITH, FROM MY CLIENT'S, UH, SWORN DECLARATION BEGINS ITS PAGE, UH, I THINK IT'S 19 IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN OF YOUR, OF THE PACKET OF MATERIALS WHERE HE INDICATES HE DID IN FACT TRY TO SELL THE PROPERTY AND PUT IT ON THEIR WEBSITE WITHOUT SUCCESS.
UH, THE, AND THEN THE, THE CON CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES FOR REHABILITATION RESTORATION OR REPAIR PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT, WHICH SHALL BE BROKEN OUT BY A DESIGN DISCIPLINE AND CONSTRUCTION TRADE, AND SHALL PROVIDE APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES AND PRICES FOR LABOR AND MATERIALS.
THE NEXT SENTENCE OF THAT SECTION OF THE U D C SAYS, THE O H P SHALL REVIEW SUCH ESTIMATES FOR COMPLETENESS AND ACCURACY AND, AND
[00:30:01]
SHALL RETAIN OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE EXPERT ANALYSIS TO THE H D R C.THE, UH, O H P DID NONE OF THAT.
THEY DID NOT, UH, PRESENT ANY ANALYSIS OF THE COST ESTIMATES PROVIDED BY MY CLIENT OTHER THAN TO BE CRITICAL OF THEM.
AND THEY DID NOT PRO, UH, RETAIN OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE EXPERT ANALYSIS TO THE H D R C.
SO THEY FAILED TO DO WHAT THAT PROVISION OF THE U D C REQUIRES THEM TO DO.
UM, SO THE, AGAIN, THE ONLY EVIDENCE PRESENTED HERE WAS FROM MY CLIENT, NONE FROM THE O H P.
NO OTHER, UH, EVIDENCE WAS BEFORE THE H D R C.
THAT'S UN THAT MAKES IT UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE.
UM, THEY ALSO TRY TO JUST, THEY, THEY TRY TO PERSUADE THAT THIS IS, UH, WHAT THEY CALL SPANISH, SPANISH ECLECTIC STYLE.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THERE'S A, WITHIN THE CON CONTAINED WITHIN THE PACKAGE, UH, A, UH, LETTER FROM THE ARCHITECT, WHICH SAYS, THIS IS REALLY NOT, UH, IN THE SPANISH ECLECTIC STYLE AND GIVES, PROVIDES PICTURES AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF OTHER BUILDINGS AROUND SAN ANTONIO THAT DO IN FACT REFLECT THAT STYLE.
AND THIS, UH, THE, THIS BUILDING DOES NOT ACTUALLY FALL WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF WHAT WOULD BE PROPERLY CHARACTERIZED AS SPANISH, SPANISH ECLECTIC STYLE.
AGAIN, UH, THE ONLY EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THIS MATTER WAS PRESENTED BY MY CLIENT, NOTHING PRESENTED BY O H P OR ANYBODY ELSE.
ALL OF IT WAS PRESENTED FROM QUALIFIED EXPERTS AND OR BASED UPON FACTS THAT ARE OBVIOUS FROM THE FACE OF THE RECORD.
THE O H P PRESENTED ZERO EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH THEY HAD THE OBLIGATION, IF THEY QUESTIONED THE INFORMATION PRESENTED TO DO SO, THEY DID NOT DO THAT.
UM, SO WE, IN CONCLUSION, THE CITY DID NOT PROPERLY OBTAIN THE REQUISITE SUPER MAJORITY FOR DESIGNATION OF THIS PROPERTY AS HISTORIC IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, WHICH DEPRIVED THE, UH, UH, H D R C OR THE CITY OF THE ABILITY TO DESIGNATE IT AS SUCH BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT OBTAINED THE REQUISITE SUPER MAJORITY TO DO SO.
UM, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE BY BOTH THE H D R C, THEY SHOULD HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE A PROPER DESIGNATION AND THAT THE PROPERTY WAS NOT, AND THAT THEY LACKED THE AUTHORITY TO PREVENT THE CONTEMPLATED DEMOLITION AND THE DEMOLITION PERMIT SHOULD HAVE ISSUED BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE AS PRESENTED REGARDING HARDSHIP.
THE H D R C SHOULD HAVE FOUND UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP EXISTS WITH MY CLIENT, UH, WITH MY CLIENT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE DEMOLITION PERMIT, IF NOT GRANTED BY THIS BODY.
THEN MY CLIENT WILL HAVE SPENT HUGE SUMS OF MONEY TO ACQUIRE A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WAS UNENCUMBERED BY THAT DESIGNATION AT THE TIME HE ACQUIRED IT, AND NOW SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF, UH, THAT POST-PURCHASE DESIGNATION WERE A HUGE BUNDLE OF HIS RIGHT.
PROPERTY RIGHTS WERE TAKEN AWAY FROM HIM BY THAT DESIGNATION.
THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THIS SATISFIES ALL THE ELEMENTS OF, UH, THE HARDSHIP REQUIREMENT UNDER THE U D C.
AND WE ASK THAT, UH, THIS COMMISSION GRANT THE DEMOLITION PERMIT.
IS THAT THE EXTENT OF THE PRESENTATION? YES, SIR.
UH, PLEASE, UM, WAIT ONLINE, UH, I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME PUBLIC INPUT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, DO YOU NOT, PLEASE.
YES, WE HAVE, UH, TWO RESPONSES.
WE HAVE, UH, ONE RESPONSE IN FAVOR FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 2 0 4 PLEASANTON, AND WE ALSO HAVE A RESPONSE FROM THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO THAT I WILL BEGIN READING.
THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY CONCURS WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF AND THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION THAT THE 1926 TO DO BUILDING AT 4,007 SOUTH FLORIDAS SHOULD NOT BE DEMOLISHED.
THE SUDU BUILDING HAS MET FOUR OF THE CRITERIA FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION.
THE BUILDING RETAINS ITS HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AS A SPANISH ECLECTIC VARIATION ON THE COMMERCIAL STYLE.
IT ALSO REPRESENTS AN IMPORTANT CHAPTER IN SAN ANTONIO HISTORY.
DUE TO ITS CONNECTION WITH AC TO DO, TO RECEIVE APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH A HISTORIC LANDMARK,
[00:35:01]
YOU EITHER MUST PROVE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP OR DEMONSTRATE THAT THE BUILDING HAS LOST ARCHITECTURAL OR STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY.THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT SUCCESSFULLY MAKE EITHER OF THESE ARGUMENTS, AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC RESPONSE.
UM, I GUESS, UH, THE FIRST THING WE SHOULD DO NOW WE'VE GOT ALL THE PUBLIC INPUT, IS TO ASK THE BOARD IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS THAT WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE STAFF.
UM, H UH, H B O, UH, H B R C OR WHOEVER, ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE.
WE HAVE NO PHONE, UM, WITNESSES, SO WE CAN'T ASK ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE QUESTIONS.
SO I ASK THE BOARD TO SEE WHO IS INTERESTED IN ASKING THE QUESTIONS.
UM, THIS IS FOR THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF.
UM, UH, THE QUESTION IS, UH, AND THE ATTORNEY BROUGHT THIS UP IS, UM, IF THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE 1926, UM, WHY WAS THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION INITIATED JUST, JUST NOW? SO THAT'S, THAT'S ONE QUESTION.
UH, AND THE OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE, UM, WITH THIS DESIGNATION, WHAT ARE THE FORESEEABLE USES, UM, IN PRACTICALITY, UH, FOR THIS PROPERTY? OKAY.
SO AGAIN, JUST TO REITERATE, UM, THE DESIGNATION IS NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS, BUT I JUST, I WANT TO ITERATE THAT THOSE ARE NOT QUITE THE ISSUE AT HAND.
UM, SO WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH ACTUALLY IS, IS THE REVERSAL OF THE DECISION IN THIS PARTICULAR MATTER.
NOW, THE FACTS THAT ARE PRESENTED, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THE PROCESS WAS INITIATED, UH, THAT MAKES COMMON SENSE, BUT THAT'S NOT IN THE PURVIEW OF THIS PARTICULAR, UH, REQUEST.
SO WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE, UH, REQUEST AT HAND, WHICH IS THE H B O, UM, DUE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND LIMITING THEIR ACCESS TO DEMOLISHING AND, AND BUILDING PERMIT
SO THAT'S, HE CAN'T ANSWER MY SECOND QUESTION EITHER.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO CREATE CONFUSION WITH THE BOARD.
YEAH, GO AHEAD AND ASK THE QUESTION AND LET'S SEE IF, IF, UH, WE CAN GET SOME CLARITY.
WELL, IT WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE USES FOR THIS PROPERTY NOW WITH THIS CURRENT DESIGNATION? SO, HISTORIC DESIGNATION DOES NOT IMPACT THE USE WHATSOEVER.
UM, WHAT DESIGNATION DOES IS IT PUTS IN PLACE A REVIEW PROCESS FOR MODIFICATIONS OR ALTERATIONS TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, THE H C R C DOES NOT REVIEW INTERIORS, BUT INTERIOR WORK IS POTENTIALLY, UM, SOMETHING THAT CAN CONTRIBUTE TOWARD A LOCAL TAX INCENTIVES FOR REHABILITATION.
UM, THE OTHER THING THAT IT PUTS IN PLACE IS THIS REVIEW PROCESS FOR DEMOLITION.
SO IT DOES MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO HAVE A DEMOLITION APPROVED, UH, BECAUSE OF THAT BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, BUT THAT'S VERY INTENTIONAL.
THE INTENT OF THE CODE IS THAT WE NEED TO BE VERY THOUGHTFUL AND CAREFUL WITH DECISION MAKING TOWARDS DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS.
SO I BELIEVE THAT YOUR, EXCUSE ME.
I BELIEVE THAT YOUR RESPONSE IS BASICALLY THAT, UH, THERE HAS NOT BEEN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE, TO THE BOARD, UH, TO THE HT O OR THE H D R C TO SUGGEST THAT, UH, THIS BUILDING SHOULD BE DEMOLISHED NOT IN THE TERMS OF WHAT THE U D C REQUIRES TO BE SUBSTANTIATED.
I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE APPLICANT FEELS THAT IT'S A DIFFICULT REHABILITATION OR IS HAVING A HARD TIME IDENTIFYING THE USE FOR NAVIGATING ZONING CHALLENGES.
UM, BUT THAT'S SIMPLY NOT THE CRITERIA THAT ARE ESTABLISHED IN THE D C TO, TO DECIDE UPON, UH, DEMOLITION.
DO WE HAVE, UH, DOES THAT ANSWER SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS,
HAVE THE FISHER, YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR? YES.
SO HERE'S, I GOT A HANDFUL OF QUESTIONS.
THE FIRST ONE IS, UH, IT, IT IS, THERE WAS A COM UH, THERE WAS A, A STATEMENT THAT, UH, THE OWNER HAS TO PROVE THAT HE ATTEMPTED TO, UH, TRY TO SELL THE STRUCTURE, THE, THE FACILITY FOR A TWO YEAR WINDOW SINCE THE DESIGNATION HAPPENED.
SO IMMEDIATELY FROM THE TIME HE PURCHASED IT, DO YOU DO A TWO YEAR LOOK BACK GOING INTO THE NINE YEARS IT WAS DORMANT, OR IS IT ONLY THE TIME THAT THE CURRENT OWNER, UH, OWNS, HAS OWNED THE PROPERTY? AND HOW
[00:40:01]
DOES, HOW DOES THAT TWO YEAR WINDOW AFFECT THIS? UH, AND THEN THE NEXT QUESTION I HAVE IS, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY BURDEN THAT OF, OF EVIDENCE THAT WE SAW FROM THAT WAS PRESENTED WAS A TASK REPORT, UH, AS FAR AS THE USABILITY.AND I'M CURIOUS, DOES THE DESIGNATION BY THE CITY, UM, OPEN THE DOOR OR DOES THE CITY, UH, PUSH FORWARD HAVING THIS FACILITY LISTED? UH, OR IS THERE ANY ELIGIBILITY TO BE LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ARE DESIGNATED, UH, AS A TEST HISTORIC LANDMARK? UM, SO THE FIRST QUESTION ABOUT THE TWO YEAR PERIOD, UM MM-HMM.
THE INTENT IS THAT THAT IS BY THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP.
UM, SO IT IS VERY UNLIKELY THAT SOMEBODY COULD BUY A PROPERTY AND THEN COME THE NEXT MONTH FOR DEMOLITION.
THERE HAS TO BE AT LEAST A PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH, UH, THE OP THE OWNER HAS DONE ITS DUE DILIGENCE TO REHABILITATE OR MARKET THE PROPERTY FOR REHABILITATION.
SO THAT MEANS THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO OWN FOR TWO YEARS BEFORE HE COULD REQUEST A DEMO PERMIT.
UM, AND THE CODE IS SORT OF WRITTEN THAT WAY, BUT THAT INTENT, YOU CAN'T PURCHASE TO DEMOLISH.
NOW, SOMEBODY COULD COME IN WITH, UM, THE DOCUMENTATION, UH, UH, TO, TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT, BUT THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE.
WHAT ABOUT THE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES OR TEXAS LANDMARK? UM, SO LOCAL DESIGNATION IS COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM STATE AND FEDERAL DESIGNATIONS, BUT THEY ARE SIMILAR.
UM, SO SIM TYPICALLY SOMETHING THAT'S ELIGIBLE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL MAY ALSO BE ELIGIBLE ON LISTING OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.
UM, IF THERE WAS A NATIONAL MEASURE LISTING, THEN THAT WOULD MEAN IT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR STATE AND FEDERAL TAX CREDITS, WHICH IS MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN THE LOCAL INCENTIVES.
THE REASON WHY I ASK IS THAT, UH, THE, THE BURDEN FOR HIM TO COMPLY WITH THE TASK STANDARDS, HE ALSO HAS THE ABILITY HE COULD APPLY FOR VARIANCES IF HE WAS ELIGIBLE OR IF HE WAS LISTED IN THE NATIONAL OR THE STATE, UH, RECORDS.
AND SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS TO SEE HOW THE, HOW THE CITY'S STANCE ON THAT WOULD AFFECT, UH, YOU KNOW, HIS USABILITY OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, AND ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS, AND THIS GOES TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.
UM, SO WE HEARD, I KNOW WE'RE NOT GETTING INTO THIS BEING DESIGNATED AND THE TIMING AND EVERYTHING, BUT THAT HOUSE BILL 2, 4, 9, 6 DOES SAY THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE A 75% VOTE, OR IT VALIDATES THE DESIGNATION.
HOW DOES THAT AFFECT OUR REVIEW OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS THERE WAS AN, AN, AN ERROR ON THE SIDE OF THE, UH, THE O H P AFTER WE HAVE THE, UH, CITY ATTORNEY? WE'RE REVIEWING THE QUESTION.
DO YOU WANT TO GO ONTO THE NEXT QUESTION? YEAH, I MEAN, I, I, I'LL, I'LL YIELD TO ANOTHER COMMISSIONER AT THE TIME, BUT THAT, THAT WAS JUST SOMETHING IMPORTANT.
'CAUSE PART OF WHAT WE TALK ABOUT IS WHETHER THERE WAS AN ERROR MADE AND THE, THE, THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY DID BRING UP A VERY VALID POINT THAT IF THEY DIDN'T GET THE 75% VOTE BY THE ZONING COMMISSION, THE DESIGNATION IS, I MEAN, FROM WHAT I CAN SEE IS INVALIDATE.
I YIELD TO ANOTHER COMMISSIONER'S QUESTION.
WHO, WHO ELSE WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION? FISHER? SO, ZUNA.
OKAY, MS. FISHER, YOU FIRST, DO YOU HAVE THE FLOOR? YES.
UH, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING FROM, UH, EITHER THE OWNER OR THE CITY, UH, CONCERNING OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING.
WAS IT EVER OWNER OCCUPIED DURING THAT 10 YEAR PERIOD? UH, THEY SAID IT WAS EITHER DORMANT.
UM, WAS IT, WAS SOMEBODY IN, THERE WAS SOME VIABLE BUSINESS IN THERE, WHETHER IT WAS OWNER OCCUPIED, YOU SAY THERE WAS NO TENANTS IN THERE.
UM, AND SECONDLY, IS THERE, WAS IT MARKETED THROUGH A, UH, REGULAR, UH, COMMERCIAL MARKETING FIRM, OR WAS IT OWNER FOR SALE BY OWNER, WHICH MIGHT MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
AND, UH, YOU DESIGNATE WHO YOU'D LIKE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION? UH, THIS IS MARK MURRAY AGAIN.
I DO NOT KNOW IF IT WAS OWNER OCCUPIED OR NOT.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS VACANT FOR NINE YEARS, BUT I, UH, THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION I HAVE NOT ASKED.
UH, I DON'T, UH, KNOW HOW SOMEBODY COULD HAVE OCCUPIED IT WITH IT BEING OUT OF COMPLIANCE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU COULD HAVE GOTTEN A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY DURING THAT TIME.
'CAUSE IT'S OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE CITY ORDINANCES, INCLUDING PARKING AND A D A.
BUT CANDIDLY, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING IT WAS WHEN MY CLIENT ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY, IT WAS IN FACT LISTED WITH A COMMERCIAL BROKERAGE.
BUT AGAIN, THAT'S, I HAVE NOT ASKED THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION.
THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, DOES THE PROPERTY IN ANY OF THE REPORTS YOU HAVE, HAVE ASBESTOS, IF IT WAS BUILT IN 1920,
[00:45:01]
UM, RENOVATED IN 1940, A BUILDING LIKE THAT TYPICALLY DOES HAVE SOME CONTAMINATION ISSUES.UM, IS THAT, HAS THAT QUESTION COME UP OR IN ANY OF THE REPORTS YOU HAVE THAT MIGHT AFFECT COST? UH, I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING IN THE RECORD THAT, UH, SHOWS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A STUDY MADE OF THAT.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS THAT HAS A QUESTION RESPONSE TO MR. S QUESTION? MR. IAN, YOU HAD A QUESTION? YES, SIR.
UH, THIS QUESTION, UM, I BELIEVE IS FOR STAFF, AND I WAS WANTING TO KIND OF PIGGYBACK ON MR. ORION'S, UM, KIND OF THEME THAT HE WAS WORKING ON IN REGARDS TO THE BURDEN OF O H P TO PROVIDE KIND OF A FISCAL IMPACT.
WE HEARD A STATEMENT FROM THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE O H P PROVIDING EXPERT ANALYSIS OF COST ESTIMATES AND USING OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS.
DO WE KNOW WHAT THAT OBLIGATION IS AND WHY THERE WAS NO OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS TO PROVIDE, UH, SOME BACKUP, UH, FISCAL IMPACT OF THE DESIGNATION ON THE PROJECT? SURE.
UM, SO THE CODE SAYS AS NEEDED.
UM, THE REASON FOR THAT, AND I MENTIONED THEN THIS ACTUALLY ON THIS SLIDE, IS THE 60 DAY REVIEW PERIOD.
UM, NORMALLY MOST CERTIFICATE REQUESTS THAT GO TO H C C HAPPEN IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
UM, SO THE DEMOLITION PROCESS IS INTENTIONALLY A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME SO THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT MEET, CAN MEET WITH BOTH STAFF AND WITH COMMISSIONERS PRIOR TO THE FULL HEARING SO THAT THEY CAN REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
SO IT'S REALLY THAT 60 DAY REVIEW PERIOD THAT WE LOOK AT WHAT'S, WHAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED, THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY, AND THEN WE GO FROM THERE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT ADDITIONAL, UH, THIRD PARTY ASSESSMENTS ARE NEEDED.
UM, IN THIS CASE IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE APPLICANT ISN'T REALLY, UM, TAKING ISSUE WITH THE CONDITION OF THE STRUCTURE.
UM, NOTHING NEEDS TO BE DONE TO IT RIGHT NOW TO STABILIZE IT.
UM, SO THE COST IS REALLY RELATED TO WHATEVER THE REUSE IS, WHATEVER THE POTENTIAL REHABILITATION, UH, FINAL USE IS, IS GOING TO WIDELY IMPACT HOW MUCH YOU SPEND ON IT.
