* 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. OKAY. [00:00:04] ALL RIGHT. WE'RE LIVE CHAIR. GO AHEAD. GREAT. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES [Call to Order] AND GENTLEMEN. MY NAME IS DONALD DORIAN AND I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. HEREBY CALL THIS REGULARLY NOTICE MEETING OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INTER SESSION. UH, CAN WE HAVE OUR INTERPRETERS? PLEASE READ THE INTERPRETATION SERVICES AVAILABLE. THANK YOU. UH, STAFF, PLEASE CONDUCT THE ROLL CALL MR. MANCHACA. HERE. MS. CRUZ? HERE. MR. MANNA. OKAY, GREAT. I'M SORRY, MR. MANNA, I'LL COME BACK TO YOU, SIR. MR. BRAGMAN? HERE. MR. DELMER? HERE. MR. LOVE? HERE PRESENT. MR. KEEL PRESENT. I BARELY HEAR YOU HEREBY I HEARD IT. UH, MR. UNA PRESENT AND CHAIR ORIAN. I AM ALSO PRESENT. THANK YOU. SAY ONE MORE TIME, MR. MENA. LOOKS LIKE HE'S HAVING. ALL RIGHT, SIR. PRESENT. THERE WE GO. GREAT. FANTASTIC. WE HAVE A QUORUM WITH 10 PEOPLE, IT SOUNDS LIKE. UH, SO BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION. UH, THE BOARD IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELEASE SOUGHT AND DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES. SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATOR AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL. THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 35, THE HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35, AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35. WE ALSO SERVE AS AN ADVISORY AND APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28. EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD MUST BE BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT, AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. EVERY MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY. IT REQUIRES A CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES. THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTING THE RELEASE THOUGHT RESTS WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS ON WHICH THE REQUESTED RELIEF CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED IN SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISIONS OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW BASED UPON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. PRIOR TO STARTING WITH OUR ITEMS, I'D LIKE OUR STAFF TO REVIEW OUR MEETING FORMAT IF YOU COULD PLEASE TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND OF THE PUBLIC AND LIMIT THE POTENTIAL SPREAD OF COVID 19. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS HOLDING MEETINGS VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE. THESE MEETING STANDARDS ARE BASED UPON THE VARIOUS SUSPENDED PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT ISSUED BY THE TEXAS GOVERNOR, A RESPONSE TO THE C OVID 19 CRISIS AND OR IN PLACE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN WATCH AND LISTEN TO THE 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, UH, FOUR OPPORTUNITIES. THESE INCLUDE EMAIL OR MAIL 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'S STAFF WILL READING TO 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'LL CALL THEM BACK, UH, TO STATE THEIR TWO MINUTE COMMENTS. SPANISH INTERPRETERS ARE ON STANDBY AS NEEDED. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL WITH A TWO MINUTE TIME LIMIT ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS COMMISSION QUESTIONS. AWESOME. SO [1. 21-4329 BOA-21-10300050] OUR FIRST CASE TODAY IS, UH, ITEM 21 DASH 1 0 3 50. STAFF. IF YOU COULD PLEASE SPEAK, BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION CASE. UH, 2 31 CLIFFWOOD DRIVE. COUNCIL, DISTRICT ONE. THE APPLICANT [00:05:01] IS, UH, CARLOS, UH, ARMANDO. THE ELAS REQUEST FOR ONE AT THREE FOOT VARIANCE OF THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A ONE FOOT OVERHANG TO BE TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND TWO, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FENCE SITE TO ALLOW A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE TO BE SIX FEET TALL. ZONING IS R FOUR A H O D. SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG CLIFFWOOD DRIVE NEAR WEST AVENUE AND CURRENTLY HAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, UH, CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY. EXISTING CARPORT MEASURES 17 FEET NINE INCHES IN WIDTH BY 25 FEET IN LENGTH. CARPORT IS TWO FEET FROM THE POST, UH, TO THE FENCE WITH A ONE FOOT OVERHANG. ADDITIONALLY, THE CARPORT IS SEVEN FEET, UH, FIVE INCHES, UH, FROM THE, THE ADJACENT STRUCTURE ON THE ABUTTING LOT TO THE WEST. UPON THE SITE VISITS, STAFF ALSO OBSERVED THE PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, UH, FRONT YARD FENCE TO BE SIX FEET TALL, WHICH IS RESULTING IN A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF ONE FOOT COPY OF THE SITE PLAN. DEFENSE IS ON ONE SIDE ONLY. IT'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE CARPORT AND THE CHAIN LINK FENCE AS WELL, MEASUREMENTS FROM THE POST AND SURROUNDING AREA. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE SOME CARPORTS SIMILAR IN NATURE. THIS AFRICAN MENZA DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF A TWO FOOT VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK OF FIVE FEET TO ALLOW THE CARPORT WITH ONE FOOT OVERHANG TO BE THREE FEET AWAY ON THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE FROM V O A 21 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 0 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE ATTACHED CARPORT WILL BE THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE, THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, AND THE ADJUSTED CARPORT WIDTH WILL BE 16 FEET NINE INCHES, AND THE ADJUSTED CARPORT WILL BE EIGHT FEET, FIVE INCHES BE STRUCTURED ON THE ABUTTING LOT, UH, TO THE WEST. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE FREIGHT YARD FENCE IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN CHAIN LINK, AND THE FREIGHT YARD FENCE IS SIX FEET TALL. THE FREIGHT YARD FENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY CLEAR VISION STANDARDS. 35 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT. ONE WAS RECEIVED IN FAVOR FOR AN OPPOSITION, AND THERE'S NO RESPONSE FROM THE NORTH CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. OKAY, WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE. UM, MR. VILA, WHEN YOU'RE READY, SIR, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION. YES. AYE. UH, MY NAME IS YONDER VILA AND I RESIDE AT 35 30 WILLOW WOOD BOULEVARD, UH, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 19. AND THIS IS MY FIRST TIME, UH, ATTENDING ONE OF THESE HEARINGS. SO I, I, I DON'T HAVE AN ELABORATE PRESENTATION. UH, READY. UM, BASICALLY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HEARD THE, THE VOICEMAIL FROM MY PARTNER, JUSTIN. HIM AND I DID THIS PROJECT, OR ARE STILL DOING THIS PROJECT, AND, AND, UH, HE'S PRIMARILY SPANISH SPEAKING. SO HE, HE, HE'S MORE, UH, INVOLVED WITH THE, UH, THE DAY TO DAY REHAB OF THE PLACE. BUT, UM, BUT HIM AND I ARE ON THE SAME PAGE. WE KNOW THE FACTS AS FAR AS THE, THE DRAINAGE. I THINK THAT WAS A CONCERN IN THAT NEW SLAB THAT WE THREW ON THERE, I THINK ADDRESSED ALL THAT DRAINAGE. IT, IT, IT DOESN'T, UH, DRAIN TO, UM, WHERE THE WATER WOULD CAUSE ANY TYPE OF BLOCKAGE OR HAZARD OR ANYTHING. IT DRAINS PROPERLY. AND, AND WE BELIEVE THERE'S ADEQUATE SPACE BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS. I THINK IT'S OVER OVER SEVEN FEET. AND, UH, I KNOW THE CONCERN IS THE FIRE THAT, UH, IN, IN, IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE, THAT THIS BUILDING MIGHT BE TOO CLOSE, WHERE THE ADJACENT BUILDING MAY CATCH ON FIRE ALSO. AND, UM, I THINK SEVEN FEET, OR I THINK IT'S A LITTLE OVER THAT. UH, WE THINK IT'S PLENTY OF SPACE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STANDARD IS WITH THE, UH, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. UM, BUT, UM, I MEAN, IT'S, IT, UNFORTUNATELY, WE, THIS IS OUR FIRST TIME DOING THIS. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, WE DID THIS BACKWARDS, RIGHT? WE'RE ASKING FOR PERMISSION NOW. WE'RE GETTING OUR HAND SLAPPED. BUT GOING FORWARD, YES, WE DEFINITELY CHECK WITH THE, UH, WITH THE CITY FIRST INSTEAD OF SPENDING ALL THIS TIME AND, AND MONEY AND EFFORT INTO TRYING TO REMEDY THINGS. UM, SO WE DEFINITELY LEARNED OUR LESSON. UM, AND I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY FOR NOW. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, STAFF, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY TO READ INTO THE RECORD? YES, SIR. WE HAVE A VOICEMAIL AND, UM, SOME PUBLIC COMMENT AS WELL. WE'LL PLAY THE VOICEMAILS FIRST. OKAY. [00:10:18] MY NAME IS JUSTIN DRIVE, AS STATED ON THE REGISTRY ON THE RECORD, 38, THE CASE NUMBER IS ZERO ZERO FIVE. THIS CALL IS ONLY TO CONGRATULATE YOU AND YOUR CONSIDERATION. WHEN I DID THIS, I DID NOT KNOW THAT I NEEDED THE CERTIFICATION IN ORDER TO DO THIS. IMPROVEMENTS IN MY PROPERTY AND MY NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, WHICH IS LATERAL TO MINE, THAT HAVE A CARPORT IN THE SAME WAY. THEN AFTER I DID IT AND I GOT ALL THE PERMITS AND ALL, BUT THEY TOLD ME THAT THE MEASUREMENTS WERE NOT WRONG, WERE WRONG, I'M SORRY. AND I GOT THE LETTER FROM THE ENGINEER AND FROM THE FOUNDATION PERSON, AND THEY DID THE, THEY DID IT IN A WAY WHERE IT'S ALL GOOD AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE SOLID. I, I AM ASKING YOU TO PLEASE CONSIDER LEAVING IT AS IT IS BECAUSE I SPENT A LOT OF MONEY, AND ESPECIALLY WITH THE MATERIALS, THERE'S A LOT OF INVESTMENT THERE. AND THE MATERIALS ARE SUPER EXPENSIVE RIGHT NOW. SUPER EXPENSIVE, SUPER EXPENSIVE AND EVERYTHING. ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW WITH THE PANDEMIC THING, UH, THE MATERIAL, THE COST IS VERY, VERY HIGH. RIGHT NOW. IT'S THE CITY. AND SO IT WOULD BE GOOD, IT WOULD BE VERY, VERY HELPFUL FOR ME. I DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. I DON'T HAVE THE MONEY ENOUGH TO PAY FOR, AND SO I'M REQUESTING YOU TO PLEASE LEAVE IT AS IT'S, AND PLEASE CALL ME BACK WHEN THE TIME FOR THE MEETING COMES. UH, MY PHONE NUMBER IS AS STATED IN THE, IN THE RECORD, AND ONCE AGAIN, I REPEAT MY PHONE NUMBER AS STATED IN THE RECORD. WELL, THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY. AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND START THE READING THE ITEMS TO THE RECORD ONCE SIGNED ON BOARD. THIS IS FROM GRACE M. RODRIGUEZ, 2 35 CLIFFWOOD. THERE ARE TWO ISSUES THAT I WISH TO ADDRESS. MY PROPERTY IS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THEIR REQUESTED PRO, UH, REQUEST MADE BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 2 31 CLIFFWOOD DRIVE. AND TWO, THE FACT THAT I NEVER RECEIVED NOTIFICATION, BUT MOST OF THE NEIGHBORS DID. UM, MY PROPERTY IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE ISSUE CONCERNING I REQUEST FOR ONE AT THREE FOOT VARIANCE. UM, THE OVERHANG IN THE FENCE, THE GREATEST CONCERN IS THAT OF SAFETY. IN CASE OF FIRE, SINCE MY MY THREE BEDROOMS ALIGN WITH THE CARPORT TO BE BUILT AND DISCUSSING WITH THE INSURANCE [00:15:01] AGENT, SHE STATED THAT, UH, THEY HAD NO SAY ON THE MATTER, BUT THERE ARE NO REASONS, UH, FOR ESTABLISHING BUILDING DISTANCES SAFELY. UH, SAFETY BE BEING ONE OF THESE REASONS. PICTURES A AND B. THE CASE IN POINT IS THE RECENT FIRE THAT OCCURRED IN APRIL, 2021 AT TWO 19 CLIFFWOOD THAT DESTROYED THE HOUSE AND DESTROYED THE BOAT NEXT DOOR THAT WAS PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY AT, AT TWO 15 CLIFFWOOD DRIVE. UM, THREE. UP TO THIS DAY, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST. THANKS. UH, THANKS TO THE GOODNESS OF SOME NEIGHBORS. I WAS INFORMED OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE BOARD OF, UH, FOR TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. I WAS ABLE TO GET INFORMATION FROM THE NOTICES AND CALLED CASE MANAGER KAYLA, AND LEFT A MESSAGE. UM, I'M NOT HEARING FROM HER. I CALLED 3 1 1 AND TALKED TO SYLVIA. UM, 3 1 1 CASE NUMBER. ON TUESDAY, JUNE 15, I RECEIVED A CALL FROM MS. FIALA AND WHO INFORMED ME ABOUT THE, UM, PROCEDURE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD BY PHONE OR COMPUTER AND TO SUBMIT LIMIT. I CHOSE TO WRITE A LETTER AND ASKED IF I SHOULD SEND COPIES, UH, TO THE FOLKS LISTED IT ON THE NOTICE, AND SHE SAID, NO, THEREFORE, I'M INCLUDING A CHRONOLOGY OF MY EFFORTS. I ALSO CONTACT THE UNITED STATES POST SERVICE, AND THEY HAD NO RECORD OF NOTIFICATION BEING SENT, BUT NO INFORMATION ON THE DELIVERY. I'M QUITE CONCERNED ABOUT THESE TWO ISSUES, ESPECIALLY THAT OF THE FIRE SAFETY AND THE CLOSEST OF THE CAR PORT TO MY BEDROOM. I'M ALSO CURIOUS ABOUT MY NOTICE WAS RECEIVED AND THE CASE SUPPORTED BEING CLOSED AT ONE POINT. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION ON THESE ISSUES AND AWAIT THE, YOUR RULING AND ENCLOSED ARE THE PHOTOS, UM, AS SHE STATED. ALL RIGHT, THE NEXT ONE, AND HERE'S A CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER STARTING OCTOBER 2ND, 2020 AND EXTENDING UNTIL JUNE 15TH, 2021. ALRIGHT, THE NEXT LETTER IS FROM ALICIA, UH, ROME AT 2 34. UH, RED ROCK, AS FAR AS I KNOW, BETWEEN, UH, TWO NEIGHBOR HOUSES IN FIVE FOOT APART. I WAS TOLD BY A SURVEY FROM MY FAMILY AND I MOVED 50 YEARS AGO. THEY'RE IN OPPOSITION. THE NEXT ONE IS FROM STANDBY. CYNTHIA JUSTIN ACOSTA ANDERSON IS IN SPANISH. OH, THIS IS THE OWNER. THIS IS FROM THE OWNER AS, AS PLAYED BY VOICEMAIL. THE NEXT ONE IS FROM MARIANA . TWO. I MAY CONCERN I'M IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. SEE MY COMMENTS BELOW REGARD REGARDING ISSUE ONE. THE CARPORT SHOULD ADHERE TO THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK BECAUSE LESS THAN FIVE FEET WOULD BE A FIRE HAZARD IN A WATER RUNOFF PROBLEM DURING HEAVY RAIN OFF, UH, RAINSTORM, THE CONTRACTOR OR THE OWNER SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE REQUIRE, UH, REPORT SETBACKS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. TWO. A SIX FOOT PRIVACY OR CHAIN LINK FENCE IS EXCESSIVE. I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR PRIVACY AND SECURITY. IN MY OPINION, A FOREFOOT UH, FENCE SEEMS MUCH MORE REASONABLE. AND SHE'S FROM 2 26 RED ROCK DRIVE. ALL RIGHT, THE NEXT ONE I YADA CONCERN REGARDING BOTH ISSUES, THE SAFETY OF BOTH PARTIES IN SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. ALL STRUCTURES SHOULD ADHERE TO THE CITY CODES COMPLIANCE AND GUIDELINES. JUAN VI TWO 30 RED ROCK. AND THEN WE GO TO THE NEXT ONE. THIS IS 2 31 CLIFFWOOD, THE SAME THING WITH THE OWNERS. AND THEN AGAIN, SO THIS IS EXTRA JUAN, UH, FOR BOTH SAFETY. AND THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE COMMENTARY FOR THIS CASE. OKAY. UH, BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO UH, UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTION STAFF, I JUST NEED YOU TO CLARIFY THE ACTUAL REQUEST. UH, IN THE, IN THE REPORT IT STATES THAT THE POST MEASURED TWO FEET FROM THE, FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, AND THEN THERE WAS A ONE FOOT OVERHANG. UH, IN THE, AS ADVERTISED, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE ASKING FOR A THREE FOOT VARIANCE. CAN YOU, IS IS IT STILL, IS IT, WAS THIS ADVERTISED APPROPRIATELY? 'CAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THE OVERHANG IS ONE FOOT AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THAT IS CORRECT. IT'S CURRENTLY ONE FOOT. OUR ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION IS A THREE FOOT. UM, THIS, THEY'RE ACTUALLY, IT'S A TWO FOOT VARIANCE, UH, FROM THE CART. BASICALLY THE POST, IT HAS A ONE FOOT [00:20:01] OVERHANG ON TOP OF THAT. OKAY. I'M, BUT AS THAT, BUT AS, AS ADVERTISER ASKING FOR A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE ENTIRE CORP TO BE, TO BE TWO FEET AWAY FROM THE SITE PROPERTY LINE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S ALREADY ONE FOOT AWAY FROM THE SITE PROPERTY LINE. IS THAT AN ISSUE? SO, NO, WE MEASURED FROM THE POSTS THEMSELVES. SO WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING LATELY FOR THE BOARD IS IDENTIFYING THE OVERHANG ON TOP OF THAT. SO TO CLARIFY, IT'S THE TWO FOOT VARIANCE OR THREE FOOT VARIANCE WITH A TWO FOOT, UH, FROM SIDE YARD WITH A ONE FOOT OVERHANG. SO THE OVERHANG IS WAY. OKAY, I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP. SO IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? CRUZ, UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UM, THE ONLY THING IS ZEKE, I SEE THE NEIGHBOR ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE WITH HIS CARPORT. NOW, HOW MANY MORE ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT AS BIG AS HIT AS THE, THE GENTLEMAN ASKING FOR THE REQUEST? WE NOTICED THERE WERE A FEW IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, WITH THE SIDE CARPORT. AS FAR AS THE PROXIMITY TO THE SIDE YARD, THAT'S HARD TO TELL. THIS ONE APPEARED TO BE FIVE FEET. UM, BUT AGAIN, WITHOUT GOING ONTO PROPERTY TO MEASURE, IT WAS A SCENARIO WHERE WE, WE COULDN'T GET THAT MEASUREMENT, BUT WE DID NOTICE SOME OF THE CARPORTS ON THE SIDE YARD. OKAY. HOW ABOUT THE ONE RIGHT NEXT DOOR? BECAUSE THAT ONE LOOKS LIKE IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE HOUSE ALSO, AGAIN, WITHOUT MEASURING IT, WE WERE ABLE TO GET ON PROPERTY TO MEASURE THE NEIGHBORING HOME FROM THE CARPORT, AND THAT'S WHERE WE HAD THE SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT MEASUREMENT, UH, FROM THE POSTS TO THE HOUSE ITSELF FOR THE FACADE. AND AS FAR AS ANY OTHER NEIGHBORS, UNFORTUNATELY WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET THOSE MEASUREMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS. OKAY. SO, ALL RIGHT. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF, HOW EVERYBODY ELSE GOT THERE THEN. AND I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY REQUESTS FOR THOSE. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? MINKA, COMMISSIONER MINKA, THEN UNA? MM-HMM. , UH, THE SLAB THAT WAS EXTENDED, HOW MUCH WAS THAT EXTENDED? THE PARKING GARAGE FLAT, THE COVERED PART THAT WAS ORIGINAL. HOW MUCH WAS THAT EXTENDED? UH, CAN I ANSWER THAT OR ARE YOU ASKING ME, SIR? UH, THE PLA APPLICANT OR STAFF? IT DOESN'T MATTER. OKAY. WELL, IF THE STAFF HAS THOSE FIGURES THAT I RATHER THEM ANSWER BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE EXACT MEASUREMENTS. THAT'S YOUR QUESTION. WHEN YOU EXPANDED THIS, THE STRUCTURE, HOW FAR OUT DID YOU EXPAND IT? YES. WHEN HE HIT THE ORIGINAL SLAB, HOW MUCH DID HE EXTEND IT? TWO FEET. SO THERE WAS, THERE WAS, THERE WAS NO ORIGINAL SLAB. IT WAS, IT WAS BASICALLY A DIRT ROAD, UH, DIRT PARKING. SO WE JUST BASICALLY THREW A SLAB THERE AND EXTENDED IT. UH, ON THE BACK, ON THE, ON THE BACK OF THE, THE HOUSE, WE EXTENDED THAT ABOUT THREE OR FOUR FEET, AND THEN A, A SMALL WALKAWAY INTO THE, THE ADJACENT REAR, UM, STRUCTURE. I SEE. I SEE. THANK YOU, UH, STAFF. WELL BEFORE COMMISSIONER A ZUNA SPEAKS, UH, CAN YOU BRING UP THE GOOGLE REVIEW WHILE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BOARD? WE'RE DOING THAT, SIR. WE'RE BRINGING UP, HEY, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER ZUNA, PLEASE PROCEED. RIGHT. UH, QUESTION, AND THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN ANSWERED ALREADY, BUT HOW WAS THIS CASE ORIGINATED? CODE COMPLIANCE CASE, SIR, JUST DRIVING BY OR WAS IT PART OF AN ORIGINAL BILLING PERMIT ON THE HOUSE OR, UH, CODE COMPLIANCE WAS CALLED OUT. OKAY. NOW, DID THEY HAVE A BUILT PERMIT ON THE RENOVATION OF THE EXISTING HOUSE OR TO DO ANY, I MEAN, I'M ASSUMING NOT IF CO COMPLIANCE HAD TO BE CALLED OUT. UH, SO, SO WE, WE, WE PULLED PERMITS FOR THE STUFF, FOR THE ELECTRICAL, THE PLUMBING, UM, WHAT OTHER PERMITS DO WE FOR THE ROOF? UH, BUT WHEN, WHEN WE NEEDED THE INSPECTION FOR EXA, I THINK IT WAS THE FIRST INSPECTION ON THE ELECTRICAL THAT THE, THE, UH, THE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER, UM, SAID, HEY, I'M HERE FOR THE ELECTRICAL, BUT I NOTICED THIS, THIS CARPORT, I'M GONNA HAVE TO REPORT IT. AND THAT'S WHERE THE PROCESS STARTED. GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? OKAY, UH, STAFF, IF, IF YOU'VE GOT THAT, UH, MATT VIEW, I MEAN, I, I SAW IT ON MATT VIEW MYSELF. UH, IT IS PREDOMINANTLY DIRT AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THE SIDE THEN, UM, SO WE'RE TRYING TO BRING IT UP NOW, SIR. WE'RE HAVING ISSUES ON THIS [00:25:01] ONE COMPUTER, BUT IT'LL BE SHORT. OKAY. OKAY. UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, YOU IF YOU CAN FIT TWO CARS UNDER THIS CARPORT, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT, SIR. YEAH, WE CAN FIT TWO CARS AND, AND, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT, UH, GOOGLE MAPS, THE, UH, 'CAUSE I'M LOOKING AT IT NOW, AND THE ORIGINAL SETUP WAS FOR ONE VEHICLE? YES. UH, SO, SO THAT'S WHY WE, WE, WE SLAPPED THE WHOLE AREA, NOT JUST THE DIRT ROAD, BUT ALSO PART OF THE, WHERE THE GRASS WAS IN ORDER TO DO THAT IN ORDER TO FIT TO FIT TWO VEHICLES. AND, AND, UH, THAT'S WHEN WE OPEN IT UP. UH, I, I THINK IT'S FIVE OR SIX FEET INTO THE, INTO THE DRIVEWAY WHEN STARTED OPENING TO THE RIGHT, I COULD SEE IT. UH, I ALSO NOTICED THAT YOU CARRIED OVER THE, THE ROOF PITCH. SO YOUR DRAINAGE IS, IS RUNNING, UH, FRONT TO BACK. HOW DOES YOUR BIKE DRAIN? DOES IT PREDOMINANTLY GO TOWARDS THE STREET OR DOES IT RUN TO THE REAR? UH, I THINK, I THINK IT DOES BOTH. I MEAN, OKAY, LIKE IF THE WATER, WATER THAT FALLS OFF THE ROOF AND YOUR BACKYARD HAS A TENDENCY TO CONTINUE RUNNING TOWARDS THE BACK FENCE, WHEREAS IN THE, IN THE FRONT IT LOOKS LIKE IT DOES SLOW DOWN TOWARDS THE STREET. UH, YEAH, IT DOES BOTH BECAUSE YEAH, AND THAT'S WHY WE ALSO PUT CONCRETE BACK THERE. UM, SO THAT ON THE, ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, THE, THE DRAINAGE GOES AWAY FROM THE HOUSE INTO THE BACKYARD AND IN, IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. YES, IT DRAINS TOWARDS THE, TOWARDS THE STREETS. OKAY. THANK YOU STAFF. I NOTICED YOU BROUGHT THE PICTURE UP. UH, WITH THIS, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS CASE? UH, HEARING NONE, UH, IS THERE, UM, I'M GOING TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ANY CLOSING REMARKS BEFORE WE, UH, ENTERTAIN A MOTION. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, I THINK, I THINK MY, MY PARTNER JUSTIN SAID IT VERY WELL. I MEAN, UH, REALLY THE NO, NO EXCUSE, UM, TO, TO WHAT WE DID. I MEAN, WE KNOW WE, WE, WE DID IT WRONG, BUT, UM, YEAH, HE'S RIGHT. I MEAN, WHEN WE BUILD THAT, UH, BUT I USE YEAR, I DON'T KNOW, IT, IT FEELS LIKE IT'S BEEN A YEAR, BUT I THINK IT'S ONLY BEEN LIKE SEVEN MONTHS OR SO. UM, THE, THE LUMBER COST WAS NOT AS HIGH AND EVEN THEN WE THOUGHT IT, IT, IT WAS EXPENSIVE, UH, AND TO DO SOMETHING ELSE WITH IT, UM, I MEAN, IT IS GONNA BE REALLY EXPENSIVE. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE JUST, WE JUST ASKED THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID AT THE BEGINNING, WE REALLY, WE'VE LEARNED OUR LESSON AND THAT THIS, THIS, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ON PAUSE SINCE, UH, SINCE FEBRUARY, I THINK BECAUSE WE, WE COULDN'T DO ANYTHING. AND, UH, SO IT'S DEFINITELY, IT IS DEFINITELY AFFECTING US FINANCIALLY, AND WE JUST DON'T WANT THAT TO CONTINUE. AND, AND THAT'S WHAT WE ASKED YOU GUYS TO, TO APPROVE IT SO WE CAN MOVE ON AND, AND RIGHT NOW WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH THIS HOUSE, ANYTHING BECAUSE WE'RE AT THE MERCY OF, OF YOU GUYS' APPROVAL. SO, UM, SO I'M JUST, JUST REITERATING WHAT MY PARTNER SAID ABOUT CONSIDERING THAT WE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DIDN'T DO ANY, OUR INTENT WAS NOT MALICIOUS IN ANY WAY. IF ANYTHING, WE THOUGHT WE WERE GONNA IMPROVE THE, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY, BY MAKING IT LOOK PRETTIER. UH, AND THAT'S WHAT WE, WE INVESTED ALL THAT MONEY AND, AND, UM, SO, UH, NOW WE KNOW DEFINITELY TO, TO CHECK WITH THE CITY, UM, BEFORE DOING THAT. UM, IT, YOU KNOW, OUR FIR OUR FIRST PROJECT OF THIS NATURE AND, AND, UH, WE, WE'VE LEARNED OUR LESSON FOR SURE. UH, REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU GUYS RULE, UH, WE'VE LEARNED OUR LESSON. UM, SO I'M JUST HOPE THAT YOU GUYS LET US KEEP IT BECAUSE IT'S GONNA BE, I MEAN, WE'VE ALREADY SUFFER ENOUGH. UH, WE DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE SUFFERING MORE. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, IS IS, UH, I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE A COMMISSIONER WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS? YEAH, ZU, UH, COMMISSIONER ZU. SO I AM GOING TO RECOMMEND THE CITY'S, UM, AMENDED, UH, RE CITY. I'M GONNA TAKE THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST. UM, I DID SEE THE OVERWHELMING OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WERE POSED TO IT AND THE FIRE, UH, CONCERN FROM THE ADJOINING NEIGHBOR, ALL THAT I'M TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WITH ACCEPTING THE CITY'S, UH, REQUESTED SUBSTITUTE VARIANCE. SO THAT'S THE VARIANCE I'M GONNA READ TODAY. IF THERE'S ANY ISSUE WITH THAT. UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 21 DASH 0 3 5, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANT A REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SETBACK [00:30:01] TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH ONE FOOT OVERHANG TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 2 31 CLIFFWOOD DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING CARLOS, UM, ARMANDO VIMA, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAD DETERMINED SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C HAS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN NONE NECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE VARIANCE SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE TO THE PUBLIC. THE REQUEST TO ALLOW CARPORT, ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SITE SETBACK IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AS THE APPLICANT HAS ADEQUATE SPACE FOR THE ADJACENT STRUCTURE WITH THE, WITH THE SITE SETBACKS RECOMMENDED TODAY DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE BOARD FINDS THAT ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT ENFORCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY IMPOSING A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT, THE CARPORT WITH WOULD NEED TO BE ADJUSTED, UH, TO THE WIDTH. HELP ME ON THE WIDTH HERE. IS THAT GONNA BE, UM, UH, WOULD THAT BE 14 FEET, NINE INCHES, WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SPACE FOR TWO VEHICLES BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD 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 SETBACKS PROVIDES SPACE STATION BETWEEN NEIGHBORHOOD STRUCTURES, WHICH IS OBSERVED. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE YOU SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR THE VARIANCE OF SOUGHT 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 REQUEST TO REDUCE A PORTION OF SIDE SETBACK DOES NOT POSE A RISK OF SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE IN THE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES. DOES NOT SEEM LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THIS DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE ARE OTHER NON-CONFORMING CARPORTS BUILT, ENCROACHING INTO THE SIDE SETBACKS. SIX. PLIGHT TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE VARIANCE ASSAULT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE BOARD FINDS THAT APPLIES. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SOUGHT DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE SHORT WIDTH AVAILABLE SPACE FOR THE TWO VEHICLE CARPORT AND OF MOTION THERE A SECOND. SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UH, COMMISSIONER Z ZONA, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION. RIGHT. SO I WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE OVERWHELMING OPPOSITION OF THE VARIANCE AS INITIALLY, UH, UM, UM, REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT AND, UM, THOUGHT THAT THE CITY'S, UM, PROPOSED MODIFICATION OR PROPOSED, UH, VARIANCE WAS A GOOD ALTERNATIVE TO ALLOW THEM THE SPACE THEY NEED, BUT YET, UH, TO COMPLY AS BEST THEY COULD WITH THAT SIDE SETBACK. OKAY, MR. CRUZ? UM, YES, I CONCUR WITH, UH, MR. UNA AND I THINK THAT, UH, THAT WILL HELP HIM WITH ALL THE OTHER ISSUES AND HOPEFULLY, UH, THAT THEY CAN PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT. THANK YOU. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONER COMMENT? HEARING NONE? UH, STAFF PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MR. MINKA. MR. MINKA, THANK YOU'RE ON MUTE, SIR. SORRY I HAD IT ALL. I CONCUR WITH THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE, UH, RECOMMENDATION. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE FACT MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MR. DELMER. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. LOVE. I CONCUR. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. TEAL. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. UNA. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, FACT, UH, MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 10 TO ZERO. UH, WOULD THE COMMISSIONER LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION? YES, I WILL. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 21 DASH 0 3 0 5, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANT, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE TO BE SIX FOOT TALL SITUATED 2 31 CLIFFWOOD DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING CARLOS MENDO VILA BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY SUCH THAT A LITTLE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C [00:35:01] AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE U D C STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTED CONGRATS SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR OFFENSE HEIGHT MODIFICATION. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE, ONE FEET OF HEIGHT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SAFETY FOR THE PROPERTY. V S D TRAFFIC HAS REVIEWED THE REQUEST AND DOES NOT HAVE AN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST BE. THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY FENCE HEIGHT TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING AND CENTRAL COMMUNITY. A SIX FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE ALONG THE FRONT YARD ON THE WEST SIDE DOES NOT POSE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS OF PUBLIC WELFARE. SEE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE, WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE BOARD FINDS HIS FENCE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IS UNLIKELY TO INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATIONS TO WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF ASSAULT. THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT FOR THE SECTION OF THE FRONT YARD FENCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND PROVIDE SECURITY FOR THE DISTRICT. D S B TRAFFIC STAFF DID REVIEW THE FENCE. IT DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY CLEAR STANDARD. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HERE AND ESTABLISHED, PUT IT SPECIFIED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE CURRENT ZONING PERMITS THE CURRENT USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AND OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION. MOTION. SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER ZUNA, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION. YEAH, I'LL SUPPORT THE MOTION AND, UM, UH, FOR THE STATE REASONS, I IT'S OPENLY FA OPEN FAN CHAIN LINK AND DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY, UM, CLEAR VISION, UH, STANDARD VIOLATION, SO I SUPPORT IT. OKAY, COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UM, YES, I CONCUR WITH MS. UNA. I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH IT, UH, SINCE THEY'VE ALREADY DONE THE, UH, TRAFFIC REVIEW AND THEY DIDN'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS, SO I CONCUR WITH THAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD A HEARING DONE? STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL THOUGH, MR. MINKA. I CONCUR WITH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DAHMER. I CONCUR. MR. LOVE. HELLO? I CONCUR. YOU CONCUR. ALL RIGHT, MS. VINNO, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. THI YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. UNA. