* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [00:00:06]
          OKAY, SIR. 
          WE'RE LIVE. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES 
          [Call to Order]
AND GENTLEMEN. 
          MY NAME IS ROGER FROM MARTINEZ, AND I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ADJUST CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. 
          I HEREBY CALL THIS REGULAR NOTICE MEETING OF THE CITY OF BOARD OF WE. 
          PLEASE INTERPRET THE INTERPRETATION FOR THIS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WE PLEASE CONDUCT THE ROLL CALL. 
          MR. MANCHACA. 
          PRESENT. 
          MR. THIEL PRESENT. 
          MS. CRUZ? YES, SIR. 
          MR. MENNA? MR. MANNA? MR. MANNA, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU, SIR. 
          WELCOME BACK TO YOU. 
          MS. BRACKMAN. 
          PRESENT. 
          MS. ? PRESENT. 
          MR. DELMER? MR. DELMER? PRESENT. 
          MS. FISHER? PRESENT. 
          MR. OZUNA PRESENT. 
          MR. ORIAN PRESENT? CHAIR MARTINEZ. 
          PRESENT. 
          AND MR. MANNA? NO, SIR. 
          WE CAN'T HEAR YOU, SIR. 
          SEEMS WE'RE HAVING DIFFICULTIES WITH MR. MANNAS AUDIO. 
          MR. MANNA MAY WANNA REJOIN. 
          UM, AND THEN WE'LL, UH, ONCE YOU'RE ON, JUST LET US KNOW AND THEN WE'LL RECORD YOU AS PRESENT FOR THE MEETING. 
          WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH, WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS EXPLANATION. 
          THE BOARD IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND NOT A COURT OF LAW. 
          WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACT PERTAINING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT. 
          DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS TO THREE PARTIES. 
          PACIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO GRASS, PRIVATE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. 
          THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL. 
          WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OR DETERMINATION. 
          DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AND ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 35 HERE DECIDES SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AS AUTHORIZED VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED TO CHAPTER 35. 
          WE ALSO SERVE IN AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICE REGARDING REQUEST, REQUEST FOR VARIANCES AND REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28. 
          EVERY DECISION OR 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 PROCEEDINGS. 
          EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON MOTION IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY, REQUIRES A VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE, AT LEAST NINE VOTES THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT REST WITH THE APPLICANT. 
          THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE REQUEST RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL SPECIAL EXCEPTION, OR  ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT BOARD OR COUNTY COURT OF LAW BASED ON THE REC RECORD OF THE, THESE PROCEEDINGS APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S DECISION REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ON MAY TO THE COUNCIL PRIOR TO STARTING WITH OUR ITEMS, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER, I'D LIKE OUR STAFF TO REVIEW OUR MEETING STAFF PROCEED. 
          [00:05:11]
YEAH. 
          WE NEED TO PRESENT THE LIMITATION TO PREDICT THE HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC AND LIMIT THE POTENTIAL SPREAD OF COVID 19. 
          THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS HOLDING ME MEETINGS VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE. 
          UH, 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/DSD OR BY CALLING IN FOR AUDIO ONLY AT 2 1 0 2 0 6 5 4 8 3. 
          TO INCORPORATE PUBLIC COMMENT, THERE ARE FOUR OPPORTUNITIES. 
          THESE INCLUDE EMAIL OR MAIL OF COMMENTS, DROPPING OFF COMMENTS, LEAVING VOICEMAIL, OR ASKING TO BE CALLED DURING THE MEETING. 
          STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. 
          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, WE WILL CALL THEM TO STATE THEIR TWO MINUTES COMMENTS. 
          SPANISH INTERPRETERS ARE ON STANDBY AS NEEDED. 
          THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL WITH A TWO MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS COMMISSION QUESTIONS. 
          ALRIGHT, BEFORE WE START, MR. MAN, I WAS GONNA SEE IF YOUR AUDIO'S WORKING. 
          SIR, CAN YOU HEAR ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA LIST YOU AS PRESENT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          THIRD, WE'VE GOT TECH TECHNIC TAKEN CARE OF. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD. 
          FIRST CASE. 
          YES, SIR. 
          FIRST 
          [1. 21-1057 BOA-20-10300136]
CASE IS BO O A 21 0 3 0 0 1 3 6. 
          LOCATED AT 2023 SABLE LANE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 10. 
          APPLICANT IS BEN ALLEN. 
          THE REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF THE REVOCATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY CURRENT ZONING IS I ONE A H O D. 
          WE SENT OUT 17 NOTICES, ZERO RECEIVED IN FAVOR, TWO IN OPPOSITION, ONE IN OPPOSITION, WHICH WAS ANONYMOUS, AND THERE'S NO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. 
          AT THIS TIME, MY DIRECTOR, MICHAEL SHANNON, WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WILL BE PRESENTING THE CASE. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. 
          UH, MY NAME IS MIKE SHANNON. 
          I'M THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR FOR SAN ANTONIO ADDRESS, 1901 SOUTH ALAMO. 
          SO I'M GONNA JUST WALK YOU THROUGH QUICKLY, UH, A A A A FEW SLIDES. 
          IT TALKS ABOUT, UM, UH, THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REVOCATION FOR THE ECSTASY CABARET, UH, AT 2023 SABLE. 
          AND AS YOU KNOW, UH, AS WAS JUST MENTIONED, UH, THE APPLICANT IS APPEALING, UH, MY DECISION TO REVOKE, UH, THE CO UH, THE C O O NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO I'M GONNA START WITH JUST AN OVERVIEW, UH, JUST A SUMMARY OF WHAT WE'RE HERE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. 
          SO, ECSTASY CABARET IS A, UH, B Y O B ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CLUB LOCATED AT 2023 STABLE LANE. 
          UH, IT'S BEEN IN OPERATION FOR A WHILE, UH, BUT BETWEEN JULY AND NOVEMBER OF 2020, UH, OF LAST YEAR, UM, THE ECST C HAD, UH, SEVERAL HEALTH AND SAFETY VIOLATIONS AT THEIR FACILITY, UH, RELATED TO BOTH, UH, THEIR REQUIRED COVID SAFETY PROTOCOLS AND CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. 
          AND WHEN I TALK ABOUT COVID SAFETY PROTOCOLS, I THINK WE'RE ALL AWARE OF THE EMERGENCY DECLARATION AND ORDERS AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL, UH, THAT HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT. 
          AND, UH, YOU KNOW, REALLY SINCE MARCH OF LAST YEAR, UH, THINGS LIKE WEARING A MASK, SOCIAL DISTANCING, UH, GROUPS OF, UH, NO MORE THAN, UH, LET'S SAY 10 PEOPLE IN A BAR, RESTAURANT SETTING OR CLUB SETTING. 
          UH, A FEW OTHERS. 
          UH, I'LL ALSO TALK ABOUT THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY THAT WE'VE, UH, WE'VE EXPERIENCED THERE AT THE CITY. 
          SO AFTER REPEATED HEALTH AND SAFETY VIOLATIONS, UH, AND SEVERAL, UH, CITATIONS ISSUED, UH, ECSTASY CABARET WAS ISSUED, WE, WE ISSUED A FINAL WARNING IN, UH, IN NOVEMBER IN WRITING. 
          AND, AND WE WARNED THEM THAT ANY MORE, UH, ANY MORE VIOLATIONS, UH, ANY MORE CONTINUED VIOLATIONS WOULD RESULT IN REVOCATION OF THEIR, UH, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 
          UH, SO WE PUT THEM ON NOTICE AFTER SEVERAL VIOLATIONS. 
          THIS FINAL NOTE, NOTICE EVEN DECLARED WE WOULD PULL THEIR C O O IF THEY HAD MORE VIOLATIONS AND AS WE'LL SHOW QUICKLY THEREAFTER, THERE WERE MORE. 
          SO, UH, JUST A, UH, JUST A SHORT TIME AFTER THAT ON NOVEMBER 24TH, UH, WE DID REVOKE THEIR C O O, UH, DUE TO THOSE, UH, CONTINUED HEALTH AND SAFETY VIOLATIONS. 
          UH, AND THAT'S IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR CITY CODE CHAPTER 10, WHICH I'LL GET INTO. 
          AND THAT'S OUR BUILDING RELATED CODES. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          SO, LET'S 
          [00:10:01]
JUST TALK ABOUT THE APPLICABLE CODES AND HOW WE GET HERE IN TERMS OF, UH, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCIES OR REVOKING, OR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, OR A PERMIT ISSUED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. 
          SO IF YOU GO TO, UH, SECTION 35 4 0 6, YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. 
          UH, THERE ARE A LOT OF PERMITS OR APPROVALS GRANTED BY, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, UH, TO BUSINESSES FOR THE USE, UH, OF THEIR LAND OR, UH, A BUILDING. 
          UH, BUT IF THERE'S VIOLATION, THIS IS THE SECTION THAT SAYS WE'LL INVESTIGATE IT IF THERE'S VIOLATIONS, UH, WE'LL DETERMINE WHAT TO DO. 
          UH, IF, IF IT'S SO BAD THAT WE HAVE TO, UH, GO DOWN THE PATH OF POSSIBLY REVOKING, UH, SUSPENDING OR REVOKING A PERMIT, UM, WE, WE WILL ISSUE THAT TO THEM IN WRITING, WHICH WE DID IN THIS CASE. 
          AGAIN, FOR, FOR THE PURPOSES OF, UH, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. 
          A PERMIT, A CERTIFICATE OF ANCY IS A TYPE OF PERMIT, UH, PER THE DEFINITION. 
          SO ONCE WE GIVE THEM THAT NOTICE OF INTENT, UM, WE CAN CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE AND WE FIND MORE VIOLATIONS. 
          UH, THIS GIVES ME THE AU AUTHORITY TO REVOKE THE PERMIT, UH, AND WE DID THAT, UH, WITH A NOTICE OF TERMINATION OR REVOCATION, UH, IS WHAT THE, THE CHAPTER 10 USES AS THAT TERM. 
          UH, SO NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          UM, I, I WILL SAY, UH, WHAT I DIDN'T MENTION IN THE LAST SLIDE IS IF SOMEONE WANTS TO APPEAL THAT DECISION, IF WE DO REVOKE THEIR C F O, UH, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY IN FRONT OF YOU ALL. 
          UH, THEY'RE FOLLOWING THE APPEAL PROCEDURES AS OUTLINED IN OUR CODES. 
          SO, UH, THE, REALLY THE HEART OF THE MATTER THAT YOU'RE GONNA HEAR TODAY, UH, I THINK FROM THE APPLICANT IS, UM, THE PROCESS OR THE AUTHORITY, I HAVE TO REVOKE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 
          SO IT'S VERY CLEAR IN CHAPTER 10 DASH 12, SECTION D WH WHILE WE ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCIES WHEN, UH, A BUILDING OR USE, UH, IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR CODES, UH, WE ARE AUTHORIZED, I AM AUTHORIZED AS A BUILDING OFFICIAL, UH, TO SUSPEND OR EVEN REVOKE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 
          UM, IF, UH, THERE ARE, UH, UH, VIOLATIONS, AND THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT REASONS WHY WE CAN ISSUE, UH, OR, OR RE OR REVOKE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THEY'RE LISTED OUT HERE, UH, IT'S VERY CLEAR. 
          UH, SO IT'S WHEREVER THE CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED IN ERROR, THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE OR ON THE BASIS OF INCORRECT INFORMATION SUPPLIED. 
          SO, IF SOMEONE TELLS US THEY'RE GONNA USE A BUILDING OR BUILD A BUILDING A CERTAIN WAY, AND THEY, THEY DO IT, THEY DON'T FOLLOW THAT INFORMATION, UH, WE CAN REVOKE IT. 
          THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE. 
          UH, SO THE LAST PART OF IT SAYS, OR WHERE IT IS, DETERMINE THAT THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, OR PORTION THEREOF IS IN VIOLATION OF ONE OF THESE THINGS. 
          IT SAYS, ANY ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OR ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER. 
          SO YOU'RE GONNA HEAR A LOT TODAY, LIKELY FROM THE APPLICANT, UH, ABOUT HOW, UH, I DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY BASED ON THE VIOLATIONS THAT WE, WE SAW, UH, TO REVOKE THE C OF O. 
          IT'S CLEARLY, UH, INCORRECT. 
          UH, HERE'S WHAT IT SAYS IN CHAPTER 10 DASH 12, UH, THAT, UH, THE HEALTH AND SAFETY VIOLATIONS, UH, FROM THE USE OF THE FACILITY IS CLEARLY WITHIN, UM, UH, THE AUTHORITY TO REVOKE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 
          SO, UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          SO, TO FURTHER, UM, JUST TO FURTHER STATE THE CASE, AND WHEN WE LOOK AT REVOKING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, WE GO BACK TO THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF, UH, OF CHAPTER 10. 
          LIKE MANY OF OUR CODES, REALLY ALL OF OUR CODES THAT WE DEAL WITH DEVELOPMENT, UM, THE, THE CHAPTER IS THERE TO, UH, PROVIDE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH AND GENERAL WELFARE, CERTAINLY. 
          UM, AND THAT COULD BE ANYTHING FROM BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. 
          THERE'S A LAUNDRY LIST OF ITEMS, UH, THAT, THAT COULD BE, UH, USED HERE, UH, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, SANITARY EQUIPMENT, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. 
          UH, BUT IF YOU NOTICE A HIGHLIGHT OF THE PIECE, UH, CALLED OR USE AND OCCUPANCY OF A, A BUILDING OR A FACILITY, UH, WE ALL KNOW THAT, UH, THE USE OF A BUILDING, EVEN IF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, UH, MAY NOT HAVE ANY ELECTRICAL HAZARDS OR MAY BE STRUCTURALLY OKAY, THE USE OR OCCUPANCY OF A BUILDING CAN CREATE A DANGEROUS, UH, SITUATION. 
          UM, AND, UH, THAT WOULD GO AGAINST THE PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH AND GENERAL WELFARE. 
          SO IT'S CLEARLY PART OF THE SCOPE OF CHAPTER 10, UM, AND 10 DASH TWO AND 10 DASH 12 TO ANTICIPATE, UM, UH, THESE TYPE OF, UH, HEALTH HAZARDS. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          AND, AND I, I, THIS ONE IS ALSO IN HERE. 
          SO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, THAT'S MY ROLE HERE FOR THE CITY. 
          AND, AND OF COURSE, OUR TEAM AS WE WORK ON THESE, UM, SECTION 10 DASH FIVE TALKS ABOUT, UH, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS AUTHORIZED TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER. 
          UH, I HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RENDER INTERPRETATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER. 
          I CAN'T JUST WAIVE, UH, UH, THE, UH, REQUIREMENTS. 
          AND I CERTAINLY CAN'T ISSUE INTERPRETATIONS THAT, UH, ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH EVERYTHING I JUST SPELLED OUT. 
          UH, THEY HAVE TO BE, UH, WITHIN THE REALM, UH, INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. 
          SO IF THERE'S ANY CONFUSION OR A GRAY AREA OF THE CODE, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS IN THIS CASE, UH, IT'S STILL MY AUTHORITY TO, UH, INTERPRET THE CODE AND, AND, UH, AND, AND ACT ACCORDINGLY. 
          UH, AND I THINK WE'LL SHOW THAT, UH, THAT I DID SO HERE, UH, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          [00:15:03]
SO, LET'S TALK ABOUT, AND I THINK YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO SCROLL THROUGH THIS, SO WHOEVER'S ON THE BUTTONS JUST, UH, HIT THE BUTTON A COUPLE TIMES. 
          . 
          SO, UH, AS, AS I MENTIONED, WE HERE AT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHER, UH, CITY DEPARTMENTS. 
          UH, WE HAVE CODE OFFICERS, WE'VE HAD HEALTH INSPECTORS, UH, POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS REALLY SINCE APRIL, HAVE BEEN GOING OUT AND RESPONDING TO CALLS, UM, FOR VIOLATIONS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY PROTOCOLS RELATED TO COVID. 
          UH, THOSE, UH, RULES AND REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN ENACTED, UH, THROUGH A, A SERIES OF EMERGENCY DECLARATION ORDERS, UH, BY THE MAYOR AND THE LOCAL COUNTY JUDGE. 
          OF COURSE, THOSE ARE ORDINANCES, THOSE ARE LAW, AND THEY'VE BEEN, THEY'VE BEEN IN EFFECT, UH, THROUGH DIFFERENT ITERATIONS. 
          UM, BUT REALLY SINCE SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR, WE'VE SEEN SEVERAL VIOLATIONS OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY, UH, POLICY, UH, FACE MASK VIOLATIONS, NO SOCIAL DISTANCING OR LACK THEREOF. 
          UH, ON, UH, THIS WAS SEPTEMBER 11TH. 
          WE WENT BACK ON, UH, THE THIRD OCTOBER 3RD, NOVEMBER 6TH, NOVEMBER 7TH. 
          UH, AND AFTER THAT, THERE'S ACTUALLY FIVE VIOLATIONS. 
          THE FIRST TIME, I THINK THERE WAS A COUPLE VIOLATIONS, WE HAD TO ISSUE A CITATION, UM, THAT WE, WE JUST KEPT REPEATEDLY GOING BACK TO THIS CLUB, AND THEY WERE JUST NOT HAVING ANY CONTROL, UH, OR, UM, UH, CONTROL OF THEIR PATRONS. 
          AND IT WAS REALLY A DANGEROUS SITUATION. 
          UH, AND AFTER REPEATED, UM, CITATIONS, UH, WE, WE NOTIFIED THEM SEVERAL TIMES. 
          UH, THEY WEREN'T FOLLOWING ALL THE RULES THAT COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES WERE SUPPOSED TO. 
          AND, UM, AND, AND SO WE ISSUED THAT LAST WARNING SHORTLY AFTER THE, NO, NOVEMBER 7TH. 
          I BELIEVE IT WAS ON NOVEMBER, UH, THAT 10TH MAYBE, UH, SHORTLY AFTER THAT, I'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          UH, BUT SHORTLY AFTER THAT, I THINK IT WAS, UH, NOVEMBER 21ST, UH, WE FOUND MORE VIOLATIONS THAT WERE HEALTH AND SAFETY PROTOCOLS, UH, MASKS AND SOCIAL DISTANCING, UH, VIOLATIONS. 
          UM, SO, UH, WE WERE, AGAIN, WE NOTIFIED, UH, BY POSTING AN AND MAIL OF INTENT TO REVOKE IF THERE'S ANY MORE VIOLATIONS. 
          WE DID OBSERVE MORE VIOLATIONS. 
          THAT, THAT'S A TYPO. 
          THAT'S NOVEMBER 21ST, NOT NOVEMBER 11TH. 
          UM, BUT, BUT I THINK YOU CAN SEE QUICKLY AFTER WE WARNED THEM ONE LAST TIME, UH, THERE WAS STILL VIOLATIONS THAT WE SAW. 
          SO IN ADDITION, UH, TO THE EMERGENCY, UH, HEALTH EMERGENCY ORDER, UH, CITATIONS THAT WE HAD TO ISSUE, THERE WERE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OFFENSES OBSERVED, UH, THIS SUMMER, UH, AND THIS FALL AS WELL. 
          SO I HAVE A LIST OF THEM, UH, THE PROSTITUTION, UH, ON A COUPLE OF, UH, DATES THERE. 
          UH, REMEMBER I SAID, THIS IS A B Y O B ESTABLISHMENT. 
          UH, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED BY LAW, UH, UH, TO SELL ALCOHOL, UH, IN SEPTEMBER, THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THAT. 
          AND I ALSO, JUST FOR SOME CONTEXT, UH, WE HAVE SOME RECORDS FROM OUR, UH, SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT. 
          WE'VE SEEN A LOT. 
          WE HAVE RECEIVED A LOT OF CALLS SINCE 2019. 
          UM, A LOT OF CALLS FOR SERVICE. 
          SO ALL OF THIS REALLY ADDS UP TO THIS IS, UH, A FACILITY THAT THROUGH THEIR OWN, UH, LACK OF CONTROL, UH, THEIR OWN DECISIONS AS TO CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT, UH, THAT WAS DANGEROUS, UH, AND NOT FOLLOWING, UH, HEALTH AND SAFETY, UM, THE RULES AND LAWS THAT WERE IN EFFECT. 
          UM, WE, WE HAD TO, AFTER MANY, UH, WARNINGS, MANY CITATIONS AND INCLUDING A FINAL WARNING, HAD TO REVOKE THEIR C O O ON NOVEMBER 24TH. 
          UM, I WILL JUST ADD, UH, IN ADDITION TO THE B O A APPEAL, UH, THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN, IN DECEMBER, UH, WHICH WE'RE HEARING TODAY, UH, ECSTASY DID FILE A LAWSUIT, UM, REQUESTING THE COURTS TO STOP THE C O O REVOCATION. 
          UH, THAT WAS ON, UH, I THINK IT WAS DECEMBER 7TH THERE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. 
          AND JUST LAST WEEK, UH, THAT LAWSUIT WAS DISMISSED BY THE COURT, UH, BECAUSE THEIR APPEAL RECOURSE IS B O A NOT FILING, UH, THE LAWSUIT IN COURT. 
          UM, SO I JUST GIVE YOU SOME CONTEXT THERE. 
          THOSE MIGHT BE SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS. 
          UH, NEXT SLIDE. 
          UH, I ALREADY TOUCHED ON THIS A LITTLE BIT, BUT AGAIN, UM, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, MY ROLE, UH, I, I DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY. 
          IT'S VERY CLEAR. 
          I JUST SHOWED YOU THE SECTIONS. 
          UH, I, I'M IN CHARGE FOR INTERPRETING CHAPTER 10 AND APPLYING THE RULES AND REGULATIONS. 
          UH, I SET ENFORCEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. 
          AND, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU'LL HEAR OR LIKELY TO HEAR, I THINK, UH, FROM THE APPLICANT IS THAT SECTION 10 DASH 12 D UM, DOESN'T REFERENCE ANYTHING BUT VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 10. 
          NOW, CERTAINLY, UM, I JUST WALKED YOU THROUGH ALL THAT AND HOW IT'S VERY CLEAR IN OUR, OUR MINDS, UH, THAT CHAPTER 10 APPLIES HERE. 
          BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, CHAPTER 10 AND C F O REVOCATIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED, AND I THINK, UH, IT IS PRETTY CLEAR FOR THE LOCAL COUNTY STATE FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS. 
          SO NOT ONLY BUILDING RELATED CODES, CHAPTER 10, BUT FIRE CODE VIOLATIONS, THAT'S A DIFFERENT CHAPTER. 
          UH, BUILDING STANDARD BOARDS, UH, DEMOLITION ORDERS, THAT'S A DIFFERENT CHAPTER. 
          T A B C VIOLATIONS, CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, UH, I'LL EVEN SAY THE ZONING VIOLATIONS OUTTA CHAPTER 35, NOT LISTED 
          [00:20:01]
HERE. 
          AND THEN CERTAINLY THE EMERGENCY DECLARATION, UM, UH, UH, LAWS THAT ARE IN EFFECT RIGHT NOW. 
          UH, THOSE ARE ORDINANCES. 
          UM, AND THAT THEY'RE EQUAL TO LAW UNDER THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. 
          UH, IN ADDITION, UH, EARLIER ON, UH, THIS, WELL, LAST YEAR IN 2020, UM, WE DID HAVE TO USE THE, THE SAME, UH, 10 DASH 12 D UH, BECAUSE OF, UH, ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS WITH, UH, DIFFERENT BUSINESSES, UH, OF WHERE WE HAD A VAPE STORE AND A PLANET K LOCATION OR TWO. 
          SO THIS POLICY AND PROCEDURE HAS BEEN SET UP AND USED, UM, AND IT'S VERY APPROPRIATE AND APPLICABLE HERE. 
          SO, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          SO, AGAIN, MY CONCLUSION LOOKS VERY SIMILAR TO THE SUMMARY. 
          UH, I FIGURED I'D TELL YOU WHAT I WAS GONNA TELL YOU, AND NOW I'M GONNA TELL IT TO YOU AGAIN, WHAT I JUST, JUST TOLD YOU. 
          UM, SO ECSTASY HAD, HAD, HAD, UH, NUMEROUS HEALTH AND SAFETY VIOLATIONS AT THEIR FACILITY. 
          UM, AGAIN, IT'S BOTH COVID SAFETY PROTOCOLS. 
          WE'RE LIVING IN A PANDEMIC. 
          IT'S CRITICAL THAT ANY BUSINESS OWNER, AND WE'VE WORKED WITH A LOT OF BUSINESS OWNERS THROUGHOUT THIS, UH, THAT ARE DOING IT RIGHT. 
          UH, CLEARLY ECSTASY DID NOT, UH, FOR, FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, UH, IN ADDITION TO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. 
          SO, UH, CERTAINLY AFTER REPEATED HEALTH AND SAFETY VIOLATIONS, UH, INCLUDING THE FINAL WARNING NOTICE, UM, WE REVOKED THEIR C OF O. 
          AND IT'S, AND IT'S ONLY TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC, UH, IN ACCORDANCE, CLEARLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 10. 
          AND, UH, IT WAS CLEARLY PERMITTED BY OUR CODES AND MERITED, UM, DUE TO THE NUMEROUS, UM, HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES THAT WE FOUND. 
          UM, I THINK THAT'S MY LAST SLIDE. 
          MAYBE THERE'S ONE MORE TO WRAP IT UP. 
          THERE WE GO. 
          JUST SOMETHING PRETTY. 
          UH, SO THAT'S MY PRESENTATION, UH, WALKING YOU THROUGH, UH, THE ISSUE, UH, FROM, UH, WHY IT WAS REVOKED, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHEN APPROPRIATE. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, WE'VE GOT THE PRESENTATION STAFF. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER, UH, CITY STAFF PRESENTATION INFORMATION DO YOU PRESENTED? THE STAFF ARE AT THIS TIME, BUT WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION MIXED. 
          WE DO HAVE MR. BEN ALLEN ON THE LINE. 
          MR. ALLEN, WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION, PLEASE. 
          YES, THIS IS BEN ALLEN ON BEHALF OF R C I ENTERTAINMENT, SAN ANTONIO, INC, 2 0 2 3 SABLE LANE, I'LL PROCEED WITH YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          ARE YOU? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, FOR ALLOWING US TO PRESENT THIS APPEAL. 
          UM, IF YOU PLEASE GO TO SLIDE ONE OF THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION. 
          UH, AND I'M ON A BIT OF A LAG, BUT I'LL TRY TO REFER TO THE PRESENTATION BASED ON THE SLIDE NUMBER. 
          WELL SLIDE THE SECOND SLIDE, BUT IT'S GONNA HAVE NUMBER ONE AT THE BOTTOM. 
          UH, THIS IS AN APPEAL WE'RE READY FOR. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          WE'RE READY FOR YOU, SIR, SO YOU, THE SLIDES ARE UP. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          SO, AS YOU ALL KNOW, THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE DB'S, REVOCATION OF R C I ENTERTAINMENT, SAN ANTONIO'S CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON NOVEMBER 24TH, 2020, WHICH PUT X C C CABARET OUT OF BUSINESS FOR NOW GOING ON OVER TWO AND A HALF MONTHS. 
          AND IT'S AFFECTED, UH, DOZENS OF EMPLOYEES DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON. 
          WE BELIEVE THAT AS, AS WE'LL SHOW THE DIRECTOR EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY IN REVOKING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON THAT BASIS. 
          IF YOU'LL GO TO SLIDE TWO, UH, WHICH IS A SCREENSHOT, BY THE WAY, YOUR MATERIALS WILL HAVE, UH, THE, THEY'RE CALLED TI EXHIBITS IS THE FOLDER. 
          BUT, UH, ALL THE EXHIBITS REFERRED TO IN THIS PRESENTATION ARE AVAILABLE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD TO REVIEW. 
          AND EXHIBIT 13, WHICH IS THE FIRST ONE I WANT TO TALK ABOUT, IS THE ACTUAL CITY OF SAN ANTONIO'S REVOCATION. 
          AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. 
          AND THE FIRST IS THAT IT'S CLEAR IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH THAT'S CLIPPED HERE ON SLIDE TWO, THAT THE BASIS WAS FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW ALLEGED COVID PROTOCOLS. 
          AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST PARAGRAPH, THE THIRD COMPLETE PARAGRAPH ON SLIDE NUMBER TWO, IT'S BEING REVOKED PURSUANT TO SUB CHAPTER 12, SUB CHAPTER 10 DASH 12, WHICH AS MR. SHANNON POINTED OUT, IS THE, UH, BUILDING CODE, BUILDING RELATED CODE. 
          AND IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, SLIDE NUMBER THREE SECTION, UH, 10 DASH 12 DOES INDEED PROVIDE THAT YOU CAN'T OPERATE WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE. 
          BUT, AND IF YOU GO TO SLIDE NUMBER FOUR, THAT SAME SECTION, 10 DASH 12 HAS A PROVISION ABOUT REVOCATION. 
          AND YOU SAW THE SAME SECTION THAT MR. SHANNON, UH, REFERENCED IS, IS HIGHLIGHTED IN, IN THIS PARAGRAPH. 
          UH, AND IT REQUIRES, AND I EMPHASIZE HERE THAT IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, OR A PORTION THEREOF IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OR ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, THE DIRECTOR OF THE D S D IS ENTITLED TO REVOKE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 
          AND, UM, THIS IS 
          [00:25:01]
A, A GRAMMATICAL ISSUE THAT I THINK MR. SHANNON IS, IS PLAYING A LITTLE BIT, UH, FAST AND LOOSE WITH. 
          HE IS ATTEMPTING TO SAY THAT ANY ORDINANCE PERIOD, BUT IS NOT RESTRICTED BY THE SUBCHAPTER GRANTING HIM THE AUTHORITY TO RE, TO REVOKE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 
          BUT IF YOU READ THAT SENTENCE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ORDINANCE REGULATION AND PROVISION HAS TO BE UNDER THE BUILDING CODE SUBCONTRACTOR, HE'S, HIS OFFICE IS THE BUILDING OFFICER UNDER THIS CODE. 
          HE DOES NOT HAVE CARD BLANCHE AUTHORITY TO REVOKE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON ANY BASIS THAT'S, THAT'S IN, IS ISSUED IN ANY ORDINANCE, AND THAT'S EXCEEDING HIS AUTHORITY. 
          PLEASE GO TO SLIDE NUMBER FIVE, AND YOU CAN SEE THIS IS JUST A SCREENSHOT OF THE TABLE OF CONTENTS OF SUB-CHAPTER 10, THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. 
          AND YOU SEE THERE, SUB CHAPTER 10 IS BUILDING RELATED CODES, BUT EVEN SETTING ASIDE THE FACT THAT SUB CHAPTER 10 DOES NOT PROVIDE IN THE AUTHORITY TO REVOKE ON A BASIS OUTSIDE OF BUILDING RELATED ISSUES, THERE'S ANOTHER LARGE PROBLEM WITH THE REVOCATION. 
          AND THAT IS, IF YOU GO TO SLIDE NUMBER SIX THAT IT VIOLATES GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT'S EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 32, WHICH WAS ISSUED OCTOBER 7TH, 2020, AND IS REGARDING TO, UH, REGARDING PROTOCOLS FOR COMPLYING WITH C OVID 19 PRECAUTIONS AS TEXAS REOPENS. 
          YOU GO TO SLIDE SEVEN, I'VE EXCERPTED A PORTION OF GOVERNOR ABBOTT'S ORDER BY ITS OWN TERMS. THE GOVERNOR HAS SAID, NOTHING MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THIS ORDER CAN BE ENACTED BY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT. 
          AND YOU'LL SEE THAT HE SPECIFICALLY CITES TO CHAPTER FOUR 18 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. 
          YOU SAW IN MR. MR. SHANNON'S PRESENTATION JUST A MOMENT AGO, HE SAID, FOUR 18 GIVES ME THE AUTHORITY TO CLOSE ANYTHING ON THE BASIS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY. 
          WELL, THAT'S NOT TRUE. 
          EVEN IF IT, EVEN IF HE COULD GO OUTSIDE OF SUB CHAPTER 10 AND MAKE ANY ORDER HE WANTED, OR MAKE ANY OR REVOKE A RESTRICTIVE OCCUPANCY ON ANY BASIS HE WANTED, UNDER CITY LAW, IT'S SUPERSEDED BY THE GOVERNOR'S ORDER. 
          IF YOU GO TO SLIDE NUMBER EIGHT, YOU HAVE, UH, AN ORDER OR RATHER AN EMERGENCY DECLARATION THAT WAS ENTERED BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO THAT SAYS FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE FIRST TIME YOU SEE ANY CITY ORDINANCE THAT SAYS, WE CAN REVOKE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW COVID PROTOCOLS. 
          AND IT'S PASSED ON NOVEMBER 25TH, 2020. 
          THIS IS THE DAY AFTER THE, THE CITY OF SAN, THE D S D DIRECTOR REVOKED, UH, X T C CAPITAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AFTER THE FACT. 
          THEY, THEY PURPORTED TO MAKE AN ORDER THAT SAID, IF THIS ISN'T COMPLIED WITH, WE CAN REVOKE YOUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 
          BUT IT DIDN'T EVEN EXIST TO PROVIDE ANY BUSINESS WITH NOTICE THAT, HEY, IF THERE'S SOMEONE WALKING AROUND NOT WEARING MASKS AND THAT HAPPENS THREE TIMES, BOOM, YOU'RE OUT OF BUSINESS. 
          THERE WAS NO NOTICE THAT THAT COULD EVER HAPPEN. 
          BUT, AND IF YOU GO TO, UH, SLIDE NINE, THE OTHER PROBLEM WITH THAT ORDER, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT WAS AFTER REVOCATION, IS IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH GOVERNOR ABBOTT'S ORDER. 
          AND HOW DO WE KNOW THAT? WELL, IF YOU GO TO SLIDE NUMBER 10, THE WEEK BEFORE NEW YEAR'S, THE CITY OF AUSTIN ISSUED A CURFEW, A 10 30 CURFEW AND PUT A NUMBER OF C OVID 19 PROTOCOL RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE ABOVE AND BEYOND GOVERNOR ABBOTT'S ORDER. 
          AND HE ACTUALLY, IN THE ERA OF 2021 OR THE YEAR OF 2020 AND 2021, POLITICIANS SOMETIMES WORK ON TWITTER. 
          GOVERNOR ABBOTT SAID, POINT BLANK, THIS SHUTDOWN ORDER BY AUSTIN IS NOT ALLOWED. 
          PERIOD. 
          MY EXECUTIVE ORDER STOPS CITIES LIKE AUSTIN FROM ARBITRARILY SHUTTING DOWN BUSINESSES. 
          THE CITY HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO ENFORCE EXISTING ORDERS, NOT MAKE WARRANTS. 
          THE ORDER ENTERED ON NOVEMBER 25TH, THE DAY AFTER THE D S D REVOKED THE APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 
          THAT ORDER WAS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN GA 32, AND IT WASN'T ALLOWED THE ACTION BY THE D S D TO CLOSE A BUSINESS FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW COVID PROTOCOLS. 
          HE TALKED A LOT ABOUT OTHER CRIMES AT THE END, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT HIS REVOCATION LETTER, IT WAS BASED ON COVID PROTOCOLS. 
          THAT AUTHORITY DID NOT EXIST. 
          IF YOU'LL PLEASE GO TO SLIDE 11, GA 32 PROVIDES THE LEVEL AT WHICH BUSINESS CAN OPERATE. 
          AND THAT IS THEY CAN OPERATE AT 75% OF OCCUPANCY OR AT 50% IN AREAS WITH HIGH HOSPITALIZATION. 
          BUT YOU CAN'T CLOSE BUSINESSES MORE THAN THAT. 
          AND THE ONLY PROVISION IN GA 32 FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FAILURE TO FOLLOW COVID 19 PROTOCOLS IS FINES NOT CLOSURE OF A BUSINESS. 
          AND AS GOVERNOR ABBOTT SAID, IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE CITY TO ARBITRARILY SHUT DOWN BUSINESSES FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW COVID PROTOCOLS. 
          IF YOU PLEASE GO TO SLIDE 12. 
          SO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, OR THE D S D IS NOT ALLOWED TO SHUT 
          [00:30:01]
DOWN A BUSINESS FOR FAILURE OF PEOPLE TO WEAR MASKS UNDER THE BUILDING CODE BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN CHAPTER 10, NOT UNDER AN EMERGENCY ORDER FROM THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. 
          'CAUSE IT WAS ENTERED AFTER THE REVOCATION. 
          AND BECAUSE IT VIOLATES GA 32. 
          WHICH LEADS MY, TO MY NEXT QUESTION. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT SLIDE 13, WHAT ABOUT H E V AND RESTAURANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES? WHERE WOULD THEY BE IF A CUSTOMER ON FOUR OR FIVE OCCASIONS FAILED TO WEAR A MASK, WOULD THE, WOULD THE D S D, THE DIRECTOR OF THE D S D BE ENTITLED TO SHUT THEM DOWN TO FIT FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW C OVID 19 PROTOCOLS? I THINK WE'VE ALL SEEN THAT EVEN BUSINESSES THAT ARE VERY DILIGENT ABOUT ENFORCING THESE POLICIES, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WILL STEP OUT AND NOT WEAR A MASK AND BE BELLIGERENT ABOUT, UH, PROTECTING THE SAFETY OF OTHERS AND FOLLOWING THOSE PROTOCOLS. 
          AND IF YOU GO TO SLIDE 14, R C I ENTERTAINMENT, THE APPLICANT WAS ONE OF THOSE BUSINESSES THAT WAS DILIGENT AND TOOK IT VERY SERIOUSLY. 
          THIS IS AN EMAIL FROM ERIC LANGAN, WHO'S THE C E O SAYING, EVERYONE SHOULD BE WEARING MASKS IF THEY'RE NOT SEATED AT A TABLE. 
          AND HE'S CALLING ED KAR, WHO'S THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR TO THE, TO THE, TO THE TABLE AND SAYING, YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE, AND WAYNE FINLAND, ANOTHER REGIONAL DIRECTOR, THAT THEY'RE ENFORCING IT. 
          AND HERE YOU SEE ED ANKAR, WE'RE MAKING SURE IT'S BEING ENFORCED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. 
          SLIDE 15, NOVEMBER 8TH. 
          AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE, AT THE DATES ON THE TIMELINES, THESE FOLLOW THE INCIDENT REPORTS WHERE THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO POLICE OFFICERS RAISED COVID CONCERNS TO MEMBERS OF, UH, R C I ENTERTAINMENT AND ITS EMPLOYEES IN MANAGEMENT. 
          SO SAME THING IN NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER 8TH, YOU HAVE AN EMAIL FROM WAYNE FINLAND SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE AND MAKE SURE WE COMMUNICATE WITH THE GUESTS TO KEEP WEARING MASKS AFTER ENTERING THE CLUB. 
          AND HE SAID, THIS MOSTLY HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE ARE WALKING AROUND. 
          THEY'RE GOING TO A T M MACHINE OR, OR A DIFFERENT AREA OF THE BAR. 
          AND IF YOU'LL GO TO SLIDE 16 AGAIN ON NOVEMBER 11TH, AND THIS IS THIS ONE'S PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT, YOU HAVE WAYNE FINLON, WHO'S THE, WHO'S THE MANAGER, AND HE IS, UH, RESPONDING TO SAN ANTONIO POLICE OFFICERS, UH, SAYING YOU, HERE'S WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO FOLLOW COVID PROTOCOLS. 
          THEY COME TO THE CLUB. 
          THEY, WAYNE, WAYNE HAS LOWERED THE OCCUPANCY TO 50%, EVEN THOUGH 75 IS WHAT'S REQUIRED UNDER GA 32. 
          AND THE OFFICERS ACTUALLY  PARTY AT THE TABLES AND CHAIRS THE FACT THAT ALL THE CUSTOMERS WERE REQUIRED BEING REQUIRED TO WEAR MASKS. 
          AND WE WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND TO TRY TO COOPERATE WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ABOUT, ABOUT FOLLOWING COVID PROTOCOLS. 
          IN FACT, AND IF YOU GO TO SLIDE 17, WE WENT SO FAR THAT EVEN AFTER THE REVOCATION OF NOVEMBER 24TH, WE WERE SPEAKING WITH INDIVIDUALS AT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. 
          WHAT CAN WE DO BETTER? HOW CAN WE SHOW THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS FOLLOWING PROTOCOLS AND, AND HOW CAN WE PAY FOR THIS? HOW CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO QUESTION IT COULD FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS? AND WE SUBMITTED A COMPREHENSIVE WRITTEN PROTOCOL, WHICH WE WERE ALREADY FOLLOWING, BUT HAD NOT YET REDUCED HER WRITING. 
          AND THAT YOU CAN FIND IN EXHIBIT 15, UM, THAT A MULTIPLE PAGE PROTOCOL THAT, THAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO JUST NEVER RESPONDED. 
          THEY INITIALLY SAID, HERE'S WHAT WE'D LIKE YOU TO DO. 
          WE SUBMITTED THIS PAPERWORK, AND THEN THEY NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT, UH, GIVING US A CHANCE TO IMPLEMENT IT. 
          AND IN FACT, WE COULDN'T. 
          'CAUSE AT THAT TIME, THEY'D ALREADY REVOKED OUR CERTIFICATE, BUT THEY DIDN'T GIVE US A CHANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM THAT THEY HAD ASKED FOR. 
          AND THEN LASTLY, IF YOU LOOK AT, UH, GA 32 AGAIN, AND THIS IS, THIS IS, I THINK THE, THE DRIVING POINT THAT IS INESCAPABLE FOR, FOR THE D S D AND FOR MR. SHANNON IS THAT GA 32 ALLOWS BUSINESSES TO BE OPEN AND, UH, MORE RESTRICTIVE POLICY BY THE MUNICIPALITY IS SIMPLY CANNOT BE ENFORCED. 
          SO FOR THAT REASON, APPLICANT RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT WE BE ALLOWED TO BE OPEN AND THERE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BE REINSTATED. 
          UH, THAT'S THE CONCLUSION OF MY PRESENTATION. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, ZEKE, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC INPUT THAT WE NEED TO HEAR? WE DO, SIR. 
          WE'VE GOT TWO LETTERS TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD, AND WE DO HAVE ONE LIVE CALLER. 
          OKAY. 
          WHY DON'T WE START WITH THE, UH, LIVE CALLER. 
          OH, AND, UH, THEN WE'LL GO INTO GET THE LIVE CALLER ON NOW, SIR, WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT, UM, I CAN GO AHEAD AND READ THE TWO LETTERS INTO RECORD. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          THEN LET'S, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO IT BACK DIRECTION. 
          OKAY. 
          THE FIRST LETTER IS FROM, UH, LET'S SEE HERE. 
          DARLA PUNT, OWNER OF ALAMO HEIGHTS GARAGE. 
          THAT'S WITHIN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS. 
          I RESPOND TO THE V O A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE, THE ABOVE REST REFERENC PROPERTY, UH, TO BE HEARD ON MONDAY, JANUARY 11TH. 