UM, SO IN THIS CASE, THE COMMISSIONERS DIDN'T FEEL STRONGLY THAT ADDITIONAL, UH, ASSESSMENTS WERE NEEDED, UM, BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED.
ESSENTIALLY, IT'S, IT'S KIND OF THE, UH, WHETHER HE'S GONNA BUILD A, YOU KNOW, A CADILLAC
SO IT'S REALLY DEPENDING ON THE ULTIMATE USE AS TO WHAT THAT COST WOULD BE.
AND IT WAS NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT THE O H P COULD, UM, UTILIZE THE, THE COST TO DO FURTHER THEIR ANALYSIS.
MAY I, MAY I RESPOND? EXCUSE ME.
WAS, IS THAT THE APPLICANT SPEAKING? YES, SIR.
YOU'RE TRYING TO RESPOND TO, UM, UH, THE LAST QUESTION ABOUT MR. OZUNA? YEAH.
UH, THE STAFF SAID THAT THE OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE ANALYSIS, UH, AND OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS IS AS NEEDED.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS.
THE STATUTE SAYS O H P SHALL REVIEW SUCH ESTIMATES FOR COMPLETENESS AND ACCURACY AND, AND SHALL RETAIN OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE EXPERT ANALYSIS TO THE H D R C.
NO, KEVIN, I BELIEVE THE ISSUE HERE IS, UH, IS, IS BACKUP OF, OF, UH, UH, INFORMATION GETTING, BEING SUPPLIED TO A P R C.
THEY NEED TO TAKE AN INITIATIVE ON THEIR OWN TO DO RESEARCH FOR YOUR COMPANY.
UH, UH, THAT'S MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT YOU JUST READ TO ME.
HOWEVER, UH, IF THE STAFF SUGGESTED THERE'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT, I'M, I'LL ENTERTAIN THAT RESPONSE.
NO, I MEAN, THE APPLICANT JUST READ IT.
IT SAID WE, WE SHALL OBTAIN ADDITIONAL, UH, ASSESSMENTS AS NEEDED.
THAT BOARD MEMBERS HAVE, UH, ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR IAN, MR. ORIAN? YEAH.
AS FAR AS THE ECONOMIC BURDEN, UH, AGAIN, I I'M LOOKING AT THE SITE AND ONE THING THAT'S CURIOUS IS THAT THEY DO HAVE EXTREMELY LIMITED PARKING.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE STREET THAT SURROUNDS IT, UH, ARE AT LEAST ONE OF THEM IS AN ARTERIAL CLAT STREET, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A 10 FOOT SIDEWALK.
YOU'VE GOT UTILITIES ALL OVER THE PLACE ON THIS THING.
I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE AN ELECTRIC OR A FOAM BANK PANEL THERE.
UH, CROSSING LIGHTS, CROSS GUARDS, UTILITIES IN THE STREET.
YOU'VE GOT, UH, DRAIN INLETS THAT ARE ON THE SIDEWALK.
IT, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE FOR THIS SITE TO BE EVER USED IN A SAFE MANNER, DOES THESE SURROUNDING INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE COUNTLESS, UH, VIOLATIONS OF THE U D C THAT WOULD BE NECESSITATED IN KEEPING THE STRUCTURE AS IS.
UH, I MEAN, HOW DOES THAT COME INTO EFFECT WHEN YOU GUYS ARE MAKING THESE DETERMINATIONS?
[00:50:01]
I MEAN, HE WOULD, HE WOULD BE GROSSLY, UH, UNDER ON PARKING.HE WOULD HAVE A LOT OF UTILITY PROBLEMS. HE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MEET THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE 10 FOOT MULTI MULTI WHITE PATH.
I, I JUST DON'T SEE HOW KEEPING THIS BUILDING INTACT COULD POSSIBLY MEET WITH ANY SORT OF, UH, OF REVIEW BY THE, UM, HOW IS ANY OF THAT CONSIDERED WHEN YOU REVIEW THIS? UH, IT, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED, UM, THOSE DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES COULD CONTRIBUTE TO RE REHABILITATION COSTS.
WELL, WERE THEY CONSIDERED AT THE, HERE IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THERE'S SO MANY OF THEM AND THESE, AND THESE ARE, SOME OF THESE ARE SAFETY ISSUES, NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, DESIRES, WANTS AND WINS.
I MEAN, THIS, THIS HAS PARKING BACKING OUT INTO, TO AN ONTARIO CLASS STREET, WHICH IS COMPLETELY NOT ALLOWED.
YOU'VE GOT, I MEAN, THERE'S, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE KEEPING THIS BUILDING AS IS THAT THAT WAS DEVELOPED AT THE CUSP OF PEOPLE EVEN HAVING VEHICLES JUST SEEMS IN, IN ITSELF A SAFETY HAZARD.
I'M JUST, I JUST WANTED TO HEAR SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THAT WENT AT THE H D R C MEETING OR, OR WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS WERE ON THAT.
THE, THOSE HAVE ALL BEEN ARGUMENTS BY THE APPLICANT FROM THE VERY FIRST HEARING REGARDING THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE SITE.
AND, AND THAT'S JUST A ROAD THAT, THAT THE APPLICANT HASN'T GONE DOWN.
THERE HASN'T BEEN FULL KIND OF DUE DILIGENCE ON THOSE ISSUES.
WHAT SORTS OF VARIANCE? SO OUTTA SO OUTTA CURIOSITY, IF, IF, IF THIS IS MAINTAINED AND THE, AND THE FACILITY'S NOT ALLOWED TO BE DEMOED, DOES THE CITY HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO APPROVE THE, THE NUMEROUS VARIANCES ARE GONNA BE REQUIRED? I MEAN, THERE'S, I I, YOU KNOW, I DO THIS STUFF FOR A LIVING AND I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW, I DON'T SEE HOW THIS COULD EVER BE USED WITHOUT A NUMBER OF VARIANCES.
AND IF YOU DON'T GET ONE, THEN IT CAN'T BE USED AT ALL.
AND SO HOW DOES THAT COME INTO PLAY UNDER THE BURDEN OF THE U D C? YEAH.
UM, SO THERE'S, THERE'S SEVERAL ANSWERS TO SOME OF THE THINGS YOU BROUGHT UP.
THE FIRST IS YOU MENTIONED THAT, UM, WITH THE STATE AND FEDERAL DESIGNATIONS, EVEN LOCAL DESIGNATION, WE CAN WORK WITH, UM, THE STATE REGARDING VARIANCES FOR ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES AND OTHER ISSUES.
AND THE CITY OFFERS LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THOSE, FOR ARCHITECTS AND DEVELOPERS ALL THE TIME.
SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF.
UM, BUILDINGS CAN ALSO BE EXEMPT UNDER CERTAIN PROVISIONS.
AND THE INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE, WHICH THE CITY HAS ADOPTED, UM, THERE'S NOT PRECLUDING FULL DEMOLITION OF THE SITE.
THERE'S ALSO OPTIONS FOR PARTIAL DEMOLITION THAT COULD, UH, INCREASE AREA ON THE SITE.
SO WE'VE EVEN LOOKED AT THE REAR EDITION, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IF A PROPOSAL WITH REDEVELOPMENT CAME FORWARD THAT INCLUDED PARTIAL DEMOLITION COULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE H D R C.
UM, SO THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT HAVEN'T REALLY BEEN EXPLORED AND STAFF HAS BEEN, UM, UH, WE HAVE OFFERED TO MEET WITH THE APPLICANT, UH, IN CONJUNCTION WITH D SS D AND WITH, UH, PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC TO REVIEW ALL OF THESE ISSUES AND TRY TO FIND SOLUTIONS.
SO LET ME LET, LET ME PHRASE THAT ANOTHER WAY.
IF, IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE TO ANY OF THE NUMEROUS VARIANCES, HE'LL NEED TO THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, HE, IF HE EVER GETS DENIED, IS THAT A, A SUBSTANTIATION OF GETTING A DEMO PERMIT IN THE FUTURE OR NOT? UM, NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HOW THE U D C IS WRITTEN OUT, BUT IF THAT REQUIREMENT, UH, IS GOING TO IMPACT THE REHABILITATION COSTS OR REDEVELOPMENT COSTS, AND THOSE COST DIFFERENCES COULD BE CONSIDERED CONSIDERED BY WHOM? BY THE H D R C.
I MEAN, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, HE'S, HE'S, HE'S GROSSLY UNDER THE PARKING REQUIREMENT.
IF HE COMES BACK SIX MONTHS LATER TO THE BO O A AND ASKS FOR A VARIANCE OF THE PARKING, AND WE SAY NO, NOW HE CAN'T DEVELOP HIS STRUCTURE.
AND AGAIN, THAT'S ALSO GOING TO, UH, DEPEND ON THE PROPOSED USE.
WHICH THE DESIGNATION DOES NOT IMPACT.
HOW WAS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING? I DO NOT HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
UM, DOES THE APPLICANT KNOW, UH, IF YOU'LL GIMME JUST A SECOND, I THINK I HAVE THAT INFORMATION, BUT I ALSO WANNA SAY, UM, YOU HAVE CASES THAT COME BEFORE YOU ALL THE TIME IN THE STORE DISTRICTS FOR ACCESSORIES AND GARAGES THAT DON'T MEET SETBACK REQUIREMENTS THAT COME WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE H C R C AND ARE VERY OFTEN APPROVED.
AND SO I THINK IT'S A SIMILAR, UH, KIND OF
I MEAN, THERE'S, THERE'S SO MANY COGS IN WHEELS ON THIS AND THERE'S SO LITTLE TO WORK WITH.
I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT IS ALLOWED FOR CONSIDERATION.
IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE IT WAS REALLY BROUGHT UP TO THE, TO THE MAGNITUDE OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
LIKE HOW DO UTILITIES COME INTO PLAY? UM, I MEAN, THEY'RE JUST, I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE THAT
[00:55:01]
GONE UP ROAD FAR FIELD THE ORIGINAL CONSIDERATION.I'M JUST REALLY INTERESTING, INTERESTING POINTS.
ONE POINT THAT IS NOT BEING NORMALLY DISCUSSED IS THE FACT THAT EVEN THE H D R C AND OTHERS STAFF HAVE INCLUDED IN THEIR, IN THEIR DETERMINATION, THEY WOULD BE MORE THAN LIKELY WILLING TO A PARTIAL DEMOLITION, DEMOLITION OF THE
I MEAN, THE ISSUE IS HERE, THERE'S WHAT PORTION IS THE ENTIRE BUILDING, UH, PART OF THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION? OR IS IT JUST THE MAIN TWO STORY STRUCTURE? AND THAT'S THE STUFF MR. IAN, THE, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 21,408 SQUARE FEET ABOVE.
SO EVEN IF IT WAS A WEEK USE UNDER COMMERCIAL, YOU'RE STILL AT ONE TO 400 AT A MINIMUM.
I MEAN, YOU'RE, YOU, YOU'RE NEEDING 50 PARKING SPACES.
YOU GOT LIKE FIVE AND THEY'RE ALL ILLEGAL ANYWAY, SO I MEAN, I'M JUST KIND OF, I, I DON'T KNOW.
I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT HOW ALL THAT WAS CONSIDERED.
WELL, HERE, HERE'S THE REAL, THE REAL CRUX HERE.
WE'RE ONLY DETERMINING WHETHER THE, UH, PURPOSE FOR, UH, FOR US TO MAKE A DETERMINATION IS FOR THE DEMOLITION ISSUE AND THE POTENTIAL OF A CAR LAW.
THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT BROUGHT TO THE H D R C OR DOES ANY CITY STAFF, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, A REDESIGN OF THE AREA WHICH WOULD INCORPORATE PARTIAL DEMOLITION OR ALTERATION OR COMBINATION OF ANY OF THE SUCH TO MAKE ANY OTHER TYPE OF CITY COMPLIANCES? I MEAN, FOR RIGHT OFF THE BAT, I MEAN, WE CAN ALL SEE IF THERE'S NO BUFFER ZONES ANYWHERE, WE'RE VERY CLOSE TO THE STREET.
I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S NOT OUR BURDEN AT THIS PARTICULAR, THAT HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION.
WHAT HAD TO OUR ATTENTION IS WHETHER THE, UH, O O H P, UH, HAS MADE THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR DENYING DEMOLITION AND FOR ACCEPTING THE APPLICATION FOR A CAR LOG.
WHAT I SEE HERE IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST LIKE ANYTHING ELSE.
IT'S, IT'S AN INTERESTING STRUCTURE.
I, I DISAGREE WITH THE SPANISH BACKGROUND, BUT THE INTERIOR DEFINITELY DE DEMONSTRATES TO ME SOME SORT OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE TO THE BUILDING ITSELF.
NOW, I DON'T BELIEVE THIS BUILDING WAS ACTUALLY BUILT ALL IN ONE PIECE.
I BELIEVE IT STARTED OUT AS ONE STRUCTURE AND PART, THIS IS TYPICAL IN
I THINK THAT IF, IF YOU WERE HANDLING A PARTICULAR PROJECT
I MEAN, YOU COULD HAVE INDOOR PARKING FOR ALL.
BUT THE POINT IS THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE, UH, THE, UH, UH, THE OFFICE DETERMINED WHETHER THEY DID THIS APPROVAL OR NOT.
AND THAT'S WHAT OUR RULING IS GONNA BE BASED UPON.
WELL, UM, I'LL, I JUST WANTED TO, IN CLOSING, ASK, DID UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY HAVE A STATEMENT REGARDING MY QUESTION ABOUT THE 75% IN THE STATE LAW? I BROUGHT THAT UP FEW YEARS AGO.
LET'S SEE WHAT STAFF HAS COME UP WITH.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND READ, UH, THE INFORMATION INTO THE RECORD REGARDING THE LANGUAGE OF THE HOUSE BILL THAT WAS REFERRED TO, UH, 24 96.
AND THEN, UM, ALMA LAZANO FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS GONNA ANSWER THE QUESTION AS TO HOW IT APPLIES.
SO SECTION 2 11 0 1 6 5 SAYS, DESIGNATION OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK.
SO A ACCEPTANCE PROVIDED BY SUBSECTION B, A MUNICIPALITY THAT HAS ESTABLISHED A PROCESS FOR DESIGNATING PLACES OR AREAS OF HISTORICAL, CULTURAL, OR ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE AND SIGNIFICANCE TO THE ADOPTION OF ZONING REGULATIONS OR ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES MAY NOT DESIGNATE A PROPERTY AS A LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK UNLESS ONE, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE DESIGNATE DESIGNATION.
OR TWO, THE DESIGNATION IS APPROVED BY THREE FOURTH VOTE OF A, THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE MUNICIPALITY, AND B, THE ZONING PLANNING OR HISTORICAL COMMISSION OF THE MUNICIPALITY, IF ANY.
SO, UM, UM, IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO OWNER CONSENT, DESIGNATION WAS APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW BECAUSE IT RECEIVED, UH, A SUPER MAJORITY BY COUNCIL AND A SUPER MAJORITY BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
THEREFORE, IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LEGISLATION BROUGHT UP.
SO THAT, WHAT WAS JUST READ WAS IT SAID THAT THE, THE GOVERNING BIDEN TOTALITY AND THE ZONING PLANNING
[01:00:01]
OR HISTORICAL COMMUNICATION, IF ANY, SO THAT'S, YOU ONLY NEED ONE OF THE THREE AND NOT ALL THREE COUNCIL AND THEN ONE OF THE THREE BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS IN THIS CASE, IT WAS APPROVED BY THE, IT RECEIVED A SUPER MAJORITY BY THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION.THAT, UH, WE, UH, LET'S GET BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ISSUE OF WHETHER, UH, THERE IS A, A, A ERROR IN THE PROCESS OF GERMANY.
UH, WHETHER A PERMIT SHOULD BE ISSUED FOR DEMOLITION.
UM, I WOULD HOPE THAT IT WOULD LIMIT OUR QUESTIONS TO THAT PARTICULAR AREA.
UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER STAFF MEMBER OR BOARD MEMBER RATHER, THAT WOULD LIKE TO ASK MAKA MR. MR. MAKA MAKA? YES.
WHO ELSE WOULD OPEN OR ASK? AKA SHE OKAY.
OKAY, MR. AKA YOU'RE ON THE FLOOR FIRST AND THEN WE'LL GO TO MS. THANK YOU.
UH, AND HEARING THE ARGUMENTS BOTH WAYS, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE NOTICED IN THIS AREA THAT I'VE SEEN QUITE A BIT IS THAT THE USABILITY, THE SCOPE OF USABILITY OF THIS BUILDING IS VERY NARROW AND ALL THE VARIABLES THAT GO FOR THE VARIANCES ARE JUST ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO DEAL WITH, UH, NO MATTER WHAT.
UH, THE ISSUE ON THIS AREA THAT I SEE MAINLY AND, UM, HAVE PASSED BY THERE QUITE A BIT, IS A TRAFFIC AND THE PARKING IN THAT AREA KIND OF DEAL.
AND I'M SURPRISED, I REALLY AM SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT A COUPLE OF ARCHITECTURAL THINGS ALONG THE EDGES IS CONSIDERED A HISTORIC BUILDING, WHICH THERE ARE NONE AROUND THE AREA THAT I'M NOTED FOR THAT I'M NOTED.
AND, UH, I, I'M JUST SURPRISED AT THAT, AT THE RULING ON THIS THING.
BUT, UM, THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO STATE ON THAT.
UH, THAT IS NOT AN
MICHELLE, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YES.
THIS QUESTION IS FOR O H P STAFF.
UM, DURING THE, UH, PRESENTATION THAT THE APPLICANT MADE, UM, HE STATED THAT IT, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY DURING THE DESIGNATION PROCESS.
IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS COULD BE APPLIED FOR DURING THAT PROCESS, UM, OR ANY TIME AFTER APPROVAL.
DID THE APPLICANT APPLY AT ALL TO MAKE ANY IMPROVEMENTS OR DO ANY WORK WHATSOEVER? ANY, WERE THERE ANY APPLICATIONS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DURING THE TIME, UM, THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP? SO, SO YOU'RE CORRECT.
UM, ONCE A DESIGN, ONCE THE DESIGNATION PROCESS HAS BEGUN, UM, THERE ARE INTERIM CONTROLS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY.
SO, UM, DURING THAT TIME, IT'S BEING REVIEWED BY CITY COUNCIL AND ZONING COMMISSION, ET CETERA.
UM, IT WOULD BE TREATED LIKE A HISTORIC LANDMARK, SO WORK CAN CONTINUE AS LONG AS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IS, UH, REQUESTED AND ISSUED.
UM, AND THERE WERE NO REQUESTS DURING THAT INTERIM PERIOD OR TO DATE.
JUST AS A FOLLOW UP QUESTION, UM, THE APPLICANT ALSO SAID THAT THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS WERE BEING REMOVED BECAUSE OF THIS DESIGNATION.
UM, USUALLY WITH A HISTORIC LANDMARK, UM, THERE ARE OFTEN FINANCIAL INCENTIVES AS SUCH AS TAX INCENTIVES, BUT REALLY, UM, ALL THE PROPERTY RIGHTS REMAIN THE SAME AS LONG AS THEY APPLY FOR THAT CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, JUST LIKE THEY WOULD APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT OR A DEMOLITION PERMIT.
IS THAT CORRECT? DEFINITELY DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ASK, BUT, BUT GENERALLY, YES.
UM, WE'RE NOT GOING TO, UH, STRIP DOWN THE USE, UH, THAT'S ALLOWABLE FOR THE PROPERTY.
THE BASELINING, ZONING'S GOING TO DICTATE THAT.
AND SO IT'S REALLY JUST THE REVIEW PROCESS THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO THE, TO THE SITE.
AND THE USE COULD BE ANYTHING THAT IS IN THE ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY? CORRECT.
ANY, ANYTHING AUTHORIZED IN C THREE RIGHT NOW? UNLESS IT WAS REZONED.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS THAT NEED TO ADDRESS MAN MANNA, MR. MANNA, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
SO, UM, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS, UM, I GUESS, AND MR. MANCHACA ALSO TALKED ABOUT A LITTLE BIT WAS, UH, THE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION OF THE STYLE OF ARCHITECTURE.
AND SO, SO LOOKING AT THE BEAR COUNTY APPRAISAL SHOWS THAT PART OF THE STRUCTURE IS IN 1950, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE DIALOGUE HERE IS FROM 1929.