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT HERE. ORS, CAN I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT? MOTION PASSES 10 TO ZERO. UH, NEXT CASE PLEASE. NEXT [2. 21-4489 BOA-21-10300053] CASE IS BOA 21 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 3 10 14 RIVER PARK COUNCIL DISTRICT NINE. IT, UH, THE APPLICANT IS, UH, DANIELLE LC. POLICE REQUEST FOR ONE, A THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A PRIVACY FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL WITHIN THE FRONT YARD AND TWO, A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE. THE MINIMUM, UH, 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION STANDARD TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD FENCE TO BE 11 FEET AWAY FROM THE FRONT, UH, FROM THE STREET. CARONIA IS P U D R SIX M L O D. NEXT SLIDE. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON RIVER PARK STREET, NORTHWEST SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. THE APPLICANT BUILT A SIX FOOT THREE FOOT TALL WOODEN FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD THAT HAS EIGHT FOOT TALL POSTS, UH, WITHOUT OBTAINING A PERMIT. AND THERE IS A CODE VIOLATION ON RECORD FOR THE INSTALLED FENCE. E D C ALLOWS FOR A SOLID SCREEN FENCE TO BE A MAXIMUM OF THREE OR PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE TO BE A MAXIMUM OF FIVE FEET. AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF THE FENCE. HEIGHT FENCE IS 11 FEET AWAY FROM THE FRONT, UH, FROM THE STREET. AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A FOREFOOT, BUT EXPERIENCE A MINIMUM 15 FOOT FAIR VISION FIELD REQUIREMENT DURING FIELD VISITS. STAFF DID NOT FIND SIMILAR CASES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. NEXT SLIDE. COPY OF THE SITE PLAN. NEXT SLIDE. SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THE FRONT YARD FENCE. THE CLEAR VISION, THAT'S THE COPY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH THE FRONT YARD FENCE AND THEN THE SURROUNDING AREA. OKAY, UH, RECOMMENDATION TO FRONT YARD FENCE. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION BASED ON FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT. THE MATERIAL STYLE AND HEIGHT OF THE SUBJECT DEFENSE IS ENTIRELY OUT OF CHARACTER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NEXT SLIDE. [00:40:02] CLEAR VISION STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE CASE OF THE REQUESTED CLEAR VISION VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE CLEAR VISION AREA WILL DECREASE THE VISIBILITY. 32 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT. ZERO IN FAVOR FOR IN OPPOSITION. UH, FOR IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT AREA. THE RIVERBEND OF CAMINO REAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN OPPOSITION. WE DO HAVE THE, THE APPLICANT ON LINE. UH, SAMUEL DEL. SIR, WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION. OH, HELLO, MY NAME IS SAMUEL DEL CASE. I'M REPRESENTING MY FATHER, DANIEL DEL CASE IN THIS MATTER. IT'S MY DAD WHO BUILT A FENCE ON HIS SON REPRESENTING HIM. AND, UH, WE BOTH LIVE AT 10 14 RIVER PARKS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 6. AND I CAN BEGIN WITH MY OPEN COMMENTS. UM, HERE, PLEASE PROCEED. OKAY. SO THE, SO THERE'S A FEW REASONS WHY I THINK THAT GRANTING THIS VARIANCE AND ALLOWING MY FATHER TO KEEP THIS WOODEN FENCE ON HIS FRONT LAWN WOULD BE PERFECTLY IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENTIONS OF THE CITY ORDINANCES. SO FIRST I, I, I THINK THAT IT'S, UH, THE FIRST ISSUE I WANNA ADDRESS IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AESTHETIC, WHICH I KNOW IS WHAT MY NEIGHBOR'S MAIN CONCERN IS ABOUT. SO I UNDERSTAND TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE, YOU NEED TO ENSURE THAT ARE OFFENSES IN HARMONY WITH THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, CHARACTER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO MY FATHER QUITE REASONABLY ASSUMED THAT THIS FENCE HERE, YOU CAN SEE IT ON SLIDE TWO OF MY PRESENTATION OR YOU ALREADY PULLED IT UP, THAT THIS FENCE WOULD BE AESTHETICALLY ACCEPTABLE DESIGN BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER FENCES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT LOOK JUST LIKE IT. IF YOU TURN TO THE THIRD SLIDE OF MY PRESENTATION, YOU'LL SEE A PRIME EXAMPLE. SO ON THE LEFT OF THE SIDE, YOU'LL SEE OUR FENCE, AND ON THE RIGHT YOU'LL SEE A WHITE FENCE, UH, OF OUR NEIGHBORS, WHICH IS AT 1 48 RIVER PARK. AND YOU'LL SEE IT'S JUST AS TALL AS OUR FENCE AND JUST AS CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALK AS OURS. NOW IF THIS WHITE FENCE HERE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AESTHETIC, THEN OUR FENCE CERTAINLY MEETS THE BAR. IN FACT, I WOULD THINK THAT OUR FENCE IS AT THE VERY LEAST AS AESTHETICALLY PLEASING, IF NOT MORE SO THAN THIS FENCE HERE, THE ONES THAT ARE ALREADY HERE. AND SO, SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS WHITE FENCE HERE PROVES THERE ALREADY IS A STRONG PRECEDENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR LIKE BUILDING WOODEN FENCES ON THE LAWN. SO MY FATHER WAS KIND, WAS NATURALLY KIND OF BAFFLED THAT HIS NEIGHBORS SINGLED OUT HIS WOODEN FENCE WAS AESTHETICALLY DISPLEASING WHEN THERE ARE OTHERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT LOOK JUST LIKE THAT. NOW, THE OTHER REASON WHY WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE IS BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON OUR PROPERTY. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE FOURTH SLIDE OF MY PRESENTATION, YOU'LL SEE AN AERIAL PHOTO OF OUR HOUSE, WHICH SHOWS THAT FOR YARD SPACE, ALL WE HAVE ARE ALLEYWAYS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE, WHICH RANGE FROM LESS THAN THREE FEET WIDE TO A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT FEET WIDE IN THE CORNER. AND ON TOP OF THIS IS ALSO A FIVE FOOT MAINTENANCE EASEMENT ON EITHER SIDE OF OUR HOUSE, WHICH MAKE IT SO THAT NONE OF OUR PRO, THAT ALL OF OUR PROPERTY IS UNDER EASEMENT EXCEPT FOR THE FRONT LAWN. SO BUILDING A FENCE ON THE FRONT YARD IS THE ONE AND ONLY WAY FOR MY FATHER TO GAIN FULL ACCESS TO HIS PROPERTY WITHOUT THE FENCE. HE CAN'T LIKE GO PLAY WITH THE DOG OR BARBECUE OR HANG OUT ON THE, IN HIS YARD AT ALL. LIKE HAVING THE FENCE IS THE ONLY WAY FOR HIM TO FULLY ACCESS HIS PROPERTY. SO, UM, JUST TO RECAP, I'M LIKE RESPECTFULLY ASKING THE BOARD ALLOW MY DAD TO KEEP HIS FENCE ONE, BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOS, MAINLY THE ONES I SHOWED IN THE PRESENTATION, THERE'S ALREADY A PRECEDENT FOR WOODEN FENCES THAT LOOK EXACTLY LIKE HIS. AND SECOND, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OUR PROPERTY IS ALL UNDER EASEMENT IN THE SIDE YARDS, THAT HAVING THIS WOODEN FENCE BE THE ONLY WAY FOR HIM TO USE HIS FRONT YARD. SO I'M ASKING THAT YOU WOULD ALLOW HIM TO KEEP THE FENCE. UH, THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, STAFF, IS THERE ANY, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTARY TO READ INTO THE RECORD? YES, SIR. THERE'S TWO VOICEMAIL AND THERE'S SOME COMMENTARY TO READ IN. OKAY. WE'LL START WITH THE VOICEMAIL. HI, THIS IS FROM TRACY AND GARY FRAIN AT 1 0 0 3 RIVER GLEN, WEST SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 6. CASE NUMBER LAST THREE DIGITS, 0 5 3. REGARDING 1 0 1 4 RIVER PARK. UH, MY HUSBAND AND I, UH, WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE FENCE TAKEN DOWN. WE DON'T THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE. WE WANT TO, UH, THE GUY MUST HAVE KNOWN WHEN HE MOVED IN ABOUT THE, UM, ISSUES WITHIN THE HOMEOWNERS. AND WE DON'T LIKE HOW IT LOOKS. UM, IT DOESN'T GO WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE HIM TO TAKE IT DOWN. DO YOU HAVE ANY CALLS OR QUESTIONS? TWO TEN THREE TWO THREE NINE, SEVEN, SIX, SIX. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. [00:45:05] HELLO, MY NAME IS DIAZ. I LIVE ON TON RIVER PARK. THERE IS A CASE THAT IS GOING TO BE LOOKED AT TODAY. IT'S B AS IN BOY, O A 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 3. AND IT'S REGARDING, UH, FENCE THAT WAS STILL WITHOUT, UH, PROPER, UM, AUTHORIZATION BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. AND IT'S ALSO A FENCE THAT IT IS, UM, IT REALLY LOOKS BAD, SO I WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT BECAUSE, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S A PRETTY NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT FENCE, THE TIME THAT WAS ERECTED IMMEDIATELY, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, WE ALL NOTICED ALL THE NEIGHBORS THAT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT RIGHT TO BUILD. UM, SO AGAIN, MY NAME IS EVA. MY PHONE NUMBER IS TWO TEN EIGHT FOUR THREE FOUR ONE THREE ONE. AND THIS IS REGARDING THE K 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 3. IT'S A PEN WAS IN THE FRONT. THE, THE PEN WAS BUILT IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WITH WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THAT CONCLUDES THE VOICEMAIL. I'LL RE THE RECORD THE OTHERS THAT THIS RESPONSE TO THE REQUESTED SUBMITTAL BY, UH, THE OWNER AT 10 14 RIVER RIVER PARK, FOR AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW THE PRIVACY WOULDN'T FIT AND REMAIN AS IS AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE OPEN ASSOCIATION BOARD. AND AFTER RECEIVING MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS VIA TEXT MESSAGES, TELEPHONE CALLS, AND IN PERSON, I'M AN OPPOSITION TO THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. THE BUILDING OF THIS FENCE IS NOT ONLY DISTASTEFUL, IT GOES AGAINST OUR H O A COVENANTS, WHICH THE PROPERTY OWNER IGNORED EVEN AFTER HE WAS TOLD NOT TO CONTINUE BUILDING IT. IN ADDITION, SEVERAL REAL ESTATE AGENTS HAVE STARTED STATED THE FACT THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES WILL BE LOSING VALUE, UM, AS SUCH STRUCTURE NEAR THEM, UH, I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION, THE MESSAGE YOU'RE RECEIVING FROM THE NEIGHBORS REGARDING THIS MATTER. IT IS OUR COMMITMENT TO OUR, OUR BOARD MEMBERS TO CONTINUE MAINTAINING HIGH STANDARDS FOR GOOD OF OUR COMMUNITY BY ENFORCING THE H O A BYLAWS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR, YOUR POSITIVE CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER. UM, DR. MONICA LARA, H O A PRESIDENT RIVER BEND OF CAMINO REAL. THE NEXT ONE IS FROM TAYLOR MCKINNEY. I'M WRITING TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN AS THE VICE PRESIDENT OF RIVER BEND HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION ABOUT THE FENCE VIOLATION AT 10 14 RIVER PARK. THE, THE PROPERTY WAS NOTIFIED BEFORE THE BUILDING CHARGED, BUILDING THAT FENCE, THAT IT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION COVENANT BY MYSELF. I WAS COLLECTING INFORMATION FOR THE HOMEOWNERS DIRECTLY. AFTER GATHERING HIS INFORMATION, I WENT TO THE NEIGHBOR'S HOME, UM, DP TO COLLECT HER INFORMATION. HE TOLD HER HE WAS THINKING ABOUT BUILDING A FENCE, UH, FOR HIS DOG IN THE FRONT YARD. I MENTIONED TO HIM THAT HE WOULD WANT TO SPEAK TO THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION TO GET MORE INFORMATION. SINCE THIS WAS NOT ALLOWED IN OUR COVENANTS, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DID NOT CONTACT OR ADDRESS THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION BEFORE STARTING TO BUILD PRESIDENT OF THE UCOMMERCE ASSOCIATION, UH, WENT TO TO HIM AND MADE SURE HE UNDERSTOOD THE COVENANTS AND BY HER ACCOUNT. HE WAS VERY ROOTED IN CURRENT IN HIS RESPONSE. AFTER BEING GIVEN A PHYSICAL COPY OF THE COVENANTS IN WHICH, UH, THE VIOLATION WAS HIGHLIGHTED FOR HIM, HE CONTINUED TO BUILD A FENCE. SINCE THE FENCE HAS UH, BEEN BUILT, HE HAD HAD SEVERAL INTERACTIONS WITH NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR DISPLEASURE REGARDING THE FENCE, UH, FENCE, QUALITY, AESTHETIC, AND SAFETY. SOME OF THESE INTERACTIONS HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. THE INTERACTIONS WITH HIM HAVE BEEN REPORTED AS RUDE, UNPLEASANT, AND SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN, UH, BORDERLINE THREATENING SINCE THE FENCE HAS BEEN ERECTED. HIS DOG HAS ESCAPED ON AT LEAST TWO OCCASIONS AND WAS FOUND WALKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED VIA PICTURES ON THE RIVERBEND, UH, WHATSAPP WHEN FELLOW NEIGHBORS WERE TRYING TO, UH, FIND THE HOME OF THE LOST DOG. THIS IS NOT ONLY A SAFETY ISSUE FOR THE DOG, BUT ALSO THE NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA. IT, IT IS MY CONCERN THAT MAKING EXCEPTIONS TO ALLOW THE FENCE TO STAY IN PLACE WOULD ALSO ALLOW THE LOWER PROPERTY VALUE THAN THE HOME AND THE HOMES AROUND HIM. AS A MEMBER OF THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION, IT IS MY GOAL TO KEEP OUR, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD SAFE, FRIENDLY, AND TO ALL, TO HELP ALL OF US WORK TOWARD THE, UH, BETTERMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY. IT IS CONCERN [00:50:01] TO ME THAT, UH, NOT ONLY HAS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY VIOLATED IN FULL KNOWLEDGE OF COVENANTS OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, HE IS ALSO UNWILLING TO WORK AMILY WITH HIS NEIGHBORS. IT IS MY HOPE THAT THERE CAN BE A POSITIVE RESOLUTION TO THE ISSUE. UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. UH, TAYLOR THRIFT 1127 RIVER VISTA, WEST VICE PRESIDENT. OKAY, THIS ONE IS FROM, UH, BERNADETTE FETIS AT 10 18 RIVER PARK. AS LONG AS THE FENCE, I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT MY STATEMENT IN, IN THE CASE OF THE FOLLOWING OF THE SUBJECT LINE, AS LONG AS THE FENCE FOLLOWS H UH, H O A BYLAWS, H O A APPROVES THE FENCE. DEFENSE FOLLOWS THE LAWS AND POLICIES SET FORTH BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. AND I HAVE ACCESS TO MY SIDE OF THE, OF THE HOUSE. I'M OKAY WITH THE FENCE. UM, THIS ONE IS FROM ELLEN MURPHY AT 10 23 RIVER PARK IN OPPOSITION. PLEASE REMOVE THIS HORRIBLE EYESORE FROM OUR BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS AGAINST AT LEAST THREE CITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD LAWS AND RUINS PROPERTY VALUE AND IS, IS, UH, JUST PLAIN UGLY. NEXT ONE. THIS IS FROM 10 30 RIVER GLEN WEST. GLEN WEST IN OPPOSITION. OPPOSITION DIANE FLACK. I'M UP OPPOSED TO REQUESTED FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW PRIVACY WOULD BENCH BE EIGHT FEET TALL IN THE FRONT YARD AT 10 14 RIVER PARK. UH, DAN FLACK AT, OR DIANE FLACK AT 10 35 RIVER GLEN WEST WILLIAM CARTER VINCENT, THE OWNER, ERECTED AT THE, UH, CAPTION ADDRESSES AGAINST THE RIVERBEND HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION COVENANT. I'M AGAINST IT BECAUSE IT WOULD LEAD OTHER OWNERS TO VIOLATE OUR COVENANT IN OTHER, UH, CREATIVE WAYS. IT DEFEATS THE VERY PURPOSE OF, OF HAVING A COVENANT MAINTAINING PROPERTY VALUES AND, AND IS A CHIEF REASON FOR SUCH COVENANT. IT IS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, THERE IS NO OTHER SUCH PRIVACY FENCES DIRECTED IN THE FRONT YARD. IT IS AN EYESORE THAT NEEDS TO BE, UH, DIS DISASSEMBLED AND REMOVED. MAYS MCCARTER AT 1111 RIVER VISTA WEST. NEXT ONE IS FROM MICHAEL VEAL AT 1115 RIVER PARK. MY NAME IS MICHAEL. I LIVE AT SUBDIVISION CALLED RIVER BEND, CAMINO REAL. MY ADDRESS IS 1115. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS A SMALL AND IS AND IS COMPOSED OF ABOUT 110 GARDEN HOMES. THE HOMEOWNER AT 10 14 RIVER PARK THAT'S CONSTRUCTED WOODEN FENCE, APPROXIMATELY SEVEN FEET HIGH, CONNECTING HIS, UH, SIDE YARD TO HIS NEIGHBOR'S YARD AND EXTENDING OUT TO THE FRONT SIDEWALK. VERY UNSIGHTLY AND IN VIOLATION OF THE COVENANTS ESTABLISHED, UM, WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS FIRST DEVELOPED. IT IS MY, IT'S MY HOPE AND THE HOPE OF MOST OF OUR NEIGHBORS, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, THOUGH THROUGH YOUR HELP, CAN MAKE THE OWNER AT 10 14 RIVER PARK REMOVE THE UNSIGHTLY WOODEN FENCE. THANKING, UH, THANKING IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR HELP YOU CAN EXTEND ON THIS MATTER. NEXT ONE IS FROM SONYA JUDD AT, UH, 14 8 1 1 RIVER MILL. DEFENSE ISSUE AT THE ABOVE LOCATION IS FIRST UGLY AND SECONDLY, AGAINST NEIGHBORHOOD COVENANT. UH, SHOULD, SHOULD HE BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH IT? AND BEFORE LONG, THERE WILL BE OTHERS, UH, WHO WILL DECIDE WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT. AND THERE GOES A WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD. PLEASE DON'T ALLOW THIS TO STAND. I DO NOT KNOW THE INDIVIDUAL WHO DIRECTED IT THIS ONLY THAT IT, IT'S AGAINST OUR COVENANTS AND THAT IS UGLY. UH, THANK YOU AND I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND MY CONCERNS. AND THE FINAL ONE IS FROM BARBARA HOLT AND A BOARD MEMBER 14 8 11 SOUTH RIVER VISTA. DEFENSE OF THE ABOVE LOCATION IS WRONG ON MANY ACCOUNTS. FIRST, IT VIOLATES OUR H O A COVENANTS CITY STANDARDS. AND THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, A PERMIT WAS NOT OBTAINED BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION BEGAN. AESTHETICALLY AS AN EYESORE AND COMMUNITY, PARTICULAR, THE NEIGHBORS ON EITHER SIDE IN OUR ZERO LOT BY NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, PROPERTY VALUES MAY BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED. AND THERE'S NO SPECIAL NEED, UH, FOR THIS ONE OF A KIND STRUCTURE. UH, A VARIANCE SHOULD BE DENIED. THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE COMMENTARY AT THIS TIME. THANKS ZEKE. UH, ANY COMMISSIONER? QUESTIONS? MANNA? COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO THIS QUESTIONS FOR THE, UM, APPLICANT HERE. SO, UM, I WAS LOOKING TO SEE, UH, WHEN IT WAS THAT YOU ACTUALLY MOVED INTO THE PROPERTY. SO I SHOW ON BEAR COUNTY APPRAISAL THAT YOU WERE THERE IN 2014, IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT WHEN YOU MOVED INTO THE PROPERTY? UH, LET ME THINK. 2014. YEAH, THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT. SO LOOKING ON GOOGLE MAPS, I SEE THAT THE FENCE WHEN YOU PURCHASED THE HOUSE APPEARED TO BE ALIGNED WITH [00:55:01] THE FRONT FACADE OF THE HOUSE. AND THEN IT LOOKS LIKE IN SOMEWHERE ALONG 2018, YOU MOVED IT SO THAT IT ALIGNED TO THE FRONT PORCH. IS THAT CORRECT? IN 2018, YOU SAID IN, IN A PICTURE ON 2018, IT SHOWS THAT YOU HAD BUILT AND MOVED THE PA MOVED THE FENCE FORWARD, UM, TO, SO THERE WAS A LINE TO THE FRONT PATIO. YEAH, MY DAD. OKAY. SO I GUESS THE QUESTION I WOULD ASK IS WHY WAS SO, SO, SO THAT MOVE, YOU KNOW, JUST AS A, JUST AS A POINT OF REFERENCE ACTUALLY, UH, VIOLATES CODE TWO BECAUSE IT WAS MOVED BEYOND THE FRONT FACADE, SO YOU HAD A SIX FOOT FENCE BEYOND THAT. BUT I GUESS I WOULD ASK WHY IS IT THAT THAT FENCE WASN'T, YOU KNOW, SUFFICIENT, I GUESS, AT THE TIME, AND DID YOU NEED TO MOVE IT FORWARD? SO WHAT IS THE HARDSHIP THERE? YOU KNOW, UH, I GUESS MOVING THE FENCE FORWARD FROM THE 2018 TO ITS CURRENT POSITION? WELL, I GUESS, UM, MY DAD JUST GOT A DOG AND UNTIL THEN WE HADN'T USED, WE BEFORE GETTING A DOG. WE HADN'T USED OUR YARD AT ALL BECAUSE IT'S SO VERY NARROW, AS I SAID, LIKE IT'S JUST A LITTLE ALLEYWAY THAT RANGES FROM THREE TO FIVE FEET. SO WE NEVER EVEN WENT OUT THERE UNTIL HE GOT A DOG AND REALIZED, OH, IT'D BE NICE TO SPEND SOME TIME OUTSIDE WITH THE DOG. AND IT WAS JUST SO, UM, SO NARROW AND SOMAL, WE REALLY COULDN'T DO ANYTHING. SO HE FIGURED HE'D LIKE TO USE HIS FRONT YARD, AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT WOULD BE TO BUILD A FENCE THERE. OKAY. AND THEN YOU POSTED AN ADDRESS THERE OF A, A NEIGHBOR'S HOME AND, BUT THE, BUT THE ADDRESS NUMBER DIDN'T MAKE SENSE. IT ONLY HAD THREE DIGITS AND I THINK ALL THE STREETS OR ALL THE, ALL THE HOMES HAD FOUR DIGITS. AND YOU SAID IT WAS YOUR NEIGHBOR, THE ACTUAL NEXT PHYSICAL NEIGHBOR. OH, NO, NO. SORRY, I, I MISSPOKE. IT WAS JUST SOMEONE, UM, WHO LIVES ON THE SAME STREET AS OURS, LIKE MAYBE TWO BLOCKS DOWN. I JUST GOT THE, I JUST FOUND IT ON, UH, GOOGLE MAPS. SO MAYBE I GOT IT WRONG. MAYBE THERE'S A ZERO. IT WAS LIKE 1480 AND I JUST MEANT TO SHOW THAT. UM, SIR, I'M GONNA INTERJECT. THE ADDRESS IS 1 4 8 1 5, UH, FOR THAT PICTURE. COMMISSIONER MANNA. OKAY, THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO GO AND TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, SO, OKAY. THAT WAS ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAD. THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? OH, ZUNA, COMMISSIONER UNA? YES. THIS QUESTION AGAIN IS FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, SO WE WERE PROVIDED TESTIMONY, WRITTEN TESTIMONY ABOUT SOME OF THE OFFICERS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PREVENT PRESENTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE EXISTING COVENANTS AND THAT DEFENSE WOULD BE TO BE BILLED, WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE COVENANTS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU WERE NOTIFIED ABOUT THOSE COVENANT VIOLATIONS BEFORE YOU STARTED BUILDING THE FENCE? UM, NO, I DON'T BELIEVE MY, I I WASN'T THERE WHEN MY DAD, UH, BUILT THE FENCE, HOWEVER, HE TOLD ME ABOUT IT. AND I BELIEVE HE WAS ONLY THE CODE OFFICER. ONLY NOTIF CAME AND NOTIFIED HIM AFTER HE HAD COMPLETELY FINISHED IT. UM, FROM, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CODE OFFICER, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CITY CODE OFFICER OR I'M TALKING ABOUT THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. OH, YEAH. OH, OKAY. THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. UH, THEY NEVER, NO, THEY NEVER CONTACTED MY DAD OF ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS. HE TALKED TO, I THINK ONE OR TWO OF THE NEIGHBORS BEFOREHAND, AND THEY SUGGESTED TO HIM, YOU SHOULD GO GET IN TOUCH WITH THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. BUT HE COULDN'T FIND OUT HOW, LIKE HE TRIED AND COULDN'T FIND OUT WHAT THEIR CONTACT INFO WAS AND WAS DOUBTFUL AS TO WHETHER THEY WERE EVEN A LEGITIMATE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. SO HE WAS, SO WHEN HE, WHEN HE, WHEN HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2014, WAS HE NOT PROVIDED A COPY OF THE RESTRICTED COVENANTS THAT WERE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY? I DON'T BELIEVE HE WAS, SIR. AND IF SO, HE CER HE WAS NEVER AWARE THAT A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION EXISTED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. HE, MY DAD JUST ASSUMED THAT THIS WOULD BE A PERFECTLY SUCCESSFUL THING TO DO BECAUSE HE SAW THAT OTHER FENCE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THOUGHT, OH, WOW. I MEAN, THERE'S ALREADY A PRECEDENT FOR THIS. SO HE THOUGHT IT WAS OKAY TO GO AHEAD. UNDERSTOOD. SO EVEN IF, AND JUST EVEN IF, SO, SO RESTRICTED COVENANTS ARE A PRIVATE ISSUE. SO EVEN IF THIS VARIANCE WERE TO BE, UH, WERE TO BE APPROVED BY THE, BY THE BOARD TODAY, IT STILL COULD BE, IT IS A PRIVATE ISSUE WITHIN THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION. SO THEY COULD STILL REQUIRE YOU TO REMOVE THE FENCE EVEN IF IT WAS APPROVED TODAY THROUGH THE BOARD, JUST SO YOU KNOW. OKAY. UM, WOULDN'T THAT ONLY BE A, ISN'T THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SOMETHING WE HAVE TO VOLUNTARILY ENTER INTO OR IT IS JUST BY NARRATIVE BEING THERE? NO, SIR. THE RESTRICTED COVENANTS ARE LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE, BUT THEY'RE PRIVATELY ENFORCEABLE. SO THE CITY CAN'T BE A PARTY TO THAT, BUT THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND CAN ENFORCE THE RESTRICTED COMPETENCE AGAINST YOU. I UNDERSTAND. JUST SO IT'S CLEAR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSION QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION. GO AHEAD, KEVIN. MM-HMM. . SO THE, THE OTHER HOME THAT'S GOT [01:00:01] THIS FENCE DOWN THERE, I MAY HAVE MISSED THAT, BUT, UH, IS THAT, DID THEY RECEIVE A VARIANCE FOR THEIR FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD? UH, I'LL INTERJECT KEVIN. THAT'S A, IT'S ACTUALLY THEIR REAR FENCE. IT'S THEIR SIDE FENCE. IT'S NOT THEIR FRONT FENCE. AH, OKAY. UM, I, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. UM, I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, SO THIS IS, UH, ON THE PICTURE, IS THAT A SIX FOOT FENCE WITH AN EIGHT FOOT POST OR IS IT ACTUALLY AN EIGHT FOOT PLANK FENCE FOR THE APPLICANT? OH, I BELIEVE THAT IT'S A, THE MOST OF IT, IT'S, UH, SIX FOOT THREE AND THEN THE, UH, THOSE LITTLE, UM, POSTS THAT ARE, ARE, I THINK CLOSE TO EIGHT FEET. MM-HMM. . OKAY. AND THEN, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS, I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT YOU'RE IN A PECULIAR SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE IN A POD, HOWEVER, YOU, YOU HAVE PUBLIC STREETS, BUT YOU'RE IN A, UH, APPARENT, MANDATORY, UH, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND IT'S, IT'S, UM, IT'S JUST CURIOUS. SO, UH, I WANTED TO, I WANTED TO ADD THAT, UH, WHEN YOU PURCHASED THE HOME, WERE YOU NOTIFIED THAT, THAT THIS WAS A, OR WERE YOU AWARE THAT THIS WAS A, UH, GARDEN HOME, UH, ENVIRONMENT WITH PREDOMINANTLY ZERO LOT LINES AND RELATIVELY SMALL YARDS? WELL, I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MY FATHER, AND I CAN SAY THAT I, I'M CERTAIN, I, I HIGHLY DOUBT THAT MY FATHER WAS AWARE OF THAT. I DON'T THINK SO. HE ALL, HE, HE JUST SAW LIKE THAT OTHER, UM, THAT OTHER FENCE, WHICH I UNDERSTAND NOW IS THE SIDE FENCE, BUT IT WAS STILL A FRONTING THE ROAD AND I THOUGHT CONTRIBUTED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AESTHETICS. SO HE JUST THOUGHT IT WAS ACCEPTABLE. BUT NO, IN ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION, HE DID, HE NEVER KNEW ABOUT THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. AND, UH, WHEN HE FOUND OUT ABOUT IT, HE WAS, UH, SKEPTICAL AS TO WHETHER IT WAS THE LEGITIMATE ONE. OKAY. STAFF, CAN YOU VERIFY WHETHER IT'S A MANDATORY H O A BRAGMAN, UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? GO AHEAD. FROM WHAT I CAN SEE IN MLSS, IT APPEARS TO BE A VOLUNTARY HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. AH, OKAY. OKAY. WELL THAT, UH, THAT, THAT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION. SO, UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'M DONE HEARING NONE, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT. UH, YOU'VE HEARD, UH, YOU, YOU NEIGHBORS WITHIN 200 FEET AND WHAT THEY THINK, AND YOU'VE HEARD OUR LINE OF QUESTIONS. UH, WE WE'RE GONNA GIVE YOU, UH, THREE MINUTES, UH, UP TO THREE MINUTES TO PROVIDE ANY SORT OF, UH, REBUTTAL OR CLOSING REMARKS BEFORE WE CLOSE THE CASE AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO, UH, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I UNDERSTAND THIS HAS, THIS VARIANCE TO BE GRANTED, HAS TO BE IN KEEPING WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE, OF THE STATUTE. AND, YOU KNOW, THE, THE STATUTE IN QUESTION IS I THINK LIKE SECTION 35, 5 14 OF THE CODE, WHICH IS THE SECTION ON FENCES. AND, UH, FOR THE PURPOSE, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT I READ ON THE CITY CODE, THE PURPOSE OF THAT STATUTE IS IT SAYS, UM, JUST TO, UH, KIND OF PARAPHRASE IS, UH, TO LIKE, PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC, ENHANCE PROPERTY VALUE AND IMPROVE THE APPEARANCE OF THE COMMUNITY THROUGH PRESERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, TREES, NATIVE PLANTS, AND MAINTAINING THE ECOLOGICAL BALANCE, THE AREA, IT'S A LITTLE LONGER, BUT, UM, THAT WAS THE ESSENTIAL GIST OF THE PUR OF THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE FOR THE STATUTE. SO JUST WITH REGARDS TO THAT, UM, IT'S BASIC, THE STATUTE IS BASICALLY MEANT TO ENSURE, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, NATURAL PRESERVATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, AND THE IMP APPEARANCE OF THE COMMUNITY. AND I THINK ON THE FIRST TWO THINGS, YOU KNOW, UH, NATURAL PRESERVATION, ENSURING PUBLIC SAFETY, YOU KNOW, NO TREES OR ANY PLANTS WERE CUT DOWN IN THE MAKING OF THE FENCE. AND AS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, IT IN NO WAY, YOU KNOW, IMPEDES ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS FROM GOING ABOUT THEIR DAILY TASKS. AND THE NEIGHBOR WHO IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE FENCE WAS THE ONE WHO IS, UH, IN BASICALLY IN SUPPORT OF IT. AND AS LONG AS HE GOT TO, UH, DO HIS YARD WORK. SO THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT IN NO WAY DOES IT AFFECT PUBLIC SAFETY. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT THE COMPLAINANTS BROUGHT WAS THAT IT AFFECTED THE NEIGHBORHOOD AESTHETIC. AND TO THAT, I WOULD SAY JUST LOOK AT SOME OF THE OTHER, UH, FENCES AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I MEAN, MAINLY THE ONE I SHOWED YOU IN THE PICTURE. I MEAN THAT IF THAT SETS THE BAR FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AESTHETIC, THEN I THINK WE'RE, WE, WE DEFINITELY MET THE BAR. AND SO I JUST MAINLY WANT TO, UH, RAM HOME THE FACT THAT IT DIDN'T, THAT THIS IS LIKE A PURELY AESTHETIC ISSUE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, RATHER ARBITRARY [01:05:01] AND IT'S LIKE TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE. SO I WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO, YOU KNOW, IN EVALUATING WHETHER THIS FENCE MATCHES THE NEIGHBORHOOD AESTHETIC, TO BASE THAT UPON THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS, BASICALLY ARBITRARY OPINIONS OF THE NEIGHBORS. AND I THINK IF YOU LOOK AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU'LL SEE THE OTHER FENCES. YOU'LL SEE THAT THIS IS PERFECTLY IN KEEPING WITH THE AESTHETIC. AND THAT FURTHERMORE, UM, AS I SAID, ALL OF OUR SIDE YARDS AND BACKYARD BASICALLY IS ALL UNDER MAINTENANCE EASEMENT. SO THERE'S NO WAY MY FATHER CAN WALK OUT AND USE ANY OF IT UNLESS HE BUILDS THIS FENCE. HE JUST WANTS PRIVACY SO HE CAN GO PLAY WITH HIS DOG ON THE FRONT YARD. AND ON TOP OF THAT, I UNDERSTAND THAT MY FATHER FAILED TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT. WELL, HE WAS UNDER, UNFORTUNATELY, HE WAS UNDER THE DISTINCT IMPRESSION THAT YOU JUST HAD THE CONTRACTOR GET THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR YOU, AND THE CONTRACTOR BASICALLY SCREWED SIR TIME. YEAH. SO, UH, WITH THAT, I'M SORRY, THAT TIME, OKAY. YES, SIR. UH, IS THERE COMMISSION? SAY ONE MORE THING. UM, I WAS WONDERING, UH, SINCE IS THERE ANY CHANCE YOU COULD GIVE US THE CONTINUANCE SINCE THERE'S ONLY NINE MEMBERS HERE? THERE'S 10, SIR, BUT THERE'S NOT THE FULL 12, SO I WAS JUST WANTED TO ASK IF WE COULD GET A CONTINUANCE, IF THE CHAIRMAN WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT. UH, THAT'S UP TO, UH, THE COMMISSIONER TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT. THERE, WE HAVE 10, UH, SITTING MEMBERS THAT CAN VOTE ON THIS. UH, NORMALLY 11 IS THE MOST, UH, AND, UH, SO THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE, THE COMMISSIONERS TO MAKE SUCH A MOTION. UH, SO WE WILL THANK YOU FOR, UH, BRINGING, BRINGING THAT TO OUR ATTENTION. UM, OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. UH, IS THERE A COMMISSIONER? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS. BRAGMAN. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. THANK YOU. OKAY. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A DASH 21 DASH 0 3 0 5 3, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE, A THREE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 35 DASH 514 TO ALLOW PRIVACY FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL WITHIN THE FRONT YARD, SITUATED AT 1 0 1 4 RIVER PARK. APPLICANT BEING DANIEL DEL CA, BECAUSE OF THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER, A REQUESTED, SPECIAL ACCEPT EXCEPTION IF GRANTED WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED. THE SIX FOOT, THREE INCH TALL PRIVACY WOODEN FENCE WITH EIGHT FOOT TALL POSTS IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITHIN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. C, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE. THE MATERIAL AND STYLE OF THE FENCE DOES NOT DISTRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY. THE SUBJECT FENCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. DEED, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE CONSTRUCTED TALL PRIVACY FENCING DOES DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE, OF THE DISTRICT. AND A MOTION IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND IT. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA. UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, PLEASE LEAVE THE DISCUSSION. YEAH. UM, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A VOLUNTARY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, BUT REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE ARE THE, THE CITY CODES. UH, AND THE CODES ARE PRETTY CLEAR ABOUT PLACEMENT OF A FENCE IN, UH, THE FRONT YARD. SO, UM, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. OKAY. UM, I WILL ALSO NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. UM, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA. I DRIVE BY IT EVERY DAY ON MY WAY TO WORK. UH, AND I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN IN AND OUT OF A LOT OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS IS A GARDEN HOME NEIGHBORHOOD WITH REALLY SMALL, LOTS, ZERO LOT LINES. UH, AND IT IS COMPLETELY OUT OF CHARACTER TO HAVE A FENCE, UH, IN THE FRONT YARD. AND THE MANNER IS, IS SO CONSTRUCTED. SO I I, I JUST CAN'T BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION? YEAH, KEVIN COMM. LOVE UP. UM, WELL, I'M A HUGE PROPONENT OF PROPERTY RIGHTS. UH, THIS, THIS IS TOTALLY OUT OF CHARACTER AND, UH, CAN'T SUPPORT IT. THANK [01:10:01] YOU. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONS, HEARING NON STAFF? PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL, THOUGH I DO NOT SUPPORT IT. MS. CRUZ? NO, I DO NOT CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRACKMAN. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMER. I DO NOT CONCUR. LOVE. I DO NOT CONCUR. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. THIEL. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. UNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UH, MOTION FAILED. ZERO TO 10. UH, IS THERE A MOTION ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE VARIANCE FOR THE CLEAR VISION? BRAGMAN BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 21 DASH 0 3 5 3. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A SPECIAL, SORRY, GRANT OR REQUEST FOR TWO, A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM MINIMUM 15 FOOT CLEAR VISION STANDARD AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 35 DASH 5 1 4 TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD FENCE TO BE 11 FEET AWAY FROM THE STREET SITUATED AT 1 0 1 4 RIVER PARK, APPLICANT BEING DANIEL DEL KAY BECAUSE OF THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. 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 IN THIS CASE, GIVEN FENCE PLACEMENT. THE VARIANCE TO CLEAR VISION IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE GENERAL HEALTH AND SAFETY OF PASSERSBY AND VISION IS NOT LIMITED WHEN ENTERING OR EXITING THE PROPERTY. TWO DUE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. STAFF FINDS THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO DEMOLISH THE FENCE. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, IT'S THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE INTENT OF THE CLEARER VISION IS TO INCREASE VISIBILITY WHEN ENTERING, EXITING PROPERTIES AND LIMIT HARM TO PASSERSBY, APPROVING THE PLACEMENT OF THE FENCE WITHIN THE CLEAR VISION WOULD NOT DECREASE VISIBILITY AND WOULD NOT CAUSE HARM TO PASSERSBY, 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 CURRENT ZONING. DISTRICT FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER OF THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE CLEAR VISION VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THE APPROVAL OF LESSER CLEAR VISION DOES NOT SEEM TO POSE STRICT CONSTRAINTS. 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 ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE FENCING SHOULD COMPLY WITH A CLEAR VISION STANDARDS, HOWEVER, DUE TO REGULATIONS PREVENTING TO DEFENSE FOR THE SECURITY AND PRIVACY CONCERNS, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST ON THE PROPERTY. END OF MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. UH, COMMISSIONER MANN HAS A SECOND. COMMISSIONER BRACKMAN, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION. UH, SO AGAIN, UM, BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION. UM, I THINK THAT ALLOWING THE FENCE TO STAY IS DEFINITELY GONNA BE, UH, A VIOLATION IN THE CLEAR VISION ISSUES. AND AS COMMISSIONER, UM, ORIAN SAID THAT THESE ARE VERY SMALL, LOTS VERY CLOSE TOGETHER, AND HAVING A FENCE THAT FAR TOWARDS THE DRIVEWAY AND THE STREET IS GONNA BE, UM, REALLY DIFFICULT. AND, AND I THINK IT'S GONNA BE A SAFETY ISSUE, SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MANANA. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS AS WELL. OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. UM, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA ALSO ADD THAT I'M, UH, OPPOSED, UH, AND, AND ADD THE, UH, ITEM THAT THERE'S A, THERE'S A NICE, UH, ARC TO THE STREET PRIOR TO THIS LOT AND IT MAKES IT A LITTLE ADDITIONALLY UNSAFE. SO WITH THAT STAFF, PLEASE MAKE A, UH, ROLL CALL. [01:15:01] MR. MACHACA. I'LL, UH, SUPPORT THE MOTION. MR. CRUZ, I DO NOT CONCUR MR. MANNA. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. BRACKMAN, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. GILMER, I DO NOT CONCUR MR. LOVE. I DO NOT CONCUR MR. VINNO. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. THIEL. I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. . I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND SHARE, OR I ALSO DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION FAILS ZERO TO 10, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT. PLEASE GET WITH STAFF TO DISCUSS, UH, WHAT TO DO MOVING FORWARD. ITEM NEXT CASE, PLEASE. I APOLOGIZE. I WAS ON MUTE. CASE [3. 21-4488 BOA-21-10300054] NUMBER 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 4. ADDRESS IS 3 22 MARKER STREET COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE. APPLICANT TIME VASQUEZ IS REQUEST FOR ONE AT 2030 SQUARE FOOT. LOT SIZE VARIANCE IS AMENDMENT LOT SIZE OF 25,000 SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A LOT TO BE 2,970 SQUARE FEET TO A TWO FOOT FIVE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE TWO FEET SEVEN INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND THREE, A TWO FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE 17 FEET TWO INCHES AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. CURRENT ZONING IS R FIVE M L O D TWO. NEXT SLIDE. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON MARKET STREET, ONE BLOCK AWAY FROM SUN, UH, SAN PADO CREEK ON THE WEST. UH, IN FEBRUARY, 2020, THE APPLICANT, UH, RECEIVED A PERMIT TO BUILD A 300 SQUARE FOOT NEW ADDITION TO THE, THE REAR SIDE OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE. THE APPLICANT THEN DEMOLISHED THE STRUCTURE AND BUILT A NEW RESIDENCE OUT OF THE, OUTTA THE SCOPE OF WORK FROM THE PERMIT AND MUST NOW COMPLY WITH ALL U D C REQUIREMENTS DURING SITE VISIT. STAFF ALSO NOTED, NOTICED THAT THE LOT SIZE AND SETBACK ISSUES, UH, THE PROPERTY WAS A PORTION OF A LARGER LOT, WHICH WAS SUBDIVIDED IN 1948 AND CREATED A SUBSTANDARD LOT WITH AN AREA OF 2009 OR 70 SQUARE FEET, WHICH REQUIRES OBTAINING A VARIANCE TO COMPLY WITH A MINIMUM 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. THE RESIDENCE IS TWO FEET SEVEN INCHES AWAY FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE WITH A ONE FOOT SIX INCH OVERHANG. THERE IS ALSO A WATER HEATER CLOSET MEASURING TWO FEET NINE BY TWO FEET NINE WITHIN THE REAR YARD THAT KEEPS A PORTION OF THE REAR SETBACK AT 17 FEET TWO INCHES. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING, UH, FOR TWO SETBACK VARIANCES TO THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAN ANTONIO UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, UH, REVIEWS ALL DEMOLITION APPLICATIONS, UH, FOR ANY PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF SAN ANTONIO. APPROVAL OF VARIANCE DOES NOT IMPLY APPROVAL OF OR TAKE THE PLACE OF SUCH DEMOLITION REVIEW AS DIRECTED BY THE U D C. TO DATE, NO APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION, UH, AT THIS ADDRESS TO, TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED USE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW, UH, TO THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. COPY OF THE SITE PLAN, YOU CAN SEE THE WATER HEATER AT THE BACK END OF IT. SUBJECT PROPERTY MEASUREMENT FROM THE SIDE, THAT IS THE, UH, OVERHANG NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREA. OKAY, STAFF RECOMMEND RULE OF D O A 21 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 4. BASED ON FALLING FINDS OF ATTACKS, THE REDEVELOPMENT WOULD ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE SUBSTANDARD LOT REQUIRES SUB OBTAINING VARIANCES TO DEVELOP A HABITABLE RESIDENCE AND THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. 30 REVIEW NOTICES WERE SENT OUT, SIR, IN FAVOR. ONE IN OPPOSITION FROM NEIGHBOR COLIN GARDEN NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR. WOULD YOU HAVE THE APPLICANT OF THE LINE HY VASQUEZ? SIR, WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION. HELLO, MY NAME IS JAIME VASQUEZ. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HEARING MY CASE TODAY. UH, WE PURCHASED THIS HOME AS WE ARE VERY INTERESTED IN APPROVING THE AREA ALONG WITH THE ALONG DEFENSE FEDERAL CREEK. UH, WE HAVE FOOD PERMITS FOR THE ADDITION AND THE REMODEL AND ALL WAS APPROVED. UM, [01:20:01] WE DID THE WORK INCLUDING PASSING THE, UH, MECHANICAL ROUGHING, WHICH INCLUDED THE ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND HVAC PLUMBING INSPECTION. IT WOULD DETERMINE THAT THE HOUSE WAS REBUILT TO THE EXTENT AND QUANTIFIED AS A NEW BUILD, MAINLY BECAUSE TOO MUCH FRAMING HAD BEEN RETAINED AS WELL AS THE OLD FOUNDATION POST. THE HOME IS COMING OUT BEAUTIFUL, AND IT IS MY WISH THAT THE COMMISSIONERS APPROVE OUR REQUEST. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I DO NOT BELIEVE WE HEARD AN ADDRESS GIVEN, SO IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. UH, SIR. FOR THE, UM, MR. VASQUEZ. MY NAME IS JAINA VASQUEZ, AND THE ADDRESS I'M CALLING IN REGARDS TO IS 3 22 MARKER. MY HOME ADDRESS IS 13 5 0 3 V JUANITA SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 6. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY, SO, UH, WITH, WITH THAT, UH, STAFF, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY TO READ IN? YES, SIR. I'M GONNA READ SOME TO THE RECORD. UH, 3 22 MOCKER. NOW THESE WERE NOT REFLECTED ON THE MAP JUST FOR, UM, FOR YOUR INFORMATION. 3 22 MOCKER SUPPORT APPLICANT REQUEST APPROVAL WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. IT'S FROM KAREN SPEAR, PRESIDENT COLLINS GARDEN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE NEXT ONE, IT'S THE EMAIL RESPONSE STANDBY BY ADE. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS, UH, GUADALUPE RAMOS. I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AT THREE 20 MOCKER. THE REASON I'M OPPOSING THIS PROPOSAL IS THAT THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY TO POSTED MY HOUSE. THEY DIDN'T RESPECT THE, THE SEATS SPACE TO, TO START CONSTRUCTION. THAT HOUSE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE REMODELED ONLY, BUT THEY MADE A NEW COMPLETE, UH, COMPLETE HOUSE AND THEY NEVER SHOWED ANY PERMITS. UH, LAST YEAR, UH, WHEN THEY STARTED THE HOUSE, I CALLED THE INSPECTIONS. THEY NEVER CAME TO CHECK ON THE CONSTRUCTION. THEY MADE THE HOUSE TOO LARGE FROM THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. I'M NOT WILLING TO GIVE THEM ANY MORE SPACE. YOU CAN SEND AN INSPECTOR TO CHECK AND HE WILL SEE THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT CONSTRUCTED. UM, RIGHT. I OPPOSE THIS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GUADALUPE RAMOS. THE NEXT ONE IS FROM 3 22 MARKER. SO IT IS SAME ONE. OKAY. WE'RE OPPOSED. SO IT DOES LOOK LIKE THEY ALL ARE REFLECTED. THAT IS CORRECT. THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE COMMENTARY. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, LET'S OPEN THIS UP TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS PLEASE, BRUCE. ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UM, MR. VASQUEZ, UH, THE PRIOR HOME WAS HOW BIG, DO YOU KNOW HOW BIG THIS SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS? I DO NOT REMEMBER. I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME. I'M SORRY. I'M I'M OUT OF TOWN. UM, IT WAS A SMALLER HOUSE AND WE ADDED TO THE BACK OF IT ONLY. OKAY, BUT YOU TORE DOWN THE ORIGINAL HOME COMPLETELY CORRECT? NO, IT WASN'T, IT WASN'T TORN LIKE IT WASN'T DEMOLISHED. IT WAS AS THEY WERE, AS THEY HIT THE HOUSE, AS THE FRAMERS REFRAME THE HOUSE THEY TOOK, THEY TOOK OFF THE OLD FRAMING AND PUT NEW FRAMING TO THE EXTENT THAT IF YOU WALK TO THE HOUSE, IT'S VIRTUALLY ALL NEW FRAMING. UM, BUT IT WAS, EXCEPT FOR TWO WALLS THAT ARE ORIGINAL OLD WALLS. BUT IT WAS NEVER DEMOLISHED TO THE GROUND. THE HOUSE WAS NEVER COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED. IT WAS, IT WAS EXISTING AND IT WAS REBUILT. OKAY. SO, SO THE FRONT PORCH IS NEW ALSO, BESIDES WHAT YOU ADDED TO THE BACK OF THE HOME? THE FRONT PORCH IS NEW, UM, THE DECK, SO THE, THE, IT HAD A FRONT PORCH WHEN WE BOUGHT IT, BUT THE, THE PORCH AND THE BOTTOM PART IS NEW AND, AND I BELIEVE ALL OF THAT WAS INCLUDED IN OUR ORIGINAL, UH, PLAN SUBMISSION TO THE CITY. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ STAFF JUST PUT UP ON THE SCREEN AS A STREET VIEW FROM, FROM BEFORE. YEAH. I, I, I'M LOOKING AT IT NOW, UH, BECAUSE OF COURSE THE CARPORT THAT IT HAS THERE IS NOT THERE ANYMORE, SO. ALL RIGHT. YEAH, AND YOU CAN SEE HOW MUCH THE IMPROVEMENTS WERE DONE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER? QUESTION? OH, ZDA COMMISSIONER. OH, THIS QUESTION AGAIN, IT'S FOR MR. VAZQUEZ. DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO YOUR NEIGHBOR? I MEAN, YOU SAW HER OPPOSITION TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST. DID YOU AT ANY POINT HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK WITH HER ABOUT WHAT YOU WERE PLANNING ON DOING, OR, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE, UM, THE RAPPORT YOU HAD WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR. SO I HAD, UM, SEEING THE NEIGHBORS IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE WHEN I WOULD GO AND VISIT AND DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, AND THEY NEVER [01:25:01] MENTIONED ANYTHING TO ME. THEY NEVER, UH, UH, RAISED ANY CONCERNS TO ME. UM, THE HOME IS, AND YOU CAN SEE WAS ALREADY KIND OF CLOSE TO IT. WHEN WE WENT TO THE CITY AND THEY SAW THAT THE STEP BACK WAS, WAS SO SMALL, THEY SAID THAT WE HAD TO USE A, UH, FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM ALONG THAT SIDE OF THE, ALONG THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THEY REALIZED THAT THERE WAS GONNA BE AN OVERHANG. THE CITY REALIZED THERE WAS GONNA BE OVERHANG AS WELL. AND THEY SAID THAT BECAUSE OF ALL THIS, THAT THERE HAD TO BE, UM, A FIRE PROTECTION. BUT THE, THE OWNERS THEMSELVES, THE NEIGHBORS THEMSELVES NEVER, NEVER ADDRESSED ANY CONCERNS TO ME AT ANY TIME. THIS WAS, UH, NEW TO ME TODAY. OKAY. AND ON THAT SAME WALL THAT ABUTS THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, DID YOU REBUILD IT AT THE SAME LOCATION, OR DID, WAS THAT WALL MOVED CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE? IT'S THE SAME LOCATION. IT'S THE SAME. THEY LOOK AT IT, IT'S THE SAME. YEAH, IT'S, IT'S BEEN LIKE THAT. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN LIKE THAT. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN SORT OF, THE HOUSE HAS KIND OF CROOKED AND IT'S, IT STILL HAS THAT CROOKEDNESS, IT, IT'S LIKE AT AN ANGLE AND, AND WE DIDN'T MOVE OUT. AND AGAIN, THIS, WE DIDN'T LEVEL IT. WE DIDN'T RESHIFT IT AND GET STRAIGHT. WE JUST, WE JUST LEFT IT THE WAY IT WAS. IT'S PROBABLY BEEN LIKE THAT SINCE IT WAS BUILT. YEAH, UNDERST THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY. ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MINKA UH, COMMISSIONER MINKA, UH, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UH, BESIDES THE, UH, ASBESTOS THAT WAS REMOVED THAT SITE AND REPLACED WITH A PARTY BOARD, UH, THE OUT SCOPE STATEMENT SORT OF GETS TO ME A LITTLE BIT. OUT SCOPE MEANS THAT BECAUSE OF THE, THE ADDITION OF THE ROOM TO THE RIGHT, OR IS IT THE FACADE WAS COMPLETELY OUTTA SCOPE? WHEN WE SAY OUTTA SCOPE, SIR, IT'S BECAUSE THE PERMIT APPLIED FOR WAS FOR ONLY AN ADDITION. THEY ENDED UP DEMOING THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE AND BUILDING A BRAND NEW STRUCTURE. THAT IS THE, OUT OF THE SCOPE OF THE PERMIT, UH, THE PERMIT, YOU KNOW, AS AN ADDITION, IT NEEDS MINIMAL REVIEW. NEW CONSTRUCTION WOULD'VE REQUIRED SITE PLAN, FULL SETS OF PLANS, UM, FROM AN ARCHITECT OR A CONTRACTOR, UH, FOR REVIEW. SO THAT INVOLVES ALSO THE MECHANICAL PART. EVERY PART OF IT, SIR, INCLUDING ELECTRICAL AND FOUNDATION. THANK YOU. UM, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTION? WAS THE HOUSE INSPECT KEVIN LOVE? OKAY, GOOD. COMMISSIONER. LOVE WAS THE HOUSE INSPECTED, WAS THE ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL? WERE ALL THE INSPECTIONS DONE? THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED BEFORE THE PERMITS. SO THIS CAME TO US AFTER, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE ALREADY RECEIVED INSPECTIONS FOR ANY PORTION OF IT YET. I KNOW IT IS PENDING. UM, SETBACKS FOR SURE. THANK YOU. STAFF. I HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION. UH, IF, IF THIS WERE TO GET APPROVED TODAY, WILL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL FOUNDATION, WILL THOSE INSPECTIONS BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO, UH, GRANTING OF THE C O O OF THIS HOUSE? THAT IS CORRECT. EVERY PART OF THE INSPECTION WILL BE REQUIRED SINCE IT'S NEW CONSTRUCTION. NOW. OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION WOULD ALSO NEED TO LOOK AT IT AS WELL, SINCE IT WAS DEMOED WITHOUT THE REVIEW. OKAY. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? ANA, UH, COMMISSIONER ANA, THEN OZUNA. SO, UM, THIS QUESTION GOES TO THE CITY. IT, UH, MAYBE FOR SOME CLARIFICATION. SO IN THE ONE RESPONSE FROM THE NEIGHBOR, IT TALKED ABOUT PROPERTY BEING TAKEN. AND SO JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, THAT THAT WAS MORE OF A PERCEPTION THAN AN ACTUAL TAKING OF PROPERTY, OR WAS THERE ACTUAL PROPERTY LOST? UH, WITH THIS BUILDING? THE STRUCTURE IS WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE ORIGINAL FENCE LINE. I DON'T KNOW IF ANY PROPERTIES TAKEN THAT, I DON'T KNOW THAT'S PERCEPTION ON HER PART OR, OR WHAT THE CASE WAS THERE. BUT IN REVIEWING OF THE PROPERTY, IT'S WITHIN THE LOT THAT'S ESTABLISHED. OKAY. YEAH. 'CAUSE SHE DID, UH, STATE, YOU KNOW, UH, MY PART OF MY PROPERTY IS TAKEN, SO, UM, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT IMPLIES, SO. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. YES. SO I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM. SO THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES AND THAT APPROVAL IS ALSO BASED ON ALL THE INSPECTIONS TO BE COMPLETED, UH, FOR THE, FOR THE C OF O, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. KEEP IN MIND, THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR B O A WILL ONLY BE FOR THOSE THINGS. ALL INSPECTIONS. THEY STILL HAVE TO MEET ALL BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS, FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS, UM, AND IN CASES OF STORMWATER, WHICH IT DOES NOT HIT FLOOD FLOODPLAIN, BUT FLOODPLAIN IS AROUND THIS PROPERTY, SO THEY'LL STILL HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. OKAY, TEAL MACHACA. I HAVE ONE MORE. UH, COMMISSIONER TEAL. UH, I HEARD YOU POP IN BEFORE COMMISSIONER MINKA DID, IF YOU COULD ASK YOUR QUESTION, WE'LL GO BACK TO MENCHACA. YEP. UH, JUST, UH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A STATEMENT. I, I WAS ABLE TO LOOK UP THE, THE PERMIT HISTORY ON THE PROPERTY. PERMITS WERE PULLED, RUFFINS WERE PASSED, UH, FOR MECHANICAL, [01:30:01] FOR FRAMING FOR ALL OF THOSE ITEMS, UH, BACK IN 2020. SO THERE NO FINAL INSPECTIONS ARE COMPLETED OR CLOSED OUT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF, UH, THEIR SEWER. UM, BUT OBVIOUSLY THEY, THEY WERE PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS SOMEHOW. AND, UH, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A, A LITTLE IT, SOME CONFUSION THAT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE HOUSE WAS EVER ACTUALLY TORN DOWN AT ALL. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER MIN CHAKA, UH, THIS IS FOR STAFF AND IT'S MAINLY FOR MY KNOWLEDGE. UH, WHEN YOU REMOVE ASBESTOS, IS THERE A PERMIT AND A MITIGATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT'S, THAT WORKS FOR THE CITY THAT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE HERE? I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH ASBESTOS REMOVAL. UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT'S PART OF PERMITTING OR HOW THAT WOULD PLAY OUT, SIR, BUT THERE IS A PROCESS. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND I HAVE A QUESTION. UM, IT, AND THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT, UH, STREET VIEW, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE YOUR YOUR, UH, YOUR HOME IS ANY CLOSER TO THE NEIGHBOR. CAN YOU JUST, UH, YOU MAY HAVE STATED THAT, BUT DID YOU, DID YOU MAKE, UM, DID YOU MOVE THE HOME ANY CLOSER AS WAS RAISED BY THE NEIGHBOR'S CONCERN? UH, NO, SIR, I DID NOT. OKAY. WE CONTINUED ALONG THE SAME LINES OF CONSTRUCTION. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND THEN WHEN YOU DID YOUR DEMOLITION, DID YOU RETAIN ANY OF THE APPEAR AND BEAM, UH, FOOTINGS OR FOUNDATION? I, I BELIEVE THAT MOST OF THE POLES, UH, UH, WERE, WERE CHANGED TO NEW BOAT. OKAY. AND THEN, UH, ON THE REAR, DID YOUR EXISTING HOME, UM, UH, VENTURE INTO THE 20 FOOT REAR STEP BACK? 'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THE ONLY, THE ONLY ISSUE WITH, WITH THE REAR SETBACK IS, IS A, IS A SMALL WATER HEATER THAT YOU HAVE BACK THERE IS NOT THE ACTUAL HOME ITSELF. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, I HAVE NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. UH, ANY GO ANY MORE BEFORE WE, UH, ENTERTAIN A MOTION? HEARING NONE. UH, BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION, I'M GONNA GIVE THE APPLICANT, UH, A MOMENT TO, UH, PROVIDE ANY REBUTTAL OR CLOSING REMARKS AFTER HEARING, UH, ALL THE VARIOUS COMMENTARY AND QUESTIONS. SO WITH THAT, UH, MR. VASQUEZ, YOU'VE GOT UP TO THREE MINUTES IF YOU SO DESIRE. UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, NO, I WOULD JUST, THE ONLY THING I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS WAS THAT ALL PERMIT, UH, THE ROUGHEN, UM, HAD BEEN PASSED TO THE ELECTRICAL, THE AVAC, THE PLUMBING, UH, AND, UH, WE WERE AT THE FRAMING INSPECTION AND THE FRAMER, UH, THE FRAMING INSPECTOR TOLD ME THAT, UM, MORE WORK HAD BEEN DONE THAT HAD BEEN, UH, PROPOSED. UM, IT WASN'T JUST A ADDITIONAL, UM, UH, A PERMIT FOR AN ADDITION. IT WAS ALSO A PERMIT FOR A REMODEL. FOR REMODEL, BUT IT WAS TOO MUCH A REMODEL THAT IT, IT, IT, IT VENTURED INTO NEW CONSTRUCTION. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, WITH THAT, IS THERE A COMMISSIONER? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE. TEAL COMMISSIONER TEAL REGARD. CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 21 3 5 4. I MOVED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR ONE A 2030 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT TO ALLOW A LOT TO BE 2,970 SQUARE FEET. TWO, A TWO FOOT FIVE INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE TWO FOOT SEVEN INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND THREE, A TWO FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE 17 FOOT TWO INCHES AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 3 2 2 MARKER STREET. APPLICANT BEING JAIME VASQUEZ, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT THE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. 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 IN THIS CASE, GIVEN THE LOT CONSTRAINTS, GRANTING THE VARIANCES FOR LESSER SETBACKS AND SMALLER LOT SIZE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE IN CONTRARY WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. IN THE ABSENCE OF VARIANCES, THE STRUCTURE NEEDS TO BE DEMOLISHED. THE LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE IS BELOW THE MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENT, SO ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THE LOT WILL REQUIRE VARIANCES. 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 THE INTENT OF THE CODE, RATHER THAN THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW. APPROVING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE SAFETY, BEAUTY, AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ALL INTENTS OF THIS LAW WILL BE OBSERVED. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WILL NOT PERMIT A USE NOT [01:35:01] AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE DISTRICT. IT IS LOCATED IN FIVE. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE VARIANCES TO REDUCE THE LOT SIZE AND THE, AND THE SIDE AND PORTION PORTION OF THE REAR SETBACK WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE OR ALTER THE USE OF THE CHARACTER OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THE VARIANCES WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE VICINITY. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ARE SMALL LOTS AND THE SETBACK ENCROACHMENT IS COMMON TO MAXIMIZE THE USE OF SUBSTANDARD PROPERTIES. SIX. THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER FOR, OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. AND WERE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL. THE PLIGHT RESULTED FROM THE EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS, IS ITS SIZE AND ITS IS COMMON WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. END OF MOTION. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UH, COMMISSIONER TEGEL, PLEASE LEAD, LEAD TO DISCUSSION. UH, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. UM, I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY ILL INTENT HERE. UH, YOU KNOW, THE GENTLEMAN, THE APPLICANT DID GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS, AND I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN THROUGH THIS EXACT SAME THING IN THIS EXACT SAME NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE WE HAD TO TAKE DOWN TO THE STUDS AND DO SO MUCH WORK THAT WHEN WE CAME, WE GOT OUR FRAMING INSPECTION. THEY SAID, WE ACTUALLY NEED TO GO THROUGH, YOU NEED TO PUT TOGETHER PLANS, WE NEED TO GO THROUGH PLAN, REVIEW ALL OF THAT WHEN IT, WE HAD ORIGINALLY PULLED JUST A GENERAL REMODEL PERMIT. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE WAS A GOOD FAITH EFFORT HERE TO, TO, UM, ABIDE BY, UH, YOU KNOW, THE U D C. UH, ADDITIONALLY, HE SHOULDN'T BE PENALIZED FOR THE, THE LOT BEING SUBDIVIDED IN 1948. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST A, A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO THIS AREA. SO I, I WILL BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR WITH MR. Q. OF COURSE. THIS, THIS, ALL THIS PROPERTY IS OVER 50 YEARS OLD, SO A LOT OF IT IS GONNA BE ALMOST COMPLETELY RESTRUCTURED BEFORE THEY CAN DO ANYTHING, UH, ON ANY OF THESE HOUSES IN THIS AREA. SO, YES, I, I, I WILL CONCUR WITH THIS AND, UH, APPROVE THIS, UH, UH, VARIANCE THAT HE NEEDS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? MANNA, COMMISSIONER MANNA? UM, I, I WILL ALSO BE VOTING, UH, IN FAVOR OF THIS. UH, ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, ASK IS THAT THE BUILDER CONSIDER PUTTING IN GUTTERS, UH, ON THAT, ON THAT, UH, SIDE PROPERTY SO THAT, UH, THE WATER FLOW, BECAUSE HE IS A LITTLE BIT CLOSER WITH REGARDS TO HIS ROOF AND TO, UH, MAINTAIN GOOD NEIGHBOR. SO JUST MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO HIM. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? UM, HEARING NONE, I'M JUST GONNA CLOSE WITH, I'M ALSO IN SUPPORT, BUT I WANTED TO ADD THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS PROCESS IS, IS PROVIDING, UH, ADDING TO THE, TO THE VALUE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S ALSO REMOVING ITS PESTOS AND REPLACING WITH HARDY PLANK. SO IT'S A SAFETY, UH, ENHANCEMENT. UH, WITH THAT STAFF. PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. MR. MACHACA. UH, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS. FACT. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. MANA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BREGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMER. I CONCUR. MR. LOVE. I CONCUR. MR. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ENA? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES 10 TO ZERO. UH, CONGRATULATIONS. UH, STAFF. NEXT CASE PLEASE. THANK YOU GUYS. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. NEXT CASE IS [4. 21-4354 BOA-21-10300055] D O A 21, 1 0 3, UH, 0 0 0 5 5 AT 1 0 7 PETERS COURT COUNSEL, DISTRICT FIVE. THE APPLICANT IS SARAH GARRIS. ONE REQUEST FOR A 15 FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK IS REQUIRED IN SECTION 35 3 10 TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE FOUR FEET SIX INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. TWO, A ONE FOOT FOUR INCH VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM. UH, FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK IS REQUIRED IN SECTION 35 3 10 TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FEET EIGHT INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND THREE, A 2,130 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE 6,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. UM, TO ALLOW A LOT SIZE TO BE 3,870 SQUARE FEET. TARONE IS R SIX A H O D. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED MID-BLOCK ALONG PETERS COURT. IT'S JUST SOUTH OF THE DOWNTOWN IN, IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. ORIGINAL 36 SQUARE MILES. THE OWNER IS APPLYING FOR A REAR END SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TOWARDS THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. UH, DIRECTLY [01:40:01] BEHIND THE PROPERTY IS A PRIVATE STREET FOR A TOWN HOME COMPLEX. UPON INSPECTION STAFF ALSO FOUND THAT THE PROPERTY IS, IS SMALLER THAN THE, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR, FOR AN R SIX, WHICH IS 6,000 SQUARE FEET. THE PROPERTY IS MADE NON-CONFORMING BY A LARGE AREA REZONING IN 2006. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS GENERALLY SMALL ZERO LOT LINE TOWN HOMES. HERE'S THE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ITSELF. THE REAR PROPERTY LINE FROM THE POST TO THE PROPERTY LINE. HERE'S THE DECK THAT'S GONNA BE CONVERTED INTO A COVERED AREA FRONT. UH, THE FRONT PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREA AREA IS A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN. THE AREA TO THE BACK IS WHAT THEY'RE GONNA BE ENCLOSING TO THE SCREEN PORCH STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL ON BO A 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 5 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. FACT, THE ADDITION WILL REMAIN FOUR FEET, SIX INCHES AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND THREE FEET EIGHT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THAT SIDE PROPERTY LINE, THERE IS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT IS THE PORTION THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE SIDE SETBACK ISSUE. THE ADDITION WILL BE WITHIN THE FIVE FEET AS REQUIRED. THERE IS A 30 FOOT, UH, THERE IS 30 FEET BETWEEN THE ADDITION AND THE ADJACENT SUB STRUCTURE TO THE REAR. AND 14 FEET BETWEEN THE ADDITION AND THE, UH, STRUCTURE TO THE SIDE. AND THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, UH, WAS PUT IN PLACE BY THE CITY AND CREATED THE NON-CONFORMING, UH, STATUS. 25 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT. ZERO WERE RECEIVED IN FAVOR. AND THERE'S NO RESPONSE FROM THE LONE STAR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE HAVE THE APPLICANT TO THE LINE. UH, MS. SARAH GARISH. MA'AM, WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS ON RECORD. START YOUR PRESENTATION. BEFORE WE TURN THIS OVER TO THE APPLICANT, DID YOU JUST STATE THAT THERE WERE ZERO IN FAVOR? NO. FOUR IN FAVOR. ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THANK MS. GARRIS. WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE. HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS SARAH GARRIS FOR 1 0 7 PETERS COURT. PLEASE PROCEED. UH, MAY, MAY I BEGIN? OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, PLEASE. SO THIS IS A PROJECT. THIS IS, THIS IS AN OLDER, YOU KNOW, SITUATED IN AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS SITUATED 30 FEET BACK FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. SO THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH TO WORK WITH HERE. UM, THE HOME ITSELF ACTUALLY DOES NOT MEET THE 20 FOOT SETBACK LINE. UM, THE DECK THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO ENCLOS WHERE WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS VARIANCE IS ACTUALLY A, IT IT WAS PERMANENT AND APPROVED BEFORE, UM, MY MOVING TO THIS PROPERTY. AND SO WE ARE ASKING TO EXTEND THE, UM, THE, THE DECK THAT WAS GIVEN PERMISSION ALONG THE, ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE AND ENCLOSE IT. THIS PROPERTY DOES LOOK AS THE PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD HAS DONE A LOT OF CHANGES FROM THE LAST 10 YEARS. WE ARE NOW, WE HAVE, AND OUR BACKYARD IS NOW FILLED WITH MANY, WHAT THEY'RE, WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY CATEGORIZED AS CONDOS, TWO STORY CONDOS. AND SO NOW YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY GO IN THE BACKYARD WITHOUT ALL THOSE TWO STORY CONDOS NOW OVERLOOKING INTO THE YARD. AND SO ESSENTIALLY NONE OF THE TENANT, OR NONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON PETER'S COURT HAVE ANY KIND OF PRIVACY OR, OR RIGHT TO ENJOYMENT. WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS A SINGLE STORY SCREENED IN PORCH. UM, SO IT WOULD NOT HINDER ANY OF OUR NEIGHBOR'S VIEWS, INCLUDING OUR, OUR WONDERFUL TWO STORY ADJACENT NEIGHBORS, UM, THE SHED THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE CELERY DWELLING. UM, AGAIN, IT IS THERE, UH, THEY, THEY WERE ALREADY, IT WAS, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN THERE FOR YEARS. UM, BUT THAT IS THE OTHER VARIANT THAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT. UM, AND THAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF MY PRESENTATION. OKAY. UH, BAF, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY TO READ INTO THE RECORD? NONE WHATSOEVER. ALL RIGHT. UH, ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? OKAY, I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, IT'S STAFF IS PETER'S COURT, THAT'S A PUBLIC STREET, CORRECT? IT'S LISTED AS A PUBLIC STREET, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY AN INGRESS, EGRESS EASEMENT. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S, IT'S PRIVATELY OWNED. OKAY. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. 'CAUSE IT, IT DIDN'T, WASN'T BEEN, IT WAS BUILT LIKE A PUBLIC STREET. SO WITH THAT, UM, HAVING NO PUBLIC COMMENTARY AND NO QUESTIONS, UM, IS THERE, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE, UH, AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ANY CLOSING REMARKS BEFORE WE, UH, ENTERTAIN A MOTION? YOU KNOW, I, I JUST LIKE TO THANK YOUR CONSIDERATION. THIS IS ACTUALLY A, A PRIVATE STREET, THE CITY WE HAVE, WE HAVE GONE TO THE CITY ACTUALLY FOR, FOR MAINTENANCE OF OUR GRAVEL ROAD, BUT THEY HAVE TOLD US IT IS OUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY. BUT, BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT SUBJECT. UM, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. AGAIN, WE, IT IS, IT'S A, THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT TO HINDER ANY OF OUR NEIGHBOR'S VIEWS. UM, WE ARE VERY CONSCIOUS OF, [01:45:01] YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY'S RIGHT TO ENJOY THEIR, THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY, BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO BE ABLE TO ENJOY OUR PROPERTY, UM, WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, ALL THE NEIGHBORS PEERING IN. UM, AS FAR AS ANY KIND OF SAFETY CONCERNS, THERE IS THAT DRIVEWAY OR, UM, EASEMENT, WHATEVER YOU'D LIKE TO CALL ON THE PROPERTY BEHIND US. SO THERE'S, THERE'S AMPLE ROOM FOR, FOR EVERYBODY. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, SO WITH THAT, IS THERE A, A COMMISSIONER WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE? TEO COMMISSIONER TEAL, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 5 5. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR ONE 15 FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 35 DASH 3 1 0 0.01 TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE FOUR FOOT SIX INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY. LINE TWO FOR VAR, ONE FOOT FOUR INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 35 DASH THREE 10.01 TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FOOT EIGHT INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND THREE FOR A 2,130 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE 6,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM MO SIZE TO ALLOW A LOT TO BE 3,870 SQUARE FEET, SITUATED AT 1 0 7 PETER'S COURT APPLICANT BEING SARAH GARISH 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 CODES AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIPS. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. PUBLIC ETHICS IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, THE VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED IS FOR BUILDING ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REAR AND SIDE SETBACK. AND FOR REDUCTION IN, UM, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, THE REQUESTS DO NOT SEEM TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE BOARD FINDS THAT ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT IF ENFORCED, WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. BY IMPOSING THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT, THE FULL USE OF THE PROPERTY WOULD BE LIMITED DUE TO ITS SIZE. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. SPIRIT ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE INTENT OF THE SETBACKS IS TO PROVIDE SPACING BETWEEN NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES BY REDUCING THE SETBACK TO FOUR FOOT SIX INCHES. THE APPLICANT WILL MAINTAIN OVER 30 FEET BETWEEN STRUCTURES. THE VARIANCE TO THE SIDE SETBACK WOULD LEAVE OVER 14 FEET BETWEEN STRUCTURES, WHICH IS NOT UNCOMMON IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. OR THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE AN OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS LOCATED. VARIANCES 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 REQUEST TO REDUCE A PORTION OF THE REAR AND SIDE SETBACKS DO NOT POSE THE RISK OF SUBSTANTIALLY INJURING THE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND DOES NOT SEEM LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE IT IS COMMON TO FIND DWELLINGS BUILT NEAR THE PROPERTY LINE, UTILIZED MOST OF THE SMALL LOTS. SIX, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT MERELY DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE VARIANCE TO RECEIVE A PERMIT FOR AN ADDITION. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER BECAUSE THE HIGH MINIMUM LOT SIZE WAS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY BY THE CITY. AND THAT THE GENERAL LOT SIZES, SPECIAL CONDITION OF THE LOT IN THE AREA. END OF MOTION, BRAGMAN SECOND. ALL RIGHT. BRAGMAN HAS A SECONDING COMMISSIONER TEEL, PLEASE LEAD ON, I I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. UH, WE'VE COME UP, YOU KNOW, UH, WITH THESE ISSUES SEVERAL TIMES, THESE SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZES RELATIVE TO THEIR, THEIR, UH, UNDERLYING ZONING. UM, AND ALSO WHEN YOU HAVE SOME OF THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT, UH, TWO, TWO AND A HALF, THREE STORIES BEHIND IT, UH, YOU KNOW, ACCESS TO, TO ENJOYING YOUR PROPERTY AND HAVING SOME LEVEL OF PRIVACY, UH, GETS MINIMIZED. SO I, I THINK THIS IS A, A GOOD COMPROMISE AND A, A EXCELLENT USE OF THE VARIANCE PROCESS. FANTASTIC. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? UM, I WOULD CONCUR WITH COMMISSIONER THIEL EXACTLY AS HE SAID. UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A SMALLER LOT, UM, HAD NO BEARING ON THE HOMEOWNER. UM, THEY WERE NOT IN THERE WHEN THE CODES CHANGED AND MADE THIS A NON-CONFORMING LOT. SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE, UM, A LITTLE BIT FLEXIBLE, UM, WHEN IT COMES TO THAT. AND CERTAINLY WITH THE 30 FEET AND THE 19 FEET, OR SORRY, 14 FEET, UH, THERE'S PLENTY OF SPACE IN BETWEEN, UM, UH, THE OTHER PROPERTIES. UM, AND THEN ON TOP OF IT, UM, CERTAINLY THEY ARE, UH, HAVE A RIGHT TO QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THEIR OWN PROPERTY. SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. GREAT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? HEARING NONE. STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE MR. MACHACA. [01:50:01] I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT, MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. MANA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMER. I CONCUR, MR. LOVE. I CONCUR. MR. VINNO? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE FACT, MR. THIEL. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. ZUNA. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND YOUR ORION. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES 10 TO ZERO. UH, NEXT CASE PLEASE. [5. 21-4480 BOA-21-10300057] NEXT CASE BO, A 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 7 LOCATED AT 9 3 0 6, UH, POTUS GROVE COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN APPLICANT IS LAURA, UH, BUTTERFIELD. IT'S REQUEST FOR ONE A 15 FOOT VARI INCH FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK AS, UH, REQUIRED IN 35 3 10 TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY. LINE TWO, A ONE FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 35 3 10 TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FEET EIGHT INCHES FROM SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND THREE, A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A BACK AND SIDE YARD FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL AS DESCRIBED IN 35 5 14. CURRENT ZONING IS R SIX, UH, RESIDENTIAL SUBJECT PROPERTY IS, IS IN A CUL-DE-SAC, UH, SILVERBROOK PLACE IN A PREDOMINANTLY, UH, SINGLE-FAMILY AREA. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO BUILD A 184 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING IN THE REAR YARD. THE ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING MUST ABIDE BY PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SETBACK, UH, THROUGH THE EXISTING, UH, THOUGH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WAS BUILT ON ZERO LOT LINE, MAKING IT NON-CON, A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING WOULD NORMALLY FOLLOW, UH, THE DISTRICT, UH, SETBACKS OF FIVE FEET, UM, OR FIVE FOOT SIDE AND 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO LIE FENCE ALONG THE BACK PROPERTY LINE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL. PLOTTED IN 1982. UH, MANY OF THE HOMES ON, UH, POTUS GROVE WERE BUILT TO ZERO LOT LINE BETWEEN 1984 AND 1985 WITH THE ANNEXATION TAKING PLACE DECEMBER OF 85. THE PLAT MAKES NO REFERENCE TO ZERO LOT LINE YET. DEEDED RESTRICTIONS FROM 1983 MENTIONED ZERO LOT LINE DE DEVELOPMENT WITH OVERHANG ON NEIGHBORING LOTS. MANY OF THE HOMES ON POTUS GROVES, UM, ZERO LOT LINE SITES HAVE, ARE NOW CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES. HERE'S A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN SUBJECT PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREA. HERE'S THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS WHERE THE ADDITION'S GONNA BE BUILT ON. AND THE REAR FENCE THAT IT'S EIGHT FEET TALL AS YOU CAN SEE, BUILT ON ZERO LOTT LINE AND ALSO REAR YARD STAFF RECOMMENDS, UH, SIDING REAR SETBACK VARIANCE APPROVAL, UH, BASED ON FOLLOWING FINDINGS. A FACT THE DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING WILL, IT SHOULD BE ATTACHED. ACCESSORY DWELLING WILL BE FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR AND THREE FOOT FOUR FROM THE SIDE YARD PROPERTY LINE, LEAVING ENOUGH ROOM FOR MAINTENANCE, UH, OF THE ADDITION. AND IF AVAILABLE ROOM WERE, UH, WERE PRESENT, THE ADDITION WOULD MEET THE STANDARDS AS THIS, AS AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING WITHOUT A VARIANCE OF THE REAR SETBACK, OR IF IT WAS DETACHED, IT WOULD BE FINE. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDA RECOMMENDATION FOR THE REAR YARD FENCE. UH, WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON FALLING. FINES OF FACT, EIGHT FOOT FENCE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE BACKYARD. UM, THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT WILL WE'LL PROVIDE, UH, MORE PRIVACY AND SECURITY, WHICH PROMOTES HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. SLIDE 28. NOTICES WERE SENT OUT, UH, ZERO RECEIVED IN OP IN FAVOR, TWO IN OPPOSITION AND NO NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION. UH, WE DID RECEIVE SOME IN FAVOR JUST BEFORE THE MEETING. UH, WE'LL BE READING THOSE INTO THE RECORD OR PLAYING BY VOICEMAIL. OKAY, NEXT SLIDE. WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANTS ON THE LINE. UM, MS. BUTTERFIELD, WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION. OKAY. HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME? ? YES, MA'AM. EXCELLENT, THANK YOU. HI, I'M LAURA BUTTERFIELD AND I HAVE LIVED AT 93 0 6 POTSGROVE FOR 15 YEARS. AND IN FACT, I KNOW 14 NEIGHBORS TODAY, IN THE PAST THREE HOURS HAVE SENT AN EMAILS AND TEXTS ALL IN FAVOR AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS. IN [01:55:01] ADDITION, THERE WAS ONE MISTAKE, WHICH IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR PLOT PLAN, I'M NOT ASKING FOR AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. I'M ASKING FOR A FENCE THAT IS AT THE HIGHEST POINT, SIX FOOT NINE, AND THEN IT STEPS DOWN TO SIX FEET BASED ON THE SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU'RE PULLING, YOU'VE JUST PULLED UP. UM, I, MY INTENT IS TO BUILD, I'M AN, I'M A PAINTER. I'M A BILINGUAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHER WITH NORTHSIDE, AND I'VE, MY DREAM IS TO HAVE A PAINTING STUDIO. AND I UNDERSTOOD IF IT WAS DETACHED, I COULD DO IT WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. BUT BECAUSE I WANNA STAY WITHIN THE CHARACTER OF MY HOME, WHICH I LOVE, AND WITHIN THE, THE CHARACTER OF SAVING A LITTLE MONEY WITH ELECTRICAL WIRING AND PRODUCTS ARE SO COSTLY THESE DAYS. I SPOKE WITH MY BUILDER'S ELECTRICIAN AND ALL, AND THEY SAID, LAURA, YOU SHOULD ATTACH IT TO THE HOUSE BECAUSE THAT ENTIRE BACK WALL GOES TO MY MASTER BEDROOM WHERE WE HAVE ELECTRICITY LINES AND AN AC VENT. AND ALL OF THAT IS RIGHT THERE. UM, IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PICTURES, YOU'LL SEE ON THREE, THE THIRD PICTURE, UM, OUT OF THE SEVEN SLIDES, THAT ONE SHOWS THE STACKED ROOF LINE. IF YOU CAN SEE IT, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY CAN PULL IT UP. IF YOU GO BACK TO SLIDE THREE, IT SHOWS THE STACKED ROOF LINE OF WHAT THE STUDIO WOULD LOOK LIKE. MY INTENT IS TO STICK WITH THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER BRONZE STATION. I HAVE HAD ARCHITECTURAL MEMBERS OF OUR H O A MEETING COME OUT AND LOOK AT IT. THEY AGREED WITH ME THAT IF I HAVE THE SAME EXACT SIDING, THE SAME SLOPE LINE, THAT THERE MIGHT BE A POTENTIAL FOR APPROVAL AFTER I GO THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH, WITH Y'ALL. I'VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE. I WORK ON THE ARB, THE APPRAISAL BOARD, AND THIS IS NEW. AND SO IT'S A GREAT EXPERIENCE. UM, I HAVE A TWO STORY HOUSE BEHIND ME, AND I HAVE HAD TO REPLACE MY WOODEN FENCE THREE TIMES IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT BECAUSE THEY HAVE HAD A SERIES OF VERY LARGE AGGRESSIVE DOGS. THE DOGS HAVE COME THROUGH MY BACKYARD NUMEROUS TIMES. THEY HAVE BROKEN MY FENCE NUMEROUS TIMES. MYSELF AND MY NEIGHBOR TO MY WEST, WHO LIVES AT NINETY THREE TEN, HAVE HAD TO CALL A C S THE H O A AND FIND THE POLICE AND REGISTER NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS ON A LARGE DOGS. UM, I'VE BEEN VERY, VERY PEACEFUL WITH THEM. I'VE JUST SAID, HEY, YOU KNOW, LET'S FIX THE FENCE. I NOTIFIED THEM IN WRITING FOUR TIMES, NOVEMBER, DECEMBER, JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, ALL MY SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS THAT IT WAS MY INTENT TO CHANGE THE FENCE IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT AND MY GOAL TO BE ABLE TO BUILD AN ART STUDIO, WHICH WOULD LOOK JUST LIKE THE BACK OF MY HOUSE. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE BLACK, IT'S BROWN SIDING, IT'LL BE THE SAME EXACT VIEW. UM, AND IT'LL GIVE MY NEIGHBORS PRIVACY AND IT'LL PROVIDE ME WITH PRIVACY AND I'LL FEEL SAFE IN MY YARD AND IN MY HOME. CURRENTLY THEY'VE GOT, I DON'T KNOW, A PIT BULL AND SOMETHING ELSE. AND GUESS WHAT? SINCE THAT FENCE WENT UP, I DIDN'T REALIZE I NEEDED AN ADDITIONAL PERMISSION. I CAN WORK IN MY YARD AND PULL WEEDS, WHICH I HATE TO DO, BUT I DON'T FEEL SCARED ANYMORE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, STAFF. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY TO READ IN? YES, WE'RE GONNA PLAY A VOICEMAIL FOLLOWED BY COMMENTER. OKAY. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS LAURA , 93 19 CHESWICK 2 1 0 5 5 6 4 5 0 1. I'M AN ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER TO 93 0 6 POTTERS GROVE, WHOSE CASE NUMBER ENDS IN 0 5 7. I STRONGLY IMPLORE YOU TO RECONSIDER THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AND VOTE NO AND OPPOSE THE EXCEPTION REQUEST, AND PLEASE ENFORCE THE CURRENT CODE STANDARDS. I'VE BEEN A LONGTIME NEIGHBOR AND HAVE LEARNED MY NEIGHBOR'S NEEDS FOR PRIVACY AND SPACE ARE EXTREMELY GREAT AND VERY CONCERNED OF THIS REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SETBACK DISTANCE. I'VE EXPERIENCED ACCOMMODATION REQUEST FROM MY BACKYARD NEIGHBOR REGARDING REDUCTION OF LAUGHTER AT A CHILD'S BIRTHDAY PARTY DISTRESS REGARDING BRISKET SMOKE TRAVELING IN HER YARD AT EASTER TO REMOVE A CHILDREN'S ROPE SWING FROM MY BACKYARD TREE. AND MOST RECENTLY, SHE HAS REQUESTED FOR ME TO NOT TURN ON MY BACKYARD LIGHT DUE TO IT ILLUMINATING IN HER AREA. I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT THERE'LL BE EVEN MORE ACCOMMODATION REQUESTS TO MY HOME DUE TO THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE BEING CLOSER TO PROPERTY LINES. AND SINCE IT WILL BE OF A HIGHLY OCCUPIED TYPE OF STRUCTURE, I OPPOSE THE EXCEPTION REQUEST OF CASE NUMBER ENDING [02:00:01] IN 0 5 7. AND PLEASE ASK YOU TO ALSO OPPOSE THEM AND ENFORCE THE CURRENT CODE STANDARDS. I DO MY WISH, MY NEIGHBOR THE BEST. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION AND AN AVENUE TO COMMUNICATE MY OPPOSING THOUGHT AND CONCERN. THANK YOU. OKAY, I'M GONNA, WHAT WAS THE ADDRESS FROM THAT? UH, VOICEMAIL I 93 19 CHADWICK. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY, UH, WE'VE GOT THE NEXT ONE IS 93 11, UH, CHESWICK FROM JOHN AND MELISSA MCCLENNAN, UH, LET'S SEE. IN OPPOSITION, THAT'S AN AWFULLY TALL WALL. IT SAID, UH, TO SUDDENLY POP UP BEHIND ANOTHER NEIGHBOR WITHOUT EVEN DISCUSSING IT WITH THEM. YES, THAT BIG STONE WALL, UH, WAS BENT, HAS BEEN BUILT FOR A COUPLE WEEKS ALREADY. ALTHOUGH RESPECT THE RIGHT OF A PROPERTY OWNER TO MODIFY THEIR HOME, AND THEY'RE LIKING THAT THAT PLAN KIND OF MAKES IT SEEM LIKE, UH, A BIG FILLER JUST FLOPPED INTO THE MIDDLE SEAT IN YOUR, IN YOUR PLAYING ROW. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE CONCERNS. THE NEXT ONE. THIS IS AS AN ABUDDING PROPERTY OWNER AT 93 0 6. I STRONGLY IMPLORE YOU AND THE BOARD TO VOTE NO PROPOSED 93 6 GROVE REQUEST. UH, THIS IS THE ONE WE PLAYED, PLAYED BY VOICEMAIL IN THAT EXTENDS THERE. GOING TO THE NEXT ONE, THERE ARE A FEW HERE AS WELL. UM, I LIVE AT 93 11 POTUS GROVE AND HAVE NO ISSUES WITH MS. UH, BUTTERFIELD'S BUILDING. IN ADDITION TO THE, UH, STANDBY ISSUES WITH MY SYSTEM, ADDITION TO HER HOME, THIS IS FROM PAUL AND PAULA LAWLER. TWO M A CONCERN. AYE DAVID, UH, VIOLET, WHO LIVES AT 9 3 0 2, UH, COMB. I'M IN FAVOR OF THE BUILDING OF THE ART STUDIO AT 9 3 0 6 POT GROVE. I LIVE AT 9 3 0 3 POTUS GROVE, AND I APPROVE THE PROJECT TO BUILD AN ART ROOM AT 9 3 0 6 POTUS GROVE. THIS IS FROM BASED ON THE EMAIL, UH, ANA VIOLET. THIS IS MARIA GARCIA, MY HUSBAND DAVID GARCIA, AND MY ADULT DAUGHTER NATALIE GARCIA. WE ARE EMAILING AN APPROVAL OF RENOVATIONS AT POTS GROVE LAURA'S RETIRED SCHOOL TEACHER AND A VALUABLE AND WONDERFUL NEIGHBOR. HER STUDIO IS A WONDER WONDERFUL IDEA. A RETIREE ARTIST AND NEIGHBORS SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO BUILD HER STUDIO AND HER PROPERTY. THE PLANS SENT TO US ARE VERY PROFESSIONAL AND BEAUTIFUL. HER STUDIO IS VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT AND PLANNED. PLEASE WILL ALLOW HER TO THE ABILITY TO ENJOY HER RETIREMENT, DOING WHAT SHE LOVES. THE NEXT ONE IS FROM TAYLOR STEELE, 93 18. UM, POTUS GROVE, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE ADDITION. MS. BUTTERFIELD IS PROPOSING TO BUILD. IT CANNOT BE, UH, SEEN FROM THE STREET, AND IN MY OPINION, IT DOES NOT POSE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. TONY RENTERIA, MY HUSBAND AND I, UH, TONY AND JOSE EZ. 14 PORTS, WHICH IS, UH, TWO DOORS DOWN FROM MS. UH, LAURA BUTTERFIELD'S HOME. WE UNDERSTAND THAT LAURA'S WISHES TO ADD A STUDIO IN HER HOME. WE HAD QUESTIONS IN THE BEGINNING WITH WHICH LAURA SO NICELY ANSWERED. SHE STATED THAT HER REASONS FOR, UH, WANTING HER STUDIO, AND MY HUSBAND AND I ARE ON BOARD WITH HER BUILDING HER STUDIO. WE BELIEVE HER ADDITION WILL ONLY ENHANCE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS FROM, UH, BEN KIMMEL. MY NAME IS BEN KIMMEL. I LIVE AT 90 0 1 PORT GROVE. MY WIFE AND I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE STUDIO. LAURA BUTTERFIELD WANTS TO ADD HER HOME AT 9 0 6. MY NAME IS FRANK, UH SPROUT AND I LIVE AT 9 3 15, UH, POTS GROVE, APPROXIMATELY TWO HOUSES DOWN, UH, TO THE BUTTERFIELD RESIDENCE. I HAVE SEEN, UH, THE WORK BEING DONE IN BELIEVE IT ENHANCES THE RESIDENCE AND THE RESIDENCE VALUE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL. I, I'M ALL IN FOR ALLOWING THIS IMPROVEMENT TO BE DONE. GRACE AND FRANK SPROUT, UM, I JUST WISH TO TRUST UH, TO THE ZONING BOARD AND MS. BUTTERFIELD'S REQUEST FOR VARIANCE. SO THAT CAN BE BUILT. UH, BUILD A SMALL ART STUDIO IS A WONDERFUL IDEA. SHE IS VERY GIFTED. IT WON'T BOTHER ANY OF HER NEIGHBORS AND FROM HER DRAWINGS IT WOULD BE FUNDED. ADDITION, IF YOU WISH TO TALK WITH ME ABOUT, UH, ABOUT, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CALL ME AT THIS NUMBER. THAT'S FROM, UH, JAN [02:05:01] HAMAN AND RIO TO, UH, POT GROVE. AND I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE COMMENTARY. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? OKAY, I HAVE ONE QUESTION. STAFF. UH, THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT THE, THE HEIGHT OF A, UH, STONE FENCE WAS SIX FOOT NINE AND IT WENT DOWN TO SIX FEET. AND IN THE PICTURES IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE EIGHT FEET TALL. UH, CAN YOU VERIFY THE HEIGHT OR, OR WHERE THE EIGHT FOOT REQUESTS ON THE VARIANCE CAME FROM? I AM, I'M CONFIRMING WITH STAFF, WE LISTED IT AT EIGHT, BUT I BELIEVE THE HIGHEST POINT IS YOU SAID SIX FOOT NINE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, MANNA, UH, COMMISSIONER ARM MANNA. SO, UM, SO THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT WITH REGARDS TO THE FENCING, SO, UM, SO SIX FOOT WAS ALLOWED BY RIGHT. AND, UM, AND SO, SO IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, YOU, YOU SAID BECAUSE OF THE SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY, I GUESS, OR THE DEFENDANT FENCES SLOPE, UH, AND YOU HAS SIX FOOT NINE BEING, I GUESS YOU'RE THE HIGHEST POINT. UH, UH, WHAT'S, WHAT'S DRIVING THAT SIX FOOT NINE, UH, HEIGHT AND COULD THAT BE LOWER TO SIX FOOT? SO, SO WHY IS IT THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR THAT? SIX FOOT NINE. THE SIX FOOT NINE, THE PROPERTY SLOPES A GREAT DEAL, AND I HAVE A NEIGHBOR WITH LARGE ROCKS, BIG ROCKS AT A BUTT. IT, IN FACT, WE HAD TO, I MEAN, THESE ARE BOULDERS. THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL IN HER BACKYARD. SHE LIVES AT 93 10 AND WE HAD TO GET THE BOULDERS OUT AND SHIFT THEM AND WE DIDN'T WANNA REALIGN THE WAY SHE IS DECORATING HER BACKYARD. AND SO WE STARTED A LITTLE BIT HIGHER SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO AS DEEP BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF A FENCE CREEK FENCE, THEY HAVE TO DRIVE THE POST IN A CERTAIN DEPTH. AND SO THAT DICTATED OUR STARTING POINT, WHICH WAS THE BACK CORNER. AND THEN IT WORKS ITS WAY AROUND, UM, TO, TO VARY. IT, IT, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT. IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE. IT IS DELICATE BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO SLICE THE LONG. THESE ARE BY FENCE CRETE AMERICA. THEY HAVE TO SLICE THE CONCRETE PANELS LENGTHWISE, AND THAT GETS DICEY. THEY MAY SNAP. UM, SO THEY TOLD ME THAT WE'RE GONNA STEP IT DOWN, BUT IT'S GONNA HAVE TO START AT THIS HEIGHT. AND ALSO WE'RE IN AN AREA WITH HUGE BOULDERS UNDER, THEY HAD TO JACKHAMMER IN, IN A NUMBER OF PLACES. SO THEY EXPLAINED IT TO ME THAT THIS IS WHAT, THAT'S THE WAY THEY BUILT THE FENCE. UM, I COULD PURSUE IT FURTHER IF YOU WANTED TO, BUT I WOULD HAVE TO CALL FENCE CREED FURTHER. I DID ASK ABOUT THE SPLITTING. THEY SAID IT WAS DELICATE AND UNPREDICTABLE, BUT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. YES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. UH, SO WE'VE GOT TWO MOTIONS BEFORE, UH, IS THERE A COMMISSIONER THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, MAKE A MOTION FOR THE, UH, VARIANCE COMPONENTS? SO, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, OR, OR COMMISSIONER, UM, SHOULD WE ALLOW FOR THE, UM, UM, UM, RESIDENT HERE TO ACKNOWLEDGE OR ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE OH, SURE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MANNA, UH, UH, MS. BUTTERFIELD, UH, IF YEAH, GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY UP TO THREE MINUTES TO PROVIDE ANY SORT OF CLOSING REMARKS OR STATEMENTS FROM, UH, ALL THE VARIOUS, VARIOUS QUESTIONS OR PUBLIC COMMENTARY YOU'VE HEARD. THANK YOU. UM, I'M THRILLED THAT I HAD SO MUCH SUPPORT. UM, I AM SURPRISED, UH, THAT I HAD TWO DISSENTS, BUT EVERYBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO WHATEVER THEY WANT. AS TO MY NEIGHBORS AT 93 11, THEY HAVE A GIANT BLUE TARP ON THE BACK OF THEIR HOUSE. IT'S BEEN THERE FOR YEARS AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT GONNA SAY ANYTHING AS TO MY NEIGHBORS AT 93 19 ARE DIRECTLY BEHIND ME. THEY HAVE A LARGE HOT TUB THAT I HAD ON THE SIDE STUCK IN THE TREES THAT EVEN NOW IT'S STILL ABOUT FOUR FEET ABOVE MY NEW FENCE. I CAN SEE IT. THEY HAVE A SECOND STORY HOME. I DID SEE THE WIFE, THEY CAME OVER MAYBE A YEAR AGO. THE MOST RECENT TIME THE DOGS TOOK DOWN A WHOLE EIGHT FOOT PANEL. AND THE WIFE STOOD IN MY YARD LOOKING UP AT HER BEDROOM WINDOWS AND SAID, I LOVE LOOKING IN YOUR YARD. I LOVE YOUR YARD. I LOVE SEEING WHAT YOU'RE PLANNING AND SEEING WHAT YOU'RE DOING. AND THAT RAISED A LOT OF ALARM BELLS FOR ME BECAUSE I DO WANT MY PRIVACY AS TO THE THINGS SHE SAID ABOUT CHILDREN AND SWINGING. THAT WAS NOT ME. THAT WAS MY NEIGHBOR AT 93 10 WHO FILED THOSE COMPLAINTS. SHE USED TO WORK AT NIGHT FOR U S A A AND SHE WAS ON A SPECIAL TREATMENT AND SHE'S ON DISABILITY NOW. AND SHE AND THE HUSBAND BEHIND ME HAD A LOT OF YELLING MATCHES. I WAS NEVER HOME FOR ANY OF IT. I JUST HEARD ABOUT IT. SO I NEVER DID THAT, [02:10:01] ANY OF THOSE THINGS THAT SHE ALLUDED TO ME DOING. UM, AND, UM, AND THAT'S, OH, THEIR HOUSE IS 33 FEET FROM THE BACK FENCE, SO WE STILL ARE GONNA HAVE 30, UH, SEVEN FEET BETWEEN US AND THE BACK WALL OF THE STUDIO. THIS IS NOT A ROOM ANYONE WILL LIVE IN. IT IS NOT A BEDROOM. IT WAS A SOMETIMES USED STUDIO. IT'S KIND OF LIKE A SHE SHED OR A MANS SHED THAT IT WOULD BE ATTACHED. AND THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU TO LET, LET ME DO THIS. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I COULD CLARIFY FOR YOU? UH, NO, NOT AT THIS TIME. UM, BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE WELCOME. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, SO WITH THAT, WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION MANNA MR. MAN, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 7. I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE REQUEST FOR ONE, A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 35 DASH 3 10 0 1 TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND TWO, A ONE FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 35 DASH 3 1 0 DASH ZERO ONE TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE THREE FOOT EIGHT INCHES FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 9 3 0 6 POT GROVE, APPLICANT BEING LAURA BUTTERFIELD. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT AURAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY, 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 APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE, THE REAR AND SIDE SETBACK FOR ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING, WHICH IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REAR SETBACK WILL HAVE MORE THAN 40 FEET TO THE BUDDING STRUCTURE, AND THE SIDE SETBACK WILL HAVE THREE FOOT FOUR INCHES FROM WHICH WOULD LEAVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR MAINTENANCE AND AN OVERHANG IF APPROVED. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE SETBACK OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE. HOWEVER, IF ATTACHED A REAR SETBACK VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED. THE SIDE SETBACK WOULD ALLOW NOT TO BE REQUIRED PER SECTION 35 DASH FIVE 16, PROJECTING ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES WHICH PERMITS A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF THREE FOOT WITH NO PROJECTIONS WITHIN THOSE THREE FOOT THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE SPIRIT OF ORDINANCE IS DEFINED AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE RATHER THAN THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW. THE PRINCIPAL HOME IS 1,780 SQUARE FEET, WHICH WOULD ALLOW AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING OF 623 SQUARE FEET. THE PROPOSED 184 SQUARE FEET, UH, ACCESSORY DWELLING IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS. HOWEVER, WITH THE SIZE OF THE REAR YARD THE APPLICANT IS BUILDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE SIZE. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THE SIDE OR REAR SETBACK VARIANCE. UH, FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER YOUR ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IF GRANTED, THE ACCESSORY DWELLING, UH, THE ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING WILL HAVE AMPLE ROOM FOR MAINTENANCE AND SIDE ON THE SIDE AND REAR. THE ADDITION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. SIX. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT REQUIRED OR NOT, WERE NOT CREATED, UH, BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF LINES SUPPLI TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE SIZE OF THE REAR YARD DOES NOT ALLOW ADEQUATE ROOM FOR DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING. AND THE SIZE OF ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING IS FAR BELOW THAT, WHICH WOULD BE PERMITTED WITH THE SIZE OF THE PRINCIPLE DWELLING. AND A MOTION IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT. IF WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER MAD, PLEASE LEAD THE DISCUSSION. UM, YES. UM, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION, UH, FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. I THINK ONE WAS JUST TO REACH OUT THAT THE, UM, UM, APPLICANT DID TO THE COMMUNITY. I THINK, UH, AND THERE ARE POSITIVE RESULTS, UH, YOU KNOW, SAYS WORDS THAT SAYS VOLUME, UM, YOU KNOW, UM, AND THEN THE SECOND IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE NOTION THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, [02:15:01] ATTACHED VERSUS UN UH, DETACHED AND SO, SO IT BEING PERMITTED WITH A DETACH, UH, DOES MAKE SENSE THAT THIS BE ATTACHED AND YOU'LL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF, UH, OF THE, OF FACILITY. SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. UH, I BELIEVE THE SECOND WAS, WAS THAT, UH, MIN CHAKA OR ZUNA? OH, ZUNA. OKAY. COMMISSIONER ZUNA, PLEASE PROCEED. I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING THE VARIANCE AS WELL. UM, GIVEN THE FACT THAT A, THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT DETA, THEY HAVE THE BY RIGHT, THE DETACH, UH, BILL WOULD'VE CONFORMED CONFORMS WITH IT. UH, AND SECOND, THIS IS JUST ONE STEP IN THE PROCESS. THEY, IF THE APPROVAL, IF THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED TODAY, THEY STILL WILL HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION FOR THE APPROVAL. SO THAT'S THAT SECOND STEP, OR BY THE APPLE, IF YOU WILL, FOR ANY OF THE DISSENTING, UH, NEIGHBORS. AND THEN SHE HAD OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FOR THE VARIANCE REQUESTS. SO I, FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, I'M SUPPORTING THE VARIANCE. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? MINKA. COMMISSIONER MINKA, NOW I GET MY CHANCE. SAME THING AS, UH, COMMISSIONER UNA . OKAY. THANK YOU. OH, THANK YOU. UH, IF ANYONE ELSE HEARING NONE, UH, STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER MINKA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF FACT, MS. CRUZ. I CONCUR. MR. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMER. I CONCUR. MR. LOVE I CONCUR. MR. VINNO. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. THIEL. YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. UNA? YES, I CONCUR AND CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE BINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE ALSO HAVE A, UH, LOOKING FOR A MOTION REGARDING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND COMMISSIONER MANNA. AND I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT, UH, THE DEFENSE IS ONLY SIX FOOT NINE, NOT EIGHT FOOT TALL. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO YOUR MOTION ACKNOWLEDGED. YES. UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 7, I MOVED THAT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE REQUEST FOR, FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A BACK AND SIDE YARD FENCE TO BE SIX FOOT NINE INCHES TALL AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 35 5 14, SITUATED AT 9 3 0 6 HOTS GROVE, APPLICANT BEING IN LAURA BUTTERFIELD BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACT THAT WE HAD DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMEN WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. A THE, THE SPECIAL CON EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE UC STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A FENCE HEIGHT MODIFICATION. THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. IT GRANTED THIS REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE. B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED, UH, IN THIS CASE. UH, THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY, A SIX FOOT NINE INCH FENCE ALONG THE REAR YARD WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY AND THE CARPORT. C THE NEIGHBOR'S NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPERTY USE. PROPOSED USE DEFENSE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT. THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT FOR THE, UH, SECTION OF SIDE YARD FENCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND WILL PROVIDE SECURITY OF THE DISTRICT. E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HERE IN, UH, ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE CURRENT ZONING PERMITS, THE CURRENT USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THIS DISTRICT. END OF MOTION, RIGHT? IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MANNA, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRUZ. COMMISSIONER. UM, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS, UM, IHEART, UH, CRETE. I THINK THAT IS A VERY GOOD STRUCTURE AND, UH, AND, YOU KNOW, FOR, UM, SEPARATING CHALLENGES, WE'LL SAY WITH DOGS AND THAT, SO A DOG CANNOT EAT THROUGH FENCE CREEK THAT I'M AWARE OF. UM, THE, UH, AND THEN ALSO THE SIX FOOT NINE. I THINK THAT, UH, AS THE APPLICANT INDICATED, YOU KNOW, THAT SHE DID WORK WITH THE, UH, PROPERTY AND THE SLOPE, UH, WITHIN IT TO TRY TO COME UP WITH THE BEST DESIGN. AND, AND I THINK, UH, JUST THAT LITTLE BIT OF EXCEPTION I THINK WILL BE ADEQUATE HERE, UM, UH, FOR APPROVAL HERE. SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM. I PROVING THIS. THANK YOU. GREAT. UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR WITH MR. MANNA. I THINK, UH, THE, UH, [02:20:01] STRUCTURE IS VERY WELL BUILT. IT DOES ADD GOOD FEATURES TO HER PROPERTY, AND I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT. THANK YOU. FANTASTIC. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HEARING? NO. STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR WITH FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. GERMANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. RAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DAHMER. I CONCUR. MR. LOVE. I CONCUR. MR. VINNO? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. THI YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. UNA? YES, I CONCUR AND SHARE ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES 10 TO ZERO. UM, SO IT'S 3 23. UH, IF I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, GO ON BREAK TILL THREE 30, PLEASE. THANK YOU. CAN I SAY ANYTHING? YES. YOU CAN'T SAY ANYTHING I WANNA SAY, IF I COULD HUG Y'ALL, I WOULD, BUT I'M GONNA GO HUG MY NEIGHBORS. OKAY. THANK YOU. CONGRATULATIONS. BYE. THANK YOU. I'LL SEE YOU. I'LL SEE EVERYBODY BACK AT THREE 30. YES, SIR. BARELY, BUT WE'RE BACK. ALRIGHT, WELL, IT'S 3 31. I'M, I'M, UH, STAFF, IF YOU CAN ACKNOWLEDGE, WE HAVE A, WE HAVE LISA CORRUM. I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING BACK TO CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER. WE'RE AT EIGHT SO FAR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE MISSING, UH, KEVIN STILL? OKAY, WE HAVE FORM, SIR. WE ARE LIVE. OKAY. KEVIN'S BEEN HERE, . FANTASTIC. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER SIX ON [6. 21-4330 BOA-21-10300060] THE AGENDA. ALL RIGHT. CASE, UH, 60, IT'S 4 0 1 GROVE AVENUE COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE. THE APPLICANT IS ROBERT ALDO. TO REQUEST FOR A ONE A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SECOND DWELLING UNIT TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TWO, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW A DWELLING UNIT TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. AND THREE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM FENCE SITE TO ALLOW A SIDE AND REAR YARD FENCE TO BE EIGHT FEET TALL. ZOIA IS, UH, MULTIFAMILY 33 INCH PER ACRE. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG GROVE AVENUE NEAR ROOSEVELT AVENUE. SUBJECT PROPERTY, UH, CURRENTLY HAS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY AND IS ZONED TO THE MULTI-FAMILY. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO BUILD A SECOND RESIDENCE IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINE UPON STAFF VISIT. UH, WE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE SIDE AND REAR YARD FENCE CURRENTLY HAS A LATTICE THAT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT, UH, FENCE HEIGHT BY TWO FEET. HERE'S A COPY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE PROPOSED BUILDING. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE FENCE, THE SIX FOOT FENCE WITH A TWO FOOT LATTICE. AND THE REAR PROPERTY THAT'S CURRENTLY VACANT, UM, IS WHERE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL OCCUR. MEASUREMENT OF THE FENCE SURROUNDING AREA AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF BO O A 20, UH, 2 1 103 6 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, SECONDARY STRUCTURE WILL, UH, UH, CONTAIN GUTTERS TO REDUCE WATER RUNOFF ONTO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, AND THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE WILL BE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, AND SECOND STRUCTURE WILL BE FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR. PROPERTY LINE. STAFF ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, UM, ON THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE FENCE. THE ADDITIONAL TWO FEET AND HEIGHT IS INSTALLED USING AN OPEN STYLE LATTICE, AND THE ADDITIONAL TWO FEET AND HEIGHT WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY TO THE PROPERTY. 31 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT, NONE RECEIVED, AND THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ROOSEVELT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. [02:25:02] ACTUALLY, I, I SHOW A OPPOSITION TO THE NEIGHBOR. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. APPLICANT IS, UH, ROBERT ADO. SIR, WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YES, I'M ROBERT ALVARADO, 4 0 1 GROVE AVENUE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. UH, PLEASE PROCEED, SIR. HELLO? YES, SIR. PLEASE PROCEED WITH YOUR, UH, UH, PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, WELL, I'M, UH, PLANNING ON BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE IN THE BACK, AND I WAS LOOKING TO GET SOME VARIANCES ON THE SETBACK. UH, ON THE WEST SIDE PROPERTY LINE, I'M LOOKING FOR A THREE FOOT SETBACK, BUT THAT'S ACTUALLY, UM, THE BUILDING WILL BE FIVE FEET WITH A TWO FOOT OVERHANG. SO THAT THREE FOOT SETBACK IS ALSO TO, UH, ALLOW FOR THE NEW ROOF ON THE WEST SIDE, AND IT'LL BE GUTTERED THERE. OKAY. AND THEN THE FENCE, UH, HEIGHT, UH, I, I PURCHASED THE HOUSE LAST YEAR AND, UH, RIGHT AFTER PURCHASING IT, THE, THE COUPLE OF ITEMS WERE STOLEN AND I ADDED THAT TO THE FENCE FOR MY SECURITY BECAUSE YOU COULD SEE THE BACK OF MY HOUSE AS YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN HAYES STREET, IT'S, IT'S VISIBLE 'CAUSE OF THE, UH, THE DRIVEWAY'S RIGHT. SORT OF AT THE END OF THE STREET. AND THEN ALSO THERE'S A, A MOTEL RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET ON THE CORNER OF ROOSEVELT AND GROVE, AND THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC THERE. AND IT SEEMS THAT THEY HAD GOOD VISIBILITY, UH, BECAUSE MY NEIGHBOR TO THE 4 0 5 GROVE DOESN'T HAVE ANY FENCES OR GATES. SO THAT'S WHY I INSTALLED THE FENCE AND NOW I'M LOOKING FOR APPROVAL. OKAY. UH, IS THAT THE, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE, SIR? I BELIEVE THAT'S IT. OKAY. UH, WITH THAT STAFF, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY TO READ INTO THE RECORD? YES, SIR. THERE'S ONE, UH, LET ME SEE HERE. NO, NEVER. ABSOLUTELY NOT. UH, THEY'RE IN OPPOSITION. THIS IS FROM, UH, CARMEN CORONADO AT 4 0 5 GROVE, UH, TOO CLOSE TO MY PROPERTY. AND THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE COMMENTARY. OKAY. UM, LET'S OPEN THIS UP. UH, BEFORE WE OPEN THIS UP TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, STAFF, IS, IS THERE AN ALLEY BEHIND THIS PROPERTY? I DIDN'T HEAR ANY MENTION OF IT. SO THAT'S THE FUNNY PART. IT SHOWS UP AS AN ALLEY, BUT IT'S NOT BEING UTILIZED. IT'S USED AS PRIVATE PROPERTY, SO THE FENCE LINES HAVE ENCLOSED IT ENTIRELY. SO IT'S UNCLEAR IF THAT'S AN ERROR IN THE MAPPING OR HOW THAT OCCURRED. BUT ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE UTILIZING THAT PROPERTY OR THAT PORTION. IT DOESN'T SHOW UP AS AN ALLEY AT ALL. OKAY. UH, SO, AND, AND I HAVE TO ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION FROM THE APPLICANT, UM, BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO QUESTIONS. UH, SIR, UH, DID YOU, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT YOU HAVE FI YOUR, YOUR WALLS WILL BE FIVE FEET WITH A TWO FOOT OVERHANG. UH, IS THAT, IS THAT ON ALL, ALL SIDES INCLUDING THE REAR? UH, NO, UH, THAT'S ON THE WEST SIDE. THE, THE SLOPE OF THE ROOF GOES DOWN ON THAT SIDE, AND THAT'S THE, THE LARGEST OVERHANG IN THE BACK. THE OVERHANG IS ONE FOOT. AND ON THE EAST PROPERTY ROOF OVERHANG, WE'RE DOING A, A VERTICAL PARA, A WALL WITH A PARA PIT. OKAY. UH, ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, SO LET'S OPEN THIS UP TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. CARLOS, MR. CRUZ, UH, MR. ALVARADO, THE PROJECT THAT YOU'RE WANTING TO CONSTRUCT, WHAT WILL IT BE USED FOR? I'M MOVING INTO IT. UM, I'M GONNA MOVE MY MOTHER INTO THE HOUSE IN THE FRONT, AND I RECENTLY GOT MARRIED LAST YEAR, AND MY WIFE AND I WILL BE MOVING INTO THE NEW STRUCTURE. OKAY. BECAUSE, UH, I'M JUST WONDERING, SINCE THE NEIGHBOR'S NOT TOO THRILLED ABOUT THE SHED, I'M JUST WONDERING HOW SHE'S GONNA COMPLAIN ABOUT THE NEW, UH, BUILDING THAT YOU'RE MAKING. BUT I I DO SEE YOU HAVE PLENTY OF PROPERTY, SO I'M JUST MAKING SURE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. AND I'M TRYING TO USE IT, YOU KNOW, IN A SIMILAR FASHION, UH, THREE HOUSES DOWN TO MY EAST. UH, THEY TOOK DOWN THE HOUSE THAT WAS THERE AND THE GARAGE AND REPLACED IT WITH FOUR UNITS. AND I THINK THE FRONT SETBACK IS LESS THAN FIVE FEET NOW ON THOSE UNITS. AND SO I'M, I'M NOT GETTING, AS, YOU KNOW, CLOSE AS THEY ARE, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO USE IT IN A SIMILAR FASHION. OKAY. MS. CHAKA, COMMISSIONER MIN CHAKA, UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UH, STAFF AND THAT ONE FOR THE APPLICANT. THE FIRST ONE IS FOR STAFF. IS THIS SECOND DWELLING UNIT THAT'S CONSIDERED AN AN A D D U, IS THAT CORRECT? NO, SIR. IN THIS CASE, THE ZONING IS MULTIFAMILY. [02:30:01] IT, YOU CAN HAVE, UM, MULTIPLE UNITS DEPENDING ON THE, THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AT 33 UNITS PER ACRE. SO THIS WOULD BE A SECOND UNIT ALTOGETHER. I SEE. AND NOW, FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, IS THERE A BREEZEWAY, A CONNECTION FROM THE MAIN HOUSE TO THE SECOND DWELLING UNIT THAT CONNECTS IT, LIKE WITH A WALKWAY OR SOMETHING? NO, THERE WON'T BE ANY BREEZEWAY OR WALKWAY. IT'LL, IT'LL SHARE A BACK COMMON BACKYARD. AND WE DID THE, THE MAP ON THE MF 33 AND IT GIVES US, UH, FOUR UNITS THAT WE COULD PUT THERE. I UNDERSTAND. I SEE. WILL THIS ALTER THE PARKING IN THE FRONT? NO, UH, NO. WE'RE, NO, IT WON'T. MY MOTHER DOESN'T DRIVE, SIR. THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OH, ZUNA, MS. UNA QUESTION IS FOR THE APPLICANT. MR. ALVARADO, YOU SAW THE OPPOSITION FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR. DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO DISCUSS WITH HER WHAT THE PLANS ARE OR HAVE YOU HAD ANY KIND OF DIALOGUE WITH HER, UM, AND JUST TRYING TOAND HER BEHE OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST? YEAH, YOU KNOW, UM, SHE, SHE SEEMS TO BE, UH, OPPOSED TO ANYTHING, UH, ONE TIME HER DAUGHTER OWNED THE PROPERTY AND IT, UH, MY BROTHER BOUGHT IT FROM HER. BUT WHEN WE STARTED, WHEN WE PUT THE FENCE FENCE UP, THE PREVIOUS OWNER BEFORE ME, UH, KATE RUCKMAN, WHEN WE WERE PUTTING THE FENCE UP, WE HAD A SURVEY DONE AND SHE DIDN'T LIKE THE SURVEY AND KEPT SAYING, NO, IT WAS, YOU KNOW, IT WAS OVER, IT WAS OVER, AND THAT WE KEPT GETTING IT WRONG. AND WE HAD HER ATTORNEY COME OUT AND WE FOUND WE EXPOSED THE PINS AND THE SURVEY IS CORRECT. SO SHE'S BEEN UPSET EVER SINCE THEN. BUT PRIOR TO THAT, I THOUGHT WE WERE PRETTY GOOD FRIENDS. UH, SHE SHARED THE SAME FIRST NAME AS MY MOTHER, AND I KNEW HER FOR 10 YEARS PRIOR TO HER GETTING UPSET. BUT THEY, THESE LAST FEW YEARS, UM, I THINK THAT SHE'S JUST, I, I DON'T, THIS IS THE ONLY THING SHE COULD LOOK AT. I'M, I'M NOT REALLY SURE. 'CAUSE I'VE TRIED BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. THANK YOU, SIR. YOU'RE WELCOME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO I, I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, SO STAFF, I, I LOOKED AT BCA RECORDS AND I LOOKED AT THE OLD PLATT, UH, VOLUME 1 0 5, PAGE 44, AND IT DOES REFLECT A 10 FOOT ALLEY. UH, AND, AND I'M CONFUSED THAT IF HE'S, IF HE'S PROPOSING TO BE FIVE FEET OFF THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, THEN HE'S THEORETICALLY ON THE PROPERTY LINE. I MEAN, DON'T, DON'T, DOESN'T, DOESN'T THIS REQUEST HAVE TO TAKE IN CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THAT ALLEY IS TRULY, UH, CITY RIGHT OF WAY WE LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY. CAN I, CAN I INTERJECT? HOLD, GO AHEAD. HOLD ON, SIR. UH, SURE. WE LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY ITSELF AND NONE OF THE NEIGHBORS SHOW AN ALLEYWAY. THEIR FENCE LINES GO, UH, THROUGH THAT. UH, SO WE SAW NO SIGN OF AN ALLEY, WHETHER WE'RE OUT THERE OR BY AERIAL PHOTO IMAGERY. SO THOSE, WELL, THEY MAY NOT BE USED, BUT I'M, I'M JUST SAYING THAT DCA RECORDS REFLECTED AS AN ALLEY AND SO DOES THE PLATT AND APPARENTLY SO DOES THE ATTACHMENT PROVIDED THAT WAS SENT OUT TO EVERYBODY. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT IF, IF WE DO, FOR SOME REASON, IF A MOTION IS MADE AND IS GRANTED ON A FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK, THEN IN THEORY HE WOULD HAVE TO BE, HE WOULD HAVE TO BUILD 10 FEET AWAY FROM WHERE HIS FENCE LINE IS OR HE WOULD BE IN VIOLATION. SO FOR THE APPLICANT, CAN YOU PROVIDE ANY LIGHT ON THAT? SHOULD ANY LIGHT? YES. UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN WE WERE DOING THE SURVEY FOR INSTALLING THE FENCE MM-HMM. , THE, THE PIN WAS FOUND AND OUR SURVEYOR FOUNDED AT 146.19 FEET, UH, FROM THE FRONT PIN. AND THAT'S THE DEPTH OF THE PROPERTY THAT I PURCHASED. AND SO IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY THE PROPERTY LINE. OKAY. AND THEN THE, THE SURVEY SHOWING ALSO HAS THAT SAME 146 FEET. YEAH, I DID NOTICE THAT ON THE PLAT, IT'S, IT'S A PLATTED 1 45, BUT IT'S VERY COMMON FOR THESE THINGS TO BE OFF HERE AND THERE. SO, I MEAN, I CAN SEE HOW YOUR FENCE WOULD TRULY BE ON THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT, BUT, AND THAT RAISES ANOTHER QUESTION THAT IF THERE, IF ITS FENCE IS ON THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IT APPEARS THAT IT IS, IF THE ALLEY IS A 10 FOOT ALLEY THAT IS, HAS NOT BEEN CLOSED YET, WOULDN'T HE GET CREDIT FOR HALF OF IT? SO MAKING THIS A, A MOOT REQUEST, A MOOT REQUEST, UH, FOR THE REAR PORTION, YES. BUT KEEP IN MIND HE'S ALSO BUILDING TO THE SIDE YARD AS WELL, SO THERE'S A SIDE VARIANCE TOO. YEAH, I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE JUST, YOU KNOW, GOING THROUGH THIS, YOU CORRECTLY, THAT'S ALL WE CAN GET THAT CONFIRMED, UM, WITH PUBLIC WORKS TO ENSURE THAT THAT PORTION WAS NEVER PURCHASED BY THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS. UM, THEY ARE UTILIZING IT AT THIS STAGE, BUT WE CAN VERIFY THAT JUST TO ENSURE, BUT, UM, WE STILL HAVE THE SIDE PROPERTY THAT WOULD STILL BE AN ISSUE. OKAY. UH, IS THERE A WAY WE STAFF, IS THERE A WAY THAT THIS MOTION COULD BE READ SO THAT IT, IT, IT COULD BE FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR FENCE, UH, OR FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AS, [02:35:01] AS, AS SO, UH, DENOTED BY THE APPLICANT? IS THAT, WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS? IF YOU JUST DO IT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, THAT'LL RESOLVE IT. EITHER WAY, WHETHER THERE'S AN ALLEY OR NOT, UM, IT STILL RESOLVES IT. THAT'S GREAT, THANK YOU. UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, THAT WAS THE EXTENT OF MY QUESTION. ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE. SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. WE'VE GOT, UH, UH, TWO ITEMS, UH, HERE. ONE, UH, A COUPLE VARIANCES, AND THE THIRD IS A SPECIAL EXTENSION CHAIRMAN, OBJECTION. YES. SHOULD THE APPLICANT BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO ANYTHING? OH, SURE. I MEAN, WE DIDN'T HEAR ANY, UH, UM, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT. I APOLOGIZE. UH, UH, MR. ALVARADO, IF THERE'S ANY CLOSING REMARKS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE? NO, THANK YOU. AND, UH, NO, I BELIEVE YOU GUYS ASKED ALL THE PERTINENT QUESTIONS AND I'M, I'M NOW LEARNING ABOUT THE PREVIOUS ALLEY, BUT, UH, I DO THINK THAT THE SURVEY SHOWED THE PROPER, UM, PROPERTY LINE, YOU KNOW, BEING THAT, LET'S SAY A NORMAL, UH, PROPERTY IS 150 FEET DEEP, YOU KNOW, THE 1 46 WOULD SORT OF INDICATE THAT I DON'T, MAYBE THAT FIVE FOOT WAS ALREADY TAKEN OUT OF THAT. I DON'T KNOW. YEAH, YOUR PLA SIR, YOUR PLANTED LOT DOES REFLECT A 145 FEET OF PROPERTY LINE. SO 146 IS COMMON. OKAY. SO, UH, WELL THANK YOU. UM, WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS? OKAY, I CAN MAKE A MOTION IF NO ONE ELSE WILL. UM, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 21 DASH 1 0 360, I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR A REQUEST FOR, UH, ONE, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK RE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A SECOND DWELLING TO BE, UM, UH, THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, UH, ON THE EAST SIDE AND FIVE FEET WITH A TWO FOOT OVERHANG ON THE WEST SIDE. AND TWO, A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE OF THE MINIMUM OF 10 FOOT REAR SETBACKS WILL ALLOW A D DWELLING UNIT TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, UH, IRRESPECTIVE OF AN, A POTENTIAL ALLEY THAT MAY EXIST IN THE REAR SITUATED AT 4 0 1 GROVE AVENUE, APPLICANT DEAN ROBERT ALVARADO. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SO 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 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 REQUEST FOR IS FOR A SI VERSUS SETBACK VARIANCE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SECONDARY UNIT IN REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND SPACES LIMITED. THE VARIANCES ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AS THE APPLICANT HAS ADEQUATE SPACE FROM THE CHASE STRUCTURES. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULTED IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE BOARD FINDS THAT ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT IF ENFORCED WOULD RESULT IN THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IMPOSING A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT BUILDING FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND 10 FEET FROM THE REAR. THREE. BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED IN 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 SETBACKS IS TO PROVIDE SPACING BETWEEN NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES, WHICH IS OBSERVED. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE. HUSBAND. USE IS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT FIVE, SUCH VARIANCE FROM NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT POLLING PROPERTY OR ALTER ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REQUEST IS TO REDUCE THE SIDE NUMBER SETBACK DOES 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. THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE STRUCTURAL OF GUTTERS AND WILL MAINTAIN AT LEAST THREE FEET, UH, FROM THE, FROM THE, UH, EAST SIDE PROPERTY LINE, FIVE FEET FROM THE REAL PROPERTY LINE, AND, UH, FIVE FEET WITH A TWO FOOT OVERHANG FROM THE WEST PROPERTY. LINE 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 UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED. THE BOARD FINDS ITS APPLIED TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS THOUGHT IS SOUGHT DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE SMALL AMOUNT OF AREA IN THE REAR YARD. THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER AND ARE MERELY FINANCIAL END OF MOTION. SECOND. OKAY. UM, I HAVE, I'LL JUST LEAVE THIS. I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE REQUEST, UH, AND I MADE THE MOTION TO REFLECT WHAT WAS ACTUALLY BEING CONSTRUCTED IN RELATION TO THE PROPERTY LINES. SO WITH THAT, I, I'M, AND I HAVE, SO I'M IN FAVOR OF, OF IT AS READ, UH, COMMISSIONER BREMAN. THANK YOU. YES. I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS WELL, UH, FOR A LITTLE BIT, UH, DIFFERENT REASON IN THAT WE ARE FACING A HOUSING SHORTAGE, UM, ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY. AND, UH, SAME HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. SO TO HAVE A SECOND DWELLING ON, ON ONE PROPERTY WHERE TWO [02:40:01] FAMILIES CAN LIVE, UM, I'M IN FAVOR OF, SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. VERY WELL SAID. THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS? YEAH, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AS WELL. OZUNA. UH, SO I FALL BACK TO THE ZONING. UM, SO IT'S A MULTIFAMILY ZONED, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I UNDERSTOOD THE OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBOR, BUT I KIND OF TOOK IT INTO LIGHT OF THE, UM, SQUABBLE OVER THE, UH, PROPERTY, PROPERTY LINE. SO I'M SUPPORTING PROMOTION. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE OKAY WITH THAT STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MR. MANCHACA. I SUPPORT THE MOTION. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. HUMANA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMER. I CONCUR. MR. LOVE I CONCUR. MR. ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. THIEL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. UNA? YES, I CONCUR. CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE FACT. MOTION PASSES 10 TO ZERO. UH, WILL THE COMMISSIONER LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION REGARDING THE, THE FIGHT AND REAR EIGHT FOOT FENCE, WHICH IS A SIX FOOT FENCE WITH A TWO FOOT LATTICE UNA, UH, COMMISSIONER UNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 21 DASH 0 3 0 0 0 6 0. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE MAXIMUM FENCE HIGH TO ALLOW A SITE AND REAR YARD FENCE TO BE EIGHT FOOT TALL, SITUATED AT 4 0 1 GROVE AVENUE, APPLICANT BEING ROBERT ADO 'CAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US, THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE U D C AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. THE U D C STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR OFFENSE HEIGHT MODIFICATION. THE ADDITIONAL OFFENSE HEIGHT OF TWO FEET IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE PRIVACY OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. IF GRANTED, THIS REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE BE THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED IN THIS CASE. THE, UH, THESE CRITERIA ARE REPRESENTED BY FENCE HEIGHTS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE STILL PROMOTING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND ADDITIONAL TWO FEET OF LATTICE TO THE SIX FOOT FENCE ALONG SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY. SECURITY FOR THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. SEE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE DEFENSE WILL CREATE ENHANCED SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IS UNLIKELY TO INJURE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. SEE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THIS DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR ITS SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF SOUGHT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT FOR THE SECTION OF SIDE AND BACKYARD FENCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT FOR WHICH AND WILL PROVIDE SECURITY OF THE DISTRICT. EITHER SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HERE ON ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPEC SPECIFIC DISTRICT. THE CURRENT ZONING PERMITS THE PROPOSED USE OF THE TWO DWELLING UNITS. THE REQUEST OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT. END OF MOTION. THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND. UH, I'LL GIVE THAT TO COMMISSIONER CRUZ . THANK YOU. OKAY, . UH, OKAY. SO COMMISSIONER ZUNA, PLEASE, UH, LEAD THE DISCUSSION. RIGHT. SO I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED TESTIMONY TO US THIS AFTERNOON ABOUT, UH, UH, A BREAK-INS OR THEFT ROBBERY. HE, HE EXPERIENCED, UH, FROM HIS, FROM THE BACKYARD. SO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF TWO FEET WILL ADD THE SECURITY AND PRIVACY THAT HE IS SEEKING TO SECURE HIS PROP PROPERTY. GREAT. UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UH, YES, I CONCUR WITH MR. UNA. I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT. IT LOOKS VERY WELL TAKEN CARE OF, AND I'M SURE THERE'LL BE NO PROBLEMS AROUND THERE. THANK YOU. FANTASTIC. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO CHIME IN? HEARING NONE? STAFF PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR. MS. CRUZ. OH, I'M SORRY. YES, I CONCUR. MRNA, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DOMER. I CONCUR. MR. LOVE I CONCUR. MR. ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. THIEL? YES, I CONCUR. MR. UNA? YES, I CONCUR. AND CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR. A MOTION PASSES 10 TO ZERO. UH, SO AS WE APPROACH FOUR O'CLOCK, I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER, UH, DOMER HAS A HARD LEAVE. IS THAT CORRECT? UH, DONALD, I CAN STAY ON UNTIL FOUR 30. MY APPOINTMENT GOT CHANGED, IF THAT'S OKAY? NO, THAT'S FANTASTIC. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN [7. 21-4481 BOA-21-10300061] THEN PLEASE. OKAY, DO 8 21 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 1. [02:45:02] LOCATED 41 19 EAST HORSESHOE BEND COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN. THE APPLICANT IS RHONDA. IT'S A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE INGRAM HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT AS DESCRIBED IN 35 3 35. REGARDING FRONT YARD FENCES, THE ZONING IS R 20 N C D THREE M TWO FIVE. PROPERTY IS LOCATED THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF SAN, UH, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, JUST SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF CALLAHAN ROAD AND EAST HORSESHOE BEND. PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY LARGE R 20 LOTS. UH, WITHIN THE INGRAM HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO HAVE A FIVE FOOT TALL WROUGHT IRON FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. UH, TYPICALLY 35 5 14 OF THE U D C DOES ALLOW SIX FOOT PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCES FOR LARGER LOTS THAN 20,000 SQUARE FEET. HOWEVER, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT LIMITS FRONT YARD FENCES IN OUR 20 OR RE AT A MAXIMUM OF FOUR FOOT. PREDOMINANTLY OPEN A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. PROMPTED THE PROPERTY OWNER TO TO SEEK THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT FOR EXTRA SECURITY ON THEIR LOT. OKAY, HERE'S A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN SUBJECT PROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE SURROUNDING AREA. AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY'RE ALL LARGE LOTS. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL ON BO O A 21 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 1. BASED ON FOLLOWING FACT, THE N C D UH, PERMITS A FOUR FOOT, UH, FRONT YARD FENCE TO IN THE R 20 BASED ZONING DISTRICT. AND THE STRUCTURES, UH, DESIGN ASPECTS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN REGULATIONS OF THE INGRAM HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. NEXT SLIDE. 