          MY HUSBAND AND I OWN, UH, PROPERTY AT 87 19 BROADWAY, WHICH IS WITHIN THE 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY, REQUESTING THE 
          [00:35:01]
APPEAL OF THE REVOCATION OF THE C C OF O. 
          WE RUN OUR FAMILY BUSINESS ELMO HEIGHTS GARAGE, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1958. 
          WE ARE 100% OPPOSED TO THE ALLOWING THE PRIOR BUSINESS ECSTASY CABARET TO BE ALLOWED TO OBTAIN ANOTHER CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 
          IN GENERAL, THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS BRINGS MANY UNDESIRABLE PEOPLE AND ACTIVITIES IN THE AREA, THE OCCUPY, AND WE WERE VERY RELIEVED WHEN THE C F O WAS REVOKED. 
          IT HAS BEEN MY PERSONAL OBSERVATION AS I WALK MY DOG AROUND THE BLOCK AND IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE HANGING AROUND THE PLACE WHEN IT ISN'T EVEN OPEN, WHICH TO, UH, TO BE, TO ME, IS POSSIBLY ALSO AN INDICATION OF LEGAL ACTIVITIES. 
          I STILL SEE PEOPLE HANGING AROUND. 
          THEY'RE IN THE, THEIR VEHICLES. 
          AND JUST OUT FRONT, EVEN SINCE THE C F O WAS REVOKED WHILE IT WAS OCCUPIED, THERE HAS BEEN CONSTANT, UH, BROKEN GLASS FROM BEER BOTTLES THAT MAKES IT ITS WAY, UH, ONTO THE SIDEWALK AND THE STREET. 
          IN ADDITION, WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY INVESTED IN OUR PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS, AND DO NOT WANT OUR PROPERTY DEVALUED DUE TO UNSAVORY NEIGHBORS. 
          WHEN THE BROADWAY BAR WAS OPEN ACROSS THE STREET FROM OUR LOCATION, WE DEALT WITH SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS SUCH AS BROKEN GLASS SHOOTINGS, DAMAGE TO CUSTOMERS, CARS THAT WERE DROPPED OFF OVERNIGHT, AND POLICE ACTIVITY DUE TO THE TYPE OF PEOPLE WHO ARE FREQUENTLY, FREQUENTLY IN THE BAR. 
          AND I BELIEVE THE SAME CAN BE SAID OF THE CLIENTELE WHO FREQUENTLY ECSTASY CABARET. 
          THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION OF OUR INPUT INTO THIS DECISION. 
          THE NEXT ONE IS ANONYMOUS. 
          UH, WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVOCATION OF THE C O O FOR 2023 CIVIL LANE, UM, CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY ECSTASY CABARET BE DENIED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE BUSINESS IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND A DANGER TO PUBLIC SAFETY. 
          THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL SHOOTINGS AT THIS LOCATION IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS, AND AT LEAST ONE RIOT OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, AS WELL AS ARRESTS INSIDE THE BUILDING FOR ILLEGAL ALCOHOL SALE AND PROSTITUTION. 
          WHILE THERE WERE, UH, IN OPERATION OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS, MULTIPLE BAGS OF TRASH HAVE BEEN LEFT ON OR NEAR THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. 
          THIS TRASH WAS LEFT BY CC'S CUSTOMERS WHO PARKED ON THE STREET INSTEAD OF IN THEIR PARKING LOT. 
          UH, BREAK-INS INTO VEHICLES RESULTING IN A LOT OF BROKEN GLASS FROM AUTOMOBILE WINDOWS, AS WELL AS STOLEN VEHICLES WERE ALSO COMMON. 
          I DON'T EXPECT THIS COMMON TO, UH, TO OFFICIALLY COUNT BECAUSE IT'S TOO LATE. 
          I HAVE BEEN VERY HESITANT TO COMMENT OFFICIALLY BECAUSE OF FEAR OF REPRISAL. 
          THAT CONCLUDES THE WRITTEN COMMENT. 
          WE DO HAVE ONE CALLER ON THE LINE. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          SIR, WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          MAKE SURE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF, MR. CARILLO. 
          WHEN YOU'RE READY, SIR, GO AND UN UNMUTE YOURSELF. 
          AND YOU COULD START IF YOU'RE HAVING TROUBLE. 
          UNMUTING TRISTAR. 
          SIX. 
          UH, THANK YOU. 
          THAT MAY HAVE DONE IT. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, SIR. 
          WE GOT YOU. 
          GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND YOU COULD, YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. 
          SURE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MY NAME IS RUBEN CARILLO. 
          I WORK AT THE MARRIOTT COURTYARD SAN ANTONIO AIRPORT SINCE, UH, EARLY 2017. 
          UH, THROUGHOUT MY TIME HERE, WE HAVE HAD ONGOING NOISE ISSUES WITH THE ECSTASY NIGHTCLUB, BUT IT WAS FROM THE PEOPLE OUTSIDE DRINKING IN THE STREET NEAR THEIR CARS, OR FROM THE LOUD MUSIC COMING FROM THE CLUB. 
          WE'VE HAD SEVERAL HUNDRED NOISE COMPLAINTS, MOST OF WHICH REQUIRED US TO COMPENSATE OUR GUESTS FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. 
          UH, THE NOISE IN 2017 AND 18 BECAME PROGRESSIVELY WORSE. 
          AND AS A RESULT, UH, WE USED TO HAVE A CONTRACT WITH AMERICAN AIRLINES OF ALMOST 15,000 ROOM NIGHTS, UH, PER PER YEAR. 
          AND THAT ENDED IN 2018. 
          UH, PILOTS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF HOURS OF UNINTERRUPTED SLEEP, AND THEY CITED THE, UH, UNCONTROLLABLE NOISE AT OUR PROPERTY COMING FROM THE CLUB AS ONE OF THE MAIN CAUSES. 
          UH, BY 2019, THE NOISE AND VIOLENCE FROM THE CLUB BECAME FAR WORSE. 
          GUNSHOTS BECAME FAR MORE FREQUENT, AND THE NOISE LEVELS AND GUEST COMPLAINTS HAD A MARKED INCREASE IN AUGUST OF 2019, WE WERE HOSTING SEVERAL SOCCER TEAMS, UH, UH, KIDS RANGING IN AGES, UH, FROM 10 TO 14. 
          WE ALSO HAD A GROUP OF ARMY MEDICAL 
          [00:40:01]
PERSONNEL, ABOUT 30 ROOMS STAYING FOR THREE WEEKS. 
          AND ON AUGUST 27TH, THERE WA THERE WAS RAPID AUTOMATIC RIFLE, FIRE, FIRE COMING FROM THE CLUB. 
          THE STRAIGHT BULLETS CAME THROUGH OUR FENCE AND DAMAGED SEVERAL CARS. 
          THE GUNSHOTS WERE LOUD AND THERE WERE MANY. 
          ONE BULLET ALSO WENT THROUGH ONE OF OUR ROOMS, WHICH HAP HAPPENED TO BE, UH, OCCUPIED. 
          AND ACTUALLY ONE OF OUR WORST BEERS HAD ACTUALLY OCCURRED IN THE ROOM. 
          THERE WAS A COUPLE OF GRANDPARENTS WITH THEIR TWO MONTH OLD GRANDSON. 
          THE BULLET LODGED INTO THE WALL. 
          IT ENTERED THE ROOM THROUGH THE, UH, THROUGH THE LARGE PATIO DOORS, SHATTERED THE PATIO OR LAPS INTO THE WALL DIRECTLY ABOVE WHERE THE CHILD WAS ASLEEP IN THE PLAY PEN. 
          IT WAS A LARGE CALIBER BULLET THAT LEFT A HOLE THAT WAS, UH, OVER ONE INCH IN DIAMETER FOR SEVERAL, FOR SEVERAL DAYS, ACTUALLY FOR SEVERAL WEEKS. 
          I DEALT WITH THE REPERCUSSIONS OF THAT EVENT FROM MY TRAUMATIZED STAFF, UH, THAT WORKED THAT NIGHT AND TO THE DAMAGED VEHICLES. 
          AND THE ARMY PERSONNEL THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR THREE WEEKS HAVE WITNESSED ESCALATING GUNSHOTS THROUGHOUT THEIR STATE. 
          WHILE I FEARED THAT THE USE OF BULLET ENTERING THE ROOM WOULD MAKE IT ON THE MEDIA, I WAS MORE HORRIFIED OF THE ACTUAL EVENT. 
          UNDERSTANDABLY, WE LOST THE ARMY MEDICAL GROUP ACCOUNTS THAT PROVIDED OVER $30,000 WORTH OF, UH, BUSINESS FOR US. 
          EVERY TIME THEY STAYED WITH US, THEY WOULD STAY THREE TO FOUR TIMES A YEAR, 30 SECONDS, AND THE ENTIRE SOCCER LEAGUE, UH, WHICH HAS USED US FOR MANY YEARS. 
          QUICK COMING, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS YEAR EACH OF THE HOTELS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A SWOT ANALYSIS DURING, UH, DURING BUDGET SEASON THAT STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND THREATS. 
          SURE. 
          THAT'S ABOUT TWO MINUTES, SIR. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          I'M GONNA ALLOW HIM TO FINISH HIS STATEMENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WELL, ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES IN OTHER HOTELS HAVE LISTED C OVID 19 AS THEIR LARGEST THREAT. 
          WE LISTED THE XT NIGHTCLUB. 
          IT IS OUR LARGEST THREAT THIS YEAR. 
          WE WERE POURING THREE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS INTO RENOVATION, BOTH THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR. 
          AND WE ARE ACTUALLY AT RISK OF HAVING TO CLOSE IF THIS VIOLENCE CONTINUES AT THE CLUB. 
          ALRIGHT? OKAY. 
          I APPRECIATE, UH, WE'VE GIVING YOU ENOUGH LENIENCY HERE. 
          YOU'VE MADE YOUR VERY GOOD POINT. 
          AND, UH, I WANNA THANK YOU FOR, UM, FOR CALLING US LIVE SINCE I DO HAVE YOU LIVE. 
          I'M GO. 
          AND WE'RE AT THE POINT NOW. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY OTHER PRESENTERS FROM THE PUBLIC. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? Z THAT IS CORRECT. 
          UM, UH, IS, ARE THERE ANY BOARD MEMBERS YOU'D LIKE TO A, UH, ASK THIS GENTLEMAN? ANY QUESTIONS, MR. OZUNA? I WOULD JUST ASK THAT THE, THAT THE, UH, RESPONDENT JUST PROVIDE THE, UH, POLICE RECORDS, UH, TO THE BOARD AS, AS EVIDENCE OF THE, UH, COMPLAINTS IF HE HAS NOT DONE SO ALREADY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION OF THIS, OF THIS PUBLIC RESPONDENT? NONE THE CASE. 
          I WANNA THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TAKING YOUR TIME OF THE DAY TO CONTACT US. 
          UH, WE HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'VE PROVIDED AND WE'LL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          UH, SO, UM, THANK YOU VERY AGAIN. 
          UM, NOW THE BOARD YOU ARE, UH, WE'RE, I'M GONNA ALLOW YOU TO ASK QUESTIONS OF BOTH ANY CITY STAFF OR THE APPLICANT. 
          THE PLEASE BEFORE YOU ASK A QUESTION, DESIGNATE WHICH INDIVIDUAL STAFF MEMBER OR WHATEVER DEPARTMENT YOU WANT TO, UH, ANSWER THE QUESTION TO RESPOND, UH, IF, UH, SO THE APPLICANT BE PREPARED. 
          ANYONE ON THE BOARD THAT'D LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS? SIR, IF I MAY, BEFORE YOU START THE QUESTIONS, UH, DID YOU WANT TO ENTERTAIN REBUTTAL BY THE APPLICANT AND REBUTTAL BY THE CITY FIRST? UH, OKAY. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND HOLD ALL QUESTIONS AND LET'S GET A REBUTTAL, UH, I GUESS BY THE CITY FIRST AND THEN THE APPLICANT. 
          NORMALLY WE DO THE APPLICANT FIRST AND THEN THE CITY. 
          OKAY, WELL, UH, LET'S GO NORMAL PROCEDURE. 
          UM, HOWEVER, I, UH, I THINK IT'D BE FAIR TO MR. ALLEN, IT WOULD BE BEST IF, IF THERE'S ANY NEW EVIDENCE BEING PRESENTED THAT HE'D BE ABLE TO REBUT THAT AS WELL. 
          BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO WITH THE, UH, APPLICANT. 
          I'LL, I'LL ENTERTAIN THE OPTION, EXTEND HIM AFTER CITY STAFF. 
          SO LET'S GO AHEAD WITH, UH, CITY STAFF. 
          I MEAN, UH, FIRST ON THEIR REBUTTAL TO THAT INFORMATION. 
          , MR. ALLEN? 
          [00:45:03]
YES. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND, UM, I WANTED TO FIRST NOT DIMINISH ANY OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT WERE MADE BY, UH, MS. PONT, THE ANONYMOUS, UH, PERSON AND, AND MR. RUBIN, UH, WITH, AT THE, AT, UH, THE MARRIOTT COURTYARD. 
          HOWEVER, THE, THE CASE BEFORE US TODAY IS ABOUT REVOCATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW COVID PROTOCOLS. 
          AND THE ISSUE, UH, WHY WE BELIEVE THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MUST BE REINSTATED IS BECAUSE IT WAS DONE SO OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF ITS AUTHORITY. 
          THE D S D, UH, MR. SHANNON, THE DIRECTOR OF THE D S D, ACTED BEYOND HIS AUTHORITY IN REVOKING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 
          UH, I WON'T GO THROUGH THOSE IF THE REASONS FOR THAT. 
          AGAIN, ALTHOUGH YOU HAVE THE MATERIALS AND THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION TO SEE WHAT THEY ARE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO STUDY THEM. 
          UH, BUT, YOU KNOW, AMERICA IS A NATION OF LAWS. 
          AND THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL PRECEPT OF THAT IS THAT YOU'VE GOTTA KNOW WHAT LAWS YOU'RE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW AND WHAT THE PUNISHMENT IS FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW THEM. 
          AND IF YOU HAVE A LAW THAT'S MADE AFTER SOMEONE'S BEEN ARRESTED OR AFTER THEY'VE BEEN EXECUTED IN THE, IN THE CASE OF A BUSINESS LI LITERALLY CLOSED BY HAVING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REVOKED, AND THE, THE LAW THAT ALLOWS IT HAPPENS AFTERWARDS, OR THE LAW THAT SAYS THAT THEY CAN DO IT, OR THE PERSON WHO INTERPRETS THE LAW AS BROADLY AS POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT HE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT, IS DOING SO IN VIOLATION OF A GOVERNOR'S ORDER, THEN FRANKLY, THAT REVOCATION IS UNLAWFUL. 
          AND IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE TO BE A NATION OF LAWS THAT FOLLOWS THE RULE OF LAW, THAT HAS TO BE SACROSANCT. 
          AND FOR THAT REASON, WE BELIEVE THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY SHOULD, HAS TO BE REINSTATED BECAUSE IT WAS, IT WAS REVOKED ON AN UNLAWFUL BASIS IN THE FIRST PLACE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          NOW I THINK WE'RE GONNA LET THE CITY STAFF COMPLETE THEIR PORTION OF IT OR RESPOND. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND, AND BOARD MEMBERS. 
          UH, I'LL JUST KEEP THIS REBUTTAL BRIEF, UH, A FEW POINTS TO CONSIDER. 
          UM, MR. ALLEN BROUGHT UP A QUESTION ABOUT OTHER BUSINESSES LIKE H E B, ET CETERA. 
          UH, WHAT WOULD WE DO IF THEY HAD THESE VIOLATIONS OR SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE? UH, THE ANSWER IS THE SAME. 
          UM, IT, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT IT'S ECSTASY NECESSARILY. 
          UH, BUT ECSTASY JUST HAPPENS TO BE THE BUSINESS, UH, THAT COULDN'T, UH, FOLLOW THE HEALTH AND SAFETY RULES AND PROVIDE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT, UH, FOR THOSE IN AND AROUND IT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T LIKE TO SHUT DOWN ANY BUSINESSES HERE, UH, AT THE CITY OR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. 
          I THINK THAT CAN BE EVIDENCED BY, UH, THE OVER 18,000 INSPECTIONS THAT WE HAVE DONE REGARDING EMERGENCY DECLARATION ENFORCEMENT. 
          UH, SINCE, UH, THE MARCH OR APRIL TIMEFRAME LAST YEAR, UH, THERE'S ONLY BEEN A FEW, UH, BUSINESSES THAT HAVE GOTTEN REPEATED CITATIONS. 
          THERE HAVE BEEN WARNINGS. 
          UH, CERTAINLY SOME CITATIONS ACTUALLY OVER 350 ISSUED, UM, ACROSS THE CITY. 
          UH, BUT MOST OF THE BUSINESSES LEARN FROM IT. 
          WE WORK WITH THEM AND, UH, THEY THEN PROVIDE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT, UH, FOR THE COMMUNITY, THEIR PATRONS. 
          AND COMMUNITY X T C CLEARLY HAS NOT. 
          AND, UH, AS MR. ALLEN SUGGESTED, UH, THAT THE BUSINESS OWNER SHOULD KNOW THEIR PUNISHMENT, UH, I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT ANY BUSINESS OWNER, UH, THAT DOESN'T REALIZE THAT THE BUILDING CODE SAYS, UH, THAT IF YOU HAVE VIOLATIONS AND CREATE A DANGEROUS SITUATION, UH, FOR THE USE OR OCCUPANCY WITHIN YOUR BUSINESS, IF YOU DON'T REALIZE THAT WE CAN REVOKE YOUR C OF O, UH, WELL THAT'S A SHAME ON YOU BECAUSE THAT IS BASIC BUSINESS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY LAW. 
          UH, THAT VERSION OF IT HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS, UH, NOT ONLY SINCE 2018 WHEN WE LAST UPDATED OUR BUILDING RELATED CODES. 
          UH, BUT THAT LANGUAGE HAS BEEN IN OUR BUILDING RELATED CODES FOR DECADES. 
          UH, AND THAT'S BASIC THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. 
          SO, UM, I THINK MR. ALLEN, UH, MAY MAYBE STATED I WAS BEING FAST AND LOOSE WITH SOME WORDS. 
          UH, I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAST AND LOOSE WHAT I'M SAYING RIGHT THERE. 
          I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR, UH, THAT IF YOU CREATE AN UNSAFE ENVIRONMENT IN YOUR BUSINESS, THE USE AND OCCUPANCY, THAT'S CLEARLY UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO REVOKE YOUR C O O. 
          UM, AND THAT'LL JUST BE MY LAST STATEMENT ON THAT. 
          I WILL ADD, UH, THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS RELATED TO THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, UH, THAT I MENTIONED. 
          WE DO HAVE A MEMBER, UH, AS WE GET INTO, UH, THE, UM, QUESTION PORTION. 
          WE DO HAVE A MEMBER OF THE SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT IF WE GET TO THAT, IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS RELATED TO THAT. 
          I CERTAINLY AM NOT THE EXPERT ON, UH, THE CRIMINAL UH, STUFF, BUT WE DO HAVE SOMEONE THERE IF NEEDED. 
          JUST, UH, I'LL SHARE THAT. 
          UH, AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          [00:50:01]
ALRIGHT. 
          UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT, I DON'T BELIEVE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED THE, UH, BY THE POLICE WOULD BE NECESSARY BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS MADE NO, UH, DENIAL OF SUCH, UH, ISSUES OCCURRING AROUND HIS PROPERTY. 
          UM, THE, UH, REALITY HERE IS, UH, HERE IS OUR DETERMIN, OR WHAT WE DO, OR WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS DETERMINING THE PROCESS TAKEN TO, UH, FOR THE REVOCATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 
          AND I BELIEVE THE BOARD SHOULD ONLY TAKE THOSE POINTS IN CONSIDERATION, UH, WHEN ASKING QUESTIONS. 
          UH, ARE THERE ANY, UH, BOARD MEMBERS THAT HAVE A QUESTION TO ASK THE CITY STAFF VENO? MR. VENO, DO YOU HAVE THE FLOOR? UH, THIS QUESTION IS FOR MR. SHANNON. 
          UM, AND, AND THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR PRESENTATIONS TO THE BOARD. 
          UM, I DO APPRECIATE YOUR THOROUGHNESS ON BOTH POINTS. 
          UM, I DO WANNA ASK THOUGH, UM, FOR YOUR INPUT ON MR. ALLEN'S, UH, REBUTTAL ON, UM, YOUR ACTIONS SUPERSEDING THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER AND WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT? WELL, I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH MR. ALLEN, UH, RESPECTFULLY, OF COURSE, BUT, UM, I DON'T BELIEVE MY ACTIONS TOSS PRECEDE THE GOVERNOR. 
          UH, I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, AS, AS I'VE MENTIONED, SECTION 10 DASH 12, UH, D HAS BEEN IN OUR BUILDING RELATED CODES, UH, FOR A LONG TIME. 
          AND, UM, I THINK IT'S VERY CONSISTENT WITH THE GOVERNOR'S ORDERS AND THE LOCAL ORDERS, UH, FOR US TO REVOKE THE C F O, UH, IF THERE'S CONTINUED VIOLATION OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY PROTOCOL. 
          SO, UM, I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH MR. ALLEN. 
          OKAY. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. UH, YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY? MACHACA? MR. MANCHACA, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, UH, IN SE IN TERMS OF SECTION TEN TWO. 
          UH, DOES THE COVID SEEM TO FALL UNDER THAT STATEMENT IN GENERAL TO PROMOTE SAFETY TO LIFE IS WHAT GA GIVES US, UH, DENIAL OF, UH, THE, THE, UH, OF THE APPEAL STRENGTH? I, I THINK THAT QUESTION WAS FOR ME. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, YES. 
          THAT'S MR. CITY, THAT'S FOR, UH, YOU AND MICHAEL, HOWEVER, DID YOU MEAN SECTION TEN TWO OR TEN TWELVE, TEN TWO. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, UM, YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
          UH, YES, I, I THINK, SO I THINK THAT 10 DASH TWO IS, IS THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF, UH, OF, OF CHAPTER 10. 
          I KNOW IT'S CALLED BUILDING RELATED CODES. 
          AND IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT, UH, THE GENERAL, UH, HEALTH SAFETY, PUBLIC WELFARE, THE COMMUNITY IN SO FAR AS THAT LAUNDRY LIST OF ITEMS LISTED THERE, UH, THAT, THAT'S WITHIN THE SCOPE OF CHAPTER 10. 
          AND ONE OF THEM, IT'S NOT JUST, AGAIN, YOUR STRUCTURE, UH, WHETHER IT'S STRUCTURALLY SAFE, IF THEY'RE ELECTRICAL HAZARDS OR FIRE HAZARDS OR THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. 
          UH, BUT IF THE USE AND OCCUPANCY CREATES A DANGEROUS CONDITION, I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT IT FALLS UNDER 10 DASH TWO, WHICH THEN OF COURSE BRINGS IN THE, THE C OF O AND REVOCATION, UH, POSITION. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I PUT THAT OUT THERE, IS THAT IT DOES CONNECT IT. 
          AND, AND OF COURSE I'M NOT GONNA GO INTO ANY GREAT LENGTH ABOUT, UH, THE COVID SAFETY PROTOCOLS AND THE NEEDS FOR THEM. 
          UH, I THINK WE'RE ALL AWARE OF, UH, THE SAFETY HAZARDS, UH, WHEN WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT SOCIAL DISTANCING, UH, CERTAINLY NOT, UH, WEARING MASKS AND NOT FOLLOWING THOSE, UH, THOSE GUIDELINES, IT CREATES A DANGEROUS CONDITION. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          DO WE HAVE ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER OF QUESTION TRUVIN YOU? I'M SORRY, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. 
          YES, MR. DEAN, YOU GO AHEAD. 
          YOUR, FOR MR. SHANNON ON THE ORIGINAL CITATIONS FOR THE REVOCATION, UM, WAS IT SOLELY BASED ON THE PUBLIC SAFETY HEALTH CONCERN IN RELATION TO THE MASS? UM, OR WAS IT A CULMINATION OF THAT AND THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY? 'CAUSE IN YOUR PRESENTATION, IT SEEMS LIKE IT WAS MORE SO RELATED TO THE HEALTH ISSUE, BUT WAS THAT ALSO SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD IS NEEDING TO CONSIDER IN THIS, UH, REVOCATION OR ARE WE ONLY CONSIDERING THE HEALTH AND SAFETY GUIDELINES? OKAY, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE QUESTION. 
          MY, THE REVOCATION BASED ON ALL OF THAT IN TOTALITY, UH, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THESE ARE DIFFICULT SITUATIONS. 
          AND AS I MENTIONED, WE, WE CERTAINLY DON'T LIKE TO, UM, PUT ANYBODY OUT OF BUSINESS. 
          UH, BUT CERTAINLY WHEN THERE IS THE HEALTH AND SAFETY COVID VIOLATIONS AS WELL AS, UH, THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY HA UH, HAPPENING IN TOTALITY, THAT CREATES JUST A BUSINESS THAT'S OUT CONTROL AND NOT DOING WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO TO CREATE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT, UH, FOR THEIR PATRONS AND THE COMMUNITY. 
          SO, UH, THE, THE SHORT ANSWER AGAIN, IS IT IS ALL IN TOTAL. 
          UM, AND THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE REVOCATION? YES. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE TO CONSIDER ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO US IN THIS PRESENTATION 
          [00:55:02]
BY BOTH PARTIES, ALL PARTIES. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER HAVE QUESTIONS? ORIAN, MR. ORIAN? OKAY. 
          SO Y YOU KNOW, I I, I CAN SEE BOTH SIDES OF THIS WITH RESPECT TO THE REVOCATION OF THE C O O. 
          SO TO DIRECTOR SHANNON, IS THERE, DOES THE, DOES THE TERM REVOCATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY APPEAR ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CODE OR THE U D C OR SOMEWHERE? OR IS IT, OR IS THAT THE ONLY SECTION OF THE ONE THAT WAS PROVIDED DURING THE, UH, PRESENTATION? UH, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I, I, I'D HAVE TO SEARCH TO SEE WHERE IT IS. 
          UM, UH, I'D HAVE TO LOOK INTO SOME OTHER SECTIONS IN CHAPTER SIX, BUT THE CHAPTER 35 USES, UH, THE TERM NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF A PERMIT. 
          UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITION OF PERMIT, A C OF O IS A TYPE OF PERMIT BY THE U D C CERTAINLY. 
          SO, UM, THEY USE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT TERMS, BUT THEY MEAN THE SAME THING. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          SO, UH, BUT I DON'T HAVE THE FULL ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION AS TO WHERE ELSE IT IS, BUT CLEARLY IT'S IN CHAPTER 10. 
          UH, I KNOW IN CHAPTER 11 HAS SOME SIMILAR LANGUAGE, UH, IN THE FIRE CODE PROVISIONS. 
          UH, BUT, UM, I, I'D HAVE TO DO A COMPLETE START TO THE CITY CODE FOR YOU ON THAT ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, AND I HAVE A, A JUST A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS TOO. 
          SO THE, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT THE, THE IMMEDIATE REMEDY FOR THESE SORT OF VIOLATIONS OR FINES WAS THE, UH, APPLICANT. 
          WERE THEY FINED DURING THE COURSE OF, SINCE JULY FOR THESE VIOLATIONS? YES, THERE WAS. 
          UM, I, I THINK THE SIX CITATIONS I NOTED, THOSE, THOSE CARRY AN UP TO A THOUSAND DOLLARS FINES FOR EACH OFFENSE. 
          UH, OKAY. 
          AND IT'LL BE ADJUDICATED, ADJUDICATED AS SUCH. 
          AND, UH, THE, UH, YOU HAD LISTED THAT, UH, CVOS AT SOME VAPE STORES AND SOME PLANET KSS WERE ALSO REVOKED. 
          DID THOSE REVOCATIONS SOLELY INCLUDE, UH, APPLICATION OF THE EMERGENCY ORDER, OR WERE THERE ANY OTHER BUILDING RELATED ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT REVOCATION? UH, I BELIEVE THOSE WERE, UH, MOSTLY, IF NOT ALL RELATED TO THE EMERGENCY DECLARATION ORDERS AT THAT TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN, UM, ONE THING ABOUT WHAT'S UP, UH, ON THAT SECTION TEN TWO THAT, THAT I, I WOULD PROBABLY LIKE YOU TO EXPAND UPON A LITTLE BIT. 
          UH, THAT'S, THAT'S GONNA HAVE TO DO WITH, UH, UNDER THE PURPOSE SUBSECTION A TEN TWO A, WHERE IT SAYS, UM, UH, THAT THE CHAPTER SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS SECURE, ITS EXPRESSED INTENT, PROVIDE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, UH, BUT THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY INSOFAR AS THEY ARE AFFECTED BY BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, AND THEN IT LISTS A WHOLE BUNCH OF DIFFERENT ADJECTIVES, BUT IT ENDS, IT GETS NEAR AND IT ENDS WITH, UH, OR USE AND OCCUPANCY. 
          AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE IS, IS WHEN I HEAR THE WORD USE AND OCCUPANCY, IT, I, I USUALLY TIE THAT TO USE ASSOCIATED WITH ZONING AND OCCUPANCY ASSOCIATED WITH NUMBER OF PEOPLE, ADEQUATE EGRESS, THAT SORT OF THING. 
          AND, AND I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT IF THE TEXT OF TEN TWO A, IS THERE ANYWHERE ELSE IN THAT, THAT YOU CAN THINK OF IN 10 THAT WOULD TALK ABOUT, UM, SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT, UH, USE AND OCCUPANCY MAY MEAN AS IT'S REFERENCED ELSEWHERE IN THE U D C IN THE CODE? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE, UM, AND WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS, IS THAT WHILE THESE ARE AWFUL THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING, YOU KNOW, WITH THE, THE CRIMINAL ACTS AND EVEN THE SAFETY ISSUES, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WHEN, WHEN THERE IS RULES IN PLACE THAT GIVE REMEDIES SUCH AS FINES, BUT THE TEXT THAT'S BEING REFERENCED HERE KIND OF HAS A SEPARATE MEETING FOR, TO SOMEONE LIKE ME WHO DOES, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT, IT'S, WHEN I SEE USE IN OCCUPANCY, IT SEEMS TO BE USED IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT. 
          IS THERE ANYTHING YOU CAN TALK TO ABOUT WHY YOU WOULD THINK USE AND OCCUPANCY MAY MEAN SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT WOULD BE PERCEIVED BY ZONING? SURE. 
          UM, SO I THINK THE TERM USE AND OCCUPANCY, AS YOU MENTIONED, UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT HAS SEVERAL CERTAINLY MEETINGS. 
          AND I THINK THAT THE WAY, UH, THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE CHAPTER REALLY IS, UH, IS TO TALK ABOUT BUILDINGS, YOU KNOW, HOW THEY'RE BEING, UH, CONSTRUCTED, HOW THEY'RE BEING MAINTAINED, UH, HOW THEY'RE BEING SAN UH, SANITIZED, ET CETERA. 
          UH, BUT THE USE AND OCCUPANCY, I THINK IS THERE. 
          WE, WE NORMALLY THINK OF ZONING, RIGHT? ESPECIALLY THIS BOARD YOU DEAL WITH, YOU KNOW, THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 
          UH, THAT'S A, A DIRECT CONNECTION TO CERTAINLY, UH, 35. 
          AND THAT'S WHY WE TALKED ABOUT THAT OCCUPANCY COULD BE, UH, THE TYPE OF PEOPLE IN, IN THERE, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE. 
          AND WHEN I SAY THE TYPE OF PEOPLE, I MEAN, UH, IF THEY HAD, UH, PEOPLE THAT NEEDED ASSISTANCE, WHETHER IT BE SOMETIMES WE HAVE DIFFERENT RULES FOR INFANTS, OR SOMETIMES WE HAVE DIFFERENT RULES FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, ELDERLY AND OR THOSE INCAPABLE OF SELF-PRESERVATION. 
          SO, UH, THOSE 
          [01:00:01]
ARE ALL INTERWOVEN, UH, NOT ONLY HERE IN 10 12, BUT THROUGHOUT THE, THE, THE BUILDING AND FAR CODES A LITTLE BIT AS WELL AS OUR ZONING CODE. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S, IT'S IN SEVERAL AREAS OF OUR CODES. 
          UH, I DO THINK CERTAINLY, UH, WITH THE PANDEMIC AND THE LAWS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL, UH, THAT SAY YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN SOCIAL DISTANCING, YOU HAVE TO WEAR A MASK UNDER THESE CONDITIONS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. 
          I THINK THOSE CLEARLY FALL IN INTO THIS, UM, BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S HOW PEOPLE ARE USING AND OCCUPYING, UH, THE BUILDING. 
          THE PURPOSE THERE IS TO GO TO THIS CLUB, UH, YOU KNOW, LISTEN TO THE MUSIC, HAVE A GOOD TIME, SEE SOME FRIENDS, ET CETERA. 
          UH, BUT IF YOU'RE NOT FOLLOWING THE LAWS, WHICH, WHICH ARE THE, THE ORDERS THAT TELL YOU HOW TO BEHAVE, UH, THAT, THAT USE AND OCCUPANCY CLEARLY FALLS UNDER THAT IN MY MIND. 
          UM, AND THAT, THAT'S HOW WE WOULD, THAT'S HOW WE WOULD APPLY IT. 
          SO, SO THEN THE NEXT QUESTION IS MM-HMM. 
          , THE VIOLATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EMERGENCY O UH, ORDER, WERE THEY TOWARDS STAFF OR FOR, UH, UM, PEOPLE THAT WERE FREQUENTING THE CLUB? UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS BOTH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THIS IS, AND, AND, AND ON A, AND ON A SIDE HERE. 
          SO THE ABILITY OF THE CITY TO REMOVE A C OF O FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION, LET'S SAY. 
          SO IF THERE WAS A BUSINESS THAT FREQUENTLY HAD, NOT JUST BUILDING RELATED SAFETY VIOLATIONS, BUT LET'S SAY THERE WAS JUST FIGHTS THERE EVERY SINGLE DAY, AND THERE WAS PEOPLE GETTING HURT, AND IT WAS JUST REALLY, REALLY DANGEROUS. 
          UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS THERE ANY OTHER AVENUE OF, OF A REMEDY BY THE CITY TO STOP THIS THING OTHER THAN GETTING RID OF THE C OF O? BECAUSE I, I'M STILL, YOU KNOW, WHEN I HEAR, WHEN I HEAR THE, THE APPLICANT TALK ABOUT THIS ALL BEING RELATED TO THE BUILDING, MEAN, I CAN SEE THAT, BUT I'M WONDERING THAT IT JUST SEEMS ODD THAT THE, THAT, THAT THE CITY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET RID OF YOUR C O IF IT WAS SUPER, SUPER, YOU KNOW, DANGEROUS OR BAD. 
          AND SO, I'M, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN THE CODE THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO STOP A, A BUSINESS FROM OPERATING BECAUSE, NOT, NOT JUST, NOT JUST SAFETY, LIKE AN EMERGENCY ORDER, BUT ANOTHER SORT OF DANGEROUS CONDITION. 
          IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE THAT WOULD BACK UP, UH, UM, THE, THE, THE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT? SURE, SURE. 
          AND, AND I'LL ANSWER THAT BY JUST DESCRIBING A LITTLE BIT OF HOW, UH, HOW OUR CODES, UH, NOT ONLY THROUGH THE BUILDING CODES, UH, BUT OUR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT, OUR LEGAL, UM, UH, HAPPENS, RIGHT? IF WE HAVE VIOLATIONS LIKE THAT, WE HAVE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND OR, UH, BUILDING RELATED CODE STUFF, UH, WE'LL START WITH NOTICES AND, OR CITATIONS, RIGHT? MM-HMM. 
          , UH, WE WANT TO CORRECT THE BEHAVIOR. 
          UH, CERTAINLY AFTER TIME, IF THAT BEHAVIOR'S NOT CORRECTED OR THAT THAT HAZARD ABATED, UH, WE WILL LOOK TOWARDS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REVOCATION, OTHER AVENUES IN THE CODES AND, AND STATE LAW. 
          UH, WE COULD FILE A LAWSUIT LIKE WE HAVE IN, UH, IN, IN THIS CASE AS WELL, UH, TO ASK THE COURTS TO SHUT DOWN THIS BUSINESS FOR AT LEAST A YEAR. 
          UH, WE HAVE, AND I'LL, I WON'T GET TOO DEEP INTO THAT, UH, LEGAL, UH, PATH. 
          UH, WE HAVE, UH, CHAPTER SIX OF OUR CODE, UH, CITY CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT DANGEROUS BUILDINGS AND DANGEROUS STRUCTURES. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , UH, CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE, UH, MANY REASONS THAT THAT COULD BE, NOW, THAT'S USUALLY NOT ONLY, UM, REVOKING C OF O UH, AND ISSUING A NOTICE, UH, TO VACATE, BUT ALSO POSSIBLY DEMOLISHING THE BUILDING. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, AS WELL. 
          SO THERE'S, THERE'S MULTIPLE AVENUES OR MULTIPLE WAYS THAT THIS CAN HAPPEN AFTER THOSE CITATIONS. 
          IF THOSE DON'T WORK, THE NEXT APPROPRIATE STEP NORMALLY TO SHUT DOWN THE BUSINESS THAT'S CAUSING THE, THE, THE SAFETY VIOLATIONS IS TO REVOKE THEIR C OF O, UH, AND POSSIBLY, YOU KNOW, PULL THEIR POWER AND THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. 
          BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE PART WHERE WE'RE AT. 
          I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE DEMOLISH THIS BUILDING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M JUST, I'M GIVING YOU JUST A WIDE RANGE OF, UH, THERE ARE DIFFERENT, UH, AVENUES OF CODE, BOTH LOCAL AND STATE LAW, UM, TO DO IT. 
          BUT THIS, THIS IS CLEARLY THE MOST APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME, AT LEAST IN MY MIND. 
          SO, SO DIRECTOR SHANNON, SO THAT'S, THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          BUT WHAT, UM, IS, DO YOU THINK THAT MOST BUSINESSES WHO WOULD HAVE THESE SORT OF ISSUES, THE OTHER AVENUE WOULD THE REMOVAL OF A LICENSE, LIKE, LET'S SAY, UM, A LICENSE TO SELL ALCOHOL, AND THAT WOULD BE THE REASON WHY THEY WOULD GO OUT OF BUSINESS AND NOT NECESSARILY A C O, BUT BECAUSE THIS ONE DOESN'T HAVE A LIQUOR LICENSE, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF PLACES TO GO OTHER THAN FOR YOU TO DO THE C OF O. 
          AND I, AND I'M, AND I'M ASKING YOU THIS BECAUSE IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S, IT'S ODD THAT THERE'S, THAT THE LANGUAGE SEEMS SO RELATED TO THE BUILDING AND THE, AND THE STRUCTURE AS OPPOSED TO A DANGEROUS CONDITION. 
          AND, AND THAT'S A POINT THAT THE, THE APPLICANT WAS TRYING TO MAKE. 
          AND I'M JUST, I JUST THINK THAT IF THIS WERE TO HAPPEN IN OTHER BUSINESSES, THERE WOULD BE LICENSING ISSUES THAT WOULD COME IN THAT WOULD CAUSE THE BUSINESS TO GO AWAY AS OPPOSED TO, UH, UM, REVOCATION OF THE C O. 
          IS THERE, IS THERE 
          [01:05:01]
ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO, TO ADD TO THAT? YEAH, I THINK, I THINK I'LL JUST RE REITERATE WHAT I SAID EARLIER, WHICH IS I, I BELIEVE THE USE AND OCCUPANCY IN THIS SITUATION IS VERY APPROPRIATE. 
          IT'S REALLY WHAT THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE CHAPTER IS FOR. 
          AND, AND WHEN YOU CREATE, UH, OR, OR, OR YOU DON'T, YOU KNOW, PROPERLY ABATE AFTER SEVERAL WARNINGS, UH, YOU KNOW, HEALTH AND SAFETY VIOLATIONS, UM, IT, IT IS VERY APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO REVOKE THE C OF O. 
          UH, I THINK I'VE DONE IT, UH, APPROPRIATELY WITH THE APP, WITH THE AMOUNT OF NOTICES AND WARNINGS, AND, UH, I THINK THIS IS VERY WITHIN THE SCOPE THERE. 
          BUT, UM, I THINK, I THINK THAT'S JUST ME REITERATING  AGAIN, WHAT I SAID, BUT, UH, HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS MS. IAN, I THINK THAT YOUR QUESTIONING LIKE THERE BETTER, UH, AIM TOWARDS CITY ATTORNEY OR, YEAH. 
          I'M GONNA, I WANTED TO ASK THE ATTORNEY SOMETHING TOO. 
          SO FOR MR. ALLEN, UH, SO IT WAS, IT WAS STATED THAT THERE WERE FINES ASSESSED DUE TO, DUE TO THE EMERGENCY ORDER VIOLATION. 
          UM, DO YOU, IN YOUR, IN YOUR REVIEW OF THE DIFFERENT CODES AND ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS, UH, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE TIMING OF WHEN YOU GOT A CITATION, WHEN YOU GOT A FINE, AND IS THERE ANY SORT OF, UM, LEGAL, UM, TIMEFRAME TO REMEDY? BECAUSE YOU PRESENTED SOME EMAILS THAT SHOWED THAT SENIOR OWNERSHIP WAS AWARE THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE AND THEY SEEMED TO BE DIRECTING THINGS TO BE FIXED. 
          IS THERE ANY SORT OF CASE LAW THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT THAT WOULD STATE THAT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME HAS TO PASS BEFORE ANOTHER VIOLATION, UH, CAN BE ISSUED? UH, YES. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
          I, I APOLOGIZE. 
          I CAN'T ADDRESS YOU BY NAME BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE VISUAL. 
          UH, THAT'S FINE. 
          YOU KNOW THAT, WHO I'M SPEAKING TO, BUT, UM, ACTUALLY WE WERE, WE WERE NEVER FINED. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT THREE AND EXHIBIT FOUR IN, IN THE MATERIALS THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT, YOU CAN SEE THE CITATIONS. 
          HOWEVER, THOSE CITATIONS, UH, DID NOT THEMSELVES ASSESS FINES. 
          AND I SUPPOSE IF THEY WERE PROSECUTED AS A, AS A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR IN MUNICIPAL COURTS, THAT A A FINE COULD EVENTUALLY BE ASSESSED, BUT THEY WEREN'T. 
          UM, AS IT RELATES TO CASE LAW FOR HOW LONG OR HOW FREQUENT ACTIONS ACTIVITY WOULD NEED TO OCCUR, UM, FRANKLY, THERE'S NOT, THERE WAS NOT A STATUTORY STRUCTURE THAT WOULD ALLOW SOMEONE TO PULL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BASED ON THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NON BUILDING RELATED ACTIVITIES. 