ARE THERE OTHER BUILDINGS IN THIS AREA THAT HAVE THAT, THAT SAME ARCHITECTURE? SO THAT KIND OF TIES IN TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS SOME COMMONALITY WITH REGARDS TO THAT ARCHITECTURAL STYLE? UM, AS FAR AS THIS GOOD.
YEAH, I MEAN THIS IS A LITTLE UNIQUE AT THIS LOCATION.
UM, TYPICALLY THE FURTHER SOUTH YOU GO, UM, THE NEWER THE CONSTRUCTION BECOMES, UM, THERE ARE A FEW OF COURSE HISTORIC LANDMARKS ON SOUTH FLOORS CORRIDOR.
[01:05:01]
AND THEY'RE GOING TO DATE TWO AND PREDATE THIS TIME PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION.UM, THE SPAN OF ECLECTIC STYLE YOU SEE THERE WITH THE ARCH OPENINGS AND, UH, LITTLE BIT OF, UH, BRICK TILE IN THE PARAPET.
THAT'S VERY COMMON IN SAN ANTONIO.
WE SEE THAT ALL OVER OUR COMMERCIAL AREAS.
UM, I I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ANSWERING THE QUESTION, BUT THIS IS A PRETTY, UH, UNIQUE BUILDING FOR THE, FOR THE AREA, BUT ALSO ARCHITECTURALLY, UH, INDICATIVE OF SAN ANTONIO AND CONSTRUCTION DURING THAT PERIOD.
WELL, I GUESS THE, UM, THE APPLICANT WAS, WAS STATING THAT THIS DIDN'T FIT THAT ARCHITECTURE AND I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS THAT THE CITY BELIEVES THAT IT DOES FIT THIS ARCHITECTURE.
UM, THAT WAS ONE OF OUR FINDINGS THAT THE H C R C CONCURRED ON.
AND SO, UM, THE H C R C, UM, IS THE REVIEW BODY THAT, UM, DETERMINES ELIGIBILITY, UM, AND IT MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION.
AND SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE, UH, UH, REASONS FOR, UH, ELIGIBILITY THAT WAS, UH, MENTIONED IN THE FINDING BY H D R C.
ALRIGHT, IS THAT ALL THE QUESTIONS WE'RE GONNA HAVE? ALRIGHT, NOW REMEMBER THE, WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY REVIEWING IS ALL THE INFORMATION HAVE A WEALTH OF INFORMATION REQUEST STATUS.
WE'RE HERE IN, UH, TO, TO REVIEW THE, UH, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE DECISION TO WITHHOLD THE PERMIT FOR DEMOLITION.
THAT'S ALSO PERMIT FOR BUILDING A CAR WALK.
AND THE QUESTIONS ARE, DID YOU LET THE, DID THE CITY STAFF FOLLOW THE APPROPRIATE METHODS IN DEALING WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM? UM, IF WE VOTE TO, UH, SUPPORT THE CITY STAFF, IT MEANS THE, UH, APPLICANT MUST CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE CITY STAFF IN ORDER TO GET, UH, SOME ACCOMPLISHMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
IF WE VOTE IN, IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL, THEN ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE STOPPING THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS FOR THE HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD AND THE, UH, ALLOWING THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS MET THE CRITERIA TO, UH, BE ALLOWED A PERMIT FOR DEMOLITIONS NOW STAFF.
IS THAT A, A PROPER, UH, INTERPRETATION? UH, YES SIR, IT IS.
UH, BUT JUST AS A REMINDER OF THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS O H P, THEY GET A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL.
WELL, I JUST WANTED TO GET THIS CLARIFIED SO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE WE GET TO THAT POINT.
SO, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, START WITH THE, UH, UH, STAFF REBUTTAL AND, UH, THEN WE'LL, WE'LL FINISH WITH THE APPLICANT.
I THINK EVERYTHING WAS ADDRESSED, UM, IN THE Q AND A, SO WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL.
AND, UH, I GUESS THE NOW WOULD BE THE APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL.
THE ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT WE HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF READING OF THE, UH, SECTION 2 1 1 0.0165 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT MR. ORIAN SAID, WHICH IS THAT YOU MUST HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY OF BOTH THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE MUNICIPALITY AND EITHER THE ZONING PLANNING OR HISTORICAL COMMISSION.
YOU MUST HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY OF BOTH, AND THEY DID NOT HAVE THAT IN THIS CASE.
AND WE THINK THAT, UH, INCLUDING THE PERSON WHO, UH, AUTHORED THAT PROVISION OF THE TEXAS, UH, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE IS THAT WILL TELL YOU THAT THAT'S HIS UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT MEANT AS WELL.
SO I THINK INITIALLY THAT THE FACT THAT IT WAS NEVER PROPERLY DESIGNATED DEPRIVES, UH, ALL THE SUBSEQUENT BODIES, INCLUDING THIS ONE OF THE RIGHT TO DENY THE DEMOLITION PERMIT BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEEN PROPERLY DESIGNATED.
YOU'RE YOU'RE ACTUALLY ON MUTE RIGHT NOW.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? THERE YOU GO.
UH, BEFORE WE, UH, CLOSE THIS PORTION, I WANT A CLARIFICATION BECAUSE THE ONE ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE THAT COMES REPEATEDLY OPEN TIME IS WHAT DESIGNATES A SUPER MAJORITY OF THE VARIOUS BOARD AND MUNICIPALITY PORTION TO HAVE TO MAKE THIS RULING.
SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE, WHAT WAS THE VOTE AND WHAT WOULD, WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO BE A SUPER MAJORITY FOR TEACHING THESE, UH, BOARD OF COMMISSIONS OR, OR, UH, COUNSEL?
[01:10:02]
UM, IN OTHER WORDS, SO WE CAN, WE CAN SPEAK TO THE REZONING FOR THE HISTORIC LANDMARK, UH, CASE, AND THEN I'M GONNA ASK IF CORY HAPPENS TO KNOW WHAT THE VOTE WAS FOR H D R C.UH, BUT FOR CITY COUNCIL IT WAS A SUPER MAJORITY, SUPER MAJORITY IS NINE VOTES.
UM, AND IT WAS APPROVED AT NINE.
UH, CORY, DO YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT THE H D R C VOTE WAS? YOU, YOU'D HAVE TO WAIT FOR ME TO PULL UP THE MINUTES, BUT THE SUPER MAJORITY REQUIREMENT IS ALSO NINE WITH H D R C.
AND SO WE HAD THE MINIMUM OF NINE.
WE MIGHT'VE HAD 10, BUT I'D HAVE TO LOOK TO, TO MAKE SURE.
WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND LOOK THAT RIGHT NOW, IF YOU COULD, UH, BEFORE I CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE, UH, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO CONFUSION BECAUSE THAT IS, UH, THE POINT OF CONTENTION BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND STAFF THAT GOES HIS NAME.
THAT, THAT MR. ORIAN, YOU CAN LOOK IT UP AS WELL.
MY RECOLLECTION IT WAS SEVEN THREE, BUT I'LL SEE IF I CAN'T FIND THAT.
I THINK WHAT HE'S REFERRING TO IS THE ZONING COMMISSION.
UM, AND AGAIN, IF YOU READ THAT THE HOUSE BILL, IT'S, UH, THE GOVERNING OF MUNICIPALITY, WHICH IS CITY COUNCIL, AND THEN THE OTHER ONE WAS THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION, WHICH IS THE H D R C.
SO AGAIN, ONLY TWO BODIES, CITY COUNCIL AND HISTORIC.
UH, AND SO THAT'S THE HISTORIC ONE IS WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO CONFIRM RIGHT NOW.
SO H C R C HAS, HAS 10 POSITIONS.
UM, 10 WERE PRESENT AND ALL 10 VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE DESIGNATION.
SO THEREFORE WE PRETTY MUCH CONFIRMED THAT THE SUPERMAJORITY VOTED, UH, IN FAVOR OF, OF, UH, THE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY, WHICH REALLY IS NOT IN OUR REVIEW, BUT IT DOES SETTLE AN ISSUE.
NOW THE QUESTION THAT WE NEED TO, UH, DEAL WITH, AND AT THIS POINT I'M GOING AHEAD AND CLOSING THIS TO THE PUBLIC.
I'M GOING TO HAVE, UH, I'LL BE INVENTING A MOTION, BUT REMEMBER WHAT I HAD MENTIONED BEFORE ABOUT WHAT IT TAKES IN DEALING WITH THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST.
WE ARE ONLY DEALING WITH THE MOTION, UH, OR RATHER THE, UH, REQUEST FOR THE APPLICANT TO, TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF NON ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT, UH, AND FURTHER THE CAR WASH.
I WOULD ENTERTAIN SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST.
CORIAN, MR. ORIAN, PLEASE TAKE, PLEASE GIVE US THAT
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT AND APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S DENIAL OF THE DEMOLITION OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK AT 4,007 SOUTH FLORE STREET AND THE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF A NEW CAR WASH APPLICANT BEING G F R DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, L L C MICHAEL NOSAL.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? WHO MADE THAT SECOND SHELL? YES, SHELL.
ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
MR. ORY, WOULD YOU START THE DISCUSSION ON THIS PARTICULAR REPORT? SURE.
UM, YOU KNOW WHAT I, WHAT I, WHAT I'M GONNA BE HANGING MY HAT ON, I'M GONNA BE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS RED AND I'M HANGING MY HAT ON THE BURDEN OF PROOF, UM, UH, SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE OWNER CANNOT MAKE REASONABLE, BENEFICIAL USE OR RE OR REALIZE A REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN ON A STRUCTURE SITE REGARDING, UH, THAT, THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US.
AND THIS SITE IS, IS SO INUNDATED WITH ISSUES THAT GO IN THAT DEAL WITH SO MANY DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT AND ITEMS THAT WOULD REQUIRE VARIANCES FROM SO MANY DIFFERENT ENTITIES.
UH, AND, AND EVEN, AND A LOT OF THEM ARE RELATED TO, UM, PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES THAT I, I, I JUST, I DON'T THINK, I THINK THAT BURDEN, UH, WAS MET THAT THE, THAT WITHOUT THE DEMOLITION, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD, I DON'T THINK A, A SAFE DEVELOPMENT, UH, THAT THAT COULD, COULD BE ATTAINED.
AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL.
I DO WANT TO ADD THAT, YOU KNOW, I'VE READ, I WENT THROUGH THE, THE, THE HOUSE BILL, UH, TEXAS LEGISLATOR AND READ SOME OF THE SUMMARIES AND, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN READ THAT MANY DIFFERENT WAYS.
UM, I DON'T, I MEAN, I, I I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT THE WAY I READ IT, IT YOU HAD TO GET A 75% VOTE BY EVERYBODY THAT ENTERTAINED THE ISSUE.
SO, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M BASING THIS IS ON.
I THINK THE BURDEN OF PROOF ISSUE IS JUST, THERE'S JUST TOO MUCH, UH, GOING ON THERE.
A D A UTILITIES, DRAINAGE, PARKING OR ARTERIAL STREET.
THERE'S JUST TOO MUCH THAT BUILDING'S
[01:15:01]
WAY TOO BIG FOR THAT CREDIBLY SMALL LOT.SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL.
UH, MICHELLE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION? UM, YES.
E EVEN THOUGH I SECONDED THE MOTION, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING IT.
UM, AND THE REASON IS ALMOST THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF MY COLLEAGUE.
UM, I DON'T FEEL THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED, UM, ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATED, UH, AN ECONOMIC HARDSHIP.
UM, THEY HAVE NOT TRIED LISTING IT FOR SALE OR LEASE.
THEY HAVE, UM, ONLY PROVIDED ONE BID WITH LINE ITEMS NOT BROKEN OUT.
UM, THEY DID NOT APPLY FOR ANY CFAS TO TRY TO RECTIFY ANYTHING ON THE BUILDING THEMSELVES, AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THEY FULLY, UM, DEMONSTRATED THAT ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, UH, IN ORDER TO, UH, GET THIS DEMOLITION PERMIT.
OH, ZDA BRAGMAN, MS. FRANKLIN, YOU, I BELIEVE YOU SPOKE FIRST.
UM, SO I AGREE WITH, UH, MR. ORIAN.
UM, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE, THE
I FEEL LIKE THIS IS EFFECTIVELY SEIZING THE PROPERTY, THAT THERE'S VERY LITTLE THAT CAN BE DONE WITH IT.
AND SO IT IS A HARDSHIP, SO I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.
AND, UH, I BELIEVE THAT WAS MR. OZUNA.
I I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS WELL.
I MEAN, IN ORDER FOR THE APPLICANT, I KNOW THERE'S A BURDEN TO EITHER SELL OR LEASE, BUT WE HEARD FROM TESTIMONY THAT THE BORROWER WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE PROPERTY IN A CONDITION TO BE ABLE TO MEET A SALE.
NOW THE SALE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE, IM IMPOSITION OF THE NEW HISTORIC DESIGNATION, UH, WHICH WE HEARD WOULD HAVE AN IMPAIRED VALUE ON THE SALE ALSO TO MEET A LEASE, A TENANT, UH, THE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD HAVE TO BE SUCH THAT A TENANT COULD COME IN AND MEET THE A D A AND MEET ALL THE OTHER, UH, REQUIREMENTS TO HAVE THE SPACE IN A, IN A LEASEABLE CONDITION, WHICH CLEARLY THE PROJECT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MEET.
WE SAW FROM THE TESTIMONY THAT THE SECOND FLOOR IS A BALLROOM.
CAN YOU IMAGINE A TENANT HAVING A BALLROOM, UH, LEASE UP THERE AND NOT MEET, MEETING ANY OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS OR ANY OF THE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS WITH ONE ENTRANCE AND EXIT IN THE PROPERTY? I MEAN, IT'S JUST NOT FEASIBLE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE TO IMPOSE THAT BURDEN ON THE APPLICANT.
AND THEREFORE, I AM SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.
ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS LIKE TO SPEAK OF MANA MANANA? MR. MANNA, YOUR CALL? SO I, I WILL BE, UH, NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS.
I AGREE WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER CHANEL WITH REGARDS TO THE POSITIONS THAT SHERE, UH, STATED.
UM, ALSO I THINK WITH REGARDS TO HISTORICAL STRUCTURES, UM, YOU KNOW, IT DOES HAVE THAT DESIGN DESIGNATION, UM, YOU KNOW, THE TIMING, YOU KNOW, IS WHAT IT IS.
BUT, UM, I THINK THAT THERE IS A CHALLENGE HERE THAT, THAT I THINK THE OWNER CAN WORK WITH THE CITY TO FIND, UH, EQUITABLE SOLUTIONS.
AND I THINK UNTIL IT IS THAT THAT DIALOGUE HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED, I THINK THAT ANYTHING DONE PRE ANYTHING DONE AT THIS POINT WOULD BE PREMATURE, UM, JUST TO RAISE THE BILL SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT DIALOGUE HASN'T HAPPENED YET.
ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER WOULD LIKE TO, TO SPEAK THAT? YEAH, PLEASURE.
YES, I WILL BE, UH, AGREE WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER SHELL IN THAT I'VE SEEN BUILDINGS IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS, UH, UM, THE OUTCOMES ARE, UH, BENEFICIAL TO BOTH PARTIES.
SO I AGREE THAT ALL AVENUES HAVE NOT BEEN EXHAUSTED.
MR. UH, ANYONE ELSE? I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM MR. PEEL.
HE IS ONE PERSON I WAS INTERESTED TO HEAR MR. PEEL, ARE YOU THERE? THERE? YES, SIR.
UM, YOU KNOW, I, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS READ, UH, THE LOGISTICS OF, OF TRYING TO MAKE A, THAT SITE, UH, COMPLIANT IN ANY WAY.
IT, IT, IT WOULD BE AN INSURMOUNTABLE TASK, AND I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE REALITY OF THAT.
AND SO THEREFORE I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS READ.
NOW, I RECALL WHAT I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE ISSUE IS NOT WHAT IS DONE WITH THE PROPERTY OTHER THAN IF THE, UH, UH, HISTORICAL PRESERVATION OFFICER MADE THE RIGHT DECISION.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE, UH, SUGGESTING HERE.
SO WHAT I'M GOING TO ASSUME BY SOME OF YOUR RESPONSES IS THAT THOSE AREAS OF YOUR INTEREST WERE NOT INCLUDED IN HIS POSITION PROCESS.
SO I'M, I'M GONNA ASSUME THAT TO KEEP THINGS IN ORDER HERE.
UH, AND, UH, MY, MY ONLY INPUT AT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE IS
[01:20:01]
THAT, UH, WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH AN ISSUE WHERE SOMEONE BUYS A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN SOMEONE ELSE COMES IN AND CHANGES THE WAY HOW HE CAN USE THAT PROPERTY OR LIMITS TO WHAT HE CAN DO TO CHANGE, IMPROVE IT, OR CHANGE IT OR WHATEVER, UH, THERE ARE A LOT OF INSTANCES IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WHERE THIS OCCURRED, WHERE SOMEONE BUYS A PIECE, A PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES, SITS ON IT.BEFORE YOU KNOW IT, THE ZONING GETS CHANGED ON AND THEY END UP GOING TO, UH, INTO LITIGATION WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
AND I CAN TELL YOU FROM EXPERIENCE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WOUND, BUT THE ISSUE REALLY HERE IS DID THE OFFICE GO THROUGH THEIR DUE DILIGENCE PRIOR TO ISSUING A, UH, DECISION NOT TO ISSUE A DEMOLITION PER, UH, PERMIT? AND I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE.
SO AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, I'M GOING TO REQUEST THAT WE GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL, VOTE AND, UH, SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT.
MICHELLE, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. MENCHACA, I SUPPORT THE APPEAL, MS. CRUZ.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. FISHER.
MR. BATTLE, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU, SIR.
WHAT ARE THE NEXT ONE? COME BACK.
MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. ORIAN.
I CONCUR WITH THE MOTION, UH, FOR THE APPEAL, THE MOTION, HOWEVER, THE, THE VOTES DO NOT SUPPORT THAT AND THE, UH, MOTION FAILS.
SO, UM, I GUESS YOU'RE BACK WITH CITY STAFF AND, UH, GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROCESS AND LET'S GO ON TO OUR NEXT CASE.
[3. 20-7170 BOA-20-10300134]
NUMBER THREE, CASE.SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3 1 1 BRIGGSDALE.
IT IS LOCATED WITHIN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER TWO.
THE APPLICANT IS GEORGE GERVIN YOUTH CENTER, INC.
THE REQUEST IS FOR VARIANCE FROM ONE THE A THREE A THREE DISTRICT PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW PARKING WITHIN THE FRONT YARD AND TWO, THE A E THREE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE PARKING AND LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT TO ALLOW PARKING WITHIN THE FRONT PROPERTY, UH, AND TO HAVE A TOTAL LOT SIZE OF 7.22 ACRES.
THE ZONING DISTRICT RESTRICTS LOTS TO FIVE ACRES FOR ONE BLOCK.
THE PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OTHER A E THREE STANDARDS AND IT FRONTS ON A LOCAL ROAD, NOT PRIMARY ARTERIAL, UM, OR ENHANCED SECONDARY ARTERIALS.
THE USE OF THE LOT WILL BE AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES REQUESTED AND B O A 21 0 3 0 0 1 3 4 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS.
ONE, THE REQUEST DOES NOT NEG NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, NOR WILL IT SIGNIFICANTLY AFTER THE ALTER THE APPEARANCE OF THE DISTRICT.
AND TWO, THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL ALLOW MAXIMUM USE OF THE VACANT PROPERTY THAT'S MAILED.
32 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.
NONE WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR? NONE IN OPPOSITION.
THE COSSUM OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR, AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE COSM WILLOW PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
[01:25:03]
NOW WE WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE APPLICANT.UH, HE PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SO MY NAME IS, UH, RICHARD HENDRICKS WITH M B C ENGINEERS.
YOU SAID THE ADDRESS FOR THE PROJECT SITE OR ADDRESS FOR M B C ENGINEERS.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, FOR FOR THE LOCATION, CORRECT? FOR THE ENGINEERING FIRM.
THE ENGINEERING FIRM IS 1 0 3 5 CENTRAL PARKWAY, NORTH SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 3 2.