18 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT, ONE WAS RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND THE INGRAM HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR. ALL RIGHT, WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE. MA'AM, WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION, MA'AM. HIT SIX. AND THEN, UH, TO UNMUTE YOURSELF AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION, MA'AM. HIT STAR SIX. AND THAT SHOULD UNMUTE YOU. ZEKE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, UH, TRY TO MAINTAIN, UH, CONTACT WITH MS AND MAYBE HAVE ANOTHER, UH, STAFF MEMBER READ SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTARY IF THERE'S ANY? YEAH, WE'LL START WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENTARY. RIGHT NOW, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY VOICEMAILS, BUT WE DO HAVE, UM, SOME COMMENTARY FROM THE ASSOCIATION. STANDBY FROM THE INGRAM HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, IT BECAME NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN 2004 AND CODE ALLOWED A FOUR FOOT TALL SEE-THROUGH, UH, FRONT YARD FENCE. UM, AND SO THAT REQUIREMENT WAS PUT INTO THE N C D A FEW YEARS LATER, UH, CITY COUNCIL, UH, CHANGED THE COAT TO ALLOW THE FIVE FOOT TALL SEE-THROUGH FRONT YARD FENCES YET LAID OUT, NO, UH, NO WAY FOR THE N C D TO AMEND THE FOREFOOT, UH, FENCE TO FIVE FOOT. THE WAY IT WORKS NOW IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE, UH, FLAGS ANY FIVE FOOT FOOT, UH, APPLICATIONS TO MD, UH, DENIES A FENCE PERMIT, AND TELLS THE APPLICANT TO PAY $4 TO GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS. OUR NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION HAS DISCUSSED THIS FENCE HEIGHT ISSUE, UH, AT SEVERAL OF OUR MEETINGS, UH, WITH THE COUNCIL WITH COUNCILMAN SANDOVAL, WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR OF THE, UH, THE NEW FENCE, UH, FIVE FOOT RULE AND WISH THERE COULD BE SOME WAY TO AMEND THE N C D SO THAT OUR NEIGHBORS WOULD KEEP OR WOULD, WOULDN'T KEEP HAVING TO PAY $400 TO GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO GET, TO GET A NEW OR NOW STANDARD FIVE FOOT FENCE APPROVED. IH N A IS IN FAVOR OF A FIVE FOOT PRINT YARD FENCE, UH, FENCES IN THIS CASE. AND IN ALL FUTURE CASES, WE JUST WISH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT WOULD, UH, COME UP WITH A PROCESS FOR US TO AMEND OUR N C D SO THAT THIS FENCE HEIGHT ISSUE DOESN'T KEEP, UH, GETTING FLAGGED FOR FORCING EXTRA TIME AND MONEY FOR OUR NEIGHBORS. [02:50:01] SO, UH, BEFORE THIS TO WHOEVER IT IS IN CHARGE OF NCD CITY COUNCIL, I HEAR I GO PAM CODE? YES. CAN YOU PLEASE UP BACKGROUND? YES. I JUST HAD TO UNMUTE IT TO SEE WHAT WAS BEING SAID. I'M SORRY. OH, NO, YOU'RE FINE. I WAS READING THE, THE, THE LETTERS THAT WERE IN SUPPORT AND TO THE RECORD. OKAY. ALRIGHT. AND AGAIN, UM, YES, I ALSO LEFT A VOICEMAIL MESSAGE THIS MORNING BEFORE 10:00 AM AND IT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS JUST GONNA SAY. SO IF THERE WAS THAT ON FILE, UH, STANDBY. I'M STILL READING THIS ONE INTO RECORD. IT'S FROM THE NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION. UH, THIS IS FROM MIKE PHILLIPS, PRESIDENT INGRAM HILLS NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION IN FAVOR. WAS THAT MS? WAS THAT MS. FRANCE ON THE PHONE? I BELIEVE IT WAS. OKAY. I CAN READ THE LAST ONE AND THEN, UH, IF YOU WANT, SO WE CAN GET THIS OUT. SURE. PLEASE PROCEED. SO THIS IS FROM I AGREE WITH THE HOMEOWNER'S RIGHTS THAT PUT UP THE FENCE. I WOULD LIKE ONE ALSO. UM, LET'S SEE. NOW THAT WE HAVE THE, THE NEW APARTMENTS, UH, WE WOULD LIKE, UH, TO SECURE OUR HOME. THANKS, ANNA AND RICARDO CAMPO, 41 0 7 EAST FOR PORT BEND. THAT CONCLUDES THE COMMENTARY. AND YOU'RE READY. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION PRESENT. YES. MY NAME IS RHONDA SCH, AGENDA 0 0 6 1. MY ADDRESS IS 41 19 EAST HORSESHOE BEND. WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU APPROVE THE ONE FOOT VARIANCE ON OUR PROPERTY. AS DISCUSSED IN OUR APPLICATION, WE FEEL THAT A FIVE FOOT FENCE WOULD BE MORE OF A DETERRENT TO KEEP OUT UNWANTED INDIVIDUALS. WE HAVE A NEW 250 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX MIXED AT WRENCH, WHICH WAS LOCATED ONLY THREE HOUSES DOWN FROM OURS. IT IS PARTIALLY UP AND RUNNING. IT IS NOT AS BAD OF A YET, BUT WHEN FULLY OCCUPIED, I FEAR FUTURE PROBLEMS WITH POSSIBLE THEFT OR WORSE. IN FACT, UPON RETURNING FROM A SHORT TRIP LAST WEEK, WE ARRIVED TO OUR HOUSE WITH THREE YOUNG MEN ON SKATEBOARDS ACTUALLY IN OUR DRIVEWAY. ALSO, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS PROBLEMS WITH HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS WHO SQUAT UNDER A BRIDGE BETWEEN OUR STREET AND THE NEXT STREET OVER. THESE INDIVIDUALS STEAL FROM OUR CARS AT NIGHT IF LEFT UNLOCKED. IN FACT, WHEN OUR NEIGHBOR WAS BUILDING HIS HOUSE NEXT DOOR SEVERAL YEARS AGO, HE HAD TO RUN A HOMELESS COUPLE OFF HIS PROPERTY AS THEY WERE ACTUALLY SQUATTING INSIDE THE SHELL OF HIS HOME WITH ONLY CONCRETE FLOORS, NO WALLS, AND THEY WERE USING HIS WATER SUPPLY. ANOTHER REASON WE WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH A FIVE FOOT WROUGHT IRON FENCE AROUND THE PERIMETER OF OUR HOME. I SINCERELY ASK THAT YOU APPROVE THE ONE FOOT VARIANCE FOR EXTRA PROTECTION AND SAFETY TO OUR PROPERTY AND OUR FAMILY. UM, I HAVE SPOKEN WITH MIKE PHILLIPS AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS VARIANCE PROCESS. UH, HE IS THE PRESIDENT, AS YOU HEARD FROM THE INGRAM HILLS CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AND HE HAS SPOKEN WITH MR. BOBBY WITH YOUR OFFICE, AND HE SEEMS TO THINK THAT THE FOUR FOOT FENCE HEIGHT WAS A TYPO WHEN ORIGINATED AND THAT HE THOUGHT IT WAS FIVE FOOT ALL ALONG, BUT NOW IS WORKING TO GET THIS AMENDED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY, AND MY HOPE IS THAT YOU APPROVE THE ONE FOOT VARIANCE TO OUR FENCE TO FIVE FEET. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? OKAY, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. UM, ONE FOR STAFF. HAVE WE HEARD OTHER VARIANCES IN THIS, IN THIS, UH, COMMUNITY REGARDING FENCE HEIGHTS? THIS IS THE THIRD MOST RECENT. UH, THE ASSOCIATION WILL BE PROVIDING ANOTHER ONE FOR SEVERAL HOMES NEAR THE APARTMENT COMPLEX, UH, IN THE NEAR FUTURE. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I, THAT'S WHAT I RECALL. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UM, SO IF THERE'S, UH, NO OTHER QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT, ANNA. COMMISSIONER MANNA REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 1, I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE INGRAM HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 35 DASH 3 3 5 REGARDING FRONT YARD FENCES SITUATED AT 4 1 1 9 EAST HORSESHOE BEND, APPLICANT BEING RHONDA, UH, SCRANS 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 PROVISION OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE INGRAM HILLS N C D FRONT YARD FENCE STANDARDS, UH, WAS ADOPTED TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA. THE VARIANCE TO THE N C D STANDARDS IS FOR THE FRONT YARD FENCE AND IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE INGRAM HILLS N C D DESIGN CENTERS ARE AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF REVIEW AND REGULATIONS TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY PREVENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER [02:55:01] TO PROPERLY SECURE THEIR DWELLING BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPHERE OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE. THE VARIANCE OF THE N C D DESIGN CENTERS OBSERVE THE SPHERE OF THE ORDINANCE AS IT WAS SLIGHTLY MODIFIED DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE AUTHORIZATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USED SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT ESSENTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IS MAINTAINED WITH THE VARIANCE TO THE M C D DESIGN. STANDARD SIX APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. 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 IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THEIR FRONT YARD FENCES SHOULD ABIDE BY THE INGRAM HILLS N C D DESIGN CENTERS, HOWEVER, DUE TO THE STANDARDS PREVENTING ADEQUATE SECURITY FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER'S DWELLING UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY. AND A MOTION, IS THERE A SECOND? OH, SECOND. IS THAT CRUZ? YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. YOU GOT IT. UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA, PLEASE. SO, UM, I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS, UM, UM, VARIANCE AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I I THINK WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO RECOGNIZE, UH, THE, UH, INGRAM HILLS WITH REGARDS TO THEIR POSITION ON THIS FOR ALL SUBSEQUENT PROPERTIES AND SO THAT OTHERS DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS. SO I WILL, UH, BE RECOGNIZING THIS VARIANCE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UH, YES, I CONCUR WITH MR. MANNA. I THINK THE, UH, FENCE WILL ADD A GREAT, UH, EXTENSION TO THE HOME AND IT SHOULD KEEP, HELP HIM KEEP, UH, UP WITH THE SECURITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, UH, HEARING ON STAFF? PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. MR. MENCHACA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. CRUZ. YES, I CONCUR. MR. BANA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMER. I CONCUR. MR. LOVE I CONCUR. MR. VINNO? YES, I CONCUR. MR. THI YES, I CONCUR. MR. ZUNA? YES, I CONCUR. AND CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR. MOTION FA PASSES 10 TO ZERO. UH, AND I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT MAYBE IT'D BE POSSIBLE THAT IF, IF THEY, IF THEY CAN'T GET THE N C D CHANGE, MAYBE THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH WHOEVER IS INTERESTED IN A FIVE FOOT FENCE, COULD, COULD THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH A, UH, A LARGE SCALE APPLICATION JUST TO COVER A BUNCH OF THE PROPERTIES AT ONCE BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HEARING THESE ALL THE TIME. UH, OKAY. WELL, [8. 21-4482 BOA-21-10300062] ITEM NUMBER EIGHT PLEASE. ITEM EIGHT IS 21 1 0 3 6 2. LOCATED AT 1717 BURNETT STREET COUNCIL. DISTRICT TWO, BRETT HEKE IS THE APPLICANT. THE 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE, UH, MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 35 3 10 TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE 10 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE TO A 1,827 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 4,000 AS DESCRIBED IN 35 3 10 TO ALLOW A LOT TO BE 2001 73 SQUARE FEET AND THREE AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT GARAGE SETBACK AS DESCRIBED IN 35 5 16 G TO ALLOW A GARAGE TO HAVE A 12 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. ZOIA IS MF 33 E P ONE M L O D THREE. NEXT SLIDE. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED, UH, EAST OF DOWNTOWN, JUST EAST OF BURNETT STREET AND NORTH NEW BRAUNFELS AVENUE, UH, INTERSECTION. THE AREA IS ZONED MF 33 WITH SMALLER SIZED DWELLINGS, MULTI-FAMILY UNITS IN THE AREA. AS, AS THE DWELLING PROPOSED WITH THE REQUEST, UH, REQUESTED VARIANCES, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILT IN MF 33 ZONING MUST ADHERE TO THE STANDARDS FOR R FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. HOWEVER, THE LOT IS ONLY, UH, 2,100, UH, 73 SQUARE FEET WELL BELOW THE 4,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. THE GARAGE IS ATTACHED TO THE PROPOSED DWELLING AND DOES NOT EXTEND PAST THE FRONT FACADE OF THE PRINCIPAL'S DWELLING. HERE'S A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN. CURRENTLY A VACANT LOT SURROUNDING AREA. ADDITIONAL SURROUNDING AREA. YOU CAN SEE NEW CONSTRUCTION TAKING PLACE IN THE AREA. STAFF'S APPROVAL OF BO [03:00:01] O A 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, EFFECT, SETBACK, AND LOT SIZE VARIANCES, UH, WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED WITH ADEQUATE ZONING WITH, WITH THE SAME USE. AND THE GARAGE DOES NOT EXCEED PAST THE FRONT FACADE OF THE PRINCIPAL'S. W 6 5 31 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT, UH, ONE WAS RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AT THIS TIME. OKAY, SIX FIVE. WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE. WRONG NAME. UH, MR. HENNEKE, WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. UH, BRETT HENNEKE, UH, 1 4 1 DAN U SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 3. UH, LIKE LAST JULY, UM, THERE WAS A HOUSE, AN OLDER HOUSE THERE, AND IT BURNED DOWN. AND SO WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO, UH, BUILD ANOTHER RESIDENCE. KIND OF, IT'S ALMOST, ALMOST THE EXACT SIMILAR SITE PLAN. I THINK THE, UH, ORIGINAL RESIDENCE WAS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN EIGHT AND NINE FEET FROM THE SETBACK, FROM THE REAR SETBACK. UM, AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT. OKAY. UH, STAFF, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY TO READ? YES, THERE'S JUST ONE IN FAVOR. I'M SURE THE OWNER HAS A GOOD REASON FOR THE SEEKING THE VARIANCE. . I DO NOT OPPOSE THE VARIANCE. IT'S FROM, UH, AND, UH, 2 3 27 BLUE BONNET. OKAY. UH, SO AT THIS TIME WE'RE GONNA OPEN THIS UP TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE A QUESTION? CRUZ COMMISSIONER CRUZ. UM, I SEE, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT, I SEE TWO BUILDINGS THERE, THE ONE TO THE LEFT, ONE TO THE RIGHT. AND THE PICTURE THEY'RE SHOWING NOW, UM, WHAT, ARE THEY BOTH EMPTY OR DO THEY BELONG TO THE PROPERTY OR WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION AGAIN? OKAY. UH, IN LOOKING AT THE PICTURE, AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU CAN SEE IT OR NOT, SIR, THEY'RE SHOWING. OKAY. I CAN SEE IT NOW. OH, OKAY. THERE'S, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S TWO, UH, BUILDINGS THERE, OR TWO STRUCTURES, ONE TO THE RIGHT AND ONE TO THE LEFT. NOW, ARE THOSE BELONGING TO THE PROPERTY OR IS THAT ONE OF THE ONES YOU YOU'RE GONNA UH, UH, DEMOLISH? NO, THERE'S NO, THERE'S, UH, THE PROPERTY IS JUST THE GRASS AREA. THERE'S NO STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY. OKAY. SO THE HOUSE, SO THOSE, THERE WAS A HOUSE THERE, UH, THERE WAS A HOUSE THERE THAT BURNED DOWN, UH, ABOUT A YEAR AGO. OKAY. WELL, I'M JUST WONDERING BECAUSE THEN WHAT IS THE BUILDING THAT'S THERE TO THE RIGHT OF YOUR EMPTY LOT? IS THAT YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY? YEAH. THAT'S THE NEIGHBOR, YES. OH, OKAY. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. AND IS THAT GONNA AFFECT SOME OF THOSE TREES THAT ARE THERE? THAT, THAT NO TREES? NO, NO TREES WILL BE AFFECTED. THAT HOUSE, THAT GRAY HOUSE, THERE WAS THE HOUSE THAT WAS, THAT WAS BURNED DOWN. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. . YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MANNA, UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO, SO THE EXISTING HOUSE, WAS THAT A, A WOOD PYRAMID BEAM OR, OR WAS THAT A SLAB? AND WILL YOU BE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT? ANY, ANY OF THE REMAINING STRUCTURE OR IS IT COMPLETELY REDONE? UH, THE EXISTING HOUSE WAS, SO THAT HOUSE IS GONE NOW. THERE'S, THERE'S, UH, IT COMPLETELY BURNED DOWN. THEY, THE CITY CAME IN AND, AND CLEANED A LOT. OKAY. UM, IT WAS UP HERE IN BEAM HOUSE. OKAY. BUT, WE'LL, WE WOULD BE PUTTING A SLAB HOUSE. PERFECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. . OKAY. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT. UH, AS FAR AS THE GARAGE VARIANCE, YOU'RE ASKING FOR, UH, FOR THE 12 FEET, DO YOU KNOW HOW FAR AWAY YOUR, YOUR GARAGE DOOR WILL BE FROM THE SIDEWALK, THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK? I'M, I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT IF A CAR WAS PARKED IN YOUR DRIVEWAY WOULD'VE BLOCKED THE SIDEWALK. YEAH. CAN YOU PULL UP THE SITE PLAN? I THINK THERE'S A, IT SHOWS LIKE A 10 FOOT MARKER ON THE SITE PLAN. IT'S LIKE 12 FOOT MORE THAN A 12 FOOT. IT, IT SHOWS 12 TO THE PROPERTY. I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT HOW MUCH TO THE SIDEWALK. OKAY. YEAH, I DON'T, I CAN'T SEE THAT. I DON'T THE SITE PLAN'S UP, BUT IF IT'S, IF YOU CAN'T TELL FROM THE SITE PLAN, THEN I, I WOULD NOT HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT. OKAY. BUT YOUR SITE PLAN IS TO SCALE, SIR? YES. SO, YEAH. OKAY. SO THAT 10 FOOT IT, I MEAN, I, I, I'M JUST IT WOULD WOULD'VE TO BE AT LEAST FIVE FEET. YEAH. YEAH. YES. YEAH, JUST BASED ON THE FIVE DIMENSIONS, IT'S PROBABLY ANOTHER TWO TO THREE, TWO TO THREE [03:05:01] FEET FROM THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE FROM WHERE THAT SHOWS. OKAY. DISAGREE. YEAH. ACTUALLY I CAN'T, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT, BUT YEAH, IT'S, IT'S GOTTA BE AT LEAST 15. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. SO FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, BEFORE WE GO IN AND, UH, INTO A MOTION, IS THERE ANY CLOSING REMARKS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE? UH, MR. HENKE? OH, FOR ME, UM, YEAH, WE HAD DONE A PROJECT, UH, SIMILAR TO THIS ON A COUPLE BLOCKS AWAY ON POLARIS, UH, THAT WE HAD GOTTEN APPROVED. UM, ALMOST THE SAME EXACT SITUATION, BUT, UM, THAT'S IT. THAT'S IT. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU, UH, WITH THAT, IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO MO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE? BRAMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. OKAY. LET'S SEE. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 21 DASH 360 2, MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR ONE, A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK IS REQUIRED IN SECTION 35 DASH 3 1 0 0.01 TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE 10 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE TWO AND 1,827 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 4,000 I DESCRIBED IN SECTION 35 DASH 31.01 TO ALLOW A LOT TO BE 2,173 SQUARE FEET AND THREE AND EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT GARAGE SETBACK AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 35 DASH 516 G TO ALLOW A GARAGE TO HAVE A 12 FOOT FRONT SETBACK SITUATED AT 1717, UH, BURNETT STREET, APPLICANT BEING BRETT HENNEKE. BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PROVIDED PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE RISK SETBACK MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT AND GARAGE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. THE REQUESTED VARIANCES ARE NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE LOT HAS, HAS A SIZE OF 2,173 SQUARE FEET, WHICH CAN REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. HOWEVER, NOT ENOUGH SPACE FOR A REAR SETBACK AND GARAGE DRIVEWAY SETBACK. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD PREVENT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. 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 SIZE OF THE LOT WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO AN R TWO ZONE LOT, WHICH WOULD BE, WHICH WOULD PERMIT THE CURRENT LOT SIZE AND SETBACK REQUESTED. THE VARIANCE WILL ALSO INCLUDE THE GARAGE SETBACK NEEDED FOR A LOT THIS SIZE. FOUR. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THE USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. 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. IF GRANTED, THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WILL MATCH SIMILAR SIZE DWELLING IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA AND NOT LIKELY TO ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. THE PLIGHT OF 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 ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. THE SIZE OF THE LOT PRESENTS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A REAR SETBACK AND THE LOT SIZE VARIANCE TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. THE ATTACHED GARAGE DOES NOT EXCEED PAST THE FRONT FACADE OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND STILL REQUIRES A GARAGE SETBACK END OF MOTION. OKAY. THERE'S SECOND, SECOND. UH, COMMISSIONER MAN HAS A SECOND. UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, PLEASE, UH, LEAD THE DISCUSSION. YEAH, SO, UM, WE HEARD FROM STAFF THAT IT WEREN'T FOR THE FACT OF THE CURRENT ZONING THAT THIS, UH, WOULD BE PERMITTED. THE SIZE OF THIS HOUSE WOULD BE PERMITTED. SO IT'S JUST A MATTER OF, OF, UM, YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS THE CORRECT ZONING, IT WOULD BE APPROVED. AND AGAIN, GOING BACK TO OUR HOUSING SHORTAGE, I [03:10:01] THINK WE NEED TO KEEP CONSIDERING WAYS TO UTILIZE SUBSTANDARD, UH, LOTS AND TO REALLY LOOK AT OUR ZONING CODES TO ALLOW FOR, UM, MORE CONSTRUCTION AND THEN HIGHER DENSITY. SO I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. THANK, UH, COMMISSIONER MANDA. I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE, AND I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR AS WELL. THANK YOU. FANTASTIC. UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO'D LIKE TO ADD? NO. WHO'S ASKED ABSENT? UH, DID SOMEBODY WANT TO ADD SOME COMMENTARY? OKAY. UH, HEARING ON STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. CRUZ. MS. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. JIMENEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. RAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. DELMER. I CONCUR. MR. LOVE I CONCUR. MR. VINNO. I CONCUR. MR. THI I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. UNA? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT CHAIR ORDINANCE. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES 10 TO ZERO. WITH THAT, UH, WE'RE GONNA HEAR, UH, ITEM NUMBER NINE. UH, AT SOME POINT DURING THIS ITEM, I'M SURE COMMISSIONER, UH, DELMAR DELMER WILL NEED TO TO LEAVE AS IT'LL BE PAST FOUR 30, AND THAT'LL BRING US DOWN TO NINE PEOPLE. AND WITH THAT, UH, I WOULD LIKE, UH, AFTER AS SOON AS YOU'RE DONE WITH YOUR PRESENTATION STAFF, IF YOU COULD PLEASE, UH, ASK THE APPLICANT IF, IF THEY WANT TO PROCEED, OR WOULD THEY WISH TO, UH, TABLE TO THE NEXT MEETING IN JULY. WILL DO, SIR. I'LL START THE PRESENTATION AND THEN, UM, THE APPLICANT'S ON RIGHT NOW, I'LL LET THEM KNOW AS WELL. OKAY. SO [9. 21-4483 BOA-21-10300063] NEXT ITEM IS AT 43 18 KATRINA LANE COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE, THE APPLICANT, MIGUEL GILL. ONE, A REQUEST FOR A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK AS REQUIRED IN 35 3 10 TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AND TWO NINE FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK IS REQUIRED IN SECTION 35 3 10 TO ALLOW CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. CURRENT ZONING IS RMM FOUR M L O D THREE. NEXT SLIDE. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED MID-BLOCK ALONG KATRINA LANE AND BILL TO ZERO LOCK LINE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CARPORT TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE HOME. RECEIVED A STOP WORK ORDER AFTER POSTS WERE, WERE PUT IN PLACE, BUT THE CARPORT IS NOT YET CONSTRUCTED. DEEDED RESTRICTIONS FOUND REFERENCE ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT, YET NEVER PLOTTED AS ZERO AS SUCH. THERE IS ONE OTHER CARPORT IN THE AREA APPROVED, UH, BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR A CARPORT FRONT VARIANCE AT 42 23 KATRINA. THAT ALLOWED A TWO FOOT SEVEN INCH FRONT SETBACK ON JULY 2ND, 2018. HERE'S A COPY OF SITE PLAN. THE POSTS THAT WERE PLACED, AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO THE FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SURROUNDING AREA SUBJECT PROPERTY AS WELL. AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S BUILT ON ZERO LOT LINE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES SURROUNDING AREA. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S SOME THAT ARE BUILT, UM, SIMILAR IN NATURE. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND B O A 21, 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 3 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 EIGHT INCH OVERHANG. BASED ON THE FALLING FINDINGS OF FACT, WE DO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE FRONT SETBACK. THE PROPOSED CARPORT WOULD BE OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN EXTENT AND LOCATION RELATIVE TO PROPERTY LINES. CARPORT MAY STILL BE CONSTRUCTED EITHER FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, OR THREE FEET WITH NO OVERHANG, AND THE PROXIMITY TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND STRUCTURE COULD INJURE ADJACENT USE WITH VISUAL AND STORMWATER IMPACTS. SLIDE 33. NOTICE WERE, WERE SENT OUT. ONE WAS RECEIVED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, AND NO RESPONSE FROM THE PECAN VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. FIVE. MR. GILL, WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION. MIGUEL GILL, 4 3 1 8 KATRINA LANE. UH, SO AS Y'ALL AWARE, PROBABLY AWARE OF THE RECENT STORMS WE HAD, UH, THAT'S THE REASON WHY I [03:15:01] WANNA BUILD MY CARPORT. UM, I HAD SOME DAMAGES TO MY VEHICLES AND, UH, SOME WINDOWS SHATTER HAD TO GET REPLACED. UM, I UNDERSTAND THE VARIANCES THAT I'M REQUESTING, AND, UH, I UNDERSTAND IT'S PRETTY CLOSE. OUR PROPERTY LINES KIND OF LIKE INTWINE WITH EACH OTHER. I, IT'S, IT'S HARD TO SEE OR HARD TO, HARD TO TELL WHERE OUR PROPERTY LINES ARE AT. UM, AS FAR AS I WAS TOLD, OUR PROPERTY LINES WHERE MY ROOF ENDS ON THE SIDE, WHERE MY NEIGHBOR'S AT, UH, WHERE THE CLOSEST PART, I WANNA SAY IT'S ON THE, UH, EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. UM, IT SHOULD BE ABOUT ONE AND A HALF TO TWO FEET AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S LINE PROPERTY LINE. BUT, UM, FROM THE POST RIGHT THERE, I'M REQUESTING ABOUT AN 18 INCH OVERHANG. UM, COULD BE LESS, BUT THAT'S JUST WHAT I REQUESTED. UM, UH, I GOT THE, THE NOTION OF BUILD ONE WHEN I SAW MY OTHER NEIGHBORS BUILD THEIRS, AND I WENT TO GO TALK TO THEM AND, AND I SAW THEIR MEASUREMENTS WHERE THEY HAD IT. AND, UH, I WAS LIKE, WELL, I'VE BEEN WANTING TO BUILD ONE MYSELF AFTER THIS. SO I DECIDED TO BUILD ONE, UM, TO MY REGRET. I DIDN'T ASK IF YOU NEEDED A, A PERMIT AND ALL THAT STUFF. AND, AND, UH, I ALREADY PUT THE POST ON, OF COURSE, WE GOTTA STOP WORK. SOMEBODY REPORTED IT, THAT'S FINE. I'M ALL FINE. I'M ALL FOR RULES AND REGULATIONS. UM, BUT I JUST WENT OFF THE, THE, UH, THE MEASUREMENTS THAT MY NEIGHBORS HAD, AND I FIGURED THAT IT WAS ALL RIGHT. UM, UM, OBVIOUSLY IT WASN'T, BUT, UM, THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF ME REQUESTING THE VARIANCES THAT I REQUESTED FOR, UM, JUST TO PROTECT MY PROPERTY THAT I HAVE. UM, AND REALLY, UH, THERE'S A COUPLE NEIGHBORS ON THE OTHER STREET AS WELL THAT HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF, UH, CARPORT COMING OUT TO CLOSELY TO THE, UH, EDGE OF THE, UH, OF THEIR PROPERTY AND THE CITY PROPERTY. UM, I'M RIGHT THERE AT THE, THE SAME MEASUREMENTS AS THE OTHER, AS MY, MY NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE 'EM. UM, AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT I GOTTA SAY. OKAY. UH, UH, NIK, IS THERE ANY, UH, COMMENTARY TO READ INTO THE RECORD FROM THE SURROUNDING, UH, COMMUNITY? YES, SIR. THERE'S ONE TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD. LEMME READ THAT REAL QUICKLY. FROM CARL SMITH AT 43 27. KATRINA IN FAVOR. THIS SHOULD BE PERMANENTLY CHANGED IN THE CODE TO REFLECT THE VARIANCE. WE NEED ALL THE SHADE, UH, WE CAN GET THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE COMMENTARY. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. UM, SO IF WE'RE GONNA START WITH COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS AND, UH, COMMISSIONER DELMER, WHEN YOU HAVE TO LEAVE, JUST LET ME KNOW. OKAY? UM, UH, UH, I HAVE TO LEAVE NOW. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO WE ARE DOWN TO NINE PEOPLE. AND, UH, WITH THAT, I HAVE A, A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. MR. GI? YES, MR. GOOD. OKAY. SO WE ARE NOW DOWN TO NINE PEOPLE. THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO HAVE A UNANIMOUS VOTE, UH, FOR US TO MAKE IT, UH, WHATEVER OUR DIS WHATEVER A MOTION IS MADE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A, ALL NINE OF US VOTE ONE WAY FOR SOMETHING TO PASS, UH, WHETHER THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR, UH, WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING OR, OR ANY VARIATION THEREOF. AND SO NOW THAT WE'RE DOWN TO NINE PEOPLE AND YOU HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL WITH AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION, DO, WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE TABLED TO THE NEXT MEETING OR WOULD YOU LIKE US TO PROCEED? OKAY. YOU SAID THERE'S ALREADY A STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL. UH, THEY'RE RECOMMENDING, UH, A DENIAL OF WHAT YOU'RE, OF WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING. AND THEY ARE, ARE, THEY'RE SUGGESTING TO THE BOARD AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION TO, UH, YOU KNOW, SO INSTEAD OF HAVING A FOUR FOOT 11 VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE SETBACK, THEY'RE ASKING FOR, UH, A, I BELIEVE IT WAS A TWO FOOT VARIANCE, UH, UH, ON THE SIDE AND NOT A, AND NOT A, A VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT. AND SO THAT NOW THAT DOESN'T, WE DON'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY DO THAT. IT IS JUST THEIR RECOMMENDATION. THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, A COMMISSIONER CAN MAKE A MOTION FOR WHATEVER'S THEY FEEL IS APPROPRIATE. BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT IT DOES TAKE ALL NINE OF US TO VOTE TOGETHER TO APPROVE, UH, ANY ACTION. SO I WANTED TO OFFER TO YOU OFFER, UH, OFFER, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO TO THE MEETING IN JULY WHERE THERE WOULD POTENTIALLY BE 10 OR 11, UH, A FULL BOARD INSTEAD OF NINE. UM, YEAH, I, I, I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO JULY. OKAY. STAFF WOULD BE THE, THE, THE, UH, OFFICIAL DATE THAT WOULD THE NEXT AVAILABLE DATE. JULY 19TH, SIR. JULY 19TH. UH, IS THERE A, UM, I'LL NEED A MOTION TO DO THAT. IS THERE A, A COMMISSIONER WHO WOULD LIKE TO MOTION TO TABLE THIS TO JULY 19TH? [03:20:01] BRUCE, COMMISSIONER CRUZ. I MOVED IT. WE, UH, MOVE, UH, CASE BO O A 21 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 3 TO THE JULY 19TH MEETING. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MANNA HAS ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE LIKE, UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ? LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING? UM, NO, SIR. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT PLAN. OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER MANNA CONCUR. OKAY. UH, STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER MANCHACA. I CONCUR WITH MOTION. UH, EXCUSE ME, SIR. UH, WHAT'S THE DATE Y'ALL HAVE? I'M, I'M VERY SORRY. I'M A TRUCK DRIVER, SO I, I, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO, OH, UH, JULY 19TH PROBABLY CUTS ALL OFF. IT'LL BE MONDAY, JULY 19TH. UH, I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE IF I'LL BE AVAILABLE THEN. I MIGHT BE OUT OF TOWN. UM, STAFF, IS THERE AN A MEETING, THE, THE MEETING AFTER THAT THAT WE COULD OFFER? UM, AUGUST 2ND. WE EITHER HAVE AUGUST 2ND OR JULY 19TH. SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, UH, IS THERE ONE DAY THAT WORKS BETTER FOR YOU? UH, THAT, THAT ONE'S KIND OF PUSHED OUT TOO FAR. IS, IS THERE, OKAY. IS THERE ANY WAY I CAN RETRACT WHAT I SAY? CAN WE GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE? UH, I, I CAN'T WAIT THAT FAR OUT. OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RES UH, TAKE THE APPLICANTS, UH, SUGGESTION AND CONSIDERATION TO RESEND YOUR MOTION? UH, YES, SIR. RESEND THE MOTION. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND HEAR THE CASE. ALL RIGHT. SO STAFF, I THINK WHERE WE, I'M SORRY. SORRY. NO, IT'S FINE. I MEAN, WE'RE, WE WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS A, YOU KNOW, A FAIR MEETING HERE. SO, UH, WITH THAT IN MIND, WHERE WE LEFT OFF, UM, WE WERE ENTER, WE'RE ENTERTAINING COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, UH, ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? UH, FOR THE APPLICANT? OH, ZUNA, COMMISSIONER ZUNA. AND THIS, THE, THIS, THIS QUESTION IS FOR MR. GILL. MR. GALE, UH, WERE YOU THE OWNER THAT ENCLOSED THE GARAGE OR DID YOU PURCHASE THE HOUSE WITH THE GARAGE ENCLOSED ALREADY? UH, THE GARAGE? NO. UH, I PURCHASED IT LIKE THAT. YOU PURCHASED IT WITH, WITH IT ENCLOSED AND CONVERTED. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? BRAGMAN COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? UH, THIS IS FOR STAFF ON THE FRONT, UM, PLACEMENT OF THE POST. WHAT, UH, YOU'VE RECOMMENDED DENIAL. WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE, UM, SETBACK FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT ITSELF? IT WOULD BE 10 FEET. SO 10 FEET FROM THE CURB, OR 10 FEET FROM WHERE? SO AT THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE THE CURRENT POST IS LOCATED, THAT'S AN INCH OR SO INSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE. TYPICALLY THE PROPERTY LINE STARTS AT THE FLARE, UM, KIND OF WHERE THE SIDE, THE, THE DRIVEWAY KIND OF BREAKS INTO THE, UM, THE SMALLER DRIVEWAY TO THE HOUSE. SO IT'S REALLY CLOSE AT THIS TIME. UM, 10 FEET FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE WOULD BE THE, THE, THE NORMAL POSITION. OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD MAKE THE CARPORT. WHAT IN DEPTH DO WE THINK, CHECK ON THE DEPTH CURRENTLY WITH THE POST AS IS. I'LL LET YOU KNOW SOON. IT'S CURRENTLY 24, SO TO DROP IT TO 14TH. OKAY. THANK YOU. I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE APPLICANT IS AWARE OF THAT. MANANA. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MANANA. SO THIS QUESTION IS FOR THE APPLICANT. SO, UM, SO THE CITY, UM, HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL AND THEIR PROPOSED SOLUTION IS TO SET IT AT LEAST THREE FEET BACK FURTHER, UH, THAN IT CURRENTLY IS. AND SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WHAT HARDSHIP OR WHAT, WHAT IS IT THAT THAT WOULD CAUSE YOU, UM, WITH REGARDS TO MOVING IT, HOW EASY WOULD IT BE TO MOVE THOSE FRONT POSTS BACK THREE FEET? UH, UH, YES, SIR. UM, SO YOU, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE POST, UH, UH, UH, AGAIN, YOU SAID THE FRONT POST, CORRECT? CORRECT. AGAINST THE SIDEWALK. OKAY. UM, UH, THE, THE REASON I PUT IT AS FAR AS THAT, WHERE IT'S AT NOW IS 'CAUSE I, I, MY DUMB SELF, I WENT ALONG WITH WATCHING, SEEING THE OTHER NEIGHBORS, AND I FIGURED THAT IT WAS OKAY. UM, MY MISTAKE, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, UH, I HAVE IT THAT FAR UP BECAUSE [03:25:01] I'M, I'M PERFECTLY ABLE TO PARK BOTH OF MY VEHICLES IN THERE TO PROTECT MY VEHICLES FROM ANY TYPE OF WEATHER OR ANYTHING. UM, AND I HAVE THE SPACE FOR THAT. THE FURTHER IN I GO, I TAKE AWAY FROM MY VEHICLES OBVIOUSLY FROM BEING COVERED. AND, UM, THERE'S THE PURPOSE WHY I HAD IT THERE. UM, YOU ASKED ME WHAT HARDSHIP IT'LL BE. I MEAN, I REALLY WOULD LOVE TO HAVE IT WHERE I HAVE IT, 'CAUSE THAT'S KIND OF ALMOST WHERE THE NEIGHBORS HAVE IT. BUT I MEAN, I'M WILLING TO, YOU KNOW, TO DO WHAT'S NECESSARY TO BUILD MY CARPORT. UM, UH, I'M NOT GONNA HAVE AN OVERHANG IN THE FRONT, UM, BY MUCH ANYTHING. MAYBE A COUPLE INCHES IF THERE IS ANY. UM, I, LIKE I SAID, I, I PREFER TO HAVE IT WHERE IT'S AT, BUT AGAIN, I I, I LIKE TO GET MY CARPORT BUILT AND, UH, YOU KNOW, KEEP MY CARS AND STUFF SAFE. OKAY. WHAT I THINK, IF I HEARD CORRECTLY, RIGHT NOW IT'S 24 FOOT IN LENGTH IS THE, IS THE REQUESTED LENGTH OF THE CARPORT. AND BY SHORTENING THE THREE FEET, IT WOULD BE 21 FEET, WHICH IS GENERALLY, UH, ENOUGH FOR SPACE FOR A VEHICLE. CORRECT? UH, OFFICER, SIR, I, I DON'T HAVE A BUS , UH, COMMISSIONER MAN, I, I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT THE, THE STAT'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO HAVE NO FRONT, UH, SETBACK VARIANCE. THE THREE FOOT IS, IS FROM THE SIDE. OH, SORRY. NO, THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. OKAY. SO THAT'S, SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT IN CASE YOU WANTED TO ASK SOME MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT STAS. OKAY. SO, SO PER, UH, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN, THAT'S WHY THE DIALOGUE FOR THE 14 FOOT, SO THAT IS CONSIDERABLY SHORTER THEN. SO, OKAY. AND, AND STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE CLARIFY, UH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THREE FEET FROM, FROM THE, THE WEST SIDE? THAT IS CORRECT. ALSO, I JUST WANNA NOTE, EVEN THOUGH WE, WE WERE REQUESTING THAT TO PUSH THE, THE FRONT POST BACK, YOU CAN STILL HAVE OVERHANG TO EXTEND OUT UP TO. SO WE, SO WE HAVE MORE COVERAGE. THAT IS CORRECT. SO, SO, SO, SO JUST FOR THE REST OF THE COMMISSION, THE, THE POSTS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT ARE LOCATED NEAR THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK, THEY COULD BE MOVED BACK 10 FEET AWAY FROM THE BACK OF SIDEWALK, AND THEN HE COULD HAVE A FIVE FOOT OVERHANG PAST THAT ALLOWING FOR, UH, A 19 FEET OF COVERAGE, UH, FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, JUST, UH, REGARDING THE FRONT, JUST TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. BUT, BUT, AND THAT, OKAY. SORRY. UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ, GO AHEAD. OKAY. UM, BUT IF WE PUSH HIM BACK, WOULDN'T HE STILL NEED THE THREE FEET ON THE SIDE, THOUGH? IT STILL WOULDN'T BE AS WIDE AS IT IS NOW, IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT, RIGHT. HALF IS RECOMMENDING THREE FEET. WE DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW IT, BUT THAT, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING, UH, TO MOVE. SO JUST, UH, OKAY. I, OKAY. I'LL ASK THE, THE APPLICANT, MR. GI, WITH, WITH US YEAH. WITH US TALKING ABOUT THE CHANGES THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, IF WE MOVE THE, THE POLES IN TWO FEET AND LEAVE THE FRONT ONES A LITTLE FURTHER BACK AND DO THE OVERHANG, WOULD THAT BE A PROBLEM FOR YOU? BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF I, I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE HAVING A COMPANY BUILT THIS FOR YOU, CORRECT? CORRECT. SO THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY PROBLEM. I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT IT'S GONNA COST YOU OF THEM HAVING TO MOVE THE POST. OF COURSE, I WOULDN'T LIKE THE, UH, THE COSTING OBVIOUSLY. I MEAN, I WOULD'VE TO OF COURSE PAY TO GET IT, TAKE THEM OUT AND, UH, THE CONCRETE WORK DONE BACK IN. UM, OF COURSE I WOULD NOT LIKE THAT. THAT'D BE WITH THE TIMES. RIGHT NOW IT'D BE A LITTLE HARD. UM, BUT MOVING THE POST IN FROM THE SIDE WOULD SHORTEN. I MEAN, I WOULD HAVE TO LITERALLY PARK ONE OF MY CARS ON MY GRASS SO I COULD FIT MY TRUCK IN THERE TO FIT BOTH OF MY CARS IN A DRIVEWAY. 'CAUSE IT, IT'LL, IT'LL JUST, AS Y'ALL SAID, IT'LL SHORTEN MY DRIVEWAY FROM THE SIDES. I MEAN, I BASICALLY WON'T HAVE A TWO CAR DRIVEWAY NO MORE. IT'D BE ONE AND A HALF. I MEAN, I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FIT BOTH OF MY VEHICLES IN THERE COMFORTABLY. OKAY. UH, MR. GILL, HAVE YOU TURNED IN A DESIGN TO THE CITY FOR PERMITTING, OR IS, OR AT THIS POINT IN TIME? UH, I HAVE TURNED IN ALL THE PAPERWORK THAT THEY REQUESTED OF ME WHEN I HAD TO GO DOWN TO THE, UH, SOUTH FLORIDA'S OFFICE AND, AND DRAW OUT A PICTURE AND STUFF LIKE THAT. DID THE, DID THE FORMAL DESIGN YOU SUBMITTED INCLUDE GUTTERS? UH, MY, MY PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ANY GUTTERS. UH, I'M JUST ON THE CARPORT. UH, ACTUALLY IT DID NOT, NO. OKAY. I WAS JUST, BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS RAISED, UH, BY STAFF [03:30:01] IS ADEQUATE, UH, PROTECTION OF STORMWATER RUNOFF. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR BOARD CAN ONLY, CAN ONLY ENTERTAIN WHAT'S BEEN ACTUALLY SUBMITTED OR WHAT IS BEING ACTUALLY PROPOSED. RIGHT. WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T ASK SOMETHING ON THE, ON THE CONDITION OF WHETHER OR NOT, LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR CARPORT HEAD GUTTERS, UH, BUT IF YOUR CAR, IF YOUR DESIGN WERE TO INCLUDE GUTTERS, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING FOR THE BOARD TO BE, UH, TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. SO, UM, YEAH, I DIDN'T EVEN THINK ABOUT THAT. I APOLOGIZE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO APOLOGIZE. UH, I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT WOULD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. GILL? NO ONE. OKAY. UH, SO MR. GILL, YOU'VE HEARD, UH, UH, YOU'VE HEARD OF SOME QUESTIONING FROM US. UH, AND AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE UP TO THREE MINUTES TO PROVIDE ANY SORT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR PERHAPS, UH, AN ANY SORT OF, UH, CLOSING REMARKS BEFORE A MOTION IS ENTERTAINED. UH, KNOWING THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING IS, IS FOR YOU TO MOVE THE POST IN THREE FEET, UH, UH, OR FIVE FEET WITH A TWO FOOT OVERHANG, UH, UH, BASED ON, ON CERTAIN, ON CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS. SO THIS JUST, UH, PLEASE TAKE, TAKE SOME TIME AND LET US KNOW ANY CLOSING REMARKS YOU MAY HAVE. YES. UM, BEFORE THAT, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT JUST THE SIDES OR ARE WE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT MOVING THE FRONT POST BACK AS WELL? UH, WELL, THE MOTION WILL BE, WILL BE FOR, UM, ONE THE OTHER OR BOTH. AND SO A COMMISSION MEMBER CAN MAKE, UH, CAN, CAN SEPARATE THEM. A COMMISSION MEMBER CAN MAKE ONE MOTION TO INCLUDE BOTH, UH, BASED ON, ON, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER TESTIMONY WE HEAR, UH, FOR YOUR NEIGHBORS. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT IN, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, UH, A FULL TRIAL ON THE FRONT AT BACK, AND THEY'RE RE AND THEY'RE RECOMMENDING TO THE BOARD A THREE FOOT, UH, UM, MOVING THE POST OVER THREE FOOT INTO YOUR DRIVEWAY. AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AND THE BASIS FOR THAT, UH, HAS TO DO WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, HAS SAFETY, STORMWATER RUNOFF, UH, UH, OR OTHER CONCERNS. SO, UM, WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, PLEASE LET US KNOW WHAT, WHAT YOUR CLOSING REMARKS ARE. YES, THANK YOU. UM, MM-HMM. , I'LL TRY TO KEEP THIS SHORT. I KNOW YOU GUYS BEEN ON FOR QUITE A WHILE. UM, OKAY. SO, UH, AS I SAID EARLIER, THE REQUEST WAS, YOU KNOW, TO PROTECT MY VEHICLES FROM, UH, ALL WEATHER, INCLEMENT WEATHER THAT'S BEEN GOING ON LATELY, AND I'VE ALREADY HAD DAMAGE TO MY VEHICLES. UM, I'VE TRIED LOOKING AT IT BETWEEN THE SIDES TO SEE IF I CAN GIVE MORE ROOM AND IT'S JUST, IT'S VERY HARD TO, BECAUSE AS I SAID, I'M TRYING TO FIT TWO VEHICLES IN THERE, A TRUCK AND A CAR. AND, UH, IT, IT'S BECOMING VERY DIFFICULT TO FIT TWO VEHICLES IN THERE, MOVING THE POST IN. UM, I KNOW WHERE THE POSTS ARE AT, AND FROM THE PROPERTY LINE FROM MY NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY LINE. UH, AS I SAID EARLIER, OUR PROPERTY LINES ARE WEIRD. THEY, THEY, THEY, EVEN THOUGH MY ROOF ENDS RIGHT THERE FROM MY HOUSE, UM, I WAS TOLD WE STILL GOT LIKE ABOUT AN EXTRA FOOT, UH, THAT WAY. THAT'S OUR PROPERTY LINE. UM, WHEN THE NEIGHBORS CUT THEIR GRASS, THEY STOP LIKE A FOOT BETWEEN BEFORE MY YARD 'CAUSE AND THAT IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S THEIR YARD, BUT IT'S NOT. IT'S 'CAUSE IT'S MY PROPERTY. UM, AND THEY STOPPED RIGHT THERE. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, I CUT FROM THERE, BUT, UM, IT'S JUST WEIRD HOW THE PROPERTY LINES WERE THERE ARE, IT'S JUST EVERYTHING IS JUST SO CLOSE. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO REALLY FIT BOTH OF MY CUT IN MY VEHICLE, BOTH OF MY, CUT MY VEHICLES IN THERE COMFORTABLY FROM THE FRONT AND THE BACK, UM, OF THE SIDE. MY APOLOGIES FROM THE SIDE. UM, AS I SAID, I WENT OFF OF THE MEASUREMENTS OF WHAT MY NEIGHBORS HAD 'CAUSE I WOULDN'T GO TALK TO MY NEIGHBORS. AND, UM, THEIRS LOOKS JUST SIMILAR TO THE WAY I HAVE MINE. SO I, I FIGURED, HEY, YOU KNOW, NO BIG DEAL. IT'S, UH, BUT THE PROBLEM WAS, I, I DIDN'T ASK PERMISSION. I, I, I DIDN'T ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS TO SEE IF I NEEDED A PERMIT. UM, IT WOULD'VE, HENCE IT WOULD'VE FIXED ALL THIS PROBLEM HERE. UM, OKAY. BUT I REALLY WISH YOU GUYS WOULD FIND IT THE, YOU KNOW, TO GRANT MY, MY VARIANCES. OKAY. WELL, UH, WITH THAT, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, I'M GONNA OPEN THIS UP. I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, AND REQUEST A MOTION, UH, FROM, FROM A COMMISSIONER, UH, ON THIS CASE MIN CHAKA. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. YES, SIR. STILL GRAY ON THE FRONT. HOW MANY, UH, WHAT IS THE SETBACK IN THE FRONT FROM THE CURB? BECAUSE SETBACK IS 10 FEET. SO IN THEORY, HE COULD PUT THE POST 10 FEET PAST THAT BACK OF SIDEWALK AND THEN A FIVE FOOT OVERHANG COULD EXIST PAST THAT. SO THE, THE EDGE OF THE COVER COULD BE 19 FEET FROM THE GARAGE. IF HE, IF HE WERE TO DO, FOLLOW THAT. THANK YOU SIR. THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND. OH, ZENA. AND [03:35:01] THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT STEP BACK THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT SET BACK. GOT, NOW IT'S CLEAR. YEAH. AND ON THE SIDE STEP BACK, UM, YOU KNOW, NOW THAT I'VE CLOSED A PUBLIC HEARING, A MOTION COULD BE MADE, UH, TO, I WAS, I WAS, I WAS ASKING THE APPLICANT IF HIS DESIGN INCLUDED GUTTERS. 'CAUSE WE CAN'T ASK HIM TO DO THAT AND WE CAN'T PUT IT AS A CONDITION. BUT IF HIS DESIGN WERE TO INCLUDE GUTTERS, IT MIGHT, I DON'T KNOW, MAKE SOMEBODY FEEL BETTER ABOUT OFFERING A MOTION, UH, AS REQUESTED . SO IT CAN BE INSTALLED . SO IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE, UM, JUST TO GET THE BALL ROLLING, THAT'D BE GREAT. OONA, I'LL MAKE A MOTION. YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER O REGARDING CASE BOA 20, I MOVE AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANT TO REQUEST FOR ONE A FOUR FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FIVE STEP AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 35 DASH THREE 10 DASH ONE TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE ONE INCH ON THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. UM, SITUATED AT 43 18 KATRINA LANE, APPLICANT BEING MIGUEL GILL, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAD DETERMINED SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS THAT THE UDC HAS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONTRACT TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THE PROPOSED CARPORT WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT WILL HAVE ROOM FOR MAINTENANCE. TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITION, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE PROPERTY OWNER'S DRIVEWAY IS NOT WIDE ENOUGH TO ABIDE BY THE DISTRICT SETBACK STANDARDS. THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE OF 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 SIDE SETBACK IS INTENDED TO PREVENT RUNOFF INTO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, AS WELL AS PROVIDE DISTANCE FROM THE NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIRE SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE. AND THE VARIANCE WE'LL PROVIDED FOR 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. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED TO PRODUCE VARIANCE. 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. IF GRANTED THE VARIANCE WILL INJURE, WILL INJURE THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT. IF GRANTED THE VARIANCE WILL INJURE THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, WHICH CAUSED THE STRUCTURES TO BE SEPARATED ON THE SIDES BY SETBACKS, ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION ALONG PROPERTY LINE WOULD NOT ALTER THIS CHARACTER. FURTHER, THE PROXIMITY TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY STRUCTURE WOULD NOT INJURE ADJACENT USE WITH VISUAL STORMWATER IMPACTS. SIX, APPLY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TOWARDS THE VARIANCE OF SAWS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO OTHER, THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED. DO YOU NEED CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY? WOULD NOT ALLOW A SETBACK WITH WHEN, WHEN WITH ENOUGH ROOM TO PARK A VEHICLE? UM, AND OF MOTION, DO A SECOND. I'M STRUGGLING. YEAH, A SECOND. AND I'M STRUGGLING. I MEAN, I WOULD WANT THE VER THE GUTTERS TO BE ESTABLISHED ON THAT, ON THAT SLIDE SET BACK, BUT I KNOW WE CAN'T CONDITION THE VARIANCE. UM, BUT WHO MADE, THANK YOU. UH, WHO MADE THE SECOND, WHO MADE THE SECOND? HELLO? WAS THERE A, I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A SECOND, BUT OKAY. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. UH, YES SIR. SO, SO I WAS WONDERING IF, UH, IF A FIVE FOOT, UM, VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT SETBACK WOULD BE, UM, SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DISCUSSED OR BE CONSIDERED. AND SO THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR, FOR POTENTIALLY 24 LENGTH IN FRONT. SO LOOKING AT THE PICTURE HERE SHOWS HANDS AND OTHER THINGS OBSTRUCTING, WE'LL SAY THE FRONT VIEW. AND SO A 19 FOOT TRUCK, YOU KNOW, WOULD NOT FIT WITH THOSE HANDS THERE AND WITH ANYTHING ELSE THERE. AND SO ALLOWING FOR A LITTLE BIT OF WALK AROUND. AND SO, SO I WAS WONDERING IF WE SHOULD ALLOW FOR A LITTLE BIT OF WALK AROUND. IT WOULD STILL GIVE, UM, YOU ALLOW FOR, WELL TELL YOU WHAT, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND SECOND THE MOTION SO THAT AMENDMENTS CAN BE CONSIDERED. OKAY. UH, AND, UH, STAFF BEFORE WE, UH, I WANTED TO ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO MAKE A MOTION ON A FIVE, UH, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE A, A FIVE FOOT SETBACK FROM THE FRONT, UH, BUT, UH, BUT NOT ALLOW FOR AN OVERHANG? I'M JUST CURIOUS. IS THAT POSSIBLE STAFF? THAT IS CORRECT. YOU CAN MAKE THAT MOTION WITH A NOH. OKAY. [03:40:01] AND SO COMMISSIONER MANNA IS YOUR, IS YOUR CONCERN THAT THE FOLKS WOULD CONFLICT WITH PEOPLE GETTING IN AND OUT OF THE CARS OR, OR NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH COVERAGE ON THE LENGTH OF THE CAR? UM, ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH. SO, SO, UM, THEY COULDN'T PASS IN FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. UM, ACTUALLY THEY COULDN'T PA THEY COULDN'T PARK IN, IN THE, UH, IN THE DRIVEWAY AS IT CURRENTLY WAS STRUCKED. BUT IF WE HAD THE FIVE FEET MORE, THEN THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT. UM, I BELIEVE, RIGHT. SO, SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE 14 FEET PLUS FIVE, ACTUALLY THAT STILL WOULDN'T PROVIDE IT. IT WOULD STILL NEED THE FIVE FOOT OVERHANG OR ALLOW FOR THE OVERHANG TO ALLOW FOR A LITTLE BIT OF WALKWAY IN FRONT OF IT. SEE, MY, MY, UH, JUST SO YOU KNOW, WHERE I'M COMING FROM ON THIS IS, UM, I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF POST BEING RIGHT THERE ON THE PROPERTY. RIGHT. CONCUR. AND, AND, AND I'M ALSO NOT A BIG FAN OF, OF JUST HAVING A, A MASSIVE CARPORT GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE 'CAUSE THAT PUBLIC SIDEWALK CONTINUES THROUGH THE DRIVEWAY. AND I WAS JUST, I'M TRYING TO KEEP THE, THE, THE COVER FROM SOME DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE SIDEWALK DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE FIVE FEET. I COULD LIVE WITH THREE FEET AND SO AGREE. WE AGREE. RIGHT. OR TWO FOOT. SO, SO I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND ENOUGH SPACE SO THAT THERE WAS SPACE IN FRONT AND SO HE WASN'T, SO, SO A 19 FOOT TRUCK WOULDN'T BE, UH, DEAD ENDING INTO THE, INTO THE FRONT OF THE GARAGE. OKAY. SO, SO WITH, SO WE ARE, SO FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OF, UM, WOULD YOU SAY PERHAPS, UH, TO THE MAKER OF THE MOTION COMMISSIONER ZUNA, WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU REQUEST AN AMENDMENT FOR A, UH, LET'S SAY A SEVEN, UH, SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE WITH, YEAH. SO IT'D TO BE THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE BACK OF SIDEWALK? YEAH. OKAY. SO, SO COMMISSIONER ZUNA, THERE'S A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FOR A, A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK WITH NO OVERHANG, UH, SUCH THAT IT, IT COULD BE THREE FEET FROM THE FRONT, FROM THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD ACCEPT? YEAH, SO ACCEPT IT. I MEAN, I, YEAH, SO ACCEPT IT AND SO WILL I, SO THAT MAKES THE, THAT, THAT MAKES THE MOTION, UH, TO INCLUDE A, UH, A, A SET SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW, UH, A CARPORT TO BE NO CLOSER THAN THREE FEET TO THE FRONT PROPERTY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. DO YOU CRUZ COMMISSIONER CRUZ? UH, THE ONLY THING WOULD BE THE SIDE SETBACK WOULD STILL BE AT FIVE FEET, UH, SIDE SETBACK. UH, HE, HE READ THE MOTION AS REQUESTED. SO IT'S ONE INCH. YEP. OKAY. ALRIGHT. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANNA MAKE SURE. THANK YOU. OKAY. YEAH. ANY, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE, I'M SORRY I DIDN'T GIVE COMMISSIONER ZUNA A CHANCE TO, UH, EXPRESS HIS OPINION AS A MAKER? GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER ZUNA, YOU'RE RIGHT. THANK YOU. WELL, I, I MEAN I, I GAVE THE FULL WIDTH THAT THE REQUEST IS, 'CAUSE WITHOUT IT, HE CAN'T PARK THE TWO CARS THAT HE'S SEEKING, SO IT'S REALLY A MOOT IF HE COULDN'T GET THE TWO CARS IN, I DIDN'T SEE A LOT OF OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. UH, UH, OR, YOU KNOW, ANY REAL OPPOSITION HERE. UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, HE'LL, HE WILL GO THROUGH ALL THE PERMITTING PROCESSES NOW THAT HE KNOWS WHAT THE PROCESS IS. AND, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THAT THE GARAGE WAS CONVERTED TO A BEDROOM OR OFFICE, UH, PRIOR TO HIS PURCHASE OF THE HOUSE, HE REALLY DOESN'T HAVE A WAY TO PROTECT HIS VEHICLE. SO I, I HAVE SOME EMPATHY OR SYMPATHY WITH THE, UH, WITH THE APPLICANT AND THAT'S WHY I STYLED IT, UH, TO ACCEPT THE, UH, THE VARIANCES AS HE REQUESTED. SO. OKAY. AND, UM, I COMPLETELY AGREE. SO IS THERE ANY OTHER, ANY COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THE COM UH, TO THE DISCUSSION? BRAGMAN, COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN? I WOULD JUST HOPE THAT THE APPLICANT, IF THE, UH, MOTION IS APPROVED, UH, THAT HE WOULD BE MORE, MORE FORTHCOMING WITH HIS NEIGHBORS ABOUT THE PROCESS SO THAT, UM, OTHER NEIGHBORS DON'T RUN INTO THE SAME SITUATION. MM-HMM. MINKA DULY NOTED. COMMISSIONER MINKA, I STILL HAVE AN ISSUE WITH A ONE INCH. UH, IT'S, UH, UH, NOBODY ELSE IS DOING IT. AND I UNDERSTAND THE TWO CAR, I UNDERSTAND THE CLOSING OF THE GARAGE, THEY PUTS 'EM IN A PREDICAMENT OF, UH, PUSHING THINGS OUTSIDE, BUT I WON'T SUPPORT THAT. YOU WILL NOT, NO, NOT ALMOST NOT THE ONE INCH. OKAY. WOULD YOU, WOULD I KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT DIDN'T, THIS ISN'T PART OF HIS APPLICATION, BUT IF THERE WERE GUTTERS, WOULD YOU SUPPORT IT? YES, I WOULD. OKAY. SO WITH THAT, UM, I'M GONNA DO SOMETHING. I DON'T GET INTO THE CONDITIONAL SITUATION AGAIN. WELL, I KNOW, BUT I'M GONNA DO SOMETHING A LITTLE CREATIVE HERE. I'M GONNA, UH, REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'M GONNA GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND HIS APPLICATION, UH, IF, IF HE WOULD LIKE TO DO SO, TO INCLUDE GUTTERS FORMALLY, MR. GILL? YES, SIR. DID YOU HEAR, DID YOU HEAR THE DISCUSSION THAT, THAT WE HAD DURING, DURING THE CLOSE PART OF THE HEARING REGARDING GUTTERS? I AB I ABSOLUTELY DID, SIR. AND I DO NOT MIND ADDING GUTTERS. CAN YOU PLEASE STATE FOR THE RECORD [03:45:01] THAT YOU ARE HEREBY AMENDING YOUR APPLICATION FOR A CARPORT TO INCLUDE GUTTERS ON THE SIDE, ON, ON THE, ON THE, UH, WEST PROPERTY SIDE? ABSOLUTELY. I'M MIGUEL GILL WILL AMEND MY APPLICATION TO ADD, UH, GUTTERS ON THE WEST, UH, SIDE PROPERTY OF THE, UH, OF THE CARDBOARD WANTING TO BUILD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HEREBY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I REOPEN AND I'M GONNA REOPEN BACK WHERE MOTION. UM, WE'RE BACK IN DISCUSSION. IS THERE A COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THE COMMENTARY? HEARING NONE. UM, STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. MANNA. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BREGMAN, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. LOVE. HELLO, MR. LOVE. I CON I CONCUR MR. VENO? YES, I CONCUR. MR. THIEL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. UNA, YES, I CONCUR. AND CHAIR ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION PASSES NINE TO ZERO FOR, UM, FOR THIS CASE. UH, MR. GI, PLEASE GET WITH STAFFED TO, UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING WHAT, WHAT JUST HAPPENED, ? ABSOLUTELY. I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU GUYS. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. [10. 21-4484 BOA-21-10300074] UH, ITEM NUMBER 10. THANK YOU. STAND BY. WE'RE GETTING THERE NOW. AND, UH, DID, DID YOU EXPLAIN TO MR. RIOS THAT THAT, UH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A FULL DENIAL ON THIS CASE AND THAT THERE'S ONLY NINE MEMBERS? YES, WE DID. WE CALLED ALL OF OUR APPLICANTS THIS MORNING. OKAY. AND, AND DID, DID, UH, PROCEED? HE DOES WANNA PROCEED. OKAY, PLEASE PROCEED THEN. OKAY. UH, 21 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 4 21 10 EAST LAWNDALE DRIVE COUNCIL DISTRICT 10 APPLICANT IS JASON RIOS. REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT N P EIGHT FRONT SETBACK AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 35 3 53 TO ALLOW CARPORT TO BE 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. ZOIA IS N P EIGHT NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION AIRPORT HAZARD OVER I. NEXT SLIDE. SUBJECT, SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF EAST LAWNDALE DRIVE AND NORTH NEW BRAUNFELS AVENUE SHOULD BE, UH, BROADWAY, PREDOMINANTLY ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION DISTRICT AND RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT. WITH THIS, UH, BEING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A FRONT CARPORT SETBACK OF 10 FEET FROM THE, UH, WHICH WOULD NORMALLY BE PERMITTED IN SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ZONING, RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY. HOWEVER, THE NEIGHBOR PRESERVATION DISTRICT WAS CREATED TO PREVENT SUBDIVISIONS TO AVOID CONGESTION AND PREVENT OVERCROWDING OF LAND. THE NEIGHBOR PRESERVATION DISTRICT REQUIRES A 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER APPLIED FOR A PERMIT IN DECEMBER, 2020, UH, TO CONSTRUCT A CARPORT WITH A 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK AND WAS APPROVED PERMITTING. TEAM REVIEWED THE PERMIT AND ISSUED THE PERMIT ON DECEMBER 20TH, 2020. UH, IN ERROR ASSUMING THAT THE MP 10, UH, SPECIAL ZONING DISTRICT HAD A SIMILAR MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR ALL OTHER CONVENTIONAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OF 10 FEET IN MAY. A COMPLAINT REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION WAS REPORTED, CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUED A CITATION REGARDING THE 20 FOOT MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT. APPLICANT, UH, APPLIED FOR VARIANCE WITH THE CARPORT VARI, UH, VARIANCE WITH THE 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN WHAT HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND APPROVED WITH THE PERMIT. COPY THE SITE PLAN. HERE'S THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AT THE LOCATION. AS YOU CAN SEE THE FRAME'S ALREADY UP CURRENTLY WORKING ON THE STRUCTURE ITSELF. FOR RE-BRING NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, NEIGHBORING AREAS, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL AND B O A 21 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 4 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, CARPORT WAS, UH, WITH AT ADEQUATE SETBACK CAN COVER A VEHICLE AND THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE ALTERED BY THE INTRODUCTION AS A REDUCED SETBACK. SLIDE 22 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT. NINE WERE RECEIVED IN FAVOR. FOUR. AND OPPOSITION YOLK PARK, NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR. SEVEN IN FAVOR OUTSIDE THE TWO FOOT AREA AND ONE OPPOSED FROM THE OUTSIDE FOOT AREA. SLIDE WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT ON LINE. UH, MRS. WHEN YOU'RE READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION. GOOD AFTERNOON. [03:50:02] PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION. MA'AM, ARE YOU STILL THERE MA'AM? STAR SIX TO UNMUTE. MA'AM, ARE YOU STILL THERE? IT'S STAR SIX. THERE YOU GO. GOOD AFTERNOON. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND, AND YOU CAN START YOUR PRESENTATION. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. MY NAME IS MARIA GARCIA RIOS, HOMEOWNER OF 2110 EAST LAWNDALE 7 8 2 0 9. OKAY. PLEASE PROCEED WITH YOUR PRESENTATION. HELLO? UH, YES MA'AM. PLEASE PROCEED WITH YOUR, UH, PRESENTATION. OH, OKAY. THANK YOU. SO HOPEFULLY YOU SHOULD BE ABLE, I WAS MADE AWARE THAT THERE IS A 15 SECOND DELAY AND SO, UM, I'M JUST GONNA GO AHEAD WITH WHAT I'M SEEING ON MY SCREEN AND HOPE THAT YOU ALL CAN SEE THE SAME AS WELL. I REALIZE WE ARE THE LAST VARIANCE YOU HAVE HEARD FOR THE DAY AND WE ARE VERY GRATEFUL FOR YOUR PATIENCE. UM, I THANK YOU ALL OF THE COMMISSIONER'S TIME AND CONSIDERATION. WE HOPE TO CLEARLY PAINT THE PICTURE OF OUR EXPERIENCE FROM DECEMBER TO NOW THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION. I WILL BREEZE THROUGH IT. I PROMISE NOT TO TAKE TOO MUCH OF YOUR TIME, BUT WE HOPE TO ACCURATELY SHOW YOU THE TRUE TIMELINE. WE WILL ADDRESS SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND ALSO OUR END GOAL WITH THE CARPORT. I ALSO HOPE TO PAUSE A COUPLE OF SECONDS TO WAIT FOR THE SLIDES TO, TO SHOW UP ON YOUR SIDE. UM, JUST LET US KNOW THE PAGE AND WE'LL BRING THAT UP RIGHT AWAY. OH, GREAT. OKAY. SO RIGHT NOW I AM ON PAGE FOUR. SO SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS DID WONDER IF WE WERE GOING TO BE FLIPPING THIS HOUSE AND SELLING IT RIGHT AFTER. UM, IN TALKING TO MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS, WE REASSURED THEM THAT WE WOULD NOT BE FLIPPING THIS HOUSE. WE PLANNED ON CALLING LAWNDALE HOME FOR MANY YEARS TO COME. OUR YEAR LONG SEARCH FOR A FAMILY ULTIMATELY BOUGHT US TO LAWNDALE, THE CHARM OF THE COMMUNITY, SPACIOUS YARDS, AND THE DISTRICT STRONG EDUCATIONAL VALUES MADE THE DECISION TO MOVE EASIER. SO AGAIN, WE ARE REASSURING OUR NEIGHBORS AND YOU ALL, WE ARE NOT FLIPPING HOUSES. WE HAVE EVERY INTENTION OF STAYING FOR YEARS TO COME. WHEN WE PURCHASED A HOME, WE KNEW WE WANTED TO MAKE RENOVATIONS CARPORT INCLUDED AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE. WE WERE UNAWARE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND SPECIAL ZONING FOR LAWNDALE AT THE TIME. AND CURRENTLY I'M ON SLIDE FIVE, GETTING READY TO MOVE TO SLIDE SIX. WE WANT TO REITERATE THAT OUR PERMIT TO BUILD STARTED IN DECEMBER, AS WAS MENTIONED TO YOU ALL, WE DID NOT CUT ANY CORNERS, FOLLOWED EVERY RULE THE CITY ENFORCED AND WE WERE GIVEN APPROVAL TO BEGIN WITH A 10 FOOT SETBACK FROM OUR PROPERTY LINE. AS THE CARPORT CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED, WE WERE CONTACTED BY THE CITY. THEY DID INFORM US OF ONE COMPLAINT THAT HAD BEEN FILED BY A CONCERNED NEIGHBOR. NOW I'M ON SLIDE EIGHT. WE DID EVERYTHING BY THE BOOK. WHEN WE EXPRESSED OUR FRUSTRATION, THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT WAS THAT CSA ADMITTED FAULT AND ACTUALLY SUGGESTED THAT WE SUBMIT A VARIANCE IN CSA ALSO ADMITTING FAULT. THEY WAIVED ALL FEES FOR OUR VARIANCE. CSA ALSO TOLD US TO CONTINUE INSTRUCTION, WHICH WE DID AT THAT POINT WE WERE COMPLETELY RELIEVED. CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED AND RIGHT NOW I'M CURRENTLY ON SLIDE NINE. AS THE CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED, THE CITY CONTACTED US FOR THE SECOND TIME AND INFORMED US THAT A FOLLOW-UP COMPLAINT WAS FILED. A STOP ORDER STICKER WAS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY PREVENTING US TO COMPLETE ANY WORK ON THE CARPORT. AFTER WE EXPRESSED OUR FRUSTRATION TO THE CITY, AGAIN, WE WERE GIVEN AGAIN THE SUGGESTION TO SUBMIT A VARIANCE. AFTER THAT, THE CITY CAME OUT TO TAKE PICTURES, WHICH CLEARLY SHOW ON SLIDE 10 THAT THE CARPORT FROM THIS ANGLE THAT THE CITY DID TAKE. LOOKING AT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, THE CARPORT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THIS ANGLE AT ALL. [03:55:01] IN FACT, YOU CAN SEE OUR NEIGHBOR'S TREE BLOCKING THE CARPORT. AND THIS WAS THE MOST RECENT PICTURE. WE DID REASSURE OUR NEIGHBORS WHEN WE WERE, UH, BUILDING THIS CARPORT THAT IT WOULD NOT BE IN OBSTRUCTION. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SECOND PICTURES TAKEN BY THE CITY, IT IS NOT CREATING ANY SAFETY HAZARDS. NOW, FAST FORWARD AFTER UM, WE DID HAVE FLYERS THAT WERE PASSED OUT TO OUR NEIGHBORS, ASKING THEM TO PLEASE HELP PROTECT THE WONDERFUL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IF THE NEON STICK STOP ORDER STICKER WASN'T HUMBLING ENOUGH, THOSE NEON GREEN FLYERS WERE PASSED OUT TO OUR NEIGHBORS ASKING THEM TO. AND RIGHT NOW I'M CURRENTLY ON SLIDE 12 WITH THE NEON GREEN FLYER. THEY WERE TOLD FROM THE VERY FIRST BOTTOM OF THE PARAGRAPH THAT WE DID NOT MEET ZONING REQUIREMENTS. IN THAT SECOND PARAGRAPH HIGHLIGHTED AT THE BOTTOM, IT ALSO SAYS THAT IT CREATED A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT ALLOWING OWNERS THE OPTION TO ENCLOSE IT IN THE FUTURE AND WOULD TOTALLY CHANGE THE LOOK AND FEEL OF THE BLOCK. UNFORTUNATELY, THAT WAS VERY MISLEADING TO OUR NEIGHBORS BECAUSE WE HAD NO INTENTION, NOR DO WE HAVE ANY INTENTION OF CLOSING THAT OUT. AT THE VERY BOTTOM, YOU WILL ALSO SEE IT REITERATES TO OUR NEIGHBORS, ASKING THEM TO PROTECT THE WONDERFUL CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. ON SLIDE 12, THE UNFORTUNATE THING ABOUT THE FLYER THAT WAS GIVEN TO MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS IS THAT IT PAINTS A PICTURE THAT WE DID NOT GO BY THE BOOK BEFORE THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED. WE WERE NEVER APPROACHED TO FIND OUT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE LOOK OF THE CARPORT. AND AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE WORDING, OUR NEIGHBORS ARE BEING TOLD WE ARE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. HOW WOULD ANYONE KNOW THAT IF WE WERE NEVER ASKED FOR PICTURES OR ANY INFORMATION? ONE BENEFIT TO THIS ENTIRE ORDEAL IS THAT WE HAVE MET SOME AMAZING PEOPLE. MY TWO CHILDREN AND I KNOCKED DOOR TO DOOR ON LAWNDALE AND CAMELIA. MY SON WAS TAUGHT HOW TO LOOK PEOPLE IN THE EYE, HOW TO GIVE A STRONG HANDSHAKE, AND SO WAS MY THIRD GRADE DAUGHTER. IN MEETING PEOPLE, WE PASSED OUT LETTERS INTRODUCING OURSELVES AND SHOWED PICTURES OF WHAT THE CARPORT WILL LOOK LIKE IN THE END. AND IN FACT, IF YOU MOVE OVER TO SLIDE 14, YOU WILL SEE SOME OF THE INSPIRATION THAT WE DREW FROM THERE IS A STREET RIGHT BEHIND US, 93 CAMELIA THAT HAS A CARPORT THAT WAS VERY INSPIRING TO US. AS YOU'VE HEARD, I'M SURE IN OTHER CASES THE CARPORT WAS REALLY PERTINENT TO US WITH HAILSTORMS BEING VERY PRONE TO THIS AREA. WE HAVE THREE VEHICLES THAT WE ARE WANTING TO PROTECT. WE ARE MOVING FROM A HOUSE THAT HAS A GARAGE AND SO WE WERE VERY INTENTIONAL ABOUT THE CARPORT. AND SO IF YOU MOVE OVER TO SLIDE 16, YOU CAN ALSO SEE ANOTHER NEIGHBORING HOUSE THAT HAS A VERY SIMILAR CARPORT TO THE ONE THAT WE ARE HOPING TO BUILD. ON SLIDE 17 AND 18, YOU WILL SEE RENDERED IMAGES OF WHAT THE HOUSE WILL LOOK LIKE IN THE END. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE LINES ARE SEAMLESSLY BUILT INTO THE ROOF. IT IS NOT ENCLOSED, WHICH IS WHAT OUR NEIGHBORS WERE TOLD. AND IN FACT, WE WANT IT TO REMAIN OPEN AND AIRY SO THAT IT DOES NOT CREATE ANY OBSTRUCTIONS FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IN FACT, AS MENTIONED TO THE LETTERS THAT WE HANDED OUT TO OUR NEIGHBORS, WE DO NOT WANT TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE BEAUTIFUL CHARACTER OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S WHY WE LOOKED AT IT. WE ONLY HOPE TO ADD TO IT. IF YOU MOVE OVER TO SLIDE 19, THIS IS SOMETHING, THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT OUR CARPORT WILL ULTIMATELY LOOK LIKE IN THE END. WE WERE INSPIRED TO, UM, PLACE BLACK SHINGLE ROOF B BLACK SHINGLES ON TOP OF THE ROOF, WHICH WILL COVER THE ROOF OF THE HOUSE IN ADDITION TO THE CARPORT. SO IT WILL NOT LOOK ANYTHING DIFFERENT. SAME OPEN FEEL. AND MOVING ON TO SLIDE 20, UNDERNEATH THE CARPORT, VERY MUCH INSPIRED BY MANY OF THE CARPORTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE WILL BE INSTALLING TONGUE AND GROOVE UNDERLYING IN ADDITION TO POLISHED UNDERLYING DIMM. RECESS CAN LIGHTING. MOVING OVER TO SLIDE 21, AGAIN, GIVING THAT EXPERIENCE TO MY CHILDREN AND MYSELF. IN THIS UNFORTUNATE SITUATION WHERE THE CITY DID ADMIT FAULT, WE RECEIVED 15 SIGNED SIGNATURES. IN FACT, AT THE END OF THE DAY, I BELIEVE IT WAS 16, 16 SIGNED SIGNATURES IN SUPPORT. AS YOU CAN SEE ON LAWNDALE, WE HAVE SEVEN ON OUR SIDE WHERE OUR 2110 LAWNDALE IS. WE HAD THREE. MANY OF THE HOMES THAT I DID NOT RECEIVE SIGNATURES FROM SIMPLY DID NOT ANSWER THE DOOR. WE WENT BACK AND TRIED TO INTRODUCE OURSELVES, BUT AGAIN, I DON'T WANNA BE TOO, TOO, UH, PESTERING. IF YOU LOOK AT CLIO, WHICH IS DIRECTLY BEHIND US, WE ALSO HAVE FIVE. MOVING ON TO SLIDE 22, IN ADDITION TO THE OVERWHELMING POSITIVE SUPPORT THAT WAS GIVEN TO US BY OUR NEIGHBORS, WE ALSO ARE [04:00:01] SO THANKFUL TO HAVE THE SUPPORT OF OAK PARK NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PRESIDENT GINA EISENBERG AND THE ASSOCIATION. MOVING ON TO SLIDE 23, IF THIS VARIANCE IS DENIED, WE WILL NOT ONLY LOSE THE SAFETY OF OUR CARS NOT BEING PROTECTED FROM WEATHER ELEMENTS, BUT SECONDLY, WE WILL ALSO LOSE A HEFTY COST OF UP TO $15,000. THE COST TO ADJUST THE CURRENT BUILD WOULD INCLUDE MATERIALS AND LUMBER, LET ALONE IN THAT NUMBER IS INSANE RIGHT NOW, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, IN ADDITION TO THE LABOR INCLUDED FOR A TEAR DOWN, THAT THE CITY APPROVED US TO BUILD FROM THE BEGINNING. SO I END ON SLIDE 24 BY SAYING THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SOUND JUDGMENT AND CONSIDERATION. AS WE TOLD YOU OUR CASE FROM THE BEGINNING, FROM DECEMBER TO NOW, UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE HAD THE EXPERIENCE OF BEING UNFAIRLY PENALIZED FOR SOMETHING WE DID BY THE BOOK AND THAT CULMINATES A PRESENTATION. THANK YOU, UH, STAFF. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY TO READ IN? UH, QUITE A BIT, SIR. WE HAVE VOICEMAIL FIRST AND THEN I'LL READ THE REST OF IT TO RECORD. OKAY. OKAY. HI, YES, MY NAME IS LAUREN SMITH CALLING. UM, I RESIDE AT 2114 EAST LAWNDALE DRIVE AND I'M CALLING IN REGARDS TO CASE NUMBER 0 7 4. UM, I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS, UM, OUR, UH, APPROVAL, UM, AND THAT WE APPROVE THE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR 2110 LAWNDALE, THE CARPORT TO REMAIN 10 FEET FROM, UM, THE, UH, STREET. SO I JUST WANTED TO AGAIN, UH, APPROVE, UM, THE, THE CASE. AND THAT AGAIN IS, UM, CASE NUMBER, UH, LAST THREE DIGITS 0 7 4. MY NAME IS LAUREN SMITH, CURRENTLY RESIDING AT 2114 EAST LAWNDALE DRIVE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY, THE REST WILL BE, UH, LETTERS. READ, READ INTO RECORD. UH, WE ARE OWNERS OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2103 EAST LAWNDALE DRIVE. WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE REQUEST OF THE OWNERS AT 20 21 10 EAST LAWNDALE FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM, UH, 20 FOOT M P A FRONT SETBACK AS REQUIRED, UH, FOR THE CARPORT. ALL OF US, THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE ADHERED, UH, TO THIS MINIMUM 20 FOOT N P A FRONT SETBACK. HERE'S, UH, HOPING, UH, FOR YOUR MOST KIND CONSIDERATION TO DENY THIS VARIANCE REQUEST OF THIS CASE. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH ROBERT AND YOLANDA MOY, 2103 EAST LAWNDALE. THE NEXT ONE, SUSAN LLOYD, 2106 EAST LAWNDALE IN OPPOSITION, UH, BLOCKS VIEW, UH, IT, SORRY, I APOLOGIZE, OPPOSES OUR, OUR LOT IMPAIRS PROPERTY VALUE. AND THE NEXT ONES ARE THE SIG. THIS ONE IS, UH, PROPERTY ARE WITHIN 10 FEET. JOE AND JAN SKAR AT 2107 EAST LAWNDALE. THEY'RE IN OPPOSITION AND CARPORT IS VERY LARGE AND DOES NOT FIT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S OVERWHELMING VARIANCES IN PLACE FOR A REASON. THE NEXT ARE THE SIGNATURES. I SEE 1, 2, 3, 4, SCROLLING THROUGH THEM. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. WE HAVE 15 SIGNATURES HERE. THIS ONE IS, LET'S SEE. I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY STRONG OPPOSITION, THE REQUESTED, UH, SEPTIC VARIANCE IN, UH, EAST LAWNDALE. THIS IS FROM KRISTEN TRACY, 2102 EAST LAWNDALE. I LEFT TWO HOUSES DOWN FOR THE PROPERTY REQUESTING THE VARIANCE AND THE CONSTRUCTION AND PROGRESS CHANGES THE ENTIRE LOOK OF OUR STREET. UH, WHEN WE BOUGHT OUR HOUSE FIVE YEARS AGO, WE LOVE THAT OUR STREET WAS FILLED WITH FIFTIES AND SIXTIES HOMES WITH VERY LARGE SETBACKS AND BEAUTIFUL TREES. THIS PROJECT WANTS TO BUILD WITHIN WITH A A 10 FOOT SETBACK, WHICH TAKES OUT LIKE A, A SWORD THUMB ON THE BLOCK. THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S ORIGINAL SETBACK REQUIREMENT WAS 35 FEET, AND NO ONE HAS BUILT CLOSER THAN 25 FEET EVEN, UH, SINCE THE ZONING WAS CHANGED, UH, TO A 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. IT IS UNFORTUNATE WE'RE ABLE TO START THIS CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEWING THE ZONING, BUT THAT SHOULD NOT BE A REASON TO ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE. 30 FOOT LONG CARPORT IS, UH, MUCH LARGER THAN NECESSARY AND 20 FOOT SHOULD BE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT FOR THE HOMEOWNER'S VEHICLES WHILE STILL REMAINING COMPLIANT [04:05:01] WITH ZONING REQUIREMENTS. I'VE ATTACHED A FEW PHOTOS WITH THE VIEW DOWN THE STREET, UH, FROM THE HOUSE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS TO SHOW THE STREET, UH, AND IMPACT OF THE STRUCTURE. IF THIS IS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE, THE OWNER OF THE NEXT, UH, COULD CLOSE IN THE STRUCTURE FOR, FOR MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THEN EVERYTHING THAT WAS DONE TO KEEP IT THIS A PRESERVATION, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD WILL HAVE BEEN FOR NOTHING. PLEASE HELP US TO PREVENT THE, THE, THE FEEL OF OUR MID-CENTURY STREET AS YOU CAN SEE THE PHOTOS. NEXT ONE, TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. I'M WRITING TO EXPRESS MY EXTREME OPPOSITION, UH, TO THE GRANTEE AND THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE FOR 18 F FRONT, UH, YARD SETBACK FOR THIS PROPERTY AT 2110 EAST LAWNDALE PROPERTY ZONE M P A, WHICH IS REQUIRES A MINIMUM 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. CURRENTLY ON LAWNDALE, WE'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A 30 FOOT FRONT BUILDING SETBACK WHEN CONSTRUCTED. C FLAT SUBMITTED, UH, ALLOWING THE VARIANCE WILL CREATE A, UH, DANGEROUS PRECEDENT, ALLOWING OWNERS, UH, PROPOSING THIS VERY LARGE CARPORT, 16 FEET WIDE BY 30 FEET DEEP. THE OPPOSITION, UH, THE OPTION TO CLOSE IT IN THE FUTURE. THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS ADDITIONS TO THE HOUSE IN THIS AREA, BUT ALL WE'RE DONE MEETING ALL AT LEAST A 20 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK. I HAVE ATTACHED AERIAL PHOTOS AND VCA MAPS SHOWING THE LAYOUT OF ALL BUILDINGS ON THE BLOCK AROUND THIS HOUSE, AS WELL AS THE STREET VIEWS BEFORE THE ADDITION CONSTRUCTED SHOWING THE LOOK AND FEEL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS SUCH A, A WONDERFUL CHARACTER, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS MY DAUGHTER'S FAMILY BOUGHT A HOUSE ON THIS STREET AND WHY I MOVED ONE BLOCK AWAY, ALLOWING THAT THIS, THIS ADDITION WOULD CHANGE THAT FOREVER. I HAVE ALSO ATTACHED, UH, AN IMAGE OF WHAT THE ADDITION LOOKS LIKE IN THE STREET VIEW. I'M ALSO VERY CONCERNED THAT THIS PROJECT WAS ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THE PROPER OVERSIGHT. UH, I WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR DENTAL REQUEST. THIS IS BETH BENDER WELLS AT 1 0 4 E PRESIDENTIAL WAY HAZE. HEY, ZEKE. COULD, COULD YOU BACK UP TO THE PREVIOUS, UH, STATEMENT AND SHOW THE LAST PICTURE? UM, I'M SORRY. YOU ZOOMED BY PRETTY QUICK THERE. THERE YOU GO. SO YOU HOLD ON FOR THAT FOR JUST A SECOND. HERE DOES SHOW THE PICTURE OF THE CARPORT, SO, OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. THE NEXT ONE. UH, THIS IS SHOWING THE SITE PLAN, THE DCA MAP OF THE AREA, IMAGES OF THE STREET. ALL RIGHT. AND THE FINAL LETTER IS FROM THE ASSOCIATION. DEAR COMMISSIONERS AND, AND MR. RAVI, THE OAK PARK NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS IN FULL SUPPORT OF GRANTING CASE NUMBER 0 7 4 A REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT M P EIGHT FRONT SETBACK IS REQUIRED IN SECTION 35, 3 35, UH, 3 53. THE HOMEOWNERS WHO RESIDE AT 2110 EAST LAWNDALE DID THEIR DUE DILIGENCE SECURING PERMITS TO BUILD THE CARPORT ON THEIR PROPERTY. WE, WE BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED BECAUSE OF AN ERROR. THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO TAKES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CARPORT IS IN CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WILL ENHANCE THE PROPERTY VALUE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. CARPORT, LIKE THE ONE UNDER CONSTRUCTION ARE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT OAK PARK, NORTHWOOD, AND THERE ARE SEVERAL ON CHAMELEON, WHICH IS LOCATED DIRECTLY BEHIND 2110 EAST LAWNDALE AND WITHIN 200 FEET, UH, NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY. AGAIN, WE HOPE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTS THE REQUESTS IN FAVOR OF THE HOMEOWNERS, UH, LOCATED AT 2110 EAST LAWNDALE. SINCERELY, GINA GISE EISENBERG, PRESIDENT OF THE OAK PARK NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THAT CONCLUDES ALL OF THE COMMENTARY. OKAY. UH, LET'S OPEN THIS UP TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. WHO'D LIKE TO GO FIRST? O ZUNA, COMMISSIONER UNA. UM, REGARDING THE PETITION THAT WAS SUBMITTED, WOULD THOSE PETITIONERS IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THE VARIANCE REQUEST IN FAVOR, SIR. OKAY. AND THEN REGARDING THE HOMEOWNER, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, HOW MANY HOMES DOES THE ASSOCIATION REPRESENT IN, IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD? THAT IS SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW, SIR. OKAY. OKAY. I CAN SPEAK TO THAT SOMEWHAT. THANK YOU. UH, UH, MS. RIOS, UH, IF YOU COULD BRIEFLY STATE, UH, IF YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW HOW MANY HOMES ARE IN, ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THAT'D BE GREAT. ACCURATELY HOMEWISE? I DO NOT KNOW, BUT I AM VERY AWARE WITH, WELL AWARE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, NORTHWOOD OAK PARK IS ONE OF THE LARGEST IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, IF NOT THE LARGEST. WELL, THUNDERBIRD HILLS IS PROBABLY THE LARGEST. SO, , [04:10:01] YES. . BUT, UH, OKAY. UM, UH, WHO WOULD STAFF IS GONNA BRING UP, UH, A MAP FOR US. WHO WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION WHILE THAT'S, UH, GOING ON? OH, THAT IS BIG MINKA, UH, COMMISSIONER MINKA. OH, I SEE. WELL, OKAY. OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER MIN CHAKA, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. SOMETHING LIKE THIS THAT GOT BY US OR GOT BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, IS THERE, UH, LIKE A VALIDATION PROCESS WHEN NOT JUST ONE PERSON AT THE FRONT DESK, BUT THE BEHIND THE, BEHIND THE FRONT DESK THAT THESE THINGS ARE REVIEWED OR AUDITED OR WHATEVER? IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, SIR, IT ONLY REQUIRED, UH, PERMITTING UPFRONT. UM, THERE WAS AN OVERSIGHT IN THE ZONING DISTRICT ITSELF, UM, WHEN IT WAS, WHEN IT WAS CAUGHT, UH, THERE WAS INSTRUCTION, UM, TO THE STAFF AFTER THAT. HOWEVER, IT LEFT US IN THE SAME POSITION WHERE THE STRUCTURE WAS MOSTLY BUILT, UM, IN A FRAME FORMAT, AND IT BROUGHT THEM TO US AT THE STAGE. THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY. I DO APOLOGIZE FOR INTERJECTING. UH, HOLD ON. WE, WE MAKE SURE WE GET THROUGH, GET THROUGH THE QUESTIONS FIRST. UM, NO PROBLEM. BECAUSE I HAVE A, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UH, THIS IS THE, THE REQUEST IS FOR 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE A FIVE FOOT OVERHANG ON TOP OF THAT, RIGHT? UNLESS WE WORD THE MOTION APPROPRIATELY? THAT'S CORRECT. UM, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU WORD THE, THE EMOTION ITSELF, YOU COULD LIMIT IT. OKAY. UM, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? OH, ZONA, I HAVE JUST A QUICK FOLLOW UP. SO OF THOSE THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST, DO WE KNOW IF THEY KNEW THE, UM, FULL STORY ABOUT THE CITY ERROR IN GRANTING THE, THE BUILDING PERMIT WHEN THEY WERE JUST OPPOSING THE REQUEST? WAS THERE ANY WORDING IN THE OPPOSITE IN THE, IN THE REQUEST THAT WAS SENT OUT TO THEM SENT THAT WOULD'VE INFORMED THEM OF THE CITY ERROR IN THIS CASE? NO, SIR. WHENEVER WE SEND THESE CASES OUT, IT'S THE SIMPLE REQUEST OF THE VARIANCE. UM, IT WON'T GO INTO DETAILS OF WHY THE REQUEST IS BEING, UM, REQUESTED AT ALL. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, STAFF, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. WHEN DID, WHEN DID THIS, THE MP 10 ZONING, WHEN DID THAT, WHAT YEAR DID THEY GET APPLIED IN THIS HOME? ON THIS NEW PAGE, 2006, IT WAS IN 2006 THAT THERE WAS AN AREA REZONING. IT CHANGED IT FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH ONLY HAD A 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. UM, SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE SOME OF 'EM ON CAMILLE THAT WERE BUILT CLOSER. THEY WERE BUILT BACK THEN, UH, WITH THE AREA REZONING. UH, IT WENT TO THE NP ZONING DISTRICT CREATING THE 20 FOOT SETBACK IN 2006. OKAY. SO THAT MEANS THAT THIS HOME WAS, THIS HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE, IN THE, WHAT, THE FIFTIES OR SOMETHING? 1957 IS WHAT BCAT HAS. SO, SO THIS ALL CAME INTO PLAY. SO PRIOR TO 2006 THIS WOULD BE LEGAL, BUT POST 2006, NO, THAT IS CORRECT. ALRIGHT. UM, OKAY. THAT'S, THAT'S MY QUESTION. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE A QUESTION? UH, HEARING NONE, UH, MS. MS. RIOS, UH, YOU'VE HEARD, YOU'VE HEARD OUR QUESTIONS AND YOU'VE HEARD SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTARY. I'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU THREE MINUTES FOR A, UM, CLOSING REMARKS OR ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE TO THE BOARD. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR, AGAIN, FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. I KNOW ONE OF THE COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS WAS HOW MANY HOMES ARE IN THE ASSOCIATION? AND IT IS ACTUALLY 4,300 HOMES. SO JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. THAT'S, THAT'S PROBABLY THE BIGGEST, YEAH. . WOW. I, I DO SEE ON THE AGENDA NOTES THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY SET FOR A DENIAL. UM, WE HUMBLY, HUMBLY, HUMBLY URGE YOU TO PUT YOURSELF IN OUR SHOES. I WANT TO RE-EMPHASIZE AGAIN, WHY SHOULD WE GET PUNISHED FOR FOLLOWING THE CITY'S CODE COMPLIANCE? HAD WE KNOWN FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THE SETBACK WAS 20 FEET BEFOREHAND, WE WOULD HAVE BUILT IT TO THE CORRECT SPECS FROM THE BEGINNING. WE ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THE OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF SUPPORT THAT OUR NEIGHBORS GAVE US, WHO NOT ONLY SUPPORT US, BUT REASSURED US THAT THEY WERE EXCITED TO SEE THE OUTCOME. IN ADDITION TO THE SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WE ASK THAT YOU TRULY TAKE INTO THE ACCOUNT OF THE AMOUNT OF LOSSES THAT WE WILL TAKE IN IF OUR VARIANCE IS DECLINED FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT NEGLIGENT ON OUR PART TIME LOST, MONEY LOST, AND THE ENTIRE EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN [04:15:01] TRULY HUMILIATING AND UNFAIR AS SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PASSED ONTO OUR NEIGHBORS WAS UNTRUE. SO WE TRULY SAY THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION AS YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, DOES THE COMMISSIONER LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE? OKAY. UH, I'LL MAKE ONE. REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO O A 21 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 0 74, I MOVE AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTER REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT MP EIGHT FRONT SENT BACK AS REQUIRED, UH, IN SECTION 35 DASH 3 5 3 C TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE NO CLOSER THAN 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SITUATED, UH, I'M SORRY TO ALLOW A, TO, TO ALLOW NO PART OF THE CARPORT TO BE, UH, WITH, UH, 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SITUATED AT 2 1 1 OH EAST LAWNDALE DRIVE, APPLICANT BEING JASON RIOS. 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 EMITTED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIOUS IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFINED AS A GENERAL HEALTH SAFETY WILL THE PUBLIC, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF THE FRONT CARPORT SETBACK, WHICH IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST DUE TO DUE TO SPECIAL UH, CONDITIONS. A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXIST THAT WOULD PREVENT TWO VEHICLES BEING COVERED BY THE PROPOSED CARPORT WITHOUT THE VARIANCE. 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 NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION DISTRICT IS TO AVOID CONGESTION AND OVERCROWDING OF LAND, WHICH IS, WHICH THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL NOT CAUSE. FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED. NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE. FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PERFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT WITH OTHER CARPORTS IN THE AREA SIX P TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE DELAUGHTER AS 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 OR NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT, WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF FINDS PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE VARIANCE DELAUGHTER DUE TO A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY. A CARPORT WITH ADEQUATE DIS UH, DISTRICT SETBACK WILL NOT COVER TWO VEHICLES. END OF MOTION. SECOND END OF A MOTION A SECOND WITH THAT COMMISSIONER UNA? CORRECT. OKAY. UH, WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND, I'LL LEAVE THE DISCUSSION. I, UH, WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS SO FAR AS NO PART OF IT'S WITHIN 10 FEET AND I'M IN SUPPORT BECAUSE THEY WENT THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS DEVELOPED IN THE FIFTIES AND BETWEEN 1950 AND 2006 WHEN, WHEN THE NMP 10 WAS, UH, WAS IMPOSED ON THE AREA, UM, THERE, YOU KNOW, THERE COULD, THERE IS SCATTERED, UH, ALREADY DEVIATIONS FROM THE NP 10. UH, AND, AND FROM THE LOOK OF THIS AND THE LARGE OAK TREE THAT'S ON, THAT'S ON THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH PROVIDES ADEQUATE BLOCKING WHEN DRIVING DOWN THE STREET, I THINK THAT THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS, UH, NOT GONNA BE, UH, OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE AREA. AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S BEING PROFESSIONALLY BUILT AND, AND, UH, WITH THE INTENT OF IT LOOKING LIKE IT IS IN CHARACTER WITH THE AREA. SO I AM IN SUPPORT, UH, COMMISSIONER, SO I'M, YEAH, SO I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING THE VARIANCE REQUEST AS WELL. AND WHAT I, I LOOK AT IS THE OVERWHELMING, UM, SUPPORT THE, THE TIME AND EFFORT THAT THE APPLICANT WENT THROUGH TO GET TO GARNER THE SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORS THAT IN TOTALITY SUPPORT THE VARIANCE. I MEAN, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SUPPORTED IT REPRESENTING OVER 4,300 HOMES WITHIN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, WE DID HAVE SOME OPPOSITION. UNDERSTOOD. UH, BUT I THINK AS, AS, UM, UH, THE CHAIR MENTIONED, I THINK THAT OAK TREE KIND OF BLOCKS THE VIEW OF THE, OF THE DRIVEWAY OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE AS YOU'RE, UH, GOING I GUESS NORTH ON, ON THE STREET. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I I I THINK THAT THE, UH, I I LOOK TOWARDS THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION KIND OF SUPPORTING THE, THE REQUEST THAT, AND THEN THE, THE ERROR THAT THE CITY, I MEAN, THEY DID EVERYTHING RIGHT HERE IN THIS CASE. AND, AND DUE TO THE ERROR ON THE CITY PART, I DON'T THINK THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR THAT. SO I, I'M SUPPORTING THE VARIANCE. AND, UH, BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO OTHER COMMISSIONERS, UH, DELIBERATION, UH, STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE CLARIFY THAT IF THEY EVER ATTEMPTED, IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED, UH, IF THE APPLICANT EVER ATTEMPTED TO CLOSE IN THE CARPORT, WOULD THEY HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD FOR A VARIANCE? NO, SIR. IT WOULD NOT. IT WOULD NOT. UH, SO COULD THE MOTION [04:20:01] BE READ SO THAT IT WOULD ONLY BE FOR A CARPORT TO EXIST WITHIN THE SETBACK? STANDBY, SIR. WE'RE ACTUALLY DISCUSSING THAT INTERNALLY. I, I BELIEVE IF, IF WE GO WITH THE CARPORT, UM, AS THE MOTION, THEN THAT WOULD BE IT. YEAH, BECAUSE THAT WOULD'VE TO BE IN ADDITION IF THEY WERE TO ENCLOSE IT. OKAY. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I DID SAY CARPORT IN THE MOTION. I JUST WANTED TO, JUST FOR THE REST OF THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMISSION, THAT THE MOTION IS SOLELY FOR, UH, THE 10 FOOT VARIANCE FOR A CARPORT ONLY. NO, NO OTHER COULD, COULD YOU, COULD YOU AMEND IT TO STATE AS A, AS CURRENT PLANS APPROVED? SURE. CAN I HEREBY AMEND MY MOTION, UH, THAT THIS IS FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK SOLELY TO ALLOW A CARPORT TO BE NO CLOSER THAN 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AS SO, UH, AS, AS PER THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. UM, SECOND. THANK YOU THIRD . ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION MANANA HEARING COMMISSIONER MANNA. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD'VE BEEN VOTING NO. UH, HOWEVER, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS, HAS CONFIRMED THAT THEY, THEY ARE SUPPORTING IT AND BECAUSE OF THAT I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT. AND SO, SO SO HATS OFF FOR GETTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO AGREE WITH IT. YES, SIR. UH, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? MENCHACA, COMMISSIONER MENCHACA? OH, FOR THE SAME REASONS AS, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, MANNA MENTIONED, AND I HAVE TO, UH, COMPLIMENT THE HOMEOWNER FOR THE AUDIT TRAIL, LIKE THE, UH, DOCUMENTATION TRAIL TO CLARIFY TO US HER INITIATIVES AND THE, UH, THE EFFORT THAT SHE WENT INTO TO CLARIFY FOR US SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE NEEDED TO. APPRECIATE THAT. YES, SIR. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MR. MANCHACA. I CONCUR. MR. CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR. MR. MANEZ. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MS. BRAGMAN. I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. LOVE I CONCUR. MR. VINNO? I CONCUR. MR. THIEL? YES, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. UNA? YES, I CONCUR AND SHARE ORIAN. I ALSO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION IS APPROVED NINE TO ZERO. ALL RIGHT. [11. 21-4350 Consideration and approval of June 7, 2021 Board of Adjustment meeting minutes.] UH, NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS THE MINUTES. MAY WE, MAY WE SAY SOMETHING? UH, SURE. GO AHEAD. 10 SECONDS PLEASE. WE JUST TRULY WANNA SAY THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF OUR HEARTS FOR, FOR LISTENING TO OUR STORY. WE APPRECIATE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU. WE COMPLETELY VALIDATE ZOOM FATIGUE, AND WE KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME. AND AGAIN, WE JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU. YOU HAVE TRULY MADE OUR DAY IN MORE WAYS THAN YOU HAVE, THAN YOU EVEN KNOW. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, . SO , THANK YOU. SO WITH THAT, UH, WITH THE MINUTES, IS THERE ANY, ANY, ANY, UH, CHANGES FROM ANY COMMISSIONERS? NO. I MOVED THAT WE APPROVED THEM AS THEY WERE CORRECTED. OH, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CRUZ. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. I GIVE A SECOND TO COMMISSIONER BRAGMAN. UH, STAFF, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE MR. MENKA. APPROVE. MS. CRUZ. APPROVE. MR. MANNA APPROVE. MS. BRAMAN? YES, I APPROVE MR. LOVE. I APPROVE MS. . OKAY, I ABSTAIN. I WAS NOT PRESENT AND ABSTAIN. THERE'S NINE OF US. . IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE ONLY. MR. THI? YES. MR. ZUNA? YES. I APPROVE. AND YOUR ORION, I ALSO APPROVE, UH, THAT'S EIGHT TO ZERO WITH ONE ABSTENTION. FANTASTIC. SO MOTION PASSES. UH, BEFORE I ADJOURN, I JUST WANTED TO THANK EVERYBODY. WE WENT THROUGH A LOT OF CASES TODAY. UH, WE, WE GOT IT, MADE IT OUT BY, BY FIVE 30. BUT I, I DID WANNA COMPLIMENT, UH, UH, THOSE COMMISSIONERS AND I, AND I THINK MAN HAD, UH, COMES TO MIND THE MOST, WHO, WHO CORRECTED ME ON MAKING SURE I, I ALLOW THE APPLICANTS TO, UH, UH MM-HMM. PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO, TO DO A CLOSING REMARK. I, I KNOW SOMETIMES WHEN WE GO THROUGH THESE CASES, IF WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF COMMENTARY AND, AND, AND QUESTIONING, I JUST WANNA MOVE RIGHT INTO A MOTION. BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE, MAKE SURE I'M BEING, UH, TREATING EVERYONE THE SAME. SO, RIGHT. THANK, THANK, THANK YOU ALL. [04:25:01] AND CHAKA, CAN I HAVE A QUESTION? YES, SIR. I WOULD LIKE TO POSE THIS TO STAFF, UH, IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE MADE EARLIER REGARDING, UH, NOTIFYING SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN SAN ANTONIO VIA THE SUGGESTIONS THAT WE HAD, LIKE A FLYER, A NOTICE OR SOMETHING PERIODICALLY THROUGH THE BILLING SYSTEM OR INDEPENDENT. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT OR ANY MOVEMENT ON THAT NOW THAT WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT? OR DO WE DO SOMETHING INDEPENDENTLY TO GET THIS MOVING? UM, SO WE WORK WITH OUR, UH, SUPPORT SERVICES TEAM TO SORT OF DO EMAIL BLASTS THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA, UH, TO GET THE WORD OUT ON MAKING SURE PEOPLE APPLY FOR PERMITS. UM, SO THAT WAY WE AVOID THESE INSTANCES. UH, BUT WE WILL, UH, CONTINUE TO, TO DO THAT, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR, UH, CONTRACTORS KNOW TO PULL PERMITS OR HOMEOWNERS KNOW TO PULL PERMITS. UM, AND, UH, WE HOPE THAT THEY, UH, LISTEN TO THAT AND DO THAT. SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO, TO DO, TO WORK WITH OUR TEAM NOTES TO SEND THAT NOTICE OUT, UH, ON THAT STAFF. IF THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A, UM, A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS THAT DO NEWSLETTERS AND MAYBE, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IF THERE WAS A SMALL ARTICLE THAT YOU COULD PASS OUT, YOU KNOW, THEY'D PROBABLY PUT 'EM IN THERE FOR FREE, PROBABLY. THAT MIGHT BE A WAY TO KNOW. THAT'S LIKE A GREAT IDEA. YEP. THAT'S ANOTHER WAY TO DO IT. SEND ONE TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I'LL ADD IT. VANNA. SO I HAVE A QUESTION ALSO. SO ONE, ONE QUESTION, YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW THAT WE CAN HOLD BIG BOX STORES ACCOUNTABLE, ALTHOUGH MAYBE WE CAN, UM, IS THAT, UH, WE DO HAVE PEOPLE SELLING PRODUCTS TO CITIZENS WHO MAY BE UNAWARE. AND SO COULD WE ACTUALLY ASK OUR, UH, BIG BOX STORES IN THESE SECTIONS THAT, UH, UH, RESIDENTS ARE BUYING MATERIAL TO DO THEIR HOME IMPROVEMENTS, TO ADD IN NOTICES THERE THAT SAY YOU MAY RE YOU MAY NEED A PERMIT TO DO A FENCE OR TO DO A CARPORT OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, IN THOSE SECTIONS WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE GRABBING THAT MATERIAL, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT MAY BE BENEFICIAL AND MAYBE WE CAN GET THE, UM, THOSE STORES TO HELP US, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE HEARING ALL TOO OFTEN WHERE PEOPLE DIDN'T KNOW. YEAH. WELL ALSO TOO, MR. MANNA, THE PROBLEM IS A LOT OF THE CONTRACTORS TELL THESE PEOPLE THEY WILL GET PERMITS AND THEY NEVER DO EITHER. SO THAT'S ANOTHER PROBLEM WE HAVE TO FACE. YEAH, THAT'S A DIFFERENT PROBLEM. BUT, BUT YOU KNOW, SO YEAH, SO, SO THAT, THAT, THAT ACTUALLY GOES TO LIABILITY KIND OF, OR LEGAL KIND OF QUESTIONS. BUT, BUT CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET NOTICE OUT TO ALL OF THE CITIZENS BECAUSE WE HEAR A LOT OF CITIZENS WHO DUNNO, AND IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT AS CITIZENS SEE THAT THOSE ARE REQUIRED AS THEY WALK THROUGH THOSE BIG BOX STORES, RECOGNIZING THAT IT MAY BE REQUIRED. UM, AND THEN AS THEY HAVE PEOPLE WORK FOR THEM, SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, WHERE IS IT? GOOD SUGGESTIONS. GOOD. HEY, SO, SO GUYS, I, I, UH, I ACTUALLY HAVE TO LEAVE , I HATE TO DO THIS TO Y'ALL, BUT, UH, I, I, I NEED TO GET GOING, SO I'M GONNA ADJOURN THE MEETING IF Y'ALL DON'T MIND. OKAY. I APOLOGIZE. I KNOW. I ALWAYS ENJOY THESE QUESTIONS. USUALLY GENERATE SOME GOOD STUFF, BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS EMAIL ME AND I'LL PASS THAT ON TO STAFF AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU. I HEREBY ADJOURN THE MEETING. Y'ALL HAVE A GREAT EVENING. YOU TOO, SIR. * 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.