          UH, THE CLOSEST ANALOGY I COULD OFFER YOU, AND THERE IS CASE LAW ON THIS, IS UNDER A CHAPTER 1 25 NUISANCE ACTION, WHICH CAN BE BROUGHT BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. 
          AND IN FACT, IS THE LAWSUIT THAT MR. SHANNON WAS REFERRING TO, WHICH WE ANSWERED ON MONDAY. 
          THEY BROUGHT THE CHAPTER 1 25 LAWSUIT, UH, ON THE BASIS THAT THERE WE'RE A NUISANCE BECAUSE WE KNOWINGLY TOLERATE CERTAIN TYPES OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. 
          AND THAT REQUIRES, FIRST THAT IT'S KNOWINGLY TOLERATED, WHICH MEANS THAT ACTIONS AREN'T TAKEN TO STOP IT. 
          AND SECOND, THAT THE NUISANCE, IN OTHER WORDS, THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IS NOT BEING ABATED. 
          UH, SO IT DOESN'T SPEAK DIRECTLY TO TIMEFRAME, BUT WHEN IN GENERAL, THE CLOSEST LAW THAT EXISTS RECOGNIZES THAT WHEN MANAGEMENT RESPONDS TO CORRECT THE SITUATION, THAT IT'S NOT KNOWINGLY TOLERATED, AND THAT THEY CAN SHOW THAT, THAT IT'S BEEN ABATED. 
          UM, I THINK THAT WHAT SPEAKS MOST DIRECTLY TO THAT IS, IS IN, UH, ONE OF MY LAST SLIDES WHERE, UH, THE MANAGER, UH, THE, THE CITY THAT CA THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO POLICE OFFICER THAT CAME, SAID, I LIKE WHAT YOU'RE DOING IN TERMS OF SPACING OUT THE TABLES THAT YOU WENT DOWN TO 50%, WHICH WAS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT'S REQUIRED UNDER GOVERNOR ABBOTT'S ORDER. 
          AND I THINK THAT THAT SHOWS, UH, THAT, THAT WE ARE WITHIN THAT, THAT LEGAL CONCEPT TO THE EXTENT IT COULD APPLY HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, MR. ALLEN, SO ONE, ONE LAST QUESTION FOR YOU. 
          YOU GOT A, UH, UH, YOU SAID YOU WERE WORKING WITH THE CITY AND DISCUSSING A COURSE OF REMEDY WITH THE CITY PERSONNEL LIKE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. 
          DID YOU, UH, IS THERE ANY DOCUMENTATION OR A FORMAL PROCESS THAT THE CITY HAS TO DOCUMENT, UH, TRYING TO REMEDY THESE THINGS? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE IF, IF, IF THE CUSTOMERS ARE THE ONES NOT WEARING THE MASKS, THERE'S NOT MUCH YOU CAN DO ABOUT THAT SINCE YOU HAVE NEW CUSTOMERS ON A REGULAR BASIS. 
          SO I'M JUST WONDERING, IS THERE SOME SORT OF DOCUMENTATION OR, OR PROCESS OR PROGRAM THAT THE CITY HAS TO, TO ASSIST BUSINESSES IN REMEDYING THESE SORT OF THINGS THAT MAYBE YOU DID OR WE'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS, THIS IS POST REVOCATION, PRE REVOCATION. 
          YOU HAVE TAKING THE OCCUPANCY DOWN TO 50% AND SPACING OUT THE TABLES AND THE INTERNAL EMAILS POST REVOCATION. 
          THERE WAS SOME COOPERATION WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO IS ACTUALLY WITH, UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND IT'S IN EXHIBIT 14 OF MY MATERIALS. 
          YOU CAN SEE WHERE, UH, JENNY RAMIREZ, WHO'S WITH WITH THE D S D ACTUALLY, UH, 
          [01:10:01]
AND IS THE CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER HAS SOME PROTOCOLS THAT SHE SAYS, HEY, THIS IS WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE. 
          AND IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO THAT, THE VERY SAME WEEK IT WAS SUBMITTED, UH, WE HAVE, YOU HAVE WHAT I WAS SHOWING IN THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION AS THE R C I ENTERTAINMENT C OVID 19 HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN, WHICH IS A, UH, SIX, SEVEN PAGE, EIGHT PAGE, SEVEN PAGE, UH, PROGRAM OF, UH, VERY STRINGENT PROTOCOLS THAT WE HAD ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTING, BUT WE REDUCED TO WRITING AND SAID, WE WILL MAKE A COMMITMENT TO DO ALL OF THESE THINGS. 
          AND WE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND, AND THINGS WENT SILENT AT THAT STAGE, BUT THAT'S DATED, THAT'S DATED DECEMBER 1ST. 
          YOU HAD YOUR C O REMOVED ON NOVEMBER 24TH, IS WHY ARE YOU GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THIS PROGRAM A WEEK AFTER YOU HAD TO REVOK? WELL, BECAUSE WE WANTED THE CITY TO REINSTATE US VOLUNTARILY. 
          SO WHAT CAN WE DO? OKAY, WE JUST WANTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE CITY. 
          WE DON'T, WE'VE ENDED UP LITIGATING THIS ISSUE, BUT WE REALLY JUST WANTED TO BE GOOD CORPORATE CITIZENS AND IMPLEMENT A POLICY THAT MADE SURE THAT NO ONE WAS GONNA BE ABLE TO CONTRACT COVID AT, AT SY CABARET. 
          IS THERE A PROCESS FOR, TO REINSTATE VOLUNTARILY? AND THAT'S A QUESTION TO DIRECTOR SHANNON OR NOT. 
          SORRY, I WAS JUST UNMUTING, UM, TO REINSTATE, UH, UH, A REVOKED C OF O THEY WOULD APPLY, UH, AND GO THROUGH THE, UH, C OF O APPLICATION PROCESS. 
          CERTAINLY WHAT, UH, MR. ALLEN'S DESCRIBING, I'M SURE WOULD'VE, WOULD BE PART OF THAT REVIEW, UM, AS WELL AS, UM, THEIR OVERALL HISTORY OF WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I BELIEVE THAT IT'S BEST AT THIS TIME, BECAUSE PART OF THE QUESTION YOU WERE DIRECTING, UM, MR. IAN WAS BASICALLY THE CITY'S POLICIES. 
          AND, UM, I THINK WE NEED A DETERMINATION FROM CITY'S STAFF. 
          WHAT ARE THE, UH, EXTENSIONS OF THE RIGHT TO T OF O AS WOULD, UM, WITHOUT MEANING, UH, OR CONCERNING JUST THE STRUCTURE ITSELF? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, STRUCTURE IS A VERY VAGUE TERM, ALTHOUGH I CAN SEE IT SPECIFICALLY, BUT SOME PEOPLE MAY SEE IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. 
          I THOUGHT THE CITY ATTORNEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN, BECAUSE UNDER CHAPTER 10 12 , IT SAYS ANY ORDINANCE. 
          AND I, I WANTED TO GET AN ANSWER ON THAT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT, UH, ALTHOUGH THE PROCEEDED BY BUILDING OFFICIALS AND STRUCTURE AND WHATNOT, THE TERM, UH, ANY ORDINANCE SEPARATE, AND I WANTED TO FIND OUT WHAT THE CITY STAFF HAD TO SAY ABOUT THAT. 
          THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. 
          ARE WE STILL ONLINE? UM, WE HAVE THE ATTORNEYS, UH, THAT, UM, HELP TO LITIGATE THIS, EITHER AVI OR ADAMS. YOU WANNA THAT QUESTION? AVITA, WHO IS THE 21? THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GETTING THE ECHO FROM. 
          YOUR WHAT FROM? OKAY. 
          SAVITA, TRY AGAIN. 
          OKAY. 
          SAVITA, WE'RE GONNA, SO UNMUTE YOURSELF. 
          IT IT STAR SIX, BUT MAKE SURE THAT YOUR COMPUTER AUDIO IS OFF. 
          IF YOU'RE USING YOUR PHONE. 
          SORRY, CHAIR, WE'RE TRYING TO GET HER TO CONNECT SAVITA, TRY STAR SIX, BUT MAKE SURE THE OTHER, UH, THE OTHER AUDIO CONNECTION IS MUTED, UH, CHAIR IF YOU WANNA ENTERTAIN ANOTHER QUESTION WHILE WE WORK ON HER CONNECTION. 
          OKAY. 
          I DO WANNA GET THAT QUESTION ANSWERED. 
          UH, ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER HAVE A QUESTION DIRECTED TOWARD THE APPLICANT OR, OR, UH, MR. MANNA? MR. MANNA, GO AHEAD. 
          SO THOSE QUESTIONS FOR I GUESS, THE CITY, SO, UH, FOR A GIVEN PROPERTY, WE HAVE USED, UM, I GUESS, 
          [01:15:01]
UH, FOR USE DESIGNATIONS, AND SO IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY APPLY TO THE BUILDING, BUT HOW, HOW A PIECE OF PROPERTY IS USED. 
          AND SO, SO IT GOES, EXTENDS BEYOND THE BUILDING PER SE. 
          UM, AND SO, SO WHAT JUST GOT KIND OF GET A CONCURRENCE WITH THAT, AND THEN, AND THEN I GUESS THIS IS THE SECOND POINT OF, UM, WAS THERE A VIOLATION OF USE AS DEFINED WITHIN, UM, THE E C WITH REGARDS TO HOW THIS PROPERTY'S BEING USED? I GUESS THAT'S REALLY THE THING I'M ASKING. 
          UM, I THINK THAT, I THINK YOU SAID THIS QUESTION WAS FOR, UH, THE CITY STAFF, SO I'LL TAKE THAT. 
          AND THE ANSWER IS YES. 
          THE USE OF THE BUILDING, UM, WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE HEALTH SAFETY PROTOCOLS. 
          UM, AND, UH, THAT THEY WEREN'T, UH, YOU KNOW, DOING, UM, THEY WEREN'T, YOU KNOW, CREATING, UH, UH, I GUESS A SITUATION WHERE, UH, THEIR PATRONS AND, AND THEIR STAFF WERE FOLLOWING THAT, UH, MASS SOCIAL DISTANCING, ET CETERA, UH, GROUPS LARGER THAN, UH, WHAT'S ALLOWED. 
          SO ALL OF THAT, UH, WAS THEIR USE OF THE BUILDING. 
          UM, SO THAT'S ALL TIED UP IN THERE. 
          I THINK THAT WOULD BE MY EXPLANATION. 
          I GUESS THE CLARITY I'M LOOKING FOR IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME DIALOGUE, UH, THAT THIS HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON THE BUILDING ITSELF, BUT I KNOW THAT, UM, IN PRIOR CASES, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A CASE COMING BEFORE US WHERE THE USE WAS FOR THE PROPERTY THAT EXCLUDED, THAT INCLUDED NOT ONLY THE BUILDING, BUT ALSO THE PROPERTY ITSELF. 
          SO, SO IT WAS LARGER THAN JUST THE BUILDING. 
          IT'S ACTUALLY THE WHOLE PROPERTY ITSELF, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU GET YOUR ZONING FOR, IS THAT PROPERTY, CORRECT? YES. 
          THAT ZONING WILL BE FOR THE PROPERTY. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          KAREN, WE'VE RESOLVED AVI'S AUDIO ISSUE. 
          AVITA, ARE YOU THERE? APPARENTLY WE'RE STILL HAVING AUDIO ISSUES. 
          ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR CITY STAFF OR ANY BOARD MEMBER? ORIAN? I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. 
          OKAY, SO GO AHEAD, . 
          SO I'M, I'M, I'M, LOOK, SO USE AND OCCUPANCY WHEN I HEAR USES, AND I'D LIKE STAFF TO, TO JUST SPEAK ON THIS. 
          I, IF SOMEONE GETS THE SEA OF OTA OPEN UP A RESTAURANT, THEY CAN HAVE PEOPLE SITTING THERE. 
          THEY MAY HAVE A BAR, THEY HAVE PARKING, YOU KNOW, IT'S A RESTAURANT, BUT IF THE RESTAURANT POSITIONS THE TABLES IN A CERTAIN WAY SO THAT IT WOULD VIOLATE THE FIRE CODE, I CAN SEE HOW THAT WOULD BE A USE ISSUE. 
          IT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT THE, THE, UM, THAT THE OWNER IS DOING THAT, THAT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF A SAFETY THING. 
          AND I COULD SEE HOW THAT WOULD BE A REASON FOR A USE VIOLATION, BUT I, BUT, BUT I'M TRYING TO, TO SEE HOW THE CITY CAN, CAN HAVE USE, BE NON-TANGIBLE ACTIONS BY INDIVIDUALS AS OPPOSED TO TIED TO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT. 
          AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S, THAT'S BRIDGE I'M TRYING TO CROSS RIGHT HERE. 
          SO I, I CAN SEE IF THE, IF THIS CLUB WAS MOVING THEIR TABLES AND POSITIONING THEIR PLACE IN A, IN A WAY TO WHERE THERE WOULD BE A SOCIAL DISTANCING, UM, IS A VIOLATION OUTRIGHT OR EVEN A FIRE CODE VIOLATION, BUT SOMEBODY, UH, UH, NOT WEARING A MASK DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE SAME USE, UM, IN THE CONTEXT OF USE AS IT APPEARS IN INTENT, IN INTENT TWO. 
          AND THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM I'M HAVING IS 'CAUSE I, AGAIN, I JUST HEAR USE AND IT'S, IT'S ABOUT THINGS THAT YOU'RE DOING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF YOUR OPERATION THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TIED TO AN INDIVIDUAL ACTION, BUT TIED TO STRUCTURE, THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT SORT OF THING. 
          IS, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT? I'M JUST HAVING A HARD TIME GETTING PAST THAT. 
          ARE YOU ADDRESSING THAT TO MICHAEL? WELL, THE CITY STAFF, I MEAN, I'M PROBABLY NOT SAYING THIS AS ELOQUENTLY AS I WOULD LIKE TO, BUT IT, YOU KNOW, THERE THE WORD USE WOULDN'T APPEAR IN THE CODE UNLESS IT WAS SOMETHING THAT, THAT YOU CAN REVIEW AND ANALYZE. 
          AND SO WHEN I SEE, WHEN I HEAR THAT WORD, TO ME IT MEANS THAT A A, A BUILDING PURVEYOR IS GOING OUT THERE AND, AND HE MAY HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE A CLUB, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN HE CAN HAVE ALL HIS TABLES SET UP THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE FIRE. 
          UH, AND SO THAT, THAT'S HOW I THINK USES APPLIED TO IN SECTION TEN TWO. 
          AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY APPLIED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY NOT FO NOT WEARING A MASK OR, OR, OR BEING STANDING SIX FEET AWAY FROM SOMETHING. 
          I THINK IT'S STILL HAS TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH A BUILDING ELEMENT AND THAT, THAT'S WHERE I'M TRYING, THAT'S WHERE I'M, I NEED SOME HELP CROSSING THAT BRIDGE. 
          THAT'S SPECIFICALLY WHY I ASKED THE CITY STAFF OR CI THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION BECAUSE ON 
          [01:20:01]
SECTION, UH, 10 12, IT SAYS, IFICATION OF THE C E O OF O CAN OCCUR AS DETERMINED BY BUILDING OFFICIALS IN A BUILDING STRUCTURE REPORT IN VIOLATION OF ANY ORDINANCE, ANY REGULATION. 
          AND THIS IS WHAT COMPLICATES IT, ANY PROVISION OF CHAPTER 10, BECAUSE WHAT THAT DOES, IT SAYS THAT THE OTHERS TWO MAY NOT APPLY TO CHAPTER 10. 
          AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED THE CITY DETERMINATION OF WHAT THIS MEANS BECAUSE, UH, ANYTIME YOU MAKE A, A BROAD STATEMENT THAT SOMETHING'S INCLUDED, IT, IT WOULD ONLY BE LOGICAL THAT THE PREVIOUS STATEMENTS ARE NOT INCLUDED. 
          SO I WANTED TO FIND OUT AND WHAT THIS MEAN BY ANY ORDINANCE OR ANY REGULATION, BECAUSE THAT COULD BE ANYTHING BEYOND THE AREA OF V S D, WHICH COULD INVOLVE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR HEALTH DEPARTMENT OR COULD, OR FIRE DEPARTMENT OR ANYTHING ELSE LIKE THAT. 
          AND THAT'S WHY ONE OF DETERMINATION HERE, BUT THIS MEANS, BECAUSE WITHOUT CLARIFICATION, UH, WHAT I'M, I'M THINKING HERE IS THAT, UH, UH, THE CITY STAFF HAS BROADER POWERS THAN IS DELINEATED SPECIFICALLY IN CHAPTER 10 AT ALL BECAUSE THE LAST STATEMENT, AND THAT'S WHY I WANT AN ANSWER TO THIS. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, ARE MR. CHAIRMAN, UM, YES, I'M I ON, HOLD ON. 
          SO LET'S LET THE APPLICANT, HAVE WE GOT THE, HAVE WE GOT THE CITY LAW ATTORNEY YET? YES, I'M ON. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M GONNA LET YOU RESPOND TO MY QUESTION AND I'LL GO THROUGH THE APPLICANT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO PLEASE, SURE. 
          DID YOU HEAR WHAT I JUST STA STATED? UH, I DID HEAR YOUR QUESTION. 
          THIS IS RY WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. 
          MYSELF AND SAMUEL ADAMS HAVE BEEN LITIGATING THIS MATTER IN THE COURT SINCE DECEMBER 7TH. 
          ON THE ISSUE OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, 10 DASH 12 D SPECIFICALLY SEPARATES, IT STATES ANY VIOLATIONS OF AN ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OR PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER. 
          AS WE ADVISE THE JUDGE AND WHEN SHE DISMISSED THEIR LAWSUIT, WHEN THEY MADE THIS ARGUMENT, WE ARGUED THAT THEY ARE COMPLETELY SEPARATE ENTITIES AND VIOLATIONS. 
          THERE'S A VIOLATION OF AN ORDINANCE, WHICH IS THE COVID MEASURES, WHICH WERE CODIFIED INTO AN ORDINANCE OR THERE WERE VIOLATIONS OF THE PENAL CODE, WHICH ARE REGULATIONS CONTRARY TO THE APPLICANT'S ASSERTIONS. 
          THE VIOLATIONS DO NOT HAVE TO BE BUILDING CODE RELATED NOR MUST THEY BE FOUND WITHIN CHAPTER 10. 
          ALL RIGHT? OKAY. 
          THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I, I SEE HERE IN READING THIS, I READ A LOT OF CONTRACTS AND THAT'S WHAT I SEE. 
          NOW, I'M GONNA GO TO THE APPLICANT TO RESPOND TO, TO MY MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS AND SEE IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. 
          MR. ALLEN? UH, YES. 
          AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. 
          UH, I'M GONNA JUST READ ALOUD THE LAST CLAUSE OF SECTION 10 DASH 12 B SAYS, OR WHERE IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OR PORTION THEREOF IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OR ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER. 
          AND I THINK THAT THE FIRST IMPORTANT THING IS, AND THIS IS JUST CONS, THIS IS A, THIS IS A STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, BUT WE DO IT USING THE NORMAL RULES OF GRAMMAR, THAT THE FIRST PART IS THAT THERE HAS TO BE A PROBLEM WITH THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OR PORTION THEREOF. 
          AND THERE'S NOT C OVID 19 PROTOCOLS ARE ACTIVITIES. 
          SECOND, IF YOU HAVE A LIST OF THREE THINGS IN A SERIES AND A RESTRICTIVE CLAUSE AT THE END, THE, THE ORDINARY RULE OF CONSTRUCTION IS THAT, THAT THAT RESTRICTIVE CLAUSE APPLIES TO ALL THREE. 
          SO IF YOU HAVE A SENTENCE THAT SAYS, ANY ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OR ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, PROVISIONS OF THE, THE, THE END OF THIS CHAPTER APPLIES TO ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND PROVISIONS. 
          AND THIS IS IN SLIDE FOUR OF MY PRESENTATION, UH, WHERE IT'S EMPHASIZED. 
          IF YOU WERE TO SAY THAT OF THIS CHAPTER ONLY RESTRICTS PROVISIONS, THEN THAT MEANS THAT MR. SHANNON, AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE D S D CAN ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE 
          [01:25:01]
ANYWHERE AND ANY REGULATION ANYWHERE BY REVOKING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR A BUILDING. 
          HE IS DEFINED WITHIN THE UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE AS THE BUILDING OFFICER. 
          THIS WOULD MAKE HIM THE EVERYTHING OFFICER, THE PERSON WHO CAN CLOSE DOWN A BUSINESS FOR ANY VIOLATION OF ANY LAW. 
          AND THAT IS JUST NOT WHAT THE LEGISLATURE OR THE, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO INTENDED WHEN IT WROTE THIS PROVISION. 
          YOU ALL ARE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO DECIDE THIS, THAT, UH, MR. SHANNON IS RIGHT. 
          THE COURTS DISMISS THE CASE TO SAY THAT WE HAVE TO PURSUE IT IN FRONT OF YOU ALL. 
          YOU ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE TO DECIDE HOW, WHAT THIS MEANS BEFORE WE CAN GO TO THE COURTS. 
          UH, MS. RYAN IMPLIED THAT THE COURT HEARD THIS ARGUMENT INCITED WITH HER. 
          THAT IS NOT THE CASE. 
          THE COURT DID NOT ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. 
          IT'S UP TO YOU ALL TO READ THIS SENTENCE AND APPLY IT IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE IN THE CONTEXT OF, OF HOW IT WAS ENACTED, WHICH IS IN THE BUILDING CODE. 
          OKAY? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR RESPONSE. 
          I'LL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR EITHER THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? OKAY, NONE BEING THE CASE. 
          UH, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND I'M ENTERTAINING A MOTION AND THAT YOU SAW, IT'S A VERY BRIEF ONE. 
          SO IS THERE ANYONE INTERESTED IN MAKING A MOTION ON THIS CASE? ORIAN. 
          OKAY, MR. ORIAN. 
          OKAY, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A 20 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 6, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, AN APPEAL OF THE REVOCATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE PROPERTY AT 2023 SABLE LANE, APPLICANT BEING BEN ALLEN. 
          END OF MOTION. 
          ALRIGHT, DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? WHO WAS THAT? TRU, IS THAT YOU MR. EZ? YES, SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          SO I'M GONNA REPEAT THIS REAL QUICK SO THAT WHEN, AS WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, THERE'LL BE NO CONFUSION AS PRESENTED IN A MOTION. 
          A YES VOTE IS A, UH, AN ACCEPTANCE OF THE, UH, OR SUPPORT OF THE, OF THE, THE APPEAL, UH, OF THE DECISION. 
          A NO VOTE WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S STAFF DECISION. 
          SO LET'S HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT, UH, WHAT WE'VE JUST HEARD. 
          UM, AND I'LL START THAT WITH MR. ORIAN. 
          SURE. 
          UH, WELL, I'M JUST GONNA SAY THAT, UM, UM, WHILE THIS PLACE MAY HAVE A LOT OF NEGATIVE THINGS OCCURRING THERE, READING THE TEXT, UH, I HAVE TWO POINTS, UH, THAT ARE DIRECTING ME TO AGREE WITH THE APPEAL. 
          THAT IS SECTION TEN TWO A OF THE CODE AND THE, AND THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS, UH, THE UNDER PURPOSE WHERE IT STATES INSOFAR AS THEY AFFECT THAT THEY ARE AFFECTED BY BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND SO FORTH. 
          AND THEN ALSO UNDER 10 12, WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND REVOCATION, HOW THE LAST SENTENCE OR WHERE IT IS DETERMINE THAT THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OR PORTION THEREOF IS IN VIOLATION. 
          I JUST, I CAN'T GET PAST THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THE CODE THAT TIES ANY SORT OF VIOLATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE REVOCATION TO THE BUILDING. 
          AND THEN UNDER AND UNDER THE, THE, THE TERM USE AND OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY IN USE, UH, AS THEY'RE USED THROUGHOUT THE U D C AND THE BUILDING CODE SEEM TO NOT SEEM TO, BUT THEY APPLY TOWARDS WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY DOING THERE. 
          MEANING ARE YOU A BAR, ARE YOU A RESTAURANT, ARE YOU A RETAIL OPERATION? IS THAT ALLOWED BY YOUR ZONING AND TWO USE? ARE YOU CONDUCTING THE PLACE SUCH THAT IT'S NOT A VIOLATION OF A BUILDING CODE OR STANDARD SUCH AS LOCATION OF FURNITURE VIOLATING THE FIRE CODE? UH, WHILE I THINK THAT THERE IS A, OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF BAD THINGS HAPPENING THERE, AND I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOULD BE FOLLOWING THE, THE GOVERNMENT ORDERS AND WEARING MASKS AND SOCIAL DISTANCING, I JUST DON'T SEE THIS AS AN ALLOWED REMEDY AS THE TECH STATES. 
          AND FURTHER, WHEN THE, WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL ISSUES, UH, AN AMENDMENT ON THE 25TH OF NOVEMBER THAT SEEMS TO GIVE THAT AUTHORITY, IT JUST SEEMS AFTER THE FACT AND IT HASN'T BEEN TESTED. 
          SO I JUST, AT THIS TIME, I'M GONNA HAVE TO SIDE WITH THE APPLICANT ON THIS ONE. 
          ALTHOUGH I DO THINK THE CITY WAS, WAS TRYING TO DO THEIR JOB AND, AND TRYING TO LOOK OUT FOR, FOR THE CITIZENS. 
          I JUST DON'T THINK THE CODE ALLOWS FOR THIS SPECIFIC ACTION. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UM, ARE YOU THROUGH MS. ORIAN? YES, I'M THROUGH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          THEN, UH, MR. V, DO YOU HAVE ANY INPUT ON THAT? UM, I, I'M GONNA HAVE TO COMPARE WITH MY COLLEAGUE, MS. ORIAN. 
          UM, I'M JUST THE SAME EXACT THINGS AS HE'S, UM, THIS IS A, UM, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, THAT 
          [01:30:01]
I'M STRUGGLING WITH ON ALL THOSE SAME POINTS, BUT I'M OPEN TO HEARING ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES, UM, DISCUSSION ON THIS. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY INPUT YOU'D LIKE TO GET INTO THIS DISCUSSION? MANCHACA, MR. MANCHACA? I CAN SEE THE AMBIGUITY HERE OF THE LINE NOT BEING DRAWN VERY DEFINITE AS TO WHAT SIDE, UH, THE CLARITY SHOULD BELONG ON. 
          BUT, UH, IN THESE TIMES OF, UH, LEMME SAY, LET ME USE THE WORD DANGER OF HEALTH, UH, YOU CANNOT NEGLECT THE RISK AND WE CAN GO INTO ALL KINDS OF HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS AND THIS AND THAT KIND OF BUSINESS, BUT THE HYPOTHETICAL DOESN'T EXIST WHEN THERE'S A REAL, UH, CONCERN TO THE CITIZENS AND WHAT'S HAPPENING AND TO SURROUNDING AREAS THAT A HOTEL LOST BUSINESS OTHER BUSINESSES HAVE BEEN SHOT AT OR WHATEVER'S GOING ON. 
          AND TO DWELL ON, UH, THE STRUCTURE ITSELF ON WHAT THE LAW SAYS OR WHAT THE CODE SAYS, PARDON ME, IS UH, CONFUSING. 
          BUT, UH, I DON'T AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON THIS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, VERY GOOD. 
          ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY INPUT? NO ONE ELSE HAS ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT. 
          MANANA, MR. MANNA, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, SO I'M GOING TO AGREE WITH MR. MACHACA HERE ON, ON THE POINTS YOU MADE. 
          I THINK THAT, UH, I, YOU KNOW, I READ THE LANGUAGE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY THAN THAN HOW IT WAS INTERPRETED BY THE FIRST TWO. 
          AND ESSENTIALLY THE CHALLENGE I HAVE IS THAT I, I, I ASK THE QUESTION ABOUT USE PERMITS AND USE PERMITS GO BEYOND THE BUILDING, AND IT'S REALLY ALL ENCOMPASSING OF HOW A PROPERTY'S USED. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE APPLIES FOR SOMETHING AND IS, AND IS USED DIFFERENTLY THAN HOW IT WAS APPLIED, SO THEY MADE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND HERE'S HOW IT'S GONNA BE USED, AND IT'S NOT USED THAT WAY, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE'S A PROBLEM. 
          AND THE CITY'S REMEDY BY WHAT I READ HERE IS THAT THEY COULD REMOVE THE CITY, THE, THE, THE OCCUPANCY, AND THAT'S WHAT WAS TAKEN HERE. 
          UM, SO AS FAR AS WHAT VIOLATIONS OCCURRED, I THINK THAT THERE WAS MANY LISTED. 
          UM, AND I THINK THAT THE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT MOVING TABLES AND FIRE CODE STUFF. 
          WELL, YOU KNOW, TO ME IT'S NO DIFFERENT HERE WITH REGARDS TO THE FIRE AS TO COVID AND BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FACILITY WAS, WAS, UH, NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENSURING THAT ALL THE PATRONS WERE SAFE. 
          AND SO TO ME, I DON'T SEE A, UH, VOTING FOR THE CITY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY INPUT ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE? I CAN'T BELIEVE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE MORE INPUT ON IT. 
          . 
          UM, I'M GONNA FILL IN SOME SPACE. 
          IF ANYONE HAS AN OPINION AFTER WHAT I JUST SAY, UM, THEN PLEASE LET ME KNOW. 
          I'M LOOKING AT THE GRAMMAR IN THIS PARTICULAR THING, AND I, I SLIGHTLY DISAGREE WITH THE ATTORNEY, UH, MR. ALLEN, BECAUSE I HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH CONTRACTS MY ENTIRE LIFE. 
          IN FACT, UH, MY WIFE IS A CONTRACT, WAS A RETIRED CONTRACT SPECIALIST WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND I'VE HAD THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE COME UP WHERE YOU HAVE A, A, A SET OF, OF, OF CONDITIONS AND THE FINAL CONDITION REFLECTS UPON THE WHOLE WHEREAS, AND THAT IN ITSELF MEANS THAT THE PREVIOUS CONDITIONS DID NOT. 
          UH, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I'VE RUN ACROSS, LIKE I SAID, MANY ISSUES IN CONTRACTING HAVE HAD TO REWORD FOR THAT REASON. 
          I, I THINK THAT PERHAPS THIS WAS NOT PROPERLY WORDED, BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY I INSISTED ON THE CITY'S STATUTE THERE, EVERYTHING, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ACTION THAT THE, UH, CITY STAFF WOULD WORK ON, IS ON THE OPINION OF CITY STAFF AND WHAT'S LEGAL AND WHAT'S NOT, NOT ON SOME OTHER ATTORNEY SOMEWHERE ELSE, UH, HAVING ANY OPINION BASED UPON, UH, WHO IS SUPPORTING THEIR, UH, CAUSE. 
          UM, IF MR. SHANNON, SHANNON HAD MADE A DETERMINATION BASED UPON THE INFORMATION THAT THE CITY STAFF HAD PROVIDED, THE LEGAL STAFF HAD PROVIDED FOR HIM, THEN IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT HE FELT THAT HE HAD THE JUSTIFICATION FOR IT. 
          AND IN THAT PARTICULAR REGARD, I HAVE TO SIDE WITH THE CITY BECAUSE IF WE CAN'T TRUST EVERYONE IN OUR DEPARTMENT ALONG THE LINE, THEN OBVIOUSLY IT'S GOING TO GO TO COURT. 
          AND I DOUBT IT. 
          WHAT, WHAT'S DETERMINED HERE, UM, AT ONE, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, IS TRYING TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THIS GOES TO COURT OR NOT. 
          SO, UM, I'M GOING TO PROBABLY SIDE WITH THE CITY. 
          I'M CITING WITH THE CITY ON THE ISSUE, UM, ONLY BECAUSE OF MY INTERPRETATION OF THE FINAL SECTION OF 10 12. 
          ANYWAY, NOW THAT I IS, NOW THAT I MADE MY STATEMENTS, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY INPUT YOU WANNA GIVE? 
          [01:35:04]
OKAY, NONE OF THE CASE. 
          LET'S GO. 
          ROLL CALL VOTE. 
          MS. CRUZ? NO. 
          MR. MENCHACA? NO. 
          I SLIDE WITH THE CITY. 
          MR. THIEL? NO. 
          MR. MANO? NO. 
          MS. BRAGMAN? NO. 
          MR. VINNO? YES. 
          MR. DOMER? YES. 
          MS. FISHER? NO. 
          MR. OZUNA? I DO NOT CONCUR. 
          NO. 
          MR. ORIAN? YES. 
          AND CHAIR MARTINEZ? NO. 
          I, I DO. 
          I SIDE WITH THE CITY ON THE CASE. 
          THE, UM, MOTION FOR, UH, APPEAL HAS FAILED BY A VOTE OF, UM, NINE TO THREE, THREE TO EIGHT. 
          I BELIEVE IT WAS A THREE TO SEVEN. 
          WHAT DO YOU HAVE TOTAL THERE? EIGHT THREE YESES. 
          EIGHT BY THREE YESES AND EIGHT NOS. 
          SO WE HAVE NINE THREE, I APOLOGIZE. 
          EIGHT TO THREE BY MATCH. 
          OKAY, SO THE, THE MOTION DOES FAIL. 
          UH, I'M SURE THEY'LL, THERE'LL BE MORE OF THIS IN THE FUTURE, BUT IT'S NOT OUR HANDLING AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME. 
          SO LET'S GO ON TO OUR NEXT CASE. 
          [2. 21-1036 BOA-20-10300130]
NEXT CASE IS BO O A 21 0 3 0 0 1 3 0 GENERAL LOCATED AT SOUTH OF PETRAN ROAD AND STEVENS PARKWAY INTERSECTION. 
          THIS IS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS. 
          THE APPLICANT IS EMILY WEISLER. 
          IT'S YOUR REQUEST FOR A 15 FOOT SIGN VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN HEIGHT, MAXIMUM OF 40 FEET TO ALLOW FOR A 55 FOOT TALL SIGN. 
          AGAIN, THIS, THIS IS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS. 
          FRONT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS, IS AT THE CORNER, THE CORNER LOT, UH, WITH FRONTAGE ALONG FORTRAN ROAD AND STEVENS PARKWAY, UH, WITH THE CITY'S EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. 
          THE SURROUNDING AREA CONSISTS OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SUCH AS GAS STATIONS, FOOD SERVICE, MAJOR THOROUGHFARES, AND NEARBY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. 
          THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO ERECT A 55 FOOT TALL, 240 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE TENANT SIGN ON THE LOT FOR A MCDONALD'S. 
          THE APPLICANT STATES CONCERNS OF VARIOUS, UH, TOPOGRAPHICAL CHANGES EXISTING ALONG PETCO ROAD, STEVENS PARKWAY, AND THE PROPERTY ITSELF TO BUILD A TALLER SIGN TO ATTRACT CUSTOMERS TO THE AREA. 
          THERE ARE MULTIPLE PLOTTED, UH, EASEMENTS, DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS CAUSING THE PROPERTY SIGN TO BE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND BE SET BACK DUE TO POWER LINES. 
          THE SIGN WILL BE ORIENTED TO PETRANKO ROAD, CHAPTER 28, SECTION 28 45 ALLOWS A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 40 FEET, UH, TO SINGLE FOR SINGLE TENANTS LOCATED ON STREET CLASSIFIED AS ARTERIAL. 
          A PETRANKO IS A PRIMARY ARTERIAL A WITH 120 FOOT, UH, RIGHT OF WAY. 
          AND STEVENS PARKWAY IS IN A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE TO BE COMPLETED ALONG THAT SIDE AS A SECONDARY ARTERIAL. 
          TYPE A WITH 86 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          COPY OF THE SUB OF THE SITE PLAN. 
          PROPOSED STEVENS PARKWAY TO THE LEFT. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE INTERSECTION AND SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE O A 21 0 3 0 0 1 3 0 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS EFFECT. 
          THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND EXISTING COMMERCIAL AREA AND GRANTING THE SIGN HEIGHT VARIANCE WOULD AID IN THE CONTINUOUS GROWTH OF THIS COMMERCIAL NODE. 
          FOUR NOTICES WERE SENT OUT, ZERO RECEIVED, AND THERE'S NO NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION. 
          WE DO HAVE EMILY WI ON THE ON, ON THE LINE. 
          EMILY, WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND WE'LL START YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          UH, THANKS THE GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR. 
          UH, MEMBERS OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 
          MY NAME IS EMILY WEISLER WITH KILLING GRIFFIN AND FAIRMAN 100 NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10, SUITE SIX 50 HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. 
          IF WE COULD GO AHEAD AND START WITH, UH, SLIDE NUMBER TWO OF MY PRESENTATION PLEASE. 
          UH, AS STAFF MENTIONED, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTHEAST, THE INTERSECTION OF STEVENS PARKWAY ALONG PETRANKO ROAD WITHIN THE CITY'S E T J STEVENS PARKWAY. 
          UH, NORTHBOUND HAS BEEN DEVELOPED, BUT THE EXTENSION SOUTHBOUND FROM PETRANKO 
          [01:40:01]
HAS NOT YET BEEN, BUT IT, AS STAFF MENTIONED, IT IS ON THE MAJOR THIRD FA PLAN TO BE FULLY COMPLETED. 
          IT IS UNDERWAY, UH, AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH WILL BE A MCDONALD'S, UH, WILL BE LOCATED AT THAT NEW INTERSECTION. 
          THIS IS A RAPIDLY GROWING AREA, EVEN MORE DEVELOPED THAN WHAT IS KIND OF ALREADY SHOWN IN THIS AREA ON MY SLIDE RIGHT NOW, INCLUDING A NEW H E B SHOPPING CENTER RESTAURANTS. 
          AND THERE IS RESIDENTIAL IN THE AREA. 
          UH, THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THIS COMMUNITY IS NOT IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, BUT, UH, NOTED ONLY IN RELATION TO THE OVERALL CUSTOMER BASE AND COMMUNITY, UM, THAT IS RAPIDLY GROWING ON THIS FAR WEST SIDE OF BEAR COUNTY. 
          SLIDE THREE, PLEASE. 
          UH, THE YELLOW STAR IN THIS VERY LARGE AERIAL IMAGE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE FAR RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE 1604 AND TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY. 
          YOU CAN SEE HIGHWAY TWO 11 WHERE IT INTERSECTS AT FRANCO ROAD, UH, WHERE TWO 11 IS STILL BEING EXPANDED. 
          THERE IS HUGE GROWTH IN THIS AREA AND EVEN MORE PLANNED BY WAY OF SEVERAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTY AS WELL. 
          THE FRANCO IS OBVIOUSLY A VERY LARGE THOROUGHFARE. 
          UH, SO THIS IS JUST AN ADDITIONAL VISUAL AID FOR ITS OVERALL LOCATION, UM, IN WEST FAIR COUNTY. 
          FURTHER, AS YOU CAN SEE, KIND OF BASED ON THE ORANGE MARKERS, UM, IF YOU CAN SQUINT THAT PART, UH, IN THE AERIAL IMAGE, FAST FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS ARE NOT IN ABUNDANCE IN THIS AREA. 
          SO THE PLAN MCDONALD'S ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD BE SERVING A MUCH LARGER CUSTOMER BASE THAN JUST IN THE IMMEDIATE COMMUNITY, MANY OF WHICH WOULD BE TRAVELING FROM HIGHWAY TWO 11 PETRANKO, EVEN FROM 1604. 
          SLIDE FOUR, PLEASE. 
          UH, WE ARE HERE BEFORE YOU THIS AFTERNOON TO REQUEST A 15 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A 55 FOOT TALL FREESTANDING SIGN ON THE PROPERTY BASED ON PETCO'S CLASSIFICATION. 
          A 40 FOOT TALL SINGLE TENANT SIGN IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT WITH A SIZE OF UP TO 240 SQUARE FEET. 
          WE WILL NOT BE REQUESTING A VARIANCE OR NEEDING ONE FOR A SIGN SIZE, JUST A SLIGHT INCREASE ON THE PERMITTED HEIGHT TO ALLOW FOR MORE EFFECTIVE VISIBILITY DUE TO SOME VERY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THIS PROPERTY. 
          UH, IN ADDITION TO THE LAST THREE OF THE FINDINGS OF FACTS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE, UM, EFFECTIVE ADVERTISEMENT OF COMMERCIAL USE, ECONOMIC STIMULATION FOR THIS GROWING CORRIDOR, REDUCTION OF DRIVER SAFETY HAZARDS. 
          UH, THERE ARE TWO I DEFINITELY WANT TO FOCUS ON THE FIRST BEING A REDUCTION OF VISUAL CLUTTER AS WE ARE ONLY PROPOSING ONE FREESTANDING SIGN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 
          AND AS YOU'LL SEE SHORTLY, IT IS PREDOMINANTLY AN OPEN AIR DESIGN. 
          THE SECOND BEING THE EXTENUATING UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THIS SITE, INCLUDING TOPOGRAPHY, ABUNDANCE OF EASEMENTS, DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, AND SOME SETBACK ISSUES, RESULTING IN A VERY LIMITED LOCATION FOR SIGNAGE AND JUSTIFYING THE NEED FOR THE INCREASED HEIGHT. 
          SLIDE FIVE, PLEASE. 
          UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A PLATTED LOT, UH, PART OF A LARGER RETAIL DEVELOPMENT. 
          THIS IS A ZOOMED IN SCREENSHOT OF THAT PLOT, UH, WHICH SHOWS THE PROPERTY HERE LABELED AS LOT FIVE, UM, AND NUMEROUS IMPEDING EASEMENTS ON THIS SITE. 
          IT ALSO SHOWS THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF STEVEN'S PARKWAY. 
          THE PARKWAY EXTENSION TRIGGERS SEVERAL EASEMENTS AND POWER LINES, WHICH FORCES AN INCREASED STEP BACK FOR ANY SIGNAGE ON THE PROPERTY. 
          THERE IS ALSO, IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE, BUT THERE IS ALSO A SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT ON THE VICO BOUNDARY. 
          THE SITE REQUIRING VEHICULAR ACCESS TO COME IN TO THE LARGER OVERALL RETAIL CENTER TRAVELING FROM EAST TO WEST ACROSS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. 
          SINCE THIS IS, IS A CORNER LOT IN THE MIDDLE OF A VERY LARGE INTERSECTION, THE ONLY OTHER ACCESS POINT WILL BE ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE LOT. 
          SO THE SAFEST AND MOST EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT TRAFFIC FLOW, THESE EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTED ACCESS POINTS FURTHER RESTRICT THE SITE AND THE AVAILABLE LOCATION OF SIGNAGE. 
          ADDITIONALLY, AS YOU WILL SEE IN JUST A COUPLE OF SLIDES, THE SITE ITSELF ALSO SITS AT AN OVERALL LOWER GRADE THAN PETRANKO ROAD. 
          THE EASEMENTS, THIS LOWER ELEVATION AND THE CRITICAL DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS THAT YOU'LL ALSO SEE IN JUST A SECOND, UH, CREATE A VERY UNIQUE UNDER BURDEN ON THE PROPERTY, UH, NEED RESULTING IN AND JUSTIFYING THE NEED FOR AN INCREASE IN HEIGHT, UH, FOR THE PROPOSED SINGULAR FREESTANDING SIGN. 