WE WERE, UM, I GUESS BEEN HIRED BY THE, UH, GEORGE GARVIN FOUNDATION TO WORK ON CREATING A SITE PLAN AND, AND, UH, CONSTRUCTION PLANS TO CONSTRUCT THE ECHO EAST APARTMENT PROJECT.
UM, AS WE'VE BEEN MOVING ALONG WITH OUR, OUR PERMIT PROCESS, UM, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE SITE, WHILE IT'S UNDER THE, UH, ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT ZONING, THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A, UH, FRONT SETBACK, NOT TO EXCEED A 10 FEET AND NO, UM, PARKING, BUT TO BE PROVIDED BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE ADJACENT BRIGGSDALE RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, AS WE STARTED TO PROGRESS WITH THE, UH, THE LAYOUT, WE WERE, UH, WE NOTICED THAT THE HEALTHCARE FACILITY TO THE NORTH OF US, THEIR BUILDING IS SET BACK, LITTLE OVER A HUNDRED FEET, AND THEN THEY HAVE THE ADJACENT, UM, COMMERCIAL LITTLE RETAIL CENTER JUST TO THE SOUTH OF US IS SET BACK OFF THE STREET ABOUT 70 FEET.
WE REALIZED THAT, AND IN KEEPING WITH, I GUESS, THE APPEARANCE OF THE FACILITIES OR THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THAT, UM, WEST SIDE OF BRIGGSDALE, THAT BY SETTING THE BUILDINGS BACK, KEEPING 'EM IN LINE SO THAT THEY HAVE A COMMON, UH, SETBACK AND, UM, BUILDING ENVELOPE APPEARANCE WITH THE, UH, PARKING IN THE FRONT BETWEEN BRIGGSDALE AND THE BUILDING.
THAT'S KIND OF THE WAY THAT WE SET THIS ONE UP.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, UM, WE'VE SINCE GONE IN SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION TO HAVE THAT, I GUESS, VARIANCE FOR THE, TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE PARKING IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN HAVE THE BUILDING SET BACK, UH, BEING IN LINE WITH THE ADJACENT USES.
SIR, DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION? UH, NO.
I'M ALSO WITH THE GEORGE GERVIN YOUTH CENTER.
I'M AN ATTORNEY IN SAN ANTONIO WITH THE LAW FIRM OF OLIVA SAX GARCIA AND L L P AND I.
OUR OFFICE IS AT 1 4 2 5 5 BLANCO ROAD, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 6.
AND I SERVE AS LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE GEORGE GERVIN YOUTH CENTER INCORPORATED.
UH, I CONCUR WITH WHAT, UH, MR. HENDRICKS, OUR, OUR, UH, ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT STATED, BUT I'D LIKE TO GO INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE, UM, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL PLEASE.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, JUST IN THE WAY OF A SHORT BACKGROUND, THIS PRO THIS PROPERTY, UH, UH, THE PROPOSED 7.22 ACRE SITE IS A COMBINATION OF PROPERTY THAT'S, UH, UNDER A THREE 80 AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, A PARCEL OF LAND THAT, UH, YOU CAN SEE OFF OF THE, OFF THE PARCEL THAT'S LAID OUT.
THE OVERALL SITE PLAN THAT THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE, UH, THE BOARD, UH, THAT INCLUDES A TWO OTHER PARCELS THAT ARE OWNED, UM, BY THE GEORGE GERVIN YOUTH CENTER INCORPORATED, UH, ONE BEING THAT A CAR WASH FACILITY THAT FACES SPRITZ ON THE NORTHEAST END OF THE PROPOSED ENTRANCE OF THE MULTI-FAMILY SITE.
UH, THIS IS THE, THE PRESENT STRUCTURE THAT I, I BELIEVE THE BOARD SAW EARLIER, UM, ON THE SCREEN.
UH, THE, THE CAR WASH ACTUALLY STILL IS, IS, UH, THERE AND HAS NOT BEEN DEMOLISHED.
UM, AND IT SITS RIGHT, UM, SMACKING, YOU KNOW, ON, ON SPRIGGS DALE.
UM, AND THE, THE LAYOUT HAD BEEN QUITE A BIT, UH, OF WORK BOTH ARCHITECTURALLY
[01:30:01]
AND ENGINEERING WISE, UH, TO TAKE THE, UH, THE USE OF THE PROPOSED, UH, LAND WITH THE ACCESS, UM, OFF OF SPRINGDALE, WHICH IS, UH, LIKE, UH, CITY STAFF STATED IS NOT A, A ONE OF THE MAIN ARTERIES OR A SECONDARY ARTERY.UM, IT'S A, IT'S A BACK, UM, BASICALLY A LOCAL ROAD THAT, THAT, UH, ACCESSES, ACCESSES THE, THE RESIDENTIAL, UM, SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES DOWN THAT STREET ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET ON SPRINGDALE.
UH, THERE IS A, UM, ALSO A MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT THAT'S, UH, UH, QUITE BEEN THERE QUITE A BIT OF TIME.
I, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY YEARS, BUT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, UM, IT'S BEEN THERE.
IT'S, I THINK IT'S ALSO SECTION EIGHT HOUSING.
UH, WE, OUR, OUR PROPOSING THIS BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE, UH, NATURE OF THE, THE LAYOUT OF THE LAND, ESPECIALLY WORKING WITH THE ENGINEERING, UM, AND OUR ARCHITECTURAL, UH, GROUP FOR ALMOST A YEAR AND A HALF SINCE I'VE BEEN INVOLVED, UM, ALLOWS THIS PARTICULAR DESIGN ALLOWS US, UM, TO HAVE THAT MINIMAL BUFFER OF PARKING ON THE FRONT.
UM, IT WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP FOR US TO, UH, TO, UH, HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE PARKING ON THE BACKSIDE OF THIS PRO PROJECT, WHICH, UM, IS ONLY, UH, WITH, IS REQUIRED UNDER OUR ZONING, THE AE THREE ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT ZONING BECAUSE WE'RE, UM, I BELIEVE BECAUSE IT, IT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION AREA DESIGNATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE, UM, THE REQUIREMENT UNDER 35.358, THAT IT'D BE AT LEAST, UM, THAT IT'D BE WITHIN ONE HALF MILE.
UH, WE DON'T ACTUALLY FALL UNDER THAT, UH, WHICH WAS A, UH, BECAUSE WE WERE ACTUALLY OUTSIDE OF THE, THE ONE HALF MILE WE'RE A LITTLE OVER BY, BY A BED.
SO, UH, WE ARE NOT, I THINK THE ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT, UH, ZONING, WHICH IS, UM, DISTRICT IS OBVIOUSLY A VERY IMPORTANT, UH, UH, DISTRICT, UH, THAT, THAT HAS MANY REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE U D C.
UH, BUT NATURALLY THIS WOULD NOT, UH, BE SOMETHING THAT IT CONTEMPLATED PROTECTING BECAUSE OF THE ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT, UM, AREA.
WE ARE LOOKING TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE, THE SETBACK LINES, UH, THAT ARE, UM, PRESENTLY ENJOYED BY THE HEALTHCARE CENTER IN THE FRONT, UH, COMMUNA, THAT, THAT OCCUPIES THE FRONT CORNER OF SPRITZ BE AND EAST COMMERCE.
UM, NATURALLY THERE'S A, UH, THE CAR WASH THAT I SPOKE ABOUT.
AND THEN ON THE NORTH WEST SIDE OF OUR ENTRY IS A, UM, IS A RETAIL, UH, BAR CALLED SANTA'S THAT'S BEEN THERE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME.
NO, I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY BEEN THERE MORE, 30, 40 YEARS.
UH, AND IT ALSO HAS A MINIMAL, UH, SETBACK, UH, THAT IT ENJOYS.
UH, AND, UH, IN ADDITION, THERE'S A CHURCH IN THE, IN THE AREA CALLED EMANUEL CHURCH, AND IT HAS A 30 FOOT SETBACK.
SO, UH, AS MR. HENDRICKS INDICATED, UH, THIS WOULD, UH, BE CONSISTENT WITH THE, UH, WITH THE LAYOUT OF OTHER, UH, BUSINESSES IN THE AREA.
UH, IN ADDITION, AS STATED, UM, IT, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH A TYPICAL LAYOUT OF A MULTIFAMILY, UM, PROJECT AND WOULD ALSO BE, UH, THAT PARKING IN THE FRONT, WHICH WE'RE PROPOSING, UH, IS, IS VITAL FOR, UH, THE, THE, THE SECURITY OF OUR, OF THE PEOPLE IN OUR THAT ARE GONNA BE LIVING ON THE PROPERTY TO HAVE THAT, UH, ACCESS BEING, UH, ON THE, THE FRONT END OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT BEING, UH, ABLE TO ACCESS THE INTERIOR, UM, OF THE, UH, OF THE UNITS.
UM, BEING ABLE TO DRIVE THROUGH, UH, NATURALLY AS, AS, AS EVERYONE WOULD KNOW, THAT HAVING THAT PARKING IN THE FRONT WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO COME INTO THE MAIN, UM, UH, ENTRANCE, UH, OF THE PROJECT, THE, THE MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX, UH, TO, TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY AND IT, AND IT WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT, THAT NATURAL BUFFER, UH, TO PROVIDE FOR SAFETY, UH, OF OUR, OF OUR FUTURE TENANTS.
UH, THIS IS A PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN SUPPORTED, UM, BY ALL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS.
UH, UH, WE'VE, UM, WE RECENTLY PROVIDED A, UH, OR ARE PURSUING, UH, AN APPLICATION WITH THE T D H C A, AND IN DOING SO, WE, WE ACTUALLY, UH, OBTAINED,
[01:35:01]
I WANT TO SAY AT LEAST SEVEN DIFFERENT AP UH, APPROVAL AND SUPPORT LETTERS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS IN THE AREA.UM, WE, WE ARE, UH, WORKING ON THIS PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
UH, WE RECENTLY GOT A, AN AWARD FROM THE TS OF $2.55 MILLION, UM, IN SUPPORT OF OUR PROJECT, AND WE'RE IN, UH, A JOINT VENTURE WITH THE SAN ANTONIO HOUSING TRUST HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
SO THIS IS A PROJECT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON WITH THESE PROPOSED, THIS PROPOSED LAYOUT FOR, UH, NEARLY TWO YEARS.
SO WE ARE ASKING FOR, UH, THE BOARD TO APPROVE, UM, THIS PROPOSED LAYOUT AND, UH, VARIANCE OF THE ZONING UNDER A E THREE ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT, UH, DISTRICT ZONING.
AND THAT, THAT'S ALL I HAVE, UNLESS WE HAVE QUESTIONS.
ZEKE, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE APPLICANT'S FULL, UH, EXPLANATION.
DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, PUBLIC INPUT ON THIS? YES, WE HAVE TWO VOICEMAILS AND WE HAVE, UH, THE RESPONSE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THIS DIRECTLY.
WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION POLICY O, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
DEAR UH, DEAR NOTICE OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING REGARDING CASE BO O A 21 0 3 0 0 1 34.
SMM OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DIRECTORS HAVE MET WITH MRS. BARBARA HAWKINS AND AGREE ON THE FOLLOWING.
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ECHO EAST PROJECT ONE, MRS. BARBARA HAWKINS PROMISES TO INSTALL A TALL AND DURABLE GATE.
SHE MENTIONED DURING THE LAST MEETINGS OF THE ASSOCIATION BEFORE
IT'S VITAL FOR THE SAFETY AND PRIVACY OF THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN OUR COMMUNITY, OF OUR ASSOCIATION.
TO THE GATE, LOCATED IN THE END OF THE STREET ON AMBROSIA STREET, CONNECTED TO THE WALKING AREA OF THE PARK MUST REMAIN CLOSED.
AS WE STATE STATED IN DIFFERENT MEETINGS WITH MRS. BARBARA AND HER LAWYER, THE GATE WILL REMAIN CLOSED AT ALL TIMES.
THE ASSOCIATION HAS WORKED WITH DISTRICT TWO OVER THE YEARS TO INSTALL LIGHTING ONE PAVILION AND SITTING AREA FOR THE RESIDENTS OF OUR COMMUNITY, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SAFETY OF OUR RESIDENCE IS NUMBER ONE PRIORITY.
THE ASSOCIATION IS REQUESTED TO PLACE THE DUMPSTERS AWAY FROM THE BACK GATE OF THE RESIDENCE WHO LIVE ON BAXTER STREET, FOUR FOOD, RESTAURANTS AND BARS.
BUSINESSES MUST REMAIN AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE ON BAXTER STREET.
WE HAVE MANY RESIDENTS OVER THE AGE OF 65, THE AGE OF 65 YEARS LIVING ON THAT STREET.
WE WANT THIS AGREEMENT STATED IN THE RECORDS THAT THE COSSUM OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAVE SPOKEN TO MRS. BARBARA HAWKINS AND AGREED TO THE TERMS MENTIONED IN THIS EMAIL.
AND NOW WE WILL, UH, PLAY THE VOICEMAILS THAT WERE LEFT.
UM, I LIVE AT ONE 15 BAXTER AVENUE.
MY PHONE NUMBER IS ZERO CODE (210) 584-3086.
UM, AND I'M CALLING ABOUT, UH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING, UH, CASE NUMBER, UH, WITH THE LAST THREE DIGITS, 1, 3, 4.
UM, AND I'M CALLING BECAUSE AS A RESIDENT OF BAXTER, THIS, UM, REZONING AND THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GONNA DIRECTLY IMPACT, UM, THE FOLKS ON MY BLOCK.
AND SO I WANTED TO EXPRESS AND JUST LEAVE THE COMMENT THAT, UM, THE NOTICE THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE CITY, UM, IN REGARDS TO THIS HEARING, UH, WE RECEIVED A MAP THAT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO DECIPHER.
WE HAD NO IDEA WHAT, UM, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING WAS BLURRED AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAD TO ACTUALLY CALL, UM, DOMINIC SILVA TO ASK FOR DIGITAL COPIES, MY HUSBAND AND I.
AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ASKING FOR MORE TRANSPARENCY FROM THE CITY.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REQUEST, UH, IT SAYS A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR THE STANDARDS OF THE AE DASH THREE DISTRICT.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS, THERE'S NO INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THAT IS.
UM, AND IT WAS ACTUALLY REACHING OUT BECAUSE WE DO HAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, OUR COMMUNITY HERE HAS A GREAT WORKING RELATIONSHIP, UH, WITH BARBARA HAWKINS AND THE GEORGE GRIFFIN YOUTH CENTER AND THE DEVELOPERS WHO ARE WORKING ON THE ECHO EAST PROJECT.
SO IT WAS ACTUALLY FROM, FROM BARBARA THAT I HEARD WHAT A E THREE ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT, UH, THREE DISTRICT IS.
AND SO THEN I HAD TO LOOK INTO WHAT, UM, WHAT THAT MEANS AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
UM, AND SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THIS IS GONNA MEAN FOR THE STREET AND THE ROAD CHANGES IF
[01:40:01]
WE'RE REZONING, UM, USING QUOTES ON HERE.'CAUSE I, AGAIN, I HAD TO DO THIS RESEARCH.
THIS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN ANY OF THE NOTICES THE RESIDENTS WERE GIVEN, UH, QUOTE UNQUOTE TRADITIONAL STREET DESIGN STANDARDS.
I WANNA HEAR A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, A BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS AND WHAT THAT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE FOR CONSTRUCTION ON THE ROADS, HOW THAT'S GONNA IMPACT RESIDENTS DIRECTLY.
UM, AND THEN WHAT, WHAT IS THE VARIANCE WE'RE, WE'RE CURIOUS ABOUT? WHAT, WHAT EXACTLY WHAT DOES FOR CLARIFICATION, SIR? THIS ONE, WE DID RESPOND BACK TO THE APPLICANT.
IT WAS JUST AN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED.
UH, DOMINIC DID SPEAK WITH HER.
WE'RE GONNA PLAY THE NEXT MESSAGE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
UH,
MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 255-0062.
ME AND MY FAMILY ARE LIFELONG RESIDENTS AND HAVE BEEN COLLEGE OAKS RESIDENCE FOR SEVEN YEARS.
HOLLY OAKS IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTED TO 3 1 1 SPRINGDALE.
ME AND MY FAMILY RESIDE ON BACKER AVENUE.
NOW, YOU CAN'T TELL BY THE ELIGIBLE SITE TRANSCEND OUT TO RESIDENCE, BUT THE BUT BACK AVENUE IS THE STREET DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO 3 1 1 SPRINGDALE.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE GEORGE GING YOUTH CENTER IS THE BEST PARTNER FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE AS THEY DEMONSTRATED COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND INCLUSION THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS.
HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE SOME APPREHENSIONS AND ONE, THE GATE ON AMBROSIA BAXTER REMAIN CLOSED.
TWO, A GREEN SPACE BUFFER OF A NOTABLE SIZE BETWEEN BAXTER AVENUE RESIDENCE AND ANY ECHOES STRUCTURE OR PARKING.
THREE DUSTERS BE POSITIONED AWAY FROM THE BACKYARDS OF BAXTER AVENUE RESIDENCE.
AND FOUR, CONTINUING PROACTIVE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WITH NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS AS THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRESSES TWO PHASES MOVING FORWARD, WE REMAIN HOPEFUL OF CONTINUING A CLOSE WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GEORGE DUR YOUTH CENTER AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA HAWKINS USING A COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT FRAMEWORK AS AGREED ON EARLIER.
THAT'S THE EXTENT OF THE PUBLIC INPUT.
UH, I GUESS I'M GONNA HAVE A BOARD, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WE NEED ASK OF THE STAFF OR THE APPLICANT IN REGARD TO, UM, THE, UH, ORIAN? MR. ORIAN, YOU HAVE FLOOR? YES.
UH, SO THE, THE WHAT'S WHAT I'M NOTICING ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS THAT IT'S, THEY DON'T HAVE A, A SERIES OF EXTERIOR DOORS.
THERE'S A, THERE'S ONLY A HANDFUL OF GO INTO COMMON HALLWAYS.
UM, AND SO IT'S IS, UH, BUT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE STRUCTURE THAT'S NEAREST, UH, SPRINGDALE ROAD BECAUSE IT APPEARS TO BE SOME PUBLIC FUNDS ASSOCIATED.
IS THIS DEVELOPMENT GONNA HAVE A COMMUNITY CENTER THAT'S GOING TO NEED ITS OWN PARKING FOR EVENTS TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY? AND IF SO, CAN YOU PLEASE, UH, SPECIFY WHERE THAT IS? IN RELATION TO THE SURROUNDING PARKING, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE A COMMUNITY CENTER ON THE, UM, THE SUBJECT PAR 7.22 ACRE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS STRICTLY GONNA BE 192 UNIT, UH, MULTIFAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT.
IT IS GONNA HAVE A, UM, A, UH, PUBLIC AIR, I MEAN A, UM, AN AREA FOR THE TENANTS.
UM, A CLUBHOUSE THAT'S GONNA BE WITHIN THE, UH, THE COMPLEX.
BUT THE, UH, ANY TYPE OF PUBLIC ACCESS THAT IS NECESSARY IS GONNA BE, UH, IMPACTED ON PHASE TWO OF THE PROJECT, WHICH IS GONNA BE DEVELOPED ON THE, UH, GEORGE GERVIN ACREAGE ADJACENT TO THIS PRO PROJECT.
AND THEN THE PARKING THAT YOU'RE PROVIDING THAT, UH, IS ALONG BRIGGSDALE ROAD, ARE YOU GONNA BE MEETING THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, UH, WITH AN AE? THAT IS CORRECT.
WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE PROVIDED FOUR AND MR. HENDRICKS CAN ELABORATE, BUT WE'VE PROVIDED ADEQUATE, UH, PARK, UH, SCREENING, UH, PARKING SCREENING IN ADDITION TO ADDITIONAL, UH, LANDSCAPING THAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE HAS, UH, HAS A, HAS APPROVED.
AND, AND THEN FINALLY WITH 192 UNITS AND A, I ASSUME THE LEASING OFFICE AND THE COMMUNITY CENTER, WHAT IS YOUR, WHAT IS YOUR MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING AND, AND WHAT, WHAT PARKING ARE YOU OFFERING HERE, MR. HENDRICKS? WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE PARKING?