          UH, SLIDE SIX, PLEASE. 
          THIS IS A RENDERING OF THE PROPOSED FREESTANDING SIGN. 
          IT'S APPROXIMATELY 55 FEET. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE, THE GOLDEN ARCH DESIGN IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN AND COMPARED TO SIMILAR USES, WHICH TYPICALLY MAXIMIZE THEIR SIGNAGE AND UTILIZE BLOCK DESIGN. 
          UH, THESE GOLDEN ARCHES, UH, DOES WONDERS FOR EFFICIENT NOTICE ADVERTISING, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, REDUCING VISUAL CLUTTER, UH, BECAUSE THE SIGN OCCUPIES SUCH LITTLE SPACE, AN INCREASE IN HEIGHT IS NOT AN EGREGIOUS REQUEST, UH, BY ANY MEANS GIVEN THE 
          [01:45:01]
PROPERTY'S LOCATION AT A MAJOR INTERSECTION AND NEAR HIGHWAY TWO 11 WHERE YOU HAVE RELATIVELY HIGH SPEED DRIVERS, UH, AND A SLEEK OPEN AIR DESIGN, THE ADDITIONAL 15TH AND 15 FEET IN HEIGHT SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTES TO THE SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY OF THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION NETWORK BY PROVIDING ACCURATE AND TIMELY INFORMATION TO DRIVERS ON ALL OF THESE, UH, SURROUNDING PATHS. 
          SLIDE SEVEN, PLEASE. 
          UH, YOU DID SEE THIS EARLIER IN STAFF'S PRESENTATION, BUT THIS IS OUR OVERALL SITE PLAN CIRCLED IN RED IS THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THAT 50 FOOT TALL FREE STANDING SIGN, THE, THE SAME GOLDEN ARCHES YOU JUST SAW, UH, DUE TO THE POWER LINES AND THE EASEMENTS IN PLACE ON THE SITE, AS WELL AS THE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC FLOW. 
          UM, BECAUSE OF THE SHARED ACCESS AND THE PROXIMITY TO STEVENS PARKWAY, THIS WAS THE BEST AND QUITE FRANKLY, ONLY EFFICIENT PLACE FOR SIGNAGE ON THE PROPERTY. 
          UH, AS MENTIONED, THERE'S AN OVERALL GRADE DECREASE ON THIS SITE, SO THIS SIGN AND THE DEVELOPMENT DOES SIT LOWER THAN PETRANKO ITSELF. 
          THE SIGN IS PLACED OUTSIDE OF THAT 25 FOOT TRIANGULAR AREA FORMED BY THE INTERSECTING STREET LINES AND NOT WITHIN THE ACTUAL RIGHT OF WAY. 
          AND IT IS NOT WITHIN THE CLEAR VISION AREA BASED ON THE SPEED OF TRAVEL IN THIS AREA AND THE LOCATION AT A HARD CORNER OF TWO MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, TIMELY NOTICE OF BUSINESS IS IMPERATIVE. 
          AND MOST SPECIFICALLY WITH THIS SITE, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE THE MOST DRIVER CONVENIENT ACCESS POINTS. 
          SLIDE EIGHT, PLEASE. 
          UH, BOTH IMAGES IN THIS SLIDE, UM, ARE SHOWN FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF PETRANKO FACING WEST TOWARDS STEVEN PARKWAY. 
          UM, I SHOW THIS, IT DOES NOT SHOW REALLY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY KIND OF IN THE FAR LEFT SIDE OF THE IMAGE, BUT I SHOW THIS THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS SOME TOPOGRAPHICAL CHANGES ON PETRANKO, UM, HEADING WESTBOUND AS WELL. 
          SLIDE NINE PLEASE. 
          THE PHOTO ON THE LEFT HERE IS LOOKING WEST FROM THE FRONT EDGE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 
          YOU CAN SEE THE TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT THE INTERSECTION OF PETRANKO AND STEVENS AND THE SLIGHT SLOPE ALREADY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 
          YOU CAN SEE IT KIND OF TAPERING OFF, UM, DOWN TO THE FAR LEFT. 
          THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT IS FROM WHAT WILL BE EAST STEVENS PARKWAY, LOOKING AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SHOPPING CENTER ACROSS THE STREET. 
          UH, THIS IS A GREAT VIEW OF THAT LOWER ELEVATION AND MAJOR SITE WORK THAT WILL INCLUDE DRAINAGE, UM, IMPROVEMENTS. 
          I THINK IF YOU SQUINT HARD ENOUGH, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE SOME POOLED WATER, UM, IN THE FAR RIGHT SIDE OF THAT PHOTO. 
          UH, SLIDE 10 PLEASE. 
          THESE ARE JUST SOME BETTER VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ITSELF. 
          ON THE LEFT, YOU CAN SEE THE GRADING FOR WHAT LOUIS STEVENS PARKWAY AND THE TOPOGRAPHY CHALLENGES ON THIS SITE. 
          UH, THIS IS ALSO AN IMPORTANT VISUAL FROM THE GROUND, HIGHLIGHTING THE INHERENT VISIBILITY ISSUES ON THE SITE. 
          THE GOLDEN ARCHES PROPOSED WILL ENSURE MINIMAL SIGN CLUTTER AND AN OVERALL ADHERENCE WITH THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS DEVELOPING AREA. 
          SLIDE 11, PLEASE. 
          IN ADDITION TO THE ELEVATION AND TOPOGRAPHY ISSUES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THERE ARE SURROUNDING VISIBILITY ISSUES DUE TO THE TOPOGRAPHY CHANGES BOTH ON PETRANKO AND STEVENS PARKWAY. 
          AS YOU SAW A COUPLE SLIDES BACK, UH, HEADING WEST ON PETRANKO, UH, FROM 1604 FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND YOU ACTUALLY KIND OF HIT A DIP AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 
          UM, SO WE ARE AT A LOW POINT ON PETRANKO, OBVIOUSLY, THUS THE EXTENSIVE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED. 
          AND YOU CAN ALSO SEE THAT WE ARE AT THE LOW POINT OF STEVENS PARKWAY AS WELL. 
          SO BOTH DIRECTIONS ON PETRANKO AND, AND BOTH EVENTUALLY ON STEVENS PARKWAY, WE'RE KIND OF AT THE VALLEY OF THAT INTERSECTION. 
          UM, SO YOU GAIN ELEVATION HEADING AWAY FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN EITHER DIRECTION. 
          UM, WITH SUCH PRIVACY VARIATIONS, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND PROPOSED SIGN HEIGHT OF 55 FEET WILL OFFER SAFE, TIMELY, AND EFFICIENT SIGNAGE. 
          BUT AS THE HEIGHT THAT DOES NOT STICK OUT BY ANY MEANS LIKE A SORE THUMB, THE 55 FEET WILL OFFSET THE CHALLENGES OF THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY AT A HEIGHT THAT IS THOROUGHLY COMPATIBLE AND COMPARABLE WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. 
          SLIDE 12, PLEASE. 
          UH, ALTHOUGH THE SITE IS A STAFF MENTIONED OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS WITHIN THE E T J, IT IS WITHIN THE WEST SECTOR PLAN AND DESIGNATED AS SUBURBAN TIER. 
          UH, I REALLY JUST MENTIONED THIS TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR USE OTHER THAN WHAT IS PERMITTED OR WHAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN. 
          BUT ALSO TO NOTE THAT A, A MAIN GOAL OF THIS PLAN IS LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, UM, ANTICIPATED BECAUSE OF THE CONTINUED AND VERY RAPID GROWTH OF WEST BEAR COUNTY. 
          UH, ADEQUATE SIGNAGE IS A CRITICAL COMPONENT WHEN ENSURING HIGH, BUT SAFE VEHICULAR CONNECTIVITY. 
          UH, THIS PLAN OBVIOUSLY DOES ALSO CALL FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE DESIGN OF COMMERCIAL NODES AS TOWN CENTERS TO PROMOTE THIS, UH, GREAT IDEA OF LIVE WORK PLAY IN A COMMUNITY. 
          THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING AT THIS HARD CORNER OF A GROWING COMMERCIAL NODE AND SORT OF TOWN SEMINAR 
          [01:50:01]
WITH THE MCDONALD'S AS PART OF THAT INTERSECTIONS ANCHOR REALLY IS A CORNERSTONE FOR THIS COMMUNITY. 
          I WOULD CONTEND THAT THE SIGN SLEEP DESIGN AND OF COURSE THE REQUESTED 15 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE 55 FOOT TALL SIGN, UH, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS, OBJECTIVES AND GOALS, HAS NO NEGATIVE IMPACT AND REALLY IS THE BEST AND ONLY WAY TO FACILITATE REASONABLE SIGNAGE, UH, THAT MAINTAINS SAFETY FOR THE AREA, UH, PATRONS AND MOTORISTS ALIKE. 
          SLIDE 13, PLEASE. 
          UH, ONE, ANOTHER INTERESTING PART OF THIS SITE IS ITS FRONTAGE ON TWO ARTERIAL TYPE A STREET, PETRANKO ROAD AND STEVENS PARKWAY STAFF DID MENTION THIS. 
          UM, PETRANKO IS A PRIMARY AND STEVENS IS A SECONDARY TO BOTH OUR ARTERIAL TYPE A STREET. 
          THE CODE DOES ALLOW FOR THE SAME STANDARDS, A K A ALLOWABLE SIGNAGE, HEIGHT AND SIZES, UH, FOR EACH STREET THAT IT FRONTS. 
          IN ADDITION TO SUBSEQUENT SIGNAGE AT 75% OR LESS OF THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT HEIGHTEN SIZE. 
          UH, I REALLY JUST HIGHLIGHT THIS TO NOTE THAT THE PROPOSED 55 FOOT TALL FREESTANDING GOLDEN ARCHES SIGN, UM, IS SINGULARLY PROPOSED FREESTANDING SIGN FOR THE PROPERTY. 
          UH, COLLECTIVELY SPEAKING, OUR REQUESTED SIGN IS LESS THAN WHAT'S ALLOWED FOR THE WHOLE SITE, AND WE AREN'T REQUESTING ANY ADDITIONAL SIGN AREA WITH THIS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN DESIGN. 
          UM, BUT IN THIS, IN AN EFFORT TO REALLY REDUCE VISUAL CLUTTER, UM, FOR THIS COMMUNITY, FOR THIS AREA, FOR THIS INTERSECTION, UM, WE ARE PROPOSING JUST THE SINGULAR 55 FOOT FREESTANDING GOLDEN ARCHES. 
          SLIDE 14 PLEASE. 
          SO, AS I MENTIONED, WE ARE REQUESTING A 15 FOOT HEIGHT VARIANCE IN DIRECT CORRELATION WITH THE EXTENUATING AND UNIQUE SITE CONDITIONS, BUT ALSO MAKING A CONSCIOUS EFFORT TO MINIMIZE VISUAL CLUTTER BY NOT EXCEEDING THE ALLOWABLE SIZE. 
          UM, BY ALSO RESTRICTING THE NUMBER OF SIGNS ON SITE TO JUST THE ONE SINGLE TENANT FREESTANDING SIGN RATHER THAN THE ALLOWABLE AT LEAST TWO TO FOUR ON SITE, UH, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW FOR A TALLER SIGN, THUS PROVIDING MOTORIST ADVANCED NOTICE OF THE BUSINESS AND THE INTERSECTION ITSELF. 
          UH, BY PROVIDING THIS ADVANCED NOTICE, THEY WERE ABLE TO SEE AND REACT TO ROAD CONDITIONS HAZARDS. 
          UH, THEIR ABILITY TO DO SO WOULD INCREASE AND WE CAN REDUCE ANY CONFUSION OR DISTRACTIONS, UM, AS APPLICABLE. 
          FURTHER, BECAUSE OF THE SITE STRENGTH INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR THE ACTUAL MCDONALD, MCDONALD'S, EXCUSE ME, IS ATYPICAL. 
          PROVIDING ADVANCED NOTICE INCREASES TRAFFIC SAFETY FOR ENTERING AND EXITING THE SITE WITH ITS VERY UNIQUE CONFIGURATION DUE TO THOSE EXISTING CONSTRAINTS. 
          UNIQUE AND DETRIMENTAL CONDITIONS DO EXIST ON THIS PROPERTY, SIGNIFICANTLY HINDERING THE VISIBILITY OF THIS SITE AND THE PROPOSED FREESTANDING SIGN DENIAL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD IMPEDE ANY REASONABLE ABILITY TO PROPERLY ADVERTISE THIS BUSINESS, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, NEGATIVELY IMPACT VEHICULAR SAFETY AND MOTORIST REACTION TIME ALONG THIS RAPID GROWING, EVER CHANGING COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR. 
          AS SUCH, WE DO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT AND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED 15 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THIS 55 FOOT FREE STANDING SINGLE TENANT SIGN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 
          WE ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          ZEKE, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC INPUT? NO SIR. 
          NO WRITTEN OR, UH, COMMENTS? THEY WERE SUBMITTED. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UH, LET ME ASK THE BOARD MEMBERS DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE NEED TO ASK THIS APPLICANT IN REGARD OR STAFF ABOUT THIS CASE? WHO WAS MS. BRAGMAN? GO AHEAD. 
          YOU HAVE FLOOR, THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          UM, YOU REFERENCED THE HEIGHT OF THE OVERHEAD POWER LINES. 
          UM, WHAT, WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF THE OVERHEAD POWER LINES THAT THE SIGN IS TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM? UM, YES, HOLD ON. 
          I'M, I'M DOUBLE CHECKING RIGHT NOW, UM, TO MAKE SURE I DON'T GET IT WRONG. 
          UM, BUT IN ADDITION TO THE, THE HEIGHT OF THE, THE POWER LINES, WE'RE ALSO TRYING, WE ALSO ARE FORCED TO STEP BACK THE SIGN EVEN FURTHER SO WE'RE EVEN FURTHER, UM, LESS VISIBLE ON THE SITE. 
          LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND A, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S AT LEAST 25 FEET. 
          UH, THIS FRAGMENT FOR THE, FOR THE POWER LINES AT LEAST 25 FEET IN HEIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OZUNA, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? OZUNA, MR. OZUNA, PLEASE HAVE? YEAH. 
          UH, THANK YOU. 
          THIS QUESTION PROBABLY FOR STAFF. 
          UM, IS THERE 
          [01:55:01]
A WAY TO, UH, RESTRICT THE APPROVAL BASED ON THE MCDONALD'S SIGNS? WE SAW THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT WAS PROPOSING A SPECIFIC SQUARE FOOTAGE SURFACE AREA OF THE SIGN, UH, AND IT'S A REDUCTION FROM WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED. 
          AND SO IF WE GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR THE 15 FOOT, UM, I WANTED TO SEE THAT THE, THE KIND OF SURFACE AREA OF THE SIGN, UH, WOULD BE MORE ALIGNED TO THE REDUCTION THAT WE'RE SEEING BECAUSE OF THE MCDONALD'S, UH, FACE, WHICH IS LESS THAN WHAT THEY COULD NORMALLY BUILD ON THE SURFACE AREA. 
          SO AS WE KIND OF APPROVE, IF WE DO THROUGH THE VARIANCE, I CAN THAT. 
          YEP, THANK YOU. 
          YES, SIR. 
          SO THE ARTERIAL A ALLOWS YOU TO 240 SQUARE FOOT SIGN AUTOMATICALLY, UM, IN THIS REQUEST. 
          THEY DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE NEAR REQUESTING ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, IT WAS STRICTLY THE HEIGHT. 
          SO AS FAR AS SQUARE FOOTAGE, THAT'LL BE THE MAXIMUM THEY CAN GO WITH UNLESS THEY GO COME TO THE BOARD, ASK FOR, FOR A LARGER SIGN. 
          SO WOULD TWO 40 IS THAT TWO 40. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT WOULD BE, UM, UH, ADEQUATE FOR THE, FOR THE MCDONALD'S SIGN THAT THEY WOULD NEED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YES, THAT'S ALLOWED THE EXISTING, UH, THOROUGHFARE. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT ORIAN MS. DO, YES. 
          UH, SO, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THE SIGN HAD TO BE FURTHER AWAY, BUT THAT'S DUE TO, TO A WATER EASEMENT THAT EXISTS DOWN STEVENS PARKWAY, CORRECT? UH, YES. 
          THERE, AND THERE ARE SEVERAL EASEMENTS WE HAVE, WE HAVE A SETBACK ISSUE WITH POWER LINES. 
          WE HAVE A VARIABLE WIDTH WATER EASEMENT, UM, ELECTRICAL GAS TELEPHONE. 
          THERE'S A, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF EASEMENT ENCUMBRANCE ON THIS SITE. 
          UM, PART OF WHICH ARE RELATED TO STEVENS PARKWAY AS WELL AS TOGO AND DEVELOPMENT ITSELF. 
          YEAH, I MEAN ALL, ALL PROPERTY HAS A, EVERYONE HAS TO PUT A 14 FOOT C P SS EASEMENT ALONG THE FRONTAGE. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S NOT A A, A HINT THAT DOESN'T, THAT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR ME, BUT I, I'M, WHAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT IS ON THE PLANT THAT YOU HAD SHOWED, YOU HAD SHOWED ELEVATION GRADE THAT STARTED AT PETRANKO WHERE THE ELEVATION LINES RAN ALMOST PARALLEL WITH PETRANKO AND THEN THEY STARTED TO DECLINE AS YOU MOVED DOWN, STEVENS DOWN THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. 
          AND SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, UH, WHEN YOU HAD MENTIONED ABOUT CHANGES IN GRADE ON PETRANKO, WHEN THAT ELEVATION LINE RUNS PARALLEL, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE YOU'RE EXPERIENCING A LARGE RISE OR FALL AS YOU TRAVEL UP OR DOWN PETRANKO AS YOU WOULD TRAVELING UP STEVENS. 
          AND SO IS IS THE MAIN ISSUE WHEN YOU'RE BOTH DRIVING AWAY FROM THE SITE ON STEVENS CROSSING PETRANKO, IS THAT, IS THAT REALLY WHERE THE MAIN ELEVATION CHANGES AND CAN YOU PROVIDE HOW MUCH THE ELEVATION CHANGES IF YOU WANT TO BRING THAT STAFF? CAN YOU BRING THE PLAT BACK UP, THE FLAT PICTURE FROM THE PRESENTATION? OKAY. 
          SO IF YOU LOOK AT LIKE THE 9 52 LINE, I MEAN IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'VE GOT GRADES THAT DON'T REALLY CHANGE MUCH DOWN PETRANKO. 
          THEY SEEM TO BE FALLING AS YOU GO DOWN. 
          I DON'T HAVE A NORTH ARROW, BUT THEY SEEM TO BE FALLING AS YOU WOULD GO PLAN SOUTHBOUND STEVEN. 
          SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT'S A A, UM, HOW THE ELEVATION WOULD BE A BURDEN WHEN I'M DRIVING UP AND DOWN PETRANKO . 
          SO THERE IS, THERE IS, UM, UH, OUT WEST OF STEVENS PARKWAY, UM, IT DOES INCREASE IN ELEVATION SIGNIFICANTLY. 
          UM, SAME AS YOU CROSS OVER PETRANKO HEADED NORTH ON STEVENS, UM, THAT HAS A SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION CHANGE. 
          UM, SO WE'RE KIND OF REALLY THIS SITE AND THEN HEADING EAST, WE'RE KIND OF STARTING TO DIP INTO THAT VALLEY. 
          UM, THIS LOT STARTING. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THE, THOSE LARGE POWER LINES, ARE THEY ON YOUR SIDE OF PETRANKO, THE BIG METAL ONES OR THE OTHER SIDE? HELLO? WE HAVE SOME TECHNICALITY. 
          I, WHILE WE'RE WAITING I CAN ASK STAFF MY QU QUESTION ON THE, ON THE, ON THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION THAT WAS EMAILED TO THE BOARD, THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN WAS SHOWN TO BE 60 FEET. 
          DID YOU GUYS NEGOTIATE THAT DOWN TO 55 WITH THE APPLICANT TO GIVE YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OR, OR IS 60 SEATS THAT'S FAIR. 
          THE ORIGINAL REQUEST IS ONLY 55. 
          UH, THAT WAS ADDED TO THE APPLICATION. 
          THAT WAS JUST A STANDARD, UH, IMAGE OR ELEVATION THAT THEY HAD FROM MCDONALD'S. 
          BUT IN DISCUSSION WITH THEM IT WAS STRICTLY GONNA BE 55. 
          OKAY. 
          SO BACK TO, IS THE APPLICANT BACK ON WE'RE TRYING TO REACH HER? NO, SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, OR YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. 
          [02:00:01]
ARE THOSE, IF YOU LOOK AT ITEM NUMBER 25 ON THE DOCUMENTS THEY SENT US, THERE APPEARS TO BE POWER LINES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. 
          THOSE BIG METAL ONES ON BOTH SIDES? WELL, ONE, UH, THEY'RE BOTH TALL, BUT IT'S ONLY ONE SIDE. 
          THEY'RE BOTH SIDES. 
          YEAH. 
          I JUST, ONE OF THEM JUST SEEMED MORE IMPOSING THAN THE OTHER. 
          THAT'S ALL I WAS, MAYBE IT WAS JUST A PICTURE. 
          THEY'RE ALL IPOS. 
          YES, I BELIEVE WE  LIKE SLIDE 27, IT SLIDE 27 SHOWS SOME PRETTY MAJOR POWER LINES. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. 
          THAT'S WHY IT WAS ONE. 
          YES, THAT IS ACROSS THE STREET, BUT THE ONES ON, ON PAGE NUMBER 25 SHOW THAT WOODEN POSTS WITH, UH, VERY TALL PROBABLY IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE CLOSE TO 50 FEET TALL OR 40, 50 FEET TALL WITH, UH, ALL TYPES OF UTILITIES ON. 
          OKAY, BACK ON. 
          I AM SO SORRY. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED, BUT IT, I'M HERE NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WELL, I I, I, THE POWER LINE QUESTION WAS ANSWERED. 
          UH, I GUESS THAT JUST LEAVES, UH, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW HOW TALL THE POWER LINES ON YOUR SIDE OF THE STREET ARE OUTTA CURIOSITY? UM, WE, I, I DON'T HAVE A FOR SURE HEIGHT. 
          I KNOW IT'S AT LEAST 25 FEET, PROBABLY CLOSER TO 40 OR 50. 
          UM, BUT I KNOW AT LEAST 25. 
          I MEAN, I, I I'M, WHAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT IS, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO MAINTAIN SEPARATION FROM POWER LINES AND THERE'S SOME, LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOME GUY WIRES COMING DOWN. 
          UM, IS, IS YOUR HEIGHT REQUEST IN ANY WAY ASSOCIATED WITH MEETING THE MEETING ANY SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM THOSE LINES OR, OR I'M JUST WONDERING IF THAT'S PART OF THE, THE UH, THE BURDEN THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE? THE EXTRA HEIGHT? YES. 
          YES, THAT IS PART OF IT. 
          WE DO STEP BACK SO MUCH FURTHER ON THE SITE, UH, TO GET OUT OF THE WAY OF THOSE POWER LINES. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FISHER. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT OR STAFF FISHER FOR APPLICANT? MS. FISHER, YOU HAVE A FLOOR, WHAT CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT, IS THERE A A STANDARD OR TYPICAL SIZE FOR A MCDONALD'S SIGN? I, I'M SO SORRY, SAY THAT AGAIN. 
          IS THERE A TYPICAL OR STANDARD SIZE FOR A MCDONALD'S SIGN? OUR, THE INFORMATION WAS, WOULD LEAD US TO LEAVE THE 60 FOOT WAS ON THE PLANS OR? YEAH, THE, THE STANDARD SIZE, UH, QUITE HONESTLY IS ABOUT A HUNDRED FEET TALL. 
          UM, SO THIS IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS, UM, GIVEN THE LOCATION AND, AND THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A HUNDRED FOOT, THAT SEEMS LIKE QUITE A BIG ASK, UM MM-HMM . 
          SO WE WERE ABLE TO, UH, RESPECTFULLY LAND ON ONLY THE 15 FOOT VARIANCE. 
          BUT YEAH, IT'S A STANDARD SIZE OF APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED FEET IN HEIGHT. 
          THEY'RE TALL SIGNS. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MENCHACA, MR. MENCHACA? UH, FIRST FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, IT'S ABOUT, IT'S APPROXIMATELY ABOUT 4.9 MILES FROM YOUR POINT TO 1604 AND 1300 FEET FROM 1604 TO THE, TO THE, UM, CITY LIMIT SIGN OR COULDN'T SEE ANYTHING ELSE SIGN HIGHER THAN THE, THAN THE WIRES. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ALL SAFETY AVERAGE AROUND 40 SOMETHING FEET. 
          SO FROM THE WALMART WHERE, OR THE TACO CABANA WHERE THE, UH, CEDAR LIMIT SIGN IS ALL THE WAY UP TO YOUR POINT, THERE'S NO OTHER SIGNS THAT ARE THAT HIGH THAT I MISS IT. 
          THERE ARE THE OTHER SIGNS ON THE SAME SIDE OF YOUR STREET THAT DO NOT HAVE OBSTRUCTION AND NO, UH, ISSUE WITH ELEVATIONS THAT ARE HIGHER THAN 40 FEET TO THE APPLICANT. 
          YEAH, I I THINK I'M SO SORRY. 
          WE'RE, WE'RE, UH, UNMUTING. 
          UM, I DO THINK THAT, UM, MOST OF THE OTHER SIGNS ARE LARGER. 
          UM, AND THERE'S, AND QUITE FRANKLY, SO MUCH MORE, UH, SO MANY MORE SIGNS PER LOCATION UM, FOR VARIOUS USES, UM, ALONG 1604 HEADED WEST. 
          UM, WHEREAS THIS WOULD BE A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN AIR. 
          UM, OBVIOUSLY VERY SMALL SQUARE FOOTAGE AS FAR AS SIGN FACE GOES, UM, JUST A LITTLE BIT HIGHER, BUT TO REDUCE THE OVERALL CLUTTER THERE, UM, AND, AND BE A CORNERSTONE OF THAT INTERSECTION. 
          WELL, I ASKED THAT QUESTION BECAUSE THAT'S A REALLY DEVELOPING AREA AND NO, NO DOUBT BUSINESS WILL COME IN, WILL BE COMING AROUND. 
          YOU WOULD LIKE THE ONES ACROSS THE STREET THAT HAS A REGULAR 40 FOOT SIGN OR LESS KIND OF THING, AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING. 
          [02:05:02]
THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I THINK MR. WAS IT MR. MANN, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I THINK MR. MANCHACA ADDRESSED MY QUESTION 'CAUSE I, OR ARE I, YOU SEE LOTS OF BLUE SKY THERE EVERYWHERE I LOOK AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AND THEN THIS SIGN, YOU KNOW, IS A REQUEST. 
          I GUESS MAYBE A, A DIRECT QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT HERE. 
          UM, WHAT IS THE EXACT DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATION FROM PETRANKO TO THE POSITION WHERE THE SIGNS COULD BE POSTED? I, I, I BELIEVE IT IS OVER 10 FEET. 
          I DON'T HAVE A, AN EXACT NUMBER, BUT I DO BELIEVE IT'S OVER 10 FEET. 
          I BELIEVE THAT MR. DURRAN ASKED, ASKED THAT THE QUESTION AS WELL. 
          UM, SO IN OTHER WORDS, SHE, SHE, UH, EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS HIGHER THAN THE POWER LINES, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT'S BASICALLY JUST HIGHER THAN THE POWER LINES. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS FOR THE PUBLIC AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION. 
          MR. ROSEANNA, JUST THANK YOU FOR MAKING . 
          YES, SIR. 
          REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO EIGHT DASH 20 DASH THREE THREE, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A 15 FOOT SIGN VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN HEIGHT MAXIMUM OF 40 FEET, TO ALLOW FOR A 50 FOOT TALL SIGN SITUATED AT GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF THE PETRANKO ROAD AT STEVENS PARKWAY INTERSECTION, APPLICANT BEING KILLING, UH, GRIFFIN AND FERRIMAN P L L C. 
          BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. 
          SPECIFICALLY, SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY BECAUSE STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ARTICLE PROHIBITS ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGNS OF THE SITE. 
          CONSIDERING THE UNIQUE FACTORS, UH, FEATURES OF THE SITE SUCH AS DIMENSIONS, LANDSCAPING OF TOPOGRAPHY, DUE TO THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF THE ELEVATED THOROUGH AFFAIRS THAT UNDERDEVELOPED, UNDERDEVELOPED COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, THE PROPOSED 50 FOOT TALL SIGN IS WARRANTED AND WILL CONFORM TO EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UH, TWO, DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE WOULD PROBABLY, UH, CAUSE CESSATION OF LEGITIMATE, LONGSTANDING ACTIVE COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. 
          THREE, AFTER SEEKING ONE OR MORE OF THE FINDINGS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPHS ONE AND TWO, THE BOARD FINDS THAT A GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, NOT ENJOYED BY OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED OR POTENTIALLY SIMILARLY SITUATED. 
          THE REQUEST WILL NOT DISTRACT, UH, DISTRACT THE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, AND THE SIGN WILL NOT BLOCK ANY EXISTING BUSINESSES SIMILAR HEIGHT SIGNS WITHIN THE AREA. 
          B GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE A, WILL NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. 
          UH, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE, HAVE AN INVERSE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS SURROUNDING PROPERTY OF SIMILAR SIGNAGE. 
          ADDITIONALLY, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS INTENDED TO CREATE EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION FOR MOTORIST TRAVELERS. 
          UH, C GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE. 
          REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NOT CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER. 
          THE REQUEST OF SIGN HIDE PROVIDES REASONABLE LIMIT LIMITS ON SIGNAGE TO HELP, UH, PRESERVE ECONOMIC CORNERSTONES. 
          FURTHER, IT WILL NOT CAUSE TRAFFIC HAZARDS BY CONFUSING OR DISTRACTING A DRIVER'S AND OF MOTION. 
          SECOND. 
          SECOND. 
          OKAY, I'M GONNA GIVE THE SECOND TO MR. OZUNA. 
          I BELIEVE, I MEAN, I BELIEVE HE SAID IT NOT. 
          OKAY, SO LET'S OPEN THE DISCUSSION. 
          MR. UNA. 
          YEAH. 
          SO I AM SUPPORTING THE MOTION. 
          UM, A THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION FOR ANY OF THE SURROUNDING, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS. 
          AND B UH, WE HAVE CITY STAFF APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDATION. 
          UM, THE, UH, WHILE THE HEIGHT IS, IT'S A VARIANCE, UH, WOULD NOTE THAT THE, UH, SURFACE AREA OF THE SIGN IS GOING TO BE, UH, LIMITED FROM WHAT THEY COULD OTHERWISE, UM, UH, UH, DEVELOP OR BUILD ON THE SIGNAGE. 
          SO, UH, FOR THAT REASON AND THE TOPOGRAPHY, UH, UH, VARIANCES BETWEEN THE GROUND LEVEL AND THE, AND THE ROADWAY, I'M SUPPORTING PROMOTION. 
          MR. ENA, THIS ZEKE, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, YOU'RE AT 50, THE REQUEST IS FOR 55. 
          55, CORRECT. 
          SO AT A 15 FOOT MAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, ANY OTHER INPUT? NOT IN THE MEANS OF CASE. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL. 
          VOTE. 
          HEY, WHAT ABOUT ME, ? I'M SORRY. 
          I WANTED TO, I WANTED TO STATE TO THE RECORD, I WAS IN SUPPORT. 
          YOU GOTTA, AND MY REASON, MY REASON WHY WAS BECAUSE OF THE, UH, THE, THE WATER EASEMENT THAT RUNS AROUND THE CORNER AND ALONG THE FRONTAGE DOES PUSH THE SIGN IN A CERTAIN LOCATION. 
          AND BECAUSE THE SITE DROPS, UH, PROBABLY ALMOST SIX FEET FROM THE FRONTAGE OF THE ROAD, IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE FOR IT TO BE MUCH HIGHER. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT WAS JUST, I MEAN, I AGREE WITH, WITH COMMISSIONER UNA. 
          I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT. 
          I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS, 
          [02:10:01]
THAT'S WHAT DID IT FOR ME. 
          SO MANNA, MR. MANNA, YOU MAY NOT HAVE THE FLOOR. 
          I DO NOT CONCUR WITH EITHER OF MY COLLEAGUES. 
          I APOLOGIZE. 
          UM, SO, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DEVELOPED A SIGN ORDINANCE AND THERE WAS LOTS OF DISCUSSION THAT GOT US TO THE 40 FOOT, AND IT WASN'T ARBITRARILY MADE, AND IT TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE TALKED ABOUT BY THIS APPLICANT. 
          UM, I THINK THERE'S A MISCONCEPTION THAT HIGHER SIGNAGE DRIVE BUSINESS, AND I THINK BUSINESS DRIVE BUSINESS, AND I VISIT MCDONALD'S A LOT, AND IT ISN'T THE SIGN THAT GETS ME THERE, IT'S THE QUALITY FOOD. 
          UM, SO I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, THE PITCH DIFFERENCE ON THE ROADWAY WASN'T SIGNIFICANT. 
          YOU KNOW, IN PRIOR DIALOGUES WE TALKED ABOUT OVERPASSES AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT DROVE WHY IT WAS THAT WE WERE TRYING TO GET A HIGHER SIGN. 
          SO BASICALLY THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE ELEVATION, UM, OF PASSERBYS. 
          AND SO THEY, THEY WANTED TO TRY TO GET TO THEM SOONER. 
          AND WHILE I DISAGREE IN THOSE CASES, I, I FEEL EVEN STRONGER IN THIS CASE. 
          UM, ALSO, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE PICTURE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING BUT BLUE SKY THERE. 
          AND SO THIS IS THE FIRST BUSINESS GOING IN THERE, AND WE'RE PUTTING UP A LARGER SIGN THAN WHAT'S PERMITTED. 
          AND BASICALLY JUST OPENING THE DOOR FOR EVERY OTHER BUSINESS COME IN TO SAY, DO THE SAME. 
          AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT, I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT THIS AT ALL. 
          THANK YOU, MANCHACA. 
          ALL RIGHT, MR. MANCHACA. 
          I CONCUR EXACTLY WITH MR. MANNA. 
          THE SAME REASONS. 
          AND, UH, THE ELEVATION DOESN'T JUSTIFY, OR THE WATER SETBACK, WHATEVER KIND OF THING. 
          BESIDES IT'S A BRAND NAME. 
          EVERYBODY THAT PASSES THEY LOOK FOR HIM. 
          YOU'LL BE ABLE TO FIND IT EASY. 
          SO THE SIGN HEIGHT WON'T ADD ANY MORE TO IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY OTHER INPUT? OKAY. 
          IS THAT BEING THE CASE? I'M GOING AHEAD AND, AND ASK HIM FOR A ROLL CALL. 
          UH, ROLL CALL. 
          VOTE. 
          MS. CRUZ. 
          YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. MENCHACA. 
          I DO NOT CONCUR. 
          MR. KE CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. MAN FACT. 
          MR. MANOCK, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          THANK YOU, MS. BREGMAN. 
          I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          MS. VINEO. 
          YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          MR. DOMER. 
          I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. FISHER. 
          YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          MR. UNA. 
          YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          MR. ORIAN. 
          YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CHAIR MARTINEZ. 
          I I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          UH, THE MOTION PASSES. 
          UH, NINE TO TWO. 
          NINE TO TWO. 
          UM, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT. 
          UM, JUST A FINAL NOTICE. 
          I THINK THAT PROBABLY ONE OF THE REASONS THEY'RE ASKING FOR A HIGHER SIGN IS BECAUSE THEY WANT CUSTOMERS TO DRIVE FURTHER. 
          IF THAT'S MY OPINION, GO THIS CASE. 
          UH, MR. MARTINEZ, CAN WE TAKE A FEW MINUTE BREAK? WELL, I WILL. 
          I AM GOING TO GIVE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK. 
          I SHOW THE TIMELINE NOW AT, UH, AT THREE 18. 
          LET'S GET ME BACK BY, UH, EXCUSE ME. 
          YEAH. 
          3, 3 25 PLEASE. 
          BACK BY 3 25. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'M GONNA TAKE A SHORT BREAK. 
          PLEASE MUTE OR STOP YOUR VIDEO TO GO ALL. 
          I RETURN TO THE, UM, SCHEDULED SESSION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. 
          [3. 21-1040 BOA-20-10300131]
UH, WE'RE CONTINUING. 
          SO CASE NUMBER ONE. 
          THREE ONE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          CASE 1 3 1. 
          GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF I H N EAST AND NORTH FOSTER ROAD INTERSECTION. 
          IT'S OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS. 
          THE APPLICANT IS EMILY WEISLER. 
          REQUEST FOR A 20 FOOT SIGN VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN HEIGHT, MAXIMUM OF 40 FEET TO ALLOW 60 FOOT TALL SINGLE TENANT SIGN. 
          AGAIN, IT IS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          SUBJECT PROPERTY IS AN UNDEVELOPED, UH, 1.3 ACRE LOT LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE NORTH FOSTER ROAD AS CLASSIFIED AS A SECONDARY ARTERIAL TYPE A WITH 86 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY. 
          SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET FROM CLOSEST POINT AT REAR LOT TO IH 10 EXPRESSWAY AND JUST OVER 700 FEET FROM THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. 
          THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO ERECT A 60 FOOT SINGLE TENANT SIGN FOR THE PROPOSED MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT FOR CHAPTER 28. 
          SECTION 28 45. 
          40 FOOT IS A MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED FOR A SINGLE TENANT SIGN LOCATED ON STREET CLASSIFIED AS ARTERIAL TYPE A. 
          THE CODE PROVIDES AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION TILL OUT FOR AN ADDITIONAL 10 FEET FOR TO, UH, ONLY EXPRESSWAY SIGNAGE, WHICH STARTS AT 50. 
          THE SOUTHERN SIDE, UH, NEIGHBOR QUICKTRIP IS PERMITTED UP TO 50 FEET WITH 
          [02:15:01]
GRADE BONUS OF 60 FEET DUE TO EXPRESSWAY FRONTAGE. 
          QUICKTRIP IS SPECIFICALLY PLATTED WITH ACCESS AND FRONTAGE TO THE FREEWAY. 
          THIS IS VERY TOPOGRAPHY EAST, UH, ALONG FOSTER ROAD AND THE FRONTAGE ROAD TO ACCESS FROM I 10 EAST, CREATING VISUAL, UH, HINDRANCES. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          COPY OF THE SITE PLAN, THE SIGN ITSELF. 
          SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE QUIKTRIP NEXT DOOR, DOWN FOSTER ROAD, AND SURROUNDING AREAS. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF A 10 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW ASSIGNED TO BE 50 FEET IN HEIGHT. 
          AND V O A 21 0 3 0 0 1 3 1. 
          BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND FACTS, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL, WILL NOT CAUSE VISUAL CLUTTER. 
          AND DUE TO THE SUB SUBJECT'S PROPERTY, LOCATION AND ORIENTATION BEHIND A BUDDY, NEIGHBOR'S, UH, NEIGHBOR, HAVING A TALLER SIGN IS WARRANTED. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          FIVE. 
          NOTICE WERE SENT OUT AND NONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR, OPPOSITION, AND THERE'S NO NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          THE APPLICANT IS, WE DO HAVE JAMES GRIFFIN ON THE LINE. 
          UH, MR. GRIFFIN, WHEN YOU'RE READY, LET US KNOW AND WE'LL START YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          OKAY. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON, THIS IS JAMES GRIFFIN WITH, UH, KILLING GRIFFIN AND FERMAN, UH, 100 NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10, UH, SUITE SIX 50. 
          UM, THIS, UH, UM, SOMEWHAT OF A, A REPEAT FROM WHAT YOU JUST HEARD, UH, IN A SENSE THAT THE, THE FACT PATTERNS ARE VERY SIMILAR. 
          UM, AND IF YOU HAVE THE PRESENTATION OF, UH, ZEKE, YOU, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND START, MAYBE, MAYBE START ON, UH, SLIDE NUMBER TWO, IF YOU DON'T MIND. 
          WE'RE THERE. 
          ALRIGHT, GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO HERE'S A, A, A ZOOMED IN, UH, SHOT OF THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, UH, THAN THE ONE YOU JUST HEARD, UH, FOR SEVERAL REASONS, AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IT HERE. 
          ONE BEING A FAST-GROWING AREA. 
          UH, NOW THIS IS, UH, OBVIOUSLY THE OTHER END OF TOWN. 
          THIS IS, UH, OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS, UH, ON THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN, UH, AT I 10 AND FOSTER. 
          UH, YOU SEE OUR PROPERTY, UH, OUTLINED AND, UH, AND SHADED IN GRAY. 
          YOU CAN SEE A CONSTRUCTION OF A LARGE INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE, UH, ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, UH, THAT, THAT BUILDING IS, UH, NOW, YOU KNOW, COMPLETELY, UH, BUILT AND, AND FINISHED OUT, UH, AS WELL AS, UM, UH, A QT UH, QUICK TRIP CONVENIENCE STORE, UH, JUST TO THE SOUTH OF US. 
          UH, IT'S ALSO A RECENTLY COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION, AND ZEKE REFERENCED THAT, UH, IN HIS, HIS, UH, PRESENTATION AS WELL. 
          UM, BUT, BUT GENERALLY, UH, KIND OF WHAT YOU HEARD JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO FROM, FROM EMILY, UH, KIND OF THE OVERALL, UH, THEME HERE IS AN INTENT TO MINIMIZE CLUTTER, MINIMIZE, UH, SIGNAGE THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE ALLOWED AS FAR AS THE NUMBER OF SIGNS, THE, THE SIZE OF SIGNS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE. 
          AND, AND THESE JUST BIG BLOCK SIGNS. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO MINIMIZE THAT TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. 
          BUT IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT, UH, ASKING TO GO UP A LITTLE HIGHER JUST TO, UH, BE, UH, BE VISIBLE, UH, TO KIND OF GET OUT, GET OUR HEADS OUT ABOVE, UH, THESE OTHER, UH, LARGE, UH, BLOCK SIGNS. 
          UM, AND, AND REALLY TO AVOID HAVING TO, UH, INSTALL, UH, UH, SEVERAL SIGNS WHEN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HOPING WITH JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HEIGHT, UH, ONE CAN DO THE TRICK. 
          UM, YOU ALSO HAVE SOME, SOME ISSUES, WHICH I'LL, I'LL GET TO IN JUST A SECOND REGARDING TOPOGRAPHY AND, AND SPEED OF TRAVEL AND, AND, AND LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF, UM, AS WELL AS SOME SURROUNDING USES, NOT JUST THOSE, UH, OTHER COMMERCIAL USES I JUST MENTIONED AND, AND A LARGE SIGNS THAT COME WITH THEM. 