[01:45:01]
YEAH, SO WE'RE PROVIDING, UM, PARKING FOR THE SITE.WE WE'RE PROVIDING THE PARKING PER THE, THE CODE A MINIMUM OF 1.5, UH, SPACES PER UNIT.
AND, AND THEN THERE IS, UM, WHEN YOU COME INTO THE PROPERTY, SO THE, THE MAIN ENTRANCE IS GONNA BE THAT CENTER DRIVE, KIND OF THAT SPLITS THE TWO BUILDINGS? YES.
AND, AND SO WHAT THAT THAT'S GONNA DO IS ALLOW PEOPLE TO COME IN AND BE ABLE TO PARK, GO TO THE, UH, LEASING OFFICE.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, TOTAL SITE WILL HAVE 316 SPACES.
SO IF THE PARKING THAT IS PROVIDED IN THE FRONT YARD, WHICH SPANS ACROSS BRIGGSDALE WERE REMOVED, YOU WOULD BE GROSSLY UNDER.
AND WOULD IT BE BELOW THE REDUCTION THAT THE AE DISTRICT ALLOWS YOU TO DO FOR PARKING? YES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? CRUZ? MS. CRUZ, DO YOU HAVE A FLOOR? THANK YOU, SIR.
UH, THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT.
SINCE YOU'RE CONSTRUCTING A HUNDRED AND TWO, A HUNDRED NINETY TWO UNITS, IS THAT ALL GONNA BE CONSIDERED LOW INCOME OR IS IT GONNA BE HALF AND HALF? IT, UH, RIGHT NOW WE'RE WORKING UNDER THE, UH, REQUIREMENTS OF THE, WE'RE PURSUING A, UH, FINANCING WITH THROUGH HUD, THE 2 21 D FOUR.
AND WE'RE, WE ARE GOING TO BE, UH, IT'S GONNA BE UNDER AN INCOME AVERAGING OF AN AVERAGE OF 60% A M I.
IS THAT ALL THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT AND THE STAFF? ALRIGHT, IF THAT'S THE CASE MAY BE, THEN WHAT I'M GONNA DO IS I'M GONNA CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION, UH, FOR, UH, THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
WHO WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT? ORIENT? ALRIGHT, GO AHEAD.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 20 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 4, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM THE, FROM ONE, THE A E THREE DISTRICT PARKING REQUIREMENTS ALLOW PARKING WITHIN THE FRONT YARD AND TWO, THE A E THREE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT SITUATED AT THREE 11 SPRINGDALE AFTER THE GEORGE B CENTER, INC.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE FISCAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS TO THE LOT SIZE AND PARKING REQUIREMENT ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THAT THEY DO NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT ANY SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC DUE DEVELOPMENT OF THE VACANT PROPERTY WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
THE PROJECT IS COMPLIANT WITH ALL OF THEIR CODE REQUIREMENTS.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
LITTLE ENFORCEMENT WOULD NOT ALLOW THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE VACANT PROPERTY AS PROPOSED DUE TO THE ODDLY SHAPED CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT.
A MAJORITY OF THE PARKING WILL REMAIN BEHIND THE FRONT PROPERTY.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE IN THIS CASE, THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL, ALL OF THE CODE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AE THREE DISTRICT AND WILL ADHERE TO THE, WILL ADHERE TO, UH, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.
AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE BY IMPLEMENTING THE REQUESTED PARKING AND LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF THE VACANT LOT.
FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT OF WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL NOT PERMIT A USE NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
IT IS LOCATED IN FIVE, WHICH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES TO LOT SIZE AND PARKING WOULD ONLY ENHANCE THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF THE PROPERTY STREET SPACE.
AND DISTRICT SIX SUPPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPLY TO THE OWNER FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SAW IS DUE TO THE ODDLY CONFIGURED LOT AND FUTURE USE OF THE PROPERTY, A MAJORITY OF THE PARKING WILL REMAIN BEHIND THE FRONT PROPERTY AND AT JUST OVER SEVEN ACRES WILL REMAIN WITHIN THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE A E THREE DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES.
UH, WE'RE GONNA, I THINK THAT WAS, WAS THAT WHEN YOU MARIA THE SECOND? YES, SIR.
[01:50:01]
MOTION AND A SECOND, UH, MR IF YOU'D LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION? SURE.UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION, UH, FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.
ONE, UH, YOU KNOW, I I THINK THAT THEY'RE MEETING, UM, THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT IF THEY LOST ALL THAT PARKING ALONG THE FRONT, AND THEY ARE LIMITED TO A THIN STRIP WHERE THE CAR WASH USED TO BE, WHERE THERE'S A GOOD HANDFUL OF PARKING SPACES.
THEY, IT JUST, IT JUST WOULDN'T BE, UH, SUBSTANTIAL FOR THE, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS NOT REALLY COMPRESSED.
I MEAN, IT'S RELATIVELY SPREAD OUT.
I MEAN THIS, I JUST THINK THAT THIS BASED ON THE LAYOUT, THAT THEY'RE JUST FORCED TO HAVE PARKING ALONG THIS, UH, LONG FRONTAGE THAT THEY HAVE ALONG BRIGGSDALE ROAD.
SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORTIVE OF THAT, UH, AS WELL AS THE, UM, THE VARIANCE REGARDING THE, UH, THE FIVE.
UH, MS. SPRINGS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE YOUR INPUT? UH, YES, I CONCUR WITH MR. ORIAN.
I THINK, UH, IT'S GONNA BE A GOOD PROJECT, UH, AND I'M SURE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WON'T MIND THE, THE ADDITIONAL, UH, HOUSING, UH, AVAILABILITY FOR THAT AREA.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER, UH, BOARD MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO GIVE HER INPUT? YEAH, I'D LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING.
YEAH, I JUST, UM, I'M REALLY PLEASED TO SEE THIS PROJECT.
UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.
OBVIOUSLY SAN ANTONIO HAS, UH, AN ISSUE WITH, UH, HOUSING AFFORDABILITY, SO, UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS? IF, UH, FISHER, UH, MS. FISHER, GO AHEAD.
UH, IT APPEARS THAT THE, UH, DEVELOPER AND, UM, OWNER HAVE GONE AHEAD AND DEFINITELY COOPERATED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN COLLABORATION AND KEPT THEM AWARE OF ALL THE PROCESSES.
SO I, I FEEL THAT THE COMMUNITY LOOKS AS, AS A WELCOME, UM, DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA.
ANY OTHER INPUT? I, EXCUSE ME.
WHAT'D YOU WANT? UM, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT, UM, I AGREE WITH MS. FISHER.
THIS LOOKS LIKE, UM, A REALLY THOUGHTFUL SITE PLAN.
UM, AND THAT THEY'VE DONE A REALLY GREAT JOB COLLABORATING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, AND, UH, PARTICULARLY PAYING ATTENTION TO THE SETBACK, LISTENING TO THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, KEEPING, YOU KNOW, SOME GREEN SPACE BETWEEN THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL PARTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I, I, THIS LOOKS LIKE A REALLY GREAT PLAN AND I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCES.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE ROLL CALL VOTE.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. MANCHACA.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
UM, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. BRAGMAN.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. FISHER.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND SHARE.
MARTINEZ I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
THE MOTION PASSED IS APPROVED, UH, UNANIMOUSLY.
UH, GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECT.
UH, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEE SOME MORE BEAUTIFICATION ON THAT SIDE.
LET'S GO TO OUR, WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
LET'S GO TO OUR NEXT CASE NUMBER.
[4. 20-7060 BOA-20-10300113]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS CASE B O A 21 0 3 0 0 1 1 3.SUBJECT, YOUR PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2 6 3 7 NAVAJO STREET.
IT IS LOCATED WITHIN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT CITY COUNCIL.
THE APPLICANT IS POOL BREEZE CONSULTANTS, L L C.
THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE A 24 FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE TYPE B BUFFER YARD TO ALLOW THE SOUTHERN BUFFER YARD TO BE ONE INCH WIDE AND TWO, A 25 VARIANCE, 25 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE TYPE E BUFFER YARD TO ALLOW THE WESTERN BUFFER YARD TO BE FIVE FEET WIDE.
THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS, UH, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL WITH THE MILITARY LIGHTING OVERLAY DISTRICT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NEAR
[01:55:01]
THE CORNER OF WEST HUTCHINS PLACE IN BROADWOOD AVENUE.THERE IS CURRENTLY A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
OH, OH, SORRY, I'M READING OFF MY LAPTOP.
OKAY, SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND IT'S PLANNED AS A REDEVELOPMENT FOR A LONG-TERM VEHICLE STORAGE FOR THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, UH, WHICH IS A PAR SALES LOT SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES.
THERE IS NO SINGLE FAMILY USES WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
ALL OTHER ZONING REQUIREMENTS WILL BE MET.
HERE IS THE IMAGE OF THE SITE PLAN.
HERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND HERE'S THE, UH, NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES REQUESTED IN D O A 21 0 3 0 0 1 1 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS.
ONE, THE REQUEST DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, NOR WILL IT SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE APPEARANCE OF THE DISTRICT.
AND TWO, THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL ALLOW MAXIMUM USE OF VACANT PROPERTY.
STAFF MAILED NINE NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.
UH, NONE WERE RETURN IN OPPOSITION.
AND TWO, WERE RETURN IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA.
NOW WE'LL PASS IT ON TO THE APPLICANT.
UM, GRAHAM MOORE, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN YOU MAY PROCEED WITH YOUR PRESENTATION.
HELLO, MY NAME IS GRAHAM MOORE WITH COOL BREEZE CONSULTANTS.
MY ADDRESS IS 1314 AVENUE A SUITE A IN KATY, TEXAS, 7 7 4 9 3.
DO I NEED TO PROVIDE ANY OTHER INFORMATION OR IS THAT SUFFICIENT? YOU CAN JUST GO OVER YOUR, YOUR CASE AND, UM, PRESENT THE REASON YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCES.
UM, I REPRESENT, UH, GROUP ONE AUTOMOTIVE WHO OWNS, UH, FERNANDEZ HONDA, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THIS SITE, THE SOUTH.
AND THEY ALSO OWN THE, UH, EXISTING VEHICLE STORAGE LOT DIRECTLY TO THE WEST, AS WELL AS THIS VACANT SITE RIGHT HERE.
UM, AS PART OF, UH, THE REQUIREMENTS, UH, PUT FORTH BY HONDA CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, THEY ARE, UH, REQUIRED TO MEET CERTAIN PARKING, UH, REQUIREMENTS.
UM, IN ORDER TO DO THAT AND, AND MAXIMAL MAXIMALLY UTILIZE THIS PROPERTY, UH, WE ARE REQUESTING THESE VARIANCES, UM, ALONG THE SIDES OF THE PROPERTY THAT THE, THAT HAVE A COMMONALITY OF OWNERSHIP BY THE SAME APPLICANT.
UM, SO THE ONLY, THE ONLY PROPERTIES THAT WILL BE IMPACTED BY THIS ARE, ARE PROPERTIES THAT OWN, ARE OWNED BY THE APPLICANT REQUESTING THE VARIANCE ION MEETING THE REQUIRED, UH, LANDSCAPE BUFFERS ON THE, UH, OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN OUR SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLANS, WE ARE, WE'RE SIMPLY JUST TRYING TO, UH, EXPAND THE, UH, THE PARKING CAPACITY OF THE EXISTING FACILITIES AND THAT ARE THERE.
UM, OTHER THAN THAT, UH, GROUP ONE HAS A LONG HISTORY, UH, WITH FERNANDEZ HONDA AND, UH, HE INTENDS TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR.
AND, UH, WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS PROJECT AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CONCLUSION OF THE APPLICANT'S, UH, INFORMATION.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY TROUBLE FURTHER? YES, WE HAVE A CALLER ON THE LINE AND WE HAVE TWO, UH, TO READ IN.
ALRIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE CALLER.
UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN YOU CAN BEGIN.
MR. GARY, PLEASE, UH, UNMUTE IF YOU'RE HAVING TROUBLE.
HIT STAR SIX, I BELIEVE IT IS.
THIS IS, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN YOU CAN BEGIN.
THIS IS GARY WOODARD ON THE C E O OF SOUTH TEXAS RADIOLOGY IMAGING CENTERS, WHICH OWNS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OR BUSINESS ADDRESSES, 44 10 MEDICAL DRIVE, SUITE 200, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.
AND IF THE REDUCTION OF THE BUFFER YARD
[02:00:01]
FOR THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS GRANTED, THAT WOULD LIMIT OUR ABILITY TO ADMINISTRATIVELY REDUCE OUR BUFFER FOR FUTURE USE.BEFORE YOU LET YOU, I WAS GONNA ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION WHAT HE MEANT BY LIMITATION OF HIS SUFFER.
IS HE STILL THERE? I THINK HE, HE'S MUTED AGAIN.
HE NEEDS TO UNMUTE, BUT I THINK HE'S FOLLOWING ALONG ON HIS COMPUTER AND WE'RE TRYING TO TELL HIM NOT TO FOLLOW ALONG WITH HIS COMPUTER.
UM, SIR, IF YOU'RE ON THE LINE, PLEASE MUTE YOUR COMPUTER AND JUST LISTEN IN ON THE PHONE CALL.
ARE YOU THERE? HIT, HIT STAR SIX TO UNMUTE.
GARY, ARE YOU THERE? WELL, WHILE YOU'RE TRYING TO, WHILE YOU'RE TRYING TO GET HIM BACK WITH JUST AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT HE MEANT BY THAT, OF LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU HAD PROVIDED US, AND HE'S, HE LOOKS LIKE HE'S VERY MUCH CORRECT THERE A LIMITATION.
JUST TRYING TO DETERMINE HOW HE FELT THAT WAS A NEGATIVE ASPECT.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, YES.
COULD YOU ASK YOUR QUESTION AGAIN PLEASE? I WAS HAVING SOME TECHNOLOGICAL CHALLENGES.
WE WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT, YOU MADE A STATEMENT THAT YOU WERE LIMITING YOUR USE OF THE BUFFER YARD, AND I WAS ASKING FOR A CLARIFICATION OF WHAT YOU MEANT BY LIMITING YOUR USE.
IF WE'RE REQUIRED TO KEEP A 30 FOOT BUFFER AND WE HAVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE RIGHT TO REDUCE THAT BY 15 FOOT, IF THE OTHER PROPERTY IS REDUCED TO WHERE THEY ONLY, I THINK HAVE A FOUR FOOT BUFFER, I BELIEVE THAT REDUCES OUR ADMINISTRATIVE ABILITY TO REDUCE OUR BUFFER BY 15 FOOT.
SO YOU HAVE PLANS IN THE FUTURE TO DO SOME ALTERATIONS? YES, WE ARE, UH, IN THE PROCESS NOW OF DOING SOME WORK TO DEVELOP A FUTURE CENTER THERE.
WELL, YOU'LL HAVE THE SAME MONEY TO COME BEFORE THE PORT OF ADJUSTMENTS OR OPERATIONS OF THE YARD AS THE APPLICANT DID.
AND, UH, WE SHOULD NOTE THIS FILE IF YOU SHOULD DO SO, UM, BECAUSE YOU'LL HAVE TO, TO REDUCE IT.
SO, UM, NEVERTHELESS, THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT THAT, THAT THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT, SIR, KEEP IN MIND YOUR PROPERTY, IF YOU REQUEST A 50% REDUCTION, UH, WITH APPROVAL FROM THE NEIGHBOR, THAT'S STILL YOUR RIGHT TO DO SO.
THIS ONE DOES NOT AFFECT THAT.
SO YOU CAN STILL DROP IT TO 50%.
NOW IF YOU WANNA GO BELOW THAT 50% OR YOU KNOW, ADDITIONALLY, THEN OF COURSE YOU'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
I MEAN, HOW, I GUESS I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON HOW YOU COULD DO THAT.
IF RIGHT NOW THEY'VE REDUCED THEIR BUFFER TO WHERE IT'S WITHIN FOUR FOOT OF OUR BUFFER AND WE REDUCE OUR BUFFER ADMINISTRATIVELY BY 15 FOOT, THEN DON'T WE HAVE OUR BUFFERS ONLY 19 FOOT FROM EACH OTHER AT THAT POINT? COULD, SO THE WORK WORK IS WITH THE BUFFER YARD ITSELF.
IT'S GONNA BE REVIEWED ON A, ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.
SO YOUR YARD'S GONNA BE REVIEWED INDIVIDUALLY.
SO LANDSCAPE BUFFERS BASICALLY ALLOWS YOU TO DROP IT TO 50% WITH APPROVAL OF THE NEIGHBOR.
UM, SO IT'S NOT GONNA BE A FACTOR IF YOUR NEIGHBOR HAS A BUFFER YARD OR NOT.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING CONSTRUCTED BEFORE BUFFERS WERE EVEN REQUIRED.
SO THE, SO OUR ADMINISTRATIVE ABILITY TO REDUCE OUR BUFFER BY 15 FOOT IS NOT IMPACTED BY THEIR APPROVAL TO REDUCE THEIR BUFFER? THAT'S CORRECT.
LONG AS THAT'S, THAT'S REPORTED, RIGHT? THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS.
WE JUST DON'T WANT, WE JUST DON'T WANT TO GIVE UP.
I MEAN, EFFECTIVELY OUR CONCERN IS WE'RE GIVING UP 15 FOOT OF OUR PROPERTY BY ALLOWING THE OTHER FIFTH.
I MEAN, I THINK THEY'RE WANTING TO REDUCE THEIR BUFFER BY 26 FOOT CHAIR.
[02:05:03]
I GONNA SAY THIS IS GRAHAM MOORE WITH COOL BREEZE CONSULTANTS ON THE APPLICANT.JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THE BUFFERS, WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING TO BE REDUCED, THEY ABUT PROPERTIES THAT WE OWN ONLY, UM, ANYWHERE WHERE WE ABUT ANYONE ELSE THAT IS A DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNER, WE'RE MEETING THE REQUIRED BUFFER YARDS, CORIAN.
OKAY, HOLD ON A SECOND BEFORE WE START ASKING THE QUESTION.
I JUST WANT, I'M JUST WONDERING IF HE COULD CLARIFY WHERE HIS PROPERTY IS.
I'M TRYING TO SEE THAT ON THE MAP, THAT'S ALL.
UH, I CAN'T, I CAN'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN POINT TO IT, BUT IT'S DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE BAPTIST PROPERTY.
THE BAPTIST UNIVERSITY BUILDING USED TO BE CALLED THE HELI BUILDING.
THERE WAS A STREET PUT IN, UH, WHAT IS THE ADDRESS OF, OF YOUR RADIOLOGY LOCATION? BLOCK FIVE, BLOCK TWO N CCB 1 3 4 0 1 BAR LIGHT KARATS BAR LIGHT.
SO WHAT WE RECEIVED, I BELIEVE SHOWED THAT IT WOULD BE WITHIN FOUR FOOT OF OUR BUFFER.
I SEE A BAR LIGHT, UH, BOULEVARD AND I SEE A BUILDING THERE, BUT IT, ACCORDING TO WHAT I SEE, THAT THIS IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU.
IS THAT NOT, IS THAT NOT CORRECT? ARE YOU ABUTTING THE, UH, PROPERTY OF, UH, FERNANDEZ OR CONDO NOW? YES.
I BELIEVE OUR PROPERTY ABUTS THE PROPERTY.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE RECEIVED.
YOUR
NOW THE AREA OF THE INFLUENCE, WHICH IS A 200 YARD BUFFER, UH, COMES VERY CLOSE TO YOURS.
WE SHOW IT RIGHT? I MEAN, ADJACENT TO IT.
WHEN YOU TURN ONTO IT OUT, UH, UH, FROM THE EXCESS OF 35 SOUTH OR NORTH, UH, NAVAJO TURNS INTO BARLETT, UH, AS CORRECT.
AS IT AS IT, UH, CURVES TO THE RIGHT IS BARLETT, AND IF YOU STAY ON THE CURB, IT'S, IT'S NAVAJO, WHICH IS, UH, SOUTH SAN HIGH SCHOOL RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.
AND, AND, AND, AND I'M NOT, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE DIFFICULT.