          UH, BUT YOU CAN KIND OF SEE ON THIS, UH, FIRST PICTURE HERE. 
          THERE'S A, UH, CELL TOWER, UM, AT THE NORTHERN END OF THE PROPERTY. 
          UH, AND AGAIN, SOME, UH, SOME TOPO ISSUES THAT, UH, I'LL SHOW YOU IN JUST A SECOND. 
          SO, UH, IF YOU COULD MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE, UH, THAT JUST IS A ZOOMED OUT VERSION OF, OF WHAT I JUST TALKED ABOUT. 
          AND AGAIN, UM, DEVELOPMENT OCCURRING SO RAPIDLY HERE. 
          THE, THE GOOGLE IMAGES ARE A LITTLE, LITTLE OUTDATED. 
          UM, YOU DO HAVE THE, THE QUICK TRIP TO OUR SOUTH, AND THEN A JACK IN THE BOX, UH, THEN A VALERO, UH, CIRCLE K, UH, RIGHT THERE AT THE HARD CORNER. 
          AND THEN YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION THAT IS, UH, PRETTY MUCH COMPLETE AS WELL. 
          UM, MOVING ON TO SLIDE NUMBER 
          [02:20:01]
FOUR, UH, WE ARE ASKING FOR A, A 20 FOOT, UH, VARIANCE FROM THE CODE SECTION TO ALLOW FOR A 60 FOOT SINGLE TENANT SIGN, UH, ALONG FOSTER ROAD. 
          UH, JUST PROPOSING ONE SIGN, UH, WE ARE ALLOWED A 40 FOOT SINGLE TENANT, UH, SIGN, UH, BY, RIGHT. 
          UH, SO WE ARE ASKING FOR THAT 20 FOOT VARIANCE. 
          THE, UM, UH, SEVERAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THAT, UH, VARIANCE REQUEST AND THAT PROPOSED HEIGHT. 
          UH, ONE OF 'EM WAS, UH, WE, WE MET WITH, UM, UH, SIGN, UH, COAST ASSIGNED STAFF, UH, SEVERAL MONTHS AGO TO KIND OF TALK THROUGH, UH, THESE, UH, THESE OPTIONS AND, AND, UM, WHAT WE WERE FACED AS FAR AS OUR HARDSHIPS AND OUR, OUR LIMITATIONS. 
          AND, AND, UH, 60 WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS, WAS MENTIONED AS, AS BEING SUPPORTED, UH, AT THAT TIME. 
          AND I, I, I THINK THERE WAS CHANGE AT THE LAST MINUTE. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU SOME CONTEXT THERE, UH, ABOUT, UM, WHY WE PICKED THAT NUMBER AND, AND, YOU KNOW, WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, UH, RECEIVED AS MUCH SUPPORT AS POSSIBLE. 
          UH, WHICH NOW THERE'S A LITTLE LITTLE DIFFERENCE IN, UM, UH, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED BY STAFF AND, AND WHAT WE'RE, UH, ASKING, UH, WHICH WE CAN CERTAINLY COME BACK TO THAT HERE, HERE IN A FEW MINUTES. 
          UM, UH, YOU SEE A FEW OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT, I MENTIONED THOSE BRIEFLY. 
          YOU HAVE SOME, UH, SIGNIFICANT GRADE DIFFERENCES AS YOU'RE COMING, UH, BOTH ALONG, UH, IH 10. 
          AND THEN ONCE YOU GET TO FOSTER ROAD ITSELF, UH, OBVIOUSLY, UH, I 10 IS A, UH, IS AN EXPRESSWAY AND, AND YOU HAVE, UH, VEHICLES GOING, UH, PRETTY FAST. 
          AND, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, NEEDING TO IDENTIFY THESE BUSINESSES IN TIME TO BE ABLE TO, TO EXIT, UH, I 10 IS REALLY ALMOST LEVEL WITH THE PROPERTY, UH, AS YOU APPROACH FOSTER. 
          AND THEN IT, UH, GETS LOWER AND YOU'RE REALLY SUNKEN DOWN ONCE YOU ARE GOING, UH, UNDER THE FOSTER ROAD OVERPASS, UH, FOSTER ROAD ITSELF, WHICH WE'LL SEE IN JUST A SECOND, UM, UH, HAS SOME, UH, UNDULATION ONCE YOU GET, UH, OFF OF I 10. 
          AND, AND THE MCDONALD'S SITE IS REALLY AT THE KIND OF BOTTOM OF THIS HILL. 
          UM, YOU ALSO HAVE A, A COUPLE OTHER UNIQUE FACTORS. 
          UH, ONE, AND, AND ZEKE MENTIONED THIS IN HIS PRESENTATION. 
          UM, IF WE WERE WITHIN 500 FEET OF AN EXPRESSWAY, UH, YOU, UH, KIND OF GET A BONUS OF BEING, UH, TREATED AS IF YOU, UH, ARE EXPRESSWAY FRONTAGE. 
          UM, AND THEN IF THERE IS THE GRADE CHANGE ALONG AN EXPRESSWAY, YOU GET, UH, ADDITIONAL, UH, HEIGHT INCREASES THERE AS WELL. 
          SO WE ARE JUST BEYOND THAT, UH, THAT 500 FEET FROM THE HIGHWAY, UH, ABOUT 600 FEET, UH, FROM THAT HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY, LINE. 
          SO IF WE WERE, UH, A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE HIGHWAY, WE'D BE ABLE TO GET THE BUNK, UH, I THINK NECESSARY, AND REALLY IN LINE WITH THE INTENT OF THE CODE, UH, TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGNAGE THERE. 
          OUR, UH, OUR, OUR ADJACENT PROPERTIES DO GET THAT, UH, BENEFIT WHETHER THEY ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, FRONT ON THE EXPRESSWAY, UH, OR NOT. 
          UH, MOVING ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          UM, SO THIS IS, THIS IS OUR PLAT. 
          UM, YOU CAN SEE, UH, MUCH LIKE THAT LAST ONE, UH, QUITE A BIT OF EASEMENTS ON THERE. 
          UH, REALLY, UH, UH, CONSTRAINING WHAT WE HAVE, UH, FOR, UH, DEVELOPABLE AREA AND, AND SIGNAGE AREAS. 
          UM, YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT OF THE, UH, TOPOGRAPHY THERE AS WELL. 
          UH, FLIPPING TO THE NEXT SLIDE, UH, WHICH SLIDE NUMBER SIX. 
          UH, THAT'S JUST AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE SIGN. 
          UH, THAT'S AT 60 FEET. 
          UH, AND, AND JUST LIKE EMILY TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY, UH, A REAL BENEFIT TO THE MC MCDONALD'S SIGN IS, UH, IT IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN. 
          UH, IT IS NOT ONE OF THOSE BIG, UH, BLOCK FACE SIGNS. 
          UM, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, UH, THE WAY IT'S MEASURED BY THE CODE, UH, GETS, GETS TO THAT 240 SQUARE FEET. 
          BUT, UH, BUT AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE HERE, UH, AND THEN FROM WHAT Y'ALL KNOW, YOU KNOW, SEEING, SEEING THE GOLDEN ARCHES, UH, UH, THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND, AND ELSEWHERE, UH, THAT IT IS A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN SIGN. 
          VERY, VERY MINIMAL AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, THE AMOUNT OF SIGNAGE THAT, UH, THAT IS UP IN THE AIR AT THE TOP OF THAT POLL. 
          UH, MOVING ON TO, UH, THE NEXT SLIDE, SLIDE NUMBER SEVEN. 
          UH, YOU CAN SEE WHERE OUR SIGN IS PROPOSED. 
          THE, UH, UH, REASON IT'S THERE, THE INTENT, UH, COUPLE, COUPLE ITEMS IS, UH, ONE, TO TRY TO GET IT, UH, YOU KNOW, AS CLOSE TO THE EXPRESSWAY AS POSSIBLE, UH, WHICH IS ALSO GETTING IT AS FAR AWAY FROM THE NORTH AS POSSIBLE ONCE YOU, UH, GO FURTHER DOWN, FOSTER AND, UM, UH, A LITTLE WAYS AWAY AROUND THE CORNER. 
          YOU DO GET TO 
          [02:25:01]
RESIDENTIAL. 
          IT'S NOT, UH, IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA, BUT THERE IS RESIDENTIAL, UM, A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD. 
          WANT TO PULL IT AWAY FROM THERE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. 
          UH, TRY TO ORIENT TOWARDS THE HIGHWAY, UH, BUT ALSO, AGAIN, KIND OF KEEPING WITH THAT THEME OF MINIMIZING CLUTTER. 
          A SIGN HERE THAT, UH, TRIES TO ATTRACT VEHICLE VEHICLES AND, AND OTHERS, UH, AND REALLY ADVERTISE TOWARDS BOTH THE HIGHWAY AND FOSTER ROAD, UH, UTILIZING ONE SIGN AS OPPOSED TO MULTIPLE SIGNS. 
          UM, THE, I, I GUESS ONE ITEM TO ADD TO THAT WE'RE ABOUT 50 FEET AWAY FROM THE FOSTER ROAD PROPERTY LINE, UH, WHERE THAT SIGN IS PROPOSED, UH, EVEN FURTHER TO THE PAVEMENT ITSELF. 
          UH, MOVING ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE, SLIDE NUMBER EIGHT. 
          UH, YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THOSE OTHER SIGNS, UH, THAT, THAT I MENTIONED. 
          UH, AND ONE OF THOSE PROBABLY RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE, UH, STICKS OUT RIGHT WHEN YOU, UH, SEE THIS, THIS PICTURE, UH, FROM WHAT WE CAN TELL THE, UM, THE, THE SIGN IS OLDER. 
          SO, UH, WE HAD A, A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE IDENTIFYING WHAT ALL THE HEIGHTS WERE OF THESE VARIOUS SIGNS IN THE CITY'S DATABASE. 
          BUT THAT SIGN, UH, FROM WHAT WE CAN TELL, UH, APPEARS TO BE AT LEAST, UH, 70 FEET TALL. 
          AND THAT'S THE, THE CIRCLE CABLE VALERO SIGN. 
          UM, SO YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN, THAN WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, UH, AT THIS INTERSECTION. 
          AND, AND THAT'S ONLY ONE OF, UH, THREE SIGNS THAT, THAT, UH, ONE BUSINESS HAS. 
          UH, YOU CAN SEE THE JACK IN THE BOX SIGN AS WELL. 
          UH, THE QT, UH, HAS A LARGE SIGN OVER ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN, UH, ALONG I 10, UH, AS WELL AS SEVERAL SIGNS ON FOSTER ROAD ITSELF. 
          SO, UH, MOST OF THESE BUSINESSES, PRETTY MUCH ALL OF OUR SURROUNDING, UH, PROPERTIES AND OUR SURROUNDING BUSINESSES, UH, HAVE MULTIPLE SIGNS, UH, THAT ARE EITHER, UH, MAXED OUT UNDER CURRENT CODE OR EVEN, UH, SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER LIKE YOU SEE HERE. 
          UM, FLIPPING, UH, THROUGH SOME OF THESE NEXT FEW SLIDES, YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THOSE, THOSE SIGNS UP CLOSE. 
          UH, IF YOU'RE ON SLIDE NINE, UM, YOU SEE THAT, UH, SHOT WE JUST SHOWED ON THE LEFT, BUT ALSO, UH, UP CLOSE ON THE I 10, UH, FEEDER ROAD. 
          YOU SEE THAT JACK IN THE BOX SIGN, THE OTHER QT SIGN. 
          UM, GOING TO SLIDE 10. 
          UH, YOU SEE THE QT SIGNS AGAIN, KIND OF UP, UP CLOSE. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, QT, ALTHOUGH THEY FRONT ON FOSTER LIKE THE MCDONALD'S DOES, UH, THEY HAVE PROPERTY THAT DOES REACH AROUND TO, UH, THE IH 10 FRONTAGE. 
          AND SO THEY ARE ALLOWED YET ANOTHER SIGN, UH, REALLY FRONTING RIGHT ON I 10 AT, AT THE PRETTY, UH, LARGE SIZE AND HEIGHT, UM, WHICH REALLY PUTS THE MCDONALD'S AT, AT, AT QUITE A DISADVANTAGE GIVEN THE, UH, OTHER ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES, UH, THAT THESE OTHER PROPERTIES AND THESE OTHER SIGNS HAVE. 
          UH, SLIDE 11, UH, A FEW MORE SHOTS OF THESE SURROUNDING SIGNAGE. 
          UH, GOING TO SLIDE 12. 
          SO THIS IS BASICALLY STANDING AT THE SOUTHERN EDGE OF OUR MCDONALD'S PROPERTY, UH, LOOKING TOWARDS I 10. 
          AND YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THAT TOPOGRAPHY THAT I MENTIONED. 
          UH, ONCE YOU'RE COMING FROM I 10 ON FOSTER, UH, YOU'RE KIND OF UP HIGH, AND THEN YOU START TO DIP DOWN LOW AS YOU GET TO OUR PROPERTY. 
          SO THERE ARE SOME, SOME GREAT CHANGES THERE. 
          UH, AND YOU CAN SEE THE, THE OTHER SIGNS AND THE POWER LINES AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE, WE KIND OF HAVE TO COMPETE AGAINST, UH, FOR, UH, PEOPLE TO SEE, SEE THE MCDONALD'S AND SEE THE SIGN. 
          UH, SLIDE 13. 
          UM, YOU CAN SEE, UH, THIS IS OUR PROPERTY OFF TO THE LEFT, AND YOU SEE THE QT OVER TO THE RIGHT. 
          UH, 14 IS, UM, UH, LOOKING BACK, UH, SOUTHBOUND FOSTER, AGAIN, KIND OF A, A SIMILAR, UH, SHOCK FROM WHAT WE SAW JUST A SECOND AGO WHERE YOU CAN SEE, UH, STANDING ON STREET LEVEL OR HOW YOU'D BE IN YOUR VEHICLE. 
          UH, YOU CAN SEE THOSE ELEVATION CHANGES, HOW IT'S, IT'S HIGHER UP THERE WHERE THE, THE QT AND THE OTHER CONVENIENCE STORE ARE, UH, LOWER WHERE WE ARE. 
          IN FACT, YOU REALLY CAN'T EVEN SEE, UH, I 10 FROM THIS ANGLE, FROM THIS SHOT, UH, BECAUSE OF THAT ELEVATION. 
          UH, 15, UH, THIS IS LOOKING THE OTHER WAY. 
          UM, THAT'S OUR PROPERTY JUST TO THE RIGHT. 
          AND YOU KIND OF SEE MORE GRADE CHANGES ALONG FOSTER, UH, YOU SEE THE CELL ANTENNA RIGHT THERE AS WELL. 
          UH, SLIDE 16, UH, JUST THAT SAME VIEW. 
          UH, LOOKING A LITTLE FURTHER BACK, YOU CAN SEE HOW THE GRADE, UH, STARTS TO DIP DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY AGAIN. 
          UH, HEADING, HEADING DOWN FOSTER ROAD, UM, THAT NEXT SLIDE, SLIDE 17. 
          IT'S JUST, UH, 
          [02:30:01]
ANOTHER SHOT LOOKING THAT SAME WAY. 
          UH, SLIDE 18. 
          UH, THIS IS A TABLE OF, UH, UH, WHAT THOSE OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE SIGNS WOULD BE. 
          UM, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE JUST OUTSIDE OF THAT, UH, EXPRESSWAY RANGE. 
          UH, SO WE ARE LIMITED TO 40 FEET. 
          UM, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE A SINGLE TENANT, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE JUST, UH, JUST A FEW FEET OVER, AND, UM, SIMILAR TO SOME OF THESE OTHER, UH, ADJACENT USES WHERE IT'S, IT'S REALLY ALL ONE BUSINESS, BUT IT'S, UH, ALLOWED MULTI-TENANT SIGNS BECAUSE YOU HAVE YOUR GAS STATION USE AND, AND A RESTAURANT USE, UH, OR SIMILAR IN THERE, UH, YOU CAN BE GIVEN MULTI-TENANT. 
          UM, ALSO BECAUSE OF OUR FRONTAGE, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE JUST ON FOSTER, UH, WE WOULD BE ALLOWED OTHERWISE, TWO SIGNS, UH, ONE, AGAIN, IF WE'RE JUST TALKING SINGLE TENANT AND, AND BEING JUST OUTSIDE OF THAT, UH, HIGHWAY, UH, ALLOTMENT. 
          UH, WE'RE ALLOWED A 40 FOOT AND A 30 FOOT. 
          AND AGAIN, WE ARE JUST ASKING FOR ONE SIGN TO TRY TO MINIMIZE, UH, DISTRACTION, MINIMIZE CLUTTER, MINIMIZE THE OTHER, OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE SIGNAGE, BUT JUST FOCUSING ON ONE, UH, OPEN SIGN THAT, UH, THAT DOES NEED TO BE JUST A TADD BIT HIGHER. 
          UM, MOVING ON TO, UH, REALLY TO THE LAST SLIDE TO TO 19. 
          UH, GOING BACK TO THAT, UH, UH, VISUAL OF THE INTERSECTION, LOOKING FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF I 10, UH, YOU CAN SEE, UH, THE CHALLENGES WE'RE UP AGAINST AS FAR AS TOPOGRAPHY, UH, HOW WE ARE REALLY BLOCKED, UH, BY SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS, UH, BUT ALSO HELD AT, UH, SOMEWHAT OF AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE, UH, BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF SIGNS, UH, THE SIZE OF THE SIGNS, UH, AND, AND EVERYTHING THAT GOES WITH IT THAT YOU SEE WITH OUR NEIGHBORS HERE, UM, PUTS US AT A, A REALLY A, LIKE I SAID, A, A, A UNFAIR SITUATION HERE. 
          UM, BUT ALSO THAT PIECE IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE, UH, THE WHOLE INTENT HERE, OR REALLY THE PRIMARY INTENT, I SHOULD SAY, UH, IS TO MINIMIZE SIGNAGE AS FAR AS NUMBER OF SIGNS, SIZE OF SIGNS, JUST THE VISUAL IMPACT OF SIGNS, UH, BY HAVING JUST ONE SIGN, UH, JUST THE MCDONALD'S, YOU KNOW, GOLDEN ARCHES, UH, WHICH IS, UH, VERY OPEN AIR, VERY LOW IMPACT, BUT IN EXCHANGE FOR ALL THAT, YOU KNOW, NEED TO BE ABLE TO GO UP, UH, JUST A LITTLE BIT HIGHER TO, UH, TO POKE OUR HEADS ABOVE THESE OTHER USES AND THESE OTHER SIGNS. 
          UM, SO, UM, THAT'S IT, THAT'S REALLY IT. 
          UH, HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. 
          UM, BUT, UH, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT, UH, OF A, UH, INCREASE IN SIGN HEIGHT, KIND OF IN EXCHANGE FOR REDUCED NUMBER OF SIGNS AND, AND THAT OPEN AIR, UH, CONCEPTS, UH, AS IS PROPOSED HERE. 
          SO, SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          UH, ZEKE, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, PUBLIC INPUT? NONE WHATSOEVER, SIR. 
          NONE WHATSOEVER. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL THEN LET'S, UH, OPEN UP THE BOARD TO SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. 
          IAN VICTORIAN. 
          YES. 
          SO WHEN I'M LOOKING ON GOOGLE MAPS, THIS IS TO THE APPLICANT. 
          UH, I HAVE, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS FOR YOU. 
          SO FIRST ONE IS, WHEN I'M LOOKING ON GOOGLE MAPS, AND I'M LOOKING AT I 10, THERE IS A, A, A BRIDGE STRUCTURE OF THE ROAD, KIND OF DIPS UNDER THE BRIDGE, AND IT SURE LOOKS LIKE THE, THE, THE ELEVATION CHANGES IS 20 FEET. 
          DO YOU, DID YOU FEEL LIKE THE ELEVATION CHANGE WHEN TRAVELING? UH, UM, ONE, YOU KNOW, EITHER WAY DOWN, I 10 EXCEEDS 20 FEET, UH, FROM THE HIGHWAY. 
          I, I, I THINK 20 FEET IS PROBABLY PRETTY, PRETTY ACCURATE. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          AND THE SECOND QUESTION, AND THIS IS THE BIG QUESTION, UH, ON YOUR SITE PLAN, WHERE YOU SHOW THE SIGN YOU ARE RIGHT NEXT TO, UH, WHAT'S CALLED OUT AS A 40 FOOT GAS EASEMENT. 
          AND I'M, I'M CURIOUS, AND, AND STAFF MAY EVEN BE ABLE TO CHIME IN ON THIS, BUT THAT, THAT, UH, IS A ENORMOUSLY WIDE GAS EASEMENT, AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THE APPLICATION OF U D C 35 5 16 L SETBACKS ADJACENT TO HIGH PRESSURE FUEL LINES, UH, WHICH STATES THAT IF YOU ARE, UH, IF YOU HAVE A HIGH PRESSURE OIL, GAS, OR GASOLINE LINE ON YOUR PROPERTY, YOU HAVE TO BE 25 FEET AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE LINE. 
          UH, WOULD THIS SIGN BE WITHIN 25 FEET OF SUCH, UH, AN ITEM? UH, I, I, I BELIEVE THE, UM, THE ENGINEERS AND MCDONALD'S HAVE RUN THOSE TRAPS AND, AND CONFIRMED THAT THAT DOESN'T APPLY. 
          BUT IT, IT DEFINITELY DOES 
          [02:35:01]
LIMIT US WHERE WE COULD GO ON THAT. 
          YEAH, I MEAN, I MEAN, NORMALLY THAT DURING PLATTING I'VE ENCOUNTERED THIS STACK WOOD WOULD SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, IS THAT ONE A HIGH PRESSURE, YOU KNOW, GAS LINE AND TWO, ARE YOU SHOWING THE SETBACK ON THE PLAT? SO IT, I DON'T HAVE THE PLATT AND THE ATTACHMENTS. 
          DOES THE PLATT REFLECT THE 25 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK, UH, ON IT THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH A LINE? UM, CHECK. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THAT TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT A VIOLATION OF THAT SECTION OF THE CODE AT ALL. 
          NO, I'M, I'M, I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. 
          I'M, I'M ALMOST POSITIVE IT HAS BEEN, UH, CONFIRMED. 
          'CAUSE THEY WERE, UM, UH, OKAY, REALLY STRUGGLING WITH THE RIGHT LOCATION. 
          I MEAN, ONE, THE, THE HIGH PRESSURE COMPONENT A ASIDE, AS YOU NOTED IT, 40 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT'S, PRETTY RARE THAT, THAT'S WHY I WAS THINKING IT WAS HIGH PRESSURE. 
          'CAUSE IT'S SO BIG AND THE WAY IT'S JUST MOVED, YOU KNOW, JUST GOING LONG DISTANCE. 
          I JUST ASSUMED IT WAS HIGH PRESSURE. 
          I JUST WONDER. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? TEAL, MR. TEAL, THE FLOOR, IS IT YOUR INTENTION TO, FOR THE SIGN TO BE VIEWABLE FROM I 10? YES, SIR. 
          AND, AND THAT'S ACCOMPLISHED AT THE 60, AT THE 60 FOOT AND NOT AT THE 40, CORRECT. 
          AT, AT, AT THE 40. 
          IT, UH, IT, IT REALLY GETS LOST BEHIND THOSE OTHER SIGNS. 
          UM, AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER, BECAUSE OF THE, THE SIZE OF THOSE EXISTING, UH, SIGNS ON OUR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. 
          UH, AND, AND BECAUSE OF THOSE ELEVATION AND TOPOGRAPHY ISSUES WE'VE, WE'VE MENTIONED. 
          SO, UM, YEAH, THE 40, IT, IT'S REALLY LOST ENTIRELY. 
          UH, I, I THINK ONCE YOU GET TO, UH, 55, 60 IS WHEN YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THAT SIGN AS YOU'RE TRAVELING DOWN EITHER SIDE OF I 10, UM, APPROACHING THE EXIT TO FOSTER ROAD. 
          THANK YOU MANNA. 
          MR. MANNA, YOU HAVE A FLOOR. 
          SO, UM, THERE'S LOGISTICS BUILDING, I GUESS IT'S LOCATED BEHIND THE PROPERTY. 
          DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE HEIGHT OF THAT BUILDING IS THERE? BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT TAKES UP A PREDOMINANT AMOUNT OF SPACE BEHIND YOUR PROPERTY. 
          UH, THE, THE NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDING? YES. 
          UM, I, I, I, I DON'T KNOW THE HEIGHT. 
          I, I APOLOGIZE. 
          UH, I THINK THOSE NEWER INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS ARE USUALLY, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE USUALLY, EVEN IF THEY'RE SINGLE STORY, 40, 50 FEET TALL. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND THEN THE HEIGHT OF THE CANOPY, UH, FOR THE QT. 
          SO WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS YOU, THERE'S LOTS OF SPACE AROUND YOU THAT APPEARS TO BE, WE'LL SAY, BOXED IN BY HEIGHTS, AND YOUR ONLY COMPETITION FOR SIGN SPACE APPEARS TO BE OTHER EXISTING SIGNS, YOU KNOW, AS I LOOK AROUND AND DRIVE GOVERNMENT, YOU KNOW, DRIVE AROUND VIA GOOGLE. 
          AND SO, SO IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT'S YOUR, YOUR COMPETITION IS SIGNAGE, UH, THE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE, AND I THINK YOU STATED THAT AS WELL. 
          UH, YES. 
          SO OUR, OUR, OUR COMPETITION IS, UH, OTHER SIGNAGE. 
          UM, YEAH, AGAIN, THE KIND OF SIZE OF IT, THE, THE LAYOUT, THE LOCATION, THE, THE NUMBER OF IT, WE ARE REALLY JUST, JUST BOXED IN. 
          UM, AND, AND WHAT CAN BE SEEN, UH, AND, AND HOW, UM, AND, AND WE, WE REALLY THINK THE BETTER OPTION, UM, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF WE WERE APPROACHING SOME OF THESE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS TO ENTER INTO A SIGNED MASTER PLAN, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, HERE I, I, I DON'T THINK THE SOLUTION IS MORE SIGNS, IT'S LESS SIGNS, BUT AT A, UM, DESIGN, YOU KNOW, HEIGHT, SIZE LAYOUT THAT, UH, THAT CAN BE SEEN, YES. 
          STILL THERE'LL BE MINIMAL IMPACT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. TE ANSWER? IT DID ANSWER MY QUESTION. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? OH, ZUNA, MR. UNA, YOU, FOR, SO TO, TO, TO THE APPLICANT, UH, SO THE CITY IS RECOMMENDING AN ALTERNATE, UM, RECOMMENDATION OF A 10 FOOT VARIANCE, UH, TO ALLOW THE SIGN TO BE 50 FEET IN HEIGHT. 
          WHAT KIND OF HARDSHIP WOULD THAT PRESENT TO YOU VERSUS YOUR REQUEST FOR THE 60 FOOT, UM, SIGNAGE AND THE 20 FOOT VARIANCE? 
          [02:40:01]
UH, YEAH, GREAT QUESTION. 
          UM, THE, THE 60 FEET, AND THAT WAS, UM, BASED ON A, AGAIN, KIND OF DISCUSSION WE HAD, UH, WITH, WITH CITY SIGN STAFF, UH, THAT, THAT NUMBER WAS, I THINK, SUPPORTED THEN BASED ON THE PROXIMITY TO THE EXPRESSWAY. 
          UH, AS FAR AS WHY WE WERE PROPOSING IT IS, UH, 60 FEET IS WHAT GETS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FULL SIGN UP ABOVE, UH, THOSE OTHER, UM, YOU KNOW, LARGE BULKY SIGNS THAT ARE BLOCKING US. 
          AND REALLY THAT'S WHAT, UH, MAKES IT VISIBLE AS YOU'RE COMING DOWN I 10, UH, FROM THE EAST OR THE WEST, UM, YOU KNOW, THE LOWER 50 55, UH, OBVIOUSLY MAKES IT MUCH AS MUCH BETTER THAN, THAN THE 40, UH, WHERE AGAIN, THE 40, UH, WE WOULDN'T BE VISIBLE AT ALL. 
          UH, BUT IT DOESN'T SHOW, UH, IT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR THAT FULL, UH, MCDONALD'S, YOU KNOW, LOGO, THE, THE GOLDEN ARCHES, UM, TO BE SEEN. 
          GOOD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO IT, IT'S REALLY A, YOU KNOW, UH, PARTIAL, PARTIAL VISIBILITY VERSUS SCHOOL VISIBILITY AS OPPOSED TO ZERO VISIBILITY WITH THE, UH, 40 FEET MACHACA. 
          MR. MANCHACA, YOU HAVE A FLOOR. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          THIS TO THE APPLICANT, UH, THAT SIGN THE LOCATION, IT APPEARS TO BE LIKE TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE QUIKTRIP, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IT APPEARS THAT, FROM WHAT I'M MEASURING, IT'S ABOUT A THOUSAND FEET VISIBILITY FROM THERE TO PRIOR TO THE EXIT, WHICH IS NEXT TO THAT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. 
          FROM, FROM THE EDGE OF THAT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING NEXT TO THE ACCESS ROAD ON 10 TO THE SIGN IS A THOUSAND FEET. 
          SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU NEED 60 FEET TO SEE IT, HOW FAR, HOW MUCH FURTHER, UH, COMING DOWN THE HIGHWAY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, UH, INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. 
          UM, BUT IT APPEARS YOU'RE ON THE SLOPE GOING UPWARDS THE ELEVATION. 
          SO I'M JUST A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED WHY YOU NEED 60 FEET. 
          YEAH. 
          IF YOU'RE COMING FROM, UM, EAST, COMING FROM KIND OF COMING, COMING FROM HOUSTON, UH, YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, PRETTY LARGE, UH, INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, AND ACTUALLY NOW THERE'S A, A, A SECOND ONE THERE, AND I, I BELIEVE MORE PLANNED. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          UH, YOU HAVE A VERY SHORT, UH, EXIT RAMP. 
          UM, SO YOU KNOW THAT VISIBILITY FROM THE EXPRESSWAY, UH, IS CRITICAL. 
          YOU DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF TIME, UH, TO KNOW IF YOU NEED TO EXIT OR NOT. 
          UM, SO YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, BEING BLOCKED AND, AND LIKE I SAID, THERE'S, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, ABOUT A THOUSAND FEET FROM THE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING TO, UH, OUR PROPERTY. 
          BUT WHEN YOU'RE GOING FURTHER BACK ACTUALLY ON, ON THE HIGHWAY, UH, BY THE TIME YOU GET AROUND THAT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, UH, THE EXIT RAMP IS THERE. 
          SO IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT BEFORE, YOU'RE GONNA MISS YOUR EXIT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UH, UM, HERE'S, HERE'S A QUESTION FOR YOU. 
          I, I THINK THAT NEEDS BE ANSWERED. 
          THAT, UH, COMMERCIAL BUILDING TO THE EAST OF YOUR PROPERTY IS A, LOOKS BE A TERMINAL STRUCTURE. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW TALL THAT, UH, COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE IS? THE, THE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING? YES. 
          FURTHER TO OUR EAST? UM, YEAH, THAT, THAT'S THE ONE I'M, I'M NOT SURE ON THE HEIGHT, BUT I, I, I DO KNOW THOSE, UH, AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, JUST COMPLETED IN THE PAST YEAR, IF NOT SOONER, THOSE NEWER INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS, THE, THEY'RE TYPICALLY, UH, 50, 50, 60 FEET TALL. 
          WELL, I CAN, I COULD SEE THEM BEING 30, THEY'RE 30 FEET PERHAPS, UH, I DON'T THINK 50 OR 60, BUT NEVERTHELESS, UM, I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE VIEW COMING DOWN I 10  BLOCKING ACCESS. 
          AND THAT MAY BE WHY, UH, UH, QT DECIDED TO HAVE A MUCH TALLER SIGN THAT, UH, UH, YOU SAY THERE'S A NEW BUILDING, IS THAT TO THE EAST OR WEST OF THAT, THE ONE THAT WE SHOW IN THIS IMAGE? SO THE, THE ONE YOU SEE IN THE, UH, IN THE IMAGE, I, I BELIEVE YOU'RE LOOKING AT, UH, IT'S BRAND NEW AND THERE'S A, UH, ANOTHER BUILDING JUST TO THE EAST OF IT. 
          YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THAT SHARED ACCESS DRIVE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE. 
          AND, AND IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO THE SAME AERIAL I AM, YOU CAN SEE SOME DIRT WORK THERE. 
          SO THERE'S, THERE'S TWO NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS, UM, THAT, UH, YOU CAN ALSO SEE ARE KIND OF BUILT UP AS CLOSE AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN BE TO 
          [02:45:01]
THE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY. 
          SO IT, IT, IT REALLY DOES MINIMIZE WHAT CAN BE SEEN BEYOND THEM. 
          LONG, LONG ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. 
          THERE'S, UH, NOW THERE'S TWO BUILDINGS, UH, THERE, UH, VERY LARGE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS, UM, LARGE IN SIZE AND IN HEIGHT, UH, WITH A FEW MORE PLANNED FURTHER TO THE EAST AS I UNDERSTAND IT. 
          AND THEN REALLY THE, THE SECOND YOU PASS THOSE BUILDINGS, THE SECOND YOU KIND OF GAIN VISIBILITY, UM, TO OUR PROPERTY, TO FOSTER ROAD, UH, IS WHERE THAT, UH, EXIT RAMP IS. 
          AND IT'S A, YOU KNOW, SHORT, SHORT EXIT RAMP, SAY THE LEAST. 
          SO, UH, IF, IF YOU'RE NOT, IF YOU'RE NOT READY FOR IT, IF YOU'RE NOT ALREADY READY TO EXIT, YOU'RE AGAIN GONNA MISS IT OR, OR CREATE A DANGEROUS SITUATION TRYING TO, TRYING TO GET OVER TO GET YOUR, GET YOUR MEAL. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? BOARD FISHER, MS. FISHER, YOU HAVE A FLOOR? UH, YES. 
          I JUST HAD A, A QUICK QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT. 
          I, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SIGNS ALONG THE FREEWAY THAT, OR THE ONE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER, BUT THE SIGNS ON FOSTER ROAD, ARE THEY TYPICALLY THE 40 FEET MAXIMUM OR HIGHER THAN THAT? I MEAN, WOULD YOUR SIGN BE 20 FEET HIGHER THAN THE OTHER ONES? YEAH. 
          GREAT. 
          GREAT QUESTION. 
          SO THE, THE PROPERTIES NEXT TO US, UH, STARTING AT WITH THE CIRCLE K VALERO AT THE CORNER, UH, AND THEN GOING TO, UH, THE QT, UH, THEY HAVE HIGHWAY AND FOSTER ROAD FRONTAGE. 
          UM, SO, UH, PARTICULARLY THE ONE ON THE CORNER, UH, OBVIOUSLY, UM, ALTHOUGH IT HAS, YOU KNOW, A SIGN ON FOSTER, A SIGN ON THE IT 10 FRONTAGE AND THEN A SIGN KIND OF IN THE CORNER, UM, UH, OF THE INTERSECTION, YOU KNOW, THERE, I, I THINK TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE HIGHWAY FRONTAGE TO THE EXTENT, UH, POSSIBLE REALLY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT. 
          UM, A AS FAR AS THE QT SIGN, UM, THAT ONE I BELIEVE IS CLOSER TO THE 40 FEET. 
          HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S, UH, 40 FEET, UM, BECAUSE OF FOSTER ROAD OR BECAUSE, UH, THEY HAVE SEVERAL OTHER SIGNS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY'RE LIMITED, UM, AS A SECONDARY SIGN, BUT, UH, THEY STILL, YOU KNOW, HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF MULTIPLE SIGNAGE, UH, AND THEY HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF EITHER RUNNING DIRECTLY ON THE EXPRESSWAY, UH, OR BEING WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE EXPRESSWAY. 
          UM, SO, UM, AGAIN, LONG, LONG ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. 
          UM, THE SIGNAGE AS YOU GET FURTHER DOWN, FOSTER CERTAINLY IS, UH, LOWER THAN 60 OR 70 OR OR HIGHER, LIKE YOU SEE RIGHT ON I 10. 
          UH, BUT THEY ALL HAVE THE LUXURY OF HAVING, UH, MULTIPLE SIGNS. 
          UM, AND, AND, AND I SAY THE LUXURY AGAIN, OUR, OUR INTENT HERE IS TO TRY TO MINIMIZE, UH, THE NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CER CERTAINLY NOT OUT OF CHARACTER. 
          MAY, MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE JUST ANSWERED IT WITH A SIMPLE, SIMPLE QUESTION. 
          IT'LL, YOU KNOW, UH, FITS IN, UM, WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WITH THAT SURROUNDING CHARACTER OF, OF SIGNAGE AND, AND OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT STAFF? ALRIGHT, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS MEETING TO THE PUBLIC AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION. 
          ORIAN. 
          OKAY, MR. ORIAN, YOU MAY MAKE THE MOTION. 
          SURE. 
          REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 20 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 1, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BRANDED REQUEST FOR, FOR A 20 FOOT SIGN VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN HEIGHT MAXIMUM TO ALLOW FOR A 60 FOOT TALL SINGLE TENANT SIGN SITU SITUATED AT, UH, GENERALLY LOCATED GENERALLY NORTH OF IH 10 EAST AND NORTH FOSTER ROAD, APPLICANT BEING KILLIAN GRIFFIN AND FAIRMONT E L L C. 
          BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOWED 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, YOU FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY BECAUSE STRICT ENFORCEMENT, THAT THIS ARTICLE PROHIBITS ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGNS ON THE SITE. 
          CONSIDERING THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF A CITE SUCH AS ITS DIMENSIONS, LANDSCAPING, OR TOPOGRAPHY, OR TWO, A DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE WOULD PROBABLY CAUSE A CESSATION OF LEGITIMATE, LONGSTANDING ACTIVE COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. 
          THE GRANTING OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITIONAL 20 FEET IN HEIGHT IS WARRANTED AND WILL CONFORM TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE COMMERCIAL NODE. 
          THREE, AFTER SEEKING ONE OR MORE OF THE FINDINGS AT FORTH AND SUBPARAGRAPH 
          [02:50:01]
ONE AND TWO, THE BOARD FINDS THAT A GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS NOT PROVIDED THE APPLICANT WITH A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE NOT ENJOYED BY OTHERS. 
          SIMILARLY, UH, SITUATED OR POTENTIALLY SIMILARLY SITUATED. 
          THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE TALLER SIDE WOULD NEITHER DISTRACT THE CHARACTER OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, NOR POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. 
          B GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. 
          A 60 FOOT SIGN WILL HAVE NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, WHICH CONSISTS OF GAS STATIONS, FOOD SERVICES, AND BUSINESS. 
          FURTHER, DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE MCDONALD'S, UH, MINIMAL SIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE PROPOSED SIGN WILL NOT BE SYSTEM, NOT BE A SUBSTANTIALLY LARGE SIGN. 
          FIELD C GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE. 
          THE INCREASED HEIGHT 60 FEET WILL NOT DETRACT FROM FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. 
          FURTHER, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, IF GRANTED, WILL NOT IMPAIR THE DRIVER'S ABILITY TO SEE PEDESTRIANS, OBSTACLES OR OTHER VEHICLES, OR TO READ TRAFFIC SIGNS. 
          END OF MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION NOW. 
          UH, MR. ORY, DID YOU SAY 60 FEET TO THE VARIANCE? UH, YES, I DID. 
          UH, 60 FEET WITH A 20 FOOT VARIANCE. 
          YES, A 20 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A 60 FOOT TALL SINGLE 10 SIGN. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT. 
          OH, ZUNA. 
          OKAY. 
          MR. ZUNO, UH, MR. MR. ORIAN, COULD YOU START THE DISCUSSION ON IT? SURE. 
          UH, SO I'M GONNA BE IN A, UH, APPROVE. 
          UH, I'M, I'M GOING TO, UH, MOVE TO APPROVE THIS, UH, BEING, BEING SUPPORT BECAUSE, UH, WHEN I GO DOWN GOOGLE MAPS DOWN, UH, I 10, AND WHEN I GET CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION OF FOSTER, YOU KNOW, FOSTER'S, THE WAY IT INTERSECTS WITH 10 IS AT A, A REDUCED ANGLE. 
          IT'S NOT A 90 DEGREE ANGLE. 
          AND SO THE, THE SITE, IF I'M DRIVING DOWN AND I'M LOOKING TO, TO, UH, YOU KNOW, FREQUENT THIS BUSINESS, I, I, THERE ARE A FIELD OF LARGER SIDES, BUT WHAT'S KIND OF IN THE WAY, UH, SOME POWER LINES IN THAT LARGE, UM, CELL TOWER. 
          SO I THINK WITH THE, WITH THE APPROXIMATE 20 FOOT REDUCTION IN HEIGHT, AS I'M DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AND APPROACHING TO GO UNDERNEATH THAT, THAT BRIDGE STRUCTURE, I THINK A 60 FOOT SIGN WOULD, WOULD MAKE IT THE MOST VISIBLE. 
          AND SINCE THERE'S ONLY ONE, I, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT. 
          AND AS LONG AS, UH, THE LO THE LOCATION IS NOT GONNA BE, UH, AN ISSUE, RE RE REGARDING ANY POTENTIAL HIGH PRESSURE CAST LINES, I'M SURE STAFF WILL VERIFY. 
          UH, I HAVE NO PROBLEM BEING SUPPORT OF THIS. 
          AND, AND FINALLY THE SITE IS JUST INUNDATED WITH EASEMENTS. 
          UH, IT'S JUST, I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE A LOT OF OPTIONS, SO JUST HAVING ONE SIGN, I THINK IT'S OKAY. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          MR. OZUNA, DID YOU LIKE TO ADD YOUR INPUT? RIGHT, SO I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE, UH, A THERE'S NO OPPOSITION FROM ANY OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. 
          UH, THE SITE IS IN A COMMERCIAL, UM, UH, COMMERCIAL AREA, UH, WHERE IT'S NOT IMPEND IMPEDING LIKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ANY KIND OF, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, CLUTTER, VISUAL CLUTTER. 
          UH, SECOND, UH, THIRD, THE ELEVATION CHANGE WARRANTS THE, UH, THE HEIGHT VARIANCE AND THIRD, AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, UH, WITH THE FACE AREA OF THE MCDONALD'S SIGN IS, IS LESS THAN WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED. 
          SO THEY ARE KIND OF REDUCING THE SURFACE AREA, UH, IN EXCHANGE FOR, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE SIGN OF THE, OF THE MCDONALD'S. 
          SO FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, I AM, I AM, UH, RECOMMENDING THE, UH, THE VARIANCE REQ AS REQUESTED. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER HAVE A OPINION TO EXPRESSED MANNA? MR. MANOCK, YOU HAVE A FLOOR? UM, I WILL, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH EITHER OF MY COLLEAGUES HERE. 
          UM, AND SO ONE, YOU KNOW, THE SIGN ORDINANCE WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CONSIDERED THESE TYPES OF THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND SO IT WAS WRITTEN, YOU KNOW, SO THAT IT TOOK INTO ACCOUNT DISTANCES FROM HIGHWAYS, WHICH THIS EXCEEDS, AND SO THEREFORE THERE'S A SMALLER DISTANCE, YOU KNOW, SO BASICALLY WE'RE GIVEN IT, WE'RE GIVEN A CHANGE HERE, ESSENTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO IT AS IF IT WAS SITTING EXACTLY ON THE HIGHWAY AND HAD CHALLENGES. 
          AND, UM, YOU KNOW, IF I GO TO GOOGLE MAPS AND I SIT ON I 10 BEFORE THE EXIT, I'M ABLE TO LOOK OVER THE EXISTING LOGISTICS BUILDING AND SEE THE LOWER TIER OF THAT CELL TOWER, UM, SITTING THERE ON THAT PROPERTY. 
          SO TO ME THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE VISUAL IS, IS NOT BEING IMPACTED. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, BY THE HEIGHT THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY LIVE FOR, UM, LET'S SEE, ALSO, THERE ARE RESIDENTS THERE AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE WITHIN 200 FEET, SO THEY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN EVEN ASKED WHETHER OR NOT, UM, UH, THEY WERE GONNA BE IMPACTED AND SITTING ON THE STREET NEXT TO THE HOUSE IN THE CORNER OF THAT PROPERTY LOOKING OUT. 
          UM, YOU, I DO NOT SEE THE, UM, SIGNAGE, UH, SOME OF THE SIGNAGE THERE ALONG THE ROAD, BUT I CERTAINLY SEE THE TALL TOWER THERE. 
          AND SO THAT WOULD NOW BECOME PART OF MY VIEW. 
          AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, LOTS OF BLUE SKY THERE AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY PUTTING SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT BLUE SKY AND THEREFORE I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS. 
          [02:55:02]
ALL RIGHT. 
          DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE AN OPINION EXPRESSED? ALRIGHT, NONE BEING THE CASE. 
          I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE MS. CRUZ. 
          I DO NOT CONCUR. 
          MR. JECA. 
          I DO CONCUR. 
          MR. KE? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. MADA, WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          SIR, CAN YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME? KIND OF BROKE OUT. 
          I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          MS. BREMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          MS. . 
          YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          MR. DIMER. 
          MR. DIMER. 
          I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          MS. FISHER. 
          YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          MR. ORIAN? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          CHAIR MARTINEZ. 
          I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS. 
          UH, THE MOTION, UH, HAS UH, THREE VOTES AGAINST IT, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THEY ARE THE, UH, PREVAILING SIDE, UH, IF THEY WISH TO OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME. 
          UH, THE BOARD BE WILLING TO HEAR THIS. 
          THE CHAIR WOULD, UM, IS THERE, UM, AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION FROM THE PREVAILING SIDE, UH, CRUZ, MS. CRUZ, OR ARE YOU OFF, OR WERE YOU ON, UH, THE VOTE? NO? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE MOTION? I WOULD GO WITH THE 50 FEET OR 10 FEET. 
          UH, BUT I, I DON'T LIKE THE 20 FOOT, SO I WOULD SAY IF THEY, IF THEY WOULD AGREE TO 50 FEET, I WOULD AGREE TO THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE IN THIS REGARD IS THAT YOU ARE GONNA MAKE A MOTION ALTERING THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO A LIMIT OF 50 FEET WITH A VARIANCE OF 10 FEET FROM THE ORIGINAL 40 FOOT LIMITATION, UH, AS AN EXTENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION. 
          DO I HEAR, UH, UH, AND SO I'M GONNA CONSIDER THAT THE MOTION ITSELF, IS THERE A, UH, SECOND ON THAT PARTICULAR MOTION? MENCHACA, MR. MENCHACA? OKAY. 
          YOU'RE MAKING, UH, THE SECOND ON THE ALTERNATIVE WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 50 FEET. 
          CORRECT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, DO, LET'S, UH, SINCE WE'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM MS. CRUZ, MR. MENCHACA, WHAT, UH, WHAT, WHAT'S YOUR, UH, YOUR CHANGE? UH, UH, THE WAY I VIEW THIS FROM GOOGLE AND SOME OF THE OTHER SURROUNDING AREAS, IT'S, UH, IT SEEMS TO BE THAT THIS AREA MAY GET OUT OF CONTROL, AND IT PROBABLY IS WITH THE 60 FOOT SIGNS THAT ARE JUST, UH, WON'T SEEM LIKE AN EYESORE, BUT THEY'RE REALLY STICK OUT. 
          AND THIS IS A DEVELOPING AREA. 
          IT'S NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT THIS GROWING, UH, I 10 CORRIDOR WILL EVENTUALLY LEAD UP TO MORE 60 FOOT REQUESTS, WHICH WE'RE ALREADY SEEING FROM NOT ONLY MCDONALD'S FROM OUR OTHER ONES. 
          AND IT HAVE TO SOMEHOW, UH, I FEEL THAT MAINTAIN SOME OF THIS. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE AN OPINION THEY'D LIKE TO EXPRESS? OKAY, I'M GONNA MAKE A STATEMENT. 
          YOU KNOW, THIS IS REALLY WHAT THE CITY STAFF RECOMMENDED, UH, UH, AS ORIGINAL, UH, REPLACEMENT FOR THE ORIGINAL REQUEST. 
          UM, THEREFORE THIS MOTION, UH, DUPLICATES THE ORIGINAL MOTION WOULD BE LIMITATION BEING REDUCED FROM 20 FOOT VARIANCE TO A 10 FOOT VARIANCE WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO 50 FEET. 
          UM, THERE WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL. 
          VOTE. 
          COULD, COULD WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER FIRST? OKAY. 
          I, I BELIEVE, UH, ALRIGHT, LET, SO YOU WANNA TAKE A VOTE ON A MOTION TO RECONSIDER? YES. 
          IF THE, THE FIRST VOTE WAS, UH, ALREADY DISPOSED OF THEN, UH, MOTION TO RECONSIDER FOR THE, WELL, ACTUALLY, I DID NOT DISPOSE OF THE FIRST VOTE, BUT, UM, WE CAN TAKE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDLESS. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND, AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE'RE HAVING A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, WHICH MAKE ANOTHER MOTION LATER. 
          UH, SO THOSE, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD, TAKE A ROLL CALL, VOTE ON A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. 
          LEE, CAN YOU DO THAT FOR ME? YES, SIR. 
          UH, MS. CRUZ? YES. 
          MR. MENCHACA? YES. 
          MR. KEEL? YES. 
          MR. MENA? YES. 
          MS. RAGMAN? 
          [03:00:02]
YES. 
          MS. ? YES. 
          MR. DAHMER? YES. 
          MS. FISHER? YES. 
          MR. UNA? YES. 
          MR. ORIAN? YES. 
          AND CHAIR MARTINEZ? YES. 
          UH, THE VOTE HAS BEEN RECONSIDER. 
          A WRITTEN A MOTION HAS BEEN OFFERED BY MS. CRUZ AND SECOND, SECOND BY MR. MINKA. 
          UH, I DON'T REALLY SEE HOW THE VOTE'S GONNA CHANGE FROM THE RECONSIDERATION, BUT, UH, SINCE WE'RE DOCUMENTING THIS ACCORDING TO ROBERT'S RULES, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MAKE ANOTHER RULE CALL TO DOCUMENT THE FACT THAT THE MAJORITY ARE, ARE, UH, APPROVAL OR ACTUALLY UNANIMOUS DECISION. 
          RECONSIDER THIS CASE. 
          THIS CASE. 
          SO LET'S TAKE ANOTHER ROLL CALL VOTE. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THIS ROLL CALL VOTE IS FOR THE ALTERNATE MOTION OF 50 FOOT WITH A 10 FOOT VARIANCE, CORRECT. 
          MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. MENCHACA CONCUR. 
          MR. TEAL? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. MENNA, I DO NOT CONCUR. 
          MS. BRACKMAN? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. ? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. DELMER? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MS. FISHER? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. OONA? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. ORIAN? YES, I CONCUR. 
          CHAIR MARTINEZ. 
          I CONCUR. 
          UH, THE VOTE, UH, MR. MOTION DOES PASS OR 10 10 TO ONE. 
          UH, SO THE, UM, PERMIT OFFICE CAN GO AHEAD AND DEAL A LOWER RESTRICTION ON OF, OR ACTUALLY AN INCREASE IN THE VARIANCE FROM 40 TO 50 FEET. 
          UM, SO LET'S, LET'S CONTINUE ON TO OUR NEXT CASE. 
          [4. 21-1021 BOA-20-10300115]
ALRIGHT, NEXT CASE IS VO 21 0 3 0 0 1 1 15. 
          IT'S AT 1127 WEST ROSEWOOD AVENUE COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE, THE APPLICANT IS RYAN ANOVA TO REQUEST ONE FOR A FOUR FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE TWO FEET AWAY FROM THE, OR TWO INCHES TO BE AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY. 
          LINE TWO, A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PLASTIC AS A FENCING MATERIAL. 
          AND THREE, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A PORTION OF THE SIDE YARD FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL AND ZONING VARIANCES FROM THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT CARPORT DESIGNED REGULATIONS A IS RECESSED A MINIMUM OF FIVE FOOT BEHIND THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE. 
          FRONT FACADE B, VERTICAL SUPPORT OR STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS SHALL MATCH THE EXTERIOR OF MATERIALS OF THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE AND DESIGN SCALE PROPORTION PLACEMENT AND PROFILE. 
          C HAS A ROOF THAT MEETS THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE BELOW THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE'S EVES D A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM 12 FOOT DRIVEWAY WIDTH DESIGN REGULATIONS TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY TO WIDTH TO BE 16 FEET. 
          AND E A ONE FOOT THREE INCH VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CURB CUT MAXIMUM OF 15 FEET TO ALLOW A CURB CUT TO BE 16 FEET THREE INCHES. 
          ZONING IS R SIX N C D FIVE A H O D. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          SINGLE PANEL RESIDENTIAL DWELLING. 
          ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE FOLLOWING SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CARPORT, THEN SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A PORTION OF THE SIDE FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL. 
          VARIANCE FROM THE BEACON HILL FOR SEVERAL BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINES, INCLUDING THE PLASTIC FENCING MATERIAL, THE APPEARANCE OF THE CARPORT AND WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY AND CURB CUT THE CARPORT HAS A SECTION IN THE FRONT YARD THAT IS TWO INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. 
          THE DRIVEWAY WIDTH IS 16 FEET AND THE CURB CUT IS 16 FEET THREE INCHES WIDE. 
          COPY OF THE SITE PLAN. 
          THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH CARPORT AND DRIVEWAY CARPORT SETBACKS. 
          THIS IS THE SENSING MATERIAL WE'RE DISCUSSING, THOUGH IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S CORRUGATED. 
          IT IS PLASTIC 10 INSIDE EIGHT FEET. 
          THIS IS THE DRIVEWAY AND THE EXPANSIONS OF THE DRIVEWAY. 
          [03:05:03]
AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF THE REQUESTED FOUR FOOT, UH, 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MIN MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW THE CARPORT TO BE TWO INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE SETBACK PROPERTY LINE WITH THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF A THREE FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CARPORT TO BE TWO FEET AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND B O A 21 0 3 0 0 1 1 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CARPORT HAS A WIDTH OF 16 FEET AND THE ADJUSTED WIDTH OF THE CARPORT WILL BE 14 FIVE. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF B O A 1 0 3 1 1 5 OF THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A PORTION OF THE SIDE YARD FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FUNDS OF FACT, THE ADDITIONAL TWO FEET AND HEIGHT IS REQUESTED FOR A PORTION OF THE ISSUANCE SIDE YARD FENCE AND THE TWO ADDITIONAL FEET AND HEIGHT PROVIDE MORE PRIVACY AND SECURITY, UH, WHICH PROMOTES HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. 
          FENCING MATERIAL DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND CURB CUT STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF REQUESTED VARIANCES, UH, TO ALLOW PLASTIC AS A FENCING MATERIAL AND ZONING VARIANCES FROM THE BEACON HILL N C D CARDBOARD DESIGN REGULATIONS A IS RECESSED AND MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET BEHIND THE PROPERTY STRUCTURE FROM FACADE D. 
          VERTICAL SUPPORT OR STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS SHALL MATCH THE EXTERIOR MATERIALS OF THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE, INDESIGN, SCALE PROPORTION PLACEMENT, AND PROFILE. 
          C HAS A ROOF THAT MEETS THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE BELOW THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE EAVES D A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM 12 FOOT DRIVEWAY WITH DESIGN REGULATIONS TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY WIDTH TO BE 16 FEET AND E ONE FOOT THREE INCH VARIANCE. 
          THE CURB CUT MAXIMUM OF 15 FEET TO ALLOW A CURB CUT TO BE 16 FEET THREE INCHES, AND B O A 1 0 3 0 0 115 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CARPORT HAS DESIGN ASPECTS THAT ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN REGULATIONS OF THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          WE SENT OUT 33 NOTICES THREE WERE RECEIVED IN, IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. 
          WE DID RECEIVE A RESPONSE FROM THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. 
          IT IS A VOICEMAIL THAT WE WILL BE PLAYING TWO VOICEMAILS. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          AND WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT RYAN CASTANO ON THE LINE. 
          SIR, WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND THE ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          HI, MY NAME IS RYAN CASANOVA AND I LIVE AT 1127 WEST ROSEWOOD AVENUE. 
          UM, WHEN I FIRST, THE CARPORT'S, ACTUALLY A TWO-PART CARPORT. 
          I I FIRST MOVED HERE, UH, AROUND 10 YEARS AGO AND I HAD A CAMARO, SO I WANTED TO PARK IT UNDER, UNDER A CARPORT. 
          SO I HAD HIRED A CONTRACTOR, WHICH I THOUGHT THEY ALL PULL PERMITS. 
          I I, I'M NOW AWARE THAT THEY DO NOT. 
          SO THAT ONE, THE LONG ONE IN THE BACK WAS WHERE THE CAR WAS SITTING, AND THAT'S WHERE I, I BUILT THE FIRST ONE. 
          SO THEN THE SECOND CARPORT WAS BUILT THIS PAST YEAR. 
          AND, UM, I HAVE THEIR CONTRACT WITH STEEL BOY, UH, STEEL COWBOY BUILDINGS. 
          AND I DIDN'T REALLY READ THEIR CONTRACT. 
          I KIND OF SIGNED IT AND I SAID, EVERYTHING'S GONNA BE OKAY. 
          AND, UH, I, NOW THAT I READ IT AFTER THE FACT, ALL, ALL THIS ISSUES STARTED HAPPENING WAS, UH, IT SAID THAT THEY'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PERMITS, BUT IN THEIR CONTRACT THEY ALSO SAID THAT THEIR THEIR MANNER. 
          UM, ALL THE WORK SHALL BE COMPLETED IN A WORK, WORK-LIKE MANNER AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL BUILDING CODES AND OTHER ACCEPTABLE LAWS. 
          SO, UM, I THOUGHT, I GUESS IF I'M HAVE TO TAKE IT DOWN, I HOPE THAT THEY WILL HELP ME TAKE THAT DOWN SINCE, UH, IT WASN'T IN COMPLIANCE, I GUESS. 
          AND I WAS UNAWARE THAT I WAS, UH, SUPPOSED TO CONTACT THE BEACON HILL GROUP TO ASK FOR PERMISSION FIRST. 
          I THOUGHT THIS WAS ALL, UH, A CITY THING, BUT, UH, I KNOW NOW KNOW THAT, AND THEN I SEE THE, UH, THE DRIVEWAY. 
          I'M, I PUT A LOT OF ROCK DOWN TO WIDEN THE DRIVEWAY. 
          I DIDN'T KNOW, I HAD TO ASK PERMISSION ABOUT THE ROCK TOO. 
          MY CAR, UH, PREVIOUSLY WAS HIT TWO TIMES IN THE DRIVEWAY, UH, IN THE STREET BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE TO PARK BEHIND MY WIFE AND IF I PARKED BEHIND MY WIFE, THE CAR IS ON THE SIDEWALK. 
          SO, UH, THE, THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO PARK IN THE STREET. 
          AND IT WAS HIT THE PAST. 
          UH, WELL, I GUESS PROBABLY NOT, NOT THE CAR I HAVE NOW. 
          ACTUALLY, IT'S NOT ON THAT PICTURE, BUT, UH, PREVIOUS CAR WAS HIT TWO TIMES. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF ACTIVITY ACROSS THE STREET THAT HAVE A LOT OF PARTIES EVERY WEEKEND. 
          I CAN'T PROVE IT WAS THEM 'CAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE ANY CAMERAS OR ANYTHING, BUT THEY BACK 
          [03:10:01]
OUT AND THERE'S A LOT OF VEHICLES THAT BACK OUT OF THEIR AREA. 
          SO I TRIED NOT TO PARK IN THE STREET. 
          THAT'S THE REASON WHY I ENDED UP PUTTING ROCK THERE TO WIDEN. 
          AND, UH, THE CARPORT THERE WAS JUST, WE WANTED SHADE FOR OUR VEHICLES AND ALSO TO PREVENT IT FROM HELL DAMAGE. 
          'CAUSE WE GOT HELL DAMAGE IN THE, IN THE PAST AS WELL. 
          UH, THE FENCING MATERIAL, WE PUT THAT UP THERE BECAUSE THE, THE WELL HE HAS PASSED AWAY SINCE. 
          BUT HIS DAUGHTER'S, HIS DAUGHTER KIND OF MOVES IN OCCASIONALLY OFF AND ON. 
          AND, UH, WHEN SHE'S NOT THERE, VAGRANT'S KIND OF ESTABLISHED ROOM IN THAT HOUSE AS WELL. 
          BUT THE REASON WHY WE PUT THAT, THAT GUARD UP THERE WAS BECAUSE HE, UH, HE WAS A TWO TIME SEX OFFENDER OF A CHILD. 
          SO ALL HIS WINDOWS ARE IN VIEW INTO OUR BACKYARD. 
          SO SHE FELT REALLY UNSAFE WHEN SHE MOVED HERE. 
          I, I LIVED HERE BEFORE SHE LIVED HERE, AND WHEN SHE MOVED HERE, SHE, SHE KNEW ABOUT HIM. 
          SO THAT'S WHY WE KIND OF PUT THAT GUARD UP THERE. 
          UM, OTHER THAN THAT, I'M NOT TOO, I GUESS THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY RIGHT NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC INFLUENCE THAT, UH, YOU'RE GONNA PLAY FOR? YES, SIR, WE DO. 
          THERE'S, UH, TWO EMAILS TO BE READ INTO YOUR RECORD THAT THEY'RE IN, IN SUPPORT, AND TWO VOICEMAILS. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU WANNA PLAY THOSE IN EITHER ORDER. 
          DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL PLAY THE VOICEMAILS FOR YOU, SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          HELLO, THIS IS AMY PUENTE. 
          I LIVE AT 1 1 2 8 WEST ROSEWOOD AVENUE. 
          UH, MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 204-9737. 
          I'M CALLING IN REFERENCE, UM, TO CASE NUMBER ENDING IN 1 1 5 FOR ADDRESS 1 1 2 7 WEST ROSEWOOD. 
          UM, ALL OF THE ADJUSTMENTS I, UM, APPROVE OF I'M IN FAVOR. 
          HE, UM, WILL NOT HAVE ANY IMPEDIMENT TO THE AESTHETICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND, UH, SO WE ARE IN FAVOR OF STATE CHANGES HE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TO HIS PROPERTY. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          BYE. 
          SIMA COLVIN, 8 1 7 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE, 2 1 0 3 8 1 7 8 7 1 CASE ENDING IN 1 1 5. 
          DEAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT COMMISSIONERS, THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS AN OPPOSITION TO THE VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS. 
          IN 2004 AND 2005, THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD WORKED WITH THE CITY'S PLANNING STAFF TO BECOME A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND PRODUCED A SET OF DESIGN STANDARDS. 
          THESE DESIGN STANDARDS WERE ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL IN DECEMBER, 2005, ARE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ARE LEGALLY BINDING. 
          IN 2016 AND 2017, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WENT THROUGH A REVIEW PROCESS OF OUR N C D IN ORDER TO ADDRESS ISSUES DUE TO CHANGING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND TRENDS. 
          THIS EFFORT INVOLVED MULTIPLE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO PROVIDE INPUT. 
          THE LINK TO OUR N C D FIVE DOCUMENT IS AVAIL, IS AVAILABLE THROUGH THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION'S WEBSITE. 
          IT IS ALSO REGULARLY PUBLISHED IN OUR NEWSLETTER. 
          OUR NEWSLETTER IS HAND DELIVERED TO OUR 2200 HOUSEHOLD MONTHLY BY NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          VOLUNTEERS REQUEST FOR VARIANCES GENERALLY GO GO BEFORE THE ZED COMMITTEE AND OR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR CONSIDERATION AND A VOTE. 
          OUR GENERAL ASSEMBLY NEEDS ON JANUARY 11TH AT 7:00 PM SO THE CASE CANNOT GO BEFORE THEM IN TIME. 
          AS SUCH, IT IS OUR POLICY AS MANDATED BY OUR BYLAWS TO SUPPORT THE NCD FIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, HAVING NO MANDATE FROM OUR MEMBERSHIP TO DO OTHERWISE BASED ON EXPERIENCE, IT IS ALSO OUR OPINION THAT THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE M C D WOULD NOT HAVE THEIR SUPPORT. 
          THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WHERE THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR POST DEFACTOR FORGIVENESS AS OPPOSED TO PERMISSION. 
          HAN APPRECIATES AND SUPPORTS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF ALL THE N C D FIVE DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES AS TO THE U D C VARIANCE REQUEST. 
          BAHANA SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION HERE AS WELL. 
          THANK YOU, MA'AM. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          I, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THE VERY LAST STATEMENT. 
          THAT WAS THE LAST LINE I WAS READ BY THE PERSON. 
          IS IT POSSIBLE TO REREAD THAT OR, OR STILL CONFIRM WHAT SHE, WHAT WAS SAID? SHE STATED THAT SHE SUPPORTED THE STAFF DECIS UH, DECISION. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, I'M READ THE TWO LETTERS, THE EMAILS, UH, THIS NOTE IS SENT TO ADVISE THAT WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IMPROVEMENTS DONE TO CARPORT, DRIVEWAY, AND FENCE AT 1127 WEST ROSEWOOD. 
          UH, IF YOU NEED ANY OTHER, UH, INFORMATION, PLEASE CALL US. 
          THIS IS FROM ESTELLA FOSTER AT 1118 WEST ROSEWOOD. 
          THE NEXT ONE 
          [03:15:01]
I'M WRITING CONCERNING THE IMPROVEMENTS MADE, UH, TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED 1127 WEST ROSEWOOD. 
          THE PROPERTY OWNER, RYAN, HAS IMPROVED, UH, HIS PROPERTY AND I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH HIS DRIVE DRIVEWAY OR THE HIGHEST HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. 
          HIS PROPERTY IS WELL TAKEN CARE OF, AND HE IS, UH, HE HAS GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO IMPROVE HIS HIS HOME. 
          UH, HE INDICATED TO ME THAT HIS DRIVEWAY WAS, UH, WRITTEN UP FOR BEING TOO WIDE IN THIS CASE. 
          I DO NOT SEE IT BEING IN THE WAY OF ANY UTILITIES OR TAKEN AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY OVERALL. 
          LOOK, HIS FENCE IS, IS WRITTEN UP FOR BEING TOO TALL, UM, IN A PORTION OF THE ENTIRE FENCE. 
          HIS FENCE IS FOR PRIVACY AND SERVES WELL AS IT IS BUILT. 
          THE FENCE IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, AND I HONESTLY DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT EITHER. 
          TO BE HONEST, THIS PROPERTY IS WELL KEPT AND LOOKS GREAT. 
          NOW, IF WE WERE, UH, TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE PHOTOS ATTACHED, YOU WOULD SEE HOW BAD THE STREET IS. 
          THERE HAS BEEN A REQUEST, UH, TO FIX OUR STREET, OUR SIDEWALKS, WHICH YOU CAN SEE HAS BEEN IN HORRIBLE CONDITION AND NEED REPAIR. 
          THIS HAS BEEN THE CASE FOR 15 YEARS. 
          MY PARENTS WHO PASSED AWAY COULD NOT WALK THE SIDEWALKS, UH, SAFELY. 
          UH, RYAN HAS TAKEN PRIDE, UH, AT THIS PROPERTY AND HAS HAD ENHANCED HIS NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, MORE THAN I CAN SAY, UH, FOR THE CITY EFFORTS. 
          IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO EMAIL ME OR CALL ME. 
          RESPECTFULLY, MASTER SERGEANT, RETIRED JUAN RES, 1146 WEST ROSEWOOD. 
          THAT CONCLUDES THE COMMENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WE HAVE THAT, UH, PORTION COMPLETED HERE. 
          I'M GONNA OPEN THE BOARD UP FOR QUESTIONS OF THE ABSENCE AND CITY STAFF. 
          SO, OR DOES ANYONE WANNA ASK A QUESTION OF CITY STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? IAN, MS. IAN, YOU HAVE A FLOOR? YES. 
          UH, A LOT OF THE VARI THE, THE REQUESTS FOR VARIANCE IS, ARE UNDERSTANDABLE, BUT I I DON'T SEE TOO MANY, UH, REQUESTING TO USE PLASTIC AS A MATERIAL. 
          CAN STAFF TALK ABOUT, UH, IS PLASTIC, UH, AND SPECIFICALLY THE KIND OF PLASTIC THAT THEY'RE USING ANY ISSUES WITH, WITH FIRE OR MOTIVITY OR JUST PROVIDE SOME COMMENTARY ON THE PROS AND CONS OF THE TYPE OF PLASTIC THAT WAS USED. 
          SO THE PLASTIC ITSELF IN 35 5 14, IT, IT REFERENCES PLASTIC MATERIALS BEING USED AS A FANCY MATERIAL OR SIMILAR MATERIALS. 
          IN THIS CASE IT WAS, WE, IT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF THE SIMILAR MATERIAL. 
          OKAY. 
          THE HIDE ITSELF HAD NO ISSUE WITH IT WAS JUST THE MATERIAL TYPE ITSELF. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, THAT, THAT'S, I JUST DON'T SEE A LOT. 
          I, I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT, WHAT KIND OF A PLASTIC IT WAS. 
          'CAUSE IT JUST LOOKED METAL, YOU KNOW, FROM THE PICTURE. 
          SO, OH, IT'S A POLY, UH, POLYPROPYLENE. 
          BUT NEVERTHELESS, I BELIEVE THE ISSUE WITH THE PLASTIC HAS TO DO WITH THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, NOT, HOWEVER, EVEN AT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE AN EXCEPTION, UH, AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR AN 18 EIGHT FOOT FENCE AT THAT PARTICULAR AREA. 
          UM, SO, UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MANA? YES, IT DOES. 
          YEAH. 
          MR. MANNA, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? UH, YEAH, THIS QUESTION'S FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          SO, SO CURRENT CITY RECOMMENDATION IS TO REDUCE THE, UM, THE SIDE EASEMENT, UH, BY, I GUESS BY TWO FOOT THERE. 
          AND SO THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED, THE PHYSICAL, YOU KNOW, CHANGE TO THE, TO THE STRUCTURE ITSELF. 
          UM, SO DOES THAT PRESENT ANY, UM, ADDITIONAL HARDSHIPS OR CHALLENGES FOR YOU OUTSIDE OF THE PHYSICAL RECONSTRUCTION? HELLO? AM I, CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME? I DON'T KNOW IF I COULD HAVE, YES. 
          UNMUTED? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          SORRY. 
          UM, THE HARDSHIP. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, THE, THE HARDSHIP WOULD BE OWE, I WOULD HAVE TO HIRE SOMEONE BECAUSE IT'S ALL METAL. 
          SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO CUT THE METAL DOWN AND THEN RE UH, RELAND THE POSTS AND THEN WELD THE, UH, THE FRAME BACK TO THE POST. 
          AND OF COURSE, UH, I GUESS CUT OFF THE REST, UH, THE REST OF IT. 
          OKAY. 
          I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO, ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? ALRIGHT, I'M GONNA, I'VE MADE, I'VE MADE SOME OBSERVATIONS OF LOOKING AT STRUCTURE. 
          ACTUALLY, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, YOUR ROCK DRIVEWAY IS NOT IN VIOLATION. 
          IT'S ONLY THE CO COVER ITSELF. 
          UH, MY CONCERN IS LOOKING AT THE COVER, IT'S NOT, IT TO ME, IT'S NOT ENGINEERED, UH, ENGINEERING APPROVED OR DESIGNED FOR THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT'S BEEN FOR, I RARELY HAVE EVER SEEN. 
          OF COURSE, I DO NOT KNOW THE ACTUAL 
          [03:20:01]
GAUGE OF THE ROOFING MATERIAL. 
          BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, ON, ON A STEEL COVER, YOUR CURLS ARE APPROXIMATELY FOUR TO FIVE FEET APART. 
          THESE LOOK TO BE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, WHICH MEANS THE SU SUSPECT, THE WEIGHT OF SNOW OR HEAVY RAIN FOR LEAKING. 
          UH, I DON'T KNOW WHO BUILT THIS THING, BUT I'D BE EXTREMELY CONCERNED THAT THIS THING MIGHT COLLAPSE. 
          UM, AND, UH, I'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN BEFORE. 
          I CAN SHOW YOU PICTURES OF EXACT SAME STRUCTURES THAT HAVE COLLAPSED DUE TO SNOW, BUT, UH, I DON'T KNOW WHO YOUR CONTRACTOR, YOU MENTIONED A NAME. 
          THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT NOW BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE NOT CONCERNED WITH YOUR WELLBEING OR THEY WOULDN'T HAVE DONE WHAT THEY DID TO YOU WITHOUT A PERMIT. 
          THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS THAT, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF WHAT COMES OUT OF HERE, YOU NEED TO GET A CONTRACTOR OUT THERE, AND YOU ARE GONNA BE LOOKING AT FURTHER EXPENSE ON THIS. 
          I THINK WHAT THE CITY'S TRYING TO DO IS THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS CARPORT IS FURTHER AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE NEXT DOOR. 
          THAT, UH, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WOULD'VE NO DIFFICULTY IN ACCESSING IT FROM A DISTANCE IN THE EVENT THAT HOUSE CAUGHT FIRE. 
          BUT, UH, AND AS FOR THE, BEFORE THE, UH, THE FENCE ITSELF, YOU CAN ASK FOR AN, AN EXCEPTION TO GET THE FENCE UP TO EIGHT FOOT. 
          BUT SINCE, UH, THE, UH, UH, CONSERVATION DISTRICT DOES NOT ALLOWED PLASTIC, WE'RE GONNA END UP LOSING, PRETTY MUCH LOSING THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA. 
          UM, THIS FAR, I, I'M DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN A CASE LIKE THIS IN A LONG TIME WHERE WE HAVE SO MANY POINTS THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS ON ONE PARTICULAR CASE. 
          WHEN WE TALK ABOUT, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, THE CARPORT, THE DISTANCE, THE FENCE, THE, UH, UH, MATERIALS, THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, I, I, I'M STILL A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT ALL THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT CONCERNED WITH, BUT, UM, YOUR, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING, THEY DID MENTION THAT THEY GO AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD PASSING OUT FLYERS. 
          DO YOU NOT FIND THESE FLYERS AT YOUR HOUSE? I DO. 
          I DO RECEIVE THOSE FLYERS, BUT I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT YOU HAD TO, I KNOW THEY HAD MEETINGS, BUT I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THERE WERE MEETINGS FOR, UH, I GUESS IMPROVEMENTS OR SOMETHING DIFFERENT TO YOUR HOUSE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO ASK. 
          I I, I WENT TO ONE MEETING AND THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT, UH, A BUILDING BE BEING BUILT, UH, AS IN LIKE A APARTMENT BUILDING THAT THEY WERE GONNA TEAR DOWN A, A HOUSE AND DO AN APARTMENT BUILDING, BUT IT WAS ONLY TO MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AWARE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON. 
          IT WASN'T REALLY LIKE A LEGITIMATE VOTE OR ANYTHING. 
          SO I, I WASN'T TOO SURE THAT THAT'S, THAT'S WHO I HAD TO ASK TO DO ANY CHANGES. 
          ROGER CAN'T HEAR YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          THEY KEEP ON MUTING ME. 
          OKAY. 
          I WAS GONNA SAY, WELL, YOU GO TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO PULL A PERMIT, THE FIRST THING TO DO IS ADVISE YOU THERE'S OTHER ENTITIES THAT YOU NEED TO SEEK BEFORE YOUR PERMIT IS ACTUALLY VALID. 
          AND OBVIOUSLY SINCE YOU USE SOME SORT OF COWBOY STEEL COMPANY TO, TO BUILD THIS THING, THEY WEREN'T INTERESTED IN GOING THROUGH ALL THAT EFFORT. 
          BUT, UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE ALL LIVE IN THE CITY OF SAN COUNTY AND THE RULE'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME FOR ALL OF US. 
          YOUR, UM, YOUR CARPORT AND, YOU KNOW, I LIKE THE COLOR, I LIKE THE WAY IT, IT BLENDS AGAINST THE HOUSE, BUT I'VE STILL VERY SUSPECT AS TO ITS SAFETY. 
          THAT'S MY EXPERIENCE WITH DESTRUCTION. 
          UM, ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? OKAY. 
          WELL, MY QUESTION TO THE STAFF, IF THIS ANY TYPE OF PORTION OF THIS IS APPROVED FOR VARIANCE, WOULD, WOULD THE CITY BE LOOKING AT THE SPECIAL INTEGRITY OF THE CARPORT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO ANY PORTION OF THIS THAT GETS APPROVED, YOU'LL SET THE FULL PERMITS, IT'LL STILL BE INSPECTED FOR ALL OF ITS REQUIREMENTS. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE APPLICANT'S PROTECTED, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE WORKS OUT, THE NO OTHER QUESTIONS FROM ANYONE ELSE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I'M GONNA ENTERTAIN A, A, A MO, UH, PLEASANTNESS TO THE PUBLIC AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM THE BOARD. 
          ORIAN. 
          OKAY, MS. DORIAN, EVERYBODY LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY. 
          I'M GOING TO START THIS OFF AND I'LL COMPLETELY OPEN TO CHANGE SINCE THERE'S SO MANY ITEMS THAT MAY HERE. 
          BUT CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 20 DASH THREE 15, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A, UH, THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SITE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CORE PORT TO BE TWO FEET AWAY FROM THE 
          [03:25:01]
SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND ZONING VARIANCES. 
          UH, AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT FROM THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT CARPORT AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN REGULATIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF REQUESTED ITEM A BEING, A RE BEING, THE CARPORT ALLOWED TO BE RECESSED A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET BEHIND THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE IN FRONT FACADE, UM, SITUATED AT 1 1 2 7 WEST ROSEWOOD AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING RYAN CASANOVA. 
          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 HARDSHIPS. 
          PHYSICALLY. 
          YOU FIND THAT ONE VARIANT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
          THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE FOR THE PUBLIC. 
          THE VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR THE SIDE SETBACK, ENCROACHMENT OF THE CARPORT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE APPLICANT HAS ENOUGH SEPARATION, UH, WITH IT BEING TWO FEET OFF OF THE PROPERTY LINE FROM THE NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES, THE CARPORT AND DRIVEWAY ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS IT'S MAINTAINED IN A ACCOMMODATE POTENTIALLY TWO VEHICLES, WHICH REDUCES ON-STREET PARKING. 
          TWO DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. 
          THE BOARD FINDS IN ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT IF ENFORCED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP FREE. 
          BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE AS PER THE ORDINANCE WILL BE ASSERTED, JUSTICE WOULD BE DONE. 
          THE SPARE OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. 
          THE INTENT OF THE SITE SETBACK IS TO PROVIDE SPACE IN BETWEEN NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES. 
          AND THE INTENT OF THE BEACON HILL N C D DESIGN GUIDELINES IS TO PROMOTE UNIFORMITY, UNIFORMITY IN THE COMMUNITY. 
          THE APPLICANT WILL STILL MAINTAIN SPACE BETWEEN STRUCTURES IN THE DESIGN OF THE CARPORT, AND DRIVER WILL NOT STRAY FAR FROM THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. 
          FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SAW IS LOCATED. 
          THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN WHICH USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT. 
          FIVE. 
          SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY, SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE CHAS AND CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 
          THE BOARD FINDS THAT WE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SIDE SETBACK AND REQUEST A VARIANCE FOR CERTAIN VARIANCES FROM THE N T D DESIGN GUIDELINES DO NOT CLOSE THE RISK OF SUBSTANTIALLY INJURING THE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND DOES NOT SEEM LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT SIX. 
          THE PART OF THE OWNER FOR THE PROP OF THE PROPERTY FORESEE VARIANCE SAW IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE, THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 
          UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY ARE NEITHER DUE TO THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT, NOR DUE TO THE OWNER. 
          AND IT'S NOT FINANCIAL IN NATURE. 
          GIVEN THE OTHER DESIGN STANDARDS BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE N C D, THE REQUESTED VARIANCES ARE ALIGNED WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD END OF MOTION. 
          AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WHAT I STATED. 
          UM, I AM, I AM READ A MOTION FOR A, A, A FOR THE CARPORT TO BE UP TO TWO FEET NEXT TO THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          AND I DID NOT, UH, STATE THE USE OF PLASTIC, UH, AS A MATERIAL, BUT I DID, UH, INTEND ON, UH, ALLOWING VARIANCES FROM THE BEACON HILL N C D WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FIVE FOOT BEHIND THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. 
          THE OTHER ITEMS B THROUGH, UH, E THAT WERE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. 
          I WASN'T, I WAS, UH, INTENDING TO INCLUDE IMMIGRATION. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE IS THAT YOU'RE EXCLUDING THE FENCE, THE TYPE OF FENCE MATERIAL, BUT YOU'RE, BUT YOU DID NOT MENTION THE EXCEPTION OF THE EIGHT FENCE. 
          YEAH. 
          THAT HAS TO BE READ AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. 
          SO WE'RE GONNA DO THAT IN A SEPARATE MOTION. 
          YES, SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          NOW, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SUPPORTING THE, THE, UH, CONSERVATION DISTRICT'S FIVE FOOT FROM THE FRONT, THE, SO YES, I AM. 
          UH, AND, AND WHEN IT GETS INTO DISCUSSION, I'LL EXPLAIN WHY, BUT I, I FELT LIKE IT WAS, I I, AND I'M OPEN TO THE HEARING FROM THE REST OF THE BOARD. 
          I JUST, UH, I I DIDN'T KNOW IF I SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED COMMENTARY AN HOUR OR WAIT FOR A SECOND OR, OR WHAT NO, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND FOR OKAY. 
          UH, ON THIS. 
          AND YOU'RE ALSO ALLOWING FOR THE EXCEPTION OF THE, UH, MINIMUM MAXIMUM 12 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY. 
          YES. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO YOU'RE HAVING THE, THE, YOU'RE STANDING IT FROM 12 FEET TO 16 FEET? YES. 
          UH, THE DRIVEWAY AND THE CURB CUT EXPANSION. 
          YEAH. 
          AND IF, IF THIS GETS SECONDED, I'LL EXPLAIN WHERE I'M COMING FROM AND I'LL BE COMPLETELY OPEN 
          [03:30:01]
TO, UH, UH, A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THIS PARTICULAR MOTION? TE VERY GOOD, MR. PEEL. 
          OKAY, MR. RN, HERE'S YOUR CHANCE. 
          EXPLAIN WHY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE REASON WHY I READ IT THAT WAY IS, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED AND, AND, AND WHAT'S GOING UP AND DOWN THE STREET, I THINK THE MAIN ISSUE IS, UH, A CARPORT STRUCTURE IN FRONT OF THE HOME. 
          THAT DOESN'T, I DIDN'T SEE THAT LOOKING UP AND DOWN THE STREET. 
          UH, AT LEAST I DIDN'T. 
          AND I JUST FELT LIKE THE OTHER ASPECTS OF OF THE N C D WERE, IT, IT, IT LOOKED LIKE A, LIKE IT WENT WELL WITH THE HOME. 
          SO I DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANYTHING ELSE. 
          THE, THE, THE DRIVEWAY WIDTH IS MINIMALLY WIDER. 
          IT SERVES THE PURPOSE OF GETTING RID OF OFF STREET PARKING, UH, OFF STREET, UH, ON STREET PARKING. 
          AND, UH, BUT THE FIVE FOOT THING IS, IS, IS TOUGH BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORING HOME, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY THREE FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE, IS ALMOST IN LINE WITH THE FRONT OF THE, THE, THE APPLICANT'S HOME. 
          AND SO BY PUTTING THAT CARPORT IN, IN, IN FRONT, IT, IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S JUST, IT'S TOUGH FOR ME TO, TO SEE IT BEING IN FRONT OF THERE. 
          I THINK THAT THAT'S THE MAIN ISSUE THAT THE N C V AND THE, AND THE NEIGHBORING MIGHT BE AGAINST. 
          BUT, UH, I JUST, UH, AND AGAIN, I'M OPEN TO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, BUT I JUST, ANYWAY, THAT'S JUST WHAT I THINK. 
          AND, AND I'M SORRY, COULD I, I AM CONFUSED WITH REGARDS TO THE, THE, THE FRONT DRIVE DISTANCE THERE. 
          COULD YOU RE-EXPLAIN THAT AGAIN? I'M SORRY. 
          YEAH, SO THE, THE, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE FIVE FOOT OR THE, THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY? FIVE FOOT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE N C D SAYS THAT YOU TO, TO, IT STATES THAT, UH, A CARPORT HAS TO BE RECESSED A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET BEHIND THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, FRONT FAC SIDE. 
          AND SO WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE IS THAT THEY'RE PUTTING A CARPORT IN FRONT OF THE FRONT FACADE INSTEAD OF RECESS BY FEET BACK, LIKE, YOU KNOW, LIKE IT WAS BEFORE. 
          AND SO, AND WHEN YOU, WHEN I LOOK UP AND DOWN THE STREET, WHAT I DON'T SEE ARE CARPORTS IN FRONT OF ANY HOME. 
          AND SO I, I JUST WAS, EVEN THOUGH THE PURPOSE OF PARKING TWO CARS IS BEING SERVED, I JUST DON'T, I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I CAN, I CAN LIVE WITH. 
          BUT AGAIN, I'M, I'M, I'M COMPLETELY OPEN TO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IF NO ONE ELSE IS OPPOSED TO IT. 
          I'M SO, WAS YOUR MOTION, I'M SORRY. 
          I'M SORRY TO, WAS THERE MOTION THEN THAT THE, UH, THAT THE CARPORT COULD SIT EVEN WITH A FACADE OR IT HAS TO BE FIVE FOOT BACK? UH, I WOULD BE COMPLETELY OPEN TO BEING FIVE FOOT BACK. 