I MEAN, WE JUST RECEIVED THIS NOTICE AND IT WAS A PRETTY QUICK TURNAROUND TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE REQUEST WAS.
UH, I WANNA BE HELPFUL AND COOPERATIVE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, AND WE SERVE THAT COMMUNITY AND HAVE DONE FOR A LONG TIME NOW.
SO I, I DON'T WANNA BE DIFFICULT.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVEN'T GIVEN UP OUR ABILITY TO OPERATE OUR PROPERTY TO THE HIGHEST, HIGHEST USE POSSIBLE, MAXIMIZE UTILIZATION.
YEAH, I'M NOT A DEVELOPER, SO PLEASE FORGIVE MY LACK OF LANGUAGE SKILLS ON THIS TOPIC.
WELL, YOUR, YOUR LAYMAN'S TERMS ARE FINE FOR THE BOARD.
SO THE QUESTION REALLY WAS IS THAT HOW IS THIS GONNA LIMIT WHAT YOU'RE DOING? AND THE APPLICANT SAYS THAT THIS PROPERTY THAT HE'S DISCUSSING IS IN, IS IN, UH, COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY HIS OWN PROPERTY.
THAT'S WHAT THREW ME FOR A LOOP.
THAT'S NOT, ACCORDING TO THE DOCUMENTS WE'VE RECEIVED, I'M LOOKING AT AN AERIAL VIEW WHERE THEY SHOW THE PROPERTY IS BASICALLY SOMEWHAT OF A TRIANGULAR PIECE THAT'S ADJACENT TO, UH, I GUESS THAT'S THE DEALERSHIP THERE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE RED CIRCLE, IT'S DRAWN HALFWAY THROUGH OUR PROPERTY.
UH, RIGHT, THAT'S THE, UH, THAT'S THE, UH, AREA, THAT'S THE AREA OF NOTIFICATION.
ANYTHING THAT'S 200 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
SIR, IF I MAY STEP IN, IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, THE CARDIOLOGY, IT'S CATTYCORNER, IT'S AT THE TOP LEFT CORNER FOR COMPREHENSIVE RADIOLOGY.
SO IT'S BASICALLY THEY'RE AT THE BACK END AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF YOUR PROPERTY.
[02:10:01]
OKAY.JUST TO REITERATE, THEIR REQUEST TODAY DOES NOT IMPACT YOUR ABILITY TO REQUEST TO REDUCE YOUR BUFFER YARD ADMINISTRATIVELY BY 50%.
IF YOU HAVE OF THE BUDDING PROPERTY OWNER'S PERMISSION, WHICH WOULD BE THE PARKING LOT TO THE SOUTH AND THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST OF YOU.
THOSE, THAT WOULD BE THE PERMISSION THAT YOU WOULD NEED FROM THOSE TWO.
UM, IF YOU WANTED TO GO FURTHER THAN HAVE, THEN YOU WOULD NEED TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, JUST LIKE THIS APPLICANT IS DOING TODAY.
IN OTHER WORDS, AND YOU COULD KEEP NOTE THAT THIS, THAT YOU PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROCESS AND THAT WOULD BE ALSO TAKE CONSIDERATE CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD BY CHAIR.
UH, THIS IS ORIAN I'D, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.
UH, JUST REAL QUICK, UH, IF YOUR SIDE IS, IS ZONED C TWO, THERE IS NO BUFFER REQUIREMENT WHEN YOU'RE ABUTTING ANOTHER C TWO.
YOUR ONLY BUFFER WOULD BE TO THE, TO THE EAST, THE I TWO TO THE EAST.
SO, WHICH IS OFF THE SUBJECT, WHICH IS NOT PART OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY.
SO JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE.
WELL, YES, I THINK THAT THAT'S BEEN EXPLAINED.
UM, UH, AND I HOPE THAT THIS IS, UH, TOM'S UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT OF ISSUE HERE.
UM, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WITH A BUNCH OF COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL USE LOCATION IS THAT, UH, THE CODE, THAT'S THE REASON WHY THE CODE HAS THESE OPPORTUNITIES TO BRING IT BEFORE THE BOARD, BECAUSE THEN WE CAN LOOK AT IT AND SOLVE THE ISSUE.
SO WHAT THEY SHOWED US IS ALL CASCADE.
IF WE'RE LOOKING AT LOT SIX, IT GOES ALL THE WAY TO CASCADE, CORRECT? NO, ON THE PLAT THAT YOU SHOULD, THE PLAT THAT WE RECEIVED SHOWS THAT NO, ACCORDING, ACCORDING TO THIS, THE TRIANGULAR SHAPED PROPERTY ONLY OF BUTTS NAVAJO, AND THERE'S ANOTHER PROPERTY NORTH OF THAT THAT, UH, THAT, UH, IS IN CONTACT
OKAY, WELL, I DON'T HAVE THE BLOCK NUMBER.
I JUST HAVE AN ADDRESS 24 0 3 CASCADE PARKWAY.
SO ON THE MAP THAT I'M LOOKING AT, ON BEXAR COUNTY APPRAISAL, SO I SHOW THAT BLOCK TWO LOT FIVE IS COMPREHENSIVE RADIOLOGY, AND THEN FURTHER DOWN CASCADE, UM, IS, IS LOT, UH, BLOCK TWO, LOT EIGHT.
AND THAT IS NOT PART OF THIS DIALOGUE? CORRECT.
SO THIS, THIS PROPERTY WAS JUST PLATTED RECENTLY.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS THE, THE SOUTHERN PORTION IS ACTUALLY LOT NINE, WHICH IS PART OF THE CONVERSATION TODAY.
THE NORTHERN PORTION THAT'S ABUTTING YOU TO THE EAST, THAT IS ACTUALLY LOT NINE.
UH, THAT'S NOT GONNA BE PART OF THE, THE RULING TODAY.
YEAH, IT'S JUST THE ONE THAT WE RECEIVED WITH THE NOTICE HAS IT LABELED LOCK SIX BLOCK TWO.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MATTERS.
I'M JUST GOING BY WHAT WAS SENT TO US THAT IT WAS ON BEXAR COUNTY, PLATT BOOK 9 5 9 1 PAGE ONE 16.
MAYBE IT'S BEEN REFLATED AND THAT WASN'T SENT WITH THE PACKET THAT WENT OUT.
SO, UH, ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY WE HAVE SO FAR, THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY TO QUESTION IS ALSO OWNED BY, UH, THE HONDA DEALERSHIP.
AND I BELIEVE THAT IF IT'S GRANTED, IT WOULD GIVE, BUT THAT THE RIGHT, THE BUFFER YARD REDUCTION, IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THAT LOT.
UH, BACK THERE ON, ON, UH,
YEAH, IT DOES SEEM TO BE DISCO CONCORDANT TO WHAT WAS SENT OUT.
[02:15:01]
YOU BROUGHT UP THE VERY GOOD POINT AND LIKE I SAID, I'LL KEEP YOUR RECORDS.UH, WHEN YOU DECIDE YOU'RE GONNA DO SOMETHING, WE'LL ALSO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
ALL RIGHT, EVERYBODY ELSE? UH, NOW LET, WE STILL HAVE TWO MORE, UH, UH, PUBLIC INFORMATION TALKING TO YOU HERE.
DO WE NOT? UH, WE HAVE TWO MORE TO READ IN.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET THOSE READ IN.
THE FIRST ONE IS FROM MARK MCCOY I A NEGATIVE.
UM, SO THE FIRST RESPONSE IS FROM MARK MCCOY AT 1250 NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10, SUITE 700 PENN, ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 0 9.
HE IS IN OPPOSITION AND THE COMMENTS ARE, THIS WOULD HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR PROPERTY.
THE SECOND RESPONSE IS FROM BRIAN MATSON, LOCATED AT 44 10 MEDICAL DRIVE, SUITE 210, ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 2 9, ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
AND THE COMMENTS ARE THE REDUCTION OF BUFFER YARD FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY LIMITS OUR ABILITY TO ADMINISTRATIVELY REDUCE OUR BUFFER FOR FUTURE USE.
THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
NOW LET'S GO AHEAD AND, AND WE ONLY HAVE, UH, THE APPLICANT AND STAFF ON, I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE THE DOCTOR HUNG UP AT THIS POINT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THIS IS THE APPLICANT, YES.
SO LET ANY, ANYONE ON THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, IAN? OKAY, GO AHEAD.
MR. DO FLOOR? YEAH, JUST FOR STAFF.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THE, HOW THE, HOW BUFFERS ARE APPLIED DEPENDING ON, DEPENDS ON THE ZONING.
SINCE THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY, UH, FERNANDEZ HONDA OWNS THE PARKING LOT AND THE DEALERSHIP ON TO THE WEST AND TO THE SOUTHEAST, IF THEY WERE TO PLANT THIS AS ALL ONE LOT, DO THEY HAVE BUFFERS AT ALL OR DOES IT, DOES IT FOLLOW THE ZONING OR DOES IT FOLLOW THE LOT LINE? CAN STAFF PLEASE ALLUDE TO THAT? IT'S CAN BE THE PROPERTY LINE ITSELF.
SO, SO IF FERNANDEZ HONDA WERE TO PLANT THIS, THIS IR REGULARLY SHAPED LOT INTO THEIR DEALERSHIP LOT, AND THIS WOULDN'T EVEN BE AN A A AN ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD, THE ZONING IS STILL IN PLACE AND THAT'S WHERE THIS KICKED IN, UM, AS YOU MENTIONED.
I MEAN IF IT, IF IF IT WAS PLANTED ALL AS ONE BIG LOT, WOULD THERE STILL HAVE THESE INTERIOR BUFFERS REQUIRED? NO, THERE WOULD NOT.
THAT SIMPLIFIES EVERYTHING THERE.
YEAH, THAT, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.
'CAUSE THIS IT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WERE TO DO, I MEAN, SO I'M JUST, I WAS JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD BACK OR THE APPLICANT? NONE.
THEN, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, CLOSE THIS IN PUBLIC AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM THE BOARD.
MR. MANNA, GO AHEAD AND READ YOUR MOTION REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 3.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTS A REQUEST FOR ONE A 24 FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE TYPE D BUFFER YARD TO ALLOW THE SOUTHERN BUFFER YARD TO BE ONE INCH WIDE AND TWO, A 25 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE TYPE E BUFFER YARD TO ALLOW THE WESTERN BUFFER YARD TO BE FIVE FOOT WIDE.
SITUATED AT 2 6 3 7 NAVARRO STREET, APPLICANT BEING COOL BREEZE CONSULTANTS, L L C, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE REQUESTED REDUCTION OF THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN BUFFER YARD IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, AND IT DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT ANY SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
AS OF NOW, THE PROPERTY HAS NO BUFFER YARDS ESTABLISHED.
SO ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BENEFICIAL AND A NET IMPROVEMENT TO THE SURROUNDING DISTRICTS.
TWOS DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD NOT ALLOW THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE VACANT PROPERTY AS PROPOSED DUE TO THE NARROW, ODDLY SHAPED CONFIGURATION OF A LOT AND ESTABLISHING
[02:20:01]
NEW BUFFER YARDS AS REQUIRED.BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
IN THIS CASE, THE PROPOSED BUFFER YARD WILL ADHERE TO THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE BY IMPLEMENTING THE REQUESTED BUFFER YARDS WHERE NONE EXIST CURRENTLY IN ORDER TO UTILIZE THE PROPERTY.
FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCES IS LOCATED.
REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL NOT PERMIT A USE NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
IT IS LOCATED IN FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE, THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUESTED BUFFERY YARDS WOULD ONLY ENHANCE THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF THE PROPERTY FREE SCAPE AND DISTRICT SIX SUPPLY TO THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS FILED IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREDITED BY THE NOT, WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OR OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SU APPLIED TO THE OWNER FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO THE ODDLY CONFIGURED NARROW LOT AND THE ADJACENT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL ZONE PROPERTIES, WHICH REQUIRE BUFFY YARDS WOULD ONLY LIMIT ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND OF MOTION.
AND WAS THAT, UH, YOU, MR. DORIAN? YES, SIR.
ALL RIGHT, MR. AMANA, LET'S START THE DISCUSSION.
I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
UM, I THINK, UH, JUST AS STATED BEING THAT THE, UH, OWNER OWNS THE, UH, ABUTTING PROPERTIES.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, TO MR. OREN'S POINT, IF THEY WERE TO, UM, YOU KNOW, REZONE THIS WHOLE THING TO, OR REPL IT TO A SINGLE LOT, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY THIS WOULDN'T BE A DIALOGUE.
AND I THINK, UH, AS NOTED BY THE OTHER, UH, UM, UM, WITNESS ON, ON THE LINE THAT THIS DOES NOT IMPACT THEM AND THAT THEY'LL STILL BE ABLE TO DO ALL THE THINGS THAT, UH, THAT THEY INDICATED THAT THEY NEED TO DO.
SO THIS WON'T IMPACT THAT EITHER.
UH, I BELIEVE MR. ORIAN, YOU HAVE THE, THE SECOND YES.
I WILL ALSO BE IN FAVOR, UH, UM, FOR THE REASONS STATED BY MY COLLEAGUE.
I ALSO WANTED TO ADD THAT THEY'RE ALSO, UH, PUTTING IN SOME LANDSCAPING AND INTERIOR LANDSCAPE ISLANDS IN THIS, IN THIS PARKING ADDITION.
SO I THINK THAT ALL THIS IS, THIS IS JUST, UH, AN ENHANCEMENT TO THE AREA.
ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD TO INPUT MENCHACA, MR. MENCHACA? I AGREE.
BOTH MY COLLEAGUES, I'VE JUST NEVER HEARD A ONE INCH BUFFER.
THAT'S BECAUSE THAT'S PRIMARILY BECAUSE WE CAN'T ELIMINATE ANY ASPECT OF ZONING.
ALL WE CAN DO IS TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS.
OH, I THOUGHT IT WAS AN EXPANSION JOINT.
YEAH, YOU COULD, YOU COULD CALL IT THAT.
BUT, UM, ANYWAY, THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
ANY OTHER, UH, OBSERVATION BY THE BOARD MEMBERS? THAT BEING THE CASE? LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH FINDINGS OF FACT.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MR. ORIAN? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CHAIR MARTINEZ.
THE FINDINGS OF FACT MOTION, UH, WAS APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
UH, I'M GOING TO REQUEST A, UH, 10 MINUTE BREAK.
UM, SO EVERYONE PLEASE BE BACK, UH, BY AT, UH, 3 35 AND BE SURE TO, UH, CUT OFF YOUR MICROPHONES BEFORE YOU GO.
ALRIGHT, LET'S, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO BACK LIVE.
WE ARE LAST, UH, THE BOARD OF JUSTICE IS BACK IN SESSION AT 3 35.
UH, WE'LL CONTINUE WITH OUR NEXT CASE, UH, ON, UM, 5 26 ELWOOD AGENDA ITEM
[5. 20-7101 BOA-20-10300111]
NUMBER FIVE IS CASE BO 8 21 0 3 0 0 1 11.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 5 2 6 ELMWOOD DRIVE.
IT IS LOCATED IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE.
[02:25:01]
THE APPLICANT IS DIANE COBERT.THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE OPERATOR BEAUTY BARBERSHOP.
SHE'S ZONING WITH THE PROPERTY IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
SO THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF BREEDEN AVENUE AND ELMWOOD DRIVE.
UH, THEY'RE PROPOSING A ONE OPERATOR BEAUTY BARBERSHOP.
THE ENTRANCE TO THE SHOP WILL BE LOCATED ON THE SIDE FRONT YARD FENCE AND WILL BE LOCATED IN THE REAR OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
UH, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE APPLICANT IS APPLYING FOR A BEAUTY BARBERSHOP.
HERE IS THE SITE PLAN AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN BO O A 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 11 FOR A PERIOD OF 24 MONTHS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS.
ONE, THE BEAUTY BARBERSHOP WILL BE OPERATED BY, UH, ONE PERSON AND TWO, THE REQUEST MEETS ALL CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND NOTICE THAT NO HOURS WERE PRINTED UP FOR, UH, HOURS OF OPERATION.
UH, STAFF MAILED 39 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.
EIGHT WERE RETURN IN OPPOSITION AND THERE WAS NO, UH, REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
NOW WE WILL PASS IT ON TO THE APPLICANT.
UH, MS. VERT, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR PRESENTATION.
THIS IS DIANE COVERT, 5 26 ELMWOOD 7 8 2 1 2.
I AM TRYING TO BRING MY BUSINESS TO MAKE IT A HOME OPERATION DUE TO COVID.
WE HAVE DRASTICALLY DROPPED AND I, I HAVE APPLIED FOR P P P AND A S B A LOAN TO SUSTAIN MY BUSINESS.
UH, I DID RECEIVE BOTH, BUT IN THE, SINCE COVID, MY, MY BUSINESS HAS HOURS OF OPERATION WILL BE FROM 11 TO SIX, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN I'M BUSY EVERY SINGLE HOUR OF THE DAY.
I HAVE DROPPED FROM SEVEN TO EIGHT CLIENTS PER DAY DOWN TO FOUR TO FIVE.
I SEE ONE CLIENT PER HOUR DUE TO THE GOVERNOR'S REQUEST ON HOW WE SHOULD OPERATE OUR BUSINESS.
AND SO THAT'S JUST ONE BIT, ONE PERSON PER HOUR.
AND THAT GIVES ME TIME IN BETWEEN TO RES SANITIZE MY ROOM FOR MY NEXT CLIENT IF I DO HAVE A NEXT CLIENT THE NEXT HOUR.
AND, UH, I CURRENTLY WENT FROM SIX, WORKING SIX DAYS A WEEK DOWN TO THREE DAYS A WEEK.
I'M HAVING PROBLEMS FILLING THREE DAYS A WEEK.
IT MAY JUST GO DOWN TO TWO DAYS AND THAT WILL BE IT.
THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, VERY GOOD INFORMATION.
WHAT HOURS OF OPERATION ARE YOU PLANNING TO BE OPERATING FROM? I START AT 11 AND I WILL TAKE MY LAST ONE AT 6:00 PM AND THAT'S MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY? NO, NO, NO.
WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU CAN DO THESE RIGHT NOW, SO YOU, YOU CAN LIMIT OR YOU, YOU CAN LEAVE IT OPEN.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET OUT OPERATION RIGHT.
TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, 7 2 6 11.
UM, STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, PUBLIC INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO US OTHER THAN THOSE SUPPLIES? YES, WE HAVE, UH, SOME COMMENTS TO READ INTO THE RECORD.
THE FIRST ONE IS FROM JUAN BENITO AND CARMONA AT FIVE 13 ELMWOOD DRIVE.
THE REASON MY WIFE AND I ARE OPPOSED FOR THE REQUEST ABOVE IS DUE TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BEING A FAMILY COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE ANY FORM OF COMMERCIAL BUSINESS.
MANY OF THE FAMILIES HAVE CHILDREN PLAYING IN THEIR YARD OR ARE WALKING THEIR PETS AND MORE CAR TRAFFIC CAN DISRUPT THE PIECE OF OUR COMMUNITY.
OTHER NEIGHBORS HAVE ATTEMPTED TO RUN THEIR CONSTRUCTION OR LANDSCAPING COMPANIES FROM THEIR HOMES, HOMES IN WHICH THE CITY HAS HAD TO STEP IN AND SHUT THEM DOWN.
[02:30:01]
DURING THE TIME THEY WERE ABLE TO GET AWAY FROM RUNNING THEIR BUSINESS AND THEIR HOMES, THE EMPLOYEES WOULD PARK ON THE STREET, WHICH WOULD NARROW THE PASS AWAY WHEN TRYING TO DRIVE DOWN OUR STREET.AND NOT TO MENTION THE TEMPORARY INCREASE IN MINOR CRIME IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE HOMEOWNER ON 5 2 6 UMLET DRIVE IS CLAIMING TO WANT TO OPERATE A ONE OPERATOR SHOP.
HOWEVER, THEIR SITE PLAN SHOWS OTHERWISE, WHY WOULD THEY NEED A SALON ONE AND A SALON TWO? THIS MEANS THEY PLAN, PLAN, ADD ANOTHER EMPLOYEE, AT WHICH SOME POINT THEY WOULD ONLY CREATE MORE TRAFFIC.
PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT HAVING SOME FORM OF COMMERCIAL BUSINESS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AFFECT EVERYONE'S PROPERTY TAXES.
SINCE THERE IS A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OPERATING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS PROPERTY OWNER IS ALLOWED TO OPER OPERATE THEIR BUSINESS FROM THEIR HOME.
THIS WILL ONLY OPEN THE DOOR FOR OTHERS TO THE SAME.
UH, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME AND I WOULD RECOMMEND IF YOU HAVE A MOMENT, TAKE A DRIVE DOWN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SEE HOW NARROW OUR STREET IS AND HOW ADDING MORE TRAFFIC WILL MAKE A ROAD MORE CONGESTED, ONLY MAKING IT HARDER TO MAKE IT HOME AFTER DAY HARD AT WORK.
NOT TO MENTION THE DISRUPTION OF PEACE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
OKAY, THE NEXT ONE IS FROM, UM, MICHAEL DANIELS.
AS THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 6 0 5 NORWOOD, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXEMPTION EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN ONE OPERATOR BEAUTY BARBERSHOP WITHIN A HOME LOCATED AT 5 2 6 ELMWOOD DRIVE.
NEXT WE HAVE COSTA RODRIGUEZ AND MARIA RODRIGUEZ AT 5 0 9 5 0 9 ELMWOOD DRIVE.
WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO A BEAUTY BARBERSHOP TO BE OPERATED AT 5 2 6 ELMWOOD DRIVE.
WE ARE LOCATED IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE IS NO NEED TO OPERATE FROM HOME WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY STOREFRONTS THAT ARE FIT FOR SUCH A BUSINESS.
I'M WRITING, WRITING YOU TO VOICE MY DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL BEING HEARD IN TOMORROW'S PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 8 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 11.
GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO POLICY WHICH WOULD ALLOW COMMERCIAL BUSINESS TO OPERATE OUT OF A RESIDENCE IS ONE OF OUR CITY'S OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS.
SINCE A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE AND JEOPARDIZES THE VALUE OF RECENT RESIDENTIAL INVESTMENTS, THE EDISON NEIGHBORHOOD IS ONE THAT HAS SHOWN SIGNIFICANT GROWTH IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS IN COMMUNITY INVESTMENT AND BEAUTIFICATION THE ALLOWANCE OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES TO EXTEND FURTHER IN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, DESPITE THE PROXIMITY TO APPROPRIATELY ZONED LAWS ON HILDEBRAND AVENUE, THAT THE COMMUNITY ON A DISASTROUS FORCE THAT MAY WELL END UP SPELLING ITS ULTIMATE DEMISE IN THE LONG RUN.
I IMPLORE YOU TO DISAPPROVE THE EXCEPTION TO POLICY REQUESTED BY 5 2 6 ELWOOD DRIVE.
ENCLOSED THE CASE WITH NO FURTHER ACT ACTION.
NEXT WE HAVE MARIELLA BU AT FIVE 10 ELMWOOD IN OPPOSITION.
THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT A BUSINESS CORRIDOR.
WE NEXT WE HAVE, UM, DANIEL ALI, IN REFERENCE TO THIS MATTER.
IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND WOULD LIKE TO REMAIN THAT WAY.
WE ALWAYS HAVE PEDESTRIANS WALKING WITH CHILDREN BEFORE AND DURING AND AFTER THE SCHOOL YEAR.
IT IS A LOW TRAFFIC, QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH ALLOWS FOR CHILDREN TO RIDE THEIR BIKES AND BATTERY POWERED CARS.
INCREASING TRAFFIC INTO AND OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS WILL DISRUPT THIS AND FURTHER DECREASE THE ALREADY LIMITED PARKING.
OVER THE YEARS WE HAVE, WE'VE HAD CONSTRUCTION AND LANDSCAPING COMPANIES TRY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS OUT OF THEIR HOMES.
THE CITY HAS HAD TO GET INVOLVED AND PUT A STOP TO THIS.
THE VENUE LISTED ALLOWS FOR MORE THAN ONE WORKER AND CHEMICALS COULD, CHEMICALS USED, COULD POLLUTE OR SENT THE AIR
YOU'RE ALREADY, YOU ALREADY HAVE PLENTY OF BUSINESSES BUSINESS ZONES NEARBY.
AND BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC, THERE ARE ALSO MANY VACANT LOCATIONS NEARBY.
BY HAVING A BUSINESS IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, THIS WOULD ALSO NEGATIVELY IMPACT OUR HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOOD MARKET VALUE.
UH, HE AND HIS ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD IS 5 3 4 ELMWOOD DRIVE.
NEXT WE HAVE AT AINA JACOB AT FIVE 40 ELMWOOD DRIVE IN OPPOSITION.
COMMENTS ARE, WE DO NOT WANT TO LOSE OUR RESIDENTIAL AREA.
THERE IS ENOUGH COMMERCIAL AREA WITHIN A COUPLE OF BLOCKS.
AND LASTLY, UM, DANIEL ESCOBAR AT 6 0 9 WEST NORWOOD COURT IS IN FAVOR.
BUILDING HAS BEEN EMPTY FOR A WHILE.
MAKE SURE PARKING IS NOT A PROBLEM.
AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
[02:35:01]
ALRIGHT.UH, UPON THAT, UH, DID WE NOTED THERE, UM, I GUESS SINCE WE STILL HAVE THE APPLICANT ON BOARD, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE DISCUSS THIS WITH, I'LL OPEN UP THE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OR THE APPLICANT.
IS SHE STILL ONLINE? YES, I AM CORIAN.
MR. ORIAN, YOU HAVE ASKED THE FIRST QUESTION.
UH, SO I I I NOTICED THAT YOUR HOURS WERE TUESDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, 11:00 AM TO SIX, BUT YOU DID STATE THAT YOU TAKE YOUR LAST, UH, CLIENT AT SIX SHOULD YOUR HOURS SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO SEVEN SO THAT IT'S COVERING THE TIME THAT YOU'RE SERVING, UH, YOUR, YOUR POTENTIAL FINAL CLIENT.
NO, USUALLY WHEN I TAKE IT AT SIX, IT'S JUST GONNA BE A 30 MINUTE APPOINTMENT.
SO THEN IT SHOULD GO TO SIX 30 THEN? CORRECT.
I'M SORRY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOUR HOURS OF OPERATION ARE COVERING THE, THE WHAT YOU WOULD PLAUSIBLY THINK YOU WOULD POTENTIALLY USE.
UH, AND SECONDLY, THERE WAS A STATEMENT THAT THE SITE PLAN CALLED OUT A SALON ONE AND A SALON TWO.
UH, IS THERE GOING TO BE TWO SALONS? NO, THERE IS NOT.
THAT'S GOING TO BE A SITTING AREA IN CASE SOMEBODY DOES SHOW UP EARLY BECAUSE OF COVID, WE CANNOT BE TOGETHER.
SO YOU WILL NOT, SO YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE ANY OF NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY EMPLOYEES AT ALL.
OH, I, I SEE WHAT SHE'S DOING HERE.
SHE'S USING HER LIVING ROOM AS A WAITING AREA FOR THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT GETTING THEIR HAIR DOWN AT THAT TIME.
I'M ACTUALLY A BODY WAXER, SO MY DOOR IS ALWAYS LOCKED.
SO IF SOMEBODY HAPPENS TO SHOW UP EARLY, THEY CAN SIT IN THE SECOND ROOM 'CAUSE I WILL NOT OPEN MY DOOR.
SO, UH, THERE WAS TWO QUESTIONS OR THAT WERE KIND OF BROUGHT UP.
UM, ONE WAS A TALK ABOUT CHEMICALS.
AND SO, UM, SO MAYBE, UH, IF YOU COULD ADDRESS THAT IN SECOND OR ACTUALLY, UH, TWO, UH, TWO MORE QUESTIONS.
UH, ONE WAS WHERE IS EVERYBODY PARK? SO I THINK I HEARD THAT YOU WERE HAVE PEOPLE PARK IN THE BACK, UM, AND SO THEY WILL NOT BE PARKING ON THE STREET.
AND THEN SOMEONE SAID THE BUILDING WAS EMPTY, SO IS THIS NEW PURCHASE FOR YOU? YOU KNOW, SO ARE YOU NEW TO THIS HOME? I GREW UP IN THIS HOME.
MY DAD RECENTLY PASSED AWAY AND I PURCHASED IT.
SO IT HAS NOT BEEN EMPTIED AT ALL.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND AS FAR AS THE PARKING? YEAH.
THE PARKING, I HAVE A LONG DRIVEWAY WHERE I WILL PARK IN BACK.
THEY CAN PARK IN THE DRIVEWAY.
IT'S LIKE I SAID, ONE PER HOUR.
CHEMICALS WAXING IS NOT A CHEMICAL.
I DON'T USE ANY CHEMICALS AT ALL.
UH, I BELIEVE WHAT THAT CONFUSION IS IS MOST BEAUTY SHOPS HAVE CHEMICALS FOR HAIR DYE AND BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOUR APPLICATION IS FOR, ALTHOUGH YOU'RE NOT PROVIDING THAT PARTICULAR SERVICE.
BODY WAXING GOES UNDER COSMETOLOGY, SO IT'S THROWN INTO A BEAUTY SALON.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ORIAN? I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION IF THAT'S OKAY.
YES, UH, UH, SO FOR THE APPLICANT, CAN YOU, ARE, ARE YOU GOING TO BE RESIDING IN THIS, IN THIS HOME BECAUSE THE SITE PLAN DIDN'T SEEM TO SHOW ANY BEDROOMS? I DO RESIDE, I DO LIVE HERE AND THE GARAGE IS A DETACHED GARAGE.
WELL, WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS, THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM MOVING MY LICENSE OVER TO THE GARAGE AS LONG AS IT'S DETACHED.
NO, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT YOU WEREN'T, BECAUSE I, I GOT THE IMPLICATION BY SOME OF THE PEOPLE AGAINST US THAT YOU PURCHASED IT TO RUN AS A BUSINESS AND NOT NECESSARILY TO LIVE THERE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE GOING TO BE RIGHT THERE.
NO, I, NO, I'VE BEEN LIVING HERE TWO AND A HALF YEARS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IT'S OBVIOUSLY SHE DOESN'T, UH, DISTURB MUCH OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OVER THE LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS THEY DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE'S BEEN THERE.
SO NEVERTHELESS,
I DO STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU EXTEND YOUR HOURS FOR THE RECORD TO ALLOW FOR ANY ALTERATIONS, ALTHOUGH YOU CAN LIMIT IT.
BUT WE'RE GONNA PUT THIS IN THE FILE AND THIS WOULD BE UNDER WHAT YOU WOULD BE OPERATING.
[02:40:01]
FEEL THAT THOSE THURSDAY THROUGH THE Q K P THURSDAY SUFFICIENT, THAT'S FINE.BUT AT THIS POINT, IF YOU WANT TO EXPAND IT TO MONDAY TO FRIDAY, JUST SO YOU'LL HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITY, UH, THIS WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO SO.
IS THE APPLICANT STILL THERE? OH, YES, I AM.
THE, THE, THE HOURS WOULD BE 11 TO SIX 30 AND IT'S TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY.
ALRIGHT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA RECORD ON OUR FILE.
UH, THEN THEREFORE I'M GONNA CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE TEAL.
MR. TEAL WOULD LIKE TO DO THE MOTION FOR EXCEPTION.
WE HAVE A RECORD, UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH TWO ZERO DASH 0 3 0 0 1 1 1.
I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ONE OPERATOR BEAUTY BARBERSHOP SITUATED AT 5 26 ELMWOOD DRIVE OPERATING HOURS TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY 11:00 AM TO 6:30 PM APPLICANT BEING DIANE COVERT BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW IS TO ENSURE THAT THE OPERATION OF A ONE OPERATOR BEAUTY BARBERSHOP DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE APPLICANT HAS FULFILLED ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR ONE OPERATOR SHOP AS ESTABLISHED IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AS SUCH, STAFF FINDS THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER B.
THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND COM AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED.
PUBLIC WELFARE AND AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SERVED AS IT WILL PROVIDE A VALUABLE SERVICE TO RESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SEE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL BE PRIMARILY USED AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THE BEAUTY BARBERSHOP WILL OCCUPY ONLY A SMALL PORTION OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE AS REQUIRED BY THE U D C.
AND THE FACT THAT THE BEAUTY SHOP IS BEING OPERATED FROM THE HOME WILL LIKELY BE INDISCERNIBLE TO PASSERSBY.
AS SUCH, NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED.
THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND THE LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT.
THE REQUEST REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION, IS NOT LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE PROPERTY IS STILL USED AS A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.
E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HERE IN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT.
THE PRIMARY USE OF THE DWELLING REMAINS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
THE GRANTING OF THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE PURPOSE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
ALRIGHT, WHO MADE THE SECOND FOUR? YOU.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND START THE DISCUSSION.
I'LL, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF, OF THE MOTION.
UM, I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST.
UH, WE GO, GO THROUGH THIS QUITE A BIT.
UM, I'M GLAD TO SEE SOMEBODY'S MAKING THEIR WAY, YOU KNOW, IN, THEY'RE IN THIS KIND OF BAD DOWNTURN FOR A LOT OF BUSINESSES.
THIS IS A WAY TO KEEP HER AFLOAT AND, UH, I THINK IT'LL BE A BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALL RIGHT, MS. DORIAN, YOU'D LIKE TO ADD SOME? YES.
UH, I WOULD ALSO LACK, UH, TO ASK THE, UH, MY COLLEAGUE, UH, COMMISSIONER TEAL TO, UM, UM, AMEND THE MOTION TO INCREASE THE HOURS BECAUSE, UH, THE APPLICANT ALSO STATED THAT SATURDAYS FROM 10 TO UH, ONE O'CLOCK WAS ALSO WHEN SHE WOULD LIKE TO BE OPEN.
SO IF WE COULD MAKE IT 10 TO ONE 30, UH, WOULD THAT BE ALL RIGHT? THI YES, SIR.
I, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.
UH, ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY INPUT? RAGMAN MS. RAGMAN, GO AHEAD.
YEAH, I'M, I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION AS WELL.
AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, SMALL BUSINESSES ARE THE BACKBONE OF OUR ECONOMY, SO LOVE TO SEE, UM, PEOPLE SUCCEED.
SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.
ANYONE ELSE? UNI MR. OZUNA? YEAH, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION, BUT WITH RESPECT TO THOSE THAT OPPOSED THE VARIANCE RE THE MOTION REQUEST, UM, THE, A APPLICANT WILL HAVE A RENEWAL PROCESS AT WHICH TIME ALL THOSE, UH, ALL THOSE, UH, NEIGHBORS THAT OPPOSED, UH, THE, UH, THE REQUEST WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO, UH, WEIGH IN FOR THE RENEWAL WHEN THAT, WHEN THAT TIME COMES UP.
SO JUST, JUST, I WANNA PAY SOME RESPECT TO THOSE, UH, NEIGHBORS THAT OPPOSED THE, UH, THE REQUEST HERE.
[02:45:01]
MICHELLE, GO AHEAD.UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE AS MY COLLEAGUE STATED, THERE WAS A LOT OF OPPOSITION IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, I KNOW WE'VE SEEN THESE REQUESTS BEFORE AND USUALLY THERE'S EITHER NO OPPOSITION OR JUST ONLY A COUPLE PEOPLE WROTE IN, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WROTE IN TO OPPOSE THIS.
UM, IT'S GIVING ME PAUSE ON SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
UM, I, I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO, UM, TALK WITH HER NEIGHBORS AND, UH, MAKE SURE THAT SHE IS BEING EXTRA CONSCIENTIOUS ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS REGARDING PARKING AND HOURS.
ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, UH, BRIEFLY, I'M GOING JUST MAKE A LITTLE STATEMENT HERE.
I BELIEVE JUDGING BY THE TYPE OF OF NEGATIVE RESPONSES THAT WERE GIVEN TO THIS, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF, UH, THE PROGRAM WITHIN THE, UH, UH, U D C.
THAT, UH, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A BEAUTY SHOP IS BASICALLY A, NOT A TRUE FULL-TIME COMMERCIAL INDEN TOGETHER.
IT'S, IT'S SIMPLY A SIMPLE SYSTEM THAT WAS CREATED SO THAT MOTHERS COULD STAY HOME FOR THEIR CHILDREN, FOR THOSE THAT NEEDED TO HAVE A FLAT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME TO OPERATE SAFELY FROM HOME.
AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, FOR THE MOST PART, MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW THEY'RE GOING ON UNLESS THEY'RE PREVIOUS DISCUSS.
AND MORE THAN LIKELY, THIS CLIENT HERE IS GOING TO HAVE, OR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT IS GONNA HAVE CLIENTS THAT KNOW EXACTLY WHO THEY TRUST AND WHO THEY GO TO.
AND THEY'RE GONNA GO STRAIGHT TO HER HOUSE.
THEY'RE GONNA GET WHATEVER THEY NEED DONE AND GET OUT THERE AND NOT CREATE ANY TYPE OF TROUBLE THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE ANTICIPATING.
AND I BELIEVE PROBABLY PART OF THE PROBLEM WHY THESE PEOPLE MAKE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THESE THINGS ARE THOSE TYPES OF, OF, UH, OF PEOPLE THAT TRY TO RUN A BUSINESS OUT THERE WHERE THEY HAVE PRODUCT AND TRAFFIC AND ALL KINDS OF ISSUES, UH, THAT ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT'S THE REASON WHY ONLY WE ALLOW THIS TYPE OF HAIRDRESSER OR, OR, OR BEAUTY SHOP OR BARBER SHOP IN NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE DO NOT ALLOW COMMERCIAL ENDEAVORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I THINK THAT WAS PART OF THE PROBLEM THAT A LOT OF THESE, UH, PEOPLE RESPONDING WERE CONFUSED AS TO WHAT WAS THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR.
UH, AND THIS MAY BE A, AS, UH, WAS STATED BEFORE FOR TWO YEARS, TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO REVIEW IT, DETERMINE IF IT IS HAZARDOUS, AND THEN THEY'LL HAVE THEIR CHANCE TO HAVE INPUT AGAIN, AND THEY CAN ACTUALLY CITE THOSE PARTICULAR ISSUES THAT THEY, THEY FEEL CONCERNED WITH.
I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS AS WELL, AND I'M GOING FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. FISHER.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT MOTION PASSES, UH, UNANIMOUSLY.
YOU HAVE YOUR TWO YEARS, UM, AND YOU'VE HEARD EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO HEAR THAT IN ORDER TO OPERATE A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS IN REGARDS TO WHAT YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE CONCERNED WITH.
AND, UH, AS THEY SAY, UH, IN YOUR PARTICULAR BUSINESS, WORD OF MOUTH IS EVERYTHING.
[6. 20-7028 BOA-20-10300108]
I BELIEVE WE ARE GOING NEXT TO OUR NEXT CASE IS OUR FINAL CASE OF THE TODAY.AND THIS IS AT, UH, THREE 11 DOMAN PLACE.
THREE 11 DOMAN PLACE IN DISTRICT TWO.
IT'S REQUEST FOR TWO FOOT VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
STILL ALLOWS STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FEET AWAY WITH OVERHANG ONE FOOT AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
CURRENT ZONING IS R FOUR NCD SIX MANKEY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
OUR REQUEST IS FOR VARIANCE OF SIDE SETBACK.
THERE'S AN EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB WHERE PREVIOUS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, UH, STOOD.
SO THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING TO REBUILD THE STRUCTURE ON THE EXISTING SLAB EDGE OF THE SLAB IS THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE OVERHANG OF THE STRUCTURE TO BE ONE FOOT AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE LOCATED WITHIN THE MANKEY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
APPLICANT STATED, UH, HE WILL, HE WILL MEET ALL DESIGN GUIDELINES
[02:50:01]
FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHIN THE STANDARDS.THIS IS A, UH, THE SITE PINE ITSELF, SUBJECT PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE IN BO A 21 0 3 0 0 1 0 8 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE PROPERTY HAS AN EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB LOCATED THREE FEET AWAY IN THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
AND THERE'S ADEQUATE SPACE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE AND THE STRUCTURE ON THE ABUTTING PROPERTY.
AND THE, UH, PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL ABIDE BY MACKEY PARK CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES.