          I MEAN, RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ABOUT 12 FEET IN FRONT OF THE FACADE. 
          OKAY. 
          DID THE N C D THAT HE'S DEALING WITH REGARDS TO THE EXCEPTION, HE EXCLUDED THAT FROM THE MOTION. 
          AND THE N C D SAYS THAT THE CARPORT CANNOT BEGIN, BUT FIVE FEET BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE? YEAH, THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE. 
          SO IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO IN HIS, AND HE NOTED IT IN HIS, UH, UH, RESEARCH THAT THERE WERE NO CAR PORTS THAT WERE IN FRONT OF THE HALL, WE DECIDED TO LEAVE THAT PORTION OF THE CG ALONE. 
          HOWEVER, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU FOR SOME REASON I CAN HEAR HIM. 
          I'M, I'M, I I SAYS I'M MUTED. 
          I MEAN, I CAN HEAR HIM. 
          YEAH, I CAN HEAR HIM. 
          I CAN HEAR HIM. 
          WHAT? EVERYBODY CAN HEAR ME. 
          BUT YOU, ZEKE, I'M SORRY. 
          YOU SEEM TO LOST AUDIO ON EVERYBODY. 
          . 
          AND, AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT BEING, BEING A LITTLE BIT IN FRONT OF THE HOME. 
          WELL, THE, THE DIFFICULTY IS GONNA BE BECAUSE THE DIFFICULTY IS GONNA BE THE PROXIMITY OF THE, OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE HOME TO THE FENCE AND ALLOWING TWO CARS BETWEEN THEM. 
          AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE PRIMARY ISSUE SYSTEM RECOGNIZES ROGER, MR. MARTINEZ, STANDBY BY, SIR, WE, THE SYSTEM RECOGNIZES YOU, BUT WE CAN'T HEAR YOU ON THIS END FOR SOME REASON. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          EVERYBODY ELSE CAN HEAR ME? YES. 
          RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WELL, WE'RE TALKING AMONG OURSELVES. 
          I HOPE THE APPLICANT ORDER, THE APPLICANT CAN HEAR US STAND BY EVERYBODY. 
          WE'RE HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. 
          YEP. 
          THAT CALL ROGER THAT IT'S NOT GOING ON RECORD, SO YOU HAVE TO WAIT. 
          . 
          AH. 
          HEY, RO, UH, ROGER, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? WELL, ACTUALLY, WE NEED TO WAIT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT, WE'RE AT IN, IN SESSION. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, UH, IF IT'S NOT A, ABOUT THIS CASE, YOU CAN ASK ME THE QUESTION. 
          UH, WELL, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW THE EXISTING FENCE, THE WAY THE OLD ONE IS SHOWN ON GOOGLE, HOW MANY FEET IS THAT BACK ALREADY? SO I CAN GET A PERSPECTIVE? WHAT THREE FEET VERSUS FIVE FEET IS OKAY. 
          WE CAN'T DEAL WITH THAT UNTIL WE GET BACK ON THE RECORD. 
          ALRIGHT, THAT'S A 
          [03:35:01]
GOOD QUESTION. 
          AND I'LL HOLD OFF UNTIL ZEKE SAYS WE'RE LIVE CAN DO ON YOUR COMPUTER. 
          CAN YOU HEAR US? HI, SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'RE SORRY FOR THE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. 
          APPARENTLY OUR HOST SERVER HAS SOME TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEMS THAT, UH, WE HAVE TO OVERCOME. 
          SO, BUT WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF CASE NUMBER. 
          UM, LET'S SEE HERE. 
          THIS IS, UH, RYAN CASANOVA. 
          ARE YOU THERE, MR. CASANOVA? YES, I'M STILL HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'RE GONNA TRY TO CONTINUE WHERE WE'RE GOING, UH, FROM THIS PARTICULAR TIME. 
          AND I BELIEVE THAT, UH, WE'VE ALREADY READ INTO THE RECORD. 
          DO YOU REMEMBER US READING INTO THE RECORD MOTION? YES. 
          WE WERE IN DISCUSSION, RIGHT? WE WERE IN DISCUSSION, BUT WE HAD A MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT WAS FOR DO GIVE AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY FEEL THAT. 
          UM, SO LET'S CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION HERE. 
          ANYONE, UH, ELSE WANNA DISCUSS, UH, THE, BECAUSE WE DID HAVE A MOTION, SO WE'RE CLOSE TO THE PUBLIC, BUT I'M JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE APPLICANT CAN HEAR US. 
          UH, ORIAN? YES, MR. ORIAN? YEAH, SO I THINK WHERE THIS LEFT OFF WAS I WAS COMPLETELY OPEN TO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, UH, REGARDING MY, UH, THE FIVE FOOT, UH, CARPORT BEING RECESSED BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE. 
          AND I, AND WE ENDED THIS WITH THAT, WHETHER OR NOT TWO CARS COULD ADEQUATELY PARK IF THAT WAS BEING ENFORCED. 
          SO, UH, DOES ANYBODY HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THAT PORTION OF THE MOTION? MANA, MR. MAN, ARE YOU ON THE FLOOR? SO, UM, ACTUALLY I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, IF POSSIBLE, AND THAT WOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW THE CARPORT TO BE, UM, ALIGNED, ENABLE IT TO BE ALIGNED WITH THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. 
          SO THAT WAY, UH, LOOKING DOWN THE STREET, I DO SEE OTHER PROPERTIES WHERE THEIR CARPORT IS ALIGNED TO THE FRONT. 
          AND SO THEREFORE, I THINK IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT. 
          SO THAT'S, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT PRELIMINARY AMENDMENT TO HAVE IT ALIGNED TO THE FRONT. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND MY MOTION TO DO JUST THAT, TO ALLOW THE CARPORT TO BE, UM, UM, AT THE FRONT FACADE OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE WITH NO RECESSED REQUIREMENT. 
          I BELIEVE THAT ACCORDING TO THE MEASUREMENTS I SEE HERE ON THE APPLICATION, THAT THAT WIDTH OF THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOUSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE IS ONLY NINE FEET. 
          AND IT, ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN, IT DOES SHOW THAT IT, IT WIDENS AT THE BEGINNING, AT THE CORNER, BUT, BUT WHETHER THE CARPORT COULD EXIST UP TO THE, THE FACE IS JUST, I GUESS THAT ISSUE HERE. 
          UH, WELL, WHAT I, WHAT I'M BASICALLY BRINGING THAT UP IS WE'VE GOT A TWO FOOT EXCLUSION, I MEAN, UH, DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND YOU'VE ONLY GOT NINE FEET OF WORK WITH, AND THE  CAN ONLY BE SEVEN FEET RIGHT THERE, BUT THAT'S TO THE HOUSE. 
          I'M ALSO OPEN TO REDUCING IT TO A FOOT. 
          YOU KNOW, THE, THE NEIGHBORING HOME IS, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE EXISTING FENCE LINE. 
          I'D BE, WELL, ESSENTIALLY, WELL, ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, YOU, YOU'LL LOOK AT THIS, APPARENTLY THESE, THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE, OR TWO OR TWO CARPORTS. 
          ORIGINALLY THE ONE WAS BUILT BEHIND THE FACADE, AND THE SECOND OR THE TWO CAR CARPORT WAS BUILT IN FRONT OF THE FACADE OF THE HOUSE. 
          SO IF WE ONLY ALLOW IT TO THE FRONT TO THE FACADE, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP HIS REAR CARPORT. 
          YEAH. 
          THE PROBLEM'S GONNA BE THE FRONT CARPORT. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS. 
          YEAH. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF IN THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE OF A CHANGE IN THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IS GOING TO REALLY MAKE THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE, EXCEPT FOR WE DO GIVE 'EM THE RIGHT TO BRING IT TO THE FRONT OF THE FACADE. 
          CONSIDER A FIVE FOOT THAT SETBACK. 
          MENCHACA? YES, MR. MENCHACA, I HAD AN INITIAL QUESTION ON THE OLD GOOGLE, UM, SHOT THAT, THAT SHOW THERE, THAT 
          [03:40:01]
FENCE THAT WAS THERE. 
          HOW MANY FEET, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WAS IT FROM THE FRONT OF FACADE TO BACK? HOW MANY CAN YOU TELL MORE OR LESS? DOES THE HOMEOWNER NOW FROM THE FRONT SIDE TO THE BACK? YEAH, THE, THE, ON THE OLD, UH, GOOGLE SHOT, IT LOOKS TO ME AS IF THE FENCE IS RIGHT THERE AT THE FRONT FAGE, UH, YOU DRAW A LINE STRAIGHT ACROSS BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE CAR WORK RESIDE. 
          UH, WELL, THE OLD ONE SHOWS LIKE THE FENCE GOING INTO THE WINDOW AREA, AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHAT THE DISTANCE WAS, BECAUSE I WAS TRYING TO GAUGE MR. ARIA'S SUGGESTION OF THREE FEET. 
          WELL, OKAY, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          THAT'S A GATE. 
          YES, THAT GATOR FENCE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO, TO ASCERTAIN THIS BECAUSE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE NOT TAKEN FROM THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE TO GIVE US AN IDEA WHERE THAT IS. 
          UM, BUT, UH, FROM WHAT I CAN SEE, USUALLY THE FENCE IS USUALLY BUILT TO EQUAL TO THE FRONT FACADE, AND THAT APPEARS TO WHERE THE GATE IS CONNECTED. 
          OH, AND THAT, I'M JUST SPECULATING BECAUSE I'M GOING BY WHAT I'M SEEING IN . 
          I SEE. 
          UNLESS THE INVESTIGATOR IS AVAILABLE TO GIVE US FURTHER INFORMATION, WE CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT'S A, AND IF WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ALTER THE MOTION TO ALLOW THE CARPORT TO BEGIN AT THE FRONT FACADE, I THINK IT'S WE'RE GIVING HIM AT LEAST, UH, SOMETHING MORE THAN WHAT, UH, HE WOULD HAVE TO DO IF HE HAD TO COMPLY WITH THE, UH, ENTIRETY OF THE, UH, CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, ONE, ONE I'D LIKE TO ADD IS THERE'S A CONCRETE PATIO SHOWN ON THE SIDE PLAN. 
          I, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT EXTENDING OUT TO THE FRONT OF THE CONCRETE PATIO EITHER, IF THAT HELPS. 
          ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE FRONT? YEAH. 
          AND TO LET IT GO A LITTLE BIT. 
          I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S GOING TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM IN REGARD TO, UM, UH, REGARD TO THE CARPORT. 
          UH, BECAUSE IF YOU CAN'T GET WITHIN, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW HIS, HIS CARPORT IS BUILT CARS, YOU KNOW IT BY MORE THAN PPP AND YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GET TOO, IF YOU, EVEN IF YOU COULD GET TWO CARS IN, THEN YOU COULDN'T GET OUTTA ONE OF THEM. 
          I'M NOT, I'M, I'M, I'M COMPLETELY OPEN TO ANY AUGMENTATION OF THE MOTION I READ. 
          JUST IF YOU, IF YOU FEEL THAT TAKING IT DOWN TO TWO INCHES IS GONNA SOLVE THE, I'M OPEN TO THAT TOO. 
          I JUST WANTED TO HEAR FROM EVERYBODY. 
          WELL, I, I, IT'S JUST GOT AN UNUSUAL CIRCUM CIRCUMSTANCE HERE. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THE CARPORT ITSELF, YOU KNOW, IF, IF ANYTHING THE, IF, IF YOU'RE GONNA ALLOW A CARPORT IN FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE, YOU COULD SLIDE IT OVER TO THE FRONT DOOR AND, UH, HE WOULD HAVE MAYBE HAVE ENOUGH ROOM, BUT THEN YOU COULD HAVE TO MOVE HIS, HIS, UH, TO DO QUITE BIT OF WORK TO MOVE ALL THAT GROUND. 
          SO ANYWAY, UM, MR. ORIAN HAS OPENED HIMSELF UP TO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. 
          ANYONE WANNA ALTER THE ONE THAT HE CAME UP WITH MOVING THE, UH, UH, TO ALLOWING THE STRUCTURE TO BE EQUAL TO THE FRONT FACADE? RIGHT, CHUCK? I'M IN AGREEMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          YOUR AGREEMENT WITH THAT ONE? YES. 
          NO OTHER, NO OTHER OFFERING IS MADE? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, MANNA, MR. ANA. 
          SO, SO I GUESS ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WE'RE ALSO ADDRESSING HERE IS A DISTANCE, UM, FOR THE SIDE. 
          AND SO, SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE IT SET, SO WE'RE MOVING IT BACK TWO FOOT, UM, WHICH, UH, TO MAKE TO THE SERIAL, UM, CARPORT. 
          UM, BUT DOES GIVE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE, IT IS AN AERIAL PICTURE. 
          IT'S A LONG CARPORT, YOU KNOW, SERIALLY. 
          UM, SO, SO, YOU KNOW, I COULD SEE MOVING INTO ONE FOOT ALLOWANCE, IF THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE. 
          THAT WOULD PROBABLY GIVE ENOUGH SPACE TO POSSIBLY ALLOW FOR TWO NARROW VEHICLES, BUT ALSO STILL HAD THE SERIAL SOLUTION AVAILABLE. 
          OKAY. 
          TEAL, IF, IF YOU LOOK AT THE CARPORTS, THERE'S TWO CARPORTS, THERE'S ONE THAT'S BEHIND THE GATED FENCE LINE, AND THAT ACTUALLY LOOKS OR APPEARS TO LOOK LIKE IT MEETS THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. 
          ONLY THE FRONT CARPORT IS THE ONE THAT SEEMS TO HAVE ENCROACHED INTO THE SETBACK. 
          UM, AND SO THAT'S WHERE I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD BE LOOKING PRIMARILY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, I MEAN, I DON'T MIND AMENDING THE MOTION TO, TO SAY IT CAN GO TO TWO INCHES AS REQUESTED, SO LONG AS IT LIES, UH, IN, YOU KNOW, IN, IN FRONT OF THE, THE, THE FRONT OF THE PLANE OF THE EXISTING 
          [03:45:01]
HOME, LIMITED TO IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING HOME. 
          I GOT A QUESTION THOUGH ON THAT MM-HMM. 
           FOR STAFF, I GUESS, UH, WOULD, IF WE DO IT THAT WAY, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO GET PERMITS AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS IN COMPLIANCE IF WE LEAVE IT THE WAY THEY'RE REQUESTING, AS LONG AS THAT, THAT CARPORT WILL REQUIRE PERMITS, INCLUDING THE FENCING OR ANYTHING ELSE, THE CURB CUT WILL REQUIRE FENCE, UH, PERMITS FOR RIGHT OF WAY. 
          SO THERE'S VARIOUS PERMITS YOU'LL STILL REQUIRE REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THAT, IF HE WANTS TO KEEP IT. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT THAT'S JUST FOR THE CARPORT, THE FENCING IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. 
          CORRECT. 
          EITHER WAY, ANY PERMITS FOR EACH OF THOSE THINGS. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WANNA MAKE SURE. 
          'CAUSE I MEAN, IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE CAN LEAVE IT THE WAY THEY REQUESTED IT. 
          I'M JUST SAYING, I MEAN, UNLESS Y'ALL WANNA GO TO WHAT DON IS SAYING, IT'S FINE BY ME. 
          WELL, I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE'S ASKING. 
          WE'RE JUST, WE'RE JUST, WE'RE WE'RE CLARIFYING THAT IT'S, IT'S TO EXIST IN FRONT OF THE HOME. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          NOT, SO IF WE DID USE THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AS, AS I GUESS, WHERE WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING, THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE BACK, UM, UH, CARPORT AS WELL TO BE WIDENED SO THAT HE COULD EXTEND BASICALLY THE NO, NO, I WOULD READ THE AMENDMENT TO SAY THAT, THAT THE, THE, THE, THE VARIANCE TO GO DOWN TO, TO TWO INCHES SOLELY APPLIES TO, UH, IN FRONT OF THE PLANE OF THE HOME. 
          SO ON HIS SIDE PLAN, WHAT HE'S DOING IS HE'S, HE'S MAINTAINING THE NARROWER CARPORT UNTIL, UNTIL YOU GET TO THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. 
          WELL, RIGHT NOW, IF YOU LOOK ABOVE IT, IT DOES LOOK LIKE IT'S SET FIVE FOOT BACK, THE ORIGINAL, THE EXISTING CARPORT. 
          YES. 
          AND SO IT IS SET FIVE FOOT BACK. 
          SO BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS GIVING 'EM A, ALLOWING FOR A FIVE FOOT DEEP CARPORT TO BE THE NEW DIMENSION. 
          YEAH, I WOULD BE, I WOULD SAY THAT IT COULD BE THE CARPORT COULD GO AS CLOSE AS TWO INCHES TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE ONLY IN LOCATIONS IN FRONT OF THE, THE, THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE. 
          UH, GOT IT. 
          OH, YOU'RE OKAY. 
          WE'RE RIGHT BACK WHERE WE STARTED. 
          OKAY. 
          ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, IS ALLOWING A CARPORT IN FRONT OF A FACADE. 
          NOW HERE'S A, HERE'S A, HERE'S A POSSIBILITY BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE DIAGRAM THAT THAT IS, SITE PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED, IT SHOWS HERE, IT APPEARS THAT ACTUALLY IF, SINCE YOU'RE GOING TO BE BASICALLY DEALING WITH THE, THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOT ALLOWING CARPORTS IN THE FRONT, THERE IS ROOM IN THE BACK, BEHIND THE HOUSE TO THE GARAGE WHERE A TWO, WHERE A LARGE CARPORT COULD BE. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT, IN THAT CASE, IF WE GAVE HIM THE TWO FEET, I MEAN THE, THE, UH, THE ONE FOOT SET SIDE SETBACK, WE COULD POSSIBLY GET TWO CARS BACK THERE AND STILL MEET THE STANDARD FOR THE, UM, UH, CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          BECAUSE THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT DOESN'T ALLOW CARPORTS IN THE FRONT. 
          AND AS YOU NOTED IN YOUR SEARCHES, NOBODY ELSE HAD A CARPORT IN FRONT. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE APPLICANT, WE WOULD SAY COMPLY WITH THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT COMPLETELY, EXCEPT FOR WE'RE GONNA ALLOW THEM A, A, A VARIANCE TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. 
          THIS WAY HE COULD GET A CARPORT OFF BACK THERE THAT HE MARKED TWO CARS. 
          SO IT, WHAT, WHAT, SO WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS THE, THERE IS JUST GONNA BE NO FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, BASICALLY. 
          WELL, UH, ESSENTIALLY THE, THE, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS, IS THAT HE CAN EXTEND THE GRAVEL ALL HE WANTS TO THE BACK. 
          IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THAT IS NOT PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 
          BUT HE COULD ALLOW THE CAR, THE CARPORT TO EXTEND TO THE FRONT, BUT TOWARD THE BACK WIDEN UP FOR TWO CARS. 
          OH, SURE. 
          BUT, BUT, UM, THE WAY I READ THE MOTION WAS THAT IF, IF, IF WE HOLD THE FIVE FEET BEHIND THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE, FRONT FACADE, AND WE GO DOWN TO A TWO FOOT VARIANCE ON THE OFFSET, THEN HE'S NOT, HE, HE CAN'T BUILD IT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. 
          RIGHT. 
          WHAT HE HAS COULD, WHAT HE HAS COULD STAY. 
          AND IF HE BUILD SOMETHING IN THE REAR, THEN HE, IT WOULD JUST HAVE TO REAPPLY AND GET A PERMIT FOR IT, BUT IT RIGHT. 
          BUT WE WOULD GIVE HIM THE 
          [03:50:01]
VARIANCE TO ALLOW HIM TO GET CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE, UH, IN, UH, BEHIND THE FACADE. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, WE GOT A NINE FOOT EASEMENT. 
          THERE'S NO WAY HE'S GONNA BE NINE FOOT FROM THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE TO THE PROPERTY IN THE FRONT. 
          BUT IF YOU'LL NOTICE FROM THE SITE PLAN, THE HOUSE IS ANGLED ON THE PROPERTY. 
          YEAH. 
          WHICH MEANS THAT HE COULD PUT A CARPORT IN THE BACK OR THE BACK OF THE HOUSE IN FRONT OF THE, THE GARAGE STRUCTURE WHERE HE COULD, HE COULD EASILY GET FEW CARS UNDERNEATH IT. 
          OH, SURE. 
          SURE. 
          TRYING TO MAKE IT WHERE, WHERE WHATEVER WE GIVE HIM, WE'D GIVE HIM SOMETHING HE WORK WITH. 
          BECAUSE I, I DON'T FEEL THAT THAT VIOLATING THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND BUILDING FRONT OF THE PROPERTY MEAN THE FACADE IS REALLY IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE NO OTHER HOUSE HAS ONE. 
          YEAH. 
          THEN THAT, THEN, THEN THE MOTION AS READ, DOES THAT THEN WHAT YOUR MOTION THAT YOU READ ORIGINALLY COMPLI WITH THAT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF YOU SETTING A, UH, THREE FOOT VARIANCE, I'M GONNA RECOMMEND A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CARPORT TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO ALLOW FOR A BIGGER CARPORT IN THE BACK. 
          UH, I'M OKAY. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          OKAY. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO EVERYONE? YEAH. 
          THIS WAY, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THIS, SOMETHING'S GONNA BE DONE IF SOMETHING'S GONNA BE DONE REGARDLESS, BUT I WOULD ASSUME THAT SINCE HE'S GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND, AND DEALT WITH UN A REPUTABLE CONTRACT BEFORE, HE WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONSCIENTIOUS. 
          PLUS ALL THIS MATERIAL COULD POSSIBLY BE REUSED IN THE FORMATION OF THE NEW CARPORT IF HE GETS THE RIGHT CONTRACT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I HEREBY, UH, AMEND MY MOTION TO ALLOW THE CARPORT TO BE WITHIN ONE FOOT OF THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WITH A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE AND THE FIVE FOOT REQUIREMENT. 
          UM, WHO SECONDED IT TE MR. PEEL, ARE YOU GONNA ACCEPT THE, UH, UH, ALTER MOTION? YES, I'M IN AGREEMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE WE'RE AGREEING TO IS THAT THE, THE CARPORT FRONT CANNOT, IS CANNOT STAY, BUT THE CARPORT IN THE BACK COULD BE PLACED IN SUCH A FASHION TO GET TWO CARS. 
          HE JUST HAS TO GET BACK THERE. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SINCE WE'RE ALLOWING THE CARPORT TO BE EXPANDED TO WITHIN ONE FOOT OF THE PROPERTY LINE, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT, RIGHT? AGREED. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THIS WAY WE CAN, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT HAPPY WITH THE FACT WE'RE NOT ALLOWING THE CARPORT IN THE FRONT. 
          UH, WE'RE NOT MAKING THEM COMPLETELY HAPPY, BUT WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING THAT GIVES AT LEAST THE APPLICANT AWAY, GET HIS VEHICLES OFF THE STREET AND PROTECT IT. 
          AND, UH, JUST LIKE THE REST OF SAN ANTONIO, THAT HAS TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE THAT FULL PERMITS, YOU GOTTA DEAL WITH WHAT YOU GOTTA DEAL WITH. 
          SO, UM, THIS IS A GOOD OPTION, UM, THAT, UH, ANYONE ELSE WANNA GET THEIR INPUT ON WHAT I, UH, I'VE SUGGESTED. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S JUST AS YOU READ, THE ORIGINAL MOTION, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE VARIANCE, IS THREE FEET, THE FOUR FEET INSTEAD OF TWO, THREE FEET, CORRECT? CORRECT, CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN AFTER WE DEAL WITH THIS, WE'LL DEAL WITH THE, UH, THE, UH, EIGHT FOOT EXCEPTION ON THE FENCE. 
          SO IF EVERYONE'S IN AGREEMENT AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL, ROLL CALL. 
          VOTE ON THE MOTION BY, UH, AND AMENDMENT BY MR. OREO. 
          MS. CRUZ? I CONCUR. 
          MR. MENCHACA? I CONCUR. 
          MR. GEO? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. MANNA. 
          I CONCUR. 
          MS. BRACKMAN? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. VINNO? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. FISHER OR MS. FISHER, I APOLOGIZE. 
          YES, I CONCUR. 
          UH, MS. YES, I CONCUR. 
          MS. IAN? YES, I CONCUR. 
          CHAIR MARTINEZ. 
          I CONCUR WITH NOTHING. 
          VOTE, UH, THE MOTION PASSES. 
          UM, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH, WE RECOMMEND THAT THEY USE AN ALTERNATIVE COMPANY TO MAKE CORRECTIONS, AND NOW WE NEED TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE, EXCEPT FOR THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE FOR IN. 
          OKAY, MR. RY, WE'RE MAKING COMPLETE EXCEPTION. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 20 DASH OH THREE 15, I MOVE AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A PORTION OF THE SITE YARD FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL, SITUATED AT 1 1 2 7 WEST ROSEWOOD AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING RYAN CASANOVA. 
          BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY 
          [03:55:01]
PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTUALLY DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULTED IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. 
          SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. 
          THE U D C STATES THAT THE BOARD OF JUSTICE GRANTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A SENSE SITE MODIFICATION. 
          THE ADDITIONAL FENCE SITE IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. 
          IF GRANTED, THIS REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE FEE, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. 
          THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY FENCE SITES TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS. 
          WHILE SOLE PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY, AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALONG THE SIDE YARD WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. 
          THIS IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
          SEE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. 
          THE FENCE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO INJURE. 
          ADJACENT PROPERTY DEFENSE IS SIMILAR TO OTHER FENCES, AS DO NOT NOTICEABLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. 
          E SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND THE AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. 
          THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHMENT THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. 
          THE CURRENT ZONING PERMITS THE CURRENT USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. 
          THE REQUESTED SINGLE EXCEPT SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT. 
          END OF MOTION. 
          SECOND, SECOND, ROGER, YOU'RE ON MUTE AGAIN. 
          YEAH, MR. MARTINEZ. 
          ALRIGHT, I CAN HEAR NOW. 
          YES. 
          . 
          OKAY. 
          DONALD, ON YOUR MOTION, DID YOU SUGGEST THAT THE ENTIRE RIGHT SIDE BE ALLOWED AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE OR JUST FOR THE EXISTING EIGHT DEFENSE CLOSED? UH, IT, IT, IT WAS READ TO, TO BE FOR A PORTION OF THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE. 
          UH, I WILL CLARIFY THAT IT IS TO BE AS SUBMITTED. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE ABOUT THAT. 
          AND, UH, MS. CRUZ, DO YOU WANNA ADD SOME MORE TO THIS? I'M SORRY, WHAT WERE YOU ASKING ME, ROGER? I JUST GOTTA CLARIFY, I JUST GOT A CLARIFICATION, MR. OR, UH, RN THAT THE, UH, EIGHT FOOT SECTION IS ONLY WHERE IT WAS DESIGNATED? YES. 
          AND THE THAT IS CORRECT. 
          UH, AND I AGREE WITH THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          YES, SIR. 
          AND I AGREE WITH THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY INPUT ON THIS DISCUSSION? AMANDA MANNA. 
          MR. MANNA. 
          SO, UM, SO DOES THIS ALSO COVER THE VARIANCE FOR THE, FOR THE MATERIALS, FOR THE FENCE OR BY NOT NO, NOT INCLUDING IT. 
          NO, NO, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY LEFT OFF THE PREVIOUS MOTION. 
          ANY MOTION. 
          THAT WOULD BE A VARIANCE BY THE WAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND SO, SO BECAUSE IT'S NOT INCLUDED, BASICALLY WE'RE SAYING IT'S NOT PERMITTED UNLESS WE'VE GIVEN A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR IT. 
          CORRECT. 
          RIGHT. 
          WHAT IT ALLOWS HIM TO DO IS, IS TO ADD TWO FEET TO THE EXISTING WOOD FENCE WITH WOOD FENCE AND MATERIAL ORDER, REPLACE THAT SECTION WITH AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. 
          UH, UM, BUT, UH, WHAT IT DOES IS IT DOES NOT ENDORSE THE PLASTIC CORRUGATED PLASTIC PANEL. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          NOW, UH, THAT'S ALL WE HAVE IN THE DISCUSSION WAS TAKE THE ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE EXCEPTION. 
          MS. CRUZ. 
          YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. MANCHACA? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. TEO MRNA. 
          I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. VINNO? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MS. FISHER? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. UNA? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. IAN? YES, I CONCUR. 
          CHAIR MARTINEZ. 
          I I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          THE MOTION PASSES. 
          UH, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BUILD AN EIGHT FOOT SECTION OF FENCING, UH, FOR YOUR PRIVACY THERE. 
          UM, AND THAT CONCLUDES THE HANDLING OF THIS CASE. 
          GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT. 
          LET'S, UH, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO TO OUR NEXT CASE. 
          SINCE 
          [5. 20-7503 BOA-20-10300121]
2011, WEST MEADOWLAND MIDDLE LANE COUNCIL, DISTRICT 10, APPLICANT, ADAM WARD GATE ARCHITECT REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE TWO FEET, THREE INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WITH OVERHANG OF ONE FOOT. 
          CURRENT ZONING IS R FOUR H O D. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS PREDOMINANTLY SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. 
          THE REQUEST IS FOR A VARIANCE TO THE FIVE FEET MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR A DETACHED CARPORT THAT HAS A ONE FOOT OVERHANG. 
          THE CARPORT MEASURED 18 BY 18 WILL BE BUILT, UM, BY METAL WITH METAL POSTS 
          [04:00:01]
AND ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO BE, TO MATCH THE EXISTING HOUSE. 
          THE APPLICANT WANTS TO INSTALL GUTTERS TO PREVENT, UH, STORMWATER RUNOFF, UH, TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND ADJACENT PROPERTY SITE PLAN STRUCTURE CURRENTLY HAS A PORTES SHARE, UH, ALONG THAT SIDE, WHICH WILL, THEY'RE GONNA ENCLOSE WITH A STORAGE UNIT. 
          CARPORT WILL BE IN FRONT OF THAT PORTES SHARE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          HELLO? ONE MOMENT, SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF A TWO FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WITH AN O WITH A ONE FOOT OVERHANG IN V O A, UH, 1 21. 
          BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, PROPOSED CARPORT SIZE COULD BE MODIFIED TO MAINTAIN A THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK AND OVERHANGING WILL PUT THE NEIGHBOR HEARING PROPERTIES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER, UM, WHICH CAUSES FIRE IN, IN MAINTENANCE CHALLENGES. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          25. 
          NOTICES WERE SENT OUT. 
          ONE WAS RECEIVED IN, IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE TERRELL HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. 
          WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT, ADAM MOORE GATES ON THE LINE. 
          SIR, WHEN, UH, WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          OH, NO, THIS IS STILL RYAN FROM THE LAST ONE. 
          I DIDN'T GET TO HEAR THE VERY END. 
          I GOT DISCONNECTED, SIR. 
          WE'LL, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL YOU BACK ON THAT ONE, SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS. 
          I, I'LL DISCONNECT NOW. 
          MR. GATES, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? STAND BY. 
          WE'RE, WE'RE REACHING THE APPLICANT NOW. 
          WE DO HAVE ONE LETTER TO BE READ TO THE RECORD IN SUPPORT. 
          IT'S A VERY QUICK EMAIL. 
          BEYOND THAT, THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTARY. 
          I GOT DISCONNECTED. 
          OKAY. 
          SO ARE YOU, HAVE YOU GOT THE APPLICANT YET? WE'RE ACTUALLY CALLING HIM NOW. 
          THERE WAS SOME, UH, SYSTEM ISSUES. 
          I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE. 
          MR. YOU READY? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          YEAH. 
          HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          UH, HI, MY NAME'S ADAM GATES. 
          UH, I'M AN ARCHITECT. 
          I'M REPRESENTING THE OWNER, DAN AL, THE OWNER OF THREE 11 WEST MEADOW LANE DRIVE. 
          UM, I BELIEVE THERE'S ALSO A RENDERING THAT CAN BE SHOWN OF THE NEW STRUCTURE, UH, THAT WAS SHARED WITH STAFF. 
          SO I'M JUST GOING TO REPEAT SOME OF THE ISSUES. 
          UH, THE ISSUE AT HAND PERTAINS TO THE PROXIMITY OF A PROPOSED CARPORT TO, TO THE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE. 
          UH, MY CLIENT WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A TWO CAR CARPORT. 
          WE'D LIKE TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FOR THE CARPORT FROM FIVE FEET TO TWO FEET. 
          IN ALIGNMENT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          UH, DURING CONVERSATION WITH STAFF, WE WERE INSTRUCTED THAT THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW A SETBACK OF MORE THAN TWO FEET, INCLUDING THE ROOF OVERHANG, AND THEN ONLY IF GUTTERS ARE PROVIDED TO PREVENT STORMWATER OVERFLOW INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD. 
          UH, WE WOULD LIKE TO HONOR THE TWO FOOT OVERHANG SETBACK AND ASK THAT WE MAY BE ALLOWED TO MINIMIZE THE ROOF OVERHANG TO KEEP THE CARPORT STRUCTURE AS CLOSE TO THE TWO FOOT SETBACK AS POSSIBLE. 
          UM, AN ADDITIONAL NOTE FOR CONSIDERATION IS THAT THERE ARE TWO OTHER STRUCTURES ON THE SITE THAT ARE ALSO WITHIN THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK, UH, BOTH OF WHICH ARE, UH, WITHIN TWO TO THREE FEET OF THE SAME SIDE PROPERTY LINE, UM, THAT THE CARPORT IS GOING TO BE ON. 
          UM, THAT BASICALLY LAYS IT OUT. 
          I'LL CONCLUDE MY STATEMENT AND EXTEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR QUESTION AND COMMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE IS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD A CARPORT TO BE NO FURTHER OR CLOSER TO THE SIDE AS THE EXISTING CARPORT ON THE SIDE AND, UH, IT'LL ACTUALLY BUILD THAT BE TWO FEET FROM THE SIZE PROPERTY LINE. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THE, UH, THE PORT, THE, THE PORTAGE SHARES A LITTLE BIT FARTHER. 
          UH, IT'S A BUILDING IN THE BACK THAT IS ABOUT TWO FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          UM, THE PORTIER UP FRONT IS ABOUT THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          UH, I'M SORRY, I, I I HOPE YOU GUYS CAN HEAR ME OKAY. 
          IT SEEMS 
          [04:05:01]
TO BE SOME NOISE IN THE BACKGROUND. 
          UM, THE, WHAT I ORIGINALLY SENT TO STAFF HAD A ONE FOOT OVERHANG, AND WHEN I SPOKE TO THEM, THEY TOLD ME THAT THEY REALLY DIDN'T WANT US GETTING ANY CLOSER THAN TWO FEET TO THE EDGE OF THAT OVERHANG. 
          AND SO THE REQUEST HERE IS THAT WE, UM, ARE ALLOWED TO BUILD TO THAT TWO FEET, BUT WITHOUT THE ONE FOOT OVERHANG. 
          UM, SO I WOULD, I WOULD EFFECTIVELY REDESIGN THE CARPORT SO THAT THE ONLY THING OVERHANGING WOULD BE THE GUTTER, AND THAT WOULD BE AT THE TWO FOOT, UH, SETBACK. 
          AND THEN WE COULD GET OUR COLUMN AS CLOSE TO PO AS POSSIBLE TO THAT SAME TWO FOOT SETBACK. 
          ALRIGHT, LET ME TELL YOU THE LIMITATIONS WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. 
          WE CAN ONLY ACT UPON THE REQUEST THAT WE HAVE ON FILE, WHICH IS A TWO FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU CANNOT BE WITHIN TWO FEET, THREE INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY BLOCK. 
          IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR? OR ARE YOU ASKING FOR THE, THE, THE FULL THREE FEE? UM, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT HAD THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON IT? I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WE CAN ONLY ACT ON THE, ON THE, UH, ON THE REQUEST, NOT ON THE APP, ON THE CITY STATE REQUIREMENTS. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          UM, AND THE REASON WHY I SAY THAT IS THE CITY'S REQUIREMENT IS THAT, UH, YOUR CARPORTS TO BE THREE FEET AWAY. 
          ARE YOU, ARE YOU SAYING YOU WANT YOUR CARPORT TO NOW BE THREE FEET AWAY? NO, SIR. 
          I'M SAYING I'D LIKE THE CARPORT TO BE TWO FEET AWAY, IF I REMEMBER THE WORDING OF THAT CORRECTLY. 
          IT WAS THAT THE OVERHANG WAS TWO FEET, THE OVERHANG WENT TO THE TWO FOOT LINE, AND THEN WITH THE ONE FOOT OVERHANG THAT I ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, WE WOULD BE AT, AT THREE FEET. 
          AND SO I'M ASKING FOR THE TWO FEET, BUT ALL RIGHT. 
          WITHOUT THE, WITHOUT THE OVERHANG. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          HERE'S THE DIFFICULTY WE HAVE AND, AND WE HAVE REMEDIES FOR THIS. 
          SO YOU'RE NOT OUTTA LINE HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          RIGHT NOW YOUR REQUEST, AND THIS IS WHAT WAS ADVERTISED, OKAY? AND WHAT'S ADVERTISED IS OUR LIMITATION. 
          OUR LIMITATION IS THAT YOU HAD ON THE APPLICATION, OR SOMEHOW THIS CAME OUT, THAT REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT, TWO FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE. 
          NOW, IF YOU'RE ASKING NOW FOR THE FULL THREE FEET, WE WILL NEED TO RE ADVERTISE THIS FOR ANOTHER TIME FOR CONSIDERATION, WHICH I QUITE FRANKLY, IF YOU WANT THREE FEET, THAT'S FINE, BUT WE CAN ONLY ACT UP TO TWO FEET, NINE INCHES. 
          I, I, I UNDERSTAND. 
          I, I'M SORRY, I MISUNDERSTOOD, UH, WHICH THREE FEET YOU WERE REFERENCING. 
          AND SO YES, I WILL, UM, I WILL ASK FOR THE FULL TWO FOOT NINE INCHES WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ROOF WILL NOT OVERHANG ANY FARTHER THAN THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THAT'S, I'LL STICK WITH MR. CHAIR. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION ALSO ABOUT THE, UM, UH, ADVERTISING OF THE CASE. 
          ON THE MOTION TEMPLATE WE HAVE, IT HAS THE ADDRESS AT 1 1 3 WEST MEADOW LANE METAL LIEN DRIVE. 
          AND I NOT SURE IF THAT WAS WHAT WAS ADVERTISED ALSO WITH THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION. 
          I DON'T HAVE, I HAVE 1 1 1 WEST MEADOW LANE. 
          THE AGENDA LISTS THREE 11, THE SUGGESTED MOTIONS LIST. 
          1 1 3. 
          GOT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S THE MOTION. 
          THE MOTION'S INCORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          THIS IS WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING. 
          NOW, THE, THE CITY SAID THAT THEY WANTED TO DENY, DENY IT AND MOVE THREE FEET, BUT THE APPLICANT WAS, WAS REQUESTING TWO FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BUILD WITHIN 2.3 FEET, WHICH I'M, UH, OF THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING WITH AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME. 
          SO, UH, AND THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS, HAS ALREADY, UH, RESPONDED TO. 
          NOW DO, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, ANY PUBLIC, UH, RESPONSE ON THAT? YES, SIR. 
          THERE'S ONE, UH, QUICK EMAIL THAT'S IN SUPPORT. 
          IT IS, UH, THANK YOU FOR CONTACTING ME REGARDING THE BO ADJUSTMENT FOR AT THREE 11 WEST MIDDLE LANE. 
          I'M RIGHT. 
          UH, TO REPORT THAT WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE ADJUSTMENT AND FULLY SUPPORT THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE. 
          IT'S FROM MEREDITH MILLER AT 3 0 7 WEST MEADOW LANE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT, THAT INCLUDES ALL THE COMMISSARY. 
          ALRIGHT, NOW, ANYONE HAVE ANY NOW, BECAUSE THE ONLY ISSUES THAT THE, UH, IS THE ACTUAL NUMBERS, THE CITY HAS RECOMMENDED A TWO FOOT VARIANCE AND THE APPLICANT'S ASKING FOR A, A, UH, A 
          [04:10:01]
TWO FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE, WE TALK ABOUT NINE INCHES HERE. 
          UM, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT OR DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF ABOUT THE, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THESE TWO MEMBERS, ORIAN, MS. ORIAN? YES. 
          UH, UH, THE, THE, SO THE, THE, THE TWO FOOT NINE IS ADVERTISED, APPEARS TO BE TO A SUPPORT POST WITH THE ONE FOOT OVERHANG TO ACCOUNT FOR ANY SORT OF TRIM WORK AND POTENTIAL GUTTERS. 
          UM, I, I, I JUST, UH, IS THAT TRUE TO THE APPLICANT THAT ARE YOU GONNA HAVE ANY GUTTERS ON THAT SIDE OR IS, OR ANY SORT OF TRIM THAT, WHERE THE ONE FOOT WOULD BE NECESSARY? NO, THAT'S, UH, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO CLARIFY WAS THAT THE, AGAIN, IN, IN CONVERSATION WITH STAFF, THEY SAID THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT US TO GO ANY FURTHER THAN ANY CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN TWO FEET, INCLUDING THE OVERHANG. 
          AND SO, UH, MY PROPOSITION IS JUST TO GET RID OF THOSE OVERHANGS EXCEPT FOR THE GUTTER, UM, WHICH WAS REQUESTED FOR, TO KEEP STORM WATER OUT OF THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD. 
          AND SO, EXCEPT FOR THE GUTTER, UH, I WOULD ELIMINATE ANY OF THE OVERHANGS. 
          WELL, TO GET THE, TO GET THE POST, SIR, JUST JUST SO YOU KNOW, UH, WITHOUT GETTING THE SEMANTICS OF THE NUMBERS THERE, THE EDGE OF THE POST, HOW CLOSE DO YOU, WOULD YOU LIKE THAT TO BE TO YOUR SIDE PROPERTY LINE? THE, THE MINIMUM TWO FOOT THAT, UM, STAFF DISCUSSED WITH ME ON THE PHONE TWO FEET, AND THE, THE ORIGINAL, THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS TWO FOOT TWO FOOT THREE. 
          SO WE CAN GO WITH THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO TWO FOOT THREE. 
          AND THEN HOW MUCH ROOM DO YOU NEED FOR THE GUTTERS? THEY'RE SAYING THAT AS ADVERTISED IT'S TWO FOOT THREE INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. 
          AND THEN THEY'RE GIVING YOU A FOOT TO ACCOUNT FOR ANY SORT OF SIDE TRIM. 
          AND SO DO YOU NEED FOR THAT BEYOND THE SIDE OF THE POST? BEYOND THE SIDE OF THE POST? I ONLY NEED, UM, I'LL SAY SIX INCHES FOR A GUTTER AND ANY TRIM AND ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S WITHIN THE ONE FOOT THAT THEY'RE ALLOWING? YEAH, THAT'S, SO IF WE READ THEM, IF THE MOTION WAS READ AS ADVERTISED, I THINK IT. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS? ARE WE ALL STILL CONNECTED? YES. 