UH, THERE ARE 23 NOTICES SENT OUT.
TWO RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE MANKEY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT RUDY TNO ON THE LINE.
MR. TNO, WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION.
UH, THIS RUDY TRI, BEING OWNER AT, UH, UH, FOR THE PROPERTY AT THREE 11 TORMAN, GO AHEAD, SIR.
SAY THAT AGAIN, MA'AM, YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION, SIR.
MY PRESENTATION, UM, REQUESTING VARIANCE, UH, TO BUILD, UH, THE, UH, TRUCTURE WHERE THE OLD SCRATCH WAS LOCATED.
OKAY, RUDY? UM, I THINK WHAT HE WANTS YOU TO DO IS HE WANTS TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU WANTED TO PUT THIS AND YOU'RE TRYING TO UTILIZE THE PARTICULAR SLAB THAT'S THERE.
I MEAN, IF YOU'RE GONNA BUILD A GARAGE OR A STORAGE BUILDING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
UH, AND UH, THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT HE'S ASKING YOU TO DO FOR AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT YOUR, WHAT'S YOUR PURPOSE? YEAH.
WELL, THE OLD STRUCTURE WAS A, UH, UM, A GARAGE, UH, ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
AND THE SECOND FLOOR WAS A STORAGE.
WOULD LIKE TO DO THE SAME THING, UH, THE FIRST FLOOR, UH, YOU KNOW, FOR PARKING, UH, TO, TO GO AHEAD AND, UM, USE IT TO, UM, PARK MY, MY CAR.
I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SPACE IN THE FRONT TO, TO PARK CARS.
AND IT'S AN INCONVENIENCE TO PARK TWO CARS BECAUSE HE, THE CAR IN FRONT HAS TO GO AND THE CAR BEHIND HAS TO MOVE OUT, UH, ONTO THE STREET TO, TO ANOTHER PART, UH, UH, THE CAR, THE PARKED CAR IN FRONT TO, TO LEAVE.
UH, THAT WAY I CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND, UH, PARK, UH, ONE OF MY CARS IN THE BACK AND THEN USE THE SECOND, UH, UH, FLOOR FOR OFFICE SPACE AND STORAGE AS WELL.
I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT HE'S GOING TO DO.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER, UH, MR. VIN, IF YOU PLEASE HOLD, WE'RE GONNA GET SOME MORE INFORMATION HERE FOR YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC INPUT THAT'S COMING IN? YES, SIR.
THERE'S THREE LETTERS TO BE READ IN AND THERE'S NO, UH, CALLERS.
SO THE FIRST LETTER WHERE DO READ THE LETTERS IN, UH, FROM BEATRICE DEAN, UH, NON-RESIDENT OWNER OF THREE 14 GOMAN, THE AREA RAINWATER DRAINAGE DOES NOT CURRENTLY ALLOW THE, THAT MUCH RAINWATER FROM THE ROOF TO FLOW AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBOR PROPERTY AND RUN TOWARDS THE STREET.
IN MANY CASES, THE WATER JUST RUNS, UH, JUST UNDER THE, THE PIER AND BEAM FOUNDATION OF THE HOUSE NEXT TO THE PROPERTY, REDUCING THE DISTANCE AS, AS PER THE VARIANCE WOULD MAKE MATTERS WORSE.
THE ARCHITECTS AND PLANTERS IN THE 1930S WERE AWARE OF THE SITUATION, HENCE THE CITY CODES TO THINK THAT THE WATER WILL RUN TO THE FRONT OF THE PROP NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY WOULD REQUIRE REDESIGN OF THE NEIGHBOR'S FRONT YARD.
THE LAND AT THURMAN STREET IS VERY FLAT AND THE WATER DOES NOT RUN TOWARDS THE STREET.
UM, NOT ENOUGH SLOPE HAVE EXPERIENCED THAT.
THE RELATED ISSUE WAS A FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK ON THE, THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE NEIGHBOR PLACED HIS GUTTER DRAINAGES, UH, ONE INCH FROM MY SETBACK ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE NEIGHBOR PLACED HIS GUTTERS, UH, DRAINAGE ONE INCH FROM MY PROPERTY TOWARDS MY PROPERTY AND COVERED IT WITH ROCKS AND NEIGHBOR SAID, TOO BAD.
UH, CURRENTLY HAVE THE WEST SIDE OF THE MY PROPERTY GETTING RAIN ROLL, UH, RUNNING RAINWATER UNDER MY HOUSE.
WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION FOR THE PAST YEAR, AND THE PROBLEM WAS FIRST NOTICE AND I'LL INVESTIGATE MORE.
UH, THANKS TO THIS NOTICE, I'LL BE CONTACTING CODE COMPLIANCE, UH, THINK A ROOF AND WALL WAS EXTENDED BY THE HOUSE NEXT TO ME.
[02:55:01]
DEAN.I LIVE AT THREE 15 THURMAN PLACE.
UH, MY NEIGHBOR, RUDY
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HE NEEDS A VARIANCE FROM THIS, UH, FOR THIS PURPOSE, I DO NOT OPPOSE THIS VARIANCE, THIS SIMPLY, UH, THE, THE REPLACEMENT OF AN OLD DANGEROUS STRUCTURE THAT WAS THERE WITH A NEW BUILDING.
THIS IS GOOD FOR ALL INVOLVED.
UH, MR. TORINO HAS, HAS MY FULL SUPPORT.
IT IS JUST SIMPLY IN FAVOR, UH, 3 0 3 THORMAN PLACE AND AT K ADDEROL, AND IT JUST SAYS, FINE WITH ME.
THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE COMMENTARY.
NOW, UH, SO AT THIS TIME, I GUESS WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS OPEN THIS FOR THE BOARD TO ASK QUESTIONS OF MR. NEY.
WHO WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE FIRST QUESTION? MANNA IAN.
MR. MANNA, I BELIEVE I HEARD YOU FIRST.
SO, UM, SO IF I HAVE THE PICTURE UP CORRECTLY, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS, UH, ACCESS TO THE, UH, THE PROPERTY FROM THE BACK.
UM, AND SO WILL PARKING, UH, TO THE STRUCTURE BE FROM THE BACKSIDE OR WILL IT BE FROM, UM, UM, FROM THORMAN STREET? IT'LL BE FROM THE BACK, FROM THE ALLEY.
UM, AND THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
SO THERE'S AN OLD PICTURE ON, UM, ON GOOGLE MAPS AND IT SHOWED A STRUCTURE WHERE, UH, THE ROOFS, UH, SLOPED INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD.
UM, SO, SO WHAT ANGLE ARE, ARE YOU GONNA CHANGE THE, THE SLOPE OF THE, OF THE NEW ROOF OF THE STRUCTURE SO THAT IT IT FLOWS BACK INTO THE ALLEY? OR IS IT GOING TO, UM, DUPLICATE THE EXIST, UH, THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURE WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE IT MAY IMPACT THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD? THE, UH, WHAT I'M GOING TO DO, I'M GOING TO, UH, PUT DAUGHTERS TO DIRECT THE WATER, UH, TO THE, UH, ALLEY.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER, MR. ORIAN? GO AHEAD.
UH, SO, UH, THE SITE PLAN IS, IS, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M, I'M LOOKING AT IT CORRECTLY.
UH, YOU HAVE A, A LOT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER OUT HERE, BUT YOU, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT PARKING'S GONNA BE FROM THE REAR, BUT THE PLAN SEEMS TO CALL OUT A CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT RUNS ALONG THE ALLEY, BUT, BUT I, SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU, YOU DO HAVE A PARKING AREA CALLED OUT AS ITEM 14 ON THE SIDE PLAN THAT'S ACCESSED FROM THE ALLEY, AND THEN YOU'RE PUTTING IN A GARAGE THAT IS ALSO ACCESSED FROM THE ALLEY.
IS THAT, THAT IS CORRECT, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND IF, IF I WERE TO PULL INTO YOUR DRIVEWAY FROM DOORMAN PLACE, COULD I ALSO PARK A CAR IN YOUR GARAGE? NOT FROM THE STOREMAN.
UH, OKAY, SO I, I JUST, NOT FROM THE, THE SITE PLAN'S A LITTLE, THERE'S, THERE'S, IT'S A LITTLE, UH, UH, FADED A LITTLE FOR ME, SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I'M GETTING THE PICTURE RIGHT.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DO NONE BEING THE CASE THEN I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS FOR THE PUBLIC AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS.
CAN ANYBODY HEAR ME OR, YEAH, OONA, I'LL READ THE MOTION AHEAD.
OKAY, MR. UNA, YOU CAN MAKE THE MOTION.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 20 DASH 0 3 0 8, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT TO REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FEET AWAY WITH OVERHANG ONE FOOT AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT THREE 11 THORMAN PLACE, APPLICANT BEING RUDY TREVINO BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN
[03:00:01]
UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT, UH, 13, THE VARIANCE OH, SHOULD BE ONE.
THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE SIDE SETBACK, ENCROACHMENT OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
AS THE APPLICANT HAS ENOUGH SEPARATION FROM NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES, UH, TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE BOARD FINDS THAT ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT IF ENFORCED, WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNEC UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB IS LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY DUE TO A PREVIOUS STRUCTURE AND CAN BE USED TO REBUILD THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND, AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE, WHETHER THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW, THE INTENT OF THE SIDE SETBACK IS TO PROVIDE SPACING BETWEEN NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES.
THE APPLICANT WILL STILL MAINTAIN SPACE BETWEEN STRUCTURES WITH THE VARIANCE.
UH, FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT FROM WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SITE'S IMPACT DOES NOT POSES A RISK OF SUBSTANTIAL INJURING.
THE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, SINCE IT'S NOT SEEMED LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, UH, SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS VARIANCES SOUGHT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED.
UH, THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY ARE NEITHER DUE TO THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT OR DUE TO THE OWNER.
IT IS NOT FINANCIAL IN NATURE.
I'M GOING TO GIVE THAT SECOND TO MS. FISHER.
I BELIEVE I HEARD HER IN THE BACKGROUND TRYING TO SPREAD THINGS OUT, NEVERTHELESS.
I GO AHEAD AND DID MR. UNA START THE DISCUSSION? YES.
SO I AM SUPPORTED THE MOTION, I MEAN, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED TESTIMONY THAT, UH, THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY REGARDING THE WATER, UH, RUN OFF THE, OFF THE, UH, ROOF WILL BE, UH, REMEDIATED BY THE GUTTERS AND WHICH WILL BE, UH, DIRECTED TOWARDS THE ALLEY AND NOT TOWARDS THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER.
SO THAT'S AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE CURRENT CONDITION OR THE CONDITION OF WHEN, WHEN, UH, THE EXISTING STRUCTURE EXISTED.
SO I THINK THAT KIND OF REMEDIES THE, UH, THE NEIGHBOR'S CONCERN.
AND OF COURSE, THE, UH, ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY IS GONNA BE TO THE REAR, TO THURMOND, WHICH IS, I THINK, KIND OF TAKES SOME OF THE, UH, UH, USE OF SOME OF THE ACCESS AWAY FROM THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE ON THURMAN PLACE.
SO, YEP, I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
UH, MS. FISHER? YES, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE.
I BELIEVE THAT THE, UH, DRAINAGE, ANY POTENTIAL DRAINAGE ISSUE WILL BE RESOLVED BY THE ADDITION OF GUTTERS.
UH, AND ALSO THAT THERE, UH, WAS A PROPERTY, THERE WAS A SLAB ON THE PROPERTY AND IT'S A, ESSENTIALLY A REDEVELOPMENT OF THE, UH, FORMER IMPROVEMENT.
SO I WILL AGREE WITH MY, MY COLLEAGUE ON THAT.
ALRIGHT, MS. CRUZ, I, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR NOT GIVING YOU CREDIT FOR THE SECOND, BUT I'LL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK HERE.
UM, NO, I'M JUST GOING TO CONCUR WITH THIS.
I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING.
AND SINCE HE WAS, UH, PREVIOUSLY THERE AND THEY TORE IT DOWN, THEY'RE GONNA MAKE A NEW STRUCTURE.
I DON'T SEE ANY, ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE NEW STRUCTURE, UH, IN, IN, IN HELPING THE, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO HAVE SOME INPUT? OKAY.
I'M GONNA STATE THAT I'VE GONE AHEAD AND LOOKED ON GOOGLE MAPS ON THIS AND I SEE THE OLD STRUCTURE, IT WAS MORE LIKE A BARN THAN IT WAS A BUILDING, UH, WITH AN OLD SHEET, METAL ROOF THAT WAS RUSTED, DILAPIDATED.
AND SO, UH, HOPEFULLY THAT THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL BE MUCH MORE APPEALING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
PLUS THE ALLEYWAY IN THE BACK IS QUITE NICE.
I WISH I COULD HAVE HAD AN ALLEY LIKE THAT IN MANY OF MY HOMES.
UH, SO I BELIEVE THAT DIVERTING THE WATER TO THE ALLEY IS PROBABLY A VERY GOOD IDEA, WHICH SHOULD HELP THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBOR WHO'S GOT ISSUES WITH WATER FLOWING UNDER THE HOME.
UH, HYDRAULIC JUST WILL FIGURE OUT A WAY TO SOLVE THAT FOR HER WHEN SHE HIRED.
SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AS WELL.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE.
I SUPPORT THE MOTION AS READ MR. MANCHACA.
I CONCUR WITH FINDINGS OF FACT.
[03:05:01]
THE FINDINGS OF FACT.I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CHAIR MARTINEZ.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT THE MOTIONS APPROVED AND UNANIMOUSLY.
AND GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT AND PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO CITY STAFF THAT'LL LEAD YOU THE RIGHT DIRECTION IN BUILDING THE TYPE OF PROJECT THAT YOU'LL BE HAPPY WITH.
[7. 20-7106 Consideration and approval of November 16, 2020 minutes]
UH, THAT CONCLUDES OUR, OUR CASES FOR TODAY.UH, THERE'LL BE NO DISCUSSION OF THE CASES FURTHER, WE'LL BE NOW TALKING AND REVIEWING THE, THE, UH, MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS.
UH, SINCE I WAS NOT AVAILABLE, WHICH I MUST APOLOGIZE FOR, UH, I WOULD HOPE THAT EVERYONE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ, READ THOSE MINUTES, AND DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE CORRECT OR NEED ADAPTATION.
IF EVERYONE DOES, ANY CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE AWARE OF THE AMENDED MINUTES THAT MONICA SENT OUT.
UM, JUST SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE AWARE, WE DID HAVE AN ISSUE FOR OUR LAST MEETING.
WE WERE HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH OUR ONLINE, UH, MESSAGING SYSTEM.
UH, THERE WERE SOME VOICEMAILS THAT WE WERE UNAWARE OF IN THE SYSTEM, SO WE WANTED TO MAKE IT, WE, WE ADDED THEM TO EACH CASE.
UH, AND WE IDENTIFIED THAT THE FACT THAT THEY WERE NOT HEARD AND WHETHER THEY WERE IN SUPPORT FOR OPPOSITION, UH, WE HAVE REMEDIED THAT ISSUE SINCE THEN AND WE'RE TESTING ON A REGULAR BASIS TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.
BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S AWARE OF THAT AND THE AMENDED MINUTES WILL HAVE THAT INCLUDED.
I NEED A MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.
I MOVE, ACCEPT THE CORRECTION, UM, CORRECTED MINUTES SECOND.
SO I'LL GIVE, I'D GIVE THE MOTION TO MS. CRUZ AND A SECOND.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR A ROLL CALL.
MR. BATTLE APPROVED MR. UNA? YES.
APPROVED MR. ORIAN, UH, APPROVED AND CHAIR MARTINEZ.
EVEN THOUGH I WAS NOT THERE, I, I'LL GO AHEAD AND APPROVE IT, UH, FOR THE, UH, REASON THAT IT NEEDS ALL THE VOTES THAT WE GET.
AND, UH, THIS CONCLUDES OUR MEETING OF THE BOARD EXCEPTION.
WE'RE GONNA REQUEST ANY STAFF TO UPDATE US ON ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO BE HAVING.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE NOTEWORTHY THAT WE NEED TO KNOW? UH, NOTHING NEW.
ONE THING THAT WE WILL HAVE TO DO, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO START INCREASING THEIR CASELOADS A BIT.
UH, WE ARE BOOKED OUT, JUST SO YOU KNOW, TILL THE MIDDLE OF FEBRUARY.
SO OUR NEXT MEETING IS GOING TO BE, UH, DECEMBER 21ST.
I HOPE THIS DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH EVERYBODY'S CHRISTMAS.
NOW SINCE THERE'S NO PLACE TO GO, UH, THIS SHOULDN'T HAVE TOO MUCH OF AN IMPACT.
UH, I WANT TO, I WANT TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW, I APOLOGIZE.
I DIDN'T ANTICIPATE GETTING SICK.
UH, I WENT INTO SURGERY ON OCTOBER 30TH.
MY FINAL SURGERY WAS ON, UH, NOVEMBER 30TH.
HOPEFULLY, I'M, I'LL BE FULLY RECOVERED, UH, TO THE FUTURE, UH, TO CONTINUE WITH, UH, WORKING WITH YOU ALL BECAUSE I REALLY ENJOY IT AND I HOPE THAT, UM, IF YOU EVER, UH, HAVE A CHANCE, YOU KNOW, GIMME A CALL SOMETIME AND LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK.
UH, HOWEVER, I WANT TO ADVISE YOU AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, BECAUSE OF MY HEALTH ISSUES, THAT WE'LL BE CONTINUING FOR A WHILE.
UH, I HAVE ADVISED MY, MY COUNCIL, UH, COUNCILMAN THAT HE NEEDS TO BE LOOKING FOR A PERMANENT REPLACEMENT, UM, BECAUSE I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT I CAN MAKE EVERY SINGLE MEETING FOR THE FUTURE.
UM, SO, UM, I JUST WANTED EVERYBODY TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH YOUR TIME AND, UH, BUT I'M GONNA STICK AROUND UNTIL SOMEONE IS NAMED AS MY REPLACEMENT.
[03:10:01]
SO, UH, FOR THE REST OF YOU, UH, I'LL SEE YOU HOPEFULLY RIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS.FOR THOSE THAT WON'T BE ATTENDING, UM, MERRY CHRISTMAS.
WE'LL KEEP YOU IN OUR PRAYERS.
I CAN GUARANTEE YOU PRAYERS THAT GOT ME THROUGH THIS, BECAUSE BELIEVE ME, I DID NOT APPRECIATE WHAT I HAD TO GO THROUGH.
I WAS IN AND OUT OF METHODIST HOSPITAL FOR WEEKS AT A TIME, SO IT WAS A VERY DIFFICULT TIME.
BRENDA, I WANNA THANK MY WIFE FOR STANDING BY ME BECAUSE SHE HAD TO DO A LOT OF DRIVING AND FOR VERY UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES.
SO, BUT ANYWAY, AGAIN, THANK YOU EVERYONE.
CATHERINE, KATHERINE, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR HAVING PATIENCE WITH ME.
IS SHE STILL AROUND?
AND ZEKE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, UH, FOR HELPING ME GET THROUGH THIS MEETING TO DID AN EXCELLENT JOB TODAY.
AND, UH, HOPE THE YOUNG LADY THAT WAS MAKING THE PRESENTATION.
KAYLA, THAT WAS KAYLA LEAH, SHE'S ONE OF MY SENIORS.
SHE DID, SHE DID AN EXCELLENT JOB.
I THINK SHE DID A VERY CLEAR, CLEAR AND EXPLANATION AND HANDLING THE PEOPLE AND ALL THE, THE, UH, PUBLIC OPINION AND STUFF.
I THINK SHE DOES A VERY GOOD JOB OF EXPRESSING IT.
SO I WANNA THANK EVERYBODY AND MAKE SURE THAT BEFORE YOU WALK AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER, YOU TURN OFF YOUR VIDEO, UH, AND YOUR MUTE SO THAT YOU CAN, UM, YOU KNOW, CLOSE YOUR DAY OFF PROPERLY.
AND THEN GO AHEAD AND CLOSE YOUR BROWSER TO, OKAY.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND, UH, THANK YOU.
THIS IS THE OFFICIAL ENDING OF THE MEETING.