          YEAH, I THINK I WOKE EVERYBODY UP. 
           . 
          UM, ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, SO WE HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. 
          WE HAVE THE INFORMATION READ IN THE LINE. 
          THE APPLICANT HAS HAD HIS RESPONSE. 
          UM, I THINK AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, IT'D BE BEST TO CLOSEST TO THE PUBLIC. 
          GO AHEAD AND READ THE, UH, MOTION TEAL. 
          MR. TEAL WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. 
          GO AHEAD, MR. TE, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR? YES, SIR. 
          REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH TWO ZERO DASH 0 3 0 0 1 21, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE TWO FOOT THREE INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WITH A ONE FOOT O OVERHANG SITUATED AT 3 1 1 WEST MEADOW LANE DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING ADAM WORD GATES. 
          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 THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
          THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. 
          IN THIS CASE, THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED FOR THE SIDE SETBACK, ENCROACHMENT OF THE CARPORT, AND IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
          AND THERE, AND THERE IS ENOUGH SPACE FOR LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE AND FIRE PROTECTION. 
          TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. 
          STAFF FINDS THAT ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT IF ENFORCED, WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND THE APPLICANT CANNOT PROCEED WITH THE DESIGN AS INTENDED. 
          THREE. 
          BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. 
          THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. 
          THE INTENT OF THE SIDE SETBACKS IS TO PROVIDE SPACING BETWEEN NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES. 
          THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD LEAVE ENOUGH SPACE BETWEEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ADJACENT NEIGHBOR. 
          THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE RESERVED, BE OBSERVED, OR 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 REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT PERMIT A USE NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE R FOUR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT. 
          FIVE SUCH VARIANCE 
          [04:15:01]
WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 
          THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SIDE SETBACK DOES NOT SEEM LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. 
          THERE WOULD BE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR MAINTENANCE WITHOUT TRESPASSING. 
          SIX. 
          THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER FOR THE, OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO 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 THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 
          UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY ARE NEITHER DUE TO THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT, NOR DUE TO THE OWNER AND IS NOT FINANCIAL IN NATURE. 
          DUE TO THE LOT SIZE, THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT ROOM TO BUILD A CARPORT ACCORDING TO THE REQUIRED SETBACKS. 
          END OF MOTION. 
          SECOND. 
          ALRIGHT, MR. ORIAN. 
          OKAY, MR. TE, YOU MADE THE MOTION TO START DISCUSSION. 
          UH, YES, SIR. 
          I'LL, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. 
          UH, I THINK BOTH THE, THE, THE APPLICANT AND THE ARCHITECT HAVE, HAVE WORKED WITH STAFF, UH, TO, TO MEET THE, THEIR REQUIREMENTS OR, OR AT LEAST THEIR, THE DESIRED INTENT OF THE CODE. 
          UM, I DON'T THINK IT'LL BE OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE DISTRICT AND, AND, UH, WILL BE A, A NICE ADDITION TO THIS HOME. 
          SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT. 
          UH, NOW YOU DO REALIZE THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY STAFF. 
          WE'RE GOING WITH THE ORIGINAL MOTION REQUEST THAT THE, THE APPLICANT HAS MET THE N INTENT OF THE CODE. 
          OKAY. 
          HAS, HAS WORKED WITHIN THOSE CONFINES. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          UM, MR. OREN, DO YOU HAVE ANY INPUT? YES. 
          YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL. 
          UH, I THINK THAT, UH, THIS ALLOWS HIM TO HAVE THE POST WHERE HE WANTS, IF YOU'LL NOTICE FROM THE SITE PLAN THAT HE'S STILL PUTTING THIS RELATIVELY OFFSET FROM THE SIDE OF THE, OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY. 
          SECONDLY, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, UH, HE'S BUILDING THIS THING IN FRONT OF THE PLANE OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY HOME BECAUSE THERE'S, THERE'S NO, UH, ISSUES WITH, WITH THE FIRE HAZARD THERE AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, DRIVEWAYS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE. 
          SO I THINK THAT THIS IS, IT JUST WORKS. 
          SO I'M IN SUPPORT. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          ANY OTHER, UH, UH, BOARD MEMBER HAVE INPUT? NONE BEING THE CASE. 
          I'M GOING AHEAD AND ASK FOR A ROLL CALL. 
          VOTE MS. CRUZ. 
          YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. MANCA. 
          I CONCUR. 
          MR. STEEL. 
          YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          SCH I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          MS. BECKMAN. 
          I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          MR. MR. IAN? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MS. FISHER? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. UNA? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MS. IAN, UH, I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CHAIR MARTINEZ. 
          ALRIGHT, I CAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. 
          THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY IT'S 10 VOTE. 
          GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT. 
          I'M SURE GLAD THAT YOU CAME TO US BEFORE YOU MADE SOME ERRORS. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          AND LET'S GO ON FOR NEXT. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          WANNA SAY SOMETHING? NOPE, WE'RE READY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, CASE 1 23 
          [6. 21-1022 BOA-20-10300123]
AT 1 35 K WAY. 
          COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO APPLICANT'S FERNANDO DELION REQUEST FOR A 10, A 10 INCH VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO BE FOUR FEET, TWO INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. 
          CURRENT ZONE IS RMM FOUR M L O D THREE. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION. 
          DUE TO AN ERROR IN CONSTRUCTION, THE FOUNDATION WAS LAID 10 INCHES INTO THE SIDE SETBACK TOWARD THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE. 
          THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO BUILD A POND, THE FOUNDATION TO BE FOUR FEET, TWO INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, COPY THE SITE, PLAN THE STRUCTURE, AND SURROUNDING, UH, PROPERTY, WHICH IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. 
          20 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT, ZERO RECEIVED, AND NO REGISTERED  ASSOCIATION AT THIS TIME. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND BO O A 21 0 3 0 0 1 2 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING UP EFFECT PORTION OF, UH, PROPOSING FAMILY STRUCTURE WILL BE FOUR FEET, TWO INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, AND THE STRUCTURE WILL MAINTAIN A 10 FOOT SEPARATION FROM ADJACENT STRUCTURE. 
          WE DO HAVE FERNANDO DEL ON THE LINE. 
          SIR, WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          HELLO, THIS IS FERNANDO DEL LEON AND MY ADDRESS IS 1615 WEST RESEARCH AND I'M THE APPLICANT. 
          UM, YES, WE DO LIKE, UM, THIS IS A, UM, A STRUCTURE THAT IS LOCATED INSIDE THE TY WEIGHT SUBDIVISION. 
          UH, TY WEIGHT SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED ON EAST HOUSTON AND SOUTH SOUTH POST FOSTER ROAD. 
          [04:20:01]
UH, WE OBTAINED BUILDING PERMITS BACK IN JUNE OF 2020. 
          AND, UH, AT THAT TIME WHEN THE FORMS WERE SET BY THE SUBCONTRACTOR OF THE CONCRETE, UH, SUBCONTRACTOR, THEY WAS, THEY WERE SET KIND OF AND AT, AT THE WRONG ANGLE. 
          AND, UM, AND TO THE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE ON THE RIGHT HIGH SIDE, IT DOES HAVE THE FIVE FOOT CLEARANCE. 
          UM, BUT WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THE BACK OF IT, UM, IT DOES NOT, IT HAS A FOUR FOOT, UM, TWO INCHES, UH, SETBACK ONLY. 
          SO WE ARE REQUESTING THAT, UH, THAT 10 INCHES OF SETBACK, UH, WILL BE ALLOWED, UH, FOR THIS PROPERTY. 
          FOR THIS STRUCTURE, WE ARE PLANNING TO FOLLOW THE, UH, RESIDENTIAL CODE WHERE IT SAYS THAT THE SOFFIT WILL HAVE TO BE RATED AND THE WALLS, UH, THE, THE EXTERIOR WALLS WOULD HAVE TO BE FIRE RATED AS JUST AS PER THE, THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, UH, CALLS FOR. 
          UH, SO THAT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA FOLLOW FOR THE SUMMER STRUCTURES THAT ARE ENCROACHING INTO A FIVE FOOT SETBACK. 
          UH, WE WILL HAVE TO REVISE THE PLAN AND RESUBMIT IT TO THE CITY BASED ON, UH, ON UH, ANY APPROVALS FROM TODAY. 
          AND THAT'S PLAN, THAT'S MY PRESENTATION. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, VICKI, WE HAVE ANY, UH, PUBLIC INPUT HERE? NO, SIR. 
          NO SIR. 
          NOT AT ALL. 
          OKAY, THEN, UH, LET ME OPEN THIS TO THE BOARD TO ASK QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT. 
          BRAGMAN. 
          MS. BRAGMAN, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YES. 
          FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          UM, SO ARE YOU BUILDING OTHER PROPERTIES IN THAT AREA THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO OFFSET THE ADJACENT PROPERTY? SO IT'S, HAS THE, THE 10 FEET IN BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES OR, OR IS IT JUST THAT YOU ARE PLANNING ON, UH, THE EXTRA FIRE PROTECTION ON THAT ONE SIDE OF THE HOUSE? THAT, THAT IS THE SUBJECT, 1 35 KD WAY? THAT IS CORRECT. 
          UH, NO. 
          ALL THE, UH, ADJACENT STRUCTURES WILL REMAIN FIVE FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          THIS STRUCTURE, UH, WE WILL HAVE TO FIRE RIGHT IN ORDER TO, UH, TO PREVENT ANY, UH, FIRE ISSUES AS PER THE I R C. 
          WE'LL FOLLOW THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE THAT, UH, WILL ALLOW US TO FIRE RATE TO SOFFIT AND ALLOW US TO FIRE RATE THE EXTERIOR WALL TO A ONE HOUR FIRE RATE. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? MANNA, MR. MANNA? SO WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY THAT'S, UH, THAT WE'RE ENCROACHING ALSO NEED TO BE FIRE RATED. 
          IF WE MOVE THIS PROPERTY OVER, I GUESS IT'S A QUESTION FOR THE CITY, IF THAT PROPERTY, IF THAT HOUSE IS FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, NO, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE FIRE RATE ONLY. 
          THAT ONE, WE'RE ONLY DEALING WITH ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY RIGHT NOW. 
          AND IF THAT OTHER HOUSE WAS IN VIOLATION, THE CITY WOULD REQUIRE THE FIRE RATE. 
          OKAY. 
          SECOND QUESTION IS, UH, DOES THIS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OVERHANG AND IS THAT COME INTO CALCULATION AT ALL? I BELIEVE THE CITY ALLOWS FOR, FOR ONE FOOT OVERHANG ON IF THE PROPERTY, THE STRUCTURE IS BUILT WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          OH. 
          TYPICALLY OVERHANG IS ALLOWED, UH, TO BE, UH, NO POSTED IN THREE FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SURE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. 
          I'M GONNA CLOSE THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION. 
          BRAGMAN, MS. BRAGMAN, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 20 DASH 3 0 0 1 2 3, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT IS REQUEST FOR A 10 INCH VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO BE FOUR FOOT TWO INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 1 3 5 KATY WAY, APPLICANT BEING FERNANDO DELEON BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY AND IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF 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 PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. 
          THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED BECAUSE A PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE ENCROACHES 10 INCHES TO THE SIDE SETBACK DUE TO A CONSTRUCTION ERROR. 
          THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE STRUCTURE WILL MAINTAIN ADEQUATE DISTANCE FROM THE ADJACENT STRUCTURE. 
          TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. 
          THE BOARD FINDS THAT ANY SPECIAL CONDITION THAT IF ENFORCED, WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. 
          [04:25:01]
THREE. 
          BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SPECIAL JUSTICE AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. 
          THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN 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 VARIANCES. 
          FOUR. 
          THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF 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. 
          FIVE. 
          SUCH 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 BOARD FINDS THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SIDE SETBACK DOES NOT POSE A RISK OF SUBSTANTIALLY INJURING THE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND DOES NOT SEEM LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. 
          SIX. 
          THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. 
          AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT, AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO THE RESULT OR NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 
          THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY ARE NEITHER DUE TO THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT, NOR DUE TO THE OWNER AND ARE NOT FINANCIAL IN NATURE. 
          END OF MOTION. 
          SECOND. 
          SECOND, MS. FISHER, I'M GONNA GIVE YOU CREDIT FOR THE SECOND. 
          AND, UH, MS. BREGMAN, WILL YOU START THE CONVERSATION? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. 
          I MEAN, UNFORTUNATELY THINGS LIKE THIS DO HAPPEN. 
          UH, SO I APPRECIATE THAT THE APPLICANT IS STEPPING UP AND DOING THE FIRE, UH, PREVENTION ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, UH, AS IS APPROPRIATE. 
          SO I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST TO, TO GRANT, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. 
          ALRIGHT, MS. FISHER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD YOUR MR INPUT? UH, YES, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. 
          I FEEL LIKE THE, UH, STRUCTURE WILL BE ADEQUATELY, YOU KNOW, FORTIFIED TO PREVENT ANY, UM, DAMAGE RESULTS FROM ANY TYPE OF FIRE HAZARD THAT WOULD POSSIBLY OCCUR. 
          SO I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY INPUT? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL. 
          UH, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, UH, TO ACCEPT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE ROLL CALL VOTE MS. CRUZ. 
          I CONCUR. 
          MR. MANCHACA. 
          I CONCUR. 
          MR. THI YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          MR. MENNA. 
          I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          MS. BREGMAN. 
          I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          MS. ? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MS. FISHER? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. OZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. IAN? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          CHAIR MARTINEZ. 
          I DO CONCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. 
          UH, THE MOTION CARRIES 10 TO ZERO. 
          UM, AND, UH, LET'S TRY NOT TO MAKE ANY MORE MISTAKES. 
          LET'S, UH, WE HAVE, UH, UP 
          [7. 20-7502 BOA-20-10300110]
TO OUR LAST CASE, I BELIEVE. 
          YES, SIR. 
          1 39 ARIZONA WAY OR AVENUE? YES, SIR. 
          1 39 ARIZONA AVENUE. 
          ONE, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID SCREEN FENCE ON THE SIDE PROPERTY. 
          TWO, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A PRIVACY FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL ALONG THE SIDE, SIDE PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD. 
          AND THREE, A FIVE FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE CLEAR VISION STANDARDS TO ALLOW A FENCE TO BE NINE FEET THREE INCHES WITHIN THE CLEAR VISION FIELD. 
          CURRENT ZONING IS R FOUR M L O D. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS PREDOMINANTLY SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. 
          REQUESTS FOR IS TO BUILD AN EIGHT FOOT, UH, TALL SOLID FENCE PRIVACY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY UP TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. 
          TO ENHANCE THE SECURITY AND PRIVACY, THE WESTERN SIDE NEIGHBOR CONSTRUCTED A SIX FOOT SEVEN INCH, UH, WOOD FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD, WHICH IS NINE FEET, TWO INCHES. 
          WITHIN THE CLEAR VISION FIELD, THERE IS CURRENTLY A FOUR FOOT TALL CHAIN LINK METAL FENCE, UH, AROUND THE PROPERTY. 
          THIS IS A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY, CLEAR VISION, NEIGHBORING PROPERTY THAT BUILT IT THIS FENCE 
          [04:30:07]
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF V O A, UH, ONE 10 FOR THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR OUR PROPERTY FENCE WITHIN THE REAR YARD. 
          BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE MATERIAL AND LOOK OF THE PROPOSED FENCE IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITHIN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THE FENCE WILL REMAIN IN HARMONY WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, UH, BY BEING A SOLID SCREEN WOODEN BENDS ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND THE ADDITIONAL TWO FEET WILL PROVIDE SECURITY AND PRIVACY TO THE PROPERTY. 
          STAFF, HOWEVER, RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF CASE ONE 10 OF THE PROPOSED REQUEST, SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW PRIVACY FENCE TO BE UPDATED DEEP ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD. 
          AND A FIVE FOOT NINE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE CLEAR VISION STANDARD SHALL ALLOW FENCE TO BE NINE FEET THREE INCHES WITH A CLEAR VISION FIELD. 
          BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS, THE PROPOSED FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD WILL DETRACT FROM THE, THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND CLEAR VISION STANDARDS WILL BE IN VIOLATION BY INSTALLING AN EIGHT FOOT TALL CLOSED WOODEN FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          48 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT TO RECEIVED IN FAVOR, UH, ZERO IN OPPOSITION AND NO RESPONSE FROM EL RO NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION. 
          WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT ELVIRA ALDO ON THE LINE. 
          MS. ALDO, WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          YES, MY NAME'S ELVA SALAZAR. 
          I LIVE AT 1 39 ARIZONA. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          BOARD MEMBERS. 
          UH, YOU MAY START THE VIDEO. 
          UH, THE REASON FOR THE FENCE THAT I AM REQUESTING IS MY NEIGHBOR, UM, KEEPS THROWING NAILS. 
          AND YOU WILL SEE ON THE VIDEO THAT SHE DOES THROW STUFF OVER. 
          UH, I HAD TONS OF VIDEOS TO SHOW YOU, BUT BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE AND BECAUSE OF THE HAND GESTURES, THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED. 
          BUT SHE IS, UH, WE CANNOT GO OUTSIDE IN THE BACKYARD. 
          WE CANNOT GO OUTSIDE IN THE FRONT YARD DUE TO THE FACT THAT SHE'S CONSTANTLY HARASSING US. 
          AND I FEEL THAT WITHOUT THE FENCE, THIS IS GOING TO CONTINUE. 
          SS A P D HAS BEEN CALLED, I HAVE GONE TO THE SAFE OFFICERS AND, UH, THE, WE HAVE SET UP TWO MEETINGS THE DAY BEFORE THE MEETINGS, THEY CANCEL AND I MET WITH END. 
          AND WE'RE TRYING TO DO THIS THE RIGHT WAY. 
          ALL THE OTHER NEIGHBORS AROUND US, THEY PUT UP THEIR FENCES, THEY DO WHAT THEY WANT, BUT I WANNA DO THIS THE CORRECT WAY. 
          I WANT AN APPROVAL SO THAT WE CAN HAVE SOME PEACE. 
          IT'S REALLY DEVASTATING. 
          I REALLY WOULD APPRECIATE THE BOARD MEMBERS TO PASS THIS BECAUSE WE, WE CAN'T HAVE A LIFE. 
          I, UH, UM, UNDERSTAND YOUR, YOUR FLIGHT. 
          I'M GONNA REQUEST THAT YOU MAKE SURE IF YOU HAVE TO FIND THE, UH, POLICE RECORDS, AT LEAST THE DOCUMENTED FILE NUMBER BE ADDED TO THIS FILE FOR TO VERIFY THE POLICE CALLS. 
          AND, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY, UM, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC INPUT ON THIS? UH, UH, THE, DO YOU HAVE ONE LIVE CALLER, SIR? I, OH, GO AHEAD. 
          ALRIGHT, WE HAVE ONE LIVE CALLER AND TWO, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS OF APPROVAL, UM, TO REACH WITH THE RECORD. 
          ACTUALLY, IT'S ONE. 
          OKAY, WELL LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR THOSE THEN WE'LL LET THE APPLICANT REBUT. 
          OKAY? SURE. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          THERE'S OTHER PRIVACY FENCES WITHIN THE, UH, THE SAME HEIGHT. 
          THE FENCES IS, UH, ALFONSO MORENO, 1 35 ARIZONA IN SUPPORT AND  IN SUPPORT AT 1 43 ARIZONA AND THE LIVE CALLER. 
          AND WE HAVE THE LIVE CALLER CALLER NAME. 
          SO WE HAVE ROSEMARY ESKI. 
          VE UH, MA'AM, WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          MA'AM, GO AHEAD AND UNMUTE YOURSELF. 
          TELL IT STAR SIX. 
          MA'AM HIT STAR SIX ON YOUR PHONE. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          MY NAME IS ROSEMARY. 
          OKAY, GO AHEAD. 
          YES, ROSEMARY AND, OKAY. 
          ROSEMARY AND OC 1 37 ARIZONA, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 0 7 
          [04:35:02]
AND I DO NOT APPROVE OF THE FENCE. 
          MY HUSBAND AND I, WE HIRED GIBBONS AND BRAVO SURVEY, L L C TO DO A PROPERTY SURVEY. 
          THEY SET UP FLAGS, MARKING BOUNDARIES FROM FRONT TO BACK OF OUR HOUSE. 
          THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE WOULD BE BETWEEN THEIR HOUSE AND OURS. 
          UH, THE , WE HAVE A CONTRACT AND PICTURES ALONG WITH BOTH FLAGS TO SHOW OUR BOUNDARIES. 
          FRANK AND LVRA WILL NOT AGREE AND FEEL WE ARE TOTALLY WRONG OF OUR BOUNDARIES. 
          WE WANT TO BE HEARD BECAUSE WE HIRED THIS COMPANY TO PROVE OUR BOUNDARIES AND WE WANT CITY OF SAN ANTONIO TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEM TOO. 
          THAT IS WHY, THAT IS WHY WE LEFT A CONTRACT AND PICTURES TO A ZEP. 
          SO I HAD THE CASE MANAGER LET IT BE KNOWN THAT OUR BOUNDARIES EXTEND TO PROPERTY ON 1 39 ARIZONA, WHERE THEY LIVE. 
          WE ARE AGAINST EIGHT FOOT FENCE AND TWO OTHER PERMISSIONS. 
          THEY WANT IT TO BE KNOWN THAT THEY ARE THE ONES THAT CAUSE ALL THE PROBLEMS AND THEY CAUSE PROBLEMS AND ARGUMENTS TOO, WHEN ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS ACKNOWLEDGE, ACCEPT AND RESPECT OUR BOUNDARIES. 
          WE WILL ALSO BE SETTING UP A NEW CHAIN FENCE ON OUR PROPERTY, EXTENDING OUR PROPERTY LINE. 
          WE HAVE ALSO ASKED THEM TO REMOVE THE GATE FROM OUR POST AND THEY WILL NOT AGREE TO IT. 
          FRANK THINKS HE OWNS OUR SECTION OF OUR BOUNDARIES GIVING EVEN CITY PROPERTY, WHICH HE BLOCKS WITH A SECOND CAR VEHICLE THAT HE PARKED THERE. 
          SO CAN YOU ASK THEM TO REMOVE GATE FROM POST? WE WILL BE HAVING OUR NEW CHAIN FENCE. 
          UM, JOHN, THEY ALREADY HAVE HAD A COMPANY WHICH WE HAVE ON CAMERA TO COME TO MEASURE WHERE THEY WAS, THEIR, THEIR FENCE. 
          UH, WE HAVE CONTACTED OUR, UH, WE HAVE CONTACTED OUR ATTORNEY AND WE ARE IN, YOU KNOW, AND IF WE HAVE TO, WE WILL GET OUR ATTORNEY TO GET INVOLVED. 
          AND THAT'S IT, JUDGE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          WE'VE HEARD OF THE, THE, UH, VERBAL PORTION OF THIS AS WE HEARD, UH, WE HEARD ALL OR SEEN THE, UH, WRITTEN RESPONSES. 
          THAT WAS IT, SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC INFORMATION. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          PLEASE BRING THE APPLICANT ON SO THAT SHE CAN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SHE HEARD THE TESTIMONY. 
          YES, I DID. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, UNDER, UNDER CITY CODE, UH, PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO BUILD A FENCE UPON THEIR PROPERTY LINE UNLESS SOMETHING'S DISPUTED AND THEY MUST BUILD THEIR FENCE WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY LINE. 
          THE THE POINT IS THAT THE PROPERTY LINES ARE DONATE, ARE NOT NOTED BY PINS THAT WERE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY WHEN IT WAS SUBED. 
          AND THOSE PINS ARE WHAT IS BEING USED BY, UH, THE, UM, UH, SURVEYING CREWS DETERMINE WHERE THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINES ARE. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS THERE, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A, A, A DISPUTE BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AND THAT'S NOT UNCOMMON. 
          UH, SO, UH, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SAY IN RESPONSE, OTHER THAN WHAT I'VE DISCOVERED THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY IN RESPONSE TO THE NEIGHBOR'S STATEMENTS? YES, SIR. 
          WE HAD A CHAIN LINK FENCE PUT ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE, AND THE SURVEYOR MEASURED EVERYTHING FROM THAT SIDE OF THE FENCE IS CORRECT. 
          SO WHAT WE PLAN TO DO IS GET A SURVEYOR TO FINISH SURVEYING. 
          ALL THEY'RE GOING IS BY THE BACK POST. 
          AND AS FAR AS THE FENCE, WHY DO WE FIND NAILS WITH THEIR PAINT COLOR OR SIDING ON THE NAILS? SHE HAS A, I HAVE A BRICK WHERE THAT HAS THE SAME PAINT COLOR THAT IS HER HOUSE. 
          IS THAT HIT MY HUSBAND'S TRUCK. 
          I UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE'S SAYING, BUT WE STILL NEED TO GET A SURVEYOR TO SURVEY THE REST OF THE PROPERTY ON THE SIDE THAT SHE WANTS TO BUILD HER CHAIN LINK FENCE. 
          AND THIS ALL STARTED BECAUSE SHE SAID HER MOTHER AND MR. SALSA'S MOTHER AGREED TO THIS. 
          HOW DO I KNOW IT HAS NOT BEEN GRANDFATHERED? HOW DO I KNOW IF THEY DIDN'T PAY OFF EACH OTHER FOR THE PROPERTY? IT, IT'S A, IT'S AN ENTAIL. 
          THE ONLY THING IS I WANT THE FENCE UP SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO COMMUNICATE, WE DON'T HAVE TO SEE EACH OTHER. 
          [04:40:01]
WE CAN STOP THIS. 
          I MEAN, SS A P D COMES OVER HERE, THEY ROLL THEIR EYES AND THEY LOOK AT US AND THEY SAY, OKAY, WHAT NOT. 
          IT'S GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE SHE'S CONSTANTLY CALLING S A P D. 
          THEY HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO. 
          THEY HAVE BETTER CASES AND CALLS TO GO TO. 
          THIS IS RIDICULOUS. 
          OKAY. 
          I, I DON'T WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. 
          UM, AND, UH, IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE YOU'RE DOING SOME OF THE RIGHT THINGS YOU NEED TO DO IN ORDER TO DEFINE YOUR PROPERTY LINE. 
          BUT REMEMBER I DID STATE THAT BY, BY CITY CODE, YOU'RE ENTITLED TO BUILD A OFFENSE ON THE OR OR ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          AND THAT INFORMATION IS ALSO KEPT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS DOWN TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT HERE IN, ON CREO STREET. 
          SO YOU COULD GO DOWN THERE THE SECOND CLASS AS WELL. 
          UM, ALSO, UH, UH, WE ARE GONNA BE TAKING CONSIDERATION NOW IF ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU'D LIKE TO ASK STAFF OR THE APPLICANT ORIAN, MR. ORIAN. 
          OKAY. 
          SO A QUESTION FOR STAFF. 
          UH, WHEN I'M LOOKING ON STREET VIEW, IT LOOKS LIKE AT THE CORNER OF THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE THERE APPEARS TO BE ELECTRICAL, GAS, PHONE, EVERYTHING COMING OFF THE SIDE OF THE HOME. 
          AND THERE'S SOME, APPEARS TO BE SOME WIRES THAT ARE COMING INTO, UH, YOU KNOW, SERVICE LINE TO GO INTO THE HOME. 
          IF AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE WAS BUILT ALONG THAT PROPERTY LINE, DO YOU THINK IN YOUR OPINION, THIS IS THE STAFF THAT THERE WOULD BE A CONFLICT WITH THOSE UTILITIES? WE'RE TAKING A LOOK AT IT NOW, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THE UTILITIES WOULD'VE TO WEIGH IN ON. 
          ULTIMATELY, YOU CAN'T INTERFERE WITH ANY KIND OF UTILITY, UH, ACCESS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN HAVE YOU, HAVE YOU SEEN A, A SEALED SURVEY PRODUCT? THIS IS TO STAFF THAT WOULD GET, THAT WOULD, UH, IN YOUR OPINION, THAT SHOWS THE, THE NEIGHBORING HOME BEING AT LEAST THREE FEET OFF OF THE PROPERTY LINE? BECAUSE I'M, I'M, 'CAUSE ONCE YOU BUILD AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE FOR A WHILE. 
          IT'S KIND OF A BIG DEAL. 
          SO I'M JUST, SO OUR, OUR CONVERSATION AS FAR AS THAT SURVEY WAS CONCERNED IS THAT IS ULTIMATELY A CIVIL MATTER. 
          THE REQUEST IN ITSELF, SHE'S GONNA HAVE TO PLACE THE FENCE ON HER PROPERTY LINE. 
          UM, AND THAT IS BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE REVIEWING TODAY. 
          WE DIDN'T WANNA GET INVOLVED WITH, UH, THE PROPERTY LINE DISPUTE BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE A CIVIL ISSUE. 
          WE PROVIDED A CONTACT INFORMATION PERTAINING TO BEAR COUNTY DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , WHICH IS A FREE, FREE MEDIATION, UM, TO, SO THEY COULD WORK THINGS OUT IN THE END. 
          WE WANTED TO FOCUS STRICTLY ON THE REQUEST. 
          AND, UM, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE WERE. 
          I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU HAD A, A SEALED SURVEY IN THE FILE THAT YOU COULD SEE. 
          THAT'S ALL. 
          WE DIDN'T HAVE ONE WITH THE APPLICATION. 
          I BELIEVE IT WAS THE NEIGHBOR THAT, UH, PULLED THE SURVEY. 
          OH, JUST CURIOUS. 
          THANK YOU, CRUZ. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH MS. DORIAN. 
          UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MS. CRUZ, YOU HAVE A FLOOR. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          SEE ON, ON THE, UH, SURVEY. 
          IF THEY'RE GONNA DO A SURVEY FOR THEIR OWN PROPERTY, WOULDN'T WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THAT BEFORE WE APPROVE THE FENCE? NO, MA'AM. 
          KEEP IN MIND THE, THE REQUEST IS STRICTLY FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT AND THE PROXIMITY TO, FOR CLEAR VISION, NO MATTER WHAT THAT FENCE WOULD HAVE TO GO ON THEIR PROPERTY LINE. 
          SO IN OUR, OUR REVIEW, WE'RE SIMPLY STATING EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN THE, ON THE SIDE YARD, IN THE REAR YARD, EIGHT FOOT FENCE FRONT YARD AND CLEAR VISION. 
          SO THAT'S THE FOCUS REGARDLESS OF PROPERTY LINE. 
          ULTIMATELY FENCE LINES, THERE'S ALWAYS GONNA BE A DISPUTE. 
          WELL, I WON'T SAY ALWAYS THERE. 
          THEY'RE DISPUTES QUITE OFTEN AND WE JUST SIMPLY CANNOT GET INVOLVED WITH THAT TYPE OF THING. 
          SINCE THERE'S ALWAYS GONNA BE A, A DISPUTE BETWEEN NEIGHBORS, UH, THAT WILL ALWAYS BE . 
          WELL, ESPECIALLY, ESPECIALLY IN THAT AREA, THAT'S AN OLD NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND OF COURSE THOSE HOUSES HAVE BEEN THERE FOR OVER 50 YEARS. 
          SO DEPENDING ON WHEN THE FENCE WAS FIRST PUT IN, THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION. 
          RIGHT. 
          AS FAR AS THE REQUEST GOES, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE REQUEST IN ITSELF AS FAR AS WHERE THAT FENCE WILL END UP GOING. 
          IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO PLACE IT ON THEIR PROPERTY LINE AT THAT POINT. 
          SO IF THEY DO GET A SURVEY THAT WILL ASSIST THEM IN IDENTIFYING WHERE TO PLACE THE FENCE IF IT WERE APPROVED. 
          OKAY. 
          I GET IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SEE? ALRIGHT. 
          ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? UH, OKAY. 
          UM, SO THEREFORE I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS MEETING AS PUBLIC AND I'M GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION ORIAN MS. ORIAN, 
          [04:45:01]
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 20 DASH 1 0 3 0 1 OH. 
          I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ONE GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID SCREEN FENCE ON THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. 
          AND TWO, UM, I'M GOING TO IGNORE NUMBER TWO, UM, SITUATED AT 1 39 ARIZONA AVENUE. 
          APPLICANT BEING ELVIRA SALAZAR 'CAUSE 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 WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP ALLY. 
          YOU FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. 
          U C STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN BRING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE. 
          THE INTENTION OF AN ADDITIONAL FENCE SITE IS TO PROVIDE SAFETY AND SECURITY FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          IF GRANTED, THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER WOULD BE PRESERVED. 
          B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED. 
          THE MAXIMUM FENCE SITE WILL PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY. 
          AN EIGHT FOOT TALL, CLOSED WOODEN FENCE ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. 
          IT'S NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
          IT'S INSIDE OF ICE OF EIGHT FEET IN THE, UM, FRONT YARD IS NOT INCLUDED TO THIS MOTION. 
          C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. 
          INSTALLING EIGHT FOOT TALL CLOSED STENTS ON THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WILL INCREASE SECURITY AND PRIVACY. 
          FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO INJURE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. 
          THE PHYSICAL APPEARANCE OF THE FENCES AND HARMONY OF OTHER FENCES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. 
          A FENCE, UH, B A THE SPECIAL EXTENSION EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. 
          THE PROPOSED FENCE IS IN LINE WITH OTHER PREEXISTING FENCING MATERIAL AND HEIGHT WITHIN THE, UH, IMMEDIATE VICINITY. 
          THE FENCING DOES NOT SEEM TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. 
          E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. 
          THE CURRENT ZONING PERMITS A CURRENT USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. 
          THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AND OF MOTION. 
          SECOND, I, WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY MS. CREW. 
          MS. WOULD START DISCUSSION? YES. 
          UH, I, I READ THE MOTION TO TO BE, UH, ONLY ON THE SIDE. 
          I DIDN'T WANT IT TO INCLUDE IN THE FRONT. 
          UH, THE REASONING WAS THAT IT, IT FROM JUST PICTURES AND VIEWS, IT LOOKS LIKE THE HOMES ARE RELATIVELY CLOSE TO THE FRONT AND RELATIVELY CLOSE TO THE 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION. 
          SO I DIDN'T SEE A PURPOSE OF IT. 
          UH, SO I JUST THINK IT'S, IT'S OKAY ON THE SIDE, BUT, BUT NOT IN, IN THE FRONT. 
          OKAY. 
          MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR WITH MR. WAR. 
          AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE, UH, AT LEAST, UH, UNDERSTANDING FOR RIGHT NOW AND THE, THE, THE FRONT PART, WELL, MAYBE AT A LATER TIME, BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, I THINK THAT WE CAN AGREE ON AT THE BACK. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY INPUT ON THAT? SO BY RIGHT, THE, UM, APPLICANT WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD WHAT, A FOUR FOOT FENCE ON THE FRONT PORTION OF THE YARD. 
          THAT'S NOT, UM, OKAY. 
          BY RIGHT. 
          YOU CANNOT BUILD A, A SOLID FENCE ON THE FRONT OF THE F SIDE OF THE HOUSE. 
          YOU CAN DO A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, WHICH WOULD BE CHAIN LINK, IRON, UH, ROUTE IRON, EVEN A WOODEN TICKET FENCE. 
          AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT EXCEED FOUR FEET HEIGHT. 
          YEAH. 
          FOUR FEET. 
          I TAKE THAT BACK. 
          I TAKE THAT BACK. 
          I BELIEVE THAT'S NOW FIVE FEET HEIGHT. 
          IS THAT NOT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          FIVE FIVE FEET. 
          FIVE FEET PREDOMINANTLY OPEN IN THE FRONT YARD FOR IT'S 3 4 3 FOOT SOLID. 
          THREE FOOT SOLID. 
          RIGHT. 
          THE PORTION. 
          SO SHE COULD ACTUALLY BUILD A PICKET FENCE FROM THE, FROM THE, THE SOD FORWARD. 
          UH, BUT IT'S GOTTA HAVE 70% VIEWING. 
          SO EVEN IF IT'S A IT'S PICKET FENCE, THE PICKETS WOULD BE PRETTY FAR APART. 
          MM-HMM. 
           OR SHE COULD PUT A, A FIVE FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE AND SHE COULD PUT SLACKS. 
          NOW I GUESS SHE COULD PUT SLACKS IN IT. 
          THAT'D HAVE TO BE IT. 
          UNLESS THERE WAS SOME SORT OF VARIANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW HER TO DO IT UP TO THE CLEAR VISION FIELD. 
          BUT, SO ESSENTIALLY CHAINLINK OR, OR, OR RIGHT. 
          IRON FENCE WOULD BE ABOUT ALL SHE COULD DO FROM THE HOUSE TO THE FIVE FOOT. 
          TO THE FIVE. 
          FIVE FOOT AFTER FIVE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? WE DISCUSS MINKA. 
          MR. MINKA, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. 
          UH, JUST, UH, FOR MY, UH, INFORMATION. 
          'CAUSE I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS BEFORE, WHAT 70% LOOKS LIKE. 
          BUT IS THE FENCE NEXT TO THE HOUSE, THE ONE WITH THE BOARDS THAT ARE ABOUT SIX FEET OR EIGHT FEET TALL? UM, IS THAT CONSIDERED 70%? NO, THAT IS, THAT FENCE IS UN PERMITTED. 
          SO THE A THE NEIGHBOR DID PULL 
          [04:50:01]
PERMITS FOR A FENCE FOR THE REAR AND REAR YARD ONLY. 
          UH, THEY WENT AHEAD AND EXTENDED IT TO THE FRONT, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED BY, BY CODE. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          UH, I HAVE NO PERCEPTION OF WHAT 70% LOOKS LIKE TO A FENCE LIKE THAT WITH GAPS IN IT. 
          NOT THAT. 
          WELL, MAYBE THAT'S THE NEW THING. 
          SO THANK YOU . 
          ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, STATEMENTS, REMEDIES? ALL RIGHT, THAT'S BEING THE CASE. 
          LET'S, UH, GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL. 
          VOTE ON THE MOTION. 
          MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. MACHACA. 
          I CONCUR. 
          MR. KE? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. MANNA, I CONCUR WITH THE P FACTS. 
          MS. BREGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          MS. VENO? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MS. FISHER? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. UNA? YES, I CONCUR. 
          MR. ORIAN? YES, I CONCUR. 
          CHAIR MARTINEZ. 
          I INCUR WITH THE FINES OF FACT. 
          UH, YOUR MOTION, UH, PARTIAL REQUEST HAS BEEN RE APPROVED. 
          YOU HAVE A MOTION, YOU HAVE A, UH, A RIGHT NOW TO GET A PERMIT TO BUILD AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN THE FRONT F SIDE OF THE BACK OF YOUR PROPERTY, LIGHT ON, ON THAT SIDE. 
          AND, UH, IF YOU ARE, UM, SO RECLINE, UM, YOU CAN, UH, MAKE SURE THAT, UH, YOU GO AHEAD AND GET YOUR SURVEY DONE SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MORE, UH, QUESTIONS AND, AND THE VARIANCE THAT CONCLUDES THE CASES THAT WE HAVE TODAY. 
          SIR, WHAT ABOUT THE VARIANCE FOR THE CLEAR VISION? UH, IT WAS, IT WAS, IT WAS DELETED FROM THE, UH, MOTIONS ACCORDING TO HE PUT THAT IN HIS MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT HE WAS GONNA EXCLUDE THE FRONT PORTION. 
          WELL, THAT IT, IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BEEN READ SEPARATELY. 
          I JUST HAD NO INTENTION OF READING IT. 
          OKAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT SOMEBODY ELSE DOES, BUT I DON'T, IN OTHER WORDS, NO. 
          OKAY. 
          THE QUESTION HERE IS, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE FIRST PORTION OR THE FRONT PORTION FENCE? IF NO MOTION IS MADE, IT DIES. 
          IF I, OKAY, SO THEREFORE, THEREFORE, THE, UH, EXCEPTION FOR THE REAR PART OF THE FENCE HAS BEEN APPROVED. 
          AND THE FRONT, I THINK I STATED THAT THE FRONT IS NOT, UH, WAS NOT, UH, WAS UPON OR CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD. 
          SO, UH, AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, AGAIN, THIS COMPLETES OUR CASES FOR TODAY. 
          UH, WE NOW GO ON TO THE MINUTES. 
          AND 
          [8. 21-1005 Consideration and approval of December 21, 2020 Board of Adjustment meeting minutes.]
DOES EVERYONE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING? IS THERE ANY CHANGES OR ALTERATIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED? THEREFORE? OKAY, I'M NOW GONNA ASK FOR A ROLL CALL. 
          VOTES ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS WELL. 
          I THINK WE STILL HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT. 
          I, I'M WITH THE MEETING, SIR. 
          PROVE AS WRITTEN. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT WAS MR. MANANO SECOND. 
          AKA. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL ALL, ANYONE WANNA DISCUSS IT? NO. 
          LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL. 
          VOTE. 
          MS. CRUZ. 
          I ABSTAIN. 
          I WASN'T THERE. 
          MR. MANCHACA. 
          I APPROVE MR. SHIELD. 
          YES. 
          MR. MANEZ? I APPROVE MS. BREMAN. 
          I APPROVE MS, I APPROVE MS. FISHER. 
          I APPROVE FISHER ZUNA. 
          YEAH. 
          ABS STAYING. 
          I WAS, I WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE LAST, UH, BOARD MEETING. 
          MR. IAN. 
          I APPROVE AND CHAIR MARTINEZ. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, I HAVE, I APPROVE THE MINUTES NOW. 
          DOES THE MINUTES TAKE A, A, UH, A MORALITY OR HOW, HOW DOES THAT WORK? WE DON'T HAVE NINE VOTES. 
          IT, IT'S SIMPLE. 
          MAJORITY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY, SO THE MINUTES ARE PASSED BY SIMPLE MAJORITY. 
          THAT'S, UH, THAT CONCLUDES THE OFFICIAL BOARD CAPACITY MEETINGS. 
          DO WE HAVE, UH, ANY INFORMATION FROM STAFF CONCERNING THE NEAR FUTURE? UH, NOTHING YET, SIR. 
          WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE VIRTUAL MEETINGS. 
          UH, BUT AGAIN, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW AS SOON AS WE KNOW IF WE'RE MOVING BACK TOWARDS, UM, ANY, UH, HIDINGS. 
          UH, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE'RE HAVING TO MEET OUR NOTIFICATION DEADLINE. 
          SO, UM, AS SOON AS WE KNOW, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THE ONLY ANNOUNCEMENT I HAVE TO MAKE IS I MAY NOT MAKE THE NEXT MEETING. 
          UH, AND, UH, I'LL DISCUSS THIS WITH ANYONE LATER ON, THAT THEREFORE, THE MEETING NOW HAS COME TO ITS END. 
          IT IS, UH, 6 30 0, 6 40. 
          SO, UH, GOOD DAY AND, AND, UH, HAVE A GOOD EVENING. 
          WISH YOU WILL, ROGER.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.